SW8080715_HISTORICAL FILE_20080801

7
STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8 Q 115
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
C7 HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
200 8 0 8 0 �
YYYYMMDD

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of (Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins Director
Division of Water Quality
August 1, 2008
Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
U.S. Government — Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune PWD, 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28457
Subject: Stormwater Permit No. SW8 080715
Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
High Density Project
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit
Application for Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger on August 1, 2008. 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. We are forwarding Permit No.
SW8 080715 dated August 1, 2008, for the construction of the subject project.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until August 1, 2018, and shall be
subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. Please pay special attention to
the Operation and Maintenance requirements in this permit. Failure to establish an adequate
system for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system 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 upon written request within thirty (30) days
following receipt of this permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150E of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. 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 Chris Baker, or me at [phone].
Sinc ely,
Edward Beck
Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
ENB/csb: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\PERMIT\08715.ju108
cc: Robert Silver, TranSystems
Onslow County Building Inspections
Chris Baker
SWilmington-Regional Offices
Central -Files
ow
hCarolina atarally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Internet: www nowaterrmality ore Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50 % Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080715
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Carl Baker and Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
C Street, Camp Geiger, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of a wet detention pond in compliance with
the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 (hereafter referred to as the "stormwaterrules')
and the approved stormwater management plans and specifications and other
supporting data as attached and on file with and approved by the Division of Water
Quality and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until August 1, 2018, 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.
This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater
runoff as described in Section 1.6 on page 3 of this permit. The stormwater
control has been designed to handle the runoff from 158,307 square feet of
impervious area.
The tract will be limited to the amount of built -upon area indicated on page 3 of
this permit, and per approved plans.
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.
5. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area of this
project must be directed into the permitted stormwater control system.
Page 2 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080715
The following design criteria have been provided in the wet detention pond and
must be maintained at design condition:
a.
Drainage Area, acres:
7
Onsite, ft :
304,718
Offsite, ft2:
None
b.
Total Impervious Surfaces, ft2:
158,307
C.
Design Storm, inches:
1.5
d.
Pond Depth, feet:
513.31 average
e.
TSS removal efficiency:
90
f.
Permanent Pool Elevation, FMSL:
12
g.
Permanent Pool Surface Area, ft2:
29,886
h.
Permitted Storage Volume, ft3:
35,583
i.
Temporary Storage Elevation, FMSL:
13
j.
Controlling Orifice:
2.5"0 pipe
k.
Permitted Forebay Volume, ft3:
19,166
I.
Fountain Horsepower, HP
1/3
M.
Receiving Stream/River Basin:
New River / White Oak
n.
Stream Index Number:
19-31
o.
Classification of Water Body:
"SC"
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The stormwater management system shall be constructed in its entirety,
vegetated and operational for its intended use prior to the construction of any
built -upon surface.
2. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of
the system will be repaired immediately.
3. The permittee shall at all time provide the operation and maintenance necessary
to assure the permitted stormwater system functions at optimum efficiency. The
approved Operation and Maintenance Plan must be followed in its entirety and
maintenance must occur at the scheduled intervals including, but not limited to:
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months).
b. Sediment removal.
C. Mowin.9 and re -vegetation of slopes and the vegetated filter.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of all slopes in accordance with approved plans and
specifications.
f. Debris removal and unclogging of outlet structure, orifice device, flow
spreader, catch basins and piping.
g. Access to the outlet structure must be available at all times.
Page 3 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080715
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.
5. Decorative spray fountains will be allowed in the stormwater treatment system,
subject to the following criteria:
a. The fountain must draw its water from less than 2' below the permanent
pool surface.
b. Separated units, where the nozzle, pump and intake are connected by
tubing, may be used only if they draw water from the surface in the
deepest part of the pond.
c. The falling water from the fountain must be centered in the pond, away
from the shoreline.
d. The maximum horsepower for a fountain in this pond is.1/3 horsepower.
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 be noted on the Certification. A
modification may be required for those deviations.
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 shall be maintained via appropriate
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. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
e. Further subdivision, acquisition, lease or sale of 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.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
11. The permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans for any permitted
future areas shown on the approved plans, prior to construction.
12. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by
the Permittee for a minimum of ten years from the date of the completion of
construction.
Page 4 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080715
13. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one
or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame
specified in the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the
Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee
shall provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director
that the changes have been made.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
This permit is not transferable except after notice to and approval by the Director.
In the event of a change of ownership, or a name change, the permittee must
submit a formal permit transfer request to the Division of Water Quality,
accompanied by a completed name/ownership change form, documentation
from the parties involved, and other supporting materials as may be appropriate.
The approval of this request will be considered on its merits and may or may not
be approved. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit
conditions until such time as the Division approves the transfer request.
2. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may
subject the Permittee to enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality, in
accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
3. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction.
4. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation
of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action,
including those as may be required by this Division, such as the construction of
additional or replacement stormwater management systems.
5. The permittee grants DENR Staff permission to enter the property during normal
business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted
stormwater management facility.
6. 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.
7. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
8. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference
and are enforceable parts of the permit.
9. The permittee shall notify the Division any name, ownership or mailing address
changes within 30 days.
Permit issued this the 1st day of August, 2008.
NORTH;;�2 INA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
--I
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 5 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080715
Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 080715
Onslow County
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered
in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/
full time) the construction of the project,
(Project)
for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specification:
Signature
Registration Number
Date
SEAL
Page 6 of 7

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 080715
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/bypass 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/bypass structure.
8. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
9. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
10. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-
circuiting of the system.
11. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been
provided.
12. Required drawdown devices are correctly sized 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.
cc: NCDENR-DWQ Regional Office
Onslow County Building Inspections
Page 7 of 7

DWQ USE ONLY
Date Received
Fee Paid
Permit Number
J
-7 -
- /"
%:5_14XYQKQ_71�_
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 on original j
I. GENERAL INFORMATION I JUL 2 8 2008
1. Applicants name (specify the name of the corporation, individual, etc. who owns
U.S. Government - Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
2. Print Owner/Signing Official's name and title (person legally responsible for facility and compliance):
Carl H. Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
3. Mailing Address for person listed in item 2 above:
MCB Camp Lejeune PWD, 1005 Michael Road
City:Camp Lejeune State:NC Zip:28547
Phone: (910 ) 451-2213 Fax:
Email:[e-mail]
4. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name -should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
5. Location of Project (street address):
C Street, Camp Geiger, MCAS New River
City:lacksonville County:Onslow Zip:28547
6. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
From intersection of U.S. Route 17 (Wilmington Highway) and Curtis Road, continue on Curtis Road through
Main Gate for MCAS New River for approximately 3/4 mile, turn left onto A Street, continue for 1/2 mile and
turn right onto 7" Street, Continue for 3 blocks, project is on north side of 7" Street (left side).
Project is bounded by 7" Street C Street 6" Street and E Street in clockwise order.
7. Latitude:34° 44' 06" N Longitude:77° 2713" W of project
8. Contact person who can answer questions about the project:
Name:Robert M. Silver Telephone Number: (757 ) 963-8933
Email:[e-mail]
II. PERMIT INFORMATION:
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page I of 4

1. Specify whether project is (check one): ®New ❑Renewal ❑Modification
2. If this application is being submitted as the result of a renewal or modification to an existing permit, list the
existing permit numberN/A and its issue date (if known)N/A
3. Specify the type of project (check one):
❑Low Density ®High Density ❑Redevelop ❑General Permit ❑Universal SMP ❑Other
4. 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):
❑LAMA Major ®Sedimentation/Erosion Control ❑404/401 Permit ®NPDES Stormwater
III. PROJECT INFORMATION " `-
JUL
1. In the space provided below, summarize how stormwater will be treated. Also attac a detailed�i g rahvlee
(one to two pages) describing stormwater management for the project . By:
Detention basin is sized to provide required runoff volume control for 2 to 5 day detention of 1.5" of rainfall
Discharge from basin enters existing storm drainage system as it exits project site.
2. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the White Oak River basin.
3. Total Property Area: 200+ acres 4. Total Wetlands Area: 0 acres
5. 100' Wide Strip of Wetland Area: N/A acres (not applicable if no wetlands exist on site)
6. Total Project Area**:7.0 acres
8. How many drainage areas does the project
7. Project Built Upon
9. Complete the following information for each drainage area. If there are more than two drainage areas in the
project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area provided in the same format as below.
For high density projects, complete the table with one drainage area for each engineered stormwater device.
Basin Information
Drainage Area 1
Drainage Area 2
Receiving Stream Name
Edwards Creek
Stream Class & Index No.
SC, HQW, NSW, Index #19-13
Total Drainage Area (sf)
304,718
On -site Drainage Area (sf)
304,718
Off -site Drainage Area (sf)
0
Existing Impervious* Area (sf)
56,891
Proposed Impervious*Area (sf)
158,307
% Impervious* Area (total)
52
Impervious* Surface Area
Drainage Area 1
' . Drainage Area 2
On -site Buildings (so
41,183
On -site Streets (sf)
18,963
On -site Parking (sf)
85,437
On -site Sidewalks (sf)
9,682
Other on -site (so
3,042
Off -site (sf)
0
Total (sf):
158,307
* Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
,y
0
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page 2 of 4

**Total project area shall be calculated based on the current policy regarding inclusion of toetlands in the built upon area
percentage calculation. This is the area used to calculate percent project built upon area (BUA).
10. How was the off -site impervious area listed above derived?N/A
IV. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
One of the following deed restrictions and protective covenants are required to be recorded for all subdivisions,
outparcels and future development prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly, a table listing each lot
number, size and the allowable built -upon area for each lot must be provided as an attachment. Forms can be
downloaded from httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/bmp forms.htm - deed restrictions.
Form DRPC-1 High Density Commercial Subdivisions
Form DRPC-2 High Density Developments with Outparcels
Form DRPC-3 High Density Residential Subdivisions
Form DRPC-4 Low Density Commercial Subdivisions
Form DRPC-5 Low Density Residential Subdivisions JUL
Form DRPC-6 Low Density Residential Subdivisions with Curb Outlets
By your signature below, you certify that the recorded deed restrictions and protective covenants for this
project shall include all the applicable items required in the above form, 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 State, and that they will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
V. SUPPLEMENT FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement form(s) listed below must be submitted for each
BMP specified for this project. Contact the Stormwater and General Permits Unit at [phone] for the status
and availability of these forms. Forms can be downloaded from ham://h2o.enr.slate.nc.us/su/bmp forms.htm.
Form SW401-Low Density
Form SW401-Curb Outlet System
Form SW401-Off-Site System
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin
Form SW401-Infiltration Basin
Form SW401-Infiltration Trench
Form SW401-Bioretention Cell
Form SW401-Level Spreader
Form SW401-Wetland
Form SW401-Grassed Swale
Form SW401-Sand Filter
Form SW401-Permeable Pavement
Low Density Supplement
Curb Outlet System Supplement
Off -Site System Supplement
Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Infiltration Basin Supplement
Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Bioretention Cell Supplement
Level Spreader/Filter Strip/Restored Riparian Buffer Supplement
Constructed Wetland Supplement
Grassed Swale Supplement
Sand Filter Supplement
Permeable Pavement Supplement
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page 3 of 4

-✓I. 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. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate DWQ Office. (Appropriate office may be found by locating project on the
interactive online map at htto://h2o.etir.state.nc.us/SLdmsi maos.htm)
1. Please indicate that you have provided the following required information by initialing in the space provided
next to each item.
Initials
• Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form VAW
• Original and one copy of the Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants Form (if �JA
required as per Part IV above)
• Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) and O&M agreement(s) for each BMP�
• Permit application processing fee of $505 (Express: $4,000 for HD, $2,000 for LD)
payable to NCDENR �� y
• Calculations & detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management
• Copy of any applicable soils report
• Two copies of plans and specifications (sealed, signed &dated), including:
- Development/Project name
- Engineer and firm
-Legend RF rF•Tv'
- North arrow
Scale JUL. 2 90ng
Revision number & date
Mean high water line _
Dimensioned property/project boundary BY'.
Location map with named streets or NCSR numbers
Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations
Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures
Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations
Drainage areas delineated
Vegetated buffers (where required)
VIL AGENT AUTHORIZATION
If you wish to designate authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide information on your
behalf, please complete this section. (ex. designing engineer or firm)
Designated agent (individual or firm):Bob M. Silver, PE
Mailing Address:TranSystems, Town Point Center,150 Boush Street, Ste. 1000
City:Norfolk State:VA Zip:23510
Phone: (757 ) 627-1112 Fax: (757 ) 627-1113
Email:[e-mail]
VIII. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
I, (print or type name of person listed in General Information, item 2) Carl H. Baker
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 cove is will be recorded, and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2H .1000. 77 1 � A
Date:
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page 4 of 4

. FFStemN
July 31, 2008
Chris Baker
North Carolina Department of Environmental Resources
Stormwater Reviewer
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
Stormwater Management Plan
Dear Mr. Baker:
TranSystems
150 Boush Street, Suite 1000
Norfolk, VA 23510
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.transystems.com
RFcEmpt,
AUG 0 I 2008
BY:`_
Per your request, we are submitting herewith two copies of the drawings and one copy of the cover sheet for the
Stormwater Management Narrative and Calculations which have been sealed by a registered North Carolina
engineer. Should you need additional copies or detailed information, please feel free to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Silver, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
cc: David Towler (MCB Camp Lejeune)
Scott Steele(Virtexco)

I
I
FY 08 MCON P002
Academic Instruction Facility'
Camp Geiger
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Contract No: N40085-08-C-1415
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
For
Muvnl FyCllities Engineenn
n;a,wnc dvatoH
Commander
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mid -Atlantic
9742 Maryland Avenue
H pNorfolk, VA 23511-3095
�f CA
cROW SILVElt
v No. _
14479 NCDENR PERMIT SUBMITTAL 031167
28 July 2008 = 7- 3 08 r
Systems)
��� V IRTEXC0
!i Syste c o w v o a a r 1 o H
t,J - General Contractor
DESIGNER
150 Boush St, Suite 1000
Norfolk, VA 23510
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
BUILDER
2909 Brunswick Avenue
New Bern, NC 28562
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]

• '•Y��Lr,.a
IN,
p:

FY 08 MCON P002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Contract No: N40085-08-C-1415
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
For
'• Nawl FntllRies EnGlneetlnu Camrna`wl
AIW Tc '�
Commander
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mid -Atlantic
9742 Maryland Avenue
Norfolk, VA 23511-3095
NCDENR PERMIT SUBMITTAL
28 July 2008
- -,� 'VIRTEXCO
G O a P O R A T 1 O N
® Systellis General Contractor
DESIGNER
150 Boush St, Suite 1000
Norfolk, VA 23510
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
BUILDER
2909 Brunswick Avenue
New Bern, NC 28562
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]

FY 08 MCON P002
Academic Instruction Facility
® Camp Geiger
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Contract No: N40085-08-C-1415
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
For
�iilk
NavelF 61,11,, Enfllnaerin CCanvn l
Commander
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mid -Atlantic
9742 Maryland Avenue
Norfolk, VA 23511-3095
NCDENR PERMIT SUBMITTAL
28 July 2008
VIRTEXCO
C O P P O H A T 1 O H
j�'f [ °lS111 General Conlraclor
DESIGNER
150 Boush St, Suite 1000
Norfolk, VA 23510
® Phone [phone].
Fax [phone]
BUILDER
2909 Brunswick Avenue
New Bern, NC 28562
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]

El
'L7
Syst--�
July 28, 2008
Janet Russell
North Carolina Department of Environmental Resources
Express Permit Coordinator
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
Stormwater Management Plan
Dear Ms. Russell:
TranSystems
150 Boush Street, Suite 1000
Norfolk, VA 23510
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.transystems.com
We are submitting herewith the following information in support of our application for Express Review of the
Stormwater Management Plan for the referenced project:
1. Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form
2. Original of Form SW-401 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
3. Original of Form SW-401 Wet Detention Basin Operation & Maintenance Agreement
4. Combined SWM and LQ Express Review Fee in the amount of $4,000.00
5. 2 copies of the Site Plans and Specifications
6. Stormwater Management Narrative and Calculations
7. Copy of Report of Subsurface and Geotechnical Engineering Services, by GET Solutions, Inc. and Report of
Geotechnical Exploration by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
This submittal is being made concurrent with the Express Review Submittal for the Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan for the referenced project. Should you need additional copies or detailed information, please feel free to contact
this office.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Silver, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
cc: David Towler (MCB Camp Lejeune)
Scott Steele (Virtexco)

a.i,^3i'""+;P''w,RY„,..'tJ;,i`''"�'t''{:�,ANdanr" "t nt✓*u'1;',«�i.it ",.,ir DWQ USE'ONLt`YL�.a.Y 3::+.'""a'�,�a��'a'i�iWi;3'i.�i"u, iai"
Date Received - Fee Paid Permit Number
OCXD -- - C)y �
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
This fonn may be photocopied for use as an original CE'IVF
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Applicants name (specify the name of the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the
U.S. Government - Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
2. Print Owner/Signing Official's name and title (person legally responsible for facility and compliance):
Carl H. Baker, Public Works Director
3. Mailing Address for person listed in item 2 above:
MCB Camp Lejeune PWD 1005 Michael Road
City:Camp Lejeune State:NC Zip:28547
Phone: (910 ) 451-2213 Fax:
Email:[e-mail]
4. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name -should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Academic Instruction Facility Camp Geer
5. Location of Project (street address):
C Street Camp Geiger MCAS New River
City:lacksonville County:Onslow Zip:28547
6. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
From intersection of U.S- Route 17 (Wilmington Highway) and Curtis Road, continue on Curtis Road through
Main Gate for MCAS New River forproximately 3/4 mile, turn left onto A Street, continue for 1/2 mile
and turn right onto Th Street Continue for 3 blocks project is on north side of Th Street (left side).
Project is bounded by la, Street C Street 6ch Street and E Street in clockwise order.
7. Latitude:34° 44' 06" N Longitude:77° 27 13" W of project
8. Contact person who can answer questions about the project
Name:Robert M. Silver Telephone Number: (757 ) 963-8933
Email:[e-mail]
II. PERMIT INFORMATION:
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page I of 4

1. Specify whether project is (check one): ®New ❑Renewal ❑Modification
2. If this application is being submitted as the result of a renewal or modification to an existing permit, list the
® existing permit numberN/A and its issue date (if known)N/A
3. Specify the type of project (check one):
❑Low Density ®High Density ❑Redevelop ❑General Permit ❑Universal SMP ❑Other
4.
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):
❑LAMA Major ®Sedimentation/Erosion Control ❑404/401 Permit
III. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, summarize how stormwater will be treated. Also at
(one to two pages) describing stormwater management for the project.
Surface runoff will be collected by underground storm sewer system and conveyed to wet detention basin.
Detention basin is sized to provide required runoff volume control for 2 to 5 day detention of 1.5" of rainfall
Discharge from basin enters existing storm drainage system as it exits project site.
2. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the White Oak River basin.
3. Total Property Area: 200+ acres 4. Total Wetlands Area: 0 acres
5. 100' Wide Strip of Wetland Area: N/A acres (not applicable if no wetlands exist on site)
6. Total Project Area**:7.0 acres 7. Project Built Upon Area:52 %
8. How many drainage areas does the project have?1
® 9. Complete the following information for each drainage area. If there are more than two drainage areas in the
project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area provided in the same format as below.
For high density nroiects. comolete the table with one drainage area for each engineered stormwater device.
0
iBasm Infor anon
rainage Arealla
Yr P Drarnage Ares ? t d (
Receiving Stream Name
Edwards Creek
Stream Class 8r Index No.
SC, HQW, NSW, Index #19-13
Total Drainage Area (so
304,718
On -site Drainage Area (sf)
304,718
Off -site Drainage Area (so
0
Existing Impervious* Area (so
56,891
Proposed Impervious*Area (so
158,307
% Impervious* Area (total)
52
r sa F991ra°Me . 4 sw� r as
Impervwus �SprfaceFFAreasf-,
-- _ . ._
# z , }Drarrra e A"rea 1; (^ra
1a�;a�f.�a,gn.1� :
c s Drama elArca'2
�Ity=f," An <.ng
)
On -site Buildings (so
41,183
On -site Streets (so
18,963
On -site Parking (so
85,437
On -site Sidewalks (so
9,682
Other on -site (so
3,042
Off -site (so
0
Total (so:
158,307
* Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page 2 of

**Total project area shall be calculated based on the current policy regarding inclusion of wetlands in the built upon area
percentage calculation. This is the area used to calculate percent project built upon area (BUA).
C•]
10. How was the off -site impervious area listed above derived?N/A
IV. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
One of the following deed restrictions and protective covenants are required to be recorded for all subdivisions,
outparcels and future development prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly, a table listing each lot
number, size and the allowable built -upon area for each lot must be provided as an attachment. Forms can be
downloaded from httl27/fh2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/­`binp forms htm - deed restrictions.
Form DRPC-1 High Density Commercial Subdivisions
Form DRPC-2 High Density Developments with Outparcels
Form DRPC-3 High Density Residential Subdivisions RF� •F�VED
Form DRPC-4 Low Density Commercial Subdivisions
Form DRPC-5 Low Density Residential Subdivisions JUL
Form DRPC-6 Low Density Residential Subdivisions with Curb Outlets
By your signature below, you certify that the recorded deed restrictions and protective covenants for this
project shall include all the applicable items required in the above form, 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 State, and that they will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
V. SUPPLEMENT FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement form(s) listed below must be submitted for each
BMP specified for this project. Contact the Stormwater and General Permits Unit at [phone] for the status
and 'availability of these forms. Forms can be downloaded from http //h2o enr.state.nc..us/sufbmi2 forms.htm.
Form SW401-Low Density
Low Density Supplement
Form SW401-Curb Outlet System
Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SW401-Off-Site System
Off -Site System Supplement
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin
Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SW401-Infiltration Basin
Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SW401-Infiltration Trench
Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SW401-Bioretention Cell
Bioretention Cell Supplement
Form SW401-Level Spreader
Level Spreader/Filter Strip/Restored Riparian Buffer Supplement
Form SW401-Wetland
Constructed Wetland Supplement
Form SW401-Grassed Swale
Grassed Swale Supplement
Form SW401-Sand Filter
Sand Filter Supplement
Form SW401-Permeable Pavement
Permeable Pavement Supplement
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page 3 of

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. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate DWQ Office. (Appropriate office may be found by locating project on the
interactive online map at http7//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/sti/msi maps.htm)
1. Please indicate that you have provided the following required information by initialing in the space provided
next to each item.
Initials
• Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form ✓
• Original and one copy of the Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants Form (if HIA
required as per Part IV above)
• Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) and O&M agreement(s) for each BMP ✓
• Permit application processing fee of $505 (Express: $4,000 for HD, $2,000 for LD)
payable to NCDENR
• Calculations & detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management ✓
• Copy of any applicable soils report
• Two copies of plans and specifications (sealed, signed & dated), including:
- Development/Project name
- Engineer and firm
-Legend R.FCF TV ED
- North arrow
-Scale JUL 9 8 ZOOS
- Revision number & date
- Mean high water line BY:
- Dimensioned property/project boundary
Location map with named streets or NCSR numbers
Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations
Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures
Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations
Drainage areas delineated
Vegetated buffers (where required)
VII. AGENT AUTHORIZATION
If you wish to designate authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide information on your
behalf, please complete this section. (ex. designing engineer or firm)
Designated agent (individual or firm):N/A
Mailing Address:
City: State:
Phone: { ) Fax: ( )
VIII. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
I, (print or type name of person listed in General Information, item 2) Carl H. Baker
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 15A
® NCAC 2H .1000.
Form SWU-101 Version 03.27.08 Page 4 of

PermitNumber:
(to be provided by DWQ)
Drainage Area Number:
Wet Detention Basin Operation and Maintenance Agreement
I will keep a maintenance record on this BMP. This maintenance record will be kept in a
log in a known set location. Any deficient BMP elements noted in the inspection will be
corrected, repaired or replaced immediately. These deficiencies can affect the integrity
of structures, safety of the public, and the removal efficiency of the BMP.
The wet detention basin system is defined as the wet detention basin,
pretreatment including forebays and the vegetated filter if one is provi WFCFIVED
JUL 2 8 2008
This system (check one):
❑ does ® does not incorporate a vegetated filter at the outlet. By;
This system (check one):
❑ does ® does not incorporate pretreatment other than a forebay.
Important maintenance procedures:
— Immediately after the wet detention basin is established, the plants on the
vegetated shelf and perimeter of the basin should be watered twice weekly if
needed, until the plants become established (commonly six weeks).
— No portion of the wet detention pond should be fertilized after the first initial .
fertilization that is required to establish the plants on the vegetated shelf.
— Stable groundcover should be maintained in the drainage area to reduce the
sediment load to the wet detention basin.
If the basin must be drained for an emergency or to perform maintenance, the
flushing of sediment through the emergency drain should be minimized to the
maximum extent practical.
— Once a year, a dam safety expert should inspect the embankment.
After the wet detention pond is established, it should be inspected once a month and
within 24 hours after every storm event greater than 1.0 inches (or 1.5 inches if in a
Coastal County). Records of operation and maintenance should be kept in a known set
location and must be available upon request.
Inspection activities shall be performed as follows. Any problems that are found shall
be repaired immediately.
BMP element:
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate theproblem:
The entire BMP
Trash debris is present.
Remove the trash debris.
The perimeter of the wet
Areas of bare soil and/or
Regrade the soil if necessary to
detention basin
erosive gullies have formed.
remove the gully, and then plant a
ground cover and water until it is
established. Provide lime and a
one-time fertilizer application.
Vegetation is too short or too
Maintain vegetation at a height of
long.
approximately six inches.
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M-Rev.3
Page 1 of 4

Perm it Number. :5'>0OO�-'O—IZ`/
(to be provided by DWQ)
Drainage Area Number:
BMP element:
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate theproblem:
The inlet device: pipe or
Swale
The pipe is clogged.
Unclog the pipe. Dispose of the
sediment off -site.
The pipe is cracked or
Replace the pipe.
otherwise damaged -
Erosion is occurring in the
Regrade the swale if necessary to
swale.
smooth it over and provide erosion
control devices such as reinforced
turf matting or riprap to avoid
future problems with erosion.
The forebay
Sediment has accumulated to
a depth greater than the
Search for the source of the
sediment and remedy the problem if
original design depth for
possible. Remove the sediment and
sediment storage.
dispose of it in a location w it
will not cause impacts to s
the BMP.
Erosion has occurred.
Provide additional erosio JUIL
protection such as reinfor rf
matting or riprap if need
prevent future erosion problems.
Weeds are present.
Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand. If pesticide is used, wipe it on
the plants rather than spraying.
The vegetated shelf
Best professional practices
Prune according to best professional
show that pruning is needed
practices
to maintain optimal plant
health.
Plants are dead, diseased or
Determine the source of the
dying.
problem: soils, hydrology, disease,
etc. Remedy the problem and
replace plants. Provide a one-time
fertilizer application to establish the
ground cover if a soil test indicates
it is necessary.
Weeds are present.
Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand. If pesticide is used, wipe it on
the plants rather than spraying.
The main treatment area
Sediment has accumulated to
Search for the source of the
a depth greater than the
sediment and remedy the problem if
original design sediment
possible. Remove the sediment and
storage depth.
dispose of it in a location where it
will not cause impacts to streams or
the BMP.
Algal growth covers over
Consult a professional to remove
50% of the area.
and control the algal growth.
Cattails, phragmites or other
Remove the plants by wiping them
invasive plants cover 50% of
with pesticide (do not spray).
the basin surface.
EIVED
8 2008
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M-Rev.3
Page 2 of 4

Permit Number: S��(sky�tt
(m be provided by OWQ)
Drainage Area Number:
BMP element: .
Potentialproblem:
How I will remediate theproblem:
The embankment
Shrubs have started to grow
Remove shrubs immediately.
on the embankment.
Evidence of muskrat or
Use traps to remove muskrats and
beaver activity is present.
consult a professional to remove
beavers.
A tree has started to grow on
Consult a dam safety specialist to
the embankment.
remove the tree.
An annual inspection by an
Make all needed repairs.
appropriate professional
shows that the embankment
needs repair.
The outlet device
Clogging has occurred.
Clean out the outlet device. Dispose.
of the sediment off -site.
The outlet device is dama ed
Repair or replace the outlet device.
The receiving water
Erosion or other signs of
Contact the local NC Division of
damage have occurred at the
Water Quality Regional Office, or
outlet.
the 401 Oversight Unit at 919-733-
1786.
RECEIVED
The measuring device used to determine the sediment elevation shallbe su�h 08
that it will give an accurate depth reading and not readily penetrate
accumulated sediments.
When the permanent pool depth reads 5;0 feet in the main pond, the sediment
shall be removed.
When the permanent pool depth reads 5;0 feet in the forebay, the sediment
shall be removed.
BASIN DIAGRAM
ill in the blanks)
Permanent Pool Elevation 12.00
Sediment Removal A. 7.00 Pe manen Pool
----------------- Volume Sediment Removal Elevation 7.00 I Volume
Bottom Elevatio 6.00 -ft Min. [
Sediment Bottom Elevation 6.00 1-ft r
Storage Sedimej
Storage
FOREBAY MAIN POND
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M-Rev.3
Page 3 of 4

Permit Number.
(to be provided by DWQ)
® I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the
performance of the maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify DWQ of any
problems with the system or prior to any changes to the system or responsible party.
Project name:Academic Instruction Facility Camp Geiger
BMP drainage area number:
Print name:Carl H. Baker
Title:Public Works Director MCB Camp Lejeune
Address:1005 Michael Road Camp Lejeune NC 28547
Phone:[phone] _
Signature:
Date:
Note: The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of
the lots have been sold and a resident of the subdivision has been named the president.
►, , 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
forgoing wet detention basin maintenance requirements. Witness my hand and official
seal,
RR_.,CFJVFD
Jul- 2 8 Z008
BY:
SEAL
My commission
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin O&M-Rev.3 Page 4 of 4

Stormwater Management Narrative
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
712412008
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Project Name: Academic Instruction Facility
b. Address: C Street, Camp Geiger, MCAS New River, Jacksonville, NC
c. Project Site Area: 200+ Acres (Camp Geiger), 12 Acres for Project
d. Disturbed Area: 9.8 Acres
e. Wetlands Impacts: None, NEPA required review did not determine any wetlands
f. Ownership: U.S. Government
g. Tax Parcel ID Number: N/A
h. Pre-1988 Built Upon Area: N/A
i. Project Phasing: The project will be constructed under a single construction contract. Demolition of the buildings
included in the contract are not required to facilitate construction of the Academic Instruction Facility. Some of the
buildings to be demolished are currently occupied and will require completion of the new Academic Instruction
Facility to allow the occupants to be relocated to new spaces. The remainder of the buildings are unoccupied and
can be demolished at any time during the contract. Construction of the new Academic Instruction Facility building
will be done concurrent with the site improvements including stormwater facilities.
j. The existing Base water distribution and wastewater collection systems will be utilized to provide service to the new
facility.
k. There are no historic sites or projects associated with this project.
I. Non -Compliance Issues: None.
® 2. STORMWATER INFORMATION
a. Project is located within the drainage area of Edwards Creek (Stream Index #19-13), a tributary to the New River
within the White Oak River Basin. Edwards Creek is classified as SC, HQW, NSW waters.
b. The main project site (AIF site) will have an impervious cover of approximately 60% upon completion of the project
and is therefore considered a high density stormwater design. The project area exceeds one acre and is therefore
subject to the NPDES permitting program.
c. The main project site (AIF site) will have an impervious cover of approximately 60% upon completion of the project
including, the surface area of the wet pond. The demolition of the existing buildings will eliminate approximately
63,000 square feet (1.44 Acres) of impervious surface area and replace it with pervious, vegetated surfaces.
d. The proposed stormwater management plan includes the construction of on -site collection system conveying runoff
from all impervious surfaces to a single wet detention pond prior to discharging to an existing storm drainage
system.
e. The stormwater management plan for this project.plans to utilize the existing 24-inch storm drainage system along
6th Street to collect surface runoff from the existing roadway, a portion of the pervious area adjacent to 6"h Street
and the northern entrance to the parking lot. This area and runoff conditions are comparable to the existing
conditions drained by this system and will result in a decrease in runoff conveyed by the existing pipe system. All of
the remaining site area (pervious and impervious) will be collected by the on -site collection system and treated in
the wet detention pond.
f. The project area has no known buffer requirements nor does it impact any known buffers.
g. There are no known areas of special concern associated with this project.

Stormwater Management Narrative
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
712412008
h. The existing 24-inch storm drainage system along 6t^ Street collects surface runoff from areas outside of the project
limits. Runoff from areas north of 6�h Street and west of C Street contribute to this existing system. The system
continues eastward out of the project limits across E Street. It is the intent of this project to maintain this system
and.the off -site drainage areas and not include this runoff in the on -site treatment system. The only change
proposed to this existing system is the addition of a new drop inlet near the north entrance from 60 Street to collect
runoff from the roadside swale and the conversion of the existing drop inlet adjacent to the entrance drive to a
manhole.
i. The project is completely contained within the boundaries of Camp Geiger, a U.S. Government property.
j. Soils: Based on the National Cooperative Soil Survey, the main project site (exclusive of building demolition areas)
consists of 98% Goldsboro -Urban land complex with 0 to 5 percent slopes and 2% Baymeade-Urban land complex
with 0 to 6 percent slopes. The Baymeade-Urban land complex is located in the southeastern corner of the site
near the intersection of Th and E Streets. Geotechnical investigations were performed in April, 2007 by GET
Solutions, Inc and in May, 2008 by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. which included several standard
penetration test borings around the site. The general subsurface conditions found include a surface layer of topsoil
and/or fill material extending down to a maximum of 4 feet with silty or clayey sands below this layer. A lean silt
layer was encountered at a depth of 19 to 28 feet in a portion.of the site. Groundwater was encountered at depths
of 5 to 6 feet below existing surface with normal seasonal fluctuations of 1 to 1.5 feet expected. The on -site
material is suitable for use as fill within the limits of the project and will be used to the maximum extent practical. If
borrow material is required, it will be obtained from private sources outside the limits of MCB Camp Lejeune.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
® The purpose of the project is to construct a consolidated Academic Instruction Facility for the School of Infantry at Camp
Geiger, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The single, two-story building will accommodate
classrooms, administrative spaces and open space areas for processing incoming soldiers. Site improvements include
canopies at the main entrance and the drop-off area, concrete walks, asphalt paved parking lot, vegetated open space
and a stormwater management facility. The current site is open and contains a gravel parking lot, a paved tennis court,
a small paved parking lot and modular building with scattered trees and grass vegetation. The 73,000 square foot, two-
story building will occupy a footprint of 41,000 square feet in the western portion of the site. The building is setback
from the adjacent roadways to meet Force Protection guidance established by the military. The paved parking lot for
privately owned vehicles will be located east of the building and will be setback from the building to meet the same
Force Protection criteria. The parking lot is sized to accommodate 250 vehicles and will be surfaced with asphalt
concrete pavement. All of the existing surface features, including the gravel parking lot, tennis court and modular
building will be removed to facilitate the new construction. The project also includes the demolition of 13 existing
buildings within the Camp Geiger area outside of the area for the new instruction facility. These buildings will be
demolished in their entirety, including foundations and the cutting and capping of utility services. The final surface
where the buildings.stood will be graded to drain to existing surface features and will be stabilized with permanent grass
vegetation. The main building site consists of 7.85 acres of paved and vegetated surfaces using the centerline of the
adjacent roadways as the project limits. The actual area of disturbance will be 7.3 acres. The total site area for the 13
buildings to be demolished is approximately 4 acres of which 2.5 acres will be disturbed. The total area of disturbance
for the project is 9.8 acres.
�= = =..�` PAGE 2 OF 5

Stormwater Management Narrative 712412008
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
0 4. GRADING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The existing site is divided into three drainage areas which contribute to two existing storm drainage systems. Runoff in the
northwestern portion of the site is collected in a roadside swale adjacent to 6t� Street which conveys the runoff to a drop inlet
near the center of the block. This drop inlet is connected to a 24-inch storm drain line which parallels 6th Street from C Street to
E street (west to east across the site). The northeastern portion of the site drains by overland flow and roadside swales to an
existing drop inlet near the intersection of 6th Street and E Street which is connected to the same 24-inch storm drain along 6th
Street. A 30-inch storm drain extends from this inlet across E Street and continues eastward out of the project site. This storm
drainage system also collects runoff from areas on the north side of 6h Street and west of C Street. The remaining portion of
the site drains by overland flow to the roadside swale along 7h Street which flows from west to east. This swale is collected by
a drop inlet in the southeastern comer which is connected to a 30-inch storm drain that continues eastward out of the project
site. Both of the storm drain systems eventually outfall into an open ditch that leaves Camp Geiger along it's eastern boundary
and eventually discharges into Edwards Creek, a tributary of the New River within the White Oak River Basin. Edwards Creek
is listed as Index Stream #19-13 and is classified as having SC, HQW and NSW waters.
The proposed stormwater management plan for the Academic Instruction Facility project is based on making use of the
existing storm drain line along 6th Street and directing the majority of the site to a new wet pond which will discharge into
the existing storm drain line in the southeast comer of the site. The 24-inch storm drain line along 6U Street currently
conveys runoff from areas outside of the project site in addition to collecting the surface flow from approximately 40% of
the site. It is desired to keep the off -site runoff separated from the on -site runoff that will require treatment. Therefore,
the existing storm drain line along 6th Street will be maintained and will continue to discharge via the 30-inch storm line
under E Street to the east. On the western side of the site, a small strip of vegetated surface area directly adjacent to
6th Street will be collected in a roadside swale which will feed a new drop inlet connected to the 24-inch storm drain.
This inflow will replace the runoff that was being intercepted by the drop inlet located in the center of the 6th Street
frontage. This existing drop inlet will be converted to a manhole to maintain access to the storm drain while eliminating
any conflict between the structure and the new parking lot entrance. On the eastern side, the parking lot entrance and
the vegetated strip between the new parking lot and 6th Street will be collected in a roadside swale which will be
intercepted by the existing drop inlet in the northeast corner of the site. In addition, the vegetated strip along the E
Street frontage will continue to drain northward into the drop inlet at the intersection with 6th Street. This allows the
grading along the existing roadways to be maintained while reducing the runoff contributing to the existing storm drain
system along 6th Street. The remainder of the site, which includes the building, parking lot and portions of C Street and
7rh Street, will be collected by an on -site storm drainage system and conveyed to a new wet pond to be located in the
southeast comer of the site. The wet pond will provide water quality treatment and storage to attenuate the peak
discharge from the site so that is does not exceed the peak discharge from the existing site into the 30-inch system at
the intersection of Th and E Streets. The project will result in the impervious cover for the project site reaching 60%,
making this a high density development. The design for the wet pond will be based on the requirements to attain a 90%
TSS pollutant removal efficiency. The outlet from the wet pond will be connected directly to the existing 30-inch storm
pipe at the southeast comer of the site.
5. CALCULATIONS:
The following pages consist of the calculations performed for the design of the storm drainage system and stormwater
management plan for the referenced project. The calculations pertain only to the main site which is the location of the
new building and parking lot. The building demolition sites all result in the net decrease of impervious area, however,

Stormwater Management Narrative
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
7/24/2008
these sites are not within the immediate drainage area for the new building site. Hence, the building demolition sites
have been excluded from the stormwater calculations.
The calculations include a Land Use Tabulation which provides a breakdown of the total, paved and unpaved areas for
each sub -drainage area within the project site for both the existing conditions and for the proposed, or post -
development conditions. The total area included in the calculations is 7.85 acres and includes all areas within the
centerlines of the adjacent roadways surrounding the site. The proposed conditions summary has been separated into
off -site and on -site systems to indicate the difference between the contributing area to the existing 24-in6h storm
drainage system along 6th Street and the contributing area to the on -site wet detention facility. The next page of the
calculations presents a summary of the criteria check for the proposed wet detention facility including surface area to
drainage area ratio, average depth, temporary storage volumes, etc as required by the Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual. The wet detention pond is designed to meet the criteria for 90% total suspended solids (TSS)
removal in lieu of providing a vegetated filter strip at the discharge point. This was necessary as the discharge from the
pond will enter directly into a piped storm drainage system as it exits the project site. Also included in these calculations
is the estimated drawdown time for the temporary storage pool which is sized for 1.5 inches of rainfall. In addition, an
estimation of the seasonal high groundwater table is provided based on data from the geotechnical explorations of this
site. The fourth page presents a summary of the storage volumes of the forebay and main pond to verify the
percentage of wet storage included in the forebay. The required storage in the forebay is approximately 20% and the
actual storage provided is 18.5% of the total pond volume. The storage volume calculations presented herein are
based on the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes which is consistent with the methodology used in the analysis of the
pond with the Haestad Methods Pondpack software which is discussed later in this narrative.
The next six pages of the calculations present the Rational Method computations for design of the on -site storm
drainage pipe system. Both the existing and proposed conditions are presented for the 1-year and 10-year return storm
event. The primary purpose of these calculations is the sizing of the on -site pipe system and for verification that the
existing receiving pipe systems are not detrimentally impacted by the project. As shown by these calculations, the
contributing runoff from the project site to both of the receiving pipe systems will be reduced significantly. Following the
storm drainage system design are the Drainage Area Maps for both the Existing and Proposed Conditions.
In addition to the Rational Method design of the on -site pipe system, an analysis has been performed of the wet
detention basin using the Haestad Methods Pondpack@ Detention Pond and Watershed Modeling Software. This
software allows the generation of runoff hydrographs using the Soil Conservation Service's Curve Number methodology
as presented in TR-55 which is based on. a 24-hour rainfall event. The computed runoff hydrograph is then routed
through the detention pond using the Level Routing methodology. Storage volumes within the pond are estimated using
actual planimetered areas for each contour and the Conic Method of Reservoir Volumes to compute actual storage
within the pond. The ouffall system is modeled using established engineering principles and consists of a low level
orifice for drawdown of the temporary storage pool, an inlet box that acts as either a weir or orifice depending on flow
depths and an outlet culvert which conveys the discharge to the existing drainage system at the project limits. The low
level orifice controls discharge from the pond when the water level is between normal water elevation (12.00 feet) and
the top of the temporary storage volume (12.75 feet). Both the low level orifice and the inlet box control the discharge
when the water level is above the temporary storage volume (12.75 feet) as this elevation coincides with the inlet box
weir elevation. Finally, the discharge is controlled by the outlet culvert which is a 24-inch pipe exiting the side of the
inlet box. The program restricts the discharge from the pond to the lesser flow allowed for either the combined low level
orifice and inlet box, or the outlet culvert, depending on head conditions. The starting water elevation for the routing of
the pond is the normal water elevation of 12.00 feet.

Stormwater Management Narrative
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
712412008
Two separate models were generated for analysis of this project. The first model is the existing site conditions which
are based on.current land cover conditions and no detention. The results of this model are presented in the report titled
Existing Site Conditions and dated 5/30/2008. The second model is based on the proposed site conditions and includes
routing through the wet detention pond. Both models are based on the full 7.85 acre, project area for the sake of
consistency and ease of comparison between existing and proposed conditions. The Node ID denoted OUT 10 is a
fictitious ouffall that combines the Flow from both of the existing storm drainage systems exiting the project site. While
this combination of the two systems does not exist adjacent to the project site, it provides a means to evaluate the
stormwater management of the full project site after development. The results of the second model are presented in the
report titled Proposed Site Conditions, dated 7/25/2008.
Both the existing and proposed conditions analyses are based on common input and criteria. The design rainfall events
are the 1-year and 10-year 24-hour synthetic storms using the SCS Type III rainfall hyetograph. The total rainfall for the
1-year event is 3.56 inches and the total rainfall for the 10-year event is 6.69 inches. These rainfall depths were
obtained from NOAA Precipitation Frequency Data Server using the latitude and longitude for the project site. The time
of concentration for each sub -basin was based on the time estimated in the storm pipe design calculations (Rational
Method). Composite runoff curve numbers are based on planimetered areas for paved and unpaved surfaces as
presented in the Land Use Tabulation and CN values of 98 for paved areas and 74 for unpaved areas.
The results of the analysis conclude that the wet detention pond will provide sufficient attenuation to reduce the post -
development runoff from the project site to below existing conditions. Hence, the project will not have any detrimental
impacts to the downstream receiving systems. The peak water elevation in the pond does not exceed elevation 14.00
feet. Since the lowest elevation of the enclosed pond is 15.00 feet, at least one foot of freeboard has been provided in
the pond design.

LAND USE TABULATION
Project: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, NC
'" .
Totala�
2!`z4Tbtai�
�Uti -veils}
StiUn"' ved�
P.aved;E�lPavail,�
• • Prom�i9na"'ti..3;i5#
` "- S ,'Ll
Arad AC Y
�l"Ada SF �'
# C
�'Aiea S. �
":?Ai'9a AC 7
Existing Conditions
Area 2
87719
2.01
65223
1.50
22496
0.52
Area 4
37000
0.85
29233
0.67
7767
0.18
Area 10
217146
4.98
190518
4,37
26628
0.61
Total Area =
341865
7.85 6.54 1.31
Proposed Conditions
Off -site System:
2
24158
0.55
18634
0.43
5524
4A
13096
0.30
8108
0.19
"4988
Ell,
ub-total=
0.86
.
0.61
On -Site System,
101
2376
0.05
0
0.00
2376
0.05
102
22680
0.52
19855
0.46
2825
- 0.06
Roof
8048
0.18
0
0.00
8048
0.18
103
8881
0.20
6327
0.15
2554
0.06
Roof
2497
0.06
0
0.00
2497
0.06
104
9914
0.23
2674
0.06
7240
0.17
Roof
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
105
17512
0.40
3762
0.09
13750
0.32
Roof
3870
0.091
0
0.001
3870
0.09
106
10595
0.24
214
0001
10381
0.24
107
10747
0.25
642
0.011
10105
0.23
' 108
0
0.00
0
0.001
0
0.00
201
1570
0.04
0
0.001
1570
0.04
. 202
15141
0.35
13232
0.301
1909
0.04
Roof
10987
0.25
0
0.001
10987
0.25
203
0
0.00
0
0.001
0
0.00
204
0
0.00
0
0.001
0
0.00
2051
38215
0.88
28773
0.661
9442
0.22
Roof
3035
0.071
0
0.00
30351
0.07
206
22576
0.52
3571
0.08
19005
0.44
Roof
5516
0.13
0
0.00
5516
0.13
207
34668
0.80
7098
0.16
27570
0.63
Roof
7230
0.17
0
0.00
7230
0.17
208
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
POND
.68660
1.58
60263
1.38
8397
0.19
Sub -Total =
7.00
3.36
3.63
Total Area
1 3419721
7.85
1731531
3.98
168819
3.88
Total Acrea e =
7.85
3.98
3.88
On -Site Only = 304718 7.00 146411 3.36 158307 3.63
7/24/2008

Project: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, NC
® Criteria Checks:
Normal Water Elevation for permanent pool =
12.00 feet
Pond Surface Area @ Normal Water Elev =
0.65 Acres
Total Storage Volume @ Normal Water Elev =
2.21 Acre-feet
Drainage Area to pond =
7.00 Acres
Surface Area / Drainage Area Ratio =
9.3%
Average Depth = Storage Volume/Surface Area =
3.4 feet
Length of pond at Normal Water Elev =
240.0 feet
Width of pond at Normal Water Elev =
120.0 feet
Ratio of length to width =
2 :1
Bottom Elevation of permanent pool =
7.00 feet
Bottom Elevation of pond =
6.00 feet
Runoff Volume:
Impervious portion of drainage area =
3.63
Total drainage area =
7.00
Impervious fraction, la =
0.52
Runoff Coefficient, Rv = 0.05+0.9*la =
0.52
Watershed Area, A =
7.00 Acres
Design Storm Rainfall Depth, Rd =
1.5 inches
Runoff Volume, V=3630*Rd*Rv*A =
19714.03 cubic feet
0.45 acre-feet
Top of temporary storage elevation =
12.75 feet
Total storage @ top of temporary pool =
2.75 acre-feet
Total storage @ permanent pool =
2.21 acre-feet
Storage in temporary pool =
0.54 acre-feet
Drawdown Time:
Temporary Pool Storage Volume =
0.54 acre-feet
Maximum allowable discharge rate (Vol./2 days) =
0.137 cfs
Minimum allowable discharge rate (Vol./5 days) =
0.055 cfs
Maximum head on orifice =
0.75 ft
Driving head, Ho (Max head/3) =
0.25 ft
Orifice diameter=
2.5 in.
Coefficiient of discharge, Cd =
0.6
Average discharge, Q=Cd*A*(SQRT(2gH)) =
0.082 cfs
Estimated drawdown time (Vol/Q) =
3.3 days
Seasonal High Water Table Estimation:
Boring #
Ground
Depth to
Approx.
Elev.
Water
Elev.
A-1
17.2
6.0
11.2
A-2
17.8
3.5
14.3
A-3
15.7
3.5
12.2
A-4
14.4
5.0
9.4
A-5
14.8
5.0
9.8
Average = 11.4
Add 1' for seasonal variance = 1.0
Estimated SHWT Elevation = 12.4
28363 113
96110 ft3
119751 ft3
96110 ft3
23641 ft3
23641 ft3
7/24/2008 2

Project: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, NC
Forebay
Elevation
Area Area
Increments Total
% of Total
(SF) (AC)
Volume Volume
Volume
7.000
1672
0.04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0%
8.000
2330
0.05
0.137
0.046
0.046
13.8%
9.000
3059
0.07
0.185
0.062
0.107
15.1 %
10.000
3858
0.09
0.238
0.079
0.187
16.3%
11.000
4730
0.11
0.295
0.098
0.285
17.4%
11.500
5178
0.12
0.341
0.057
0.342
17.9%
12.000
6403
0.15
0.398
0.066
0.408
18.5%
Main Pond
Elevation
Area
Area
Incremental
Total
% of Total
Sum
(SF)
(AC)
Volume
Volume
Volume
Total
7.000
11733
0.27
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0%
0.000
8.000
13153
0.30
0.856
0.285
0.285
86.2%
0.331
9.000
14653
0.34
0.957
0.319
0.605
84.9%
0.712
10.000
16243
0.37
1.063
0.354
0.959
83.7%
1.146
11.000
17979
0.41
1.178
0.393
1.352
82.6%
1.637
11.500
18934
0.43
1.271
0.212
1.563
82.0%
1.905
12.000
21960
0.50
1.407
0.234
1.798
81.5%
2.206
Combined
Pond
Elevation
Area
Area
IncrementzTotal
(SF)
(AC)
Volume Volume
7.000
13405
0.31
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.000
15483
0.36
0.994
0.331
0.331
9.000
17712
0.41
1.142
0.381
0.712
10.000
20101
0.46
1.301
0.434
1.146
11.000
22709
0.52
1.473
0.491
1.637
11.500
24112
0.55
1.612
0.269
1.906
12.000
28363
0.65
1.805
0.301
2.206
12.500
32902
0.76
2.108
0.351
2.558
12.750
33814
0.78
2.297
0.191
2.749
13.000
34725
0.80
2.360
0.197
2.946
14.000
38649
0.89
2.525
0.842
3.788
15.000
40615
0.93
2.729
0.910
4.697
7/24/2008
3

Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, NC
Storm Drainage Computations -1 Yr Return
cre
,Coeffiatent
AtcOm ,
rrdn
ft p
ov DI1
Lee
mime
On
Existinq Conditions (calculated
feet)
6
4
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.00
10.0
4.7
0.0
12.64
11.52
416
0.0027
24
12.7
4.0
2.2
3.1
4
2
0.67
0.15
0.10
0.18
0.95
0.17
0.27
13.1
4.2
1.1
11.48
9.99
284
0.0052
24
17.8
5.7
3.1
1.5
2
1
1.50
0.15
0.22
0.52
0.95
- 0.49
0.99
14.6
3.9
3.8
9.99
9.35
48
0.0133
30
51.3
10.5
5.7
0.1
10
9
4.37
0.15
0.66
0.61
0.95
0.58
1.241
10.0
471
5.8
8.31
7.83
122
0.0039
30
27.9
5.7
1
7.85
I
1
1 9.6
Revised storm pipe design.XLS 1 7/17/2008

Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, NC
Storm Drainage Computations -1 Yr Return
r,fin)
acre
:Coetitcieiit
A um ".�
.�Tmin
re
i .fiefs
n ft .p
ttD`'
ae�isl
He ...
WAN
Proposed Outfall calculated
In
fee
101
102
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.05
0.95
0.05
0.05
10.0
4.7
0.2
15.25114
111
0.0059
15
5.3
4.4
2.4
0.8
102
103
0.46
0.15
0.07
0.25
0.95
0.24
0.36
10.8
4.5
1.6
14.60
220
0.0052
15
5.1
4.1
3.6
1.0
103
104
0.15
0.15
0.02
0.12
- 0.95
0.11
0.49
11.8
4.4
2.1
13.45
148
0.0051
- 15
50
4A
3.8
0.6
104
105
0.06
0.15
0.010.17
0.95
0.16
0.66
12.4
4.4
2.9
12.70
63
0.00511
181
8.1
4.6
4.1
0.3
105
208
0.09
0.15
0.01
0.40
0.95
0.38
1.051
12.7
4.2
4.4
12.38
12.00
63
0.0080
18
8.8
5.0
5.01
0.2
1061
107
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.24
0.95
0.23
0.23
10.0
4.7
1.1
12.50
12.00
63
0.0079
15
6.2
5.1
3.7
0.3
107
108
0.01
0.15
0.00
0.23
0.95
0.22
0.45
10.3
4.7
2.1
12.00
11.50
54
0.0093
15
5.7
5.5
4.8
0.2
201
202
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.04
0.95
0.03
0.03
10.0
4.7
0.2
16.40
16.00
76
0.0053
15
5.1
4.1
2.3
0.6
202
203
0.30
0.15
0.05
0.301
0.951
0.28
0.36
10.6
4.51
1.61
16.00
15.54
92
0.0050
15
- 4.9
4.0
3.5
0.4
203
204
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.361
11.0
4.5
le
15.54
14.731
160
0,0051
15
5.0
411
3.51
0.8
205
204
0.66
0.15
0.10
0.29
0.95
0.27
0.37
10.0
4.7
1.7
14.40
14.16
52
0.0046
15
4.7
3.9
3.5
0.2
204
206
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.73
11.8
4.4
3.2
14.16
13.30
171
0.0050
18
8.1
4.6
4.3
0.7
206
207
0.08
0.15
0.01
0.56
0.95
0.53
1.28
12.4
4A
5.6
13.30
12.40
112
0.0080
18
10.2
5.8
5.9
0.3
207
208
0.16
0.15
0.02
0.80
0.95
0.76
2.06
12.7
4.2
8.7
12.40
12.00
50
0.0080
24
21.9
7.0
6.6
0.1
208
209
0.00
0.151
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
3.12
12.9
4.2
13.1
12.00
11.40
1161
0.0052
301
32.0
5.5
6.1
0.3
Pond
1.38
0.15
0.21
0.19
0.95
0.18
. 3.96
13.2
4.2
16.7
Pond
10
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
- 0.00
0.00
10.0
4.7
0.9
8.50
8.31
66
0.0029
24
13.2
4.2
2.3
0.5
10
9
0.00
0.15
0.00
'
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.00
10.0
4.7
0.9
8.31
7.83
122
0.0039
30
27.9
5.7
3.1
0.7
Off -Site:
6
4A
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.001
0.951
0.00
0.00
10.0
4.71
0.01
12.64
11.67
356
0.0027
24
12.8
4.1
2.21
2.6
4A
4
0.19
0.15
0.03
0.11
0.95
0.11
0.14
12.6
4.2
0.6
11.67
11.52
58
0.0026
24
12.5
4.0
2.2
0.4
4
2
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.14
13.1
4.2
0.6
11.52
9.99
284
0.0054
24
18.0
5.7
3.1
1.5
2
1
0.43
0.15
0.06
0.13
0.95
0.12
0.32
14.6
3.9
1.3
9.99
9.35
48
0.0133
30
51.3
10.5
5.7
0.1
Total Area =
7.85
2.2
NOTES: Piped system design is based on 10-year return frequency storm event using data generated from NOAA Precipitation Frequency Data Server. Pipe capacities are based on manning's equation using a
roughness factor of 0.012 for concrete pipe. Minimum time of concentration is 10 minutes.
Revised storm pipe design.XLS 2 _ 7/1712008

Project: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, NC
n-value = 0.012
Rainfall - Intensity - Duration Data
Concrete Pipe
Camp Geiger,
NC
Dia Area Hyd Rad
1-Year Retrun
Frequency
4 0.087 0.083
6 0.196 0.125
8 0.349 0.167
Time
Rain
10 0.545 0.208
12 0.785 0.250
5
5.86
15 1.227 0.312
6
5.62
18 1.767 0.375
7
5.39
21 2.405 0.437
8
5.15
24 3.142 0.500
9
4.92
27 3.976 0.562
.10
4.68
30 4.909 0.625
11
4.52
36 7.069 0.750
12
4.37
42 9.621 0.875
13
4.21
48 12.566 1.000
14
4.06
54 15.904 1.125
15
3.90
60 19.635 1.250
16
3.82
66 23.758 1.375
17
3.74
72 28.274 1.500
18
3.65
19
3.57
q/Q vN
20
3.49
0.00 0.55
21
3.41
0.05 0.55
22
3.33
0.10 0.64
23
3.24
0.15 0.72
24
3.16
0.20 0.78
25
3.08
0.25 0.83
26
3.00
0.30 0.87
27
2.92
0.35 0.90
28
2.83
0.40 0.94
29
2.75
0.45 0.97
30
2.67
0.50 1.00
31
2.64
0.55 1.02
32
2.60
0.60 1.04
33
2.57
0.65 1.06
34
2.54
0.70 1.08
35
2.50
0.75 1.09
36
2.47
0.80 1.11
37
2.44
0.85 1.12
38
2.40
0.90 1.13
39
2.37
0.95 1.14
40
2.34
1.00 1.15
41
2.30
42
2.27
43
2.24
Note on Precipitation Data:
44
2.20
45
2.17
Data obtained from Point Precipitation
46
2.14
Frequency Estimates from NOAA Atlas 14
47
2.10
generated by NOAA Precipitation Frequency
48
2.07
Server on April 30, 2008. Interim
49
2.04
®Data
values generated by linear interpolation
50
2.00
between given values.
60
1.67
7/17/2008 1

Academic Instruction facility, Camp Geiger, NC
Storm Drainage Computations -10 Yr Return
Revised stone pipe design.XLS 4 7/24/2008

Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, NC
Storm Drainage Computations • 10 Yr Return
01
.acre
Mae IN
A
Accum +
mtn
�M1r
efa
i R P'
_. ee
mlgm :
a
.. aefsF
f inn..,.
rTm el,
Proposed Oudall calculated
In
/ee
101
102
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.05
0.95
0.05
0.05
10.0
7.2
0.4
15.25
14.60
111
0.0059
15
5.3
4.4
2A
0.8
102
103
0.46
0.15
0.07
0.25
0.95
0.24
0.36
10.8
6.9
2.5
14.601
13.45
220
0.0052
15
5.1
4A
4.0
0.9
103
104
0.15
0.15
0.02
0.12
0.95
0.11
0.49
11.7
6.7
3.3
13.45
12.70
148
0.0051
15
5.0
4.1
4.3
0.6
104
106
0.05
0.15
0.01
0.17
0.95
0.16
0.66
12.3
6.7
4.4
12.70
12.38
63
0.0051
18
8.1
4.6
4.6
0.2
105
208
0.09
0.15
0.01
_
0.40
0.95
0.38
1.05
12.5
6.71
7.1
12.381
12.001
63
0,00601
181
8.8
5.0
5.5
0.2
1061
1071
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.24
0.95
0.23
0.23
10.0
7.2
1.6
12.50
12.00
63
0.0079
15
6.2
5.1
4.2
0.2
107
108
0.01
0.15
0.00
0.23
.0.95
0.22
0.45
10.2
7.2
-3.2
12.00
11.50
54
.0.0093
15
6.7
5.5
5.3
0.2
201
202
0.00
0.15
0.00
_
0.04
0.95
0.03
0.03
10.0
7.2
0.2
16.40
16.00
76
0.0053
15
5.1
4.1
2.3
0.6
202
203
0.30
0.15
0.05
0.30
0.95
0.28
0.36
10.6
6.9
2.5
16.00
15.54
92
0.0050
15
4.9
4.0
4.0
0A
203
204
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.001
0.95
0.00
0.36
10.9
6.91
2.5
15.541
14.731
160
0.00511
15
5.0
4.1
4.1
0.7
2051
204
0.66
0.15
0.10
0.29
0.95
0.27
0.37
10.0
7.2
2.7
14.40
14.16
52
0.0046
15
4.7
3.9
- 3.9
0.2
204
206
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
. 0.00
0.73
11.6
6.7
4.9
14.16
13.30
171
0.0050
18
8.1
4.6
4.7
0.6
206
207
0.08
0.15
0.01
0.56
0.95
0.53
1.28
12.2
6.7
8.6
13.30
12.40
112
0.0080
18
10.2
5.6
.6.4
0.3
207
208
0.16
0.15
0.02
0.80
0.95
O.761
2o6l
12.5
6.7
13.9
12.40
12.00
50
0.0080
24
21.9
7.01
7.3
0.1
208
209
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
3.12
12.6
6.5
202
.12.00
11.40
116
0.0052
- 30
32.0
6.5
6.8
0.3
Pond
1.381
0.15
0.21
0.191
0.95
0.18
3.96
12.9
6.5
25.7
Pond
10
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.00
10.0
7.2
14.0
8.75
8.31
66
0,0067
24
20.0
6A
6.8
0.2
10
9
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.00
10.0
7.2
14.0
8.31
7.83
122
0.0039
30
27.9
5.7
5.7
0.4
Off -site:
6
4A
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.00
10.0
7.2
0.0
12.64
11.67
356
0.0027
24
12.8
4.1
2.2
2.6
4A
4
0.19
0.15
0.03
0.11
0.95
0.11
0.14
12.6
6.5
0.91
11.671
11.521
58
0.0026
24
12.5
4.0
2.2
0.4
4
2
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.14
13.1
6.5
0.9
11.52
9.99
284
0.0054
24
18.0
5.7
3.1
1.5
2
1
0.43
0.15
0.06
'
0.13
0.95
0.12
0.32
14.6
6.1
1.9
9.99
9.35
48
0.0133
30
51.3
10.5
5.7
0.1
Total Area =
7.85
NOTES: Piped system design is based on 10-year return frequency storm event using data generated from NOAA Precipitation Frequency Data Server. Pipe capacities are based on manning's equation using a
roughness factor of 0.012 for concrete pipe. Minimum time of concentration is 10 minutes.
Revised storm pipe design.XLS 5 7/24/2008

Project: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, NC
n-value =
0.012
Concrete Pipe
Dia
Area
Hyd Rad
4
0.087
0.083
6
0.196
0.125
8
0.349
0.167
10
0.545
0.208
12
0.785
0.250
15
1.227
0.312
18
1.767
0.375
21
2.405
0.437
24
3.142
0.500
27
3.976
0.562
30
4.909
0.625
36
7.069
0.750
42
9.621
0.875
48
12.566
1.000
54
15.904
1.125
60
19.635
1.250
66
23.758
1.375
72
28.274
1.500
q/Q v/V
0.00
0.55
0.05
0.55
0.10
0.64
0.15
0.72
0.20
0.78
0.25
0.83
0.30
0.87
0.35
0.90
0.40
0.94
0.45
0.97
0.50
1.00
.
0.55
1.02
0.60
1.04
0.65
1.06
0.70
1.08
0.75
1.09
0.80
1.11
0.85
1.12
0.90
. 1.13
0.95
1.14
1.00
1.15
Note on Precipitation Data:
Data obtained from Point Precipitation
Frequency Estimates from NOAA Atlas 14
generated by NOAA Precipitation Frequency
Data Server on April 30, 2008. Interim
values generated by linear interpolation
between given values.
Rainfall - Intensity - Duration Data
Camp Geiger, NC
10-Year Retrun Frequency
Time Rain
5 8.96
6 8.60
7 8.24
8 7.89
9 7.53
10 7.17
11 6.95
12 6.72
13 6.50
14 6.27
15 6.05
16 5.94
17 5.83
18 5.72
19 5.60
20 5.49
21 5.38
22 5.27
23 5.16
24 5.05
25 4.94
26 4.83
27 4.71
28 4.60
29 4.49
30 4.38
31 4.33
32 4.28
33 4.23
34 4.18
35 4.13
36 4.07
37 4.02
38 3.97
39 3.92
40 3.87
41 3.82
42 3.77
43 3.72
44 3.67
45 3.62
46 3.56
47 3.51
48 3.46
49 3.41
50 3.36
60 2.85
7/24/2008 6

REVDATE na MWE 0\NM7\0179\Slla\D,om9°\BanuE NF D,a'099 Mo Map.Gr9 VMUT NAME, Loyoull PLOl1E0: irIG°y, J°b Iq 2009 - IIO]am
-s
D
am,
B F
1In� l,RwwWo) � mCell
—
Ccaas>...-
----------------
J II
PARKAN6 STOP
11
—(2G, W) ITT 1
\ \ < C) II
/ )
��A 4 �NI II
u FD _ _ _ _ — — --- N� II
O 9 I R 9 J I \,gym cn n N
J\ II II II U rn
II2 I \•\. NJO III
\�I 0 �I 1 0 0 II I \ o.41
1 C)WCID II
y y
III' i IU. III
I I II ".1xkS 5(UMPS�
u, I III III
g o
C1J
pNC WKM_ i� I
L
coNc
m II II
io
<
-- -
N I
o IIv{ j ; \yam _ _, ��r•'•+�{s � `°
•£"1I N O) :I
I � �(' n -� ' — / R � /� ^ + ° „� ,°' . ��"• � � � °� III 1
I' I 1� H U ��\ < I. 1`�a� \ `I __ . (Is.00l �•" ^'�s`.w ��, Ivas InPJ \. �__ __ M
j U
aca. w/ aNO IIIi NO
i
roP—/—
-- - \
II I leG 100 J
1I)1 1_ s
IR
I d
ifNN15 N.
®R
f
— %W
l
!�
�
(1
U \\
u
`]
N
DEPARTMENT OF TIE NAW NAVK F14RRIE5 ENGINEERING COMµMND
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND — MID-ATLANTIN
g
p
p
O
d
MGNC IPI NORFOLK, VR
'�
e
D
MARINE CORPS BASE NICE CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
9
°•<
:A
ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY
IN
CAMPGEIGER
EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA MAP
A
y

RMAiE: M1 NWE: L\NN7\0179\9b\pe CKlNF &d,Kl. a.. uol. J., urou9 WE lI l r.maF. lm9 18 2008 - 1e15..
r
I
L
rtr sww)
1
CDNC
DMK1✓.,
II
_
I -
• ,os '
3$ i
m3
. 2035.
1
1
1
1
El
1
1
771
I
1
■
■
■
I
♦
l r16)
I
I
4—iry
,
I
I
PI
II
I
Ps
II
I 1
I '
p I
■
y
I
II15
■
I.�
NI
t
III
19I
i
I I
U
�
II
i
I
i
III
■
6II
II
�
\
i
Gq�v .wun . _ _ — -- — ■
' I
I Q I I
� S
II$ 1B•SD 201 IB- SD I is, SD 105 18- 50 O 1 i j II
�` q ■ 24
■ I J 20B
rTM Ow
... .......
I . . I' I
IIII, ,IIII I I
I, '
it
I' I I,IIII'iIt-rr-=-�1111111 III 8(I
-llu uIr �I" nlll I EI
I _ � 11�r ---���;1 I u l l l ■
-----------------------=
■, 106 U
I , I I I I IIII ,I II I ill l ll 'Il 1 1 1 l� l 1 1'I II I'I'I 15' SD
' I'I'Il III II',11 1�11111 I II�II,I I, I, I11�y� AI I
.I I : IVIIII I',IIIIII II11111 I III II,I I,I II III Iv41'1'll 101 3 .I ,
I , I, I I I III I III I I I I I III III ,
, II I III I 1111111 11111111 II,I�II I IIIII
I� ' I I I III I IIII IIII I II � n-0 'IIII 1 II I III II I I I I 'I III III II I IIIII n' I m
II I I
l , ,,III 11I I d II, iI II II III IIII II IIII'I'II� III I
, ,111 II II,11 II
11 11 1111111 II III III 1 II IIII 11 II I1111 IIIII I y I -
n i 1 I IIIII 1
■' II II .II I,I I I II I Il l l l,l 'lllliii I NIII I �I ■ h�
'■ JI 1 Ills IIIII
------—=----- 11N II lII1I�=JJ' p, I IIIII ' C
- - - - - - -- �`� I��L
' '
'I — — — --- — — —
�. .— -- - - - - - - --- - - --- --- -
r-
_-_— --
fl
„ flG �a
1 Y\P
u
p p OCGIRfMEW OF FINE NU IUVµ fKI
NCNC IR NEERING COMIINEi ENGINEEPING CONWND p p A
9 yg j F NAVAL FACILITIES ENGIMAND -MID-ATLANTIN 7 9Qf
p Y i a a 44
NORFOLK. VA Z
YO d MARINE CORPS BASE MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, INC '.< ®� D " ° ° 9 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY ;5
N CAMP GEIGER
y
PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA MAP �6 i=n

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
-------------------------
-------------------------
Project Date: 5/30/2008
Project Engineer: Robert M. Silver, P.E.
Project Title: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, NC
Project Comments: Existing Site Conditions.
Job File: G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY-EXISTING.PPW
a

Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
++++++++++++++++*+*++* MASTER SUMMARY *++++*++++++++*++**+*+
Watershed....... Master Network Summary ............. 1.01
****************** DESIGN STORMS SUMMARY *******************
Camp Geiger, NC Design Storms ...................... 2.01
TC CALCULATIONS *++++++++++++++***+++
SUBAREA 100..... Tc Calcs 3.01
SUBAREA 200..... Tc Calcs ........................... 3.02
********************** CN CALCULATIONS
SUBAREA 100..... Runoff CN-Area 4.01
SUBAREA 200..... Runoff CN-Area ..................... 4.02
******************** RUNOFF HYDROGRAPHS ********************
® SUBAREA 100..... Check
Unit Hyd. Summary .................. 5.01
SUBAREA 100..... Design
Unit Hyd. Summary .................. 5.02
SUBAREA 200..... Check
Unit Hyd. Summary .................. 5.03
SUBAREA 200..... Design
Unit Hyd. Summary .................. 5.04

11
Subarea
�-�Junc 10 Add link 2o
Subarea 200
Out 10

Type.... Master Network Summary Page 1.01
Name.... Watershed
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY-EXISTING.PPW
MASTER DESIGN STORM SUMMARY
Network Storm Collection: Camp Geiger, NC
Total
Depth Rainfall
Return Event in Type RNF ID
Design 3.5600 Synthetic Curve TypeIII 24hr
Check 6.6900 Synthetic Curve TypeIII 24hr
MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY
SCS Unit Hydrograph Method
(*Node=Outfall; +Node=Diversion;)
(Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank=None; L=Left; R=Rt; LR=Left&Rt)
Return
HYG Vol
)de ID
Type
Event
ac-ft Trun
JUNC 10
JCT
1
1.015
JUNC 10
JCT
10
2.751
*OUT 10
JCT
1
1.015
*OUT 10
JCT
10
2.751
SUBAREA
100
AREA
1
.403
SUBAREA
100
AREA
10
1.054
SUBAREA
200
AREA
1
.612
SUBAREA
200
AREA
10
1.697
Max
Qpeak
Qpeak
Max WSEL Pond Storage
hrs
cfs
ft ac-ft
12.1500
10.91
12.1500
29.75
12.1500
10.91
12.1500
29.75
12.2000
4.12
12.1500
10.70
12.1500
6.86
12.1500
19.04

Type.... Design Storms Page 2.01
Name.... Camp Geiger, NC
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Title... Project Date: 5/30/2008
Project Engineer: Robert M.Silver, P.E.
Project Title: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp
Geiger, NC
Project Comments:
Existing Site Conditions.
DESIGN STORMS SUMMARY
Design Storm File,ID = Camp Geiger, NC
Storm Tag Name = Design
Data Type, File, ID = Synthetic Storm TypeIII 24hr
Storm Frequency = 1 yr
Total Rainfall Depth= 3.5600 in
Duration Multiplier = 1 -
Resulting Duration = 24.0000 hrs
Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step= .1000 hrs End= 24.0000 hrs
Storm Tag Name = Check
Data Type, File, ID.= Synthetic Storm TypeIII 24hr
Storm Frequency = 10 yr
Total Rainfall Depth= 6.6900 in
Duration Multiplier = 1 ,
Resulting Duration=.24.0000 hrs
Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step= .1000 hrs End= 24.0000 hrs

Type.... Tc Calcs Page 3.01
Name.... SUBAREA 100
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY-EXISTING.PPW
........................................................................
........................................................................
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATOR
.........................................................................
........................................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment #1: Tc: User Defined
Segment #1 Time: .2400 hrs
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Tc: .2400 hrs

Type.... Tc Calcs Page 3.02
Name.... SUBAREA 200
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY-EXISTING.PPW
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATOR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 41: Tc: User Defined
Segment #1 Time: .1680 hrs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Tc: .1680 hrs
-------------------------
-------------------------

Type.... Runoff CN-Area Page 4.01
Name.... SUBAREA 100
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY-EXISTING.PPW
® RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
Soil/Surface Description CN
paved
area
to
structure
4
98
grass
area
to
structure
4
74
paved
area
to
structure
2
98
grass
area
to
structure
2
74
Impervious
Area
Adjustment
Adjusted .
acres
%C 8UC
CN
-------
.180
----- -----
------
98.00
.670
74.00
.520
98.00
1.500
74.00
COMPOSITE AREA & WEIGHTED CN ---> 2.870 79.85 (80)
...........................�..............-- " '.............................
...........................................................................

Type.... Runoff CN-Area
Name.... SUBAREA 200
Page 4.02
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY-EXISTING.PPW
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impervious
Area
Adjustment
Adjusted
Soil/Surface Description CN
acres
%C %UC
CN
-------------------------------- ----
paved area to structure 10 98
---------
.610
----- -----
------
98.00
grass area to structre 10 74
4.370
74.00
COMPOSITE AREA & WEIGHTED CN --->
...........................................................................
4.980
76.94 (77)

Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 5.01
Name.... SUBAREA 100 Tag: Check Event: 10 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY-EXISTING.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr ' Tag: Check
SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
STORM EVENT: 10 year storm
Duration
=
24.0000 hrs Rain Depth='6.6900 in
Rain
Dir
=
G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Rain
File
-ID =
- TypeIII 24hr
Unit
Hyd
Type =
Default Curvilinear
HYG
Dir
=
G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
HYG
File
- ID =
- SUBAREA 100 Check
Tc
=
.2400 hrs
Drainage
Area =
2.870 acres Runoff CN= 80
Computational Time Increment = .03200 hrs
Computed Peak Time = 12.1600 hrs
Computed Peak Flow = 10.84 cfs
Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs
Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 12.1500 hrs
Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 10.70 cfs
-----------------------
DRAINAGE AREA
-------------------
ID:SUBAREA 100
CN = 80
Area = 2.870 acres
S = 2.5000 in
0.2S = .5000 in
Cumulative Runoff
-------------------
4.4092 in
1.055 ac-ft
HYG Volume... 1.054 ac-ft (area under HYG curve)
***** SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS *****
Time
Concentration,
Tc =
'.24000
hrs (ID:
SUBAREA 100)
Computational
Incr,
Tm =
.03200
hrs = 0.20000
Tp
Unit
Hyd. Shape Factor
=
483.432
(37.46%
under rising limb)
K =
483.43/645.333,
K =
.7491
(also,
K = 2/(1+(Tr/Tp))
Receding/Rising,
Tr/Tp
=
1.6698
(solved
from K = .7491)
Unit
peak,
qp =
13.55
cfs
Unit
peak time
Tp =
.16000
hrs
Unit
receding limb,
Tr '=.
.64000
hrs
Total
unit time,
Tb =
.80000
hrs

Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 5.02
Name.... SUBAREA 100 Tag: Design Event: 1 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY-EXISTING.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr Tag: Design
® SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
STORM EVENT: 1 year storm
Duration = 24.0000 hrs Rain Depth = 3.5600 in
Rain Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Rain File -ID = - TypeIII 24hr
Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear
HYG Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
HYG File - ID = - SUBAREA 100 Design
Tc = .2400 hrs
Drainage Area = 2.870 acres Runoff CN= 80
--------------------------------------------
Computational Time Increment = .03200 hrs
Computed Peak Time = 12.1920 hrs
Computed Peak Flow = 4.15 cfs
Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs
Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 12.2000 hrs
Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 4.12 cfs
-----------------=-------------------------
--------------------------------------------
DRAINAGE AREA
------------------
ID:SUBAREA 100
CN = 80
Area = 2.870 acres
S = 2.5000 in
0.25 = .5000 in
Cumulative Runoff
-------------------
1.6841 in
.403 ac-ft
HYG Volume... .403 ac-ft (area under HYG curve)
***** SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS *****
Time Concentration,
Tc =
.24000
hrs (ID:
SUBAREA 100)
Computational Incr,
Tm =
.03200
hrs = 0.20000
Tp
Unit Hyd. Shape Factor
=
483.432
(37.46%
under rising limb)
K = 483.43/645.333,
K
= .7491
(also,
K = 2/(1+(Tr/Tp))
Receding/Rising, Tr/Tp
=
1.6698
('solved
from K = .7491)
Unit peak,
qp =
13.55
cfs
Unit peak time
Tp =
.16000
hrs
Unit receding limb,
Tr =
.64000
hrs
Total unit time,
Tb =
.80000
hrs

Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 5.03
Name .... SUBAREA 200 Tag: Check Event: 10 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY-EXISTING.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr Tag: Check
® SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD -
STORM EVENT: 10 year storm
Duration = 24.0000 hrs Rain Depth = 6.6900 in
Rain Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Rain File -ID = - TypeIII 24hr
Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear
HYG Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
HYG File - ID = - SUBAREA 200 Check
Tc = .1680 hrs
Drainage Area = 4.980 acres Runoff CN= 77
Computational Time Increment = .02240 hrs
Computed Peak Time = 12.1408 hrs
Computed Peak Flow = 19.23 cfs
Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs
Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 12.1500 hrs
Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 19.04 cfs
-----------------------
DRAINAGE AREA
-------------------
. ID:SUBAREA 200
® CN = 77
Area = 4.980 acres
S = 2.9870 in
0.25 = .5974 in
Cumulative Runoff
------------------
4.0883 in
1.697 ac-ft
HYG Volume... 1.697 ac-ft (area under HYG curve)
***** SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS *****
Time Concentration,
Tc =
.16800
hrs (ID:
SUBAREA 200)
Computational Incr,
Tm =
.02240
hrs = 0.20000
Tp
Unit Hyd. Shape Factor =
483.432
(37.46%
under rising limb)
K = 483.43/645.333,
K
= .7491
(also,
K = 2/(1+(Tr/Tp))
Receding/Rising, Tr/Tp
=
1.6698
(solved
from K = .7491)
Unit peak,
qp =
33.59
cfs
Unit peak time
Tp =
.11200
hrs
Unit receding limb,
Tr =,
.44800
hrs
Total unit time,
Tb =
.56000
hrs

Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 5.04
Name.... SUBAREA 200 Tag: Design Event: 1 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY-EXISTING.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr Tag: .Design
SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
STORM EVENT: 1 year storm
Duration = 24.0000 hrs Rain Depth = 3.5600 in
Rain Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Rain File -ID = - TypeIII 24hr
Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear
HYG Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
HYG File - ID = - SUBAREA 200 Design
Tc = .1680 hrs
Drainage Area = 4.980 acres Runoff CN= 77
Computational Time Increment = .02240 hrs
Computed Peak Time = 12.1408 hrs
Computed Peak Flow = 6.90 cfs
Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs
Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 12.1500 hrs
Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 6.86 cfs
DRAINAGE AREA
-------------------
ID:SUBAREA 200
CN = 77
Area = 4.980 acres
S = 2.9870 in
0.2S = .5974 in
Cumulative Runoff
-------------------
1.4752 in
.612 ac-ft
HYG Volume... .612 ac-ft (area under HYG curve)
***** SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS *****
Time Concentration,
Tc =
.16800.hrs
(ID:
SUBAREA 200)
Computational Incr,
Tm =
.02240
hrs = 0.20000
Tp
Unit Hyd. Shape Factor
=
483.432
(37.46%
under rising limb)
K = 483.43/645.333,
K =
.7491
(also,
K = 2/(l+(Tr/Tp))
Receding/Rising, Tr/Tp
=
1.6698
(solved
from K = .7491)
Unit peak,
qp =
33.59
cfs
Unit peak time
Tp =
.11200
hrs
Unit receding limb,
Tr =
.44800
hrs
Total unit time,
Tb =
.56000
hrs

PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS
--------—------------------
-------------------------
Project Date: 7/25/2008
Project Engineer: Robert M. Silver, P.E.
Project Title: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, NC
Project Comments: Proposed Site Conditions, single pond.
Job File: G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW

Table of Contents
+++++++++++++*++*+++++++ WARNING MSG +++**++**+++++++*+++*++
® WARNING......... WARNING MESSAGES ................... 1:01
*+*****++*+++++++++++* MASTER SUMMARY +*++*****+++++++++***+
Watershed....... Master Network Summary 2.01
****************** DESIGN STORMS SUMMARY *******************
Camp Geiger, NC Design Storms ...................... 3.01
+++++***********+*++++ TC CALCULATIONS +*++++++++*++*+*+++++
6TH STREET...... TC Calcs ........................... 4.01
ON -SITE SYSTEM.. TC Calcs ........................... 4.02
POND AREA....... Tc Calcs ........................... 4.03
++*++++++++*+**+**+*** CN CALCULATIONS ***++*+++++++++******
6TH STREET...... Runoff CN-Area ..................... 5.01
ON -SITE SYSTEM.. Runoff CN-Area ..................... 5.02
POND AREA....... Runoff CN-Area ..................... 5.03
******************** RUNOFF HYDROGRAPHS ********************
6TH STREET......
Check
.Unit Hyd.
Summary ..................
6.01
6TH STREET......
Design
Unit Hyd.
Summary ..................
6.02
ON -SITE SYSTEM..
Check
Unit Hyd.
Summary ..................
6.03
ON -SITE SYSTEM..
Design
Unit Hyd.
Summary ..................
6.04
POND AREA.......
Check
Unit Hyd.
Summary ..................
6.05
POND AREA.......
Design
Unit Hyd.
Summary ..................
6.06
+++++++++++++++++++++++
POND VOLUMES.*+++**+*+*+*++++++++*+*
POND 20.........
Vol: Planimeter ....................
7.01
******************** OUTLET STRUCTURES *********************
Outlet I........ Outlet Input Data ................... 8.01
Composite Rating Curve ..... :....... 8.04
+++++++++++++*+++++*++* POND ROUTING *****++++++++++++++****
POND 20 OUT Check
Pond Routing Summary 9.01
POND 20 OUT. Design
Pond Routing Summary 9.02

Type.... WARNING MESSAGES Page 1.01
Name.... WARNING
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
RNING: Kr (Reverse Flow Entrance Loss Coefficient) was not specified
was set to same value as Ke= .2
Check data for..... Type: Outlet Input Data Name: Outlet 1
WARNING: Charged riser flow adjusted to weir flow rate to -
maintain convergence. If adjustments are desired, substitute
a user defined outlet rating table for level.pool routing. Or, store
rating curve(s) in E-Q-TW table, edit, then route with ICPM option.
Check calcs for outlet structure: Outlet 1
WARNING: Hydrograph truncated on right side.
Check HYG table printed for: POND 20 OUT Design
WARNING: Outflow hydrograph truncated on right side.
Check output for: Pond Routing Summary POND 20 OUT Design
WARNING: Junction node <JUNC 20> is a confluence node.
For possible alternatives, see help topic: Network Configuration for Tailwater
Analyses.
WARNING: Adding in hydrograph that is truncated on right...
Check output for: Node: Addition Summary JUNC 20
WARNING: Hydrograph truncated on right side.
Check HYG table printed for: POND 20 OUT Check .
',RNING: Outflow hydrograph truncated on right side.
.ieck output for: Pond Routing Summary POND 20 OUT Check
WARNING: Junction node <JUNC 20> is a confluence node.
For possible alternatives, see help topic: Network Configuration for Tailwater Analyses.

6th Stree
9
oo�
O
Add link 20 W Route 20 _ Addlink 40
�ond Area
Fond 20 Junc 20 Out 10
aapO�
P
On -Site System

Type.... Master Network Summary
Name.... Watershed
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
® MASTER DESIGN STORM SUMMARY
Network Storm Collection: Camp Geiger, NC
Total
Depth
Rainfall
Return Event
in
Type
------------
Design
------
3.5600
----------------
Synthetic Curve
Check
6.6900
Synthetic Curve
Page 2.01
RNF ID
----------------
TypeIII 24hr -
TypeIII 24hr
MASTER NETWORK SUMMARY
SCS Unit Hydrograph Method _
(*Node=Outfall; +Node=Diversion;)
(Trun= HYG Truncation: Blank=None; L=Left; R=Rt; L'R=Left&Rt)
Return
ode ID Type Event
6TH STREET
AREA
1
6TH STREET
AREA
10
JUNC
20
JCT
1
JUNC
20
JCT
10
ON -SITE SYSTEM
AREA
1
ON -SITE SYSTEM
AREA
10
*OUT
10
JCT
1
*OUT
10
JCT
10
POND
20 IN
POND
1
POND
20 IN
POND
- 10
POND
20 OUT
POND
1
POND
20 . OUT
POND
10
POND
AREA
AREA
1
POND
AREA
AREA
10
HYG Vol
ac-ft Trun
.176
.428
1.420 R
3.361 R
1.090
2.442
1.420 R
3.361 R
1.283
2.976
1.245 R
2.933 R
.193
.535
Qpeak
hrs
12.2000
12.2000
12.2000
12.4500
12.1500
12.1500
12.2000
12.4500
12.1500
12.1500
14.4000
12.5500
12.1500
12.1500
Max
Qpeak Max WSEL Pond Storage
cfs ft ac-ft
1.80
4.27
1.96
12.11
11.48
24.82
1.96
12.11
13.64
30.83
.95
10.11
2.16
6.00
13.12 .835
13.87 1.466

Type.... Design Storms
Name.... Camp Geiger, NC
Page 3.01
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
® Title... Project Date: 5/30/2008
Project Engineer: Robert M. Silver, P.E.
Project Title: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp
Geiger, NC
Project Comments:
Proposed Site Conditions, single pond, dual on -site
collection systems.
DESIGN STORMS SUMMARY
Design Storm File,ID -
Storm Tag Name = Design
Camp Geiger, NC
Data Type, File, ID = Synthetic Storm
Storm Frequency . = 1 yr
Total Rainfall Depth= 3.5600 in
Duration Multiplier = 1
Resulting Duration = 24.0000.hrs
Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step=
Storm Tag Name = Check
Data Type, File, ID = Synthetic Storm
40 Storm Frequency = 10 yr
Total Rainfall Depth= 6.6900 in
Duration Multiplier = 1
Resulting Duration = 24.0000 hrs
Resulting Start Time= .0000 hrs Step=
40
-------------------
TypeIII 24hr
1000 hrs End= 24:0000 hrs
-------------------------
TypeIII 24hr
1000 hrs End= 24.0000 hrs

Type.... Tc Calcs Page 4.01
Name.... 6TH STREET
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATOR .
Segment #1: Tc: User Defined
Segment #1 Time: .2500 hrs
----------------------------------------------------`-------------------
Total Tc .2500 hrs
Tc Equations used...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Defined ______________________________________________________
Tc = Value entered by user
Where: Tc = Time of concentration

Type.... Tc Calcs Page 4.02
Name.... ON -SITE SYSTEM
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
.................................................. ... ..
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATOR
Segment #1: Tc: User Defined
-------------------------
Tc Equations used...
-------------------------
Segment
#1 Time:
.2170
hrs
-
-----------------------------------------
Total Tc:
.2170
hrs
UserDefined =-----------------------------------------------------
Tc = Value entered by user
Where: Tc = Time of concentration

Type.... Tc Calcs Page 4.03
Name.... POND AREA,
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
................................................
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATOR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment #1: Tc: User Defined
Segment #1 Time: .1670 hrs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Total Tc: .1670 hrs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tc Equations used...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
___= User Defined
Tc = Value entered by user
Where: Tc = Time of concentration

Type.... Runoff CN-Area Page 5.01
Name.... 6TH STREET
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA
Impervious
Area Adjustment Adjusted
Soil/Surface Description CN acres %C %UC CN
-------------------------------- ----
paved area 98 .460 98.00 .
grass area 79 .600 74.00
COMPOSITE AREA & WEIGHTED CN ---> 1.060 84.42 (84)

Type.... Runoff CN-Area Page 5.02
Name.... ON -SITE SYSTEM
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA
Impervious'
Area
Adjustment
Adjusted
Soil/Surface Description CN
acres
%C %UC
CN
----- -----------------
paved area 98
3.440
98.00
grass area 74
1.980
74.00
COMPOSITE AREA 6 WEIGHTED CN --->
5.420
89.23 (89)

Type.... Runoff CN-Area Page 5.03
Name.... POND AREA
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA
Soil/Surface Description
--------------------------------
normal water level
grass area
---------------------------------------
Impervious
Area Adjustment Adjusted
CN acres %C %UC CN
------------- ----- ----- ------
98 .190 98.00
74 1.380 74.00
COMPOSITE AREA & WEIGHTED CN ---> 1.570 76.90 (77)
r

Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 6.01
Name.... 6TH STREET Tag: Check Event: 10 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr Tag: Check
SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
STORM EVENT: 10 year storm
Duration = 24.0000 hrs Rain Depth = 6.6900 in
Rain Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Rain File -ID = - TypeIII 24hr
Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear
HYG Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
HYG File - ID = - 6TH STREET Check
Tc = .2500 hrs
Drainage Area = 1.060 acres Runoff CN= 84
------------
Computational Time Increment = .03333 hrs
Computed Peak Time = 12.1667 hrs
Computed Peak Flow = 4.31 cfs
Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs'
Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 12.2000 hrs
Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 4.27 cfs
DRAINAGE AREA
ID:6TH STREET
CN = 84
Area = 1.060 acres
S = 1.9048 in
0.25 = .3810 in
Cumulative Runoff
-------------------
4.8460 in
.428 ac-ft
HYG Volume... .428 ac-ft (area under HYG curve)
***** SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS *****
Time
Concentration,
Tc =
.25000
hrs (ID:
6TH STREET)
Computational
Incr,
Tm =
.03333.hrs
= 0.20000
Tp
Unit
Hyd. Shape Factor
=
483.1432
(37.46%
under rising limb)
K =
483.43/645.333,
K =
.7491 (also,
K = 2/(l+(Tr/Tp))
Receding/Rising,
Tr/Tp
=
1.6698
(solved
from K = .7491)
Unit
peak,
qp =
4.80
cfs
Unit
peak time
Tp =
.16667
hrs
Unit
receding limb,
Tr =
.66667
hrs
Total
unit time,
Tb.=
.83333
hrs

Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 6.02
Name.... 6TH STREET Tag: Design Event: 1 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr Tag: Design
SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
STORM EVENT: l year storm
Duration
= 24.0000 hrs Rain Depth = 3.5600 in
Rain
Dir
= G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Rain
File
-ID
= - TypeIII 24hr
Unit
Hyd
Type
= Default Curvilinear
HYG
Dir
= G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
HYG
File
- ID
= - 6TH STREET Design
Tc
= .2500 hrs
Drainage
Area
= 1.060 acres Runoff CN= 84
Computational Time Increment = .03333 hrs
Computed Peak Time = 12.1667 hrs
Computed Peak Flow = 1.80 cfs
Time
Increment for HYG
File =
.0500
hrs
Peak
Time,
Interpolated
Output =
12.2000
hrs
Peak
=======
Flow,
-------------------------------------
Interpolated
Output =
1.80
cfs
DRAINAGE AREA
-------------------
ID:6TH STREET
CN = 84
Area = 1.060 acres
S = 1.9048 in
0.25 = .3810 in
Cumulative Runoff
-------------------
1.9879 in
.176 ac-ft
HYG Volume... .176 ac-ft (area under HYG curve)
***** SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS *****
Time Concentration,
Tc =
.25000
hrs (ID:
6TH STREET)
Computational Incr,
Tm =
.03333
hrs = 0.20000
Tp
Unit Hyd. Shape Factor
=
483.432
(37.46%
under rising, limb)
K = 483.43/645.333,
K =
.7491
(also,
K = 2/(1+(Tr/Tp))
Receding/Rising, Tr/Tp
=
1.6698
(solved
from K = .7491)
Unit peak,
qp =
4.80
cfs
Unit peak time
Tp =
.16667
hrs
Unit receding limb,
Tr =
.66667
hrs
Total unit time,
Tb =
.83333
hrs

Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 6.03
Name.... ON -SITE SYSTEM Tag: Check Event: 10 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr Tag: Check
SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD.
STORM EVENT: 10 year storm
Duration = 24.0000 hrs Rain Depth = 6.6900 in
Rain Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Rain File -ID = - TypeIII 24hr
Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear
HYG Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
HYG File - ID = - ON -SITE SYSTEM Check
Tc = .2170 hrs
Drainage Area = 5.420 acres Runoff CN= 89
Computational Time Increment = .02893 hrs
Computed Peak Time = 12.1520 hrs
Computed Peak Flow = 24.86 cfs
Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs
Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 12.1500 hrs
Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 24.82 cfs
--------------------------------------------
DRAINAGE AREA
-------------------
ID:ON-SITE SYSTEM
CN = 89
Area = 5.420 acres
S = 1.2360 in
0.25 = .2472 in
Cumulative Runoff
-------------------
5.4058 in
2.442 ac-ft
HYG Volume... 2.442 ac-ft •(area under HYG curve)
***** SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS *****
Time Concentration,
Tc =
.21700
hrs (ID:
ON -SITE SYSTEM)
Computational Incr,
Tm =
.02893
hrs = 0.20000
Tp
Unit Hyd. Shape Factor
=
483.432
(37.46%
under rising limb)
K = 483.43/645.333,
K =
.7491
(also,
K = 2/(l+(Tr/Tp))
Receding/Rising, Tr/Tp
=
1.6698
(solved
from K = .74.91)
Unit peak,
qp =
28.30
cfs
Unit peak time
Tp =
.14467
hrs
Unit receding limb,
Tr =
.57867
hrs
Total unit time,
Tb =
.72333
hrs

Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 6.04
Name.... ON -SITE SYSTEM Tag: Design Event: 1 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr Tag: .Design
SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
STORM EVENT: 1 year Storm
Duration = 24.0000 hrs Rain Depth = 3.5600 in
Rain Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Rain File -ID = - TypeIII 24hr
Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear
HYG Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
HYG File - ID = - ON -SITE SYSTEM Design
Tc = .2170 hrs
Drainage Area = 5.420 acres Runoff CN= 89
--------------------------------------------
Computational Time Increment = .02893 hrs
Computed Peak Time = 12.1520 hrs
Computed Peak Flow = 11.50 cfs
Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs
Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 12.1500 hrs
Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 11.48 cfs
DRAINAGE AREA
ID:ON-SITE SYSTEM
CN = 89
Area = 5.420 acres
S = 1.2360 in
0.25 = .2472 in
Cumulative Runoff
-------------------
2.4127 in
1.090 ac-ft
HYG Volume... 1.090 ac-ft (area under HYG curve)
***** SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS *****
Time Concentration,
Tc =
.21700
hrs (ID:
ON -SITE SYSTEM)
Computational Incr,
Tm =
.02893
hrs = 0.20000
Tp
Unit Hyd. Shape Factor
483.432
(37.46%
under rising limb)
K = 483.43/645.333,
K
= .7491
(also,
K = 2/(1+(Tr/Tp))
Receding/Rising, Tr/Tp =
1.6698
(solved
from K = .7491)
Unit peak,
qp =
28.30
cfs
Unit peak time
Tp =
.14467
hrs
Unit receding limb,
Tr =
.57867
hrs
Total unit time,
Tb =
.72333
hrs

Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 6.05
Name.... POND AREA Tag: Check Event: 10 yr
File.... G:,\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr Tag: Check
SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
STORM EVENT: 10 year storm
Duration = 24.0000 hrs Rain Depth = 6.6900 in
Rain Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Rain File -ID = - TypeIII 24hr
Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear
HYG Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
HYG File - ID = - POND AREA Check
Tc = .1670 hrs
Drainage Area = 1.570 acres Runoff CN= 77
Computational Time Increment = .02227 hrs
Computed Peak Time = 12.1353 hrs
Computed Peak Flow = 6.06 cfs
Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs
Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 12.1500 hrs
Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 6.00 cfs
DRAINAGE AREA
-------------------
ID:POND AREA
CN = 77
Area = 1.570 acres
S = 2.9870 in
0.25 = .5974 in
Cumulative Runoff
-------------------
4.0883 in
.535 ac-ft
HYG Volume... .535 ac-ft (area under HYG curve)
***** SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS *****
Time Concentration,
Tc =
.16700
hrs (ID:
POND AREA)
Computational Incr,
Tm =
.02227
hrs = 0.20000
Tp
Unit Hyd. Shape Factor
=
483.432
(37.46%
under rising limb)
K = 483.43/645.333,
K =
.7491
(also,
K = 2/(1+(Tr/Tp))
Receding/Rising, Tr/Tp
=
1.6698
(solved
from K = .7491)
Unit peak,
qp =
10.65
cfs
Unit peak time
Tp =
.11133
hrs
Unit receding limb,
Tr =
.44533
hrs
Total unit time,
Tb =
.55667
hrs

Type.... Unit Hyd. Summary Page 6.06
Name.... POND AREA Tag: Design Event: 1 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr Tag: Design
SCS-UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
STORM EVENT: 1 year storm
Duration = 24.0000 hrs Rain Depth = 3.5600 in
Rain Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Rain File -ID = - TypeIII 24hr
Unit Hyd Type = Default Curvilinear
HYG Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
HYG File - ID = - POND AREA Design
Tc = .1670 hrs
Drainage Area = 1.570 acres Runoff CN= 77
Computational Time Increment = .02227 hrs
Computed Peak Time = 12.1353 hrs
Computed Peak Flow = 2.17 cfs
Time Increment for HYG File = .0500 hrs
Peak Time, Interpolated Output = 12.1500 hrs
Peak Flow, Interpolated Output = 2.16 cfs
DRAINAGE AREA
-------------------
ID:POND AREA
CN = 77
Area = 1.570 acres
S = 2.9870 in
0.25 = ,5974 in
Cumulative Runoff
-------------------
1.4752 in
.193 ac-ft
HYG Volume... .193 ac-ft (area under HYG curve)
***** SCS UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS *****
Time Concentration,
Tc =
.16700
hrs (ID:
POND AREA)
Computational Incr,
Tm =
.02227
hrs = 0.20000
Tp
Unit Hyd. Shape Factor
=
483.432
(37.46%
under rising limb)
K = 483.43/645.333,
K =
.7491 (also,
K = 2/(1+(Tr/Tp))
Receding/Rising, Tr/Tp
=
.1.6698
(solved
from K = .7491)
Unit peak,
qp =
10.65
cfs
Unit peak time
Tp =
.11133
hrs
Unit receding limb,
Tr =
.44533
hrs
Total unit time,
Tb =
.55667
hrs

Type.... Vol: Planimeter Page 7.01
Name .... POND 20
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
POND VOLUME CALCULATIONS
Planimeter scale: 1.00 ft/in
Elevation
Planimeter
Area
Al+A2+sgr(Al*A2)
Volume
Volume Sum
(ft)
(sq.in)
(acres)
(acres)
(ac-ft)
(ac-ft)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.00
28363.000
.6511
.0000
.000
.000
12.50
32902.000
.7553
2.1077
.351
.351
13.00
34725.000
.7972
2.3285
.388
.739
14.00
38649.000
.8873
2.5254
.842
1.581
15.00
46194.000
1.0605
2.9177
.973
2.554
POND VOLUME EQUATIONS
* Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir volumes.
Volume = (1/3) * (EL2-ELl) * (Areal + Area2 + sq.rt.(Areal*Areal))
where: ELI, EL2 = Lower and upper elevations of the increment
Areal,Area2 = Areas computed for EL1, EL2, respectively
Volume = Incremental volume between EL1 and EL2
a

Type.... Outlet Input Data
Name.... Outlet 1
Page 8.01
.File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
REQUESTED POND WS ELEVATIONS:
Min. Elev.= 12.00 ft
Increment = .25 ft
Max. Elev.= 15.00 ft
OUTLET CONNECTIVITY
---> Forward Flow Only (UpStream to DnStream)
<--- .Reverse Flow Only (DnStream to UpStream)
< --- > Forward and Reverse Both Allowed
Structure No. . Outfall El, ft E2, ft
Inlet Box RD ---> CO 13.000 15.000
Orifice -Circular 00 ---> CO 12.000 15.000
Culvert -Circular CO ---> TW 8.750 15.000
TW SETUP, DS Channel

Type.... Outlet Input Data
Name.... Outlet 1
Page 8.02
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
OUTLET STRUCTURE INPUT DATA
Structure ID =
RD
Structure Type =
Inlet Box
------------------------------------
# of Openings =
1
Invert Elev. =
13.00 ft
Orifice Area =
16.0000 sq.ft
Orifice Coeff. _
.600
Weir Length =
4.00 ft
Weir Coeff. =
3.000
K, Reverse =
1.000
Manning5 n =
.0000
Kev,Charged Riser =
.000
Weir Submergence =
No
Structure ID
Structure Type
---------------
# of Openings
Invert Elev.
Diameter
Orifice Coeff.
= 00
= Orifice -Circular
------------------
= 1
12.00 ft
.2500 ft
.600

Type.... Outlet Input Data
Name.... Outlet 1
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
® OUTLET STRUCTURE INPUT DATA
Structure ID
= CO
Structure Type
= Culvert -Circular
------------------------------------
No. Barrels
= 1
Barrel Diameter.
= 2.0000
ft
Upstream Invert
= 8.75
ft
Dnstream Invert
= 8.50
ft
Horiz. Length
= 48.00
ft
Barrel Length
= 48.00
ft
Barrel Slope
= .00521
ft/ft
OUTLET CONTROL DATA
Mannings n
= .0120
Ke
= .2000
Kb
= .010575
Kr
= .2000
HW Convergence
= .001
INLET
CONTROL DATA...
Equation form =
1
Inlet
Control K =
.0018
Inlet
Control M =
2.0000
Inlet
Control c =
.02920
Inlet
Control Y =
.7400
T1 ratio (HW/D) _
.000
T2 ratio (HW/D) =
1.205
Slope
Factor =
-.500
Page 8.03
(forward entrance loss)
(per ft of full flow)
(reverse entrance loss)
+/- ft
Use unsubmerged inlet control Form 1 equ. below Tl elev.
Use submerged inlet control Form 1 equ. above T2 elev.
In transition zone between unsubmerged and submerged inlet control,
interpolate between flows at T1 5 T2...
At T1 Elev = 8.75 ft ---> Flow = 15.55 cfs
At T2 Elev = 11.16 ft ---> Flow = 17.77 cfs
Structure ID = TW
Structure Type = TW SETUP, DS Channel
------------------------------------
FREE OUTFALL CONDITIONS SPECIFIED
CONVERGENCE TOLERANCES...
Maximum Iterations= 40
Min.
TW
tolerance =
.01
ft
Max'.
TW
tolerance =
.01
It
Min.
HW
tolerance =
.01
ft
Max.
HW
tolerance =
.01
ft
Min.
Q
tolerance =
00
cfs
Max.
Q
tolerance =
.00
cfs

Type.... Composite Rating Curve
Name.... Outlet 1
Page 8.04
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
***** COMPOSITE OUTFLOW SUMMARY ****
WS Elev,
Total
Q
Notes
----------------
--------
Converge
-----------------
Elev.
Q
TW Elev
Error
ft
cfs
ft
+/-ft
Contributing
Structures
12 00
00
Free
Outfall
(no Q: RO,OO,CO)
12.25
.08
Free
Outfall
OO,CO (no Q:
RO)
12.50
.14
Free
Outfall
OO,CO (no Q:
RO)
12..75
.19
Free
Outfall
O0,C0 (no Q:
RO)
13.00
.22
Free
Outfall
OO,CO (no Q:
RO)
13.25
1.75
Free
Outfall
RO,OO,CO
13.50
4.52
Free
Outfall
RO,OO,CO
13.75
8.10
Free
Outfall
RO,OO,CO
14.00
12.32
Free
Outfall
RO,OO,CO
14.25
17.11
Free
Outfall
RO,OO,CO
14.50
22.39
Free
Outfall
RO,OO,CO
14.75
28.12
Free
Outfall
RO,O0,C0
15.00
34.20
Free
Outfall
RO,OO,CO

Type.... Pond Routing Summary Page 9.01
Name.... POND 20 . OUT Tag: Check Event: 10 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 29hr Tag: Check
LEVEL POOL ROUTING SUMMARY
HYG Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
.Inflow HYG file = NONE STORED - POND 20 IN Check
Outflow HYG file = NONE STORED - POND 20 OUT Check
Pond Node Data = POND 20
Pond Volume Data = POND 20
Pond Outlet Data = Outlet 1
No Infiltration
INITIAL CONDITIONS
Starting
WS Elev =
12.00
ft
Starting
Volume =
.000
ac-'ft
Starting
Outflow =
.00
cfs
Starting
Infiltr. _
.00
cfs
Starting
Total Qout=
.00
cfs
Time.Increment =
.0500
hrs
INFLOW/OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY
Peak
Inflow =
30.83
cfs at 12.1500 hrs
Peak'Outflow
=
10.11
cfs at 12.5500 hrs
-----------------------------------------------------
Peak
Elevation =
13.87
ft
Peak
Storage =
1.466
ac-ft
MASS BALANCE (ac-ft)
--------------------------
+ Initial Vol = .000
+ HYG Vol IN = 2.976
- Infiltration = .000
- HYG Vol OUT = 2.933
- Retained Vol = .042
Unrouted Vol = -.001 ac-ft (.091% of Inflow Volume)
WARNING: Outflow hydrograph truncated on right side.

Type.... Pond Routing Summary Page 9.02
Name.... POND 20 OUT Tag: Design Event: 1 yr
File.... G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\ACADEMIC FACILITY.PPW
Storm... TypeIII 24hr Tag: Design
LEVEL POOL ROUTING SUMMARY
HYG Dir = G:\NF07\0179\Site\Drainage\
Inflow HYG file = NONE STORED - POND 20 IN Design
Outflow HYG file = NONE STORED - POND 20 OUT Design
Pond Node Data = POND 20
Pond Volume Data = POND 20
Pond Outlet Data = Outlet.l
No Infiltration
INITIAL CONDITIONS
Starting
WS Elev =
12.00
ft
Starting
Volume =
.000
ac-ft
Starting
Outflow =
.00
cfs
Starting
Infiltr. _
.00
cfs
Starting
Total Qout=
:00
cfs
Time Increment =
.0500
hrs
INFLOW/OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY
Peak
Inflow =
13.64
cfs at 12.1500 hrs
Peak
Outflow =
.95
cfs at 14.4000 hrs
-----------------------------------------------------
Peak
Elevation =
13.12
ft
Peak
Storage =
.835
ac-ft
MASS BALANCE (ac-ft)
+ Initial Vol = .000
+ HYG Vol IN = 1.283
- Infiltration = .000
- HYG Vol OUT = 1.245
- Retained Vol = .037
Unrouted Vol = -.001 ac-ft (.086% of Inflow Volume)
WARNING: Outflow hydrograph truncated on right side

SySi S
Made By: pMS't-�
Date: Job No:
v�c �I?9��8 P3o�o7�l_L�
Checked By: Date: Sheet No:
C,kuk ve
baAweev-v Yovtl7a-�( W�a.iv, ;Jor�{
weak it 'Pond
J 1 (� 10 YR
z1
Yon �Itat °�-S'Imt_ot �e..le. j'l tO -T' 12,15
13 , (P xs C -t- _ 12 15 Vw,, .
1�0.8 O�s e T
13. 4o (to-YR.)
F_\eu X 6arv, , 6G--'�.,�-e.,-, �" n
"
j> � Cc
' 115 0 (C5/ c -5�3)
Yz
= 12.C55 -
II.5C�, = I,e5
Io- YR
= 13,4o -
11,5o 1.Olo �E
I✓t_ew av,�A
tE kin,,-toyjooi%Y I - YR I-], 71
�/A _ V
�GC.IoG.�IL�j o-(L WG •�c✓1P-Vlq ��� ip15 0.nd P%rt TI}p{ e'fC
1'lon-ecnSlVL }cr Dare: ho;
1�
3
I I li) tlmr9� 11lnte_1 4 ` 12.00
3 �t
10
foZEF-M-Y IOEtP,

'�` Made By:
Systems
® / Checked By:
44 bETkJ j <__ I ti192F -V&V LO J rkr-Q IT'�-
Date:
Date:
s Job No:
Sheet No:
vlv�EwT gA-;71,:J DEVI&O - \
�. 17PaIr,AU�i J�2A %,o``o �ra5 (Sn;�1al�y G,o �J
udscK 31(10
Min. " 13t5o�F lS� Old
�. �ksn.a!51�R�E •Uksl� ��crf� 24c'
P�Rsin.t WIDTN 120�
Fww LEUG'Tµ/Bdstr� wtD-ru 3� _ 2,5 � 2 1�Ilti•��n `�
\/oL n 130o e-�• /erect: mt dca�nay e. Dabt»
-DA
QrA'a Vo11� - -7.o0 ;a 180o j = 12,1.00 C 0,29 QC• F�.
�o'urvlz �foV�r�td Wes} Si-rn'vyc = I,8 liv-F-�. � o,Z� ✓
wry S�'ov'a�y = 0,.54 Az -Ft > 0.7-1 ✓
// ``,, \' L 1 1I n 1 T
l �('� �pTbgL ' YaIuMC N�iwGLv� µer MaK WP.tGf � IOp o 1tJx+P.
5"&- 1F-\eu 12,0e 4� I2le;) 1
w;� s-!t�•�ng w� �leu =12,00 •�. ��t�5 �(��:�su•�rd,q�l�-J
.Ff-,L-Q 1n = 'Jl cfs -pal-- Q "A = 10 cps
wp-�t-5,�('puIvs = 13,s'7 fit.
�ceciwa rc� = 1s, oa - 15. fit I : ? I, o Pvl w, "R:E6)' A
Vr',&I- P IIION,..1: cat Pr_,A �� = 0,2 ���e:
1, Q- c.-I5
ORIFIC.0 DUCT I..G''C Z, �i� �{11 FILf3 c`{� -Cp it Vq
jSct' . 01L.0 34- st
�Y'l0'1D J�(J'034) 2q �015� = O � 11r a�5
U J

�l Made By: Date: Job No:
® �yStls
sChecked By: Date: Sheet No:
CY�� Ccn ORIF�LE � � ('212 ZT O• Iq (c 5}
�=1o,ioo�o�tq�) z9(o;ts' 0,321c�
5Q;11,,..�-I �a�1u-Y� � �ecomrrw�deet CP�b�,�
8. s�,ma.-E GPavov S" = 50% •i
G' �leu lo,o i �ol. a,qG Q�•'�. n
(All-ws 25
Q � II acclimw..-[>
amei FJA^rrf L Min • 6a,,J S17.- = Lo fo(f�� r s m..` i, wall p, p, ✓
Imo' f�cas�lti �CWO.�LY'1Ylq &ii •1 vC L Ih1VW.� S,sO
MAa, IJead 12,00 - 8,50 3,50 �4.
•rrl,ucn9 Ik�l = n)a Iknd/3 s
3.5/3 • I,h
Ori�wa A'ie�, A =(I�lZ1!' = 0,1gto S}
9 CD
z 4
.F-" 8,5 '% Vet
o.¢ AT., f�
T �L
= 1.4- A 4 (0-
O c S (3400�
-r�Y S" PVC
TIPS @ )"v
-TT
4
y
.,,))Z = 100 J s
T
= 1,4-
- 9.4

A Ali
ld AC1EC
engineering and constructing a better tomorrow
May 21, 2008
TmnSystems Corporation
Town Point Center
150 Boush Street, Suite 1000
Norfolk, Viiginia23510
Attention: Mr. Jerry Q. Jorge, Associate/Assistant Vice President
SUBJECT: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
PROPOSED ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY
CAMP GEIGER, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
MACTEC PROJECT NO.6468-08-2076
Dear Mr. Jorge:
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, file. (MACi'EC) is pleased to submit this report of our
geotechnical exploration for the referenced project. Our services were provided in general
accordance with MACTEC Proposal No. PROP-08-RALL-117 dated and authorized March 17, 2008.
This report presents a review of the information provided to its, a discussion of the site and
subsurface conditions„ and our recommendations. The Appendix contains a site location map, a
boring location plan, and the results of our field and laboratory tests.
® The purpose of this exploration was to determine the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide
recommendations for design of earth supported structures based on those conditions. The assessment
of site environmental conditions or determining the presence of contaminants in the soil, rock, surface
water or groundwater of the site was beyond the scope of this exploration.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The proposed acaderrc instruction facility will be constructed in the western approximate half of
the site. East of the building will be parking areas and stormwater management basins. The
proposed building will have a footprint of approximately 120 feet by 300 feet, will be two -stories
high, and will be primarily concrete masonry unit construction. Wall loads are estimated to be
approximately 7 to 8 kips per foot and column loads are estimated to be 150 kips. We understand
that the finished floor will be approximately feet above existing grades.
A gcotechnical exploration of the site was performed previously by GET Solutions, Inc. Their
report dated May 10, 2007 presents the results of the exploration and recommendations for design
of earth supported elements of the project. The exploration included soil test borings in the
building and pavement areas, and a Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) probe in the building area.
EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
MACTEC performed 3 test borings in the proposed building area and two borings in the
stormwater management basin area. The boring locations were selected by MACTEC and
® MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
3301 Atlantic Avenue • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone: [phone] • Pax: 919.831.9136
www.mactec.com

TranSystems Corporation
May 21, 2008
Page 2 of I I
Proposer/ Academic huiruction Facility
Camp Geiger, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
MACTEC Project No. 6468-08-2076
established.in the field by TranSystems Corporation. Prior to drilling a private utility locating.
service was used to identify any utilities in the area of each boring.
no borings in the building area were advanced using mud -rotary drilling procedures. The borings in,
,the stonnwater management basin area,viere advanced using hollow stem auger drilling, procedures.
Samples were obtained by driving a 1-3/8 inch ID split -spoon sampler with a manual safety hummer
in general accordance with ASTM D1586 specifications at 2.5- to 5-foot intervals. Representative
portion's of the samples were scaled in glass jars and returned to our laboratory where they were
visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. MACTEC will store
the test boring samples, available for inspection, for a period of ninety.days after which time they will
be discarded unless requested otherwise.
In -situ permeability tests were performed at the locations of A-4 and A-5 using the Guelph
Permeameter. The tests were performed approximately 2 feet below grade.
The test boring records showing visual descriptions of all soil strata and the sampling and field test
data are included in the Appendix, information sheets describing the Unified Soil Classification
System and the terms and symbols used on the boring record are also included. The ground surface
elevations indicated on the boring logs were provided by TranSystems.
The evaluation and recommendations presented in this report were developed from an interpretation
of the general subsurface conditions at the site based on information obtained from the .soil borings.
The stratification lines indicated on the.boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between
soil types. In -situ, the transitions may be gradual.
Selected samples were tested in the laboratory to determine their physical properties and engineering
characteristics. The laboratory program included natural moisture content, Atterberg limit, and
percent passing the number 200 sieve tests. All testing was done in general accordance with
applicable ASTM specifications. The results of these tests are included in the Appendix.
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is bordered on the north by 6".Street, on the east by E Street, on the south by 7" Street and
on the west by C Street. The. site is fairlylevel with very minor slope and drainage to the cast.
Maximum relief between boring locations is approximately 3 feet. Currently, portions of the site are
grass covered with sparse trees, An asphalt -surfaced tennistbasketball court is located in the center of
the site and a concrete slab exists in the southeastern corner of the site.
Jacksonville, North Carolina is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Coastal
Plain consists mainly of marine sediments which were deposited during successive periods of.
Fluctuating sea level and moving shoreline. The formations dip slightly seaward and several arc
exposed at the surface in bands paralleling the coast. Many beds exist only as fragmental erosional
remnants sandwiched between more continuous strata above and below. The soils in this province
are typical of those laid down in a shallow sloping sea bottom; sands, silts, and clays with irregular
deposits of shells. Some of the existing formations contain predominantly plastic clays interbedded
with strata of sands and poorly consolidated limestones. Others contain predominantly sands and
chalky or porous limestones with local lenticular deposits of highly plastic clays.
MACTEC

TranSysterns Corporation Proposed Academic Instn,ohm Facility
blay 27, 2008. Camp Geiger, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Page 3 of I I MACTEC Project No. 6468-08-2076
The borings encountered approximately 6 to 12 inches of topsoil at existing grades. In borings A-2,
A-3 and A-5, medium dense silty and clayey sand was encountered extending to 1.5 to 3.5 feet below
present grades. The soil is possible fill associated with past land usage.
The surface soils in borings A-1, A-2 and A-3, drilled in the proposed building area, are underlain by
clayey and silty sands, and sandy silts extending to approximately 23.5 to 28.5 below existing grades.
The relative density of the sands in this depth interval varies from loose to medium dense. The silt is
very soft:
In borings A-4 and A-5, the topsoil and possible fill are underlain by clayey silt extending to about
3.5 to 6 feet below present grades, The sili in these borings is underlain by silty and clayey sands
similar to the sands encountered in the borings drilled in the building area.
Medium dense to dense fine to coarse sand was encountered at 23.5 to 28.5 in borings A-1, A-2 and
A-3, and extends to the depth explored in these borings. Some limestone fragments were
encountered in the samples recovered from this depth interval. The CPT probe performed during the
GET exploration indicates the medium dense to dense sands extend to approximately 72 feet below
presenrgrades, underlain by sand mixtures extending to 100 feet, the maximum depth explored.
Groundwater level readings at completion of the borings A-1, A-2 and A-3 were not obtained since
drilling slurry or "mud" was used in performing the borings and, consequently, a water reading at
time of completion is meaningless. Based oil observation of samples in these Borings we estimate
the groundwater table is approximately 3.5 to 6 feet below present grades. Upon completion of
drilling, the groundwater was measured at 5 feet below grade in borings A-4 and A-5, drilled with
hollow stem augers. Fluctuations in the location of the groundwater table may occur depending on
variations in precipitation, evaporation and surface water runoff.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The subsurface conditions encountered in this exploration are generally consistent with those
described in the GET Solutions, Inc. report. Both explorations indicate variable amounts of fill and
possible fill within the building area, underlain by loose sands to approximately 23.5 to 28.5 feet and
medium dense to dense sands below that depth. MACTEC borings drilled in the stormwater
management basin area encountered clayey silts to approximately 3.5 to 6 feet below grade. These
soils are more plastic than the surface soils reported in the GET boring logs.
Our analyses indicate that the loose sands below the groundwater table are potentially liquefiable
during the design earthquake event; therefore, seismic Site Class F is applicable in accordance with
the North Carolina Building Code. Mitigation to densify the loose sands, supporting the structure on
deep foundations or designing the structure to accommodate the liquefaction settlements will be
required.
Presented in the following sections are further discussions of the seismic evaluation and foundation
options, and our recommendations for design of earth supported elements of the project.
NIAIMACTEC

TranSystems Corporation Proposer! Academic Instruction Facility
May 21, 2008 Camp Geiger, Camp 4jeune, North Carolina
Page 4 of I l AIAC7'F,C Project No. 6468-08-2076
Seismic Evaluation
For the southeast region of the United States, large historical earthquakes occurred in New Madrid,
Missouri in 1812 and in Charleston, South Carolina in 1886. The Charleston area is the most
significant contributor to seismic site risk within the region,
The determination of the seismic Site Class is based on the North Carolina Building Code, 2006
Edition, which incorporates the 2003 International Building Code. The basis of the Site Class is the
average soil shear wave velocity in the top,100 feet of the profile. The shear wave velocity was
determined at approximate 5-foot intervals to 100 feet below grade in the CPT probe performed
during the GET exploration.. Using the building code methodology and the shear wave velocity test
results, Site Class D is applicable for the profile before considering liquefaction potential.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon that can occur during an earthquake when loose sands are present
below the groundwater table. The borings indicate that loose sands exist from the groundwater table
at about 5 feet to depths of 23.5 to 28.5 feet below present grades. When liquefaction is possible, the
building code requires that Site Class F be assigned to the profile. Further, for soil profiles with Site
Class F, the code requires site -specific response analysis, evaluation of the impacts of. liquefaction,
and discussion of mitigation.measures.
The building code provides an exception for structures having fundamental periods of less than 0.5
seconds. We anticipate that the fundamental period of the proposed two-story structure may be less
than 0.5 seconds, but this should be confirmed by the structural engineer. If the fundamental period
is less than 0.5 seconds, the site coefficients F. and F, may be determined in accordance with Table
1615.1.2(I) and Table 1615.1.2(2) of the building code for the applicable site class; D for this site.
Even though the site coefficients can be determined front the table, liquefaction impacts and
mitigation measures must be evaluated.
To evaluate, Iiquefaclion potential at the site, we used the seismic hazard and associated ground
motion values for the 2%PE50yrs, (2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years) earthquake event
obtained from the USGS. website (lido://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov) to establish a target response
spectrum on a fictitious outcrop of rock having shear wave velocity V, of 2,500 feet per second.
Using the 2%PE50yrs earthquake, our analyses indicate that the loose sands between the groundwater
table and depths of approximately 23.5 to 28.5 feetarepotentially liquefiable during the design
earthquake event. Based on these analyses, Site class F is applicable for the site.
As noted above, the code requires evaluation of the consequences of liquefaction for soil profiles
having Site Class F designation. During liquefaction, shear waves cause strain reversal that lead to
the generation of excess pore water pressures in loose sands below the groundwater table, and the
sands lose shear strength and behave as Fluid. Following the earthquake event, the liquefied soils
reconsolidate. Based on the N-value data, we estimate that post -liquefaction settlements of surface -
supported elements may be on the order of 2 to 5 inches. The borings indicate there is a variation in
the thickness and in -situ density of the sands across the site; therefore liquefaction -induced
settlements may not be uniform across the site.
The 2%PE 50yrs earthquake used to evaluate liquefaction potential is a life safety design condition,
not a condition where damage to the facility must be prevented. Therefore, the structural designer
�MACTEC

7YnnSy.rtetns Corporation
May 21. 2008
Page S of I
Proposed Academic Instruction Facilile
Camp Geiger, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
MACTEC Project No. 6468-08-2076
should evaluate the liquefaction impacts to determine that the building is sufficiently designed to.
protect against collapse during the'earlhgiake.
Even though the; site coefficients can be determined for Site Class D (assuming the fundamental -
period of the structure is less than 0.5 seconds), the potential effects of liquefaction must still be
addressed. Approaches to design for sites with soils having liquefaction potential include:
1. Improving, the soils having a liquefactionpotential to be resistant to liquefaction and
supporting the building on the improved' soils with normal shallow foundations and
conventional slabs -on -grade;
2. Supporting structure and floor loads on a deep foundation system designed to accept the
additional loads due to liquefaction; and
3. Designing the structure to accommodate the effects of liquefaction sufficiently to prevent
building' collapse during .the earthquake event and support the -structure on shallow
foundations. This approach could leave the building unusable after the design earthquake.
Liquefaction Mitigation Methods
Methods to densify the potentially liquefiable loose sands include dynamic compaction, vibro-
compaction, and vibro-replacement.. Following are descriptions of each of these methods and our
evaluation of their applicability to this site.
Dynamic compaction is typically done by dropping a large weight in a grid pattem throughout the
footprint of the.proposed structure. Grid spacing.is dependent on the depth of densification needed
and the energy applied. Due to the depth of the potentially liquefiable sands at this site and,the high
silt and in the near surface soils, dynamic compaction will not, be effective. Compaction energy will
not be sufficient to densify the lower loose sands at the site.
Vibro-compaction (also know as vibroflotation) is a method of densifying sands using a vibrating
probe. The probe is jetted to the depth required -and then extracted slowly while vibrating and adding
sand into the hole. Vibro-compaction is most effective in sands containing less than approximately 5.
percent silt and clay fines. Based on the results of the laboratory tests, vibro-compaction will not be
effective due to the silt and clay content in the soils.
Vibro-replacement is similar to vibro-compaction except that once the probe has been inserted to the
desired depth, stone is introduced to the bottom of the probe and densified with vibration. Additional
stone is added as the probe is raised resulting in a column of compacted stone. During compaction of
the stone, densification of the surrounding soils occurs. Stone columns can be used in loose sands
containing appreciable silt and clay fines, and also in stratified profiles where silt and clay layers
occur. Stone columns are typically installed in a triangular pattern on 6 to 10-Foot spacings. Closer
spacings are generally used beneath wall and column footings. The stone columns generally extend
outside the building footprint approximately''/2 the depth densified.
Earthquake drains could also be used to minimize the potential for liquefaction of the loose sands.
Earthquake drains are large -flow capacity, synthetic, vertical drains installed with a vibrating mandrel
into loose sands. The purpose of the earthquake drains is to allow rapid dissipation of the excess pore
water pressures that occur.in loose sands below the groundwater table during an earthquake. During
installation of the earthquake drains there is very little densification of loose soils surrounding the
MACTEC

TrrmSm'tems Corporation Proposed Academic lnstruclion Facility
May 2l, 2008 Camp Geiger, Canip Lejeune, North Carolina
Page 6 of I I MAMIX Project No. 0408-08.2076
drain. -Therefore during the design earthquake, some settlement of the sands may occur.. We estimate
the settlement of surface supported elements may be on the order. of.%z to I /i inches with earthquake
drains installed.
Foundation Options
Based.on the subsurface conditions at the site and applicable liquefaction mitigation methods, the.
following are possible foundation options for the; proposed structure:
• Construct stone columns to mitigate the potentially liquefiable soils and support walls,
columns and slabs on the improved soils using conventional shallow footings and slab -on -
grade construction methods.
• Construct stone columns only beneath wall and 'column footings with none beneath Floor
slabs. A conventional. grade support slab couldbe used; however during the design
earthquake event settlement of the slab and any underlying utilities could occur.
• Install earthquake drains throughout the building area to'minimize liquefaction -induced
settlements and support the structure on shallow footings with conventional grade -supported
slabs. The building would need to be designed to accommodate the residualsettlements ('/2
to I /s inches) that may occur during the design earthquake event even with earthquake
'drains installed.
• Construct a pile foundation system to support walls, columns and structural floor slabs. The
piles would need .to be designed to resist forces that would occur during the design
earthquake.
• Construct pile foundations to support only walls and column. A conventional grade -
supported slab could be used; however, during the design earthquake event settlement of the
slab and any underlying utilities could occur.
• Design the building to accommodate the liquefaction -induced settlements and not collapse,
and use conventional shallow depth footings and grade -supported slabs. This option may
leave the building unusable following the design earthquake event.
Specialty contractors should be consulted for design and construction of stone columns and
earthquake drains. We can provide names of specialty contractors if requested.
Site Preparation
All topsoil, vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable material should be removed from the construction
area and either wasted from the site or used as topsoil in areas to be landscaped. We estimate a
stripping depth of about 6 inches will be required to remove topsoil. The concrete slab in the
southeastern corner of the site and the tennis/basketball court asphalt should also be removed from
the site. Special care should be taken to ascertain that all existing foundations, slabs, and any other
underground structures that may have existed in the area or the proposed structure are removed from
the construction area.
As discussed above, some fill and possible fill exists on the site. During stripping of topsoil, the
subgrade should be observed to determine if any additional undercutting of existing fill is required.
Following stripping, we recommend that the exposed subgrade in the building and pavement areas be
proofrolled to detect unsuitable soil conditions. Proofrolling should be done after a suitable period of
MACTEC

'franSystenu Corporation -
May 21, 2008
Page 7 of I
Proposed Academic Instruction facility
Cap Geiger, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
MACTEC Pt aject No. 6468-08-2076
dry.weather, to avoid degrading an otherwise acceptable subgrade: Proofrollingshould be performed
with a heavily loaded dump truck or with similar approved construction equipment. The proofrolling
equipment -should make at least four passes over each'section, with the last two passes perpendicular
to the first two:
We recommend that the exposed subgrade and proofrolling-operation be observed and documented
by the geotechnical engineer. If unsuitable 'conditions`are encountered at the subgrade level,
recommendations for dealing with the condition's should be provided to the owner's representative by
the geotechnical• engineer. Soils which nit or deflect excessively during proofrolling should be
undercut to suitable soils and replaced with compacted soil fill or crashed stone.
The near surface soils on the site that may he excavated can be re -used for compacted fill on the site;
however, these soils have high silt and clay contents and are currently very moist. Aeration of the
soils will be required for best compaction results. These soils will be very difficult to work with
during the wetter seasons of the .year. Moisture related soil difficulties can be minimized by
performing site preparation work in the drier periods of the year (May through October).
We recommend that any off -site fall required be sand or sand and gravel material containing less than
20 percent silt and clay fines. All fill should be placed in 8 to 10 inch loose lifts and shouldbe
compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). The
upper 12 inches below'pavements and -slabs -on -grade should be compacted to 98 percent modified
Proctor. In -place field density tests should be performed by the geotechnical engineer or technician.
We recommend that field density tests be performed every 2,500 square feet with at least one test
performed on each lift of material:
We recommend that all finished cut and till slopes be no steeper than 3H:1 V. Pill slopes should be
constructed by overfilling and then trimmed back to final configuration. The slopes should be seeded
and mulched as soon as practical after grading to minimize erosion. The near surface soils at this site
classify as Type C in accordance with current OSHA Trench Protection Guidelines. Trench
excavations more than 4 feel deep should be supported with temporary shoring and bracing or cut
back on slopes of 1.5(H): I (V).
The grading of the site should be coordinated with contractors constructing earthquake drains, stone
columns or pile foundations. Repair to the subgrade will be required after installation of any of these
mitigation measures.
Dewatering will be required for excavations that extend more than about 3 to 6 feet below present
grades. The extent of dewatering will depend on the area and depth of the excavation. Pumping from
sumps on the interior of excavations may be adequate for small excavations. Well point systems may
be needed for deeper and larger excavations.
No percolation occurred in the field permeability tests performed at depths of 2 feet below present
grades in the.area of the stomtwater management ponds. Based on descriptions of the soil, we
estimate the permeability is approximately 10-s to 10 ° cm/sec.
MACTEC

TranSystems Corporation Proposed Academic Instruction Facility
May 21, 2008 Camp Geiger, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Page of II „ MACTFC Project No. 6468-08-2076
Shallow Foundations
Shallow.depth footings.canbe used if the structure is designed to accommodate liquefaction -induced
settlements,' or if stonecolumns or earthquake drains are installed. The footings can hear in
undisturbed natural soils or fill placed and compacted as recommended above. All exterior footings
should be located at least 18 inches below final exterior grades to provide frost protection. Interior
footings may be embedded only nominal depths if in an area that will not be.subject to frost heave.
Minimum footingwidths of to inches for wall footings and,24 inches for column footings are
recommended.
We recommend that the geotechnical engineer or technician observe the footing excavations
immediately prior to placing concrete. He should compare the soils exposed with those encountered
in the soil test borings.and see that the exposed soils are capable of supporting the design footing
pressure: Any soft or loose soils should be undercut to suitable materials and backfilled with
approved soil fill materials, clean stone, or lean concrete.. Soil hackfill should be compacted as
described above. Allfoundation bearing areas should be level or suitably benched and free of loose
soil, ponded water and debris.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing .level if the foundation
excavations remain open.for long periods of time. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water
intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom
immediately prior to placement of concrete.
If the structure is designed to accommodate liquefaction -induced settlements or if earthquake drains
are installed, we recommend that the footings be designed for it net allowable soil bearing pressure of
2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). We estimate that settlement of footings due to dead and live
loads of the structure (i.e., not associated with liquefaction -induced settlement) will vary between'/a
and 1-'/4 inches. We anticipate that the majority of this settlement will occur during construction and
initial application of structure loads resulting in very little post construction settlement.
An allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 to 5,000 psf can probably be used if stone columns are
installed. Since the soil is densified during construction of stone columns, settlement of footings
under dead and live loads of the structure will be less than estimated above. The stone column
specialty contractor should be consulted for his estimate of allowable bearing capacity and foundation
settlement.
Pile Foundations
The following are preliminary recommendations for evaluation of pile foundations. The estimated
lengths of piles required are based on assumed subsurface conditions below 50 feet, the maximum
depth explored in the test borings. Additional borings should be drilled if piles are considered for
support of the building.
As an alternative to liquefaction mitigation, the proposed structure can he supported on a pile
foundation system. As discussed above, during liquefaction shear waves cause strain reversal that
lead to the generation of excess pore water pressures in loose sands below the groundwater table,
and the sands lose shear strength and behave as Fluid. Therefore, in our analysis we have assumed
that there is no compression pile capacity developed in the potentially liquefiable zone.
®�MACTEC

TranSysiem.s Corporation Proposed Acnde.+nir. Instf action Facility
May 21, 2008 Comp Geiger, Camp l xjeune, Nosh Carolina
Page 9 of 11 " MACTEC project No. 668-08-2076
Compression pile capacity will be developed through skin friction in the upper sands and the lower
sands below the, liquefiable zone, and end bearing in -the medium dense sands below approximately
28 feet,
We estimate that low capacity, piles will be adequate based on the wall and column loads provided.
Assuming a wall load `of S+kips per foot, we estimate 20 ton piles with a pairof-pilesspaced every
10'feet wilt be adequate. Three,25 ton'piles will:be'adequate to.support the proposed 150 kip
column loads.
We estimate timber piles approximately 55 feet long will develop 25 ton allowable capacities. Pipe
piles, 10 inches in diameter and approximately 50 feet long will develop25 ton allowable
capacities. Adgereasrpiles 14 inches in diameter and approximately 40 feet long will develop 25
to allowable capacities. As noted above, additional exploration and analysis are required for final
design if a pile foundation system is selected to support the proposed structure.
Slabs -on -Grade
Grade supported slabs can be used for several of"the foundation options discussed above. The slab
subgrade should be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation section of this report. A minimum
4-inch thick layer of washed stone or stone and coarse sand, as well as a suitable moisture barrier,
should be provided beneath all slabs to prevent capillary rise and a damp slab. The grade slab
should be jointed around columns and along footing -supported walls, so that the slab and
foundations.can settledifferentially without damage. Joints containing dowels or keys may be used
in the slab to permit rotational movement between parts or the slab without cracking or sharp
vertical displacements.. Based on the characteristics of the near surface soils at the site, we
recommend that a subgrade modulus of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) be used for design of the
slab.
Construction activities and exposure to the environment may cause deterioration of prepared
subgrades. Therefore, we recommend that density and moisture content tests be conducted on the
final subgrade soils immediately prior to grade slab construction to determine their condition.
Pavements
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were performed by GET Solutions during the 2007 exploration.
Based on the laboratory test results, they recommended it CBR value of 9.for design. of Flexible
pavements. In our opinion, this is a reasonable value to use in design based on descriptions of on -site
soils that may form pavement subgrade. We estimate a subgrade modulus of 150 pci for rigid
pavement design is applicable for these materials. The subgrade in pavement areas should be
prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site Grading section of this report.
Traffic volumes for pavement thickness design were provided by TranSystems Corporation as
follows:
• 250 vehicle parking lot capacity
• Vehicles entering and exiting the lot twice per day
• Assume 40 % pickup trucks, 40 % automobiles, 20 %n Humvees
• 1 dumpster truck per day
MACTEC

Trnn.Sys(erns Corporation Proposed Academic Instruction Faeiliry
May 21, 2008 Camp Geiger, Camp l.ejeune, Nord, Carolina
Page 10 of l I MACTEC Project No. 6468-08-2076
• Several two axle, 6-tired trucks per day (delivery vans)
Based on the above traffic and subgrade conditions, we recommend the following possible pavement'
thicknesses and configurations over the prepared subgrade:
Pavement
Type
- .
Material -
- Thickness (inches) .
Light -Duty
Heavv-Du[
Rigid
Concrete
-
6
Aggregate Base Course
(NCDOT Type A or B)
-
6
-Flexible
Asphalt Concrete —Surface
(NCDOT S9.5X
--02
1
Asphalt Concrete — Base
(NCDOT 119.OX)
-
2
Aggregate Base Course
(NCDOT Type A or B) -
6
-
6
The subgrade in pavement areas should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation section
of this report. Pavements and bases should be constructed in accordance with the guidelines of the
latest applicable "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures", North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Materials, weather limitations, placement and compaction are specified under
appropriate sections of this publication.
Prevention of infiltration of water into the subgrade is essential for the successful performance of the
pavement. Both the subgrade and the pavement surface should have a minimum slope of one -quarter
inch per foot to promote surface drainage. Edges of the pavement should be provided a means of
water outlet by extending the aggregate base course through to side ditches or providing drain pipes.
Additional Services Recommended.
1. Site Preparation and Pmofrolling: The geotechnical engineer or technician should observe the
site after it has been stripped and excavated. The engineer should determine the extent of
undercutting or in -place densification necessary to prepare the subgrade for fill placement or for
slab support.
2. Fill Placement and Compaction: The geotechnical engineer or technician should observe any
required filling operations and take sufficient in -place density tests, approve borrow materials
used and determine if their existing moisture contents are suitable.
3. Footing Excavation Examination: The geotechnical engineer or technician should examine the
footing excavations for the building foundations. He should check that the design bearing
pressures recommended are available and that no soft soils exist beneath the bearing surface of
the footing excavations. Based on the examinations, the engineer would either approve the
bearing surface or recommend that unsuitable soils be undercut to expose satisfactory bearing
materials.
4. Pavement System Examination: Pavement subgrade soils and base materials should be examined
by the geotechnical engineer or technician prior to placement of the asphaltic concrete to
1VIACTEG

TranSysterns Corporation Proposed Academic Instruction Facifiry
May 21, 2008 Camp Geigcr, Camp Lejeunc; North Carolina
Page. 1 f of f 1- - WAC7'1,'C Project No. 0408-08-2076
determine that proper compaction has-been achieved and that project specifications are being
followed. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests should be performed on representative samples
of the subgrade soils in order to develop a -suitable and economical pavement section.
5. Pile Installation: The geotechnical engineer or technician should monitor the pile installation to
record all -aspects of the installation and to evaluate the installation observations with respect to
the subsurface conditions as the basis for accepting or rejecting each pile.
CLOSING
These analyses and recommendations are, of necessity, based on the concepts made available to us at
the time of the writing of this report, and on -site surface and subsurface conditions that existed at the
time of the exploratory borings. Further assumption has been made that the limited exploratory
borings, in relation to both the area extent of the site and depth, are representative of conditions
across the site. If, during the design phase-, or later construction phases, conditions are encountered
which differ significantly from those reported herein, we should be immediately notified so that our
analyses and recommendations can be reviewed and/or revised as necessary.
We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services to you during the exploration phase of this
project and look forward to assisting you during the construction phase as well. If you have any
questions concerning'this report or any of our testing, inspection design or consulting services please
do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
M CTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC.
James E, Veith, P.E. (Engineer of Record)
Principal Geotechnical Engineer g
Registered, North Carolina 023232 L
Stephen J. Criscenzo, P,E. (Reviewer)
Chief Engineer
'Registered, North Carolina 16507
Attachments
v
MACTEC

Academic
Instruction
- aC yJCNim Ca
1
\ Yilr.n II �4 1.11
L. \7�
�ANIr t,�
/a r Ile CM r Cvrr t� N
/r JOClum 911feM lµ:.. u<r I
4
Sollllla al I,y. � 151 � k �� �-
)�
aYl'' v r . I t. w,an P.a III�L[4 rvlel a j .
a Hn.Nen Cv�ra:l / �� �_rJI
V, _ !vdne Ural
tY n'ua.ou rr..a \�Is,rsY na
IIIj /I lrir<r \ 1
hl Itr"xrc leIT:-np,
LQOQND Sale 1:62,5w (at ccnla)
Slam Romc oSlazc Romf Imil. Mag li nll
It G Faturc o US HiCh.y Fri Mar 21 10.39.34 2008
Town, Snell City .—I.- RailraW 2 RM
Y Hill Riva
US Ilighway — la%ermncnl Niw
Populalial Cclncr — A&(dd
_ St w, Road . _ _ - Utility (powmllm)
,p p` 11wy len,i Mass
Mnja StrmURoed Op R'ala
V MACTEC
SITE LOCATION MAP RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA
PROPOSED ACADEMIC.INSTRUCTION FACILITY DRAWN: DATE: Aril 15, 2008
CAMP GEIGER OFT CHECK: 17 SCALE: As Shown
JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA ENG CHECK: JOB: 6468-08-2076
APPROVAL: Sdi� FIGURE: 1
REFERENCE: DELORME MAP EXPERT

"u
PROPOSED ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY
CAMP GEIGER
JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
NMACTEC

25
4- 1
..... ........................ ........ -
A . -2
................................................... ........................... .......... ....................................... .................... .......... .. .
. n
;4w
A-3
A-4 A-5
.......... .................. ............
1s70
14,W
.......... ...... ............ ......... ............ - ........ . .........
15
...................
................. .......... ............... - .... .. .. ......... ..
....................................................
............................................. ....... ........... .. ... .......... . .... ..
.. ............... ........................ ................ ...................... ........ ............
................................................. ......
0
....................................................
41
4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ........... ......................... ................................................. ............................................
fF
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........
........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ... ............ . . . ... . . . . . . . . .......... . .......... . .. . ..... . . . . . .
'o
. . . .
. .................... ..........................
................................ .... .. ...... ................................... ................... ............. ...........
MATERIAL LAYERING CODES
B-1 BORING NO.
El
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
NA
Ell—
f/MACFEC

MAJOR DIVISIONS
CLEAN
GRAVELS
GRAVELS
(Little or no fines)
(More than 50%of
coarse fraction is
LARGER then the
GRAVELS
COARSE
No. 4 sieve size)
WITH FINES
GRAINED
(Appreciable
SOILS
amount of fines)
(More than 50%of
material is
CLEAN'
LARGER than No.
200 sieve size)
SANDS
SANDS
(More than 50%of
(Lisle or no fines)
coarse fraction is
SMALLER than
the No. 4 Sieve
SANDS WITH
Size)
FINES
(Appreciable
amount of fines)
GROUP-1TYPICAL NAMES
G W Well graded gravels, gravel - sand
mixtures, little or no fines.
GP Poorly graded gravels or grave - sand
mixtures, little or no fines.
GM I Silty gravels, gravel - sand - silt mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel - sand - clay
mixtures.
SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands - little or
no fines.
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands,
SP little or no tines,
SM I Silty sands, sand - silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, sand - clay mixtures.
Inorganic silts andvcry fine sands, roc
ML .flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey
SILTS AND CLAYS
CL
inorganic lays m low to mcuwuni piaeucn),
ravelly clays, sandy clays, silty• clays,
FINE
(Liquid limit LESS than 50)
an cla s.
—
OL
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low
GRAINED
SOILS
plasticity.
(More than 50%of
material is
M} I
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous
SMALLER than
fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
No.200 sieve size)
SILTS AND CLAYS
-
(Liquid limit GREA"fER than 50)
OH
Organic clays of medium to high
-
plasticity, organic silts.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
Peat and other highly organic soils.
BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by
combinations of group symbols.
SILT OR CLAY
SAND
GRAVEL
Cobbles
Fine I Coarse
Boulders
Fine
Medium
Coarse
No.2UU NOAV NOAU NOA d/4S 14
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
Reference: The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Anny Technical
Memorandum No. 3-357, Vol. I, March, 1953 (Revised April, 1960)
Undisturbed Sample
Split Spoon Sample
Rock Core
Dilatometer
Packer -
Water Table at time of drilling
Correlation of
with Relative L
Fill
Bulk Sample
Limestone
Pressure Meter
No Recovery
Water Table after 24 hours
and
<4
Very Loose
<2
4 - 10
Loose
2-4
0 - 30
Medium Dense
4-8
-0 - 50
Dense
8 - P
> 50
Very dense
15 - 3
> In
Hard
KEY TO SYMBOLS AND
DESCRIPTIONS

n I
F.
T
H,
(fl)
0
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND -REMARKS
S11 KEY$YMIIGI.SHIiI:TlOR I:XI'L.\N \TIUN (IP
SYNIBOIS AN[)ABBREVIATIONS BI-LOW..
L
G
P
N
U
i
li
V
(IB
_
17.2
sAMPLES
rL(%a)
-
Ill
211'
;iU
♦.I1NESET)
0
411
Nn;(r4
srrmt
$I.
60'
)
711
Nn
ran
'XI'IIMI
U
r
T
Y
F.,
N-C(
w
Rcc„/l(QD9
—. •., o.
.rutwd
L'..
SS-1
4.3.3
..
Grin at G to 7,5 (cm .S
.,
SS-0.
x
6.34
Yary wfi.. ,vt. tan, sandy SICr (M1;)
IU—
7.2
SSS
1-LI
♦C
10
I-onsc, wt. gray: Iiw SAND (SI')
SS-6
X
4-3.4
[A
ap
7S
SS-7
2Q :7
20
Tm e him mm fr pma, al 23.5'fcm. .
.7.8
SS-8
LIS
—
S
\
Medium drat-w.IM1, Bray: ftm In marsc SAND (SP) with line
70
g r:l\tiI and rmC It:lgnualls
-12.3
SS-9i
74-1')
311
Ruing mminandat.10 li'cl.
35
--17.II_
35
_—_
_
—
40
-22.,S
10
DRILLER.
Carolmu Drilling
EQUIPMENT:
CM645, manual hainmer
METHOD:
Mud mmry
RULE DIA.:
4'
REMARKS:
Groundwater at 6 rein based on sample observation.
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONUrrIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OT(1ER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMLS MAY DIFFER,
INTERFACES BEWELN'STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BEErWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL,
II 111 211 3q •IU Ill Ut M NO 90 IUI)
1
r. r
Project: Academic Instruction Facility
Boring No.: A-1
Drilled: May 2, 2008
Project k: 6468-08-2076 Page I of I
L_NMACTEC

D
pr.
T
H .
0
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
.. AND REMARKS
SHE KEYSYNIBOLS11EFI FOR EXPLANATIONOF
SYkillOI_CANIIAIII1RI:VlA'I'IONSNIiLOW.
h
I-
G.
fi
N
D
E
I,
E
V
(0)
1 i.R
SAMPLFS
IIll.
I(1
Nni(is)
LL(%)
1 CN1
I)
'N
-T
'f...
Y
1'
I:
N-COUNrf
nr.
I2cc:f/12QD`L-
�'.',a ;� �.•
_. ..7 c
. $
H
0 30
-.''A
•
40
NNIiS
Slrf
50
o
(•3.)
fhpil
(d)
70
SO
(a
90
'1'o rafil
SS-1
x
7-9.8
Mc(li it Jenm: to:oisr tan and hro,vn. silly tincSAND (SM) -
(ftimsihle till)'
SS-2
X
J-5.7
Klediwn dcm%uet. hro(nt and tall-gmy, silty Iitm SAND - -
i
(SR-SM) xith Iim(stmw fragux;mc at 3.5 feel _
�.^:.
, .
12 R
SS-i
x
6>54
5
RS-I
J-3-1
10
7.S
SSS
�1.5.5
♦
10
IS
2.8
SS-6
2.2,3
IS
—
20
22
S&7
x
4-9-10
0
\,
Vcn• dense ro nxditm dgnsr, wet. tight gray, lint, Cocoa.
23
SAND (SP) W41,povi NMI linwsomu: tragawal,
- .7.2
Ss
]7-1422
i5
30-
I_._
ss<
n:In.la
•
—
—
lU
taring tcnnioamd at 30fict
15
.17.2
t5
—
---
--
JU
_2.2
J0
DIULLER:
Carolina Ihilllog
EQUIPMENT:
CMF. J5, mmnual 6ninn.er
METHOD:
Mull rotary
HOLE DIA.:
a"
REMARKS:
Groundwater at 3.5 feet based con sample obs,,mimi.
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE IN'I'ERPREI'ATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BEWEEN STRKI'A ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
U!•U�ilt)Elr)�f=p))♦�x1i+J!•ll:ll
Project: Academic Instnlction Facility
Boring No.: A-2
Drilled: May 2, 2008
Project #: 6468-08-2076 Page I o1. 1
AMA

G
D
Ii
P
H
al)
0
SOIL CLASSIHCA"IIOIV
AND REMARKS .
SEE KEY SYMBOLSFIFIM-OR EXPLINATIONOF"
SYMBOLS AND AIWBREVIATIONS BELOW.
i
li
N
' D
L
V
(fti
15.7 '.
SAMPLES
In
vi,
20
30
N,
N N I
^
50'
60
70
I.I.
SO
p.)
H
'XI
IIXI
T
�•
fi
N-coun"G'
Kee AfltQU!b
= =, c
—4
'IS ail
:1.-i1
-
Mediwn dense m�ist.6rosnesillySAND (SAI) (Ix�csibk 010
SS-1
3-5-6
Lame m ,cry lone.\vCl. Anr: hro m to Ian. sihy llne,SAND
(SSUSPI -
SS.2
t-3.3
V:
'.:
:':
..
10.7...
SS-3
i; i.3.
_
111
5,7
SS-5
X
IQ-10-12.
111
IS —
6.7
SS-(,
X41
15
SS-7
1-1.I
20
.4_i
_(I
Medium don., .0. liglu gray. sihy line SAND (SNU
'SS-R
12-II-Id
Dense. aet. gray. line la Amcor SAND (SI'1 wish murilk
3o
shells. cemented saml
I. t
SSA
15.16-Is
30
Boring leinninaal m ill fca
35 —
-1').3
35
—
—
40
-24.3
All
--
—
nt
m a
11 111 rll .R, 40 X, hU M lilt W Hill
DRILLER: Carolina Drilling
EQUIPN117Nr: CMRAS, manual hairline,
METHOD: M.'I'mry
—
1101,13DIA.: 4"
REMARKS G3 andwmcr at 3.5 feet based on sample a6sl:rvmian.
Project:
Academic Instnlction 1'acili(y
'
Boring
No.: A-3
Drilled:
Projeo #:
May 2, 2008
646S-08-M76
Page I or I
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRE F.4TION
AfMACTECLOCATION,
OFSUBS U
OCTI NS ACE. CONDITIONS A' ES M EXPLORATION
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ATOTNER
MAYOXIMA
INTERFA
E'ANDEEOTHERTIMES
IN"fEItFACF.S BIiWGGV STI2:\TAAIiE AI'I'KOXIMA9'fi.
TRANSITIONS IIFTWHEN STRA'LA MAY BE GRADUAL.
— __.
—�

P
T
H
(fU
0
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND REMARKS
SEE KI7Y SYMBOL SHEEr FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
L
li
G
L'
N
D
E
L
E
V
(fn
14.d.
SAMPLES
TL('m)
10
NM
Lc(trl
--t
100
I
D
N
T
T
Y
I'
I.
v-COUNT
'It
R"c;JRQI)gr
•e c `.a a
� _
F; _
4f
20
30
AHNES(%)
O
40
SPT
- 50
O
(bpU
60
70
80
flf
90
'To soil
SS-1
x
444
Stiff, very moist, light gray and brown, clayey SILT(MI,)
SSQ
x
4.5.5
-'Medium rlensc, wet, light gray, silly tine SAND (SIM)
. Dose to very loose, wet, dark brown and black to brown, silty
`fine SAND(SM)
SS-4
2-3-.
IU'
4'4
SS-5
2-I2
•
l0
timing terminateda1 10 feet,
Is
— 20
.5.6
—
—
20
25
-U16
25
—
7I1
-I S.h
O
15
-20.6
35
—
di
In e
DRILLER:
Carolina Drilling
EQUIPMENT:
CME-45, manual hammer
METHOD:
Hal:ow stein auger
HOLE: DIA.:
6"
REMARKS:
Groundwater at 5 feel upon. ... pletion of drilling.
THIS RECORD IS REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .AT THE EXPLORATION
LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ATOTHFR
LOCATIONS AND ATOTFIrR TIMES MAY DIFFER.
INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
U 11) ZU .uJ 41J 11) (A) A) SU 91) IW
-SOIL TES'C BORING RECORD
Project: Academic Instruction Facility
Boring No.: A-4
Drilled: May 2, 2008
'Project#: 6468-08-2076 Page I of I
ArMA

F
P
T
It
(B)
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
AND REMARKS
SEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
L
E
G
E
N
D
F:
13
V
(f0
bi.5'
SAMPLES
�PL�)
10
20.
70
♦FINES
O
J0'
NM
SVF(bpf)
50
a)
(%)
60
70
LL(17,)
'80.
90
100
D
N
N
I
Y
1,
1.
N-col N"r
or
14m'&JRQU'7,
, 'o ,
o
•_. ,S
' 4o toil
(Sd
'- l dense; moist, dark brown to gray, clayey SAND (SC)
SS-1
x
7-7-5
(1
-
(lxusible till) .:
• '
/
Meehmu cliff to ml7: very ..miss, (an -gray, cla)ey SILT(ML)
SS-2
X
5-5.6
SS l 1
2-3-5
5
C..
-
..,
.-
-,
Mediwndeaa, wet,gmy-Ian. tine sihy SAND(Shll
`-"'"
..
- .
!SSA
'Loose. wet, dark brown; cl:ryry tine SAND (SC) with sill,
IU
'LB
SS 5
4-2-2.
_
AAA
III
Itoring mnninartvl at 10 feet
---
15
.0.2
15
--
20
•5.2 —
20
—
25
— -10.2.
2S
_
_
.10
,15
— -20.2
-15
—
—
d0
25.2
.117
]IT
0 It, L11 pl ill )1) 61) ]II So W 100
])KILLER: Ca,olina Drilling
EQUIPMENT: CMG45. mennal hammer
1
METHOD: Hallow stem auger
Project:
Academic IBSIni.ctio 1 Facility
HOLE DIA.: 6"
REMARKS: Grnundwaua al 5 feel upon completion nr drilling.
Boring No.: A-5
Drilled:
May 2, 2008
'PHIS RECORD IS REASONABLE INTERPREPATION
Project 4:
6468-08-2076 Page I or I
OF SU13SUIZFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION
AT OTHER
LOCATION. SUNSAT
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES NL\Y DIETER.
OTHER TIMES
MAC
INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.
":�1�17d�1/ YY 1/�lAt,/
TRANSITIONS HETWEEN STRATA MAY BEGRADUAL.
I

$ .Aj
MACTEC
MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC.
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Academic Instruction Facility
MACTEC PROJECT NUMBER: 6468-08-2076.01
DATE:5/15/08
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
LIQUID & PLASTIC LIMITS'
% FINER:'.
1200SIEVE
NATURAL'
MOISTURE;
.-
BORING
SAMPLE'.
NUMBER-
DEPTH
(feet)
LL,
PL
_
PI
A-1
S-3
3.5-5.0
45
17
28
28.8
17.1
A-1
S-5
8.5-10
54.7
59.3
A-1
S-6
13.5-15
3.2
A-1
S-7
18.5-20
0.9
A-1
S-8
23.5-25.0
5.2
A-2
S-4
6-7.5
9.8
A-2
S-5
8.5-10
4.4
A-2
S-6
13.5-15.0
2.0
A-3
S-7
18.5-20.0
2.4
A-5
S-3
3.5-5
21
20
1
48.9
Prepared by: Brian Johnson
Laboratory Manager
Reviewed by: nU•�✓�//

0 ACTEC
— engineering and constructing a better tomorrow
July II,200R
TranSystenus Corporation
Town Point Center
150 BOUsh Sh` Ct, Suite 1000
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
Attention: Mr. Jerry Q. Jorge, Associate/Assistant Vice President
SWI,JECT: ADDENDUM 1 'PO REPOIYI' OF GF.ou,'CHNICAL EXPLORATION
PROPOSED ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY
CAMP GEIGER, CAMP LEJEUNL, NOR,rti CAROLINA
MACTEC PROJECT NO. 6468-08.2076
Dear Mr. Jorge:
In our Report of Geotechnical Exploration date[[ Maiy 21, 2008, we characterized the loose sands at
the site as being potentially liquefiable during the design earthquake event. Our analyses were based
on 2002 data for the 0.2 second and I second spectral acceleration values (S, and Si, respectively)
obtainer[ from the USGS web site. We concluded that Site Class F was applicable for the site and
that mitigation of the potentially liquefiable soils or design of the structure to accommodate the
effects of liquefaction was required.
Mr. Kerry Nolhnagle of your office provided to its correspondence indicating that the Corps of
Engineers may allow evaluation of liquefaction potential using 2008 preliminary spectral acceleration
data published by the USGS. We were asked to reevaluate liquefaction potential using the 2008 data.
'rhe following is a comparison of the 2002 and 2008 spectral acceleration values from the USGS
website and the resulting nutxinurn ground surface accelerations (a,,,,.,) computed from the data.
Parameter
2t102 Data
2008 Data
S, (Site Class 13)
0.204 g
(1J67
Si (Site Class 11)
0.076„
0.067
a,,,,„
0.087
0.072 g
Using the 2008 data, the loose sands between the water table and depths of 23.5 to 28.5 feet were
found to be not liquefiable during the design earthquake event except for one zone of loose sand in
boring A-3 between approximately 18.5 and 23.5 feet. Based on the results of these analyses, it is our
opinion that soils at the site as it whole are not potentially liquefiable and Site Class F is not
applicable. During the design earthquake event, the one zone of loose sand in boring A-3 may
liquefy and reconsolidate following the earthquake; however, based on the depth of the zone, and its
confinement by surrounding soils that do not liquefy, the potential for surface settlement as it result of
the local zone is very low.
On page 8 paragraph 4 of the May 21, 2008 report we presented recommendations for design of
footings if the suticture is designed to accommodate liquefaction of it' earthquake drains were
MACrEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
3301 Atlantic Avcnue • l6leigh, NC 27604 Phonc: 919.876.0410 • Pax: 919.931.8136
wwvcmactea.co ll

TranSv'stems Curpor'trtiurr
July Il, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Proposed Aeadetrrir: G+str'ucliun Facilift'
Camp Geiger, Cimrp Lejemre. Notih Carotirla ,
-'A4AC EC ('inject No. 6468-08-2076"
installed. These recommendations should be used for foundation design assuming the soils are not
potentially liquefiable.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this letter or out analyses.
Respectfully submitted,
MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC.
CAT
(; Po1..y Y�i
James E. Veith, P.E. (Engineer of Record)
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Registered, North Carolina 023232
J. Allan Tice, P.E. (Reviewer)
Senior Principal Engineer
Registered, North Carolina 6468
C23132
MACTEC

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No. FC07-189G
May 10, 2007
Prepared For: Kroskin Design Group, P.C.
Soliidopsalnc��;G

4
3 YW1 r,' k. tye M
a
TO: Kroskin Design Group, P.C.
6160 Kempsville Cr.
Suite 316A
Norfolk, VA 23502
Attn: Mr. Irwin Kroskin, P.E.
May 10, 2007
RE: Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
Dear Mr. Kroskin:
In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Geotechnical Engineering
Services for the referenced project. The results of this study, together with our
recommendations, are presented in this report.
Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions
arise concerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to
continue its role as Geotechnical Engineer during.the project implementation.
We trust that the information contained herein meets your immediate need, and we
would ask that you call this office with any questions that you may have.
Respectfully Submitted,
G E T Solutions, Inc.
CARO
Gerald W. Stalls S"r"., E.I.T.
Senior Project Manager
- SEAL -
�
0141103 ;
..NGIN......
Camille A. Kattan, P.E.
�< f A. Kid
Principal Engineer
NC Reg. N 14103
Copies: (4) Client
504 East Elizabeth Street, Suite 2 • Elizabeth City, NC 27909 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................ i
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION...................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Authorization................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Description................................................................... 1
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services .................................................. 2
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES ........... -.................................. 3
2.1 Field Exploration..........................................I..................:........ 3
2.2 Laboratory Testing................................................................... 4
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............. ..................... I................ 5
3.1 Site Location and Description.................................................... 5
3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions........................................................ 6
3.3 Groundwater Information.......................................................... 7
4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 7
4.1
Clearing and Grading................................................................
7
4.2
Subgrade Preparation...............................................................
9
4.3
Structural Fill and Placement.....................................................
9
4.4
Building Foundation Design Recommendations ...........................
10.
4.5
Foundation Excavations ..................... ......................
I.............. 11
4.6
Building Foundation Settlements ......... ...........................
I......... 11
4.7
Seismic Design Recommendations ...........................................
12
4.8
Building Floor Slabs................................................................
12
4.10
Pavements............................................................................13
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS-.................................................. 16
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns ..........................:.........I... 16
5.2 Excavations.......................................................................... 16
6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS....................................................................... 17
APPENDIX I - BORING LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX 11 - LOG OF BORINGS
APPENDIX HI - SOIL BORING PROFILE
APPENDIX IV - CPT SOUNDINGS
APPENDIX V - SUMMARY OF CBR TEST DATA
APPENDIX VI - CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORAITON
Solutions IncE�x��--'

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002: Academic Instructional Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed construction at this site will consist of building a new two story
structure, paved roadways and parking areas, as well as other site infrastructure.
The project site is located within the northeast quadrant of the 7" Street and
"C" Street intersection within the Camp Geiger military facility in North
Carolina. A brief description of the anticipated characteristics of the new
hotel is presented below:
• Combination of Concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls and structural
steel framing supported by shallow foundations.
• The maximum anticipated wall and column loads were not anticipated
to exceed about 3 Of and 150 kips, respectively.
• Finish floor elevation of the structure anticipated to be located slightly
above the existing . grade elevations. Accordingly, cut and/or fill
operations are not expected to exceed 2-feet in order to establish the
design grade elevations.
• First floor to consist of slab -on -grade construction with distributed
loads of about 150 pounds per square foot (psf).
Our field exploration program included eleven (11) 10 to 50-foot deep SPT.
borings and one (1) 100-foot deep CPT boring drilled within the proposed
construction areas. A brief description of the subsurface soil conditions is
noted below:
Boring Locations — The surficial soils encountered at the boring locations
were noted to consist of Topsoil, Crushed Stone (GP, GP -GM), and/or
Uncontrolled fill, which extended to a depth ranging from about 4-inches to
4-feet below existing grades. These surficial soils were not,encountered at
the location of borings B-3 or B-8. A deposit of SAND (SP-SM, FILL) ranging
in thickness from about 12 to 15-inches was encountered at the locations of
borings B-5 and B-7 at a depth ranging from the existing site grade
elevations to 1 .5-feet. Beneath these surficial materials the subsurface soils
encountered at the boring locations were consistent at the boring locations,
to their explored depths, and were generally noted to consist of very loose to
dense SAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, SM-SC, SC) with varying amounts of silt and
clay. Additionally, a deposit of medium stiff to stiff Lean SILT (ML) were
encountered with the lower granular soils at the location of borings B-1 and
B-2 at a depth ranging from approximately 19 to 28-feet below existing
grades. A brief description of the natural subsurface soil conditions
encountered at the SPT boring locations is tabulated on the following page:
Solu(toii"s*Inc =

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Building P-002; Academic Instructional Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
5/10107
RANGES OF
AVERAGE STRATUM SPT"'N-
DEPTH (Feet) DESCRIPTION VALUES
0 to 0.5 STONE (GP, GP -GM); Borings B-1, B-3, B-5,
and B-8 .
TOPSOIL and/or Uncontrolled Fill; borings 13-
0 to 4 1, B-2, B-4 through B-7, and PB-1 through
PB-3
4 to 50 1 SAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, SM-SC, SC) with W. O.H.121to 35
varyingamounts of silt and clay
19 to 28 IA Lean SILT (ML) with varying amounts of 5 to 14
sand
Nnta 111 SPT = Standard Penetration Test. N-Values in Blows -per -foot
Noted (2) W-O.H. = Weight of Hammer
Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 5 to 6-feet
below existing grades at the boring locations.
The following evaluations and recommendations were developed based on
our field exploration and laboratory -testing program:
Field-testing program during construction to include compaction
testing, sub -grade inspection, test pit excavations, and foundation
excavation observations for bearing capacity verification.
• A cut of approximately 4'to 6-inches, with isolated areas as deep as
24-inches, will be required to remove the TOPSOIL materials from
within the construction areas. Additional recommendations for site
clearing and grading are provided in section 4.1 of this report.
• Shallow foundations designed using an allowable bearing capacity of
2,000 psf (24-inch embedment, 24-inch width). In preparation for
shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend
into firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill.
Estimated total and differential settlements should, be up to about f-
inch and about %z-inch, respectively.
SalgdQi;Blnc` +.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002; Academic Instructional Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
CMU wall construction should be designed to contain construction
ioints at on -center distances not exceeding 20-feet. These joints will
provide for more flexible wall members that are less likely to crack as
a result of settlement.
The foundations should also be designed with the use of top and
bottom reinforcing steel for added rigidity and to increase the
foundation performance with respect to settlement.
Proposed structure should be designed based on a site seismic
classification of "D", as a result of the 100-foot deep CPT boring, our
experience in the project area, and the requirements provided in
provided in the North Carolina State Building Code (2003 International
Building Code with North Carolina Amendments) section 1615.1;
Table 1615.1.1
This summary briefly discusses some of the major topics mentioned in the
attached report. This report should be read in its entirety to thoroughly
evaluate the contents.
Solupogs� Jnc;I,+"'rz�``>.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
i Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Project Authorization:
G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our Geotechnical Engineering study for the
proposed Building P-002; Academic Instruction Facility project. The Geotechnical
Engineering Services were conducted in general accordance with G E T Solutions, Inc.
Proposal No. PVB07-139G, dated January 18, 2007. Authorization to proceed with
the services was received from Mr. Irwin Kroskin with Kroskin Design Group, PC in the
form of an email, dated of April 6, 2007.
1.2 Project Description:
The proposed development at this site is planned to consist of building a two-story
structure, new paved roadways and parking lot, as well as other site infrastructure
components. The building will have a total plan area of approximately 72,000 square
feet with the first finish floor elevation anticipated to be located slightly above the
existing site grade elevations. Accordingly, cut and/or fill operations are not expected
to exceed about 2 feet in order to establish the design grade elevations.
The new building is anticipated to be constructed of concrete masonry unit (CMU)
walls and structural steel framing supported by shallow foundations. The maximum
foundation design loads associated with the proposed structure were not known at the
time of this reporting. However, based on our experience with similar structures, the
maximum column and wall foundation loads are not expected to exceed about 150
kips and/or 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. The first floor is to be constructed as a
slab -on -grade member with distributed loads of about 150 pounds per square foot
(psf).
If any of .the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform G E T
Solutions, Inc. so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if
appropriate.
Solutiowkflq; _.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Gootechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services:
The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the general subsurface
conditions at the proposed project site. The subsurface conditions encountered were
then evaluated with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard,
engineering assessments for the following items were formulated:
1. General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the
proposed development.
2. General location and description of potentially deleterious material
encountered in the borings that may interfere with construction progress
or structure performance, including existing fills, surficial/subsurface
organics, or expansive. soils.
3. Soil subgrade preparation, including stripping, grading, and compaction,
as well as providing Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of
approved structural fill material, including weather and equipment effects.
4. Construction considerations for fill placement, subgrade preparation, and
foundation excavations.
5. Seismic site classification provided based on the results of one 0 ) 100-
foot deep CPT borings, our experience in the project area, and the
requirements provided in the North Carolina State Building Code (2003
International Building Code with North Carolina Amendments) section
1615.1; Table 1615.1.1.
6. Feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the
proposed building. Design parameters required for the foundation
systems, including foundation sizes, allowable bearing pressures,
foundation levels, and expected total and differential settlements.
7. Typical pavement sections recommendations based on the results of
three (3) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings performed to a depth of
10-feet as well as our experience with similar soil conditions.
7
Soluhons�:lnc$� F -„

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-169G
The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the
presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock,
surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Any statements in
this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, color, unusual or suspicious items or
conditions are strictly for the information of the client. Prior to development of this
site, an environmental assessment is advisable.
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
2.1 Field Exploration:
In order to explore the general. subsurface soil types and to aid in developing
associated foundation design parameters, eight (8) 30 to 50-foot deep Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) borings (designated as B-1 through B-8) and three (3) 10-foot
deep SPT borings (designated as PB-1 through PB-3) were drilled by G E T Solutions,
Inc. within the proposed construction areas. The SPT borings were performed with.
the use of a power drill rig using mud (rotary wash) drilling procedures. The soil
samples were obtained with a Split -Spoon Sampler in general accordance with the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method ASTM D 1586. These samples were taken at
near continuous intervals from the ground surface to a depth of 10 feet and at 5-foot
intervals thereafter to the boring termination depth.
Additionally, a CBR bulk soil sample was collected from each of the 10-foot deep SPT
borings noted above (PB-1 through P13-3)• These samples were returned to our
Elizabeth City laboratory for natural moisture, full sieve, Atterberg Limits, Standard
Proctor, and CBR analysis. The results of the CBR testing procedures are provided in
Appendix IV.
Also, one (1) 100-foot deep Cone Penetrometer (CPT) sounding (designated as CPT-1)
was performed within the proposed building area to evaluate the site for seismic
classification. As the cone was advanced into the ground, tip resistance, sleeve
friction and dynamic pore water pressures were recorded approximately every five
centimeters. During the site reconnaissance, shear wave velocity measurements were
taken at the CPT sounding location at approximate 1-meter intervals to the termination
depth of 100 feet. The CPT soundings were performed by ConeTec, Inc. The boring
schedule noting the SPT and CPT boring depths and locations is presented in Table I
on the following page.
3

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical.Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility _
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
Table I — Boring Schedule
Bormg :
Boring
Bonng Location + .,
Number
g 4,
,Deptha
B-1
30
Building P-002; Approx. Northwest Corner
B-2
50
Building P-002; Approx. Northeast Corner
B-3
30
Building P-002; Approx. Center of West Wall
B-4
30
Building P-002; Approx. Center of East Wall
B-5
50
Building P-002; Approx. Southwest Building Corner
B-6
30
Building P-002; Approx. Southeast Building Corner
B-7
30
Building P-002; Approx. Center of Building; Northern Third
B-8
30
Building P-002; Approx. Center of Building; Southern Third
CPT-1
100
Building P-002; Approx. Center of Building
PB-1
10
Proposed Parking Lot; North Entrance Roadway
PB-2
10
Proposed Parking Lot; Approx. Southernmost Drive Lane;
Approx. Center
PB-3
10
Proposed Parking Lot; Easternmost Drive Lane; North End
The SPT and CPT boring locations were established and were identified in the field by
G E T Solutions Inc. personnel by measuring from existing landmarks. The
approximate boring locations are shown on the "Boring Location.Plan" attached to this
report (Appendix I, Figure 1). This plan was developed based on the site plan provided
to G E T Solutions, Inc. by Kroskin Design Group, PC.
2.2 Laboratory Testing: .
Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass
jars, labeled, and transferred to our Elizabeth City laboratory for classification and
analysis. The soil classification was performed by a Geotechnical Engineer in
accordance with ASTM D2488.
A total of five (5) representative split spoon soil samples were selected and subjected
to natural moisture and 4200 sieve wash testing and analysis in order to corroborate
the visual classification of the granular soils. These test results are tabulated on the
following page and are also presented on the "Log of Boring" sheets (Appendix II)•
4
Soluhons;lncr��

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002 ,
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
Table II - Laboratory Test Results
8orrng
;Sample
Depth
- Natu`ral
#2U0,
Classlflcatlon.'-
No i
No
z
Sieve
�° s;;T '
r�
,(Ft)
.'Moisture
B-2
S-2
2-4
24.0%
32.8%
SC
B-4
S-3
4-6
17.4%
9.2%
SP-SM
B-6
S-4
6-8
19.9%
8.6%
SP-SM
B-8
S-5
8-10
19.0%
3.7%
SP
B-8
S-9
28-30
21.4%
30.3%
SC
The three (3) CBR bulk soil samples were subjected to Proctor, - #1200 sieve, Atterberg
limits, and wet and dry CBR testing procedures. These results are presented in a
tabular form in Appendix V included within this report, "Summary of CBR Test Data"
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location and Description:
The project site is located within the northeast quadrant of the 71h Street and "C" Street
intersection within the Camp Geiger military facility in North Carolina. At the time of our
field investigation services, the property was generally observed to consist of a
combination of grass covered areas with isolated trees, an existing gravel parking lot,
and an existing asphalt paved tennis court. The site appeared to be relatively level with
less than 1-foot change in elevation in 50 feet.
The northernmost site boundary consists of 6th Street followed by existing structures
(G550 through G554). The westernmost consists of "C" Street followed by an existing
parking lot and an existing structure (G61 5). The southernmost boundaries consist of 7'h
Street followed by an existing structure (G710). The easternmost boundary consists of
"E" Street followed by an existing structure (G640).
MMM
56ttltiotj5<Inc-��,,+N,?

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5110/07
Building P•002; Academic Instructional Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
RANGES OF
AVERAGE
SPT` N-
STRATUM
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH (Feet)
VALUES
: '�JSri' i4
2 �l `'.r v'JT114.y
11"A,Ni�
I �'•l. .' i
£f 3S}v}'t4`��fi �k i ) r'� ,'.
tBkl 8�and
Borings
through 'B ts- u- �I.
_. „ ;'
c �i E F -
tom.--.T 4. • f�
.
STONE (GP, GP -GM); Borings B-1, B-3, B-5,
0 to 0.5
and B-8
TOPSOIL and/or Uncontrolled Fill; borings 13-
0 to 4
1, B-2, B-4 through B-7, and P13-1 through
PB-3
SAND (Sp, Sp-SM, SM, SM-SC, SC) with
W O.H.121 to 35
4 to 50
l
varyin amounts of silt and clay
Lean SILT (ML) with varying amounts of
5 to 14
19 to 28
IA
sand
Note (1) SPT = Stanaaro reneuauun reo£, .au�� ��••� r'- ---
Noted (2) W.O.H. = Weight of Hammer
• Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 5 to 6-feet
below existing grades at the boring locations.
The following evaluations and recommendations were developed based on
our field exploration and laboratory -testing program:
Field-testing program during construction to include compaction
testing, sub -grade inspection, and foundation excavation observations
for bearing capacity verification.
• A cut of approximately 4 to 6-inches, with isolated areas as deep as
24-inches, will. be required to remove the TO materials from
within the construction areas. Additional recommendations for site
clearing and grading are provided in section 4.1 of this report.
• Shallow foundations designed using an allowable bearing capacity of
2,000 psf (24-inch embedment, 24-inch width). In preparation .for
shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend
into firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill.
Estimated total and differential settlements should be up to. about 1-
inch and about 'h-inch, respectively.
Sclutlm s Inc W'.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10107
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major
soil strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration included in
Appendix II (Log of Boring sheets) and the Generalized Soil Profile presented in
Appendix III should be reviewed for specific information as to individual borings. The
stratifications shown.on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the
conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be
expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate
boundary between subsurface materials and the transition may be gradual.
3.3 Groundwater Information:
The groundwater depth was measured at each boring location during drilling operations
and was found to occur at depths ranging from approximately 5 to 6 feet below the
existing site grades.
Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal
conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-
made influences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains, and areas of
covered soil (paved parking lots, side walks, etc.). It is estimated normal seasonal high
groundwater level will fluctuate within 1 to 1.5 feet above the current levels. We
recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of
the construction to determine groundwater impact on this project, if needed.
4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Clearing and Grading:
The proposed construction areas should be cleared by means of removing the existing
tennis court as well as their associated utilities, if present, vegetation, trees,
associated root mat, and Topsoil. It is expected that an approximate.24-inch cut will
be required to remove the majority of the Topsoil. It may be possible to reduce the
extent of the 24-inch cut by having an inspector o9n-site during the grading operations
to more accurately delineate the cut depth. This cut is expected to be deeper in
isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of organic soils, which may become evident
during. the clearing.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5110/07
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
The subsurface soils recovered at the boring locations typically contained appreciable
amounts of fines (SAND; SM-SC, SC). Also, based on the laboratory testing, the
current (natural). moisture contents of the surface soils at the explored locations were
near their respective optimum moisture. Accordingly, combinations of excess surface
moisture from precipitation ponding on the site and the construction traffic, including
heavy compaction equipment, may create pumping and general deterioration of the
bearing capabilities of the surface soils. Therefore, undercutting to remove very soft
soils should be anticipated. The extent of the undercut will be determined in the field
during construction, based on the outcome of the field testing procedures (subgrade
proofroll).
Furthermore, inherently wet subgrade soils combined with potential poor site drainage
make this site particularly susceptible to subgrade deterioration. Thus, grading should
be performed during a dry season if at all possible. This should minimize these
potential problems, although they may not be eliminated.
Control of surface water is very important to the successful completion of the
proposed construction. The contractor should plan his grading activities to control
surface water and minimize erosion of exposed cut or fill material. This may include
constructing temporary berms, ditches, flumes and/or slope drains to intercept runoff
and discharge it in a controlled fashion, while complying with state and local
regulations.
The project's budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements
(undercut and backfill with select fill). It is recommended that the clearing operations
extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building area.
is
Solutions Idc KS %.F'

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G.
4.2 Subgrade Preparation:
Following the clearing operation and prior to site grading or any fill placement, the
subgrade soils should be evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly,
the subgrade soils should be proofrolled to check for pockets of soft material hidden
beneath a crust of better soil. Several passes should be made by a large rubber -tired
roller or loaded dump truck over the construction areas (where possible), with the
successive passes aligned perpendicularly. The number of passes will be determined in
the field by the Geotechnical Engineer depending on the soils conditions. Any pumping
and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the initial cut) should be
undercut and/or stabilized at the directions of the Geotechnical Engineer.
Following the proofroll and approval by the engineer, it is recommended that, within
the construction areas, natural soils below stripped grade should be compacted to a
dry density of at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM
D1557), as tested,to a depth of 12-inches, where possible. This densification will
require the use of a large vibratory roller. .
4.3 Structural Fill and Placement:
Following the proper compaction and approval of the natural subgrade soils by the
Geotechnical Engineer, the placement of the fill required to establish the design grades
may begin. Any material to be used for backfill or structural fill should be evaluated
and tested by G E T Solutions, Inc. prior to placement to determine if they are suitable
for the intended use. Suitable structural fill material should consist of sand or gravel
containing less than 20 percent by weight of fines (SP, SM, SW, GP, GW), having a
liquid limit less than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, and should be free of rubble,
organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable material.
0
Solutipi5 Inc ,� �`

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 98 percent of the
Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). In general, the compaction
should be accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and
mechanically compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A
representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests on each lift as
necessary to assure that adequate compaction is achieved.
Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of
structural fill (as described above), and should be compacted to at least 98 percent of
ASTM D1557. This fill should be placed in 4 to 6 inch loose lifts when hand
compaction equipment is used.
4.4 Building Foundation Design Recommendations:
Provided that the previously recommended earthwork construction procedures are
properly performed, the proposed building can be supported by shallow spread footings
bearing over firm natural soil or well -compacted structural fill material (all uncontrolled
fill should be removed from beneath the foundation areas). The footings can be
designed using a net allowable soil pressure of up to 2000 pounds per square foot
(psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the footings and backfill over the footings,
including the weight of the floor slab, need not be considered. Hence, only loads
applied at or above the finished floor need to be used for dimensioning the footings.
Shallow bearing improvements in the form of undercut and backfill with the use of No.
57 stone is anticipated to be required to replace unsuitable soils. Additional
information regarding the foundation bearing improvements are provided in Section 4.5
of this report.
In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity, the base of the footings should
have an embedment of at least 24 inches beneath finished grades, and wall footings
should have a minimum width of 24 inches. In addition, isolated square pier footings,
if used, are recommended to be a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet in area for bearing
capacity consideration. The recommended 24-inch footing embedment is considered
sufficient to provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearing soils.
10

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Gcotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
4.5 Foundation Excavations:
Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing
surfaces of all footing and floor slab areas be compacted using hand operated
mechanical tampers, to a dry density of at least 98% of the Modified Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) as tested to a depth of 12 inches, for bearing .
capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized areas, which have been
loosened by excavation operations, should be adequately re -compacted. The
compaction testing in the base of the footings may be waived by the Geotechnical
Engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the footing inspections. In
addition to compaction testing, hand auger borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DCP) testing should be performed within the base of the foundation excavations to
ensure that the footing bearing soils are suitable for foundation support.
Foundation bearing soil improvements are expected to be required to penetrate the
Uncontrolled Fill materials and potentially very loose granular soils. Following the
removal of any unsuitable soils, the resulting excavation should be backfilled with
compacted #57 stone or suitable structural fill. Recommendations for bearing
improvements (undercut and backfill) should be provided in the field during
construction by a representative of G E T Solutions, Inc.
Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory and remedied foundation excavations
should be protected against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical
disturbance, rain or frost. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the
excavations and not be allowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be
placed the same day the excavation is made. If this is not possible, the footing
excavations should be adequately protected.
4.6 Building Foundation Settlements:
It is estimated that, with proper site preparation (as previously presented), the
maximum resulting total settlement of the proposed building foundations should be up
to 1-inch. The maximum differential settlement magnitude is expected to'be about %-
inch between adjacent footings (wall footings and column footings of widely varying
loading conditions). The settlements were estimated on the basis of the results of the
field penetration tests. Careful field control will contribute substantially towards
minimizing the settlements.
11
Spludons Inc `E:m

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10107
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET. Project No: EC07-189G
4.7 Seismic Design Recommendations:
The results of the completed field exploration program (CPT soundings) indicate that
the average shear wave velocity recorded in the upper 100 feet was about 1 145 feet
per second at the location of CPT-1. Additionally, the subsurface cohesive soil
deposits encountered at the boring locations were noted to be less than 10-feet in
thickness and contained un-drained shear strengths greater than 500 pounds per
square foot, as indicated by the CPT soundings. As such based on the soil shear wave
velocity test results, it is our professional opinion that the project site is within a site
class 'Y in accordance with Table 1615.1.1 of the 2003 International Building Code.
The results of the CPT testing are presented in the attached "CPT Soundings; CPT-1 ".
4.8 Building Flooi Slabs:
The floor slabs may be constructed as slab -on -grade members provided the previously
recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It is
recommended that all ground floor slabs be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer
of relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5
percent passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to
act as a capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab.
It is recommended that all ground floor slabs be "floating" if no turn down
slab/foundation system is implemented. That is, generally ground supported and not
rigidly connected to walls or foundations. This is to minimize the possibility of
cracking and displacement of the floor slabs because of differential movements
between the slab and the foundation.
It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or
retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the
performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor
resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions or
other considerations require greater vapor resistance protection, consideration should
be given to using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be
made by the Architect based on project requirements.
12

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
® Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G -
4.9 Pavements:
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results indicated a soaked CBR value ranging
from 12.7 to 14.8, having an average of 13.8. The average soaked CBR value was
multiplied by a factor of two-thirds to determine a pavement design CBR value. The
two-thirds factor provides the necessary safety margins to compensate for some non -
uniformity of the soil. The two-thirds factor provides the necessary safety margins to
compensate for some non -uniformity of the soil. Therefore, a CBR value of 9.2 was
used in designing the final pavement sections. A summary of the CBR test results and
the moisture density relationship curves (Proctors) is provided in Appendix IV. Based
on our experience with similar soil conditions the following typical minimum pavement
sections are used.
1. Light Duty Pavement — Parking Areas:
Flexible Pavement
SUBGRADE: Stable and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer
and compacted to at least 100% of ASTM D 698.
AGGREGATE BASE: Minimum 8.0 inches of Aggregate Base Material, size
NCDOT Type "A".
ASPHALT SURFACE: Minimum 2.0 inches of Asphalt Concrete, NCDOT
Type SF9.5A or SF9.5B.
Rigid Pavement
SUBGRADE: Stable and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer
and compacted to at least 100% of ASTM D 698.
AGGREGATE BASE: Minimum 6.0 inches of aggregate base material size
NCDOT Type "A".
CONCRETE: Minimum 6.0 inches of 4,000 psi.28 day strength
and air entrained Portland cement concrete.
13
NO
Solutf Inc

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
II. Heavy Duty Pavement - Roadway Areas:
Flexible Pavement
SUBGRADE: Stable and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer
and compacted to at least 100% of ASTM D 698.
AGGREGATE BASE: Minimum 8.0 inches of Aggregate Base Material, size
NCDOT Type "A".
ASPHALT BASE: Minimum 3.0 inches of Asphalt Concrete, NCDOT
Type 1-19.013.
ASPHALT SURFACE: Minimum 2.0 inches of Asphalt Concrete, NCDOT
Type SF9.5A or SF9.5B.
Rigid Pavement
SUBGRADE: Stable and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer
and compacted to at least 100% of ASTM D 698.
AGGREGATE BASE: Minimum 6.0 inches of aggregate base material, size
NCDOT Type "A".
CONCRETE: Minimum 8.0 inches of 4,000 psi 28 day strength
and air entrained Portland cement concrete.
Actual pavement section thickness should be provided by the design.civil engineer
based on traffic loads, volume, and the owners design life requirements. The above
sections correspond to thickness representative of typical local construction practices
and as such periodic maintenance should be anticipated. All pavement material and
construction procedures should conform to North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) requirements.
14
Soluhon.SPlnc. - ,a :.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
® Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
In preparation for a stable subgrade support for the pavement section, the following
construction steps are recommended:
1 . Following pavement rough grading operations, the exposed
subgrade should be observed under proofrolling. This
proofrolling should be accomplished with a fully loaded
dump truck or 7 to 10 ton drum roller to check for pockets
of soft material hidden beneath a thin crust of better soil.
Any unsuitable materials thus exposed should be removed
and replaced with a well -compacted material. The
inspection of these phases should be performed by the
Geotechnical. Engineer or his representative.
2. If excessively unstable subgrade soils are observed during
proofrolling and/or fill placement, it is expected that these
weak areas can be stabilized by means of thickening the
base course layer to 10 to 12 inches and/or the use of a
Geotextile Geofabric (such as Mirafi 500x or equivilant) or
Geotextile Geogrid (such as Tensar BX1100 or equivalent).
These alternates are to be addressed by the Geotechnical
Engineer during construction, if necessary, who will
recommend the most economical approach at the time.
Actual pavement section thickness should be provided by the design civil engineer
based on traffic loads, volume, and the owners design life requirements. The previous
sections represent minimum thickness representative of typical local construction
practices and as such periodic maintenance should be anticipated. All pavement
material and construction procedures should conform to North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) requirements.
15
�olutlQns'Incn'�;4

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10/07
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns:
Groundwater is expected to interfere with excavations that extend below a depth
ranging from approximately 5 to 6 feet below existing grades. Dewatering at depths
between 5 to 6 feet can most likely be accomplished by pumping from sumps.
However, dewatering below the water level may require well pointing. It is
recommended that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time
of the construction to determine groundwater impact throughout the project site and at
specific proposed excavation locations.
5.2 Excavations:
In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended
its "Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P". This
document was issued to better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or
excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that all excavations, whether
they be utility trenches, basement excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in
accordance with the new (OSHA) guidelines. It is our understanding that these
regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner
and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary
excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required
to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's
responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed
in the excavations as part of the, contractor's safety procedures. In no case should
slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation
depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions,
Inc. is not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's
activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
16
Solutiorj.SE'Inc��, Wit"

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services 5/10107
Building P-002
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC07-189G
6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained
by G E T Solutions, Inc. and the information supplied by the client for the proposed
project. If there are any revisions to the.plans for this project or if deviations from the
subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction; G E T
Solutions, Inc. should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation
recommendations are required. If G ET Solutions, Inc. is not retained to perform these
functions, G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be responsible for the impact of those
conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.
The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications
or professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally
accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other
warranties are implied or expressed.
After the plans and specifications are more complete the Geotechnical Engineer should
be provided the opportunity to.review the final design plans and specifications to
assure our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the
design documents, in order that the earthwork and foundation recommendations may
be properly interpreted and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submit
supplementary recommendations. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use
of Kroskin Design Group, PC as well as their consultants for the specific application to
the Proposed Building P-002; Academic Instruction Facility project located within the
Camp Geiger military facility in North Carolina.
17
solugons Inc

APPENDICES
BORING LOCATION PLAN
II. LOG OF BORINGS
III. GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
IV. SUMMARY OF CBR TEST DATA
V. CPT SOUNDINGS
VI. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

6TH STREET
B-1 B-2
B�-@,8
�V
B-3 B-4
CPT-1 .
B-7
B-S B-6
LEGEND
—APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS
PB-1
I
r�
I I I
I
I
I I I
I i I
I
I
I
I i I
I I I
I I I
PB-3
I
LJ
L---J
I
I
I I I
I I
I I I
I
I
I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
I I
�J I
L_--J
a
GET
Project Nonei
BUILDING P-0021 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTIONAL
FACILit YI CAMP GEIGER, NC
Project No., EC07-189G
Oroen Hy� GVS
c.,,a.�.r�.,._..+...�
Oatei 5/10/07
Flgure No! I
BORING LOCATION PLAN
SCALE
not to scale

GET.
LOG OF BORING
No. B-1
PROJECT: Academic Instruction Facility: Building P-002 PROJECT NO.: EC07.189G
CLIENT: Kroskin Design Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geiger. North Carolina
LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: MA
DRILLER: W.Riddick LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.I.T.
DRILLINGMETHOD: Mud Rotarv(wash) DATE: 4-19-07
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 8 6-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: -II- CAVING> jL
L ^
w m
o
Description
0
y
E Z
in
o
m 10
o
a
"
0
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Water Content - o
Penetration -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
t
..z
2
2
s
3
z
z
5
s
a
4
3
3
2
10
]a
12
6-inches Crushed Stone (GP -GM)
Rfm
JJJ
JJJ
JJJ
..... ........... ..... .. ................
_
....... ...... .. .....
:.....:.... :_. _.:,.... :. _..:.....:...
:.....:. .:
.......................:...................
:.....,_....c.....:.. _.:..._:.....:....
..: ... ..:.....:.... ..:.. ...: ..
..:.....:_.... .... .... _..:.....:.....:.....
j.
18-inches TOPSOIL
Tan -Gray, moist, Silty Clayey SAND (SM- SC) with organics
(Uncontrolled Pill)
2
5
Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose
3
Tan -Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
silt to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose
Light Tan&om 8-feet
Light Gray from l 8-feet
.I .I. r t
1..I: t r
-�'a:ri.
i.i:tr
!i li
7:1: t ! 1
1 �P11
i rr
d:Gti
r7a':
S:I:r L.
4
to
as
7
20
t
Light Gray, wet, Lcan SILT (ML) with sand, medium stiff
23
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with marine shell fragments
and trace stone (Cemented Sand), medium dense to dense
—
8
zs
30
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
35
Figure PAGE 1 of 1

ET
PROJECT: Academic Instruction Facility: Building P-002 PROJECT NO: EC07-189G
CLIENT: Kroskin Design Group --
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geiger, North Carolina
,,,,,,,,•�,,,,,,�,,;
LOCATION: See Attached Borina Location Plan ELEVATION: INA
�,•,,,,,,,,,,,,,�. ,.
DRILLER: W. Riddick LOGGED BY: G. Stalls. E.I.T.
LOG OF BORING
. DATE: 4-18-07
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rwary(wash)
No. B-2
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: $ 5-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: s CAVING> L
u
W
N
Qo
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
a=
DBSCfiptlOfl
n
E ci
Z
o
u
00
in
m U
Water Content - O
Penetration -
10 20 30 4 0 50 60 70
0
_
3-inches TOPSOIL
a
-
1
p
3
3
2.
......__..... .......... ...... ......_.._
o
-
�.....:...........
.2
Mottled Dark Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty £me SAND (SM) with
clay and organics (Uncontrolled Fill)
....
.....
' '
.....
' ' '
2
z
2
...:.....: ....:.....:.....
Gray, moist, Clayey £me SAND (SC), very loose
5
Wet from 5-feet
. ....
3
WOH
woti
woti
<
4
.:.....: ...:..... .. _:.....:....
Tan -Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
silt to poorly graded time to medium SAND (SP), very loose to loose
:i [If i
......
.4i CJ.
1
•ia:iil
.... ..
5
2
5
............ ...... .......... ... .... .. ....
10
1 ;I;Cl
d :GCI
a'.r t r
h i• 1 1'I
3
6
15
I:I 11
.1:I;r f
.. ....... ....... .................... ... ...
Light Gray from 18-feet!
as tr
........... ............................
23
' ..
24
.........:.....:......:..... :.....:.....:.....
-
Light Gray, wet, Lean SILT (ML) with sand, stiff
8
28
.
: [
s
+o
Silty fine SAND (SM) marine shell fragments
Light Gray, wet, with
and trace stone (Cemented Sand), medium dense to dense -
i
9
ii
14
...:......:.....:.....:...
..:.....:.....:.....:.....
30
10
1435
6
......:......:.....:.....:.....
W.O. FL = Weight Of Hammer
Figure PAGE 1 of 2

GET
PROJECT: Academic Instmction Facility: Building P-002
PROJECT NO.: EC07-189G
CLIENT: Kroskin Design Group
mmmmmowmmm
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geiger North Carolina
LOCATION: See Attached Boring Localion Plan
ELEVATION: INA
LOG OF BORING
DRILLER: W.Riddick
. LOGGED BY: G. Stalls. E.I.T.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash)
DATE: 4-19-07
No. B-2
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 4 5-feel AFTER 24 HOURS:
CAVING> C
u
m
c,
TEST RESULTS
TIE
Description
_m
o
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
2
wz
m
w
Water Content- o
_.
Penetration -
6
a ..... ....:... ..;.....; .. ;.....
it
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace fine stone and `. `:: : a : _
marine shell fragments, loose - .. 12 5
48
Dark Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace clay, loose : '-
........................ ..... ...........
13 "
6
.... ... ........ .. .. .......... .. .....
Boring terminated at 50 ft.
W.O.H. = Weight Of//ammer
Figure PAGE 2 of 2

ETPROJECT:
Academic I tstmci on l'ncility: Building P-002 PROJECT NO.: EC07-189G
CLIENT: Kroskin Desipm Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Gci7er. North Carolina
MEMIMMOMMEM
"a,,
LOCATION: See Attached boring Location flan ELEVATION: INA'
,,.,•,y.�.,,,,,•,,.,,,,,..
LOG OF BORING
DRILLER: W. Riddick LOGGED BY: G. Stalls E.I.T.
DRILLINGMETHOD: M dRotary(wash) DATE: 4-I8-07
No. B-3
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: S 6-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: 3 CAVING> L
o
oa
TEST RESULTS
= =
a
w
¢ d
w
o
u
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
v d
Description
"
Ez
m o
v
Water Content- 0
9
N
U
e
Penetration -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
a
6-inches Stone (GP)
:c::
• •
a:[tr
':'�,.
1
5
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace'
silt, loose._.,.,
3
... ..... ......
2
5
................ .. ... .. ...
Tan, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, loose to very loose
°
3
3
2
2
4
'fan -Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (Sf-SM) with
i. j? r ;,
silt to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose to medium
1'cc r
4
s
°
e dens
:4 F I
4
........................... ............
'a:6i Li
.. ..
5
s
7
10
L:rn.
...._.,,__............................
Dark Gray Gom 13-feet
't''J: r 1
6
-i 1
1
:I ;L'r1
3
5
4
:.....:.....:..... :.....:.... .:..... :...
r5
4:i1
:..... :.....
i-1;F11
:.... .:...........:...........
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
7
20
-23
..... -
19
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with marine shell fragments
and trace stone (Cemented Sand), medium dense
6
9
..................................
2s
2
Light Gray, wel, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace clay, medium
30
dense
.....
91
is
..................................................
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
W.O.H. = Weight OJHantiner
Figure PAGE 1 of 1

ETPROJECT:
Academic Instruction Facility. Building P-002 PROJECT NO.: EC07-189G
CLIENT: Kroski D sign Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geiger. North Carolina
LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: INA
LOG OF BORING
DRILLER: W. Riddick LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.I.T.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (,'ash) DATE: 4-19-07
No, B-4
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: V 6-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: S CAVING> S
TEST RESULTS
5 ^
Description
t
n
w
n
mZ
N
3
oo
^�
u
Plastic Limit Liquid Limll
4
7
n
is o
U
Water Content- O
0
Penetration -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
e
2
2
3
4-inches TOPSOIL
"'
i i
`
1
Silty fine SAND with clay, loose
Tan, moist, (SM) mixed
5
-
Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with silt [
it :4 r
2
poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), loose to medium dense
ria,�:
i:r. r [ 1
6
... _: ....:_ ...:.....:.....:.....:.....
5la;
tJ.
9
Wet from 6-feet
.I:Cr r
3
��
9.2
Reddish Tan from 6-feet
r.r.t+:
iarC'
4
r
°
:.....:.._ .:......:.....:.....:.....:_.,.
"trace clay from 6[o 8-feet
'[l,'[i.
Light Gray from 8-feet
.1:1 c r
+
.. ... ..._ ... ....... . ... .. .. ....... .
5
2
5
to
-I:I:I: i
.:... ..: ... ..:... ..:......:.....:.....:.....
:I: t 1
J_ :..
Reddish Tan from 13-feet
.:.....:.... ..: .. ..:... ..:. ..
6
3
e
-
lJ f],
2
_...... ... ...
I, 1 1,
4:Ctr
[20
18
.....
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) to
Silty fine SAND (SM), medium dense
a-23
i
7
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with marine shell fragments
and trace stone (Cemented Sand), medium dense
? ? ?
r
1;
6
25
:----
.
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace clay and marine
shell fragments, medium dense
`
s
9
30
i
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
35
W.O.H. = Weight Of Hammer
Figure PAGE 1 of 1

ETPROJECT:
Academic Instruction Facility Bnildin; P-002 PROJECT NO.: EC07-189G
CLIENT: Kroskin[JesipiGroue
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geiger North Carolina
,,,,,,,,,,,,,, �,,,�,,;
LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: MA
,,,,, ..a,,,.,, •,"•
DRILLER: W. Riddick LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.I.T.
LOG OF BORING
DATE: 4.18-07
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash)
No. B-rj
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 6-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: v CAVING> G
op
TEST RESULTS
m
Plastic Limit , Liquid Limit
O
Description
'n°
E Z
0
m o
Water Content - o
U
m
o
Penetration -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
e (GP -GM)
6-inches CruM
�'Tan,
moist, poorly grad finum SAND (SP-SM) withsilt
(FILLdense
a
4
�'.
2
a
's
[i'r�.atY
.I:I.ri
3
Tagmoist,Sil CD SM-SC,loose
( )
5Mottled
Reddish Tan-Grayoorly graded fine to coarse
`?-G
SP silt, loose
t'
4
r
:.....SAND
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to coarse SAND( ) to poorly.}
graded fine to coarse SAND (Sp-SM) with silt, loose to medimn
y;i; r [
5
s
...:.....:_. :.. ..:....:....:..
".
10
dense
...
't3:r7.
r
..... _..... _..__....................
Fine to medium SAND from 8-feet
.I X [ i
I phl
Dark Gray from 13-feet
L'j: r J .
u
:.
.I i I 1
...-..
1
6
4
d
:......... ..: .. .. :. ....:..... .. .... .
15
rir1.
:..
.....
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), medium dense
' '
4
7
20
:::::
s
:• :'
4.
.....
:::::
::::
12
'.. _.:. _..L....:.....
fine SAND shell fragments
Light Gray, wet, Silty (SM) with marine
and trace stone (Cemented Sand), medium dense to dense
" - ' ' '
:::::
to
to
+r
"
:. :.....:.....:.. _.
zs
9
t4
...:.... _....
to
t5
- -
1D
it
WO.H. = Weight Of Hammer
Figure 'PAGE 41 of 2

Academic Instruction Facility: Building P-002 PROJECT NO.: EC07-189G
CLIENT: Kroskin Desiys Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geiger. North Carolina
6,,,,,,,„�.,„,,,„„w,�,.„„�;
LOCATION: See Attached Boring
Location Plan
ELEVATION: INA
DRILLER: W. Riddick
LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.I.T.
LOG OF BORING
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary
(wash)
DATE: 4-18-07
NO. B-S
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:-
$ 6-feet AFTER 24 HOURS:
Z CAVING> L.
u
o
TEST RESULTS
Description
o
E z
m
m o
s
Plastic Limit Liquid Limil
o-
N
V
Water Content- o
Penetration -
Dark Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace clay, loose to
medium dense
Boring terminated at 50
Y6l
W.O.H = Weight OjHammer
Figure PAGE 2 of 2

ETPROJECT:
.,,,,,,,,,..�.,,�;, .,,,,,,•;,,. �,-���,
LOG OF BORING
No. B-6
Academic Instruction Facility Building P-002 PROJECT NO.: EC07-189G
CLIENT: Kroskin Des'pn Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geieer, North Carolina
LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: INA
DRILLER: W. Riddick LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.I.T.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(wash) DATE: 4-I8-07
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: - 6-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: g CAVING> -C
L
m w
t] =
Description
n
E
O
m
n p
m z
m
m U
o
`
y
e
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit it Liquid Lim
Water Content- o
Penetration -
10 2 30 40 50 60 70
o
3
z
'
a
3
z
s
s
a
4
z
a
2
]
a
z
,o
r
,z
15
9.6
3-inches TOPSOIL
-
I.
..:..._1.....1.. _..[.....1..... [.._.:.....
_. ............. ...... ....................
..
_;..-.:.....:-...-..i.....'..,..
i ....
- - � ".... - .. :...
-
.....:.....:_ :....:.....:.....:...
... _ .............-.......................
.:.....:...........:..... 1.. ... :.. _.:.....
... .. .. .:.....:.....:.....:.....:. :.....
..:....._... ..: .. .......:.....:.. .. .:.....
.... ......................... ..
t
.2
Dark Brown -Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-
SM) with organics (Uncontrolled Fill)
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
lj'. i 7-
:I:I:Fi
' (I: r r
d:l.ir
'r'r i ,:
7:I: r t
''''' F!
a:c t r
[ �:
'1:G r t i
.1 XCI
r ]', t'I:
L'J
': rl.
.. ..
:I :I: c 1
1:1:t
., :C t+
'N:is
1 :Gil
1 •I• I' I•
..1
.
5
3
Gray, moist, poorly graded fine.to medium SAND SP-SM with silt
Y �P Yg ( )
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), very loose to medium
dense
Wet from 6-feet
Reddish Tan from 6-feet
Fine to Coarse SAND from 6-feetri:
Light Gray from 8-feet
Reddish Tan from 13-feet
Gray from 18-feet
Fine to medium SAND from 18-feet
23
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with marine shell fragments
and trace stone (Cemented Sand), medium dense
-?to
4
5
to
15
6
za
7
6
25
0
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
35
W. O. H. = Weight Of Hammer
Figure PAGE 1 of 1

ETPROJECT:
BENSUMMENIEW
,,,.,,,„• pv.,,;,,,•,,,�,,,�,
LOG OF BORING
No. B-%
Academic Instruction Facility: BuildinE P-002 PROJECT NO.: EC07-189G
CLIENT: Kroskin Design Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp CeiLe Noah Carolina
ELEVATION: INA
LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan '
DRILLER: W. Riddick LOGGED BDATE: G. Stalls,18.07.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash)
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: ¢ 6-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: S CAVING> C
_
av
O
Descriptio'°
0
m
to
N
m 0
U
oo
y
ePenetration
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit Liquid limit
Water Content- o
-
10 20 30 40 60 60 70
2
3
2
3
0
s"-
10
6
s
a
2
a
3
4
3
r
is
a
0
3-inches "TOP7:e
jdw,)Sd'
t t !
a:fit
': r'
:C(r
:� 9� t 1
4 a: r i i
.1 x i i
=i a. !
i..V.
t 7:rl.
.i a: t!
.....
' ' ' ' '
.....
'
..........silt
= .......
.......:.....:. _........ :. _..:.....:.....
...........
l
.. .:.....:.... ... ....:.. .. .:. ....:.....
................... _......._.......
1
an -Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to t
(FILL), l.
2
TOPSOIL�.r.rTan-Gray,
moist, Silty Clayey SAN'•
3
'
an -Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) will
silt to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose to medium
dense
Wet from 6-feet
Tan from 6-feet
Fine to Coarse SAND from 6-feet
13
4
ro
6
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
6
is
20
7
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with marine shell fragments
and trace stone (Cemented Sand), medium dense
6
zs
30
9
Boring terminated at 30 ft..
W O.H. = Weight Of Hammer
Figure PAGE 1 of 1

ETPROJECT:
Acadcmic Instruction I utility: Building P-002 PROJECT NO.: FC07-I89G
CLIENT: Rroskin Dc5igtl Croul
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geiger, North Carolina _
LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: INA
DRILLER: W. Riddick LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.I.T.
LOG OF BORING
DATE: 4-19-07
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rota" (wash)
NO. B-H
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: $ 6-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: S CAVING> G
oo
TEST RESULTS
t^
u
a
n o
N
o I
#
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Description
E
z
CO o
U
Water Content- o
❑ %
O
u
o
Penetration -
10 20 -30 40 50 60 70
s
0
6-inches Crushed STONE (GP -GM)
j j: (i
5
.. _:.. _ ..�_ . . .... .....:.....:. ..
Light Tan -Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (Sill to
fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose to
1.:.': f i
a
poorly graded
medium dense
+:C! C
.-'
2
44
.
:.....:.__:.....
Tan from I -foot
.:...........:-.._.i_
3
3
3
Light Gray, moist, Silty Clayey SAND (SM-SC), loose
i
...................
.
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
silt to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose
:t:r i i
.1:r, t r
.....
4
I:Gf Li
5
5
3.7
Q
10
...
.1:I:C I'
.... 1:.....:... :. '_ ...:.....
f.X v..
...... ....... ........
Dark Gray from 13-feet
t Y. i i.
4
:..
I'I:l t 1
i?I
:tt1
6
a
4
.�... .... ...
.. __... _..... :..._L.... ;.....
15
I I;Fri
1
1.
<
:.....:.....:.....:.....
Gray, Silty fine SAND (SM), medium dense
.....
: ::
Dark wet,
23
iiii:
" "
7
fi
fi
12
_l..
....� :'
...-..... .. .... ....
..:..._:.....:.....
20
Light Gray, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, dense
6
20
25
10
r3l
9
9
15
Q.
. ............ ... ...
_....:.....:... __. :.._...:. . ..... ...
4.
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
35
W. O.N. = Weighf Of11ammer
Figure PAGE 1 of 1

ET
PROJECT: Academic Instruction Facility: Building P-002 PROJECT NO.: BC07-189G
CLIENT: Krosk'n Design Croup
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geiger North Carolina
MMUMIIIIAMENEM
LOCATION: See Attached Borine Location Plan ELEVATION: INA
LOG OF BORING
DRILLER: W. Riddick LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, F.I.T.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(wash) DATE: 4-19-07
No. PB-1
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: g 6-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> L
m
N
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
L
m w
Description
L
6
z
3 C
m
N
u
p
U
Water Content- o
e
Penetration -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
24-inches TOPSOIL
:...
t
a
.:. .:.....:.....:... _:...
Light Gray, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, loose
:.....:.....
.....'.
2
J
.... ..:.. ...:.. ...:.. .. .:..
4
.. .. ..............
s
Dark Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)
with silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
`
3
s
3
- Wet from 6-feet
.....
4
4
s
Gray, wpoorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP) with trace silt,
loose,
.....
::::'.'
S
4
3
ro
i
.
i
: .
:
. Boring terminated at 10 R.
is
zo
25
30
35
Weight OjHamnier
Figure PAGE 1 of 1

6
ETPROJECT:
•
LOG OF BORING
No. PB-2
Academic Instruction Facility: Buildin, P-002 PROJECT NO: EC07-189G
CLIENT: Kroskin Design Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geiger, North Carolina
LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: INA
DRILLER: W. Riddick LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, E.I.T.
DRILLINGMETHOD: Mdltotary( ash) DATE: 4-19-07
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: $ 6-feet AFTER 24 HOURS: S CAVING> L
od
.
Description
n
w
a ci
Nz
N
0
m0
oo
y
0
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Water Content- c,
Penetration -
1D 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
2
2
3
a-
4
a
s
,
5
n
a
5
6.
4-inches'I'OPSOIL
.....
'
iiiii
...
' '
teH
..:._..:.._.:.._.:....:.....:_...:.....
..:.....i.....�......i..... i.....: _.:.:.
-: ' -"
-
.....:._...:__..:.....:.....:.....:.....
.... ; .....:.... ..:.... ...... :. .... :.....
.........................................
....:. ....:......:.....:.....:.. ... :.....
'... ..:...
..: .....: ..:..... :.. :.....:..... :.....
-..:. .
'.....: .:. ....:.....
t
Mottled Gray -Tan, moist, Silty Clayey SAND (SM-SC), loose
my -Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) wiff
• silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), loose to medico dense
Dark Gray from 4-feet
Wet from 6-feet
With Clay from 8-feet
2
5
3
--
4
5
Boring terminated at 10 ft.
-
15
20
25
30
35
W.O.H = Weight OJHammer
Figure PAGE 1 of 1

Academic Instruction Facility: Building P-002 PROJECT NO.: EC07-189G
CLIENT: Kroskin Design Group
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Geiger, North Carolina
LOCATION: See Attached Boring
Location Plan
ELEVATION: INA
LOG OF BORING
DRILLER: W. Riddick
LOGGED BY: G. Stalls. E.I.T.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary
(wash)
DATE: 4-19-07
�}
NO. PB-J
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
?Z 5-feet AFTER 24 HOURS:
-T CAVING> L
TEST RESULTS
t a
o
Description
Liquid LiTtt
p
w
mi paPlaslidLimit
Water Content- o
e
Penetration -
4-inches TOPSOIL 3 ~'e—t
t
Mottled Gray -Tan, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, loose 3
Gray -Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), with trace clay, loose to ' ' ' ' a
2
medium dense' 3
Dark Gray from 4-feet <
3 ................ ....... ... ... ............
Wet from 5-feet ' s r
s
::::: 6 .:..... :.....:.....
4 s
6 �..
$ 6 _..
Boring terminated at 10 ft.
W.O.H. = Weight Of/fammer
Figure PAGE 1 of 1

Symbol Description
strata symbols
Poorly graded gravel
with silt
Topsoil
Uncontrolled Fill
Silty sand
Poorly graded sand
with silt
Silt
1111111111111� Poorly graded gravel
.ter•
Clayey sand
1 Uncontrolled Fill
Poorly graded clayey
silty sand
El Poorly graded sand
11Notes:
'MBOLS
Symbol Description
Misc. Symbols
s Water table during
drilling
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 4-19-07 using a
4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. No free water was encountered at the time of drilling or
when re -checked the following day.
3. Boring locations were taped from existing features and
elevations extrapolated from the final design schematic plan.
These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
recommendations in this report.
I5. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported
on the logs.

22
ZJ
2 2
2
54
1, j
33
2_.._.
19 19
12 1 a
30
Strata svMbQls
Poorly graded gravel
with silt
T.p,.1
Uncontrolled Fill
Silly sand
Poorly graded sand
with silt
32
3
3 2 NM-24 0
2
WOH
WON
VVGH
43
1 33
2.8
6
m
silt
D4Poorly
graded gravel
Clayey sand
Uncontrolled Fill
Poorly graded clayey
silty send
—1 64
3 5
4
32
2
Y..Lis1 45
t4 i
:I: t I I35
59
1614
9
9 11
22
25 5
I J: L t 1 6 id
24
4
;IIf Li
3 4
36
7 12
4
8 7
62
13
5
7 7
f X L 1:
L 'J:
la
:1: L V I
{ litre
45
12 19
16
1714
15 17
17
90
a
fi
45
32
34
3
23
'1
2 3
2
23
ea
it Q
GET Solutions, Inc.
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
PROJECT NO. EC07-1890
— 10

.] P P _. ....... p
I.1d:tf 23 ;I•;r1 F 57 �� 32 22 L1--332 -333.9
3 3
J B L 1:. 3 L 9 3 N M-12.9 ] 3 2 3
I 0 •I.4 L: d a LL-33 3 3
I;t IJ 59 3♦ ]a 66 �1 <5
1 Y C i 10 _ 3 _ 5 ] ]
IS 56
{ a' 'I •;YI 3 d e 5
34 <5 08
'I �I�FI I .1:Ciif
3 d ;I h. F l d 3
3
6
20
e 15 ¢20
5 10 - -
______.___-__ .__._..... .. .. ao
Strata e l
®
Slit
Poorly graded gravel
Midi silt
Poay graded gravel
,• j
Topsoll
�
Clayey send
Uncontrolled Flit
Unwntrollatl Fill
Silty sand
Poorly 9rndad Clayey
Silty sand
Poorly graded sand
El win sill
E] Poorly graded sand
GET Solutions, Inc.
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
^� DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE C
.AL;.P
Academic Instruction Facility; Building P
FIGURE N
PROJECT NO. EC07-189G

Symbol Description
;trata symbols
Poorly graded gravel
with silt
Topsoil
Uncontrolled Fill
Silty sand
Poorly graded sand
with silt
® Silt
Poorly graded gravel
Clayey sand
Pam
Uncontrolled Fill
Poorly graded clayey
silty sand
EI
Poorly graded sand
Notes•
Y TO SYMBOLS
Symbol Description
Misc. Symbols
�? Water table during
drilling
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 4-19-07 using a
4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. No free water was encountered at the time of drilling or
when re -checked the following day.
3. Boring locations were taped from existing features and
elevations extrapolated from the final design schematic plan.
4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
recommendations in this report.
5. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported
on the logs.

Soundinq:S-1 Cone:2583.107XX
CONETEC GET SOL2Lt20 YLS
Locat+on:Camp Geiger Daie:!BiRpri200?
qt (tsf) fs (tsf) Rf (%) u (ft) SBTn
0 500 0.0 4.0 0.0 6.0 0 1800 0 12
0
—10
—20
—30
i
H —40
u
v —50
a
—60
—70
—80
—90
—100
Max. Depth: 100.39 (ft) SBT. Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 1.090)
Depth Ls.: 0.164 (fL) 4 Estimated Phreatic Surface
I I i I I U defined
�nm
sa„a Mi:tvres
G,.,Ily sane w Sa
sa"a.
s. m MM...
i sands
I $nnds
1 Gravelly Sand t" S.
i
� ss"ae
I sand �u.w«,
i
sands
Sand WxLut s
I Sends
S .d Niel urc5

Shear Wave Velocity-5-1
CONETEC camp Geiger
07-939
April 18, 2007
Shear Wove Velocity (fVs)
0500 1000 1500
0
I s
I
i
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
m 55
t
w
0 60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
2000 2509

Cone7ec Shear Wave Velocity Data Reduction Sheet
CoNeTec
m
®
Hole:
S-1
Location:
Camp Geiger
Cone:
2583.107
Date:
18-Apr-07
Source:
Beam
Source Depth
0.00 m
Source Offset
1.45 m
Tip Depth
Geophone
Travel Path Interval time
Velocity
Velocity
Interval
Interval
(m)
Depth(m)
(m)
(ms)
(m/s)
(ft/s)
Depth (m)
Depth (ft)
0.00
1.24
1.04
1,78
2.24 '
2.04
2.51
6.38
113.1
371.0
1.54
5.06
3.25
3.05
3.37
5.16
168.1
551.4
2.54
8.35
4.26
4.06
4.31
5.36
174.7
573.1
3.55
11.65
5.26
5.06
5.27
4.97
192.6
632.0
4.56
14.96
6.27
6.07
6.24
6.12
158.5
520.0
5.57
18.26
7.28
7.08
7.22
3.22
305.9
1003.5
6.57
21.56
8.28
8.08
8.21
1.56
634.5
2081.7
7.58
24.87
927
9.07
9.18
1.72
562.1
1844.2
8.58
28.13
10:35
10.15
10.26
1.72
624.9
2050.3
9.61
31.53
11.36
11.16
11.26
1.72
580.7
1905.1
10.66
34.97
12.37
12.17
12.25
2,10
472.9
1551.6
11.66
38.27
13.37.
13.17
13.25
1.72
578.7
1898.6
12.67
41.56
14.37
14.17
14.25
1.94
512.9
1682'8
13.67
44.85
15.38
15.18
15.25
2.84
352.7
1157.1
14.67
48.14
16.39
16.19
16.25
2.49
404.0
1325.4
15.68
5145
17.39
17.19
17.26
3.25
309.1
1014.1
16.69
54.76
18.39
18.19
18.25
1.91
520.9
1708.9
17.69
58.05
19.48
19.28
19.33
1.72
628.4
2061.7
18.74
61.47
20.49
20.29
20.34
2.33
433.8
1423.2
19.79
64.91
21.48
21.28
21.33
1.88
523.6
1717.7
20.79
68.19
22.48
22.28
22.33
1.68
594.3
1949.8
21.78
71.46
23.49
23.29
23.34
2.16
466.1
1529.3
22.79
74.76
24.50
24.30
24.34
2.48
405.2
1329.4
23.79
78.06
25.50
25.30
25.34
1.93
519.9
1705.8
24.80
81.36
26.51
26.31
26.35
2.32
435.9
1430.2
25.81
84.67
27.52
27.32
27.36
2.09
481.7
1580.4
26.82
87.99
28.62
28.42
28.45
2.58
424.0
13912
27.87
91 A4
29.63
29.43
29.47
1.90
532.5
1746.9
28.92
94.89
30.64
30.44
30.47
2.51
401.3
1316.7
29.93
98.21

0
SUMMARY OF CBR TEST DATA
Sample.
CBR-1
CBR-2
CBR-3
Number .
Sample. Depth
2 to
0.5 to
0.5 to
(ft.)
2.5-feet
2-feet
2-feet
Unified Soil
Classification.
SC
SM-SC
SC
Symbol
AASHTO
Classification
A-6(4)
A-4(0)
A-2-6(1)
Symbol'.` .:
Natural:::..:
Moisture::::::
17.9
18.2
23.9
Content:::''.
Atterberg
Limits
32/17/15
23/16/7
33/17/16
-. 11 /DLIDI ..
-.;,..io_rass.mg .:.
48.9
36.5
34.1
#200_Sieve. :
MaximumDry.:.'
118.4
117.4
114.6
Density, pc.;;,.
Optimum
13.2
13.6
14.6
Moisture
Spaked..ue CBR, ::
12.7
14.8
13.9
Val
Unsoaked"CBR
.
17.8
16.9
18.5
Resiliency
2.5
2.5
2.5
. Factor.:;:. .
Swell %
0.25
0.08
0.12
Project: Building P-002• Academic Instructional Facility
Project No: EC07-189G
Client: Kroskin Design Group P.C.
Date: May 10 2007

MOISTURE DENSITY TEST REPORT (PROCTOR CURVE)
12s
II
121
116
--
----
—
!
I
!
I
—
I
106
I�
ZAV for
i
I
Sp.G. _
_
---`
1
—
-
I
2.65
6.5 9.0 11.5 14.0 16.5 19.0 21.5
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A Standard
Elev/
Classification
Nat.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
%>
%<
USCS
AASNTO
Depth
Moist.
No.4
No.200
2 to 2.5
feet
SC
A-6(4)
I7.9
32
15
0.0
48.9
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 118.4 pcf
Tan Clayey SAND (SC) with silt
Optimum moisture = 13.2 %
Project No. EC07-1990 Client: Kroskin Design Group
Remarks:
Project: Academic Instruction Facility; Building P-002
CBR HI
Soaked CBR Value— 12.7
• Location: CBR 41
Resiliency Factor-2.5
MOISTURE DENSITY TEST REPORT (PROCTOR CURVE)
GET SOLUTION) INC.
Figure

0
Particle Size Distribution Report
Q
100
90 4
j.piIII
1H,
80 -
70
LJJ 60-
u-
Z 50 !H p
ki
40
W
Q
30
20 -
III
500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND SILT % CLAY
0.0 0.0 51.1 48.9
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? Soil Description
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Tan Clayey SAND (SC) with silt
3/8 in. 100.0
#4 100.0
#8 100.0
#10 99.9 Atterbera Limits
#16 99.9 PL= 17 LL= 32. Pl= 15
#30 98.8
#40 97.5 Coefficients
#50 94.8 D85= 0.202 D60— 0.117 D50= 0.079130=
#60 91.4 D D15= D10=
M 80.0
#100 70.5
#120 62.4
Cu= cc=
48.9 Classification
USCS= SC AASHTC= A-6(4)
Remarks
CBR#1
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: CBR#1 Source of Sample: Date: 5-11-07
Location: CBR#1 Elev./Depth: 2 to 2.5 feet
GET Client: Yroskin Design Group
Project: Academic Instruction Facility; Building P-002
.SOLUTIONS, INC. Project No: EC07-189G Figure

MOISTURE DENSITY TEST REPORT (PROCTOR CURVE)
119.0
T-
116.5
I114.0
N
II
LI
q
0
111.5
zAv for
Sp.G.
2-65
109.0
J
106.5
7 9 13 15 17 19
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A Standard
Elev/
Classification
Nat
Sp.G.
LL
PI
%>
Depth
USGS
T-AASHTO
MoisL
No.4
No.200
0.5 to 2-
feet
SC-Sm
A-4(0)
I
1.8.2
23
7
0.0
36.5
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 117.4 pcf
Tan Silty Clayey SAND (SM-SC)
Optimum moisture = 13.6 %
Project No. EC07-189G Client: Kroskin Design Group
Remarks:
Project: Academic Instruction Facility; Building P-002
CBR #2
Soaked CBR Value = 14.8
a Location: CBR #2
Resiliency Factor= 2.5
MOISTURE DENSITY TEST REPORT (PROCTOR CURVE)
GET SOLUTIONS, INC.
Figure

Particle Size Distribution Report
GRAIN 7ILt - mm
COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
8 in.
100.0
4 in.
100.0
3/8 in.
100.0
_
#10
99.9
#16
99.8
#30
99.0
#40
98.0
#50
95.8
#60
92.9
#80
80.0
#100
65.6
#120
.53.6
#200'
36.5
Soil Description
Tan Silty Clayey SAND (SM-SC)
Atterbern Limits
PL= 16 LL= 23 PI= 7
Coefficients
D85= 0.196 D60= 0.139 D50= 0.116
D30= D15= D10=
CU= Cc=
Classification
USCS= SC-SM AASHTO= A-4(0)
Remarks
CBR #2
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: CBR #2 Source of Sample: .. Date: 5-11-07
Location: CBR #2 Elev./Depth: 0.5 to Meet
G�� Client: Kroskin Design Group
Cps Project: Academic instruction Facility; Building P-002
SOLUTIONS, INC. Project No: EC07-189G Fi ure

MOISTURE DENSITY TEST REPORT (PROCTOR CURVE)
116.0
-LL
ELI
T-1
111.0
C
108.5
7 -T
ZAV for
106.0
Sp.G.
2.65
—T
P11,
I
Ei�
103.5
9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A Standard
Elev/
Classification
Nat
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
% <
Depth
USCS
AASHTO
Moist.
No.4
No.200
0.5 to 2-
feet
SC
A-2-6(1)
23.9
33
16
0.0
34.1
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 114.6 pcf
Tan Clayey SAND (SC) . ) with silt
Optimum moisture = 14.6 %
Project No. EC07-189G Client: Kroskin Design Group
Remarks:
Project: Academic Instruction Facility; Building P-002
CBR#3
Soaked CBR Value = 13.9
e Location: CBR #3
Resiliency Factor= 2.5
MOISTURE DENSITY TEST REPORT (PROCTOR CURVE)
GET SOLUTIONS, INC.
Figure

t
Particle Size Distribution Report
s
GRAIN SIZE - mm
%COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT %CLAY
0.0 0.0 65.9 34.1
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.`
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
3/8 in.
100.0
#4
100.0
#8
100.0
#10
100.0
#16
99.9
#30
99.5
#40
98.9
#50
96.8
#60
93.4
#80
76.5
#100
58.6
#120
46.7
#200
34.1
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: CBR #3 Source of Sample:
Location: CBR #3
Soil Description
Tan Clayey SAND (SC) with silt
Atterbera Limits
PL= 17
LL= 33
PI= 16
Coefficients
D85= 0.202
D60= 0.152
D50= 0.133
D30-
D15=
D10=
Cu--
CC=
Classification
USCS= SC
AASHTO=
A-2-6(1)
Remarks
CBR #3
Date: 5-11-07
ElevlDepth: 0.5 to 2-fcct
GET Client: Kroskin Design Group
Project: Academic Instruction Facility; Building P-002
SOLUTIONS, INC. Project No: EC07-189G Figure___J

Mai
GET Solutions, Inc.
pasta 504 East Elizabeth Street-, Suite 2
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
[phone]; FAX [phone]
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
Standard Penetration Test (SPT), N-value
The soil samples are obtained with a standard 1.4" I.D., 2" O.D., 30" long split -Spann sampler. The sampler is driven with blows of
a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment (4 incrementsfor
each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and is shown an the boring logs. 'the sum of the second and third penetration
incremem, is retired the SPT N-value.
NON COHESIVE SOILS
(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)
Relative Density
Very Loose
4 blows/ft. or less
Loose
5 to 10 blows/ft.
Medium Dense I l to 30 blows/ft.
Dense
31 to 50 blows/ft.
Very Dense
51 blows/ft. or more
Particle Size Identification
Boulders
8 inch diameter or more
Cobbles
3 to 8 inch diameter
Gravel
Coarse 1 to 3 inch diameter
Medium '/z to 1 inch diameter
Fine '/q to'/a inch diameter
Sand
Coarse 2.00 mm to t/a inch
(diameter of pencil lead)
Medium 0.42 to 2.00 mm
(diameter of broom straw)
Fine 0.074 to 0.42 to.
(diameter of human hair)
Stilt
0.002 to 0.074 mm
(cannot see particles)
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487)
Coarse Grained Soils
More than 50%retained on No. 200 sieve
GW - Wqll-graded Gravel
GP- Poorly graded Gravel
GW-GM - Well -graded Gravel w/Silt
GW-GC - Well -graded Gravel w/Clay
GP -GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt
GP -GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay
GM - Silty Gravel
GC - Clayey Gravel
GC -GM - Silty, Clayey Gravel
SW - Well -graded Sand
SP - Poorly graded Sand
SW-SM - Well -graded Sand w/Silt
SW -SC - Well -graded Sand w/Clay
SP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/Silt
SP-SC- Poorly graded Sand w/Clay
SM - Silty Sand
SC - Clayey Sand
SC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand
Fine -Grained Soils
50%or mom passes the No. 200 sieve
CL - Lean Clay
CL-ML- Silty Clay
ML - Silt
OL- Organic Clay/Sik
Liquid Limit 50%or greater
CH- Fat Clay
MH - Elastic Silt
OH - Organic Clay/Silt
Highly Organic Soils
PT - Peat
eaao 1 0l t
Rev 2rl]200]
COHESIVE SOILS
(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)
Consistency
Very Soft
2 blows/ft. or less
Soft
3 to 4 blows/ft.
Medium Stiff
5 to 8 blows/ft.
Stiff
9 to 15 blows/ft.
Very Stiff
16 to 30 blows/ft.
Hard
31 blows/ft. or more
Plasticity
Degree of Plastic iry
Plasticity Index
None to Slight
0-4
Slight
5-7
Medium
8-25
high to Very High
25 or more
Expansion Potential
Degree
LL%
PI46
Suction tsf
High
> 60
> 35
> 4.0
Marginal
50-60
25-35
1.5-4.0
Low
< 50
< 25
< 1.5
None
<35
<12
Relative
Proportions
Descriptive Terra
Per ent
Trace
1-10
Little
11-20
Some
21-35
And
36-50
Strata Changes
In the column "Soil Description" on the boring log, the
horizontal lines represent strata changes.
Groundwater Readings
Observations were made at the times indicated. Porosity
of soil strata, weather conditions, site topography, etc.,
may cause changes in the water levels indicated on the
logs.
Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than
No. 200 sieve size), coarse -grained soils are classified as
follows:
Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW,SP
More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM. SC
5 to 12 percent Borderline cases requiring
dual symbols

P-002 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY Work Order Number 58002
CAMP GEIGER, MARINE CORPS BASE, -CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
SECTION 32 92 19
RECEIVED
SEEDING
10106 JUL 2 8 Z008
PART 1 GENERAL
BY:
1.1 REFERENCES
The publications listed below form a part of this specification to the
extent referenced. The publications are referred to within the text by the
basic designation only.
ASTM INTERNATIONAL (ASTM)
ASTM C 602 (2007) Agricultural Liming Materials
ASTM D 4427 (2007) Peat Samples by Laboratory Testing
ASTM D 4972 (2001; R 2007) pH of Soils
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
AMS Seed Act (1940; R 1988; R 1998) Federal Seed Act
DOA SSIR 42 (1996) Soil Survey Investigation Report
No. 42, Soil Survey Laboratory Methods
Manual, Version 3.0
1.2 DEFINITIONS
1.2.1 Stand of Turf
95 percent ground cover of the established species.
1.3 RELATED REQUIREMENTS
Section 31 23 00.00 20.EXCAVATION AND FILL and Section 32 05 33 LANDSCAPE
ESTABLISHMENT applies to this section for pesticide use and plant
establishment requirements, with additions and modifications herein.
1.4 SUBMITTALS
Government approval is required for submittals with a "G" designation;,
submittals not having a "G" designation are for Contractor Quality Control
approval. The following shall be submitted in accordance with Section
01 33 00 SUBMITTAL'PROCEDURES:
SD-03 Product Data
Wood cellulose fiber mulch
Fertilizer
Include physical characteristics,, and recommendations.
SD-06 Test Reports
SECTION 32 92 19 Page 1

P-002 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY Work Order Number 58002
CAMP GEIGER, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
Topsoil composition tests (reports and recommendations).
„SD707 Certificates '
State certification and approval for seed
SD-08 Manufacturer's Instructions
Erosion Control Materials
1.5 DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING
1.5.1 Delivery
1.5.1.1 Seed Protection
Protect from drying out and from contamination during delivery, on -site
storage, and handling.
1.5.1.2 Fertilizer, Gypsum, Sulfur, Iron and Lime Delivery
Deliver to the site in original, unopened containers bearing manufacturer's
chemical analysis, name, trade name, trademark, and indication of
conformance to state and federal laws. Instead of containers, fertilizer,
gypsum, sulphur, iron and lime may be furnished in bulk with certificate
indicating the above information.
1.5.2 Storage -
1.5.2.1 Seed, Fertilizer, Gypsum, Sulfur, Iron and Lime Storage
Store in cool, dry locations away from contaminants.
1.5.2.2 Topsoil
Prior to stockpiling topsoil, treat growing vegetation with application of
appropriatespecified non -selective herbicide. Clear and grub existing
vegetation three to four weeks prior to stockpiling topsoil.
1.5.2.3 Handling
Do not drop or dump materials from vehicles.
1.6 TIME RESTRICTIONS AND PLANTING CONDITIONS -
1.6.1 Restrictions
Do not plant when the ground is frozen, snow covered, muddy, or when air
temperature exceeds 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
1.7 TIME LIMITATIONS
1.7.1 Seed -
Apply seed within twenty four hours after seed bed preparation.
SECTION 32 92 19 Page 2

P-002 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY Work Order Number 58002
CAMP GEIGER, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
PART 2 PRODUCTS
2.1 SEED
2.1.1 Classification
Provide State -certified seed of the latest season's crop delivered in
original sealed packages, bearing producer's guaranteed analysis for
percentages of mixtures, purity, germination, weedseed content, and inert
material. Label in conformance with AMS Seed Act and applicable state seed
laws. Wet, moldy, or otherwise damaged seed will be rejected. Field mixes
will be acceptable when field mix is performed on site in the presence of
the Contracting Officer.
2.1.2 Planting Dates
Planting Season _
Season 1
Season 2
Temporary Seeding 1
Temporary Seeding 2
Temporary Seeding 3
2.1.3 Seed Mixture by Weight
Planting Season
Season 1
Season 2
Planting Dates
Feb. 15 - Apr. 30
Sep. 1 - Oct. 31
Dec. 1 - Apr. 15
Apr. 15 - Aug. 15
Aug. 15 - Dec. 30
Variety
Tall Fescue
Pensacola Bahiagrass
Kobe lespedeza
Rye (grain)
Tall Fescue
Pensacola Bahiagrass
Kobe lespedeza
Rye (grain)
Temporary Seeding 1 Rye (grain)
Kobe lespedeza
Temporary Seeding 2 German millet
Temporary Seeding 3 Rye (grain)
Rate (lbs/acre)
80
50
40
25
80
50
40
25
120
50
40
120
Proportion seed mixtures by.weight. Temporary seeding must later be
replaced by Season 1 plantings for a permanent stand of grass. The same
requirements of turf establishment for Season 1 apply for temporary seeding.
2.2 TOPSOIL
2.2.1 On -Site Topsoil
Surface soil stripped and stockpiled on site and modified as necessary to
meet the requirements specified for topsoil in paragraph entitled
SECTION 32 92 19 Page 3

P-002 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY Work Order Number 58002
CAMP GEIGER, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
"Composition." When available topsoil shall be existing surface soil
stripped and stockpiled on -site in accordance with Section 31 23 00.00 20
EXCAVATION AND FILL.
2.2.2 Off -Site Topsoil
Conform to requirements specified in paragraph entitled "Composition."
Additional topsoil shall be furnished by the Contractor.
2.2.3 Composition ..
Containing from 5 to 10 percent organic matter as determined by the topsoil
composition tests of the Organic Carbon, 6A, Chemical Analysis Method
described in DOA SSIR 42. Maximum particle size, 3/4 inch, with maximum 3-
percent retained on 1/4 inch screen. The pH shall be tested in accordance
with ASTM D 4972. Topsoil shall be free of sticks, stones, roots, and
other debris and objectionable materials. Other components shall conform
to the following limits:
pH 5.5 to 7.0
Soluble Sa1Ls 500 ppm maximum
Sodium absorption ratio...... less than 12
2.3 SOIL CONDITIONERS
Add conditioners to topsoil as required to bring into compliance with
"composition" standard for topsoil as specified herein.
2.3.1 Lime
Commercial grade agricultural limestone containing a calcium carbonate
equivalent (C.C.E.) as specified in ASTM C 602 of not less than 80 percent.
2.3.2 Aluminum Sulfate
Commercial grade.
2.3.3 Sulfur '
100 percent elemental
2.3.4 Iron
100 percent elemental
2.3.5 Peat
Natural product of peat moss derived from a freshwater site and conforming
to ASTM D 4427. Shred and granulate peat to pass a 1/2 inch mesh screen
and condition in storage pile for minimum 6 months after excavation.
2.3.6 Sand
Clean and free of materials harmful to plants.
2.3.7 Perlite
Horticultural grade.
SECTION 32 92 19 Page 4

a
P-002 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY Work Order Number 58002
CAMP GEIGER, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
2.3.8 Composted Derivatives
Ground bark, nitrolized sawdust, humus or other green wood waste material
free of stones, sticks, and soil stabilized with nitrogen and having the
following properties:
2.3.8.1 Particle Size
Minimum percent by weight passing:
No. 4 mesh screen 95
No. 8 mesh screen 80
2.3.8.2 Nitrogen Content
Minimum percent based on dry weight:
Fir Sawdust 0.7
Fir or Pine Bark 1.0
2.3.9 Gypsum
Coarsely ground gypsum.comprised of calcium sulfate dihydrate 61 percent,
calcium 22 percent, sulfur 17 percent; minimum 96 percent passing through
20 mesh screen, 100 percent passing thru 16 mesh screen.
2.3.10 Calcined Clay
Calcined clay shall be granular particles produced from montmorillonite
clay calcined to a minimum temperature of 1200•degrees F. Gradation: A
minimum 90 percent shall pass a No. 8 sieve; a minimum 99 percent shall be
retained on a No. 60 sieve; and a maximum 2 percent shall pass a No. 100
sieve. Bulk density: A maximum 40 pounds per cubic foot.
2.4 FERTILIZER
2.4.1 Granular Fertilizer
Granular controlled release fertilizer containing the minimum percentages,
by weight, of plant food nutrients as recommended by soil test.
2.4.2 Hydroseeding Fertilizer
Controlled release fertilizer, to use with hydroseeding and composed of
pills coated with plastic resin to provide a continuous release of
nutrients for at least 6.months and containing the minimum percentages,, by
weight, of plant food nutrients as recommended by soil test.
2.5 MULCH
Mulch shall be free from noxious weeds, mold, and other deleterious
materials.
2.5.1 Straw
Stalks from oats, wheat, rye, barley, or rice. Furnish in air-dry
condition and of proper consistency for placing with commercial mulch
blowing equipment. Straw shall contrain no fertile seed.
SECTION 32 92 19 Page 5

P-002 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY Work Order Number 58002
CAMP GEIGER, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
2.5.2 Hay
Air-dry condition and of proper consistency for placing with commercial
mulch blowing equipment. Hay shall be sterile, containing no fertile seed.
2.5.3 Wood Cellulose Fiber Mulch
Use recovered materials of either paper -based (100 percent) or wood -based
(100 percent) hydraulic mulch. Processed to contain no growth or,
germination -inhibiting factors and dyed an appropriate color to facilitate
visual metering of materials application. Composition on air-dry weight
basis: 9 to 15 percent moisture, pH range from 5.5 to 8.2. Use with
hydraulic application of grass seed and fertilizer.
2.6 WATER
Source of water shall be approved by Contracting Officer and of suitable
quality for irrigation, containing no elements toxic to plant life.
2.7 EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS
Erosion control material shall conform to the following:
2.7.1 Erosion Control Blanket
100 percent agricultural straw stitched with a degradable nettings,
designed to degrade within 12 months.
2.7.2 Erosion Control Fabric
Fabric shall be knitted construction of polypropylene yarn with uniform
mesh openings 3/4 to 1 inch square with strips of biodegradable paper.
Filler paper strips shall have a minimum life of 6 months.
2.7.3 Erosion Control Net
Net shall be heavy, twisted jute mesh, weighing approximately 1.22 pounds
per linear yard and 4 feet wide with mesh openings of approximately 1 inch
square.
2.7.4 Erosion Control Material Anchors
Erosion control anchors shall be as recommended by the manufacturer.
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.1 PREPARATION
3.1.1 EXTENT OF WORK
Provide soil preparation (including soil conditioners as required),
fertilizing, seeding, and surface topdressing of all newly graded finished
earth surfaces, unless indicated otherwise, and at all areas inside or
outside the limits of construction that are disturbed by the Contractor's
operations.
3.1.1.1 Topsoil
Provide 4 inches of topsoil to meet indicated.finish grade. After areas
SECTION 32 92 19 Page 6

P-002 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY Work Order Number 58002
CAMP GEIGER, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
have been brought to indicated finish grade, incorporate fertilizer, pH
adjusters and soil conditioners into soil a minimum depth of 4 inches by
disking, harrowing, tilling or other method approved by the.Contracting
Officer. Remove debris and stones larger than 3/4 inch in any dimension
remaining on the surface after finish grading. Correct irregularitiesin
finish surfaces to eliminate depressions. Protect finished topsoil areas
from damage by vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
3.1.1.2 Soil Conditioner Application Rates
.Apply soil conditioners at rates as determined by laboratory soil analysis
of the soils.at the job site.
3.1.1.3 Fertilizer Application Rates
Apply fertilizer at rates as determined by laboratory soil analysis of the
soils at the job site.
3.2 SEEDING
3.2.1 Seed Application Seasons and Conditions
Immediately before seeding, restore soil to proper grade. Do not seed when
ground is muddy, frozen, snow covered or in an unsatisfactory condition for
seeding. If special conditions exist that may warrant a variance in the
seeding dates or conditions, submit a written request to the Contracting
.Officer stating the special conditions and proposed variance. Apply seed
within twenty four hours after seedbed preparation. Sow seed by approved
sowing equipment. Sow one-half the seed in one direction, and sow remainder
at right angles to the first sowing.
3.2.2 Seed Application Method
Seeding method shall be broadcasted and drop seeding orhydroseeding for
areas less than 1,000 square feet. Hydroseeding shall be used for areas
larger than 1,000 square feet. ,
3.2.2.1 Broadcast and Drop Seeding
Seed shall be uniformly broadcast at the rate specified. Use broadcast or
drop seeders. Sow one-half the seed in one direction, and sow remainder at
right angles to the first sowing. Cover seed uniformly to a maximum depth
of 1/4 inch in clay soils and 1/2 inch in sandy soils by means of .
spike -tooth harrow, cultipacker, raking or other approved devices.
3.2.2.2 Hydroseeding
First, mix water and fiber. Wood cellulose fiber, paper fiber, or recycled
paper shall be applied as part of the hydroseeding operation. Fiber shall
.be added at 1,000 pounds, dry weight, per acre. Then add and mix seed and
fertilizer to produce a homogeneous slurry. Seed shall be mixed to ensure
broadcasting at the rate specified. When hydraulically sprayed on the
ground, material shall form a blotter like cover impregnated uniformly with
grass seed. Spread with one application with no second application of
mulch.
SECTION 32 92 19 Page 7

P-002 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY Work Order Number 58002
CAMP GEIGER, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
3.2.3 Mulching
3.2.3.1 Hay or Straw Mulch
Hay or straw mulch shall be spread uniformly at the rate of 2 tons per acre.
Mulch shall be spread by hand, blower -type mulch spreader, or other
approved method. Mulching shall be started on the windward side of
relatively flat areas or on the upper part of steep slopes, and continued
uniformly until the area is covered. The mulch shall not be bunched or
clumped. Sunlight shall not be completely excluded from penetrating to the
ground surface. All areas installed with seed shall be mulched on the same
day as the seeding. Mulch shall be anchored immediately following
spreading.
3.2.3.2 Mechanical Anchor
Mechanical anchor shall be a V-type-wheel land packer; a scalloped -disk
land packer designed to force mulch into the soil surface; or other
suitable equipment.
3.2.3.3 Asphalt Adhesive Tackifier
Asphalt adhesive tackifier shall be sprayed at a rate between 10 to 13
gallons per 1000 square feet. Sunlight shall not be completely excluded
from penetrating to the ground surface.
3.2.3.4 Asphalt Adhesive Coated Mulch
Hay or straw mulch may be spread simultaneously with asphalt adhesive
applied at a rate between 10 to 13 gallons per 1000 square feet, using
power mulch equipment which shall be equipped with suitable asphalt pump
and nozzle. The adhesive -coated mulch shall be applied evenly over the
surface. Sunlight shall not be completely excluded from penetrating to the
ground surface.
3.2.4 Rolling
Immediately after seeding, firm entire area except for slopes in excess of
3 to 1 with a roller not exceeding 90 pounds for each foot of roller width.
If seeding is performed with cultipacker-type seeder or by hydroseeding,
rolling may be eliminated.
3.2.5 Erosion Control Material
Install in accordance with manufacturer's instructions, where indicated or
as directed by the Contracting Officer.
3.2.6 Watering
Start watering areas seeded as required by temperature and wind
conditions. Apply water at a rate sufficient to insure thorough wetting
of soil to a depth of 2 inches without run off. During the germination
process, seed is to be kept actively growing and not allowed to dry out.
3.3 PROTECTION OF TURF AREAS
Immediately after turfing, protect area against traffic and other use.
SECTION 32 92 19 Page 8

P-002 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY work Order Number 58002
CAMP GEIGER, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
3.4 TURF ESTABLISHMENT
Seeded areas shall achieve a 95-percent coverage of the selected species
and be weed free. Overseeding, fertilizing, watering and mowing shall be
performed as necessary until turf establishment is complete and accepted by
Contracting Officer.
-- End of Section --
SECTION 32 92 19 Page 9

abouhblank
July 16, 2008
Academic Instruction Facility @ Camp Geiger
Per your request the Express stormwater and erosion control submittal meetings have been scheduled for
a later date. The meetings will be July 28 at 1:30 with Carol Miller of Land Quality regarding the
Sediment Control Plan and July 28 at 2:00 with Chris Baker regarding the stormwater plan. Please
verify that this date and time works for you and for your client.
Also, Robert, if you need help with your applications, please contact David Towler with the base. David
has looked at so many of these applications by now that he understands what is expected.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
1 01,1 7/16/2008 5:48 PM

RE: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
Subject: RE: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:30:32 -0500
To: <Janet.Russel [e-mail]>
CC: <david.towler cr usmc.mil>
Janet:
We are having difficulties in getting the permit packages finalized for this project
and would like to re -schedule e meetings. Would it be possible to move both
meeting to July 24th, 25th or 28th? Thanks for your assistance.
Bob M. Silver, PE
Senior Civil Engineer
TranSystems
Town Point Center
150 Boush Street, Ste. 1000
Norfolk, VA 23510
Main: 757-627-1112
Direct: 757-963-8933
Cell: 757-416-8070
Fax: [phone]
www.transystems.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 5:13 PM
To: NF-Bob Silver
Cc: Towler GS05 David W
Subject: Re: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
Mr. Silver:
You are scheduled to meet with Carol Miller with Land Quality at 1:30 on
7/21/08 and with Chris Baker at 2:00 on 7/21/08. We look forward to
seeing you then.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
[e-mail] wrote:
Meeting on the 21st is acceptable, please reserve the time as noted.
Bob Silver
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:32 PM
To: NF-Bob Silver; Towler GS05 David W
Cc: Carol Miller
Subject: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
July 10, 2008
*Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger*
Gentlemen:
The Express Stormwater submittal meeting has been scheduled with* Chris Baker on
I of2 7/16/2008 10:37 AM

RE: Academic Instruction Facility @ Camp Geiger
Subject: RE: Academic Instruction Facility a Camp Geiger
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:42:02 -0500
To: <Janet.Russel [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <jgjorge a transystems.com>, <[e-mail]>
Janet:
We have confirmed with David Towler that he is available to attend both meetings on
July 28th. We appreciate your re -scheduling these meetings so we can ensure we are
properly prepared. We look forward to meeting with Carol and Chris on the 28th.
Bob Silver
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:49 PM
To: NF-Bob Silver; Towler GS05 David W
Subject: Academic Instruction Facility @ Camp Geiger
July 16, 2008
*Academic Instruction Facility @ Camp Geiger
*
Robert:
Per your request the Express stormwater and erosion control submittal
meetings have been scheduled for a later date. The meetings will be*
July 28 at 1:30 with Carol Miller of Land Quality* regarding the
Sediment Control Plan and *July 28 at 2:00 with Chris Baker* regarding
the stormwater plan. Please verify that this date and time works for
you and for your client.
Also, Robert, if you need help with your applications, please contact
David Towler with the base. David has looked at so many of these
applications by now that he understands what is expected.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
I of 1 7/21/2008 10:11 AM

Re: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
Subject: Re: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
From: Janet Russell <Janet.Russel I a ncmaiI.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:13:30 -0400
To: rmsilver a transystems.com
CC: Towler GS05 David W <david.towler a usmc.mil>
BCC: Carol Miller <[e-mail]>
Mr. Silver:
You are scheduled to meet with Carol Miller with Land Quality at 1:30 on 7/21/08 and
with Chris Baker at 2:00 on 7/21/08. We look forward to seeing you then.
Thanks,
Janet Russell
[e-mail] wrote:
net:
Meeting on the 21st is acceptable, please reserve the time as noted.
Bob Silver
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Russell[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:32 PM
To: NF-Bob Silver; Towler GS05 David W
Cc: Carol Miller
Subject: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
July 10, 2008
*Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger*
Gentlemen:
The Express Stormwater submittal meeting has been scheduled wither Chris Baker on
July 21, 2008 at 2:00 PM� here in the Wilmington Regional Office, 127 Cardinal
Drive Extension, Wilmington, 28405.
Mr. Silver, hopefully you have designed your project to meet the Phase II
stormwater rules. I am attaching a copy of the Session Law that outlines the
details of those requirements. In needed, refer to attachment starting around
page 13.
Please respond within 2 business days to confirm and reserve the submittal meeting
date. If this time or date does not work with your schedules, please let me know
immediately so that we can offer an alternate.
Thank you,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
I of 1 7/14/2008 5:13 PM

RE: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
Subject: RE: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
From: "Towler CIV David W" <david.towler n usmc.mil>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:14:59 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>, <Carol.Miller a ncmail.net>, <Janet.Russel [e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, "Baker CIV Carl IT' <[e-mail]>,
<jgjorge a transystems.com>
Monday, July 21 at 1:30 pm is fine for the Base. I'll be there.
V/r,
David W. Towler, EI
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
Civil Engineer
Public Works Division, Bldg 1005
Civil Design Branch
Phone: [phone] ext. 254
-----Original Message -----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 17:13
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Towler CIV David W; [e-mail]; Baker CIV Carl H;
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
Carol:
Yes, I would like to schedule the LQ Review for 1:30 on Monday, July 21st.
By copy I am requesting the Base advise if they are available at that time.
Is this all in the same building?
Thanks,
Bob Silver
-----Original Message -----
From: Carol Miller[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 10:05 AM
To: Janet Russell
Cc: NF-Bob Silver; Towler GS05 David W
Subject: Re: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
Mr. Silver,
do you want to schedule the LQ review on the same day? If so I would
prefer to schedule it before SW at say 1:30. Please let me know if that is
acceptable.
Thanks,
Carol
Janet Russell wrote:
July 10, 2008
*Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger*
Gentlemen:
The Express Stormwater submittal meeting has been scheduled with*
Chris Baker on July 21, 2008 at 2:00 PM* here in the Wilmington
Regional Office, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, 28405.
Mr. Silver, hopefully you have designed your project to meet the Phase
I of 2 7/14/2008 3:25 PM

about:blank
July 10, 2008
Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger
Gentlemen:
The Express Stormwater submittal meeting has been scheduled with Chris Baker on July 21, 2008 at
2:00 PM here in the Wilmington Regional Office, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, 28405.
Mr. Silver, hopefully you have designed your project to meet the Phase II stormwater rules. I am
attaching a copy of the Session Law that outlines the details of those requirements. In needed, refer to
attachment starting around page 13.
Please respond within 2 business days to confirm and reserve the submittal meeting date. If this time or
date does not work with your schedules, please let me know immediately so that we can offer an
alternate.
Thank you,
Janet Russell
Express Coordinator
I of 1 7/10/2008 4:31 PM

Jw 50br-) 117�-
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
AMRequest for Express Permit Review
NCDENR
For DENR Use ONLY
Reviewer: G91S
Submit � /z6
Time:
Confirm 7--1 L_
uftfer;�v
FILL-IN all the information below and CHECK the Permits) you are requesting for express review. FAX or Email the completed form to Express
Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative, site plan (PDF file) and vicinity map (same items expected in the application package
of the project location. Include this form in the application package. o
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828.296-4698;alison.davidson(dncmail.net
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791-4203; david.leeng ncmail.net
• Mooresville & -Patrick Grogan 704-663-3772 or patrick.gronan(giincmail.net
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-946-9215 or lvn.hardison(oncmail.net
• Wilmington Region -Janet Russell 910-350-2004 or ianet.russell(a0cmail.net
NOTE: Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day.
Project Name: ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY, CAMP GEIGER County: ONSLOW
Applicant: CARL BAKER, BY DIRECTION OF THE CO Company: USMC, CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
Address: 1005 MICHAEL ROAD City: CAMP LEJEUNE, State: NC Zip: 28547 D E C E I V E D
Phone:[phone] Fax: - - Email: cad.h.bakerAusmc.mil
Project is Drains into SC waters -k\QW Project Located in WHITE OAK River Basin JJ� $ 2008
Engineer/Consultant: Robert M. Silver, P.E. Company: Transystems
Address: 150 BOUSH STREET, SUITE 1000City: NORFOLK, State: VA Zip: 23510 DWQ
Phone: [phone] Fax::[phone] Email: rmsilver(a)transystems.com PROD a
(Check all that apply)
❑ Scoping Meeting ONLY ❑ DWQ, ❑ DCM, ❑ DLR, ❑ OTHER:
❑ Stream Origin Determination: # of stream calls — Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
® State Stormwater ❑ General ❑ SFR, ❑Bkhd & Bt Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility
❑ Low Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter _ # Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW (Provide permit #)j
® High Density -Detention Pond 1 # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration _ #Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Bio-Retention _ # Treatment Systems ElHigh Density —Constructive Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Other _ # Treatment Systems ❑ MODIFICATION SW _ (Provide permit #)
❑ Coastal Management ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information
❑ Upland Development ❑ Marina Development ❑ Urban Waterfront
® Land Quality ® Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with 10 acres to be disturbed.(CK #_ (for DENR use))
WETLANDS QUESTIONS MUST BE ADDRESSED BELOW
❑ Wetlands (401): Check all that apply Isolated wetland on Property ❑ Yes ® No
Wetlands on Site ❑ Yes ® No Buffer Impacts: ❑ No ❑ YES: acre(s)
No Minor Variance: ❑ No ❑ YES
Tr•nsyst•ma ❑ No Major General Variance ❑ No ❑ YES
Systems Town Point center No 401 Application required: ❑Yes ® No If YES, ❑ Regular
150 Boush street, Suite lone Perennial, Blue line stream, etc on site ❑ yes ® No
Norfolk, VA 23510
Direct 757-963-8933 For DENR use only
Robed M. Silver, P.E. Main 757-627-1112 ATotal Fee Amount $
ssaiate/Assisram Vhe Presieem Fax [phone]
Senior civil Engine' SUBMITTAL DATES Fee
rmsi [e-mail]
wwwEransystems.com Variance ❑ Ma'; ❑ Min $
I 401: $
I Stream Deter,_ $
Co '1 01 o.". ')-10-06

CD106
REMOVE BUILDING
AND FOUNDATION
TC706 TC707,
TC708. TC709
CD103
0
CD106
U
3RD
ULJUMITHLSTREJUUL
C-�
n STH STREET
}� CO O,--3
❑ 6TH STREET
7iH STREET
0
o °
i � o
o gTH TREET o
o aoP� m
0
•9TH STREET
B A
m
v A
I O1H STREET
58 o
0
11TH STREET
o � 4
o �
0
IMAIN ENTRANCE
TO CAMP GEIGER
OVERALL SITE DEMOLITION PLAN
SCALE: 1 IN. = 400 FT.
CD107
ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION
FACILITY SITE LOCATION
CD101, CD102
A REMOV
AND Fl
o rc7sz,
C0104
0
O qo REMOVE BUILDING
0 AND FOUNDATION
TC860, TC861
CD105

or,aw�ms.wDA,,...,ar.,
V
T
A
T
a.
g
C
STREET
m�r
Q
...0
/
saz
I i I a
j
I: I
II j
t
15
U
I I
I
� d
ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY
II
II
j
V
I Is'so
�1
O
El
00
�
of
V
�1y
I I
I
I
II
I
0
I
I
I�1
it
s
g
A
II
it
j
LI
III
e
w
re' so
ro.
li
I
—
II
I
I
O 24'
m
IT m
ill
In
y
I I I
IIII
I I I
.e
fitE�II
k W
I nrrr'OS.o�.o� I4ypp
�r'IIIILk4
U3�
IL
li 2
k
ESTREET
i�
Ilg
la
Lo, 4 r
g !
9lalea
NAVAL iRLILIiIES ENpINEERINp CgAMONO—MI4ATLNffIN
.oeor...
B$�!
pp
e
e T^
wAwE CORGS b5E [B GwV ILEIME. x
ACADEMIC
{
INSTRUCTION FACILITY
CAMP GEIGER
�
k
n
„
p
'�A
OVERALL SITE PLAN
N
u
A

Academic lnstruction Facility, Camp Geiger, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Subject: Academic Instruction Facility, Camp Geiger, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
From: <rmsilverc transystems.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:02:31 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <ssteele a virtexco.com>, <morcutt n virtexco.com>, <jajorge a transystems.com>,
<carl.h.baker cr usmc.mil>
Mr. Weaver:
We are submitting herewith the Request for Express Permit Review together with a detailed narrative of the project, a location
map, a vicinity map, an Overall Site Demolition Plan and an Overall Site Plan for your review and information. Should you
require any additional information at this time, please feel free to contact me. We look forward to meeting with you to initiate
the permit review process for this project.
Sincerely,
Bob M. Silver, PE
Senior Civil Engineer
Systt�ms
TranSystems
Town Point Center
150 Boush Street, Ste. 1000
Norfolk, VA 23510
Main: 757-627-1112
Direct: 757-963-8933
Cell: 757416-8070
Fax:[phone]
www.transystems.com
Note: The information contained in this transmission as well as all documents transmitted herewith are privileged and confidential
information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it was sent, and the recipient is
obliged to protect this information as appropriate. If the recipient of the e-mail, and/or the documents attached is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction, copy, or storage of this communication is
strictly prohibited. Thank you.
REQUEST FOR EXPRESS form - AIF Camp Geiger.doc
Overall Demo Plan.pdf
Overall Site Plan.pdf
I of 2 7/8/2008 9:33 AM

Stormwater Narrative 7/7/2008
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Project Name: Academic Instruction Facility
b. Address: C Street, Camp Geiger, MCAS New River, Jacksonville, NC
c. Project Site Area: 200+ Acres (Camp Geiger), 12 Acres for Project
d. Disturbed Area: 9.8 Acres
e. Wetlands Impacts: None, NEPA required review did not determine any wetlands
f. Ownership: U.S. Government
g. Tax Parcel ID Number: N/A
h. Pre-1988 Built Upon Area: N/A
i. Project Phasing: The project will be constructed under a single construction contract. Demolition of the buildings
included in the contract are not required to facilitate construction of the Academic Instruction Facility. Some of the
buildings to be demolished are currently occupied and will require completion of the new Academic Instruction
Facility to allow the occupants to be relocated to new spaces. The remainder of the buildings are unoccupied and
can be demolished at any time during the contract. Construction of the new Academic Instruction Facility building
will be done concurrent with the site improvements including stormwater facilities.
j. The existing Base water distribution and wastewater collection systems will be utilized to provide service to the new
facility.
k. There are no historic sites or projects associated with this project.
I. Non -Compliance Issues: None.
2. STORMWATER INFORMATION
a. Project is located within the drainage area of Edwards Creek (Stream Index #19-13), a tributary to the New River
within the White Oak River Basin. Edwards Creek is classified as SC, HOW, NSW waters.
b. The main project site (AIF site) will have an impervious cover of approximately 60% upon completion of the project
and is therefore considered a high density stormwater design. The project area exceeds one acre and is therefore
subject to the NPDES permitting program.
c. The main project site (AIF site) will have an impervious cover of approximately 60% upon completion of the project
including the surface area of the wet pond. The demolition of the existing buildings will eliminate approximately
63,000 square feet (1.44 Acres) of impervious surface area and replace it with pervious, vegetated surfaces.
d. The proposed stormwater management plan includes the construction of on -site collection system conveying runoff
from all impervious surfaces to a single wet detention pond prior to discharging to an existing storm drainage
system.
e. The stormwater management plan for this project plans to utilize the existing 24-inch storm drainage system along
6t^ Street to collect surface runoff from the existing roadway, a portion of the pervious area adjacent to 6t^ Street
and the northern entrance to the parking lot. This area and runoff conditions are comparable to the existing
conditions drained by this system and will result in a decrease in runoff conveyed by the existing pipe system. All of
the remaining site area (pervious and impervious) will be collected by the on -site collection system and treated in
the wet detention pond.
f. The project area has no known buffer requirements nor does it impact any known buffers.
g. There are no known areas of special concern associated with this project.

Stormwater Narrative
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
71712008
h. The existing 24-inch storm drainage system along 6th Street collects surface runoff from areas outside of the project
limits. Runoff from areas north of 6t^ Street and west of C Street contribute to this existing system. The system
continues eastward out of the project limits across E Street. It is the intent of this project to maintain this system
and the off -site drainage areas and not include this runoff in the on -site treatment system. The only change
proposed to this existing system is the addition of a new drop inlet near the north entrance from 6t^ Street to collect
runoff from the roadside swale and the conversion of the existing drop inlet adjacent to the entrance drive to a
manhole.
I. The project is completely contained within the boundaries of Camp Geiger, a U.S. Government property.
j. Soils: Based on the National Cooperative Soil Survey, the main project site (exclusive of building demolition areas)
consists of 98% Goldsboro -Urban land complex with 0 to 5 percent slopes and 2% Baymeade-Urban land complex
with 0 to 6 percent slopes. The Baymeade-Urban land complex is located in the southeastern corner of the site
near the intersection of 7w and E Streets. Geotechnical investigations were performed in April, 2007-by GET
Solutions, Inc and in May, 2008 by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. which included several standard
penetration test borings around the site. The general subsurface conditions found include a surface layer of topsoil
and/or fill material extending down to a maximum of 4 feet with silty or clayey sands below this layer. A lean silt
layer was encountered at a depth of 19 to 28 feet in a portion of the site. Groundwater was encountered at depths
of 5 to 6 feet below existing surface with normal seasonal fluctuations of 1 to 1.5 feet expected. The on -site
material is suitable for use as fill within the limits of the project and will be used to the maximum extent practical. If
borrow material is required, it will be obtained from private sources outside the limits of MCB Camp Lejeune.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the project is to construct a consolidated Academic Instruction Facility for the School of Infantry at Camp
Geiger, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The single, two-story building will accommodate
classrooms, administrative spaces and open space areas for processing incoming soldiers. Site improvements include
canopies at the main entrance and the drop-off area, concrete walks, asphalt paved parking lot, vegetated open space
and a stormwater management facility. The current site is open and contains a gravel parking lot, a paved tennis court,
a small paved parking lot and modular building with scattered trees and grass vegetation. The 73,000 square foot, two-
story building will occupy a footprint of 41,000 square feet in the western portion of the site. The building is setback
from the adjacent roadways to meet Force Protection guidance established by the military. The paved parking lot for
privately owned vehicles will be located east of the building and will be setback from the building to meet the same
Force Protection criteria. The parking lot is sized to accommodate 250 vehicles and will be surfaced with asphalt
concrete pavement. All of the existing surface features, including the gravel parking lot, tennis court and modular
building will be removed to facilitate the new construction. The project also includes the demolition of 13 existing
buildings within the Camp Geiger area outside of the area for the new instruction facility. These buildings will be
demolished in their entirety, including foundations and the cutting and capping of utility services. The final surface
where the buildings stood will be graded to drain to existing surface features and will be stabilized with permanent grass
vegetation. The main building site consists of 7.85 acres of paved and vegetated surfaces using the centerline of the
adjacent roadways as the project limits. The actual area of disturbance will be 7.3 acres. The total site area for the 13
buildings to be demolished is approximately 4 acres of which 2.5 acres will be disturbed. The total area of disturbance
for the project is 9.8 acres.

Stormwater Narrative 71712008
Academic Instruction Facility
Camp Geiger, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
4. GRADING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The existing site is divided into three drainage areas which contribute to two existing storm drainage systems. Runoff in the
northwestern portion of the site is collected in a roadside swale adjacent to 6th Street which conveys the runoff to a drop inlet
near the center of the block. This drop inlet is connected to a 24-inch storm drain line which parallels 6h Street from C Street to
E street (west to east across the site). The northeastern portion of the site drains by overland flow and roadside swales to an
existing drop inlet near the intersection of 6th Street and E Street which is connected to the same 24-inch storm drain along 6th
Street. A 30-inch storm drain extends from this inlet across E Street and continues eastward out of the project site. This storm
drainage system also collects runoff from areas on the north side of 6th Street and west of C Street. The remaining portion of
the site drains by overland flow to the roadside swale along 7h Street which flows from west to east. This swale is collected by
a drop inlet in the southeastern corner which is connected to a 30-inch storm drain that continues eastward out of the project
site. Both of the stone drain systems eventually outfall into an open ditch that leaves Camp Geiger along it's eastern boundary
and eventually discharges into Edwards Creek, a tributary of the New River within the White Oak River Basin, Edwards Creek
is listed as Index Stream #19-13 and is classified as having SC, HQW and NSW waters.
The proposed stormwater management plan for the Academic Instruction Facility project is based on making use of the
existing storm drain line along 6th Street and directing the majority of the site to a new wet pond which will discharge into
the existing storm drain line in the southeast corner of the site. The 24-inch storm drain line along P Street currently
conveys runoff from areas outside of the project site in addition to collecting the surface flow from approximately 40% of
the site. It is desired to keep the off -site runoff separated from the on -site runoff that will require treatment. Therefore,
the existing storm drain line along 6r^ Street will be maintained and will continue to discharge via the 30-inch storm line
under E Street to the east. On the western side of the site, a small strip of vegetated surface area directly adjacent to
6h Street will be collected in a roadside swale which will feed a new drop inlet connected to the 24-inch storm drain.
This inflow will replace the runoff that was being intercepted by the drop inlet located in the center of the 6"h Street
frontage. This existing drop inlet will be converted to a manhole to maintain access to the storm drain while eliminating
any conflict between the structure and the new parking lot entrance. On the eastern side, the parking lot entrance and
the vegetated strip between the new parking lot and 6r^ Street will be collected in a roadside swale which will be
intercepted by the existing drop inlet in the northeast corner of the site. In addition, the vegetated strip along the E
Street frontage will continue to drain northward into the drop inlet at the intersection with 6"h Street. This allows the
grading along the existing roadways to be maintained while reducing the runoff contributing to the existing storm drain
system along 6th Street. The remainder of the site, which includes the building, parking lot and portions of C Street and
7r^ Street, will be collected by an on -site storm drainage system and conveyed to a new wet pond to be located in the
southeast corner of the site. The wet pond will provide water quality treatment and storage to attenuate the peak
discharge from the site so that is does not exceed the peak discharge from the existing site into the 30-inch system at
the intersection of 7th and E Streets. The project will result in the impervious cover for the project site reaching 60%,
making this a high density development. The design for the wet pond will be based on the requirements to attain a 90%
TSS pollutant removal efficiency. The outlet from the wet pond will be connected directly to the existing 30-inch storm
pipe at the southeast corner of the site.