SW8120101_HISTORICAL FILE_20140715

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8 Q-01 o�
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
❑x HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
2D 114 0-1 is
YYYYMMDD

I A y
N®®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
July 15, 2014
Commanding Officer
MCB Camp Lejeune
c/o Neal Paul, Deputy Public Works Officer
1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28547
Subject: State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8 120101
Camp Johnson BEQ P-1319 (Wilson Drive and Hoover Road)
NCO Academy Building and Supply Warehouse P-003
High Density Commercial Wet Detention Pond Project
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Paul:
John E. Skvada, III
Secretary
Effective August 1, 2013 the State Stormwater program has been transferred from the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) to the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR). All previous
references to DWQ will remain in older stormwater permits issued prior to August 1, 2013 until they are
modified. Please note that this modified permit now references DEMLR as the Division responsible for
issuance of the permit.
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete, modified Stormwater Management Permit
Application for Camp Johnson BEQ P-1319 (Wilson Drive and Hoover Road) and NCO Academy
Building and Supply Warehouse P-003 on July 11, 2014. Staff review of the plans and specifications
has determined that the project, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in
Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000 and Session Law 2008-211. We are forwarding modified Permit No. SW8
120101 dated July 15, 2014, for the construction, operation and maintenance of the BMP's and built -
upon areas associated with the subject project.
The modifications covered by this permit include:
1. Modifies and increases the drainage area to existing Pond A to 655,651 ftZ. The existing pond
does not need to be enlarged to accommodate the change. The previously permitted future
BUA allocation for Pond A has been reduced to 42,814 ft to account for additional building,
parking and sidewalk.
2. Adds 2 new ponds, B and C, to treat runoff from the new NCO Academy Building and from the
new Supply Warehouse.
3. Adds a low density Drainage Area D for sidewalks and the Hoover Road relocation that cannot
be routed to a BMP for treatment.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until January 24, 2020, and shall be subject to
the conditions and limitations as specified therein. Please pay special attention to the conditions listed
in this permit regarding the Operation and Maintenance of the BMP(s), procedures for changes of
ownership, transferring the permit, and renewing the permit. Failure to establish an adequate system
for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system, to transfer the permit, or to
renew the permit, will result in future compliance problems.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the right to
request an adjudicatory hearing by filing a written petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH). The written petition must conform to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and
must be filed with the OAH within thirty (30) days of receipt of this permit. You should contact the OAH
with all questions regarding the filing fee (if a filing fee is required) and/or the details of the filing
process at 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, or via telephone at 919-431-3000, or
visit their website at www.NCOAH.com. Unless such demands are made, this permit shall be final and
binding.
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Land Quality Section — Wilmington Regional Offioe
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 • [phone] / Fax: [phone]

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120101
If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Linda
Lewis in the Wilmington Regional Office, at [phone].
Sincerely,
/9.tracy Da is, P.E., Director
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
GDS/arl: \\\Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2012\120101 HD\2014 07 permit 120101
cc: Vincent Chirichella, P.E., Clark Nexson
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
Page 2 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120101
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL AND LAND RESOURCES
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North
Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Johnson BEQ P-1319
NCO Academy Building and Supply Warehouse P-003
Wilson Drive and Hoover Road, Camp Lejeune, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of three (3) wet detention ponds in compliance with
the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 and Session Law 2008-211 (hereafter collectively
referred to as the "stormwater rules') the approved stormwater management plans and
specifications and other supporting data as attached and on file with and approved by the
Division and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until January 24, 2020, and shall be
subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. 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 stormwater controls labelled A, B and C
have been designed to handle the runoff from 271,028, 244,609 and 21,380 square
feet of impervious area, respectively.
3. Within low density Drainage Area D, a total of 46,839 sf of existing built -upon area is
proposed to be removed and 16,182 sf of new street and sidewalk is proposed to be
added, leaving 30,657 sf for future development within Drainage Area D.
4. A 50' wide vegetative buffer must be provided and maintained adjacent surface
waters, measured horizontally from and perpendicular to the normal pool of
impounded structures, the top of bank of both sides of streams and rivers and the
mean high water line of tidal waters.
5. The tract and each drainage area will be limited to the amount of built -upon area
indicated in this permit, and per approved plans. The built -upon area for the future
development (in square feet) is limited to 42,814 for Pond A, 10,761 for Pond B and
300 for Pond C.
6. All stormwater collection and treatment systems are located within the Federal
Government property of Camp Lejeune therefore, easements are not required.
Page 3 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120101
7. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage areas of this project
must be directed into the appropriate permitted stormwater control system.
8. The following design criteria has been approved for the wet detention ponds and must
be maintained at design condition:
Pond A
Pond B
Pond C
a.
Drainage Area, Acres:
15.05
15.41
0.79
Onsite, ft :
655,651
421,674
34,271
Offsite, ft2:
0
249,783
0
b.
Total Impervious Surfaces, ft2:
271,028
244,609
21,380
Onsite, ft. :
228,214
186,478
21,380
Future, ft2:
42,814
10,761
300
Offsite, ft2:
0
58,131
0
C.
Design Storm, inches:
1.5
1.5
1.5
d.
Average Pond Design Depth, feet:
3.5
7.0
3.0
e.
TSS removal efficiency:
90%
90%
90%
f.
Permanent Pool Elevation, FMSL:
9.0
12.0
14.0
9.
Permanent Pool Surface Area ft2:
28,513
25,765
3,674
h.
Temporary Storage Volume, ft':
34,657
31,811
2,656
i.
Temporary Storage Elevation, FMSL:
10.10
13.1
14.6
j.
Pre-dev. 1 yr-24 hr. discharge rate, cfs:
27.64
20.79
1.17
k.
Controlling Orifice, O pipe:
3.0"
3.0"
1.01,
I.
Orifice flowrate, cfs:
0.14
0.14
.011
M.
Permanent Pool Volume, ft3:
90,481
127,214
6,049
n.
Permitted Forebay Volume, ft3:
18,415
24,142
1,093
P. Keceivmg btreamirciver basin: Nortneast k,reeK i vvvnuZ
q. Stream Index Number: 19-16-(4.5)
r. Classification of Water Body: "SC NSW"
9. A vegetated filter strip is not required for these ponds as they have been designed for
90% total suspended solids removal efficiency.
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The stormwater management system shall be constructed in its entirety, vegetated
and operational for its intended use prior to the construction of any built -upon surface.
2. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of the
system will be repaired immediately.
3. The permittee shall, at all times, provide the operation and maintenance necessary to
assure the permitted stormwater system functions at optimum efficiency. The signed
and approved Operation and Maintenance Agreement must be followed in its entirety
and maintenance must occur at the scheduled intervals.
4. Records of maintenance activities must be kept and made available upon request to
authorized personnel of DENR. The records will indicate the date, activity, name of
person performing the work and what actions were taken.
5. 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.
Page 4 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120101
6. Decorative spray fountains will be allowed in Ponds A and B of the stormwater
treatment system, subject to the following criteria:
a. The permanent pool volume must be a minimum of 30,000 cubic feet.
b. The fountain must draw its water from less than 2' below the permanent pool
surface.
c. Separated units, where the nozzle, pump and intake are connected by tubing,
may be used only if they draw water from the surface in the deepest part of the
pond.
d. The falling water from the fountain must be centered in the pond, away from the
shoreline.
e. The maximum horsepower for a fountain in Pond A is 1/3 HP; Pond B is'/z HP.
7. The permanent pool volume in Pond C is less than 30,000 cf, therefore no fountain
may be used in that pond.
8. The facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the conditions of this permit, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting data.
9. If the stormwater system was used as an Erosion Control device, it must be restored
to design condition prior to operation as a stormwater treatment device, and prior to
occupancy of the facility.
10. Clear access to the stormwater facilities for inspection and maintenance shall be
maintained at all times.
11. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for revised
plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any modification to the
approved 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. Further development, subdivision; acquisition, lease or sale of any, all or part of
the project area. The project area is defined as all property owned by the
permittee, for which Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan approval or a
CAMA Major permit was sought.
d. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
e. The construction of any permitted future BUA within the drainage area.
12. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one or
more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame specified in
the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the Director for
modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee shall provide copies
of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director that the changes have been
made.
13. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference and
are enforceable parts of the permit. A copy of the approved plans and specifications
shall be maintained on file by the Permittee at all times.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
The permittee shall notify the Division of any changes in the Commanding Officer,
Public Works Officer, Deputy Public Works officer and any mailing address changes
by completing and submitting a Name/Ownership Change form to the Director at least
30 days prior to the change.
Page 5 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120101
2. Any individual or entity found to be in noncompliance with the provisions of a
storrmwater management permit or the requirements of the Stormwater rules is
subject to enforcement procedures as set forth in N.C.G.S. 143 Article 21.
3. 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.
4. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, the Permittee shall take
immediate corrective action, including those as may be required by this Division, such
as the construction of additional or replacement stormwater management systems.
5. 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, subject to the Base's Visitor policy requirements.
6. The permit remains in force and effect until modified, revoked, or terminated. The
permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The filing of a
request for a permit modification, revocation and re -issuance, termination or renewal
does not stay any permit condition.
7. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
8. The permittee shall submit a permit renewal request at least 180 days prior to the
expiration date of this permit. The renewal request must include the appropriate
documentation and the processing fee.
Permit modified and reissued this the 15th day of July 2014.
NOPJH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
ivision of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 6 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120101
Camp Johnson BEQ P-1319 / NCO Academy and Supply Warehouse P-003
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 120101
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 specifications:
Signature
Registration Number
Date
SEAL
Page 7 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 120101
Certification Requirements:
e
1. The required vegetated buffer has been provided adjacent surface waters.
2. The drainage area to the system contains approximately the permitted acreage.
3. The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted amount
of built -upon area.
4. All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the runoff
drains to the system.
5. All roof drains are located such that the runoff is directed into the system.
6. The outlet structure elevations are per the approved plan.
7. The outlet structure is located per the approved plans.
8. Trash rack is provided on the outlet structure.
9. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
10. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
11. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-circuiting
of the system.
12. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been provided.
13. Required drawdown devices are correctly sized and located per the approved
plans.
14. All required design depths are provided.
15. All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf, and a
forebay.
16. The required system dimensions are provided per the approved plans.
cc: NCDENR-DEMLR Regional Office
Page 8 of 8

DEMLR USE ONLY
Date Received
Fee Paid
Permit Number
- 9- /ZW.
-7
P/(a¢I
O/U
Applicable Rules: ❑ Coastal SW -1995 Coastal SW - 2008 ❑ Ph 11- Post Construction
(select all that apply) ❑ Non -Coastal SW- HQW/ORW Waters ❑ Universal Stormwater Management Plan
❑ Other WQ Mgmt Plan:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
This form may be photocopied for use as an 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.): r� p
Camp Johnson NCO Academy Buildingtta224ISupply Warehouse tf
2. Location of Project (street address):
City:Camn Leieune County:Onslow Zip:28547-2539
3. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
Intersection of US 17 and NC 24. Take NC 24 East to Montford Rd. Travel on Montford approximately
1.0 miles. Turn right onto Wilson Drive. Travel about 0.15 miles and site is on the right.
4. Latitude:34° 43' 37" N - Lonotude:77° 24' 59" W of the main entrance to the project.
IL PERMIT INFORMATION:
1. a. Specify whether project is (check one): ❑New ®Modification ❑ Renewal w/ Modificationt
tRenernals With modifications also requires SIVU-702 - Renewal Application Form
b.If this application is being submitted as the result of a modification to an existing permit, list the existing
permit numberSW8 120101 , its issue date (if known)Oct 8, 2012 , 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 ®High 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
DEMLR requesting a state stormwater management permit application, list the stormwater project number,
if assigned, and the previous name of the project, if different than currently
proposed,
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 ❑Sedimentation/Erosion Control: _
❑NPDES Industrial Stormwater ❑404/401 Permit: Proposed Impacts
ac of Disturbed Area
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:
5. Is the project located within 5 miles of a public airport? ®No ❑Yes . i If yes, yes, see S.L. 2012-200, Part VI: httl2:Hl2ortal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/rules-and-regulations
JUL 1 1 2014
BY:
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page I of 6

III. CONTACT INFORMATION
1. a. Print 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
Signing Official & Title:c/o Neal Paul, Deputy Public Works Officer
b. Contact information for person listed in item I a above:
Street Address:Building 1005 Michael Road
City:MCB Camp Lejeune State:NC Zip:28547
Mailing Address (if
Phone: f910 ) 451-3238 Fax:
Email:[e-mail]
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 & Title:
b.Contact information for person listed in item 2a above:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip:
Mailing Address (if applicable):
City:_
Phone:
Email:
State: Zip:
Fax: ( I
3. a. (Optional) Print the name and title of another contact such as the project's
person who can answer questions about the project:
Other Contact
Signing Official &
b.Contact information for person listed in item 3a above:
Mailing Address:
Phone: ( I Fax:
4. Local jurisdiction for building permits: MCAS Camp Lejeune
Point of Contact: Phone #:
ECIEUSIPI
n supervisor or ott
JUL 1 1 2014
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 2 of 7

IV. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, hLitft summarize how the stormwater runoff will be treated.
The BEO site(DA A) will remain draining to the existing wet pond designed for 90% TSS. The NCO
building and Supply Warehouse(DA B&C) will drain to a new wet pond design for 90% TSS through open
2. a. If claiming vested rights, identify the supporting documents provided and the date they were approved:
❑ Approval of a Site Specific Development Plan or PUD Approval Date:
❑ Valid Building Permit Issued Date:
❑ Other: Date:
b.If claiming vested rights, identify the regulation(s) the project has been designed in accordance with:
❑ Coastal SW -1995 ❑ Ph 11 - Post Construction
3. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the White Oak River basin.
4. Total Property Area: 31.24 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+:31.24 acres
Total project urea shall be calculated to exclude the followin the nonnal pool of inn pounded structures, the area
bekueen the bunks of sfremns and rivers, the area below the Narn al High Water (NW) line or Mean High Water
(MHW) line, and coastal wetlands landward from the NHW (or MHW) line. The resultant project area is used to
calculate overall percent built upon area (BUA). Non -coastal wetlands landward 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 = 39.44 %
9. How many drainage areas does the project have?3 (For high density, count 1 far each proposed engineered
stor n eater BMP. For low density and other projects, use 1 for the whole properhj 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.
rCEIVE
JUL 1 1 2014
BY: ---------
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 3 of 7

Basin Information
Drainage Area A
Drainage Area B
Drainage Area C
Drainage Area D
Receiving Stream Name
Northeast Creek
Northeast Creek
Northeast Creek
Stream Class *
SC -NSW
SC -NSW
SC -NSW
Stream Index Number*
19-16-(4.5)
19-16-(4.5)
19-16-(4.5)
Total Drainage Area (so
655,651sf
671457sf
34,271sf
On -site Drainage Area (so
655,651sf
421,674sf
34,271sf
Off -site Drainage Area (so
249,783sf
Proposed Impervious Area** (so
3,723sf
244,609sf
21,380 sf
Impervious Area*' total
41.3%
36.4%
62.4%
Impervious— Surface Area
Drainage Area A
Drainage Area B
Drainage Area C
Drainage Area D
On -site Buildings/ Lots (so
41,707 sf
52,684sf
5,102 sf
On -site Streets (so
7,266 sf
On -site Parkin (sf)
125,292 sf
84,427sf
15,678sf
On -site Sidewalks (so
24,207sf
38,606sf
300sf
8,916sf
Other on -site (so
37,008 sf
Future (sf)
42,814sf
10,761sf
300sf
Off -site (so
58,131sf
Existing BUA*** (so
REMOVED:
36,045 sf ex pkng
& 10,794 sf
Ex Road
Total (so:
271,028sf
244,609sf
21,380 sf
-30,657sf
* Stream Class and Index Number can be determined at: IitM://nortaLncdenr.orotiebAt)g&s/csu/classifications
bupervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
"** Report only that amount of existing BUA that will retrain after development. Do not report any existing BUA that
is to be rentoved and which will be replaced by new BUA.
11. How was the off -site impervious area listed above determined? Provide documentation. Off -site drainage
area was determined from survey and site observation.
Projects in Union Countv: Contact DEMLR Central Ojjice staffto check if the project is located within a Threatened &
Endangered Species watershed that may be subject to more stringent stormwater requirements as per 15A NCAC 02B .0600.
V. SUPPLEMENT AND O&M FORMS E C E I V E
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement and operation and mat enya}jje (O&M)Ifor s
must be submitted for each BMP specified for this project. The latest versions of the for canlb9dowI n-Jd
from htty://12ortal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/bmp-manual.
BY:
VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Energy, Mineral and
Land Resources (DEMLR). A complete package includes all of the items listed below. A detailed application
instruction sheet and BMP checklists are available from
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms does. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate DEMLR Office. (The appropriate office may be found by locating project on the
interactive online map at httl2://portal.ncdenr.org/web/w4/ws/su/maps.)
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 ham://12ortal.ncdenr.org/ web/ wq/ ws/su/statesw/ forms does.
tials
1. Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form. G
2. Original and one copy of the signed and notarized Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants
Form. (if required as per Part VI] below) /
3. Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) (sealed, signed and dated) and O&M
agreement(s) for each BMP.
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 4 of 7

4. Permit application processing fee of $505 payable to NCDENR. (For an Express review, refer to
http:/ /www.envhelp.org/pages/onestopexpress.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 1k mile of the site boundary, include the 1/2
mile radius on the map. Ay'JJA�''
7. Sealed, signed and dated calculations (one copy). P4
8. Two sets of plans folded to 8.5" x 14" (sealed, signed, & dated), including:
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 calculations.
o. Drainage areas delineated (included in the main set of plans, not as a separate document).
p. Vegetated buffers (where required).
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 DEMLR to verifij the SHWF prior
to submittal, [phone].)
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 la, 2a, and/or 3a per 15A 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.
htW://www.secretary.state.nc.us/Corporations/­CSearch.asl2x
r IEUVE
JUL 1 1 2014
BY:
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 5 of 7

VIL 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 httl2:Hl2ortal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/state-
stormwater-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 DEMLR, and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
Vill. 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:Vincent Chirichella, PE
Consulting Firm: Clark Nexsen
Mailing Address:333 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1000
City:Raleiph State:NC Zip:27601
Phone: (919 ) 828-1876
Email:[e-mail]
Fax: (919 ) 828-1877
IX. PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION (if Contact Information, item 2 has been filled out, complete this
section)
1, (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 hype name of person
lister] in Contact Infonnatfon, item 1a) with (print or type name of organization listed in
Contact Information, item lot 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 stomrwater system.
ECEIVE
h J
JUL 1 1 2014
BY:.----- --
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 6 of 7

...:1,
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 DEMLR Stormwater permit reverts back
to me, the property owner. As the property owner, it is my responsibility to notify DEMLR 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.
a Notary Public for the State of
do hereby certify that
before me this _ day of
Date:
County of
personally appeared
and acknowledge the due execution of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal,
SEAL
My commission
X. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
I, (print or hjpe name of person listed in Contact Information, item la) Neal Paul
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 stormwater rules er 15A NC C 1000 and any other applicable state stormwater requirements.
Signature: Date:-
17 �s
I, _�f//r a No/ta/ry Public for the State of y �f�' La o�aL County of
La& i do hereby certify that 1�a personally appeared
-Q*
before me this% day of IA�V ;:Zo/V , and aZknIe/t/],e due e ecution of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal,
ALICE A. BONNETTE
Notary Public
Onslow County
State of North Caro�� ft
Commleaion irea
SEAL
My commission expires o 3 D61js
ECEI V E'
JUN 19 2014
BY: 0
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 7 of 7

CN Comm. No.: 4686
Camp Johnson, North Carolina
Building, Supply Building and Hoover Road Realignment
STORMWATER NARRATIVE
10 July 2014
Clark Nexsen
333 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1000
Raleigh, NC 27601
License # C-1028
Engineer (s): Vincent ChiricheUa, P.E., LEED AP BD+C
McKenzie \4pers, P.E., LF_ED AP BD+C
ED
V441 fx:
EEy.'���e�
n.CM;W"G .11

�11442. 11 oil,
L: iv9;
e

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT NARRATIVE..............................................................................................I
1.1 GEO'I'ECHNICAL INVESTIGATION......................................................................................3
2.0 DESIGN APPROACH..................................................................................................3
2.1 STORM DRAINAGE PIPING................................................................................................3
3.0 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS..................................................................................4
4.0 WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS...............................................................................4
4.1 PREDEVEI.OPNfENT CONDITIONS......................................................................................5
4.2 POST DEFELOP�'%fEN'I' CONDI'FIONS....................................................................................5
APPENDIX A: LOCATION AND VICINITY MAPS
APPENDIX B: STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C: POND ROUTING
APPENDIX D: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX E: WETLAND DETERMINATION
APPENDIX F: EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL CALCULATIONS

Staff NCO Academic Building, Supply Building, and Hoover Road Realignment CN Comm. No. 4686
Stormwater Narrative Clark*Nexsen
1.0 PROJECT NARRATIVE
1. GeneralInformation
A. Name of Project- Staff NCO Academy Facilities
B. Street Address, City, County- Camp Johnson between Wilson Dr. and Hoover Road,
Onslow County
C. Acres in Tract- 18.11 acres
D. Acres Being Disturbed- 18.11 acres
E. Acres in Wetlands- 0.00 acres
1. Wetlands Must Be Delineated- Wetlands are delineated and the Jurisdictional
Determination (JD) was approved by the Army Corps of Engineers on March
16, 2009, expiring March 16, 2014. See Appendix E for JD submittal.
2. Proposed Wetland Impacts Require Permits from Corps & DWQ- There will be
no disturbance of wetlands.
F. Ownership Information From NC Secretary of State Web Site- Camp Lcjeunc, NC
G. Description of Development Proposal
The Staff NCO Project includes four separate sites all located on Camp Johnson. The
development proposal will include one Staff Non -Commissioned Officer's (NCO) Academic
Instruction Building; associated parking, parade field, Outdoor Instruction building, one
Supply Building; associated parking and lay down area, Realignment of Hoover Road,
Temporary Gravel Parking lot and sidewalks. Stormwater runoff for the NCO Academic
Instruction Building will be treated by one wet detention basin. Stormwater runoff for the
Supply Building will be treated by one wet detention basin. Stormwater will be conveyed to
the various Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) by means of grassed swales and storm
drainage pipe networks. The realignment of Hoover road will not require treatment as the
existing road will be removed, resulting in a decrease in BUA. The Temporary Gravel Parking
lot will not require treatment beyond the measures installed for E&SC as the lot will be
removed upon completion of the NCO project. The sidewalks will be treated by sheet flow
through grass.
1. Previous or Existing Permits.
SW8 081007- N1200 Area Parking and jogging Trail Overall Low Density with
Areas of High Density —Area of high density will be removed from permit as
well as a low density jogging trail.
I

Staff NCO Academic Building, Supply Building, and Hoover Road Realignment CN Comm. No. 4666
Stormwater Narrative Clark*Nexsen
SW8 111207- Neuse Road Extension Overall Low Density with an Area of High
Density- Adjusting pennit boundary and reallocating impervious from Future.
SW8 120101- BEQ Between Wilson Dr and Hoover Road (P-1319)- Adding
NCO Wet pond and Supply Wet pond.
Although areas of sidewalk will only be treated by sheet flow through grass the overall
treatment of BUA will decreased from Pre-existing conditions. Part of the existing parking
lot area South of the NCO was not treated. This project will install a new parking lot in the
same area as the existing and all of that area will be collected and treated.
2. Stormwater Inforrnation
Staff NCO Wet Detention
Staff NCO Wet Detention Basin will treat the NCO Academic Building, Outdoor
Instruction Building, parade Field, parking lot and some offsite area. A rainwater cistern will
collect roof runoff from the NCO building for building reuse. The wet detention basin was
designed to accommodate the entire roof area and no credit will be sought for the cistern.
Stormwater is conveyed using Low Impact Development (LID) methods of overland flow
and grassed swales to maximum extent possible.
The basin is drawn down through an orifice in the riser within 2 to 5 days. An emergency
spillway is provided as a drain mechanism during emergency storm events. A minimum of
1-foot of freeboard will be provided above the 100-yr storm and has been designed per
NCDENR Requirements to have a treatment efficiency of 90% TSS Removal for the first
1.5" of runoff.
Supply Building Wet Detention
Supply Building Wet Detention Basin will treat the Supply Building, surrounding parking
and laydown area, and most of the entrance drive. Stormwater is conveyed using Low
Impact Development (LID) methods of overland flow and grassed swales to maximum
extent possible.
The basin is drawn down through an orifice in the riser within 2 to 5 days. An emergency
spillway is provided as a drain mechanism during emergency storm events. A minimum of
1-foot of freeboard will be provided above the 100-yr storm and has been designed per
NCDENR Requirements to have a treatment effcicncv of 90% TSS Removal for the first
1.5" of runoff.
2

Staff NCO Academic Building, Supply Building, and Hoover Road Realignment CN Comm. No. 4686
Stormwater Namfive Clark*Nexsen
A. Will All Built Upon Area Be Collected -No.
1. Areas of sidewalk will not be collected for treatment (8,916 sq.ft.).
II. The Supply Building entrance will not be treated (577 sq.ft.) This area will be
incorporated into the low density portion of SW8 111207. Future will be
reallocated as On -Site Streets.
B. Identify Whether or Not the Project Has Buffer Requirements & Whether or Not
Development Is Proposed Within A Buffer. NO
C. Disclose Whether or Not Off -Site Runoff Is Coming Onto The Site or Into The
Proposed SCM. Yes- The NCO Wet Pond has been sized to accommodate the
offsite drainage.
D. If An On -Site Evaluation Of The Soils Has Been Done, Discuss Infiltration Rates,
Seasonal High Water Table, etc., and Include Date Of Site Evaluation. -A
geotechnical report was prepared on February 5'", 2014. Among other tests, seasonal
high water table (SHWI) testing was completed in the areas of the SCMs. The
Supply Building wet detention basin permanent pool elevation is within 6 inches of
the SH\CFI'. The NCO Building wet detention basin permanent pool is approximately
2.5 feet below the seasonal high water table. As nearby ditches are at elevation 10 to
13 it is not expected that the pond will draw the water table down. The elevation of
the permanent pool was driven by the storm pipes being able to outlet into the pond
while draining the entire site.
3. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Geotechnical investigation was performed by ECS Carolinas, 1.111. A copy of the
Geotechnical report is included in Appendix D.
2.0 DESIGN APPROACH
2.1 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:
K

Staff NCO Academic Building, Supply Building, and Hoover Road Realignment CN Comm. No. 4686
Stormwater Naomive Clark*Nexsen
Description
Runoff Coefficient, C
paved and Roof Areas
0.95
Unimproved Areas
0.35
Using Bentley StonnCAD \78i, the post -development stormwater collection system 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 post -developed analysis.
3.0 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
According to the NCDENR Design Guide, the wet detention basin stormwater treatment
system is designed to remove 90 percent of the average annual post development total
suspended solids (I'SS), 25 percent of the average annual post development total nitrogen (TN),
and 40 percent of the average annual post development total phosphorus (TP), by implementing
these Stormwater Control Measures (SCN4s).
4.0 WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS
The SCM routings were performed using the triangular hydrograph storage estimation method
in the Hvdraflow 1-lydrographs 2011 computer program. The analysis indicates that the total site
post development condition peak runoff for the 1-year and 10-year design storms is less than the
predevelopment condition.
4.1 PREDEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
The total development area is approximately 18.11 acres. There are two (2) existing SCN4s on
site that collect different portions of the developed area. The site ultimately drains to the east
into New River of the White Oak River basin. The table below summarizes the
predevelopment conditions peak runoff for the drainage areas.
n

Staff NCO Academic Building, Supply Building, and Hoover Road Realignment CN Comm. No. 4686
Storrnwater Narrative Clark*Nexsen
Predevelopment Condition Peak
Runoff Summary
Drainage Areas
1-year Peak
10-year Peak
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
B
20.79
33.46
C
1.168
1.792
4.2 POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
SW8 081007- D1200 Area Parking and logging Trail:
The modification to this permit includes the removal of a high density parking lot and low
density jogging trail. Post development conditions will be included in SW8 120101 as part
of a high density development treated by a wet detention basin.
SWS 111207- Neuse Road F_xtension:
Due to the location of the Supply building and driveway entrance being located within the
low density boundary, the boundary was modified to include an equivalent area east of the
Supply building. The area of the Supply driveway which overlaps the low density, boundary
will be captured as part of SW8 120101 and treated with a wet detention basin. A small
portion of the driveway entrance and sidewalk additions are included in this Plan Revision
by reallocation of Future Impervious.
SW8 120101- Camp lohnson BEO between Wilson Dr and Hoover Rd (3-1319):
Area A:
Post development has been adjusted from pre development conditions by an
increase in drainage area due to site grading conditions. Impervious surface has increased
in the proposed condition due to the addition of site sidewalks and roof capture from a
portion of the Outdoor Instruction Building. The Hydraflow model has been included in
Appendix C of this report. The peak flow and maximum water surface elevations have
remained the same. The impervious area added to this drainage area is no longer allocated
as "future impervious" on the permit application. Any additional impervious surface has
been accounted for by reallocation of Future Impervious.
5

Staff NCO Academic Building, Supply Building, and Hoover Road Realignment CN Comm. No. 4686
Stomwater Narrative Clark/Nexsen
Area B:
The Staff NCO Academic Building, a portion of the Outdoor Instruction Building,
parking, and walks are included in the post development drainage area. In addition to the
new impervious from this development, existing asphalt jogging trails along the east and
west side of development are being removed from SW8 081007 and captured in the wet
detention basin. Additional offsite area was included in the sizing of the wet detention
pond by topographic survey and field observation. The wet detention basin is located to
the west of the development area across Hoover Road. The basin was designed for 90%
TSS for the first 1.5" of rainfall.
Area C:
Post development includes the Supply building and associated parking and driveway
entrance. All new impervious surfaces for the Supply building will be treated in a wet
detention basin designed for 90% TSS for the first 1.5" of rainfall. See table below for
runoff summary.
Area D:
This drainage area was used to capture all previously unaccounted/untreated
impervious surface. These areas include the portion of Hoover Road included in the
realignment and a parking lot located south of the N1200 Parking Area being removed
from SW8 081007. In the post development conditions, new impervious surface for walks
and the relocated Hoover Road are not treated in with a SCM as the total
unaccounted/untreated impervious surface has decreased from pre development
conditions.
Post development Condition Peak
Runoff Summary
Drainage Areas
1-year Peak
10-year Peak
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
B
0.169
0.217
C
0.012
0.015
0

�W.
MOM
m
I
HITE --)OAK
OUMe
I Tank
WQN-
jj
m too

i
SL
>� € m
g
i g 3 rift o

PFDS: Contiguous US
Pagel of 2
wv.W.nw 'Fola.gov
• Nome Silo Map News O"courallan Search t_ _ _ j 0 NWS OAll NOAA GOo
General In. NOAA ATLAS 14 POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES: NC
Homepaq
Current Projects DATA DESCRIPTION
FAD
Close., Data type: preClpitali0n intensity Done: English Time sarlas type: partial duration n
Precipitation
Frequency (PT)
PF Data Sanest
PF in GIS Fermat
PF Maps
Temporal Deep.
Time Series Data
PFDS Pontine.
PF Documents
ZProbable Maximum
Pr ecipilaOan(PMP)
PMP Documents
Miscellaneous
Publication.
AEP Storm Anelyeie
Record
Precipitation
Contact Us
Inpulires
List -server
USA.
SELECT LOCATION
1. Manually:
vl Entnr lmallon(tlwlmal d,., us.% - fors and! W): IeWWa J bn,tuda: 3u0mi1
n) SeMot station Icnc9 here for a list of atauons exact In frequency analysis For NC): seiN Staupn
2. Use mop:
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY (PF) ESTIMATES
WITH 9n CONFIDENCE INTERVALS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORI nON
NO" Atlas 14, Volume 2. Version 3
® Print Pattie
PDS-based
precipitation
frequency
estimates
With
90 % confidence
Intervals
(in incheslhour)t
Average
recumence
Interval (years)
Duration
1
2
5
10
25
SO
100
200
500
1000
SB
6.93.
t0
15.1
m)
IBof-0501
O]0-BW)
.
]
0�
0
(100t301Sm
1480
2
133teal12-0800
490
5.54
6A1
lG8
8.09
B.8)
9.53
10.3
11.1
11.9
10-min
(43a-500)
(5,13-6.W1
(5.0-6.Oa)
IB.BJ-].]O)
1].a3-B ]<I
Ia.cE-053)
IB ES-1031
1022-11.11
1002-12f)
1105-120)
4'wal
6.-.]l-8
6.-8
8.-1
9.-1
1Smin
(J.62-<25)
2-4
(a 3D-
(a,G041
5851
(550-050)
(628-]36)
IB BO-B Oi)
(]30-8.86)
0-9 )
p]6-031
( B3Y10.f)
IB )B-IO B)
30-min
3,68
(2A9-2 Y1)
3.21
(2G]-30])
3.Ba
1355-Jd6)
440
(<.OS-0 ]O)
S.U6
106a-S a])
5.61
(5i12-a0o
6.15
(5.58-885)
6.69
(B OC-].251
]qt
IE 03-905)
B.O3
Rn-J ]J)
18)
2.01
2A
3]8<0
4.69
53
5
m
(55-1.02)
(1sm-2.18)
(22]-260)
228
a-310)
11)
84.2<356)
5
(<23-S Do)
)6)
(518
1.01
1l-1
2.-23.-3
3.-3
].-4
4.-4
2-hr
1003G-1.11)
3-1
(f.f3-L31)
2-1
(1 <2-L6B)
(1.06-t.0p)
1202-20t)
12.J2-3 ]B)
(263J.1])
[3.06-3501
IJIt-G 20)
(3a1 ]< )
0.)29
1.31
1.80
2.19
2S3
299
1a
3A1
}hr
10.6]0-O BOt)
13-0
1061J-0W0)
2-1 )
ItW-t 23
( 1,22-140 )
1]6)
ry 8-1.
IfR-2.08)
(1.M-2 a0)
R33-2.]5 )
13W-326 )
12.05-3 ]I )
058
3-U
,
10402-050)
O6ID
-
0805W1bhrO
(0p
IO.W1S.-0
IL05-t 30 )
If 01-205)
(18323d
0381
o.316
oA01
0.4
D.59B I
0.7W
os19
0.r%9
140
1.33
12-hr
10.23E-0291)
(0296-0352)
(.W2-0u])
(Oay-0538)
1053a-O BBaI
m823-0]]0)
(0.]10-0 see)
1092a-f.05)
(00]8-120)
(1.11-t a61
0450
0482
0235
0181
0.35o
O.dtt
oA)B
O.SSd
0.669
0.]69
24hr
(0.13]-0185)
(O.1B]-0201)
(03f5-0250)
(0.35B-0309)
10316-03651
(O.N6-O a51)
(O a23-05251
(0 <aG-O B00)
(0.5]3-0 ]3:1 )
(0.6a6-0 &53)
2AEay
O.OB)
0.106
O.DS
O481
0200
6135
OR)3
O.J16
O.182
0.639
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=nc 2/24/2014

PFDS: Contiguous US
Page 2 of 2
II (0.080-0 mi II (o.Ohe-m 11) II (13.123-0 150) II (dew-D.1-78) II 0,1W-0.221) II (0. 209-0250) II
II 40.275-0 MO) II lO11425) 11 ID.MB-Oap2) II
4Cay
]-Eay
(005fi)S-0ay M
0.019
(0 Ws-005e1
0.032
(0030-0035)
0B0]d0e
a
0.058
(O.OSa-O M5)
0.039
(O.OJa-OOd3)
0]-O5f51
00-7
0MB-0 on)
O.Od9
(O OCS-005<I
A
0.099
(O MO-OOW)
0.05] )
(0053-0pa3
Oln
(01
Od08
(O.Opa-0.118)
0.069
(O.M3-00]e)
Od61
04z5
10.114-013a)
O.OW )
(0.0]z-O DB]
Of.Oz1O3tx<)
eOs-005
O.UI
(019-O t5])
0.090 )
(D O31-D Dpp
31
OWI
0.163
IO.W3-II f]p)
0402 )
(O Op1-0112
035]
0M-028)O.
O.18d )
IO t08-02ts
( 04109 )
O.1 DI- 1Jx
019d
102ae-032B)
( OR21 )
0188-03a]
Od3d )
10.115-O.taB
m o2J-D Dza)
lo.oza-oov)
(o.oM-o rn)oa1111D
oae-o oae)
to oae-D Ds])
(D osau-DDes)
ID rat-o o]a)
to oae-o oe3)
lo.or]-Dom
DDes-o.�Dp)
O.ot]
O.OZO
0.025
ooze
0.0))
0.030
O.Od2
O.Od>
0.059
20-0ay
(D.D+e-D Dte)
(o.om-D o22)
(0.o23-o Dn)
(D Dza-o o3o)
(D.OJt-D Dm)
woes-D oat)
(D Ma-D Das
ooaz-o os+
00o'as3
Dose
( r.Dsz-DDes)
o.ou
o.o+fi
p.ozO
o.oz3
o.ozfi
o.ozs
o.o3z
o.ms
a.odo
c.od3
�-tlM
(D.rt3-D rts)
sots -Dom)
(o.Dm-Dar)
(D.ar-o axe
(0oxa-D D2e)
loon-o or)
(DD3o-o vas)
(o.o3z-o D3e)
(o.DM-o aJ
oB3p-Don
0.012
OOtd
0.016
0.021
0.02d
0.02fi
0.029
0.013
0.035
dStlry
10011-001z)
1a o13-D Dts)
(0015-0010 )
(000'019
00x01
(OOM-0023)
(D.022-0028)
(0.02<-0028)
(OOxa-0031)
(0112p-OOJs)
IO DJ3-003p )
o.on
o.cu
o.c1s
0.o1s
o.oz1
0.0002.
o.ov
o.Dz9
��,
lr D1D-D Du)
(D D¢-a Du
(D r1.-D m51
lo.ot5-Don )
ao .o19 )
o02o
Io 01 P-o ox2)
to ov- )
_o.azs )
ID ozz-D a2a
(D D25-D 02p)
ID aze-a m1
�Pr.ciYYMn kepuer¢y(ifo in mil YNe ere MxC on heguemy.-1,. at earsal d-forn sere¢ lPD3).
NumCen In gremM9s en PF eflmYm.1I1 eM rP-1 EwMsof IM.%wn(derce ory.-I. The Yotrabi.1p...,..n kof......fee (for s g-h Jun eeM.-mole
e Inlervel).11 M geese, then the upper oci (or lam than the lower Mull) is 5% Estream at upper Mulls are not clast against poEede mexirtum preciprorian (Pi
e0meles ell may the i then currently wIN PMP values
pleeee rotor to i Atlas 10 Eocumenl for mare ieformeLon.
Estimates firm the Yale in w-format 1precipit9ti0n frequency estimates LEISubmit
More Lank Catalorieas
Home I OHO
i O-mr, rat Cwn -
N.miWC[eaneaMAmoephrvePomriweran
tLbnY Wotner Jh-e
Dnre of Nwraopa a -loner <m
to. E." Wesl Npnwy
ylver Or, M0 AitO
Pape PUNw ieeaysser
pale her ni i<onaary }o .11
Msa Dea.ener
mess,
cleaner
Goes,
Par, Pa
Arm
Curer Op.-,
http://hdse.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=nc 2/24/2014

v6'o1
sni
a"r
f l'[1
9'II
fB"F
LWO
(I 1{
WZt
i0Y1
x9"01
9'(1
19.
a
I9to
It
FWP
ZO'ZI
rB'li
FS"0
[II
SM'P
61 t[
1>'f
[B'SS
FN'P
9'FE
I.
111
OIL
.1.1
It
OZ
VI
IV 11
1
M E
V.
16'11
L('1[
SOS
W11
WO
f6'1[
V, 1,
11
11i1
6F i[
Flit
Wf
60'il
(Y Z[
9B'ZI
SSL
L('IL
t
L1.1
66'01
Ba i(
1
(WP
[
11
f11
1
1VI
[I
9 xl
11
11
Efi
TI
IWO
92[
Sl fi
ESL
111
f[
14141aao15
OIIIwrxVwra01
INI
ON
I1141 ball
Iup I9a1.
4>wi
Iwn,l enl ua ul
P.... ntll4lwl=n
0i W=N.J
nn
nvl
1.1
611
1.1
too
.19,
.8 I
2W1
.1
0
Itl/HI
10 L1
.11
"11
W2
{10
19 It
19'21
too
SS'1
Z.
ttl'0
L I
t
911
"1
11
M0
La 0[
[11
LL't
Bt'O
6>[1
F[L'E
li r
It
91 0
L IB'F[
IB'F{
II[F
LB EI
(SB
Z
69L'S
.le.
9,
000
9. 'S[
90'VI
BBI"0
[to
K'L
1I'1
L [I[
11
L2[6
6ta'B
If'1
S[0
111
99.'0
6F1'1
9S"[
SF'0
L 65'B
fLP
t15
69'BI
9][509
1
2L%0
PoO
1
IBO
9[E
92i
093'I
(OV00
0
Iv/NI
LF'L
1
6v"i
6
111
ZL '0
1111
6.E
BLFB
.E601
M I
6[0
NI
unl xltl IthIll --I, Plel
Is/41 Moy
IV/ull
Iuu.I tlJ waR6S
IaxVM lelall
1[a,a.I.uO
men.a wauns
aroxw waRns
.ou a,mxns
vrviwxmm�
wea,Ren
=wu aow,w2
Wv
Itl/xl
a.[
LI9
.0
111
1.0
96
I
L60
L9
T
Sfi0
61[
4'E
6B0
Z{
M"I
0
4'L
B10
1
W6
F>0
16
6I(
L00
R
0
19
0
11B'
1
11
1
0
111
ai
I
Y/xl
11
t6
W6
[90
1,,
W6
Vi"0
9EB
560
621
NNII NRexw
IYI
w.a,. n
Jlalw w.xl+en
m+urvm weal
LO
BY
9EM
00
6Y
M
60
01v
K O
0]
1
B1v
ii9J
ZW
(Iv
9IV
OJ
610
IV
11
[ 0J
91v
flv
110
IIV
Ory
l-0J
11v
ZI
'IV
,
.-II
Flv
PZO
11V
IIU
ZIOI
IV
aJ
Ztl
!Y
f9J
9v
[�M
fO
aY
[9J
.10. ve,2
... V-IE
laQ el

Pond Report 5
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D9 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.3
Wednesday, 07 / 9 / 2014
Pond No. 1 - BEQ Pond A
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method
used for volume
calculation. Begining Elevation = 9.00 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (cuft)
0.00 9.00
28,513
0
0
1.00 10.00
32,997
30,725
30,725
1.10 10.10
33,210
3,310
34,035
2.00 11.00
35,154
30,757
64,791
2.50 11.50
36,254
17,850
82,641
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[PrfRsr]
[A] [B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in) = 24.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 3.80 30.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in) = 24.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 10.10 11.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels = 1
1
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33 2.60
3.33
3.33
Invert El. (ft) = 9.00
9.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= 1 Broad
---
Length (ft) = 60.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes No
No
No
Slope I%) = 3.30
0.00
0.00
n/a
N-Value = .013
.013
.013
n/a
Orifice Coeff. = 0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
ExfiL(inlhr)
= 0.000 (by Contour)
Multi -Stage = n/a
Yes
No
No
TW Elev. (ft)
= 0.00
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00 3.00
- Total 0
Nate: CulverVOrlfce outflows are analyeed under inlet ('c) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for odGce conditions (ic) and submergence (a)
Stage / Discharge
6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 27.00 30.00 33.00
Elev (it)
12.00
11.00
10.00
-1 9.00
36.00
Discharge (cfs)

Hydrograph
Report
4
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Wednesday, 07 / 9 12014
Hyd. No. 3
Existing BEQ Pond
A
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.134 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 10 min
Time interval
= 1 min
Hyd. volume
= 11,478 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Post-Dev
Max. Elevation
= 9.47 ft
Reservoir name
= BEQ Pond A
Max. Storage
= 14,371 cult
Storage Indicaflon method used
Q (cfs)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 300
Hyd No. 3
Existing BEQ Pond A
Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Year
600 900 1200
— Hyd No. 2
1500 1800 2100 2400 2700
® Total storage used = 14,371 cuft
Q (cfs)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
1 0.00
3000
Time (min)

Arrhirecture & Engineering n (�
j`/Ulu
Wet Detention Basin Design
NCO Wet Detention Basin
Project Information
Project: NCO Facility
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Project Number: 4851
Date: Jul-09-2014
Designed: VJC
Checked: VJC
Site Information
Sub Area Location: NCO Wet Detention Basin
Drainage Area (DA)= 671,457 at
Impervious Area (IA) = 2441609 sf (includes 12,500sf of future impervious)
Percent Impervious (I) = 36.4 %
Elevations
Top of Bank Elevation = 16.00 It
Emergency Elevation = 14.25 It
Temporary Pool Elevation = 13.10
Permanent Pool Elevation = 12.00 It
Bottom of Pond Elevation = 0.50 1t 60,134
Sediment Cleanout, Bottom Elevation = 1.50 it
Basin AreasNolumes
Area of Permanent Pool = 25,765 sf A_,,,, (includes main pond & forebays) (Elev = 12.00 )
Area of Bottom of Shelf = 22,402 sf A ., ,n,ir (includes main pond & forebays)
Area of Bottom of Pond = 6,719 sf A �, oo. (excluding sediment storage & forebays)
Area of Temporary Pool = 30,591 sf A,.,,,. (includes main pond and forebays) (Elev = 13.10 )
Volume, main pool = 103,072 cf V m,,p„i (from Hydraflow)
Volume, forebay (sum of forebays) = 24,142 cf V,,,,ay (from Hydraflow)
Volume, permanent pool = 127,214 cf V,,,,,_,,,i (Vi,,,ay+V—. wa)
Forebay %of permanent pool volume = 19.0 % OK
Average Depth
Depth of Pond = 10 It Depth (dist. btwn. bot. of shelf & bun. of pond, excludes sediment)
Average Depth = 6.97 It
Use Average Depth of = 7.00 It Round down to nearest 0.5
Required Surface Area - Wetland
SA/DA = 1.28 (90% TSS Removal via Pond)
Min Req'd Surface Area = 8,595 sf (at Permanent Pool)
Required Storage Volume - Using Simple Method
Design Storm = 1.5 inch (Project Does Not Drain to SA Waters)
Determine Rv Value= 0.05 + 0.009 (1) = 0.38 infin
Storage Volume Required = 31.715 cf (above Permanent Pool)
Side Slopes of Pond = 3 : 1
Is Permanent Pool Surface Area Sufficient (yes/no)? Yes ( 25765 > 8595 ) sf

Architecture & 6ugineering
Wet Detention Basin Design
NCO Wet Detention Basin
1.5 Inch Volume Elevation
Required Temporary Pool Volume = 31,715 cu ft
Temporary Pool Lower Elevation Bound = 13.00
Temporary Pool Upper Elevation Bound = 14.00
Temporary Pool Lower Volume Bound = 28,664 cu ft
Temporary Pool Upper Volume Bound = 60,134 cu ft
Temporary Pool Elevation = 13.10
Orifice Sizing - Wet Detention
O2 N,=
0.1835
cfs
Os Ww=
0.0734
cfs
Orifice Size =
3.00
in
Driving Head (H,) =
0.32
it
Oam,=
0.135
cfs
Drawdown Time =
2.7
days
less than 5 days (yes/no) ? Yes
greater than 2 days (yes/no) ? Yes
Anti -Flotation Device
Outside Length =
4.00
ft
Outside Width =
4.00
It
Inside Length =
3.00
ft
Inside Width=
3.00
ft
Bottom Thickness =
0.50
It
Top of Riser =
13.75
ft
Invert of Riser =
12.00
ft
Area =
16.0
sf
Volume =
36
cf
Weight=
2.246
Ibs
Factor of Safety =
1.20
WT Req'd of Anti -Flotation Device =
2.696
Ibs
Volume of Concrete Req'd =
30.8
cf
Additioal Concrete Req d =
0.75
If
Volume Provided =
32.3
cf
WT of Anti -Flotation Device Provided = 2,825 Ibs
Contour Incremental Accumulated
Contour Area Volume Volume, S Stage, Z
so ft cu If cu ft It
12.00 25.766 0 0 0.0
12.50 29,286 13,752 13,752 0.5
13.00 30,372 14,912 28,664 1.0
14.00 32,588 31,470 60,134 2.0
15.00 34,860 33,714 93,848 3.0
16.00 37,189 36,015 129,863 4.0
(Flowrate required for a 2 day drawdown)
(Flowrate required for a 5 day drawdown)
(Diameter)
(Outside Dim. = 4-ft x 4-ft, Inside Dim. = 3-ft x 3-ft)
(Water Displaced - Top of Riser to Invert of Riser)
(Weight Water Displaced)
(Unit WT of Concrete = 150 pcf) Submerged Concrete Unit Weight 87.6 pcf
(4-ft x 4-ft with solid bottom)
OK

Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD8 Civil 3D®2014 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.3 Wednesday, 07 / 912014
Pond No. 2 - NCO Main Pond
Pond Data IG
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 1.50 it /
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) J Contour area (sgft) Incr. Storage (cult) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 1.50 3,710 0 0
0.50 2.00 4,172 1,969 1,969
1.50 3.00 5,153 4,653 6,623
2.50 4.00 6,207 5,671 12,294
3.50 5.00 7,332 6,761 19,055
4.50 6.00 8,530 7,923 26,978
5.50 7.00 9,800 9,157 36,134
6.50 8.00 11,143 10,463 46,598
7.50 9.00 12,548 11,837 58,435
8.50 10.00 14,017 13,274 71,709
9.50 11.00 15,550 14,775 86,485
10.00 11.50 16,204 7,937 94,422
10.50 12.00 18,424 8,650 103,072
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)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 0
0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Invert El. (ft)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= -
--
--
--
Length (ft)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= No
No
No
No
Slope (%)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
n/a
N-Value
= .000
.000
.000
Na
Orifice Coeff.
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Exfil.(inlhr)
= 0.000 (by
Wet area)
Multi -Stage
= n/a
No
No
No
TW Elev. (it)
= 0.00
Stage (ft)
12.00
10.00
8.00
[ 1rPl
4.00
2.00
0.00 -
0
Storage
20,000
Note: Culvert/Office outflows are analtaed under inlet (id) and ouaet loci control. Weir risers checked for onfice conditions lid) and submergence(s).
40,000
Stage / Storage
60,000
80,000
100,000
Elev (ft)
13.50
11.50
9.50
7.50
5.50
W161111
1 1.50
120,000
Storage (cuft)

Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Wednesday, 07 / 9 12014
Pond No. 6 - NCO Forebay
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method
used for volume
calculation. Begining Elevation = 7.00 It
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cuft)
Total storage (cult)
0.00 7.00
3,479
0
0
1.00 8.00
3,970
3,721
3,721
2.00 9.00
4,488
4,226
7,947
3.00 10.00
5,036
4,759
12,706
4.00 11.00
5,612
5,321
18,027
4.50 11.50
5,924
2,883
20,910
5.00 12.00
7,019
3,232
24,142
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)
= 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in) = 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels = 0
0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Invert El. (ft) = 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= -- ---
---
---
Length (ft) = 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= No No
No
No
Slope(%) = 0.00
0.00
0.00
n/a
N-Value = .000
.000
.000
n/a
Orifice Coeff. = 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Exfil.(inlhr)
= 0.000 (by Wet area)
Multi -Stage = n/a
No
No
No
TW Elev. (ft)
= 0.00
Stage (ft)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Note: CulvertiOMce outflows are analyzed under inlet(ic) and outal(m) cm Vol. Weir nsem checked for orifice mndiWns (ic) and submergence is)
Stage / Storage
Elev (ft)
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
0.00 7.00
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10.000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000
Storage Storage (cuft)

Pond Report
0
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2014 by Aulodesk, Inc. v10.3
Pond No. 1 - NCO Temporary Pond
Pond Data 103
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 12.00 it
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft)
Elevation (ft)
0.00
12.00
0.50
12.50
1.00
13.00
2.00
14.00
3.00
15.00
4.00
16.00
Culvert / Orifice Structures
[A]
Rise (in)
= 15.00
Span (in)
= 15.00
No. Barrels
= 1
Invert El. (ft)
= 12.00
Length (ft)
= 57.00
Slope I%)
= 0.35
N-Value
= .013
Orifice Coeff.
= 0.60
Multi -Stage
= n/a
Wednesday, 07 / 9 / 2014
Contour area (scift)
Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (cuft)
fr,L13 Z`3(do4�
I te. I x
L(
14
&0135
25,766
0
0
13a52
31471
30,372
30,372
14,912
28,752
664
28,664
32,588
31,470
60,135
37,1189
36,015
129,864
31 [
p r
Weir Structures
[B]
[C]
[PrfRsr]
[A] [B]
[C]
[D]
3.00
4.00
Inactive
Crest Len (ft)
= 9.00 35.00
3.00
Inactive
3.00
4.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 14.00 14.00
13.70
0.00
1
1
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33 2.60
3.33
3.33
12.00
13.10
0.00
Weir Type
= 1 Broad
Rect
---
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes No
Yes
No
0.00
0.00
Na
.013
.013
Na
0.60
0.60
0.60
Exfil.(in/hr)
= 0.000 (by Contour)
Yes
Yes
No
TW Elev. (ft)
= 0.00
Note: CUIveNOnfce oudlow are adalymdl under inlet(ic) and content (oc) contra Weir risers checked for orifice condieons(ic) and submergence (s).
Stage /
Storage / Discharge Table
Stage
Storage
Elevation
Clv A
Cho B
CIv C
PrfRsr Wr A
Wire
Wr C
Wr D Exfil User Total
ft
tuft
ft
cfs
cis
cis
cfs cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs cfs cfs cis
0.00
0
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
--- 0.00
0.00
0.00
--- --- --- 0,000
0.50
13,752
12.50
0.15 oc
0.14 is
0.00
--- 0.00
0.00
0.00
-- --- -- 0.136
1.00
28,664
13.00
0.22 oc
0.21 is
0.00
-- 0.00
0.00
0.00
--- -- --- 0.210
2.00
60,135
14.00
2.26 oc
0.24 is
0.36 is
--- 0.00
0.00
1.64
-- - -- 2.244
3.00
93,849
15.00
8.18 oc
0.02 is
0.04 is
-- 5.61 s
91.00
2.51 s
99.17
-4.00
129,864
16.00
10.08 oc
0.01 is
0.02 is
-- 7A 8 s
257.39
2.80 s
-- - -- 267.40

A
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.3 Wednesday, 07 / 9 / 2014
Hyd. No. 3
NCO Pond
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.169 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 14 min
Time interval
= 1 min
Hyd. volume
= 16,389 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 -NCO Post
Max. Elevation
= 12.70 ft
Reservoir name
= NCO Temporary Pond
Max. Storage
= 19,753 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
50.00
40.00
91101111
20.00
f[1I1I1I
0.00
0 300
Hyd No. 3
NCO Pond
Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Year
600 900 1200
— Hyd No. 2
1500 1800 2100 2400 2700
® Total storage used = 19,753 cuft
Q (cfs)
50.00
Ci1IK1]
30.00
f'1114I11,
10.00
1 0.00
3000
Time (min)

3
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.3
Hyd. No. 1 _.,
NCO Pre 6
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
Time interval
= 1 min
Hyd. volume
Drainage area
= 14.810 ac
Runoff coeff.
Intensity
= 3.424 in/hr
Tc by User
IDF Curve
= Jacksonville. IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
Composite (Area/C) _ [(3.440 x 0.95) + (11.370 x 0.25)] / 14.810
Q (Cfs)
21.00
12.00
•M
.M
011I111
NCO Pre
Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year
Wednesday, 07 / 9 / 2014
= 20.79 cfs
= 20 min
24,952 cuft
= 0.41'
= 20.00 min
= 1/1
Q (Cfs)
21.00
f[110I0]
15.00
12.00
. IM
3.00
0.00 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Hyd No. 1 Time (min)

4
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 31]® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3 Wednesday, 07 / 9 / 2014
Hyd. No. 2
NCO Post 6
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
= 47.21 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 7 min
Time interval
= 1 min
Hyd. volume
= 19,830 cuft
Drainage area
= 15.410 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.57'
Intensity
= 5.375 in/hr
Tc by User
= 7.00 min
IDF Curve
= Jacksonville. IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
' Composite (Area/C) _ [(5.610 x 0.95) + (9.800 x 0.35)) / 15.410
Q (Cfs)
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
NCO Post
Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year
Q (Cfs)
50.00
40.00
99I110I01
20.00
M1111111
0.00 r " 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Hyd No. 2 Time (min)

rehiteeture & Fitgineering
Wet Detention Basin Design v
Supply Wet Detention Basin
Project Information
Project: NCO Facility
Location: Camp Johnson. NC
Project Number: 4686
Date: Jul-09-2014
Designed: VJC
Checked: VJC
Site Information
Sub Area Location:
Supply Wet Detention Basin
Drainage Area (DA) =
34,271
sf
Impervious Area (IA)=
21,380
sf
Percent Impervious (1) =
62.4
%
Elevations
Top of Bank Elevation =
16.50
ft
Emergency Elevation =
15.00
ft
Temporary Pool Elevation =
14.60
Permanent Pool Elevation =
14.00
ft
Bottom of Pond Elevation =
8.35
ft
Sediment Cleanout, Bottom Elevation =
12.50
It
Basin Areas/Volumes
Area of Permanent Pool =
3,674
sf
Ao„m �� (includes main pond & forebays) (Elev = 14.00 )
Area of Bottom of Shelf =
2,570
sf
A.,-.., (includes main pond & forebays)
Area of Bottom of Pond =
20
sf
AD, ,„„ (excluding sediment storage & forebays)
Area of Temporary Pool =
5,024
sf
A.,,.. (includes main pond and forebays) (Elev = 14.60 )
Volume, main pool =
4,956
cf
V,,,„ . (from Hydraflow)
Volume, forebay (sum of forebays) =
1,093
cf
V „„„r (from Hydraflow)
Volume, permanent pool =
6,049
cf
Vo,,,,, "(V,,,,y"v— wa)
Forebay %of permanent pool volume =
18.1
%
OK
Average Depth
Depth of Pond = 5.15 ft Depth (dist. btwn, bot. of shelf & btm. of pond, excludes sediment)
Average Depth = 3.02 ft
Use Average Depth of = 3.00 It Round down to nearest 0.5
Required Surface Area - Wetland
SAIDA= 7.20 (90%TSS Removal via Pond)
Min Req'd Surface Area = 2,468 sf (at Permanent Pool)
Required Storage Volume - Using Simple Method
Design Storm = 1.5 inch (Project Does Not Drain to SA Waters)
Determine Rv Value= 0.05 + 0.009 (1) = 0.61 iMn
Storage Volume Required = 2,619 cf (above Permanent Pool)
Side Slopes of Pond = 3 : 1
Is Permenant Pool Surface Area Sufficient (yes/no)? Yes ( 3674 > 2468 ) sf

Arebiterture & Enginrering
Wet Detention Basin Design
Supply Wet Detention Basin
1.5 inch Volume Elevation
Required Temporary Pool Volume = 2,619 cu it
Temporary Pool Lower Elevation Bound = 14.50
Temporary Pool Upper Elevation Bound = 15.00
Temporary Pool Lower Volume Bound = 2,143 cu ft
Temporary Pool Upper Volume Bound = 4,710 cu it
Temporary Pool Elevation = 14.60
Orifice Sizing - Wet Detention
O2 D.n=
0.0152
cis
Os D.n=
0.0061
cfs
Orifice Size =
1.00
in
Driving Head (H.)=
0.19
it
Oaro.=
0.011
cis
Drawdovm Time =
2.7
days
less than 5 days (yes/no) ? Yes
greater than 2 days (yes/no) ? Yes
Anti -Flotation Device
Outside Length =
4.00
It
Outside Width=
4.00
it
Inside Length =
3.00
It
Inside Width=
3.00
0
Bottom Thickness =
0.50
it
Top of Riser =
14.60
it
Invert of Riser=
13.16
It
Area =
16.0
sf
Volume =
31
cf
Weight=
1,937
Ibs
Factor of Safety=
1.20
WT Req'd of Anti -Flotation Device =
2.324
Ibs
Volume of Concrete Req'd =
26.5
cf
Additioal Concrete Req'd =
0.75
It
Volume Provided =
30.1
cf
WT of Anti -Flotation Device Provided =
2.635
Ibs
Contour
Contour
Area
Incremental Accumulated
Volume Volume, S
Stage. Z
sq it
cu it
cu it
it
14.00
3,674
0
0
0.0
14.50
4,929
2,143
2,143
0.5
15.00
5,344
2,567
4,710
1.0
15.50
5,766
2.777
7,487
1.5
16.00
6,196
2,990
10,477
2.0
16.50
6,646
3.210
13.687
2.5
(Flowrate required for a 2 day drawdown)
(Flowrate required for a 5 day drawdown)
(Diameter)
(Outside Dim. = 4-ft x 4-ft, Inside Dim. = 3-ft x 3-11)
(Water Displaced - Top of Riser to Invert of Riser)
(Weight Water Displaced)
(Unit WT of Concrete = 150 pcf) Submerged Concrete Unit Weight 87.6 pcf
OK

Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.3
Wednesday, 07 / 9 12014
Pond No. 4 - Supply Main Pond
Pond Data
C
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining
Elevation = 8.35 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (cult)
0.00 8.35
45
0
0
0.15 8.50
49
7
7
1.15 9.50
315
163
170
2.15 10.50
520
413
583
3.15 11.50
897
700
1,283
4.15 12.50
1,295
1,090
2,373
5.15 13.50
1,760
1,521
3,894
5.65 14.00
2,509
1,062
4,956
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)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest EI. (ft)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 0
0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Invert El. (ft)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= --
--
---
--
Length (ft)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= No
No
No
No
Slope(%)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
n/a
N-Value
= .000
.000
.000
n/a
Orifice Coeff.
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Exfil.(in/hr)
= 0.000 (by Wet area)
Multi -Stage
= n/a
No
No
No
TW Elev.(ft)
= 0.00
Stage (ft)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 500
Storage
Nae: CulverVOnfice outno are analyeed under inlet (ic)and duller (w)control. Weir risers caeckeo for onfiw wriditions(ic) and submergence (a)
Stage / Storage
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500
Elev (ft)
14.35
13.35
12.35
11.35
10.35
9.35
' 8.35
5,000
Storage (cult)

Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3
Wednesday, 07 / 9 / 2014
Pond No. 5 - Supply Forebay
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method
used for volume
calculation. Begining Elevation = 12.50 it
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cuft)
Total storage (cuft)
0.00 12.50
491
0
0
1.00 13.50
753
617
617
1.50 14.00
1,165
476
1,093
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)
= 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in) = 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels = 0
0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Invert El. (ft) = 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= --- --
--
--
Length (ft) = 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= No No
No
No
Slope (%) = 0.00
0.00
0.00
n/a
N-Value = .000
.000
.000
n/a
Orifice Coeff. = 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Exfil.(inlhr)
= 0.000 (by Wet area)
Multi -Stage = We
No
No
No
TW Elev. (ft)
= 0.00
Stage (ft)
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20 JCS
0.00
0 100
Storage
Note: GulveNOrif¢e outflows are analyeed under inlet(ic) and oWet(oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions(ic) and submergence (a)
Stage / Storage
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Elev (ft)
14.50
14.30
14.10
13.90
13.70
13.50
13.30
13.10
12.90
12.70
1 12.50
1,100
Storage (tuft)

7
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D0 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.3
Hyd. No. 5
Supply Pre
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
Time interval
= 1 min
Hyd. volume
Drainage area
= 0.790 ac
Runoff coeff.
Intensity
= 5.912 in/hr
Tc by User
OF Curve
= Jacksonville. I DF
Asc/Rec limb fact
Composite (Area/C) = [(0.790 x 0.25)] / 0.790
Q (Cfs)
2.00
1.00
0.00 y
0 1
— Hyd No. 5
Supply Pre
Hyd. No. 5 -- 1 Year
Wednesday, 07 / 9 12014
= 1.168 cfs
= 5 min
= 350 cuft
= 0.25'
= 5.00 min
= 1/1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Q (Cfs)
2.00
1.00
�L 0.00
10
Time (min)

6
Hydrograph Report
Hydmflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. 00.3 Wednesday, 07 / 9 / 2014
Hyd. No. 6
Sunnly Post
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
= 3.362 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 5 min
Time interval
= 1 min
Hyd. volume
= 1,009 cuft
Drainage area
= 0.790 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.72*
Intensity
= 5.912 in/hr
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
OF Curve
= Jacksonville. OF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Composite (Area/C) = [(0.490 x 0.95) + (0.300 x 0.35)) / 0,790
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 Y
0 1 2
Hyd No. 6
Supply Post
Hyd. No. 6 -- 1 Year
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
walll]
1.00
V 0.00
10
Time (min)

Pond Report
10 r
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADS Civil 3DO 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.3
Pond No. 3 - Supply Temporary Pond
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 14.00 It
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sqft)
0.00
14.00
3,674
0.50
14.50
4,929
1.00
15.00
5,344
1.50
15.50
5,766
2.00
16.00
6,196
2.50
16.50
6,646
Wednesday, 07 / 912014
Incr. Storage (cuft)
Total storage (cult)
145
1(14.5
z 14-3'[ L�1
0
0
2,567
2,777
4,710
7,487
2,990
10,476
3,210
13,686
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
.
[A]
[B]
[C]
[PrfRsr]
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 12.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 9.00
10.00
3.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 12.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 14.85
15.00
14.60
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
1
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
Invert El. (ft)
= 13.16
14.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= 1
Broad
Rect
---
Length (ft)
= 33.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes
No
Yes
No
Slope I%)
= 0.49
0.00
0.00
n/a
N-Value
= .013
.013
.013
n/a
Orifice Coeff.
= 0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Exfl.(inlhr)
= 0.000 (by Wet area)
Multi -Stage
= n/a
Yes
No
No
TW Elev.(ft)
= 0.00
Note: CaNert/Onfiee outfl a are analysed under inlet(ic) and outlet (ac) central. Weir risers cracked for orifice conditions Inc) and submergence (a).
Stage /
Storage / Discharge Table
Stage
Storage
Elevation
Clv A
Clv B Clv C
PrfRsr Wr A
Wr B
Wr C
Wr D Exfil User Total
It
cuft
ft
cfs
cis cfs
cfs cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs cfs cfs cfs
0.00
0
14.00
0.00
0.00 ---
--- 0.00
0.00
0.00
--- -- --- 0.000
0.50
2,143
14.50
1.51 oc
0.02 is ---
--- 0.00
0.00
0.00
--- -- -- 0.018
L00
4,710
15.00
3.67 oc
0.01 is --
-- 1.74 s
0.00
1.92 s
-- - -- 3.671
1.50
7,487
15.50
4.85 oc
0.00 is --
-- 3.27 s
11.77
1.57 s
--- -- -- 16.62
2.00
10,476
16.00
5.61 oc
0.00 is --
-- 3.94 s
33.30
1.64 s
-- --- -- 38.88
2.50
13,686
16.50
6.27 oc
0.00 is ---
-- 4.45 s
61 A 8
1.73 s
--- --- --- 67.36

Hydrograph
Report
9
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2014 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.3
Wednesday, 07 / 9 / 2014
Hyd. No. 7
Supply Pond
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.012 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 10 min
Time interval
= 1 min
Hyd. volume
= 901 cult
Inflow hyd. No.
= 6 -Supply Post
Max. Elevation
= 14.23 ft
Reservoir name
= Supply Temporary Pond
Max. Storage
= 1,005 cuft
Storage Indication method used
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
M9
1.00
0.00
0 300
Hyd No. 7
Supply Pond
Hyd. No. 7 -- 1 Year
600 900 1200
— Hyd No. 6
1500 1800 2100 2400 2700
® Total storage used = 1,005 cuft
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
IfrXiIr1
1.00
1 0.00
3000
Time (min)

Wyatt L. Bone
From: Craig Turner <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 3:59 PM
To: Wyatt L. Bone
Subject: RE: NCO Academic Facility Camp Johnson
Wyatt,
The answer to this question depends upon whether you take a short-term approach or a long-term approach. The short-
term explanation is that the existing ditch does have a limited draw -down curve that results in the 40-inch SHWT at
BMP1. If you construct the BMP, as shown, the resulting drawdown curve would lower the SHWT at BMP to the outlet
elevation, 12' msl. The current soil water held between the 40-inch depth and 12 ft. msl would dewater during
construction. The long-term answer is the SHWT has been lowered to the 12' elevation at BMP! therefore, no additional
storage needs to be added to the BMP design volume.
Please let me know if you need additional documentation for your case.
Thank you,
Craig Turner
G. Craig Turner I Soil Scientist
Direct: 452-0001 x 1914 1 Cell: 910.620.1137 1 Fax: [phone]
Email: cturner(a7lmarouo.net
Land Management Group, Inc I Environmental Consultants
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15 1 Wilmington. NC 284031 v .lmgrouo.net
From: Wyatt L. Bone[mailto:wbone(a)ClarkNexsen.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:04 AM
To: Craig Turner
Cc: ghohmeier(a)getsolutionsinc.com; Schneider, Craig
Subject: NCO Academic Facility Camp Johnson
Craig,
We recently met with NCDENR to go over our stormwater plans for the NCO project. The large pond for the main site
has the permanent pool set at elevation 12. Your report indicates the seasonal high water table for BMP 1 is 40" below
grade. That puts the SHWT at approximately elev. 14.66. We had to set the level of that pond below the SHWT due to
pipe cover issues in the main site. There is an existing ditch north of the pond area with elevations around 12-13. Our
pond will be excavated to 17.5' below grade. Based on the soil profile there is layer of clay 4' below grade extending to
7' below grade. As our pond excavation will extend through that clay layer. We projected the water table would lower

down to that ditch elevation: 12. Would you have the same opinion? If you disagree we will size the pond draw down to
drain the ground water inflow. If you agree, could you provide a memo explaining the reasoning for believing the SWHT
will fall to elevation 12 as a result of the pond excavation. Thank you and feel free to give us a call and discuss further.
Wyatt Bone PE, EEEo AV Bo+c
Civil Engineer
CLARK NEXSEN
4000 Westchase Boulevard Suite 280
Raleigh, NC 27607
919,828.1876 Office
919.828.1877 Fax
wbonePclarknexsen.com
www.clarknexsen.com
pCONr DENT AJTY NOTE: rF:s e ;hail and any files usn5rn tier w th It contem pnvilaged and rani dermal information and a,e rtendeo sole y for the use cf :he individw.i cr equity
to wh,& they are adcressod. f you are tot the intelded rcapent o^he persor resporsib a for deli enng the read to tine rtenden reacient, you a,e ncrcby not f-ed that any
cheer,' canon or copying of this e-ma I or anv of its anacnrmerts s strict y p,oh hated. d you have eceired tvs e rail in error, please mined ate y rotfi the serdng inmmdral or
entity by e ni evd perrr,aread, delete Ere or g.nal a-w.d er-d atuthrnents rmrr your corapuar systen, e,,
Clark Nexsen Email Security: Click here to report this email as spam.

July 10, 2014
EC1EOVE
JUL 1 1 1014
BY:
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 120101
Camp Johnson BEO P1319 / NCO Academy Building / Supply Warehouse
Onslow County
Dear Linda:
Below are the responses to your comments for the Camp Johnson BEO P1319 stormwater
review. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.
1. As discussed at the scoping meeting, please provide new calculations for the existing
Basin A due to the proposed increase in drainage area. Please discuss the increase in
the drainage area as one of the proposed changes in the narrative. As of the May 1,
2014 plan revision, the drainage area was unchanged at 641,047 square feet. It is now
proposed as 655,651 square feet. Where did the extra area come from?
Response: Hydraflow Hydrographs calculations for the existing wet pond have been
provided as part of an Appendix in the enclosed narrative. All plans, calculations, and
supplements reflect a drainage area of 655,651 square feet. This additional area
accounts for a portion of the roof of the new outdoor classroom building, as well as a
portion of new sidewalk.
2. The calculations for proposed Basin C (Supply Warehouse) use a proposed built -upon
area of 21,380 square feet, but the application reports 21,255 square feet. Please
correct and ensure consistent numbers throughout the application, supplements, plans
and calculations.
Response: The correct square footage of built -upon area for proposed Basin C (Supply
Warehouse) is 21,380 square feet. This has been updated throughout the documents.
3. Please clearly label all three drainage basins (A, B and C) and show the outline of the
BMP in its proper location on sheet PL-12.
Response: Sheet PL-12 now includes the outline of drainage basins A, B and C, as
well as a basin label for each.
4. For both proposed ponds - As discussed during the scoping meeting, the amount of
volume provided never equates exactly to what is required. When I interpolate the
Hydraflow stage -storage numbers provided for Basins B and C, the actual volume
provided is 31,811 cubic feet for Basin B and 2,826 cubic feet for Basin C. Please ,
interpolate the volume provided and report those numbers on the supplements.
Response: Interpolating the stage -storage numbers provided from Hydraflow yields an
actual volume provided of 31,811 cubic feet for basin B and 2,656 cubic feet for Basin C.
Supplements and calculations have been updated accordingly.
5. For Basin C, the average design depth has been reported as 3.0 on the supplement
however, using the reported elevations for the sediment cleanout top elevation and the
bottom of the vegetated shelf, the average design depth is only 1 foot. The sediment
cleanout top elevation is reported on the supplement as 12.5, but the chart of pond
elevations on sheet CG501 reports it as 8.0. Using 8.0 in Option 2 for average design
depth will yield a more accurate result. Please correct the supplement.
Response: The supplement for Basin C has been updated to reflect a sediment
cleanout top elevation as 8.35, to correspond correctly with sheet CG501 and
calculations.

July 10, 2014
Stormwater Application No. SW8 120101 Mod.
6. For both proposed ponds - Please provide Hydraflow stage -storage tables for the areas
and elevations below permanent pool in support of the permanent pool volume and
forebay volume listed in the calculations and reported on the supplements.
Response: Stage -storage tables have been provided as part of Appendix C in the
narrative.
7. Please add the bar spacing for the proposed peaked roof trash rack to the plans.
Response: As stated in the NC BMP Manual, the minimum bar spacing for trash racks
is 2 inches, and should be no greater than one-half of the minimum conduit dimension in
the structure. A note has been added to the Riser Structure details A2 and C2 on sheet
CG502 to indicate bar spacing of 4".
8. What kind of trash guard will be provided for the temporary pool weirs in each pond?
Does the peaked roof trash rack extend down over those weirs? If so, please note on the
details. The 4" orifice weir in Basin B may need a different kind of trash guard.
Response: A note has been added as number 2 on details A2 and C2 on sheet CG502
to indicate trash rack bars are to extend below the lowest opening elevation on the riser
structures.
Page 2 of 2

AI
GM
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
June 30, 2014
Commanding Officer
MCB Camp Lejeune
c/o Neal Paul, Deputy Public Works Officer
1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28547
John E. Skvada, III
Secretary
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 120101
Camp Johnson BEQ P1319 / NCO Academy Building / Supply Warehouse
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Paul:
The Wilmington Regional Office received a modified Express Stormwater Management Permit
Application for the Camp Johnson BEQ P1319 / NCO Academy Building / Supply Warehouse on June
19, 2014. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the application is not complete.
The following information is needed to continue the stormwater review:
1. As discussed at the scoping meeting, please provide new calculations for the existing Basin A
due to the proposed increase in drainage area. Please discuss the increase in the drainage
area as one of the proposed changes in the narrative. As of the May 1, 2014 plan revision, the
drainage area was unchanged at 641,047 square feet. It is now proposed as 655,651 square
feet. Where did the extra area come from?
2. The calculations for proposed Basin C (Supply Warehouse) use a proposed built -upon area of
21,380 square feet, but the application reports 21,255 square feet. Please correct and ensure
consistent numbers throughout the application, supplements, plans and calculations.
3. Please clearly label all three drainage basins (A, B and C) and show the outline of the BMP in
its proper location on sheet PL-12.
4. For both proposed ponds - As discussed during the scoping meeting, the amount of volume
provided never equates exactly to what is required. When I interpolate the Hydraflow stage -
storage numbers provided for Basins B and C, the actual volume provided is 31,811 cubic feet
for Basin B and 2,826 cubic feet for Basin C. Please interpolate the volume provided and report
those numbers on the supplements.
5. For Basin C, the average design depth has been reported as 3.0 on the supplement however,
using the reported elevations for the sediment cleanout top elevation and the bottom of the
vegetated shelf, the average design depth is only 1 foot. The sediment cleanout top elevation is
reported on the supplement as 12.5, but the chart of pond elevations on sheet CG501 reports it
as 8.0. Using 8.0 in Option 2 for average design depth will yield a more accurate result. Please
correct the supplement.
6. For both proposed ponds - Please provide Hydraflow stage -storage tables for the areas and
elevations below,permanent pool in support of the permanent pool volume and forebay volume
listed in the calculations and reported on the supplements.
7. Please add the bar spacing for the proposed peaked roof trash rack to the plans.
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Land Quality Section — Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 • [phone] / Fax: [phone]

Mr. Paul
June 30, 2014
Stormwater Application No. SW8 120101 Mod.
8. What kind of trash guard will be provided for the temporary pool weirs in each pond?
Does the peaked roof trash rack extend down over those weirs? If so, please note on the
details. The 4" orifice weir in Basin B may need a different kind of trash guard.
Please keep in mind that changing one number may change other numbers and require the
calculations, supplements, and other supporting documentation to be updated. Please verify all
numbers to ensure consistency across the application documents.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review.
The requested information should be received in this Office prior to July 8, 2014, 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 email or fax your request for a time
extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. Please note
that a second significant request for additional information may result in the return of the project.
If the project is returned, you will need to reschedule the project through the Express
coordinator for the next available review date, and resubmit all of the required items, including
the application fee.
The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under an
approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject
to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
Please label all packages and cover letters as "Express" and reference the project name and
State assigned project number on all correspondence. If you have any questions concerning
this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] or email me at linda.lewis anncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
Linda Lewis
Environmental Engineer III
GDS/arl: ...Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2012\120101 HD\2014 06 addinfo 120101
cc: Vince Chirichella, P.E., Nexsen Pruet
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
Page 2 of 2

Solutions, Inc.
Geotechnical • Environmental - Testing
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET PROJECT NO: JX13-11OG
February 5, 2014
Prepared for
Whiting -Turner Contracting Co.
300 East Joppa Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21286
ATTN: Mr. Craig Schneider
Prepared by
ECEIVE
JUN 1 1 2111
GET Solutions, Inc.
415 A.Western Boulevard, Jacksonville, NC 28546 ♦ Phone [phone] e Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

GET
Gmlcehniml-Emmronm wl -Tr&i g
TO: Whiting -Turner Contracting Co.
300 East Joppa Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21286
Attn: Craig Schneider
February 5, 2014
RE: Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11 OG
Dear Mr. Schneider:
In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Subsurface Investigation and
Geotechnical Engineering Services for the above referenced project. The results of this
study, together with our recommendations, are presented in this report.
Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise
concerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to continue its
role as Geotechnical Engineer during the project implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. We trust that the information
contained herein meets your immediate need, and should you have any questions or if we
could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully Submitted,
G E T Solutions, Inc.
Glenn W. Hohmeier, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
NC Reg. # 033529
Camille A. Kattan, P.E.
Principal Engineer
NC Reg. # 014103
SRO "'
'ssioti 'Ly
PE No.
oa3529
W.
CAR
=a�oFESSip•
ti.
iQ 9'•.
SEAL r _
014103
`• �� ;'�
'..OnINE.: �P
415-A Western Boulevard • Jacksonville, NC 28546 . Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................i
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION..............................................................................1
1.1 Project Authorization..............................................................................1
1.2 Project Description.................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services.............................................................2
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES..................................................3
2.1 Field Exploration....................................................................................3
2.2 Laboratory Testing... ........................................................... ................. .4
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................4
3.1
Site Location and Description................................................................4
3.2
Site Geology.......................................................................................... 5
3.3
Subsurface Soil Conditions....................................................................5
3.4
Groundwater Information.......................................................................6
4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................7
4.1
Clearing and Grading.............................................................................7
4.2
Subgrade Preparation............................................................................8
4.3
Structural Fill and Placement.................................................................8
4.4
Suitability of On -site Soils......................................................................9
4.5
Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations (Outdoor Covered
Classroom and Supply Warehouse Buildings).......................................9
4.6
Shallow Foundation Settlements (Outdoor Covered Classroom
and Supply Warehouse Buildings).......................................................10
4.7
Shallow Foundation Excavations (Outdoor Covered Classroom
and Supply Warehouse Buildings).......................................................10
4.8
Deep Foundation Design Recommendations (Staff NCO Academy) ...
11
4. R 1 Axial Compression Capacity Recommendations .......................11
4.8.2 Pile Group Settlement................................................................13
4.8.3 Test Piles...................................................................................13
4.8.4 Dynamic Testing........................................................................14
4.8.5 Establishing Pile Driving Criteria................................................15
4.8.6 Allowable Driving Stresses........................................................15
4.8.7 Hammer Types and Energies....................................................16
4.8.8 Driven Pile Installation Monitoring..............................................16
4.8.9 Adjacent Structures....................................................................17
4.9
Building Floor Slabs.............................................................................18
4.10
Pavement Design................................................................................18
4.11
Design Soil Parameters.......................................................................20
4.12
Seismic Evaluation...............................................................................20
4.13
Soil Permeability..................................................................................20

TABLE OF CONTENTS cont.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................22
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns.................................................22
5.2 Site Utility Installation...........................................................................22
5.3 Excavations.........................................................................................22
6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS.................................................................................23
APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION PLANS
APPENDIX II PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED BORINGS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE
FEASABILITY STUDY DATED AUGUST 12, 2012 ALONG WITH THE
BORING LOCATION SKETCHES
APPENDIX III COMPREHENSIVE LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX IV BORING LOGS
APPENDIX V GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
APPENDIX VI DCP TEST DATA
APPENDIX VII CAMP JOHNSON SEASONAL HIGH WATER DETERMINATIONS
REPORT
APPENDIX VIII HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX IX L-PILE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX X CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
• Solufions. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-110G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project consists of a single contract to design and build a two story 85,498 square
foot Academy Instruction Building to house the Staff NCO Academy at Camp Johnson,
a 43,562 square foot parade and drill field, a 4,000 square foot outdoor covered
classroom area, a minimum 250 space surface parking lot and a one story 5,113 square
foot supply warehouse building, and associated site work.
It is expected that the structures will be of steel frame and/or CMU wall design with brick
veneer exterior walls supported by deep foundations (NCO Academy Instruction
Building) and shallow foundations for the outdoor covered classroom and supply
warehouse buildings. The maximum column and/or wall foundation loads provided by
the client associated with the NCO Academy Instruction building are not expected to
exceed 300 kips and 4 to 5 kips per linear foot, respectively. The maximum column
and/or wall foundation loads provided by the client associated with the one story
Outdoor Covered Classroom and Supply Warehouse buildings are not expected to
exceed 30 kips and 2 to 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. The ground floors are
anticipated to be of slab -on -grade design with the distributed loads estimated at 150
pounds per square foot. The structures' first floor elevation(s) are expected to be
located slightly above existing site grade elevations. Based on the grading plan
provided by the client, the cut and/or fill operations are not anticipated to exceed from
about 1 to 3 feet.
Also, light and heavy duty paved parking and drive lanes and BMP systems are planned
for this development, along with other infrastructure components.
Our field exploration program included twenty six (26) 3 to 80-foot deep Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) and hand auger borings, along with infiltration and CBR testing.
A brief description of the natural subsurface soil conditions is tabulated below:
AVERAGE DEPTH
STRATUM
DESCRIPTION
RANGES OF
SPTr't N-
(Feet)
VALUES
0
6 inches of topsoil material was encountered at
to
Surficial
the boring locations. 2.5 to 4.75 inches of asphalt
0.21 — 0.5
and 4 to 8.5 inches of Gravel at Al through A-4
boring locations
SAND (SP-SM, SM, SC) with varying amounts of
SAND
0.21 — 0.5
silt and/or clay; interbedded layers of CLAY (CL,
WOH(ZI to
to
I
CL-CH) ranging from 4 to 18.5 feet below the
100
25 to 80
existing site grade elevations at the location of
CLAY
borings B-2, B-4 through B-6, W-1, W-2 and
BMP-1
2 to 15
Note (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, N-Values in Blows -per -foot
2 WOH = Weight of Hammer
"lurions, Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-110G
The groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through
the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial
groundwater table encountered at the boring locations was measured to occur at a
depth ranging from about 8 to 14 feet below current grades corresponding to elevations
ranging from about 6 to 9 feet MSL. The variation in groundwater depths are anticipated
to have been contributed by the variations in existing site grade elevations and the
associated distance between boring locations. The boreholes were backfilled and
grouted in accordance with DENR requirements upon completion for safety
considerations, thus these readings may not be indicative of the static groundwater
level.
Groundwater was not encountered at boring A-1 through A-4 locations at the time of
drilling to depths explored.
Also, the soils recovered from boring BMP-1 through BMP-10 locations (storm water
management area borings) were visually classified to identify color and texture changes
to aid in indicating the normal estimated Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT). The
results are provided in Appendix VII Camp Johnson Seasonal High Water
Determinations.
The following evaluations and recommendations were developed based on our field
exploration and laboratory -testing program:
■ A field testing program is recommended during construction. This testing
program should include as a minimum, subgrade load testing (proofrolling),
compaction testing, and PDA testing and pile installation monitoring.
■ The proposed construction area should be cleared by means of removing the
existing topsoil, stumps, associated root mat and asphalt. It is estimated that a
cut of 2.5 to 4.75 inches in depth will be required to remove the asphalt materials
at boring A-1 through A-4 locations. Based on the SPT borings, it is estimated
that a cut of about 6 inches in depth will be required to remove the topsoil
material; however, a majority of the project sites were previously wooded and is
expected to contain varying amounts of organic laden soils. As such, based on
our experience with similar site conditions (wooded areas) this initial cut to
remove organic laden soils and root mat could extend to 12 to 18 inches. This
cut is expected to extend deeper in isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of
unsuitable material which become evident during the clearing. It is recommended
that the clearing operations extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter
of the proposed construction areas.
• Shallow foundations (Outdoor Covered Classroom and Supply Warehouse
structures) designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf (24-inch
embedment, 24-inch width). Estimated post -construction total and differential
settlements up to 1-inch and'/2-inch, respectively.
Solutions. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-110G
• NCO Academy Instruction Building - deep foundation design comprised of driven,
SPPC piles can be implemented to support the structure's frame. Some design
capacities are presented below.
Allowable
Allowable
Lateral
Lateral
Pile Depth,
'Compression
Tension
Capacity
Capacity
Pre-Augering
PPile Type
(De
Capacity
Capacity
Free Head .
Fixed Head
Depth
(tons)
(tons)
Condition
Condition
(ft)
(tons)(')
(tons)(')
12" SPPC
50 to 60
60 to 70
30
2.5
6.5
10 to 15
' Depth below the existing site grades at the boring locations. The pile tip depth will vary due to the dittenng
soil stratigraphy: 50 feet (boring B-1), 55 feet (borings B-2, B-3, B-0, B-5) and 60 feet (borings BF, B-7, B-8)
locations.
(2) According to the 2009 IBC, Section 1810.3.3.2, the recommended allowable lateral capacity is based on one-
half of the lateral load that produces 1 inch of lateral displacement. Batter piles would enhance lateral
capacity.
• The floor slabs may be constructed as slab -on -grade members provided the
recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly.
• The parking area pavements may be designed using a CBR Value of 17.25.
• This site is classified as a site Class D, based on which seismic designs should
be incorporated. This recommendation is based on the data obtained from the 25
to 80-foot deep SPT borings, our experience with 100-foot deep CPT soundings
and SPT borings performed within the vicinity of the project site, as well as the
requirements indicated in the North Carolina State Building Code (2009
International Building Code).
This summary briefly discusses some of the major topics mentioned in the attached
report. Accordingly, this report should be read in its entirety to thoroughly evaluate the
contents.
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11OG
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Project Authorization
G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our subsurface investigation and geotechnical
engineering services for the proposed P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities project located
within the Camp Lejeune military installation in North Carolina. The Geotechnical
Engineering Services were conducted in general accordance with G E T Solutions, Inc.
Proposal No. PJX12-124G (revised 10-9-13). Furthermore, these services were provided in
conjunction with the previously completed feasibility study dated August 21, 2012 (GER
Project No. 110-5980). Authorization to proceed with the Geotechnical Engineering
Services was received from Mr. Craig Schneider of Whiting -Turner Contracting Co.
1.2 Project Description
The project consists of a single contract to design and build a two story 85,498 square foot
Academy Instruction Building to house the Staff NCO Academy at Camp Johnson, a 43,562
square foot parade and drill field, a 4,000 square foot outdoor covered classroom area, a
minimum 250 space surface parking lot and a one story 5,113 square foot supply
warehouse building, and associated site work.
It is expected that the structures will be of steel frame and/or CMU wall design with brick
veneer exterior walls supported by deep foundations (NCO Academy Instruction Building)
and shallow foundations for the outdoor covered classroom and supply warehouse
buildings. The maximum column and/or wall foundation loads provided by the client
associated with the NCO Academy Instruction building are not expected to exceed 300 kips
and 4 to 5 kips per linear foot, respectively. The maximum column and/or wall foundation
loads provided by the client associated with the one story Outdoor Covered Classroom and
Supply Warehouse buildings are not expected to exceed 30 kips and 2 to 3 kips per linear
foot, respectively. The ground floors are anticipated to be of slab -on -grade design with the
distributed loads estimated at 150 pounds per square foot. The structures' first floor
elevation(s) are expected to be located slightly above existing site grade elevations. Based
on the grading plan provided by the client, the cut and/or fill operations are not anticipated
to exceed from about 1 to 3 feet.
Also, light and heavy duty paved parking and drive lanes and BMP systems are planned for
this development, along with other infrastructure components.
If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform G E T Solutions,
Inc. so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate.
Solutioru. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11 OG
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions at
the proposed project site. The subsurface conditions encountered were then evaluated
with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering
assessments for the following items were formulated:
1. General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the
proposed development.
2. General location and description of potentially deleterious material
encountered in the borings that may interfere with construction progress or
structure performance, including existing fills, expansive soils, or
surficial/subsurface organics.
3. Soil subgrade preparation, including stripping, grading and compaction.
Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of approved structural fill
material.
4. Construction considerations for fill placement, subgrade preparation, and
foundation excavations.
5. Feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the proposed
Outdoor Covered Classroom and Supply Warehouse structures. Design
parameters required for the foundation system, including foundation sizes,
allowable bearing pressures, foundation levels and expected total and
differential settlements.
6. Feasibility of utilizing deep foundation systems for support of the proposed
NCO Academy Instruction building. Design parameters required for a deep
foundation system including pile types, pile lengths, allowable capacities,
expected total and differential settlements, and pile installation and testing
criteria.
Typical parking area pavement sections recommendations based on the
results of our field and laboratory testing program (Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer (DCP) testing) and our experience with similar soil conditions.
Permeability (infiltration) values are provided based on the results of in -situ
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Testing performed within the proposed
storm water management basins as well as our experience with similar soil
conditions. Normal seasonal high groundwater table (SHWT) was also
estimated.
9. Seismic site class determination in accordance with the 2009 International
Building Code.
Solutions. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11 OG
The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the
presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock,
surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Prior to development of
this site, an environmental assessment is advisable.
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
2.1 Field Exploration
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
foundation parameters, eight (8) 80-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings
(designated as B-1 through B-8) and four (4) 25-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
borings (designated as C-1, C-2, W-1 and W-2) were drilled within the proposed structures'
footprints.
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
pavement design parameters, four (4) 3-foot deep hand auger borings (designated as A-1
through A-4) were drilled within the proposed parking and drive lane areas (currently an
existing parking lot to be re -constructed as part of this project).
To aid in developing associated storm water management parameters, nine (9) shallow
hand auger borings (varying depths) were advanced within the proposed storm water
management areas (designated as BMP-2 through BMP-10) and one (1) 14-foot deep hand
auger boring designated as BMP1 were drilled. The purpose of these borings was to
quantify the depth of the seasonal high water table (SHWT). The results are provided in
Appendix VII Camp Johnson Seasonal High Water Determinations. In addition, nine (9)
saturated hydraulic conductivity tests (in -situ) were completed at these hand auger boring
locations within the proposed stormwater management areas located throughout the
project site.
The SPT borings were performed with the use of rotary wash "mud" drilling procedures in
general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The tests were performed continuously from the
existing ground surface to depths of 10 and 12-feet, and at 5-foot intervals thereafter. The
soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4" I.D., 2" O.D., 30" long split -spoon sampler.
The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches, using an
automatic hammer. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch
increment of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the
second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value (uncorrected for
automatic hammer). A representative portion of each disturbed split -spoon sample was
collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our
laboratory for review.
The recently completed borings were performed in conjunction with the previously
completed borings associated with the project's feasibility study dated August 21, 2012
(GER Project No. 110-5980). Accordingly, four (4) 80-foot deep SPT borings identified as
B-1 through B-4, one (1) CPT boring identified as SCPTu-1 (Staff NCO Academy building
M
tions. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11OG
borings) and three (3) 15-foot deep SPT parking area borings identified as S-1 through S-3
performed during the initial feasibility study for the proposed project, are included herein in
Appendix II and in our evaluations and recommendations for this project. The remaining
borings performed during the initial feasibility study are not included in this report as these
borings could not be accurately located within the project area.
The boring locations were established and staked in the field by the client. The approximate
boring locations are shown on the attached "Boring Location Plans" (Appendix 1), which
were reproduced based on the site plans provided by the client. The boring elevations (as
indicated on the logs) were estimated from the General Site Plan and their accuracy is not
warranted.
A boring schedule tabulating the SPT boring depths and locations is presented Appendix IX.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass
jars, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis. The soil
classification was performed by a Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with ASTM D2488.
A total of forty one (41) representative soil samples were selected and subjected to
laboratory testing which included Atterberg Limit and/or natural moisture and 4200 sieve
wash testing and analysis, in order to corroborate the visual classification. These test
results are provided in Appendix III and are also presented on the "Boring Log" sheets in
Appendix IV.
A total of four (4) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were completed within the area
of the existing asphalt parking lot along with four (4) 3-foot deep hand auger borings. The
results of the field Kessler DCP testing procedures are presented in Appendix VI.
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location and Description
The proposed project sites are generally located within two sections of the Camp Johnson
portion of the MCB Camp Lejeune, NC. The project areas generally consist of recently
timbered open lands and an existing asphalt paved parking lot. These sites are located
between Hoover Road and Wilson Drive (NCO Academy Instruction and the outdoor
covered classroom buildings) and abutting Monford Landing Road (supply warehouse
building). The project sites are bordered in all directions by various MCB Camp Lejeune
facilities. The sites are generally level with existing grade elevations generally ranging from
about 13 to 16 feet MSL (NCO Academy Instruction and the outdoor covered classroom
building areas) and about 17 to 18 feet MSL (supply warehouse building area), as indicated
on the Grading and Drainage Plans provided by the client.
Solutions. Inc

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11OG
3.2 Site Geology
The project site lies within a major physiographic province called the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine,
lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, and
generally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts and clays.
Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the geologic stratigraphy
encountered in our subsurface explorations generally consisted of marine deposited sands,
silts and clays. Based on our review of the Geologic Map of North Carolina 1985, the
project area is within the Belgrade formation which consists of oyster mounds in tan and
orange sand with fossiliferous clayey sand.
3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions
The results of our field exploration indicated the presence of approximately 6 inches of
topsoil material at the boring locations B-1 through B-8, C-1 a, C-2, W-1, W-2 and BMP-1.
The In addition, the results of our field exploration also indicated the presence of
approximately 2.5 to 4.75 inches of asphalt and about 4 to 8.5 inches of gravel materials at
boring locations A-1 through A-4. The topsoil, asphalt and gravel material thicknesses are
expected to vary between boring locations and throughout the sites.
Underlying the topsoil, asphalt and gravel materials and extending to the SPT boring
termination depths, the subsurface soils encountered generally consisted of SAND (SP-SM,
SM, SC) with varying amounts of silt and clay. As an exception, interbedded layers of Clay
(CL, CL-CH) were encountered at boring locations B-2 and B-4 (4 to 6 feet), B-5 (6 to 8
feet), B-6 (6 to 10 feet), W-1 (4 to 8 feet), W-2 (13.5 to 18.5 feet) and BMP-1 (4 to 7 feet).
The (SPT) results, N-values, recorded within the granular soil layer ranged from Weight -of -
Hammer (WOH) to 100 blows -per -foot (BPF) indicating a very loose to very dense relative
density. The N-values, recorded within the cohesive soils ranged from 2 to 15 (BPF),
indicating a very soft to stiff consistency.
The previously completed borings associated with the project's feasibility study dated
August 21, 2012 (GER Project No. 110-5980) indicated similar soil conditions with the
exception of Clay (CH) which was encountered at GER borings B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 from
depths ranging from about 17 to 24 feet and S-1 from depths ranging from about 4 to 6 feet
Solutions. Inc

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11 OG
The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil
strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included on the "Boring
Log" sheets (Appendix IV) and in the "Generalized Soil Profile" (Appendix V), which should
be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown
on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual
boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations.
The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and
the transition may be gradual or occur between sample intervals. It is noted that the topsoil
designation references the presence of surficial organic laden soil, and does not represent
any particular quality specification. This material is to be tested for approval prior to use.
3.4 Groundwater Information
The groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through the
wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial groundwater
table encountered at the boring locations was measured to occur at a depth ranging from
about 8 to 14 feet below current grades corresponding to elevations ranging from about 6
to 9 feet MSL. The variation in groundwater depths are anticipated to have been
contributed by the variations in existing site grade elevations and.the associated distance
between boring locations. The boreholes were backfilled and grouted in accordance with
DENR requirements upon completion for safety considerations, thus these readings may
not be indicative of the static groundwater level.
Groundwaterwas not encountered at boring A-1 through A-4 locations at the time of drilling
to depths explored.
Also, the soils recovered from boring BMP-1 through BMP-10 locations (storm water
management area borings) were visually classified to identify color and texture changes to
aid in indicating the normal estimated Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT). The results are
provided in Appendix VI Camp Johnson Seasonal High Water Determinations completed
by Land Management Group, Inc. dated January 7, 2014.
It should be noted that perched water conditions may occur throughout the site during
periods of heavy precipitation and/or during the wet season. The perched condition is
anticipated to occur in areas where shallow subsurface cohesive soils were encountered.
These soils will act as a restrictive layer allowing excessive moisture to accumulate within
the overlying granular soils.
Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions,
such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences,
such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved
parking lots, sidewalks, etc.). Seasonal groundwater fluctuations of± 2 feet (or more) are
common in the project's area; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. We
recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the
construction to determine groundwater impact on the construction procedures.
• Solutions. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11 OG
4.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, our
interpretation of the soil test borings and laboratory data, and our observations during our
site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we
request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.
4.1 Clearing and Grading
The proposed construction area should be cleared by means of removing the existing
topsoil, stumps, associated root mat and asphalt. It is estimated that a cut of 2.5 to 4.75
inches in depth will be required to remove the asphalt materials at boring A-1 through A-4
locations. Based on the SPT borings, it is estimated that a cut of about 6 inches in depth
will be required to remove the topsoil material; however, a majority of the project sites were
previously wooded and is expected to contain varying amounts of organic laden soils. As
such, based on our experience with similar site conditions (wooded areas) this initial cut to
remove organic laden soils and root mat could extend to 12 to 18 inches. This cut is
expected to extend deeper in isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of unsuitable
material which become evident during the clearing. It is recommended that the clearing
operations extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed
construction areas.
Following the initial clearing, the resulting exposed subgrade will generally be comprised of
SAND (SM) and GRAVEL (borings A-1 through A-4. Accordingly, combinations of excess
surface moisture from precipitation ponding on the site and the construction traffic,
including heavy compaction equipment, may create pumping and general deterioration of
the bearing capabilities of the surface soils. Therefore, undercutting to remove loose soils in
isolated areas may be required. The extent of the undercut will be determined in the field
during construction based on the outcome of the field testing procedures (subgrade
proofroll). In this regard, and in order to reduce undercutting, care should be exercised
during the grading and construction operations at the site.
Control of surface water is very important to the successful completion of the proposed
construction. The contractor should plan his grading activities to control surface water and
minimize erosion of exposed cut or fill material. This may include constructing temporary
berms, ditches, flumes and/or slope drains to intercept runoff and discharge it in a
controlled fashion, while complying with state and local regulations.
7 GET
OUR

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-110G
4.2 Subgrade Preparation
Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a
large static drum roller. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be
evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the subgrade soils should be
proofrolled to check for pockets of loose material hidden beneath a crust of better soil.
Several passes should be made by a large rubber -tired roller or loaded dump truck over the
construction areas, with the successive passes aligned perpendicularly. The number of
passes will be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer depending on the soils
conditions. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the
initial cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the directions of the Geotechnical
Engineer.
The prepared subgrade should be sloped to prevent the accumulation and/or ponding of
surface water. If the exposed subgrade becomes wet or frozen, the geotechnical engineer
should be consulted.
Following the proofroll and approval by the engineer, it is recommended that the newly
exposed subgrade soils be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the
Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557), as tested to a depth of at least 12
inches. The suitability of compacting the natural subgrade soils should be more accurately
determined in the field by the G E T Solutions, Inc. representative at the time of
construction as the compaction operations could deteriorate the subgrade soil conditions.
Accordingly, it is anticipated that this site will require monitoring of the clearing, subgrade
preparation, and fill placement procedures by a G E T Solutions, Inc. representative in
order to minimize potential deterioration of the natural subgrade soils. The compaction
testing of the natural subgrade soils may be waived by the Geotechnical Engineer, where
firm and stable bearing conditions are observed during the proofroll.
4.3 Structural Fill and Placement
Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by the Geotechnical Engineer, the
placement of the fill required to establish the design grades may begin. Any material to be
used for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by G E T Solutions, Inc, prior to
placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fill
material should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 20% by weight of fines (SP,
SP-SM, SM, SW, SW-SM, GP, GP -GM, GW, GW-GM), having a liquid limit less than 20
and plastic limit less than 6, and should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other
unsuitable material.
Solutions, Inc:

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET ProjectNo: JX13-11 OG
All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the Modified
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). In general, the compaction should be
accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically
compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A representative of
G E T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure
that adequate compaction is achieved.
Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of structural
fill (as described above), and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D1557.
This fill should be placed in 4 to 6 inch loose lifts when hand compaction equipment is
used. This lift thickness can be increased to 8 to 10 inches if suitably sized compaction
equipment is used to ensure the bottom of the lift is properly compacted.
Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoid
transmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. In
this regard, it is recommended that the vibratory roller remain at least 25 feet away from
existing structures; these areas should be compacted with small, hand -operated
compaction equipment.
4.4 Suitability of On -site Soils
The shallow subsurface soils encountered at the boring locations and classified to consist
of Silty SAND (SM) and SAND (SP-SM) appear to meet the criteria recommended in this
report for reuse as structural fill. Further classification testing (natural moisture content,
gradation analysis, and Proctor testing) should be performed in the field during construction
to evaluate the suitability of excavated soils for reuse as fill within building and pavement
areas. The remaining on -site excavated soils (CLAY (CL, CL-ML) and SAND (SC) are not
anticipated to be suitable for re -use as structural fill but may be used as fill within green
areas.
Non-structural green areas should be compacted to at least 85 percent of ASTM D1557.
4.5 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations (Outdoor Covered Ciassroom
and Supply Warehouse structures)
Provided that the construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed structures
can be supported by shallow spread footings bearing upon firm natural soil or well
compacted structural fill material. The footings can be designed using a net allowable soil
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the
footings and backfill over the footings, including the weight of the floor slab, need not be
considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above the finished floor need to be used for
dimensioning the footings.
In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot
(psf), the base of the footings should have an embedment of at least 24 inches beneath
finished grades and wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. In addition,
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-110G
isolated square column footings are recommended to be a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet in
area for bearing capacity consideration. The recommended 24-inch footing embedment is
considered sufficient to provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearing
soils.
4.6 Shallow Foundation Settlements - (Outdoor Covered Classroom and Supply
Warehouse structures)
It is estimated that, with proper site preparation including the subsurface improvements
noted above (where required), the maximum resulting post construction total settlement of
the proposed building foundations should be up to 1 inch, as contributed by the foundation
bearing soils. The maximum differential settlement magnitude is expected to be less than
-inch between adjacent footings (wall footings and column footings of widely varying
loading conditions), as contributed by the foundation bearing soils. The settlements were
estimated on the basis of the results of the SPT borings. Careful Feld control will contribute
substantially towards minimizing the settlements.
4.7 Shallow Foundation Excavations (Outdoor Covered Classroom and Supply
Warehouse structures)
In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into
firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill. All foundation excavations should be
observed by G E T Solutions, Inc. At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer should also
explore the extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the
exposed excavations. Also, at the time of footing observations, the Geotechnical Engineer
may find it necessary to make hand auger borings or use a hand penetration device in the
bases of the foundation excavations.
If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations,
the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with
"flowable fill", an open graded washed stone (such as No. 57 stone), or a suitable structural
fill material compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557), as described in Section 4.3 of this report, prior to
concrete placement.
Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of
all footings be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers, to a dry density of at
least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) as tested to a
depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized
areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be adequately
recompacted. The compaction testing in the base of the footings may be waived by the
Geotechnical Engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the footing
inspections.
Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected
against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain orfrost.
Solutions. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11OG
Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to
pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed the same day the excavation is
made. If this is not possible, the footing excavations should be adequately protected.
4.8 Deep Foundation Design Recommendations (NCO Academy Instruction
Building)
The following sections describe the pile capacity analyses and provide our
recommendations for static axial compressive pile capacities, pile testing program, and pile
construction criteria. In addition, we have provided estimates of potential settlement.
We evaluated a driven precast prestressed concrete pile deep foundation system to
support the proposed structure's frame. Other means (deep foundation) of supporting the
structure may be considered however it is anticipated that the SPPC pile foundations will be
the most cost effective and practical approach.
4.8.1 Axial Compression Capacity Recommendations
We conducted pile capacity analyses using static formulas with coefficients recommended
by Geoffrey Myerhoff and George Sowers. The analyses include the contributions of shaft
friction and end bearing to the pile capacity. The piles are expected to derive their capacity
from a combination of shaft friction and end bearing in the deeper Sand layers at the depth
presented in the table (Table 1) on the following page.
The soil materials typically exhibit time -dependent strength characteristics; consequently
shaft friction and end bearing support tend to increase from initial installation through a
process termed "soil setup". Essentially, the dynamics of driving piles will cause excess
pore pressures to develop, thereby decreasing driving resistance during initial pile
installation. The pile capacities developed during driving are usually much lower than the
design values. Once driving is complete, the excess pore pressures dissipate with time
(and soil setup occurs) and the bearing capacity of the pile will increase. Based upon our
experience with similar projects in the area, 5 to 7 days is usually required for the full pore
pressures to dissipation and soil setup to occur.
For the reasons previously described, it will not be possible to confirm pile capacities with a
simple driving criterion such as number of hammer blows per foot of advanced pile.
Instead, driving criteria will likely consist of a target tip elevation and/or certain embedded
length in a bearing material with specified driving resistance. The specified driving
resistance should be based on a Wave Equation Analysis of the contractor's selected
hammer.
Solutions. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11OG
Table I provides our recommended pile type for the structure's foundations. The allowable
capacity for the piles includes a safety factor of at least 2.0 to allow for a pile load test
program that relies primarily on dynamic testing. The capacity of a group of piles spaced at
least 3 pile diameters apart, center to center, can be taken as the sum of the individual
capacities with no reduction factor. If closer pile spacing is anticipated, the geotechnical
engineer should be contacted to evaluate the efficiency of the specific pile group. The final
order lengths and tip elevations will be adjusted based on the results of the test piles and
load test programs.
Table I- SPPC Pile Recommendations
Allowable
Allowable
Lateral
Capacity
Lateral
Capacity
Pre-Augering
PPile Type
Pile Depth
Compression
Capacity
Tension
Capacity
Free Head
Fixed Head
Depth
(ft)t') -
Condition(2) =
Condition
(ff)
(tons)
(tons)
tonstons
12" SPPC
50 to 60
60 to 70
30
2.5
6.5
10 to 15
Depth below the existing site grades at the boring locations. The pile tip depth will vary due to the dnrenng soil
stratigraphy: 50 feet (boring B-1); 55 feet (borings B-2, B-3, B4, B-5) and 60 feet (borings B-6, B-7, B-8)
locations.
(2) According to the 2009 IBC, Section 1810.3.3.2, the recommended allowable lateral capacity is based on one-half
of the lateral load that produces 1 inch of lateral displacement. Batter piles would enhance lateral capacity.
The lateral analysis was conducted using L-Pile Plus, a computer software package by
ENSOFT. The software requires as input, quantitative data related to strength and
deformation behavior of the subsurface materials, the structural properties of the pile, and
an understanding of shaft/soil interaction during lateral loading. The program calculates the
lateral deflections, internal moment forces and internal shear forces experienced by a pile
subjected to the specific loading conditions. The program does not analyze whether the
pile is structurally capable of resisting the moments and shear stresses generated. This
analysis should be performed by the project structural engineer. The L-Pile analysis is
attached to this report (Appendix IX).
We recommend pre-augering the pile locations prior to driving to the depth shown in the
table. This is necessary to help in minimizing the effects of vibrations from the driving effort
on adjacent buildings, penetrate fill materials and to reduce the potential for pile breakage.
Following the pre-augering, the piles should be installed and advanced by driving with an
impact hammer to their design tip elevations. If for some reason during construction, pile
driving "capacity" is encountered before the piles reach their design tip elevations, the
Geotechnical Engineer should be retained to review driving records and field reports to
determine whether the pile can adequately support the design loads. If the pile driving
hammer is not properly matched to the pile type, size and subsurface conditions, it may
reach practical refusal before the pile reaches the design tip elevation, or the required
capacity.
12 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-110G
4.8.2 Pile Group Settlement
Based on the results of load tests performed on piles driven in similar soils conditions, it is
anticipated that the total butt settlements (including elastic shortening) will not exceed about
'/z-inch, which is the settlement necessary to mobilize the soil/pile capacity in combination
with the pile group settlements due to the stress increase in the underlying soils.
4.8.3 Test Piles
We recommend that a test pile program be implemented for the purpose of assisting in the
development of final tip elevations and to confirm that the contractor's equipment and
installation methods are acceptable. The test program should involve at least five (5) test
piles to provide an indication of various driving and/or installation conditions. The test pile
locations should be established by the Geotechnical Engineer based on the structural
characteristics. It is important to note the relationship between the required testing and our
design assumptions. We chose safety factors based upon the recommended pile testing
program. We expect that the pile testing program will include primarily dynamic evaluation
with a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA).
The piles should be driven using the drive system submitted by the contractor and
approved by the geotechnical engineer. Test pile lengths should be at least ten feet longer
than anticipated production pile lengths to ensure that the required capacity is developed,
to allow for refinement of estimated capacities, and for dynamic and static testing reasons.
The indicator piles installed during the Test Pile Program, which satisfy the geotechnical
engineer's requirements for proper installation, may also be used as permanent production
piles.
The contractor should include in his equipment submittal a Wave Equation Analyses (using
GRLWEAPTM software) modeling the behavior of the test piles during driving, or what is
termed by GIRL as a "Drivability Study." The primary intent of the Wave Equation Analyses
is to estimate the feasibility of the contractor's proposed pile driving system with respect to
installing the piles. Since the results of the Wave Equation Analyses are dependent on the
chosen hammer, the pile type and length, and the subsurface conditions, it is likely that at
least one Wave Equation Analysis per hammer will be required.
Solutlons.lnc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11 OG
Pile driving equipment should not be mobilized for the test piles until the Wave Equation
Analyses have been submitted and approved by the geotechnical engineer. If the
contractor's proposed pile driving system is rejected, subsequent submittals of alternative
drive systems should also include appropriate Wave Equation Analyses that are subject to
the approval of the geotechnical engineer. The Wave Equation Analyses are also used to
estimate:
■ Compressive and tensile stresses experienced by the modeled pile during driving
• The total number of blows required to install the pile
• Driving resistance (in terms of blows per foot) within the various soil strata the pile is
embedded in
• Driving time
The results of the WEAP analyses are highly dependent on the many input parameters
related to the soil conditions, static pile capacity estimates, as well as specific
characteristics associated with different makes and models of pile driving hammers.
4.8.4 Dynamic Testing
Dynamic testing was developed as a method of improving upon the reliability of the wave
equation and other dynamic predictions by actually measuring the acceleration and strain of
a pile during driving. This technique was developed in the mid-1960's and has been
continually refined. The use of dynamic pile testing has permitted the possibility of
checking the driving stresses in the pile and the hammer performance during pile driving. It
is also possible to estimate the static capacity of the pile based upon the strain and
acceleration measurements taken during pile driving.
The test pile installation should be monitored by the Geotechnical Engineer using the PDA,
an electronic device that records driving stresses and pile/soil interactions, among other
things. The PDA results will confirm that the pile driving system (hammer type/energy,
cushion type/ thickness, etc.) can successfully install the piles without over stressing them
in compression or tension. It is essential the test pile restrikes also be monitored with the
PDA.
No sooner than 7 days after installation, all of the test piles should be re -struck while being
monitored with the PDA. This test establishes the "static capacity" of the pile. The initial
hammer blow during re -strike activities is critical to the quality of dynamic data with respect
to capacity interpretation. The contractor should make every effort to insure an initial high-
energy blow of the hammer. After several blows during re -strike activities, pore pressures
increase, soil setup diminishes, and ultimately pile capacities (as recorded by the PDA)
decrease. Loss of estimated static capacity following repeated hammer blows is the reason
the initial blows are critical.
14 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11 OG
The dynamic data recorded by the PDA during restrike testing should be further refined by
using CAPWAP@ analysis. CAPWAP@ analysis, not the initial assessment of capacity
determined by the PDA, should be the basis of static pile capacity estimates. Interpretation
of CAPWAP@ data, in the context of the soils subsurface conditions and previous static pile
capacity estimates, should allow the Geotechnical Engineer to estimate ultimate pile
capacities and recommend appropriate production pile lengths.
Our previous experience with the PDA indicates that a significant cost savings may be
realized if the PDA is properly utilized to monitor the installation of test piles, confirm pile
capacity in production installations, and monitor potentially damaging stresses during
driving. The use of the PDA permits the confirmation of allowable compression and uplift
capacities and pile integrity on several piles for a cost similar to or less than that of a single
full-scale static load test. We recommended the design builder retain the services of the
Geotechnical Engineer to perform the dynamic testing, not the installation contractor, to
avoid possible conflicts of interest.
4.8.5 Establishing Pile Driving Criteria
Prior to driving production piles, the geotechnical engineer should establish the criteria for
pile installation. The criteria will be based on the data collected during monitoring of the
test pile installation and the subsequent restriking. The intent of establishing driving criteria
is to facilitate installation of the production piles without damage and to provide a means of
establishing when piles have achieved the design capacities. The driving criteria may
include: hammer type, hammer energy, ram weight, pile cushion and thickness, hammer
cushion type and thickness, required tip elevations and driving resistance necessary to
achieve capacities, and possibly predrilling recommendations (if the test pile results warrant
the need).
4.8.6 Allowable Driving Stresses
Guidelines from the Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), and the Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) indicate that maximum compressive stresses, imposed on driven precast
concrete piles during installation, should be less than the following equation: 0.85 x fc
(concrete compressive strength, psi) - fpe (effective pre -stressing after losses from
relaxation). The three groups differ on the maximum tensile stresses. PC] recommends 6
x square root of fc + fpe ; ASHTO and ASCE recommend 3 x square root fc + fPe. We
recommend using the consensus value for the maximum compressive stress, and the
ASCE/AASHTO recommended value for the maximum tensile stress.
Solutions. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff. NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET ProjectNo: JX13-110G
4.8.7 Hammer Types and Energies
In comparing hammers of equal energy, the Prestressed Concrete Institute (PC[) states
that hammers with heavier rams and lower impact velocities are less likely to cause
damaging stresses in concrete piles. Hammers with proportionally higher ram weights and
short stroke heights (low impact velocities) are usually air, steam and hydraulic driven, and
not diesel fueled. For this project, we recommend that the contractor use a hammer
sufficiently large enough to drive through dense granular soils encountered at several of the
boring locations (typically around elevation 0 MSQ. These granular soils are expected to
undergo densification during pile installation. This densification is expected to be greater in
larger pile caps during the installation of each subsequent pile. It has been our experience
that air, steam and hydraulic hammers are more appropriate for the installation of precast
concrete piles than similarly sized (in terms of energy) diesel hammers. We recommend
that the contractor use an air, steam or hydraulic driven hammer whose ram weight is
roughly equal to 0.5 to 1.0 times the weight of the pile itself. The actual determination of an
acceptable ram weight should be determined through the results of the Test Pile Program.
If the contractor elects to use a diesel hammer, we recommend a critical, detailed review of
the contractor's Wave Equation Analysis prior to driving the test piles.
4.8.8 Driven Pile Installation Monitoring
The geotechnical engineer should observe the installation of the test piles and all
production piles. The purpose of the geotechnical engineer's observations is to determine
if production installations are being performed in accordance with the previously derived
Pile Driving Criteria. Continuous driving and installation records should be maintained for
all driven piles. Production piles should be driven utilizing the approved system established
as a result of the Test Program.
The field duties of the geotechnical engineer (or a qualified engineer's representative)
should include the following:
Being knowledgeable of the subsurface conditions at the site and the project -specific
Pile Driving Criteria.
Being aware of aspects of the installation including type of pile driving equipment
and pile installation tolerances.
• Keeping an accurate record of pile installation and driving procedures.
Documenting that the piles are installed to the proper depth indicative of the
intended bearing stratum. Also documenting that appropriate pile splicing
techniques are used, if necessary.
Recording the number of hammer blows for each foot of driving.
• Generally confirming that the pile driving equipment is operating as anticipated.
Solutions. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-110G
• Record the energy rating of the hammer.
• Informing the geotechnical engineer of any unusual subsurface conditions or driving
conditions.
• Notifying the design builder and structural engineer when unanticipated difficulties or
conditions are encountered.
• Confirming from visual appearance that the piles are not damaged during installation
and observing the piles prior to installation for defective workmanship. The
geotechnical engineer should review all driving records prior to pile cap construction.
4.8.9 Adjacent Structures
When considering the suitability of a driven pile foundation, consideration should be given
to the integrity of nearby structures, if applicable. Due to the large amount of energy
required to install driven deep foundations, vibrations of considerable magnitude are
generated. These vibrations may affect nearby structures. These structures can, due to
their proximity, be detrimentally affected by the construction unless proper protection
measures are taken. In addition, experience has shown that these construction features
will often lead adjacent property owners to conclude that damage to their property has
taken place, even though none has occurred. It is therefore recommended that a thorough
survey of the adjacent property be made prior to starting construction. This will help to
better evaluate real claims and refute groundless nuisance claims. The survey should
include, but not be limited to, the following:
Visually inspect adjacent structures, noting and measuring all cracks and
other signs of distress. Take photographs as needed.
2. Visually inspect adjacent pavements, noting and measuring any significant
cracks, depressions, etc. Take photographs as needed.
3. Establish several benchmarks along foundation walls on adjacent structures.
Both vertical and horizontal control should be employed.
4. Determine if equipment in any adjacent building is sensitive to vibration, and
if so, establish proper control and monitoring system.
17 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET ProjectNo: JX13-11OG
4.9 Building Floor Slabs
The building floor slabs may be constructed as slab -on -grade members provided the
previously recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It is
recommended that the ground floor slab be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of
relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5%
passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as a
capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab. The slabs can be
designed with the use of a subgrade modulus on the order of about 125 psi/in for
compacted structural fill.
It is recommended that all ground floor slabs be "floating". That is, generally ground
supported and not rigidly connected to walls or foundations. This is to minimize the
possibility of cracking and displacement of the floor slabs because of differential
movements between the slab and the foundation.
It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or
retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the
performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor
resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions or other
considerations require greater vapor resistance protection; consideration should be given to
using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the
Architect based on project requirements.
4.10 Pavement Design (Parking Area)
The field DCP testing indicated correlated in -place CBR values ranging from 7 to 24 at
depths of about 36 inches below the existing site grade elevations at the A-1 through A-4
parking area boring locations. Therefore, on a preliminary basis, an average CBR value of
17.25 may be used in designing the pavement section thicknesses. At this time our
services did not include an AASHTO pavement design analysis. G E T Solutions, Inc.
would be pleased to provide these services as well as a laboratory CBR analysis as
necessary once the need has been determined.
The results of the field DCP testing procedures are presented in Appendix VI.
Solutions. Inc:

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11OG
Typical pavement design recommendations are presented below (Table II).
Table II — Typical Minimum Pavement Sections
Hot Mix Asphalt
Concrete
Aggregate
Surface -(SF-
Intermediate
Section,
Base"
Subgrade
9.5A or 9.56)
(1-196
Standard Duty
2
8
Firm, Stable and
Asphalt
Compacted
Heavy Duty
Z
3„
81,
Firm, Stable and
Asphalt
Compacted
Rigid
8
8
Firm, Stable and
Standard Du
Compacted
Rigid
8
Firm, Stable and
(HeavyDuty10
Compacted
Fire Lane
Firm, Stable and
(Around
-
81,
Compacted
Buildings)***
Concrete minimal compressive strength of 4500 psi at 28 days/flexural strength of 650 psi
" NCDOT Type ABC, compacted to a dry density of at least 100% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density
(ASTM D 1557).
Typically fire lanes are constructed around buildings with a Grass Paver System which is proprietary. Final
design should be provided by system manufacturer to meet H2O load rating once final fire lane alignment has
been determined.
Actual pavement section thickness should be provided by the design civil engineer based
on traffic loads, volume, and the owners design life requirements. The above sections
correspond to thickness representative of typical local construction practices and as such
periodic maintenance should be anticipated. All pavement material and construction
procedures should conform to North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
requirements.
Following pavement rough grading operations, the exposed subgrade should be observed
under proofrolling. This proofrolling should be accomplished with a fully loaded dump truck
or 7 to 10 ton drum roller to check for pockets of soft material hidden beneath a thin crust of
better soil. Any unsuitable materials thus exposed should be removed and replaced with a
well -compacted material. The inspection of these phases should be performed by the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The subgrade soils are likely to be unstable
at the time of construction and some ground improvements are likely. As such, the
project's budget should include a contingency to accommodate the potential ground
improvements.
Where excessively unstable subgrade soils are observed during proofrolling and/or fill
placement, it is expected that these weak areas can be stabilized by means of thickening
the base course layer (i.e. placement of 2 to 4 inches of additional aggregate base) and
Subgrade soils should be lined with the use of a Geotextile fabric (Mirafi HP270 or
equivalent) or Geogrid (such as Tensar TX140 or BX1100 or equivalent). These
alternatives should be addressed by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction, if
necessary, who will recommend the most economical approach at that time.
19 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11OG
4.11 Design Soil Parameters
The estimated soil parameters are presented below (Table III).
Table III - Estimated Soil Parameters
SAND
SAND
CLAY
Soil Type _.
(SM, SP,
(SM, SC,
(CL„CL-CH) -
SP SM
SP-SM
Stratum..
Structural Fill
(upper 50 feet)
Deposits
Average SPT N-value
-
8
8
Total Moist.Unit Weight
120
115
115
Friction Angle
32
30
5
degrees
Cohesion (c)
0
0
800
cf
Active Soil Pressure
0.31
0.33
0.84
Ka''
At -Rest Soil Pressure
Ko-
0.47
0.50
0.91
Passive Soil Pressure
3.25
3.00
1.19
K _
Friction Factor - =
0.39
0.39 1
0.06
4.12 Seismic Evaluation
It is noted that, in accordance with the NC Building Code; Chapter 16, this site is classified
as a site Class D, based on which seismic designs should be incorporated. This
recommendation is based on the data obtained from the 25 to 80-foot deep SPT borings,
our experience with 100-foot deep CPT soundings and SPT borings performed within the
vicinity of the project site, as well as the requirements indicated in the North Carolina State
Building Code (2009 International Building Code).
4.13 Soil Permeability
Nine (9) infiltration tests were performed at boring locations BMP-1 through BMP-6, BMP-8
through BMP-10 (one test at each location). The tests were performed at depths ranging
from 2 to 2.5 feet below the existing site grade elevations. The boreholes were prepared
utilizing an auger to remove soil clippings from the base. Infiltration testing was then
conducted within the vadose zone utilizing a Precision Permeameter and the following
testing procedures.
r�
Solufions, Inc. —__ _

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-110G
A support stand was assembled and placed adjacent to each borehole. This stand holds a
calibrated reservoir (2000 ml) and a cable used to raise and lower the water control unit
(WCU). The WCU establishes a constant water head within the borehole during testing by
use of a precision valve and float assembly. The WCU was attached to the flow reservoir
with a 2-meter (6.6 foot) braided PVC hose and then lowered by cable into the borehole to
the test depth elevation. As required by the Glover solution, the WCU was suspended
above the bottom of the borehole at an elevation of approximately 5 times the borehole
diameter. The shut-off valve was then opened allowing water to pass through the WCU to
fill the borehole to the constant water level elevation. The absorption rate slowed as the
soil voids became filled and an equilibrium developed as a wetting bulb developed around
the borehole. Water was continuously added until the flow rate stabilized. The reservoir
was then re -filled in order to begin testing. During testing, as the water drained into the
borehole and surrounding soils, the water level within the calibrated reservoirwas recorded
as well as the elapsed time during each interval. The test was continued until relatively
consistent flow rates were documented. During testing the quick release connections and
shutoff valve were monitored to ensure that no leakage occurred. The flow rate (Q), height
of the constant water level (H), and borehole diameter (D) were used to calculate KS
utilizing the Glover Solution.
Based on the field testing and corroborated with laboratory testing results (published values
compared to classification results), the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soils is
tabulated on the following page (Table IV) and is presented on the "Hydraulic Conductivity
Worksheet" (Appendix Vill), included with this report.
Table IV - Infiltration Test Results
Boring
Boring
depth
ft
Percent Silt
and/or Clay
Ksat
Value
cm/sec
Ksat
. Value
in/hr
Ksat Class
BMP-1
2.5
14.8
1.07 x 10
1.515
High
BMP-2
2.0
42.9
1.02 x 10
0.144
Moderately High
BMP-3
2.0
33.4
3.94 x 10
0.558
Moderately High
BMP4
2.0
29.8
6.95 x 104
0.985
Moderately High
BMP-5
2.0
34.9
2.24 x 104
0.317
Moderately High
BMP-6
2.0
1 46.8
8.99 x 10
0.127
1 Moderately Low
BMP-8
2.0
43.6
9.65 x 10
0.137
ModeratelyLow
BMP-9
2.0
25.0
1.21 x 10
1.718
High
BMP-10
2.0
32.5
7.94 x 10
1.125
Moderately_Hi h
Solutions. Inc.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11 OG
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns
It is expected that dewatering may be required for excavations that extend near or below
the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be
accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level
may require well pointing.
It would be advantageous to construct all fills early in the construction. If this is not
accomplished, disturbance of the existing site drainage could result in collection of surface
water in some areas, thus rendering these areas wet and very loose. Temporary drainage
ditches should be employed by the contractor to accentuate drainage during construction.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove water from the
excavations, remove saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface soils
to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
5.2 Site Utility Installation
The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector priorto the pipe
and structure placements to verify the suitability of the bearing soils. If unstable bearing
soils are encountered during installation some form of stabilization may be required to
provide suitable bedding. This stabilization is typically accomplished by providing additional
bedding materials (NCDOT No. 57 stone). In addition, depending on the depth of the utility
trench excavation, some means of dewatering may be required to facilitate the utility
installation and associated backfilling.
All utility excavations should be backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 4.3 of
this report.
5.3 Excavations
In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction
Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P". This document was issued to
better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by
this federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement
excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new (OSHA)
guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if
they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial
penalties.
22 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services February 5, 2014
P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX13-11OG
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary
excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to
maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's responsible
person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the
excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should slope height,
slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed
those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions, Inc. is
not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such
responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by
G E T Solutions, Inc. and the information supplied by the client and their consultants for
the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations
from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction,
G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the
foundation recommendations are required. If G E T Solutions, Inc. is not retained to
perform these functions, G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be responsible for the impact of
those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.
The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications or
professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally
accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other
warranties are implied or expressed.
After the plans and specifications are more complete the Geotechnical Engineer should be
provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to assure our
engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents,
in order that the earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted
and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary
recommendations. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client and
their consultants for the specific application to the proposed P003 Staff NCO Academy
Facilities project located within the Camp Lejeune military installation in North Carolina.
23 GET

APPENDICES
BORING LOCATION PLANS
II PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED BORINGS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE FEASABILITY STUDY DATED AUGUST 12, 2012
ALONG WITH THE BORING LOCATION SKETCHES
III COMPREHENSIVE LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
IV BORING LOGS
V GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
VI DCP TEST DATA
VII CAMP JOHNSON SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE
DETERMINATIONS REPORT
Vill HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS
IX L-PILE ANALYSIS
X CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

n:\2012\46e6-Da Stan NCO Academy FaCttl-\Pnasa II\GD\0VIL\Shnets\6G105.ang Moq n Dec 2012 - 11:30am tnw
rY _
m
KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Ism
i
Ln 111ct
�o
z
O
m
X_
Cn
Z
ZJ
O
O
m I��
0
[ f g f MGMfYFM Of M w.vr I4vK ftgI111R fNGxFFRWG WYWID R 3 2 4 1 4
B n & NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND - «AGENCY» 9p5 gq Bf Z
�> 3 ,� a «COYPoxFM wuE» «815C - cm. nAro> Y[ E 9 B 9 p P
CAMP JOHNSON JACKSONVILLE, NC [ a y ^g dfll
STAFF NCO ACADEMY FACILITIES
p u Z
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
IT n O
G

S n 7 c
E
8
E
i
I .J
DRAINAGE NOTES
BIO-RETENTION AREA'S
3-6" HOPE UNOERDRAINS
17
R OQe ` E
�m � �I \
' n 03 RIP,TUP-GUICET •,"ROTEMN,
• 1 _ CUES h-SFON6_
ADTH;ATIOUFEf
IH • '\ ,� WIDTH; AT _Ey0 OF PAD 15.2'; I� w, 1 ;
-LENGNf,,,lt-- " a
' - � �•10 m-n�rrn 6`+. _ .D&JHli -A �i•� uy�l A4Ar
GRADE URCH,TO. `• 1 `_�\% '
BIO-RETEN110p1'-'iy, i- Ci"�- ;I; •� ° 7 PRELIMINARY
5 ________c:...f \\\\r, NOT FOR
\ \4, CONSTRUCTION
______ ____
I m
.':•r r'>) 1'`, • 1 RIP RAP OUTLET PROTECTION ,.," n/tytt
SUPP • CUSS A STONE
-- - I PLY WgREhQU _ •'::,,, ',;_• -� ,a WIDTH AT OMFT fi.o' �m
�d;,'•, WIDTH AT END OF PAD = 15.2'
%w-� FFE 19.5, •, 38 LF - 24"IRCP`O 2,66% LENGTH = 8.0'
1 DEPTH = 9" _
'R319
,
BMP-5 p
~_ GRADE OTTCH TO`6 I a z W
BIG-RETENDON
BIO-RETENRON
3-6"'I HDPE UNDERDRAINS
LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
I \j {,LIfJ Q U W
mR �; ffy 0 z
Lu
Z
a
F-
IsU I
.I oU)
' -'
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 M. 60' 120' CG104
1-=30'
7 z A

H:\2012\46a6-D6 Stall NCO Academy Facilities\Phase II\CAD\CNIL\Sheets\CG103.n.g Man, 17 Dec 2012 - 11:34am h61e
� m
I —
14
n
/F�
H�I
CAT#53
_T___--_____-.;__
\11 `''v'
$ Ar^ F �.
Is
Lj ` I I D
(y f
2
J N4N 'I n
\- — A TIl ttll
•R ' I 4 _ .II N
y' - .d fl� � 9 ra m � m •ice 'm•o v o.� i 11,E !I !
A I meA
�2
--
1011
213 9! F �'13.1
MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET CG102
I`
R &i d NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND - «AGENCY» 'yp� A g q 3 D 4� a 6 m
$ « COUMHEM NWE» `.E - cm. nAiF» 9 F 9 9 1 g ® = s
Yl t a T� y CAMP JOHNSON JACKSONVLLE, NC ; N 9^Y� fi£n R0� g2 T; lit
,p STAFF NCO ACADEMY FACILITIES�
Cl) F i
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN

H:\2012\4666-00 Stall NCO 4aveemy Facilt.ea\Phoae n\CAD\CNlL\Sheetf\CGl02.d,g Mon. V Dec 2012 - ll:Mcm elite
I
MATCHUNE - SEE SHEET C_ G1 O3
--.--- — —--------�__ ---- ---- -----
------------------ -------
----------------- -- ------
;' I— -
6
11 1fi ________________15 ____________156 lF - 15' RC�
15 0 0.50%
18
I7 IB 7�.0
m' v 140 LF - 18' RCP
, I N I I 0 0.50% I I 1I r I to 1
'I I
I I oY _111 I J o
f{/ I s a
co Q
��= I' ql3 ii
•� I tam
;II I Zu
to I I! h I I I a I m
f mg8 I I I I ''11 I I`I i I
C/)
1'II a L! 6
, a
,
' r m
1
I v gmv v V zo 1 f�' om
m On,
0� I
_I I I I � I; oN
' II m
y,• I Z M,.r I 1'I 140 IF - 18' RCP I O1I x I I I m
m F I sa I I 0050% I I I I I
o I a a 1
rl
IQ
n
,
,
,
' I I _ of
1 - _ 18 1 I h I6
11 I-111 ___mod 7 - - a'm 16
- \ ` _------
__..�;8.--------------------------- ------------------__<-----'----_ _ - - - -
--
--- —= __________ __-,- — _ - -- -- = >-
r
,
''----- --- -
,
-----_ D ➢np-ht--` -\ iq _
__,--------
`.
o
m r
m _ -- '1
w
0 4
r
10 0
e n
m----------------
O y
7
N
= D
GO m
z
o
m m
a
"� % ff C € Dw4nrlwrt ar ,HE Mrve N.vw D0una EHGWEWY. COMMM4 y p q a €
n g 5 c a NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND — <<AGENCY>> C
^ I $ $ a $ 5 a «COY[WIFM HWE» c 8KE - —. MA—>
p l�/ R I Aia a CAMP JOHNSON JACKSONVILLE, NC g �A
C 0 STAFF NCO ACADEMY FACILITIES K e a F ®,
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN is
9 Tc AN,
w m 1

I IC
z J t J
--- -'----------
---- DRAINAGE NOTES
``
_ _____
ry h —_—
_ _ — -
1•N /g `J
J
lJNJ OF DI51'PRBANCE
NO VERTICAL,,/ T/A PROVIDE J FOR SIDEWALK
2, I{ -__
C-1' ___� ______
�0 B6 15 B7 I _-_
/4 PREIININARY
0 'Q _ _ NOTFOR
98 LF -124' RCP 0 0.481: 99 U - 18- RCP O 0.501< __ CONSTRUCTION
__
p51* - j__
--------------
ji :moo /`4 _ 14 VICe11.0 Js _ I _
QO� 85 ---------------
___-__
----------------
17/12/12
B4 69
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _•
G T B
i
-_ _\
...___ - proximate Re � - A pr � ten o ng Lo twos
a "
— -
_ -- - -- B-3 - Ima evLo R taboo %►pp ox- to r _ us E oring o s
A 0
B g� / E
g3. J.NCO ACADEMIC 3a. > w
B a INSTRUCTION BUILDING e s BmP� U
,5 <
— EFF 17.3' _ g z U-
6 ea SCPTu-1
:—
---------------
'o f g-� Belt__- B-2 B 8 �' I 4� / „�' z z
_ " ' w Z —
z tl qa
' '____"_ �
i F
3: I 16 17 Ir ;iV �LL a U) ' a� < P
n•
--_ --- ---- I- ---------------- - ------ - —
• 82 ••, '`-=—_ rs-waE UHOEAORNN _vv_E5_ Ats
{I 14
�- - _ BP-3 1116
M
I L
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET CG102 GRAPHIC SCALE
o �' so' z°'
_�. w CG101
- 7 Z n �....,®,....,m.

APPENDIX II
PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED BORINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FEASABILITY
STUDY DATED AUGUST 12, 2012 ALONG WITH THE BORING LOCATION
SKETCHES

REPORT OF
PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL
STUDY
Staff NCO Training Academy
and CIF Warehouse
Camp Johnson, MCB Camp Lejuene
Jacksonville, NC
A/E Contract N62470-12-D-2003, WE10
GER Project No. 110-5980
prepared for
NAVFAC Mid -Atlantic
Norfolk, Virginia
August 21 , 2012
GBuEnvfronme+gef Rmic>S�t.•,
- Corauttinp urea, -
Envirmmemel • Groundwater • Hazardous Materiels • Geoledrnlral • Industrial Hyglene
2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452
757-463-3200 Fax [phone] www.geronline.com

�-•. °` ti.'aCy f a,. „'` � F,L� 5�t` r. y!> tc�'.,}�Yr � r�. --, � i �� • � �� � � • ; :T�� i
rr o w r. fi i�� •r. . r � rt v,�� It ��,it `., -�•
Ll
.!GS,
t" , p t.: ^' ar o'" Y y - )> f� W� ?1iL a 'y •y`+r a r . n
' `a •i; � + r� mot. I .P�„1 Oifi'a '"^ fl` 1 u.A.y i 4i t �' � C�5 �� r
y . .,/ .
• r .1 �j tit t.: 1j ri va�f ®• ��F � rst S 1-� •�
Ap
Sor
•.
SCA
wl
SSS
♦ ri ,•k. rdA1� .� by �+ t�
t_ i t i„L' •;... ..y•w r '�: �� /�� .. C� lll± t, •yy�� .� ~� •..
14,
�. �^' ��• � .��i Rom."y°�v`. iF ,_a _ •�`;`1' .w ..� t +. ��� _: �R��

AN�LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
Environmental Consultants
January 7, 2014
Glenn W. Hohmeier,
GET Solutions, Inc.
415A Western Blvd.
Jacksonville, NC
28546
Re: Camp Johnson Seasonal High Water Table
Determinations.
Glenn,
On Monday, December 30, 2013 Land Management Group, Inc. evaluated
ten proposed stormwater basin areas for Camp Johnson, Camp, MCAS, Onslow
County. The site located on the southeast side of US 17 and adjacent to New
River within the confines of Camp Lejeune, MCAS, Jacksonville, NC. The purpose
of the evaluation was, to quantify the depth to the seasonal high water table
(SHWT) for the project engineer. Selected sites are shown in Figure One.
The soils on this site are mapped
as the
Baymeade fine sand and
Baymeade-Urban Land
Complex in the Soil
Survey
of Onslow County (USDA,
1990). The pre -selected
sites were cleared,
staked
and numbered for ease of
location. LMG collected
soils data at staked
location.
Results of the borings are
shown in Table One.
TGRI F OMF.
CAMP-JOHN-SON SOILBORINGS
nwim
'�iVlii:1NI�)Gli�
• �
��'
i Y]Y�: INS � i l
�j ♦
� jt„cj'
• �
amm
The seasonal high water table (SHWT) is normally evident by observation of
redoximorphic features suggesting past conditions of saturation and reduction. There
is evidence of relict redoximorphic features at depth in all borings. From
observation of historic and regional drainage of the lands surrounding the site

and based on soil morphological features we have estimated the contemporary SHWT.
In summary, this site has areas that are proposed for stormwater basin
placement. These areas have soils with contemporary seasonal high water tables
from 16" in boring 3 to a depth of 65" in boring 9 from the soil surface as shown in
Table 1. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions with this
report or if you wish for LMG to perform any additional site specific studies in
accordance with the NC DENR DWQ guidance memo. If you have any questions about
this report or need any additional information I may be reached at 910-452-0001, 910-
620-1137 or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
. 0, 1
G. Craig Turner Vice
President
Land Management Group, Inc 3805
Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15
Wilmington, NC28403
910-452-0001: Office
910-452-0060: FAX
910-620-1137: Cell
cturner@ Imgroup.net
N.C. Licensed Soil Scientist, #1091
S.0 Certification
Number 57
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax:
910.452.0060 3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403

Constant -Head Borehole Permeameter Test
Analytical Method: Glover Solution
GENT®
Project Name......: Staff NCO Training Academy
Boring No...........: BMP-1
Investigators.......: J. Huber; L. Brown
Project No......: JX13-110G
Proj. Location...: MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Date ..................: 12/31/2013
Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solution)
KsatB: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. TB (°C) 14
Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole
Boring Depth......: 2.5 (m, cm, ft, in)
Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm
Boring Radius r... : 4.15 cm
oil Water Tmp. T: 11 oC
Dyn. Visc. @ T'C.: 0.001271 kg/m•s
WCU Base Ht. h: 15.0 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 6.4 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 21.4 cm
H r* •••••••••••••••••••• 5.2
Dyn. Visc. @ TB°C.: 0.001170 kg/m•s
H: Constant height of water in the borehole
r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole
V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T °C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ TB
Ksat =Qfsinh-'(H r) - (r /H +1)�s +r H1/(2nH z) [Basic Glover Solu.]
IKsatB= QVIsmn I(H/r) - (rz/Hz+1)'s+ r/H]/(2nHz) [Tmp. Correction]
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml
TIME
h:mm:ssA P
Interval Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
ml min
---------- Ksate Equivalent Values------------
hr:min:sec min
cm min cm sec cm da in hr ft da
3,000
11:24:21 AM
2,900
100
11:24:57 AM
0:00:36
0.60
166.67
0.096
1.59E-03
137.5
2.256
4.51
2,800
100
11:25:39 AM
0:00:42
0.70
142.86
0.082
1.36E-03
117.9
1.934
3.8
2,700
100
11:26:23 AM
0:00:44
0.73
136.36
0.078
1.30E-03
112.5
1,846
3.69
2,600
100
11:27:12 AM
0:00:49
0.82
122.45
0.070
1.17E-03
101.1
1.658
3.32
2,500
100
11:28:07 AM
0:00:55
0.92
109.09
0.063
1.04E-03
90.0
1.477
2.95
2,400
100
11:29:01 AM
0:00:54
0.90
111.11
0.064
1.06E-03
91.7
1.504
3.01
2,300
100
11:29:56 AM
0:00:551
0.92
109.09
0.0631
1.04E-03
90.01
1.477
2.95
2,200
100
1130:51 AM
0:00:55
0.92
109.09
0.063
1.04E-03
90.0
1.477
2.95
2,100
100
11:31:42 AM
0:00:51
0.85
117.65
0.067
1.12E-03
97.1
1.593
3.19
2,000
100
11:32:34 AM
0:00:52
0.87
115.38
0.066
1.10E-03
95.2
1.562
3.12
Natural Moisture......: 12.6
lConsistency ...............: Loose
Field -Estimated Ksat:
1 0.0641
1.07E-031
92.31
1.515
3.03
USDA Tzt./USCS Class: SM
lWater Table Depth ... 8.0
Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four
stabilized values and analyzing the graph.
truct./%Pass. #200.: 14.8
11nit. Saturation Time.: 11:24:00 AM
Glover, R. E. 1953. Flow from a test -hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-71. in: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists
when the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the well.*H/r>S to >10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

Particle Size Distribution Report
,/o +3„ 0/, Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 83.1 14.8
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
1.5"
100.0
F,
100.0
.5"
100.0
.375"
100.0
#4
99.9
#8
99.9
#10
99.9
#16
99.7
#40
97.9
#100
31.1
#200
14.8
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: BMP-1
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
PL=
LL=
PI=
Coefficients
D90= 0.3603
D85= 0.3315
D60= 0.2334
D50= 0.2037
D30= 0.1466
D15= 0.0766
D10=
Cu=
Cc
Classification
USCS=
AASHTO=
Remarks
Date:
GET Client: Whiting -Turner Construction Co.
SOLUTIONS, INC. Project: P003Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Jacksonville North Carolina Project No: JX13.110G Figure

Constant -Head Borehole Permeameter Test
Analytical Method: Glover Solution
GE®
Project Name......: Staff NCO Training Academy
Boring No...........: BMP-2
Investigators.......: J. Huber; L. Brown
Project No......: JX13-11OG
Proj. Location...: MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Date ..................: 1/6/14
Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solution
Ksata: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. T. (QC) 14
Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole
Boring Depth......: 2 (m, cm, ft, in)
Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm
Boring Radius r... : 4.15 cm
ail/WaterTmp.T: 11eC
Dyn. Visc. @ T °C.: 0.001271 kg/m•s
WCU Base Ht. h: 15.0 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 6.4 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 21.4 cm
H/r­ ...................: 5.2
Dyn. Visc. @ Ta 0C.: 0.001170 kg/m•s
H: Constant height of water in the borehole
r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole
V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T "C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ Ts
Ksat=Q[sintit(H/r)-(r2/Hz+1)'s+r/H]/(2nHz)[Basic Glover Solu.]
Ksata= QV[sinh-1(H/r) - (rz/Hz+1)'s+ r/H]/(2nHz) [Tmp. Correction]
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml
TIME
h:mm:ssA P
Interval Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
ml min
---------- Ksata Equivalent Values -------------
hr:min:sec min
cm min cm sec cm da in hr 11da
120
8:00:19 AM
115
5
8:00:40 AM
0:00:21
0.35
14.29
0.008
1.36E-04
11.8
0.193
0.39
110
5
8:01:01 AM
0:00:21
0.35
14.29
0.008
1.36E-04
11.8
0.193
0.3
105
5
8:01:25 AM
0:00:24
0.40
12.50
0.007
1.19E-04
10.3
0.169
0.34
100
Si8:01:51
AM
0:00:26
0.43
11.54
0.007
1.10E-04
9.5
0.156
0.31
95
5
8:02:17 AM
0:00:26
0.43
11.54
0.007
1.10E-04
9.5
0.156
0.31
90
5
8:02:44 AM
0:00:27
0.45
11.11
0.006
1.06E-04
9.2
0.150
0.30
85
5
8:03:10 AM
0:00:261
0.43
11.54
0.0071
1.10E-04
9.51
0.156
0.31
80
5
8:03:37 AM
0:00:27
0.45
11.11
0.006
1.06E-04
9.2
0.150
0.30
75
5
8:04:08 AM
0:00:31
0.52
9.68
0.006
9.24E-05
8.0
0.131
0.26
70
5
8:04:37 AM
0:00:29
0.48
10.34
0.006
9.88E-05
8.5
0.140
0.28
65
51
8:05:09 AM
0:00:32
0.53
9.38
0.005
8.95E-05
7.7
0.127
0.25
60
5
8:05:42 AM
0:00:33
0.55
9.09
0.005
8.68E-05
7.5
0.123
0.25
55
5
8:06:14 AM
0:00:32
0.53
9.38
0.005
8.95E-05
7.7
0.127
0.25
Natural Moisture......: 15.9
Consistency ...............: Loose
Field -Estimated Ksat:1
0.0061
1.02E-041
8.81
0.1441
0.29
USDA Tzt./USCS Class: SM
Water Table Depth ... 8.0
Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four
stabilized values and analyzing the graph.
truct./% Pass. f1200.: 42.9
llnit. Saturation Time.: 8:00:00 AM
Glover, R. E. 1953. Flow from a test -hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-71. in: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists
when the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an Impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the well. H/r>5 to >10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

100
90
80
70
w
Z 60
LL
Z 50
w
U
w
LL 40
a
W,
20
10
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
V f\/"111Y VILL-II II II.
% +3„ % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 55.5 42.9
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.'
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
1.5"
100.0
1"
100.0
.5"
I00.0
.375"
100.0
#4
100.0
#8
99.9
#10
99.9
#16
99.8
#40
98.4
#100
55.3
#200
42.9
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: BW-2
GET
SOLUTIONS, INC.
Jacksonville North Car
Material Description
Atterbero Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
D90= 0.3302 D85= 0.2938 D60= 0.1703
D50= 0.1232 Dgp= D15=
D10= Cu= Cc=
Classification
USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
Client: Whiting -Turner Construction Co.
Project: P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Project No: JX13-I IOG
Date:

Constant -Head Borehole Permeameter Test
Analytical Method: Glover Solution
GET
Project Name......: Staff NCO Training Academy
Boring No...........: BMP-3
Investigators.......: J. Huber; L. Brown
Project No......: JX13-11OG
Proj. Location...: MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Date ..................: 1/6/14
Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solution
Ksata: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. TB (°C) 14
Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole
Boring Depth......: 2 (m, cm, ft, In)
Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm
Boring Radius r... : 4.15 cm
Soil/Water Tmp. T: 11 .0
Dyn. Visc. @ T *C.: 0.001271 kg/m•s
WCU Base Ht. h: 15.0 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 6.4 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 21.4 cm
H r ..................... 5.2
Dyn. Visc. @ T. QC.: 0.001170 kg/m•s
H: Constant height of water in the borehole
r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole
V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T "C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ TB
Ksat =Q[sinh'(H/r) - (r'/Hz+1)'s+r H]/(2nH2) [Basic Glover Solu.]
iKsatB= QV[sinh''(H/r) - (rz/Hz+1) 5+ r/H]/(2nH2) [Tmp. Correction]
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml
TIME
h:mm:ssA P
Interval Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
ml min
--------------- Ksata Equivalent Values ------------------
hr:min:sec min
cm min cm sec cm da in hr ft da
120
8:40:12 AM
115
5
8:40:21 AM
0:00:09
0.15
33.33
0.019
3.18E-04
27.5
0.451
0.90
110
5
8:40:30 AM
0:00:09
0.15
33.33
0.019
3.18E-04
27.5
0.451
0.9
105
5
8:40:38 AM
0:00:08
0.13
37.50
0,021
3.58E-04
30.9
0.508
1.02
100
51
8:40:46 AM
0:00:08
0.13
37.50
0.021
3.58E-04
30.9
0.508
1.02
95
5
8:40:55 AM
0:00:09
0.15
33.33
0.019
3.18E-04
27.5
0.451
0.90
90
5
8:41:01 AM
0:00:06
0.10
50.00
0.029
4.78E-04
41.3
0.677
1.35
85
5
8:41:07 AM
0:00:061
0.10
50.00
0.029
4.78E-04
41.31
0.677
1.35
80
5
8:41:13 AM
0:00:06
0.10
50.00
0.029
4.78E-04
41.3
0.677
1.35
75
5
8:41:20 AM
0:00:07
0.12
42.86
0.0251
4.09E-04
35.4
0.580
1.16
70
5
8:41:27 AM
0:00:07
0.12
42.86
0.025
4.09E-04
35.4
0.580
1.16
65
51
8:41:34 AM
0:00:07
0.12
42.86
0.025
4.09E-04
35.4
0.580
1.16
Natural Moisture......: 18.9
lConsistency ...............: Loose
Field -Estimated Ksat:
0.024
3.94E-041
34.01
0.5581
1.12
USDA TM./USCS Class: SM
lWater Table Depth ... 8.0
Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four
stabilized values and analyzing the graph.
truct./%Pass. N200.: 33.4
Ifinit. Saturation Time.: 8:40:00 AM
Glover, R. E. 1953. Flow from a test -hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-71. in: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists
when the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the wellCH/n5 to >10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

Particle Size Distribution Report
+3„ I/, Gravel % Sand % Fines
%Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 1 0.1 0.5 2.9 63.1 33.4
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC"
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
1.5"
100.0
1"
100.0
.5"
100.0
.375"
100.0
#4
99.9
#8
99.5
#10
99.4
#16
99.2
#40
96.5
#100
46.2
9200
33.4
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: BMP-3
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
PL=
LL=
Pl=
Coefficients
D90= 0.3563
D85= 0.3201
D60= 0.2021
D50= 0.1648
D30=
D15=
D10=
Cu=
Cc
Classification
USCS=
AASHTO=
Remarks
Date:
GET Client: Whiting-TurncrConstruction Co.
SOLUTIONS, INC. Project: P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Jacksonville North Carolina Project No: JX13-110G Figure

Constant -Head Borehole Permeameter Test
Analytical Method: Glover Solution
GE®
Project Name......: Staff NCO Training Academy
Boring No...........: BMP-4
Investigators.......: J. Huber; L. Brown
Project No......: JX13-110G
Frail. Location...: MCB Camp Le]eune, NC
Date ..................: 1/6/14
Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solution)
Ksat,,: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. TB (°C) 14
Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole
Boring Depth......: 2 (m, cm, ft, In)
Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm
Boring Radius r... : 4.15 cm
oil/Water Tmp.T: 11 "C
Dyn. Visc. @ T °C.: 0,001271 kg/m•s
WCU Base Ht. h: 15.0 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 6.4 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 21.4 cm
H/r**...................: 5.2
Dyn. Visc. @ T, QC.: 0.001170 kg/m•s
H: Constant height of water in the borehole
r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole
V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T "C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ TB
Ksat =Q[sinh"(H/r)-(rz/Hz+1)s+r/H]/(2nHz) [Basic Glover Solu.]
1KsatB= QV[smlh'(H/r) - (rz/Hz+1)s+ r/H]/(2nHz) [Tmp. Correction]
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
n
TIME
h:mm:ssA P
Interval Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
ml min
•... -- ... ----- ---- KsatB Equivalent Values --------------------
hr:min:sec min
cm min cm sec cm da in hr ft da
2,400
9:05:35 AM
2,300
100
9:06:28 AM
0:00:53
0.88
113.21
0.065
1.08E-03
93.4
1.533
3.07
2,200
100
9:07:31 AM
0:01:03
1.05
95.24
0.055
9.10E-04
78.6
1.289
2.5
2,100
100
9:08:49 AM
0:01:18
1.30
76.92
0.044
7.35E-04
63.5
1.041
2.08
2,000
100
9:10:10 AM
0:01:21
1.35
74.07
0.042
7.08E-04
61.1
1.003
2.01
1,900
100
9:11:27 AM
0:01:17
1.28
77.92
0.045
7.44E-04
64.3
1.055
2.11
1,800
100
9:12:52 AM
0:01:25
1.42
70.59
0.040
6.74E-04
58.3
0.956
1.91
1,700
100
9:14:09 AM
0:01:17
1.28
77.92
0.0451
7.44E-04
64.3
1.055
2.11
1,600
100
9:15:34 AM
0:01:25
1.42
70.59
0.040
6.74E-04
58.3
0.956
1.91
1,500
100
9:17:12 AM
0:01:38
1.63
61.22
0.035
5.85E-04
50.5
0.829
1.66
Natural Moisture......: 11.6
lConsistency ...............: Loose
Field -Estimated Ksat:
0.0421
6.95E-04
60.0
0.9851
1.97
USDA TM./USCS Class: SM
Water Table Depth ... 8.0
Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four
Istabilized values and analyzing the graph.
truct./%Pass. 11200.: 29.8
linit. Saturation Time.: 9:05:00 AM
Glover, R. E. 1953. Flow from a test -hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-71. in: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists
hen the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the well.*H/n5 to >10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

Particle Size Distribution Report
% +3" °/, Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt I Clay
0.0 1 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.7 68.3 29.8
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.`
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
1.5"
100.0
I"
100.0
.5"
100.0
.375"
100.0
#4
99.9
#8
99.8
#10
99.8
#16
99.5
#40
98.1
#100
65.2
#200
29.8
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: BMP-4
Material Description
Atterbero Limits
PL= LL= Pl=
Coefficients
D90= 0.2888 D85= 0.2454 D60= 0.1343
D50= 0.1099 D30= 0.0753 D15=
D10= Cu= Cc
Classification
USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
Date:
GET Client: Whiting -Turner Construction Co.
SOLUTIONS, INC. Project: P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Jacksonville North Carolina Project No: JX13-IIOG Figure

Constant -Head Borehole Permeameter Test
Analytical Method: Glover Solution
GE®
Project Name......: Staff NCO Training Academy
Boring No...........: BMP-5
Investigators.......: J. Huber; L. Brown
Project No......: JX13-11OG
Proj. Location...: MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Date ..................: 1/6/14
Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solution
Ksata: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. T. (°C) 14
Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole
Boring Depth......: 2 (m, cm, ft, in)
Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm
Boring Radius r... : 4.15 cm
oil Water Tmp. T: 11 °C
Dyn. Visc. @ T °C.: 0.001271 kg/m•s
WCU Base Ht. h: 15.0 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 6.4 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 21.4 cm
H r* .................... 5.2
IDyn. Vlsc. @ TB°c.: 0.001170 kg/m•s
H: Constant height of water in the borehole
r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole
V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T °C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ TB
Ksat =Q[sinh*'(H r) - (r z/H +1)'s+r/H]/(2RH2) [Basic Glover Solu.]
Ksata= QV[sinh-'(H/r) - (rz/Hz+1)�s+ r/H]/(2RH2) [Tmp. Correction]
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml
TIME
h;mm:ssA P
Interval Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
ml min
---------- Ksat° Equivalent Values------------
hr:min:sec min
cm min cm sec cm da In hr ft da
120
9:30:00 AM
110
10
9:30:14 AM
0:00:14
0.23
42.86
0.025
4.09E-04
35.4
0,580
1.16
100
10
9:30:31 AM
0:00:17
0.28
35.29
0.020
3.37E-04
29.1
0.478
0.9
90
10
9:30:49 AM
0:00:18
0.30
33.33
0.019
3.18E-04
27.5
0.451
0.90
80
10
9:31:04 AM
0:00:15
0.25
40.00
0.023
3.82E-04
33.0
0.542
1.08
70
10
9:31:21 AM
0:00:17
0.28
35.29
0.020
3.37E-04
29.1
0.478
0.96
60
10
9:31:40 AM
' 0:00:19
0.32
31.58
0.018
3.02E-04
26.1
0.428
0.86
50
10
9:31:58 AM
0:00:181
0.30
33.33
0.0191
3.18E-04
27.51
0.451
0.90
40
10
9:32:20 AM
0:00:22
0.37
27.27
0.016
2.60E-04
22.5
0.369
0.74
30
10
9:32:44 AM
0:00:24
0.40
25.00
0.014
2.39E-04
20.6
0.338
0.68
20
10
9:33:13 AM
0:00:29
0.48
20.69
0.012
1.98E-04
17.1
0.280
0.56
10
10
9:33:42 AM
0:00:29
0.48
20.69
0.012
1.98E-04
17.1
0.280
0.56
Natural Moisture......: 15.1
Consistency ...............: Loose
Field -Estimated Ksat:
0,013
2.24E-041
19.31
0.3171
0.63
USDA Txt./USCS Class: SM
lWaterTable Depth ... 8.0
Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four
stabilized values and analyzing the graph.
truct./% Pass. g200.: 34.9
linit. Saturation Time.: 9:30:00 AM
Glover, R. E. 1953. Flow from a test -hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-71. In: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists
when the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the welCH/n5 to >10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

Particle Size Distribution Report
n
100
fill 1 I
so
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
80
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
70
w
I
I I
I
I
I
60
z_
I
I I
I
I
I
LL
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
Z
50
U
I
I I
w 40
a
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
30
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
20
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
10
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3"
°/ Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
Coarse Fine
Coarse
Medium Fine
Silt Clay
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.2
1.2 63.7
34.9
PASS?
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
D90= 0.3078 D85= 0.2678 D60= 0.1467
D50= 0.1136 D30= D15=
D10= Cu= Cc=
Classification
USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
(no specification
provided)
Sample Number:
BMP-5
Date:
GET
Client: Whiting -Turner Construction Co.
SOLUTIONS, INC.
Project: P003StaffNCO AcademyFacilities
Jacksonville North Carolina
Project No: JX13-11OG Figure
SIZE
FINER
'
PERCENT
(X=NO)
1-.5"
100.0
1"
100.0
.5"
100.0
375"
100.0
#4
100.0
#8
99.9
#10
99.8
#16
99.7
#40
98.6
#]00
60.9
#200
34.9

Constant -Head Borehole Permeameter Test
Analytical Method: Glover Solution
GET
Project Name......: Staff NCO Training Academy
Boring No...........: BMP-6
Investigators.......: J. Huber; L. Brown
Project No......: JX13-11OG
Proj. Location...: MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Date ..................: 12/31/13
Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solutions
Ksata: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. TB (°C) 14
Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole
Boring Depth......: 2 (m, cm, ft, in)
Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm
Boring Radius r... : 4.15 cm
Soil/Water Tmp. T: 11 .0
Dyn. Visc. @ T *C.: 0.001271 kg/m•s
WCU Base Ht. h: 15.0 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 6.4 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 21.4 cm
H/r**...................: 5.2
Dyn. Vlsc. @ TB°C.: 0.001170 kg/m•s
H: Constant height of water in the borehole
r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole
V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T "C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ TB
Ksat = Q[sinh"(H/r) - (rz/Hz+1)'s+ r/H]/(2nH2) [Basic Glover Solu.]
Ksata= QV[sinh"(H/r) - (rz/Hz+1)�s+ r/H]/(27Hz) [Tmp. Correction]
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml
TIME
h:mm:ssA P
Interval Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
WNW
-------------- Ksata Equivalent Values -----------------
hr:min:sec min
cm min cm sec cm da in hr ftda
120
9:10:19 AM
110
10
9:10:44 AM
0:00:25
0.42
24.00
0.014
2.29E-04
19.8
0.32S
0.65
100
10
9:12:19 AM
0:01:35
1.58
6.32
0.004
6.03E-05
5.2
0.086
0.1
90
10
9:13:30 AM
0:01:11
1.18
8.45
0.005
8.07E-05
7.0
0.114
0.23
80
10
9:14:51 AM
0:01:21
1.35
7.41
0.004
7.08E-05
6.1
0.100
0.20
75
5
9:15:22 AM
0:00:31
0.52
9.68
0.006
9.24E-05
8.0
0.131
0.26
70
5
9:15:50 AM
0:00:28
0.47
10.71
0.006
1.02E-04
8.8
0.145
0.29
65
5
9:16:23 AM
0:00:33
0.55
9.09
0,005
8.68E-05
7.51
0.123
0.25
60
5
9:16:48 AM
0:00:25
0.42
12.00
0.007
1.15E-04
9.9
0.162
0.32
55
5
9:17:16 AM
0:00:28
0.47
10.71
0.006
1.02E-04
8.8
0.145
0.29
50
5
9:17:45 AM
0:00:29
0.48
10.34
0.006
9.88E-05
8.5
0.140
0.28
Natural Moisture......: 14.0
lConsistency ...............: Loose
Field -Estimated Ksat:1
0.0051
8.99E-05
7.81
0.1271
0.25
USDA TM./USCS Class: SM
Water Table Depth ... 8.0
Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four
stabilized values and analyzing the graph.
tract./%Pass. tl200.: 46.8
linit. Saturation Time.: 9:10:00 AM
Glover, R. E. 1953. Flow from a test -hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-71. in: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists
when the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the well. H/r>5 to>10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

Particle Size Distribution Report
% +3..
0_0
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC."
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
1.5"
100.0
1"
100.0
.5"
100.0
.375"
100.0
#4
100.0
#8
100.0
#10
100.0
#16
99.8
#40
98.7
#100
71.0
#200
46.8
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: BMP-6
rdWrn Fine Silt
13 51.9 46.8
Material Description
AtterbeM Limits
PL=
LL=
P1=
Coefficients
D90= 0.2744
D85= 0.2299
D60= 0.1092
D50= 0.0821
D30=
D15=
D10=
Cu=
Cc=
Classification
USCS=
AASHTO=
Remarks
Date:
GET Client: Whiting -Turner Construction Co.
SOLUTIONS, INC. Project: P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Jacksonville North Carolina Project No: JX13-IIOG Figure

Constant -Head Borehole Permeameter Test
Analytical Method: Glover Solution
GE®
Project Name......: Staff NCO Training Academy
Boring No...........: BMP-8
Investigators.......: J. Huber; L. Brown
Project No......: JX13-11OG
Proj. Location...: MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Date ..................: 12/31/13
Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solution)
Ksat,: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. TB (°C) 14
Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole
Boring Depth......: 2 (m, cm, ft, in)
Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm
Boring Radius r... : 4.35 cm
oil Water TmP•T: 11 oC
yn. Visc. @ T °C.: 0.001271 kg/m•s
WCU Base hit. h: 15.0 cm
WCU Susp. Hit. S: 6.4 cm
Const. Wtr. hit. H: 21.4 cm
H r* •••••••••••••••••••• 5.2
Dyn. Visc. @ TB°C.: 0.001170 kg/m•s
H: Constant height of water in the borehole
r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole
V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T °C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ TB
Ksat =Q[sinh(H/r)- (r/H+11� +r H1/(2rcH ) [Basic Glover Solu.]
KsatB= QV[sinh z(H/r) - (rz/Hz+l)s+ r/H]/(2nHz) [Tmp. Correction)
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml
TIME
h:mm:ssA P
Interval Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
ml min
---- ------- - ---- -- KsatB Equivalent Values -------------------
hr:min:sec min
cm min cm sec cm da in hr ft da
120
9:50:10 AM
110
10
9:50:23 AM
0:00:13
0.22
46.15
0,026
4.41E-04
38.1
0.625
1.25
100
10
9:50:45 AM
0:00:22
0.37
27.27
0.016
2.60E-04
22.5
0.369
0.7
90
10
9:51:15 AM
0:00:30
0.50
20.00
0.011
1.91E-04
16.5
0.271
0.54
80
10
9:51:52 AM
0:00:37
0.62
16.22
0,009
1.55E-04
13.4
0.220
0.44
70
10
9:52:39 AM
0:00:47
0.78
12.77
0.007
1.22E-04
10.5
0.173
0.35
' 60
10
9:53:28 AM
0:00:49
0.82
12.24
0,007
1.17E-04
10.1
0.166
0.33
50
10
9:54:28 AM
0:01:00
1.00
10.00
0.0061
9.55E-05
8.31
0.135
0.27
40
10
9:55:33 AM
0:01:051
1.08
9.23
0.005
8.82E-05
7.6
0.125
0.25
30
10
9:56:40 AM
0:01:07
1.12
8.96
0.005
8.55E-05
7.4
0.121
0.24
Natural Moisture......: 12.4
Consistency ...............: Loose
Field -Estimated Ksat:
1 0.0061
9.65E-05
8.31
0.1371
0.27
USDA TM./USCS Class: SM
Water Table Depth ... 8.0
Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four
stabilized values and analyzing the graph.
truct./% Pass. #200.: 43.6
Init. Saturation Time.: 9:50:00 AM
Glover, R. E. 1953. Flow from a test -hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-71. in: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists
when the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the welCH/r>5 to>10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

w
W
Z
LL
Z
z
w
U
Lu
W
0_
Particle Size Distribution Report
a _ _ = O C G
CoarseY Fine Coarse I Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 2.0 54.4 43.6
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.`
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
1.5"
100.0
1"
100.0
.5"
100.0
.375"
100.0
#4
100.0
#8
100.0
410
100.0
416
99.9
#40
98.0
#100
55.6
#200
43.6
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: BMP-8
GET
SOLUTIONS, INC.
sonville, North Carolina
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
PL=
LL=
Pl=
Coefficients
D90= 0.3329
D85= 0.2956
D60= O.I698
D50= 0.1210
D30=
D15=
D10=
Cu=
Cc=
Classification
USCS=
AASHTO=
Remarks
Client: Whiting-Turncr Construction Co.
Project: P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Project No: JX13-I IOG
Date:

Constant -Head Borehole Permeameter Test
Analytical Method: Glover Solution
GET
Project Name......: Staff NCO Training Academy
Boring No...........: BMP-9
Investigators.......: J. Huber; L. Brown
Project No......: JX13-11OG
Proj. Location...: MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Date ..................: 12/31/13
Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solutions
Ksate: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. T, (°C) 14
Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole
Boring Depth......: 2 (m, cm, ft, in)
Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm
Boring Radius r... : 4.15 cm
oil Water Tmp. T: 11 oC
Dyn. Visc. @ T *C.: 0.001271 kg/m•s
WCU Base Ht. h: 15.0 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 6.4 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 21.4 cm
H/r •••••••••••••••••••• 5.2
Dyn. Visc. @ T. QC.: 0,001170 kg/m•s
H: Constant height of water in the borehole
r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole
V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T "C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ Te
Ksat=Q[sinh-'(H/r) - (rz/Hz+1)'s+r H1/(2nH2 ) [Basic Glover Solu.]
Ksate= QV[sinh-'(H/r) - (rz/Hz+1),s+ r/H]/(2nHz) [Tmp. Correction]
VOLUME
ml)
Volume Out
Iml)
TIME
(h:mm:ssA P
Interval Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
ml min
----------•- Ksate Equivalent Values ----------------
hnnnimsec min
cm min cm sec cm da in hr ft da
1,500
10:22:14 AM
1,400
100
10:22:41 AM
0:00:27
0.45
222.22
0.127
2.12E-03
183.4
3.008
6.02
1,300
100
10:23:12 AM
0:00:31
0.52
193.55
0.111
1.85E-03
159.7
2.620
5.2
1,200
100
10:23:53 AM
0:00:41
0.68
146.34
0.084
1.40E-03
120.8
1.981
3.96
1,100
100
10:24:34 AM
0:00:41
0.68
146.34
0.084
1.40E-03
120.8
1.981
3.96
1,000
100
10:25:15 AM
0:00:41
0.68
146.34
0.084
1.40E-03
120.8
1.981
3.96
900
100
10:25:59 AM
0:00:44
0.73
136.36
0.078
1.30E-03
112.5
1.846
3.69
800
100
10:26:48 AM
0:00:491
0.82
122.45
0.0701
1.17E-03
101.1
1.658
3.32
700
100
10:27:33 AM
0:00:45
0.75
133.33
0.076
1.27E-03
110.0
1.805
3.61
600
100
10:28:25 AM
0:00:52
0.87
115.38
0.066
1.10E-03
95.2
1.562
3.12
Natural Moisture......: 11.7
lConsistency ...............: Loose
Field -Estimated Ksat:1
0.073
1.21E-03
104.71
1.7181
3.44
USDA TM./USCS Class: SM
lWater Table Depth ... 8.0
Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four
stabilized values and analyzing the graph.
truct./% Pass. #200.: 25.0
1 Init. Saturation Time.: 10:22:00 AM
Glover, R. E. 1953. Flow from a test -hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-71. in: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists
when the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the well.•H/r>5 to>10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

Particle Size Distribution Report
oao
100
90
80
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
70
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
Z so
I
I
I
I
LL
I
I
I
I
z
50
I
I
I
I
I I
U
w 40
a
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
30
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
20
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
l
l l
f
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
10
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% t3„
°/, Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Silt Clay
0.0
0.0
1 0.6
0.4
2.2
71.8
25.0
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.`
PASS?

Constant -Head Borehole Permeameter Test
Analytical Method: Glover Solution
GE®
Project Name......: Staff NCO Training Academy
Boring No...........: BMP-10
Investigators.......: J. Huber; L. Brown
Project No......: JX13-11OG
Proj. Location...: MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Date ..................: 12/31/13
Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solution
KsatB: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. TB (°C) 14
Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole
Boring Depth......: 2 (m, cm, ft, in)
Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm
Boring Radius r... : 4.15 cm
Soil/Water Tmp. T: 11 oC
Dyn. Visc. @ T *C.: 0.001271 kg/m•s
WCU Base Ht. h: 15.0 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. 5: 6.4 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 21.4 cm
H/r*....................: 5.2
Dyn. Visc. @ TB°C.: 0.001170 kg/m•s
H: Constant height of water in the borehole
r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole
V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T "C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ TB
Ksat =Q[sinh"(H/r)-(r2/Hz+1)"s+r/H]/(2nHz) [Basic GloverSolu.]
KsatB= QV[sinh-t(H/r) - (rz/Hz+1)s+ r/H]/(2nHz) [Tmp. Correction]
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml
TIME
h:mm:ssA P
Interval Elapsed me
Ti
Flow Rate Q
ml min
---- ---- --- Ksata Equivalent Values-------------
hr:min:sec min
cm min cm sec cm da in hr ft da
3,100
10:43:40 AM
3,000
100
10:44:25 AM
0:00:45
0.75
133.33
0.076
1.27E-03
110.0
1.805
3.61
2,900
100
10:45:26 AM
0:01:01
1.02
98.36
0.056
9.39E-04
81.2
1,332
2.615
2,800
100
10:46:22 AM
0:00:56
0.93
107.14
0.061
1.02E-03
88.4
1.450
2.90
2,700
100
10:47:29 AM
0:01:07
1.12
89.55
0.051
8.55E-04
73.9
1.212
2.42
2,600
100
10:48:40 AM
0:01:11
1.18
84.51
0.048
8.07E-04
69.7
1.144
2.29
2,500
100
10:49:59 AM
0:01:19
1.32
75.95
0.044
7.2SE-04
62.7
1.028
2.06
2,400
100
10:51:13 AM
0:01:14
1.23
81.08
0.046
7.74E-04
66.91
1.098
2.20
2,300
100
10:52:22 AM
0:01:09
1.15
86.96
0.0501
8.31E-04
71.8
1.177
2.35
2,200
100
10:53:32 AM
0:01:10
1.17
85.71
0.049
8.19E-04
70.7
1.160
2.32
2,100
100
10:54:42 AM
0:01:10
1.17
85.71
0.049
8.19E-04
70.7
1.160
2.32
Natural Moisture......: 18.3
lConsistency...............: Loose
Field -Estimated Ksat:
1 0,0481
7.94E-04
68.61
1.1251
2.25
USDA TM./USCS Class: SM
lWater Table Depth ... 8.0
Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four
151d01114eU values and analyzing the graph.
truct./%Pass. p200.: 32.5
linit. Saturation Time.: 10A100 AM
Glover, R. E. 1953. Flow from a test -hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-71. in: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists
hen the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the welCH/r>5 to>10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

PA
Particle Size Distribution Report
% +3"
Coarse Fine Coar:
0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.7
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC."
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
1.5"
100.0
I"
I00.0
.5"
100.0
.375"
100.0
#4
100.0
#8
99.5
#10
99.3
#16
97.6
#40
93.2
#100
45.5
#200
32.5
(no specification provided)
Sample Number: BMP-10
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
PL=
LL=
Pl=
Coefficients
D90= 0.3850
D85= 0.3400
D60= 0.2075
D50= 0.1681
D30=
D15=
D10=
Cu=
Cc=
Classification
USCS=
AASHTO=
Remarks
Date:
GET Client: Whiting-TumerConstmction Co.
SOLUTIONS, INC. Project: P003 Staff NCO Academy Facilities
Jacksonville North Carolina Pro'ectNo: JX13-IIOG Figure

APPENDIX X
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

GET
cmtan�rv.c�o;,o,,,�.mmf. rmaw
Virginia Beach Office
204 Grayson Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
[phone]
Williamsbwg Office
1592 Penniman Rd. Suite E
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
[phone]
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
Elizabeth City Office
504 East Elizabeth St. Suite 2
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
[phone]
Standard Penetration Test (SPT). N-value
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil samples were obtained with a
standard 1.4" 1.D., 2" O.D., 3V' long split -spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The number of
blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and is shown on the
boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.
NON COHESIVE SOILS
(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)
Relative Density_
Very Loose 4 blows/ft. or less
Loose 5 to 10 blows/ft.
Medium Dense l l to 30 blows/ft.
Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft.
Very Dense 51 blows/ft. or more
Particle
Size Identification
Boulders
8 inch diameter
or more
Cobbles
3 to 8 inch diameter
Gravel
Coarse
I to 3 inch diameter
Medium
t/r to 1 inch diameter
Fine
t/I to t/a inch diameter
Sand
Coarse
2.00 man to t/a inch
(diameter of pencil lead)
Medium
0.42 to 2.00 earn
(diameter of broom straw)
Fine
0.074 to 0.42 ram
(diameter of human hair)
Silt
0.002 to 0.074 man
(cannot see particles)
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)
Coarse Grained Soils
More than 5096 retained on No. 200 sieve
GW - Well -graded Gravel
GP - Poorly graded Gravel
GW-GM - Well -graded Gravel w/Silt
GW-GC - Well -graded Gravel w/Clay
GP -GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt
GP -GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay
GM - Silty Gravel
GC - Clayey Gravel
GC -GM - Silty, Clayey Gravel
SW - Well -graded Sand
SP - Poorly graded Sand
SW-SM - Well -graded Sand w/Silt
SW -SC - Well -graded Sand w/Clay
SP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/Silt
SP-SC - Poorly graded Sand w/Clay
SM - Silty Sand
SC - Clayey Sand
SC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand
Fine -Grained Soils
50%or more passes the No. 200 sieve
CL - Lean Clay
CL-ML - Silty Clay
ML - Silt
OL - Organic Clay/Silt
Liquid Limit 50%or greater
CH - Fat Clay
MH - Elastic Silt
OH - Organic Clay/Silt
HZW Organic Soils
PT - Peat
COHESIVE SOILS
(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)
Consistency
Very Soft
2 blows/ft. or less
Soft
3 to 4 blows/ft.
Medium Stiff
5 to 8 blows/ft.
Stiff
9 to 15 blows/ft.
Very Stiff
16 to 30 blows/ft.
Hard
31 blows/ft. or more
Relative
Pro_oortionS
Descriptive Term Percent
Trace
0-5
Few
5-10
Little
15-25
Some
30-45
Mostly
50-100
Strata Chan
In the column "Description" on the boring log, the horizontal
lines represent approximate strata changes.
roundwater Readin
Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental
variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and
magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as tidal influences and
man-made influences, such as existing mates, drainage
ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking
lots, side walks, etc.).
Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No.
200 sieve size), coarse -grained soils are classified as follows:
Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW,SP
More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SC
5 to 12 percent Borderline cases requiring dual
symbols
Plasticity Chart
60
50
E
1c 40
w
g 30
20
5 10
a
CH
Page 1 of 1
GET Revision 12112107
a�=Z1tN=bi a=: tiLl•:G=S1
L OUID LIMB (LL) (%)

Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPEZOIDAL/TRIANGULAR SHAPE
T
Channel Location: Ditch 1A
Estimate 10-yr Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.50
Intensity in/hr
9.00
Drainage Area
0.52
ac
Qio
2.35
cfs
Additional Flow
cis
Qio Total, Qdesign
2.35
cfs
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
2.0 ft/ft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.011 ft/ft
Flow Depth, d
0.60 ft
Selected Channel Lining:
Selected Channel Lining Jute
Maximum Permissible Veloci max s
!0.45
Permissible Shear Stress {tp (psf)
Calculations:
e
1.8
ft
Side Sloe Length, m
1.9
ft
Top Width, T
5.6
ft
Channel Area, A
2.28
sq ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
5.79
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.39
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qmic
2.45
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Vcaic
1.08
f s
Calculated Shear Stress, tcalc
0.41
psf
Q calc > Q design? yes
* calc 5 V max? yes
t calc 5 t p? yes
ECEI V E
JUN 19 2014

The posting of this certificate certifies that an erosion and sedimentation control plan has been
approved for this project by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 113A — 57 (4) and 113A — 54 (d) (4) and
North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Chapter 4B.0107 (c). This certificate must be
posted at the primary entrance of the job site before construction begins and until establishment of
permanent groundcover as required by North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Chapter
4B.0127 (b).
Staff NCO Academic Facilities
Project Name and Location
Date of Plan Approval e� Assistant Regional Engineer
��
NC®ENR

Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPEZOIDAL/TRIANGULAR SHAPE
Channel Location: Ditch 1B
Estimate 10-yr Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.50
Intensity inmr
9.00
Drainage Area
0.22
ac
Qio
0.99
cfs
Additional Flow
cfs
Qio Total, Qdesign
0.99
cfs
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
2.0 fUft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.019 fuft
Flow Depth, d
0.35 ft
Selected Channel Lining:
Selected Channel Lining Jute Net
Maximum Permissible Velocity max (fps)
4
Permissible Shear Stress {tp) (psf)
0.45
Calculations:
e
1.1
ft
Side Sloe Length, m
1.1
ft
Top Width, T
4.1
ft
Channel Area, A
1.07
sq ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
4.21
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.25
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qcaic
1.12
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Vcalc
1.05
fps
Calculated Shear Stress, twit
0.41
psf
Q talc a Q design? yes
V talc 5 V max? yes
t talc S t p? yes

Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPEZOIDAL/TRIANGULAR SHAPE
T
Channel Location: Ditch 1C
Estimate 10- r Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.50
Intensity in/hr
9.00
Drainage Area
0.25
ac
Qio
1.13
cfs
Additional Flow
cfs
Qio Total, Qdesign
1.13
cfs
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
2.0 ft/ft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.020 ft/ft
Flow Depth, d
0.35 ft
Selected Channel Lining:
Selected Channel Linin Jute Net
Maximum Permissible Velocity max s
4
Permissible Shear Stress (tp} (psf)
1 0.45
Calculations:
e
1.1
ft
Side Sloe Length, m
1.1
ft
Top Width, T
4.1
ft
Channel Area, A
1.07
sq ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
4.21
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.25
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qcalc
1.15
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Voaic
1.08
fps
Calculated Shear Stress, tonic
0.44
psf
Q calc > Q design? yes
V calc 5 V max? yes
t calc 5 t P? yes

Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPEZEIIDAL/TRIANGULAR SHAPE
T
Channel Location: Ditch 1D
Estimate 10-yr Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.50
Intensity in/hr
9.00
Drainage Area
0.63
ac
CIO
2.84
cfs
Additional Flow
cfs
Clio Total, Qdeslgn
2.84
cfs
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
2.0 ft/ft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.011 ft/ft
Flow Depth, d
0.65 ft
Selected Channel Lining:
Selected Channel Lining Jute Net
Maximum Permissible Velocity max (fps)
4
Permissible Shear Stress (tp) (psf)
0.45
Calculations:
e
2.0
ft
Side Sloe Length, m
2.1
ft
Top Width, T
5.9
ft
Channel Area, A
2.57
s ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
6.11
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.42
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qcalc
2.89
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Vcaic
1.12
fps
Calculated Shear Stress, tcalc
0.45
psf
Q calc >_ Q design?
yes
V calc 5 V max?
yes
t talc 5 t P?
yes

Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPEZOIDAL/TRIANGULAR SHAPE
T
Channel Location: Ditch lE
Estimate 10-vr Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.50
Intensity inthr
9.00
Drainage Area
0.35
ac
Qm
1.58
cfs
Additional Flow
cfs
Qio Total, Qdeslgn
1.58
cfs
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
0.0 fuft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.005 fUft
Flow Depth, d
0.85 ft
Selected Channel Linina:
Selected Channel Linin Jute Net
Maximum Permissible Velocity max s
4
Permissible Shear Stress {tp) (psf)
0.45
Calculations:
e
2.6
ft
Side Slope Length, m
2.7
ft
Top Width, T
5.1
ft
Channel Area, A
2.17
sq ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
5.38
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.40
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qcaic
1.60
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Vcalc
0.74
fps
Calculated Shear Stress, Laic
0.27
psf
Q calc ? Q design?
yes
V calc 5 V max?
yes
t caIc 5 t P?
yes

p
Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPEZOIDAL/TRIANGULAR SHAPE
T
Channel Location: Ditch 1F
Estimate 10-yr Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.50
Intensity in/hr
9.00
Drainage Area
0.35
ac
Qlo
1.58
cfs
Additional Flow
cfs
Qio Total, Qdesign
1.58
cfs
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
0.0 ft/ft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.005 Wit
Flow Depth, d
0.85 ft
Selected Channel Lining:
Selected Channel Lining Jute Net
Maximum Permissible Velocity max s
4
Permissible Shear Stress (tp) (psf)
0.45
Calculations:
e
2.6
ft
Side Sloe Length, m
2.7
ft
Top Width, T
5.1
ft
Channel Area, A
2.17
sq ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
5.38
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.40
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qwlc
1.60
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Vcaic
0.74
fps
Calculated Shear Stress, tcaic
0.27
psf
Q calc 1 Q design?
yes
V calc 5 V max?
yes
t calc 5 t p?
yes

Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPEZOIDAL/TRIANGULAR SHAPE
T
Channel Location: Channel 2A
Estimate 10-vr Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.50
Intensity in/hr
9.00
Drainage Area
0.14
ac
Q10
0.64
cfs
Additional Flow
cfs
Q10 Total, Qdesign
0.64
efs
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
2.0 ft1ft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.010 ft/ft
Flow Depth, d
0.35 ft
Selected Channel Linin :
Selected Channel LiningCenitpede
Maximum Permissible Velocitymax s 4
Permissible Shear Stress {tp) ( sf) 1 0.60
Calculations:
e
1.1
ft
Side Sloe Length, m
1.1
ft
Top Width, T
4.1
ft
Channel Area, A
1.07
sq ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
4.21
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.25
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qcaic
0.82
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Vcaic
0.76
fps
Calculated Shear Stress, tcalc
0.22
psf
Q calc >_ Q design? yes
V calc 5 V max? yes
t calc 5 t P? yes

Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPE ZDI DAL/TRIANGULAR SHAPE
T
Channel Location: Channel 2B
Estimate 10-yr Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.35
Intensity inthr
9.00
Drainage Area
0.20
ac
Q10
0.62
cfs
Additional Flow
cfs
Qio Total, Qdesign
0.62
cfs
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
2.0 ft/ft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.021 fUft
Flow Depth, d
0.30 ft
Selected Channel Lining:
Selected Channel Lining Cenitpede
Maximum Permissible Velocitymax s
4 EEd
Permissible Shear Stress (tp) (sf)
0.60
Calculations:
e
0.9
ft
Side Sloe Length, m
0.9
ft
Top Width, T
3.8
ft
Channel Area, A
0.87
sq ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
3.90
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.22
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qcalc
0.89
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Vcalc
1.02
fps
Calculated Shear Stress, tcalc
0.39
psf
Q calc 1 Q de51gn?
yes
V calc 5 V max?
yes
t calc 5 t P?
yes

Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPEZOIDAL/TRIANGULAR SHAPE
T
Channel Location: Channel 2C
Estimate 10-yr Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.35
Intensity in/hr
9.00
Drainage Area
0.04
ac
Qm
0.11
cfs
Additional Flow
0.62
cfs
Q10 Total, Qdesign
0.74
CfS
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
2.0 ft/ft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.005 ft/ft
Flow Depth, d
0.40 ft
Selected Channel Linin :
Selected Channel Linin Cenitpede
Maximum Permissible Velocity max s
4
Permissible Shear Stress (tp) (psf)
1 0.60
Calculations:
e
1.2
It
Side Sloe Length, m
1.3
It
Top Width, T
4.4
ft
Channel Area, A
1.28
sq ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
4.53
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.28
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qcaic
0.74
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Vcalc
0.58
fps
Calculated Shear Stress, tcalc
0.12
psf
Q calc >_ Q design? yes
V calc S V max? yes
t calc < t P? yes

Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPEZ01I)AL/TRIANGUL4R SHAPE
T
Channel Location: Channel 2D
Estimate 10- r Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.80
Intensity (in/hr)
9.00
Drainage Area
0.16
ac
QIo
1.18
cfs
Additional Flow
cfs
Qio Total, Qdesign
1.18
cfs
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
3.0 ft/ft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.020 ft/ft
Flow Depth, d
0.30 ft
Selected Channel Linina:
Selected Channel Lining Cenitpede
Maximum Permissible Velocity max s
4
Permissible Shear Stress (tp} (psf)
0.60
Calculations:
e
0.9
ft
Side Sloe Length, m
0.9
ft
Top Width, T
4.8
ft
Channel Area, A
1.17
sq ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
4.90
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.24
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qcalc
1.22
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Vcalc
1 1.04
fps
Calculated Shear Stress, tcaio
1 0.37
psf
Q calc 1 Q design?
yes
V calc 5 V Max?
yes
t calc 5 t P?
yes

Architecture & Engineering
Channel Design
TRAPEZOIDAL/TRIANGULAR SHAPE
T
Channel Location: Channel 2E
Estimate 10- r Peak Runoff:
Rational C
0.95
Intensity in/hr
9.00
Drainage Area
0.15
ac
Qio
1.31
cfs
Additional Flow
cfs
Qio Total, Qdesign
1.31
cfs
Channel Information:
Channel Bottom Width, b
2.0 ft/ft
Side Slope x:1
3.0
Channel Slope, S
0.020 ft/ft
Flow Depth, d
0.40 ft
Selected Channel !ling:
Selected Channel Linin Cenitpede
Maximum Permissible Velocitymax s 4
Permissible Shear Stress {tp (psf) 0.60
Calculations:
e
1.2
ft
Side Sloe Length, m
1.3
ft
Top Width, T
4.4
ft
Channel Area, A
1.28
sq ft
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
4.53
ft
Hydraulic Radius, Rh
0.28
ft
Mannin s "n"
0.078
Calculated Flow Rate, Qcaic
1.49
cfs
Calculated Velocity, Vcalc
1.16
fps
Calculated Shear Stress, "ic
0.50
psf
Q calc >_ Q design? yes
V calc 5 V max? yes
t calc 5 t P? yes

Architecture & Engineering
Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n
Manning's Roughness Coefficient for Temporary Lining Materials:
Table 8.05e from Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual
Lining Type
0-0.5 ft
0.6-2.0 ft
>2.0 ft
Woven Paper Net
0.016
0.015
0.015
Jute Net
0.028
0.022
0.019
Fiberglass Roving
0.028
0.021
0.019
Straw with Net
0.065
0.033
0.025
Curled Wood Mat
0.066
0.035
0.028
Synthetic Mat
0.036
0.025
0.021
Mannino's Roughness Coefficient:
Table 8.05f from Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual
Lining Category
Lining Type
0-0.5 ft
0.5-2.0 ft
>2.0 ft
Rigid
Concrete
0.015
0.013
0.013
Grouted Riprap
0.04
0.03
0.028
Stone Masonry
0.042
0.032
0.03
Soil Cement
0.025
0.022
0.02
Asphalt
0.018
0.016
0.016
Unlined
Bare Soil
0.023
0.02
0.02
Rock Cut
0.045
0.035
0.025
Gravel Riprap
1-inch D50
0.044
0.033,
0.03
2-inch D50
0.066
0.041
0.034
Rock Riprap
6-inch D50
0.104
0.069
0.035
9-inch D50 (Class B)
0.11
0.074
0.038
12-inch D50 (Class 1)
0.115
0.078
0.04
15-inch D50 Class II
0.12
1 0.082
1 0.042

Architecture & Engineering
Maximum Permissible Velocities
Maximum Permissible Velocities:
Table 8.05d from Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual
Materials
Maximum
Permissible
Velocities f s
Unlined -Bare Soil
2
Fine Sand (noncolloidal)
2.5
Sand Loam (noncolloidal)
2.5
Silt Loam (noncolloidal)
3
Ordinary Firm Loam
3.5
Fine Gravel
5
Stiff Clay (very colloidal)
5
Graded, Loam to Cobbles (noncolloidal)
5
Graded, Silt to Cobbles (colloidal)
5.5
Alluvial Silts (noncolloidal)
3.5
Alluvial Silts (colloidal)
5
Coarse Gravel (noncolloidal)
6
Cobbles and Shingles
1 5.5
Maximum Permissible Velocities:
Hydrology and Urbam Water systems by Dr. Rooney Malcom
Maximum
Permissible
Materials
Velocities (fps)
Grass - Uncertain Maintenance
4
Grass - Good Cover, Proper Maintenance
5

Architecture & Engineering
Maximum Permissible Shear Stress
Permissible Shear Stresses for Riprap and Temporary Liners:
Table 8.05g from Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual
Lining Category
Lining Type
Permissible
Unit Shear
Stress Td
(psf)
Temporary
Woven Paper Net
0.15
Jute Net
0.45
Fiberglass Roving:
Single
0.60
Double
0.85
Straw with Net
1.45
Curled Wood Mat
1.60
Synthetic Mat
2.00
d50 Stone Sizes in
Gravel Riprap
1
0.33
2
0.67
Rock Riprap
6
2.00
9 (Class 8)
3.00
12 (Class 1)
4.00
15 (Class 11)
5.00
18
6.00
21
7.80
24
8.00
Permissible Shear Stresses for Vegetation:
Table 2 from HEC 15: Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings
Permissible
Unit Shear
Stress Td
Lining Category
Lining Type
(psf)
Vegetation
Class A
3.70
Class 6
2.10
Class C
1.00
Class D
0.60
Class E
0.35
'See attached table for classifications.

Permissible Shear Stresses for Bare Soil:
Table 2.3 from HEC15: Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings
Lining Category
Lining Type
Permissible
Unit Shear
Stress Td
s
Cohesive Bare Soil
Clayey Sands
0.037-0.095
Cohesive Bare Soil
Inorganic Silts
0.027-0.11
Cohesive Bare Soil
Silty Sands
0.024-0.072
Cohesive Bare Soil
Inorganic Clays
0.14
Classification of Vegetal Covers:
Table 1 from HEC 15: Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings
Retardance Class
Cover
Condition
A
Weeping lovegrass
Excellent stand, tall(average 30")(76cm)
Yellow bluestem
Excellent stand, tall avers a 36" 91cm
B
Kudzu
Very dense growth, uncut
Bermuda grass
Good stand, tall (avg. 12")(30cm)
Native grass mixture
Good stand, unmowed
Weeping lovegrass
Good stand, tall (avg. 24")(61cm)
Lespedeza sericea
Good stand, not woody, tall (avg. 19")(48cm)
Alfalfa
Good stand, uncut (avg. 13")(33cm)
Weeping lovegrass
Good stand, unmowed (avg. 13")(33cm)
Kudzu
Dense growth, uncut
Blue gamma
Good stand, uncut (avg. 13" 28cm
C
Crabgrass
Fair stand, uncut (10 to 48")(25 to 120cm)
Bermuda grass
Good stand, mowed (avg. 6")(15cm)
Common lespedeza
Good stand, uncut (avg. 11 ")(28cm)
Grass -legume mixture
Good stand, uncut (6 to 8")(15 to 20cm)
Centipede grass
Very dense cover (avg. 6")(15cm)
Kentucky bluegrass
Good stand, headed 6 to 12" 15 to 30cm
D
Bermuda grass
Good stand, cut (2.5")(6cm)
Common lespedeza
Excellent stand, uncut (avg. 4.5")(11cm)
Buffalo grass
Good stand, uncut (3 to 6")(8 to 15cm)
Grass -legume mixture
Good stand, uncut (4 to 5")(10 to 13cm)
Les edeza sericea
After cutting to 2" 5cm , Very good stand before
E
Bermuda grass
Good stand (1.5")(4cm)
Bermuda grass
Burned stubble

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 2008 2570 County: Onslow-U.S.G.S. Quad: Camp Leieune
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent. USDIC= Cann) Leieane Consultant: Geo=Marine`Incornorated
Address: attn: Marty Korenek attm Jef DeBerry
PSC Box 20004 2713 iVln ruder Blvd Sul
mte a®�_ 1
Canm Leieune, NC 28542 Hantou, VA 23666 8 ®/
Property description: JUN 19 2014
Size (acres) + 2000 acres Nearest Town Camp Leieune
Nearest Waterway Northeast and New River Watersheds River Basin Wldte Oak
USGS HUC 03030001 Coordinates N 34.7247 W 77.3771�Y'
Location description The review area is located within Camp Leieune specifically within Camp Johnson and a
two iect area known lis the PPV 14 op the opposite banks of the Notthcast Creek from Camp Johnson, Onslow County.
Indicate Which of the Following AnPly:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, 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 Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the pennit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
S 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). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this 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 in 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 survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas 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.
% The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by (lie Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on 3/16/2009. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described properly which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of tile Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years. from the date'of this
notification.
_ The properly is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
page I of 2

Action ID:
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water -Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Brad Shaver at 910-251-4611.
C. Basis For Determination
The subject area exhibits wetland criteria is described in the 1987 Corps Delineation Manual and Is abutting or
represented by relatively permanent waterbodies which ultimately flow into the Northeast Creek and New River, both
traditional navigable waters of the US.
D. Remarks
The site was field verified by Emily Hughes and Brad Shaver on 5/27/08, 6/24/08, 7/29/08, 8/12108, 8/19108, 8/26/08
9/9/08, and 9/16/08 .
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as Indicated In
B. 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 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification: of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Brad Slaver, Project Manager,
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office '
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Ili order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 5/16/2009.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: __ e&j it '
Date 3/16/2009
Expiration Date 3/1612014
The Wilmington District is committed to providing [tic highest level of support to file public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
Inttp://www.saw.tis,icaariiiy.nnii/WETLANDS/index.11tnrl toconnplete.lhesurveyodine.
Copy furnished:
Charles F. Riggs & Associatesi Inc. atln: Charles Riggs, P.L.S P.O. Box 1570 Jacksonville, NC 2354)
Page 2 of 2

US. MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP JOHNSON
WETLANDS SURVEY
PROJECT AREA - (INSLOW COUNTY
MAP DATE, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
DATA ANALSIS BASED ON
NAD 1"3 UTM ION BASE GRID INFORMATION
WETLANDS DELINEATED BY
JEFFREY W. DEBERRY, PWS
GEO-MARINE, INC.
2713 MAGRUDER BOULEVARD, SUITE D
HAMPTON, VA 23666
TEL, 1757) 073-3702
FAX, [phone]
SURVEYED AND PREARED BY
JOHN L PIERCE 6 ASSOCIATES
409'JOHNSDN BOULEVARD
JACKSONVILLE, N.C. eW40
TELi [phone]
FAX, [phone]
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
JOHN L PIERCE
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, L-2596
NERAL NOTES,
ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GROUND HORIZONTAL,
THIS SURVEY IS TIED TO GRID AND THE DATUM IS
NAD-83,
THIS SURVEY IS PREARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A
TITLE REPORT AND MAY NOT INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANC
ON THE PROPERTY,
THIS SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS,
AGREEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD PRIOR TO
THE DATE OF THE SURVEY.
THIS SURVEY IS OF WETLANDS BOUNDARIES OF 17097-1
36.PROJECT AREA CARP JOHNSON BY GEG-MARINE AND
SURVEYED BY JOHN L. PIERCE 6 ASSOCIATES.
THIS IA A CLASS •A• DGPS SURVEY.
IIS MAP IS A CERTIFIED SURVEY BUT HAS NOT BEEN
MY NAND L
REGULATIONS. IRIS DEITI1dIMA11W MAY BE ROIm UPON FOR A PER100
NOT TD EXCFI]) RYE YEARS FRJM TNIS DATE,
REGULATMYYp OITIOAL
TITLE 7�Pafct MLL wArci
GATE ;•16,2G�
UyuE ACn(N 1) 1 v3 LS�o
1SAHEET

U.S. MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP JOHNSON
WETLANDS SURVEY
PROJECT AREA - ONSLOW COUNTY
MAP DATE, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
DATA ANALSIS BASED ON
MAD 1983 UTM 18N BASE GRID INFORMATION
WETLANDS DELINEATED BY
JEFFREY W. DEBERRY, PWS
GEO-MARINE, INC.
2713 MAGRUDER BOULEVARD, SUITE D
HAMPTON, VA. 23666
TEL, [phone]
FAX,[phone]
SURVEYED AND PREARED BY
JOHN L. PIERCE 6 ASSOCIATES
405 JOHNS13N BOULEVARD
JACKSONVILLE, N.C. 28540
TEL, [phone]
FAX, [phone]
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
JOHN L. PIERCE
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, L-2596
GENERAL NOTES,
1. ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GROUND HORIZONTAL.
2. THIS SURVEY 1S TIED TO GRID AND THE DATUM IS
NAD-83,
3. THIS SURVEY IS PREARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A
TITLE REPORT AND MAY NOT INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCE:
ON THE PROPERTY.
4. THIS SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS,
AGREEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD PRIOR TO
THE DATE OF THE SURVEY.
5. THIS SURVEY IS OF WETLANDS BOUNDARIES OF 17097-01
36 PROJECT AREA CAMP JOHNSON BY GEO-MARINE AND
SURVEYED BY JOHN L. PIERCE 6 ASSOCIATES.
6. THIS IA A CLASS 'A' DGPS SURVEY.
THIS MAP IS A CERTIFIED SURVEY BUT HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCEWITH ANY APPLICABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS AND THEREFORE DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM
STANDARDS FOR RECORDING,
��LIT iii
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THISW6k
AN ACTUAL SURVEY BY HE DR UA RECT. IS�DW
DAND EPSTHSTL gg�R� THE �ytt •QC ,CALCIFY, /h
e�T�Egg
o-. MY n NANO L SEAL ZFf FAY CPA,
<9
"THIS CERTIFIES THAT INS caPr"bs Y
AS WATERS AND WETLANDS ALL M�1,� S
flEWU1ED PURSUANT TO SECTION 40('gj E
DETERMINED BY THEUNDERSIGNEDCN THISr/ ROUT II
WAS MADE UTILIZING THE 1987 CORPS OF ENGINEERS W7
DELEINEATION MANUAL ADDITIONALLY INTERMITTENT AND
STREAM ORIGINS WERE LOCATED UTILIZING THE IDENTUTC
FOR THE ORIGINS OF INTERMITTENT AND PERENNIAL STR'
7.1 AND ARE ACCURATELY IDENTIFIED ON THIS COPY 0
UN SS THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE LAW OR OUR PUBL
REGULATIONS THIS DETERMINATION MAY BE RELIED UPO
NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS FROM THIS DATE'
REGULATORY OFFICIAL ^1 AAA
TITLE fl8IlaA-
DATE 3.16.Z*
USAGE ACTION 10 10-d LS}s
AS
FOR A PERIOD

i —
. ....
Lj.....
...
- -----------
AREA
PARKING
�
... .... ...
------ PROJECT �LIWTS
ti
/ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
WETLANDS
PARKING AREA
%
.... .
... . ... ... ...
,A
PROPOSED INFILTRATION WEI'
p
c
4
T�L�AND*S
PROP 6ED INFILTRATION SM
LIMITS
0
a
DEt I s Zmd
EARTH TECH AECOMRsioloh. NC 27607
919-854-6200 G-3_
MARINE CORPS BASE
m. 811
M200 AREA PARKING
SITE OVERVIEW

11
i r-
GI
a

DEVIA TIONS FROM
DESIGN DRA WINGS:
DESIGN
ASBUILT STATE MIN.
NORMAL POOL ELEVATION
9.0
9.1
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
11.0
10.5
SURFACE AREA PP
28,513
36,262 -
STORAGE
X657
3056 -
DRATIDOIW TIME (DAYS)
279
3.10
POND SUMMARY:
NCDENR/DWQ PERMIT # SWS-120101
1. IMPERVIOUS AREA PERMITTED
271,028 SF (6.22 ACRES)
2 NORMAL POOL SURFACE AREA
36,262 s1
3. NORMAL POOL ELEVATION
9.1
4. POND DEPTH (DEEPEST POINT)
6.0 FT
5. POND BOTTOM ELEVA71ON (DEEPEST POINT)
3.1
6. ORIFICE INVERT ELEVATION
9.1
7. OUTLET BOX CREST ELEVATION
10.0
8. STATE STORAGE VOLUME
34,656 CF
9. 10.1 FT VEGETATED SHELF
PRESENT
10. 10 FT ACCESS
PRESENT
11. FOREBAY
PRESENT
12 PRIMARY SPILLWAY ELEVATION
f0.0
13. EMERGENCY SPILLWAY ELEVATION
10.5
It ORIFICE SIZE
3.0 INCHES
15. 9DESLOPES (TYPICAL)
3•1
16. INV. OF PIPES FROM OUTLET STRUCTURE
9.1
17. CREST LENGTH OF GRATES
4'
STATE WATER QUALITY POND CONSIDERATIONS -
SURFACE AREA REQUIRED = 28,513 SF
SURFACE AREA PROVIDED = 36,262 SF o ELEV 11
1.5" STORAGE VOLUME REQUIRED = 34,657 CF
1.5" STORAGE VOLUME PROVIDED = 34,656 CF
1.5' STORAGE DRAWDOW TIME = 3.1 DAYS
\
/
6" PVC SCREW PLUG
6" ORIFICE ASSEMBLY
6" CROSS
SKIMMER CONNECTION
TO BE CAPPED ONCE
SKIMMER IS REMOVED
WSEL = 9.1
3
iF
1�
EL= 11.5 7 /P/
jpP
O GRP�
f PBR� pN
O'X/NV=
2 FT SUMPFOR CLEANOUT OOTLET PIPE
INV= 9.1
12"
12" OR"CROUT
A-
6"BASE
Par.king Area
Q)
Edge Pavement
4 FT x 4 FT PRECAST CONCRETE BOXES
NC PRODUCTS 4848 OR EQUIVALENT
SECTION VIEW
ASBUILT WET BASIN A
OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAILS
NOT TO SCALE
TOP OF EMBANKMENT l
ELEIATION = 11.0
AS -BUILT WET DETENTION BASIN
EMERGENCY SPILL WA Y
FRONT VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
m
NOTES
1. AS -BUILT LOCATIONS PERFORMED AND PROVIDED BY BELL AND PHIWPS
SURVEYING, PLLC. DRAWING LABELED `STORMWATER INFILTRATION BASIN ASBUILT
SURVEY OF BACHELORS ENLISTED QUARTERS CAMP JOHNSON P-1319"
SIGNED AND SEALED BY C1RUS ALAN BELL L-2699
DATED 4-11-14
2. ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO NAVD 1988
Outlet Structure
Top(High
Side = 11.5'
Top(Low
Side = 10.0'
InV. 6"
= 9.0'
Inv. 18"
= 9.1'
Bottom
= 6.0'
Inv. Out 18" = 7.63'
Inv. In 24" = 4.84
60
it
LICENSE # C-2710 "
COASTAL
SITE
DESIGN,PC
ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL
P.O. Box 4041
Wilmington, NC 28406
[phone]
�s
. $t
101
�6
®e�
R 54s
ET;t�
$€"6€
fq88EppEg
€o`ZS5
E�EB
n
d-
00
00
U
Lj
OZ
J
mQ�
CE
(3
UL�
oQ
z�U
0::C)Op
gm�
W
Z
O
ICArR�wxx
�Q-.�EgS7o !xy
SEAL 7'-
a 025483 -
�yDAy�4,GINE�� t1��
Q
0
m
Q
W
O
Z
W
DATE 4-14-14
HORZ. SCALE.: 1"= 20'
VERT. SCALE.., N/A
DRAWN BY.• RLW
CHECKED BY.• HSR
PROJECT NO: 09-0211_CJ
DRAWING NO: 09-0211_CJ
1
T__ ]
Sh"t No.
Of