SW8090918_HISTORICAL FILE_20091201

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8 Og()5j ► $
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
200 °I 12o 1
YYYYMMDD

NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
December 1, 2009
Commanding Officer c/o Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
MCB Camp Lejeune
Bldg 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28547
Subject: State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8 090918
Lincoln Park School Development
High Density Commercial Wet Detention Pond Project
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit
Application for Lincoln Park School Development on November 30, 2009. Staff review
of the plans and specifications has determined that the project, as proposed, will comply
with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000 and Session Law
2008-211. We are forwarding Permit No. SW8 090918 dated December 1, 2009, for the
construction of the subject project.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until December 1, 2019, 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 1506 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 Christine Nelson, or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
r
�r
e,
o gectte Cott
Stormwater Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
GDS/ can: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\PERMIT\090918.dec09
cc: Edward (Ted) Miller, Kimley-Horn and Associates
Christine Nelson
�Wilmingt6b Regional -Office
Central -Files
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 NorthCarOtl na
Internet: www.ncwaterquality,org �n�,/Nn���
An Equal Oppotlunity l Affirmative Action Employer Naturally

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090918
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Commanding Officer & MCB Camp Lejeune
Lincoln Park School Development
Brewster Blvd, Camp Lejeune, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of a wet detention pond in compliance with the
provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 and Session Law 2008-211 (hereafter collectively
referred to as the "stormwater rules') the approved stormwater management plans and
specifications and other supporting data as attached and on file with and approved by
the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until December 1, 2019, 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 1.8 on page 3 of this permit. The stormwater
control has been designed to handle the runoff from 367,263 square feet of
impervious area.
A 50' wide vegetative buffer must be provided adjacent impounded structures,
streams, rivers and tidal waters.
4. A vegetated filter strip is not required for the wet detention pond as the pond has
been designed for a 90% TSS removal efficiency.
5. The tract will be limited to the amount of built -upon area indicated on page 3 of
this permit, and per approved plans. The built -upon area for the future
development is limited to 37,873 square feet.
Page 2 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090918
6. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located in either
dedicated common areas or recorded easements.
The final plats for the project
will be recorded showing all such required easements, in accordance with the
approved plans.
7. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area(s) of this
project must be directed into the permitted stormwater control system.
8. The following design criteria have been provided in the wet detention pond and
must be maintained at design condition:
a. Drainage Area, ?cres:
20.28
Onsite, ft :
883,336
Offsite, ftZ:
0
b. Total Impervious Surfaces, ftZ:
367,263
Onsite, ft :
367,263
Offsite, ftZ:
0
C. Design Storm, inches:
1.5
d. Average Pond Design Depth, feet:
3.5
e. TSS removal efficiency:
90%
f. Permanent Pool Elevation, FMSI�:
14.0
9. Permanent Pool Surface Areq, ft :
57,894
h. Permitted Storage Volume, ft :
279,990
i. Temporary Storage Elevation, FMSL:
18.00
j. Pre-dev. 1 yr-24 hr. discharge rate, cfs:
5.39
k. Controlling Orifice:
2.50"0 pipe
I. Orifice flowrate, cfs:
0.19
M. Permitted Forebay Volume, ft3:
34,928
n. Fountain Horsepower
3/4 HP
o. Receiving Stream/River Basin:
Morgan Bay / White Oak
P. Stream Index Number:
19-18
q. 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. Mowing 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 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090918
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.
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 3/4 horsepower.
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.
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.
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.
Access to the stormwater facilities for inspection and maintenance shall be
maintained via appropriate recorded easements at all times.
10. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed
below:
a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the
stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. 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 development, subdivision, acquisition, lease or sale of any, all or
part of the project area. The project area is defined as all property owned
by the permittee, for which Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan
approval or a CAMA Major permit was sought.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
11. Prior to the construction of any permitted future areas shown on the approved
plans, the permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans to the
Division for approval.
Page 4 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090918
12. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by
the Permittee at all times.
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 to any person or entity 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 completed Name/Ownership Change Form
signed by both parties, to the Division of Water Quality, accompanied by the
supporting documentation as listed on page 2 of the form. The approval of this
request will be considered on its merits and may or may not be approved.
2. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such
time as the Division approves the transfer request. Neither the sale of the project
nor the transfer of common area to a third party constitutes an approved transfer
of the stormwater permit.
3. 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.
4. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction.
5. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of
nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action,
including those as may be required by this Division, such as the construction of
additional or replacement stormwater management systems.
6. The permittee grants DENR Staff permission to enter the property during normal
business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted
stormwater management facility.
7. The permit remains in force and effect until modified, revoked, terminated or
renewed. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for
cause. The filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and re -
issuance or termination does not stay any permit condition.
8. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
9. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference
and are enforceable parts of the permit.
10. The permittee shall notify the Division of any name, ownership or mailing address
changes at least 30 days prior to making such changes.
Page 5 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090918
11. The permittee shall submit a permit renewal request at least 180 days prior to the
expiration date of this permit. The renewal request must include the appropriate
documentation and the processing fee.
Permit issued this the 1 st day of December 2009.
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
D,C c
tor uoieen m. sumns, uirector
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 6 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090918
Lincoln Park School Development
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 090918
Onslow Countv
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered in the
State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/ full
time) the construction of the project,
(Project)
for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specifications:
Signature
Registration Number
Date
SEAL
Page 7 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090918
Certification Requirements:
1. The drainage area to the system contains approximately the permitted
acreage.
2. The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted
amount of built -upon area.
3. All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the
runoff drains to the system.
4. All roof drains are located such that the runoff is directed into the system.
5. The outlet structure elevations are per the approved plan.
6. The outlet structure is located per the approved plans.
7. Trash rack is provided on the outlet structure.
8. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
9. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
10. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-
circuiting of the system.
11. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been
provided.
12. Required drawdown devices are correctly sized and located per the
approved plans.
13. All required design depths are provided.
14. All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf,
and a forebay.
15. The required system dimensions are provided per the approved plans.
16. All components of the stormwater BMP are located in either recorded
common areas, or recorded easements.
cc: NCDENR-DWQ Regional Office

DWQ.USIiONLY
Date Received
Pee Paid
I'crmit Number
LAIICableRules:
all that apply)
❑ Coastal SW —'1995 Coastal SW — 2008 ❑ Ph 11 - Post Constnwtiont
❑ Non -Coastal SW- HQW/ORW Waters ❑ Universal Stormwater Management Plan
❑ Other WQ M mit Plan:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resourc es+ C'Z
Division of Water Quality rr
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATI F&MQ 9 2009
This form nmy 6e photocopied for use as an origirml
BY:
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name - should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Lincoln Park School Development
2. Location of Project (street address):
City:Camp Lejeune County:Onslot�� Zip:28542
3. Directions to project (Flom nearest major intersection):
Drive west from the intersection of Stone Street and Brewster 13oulevard. The project site will be located on
the left side of the road in approaimatly half a mile.
4. Latitude:34° 42' 48" N Longitude:-77° 22' 08" W of the main entrance to the project.
IL PERMIT INFORMATION:
1. a. Specify whether project is (check one): ®New ❑Modification
b.If this application is being submitted as the result of a modification to an existing permit, list the existing
permit number , its issue date (if known)—, and the status of
construction: ❑Not Started ❑Partially Completed* ❑ Completed* *provide a designer's crrtification
2. Specify the type of project (check one):
❑Low Density ®High Density ❑Drains to an Offsite Stormwater System ❑Other
3. If this application is being SUbnlllied as the result of a previously returned application or a letter from DWQ
requesting a stale stormwater management permit application, list the stornnvaler project number, if
assigned, and the preeious name of the pmjccl, if different than anrently
proposed,
4. a. Additional Project Requirements (check applicable blanks; information on reiluiitd slate permits can be
Obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-67,18):
❑CAMA Major ®Sedimentation,/Erosion Control: 25.26 ac of Disturbed Arca
❑NPDES lndusb'ial Storm"'ilter ®404/401 Permit Proposed Impacts <0.10 AC
b.lf any of these permits have already been acquired please provide the Project Nome, Project/Permit Number,
issue date and the type of each permit:
Form SWU-101 Version 07.Iu1y2009
Pauc 1 46

UL. CONTACT INFORMATION
1. a. Print Applicant / Signing Official's name and title (specifically the developer, property owner, lessee,
designated government official, individual, etc. who owns the project
Signing Official & Title:Carl Baker, Deputy Public Writ
b.Contact information for person listed in item la above:
Street Acidress:Bldg 1005 Michael Road
City:Camp Lejeunc State:NC Zip:28542
Mailing Address (if applicnble):Bldg'1005 Michael Road
City:Camp Lcjcunc StaleNC Zip:28542
Phone: (910 ) 451-2213
Email:carl.h.bakcr �� usmc.mil
Fax: (910 ) 451-2927
c. Please check the appropriate box. The applicant listed above is:
® The property owner (Skip to Contact Information, item 3a)
❑ Lessee* (Attach a copy of the lensc agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below)
❑ Puichascr* (Attach a copy of the peodiog sales agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and
2b below)
❑ Developer* (Complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below.)
2. a. Print Pro aerty Owner's name and I i I I c below, if you are the lessee, purchaser or deve lopeI I. ('Phis is the
Perm) n w�io owns the property that file project is located on).
Property Owncr/Organization:Same as above
Signing Official & Title:
b.Contact information for person listed in item 2a above:
Street Ad
City:
Mailing Address (if
City:
Phone: ( )
Email:
Fax:
Zip:
3. a. (Optional) Print the name and title of anothmr contact Such as the project's construction supervisor or other
person who can answer questions about the project:
Other Contact Person/Organization:
Signing Official & "Title:
b.Contact information for person listed in item 3e above:
Mailing Add
City:
Phone:
Email:
4. Local jurisdiction for building permits:
Point of Contact
Sta
Fax:
Phone #:
7_i
Foml SWU-101 Version 07,442009
Page'_' o1 6

Iv, PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, briefly sunvnarize how the stormwater runoff will be treated.
Runoff from rainfall events will be controlled by a series of drainage inlets and will be conveyed using
underground piping networks. Each of these networks will empty directly into an on -site wet pond. The wet
pond controlling and treating runoff from the school development will outfall into an unnamed ditch on the
West side of the subiect property
2. a. If claiming vested rights, identify the supporting documents provided and the date they were approved:
❑ Approval of a Site Specific Development Plan or PUD Approval Date:
❑ Valid Building Permit Issued Dale:
❑ Other: Date
b.Identify the regulation(s) the reject has been designed in accordance with:
ElCoastal SW— 1995 � Ph If — Post Construction
3. St01'mlwatCirunoff from this Project drains to the While Oak River basin.
4. "Total Property Area: 272 awes 5. Total Coastal 6\rellancis Area: 0 acres
6. Total Surface Wafer Area: 0 acres
7. Total Property Area (4) —Total Coastal Wetlands Area (5) —Total Surface Wafm Area (6) =Total Project Area":
Total project area shall be calculated to ecchrde Ilie jolLxoingr the not maI pool of impounded sheet rues, the wren
l0ween the ban/cs of shennrs and rivers, them ea below the Normal High Water (NHW) line or Mean High Water
(/v1HW) line, and cooetnl Wetlands landward from the NHIV (or MHW) line. The icsultoot project men is used I
cirlculatc overall percent built upon wren (131111). Non -coastal toetlands landward o(the NHW (or MHW) line, may be
inchrded in Ilse total project area.
S. Project percent of impervious area: (Total Impervious Area / Total Project Area) X 100 = 30.99 '%
9. How mane drainage areas does the project have? 1 (For high density, count 'I for each proposed engineered
stormwatcr BMP. For low density and other projects, Use I for the whole property area)
10. Complete the following information for each drainage area identified in Project Information item 9. If there
are more than four drainage areas in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for cash area
provided in the same format as below.
Basin Information
Drainage Area "I
Drainage Area
Draina*e Area
Draina ge Area
Receiving Stream Name
MORGAN BAY
Stream Class *
SC
Stream Index NUmbcr *
19-18
Total Drainage Area (sf)
883,336
On -site Drainage Area (sf)
883,336
Off -site Drainage Area (sf)
0
Pro posed Imp rvious Area** (sf)
367,263
'% Impervious Area** (total)
% 41.58
Impervious" Surface Area
Draina ge Area 1
Draina =e Area
Draina 8c Areo _
Diaino se Area _
On -site Buildings/Lots (sf)
79,350
On -site Strects (sf)
64,943
On -site Parking (sf)
100,871
On -site Sidewalks (sf)
52,800
0111er' oil -site (sf)
31,426
Future (sf)
37,873
Off -site (sf)
0
Bsistinrj BUA*** (sf)
(1
Total (sf):
367,263
/Y
Strennr Class mid Inde.r Nunrbcr con be determined al: hllp://h2o.carsfnlr.nc.us/hints/rcpnrls/rcp�i�1711�'.li.ltl.ud f �l
hn{xrvious aria is drfined ns plat hurt epee nn'a iruauding, buf not limits 1 hr, barb.... roods, 1,, 11,, nrcas,
sidewalks, 'ravel meal, etc. NOV 0 5 2009
Form SWU-101 Version 07.1a1v2009 Pace 3 of 6
DWO
PROJ a

Report only that amount of existing BUA that will rennin after development. Do not report any existing BLIA that is
to be removed and Which will be replaced by new BUA.
11. Flow was the off -site impervious area listed above determined? Provide documentation. None
Projects in Union Count°: Contact DfVQ Central Office staff it) check ifthe project is located within a Threatened K
Endangered Species watershed that pray be subject to more, stringent stnranvater requirements rtp rx�VC7N1C 02Br 0`0./
V. SUPPLEMENT AND O&M FORMS
7
The applicable stale stormwater management permit supplement and operation and maim Hance ( &M) forms
must be submitted for each BNIP specified for this project. The latest versions of the forms I un be downloaded
fromhttpJ n /h2oer.state.nc.us/su bam p fors.htio. 10
VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
A complete package includes all of the items listed below. A detailed application instruction sheet and BMP
checklists are available from llmL./f h2o.enrstate.nc.us su/bap forms.hhn. The complete application package
should be submitted to the appropriate DWQ Office. (The appropriate office may be found by locating project
on the interactive online map it http)j/h2o.enr.stale.ne.us/su/msi maps.htm.)
Please indicate that the following required information have been provided by initialing in the space provided for
each item. All original documents MUST' be si};ned and initialed in blue ink. Download the latest versions for
each submitted application package from hllp://h2o.enrstatenc.us su bap forms.hhn.
'I. Original and orrc copy of the Stornnvater Managemenf Permit Application Form.
2. Original and one copy of the signed and notarized Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants
Form. (if required as per Part VII beloro)
3. Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) (scaled, signed and dated) and O&M
agreement(s) for each 13MP.
'I. Permit application processing fee of $505 payable to NCOENR. (For an Express review, refer to
hall/wwuv.enahelp.org/pages/oncstoJ1 xpress.hhnl for information on the Express program
and the associated fees. Contact the appropriate regional office Express PermitCoordinator for
additional information and to schedule the required application meeting.)
5. A detailed narrative (one to two pages) describing the stormiaater treatment/management for
the project. This is required in addition to (lie brief summary provided in the Project
Information, item 1.
6. A USGS map identifying the site location. If the receiving stream is reported as class SA or the
receiving stream drains- to class- SA waters within 'k mile of the site boundary, include the
mile radius on the map.
7. Sealed, signed and dated calculations.
S. Two sets of plans folded to 8.5" x l4" (sealed, signed, & (fated), including:
a. Development/Project name.
b. Engineer and firm.
c. Location map with named Micets and NCSR numbers.
d. Legend.
e. North arrow. - - I. Scale.
g. Revision number and dates.
h. Identify all surface waters on the plans by delineating the noloral pool elevation of
impounded structures, the banks of streams and rivers, the MHW or NHW line of tidal
waters, and anv coastal wetlands landward of the MHW or NH4V lines.
• Delineate the vegetated buffer landward from the normal pool elevation of impounded
structures, the banks of streams or rivers, and the MI-IVV (or NFIW) of tidal waters.
1. Dimensioned property/projed boundory kith bearings & instances.
j. Site Layout with all BUA idontificd aril dimensioned.
k. Existing contours, proposed amtours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations.
I. Details of roads, drainage features, collection systenu, and stonnwotcr Control mt!asures.
m. Wcnands dClliealed, or ❑Hole nn the plans That none exist. (Must be delineated by a
qualified person. Provide documentation of qualifications and identify the person who
made the determination on the plans.
n. Lxisting drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations.
o. Drainage areas delineated (included in the main set of 111ans, not as a separate ilUQmlCnl)'
Initials
-k-
-NiA
I �
•
Foal SIVU-101 Vcisioii 07411\•2009 Puce 4 of 6

p. Vegetated buffers (where required).
9. Copy of any applicable soils report with the associated SHWT elevations (Please identify j
elevations in addition to depths) as well as a map of the boring locations with the existing
elevations and boring logs. Include an 8.5"xll" copy of the NRCS County Soils map with to
project area clearly delineated. For projects with infiltration BMPs, the report should also
include the soil type, expected infiltration rate, and the method of determining the infiltration a(eT 0 Ct 7009
(Infiltration Devices submitted to WiRO: Schedule a site visithor DWQ to verify the SHWT Lrior
to submittal, [phone].) 1 Y:
10. A copy of the most current property deed. Deed book: N/A Page No: N/A N )A
It. For corporations and limited liability corporations (LLC): Provide documentation from the NC
Secretary of State or other official documentation, which supports the titles and positions held
by the persons listed in Contact Information, item la, 2a, and/or 3a per NCAC 21-1.1003(c). The
corporation or LLC must be listed as an active corporation in good standing with the INC
Secretary of State, otherwise the application will be returned.
httpl/wwwsecretaryshitcnaus/Corporations/CSearch.nspx
VII. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
For all subdivisions, outporcels, and future development, the appropriate property restrictions and protective
covenants are required to be recorded prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly or the proposed
BUA allocations vary, a table listing each lot number, lot size, and the allowable built -upon area must be provided
as an attachment to the completed and notarized deed restriction form. The appropriate deed restrictions and
protective covenants forms can be downloaded from
httu://li2o.enr.St,ItC.ncus/su/bmp forms.htiopdeed restrictions. Download the latest versions for each submittal.
In the instances where the applicant is different than the property owner, it is the responsibility of the property
owner to sign the deed restrictions and protective covenants form while the applicant is responsible for enu sring
that the deed restrictions are recorded.
By the notarized signature(s) below, the permit holder(s) certify that the recorded property restrictions and
protective covenants for this project, if required, shall include all the items required in the permit and listed
on the forms available on the website, that the covenants will be binding on all parties and persons claiming
under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants cannot be changed or deleted
without concurrence from the NC DWQ, and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
VIII. CONSULTANT INFORMATION AND AUTHORIZATION
Applicant: Complete this section if you wish to designate authority to another individual and/or firm (such as a
consulting engineer and/or firm) so that they may provide information on your behalf for this project (such as
addressing requests for additional information).
Consulting Engineer:
Consulting Firm: Kin ley-l-lorn and Associates
Mailing Adchess:501 Independence Parkway
City:Chesapeake State:VA Zip:23320
Phone: (757 ) 548-7300 Fax: [phone]
Email:"Fed.Millcr�Kiraly-l-Iorn.Com
IX. PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION Ql Contact Informmlion, item 2 has been filled out, complete this
section)
1, (print or 1 ype name t J person lislcd in Contocl In/in n al ion, item 2a) , certify that I
own the property identified in this permit application, and thus give permission to (print or type name of lreram
listed in Contact Infornrnlion, item 1n) with (print or type name ofmganizntion listed in
Contact bnfonn ation, item 11)) to develop the project as currently proposed. eA copy of
the lease agreement or pending propm-ty soles cont,acl has been provided with the submittal, which indicales the
party responsible for the operation ❑nd maintenance of the stonnwaler system.
Form SWU-101 Version 07luh,2009 Paec 5 of 6

As.the legal property owner I acknowledge, understand, and agree by my signature below, that if my designated
agent (entity listed in Contact Information, item 1) dissolves their company and/or cancels or defaults on their
lease agreement, or pending sale, responsibility for compliance with the DWQ Stormwater permit reverts back to
me, the property owner. As the property owner, it is my responsibility to notify DWQ immediately and submit a
completed Name/Ownership Change Form within 30 days; otherwise I will be operating a stormwater treatment
facility without a valid permit. I understand that the operation of a stormwater treatment facility without a valid
permit is a violation of NC General Statue 143-215.1 and may result in appropriate enforcement action including
the assessment of civil Penalties of up to $25,000 per day, pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6.
Signa
before me this
it Notary Public for the State of
do hereby certify that
day of
stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal,
X. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
Date:
County of
personally appeared
and acknowledge the due execution of the application for a
y2c.CFF i JF,D
SEAL OCT i ', 2009
BY":____
My commission expires
1, (print or type nnrnr of person listed in Contact hijimuntion, item 2) Carl Baker, Depute Public Works O Jicer
certify that the information included un this Permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and
that the project will be C0l1StRlCted in conformance with the approved plans, that the required deed restrictions
and protectiyc cove a}i}ts will be r tied, and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of the
applicable stormw terd ales AW�
21-I .1000, SL 2006-246 (Ph. 1I — Post Contitr-uction) or SLG2008-21 I.
Srgnatu e Date:
I, _ /C �� /�� a Notary Public for the State ofb�i� lei=�. County of
U/y�J do hcrebv certify that personally appeared
before me this f%day of Oz,/ t% , and a � •r owlc e th due cxecutiim of the a lication for n
/]
stormwater permit, Witness' my hand and official seal, _�� bazz�_ F p
ALICE A BONNEM
Notary Public
OMlow County
state of North Carolina
My Comminlon Expir•l Oct 23, 2010
SEAL
My commission expires C'_12 4a,4 0
Form SWU-101 Version 071uIv2009 I'tr_c 6 of 6

.".r#-A
yyA („uu::.rix�Iou Esbilox Oc{ ST .i070
<1171� O{ ;lgtly ('91UliUU
DV'.iUN, CUflilh
ACJGId b,IPl;t
`: fICE V' 00"OUIE

K;
FOR: NCDENR
P. 01 K
TRANSACTION REPORT
----- DEC-02-2009 WED 12:31 PM
M
910 350 2004
SEND
DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE MO DP K
DEC-02 12:30 PM 919104512927 1'34" 9 FAX TX OK 182 K
� M
TOTAL : 1M 34S PAGES: 9
leverly Eupes Perdue, Governor
Date:
ro:i. l nnI f7
Co:
Fax:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office nee Freeman, Secretary
FAX COVyrp, SIrEFT
No. Pages (excl. cover): �---
From: Satly RUSsell
Phone: 910 796-T.?65 ­—
Fax [phone] ---
rY N�
Re:
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 • [phone] • An Ftlual Opportunity hf(irmativc Action Lmploy:r

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor FAX COVER SHEET Dee Freeman, Secretary
Date: �o2�gOc��/ eq
To: �rnX (T- 7J-11
Cc: A/ C 49
Fax: 7 / 0 �2 9.2 1
M
f-w cLi'�' Y 0904 l d
No. Pages (excl. cover):
From: Salmi Russell
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 • [phone] • An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

s
FOR: NCDENR
TRANSACTION REPORT
910 350 2004
P. 01
DEC-02-2009 WED 12:29 PM
>K
X
SEND
DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
DEC-02 12:27 PM 917575487301 1'16" 9 FAX TX OK 181
1K
TOTAL 1 M 16S PAGES: 9 K
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Pesources
Wilmington Regional Office
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor FAX COVER SHEET Dee Freemmn, Secretary
Date:
To:
Cc:
Re:
boa L
No. Pages (excl. cover):
From: Sally Fussell
Phone: 9l0 796-7265
Fax: [phone]
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 • [phone] • An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Emplaycr

ti State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor FAX COVER SHEET Dee Freeman, Secretary
Date: l l Da / ZOO l
To: I aC i� i I eA-
Co: /y (vim /m w !S id3SaC
Fax: l5l - 5 qK i 3o I Q n n
Re: (, l c. l dv d �
No. Pages (excl. cover):
From: Sally Russell
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 9 [phone] • An Equal Opportunity Aft -rmative Action Employer

lily i,
; I P. 01
J TRANSACTION REPORT
NOV-20-2009 FRI 08:58 AM
x< FOR: NCDENR 910 350 2004
SEND
DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
NOV-20 08:57 AM 917575487301 46" 3 FAX TX OK 130 �M
TOTAL 46S PAGES: 3
�. ivurin Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
wilminc,ton Regional. Office
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Dee Freeman
' ,Secretary
I FAX COVER SHEET
Date: l t-26
To:
CO:
FAX#: -?,Sq SI`{8-'13o I
REMARKS:
No. Of Pages: (excluding cover)
From: C —
CO: NC DENR
FAX#: [phone]
[moo r\ (5 A=i'i
I27 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, Y.C.'8apS-]8
An Equal OppartaNty a5 Tclephene (910) 796.T_IS Fax (9l p) 350._OpJ
i' Anirtnative action Employer

Kimley-Horn
501 Independence Parkway
and Associates, Inc.
Chile 00
Chesapeake, Virginia
23320
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
November 24, 2009
Christine Nelson
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405C�' Yv��
Re: Second Request for Additional Information NOV 3 0 2009
Stormwater Project No. S W8 090918
Lincoln Park School Development BY:
Onslow County
Dear Christine Nelson:
Please accept this letter as a response to the comments contained in your letter dated
November 13, 2009. This letter will address each comment through additional information,
figures and attachments. The responses below are numbered to correspond with the
comments contained in the November 13, 2009 letter (see attached).
I. A site visit was made by Vincent Lewis and soil borings were taken to determine the
seasonal high water table (SI-I WT). The approximate elevation of the SH WT was determined
to be 14.5. Please see the attached Division of Water Quality Infiltration Systems
Investigation report.
2. The calculations and other supporting documents have been modified to reflect the correct
SA/DA ratio. Because the correct SA/DA ratio does not impact the design, only the
documents which show the calculation of this ratio have been attached.
3. No additional review fee is required
4. Please see attached stormwater calculations and documents, both have been reviewed for
consistency and accuracy.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (757)548-
7324 or email me at Rachel.Oberle a kimley-horn.com. We look forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerely,
Kimley-Morn and Associates, Inc.
le.v�j- 6"
Rachel Oberle, EIT
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures: Stormwater Permit Application, Including Supporting Calculations

Nelson, Christine
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:46 AM
To: Nelson, Christine; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: SHWT @ school
Christine, you are correct in that Vincent's SHWT call for Boring #2 is Elev 14.5. We will move forward and will resubmit
the school stormwater application to you given this information. Since the design normal pool of the BMP is currently
14.0, no design calculations will need to be revised given a SHWT of 14.5.
I appreciate and thank you for your prompt reply regarding this issue.
Ted Miller, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Direct: 757-548-7333
From: Nelson, Christine[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:37 AM
To: Miller, Ted; Oberle (Watts), Rachel
Subject: SHWT @ school
Ted,
I talked with one of my co-workers for a while yesterday regarding the situation at this site. I looked again this morning
at the topo in the area of the pond along with the various SHWT elevations. I think I would be best to use Vincent's
SHWT call at Boring BMP-2, which if I'm looking at the map & reports properly corresponds to an elevation of 14.5 ft.
Christine
hristine Nelson
nvironmental Engineer
(INC DWQ - Stormwater Program �
Wilmington Regional Office
910-796-7323
Before printing this email, please consider your budget and the environment.
If you must print, please print only what you need.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Nelson, Christine
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 4:47 PM
To: 'Rachel.Oberle@kimley-horn,com'
Cc: Russell, Janet; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional info: SW No. 090918 Lincoln Park School
Rachel,
Dec 1 is fine with me. However, I must stress that the addinfo package must be complete once it is re -submitted. With
the extensions and working through some unique issues, this project has significantly run over the express timeline of 30
days to issue the permit. So I need to get it permitted as soon as possible.
Also, you don't need to re -submit everything originally submitted (like the geo-tech report). Only the pieces that have
changed need to be submitted.
Let me know if you have questions!
Christine
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
NC DWQ - Stonnwater Program
Wilmington Regional Office
910-796-7323
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 12:51 PM
To: Nelson, Christine
Cc: Russell, Janet; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional info: SW No. 090918 Lincoln Park School
Christine,
We would like to formally request an extension on the submittal date for the 2n" request for additional information for SW Project
SW8 090918 — Lincoln Park School Development. As we discussed, because we have not received all the necessary
information from Vincent Lewis concerning the seasonal high water table (SHWT), we are unable to address the
comments. The original submittal date is November 23, 2009. We would like to submit December I, 2009. Will this
work?
Please let me know if the extension has been grated and if the new date is acceptable. "['hank you for help through this
process.
Rachel A. Oberle, EIT
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. I Hampton Roads Office .
501 Independence Parkway I Suite 300 I Chesapeake, VA 23320
(p) 757-548-7324 (t) 757-548-7301 (e) Rachel.Oberle@Kim ley-Horn.com
AHelp reduce paper waste. Please print only if necessary.

Nelson, Christine
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:17 AM
To: 'Ted. [e-mail]'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Russell, Janet; Lewis, Vincent
Subject: RE: SHWT for Lincoln Park School
Attachments: infiltration site visit.doc
Ted,
As I indicated in my original e-mail, you need to complete the infiltration form (attached) and submit it to Vincent in
order for him to schedule a site visit. I just spoke with Vincent and he has not received the completed form for this site.
Please get the completed form to him ASAP.
Christine
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:56 AM
To: Ted. [e-mail]; Nelson, Christine; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Russell, Janet; Lewis, Vincent
Subject: RE: SHWT for Lincoln Park School
Vincent: I wanted to check in with you regarding the site visit to Lincoln Park. I've not heard anything regarding your
anticipated site visit and wanted to find out if you've got it scheduled so that we could have the geotechnical engineer
meet you in the field. Please let me know your anticipated schedule as soon as you are able —thanks!
Ted Miller, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Direct: 757-548-7333
From: Miller, Ted
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 6:48 PM
To: 'Nelson, Christine'; [e-mail]; Oberle (Watts), Rachel
Cc: Russell, Janet; Lewis, Vincent
Subject: RE: SHWT for Lincoln Park School
Thanks for the heads up Christine. Would it be helpful to have the geotechnical consultant meet Vincent on -site?
Ted Miller, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Direct: 757-548-7333
From: Nelson, Christine [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:22 PM
To: Miller, Ted; [e-mail]; Oberle (Watts), Rachel
Cc: Russell, Janet; Lewis, Vincent
Subject: SHWT for Lincoln Park School
Ted,
I reviewed the amendment to the soils report and talked with Vincent Lewis, the Division's regional Soil Scientist.
Vincent helps the stormwater team in Wilmington by verifying all of the SHWT elevations for proposed infiltration
systems.

Pav l "qAh fbt_�
�Cx -ttCro 72-1
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
INFILTRATION SYSTEM INVESTIGATION
Complete and email this form to [e-mail]. If there are more than 7 areas to be tested,
attach a second sheet. t1
/ �0
State Soil Scientist Confirmation Visit dateltime: /00/J
Project Name: Zj,e ot.., TAeK- County: Carp Le':Seu ae / d -XSLat,J
Street Address: UC&v>
Directions from the nearest intersection of two major roads: rz
• A/E-Xii� [.JET Oti REU}-r ETL llLYj] Fl?oo , 40t_60m$ YS LvD
StrS Is 5rs r+ or %J 12ews-& 3 OT ••rq& r%JAr FFPor 570,-'c 'Sr.
>1 acre being clisturbed� g ❑YES ❑NO CAMA Major required? ❑YES ❑NO
Consultant Name: "FEA /''Rutz.- k)mL.EY- AzPhone: 757 - Syg - 733
Consultant Firm Name: K,r•, ICY- No p m 9 �-,z5
Bore Number
1
t$"J•
Za
4
5
a Existing Ground Elevation
Zo.S
z.o.o
(
b} Proposed Bottom Elevation
c Difference a minus b)_
iS
kv t3i
is
;,
rt ask `r
d Add 2 ft. Min. Bore Depth',,.,,,+,,
e Hardpan2epth?
ou q
N A
u 4
fApprox. Elev. Of SHWT
6.
3.0
/Z.C)
Max. lowest bottom elev. ?
46
h Infiltration Rate OK?'
i) Confirmation of SHWT
For projects requiring more than 5 hand borings, manpower or equipment to
conduct the excavation must be provided by the consultant.
'State Soil Scientist Use ONLY
Comments A3o•rE:
aF SAI me T
STo n x1G� /S �Lc� 8.
sE?,tr-1E,
r �tcYa"
0)—, &�LEy
Is la b
Required Attachments:
1. Legible vicinity map.
2. Complete Soils Report.
3. PDF formatted site plan with the boring locations to be tested. Site plans should
be emailed or hand -delivered only. Illegible faxed maps will not be accepted.
All proposed infiltration areas and existing, active utility lines located within the proposed
basin/trench must be marked and Flagged. If these areas are not flagged, the Soils Scientist
,serves the right to decline to do the investigation. If the proposed infiltration system will be
gated in an area of existing pavement and there is no open area nearby, equipment capable of
eking through the impervious layer must be provided. The soils investigation does not take
t�tace of a soils report prepared by an appropriate professional. The Soils Scientist will only
she soil conditions that are reported in the Soils Report, and make a determination as to
ability of the site to meet the infiltration design requirements under NCAC 2H.1000, and
no liability should the system fail.
TORMWATER\FORMS\infiltration site visit Revised 3/08
t

CBR-2
14
B-1
—19
B-17
CBR-5
u ,..�
CBR-6
B-
;..... 11
B-2 ;:s;l
1-11UItt1i
CBR-7
~
I} ff�� 111
CBR-8
"
CBR-9
B-22
a
a
�- A
B-2
BMP-1 BMP-2
LEGEND
0 —APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS (FEASIBILITY STUDY)
7
P' �♦ Wy
0—AWRO%IMATE BORING LOCATIONS (NEV BORNS)
fM
EEiAiE SCHOOL
A. aL, rv01M CMRtw
VreNct M+ E.'B2K Yam 11. KL
Pe
L } J ad
4 .f7 (✓l a 7
BORING LOCATION PLAN
c�o-y �zyEl

MATCH SHEET CG-101
�{_—J /' / I-..4`l—�i'—n"'-�i✓,:"�.r,l r -- i }' !15�Iu4 --. 4L.1 DRAINAGE
DESCRIPTIONS
/ I�.htare
EEE
r
I"
F
1 - _
BMP 6 1 4 I: ,
-,1 I�A < I •\\\p /• �/ � Y GRPIC SCALE
r
DITCH SECTION A -A
Z
Ally/y yi ✓y✓ w�.� �w
I 9 i d S p
4401 Norw Mesa
D Paso, TX 7%02
915.298.4281
A anlb
Q
El Pao
a
Lubbock
O
Midland
2
J
J_
2
Y
2
a
Fm I je yTo rT '
and Associates Inc.
NEW ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
MCB
CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
4D
m� GRADING AND u,o
DRAINAGE PLAN
CG-102

A
1 1 2 1 '1 1 4 1 5
DRAINAGE
DESCRIPTIONS
E7'.�1�51,R, LLVD —:7
24 .1 �1 I'll
14
15 WV WT(4-1P)—W
— — — — ___I
— --
�4 N
x X- x r
L— — — — — — — -- — — — —
r
2.
r
�22
—J
11 11211- 1.
-------------- ------- —
7, --------- --- - ---------------
N
-�j
I` I
X X X
— - — — — - —
13
U/ A 0 L
L
0
---------- -- ----
41,
P� R�
U
n
MATCH SHEET CG-102
m 10
STB 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5
"01 No Mew
El Paw. TX79902
915.298.4281
Wadlio
E) Paw
q:
Ubbock
0
In 0
Midland
0
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
NEW ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
MCB
CAMP LEJEUNE, NC
GRADING AND
DRAINAGE PLAN
CG-101

North Carolina
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
November 13, 2009
NC®ENR
Department of Environment and
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
Natural Resources
Commanding Officer c/o Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
US MCB Camp Lejeune
Bldg 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 090918
Lincoln Park School Development
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Wilmington Regional Office received an Express Stormwater Management Permit
Application for Lincoln Park School Development on October 9, 2009 with additional information
received on November 5, 2009. A preliminary review of that information has determined that
the application is not complete. The following information is needed to continue the stormwater
review:
1. a. There is still a concern regarding the identified seasonal high water table (SHWT)
elevation in relation to the soil mottling and soil moisture found in the borings.
Due to the uncertainty with this site and the SHWT call, please complete the
attached Infiltration Request form and submit it to Vincent Lewis, the Division's
regional soil scientist, to verify the SHWT elevation for this wet detention pond.
Vincent helps the stormwater team in Wilmington by verifying all of the SHWT
elevations for proposed infiltration systems. Depending on his findings during the
site visit to the school, you might also consider asking him to look at the ponds
that have been proposed for the residential portion of this project while he is
there.
b. Please keep in mind that the SHWT influences the design of the permanent pool.
The reported SHWT cannot be any higher than 6' above the permanent pool
elevation. If the SHWT is found to be higher than 14.5 ft, please redesign the
pond such that the elevation of the permanent pool is set no lower than 6" below
the SHWT or meet the requirements outlined in Section 10.3.2 of the NC BMP
manual.
2. It appears that the SA/DA ratio has not been updated to consider the new percent of
impervious area found within the drainage area. Please modify the calculations and
other supporting documents to reflect the correct SA/DA ratio.
3. Due to the potential minor nature of these comments, the express Addlnfo fee has
been waived for this request for additional information.
4. Please keep in mind that changing one number may change other numbers and
require the calculations, supplements, and other supporting documentation to be
updated. Verify all numbers are correct to ensure consistency in the application
documents.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review.
The requested information should be received in this Office prior to November 23, 2009, or the
application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of
all required items, including the application fee.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, Nonh Carolina 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1.877-623-6748 North Carolina
Internet: vrav,.ncvyaterquallty.org a fry at 1'/�aln//�
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer � �

Carl Baker
November 13, 2009
Stormwater Application No. SW8 090918
If you need additional time to submit the information, please email or fax your request for a time
extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. Please note
that a second significant request for additional information may result in the return of the project.
If the project is returned, you will need to reschedule the project through the Express
coordinator for the next available review date, and resubmit all of the required items, including
the application fee.
The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under an
approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject
to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
Please label all packages and cover letters as "Express" and reference the project name and
State assigned project number on all correspondence. If you have any questions concerning
this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] or email me at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
m q
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
GDS/can: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\HDDINFO\2009\090918.nov09
cc:. Ted Miller, Kimley - Horn and Associates
Christine Nelson
Wilmington Regional Office
Page 2 of 2

Nelson, Christine
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 2:07 PM
To: 'Ted. [e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
Cc: Russell, Janet; [e-mail]
Subject: 2nd request for additional info: SW No. 090918 Lincoln Park School
Attachments: 090918 nov09.pdf
Gentlemen,
The 2nd request for additional information for SW Project SW8 090918 — Lincoln Park School Development should be
attached. Copies will also be sent in the mail. Let me know if you have questions!
Thanks,
Christine
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
NC DWQ - Stormwater Program
Wilmington Regional Office
910-796-7323
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may he .subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Nelson, Christine
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:01 AM
To: 'Ted. [e-mail]'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Russell, Janet; Lewis, Vincent
Subject: RE: SHWT for Lincoln Park School
That's really up to Vincent. He will most likely want to meet someone there to ensure he's in the right spot.
Christine
E-mail correspondence to andfrom this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 6:48 PM
To: Nelson, Christine; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Russell, Janet; Lewis, Vincent
Subject: RE: SHWT for Lincoln Park School
Thanks for the heads up Christine. Would it be helpful to have the geotechnical consultant meet Vincent on -site?
Ted Miller, P.E.
Klmley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Direct: 757-548-7333
From: Nelson, Christine[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:22 PM
To: Miller, Ted; [e-mail]; Oberle (Watts), Rachel
Cc: Russell, Janet; Lewis, Vincent
Subject: SHWT for Lincoln Park School
Ted,
I reviewed the amendment to the soils report and talked with Vincent Lewis, the Division's regional Soil Scientist.
Vincent helps the stormwater team in Wilmington by verifying all of the SHWT elevations for proposed infiltration
systems.
I am still concerned about the seasonal high water table (SHWT) call in relation to the soil mottling and soil moisture
found on site. Due to the uncertainty with this site and the SHWT call, I have asked Vincent to verify the SHWT elevation
for this wet detention pond. Please complete the attached form and submit it to him to schedule a site visit. When I
spoke to him earlier today, he indicated that he is currently available early next week. Depending on his findings during
the site visit to the school, you might also consider asking him to look at the ponds that have been proposed for the
residential portion of this project while he is there.
I am still reviewing the submitted information, but wanted to get this going as soon as possible to keep the process
moving. I should be able to finish reviewing the rest of the submitted information on Tuesday or Thursday (Wednesday
is a holiday).
Christine
Christine Nelson

U.S. ARtb1Y CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WIL MINGI'O` DISTRICT
Action Id, 2008 2570 County: OnsluwV U'S-G.S. Quad: Camp Leieune
NOTIFICATION Oh.1URISDICfIONAL DETERMINATION
Property O,.cncr/A ,ene USIAIC—Camp Leiellne Consult:me Ceo-Marine Incornuraled
Address: attn: Marty Korenek attn: Jef DeBerry
PSC Box 20004 2713 Nlaeruder BM], Suite 1)
Cants Leieune. NC 29542 1lampton, VA 23666
Properly description
Size (acres) + 2000 acres Nearest Town Cantu Leieune
Nearest Waterway Northeast and Nety River Watersheds River Basin White Oak
USGS H(JC' 030300011 Coordinates N 34.7247 W 77.3770
Location description The review area is located within Camp Leieune specifically within Camp .lohnson and a
protect area known as the PIIV 1-4 on the upposiie banks of the Northeast Creek from Camp Johnson, Onslow County.
I ndicate NN'hich of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent ol' Department of the Anny (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, it
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
13. Approved Determinatiou
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, [his determination may be relied upon fir a period not to exceed live years from the date of this
notification.
There are wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clam Water
Act (C'WA)(33 USCS 1344). Unless there is it change in the law or our published regulations. this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the dote of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in :I timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The wetland on your property have been dulineated and the delineation has bcco verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you h:rve this delineation surveyed. Upon completion. this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once serif icd. this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CW A jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon far a period not to exceed
five years.
The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on 3/16/2009. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
'determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
Therc are Ito w'aters of the U.S.. to include wedmnls. present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is it chance in the law or our
published regulation, this determination may be relied upon for it period not to exceed five years from [hc (fate of this
notification.
_ "file property is located in )tte of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Munagcmmit Act
(LAMA). You should coutact the Di%ision ofCoastal Nianalmuent in Washington. NC, at (252) 94694S 1 to determine5
their regtliremepl3. D E C E 0 V E D
Pat3c I of 2
NOV 0 5 2009
PRO,I #

Action ID:
Placement of dredged or lilt material within waters of the US arid .or wctIandn without a Department of the Army permit may
consutute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 131 1). I f cou have any questions regarding this
Lie tertninal ion and/or the Corps regulatory program, please conflict Brad Sbacer al 910-2514611.
C. Basis For Determination
The subject area exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Delineation Manual and is abutting or
represented by relatively permanent waterbodies which ultinmteiv flow into the Northeast Creek and NewRiver, hoth
traditional navisable waters of the US.
D. Remarks
The site wits lield verified by Fmihv 11t vhes and Brad Shaver on 5/27/08 6/24108 7/29/08 8/12/08. 8/19/08. 8/26/08,
9/9/08, and 9/16/08.
E. Appeals Information (Phis Infortuation applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
13. above)
Phis correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional dctenninnticnt for the above described site It' you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal wider Corps regulations at 33 CFR p;ut 331. Enclosed you will find a
Nutitication of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer. Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Brad Shaver. Project rblanager,
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington. North Carolina 28402-1890
III order for rut RFA to be accepted by the Corps. the Corps must determine that it is complete. that it meets the criteria fin'
appeal under 33 C'I--R part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of lte NAP.
Should you decide to Submit an RFA form. it must be received in the above address by 5/I6/2009.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA fonn to the District Office il'you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps ILcgulaurry 01,flcial: —/-0
Date 3/16/2009 Expiration Date 3/1612014
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
Imp: wtr w. sim msuce.at to complete the stir vey online.
Copy furnished:
Charles F. Riggs & .Associates, Inc. aun: Charles Riggs, P.L.S P.O. Box 1570 Jacksom ille, NC 28541
Page 2 of 2
�E tC E 9 V ED
�JJ�{uu NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: USMC - Camp Le'eune
File Number: 2008 2570
Date: 3/16/2009
Attached is:D
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
permission
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION l - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at http://www.Lisace.army.mil/iilet/functions/ew/cecwo/rea or
Corps s regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to tlue permit.
• ACCEPT: Iryou received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: 1f you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the (late of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form
acid sending the form to die division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form most be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved 1D in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved 1D under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice p� 0
UU
n NOV 0 5 2009

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you Wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
may also contact:
Project Manager
Mr. Mike Bell, Administralive Appeal Review Officer
Brad Shaver
CESAD-ET-CO-R
69 Darlington Ave
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date:
Telephone number.
Signature ofappellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved .Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Brad Shaver, Project Nlanager,
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
For Permit denials all(] Proffered Permits send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8801 E C E V ED
NOV 0 5 2009
PROJ #

STORMWATER CALCULATIONS
LINCOLN PARK SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT
At CAMP LE.IEUNE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PREPARED BY:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
501 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD SUITE 300
CHESAPEAKE, NC 23320
NOVEMBER 2009
KI-IA #1 16319000
E C E I V ED
►unUS NOV 0 5 2009
PROJ # DW

®�® Kimley-Horn
`® and Associates, Inc.
Wet Detention Basin
Stage -Storage
Project Information
Project Name: Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
KHA Project #: 116319000
Designed by: RAO Date: 10/22/2009
Checked by: TM Date: 10/22/2009
BMP: BMP #6
WET DETENTION BASIN 1
Pond
Contour
Incremental
Accumulated
Stage,
Countour
Contour Area
Area
Volume
Volume, S
Z
sq ft
acre
cu ft
on It
ft
8.00
29,451
0,68
0
0
0,00
9,00
31,780
0.73
30,616
0
1.00
10.00
34,166
0.78
32,973
0
2.00
11.00
36,608
0,84
35.387
35,387
3.00
12.00
39,107
0,90
37,858
73,245
4.00
13,00
41,663
0.96
40.385
113,630
5.00
13.50
42,962
0,99
21.156
134,786
5.50
14.00
46,855
1.08
22,454
157,240
6.00
14.50
50, 885
1.17
24,435
181,675
6.50
15,00
66,031
1.52
29.229
210,904
7.00
16,00
70,243
1.61
68,137
279,041
8.00
17.00
74,555
1.71
72,399
351,440
9.00
17,50
76, 749
1.76
37,826
389,266
9.50
18.00
78,968
1.81
38,929
428,195
10.00
18,50
81,212
1,86
40,045
468,240
10.50
19.00
83,481
1.92
41,173
509,414
11.00
20,00
88,095
2.02
85,788
595,202
12.00
Foreba
Contour
Incremental
Accumulated
Stage,
Counlour
Contour Area
Area
Volume
Volume, S
Z
so ft
acre
cu ft
on ft
ft
8-00
4,751
0,11
0
0
0.00
9.00
5,636
0.13
5, 194
0
1,00
10.00
6,587
0.15
6,112
0
2.00
11.00
7,604
0.17
7,096
7,096
3.00
12.00
8.685
0.20
8,145
15,240
4.00
13,00
9,830
0.23
9,258
24,498
5.00
13.50
10,426
0.24
5,064
29,562
5.50
14.00
11,039
0.25
5,366
34,928
6.00
14.50
12,549
0.29
5,897
40,825
6.50
Pond +
Foreba
Contour
Incremental
Accumulated
Stage,
Countour
Contour Area
Area
Volume
Volume,S
Z
sq ft
acre
cu ft
cu ft
it
8.00
34.202
0.79
0
0
0.00
9.00
37,416
0.86
35,809
0
1.00
10,00
40,753
0.94
39,085
0
2.00
11.00
44,212
1.01
42,483
42,483
3.00
12.00
47,792
1,10
46,002
88,485
4,00
13.00
51.493
1.18
49,643
138,127
5.00
13.50
53.388
4.23
26.220
164,347
5.50
14.00
57,894
1.33
27,821
192,168
6.00
14.50
63,434
1.46
30,332
222,500
6,50
15.00
66,031
1.52
32,366
254,866
7.00
16.00
70,243
L61
68,137
323,003
8.00
17.00
74,555
1,71
72,399
395,402
9.00
17,50
76,749
1.76
37,826
433,228
9250
18.00
78,968
1.81
38,929
472,157
10.00
18.50
81,212
1.86
40,045
512,202
10.50
19.00
83,481
1,92
41,173
553.376
11.00
2000.
88,095
2,02
85,788
639.164
12,00
Sediment
Storage
VWSE
Top of Riser
Sediment
Storage
NWSE
Sediment
Storage
NWSE
Top of Riser
�ECEoVED
NOV 0 5 2009 .
DWQ
PROJ #

PlJ Kimley-Horn
� ® and Associates, Inc.
Wet Detention Basin Design Summary
Project Information
Project Name: Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
KHA Project #: 116319000
Designed by: RAO Date: 11/15/2009
Checked by: TM Date: 11/15/2009
Design Resource: NCDENR - Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual ( July 2007)
Site Information
Sub Area Location:
BMP # 6
Drainage Area (DA) =
20.28
Acres
Impervious Area (IA) =
8A3
Acres
Percent Impervious (1) =
41.6 %
Required Storage Volume (Water Duality)
Design Storm =
1,5
inch
Determine Rv Value (imin) =
0.05 +.009 (I) =
0.42
Storage Volume Required =
46,832
of (above Permanent Pool)
Storage Volume Provided =
279,990
Required Surface Area
Average Depth Calculated=
3.3
ft
SA/DA =
4,16
(90%TSS Removal via Pond)
Min Req'd Surface Area =
36,749
sf (at Permanent Pool)
Surface Area Provided =
57,894
sf (at Permanent Pool) -
Required Length to Width Ratio
1.5 to 1
Length to Width Ratio Provided =
3.0
Required Length of flowpath to Width Ratio
3 to 1
Length of flowpath to Width Ratio Provided =
3.50
Pretreatment Device
Forebay
Required Forebay Sizing
Required Volume =
20.00%
of Permenant Pool
Permanent Pool Volume =
192,168
of
Required Forbay Volume =
38,434
cf
Forebay Volume Provided =
34,928
cf
18A 8%
of Permenant Pool
Summary of Proposed Pond
Bottom of Pond Elevation =
10.00
ft
Sediment Storage Depth =
2.00
ft.
Permanent Pool Elevation =
14.00
ft
Temporary Pool Elevation =
18.00
ft
Top of Pond Elevation =
20.00
ft
Permanent Pool Surface Area =
57,894
sf
Temporary Pool VOlume (water quality storage) =
Area @ Top of Temporary Pool =
279,990
of DT
r�
sf � �-C CPjV D
78,968
Side Slopes of Pond =
4
: 1
Volume of Forebay 1 =
34,928
of NOV 9 0 2009
Length to Width Ratio =
3
: 1
Length of flowpath to Width Ration =
3.5
:1 BY:

Kimley-Horn
®® and Associates, Inc.
Wet Detention Basin
ORFICE EQUATION
Project Information
Project Name: Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
KHA Project #: 116319000
Designed by: RAO Date: 9/22/2009
Checked by: TM Date: 10/6/2009
Sub Area Location: BMP #1
Water Quality Orifice
Orfice Equation Determination of Water Quality Volume Drawdown Time
Temporary Pool Elev (Riser Elev) = 18 ft
Permanent Pool Elev (Invert of Orfice) = 14 ft
Diameter of Orfice = 2.5 in
Orifice Discharge Equation:
Q = CDA(2gHo)112
where,
CD = description
A = Trr2
g = force of gravity
Ho = H/3
0.6 (unitless)
0.0341 ft2
32.2 ft/sec2
1.30 ft
Diameter
Ho = (Pond Elevation - Elevation of Orfice Invert) + (Orfice Diameter/2)
Q =
0.187 cfs
Required Temporary Storage =
46,832 ft3
Drawdown Time, t =
250,383 sec
t =
69.55 hours
t =
2.90 days
E C E n V ED
NOV 0 5 Zoos
DWQ
PROJ #

®® Kimley-Horn
I®_ and Associates, Inc.
Pre -Development Time of Concentration Calculation
Project Information
Project Name: Lincoln Park Development at Camp Lejeune
KHA Project #: 16319000
Designed by: RAO Date: 11/l/2009
Checked by: TM Date: 11/2/2009
To=0.225'L^(.42)`S"(-0. 19)'C^(-1) (Seelye Equation)
Seelye Equation Reference - Data Book for Civil Engineers Vol. I - Design 2nd Edelion (1951) By E.E. Seelye
Col/all
Overland Flow Time (Pervious)
L = 200 it (200' max)
S = 0.006 (lift
C = 0.25
Tc= 22.0min
V = 0.151 his
' Enter Values'
Outtall
Overland Flow Time (Pervious)
L = 200 it (200' max)
S = 0.004 fill
C = 0.25
Tc= 23.8 min
V= 0.f40 US
Blvd
' Enter Values'
Overland Flow Time (Pervious)
L =P0.25
ft (200' max)
S =fill
C =
Tc= 22.R min
V = 0.146 his
' Enter Values'
Overland Flow Time (Impervious)
L = II (200' max)
S = 0.004 MI
C= 0.9
Tc = � O.0 min
V = I1DIV/0! his
Overall Tc= 61 min
Overland Flow Time (Impervious)
L = fl (200' max)
S = 0.004 IVII
C= 0.9
Tc-1 0 U min
V = 401V/0! fl/s
Overall Tc= 126 min
Overland Flow Time (Impervious)
L=�f11200' max)
S = 0.004 it'll
C= 09
Tc = 0.01 Tin
V = 801V/01 [Us
Overall Tc= 67 min
Shallow Concentrated Flow
= 1160 it
V = 0.5 his
Tc = 38.7 min
ChannellGutter Flow Time
L= 0
V = 2 fUs
Tc=1 0.01 lllln
Shallow Concentrated Flow
L 3056 fl
V = 0.5 fUs
Tc = Li2L9 min
ChmmellGuttcr Flow Time
L= ft
V = 2 (Us
Tc=1 0.01min
Shallow Concentrated Flow
L = 1308 it
V = 0.5 Ns
Tc = 1 43 61 min
ChannellGutter Flow Time
L=
V=
Tc =
F W E P V E1\11r
OY 0 5 2000
Dwa
Pan.l t1 r_

Lincoln Park Schoo
Nodes
A Stage/Area
V Stage/Volume
T Time/Stage
M Manhole
Basins
0 Overland Flow
u SCS unit Hydro
5 Santa Barbara
Links
P Pipe
W Weir
C Channel
D Drop Structure
B Bridge
R Rating Curve
H Breach
T:Pre-Bound North
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.

Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
==== Basins =__ ----- =_____________________________________________________________________
Name: Pre -Area NorLh
Group: BASE
Unit Nydrograph: Uh464
Rainfall File:
Rainfall Amount (in): 0.000
Area(ac): 48.290
Curve Number: 55.00
DCIA(8): 0.00
Node: Pre -Bound North
Type: SCS Unit Nydrograph
Peaking Factor:
SLorm Duration(firs)
Time of Conc(min):
Time Shift(hrs):
Max Al 1. oo-:able '�(cfs):
Status: Onsite
484.0
0.00
61.00
0.00
999999.000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: School Site Hode: BMP46i n fta I Status: Onsite
Group: BASE 'Type: SCS Unit Nydrograph
Unit Hydrograph: Uh-164
Rai.nfal.l. File:
Rainfall Amount (in): 0.000
Area(ac): 20.300
Curve Number: 80.06
DCIA(%): 0.00
Peaking Factor: 484.0
SLorm Duration(hrs): 0.00
Time of Conc(min): 25.00
Time Shift(hrs): 0.00
Naa Allowable n(cfs): 999999.000
=-== Nodes =_________—____—___--- =- ---- '__----------------------- ___—_=--=_=
Name: BHP46
Group: BASE
Type: Stage/Area
Stage(ft) Area(ac)
8.000
0.7900
9.000
0.8600
10.000
0.9400
11.000
1.01.00
12.000
1.1000
13.000
1.1800
13.500
1.2300
14.000
1.3300
14.500
1.4600
15.000
1.5200
16.000
1.6100
17.000
1.7100
17.500
1.7600
18.000
1.8100
18.500
1.8600
19.000
1.9200
20.000
2.0200
Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 14.000
'darn Stage(ft): 20.000
----------------------------------------------------------------__
Name: Post -Bound IJ Base F1ow(cfs) 0.000 I111.L Stage(ft) 13.000
Group: BASE Warn Stage(f L): 14.500
Type: Time/Stage .
anE C E I V E�
Inll'fC(nwCLed Channel nd Pond Running Modcl (ICI'R) :J2002 Shcwnlinc Technologies. Inc. �^�S NOV ���� In I ul 6
DWQ
PROJ #

Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
Time(hrs) Stage(ft)
_______________ _______________
0.00
13.000
10.00
14.500
12.00
14.500
120.00
13.000
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Name: Pre -Bound North
Base Flow(cfs):
0.000 Init
Stage(ft):
11.500
Group: BASE
Warn
Stage(ft):
13.300
Type: Time/Stage
Time(hrs) Stage(ft)
0.00
11 500
10.00
15.500
14.00
15.500
120.00
11.500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-__= Drop Structures_________________________________________________________--_—
_________________________________________________________
__________________
________________________________
__--
Name: BMP116 OUC
From Node:
13MPA6
Leng th(ft):
264.00
Group: BASE
To Node:
Post -Bound N
Count:
1
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
Friction
Equation:
Average Conveyance
Geometry: Circular
Circular
Solution
Algorithm:
Automatic
Span(1 n): 24.00
24.00
Flow:
Both
Rise(in): 24.00
24.00
Entrance
Loss Coef:
0.500
lnvert (lt): 13.700
13.000
Exit
Loss Coe C:
1.000
Manning's N: 0.013000
0.013000
OuLlet
Ctrl Spec:
Use do or tw
Top Clip(in): 0.000
0.000
Inlet
Ctrl Spec:
Use do
But Clip(in): 0.000
0.000
Solution
Incs:
10
Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge
Description:
Circular Concrete: Groove
end projecting
Downstream ❑HWA Inlet Edge
Description:
Circular Concrete: Groove
end projecting
'^ Weir 1 of 2 for Drop
StrUCLUre 13MP116 Out
TABLE
Count:
1
Bottom Clip(in):
0.000
Type:
Horizontal
Top Clip(in):
0.000
Flew:
Both
Weir Disc Coef:
3.200
Geometry:
Circular
Orifice Disc Coef:
0.600
Span (in):
3'0.00
Invert(ft):
18.000
Rise(in):
36.00
Control E1ev(ft):
18.000
• Weir 2 of 2 for Drop
Structure BMPR6 Out
TABLE
Count:
1
Bottom Clip(in):
0.000
Type:
Vertical: t7avis
Top Clip(in):
0.000
Flow:
Both
Weir Disc Coef:
3.200
Geometr v:
Ci. rculai:
Orifice Disc Coef:
0. 600
Span(in):
2.50
lnvert(ft):
14.000
F.ise(in):
2.50
Control Elev(ft):
14.000
E C E V D,,J�Interconnected Channeland fond Routing Model (IC'I'R) �P12002 Streamline 1'echnulonics. Inc. cc 2 ul 6
NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
PROJ #

Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
Weirs =-------------------------- ---- --- ----
Name:
Group: BASE
Flow: Both
Type: Horizontal
Span(in): 0.00
Rise(in): 0.00
Invert(ft): 0.000
Control Elevaticn(ft): 0.000
Bottom Cj.i.p(i.n): 0.000
Top Cl. ip(.i.n): 0.000
Weir Discharge Coef: 3.200
Orifice Discharge Coe[: 0.600
From Node:
To Node:
Count: 1
Geometry: Circular
TABLE
--== H_drology Simulations=-------------------------------------------_-__----_-------
Name: FIFTY
Filename: K:\HR0-Civil\116319000 - Camp Lejeune ES\EngineeringADrainageA653\ICPR\FIFTY.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Raj.ncal.l File: Scsiii.
Rainfall Amount (in): 9.98
Time(hrs) Print Inc(nin)
10.000 15.00
14.000 5.00
120.000 15.00
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Name: HUNDRED
F,i.l.ename: K:AHRO Civil.A1.16319000 - Camp Lejeune ES\EngineeringADrainageA65%\ICPR\HUNDRED.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
SLorm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall File: .Scsiii
Rainfall Amount (in): 11.56
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
10 000 15.00
14.000 5.00
120.000 15.00
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wajm2: NC
Filename: K:\HRO-Civil\116329000 - Camp Lejeune ES\Engineering\Drai.nage\65%\ICPR\NC.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall File: Scsiii
Rainfall Amount (in): 1.50
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
10.000 15.00
14.000 5.00
120.000 ls.00 � E @ V � D
Inlerconnec(cd Channel and Pond Ruwine Mudd (ICPR) �D2002 Sucamlinc Technolo�aics. Inc. NO' 0 5 9 Page 3 0l G
DWQ
PROJ #

Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: ONE
Filename: K:\HRO Civil\116319000 - Camp Lejeune ES\Engineering\Drainage\65%\ICPR\ONE.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall File: Scsiii
Rainfall Amount(in): 3.68
Time(hrs) Print Inclmin)
------------------------------
10.000 15.00
14.000 5.00
120.000 15.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: TEN
Filename: K:\HrO-Civil\ll 6319000 - Camp Lejeune ES\Engineering\Drainage\55',\ICPR\TEN.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall. File: Scsiii
Rainfall Amount (in): 6.91
Time(hrs) Print Inc(min)
----------------------
10.000 15.00
14.000 5.00
120.000 15.00
Routine Simulations ____________________________________—___------
Name: FIFTY Hydrology Sim: FIFTY
F.i.lename: K:\HRO-Civil\116319000 - Camp Lejeune ES\Engineering\Drainage\65%\ICPR\FIFTY.132
Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No
A.l.tei:native: No
Max Delta Z(ct): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 90.00
Hin Calc Ti.me(sec): 0.5000 Max Cal.c Time(sec): 90.0000
Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows:
Time(hrs) Print Inc(win)
--------------
10.000 15.000
14.000 5.000
120.000 15.000
Group Run
BASE Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: HUNDRED Hydrology Sim: HUNDRED
Filename: K:\HRO Civil\116319000 - Camp Lejeune ES\Engineering\Drainage\650:\ICPR\HUNDRED.132
Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No
Alternative: No
In I crco n nccI cd Chunnd ;md Pond Reuling Model (ICPR) D2002 SIncmuIinc lbchnolug ics, Inc. R NOV 2009 �Pagc d of C
DWQ
PROD #

Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000
Min CalC Time(sec): 0.5000
Boundary Stages:
T:!.me (hrs) Print lnc (inin)
10.000 13.000
14.000 3.000
120.000 15.000
Group Fun
BASE Yes
Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
End Time (hrs): 90.00
Max Cale Time(sec): 90.0000
Boundary Flows:
________________________________________________
Name: NC ) Hydrology Sim: NC
Filename: K:AHP0 Civil\1163]9000 - Camp Lejeune ES\EngineerinaADrainageA65°\1CPR\NC.132
Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No
Alternative: Ho
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
.Start Time(hrs)i 0.000 End Time(hrs): 90.00
Min Calc Tile(sec): 0.5000 Max Calc Time (sec) 90, 0000
Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows:
Time (firs) Print Inc(min)
_______________ _______________
10.000 15.000
14.000 5.000
120.000 15.000
Group Run
_______________ -----
BASE Yes
________________________________________________
Name:'OHE ) Hydrology Sim: ONE
Filename: K:\HRO—Civil\116319000 - Camp Lejeune ES\Engineering\Drainage\654\ICPR\ONE.I32
Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No
Alternative: No
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 90.00
Min Calc Tirne(sec): 0.5000 Max Calc Time(sec) : 90.0000
Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows:
Time (h Ls) Pri. III: LIc(min)
_______________ _______________
10.000 15.000
14.000 5.000
120.000 15.000
Group Run
p E C E 9 V E
I ntcfenn 11CCICcl C'hunncl ;Ind Pond Room it,—, Mudcl (IC'19t) NOV 0 C 2009
DWO
PROJ #

Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
BASE Yes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------'_-----_------_-_
Name: TEN Hydrology Sim: TEN
Filename: K:\IIRO-Civil\116319000 - Carnp Lejeune ES\Engineering\Drai.nage\65%\ICPR\TEN.132
Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No
Alternative: No
Max Delta Z(ct): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start 'Pime(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 90.00
Min Calc Time(sec): 0. 5000 Max Gals Time(sec): 90.0000
Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows:
Time(hrs) Print Inc(rnin)
10.000 15.000
14.000 5.000
120.000 15.000
Group Run
BASE Yes
Boundary Conditions -_—_----------------------------- ------------------------ -----
R
E C E a V ED
I n t nl Cond necd Chunncl and ],()tic] Routing Nlo(IcI(ICPR) D2002 Strcan)I nc TccJmologws. Inc. NOV 0 5 2009 Pugu G of 6
DWQ
PROJ #

Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
Max
Time
Max
Warning
Max Delta
Max Surf
Max Time
Name
Group
Simulation
Stage
Stage
Stage
Stage
Area
inflow
hrs
ft
_t
ft2
hrs
BMPe6
BABE
NC
24.39
14.399
20.000
0.0048
62443
12.42
Post -Bound N
BASE
NC
10.02
14.500
14.500
0.0038
0
40.51
Pre -Bound North
BASE
NC
10.02
15.500
15.500
0.0100
0
0.00
�BMP$6 1
BASE
ONE
24.37
15.907
20.000
0.0050
69767
12.33
Post -Bound N
BASE
ONE
10.02
14.500
14.500
0.0038
0
40.50
Pre -Found North '
.=.?SE
`ONE
10.02
15.500
15.500
0.0100
0
13.00
BMP§'
.... ..
- =EN_�
i8.38
18.148
20.000
0.0050
79487
12.33
Post -Bound N
BASE
TEN
10.02
14.500
14.500
0.003"c
0
18.38
Pre -Bound North
F;,SE
TEN
10.02
15.500
15.500
0.0100
0
12.75
DECEIVED
NOV 0 5 2009
DWO
PROJ #
Interconnccicd Channel and Pond Routine Nludel (ICPR) D2002 Siroa nhilc fcchnolucics. Inc.
Max
Max Time
In`1cw
Outflow
cfs
hrs
3.533
40.51
0.079
0.00
0.000
0.00
26
?28
40.50
0.209
0.00
5.391
0.00
66.916
18.38
2.021
0.00
42.282
0.00
Max
Outflow
cffs
0.079
0.000
0.000
0.209
0.000
0.000
2.021
0.000
0.000
Paec I of I

2 / FLAT go -no rl-% b ire N
School BMP Outfall Ditch - 2 cfs
Project Description;`
,
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
—y
I�PU7 Daly it aii?G,l` dl' "' l u
u fi r
=o'wsC-Rv�}TI V�'LY
Roughness Coefficient
0.020
�0
Channel Slope
0.00500
f ift LU
Left Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V) 14I0NM Yt7 wwC IT
G
Right Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
f
Bottom Width
2.00
2.00
ft
0I0
Discharge
ft'/s
Results.-
--------------
Normal Depth
0.33 It
Flow Area
0.98 'ft'
Wetted Perimeter
4.08 ft
Top Width
3.97 ft
Critical Depth
0.27 ft
Critical Slope
Velocity
0.01011 ft/ft
2.03 ft/s
1/
Y ;
Velocity Head
0.06 ft
Specific Energy
0.39 it
Froude Number
0.72
Flow Type
Subcritical
Downstream Depth
0.00 ft
Length
0.00 ft
Number Of Steps
0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss
0.00
ft
Downstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Upstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Normal Depth
0.33
ft
Critical Depth
0.27
it
Channel Slope
0.00500
ft/ft
Critical Slope
a01011
ft/ft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowMaster [08.01.066.00]
71/4I2009 7:60:07 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, C7 06796 USA +1.203-766�6 C E Page V 1 Qf D
D
NOV 0 t ow
DWQ
PP.OJ 4

Table 8.05a: Minimum Allowable Design Velocities for
Vegetated Channels.
Table a 05a
�E C E E 'V ED
NOV 0 5 2009
DWO
PROJ R f

Table 8.05d: Maximum Permissible Velocities for
Unprotected Soils in Existing Channels.
Maximum Permissible
Materials Velocities (fps)
Fine Sand (noncolloidal)
2.5
Sand Learn (noncolloidal)
2-5
Silt Loam (noncolloidal)
3-0
Ordinary Firm Loam
3.5
Fine Gravel
5.0
Stiff Clay (very colloidal)
5-0
Graded, Loam to Cobbles (noncolloidal)
50
Graded, Silt to Cobbles (colloidal)
5-5
Alluvial Silts (noncolloidal)
3-5
Alluvial Silts (colloidal)
5-0
Coarse Gravel (noncolloidal)
6-0
Cobbles and Shingles
5-5
(�E C E 9 V ED
IO�,uu( NOV 0 5 2009
cwo
PPOJ # _

0
(continued)
Sample Problem 8.05a
Design of a
Grass -lined Channel.
Tractive Force
Procedure
Table 8.05e
Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Temporary
Lining Materials
8.05.10
Channel summary:
Trapezoidal shape, 7- = 3, b = 3 ft, d = 1.S ft. grade = 2
Note. In Sample Problem 8.05a the "n-value" is rust chosen based on a
permissible velocity and not a design velocity criteria. Therefore, the use of
Table 8.05c may not be as accurate as individual retardance, class charts when
a design velocity is the determining factor.
The design of nprap-lined channels and temporary cnannci mnng> 11 11�1u 11L
analysis of tractive force.
NOTE: This procedure is for uniform flow in channels and is not to be
used for design of deenergizing devices and may not be valid for larger
channels.
To calculate the required size of an open channel, assume the design flow is
unifonn and does not vary with time. Since actual flow conditions change
through the length of a channel, subdivide the channel into design reaches as
appropriate.
PERMISSIBLE SHEAR STRESS
The permissible shear stress, Ta, is the force required to initiate movement of
the liming material. Permissible shear stress for the liner is not related to the
credibility of the underlying soil. However, if the lining is eroded or broken,
the bed material will be exposed to the erosive force of the flow.
COMPUTING NORMAL DEPTH
The first step in selecting an appropriate lining is to compute the design
flow depth (the normal depth) and determine the shear stress.
Normal deptlis can be calculated by Manning's equation as shown for
trapezoidal channels in Figure 8.05d. Values of the Mapping's roughness
coefficient for different ranges of depth are provided in Table 8.05e for
temporary linings and Table 8.05f for riprap. The coefficient of roughness
generally decreases with increasing flow depth.
n value for Depth Ranges'
0-0.5 ft
0.5-2.0 ft
>2.0 ft
Lining Type
Woven Paper Net
0.016
0.015
0.015
Jute Net
0.028
0.022
0.019
Fiberglass Roving
0.028
0.021
0.019
Straw with Net
0.065
0.033
0.025
Curled Wood Mat
0.066
0.035
0.028
Synthetic Mat
0.036
0.025
0.021
' Adapted from: FHWA-HEC 1 �, t'g. s / - April tyaa
® RC 12/E B V E
NOV 0 5 2009 D
DW4
Pon. I#

a
Table 8.05f Manning's Roughness Coefficient
Lining Category
Lining Type
n - value
n value for Depth Ranges
0-0.5 ft 0.5-2.0 ft 2.0 R
(0-15 cm) (15-60 cm) (>60 cm)
Rigid
Concrete
0.015
0.013
0.013
Grouted Riprap
0.040
0.030
0.028
Stone Masonry
0.042
0.032
0.030
Soil Cement
0.025
0.022
0.020
Asphalt
0.018
0.016
0.016
Unlined
Bare Soil
0.023
0.020
0.020
Rock Cut
0.045
0.035
0.025
Gravel Riprap
1-inch (2.5-cm) Dso
0.044
0.033
0.030
2-inch (5-cm) Dso
0.066
0.041
0.034
Rock Riprap
6-inch (15-cm) Dso
0.104
0.069
0.035
12-inch (30-cm) Dso
--
0.078
0.040
Note: Value listed are representativ< values W the respecbve acptn ranges. manning ,wK... .............. ._ r
DETERMINING SHEAR STRESS
Shear stress, T, at normal depth is computed for the lining by the following
equation:
T = yes
Ta = Permissible shear stress
where:
T = shear stress in lb/ft'
y = unit weight of water, 62.4 lb/ft'
d = flow depth in ft
s = channel gradient in ft/ft
If the permissible shear stress, Ta, given in Table 8.05g is greater than the
computed shear stress, the riprap or temporary lining is considered acceptable.
If a lining is unacceptable, select a lining with a higher permissible shear stress
and repeat the calculations for normal depth and shear stress. In some cases it
may be necessary to alter channel dimensions to reduce the shear stress.
Computing tractive force around a channel bend requires special considerations
because the change in flow direction imposes higher shear stress on the channel
bottom and banks. The maximum shear stress in a bend, Te, is given by the
following equation:
Tp = K,T
where:
To = bend shear stress in lb/ft'
ke = bend factor
T = computed stress for straight channel in Ib/W
The value of ke is related to the radius of curvature of the channel at its center
line, Re, and the bottom width of the channel, B, Figure 8.05e. The length of
channel requiring protection downstream from a bend, LP, is a function of the
roughness of the lining material and the hydraulic radius as shown in Figure
8.05f.
8.05.12 E 6.Re . t�xro�� V . E
�I=1(UI NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
PROD # -

ScHoo � Ovr-F'I4tL,
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By: 'TM Date: 11/3/2009
Checked By: 'Date:
Company:
Project Name:
Project No.:
Site Location (City/Town) Camp Lejeune
Culvert Id. School Outfall
Total Drainage Area (acres) 20.3 j
Step 1. Determine the tail -water depth from chwutel characteristics below the
pipe outlet :for the clesign capacity of the pipe- If the tcuhvater depth is less
than half the nnrtlet Pipe diattnetrr, it is r.lassifled minimum milwnter conciitinn
If it is greater than half the pipe di uneter, it is classified tnvcitntun condition.
Pipes that outlet onto wide Hat areas with no defined channel are assumed
to have a minimum tailwater condition unless reliable flood stage elevations
show otherccise.
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.)
Tailwater depth (in.)
Minimum/Maximum tailwater?
Discharge (cfs)
Velocity (ft./s)
24 I
6 i
Min TW (Fig. 8.06a)
2�
3.5'
Step 2. Based on the tailwater conditions determined in step 1, enter Figure
8.06a or Hginre 8.0b, and determine dso riprap size and minitnum apron length
(L�). The d5o size is the median stone size. in a well -graded ripmp apron.
Step 3. Determine apron width at the pipe outlet, the apron shape, and the.
apron width at the outlet end from the same figure used un Step ?_
CBD
F NOV 0 5 2009
Dwa
prnIY__

k - ..
` Minimum TW Maximum TW
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d50, (ft.) 0.5
Minimum apron length, La (ft.) 8
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 6 6
Apron shape Trapezoid
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 10 2
Step 4, Veterimne the tnamnturn stone dianneter:
dam,=1.5xd60
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0.75 0
Step 5. Deternune the apron thickness:
Apron thickness = 1.5 x d,„.
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) 1.125 0
Step 6. Fit the riprap apron to the site by making it level for the inininnitr
length, La, fmin figure 8.06a or Figure 8.06b. .Extend the apron farther
doi-itstreana and along channel banks until stability is assured. Keep the
apron as straight as }possible: and align it with the flo%v of the receiving stream.
Make any necessary aligtunent bends near the pipe outlet so that the entrance
into the receiving st.reann is straight.
Some lncatinm may rerinirelining of the entire channel cross section to assure
stability.
It ii ay be necessary to increase the size of riprap where protection of the
chancel side slopes is necessary (Appendix 5.05). Wliere overfills emst at
pipe outlets or flov.-s are excessive, a plunge pool :should be considered, .see
page S.U6.8-
- i'.
�E C E E V ED
I��JnSuu NOV 0 5 2069
DWQ
PgOJ #

Figure 8.06a: Design of outlet protection from a round pipe flowing full, minimum
tailwater condition (Tw<0.5 diameter)
Gutl01 11 . Do + La
90i:!-
t1
lip 'If t,i
;
pipe
fill;, .ill,
llil ``.
diameter (Ob)(!'
^I!Iji
,Ijl
Id '-�N 80 E
i va ter <
—'U!Ill I , l [
I Iij !
, I Ik
i
II I
f
11 {III
}I
♦ II
I;j�I
�
I I ��(
I..1 }'1_��J
4
! ,,,
,
6 i
,1 4
3
2c
3
} (, .I m 1.'I 1'. Ii!1.}, llil l� lti !. !j ' Ix , '}
7 '�
I lI
i'
L �•
I'
0w I l 1 '' ill , !� III if I' it .
t
G '
{ b
N
2
Y klli�, l!I,i lli l'
am!�I'',. .
,I1, . '
ua3�J2„0lI i)kI 11lt1i {419,.:.'Iz , I �,'!�..
�, ,,' I'(J
IIl.rl�aI
!�I!II!
!�1�I,(
i
as�
yI�,+lIl
CIIIIIIIIu�IIII
1II�l[II, !kIi
o'"u lI!III',lI
I1�
.1 !! j3I,II�►v!
eIIrIlI
1� 5-
' IIIJ
`l�1nI I1[
{,
.I .
lI
,
!!I
!
f1l
'.lf•i
I, �
! �,
1 ,i4t-.C•I.
�,
[j1AG:i.
IIl
�
'!f1Iu!I
rI!I
', l,'PAP;
5 10 20 50 :00 200 500 ico0
®ro L 'Las Discharge ;0lsec)
Curves may not be extra:,ola,eCl.
Figure d.00a Dosipn of oulct projection pfoticuon from a round pipe fbwii0 till• minmun taihvatercordition (T„. a 0.5 diamuter),
F-)2
10o+ = �9 FT:
lice. I✓93
use Dso ` Co '°J
T►cscNEss 'L N )-J
n NOV 0 5 2009
CLAss A -J
?i1t �A1?
DWQ

Lincoln Park School Development at Camp Lejeune
Name
Group
Simulation
Max Time
Stage
his
Max
Stage
ft
Warning
Stage
ft
Max
Delta
Stage
ft
Max Surf
Area
ft2
Max Time
Inflow
hrs
Max
Inflow
cfs
Max Time
Outflow
hrs
Max
Outflow
cfs
BMP#6
BASE
FIFTY
13.17
18.712
20.000
0.0050
82132
12.33
106.457
13.17
18.305
Post -Bound N
BASE
FIFTY
10.01
14.500
14.500
0.0038
0
13.17
18.305
0.00
0.000
Pre -Bound North
BASE
FIFTY
10.01
15.500
15.500
0.0100
0
12.75
91.416
0.00
0.000
BMPk6
BASE
HUNDRED
13.13
19.335
20.000
0.0050
85093
12.33
126.729
13.13
22.748
Post -Bound N
BASE
HUNDRED
10.01
14.500
14.500
0.0038
0
13.13
22.748
0.00
0.000
Pre -Bound North
BASE
HUNDRED
10.01
15.500
15.500
0.0100
0
12.75
119.131
0.00
0.000
BMPk6
BASE
NC
24.39
14.398
20.000
0.0048
62443
12.42
3.533
40.51
0.079
Post -Bound N
BASE
NC
10.02
14.500
14.500
0.0038
0
40.51
0.079
0.00
0.000
Pre -Bound North
BASE
NC
10.02
15.500
15.500
0.0100
0
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.000
BMPk6
BASE
ONE
24.37
15.907
20.000
0.0050
69767
12.33
26.228
90.50
0.209
Post -Bound N
BASE
ONE
10.02
14.500
14.500
0.0038
0
40.50
0.209
0.00
0.000
Pre -Bound North
BASE
ONE
10.02
15.500
15.500
0.0100
0
13.00
5.391
0.00
0onn
BMP#6
BASE
TEN
18.38
18.148
20.000
0.0050
79487
12.33
66.916
18.38
2.02
Post -Bound N
BASE
TEN
10.02
14.500
14.500
0.0038
0
18.38
2.021
0.00
0.
0
Pre -Bound North
BASE
TEN
10.02
15.500
15.500
0.0100
0
12.75
42.282
0.00
0.000
Q,d - Z , o crs
Qso , 19.3 crs
p E C E' V ED
NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
PROJ #
I
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routine Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 1 of 1

STORMWATER NARRATIVE
LINCOLN PARK SCHOOL DEVI LONMENT
At CAMP LE.II UNE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
North Caroline Department of Environment and Natural ReSOUreeS
PREPARED BY:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
501 INDEPENDENCE 130ULEVARD SUITE 300
CI-IESAPEAKI?, NC 23320
s
NOVEMBF-R 2009
K1-1A #1 16319000
�E C E I V E
NOV 0 5 2009 D
PROD # DWQ

OVERVIEW
Backurounc
This report contains the approach for a stormwater impact analysis conducted for the proposed Lincoln
Park School Development. The project site is located at Marine Coles Base (MCB) Camp LQcune in
Onslow County, North Carolina. The project site is on approximately 27 acres bounded by Brewster
Boulevard to the North, cast of Paradise Point Golf Course, and west of Stonc Strect as shown in the
Vicinity Map. The proposed project includes the development of an elementary school as shown in the
attached plans.
A Lincoln Park Residential development is being proposed adjacent to the school development. 'file
Lincoln Park Residential Development includes the development of 340 Runily housing units for enlisted
military personnel and one community center. A separate permit application will be submitted for the
residential development.
The proposed school and residential development make up a portion of six proposed phases of
development at Camp Lejeune. An Environmental Assessment (EA) of the master development was
completed by the United States khrine Corps in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NI -PA). Pursuant to this report, A Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in August
2005.
E.XimulII Conditions
The proposed project she is currently an undeveloped, wooded area. A review of the topographic survey
shows grades on the site ranging firm elevation 14 to elevation 31 A geoteehnical investigation was
completed in September 2009. The results of the gcolcchuical investigation have been submitted with
this package.
III. Wetlands and Waters ofthe United States
A welland delineation of the proposed project srca was confirmed by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers on March 2009. The Notification of .lurisdictional Determination is attached. Less than 0.1 of
an acre or wetlands will be impacted (file to underground utilities and grading associated with the
proposed development. Thcrc arc no Waters of the Unites States on the proposed project site.
IV. Proposed Development
The proposed project includes the development of one Department or Defense Education Activity
(DoDEA) School. The Lincoln Park School Development includes the construction of one elementary
school, an associated parking Of, recreation fields, and playgrounds. One wet detention basin will serve
the school development site to treat stormwator runoff. The proposed project is on 2T2 acres, or which
25A acres will be disturbed. The pos-dcvolopntont impervious area or the proposed development was
calculated to be approximately 30AWK or SA3 acres.
V. Stormwatcr Analvsis
Ouslow County is a coastal coumy lowal within the White Oak River Basin. Thus. mornlwatcr
management measures have been designed in accordance with the Coastal Stormwater Rules Session
Law 2005-21 I. The proposed project area drains to the Morgan Bay. Index Number. 19-I8. According

to North Carolina Department of F nvironmcnl and Natural Resources (NCDI NR) Division of Water
Quality the proposed project drains to SC waters. The hAld upon area is greater than 2411; therefore, the
Proposed project is considered lIgh-Domity.
Per the stormwater quality requirements, the lust in or rain must he stored, controlled, and treated for
851; to MAN of the Total Suspended Solids (hSS). Ir wet ponds are used as a Best Management Practice
(BMP) the temporary pool must d mwdown between 48 and 120 hours. Per the stornnwater quantity
requirements, the storage volume mum be discharged at a rate equal lu or Tess than the pre -development
discharge rate Ior the 1-year 24-11our storm. Additionally, discharge directed to flow through %wetlandS
must do so at a non -erosive velocity. The calculations and supplemental forms submitted with this
narrative demonstrate that the proposed project iucets all requiretacnts ol' the Coastal Storm walcr Rules
Session Law 20080 11.
VL Design Procedure
The limits of the stuciv area were established by determining the areas contributing, runorr to the site
using available topographic information. The topographic information revealed two main stormwater
egress points, each of which has a significant drainage area composed or lauds that arc hoth a pall orand
separate rrom the proposed project site.
According to Table 3-4 in the North Carolina Department or I.arvironment and Natural Re50m-CGS
(NCDI:?NR) Stornnwater BMP Manual, the Hear surface soils in OnSIMV County arc classified as
I lychologic Group 13.
Structural measures will be required Ior conveying and controlling increases ill stormwaterrunolT
Meetly related to the increase in impervious area due to the Lincoln Park School Development. Runoff
from rainfall events will be controlled by a series or drainage inlets and will be conveyed using
underground piping networks. Each of these networks will empty directly into an nnahe wet pond. The
wet pond will treat runoff from the entire build upon area.
The wet pond will outNH into an unmm�ed ditch on the west side or the subject property. The unnamed
ditch (lows to an existing culvert under a dill road and outialls into Morgan Bay, an arm or the New
River.
The existing and proposed drainage systems have been evaluated fix peak Ilbw rates using ICPR
sofhvarc. ICPR utilizes SCS curve number methods or generating hydrographs. Rational Method
(Q=CIA). Manning's Equation, and SmnuCAD sortwerc have been used in the design of the proposed
stormwater system.

`t .5 ' D �Ss/ STD •: �r
�y P40pg / f 4
301
EVA
-
/
( a
�S'7f.
Paradr5e ie\ VAR I
11 cs.
TERM' _ -f" Golf Course '.
_ I•
�)0 A K
H I T E --�-- \.
1 v L 2
a, "= •(�
011 _ —..i p��
e1
pi
V 9� f y E , C \ "� • (IAA+ � �--yi �
- T / n t o is � rt. i d'.. �-1.J y6�i+ 1• . Q � O �� _
y , 7110 RrjG A IV r Fob
i
1�;;�
;LEGEND {\
SUBJECT PROPERTY LIMITS ' Ro1ns
LINCOLN PARK SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT
CAMP LEJEUNE N FIGURE 1
.- -- ONSLOW COUNTY, INC R. SITE VICINITY
Kimley-Horn DATA SOd URCE: U.S.G.S., SNEADS FERRY, NC QUAD R
PbGRAPHIC MAP
and Associates 1 INCH EQUALS Inc. 7.5 MINUTE TOPO SERIES 1,500 FEET U N V FI Iq
DWQ
PROJ #

Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page I of 3
POINT PRECIPITATION \
FREQUENCY ESTIMATES ; `� �
W FROM NOAA ATLAS 14 IMF
SNEADS FERRY, NOR I'll CAROLIINA (31-8037) 34.55 N 77.4 W 49 fret
green'I'mcipitztiomF¢quency Atlas of the United Slates' NOAA Atlas 14. Volume 2. Venion 3
0 id Ilonnin. O. Martin, II. Lin, I' lsarrybok, M.Yekta, and e. Nile,
NOAA. National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, 2004
1ixtrancd'. MidScp 292009
I Conftlence Limits Seasonality Location MaOther Moe Info. GIS data aps Ds Return to State Map Map
Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches)
ARI'
eon
(} )
S
-
min
10
min
IS
-
min
30
min
a
60
-
min
120
min
3 hr
6 hr
12 hr
24 hr
48 hr
4 day
7 day
10
du
I
20
du
day
JO
day
45
du
60
day_
=0.49
U.79
0.99
1.35
1.6n1
2.06
2.23
2.72
.21
7.6H
4.28
.75
5.4H
6.06
7.98
9.7`J
12.37
14.95
=I
0.59
094
L I8
1.67
2.04
.52
.72
3.J 1
.91
.48
5.17
5.75
6.6U
7.27
9.49
I LG4
14.60
I Z63
0.69
1.10
1.39
197
2.53
3U474550
7
Z780901
L
400
14
7
.80
10
Q77
1.22
Efl
2.24
2.92
.77
.12
S.U4
6.01
6.91
7.91
8.6U
9.7U
10.44
13.23
I5.88
19.-
3.34
25
U.H7
1.7H
1.75
2.59
3.45
.57
S.US
6.20
7.44
H.56
9.82
10.49
11.72
12.5U
15.62
18.48
23.01
6.80
50
U.94
1.50
1.9U
2.86
3.87
5.22
5.85
7.19
8.69
.98
11.49
1209
I3.41
14.21
IZ58
2U.57
25.66
9.52
1 00
LU2
L62
2.K
3.p
4.31
593
6.71
8.29 1
1007
EE
13.34
1J.83
15.22
66.04
19.64
22.0
284
2.28
200
LU9
1.73
2.19
3.41
4.78
6.69
7.66
n).49
IL61
13.32
15.41
15.72
17.17
IS.UII
21.82
24.98
31.26
5.07
500
1.19
L89
2.37
3.78
5.42
.77
n).US
11.28
13.91
15.94
18.55
IH.80
19.99
20.80
4.88
27.88
35.22
8.84
IODU
1.27
2.UU
2.52
.U7
5.95
8.66
10.23
12.7n)
I5.'JI
IH.19
2L26
21.44
2212
23.11
27.34
3 222
78.J8
1.74
. These ptecimalan finma, asNmbs are Santa on a @tli�mlg W,, ARlis Ire Average R... Interval.
Menem rebr b NOM Albs 14 Daernart for = to'nlemehon. NOTE'. FprtaaRng bras ashmates near zero to Witter ® zero.
* Upper bound of the 90% confidence interval
Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches)
AHI" 5❑ Ii IS 3U 60 12U 3❑� 12 24 48 4❑ 7❑ IU 20 7U 45 6U
(years) min min min min tam tam hr hr hr hr hr clay dvy day day day day day
���11.53
11.85
IA7
1.46
LH2
2.21
2.39
2J'4
3.52
.05
4.75
5.27
6.U3
6.67
8.67
IU.56
17.45
16.09
I ° IU.63
1.01
1.27
1.75
2.20
.7U
292
7.59
.28
.93
5.76
6.38
7.25
8.01
IU.32
12.54
1591
19.01
�0.74
LI%
1.4n)
2.12
2.72
3.43
3.72
4.5`)
5.49
6.75
7.78
8.10
9.11
9.90
12.54
IS.U6
ILU2
2.41
10
U.82
1.32
1.67
2.41
3.14
.U4
.41
5.45
6.56
7.55
8.78
9.52
1063
11.46
14.34
17.09
21.56
5.11
ZS
093
1.48
L88
.78
7.70
.88
5.39
6.6tl
8.0I
.75
10.88
IL57
12.7 81
F1 3 6 81
16.89
LEE
25.15
8.82
5D
LUI
L61
2.04
7.07
4.16
5.59
G.24
7.75
.43
IU.89
12.74
13.3i
14.64
15.56
19.00
22.IG
2H.U4
31.7G
l0
1.09
1.74
2.2U
3.37
4.64
6.35
7.16
891
10.91
12.59
14.79
15.24
16.63
IZ56
21.28
24.47
31.07
4.72
20U
1. 88
7
E7 2.36
3.67
5.1$
7.16
8.18
10.22
12.57
14 51
=
17 36
18.7%
F9.E
23.68
26.89
FEfl
37.84
SOU
1.29
2.04
2.57
.09
5.86
8.34
).69
12.15
15.0r/
17.41
2Q69
20.87
22A4
22.99
27.19
7U.30
7H.67
2.14
IODU
1.38
.17
2.73
.42
6.45
.33
10.99
U.81
17.2n)
19.'J%
2J.H3
3.99
4.78
25.66
30.UU
J2.99
42.34
5.53
w ayrnl orwlwolrllewnwmwnlaam.loan onn luenvlevenswavawnwnom a'nmlasi R..ena n aYrvtn nequency are era erlren.
"iMsa Drarrygalim treWmry eslmelm ere �sa0 m a IT3rl�ilqu2lon seen ARI Is ire Arerege Ramma Interval
Fallen, rebr In NOM Apes 14 Dalrmml to more nlprmt4en. NOTE: Retailing Ixevmle estimate rear zem to appear as zero
* Lower bound of the 90% confidence interval
Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches)
0❑ 12 2448I� U7AHI•" mn IU IS 7U 6U 12Jr6r hr d7❑U2U 45 60
ay }crs)❑tam tam tam min mn hhhr hr day 11 day JILdIaLyll day I day
I�U.46
17.74
0.92
L26
1.57
1.93
2.09
2.53
295
3.3H
3.88
4.J0
SAIL
ET
EL
9.13
11.41
1398
2�0.55
0.87
1.10
1.52
1.90
2.35
.55
3.07
.58
.11
.69
5.21
6.03
6.65
8.77
IU.86
13.49
16.49
5�0.64
LU2
L2'J
1.83
2.35
2.98
J.24
3.92
.60
5.31
6. 00
6.60
ff
8.22
10.62
13.03
16A8
19.41
IU
0.71
1.14
1.44
2.08
.71
3.49
7.H2
4b5
5.47
6.3U
7.11
7.74
H.NI
.4H
12.15
14.75
18A9
21.74
25
0.80
1.27
1.61
2.38
7.IH
4.21
.66
5.67
6.72
.74
8.76
9.39
10.6U
11.3U
14.25
IZ12
2L08
4.84
SU
U.86
1.3H
1.74
2.62
3.56
4.79
5.34
6.53
7.SU
H.95
81
10.76
12.04
12.78
15.96
18.93
23.41
27. 99
IOU
0.93
1.4H
1.87
.86
3.94
5.40
6.09
7.45
8.97
10.28
I171
12.20
13.56
FTE
Efl
20.80
Efl
29.68
200
U.99
1.58
199
3.10
.34
6.04
6.89
%.45
10.22
11.70
13.33
17.73
I5.15
15.90
19.51
22.63
2H.11
32A7
SUU
1.07
1.70
.13
3.40
.88
695
tl.04
9.89
12.U8
13.75
15.72
IG.17
17.4U
Efl
2L-
25.11
3 n
35.18
IOOU
1. 13
1.79
.24
7.63
5.30
7.69
8.99
II.10
13.62
15.46
17.72
18.20
19.19
19.92
3.84
27.U0
33.71
37.54
I in waver onulu at tire Wm4n ice in®rval at vVA caneeence even a an vWNt Nnlm aR osIll. nllnmetW goci values nor a given Irquencr are Pass train.
�Q E 0 !9
u NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
PROd 8
http://hdse. nws. noaa.gov/cgi-bin/hdsc/bui Idout. perl?type=pf&units=us&series=pd&statena... 9/28/2009

Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page 2 of 3
"Them preciaAMion frequency estimates are Wi on a Radial dumtbn mau sans. ANI Is the Aerage Recurrence Inbr2l.
Peam miler to ROM Atam 14 Document for more hlomlaton NOTE. Formatting pevmN estimates rear mm to appear es zero.
I Text version of tables
Partial duration based Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates - Version: 3
34.55 N 77.4 g 49 ft
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
v 28
26
0 24
{ 22
20
18
16
n 14
i
12
u 10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
Average Recurrence Interval (years)
Mon Si, 28 14:15:34 2009
Duration
-min
leu-m �
9 -hr .
30-day I
10-itin
3-1hr -F-
4-day +
45-day
15-m11,
6-hr —
7-day -a-
60-day -
30-min b-
12-hr ,
10-day �
60-min -n-
24-Er .
20-day -o-
4B
38
36
34
c 32
30
2e
p 26
o' 24
22
20
18
6
4
2
0
L e
6
0
Partial duration based Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates - Version: 3
34.55 N 77.4 N 49 It
C=�CC�'.CB�CC�CCC��
.
-.■==w.■=■�
1
C�
[ C {Is
L L
L
l
L
L L
L L
T T T
T
Y?
J
Y
Y T
L
L
L
L L
L L
N N N
N
N
T
N
n
m
P m
m a
�0ura[10
m
N
m'i
m o in
n
ry
m
a m
Mon Bap 28 14-15,34 2009
Average Recurrence Interval
(.ears)
1 -m
Ju -
2 -+-
Iee —
5 —
200
10 a
500
25 1
1000 -a-
Maps -
DECEIVED
NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
PROJ #
http://hdsc.nws. noaa.gov/cgi-bin/hdscibuildout. perl?type=p f&units=us&series=pd&statena... 9/28/2009

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page 3 of 3
reader maps sere prpdamd avnp a 6md map audiat tram Me
p S Comm Bureau it". aM cideaumic aesaume
Tim, Mee Saner.
Is---ul fwmereurfrrmnrr—
LEGEND
— State — Connector
— County Stream
Indian Resv O Military Area
i Lake/Pond/Ocean p National Park
— Street ® Other Park
Expressway City
Highway 0—C�Unty6 8 at
Scale 1:228583 1
*average- -true scale depenr{s on m21' a esolut on
Other Maps/Photographs -
View USG dlgttatort hophoto quad notate (DOQ) covering this location from TermScrvcr, USGS Acrial Phutogruph may also be available
I rom this site. A DOQ is a computer -generated image of tin aerial photograph in which image displacement caused by terrain relief and camera
tilts has been removed. It combines the image characteristics of it photograph with the geometric yualaws of a map. Visit the USGS for more information.
Watershed/Stream Flow Information -
tind,Lhe WitSodued for this location using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's site.
Climate Data Sources -
Precipitation frequency results are baser/ un data from a variety ofsuurces, but largely NCDC'. 7'he Jul/owing links provide general infurmation
abmU ubserving sites in the area, regardlessofif Their data ons used in this study. Fur detailed information about the stations used it, this study,
please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 Docunrest
-
Using the National Climatic Data Center's (NCDC) station search engine, locate other climate stations within-
+/-30 minutes ...OR... F /-I degree tarfl is location (34.55/-77 4). Digital ASCII data can be obtained directly from NCDC
It) dmmemnrumgmal pen lgn Studies Center
sacra onn/Nanona l Weather Serace
1325 k}rl-Weo nlg6rvay
SI b'er Spring, M112010
(a)1)71,1.1669
(jucrtimWl'. 11�$i.$LVueun ry
mgnlalmsr
�E C E 8 V ED
NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
PROJ #
http://hdsc. nws. noaa. gov/cgi-binlhdsc/bui ldout.perl?type=pf&units=us&series=pd&statena... 9/28/2009

NC: Ufi fd li to,'in r_a �Pt IS 4. 11' Alams, , I�restrait lx0-28-o7
�.? Peal: HOW CallllliflltHIS
S,nnc of dwstal9's so, I , n,atUi pnIIu; r"qulrC p o, IItIn � ,IIICn I I'looII ''I I IalnotI:
lot ---unple, that thu do" rails III the one %,e,ir, 2�1-h,�ul 1;t r III lloa �
n I exceed the pre-du%clopinenl IIm� rat: (%tteinse and T.Itd"IInII," Hs A' J, "U] rJn,51. In
aa( iitiun, it is also important to cun,Inlle hear Dales Iroln Zhu ,ya[,--rshcd %v hen I'luSynint{.
13O11T SW as grassed swaWn IiIfLi stIII)!;, and lushored riparian buIt,-II .
The primary method Thal is usecl to determine peak runoff rate for North Carolina's
storntwater programs is the Rational tvlethod. The Ralional equation is given as:
Q=C' I'A
Where: Q = Gstimatcc] design (Iisch;ugc (cfs)
C = Composite runofI coefficient (tit itless) for the ry ateIs led
I = Rainfall intensity (ill/Ill) for the designated design storm in the
geographic region of interest
A = Watershed area (ac)
The composite runoff coefficient Muds the surface characteristics of the contributing
watershed. The range of runoff awfficknt values varies from 0— 1.0, "wh higher values
corresponding to greater runoff rate potential. The runoff coefficient is determined by
estimating the area of different land uses within each drainage area. "I -able 3-2 presents
vaht:s of runoff coefficients for various pumious and impervious surfaces. The
Division bclieves that the Rational Melho:l is most applicable to drainage areas
approximately 20 acres or loss.
I'abla 3-2
Rational runoff coefficients (ASCG, 1975; Viessman, et zd, 1996; and idalcom, 1999)
Descripikon of Surface
Rational Runoff Coefficients, C
Unimproved Areas
035
Asphalt
005
c nct'ele
0,q5
Erick
0_85
Roofs, incline(
100
Rr, 4s, flat
0.90
Lawns, sandy soil, flat Q2%)
0-10
Lawns, sandy soil, average (2-7'16)
115
Lawns, sandy soil, steep Q7%)
120
Lawns, heavy soil, flat (<2%)
415
Lawns, heavy soil, average (2-5 ,.)
0.20
Lawns, heavy soil, steep (>7%)
0.30
Wooded areas
415
Ile appropriate value for 1, precipitation intensity in inches per hour, can be obtained
from the NOAA web site at: QQ/hdonnA.nout.gov hdsc pfds 1, This web site
Jtormwater Management and Calculations 12
CE@VED
NOV 0 5 2009
I
DWQ
PROJ #

GET
a i•
October 28, 2009
Garc.'fuJrni firndwrn..... •IC<Ib,i
TO: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Suite 300
501 Independence Parkway
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
Attn: Mr. Thomas J. Sauro, P.E.
RE: Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G
Amendment No. 1
Dear Mr. Sauro:
The following is an amendment to our original "Final Report of Subsurface Investigation
and Geotechnical Engineering Services" (EC09-228G; dated September 11, 2009 and
revised on the date of September 15, 2009) as it applies specifically to storm water
management pond for the above referenced project. Following the completion of our
subsurface exploration procedures and Geotechnical Engineering analysis, it was
requested to re-evaluate the estimated seasonal high groundwater level indicated in our
report specifically for the boring identified as BMP-1.
The soils recovered from the location of boring BMP-1 as well as the remaining borings
completed at this project site were previously classified in general accordance with ASTM
D 2487 test method. Also, the recovered soils were classified using the Munsell°Soil Color
Charts to aid in indicating the estimated Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT). Based on
the soil texture classifications located throughout the site, the soils appeared to be
relatively homogenous consisting of SAND (SC, SC-SM, SM, SP-SM, SP).
The visual description of the soils encountered at the location of boring BMP-1 and noted
in the associated boring log indicated that the soils extending from approximately 4 to 6,
feet below existing grades (14.5 to 16.5 feet MSL) consisted of a "Mottled Gray -Reddish
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace clay, loose". The color description of the
encountered soils indicated above, particularly the presence of mottling, can be used as an
indicator for the potential presence of the estimated seasonal high groundwater level.
However, our previously completed analysis indicated that the estimated seasonal high
groundwater level at the location of boring BMP-1 was anticipated to occur at a depth of
about 10 feet below existing grades (10.5 feet MSL), which an average of about 5 feet
lower in elevation than that of the color indicator mentioned above.
50d Gass Hlizabeih Street • Gliribcih Cil%, NC 27909 • Phunc (252)335--9765 • Pas
info uigcisolu iinnsinc.com
125213. iii C E h V IED
NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
oon].

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services October28, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G
Amendment No. 1
The "Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina" provided by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture indicates that soils located within the project site consist predominantly of the
Onslow loamy fine sand and Baymeade fine sand. More specifically, it was determined
that the proposed storm water retention pond south of the proposed elementary school
building is located within the area identified in the "Soil Survey of Onslow County, North
Carolina" to contain the Onslow loamy fine sand soils. This association indicates
moderately well drained soils with moderately high to high water transmittal capabilities.
The soils recovered at the project site appear to be consistent with the information provided
on the "Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina".
As previously noted, the soil sample colors were identified using the Munsell°Soil Color
Charts to aid in identifying the estimated SHWT. It is noted that soil morphology is not a
reliable indicator of the SHWT in drained soils, as indicated in the "Soil Morphology as an
Indicator of Seasonal High Water Tables" (prepared by Peter C. Fletcher, U.S. Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service). Accordingly, the SHWT depths at the location of
borings BMP-1 and BMP-2 were estimated based on a combination of the Munsell° color
classifications and our experience with similar soil and site conditions. The current
groundwater levels encountered at the project site and the estimated SHWT depths are
anticipated to be contributed to a combination of the varying existing site grade elevations
as well as the existing drainage features.
Accordingly, in order to substantiate the visual classifications noted in the previously
referenced report and associated boring log for BMP-1, the samples obtained during our
original exploration procedures, which were previously sealed in glass jars, were re-
evaluated. The results of our re -analysis of the previously completed visual classification
indicate that the'soil description should have been noted to consist of "Gray with faint,
Reddish Tan Mottling, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace clay, loose". This is further
illustrated in the revised "Boring Log" sheet for the previously completed boring identified
as BMP-1. Furthermore, the color evaluations do not appear to be a direct indicator of the
potential for the estimated seasonal high ground water level to occur at these depths. ,
In order to further evaluate the estimated seasonal high ground water levels previously
reported, a representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. revisited the project site and performed
an additional 13-foot deep hand auger boring within the vicinity of boring BMP-1. This
newly completed hand auger boring (identified as BMP-1 B) was located and identified in
the field by G E T Solutions Inc. personnel with the use of a Global Positions System unit
as well as the "State Plane" coordinates selected from the project site plan and converted
to latitude and longitude coordinates. The approximate boring location is 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 Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.
j�ECEIVED GET
Iu^(u NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
PROJ #

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services October28, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G
Amendment No. 1
The soils encountered at the newly completed boring location were visual classified in
accordance with ASTM D2487 and using the Munsell°Soil Color Charts. Furthermore, the
encountered soils were noted to consist of Tan, or Light Tan -Gray, SAND (SC-SM, SM,
SP-SM, and SP) with varying amounts of silt and/or clay. The ground water level
encountered during our initial drilling procedures was measured to occur at a depth of
about 11 feet below the existing site grade elevations, which corresponds to an elevation of
about 9 feet MSL. Furthermore, the results of our newly completed exploration procedures
and associated visual classifications did not indicate the presence of color mottling.
Accordingly, the seasonal high ground water level was estimated to occur at a depth of 7
feet below the existing site grade elevations at the location of boring BMP-1B, which
corresponds to an elevation of about 13 feet MSL. Again, this evaluation was based on the
results of our visual classification and our experience with similar soil and site conditions.
Table I below includes the encountered ground water elevations and the individual
estimated seasonal high ground water elevations for each BMP boring as well as the
average estimated seasonal high ground water elevation.
Table I — Groundwater Summary
Estimated
Average
Approximate
48-hour
Seasonal
Estimated
Surface
Initial
Groundwater
High
Seasonal High
Boring No.
Groundwater
Elevation
Elevation
Groundwater
Groundwater
(ft MSL)
Elevation (ft)"
(ft MSL) ""
Elevation
Elevation
ft MSL **
ft MSL "
Not
Monitoring
BMP-1
20.5
Encountered
Well Not
10.5
gMP POND #6
Installed
Monitoring
Average
BMP-1B
20.0
9.0
Well Not
13.0
Estimated
Installed
SHWT Elevation
= 11.8
BMP-2
21.5
6.5
9.0
12.0
= Elevations indicated above are estimated based on the topographic information provided by Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc.
The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil
strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included on the
attached" Boring Log" sheets and on the "Generalized Soil Profile" sheets, which should be
reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on
the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring
locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The
stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the
transition may be gradual.
nECEIVED GET
IuunSuu .-t 42'l
NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
PROJ If

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services October28, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G
Amendment No. t
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.
Gerald W. Stalls Jr., P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
NC Reg. #34336
Camille A. Kattan, P.E.
Principal Engineer
NC Reg. # 14103
Attachments: Boring Location Plan
Boring Log(s)
Generalized Soil Profile
Copies: (3) Client
q
S AL
03433E
'„nninm••
SEAL
01,1103
nECEIVED
NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
PROJ #3
r-
Solatlore,inc.,; .,,

BMF-1
BMP #6
-rOB=2o 0
NWSE=14 0 \
u Il E C V EII II
NOV 0 5 2009 �J
PROJ # DWQ
Pro
LEGEND GET CAMP IIect Name,
LEJEUNE NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Project No, EC09-228G Drawn By, APL
—APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS Date, 10/28/09 Figure No., 1
s
BORING LOCATION PLAN NOT NOT TO SCALE

GETPROJECT:
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc.
-
BORING LOG
BMP-1
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-2-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': Q AFTER 24 HOURS: -T CAVING> C.
cZ
'm
v `�
W�
_
a m
o w
F
a w
o `''
Description
$
2
a o
m z
N
E- >
w
NiYN
a
3 m
m o.
W
m
z
0
u
"
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
IN Value - PJ�
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
20
—
—
—
15_
—=
0
0
3
7
15
19
18
to
1.8
—t
7 inches of TOPSOIL
060
Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with sill, very loose
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 2 fee
mT
'✓
/i/:
.,.�.
_
1
---
2
_
22
24
_
SS
SS
z
2
2l
2
'....:...: ..:...
.. _:...:...:. ........
........................
.......... .. :. ..... .. ...
_.. :...:...:. .. :. .:.. .:.. :..
_..:.. ' ' .. .. t.
—
—
5
Gray with faint Reddish Tan mottling, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM)
with clay, loose
1__—
3
2a
SS
3
a
5
6
Light Gray, moist. poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt. medium dense
Light Tan -Tan from S feetr.`"'r
Light Gray from 10 feet
Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Level - 10 Feet
P
a.,.i:'
'lt:;j.
;::; i`
tr
4
22
SS
7
6
10
_
_
—
5
—
24
—
SS
10
,1
—
50
10
ar;u
_
6
_
24
_
SS
10
—
22
SS
7
6
6
—
15
Baring terminated al 15 ft.
E C E I VE
6
—
o_
10
—
-05
20
25
10
JO
�5
-
-
Notes: NOV 0 5 2009 SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
'Till uIltial cr r.adino fray not lie iodirartyp n(thi BS=Bulk Sample
PROJ K
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were perlorrned In the field in ,general accordance wilt, ASTM D 1586.

GETPROJECT:
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc.
�NNOW
BORING LOG
BM P-2
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.5' MSL
DRILLER: G ET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-2-09
DEPTH TO WATER • INITIAL': s- 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: T- 12.5' CAVING> C
—
o.
o
o. w
o
Description
n
a
w
a o
z
a>
v
�xm
m
n m
3 tD
m a
w
z
o
#
v
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
20
0
2—
3
8
22
17
13
14
2.0
11..
—k
8 inches of TOPSOIL
07
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose
1
18
SS
1
1
........ .. ...
:...: ..:...:.. : :..
it
'ii:---
2
12
SS
2
—
—
2ediurn
—
s
4
Light Tan -Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to rnediurn SAND (SP) to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose to
rn15 dense
Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Level = 9.5 feet
1b
t r
,.,,....
n:�:ol
...
r. f.
3
i8
SS
z
3
5
4
24
SS
10
12
12
—
—
5
24
SS
6
9
10
m
4
.::I
::
—
6
—
22
—
SS
7
s
e
Light Tan -Tan, moist to wet. poorly graded fine to medium SAND
(SP-SM) with silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), with Clay, medium dense
_
Wet from 15 feet
:....
''!i'---
7
15
Ss
c
—
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
—p
—
—
za
25
0
—
15
1p
—
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
uodwatef I 1 I1 r I I+
PAGE 1 of 7 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

GETPROJECT:
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc.
BORING LOG
BMP-1 B
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 10-21-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': `v 11' AFTER 24 HOURS: T, CAVING> C- 13,
c
w> -'
N
�
n m
m ffi
o _
E
o. �,
m m
o =
Description
n
�
a o
E z
N
n >
E>
in �
E
N �
o t,
m a
w
z
o
\
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit f-i Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-value- K=
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
20
0
0
6 inches of TOPSOILHA
y^
..... _...... ..._... .._ ..
_... _.._.....__._.:...:..
_..:...:...:...:..............
_..:. :.. .: :...:..
Tan. moist. Silly fine SAND with clay to Silly, Clayey SAND
(SC-Si)
a
5
—
—
10
5
an, moist to wet. poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poor)
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
Light Tan -Light Gray from 7 feet
Estimated SHWT Depth = 7 feet
Estimated SHWT Elevation = 13' MSL
Wet from 11 feet
?
rulr
r
rr
r ri.
i f:c i i
rr
—
—10
-
�
Boring terminated at 13 ft.
i.5_
6
20
5
10
-15
25
30
10
35
Notes: SS = split Spoon sample
ST= Shelby Tube Sample
HA = H,md Auge: Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PI
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Peuelration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

Symbol
Description
Strata
symbols
Topsoil
Clayey Sand
Silty Sand
Poorly graded Sand
with Silt
5r�
�: iE1:
Silty Clayey Sand
Misc.
Symbols
4
Water table during
drilling
Water table at
boring completion
Depth to caving
Notes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 10-21-09 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.

r 2s
II
I1
zz
3
5]
] 10
1212
B
N:a=T2
NIA=13.1
68
]8
66
0
Strata svmbol5
Topsoil
%�i
Clayey Sand
Silty Sand
Poorly graded Sand
with Silt
•t
Silty Clayey Sand
20
--- —F15
5
J
H-5

Symbol
Description
Strata
symbols
Topsoil
Clayey Sand
Silty Sand
j_p.,.,.�,;, Poorly graded Sand
..
iwith Silt
:�:.
r
Silty Clayey Sand
Misc_Symbols
Water table during
drilling
Water table at
boring completion
Notes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 10-21-09 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.

t
❑_❑ Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
November 4, 2009
Christine Nelson
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Re: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 090918
Lincoln Park School Development
Onslow County
Dear Christine Nelson:
501 Independence Parkway
Suite 300
Chesapeake, Virginia
23320
TEL 757,548,7300
I'AX 757.548.7301
Please accept this letter as a response to the comments contained in your letter dated October
20, 2009. This letter will address each comment through additional information, figures and
attachments. The responses below are numbered to correspond with the comments contained
in the October 20, 2009 letter (see attached).
I. a. Please see the attached letter from GET Solutions, Inc titled Final Report of'Subsuriace
Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services Amendment No. I
1. b. Please see the attached letter from GET Solutions, Inc titled Final Report of Subsurface
Investigation and Geoteehnica! Engineering Services Amendment No. I
I. c. The adjacent wetlands contain an existing ditch with an invert of 1 I' at the wetland
upland interface. This ditch extends for approximately 3,600 linear feet through the wetlands
at an invert of between I I and 13 feet and conveys ground water in a southwesterly direction
toward the New River. Ground water in and adjacent to the wetland will be controlled by
this ditch rather than by the proposed pond with a N WSE of 14', a foot higher than the
upstream ditch invert.
2. The calculations and other supporting documents have been modified to reflect the correct
SA/DA ratio.
3. The temporary pool volume is 279,990 cf based on the stage -storage calculations. The
inconsistency in this number has been corrected.
4. Please see attached Section III. Required Items Checklist with the wet pond supplement.
5. Please see attached the Jurisdictional Determination.
6. Please see attached the title sheet of the Stormwater plans. The street names on the
vicinity map have been updated.
7. Please see attached stormwater plans. The gravel shoulders are included in the totE C E I V E D
impervious area for the site. W
NOV 0 5 2009
DWQ
PROJ p

❑�❑ Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
501 Independence Parkway
Suite 300
Chesapeake, Virginia
23320
'I'EL 757.548.7300
FAX [phone]
8. Please see attached stormwater plans. All future areas, both sidewalks and buildings have
been clearly labeled and identified on the stormwater plan sheets.
9. Please see attached stormwater plans. The wet pond drainage area has been re-evaluated.
All proposed impervious areas will be collected and directed to the pond.
10. Please see attached grading plans. Additional spot elevations have been added to the
parking lot.
11. Please see attached stormwater plans. Proposed roof drains have been labeled.
12. Please see attached stormwater plans. The elevation of the weir in the berm between the
forebay and the main pond has been labeled.
13. Please see attached the planting plans for the project site.
14. Please see attached calculations and stormwater plans. Additional details have been
provided for the rip rap apron to be used at the pond outlet.
15. Please see attached FIowMaster calculations and [CPR model to support outflow
condition.
16. Please see attached stormwater calculations. The calculations have been signed, scaled,
and dated.
17. Please see attached stormwater plans. The plans have been signed, scaled, and dated.
18. Please see attached additional review fee check for $500.00.
19. Please see attached stormwater calculations and plans, both have been reviewed for
consistency and accuracy.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (757)548-
7324 or email me at Rachel.Oberleokimlev-horn.com. We look forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerely,
Kimley-I-torn and Associates, Inc.
A "4
Rachel Oberle, EIT
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures: Stormwater Permit Application, Including Supporting Calculations and Plans

Nelson, Christine
From:
Nelson, Christine
Sent:
Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:19 PM
To:
'[e-mail]'
Cc:
Rachel. [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Russell, Janet
Subject:
RE: Lincoln Park School Development
Ted,
A new due date of Nov 5 is ok with me. Please be advised that I will be on vacation on Fri, 11/6 and have a holiday on
Weds, 11/11.
Christine
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
NC DWQ - Stonnwater Program
Wilmington Regional Office
910-796-7323
E-mad correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Lou, and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:05 PM
To: Nelson, Christine
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Lincoln Park School Development
Christine: We are in receipt of your RFI letter dated October 20, 2009 regarding the Lincoln Park School Development
(SW* 090918) in which you request the additional information be submitted to you prior to October 29, 2009. As
discussed earlier today, there have been some minor changes to the school design and we will need some additional
time to compile the re -submittal package. Consequently, we request the deadline be extended to November 5, 2009.
Thank you for your understanding.
Ted Miller, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
501 Independence Parkway, Suite 300
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
Direct: 757-548-7333 Office: 757-548-7300
Fax: [phone] Cell: 757-270-5187
Email: ted milleridkimley-horn.com

4
�e 9
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
October 20, 2009
Commanding Officer c/o Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
US MCB Camp Lejeune
Bldg 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 090918
Lincoln Park School Development
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
The Wilmington Regional Office received an Express Stormwater Management Permit
Application for Lincoln Park School Development on October 9, 2009. A preliminary review of
that information has determined that the application is not complete. The following information
is needed to continue the stormwater review:
1. a. The geotechnical report provided in the application package identifies the
estimated seasonal high groundwater elevation; however the provided boring
logs for borings BMP-1 and BMP-2 do not appear to support that the identified
elevation is the seasonal high water table (SHWT). For instance, mottling is
identified in the boring for BMP-1 above the identified seasonal high groundwater
level. Mottling in the soil is often an indicator of SHWT. Refer to 15A NCAC
21-1.1002,(15) for the definition of the SHWT. Please have a licensed soil
scientist confirm the SHWT elevation in the location of the BMP.
b. Please keep in mind that the SHWT influences the design of the permanent pool.
The reported SHWT cannot be any higher than 6' above the permanent pool
elevation. If the SHWT is found to be higher than 14.5 ft, please redesign the
pond such that the elevation of the permanent pool is set no lower than 6" below
the SHWT or meet the requirements outlined in Section 10.3.2 of the NC BMP
manual.
c. Additionally, the permanent pool elevation cannot adversely impact any adjacent
wetlands. Please demonstrate that setting the permanent pool at an elevation of
14 ft, approximately 4 ft below the nearby wetlands, will not adversely impact the
water level in the wetlands.
2. When determining the average depth of the pond, please round the number resulting
from the average depth calculation, Option 1 or Option 2, to the nearest 0.5 ft. Based
on a calculated average depth of 3.32 ft, the rounded average depth will be 3.5 ft.
Using the 90% TSS chart for the coastal region (Table 10-4 in the NC BMP manual),
with a 37.5% impervious cover and a 3.5 ft average depth, the SA/DA ratio will be
3.75%. Please modify the calculations and other supporting documents to reflect the
correct SA/DA ratio.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncvvaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
None
rthCarolina
Naturally

Carl Baker
October 20, 2009
Stormwater Application No. SW8 090918
3. On the wet detention basin design summary calculation sheet, the temporary pool
volume (water quality storage) in the summary section at the bottom is listed as
320,035 cf. However, in the required Storage volume section a few sections above
that, the storage volume provided is listed as 279,990 cf. Please clarify why there is
a difference between these 2 numbers. The temporary pool volume will be that
volume contained between the permanent pool elevation (14 ft) and the temporary
pool elevation (18 ft), as reported on the supplement form. Based on the stage -
storage calculations, 279,990 cf appears to be the correct volume.
4. Please complete and provide Section III. Required Items Checklist for the wet
dentition pond supplement.
5. Section III of the overview/narrative indicates that the Notification of Jurisdictional
Determination was included in the application package; however it could not be
located. If available, please submit this document.
6. Please verify the vicinity map on the title sheet of the plans, specifically the street
names. One of the streets has been identified as Camp Lejeune.
7. Please confirm that the gravel shoulders used to armor the turns in the bus loop and
service road have been included in the total impervious area for the site.
8. The plan sheets labeled "Overall Site Layout' and "Overall Grading and Drainage
Plan" appear to include both proposed and future sidewalks. To reduce confusion,
please clearly label and identify all future areas, both sidewalks and buildings, or
remove the future sidewalks from these sheets.
9. Please re-evaluate the pond drainage area. Several areas identified within the
drainage area do not appear to be physically capable of draining to the pond.
Several of these areas include: half of the soccer fields, the area to the west of the
pond, and the service road between the dumpster pad and the bus loop. Please
ensure that the drainage area does not include areas that do not now or will not in
the future, drain to the pond and that, at a minimum, all proposed impervious areas
will be collected and directed to the pond.
10. Please provide more spot elevations or proposed contours for the parking area to
demonstrate that the runoff will be collected and directed to the pond.
11. Please label the proposed roof drain lines on the plans or add the symbol to a
legend.
12. Please identify the elevation of the weir in the berm between the forebay and the
main pond on plan sheet containing the detail and cross-section of the wet detention
pond (plan sheet BMP #6).
13. Please specify BMP and swale side slope vegetation and the wetland species to be
planted on the 10:1 vegetated shelf of the wet pond.
14. Please provide more details and calculations on the rip rap apron to be used at the
pond outlet, including dimensions.
15. Please provide more information and clarification on the velocity of the discharge
from pond outlet ditch into wetlands. For instance, the worksheet for the BMP outfall
ditch from FlowMaster identifies the velocity as 2.48 ft/s. However, the graph of
velocity vs. discharge for the outfall ditch indicates the velocity is 2.5 ft/s for no grass
or 2.0 ft/s for manicured grass. Wetlands typically are not comprised of manicured
grass. Is this calculation examining the velocity in the swale or at the point of
discharge? Please clearly demonstrate that the velocity of the runoff into and
through the wetlands is 2 ft/s or less for the 10-year storm event otherwise provide a
velocity reduction device, such as a level spreader.
Page 2 of 3

1:
Carl Baker
October 20, 2009
Stormwater Application No. SW8 090918
16. Please sign, seal, and date the calculations.
17. Please provide two sets of signed, sealed, and dated plans.
18. Please submit a $500 fee for the additional review required for this application.
19. Please keep in mind that changing one number may change other numbers and
require the calculations, supplements, and other supporting documentation to be
updated. Verify all numbers are correct to ensure consistency in the application
documents.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review.
The requested information should be received in this Office prior to October 29, 2009. or the
application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of
all required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information,, please email or fax your request for a time
extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom.of this letter. Please note
that a second significant request for additional information may result in the return of the project.
If the project is returned, you will need to reschedule the project through the Express
coordinator for the next available review date, and resubmit all of the required items, including
the application fee.
The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under an
approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject
to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
Please label all packages and cover letters as "Express" and reference the project name and
State assigned project number on all correspondence. If you have any questions concerning
this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] or email me at
[e-mail].
Sinccerely,
inq
l �Y� euib; u
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
GDSlcan: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\ADDINFO\2009\090918.oct09
cc: Ted Miller, Kimley - Horn and Associates
Christine Nelson
Wilmington Regional Office
Page 3 of 3

Nelson, Christine
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:37 PM
To: 'Ted. [e-mail]'; [e-mail]
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: request for additional info: SW No. 090918 Lincoln Park School
Attachments: 090918. oct09. pd f
Gentlemen,
I have attached a pdf version of my request for additional information for Stormwater Project SW8 090918— Lincoln
Park School Development. I will also send copies in the mail. Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks,
Christine
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
NC DWQ - Stormwater Program
Wilmington Regional Office
910-796-7323
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

3
r
I
-) ` )7r ' i9 -)Ir o`i9, E)l -! HE,A :!

Jtxz
For DENR Use ONLY
Reviewer: _ C„�
North Carolina Department of Environment and to _ r6
AANatural Resources Submit: ►t. — L
NCDENIt Request for Express Permit Review Time: t 3�
Confirm..
FILL-IN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. FAX or Email the completed to 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 Droiect location. Please include this form in the application oackaae.
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828.296.4698;alison.davidsork3ncmail.net
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791.4203; david.lee(rDncmail.net
• Mooresville & -Patrick Grogan 704-663.3772 or patrick.grogan((Dncmail.net
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-946.9215 or Ivn.hardisonCrDncmaitnet
• Wilmington Region -Janet Russell 910.350.2004 orianet.russell(cDncmail.net
NOTE: Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day.
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
) :30
Project Name: LINCOLN PARK SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT County: ONSLOW
Applicant: JARL BLISS Company: MID-ATLANTJAILITARY FAMILY COMMUNITIES LLC
Address: 200 FAIRBROOK DRIVE SUI 01 City: HERNDON State: VA Zip: 20170-_ V
Phone: [phone], Fax: 703-J32r3746, Email: [e-mail] C1pri.
Physical Location: LATITUDE: 34° 48" LONGITUDE:-77-22-08-
Project Drains into TIDAL waters — Water classification SC (for classification see-htlD://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/repoOsWB.html)
Project Located in WHITE OAK River Basin. Is project draining to class ORIN waters? N , within'/2 mile and draining to class SA waters N or within 1 mile
and draining to class HOW waters? N n E C E I V E D
Engineer/Consultant: TED MILLER Company: KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES
Address: 501 INDEPENDENCE PARKWAT SUITE 300 City: CHESAPEAKE, State: VIRGINIA Zip: 23320-5159 SEP 2 8 2009
Phone: [phone]. Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
SECTION ONE: REQUESTING A SCOPING MEETING ONLY DWQ
® Scoping Meeting ONLY ® DWQ, ❑ DCM, ❑ DLR, ❑ OTHER: REQUEST FOR FILING ONLY. MEETING HAS TAKEN PLa66?J #
SECTION TWO: CHECK ONLY THE PROGRAM (S) YOU ARE REQUESTING FOR EXPRESS PERMITTING
® 401 Unit ❑ Stream Origin Determination: _ # of stream calls — Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
❑ Intermittent/Perennial Determination: _# of stream calls— Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
® 401 Water Quality Certification ® Isolated Wetland L_linear ft or <0.1 acres)
❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization ❑ Minor Variance ❑ Major General Variance
® State Stormwater ❑ General ❑ SFR, ❑ SFR < 1 ac. ❑Bkhd & Bt Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility ❑ Other
❑ Low Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter _ It Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW _ (Provide permit #)]
® High Density -Detention Pond 1 #,Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration _ #Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Bio-Retention _# Treatment Systems El High Density —SW Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Other _ # Treatment Systems /❑ MOD:❑ Major ❑ Minor ❑ Plan Revision ❑ Redev. Exclusion SW (Provide permittt)
❑ Coastal Management ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information
❑ Upland Development ❑ Manna Development ❑ Urban Waterfront
❑ Land Quality
❑ Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with _ acres to be disturbed.(CK # (for DENR use))
SECTION THREE — PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT IS APPLICABLE TO YOUR PROJECT (for both SCODIno and express meelino reauest
Wetlands on Site ® Yes ❑ No Buffer Impacts: ® No ❑ YES: _acre(s)
Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ® Yes ❑ No Isolated wetland on Property ® Yes ❑ No
US ACOE Approval of Delineation completed: ® Yes ❑ No 404 Application in Process wl US ACOE: ® Yes ❑ No Permit
Received from US ACOE ® Yes ❑ No
+.>»r.......>u..>...»+.»>+»».»».... ..+.». r.r..>....+»»For DENR use only>•':...»..... r++»»»...»».»»..»»+»»+»»»»+:..».+++»+»++»»»»»».
Fee Split for multiple Dermits: (Check # 1 Total Fee Amount E
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
CAMA
$ Variance (❑ Mai; ❑ Min)
$
SW (❑ HD, ❑ LD, ❑ Gen)
$ 401:
$
LQS
$ Stream Deter,_
$
NCDENR EXPRESS March 2009

PF
30
WOUNDED NAVAL ,E
WAFFKM HOERTAL
PARADE POINT
Nex wvm
SEP 2 8 2009
DWO
PROJ # --
s

K
OVERVIEW
Background
This report contains the approach and preliminary results of a stormwater impact analysis conducted for
the proposed Lincoln Park School Development. The project site is located at Marine Corps Base (MCB)
Camp Lejeune in Onslow County, North Carolina. The project site is on approximately 31 acres bounded
by Brewster Boulevard to the North, east of Paradise Point Golf Course, and west of Stone Street as
shown in Appendix A: Vicinity Map. The proposed project includes the development of an elementary
school as shown in Appendix B: School Site Plan.
A Lincoln Park Residential development is being proposed adjacent to the school development. The
Lincoln Park Residential Development includes the development of 340 family housing units for enlisted
military personnel and one community center. A separate permit application will be submitted for the
residential development. The layout of the both the proposed school and residential development are
shown in Appendix C: Phase I Site Plan.
The proposed school and residential developments are Phase I of six proposed phases of development at
Camp Lejeune. The proposed master development is shown in Appendix D: Master Development. An
Environmental Assessment (EA) of the master development was completed by the United States Marine
Corps in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to this report, A
Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in August 2008.
IL Existing Conditions
The proposed project site is currently an undeveloped, wooded area. A review of the topographic survey
shows grades on the site ranging from elevation 14 to elevation 30. A preliminary geotechnical
investigation was completed in August 2008. An executive summary of the results is attached in
Appendix E: Preliminary Gcotcchnical Investigation.
III. Wetlands and Waters of the United States
A wetland delineation of the proposed project area was confirmed by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers on March 2009. The Notification of Jurisdictional Determination is attached in Appendix F.
Less than 0.1 of an acre of wetlands will be impacted due to underground utilities associated with the
proposed development. There are no Waters of the Unites States on the proposed project site.
IV. Proposed Development
The proposed project includes the development of one Department of Defense Education Activity
(DoDEA) School. The Lincoln Park School Development includes the construction of one elementary
school and associated parking lot, recreation fields, and playgrounds. The layout of the proposed project
is shown in Appendix B: School Site Plan.
One wet detention basin will serve the school development site to treat stormwater runoff. The proposed
project is on approximately 31 acres, of which approximately 29 acres will be disturbed. The post-
�ECEIVED
SEP 2 8 2009
DWO
PROJ B

�ECE0vED
SEP 2 8 2009'
PROJ u _ DW4

development impervious area of the proposed development was calculated to be approximately 35% or I I
acres.
V. Stormwater Analvsis
Onslow County is a coastal county located within the White Oak River Basin. Thus, Stormwater
management measures shall be designed in accordance with the Coastal Stormwater Rules Session Law
2008-21 L The proposed project area drains to the Morgan Bay, Index Number: 19-18. According to
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality
the proposed project drains to SC waters. The build upon area is greater than 24%; therefore, the
proposed project is considered 1-ligh-Density.
Per the Stormwater quality requirements, the first 1.5" of min must be stored, controlled, and treated for
85% to 90% of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS). if wet ponds are used as a Best Management Practice
(BMP) the temporary pool must drawdown between 48 and 120 hours. Per the stormwater quantity
requirements, the storage volume must be discharged at a rate equal to or less than the pre -development
discharge rate for the 1-year 24-hour storm. Additionally, discharge directed to flow through wetlands
must do so at a non -erosive velocity.
VI. Design Procedure
The limits of the study area were established by determining the areas contributing runoff to the site using
available topographic information. The topographic information further revealed two main stormwater
egress points, each of which has a significant drainage area composed of lands that are both a part of and
separate from the proposed project site.
According to Table 34 in the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) Stormwater BMP Manual, the near surface soils in Onslow County arc classified as
Hydrologic Group B.
Structural measures will be required for conveying and controlling increases in Stormwater runoff directly
related to the increase in impervious area due to the Lincoln Park School Development. These measures
will be designed to meet both the quantity and quality requirements for the State of North Carolina as
described in Section V.
Runoff from rainfall events will be controlled by a series of drainage inlets and will be conveyed using
underground piping networks. Each of these networks will empty directly into an on -site wet pond. One
wet pond BMP has been designed to control and treat stormwater runoff from the school development.
The location of the proposed pond is illustrated on Appendix B: School Site Plan.
The wet pond controlling and treating runoff from the school development will outfall into an unnamed
ditch on the west side of the subject property. Due to the fact that the outfall will be adjacent to delineated
wetlands, the discharge from the wet pond will be decreased using a plunge pool. The unnamed ditch
flows to an existing culvert under a dirt road and outfalls into Morgan Bay, an arm of the New River.
The stormwater networks and wet pond will treat runoff from the entire project area with exception to
approximately I grassed acre on the north boundary, which will sheet flow to existing culverts on
Brewster Boulevard.

The proposed pond will have a footprint area of approximately 1.35 acres (normal water surface area).
The wet pond is expected to have a minimum of 3:1 side slopes with a 10' wide aquatic bench with 10:1
side slopes. The proposed pond will have a forebay sized at 20% of the volume of the permanent pool.
The bottom elevations are expected to be 5.0' below the normal water surface elevation for all the
proposed ponds. The volume between the pond bottom and the normal pool is considered the water
quality or permanent pool volume. The volume above the normal pool elevation is for water quantity
(stormwater management). Based on the existing wetland areas and groundwater information, we expect
the normal water surface elevations can be maintained by the groundwater.
The existing and proposed drainage systems will be evaluated for peak flow rates using ICPR software.
[CPR utilizes SCS curve number methods of generating hydrographs. Rational Method (Q=CIA),
Manning's Equation, and StonnCAD software will also be used in the design of the proposed stormwater
system. A Manning's n value of 0.013 will be used for the storm sewer pipe.
VII. Erosion Control
Erosion and Sedimentation control measures shall be designed in accordance with 15A NCAC, Chapter 4
(NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973).
The project site will be surrounded by silt fence and all existing and proposed stormwater structures will
be fitted with inlet protection devices to prevent sediment from exiting the project site. Tree protection
will be utilized in all tree -save areas. The proposed pond is anticipated to act as temporary sediment
basins during construction.

I
♦1 t 1
v
11
Gall Lb se
n
as �
s'' a'♦ � -G�� i ry;.�`q 2 ryy g GEVA
% EwSTE ..
a1Par dI 5 tel;\
a IJ EVAR
TER,-- Golf Course
WHITE' -'--)OAK
.Tank "-�'� q •}
47
l.
o Q
4 o
, ry
3 11� 0'R C A N' � Y. 4... 4 F Y .' �� ��: ,,� • I,d I a
LEGEND
SUBJECT PROPERTY LIMITS
_ LINCOLN PARK SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT
CAMP LEJEUNE N FIGURE 1
�— — ONSLOW COUNTY, NC ^ SITE VICINITY
Kimley-Horn DATA SOURCE: U.S.G.S., SNEADS FERRY, NC QUAD /\\\\\ TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
and Associates, Inc. 7.5 MINUTE TOPO SERIES
1 1 INCH EQUALS 1,500 FEET

--{
w.77vwvm-�v4vwrly�-,^�
j

7REC. -�0�`jE:�
OCT 9 ?009
BY:
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND
GEOTECHNCIAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
G E T PROJECT NO: EC09-228G
September 11, 2009
Revised: September 15, 2009
Prepared for
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Suite 300
501 Independence Parkway
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
ATTN: MR. Thomas J. Sauro, P.E.
Prepared by
GET Solutions, Inc.
504 E. Elizabeth Street Ste. 2, Elizabeth City, NC 27909 ♦ Phone [phone] ♦ Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

I
Solut10n5'? Ir1C
TO: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Suite 300
501 Independence Parkway
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
Attn: Mr. Thomas J. Sauro, P.E.
September 11, 2009
OCT 0 O ?009
BY:
RE: Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised. September 15, 2009
Dear Mr. Sauro:
In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Subsurface Investigation and
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 oroiect 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. °p��...cA�.01G/
SEAL l' _
034336
Gerald W. Stalls Jr., P.E. .......... �c
� qu
Senior Project Engineer oW, SA
NC Reg. #034336
CAR
oFEss;6"
Camille A. Kattan, P.E.
SEAL
01410..5
Principal Engineer
NC Reg. # 014103
Copies: (3) Client
"' � 110"
504 Gast Elizabeth Sneee Suite 2 • Elizabeth Cirv, NC 27909 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
illro (( Setsolutionsinc.00111

A
OCT 0 9 2009
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.........................................................................1
2.0
FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES..................................................3
2.1 Field Exploration.................................................................................................3
2.2 Laboratory Testing..............................................................................................5
3.0
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................6
3.1 Site Location and Description.............................................................................6
3.2 Site Geology........................................................................................................7
3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions.................................................................................7
3.4 Groundwater Information....................................................................................8
4.0
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................9
4.1 Clearing and Grading..........................................................................................9
4.2 Subgrade Preparation.......................................................................................10
4.3 Structural Fill and Placement............................................................................10
4.4 Suitability of On -Site Soils.................................................................................11
4.5 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations...............................................11
4.6 Shallow Foundation Settlements......................................................................12
4.7 Shallow Foundation Excavations......................................................................12
4.8 Floor Slabs........................................................................................................13
4.9 Pavement Design..............................................................................................13
4.10 Seismic Evaluation............................................................................................15
4.11 Storm Water Design Parameters......................................................................16
5.0
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................17
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns..............................................................17
5.2 - Site Utility Installation ............. :............ :.............................................................
17
5.3 Excavations.......................................................................................................18
6.0
REPORT LIMITATIONS.................................................................................18
APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX II BORING LOGS
APPENDIX III GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
APPENDIX IV SUMMARY OF CBR TEST DATA
APPENDIX V DCP TEST DATA
APPENDIX VI PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS
APPENDIX VI SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX VIII CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina =BY:
7
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project site is generally located along the south side of Brewster Boulevard within
the Camp Lejeune military installation in North Carolina. The construction at this site is
planned to consist of building a new 500-student elementary school structure,
associated parking lot, paved roadways, storm water management (BMP) ponds, and
other pertinent infrastructure components.
Our field exploration program included twelve (12) 25-foot deep SPT borings, two (2)
15-foot deep SPT borings, as well as six (6) 10-foot deep hand auger boring drilled by
G E T Solutions, Inc. within the footprints of the proposed structure, pavement areas,
and storm water management pond (BMP) areas. A brief description of the natural
subsurface soil conditions is tabulated below:
RANGES OF
AVERAGE
STRATUM
DESCRIPTION
SPT(') N-
DEPTH (Feet)
VALUES
0.0
to
Topsoil
4 to 12 inches of Topsoil
0.3 — 1.0
0.3to 1.0
1
SAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC) with varying
2 to 25
10, 15, or 25
amounts of silt and/or clay
3.0 — 4.5
Lean CLAY (CL); Borings CBR-7 through
to
II
CBR-9 only
5.5 — 6.0
18.0 — 23.0
Fat CLAY (CH); Borings B-1 and B-2 only
12 to 16
23.toIII
Note (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, N-Values in Blows -per -foot
The groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through
the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial
groundwater table was measured to occur at depths ranging from 11 to 15 feet below
varying_ existing site grades at the boring locations, which corresponded to an elevation
ranging from 6 to 10.5 feet MSL. A groundwater monitoring well was installed at the
location of boring BMP-2 and 48-hour groundwater readings were noted to indicate a
static water level of 12.5 feet below existing grades, which corresponded to an elevation
of 9 feet MSL.
Solutbns:�lhc'1 i�"x'It'.(;s

OCT 0 D 2009
JBY'
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2o09
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
The following preliminary evaluations and recommendations were developed based on
our field exploration and laboratory -testing program:
• Field testing program during construction to include, subgrade proofrolling,
compaction testing, and foundation excavation observations for bearing capacity
verification. All other applicable testing, inspections, and evaluations should be
performed as indicated in the North Carolina State Building Code (2006
International Building Code with North Carolina Amendments) and/or UFC
(Unified Facilities Criteria).
• An estimated cut depth ranging from approximately 8 to 12 inches will be
required to remove the topsoil and associated root mat.
• The subgrade evaluation procedures should include a series of test pit
excavations to further evaluate these soils and to substantiate their suitability to
remain in -place. This is particularly recommended within the vicinity of boring B-
17 as the shallow subsurface granular soils to a depth of about 2 feet were noted
to contain trace amounts of organics.
• Some subgrade improvements should be anticipated within the construction
areas (undercutting and backfilling with select fill) as a result of potentially
unsuitable/unstable cohesive subgrade soils.
• Building shallow foundations designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of
2,000 psf (24-inch embedment, 24-inch width).
• Estimated post -construction total and differential settlements for the buildings up
to 1-inch and Yz-inch, respectively.
• Based on our experience with similar construction in the general area of the
project site, the site is within a site class 'D' in accordance with Table 1615.1.1 of
the 2006 International Building Code.
This summary briefly discusses some of the major topics mentioned in the attached
report. Accordingly, this report should be read in its entirety to thoroughly evaluate the
contents.
Solutlons;ilric' �"t'"t�,ryi3

OCT 0 01 3009
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services I September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School ��-------
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Project Authorization
G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our subsurface investigation and geotechnical
engineering services for the proposed Camp Lejeune New Elementary School project
located along the south side of Brewster Boulevard within the MCB Camp Lejeune military
installation in North Carolina. The Geotechnical Engineering Services were conducted in
general accordance with G E T Solutions, Inc. Proposal No. PEC09-116G, dated
February 5, 2009 and revised/resubmitted on the date of February 6, 2009. Furthermore,
these services were provided in conjunction with our previously completed feasibility study
reported on the date of October 14, 2008 (GET Project No. EC08-321 G). Authorization to
proceed with the Geotechnical Engineering Services was received from Mr. Tom Sauro of
Kimley-Horn and Associates, on the date of July 28, 2009 in the form of an email.
1.2 Project Description
The construction at the site is planned to consist of building a new 500-student elementary
school structure (approximately 76,500 square feet in plan area with an additional 31,300
square feet of possible future addition), associated parking lot, paved roadways,
stormwater management (BMP) ponds, and other pertinent infrastructure components.
The proposed school is anticipated to consist of a single story building constructed of a
combination of load bearing concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls, and structural steel frame
design supported by shallow foundations. The proposed loading conditions associated
with the structure are not known at the time. However, based on our experience with
similar projects the maximum column and wall loads are not anticipated to exceed about
100 kips and 6 klf, respectively.
The first floors are anticipated to be of slab -on -grade design with their distributed loads not
expected to exceed 150 pounds per square foot. The structure's first floor elevation will be
located at about 25 feet MSL. The existing grade elevations throughout the proposed
project site generally ranged from about 19.5 to 23 feet MSL, as indicated on the
topographic site plan provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Accordingly, fill
operations are anticipated to range from about 1.5 to 5 feet in order to establish the design
grade elevations.
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.
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:
Solunons;llnc."1;a",t<S':

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina\�r .a�% TF
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009 OCT ,0 0 �009
1. General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the
proposed development. IBY:
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 orsurficial/subsurface organics.
3. Soil subgrade preparation, including stripping, grading, and compaction.
Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of approved structural fill
material.
4. Construction considerations for fill placement, subgrade preparation, and
foundation excavations.
5. Feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the
proposed structure. Design parameters required for the foundation systems,
including foundation sizes, allowable bearing pressures, foundation levels,
and expected total and differential settlements.
6. Seismic site classification provided based on the results of the 25-foot deep
SPT borings performed at the project site as well as our experience with
similar projects located in the vicinity of the site.
7. Typical pavement sections based on the field exploration activities [five (5)
10-foot deep hand auger borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)
testing and five (5) CBR tests] and our experience with similar soil conditions.
9. Permeability (infiltration) values and storm water design parameters are
provided based on our field exploration activities (permeability tests) and our
experience with similar soil conditions.
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.
Solutions fltiic�P?"+r�sV

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina E-
2.1
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
foundation design parameters, a total of ten (10) 25-foot deep Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) borings (designated as B-13 through B-22) were drilled by G E T Solutions, Inc.
within the limits of the proposed structure. The recently completed borings were performed
in conjunction with, and labeled consecutively with the previously completed borings
associated with the project's feasibility study as well as the subsurface exploration
procedures recently completed for the proposed Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
project reported on the date of September 11, 2009 (GET Project No. EC09-227G).
Additionally, a total of two (2) 25-foot deep SPT borings (designated as B-1 and B-2) were
completed during our original feasibility study of the project site and provided in our report
dated October 14, 2008 (GET Project No. EC08-321 G).
Accordingly, the borings performed during our initial feasibility study for the proposed
project (B-1, B-2, and CBR-2) are included herein. Whereas, the remaining borings
identified as B-3 through B-12, CBR-1, CBR-3, and CBR-4, are not provided as they were
not performed within the limits of the school site.
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
pavement design parameters, five (5) 10-foot deep hand auger borings (designated as
CBR-5 through CBR-9) were drilled within the proposed pavement areas. Additionally, one
(1) 10-foot deep hand auger boring (designated as CBR-2) was completed within the
proposed pavement areas during our previously referenced feasibility study of the project
site. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing and bulk soil sampling was performed at
each of the pavement boring locations. The bulk subgrade soil samples were collected
from depths ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 feet below existing grades. The bulk soil samples were
returned to our laboratory and subjected to CBR testing in accordance with ASTM
standards.
Finally, in order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing
associated storm water design parameters, two (2)15-foot deep SPT borings (designated
as BMP_ -1 and BMP-2) were performed within the proposed storm water management pond
area. Additionally, a groundwater monitoring well was installed at the boring location
identified as BMP-2.
3
FSdu=t1ons11ncW.M

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 1-1-20091-- -
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina OCT 0 n ?009
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance \ iRCASTM
D 1586. The tests were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to depths
of 12 feet, and at 5-foot intervals thereafter. The soil samples were obtained with a
standard 1.4" I.D., 2" O.D., 30" long split -spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with
blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the
sampler each 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring
logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.
A representative portion of each disturbed split -spoon sample was collected with each
SPT, placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review.
Following the exploration procedures, the borings were backfilled with a neat cement grout
mix in accordance with NCDENR requirements, excluding the locations where groundwater
monitoring wells were installed. More specific information regarding boring locations and
depths is provided in the following table (Table I - Boring Schedule).
Table I - Boring Schedule
Boring
GIPS Coordinates
Boring
Boring
Surface
Depth
goring Location Description
Number
Elevation
Latitude
Longitude
(feet)
(ft MSL)-
B-1
25
19.0
South of West Wing (Referenced from Site Plan
340 42 821'
770 22 191'
Provided on July 28, 2009
Parking Lot; West End; Approximate Center
B-2
25
21.5
(Referenced from Site Plan Provided on
340 42.809'
770 22.099'
July 28, 2009
B-13
25
21.5
Future Addition; North Wing; Approximate
340 42 901'
770 22 151'
Center of North End
B-14
25
22.5
Future Addition; East Wing; Approximate
340 42.876'
770 22.090'
Northeast Corner
B-15
25
21.5
North Wing; Approximate Center of North End
340 42.873'
770 22.146'
B-16
25
20.5
North Wing; Approximate Center
340 42.857'
770 22.144'
B-17
25
22.0
East Wing; Approximate Southeast Corner
340 42.860'
770 22.110'
B-18
25
20.5
Future Addition; West Wing; Approximate
34042.840'
77022.207'
Center of West End
B-19
25 --
20.5
West Wing; Approximate Center
340 42 842'
770 22 174'
B-20
25
21.0
Approximate Center of School
340 42.841'
770 22.142'
B-21
25
21.0
South Wing; Approximate Northwest Corner
340 42.819'
770 22.153'
B-22
25
22.0
South Wing; Approximate Center of South End
340 42.802'
770 22A 35'
Perimeter Drive Lane; Northwest of School
CBR-2
10
21.5
(Referenced from Site Plan Provided on
340 42.880'
770 22.179'
July 28, 2009
' = Surface elevations are estimated based on the topographic information provided by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.
Solutions\Inc.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camo Leieune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
EC �,�0. VED
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
OCT 0 " ?009
ly:
Table I — Boring Schedule: Continued
_f
Boring
GPS Coordinates
Boring
BoringSurface
Depth
Boring Location Description
Number
Ele ation
Latitude
Longitude
(feet)
(ft MSL)*
CBR-5
10
22.5
Parking Lot; North End; Approximate
340 42 844
770 22 075'
Center of Drive Lane
CBR-6
10
22,5
Parking Lot; East End; Approximate Center
340 42.819'
770 22,060'
CBR-7
10
22.0
Parking Lot, Approximate Center
340 42.800'
770 22.076'
CBR-8
10
21.0
Parking Lot; Approximate Southwest Corner
340 42.784'
770 22.085'
CBR-9
10
21.0
Parking Lot; South Drive Lane Egress
340 42.776'
1 770 22.057'
BMP-1
15
20.5
BMP Storm Water Pond South of School;
340 42.740'
770 22.193'
Approximate North End
BMP-2
15
21.5
BMP Storm Water Pond South of School;
340 42 712'
770 22 165'
Approximate Southeast End
' = Surface elevations are estimated based on the topographic information provided by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.
The previously indicated boring locations were established and were identified in the field
by G E T Solutions Inc. personnel with the use of a Global Positions System unit as well
as the "State Plane" coordinates selected from the project site plan and converted to
latitude and longitude coordinates. 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 Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass
jars, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis. The soil
classification was performed by a Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with ASTM D2488.
Nine (9) representative soil samples were selected and subjected to laboratory testing,
which included natural moisture, 4200 sieve wash, and/or Atterberg Limits testing and
analysis, in order to corroborate the visual classification. These test results are provided in
the following table (Table II — Laboratory Test Results) and are presented on the "Boring
Log" sheets (Appendix II), included with this report.
Solutlonsilnc.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
Table II - Laboratory Test Results
September 11,„ 2009.
OCT 0 2009
By.
Boring
No.
Sample
Type
Depth
(Feet)
Natural
Moisture
%
%
Passing
#200
Atterberg
Limits
LL/PL/PI
USCS
Classification
B-1
SS
4-6
12
20.6
Not Tested
SM
B-13
SS
0-2
15.7
38.4
28/19/9
SC
B-15
SS
4-6
8.3
10.6
Not Tested
SP-SM
B-17
SS
13-15
22.0
4.7
Not Tested
SP
B-19
SS
4-6
16.1
45.2
32/13/19
SC
B-21
SS
13-15
22.4
10.0
Not Tested
SP-SM
BMP-1
SS
9.5-10
6.3
1.8
Not Tested
SP
BMP-2
SS
9.5-10
7.2
2.0
Not Tested
SP
BMP-2
SS
10-12
13.1
11.8
Not Tested
SP-SM
SS = Split Spoon Sample
The six (6) bulk soil samples (CBR-2 and CBR-5 through CBR-9) were subjected to
Atterberg Limits, natural moisture content, gradation analysis, standard Proctor, and CBR
testing in accordance with ASTM standards. A comprehensive summary of the CBR test
data and the moisture density relationship curves (Proctors) are presented in Appendix IV.
Additionally, the results of the field DCP testing procedures are presented in Appendix V.
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location and Description
The project site is located along the south side of Brewster Boulevard just east of the
intersection with Charles Street in the Camp Lejeune military installation in North Carolina.
The site currently consists of an undeveloped wooded parcel with an existing dirt roadway
located to the southeast of the site. Existing grade elevations throughout the proposed
project site generally ranged from about 19.5 to 23 feet MSL, as indicated on the
topographic site plan provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Furthermore, the site
was visually estimated to be relatively level with less than 1 to 2 feet of change in elevation
in 50 linear feet.
The project site is bordered to the east by the a wooded area followed by an existing
recreational area associated with an existing school, to the north by Brewster Boulevard
followed by a wooded parcel, and to the west and south by a wooded parcel.
Soliitldn"s�lnc.:,

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geolechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina =09
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 20093.2 Site Geology
The project site lies within a major physiographic province called the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine,
lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, and
generally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts and clays.
Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the geologic stratigraphy
encountered in our subsurface explorations generally consisted of marine deposited sands,
silts and clays.
3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions
The results of our recently and previously completed soil test borings at this site indicated
the presence of approximately 4 to 12 inches of topsoil material at the boring locations.
Underlying the surficial organic materials (Topsoil) and extending to the boring termination
depths of 10, 15, and 25 feet below existing site grades, the natural subsurface soils were
generally uniform throughout the site. These soils were noted to be primarily granular in
nature and were classified as SAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC) with varying amounts
of silt and clay. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results, N-values, recorded within
these granular soils ranged from 2 to 25 blows -per -foot (BPF), indicating a very loose to
medium dense relative density. The granular soils encountered at the location of boring 13-
17 at a depth ranging from 0.8 to 2 feet below existing grades were noted to contain trace
amounts of organics.
Finally, deposits of CLAY (CL, CH) were encountered within the subsurface granular soils
at varying depths ranging from 4 to 6 feet and 18 to 25 feet below the existing site grade
elevations at the location of borings B-1, B-2, and CBR-7 through CBR-9.
The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil
strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix II
(Boring Log sheets) and in Appendix III (Generalized Soil Profile), which should be
reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on
the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring
locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The
stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the
transition may be gradual.
Solutlonsuinc

RECO Wic'.1�
OCT 0 0 2009
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
3.4 Groundwater Information
The groundwater level was recorded at the location of borings B-1, B-2, B-13 through B-22,
and BMP-2 as observed through the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the
drilling operations. The initial groundwater table was measured to occur at depths ranging
from 11 to 15 feet below current grades at the boring locations. Based on the site
topography information provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., the encountered
groundwater level corresponds to an elevation generally ranging from 6 to 10.5 feet MSL.
The groundwater level was not encountered at the location of borings CBR-2, CBR-5
through CBR-9, and BMP-1. The varying groundwater depths and elevations appear to
have been contributed by variations of the existing site grade elevations in combination
with the natural site drainage features.
The boreholes were backfilled upon completion for safety considerations. As such, the
reported groundwater levels may not be indicative of the static groundwater level.
However, a groundwater monitoring well was installed at the location of boring BMP-2. The
static groundwater level encountered following a period of 48-hours after the monitoring
well was installed was noted to occur at a depth of 12.5 feet below the existing site grade
elevations (elevation of 9 feet MSL). More specific information regarding the 48-hour
groundwater readings and estimated seasonal high groundwater depths and elevations for
each boring location within the proposed storm water management (BMP) pond areas are
provided in the following table (Table III — Groundwater Summary). Additionally, Table III
includes the average estimated seasonal high ground water elevations for each BMP pond
location.
Table III — Groundwater Summary
48-hour
Estimated
Average Estimated
Boring
Initial
48-hour
Groundwater
Seasonal High
Seasonal High
No.
Groundwater
Groundwater
Elevation
Groundwater
Groundwater
Level (ft)*
Level (ft)*
(ft MSL) **
Elevation
**
Elevation
ft MSL
ft MSL)**
Not
Monitoring
Monitoring Well
BMP POND #6
BMP-1
Encountered
Well Not
Not Installed
10.5
Average Estimated
Installed
SHWT Elevation =
fl.25
BMP-2
15.0
12.5
9.0
12.0
= Groundwater levels noted above are referenced from the existing site grade elevations encountered at
the individual boring locations.
' = 48 hour groundwater elevations and estimated seasonal high groundwater elevations are estimated
based on the topographic information provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Solutlonsltnc.

OCT 0 g 2009
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School IBY: J
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
As previously noted, the seasonal high ground water elevation information noted in Table
III is considered to be estimated and is based on the results of our visual soil classification
program. Additionally, the static ground water levels encountered at the monitoring well
locations as well as the seasonal high ground water levels are likely affected by variations
in seasonal precipitation magnitudes, in -situ soil conditions throughout the BMP pond
areas, in conjunction with the existing and finished elevations.
Perched groundwater levels are anticipated to occur throughout the site as a result of
potential restrictive SAND (SC, SC-SM), and/or CLAY (CL), which were encountered
throughout the site at depths ranging from 0.6 feet to 8 feet.
Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions,
such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences,
such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved
parking lots, sidewalks, etc.). Seasonal groundwater fluctuations of±2 feet are common in
the project's area; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. We recommend
that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the construction
to determine groundwater impact on the construction procedures.
4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, our
interpretation of the soil test borings and laboratory data, and our observations during our
site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we
request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.
4.1 Clearing and Grading
The proposed construction area should be cleared by means of removing the existing
topsoil and associated root mat. It is estimated that a cut ranging from approximately 8 to
12 inches in depth will be required to remove the topsoil and its associated root mat and
expose the underlying SAND (SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC). This cut is expected to extend
deeper in isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of unsuitable material which become
evident during the clearing. It is recommended that the clearing operations extend laterally
at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed construction areas.
Following the initial clearing, the resulting exposed subgrade will generally be comprised of
SAND (SM, SC-SM, SC) containing an appreciable amount of fines. Accordingly,
combinations of excess surface moisture from precipitation ponding on the site and the
construction traffic, including heavy compaction equipment, may create pumping and
general deterioration of the bearing capabilities of the surface soils. Therefore,
undercutting to remove loose/soft soils in isolated areas should be expected. The extent of
the undercut will be determined in the field during construction based on the outcome of
the field testing procedures (subgrade proofroll). In this regard, and in order to reduce
undercutting, care should be exercised during the grading and construction operations at
the site.
GET

OCT 0 0 200J
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services IBY; Sep4ember_19,.2009_J
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
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. The project's budget should include an
allowance for subgrade improvements (undercut and backfill with structural fill or aggregate
base in the building and pavement areas).
4.2 Subgrade Preparation
Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a
large static drum roller. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be
evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the subgrade soils should be
proofrolled to check for pockets of loose material hidden beneath a crust of better soil.
Several passes should be made by a large rubber -tired roller or loaded dump truck over
the construction areas, with the successive passes aligned perpendicularly. The number of
passes will be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer depending on the soils
conditions. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the
initial cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the directions of the Geotechnical
Engineer.
Following the proofroll operation it is recommended that a series of test pit excavations be
performed within the vicinity of boring B-17 to further evaluate the shallow subsurface soils
noted to contain trace amounts of organics and to determine if they are suitable to remain
in -place for slab -on -grade and/or foundation support. At that time the locations and depths
of the test pit excavations should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Following the proofroll and approval by the engineer, it is recommended that the newly
exposed subgrade soils be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the
Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557), as tested to a depth of at least 12
inches.
4.3 Structural Fill and Placement
Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by the Geotechnical Engineer, the
placement of the fill required to establish the design grades may begin. Any material to be
used for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by G E T'Solutions, Inc. prior to
placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fill
material should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 20% by weight of fines (SP,
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.
Solutloiis�Iric., . , �

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina `— �,�✓.��1.✓
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009 OF, j 9009
Other soils types such as SAND (SC-SM, SC) and/or CLAY (CL) may be!usedas fill
provided that they are properly placed and compacted as noted herein. These -soil -types _
are typically moisture sensitive and unstable conditions and/or the inability of the materials
to be properly compacted may occur. Accordingly, should these soils be selected for use
as fill it is considered necessary to allow them to be dried to a moisture content suitable for
placement and compaction.
All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the Modified
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). In general, the compaction should be
accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically
compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A representative of
GET 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 previously above), and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D1557.
This fill should be placed in 4 to 6 inch loose lifts when hand compaction equipment is
used.
Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoid
transmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. In
this regard, it is recommended that the vibratory roller remain at least 25 feet away from
existing structures; these areas should be compacted with small, hand -operated
compaction equipment.
4.4 Suitability of On -site Soils
The subsurface CLAY (CL, CH) and/or SAND (SC and SC-SM) soils encountered at the
boring locations do not appear to meet the criteria recommended in this report for reuse as
structural fill, but may be used as fill within green areas. However, the SAND (SP, SP-SM,
and SM) soils may be suitable for reuse as structural fill. Further classification testing
(natural moisture content, gradation analysis, and Proctor testing) should be performed in
the field during construction to substantiate the suitability of excavated soils for reuse as fill
within construction areas.
4.5 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations
Provided that the recommended earthwork construction procedures are properly
performed, the proposed structure can be supported by shallow spread footings, bearing
over firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill material. The footings can be
designed using a net allowable soil pressure of up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
In using net pressures, the weight of the footings and backfill over the footings, including
the weight of the floor slab, need not be considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above
the finished floor need to be used for dimensioning the footings.
Solutions; tnc._

OCT 0 9 2009
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geolechnical.Engineering:Servicesj September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
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 column footings
are recommended to be a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet in area for bearing capacity
consideration. The recommended 24-inch footing embedment is considered sufficient to
provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearing soils.
4.6 Shallow Foundation Settlements
It is estimated that, with proper site preparation, the maximum resulting total settlement of
the foundations should be up to 1 inch. The maximum differential settlement magnitude is
expected to be less than 1/2-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.
4.7 Shallow Foundation Excavations
In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into
firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill. All foundation excavations should be
observed by G E T Solutions, Inc. At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer should also
explore the extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the
exposed excavations. Also, at the time of footing observations, the Geotechnical Engineer
may find it necessary to perform hand auger borings or use a hand penetration device in
the bases of the foundation excavations.
If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations,
the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with
"flowable fill", an open graded washed stone (such as No. 57 stone or equivalent), or a
suitable structural fill material compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the
Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557), as described in Section 4.3 of this
report. This construction procedure will provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of
2,000 psf.
Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of
all footings be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers, to a dry density of at
least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) as tested to a
depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized
areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be adequately re -
compacted.
Solutions Inc.;�";t

OCT 0 0 2009
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical En gineering.Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected
against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain 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.
4.8 Floor 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 the ground floor slab be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of
relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5%
passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as a
capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab.
It is recommended that all ground floor slabs be "floating". That is, generally ground
supported and not rigidly connected to walls or foundations. This is to minimize the
possibility of cracking and displacement of the floor slabs because of differential
movements between the slab and the foundation. Slab -on -grade post construction
settlements should be limited to 1/2-inch or less.
It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or
retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the
performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor
resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions or other
considerations require greater vapor resistance protection; consideration should be given
to using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the
Architect based on project requirements.
4.9 Pavement Design
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results indicated soaked CBR values ranging from
16.7 to 24.7, averaging 22.1. The in -situ field Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test
results indicated an in -place correlated CBR value ranging from about 6 to 8. The
relatively low correlated CBR values obtained from the field DCP testing procedures is
contributed to the very loose condition (not compacted) of the shallow subsurface soils.
These associated CBR values will be greatly improved provided that the earthwork
recommendations, including the subgrade preparation and fill placemenUcompaction
procedures are successfully completed as recommended in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this
report.
A comprehensive summary of the CBR test data and the moisture density relationship
curves (Proctors) are presented in Appendix IV. Additionally, the results of the field DCP
testing procedures are presented in Appendix V.
Solutlon3*ilnc.?9�il�il�M;4i�.

R z-c
OCT +0 200"'
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
The average CBR value obtained from the laboratory CBR testing procedures 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. Therefore, a CBR value of 14.7 was used in designing the pavement sections.
Furthermore, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) loading criteria provided by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. and the information listed on the following page of this report were also
used to complete the pavement design analysis, which was performed in accordance with
AASHTO requirements.
Should any of the information provided below be incorrect, G E T Solutions, Inc. should
be notified to perform a subsequent analysis prior to paving operations.
Parking Lot:
Average Daily Traffic: Up to 1200 Vehicles Per Day
Percent Trucks: 0%
Design Life Criteria: 20 Years
Percent Growth Rate: 0.0%
Total Design ESALs: 4,835
Reliability = 75.0%
Overall Deviation = 0.49
Soil Resilient Modulus = 12,221.6 psi
Initial Serviceability = 4.20
Terminal Serviceability = 2.80
Service Road/Bus Loo
Average Daily Traffic: Up to 20 Vehicles Per Day
Percent Trucks: 100%
Design Life Criteria: 20 Years
Percent Growth Rate: 0.0%
Total Design ESALs: 334,401
Reliability = 75.0%
Overall Deviation = 0.49
Soil Resilient Modulus = 12,221.6 psi
Initial Serviceability = 4.20
Terminal Serviceability = 2.80
The pavement sections provided in the following table were calculated using WinPAS
software.
Solutions, Inc:

Fc.EC441a J' .�
OCT 0 0 2009
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and GedtC lnical En_ g veering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
Table IV —Pavement Sections
'
Hot Mix Asphalt
Aggregate
Surface
Surface
Intermediate
Section
Base*
Subgrade**
SF-9.5A
S-12.5
1-19B
Service Road/Bus loop - ADT 20 Vehicles Per Da
Heavy Duty Asphalt
1.5"
N/A
2.5"
8"
Firm, Stable, and
Compacted
Parkin Lot'- ADT 1200 Vehicles Per 'Day
Standard Duty
2"
N/A
N/A
8„
Firm, Stable, and
As halt
Com acted
NCDOT ABC compacted to a dry density of at least 100% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density
(ASTM D 1557).
** Compacted to a dry density of at least 100% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557).
The results of the pavement design analysis are included in Appendix VI (Pavement
Design Analysis). All pavement material and construction procedures should conform to
Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
requirements.
Following pavement rough grading operations, the exposed subgrade should be observed
under proofrolling. This proofrolling should be accomplished with a fully loaded dump truck
or 7 to 10 ton drum roller to check for pockets of soft material hidden beneath a thin crust
of better soil. Any unsuitable materials thus exposed should be removed and replaced with
a well -compacted material. The inspection of these phases should be performed by the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The subgrade soils are likely to be unstable
at the time of construction and some ground improvements are likely. As such, the
project's budget should include a contingency to accommodate the potential ground
improvements.
Where excessively unstable subgrade soils are observed during proofrolling and/or fill
placement, it is expected that these weak areas can be stabilized by means of thickening
the base course layer by 2 to 4 inches and/or lining the subgrade with geotextile fabric
(Mirafi 500x or equivalent). These alternatives are to be addressed by the Geotechnical
Engineer during construction, if necessary, who will recommend the most economical
approach at the time.
4.10 Seismic Evaluation
It is noted that, in accordance with the NC Building Code; Chapter 16, this site is classified
as a site Class D, based on which seismic designs should be incorporated. This
recommendation is based on the data obtained from the completed 25-foot deep SPT
borings as well as our experience with shear wave velocity testing performed on other
projects within the vicinity of this project site. In order to substantiate the site classification
provided above a 100-foot deep CPT boring and soil shear wave velocity testing with
liquefaction potential analysis should be performed. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be
pleased to provide these services should they be determined necessary.
15 GET

OCT 0 0 2009
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School I �=
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
4.11 Storm Water Design Parameters
Two (2) infiltration tests were performed at the location of borings BMP-1 and BMP-2. The
tests were performed at a depth of approximately 10 feet below existing grades. The
boreholes were prepared utilizing an auger to remove soil clippings from the base.
Infiltration testing was then conducted within the vadose zone utilizing a Precision
Permeameter and the following testing procedures.
A support stand was assembled and placed adjacent to each borehole. This stand holds a
calibrated reservoir (200 ml or 2000 ml) and a cable used to raise and lower the water
control unit (WCU). The WCU establishes a constant water head within the borehole
during testing by use of a precision valve and float assembly. The WCU was attached to
the flow reservoir with a 4-meter (approximately 13-foot) braided PVC hose and then
lowered by cable into the borehole to the test depth elevation. As required by the Glover
solution, the WCU was suspended above the bottom of the borehole at an elevation of
approximately 5 times the borehole diameter. The shut-off valve was then opened allowing
water to pass through the WCU to fill the borehole to the constant water level elevation.
The absorption rate slowed as the soil voids became filled and an equilibrium developed as
a wetting bulb developed around the borehole. Water was continuously added until the
flow rate stabilized. The reservoir was then re -filled in order to begin testing. During
testing, as the water drained into the borehole and surrounding soils, the water level within
the calibrated reservoir was recorded as well as the elapsed time during each interval. The
test was continued until relatively consistent flow rates were documented. During testing
the quick release connections and shutoff valve were monitored to ensure that no leakage
occurred. The flow rate (Q), height of the constant water level (H), and borehole diameter
(D) were used to calculate Ks utilizing the Glover Solution. Based on the field testing and
corroborated with laboratory testing results (published values compared to classification
tests), the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soils is tabulated below (Table V) and is
presented on the "Hydraulic Conductivity Worksheet" reports (Appendix VII), included with
this report.
Table V - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results
Test-._
Static
Percent Silt
Average Infiltration Test
Test No.
Depth (ft)*
Groundwater
and/or Clay
Results (Ksat Values)
Level (ft.)*
cm/sec
cm/day
in/hour
BMP-1
10
Not Encountered
1.8
5.88E-03
508.1
8.334
BMP-2
10
12.5
2.0
4.28E-03
370.1
6.071
* The ground water level was initially encountered at a depth of 15 feet below the existing site grade elevations
at the location of BMP-2. The 48-hour groundwater level readings indicated a static water table level of 12.5
feet below the existing site grade elevations at the location of BMP-2. Groundwater was not encountered at
the location of boring BMP-1.
Soludons, Inc.

OCT 0 0 2009
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical.Engineering:Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns
It is expected that dewatering may be required for excavations that extend near or below
the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be
accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level
may require well pointing.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove the water form
the excavation, remove the saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface
soils to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
Perched water table conditions within the select fill materials and/or shallow subsurface
soils may be encountered throughout the project site during periods of heavy precipitation
and/or during the "wet" season. This is expected to occur as a result of the surficial and/or
shallow subsurface restrictive soil layers generally encountered throughout the project site
at depths ranging from 0.6 feet to 8 feet.
Accordingly, some undercut and backfill with suitable structural fill materials and/or de -
watering of the structural fill materials and/or shallow subsurface soils may be required
during the subgrade preparation and/or foundation construction procedures. Alternatively,
an under drain system may be used in order to aid in alleviating the potential for saturated
bearing soil conditions and/or to aid in minimizing foundation undercutting procedures.
It would be advantageous to construct all fills early in the construction. If this is not
accomplished, disturbance of the existing site drainage could result in collection of surface
water in some areas, thus rendering these areas wet and very loose. Temporary drainage
ditches should be employed by the contractor to accentuate drainage during construction.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove water from the
excavations, remove saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface soils
to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
5.2 Site Utility Installation
The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the
pipe and structure placements to verify the suitability of the bearing soils. If unstable
bearing soils are encountered during installation some form of stabilization may be required
to provide suitable bedding. This stabilization is typically accomplished by providing
additional bedding materials (NCDOT No. 57 stone). In addition, depending on the depth
of the utility trench excavation, some means of dewatering may be required to facilitate the
utility installation and associated backfilling.
All utility excavations should be backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 4.3 of
this report.
Soludons;;lnce !>i

Jl/\iD /A
OCT 0 9 2009
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School I'' i
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
The subsurface CLAY (CL, CH) and/or SAND (SC and SC-SM) soils encountered at the
boring locations do not appear to meet the criteria recommended in this report for reuse as
structural fill, but may be used as fill within green areas. However, the SAND (SP, SP-SM,
and SM) soils may be suitable for reuse as structural fill. Further classification testing
(natural moisture content, gradation analysis, and Proctor testing) should be performed in
the field during construction to substantiate the suitability of excavated soils for reuse as fill
within construction areas.
5.3 Excavations
In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction
Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P". This document was issued to
better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by
this federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement
excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new (OSHA)
guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if
they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial
penalties.
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary
excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to
maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's responsible
person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the
excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should slope height,
slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed
those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions, Inc. is
not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such
responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by
G E T Solutions, Inc. and the information supplied by the client for the proposed project.
If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface
conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, G E T Solutions, Inc.
should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations
are required. If G E T Solutions, Inc. is not retained to perform these functions,
G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the
geotechnical recommendations for the project.
Solutlonskinc „, ;',

f'Cil�i'`/E�•�� J Lair
OCT g `? 2009
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services - —I September 11, 2009
Camp Lejeune New Elementary School I`
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-228G Revised: September 15, 2009
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 Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. and their consultants for the specific application to the Camp Lejeune
New Elementary School project located within the Camp Lejeune military installation in
North Carolina.
of
5oludonstlnc.

it�+✓�.:/.. J 1✓�l/
CCT 0 n 2009
APPENDICES
BORING LOCATION PLAN
II BORING LOGS
III GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
IV SUMMARY OF CBR TEST DATA
V DCP TEST DATA
VI PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS
VII SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
VIII CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

RE-c;;tlf�tl.D
OCT 0 9 2009
BY:
APPENDIX I
BORING LOCATION PLAN

n
a
\z/
!J
E
O
O
L{�tf
i
to
\ t

OCT 0 n. 2-009
BY:
APPENDIX II
BORING LOGS

GETPROJECT:
Camp LeJeune Family Housing Feasibility Study I V V
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 1BY. J
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: ECOS-321G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 19' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: Fishburne Drilling LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 10-7-08
B-1
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: ¢ 11' AFTER 24 HOURS: -7 CAVING> L.
o
>
W
v
o E
`o. `m
o—
Description
n
c7
a o
E Z
1n
�-'
E g
N
a i5
E;
N
-
3 1O
in n
m
Zv
o
u
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value - P�
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
4-inches Topsoil i
....
---
2
0
: : : : :
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to medium dense
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 2-feet
—_—
2
24
SS
9
17
15
9
. .. .. ..... .. .... ...... ..
7
7
—
—
z
9
2
.. '...: ..:... :. .. :..:..
6
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty Clayey fine SAND (SC-SM),
very loose'
_' -
4
14
SS
2
2
10
—
22
:...:...:...:...:...
. ......
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM),
medium dense
:..::
:!i::
5
15
SS
w
tz
13
—
10
Wet from 11-feet
—
_0
4
8
'.... ....: .,:..,
13
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
(SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND SP-SM with silt, loose
Y 9 ( )
t.
.t t!
�, r
---
6
16
SS
3
9
is
CIS ,;
7
... :...:...:...'..,,:,..:,..:...
—
0
B
18
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), medium dense
---
7
18
SS
4
s
7
7
12
12
— - - —
—
20
—
---
.s
23
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, wet, Fat CLAY (CH) with trace coarse
sand, stiff
8
20
SS
3
4 4
—
25
s
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
0
30
—
10
is
35
0
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tubu Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penebation Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

I1tA.i�x....0 yr xi.t.
OCT 0 ? 2009
GET
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune Family Housing Feasibility Study Imo.
CLIENT: KimleV-Horn and Associates, Inc.
-
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC08-321G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.5' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: Fishburne Drilling LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(wash) DATE: 10-7-08
B-2
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL": g 11' AFTER 24 HOURS: - CAVIi t-
c
w
n v
E
a m
Description
a
12m
n o
Z
In
�- >
v
In m
°- Q
m t-
In
3 tO
m a
>
z
o
v
e
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit F-I Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
-Value
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
10 -
0
0
6-inches Topsoil
t
iiiii
.....
1
24
SS
2
3
2
.:...:...:...:...:...:
:........ ........ .........
—
20
—
5
—
0.4
Mottled Brown -Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
Tan from 2-feet
—
3
2
24
SS
a
8
:_.:.... ... ....
—
—
i l...
6
13
:.... ... ..:.. :...
g
Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, medium dense":".'
3
20
SS
e
15
2Gray,
10
7
.
_
6::
moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
....
4
18
Ss
s
—
-
—
10
16
--:'--":"--':'-
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to 8't+:,i�
medium SAND(SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND(SP-SM):''''"
with silt and clay, medium dense���c;.',:---
......
5
12
SS
5
g
s--
10
10
Wet from 11-feet
/'. F;r�
........ ... .. .. .. ............
'
—
Light Gray from 13 feet;;`:;;.
a-'
.:...
6
12
SS
615
11
...:...:...:...:...:...:...
a::[r
6
—
Gray, wet, Sandy Fat CLAY (CH), stiff
7
14
SS
g
9
16
.
.: ...: .. .:... :. :.. .....
—
—
—
20
0
_
—
14--
—
23
Light Gray, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, medium dense
/
8
24
SS
2
25
1'.
a
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
—
s.
30
10
.. .. :...:...: .. .:...:...........
—
10
.. .. .... .................... .. ..
—
35
5
--
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Apgar Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
P
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Pene[rarion Tess were performed in the field in general accordance wflh AS TM D 1586,

Symbol Description
Strata symbols
E] Topsoil OCT 0 ?��9
BY:
ffn Silty Clayey Sand
Silty Sand
,p;:,:,:
Poorly graded Sand
6
,' I: .
with Silt
jFat
Clay
/=
Clayey a Sand
Misc.
Symbols
Q
Water table during
drilling
Notes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 10-7-08 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.

OCT 0"' ?009
GETPROJECT:
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School I .,
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc.
-'-"—'
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
c„,:„n.:,.,.c•,�t,r,•rM,:.��,»m•.
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.5' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-4-09
B-1 3
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': k 14' AFTER 24 HOURS: T- CAVING> .C.
c ,�
0,
Ht.-
d
N N
m
ut=
v
o
O
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
>
w
m
Description
n
m
o- o
E
o. >
o. N
3 1O
w
m
o E
o w
in
N
rn I-
m a
z
Moisture Content - •
N-Value - E=
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
7 inches of TOPSOIL,
t o'd.r
1
—
20
—
1
22
SS
2
8.4
....
Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, very loose
—
2
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
2
2
2
.
'...... :...
..
2
24
SS
3
5
.._..:
--
—
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 4 feet
_
3
_
22
_
SS
a
3
6
.I ...:...:...: ...:...:...:...
._ ..'....:...'._ .:...:.. :...
—
is
=
6
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to
i
10
_
medium SAND (SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP SM)
f
4
18
SS
13
23
_
with silt, medium dense
r'` ` �'
13
_
_
_
10
—
With Clay from 8 to 10 feet
v
5
24
SS
14
24
.......... ... :...
10
Tan from 10 feet
0 11 ` i
—
—
—
10
.ccu.
.i,. Fi.
6
20
SS
9
9
17
:. _ l ..:...:...:...:
4
Reddish Tan from 13 feet
- Wet from 14 feet
....
13.
i.' `
c i
:;:: 1:
—
7
—
12
—
SS
_
s
10
T7
.......... .. ............
- — " - -
. . . .
—
'
-
15
!9;rr�
12
........................
—
_
—
518
—
.r i.F r,
i::�i
.. ..:...: .. .. ........ ... .....
....... .. .. ..... .. .. .. ... .....
—
_
(r
Gray -Tan, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
4
—
8
20
SS
4
8
20
3
0
--
23
__—
9
—
Gray -Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
I
3
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose
�;
g
18
SS
e
7
25
.._.
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
—
8
s
30
—
l0
—
35_
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were perhonned in the field in general accordance will, ASTM D 1586.

U L 1 V ' LUu )
GET
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School I
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc. ICZ'V•
,.,
—""
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228GJ
cro ne su.c�w ,:quo rx�,y
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.5' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-3-09
B-14
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': s 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: T- CAVING> C.
> rj
w
o. v
v v
o Eo
o w
v �,
Description
o.
n o
E z
cn
�-'
E°
E
E
M
o
m o.
z
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
9 inches of TOPSOIL
Tan -Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
silt to Silty fine SAND(SM), very loose to medium dense
_
_
_
3
—
—
20
:;;;;
z
—
2
22
SS
2
5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 4feet
4
—::'---
::!
a--
s
ii
3
24
SS
B
10
...:._:._ :. ..:...........
..... .. .. ......... ....
—
.....
_
_
_
10
—
2
6
18
SS
8
13
...
23
.
—
10
Reddish Tan -Tan from 10 feet
1]
19
...:... :...1.. .:..
6
22
SS
e
1p
t0
to
-
_
4
:r..---
i
18
13
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to
medium SAND SP to poorlygraded fine to medium SAND SP SM
with silt, with trace Clay, medium dense ( ).c�;-—-
7
16
SS
11
-
Wet from 15 feet
.,..l: t?'
,
6
Gray -Tan, wet, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
//
8
20
SS
4
5
5
10
—
—
20---
--
_0_
—
_
9
..... :...: ..:...
—
26
23
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), with Clay, loose
.....
9
24
SS
3
s
6
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
—
6
... .:...: ...:...:. .. :.. .:...:. ..
so—
10
—
3`L
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School I O C T 0 0 N139
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
c,�x.«-xlc.nm,mm,a.rnn�x
BORING LOG
B-15
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PR&JE6T'Nd—EC09-22B&
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-3-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL`: a 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: -7- CAVIl -
o r
w
J`
o E
J
o—
Description
.
C
m
EZ
rn
v�
E 0
to
N
E °'
cn t-
N
o
m o.
1
j
z
o
u
e
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content -•
N-Value - P�
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
20
_
_
_
15
0
D
5
7
17
23
15
n
9
B"'
10.
9 inches of TOPSOIL
1
2
.".' '.'."'
.. .: ... :. .. .. .: .. .. ..:...
.:._:...
..:. .
:... :. ..: ...:... :...:.. .:...
.. ..:. ..: ...:... :. .. :.. .:.. .:...
...:.. .: ...:...1 .. .: .. .:... :. ..
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
Silty fine SAND(SM), very loose to medium dense
With trace Clay from 2 feet
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 4.5 feet
With Clay lenses from 10 feet
—
---
2
20
SS
z
2 3
—
2
s
3
24
SS
3
3
4
6
...
Ti::
4
24
SS
5
y
11
5
22
SS
6
is
16
—
10
4
��;;�
!iii!
_
6
_
24
_
SS
i
e
9
10liii:
---
13
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to
medium SAND (SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM):11
with silt, medium dense
Wet from 15 feet�l
18
Gray -Tan, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
,'.,:
.-.. ..
r
7
8
18
24
SS
SS
e
9
g
a
5
4
-
—
s
—
—
0
—
6
—
—
20
9
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, wet, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
(
Y'.
9
20
SS
a
4
_
25
—
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
6
10
10
30
—
35
Notes: SS = Splll Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Semple
HA = Hsnd Aug., Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penelmlion Tests were performed in the field in General accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GETPROJECT:
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School I v y ' - �V v
CLIENT: KimleY-Horn & Associates, Inc. 0Y: -_1
—"'
BORING LOG
B-1 G
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-3-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL*: g 14' AFTER 24 HOURS: - CAVII S.
o z
>
Au:
t N
aai v
o E
L^
w w
o—
Description
m
EZ
to
v
E
rn '
w
E"
N f-
o
m a
w
j
z
o
u
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - e
N-Value - F%,
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
20
0
0
3
9
9
18
t8
11
9
—
8 inches of TOPSOIL
0. 7
,....
i''.
_
1
_
22
_
SS
2
2
........ ....: ...
"---'---
...........................
"'-------
...:...:...:
:...:...:._:._:_.:..
.'.._....,......._.._..
...: ... :....
. "
_..:,..:...1 ..1 ...:...:...:...
..... ....... .. .. .. ... .. .... .....
—
—
—_
—
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 4feet
With Clay from 6 feet
2
4
2
5
,!!;
.;...
3
24
SS
s
4
5
'.:;---
..::.
::
4
24
SS
a
s
—
—
—
—
1a
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium
SAND SP to poorly graded fine to medium SAND SP-SM with silt,
Y9 ( )
medium dense
...
�'i,;:;'
.1:1:'I'.---
::<<
.1
c
ia;rr
S
6
24
24
SS
SS
e
tfi
'�1
7
11
12
—
''—°
4
—
—
—
—
-
13
Gray -Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP
' SM) with silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), with Clay, medium dense
Wet from 14 feet
!::!!
7
--
t7
SS
s
fi
it
5
—
0
-
_
-5
-10
—
-15
.....
—
—
—
fi
—
B
24
SS
a......._......:_._.._..
5
20
--
23
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, with Clay, loose
! f
;!,:; F;
---
9
20
SS
5
4
4
25
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
_
_
t0
30
—
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST - Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
SS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were per(ormod in (he /field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GETPROJECT:
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
r
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
cr, h r 1•r.•, r ,xmm. mn,�y
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-3-09
B-17
DEPTH TO WATER • INITIAL': 8 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: T- CAVING> S.
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
>;
n m
v
n
m
Description
o.
n o
E
o. >
E
E
o
#
w
v
o E
o
z
N F-
m a
z
Moisture Content -cii •
e
IN -Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
o
o
_
9 inches of TOPSOIL
1
_
_
_
1
—
, 0.81
iiiii
1
24
SS
2
4
.. .... .....
—
zo
Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace organics, very loose
3
—
2
2
_
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose to medium dense
--
2
22
SS
n
6
4
4
3
24
SS
7
12
..'. ..:... :..... ..:...:...
2
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 6 feet'
-
ts
4
20
SS
9
18
—
8
Light Tan -Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
9 y9..
e
—
SP to poorly graded fine to medium SAND SP-SM with silt,
( ) P Y9 ( )
iF.., ,;�
5
22
SS
In
23
....___.... ,..._..
—
t0
medium dense[',:
I
14
6
24
--
SS
i14
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan from 10 feet
ln:ii�
25
:...:...:........ ..
—
13
—
4
:.. .: ...:
—
Gray from 13 feet
.....
°;;.,
a
7
20
SS
10
19
4.7
•..:.. :...:...:...
Wet from 15 feet
Yi:ru
—
—
18
:'i:::—
3
Gray -Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with sit
s
_
6
—
to Silty fine SAND ISM), loose
8
20
SS
6
0
10
_
20
0
Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly graded
:':':
4
fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose
4: ,1.
9
20
SS
9
—
zs
...
e
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
5
to
_
o
.. :... .....
v
yf�
Ai
' r
is
-
OC1
0
ppi.
9o(�J.'...' ..:... .
35
-
5
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
P ( PI PC
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field m general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune New Elementary
School
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina
PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
c.,, r ooi•o-min-t„c
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring
Location Plan
SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.5' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc.
LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash)
DATE: 9-4-09
B-1 S
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': >z 14' AFTER 24 HOURS: -T-
CAVING> L
o z
s y
L^
m
w-
?
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
g
>
fi v
g'w
v v
Description
E
E g
0 v>
L
'6
o E
o `-
s)
z
�--
to n
n
Moisture Content - •
W
e
N-Value - Mm
1
22
SS
;
1
2
:...;.... _.:...... :...:.,.
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND ISM). very loose to loose
1
I 1
iiiii
...
2
24
SS
2
3
..,.. .: .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........
2
:...'...
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 4 feet
.I...' . ......... .. ...
z
;....
.::.:
3
20
SS
a
5
..........._.._....._.....
4
'..,.:...:,..:...:.. :. ..
3
4
24
SS
3
6
����---
Motted Gray-Reddishpoorly 9
:r1.
o
:
iediumlSAND SP 000rl graded medium SANDI SP SM;�."���
( ) poorly ( )�
'
20
SS
14
22
with medium dense
.....
,:,.,,.---
20
- -
1'3
Clay l
With Clay lenses from 10 feet
?:iis
:
6
20
SS
13
23
... ..... _.. .. .:...
10
Tan from 13 feet
-------
Wet from 14 feet
.....
:'I r r 1
7
20
SS
7 7
14
. . — —
4
Y r.rc
...............
ccc r.
18-:'::::---
2
Gray -Tan, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
iii
ii
3
8
20
SS
3
6
.:...:...:...:_.:. .:.......
4
—23
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
'`'i!,i
e
:.
:... :...
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium dense,
;,: ,, F;
g
20
SS
a
16
.......
...:...
m
Boring terminated at 25 fit.
11
—A
Y"�l.
!,
OCT
C
9 22)0t
Notes: - n n n SS = Splil Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand A,,ger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
'Th. ;n 1i.1 ninnnrl,unmr mnrllnn ,n_ nr 1— ,ml(rnw,a of th. e _ ,nduom. lo�.al ,mnu c ,Armnm M I --
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests wero performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

SSA C ;',. N v 11;1J
GET
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School I 0 C T - 0 ZUUJ
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 1
�--
BORING LOG
B-19
u<n
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina I—PROJECT` NO. EC09-228G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-3-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': -V 14' AFTER 24 HOURS: T- CAVING> C.
asr
>
>
w
ra v
m w
o E
oa v
m w
o
Description
n
U
E
ra Z
E o
n
E
n~
o
m n
Z
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value - P/
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
20
0
o
4
6
10
15
23
21
19
15
11
45 2
8 inches of TOPSOIL
6r
_
1
_
22
_
SS
_
`
z
2
F~�
........ .. .. ..... ... ..
:...:...:...:...:...
- - . -. .
........ _.........I_.....:_.
"' -"'-""--"-'
.
....... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .....
...:. ..: .. .: ...:. ..:... :. ..
.. .. .. .... .. ..
—
—
—
—`
Gray -Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose
—
2
Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 4 feet
�
��
—
2
—
18
—
SS
2
3
3
3
24
SS
3
4
6
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), medium
dense
4
22
SS
7
6
9
10 —
5
24
SS
9
iZ
11
—
10
4
Light Tan -Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
(SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt,
medium dense
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan with trace Clay from 13 feet
-
'
Wet from 14 feel
I
'''i"1'.
'a: r.
...�/•
1. 11-
...
f r.i
1:: r, r,
Lmcu
6
20
SS
1e
11
13
—
—
—
7
—
20
—
SS
—
10
6
—
-
15
—
_
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), with trace Clay, medium dense
8
20
SS
5
7
8
s
20
..
..
9
24
SS
e
5
5
—
25
5
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
—
10
-10
30
—
35
5
Notes: SS = Split spoon sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

Uu I UV cuuj
GET
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. IRV•
*
��..��ttr�..,,■■
— --
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
e. ,,,.Puy. Homy
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-3-09
B-20
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: S 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: -7- CAVING> S-
`o
L N
L
v
N—
m
J
oo
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
_m
>
n m
m
n d
v
Description
o-
a o
E
o-'o
E
a w
E
3 tO
o v
a
w
w
o E
o
Z
N
N
m o-
z
Moisture Content - •
rn
a
N-Value - 1=
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
a
°
_
8 inches of TOPSOIL
_
,...
_
_
_
1
20
0.7
iiii:
1
22
SS
2
3
:...:...:...:...:...........
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan with trace Clay from 2 feet
:::::
2
_
z
—
.....
.....
2
24
SS
4
8
5
4
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC), loose
f
3
_
3
22
SS
5
9
15
—
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
y
_
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, with trace Clay,
�r. n:
'.._
4
20
SS
11
20
medium dense
1:a r
12
Light Tan from 8 feet
anii °
°
—
i 1'fii'
5
24
SS
i3
22
..:...:...............
Tan from 10 feet
a 1.'
' "
r [:r�.
10
6
20
SS
y
17
:... :. .. :. ..:...: .. : ..
e[t'
—
4
Light Gray -Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
r":11
7
_
(SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with sill. with
�'
7
24
SS
9
16
—
15 `'-
Clay lenses, loose to medium dense
10
. .........
5
Wet from 15 feet
titl;
—
3
20
4
---
2
Light Gray -Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)3
5
_
with silt to Silty fine SAND with trace Clay, loose
(SM),
:::
!
`�
20
SS
4
9
"
25
4
Boring terminated at 25 It,
5
6
—
0
-10
10
35
-15
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
*ThP initial orouridwat,r readinomay nbf be indicative of the Ipfic nrouodwater fever
PAGE 1 o/ 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM 0 1586,

✓JL3
GETPROJECT:
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
�
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. IBY:----
�"
—
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
ca h.xm •c.n�.,»n�ml. mn„e
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 2V MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-4-09
B-21
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: S 12.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> -C.
o z
m
w
m
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
>
V
m w
v v
Description
E Z
E o
E>
o
u
an
w
o E
o
N
N
N
m o.
Z\
Moisture Content -•
O
N-Value- Mm
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
9 inches of TOPSOIL
_
_
_
1
20
.....
1
24
SS
3
Tan, Clayey SAND loose
moist, (SC) with silt, very
2
2
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), with trace
3
Clay, loose
`'iiii
2
2a
Ss
3
6
.'....:.......................
—
5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt
a
_
medium dense
3
22
SS
7
11
15
2
..
8
'....... :...:...:...:..
_
7
an, moist to wet, poor) graded fine to medium SAND SP to oors'r
�'"
_
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium dense
?.cif!;
4
24
SS
12
20-'---
14
10
.:...:...:...:...:...
10
18
Light Tan -Tan from 10 feel
.`.'.r 1.1
10Mottled
—
aici
6
24
SS
e
y
17
10
i7
—
4
--
Wet from 12.5 feet
7
24
SS
s
_
Light Gray with Clay from 13.5 feet;'
9 Y Y
r.
1310.
._........ _............
15
—
.nit
r.r[r
6
10
.: ...:...:... :...:.. .:..
I(I'11'
-
r,t,tl;i
l P.rl
8
24
SS
5
7
12
:...:...:...:
6
20
9'.pij'
7
......... .. .. .. ..... .. ..... ..
---
23
}'---
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
44
—
Ir
9
18
SS
8
25
5
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
6
—
q
....:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
30
10
10
35
15
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Aug., Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School I OCT 0 0 009
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
- —'-
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina 5P96JECT'NO—EC09—h8G
cav,mad•o-am.mmnr-r m,
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLINGMETHOD: MudRolary(Wash) DATE: 9-4-09
B-22
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': a 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: T- CAVING> f
0
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
>
Description
oa
d
E
0
Z
Inn
Moisture Content -•
N-Value- FJJjjlQ
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
9 inches of TOPSOIL
,...
2
:
—
^.Ev
1
20
Ss
;
2
—
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
2
;;;;;
z
With Clay from 2feet
2
24
SS
2
5
:...:. .. :. ..:.. .:.. :...
3
5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose...
3
—
3
24
SS
5
6
8
_
is
an, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorfi
r:,ii .
y
- -
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose to medium
.a;1: ( f :
't
4
24
SS
11
20
—
dense
o: rJ.
14
5
20
SS
is
24
..:.......:...........
—
106
24
SS
17
10
—.—
r
1'A
11
4
Gray -Tan with Clay lenses from 13 to 18 feet
Y
r, ti.
�r'�
r:�..
�
—
jrTtP.
aau
7
20
SS
id
19
:...:...:...:...:...:...
s10
Wet from 15 feet
rr. r.';---
J y:ru
..:...................
5
i
—
—
Gray from 18 feet
1l.Y.ttl
;,
:...:...:. ..:.. .:..
—
—
—
3
8
24
SS
,4j
8
.
. ........... ................
6
20
5
a:mrt:
.....
.........:...................
It---
---
23.{.
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
_
silt to Silty fine SAND ISM), medium dense
�'
g
20
55
7
12
25
7
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
8
—
....:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
5
—w
a0
10
35
5
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
BORING LOG
CBR-2
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune Family Housing Feasibility Study I II
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC08-321G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.5' MSL
DRILLER: J. Meads LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 9-26-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': $ AFTER 24 HOURS: T- CAVING> L.
>
w 2
v
m E
v v
0
Description
C�
o
E Z
1n
1 w 0
E
a m
E
N~
3
o
m o.
Z\
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
20
0
0
BS
33.t
8-inches of TOPSOIL
't
_
- ..............................
....:...:...:...:...�...:...:...
.. ..: .. .: .. .: .. .:. ..:. ..:...:. ..
I...1 .. .1,..:.. :...
0.7
Tan -Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND ISM) to Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 5-feet..
—
z
5
u
---
-
_
—
to
-
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND ISM)
8.5
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly-
raded fine to medium SAND SP-SM with silt"
10
_
a
Boring terminated at 10 fL
—
—
5
5
—
6
—
—
0
20
9
25
—
5
10
-10
30
—
35
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tuhe Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

I<Lz r`V V --ZL3
GETPROJECT:
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School I OCT 0 0 2009
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
cm, i •c,� r •.�-,}.n„r
BORING LOG
CBR-5
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PR(YECT-NOE=EC09-228Gt
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-4-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL": & AFTER 24 HOURS: T, CAVING> -C
0,
> r j
w
0-y
w w
o E
m m
o
Description
c7
E Z
rn
E o
N
E
N
o y
m a
ju
Z\
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value- P/J�
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
—
20
0
0
BS
HA
HA
HA
17
—
t 6 inches of TOPSOIL
0�
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with sill to
Silty fine SAND ISM)
rci v-
r.
T.
....:...:...:...:_.:_.:...:...
_ .:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
....: ...: ... :... :. .. :... :...[...
....:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
.. .. :. ..:.. .: ...:.. .: .. .:...:. ..
—
sch
i
35
Light Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
—
s
—
—
8
Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with Clay
..
—
-
10
—
10
a
-
Boring terminated at 10 11.
15
s
6
—
20
0
25
10
30
35
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Ponelntion Tests were perlonned in the /field m (general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

R-�C,?: 5/Jv�
OCT o 0 2000
GETPROJECT:
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn &Associates, Inc.
_. ,..
BORING LOG
C BR-6
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.5' MSL
DRILLER: G ET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-4-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': 43- AFTER 24 HOURS: Jr CAVING> C.
o r
.�
> N
0 g
L w
`o- w
m v
o E
L Y
o. m
m m
o=
Description
n
n o
E Z
rn
�- >
E$
o.
E
3 `O
o v
m o.
m
z
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit t-i Liquid Limit
Moisture Content -•
N-Value - jJJJJjj
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
0
0
BS
HA
10 inches of TOPSOIL
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
Silty fine SAND(SM)
Reddish Tan from 4 feet
'"`--"".... ....
.. ..I...I...:. .. :. .. :...:.. .: ...
.. .. :. ..:. ..:... :...:...:.. .:...
... .. .... .. .. ...: ...:.. .:.. .:...
—
20
—
—
�g
;!!�!
2
s
—
65
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
+ t r'
a!'
10
—
10
a
Boring terminated at 10 R. -
is
—
0
6
—
20
25
10
30
—
35
Notes: SS = split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 7 of 1 Slaodard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in ,general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
A
c Fsd.c� m. mn„x
BORING LOG
CBR-7
:Jt.I V V LUtIJ
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School I
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. ITRV•
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-5-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL": Q AFTER 24 HOURS: C- CAVING> C.
c
m
> y
w
L i
n�
d d
o Eo
L
o. v
v
Description
u
o.
A
2
m
E o
E Z
N
N y
o- >
E$
N
W
E �'
E
N
y_
3 1O
o y>
m a
v
>
m
z
o
O
u
y
e
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
BS
HA
HA
HA
24,8'
_
zs
—
---
—
is
10
12 inches of TOPSOIL
....;...:._:._:...:._:...:...
_.:... .:...:_.: _.
...............................
s.
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
Silty fine SAND(SM)
s
3
Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt
4
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Lean CLAY (CL)
�////////��J�
z
j
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly 0
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
Reddish Tan from 8feet
Tan from 9.5 feet
4.�i i i.
.I:Gi
� � f.
10
a
Boring terminated at 10 ft.
15
s
a
—
5
.10
zo
ss.
2s
—
10
35
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
,l
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field m general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

jq��
GET
OCT 0 9 7009
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. .
BORING LOG
CBR-S
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina �PROJECT'NO'—EC09-22BG
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-5-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL": 4 AFTER 24 HOURS:- CAVING> _C_
o x
i0
wo
a
n °'
o �'
Description
p
c�137
w
E 6
W. Z
E >o
rn 0
�,
E
in ~
o
m a
1p
Z\
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value - Ej
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
a
HA
BS
HA
HA
14.
20
_
15
—
—
12 inches of TOPSOIL
-....
.:...:...:...
..... .... .... .. .. .. .....
Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM)
With Clay from 3.5 feet
L
5 hf ii'
a: n:
2
5
4.5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Lean CLAY (CL)
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)with silt�:---
Reddish Tan from 7.5 feet
Tan from 9.5 feet-
—
10
10
Boring terminated at 10 fL
5
6
—
20
9
.5
25
10
a5
30
10
35
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
'The ingiaterourldivaler reading may not no, indicativ� P lalic oroundwaterlevel
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were perrooned in the Held in genaral accordance will, ASTM D 1586.

nrT o 0 2009
GETPROJECT:
--'—
c.:�n=n•:•c.w�n:.,•,a•mmK
BORING LOG
C BR-9
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates. Inc. Li •----I
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-5-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL": S AFTER 24 HOURS: •7- CAVING> L.
c ,�
>
w
w w
o E
v
o
Description
v
E Z
m
E g
N 0
E
N­
o
to o.
j
z
oo
u
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
HABS
HA
HA
HA
13
_
20
_
_
15
—
—
-
o
0
.5
12 inches of TOPSOIL
moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
Silty fine SAND (SM)
....:
:...
_ . .
--——----
._..................._:_.: _.
._.:...:...:...:...:_....:...
..:...:...:...:._:...:...:_.
.. .. ... .........
_Tan,
Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt 3
h'TT.
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Lean CLAY (CL)
5.5
Tan,moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND(SP)to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
Reddish Tan from 8 feet`-------
Tan from 9feel
�
z
5
j
:.ti
t '`r''
ltil
{:`n;
—
10
n
Boring terminated at 10 fI,
u
s
—
zo
5................
25
10
15
30
10
35
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the Helder general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

Jam, : �. .._.i:.
GET
BORING LOG
BM P-1
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School I U t, I �J :1 Ut1
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn &Associates, Inc. �av•
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-228G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-2-no
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': $ AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> -C
.7
>
w
o. m
m m
o E
o. w
v w
o"
Description
n
m
c7
o
E,
1n
w
a>
E$
o
ar
a m
E
t-
3 tO
o
m a
m
z\
a
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
M oisture Content - •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
20
0
0
3
4
7
15
19
18
14
1.8
7 inches of TOPSOIL
04
Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, very loose
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 2 feet
_
1
_
22
_
SS
t
1
2
.:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
-:
........ ..
...., .... _.__... ... ....
..:... ..:.. :.. :..
........................
:...t...:. :...:...:...
..:._:._:...:...:...:...
.:...:...:. .. I... I...f...
.. :...:...:...:. ..'...:.. .'...
_..:...:...:... :...1 ...1 ...1..
—
—
—
—
15
—
—
2
24
SS
2
2
5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay,
loose
.....
'ii!!
3
24
SS
3
3
4
5
_
6
Light Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorl
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium dense
Light Tan -Tan from 8 feet
Light Gray from 10 feet
Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater level = 10 Feet
.
S.
C. ii.
rn r.
", S.pi
u"rL
1:
tl�
...
___
4
22
SS
7
10
—
_
5
---
6
24
24
SS
SS
7
i0
11
a
10
1t
—
10
—
10
4
—
—
—
7
22
SS
6
7
6
5
15
Baring terminated at 15 ft.
—
—
—
_
—
6
g
-10
—
5
25
—
10
36
35
Notes: SS "= Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 7 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance m1h ASTA4 D 1586-

GET
'— -
r ear
BORING LOG
B!"I
PROJECT: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School I ocT o 9 2009
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. _
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT-NO:=EC09=228G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-2-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: Q 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: ., 12.5' CAVING> .C_
c
o
> t j
w
a w
w v
o E
a 2
w m
o—
D25Cfl PtlOrl
a
c7
n o
E Z
N
n>
E
N
a 01
E
N
3 fO
o
m o.
m
Z\
o
u
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
so
—
ts
—
10
0
0
2
3
8
17
13
14
2.0
11.8
8 inches of TOPSOIL
'
_
iiiii
_
1
_
18
_
SS
1
... .. .. ... .. .. :. .. :. ..
-
...,.I...I.. .:......
I. _:... ;...:...I :
;,..;..
p .
.
:...
........ ..,. . ...,.....20
: :
_..: _.:...:._:...:...:.. :...
.................... :...
[ :
0.7
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND ISM), very loose
2
12
SS
2
2
z
5
Light Tan -Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose to
medium dense
Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Level - 9.5 feet
:(r
t
.?:';
.ia
avert:
f4i
.
�;,
3
18
SS
3
5
7
12
12
—
—
5
---
—
24
—
SS
9
s
—
10
a
—
1d';
Light Tan -Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
(SP-SM) with silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), with Clay, medium dense
Wet from 15 feel
:::::
6
22
Ss
7
7
e
.....
7
15
S S
7
5
—
1s<z
_
—
5
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
s
—_
e
—
0
5
0
—
—
25
10
30
35_
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

KEY TO SYMBOLS11 �4"
Symbol Description
Strata symbols OCT 9 2009
Topsoil
Clayey Sand
Silty Sand
F';t,:s Poorly graded Sand
"" with Silt
ME Lean Clay
Misc. Symbols
a Water table during
drilling
Water table at
boring completion
Notes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 9-2-09 using a
4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
i2. 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.

RIE n --..
" �..�.v1 :ilk
OCT 7 0 2009
BY:- "
APPENDIX III
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

30
30
- - -
zo—____
_
1
...
32
.I
3 6
3d
q
d 5
El
] ] NM=12
5 10
23
21
'19;k7! 510
1 2
6 5
0 10
-KZ��Lll
d5
66
! .I:.Ll
9
3]
.I:I. t {1
J ]
_04
E
5]
3 d
66
.to
_ __ ___
_ _
.10
20
20
_30 _
.30
Strata
Clayey Sand
�.
Topsoil
�j''
MMM111
L
C:�
GET Solutions. Inc.
1
SIIyClayeysand
"
`k-�
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
:`;Y<'
J
�ts
SCALE: AL DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE DRAWN
Silty Sand
L
i
VER ICAL
SCALE: I'=W' CANS ��I D/2009
r
Camp LeJeune Family Housing Feasibility Study
Poorly graded Sand
yah silt
�el
Carnp LeJeune. North Carolina
�I
�.
Fat Clay
FIGURE NUMBER
PROJECT NO. EC08-321G

Symbol Description
Strata
symbols
Topsoil
OCT D J 2009
Silty Clayey Sand
BY:
Silty Sand
Poorly graded Sand
with Silt
Fat Clay
Clayey Sand
Misc.
Symbols
4 Water table during
drilling
Notes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 10-7-08 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.

'
B-13
6-16
1 2
2 3
B-15
B-t]
1 2
20
- _ _
I I NM11=15.]
12, _LL-28
_
1 2
1 2
By6
1
� ; 2 3 &10 1_1
20
36
22
22
dd
11
22
] 6
36
33
22
11
]J
67
33 ri3
30
78
1 22
6
] 8
d 6
3 6
7 9
2 2
�.
] 10
1 10
S 8
`{
57
9 11
] d
i{
13ll
0 10
9 11
j[<
' I: I. 0 9
3 3
f
.41
9 10
ll l]
8 10
;;
- 6
I i
Id l<
1 5 6
1617
B9
13 16
98
]8
I'P I. 61
-
10
).
1011
911
JI1
613
.1 1620
1O.
10
60
--
_]9
l:
—_
-1 -
.i'li.
ill' ]_10
10
l.I.
..
.
111z
9 9 NM=22,0
1310
'
6 ]
11 11
. . ' I .
l 6 8
: .: , j
.I . L 10
12
46 —
it
;Chl i _.1:I:L
ff 67
-
<5
Iq: j. ;'1
3<
•I'Pf 1 JS
56
'1':Il i.'L
1 I
_
_
<3
6 5
23
6]
3d
3 5
dd
5 6
] B
dd
810
10
10
-20
__ _
_20
-30
-- —
—
30
Strata
symbols
Topsoil
GET Solutions, Inc.
[
Clayey Sand
n
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
o oN nL DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY
scnLa DATE DRAWN
Silt Sand
y
sc'MAi=16 GWS 9/11/2009
es
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
;
Poorly graded Sand
I
wlm S,II
o
Camp LeJeune. North Carolina
FIGURE NUMBER
I
PROJECT NO. EC09-228G
Lam----

30
10
301
Strata symbols
Topsoil
UZI Clayey Sand
ai Silly Sand
I
fez! ` Poorly graded Sand
L:, with Sill
22
1 I
2 2-
LL=
5 5 II
�.
�"
5]
5]
6 9
:'
• F'i . 1 n•:
] 9
1112
911
8 9
1]15
211
19
10
'I' I'
9 9
11 13
1 ! :
9 10
1011
L L 1
3 3
57
.._. _
'iti1. C'
. .
a a;
a5
6
a a
-7�
11
T7
—2'2
23
J J
as
1B
12 to
_1XC I'
1011
to 11
78
J:h
3 5 NM=22a
6 10
1X
:I: I; 1
]5
LY:7.
I.6411
4
I a5
J \AJ
<7
N
O
O
[_n L
/P
JJ 21
12
—22J3
2 l
""';•' ]9
1]I115
55
hC 61
]9
10 a
I J:rj
J34
J5
]]
R-5
— NM=1].I
r1 •LL I
11:1:
NM-6 3
20
10
0 4
10
20
-30

BR-]
rCBR-8 LER-9 MR 1 . . . . I 1
NIM-15.9..
J, NM=112 NM-102 J_:.. 2 2 ] 1 I
.::: .. .. < 2] 22
.1'I.LIr 610 Id'1. L� ]9
.. .. ..7 9 a 9_
L
10Il NM]3NM=6J aNM=1].I
]6
6] 66
]6
Strata symbols
Ell
Topsoil
Clayey Sand
ISilty
Sand
Poorly graded Sand
with Silt
ELean
Clay
10

Symbol Description
Strata
symbols
Topsoil
Clayey Sand
Silty Sand
'rn-M
LOcl�j
Poorly graded Sand
with Silt
Lean Clay
Misc.
Symbols
Q
Water table during
drilling
Water table at
boring completion
INotes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 9-2-09 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.

OCT 0 n 2009
SUMMARY OF CBR TEST DATA

Project:
Client:
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
OCT
SUMMARY OF CBR TEST RESULTS
L5y____:
LeJeune New Elementary School Project Location: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
Project Number: EC09-228G
Sample
Number
Sample
Location
Sample Depth
(fQ
USCS
Symbol
Natural
Moisture
Content (%)
Atterberg
Limits
(LLIPL/PI(
Passing #200
Sieve
(%)
Maximum Dry
-
Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
(%)
Soaked CBR
Value
:Resiliency -
Factor
Swell
(%(
CBR-2
CBR-2
0.7 to 2.0
SM
10.4
Non -Plastic
33.1
111.6
12.4
16.7
3.0
0.0
CBR-5
CBR-5
0.5 to 1.5
SM
17.1
Non -Plastic
17.5
106.3
13.4
22.8
3.0
0.0
CBR-6
CBR-6
1.0 to 2.0
SM
6.3
Non -Plastic
13.7
104.3
14.4
22.4
3.0
0.0
CBR-7
CBR-7
1.0 to 2.0
SM
15.9
Non -Plastic
24.8
108.8
12.1
22.0
3.0
0.0
CBR-8
CBR-8
1.0 to 2.0
SM
11.2
Non -Plastic
14.9
103.8
14.3
24.7
3.0
0.0
CBR-9
CBR-9
1.0 to 2.0
SM
10.2
Non -Plastic
13.7
103.2
13.3
23.7
3.0
0.0
-------------
GET
504 E. Elizabeth Street. Suite 2
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
Tel [phone] Fas. 252-3359766
page 1 of 1

G
d t>
O
113
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE)
7AV for
Sp.G. _
2.65
111
109
107
105
103
Water content. %
Test specification: AS] M D 69s-00a Method A Standard
Elev/ Classification Nat. %> % <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. Sp.G. LL PI No.4 No.200
0.7 to 2 SM A-2-4(0) 10.4 Nil NP 11,0 33.1
.feet
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 111.6 pcf ran -Gray silty fine SAND (SM)
Optimum moisture = 12.4 %
Project No. EC08-321G Client: Kimley-Horn and Associsics. Inc Remarks:
Project Camp Leleune Pamilq Housing Feasibility tilud)' CBR No. 2
Soaked C6R Value =- 16.7
o Location: CBR-2 Resiliency Factor= 3.0
GET SOLUTIONS, INC.
Elizabeth City, North Carolina

MOISTURE
DENSITY
RELATIONSHIP
(PROCTOR CURVE)
ZAV for
108
Sp.G. _
2.65
106
104
102
100
T
—
--
—---
;
—
-
-
-,-
-,-�—
--
—F
-,---
;-;-_,
I—
____
---�'-
_
----
j----—
-1
i
-14
I
10
l
6 8 10 12
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-00a Method A Standard
Elev/ Classification Nat.
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.
0.5 to L5 SM A-2-4(0) ITI
tcct
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry (Iensity= 106.3 I)d
Optimum moisune= 13.4 %
Project No. FC09-228G Client: Kimlcy-Morn & Associate, Inc.
Project: Camp Lcicunc New Flumcntary School
• Location: CHR-5
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE)
GET SOLUTIONS, INC.
14
Sp.G. I LL
16 18
PI 0 �
No.4 No.200
NI' NI' U2 17.5
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Tan Silly line SAND (SM)
Remarks:
CBIZ-5
Soaked Clik Value =22.R
Resilience Factor= 3.0

450
400
350
300
:y 250
rt
N
n 2(ju
150
100
50
0
0.000
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School - CBR-5
Rom': c,:NYED
OCT 0 ? ?009
BY: �j
0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350
Penetration

OCT t1 9 2009
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR
108
106
104
102
100
98
9 11 13 15
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-00a Method A Standard
Elev/ Classification Nat.
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. Sp.G.
LO to 2.0
SM A-2-4(0) 6.3
Icct -
TEST RESULTS
Maximurn dry density = 104.3 pcf
Optimum moisture= 14.4'A
Project No. EC09-228G Client: Kimlcy-I-lore & Associ tcs. hic.
Project: Camp Lc.lcunc Ncw Elcinenlmy School
• Location: CBR-6
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE)
GET SOLUTIONS, INC.
-----
I
-
I
--
1-i-
--
17 19 21
ZAV for
Sp.G. _
2.65
0
LL PI Noo.200
NI' NP U-13.7
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ran Silly line SAND (SM)
Remarks:
CBR-6
SoAcdCBR Value =22.4
Rcsilicncy Factor= 3.0

450 --
400
350
300
u 2511 —
a
a
v
n 200 -�
150
100 —
SO
0
0.000
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School - CBR-6
0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.
Penetration

450
400
350
300
n 250
a
N
N
d
N 200
150
100
50
0
0.000
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School - CBR-7
0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350
Penetration

1 �JLJ �/ JLI ll � 1'J.ILi
OCT 0 9 2009
z
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE)
108 ZAV for
Sp.G. _
2.65
106
104
102
100
98
8 10 12 14
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-00a Method A Standard
Elev/ Classification Nat.
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.
1.0 to 30 SM
lect
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry dcnsily= 103.1i pc1'
Optimum inoishuc= 14.3 %
Project No. EC09-228G Client: Kin ley-l-Ioin,C Associates, [nc.
Project: C;unp I_alcun< New 6lcmcntary School
• Location: CBR-S
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE)
GET SOLUTIONS, INC.
,I
-
tltt
1
;__L
�1
1
_
►
16 16 2U
Sp.G. ILL PI
No.4 No.200
NP, _ Nil 0.8 14.9
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Remarks:
CBR-S
Soaked C13R Value = 24]
Rcsilicncy Paaor= 3.0

500
450
400 -
350
300
N
n
y 250
v
N
200 - -
I-
150
100
50
0
0.000
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School - CBR-8
0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350
Penetration

OCT 0 9 ?009
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE)
107 ZAV for
Sp.G. _
2.65
105
103
101
KE
M
�
I
I
—
I
-II
_
—
l
-
--
—�---
---
--
-1--
---�-
4,-
-C
------
1--
---
--
—
F
8 10 12 14
Water content, %
Test specification: AS'I'M D G98-OOa Mclhud A Standard
Elev/ Classification Nat.
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.
I M to 2.0 Sbl A-2-4(0) 10.2 -
- fcct
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density= 103.2 pcf
Optimum moislurC= 13.3'%:
Project No. EC09-228G Client: Kindey-l-loin -, Associates. Inc.
Project: Cnmp Lcicune New Elementary School
• Location: C812-9
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE)
GET SOLUTIONS. INC.
16 18 20
Sp.G. LL PI
No.4 No.200
IN NP 0.0 13.7
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Tan Silty Zinc SAND (SND
Remarks:
CBR-9
SonkedCHR Vtduc=23.7
12csilicncy Factor= 3.0

450 --
400
350 —
300 -
y 250
G
N
N 200
I
150
100
50
0
0.000
Camp LeJeune New Elementary School - CBR-9
0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350
Penetration

Rr-` r�_�„_�� y,r
, .
OCT 0 9 2009
BY:
APPENDIX V
DCP TEST DATA

7OCT 0 ?009
GET J BY:
DCP TEST DATA
Project: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School Date: 4-Aug-09
Location: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Soil Type(s): SP-SM to SM
GET Project l EC09-228G
Surficial Thickness: 6 inches Test Starting Depth: 11.5 inches
(Concrete, Asphalt.
Slone, Topvul. etc.) Hammer Soil Type
Ol9.uns Test Identification: OCR
a V.6 Ns. OCL
CBR-5
O Both M1ammers usetl I a All ocher soils
No. ofAccumulative
Blo
Blows
penetration
Type of
Hammer
0.1
1.0
CBR
10.0
100.0
(mm)
0
0
295
$
127
1
391
1
___._
--____
--
__
2
420
1
10
----
-
-
--
-
-
254
1
479
1
7s
20
—
—
-
-
387
- 508
--
-----,,-
-
-_1
1
509
536
1
1
c 25
__
_
---
__.
--
__
..
635 E
1
- _ 1__ --
605
_.,_.670 __- -
1_....._._
�- _ _ 1 _
-
F 30
w
0 35
---_____
-
_ _
_
---_
_.
_
--____.
- _
_ _ _
762 :
W
889 0
1
-_---
696
____ —
1
----
40
45
. 1016
- 1143
1
726
1
- _
_
_ _
_
- _
_ _
- 1 __
752 -_--1
-
---
--
1
778
1
-
_ _
_ _
---..i._....__...805
50
270
i...
833„
1.,. ....
55
1397
---____.
___.
-____.
860
60
1524
1
888
1
1
913
1
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
BEARING
0 2000 4000
CAPACITY, psf
6000 8000 10000 12000
—'----
1
1
0
—
o
5
127
1
1n
254
15
381
20
(
508
--
-----
---
-----
---------------
------------
1
❑ 25
- 635 E
-. _
...........
_.._'
1 _
1- 30
O 35
- 762 =
889 W
O
_....._'.._.... _
40
45
1016
1143
------ 1
50
- Based on pp I -interrelationships
of CBR and Bearing values (Doesill of
1270
I
5$
- Concrete Airport P menl Portland
- 1397
--
--�
—
Cent out A 'anon, pays 6 1955)
-_.-
.....-.....
..-.._�..................
60
1524
1
0 14 28
BEARING
42 56 69
CAPACITY, Psi
83
---!-----------
1

OCT 0
GET '�Y'------_'
DCP TEST DATA
Project: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School Date: 4-Aug-09
Location: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Soil Type(s): SP-SM to SM
GET Project M EC09-22BG
Surficial Thickness: 10 inches Test Starting Depth: 14.5 inches
(Concrete, Asphalt.
Stave, Topsoil, ft.) Hammer
O m.t ms Test Identification:
eO BorhHammers used =C:'11'1-"
BloNo. S
Blows
Accumulative
penetration
Type of
Hammer
0.1
1.0
CBR
10.0
100.0
(mm)
0
0
0
375
1
5
127
1
437
1
---
-
---
-----
1_. I
485
1.._
10
--
-
---
--
----
254
1
525
--
567
15
20
381
508
-
—
—
-
_ _
_
_ .
---
_ _
1
__—___—____.._..__._...._
593 .....
. .........
624
1
25
_.. 635 E
--____.
—__I_
2._
1_-
74.6
779...
1 ..
.........
1
- 30
Q.
w
0 35
762 :
a
889 W
--
__
_
—
--.
____
----
-
---____.
___.
1
813
45
1143
1
847
1
1
882
1
--------
......_. _._..
--------- _.
-
50
_ - 1270
_
— _
_ .
—
—
_ _
_ _
_ .
_ _
_ _
....
. _.
.....
55
397
---____.
—_
__.
_____1
;......
50
1524
1
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
0 2000
BEARING
4000
CAPACITY, psf
6000 8000 10000 12000
---
-�----
-� 1 —
1........-.-
,,,,,,.,
.................
.
0
0
.-....
1
5
127
--
--I---
fI ------
_—
--
10
254
1
15
-
381
_
20
508
1
E 25
635 E
-
-....
Ij
.......
1... _..
1
30
W
O 35
762 2
a
889 WQ
-
7
1
40
45
1016
1143
-
50
— Baserox Inuayo e( t ion
...._
) .........
-�.___...
Berimote
of CBR load ysi,nships1270
of CBR and Bearing valt es IDesi9n of
1
-
55
— Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland -
Con e a Assoc'al on, page S. 1955)
1397
...
..........
1
................
60
1524
0
14 28
42 56 69 83
1
--.---
BEARING
CAPACITY, psi

OCT .O 2009
GET JBY:
_ _ DCP TEST DATA
ri
Project: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School Dale: 5-Aug-09
Location: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Soil Type(s): SP-SM to SM
GET Project 4: EC09-228G
Surticial Thickness: 12 inches Test Starting Depth: 15 inches
(Concrete. Asphalt.
Stone. Topsoa. etc.) Hammer Sol Type
01o.1 " Test Identification: Oa
®17.6 ms. CBR-7 Oct.
O Both hammers used 0 All other soils
No. of
Accumulative
Type of
CBR
Blows
Penetration
Hammer
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
(mm)
0
0
0
380
1
5
127
1
430,,.
1
—
—
—
_
1
465
1
10
-
-
-
---
254
1
498
1
15
381
1
537
1
-
—
---
1
....-.._-.-_._-........._._.-.-.-.-__-.
607
c 25
635 E
1
641
1
-----
----
--
-------
=
E
30
I -
- -
713
0.
d
_---
1
747
--_._—
1
0.
0 35
--
- 889 W
0
1
783
_
1
............____...._..........__..........._..-.-__._
............._......
40
1016
..
--
----.
--
---'
1
815
1
1
849
1
45
--------
-----
-
-----
1143
1 _
893 —
1
50
55
-- 1270
1397
1
929--—_1
--
---
---
-
_
1_.
_
- _
1
60
1524
1
9.1
1.0
19.9
199.0
'--'-"
'-�-----
1
0
5
0 2000
BEARING
4000
CAPACITY, psf
6000 8000 10000 12000
0
127
----
_.__.—.__...__._._-_
.............._._......_........_...
i
10
254
5
381
_
1
20
508 -'
--
----—
--
1
C 25
635 E
30
762 X
-
.-.-......._.
..............
..-_�.....-.........
1._
d
W
CL
"-_...
.-.-._...
------------ ......... .
0 35
-
889 w
1
0
I 1
40
1016
......._�.__.-._....
45
1143
---
_—
50
- Based on aPProeiinate interrelntionshlps
1270
-_
�....
of CBR and Bear ng vain es (Design pl
55
- Concrplc Airport Pavement, porlland -
1397
Crni Association, pgc B. 1955)
60
1524
1
0
14 28
42 56 69 83
t
BEARING
CAPACITY, psi

OCT 0 0 1000
BY: -
GE
DCP TEST DATA
Project: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School Date: 5-Aug-09
Location: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Soil Type(s): SM
GET Project If: EC09-22BG
Surficial Thickness: 12 inches Test Starting Depth: 15 inches
(Concrete. Asphalt.
Stone. Topsail, etc.) Hammer
Om.1ms. Test Identification:
10v.6IHs CBR-8Oeom Hammers useu =-'Ils
No. of
Blows
Accumulative
Penetration
Type of
Hammer
CBR
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
(mm)
0 0
0
5
_�_.
__
_
127
_1-_
-_410�____
1
440
1
10
-
-
-
254
1
AM
1
508
1
15
--
-
--
---
--
-
381
....... _�.....
_ 531._.
.._�_.._....
20
-� -I
—
_ _
.. 508
1
560
1
--1
599—
_1 .-_-
c 25
--
{-I
--
-
635 E
1
1
635
670 _
1
1--...,.-
2
1.-30
w
0 35
—
----
---
---
-
-------'
762 2
H
a
889 to
O
_702
--
1
729
1
1
760
1
40
--
-
1016
1
788
1
45
----
--
—
----
-------
1143
1
823
1
1270
1
861�
_�-
50
55
—
—
_
—
---
- _
_
----
1397
`-1
1524
60
.....-.....
—
..............
--
..._....... ..........
1
1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
BEARING CAPACITY, psf
1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
0
5
127
--- -
---
-
—�
10
254
.
........._.....
....................
15
381
--
---
----
-
20
c 25
-I
508
635 E
1 _
1
.......
.......
....
._
.....
....
1
H
762 S
30
a
W
889 W
0 35
I
0
40
45
50
jj
Based on epprodmate oi-nlationships -
of CBR and Bearing values (Design of
1016
1143
1270
...
_�.................
_ 1
1
5$
- Concrete Alrpotl Pavement Portland -
Cement Association, page 8. 1955)
1397
..___.__
.......-....
....._.._.._.
60 1524
0 14 28 42 56 69 83
BEARING CAPACITY, psi
1
-�----

GET
DCP TEST DATA
OCT 0 9 2009
IDS: �—
Project:
Camp LeJeune New Elementary
School Date: 5-Aug-09
Location:
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
Soil Type(sj: SP-SM to SM
GET Project#:
EC09-228G
Surficial Thickness:
12 inches
Test Starting Depth: 15.5 inches
(Conuem, Aspnan,
Stone, Twtol, etc.)
Hammer
O 10.1 ms
Test Identification:
®v.6 ms.
hammers used
CBR-9OBoth
=CH
Accumulative CBR
No, of Penetration Type of
Blows Hammer 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
(mm)
0
5
0
400
1
i445
................_-._...-.-..-...-
1
487
1
10
15
ci 25
1
1
530 .........................
569
1
..........................
1
_ 606
670
695
1
: 30
n
1
721
1
750
—
1
w
0 35
- 1
776
801
1
..............
1
40
45
s0
1
826_— _
_
— 1
1 _..
874
1---
1
1...
55
1
6
1
1
1
1
_ 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
x
l— 30
a
p 35
40
45
50
55
60
0
0
127
254
381
508
635 E
762 x
f-
a
889 W
O
1016
1143
1270
1397
1524
1.0 10.0 10).0
BEARING CAPACITY, psf
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
127
254
381
508
635 E
E
762 x
H
a
889 W
0
1016
1143
1270
1397
1524
0 14 28 42 56 69 83
BEARING CAPACITY, psi
— Based on approdinatp interrelationships
of CBR and Bearing values (Oesi9n of
Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland —
Cement Association, page 8, 1955)
—

CT ,� 9 ?009
BY:D___
APPENDIX VI
PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS

OCT 0 0 2009
Win PAS asp.
Pavement Thickness Design According to
1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements Structures
American Concrete Pavement Association
Flexible Design Inputs
Agency:
Company: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Contractor:
roject Description: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
Location: Pavement Design Parking Lot
Flexible Pavement Design/Evaluation
Structural Number
1.00
Soil Resilient Modulus 12,221.60 psi
Design ESALs
4,835
Initial Serviceability 4.20
Reliability
75.00 percent
Terminal Serviceability 2.80
Overall Deviation
0.49
Layer Pavement Design/Evaluation
Layer
Material
Layer
Coefficient
Drainage
Coefficient
Layer
Thickness
Layer
SIN
Asphalt Cement Concrete
0.30
1.25
2.00
0.75
Crushed Stone Base
0.12
1.25
8.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
�: bpi 1.95
Friday, September 11, 2009 11:29:12AM Engineer:

WinPAS OCT ,i) �, 2009
Pavement Thickness Design According to
1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements Structures `�R�'-----
American Concrete Pavement Association
ESAL Data by Vehicle Type
Agency:
Company: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Contractor:
Project Description: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
Location: Pavement Design Parking Lot
Traffic Factor
Estimated Rigid Thickness
9.00 inches
Estimated Structural Number
2.5
Terminal Serviceability
2.8
Design Life
20 years
Annual Growth Rate
0.00 percent
Traffic Input by
Day
I I4111G 111PU I
Design Lane
Vehicle
Axle Load
Axle Type
Number
Vehicle
Axle Load
Axle Type
Number
2.00
Single
I
12.00
Single
0.00
�' ""
16.00
Single
2.00
Single
1,200
34.00
Tandem
0
r-
10.00
Single
12.00
Single
0.00
A-Q
34.00
Tandem
�- -- —'
24.00
Single
0-
34.00
Tandem
0
1.00
0.00
0
Single
L'��"����•� ��•��
.00
3434 .00
Single
Tandem
34.00
Tandem
0
34.00
Tandem
warn :'iw*•-w
34,00
Tandem
`�
34.00
Tandem
0
Total Rigid
ESALs
3,523
Total Flexible
ESALs
4,835
Friday, September 11, 2009 11:29:49AM Engineer:

REC. 1VED
WinPAS OCT o 0 ?009
Pavement Thickness Design According to �Y:
1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements Structures
American Concrete Pavement Association
Flexible Design Inputs
Agency:
Company: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Contractor:
roject Description: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
Location: Pavement Design Service Road/Bus Loop
Flexible Pavement Design/Evaluation
Structural Number
2.20
Soil Resilient Modulus 12,221.60 psi
Design ESALs
326,927
Initial Serviceability 4.20
Reliability
75.00 percent
Terminal Serviceability 2.80
Overall Deviation
0,49
Layer Pavement Design/Evaluation
Layer
Material
Layer
Coefficient
Drainage
Coefficient
Layer
Thickness
Layer
SIN
Asphalt Cement Concrete
0.30
1.25
1.50
0.56
Asphalt Cement Concrete
0.30
1.25
2.50
0.94
Crushed Stone Base
0.12
1.25
8.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
oll Z.ru
Friday, September 11, 2009 11:33:50AM Engineer:

WinPAS OCT o 9 Zoos
Pavement Thickness Design According to
1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements Structures LBY:-
American Concrete Pavement Association
ESAL Data by Vehicle Type
Agency:
Company: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Contractor:
Project Description: Camp LeJeune New Elementary School
Location: Pavement Design Service Road/Bus Loop
Traffic Factor
Estimated Rigid Thickness
9.00 inches
Estimated Structural Number
2.5
Terminal Serviceability
2.8
Design Life
20 years
Annual Growth Rate
0.00 percent
Traffic Input by
Day
Traffic Input by
Design Lane
Vehicle
Axle Load
Axle Type
Number
Vehicle
Axle Load
Axle Type
Number
- .
2.00
Single
r
12.00
Single
0.00
g tr '_"` j
16.00
Single
2.00
Single
0
34.00
Tandem
0
F-
10.00
Single
12.00
Single
}�
0.00
t.._
�"
34,00
Tandem
—� —
24.00
Single
8
_
34.00
Tandem
2
r_ _ .....
12.00
0.00
Single
L _
2.00
3
34.00
Single
Tandem
34.00
Tandem
10
34.00
Tandem
34.00
Tandem
`
34.00
Tandem
0
Total Rigid
ESALs
406,734
Total Flexible
ESALs
326,927
Friday, September 11, 2009 11:34:11 AM Engineer:

1 �J�J �.� 1.1 �1 �✓ '�/�
OCT 01) 2009
BY:
APPENDIX VII
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS

-G E T Solutions, Inc.
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET Sheet No.: 1 of 1
Project Name.: Camp LeJeune Elementary School
iParcel ...............: Pond South of Elementary School
Terminology and Solution
Boring No......: 3MP-7
IDate .................: 9/2/2009
Ksat : Saturated hydraulic conductivity
investigators.: R. Woodard
IFile Name.........:
Q: Steady-state rate of water flow into the soil
Boring Depth.: 10-feet
JWCU Base. Ht. h: 15.0 cm
H: Constant height of water in borehole
Boring Dia..... : 8.3 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 15.2 cm
r: Radius of cylindrical borehole
Boring Rad. (r): 4.15 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 30.2 cm
Ksat = Q[sinh-1 (H/r) - (r2/H2+1).5 + r/Hj / (2pH2) [Glover Sol
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
(ml) a
TIME
hr:min:sec a/
Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
ml/min a/b
------------------ Ksat Equivalent Values -------- --------
hr:min:sec
min b
cmlmin
(cm/sec
(cm/day)(in/hr
fUda
2000
_
11:30:00 AM
k. -
-
I
-
I -
19001
100
11:30:05 AMI
0:00:051
0.08
1200,001
0.379
6.32E-031
546.0
&9561
17.91
18001
1001
' 1 1:30:10 AMI
0:00:051
o.081
1200.001
0.3791
6.32E-031
54&01
&9561
17.91
17001
1001
11:30:15 AMI
0:00:05
oml
1200.00
0.3791
6.32E-03
546.01
&9561
17.91
-
16001
1001
11:30:21 AMI
0:00'.06I
0.101
1000.001
0.3161
5.27E-03
455.0
7.463
14.93
1500
100
11:30:26 AMI
0:00705
0.08
1200.001
0.3791
6.32E-03
546.0
8.9561
17.91
14001
1001
11:30:32 AMI
0:00:061
0.101
1000.001
0.3161
5.27E-03
455.0
7.4631
14.93
1300
100
11:30:37 AMI
0:00:051
0.08
1200.001
0.3791
6.32E-03
546.0
8.956
17.91
12001
0:00: o6l
0.10
1000.001
0.3161
5.27E-03
455.0
7,4631
14.93
11001
100
11:30:48 AMI
0:00:051
0.08
1200.001
0.3791
6.32E-031
546.0
8.9561
17.91
10001
1001
11:30:54AM
0:00:061
0.3161
5.27E-03I
455.0
7.463
14.93
900l
100
11:30:59 AM
0:00:05
0.08
1200.001
0.3791
6.32E-03
546.0
8.9561
17.91
8001
100
11:31:05 AMI
0:00:061
0.10
1000.001
0.3161
5.27E-03
455.0
7.4631
14.93
I
�
I
Natural Moisture: 6.3%
Init. Satur.Time: 11:00:00 AM
ESTIMATED FIELD KSAT:I
0.3531
5.88E-031
508.11
8.3341
16!67
3 `)
Texture/Classif: SAND (SP)
Consistency: IMedium dense
iDepth to an Impermeable Layer: N/A
Notes: % Passing #200 Sieve = 1.8% I
Groundwater in excess of
o -c
Structure/Fabric:
Slope/Landsc:
IDepth to Bedrock ...................: N/A
ksatRepohl.As Precision Permeameter
Rev. 4/5/002
F
F J

G E T Solutions, Inc.
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET Sheet No.: 1 of 1
Project Name.: Camp LeJeune Elementary School
iParcel ...............:
Pond South of Elementary School
Terminology and Solution
Boring No......: BMP-2
IlDate .................: 9/2/2009
Ksat : Saturated hydraulic conductivity
Investigators.: R. Woodard
IFile Name.........:
Q: Steady-state rate of water flow into the soil
Boring Depth.: 10-feet
WCU Base. Ht. h: 15.0 cm
H: Constant height of water in borehole
Boring Dia..... : 8.3 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 15.2 cm
r. Radius of cylindrical borehole
Boring Rad. (r): 4.15 cm
lConst. Wtr. Ht. H: 30.2 cm
Ksat = Q[sinh-1(H/r) - (r2/H2+1).5 + r/H] / (2pH2) [Glover SOIL
VOLUME
Ll�
Volume Out
(ml) a
TIME
hr:min:sec a/
Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
(ml/min a/b
------------------- Ksat Equivalent Values ------------------
hr:min:sec
min b
cm/min)
cm/sec
(cm/day)
in/hr
fUda
20001
1 2:30:00 PMJ
-
I•.
"
-�
-
.
19001
1001
2:30,07 PM
0:00:07
0.12
857.141
0,2711
4.51E-031
390.01
6,3971
12.79
18001
1001
2:30:14 PM
1 0:00:071
0.12
857.141
0.271
4.51 E-03
390.0
6.397
1 12.79
17001
100
2:30:21 PMJ
0:00:071
0.121
857.141
0.2711
4.51E-03
390.01
6.3971
12.79
16001
100
2:30:29 PM
0:00:081
0.13
750.001
0.237
3.95E-03
341.21
5.598
11.20
15001
100
2:30:36 PM
0:00:071
0.121
857.141
0.2711
4.51 E-03
390.01
6.3971
12.79
14001
1001
2:30:44 PM
1 0:00:081
0.13
750.001
0.237
3.95E-03
341.21
5.5981
11.20
13001
1001
2:30:50 PM
0:00:061
0.10
1000.001
0.3161
5.27E-03
455.01
7.4631
14.93
12001
1001
2:30:56 PM
0:00:06
0.10
1000.001
0.3161
5.27E-03
455.01
7.463
14.93
11001
1001
2:31:05 PM
0:00:091
0.15
666.671
0.2111
3.51E-03
303.31
4.9761
9.95
10001
100
2:3114 PM
0:00:09
1 0.151
666.671
0.2111
3.51 E-03
303.31
4.9761
9.95
900
100
2:31:22 PM
0:00:08
0.13
750.001
0.237
3.95E-03
341.2
5.598
11.20
800l
1001
2:31:30 PM
0:00:081
0.13
750,001
0.2371
3.95E-03
341.21
5.598
11.20
Natural Moisture: 7.2%
1 Init. Satur.Time: 2:00.00 AM
ESTIMATED FIELD KSAT:I
0.257
4.28E-031
370.11
6.0711
12:14
Texture/Classif: SAND (SP)
Consistency: Medium dense
Depth to an Impermeable Layer: N/A
Notes: % Passing #200 Sieve = 2.0% 'L
Groundwater in excess of 12' B.E.G.
Structure/Fabric:
Slope/Landsc:
IDepth to Bedrock ...................: N/A
ksatReportl .As Precision Permeameter"" Rev. 415/002

RECEIVED
OCT 0 9 2009
BY:
APPENDIX VIII
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

GET
t.
Fr
Virginia Beach Office
204 Grayson Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
[phone]
Williamsburg Office
1592 Penniman Rd. Suite E
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
[phone]
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
Standard Penetration Test (SPT). N-value
W 92,di
OCT 0O 2
009
BY:
Elizabeth City Office
504 East Elizabeth St, Suite 2
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
[phone]
Standard Penetration "Pests (SP'I') were performed in the field in general accordance with r1STNI D 1586. The soil samples were obtained with a
standard 1.4" LD., 2" O.D., 30" long split -spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a MO lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The number of
blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment (4 increments for each soil sample) of penes rat ion was recorded and is shown on the
boring logs. 'fhesuul of thesecond and third penetration increments is termed theSPT-N-value.
NON COHESIVE SOILS
(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)
Relative Density
Very Loose 4 blows/ft. or less
Loose 5 to 10 blows/1'L
Medium Dense 1 I to 30 blows/ft.
Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft.
Very Dense 51 blows/h. or more
Particle Size Identification
Boulders
8 inch diameter or more
Cobbles
3 to 8 inch diameter
Gravel
Coarse I to 3 inch diameter
Medium I/y to 1 inch diameter
Pine I/, to I/, inch dimnetei
Sand
Coarse 2.00 man to'/a inch
(diameter of pencil lead)
Medium 0.42 to 2.00 min
(diameter of broom straw)
Pine 0,074 to 0.42 ram
(diameter of human hair)
Silt
0.002 to 0.074 ram
(cannot see particles)
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)
Coarse Grained Soils
Vlore than 50% rainA on No. 200 sieve
GW - Well -graded Gravel
GP - Poorly graded Gravel
GW-GM - Well -graded Crave] w/Silt
GW-GC - Well-gmdcd Grovel w/Clny
GP -GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt
GP -GC - Poorly graded Crave) w/Clay
GM - Silty Gravel
GC - Clayey Gravel
GC -GM -Silty, Clayey Gravel
SW - Well -graded Sand
SP - Poorly gmdedSand
SW-SM - Well -graded Sand w/Sll,
SW -SC- Well -graded Sand w/Clay
SP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/Sih
SP-SC - Poorly graded S;md w/CL;y
SM- SiltySmd
SC - Claygq Sand
SC-SM -Silty, Clayey Sand
Fine -Grained Soils
50u, ur no, pazscs I he N. 200 sieve
CL -Leon Clay
CL-ML - Silty Clay
ML - Silt
OL - Organic Clay/Silt
Llguld I.im'u Witt u gre:er
CH - Eat Clay
MH - Elastic Silt
OH - Orgamc Clay/Silt
—Highly Organic Soils
PT - Peat
COHESIVE SOILS
(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)
Consistency
Very Soft
2 blows/ft. or less
Soft
3 to 4 b1ows/11,
Medium Suff
5 to 8 blows/ft.
Stiff
9 to 15 blows/ft.
Very Stiff
16 to 30 blows/ft.
I -lord
31 blows/h, or more
Relative Proportions
Descriptive Term Percent
Trrce
0-5
Few
5-10
Little
15-25
Some
30-45
Mostly
50-100
Strata Changes
In the column "Description" on the boring log, the horizontal
lines represent approximate strata changes.
Groundwater Readines
Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental
variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and
magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as tidal influences and
man-made influences, such as existing swales, drainage
ponds, underdmins and areas of covered soil (paved parking
lots, side walks, etc).
Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No.
200 sieve size), coarse -grained soils are classified as follows,
Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW,SP
More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM. SC
5 to 12 percent Borderline cases requiring dual
sy111bels
Plasticity Chart
M1 I F -dmq
NEEMENJEN
ENNIFAVA
mm
Page 1 of I
GET Revision 12112/07
D 11) 20 SO 40 Si) 60 70 80 00 ISO
LIDUID LIMIT f,LL) (%)