SW8130207_HISTORICAL FILE_20130328

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8 1302o-j
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
© HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
2 0 Cb 03 ZS
YYYYMMDD

MC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Pat McCrory Charles Wakild, P. E. John Skvarla
Governor Director Secretary
March 28, 2013
Commanding Officer
MCB Camp Lejeune
c/o Neal Paul, Deputy Public Works Officer
Building 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542
Subject: State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8130207
Personnel Administration Center P-711
High Density Commercial Wet Detention Pond Project
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Paul:
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit Application for the Personnel
Administration Center (P-711) on March 25, 2013. Staff review of the plans and specifications has determined that the
project, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000 and Session Law
2008-211. We are forwarding Permit No. SW8130207 dated March 28, 2013, for the construction, operation and
maintenance of the BMP's and built -upon areas associated with the subject project.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until March 28, 2021, and shall be subject to the conditions and
limitations as specified therein. Please pay special attention to the conditions listed in this permit regarding the Operation
and Maintenance of the BMP(s), recordation of deed restrictions, procedures for changes of ownership, transferring the
permit, and renewing the permit. Failure to establish an adequate system for operation and maintenance of the
stormwater management system, to record deed restrictions, to transfer the permit, or to renew the permit, will result in
future compliance problems.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the right to request an
adjudicatory hearing by filing a written petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The written petition must
conform to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and must be filed with the OAH within thirty (30) days of
receipt of this permit. You should contact the OAH with all questions regarding the filing fee (if a filing fee is required)
and/or the details of the filing process at 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, or via telephone at 919-431-
3000, or visit their website at www.NCOAH.com. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Christine Nelson, at (910)
796-7215,
Sincerely,
Charles Wakild, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
GDS/can: S:\WQS\Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2013\130207 HD\2013 03 permit 130207
cc: William Swaney, NAVFAC MIDLANT, MCNC-IPT
Onslow County Building Inspections
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone]
Internet: wr umxratero ualiry.org
NorthCarolina
Natmallry
An Equal Opportunity 1ARumative Action Employer

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 130207
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North
Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
US MCB Camp Lejeune
pPersonnel Administration Center (P-711)
White Street, New River MCAS, Camp Lejeune, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of one (1) wet detention pond in compliance with
the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 and Session Law 2008-211 (hereafter collectively
referred to as the "stormwater rules') the approved stormwater management plans and
specifications and other supporting data as attached and on file with and approved by the
Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until March 28, 2021, and shall be
subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of stormwater
described in the application and other supporting data.
2. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater runoff
as described in Section 1.8 of this permit. The stormwater control has been designed
to handle the runoff from 74,341 square feet of impervious area.
3. 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.
4. A vegetated filter strip is not required for this pond as it has been designed for a total
suspended solids removal efficiency of 90%.
5. The tract will be limited to the amount of built -upon area indicated in this permit, and
per approved plans.
6. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located in either dedicated
common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the project will be recorded
showing all such required easements, in accordance with the approved plans.
7. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area(s) of this project
must be directed into the permitted stormwater control system.
Page 2 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 130207
The following design criteria have been provided in the wet detention pond and must
be maintained at design condition:
a. Drainage Area, acres:
Onsite, ft :
Offsite, ftZ:
b. Total Impervioul Surfaces, ftZ:
Onsite, ft. :
Offsite, ftZ:
C. Design Storm, inches:
d. Average Pond Design Depth, feet:
e. TSS removal efficiency:
f. Permanent Pool Elevation, FMSL:
g. Permanent Pool Surface Areq, ftZ:
h. Permitted Storage Volume, ft :
i. Temporary Storage Elevation, FMSL:
j. Pre-dev. 1 yr-24 hr. discharge rate, cfs
k. Controlling Orifice:
I. Orifice flowrate, cfs:
M. Permitted Forebay Volume, ft3:
n. Fountain Horsepower
o. Receiving Stream/River Basin:
P. Stream Index Number:
q. Classification of Water Body:
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
2.81
122,574
N/A
74,341
74,341
N/A
1.5
4
90
13.5
7,308
9,590
14.55
9.5
1.25" 0 pipe
0.02
2,570
N/A
Southwest Creek / White Oak
19-(15.5)
"C;HQW;NSW"
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 DWQ. The records will indicate the date, activity, name of
person performing the work and what actions were taken.
A fountain is not allowed if the permanent pool volume of the pond is less than 30,000
cubic feet.
6. The facilities shall be constructed as shown on the approved plans. This permit shall
become void unless the facilities are constructed in accordance with the conditions of
this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting data.
7. Upon completion of construction, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and
prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received from an
appropriate designer for the system installed certifying that the permitted facility has
been installed in accordance with this permit, the approved plans and specifications,
and other supporting documentation. Any deviations from the approved plans and
specifications must a noted on the Certification. A modification may be required for
those deviations.
Page 3 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 130207
8. 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.
9. Access to the stormwater facilities for inspection and maintenance shall be maintained
via appropriate recorded easements at all times.
10. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for revised
plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any modification to the
approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed below:
a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the
stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
C. 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.
11. Prior to the construction of any permitted future areas shown on the approved plans,
the permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans to the Division for
approval.
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
This permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and
approval by the Director. At least 30 days prior to a change of ownership, or a name
change of the permittee or of the project, or a mailing address change, the permittee
must submit a completed and signed Name/Ownership Change Form to the Division
of Water Quality, accompanied by the supporting documentation as listed on the form.
The approval of this request will be considered on its merits and may or may not be
approved.
2. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such time
as the Division approves the transfer request. Neither the sale of the project in whole
or in part, nor the conveyance of common area to a third party constitutes an
approved transfer of the stormwater permit.
3. Any individual or entity found to be in noncompliance with the provisions of this
storrmwater management permit or the requirements of the Stormwater rules is
subject to enforcement procedures as set forth in G.S. 143 Article 21.
4. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with any
and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by other
government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction.
Page 4 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 130207
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.
The permittee grants DENR Staff permission to enter the property during normal
business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted
stormwater management facility.
The permit remains in force and effect until modified, revoked, terminated or renewed.
The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The filing
of a request for a permit modification, revocation and re -issuance or termination does
not stay any permit condition.
8. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
9. The permittee shall submit a permit renewal request at least 180 days prior to the
expiration date of this permit. The renewal request must include the appropriate
documentation and the processing fee.
Permit issued this the 28th day of March, 2013.
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 5 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 130207
Personnel Administration Center P-711
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 130207
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
of my abilities, due care and diligence was
such that the construction was observed to
of the approved plans and specifications.
_(Project Owner) hereby state that, to the best
ised in the observation of the project construction
be built within substantial compliance and intent
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specifications:
Signature
Registration Number
Date
SEAL
Page 6 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 130207
Certification Requirements:
1. The drainage area to the system contains approximately the permitted acreage.
2. The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted amount
of built -upon area.
3. All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the runoff
drains to the system.
4. All roof drains are located such that the runoff is directed into the system.
5. The outlet structure elevations are per the approved plan.
6. The outlet structure is located per the approved plans.
7. Trash rack is provided on the outlet structure.
8. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
9. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
10. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-circuiting
of the system.
11. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been provided.
12. Required drawdown devices are correctly sized and located per the approved
plans.
13. All required design depths are provided.
14. All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf, and a
forebay.
15. The required system dimensions are provided per the approved plans.
16. All components of the stormwater BMP are located in either recorded common
areas, or recorded easements.
cc: NCDENR-DWQ Regional Office
Page 7 of 7

DWQ USE ONLY
Date Received
Fee Paid
Permit Number
- 5 -1
coo.o" 1-76in c
5"J�6�3o�L�
Applicable Rules:
❑ Coastal SW -1995 ❑ Coastal SW - 2008 ❑ Ph II - Post Construction
(select all that apply)
❑ Non -Coastal SW- HQW/ORW Waters ❑ Universal Stormwater Management Plan
❑ Other WQ M nit Plan:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
This form may be photocopied for use 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.):
Personnel Administration Center (P711)
2. Location of Project (street address):
White Street
City:MCAS New River County:Onslow Zip:28540
3. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
After entering the main gate at New River MCAS, travel 1.3 miles along Cutris Road to White Street. Turn
right onto White Street. Approximately 1 /4 mile on the left is the site; across from the medical clinic.
4. Latitude:34° 43' 15" N Longitude:77° 2T 04" W of the main entrance to the project.
IL PERMIT INFORMATION
1. a. Specify whether project is (check one): ®New ❑Modification ❑ Renewal w/ Modifications
tRenemals with modifications also requires SIIVU-102 - Reneu al Application Form
b.lf this application is being submitted as the result of a modification to an existing permit, list the existing
permit number , its issue date (if known) , 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 DWQ
requesting a state stormwater management permit application, list the storn»vater 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: 5.40 ac of Disturbed Area
❑NPDES Industrial Stormwater ❑404/401 Permit: Proposed Impacts
b.If any of these permits have already been acquired please provide the Project Name, Project/Permit Number,
issue date and the type of each permit:
5. Is the project located within 5 miles of a public airport? ZJ<No UYes
If yes, see S.L. 2072-200, Part Vl: http://12ortal.ncdenr.org web/wq/ws/su Statesw.r 1 r IV pry
E b
Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 Page I of MAR 2 5 2013

IIL< 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 Leicune
Signing Official & Title: Neal Paul, PE
b.Contact information for person listed in item la above:
Street -Address: 1005 Michael Road
City: Camp Lejeune State: NC Zip: 28457
Mailing Address (if
City:
Phone: ( 1
State: Zi
Fax: ( 1
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: State: Zip:
Phone: ( ) Fax:
3. a. (Optional) Print the name and title of another contact such as the project's construction supervisor or other
person who can answer questions about the project:
Other Contact
Signing Official &
b.Contact information for person listed in item 3a above:
Mailing Address:
Phone: ( 1 Fax:
Email:
4. Local jurisdiction for building permits:
Point of Contact:
Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012
Phone #:
EGEOVEM
Page 2 of 6 MAR i 5 Z013
BY.

IV.- PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, briefly summarize how the stormwater runoff will be treated.
The stormwater on site will sheet flow off of a 93 space parking lot and 17,067-SF building into V-swales.
Once in the swales, the storm Flows will stormwater will enter a forebay and spill over into a wet pond where
the required water quality volume will release into a 30-foot vegetated swale. Release rate will be 2-4 days.
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 II - Post Construction
3. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the White Oak River basin.
4. Total Property Area: 2,81! i A 1 acres 5. Total Coastal Wetlands Area: 0 acres
G4iD 6. Total Surface Water Area: 0.17 acres
7. 'Total Property Area (4) -Total Coastal Wetlands Area (5) -'Total Surface Water Area (6) = Total Project
Aree:2.69 acres
Total project area shall be calculated to exclude the following the noruml )ool of impounded structures, the area
between the banks of streans and rivers, the area below the Nornml High Water (NHW) 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 tine NHW (or MHW) Line nnay
be included in the total project area.
8. Project percent of impervious area: (Total Impervious Area / Total Project Area) X 100 = 60.65 %
9. How many drainage areas does the project have?] (For high density, count 1 for each proposed engineered
stornuoater BMP. For lord density and other projects, use 1 for the whole property area)
10. Complete the following information for each drainage area identified in Project Information item 9. If there
are more than four drainage areas in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area
provided in the same format as below.
Basin Information
Draina a Area 10
Draina e Area
Draina e Area _
Draina e Area _
Receiving Stream Name
Southwest Creek
Stream Class *
C,I-IQW,NSW
Stream Index Number *
19-(75.5)
Total Drainage Area (so
122,574
On -site Drainage Area (so
122,574
Off -site Drainage Area (so
0
Proposed Impervious Area** (so
74,341
% Impervious Area** total
60.65
Impervious- Surface Area
Drainage Area _
Drainage Area _
Drainage Area _
Drainage Area _
On -site Buildings/Lots (so
17,067
On -site Streets (so
0
On -site Parking (so
35,508
On -site Sidewalks (so
2040
Other on -site (so
12,806
Future (so
0
Off -site (so
0
Existing BUA*** (so
6,920
Total (so:
74,341
* Stream Class and Index Number can be determined at: htt : ortnLncdeur.or veb a rs csu clnssi it ut. r 1.7,
s
I Fonn SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 Page 3 of MAR 2 5 2013. f

** Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
Report only that anwunt of existing BUA that will remain after development. Do not report any existing BUA that
is to be removed and which will be replaced by new BUA.
11. How was the off -site impervious area listed above determined? Provide documentation.
Projects in Union County: Contact DWQ Central Office staff to check if the project is located Yvithin a Threatened &
Endangered Species watershed that ma}, be subject to more stringent storiwater requirements as per 15A NCAC 0213.0600.
V. SUPPLEMENT AND O&M FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement and operation and maintenance (O&M) forms
must be submitted for each BMP specified for this project. The latest versions of the forms can be downloaded
from littp://portal.iicdeiir.org/web/wq/ws/su/bmp-manual.
VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
A complete package includes all of the items listed below. A detailed application instruction sheet and BMP
checklists are available fromhtto://portarncdennorg/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms dots. Thecomplete
application package should be submitted to the appropriate DWQ Office. ('rhe appropriate office may be
found by locating project on the interactive online map at htto: / / portal.neclen norg/ web/ wq/ 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 http://portaLncdennorg/web/wgitws/su/statesw/forms does.
Initials
1. Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form.
2. Original and one copy of the signed and notarized Deed Restrictions & Protective Coveniants
Form. (if required as per Part VII below)
3. Original of the applicable Supplement Forrn(s) (sealed, signed and dated) and O&M
agreement(s) for each 13MP.
4. Permit application processing fee of $505 payable to NCDENR. (For an Express review, refer to
littp://wwv�.eiivhelp.org/pages/oi)estopexpress.litm] 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 stormwaler treatment/managementfor
the project. 'This is required in addition to the brief summary provided in the Project
Information, item 1.
6. .A USGS map identifying the site location. If the receiving stream is reported as class SA or the
receiving stream drains to class SA waters within 1/2 mile of the site boundary, include the 1/2
mile radius on the map.
7. Sealed, signed and dated calculations (one copy).
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 MI-IW or NI-IW line of tidal
waters, and any coastal wetlands landward of the MI-IW or NI-1W lines.
• Delineate the vegetated buffer landward from the normal pool elevation of impounded
structures, the banks of streams or rivers, and the MI-IW for NHW) of tidal waters.
i. Dimensioned properly/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 stonnwater control measures."' E C E dp
V Ei
Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 Page 4 of
MAR 2 5 2013
BY-.

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"x11" copy of the NRCS County Soils map with the
project area clearly delineated. For projects with infiltration BMPs, the report should also
include the soil type, expected infiltration rate, and the method of determining the infiltration rate.
(Infiltration Devices submitted to WiRO: Schedule a site visit for DWQ to verifij the SHWI' 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 ]a, 2a, and/or 3a per 15A NCAC 21-1.1003(e).
The corporation or LLC must be listed as an active corporation in good standing with the NC
Secretary of State, otherwise the application will be returned.
http:/ /rvww.secretary.state.nc.us/Colorations/CSearch.aspxx
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
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw//forms does. Download the latestversions for each submittal.
In the instances where the applicant is different than the property owner, it is the responsibility of the property
owner to sign the deed restrictions and protective covenants form while the applicant is responsible for ensuring
that the deed restrictions are recorded.
By the notarized signature(s) below, the permit holder(s) certify that the recorded property restrictions and
protective covenants for this project, if required, shall include all the items required in the permit and listed
on the forms available on the website, that the covenants will be binding on all parties and persons claiming
under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants cannot be changed or deleted
without concurrence from the NC DWQ, and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
VIII. CONSULTANT INFORMATION AND AUTHORIZATION
Applicant: Complete this section if you wish to designate authority to another individual and/or firm (such as a
consulting engineer and/or firm) so that they may provide information on your behalf for this project (such as
addressing requests for additional information).
Consulting Engineer:William Swaney, PE
Consulting Firm: NAVFAC MIDI -ANT, MCNC-II71'
Mailing Address:9742 Maryland Ave
City:Norfolk
Phone: (757 ) 322-8360
Email:william.swaney aOnavy. mil
State:VA Zip:23511
Fax: (757 ) 322-0280
IX. PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION (if Contact Information, item 2las been filled out, complete this
section)
I, (print or type 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 type nanne of person
listed in Contact Infortnation, item 1a) with (print or type name of organization listed in
Contact Information, itenn 1a) to develop the project as currently proposed. A copy of
the lease agreement or pending property sales contract has been provided with the submittal, which indicates the
party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system. P 9-1-4 9= qA 3IT=RN
•
g�
Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 Page 5 of 6
MAR
2 5
e�
2013

As the legal property owner I acknowledge, understand, and agree by my signature below, that if my designated
agent (entity listed in Contact Information, item 1) dissolves their company and/or cancels or defaults on their
lease agreement, or pending sale, responsibility for compliance with the DWQ Stormwater permit reverts back to
me, the property owner. As the property owner, it is my responsibility to notify DWQ immediately and submit a
completed Name/Ownership Change Form within 30 days; otherwise I will be operating a stormwater treatment
facility without a valid permit. I understand that the operation of a stormwater treatment facility without a valid
permit is a violation of NC General Statue 143-215.1 and may result in appropriate enforcement action including
the assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day, pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6.
Signature: Date:
I, a Notary Public for the State of County of
do hereby certify that personally appeared
before me this _ day of • 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 hype nanne of person listed in Contact Information, item 1a) Neal Paul, PE
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 stornnvater rules under 15A NCAC 2H .1000 and any other applicable state stormwater requirements.
Signature: Date:
a Notary Public for the State of County of
do hereby certify that
before me this _ day of
personally appeared
and acknowledge the due execution of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal,
SEAL.
My commission
Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 Page 6 of
MAR 2 5 2013
BY:

MEMORY TRANSMISSION REPORT
TIME :04-02-'13 08:08
FAX NO.1 :910-350-2004
NAME :DENR Wilmington
FILE NO.
163
DATE
04.02
08:01
TO
R 917 5732 28280
DOCUMENT PAGES
13
START TIME
04.02
08:01
END TIME
04.02
08:08
PAGES SENT
13
STATUS
OR
**' SUCCESSFUL TX NOTICE
Stat< of North CorYfina
U<pa rfinent ul Envfron m<nf and IVafYral Re�oureee
W HminQton Rnglnn<f Uflter
PUI McCrory, Governor FAX COVFrR SHEE"C JUAn £SRvoNo //l�.pSaor<tary
pnm:—js No. Pagaa (<xcl. cover): /f /�
Co: /(/� ✓�� G Pfione f9101096-9336
Rc:
12"l Cv dinal O1— 1— ... ron, Wllminpron, Nc 2ke05 - (9\O) 196-11.1 S - An Egnnl Oppm[unlry AfCemnrive Acnon Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Pal,llcC'rory, Governor FAX COVER SHEET John ESkvarla III, Secretary
Date: Z 3 No. Pages (excl. cover):
To: �i ��% 9 m -� L./�� �`/ From: Jo Casmer
Co: �� % / Phone: [phone]
Fax: %S % — 322 — &Z Fax: [phone]
Re:
sw �006 Zz
127 Cardinal Drive -Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 o [phone] o An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

!MEMORY TRANSMISSION REPORT
FILE NO.
DATE
TO
DOCUMENT PAGES
STAPT TIME
END TIME
PAGES SENT
STATUS
Pot McCrary. GOvlrnnr
TIME 04-02-'13 07:53
FAX NO.1 :910-350-2004
NAME :DENR Wilmington
162
04.02 07:49
8 919104512927
13
04.02 07:50
04.02 07:53
13
ON
`"* SUCCESSFUL TX NOTICE
sn<e or Nonb Car llna
Deprrlment of Bnvlron mans and Nata a'al R¢sn urees
W llm lnplon Raalon rl Omcr
FAX COVER SHEET ✓oAn PShvar/o /O. Sacrrsrry
fiats: y-Z � 3 No. Yagcs lcxcl. cover):
To: i/�/L �iOrL �✓6/ic LJm <-Fs iTrom: .. r• a
Phone [phone]r�336
l9101 350-2004
CAm p ac// s sue- � -+F �i .c.C: -) Ge f� if/� ✓ .��
1?> Catd m al fl aivc Exaen sion. W�l man gtonNC 26901 � ('l l0) J96-7215 � An I:pu el Ot.poMn�ry' Atn rtn naive Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Pat McCrory, Governor FAX COVER SHEEP John E Skvarla III, Secretary
Date: ��Z 3 No. Pages (excl. cover):
To: y��G / G W ��S From: Jo Casmer
Co: L t� " L G Phone: [phone]
Fax: 92- 7 Fax: [phone]
4"
�� G/C/ w� GO 7 yC I✓ /ver
C /
SW8 �/OOlo2 Z
/'7.5 /-SSvGt/—/7a/d —,0��/ 7�i ico�•`wfj
127 Cardinal Or Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 o [phone] o An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Transmotta0
Date: March 21. 2013
To: NC-DENR
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attn: Chris Baker
From: Naval Facilities Engineering Command — Mid -Atlantic
Marine Corps North Carolina IPT
6506 Hampton Blvd., Bldg. C
Norfolk, VA 23508
Attn: William A. Swaney, P.E.
RE: P-711 Personnel Administration Building
Storm Water Express Review
fJaval Facilities Engineering Commend
w�v��c rnoaiuxnc
Copies
Date
Description
I
Storm Water management Pcnnit Application revised
I
Wet Detention Pond Supplement
I
SA/DA Table 10-4
1
Avg. Depth Calculation
I
Foreba y Stage/Storage
2
Half Size Plans C-001, C-401, C-605, C-800, C-801
I
Plan Review Comment Responses
Remarks:
For review and approval. Please call if you have any questions, 757-322-8360.
Respectfully,
Distribution:
NAVFAC Files
William A. Swaney, P.E.
ECEIVE
MAR 2 5 2013
BY:

P-711 Personnel Administration Building Storm Water Permit Application
COMMENT RESPONSES:
Comment: Please confirm the project area presented in Section IVA and 7 of the application
The project area listed in these sections is not the same as the area listed in Section IVA0. If
the additional area is for the demolition areas and it is desired to include these as part of the
project area, then those areas should be added as additional drainage areas.
Response: These values have been revised. See Revised Permit Application
Comment: The drainage area and/or stormwater permit boundary for the wet detention pond
could not be located on the plans. Please ensure the drainage area is delineated on the plans
It would also be helpful to identify permits in the surrounding areas by indicating the permit
number(s) and the extent of the permitted area(s).
Response: The drainage area was shown on plan sheet C-502. For better clarification we have
prepared pre and post -drainage maps. See sheets C-800 and C-801
Comment: There appears to be additional impervious areas proposed for utility improvements
on the north side of this site. This area also appears to be located within the new low density
area proposed in the modification to State Stormwater Permit SW8 900622; however, the
modification to this permit does not include these improvements on the plan. Please confirm
the extent of the impervious area in this vicinity and which permit area it resides in.
Response: The impervious areas falling outside of the drainage boundary pond totaled 315-SF
and were added to the Campbell Street Parking Lot low density permit application. See
Revised Permit Application.
Comment: Please ensure the information is presented consistently and accurately. The
following inconsistencies were found:
a. The drainage area and impervious area presented in the supplement and calculations is not
the same as the areas presented in Section IV.10 of the application.
b. The permanent pool surface area presented in the calculations is not the same as the
surface area presented in the supplement.
c. The temporary pool surface area presented in the supplement is the same surface area as
listed for the permanent pool.
Response: These values have been revised. See Revised Permit Application
Comment: Please provide a stage storage table for the permanent pool and/or calculations
demonstrating the volume provided in the permanent pool.
Response: Permanent pool will not a have a stage storage. Calculation for the volume of the
permanent pool has been provided.
Comment: The calculations and supplement indicate that the forebay size was based on the
required storage volume; however, the forebay size should be based on the provided
permanent pool volume per page 10-12 of the NC BMP manual. Please reconsider the design
of the forebay such that the forebay is approximately 20% of the provided permanent pool
volume.
Response: Forebay size has been revised and is presently at 21%.
Comment: Please provide the detailed calculation for the average depth of the pond
MAR 2 5 2013 }
BY:

Response: Calculation for the average depth has been provided.
Comment: Please note that the SA/DA ratio is not a percent, it is a unitless factor. When
presented in the supplement, it should be listed as 5.3.
Response: This has been revised. See Revised Permit Application.
Comment: Please explain what Survey Note 8 on sheet C-001 means. This note states that
"404 wetlands exist and were not part of this survey". Does this mean that wetlands are present
within the project area? Please either delineate the wetlands within the project area or provide
a note indicate that none exist within the project area.
Response: This note has been revised. There are no wetlands on this site.
Comment: It appears that the southwest corner of the fire/emergency access road is graded to
drain away from the stormwater collection system. Please confirm that the runoff from all
impervious areas located within the drainage area of the wet detention pond is directed to the
stormwater collection system.
Response: That portion of the impervious had been moved to the Campbell Street Parking Lot
low density permit modification. See Revised Permit Application.
Comment: Please indicate on the plans the width of the vegetated shelf.
Response: Added dimension line to the wall detail on sheet C-605.
Comment: Please provide a trash rack for the outlet structure,
Response: Frame and grate is being provided on the outlet structure. See sheet C-605
a
MAR 2 5 2013 b
By.�

60.a5
NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual Chapter Revised 06-16-09
Table 10-3
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ratio for Permanent Pool Sizing to Achieve 90 Percent TSS
Pollutant Removal Efficiency in the Mountain and Piedmmnt Regions, Adapted from Driscoll, 1986
Percent
Impervious
Cover
3.0
3.5
4.0
Permanent Pool Average Depth (ft)
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
10%
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
20 %
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
30 %
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
40%
2.5
2.3
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
50%
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
60%
3.5
3.2
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
70%
4.0
3.7
3.3
3.1
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
80%
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.0
90%
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
Table 10-4
Surface Area to Drainage Area Ratio for Permanent Pool Sizing to Achieve 90 Percent'I'SS
Pollutant Removal Efficiency in the Coastal Region, Adapted from Driscoll, 1986
Percent
Impervious
Cover
3.0
3
3.5
� o
yr4.0
Permanent
4.5
Pool Average Depth (ft)
5.0 5.5 6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5'
10%
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
20%
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.6
3006
3.5
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.1
0.8
40%
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.1
1.8
1.4
1.1
50%
5.6
5.0
4.3
3.9
3.5
3.1
2.7
2.3
1.9
1.5
D/
(c
_i0%
7.0
6.0
�
4.8
4.3
3.9
3.4
2.9
2.4
1.9
70%
8.1
7.0
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
3.9
3A
2.9
2.3
80%
9.4
8.0
7.0
6.4
5.7
5.2
4.6
4.0
3.4
2.8
90%
10.7
9.0
T9
7.2
6.5
5.9
5.2
4.6
3.9
3.3
100%
12
10.0
8.8
8.1
7.3
6.6
5.8
5.1
4.3
3.6
The engineering design of a wet detention basin must include a 10-foot-wide (minimum)
vegetated shelf around the full perimeter of the basin. The inside edge of the shelf shall
be no deeper than 6" below the permanent pool level, and the outside edge shall be 6"
above the permanent pool level. For a 10' wide shelf, the resulting slope is 10:1. With
half the required shelf below the water (maximum depth of 6 inches), and half the
required shelf above the water, the vegetated shelf will provide a location for a diverse
population of emergent wetland vegetation that enhances biological pollutant removal,
provides a habitat for wildlife, protects the shoreline from erosion, and improves
sediment trap efficiency. A 10' wide shelf also provides a safety feature prior to the
deeper permanent pool.
Short-circuiting of the stormwater must be prevented. The most direct way of
minimizing short_circuiting is to maximize the length of the flow path between the inlet
and the outlet: basins with long and narrow,shapes can maximize the length of the flow
path. Long and narrow but irregularly shaped wet detention basins may appear more
Wet Detention Basin 10-15 VJL�- U j�- U @9' Ef) July 2007
EW
MAR 2 5 2013

-^I � 1 S�,2r� w��2 � �c.v.va-,�lyv S /gyp ✓�
AvF,eAe n
o P77L�N Z F;eoA-, 4 i 4P. to
'4 F or 6�4tj (' A gor ll�t F.* A borQw�-�
bar st4.E
w _ 3 t�5.—Sr
_ _ - - � - - -- .bet s►�� - - - - ..
SF
_ _... --31 lLA ST
bor• Poo L
ECEIVE
MAR 2 5 2013
907m.
35500

FOREBAY VOLUME/STORAGE TABLE
Elevation Surface Area (sf) Incremental
Volume (cf)
11.5 864 0
12 1069 483.25
12.5 1280 587.25
13 1498 694.5
13.5 1722 805
Cumulative
Volume (cf)
0
483.25
1070. S
1765
2570
ECEO Cep E �
MAR 2 5 2013
s
BY:

Nelson, Christine
From:
Nelson, Christine
Sent:
Friday, March 15, 2013 2:25 PM
To:
'Swaney, William A CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, CI'; 'Bradshaw CIV Thomas C'
Cc:
Russell, Janet
Subject:
RE: Personnel Admin Center
Bill,
Chris Baker has been asked to assist in finalizing these two permits. If you could send the requested additional
information to his attention, that would be wonderful.
Thanks!
Christine
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and maybe disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:07 PM
To: 'Swaney, William A CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, CP; 'Bradshaw CIV Thomas C'
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: Personnel Admin Center
Bill,
The pdf of the request for additional information for the Personnel Administration Center in New River is attached.
Items 2 and 3 kind of relate to the modification for the Campbell Street Parking modification I e-mailed you about earlier
this week. So a few changes and tweaks may be needed for that one too. Copies of this letter will also be sent in the
mail. Also, my last day in the office before I go on vacation will be the 151h. If possible, I would like to wrap up these two
projects before I leave so please let me know if you have questions!
Thanks,
Christine
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
State Stormwater Program
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone:[phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.

FWA
1 MCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
March 7, 2013
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P. E.
Director
Commanding Officer
MCB Camp Lejeune
c/o Neal Paul, Deputy Public Works Officer
Building 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 25847
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 130207
Personnel Administration Center (P-711)
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Paul:
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
The Wilmington Regional Office received an Express Stormwater Management Permit
Application for the Personnel Administration Center (P-711) at MCAS New River on February
25, 2013. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the application is not
complete. The following information is needed to continue the stormwater review:
Please confirm the project area presented in Section IVA and 7 of the application. The
project area listed in these sections is not the same as the area listed in Section IV.10. If
the additional area is for the demolition areas and it is desired to include these as part of
the project area, then those areas should be added as additional drainage areas.
2. The drainage area and/or stormwater permit boundary for the wet detention pond could
not be located on the plans. Please ensure the drainage area is delineated on the plans.
It would also be helpful to identify permits in the surrounding areas by indicating the
permit number(s) and the extent of the permitted area(s).
There appears to be additional impervious areas proposed for utility improvements on
the north side of this site. This area also appears to be located within the new low
density area proposed in the modification to State Stormwater Permit SW8 900622;
however, the modification to this permit does not include these improvements on the
plan. Please confirm the extent of the impervious area in this vicinity and which permit
area it resides in.
Please ensure the information is presented consistently and accurately. The following
inconsistencies were found:
a. The drainage area and impervious area presented in the supplement and
calculations is not the same as the areas presented in Section IV.10 of the
application.
b. The permanent pool surface area presented in the calculations is not the same as
the surface area presented in the supplement.
c. The temporary pool surface area presented in the supplement is the same surface
area as listed for the permanent pool.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] DENR Assistance: 1-8776236748
Internet: w .nmaterquality,org
None
rthCarolina
Naturalley

Neal Paul
March 7, 2013
Stormwater Application No. SW8 130207
5. Please provide a stage storage table for the permanent pool and/or calculations
demonstrating the volume provided in the permanent pool.
6. The calculations and supplement indicate that the forebay size was based on the
required storage volume; however, the forebay size should be based on the provided
permanent pool volume per page 10-12 of the NC BMP manual. Please reconsider the
design of the forebay such that the forebay is approximately 20% of the provided
permanent pool volume.
Please provide the detailed calculation for the average depth of the pond.
Please note that the SA/DA ratio is not a percent, it is a unitless factor. When presented
in the supplement, it should be listed as 5.3.
9. Please explain what Survey Note 8 on sheet C-001 means. This note states that "404
wetlands exist and were not part of this survey'. Does this mean that wetlands are
present within the project area? Please either delineate the wetlands within the project
area or provide a note indicate that none exist within the project area.
10. It appears that the southwest corner of the fire/emergency access road is graded to
drain away from the stormwater collection system. Please confirm that the runoff from
all impervious areas located within the drainage area of the wet detention pond is
directed to the stormwater collection system.
11. Please indicate on the plans the width of the vegetated shelf
12. Please provide a trash rack for the outlet structure.
13. Due to the relatively minor nature of these comments, the express additional information
fee has been waived for this request.
14. Please keep in mind that changing one number may change other numbers and require
the calculations, supplements, and other supporting documentation to be updated.
Verify all numbers are correct to ensure consistency in the application documents.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review.
The requested information should be received in this Office prior to March 14, 2013, 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.
Page 2 of 3

Neal Paul
*arch 7, 2013
Stormwater Application No. SW8 130207
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
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
GDS/can: S:\WQS\StormWater\Permits & Projects\2013\130207 HD\2013 03 addinfo 130207
cc: William Swaney, NAVFAC MIDLANT, MCNC-IPT
Wilmington Regional Office
Page 3 of 3

Nelson, Christine
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:07 PM
To: 'Swaney, William A CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, CI', 'Bradshaw CIV Thomas C'
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: Personnel Admin Center
Attachments: (2013-03.addinfo_130207:pdf
Bill,
The pdf of the request for additional information for the Personnel Administration Center in New River is attached.
Items 2 and 3 kind of relate to the modification for the Campbell Street Parking modification I e-mailed you about earlier
this week. So a few changes and tweaks may be needed for that one too. tCopiesofthis-letter willalso,besent-in-sente
1�m—ail.=Also, my last day in the office before I go on vacation will be the 15t'. If possible, I would like to wrap up these two
projects before I leave so please let me know if you have questions!
Thanks,
Christine
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
State Stormwater Program
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone:[phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.

Transmittal
Date: 21 February 2013
To: NC-DENR
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
From: Naval Facilities Engineering Command — Mid -Atlantic
Marine Corps North Carolina IPT
6506 Hampton Blvd., Bldg. C
Norfolk, VA 23508
Attn: William A. Swaney, P.E.
RE: P-71 1 Personnel Administration Building
Storm Water Express Review
Naval Facilities Engineednfl Commend
xnvrnc ram.nrtnxnc
Copies
Date
Description
2
Storm Water management Pennit Application
I
Narrative/Design Calculations
I
1-I droflow Report, Per -Conditions
I
H droflow Report, Post -Conditions
I
Wet Detention Basin Supplement
I
P.E. Exemption Letter
I
A plication Fee: $4,000.00 Check
2I
I Half Size Plan Set
Remarks:
For review and approval. Please call if you have any questions, 757-322-8360.
Respectfully,
Distribution:
NAVFAC Files
William A. Swaney, P.E.
ECEI E
FEB 2 5 2013

STORMWATER NARRATIVE
FOR
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, P-711
MCAS NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
February 21, 2013
INDEX
TITLE
NARRATIVE
VICINITY MAP
SITE LOCATION USGS MAP
STORMWATER CALCULATIONS
DRAWINGS
TITLE SHEET VICINITY MAP ............................
LEGEND, ABBREVIATIONS .............................
EXISTING CONDITIONS ...............................
SITE LAYOUT PLAN ...................................
SITE GRADING, AND DRAINGAGE ............:......... .
E&S PLANS ..........................................
DETAILS .............................................
LANDSCAPE .........................................
G-001
C-001,C-002
C-101 C-102 C-103
C-201
C-401
C-501 - C-508
C-601- C-608
L-101, L-201, L-502
Page 1
Env
FEB 2 5 2013
Av.

NARRATIVE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Personnel Administration Building is being constructed to provide 93clated work
spaces for base personnel. The proposed project will provide a new 1 ,067-SF building
and 93 space asphalt parking lot. The site is currently undisturbed with a majority of the
site being wooded with dense ground cover.
The project proposes to minimize runoff by using a wet pond. Water will collect from
utter and down spouts from the building and flow to the grassed surface via splash
guards to shallow drainage swales where it will continue through a pipe under sidewalk
and into the wet pond forebay. Flow from the parking lot will sheet flow off of the parking
lot into a shallow drainage swale where it will continue through a pipe under proposed
driveway entrance and into the wet pond forebay.
A wet pond was selected because other options were not viable. As seen the
Geotechnical Report (attached) infiltration on site is not adequate for an infiltration
basin. Bioretention was not used because of the shallow depth of the SHWT.
The site drainage is designed to meet the stormwater requirements of NCDENR. In
addition to meeting NCDENR requirements, additional improvements such as no curb
and gutters or closed -system drainage have been incorporated to satisfy NAVFAC's
requirements for LID (Low Impact Development) by encouraging ground water
surcharge through infiltration.
The wet pond is designed to store and slowly release the 1.5" rainfall event through a
1.25" orifice on the outlet structure. Following a rain event, the temporary pool will draw
down in approximately 4 days to its permanent pool level. The 10-year flows (and
larger storm events) will exit the pond through a rectangular weir in the outlet structure
and eventually the rim of the outlet structure (if the pond reaches higher elevations).
The outlet structure is designed to reduce discharge for the 10-year storm below pre -
developed rates. The pond was designed to have approximately 1 foot of freeboard
between the 100-yr storm elevation and the top of the pond's banks.
The pond will be used to serve as the sediment basin during construction. Other erosion
and sediment control features will be to use silt fence around the perimeter of the site
and temporary diversion swales to direct flow to the basin, as well as a gravel
construction entrance.
Page 2
PEE COVE''
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The existing site is approximately 4-acres of undeveloped wooded and low, dense
vegetation. The topographic is relatively flat with pockets of standing surface water
during rain events. There are two drainage swales that run east to west on the northern
and southern boundaries. The southern swale is a roadside ditch that was constructed
with the driveway that serves an existing surface parking facility leading to Campbell
Street.
DEMOLITION
P-711 Site:
On the existing site, the trees will be felled by Camp Lejeune forestry service before
clearing and grubbing of the entire site is conducted. Due to the poor natures of the
soils, the entire site will be excavated to approximately 2-feet below finished grade and
brought to grade with suitable soil material.
Existing Building:
There are two existing building scheduled to be demolished under this project. The first
building is located on Curtis Street. The plans call for complete building and surface
parking lot to be removed and replaced with topsoil and sodded. This work will be
conducted during construction of the new building. The second building is located on
Bancroft Street. Since this building houses the administration staff for which the new
building will serve, this demolition will be conducted after the new building is complete
and operational. Like the other building, the demolition will include complete building
removal and replaced with topsoil and sodded.
SITE WORK
The new site will include the 17,067-SF building, sidewalks, 93 space asphalt parking
lot, grass -paver fire department access around the building, trash dumpster enclosure
and sanitary sewer lift station. Utility construction will include connecting to an existing
10-inch water main along White Street, electrical power, and sewage force main
construction across White Street. See site plans.
SITE ACCESS
Access to the site will be along Curtis Road to White Street. The site is accessible via
the existing driveway that connects to White Street. A gravel construction entrance will
be provided near the main site entrance. See site plans.
Page 3
EGFOVE
FEB 2 5 2013

SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The site will be graded to ensure positive drainage away from the new building. All
storm water runoff has been directed to pervious surfaces before being routed though
the storm water wet pond. The flow patterns drain around the building to the forebay of
the wet pond. A swale has been designed to catch sheet flow runoff from the parking lot
and existing road. All runoff will be captured in the wet pond and treated to remove
90% TSS before discharging into a 30-foot vegetative swale. Post -development peak
runoff is less than pre -development conditions.
SOILS
"Topsoil" was encountered at all boring locations at varying thicknesses ranging from 3
to 18 inches, generally consisting of dark brown, soft, sandy to clayey silt (OL/ML) with
large amounts of organic debris (i.e. organic materials). Organic debris was
encountered in the clayey silts to depths of up to 3 feet BLS.
Subsurface soils encountered below the "topsoil' in the vicinity of the soil test
borings/soundings on the site consisted of interlayered brown to grayish brown, soft,
silty to clayey sand (SM/SC) and silty clay (CL) to depths ranging from approximately 3
to 11.2 feet BLS. Field blow counts (N-values) within this upper stratum ranged from 0
(weight of hammer) to 13 blows per foot (BPF), indicating a consistency of very
loose/soft to medium dense or stiff. The average N-value in this stratum was
approximately 5 BPF.
Below the upper silty/clayey sand layer, a gray to grayish brown, moderate to high
plasticity, soft, sandy/silty clay (CH) was generally encountered to depths of 9.5 to
12feet BLS, at which point it appeared to become more interlayered with brown, loose,
very fine uniform sand (SP) to depths up to 19.2 feet BLS. However, at borings S-3 and
S-4, the very fine uniform sand (SP) was encountered from depths of approximately 3 to
13 feet BLS, while most other borings encountered the clay layer at this depth range,
followed by the uniform very fine sand. Field N-values within the sandy/silty clay stratum
ranged from 0 to 20 BPF, indicating consistencies of very soft to very stiff or medium
dense; however, it should be noted that the lower N-values (average 2 BPF) occurred
within the upper mostly clay layer, and the higher N-values typically occurred within the
deeper fine sand layers.
The subsurface soils encountered below the sandy/silty clay layer within borings BB-1
and BB-2 generally consisted of light gray to white and brown, well graded to
gapgraded, coarse calcareous gravel/sand (GW/GP) with limestone fragments, fine to
Page 'ECEOVE
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:

coarse sand (SP/SW) and trace sandy clay (SC). This interlayered mixture of
calcareous gravels, limestone fragments, and fine to coarse sands was encountered
generally from a depth of approximately 22 feet BLS to boring termination depths of 55
feet BLS. The field N-values within this stratum ranged from 7 to 38 BPF, indicating
consistencies of loose to dense, although the density generally increased with depth."
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
The following generalized groundwater conditions were reported by CATLIN Engineers
and Scientist, Wilmington, NC in a Subsurface Investigation Report dated March 3,
2011.
"Groundwater was encountered during drilling in all soil test borings at depths ranging
from approximately 1.2 to 19.1 feet BLS. Depth to water measurements within open
boreholes at approximately 24 hours after drilling ranged from approximately 2.9 to 4
feet BLS. Measurements of 24-hour depth to water at the temporary piezometers
ranged from approximately 1.2 to 4.1 feet BLS. CATLIN's subconsultant (Land
Management Group, Inc.) determined that the seasonal high water table is
approximately 12 to 42 inches at their sampling locations. Some' fluctuation in
groundwater levels can occur with tidal influences and climatic and seasonal changes,
with the highest groundwater levels expected during the winter and early spring."
FLOOD PLAIN/WETLANDS
There are no wetlands associated with this site.
Page 5
ECEO E"
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:

£101 5 Z 833 !;
Page 6

i
71( �fCSci�NfC �,oM N ✓�urv�riv�
RV
wW�irf
-Z7A _ T-f 3ylf�2��s96
.. ... - 4126 -S
3U.1L.O(N4 11 f UV
SloF�r�/ WGs Z 04 L)
ty-t sr aZv�.o
4 rtAssS Pq v� . 1 y S-to 6 - —
�rt 'Tki 3`k I SF
OUP t�kA1�A-c►E /�r/� _ t Z`t , 59 b S F, -
ev
ouiw►
IV
-
2v .
CIF
7-
3 .75use. K�0 E c E 9. v E;;,
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:.___

w /n. 4 T-,qs Oz- 10 y GVA s/-*L
S)6 SF x o. as3
s 42.5
Z, Bin-%K•�CF`S
96
16vJam"
C�QiI Ft cr Ar"
-
0 /art -ow W£4.2 -
ski @ EL 16
�iE Ste` �03 - Of tJ oPn'1-i./�/Ld
�G7„a I&IS LOILZ-
1
S i NG U 2 i �t l,� vy9�l1 aN LV/ �o
= 3 rr
'}
l,✓l }!/I.� _ 7'- MP PO oL - PF✓L.v1
po a L
cam
lq.S-g
S.
7

3�.
/y-\P. Po aI- Pew D a iAl A✓
CID N) 21140
0.
= 0.
� � TK�MP PtX�L vjOc cum if _ 6?, 63 (—C-F
bus , _ -0✓a Ic �Drs"ca�j24� 2: Y 0c.5 60, YAO
V0.
0fhb �U?✓il. �B0L
91
_ i83g -CA=
/$ 9 V -
C wn
E(cE9vE0
FEB 2 5 2013 '
BY:

FORE BAY VOLUME/STORAGE TABLE
Elevation
Surface Area (sf)
Incremental
Volume (cf)
11
487
0
11.5
675
290.5
11.85
802
0
12
856
124.35
12.5
1018
468.5
13
1313
582.75
13.5
1562
718.75
Cumulative
Volume (cf)
0
290.5
0
124.35
592.85
1175.6
1894.35
KF�FCFI`i6'E—jq
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:�__

r� • �� I�.�I�pr�
Hydraflow Table of Contents P711_pond_9.22.12_POST.gpw
HydraFlow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
WatershedModel Schematic..................................................................................... 1
Hydrograph Return Period Recap............................................................................. 2
1 -Year
SummaryReport......................................................................................................................... 3
HydrographReports................................................................................................................... 4
Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, 2.86 Ac Post-Dev...................... :........................................... 4
Hydrograph No. 2, Reservoir, <no description>....................................................................... 5
PondReport - 711 POND.................................................................................................... 6
2 - Year
SummaryReport...........................................................................................:............................. 8
HydrographReports................................................................................................................... 9
Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, 2.86 Ac Post-Dev................................. ..............................1 9
Hydrograph No. 2, Reservoir, <no description>..................................................................... 10
10 -Year
SummaryReport....................................................................................................................... 11
HydrographReports................................................................................................................. 12
Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, 2.86 Ac Post-Dev................................................................ 12
Hydrograph No. 2, Reservoir, <no description>..................................................................... 13
100 - Year
SummaryReport....................................................................................................................... 14
HydrographReports................................................................................................................. 15
Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, 2.86 Ac Post-Dev................................................................ 15
Hydrograph No. 2, Reservoir, <no description>..................................................................... 16
IDFReport.................................................................................................................. 17
.1 45, } G E I C6 E Mkt
FEB 2 5 2013
�t
Ey:

2.SWCfLGiS. hed ItllOdel Schematic Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Legend
lia Origin Description
1 SCS Runoff 2.86 Ac Post-Dev
2 Reservoir <no description>
-0EIA/E
FEB 2 5 2013
Project: P711_pond_9.22.12_POST.gpw
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013

Hydrograph Return Period Re,pp
w Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
Hydrograph
Inflow
Peak Outflow (cfs)
Hydrograph
No.
type
hyd(s)
Description
(origin)
1-yr
2-yr
3-yr
5-yr
10-yr
25-yr
50-yr
100-yr
1
SCS Runoff
------
15.72
18.63
-------
-------
24.37
-----
-------
32.42
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
2
Reservoir
r'
1
7.040
9.006
-------
-------
12.48
------
------
17.29
<no description>
E,%CV E 1 Vtl' En
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:
Proj. file: P711_pond_9.22.12_P0ST.gpw
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013

K1
Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Aulodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
Peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(curt)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(cuff)
Hydrograph
Description
1
SCS Runoff
15.72
2
724
52,732
------
------
-----
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
2
Reservoir
7.040
2
732
44,606
1
15.53
20,727
<no description>
r
5+i E C q y `.
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:
P711_pond_9.22.12_POST.gpvv
Return Period: 1 Year
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013

Hydrograph
Report
4
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010
Hyd. No. 1
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff
Storm frequency = 1 yrs
Time interval = 2 min
Drainage area = 2.860 ac
Basin Slope = 0.0 %
Tc method = User
Total precip. = 5.89 in
Storm duration = 24 hrs
by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Curve number
Hydraulic length
Time of conc. (Tc)
Distribution
Shape factor
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
= 15.72 cfs
= 724 min
= 52,732 cuft
= 96"
= 0 ft
= 5.00 min
= Type III
= 484
" Composite (Area/CN) _ [(1.560 x 98) + (2.540 x 94))12.860
0 (Cfs)
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year
0 (cfs)
18.00
18.00
15.00
15.00
12.00
12.00
9.00
9.00
6.00
6.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
0 120
— Hyd No.
240 360 480
1
0.00
600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (min)
.. E r--
u FEB 15 2013
�o

5
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
Hyd. No. 2
<no description>
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 7.040 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 732 min
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 44,606 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 1 - 2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Max. Elevation
= 15.53 ft
Reservoir name
= 711 POND
Max. Storage
= 20,727 cuft
Storage Indication method used
Q (cfs
18.00
`Mot
12.00
41111
M
3.00
<no description>
Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
• e]
Wo
3.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
— Hyd No. 2 — Hyd No. 1 11117=1] V Total storage used = 20,727 ccu�® Timecuft
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:_��

Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Au1oCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
Pond No. 1 - 711 POND
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Average end area method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 13.50 it
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sqft)
Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (cult)
0.00
13.50
7,273
0
0
0.50
14.00
9,349
4,156
4,156
1.00
14.50
10,237
4,897
9,052
1.50
15.00
11,270
5,377
14,429
2.00
15.50
12,506
5,944
20,373
2.50
16.00
13,909
6,604
26,977
3.00
16.50
15,033
7,236
34,212
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[PrfRsr]
[A] [B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 24.00
1.25
Inactive
Inactive
Crest Len (ft)
= 10.00 4.00
Inactive
Inactive
Span (in)
= 24.00
1.25
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 16.00 14.55
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 10
10
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.330.00 3.33
3.33
3.33
Invert El. In)
= 13.30
13.50
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= Rect Recl
---
---
Length (it)
= 30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes Yes
No
No
Slope (%)
= 0.20
0.00
0.00
n/a
N-Value
= .013
.013
.013
Na
Orifice Coeff.
= 0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Exfil.(in/hr)
= 0 (by Wet area)
Multi -Stage
= n/a
Yes
No
No
TW Elev. (ft)
= 14.40
Note: CulvenlOmiw outilms are analyzed under inlet (IC) and outlier (oc) control, Weir nears checked for entice conditions (ic) and submergence is).
Stage / Storage / Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B CIv C PrfRsr Wr A , Wr B l C Wr D Exfil User Total
It tuft ft cfs cfs cis cfs cfs cfs cis cfs cfs cfs cfs
0.00
0
13.50
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.05
416
13.55
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.10
831
13.60
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.15
1,247
13.65
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.20
1,662
13.70
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.25
2,078
13.75
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.30
2,493
13.80
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.35
2,909
13.85
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.40
3,324
13.90
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.45
3,740
13.95
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.50
4,156
14.00
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.55
4,645
14.05
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.60
5,135
14.10
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.65
5,624
14.15
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.70
6,114
14.20
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.75
6,604
14.25
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.80
7,093
14.30
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.85
7.583
14.35
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.90
8,073
14.40
0.00
0.00
--- ---
0.00
0.95
8,562
14.45
0.09 is
0.01 is
--- ---
0.00
1.00
9,052
14.50
0.09 is
0.01 is
--- ---
0.00
1.05
9,590
14.55
0.09 is
0.02 is
--- ---
0.00
1.10
10.127
14.60
0.17 is
0.02 is
--- ---
0.00
1.15
10,665
14.65
0.45 is
0.02 is
--- ---
0.00
1.20
11,203
14.70
0.80 is
0.02 iC
--- ---
0.00
1.25
11,740
14.75
1.22 is
0.02 is
--- ---
0.00
1.30
12,278
14.80
1.69 is
0.02 is
--- ---
0.00
1.35
12,816
14.85
2.21 is
0.03 iC
--- ---
0.00
1.40
13.353
14.90
2.81 is
0.03 is
--- ---
0.00
1.45
13,891
14.95
3.27 oc
0.02 is
--- ---
0.00
1.50
14,429
15.00
3.59 oc
0.02 is
--- ---
0.00
1.55
15,023
15.05
3.81 oc
0.02 is
--- ---
0.00
1.60
15,618
15.10
4.02 oc
0.02 is
--- ---
0.00
1.65
16,212
15.15
4.20 oc
0.02 is
--- ---
0.00
1.70
16,806
15.20
4.32 oc
0.01 is
--- ---
0.00
1.75
17,401
15.25
4.44 oc
0.01 is
--- ---
0.00
0.00 ---
---
---
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.000
0.00
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 ___
___
___
___
0.000
0.00 ___
___
___
_--
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.000
0.00
---
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 -
---
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 --=
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 --_
___
___
___
0.000
0.00
---
---
---
0.000
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.009
0.00 ---
---
---
---
0.013
0.00 ___
-__
___
--
0.016
0.15 ---
---
---
---
0.167
0.42 ---
---
---
---
0.442
0.77 ---
---
---
' ---
0.796
1.19 ---
---
---
---
1.215
1.67 ---
---
---
---
1,690
2.19 ---
---
---
---
2.214
2.76 ---
---
---
---
2.784
3.25 s ---
---
---
---
3.274
3.55 s ---
- -
---
---
3.575
3.79 s ---
--
---
---
3.807
4.01 s ---
---
---
---
4.023
4.17 s ---
---
---
---
4.190
4,31 s ---
---
---
---
4.322
___
4,439
�dontinues
on next
page...
§ FEB 15
2013
Y
�
BY:

7
711 POND
Stage I Storage I Discharge Table
Stage
Storage
Elevation
Clv A
Clv B
Clv C
PrfRsr
Wr A
MIS
Wr C
Wr D Ezfil User Total
ft
cuft
ft
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs
cfs cfs cfs cts
1.80
17,995
15.30
4.52 oc
0.01 is
---
---
0.00
4.50 s
---
--- --- -- 4.516
1.85
18,590
15.35
4.55 oc
0.01 is
---
---
0.00
4.54 s
---
--- --- --- 4.547
1.90
19,184
15.40
5.01 oc
0.01 is
---
---
0.00
5.00 s
---
--- --- --- 5.013
1.95
19,778
15.45
5.85 oc
0.01 is
---
---
0.00
5.83 s
---
--- --- --- 5.846
2.00
20,373
15.50
6.64 oc
0.01 is
---
---
0.00
6.62 s
---
--- --- --- 6.635
2.05
21,033
15.55
7.39 oc
0.02 is
---
---
0.00
7.37 s
---
--- --- --- 7.389
2.10
21,694
15.60
8.12 oc
0.02 is
---
---
0.00
8.10 s
--
--- --- --- 8.120
2A5
22,354
15.65
8.83 oc
0.02 is
---
---
0.00
8.81 s
---
--- --- --- 8.829
2.20
23,014
15.70
9.52 oc
0.02 is
---
---
0.00
9.50 s
---
--- --- --- 9.519
2.25
23,675
15.75
10.19 oc
0.02 is
---
---
0.00
10.17 s
---
--- --- --- 10.19
2.30
24,335
15.80
10.85 oc
0.02 is
---
---
0.00
10.83 s
---
--- --- --- 10.85
2.35
24,995
15.85
11.49 oc
0.02 is
---
---
0.00
11.47 s
---
--- --- --- 11.49
2.40
25,656
15.90
12.12 oc
0.02 is
--
---
0.00
12.10 s
---
--- --- --- 12.12
2.45
26,316
15.95
12.73 oc
0.02 is
---
---
0.00
12.71 s
---
--- --- --- 12.73
2.50
26,977
16.00
13.33 oc
0.02 is
---
---
0.00
13.31 s
---
--- --- --- 13.33
2.55
27,700
16.05
14.05 oc
0.02 is
---
---
0.37
13.66 s
---
-- --- --- 14.05
2.60
28,424
16.10
14.84 oc
0.02 is
---
---
1.05
13.77 s
---
--- --- --- 14.84
2.65
29,147
16.15
15.65 oc
0.02 is
---
---
1.93
13.69 s
---
--- --- --- 15.65
2.70
29,871
16.20
16.42 oc
0.02 is
---
---
2.90 s
13.51 s
---
--- --- --- 16.42
2.75
30,594
16.25
17.11 oc
0.02 is
---
---
3.71 s
13.39 s
---
--- --- --- 17.11
2.80
31,318
16.30
17.75 oc
0.01 is
--
---
4.45 s
13.28 s
---
--- --- --- 17.75
2.85
32,041
16.35
18.34 oc
0.01 is
---
---
5.15 s
13.18 s
---
--- --- --- 18.34
2.90
32,765
16.40
18.90 oc
0.01 is
---
---
5.80 s
13.09 s
---
--- --- --- 18.90
2.95
33,488
16.45
19.43 oc
0.01 is
---
---
6A1 s
13.00 s
---
--- --- --- 19.43
3.00
34,212
16.50
19.94 oc
0.01 is
---
---
6.99 s
12.93 s
---
--- -- --- 19.94
...End
,V17CEIVE
FEB 2 5 2013
LY:

n
Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Tlme to
Peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(tuft)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(cuft)
Hydrograph
Description
i
SCS Runoff
18.63
2
724
63,009
------
------
------
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
2
Reservoir
9.006
2
732
54,883
1
15.67
22,523
<no description>
y E C E. i YO Ei... Ci..
FEB 2 5 2013
P711_pond_9.22.12_POST.gpw
Return Period: 2 Year
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013

Hydrograph Report
HydraFlow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
Hyd. No. 1
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 18.63 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 724 min
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 63,009 cuft
Drainage area
= 2.860 ac
Curve number
= 96"
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 6.95 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(1.560 x 98) + (2.540 x 94)112.860
Q (Cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
• M
Ma
01811111
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Hyd. No. 1 -- 2 Year
Q (cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
99111111
0.00 1 1 ' 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
rz� P T"il (min)
— Hyd No. 1 i~ E C E Z v5
' FEB 2 5 2013

Hydrograph
Report
10
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AUtoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
Hyd. No. 2
<no description>
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 9.006 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 732 min
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 54,883 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 1 - 2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Max. Elevation
= 15.67 ft
Reservoir name
= 711 POND
Max. Storage
= 22,523 cuft
Storage Indication method used
<no description>
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 -- 2 Year Q (cfs)
21.00 21.00
18.00 18.00
15.00 15.00
12.00 12.00
9.00 9.00
6.00 6.00
3.00 3.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
Hyd No. 2 — Hyd No. 1 [I77=CI_I7 Total storage used = 22,523 tuft
SEC;FEOVE.
FEB 2 5 2013
sv:

11
Hydrograph Summary Report,
ydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3DO2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
Peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(cuk)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(cutt)
Hydrograph
Description
1
SCS Runoff
24.37
2
724
83,397
------
------
------
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
2
Reservoir
12.48
2
730
75,270
1
15.93
26,042
<no description
REOEUVEy
FEB 2 5 2013
P711_pond_9.22.12_POST.gpvv
Return Period: 10 Year
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013

12
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 31D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
Hyd. No. 1
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 24.37 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 724 min
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 83,397 cuft
Drainage area
= 2.860 ac
Curve number
= 96*
Basin Slope
= 0.0.%
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 9.05 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = ((1.560 x 98) + (2.540 x 94)] / 2.860
Q (Cfs)
28.00
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
4.00
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year
Q (cfs)
28.00
24.00
Pz11x11I1]
sr xilIf:
MPAIR
M
4.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (min)
— Hyd No. 1 '��
FEB 2 5 2013
6Y:

Hydrograph
Report
13
HydraFlow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Aulodesk, Inc. v9.25
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
Hyd. No. 2
<no description>
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 12.48 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 730 min
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 75,270 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 1 - 2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Max. Elevation
= 15.93 ft
Reservoir name
= 711 POND
Max. Storage
= 26,042 cuft
Storage Indication method used
Q (cfs
28.00
24.00
[moil]
12.00
1
4.00
<no description>
Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year
Q (cfs)
28.00
24.00
20.00
16.00
f 1111
M
4.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
— Hyd No. 2 — Hyd No. 1 [I_T_I_ITTO Total storage used = 26,042 cuft
DDV
FEB 2 5 2013
p

14
Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
i
Peak
flow
(cis)
Time
interval
(min)
Timeto
Peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(cuft)
Hydrograph
Description
1
SCS Runoff
32.42
2
724
112,066
------
------
------
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
2
Reservoir
17.29
2
730
103.940
1
16.27
30,804
<no description>
•T+ L `�,.,/ i - G QO ILA O
Y
FEB 2 5 2013
EY:
P711_pond_9.22.12_POST.gpvv
Return Period: 100 Year
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013

Hydrograph Report
15
Hydra9ow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil M 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 1
2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Drainage area
= 2.860 ac
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Tc method
= User
Total precip.
= 12.00 in
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
` Composite (Area/CN) = [(1.560 x 98) + (2.540 x 94)] / 2.860
0 (cfs)
35.00
30.00
25.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Curve number
Hydraulic length
Time of conc. (Tc)
Distribution
Shape factor
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
`— 32.42 cfs
= 724 min
= 112,066 cult
= 96*
= Oft
= 5.00 min
= Type III
= 484
Q (Cfs)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440
Time (min)
— Hyd No. 1
s FEB 2 5 2013
�i:

Hydrograph
Report
16
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
Hyd. No. 2
<no description>
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 17.29 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 730 min
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 103,940 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 1 - 2.86 Ac Post-Dev
Max. Elevation
= 16.27 ft
Reservoir name
= 711-POND
Max. Storage
= 30,804 cuft
Storage Indication method used
Q (cfs
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
Q (Cfs)
35.00
1918111111/,
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 2 — Hyd No. 1 I1-1 Fl-1=111 Total storage used = 30,804 cult Time (min)
G E 9 V Em;�l
FEB 2 5 2013
1
BY:

17
Hydraflow Rainfall Report
Hydrallow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Feb 21, 2013
Return
Intensity -Duration -Frequency Equation Coefficients (FHA)
Period
(Yrs)
B
D
E
(NIA)
1
74.7826
12,6000
0.8872
--------
2
82.2689
12,4000
0.8657
--------
3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-------
5
90.7374
12.9000
0.8393
--------
10
88.6617
12.3000
0.8014
--------
25
80.0794
11.1000
0.7416
--------
50
75.8521
10.4000
0.7031
--------
100
68.8855
9.3000
0.6572
--------
File name: Jacksonville.IDF
Intensity = B I (Tc + D)"E
Return
Intensity Values (in/hr)
Period
(Yrs)
5 min
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
1
5.87
4.70
3.94
3.40
2.99
2.68
2.43
2.22
2.05
1.90
1.78
1.67
2
6.94
5.58
4.68
4.05
3.58
3.21
2.91
2.67
2.47
2.30
2.15
2.02
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
8.06
6.55
5.55
4.84
4.29
3.87
3.53
3.25
3.01
2.81
2.63
248
10
9.03
7.37
6.26
5.47
4.88
4.41
4.03
3.72
3.46
3.23
3.04
2.87
' 25
10.20
8.35
7.13
6.26
5.60
5.09
4.67
4.33
4.04
3.79
3.58
3.39
50
11.09
9.10
7.80
6.88
6.18
5.63
5.19
4.82
4.51
4.24
4.01
3.81
100
11.99
9.85
8.46
7.48
6.75
6.17
5.70
5.32
4.99
4.71
4.46
4.25
Tc = time in minutes. Values may exceed 60.
Preci , file name: O:\NC IPT NUCLEUS\!Civil\Hydraflow\IDF\Havelock24hprecipdepth.pcp
Rainfall Precipitation Table (in)
Storm
Distribution
1-yr
2-yr
3-yr
5-yr
10-yr
25-yr
50-yr
100-yr
SCS 24-hour
5.89
6.95
0.00
0.00
9.05
0.00
9.71
12.00•
SCS 6-Hr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff -1st
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-2nd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-3rd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-4th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-Indy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Custom
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
�St W.
FEB 2 5 2013

Hydraf low Table of Contents P711_pond_9.22.12_PRE.gpw
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AuloCAD$ Civil 31DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Monday, Feb 11, 2013
Watershed Model Schematic..................................................................................... 1
Hydrograph Return Period Recap............................................................................. 2
1 -Year
SummaryReport......................................................................................................................... 3
HydrographReports................................................................................................................... 4
Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, 4.1 Ac Pre-Dev...................................................................... 4
2 - Year
SummaryReport......................................................................................................................... 5
HydrographReports.....................................:............................................................................. 6
Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, 4.1 Ac Pre-Dev...................................................................... 6
10 -Year
SummaryReport......................................................................................................................... 7
HydrographReports................................................................................................................... 8
Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, 4.1 Ac Pre-Dev...................................................................... 8
100 - Year
SummaryReport......................................................................................................................... 9
HydrographReports................................................................................................................. 10
Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, 4.1 Ac Pre-Dev.................................................................... 10
OFReport.................................................................................................................. 11
;EC I IVE ,
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:�_

Watershed Model Schematic Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3DO 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
1 - 4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
�rr
�.r�D
JWL Origin Description
SCS Runoff 4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
VGEI E i
�FEB 2 5 2013
BY:
Project: P711_pond_9.22.12_PRE.gpw
Monday, Feb 11, 2013

Hydrograph Return Period Rep
y ra ow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
Hydrograph
Inflow
Peak Outflow (cfs)
Hydrograph
No.
type
hyd(s)
Description
(origin)
1-yr
2-yr
3-yr
5-yr
10-yr
25-yr
50-yr
100-yr
1
SCS Runoff
------
9.503
12.40
------
-------
18.27
-------
-------
26.63
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
ECEIVE
FEB 2 5 2013
Proj. file: P711_pond_9.22.12_PRE.gpw
Monday, Feb 11, 2013

Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow, Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
Peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(cuft)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
singe used
(cuft)
Hydrograph
Description
1
SCS Runoff
9.503
2
728
36,564
------
------
------
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
ECEI E'.,
1111
" FEB 2 5 2013
By:
P711pond_9.22.12_PRE.gpw
Return Period: 1 Year
Monday, Feb 11, 2013

4
Hydrograph Report
Hydrailow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3139) 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Monday, Feb 11, 2013
Hyd. No. 1
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 9.503 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 728 min
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 36,564 cuft
Drainage area
= 4.100 ac
Curve number
= 77'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 10.00 min
Total precip.
= 4.71 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(4.100 x 77)] / 4.100
Q (cfs)
10.00
[:4d1l
C-00
4.00
PiIrl
0.00
0 120 240
Hyd No. 1
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year
360 480 600 720 840
Q (Cfs)
10.00
M
"11117
4.00
2.00
- 0.00
960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
ECERVE
1 FEB 2 5 2013
BY—

Hydrograph Summary Report Hydrallow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2010 by Aulodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cis)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
Peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(cuft)
Hydrograph
Description
1
SCS Runoff
12.40
2
728
47,547
------
------
------
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
E Co- U Y9 E.4'a
FEB 2 5 2013 '
BY:
P711_pond_9.22.12_PRE.gpw
Return Period: 2 Year
Monday, Feb 11, 2013

Hydrograph Report
Hydratlow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Monday, Feb 11, 2013
Hyd. No. 1
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 12.40 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 728 min
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 47,547 cuft
Drainage area
= 4.100 ac
Curve number
= 77*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 10.00 min
Total precip.
= 5.56 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (ArealCN) = ((4.100 x 77)] 14.100
Q (Cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
M
MR
4.00
2.00
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
Hyd. No. 1 -- 2 Year
Q (cfs)
14.00
12.00
10.00
WE
4.00
2.00
0.00 I I I I I I I I 1
0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
— Hyd No. 1 Time (min)
EEOVE t
FEB 2 5 2013

t7
Hyd rog ra p h Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 308 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(CIS)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
Peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(tuft)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(curt)
Hydrograph
Description
1
SCS Runoff
18.27
2
728
70,188
------
------
------
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
rl.v E U @Y E
` FEB 2 5 2013
BY:
P711_pond_9.22.12_PRE.gpvv
Return Period: 10 Year
Monday, Feb 11, 2013

Hydrograph Report
1.1
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 1
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Drainage area
= 4.100 ac
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Tc method
= User
Total precip.
= 7.23 in
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Composite (Area/CN) = [(4.100 x 77)[ / 4.100
Q (cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
M9
wa
3.00
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Curve number
Hydraulic length
Time of conc. (Tc)
Distribution
Shape factor
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year
Monday, Feb 11, 2013
= 18.27 cfs
= 728 min
= 70,188 cuft
= 77'
= Oft
= 10.00 min
= Type III
= 484
Q (cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
"oil]
3.00
0.00 l 1 1 I i—� I I I I I 1� _ 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Time (min)
Hyd No. 1 E "" VE
4 'J
FEB 2 5 2013
BY..

Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
Peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
N
Total
strge used
(cuft)
Hydrograph
Description
1
SCS Runoff
26.63
2
728
103,318
------
------
-----
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
EGd LY
FEB 2 5 2013 ! g
BY:
P711_pond_9.22.12_PRE.gpw
Return Period: 100 Year
Monday, Feb 11, 2013

10
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Monday, Feb 11, 2013
Hyd. No. 1
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 26.63 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 728 min
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 103,318 cuft
Drainage area
= 4.100 ac
Curve number
= 77'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conic. (Tc)
= 10.00 min
Total precip.
= 9.57 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = ((4.100 x 77)) / 4.100
4.1 Ac Pre-Dev
Q (Cfs) Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Year
28.00
24.00
r
20.00
16.00
12.00
8.00
4.00
Q (Cfs)
28.00
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
1
C111111111
0.00 1 1 1 1 1 0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560
Hyd No. 1 Time (min)
—
E 9 V E
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:�

11
Hydraflow Rainfall Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2010 by Aulodesk, Inc. v9.25 , Monday, Feb 11, 2013
Return
Intensity -Duration -Frequency Equation Coefficients (FHA)
Period
(Yrs)
B
D
E
(N/A)
1
74.7826
12.6000
0.8872
--------
2
82.2689
12A000
0.8657
--------
3
0.0000
0,0000
0.0000
--------
5
90.7374
12.9000
0.8393
-------
10
88.6617
12.3000
0.8014
--------
25
80.0794
11.1000
0.7416
--------
50
75.8521
10.4000
0.7031
-------
100
68.8855
9.3000
0.6572
--------
File name: Jacksonville.IDF
Intensity = B / (Tc + D)^E
Return
intensity Values (in/hr)
Period
(Yrs)
5 min
10
- 15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55 -
60
1
5.87
4.70
3.94
3.40
2.99
2.68
2.43
2.22.
2.05
1.90
1.78
1.67
2
6.94
5.58
4.68
4.05
3.58
3.21 •
2.91
2.67
2.47
2.30
2.15
2.02
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
8.06
6.55
5.55
4.84
4.29
3.87
3.53
3.25
3.01
2.81
2.63
2.48
10
9.03
7.37
6.26
5.47
4.88
4.41
4.03
3.72
3.46
3.23
3.04
2.87
25
10.20
8.35
7.13
6.26
5.60
5.09
4.67
4.33
4.04
3.79
3.58
3.39
50
11.09
9.10
7.80
6.88
6.18
5.63
5.19
4.82
4.51
4.24
4.01
3.81
100
11.99
9.85
8.46
7.48
6.75
6.17
5.70
5.32
4.99
4.71
4.46
4.25
Tc = time in minutes. Values may exceed 60.
Preciofile name: O:\NC IPT NUCLEUS\'Civil\HvdraflovAlDF\Havelock24hprecipdepth.pcp
Storm
Rainfall Precipitation Table (in)
Distribution
1-yr
2-yr
3-yr
5-yr
10-yr
25-yr
50-yr
100-yr
SCS 24-hour
4.71
5.56
0.00
0.00
7.23
0.00
9.71
9.57
SCS 6-Hr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff -1st
0.00
0.00
0.00'
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-2nd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-3rd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-41h
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-Indy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Custom
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
d E6VE;
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:

CATLIN
Engineers and Scientists
March 3, 2011
Commanding Officer
NAVFAC Mid -Atlantic
Attn: Code OPQC 16
Mr. Scott Littlefield
6506 Hampton Blvd.
Bldg. C, 3rd Floor
Norfolk, Virginia 23508
Re: FINAL Submittal
Subsurface Investigation Report
P-711 Personnel Administrative Center
Marine Corps Air Station
New River, North Carolina
Navy Contract No. N40085-10-D-5303
Delivery Order No. 0006
eProjects Work Order No: 796451
Job Order No: 5A5370
CATLIN Project No. 210121
Dear Mr. Littlefield:
Post Office Box 10279
Wilmington, NC 28404.0279
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.catilnusa.com
CATLIN Engineers and Scientists (CATLIN) is pleased to present the FINAL Submittal,
Subsurface Investigation Report for the P-711 Personnel Administrative Center aboard
Marine Corps Air Station, New River, North Carolina. Included are two hard copies of the
complete report, as well as two identical compact discs (CDs), each containing a
complete consolidated electronic copy of the report as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file, all
boring logs in individual DXF files, and Microsoft Excel spreadsheets containing all of the
DMT and SCPTU sounding test data and data reductions.
CATLIN appreciates the opportunity to continue to provide services to NAVFAC Mid -
Atlantic and the MCAS on your ncuindfi,,
VessXell.,?P00AID
Q SEALO
Jo j _
ATLIN Project Manager .*G
IN
Enclosures - 0Br �'1'W
cc: MCAS New River, Attn: Cosie Comer (w) UANO'sure)
NAVFAC Mid-Allantic, Attn: Victor Gargano (correspondence only)
210121_Geotech Itrrpt.doc
Michael E. Mason, P.E.
CATLIN Program Manager
F II V4'w- ^t1
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT
P-711 Personnel Administrative Center
MCAS New River, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
CATLIN was authorized by NAVFAC Mid -Atlantic to perform a subsurface investigation
at the subject site and to prepare a geotechnical data report through Delivery Order No.
0006, dated January 3, 2011. The project site is a small wooded lot on the east side of
White Street just south of the intersection of Curtis Road, aboard Marine Corps Air
Station (MCAS) New River, located in Jacksonville, NC, as shown on Figure 1 located
in Attachment A. The project is the site of a new Personnel Administrative Center. No
construction details were provided at the time of this investigation, and no foundation
recommendations were requested as part of this subsurface investigation. This report
consists strictly of methods of investigation and data presentation.
PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION
The purpose of this investigation was to collect subsurface geotechnical information in
order to identify existing soil conditions and to provide the subsurface data in the
requested format for use by the client. The borings/soundings provided information
with respect to the type, distribution, density, and moisture content of soil material in
addition to the location of the groundwater table present during the investigation. The
seismic testing provided information with respect to the shear wave velocities of the
different strata within the subsurface. The pavement cores provided information with
respect to the existing roadway materials and their in -place thicknesses.
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
During the period of January 18-20, 2011, nine exploratory soil test borings were
advanced at the site to depths ranging from approximately 15 to 55 feet below land
surface (BLS) and two pavement cores were performed within the roadway along the
southern border of the subject site. In addition, on January 24 and 25, 2011 one cone
penetrometer sounding with seismic testing (SCPTU) was advanced to approximately 47
feet BLS and two dilatometer soundings (DMT) were advanced to depths of
approximately 24 to 27 feet BLS, respectively. However, after an attempt to reduce the
DMT data, it was discovered that the very soft soils from a depth of approximately 7 to 14
feet BLS had caused the misreading of several pressure measurements during testing,
which ultimately resulted in the inability of the software to run the DMT analysis.
Therefore, the two DMT soundings were reinstalled, which was performed on March 1,
2011. The second set of DMT soundings were advanced in generally the same locations
as the initial soundings, although they were advanced to depths of approximately 24 to 30
feet BLS.
Five stormwater infiltration tests were also performed by Land Management Group (LMG)
at depths of approximately 2 to 3 feet BLS. All boring/sounding and test locations were
210121_ceotech_1trrptdoc 1 CATLIN
March 2011 W.M.

surveyed by W.K. Dickson personnel utilizing GPS technology as shown on Figure 2,
located in Attachment A.
All soil test borings were advanced with a track -mounted Central Mine Equipment (CME)
45C drilling rig utilizing either hollow -stem auger or mud -rotary drilling techniques.
Performance of standard penetration testing (SPT) and split -barrel sampling of soils in
each boring was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Method D-1586. In
performing the SPT test, borings are advanced to the desired test depth by the drilling
method specified, whereupon the drill bit is withdrawn and the penetration test performed
using a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2.0-inch O.D., split -barrel sampler. Spacing between each
test interval typically varies by no more than 2.5 feet in each boring; however, per Unified
Facilities Command (UFC) 1-300-09N, "Design Procedures," Chapter 9, Paragraph 1.9
entitled "Geotechnical Investigations and Report,' the test interval was modified to be
performed continuously for at least the first four meters. A 140-pound hammer falling 30
inches drives the sampler. Because of disturbance effects, the number of blows required
to drive the sampler the first six inches is not considered in the SPT value. The SPT
value is based on the second and third 6-inch increments and this resistance is
designated the "penetration resistance" or "N-value". Penetration resistance is an index
of the soil strength and density that is used in engineering design. The SPT data also
allows estimation of soil properties such as continuity, compressibility, and permeability.
It should be noted that the SPT testing for this project was performed utilizing an
automatic hammer and the N-values obtained have not been corrected.
After each SPT test, the soil from the split -barrel sampler was classified according to
color, texture, material type, and moisture content. A portion of each sample was
collected and placed in a sealed container and transported to the laboratory for further
analysis to verify field condition. The samples are temporarily stored in the laboratory for
future reference. The boring data is shown in the boring logs located in Attachment B
and the subsurface profile is presented on Figure 3, located in Attachment A.
The following activities were performed during the field exploration:
• Installed 7 borings (S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, and S-7) to 15 feet BLS each,
utilizing hollow -stem auger techniques with SPT testing. Following boring
completion, temporary piezometers were installed in open boreholes at locations
S-1, S-3, S-5, and S-7.
• Installed two borings (BB-1 and BB-2) to 55 feet BLS utilizing mud -rotary drilling
techniques and SPT testing.
• Cored existing pavement at locations P-1 and P-2 with a six-inch diameter core
barrel and measured thickness of existing asphalt concrete pavement, base, and
subbase layers, as applicable. Photo -documented pavement core specimens
(refer to Attachment C).
• Conducted initial DMT soundings at locations DMT-1 and DMT-2 in accordance
with ASTM D 6635 at one foot intervals to refusal depths of approximately 24 to
27 feet BLS, respectively. Due to measurement errors during initial soundings,
conducted. revised DMT soundings at locations DMT-1R and DMT-2R to refusal
depths of approximately 24 to 30 feet BLS (refer to Attachment D. for DMT data
reduction output).
210121 _G eotech_Itrrpt.doc
March 2011
RY•
�CATLIN
FEB 2 5 2013 11

• Conducted one SCPTU sounding with seismic testing at location SCPTU-1 in
accordance with ASTM D 5778 at approximately one meter (3 to 3.5 feet)
intervals to a refusal depth of approximately 47 feet BLS (refer to Attachment B
for sounding log and Attachment E for seismic testing results).
• Performed field infiltration tests from approximately 2 to 3 feet deep adjacent to
borings S-1, S-2, S-5, S-6, and S-7 (refer to Attachment F for subconsultant
letter report).
• Collected bulk soil samples from 1 to 2 feet deep adjacent to borings S-3, S-4,
and S-5 for use in laboratory CBR tests.
• Performed the following Laboratory Analyses on samples from select borings
(refer to Attachment G for test results):
o 14 moisture content tests in accordance with ASTM D 2216 within all identified
strata.
0 10 sieve analyses in accordance with ASTM D 422.
0 10 Atterberg limits in accordance with ASTM D 4318.
o Three CBR tests in accordance with ASTM D 1883. Sample was compacted
to 95% of ASTM D 698 using moisture content determination wet of optimum.
A 15 pound surcharge loading was used.
• Located all borings utilizing GPS technology and recorded locations in WGS 84
latitude and longitude coordinates.
• Obtained depth to groundwater measurements in all soil borings, where possible,
at the completion of drilling (zero -hour) and again 24 hours later (where
practical).
• Backfilled all SPT boreholes with cement grout and backfilled all SCPTU/DMT
sounding holes and CBR sampling locations with compacted onsite soils at
completion of drilling. Backfilled pavement core hole locations with crushed
stone and patched with asphalt "cold patch".
• Visually classified split -spoon samples during drilling according to the USCS. A
qualified geologist conducted supervision of borings, provided soil descriptions,
and input soil data into electronically generated boring logs.
• Prepared electronic boring logs using GINT software (refer to Attachment B).
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Topsoil was encountered at all boring locations at varying thicknesses ranging from 3 to
18 inches, generally consisting of dark brown, soft, sandy to clayey silt (OL/ML) with
large amounts of organic debris. Organic debris was encountered in the clayey silts to
depths of up to 3 feet BLS.
Subsurface soils encountered below the topsoil in the vicinity of the soil test
borings/soundings on the site consisted of interlayered brown to grayish brown, soft,
silty to clayey sand (SM/SC) and silty clay (CL) to depths ranging from approximately 3
to 11.2 feet BLS. Field blow counts (N-values) within this upper stratum ranged from 0
(weight of hammer) to 13 blows per foot (BPF), indicating a consistency of very
loose/soft to medium dense or stiff. The average N-value in this stratum was
approximately 5 BPF.
Below the upper silty/clayey sand layer, a gray to grayish brown, moderate to high
plasticity, soft, sandy/silty clay (CH) was generally encountered to depths of 9.5 to 12
210121 Geotech_ttrrpt.doc CATLIN
March 2011
FnYYWA,M ILN,N,Y

feet BLS, at which point it appeared to become more interlayered with brown, loose,
very fine uniform sand (SP) to depths up to 19.2 feet BLS. However, at borings S-3
and S-4, the very fine uniform sand (SIP) was encountered from depths of
approximately 3 to 13 feet BLS, while most other borings encountered the clay layer at
this depth range, followed by the uniform very fine sand. Field N-values within the
sandy/silty clay stratum ranged from 0 to 20 BPF, indicating consistencies of very soft
to very stiff or medium dense; however, it should be noted that the lower N-values
(average 2 BPF) occurred within the upper mostly clay layer, and the higher N-values
typically occurred within the deeper fine sand layers.
The subsurface soils encountered below the sandy/silty clay layer within borings BB-1
and BB-2 generally consisted of light gray to white and brown, well graded to gap -
graded, coarse calcareous graveVsand (GW/GP) with limestone fragments, fine to
coarse sand (SP/SW) and trace sandy clay (SC). This interlayered mixture of
calcareous gravels, limestone fragments, and fine to coarse sands was encountered
generally from a depth of approximately 22 feet BLS to boring termination depths of 55
feet BLS. The field N-values within this stratum ranged from 7 to 38 BPF, indicating
consistencies of loose to dense, although the density generally increased with depth. A
subsurface profile indicating our boring data is shown on Figure 3 (Attachment A) and
the boring logs are included in Attachment B.
The SCPTU and DMT soundings were performed by our subcontractor, Mid -Atlantic
Drilling (MAD), in general accordance with the respective ASTM methods. The initial
DMT sounding data was determined to be unusable due to measurement errors within
the very soft stratum located approximately 7 to 14 feet BLS. Therefore, a second set
of DMT soundings were performed at generally the same locations as the original set,
and the revised data has been reduced utilizing the software WinDMT Version 1.1.1.
The SCPTU sounding log is included in Attachment B, with the seismic testing results
located in Attachment E. The DMT data reduction results, including all appropriate
graphs, are included in Attachment D.
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Groundwater was encountered during drilling in all soil test borings at depths ranging
from approximately 1.2 to 19.1 feet BLS. Depth to water measurements within open
boreholes at approximately 24 hours after drilling ranged from approximately 2.9 to 4
feet ,BLS. Measurements of'24-hour depth to water at the temporary piezometers
ranged from approximately 1.2 to 4.1 feet BLS. Some fluctuation in groundwater levels
can occur with tidal influences and climatic and seasonal changes, with the highest
groundwater levels expected during the winter and early spring.
ECG 0 V E
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:
210121 _Geotech_Itrrpt.doc
March 2011

LIMITATIONS
This investigation and analysis covers only the soil zones and deposits associated with
the subsurface investigation. It is not intended to include deep soil or rock strata where
cavities or caverns may exist. Furthermore, this study does not deal with or accept
responsibility for the possibility of sinkhole development. Deep structural borings,
geophysical investigation, or resistivity surveys must be conducted in order to evaluate
the structural conditions and stability of soil and rock formations and is beyond the
scope of this investigation. The preliminary findings in this report are based on analysis
of the soils from each of the indicated borings with an interpolation of soil conditions
and assumption of reasonable variation in the soil uniformity and properties between
boring locations. Should any condition at variance with our report or different than
those shown by borings be encountered during future explorations, we should be
notified immediately so that supplemental data can be provided at minimal cost to our
client. It is the responsibility of the client to see that these findings are brought to the
attention of those concerned.
The reproduction of this report, or any part hereof, in plans or other engineering
documents supplied to persons other than the client should bear the language
indicating that the information contained therein is for general information only and not
for reconstruction or bidding purposes and that the client and CATLIN Engineers and
Scientists are not liable to such other person for and representation made therein.
210121_Geotech_ttnpt.doc CATLIN
March 2011 e„o,,,,,,,,,,,,�„„

ATTACHMENT A
FIGURES
ECESV F-)
FEB 2 5 2013
210121_Geotach Itrrpt.doc ----�Z-F CATLIN
March 2011 "I....•a UWw

I TCPIX'PIWIIL CUAORINGLE: NLI60lMLLE SOUfH Zcm I'm 0 2fA0 � CAMN IFIOC�If1NLMfMiNE Fl[i1E
z FtEmnaNIC F66 asc�vao FNOM i61R�W NNKWTM Fao SITE VICINITY A
S E IN FEET

ATTACHMENT B
BORING LOGS
ECEWF-ij
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:__
210121—Geolech_hrrpt.aoc CATLIN
March 2011

BORING
LOG
�CATLIN
Engineara and aCl.116ab
w�0121..M SHEET 1 OF 2
PROJECT NO.:210121 STATE: NC I
COUNTY: Onslow
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME:
P711-IPAC Bldg.
LOGGED BY: Justin Heter
BORING ID:
DRILLER: Malcom Coogan
B�-1
LATITUDE: 34.721311
LONGITUDE:
-77.451065
CREW: Hunter
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION: P711 Site - NW borinq
LAND ELEV.: 17.40
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45C
METHOD: H.S. Augers/ M.R.
0 HOUR DTW: 19.1
TOTAL DEPTH: 55.0
START DATE: 1 /20/11
FINISH DATE: 1 /20/11
24 HOUR DTW:
ROCK DEPTH: ---
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
s
L
SOIL AND ROCK
(ft)
(ft)
O.Sft. b.511 O.SR
0 20 40 60 80 100
$AMP
Ae
C
S
c
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH ELEVATION
Dark brown SILT w/ SILTY CLAY. High
2
4
...............
III
15.9
1.5
.. ............ • .....
ML
I I
organicdebris. Soft. Lowplasticity. Moist.
.. ........ ....
ssdt
Mcv1B.5
Grading to uniform SILT to CLAYEY SILT. (M)
4
4
4
...............
I l
14.4
3.0
.................
a0 14.4
3
1
2
...................
3...................
12.9
4.5
..................
1
1
1
2..................
11.4
6.0
..................
-
0
0
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' ' . . ' '
8s�2
LL'O4
K-20
CH
Grayish -brown SILTY CLAY to CLAY. High
w•14
plasticity. Soft. Uniform. Wet. (W)
9.9
7.5
....................
....................
8.4
9.0
....................
....................
8.9
10.5
...............
10.5 89
8
8
9
ssu3
SP/
:;:
Intedayered very fine SAND and highly plastic
. ...... • .
.. t... ...........
CL
:;:
( soft CLAY. Soft/Ioose. Saturated. Sat.)
.1
12.0 54
CH
126 Gray CLAY. High plasticity. Soft. (Sat.) ae
' - - ...... *
5
5
4
SP
Brown very fine D. Loose. Unifoml.
3.9
13.5
................
'.
13.5 $atUfated. 39
CH
Gray CLAY. High plasticity. Soft (Sat.) 31
. ...................
5
5
4
SIP
Brown very fine Loose, norm.
1s.o Satuated. z.4
...............
.....................
.....................
.....................
16.5
.....................
.....................
. ...................
...... ..... .. .. ..
18.5 .1.1
4
3
2
-
Ss4%
W0 20
SIP
:;
Grayish -brown fine SAND. Trace CLAY at the
5 ... - - -
.»
top of sample. Loose. Uniform. (Sat.)
. ...................
. ...................
'
20.0 -z.8
41.1
23.5
. ...................
.................
23.5 Al
Light gray coarse CAI_CAK1=VUb
5.
3
4
ss4u
GW
., `
SAND/fragments of LIMESTONE w/ some fine
7............... . ..
�
SAND and some CLAY. Gap -graded. Loose.
..... . ........ . ... . . .
-
zs.o Saturated. Sat. -te

BORING
LOG
J~CATLIN
Engines. and eciendM
210121
wunnywn. ac SHEET 2 OF 2
PROJECT No.:210121
1 STATE: NC
I COUNTY: Onslow
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME:
P711-1PAC Bldg.
I LOGGED BY: Justin Heter
BORING ID:
DRILLER: Malcom Coogan
BB-1
LATITUDE: 34.721311
LONGITUDE:
-77.451065
CREW: Hunter
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION: P711 Site - NW borinq
LAND ELEV.: 17.40
DRILL MACHINE: CME45C
METHOD: H.S. Augers/ M.R.
10 HOUR DTW: 19.1
TOTALDEPTH: 55.0
START DATE:
1 /20/11
FINISH DATE: 1/20/11
124 HOUR DTW:
ROCK DEPTH: ---
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
s
L
SOIL AND ROCK
(R)
(it)
O.Sft 0 sr, 0.5ft
0 20 40 60 80 100
saMP
LABC
S
c
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH ELEVATION
-11.t
28.5
.....................
................
28.5
'fib
White coarse CALCAREOUS
10
10
12
.... 22 ..............
GW
SAND/LIMESTONE fragments. Trace SAND.
. .... ................
.....................
.....................
30.0 Medium dense. (VJ) .iz e
.16.1
Ms
.....................
... .................
... .................
....................
_
33.5 -16.1
SWI
:., �,
Brown GRAVEUcoarse SAND w/ some fine
7
B
5SAND
1f
SC
and some SANDY CLAY. Gap-graded.
... .................
. ....................
.... ................
.o Loose/soft.Sat(S-tze
.21.1
38.5
.... ................
.....................
... . -.... -.. - -.
Us -21.1
While GRAVEL/coarse CALCAREOUS
10
11
20
3f ....... , , .. ,
GW
�`
fragments. Medium
...... ..............
...... ..............
...... ..............
..............
aoo dSANDD/LISMEat.(TONE
22s
-26.1
43.5
......
...... ..............
...... ..............
.... ............
. . . . .. ... . . .... . . . . .
43.5 -28.1
Grayish -brown GRAVELLY CALCAREOUS
20
20
9
, .... 29, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
SW
SAND w/ large consolidated SANDS and loose
...... ..............
...... . . . . I . . . . . . . . .
...... ..............
.....................
4s.o fine SAND. (Sat.) -27.6
'
J1.1
48.5
.....................
. ....................
....... ....... ......
48.5 -31.1
15
15
21
.... ...........
ssofi
Mc-19.1
SW
YA
SA.A. (Sat.)
.......... .
.....................
.....................
. ....................
50.0 J2.6
-36.1
53.5
.....................
.....................
. .. ... .
53.5 Je.1
7
20
18
.-.._.. ...... 38,,,,.
SW
M1
SA.A.(Sat.)
a-w
r - 01.
IV _
55.0 �7.6
11 ,41
F r b
'
Vc t
onng Terminated at Elevation - 7.
FEB 2 5 2013
n V,

BORING LOG
�'�TLIN
Enginaen and Selentlab
wamro�. NC210121 SHEET 1 OF 2
�.
PROJECT NO.: 210121
STATE: NC
I COUNTY:Onslow
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME:
P711-IPAC Bldg.
LOGGED BY: Justin Heter
BORING ID:
DRILLER: Malcom Coogan
BB-2
LATITUDE: 34.720817
LONGITUDE:
-77.450722
CREW: Hunter
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION:P711 Site - Central
borinq
LAND ELEV.: 17.30
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45C
METHOD: H.S. Augers/ M.R.
0 HOUR DTW: 16.8
TOTAL DEPTH: 55.0
START DATE:
1 /20/11
FINISH DATE: 1 /20/11
124 HOUR DTW:
ROCK DEPTH: ---
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
S
L SOIL AND ROCK
0.5ft.0.5ft.0.5ft.
0 20 40 60 80 100
SAMP
laB
o
S
c DESCRIPTION
DEPTH ELEVATION
10,0 Land Surface 17.3
Dark brown SILTto CLAYEY SILT wl high
3
2
3
. 5..............
OL
! organic debris. Low plasiticity. Soft. Moist.
1s.8
1.5
...................
1.5 (M) 15.9
3
3
2
SS47
MP242
SP/
:: Brown SILTY SAND to CLAYEY SILT. Soft.
. 5 ..................
VIL
:: Uniform. Wet. (W)
143
3.0
.................
3.o 1a.3
12.8
4.5
....................
DD
D
....................
...................
11.3
8.0
..................
CH
Grayish -brown SILTY CLAY. Soft. High
0
0
0
...................
plasticity. Saturated. (Sat.)
9.8
ZS
..................
1
1
3
.....................
5S-0e
U-38
PL•19
. ...............
PI.18
as
9.0
... .. ...... ....
4
6
6
9P ................
SP/
:
10.5 Brown fine SANDto SANDY Y. Medium e.s
ss
10s
........... ......
SC
dense. Sal.
11.2 Grayish -brown fine SAND to SANDY CLAY. s.1
5
4
7
,,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
CH
High plasticity. Uniform. Sal. Sat. 5.3
SP
Grayish -brown fine to very fine SAND. Med.
.. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' . . . . . .
• • . ..............
dense. Sat.
13.5 3.8
3.8
13.5
.....................
...........
1
1
1
ss-09
CH/
Intedayered brown very fine SAND and high
2... .........
Sp
'
plasticity soft CLAY. Saturated. (Set.)
. .... ...... .........
.....................
.. ......... .. .. .....
.....................
15.0 2.3
-1.2
18,5
... .................
.....................
- - - - - ....
18.s -1.2
CH
19.2 Brown CLAY. High plasticity. Soft. Sat. (Sat.) -1 9
11
14
15
...... 29.............
Sp
::;:
Brown very fine SAND. Uniform. Med. dense.
.................. ...
.....................
..... ...............
..... ...............
...
2oo Sat -27
-62
23.5
............... I.,...
.....................
.. ..............
23.5 -0.2
White CALCAREOUS GRAVEULIMESTONE
....
9
10
8
18, , , , , , , , ,,, , , , ,
SS-10
GP
°V
fragments. Very coarse -grained. Medium
.....................
25.0 dense. Sat. (Sat.) -7.7

BORING
LOG
f1CATLIN '
Enpinaen ane ScienSab
wSHEET 2 OF 2
mve �. rx
r"�
PROJECT NO.:210121
1 STATE: NC
I COUNTY: OnSIOW
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME:
P711-IPAC Bldg.
LOGGED BY: Justin Heter
BORING ID:
DRILLER: Malcom Coogan
BB-2
LATITUDE: 34.720817
LONGITUDE:
-77.450722
CREW: Hunter
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION: P711 Site - Central
borinq
LAND ELEV.: 17.30
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45C
METHOD: H.S. Augers/ M.R.
10 HOUR DTW: 16.8
TOTAL DEPTH: 55.0
START DATE:
1 /20/11
1 FINISH DATE: 1/20/11
124 HOUR DTW:
ROCK DEPTH: ---
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
s
L
SOIL AND ROCK
00
(�)
O.Sfl. e.SR. O.Sft.
0 20 40 60 80 100
SAMP
LAB
C
S
c
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH ELEVATION
.11,2
26.5
.....................
...........
20.5 .112
5
10
9
GP
rryy
°.1
S.A.A.(Sat.)
... 19,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.....................
... .................
... .................
Q'
So.D -127
-16.2
33.5
... .................
... .................
.................I...
. . ... ......... .
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
33.5 -16.2
Brown very coarse to gravelly SAND with trace
5
4
7
SS-11
Mo-247
SW
.;-
CLAY grading to SILTY SAND. Gap -graded.
... .................
35.D Medium dense. Sat. (Sat.) 17.7
.21.2
36.5
.....................
.....................
.... ................
.... ........... I....
............ • ........
39.5 -21.2
�L
White CALCAREOUS GRAVELILIMESTONE
6
11
14
_ 25 . . ........ . . .
GP
"4
fragments. Trace CLAY. Medium dense. Sat.
..... ...............
Q
40.0 (Sat.) -221
-26.2
43.5
..... ...............
..... ...............
.....................
.. .............. .
43.5
Brown GRAVEL w/ some SAND.
2
6
22
..... 28 .............
SS-12
GP
'Q
)11
Coarse -grained. Mostly uniform. Loose. Sat.
.....................
.....................
.....................
....... 1. I . . . . . . . . . . .
45.0 (Sat.) -277
31.2
4e.5
.....................
.....................
.. ..... .. .. ..... . - ..
I
4e.5 .31.2
3
10
17
GP
'nQ
49.5 S.A.A.(Sat.) .32.2
........
..... 27.............
.....................
...... ..............
...... ..............
SP
5o.o Brown fine SAND. Uniform. Med. dense. Sat. 22.7
38.2
53.5
...... ..............
.....................
....................
53.5 36.2
Brown fine SAND w/ coarse SAND/GRAVEL.
12
13
21
_ _
-_ 4 .. - -_ -_ -
SS-13
SW
Trace large GRAVELS. Gap -graded. Med.
34 ' 's
' ' - un rr•, n
w %
a
55.0 dense to dense. Sat. (Sat.) -377
L
m
(9�,,..;1
ski
Boring Terminated at Elevation -37.7 ft
FEB.2 5 2013
rv.

BORING
LOG
J~ CATLIN
Engineers and Sclmtl4b
121
21Von. NC SHEET 1 OF 1
MAmI
PROJECT NO.:210121
STATE: NC
COUNTY: Onslow
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME: P711-I PAC Bldg.
LOGGED BY: Justin Heter
BORING ID:
DRILLER: Malcom Coogan
S+_1
LATITUDE: 34.720645
1 LONGITUDE:
-77.451097
CREW: Hunter
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION: P711 Site - SW borinq
LAND ELEV.: 17.10
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45C
METHOD: H.S. Augers 10 HOUR DTW: 12.5
TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0
START DATE:
1 /18/11
1 FINISH DATE: 1 /18/11 124 HOUR DTW: 3.3
ROCK DEPTH: ---
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
s
L
SOIL AND ROCK
(ft)
(ft)
O.Sft 0.5ft. 0.5ft.
0 20 40 60 80 100
SAMP
LAB
C
S
c
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH ELEVATION
00 La nd Surface 171
1
2
3
5 ..................
OL
Dark brown CLAYEY SILT to SANDY SILT,
High organic debris. Soft. Moist. (M)
15.5
1.5
.................
1.5 15.8
3
2
3
. .. ...... .. . . . .. ..
SS-14
MC-217
SM/
Grayish -brown SILTY CLAY trace SAND.
1 a.1
30
- - - - - - - - - � - - - � - - -
CL
.
Uniform. Soft. Moist. Gradess to CLAYEY to
1
3
3
16 ..................
12.8
45
............. ....
4.5 12.6
1
1
1
.................
11.1
80
..... ................
1
1
1
2..................
Grayish -brown SILTY to SANDY CLAY. High
s.e
7.5
CH
plasticity. Soft. Saturated. Becomes medium
0
0
0
..................
stiff and very high plasticity at base. Some
.............' .....
woodlorganic debris at base. (Sat.)
e.1
so....................
O
2
2
........... I.........
a5-15
LLaie
PL=15
. ...................
F441
7
8
7
.................
11.2 51
Sp
.
12.o Brown fine SAND. Uniform. Set 51
}5 ....... ..... .
5.1
12.0
...............
CH
125 Brown CLAY. High plasticity. Soft. (Sat.) 43
... .
2
3
8
11 .... I I . .......
SP
Brown ne SAND w/ trace CLAY. Med. dense.
3.8
13.5
....................
....
13.5 Sat. 3.e
7
9
8
ss-1e
Maus
CH
142 Brown CLAY. High
lastic' .Soft. Set. 2.9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SP
,,..
.Brown ne D w trace ense.
17...............
1s.o Sat. 2.1
Boring Terminated at Elevation 2.1 ft

BORING
LOG-
�-CATL N
Engineem and Scimbab
210121
wflw�n. W SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:210121
I STATE: NC
I COUNTY; OnSIOW
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME: P711-IPAC Bldg.
LOGGED BY: Justin Heter
BORING ID:
DRILLER: Malcom Coogan
S-2
LATITUDE: 34.720698
LONGITUDE:
-77.450475
1 CREW: Hunter
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION: P711 Site - South Central boring
LAND ELEV.: 17.10
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45C
METHOD: H.S. Augers
0 HOUR DTW: 11.5
TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0
START DATE: 1 /19/11
FINISH DATE: 1 /19/11
24 HOUR DTW: 3.5
1 ROCK DEPTH: ---
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
s
L
SOIL AND ROCK
(it)
(it)
0.5ft.0.5ft.0.5R
0 20 40 60 80 100
�SAMP
o
S
c
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH ELEVATION
0.0 Land Surface 17.1
1
2
2
OL
III
Dark brown SILT w/ trace CLAY and trace very
' ' . ' ' ' ' ' .. ' ' " " ' "
i I
fine SAND. High organic debris. Moist. (M)
15.8
1.5----
1.5 156
2
2
2
OL
Dark brown SILT w/ trace CLAY and very fine
.
��l
SAND. Uniform. Soft/loose. /loose. Moist. (M)
141
30 14.1
2
3
2
SS-17
AtDttW4
CH/
Grayish -brown very fine SAND w/ SANDY to
.................
5 . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . .
SP
`:
SILTY CLAY. High plasticity. Soft. Moist. (M)
12.6
4.5
................. ..
45 12a
1
1
1
2..................
11.1
6.0
..................
0
0
0
....................
...................
Grayish -brown fine SAND to SANDY CLAY.
se
7.s
..................
SC/
Uniform, Loose/soft Wet, Grades to fat
1
2
2
.. . ' .. .. - ' ' ' ' ' -
SS-16
LL.19
R•1B
CL
CLAY w/ high plasticity w/ trace SAND. (Clay
9 P ftY ( Y
6.1
9.0
.................
2
2
3
5.................
6.6
10.5
. ...................
M
2
2
5-
- -
112 5.9
SP
'
Brown very nne 97ND toTILTY T
5.1
12o
",'
12.0 Uniform. Mad. dense. Sat. 51
CH
row_ I C w high plasticity. Soft.
- -
10
20
22
2
Sa-19
MG28.2
130 Sat. (Sat.) 4.1
SP''
13.5 Brown fine SAND. Uniform. Mad. dense. Sat. 3.6
3,6
13.5
..... ........
CH
Brown SILTY CLAY w/ high plasticity. Soft.
18
21
23
..........
14.5 Sat. (Sat.) 2e
SP
15o Brown fine SAND. Uniform.
2.1
.........
Boring Terminated at Elevation 2.
MECEI `BEY
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:

LOG
�'CATLIN
Enpi and S<lantlat4
.BORING
Mm'2'm. Nc SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:210121
STATE: NC I
COUNTY: Onslow
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME: P711-IPAC Bldg.
LOGGED BY: Justin Hater
BORING ID:
DRILLER: Malcom Coogan
S-3
LATITUDE: 34.720702
LONGITUDE:
-77.449665
1 CREW: Hunter
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION: P711 Site - SE borinq
LAND ELEV.: 17.00
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45C
METHOD: H.S. Augers 10 HOUR DTW: 4.6
TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0
START DATE:
1 /19/11
1 FINISH DATE: 1/19/11 124 HOUR DTW: 3.5
ROCK DEPTH: ---
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
s
L
SOIL AND ROCK
(k)
(it)0
.5R O.Sft O.Sft.
0 20 40 60 80 100
sAraP
LAB
o
S
c
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH ELEVATION
1
0.0 Land Surface 170
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dark brown SILT w/ high organic debris..
4
8
S
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
M�
Some SILTY CLAY. Grades to coarse
1.5 GRAVELLY SAND. Well -graded. Moist. (M) 15.5
155
1.5
................
3
3
3
s5-zo
n c•ze.e
Sc/
Dark brown very fine SILTY to CLAYEY SAND.
.
..
� . . .........-
�
Uniform. Moist. (M)
14o
30
3.0 14.0
3
3
3
12.5
4.5
................
3
7
8
..........
11.0
6.a
................
6
5
4
.... . ......... .
ss-21
Brown very fine SAND to SILTY SAND. Trace
e.s
7.5
CLAY. Uniform. Medium dense. Moist. At
. ...................
Sp
:::
4.5' BLS, grades to uniform very fine SAND.
1
1
1
2......... ' ' .......
Loose. Wet. Becomes saturated at 8' BLS.
Trace wood fragments and bate CLAY from 9
6.0
9.0
.....................
.,.,.,.
to 10.5' BLS. (M)
0
1
2
6.5
10.5
.................
3
2
3
...............
5o
120
.................
2
2
3
5.................
13.0 4.0
Grayish -brown CLAYEY SAND. Large wood
33
135
. ...................
, , , , , , , , ,
SC
fragments. Grades to very fine SAND w/ some
3
3
3
a5-22
SANDY CLAY to CLAYEY SAND. Soft/loose.
'.
15.0 Fat high plasticity CLAY at base. 2.0
Boring Te"inated at Elevation 2.0It

BORING
LOG
J~ CATLIN
Eiginnn and ScimSab
2f o121 SHEET 1 OF 1
MWIV OM. Mc
PROJECT NO.:210121
STATE: INC
I COUNTY: Onslow
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME: P711-1PAC Bldg.
LOGGED BY: Justin Heter
BORING ID:
[DRILLER:
Malcom Coogan
S-4
LATITUDE: 34.721566
LONGITUDE:
-77.449708
1 CREW: Hunter
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION: P711 Site - NE borinq
LAND ELEV.: 16.00
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45C
METHOD: H.S. AU erS
10 HOUR DTW: 9.1
TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0
START DATE:
1/19/11
1 FINISH DATE: 1/19/11
124 HOUR DTW: 4.0
ROCK DEPTH:
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
S
L
SOIL AND ROCK
(It)
(fo
0.5fL 0.5fL 0.5ft
O 20 40 60 80 100
sAMP
LAB
o
S
c
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH ELEVATION
0.0 Land Su rface 16.0
i
Dark brown SILT w/ trace CLAY and trace
1
2
3
g ..................
OL
i
SAND. High organic debris content. Uniform.
14.5
1.5
-------- - - - - -- --
/,s Soft. Moist. (M) 14.5
2
1
2
S$w23
Mc=25]
SM/
S.A.A. w/ grayish -brown SILTY CLAY.
-
3...................
CL
Saturated. (Sat.)
13o
3.0
................
3o 13.0
5
4
5
11.5
4.5
------- - - - - -- - --
2
2
2
. .. ......... .. .... ..
10.0
s0
-----------------
SP
Brown very fine SAND. Uniform. Loose.
1
2
1
3,,,,,,,,,,,
Ss-24
Saturated. (Sat.)
8.5
7.5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----
... .
0
0
0
].0
9.0
2
2
2
:':
10.0 6.0
10.s Grayish -brown LAY. High plasticity. Soft. 5.5
5.5
10.5
.................
Sat.
2
2
2
-
Grayish -brown SANDY CLAY to CLAYEY
................
20 SAND. Soft. Uniform. Sat.(Sat.) 40
4.0
12.0
.. ......... .... ..
2
3
4
1/:::
Grayish -brown SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
7, , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , ,
Uniform. Soft. Saturated. (Sat.)
2.5
13.5
..............
13.5 2.5
grayish -brown fine to very fine.
_Interlayered
$
$
1 Q
_ . 18...... . ....... .
SS-25
SAND and high plasticity CLAY. Saturated.
15.0 1 0
Boring Terminated at Elevation 1.0 It
N E CEOVE
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:

BORING LOG
�- cATLIN
Enpinam aM 9clantlab
121
�,..W SHEET 1 OF 1
wh"
PROJECT NO.:210121
STATE: NC
COUNTY: Onslow
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME: P711-1PAC Bldg.
LOGGED BY: Justin Heter
BORING ID:
DRILLER: Malcom Coogan
S-5
LATITUDE: 34.721205
LONGITUDE:
-77.450132
1 CREW: Hunter
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION:P711 Site -Central
borinq
LAND ELEV.: 16.80
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45C
METHOD: H.S. AU erS
0 HOUR DTW: 12.5
TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0
START DATE:
1 /19/11
FINISH DATE: 1 /19/11
24 HOUR DTW: 4.1
ROCK DEPTH: ---
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
s
L
SOIL AND ROCK
06ft 0.5ft.0.51L
0 20 40 60 80 100
SAMP
LAB
c
S
c
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH ELEVATION
0.0 Land Surface 16.8
Dark brown SILT w/ some SILTY CLAY and
1
1
2
_
3. . . . . . . . ...... . . • ,
OIL
;
trace SILTY SAND. High organic debris.
i S Moist. (M) 15.3
2
2
3
Ss-2e
rec=25.4
CL/
Brown CLAYEY SILT to SILTY CLAY. Soft.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. $ .................
MIL3.0
Uniform. Saturated. (Sat.)
13.8
3.0
.................
13a
SC/
Grayish -brown CLAYEY SAND to CLAYEY
, , ,, , , , , ,, , , ,
2
1
1
. .... . . . . .........
ML
w/ somet a SAND and some CLAY..
12.3
4.5
....................
4 5 SofT Sat (Set) 12.3
0
0
0
................. .
................. ' .
SS-27
^'
Brown fine SAND w/ some CLAY. Grades to
toe
eo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8C
�:;.-
moderate CLAY. Loose. Uniform. Saturated.
0
1
1
....................
(Sat.)
2...................
...,
9.3
7.5
... .......... ... ...
T5 - 9.3
SP
Brawn fine to very fine SAND. Loose. 1
1
1
1
2:.. , - „ . , . , . , .. , . _ .
as Uniform. Sat. Sat. e3
go GrayCLAY. High plasticity. Soft. Sat. to
7.e
9.0
........ • ............
1
1
3
.....................
................
Interlayered very fine SAND and high plasticity
63
10.5
......... ...........
CLAY. Medium stiff/medium dense.
8
8
7...............
. ..................
Saturated. (Sat.)
Iss
4.e
12.0
.. ..............
12.0 4.e
5
13
15
Brown fine SAND w/ SANDY CLAY. Medium
- . . 28. . . . . . . • . .
dense. Saturated. (Sat.)
33
13.5
----------------
135 3.3
5
5
15
SS-2e
Interayered fine to very fine brown SAND and
- -
- 2D ..............
gray high plasticity CLAY. (Set.)
15.0 1.e
u
Boring Terminated at Elevation 1.8 ft

BORING
LOG
J~ CATLIN
Engineem and Sc
210121
NlYnliglmNC , SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:210121
1 STATE: NC
I COUNTY: OnSIoW
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME: P711-IPAC Bldg.
LOGGED BY: Justin Heter
BORING ID:
DRILLER: Malcom Coogan
S-6
LATITUDE: 34.721051
LONGITUDE:-77.451221
1 CREW: Hunter
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION: P711 Site - West Central borinq
LAND ELEV.: 17.40
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45C
METHOD: H.S. AU erS
0 HOUR DTW: 10.6
TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0
START DATE: 1 /18/11
1 FINISH DATE: 1 /18/11
124 HOUR DTW: 2.9
ROCK DEPTH: ---
ELEV.
DEPTH
BLOW COUNT
BLOWS PER FOOT
s
L
SOIL AND ROCK
(ft)
(it)
o.en 05ft o.5h
0 20 40 60 80 100
sAMP
s
G DEPTH
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION
0.0
17,4
1
3
3
. ...................
15.9
1.5
.................
. .... ' ..............
SCM/
Dark brown CLAYEY SILT w/ trace SAND.
3
3
3
06
ss-2s
me=,ee
Highly organic. Grades to CLAYEY SAND to
CLAYEY SILT. Soft. Uniform. Moist. (M)
14.4
3.0
.................
2
2
3
...............
12.9
4.6
....
45 12.9
2
2
2
................
11.4
6.0
......................
0
0
0
SS-30
LLB'
Roo
Gray CLAY. High plasticity. Soft. Trace large
..... .... .. .. ......
-11
CH
wood fragments -1" in thickness.. Trace
9.9
7.5
....................
SAND. Wet. (W)
0
2
1
3 ..................
6.4
9.0
............. ......
9.5 + 7a
Sp
:
Brown fine SAND w/ trace CLAY. Medium
2
3
7
}0................
10.5 dense. Saturated. es
1
2
3
S&31
SP/
.;
Brown fine SAND to CLAYEY SAND w/ trace
...... ........
SC
high plasticity CLAY. Loose/soft. Sat. (Sat.)
5.4
12o
.....:.... ..........
'�'.'
12.0 5.4
2
4
6
}0................
......... _
SP
.,.,...
Brown fine SAND. Trace CLAY. Uniform.
3.9
13.5
Loose. Saturated. (Sat.)
4
6
4
to ...............
15.0 24
Boring Terminal at evahon 2.4
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:�__

BORING
LOG
�'CATLIN
Enginwn 4M $cisng4b
2imot atme .NC SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.: 210121
STATE: NC
I COUNTY:Onslow
LOCATION: Jacksonville
PROJECT NAME: P711-1PAC Bldg.
LOGGED BY: Justin Heter
BORING ID:
DRILLER: Maicom Coogan
LATITUDE: 34.721478
LONGITUDE:
-77.451296
1 CREW: Hunter
S-7
SYSTEM: WGS 84 (NAD 83
BORING LOCATION: P711 Site - NVV borinq
LAND ELEV.: 1I
DRILL MACHINE: CME 45C
METHOD: H.S. Augers
10 HOUR DTW: 1.2
TOTAL DEPTH: 15.0
START DATE:
1 /18/11
FINISH DATE: 1 /18/11
124 HOUR DTW: 1.2
ROCK DEPTH: -
ELEV.
(ft)
DEPTH
(it)o.sR
BLOW COUNT
o.sR o.SR.
BLOWS PER FOOT
0 20 40 60 80 100
SAMP
LAB
s
S
L
SOIL AND ROCK
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION
0.0 Land Surface 16.9
2
5
3
15.4
1.5
..... ...........
13.9
30
3
3
3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SC/
S(y(
,
Dark brown SANDY to CLAYEY SILT. Highly
organic. Uniform. Soft. Moist. Wet @ 1.5'
BLS. Brown @ 3' BLS. Saturated @ 4.6 BLS.
2
1
1
ss32
.....................
2...................
(M)
12.4
4.5
......... ......
D
D
D
.. .. ...... ... ..
...................
55 11.4
10.9
e0
.. .. .... .... ......
9.4
1.5
.................
i
7.9
9.0
1
1
1
2...................
........... .........
3..................
CH
Grayish -brown CLAY. High plasticity. Soft.
Some SANDY CLAY starting at 6' BLS.
Medium stiff @ 11.5' BLS wl trace fine SAND.
Sat.
1
1
2
ssa
LL47
v�•1s
PI.19
9.4
10.5
--------- ..........
1
2
6
. ...................
4.9
3.4
12.0
13.5
........... ....
... ... ... ...........
, , , . 2U .... . .... . . . . .
...............
"
12.5 4A
7
9
11
SP/
SC
-
Brown CLAYEY to fine SAND. Medium dense.
13.5 Wet 3.4
8
7
6
S5 3/
MC•35.6
4 s z 4 Brown CLAY. High plasticity. Soft. (Sat.)
.. 13................
CH
SP
1so Brown fine SAND. Uniform.
1.9
Boring Terminated at Elevation 1.9

CONE PENETRATION TESTING LOG
PROJECT NO.: NIA ID.: WA COUNTY: On61ow GEOLOGIST: Steven Hudson DRILL MACHINE: Hogentc
SITE DESCRIPTION: P7114PAC Bldg. WATER (0) CONE TYPE: 0.1 t Vertek
BORING NO.: SCPTLI STATION: NIA OFFSET:"WA ALIGNMENT: NIA 0 HR. 4.6 'ROD TYPE Pre -Strung
COLLAR ELEV.: 16.5 tt TOTAL DEPTH: 46.91t LATITUDE: 34.7211085 1 LONGITUDE:-77.4507826 24 HR: NM START DATE: 01124111
FRIC11 IN SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPL
r6 fRICTION (tafl CONE RESISTANLEIW) RATIOt1L1 PORE PRESSURE (uf) (RoOertroe /1iW)
211
�° 190 'y5°_�2 ° 2p 390 3F4°0. 0 2 4 6 6 .° 4. .D t,
CATLIN
Engineers and Sciential5
MAX. DOWN PRESSURE: 10 Ton
CONE ID.: OSGO867
COMP. DATE: 01124/11
L
EQUIVALENTSPTNa 0
DRILLER: Ronald Stewart
TECHNICIAN: M.A.D.
SURFACE WATER DEPTH: NIA
I �
EQUIVALENT SOIL DESCRIPTION
LAND SURFACE
Sandy SILT to Clayey SILT wbome
Clayey SILT to Say CLAY el lop
Silty SAND to Sandy SILT
a
Sans2ve Fine C+aired
Clayey SILT to Softy CLAY wN.
bnsea o/ Silty CLAY to CLAY and
SansNw Fire Gra'aed
Sandy SILT b Clayey SILT
df '641
L2 SAND Io Shcy SAND wlbnsa of Syty
SAND to Sandy SILT at lop
.. SAND to Silty SAND
SAND
Silty SAND to Sandy SILT wfien. of
Sandy SILT to Clayey SILT
SAND wilenaea 0 SAND to Silty
SAND
S ltySAND m
25

CONE PENETRATION TESTING LOG C�LIv
Eepi A and Sclenlsh
CATLIN M 210121 PAGE 2 of 2
PROJECT NO.: NIA
ID.: WA
COUNTY: Onslow
GEOLOGIST: Steven Hudson
DRILL MACHINE: Hogantogler Track
MAX. DOWN PRESSURE: 10 TOR
SITE DESCRIPTION: P7114PAC Bldg.
GROUND
CONE TYPE: 0.1ft Vertek Plezocone
DRILLER: Ronald Stewart
WATER (R)
BORING NO.: SCPTU-1
STATION: WA
OFFSET: WA
ALIGNMENT: WA
0 HR. 4.8
ROD TYPE: Pn strung
CONE ID.: DSG0867
TECHNICUW: MA.D.
COLLAR. ELEV.: 16.5 ft
TOTAL DEPTH: 46.9 ft
LATITUDE: 34.7211085
LONGITUDE:-T7.4507826
24 HR. NM
START DATE: 01124111
COMP. DATE: 01124111
SURFACE WATER DEPTH: WA
IR
FRNnm
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
L
ELEV
Op DUpp
FRICTION (b1) CONE RESISTANCE (b0 _
RATIO (%)
PORE PRESSURE (t>A
(ROOxbon 1BD0)
EOUNALENT SPT N
O
EQUIVALENT SOIL DESM"ON
61 0 0 5p IYO 1p 290 2 0 3 0 3 0 d00.
0 2 4 6 6
0
d.
0 12,
0 7 1w
O
13.
W.
J_L_I.
nn
:.....:......:.....: ..
.....:__..L .. _:... _:.....:....._.........
_ _
_
_
..:
.....' ..:......
....
.. .t.....
_...f.
.....:.. ..
A.. ..:
L.... p.:..
Sry SA Sandy SILT
...1 .....:
469
2A
:..... '..... _. .:..........:_....:......:_
:.....:..... _'......... _.:
::..... ... �......:
......:
SAND w4ayen of SAND m SIty....
:
16 9
SAND
b.t
16 5
36 D
:..........'. .: ...
... .... ... ...... ..... ....
:.
:..... L. _.. _:...
....._............1_..
_ _
_
]t9
b2
. _ .S_...:......:.
_..� ....:...... :..... :.....:
:_.__ ._ L....:.....:
:..
. ... ..:......:..
]5
.:......:........ [......f......:.....:46.1
J:q
I1.6
. .......:.......... .. ..... :.....:
_
_
Gmro%SAND fo SAND
:..IDt
43B
.. ... ..
. ......:... _: _.... ___...t .....:
.. ... ...
_
SAND
_...
...
ze o
nB
' .:...
'A4
r� r wnansa,,
vN SAND to SAND
45.9
�
3Bl
SAND
442
no
6onn9 TenninBlaE of Elevelion J0.4
M1
in DVUE SANDto SAND
O% (DTW EBGm M1Bm Pon
vnsxxe)nl

r
MAJOR DIVISIONS
TYPICAL NAMES
. GW
a Q° °
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT
'CLEAN GRAVELS
o 0
SAND
WITH LESS THAN
GRAVELS
15%FINES
GP
o_;.
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS WITH OR
WITHOUT SAND
MORE THAN HALF
w
COARSE FRACTION
cj
IS LARGER THAN
NO.4 SIEVE
GM
SILTY GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT SAND
y z
GRAVELS WITH
JZ
QQ
15%OR MORE
y F
FINES
wW
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT SAND
zy
w
SW
WELL -GRADED SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT
yy
CLEAN SANDS
:.''t 1.;>:.
GRAVEL
p Q
WITH LESS THAN
O
15%FINES
SANDS
Sp
POORLY -GRADED SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT
GRAVEL
MORE THAN HALF
F
w
COARSE FRACTION
OIS
FINER THAN NO,
SM
SILTY SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL
0
4 SIEVE SIZE
SANDS WITH 15%
OR MORE FINES
SIC
-
CLAYEY SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL
INORGANIC SILTS OF LOW TO MEDIUM
ML
PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR
GRAVEL
N
o
SILTS AND CLAYS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM
CL
PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR
O
LIQUID LIMIT 50%OR LESS
GRAVEL
yZ
J
O
ORGANIC SILTS ORCLAYS OF LOW TO
OL
IIIII
Y WITH OR WITHOUT SAND
MEDIUM PLASTICITY
W W
OR GRAVEL
zz
LL
h
MH
INORGANIC SILTS OF HIGH PLASTICITY WITH
OR WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL
WILL
ZJ
LL Y1Z
SILTS AND CLAYS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY WITH
i
CH
OR WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL
r
LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50%
ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS OF HIGH
f
OH
PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR
GRAVEL
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT PEATAND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SYMBOLS
KEY
ABBREVIATION KEY
WELLSYMBOLS
PomanE Cement
CA - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS(CORROSIVITY) (200) (WITH % PASSING NO,
CD - CONSOLIDATED DRAINED TRIAXIAL SIEVE
Blank Casing
CN - CONSOLIDATION SW - SWELL TEST
SentonXe PSllete
CU - CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TC - CYCLIC TRIAXIAL
CZ
First Enw=eW Gmuno ter
OS - DIRECT SMEAR TV - TORVANE SMEAR
PP - POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF) UG - UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
Slade GmunCaeter
(5.0) - (WITH SHEAR STRENGTH IN KSF) TS) - VW H SHEAR STRENGTH
I Peck
RV - R-VALUE IN KSF)
SA - SIEVE ANALYSIS: % PASSING UU - UNCONSOLIDATED
0200 SIEVE UNDRMNED TRIAXIAL
WA - WASH ANALYSIS
Suoene0 Corp
(200%} (WITH PASSING N0,
200 SIEVE)
USCS LEGEND AND KEY TO BORINGS
0
FEB 2 5 2013

ATTACHMENT C
PAVEMENT CORE PHOTODOCUMENTATION
zl_Geolecn_�lrrpl.doc Mar ti CATLIN
March 2011

ATTACHMENT D
DILATOMETER SOUNDING DATA
m"E C>r°�.'. I V E1
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:
210121_Geotech_ltrrpt.doc - CATLIN
March 2011

DMT-1 Rinput.dat
Catlin Engineers
& Scientists
P-711 Personnel Administrative Center
210121
DMT-1 R
MCAS New River,
NC
Mid -Atlantic
Drilling, Inc.
3/1 /2011
Jacob C. Wessell,
P.E.
3/2/2011
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.25 1.98 1.000
5.03
3.57
4.80
6.50
15.00
96.00 0.5 1.20
0.60
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 0.00 0.00
0
0
0.30
440
1.03
3.08
0.00
0.0250
0.61
745
1.20
4.20
0.00
0.91
506
1.33
3.33
0.00
1.22
419
0.90
3.18
0.00
1.52
318
0.63
2.38
0.00
1.83
216
0.73
1.75
0.00
2.13
159
0.98
1.50
0.25
2.44
109
1.10
1.70
0.55
2.74
88
1.05
1.45
1.05
3.05
81
1.43
2.05
1.05
3.35
159
1.83
2.83
0.75
3.66
202
1.78
2.70
0.90
3.96
368
1.40
2.40
0.80
4.27
989
1.60
3.20
0.65
4.57
3338
3.75
9.50
0.40
4.88
3264
4.98
11.80
0.25
5.18
1773
3.05
7.55
0.28
5.49
843
2.03
5.55
0.25
5.79
1235
2.15
6.03
0.30
6.10
755
1.55
5.58
0.33
6.40
588
1.48
4.50
0.38
6.71
210
0.70
1.20
0.40
7.01
124
0.60
1.00
0.45
7.32
4983
2.35
21.40
0.45
Page 1
C\

PC & SVP vs Elevation at DIVIT-1 R
PC (tsf)
0.0
1.0 2.0 3.0
4.0
5.0
16
14
-------- ;---- ----- -------------
-------------------
-
12
-----
---------------------------------------------�----------------
:
8
-------
-- - - ---------------------- — ---
---- ----------------
6
---------------
- -- - - -- —----------------------------
----...-- —
-------
4
-----------
---------- ------ ----------------------------------
---
0
>
LU
-2
--- ----
— —----------------- ----------------,---------------
,
0.0
0.2 0.4 0'6
0'8
1.0
SVP (tsf)
• PC ■ SVP

Su & Phi vs Elevation at DMT-1 R
Su, Undrained Shear Strength (tsf)
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
16
s r I
r r .
12 ___-
Y r
8 ®I
6
— r e
O
`N 0 - _ ____ _____i_____
—4
1
6 _3 _ _________ _______
i
r i
_8 _ L _ S _ L
10
I
r I fi 1 r
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction Angle (Degree)

M vs Elevation at DMTA R
16
I
I I
14
I I ----! -----' -----I`----
------------
: I
I
12
I I
I :
I
I
I �
8
- -------- ---
'
I I i
I '
6
_ ___I_________ __._ ____________________________________,_________________
:
i
I I
I
4
— ---- ----
---------- -----`-----!-----
- -----
0
2
- —
—
-
—
co
0
0
-------
---------
-2
---- ----- ----- --- -----
-
- r-
------
--------
,
I I
I
4
- '
----' - '- — `------
---
- -
I I
;
-------- ------------ — - -- -- - -
I ,
I
!I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
M, Modulus for 1-D Consolidation (M) (tsf)

DMT-2Rinput.dat
Catlin Engineers & Scientists
P-711 Personnel Administrative Center
210121
DMT-2R
MCAS New River,
NC
Mid -Atlantic Drilling,
Inc.
3/1 /2011
Jacob C.
Wessell,
P.E.
3/2/2011
10.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06 0.24
5.46
1.41
1.89
4.40
0.59 3.78
0.60
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
0
0
0.30
294
0.38
1.55
0.00
0.61
405
0.80
3.35
0.00
0.91
372
0.83
2.35
0.00
1.22
455
0.88
3.70
0.00
1.52
373
0.75
2.25
0.00
1.83
186
1.03
2.03
0.00
2.13
145
1.43
2.33
0.40
2.44
78
1.20
1.78
0.75
2.74
82
1.35
1.90
0.95
3.05
181
1.18
1.73
0.78
3.35
187
1.75
2.48
1.03
3.66
236
1.68
2.53
0.95
3.96
363
1.68
2.80
1.10
4.27
3698
2.55
12.10
0.35
4.57
6160
7.15
20.30
0.45
4.88
3099
4.90
11.60
0.35
5.18
3062
4.18
13.10
0.38
5.49
4388
7.85
21.30
0.40
5.79
2412
4.83
14.10
0.38
6.10
1995
4.70
12.00
0.45
6.40
2201
3.35
12.10
0.45
6.71
582
1.05
1.88
0.45
7.01
533
0.75
2.78
0.45
7.32
2300
3.35
18.80
0.45
7.62
3949
4.13
21.40
0.50
7.92
1464
1.03
3.33
0.55
8.23
1940
1.28
5.38
0.58
8.53
4908
1.85
18.00
0.55
8.84
4955
4.45
15.60
0.65
9.14
6305
4.98
22.60
0.65
1.98
1.000
0.5
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.0250
Page 1

PC & SVP vs Elevation at DMT-2R
PC (tsf)
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1;8
2.0
18
14
- --------'-----
— . -- -
12
----- -- -----------------
------------------- --- — -------------------
:
6
-------
O
0
----------------_
________w_______
ca
-2
______-_____._J __________________________--___-______-____________i
11J-4
_______ _____r_________ __________
_____________________________________.._
10
--------- --
I
T
14
--------------------r----
-
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2.0
SVP (tsf)
e PC o SVP

Su & Phi vs Elevation at DMT-2R
Su, Undrained Shear Strength (tsf)
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
18
16 --------;-------- — — — — -----------------
14 -- -------------- --- ------ — ---------------- --------
12--------- -------- -------------------------
10 - - ----------
--------------------- ---------
8 --------- i -`-------- ------ -- - --- - -----------------------------
-------------------------------
0 2-------- - -- ----- -
---------
2 ------ -'-
- , .
:
8------------------------------------------ ---------- ----------
-10 ----------------- -------------------
-14--------- - ------ ------------
16-------------------------
--------- -------- - -
20 25 30 35 40
Friction Angle (Degree)
- Su +Phi

M vs Elevation at DIVIT-214
18
16
- ---- -- -;---- --
14
=- ---- - ---- -- — -
�
12
I I :
—--------- - --
, I
10
--- -- - --- -- -
8
--- --------- ----- --- ---- ,----------- - — ---- ------ - ------I--
,
I I I
:
o
a ,
d-----
r----------------- -------- ---- — ---- ------------- — ---
l1J
4
I : I --- -- ---- -
� � 1
6
8 ---
__--------r---------------- _ _____,__._________,_____7__
1 � 1
-10
- :-----r
I � I
-12
— ---- — ------ —
-14
--- --------------------------'---------'--------- - - - - -- '- - - - - - --
1 ,
-16
r 1 I
0
100 200 300 400 500 660 760 860 960 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
M, Modulus for 1-D Consolidation (M) (tsf)
-n #E
rTI
F
cm
O
[�•W
�=sr.* _

ATTACHMENT E
SEISMIC TESTING RESULTS
21012
- ootecn itrrpt.aoc CATLIN
March

Depth 4.101ft
Ref'
Depth 7.874ft
Ref 4,101ft
Depth 10.991ft
Ref 7.874ft
Depth 14.272ft
Ref 10.991ft
Depth 17.552ft
Ref 14.272ft
Depth 20.833ft
Ref 17,552ft
Depth 24.114ft
Ref 20.833ft
Depth 27.559ft
Ref 24.114ft
Depth 30.840ft
Ref 27.559ft
Depth 34,121ft
Ref 30.840ft
Depth 37.402ft
Ref 34.,121ft
Depth 40.846ft
Ref 37.402ft
Depth 44.127ft
Ref 40.846ft
.Depth 47.080ft
Ref 44.127ft
Catlin Engineers & Scientists
'C_��Y` --
�'_'
\��%' •JI__^ .\ram
I • I I 1 I
I I I
.-..-.-_ =` l- •` � �'� � v-�_--...ram ' _ _ _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ _ _
i-I I
4
I I I
I
� I -
f i
1
I I I I I
I { I
I-
I _ I
-- --
r I. T I
- - - - -
_ _
{
I
__-ss--==F=�-•_..�----. �_=':=ram � �.....,i
i
I
--
I
Delay 29.65ms
Velocity -
Delay 37.93ms
Velocity 455.63ft/=
Delay 46.99ms
Velocity 343.94ft/s
Delay 56.13ms
Velocity 358.95ft/_
Delay 63.90ms
Velocity 422.08ft/s
Delay 67.77ms
Velocity 848.43ft/s
Delay 70.50ms
Velocity 1199.93ft/
Delay 74.64ms
Velocity 832.02ft/s
Delay 77,26ms
Velocity 1253.66ft/
Delay 80.46ms
Velocity 1024.33ft/
Delay 83.43ms
Velocity 1105.20ft/
Delay 84.68ms
Velocity 2756.07ft/.
Delay 86.32m5
Velocity 1999.88ft/;
Delay 86.48ms
Velocity 18898.57ft.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (MS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance 0 (m)
= Not Determined
IWY
FEB 2 5 2013 b,

ATTACHMENT F
STORMWATER INFILTRATION TEST REPORT
210121 Geotech_ltrrpt.doc � CATLIN
March 2011 rncimm.na ea.,m.e

LMG
L^AND MANAGEMENT GROUP mc.
Environmental Consultonts
February Ib,2011
Jacob Wessell ':.
CatlinE,ngine-ers& Scientists
220 Old Dairy, Rd
Wihnington,NC•28405
Reference Stormwater'infiltration study for the proposed basimareas for the .P711; .
MCAS Site'located in Jacksonville, NC.
peai Mt. Wessell:
Ori Thursday, January 27, 2011, Land Management Group, Inc. had the Pleasure
of evaluating the proposed stormwater:basin,areas for the P71I, MCASIsite located in '
Jacksonville,.NC. The ;puipose'ofthe'evaluation was, to xdescribe the soil,profile;,
quantify tfie depth to the seasonal high,watertable (§HWT); quantify potential and rates
for.infiltration and to inform the pro'iect''engineer of any, potential' limitations of This r
The soils on this,site are mepped;as thekGoldsboro Urtian Land'complex in the
Soil•Surveyaof Onslow County:(iUSDA,' 1992)..- Actual. soil. borings $1, S2, S5, S6iand S7, .
confirm the!sotl to be'a Rains soil series (see..Test`Area Sketch:AppendixA apd sdil-
profile descnptions in.AP_Oeq B) ,The Rains soil series can best beidescribed as soils
_._.. ..:.,_�:�& .....az. ry ��.�ur...._....+—.u-�r......_..... .._
thaf-fonned from,poorly,drained,coarse and fine loamy marine sediments onupland flats
and low ridges inthe coastal plain.
The seasonal high water table is. normally, evident by observation of
redoximorphic features suggesting past conditions; of saturation and reduction. Thereds
evidence of reliwredoximorphic features at ,,12" in borings.S=1, S 5, S 6 and S 7 to: 14"
in boring S-2*bmAhe existing soil surface, . From observation, of historic and regional
drainage of the'lands siurounding the, site there,we have estimated the codtemporary ;
SI WT to be at a depth ;of' 30': in boring:S-1„and 42'' in bo"rings S-2, S-6 and`S, 7-.(See,
Table 1 for calcuiated'MSL Elevation for each Boring). All'recorded depthsare fromthe
existing surface,as noted in, the, soil profile descriptions, profiles for boruigs;S-1, S=2,and
S-6 shows a modest amount of native:fill material from'historic goading and'excavation
activities (see ~Test .Area Map Appendix A, soil,profile descnptionsin Appendix B. and
elevation dataia;fable 1.):. LMGwas asked to esttmate, infiltrationrates for each
preselectediocation It is e)pected,'tlW these. soils, will have mfiltrahon rifle in,of,less
then 6.52 m/hr; due to, the presenoe,of the• fine loamy subsoils in each prof e. which is.,, •r--
considered unsuitable for• stormwater-infiltration by NC DENR DWQ. LMG"' d VE
PP FEB 2 5 2019 5
wwwamgyoup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]-'
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Sulte 15, Wilmington, NC28403 9 P.O: Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402

recommends that the site be considered for stormwater retention basins or another
applicable Stormwater BMP. The official published description and physical aid
chemical data for the Rains` soil series are shown in Appendix C for comparison.
Table 1. Soil Seasonal'Mah Water Table Chart
Soil --Baring
Relic SHWT
(Inches)
Contemporary,
'SHWT
(Inchei
*Elevation
Ground Surface
(Fed)MSL(Feet)
Elevation
SHWT
MSL
S=.L
1.2
30
17.1 ,'
14.6
S-2 , .,
14
42
17:1'
13.6
'S`5;
1Z'
"12
- W8'
15.8
S-6 -
13;....
42
17.4
13.9
S-7.
12
42
16.9
13.4
*Surveyed Elevation data provided by Catlin Engineer's and.Scientists.•
"Contemporary SHWT based upon proximity of boring to existing drainage ditches,
soil profiles and observed physical'water."
In summary; this site -has an area that is proposed for stormwater basimplacement.
This'area,has soils that have seasonal, high watertables from 12" in boring S=5 to a depth
of 42" n boring S-7 from.thb soil surface as shown'in'l able 1. It is !expected.that these
soils'will be considered,unsuitable for.stormwater mfilt ration.by NC DENR DWQ and
LMG-recommends,another applicable,Stormwater BMP'be considered,for this site such
as retention,basms. If the proposed Permanent Fool Elevation is more than'6" below the
seasonal high watef table'elevation, then additional'testing,arid�analysis may be required
to quantify any affect on adjacent wetlands,, surface waters, and/otbuffers,where
applicabler � Please'refer to the'NC DENR DWQ February 1 % 2009 Memo Article 2
subsections a=d.for further guidance. 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, 910-471-0505 or at nhowell(a-)lm2roup.net .
Sincerely,
Nicholas.Howell
NC Licensed,Soil Scientist #1294

P711, MCAS - PO# 110105-9
Stormwater Seasonal High
Water Table/Infiltration Study
Test Area Sketch
Land Nanagernent Group, Inc.
Envlronmental Consultants
Job #: 03-11-019 PO BOX 2522
Jake Wessell Wilmington, N.C. 28402
January 31, 2011 www.Lftroup.nef
1-866-LMG•1078
(910)-452-0060 fax
Figure 1
Soil Test Area Map

Appendix A
Test Area Maps
r, ,LIVE
FEB 2 5 2013
E

Appendix B
Soil Profile Descriptions
EGEOVE
II FEB 2 5 2013 '
BY:

Boring S-1 0-1%
Fill — 0-11" Mixed sandy and coarse loamy fill material.
A—11-20" Loamy Sand, granular very friable non sticky non plastic, lOYR 3/1.
Btgl — 20-32" Sandy Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky non
plastic, 2.5Y 5/2.
Btg2 — 32-54" Sandy Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 2.5Y 5/2 with 1 OYR 5/6 and 1 OYR 3/6 mottles.
BCg — 54-60" Sandy Clay Loam, weak coarse subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 5Y 6/1 with 2.5Y 6/4 and 1 OYR 5/8 Mottles.
Physical Water. 33"
Relic SHWT: 12-20"
Contemporary SHWT: —30"
Boring S-2 0-1%
Fill — 0-T' Mixed sandy, coarse loamy and fine loamy fill material.
A — 7-14" Loamy Sand, granular very friable non sticky non plastic, 1 OYR 3/1.
Bt—14-28" Sandy Loam, weak medium subangular blocky,
Btg _ 28-49" Sandy Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 2.5Y 5/2 with 10YR 5/6 and 10YR 3/6 mottles, mottles stop abruptly
@41" clear matrix of2/5Y 5/2 from 4149".
BCg — 49-60" Sandy Clay Loam, weak coarse subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 5Y 6/1 with 2.5Y 6/4 and 10YR 5/8 Mottles.
Physical Water: 57" and rising
Relic SHWT: 14-28"
Contemporary SHWT: --42"
Boring S-5 0-1%
A— 0-8" Loamy Sand, granular very friable non sticky non plastic, 1 OYR 3/1.
Btgl — 8-20" Sandy Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky non
plastic, 2.5Y 5/2.
Btg2 — 20-35" Sandy Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 2.5Y 5/2 with 10YR 5/6 and 10YR 3/6 mottles.
Physical Water: 18"
SHWT: —IT'

Boring S-6 0-1%
Fill — 0-13" Mixed sandy and coarse loamy fill material.
A—13-19" Loamy Sand, granular very friable non sticky non plastic, 10YR 3/1.
Btgl—19-29" Sandy Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky non
plastic, 2.5Y 5/2.
Btg2 — 29-51" Sandy Clay Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 2.5Y 5/2 with 10YR 5/6 and IOYR 3/6 mottles.
BCg — 51-60" Sandy Clay Loam, weak coarse subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 5Y 6/1 with 2.5Y 6/4 and 1 OYR 5/8 Mottles.
Physical Water: 53"
Relic SHWT: 13-19
Contemporary SHWT: --42"
Boring S-7 0-1%
A — 0-7" Loamy Sand, granular very friable non sticky non plastic, IOYR 3/1.
Btgl — 7-20" Sandy Loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky non
plastic, 2.5Y 5/2.
Btg2 — 20-36" Sandy C1ayLoam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 2.5Y 5/2 with IOYR 5/6 and IOYR 3/6 mottles.
Btg3 36-48" Sandy loam, weak medium subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky non
plastic, 2.5Y 4/1 with 10YR 5/8 mottles.
BCg — 48-60" Sandy Clay Loam, weak coarse subangular blocky, friable slightly sticky
slightly plastic, 5Y 611 with 2.5Y 6/4 and 1 OYR 5/8 Mottles.
Physical Water: 55"
Relic SHWT: —12"
Contemporary SHWT: —42"
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:

Appendix C
Published Description and Chemical and Physical Properties
Of the Rains Soil Series

1/31/2011 1 Official Series Description - RAINS Series
LOCATION RAINS SC+AL FL GA NC VA
Established Series
DJD-CMO/Rev. JAK
09/2006
RAINS SERIES
MLRA(s):133A-SQuthem Coastal Plain, 153A-Atlantic Coast Flatwoods, 137-Carolina and Georgia Sand
Hills
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
Depth Class: Very deep
Drainage Class (Agricultural): Poorly drained
Internal Free Water Occurrence: Very shallow, persistent
Flooding Frequency and Duration: None, very rare, rare, occasional, frequent for briefto
Ponding Frequency and Duration: None
Index Surface RunofE Negligible
Permeability: Moderate (Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity: Moderately high
Shrink -Swell Potential:- Low
Landscape: Lower, middle, upper coastal plain
Landform: Flats, depressions, Carolina bays
Geomorphic Component: Talfs, dips
Parent Material• Marine deposits, iiuviomarine deposits
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Elevation -(type location): Unknown
Mean AnnualAir Temperature (type. location) :62 degrees P.
Mean Annual Precipitation (type location): 45 inches
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Typic Paleaquults
TYPICAL PEDON: Rains loamy sand --forested. (Colors are for moist soil, unless otherwise indicated.)
A--O to 7 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam, dark gay (10YR 4/1) dry; weak fine granular
structure; very friable;, many fine and medium roots; very strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (4 to 10 inches
thick)
Eg--7 to 12 inches; light brownish gay (10YR 6/2) sandy loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; many
fine and few medium roots; many fine pores; few fingers of A horiwn in upper part very strongly acid; clear
wavy boundary. (0 to 11 inches thick)
Btg17-12 to 20 inches; gay (IOYR 6/1) sandy loam; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; friable; few fine
and medium roots; many fine pores; many clay bridging between sand grains; few medium prominent yellowish
brown (I OYR 5/6) masses of oxkii wd iron in lower ha&, very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Btg2--20 to 40 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangulat blocky struchue;,friable;
..:uuJa.00v/OSD'Do s/R/RAINS.html "� FEB 2 5 2013 1/6

1/31/2011 Official Series Description - RAINS Series
few fine and medium roots; many fine pores; few faint clay &ns on faces of peds; few coarse pockets of gray
sandy loam; common medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron; few fine'
prominent red (2.5YR 4/6) masses of oa7dmed iron; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Btg3-40 to 52 inches; gray (10YR.6/1).sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; firm; few
fine pores; few faint clay film on faces ofpeds; few fine and medium prominent red (2.5YR 4/6) and yellowish
brown (10YR 5/6) masses of oxidized iron; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Btg4--52 to 62 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
few hint clay films on faces of peds; low medium prominent brownish yellow (I OYR 6/6) masses of oxidized
iron; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (Combined thickness ofthe .Btg horizon is more than 40
inches.)
BCg--62 to 79 inches; gray (1 OYR 6/1) sandy clay loam; weak coarse subangular blocky structure; friable; few
fine distinct brownish yellow (1 OYR 6/6) masses of oxidized iron; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (0
to 20. inches thick)
2Cg--79 to 85 inches; light gray (10YR 7/1) sand; single grain; loose; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Florence County, South Carolina; about 2.0 miles southeast of Timmonsville; 1.1 miles
south of intersection of State Hghway 45 and U.S.lbghway 76; 150 fret west of State Highway 45.
RANGE.IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Thickness of the surface and subsurface layers: 4 to 19 inches
Depth to top of the argillic horizon; 4 to 19 inches .
Depth to the base of the argMic horizon: 60 to more than 80 inches
Depth to bedrock; Greater than 80 inches
Depth to seasonal high water table: 0 to 12 inches, December to April
Rock fragment content: 0 to 5 percent throughout
Soil reaction Extremely acid to strongly throughout, unless }tined
Depth' to )rtliologic discontinuity (abrupt textural change): Greater than 40 inches
Other sod features --The upper 20 inches of the argillic horizon has less than 30 percent silt.
RANGE OF INDIVIDUAL HORIZONS:
A horizon or Ap'horizon (where present):
Color --hue of 1 OYR or 2.5Y, value of 2 to 5, chroma of 1 to 2, or is neutral with value of 2 to 5
Texture --sand, loamy coarse sand, loamy sand, loamy fine sand, coarse sandy loam, sandy loam, fine sandy
loam, very fine sandy loam, or loam
Eg horizon
Color --hue of 1 OYR to 5 Y, value of to 7, chroma of 0 to 2, or is neutral with value of 4 to 7
Texture --sand, loamy coarse sand, loamy sand, loamy fine sand, coarse sandy loam, sandy loam, fine sandy
loam, very fine sandy loam, or loam
Redoximorphic features (where present} -iron depletions m shades ofbrown, yellow, olive, or gray and masses
of oxidized iron or iron -manganese masses in shades of red, yellow, or brown
=
...usda.00v/OSD Docs/R/RAINS.html 2/6

1/31/2011 Off dal Series Description - RAINS Series
Color --hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of4 to 7, chroma of 1 to 2, or is neutralwith value of4 to 7
Texture --typically, sandy clay loam or clay.loam and includes sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or loam in the upper
part and sandy clay in the lower part. .
Redoxmuorphic features --iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray and masses of oxidized iron
or iron -manganese masses in shades of red, yellow, or brown
BCg horizon or BCtg horizon (where present):
Color --hue of 1 OYR to 5Y, value of4 to 7, chroma of 1 to 2, or is neutral with value of 4 to 7
Texture --sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or sandy clay
Redoxmuorphle features --iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray and masses of oxidized iron
oriron-manganese masses in shades ofred, yellow, or brown
Cg horizon (where present):
Color --hue of l OYR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2, or is neutral with value of 4 to 7
Texture --coarse sandy loam, sandy loam, fume sandy loam, loam, sandy clay loam, or clay loam, and may be
stratified with finer or coarser -textured materials
Redoximorphic features --iron depletions in shades of brown, yellow, olive, or gray and masses of oxidized iron
or ronmartganese masses in shades of red, yellow, or brown
2Cg horizon:
Color --hue of 1 OYR to 5Y, value of4 to 7, chroma of 1 or 2, or is neutral with value. of 4 to 7
Texture --coarse sand, sand, fine sand, loamy coarse sand, or loamy sand and may be stratified with finer -
textured material
COMPETING SERIES: None
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING:
Landscape: Lower, middle, upper coastal plain
Landform: Flats, depressions, Carolina bays
Geomorphic Component: TaB, dips
Parent Material: Marine deposits, fluviomarine deposits
Elevation: 40 to 450 feet
Mean Annual Air Temperature: 57 to 70 degrees F.
Mean Annual Precipitation: 35 to 55 inches
Frost Free Period: 190 to 245 days
GEOGRAPHICALLYASSOCIATED SOILS:
Chip iey soI--do not have an arglk horizon
Coxville sod ---have more than 35 percent clay in the top 20 inches of the Bt horizon
Dunbar soils --have more than 35 percent clay lathe top 20 inches of the Bt horizon
Goldsboro soils --have dominant chroma of 3 or more between the base ofthe A or Ap horizons and depths of
30 inches
Lynchburg souls --have higher cbroma between the base of the A or Ap
horizon and a depth of 30 inches
Noboco sod --are better drained and have a seasonal high water table at 30 to 40 inches below the soil surface
Norfolk soils --are better drained and have a seasonal high water table at more than 40 inches below the soil
surface E G E O V Z'
...usda.aov/OSD Docs/R/RAINS.html FEB 2 5 2013 3/6
nv.

1/31/2011 Official Series Description - RAINS Series
Ocilla sod --have. sandy A and E horizons. more than 20 inches thick
Pantego soils --have an urnbnio epipedon
Paxville soils --have :an umbiic epipedon
Pelham sods --have sandy A and E horizons more than 20 inches thick
Scranton sod --do not have, an atgilCic horizon
Stallin sod --have less than 18 percent clay in the top 20 inches of the Bt horizon
Woodaieton sods --have less than 18 percent clay in the top 20 inches of the Bt horizon
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABII.ITY:
Depth Class: Very deep
Drainage Class (Agricultural): Poorly drained
Internal Free Water Occurrence: Very shallow, persistent
Flooding Frequency and,Dratiom None, very rare, rare, occasional, frequent for brief to
Ponding Frequency and Duration: None
Index Surface Runoff: Negligible
Permeability: Moderate (Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity: Moderately high
Shrink -Swell Potential• Low
USE AND VEGETATION:
Major Uses: Forest, cropland
Dominant Vegetation: Where cultivated --corn, soybeans, and small grams. Where wooded --pond pine, loblolly
pine, and hardwoods.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT:
Distribution Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia
Extent: Large
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Berkeley County, South Carolina, 1948
REMARKS: The central concept Sir the Rains series does not include a flooding hazard. However, the series
has been correlated in flood plain positions. Additional research is needed to determine if areas of Rains soils that
are subject to flooding have haplic or pale clay distribution
Diagnostic horizons, soil characteristics, and special features recognized in this pedon
Ochric epipedon--the zone from the surface of the soil to 12 inches (A, E horizons)
Argillic horizon --the, zone from 12 to 62 inches (Btgl, Btg2, Btg3, and Btg4 horizons)
Aquults feature --dominant chrome of 1 in the.matncx of the argltlic horizon, with masses of oxidized iron
Aquir conditions --periodic saturation and reduction in a zone from 0 to 80 inches ofthe soil surface at some time
during the year (endosaturation)
Lithologic discontinuity --abrupt textural change starting at a depth of 79 inches (2Cg horizon)
ADDITIONAL DATA. -
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
SOI-.5 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
..usda.aov/OSD"Dots/R/RAINS.html 4/6

1/31/2011
Official Series Description - RAINS Series
FLO129
RAINS
0-2
-
- -
-
SCO020
RAINS
'0-2
57-70
190-245 38-52
40-450
SCO102
RAINS
0-2
57-70
190-225 38-52
300-450
SCA116
RAINS
0-2
57-70
190-245 38-52
40-450
SOI-5
F1oodL
F1oodH Watertable
Kind Months
Bedrock
Hardness
FLO129
NONE
0-1.0
APPARENT JUN-JAN
>80
-
SC0020.NONE
0-1.0
APPARENT NOV-APR
>80
-
SC0102
NONE
0-1.0
APPARENT NOV-MAR
>80
-
SC0116
COMMON
0-1.0
APPARENT NOV-APR
>80
-
SOI-5
Depth
Texture
3-Inch
No-10 Clay%
-CEC-
FL0129
0-12
S FS
0-
0 98-100 2-5
-
FLO129
12-62
SCL
0-
0 98-100 18-35
-
FLO129
62-85
LS LFS SL
0-
0 95-100 2-15
-
SCO020
0-12
LS LFS S
0-
0 95-100 2-10
1-4
SCO020
0-12
SL FSL VFSL
0-
0 95-100 5-20
1-5
SCO020
0-12
L
0-
0 95-100 7-27
2-6
SCO020
12-40
FSL SCL SL
0-
0 95-100 18-35
2-5
SCO020
40-62
SCL CL SC
0-
0 98-100 18-40
2-7
SCO020
62-79
SL SCL SC
0-
0 95-100 15-45
1-6
SCO102
0-14
SL
0-
2 95-100 5-20
1-5
SCO102
14-36
SCL SL
0-
2 90-100 18-35
2-5
SCO102
36-46
CEM
-
- -
-
SCO116
0-12
SL ESL
0-
0 92-100 5-20
1-5
SCO116
0-12
VFSL L
0-
0 92-100 7-24
1-6
SCO116
12-40
SCL CL
6-
0 95-100 18-35
2-5e
SCO116
40-62
SCL CL SC
0-
0 95-100 18-40
2-1
SCO116
62-79
SL'SCL SC
0-
0 95-100 15-45
1-6
SOI-5
Depth
-pH-
O.M.
Salin Permeab
Shnk-Swll
FLO129
0-12
3.5-5.5
1.0-6.0
0-0 2.0-6.0
LOW
FLO129
12-62
3.5-5.5
-
0-0 0.6-2.0
LOW
FLO129
62-85
3.5-5.5
-
0-0 0.6-6.0
LOW
SCO020
0-12
3.5-5.5
1.0-6.0
0-0 6.0-20
LOW
SC0020-
0-12
3.5-5.5
1.0-6.0
0-0 2.0-6.0
LOW
SCO020
0-12
3.5-5.5
1.0-6.0
0-0 0.6-2.0
LOW
SCO020
12-40
3.5-5.5
0.5-1.0
0-0 0.6-2.0
LOW
S00020
40-62
3.5-5.5
0.5-1.0
0-0 0.6-2.0
LOW
SCO020
62-79
3.6-5.5
0.5-1.0
0-0 0.6-2.0
LOW
Ii �,y
SC0102
0-14
3.5-5.5
1.0-6.0
0-0 2.0-6.0
LOW
•B.P� tl®
SCO102
14-36
3.5-5.5
-
0-0 0.6-2.0
LOW
tit
FEB 25 2013
SCO102
36-46
-
-
- -
-
SCO116
0-12
3.575.5
1.0-6.0
0-0 2.0-6.0
LOW
mA;;.nnvl(')Sn nrvs/R/RATNS.html
5/6

1/.31/2011
UMdal Series Description - RAINS Series
SCO116
0-.12
3.5-5.5
1.0-6:0
0-0
2.0-6.0
LOW
SCO116
12-40
3.5-5.5
0.5-1.0
0-0
0.6-2.0
LOW
SCO116
40-62
3.5-5.5
0.5-1.0
0-0
0.6-2.0
LOW
SC0116
62-79
3.5-5.5
0.5-1.0
0-0
0.6-2.0
LOW
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
..usd8.00v/0SD Docs/R/RAINS.htrnl 6/6

ATTACHMENT G
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY RESULTS
ECEIVE
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:
210121_011 Geotech Ilrrpt.doc
March 2` l_.EiTLIN

Project:
Location
N=ber:
Borehole
BB-1
BB-1
BB-1
BB-1
BB-1
BB-1
BB-2
BB-2
BS-2
BB-2
BB-2
BB-2
BB-2
S-1
S-1
S-1
S-2
S-2
S-2
S-3
S-3
S-3
S-4
S-4
S-4
S-5
S-5
S-5
S-6
S-6
S-6
5-7
S-7
S-7
Maximum Water Dry Satur-
Liquid Plastic . Size 8<p200 Class- Content Density ation Void
ple ID Depth Limrt Limit PI (n¢n) Sieve ification (8) (pcf) (8) Ratio
SS-01
1.5
SS-02
6.0
34
20
14
SS-03
10.5
9.51
21
SS-04
18.5
SS-05
23.5
9.51
17
SS-06
48.5
SS-07
1.5
SS-08
7.5
36
18
18
SS-09
13.5
SS-10
23.5
9.51
17
SS-11
33.5
SS-12
43.5
9.51
7
SS-13
53.5
9.51
10
SS-14
1.5
SS-15
9.0
39
18
21
SS-16
13.5
SS-17
3.0
SS-18
7.5
37
19
18
SS-19
12.0
SS-20
1.5
'SS-21
6.0
4.76
15
SS-22
13.5
SS-23
1.5
SS-24
6.0
2
17
SS-25
13.5
9.51
37
SS-26
1.5
SS-27
4.5
SS-20
13.5
SS-29
1.5'
SS-30
6.0
31
20
11
SS-31
10.5
4.76
24
SS-32
3.0
4.76
17
SS-33
9.0
37
1B
19
SS-34
13.5
19.5
32.0
19.1
24.2
24.7
21.7
34.9
30.4
28.2
26.6
25.7
25.4
16.8
35.5
US_LAB_SUMMARY 210121.P711. IPAC BLDG.GPJ.: 'CATLIN.GDT 2/14/11 Shear I of 1

MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Standard Proctor -Procedure A
135 e_Mw. ce;sas.ca'ram,:v::n1'�ms'=x
Project: P-711
r. 'f 11ei
r+.2.r;xm;x:.ae;i;tc Location: MCAS New River, NC
-130 rer.um�.arwr�d F.sixas„kProJed N0.: 210121
F.
rC 22.................. Sample No.: S-3
-� s�rr:a t4•GYUA •aen;a.:r.ux
Black/dark brown sand with some clay
125,and organics
120
_
aH
'65,"✓39d
c 110
y
a o
f
e M1,
'. g
r
_
s
cr Date: 2/4/2011
Tested :By: MDMason
Y..
TEST RESULTS
Dry Density =108.4pot
Optimum Water Content= 15.00%
100%Saturation Curves
t � for specific gravity equal to:
_,..
r+R. M.: �'t�@�3!: 2.65
aVmr
a�Pk�,
.um
,�-rev.xa-
V
2 A
Yf•.S
Wi L•'4"..
ui
5t sit
P: Y
:. ;E
SS _5�.,
?5'Fi
_aK:
lV .
5n29E2
9x22
.'
axrr;3-r..,r5risaF.z
-rz,�:,c:,*�Maximum
a
'c P
:=.Iss:#sTg
64zY'Y;<
c.
'ZI2:0'
4'�.i
2u4?�.
I
II>4
yid
,.;a:r
rs
0..
f;r�,�+
y,
3x
.rzrm;.
r
c >
9
Y4
L
.r
Z'
a
��. Z
s: ~r
idJ
A: €�R
3Nai'U
Ke.
y.v
UJ.'71..„'i.
Sr•:v�%..33i'�
ati.i�^F
�7���cY)`.D
.his
F:a
7. +A
t'c
.....w%i8
#:
ut K+Fin
105
3.sxal..,].:ra.r,�,.,NFrY
.s
��,'N-IY
-dar.a.�2.70
100
95
90
85
Water Content, %
ECG: 111E �
FEB 2 5 2013 U
6
ISY:
CATLIN Engineers Scientists
Geotechnical Laboratories

MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Standard Proctor- Procedure A
115 J Sia x_'eu[iSY
aXr; x�.. .eavn®; 'an F: r.aa++sack, Project: P-711
S{%_A'3 C'nU^c-eskLC F. Ae 3�aa3.Y
r. 2 x ,a e w cv sa a e ` u m e, -. s ve..* t n s+ c+ Location: MCAS New River, NC
110 'att ass ss, as+.srux .w cwrc: Project No.:210121
e,4 w.&:r }.�?�t ne?C]}S r✓,.�Rf4 S 92r2aY1
Sample No.:S•4
m e n Black/dark brown sand with trace silt
105 IF :Wfiff<id7. !4 &}e >4 &+r tS ffiBt tl.ID 9L9a
FiR g2G1 4u R; :15.max. r: ua.41 +U
GET nlX 'L
Date: 2(712011
too rat a ax P171 � a u 5 t. ° P, ° E M z s: a �' � Tested By: MDMason
_rrxr.'. s:su:arhaaax�r'aw:c>
�a F4 K r ' '0A' _4il5'
!a s� "4f,A4: ;.:sir., :, u+s ', ri ss �.+�+,. TEST RESULTS
�3"s6AF g " V 4P!x5 0 maxim, um Dry Density = 91.6pcf
Twg :,.2v* ZAfti4.: :, I..2F;
95 . UP R 9 a z so & d r N^, _ - a *11 U E u! 0 x A <i Optimum Water Content = 20.6 %
5 RM r.e G64 ,its iK 1z'R v'9 T
st csa P4.1%.-x:u'If P.atrs a0i'r.F F ux:.wc
Pr' 41JPr TmNInIF'Jd K r 4 'F : ; k
Zc :E_.rAx.r,vwWou.1Nr uha r.._ T 100%pSaturation
pCurves
s
ual to:
'R, :I rA �'' .'J 7 1t' L`f `n y'� L' b` • v a
75 a5X X43 h 3 kni YeiN -Sd. V`r 1I .: ^vain '3. .YY; 2.65
I rM`<a i5 tz s 'h QIAIMSaC 4 x�:3 �J, •m J'
BS
F 9 RS; win fi, Sl rd '%14 G-- f4 Y'A .t :4':+99A 0 Z min .a
•+'; :3 :'ffiXo- ;ih XFuv' E:fi: :C YS. :. S%SSrA 'T•. r:):rf r' A� 'il ;> 'r :: st 1;
r?fi2 Sif 5 t?z+XV Z:.'!-I F, 1.+ "'2_ f+!JlA
80 s ck .fi.•..P0It1AN*I�,s � e'.R''Miu+uVA9RI"Ati 70:1. r ils
V% F' X,f Wr FIXa`?$S:^ fl I n 4 li ,^to R 4 ne 4 Z r/'y17 aA.. Y11
it `-1 uP Sr
. rTla ._^.:w&J•UK s,9Mp:?, 15v S:: Gr S.�:h C'St eluxzn Rt�3.9 'k YS A.'." u9 ;+45 fi 2R. +..r a.,S
:29 A,N S.L 's !'T 4z—,I:: Nz-F W49 i F3£'1.0 .'a �w X.14V 5'F Fo In T-1
75 "`';''""a.x.`+kvI,sa resinn�nt+nv',P2,.tsn�0tes,.31 en;•. axsr�osr�e. a
Nn t:4 2 W_441011 ,.pi'! eng Lr ,�!:y
..0 o F! ''nZ0 t;";'4itc iF k':i�:'::sG'4VUt a e L.
a.RPV1 -i r, Itr`. K; tL, 71 v':i FA 4l 47:5
•.28f4:;9SLrS2'3i1H�`.,^'f.5lYfta.Sfa h:be:N•1 F: AS; e£.M11: 'J vt ::!.:':�?: Y',•8'U
70 oo R5UG•9 iYY sNny L .ie 4442Y f X t+S�K}!p Xa lae•i lid Wib �Ch.a
'rv. 9j"_:
_y e; 'i,
ae:lb G.: :e'?K'Y �t �±f 'Y 'u 1d Fd ?`:. fsit:lW_Efx,s,,�ZNN!•. +uY "ct a'A f,?C.'=L M:: C�'1 {:
N 17 IQt :iLIJ!S�Ft(, r�; a ki rRA':ir
_V:.i. S:Y i"S :iS�.Y 3: :,3 'ia4Frl R':•J ,'-'l i2 iw .'v.3GS �R,]h].R to `N :1: Water Content, Content, %
CATLIN Engineers Scientists
Geotechnica! Laboratories

IBM
MMIRMUMMMOVISOMME01213 M 13 E912
M MOMM
1901801811
mommmumummmeammm MOMMEM a
Offlummumm
EMMOM12MMMUMME& nommmememmm
E3
951031HEMME3
M. e
IMMMENOO
Boom M
ammEm
smommmm
mosommmmmommeam
PRO
EGEOVES 11
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:
CATLIN Engineers Scientists
Geotechnical Laboratory

February21, 2011
Project No. 2011-724-01
Mr. Jacob C. Wessell, P.E.
Catlin Engineers & Scientists
PO Box 10279
Wilmington, NC 28404-0279
cnnics
'GRITY IN TESTING
Transmittal
Laboratory Test Results
P-711, IPAC
Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined
on the Project Verification Form that was faxed to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was performed
in general accordance with the methods listed on the enclosed data sheets. The test results are believed
to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of the
specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and imply no
position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the suitability of the
material for Its Intended use.
The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and
disclosed to other parties only with authorization by our Client: The test data submitted herein is
considered integral with this report and Is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the
authorization of the Client and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be
retained for a minimum of 90 days as directed by the Geotechnics' Quality Program.
We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of
further assistance, please contact our office.
Respectively submitted,
Geotechnics, Inc.
Michael P. Smith
Regional Manager
We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services
and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics.
DM D= rra mU f Lary Q Iv 112&05 Ro, l
2200 Westinghouse Boulevard • Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

Client
Client Reference
Project No.
Lab ID
Test Type
Molding Method
Mold ID
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
Mold Volume (cc)
Surcharge (lbs.)
Piston Area (in2)
Sample Height
Sample Conditions
Blows per Layer
SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-07 (SOP-S27)
CATLIN ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS
Boring No.
P-711, [PAC
Depth(ft.)
2011-724-01
Sample No.
2011-724-01-01
Visual Description
STANDARD
C
14
4220
2124
15
3
4.58
Soaked
15
qI
echnics
NTEGRITY IN TESTING
S-3
1-2
CBR-S3
BLACK BROWN SAND W/
SOME CLAY AND ORGANICS
Density
Before
After
Measurement
Soaking
Soaking
Wt. Mold & WS (gm.)
8275.2
8378.2
Wt. WS(gm.)
4055.2
4158
Sample Volume (cc)
2124
2128
Wet Density (gm./cc)
1.91
1.95
Wet Density (pcf)
119.1
121.9
Dry Density (pcf)
Dry Density (gm./cc)
103.3 103.3
1.66 1.65
Water
Contents
As.
Rec'd
Begining
Compaction
After
Compaction
Before
Soaking
After
Soaking
Top1"
After Soak
.Tare No.
803
819
822
822
800
804
Wt. of T+WS (gm.)
471.3
304.46
395.92
395.92
512.6
379.7
Wt. of T+DS (gm.)
446.61
281.3
361.49
361.49
449.97
331.76
Wt of Tare (gm.)
103.83
136.4
137.23
137.23
103.6
104.9
Moisture Content(%)
7.2
16.0
15.4
15.4
18.1
21.1
Piston Penetration
Displacement Load Stress Swell
(In.) (lbs.) (psi.) Measurement
0
1:9
0.6
0.025
92.4
30.8
0.050
141.2
47.1
0.075
177.1
59.0
0.100
208
69.3
0.125
236.2
78.7
0.150
260.7
86.9
0.175
284.3.
94.8
0.200
306.8
102.3
0.250
346.7
115.6
0.300
385.5.
128.5
0.350
421.1
140.4
0.400
456.9
152.3
0.450
492.7
164.2
0.500
526.2
175.4
0.550
558.9
186.3
0.600
592
197.3
Elapsed
Dial Percent
Time
Gauge Swell
(hrs)
(Div)
0.00
305
0.00%
21.12
313
0.17%
45.40
314
0.20%
69.02
314
0,20%
93.17
314
0.20%
96.15
314
0.20%
RR''. � C E S 9H' E �n
I 1 0
I FEB 2 5 2013
GY:
1Dlvls[on= 0.001 In.
Tested By SD Date 2.18.11 Checked By _1 e3 Date Z •z /. / /
page 1 of DCN: CTS27 REVSION:5 DATE: 11115M - 11Sary dawctN UOII PR0,ECTSIMI1.724CAnJNM11-n"141 I C9RCORRECTED.dSISHEETI
2200 Westinghouse Boulevard • Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] a Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-07 (SOP-S27)
Client CATLIN ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS Boring No.
Client Reference P-711, IPAC Depth(ft.)
Project No. 2011-724-01 Sample No.
Lab ID 2011-724-01-01 Visual Description
250.0
200.0
n 150.0
m
w
S
N
C
0
a
E
c 100.0
m
0.
50.0
0.0 4L
0.D00
CBR VALUE (0.1") 6.9 %
CBR VALUE (0.2") 6.8 %
Penetration Stress vs. Penetration
9chnics
GRITY IN TESTING
S-3
1-2
CBR-S3
BLACK I BROWN SAND W/
SOME CLAY AND ORGANICS
0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
Penetration (In)
Tested By SD Date 2.18.11 Approved Bye Date
page 2of2 DCN:CT-627 REVSION:5 DATE: 11/15/05 Ilse Mabd&12011 PROJECTS12011.724 CATLINM11J2"1-011CSR CORRECTED.kalliroph UnmrncmC
2200 Westinghouse Boulevard • Suite 103 • Raleigh, NO 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax (919) 876-G460 • www.geotGchnics.net

eotechnics
IN7EGRI7Y IN lESTiNG
SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883- 7 (SOPS27)
Client
CATLIN ENGINEERS 8 SCIENTISTS
Boring No.
S-4
Client Reference
P-711, IPAC
Depth(ft.)
1-2
Project No.
2011-724-01
Sample No.
CBR-S4
Lab ID
2011-724-01-02
Visual Description
BLACK / BROWN SAND
W/ TRACE SILT
Test Type
STANDARD
Molding Method
C
Density
Before
After
Mold ID
15
Measurement
Soaking
Soaking
Wt. of Mold
gm.)
4222.2
Wt. Mold 8 WS (gm.)
7918.7
8036.9
Mold Volum
(cc)
2124
Wt. WS (gm.)
3696.5
3815
Surcharge
lbs.)
15
Sample Volume (cc)
2124
2127
Piston Area
(in2)
3
Wet Density (gm./cc)
1.74
1.79
Sample Height
4.58
Wet Density (pcf)
108.6
111.9
Sample Cor
ditlons
Soaked
Blows per
Layer
15
Dry Density (pcf)
88.1
89.1
Dry Density (gm./cc)
1.41
1.43
Water
As Begining
After
Before
After Top 1"
Contents
Rec'd Compaction
Compaction
Soaking
Soaking After Soak
Tare No.
805 8010
8010
8010
809 814
Wt. of T+WS (gm.)
400.00 357.15
511.18
511.18
389.4 364.9
Wt. of T+DS (gm.)
361.67 315.71
440.54
440.54
331.22 308.67
Wt of Tare (gm.)
106.26 136.63
136.41
136.41
- 104.4 111.5
Moisture Content(%)
15.0 23.1
23.2
23.2
25.7 28.5
Piston
Penetration
Displacem
nt
Load
Stress
Swell
(in.)
(lbs.)
(psi.)
Measurement
0
1:9
0.6
Elapsed
Dial
Percent
0.025
20.8
6.9
Time
Gauge
Swell
0.050
50.8
16.9
(hrs)
(Div)
0.075
78.6
26.2
0.100
106.9
35.6
0.00
379
0.00%
0.125
131.9
44.0'
20.75
386
0.15%
0.150
156.6
52.2
45.00
386
0.15%
0.175
178.4
59.5
68.65
386
0.15%
0,200
199.7
66.6
92.80
386
0.15%.
0.250
240.4
80.1
86.25
386
0.15%
0.300
280.4
93.5
0.350
318.5
106.2
F-C E a `dB' E
0.400
353.6
117.9
rs
0.450
387.5
129.2
FEB 2 5 2013
0.500
422.1
140.7
0.550
457.4
152.5
Ey.-�
0.600
493.2
164.4
1Division=
0.001
in.
Tested By SD Date
2.18.11 CheckedBy
Date
A
Page iof2
DGN: CTS27 REVSION: 5 DATE: 11115IMS
11SERVagDosm 0r 12011 PROAECT512011-724 CArUNP011-72"1421COR
CORRECTED.be1SHEETI
2200 Westin6ouse Boulevard • Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-07 (SOP-S27)
Client CATLIN ENGINEERS & SCIENTI; Boring No.
Client Reference P-711, [PAC Depth(ft.)
Project No. 2011-724-01 Sample No.
Lab ID 2011-724-01-02 Visual Description
CBR VALUE (0.1") 3.6 %
CBR VALUE (0.2") 4.4 %
CORRECTED CBR VALUE (0.1") 3.8 %
CORRECTED CBR VALUE (0.2") 4.6 %
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
eotechnics
INTEGRITY IN TESTING
S-4
1-2
CBR-S4
BLACK / BROWN SAND
W/ TRACE SILT
Penetration Stress vs. Penetration
004 1 • I' I I I
0.000 0.100 0.200 0,300 0.400 0.600 . 0.600 0.700
Penetration (In)
Tested By SD Date 2.18.11 Approved By *of Date
page 2D/2 DCN: CT.SY/ REVSION: 5 DATE: 11/15/05 .IISERVEROae d UOII PROD TSI201I-724 CA7JM(2011-724L1-021CDR CORRECTED.4slG1epA Camcled
2200 Westinghouse Boulevard • Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Client
Client Reference
Project No.
Lab ID
Test Type
Molding Method
Mold ID
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
Mold Volume (cc)
Surcharge (lbs.)
Piston Area (in2)
Sample Height
Sample Conditions
Blows per Layer
SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-07 (SOP-S27)
CATLIN ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS Boring No.
P-711, IPAC Depth(ft.)
2011-724-01 Sample No.
2011-724-01-03 Visual Description
STANDARD
C
16
4221
2124
15
3
4.58
Soaked
10
®otechnics
INTEGRm'.IN TESTING
S-5
1-2
CBR-S5
BLACK SILTY SAND
WI TRACE ORGANICS
Density
Before
After
Measurement
Soaking
Soaking
Wt. Mold & WS (gm.)
7999.2
8113.7
Wt. WS (gm.)
3778.2
3893
Sample Volume (cc)
2124
2126
Wet Density (gmJcc)
1.78
1.83
Wet Density (pcf)
111.0
114.3
Dry Density (pcf)
Dry Density (gm./cc)
92.6 93.2
1.48 1.49
Water
Contents
As
Rec'd
Begining
Compaction
After
Compaction
Before
Soaking
After
Soaking
Top 1"
After Soak
Tare No.
813
822
819
819
813
811
Wt. of T+WS (gm.)
442.10
358.75
381.18
381.18
441.4
416.7
Wt. of T+OS (gm.)
411.33
321.91
340.65
340.65
380.7
357.42
Wt of Tare (gm.)
112.86
137.33
136.09
136.09
112.5
106.1
Moisture Content(%a)
10.3
20.0
19.8
19.8
22.6
23.6
Piston Penetration
Displacement Load Stress Swell
(in.) (lbs.) (psi.) Measurement
0
1.9
0.6
0.025
49.7
16.6
0.050
88.4
29.5
0.075
123.0
41.0
0.100
154.4
51.5
0.125
1B4.5
61.5
0.150
212.0
70.7
0.175
241.2
80.4
0.200
266.1
88.7
0.250
314.9
105.0
0.300
358.9
119.6
0,350
402.7
134.2
0.400
446.9
149.0
0.450
489.7
163.2
0.500
531.1
177.0
0.550
569.9
190.0
0.600
610.1
203.4
Elapsed
Dial Percent
Time
Gauge Swell
(hrs)
(Div)
0.00
394
0.00%
31.07
398
0.09%
55.30
398
0.09%
78.95
398
6.09%
103.12
398
0.09%
97.62
398
0.09%
1Division = 0.001 in.
ECEIVEIR
TI FEB.2 5 2013
Tested By SD Date 2.18.11 Checked By _) e3 Date Z . Z r. 1(
page 1of2 MN: CTSV REVS*N: 5 DATE 11115M IlSWV&idaladrN=11PR0JECTS1W11424 r4nJNvW11.T24-01-0J 1CaR00RRECTED.d3JSHEETI
2200 Westinghouse Boulevard • Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.gootechnics.net

SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-07 (SOPS27)
Client CATLIN ENGINEERS & SCIENTISTS Boring No.
Client Reference P-711, [PAC Depth(ft.)
Project No. 2011-724-01 Sample No.
Lab ID 2011-724-01-03 Visual Description
250.0
c 150.0
50.0
0.0 4L-
0.000
CBR VALUE (0.1") 5.1 %
CBR VALUE (0.2") 5.9 %
Penetration Stress vs. Penetration
eotchnics
TGRIrY IN TESTING
S-5
1-2
CBR-S5
BLACK SILTY SAND
W/ TRACE ORGANICS
0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
Penetration (in)
V
Tested By SD Date 2.18.11 Approved By /fir Date 2-_7_j,7D
page 20/2 DCN: CT-927 REVSIDN:b DATE: 11/1 SLS 11Se wWSle d�VM11P OXCM0/1-724 CAnINMI I'72"1431CM CORREC=.kSJSHEETI
2200 Westinghouse Boulevard • Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

ATTACHMENT H
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
FEE CEF9VfE
FEB 2 5 2013
210121 Geotach_ltrrpt.doc l..iiTLIN
March 2011 Ey«....m aw.u..

IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC
FACTORS
A geotachnical engineering report is passed on a subsurface plan designed to incorporate a unique set of project -
specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and its orientation;
physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities and the level of additional risk
which the client assumed by the virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory system. To help costly problems,
consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors which change subsequent to the date of this report
may affect his recommendations.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, your geotechnical report should not be used:
• When the nature of the proposed structure is changed, for example, if an office building will be erected
instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one;
• When the size or configuration of the proposed structure is altered;
• When the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified;
• When there is a change of ownership, or
• For application to adjacent site.
A geotechnical engineer cannot accept responsibility for problems which may develop if he is not consulted after
factors considered in his reports development have changed.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are
taken. Data derived through sampling and subsequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by the geotechnical
engineer who then renders an opinion about overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to proposed
construction activity, and appropriate foundation design. Even under optimal circumstances actual conditions may
differ from those opined to exist, because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface
exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. For
example, the actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than the report indicates, and
actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the
unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain
their geotechnical consultant through the construction state, to identify variance, conduct additional tests which may
be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly -changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engineering
report is based on conditions which exist at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be
based on the geotechnical engineering report which may be affected by time. Speak with the geotechnical
consultant to learn it additional tests are advisable before construction starts.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes or groundwater
fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. The
geotechnical engineer should be kept appraised for any such events, and should be consulted to determine if
additional tests are necessary.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION
Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a
geotechnical engineering report. To avoid these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to work with
other appropriate design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to review their adequacy.
21012 1 _Geotech_ltrrpt.doc CATLIN
March 2011

Custom Soil Resource Report
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components, the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but,also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, -or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform or with a,segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil � ,
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the a C E V V EII;.� J
n FEB 2 5 2013
S DV.

Contents
4

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call [phone]
(voice) or [phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
t3 m n
FEB 2 5 2013
Rv

W J
LnVkPI
C=
0
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Q
Soil Map Units
Special
Point Features
V
Blowout
®
Borrow Pit
X
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
X
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
®
Landfill
A
Lava Flow
,6
Marsh or swamp
R
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
O.
Perennial Water
.�
Rock Outcrop
}
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
J
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Jor
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Q
Stony Spot
Custom Soil Resource Report
Very Stony Spot
t
Wet Spot
Other
Special
Line Features
L'N
Gully
Short Steep Slope
L?
Other
Political Features
C
Cities
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
N
Interstate Highways
N
US Routes
m
Major Roads
Local Roads
MAP INFORMATION
Map Scale: 1:1,110 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet.
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http:/AvebsoilsuNey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 18N NAD83
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the versiori date(s) listed below. .
Soil Survey Area: Onslow County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 14, 2012
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 6/19/2006
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Onslow County, North Carolina (NC133)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of A01
Gp8
Goldsboro -Urban land complex, 0 to 5
percent slopes
6.1
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
6.1
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complex that itwas impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
10

Custom Soil Resource Report
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The .
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
4�,`;
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
Onslow County, North Carolina
GpB—Goldsboro-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Landscape: Coastal plains
Elevation: 20 to 160 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period.' 200 to 280 days
Map Unit Composition
Goldsboro and similar soils: 50 percent
Urban land: 30 percent
Description of Goldsboro
Setting
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, broad interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 24 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available watercapacity., Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Typical profile
0 to 7 inches: Fine sandy loam
7 to 13 inches: Fine sandy loam
13 to 40 inches: Sandy clay loam
40 to 80 inches: Sandy clay loam
Description of Urban Land
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Land capability (nonirrigated): 8
12

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://soils.usda.gov/
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://soils.usda,gov/
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://soils.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.glti.nres.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://soils.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
� p� TT
http://soils.usda.gov/ ECt; I `�®' E '
FEB 2 5 2013
13
Y.

Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210.
14

NORTH CAROUNA
STATE SOAROOF REGISTRATION
IOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS
fawn reaaa N
March 30.1993
RaLw NZ.aTaoa
unrTo•wsP
uln.a.aa.o
R LM QR RLa
C��r•W.
wee TSTiuRPLRS
tRARar M. �aRa KS
14TE Ru
.I.AM[RT
JR. KfaA
J.
OeTmIlRlaatl. K p�
NMaM R.
•uaUC MaMM[R
DNta IL
Pa. me
xmrT. QrRra�
.
aa+.o..
Mr. James E. Butler, PE
Department of the Navy - Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1510 Gilbert Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23311-2699
Dear Mr. Butler:
in accordance with your written request of March 23, 1993, I run enclosing
for your information a copy of The North Carolina Engineering and Land
Surveying Act, G. S. 89C.
I will refer your attention to G. S. 89C•23 which provides limitations on the
application of the Statute. Paragraph 6 specifically exempts "Practice by
members of the armed forces or employees of the government of the
United States while engaged in the practice of engineering or land
surveying solely for said government on government -owned works and
Projects!
This exemption should not be construed as to allow engineering services to
be provided to the Department of the Navy by non -registered contract
employees. For any such circumstance a North Carolina registrant would
need be in responsible Burge of any engineering services to be provided for
a North Carolina project.
I trust this information will be of some service and ask that you eantact Ira
if this office can be of further assistance.
JTCfjsa
Enclosures
Sincerely.
7 1 T. Caner
Executive Secretary
FEB 2 5 2013
6

a mav hem s,"Kisnt, mlSSue S certificate of registration a
pythontati", provided that a mapmY of the 1710""s of
the Board veto b lava of such Laauame. (1921, C. t, a.10:
tt963, C�0a/111
0.10; 11967,c.f080, SA 1973�1331,
1.3; t975. C.081, 0.1; 1961, C.789; 1989, C.669, 5.1.1
If 89Cd3. Unlawful to proel. eaginea 1 er tow
snavoyag without rwgisua0m; wdewhd use or this or
Berme: psnah§W Atterefy canal to be "d od~.•Any
person who alto PraCdce, Of offer to proctbs. engktsedng
a tend survoyin9 In mLa Sate without first being millstared
in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, w am
paraom firm, Partnership, orgaratation, association,
corporation, or, other entity usirq or ampbying tier wads
'enginew' or 'enngireering' or 'protesslonal engines,' or
'prolessbnal orgYaarin9' a 'lard surveys' a 'Lard
swwyinc.' or arty, modification or derivative thereof in in
name or form of business or activity except as registered
under We Chapter or In pursuit of activities exempted by
this Chapter. a any person presemkg or attempting to use
the Cerlifkaa of registration or the seal of another, or any
pawn who ahas 9M erny false a forged evidence of any
kind to the Dowd Or to arty member thereof in obtaining a
attempting to 0bISM 0 certificate of fe&tl tiary or any
person who " falsely krperooneto any other registrant of
like or different name, or any person who Shell attempt to
Lao an expired a revoked or nonexistent certificate of
registration, w who Shelf practice or offer to practice when
not gt»afatl, or and Wean who falwy elakhe that he is
registered under thin Chapter. Or and person who Shall
r vigiete any of the provisions of INS Chapter, In addition to
iryteotWa proCNures not out hwWtbsloro, gig be guilty of
a mladsmesnor. and may, upon conviction, be sentenced to
pay a fine Iofl not less that one hundred doles 16100.001,
nor move than one thousand dodws (11.0001, or suffer
tmprisonnam for a phew not exe0edbg th roo months, or
both, in the diswoclon of the court. In no event duo there
be mpmwts*n of of holding out to the public of any
engkserhg expertise by unregistered persons. It shelf be
the duty of as duly eonettuted of/berS of the Sato will all
political Subdivisions thereof to enforce the provisions of
this Chapter, and to proswum and parsons viosai g Same.
The Attorney General of the Sate Of hie assistant shag
wt as legal adviser to the board old rends a¢h legal
asWtance as may be nedastery In anyiro cut the
provisions of this Chapter. The Board may employ counsel
and recesNry asWanes to ad in the enfaternam of this
Chapter, and the compensation and expenses therefor shag
be pad from funds of the Dowd. 0921, c. 1. a. 12; C. S..
a. 60661n): 1951. c. 108e, s. 1; 1975. c.661, a. 1.1
I 89CQ4. CerporsRe a Panrrsaldp pracllea - of
enginwkg a Ind st eyktg: A corporation Or partnership
may argago In the praCfkx of engineering a and swveykg
in this State, provided, however, the Parsers Or parsers
contacted with such corporation w Pentland in charge of
the designing or nnpervsion which constitutes such practice
is w am regaterad as herein required of professional
engineers and registered land Surveyors. The tame
axempliom alas apply to corporations and partnerships as
apply to Individuals under this Chapter, provided further,
that all corpccrationa hereunder shag be subjstl to the
provisions of Chapter 550 of the General Sutures of North
Carchns (1921, C. 1, s. la; C. S., s. 6056(p); 1951, C.
1085, a. 1; 1969, C. 718, a. 18; 1975, C. 661. a. 1.1
89C.26. lknitecios on application of Chapter. -This
Chapter shall not be Conetnwd to prevent or offset:
1. The practice of wehiteetwa, landscape
archimetwe,-or contracting or any other legagy
recognized profession Or trade; Of
2. The practice of Professional engineering a tend
surveykq in this State or by airy person not a
rosidem of this State and having no eatablis od
place of bnskesa In this Sate when this prwtica
does not apprepote mere then 90 days in any
colertdar year. whel/w performed In this Sate Of
WSSWfa , a involve more than one Specific
preleel; p,,Ad d, however. that Such person Is
latest, qualified by registration to practice the
Said profession in his own State w country, in
which the requirements end fpalifipatlonS for
obakiq a Cwttbau of Millstrotbn am
setisfMory, to the Sooty; in which case the
person shell apply for and the Board will Issue a
temporary permit; Of
3. The Practice of profossbnel engineer" Of and
s SYMp In %hie State not to sggr"Ito mere
than 90 days by any potonn reading in this Stets,
but whoa fseldenco has not been of Sulltplam
duration for the Board to gram Or deny
rog4trotion; provided, however. Such person shah
have feed an oppacation for registration as a
proluabM ertpbwr or registered bM nxtreyor
and shah have paid the lee provided for in G. S.
89C-14, and provided that such a person Is
bgsay quw*w by moortration to Proof"
prolsetbnel engineering of lard surveykg In his
own auto or cotxnry in which the req%Arwwts
and qualifications for otn*Wng a carttoate of
regatration 'we Satisfactory to the Bosnd, in
which case the Parson shoe apply for and the
Board will Issue a temporary permit: Of
a. Engaging in arofneering Of lard SUrveying 03 an
amployes or assistant under the reaponeble
charge of a "eaalorsl engineer at registered
endsvveyor a es an emphoySS a aeelatant Cf a
nnwasdam professional anpkoar 0( a non
fashions registered lard svveya provided for In
subdivisions (2) and 431 of this section, wovided
that sold work as an employse may not kopde
responsible charge of design w supervision; or
5. The prwtics o1 professional arypnsering a Land
gievvykq by any person not a resident of, and
r,,*q ne e$I btishad place of bMkeSs In the
State; err oo slulds assooLato of a Proleselohat
erglneer or rsgiets, and survayor nwutwed
wrier the provisions of this Chapter; provided.
the nonresident Is qualified for such Professional
Service In his own sate Or colon; of
6. Practice by members of the anted faces Or
errgbyeea of the gevarnnerlt of the United
States while angloW in the practice of
engkaaNg or land Surveyig coldly for Sad
goveemmem an government -owned works and
projects; of
ECvEU V E
FEB 2 5 2013

Nelson, Christine
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments
Here you go...
V/r,
Bill Swaney, P.E.
757-322-8360
Swaney, William A CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, Cl [[e-mail]]
Friday, February 22, 2013 3:32 PM
Nelson, Christine
RE: couple of prelim easy/comments
Campbell St SW Permit Section Vl.pdf; P-711, Wet Pond Sup, Page 3.pdf; Storm Water
Narrative, Campbell St.pdf
-----Original Message -----
From: Nelson, Christine[mailto:christine.nelson(@ncdenr.aov)
Sent: Friday, February 22; 2013 2:19 PM
To: Swaney, William A CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, CI
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: couple of prelim easy/comments
Bill,
I try to look over the packages prior to logging them in just to see if the changes had been
made and if anything jumps out at me. I wanted to point out a couple items in hopes you
might be able to complete them and e-mail them to me sometime next week:
The Personnel Admin Center:
The third page of the wet pond supplement for the Required Items Checklist is
missing (it's a separate tab on the excel spreadsheet)
Campbell St Parking
A narrative for the modification to SW8 900622 explaining the changes
An initialed Section VI of the application
If not, I can request them in an additional info letter (I may have to do one for the
Personnel Admin Center anyways - the forebay % is based on the PP volume, not the required
storage volume)
Have a good weekend!
Christine
Christine Nelson
1

Environmental Engineer
State Stormwater Program
NC Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law
and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other
regulation.
z

For DENR Use
ONLY
Reviewer: II vss (n[�
©� f`}I, North Carolina Department of Environment and L�
Natural Resources submit:
NCDENR Request for Express Permit Review Time a 15
Confirm.
FILL-IN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. Call and Email the completed form to the
Permit Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative, site plan (PDF file) and vicinity map (same items expected in the application
ap ckaae of the project location. Please include this form in the application package.
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828.296-4698;[e-mail]
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791.4203; david.lee@ncdenrgov
• Mooresville & Winston Salem Region - Patrick Grogan 704-235-2107 or [e-mail]
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-948-3842 [e-mail]
• Wilmington Region -Janet Russell 910-796-7302or [e-mail]
• Wilmington Region -Cameron Weaver 910-796-7303 or [e-mail]
NOTE: Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day.
Enter Related SW
Permits of Request
SW
SW
SW —
SW
SW
Project Name: P711 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING County: ONSLOW
Applicant: NEAL PAUL Company: MCB CAMP LEJEUNE
Address: 1005 MICHAEL ROAD City: CAMP LEJEUNE, State: NC Zip: 28547-
Phone: [phone], Fax: _ _ Email: [e-mail]
Physical Location:WHITE STREET, NEW RIVER MCAS
Project Drains into EDWRDS CREEK waters - Water classification SC,HQW,NSW (for classification see-
http://h2o.enrstate.nc.us/bims/reports/reponsWB.htmI)
Project Located in WHITE OAK River Basin. Is project draining to class ORW waters? Y/N, within y2 mile and draining to class SA waters YIN, or within 1
mile and draining to class HOW waters? Y/N
Engineer/Consultant: WILLIAM SWANEY Company: NAVFAC MIDLANT
Address: 6506 HAMPTON BLVD City: NORFOLK, State: VA Zip: 23508-
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
SECTION ONE: REQUESTING A SCOPING MEETING ONLY
❑ Scoping Meeting ONLY ® DWQ, ❑ DCM, ® DLR, ® OTHER: FAST -TRACK APPLICATION/GRAVITY SEWER/UFT STATION
SECTION TWO: CHECK ONLY THE PROGRAM (S) YOU ARE REQUESTING FOR EXPRESS PERMITTING
❑ 401 Unit ❑ Stream Origin Determination: _ # of stream calls - Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
❑ Intermiftent/Perennial Determination: _ # of stream calls - Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification ❑ Isolated Wetland (_linear it or _acres)
❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization ❑ Minor Variance ❑ Major General Variance
® State Stormwater ❑ General ❑ SFR, ❑ SFR < 1 ac. ❑ Bkhd & Bt Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility ❑ Other
❑ Low Density 1 ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter _ # Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW _ (Provide permit #)]
® High Density -Detention Pond _ # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration _ #Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Bio-Retention - # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -SW Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Other _ # Treatment Systems /❑ MOD:❑ Major ❑ Minor ❑ Plan Revision ❑ Redev. Exclusion SW (Provide permit k)
❑ Coastal Management ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information
❑ Upland Development ❑ Marina Development ❑ Urban Waterfront
® Land Quality ® Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with 5 acres to be disturbed.(CK # (for DENR use))
SECTION THREE - PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT IS APPLICABLE TO YOUR PROJECT (for both scoping and express meeting request)
Wetlands on Site ❑ Yes ® No Buffer Impacts: ® No ❑ YES: _acre(s)
Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ❑ Yes ® No Isolated wetland on Property ❑ Yes ® No
US ACOE Approval of Delineation completed: ❑ Yes ® No 404 Application in Process w/ US ACOE: ❑ Yes ® No Permit
Received from US ACOE ❑ Yes ® No
For DF_NR use onh
fee Split for multiple permits: (Check # ) Total Fee Amount $
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
CAMA
$
IN(❑ Maj; El Min)
$
SW (❑ HD, ElLD, ❑ Gen)
$
401:
$
LGS
$
Stream Deter,_
$
NCDENR EXPRESS June 2011

Personnel Administration Building Narrative
The Personnel Administration Building is being constructed to provide undated work spaces for
base personnel. The proposed project will provide a new 17,067-SF building and 93 space,
asphalt parking lot. The site is currently undisturbed with a majority of the site being wooded
with dense ground cover. There are no known wetlands in the vicinity of the site, but the soils
are wet with a shallow seasonal high water table.
The project proposes to minimize runoff by using a wet pond. Water will collect from cutter
and down spouts from the building and flow to the grassed surface via splash guards to shallow
drainage swales where it will continue through a pipe under sidewalk and into the wet pond
forebay. Flow from the parking lot will sheet flow off of the parking lot into a shallow drainage
swale where it will continue through a pipe under proposed driveway entrance and into the
wet pond forebay.
A wet pond was selected because other options were not viable. As seen the Geotechnical
Report (attached) infiltration on site is not adequate for an infiltration basin. Bioretention was
not used because of the shallow depth of the SHWT.
The site drainage is designed to meet the stormwater requirements of NCDENR. In addition to
meeting NCDENR requirements, additional improvements such as no curb and gutters or
closed -system drainage have been incorporated to satisfy NAVFAC's requirements for LID (Low
Impact Development) by encouraging ground water surcharge through infiltration.
The wet pond is designed to store and slowly release the 1.5" rainfall event through a 2" orifice
on the outlet structure. Following a rain event, the temporary pool will draw down in
approximately 4 days to its permanent pool level. The 10-year flows (and larger storm events)
will exit the pond through a rectangular weir in the outlet structure and eventually the rim of
the outlet structure (if the pond reaches higher elevations). The outlet structure is designed to
reduce discharge for the 10-year storm below pre -developed rates. The pond was designed to
have approximately 1 foot of freeboard between the 100-yr storm elevation and the top of the
pond's banks.
The pond will be used to serve as the sediment basin during construction. Other erosion and
sediment control features will be to use silt fence around the perimeter of the site and
temporary diversion swales to direct flow to the basin, as well as a gravel construction
entrance.

1:1 KEYNOTES
Rt
HB\ -WTY WU~ CONCRETE PAWQ�
4. I W dtiM.IiOOS CONCRETE PAqWW
I B�NC MITANG
CORRAL PxJMFy
7,N 6, MCWT CONCRETE WORM BEAK (7YP FOR 14)
7 R,-R
R t QW WKNG STRDOL Ire M 4)
10, 82 ET At BONKrm
'l-y
Qc,
O`WM IQ 6 R WOE �RTTE MEWKK Arc
v �M FOR 3)
6 TOETm 9 4
I 2m}24.M 18, vw
olP,
BAR PVC
I-sTwy
19, UVW.. S WTH
BUILDINO /AhY
oo 17.067 SF 21 xi Eon 1.. TE. I., � .1RO V� ix
24 "'w')
21. R7-M %N
2=0
24 OIERWFc C Uux M FOR 2)
21, uam 1l1..
15
26 TE 10 EQTrIC WMO.
11, MWISTEI IQ Aro E.
H, lE NIC�
SIGN SUMMARY
1. z b
LEGEND
RT OOn NIRRIT ..ENT
MAI-
nDw Dul .1IRLT IXOE.ENT
ri
CONCRETE
r
ETY CONCRETE
—S-2
A
z
0
0
,I
z
WE
KEY PLAN
z
z
GRAPHIC SCALE
M
1
OTHERW� l�T D U-201
3 4 5

r USGS US DF MG[OL OL RVtN OR U4 UC W SOU NSW ORMG
..STopo
Pm.sau.1Y`s S.rCW.e Svm. SLVE 124M au r
1 to

Russell, Janet
From: Swaney, William A CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, Cl [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:36 PM
To: Nelson, Christine, Weaver, Cameron; [e-mail]; Towler CIV David W
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: RE: Request for Express Permitting Meeting-P711 Personnel Administrative Building
Christine:
I understood: Thomas will be down to check the areas with you next week. I doubt there is any
overlap, so I am moving ahead with our plan to permit this under a separate, high -density. We
are opting to push the express review meeting to the week of February 11th, so we will have
time to make adjustments if needed.
V/r,
Bill Swaney, P.E.
757-322-8360
-----Original Message -----
From: Nelson, Christine [mailto:christine.nelson(@ncdenr.eov]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:14 PM
To: Swaney, William A CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, CI; Weaver, Cameron; thomas.bradshawousmc.mil;
Towler CIV David W
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: RE: Request for Express Permitting Meeting-P711 Personnel Administrative Building
Bill,
The permit for SW8 900622 is listed as a low density permit. Any BUA built within the limits
of the project area for SW8 900622 would affect the density levels and possibly kick it into
a high density permit. However, I'm not sure how SW8 900622 interacts with SW8 970219. I
didn't look at these that closely.
Christine
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law
and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other
regulation.
-----Original Message -----
From: Swaney, William A CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, CI [mailto:william.swanevonavy.mil]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:02 PM
To: Weaver, Cameron; thomas.bradshawOusmc.mil
Cc: Russell, Janet; Nelson, Christine
Subject: RE: Request for Express Permitting Meeting-P711 Personnel Administrative Building
Cameron:
I am aware of two adjacent storm water BMPs adjacent to Campbell Street, but our project
(P711) does not flow to these BMPs. I did check with David Towler at the onset of this
project and there are no permitted BMPs within our drainage area. I will double check with
the base and get back to you. Hold the request for express permit meeting for the time being.
Thank you.

V/ r,
Bill Swaney, P.E.
757-322-8360
-----original Message -----
From: Weaver, Cameron[mailto:cameron.weaver(@ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:39 PM
To: Swaney, William A CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, CI; thomas.bradshaw(dusmc.mil
Cc: Russell, Janet; Nelson, Christine
Subject: RE: Request for Express Permitting Meeting-P711 Personnel Administrative Building
Hi Bill.
I talked with Christine and she looked at an overall permitting map for this area. It appears
to show overlap of this proposed work area with two other current permits--SW8 900622
Campbell Street Parking Area and SW8 970219 Campbell Street Detention Pond. I have the two
files in my office and the maps in those files do cover portions of the area mentioned in
your project description. You and Thomas should probably talk it over and decide how you
want to proceed; let me know if you want to proceed with setting a meeting up on this before
you get to review these files. I'll be happy to set up a review time for you.
Let me know how I may assist.
Cameron
Cameron Weaver
Cameron.Weaver(@ncdenr.eov
Environmental Assistance Coordinator
NCDENR / Division of Environmental Assistance and Outreach (DEAD)
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7303 (F) 910-350-2004
http://ncenvironmentalassistance.org/
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2

-----Original Message -----
From: Swaney, William A CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, CI[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:47 PM
To: Weaver, Cameron
Cc: Towler CIV David W; Young, Nicholas R CIV NAVFAC MIDLANT, IPTNC; Bradshaw CIV Thomas C
Subject: Request for Express Permitting Meeting
Cameron:
Please find the attached request for express permitting. We would like to meet on February
5th, 6th, or 7th, given in order of preference.
Please let me know if these dates work for you and your staff. ,
This project's scoping meeting was held with Janet, Christine, and Rhonda last year (late
summer).
V/R,
William A. Swaney, P.E., LEED, Green Assoc.
Civil Engineer
NAVFAC MIDLANT
Marine Corps North Carolina IPT
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: william.swaney(@navv.mil
3

USDA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
o
N RCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
t
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Onslow County,
North Carolina
P-711 Personal Admin Building -
WAS New River
�Onslow 96
NC f 01
f
LI
FEB 2 5 2013
February 21, 2013

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain
conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact
your local USDA Service Center (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?
agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://soils.usda.gov/contact/
state_offices/).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effortof the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil
Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
3443' 10"
W 43' 13"
r
J
MI
275580 27MM 275620 275640 _'... "f _,. 275720 275740
Map SwIn 1 i, 110 9 punted on A see (8.5" x 11"( sheet.
N Meters
0 15 30 60 90
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
M!wBrcr
34' 43' 13"

Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
E Y WV'
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:

PAVEMENT CORE MEASUREMENTS
PAVEMENT CORE LOCATION P-1
Asphalt Thickness: 1.5 inches
Aggregate Base Course Thickness: 1 inch
rC CVED
FEB 2 5 2013
BY:

r} 4 � A L_F • '� 1
AWL
Lijmopp"m

S-7
BB-1
SCPTU4
BB-2
3-2
SJ
20
__
20
mm10
tcT30
10
u
0
0
a>L 1
J
a
-10
W
LL
0
O71d8
1
F
20
-30
-30
40
-00
50
I
-50
{0
I
LO
0 s 11) 16 20 25 30 33 40 es so 55 so as
DISTANCE ALONG BASELINE(FEET)
FIGURE
CATLIN
Rew.+�R�s*w�irv�E
SUBSURFACE
7��
PROFILE
MfJI� NEW RNE MC
3
310121 WR 4011
M}¢rvn 3YH JCYV
`��'

Z 833
mum
I I lit s
t.
Page 7