SW8110326_HISTORICAL FILE_20110503

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8 \\O�> 20
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
LV HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
Z cm 05 0 3
YYYYMMDD

,r11vjnj,qV iaRoldw3 uopnV angewiyy 1 Nwnunddo lenb3 uy
) 6io F jjenbialeou m :tawalul
BUI[O.IBDgIJON BCL9-R9-LL9-I :aOwas iawolsnot 600Z-09C-OL6 XVd 19LZL-96L-OL6 auo4d
oU0 90VBZ eupweo 4PON'uolbuiwpM'uoisualx3 0n40 leuipleD LZt
aoigo leuo16a8 uol6uiwliM
al!d ialemwols a0140 1eu0169a uol6ulwl!M
lu9w96euelry lelseoO to uo!s!nl0
suogoadsul bu!ppng /lunoo molsu0 'joloadsul
3d 'uewd!gS �eZ o0
9Z£OL L I!Wjad 90 I LOZ\OH 9Z£O L M LOZ\sloafoLd 'g sl!LWGd\J91emwJ0IS\S0M\ S :fdl /SOJ
Al!lenO aaleMjo uolsln!p
Jos!vuadnS aalemwiols
AOoS .O la6joaO
/lajaouls
SIZL-96L (0l6) le aw JO'uosugof AIIGN
loeluoo aseald 'aallew slgl buiumuoo uo!lewao;ul leuoll!ppe paau io 'suo!lsenb AUe aneq noR;l
6u!pu!q pue lew; aq llegs llwaad
s!ql @pew aie spuewap Bons ssalufl 'LbbL-I 19LZ ON '019lea'L417LZ J9meJ0 'O d 's6uue9H
an!leals!u!wpV 10 90!40 agl ql!m pal!; pue 'salnlelS lejauaO eugaeO WON agl;o 8091 JaldegO
of bu!Lwo;uoo 'uoggad uallum e;o wjo; agl uw aq lsnw lsanbai s!ql l!wjad s!gl;o ld!aoaj
6wmollo; step (0£) Aingl u!gl!m lsanbai uallum uodn buueag Ajoleo!pnfpe ue lsanbea of lg6u
aql aneg nog( 'algeldaooeun aje l!Lwad s!gl ui pau!eluoo suogel!wg ao 'sluawannbai 'sped Aue;l
swalgad Emelldwoo amin;
ui llnsaa ll!m walsRs luawa6euew jalemwols agl;o aoueualu!ew pue uollejado col walsAs
alenbape ue gs!lgelsa of aml!ed l!Lwad s!gl uw sluawannbai aoueualuien pue uo!lejado
all of uo!lualle le!oads Aed aseald wajagl pa!;loads se suogel!w!l pue suoll!puoo aq) of
loafgns aq pegs pue ' IZOZ 'E Aen I!lun aouenss! 10 alep all woa; an!I0849 aq llegs llwaad sill
loafoad
loafgns agl;o uo!lonalsuoo aql jol ' I IOZ '£ Aen paleP 9Z£0 L 18MS 'ON I!wJ@d 6ufpJemao; aye
aM 000L HZ O`dON V9I 91l!1 PUe I IZ-90OZ me3 uo!ssaS ui glio; las suo!lelnbaa jalemwjolS
agl gl!m Aldwoo ll!m 'pasodad se 'loafoid agl legl pou!waalep seg suogeo!;!0ads pue sueld
all;o malnaJ _4elS I IOZ ' 1Z I!jdy uo (OI£ I-d) Ll!I!oed luaweuwluoO leul-aid Jo; uo!leopddV
l!Lujad luawa6euew jalemlwolS alaldwoo a p9n!a0aa 901�0 leu0169H u016wwl!m aql
aaNee Jw Jeaa
/flunoO molsuo
;oafoid uollua;aa-ol8 lefojawwoo Aj!suaa y6lH
(o6CVd) AlWoe3 3u8w8ul;uo3 lelal-aad
9ZS06I 8MS 'ON llwaad JalemwJolS :IoofgnS
L1798Z ON 'aunafal dweO
peon laegoln 9001
aunafa-1 dweO aseg sdjoO auuew
aunafag dweO aseg sdjoO auuew 'aao!.4O bulpuewwoO
jao!yO "joM ollgnd Alndap '3d 'JW9 H PeO JW
I lOZ E Aen
tielaiaaS ioloanp JowanoO
uewaaad a94 su!IInS'H uaaloO anpiad sane3 Auanag
Llllenp JaleM 10 uols!nla
saoanosa�j lein)eN pue }uawuoJinu3 }o )uaw)Jedaa eupoaeo WON
MUM
�PCGOV
;

810 Z abed
loafoJd slgl woJl lol AUe 10 ales pue uolslnlpgns aql of Joud uolleo1llpow liwJad
e winbaJ Minn AlJadoJd aql 10 uoisinipgns aql -ulaag palou se ldeoxe 'AlJadoJd
aql 10 uollJod AUe 10 ales pue uolslnlpgns aq) Jol Mope lou seop 11wJad sigl .9
walsRs loJluoo JaleMwJols pappiad aql olul paloaip aq lsnw loafoJd
sigl to eaJe a6eweJp palllwJad aql ulgllM eaJe uodn-lilnq Ile woJl l;ounJ agl 4
-laa1 aenbs oJaz of pallwll sl
sueld agl uo unnogs seaJe luawdolanap aJnlnl paleu6lsep aql Jot eaJe uodn-lllnq
aql sueld panoJdde agl pue sluawnoop uolleoildde agl Jad pue 'llwJad slgl 10 9•1
uopoaS ul poleoipw se eae uodn-llmq 10 lunowe agl of pallwll aq IIIM loeJl agl £
'AlanlloadsaJ 'eaae snoln.iadwl
10 leal aJenbs 9l/'OZ PUe 0L6'86 woa11}ouni aql alpueg of pau6lsap uaaq
aneg sloJluoo JaleMwJols aql liwJad sigl to 9•1 uolloaS ul paglJosep se 11ounJ
JaleMwJols 10 luauJa6euew agl Jot panadde uaeq seq walsAs Jalemmols sigl
-elep buipoddns Jaglo pue uolleolidde aql ui paquosap
JalemwJols 10 awnlon pue amleu aql of loadsaJ gllM Aluo anlloal;a si liwJad sigl
SONV4NVIS NJIS34 'I
:suoge8wll pue suoilipuoo pa1lloads bulMollol aql of loafgns
aq llegs pue ' L ZOZ '£ AeW pun aouenssi 10 alep agl woJ1 anlloal;a aq ilegs llwJad slgl
'llwJad s14110 }Jed a paJapisuoo pue Alllenp JaleM 10 uoisini0 eql !q panadde pue gllnn
alit uo pue pagoelle se elep bullJoddns Jaglo pue suoileogioads pue sueld luawa6euew
JaleMwJols panadde agl pue („solniialennwiols„ agl se 01 paJJalaJ AIleJanas
pue Allulof JalleaJaq) 0006 HZ OVON V96 PUe 4 LZ-800Z Meg uolssaS 10 suoisinoJd
aql gIIM eoueljdwoo ul swseq uolluelaJoiq Z 10 aoueuelwew pue uolleJado 'uollonJlsuoo
3Hl 210d
AlunoO molsuO 'auna(a3 dweO 'pa /,Djad speauo 9 7S ueounQ
(okck-d) Av!oed luewauljuoO leul-aid
ouna(a-7 dweO ase8 sdioO auueyV
Ol 031NV80 A83H3H SI NOISSIIN 13d
suolleln6a�j pue 'salna 'snne-1 algeoildde Jaglo pue 'papuawe se eulloJeO 41JON
10 salnlelS leJauaO 'Ct7 . JaldegO 10 6Z aloilJV 10 suolslnoJd aql glint aouepJ000e ul
1N3Wd013n30.111SN34 HJIH
11WM3d 1N3W3JVNVW H31VMWZI0IS 31VIS
A1 vno H31VM d0 NOISIAId
S3omnoS3u ivun1VN ONV 1N3WNOUTAN3 301N3WINVd34
VNI-10NVO HIHON 30 31VIS
9ZE016 8MS 'ON liwJad
swelsAs luawabeuelnl JaleMwJolS alelS

8 }o £ abed
Ajale!pawwi panedai aq Ipm walsAs aqi
;o seaje papaa Aue pue wnw!u!w a of lda� aq llegs uo!saa 'uogonjlsuoo 6uun4
aoepns uodn-ll!nq
Aue to uo!lonilsuoo aql of aoud asn papualu! sl! jo; leuogeaado pue p9lela60n
'llanlua sl! w palonilsuoo aq l!egs wall' As luawa6euew Jalemwjols agl
„MSN'OS..
CZ-6l
wseg wo al!gM / �aaaO slap6oO of in
S
SZ
su!ejpjapun„y 'Z
suiejpjapun„q 'Z
0'Z
O Z
ssejO
ssejO
£6 9l
6S 8
£bZ'£
OZ6't?
0'9Z
o'Z
9 £Z
%98
0'1
Sl
0
9lL'OZ
9 LL'OZ
0
bbZ'lS
bbZ'l9
Z# ulseg
O LZ
OZO'Ll
.Z
l
33MdIldW0O 30 31nMHOS 'II
:/lpog jaleM to uo!leoysselO
:aagwnN xapul wMIS
:u!seg Jan!a/weaJlS 6u!n1909y
:papinad sad!d lnO uealO to jagwnN
:w 'aalaweia uleipjapun
:laa;'gJdap e!palN
:Ilao to adA_L
:sanoq 'aw!1 umopmeja
Zu 'u01len913 PappoS le easy eoepns
:lswl 'u011ena13 a6ejolS tiejodwai
:e4'awnlona6eaolS PaA!wWad
0'17Z lswl'uo!lenal3 wollog
O Z :laal 'gldap e!palN
0 lZ lswl 'algel aeleM g6.H !euoseaS
%98 :/oua!o!ga lenowa SSl
01 :18al'glda4 papuod xeW
9 l :sagou! 'wJolS u61saa
0 :Zli 'al!sllO
s
b
d
0
u
w
OL6'86
:Z4 'al!suO
OL6'86
:Zll'saoepns snopuadwl lelol q
0
:Zli 'al!sgo
17017'8£Z
:Zu 'al!suO
b04'8£Z
saaoe 'easy 96euleja e
6# ulseg
:sawg lie le uo!l!puoo u6!sap le poulelu!ew aq lsnw pue u!seq
uogualejo!q aql ui pap!noid pue law ueaq aneq eualuo u61sap 6u!nnopo; aql
Di
9ZU06 8MS 'ON l!wlad
swalsf%S luawabeuelnl JolemwJolS alelS

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 110326
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.
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.
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.
7. If the stormwater system BMP is used as an Erosion Control device during
construction, more frequent maintenance will be required during construction to
maintain functionality. Once the drainage area is stabilized and prior to
occupancy of the facility, the BMP must be fully restored to design condition.
8. Access to the stormwater facilities shall be maintained via appropriate recorded
easements at all times.
9. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located in public rights -
of -way, dedicated common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the
project will be recorded showing all such required rights -of -way, common areas
and easements, in accordance with the approved plans.
10. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any .
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed
below:
a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the
stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
e. Further subdivision, acquisition, lease or sale of all or part of the project
area. The project area is defined as all property owned by the permittee,
for which Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan approval or a CAMA
Major permit was sought.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
Page 4 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 110326
11. Prior to construction, the permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans
for any future development areas with BUA allocations, as designated on the
approved plans.
12. A copy of this permit, the permit application documents, the approved plans and
specifications shall be maintained on file by the Permittee for the life of the
permit.
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
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.
2. This permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and
approval by the Director. At least 30 days prior to a change of ownership, or a
name change of the permittee or of the project, or a mailing address change, the
permittee must submit a completed and signed Name/Ownership Change form to
the Division of Water Quality, accompanied by the appropriate documentation as
listed on the form. The approval of this request will be considered on its merits
and may or may not be approved.
3. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such
time as the Division approves a permit transfer request. Neither the sale of the
project in whole or in part nor the conveyance of common area to a third party
shall be considered an approved permit transfer request.
4. 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.
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.
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 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.
Page 5 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 110326
10. At least 180.days prior to the expiration date of this permit, the permittee shall
submit a permit renewal request to the Division of Water Quality along with the
required application feet.
Permit issued this the 3`d day of May 2011.
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 6 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 110326•
Pre -Trial Confinement Facility (P-1310)
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 110326
Onslow County
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered in the
State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/
full time) the construction of the project,
(Project Name)
for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specification:
Signature
Registration Number
Date
SEAL
Page 7 of 8

DWQ USE ONLY
Date Received
Fee Paid
Permit Number
-?
e U/��
Applicable Rules: ❑ Coastal SW —1995 ❑ Coastal SW — 2008 ❑ Ph II - Post Construction
(select all that apply) ❑ Non -Coastal SW- HQW/ORW Waters ❑ Universal Stormwater Management Plan
❑ Other WQ M mt Plan:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
This form may be photocopied for use as an original
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name -should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Pre -Trial Confinement Facility (P-1310)
2. Location of Project (street address):
Adjacent to Intersection of Duncan Street and Sneads Ferry Road
City:Camp Lejeune County:Onslow Zip:27547
3. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
From Main Gate, Camp Lejeune, travel south along Holcomb Blvd. Bear left onto Sneads Ferry Road and
make right onto Duncan Street. Project site is approximately 300 feet west of Sneads Ferry Road adjacent to
4. Latitude:34° 40' 04" N Longitude:77° 19' 29Co" W of the main entrance to the project.
II. 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 certification
2. Specify the type of project (check one):
❑Low Density ®High Density ❑Drains to an Offsite Stormwater System ❑Other
3. If this application is being submitted as the result of a previously returned application or a letter from DWQ
requesting a state stormwater management permit application, list the stormwater project number, if
assigned, and the previous name of the project, if different than currently
proposed,
4. a. Additional Project Requirements (check applicable blanks; information on required state permits can be
obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748):
❑LAMA Major
❑NPDES Industrial Stormwater
®Sedimentation/Erosion Control: 8 ac of Disturbed Area
❑404/401 Permit: Proposed Impacts
b.If any of these permits have already been acquired please provide the Project Name, Project/Permit Number,
issue date and the type of each permit:Erosion Control Permit -Permit ONSLO-2011-054 (Issued Dec. 2, 2010)
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page I of 6

Ill. CONTACT INFORMATION
1. a. Print Applicant / Signing Official's name and title (specifically the developer, property owner, lessee,
designated government official, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Applicant/Organization:Commanding Officer Marine Corps Base Camp Leieune
Signing Official & Title:Carl H. Baker, PE -Deputy Public Works Officer
b.Contact information for person listed in item la above:
Street Address:1005 Michael Road
City:Camp Leieune State:NC Zip4547
Mailing Address (if applicable):
City: State: Zip:
Phone: (910 ) 451-5950 Fax: (910 ) 451-2927
Email:[e-mail]
c. Please check the appropriate box. The applicant listed above is:
® The property owner (Skip to Contact Information, item 3a)
❑ Lessee* (Attach a copy of the lease agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below)
❑ Purchaser* (Attach a copy of the pending sales agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and
2b below)
❑ Developer* (Complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below.)
2. a. Print Property Owner's name and title below, if you are the lessee, purchaser or developer. (This is the
person who owns the property that the project is located on):
Property Owner/Organization:
Signing Official & Title:
b.Contact information for person listed in item 2a above:
Street Address:
Mailing Address (if.
City: State:
Phone: { ) Fax:
3. a. (Optional) Print the name and title of another contact such as the project's construction supervisor or other
person who can answer questions about the project:
Other Contact Person/Organization:David Towler
Signing Official & Title:
b.Contact information for person listed in item 3a above:
Mailing Address:1005 Michael Road
City:Cam�p LeLeieune State:NC Zip:27547
Phone: (910 ) 451-3235 Fax: { )
Email:[e-mail]
4. Local jurisdiction for building permits: Camp Lejeune
Point of Contact: Phone #:
r>
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 2 of 6

IV.' PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, briefly summarize how the stormwater runoff will be treated.
Stormwater will be treated by two bioretention cells Runoff will be conveyed via sheet flow into vegetated
swales which will then send water to the BMP's for treatment.
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:
❑ Va id Building Permit Issued Date:
❑ Other: Date:
b.lf claiming vested rights, identify the regulation(s) the project has been designed in accordance with:
❑ Coastal SW —1995 ❑ Ph II — Post Construction
3. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the White Oak River basin.
4. Total Property Area: 8.89 acres 5. Total Coastal Wetlands Area: 0 acres
6. Total Surface Water Area: 0 acres
7. Total Property Area (4) —Total Coastal Wetlands Area (5) —Total Surface Water Area (6) = Total Project Area':
8.89 acres
Total project area shall be calculated to exclude the following the normal pool of im ounded structures, the area
between the banks of streams and rivers, the area below the Normal High Water (N W) line or Mean High Water
(MHW) line, and coastal wetlands landward from the NHW (or MHW) line. The resultant project area is used to
calculate overall percent built upon area (BUA). Non -coastal wetlands landward of the NHW (or MHW) line may be
included in the total project area.
S. Project percent of impervious area: (Total Impervious Area / Total Project Area) X 100 = 30.91 %
9. How many drainage areas does the project have?2 (For high density, count 1 for each proposed engineered
stormwater BMP. For low density and other projects, use 1 for the whole property area)
10. Complete the following information for each drainage area identified in Project Information item 9. If there
are more than four drainage areas in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area
provided in the same format as below.
Basin Information
Drainage Area 1
Drainage Area 2
Drama e Area 3
Drainage Area
Receiving Stream Name
UT Cogdels
Creek
UT Cogdels
Creek
Stream Class *
SC -NSW
SC -NSW
Stream Index Number *
19-23
19-23
Total Drainage Area (sf)
238,404
51,244
On -site Drainage Area (sf)
238,404
51,244
Of -site Drainage Area (sf)
0
0
Proposed Impervious Area** (sf)
98,970
20,716
% Impervious Area** (total)
41.51
40.42
Im ervious" Surface Area
Drainage Area 1
Draina e Area 2
Drainage Area _
Drainage Area _
On -site Bui dings/Lots (sf)
31,864
2,114
On -site Streets (sf)
29,468
17,323
On -site Parking (sf)
31,413
On -site Sidewalks (sf)
2,025
1,279
2011
Other on -site (sf)
4,200
Future (sf)
BY:
Off -site (sf)
Existing BUA*** (sf)
Total (sf):
98,970
20,716
Stream Class and Index Number can be determined at: htt : [portal.ncdenr.orQ/web/ems csu/classif cations
** Im ervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
Report only that amount of existing BUA that will remain after development. Do not report any existing BUA that is
to be removed and which will be replaced by new BUA.
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 3 of

11. How was the off -site impervious area listed above determined? Provide documentation.
Projects in Union County: Contact DPVQ Central Office staff to check if the project is located within a Threatened &
Endangered Species watershed that maybe subject to more stringent stormwater requirements as per NCAC 02B .0600.
V. SUPPLEMENT AND O&M FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement and operation and maintenance (O&M) forms
must be submitted for each BMP specified for this project. The latest versions of the forms can be downloaded
from ho-.ZZportal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/­bmp-manual.
V1. 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 htt ://portal.ncdenr.or, webLwq/ws/su _statesw/forms does. The complete
application package should be submitted to the appropriate DWQ Office. (The appropriate office may be
found by locating project on the interactive online map at htt//tortal.ncdenr.�/web/w /ws su maps.)
Please indicate that the following required information have been provided by initialing in the space provided
for each item. All original documents MUST be signed and initialed in blue ink. Download the latest versions
for each submitted application package from httpl/portal.ncdenr.00rweb/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms does.
Initials
1. Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form.
2. Original and one copy of the signed and notarized Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants
Form. (if required as per Part Vll below)
3. Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) (sealed, signed and dated) and O&M
agreement(s) for each BMP.
4. Permit application processing fee of $505 payable to NCDENR. (For an Express review, refer to
http://www.envhelp.org/pages/onestopexpress.html for information on the Express program
and the associated fees. Contact the appropriate regional office Express Permit Coordinator for
additional information and to schedule the required application meeting.)
5. A detailed narrative (one to two pages) describing the stormwater treatment/management for
the project. This is required in addition to the brief summary provided in the Project
Information, item 1.
6. A USGS map identifying the site location. If the receiving stream is reported as class SA or the
receiving stream drains to class SA waters within'7i mile of the site boundary, include the'h
mile radius on the map.
7. Sealed, signed and dated calculations.
8. Two sets of plans folded to 8.5" x 14" (sealed, signed, & dated), including:
a. Development/Project name.
b. Engineer and firm.
c. Location map with named streets and NCSR numbers.
d. Legend.
e. North arrow.
f. Scale.
g. Revision number and dates.
h. Identify all surface waters on the plans by delineating the normal pool elevation of
impounded structures, the banks of streams and rivers, the MHW or NHW line of tidal
waters, and any coastal wetlands landward of the MHW or NHW lines.
• Delineate the vegetated buffer landward from the normal pool elevation of impounded
structures, the banks of streams or rivers, and the MHW (or NHW) of tidal waters.
i. Dimensioned property/project boundary with bearings & distances.
j. Site Layout with all BUA identified and dimensioned.
k. Existing contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations.
I. Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures.
in. Wetlands delineated, or a note on the plans that none exist. (Must be delineated by a
qualified person. Provide documentation of qualifications and identify the person who
made the determination on the plans.
n. Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations.
o. Drainage areas delineated (included in the main set of plans, not as a separate document).
p. Vegetated buffers (where required).
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 4 of 6

9. 'Copy of any applicable soils report with the associated SHWT elevations (Please identify
elevations in addition to depths) as well as a map of the boring locations with the existing
elevations and boring logs. Include an 8.5"xll" copy of the NRCS County Soils map with the
project area clearly delineated. For projects with infiltration BMPs, the report should also
include the soil type, expected infiltration rate, and the method of determining the infiltration rate.
(Infiltration Devices submitted to WiRO: Schedule a site visit for DWQ to verify the SH WT prior
to submittal, [phone].)
10. A copy of the most current property deed. Deed book: Page No:t
11. For corporations and limited liability corporations (LLC): Provide documentation from the NCg
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 2H.1003(e). The
corporation or LLC must be listed as an active corporation in good standing with the NC
Secretary of State, otherwise the application will be returned.
http: / / www.secretary.state.nc.us /Corporations /CSearch.asi)x
[rANW11x�F�StT 7tlTti[4�i (i] Y:`.Ci7�sL�Tilfx iPlti�L�Pix I V016�
For all subdivisions, outparcels, and future development, the appropriate property restrictions and protective
covenants are required to be recorded prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly or the proposed
BUA allocations vary, a table listing each lot number, lot size, and the allowable built -upon area must be provided
as an attachment to the completed and notarized deed restriction form. The appropriate deed restrictions and
protective covenants forms can be downloaded from
httl2://12ortal.ncdenr.org/web/­wq/­ws/­su/statesw/forms does. Download the latest versions for each submittal.
In the instances where the applicant is different than the property owner, it is the responsibility of the property
owner to sign the deed restrictions and protective covenants form while the applicant is responsible for ensuring
that the deed restrictions are recorded.
By the notarized signature(s) below, the permit holders) 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:Zak Shipman, PE
Consulting Firm: Timmons Group
Mailing Address:5410 Trinity Road, Suite 112
State:NC Zip:27607
Phone: (919 ) 866-4937 Fax: (919 ) 859-5663
Email:[e-mail]
timmons.com
IX. PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION (if Contact Information, item 2 has been filled out, complete this
section) 1.
•r
I, (print or type name of person listed in Contact Information, item 2a) _. certify that.I
own the pproperty identified in this permit application, and thus give permission to (print or type name of person
listed in Cantnct Information, item ln) with (print or type name ojorgnnizntion listed in
Contact Information, item la) to develop the project as currently proposed. A copy of
the lease agreement or pending property sales contract has been provided with the submittal, which indicates the
party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system. j
MAR 2 4 2011
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010
Page 5 of 6

As the legal property owner I acknowledge, understand, and agree by my signature below, that if my designate&
agent (entity listed in Contact Information, item 1) dissolves their company and/or cancels or defaults on their'
lease agreement, or pending sale, responsibility for compliance with the DWQ Stormwater permit reverts back to
me, the property owner. As the property owner, it is my responsibility to notify DWQ immediately and submit a
completed Name/Ownership Change Form within 30 days; otherwise I will be operating a stormwater treatment
facility without a valid permit. I understand that the operation of a stormwater treatment facility without a valid
permit is a violation of NC General Statue 143-215.1 and may result in appropriate enforcement action including
the assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day, pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6.
Signature: Date:
I, a Notary Public for the State of . County of
do hereby certify that personally appeared
before me this _ day of and acknowledge the due execution of the application for a
stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seat,
SEAL
My commission
X. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
I, (print or type name of person listed in Contact Information, item 1a) Cam I gck Ke.r
certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and
that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans, that the required deed restrictions
and protective covenants will be recorded, and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of the
applicable stq n water rukvundgr 15A NCAC 21-1.1000, SL 2006-246 (Ph. II - Post Construction) or SL 2008-211.
I,
before me thislcLv
stormwater permit
0r Ft 5 a Notary Public for the State of KOC4N QA(D\lY)O-,, County of
_, do hereby certify that Cox I 60.-ker personally appeared
ay of Feinr u� O(L and ac�nowled�e the due execution of the application for a
Witness my hand and official seal,
SYLVIA NORRIS
NOTARY PUBLIC
ONSLOW COUNTY
Wn
[My COMMISSION EXPIRES
SEAL
My commission expires .3 aots
Form SWU-101 Version 07Jun2010 Page 6 of 6

n
a NtlId BOON
N"l $10311HOdVA313SOW ai 1,lIl10tl31N3W3NIdNOO lM211-3Hd
�� vxai na.. reior �
r„r�m •`e j zz 3Nf13f3l dWtlO OLEL-d:()21I/1N:�1 {AIV�J, i gar � � � 3nnarazawv= axn3rn mm 3sreaxm 3vrcm p p
l f E 1
.w 1NV101W-ONbWW070NIa33Nl`JN3 S31111gVl ltlAtlN
�r� 4
1= a o Q
` 0 z
z E e ' OOO
�.r� II
5 'a
°0`
�e
LU 0 U 07 Q
)
J

Design Calculations
Pre -Trial Confinement Facility
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Owners: NAVFAC MidAtlantic
Prepared by: Timmons Group
5410 Trinity Road Suite 112
Raleigh, NC 27607
Date: 1-21-11
Revised 3-23-11
Revised 4-20-11
��.eee•
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION >CNI IIV FO TNROUON OURS.
xw-.Ummem.�em
0350271� ;
,GINE,�\
APR 2 1 2011
Project Name and File Number: Pre -Trial Confinement Facility; 30032

I
1 NCDENR Treatment Volume and Watershed Analysis
1
1
I

Meeting Memorandum ❑ DESIGN ❑ PHONE ❑ C.A.
.............................................
PROJECT:
.............................................
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
.............................................
PARTICIPANTS:
.............................................
.............................................
NOTES BY:
aAS�nl y IhcwvTAeNr
zoe '.af1C ft ^' Z�diyuN SF 5.97A,)
i ..pcR��e„a Ao�n- Qv�a'10 SF
p
•�e0�®�1w
e
U
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
C
.y
5410 Trinity Road.
TEL [phone]
Suite 112
FA 919.859.5663
Raleigh, NC 27607
IAe 1
41l f�i ltvo % CA�Lu�ATI' 1 a^TTAe*T' VO1_4W6•. rr
5r fC Is AI aT 4Mjd^&-z
ff coUstoEwnnHs; WAtE25{�D 5�-�`�J>
��-o.ohra,�LAJv = o•os *D9�D\41�i1�= 0.4235E
J= �''�2v R•VY�' 3(a3o�o�1•z'�1��''S��S•4?� = izlcc�re cr'

BIO-RETENTION AREA"I" DESIGN SHEET
Project Information
Project Name:
Pre -Trial Detainee Center
Timmons Project #:
30022
Designed by:
DA Date: 4/19/2011
Revised by:
Date:
Checked by:
ZS Date: 4/19/2011
Per the Julv 2007 BMP Manual sizina is based on the Site Runoff Volume for the 1.5" runoff
I. Runoff Treatment Volume
Simple Method Runoff for 1.5" design storm:
Bioretention Cell Volume Under overflow.
12616 cf
17,020 CF
1 of

II. Bio-retention Depth and Soil Type
Minimum depth of bio-retention area =
Conductivity of Bio-Soil Mix
Soil
Conductivity K
n/hr
Sand
6
Loamy Sand
2
Sandy Loam
0.5 - 1
K, = 2.0
2ft 71
Site Soil Conductivit
Soil
Conductivit
n/hr
W B
1 1.28
Underdrains to be used to drain bioretention area Bio-soil
'�7 Water
Fill Soil Layer- With Set Hydraulic
Conductivity (K). K expected to range
` I* from 0.5 to 6 m1hr (1-2 in/hr TYP) Q L Q H
Rock Layer w/ rain Pipes
III. Calculate Water Draw Throu h R e _ 1 q- t c).bq
Q(cfs)=(2.3E-5)'K, *A H/L LZ
Where:
Q = Flow (Rate of draw) through Bio-Retention Soil (cfs) •�tk '1.IO�
K„y = Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil (in/hr)
A = Surface Area of Bio-Retention Area (sf)
H = Height of water above gravel envelope/drainage pipe zone
L = Thicknes of Soil (as determined above) �L
.�
K„9= 2.0 in/hr -�Aj�
A = I 14.920 'sf
H3 = 2.67 ft
L3 = 2.0 ft
3 H - L, (or unless L is small, such as 2.0 feet), allow H/L = 1
Q= 0.92 cfs
Find time to drawdown water from inundation to saturation at surface:
Bioretention Volume (V,.,) = SA x Depression Depth
V,.,=(_ 14_920Icf
Time to remove V,-j of water at flowrate, Q
Ta-t = WdQ
T,., = 16284 seconds
T,-r = 4.52 hours < 12 hours
2 of

Time to drawdown water from saturation at surface to X feet below surface:
Porosity, n = 0.45
X = 2.0 ft
Calculate volume of water to drawdown in 24 feet of soil:
V,, = X (ft)' SA' n
V,.z = 13428 cf
Time to remove water from V,.,:
T,_Z = V,.,/Q
T,.2 = 14656 seconds
T,.z = 4.07 hours
Total time to draw water through soil:
Time = Ts.r + T,.z
Drawdown Time= 8.59 hours <48 hours
IV. Sizing Underdrain Pioes and Gravel Envelooe
Q = 0.92 cis
Size drains so they are able to carry 10X the sail drawdown
0 = 9.2 cfs
Manning Roughness Coefficients:
Pipe Type and Diameter
Manninq Roughness Coefficient
4" Single Wall Corrugated Plastic
0.0145
4" Smooth Wall Plastic
0.0105
6" Single Wall Corrugated Plastic
0.0145
6" Smooth Wall Plastic
0.0105
8" Single Wall Corrugated Plastic
0.0155
N * D = 16 * (O•nls"0.5)".375
n = 0.0105
s = 0.0025 (internal slope - recommended 0.5%)
N • D = 3.6 inches
• 3.2 inches is less than 5.13
N=0
3.6 inches Is less than 5.13 Inches, therefore, two 2 " PVC pipe, or smooth
wall plastic pipes are required.
The gravel envelope surrounding the drainage pipe to be 8" deep at a minimum.
* Refer to Hyraflow calculations for primary and emergency overflow calculations.
3 of

Meeting Memorandum ❑ DESIGN ❑ PHONE ❑ C.A.
.............................................
PROJECT:
.............................................
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
.............................................
PARTICIPANTS:
.............................................
.............................................
NOTES BY:
201 'I Ito SF
c
••0000
u
TIMMONS GROUP
N
5
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
C
.y
5410 Trinity Road
TEL [phone]
Suite 112
FAX [phone]
Raleigh, INC 27607
Iu f - 440, hi/.
u5E 91. fua tAeT*00 --ra CAL.CAa -rE IiZnT✓.2�+1 yoL4Vrc.
— R voFF 'aw li= I S" OfTb4w
�V= 0,01c TDAAASJ = 0.u5 t 0, I (6,VWL�=
V° F-V rc $li3o �bS ",`0.4IS-76)C I I�b> = cJCo ar

BIO-RETENTION AREA "2" DESIGN SHEET
Project Information
Project Name: Pre -Trial Detainee Center
Timmons Project #: 30022
Designed by: DA Date: 3/23/2011
Revised by: Date:
Checked by: ZS Date: 3/23/2011
Design Notes:
• Per the July 2007 BMP Manual sizing is based on the Site Runoff Volume for the 1.5" runoff.
I. Runoff Treatment Volume
Simple Method Runoff for 1.5" design storm: 2649 CF
Bioretention Cell Volume Under overflow: 3868 CF
0
1 of

II. Bio-retention Depth and Soil Type
Minimum depth of bio-retention area = 2 ft
Conductivity of Bio-Soil Mix
Soil
Conductivity K
n/hr
Sand
6
Loamy Sand
2
Sandy Loam
0.5 - 1
K„y = 2.0
Site Soil Conductivity
Soil
F Conductivi
(in/hr)
W B
1 1.28
Underdrains to be used to drain biorelention area Sio-soil
0 Water
Fill Soil Layer- With Set Hydraulic
Conductivity (K). K expected to range
from 0.5 to 6 in/hr (1-2 in/hr TYP)
Rock Layer w//Arain Pipes n
Rate \ \ \ L
Q(cfs) = (2.3E-5)'K.,-A-H/L I ,,,, ! I L� I 1 =1 (7
Where:
Q = Flow (Rate of draw) through Bio-Retention Soil (cfs)
K„y = Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil (in/hr)
A = Surface Area of Bio-Retention Area (sf)
H = Height of water above gravel envelope/drainage pipe zone
L = Thicknes of Soil (as determined above)
K„y= 2.0 in/hr
A = 3,213 sf
H3 = 2 ft
L3 = 2.7 ft
unless L is small, such as 2.0 feet), allow H/L = 1
Q= 0.11 cfs
Find time to drawdown water from inundation to saturation at surface:
Biorelention Volume (V,.,) = SA x Depression Depth
V,.r = 3,854 cf
Time to remove V,.r of water at flowrate, Q
T., = VF./Q
T,., = 34812 seconds
T,.I = 9.67 hours < 12 hours
2of3

Time to drawdown water from saturation at surface to X feet below surface:
Porosity, n = 0.45
X = 2.0 ft
Calculate volume of water to drawdown in 4 feet of soil:
V1.2=X(ft)'SA"n
V,.2 = 2892 cf
Time to remove water from V,.,
Ta.z = V,.,/Q
T12= 26120 seconds
T,.2 = 7.26 hours
Total time to draw water through soil:
Time = T,.r + T12
Drawdown Time = 16.93 hours < 48 hours
IV. Sizino Underdrain Pines and Gravel Envelo
Q = 0.11 cfs
Size drains so they are able to carry 10X the soil drawdown
Q = 1.1 cfs
Manning Roughness Coefficients:
Pipe Type and Diameter
Mannino Roughness Coefficient
4" Single Wall Corrugated Plastic
0.0145
4" Smooth Wall Plastic
0.0105
6" Single Wall Corrugated Plastic
0.0145
6" Smooth Wall Plastic
0.0105
8" Single Wall Corrugated Plastic
0.0155
N • D = 16' (Q•n/s"0.5)".375
n = 0.0105
s = 0.005 (internal slope - recommended 0.5%)
N' D = 1.4 Inches
' 1.4 inches is less than 5.13
N=
.5 nc es rs less than 5.13 inches, therefore, two 2 4" PVC pipe, or smoot
wall lastic pipes are required.
The gravel envelope surrounding the drainage pipe to be 8" deep at a minimum.
Refer to Hyraflow calculations for primary and emergency overflow calculations.
3of3

I
1 Watershed Model Schem;"jgow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk. Inc. v9.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Hydrograph Return Perio0yRA9yNgraphs Extension for AutoCAD@Civil 31302010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd.
Hydrograph
Inflow
Peak Outflow (cfs)
Hydrograph
No.
type
hyd(s)
Description
(origin)
1-yr
2-yr
3-yr
5-yr
10-yr
25-yr
50-yr
100-yr
1
SCS Runoff
3.834
6.375
17.33
22.72
32.48
Drainage Area 1-Post
2
SCS Runoff
0.827
1.375
--
3.738
4.902
7,006
Drainage Area 2-Post
3
Reservoir
1
0.000
0.000
3.258
7.311
11.71
Bio Cell 1 Routing
4
Reservoir
2
0.000
0.000
0.996
2.247
5.438
Bio Cell 2 Route
5
SCS Runoff
0.000
0.000
0.133
1.021
4.744
Predevelopment DA 1
6
SCS Runoff
2.410
4.031
11.04
14.49
20.79
Predevelopment DA 2
7
SCS Runoff
0.000
0.001
0.074
0.546
2.026
Predevelopment DA 3
8
SCS Runoff
0.010
0.105
1.278
1.976
3.333
Predevelopment DA 4
9
SCS Runoff
0.000
0.001
0.059
0.287
0.903
Predevelopment DA 5
10
SCS Runoff
0.000
0.004
0.350
1.704
5.364
Predevelopment DA 6
Proj. file: BMP Flood Routings -Revised 3-21-11.gpw
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011

I
■
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D0 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
tHyd. No. 1
Drainage Area 1-Post
F
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 3.834 cfs
'Hydrograph
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.07 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 14,136 cuft
Drainage area
= 5.470 ac
Curve number
= 63'
'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type III
'Total
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) _ [(2.270 x 98) + (3.200 x 39)] / 5.470
' Drainage Area 1-Pos1
Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year
4.00
3.00
' 2.00
' 1.00
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
' — Hyd No. 1
1
Q (Cfs)
4.00
3.00
2.00
Ewell]
'I g 0.00
18 20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 2
Drainage Area 2-Post
4
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.827 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.07 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 3,049 cuft
Drainage area
= 1.180 ac
Curve number
= 63"
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.480 x 98) + (0.700 x 39)] / 1.180
(cfs) Drainage Area 2-Post
Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year
1.00
oil
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
111K 7
0.10
0.00 ' '
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 2
Q (cfs)
1.00
KOV141
0.80
0.70
0.60
[1bY1l
0.40
0.30
0.20
Tj 0.10
0.00
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

5
Hydrograph
Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAI& Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 3
Bio Cell 1 Routing
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.000 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.27 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 0 cult
Inflow hyd. No.
= 1 - Drainage Area 1-Post
Max. Elevation
= 26.37 ft
Reservoir name
= Bioretention Cell 1
Max. Storage
= 6,230 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Exfltration extracted from Outflow.
Q (cfs)
4.00 .
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 2 4
Hyd No. 3
Bio Cell 1 Routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hyd No. 1 ® Total storage used = 6,230 cuft
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
_L__ 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

Pond Report s
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Pond No. 2 - Bioretention Cell 1
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 26.00 it
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (cuft)
0.00 26.00 14,920 0
0
1.00 27.00 19,213 17,020
17,020
2.00 28.00 24,223 21,668
38,687
3.00 29.00 29,379 26,757
65.444
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[PrfRsr]
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 12.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 27.00
28.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 10
0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.330.00
3.33
3.33
3.33
Invert El. (ft)
= 23.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= 1
Ciplti
-
-
Length (ft)
= 38.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes
No
No
No
Slope (%)
= 0.50
0.00
0.00
n/a
N-Value
= .013
.013
.013
n/a
Orifice Coeff.
= 0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Exfil.(in/hr)
= 20 (by Contour)
Multi -Stage
= Na
No
No
No
TW Elev. (ft)
= 0.00
Stage (ft)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 '
0.00 6.00
- Total Q
Note:CoN.WOririce outflows are analysed under inlet(ic) and wind(w) contra. Weir risers checked for onfoe conditions tc) and submergence(a)
Stage / Discharge
12.00 18.00 24.00 30.00 36.00 42.00 48.00 54.00 60.00
Elev (ft)
29.00
28.00
27.00
-1 26.00
66.00
Discharge (cfs)

I
■
Hydrograph Report
. Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 4
Bio Cell 2 Route
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
'
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Drainage Area 2-Post
Max. Elevation
'
Reservoir name
= Bioretention Cell 2
Max. Storage
Storage Indication method used. Exfiltration extracted from Outflow.
t
Q (cfs)
' 1.00
0.80
0.70 T
' 0.60
' 0.50
0.40
0.30
' 0.20
0.10
Bio Cell 2 Route
Hyd. No. 4 -- 1 Year
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
= 0.000 cfs
= 14.67 hrs
= 0 cult
= 28.34 ft
= 1,322 cuft
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
— Hyd No. 2 ® Total storage used = 1,322 cuft
Q (cfs)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
44
Time (hrs)

Pond Report 8
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Al Civil 3D0 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Pond No. 3 - Bioretention Cell 2
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 28.00 It
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Contour area (si
Incr. Storage (cuft)
Total storage (cult)
0.00
28.00
3,213
0
0
1.00
29.00
4,564
3,868
3,868
2.00
30.00
5,947
5,240
9,108
Culvert / Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[PrfRsr]
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 12.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 29.00
29.75
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 10
0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.330.00
3.33
3.33
3.33
Invert El. (ft)
= 25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type
= 1
Ciplti
-
-
Length(ft)
= 14.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes
No
No
No
Slope (%)
= 3.50
0.00
0.00
n/a
N-Value
= .013
.013
.013
n/a
Orifice Coeff.
= 0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60 Exfil.(in/hr) = 20 (by Contour)
Multi -Stage
= n/a
No
No
No TIN Elev. (ft) = 0.00
Stage (ft)
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 2.00
Total O
Note:CulvertiCnfice au0taas are analyzed under inlet (id) and outlet(m) control. Weir risers checked for onfice coniitions(ic) and submergence(s).
Stage / Discharge
4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
Elev (ft)
30.00
29.80
29,60
29.40
29.20
29.00
28.80
28.60
28.40
28.20
� 28.00
18.00
Discharge it

1 9
i Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 31302010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
' Hyd. No. 5
Predevelopment DA 1
'Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.000 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= n/a
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 0 Cuft
Drainage area
= 3.790 ac
Curve number
= 31'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
'Total precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) _ [(0.060 x 98) + (3.730 x 30)1 / 3.790
Predevelopment DA 1
Q (Cfs)
Hyd. No. 5 -- 1 Year
0.10
0.09
' 0.08
0.07
' 0.06
0.05
' 0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
000
Q (Cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
KIIIII
0.04
0.03
[0x0➢a
0.01
0.00
0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.0
Time (hrs)
Hyd No. 5

10
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 6
Predevelopment DA 2
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 2.410 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 5,401 cult
Drainage area
= 2.560 ac
Curve number
= 60'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conic. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.920 x 98) + (1.640 x 39)] 12.560
Q (cfs)
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 '
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 6
Predevelopment DA 2
Hyd. No. 6 -- 1 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
3.00
2.00
1.00
-L-- 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

11
Hydrograph Report
Hydratlow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD@ Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 7
Predevelopment DA 3
type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.000 cfs
'Hydrograph
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= n/a
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 0 cult
Drainage area
= 1.340 ac
Curve number
= 32"
'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type II
'Total
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.049 x 98) + (1.293 x 30)] / 1.340
' Predevelopment DA 3
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 7 -- 1 Year
' 0.10
0.09
0.08
t 0.07
1 0.06
0.05
0,04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.0 0.3 0.7
- Hyd No. 7
1.0 1.3
Q (cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1.7 2.0
Time (hrs)

12
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAM) Civil M 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 8
Predevelopment DA 4
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.010 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.43 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 279 cuft
Drainage area
= 0.700 ac
Curve number
= 45'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
*Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.158 x 98) + (0.541 x 30)] / 0.700
Q (cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
000
0 2 4
Hyd No. 8
Predevelopment DA 4
Hyd. No. 8 -- 1 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
0.10
Gxr1;',
0.08
0.07
0.06
[1111um
0.04
0.03
0.02
[11M
1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

' 13
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 9
Predevelopment DA 5
'Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.000 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= n/a
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 0 Cuft
' Drainage area
= 0.510 ac
Curve number
= 33'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) = I(0.024 x 98) + (0.486 x 30)] / 0.510
Predevelopment DA 5
Q (cfs)
1 Hyd. No. 9 -- 1 Year
0.10
0.09
0.08 _
0.07
' 0.06
t 0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
' 0.00
0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0
- Hyd No. 9
1.3
Q (Cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1.7 2.0
Time (hrs)

14
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADOO Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 10
Predevelopment DA 6
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.000 Cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= n/a
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 0 cult
Drainage area
= 3.030 ac
Curve number
= 33'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 3.70 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.117 x 98) + (2.918 x 30)] / 3.030
Q (Cfs)
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
[a[1yM
0.00
0.0 0.3
— Hyd No. 10
Predevelopment DA 6
Hyd. No. 10 — 1 Year
0.7 1.0 1.3 1.7
Q (cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
[Q1L!
0.03
0.02
0.01
—4- 0.00
2.0
Time (hrs)

15
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
' Hyd. No. 1
Drainage Area 1-Post
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
'Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 6.375 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.07 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 21,285 cuft
' Drainage area
= 5.470 ac
Curve number
= 63*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
'Total precip.
= 4.40 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
1 ' Composite (Area/CN) = [(2.270 x 98) + (3.200 x 39)] / 5.470
' Drainage Area 1-Post
Q (cfs)
- ^^ Hyd. No. 1 -- 2 Year
-V 0 2 4 6 8 10
— Hyd No. 1
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
7.00
6X1li]
Exile]
3.00
2.00
—1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

16
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCACO Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 2
Drainage Area 2-Post
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 1.375 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.07 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 4,592 cuft
Drainage area
= 1.180 ac
Curve number
= 63'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 4.40 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = i(0.480 x 98) + (0.700 x 39)1/ 1.180
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
0.00 '
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 2
Drainage Area 2-Post
Hyd. No. 2 -- 2 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (Cfs)
2.00
1.00
--1- 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

I
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DOO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 3
Bio Cell 1 Routing
' Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
' Inflow hyd. No.
= 1 - Drainage Area 1-Post
Max. Elevation
Reservoir name
= Bioretention Cell 1
Max. Storage
' Storage Indication method used. Exfltration extracted from Outflow.
Q (Cfs)
7.00
1 6.00
' 5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
' 1.00
' 000
0 2 4
' — Hyd No. 3
Bio Cell 1 Routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 2 Year
6 8 10
— Hyd No. 1
12
lib
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
= 0.000 cfs
= 25.47 hrs
= 0 cult
= 26.57 ft
= 9,700 cult
Q (cfs)
7.00
5.00
4.00
11101111111
Walls]
wa,IQ
0.00
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Time (hrs)
® Total storage used = 9,700 tuft

18
Hydrograph
Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D©2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 4
Bio Cell 2 Route
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.000 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 18.63 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 0 cult
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Drainage Area 2-Post
Max. Elevation
= 28.53 ft
Reservoir name
= Bioretention Cell 2
Max. Storage
= 2,062 cuft
Storage Indication method used. EWtration extracted from Outflow.
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
0.00 '
0 4
— Hyd No. 4
Bio Cell 2 Route
Hyd. No. 4 -- 2 Year
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
— Hyd No. 2 ® Total storage used = 2,062 cult
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
--W- 0.00
44
Time (hrs)

' 19
' Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydro9raphs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
' Hyd. No. 5
Predevelopment DA 1
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.000 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= n/a
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 0 Cuft
' Drainage area
= 3.790 ac
Curve number
= 31'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 4.40 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) _ [(0.060 x 98) + (3.730 x 30)113.790
ePredevelopment DA 1
Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 5 -- 2 Year
0.10
0.09
0.08 -
0.07
' 0.06
0.05
0.04
' 0.03
0.02
0.01
L 0.00
0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0
- Hyd No. 5
1.3
Q (cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1.7 2.0
Time (hrs)

20
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 313®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19. 2011
Hyd. No. 6
Predevelopment DA 2
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 4.031 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 8,417 cuft
Drainage area
= 2.560 ac
Curve number
= 60*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 4.40 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.920 x 98) + (1.640 x 39)1 / 2.560
Q (Cfs)
5.00
4.00
101111111
2.00
1.00
0.00 '
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 6
6 8
Predevelopment DA 2
Hyd. No. 6 -- 2 Year
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
' I ' ' ' ' 0.00
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

21
' Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 7
Predevelopment DA 3
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
'Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.001 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 24.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 5 Cuft
Drainage area
= 1.340 ac
Curve number
= 32'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 4.40 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
" Composite (Area/CN) _ ((0.049 x 98) + (1.293 x 30)111.340
Predevelopment DA 3
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 7 -- 2 Year
f 0.10
0.09
' 0,08 -
0.07
0.06
0.05
' 0.04
' 0.03
0.02
0.01
t 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
— Hyd No. 7
18 20 22 24
Q (Cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
26
Time (hrs)

22
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 8
Predevelopment DA 4
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.105 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 642 cuft .
Drainage area
= 0.700 ac
Curve number
= 45*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 4.40 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
*Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.158 x 98) + (0.541 x30)]10.700
Q (cfs)
0.50
ux0.y
0.40
0.35
0.30
111K 1
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
000
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 8
Predevelopment DA 4
Hyd. No. 8 -- 2 Year
6 8 10 12 14
Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
DM1tf:
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
I I 1 R 0.00
16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

I
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 31302010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 9
Predevelopment DA 5
23
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
1 Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.001 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 24.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 10 Cuft
Drainage area
= 0.510 ac
Curve number
= 33'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 4.40 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
` Composite (Area/CN) _ [(0.024 x 98) + (0.486 x 30)] / 0.510
Predevelopment DA 5
Q (Cfs)
' Hyd. No. 9 -- 2 Year
0.10
0.09
0,08
0.07
0.06
r 0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
' — Hyd No. 9
Q (Cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
91111111
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
18 20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

24
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 10
Predevelopment DA 6
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.004 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time to peak
= 24.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 58 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.030 ac
Curve number
= 33'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 4.40 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.117 x 98) t (2.918 x 30)] / 3.030
Q (cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
[1IQy
0.05
0.04
0.03
0,01
000
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 10
Predevelopment DA 6
Hyd. No. 10 -- 2 Year
6 8 10 12 14
Q (cfs)
0.10
0.09
[1xIR1
94111A
0.06
0.05
0.04
E411161
0.02
0.01
0.00
16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

25
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADOO Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 1
Drainage Area 1-Post
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Drainage area
= 5.470 ac
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Tc method
= User
Total precip.
= 6.90 in
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
I- Composite (Area/CN) = [(2.270 x 98) + (3.200 x 39)] / 5.470
i
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
9.00
' 6.00
3,00 -
' 000 -
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Curve number
Hydraulic length
Time of conc. (Tc)
Distribution
Shape factor
Drainage Area 1-Post
Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
= 17.33 cfs
= 12.07 hrs
= 52,611 cuft
= 63*
= Oft
= 5.00 min
= Type III
= 484
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
' — Hyd No. 1
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
WilI$]
1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

26
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 31)@ 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 2
Drainage Area 2-Post
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 3.738 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.07 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 11,349 cuft
Drainage area
= 1.180 ac
Curve number
= 63*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 6.90 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.480 x 98) + (0.700 x 39)] / 1.180
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 2 4
Hyd No. 2
Drainage Area 2-Post
Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
PA1Z41
1.00
—1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

r
r Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 3
Bio Cell 1 Routing
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
r Inflow hyd. No.
= 1 - Drainage Area 1-Post
Max. Elevation
Reservoir name
= Bioretention Cell 1
Max. Storage
Storage Indication method used.
Exfiltration extracted from Outflow.
r
Q (cfs)
18.00
r
15.00
r
r 12,00
' 9.00
' 6.00 -
r
3.00 -
000
0.0 2.0
r— Hyd No. 3
r
Bio Cell 1 Routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 10 Year
27
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
= 3.258 cfs
= 12.47 hrs
= 11,659 cuft
= 27.19 ft
= 21,056 cuft
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
— Hyd No. 1 ® Total storage used = 21,056 cult
Q (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
1141111
3.00
— 0.00
16.0
Time (hrs)

28
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 313®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 4
Bio Cell 2 Route
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.996 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.40 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 2,164 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Drainage Area 2-Post
Max. Elevation
= 29.08 ft
Reservoir name
= Bioretention Cell 2
Max. Storage
= 4,281 cuft
Storage Indication method used. ExFltration extracted from Outflow.
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
PAIII1I
1.00
0.00
0.0 2.0
— Hyd No. 4
Bio Cell 2 Route
Hyd. No. 4 -- 10 Year
4.0 6.0
— Hyd No. 2
8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
® Total storage used = 4,281 cuft
Q (cfs)
4.00
BZ1Z11
2.00
1.00
-..L- 0.00
16.0
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D0 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 5
Predevelopment DA 1
29
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
1 Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.133 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.37 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 3,129 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.790 ac
Curve number
= 31*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 6.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.060 x 98) + (3.730 x 30)i / 3.790
Predevelopment DA 1
Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 5 -- 10 Year
0.50
0.45
' 0.40
0.35
' 0.30
' 0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10
— Hyd No. 5
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
26
Time (hrs)

30
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 6
Predevelopment DA 2
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 11.04 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 22,068 cuft
Drainage area
= 2.560 ac
Curve number
= 60*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 6.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = 1(0.920 x 98) + (1.640 x 39)1/ 2.560
Q (cis)
12.00 -
10.00
M
Mll
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 6
Predevelopment DA 2
Hyd. No. 6 -- 10 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Q (cfs)
12.00
10.00
M
M
PalA;
' 0.00
20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

1 31
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 7
Predevelopment DA 3
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.074 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.03 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 1,340 cuft
Drainage area
= 1.340 ac
Curve number
= 32*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 6.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) = I(0.049 x 98) + (1293 x 30)J / 1.340
Predevelopment DA 3
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 7 — 10 Year
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
1 — Hyd No. 7
w
18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
26
Time (hrs)

32
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD@ Civil 305 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 8
Predevelopment DA 4
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 1.278 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 2,836 cuft
Drainage area
= 0.700 ac
Curve number
= 45*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 6.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.158 x 98) + (0.541 x 30)] / 0.700
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 8
Predevelopment DA 4
Hyd. No. 8 — 10 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
—1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

33
' Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 9
Predevelopment DA 5
' Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.059 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.03 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 603 cuft
Drainage area
= 0.510 ac
Curve number
= 33"
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 6.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) _ 1(0.024 x 98) + (0.486 x 30)1 / 0.510
' Predevelopment DA 5
Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 9 -- 10 Year
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
I 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10
— Hyd No. 9
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
26
Time (hrs)

34
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D0 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 10
Predevelopment DA 6
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.350 cfs
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.03 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 3,582 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.030 ac
Curve number
= 33'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 6.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.117 x 98) + (2.918 x 30)] / 3.030
Q (Cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15 -
0.10 -
0.05
000
Predevelopment DA 6
Hyd. No. 10 -- 10 Year
Q (Cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.10
0.05
000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
— Hyd No. 10 Time (hrs)

KV
r Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
■ Hyd. No. 1
■ Drainage Area 1-Post
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 22.72 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.07 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 68,292 cuft
Drainage area
= 5.470 ac
Curve number
= 63'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
1 Total precip.
= 8.00 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' - Composite (Area/CN) = [(2.270 x 98) + (3.200 x 39)]15.470
1
Q (cfs)
' 24.00
20.00
' 16.00
12.00
8.00 -
4,00 -
000 -
0 2 4
' — Hyd No. 1
1
Drainage Area 1-Post
Hyd. No. 1 -- 25 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
24.00
swz1a1za
`M- 1110
12.00
4.00
—1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

36
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 31302010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 2
Drainage Area 2-Post
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 4.902 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.07 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 14,732 cuft
Drainage area
= 1.180 ac
Curve number
= 63*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 8.00 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.480 x 98) + (0.700 x 39)] / 1.180
Q (Cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 '
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 2
Drainage Area 2-Post
Hyd. No. 2 — 25 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (Cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
here]
1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

37
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 3
Bio Cell 1 Routing
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge
Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume
1 Inflow hyd. No. = 1 - Drainage Area 1-Post Max. Elevation
Reservoir name = Bioretention Cell 1 Max. Storage
Storage Indication method used. ExFltration extracted from Outflow.
i
1
Q (cfs)
Bio Cell 1 Routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 25 Year
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
= 7.311 cfs
= 12.33 hrs
= 23,878 cuft
= 27.32 ft
= 23,975 cuft
f - 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
' — Hyd No. 3 — Hyd No. 1 ® Total storage used = 23,975 cuft
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
[:110b1
[K461
—I 0.00
18.0
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph
Report
38
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD@ Civil 3D0 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 4
Bio Cell 2 Route
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 2.247 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.20 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 4,766 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Drainage Area 2-Post
Max. Elevation
= 29.14 ft
Reservoir name
= Bioretention Cell 2
Max. Storage
= 4,615 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Exfiltration extracted from Outflow
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 '
0.0 2.0
— Hyd No. 4
Bio Cell 2 Route
Hyd. No. 4 -- 25 Year
4.0 6.0
— Hyd No. 2
8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
ff7TF17] Total storage used = 4,615 cuff
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
MKOV,
---1- 0.00
16.0
Time (hrs)

39
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 5
Predevelopment DA 1
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 1.021 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 6,288 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.790 ac
Curve number
= 31*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 8.00 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = ](0.060 x 98) + (3,730 x 30)] / 3.790
Q (Cfs)
2.00 -
1.00
0.00 '
0 2 4
Hyd No. 5
Predevelopment DA 1
Hyd. No. 5 -- 25 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (Cfs)
2.00
1.00
1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

40
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 6
Predevelopment DA 2
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 14.49 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 29,040 cuft
Drainage area
= 2.560 ac
Curve number
= 60'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 8.00 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.920 x 98) + (1.640 x 39)] / 2.560
Q (Cfs)
15.00
W1111
a im
AM]
KM
0.00 '
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 6
Predevelopment DA 2
Hyd. No. 6 -- 25 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
M
3.00
0.00
20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

i
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrogral Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3130 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 7
Predevelopment DA 3
41
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
'Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.546 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 2,561 cuft
' Drainage area
= 1.340 ac
Curve number
= 32*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 8.00 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) _ [(0.049 x 98) + (1293 x 30)] 11.340
Predevelopment DA 3
Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 7 -- 25 Year
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
I 0.60
' 0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
' 0.10
1 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
— Hyd No. 7
18 20 22 24
Q (Cfs)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
26
Time (hrs)

42
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 8
Predevelopment DA 4
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 1.976 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 4,136 cuft
Drainage area
= 0.700 ac
Curve number
= 45*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 8.00 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
* Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.158 x 98) + (0.541 x 30)110.700
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
0.00 '
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 8
Predevelopment DA 4
Hyd. No. 8 -- 25 Year
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
0.00
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

1 43
t Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
' Hyd. No. 9
Predevelopment DA 5
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.287 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 1,111 cult
Drainage area
= 0.510 ac
Curve number
= 33"
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 8.00 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) _ [(0.024 x 98) t (0.486 x 30)j / 0.510
' Predevelopment DA 5
Q (cfs)
Hyd. No. 9 — 25 Year
0.50
0.45
0.40 -
0.35
0.30 - ^
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
' — Hyd No. 9
1
18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
26
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Report 44
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 10
Predevelopment DA 6
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 1.704 cfs
Storm frequency
= 25 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.00 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 6,599 cult
Drainage area
= 3.030 ac
Curve number
= 33"
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 8.00 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.117 x 98) + (2.918 x 30)] / 3.030
Q (Cfs)
2.00
Will
Predevelopment DA 6
Hyd. No. 10 -- 25 Year
Q (cfs)
2.00
1.00
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
— Hyd No. 10 Time (hrs)

45
' Hydrograph Report
HydraBow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DOO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
' Hyd. No. 1
Drainage Area 1-Post
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Drainage area
= 5.470 ac
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Tc method
= User
Total precip.
= 9.90 in
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Composite (Area/CN) = [(2.270 x 98) + (3.200 x 39)] / 5.470
i
Q (cfs)
35-00
30.00
1
25.00
20.00
15,00
10-00 -
5.00 -
0.00
0 2 4
' — Hyd No. 1
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Curve number
Hydraulic length
Time of conc. (Tc)
Distribution
Shape factor
Drainage Area 1-Post
Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Year
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
= 32.48 cfs
= 12.07 hrs
= 97,080 cuft
= 63'
= Oft
= 5.00 min
= Type III
= 484
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
moil]
—1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

46
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 2
Drainage Area 2-Post
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 7.006 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.07 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 20,942 cuft
Drainage area
= 1.180 ac
Curve number
= 63'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 9.90 in
Distribution
= Type III
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.480 x 98) + (0.700 x 39)111.180
Q (cfs)
8.00
M
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 2
Drainage Area 2-Post
Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
8.00
Kroll]
2.00
1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

47
I Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3130 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 3
Bio Cell 1 Routing
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
Inflow hyd. No.
= 1 -Drainage Area 1-Post
Max. Elevation
Reservoir name
= Bioretention Cell 1
Max. Storage
Storage Indication method used.
Exfiltration extracted from Outflow.
Q (cfs)
' 35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
Bio Cell 1 Routing
Hyd. No. 3 -- 100 Year
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
= 11.71 cfs
= 12.30 hrs
= 47,389 cuft
= 27.65 ft
= 31,206 cuft
Q (cfs)
35.00
30.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
I of
Hyd No. 3
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Hyd No. 1 ® Total storage used = 31,206 cult
18.0
Time (hrs)

48
Hydrograph Report
Hydrallow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D8 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 4
Bio Cell 2 Route
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 5.438 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 12.13 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 9,786 cuft
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Drainage Area 2-Post
Max. Elevation
= 29.27 ft
Reservoir name
= Bioretention Cell 2
Max. Storage
= 5,243 cuft
Storage Indication method used. Exfiltration extracted from Outflow
Q (cfs)
8.00
. ��
4.00
0.00
0.0 2.0
— Hyd No. 4
Bio Cell 2 Route
Hyd. No. 4 -- 100 Year
4.0 6.0
— Hyd No. 2
8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
® Total storage used = 5,243 cuft
Q (cfs)
8.00
4.00
VZOU
0.00
16.0
Time (hrs)

49
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D@ 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
' Hyd. No. 5
Predevelopment DA 1
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 4.744 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 13,798 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.790 ac
Curve number
= 31'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 9.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) _ [(0.060 x 98) + (3.730 x 30)1/ 3.790
Predevelopment DA 1
Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 5 -- 100 Year
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
— Hyd No. 5
18 20
Q (cfs)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
" ' 0.00
22 24 26
Time (hrs)

50
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 6
Predevelopment DA 2
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 20.79 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.93 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 41,971 cuft
Drainage area
= 2.560 ac
Curve number
= 60*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 9.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.920 x 98) + (1.640 x 39)] / 2.560
Q (Cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
• M
. M
3.00
0.00
0 2 4
Hyd No. 6
6 8
Predevelopment DA 2
Hyd. No. 6 -- 100 Year
Q (cfs)
21.00
18.00
15.00
12.00
M
M
3.00
1 1 1 1 1 0.00
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADOO Civil 3D@ 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
Hyd. No. 7
Predevelopment DA 3
51
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
' Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 2.026 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 5,412 cuft
Drainage area
= 1.340 ac
Curve number
= 32*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
'
Total precip.
= 9.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.049 x 98) + (1.293 x 30)] / 1.340
Predevelopment DA 3
Q (Cfs) Hyd. No. 7 -- 100 Year
3.00
' 2.00
1.00
1
' 0.00
0 2 4
— Hyd No. 7
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
3.00
2.00
1.00
—1- 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

52
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 8
Predevelopment DA 4
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 3.333 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 6,729 cuft
Drainage area
= 0.700 ac
Curve number
= 45'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 9.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.158 x 98) + (0,541 x 30)1 / 0.700
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 -1
0 2 4
Hyd No. 8
Predevelopment DA 4
Hyd. No. 8 -- 100 Year
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Q (cfs)
4.00
3.00
I ta4
1.00
1 0.00
26
Time (hrs)

6710
' Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25
' Hyd. No. 9
Predevelopment DA 5
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
' Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 0.903 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 2,263 cuft
t Drainage area
= 0.510 ac
Curve number
= 33*
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
'
Total precip.
= 9.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
' Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.024 x 98) + (0.486 x 30)] / 0.510
Predevelopment DA 5
' Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 9 -- 100 Year
V VV 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
— Hyd No. 9
Q (Cfs)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
' 0.00
18 20 22 24 26
Time (hrs)

54
Hydrograph Report
HydraFlow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Hyd. No. 10
Predevelopment DA 6
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge
= 5.364 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 11.97 hrs
Time interval
= 2 min
Hyd. volume
= 13,444 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.030 ac
Curve number
= 33'
Basin Slope
= 0.0 %
Hydraulic length
= 0 ft
Tc method
= User
Time of conc. (Tc)
= 5.00 min
Total precip.
= 9.90 in
Distribution
= Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor
= 484
*Composite (Area/CN) = [(0.117 x 98) + (2.918 x 30)] / 3.030
Q (cfs)
6.00 -
. 11
4.00
Km
2.00
1.00
Predevelopment DA 6
Hyd. No. 10 -- 100 Year
Q (cfs)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
— Hyd No. 10 Time (hrs)

Hydraflow Rainfall Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
Return
Period
Intensity -Duration -Frequency Equation Coefficients (FHA)
(Yrs)
B
D
E
(N/A)
1
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-
2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-
3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-
5
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-
10
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-
25
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-
50
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-
100
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-
' File name: SampleFHA.idf
Intensity = B / (Tc + D)AE
Return
Intensity Values (In/hr)
Period
(Yrs)
5 min
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
' Tc = time in minutes. Values may exceed 60.
:\102\30032 Camlo Le'eune Pre -Trial Detainee Facili Calc\Stm\Onslow County De th-Duraton H dra0ow . c
Storm Rainfall Precipitation Table (in)
I
Distribution
1-yr
2-yr
Syr
5-yr
10-yr
25-yr
50-yr
100-yr
SCS 24-hour
3.70
4.40
0.00
3.30
6.90
8.00
6.80
9.90
SCS 6-Hr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-tsl
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.75
0.00
0,00
6.50
0.00
Huff-2nd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-3rd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-4th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huff-Indy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Custom
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.80
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00

' Riser Structure Anti -Floatation Calculations

Meeting Memorandum ❑ DESIGN ❑ PHONE ❑ C.A
...........................................
PROJECT:
.................... ......... . PROJECT NO.: DATE:
...........................................
PARTICIPANTS:
NOTES BY:
Au-1=LoCt'RT eJ ei, ,.0 ''ri UNS
RT c�6-C "IC LITa�j $raS�1�1
�IASti 'T
"�P EL. ' 27• o0
TaY rf V%bvak" Z2. ocz
t70—YAQL`e �ia2ct'.
V. = l�X`'�� Z� - izi + h� 1�l ,i = hcF cF
5 = 4. -j,a= (1'7U 6P)( caz.4 �b/ct) t IJh,
(�ks (fit 4ISo) _ 114, 100 .jbc
�Ji.c iZ �t vt ga'�;D- l.Z
InIPoS'1
•�•o®®Q
p
• Q
u
TIMMONS GROUP
ui
o
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
C
5410 Trinity Road
TEL [phone]
Suite 112
Fn 919.859.5663
Raleigh, NC 27607
A-sSI~we ul i r
7i 150 (L It 3

Meethig Plemop-ahiduria U DESIGN D PHONE D C.A.
....... .1 ............. ......... I ......
PROJECT:
........................ I.......
PROJECT NO.: DATE
....................................... ...
PARTICIPANTS
.......... I ................ .........
. . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BY NOTES
Q/t,genr_jn ay.3
fKC46-
-rvr t
vas -'a
Vewvr 4
�'
j
-cimmotNIS (3noup
5410 Trinity Road
I
TEL [phone] Suite 112
Fn 919.859.5603 Raleigh, NC 27607
i

Meeting Memorandtim d DESIGN ❑ PHONE O C.A.
.............................................
PROJECT:
.............................................
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
.............................................
PARTICIPANTS:
.......................... I...................
.................. I..........................
NOTES BY:
'-DR>iNtbG RRE1�= '-i?0LS SF oM1 f.f0 /�c.
.xµ-cv�ow+ �1�'•in� h7o7.1SF- oF' o.y3� A[.,
-j-0.
�1Nrp�A �v.1 Z'E IJB\T �.
-A.Sy,wMl rj µrt T
7.
Zoo `'3"7�;_ �jw'i vrJIN�
Dio' �p,mo� �.to'N�IiF-i�\J'pOhtl v '�.95 c�
Q iou o.eaolLl�'i ��I{{R- 1 �, 1.1 b (col=-(p_3re c%$.
ti
TIMMONS GROUP
.. .. E
5410 Trinity Road
TEL [phone] Suite 112
rnx 919.859.5663 Raleigh, NC 27607
1. O

Worksheet for Swale 1-10 Year.
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.030
Channel Slope
0.01100
ft/ft
Left Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Discharge
4.75
WIs
Results
Normal Depth
0.77
if
Flow Area
1.79
ft'
Wetted Perimeter
4.88
it
Hydraulic Radius
0.37
ft
Top Width
4.63
It
Critical Depth
0.69
it
Critical Slope
0.02006
ft/ft
Velocity
2.66
ftis
Velocity Head
0.11
it
Specific Energy
0.88
it
Froude Number
0.75
Flow Type
Subcritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
0.00
ft
Length
0.00
ft
Number Of Steps
0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth
0.00
It
Profile Description
Profile Headloss
0.00
If
Downstream Velocity
Infinity
f /S
Upstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Normal Depth
0.77
ft
Critical Depth
0.69
if
Channel Slope
0.01100
ft/ft
Critical Slope
0.02006
fiUft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SoIBEmrll*fiilervMaster V81(SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.031
12121/2010 12:06:00 PM 27 Siemens Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1.203-755.1666 Page 1 of 1

Project Description
Friction Method
Solve For
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
Channel Slope
Lef; Side Slope
Righi Side Slope
Discharge
Results
Normal Depth
Flow Area
Waited Perimeter
Hydraulic Radius
Top Width
Critical Depth
Critical Siope
Velocity
Velocity Head
Specific Energy
Froude Number
Flow Type
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
Length
Number Of Steps
GVF Output Da"a
Upsireara Depth
Profile Desrripiion
Profile Headluss
Downstream Velooily
upsireai'I Velooiy
Normal Depth
r;iliiC21 Depti+
C:hanu�91 Slope
Critical Slupe
9r`4907kSheet for SWEIS 1-100 Year - -------
Manning Formula
Normal Depth
Subcritical
0.030
0.01100
ftfft
3.00
Wit(H:V)
3.00
Wit(H:V)
6.36
fi'/s
0.86 ft '
2.22 W
5.45 It
0A I M.
5.17 It
0, 77 fl
0,01930 Wfi
2.86 Ws
013 It
0.99 fl
0.77
0.00 a
0.00 ft
0
0.00 It
0,00
It
Infli y
Ws
Infinity
ills
0.86
It
0.77
it
0.01'100
Wit
0.01930
Rift
Gentley Systems, Inc. Haesiad YlntOods So1Rka9 .Ft+awMaster V0i (SELEC7sedes i) [00.11.01.031
1 -12 H%(310 i :oss. Nrn 27 Sitimons Company Drive Sure 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA 11-203-755-1663 page 1 of 1

Meeting Memorandum ❑ DESIGN ❑ PHONE ❑ C.A.
.............................................
PROJECT:
.............................................
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
.............................................
PARTICIPANTS:
.............................................
.............................................
NOTES BY:
•�+•®��
p
TIMMONS GROUP
ul
o
E
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
C
5410 Trinity Road
TEL [phone]
Suite 112
FA 919.859.5663
Raleigh, NC 27607
DRaa�..iP.mQ {r2. e.= 1,4e ��, / IN,�- l00 .94 �•
T� P. MLQA o.9D2 Ate.
�,ano.r�L GoE GF.uEicr `t"
C-= oAd�o •mo9`f� 1-0.35 (. o,39oAo> = 0."13°i
y1p L�iL -_
�sprS �.2J IrJJM�•
�r5
ga,r"'j w� V:�va :
6.;�=CAA.
?34 (?.zo "IHc1.4d A-)' -7.87, j:
z.,�r-

Meeting Memorandum ❑ DESIGN ❑ PHONE ❑ C.A.
.............................................
PROJECT:
.............................................
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
.............................................
PARTICIPANTS:
.............................................
.............................................
NOTES BY:
cN+_ cK Ha uanuC,Lf-- @ 1 D��
p�6�rJ>4E kec-,- 1.1-} At.
E
o00*00
•
u
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
E
5410 Trinity Road
TEL [phone]
Suite 112
FAX [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27607
�Q�oTb..�p�C_' O.ar�Co.�Z��) 3-V. 3Sla•2'73S>' 0.80�
pIW ' O. BGiC�(a� �NINti�l).17>JJJ= '4.10 G�

Worksheet for Swale 2-10 Year
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.030
Channel Slope
0.00500
Wit
Left Side Slope
3.00
Poft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Discharge
7.82
Wls
Results
Normal Depth
1.08
ft
Flow Area
3.49
ft-
Wetted Perimeter
6.82
ft
Hydraulic Radius
0.51
ft
Top Width
6.47
ft
Critical Depth
0.84
ft
Critical Slope
0.01877
ft/ft
Velocity
2.24
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.08
ft
Specific Energy
1.16
ft
Froude Number
0.54
Flow Type
Subcritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
0.00
R
Length
0.00
ft
Number Of Steps
0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth
0.00
ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss
0.00
It
Downstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Upstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Normal Depth
1.08
It
Critical Depth
0.84
ft
Channel Slope
0.00500
tuft
Critical Slope
0.01877
ft/ft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Sol®6mrlEpF11ka rMaster V81 (SELECTseries 1) (08.11.01.031
3/23/2011 11:28:39 AM 27 Siemens Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA t1-203-755.1666 Page 1 of 1

Worksheet for Swale 2-100 Year
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.030
Channel Slope
0.00500
ft/ft
Left Side Slope
3.00
tuft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Discharge
10.47
ft-Is
Results
Normal Depth
1.20
ft
Flow Area
4.34
ft-
Wetted Perimeter
7.61
ft
Hydraulic Radius
0.57
ft
Top Width
7.22
ft
Critical Depth
0.95
ft
Critical Slope
0.01806
ft/ft
Velocity
2.41
fus
Velocity Head
0.09
ft
Specific Energy
1.29
ft
Froude Number
0.55
Flow Type
Subcritical
GVF Input Data
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
fus
Normal Depth
1.20
ft
Critical Depth
0.95
ft
Channel Slope
0.00500
ft/ft
Critical Slope
0.01806
tuft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolffAmal efite"aster V81(SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03]
3/23/2011 11:28:35 AM 27 Siemens Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203.755-1666 Page 1 of 1

Worksheet for Swale 2 Intermediate Section-10 Year
Project Description
Friction Method
Solve For
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
Channel Slope
Left Side Slope
Right Side Slope
Discharge
Results
Normal Depth
Flow Area
Wetted Perimeter
Hydraulic Radius
Top Width
Critical Depth
Critical Slope
Velocity
Velocity Head
Specific Energy
Froude Number
Flow Type
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
Length
Number Of Steps
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth
Profile Description
Profile Headloss
Downstream Velocity
Upstream Velocity
Normal Depth
Critical Depth
Channel Slope
Critical Slope
Manning Formula
Normal Depth
Subcritioal
0.030
0.00500
ft/ft
3.00
fttft (H:V)
3.00
f1ft (H:V)
6.80
ft-/s
1.02 ft
3.14 ft-
6.47 ft
0.49 ft
6.14 ft
0.80 ft
0.01913 ft/ft
2.16 fills
0.07 ft
1.10 ft
0.53
0.00 It
0.00 It
0
0.00 ft
0.00 ft
Infinity ft/s
Infinity ftts
1.02 ft
0.80 ft
0.00500 fttft
0.01913 ft/ft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods So1616ora 4eRbnMlasler V81 (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03]
3/23/2011 11:29:58 AM 27 Slemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

Worksheet for Swale 2 Intermediate Section-100 Year
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.030
Channel Slope
0.00500
ft/ft
Left Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
fUft (H:V)
Discharge
9.10
ft-/s
Results
Normal Depth
1.14
ft
Flow Area
3.91
ft'
Wetted Perimeter
722
it
Hydraulic Radius
0.54
ft
Top Width
6.85
ft
Critical Depth
0.89
ft
Critical Slope
0.01840
ft/ft
Velocity
2.33
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.08
ft
Specific Energy
1.23
ft
Froude Number
0.54
Flow Type
Subcritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
0.00
It
Length
0.00
ft
Number Of Steps
0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth
0.00
ft
Profile Descdption
Profile Headloss
0.00
ft
Downstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Upstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Normal Depth
1.14
ft
Critical Depth
0.89
ft
Channel Slope
0.00500
ft/ft
Critical Slope
0.01840
ft/ft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods So16ft0diaRlmMaster V81(SELECTserles 1) [08.11.01.03] ,
' 3123/2011 11:30:21 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

Meeting Memorandum J DESIGN ❑ PHONE Q C.A.
..........................................
PROJECT:
.............................................
PROJECT NO. DATE:
.................................. I..........
PARTICIPANTS:
.............................................
.............................................
NOTES BY:
sw� a q
aCA- �'
A
IE
TIMMONS GROUP
5410 Trinity Road
TES 919.866.4951
Suite 112
FP 919.859.5663
Raleigh, NC 27607
z 0 -160G 2�4 = 0. d;� I
C. 0 �411qco ( 0,9 e;)
is .MC S M.');
9,0410
sus

Project Description
Friction Method
Solve For
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
Channel Slope
Left Side Slope
Right Side Slope
Discharge
Results
Normal Depth
Flow Area
Wetted Perimeter
Hydraulic Radius
Top Width
Cdtical Depth
Critical Slope
Velocity
Velocity Head
Specific Energy
Froude Number
Flow Type
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
Length
Number Of Steps
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth
Profile Description
Profile Headloss
Downstream Velocity
Upstream Velocity
Normal Depth
Critical Depth
Channel Slope
Critical Slope
Worksheet for Swale 4.10 Year
Manning Formula
Normal Depth
Subcdtical
0.030
0.01420
WTI
3.00
Wit (H:V)
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
3.60
Wls
0.66 If
1.32 fir
4.19 If
0.31 it
3.98 R
0.62 ft
0.02082 ft/ft
2.73 ftls
012 it
0.78 ft
0.84
0.00 ft
0.00 it
0
0.00 ft
0.00
it
Infinity
fus
Infinity
f/s
0.66
it
0.62
ft
0.01420
ft/ft
0.02082
ft/ft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Sol [a 1 4EeFibowMaster V8](SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03)
12/13/20'10 3:40:43 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203.755-1666 Page 1 of 1

Worksheet for Swale 4-100 Year
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.030
Channel Slope
0.01420
Rift
Left Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Discharge
4.82
Wis
Results
Normal Depth
0.74
If
Flow Area
1.64
ft'
Wetted Perimeter
4.68
it
Hydraulic Radius
0.35
h
Top Width
4.44
h
Critical Depth
0.69
ft
Critical Slope
0.02003
ft/ft
Velocity
2.94
f/s
Velocity Head
0.13
it
Specific Energy
0.87
If
Froude Number
0.85
Flaw Type
Subcritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
0.00
ft
Length
0.00
ft
Number Of Steps
0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.00 it
Profile Description
Profile Headloss
0.00
it
Downstream Velocity
Infinity
f /s
Upstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Normal Depth
0.74
ft
Critical Depth
0.69
it
Channel Slope
0.01420
f ift
Critical Slope
0.02003
ft/ft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solril1 d5eRorvMaster V81 (SELECTseries 1) 108.11.01.031
12/13/2010 3:40:54 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

Meeting Memorandum ❑ DESIGN ❑ PHONE ❑ CA.
.............................................
PROJECT:
.............................................
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
.............................................
PARTICIPANTS:
.............................................
.............................................
NOTES BY:
E
fee�ol�
u
•
TIMMONS GROUP
N
o
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
E
5410 Trinity Road
TEL [phone]
Suite 112
FAX [phone]
Raleigh, INC 27607
/. :f"? D.!rq c'— �r-1 /.
6 t:>lb•=`�� F- D•:;/pAI� � .O.V°: �Si —T cj n^.� p.C�io
�•,y., Fn•.�— �...\TF. F>;TY . �h-«an,��.c 7 ram, � . —r�
S.o= ✓�i= '1 .Zo Iwl lli e...
Ri> �

■
Worksheet for Swale 5-10 Year
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.030
' Channel Slope
0.01000 fVft
Left Side Slope
3.00 ft/ft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00 ft/ft (H:V)
'
Discharge
7.31 ft-/s
Results
Normal Depth
0.92 ft
Flow Area
2.56 ft'
Wetted Perimeter
5.84 ft
'
Hydraulic Radius
0.44 ft
Top Width
5.54 ft
' Critical Depth
0.82 ft
Critical Slope
0.01894 ft/ft
Velocity
2.86 f /s
' Velocity Head
0.13 it
Specific Energy
1.05 ft
Froude Number
0.74
' Flow Type
Subcritical
GVF Input Data
' 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 fVs
Upstream Velocity
Infinity fVs
Normal Depth
0.92 ft
t Critical Depth
0.82 it
Channel Slope
0.01000 ft/ft
Cdfical Slope
0.01894 ft/ft
1
Bentley Systems, Inc. Hassled Methods SolBilaYQefilawMaster V81(SELECTserles 1) (08.11.01.03]
' 214/2011 9:28:16 AM
27 Siemens Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1.203-755.1666 Page 1 of 1

Worksheet for Swale 5-100 Year
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.030
Channel Slope
0.01000
tuft
Left Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Discharge
9.79
ft3/s
Results
Normal Depth
1.03
ft
Flow Area
3.19
ft'
Wetted Perimeter
6.52
ft
Hydraulic Radius
0.49
ft
Top Width
6.18
ft
Critical Depth
0.92
ft
Critical Slope
0.01822
ft/ft
Velocity
3.07
f /s
Velocity Head
0.15
ft
Specific Energy
1.18
ft
Froude Number
0.75
Flow Type
Subcritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
0.00
ft
Length
0.00
ft
Number Of Steps
0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth
0.00
ft
Profile Description
Profile Headless
0.00
ft
Downstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Upstream Velocity
Infinity
f /s
Normal Depth
1.03
ft
Critical Depth
0.92
ft
Channel Slope
0.01000
fUft
Critical Slope
0.01822
fVft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SoIRAM*FlewMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03]
2/4/2011 9:28:11 AM 27 Siemens Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1.203.755-1666 Page 1 of 1

Culvert Report
Hydratlow Express Extension for AutoCAtm Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc.
Culvert A-10 Year
Invert Elev Dn (ft)
Pipe Length (ft)
Slope (%)
Invert Elev Up (fit)
Rise (in)
Shape
Span (in)
No. Barrels
n-Value
Inlet Edge
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft)
Top Width (ft)
Crest Width (ft)
SL - r rt'
2,"
26C..''
27 6
= 26.00
Calculations
= 70.00
Qrnin (cfs)
= 0.71
Qmax (cfs)
= 26.50
Tailwater Elev (ft)
= 15.0
= Cir
Highlighted
= 15.0
Qtotal (cfs)
= 1
Qpipe (Cfs)
= 0.012
Qovertop (cfs)
= 0
Veloc Dn (ft/s)
= 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7
Veloc Up (ft/s)
HGL Dn (ft)
FIGL Up (ft)
= 29.80
Hw Elev (ft)
= 15.00
Hw/D (ft)
= 15.00
Flow Regime
Culvert 4.10 veal
Wednesday, Dec 22 2010
= 4.75
= 4.75
= 0
= 4.75
= 4.75
= 0.00
= 3.87
= 4.53
= 27.25
= 27.50
= 28.13
= 1.30
= Inlet Control
Ha. C'-ptl1 Ifl

Culvert Report
HydraFlow Express Extension for AutoCADO Civil 300 2010 by Autodesk, Inc.
Culvert A-100 Yew
Invert Elev Dn (ft)
Pipe Length (ft)
Slope (%)
Invert Elev Up (ft)
Rise (in)
Shape
Span (in)
No. Barrels
n-Value
Inlet Edge
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft)
Top Width (ft)
Crest Width (ft)
2s—
Zb.0C
2 —
25_i5
= 26.00
Calculations
= 70.00
Qmin (cfs)
= 0.71
Qmax (cfs)
= 26.50
Tailwater Elev (ft)
= 15.0
= Cir
Highlighted
= 15.0
Qtotal(cfs)
= 1
Qpipe (cfs)
= 0.012
Qovertop (cfs)
= 0
Veloc Dn (ft/s)
= 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7
Veloc Up (ft/s)
HGL Dn (ft)
HGL Up (ft)
= 29.80
Hw Elev (ft)
= 15.00
Hw/D (ft)
= 15.00
Flow Regime
Cvlvert A-100 Year
p:r :-ei:erl --- HGL -- EntbanY
Wednesday, Dec 22 2010
= 6.36
= 6.36
0
=
= 6.36
= 6.36
= 0.00
= 5.18
= 5.18
= 27.25
= 27.83
= 28.68
= 1.74
'
= Inlet Control
n,. oeilu, gin:
2.5i
nirol
'
l ilea[
L5L
1.5L
C 4�
Relch dI'

Culvert Report
Hydranow Express Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc.
Monday, Dec 13 2010
Culvert C Ia
1Ep
Invert Elev Dn (ft)
= 30.80
Calculations
Pipe Length (ft)
= 52.32
Qmin (cfs)
= 0.97
Slope (%)
= 0.76
Qmax (cfs)
= 0.97
Invert Elev Up (ft)
= 31.20
Tailwater Elev (ft)
= 0
Rise (in)
= 15.0
Shape
= Cir
Highlighted
Span (in)
= 15.0
Qtotal (cfs)
= 0.97
No. Barrels
= 1
Qpipe (cfs)
= 0.97
n-Value
= 0.012
Qovertop (cfs)
= 0.00
Inlet Edge
= 0
Veloc Dn (ft/s)
= 1.14
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k
= 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7
Veloc Up (ft/s)
= 2.66
HGL Dn (ft)
= 31.62
Embankment
HGL Up (ft)
= 31.62
Top Elevation (ft)
= 34.00
Hw Elev (ft)
= 31.74
Top Width (ft)
= 20.00
Hw!D (ft)
= 0.43
Crest Width (ft)
= 20.00
Flow Regime
= Inlet Control
=1-�� Ilt Culvert C
72:
25a:I` Il

Culvert Report
Hydra Flow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. Monday, Dec 13 2010
Culvert C too,
l®aw
Invert Elev Dn (ft)
= 30.80
Calculations
Pipe Length (ft)
= 52.32
Qmin (cfs)
= 1.30
Slope (%)
= 0.76
Qmax (cfs)
= 1.30
Invert Elev Up (ft)
= 31.20
Taiiwater Elev (ft)
= 0
Rise (in)
= 15.0
Shape
= Cir
Highlighted
Span (in)
= 15.0
Qtotal (cfs)
= 1.30
No. Barrels
= 1
Qpipe (cfs)
= 1.30
n-Value
= 0.012
Qovertop (cfs)
= 0.00
Inlet Edge
= 0
Veloc Dn (ft/s)
= 1.46
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k
= 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7
Veloc Up (ft/s)
= 3.22
HGL Dn (ft)
= 31.65
Embankment
HGL Up (ft)
= 31.65
Top Elevation (ft)
= 34.00
Hw Elev (ft)
= 31.84
Top Width (ft)
= 20.00
Hw/D (ft)
= 0.51
Crest Width (ft)
= 20.00
Flow Regime
= Inlet Control
Culvert C
_
.,. S�I.•,d __ __ ill ._.__._. Emb,,M

Meethig Memep'dB1dum ❑ DESIGN ❑ PHONE G CAA
.............................................
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.: .... ...... . DATE:
.............................................
PARTICIPANTS:
.............................................
.............................................
NOTES BY:
V�-AFY L(.N,y,�nrrn ..� fC��-Jca�P' Cw�..c�?�'•
A�ta>'.• �ii�-wWP� �(6r-oY�+'i'QF�- 'L9.0�
;& R
6.81"1 -1C.
fi rZ]
r
� l'J
u
5410 Trinity Road i TEL [phone] Suite 112
FAX [phone] Raleigh, NC 27607 S'
,
Z.
?J52 7-era ` -z-r,0 + z�z 5c, '`J:B. oti �o,oa2� + o s..
O.v'*4a -
1

Meeting Memorandum ❑ DESIGN ❑ PHONE ❑ C.A.
.............................................
PROJECT:
.............................................
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
.............................................
PARTICIPANTS:
.............................................
.............................................
NOTES BY:
or°me:
9 C'
T9MMONS GROUP
5410 Trinity Road
T L 919.866.4951 Suite 112
FAX [phone] Raleigh. NC 27607
p z...,.-•n E�"c AQEA< ti.v;q S-r nR- o.2-7At -[: 4.: o-o' 14
5.�,�c✓<v,�. - J%aEA.'= ��9 s sF ems- o. oma Ac _ �, vk
o..9gc o.2311 r O.3S`7Cy % 0.-J99 oP 0_`&'
S� -y.T.- IHn.
Q,o= o.sv��.zola�V�Ri�v.ti7/\cr o.9'12_cFs

Meeting Memorandum 0 DESIGN ❑ PHONE Q C.A.
PROJECT:
.............................................
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
.............................................
PARTICIPANTS:
.............................................
.............................................
NOTES BY:
(� _u.oc137�oO
S Sg9s
Ov.TG-T L-ONCR{�l.•
5410 Trinity Road
TEL [phone] Suite 112 2S'
Fnx 9I9.859.5663 j Raleigh, NC 27607
O,o43-�("")(,iG"-, ?31,:z1
2
5Z2 Qi — K &9 rb' L- r%
p _L2 i 33
l _
33,.60' 32fi 6j�2 QK�5agt, �5p•Z_i,l,�, p•ora)2 �"i
o
o: 2�'

Worksheet for Swale 1-Liner Cale
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.020
Channel Slope
0.01100
ft/ft
Left Side Slope
3.00
fttft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
fi/ft (H:V)
Discharge
4.75
W/s
Results
Normal Depth
0.66
ft
Flow Area
1.32
fV
Wetted Perimeter
4.19
ft
Hydraulic Radius
0.31
ft
Top Width
3.98
it
Critical Depth
0.69
ft
Critical Slope
0.00892
haft
Velocity
3.60
fits
Velocity Head
0.20
it
Specific Energy
0.86
it
Froude Number
1.10
Flow Type
Supercritical
.
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
0.00
it
Length
0.00
it
Number Of Steps
0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth
0.00
fi
Profile Description
Profile Headloss
0.00
ft
Downstream Velocity
Infinity
fVs
Upstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Normal Depth
0.66
it ,
Critical Depth
0.69
it
Channel Slope
0.01100
ft/ft
Critical Slope
0.00892
ft/ft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods S01612wtl47,eFEawMaster V81(SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.031
12/22/2010 9:47:39 AM 27 Siemens Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

Diversion Ditch Liner Design Sheet
Project: 30032 Diversion Number., Permanent Swale 1
Designed By: WZS
Date: 12/22/2010
Note: This spreadsheet is only applicable to diversions with longitudinal slopes less
than 10%. Channels greater than 10 h should be designed via alternate means.
Flowmaster Data and Calculation Output
Q= 4.75 cis Manning Roughness= 1 0.020
5= 0.011 Normal Depth= 0.66 ft.
Side slopes= 3 :1 Velocity= 3.60 fps
FT-emporary Lining Required
Temporary Liner Design Calculation
Manning's Roughness n
Channel Velocity
Normal Depth
Shear Stress
Liner Type
0.015
4.47
0.60
0.41
Woven Paper Net
0.022
3.35
0.69
0.47
Jule Net
0.021
3.47
0.68
0.47
Fiberglass Roving
0.033
2.47
0.80
0.55
Straw with Nei
0.035
0.00
Curled Wood Mat
0,025
1
1
0.00
Synthetic Mat
Don't Use
Don't Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use Excelsior PPS-8 Extended Term TRM
Note: Mannings Roughness Coefficients are based on normal flow depths between 0.5' and 2.0'. If flow depth
is out of this range, adjust Roughness n values appropriately.

Peronanent Channel Liner Design (10 Year Storm)
Flownriasier Data and Calculation Output
Q= E��4 cfs Manning Roughness= 0.030s= Normal Depth= 0.77 h
Side slopes= 3 :1 Velocity= 2.BG fps
Pemlarent Liner F?egvireor
Perrnaneni Liner Design Calculation
Manning's Roughness n
Channel Velocity
Normal Depth
Shear Stress
Liner Type
0.022
3.35
O.69
0.47__
Jute Net _
_
'
3.47
0.63
0.47
Fiberglass Roving__
_0,021_
2.47
—__0.00
0.55
Sirew With Net
2.37
0.82
0.5G
Curled Wood Mai _
_0.035
0.025
_.—.—__ _
a�...,s..�....e.�_......m..
..-----
0.00
0.00_
0.00
__. 0.00.___.
0.U0
Syntheiio Liner
V Gravel (050)
2" Gravel (050)
2 Rip -Rap (D50 1)
__._..r
2" Rip -Rae (DF)0)
0.033
0.076
_,l.�.Q,.�0.sOG9 .,....�_�,,..�r..n..,..
Ilse Excelsior PP5-8 Extended Term -i
Don't Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Ilse
Use
Use
Note: Manning:, riouyhuess Goefflrienis are hiased on normal flow depths between O.T and 2.0'. hi floe, depin
is out o4 this range, adjust roughness n values appropriately.

Worksheet for Swale 2-Liner Cale
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.020
Channel Slope
0.00500
ft/ft
Left Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Discharge
7.82
ft%s
Results
Normal Depth
0.93
ft
Flow Area
2.58
ft-
WettedPerimeter
5.86
ft
Hydraulic Radius
0.44
If
Top Width
5.56
ft
Critical Depth
0.84
It
Critical Slope
0.00834
ft/ft
Velocity
3.04
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.14
If
Specific Energy
1.07
ft
Froude Number
0.79
Flow Type
Subcrifical
GVF Input Data
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
f1/s
Upstream Velocity
Infinity
fVs
Normal Depth
0.93
ft
Critical Depth
0.84
It
Channel Slope
0.00500
ft/ft
Critical Slope
0.00834
f tft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Sol®brl41elibvMaster VSI (SELECTserles 1) [08.11.01.031
312312011 11:34:37 AM 27 Slemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Pape 1 of 1

Diversion Ditch Liner Design Sheet
Project: 30032 Diversion Number., (Permanent Swale 2
Designed By: WZS
Date: 3/23/2011
Note: This spreadsheet Is only applicable to diversions with longitudinal slopes less
than 10%. Channels greater than 10 % should be designed via alternate means.
Flowmaster Data and Calculation Output
Q= 7.82 cis
5= 0.005
Side slopes= 3 :1
Temporary Liner Design Calculation
Manning Roughness- 0.020
Normal Depth= 0.93 ft.
Velocity-- 3.04 fps
Manning's Roughness n
Channel Velocity
Normal Depth
Shear Stress
Liner Type
0.015
3.77
0.83
0.26
Woven Paper Net
0.022
2.83
0.96
0.30
Jute Net
0.021
2.93
0.94
0.29
Fiberglass Roving
0.033
2.09
1.12
0.35
Straw with Net
0.035
2.00
1.14
0.36
Curled Wood Mat
0.025
1 2.57
1 1.01
1 0.32
Synthetic Mal
Donl Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use Excelsior CS3•R for Temporary Lining
Note: Mannings Roughness Coefficients are based on normal flow depths between 0.5' and 2.0'. If flow depth
Is out of this range, adjust Roughness n values appropriately.
0

Permanent Channel Liner Design (10 Year Storm)
Flowmaster Data and Calculation Output
Q= 7.82 cfs
s= 0.(05
Side slopes= 1 3 :1
Permanent Liner Design Calculation
Manning Roughness= 0.030
Normal Depth= 1.08 ft.
Velocity= 2.24 fps
Manning's Roughness n
Channel Velocity
Normal Depth
Shear Stress
Liner Type
0.022
0.00
Jute Net
0.021
0.00
Fiberglass Roving
0.033
0.00
Straw with Net
0.035
0.00
Curled Wood Mat
0.025
0.00
Synthetic Liner
0.033
0.00
1" Gravel (D50)
0.041
0.00
2" Gravel (D50)
0.0691
1
1 0.00
6" Rip -Rap (D50)
0.078
1
1
1 0.00
12" Rip -Rap (D50)
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Note: Mannings Roughness Coefficients are based on normal flow depths between 0.5' and 2.0'. If flow depth
is out of this range, adjust Roughness n values appropriately.

Worksheet for Swale 2 Intermediate Section -Liner III
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.020
Channel Slope
0.00500
ft/ft
Left Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Discharge
6.80
ft3/s
Results
Normal Depth
0.88
ft
Flow Area
2.32
ft-
Wetted Perimeter
5.56
ft
Hydraulic Radius
0.42
ft
Top Width
5.28
ft
Critical Depth
0.80
ft
Critical Slope
0.00850
ft/ft
Velocity
2.93
fVs
Velocity Head
0.13
ft
Specific Energy
1.01
ft
Froude Number
0.78
Flow Type
Subcritical
GVF Input Data
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
0.88
ft
Critical Depth
0.80
ft
Channel Slope
0.00500
ft/ft
Critical Slope
0.00850
ft/ft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods So16llik"BeRRlewMaster Val (SELECTserles 1) [08.11.01.03]
3/2312011 11:34:30 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA •1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1

Diversion Ditch Liner Design Sheet
Project: 30032 Diversion Number: Permanent Swale 2
Designed By: WZS
Date: 3/23/2011
Note: This spreadsheet is only applicable to diversions with longitudinal slopes less
than 10%. Channels greater than 10 % should be designed via alternate means.
Flowmaster Data and Calculation Output
D= cfs Manning Roughness
s= i 0.005 Normal Depth= 0.88 ft.
Side slopes= 3 :1 Velocity= 2.93 fps
FT-6mp6mT Lining Required
Temporary Liner Design Calculation
Manning's Roughness n
Channel Velocity
Normal Depth
Shear Stress
Liner Type
0.015
3.64
0.79
0.25
Woven Paper Net
0.022
2.73
0.91
0.28
Jute Net
0.021
2.83
0.90
0.28
Fiberglass Roving
0.033
2.01
1.06
0.33
Straw with Net
0.035
0.00
Curled Wood Mat
0.025
1
1
1 0.00
Synthetic Mat
Don't Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use Excelsior CS3-R for Temporary Lining
Note: Mannings Roughness Coefficients are based on normal flow depths between 0.5' and 2.0'. If flow depth
Is out of this range, adjust Roughness n values appropriately.

Permanent Channel Liner Design (10 Year Storm)
Flowmaster Data and Calculation Output
Q= I 6.80 cfs Manning Roughness= 1 0.030
s= 0.005 Normal Depth- 1.02 ft.
i
Side slopes= 3 :1 Velocity= 2.16 fps
No Permanent Liner Required
Permanent Liner Design Calculation
Manning's Roughness n
Channel Velocity
Normal Depth
Shear Stress
Liner Type
0.022
0.00
Jute Net
0.021
0.00
Fiberglass Roving
0.033
0.00
Straw with Net
0.035
0.00
Curled Wood Mat
0.025
0.00
Synthetic Liner
0.033
0.00
1"Gravel (D50)
0.041
0.00
2" Gravel (D50)
0.06g
0.00
6" Rip -Rap (D50)
0.078
1 0.00
12" Rip -Rap (D50)
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Note: Mannings Roughness Coefficients are based on normal flow depths between 0.5' and 2.0'. If flow depth
Is out of this range, adjust Roughness n values appropriately.

Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For -
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.020
Channel Slope
0.01420
ft/ft
Left Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Discharge
3.60
fN/s
Results
Normal Depth
0.57
ft
Flow Area
0.97
it'
Wetted Perimeter
3.60
fl
Hydraulic P,adil.ls
027
(1
Top Width
3.42
R
Critical Depth
0.62
A
Critical Slope
0.00925
fiJft
Velocity
3.70
fVs
Velocity I -lead
0.21
fi
Specific Energy
0.73
0
Froude Number
1.22
Flow Type
Supercritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
0.00
fi
Length
0.00
it
Number OF Steps
0
G W Output Data
Upstream Depth
0.00
fit
Profile Descriptiun
Profile 1-1eadlo3s
0.00
it
Downsireani Velocity
Infinity
fus
Up»trearri Velocity
Infinity
fus
Nunml Dopih
0.57
fi
critical Depth
0.62
it
Channel Slope
Q01420
pJft
Crifical Slope
0,00925
Wit
eelluey Sys03ms, Inc. Hanstad Methods Vet (SELECTserlos 1) [08.11.0'1.031
12122/20 M 10:11:00 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

I
' Diversion Ditch Liner Design Sheet
Project: 30032 Diversion Number: IPermarent Swale 4
Designed By: WZS
Dale: 12/22/2010
Note: This spreadsheet is only applicable to diversions with longitudinal slopes less
than 10%. Channels greater than 10% should be designed via alternate means.
Flowmaster Data and Calculation Output
Q= 3.60 cfs Manning Roughness= 0.020
s= 0.0142 Normal Depth= 0.57 ft.
Side slopes= 3 :1 Velocity= I 3.70 fps
�.[—Temporary Lininn-9 Required
Temporary Liner Design Calculation
Manning's Roughness n
Channel Velocity
Normal Depth
Shear Stress
Liner Type
0.015
4.59
0.51
0.45
Woven Paper Net
0.022
3.44
0.59
0.52
Jule Net
0.021
3.57
0.58
0.51
Fiberglass Roving
0.033
2.54
0.69
0.61
Straw with Net
0.035
0.00
Curled Wood Mat
0.025 1
1
1 0.00
Synthetic Mal
Don't Use
Don't Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use PPS-8 Extended Term TRM
Note: Mannings Roughness Coefficients are based on normal flow depths between O.fi and 2.0'. If flow depth
Is out of this range. adjust Roughness n values appropriately.

Permanent Channel Liner Design (10 Year Storm)
Flowmaster Data and Calculation Output
Q= 3.60 cfs Manning Roughness-0.030
s= 0.0142 Normal Depth= 0.66 0.
Side slopes= 3 :1 Velocity= 2.73 fps
Permanent Liner Required
Permanent Liner Design Calculation
Manning's Roughness n
Channel Velocity
Normal Depth
Shear Stress
Liner Type
0.022
3.44
0.59
0.52
Jute Net
0.021
3.57
0.58
0.51
Fiberglass Roving
0.033
2.54
0.69
0.61
Straw with Net
0.035
2.43
0.70
0.62
Curled Wood Mat
0.025
0.00
Synthetic Liner
0.033
11' Gravel (D50)
0.041
0.00
2" Gravel (D50)
0.069
0.00
6' Rip -Rap (D50)
0.078
0.00
12" Rip -Rap (D50)
Use PP5.8 Extended Term TRM 7771
Don'I Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Note: Mannings Roughness Coefficients are based on normal flow depths between 0.5' and 2.0'. If Flow depth
IS out of this range, adjust Roughness n values appropriately.

Worksheet for Swale 5-Liner Calc
Project Description
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient
0.020
Channel Slope
0.01000
tuft
Left Side Slope
3.00
ft/ft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
3.00
Wit (H:V)
Discharge
7.31
ft-/s
Results
Normal Depth
0.79
ft
Flow Area
1.89
ft-
Wetted Perimeter
5.02
ft
Hydraulic Radius
0.38
It
Top Width
4.76
If
Critical Depth
0.82
it
Critical Slope
0.00842
fVft
Velocity
3.87
ff/s
Velocity Head
0.23
If
Specific Energy
1.03
It
Froude Number
1.08
Flow Type
Supercritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth
0.00
It
Length
0.00
It
Number Of Steps
0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth
0.00
ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss
0.00
It
Downstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Upstream Velocity
Infinity
ft/s
Normal Depth
0.79
ft
Critical Depth
0.82
It
Channel Slope
0.01000
Wit
Critcal Slope
0.00842
fVft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Hassled Methods SoI01AcW*FAswMaster V81 (SELECTserles 1) [08.11.01.03]
2/412011 9:28:04 AM 27 Siemens Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1.203.755.1666 Page 1 of 1

I
Diversion Ditch Liner Design Sheet
Project: 30032 Diversion Number., IPermanent Swale 5
Designed By: WZS (Revised)
Date: 2/4/2011
Note: This spreadsheet is only applicable to diversions with longitudinal slopes less
than 10%. Channels greater than 10 % should be designed via alternate means.
Flowmaster Data and Calculation Output
Q= 7.31 cfs Manning Roughness= 0.020
s= 0.01 Normal Depth= 0.79 ft.
Side slopes= 3 :1 Velocity= 3.87 fps
[remporary Lining Required
Temporary Liner Design Calculation
Manning's Roughness n
Channel Velocity
Normal Depth
Shear Stress
Liner Type
0.015
4.80
0.71
0.44
Woven Paper Net
0.022
3.61
0.82
0.51
Jute Net
0.021
3.73
0.81
0.51
Fiberglass Roving
0.033
2.66
0.96
0.60
Straw with Net
0.035
2.55
0.98
0.61
Curled Wood Mat
11 0.025
1
1
1 0.00
Synthetic Mat
DonY Use
Don'f Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use PP5-8 Extended Term Excelsior Matting
Note: Mannings Roughness Coefficients are based on normal Flow depths between 0.5' and 2.0'. If flow depth
Is out of this range, adjust Roughness n values appropriately.

Permanent Channel Liner Design (10 Year Storm)
Flowmaster Data and Calculation Output
Q= 1 .31 lets Manning Roughness-
0
s= .01 Normal Depth= 0.92 ft.
Side slopes= 3 :1 Velocity= 2.86 fps
Permanent Liner Required
Permanent Liner Design Calculation
Manning's Roughness n
Channel Velocity
Normal Depth
Shear Stress
Liner Type
0.022
3.61
0.82
0.51
Jute Net
0.021
3.73
0.81
0.51
Fiberglass Roving
0.033
2.66
0.96
0.60
Straw with Net
0.035
2.55
0.98
0.61
Curled Wood Mat
0.025
0.00
Synthetic Liner
0.033
0.00
1" Gravel (D50)
0.041
0.00
2" Gravel (D50)
0.069
1 0.00
6" Rip -Rap (D50)
0.078
1
1 0.00
12' Rip -Rap (D50)
Use PPS-8 Extended Term Excelsior Matting
Don? Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Use
Note: Mannings Roughness Coefficients are based on normal flow depths between 0.5' and 2.0'. If flow depth
Is out of this range, adjust Roughness n values appropriately.

IRiP R1,2 PEaaeat�r� �issi rea Ccal�cal�t6®aa�

3Do
eOutlet _ W = Do r 0.4La 120
pipe i I J :
diameter(Do) L"'.� I!i�
O.SDo i:100
II I I I .l
90 I' I ll n I 11 l
'I lllf I I ur
I 1 601 l ry m u u
, I Ali
70
0C� 60
.
�LI I�
50
40 i Y
r��lti I t I �i �l I
ti� rF a
JU
2 v a O
20 l l I r I I it l y I N
I I I lIIII I 1 1
/I r. I•^ry vJ
U„CL
Mt X
'
D
IIII I '' :Ill v_75. �h _ .I 'o
l; I..,. 2 ,..
l r . .(/ J //5 •10 20 � 50 100 200 500 1 1000
��" q•/, Discharge (11 Isec)
' Curves may not be extrapolated
Figure 0.066 Design of ontlal proteclmn from a round pipe flowing full, maximum laifwater condition (Tw e 0.5 diameter).
Q:y,74cii
C, ,Vrsr A = L p= A sr�
t
..,.-, Vh. '• PO to•.I�q : 1,'t` r o•� tvi =3 r.45
Du' I t0 PtPr= Yo Re,. 12/9J
h7ti�- 5
�,� �r•ers-rya, use s,....� t�r,.c �.t �,11� Rf+t' �op..Cuu��j' i�,

20
10
u
Appendices
3
3
7
3 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000
Discharge (ft3/sec)
Curves may not be extrapolated.
Figure 0.06a Design of outlet protection protection from a round pipe flowing full, minimum tailwater condition (T. < 0.5 diameter).
Z: Iva g�„a D,sc HwP�n = 3.secFS
L= tot
w,=3t3=3�t.zS�= 3�5�
Rev. 12/93 8.06.3
F

f"
1
I
�
�
�*4 w'r. a� ,r t
i �
r
�,r +;
j
�. ,
�
{'
]'
�
...
i ,
i
'
�;,�;
a
I
� p � �
'
�
�' I.
'
�
� . ., s�
� "
{;
I
i;,d
�
�
�
i t
r� ;
1.��� x
{
�,
,�'
'
;'
��
i
�
t
�
� T ', r
i`,
�
� . � �
�',t f
. �'
�. .
{ �
1
�
1,
i..
I
�.
,. x > .'
.� �� �
{ 1 _ � � � d
� I .I F
�, � ,. 1
�� + , , � �.
`� i` , Ir; �. � � �4a<{;
�� � t � ' .
:,
{ �
�Yt � � <� �
� �, • � �
� . ; ' � � � a�.�,
' a ,'r> ,� � � � i , �; ��
�. ��� _ (' : r:.r
���
1 � a �
�` �
� �� � �,
�, ,� � i
� �. r }
v Pn' � "- � i E 1.
�,j1, t h a. ^: �'
qi � f _
It r � � k
� , .� , � � ni>k.
{ �,, ix
! i ;• � �
�`
� , � , � : � I ��,�:
�j � , t � , r.�;.
7 �, c � ,�
I � � ;�
a, � ,��
! � ;�,�� a ,a. t� ,;._� �
a
��; ., � , ,
� � . � , , ;.
� +,r � �
�12 �r ., j
��
,���
�::��a
a : _ ,i .
�1, � "a i
f ,J � s � i
� � �'
"�=
�n ': � �' � , �,.�<
' ;1 �
1 j
� ; .r I ? ,t
�� � V � � 1�T � � I
� �' 1
1, ��,� '.
i ��.3:
� , �, � t�
I�
�, , ; ,. j i i,�'
{V[[ � `"
I w
.,� � i t 1 "
� � � a-'
" SS
�' E n� :�''l� �iR'�„�, ,

u
.i
♦i I
~
t ♦
l
Y
a I
a \
,
J
1
}
\
t
{
,
I
`�`
..
♦�. is \
I
'
`
Y ,
\
I
t
\
^
.\♦
i
I
♦ a b
�
\
...... ...
r`
. rye.
,
r
t
4 `
�f
a
R
I
+
r
R
_I

TIMMONS GROUP .•••••�
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. • e
5410 Trinity Road, Suite 112, Raleigh, NC 27607
To: NCDENR Wilmington Regional Office
Attn: Ms. Kelly Johnson
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
From: Zak Shipman, PE
Project: Stormwater Permit -Pre -Trial Confinement Facility
Enclosed Please Find:
DATE
2
4-20-11
Revised Stormwater Drawings
2
Revised Supplement Forms
1
Revised Calculation Packa e
1
Response To Comment Letter
1
Architectural Roof Plan
Comments:
Ms.Johnson,
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
SIGNED:
k Shipman, PE
APR 2 1 2011

TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
April 19, 2011
NCDENR Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attn: Ms. Kelly Johnson
Re: Request for Additional Information, Project SW8 110326
Pre -Trial Confinement Facility
Camp Lejeune, NC
Dear Ms. Johnson,
APR 2 1 2011
We are in receipt of your April 14 letter for the reference project requesting additional
information. We have made revisions to the permit application package in accordance with
your comments, which are summarized as follows:
1. Drainage Easement: Please provide a drainage easement for each BMP and show the
dimensions of the easement on the plan.
Timmons Response: Per our email conversation on 4/14, drainage easements are not
required on this site as the property is owned by the federal government and has
access to the ponds for maintenance.
2. Inverts: Please show all inverts including the swales and underdrains.
Timmons Response: Inverts have been shown on the swale centerlines and on the
underdrains on the detail sheets.
3. Roof Drainage: Please show the roof drainage pipes on the plan in combination with
enough information to describe how the drainage area on the roof will be split into the
two drainage areas.
✓ Timmons Response: I have included a roof plan from the architect showing the
direction of slope, as well as gutter and downspout locations.
4. Dimensions: Please fully dimension the buildings, parking, and sidewalks.
Timmons Response: A site layout plan is included, showing building dimensions, as
well as other site layout data for impervious calculation.
5. Trash Rack: Please show that the trash rack openings will be no larger than 6"X6".
immons Response: Sheets C-507 and C-508 have been modified to require the 6"X6" ✓T
spacing.
6. Elevations: Please check BMP elevations. For instance, for cell #1 the supplement
shows the temporary/ponding pool to be at 27.00, but the plans show it at 26.74 msl.
n/ The SHWT also differs.
Timmons Response: I have double checked the BMP elevations and made
adjustments accordingly. For Cell 1, we have shown the temporary pool to be the top
P
F

4,
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
of the riser (El. 27.00) and have also shown the DENR water quality volume stage (El.
26.74) on the section view on sheet C-507. I have made a note on each supplement
form to clarify so that they are consistent through the plans and supplement forms. I
have also adjusted the SHWT elevation on the supplement to match the plans.
7. Grass: Please specify sod as opposed to seed and indicate the type of grass to be
planted. No mulch is required for grassed cells. Please remove the 2" mulch from the
supplement.
Timmons Response: Sheets C-507 anclC-508 have been modified to require sod on the
basin bottom and slope. The 2" mulch layer has been removed as requested.
8. Surface Area: Please show the dimensions and radii of lines/arcs formed by the planting
elevations (the surface area of the cells) on the plans.
Timmons Response: Dimensions and radii have been added to the detail sheets as
'needed.
9. Project area: Please indicate the area that will be covered by the permit on the plan.
Timmons Response: The project site is represented on the grading drawing C-108 as a
✓ gray dashed line. I have put a leader indicating it is the project limits.
10. Wetlands: Please delineate wetlands or include a note that none exist onsite.
Timmons Response: A note has been added to C-108 indicating there are no
jurisdictional wetlands on site.
11. Stamped: Please submit a stamped cover page. It appears that this was inadvertently
left off of the copy previously submitted.
Timmons Response: A sealed cover sheet has been included.
12. Surface Areas: The supplement forms are set up to show only one surface area, though
the surface area at the planting elevation and the surface area at the temporary pool
are slightly different due to the slope of the cell sides between the two elevations. It
appears that you have identified both surface areas for both cells, or perhaps there are
some typos. Please clarify the surface areas at both the planting elevation and the
temporary pool elevation for each cell (if you are using both of them). Then, please also
ensure that you are using the surface are at the planting elevation when calculating the
draw through rate. For Cell #1, the supplement shows that the surface area is 24,223 sf
and the calculations shown that it is 14,920 sf. For Cell #2, the supplement shows that
the surface area is 4,564 sf and the calculations show that it is 3,213 sf. If the surface
areas change, please also check the resulting Q values and the underdrain pipe sizing.
Timmons Response: The supplements have been modified to represent the surface
area of the basin at the planting elevation. I had originally shown the surface areas of
the basins at the top of berm. The calculations have been double checked to ensure
the draw through rate is calculated based on the planting elevation surface area.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call at your convenience.
Best Regards,
APR 2 ). 2011 I akShipman, PE
Timmons Group
E
0
0
M
P
m
P
P

�c® NR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality.
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
April 14, 2011
Mr. Carl Baker, PE, Deputy Public Works Officer
USMC, Camp Lejeune
1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28547
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 110326
Pre -Trial Confinement Center.
Onslow County
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Dear Mr. Baker:
The Wilmington Regional Office received and accepted a State Stormwater Management Permit
Application for the subject project on March 24, 2011. A preliminary in-depth review of that
information has determined that the application is not complete. The following information is
needed to continue the stormwater review:
Plans:
a. Drainage Easement: Please provide. a drainage easement for each BMP and
show the dimensions of the easement on the plan.
b. Inverts: Please show all inverts including swales and underdrains.
c. Roof Drainage: Please show the roof drainage pipes on the plan in
combination with enough information to describe how the drainage area on
the roof will be split into the two drainage areas.
d. Dimensions: Please fully dimension the buildings, parking, and sidewalks.
e. Trash Rack: Please show that the trash rack openings will be no larger than
6"x6".
Elevations: Please check the BMP elevations. For instance, for cell #1 the
supplement shows the temporary/ponding pool to be at 27.0 but the plans
show it to be 26.74msl. The SHWT also differs.
g- Grass: Please specify sod as opposed to seed and indicate the type of grass
to be planted. No mulch is required for grassed cells. Please remove the 2"
mulch from the supplement.
h. Surface Area: Please show the dimensions and radii of lines/arcs formed by
the planting elevations (the surface areas of the cells) on the plans.
Project Area: Please indicate the area that will be covered by the permit on
the plan.
Wetlands: Please delineate wetlands or include a note that none exist onsite
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer service: 1-877-623-6748 North Carol l ll<1 Internet: w .ncvvaterquality.orgI
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer Aa mra �tl

SW8 110326
April 14, 2011
2. Design Calculations:
a. Stamped: Please submit a stamped cover page. It appears that this was
inadvertently left off of the copy previously submitted.
b. Surface Areas: The supplement forms are set up to show only one surface
area, though the surface area at the planting elevation and the surface area
at the temporary pool will be slightly different due to the slope of the cell sides
between the two elevations. It appears that you have identified both surface
areas for both cells, or perhaps there are some typos. Please clarify the
surface areas at both the planting elevation and the temporary pool elevation
for each cell (if you are using both of them). Then, please also ensure that
you are using the surface area at the planting elevation when calculating the
draw through rate. For cell #1, the supplement shows that the surface area is
24,223sf and the calculations show that it is 14,920sf. For cell #2, the
supplement shows that the surface area is 4,564 and the calculations show
that it is 3,213. If the surface areas change, please also check the resulting
Q values and the underdrain pipe sizing.
Please remember that a change to one number may have a domino effect on
other numbers. Please check all plans, calculations and forms and make
changes as needed.
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 May 13, 2011, or the
application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of
all required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail, email or fax your request for a
time extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The
request must indicate the date by which you expect to submit the required information. The
Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed application to issue the permit.
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 reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. Any original
documents that need to be revised have been sent to the engineer or agent. All original
documents must be returned or new originals must be provided. Copies are not acceptable. If
you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] or
email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
eellyJ nson
Environmental Engineer
GDS/kpj: S:\WQS\Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2011\110326 HD\2011 04 addinfo 110326
cc: Zak Shipman, PE, Timmons Group
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
Page 2 o f 2

ectName: Yv�•T�At (A�;Mp""� I Revweraf �^r�r�srs'1 Date'a3_j��p_`P11
ect Received Date:.}U (�r.QfU ii �I t ffent /Rai tari /rirrin nnol
Rule(s) Subject (check all that app�lly):�� i Symbols for completing form: '✓'= Yes/OK: ' x '= No/Deficiot:'nia' or T or'/'
❑ 1995 Coastal Wi 8 Coastal ❑ Phase II ❑ Universal
Paperwork:
❑ Check for $505 (must be no older than 6 months)
❑ Application form with correct/original signatures (original plus 1 copy). If Corporation or LLC also:
o Print the info from the NCSOS
o . Either,-1.) The applicant; is listed on the N SOSSwith"his/her correct title or, 2.).A notarizedletter of
authorization has been provided
� �� 1
❑—Supplementsr(1,onginalperiBMP). BMP,type(s): �' in'�;tFj�}—((�n,`f_��V
❑ O&M with-correctloriginal signatures (1-original per BMP, except level'spreaders/filter strips'and'swales)
❑ Deed restrictions(if outparcel cr-subdividing) (original plus 1 copy)
o' Deed restriction template (signed and notarized) or
0-Proposed Declaration of Covenants and Restricticns_(signed and notaprized)�
❑ oils report identifying the-SHWT
❑ 'Su pportingg�calculatlons,signed,& sealed_(ifnecessary)�A�
❑ Receivin stream classificational If SA or ORW also: [_'
o --SA: �USGS topol,map'with.the-site,4he receiving waters and the mile radius shown to scale.
`o ORW: 575 It of MHWL for Area of Environmental Concern and max BUA per rule.
❑ Modifications: 1.) If built: Designer's Cert., 2.) If partially built: Partial Cert., 3.) If not built: No Cart, needed.
Development Type (check all that apply):
D Residential or ❑ Commercial r:❑ Deed,restrictions match?
❑ Subdivision �V or) ❑ Single Lot //� O Deed restrictions match?
❑ High Densityor t ❑Low Density I O Deed restrictions match?
❑ Offsite project U ❑ Redevelopment �❑ Modification ❑ Exempt
❑ NCG02 (bulkhead) D NCG03 (clear/grade) ❑ NCG04 (linear)
Density:
❑ BOA:calculations include common areas, clubhouse, sidewalks, etc. ✓
❑ BUA C \ -Matches high/low density requirement for rule and receiving stre. class
❑ No -obvious mathlerrorsvI ��; �l i �/ ���
❑ If High D� �Aensity: Design storm -correct for rule and receiving stream class.
Plans, signed and sealed`(2 sets):y' f I
❑ Two sets received ❑ Layout (with proposed BUA dimensions)
❑ Grading ❑ Drainage area map (all HD systems & curb outlet swales)
D Vicinity map ❑ Project Boundaries (� � ❑ Legend
❑ �N/etlands: �� f l//
/\ Deli neated�onplans� (\10 No�wetlandsonsite on -plans
D vDetails:' \i l�� V_t�u , c�/ o i
o Roads o Cul-de-sacs o Curbing / o Sidewalk
o BMPs! Level spreaders/ Filter strips/ Curb outlet swales/ o Buildings (Apts or Condos)
Offsite Projects:
❑ Designer's Certification has been submitted for the Offsite BMP receiving the runoff from the project.
❑ Deed restrictions have been recorded and a copy submitted for the Offsite BMP permit.
❑ Lot size has not changed from what was approved under the Master Plan.
Correct lot number is referenced on the supplement form.
_ ❑ Offsite system is in compliance with its permit, if known.
Infiltration Projects:
❑ Soils report: SHWT, soil type, and expected infiltration rate are provided.
❑ DWO has conducted a site visit? Date:
Wet Ponds: Permanent Pool Meets One of the Following:
D Is located no lower than 6" below the estimated SHWT.
❑ Incoming groundwater is quantified and evaluated, AND Storage volume verified, AND Outlet evaluated for free
drainage to the receiving waters under SHWT conditions.
Decision (check one):
D Complete: Return file to admin (Jo Casmer) to log in. (Stamped in received date = BIMS date)
❑ Shr htly incomplete: E-mail consultant, request inrermation to be returned within one business day (24 hours after
request. Info requests on Friday, allow a return on the following business day). If info not returned. issue an
applicatinn return letter and give e/eryfhing to admin. (.Add info received date = Blnne d7fe)
❑ Substantially incomplete: Issue an application return letter and give evervthing to admin.

17'
Storm water Design Narrative MAR
2.
Pre -Trial Confinement Facility -Camp Lejeune, NC
Project Overview
The Pre -Trial Confinement Facility is a new project that proposes to construct a two story brig facility
which will be used to house detainees prior to their processing by the military justice system. The
facility will have a total of 75 beds and will be constructed to accommodate a future expansion up to
135 beds. The building will feature pre -cast tilt wall construction and steel framing with a brick veneer
exterior. The site is approximately 8 acres in size and is currently vacant.
Existing Site Conditions and Demolition:
The site selected for the Pre -Trial Confinement Facility is located adjacent to the intersection of Duncan
Street and Snead's Ferry Road inside the cantonment area of Camp Lejeune. The site is heavily wooded,
except for a small cleared area located along the southwestern border of the project site. An existing
barracks building and associated parking lot are located along the western border of the site. The
existing base brig is located southwest of this barracks facility. Existing basketball and volleyball courts
are located in the cleared area on the west of the site, along with a small picnic shelter and several small
storage buildings. Additionally, the site is bounded to the east by a dirt tank trail and a small
intermittent stream. This stream is an unnamed tributary to Cogdels Creek and is classified by North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as SC -NSW.
Topography on the parcel is generally flat with some areas of moderate grade located in the vicinity of
the adjacent stream. Soils on site are classified as Baymeade fine sand by the local soils survey. No
wetlands have been documented on the parcel as indicated by the RFP provided by the government.
Several existing features are currently located on the site that will require removal or demolition. These
include exercise equipment, a volleyball court, basketball court, and covered picnic shelter.
Drainage and Stormwater Considerations:
Stormwater will be managed on site by carefully grading area to direct runoff into a network of
vegetated swales and treatment basins. Curb and gutter has been minimized as much as possible to
encourage sheet flow. Additionally, a minimal amount of hard piping is proposed which will require
runoff to travel long distances in vegetated swales prior to entering BMP facilities.
NCDENR regulations require the treatment of the first inch and a half of runoff for the removal of Total
Suspended Solids (TSS). This project seeks to meet these requirements by directing all runoff into one
of three stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) basins. Two bioretention basins will be installed
to treat surface runoff per the regulations.
Bioretention basins 1 and 2 will be constructed in accordance with NCDENR BMP manual. Runoff will
enter these basins via combinations of sheet flow as well as from vegetated swales. Runoff from the
swales will flow over energy dissipating rip rap pads to slow velocity and promote sediment removal and
filtration. The basins will feature a thick layer of soil media which will filter the runoff and remove
pollutants and other contaminants. Perforated underdrains are to be installed in the basins per the

construction drawings to allow for more efficient water removal from the soil media. While the
maximum ponding depth is limited to 12 inches, the basins are sized accordingly to prevent discharge
from the 1 and 2 year storms. Both basins have very small discharges in the 10, 25, and 100 year storms
as indicated on the plan sheets. These extended detention capacities have eliminated the need for a
complicated bypass system to parse out runoff in excess of the design control volume.

r1utip"ns;;nEc!
Geotechnirol-F.nvironmentnl • Tesfbq
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
P-1310 Pre -Trail Detainee Facility
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
G E T PROJECT NO: JX10-113G
November 24, 2010
IfW
Prepared for
. Kahn Construction Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 1179
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
ATTN: Mr. Barret Boozer
Prepared by
GET Solutions, Inc.
415 A Western Boulevard, Jacksonville, NC 28546 ♦ Phone [phone] ♦ Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
-- -- --- -- -- -—III-__---

Solutions„Inca
November 24, 2010
Gmmimirn! • Enm"n ... etlnl. rwmg
TO: M.B. Kahn Construction Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 1179
Columbia, SC 29202
Attn: Mr. Barret Boozer
RE: Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
Dear Mr. Boozer:
In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Subsurface Investigation and
Geotechnical Engineering Services for the above referenced project. The results of this
study, together with our recommendations, are presented in this report.
Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise
concerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to continue its
role as Geotechnical Engineer during the project implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. We trust that the information
contained herein meets your immediate need, and should you have any questions or if we
could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully Submitted, ,,•`"' CAg 1,
G E T Solutions, Inc. r4O oFEssfo'�4y'•,,
✓� n Q y s
PE No. r
033629
Glenn W. Hohmeier, P.E. �NGIN" V
Senior Project Engineer w„� ty, Ho �+ ��
NC Reg. # 033529
ARO
Camille A. Kattan, P.E. - ? srnt
Principal Engineer 014103 =
NC Reg. # 014103
`VC INC .-"Z1
Copies: (1) Client
415-A Western Boulevard • Jacksonville, NC 28546 • Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]_

A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................i
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION..............................................................................1
1.1 Project Authorization..............................................................................1
1.2 Project Description.................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services.............................................................1
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES..................................................2
2.1 Field Exploration....................................................................................2
2.2 Laboratory Testing.................................................................................3
3.0
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................4
3.1 Site Location and Description................................................................4
3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions....................................................................5
3.3 Groundwater Information.......................................................................6
4.0
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................7
4.1 Subsurface Voids...................................................................................7
4.2 Clearing and Grading.............................................................................8
4.3 Subgrade Preparation............................................................................9
4.4 Structural Fill and Placement...............................................................10
4.5 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations...................................11
4.6 Settlements..........................................................................................11
4.7 Foundation Excavations.......................................................................11
4.8 Floor Slabs...........................................................................................12
4.9 Seismic Design Recommendations.....................................................13
4.10 Soil Permeability..................................................................................13
5.0
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................14
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns.................................................14
5.2 Site Utility Installation...........................................................................14
5.3 Excavations.........................................................................................15
6.0
REPORT LIMITATIONS.................................................................................15
APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX II BORING LOGS
APPENDIX III GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
APPENDIX IV ADDENDUM NO.1 TOTHE ORIGINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTED
ON
THE DATE OF FEBRUARY 19, 2010 (GET Project No. EC09-106G)
APPENDIX V HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX VI CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
November 24, 2010
The project site is located on the west side of Sneads Ferry Road within the Camp
LeJeune military installation in North Carolina. The development at this site is planned
to consist of constructing a single story pre-trial detainee facility with a mezzanine
having a total plan area of approximately 25,000 square feet. The maximum wall and
column foundation loads associated with the structure were not known at the time of this
report. However, based on our experience with similar projects the maximum wall loads
associated with the building are not expected to exceed 5 kips per linear foot, and the
column loads are not expected to exceed 100 kips. The structure's first floor will be
supported on -grade with the distributed loads estimated at 150 pounds per square foot.
The construction at this site is also planned to consist of paved driveways and parking
areas, infiltration/bioretention basins and installation of associated infrastructure
components.
Our field exploration program included four (4) recently completed 30-foot deep
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings drilled by G E T Solutions, Inc. within the
footprint of the proposed structure, and four (4) 15-foot deep SPT boring (designated as
BMP-1 through BMP-4) drilled within the proposed infiltration/bioretention basins. A total
of four (4) 75-foot deep previously completed SPT borings identified as B-5 through B-8
and four (4) CPT soundings (CPT-1 through CPT-4) were performed during the project's
initial feasibility study and were included in our evaluations for foundation design
recommendations for the proposed building. Additionally, boring INF-1 is included
herein but was limited to evaluating the soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed
southeastern infiltration/bioretention basin. A brief description of the natural subsurface
soil conditions is tabulated below:
RANGES OF
AVERAGE
STRATUM
DESCRIPTION
SPTI'I N-
DEPTH (Feet)
VALUES
0 to 0.17-1.2
2 to 14 inches of Topsoil
0.17-1.2
SAND with varying amounts of silt and/or clay
to
I
WOH to 100
(SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC)
15-75
4 to 6
IA
Lean CLAY (CL); Boring B-5 & B-11 only
5 to 8
7 to 7.5 &
N/A @ B-6;
IB
Fat CLAY (CH); Boring B-6 & B-9 only
23 to 28
1 @ B-9
28 to 32
Void; Borings B-7 and B-8 only
N/A
MARLSTONE; at varying depths between 30 and
30 to 58
IC
58 feet below the existing site grades at
32 to 77
Borings B-6, B-7, and B-8
Note (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, N-Values in Blows -per -foot
WOH — Weight of Hammer
GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November 24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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 8 to 10 feet below
current grades at the B-9 through B-12 boring locations, which corresponds to an
elevation of about 20.0 feet (MSL). In addition, four (4) temporary piezometers were
installed at the boring BMP-1 through BMP-4 locations at the time of drilling and 24 hour
groundwater readings were measured to occur at depths ranging from 4.8 to 5.29 feet
below current grades (boring locations BMP-1 and BMP-2) which corresponds to an
approximate elevation of 27.0 feet MSL and at depths of 9.875 to 9.92 feet below
current grades (boring locations BMP-3 and BMP-4) which corresponds to an
approximate elevation of 20.0 feet MSL.
The soil sample colors were used to aid in identifying the estimated normal SHWT at
the location of borings BMP-1 through BMP-4. It is noted that soil morphology is not a
reliable indicator of the SHWT in drained soils. However, slight color distinctions were
observed within the soil samples collected at the location of borings BMP-1 through
BMP-4. As such, the normal SHWT depth was estimated to occur at approximately 4
feet below the existing site grade elevation at boring locations BMP-1 and BMP-2 and at
approximately 6 feet below the existing site grade elevation at boring locations BMP-3
and BMP-4.
The current groundwater levels encountered at the project site and the estimated
normal SHWT depths are anticipated to be contributed to the varying site topography
and possible perched groundwater conditions specifically at boring BMP-1 and BMP-2
locations.
The following 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).
A cut of up to 14 inches will be required to remove the topsoil material from the
construction area.
• Some subgrade improvements should be anticipated within the construction
areas (undercutting and backfilling with select fill) as a result of potentially very
loose subgrade soils containing appreciable amounts of fines (silt and clay) and
organics (vicinity of boring locations B-9 and B-10).
;; GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November 24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
• Subsurface voids approximately 2-feet deep were encountered at the location of
the initially completed borings B-7 and B-8 at depths of 28 to 30 feet, respectively
below the existing site grade elevations. Subsequently, a supplemental
subsurface investigation (Addendum No. 1 to the original feasibility study) was
completed to further explore the subsurface soil conditions at the location of the
new building site (shifted to the east). Four (4) Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT)
soundings were performed as part of Addendum No. 1 within the newly
established building footprint which did not encounter these voids. Addendum
No. 1 to the original feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010
(GET Project No. EC09-106G) is included in Appendix IV of this report.
The building was again relocated to the west since the time Addendum 1 was
completed. The initially drilled borings were plotted onto the new site plan
provided by the client. One boring (B-8) was determined to be located within the
northwest portion of the newly positioned building footprint. It should be noted
that no voids were encountered within the recently completed borings B-9
through B-12 and previously completed borings B-5, B-6 and CPT soundings
CPT-1 through CPT-4 to depths of 30 to 36 feet.
The subsurface voids, where encountered, can be addressed by means of
pressure grout placement (injection) to fill the voids and prevent the potential for
subsidence from occurring and resulting in foundation and/or slab -on -grade
settlement. It is recommended that a grout injection specialty contractor develop
the number, depths, and locations of the injection points.
Other options would include shifting the building easterly away from boring B-8;
supporting that portion of the building on deep foundations (such as auger cast
piles) or assuming some risk associated with the subsurface voids and leave the
building at the present location. In any case, additional void delineation efforts
may be warranted, by means of advancing several CPT probes within the
western building area.
• Shallow foundations designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf
(24-inch embedment, 24-inch width) in combination with void stabilization, if
deemed necessary.
• Estimated post -construction total and differential settlements up to 1-inch and''/z
inch, respectively, as contributed by the foundation bearing soils.
• Based on our experience with similar construction in the general area of the
project site and in accordance with the previously completed Addendum No. 1 to
the original feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010 (GET
Project No. EC09-106G included in Appendix IV of this report) and the NC
Building Code; Chapter 16, this site would be classified as a site Class C.
GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November 24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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.
iv GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24,2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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 P-1310 Pre -Tail Detainee Facility located within the
Camp LeJeune military installation in North Carolina. The Geotechnical Engineering
Services were conducted in general accordance with G E T Solutions, Inc. Proposal No.
PJX10-120G, dated October 6, 2010. Furthermore, these services were provided in
conjunction with our previously completed feasibility study reported on the date of April 17,
2009 (GET Project No. EC09-106G) and Addendum No. 1 dated February 19, 2010.
Authorization to proceed with the Geotechnical Engineering Services was received from Mr.
Barret Boozer of M.B. Kahn Construction Company, Inc.
1.2 Project Description
The development at this site is planned to consist of constructing a single story pre-trial
detainee facility with a mezzanine having a total plan area of approximately 25,000 square
feet. It is expected that the structure will be of steel frame and CMU wall design. The
maximum wall and column foundation loads associated with the structure were not known
at the time of this report. However, based on our experience with similar projects the
maximum wall loads associated with the building are not expected to exceed 5 kips per
linear foot, and the column loads are not expected to exceed 100 kips. The structure's first
floor will be supported on -grade with the distributed loads estimated at 150 pounds per
square foot. The structure's first floor elevation (FFE=35.0 MSL) is expected to be located
slightly above existing site grade elevations, which range from approximately 27 feet to 31
feet (MSL) within the building footprint. Therefore, it is anticipated that 4 to 7 feet of
structural fill will be required to establish the design grade elevations. The construction at
this site is also planned to consist of paved driveways and parking areas,
infiltration/bioretention basins and installation of associated infrastructure components.
If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform G E T Solutions,
Inc. so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate.
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:
General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the
proposed development.
1 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geolechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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 or surficial/subsurface organics.
3. Soil subgrade preparation, including stripping, grading and compaction.
Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of approved structural fill
material.
4. Construction considerations for fill placement, subgrade preparation, and
foundation excavations.
5. Feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the proposed
structure. Design parameters required for the foundation system, including
foundation sizes, allowable bearing pressures, foundation levels and
expected total and differential settlements.
Permeability (infiltration) values are provided based on the results of in -situ
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Testing conducted within the proposed
infiltration/bioretention basins as well as our experience with similar soil
conditions. Normal seasonal high groundwater table (SHWT) was also
estimated.
The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the
presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock,
surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Prior to development of
this site, an environmental assessment is advisable.
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
2.1 Field Exploration
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
foundation parameters, four (4) 30-foot deep SPT borings (designated as B-9 through B-
12) were drilled within the proposed structure's footprint.
To aid in developing associated storm water management parameters, four (4) 15-foot
deep SPT boring (designated as BMP-1 through BMP-4) were drilled within the proposed
infiltration/bioretention basins. In -situ soil permeability testing was performed at each of
these boring locations. Four (4) temporary piezometers were also installed (one at each of
the boring locations).
Solutlonslricl� ,`='is�:.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
The SPT borings were performed with the use of rotary wash "mud" drilling procedures in
general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The tests were performed continuously from the
existing ground surface to a depth 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, using an automatic
hammer. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment of
penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third
penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value (uncorrected for automatic hammer). A
representative portion of each disturbed split -spoon sample was collected with each SPT,
placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review.
Following the exploration procedures, the borings were backfilled with a neat cement grout mix
in accordance with NCDENR requirements, excluding the four (4) infiltration/bioretention
boring locations (Boring BMP-1 through BMP-4) where piezometers were installed.
The recently completed borings were performed in conjunction with, and labeled
consecutively with the previously completed borings associated with the project's feasibility
study reported on the date of April 17, 2009 (GET Project No. EC09-106G). Accordingly,
the four (4) 75-foot deep SPT borings identified as B-5 through B-8 performed during our
initial feasibility study for the proposed project, which are located in the vicinity of the
proposed reconfigured building footprint, are included herein and in our evaluations for
foundation design recommendations for the proposed building. Additionally, boring INF-1 is
included herein but was limited to evaluating the soil conditions in the vicinity of the
proposed southeastern infiltration/bioretention basin. Whereas, the remaining borings
performed during the initial feasibility study identified as B-1 through B-4 are not included in
this report as they were located outside the limits of the proposed building.
Boring locations B-9 through B-12 were established and staked in the field by a
representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. with the use of a Global Positions System unit as
well as the "State Plane" coordinates provided by the client. Boring locations BMP-1
through BMP-4 were surveyed in the field by the client. The approximate boring locations
are shown on the attached "Boring Location Plan" (Appendix 1), which was reproduced
based on the site plan provided by the client.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass jars
and zip lock bags, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis.
The soil classification was performed by a Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with ASTM
D2488.
Seventeen (17) representative soil samples were selected and subjected to laboratory
testing, which included natural moisture, 4200 sieve wash and Atterberg Limit testing and
analysis, in order to corroborate the visual classification. These test results are provided in
Table 1 on the following page and are presented on the "Boring Log" sheets (Appendix II),
included with this report.

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24,2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
Table I - Laboratory Test Results
Boring
No.
Depth
(Feet)
Natural
Moisture
0 Passing
#200
Atterberg
Limits
LL/PL/PI
USCS
Classification
B-9
4-6
22.0
32.9
Not Tested
SC-SM
B-9
8-10
26.7
25.1
Not Tested
SP-SM
B-9
23-25
69.2
90.6
70/25/45
CH
B-10
6-8
21.5
34.9
32/22/10
Sc
B-12
2-4
14.4
23.0
Not Tested
SM
BMP-1
1.5-2
15.2
31.1
Not Tested
SM
BMP-2
1.5-2
10.4
21.2
Not Tested
SM
BMP-3
3.5-4
15.7
24.0
Not Tested
SM
BMP-3
4-6
22.0
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM .
BMP-3
6-8
18.0
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP-SM
BMP-3
8-10
21.7
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP-SM
BMP-3
10-12
25.4
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP-SM
BMP-4
4.5-5
12.6
17.5
Not Tested
SM
BMP-4
4-6
9.2
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
BMP-4
6-8
16.6
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
BMP-4
8-10
19.6
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
BMP-4
10-12
21.0
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP-SM
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location and Description
The project site is located on the west side of Sneads Ferry Road within the Camp LeJeune
military installation in North Carolina. This site consists predominantly of a heavily wooded
parcel. The existing grades of the project site range from approximately 25 feet to 31 feet
(MSL). The proposed construction areas are bordered to the north by Duncan Street, to
the south by a wooded area, to the east by an existing dirt path followed by a heavily
wooded area and to the west by a combination of an existing parking lot and an existing
structure (Building 1042). An areal image of the general construction area is provided
below and was obtained from Google Earth.
GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions
The results of our recently and previously completed soil test borings indicated the
presence of approximately 2 to 14 inches of topsoil at the boring locations. Underlying the
topsoil and extending to the boring termination depths of 15, 30, and 75 feet below existing
site grades, the natural subsurface soils generally consisted of very loose to very dense
SAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC) with varying amounts of silt, clay, marine shell
fragments, and cemented sands. Trace amounts of organics were observed within these
granular soils at depths ranging from 0 to 4 feet below existing grades at the location of
borings B-9 and B-10. A shallow subsurface deposit of Lean CLAY (CL) was encountered
at the location of borings B-5 and B-11 at a depth ranging from 4 to 6 feet below existing
grades. Additionally, a deposit of Fat CLAY (CH) was encountered at the location of boring
B-6 at a depth ranging from about 7 to 7.5 feet and at B-9 at a depth ranging from about 23
to 28 feet below the existing grades.
5 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
Deposits of Marlstone, which appear to be of a limestone formation, with varying
thicknesses were encountered at the location of borings B-6, B-7, and B-8 at depths
ranging from 30 feet to 53 feet below existing grades and were noted to extend to depths
ranging from 38 feet to 58 feet. Finally, during our previous subsurface investigation, 1.5-
foot to 2-foot voids were encountered at the location of borings B-7 and B-8 at depths
ranging from 28 to 32 feet below the existing site grade elevations. It should be noted that a
supplemental subsurface investigation (Addendum No. 1) was completed to further
delineate the presence of these subsurface voids encountered in these borings. Four (4)
Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings were performed as part of Addendum No. 1
within a newly established building footprint which did not encounter these voids.
Addendum No. 1 to the original feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010
(GET Project No. EC09-106G) is included in Appendix IV of this report.
The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil
strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included on the "Boring
Log" sheets (Appendix II) and in the "Generalized Soil Profile" (Appendix III), which should
be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown
on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual
boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations.
The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and
the transition may be gradual or occur between sample intervals. It is noted that the topsoil
designation references the presence of surficial organic laden soil, and does not represent
any particular quality specification. This material is to be tested for approval prior to use.
3.3 Groundwater Information
The groundwater level was recorded at the location of borings B-9 through B-12 and as
observed through the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations.
The initial groundwater table encountered at these boring locations was measured to occur
at depths ranging from 8 to 10 feet below current grades, which corresponds to an
elevation of about 20.0 feet (MSL). In addition, four (4) temporary piezometers were
installed at the boring BMP-1 through BMP-4 locations at the time of drilling and 24 hour
groundwater readings were measured to occur at depths ranging from 4.8 to 5.29 feet
below current grades (boring locations BMP-1 and BMP-2) which corresponds to an
approximate elevation of 27.0 feet MSL and at depths of 9.875 to 9.92 feet below current
grades (boring locations BMP-3 and BMP-4) which corresponds to an approximate
elevation of 20.0 feet MSL. The piezometers were removed following the 24-hour readings
and the boreholes were backfilled.
The soils recovered from the location of borings B-9 through B-12 and BMP-1 through
BMP-4 were classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 test method. Based on
the soil texture classifications located throughout the site, the shallow subsurface soils
appeared to be relatively homogenous consisting predominantly of SAND (SC, SC-SM,
SM, SP-SM, SP).
6 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
The soil sample colors were used to aid in identifying the estimated normal SHWT at the
location of borings BMP-1 through BMP-4. It is noted that soil morphology is not a reliable
indicator of the SHWT in drained soils. However, slight color distinctions were observed
within the soil samples collected at the location of borings BMP-1 through BMP-4. As such,
the normal SHWT depth was estimated to occur at approximately 4 feet below the existing
site grade elevation at boring locations BMP-1 and BMP-2 and at approximately 6 feet
below the existing site grade elevation at boring locations BMP-3 and BMP-4.
The current groundwater levels encountered at the project site and the estimated normal
SHWT depths are anticipated to be contributed to the varying site topography and possible
perched groundwater conditions specifically at boring BMP-1 and BMP-2 locations.
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 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, our
interpretation of the soil test borings and laboratory data, and our observations during our
site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we
request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.
4.1 Subsurface Voids
Subsurface voids approximately 2-feet deep were encountered at the location of the initially
completed borings B-7 and B-8 at depths of 28 to 30 feet, respectively below the existing
site grade elevations. Subsequently, a supplemental subsurface investigation (Addendum
No. 1 to the original feasibility study) was completed to further explore the subsurface soil
conditions at the location of the new building site (shifted to the east). Four (4) Cone
Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings were performed as part of Addendum No. 1 within the
newly established building footprint which did not encounter these voids. Addendum No. 1
to the original feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010 (GET Project No.
EC09-106G) is included in Appendix IV of this report.
The building was again relocated to the west since the time Addendum 1 was completed.
The initially drilled borings were plotted onto the new site plan provided by the client. One
boring (B-8) was determined to be located within the northwest portion of the newly
positioned building footprint. It should be noted that no voids were encountered within the
recently completed borings B-9 through B-12 and previously completed borings B-5, B-6
and CPT soundings CPT-1 through CPT-4 to depths of 30 to 36 feet.
7 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
The subsurface voids, where encountered, can be addressed by means of pressure grout
placement (injection) to fill the voids and prevent the potential for subsidence from
occurring and resulting in foundation and/or slab -on -grade settlement. It is recommended
that a grout injection specialty contractor develop the number, depths, and locations of the
injection points.
Other options would include shifting the building easterly away from boring B-8; supporting
that portion of the building on deep foundations (such as auger cast piles) or assuming
some risk associated with the subsurface voids and leave the building at the present
location. In any case, additional void delineation efforts may be warranted, by means of
advancing several CPT probes within the western building area.
4.2 Clearing and Grading
The proposed construction area should be cleared by means of removing the topsoil, trees,
and associated root mat. It is estimated that a cut of up to 14 inches in depth will be
required to remove the topsoil. This cut is expected to extend deeper in isolated areas to
remove deeper deposits of organic soils, or unsuitable soils, 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.
In addition, varying amounts of organics were encountered generally in the upper 4.0 feet
of the very loose granular soils at the location of borings B-9 and B-10. Based on our
experience with similar heavily wooded areas within the Camp Lejeune military installation,
subsurface organics which may include roots, tree limbs and stumps may be present below
the current grades. Therefore, an estimated cut depth of up to about 2.0 to 4.0 feet may be
required in order to remove surficial and/or subsurface deposits of organic soils, which may
become evident during the clearing operation. Accordingly, the subgrade preparations
procedures performed during construction, as indicated in Section 4.3 of this report, should
include a series of test pit excavations to further evaluate the suitability of these soils to
remain in -place for foundation, slab, and/or pavement support.
As stated above, the subsurface soils in isolated areas (generally the upper 4.0 feet)
recovered at the location of borings B-9 and B-10 contained varying amounts of organics.
Accordingly, following the initial clearing, the resulting exposed subgrade will generally be
comprised of SAND (SM, SC-SM, and SC) containing an appreciable amount of fines (silt
and clay). 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 unstable soils and/or soils containing organics may be
required. The extent of the undercut will be determined in the field during construction,
based on the outcome of the field testing procedures (subgrade proofroll and/or possible
test pits).

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24,2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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 Course material).
Control of surface water is very important to the successful completion of the proposed
construction. The contractor should plan his grading activities to control surface water and
minimize erosion of exposed cut or fill material. This may include constructing temporary
berms, ditches, flumes and/or slope drains to intercept runoff and discharge it in a
controlled fashion, while complying with state and local regulations.
4.3 Subgrade Preparation
Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a
large static drum roller. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be
evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the subgrade soils should be
proofrolled to check for pockets of loose material hidden beneath a crust of better soil.
Several passes should be made by a large rubber -tired roller or loaded dump truck over the
construction areas, with the successive passes aligned perpendicularly. The number of
passes will be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer depending on the soils
conditions. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the
initial cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the directions of the Geotechnical
Engineer.
The prepared subgrade should be sloped to prevent the accumulation and/or ponding of
surface water. If the exposed subgrade becomes wet or frozen, the geotechnical engineer
should be consulted.
Following the proofroll and approval by the engineer, it is recommended that the newly
exposed subgrade soils be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the
Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557), as tested to a depth of at least 12
inches. The suitability of compacting the natural subgrade soils should be more accurately
determined in the field by the G E T Solutions, Inc. representative at the time of
construction as the compaction operations could deteriorate the subgrade soil conditions.
Accordingly, it is anticipated that this site will require monitoring of the clearing, subgrade
preparation, and fill placement procedures by a G E T Solutions, Inc. representative in
order to minimize potential deterioration of the natural subgrade soils. The compaction
testing of the natural subgrade soils may be waived by the Geotechnical Engineer, where
firm and stable bearing conditions are observed during the proofroll.
9 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geolechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
4.4 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.
The Silty SAND (SM) and SAND (SP-SM, SP) subsurface soils encountered at the boring
locations appear to meet the criteria recommended in this report for reuse as structural fill.
Additionally, it is anticipated that any soils excavated on -site and proposed to be re -used as
backfill, will require stockpiling and air drying in order to establish a moisture content
suitable for placement and compaction. Soil deposits excavated at the site and noted to
contain significant amounts of organics should not be used as fill and/or backfill within the
proposed construction areas. Further classification testing (natural moisture content,
gradation analysis, and Proctor testing) should be performed in the field during construction
to evaluate the suitability of excavated soils for reuse as fill within building and pavement
areas. The remaining on -site excavated soils (Topsoil, SANDS with organics, Clayey
SAND, and CLAY) are not anticipated to be suitable for re -use as structural fill but may be
used as fill within green areas.
All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the Modified
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). In general, the compaction should be
accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically
compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A representative of
G E T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure
that adequate compaction is achieved.
Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of structural
fill (as previously indicated 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.
----- ----- ----- GET _

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: Al0-113G
4.5 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations
Provided that the subsurface void issues are addressed as described in Section 4.1 and
previously stated construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed structure
can be supported by shallow spread footings bearing upon firm natural soil or well
compacted structural fill material. The footings can be designed using a net allowable soil
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the
footings and backfill over the footings, including the weight of the floor slab, need not be
considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above the finished floor need to be used for
dimensioning the footings.
In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot
(psf), the base of the footings should have an embedment of at least 24 inches beneath
finished grades and wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. In addition,
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 Settlements
It is estimated that, with proper site preparation including the subsurface improvements
noted above (where required), the maximum resulting post construction total settlement of
the proposed building foundations should be up to 1 inch, as contributed by the foundation
bearing soils. The maximum differential settlement magnitude is expected to be less than
-inch between adjacent footings (wall footings and column footings of widely varying
loading conditions), as contributed by the foundation bearing soils. The settlements were
estimated on the basis of the results of the SPT borings. Careful field control will contribute
substantially towards minimizing the settlements.
4.7 Foundation Excavations
In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into
firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill. Some foundation improvements
(undercut) may be necessary to remove unsuitable organic laden soils particularly within
the vicinity of borings B-9 and B-10 where up to 4.0 feet of Silty SAND (SM) with organics
were encountered. All foundation excavations should be observed by G E T Solutions, Inc.
At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer should also explore the extent of excessively
loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed excavations. Also, at the
time of footing observations, the Geotechnical Engineer may find it necessary to make
hand auger borings or use a hand penetration device in the bases of the foundation
excavations.
If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations,
the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with
"flowable fill", an open graded washed stone (such as No. 57 stone), or a suitable structural
„ GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24,2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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 4.4 of this report, prior to
concrete placement. 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 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) as tested to
a depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized
areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be adequately
recompacted. The compaction testing in the base of the footings may be waived by the
Geotechnical Engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the footing
inspections.
Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected
against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain 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 slab may be constructed as a slab -on -grade member 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''/z-inch or less. The slabs can be designed with the use of
a subgrade modulus on the order of about 150 psi/in.
It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or
retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the
performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor
resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions or other
considerations require greater vapor resistance protection; consideration should be given to
using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the
Architect based on project requirements.
12 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: All 0-113G
4.9 Seismic Design Recommendations:
Based on our experience with similar construction projects in the general area of the project
site, and in accordance with the previously completed Addendum No. 1 to the original
feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010 (GET Project No. EC09-106G
included in Appendix IV of this report) and the NC Building Code; Chapter 16, this site
would be classified as a site Class C, based on which seismic designs should be
incorporated. This recommendation is based on the data obtained from the 75-foot deep
SPT borings, our experience with 100-foot deep CPT soundings and SPT borings
performed within the vicinity of the project site, as well as the requirements indicated in the
North Carolina State Building Code (2006 International Building Code).
4.10 Soil Permeability
Four (4) infiltration tests were performed at boring locations BMP-1 through BMP-4 (one
test at each boring location). The tests were performed at depths ranging from 2 to 5 feet
below existing site grade elevations. The borehole was 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 the borehole. This stand holds a
calibrated reservoir (2000 ml) and a cable used to raise and lower the water control unit
(WCU). The WCU establishes a constant water head within the borehole during testing by
use of a precision valve and float assembly. The WCU was attached to the flow reservoir
with a 2-meter (6.6 foot) braided PVC hose and then lowered by cable into the borehole to
the test depth elevation. As required by the Glover solution, the WCU was suspended
above the bottom of the borehole at an elevation of approximately 5 times the borehole
diameter. The shut-off valve was then opened allowing water to pass through the WCU to
fill the borehole to the constant water level elevation. The absorption rate slowed as the
soil voids became filled and an equilibrium developed as a wetting bulb developed around
the borehole. Water was continuously added until the flow rate stabilized. The reservoir
was then re -filled in order to begin testing. During testing, as the water drained into the
borehole and surrounding soils, the water level within the calibrated 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 (C ), height
of the constant water level (H), and borehole diameter (D) were used to calculate KS
utilizing the Glover Solution.
13 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
Based on the field testing and corroborated with laboratory testing results (published values
compared to classification results), the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soils is
tabulated below (Table III) and is presented on the "Hydraulic Conductivity Worksheet"
(Appendix V), included with this report.
Table III - Infiltration Test Results
Boring
Boring
depth
ft *
Water
depth
ft*
Percent Silt
and/or Clay
Ksat
Value
cm/sec
Ksat
Value
in/hr
Ksat Class
BMP-1
2.0
4.8
31.1
T23 x 10"
0.102
Moderate/ Low
BMP-2
2.0
5.29
21.2
8.94 x 10
1.267
Moderate/ High
BMP-3
4.0
9.875
24.0
2.27 x 10
0.321
Moderate/ High
BMP-4
5.0
9.92
17.5
6.33 x 10
0.898
Moderately High
The boring test and water depths noted above are referenced from below the existing site grade
elevations.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns
It is expected that dewatering may be required for excavations that extend near or below
the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be
accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level
may require well pointing.
It would be advantageous to construct all fills early in the construction. If this is not
accomplished, disturbance of the existing site drainage could result in collection of surface
water in some areas, thus rendering these areas wet and very loose. Temporary drainage
ditches should be employed by the contractor to accentuate drainage during construction.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove water from the
excavations, remove saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface soils
to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
5.2 Site Utility Installation
The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the pip
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 4.4 of
this report.
4 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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 and their consultants for
the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations
from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction,
G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the
foundation recommendations are required. If G E T Solutions, Inc. is not retained to
perform these functions, G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be responsible for the impact of
those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.
The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications or
professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally
accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other
warranties are implied or expressed.
15 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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 M.B. Kahn
Construction Company, Inc. and their consultants for the specific application to the
proposed P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility project located within the Camp LeJeune
military installation in North Carolina.
16 GET

APPENDICES
BORING LOCATION PLAN
f I l• Zi7 � I� [e7 �iZe�9
III GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
IV ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE ORIGINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
REPORTED ON THE DATE OF FEBRUARY 19, 2010 (GET
Project No. EC09-106G)
V HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET
VI CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

0

GET
BORING LOG
B-5
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.5' MS'
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': S 9' AFTER 24 HOURS: - CAVING> .0
c
>
>
W
n m
y v
a Eo
o, v
m �,
Description
o,
w
o
E Z
in
o- >
E$
co
d
E
N
3 12
o y>
m n
Z
o
N
yt
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
3
6
8
10
12
7
7
7
7
4
6
3.1•
14 inches of TOPSOIL
',
1
24
SS
1
?
2
1.2
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose
2
3
4
24
24
20
SS
SS
ss
2
3
4
n
4
4
s
5
s
�5
Gray, moist, Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM), loose
4.
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Lean CLAY (CL), medium stiff
6
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), very
loose to loose
Light Gray and with clay from 8 to 15 feel
Wet from 9 feet
Light Tan from 10 feet
Reddish Tan from 13 feel
With clay from 23 to 28 feet
Dark Gray from 28 feel
38
Dark Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
2
5
20
5
is
SS
4
s
5
3
-
4
io
6
24
SS
3
J
4
7
Zl
SS
a
4
15
5
5
8
14
SS
3
c
3
10
20
25
9
16
SS
3
3
4
5
10
E
10
18
SS
Z
2
0
39
5
11
20
SS
2
3
4
35
.'...
-'%Iw S f
2
4
—
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
- - — — -- — ---- — '— -HA, Hand Auger Sample'
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM 0 1586

ai
GET
�a
r•,..w,.a...,:.m..„,...,,,,,.
BORING LOG
B-5
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.5' MSL
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': LR 9' AFTER 24 HOURS: S CAVING> -L
.0
4
>
w
«D.c
n v
m v
Eo
n
d„
Description
n
a
w
o. o
E Z
wvw
n>
E$
of
n m
E
rn
w:
3 T
o y>
m n
o
=
,,,
z
o
o
u
\
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value- �®
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-10
12
40
silt, medium dense
Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND ISM) with trace Cemented Sand, dense
53
Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND ISM) mixed with Cemented Sand and
trace Marine Shell Fragments, dense
::
l:C i!.
f .': VI
at:
aiEi
,Ln: 11.
ci[c1.
I' li Y 1 1
12
19
SS
a
12
12
19
36
33
38
46
63
48
. . ... ..... ... .. ..
I.. f..
--
13
18
SS
5
11
13
141
-15
45
14
19
SS
3
17
19
24
—
20
16
50
15
2a
SS
z
16
,7
3
-z
55
to
58
Gray, wet, Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM), dense
16
20
SS
9
1s
23
26
30
60
20
63
Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), dense to very dense
..
17
17
SS
14
19
P7
32
—
35
—
65
—
--
40
ws
18
24
SS
21
34
50
22
70
75
:
19
20
55
17
23
31
45
Boring terminated at 75 ft.
TO
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA'='Hand 'Auger Sample"
BS = Bulk Sample
*The initial oroundwafer readmo may not be indicative of the static oroundwiner leyeL WOH = We aht of Hammer
PAGE 2 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1566.

GET
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
-�- - - -
BORING LOG
B-B
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29' MSI
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': S 11' AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> .0
c
0
m
w
¢ a?
p E
n v
m e
p
Description
E
2
0
w
n o
E Z
rn
a
E$
N
m
�- c,
E
H
_
3 �O
o v
m n
m
Z\
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
p
2
6
14
11
10
9
8
6
6
25
32
17.
18.1
10 inches of TOPSOIL
1
24
as
1
1
.: ........ :. :...:..
p
:. .: .. :...:
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
Perched water encountered at 3.5 feet
—
2
18
ss
2
3
5
25
2
_
5
41
Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay to Silty, Clayey
SAND (SC-SM), loose to medium dense
6-inch Fat CLAY (CH) lense from 7 to 7.5 feel
0.
Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
Wet from 11 feet
Reddish Tan from 13 feet
Dark Gray and With clay from 23 feet
'.
3
24
ss
3
8
s
—
4
20
ss
4
6
5
6
zo
5
6
20
21
ss
ss
4
s
4
5
4
4
10
°
--
15
7
15
ss
aI
a
4
15
6
0
8
16
as
2
3
5
20
5
9
9
20
ss
2
3
3
25
5
28
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) mixed with Marlstone, medium
dense
33
Light Gray, wet, MARLSTONE, dense
::
`
10
11
16
22
ss
ss
s
13
12
16
12
1s
1v
16
23
30
10
35
; ;
_10
38
Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with Cemented Sand, dense to very
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
--_HA=Hand Auger Sample_
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

a:
c
GET
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
G,...,o-.�. n,.�...-�.,.�,...�..
BORING LOG
B-G
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29' MSL
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: $ 1 V AFTER 24 HOURS: S CAVING> -C
c
0
`0 N
1w
a
0 E
5
�' 01
0 �'
Description
U
�
m Z
rn
m w
E
rn �
d v
N I-
u, -
o m
m c,
0
>
z
o
o
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - s
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1z
40
dense
With trace Marlstone from 53 to 59 feet
12
24
as
26
3
51
43
47
47
45
77
85
100
..... ... ...... ... .. ..
5
100
-15
14
13
22
as
12
24
26
45
-20
14
20
Ss
8
26
33
16
50
zs
15
24
ss
14
25
P2
34
55
15
-
16
24
as
12
2e
25
60
20
-35
3so
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with sill to
Silty fine SAND ISM). very dense
17
22
as
16
41
36
32
65
rp
18
24
as
21
4B
50.
22
70
—
45-
—
19
—
10
—
as
50
50,
75
Boring terminated at 75 ft.
El
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
-_—_. HA-=-Hand-AugerSample-
BS = Bulk Sample
*The initial orouridwater rearlino may not he indicative of the static aroundwater level VVOH - Weicht of Hammer
PAGE 2 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM 0 1585,

GET
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
--`--
cN,.:x..,•r•:,,,.,,,.. rmr..
BORING LOG
B-%
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.5' MS'
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': 12' AFTER 24 HOURS: 'S CAVING> -C.
o�=
N
w
L
n ^y
Description
o
N
n
m o
n >
8
v
a
E
N=
3 1O
m
y
-'
Z
oo
�'
-\>
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid
uid Limitci
Moisture Content- •W
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
0
0
4
6
12
11
9f:
8
6
7
9
0
77
7.
15.
12 inches of TOPSOIL
T
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt,
very loose
Tan, moist, Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM) to Clayey SAND (SC) with
silt, loose to medium dense
Perched water encountered at 4 feel
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan from 4 feel
Reddish Tan from 8 feet
Reddish Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND ISM), loose
- Wet from 12 feet
13
Reddish Tan, wet, Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM), loose
t8
Reddish Tan, wet, Silty fine SAND ISM) with day, loose
Gray from 23 feet
28
Soil Void Extending from 28 to 29.5 feet
29.5
1Y1: °!
1
24
ss
1
2
2
T-1
I'
I:
.l.
-
..: .: .:...:. :..
.. ........ .
.
�'
✓:':'
.....
. ""
2
2a
ss
3
i
'
—
25
5
3
24
ss
4
6
s
—
4
24
ss
5
5
20
5
6
24
24
ss
as
3
s
5
4
4
0
4
15
.
..
7
--
15
as
a
3
3
1s
8
21
SS
34
3
4
6
—
10
20
6
9
20
ss
3
s
5
5
25
.....
10
10
ss
wOH
woH
woH
0
30
Light Gray, wet, MARLSTONE with Silty Sand, Cemented Sand, and
Marine Shell Fragments, very dense
38
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND ISM) with Cemented Sand, very
—
—
—
9
5
10
11
18
—
ss
1s
45
26
12
20
as
—
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
-- - -- — - - --HA'='Hand 'Auger Sampte-
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

c
GET
`
BORING LOG
B-%
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.5' MSL
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(wash) DATE: 3-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: 8 12' AFTER 24 HOURS: -T- _ CAVING> L
c r
o
w
>
w
��L
c v
06
o E
n m
m �,
o
Description
o
n
m
a o
Z
m4�vv
a>
E$
c
E
w1
3'O
o y
m c
v
m
z
o
o
u
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-10
12
40
dense
43
Light Gray, wet, MARLSTONE, dense
48
Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with Cemented Sand, dense
53
Light Gray, wet, MARLSTONE, very dense
12
22
ss
33
26
53
43
37
57
31
80
65
100
13
24
as
y
17
P6
29
14
15
45
14
16
ss
16
22
15
12
.
—
PO
16
50
15
20
ss
14
26
31
39
25
55
18
58
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with Cemented Sand, dense
E
16
24
as
14
15
16
25
30
60
20
63
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), very dense
Gray from 68 feet
17
24
ss
9
3s
44
50�
—
-35
—
ss
18
24
ss
17
37
as
ro
7022
5
—
19
—
14
--
ss
0450
50
50
<5
Boring terminated at 75 ft.
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
----------- '- -- ---- -HA '= Hand Auger Sample--
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 2 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

GET
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 30' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-31-09
B-8
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: 12' AFTER 24 HOURS: "- CAVING> L
`o
_
o
m
w
oo
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
i
d m
a w
Description
a
M
o' o
E Z
a
E$
a °'
E
3 tO
o y
m
u
W 1
p E
w �,
p
0
to
N
w H
m n
Z\
Moisture Content -•
N-Value - �®
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
30
0
0
12 inches of TOPSOIL
1
1
1
24
ss
2
3
Tan -Brown, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
3
—
2
2
24
ss
3
6
4
4
25
5
Light Gray, moist, Silly, Clayey SAND (SC-SM), loose
3
24
ss
y
5
9
17.1•
7
2
_XX
Light Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose to medium dense
Perched water encountered at 6feet
4
24
ss
e
5
t1
6
4
5
24
ss
s
7
10
3
10-.....
Light Gray, moist to wet, Silly fine SAND (SM) with trace clay, loose
3
6
24
ss
4
7
--
Wet from 12 feet
4
. . .... . :..
—
—
4
Reddish Tan from 13 feel
Xa
7
24
66
3
6
-
8
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
silt to Silly fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
4
7
B
20
ss
3
4
3
_
0
20
5
3
9
21
ss
t
8
5
25
5
e
1
—
10
19
ss
Y
4
Soil Void extending from 30 to 32 feet
.....
:. ..: :...: :_ :.
—
32
Mottled Dark Gray -Tan, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose
10
33
fii?:
19
Light Gray, wet, Silty f ne SAND (SM) with Cemented Sand and
Marine Shell Fragments, very dense
t t
24
ss
31
a6
77
-5
35
50'
36
Dark Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), dense to very dense
'
3
2i
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
— —HA _ Hand Auger amp a-
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

4i
GET
G�
BORING LOG
B-8
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 30' MSL
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': $ 12' AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> -C
c
wo
n m
E
u m
o
Description
n
n c
z
�- >
w
�- °'
N
3 tO
m a
z
oo
`
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
.10
+2
40
Light Gray from 43 feet
Mixed with Cemented Sand from 43 to 45 feet
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
Silty fine SAND ISM), dense to very dense
12
24
ss
zs
36
47
39
45
63
33
63
58
92
2
14
13
20
ss
15
22
31
-15
45
14
15
ss
12
24
22
-z0
16
50
15
14
ss
16
36
32
-25
55
18
-30
16
16
ss
12
16
20
60
20
17
17
ss
16
25
46
-35
65
—
18
24
ss
19
28
37
10
22
70
_
—
_
19
—
24
ss
36
50
50•
—
45
75
Boring terminated at 75 ft.
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
--HA = Hand Auger Sample-
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 2 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
.,�.*.rc..•,-..-.:.:,..,.
BORING LOG
N F-1
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 28' MSL
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': s 9' AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> _L
c
> -�
a I
41
p
-yn
y u1
p
Description
u
m
m
n o
E Z
m
n w'o
E o
y
a °'
E
in f-
3 tO
ow-
m a
N
Z\
oo
`
TEST RESULTS
PlasticLimil H LiquidLimit
Moisture Content -•
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
4
10
11
9
6.'
8
6
35.
39.
it,
10 inches of TOPSOIL
..
1
24
ss
2
2
2
.. ... .. .. __ ...
... .. ...... ..
1; ..
)
a
:1
T
j.: :... i...i
:. :...:. :.. :.
2s
—
Tan -Gray, moist, poor) graded fine to medium SAND SP-SM with
Y. Y9 ( )
silt, very loose
��/
2
24
ss
4
5
4
2
Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with sill, loose to medium dense
Perched water encountered at feet
Mottled Light Gray -Reddish Tan from 4 feet
;I`
" " "
......
:..r..
5
3
16
ss
s
6
4
Reddish Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay, loose V
Wet from 9feet
!
4
18
ss
s
4
20
Ei
5
15
ss
2
2
3
3
10
10,
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, wet, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
zi =^'.
t i
;,: ,,1;
6
7
16
—
12
ss
_—
ss
3
s
4
4
4
6
s
—
Reddish Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with:
silt, loose,
—
15
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
6
10
20
5
6
25
0
.5
10
10
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan 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.

6
GET
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
r—^^7
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29 MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: gwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
B-9
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: S 9 AFTER 24 HOURS: F CAVING> t
u
°'
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
"'8
a m
n v
Description
n
o- o
n>
a
3 tO
m
wo
E
o
n z
N
m n
z"
Moisture Content - o
N-value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
4 inches of Topsoil
WEH
1
11
SS
WOO
WOH
O
.3
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with organics, Very
Loose
woH
woH
2
11
ss
w2
2
25
5
4
Light gray, moist, Silty Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC-SM), Loos
::
3
22
SS
2
3
4
7
2.
2
7
Tan, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace
Silt, Loose
Iai ti
!�:l l:
�.rr}
4
18
SS
3
4
Tan, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) , Very Loose 8
-
5
24
SS
i
z
4
5.1
` . 11
`:...:
20
0
10
Tan and orangish brown, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with
trace Clay, Very Loose 1....
6
22
SS
3
z
2
4
:\
: \
4
1
l..rf
!'t
ti: ii.
2
\
\.
Orangish brown, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)
with trace Sllt, Loose
z
15
.i a: c r
1:I;Li
7
18
SS
3
6
G
:\
15
full:
i a:fl
1 is r1.
Ix C r
4
1';Ial
of il.
10
I:I:ii
8
20
SS
6
\
5
fltll:
I :I:[I
I:X Lr
\
\
23
N
1
1
\:
5
Gray, wet, Fat CLAY (CH) with trace SAND, Very Soft
9
23
SS
1
1
0
I
6
25
28
3
0
Dark gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with
trace Silt, Very Loose
I?� e i
r�
10
23
SS
1
1
2
10
0
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
-5
5
T-10r]
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: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Leleune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 28 MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: qwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
B-1 U
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': H 8 AFTER 24 HOURS: T CAVING> L.
c-
C
L1.2
U
y
m
3
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit FH Liquid Limit
m
n m
o. v
Description
n
E o
z
6 j
o
f °'
0 `D
m
V
Wo
E
o d
c�
m
rn ~
m o.
z
o
Moisture Content - •
t�
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
8 inches of Topsoil
1
1
23
SS
p
3
.6
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace organics,
Very Loose
2
2
2-5
2
21
SS
3
5
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND
ISM) with trace Clay, Loose
3
z
3
21
SS
3
5
2
2
7
%
j : 0---
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND..-.
(SC), Loose
4
24
SS
3
<
zo
Tan and orangish brown, wet, Silly fine to medium SAND (SM) with'
trace Clay, Loose
'
S
21
SS
a
3
3
6
/
v
1
0
3
3
Tan and orangish brown, wet, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC),
Very Loose
6
24
SS
2
2
4
1
3
Orangish brown, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose
15
4
7
18
SS
z
4
1
18
2
16
Oran Ish brown, wet, PoorlyGraded fine to medium SAND SP-SM
9 with trace Silt, VeryLoose ( )
Sin.
<?F! t
8
16
SS
2
6
2
rl
a:
1 is i.
i dCt�
itl
5
l i l l•
9
18
SS
2
25
yti
.i bitr
:rtf
t
L9E
i'r.L r
28
Gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with trace
Silt, Very Loose
!
CX(r
' ^� i i
�?��
10
is
ss
OH
WWOH
woH
0
10
10
woH
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
-5
35
io
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
SS = 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: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
'
COMEM3fto
c,-....; .r.-.�....•.w. rK.•,
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29 MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: gwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
B-11
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: S 9 AFTER 24 HOURS: a _ CAVING> f-
o E
0
N
2>
w
w
oo
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
>
y`
d
v m
a m
Description
o.
m
n o
E
E I
a m
E
cD
o v
m
w
o E
a,
o
c�
Z
rn
N
N
m n
Z\
Moisture Content-o
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 7
0
0
4 inches of Topsail
2
i
1
24
SS
p
4
.3
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose
2
Orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loosc
1
2
22
SS
2
3
25
2
5
5
Light gray, moist, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), Medium Stiff
3
23
SS
z
3
2
2
7
ry
?
Light gray, moist to wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace
to little Clay, Very Loose to Loose
':
'
4
24
SS
4
5
2
20
.
5
20
SS
2
4
_
3
3
6
24
SS
2
4
4
3
ws
2
i•epi
15
Orangish brown, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)
with trace Silt, Very Loose to Loose
ri:tt:
i;r r }
7
22
SS
z
2
4
A rf.f i
2
i
r1:L1:
tYt1.
rr. t i
2
t0rr.i!
8
21
SS
2
5
6
20
r�.r1.
1
CFt1
':rt
19:r L
:r•ti
3
5
t3fff
9
18
SS
3
zs
9:rt
•1° i ).
B
1a rt
rXC1:
i:f r l
1:C[r
1
0
'I is i:i
10
19
5S
1
2
30
i:f t'
t
40
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
5
35
-10
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
------ - ---- - ---- — --HA = Hand Auger Sample—
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of l Standard Penetration Tests were performedin the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
"®
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
cR,.,.-�a.o-..•.,-a. x„,r
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 30 MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: gwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
B-12
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': 8 10 AFTER 24 HOURS: T CAVING> L
c
'
y ``
L
-' -'
o
t
W
o
>
a °'
`O
m
—'
oo
`"
TEST RESULTS
>
d
w v
w in
Description
m
F
E Z
n
E$
E
o v
j
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
g
o E
o
N
rn
rn I-
m n
Z\
Moisture Content -•
w
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
4 Inches of Topsoil
2
1
24
SS
3
6
.3
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Loose
3
j
2
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND
a%
(SM), Loose
2
20
SS
4
7
23
: •
4
Light gray, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with little Clay,
Very Loose
`
3
22
SS
3
z
2
a
25
2
3
8
Tan, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace
Silt, Loose
r7ss.
.uccr
4
23
SS
2
4
.11 r1:
f
u: il.
rlrrr
7
'
5
19
SS
2
3
4
20
1
10
Tan and orangish brown, moist to wet, Poorly Graded fine to mediurr1
SAND (SP-SM) with trace Silt, Very Loose to Loose
:I
H
ir. E i
n, r 1:
6
24
SS
3
3
3
6
;y
2
;r
4
[1
2
1;rrr
7
20
SS
2
4
15
1
1i.f1.
rl(r r
u:ol
2
j
1:L1!
1'41.
iteriV t
2
1':lirf
8
19
SS
2
4
to
20
2
rXr1
CJ:LC
23
...
Orangish brown, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)'I::
with trace Silt, VeryLoose
f f
ra:r1:
9
23
SS
2
1
3
u:ri.
4sn
5
I+ii
i:F f j
I;C t l
2
10
24
SS
1
1
0
0
? 41
1
10
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
-s
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
N,,....r.r.w.....,a. r,..m,.
BORING LOG
BMP-1
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 28 MSL
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: gwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: S 8 AFTER 24 HOURS: aS 4.8 CAVING> L
m
1w
n d
p E
n m
v
o
Description
o.
E o
Z
cn
n o
E
rn
E °'
rn �'
tO
v
m a
m
Z
o
a
\
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - o
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
9
8
8
1
1
1
2 inches of Topsoil
i
1
2
24
za
SS
SS
3
°
4
4B
4
4
r,.
[s? o
-
S
u�;t
.1
Dark brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Loose
Grayish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Loose
Estimated SHWT @ 4-feet below site grade
2
2
s
3
23
SS
4
3
3
Light gray and orangish brown,. moist, Silty fine to medium SAND
(SM) with trace Clay, Loose
1aEEl
rr.u:
4
24
SS
3
n
Tan, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace
Silt, Loose
20
Gray, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with some Clay, Very
Loose
10
Gray, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose
12
Gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace
Silt, Very Loose
9: Fi.
1a;rr
!y(1:
ixri
5
6
24
24
SS
SS
1
o
t
p
2
Ip
4
1s
7
20
SS
1
1
1
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
10
20
5
z
0
1
-5
10
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,

GETPROJECT:
` • • "
BORING LOG
BM P-2
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Baring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 28 MSL
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: qwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': $ 8 AFTER 24 HOURS: 8 5.29 CAVING> L
o=
WE
J
o
Description
c
w
E Z
ti
E$
N
w
E
w
m a
m
>
z
oo
u
e
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
7
8
6
7
4
16/f
7
4 inches of Topsoil
1
24
SS
3
3
311.2
6
l
%s
j
is
%
.3
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Loose
Estimated SHWT @ 4-feel below site grade
4
Light gray and orangish brown, moist to wet, Silty fine to medium
- SAND (SM) with trace Clay, Very Loose to Loose
1
Light gray to tan, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND ($P-
SM) with trace Silt, Loose to Medium Dense
25
"
2
3
23
SS
SS
3
°
4
3
3
3
2
5
-
4
23
SS
3
4
4
20
r
�: i is
iir It
a. it15 .
t1
la tt
:
ipa
5
8
24
24
SS
SS
3
3
5
5
y
10
4
7
24
SS
3
4
4
t5
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
s
1
20
5
25
3
1
5
35
-10
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
---"---------- - --- -- -- — HA: = Hand Auger Sample—
BS = Bulk Sample
I *The initial aroundwater readino may not be indicative of the static oroundwntpr In vni WOH - Weinht or Hammer
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the held in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
�.,,,•-,..r..-.,_,,.,r.:s,
BORING LOG
BMP-3
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Go., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 30 MSL
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: qwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: V 13 AFTER 24 HOURS: T 9.875 CAVING> L
P
�,
w
L d
w m
o E
S
m �,
o
Description
o.
2
l7
n o
E z
rn
o- >
E$
n w
E
N I-
3 tD
o v
m n
Z\
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit - H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- o
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
3
5
6
7
4
6
4
4
2 inches of Topsoil
1
20
SS
1
z
2
4:
f
' t
J 1
s.
.1
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose
Brown and tan, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace
Clay, Loose
Estimated SHWT @ 6-feet below site grade
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND
(SM), Loose
Oaangish brown, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP 8
SM), Very Loose to Loose
_
2
19
ss
Z
3
3
2
5
1? i f
rz,r1�
l'1f i1.`
aY(f
1}ti
i ffj
of i1.
I Sa i
'!T
i itlL'
i r
3
4
5
20
22
24
SS
SS
SS
3
3
a
3
z
2
20
10
4
6
24
SS
3
3
7
24
SS
1
q
2
15
15
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
6
10
2
s
z
3
10
35
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
--- -- - ----- —" HA -='Hand Auger Sample—
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of l Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1566.

GET
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
-
BORING LOG
BMP-4
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 30 MSL
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: qwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': 4 13.5 AFTER 24 HOURS: 9.92 CAVING> -
c
0
wo
E
o
Description
u
n
m
o
a o
E Z
rn
y
n'
E$
m
o' °'
E
I-
2 `O
o v
m o.
m
m
z
o
u
\
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
0
4
5
6
11
7
7
7
17.
2 inches of Topsoil
i
1
23
SS
7
z
2
"
% I:
a t
/ I
a -
�!
.1
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose
2
Brown and tan, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace
Clay, Loose
4
Tan, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Loose
Estimated SHWT @ 6-feet below site grade
2
3
21
19
SS
SS
z
s
23
3
°\\
z
s
25
4
20
SS
e
s
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND
(SM) with trace Clay, Loose to Medium Dense
10
Light gray and orangish brown, moist to wet, Poorly Graded fine to
medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace Silt, Loose
Z.l:r.tl
.j: rt:
'i:e i t
r l
i titi:+.l,1
.'xtv
5
6
21
24
SS
SS
4
j
2
3
4
4
20
10
4
3
7
24
SS
3
3
4
5
5
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
6
10
20
s
25
30
10
.5
35
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
_----.__--_-.HA-='Hand AugerSample_
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

EIEVATIONINFUT
d'
N
LU
J_
w
W
LLL
o
O
cJ
L
s
d
LL
N
rr
J
�
�
cG
C7
p
I.
N
m
J
N
�
o
°z
w
z
ZLLJ
r
C�
u.............
....
......... .� u.
.........
.........
.�•�•J
mUuj
3
Z
rvry rvn
�n nv ry
r,ry n
ry
n
I
V
z�
U
U v
3
2
Q2gQp pp$pJ pSppp
5533 35ry
nv n
nn n
n
�
_
n
mm>..
)... .. .............
- 1Y`
N
N
a v N
or
U
a

ELEVATIONI,NFf:L']'
W
m
—
LLJ W
J < _
O ro
a a> v
m
a_
O
Q a C
O W �
W Q <
p �ffi a O
z
w o
U
LU
� W
z z z
z
p
rvm ry
vw an
nv
'a 'e
N N
0'
s
2
s z
2 Z
E
Z
i
a
N
U
i.
U �
0
� N
N �
a
p o N U t(n U
N
lA:yy NI NO/1YA{ly

APPENDIX IV
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE ORIGINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTED ON THE
DATE OF FEBRUARY 19, 2010 (GET Project No. EC09-106G)

GET
C. 0,l a •Fnoim,nvrn>rt•Rstinc
TO: JMT, Inc.
272 Bendix Road
Suite 260
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
Attn: Mr. Timothy Gaffney, P.E.
February 19, 2010
RE: Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-106G
Addendum No.1
Dear Mr. Gaffney:
Pursuant to your request, G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our supplemental
subsurface investigation and Geotechnical Engineering analysis for above noted project.
The purpose of our supplemental subsurface investigation was to further delineate the
presence of subsurface voids encountered during our original Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) boring program and noted in our "Report of Subsurface Investigation and
Geotechnical Engineering" issued on the date of April 17, 2009. Additionally, our
supplemental services included a seismic site classification analysis. This report is
provided to serve as a summation of our supplemental field exploration services as well as
the results of our Geotechnical Engineering analysis.
The supplemental subsurface investigation and geotechnical engineering services for this
project in accordance with G E T Solutions, Inc. Proposal No. PEC09-179G, dated May
19, 2009 and subsequently revised on the date of May 29, 2009. Authorization to proceed
with the services was provided in the form of subcontract agreement (contract N40085-08-
D-1412, TO #1) authorized by Mr. Timothy Gaffney, P.E. with JMT, Inc. on January 12,
2010.
Project and Site Discussion
As indicated in our above referenced report, subsurface voids were encountered at the
location of our previously completed SPT borings designated as B-7 and B-8. These
borings were performed at the locations established by JMT, Inc. and were generally
positioned slightly west of the west building wall line. Additionally, the results of the
remaining previously completed borings performed within the vicinity of the original building
limits (designated as B-5 and B-6 which were performed east of the east wall line) did not
indicate the presence of subsurface voids. Subsequently, it was our understanding that the
building location was shifted slightly to the east in an effort to locate the building outside
the limits of the encountered subsurface voids.
504 East Elizabeth Street Elizabeth City, NC 27909 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
--- - --- ---- ------ [e-mail]— -- -- - —-------- --

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Analysis
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-106G
Addendum No. 1
Field Exploration
2/19/10
In order to explore the presence of potential subsurface voids along the western portion of
the newly established building limits, a total of three (3) 30-foot deep Cone Penetrometer
Test (CPT) soundings (designated as CPT-2 through CPT-4) were performed at the
locations designated by representatives of NAVFAC.
Additionally, in order to perform a seismic site evaluation, one (1) 36-foot deep CPT
sounding (designated as CPT-1) was performed within the approximate center of the newly
established building limits. This CPT sounding was limited to a depth of 36 feet below
existing grades as penetration refusal was encountered at the termination depth. Shear
wave velocity testing was performed at the location of CPT-1 from the existing surface
grade elevations to the termination depth of 36 feet. The results of the CPT soundings are
provided on the attached CPT Sounding and/or Shear Wave Velocity sheets.
The CPT sounding locations were established by representatives of NAVFAC and
subsequently identified in the field by G E T Solutions Inc. personnel with the use of a
Global Positions System unit based on the coordinates and dimensions indicated on the
project site plan provided by The Spectra Group. More specific information regarding
boring locations and depths is provided in the following table (Table I — Sounding
Schedule).
Table I — Sounding Schedule
Boring
Boring
Depth
� )
Boring Location(l)
Number
(feet)
CPT-1
36
Approximate Center Building
CPT-2
30
Approximate Southwest Building Corner
CPT-3
30
West Wing; Approximate Center of West Wall
CPT-4
30
Northwest Wing; Approximate Northwest Corner
Note (1): The boring locations noted above are considered to be approximate and are referenced from the
newly established building limits.
Subsurface Conditions
Based on the results of CPT soundings (CPT-1 through CPT-4) performed to depths
ranging from 30 to 36 feet, subsurface voids were not encountered at the newly explored
locations. Accordingly, the subsurface improvements, as indicated in Section 4.7 of our
"Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering" (dated April 17, 2009;
GET Project No. EC09-106G), do not appear to be warranted at this time.
GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Analysis 2/19/10
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-106G
Addendum No. 1
Furthermore, the CPT soundings indicated that the subsurface soils at the recently tested
locations are generally consistent with those encountered during our SPT exploration
procedures. Accordingly, it is our professional opinion that the remaining
recommendations, excluding the subsurface grouting improvements, presented in our
above referenced report remain valid.
Additional subsurface exploration and Geotechnical Engineering services, as indicated in
Section 5.3 of our "Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering"
(dated April 17, 2009; GET Project No. EC09-106G), are recommended to be completed
once the Design/Build team has been selected in order to substantiate the
recommendations presented herein and/or in our previously referenced report.
Seismic Design Recommendations:
The results of our field exploration indicate that the average shear wave velocity recorded
in the upper 36 feet (refusal depth) was about 1,330 ft/sec. As such, the project site is
within a site class'C' in accordance with Table 1613.5.5 of the 2006 International Building
Code. The comprehensive results of the CPT soundings are provided on the attached CPT
Sounding and/or Shear Wave Velocity sheets.
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. �0�o CARO���.,��
Senior Project Engineer �,.'pFESs/Oy • q
NC Reg. # 034336 a� SEAL v� `
03433SA
Camille A. Kattan, P.E. ; • t.\ CAR()
SEAL
014103
4_1
i�/e...k `F1
Principal Engineer
INC Reg. # 14103
Attachments: CPT Sounding and Shear Wave Velocity test sheets (CPT-1)
CPT Sounding test sheets (CPT-2 through CPT-4)
Copies: (3) Client
Solutions; lnc.

CAROLINA DRILLING
Bridger Drilling Enterprises Inc.
dba Carolina Drilling
114 Chimney Lane
Wilmington, NC 28409
910.799.0493 w
910.799.5945 f
910.512.4600 m
[e-mail]
— — CAW ,N
CPT Analysis Results
All information obtained utilizing Geoprobe® 6625 CPT, GeoTech Cones,
and CPT Pro by Geosoft.
Data interpretation to be exclusively determined by the client's engineering staff.

e2
Classification by
Robertson 199D
Clean sands to silly sands (6) —
Silty sand to sandy sill (5) <
i p
Clean sands to silty sands (6) G
Clayey sill to silty clay (4)
Clean sands to silty sands (6)
_Silly send to sandy sill (5)
_Clean sands to silly sands (6)
Silty sand to sandy silt (5)
_Clean sands to sily santls (6)
Silly send to sand sill (5)
L— .Clean sands to silty sands (6)
Remand to sand iatAId11
Ctieaa sands to M y saria5 (6)
Silly sand to sandy silt (5)
Clean sands to silty sands (6)
Silty sand to sandy silt (5)
Clayey silt to silty clay (4)
'Silty sand to sandy silt (5)
Clayey sill to silty clay (4)
Clays; clay to silty day (3)
` Organic soilsyeats (2)
Clayey silt to silty clay (4)
I LClean sands to silty sands (6)
CAROLINA DRILLING
LI L IJ U LI Lllll U LI III U LI'LDlIJY'dlt
IVTITrn In n TITn n nTIT n n rITIT n r
I' It I IJ ULI L IlU U LI III U ULI11J Ut
ITITII In n LIT ll n n TIT n rI rl I In r
uu
IJIIII I11111
rJiinnTrtnnnr'iTnnrlmnr
uuLluul
i......l.... ..
TI Tn n n TlTn n nTIT Ii rl rlTli n r
NUJuvavuuv114 It,
11
v1
T.TII r. TI TI"Lir.. I ..lr
ICI IIIIII 11111~~III~ IIII~I
lTlili it T17 lj_____ FI -iiil ITi
.hit N N«I,NIII i-I TIT
111+1,NI
n111u111U1 I I III Illnulll
-IT)er____ _ _IinT.......
Y1nJY /IH�'IIIti HHI'I; n I4 h III M1
111_I II IIM I 11_-_-__-III
III I II I I I1111111111111111111
•I,,�YN YF11 rFFNrITIYFI
11z 11
I ,,,-, - 1,Y 1
,,l,,r111:1
L11L UL1V UUIII 'I LIII 1JIJ Ir rIll,rirGl1'nnrhnI1Ghnr
lelit J LI L111 J U LI III IJ LI LI11J Ul
LrilI1111111111'
fjTnn nrinin nrlTn nnrn nr
1 LI 11J U U III IJ U U 111 U U LI11J Ul
J III IIIIII
IIy,I r11 n rlrn In n n ran n n nr n nr
w It 11Tlin rl rlit
Tnn nTII It T'iT n nTlT ll nr
IlIt
llllull111
-1Tli Irl TlT IIin,n T T n ill lTiirini
41aIJMLlala Liu HUL1a 4.1
II r Hill 7,711111111111i
hI hI,M NhI, I,NI
I IrI IJIIIFII
IIYI I11111111111111111111111111111
IY N L III,
j Lp !fill FM Mtn• M.I
Lim Li
Winn!
111111 LI LII ULIL111JUL1U IJI
IIIIIII lIlI ' r!I11n'r
l IFn rIT 1,
ULU UUL LLU UUIII U UL11IJ IJl
n nrlTll nr
I.ILIJ U LI LIIIJ U LII'Il U U LI11JUl
Ill
rlrn n n rrT In In In n nrn ilr
Lllu u u Ill u U UlU UI
I TITII n rTlTn n rl TI li n rlT11llr
Ll "I
I "III
I rlrn n rl Tnli n nTlT in n rlTn nr
I LIIIluIJ 1111.Iuuillu uLlilJu4
(IIII IIIIIIIIII I IIII II II III IIII I II
--TnrITITIir--Imp ----
-----::; Ill H:1 :1I1H H::.l `Ir
N n'I-I,I,NI
1IJ.I III IJ. JII IIIIIJIIiIII TI -IIII III1II111 V111U V LI 111 U UlJ1U 11 I
Iiiii I.n U.....UIIIII
I n T1Y n T17 n F rl T I,NIT n f
I LLLU UU Ill 'I U Ir
L11111 LI Ut
IIIIII ...........................1
I II 111 n n T lT n n rl T 11 n nrIT lY nr
LI LIJ U U III.J U U III U U L:I:lIJ
lull
I II rl In n Ill n n rl TIT n n LIIIJ nr
LIIUULIIV ULI I ULII
1 nT17 111117''1 T.Tn 1IITnnr
ILILIJ U LI LI11J a LI111 u ULIIIJ u4
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII It'',I, It 1111111111
I TITII n n TITn n !IIII Il n !IIII n!
I LIIIJU LI L111J ULI L11u LI Lllllul
Co.,, Nu 42211 Proled:
T'Iaereatcmxl; 10
Sleeve area Icmz): IN
J_1_L J_L_1_J_L J_1_L
1
l-r-1-1 1--1-71-7-r
-- T-I-I-r-I-i-rT T-r
-I- J
___ I L_____
H-a-LJ _I J I J
_I_T __I_ i__ -___1_
I II I I I
- r-
_1 _1_1_I_1 _1
I 1
_ 1_ L J_ L_I_ J_ L J_ 1_L
n- T-ri-f-I-1 -f -IT-r
J_1_LJ_L_I_J_L _I_1_L
__T-ri-r-I-I -r --r
L 1 1I
1-1-r i-r-i 1-r-1-7-1 I
r
7-ri-i-ri-r �-i-r
JI 111
I_ -_I___F_
I
1 _L J_ L_I_ J_ LJ_ I
I
1-T-r'1'T l'I-fYT'f
i'rl f I f T-f
J_1_L J_L_I_J_LJ_1_L
i -r 1
1 -r-ri1 -r -1-11
11
I-T-Y i'T -ri -r i-TT
1 I IL I I I -I T11
-ri-r-(i-r-1--r
_____
I_ 1_ 11 J_ L J_J_ L J_1_
_1 Jr J_II J_II l_L
1_ L J_ L_I_ J_ L __ 1 _L
- I' II _1 r 1 I IL
7_1l_T-I-I_r 1-1_1
_J _I _L_l_J _I _L
l J _I L L J _I_
1 I I
_T_i__I- _r_r_i__i__r
I _ 1__I__T_ r_ I
_i____ I_i_ J ____
_T_I _I _r_T_I _I _r
J I L J I I
I I I I I I I
it
I _I ______I __
_ lz J__l__ L _ I_J__I__L
jt
_ 1J J__L_ L_ 1_ J__I__L
I
L_1_J__I__L
=J�1'J_i____r_ r_ 1__1__1
I�I
_T�i__I__r_T_i__r_r
_T _(i__i__T_T_i__i _r
_y1__II__f_f_
1 _J, _=
_ 1 _J__I__ L_ 1_J_J__L
T l
1 _JI_-L
-
T-l -r-T -i -r
1_ J__I__ L_ 1_ J__I__L
-
T-n- -r -T -n r
-i-l--i-'r-T-'1"i T
I I I I
-T—i--r-r-T--r -r-r
I I 1 1 1 1
1=
L_1_J_L
I
_r
_1_J _ _L_1_J _I _L
I
I -I r-T-I -I r
_1_J__I _L _1 _J__I__L
_L_1_J__I__L
_T_i ..._r_T_i _i _r
trail detainee site 2.CPT

Classification
by
0
0.9578544 1.9157088 2.8735632 3.8314176 4.7892720 5.7471264 6.7049808 7.6628352 8,6206897 9.57
R.booteal
1990
Clean sands to silty sands (6) a
1_
__.__
_____L___�-L_____1_____J_____J_____J_____J_____J_
_Silty santl to sandy sill (5) _
6
2:
____=r_r_____r_________________ ______-_____--- ____ I__-___
_ L _1 _1 _1 J J _
I
V
Clean sends to city sands (6) ❑
q
-
_Clayeysilttosillyclay(4)
-
i_i_i i_____i_____ I______I____________
-
_
r_____r_____ T___ —r. T_____ -I_____ --___-__ �______�______
_____L__
Clean sands to silty sands (6)
7
L_____ J ____ J______1___________--- _____
_= -
- - - - -I --- c_".__-
i_____�--
Silty sand to sandy silt(5)___________a_____
Clean sands to silty sands (fi)
-Silty sand to sand silt (5)
1 -
_�=-
I I 1
____________I______
_
' � I -� '� � �----- - - - --
i. _- - _I
_
-
--Silty
Clean sands to silly sands (fi)
sand to sandsilt(5)
Clean sandsto silly sands (fi)
1 `
_
1
_
__ 1 _ —_� _-_______J_____J______'______
__ _____ _____ ______—__t-- _____ __________________
__ _' ♦ ♦ ____J`s�___y
illysantlto to a' silt
eansantlstosysad (6)
14-
- ; --_--
� � ---'�-'--v- ----------------
I_= _ 1
1 -
n-.......--may__ ____ _____--- ____--- _____
_________t____________________
Silty send to sandy sill (5)
1
`
1 -_
;- r __ _________________________
Clean sands to sit sands
1
_ — _
_____r___y._--L___________-I_____--- ____--- _____
Silty and to Sandy silt(5)
22-
_____L_____L____-1=_—_yy.,_=_W. J.__a._J_____ J______I____ ____
2 :
1__�---r-- _ _ _
24
_____Ls._--i—__L_____J_____J_____ J_____J_____ J______I______
Clayey silt to sit clay 4
Yv N Y
2 -
.-�—_._L_____
2
_____L_____-_____,_____. 4_____ -______I______I______
_i,�_
—
:Silty sand to sandy sill (5)
_-�
Clayey silt to silty clay(4)
2 .
2
_____
I i 1
--..
-
Clays, clay to silty clay (3)
Organic soilsyeats (2)
3
31
_______I______1______
_______r___________T________1______1__________________
1
L, ' ' '
3
3 -
_______________________ ________________'______ I 1
1
Clayey sill to silty clay (4)
_____.___v_"r_______________________y_____y______1______I______
Clean sands to silty sends (6)
3
__________________
_ _ _ _ _ ___'_.. 1 r
_____♦_____,_____♦_____y_____y____ y_____.,r______I________.___._
_-=. ______J_____ i______�
__-_____ _______
3
__._--- ____--- _____
1
41
_L _L _L _J _J _J _J _ i _
1
42-
q
_L _L __1 _1 __J _J _J_____I _I______
I I
44 .
-T -T -i -T -1 -1 l 'I
q
_L _L _J _J ___ J J
_ _L-__ _a_____J_____ J_____ J_____ J______I______I____
4 -
I
4
1
1 1 � 1 1 - - - - - - -I
5
_______ __________________ _________--- ___________
____________________________--- _____
1
5 _
1
1 1_____!_____!_ ___J_ ____________________ _______ _ _________
1 1 1 1
___ 1____ ___ ____J____ ___ __ ____
6
__ __L _L _1 _J _J _J _J _ __ _
61:
_r _r _r _, _, _� _1
6
_L _L _l _J _J _J _ I _ I _1______
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6:
_--- _____
64
_L _L _l _J _J _J _- _
_____L_____L_____L__________J_____J_____J______1______1______
1 1 1
8 -
0
_____L_____L_____L_____i_____J_____�_____�_____
I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 11
qc
117V21
Location: Position: Gourd level: Test no:
to
X: 0.00 ft. V: 0.00 ft 0.00 001
i
Project ID: Client: Date: Scale:
zna(2o10 1 :100
CAROLINA
GRILLING
Tune 27
iip 10
Protect: Page: Fig:
1/1
areaa Icm21:
Sleeve area tcn¢p
ISO
File.
ore trail detainee site 2.CPT

X ) N X ) N
N tI N tK/1 N N N N V) d d d
HHHIIIHHHIII
LLLLLLLLLLLL
r
I
r
P
I
i
�
�
r
p
I
i i
I
li
I
I
I
I
i
1
r 1
1
I
_1 _
r
r
1
E
1
-
I
, r
r ,
•
' i
I
I,
vi
rd n
m
m
c^
•-
•-
(w) 41daC)

m
)
m ry W A A IJ A A A W A A M A A N N T O) T W W A W M A M
m m m m m n A WA, (P 0 Co rT m m 0 0 0 0 M. 0 O
0 0 0 0 0————— — — — — — —— M C) M M M M M M M M
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLI
0
0
0
O
n
(w) y}dap
LL
L
a
C.

qc We]
fs IT/ft^21
.21T/ft^21
Su(gI,WL) [ a]
Classification
by 0
on`
i
_-
. ,.
IlnnnliIl1IllllIl11(1W
I,'rIlI�fiIIII1IIIIIII1I1II1
I1ni1IInnnIlnlInn111lUI1ll1l1In1I1lnI1
.n1In1lIullllln11ul111lHIlHll1l»In1I1lnI1
3-1 2 OO---.W0
EM--_---_--
9-
41IlII1IIIIIIIIIIIl'IIIII'IIII�rIII
2'--1h---3m'---
1IIIIrI1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IlIl
pJJJJ";r--J8I1III1l1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
4,r�!,',Y,1,11IlIIllllllIIIlIIlIIIlIIlII1lIIlI
1lII�IIllllIIIIIPlI1llIIlIIIlIIIIlII
5I1lllIIIl11llLIILlIl1I1IrIrIrl-II'rlrIr
�1
MInlu1nnIlf1lllln1111lI11l1l1In1I1lnI1
1nl1IlInlIllIll111IlHI1l11l1Il1I1lI
llIllIlllln1I111lII1nlIIllI1llI1
I11III1lrl11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlII'IIIIIIIIl
ml
nl1IllIlnIl111ul4.1
nllllIllllill1l1111lulnn
riTL1ilIltrlllulIllIi111lII
11IaulInllllu1l11ll11Ill1lI1I1lI1
niiIuL1trinlIllIlllIH111lIIlIlIIi1lI1
_-'_--__----::
_---JJ-�-----6
_-
1III�rIIlllIIIIIIlIIllIIIIIIlIl'IIIIIIIl'III
IIIIrIllIIIl1IllIIIIIlIl'IIIIIIIIIIIII
--�"�-1_-0jI
--!J-_------'3
--___-'--
Il
II1Ii11jllIIII1iIlI1I'IlII)'II1IIIIlIIII
IlrtHIrlIllllll111Il1IlI
-_--_IJ--2
--_-
Km(InlIIn4llrnIlHHH
iiJJrI11IIllIlllI1l11lIIll1lI1I1lI1
JIjl
IIIIIIIlIllIIII1lI1lI
_--
_-_--_----1
-
--
-_-__------
---_
tii`�llInllIrlIIII1I1Il
rrIIrIr�rIIlllIIIlI-IlIIllLIIIILlIl'IIrIYIlIrIr
--_---_---r9
-_-_---_-5M
lIIII1I1lIlLI1III1y
lIIII1I1lIsII1lI11I1
_-
J,Y1l1IuulInlnnulIl111
J,I1l1IIIllII111lI1l11lI1I1lI1
1IlInI1I1lI1
)Ill11lI1I1lI1
irrnriL)lllil1InInInn111lIiIi(1I1lI1
Ill1l1In1Il1lnI1
IHl11In1I1lnI1
IllII1I1I1
I11In)I1lnI1
I1lIlI1lI1
Iry;.illlllllluI1I1l1Il111IliIIlIl
11I1I1lI1
lI1lI111
III1I1y
IIIIIIIII
---7
,l1ll1lIllllllll1l1111lI1ll
,,llll1ll1Ilt(n
,Lul1llIlllnlll1lln1111lI111I1I1lI1
,'.rIu1Il1nlIlll11l111lIlll1lI1I1lI1
--_----__
--®-
�t�ni,iIllllIlnlL1n1InIII1llIn.n
1I1
r(urlll11IiIinu4.
11n1
-
1

its IMPaj
is lT/fi^21
u2 IT/R^21
Su(gLWI-)1MP.1
Classification
by
_
-
Oc
—
41
1IIrIlI
3-1 0
H_.--.11n'--pp---0.ffi-9-
llll1l
lnl1ln1111111u
In1111lI111ll1
nlll1llIllu1lurl1llnll1lllul1l
i�Il(1l
n1111lu
s1(lI1ll
-
--------'---2rIIIlII
------7
----21rIrrlI
-- --
----51rrlrII
-I--31IIlIII
-'-T4T1lII
-l--61IlIII
lnu1rIll1n
rrIIIn
TT,7It11I
-5A'-®----7M1-rIIIII
-
lnl11lI1111l
1l1l1llnll1llllul1unlnnll1I1l11ll
nnLIl11.Ill11lnIr1nnl1
-'----
-
-
-00
—0
--3U--4IIIIIII

f�•
qc IMPa1
fs IT/ft^21
u2 ITW2I
Su(gt,WL) IMPa1
Classification
by p
Robertson
1986
Sandy sill to clayey sill (6) —_
Silly send to sandy sill (7) c
c
Sandy sill to dayey silt (6)
Silly sand to sandy sill (7)
Sally silt l0 dayey all (6)
Silly to
sand sandy sill (7)
Sand to silty send (8) 1
Silty sand to sandy sill (7)
Sand to silly sand (8) 1
Silty sand to sandy sill (7) 1
Sand to silty sand (8) 1
Silly sand to sandy sill (7) 1
Sall to silty and (8)
Clay (3)
—
Silly send to sandy silt (7)
Sandy silt l0 clayey silt (6)
Silly sand to sandy silt (7)
Sand to silty sand (8)3.
0
0 1 2
3-1 0 1 2 3 9 5 6 7
qc 1,1'7V21
fs IT/fl^21
u2 ITW21
Location:
Position:
Ground
level:
Test no'.
Jacksonville,
NC
X: 0.00
ft, Y: 0.00 it
0.00
001
Project ID:
Client'.
Date:
Scale:
{I 41
GE75ouuions
v25/2o10
1:50
CpNOLIN0.
DRILLING
Project:
Page:
Fig,
Cone
Nom
Noa227
AMR
GP10-01-167
1/1
7lp area lcm2l'. 1e
_
File
pretrial cpl4.CPT
Sleeee area tcm2l' 150
1 2 3-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 00.1�21A3a4049m6ID T��90.0
I IJ
-
'
Pulllnlllu IIIII
l
1_
innlnll IIII nl nIIIu11
�nnnrlmm�nnnn
l 1
____r ____I____
1 I I I I
1 I
_i_r_r _I_r_r. _I__
__________�__
uflnnllnulnlllulnl
l
I I I I I
l
.
1'ulllnll11111111nlll nl
1 I
i 1 1 1 I 1 1
1 1
n nnrinnnninnnn
tllllll n u Il lllllllllll nl
____r-___I- -"
I I
-rr-r-l-r-r-1--
I I I I I
-- '--r- - - -� --
1 I
lillllllllll llllllllnllll
nnnrinrrtnn nnnrl
1
-- --r ____
1 I I I I I I
_i-'r-r-r r-r-I_..
1 1
_____I_____,__
ljlnnll nl nlnlllllllll
� I I
I I I I I I I
I l
4.1
Illlnull111lllllnl nl
irnnrinnnTnnnnn
----r----1---'
-r--
--- --

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
IE
R
3
_
o
j
O
�
°
J
O
O
T
N
.o
O
O
o
o
-p
v
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
O I
O
O
C
J
(n
O
N>
Z
C
�i
0Ul
n
R
O)
1�
N
W
N
in
N
V
U
C
O
C
O)
(O
V
O
M
M
fD
U
0
0
3
3
•�
F
O
U
O
U+
w
_
o
0
UT
0
Ln
0
0
0
lW
m
m
t
a
N
y
E
p
W
0
W
0
W
W
W
W
W
W
N
L
O
M
M
Y
Y
D
N
`°
E
M
N
N
W
O
ID
N
p
v
w
m
_
r
uS
v
v
ri
Z
0
R
It
}
(n
(n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
F
u
E
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
z
z
N
N
N
T
O
d d
O
V
N
Q
Z
W R
N
N
E
y
N
C
Y
O
N
f
w
a
E
'
U
U
o
_
E
LL
R
w
U
U
LL
W
E
v
ai
°
W
U
E
M
y
rn
o
ch
v,
w
v
a
E
p
ui
ui
o
a
}
o
L
N
CO
o
=
C�
w
m
m
p
p
W
U
o
v
E
L
L
a
H
m
M
o
E
d
m
U
(n
w
m
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
ai
m
a
3
o
m
fn
L
o
cRi
J❑
.v.
R
U
U
�i
°
J
LL
3
U
M
z
N
�
N
R
a°°
0
❑
E
°
E
U
t
e
U
V
N
M
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
g
a
0
N
M
z
Q
H
V
O
N
R
E
E
V)
cL
a
�
>
d
cc,"
-�
oN
o
o
rn
m
m
uo---
---
--
—
W
e
_
w
A
•
.n
y
R
m�
°
oi
N
LL
R
z
O
z
rn❑
oa:-,
E
0-to
U
>
`o
`o
`o
m
m
a
CO
am
03
m
z
m

N
W
O
M
Q
O
Q
Q
N
(D
N
M
M
N
Cl?
O
(O
M
M
N
M
M
N
(O
O)
M
N
(V
(V
-
N
o
V
O
S
U
N
r
N
tp
N
O
N
O
O
-U,
m
O
O
O
N
r
r
r
N
N
N
N
Z
y
N
O
fn
C
�,.
.�
n
m
_
N
m
C
M
N
O
N
N
co
r
r
(O
O
N
1�
U
C
J
C
L
S
W
m
o
r
tD
N
Q
Q
Q
V
Q
Q
M
r
a
T
C
10
O
O+>
Y
o
F
O
'U
O
U+
W
M
M
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
W
C
N
w
W
W
w
W
w
w
u,
W
w
w
w
w
W
N
M
Q
10
IfJ
N
m
((]
r
Q
w
Y
.O
E
N
[7
7
N
N
Q
Q
M
r
(O
N
a>
p
m
y
@
l
u
M
.-
M
r
r
M
ui
ui
ui
c
v
v
ao
z
O
10
T
D
y
y=
O
f
_
N
O
(�
67)
U
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
Z
Z
U
�
—
d—
(D
N
N
N
M
Q
v
(p
rn
N
o
a
.
y
Z
Y m
(p
(p
(p
Q
M
O
O
O
O
O)
N
N
YA
T
U
U
o f
W
a
J
z
u E
LL
m
m
?
w
E
u
u
°
m
cEi
w
E
a
E
1fl
N
((l
O
M
M
O)
r
O)
r
Cl
N
O)
O
M
M
N
a
O
O
N
N
Q
W
6.
�
�
0
a
0
i
J
n
U
c
m
o
=
E
O
C7
N
W
m
m
.N
N
ON
S
O
Y
O
V
WU
W
E
L
t
d
a
m
Q
U
X
-1
F
m
0
as
O
p
Q_
(n
W
y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
m
N
E
c
L
n!
o
y
..
w
U
U
J
J
cl
LL
3
U
N
z
T
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
N
M
r
M
N
Q
N
N
U
W
O
0
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
M
Q
I!'I
M
fTJ
V
O
O
O
N
M
Q
(O
10
c
O
m
E
E
t
a
0°
o
U
fl7
Q
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
N
z
F
Q
O
OCo
O
�
N
2
o
H
E
n
a
0
_
F
d
m
W
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
E
`
p
c
m
'o
H
O
y
li
z
z°
a
o
o
_
0 E
c
c
c>
3
0
U
a.
o
m
>
g
o
m
o
m
O
m
m
z
W
5
in

t0
e-
c0
M
tD
V
M
M
CO
C
R
L
O
a
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
Z
E5
M
c+]
D
QJ
i
t
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
U1
>
3
O
m
U
C
D
O
C
i0
(O
W
V
O
Of
U
R
D
N
m
N
A
R
V
N
T
c
m
o
+)
Y
o
3
3
O
O
+
W
—
—
-
—
W
C
7
N
O
.0
W
E
N
L
D
n
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
U
W
0
O
Y
D
R
E
N
I-
CO
N
O
Z
0
T
D
N
=
�
_
F
„
1
E
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
>
N
E
~
Q
Q
Z
Z
_
CY d
01
N
N
O
(O
'Z
R
r
V
M
N
N
Y
N
O
J
C
U
o f
UJ
U
Z
E
y
R
m
w
E
J
o
v
o
i
7
ai
Q
O
N
N
Q
C'
O
u
a
a
N
=
c-
E
U'
m
m°1
N
�
C_
W
O
«
'u
WU
oN
R
E
s
s
a
N
O
N
t
N
S
w
V
N
(n
W
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
R
6
C
N
C
R
R
N
J
E
O
R
y
Z
oc
J
U
U
Z
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
.�
r
OM
it
T
N
W
O
O
N
NO
V
R
u
a
�
a
o
_o
U
o
U
fn
0
0
Z
CO
0
0
0
N
p
v
0co
a
R
U1
a
c
0
m
2 E
rA
M
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V
z
z
R
o
o
m
E
R
°'
rn
U
U
y
D1
°i
c
c
2
IL
m
E
m
m
m
z�
in

O)
l0
CD
CD
M
o
a
of
IO
M
�O
M
M
(O
QI
Q
10
O)
O
O
i
c9
(U
0
I
i
r
M
cM
O
Q
Q
N
O
O
O)
O
h
m
m
mO)
ID
O
m
O
m
l m
W
W
W
N
W
N
m
O
C
W
n
R
N
M
r
M
M
<o
r
In
u>
Q3
r
r
n
R
'ro
R
>.
M
C
W
_
W
W
E
A
L
c
N
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
u
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
w
(A
L
Yl
L
U
N
N
r
N
N
CO
N
N
(O
O
N
Q
Q
M
r
Y
`
1
E
o
m
o
u,
in
M
Q
Q
m
rn
m
co
c0
M
p
I
u
r
co
r
co
co
co
co
co
ui
Iri
vi
ui
ui
�
Z
`
N
O
(n
N
U
}
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
F
n
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
f
Y
O
=
y
z
z
M
O
M
O
O
O
V
dd
Q
N
N
�
R
Z
N
M
M
M
N
A
C
R
i
U
c)
LL
R
E
U
ELL
E
E
E
7
0-
W
10
r
10
O
O
M
N
N
of
a0
O
M
M
_
Q
J
O
Cl!
N
R
a
lY.l
E
�
O
Ifi
I[i
o
r
r
r
c0
m
m
m
m
ca
aD
rn
rn
rn
Q
p
a
C_
W
O
r
u
W
U
oN
w
E
~
U
x
E
w
m
t
fA
2
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
N
Q
Q
N�
to
10
u�
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
_=
A
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(n
W
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
R
H
3
3
E
o
O
O
Z
m
n_
o
O
J
y
7
U
7
U
^
t
Lq
o
u
3
3
ci
>
z
D
m
o.
CL
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
$
..
R
O
N
(O
Q
N
N
M
O
M
O
(O
N
N
••
U
LU
O
Q
M
O
N
Q
M
N
0 9
0
10
Lll
U
V
O
O
N
M
M
Q
10
t0
I�
N
m
Ol
O
m
C
C
Ul
N
H C
I
'y
N
J
C
a
o
0
❑
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
y
b
M
l0
co
z
H
Q
J
O
N
a
t6
�
°
E
o
E
M
i
x
W
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0l
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ti
m
r
m
�n
Q
M
N
�
o
m
rn
w
r
'
�i
E
p
a
;
R
v
N
O
R
Ii
z
z°
o,
N
o
>
a`
m
00
m
m
Z
M
N

GET
Virginia Beach Office
204 Grayson Road
Virginia Reach, VA 23462
[phone]
Williamsburg Office
1592 Penniman Rd. Suite E
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
[phone]
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
Eiizabeth City Office
504 East Elizabeth St. Suite 2
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
[phone]
Standard Penetration Test (SPT). N-value
Standard Penetration "rests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil samples were obtained with a
standard 1.4" LD., Y' 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 (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and is shown on the
boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.
NON COHESIVE SOILS
(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)
Relative Density
Very Loose 4 blows/R, or less
Loose 5 to 10 blows/ft.
Medium Dense 1 I to 30 blows/ft.
Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft.
Very Dense 51 blows/ft. or more
Particle
Size Identification
Boulders
8 inch diameter or more
Cobbles
3 to 8 inch
diameter
Gravel
Coarse
I to 3 inch diameter
Medium
1/l to I inch diameter
Fine
1/r to % inch diameter
Sand
Coarse
2.00 man to 1/. inch
(diameter of pencil lead)
Medium
0.42 to 2.00 man
(diameter of broom straw)
Fine
0.074 to 0.42 mm
(diameter of human hair)
Silt
0.002 to 0.074 man
(cannot see particles)
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)
Coarse Grained Soils
More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve
GW - Well -graded Gravel
GP- Poorly graded Gravel
GW-GM - Well -graded Gravel w/Silt
GW-GC - Well -graded Gravel w/Clay
GP -GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt
GP -GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay
GM - Silty Gravel
GC - Clayey Gravel
GC -GM - Silty, Clayey Gravel
SW - Well -graded Sand
SP - Poorly graded Sand
SW-SM - Well -graded Sand w/Silt
SW -SC - Well -graded Sand w/Clay
SP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/Silt
SP-SC - Poorly graded Sand w/Clay
SM - Silty Sand
SC - Clayey Sand
SC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand
Fine -Grained Soils
50%or more passes the No. 200 sieve
CL - Lean Clay
CL-ML - Silty Clay
ML - Silt
OL - Organic Clay/Sih
Liquid Limit 5Ws, or greater
CH - Fat Clay
MH - Elastic Silt
OH - Organic Clay/Silt
Highly Organic Soils
PT - Peat
- gage 1 off t
GET Revision 12112107
COHESIVE SOILS
(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)
Consistency
Very Soft
2 blows/ft. or less
Soft
3 to 4 blows/ft.
Medium Stiff
5 to 8 blows/E.
Stiff
9 to 15 blows/ft.
Very Stiff
16 to 30 blows/ft.
Hard
31 blows/ft. or more
Relative Proportions
De Q rve Term Percent
Trace
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 Readings
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, underi rains and areas of covered soil (paved parking
lots, side walks, etc.).
Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No
200 sieve size), coarse -grained soils are classified as follows:
Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW,SP
More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SC
5 to 12 percent Borderline cases requiring dual
symbols
G�
a
0
Plasticity Chart
MENNEN
on
■■■■■■®„■
■■■■■,
■
■■■®.EM■■
■■■.,■■■■■
MOSOMEMMEN
:1 1. _J bd
LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)

TIMMONS GROUP .•••••0
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. 0 •
5410 Trinity Road, Suite 112, Raleigh, NC 27607
To: NCDENR Wilmington Regional Office
Attn: Ms. Kelly Johnson
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
From: Zak Shipman, PE
Project: Stormwater Permit -Pre -Trial Confinement Facility
Enclosed Please Find:
DATE
2
3-23-11
Stormwater Construction Drawings
2
Application Form
1
O&M Forms BMP Supplements, USGS Quad Map, and Fee Check
1
Calculation Package
1
Geotech Report
1
Project Narrative
1
Response to Comments Letter
Comments:
Ms.Johnson,
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
T:ECEIVED
MAR 2 4 2011
BY:
SIGNED: _
Z k Shipman, PE

�v0000
.O °O
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
Zak Ship PE I project Engineer
TEL [phone] Trinity Road, Suite 112
FAX [phone] Raleigh, NC 27607
[e-mail]

�0000.®
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
March 23, 2011
NCDENR Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attn: Ms. Kelly Johnson
Re: Pre -Trial Confinement Facility (P-1310)
Dear Ms. Johnson,
MAR 2, 4 2011
Attached please find revised construction documents, drawings, calculations, and application
materials to enable the review of the reference project. We are in receipt of your letter dated
March 8 regarding the previous submittal of the application package which was rejected. We
have addressed your comments contained in that letter as outlined below:
1. Design Storm: This project was designed with a 1.0" design storm. Please design it for
the 1.5" design storm.
Timmons Response: The project has been redesigned using the 1.5" storm.
2. Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT): A soils report was submitted for this project, but it
does not contain all of the information we need. Please provide the SHWT and
infiltration rate for a boring for each BMP location.
Timmons Response: The soils report contains the SHWT information on the individual
boring logs. Borings BMP-1, BMP-3, and BMP-4 were performed in the areas of the
stormwater facilities, and each have SHWT depths shown on the individual boring
logs. Additionally, page 14 of the report contains information on infiltration rates at
those borings.
3. DWQ Staff Visit: Please contact Vince Lewis, our Soil Scientist, to schedule a site visit. A
site visit is required prior to submitting any infiltration project to the Wilmington office.
Timmons Response: We contacted Vince Lewis and he met the project geotechnical
engineer on site Thursday, March 17. His findings for the SHWT at the infiltration
basin differed slightly from that obtained by GET Solutions, which has resulted in the
removal of the infiltration basin from the project. The drainage area associated with
that basin will now be treated by large bioretention cell in the back of the project.
4. Simple Method: Please use the simple method to calculate the required volume for
each BMP as is required by regulation.
Timmons Response: The simple method has been used as requested.

TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
5. Other: Please see the design checklist which is available on our website under
"miscellaneous forms" for guidance on the items that must appear on the plans,
http://portal.ncdenr.org\web/wq/ws/su/statesw/form docs.
Timmons Response: We have reviewed this checklist and included the items indicated
as needed.
We hope these revisions to the project satisfy these comments. If you have any questions or
further comments, please don't hesitate to give me a call at [phone].
Best Regards,
Zak Shipman, PE
Project Engineer
P
m
P
F
E
0
0 0
E
E

". -
Johnson, Kelly
From: Zak Shipman [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:38 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Subject: RE: Pre -Trial Confinement Facility
Thanks for the information! This drains to SC-HQW, so I don't believe we are subject to the SA rules. I'll design for the
1.5" storm accordingly. I just wanted to make sure I didn't send you another package which would get rejected again.
Thanks!
Zak Shipman, PE
Project Engineer 111
TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com
5410 Trinity Road, Suite 112 1 Raleigh, NC 27607
Office: 919.866.49371 Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone] zak.shipmanCcDtimmons.com
Your Vision Achieved Through Ours
From: Johnson, Kelly [mailto:kelly.p.johnson(cbncdenr.govl
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:32 AM
To: Zak Shipman
Subject: RE: Pre -Trial Confinement Facility
Zak,
If I remember correctly this was a new project at Camp Lejeune, and so it would be subject to the "2008 Coastal Rule"
(SL2008-211), attached. So, if you are subject to SA requirements (if you are within a half mile and draining to SA) you
have to do either the 1.5" storm or the 1yr 24hr pre/post storm (-3.8") volume, whichever is greater. If you are not
subject to SA, then you have to do 1.5". 1 have highlighted the applicable portions of the rule in yellow, attached. The
first highlighted part will sound like it is only for ORW waters, but there is a requirement later that SA has to meet most
of those requirements including the volume requirement. The second highlighted section is for "other' areas meaning
non-ORW and non -SA areas. I have also attached a general sheet containing answers to common questions for USMC
projects.
Have a good weekend,
KJ
From: Zak Shipman [mailto:Zak.Shipman(d)timmons.com]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 10:46 AM
To: Johnson, Kelly
Subject: Pre -Trial Confinement Facility
Ms. Johnson,
I just left you a voicemail but thought I would follow up with an email as well. I am in receipt of your March 8 letter
regarding the reference project at Camp Lejeune. Comment 1 mentions for us to design the system for the 1.5" runoff
event, which we are in the process of doing.
In looking at the BMP manual, Chapter 3 mentions that the designer is to consider two forms of runoff in determining
the treatment volume: either the 1.5" runoff event or the difference in volume for the pre and post development

scenario generated by the 1 year, 24 hour storm. Obviously the 1 year 24 hour storm event generates significantly
more treatment volume than the 1.5" storm. The BMP manual is a little vague (maybe I'm not looking in the right spot)
on if the 1 year storm volume calculation is in play on this particular project due to the sites water classification. Since
this site does not drain to SA waters, is the 1 year volume applicable? Should we design solely for the 1.5" storm and
ignore the 1 year storm? This would seem to concur with Comment 1 on your letter.
If you could let me know your thoughts, it would be much appreciated.
Thanks!
Zak Shipman, PE
Project Engineer III
TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com
5410 Trinity Road, Suite 112 1 Raleigh, NC 27607
Office: 919.866.49371 Fax: [phone]
Mobile: 919.210,8608 1 zak.shioman(d).timmons.com
Your Vision Achieved Through Ours

Nrf 517311NJtlVA31350W ^ 133H5 H3A0� ` 9
G q�■ Yr w'^•^"^^^Allll�tlA 1WW3NIAN03 ltlltll'3Ld q
TWO1.. 'js. /� smowmvuawwr 3N031'3l dWtl3Ot[Vd '¢iq
J� I" f, t1N1AN71Nl ]J I. 3r3-I n V ..'d
'� dl1011oSNOWNII I �� ����i;' 1NV10M-ONIM1MNO]9NItl33NI0N3 flI1I110tlf NAYN :{;�� I
2
or
F
r
£
p
W
a
v � O
o � n
ry z
s 1 ' s y b Eli
W M11eee�� x
inu Y°`��t555 k93� a
s sss cfitd y,3
�si�a��a�SS��,Ppgnse
w»��f
a 2
�
wWoz.z� �Q
U
< Z uG�g6 a
L 0 J o z
H ° -� g
Z Z Q
O a
W W=�
~ Z F-
w ,+ 0�
(�
W W O mC % Z JRT^' Q w VI0 -Z � Z L �F F¢ G�_
W �
J LLJ Z 0
d F— ( l vy �,:. za wtz ,zuzz
J
J (..� _ i a. 0z 2Q£pw0
Z t/1 Q% W )gyp r13 i} I :�q /.Y. > s O O
VJ U Z �
O Z O O o�oiGO
coy r.,\ lY.�.. £ N 0 F
Q J < Q
LL
ry Q UZ
�- Z
�
W LL U
�l/ z 1
LL � o Eq4 f Ft Ei ! woma
o p i a.p pp t °0 i^9 1 >£
LL Q '> i3i lassis i{4FN{iE 7{1; 1�iiii!{I{?!€{iii�ii�9t!!7 z w£
O vvaa @ •. �, v .. v W o Y
m !ry r9l. lil} ;t vo-9 •:i-t.:ll=aee)9. r" u o m m
�m£Gc t 1 " j D F
z 3 i ! i _i z�`oz
+4{{�{:itli?{!?1{i�ii`,9RdE9i9!{ti{(3:liiEii9;l�ifi€rt „!!! w
i { r
0
z
� S
! Sa134 ! iA § AeL ! 3 4S5
"R 1 1 9P F ggY4{{iQ
z yyroyr 1a�Avc�9tyi S33
111
w 0 u 0 Q

dnoun sNowwu
IL
M1
z
0
Z
0
IN
ry
tgP

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24,2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G�,�
4.9 Seismic Design Recommendations:
Based on our experience with similar construction projects in the general area of the project
site, and in accordance with the previously completed Addendum No. 1 to the original
feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010 (GET Project No. EC09-106G
included in Appendix IV of this report) and the NC Building Code; Chapter 16, this site
would be classified as a site Class C, based on which seismic designs should be
incorporated. This recommendation is based on the data obtained from the 75-foot deep
SPT borings, our experience with 100-foot deep CPT soundings and SPT borings
performed within the vicinity of the project site, as well as the requirements indicated in the
North Carolina State Building Code (2006 International Building Code).
4.10 Soil Permeability
Four (4) infiltration tests were performed at boring locations BMP-1 through BMP-4 (one
test at each boring location). The tests were performed at depths ranging from 2 to 5 feet
below existing site grade elevations. The borehole was 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 the borehole. This stand holds a
calibrated reservoir (2000 ml) and a cable used to raise and lower the water control unit
(WCU). The WCU establishes a constant water head within the borehole during testing by
use of a precision valve and float assembly. The WCU was attached to the flow reservoir
with a 2-meter (6.6 foot) braided PVC hose and then lowered by cable into the borehole to
the test depth elevation. As required by the Glover solution, the WCU was suspended
above the bottom of the borehole at an elevation of approximately 5 times the borehole
diameter. The shut-off valve was then opened allowing water to pass through the WCU to
fill the borehole to the constant water level elevation. The absorption rate slowed as the
soil voids became filled and an equilibrium developed as a wetting bulb developed around
the borehole. Water was continuously added until the flow rate stabilized. The reservoir
was then re -filled in order to begin testing. During testing, as the water drained into the
borehole and surrounding soils, the water level within the calibrated 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 (C), height
of the constant water level (H), and borehole diameter (D) were used to calculate KS
utilizing the Glover Solution.
4,
13 GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geolechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
-x MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
Based on the field testing and corroborated with laboratory testing results (published values
compared to classification results), the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soils is
tabulated below (Table III) and is presented on the "Hydraulic Conductivity Worksheet"
(Appendix V), included with this report.
a
Table III - Infiltration Test Results
t
Boring ,
I
. `Boi•Ing
' ;depth ='
Water.. "
'' l depth ;.
PercenfSilY
and/or Clay
Ksat
'. Value`
Ksat
Value
,.,. .
Ksat Class r-;
9MP-1
2.0
4.8
31.1
7.23 x 10'
0.102
Moderately Low
BMP-2
2.0
5.29
21.2
8.94 x 10
1.267
Moderatel High
BMP-3
4.0
9.875
24.0
2.27 x 10'
0.321
Moderately High
BMP-4
5.0
9.92
17.5
6.33 x 104
0.898
Moderately High
The boring test and water depths noted above are referenced from below the existing site grade
elevations.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns
It is expected that dewatering may be required for excavations that extend near or below
the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be
accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level
may require well pointing.
It would be advantageous to construct all fills early in the construction. If this is not
accomplished, disturbance of the existing site drainage could result in collection of surface
water in some areas, thus rendering these areas wet and very loose. Temporary drainage
ditches should be employed by the contractor to accentuate drainage during construction.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove water from the
excavations, remove saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface soils
to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
5.2 Site Utility Installation
The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the pip
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 backflling.
All utility excavations should be backfilled with structural
this report.
14

I
a

I
3NnwgldAVO
dnomo smomwii
0
w
0 u m <

0
6
o
o
0
0
6
0
3:
0
0
0
0
O
o
a
0
m
r
I
m
CV
0
---
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
a
0
mIQ
W
d.
F-
o9
o
w
w
ru
4
9
9
9
9
W
ni
w
w
w
w
42
Cl!
a
0
0
f
E
6
6
a
o
di,
c
< <
z z
D
4
z
m
m
2.1
0
. z
X
3: E
W
7,
D
z
E
E
E
0
E
D
6
.
Q
w
. ...
........
.......
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—•—
—
—
C�
w
E
W
m
0
0
Z
E
0
X
�N
7�
LP
r
N
n
X
0
—
CP
—
—
LLI
0
m
M
3
0
E
0
<
3:
ir
z
.......
......
.
LLJ
6
6
r
co
61
EE
o
.2
L)
—2—
0
61
Tg
<
F2
c6
r
z
o
17
0
*.=
T
0
0
E
m E
tn
m
m
6
>
m
E
12
z
-LM
a
o
Ir
a
E
0
a
00
E
>
>
S
;5
m
6
CD
6
col
z
Z)

d0
N
O)
m
�-M
(OO
NI N UN
M
M
N
I
o
M
rn
I
O
m
a
�
Om
n r`�
I..0
Z
N
I
`
L
m
d
O
O
0
0 0. 0
0
0
0
O
ur
c
v7
>
3
w
C>
-
M
r
o
0
o
n�
M
o.
�.`m
v
�
�°
�o
c
o�
r
c
M
m
o
ui
(J
ro
r
r m
�
r
V
o
0
3
a>>
u
Y
U
m
LU
N
Y
N
w
n
m
WIIII
N
W
IA
f
.0
L
U
N
N
d
m
OWl
N
d
Y
M
N
.-
m
V
d i M
r
m
O�
O
m
aN
M...�
......._
...._....
._.....
..._.
.......
...
� .........
..
U
0
0
CM')
0
O. O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0l0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
N
Y
61
N
Y
U'
U
Z Z
•—I—_—.
—i.�.
___.•--
cl
m
m
m
m
M
d
V (O
m
N
O
�
Q
(D
O
M
�n
N
e
mr
m
o
t'I
0
M
0 o
O
m
m
m
m
Y
d'
O
(moI
N
J
❑
U
U
O
W
M
v
Z
_
II
LL
N
Y
7
w
u
u
uLLE
7
O
N
N
F
d
V
E
to
m
In
O(M
M
r1
r m
O
C2
M•
0
0
`-
M
m
r
r
rn
rn(`
o rn
.-
N
Q
E
o
a
0
J
M
O
O
O
OI
O
O
O{
of O
�`
2
C
W
W
U
oN
v
E
I
Y
L
a
~
E
cmi
w
w
of
Q
o
o
0
00
0
00
0
0I
o o
0
0
0
UI
___
w
y
H
of
o
0
0
0
0
0
0l o
0
0
0
J
J❑
LL
i
U
j
I
I
N
J
Z
__ ._..
Sc
_..
<L
si
TG
L
Cr
..—..
rL
<I
�) 6
<
cL
<
._......
..
........
....
..
••
._�.'
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q. Q
Q
Q
Q
O
g
O
O
N
M
r
M
O) m
V
N
m
#
W
O
O
M
N
M
M
M
N N
M
V
N
U
9
N
LL
W
��
O
O
j O
�
�
(V
C'i
d��
t'O
f�
Ki
Oi
m
C
C
C
O
O
I O
O
O
O
O
O
O'
I
y
N
N
J
- -
a
O
E
E
0`
❑Nv
wN
u
u
Q
M
L❑.
O
O
O
O
OO!O
O
O
O
Nao
Z
d°
0d
U
m
mm
E
a
m
W
0
0i
o
0
0
0
0
0'
0 0
0
0
0
u
••
o
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
lD
o� 0
d M
0
N
0
0
O
'
Y
W
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
NI
N N
N
N
N
d
W
A
3
O
N
N
LL
Z
z
O
m
U
a
c
c
>
U`
I
I
�.
m
c
m
m
m
I
Z
7
N

' c0
�[1
[•J
m
p,
Q
Q
0
0
0
0
o
I
o
L
O
O
3
Z
0
O
6
6
0
0ci
O
0
0
«0In
z+
Ot
—.—
---
----¢0
3a0
0
"'>—INr
JE
4
Q0°
[l0')
N
v'=
Y
m
2
'o,
w
W
W
W
W
W
W
0
F
I
�
O
M�
U�
Q
N❑
N
Z
N
,0
�
=
I
of
0
0
0
(D
0
I
O
0
0
0
0
0
U0
Z
Z
—.m.
N.
N.
T_
M
N
N
Y
T
A
U
30 E
y
Z
LL E
LL
A
d
ai
0
u
u
i
❑
uj
E
Q
O
N
N
I
Q
d
U
p
E
_
m
N
�0
r
r
M
O
M
m
_
N
Q
----
v
I1)
0
N
M
i
E
a
p
M
CO
a
=
n
C7
a
I
N
m
m
N
w
«
«
b
w
IN
E
n
F
o
a
Q'
❑
m^
Q
N
O
CD
(
(
—�—�—
F
L
N
2
N
Q
i
S
S
2
A
Cdi
O
O
IN
O
InQO
(n
i
W
h
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
d
O
c
I
d
O
O
m
3
N
0
J❑
11
Z
S
<
<
<
<
--
—
�
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
c
A
O
r
N
Q
O
O
IfJ
@
W E
O
O
INM
66
INQ
U
9
N
M
V
V
I
C
r
InM
N
A
o
ono
0
0
0
_-----__---_.a
�
C
°
r
m
z
O
~
Q
ui
a
W
N
U
A
n
O
M
E
'r
d
In
o
0
o
rn
m
0
CD
---._--_
_
W
m
3
I h
_
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
`•d
E«
W
A
N
A
A
O«
L
N
FT
7—
O
Ol
—
z
z
m❑
0
E
I
❑
w
y
c
c
c
«
U
�
a`
mp
c
mp
mp
I
z
Z)
In

m
MIS
m!m''...U�
oq
I
m
M
I M
1p
(q
'R
Irn
o
'
m
l
T
•v
—
O
}^
�'
m
O
O
W
h
O)
M
I M
T
P
l i
P
N
O
O•
N
0
0
01
0
O
O
�
i
i
I I
I
---.
---
C
j
E
L
N
N
N•
N
yy
NI N�
in
N
O
a
y
N
S
N—
tOD
m
N
N
'..
Q
Q
P
P
P
P
f
Q
P!
I S
Q
P
S
Q
_•--
---
P
W
C
7
v
ry
W
_
a
m
L
o
'v
N
N
U
0
L l
0
W
9O
w
W
O
W
0
W
C�
I W
O!
W'', W
O
W
O
W
W
O
W
O
w
N
>.�
d
�,�
—
Y
d
Y
N
O
O
N
vMIN
O
(
Um.—�
N
�O
N
N
N
m
Z
O
d
C
•!
N
N
W
mim
W
W,..m
m
m
Q
Q
m
Q
P
Q
M
F-
II
E
o
0
0
0
016
6
0; o
6
6
6
6
6
Y
O
2
Y
d
U
Z
Z
M
M
M
O
__-I_
o
1 o
_�
M,
IO',
Q
M
P
M
O
O
O
P
P
N
N
a
••
Z
d R•
M
M
O
M
M
M
m
N
In)
N�
O
N
N
N
N
N.
M
M
n
O
n
O
Y
d
O
O
R
J
C
3 E
I
w
a
«
E
E
E
O
O
O
O
OIO
O
O
O
O
O
W«
E
o
b
F
m
d
6
`
E
a
a
M
,
OO
o
v
—
--_
I
M
-- _—_—_�_---_
M
P
m
m
I
=
F-
t
N
2
N
n
P
Q
P
Q
P
Q
P(
In
in
In
In
LP
Q
••
d W
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
m
O
Q
O
01
OI
0
0
O
0
c7
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
2=
2
O
O
O
Oy
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
N
N
3
E
N
Z
m
rn
J
L_
I
e
p"
LL
3
3
ci
�
I>
z
_
o0
y
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
aka
a
a
a
a
a
d
0
U)
m
vp
N
N
! O
M
m
O
m
N
�
W
VI
N
E
E
t
o
e
In
ZC
m
o
0
0
0
0
0
0 0'
�i�
o
0
0
0
o
m
rn
o
F7
Q
O
N
a
w
N
E
o
Y
E
Liz
0
0
m
u
0
o
N
m
m
�
w m
0
n
0
m—
0
0
o I o
'-I
0
0
0
0
o
d
6
V
...
O
N
LL
z
z°
o,
o
ow
D
0
0
0
a
m=

_r
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
March 8, 2011
Mr. Carl Baker, PE, Deputy Public Works Officer
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 27547
Subject: APPLICATION RETURN
Pre -Trial Confinement Center (P-1310)
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
On March 4, 2011, the Division received an incomplete State Stormwater Management
Application for the project listed above. The application and check number 010228, in the
amount of $505 are being returned because the application package lacked the necessary
elements to accept it for review. Please provide the following information upon the next
submittal of this application package:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
1. Design Storm: This project was designed with a 1.0" inch design storm. Please design
it for the 1.5" design storm.
2. Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT): A soils report was submitted for this project, but it
does not contain all of the information we will need. Please provide the SHWT and
infiltration rate for a boring for each BMP location.
3. DWQ Staff Visit: Please contact Vince Lewis, our Soil Scientist, to schedule a site visit.
A site visit isrequired prior to submitting any infiltration project to the Wilmington office.
4. Simple Method: Please use the Simple Method to calculate the required volume for
each BMP as is required by regulation.
5. Other: Please see the design checklist which is available on our website under
"miscellaneous forms" for guidance on the items that must appear on the plans,
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms docs.
Please visit DWQ's website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc,us/su/bmp forms htm to download the
latest available forms. Please provide the requested information and return the package to the
address below. Note that the 90-day statutory permit review time begins upon receipt of a
complete application.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Inlemet. vv w.ncwatenluality,org
Ore
NorthCarolina
Natin-ally
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affinnalive Actbn Employer

Pre -Trial Confinement Facility (P-1310)
March 8, 2011
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone] or email me at
[e-mail].
Sinc rely,
elly J nson
Environmental Engineer
S:\WQS\StormWater\Permits & Projects\Application Returns\2011 03 Pre Trial Confinement
cc: Zak Shipman, PE, Timmons Group
Wilmington Regional Office File
Page 2 of 2

Rule(s) Subject (check all that apply):
❑ 1995 Coastal f9'2008 Coastal ❑ Phase II ❑ Universal
Paperwork:
Check for $505 (must be no older than 6 months)
CYlpplication form with correct/original signatures (original plus 1 copy). If Corporation or LLC also:
o Print the info from the NCSOS X
o Either, 1.) The applicant is listed on the NCSOS with his/her correct title or, 2.) A notarized letter of
authorization has been provided:
Q�'Supplements (1 original per BMP). BMP type(s): �� vrf , toQ IEn) Cto�
CEO&M with correct/original signatures (1 original per BMP, except le'vepreaderslfilter strips and swales)
.a'Deed restrictions (if outparcel or subdividing) (original pJuscopy)\\
o Deed restriction template (signed and or 1
o Proposed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions (sig ed and notarized)
❑ Soils report identifying the SHWT &(by •. r I�
g�E\3 NO
CSrnn? Ciao Locc un Wt 1 M?
Supporting calculations, signed & sealed (if necessary)Receiving stream classification: 5C1r� S `N , If SAW also:
o SA: USGS topo map with the it thet`ceivi g waters and the''/2 mile radius shown to scale.
o O 575 ft of MHWL for Area onvirQ�me�tal Concern and max BUA per rule.
�Modifica6ons: If built: Designer's Cert., 2. �If part a lly built: Partial Cert., 3.) If not built: No Cart. needed.
Development T�pe (che k all that apply
❑ Residential or C9 Commerciaili ❑ Deed restrictions match?
❑ Subdivision or mingle Lot ❑ Deed restrictions match?
(2/ High Density or Okow Density ❑ Deed restrictions match?
locc,) cCvo)
x,A ❑ Offsite project ❑ RedevelopAent ❑ Modification ❑ Exempt,
�jq❑ NCGQ2 (bulkhead) ❑ NCG03v(bTear/grade) ❑ NCG04 (linear)
Density: I �
❑ BUA calculations inc •somnwn{areas, clubhouse, sidewalks, etc.
❑ BUA %��ip.?, i , Matches high/low density requirement for rule and receiving stream class:
P
No obvious math errors
❑ If High Density: Design storm correct for rule and receiving stream class.p@ \' ? ()�pQ
Plans, signed and%ealed (2 sets): SvmP�O o me
❑ Two sets recei d ❑ Layout (with proposed BUA dimensions) �� f aS�3m s
❑ Grading ❑ Drainage area map (all HD systems & curb outlet swales)
❑ Vicinity map ❑ Project Boundaries ❑ Legend
❑ Wetlands:
o Delineated on plans o "No wetlands onsite" on plans
❑ Details:
o Roads o Cul-de-sacs o Curbing o Sidewalk
o BMPs/ Level spreaders/ Filter strips/ Curb outlet swales o Buildings (Apts or Condos)
Offsite Projects:
❑ Des' er's Certification has been submitted for the Offsite BMP receiving the runoff from the project.
Zed restrictions have been recorded and a copy submitted for the Offsite BMP permit.
ot size has not changed from what was approved under the Master Plan.
orrect lot number is referenced on the supplement form.
ffsite system is in compliance with its permit, if known.
Infiltration Projects:
❑ Soils report: SHWT, soil type, and expected infiltration rate are provided.
❑ DWQ has conducted a site visit? Date:
Wet Pond Permanent Pool Meets One of the Following:
Is located no lower than 6" below the estimated SHWT.
❑ Incoming groundwater is quantified and evaluated, AND Storage volume verified, AND Outlet evaluated for free
drainage to the receiving waters under SHWT conditions.
Decision (check one):
❑ Complete: Return file to admin (Jo Casmer) to log in. (Stamped in received date = BIMS date)
❑ Slightly incomplete: E-mail consultant, request information to be returned within one business day (24 hours after
request. Info requests on Friday, allow a return on the following business day). If info not returned, issue an
application return letter and give everything to admin. (Add info received date = BIMS date)
❑ Substantially incomplete: Issue an application return letter and give everything to admin.

16No Cell Ale 3 fro Ce�� #Z YNS,� Ius h # \
$M91)
lcakN Ei �S
GMQ y
6awNoi.,A a �rcNsx-J p.(0 75rtw� VOq-)

TIMMONS GROUP o•••••0
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. * • 0
5410 Trinity Road, Suite 112, Raleigh, NC 27607
To: NCDENR Wilmington Regional Office
Erosion Control Express Review
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
From: Zak Shipman, PE
Project: Stormwater Permit -Pre -Trial Confinement Facility
Enclosed Please Find:
DATE
2
3-2-11
Stormwater Construction Drawings
2
Application Form
1
O&M Forms BMP Supplements, USGS Quad Map, and Fee Check
1
Calculation Package
1
Geotech Report
1
Project Narrative
Comments:
Please call with questions.
E-CEIVED
MAR 44 2011
BY:�_
SIGNED
Z Shipman, PE

-J%�``,�`-e, ;1d/�,'l; •n: � j � m � iy Cr �. S � \moo ��l(��J%
/�
neau
71
�` ��� ���\ '��� e a r .� �� �' � I�—emu 'q 7 ' 25� ( � - oea' �♦ � 1�
0
O (
3.
5P,
A 1. —Y �l L_
il��ai�♦ b I ♦ � � � , .n��' /i�..:�25 ,'� O , sy5 ��; � i' �`/'�
�.r, ,\ y.t * . o ✓��i ice— f , A ���F�. .'" V
Tankgw�!
it
Ir
l Y ay n 2 1 //77
Ruins +�j_��✓*/e'�y "'�. Ira 1 _ 1° 7' d;\.1r,. ,. /, 25'�� f', '�/
Copynoht (C) 1997. Maptech. Inc. /

VED
MAR 0 4 2011
Stormwater Design Narrative
Pre -Trial Confinement Facility -Camp Lejeune, NC
Project Overview
The Pre -Trial Confinement Facility is a new project that proposes to construct a two story brig facility
which will be used to house detainees prior to their processing by the military justice system. The
facility will have a total of 75 beds and will be constructed to accommodate a future expansion up to
135 beds. The building will feature pre -cast tilt wall construction and steel framing with a brick veneer
exterior. The site is approximately 8 acres in size and is currently vacant.
Existing Site Conditions and Demolition:
The site selected for the Pre -Trial Confinement Facility is located adjacent to the intersection of Duncan
Street and Snead's Ferry Road inside the cantonment area of Camp Lejeune. The site is heavily wooded,
except for a small cleared area located along the southwestern border of the project site. An existing
barracks building and associated parking lot are located along the western border of the site. The
existing base brig is located southwest of this barracks facility. Existing basketball and volleyball courts
are located in the cleared area on the west of the site, along with a small picnic shelter and several small
storage buildings. Additionally, the site is bounded to the east by a dirt tank trail and a small
intermittent stream. This stream is an unnamed tributary to Cogdels Creek and is classified by North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as SC -NSW.
Topography on the parcel is generally flat with some areas of moderate grade located in the vicinity of
the adjacent stream. Soils on site are classified as Baymeade fine sand by the local soils survey. No
wetlands have been documented on the parcel as indicated by the RFP provided by the government.
Several existing features are currently located on the site that will require removal or demolition. These
include exercise equipment, a volleyball court, basketball court, and covered picnic shelter.
Drainage and Stormwater Considerations:
Stormwater will be managed on site by carefully grading area to direct runoff into a network of
vegetated swales and treatment basins. Curb and gutter has been minimized as much as possible to.
encourage sheet flow. Additionally, a minimal amount of hard piping is proposed which will require
runoff to travel long distances in vegetated swales prior to entering BMP facilities.
NCDENR regulations require the treatment of the first inch of runoff for the removal of Total Suspended
Solids (TSS). Additionally, pre and post volume control for the 1 year, 24 hour storm is required. This
project seeks to meet these requirements by directing all runoff into one of three stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMP) basins. Two bioretention basins will be installed in conjunction with an
infiltration basin.
Bioretention basins 2 and 3 will be constructed in accordance with NCDENR BMP manual. Runoff will
enter these basins via combinations of sheet flow as well as from vegetated swales. Runoff from the
swales will flow over energy dissipating rip rap pads to slow velocity and promote sediment removal and
filtration. The basins will feature a thick layer of soil media which will filter the runoff and remove

pollutants and other contaminants. Perforated underdrains are to be installed in the basins per the
construction drawings to allow for more efficient water removal from the soil media. While the
maximum ponding depth is limited to 12 inches, the basins are sized accordingly to prevent discharge
from the 1 and 2 year storms. Basin 3 has a very small discharge in the 10 year storm, however basin 2
does not have any discharges until the 25 year storm. These extended detention capacities have
eliminated the need for a complicated bypass system to parse out runoff in excess of the design control
volume.
Infiltration basin 1 will also be constructed in accordance with NCDENR BMP manual requirements.
Extensive soils testing has been performed in the area to be occupied by the device. Stormwater
hydrograph modeling indicates that the basin can contain all the water from the 10 year storm without
discharging, and can drawdown this volume in the specified time period at half the determined
permeability rate. This additional performance eliminates the need for a hydraulically inefficient bypass
mechanism to divert additional runoff around the device.

GET
X
Geotechnicnl • Environmental • Testing
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
P-1310 Pre -Trail Detainee Facility
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
G E T PROJECT NO: JX10-113G
November 24, 2010
Prepared for
M.B. Kahn Construction Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 1179
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
ATTN: Mr. Barret Boozer
Prepared by
MAR � 4 2011
GET Solutions, Inc.
415 A Western Boulevard, Jacksonville, NC 28546 ♦ Phone [phone] ♦ Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
I

GET
GeoinM,nimf .&,ni.onmrn�uf • intiny
TO: M.B. Kahn Construction Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 1179
Columbia, SC 29202
Attn: Mr. Barret Boozer
November 24, 2010
RE: Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
Dear Mr. Boozer:
In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Subsurface Investigation and
Geotechnical Engineering Services for the above referenced project. The results of this
study, together with our recommendations, are presented in this report.
Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise
concerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to continue its
role as Geotechnical Engineer during the project implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. We trust that the information
contained herein meets your immediate need, and should you have any questions or if we
could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully Submitted,
Inc.
'EIrk
G E T Solutions,
�rOFEss
:
Pe No.
l✓� —
033529
Glenn W. Hohmeier, P.E.<<c�FNciN�Ee
�
�.
Senior Project Engineer
'�, ti k H0Nf
NC Reg. # 033529•""
f
CARO
Camille A. Kattan, P.E.
o senL �.
Principal Engineer
014103
NC Reg. # 014103
= �'•.
:��ij ,�"NC I NEE' �•.`p�..
A.
Copies: (1) Client
415-A Western Boulevard • Jacksonville, NC 28546 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
I

' 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..................................................2
2.1 Field Exploration....................................................................................2
2.2 Laboratory Testing.................................................................................3
'
3.0
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................4
3.1 Site Location and Description................................................................4
3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions....................................................................5
'
3.3 Groundwater Information.......................................................................6
4.0
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................7
'
4.1 Subsurface Voids...................................................................................7
4.2 Clearing and Grading.............................................................................8
4.3 Subgrade Preparation............................................................................9
4.4 Structural Fill and Placement...............................................................10
4.5 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations...................................11
4.6 Settlements..........................................................................................11
'
4.7 Foundation Excavations.......................................................................11
4.8 Floor Slabs...........................................................................................12
4.9 Seismic Design Recommendations.....................................................13
'
4.10 Soil Permeability..................................................................................13
'
5.0
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................14
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns.................................................14
5.2 Site Utility Installation...........................................................................14
'
5.3 Excavations.........................................................................................15
6.0
REPORT LIMITATIONS.................................................................................15
'
APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX II BORING LOGS
APPENDIX III GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
APPENDIX IV ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE ORIGINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTED ON
THE DATE OF FEBRUARY 19, 2010 (GET Project No. EC09-106G)
APPENDIX V HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS
'
APPENDIX VI CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
GE®

I
Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
November 24, 2010 '
The project site is located on the west side of Sneads Ferry Road within the Camp
LeJeune military installation in North Carolina. The development at this site is planned
to consist of constructing a single story pre-trial detainee facility with a mezzanine
having a total plan area of approximately 25,000 square feet. The maximum wall and
column foundation loads associated with the structure were not known at the time of this
report. However, based on our experience with similar projects the maximum wall loads
associated with the building are not expected to exceed 5 kips per linear foot, and the
column loads are not expected to exceed 100 kips. The structure's first floor will be
supported on -grade with the distributed loads estimated at 150 pounds per square foot.
The construction at this site is also planned to consist of paved driveways and parking
areas, infiltration/bioretention basins and installation of associated infrastructure
components.
Our field exploration program included four (4) recently completed 30-foot deep
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings drilled by G E T Solutions, Inc. within the
footprint of the proposed structure, and four (4) 15-foot deep SPT boring (designated as
BMP-1 through BMP-4) drilled within the proposed infiltration/bioretention basins. A total
of four (4) 75-foot deep previously completed SPT borings identified as B-5 through B-8
and four (4) CPT soundings (CPT-1 through CPT-4) were performed during the project's
initial feasibility study and were included in our evaluations for foundation design
recommendations for the proposed building. Additionally, boring INF-1 is included
herein but was limited to evaluating the soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed
southeastern infiltration/bioretention basin. A brief description of the natural subsurface
soil conditions is tabulated below:
AVERAGE
RANGES OF
STRATUM
DESCRIPTION
SPTI'i N-
DEPTH (Feet)
VALUES
0 to 0.17-1.2
2 to 14 inches of Topsoil
0.17-1.2
SAND with varying amounts of silt and/or clay
to
I
(SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC)
WOH to 100
15 - 75
4 to 6
IA
Lean CLAY (CL); Boring B-5 & B-11 only
5 to 8
7 to 7.5 &
N/A @ B-6;
IB
Fat CLAY (CH); Boring B-6 & B-9 only
23 to 28
1 @ B-9
28 to 32
-
Void; Borings B-7 and B-8 only
N/A
MARLSTONE; at varying depths between 30 and
30 to 58
IC
58 feet below the existing site grades at
32 to 77
Borings B-6, B-7, and B-8
Note (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, N-Values in Blows -per -foot
WOH — Weight of Hammer
Solutions. Inc
w
I

' Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November 24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
' 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 8 to 10 feet below
current grades at the B-9 through B-12 boring locations, which corresponds to an
elevation of about 20.0 feet (MSL). In addition, four (4) temporary piezometers were
' installed at the boring BMP-1 through BMP-4 locations at the time of drilling and 24 hour
groundwater readings were measured to occur at depths ranging from 4.8 to 5.29 feet
below current grades (boring locations BMP-1 and BMP-2) which corresponds to an
' approximate elevation of 27.0 feet MSL and at depths of 9.875 to 9.92 feet below
current grades (boring locations BMP-3 and BMP-4) which corresponds to an
approximate elevation of 20.0 feet MSL.
' The soil sample colors were used to aid in identifying the estimated normal SHWT at
the location of borings BMP-1 through BMP-4. It is noted that soil morphology is not a
reliable indicator of the SHWT in drained soils. However, slight color distinctions were
observed within the soil samples collected at the location of borings BMP-1 through
BMP-4. As such, the normal SHWT depth was estimated to occur at approximately 4
feet below the existing site grade elevation at boring locations BMP-1 and BMP-2 and at
approximately 6 feet below the existing site grade elevation at boring locations BMP-3
and BMP-4.
' The current groundwater levels encountered at the project site and the estimated
normal SHWT depths are anticipated to be contributed to the varying site topography
and possible perched groundwater conditions specifically at boring BMP-1 and BMP-2
locations.
The following 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).
• A cut of up to 14 inches will be required to remove the topsoil material from the
' construction area.
• Some subgrade improvements should be anticipated within the construction
' areas (undercutting and backfilling with select fill) as a result of potentially very
loose subgrade soils containing appreciable amounts of fines (silt and clay) and
organics (vicinity of boring locations B-9 and B-10).
ii
Soludons. Inc--,:
11

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
November 24, 2010 ,
Subsurface voids approximately 2-feet deep were encountered at the location of
the initially completed borings B-7 and B-8 at depths of 28 to 30 feet, respectively
below the existing site grade elevations. Subsequently, a supplemental
subsurface investigation (Addendum No. 1 to the original feasibility study) was
completed to further explore the subsurface soil conditions at the location of the
new building site (shifted to the east). Four (4) Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT)
soundings were performed as part of Addendum No. 1 within the newly
established building footprint which did not encounter these voids. Addendum
No. 1 to the original feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010
(GET Project No. EC09-106G) is included in Appendix IV of this report.
The building was again relocated to the west since the time Addendum 1 was
completed. The initially drilled borings were plotted onto the new site plan
provided by the client. One boring (B-8) was determined to be located within the
northwest portion of the newly positioned building footprint. It should be noted
that no voids were encountered within the recently completed borings B-9
through B-12 and previously completed borings B-5, B-6 and CPT soundings
CPT-1 through CPT-4 to depths of 30 to 36 feet.
The subsurface voids, where encountered, can be addressed by means of
pressure grout placement (injection) to fill the voids and prevent the potential for
subsidence from occurring and resulting in foundation and/or slab -on -grade
settlement. It is recommended that a grout injection specialty contractor develop
the number, depths, and locations of the injection points.
Other options would include shifting the building easterly away from boring B-8;
supporting that portion of the building on deep foundations (such as auger cast
piles) or assuming some risk associated with the subsurface voids and leave the
building at the present location. In any case, additional void delineation efforts
may be warranted, by means of advancing several CPT probes within the
western building area.
Shallow foundations designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf
(24-inch embedment, 24-inch width) in combination with void stabilization, if
deemed necessary.
• Estimated post -construction total and differential settlements up to 1-inch and ''/z-
inch, respectively, as contributed by the foundation bearing soils.
Based on our experience with similar construction in the general area of the
project site and in accordance with the previously completed Addendum No. 1 to
the original feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010 (GET
Project No. EC09-106G included in Appendix IV of this report) and the NC
Building Code; Chapter 16, this site would be classified as a site Class C.
N GET
I

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November 24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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.
Solutlortfi Iris::.".::

I
Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Project Authorization
November 24, 2010 I
G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our subsurface investigation and geotechnical
engineering services for the proposed P-1310 Pre -Tail Detainee Facility located within the
Camp LeJeune military installation in North Carolina. The Geotechnical Engineering
Services were conducted in general accordance with G E T Solutions, Inc. Proposal No.
PJX10-120G, dated October 6, 2010. Furthermore, these services were provided in
conjunction with our previously completed feasibility study reported on the date of April 17,
2009 (GET Project No. EC09-106G) and Addendum No. 1 dated February 19, 2010.
Authorization to proceed with the Geotechnical Engineering Services was received from Mr.
Barret Boozer of M.B. Kahn Construction Company, Inc.
1.2 Project Description
The development at this site is planned to consist of constructing a single story pre-trial
detainee facility with a mezzanine having a total plan area of approximately 25,000 square
feet. It is expected that the structure will be of steel frame and CMU wall design. The
maximum wall and column foundation loads associated with the structure were not known
at the time of this report. However, based on our experience with similar projects the
maximum wall loads associated with the building are not expected to exceed 5 kips per
linear foot, and the column loads are not expected to exceed 100 kips. The structure's first
Floor will be supported on -grade with the distributed loads estimated at 150 pounds per
square foot. The structure's first floor elevation (FFE=35.0 MSL) is expected to be located
slightly above existing site grade elevations, which range from approximately 27 feet to 31
feet (MSL) within the building footprint. Therefore, it is anticipated that 4 to 7 feet of
structural fill will be required to establish the design grade elevations. The construction at
this site is also planned to consist of paved driveways and parking areas,
infiltrationlbioretention basins and installation of associated infrastructure components.
If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform G E T Solutions,
Inc. so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate.
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:
General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the
proposed development.
Solutions, Inc:
I
I
I

' Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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 or surficial/subsurface organics.
3. Soil subgrade preparation, including stripping, grading and compaction.
' Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of approved structural fill
material.
' 4. Construction considerations for fill placement, subgrade preparation, and
foundation excavations.
1
1
5. Feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the proposed
structure. Design parameters required for the foundation system, including
foundation sizes, allowable bearing pressures, foundation levels and
expected total and differential settlements.
6. Permeability (infiltration) values are provided based on the results of in -situ
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Testing conducted within the proposed
infiltration/bioretention basins as well as our experience with similar soil
conditions. Normal seasonal high groundwater table (SHWT) was also
estimated.
The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the
presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock,
surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Prior to development of
this site, an environmental assessment is advisable.
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
2.1 Field Exploration
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
foundation parameters, four (4) 30-foot deep SPT borings (designated as B-9 through B-
12) were drilled within the proposed structure's footprint.
To aid in developing associated storm water management parameters, four (4) 15-foot
deep SPT boring (designated as BMP-1 through BMP-4) were drilled within the proposed
infiltration/bioretention basins. In -situ soil permeability testing was performed at each of
these boring locations. Four (4) temporary piezometers were also installed (one at each of
the boring locations).

I
Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
November24,2010 '
The SPT borings were performed with the use of rotary wash "mud" drilling procedures in
general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The tests were performed continuously from the
existing ground surface to a depth 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, using an automatic
hammer. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment of
penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third
penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value (uncorrected for automatic hammer). A
representative portion of each disturbed split -spoon sample was collected with each SPT,
placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review.
Following the exploration procedures, the borings were backfilled with a neat cement grout mix
in accordance with NCDENR requirements, excluding the four (4) infiltration/bioretention
boring locations (Boring BMP-1 through BMP-4) where piezometers were installed.
The recently completed borings were performed in conjunction with, and labeled
consecutively with the previously completed borings associated with the project's feasibility
study reported on the date of April 17, 2009 (GET Project No. EC09-106G). Accordingly,
the four (4) 75-foot deep SPT borings identified as B-5 through B-8 performed during our
initial feasibility study for the proposed project, which are located in the vicinity of the
proposed reconfigured building footprint, are included herein and in our evaluations for
foundation design recommendations for the proposed building. Additionally, boring INF-1 is
included herein but was limited to evaluating the soil conditions in the vicinity of the
proposed southeastern infiltration/bioretention basin. Whereas, the remaining borings
performed during the initial feasibility study identified as B-1 through B-4 are not included in
this report as they were located outside the limits of the proposed building.
Boring locations B-9 through B-12 were established and staked in the field by a
representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. with the use of a Global Positions System unit as
well as the "State Plane" coordinates provided by the client. Boring locations BMP-1
through BMP-4 were surveyed in the field by the client. The approximate boring locations
are shown on the attached "Boring Location Plan" (Appendix 1), which was reproduced
based on the site plan provided by the client.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass jars '
and zip lock bags, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis.
The soil classification was performed by a Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with ASTM
D2488.
Seventeen (17) representative soil samples were selected and subjected to laboratory '
testing, which included natural moisture, 4200 sieve wash and Atterberg Limit testing and
analysis, in order to corroborate the visual classification. These test results are provided in '
Table 1 on the following page and are presented on the "Boring Log' sheets (Appendix II),
included with this report.
_-_ _ 3 GET

' Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24,2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
' Table I - Laboratory Test Results
Boring
No.
Depth
(Feet)
Natural
Moisture
,/o
u/o Passing
#200
Atterberg
Limits
LL/PL/PI
USCS
Classification
B-9
4-6
22.0
32.9
Not Tested
SC-SM
B-9
8-10
26.7
25.1
Not Tested
SP-SM
B-9
23-25
69.2
90.6
70/25/45
CH
B-10
6-8
21.5
34.9
32/22/10
SC
1-12
2-4
14.4
23.0
Not Tested
SM
BMP-1
1.5-2
15.2
31.1
Not Tested
SM
BMP-2
1.5-2
10.4
21.2
Not Tested
SM
BMP-3
3.5-4
15.7
24.0
Not Tested
SM
BMP-3
4-6
22.0
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
BMP-3
6-8
18.0
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP-SM
BMP-3
8-10
21.7
Not Tested
Not Tested
Sp-SM
BMP-3
10-12
25.4
Not Tested.
Not Tested
SP-SM
BMP-4
4.5-5
12.6
17.5
Not Tested
SM
MP-4
4-6
9.2
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
MP-4
6-8
16.6
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
MP-4
rBMP-4
8-10
19.6
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
10-12
21.0
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP-SM
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location and Description
' The project site is located on the west side of Sneads Ferry Road within the Camp LeJeune
military installation in North Carolina. This site consists predominantly of a heavily wooded
parcel. The existing grades of the project site range from approximately 25 feet to 31 feet
(MSL). The proposed construction areas are bordered to the north by Duncan Street, to
the south by a wooded area, to the east by an existing dirt path followed by a heavily
wooded area and to the west by a combination of an existing parking lot and an existing
' structure (Building 1042). An areal image of the general construction area is provided
below and was obtained from Google Earth.
1
4
Soludons: Inc. •.....i

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions
November24,2010 '
The results of our recently and previously completed soil test borings indicated the
presence of approximately 2 to 14 inches of topsoil at the boring locations. Underlying the
topsoil and extending to the boring termination depths of 15, 30, and 75 feet below existing
site grades, the natural subsurface soils generally consisted of very loose to very dense
SAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC) with varying amounts of silt, clay, marine shell
fragments, and cemented sands. Trace amounts of organics were observed within these
granular soils at depths ranging from 0 to 4 feet below existing grades at the location of
borings B-9 and B-10. A shallow subsurface deposit of Lean CLAY (CL) was encountered
at the location of borings B-5 and B-11 at a depth ranging from 4 to 6 feet below existing
grades. Additionally, a deposit of Fat CLAY (CH) was encountered at the location of boring
B-6 at a depth ranging from about 7 to 7.5 feet and at B-9 at a depth ranging from about 23
to 28 feet below the existing grades.

' Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
' Deposits of Marlstone, which appear to be of a limestone formation, with varying
thicknesses were encountered at,the location of borings B-6, B-7, and B-8 at depths
' ranging from 30 feet to 53 feet below existing grades and were noted to extend to depths
ranging from 38 feet to 58 feet. Finally, during our previous subsurface investigation, 1.5-
foot to 2-foot voids were encountered at the location of borings B-7 and B-8 at depths
' ranging from 28 to 32 feet below the existing site grade elevations. It should be noted that a
supplemental subsurface investigation (Addendum No. 1) was completed to further
delineate the presence of these subsurface voids encountered in these borings. Four (4)
' Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings were performed as part of Addendum No. 1
within a newly established building footprint which did not encounter these voids.
Addendum No. 1 to the original feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010
' (GET Project No. EC09-106G) is included in Appendix IV of this report.
The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil
' strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included on the "Boring
Log" sheets (Appendix II) and in the "Generalized Soil Profile" (Appendix III), which should
be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown
on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual
' boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations.
The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and
the transition may be gradual or occur between sample intervals. It is noted that the topsoil
' designation references the presence of surficial organic laden soil, and does not represent
any particular quality specification. This material is to be tested for approval prior to use.
3.3 Groundwater Information
The groundwater level was recorded at the location of borings B-9 through B-12 and as
' observed through the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations.
The initial groundwater table encountered at these boring locations was measured to occur
at depths ranging from 8 to 10 feet below current grades, which corresponds to an
' elevation of about 20.0 feet (MSL). In addition, four (4) temporary piezometers were
installed at the boring BMP-1 through BMP-4 locations at the time of drilling and 24 hour
groundwater readings were measured to occur at depths ranging from 4.8 to 5.29 feet
below current grades (boring locations BMP-1 and BMP-2) which corresponds to an
approximate elevation of 27.0 feet MSL and at depths of 9.875 to 9.92 feet below current
grades (boring locations BMP-3 and BMP-4) which corresponds to an approximate
' elevation of 20.0 feet MSL. The piezometers were removed following the 24-hour readings
and the boreholes were backfilled.
' The soils recovered from the location of borings B-9 through B-12 and BMP-1 through
BMP-4 were classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 test method. Based on
the soil texture classifications located throughout the site, the shallow subsurface soils
' appeared to be relatively homogenous consisting predominantly of SAND (SC, SC-SM,
SM, SP-SM, SP).
WOM
Soludons,'Inc:
1

I
Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
November24,2010 ,
The soil sample colors were used to aid in identifying the estimated normal SHWT at the
location of borings BMP-1 through BMP-4. It is noted that soil morphology is not a reliable
indicator of the SHWT in drained soils. However, slight color distinctions were observed
within the soil samples collected at the location of borings BMP-1 through BMP-4. As such,
the normal SHWT depth was estimated to occur at approximately 4 feet below the existing
site grade elevation at boring locations BMP-1 and BMP-2 and at approximately 6 feet
below the existing site grade elevation at boring locations BMP-3 and BMP-4.
The current groundwater levels encountered at the project site and the estimated normal
SHWT depths are anticipated to be contributed to the varying site topography and possible
perched groundwater conditions specifically at boring BMP-1 and BMP-2 locations.
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 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, our
interpretation of the soil test borings and laboratory data, and our observations during our
site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we
request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.
4.1 Subsurface Voids
Subsurface voids approximately 2-feet deep were encountered at the location of the initially
completed borings B-7 and B-8 at depths of 28 to 30 feet, respectively below the existing
site grade elevations. Subsequently, a supplemental subsurface investigation (Addendum
No. 1 to the original feasibility study) was completed to further explore the subsurface soil
conditions at the location of the new building site (shifted to the east). Four (4) Cone
Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings were performed as part of Addendum No. 1 within the
newly established building footprint which did not encounter these voids. Addendum No. 1
to the original feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010 (GET Project No.
EC09-106G) is included in Appendix IV of this report.
The building was again relocated to the west since the time Addendum 1 was completed.
The initially drilled borings were plotted onto the new site plan provided by the client. One
boring (B-8) was determined to be located within the northwest portion of the newly
positioned building footprint. It should be noted that no voids were encountered within the
recently completed borings B-9 through B-12 and previously completed borings B-5, B-6
and CPT soundings CPT-1 through CPT-4 to depths of 30 to 36 feet.

1
' Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24,2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
The subsurface voids, where encountered, can be addressed by means of pressure grout
placement (injection) to fill the voids and prevent the potential for subsidence from
' occurring and resulting in foundation and/or slab -on -grade settlement. It is recommended
that a grout injection specialty contractor develop the number, depths, and locations of the
injection points.
' Other options would include shifting the building easterly away from boring B-8; supporting
that portion of the building on deep foundations (such as auger cast piles) or assuming
' some risk associated with the subsurface voids and leave the building at the present
location. In any case, additional void delineation efforts may be warranted, by means of
advancing several CPT probes within the western building area.
4.2 Clearing and Grading
' The proposed construction area should be cleared by means of removing the topsoil, trees,
and associated root mat. It is estimated that a cut of up to 14 inches in depth will be
required to remove the topsoil. This cut is expected to extend deeper in isolated areas to
remove deeper deposits of organic soils, or unsuitable soils, 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.
In addition, varying amounts of organics were encountered generally in the upper 4.0 feet
of the very loose granular soils at the location of borings B-9 and B-10. Based on our
experience with similar heavily wooded areas within the Camp Lejeune military installation,
subsurface organics which may include roots, tree limbs and stumps may be present below
the current grades. Therefore, an estimated cut depth of up to about 2.0 to 4.0 feet may be
required in order to remove surficial and/or subsurface deposits of organic soils, which may
become evident during the clearing operation. Accordingly, the subgrade preparations
procedures performed during construction, as indicated in Section 4.3 of this report, should
include a series of test pit excavations to further evaluate the suitability of these soils to
remain in -place for foundation, slab, and/or pavement support.
As stated above, the subsurface soils in isolated areas (generally the upper 4.0 feet)
recovered at the location of borings B-9 and B-10 contained varying amounts of organics.
Accordingly, following the initial clearing, the resulting exposed subgrade will generally be
comprised of SAND (SM, SC-SM, and SC) containing an appreciable amount of fines (silt
and clay). 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 unstable soils and/or soils containing organics may be
required. The extent of the undercut will be determined in the field during construction,
based on the outcome of the field testing procedures (subgrade proofroll and/or possible
test pits).
Solutions, Inc."

11
Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
November24,2010 '
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 Course material).
Control of surface water is very important to the successful completion of the proposed
construction. The contractor should plan his grading activities to control surface water and
minimize erosion of exposed cut or fill material. This may include constructing temporary
berms, ditches, flumes and/or slope drains to intercept runoff and discharge it in a
controlled fashion, while complying with state and local regulations.
4.3 Subgrade Preparation
Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a
large static drum roller. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be
evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the subgrade soils should be
proofrolled to check for pockets of loose material hidden beneath a crust of better soil.
Several passes should be made by a large rubber -tired roller or loaded dump truck over the
construction areas, with the successive passes aligned perpendicularly. The number of
passes will be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer depending on the soils
conditions. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the
initial cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the directions of the Geotechnical
Engineer.
The prepared subgrade should be sloped to prevent the accumulation and/or ponding of
surface water. If the exposed subgrade becomes wet or frozen, the geotechnical engineer
should be consulted.
Following the proofroll and approval by the engineer, it is recommended that the newly
exposed subgrade soils be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the
Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557), as tested to a depth of at least 12
inches. The suitability of compacting the natural subgrade soils should be more accurately
determined in the field by the G E T Solutions, Inc. representative at the time of
construction as the compaction operations could deteriorate the subgrade soil conditions.
Accordingly, it is anticipated that this site will require monitoring of the clearing, subgrade
preparation, and fill placement procedures by a G E T Solutions, Inc. representative in
order to minimize potential deterioration of the natural subgrade soils. The compaction
testing of the natural subgrade soils may be waived by the Geotechnical Engineer, where
firm and stable bearing conditions are observed during the proofroll.
Kom
Solutions:, Inc ,c

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geolechnical Engineering Services November24,2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
4.4 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
t 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.
The Silty SAND (SM)'and SAND (SP-SM, SP) subsurface soils encountered at the boring
locations appear to meet the criteria recommended in this report for reuse as structural fill.
' Additionally, it is anticipated that any soils excavated on -site and proposed to be re -used as
backfill, will require stockpiling and air drying in order to establish a moisture content
suitable for placement and compaction. Soil deposits excavated at the site and noted to
contain significant amounts of organics should not be used as fill and/or backfill within the
proposed construction areas. Further classification testing (natural moisture content,
gradation analysis, and Proctor testing) should be performed in the field during construction
' to evaluate the suitability of excavated soils for reuse as fill within building and pavement
areas. The remaining on -site excavated soils (Topsoil, SANDS with organics, Clayey
SAND, and CLAY) are not anticipated to be suitable for re -use as structural fill but may be
' used as fill within green areas.
All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the Modified
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). In general, the compaction should be
accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically
compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A representative of
' G E T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure
that adequate compaction is achieved.
Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of structural
fill (as previously indicated 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
1 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.
I
I M
f

I
Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
4.5 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations
November24,2010 '
Provided that the subsurface void issues are addressed as described in Section 4.1 and
previously stated construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed structure
can be supported by shallow spread footings bearing upon firm natural soil or well
compacted structural fill material. The footings can be designed using a net allowable soil
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the
footings and backfill over the footings, including the weight of the floor slab, need not be
considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above the finished floor need to be used for
dimensioning the footings.
In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot
(psf), the base of the footings should have an embedment of at least 24 inches beneath
finished grades and wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. In addition,
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 Settlements
It is estimated that, with proper site preparation including the subsurface improvements
noted above (where required), the maximum resulting post construction total settlement of
the proposed building foundations should be up to 1 inch, as contributed by the foundation
bearing soils. The maximum differential settlement magnitude is expected to be less than Yz
-inch between adjacent footings (wall footings and column footings of widely varying
loading conditions), as contributed by the foundation bearing soils. The settlements were
estimated on the basis of the results of the SPT borings. Careful field control will contribute
substantially towards minimizing the settlements.
4.7 Foundation Excavations
In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into
firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill. Some foundation improvements
(undercut) may be necessary to remove unsuitable organic laden soils particularly within
the vicinity of borings B-9 and B-10 where up to 4.0 feet of Silty SAND (SM) with organics
were encountered. All foundation excavations should be observed by G E T Solutions, Inc.
At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer should also explore the extent of excessively
loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed excavations. Also, at the
time of footing observations, the Geotechnical Engineer may find it necessary to make
hand auger borings or use a hand penetration device in the bases of the foundation
excavations.
If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations,
the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with
"flowable fill", an open graded washed stone (such as No. 57 stone), or a suitable structural
1
---- - GEC �.
I

' Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services November24,2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
' 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 4.4 of this report, prior to
' concrete placement. 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 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) as tested to
a depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized
' areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be adequately
recompacted. The compaction testing in the base of the footings may be waived by the
Geotechnical Engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the footing
inspections.
Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected
' against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain 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 slab may be constructed as a slab -on -grade member 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. The slabs can be designed with the use of
a subgrade modulus on the order of about 150 psi/in.
I
It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or
retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the
performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor
resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions or other
considerations require greater vapor resistance protection; consideration should be given to
using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the
Architect based on project requirements.
12 - —GET -

I
Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
4.9 Seismic Design Recommendations:
November 24, 2010 1
Based on our experience with similar construction projects in the general area of the project
site, and in accordance with the previously completed Addendum No. 1 to the original
feasibility study reported on the date of February 19, 2010 (GET Project No. EC09-106G
included in Appendix IV of this report) and the NC Building Code; Chapter 16, this site
would be classified as a site Class C, based on which seismic designs should be
incorporated. This recommendation is based on the data obtained from the 75-foot deep
SPT borings, our experience with 100-foot deep CPT soundings and SPT borings
performed within the vicinity of the project site, as well as the requirements indicated in the
North Carolina State Building Code (2006 International Building Code).
4.10 Soil Permeability
Four (4) infiltration tests were performed at boring locations BMP-1 through BMP-4 (one
test at each boring location). The tests were performed at depths ranging from 2 to 5 feet
below existing site grade elevations. The borehole was 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 the borehole. This stand holds a
calibrated reservoir (2000 ml) and a cable used to raise and lower the water control unit
(WCU). The WCU establishes a constant water head within the borehole during testing by
use of a precision valve and float assembly. The WCU was attached to the flow reservoir
with a 2-meter (6.6 foot) braided PVC hose and then lowered by cable into the borehole to
the test depth elevation. As required by the Glover solution, the WCU was suspended
above the bottom of the borehole at an elevation of approximately 5 times the borehole
diameter. The shut-off valve was then opened allowing water to pass through the WCU to
fill the borehole to the constant water level elevation. The absorption rate slowed as the
soil voids became filled and an equilibrium developed as a wetting bulb developed around
the borehole. Water was continuously added until the flow rate stabilized. The reservoir
was then re -filled in order to begin testing. During testing, as the water drained into the
borehole and surrounding soils, the water level within the calibrated 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.
13 -GE -
1
11

I
' Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
November 24, 2010
Based on the field testing and corroborated with laboratory testing results (published values
compared to classification results), the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soils is
tabulated below (Table III) and is presented on the "Hydraulic Conductivity Worksheet"
(Appendix V), included with this report.
Table III - Infiltration Test Results
Boring
Boring
depth
ft *
Water
depth
ft *
Percent Silt
and/or Clay
Ksat
Value
cm/sec
Ksat
Value
in/hr
Ksat Class
BMP-1
2.0
4.8
31.1
7.23 x 10
0.102
Moderately Low
BMP-2
2.0
5.29
21.2
8.94 x 10
1.267
Moderately High
6MP-3.
4.0
9.875
24.6
2.27 x 10
0.321
Moderatel High
BMP-4
5.0
9.92
17.5
6.33 x 10
0.898
Moderatel Hi h
The boring test and water depths noted above are referenced from below the existing site grade
elevations.
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
1 the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be
accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level
may require well pointing.
It would be advantageous to construct all fills early in the construction. If this is not
accomplished, disturbance of the existing site drainage could result in collection of surface
' water in some areas, thus rendering these areas wet and very loose. Temporary drainage
ditches should be employed by the contractor to accentuate drainage during construction.
' If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove water from the
excavations, remove saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface soils
to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
5.2 Site Utility Installation
The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the pip
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 4.4 of
this report.
14-- - GET

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
5.3 Excavations
November24,2010 ,
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 and their consultants for
the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations
from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction,
G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the
foundation recommendations are required. If G E T Solutions, Inc. is not retained to
perform these functions, G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be responsible for the impact of
those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.
The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications or
professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally
accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other
warranties are implied or expressed.
,5 GEC-
1
I

' Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geolechnical Engineering Services November24, 2010
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: JX10-113G
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 M.B. Kahn
Construction Company, Inc. and their consultants for the specific application to the
proposed P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility project located within the Camp LeJeune
' military installation in North Carolina.
,- _ — 16 ET

APPENDICES
I BORING LOCATION PLAN
II BORING LOGS
III GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
IV ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE ORIGINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
REPORTED ON THE DATE OF FEBRUARY 19, 2010 (GET
Project No. EC09-106G)
V HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET
VI CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

IN
AMIRR"Immi

GET
" •'^-, -
c„v.e.x.o r.o.,,,..:•a.rnx„�
BORING LOG
B-rj
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.5' MS'
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: 4 9' AFTER 24 HOURS: —X CAVING> -C
c
wo
n m
E
a y
o
Description
n
n o
z
>Plastic
n
H
m n
z
o
TEST RESULTS
Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content -•
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
3
6
8
10---
12
7
7
7
7
4
6
3.1
14 inches of TOPSOIL
...
...
1
24
SS
1
z
. . . .
.0.: _.: .:...:. :...: .
......... ........ ..
---
.- .'. .-'
. .. ...... ......
:...:...:.. :...: :.. :.
....... _. ..... .... :..
........... ......... .... . .
...... ... ........ ........
1.2
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose
Gray, moist, Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM), loose
4
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Lean CLAY (CL), medium stiff
6
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), very
loose to loose
Light Gray and with clay from 8 to 15 feel
Wet from 9feet
Light Tan from 10 feet
Reddish Tan from 13 feet
With day from 23 to 28 feet
Dark Gray from 28 feet
38
Dark Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
.:
::::
;:::
.....
2
3
4
24
24
20
SS
SS
SS
2
3
4
a
4
4
s
5
6
zs
z
5
!I'
5
16
SS
6
20
--
10
4
"
6
24
SS
3
3
4
[
i
7
21
SS
a
a
4
15
5
8
14
SS
3
3
4
m
20
3
s
::::
9
16
SS
3
4
4
zs
:
:::
10
18
SS
z
z
z
0
—
3o
ra
11
20
SS
2
3
3
4
5
35
.`.'.'."
P
4
—
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
- - --- -HA-= Hand Auger Sample—
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the Field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

4;
GET
'•` ' •' `�.:.w'"'
BORING LOG
B-rj
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.5' MSL
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL-: s 9' AFTER 24 HOURS: ? _ CAVING> L
i
w
w
m m
p E
—
w m
p
Description
m
C�
m
n
E Z
rn
v o
a >
E>
woo
d
o. °'
E
H
-
3 [o
o v
m a
j
j
Z\
oo
"�
#b
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Li uid Limit
g
Moisture Content- •
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
.10
12
silt, medium dense
-48
Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace Cemented Sand, dense
53
Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) mixed with Cemented Sand and
trace Marine Shell Fragments, dense
58
Gray, wet, Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM), dense
63
Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), dense to very dense
ra:rr
1!C L r
i :g i1
Y [1:
+:Ef ri
.I:,: f i
[G
I'64r1
ii!jE
12
19
SS
a
12
12
19
36
33
38
46
63
48
..: _.:...:...
'
.:...:...: ...:. ..:. :.. :..
.. ..:...:...: ..�...:. .f.. ;..
14
13
18
SS
8
18
13
45
14
19
SS
13
1]
19
24
so
18
50
?iiip
15
24
SS
12
16
1]
13
-z
55
....:
—
16
—
20
SS
y
15
2]
26
1s
0p
60
17
17
SS
14
19
27
32
—
35
20
65
18
24
SS
21
34
50,
40
22
70
i!iii
I
19
--
20
SS
n
q3
d5
75
Boring terminated at 75 ft.
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
-- — --- -- --- --- - -- ---HA'= Hand Auger Sample'-
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 2 o/ 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
BORING LOG
B-6
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29' MSI
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(wash) DATE: 3-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL-: Q¢ 11' AFTER 24 HOURS: a CAVING> L
c
wo
o. v
E
s m
o w
Description
LEa
C�
u
y
o
rn Z
a o
vE�i
d
a w
vE�i t—
3 tO
m n
w
z
o
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
2
6
14
11p:-
10
s
8
6
s
25
32
17.
18.7
10 inches of TOPSOIL
1
24
ss
1
1
. � .... .. ..... :. :...:..
I.
-
: .:...: .
.:...: ..:...:...: .: .
1
.I
I:
1'
. . . . . . .
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
Perched water encountered at 3.5 feet
2
18
ss
2
3
5
2s
2
5
Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay to Silty, Clayey.
SAND (SC-SM), loose to medium dense
6-inch Fat CLAY (CH)lense from 7lo 7.5 feet
Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
Wet from 11 feet
Reddish Tan from 13 feet
Dark Gray and With clay from 23 feet
28
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) mixed with Marlstone, medium
dense
33
Light Gray, wet, MARLSTONE, dense
38
Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with Cemented Sand, dense to very
3
24
ss
a
a
8
4
20
ss
4:...
s
5
20
5
s
20
21
ss
ss
4
s
4
3
4
4
0
-
15
[[
.....
7
15
ss
3
n
4
15
6
10
8
16
ss
2
3
5
2
5
e
.....
.....
!
s
za
ss
2
3
3-
25
"
.
10
16
ss
y
13
12
16
0
30
10
11
22
ss
15
n
16
-5
35
1
1
n
23
.10
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
----- -- —'— ' - —HA'= Hand Auger Sample—
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

ti
c
VET
m..+.,4.1r•b....,...W.>Hi�,
BORING LOG
B-6
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29' MSL
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(wash) DATE: 3-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': V, 11' AFTER 24 HOURS: 3 CAVING> -L
c
m
wo
o. m
E
n m
o
Description
o
a
m
n o
N z
o- >
b
n m
rn H
3 �o
m n
b
z
o
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value- ��/ j
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
12
40
dense
With trace Marlstone from 53 to 59 feet
:
12
24
as
90
51
43
47
47
45
77
85
100
..:...: ..:..
..:...:. :...
:...:...:...
........ ... ...
5
'
-15
14
" "19
13
22
ss
12
za
26
45
16
-20
.....
14
20
ss
ie
21
33so
50
-25
15
24
ss
14
25
22
55
16
-30
16
24
ss
12
26
25
60
20
- 5
3
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
Silty fine SAND (SM), very dense
:'
`
»
22
ss
e
41
36
32
65
E
10
18
24
ss
21
B
50•
22
70
...
'45
E
19
10
ss
So
So
75
Boring terminated al 75 ft.
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
-------- -- — -- ----HA-- Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 2 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

GET
BORING LOG
B-%
PROJECT: P-1310: Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.5' MS'
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': -IV, 12' AFTER 24 HOURS: ; CAVING> -C
q
>
0i
L m
y v
p E
o, m
y y
p
Description
u
n
ER
r?
m
n o
E Z
to
n W
E$
rn 01n
a 01
E
H-
3 tO
o y
m n
y
m
z
o
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
4
6
12l:
11
9
8
6
7
9
0
77
7.
15.�;
12 inches of TOPSOIL
1-....
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt,
very loose
Tan, moist, Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM) to Clayey SAND (SC) with
silt, loose to medium dense'-
Perched water encountered at 4 feet
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan from 4 feet'
Reddish Tan from 8 feet
10
Reddish Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND ISM), loose
Wet from 12 feet
Reddish Tan, wet, Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM), loose
18
Reddish Tan, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay, loose
Gray from 23 feet
Soil Void Extending from 28 to 29.5 feet
29.5
...
1
24
ss
z
2
'
. .
t-1
I:
... I:...:...:..
:.. :...: .:.
.: ..:...:...:...:. :.. :..
:...:...[...:...: t.. l .
..: ..:. ..:...: .. :..
- . ". "
.. ....................... ...
.... .... ........... .... . ..
.' .
"
......
.......
......
. .
"'
2
24
$s
3
3
a
—
25
2
5
3
2a
ss
4'I:
6
0
—
4
24
ss
5
6
5
5
5
6
24
24
ss
ss
3
s
5
4
4
0
10
4
7
15
ss
3
3
is
8
21
ss
34
3
4
5
10
20
5
iiiii
9
20
as
3
4
5
5
25
10
10
ss
word
WOH
s
0
30
Light Gray, wet, MARLSTONE with Silty Sand, Cemented Sand, antl
Marine Shell Fragments, very dense
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with Cemented 38
Sand, very
_
—
—
10
11
18
66
1e
32
as
26
12
20
5
35
—
..
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST =Shelby Tube Sample
---------- —' "—HA'='Hand Auger Sample—
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586

c
GET
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
�,...na.r..,,,,.,.�•nu:�,
BORING LOG
B-%
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.5' MSL
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: Az 12' AFTER 24 HOURS: a CAVING> -C
. c c
0
.. C
v
o E
L
n
o
Description
U
a
m
N
n o
E 6
W
n>
E g
oe
m
n d
0 F-
w-
3
o
m n
?
>
Z
oo
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-10
12
40
dense
43
Light Gray, wet, MARLSTONE, dense
48
Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND ISM) with Cemented Sand, dense
53
Light Gray, wet, MARLSTONE, very dense
8
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND ISM) with Cemented Sand, dense
63
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND ISM), very dense
Gray from 68 feet
12
22
ss
M
28
53
43--
57
31
80
65
100
...:...:...:...:..... ..
............ ....
. ....... ..... ...
'
.. ..:...;...I ...:...:...:...:...
100'
13
24
as
y
17 9
26
29
14
16
t5
45
14
16
ss37
16
22
15
12
20
50
:.
=qs
15
20
ss
t4
26
31
39
25
55
16
24
as
14
is
16
25
18
be
:.
�'�"
30
17
24
ss
9
36
94
5e.
20
as
65
—
—
i
18
24
ss
177
37
44
ao
22
70
75
19
14
—
as
54
50
<s
Boring terminated at 75 ft.
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
- --'-- HA'=Hand-Auger Sample--
BS = Bulk Sample
1—W WOH — We phi of Hammer
PAGE 2 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in ,general accordance with ASTM D 1566.

GET
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
+'
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan
SURFACE ELEVATION: 30' MSL .
BORING LOG
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.)
LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash)
DATE: 3-31-09
'
B-8
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL-: 12' AFTER 24 HOURS: _
_ CAVING> -C
�
L d
o. w
n
m
a o
a 0
�-
3 tD
m
m
uc
oJNV2'
TEST RESULTS
Limit H Liquid Limit
0 E❑
Description
m
l2
E Z
rn
E>
N m
E
N H
o y
Ei n
Z
vture
Content - •
'
of
lue -
10
o
a
20 30 40 50 60 7012
inches of TOPSOIL1
1
24
ss
23
Tan -Brown, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
3
z2
24
55
3
64
4
Light Gray, moist, Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM), loosea3
49
:.........7
24
ss
17.
....
e
2
Light Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose to medium dense
Perched water encountered at 6 feel424
ss
116
4
!o
to
5
24
ss
3
3
7
Light Gray, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace clay, loose6
t t..
24
ss
47.t..
..1. .t...t..
—
Wet from 12 feel
4
_
—
°
Reddish Tan from 13 feet
3
'
7
24
55
j
6
.. ...... ......: .:.:.
16
°
....... ....:.. .:
...:...:...: .. :...:. .:..
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
::
s
4
I
6
silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
8
20
as
3
7
-
Soil Void extending from 30 to 32 feet
Mottled Dark Gray -Tan, wet, Silly fine SAND (SM), very loose
Light Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with Cemented Sand and
Marine Shell Fragments, very dense
.. .. ... .. ..... .. ... ...
:.. :..:...:...: ..:..:.
3
9
21
as
u
8
..: ..:...:...:. :.. .
s
t
10
19
as
s
4
:...:...: ..:...:.. :..
3
11 124 I ss I 31 177
46
Dark Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), dense to very dense 11;1;liljl!l I I I zt I I J
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan
t
SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA ='Hand Auger Sample —
AS a R„14 S­I.
PAGE 1 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

GET
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 30' MSL
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: S 12' AFTER 24 HOURS: 3 CAVING> -C
BORING LOG
B-8
g
w
= v
o E
--
Q
Description
u
a n o
N Z
a>
to
m
o- m
VE�i ~
N
3 'o
m n
w
2
Z
oo
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-10
12
40
Light Gray from 43 feet"
Mixed with Cemented Sand from 43 to 45 feet
57
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
Silty fine SAND (SM), dense to very dense
; 12
24
as
26
47
39
45
63
33
63
58
92
.:. .:...:...
..:...:...:...:...:........ .
.:...:...:. :...
2:
14
:' 13
.....
20
as
15
zz
31
-15
45
-z0
14
::[::
15
ss
12
za
22
16
50
ws
P 15
14
ss
16
36
32
-25
55
.
16
16
::::
16
ss
1z
is
20
ws
20
17
17
as
1e
38
46
-35
65
—
18
24
as
9
28
37
<0
22
70
—
---
7
: 19
24
55
36
420
5
45
Boring terminated at 75 ft.
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
- --- ------------------_HA '=Hand 'Auger Sample-'
BS = Bulk Sample
no may not be indicative 0 VVOH - We ant of Hammer
PAGE 2 of 2 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the Field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: P-1310; Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: JMT, Inc.
._
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.:. EC09-106G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 28' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: J. Brown (G.E.T.) LOGGED BY: G. Stalls, P.E.
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (wash) DATE: 3-31-09
IN FA
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': S 9' AFTER 24 HOURS: d15 _ CAVING> L
m
m
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
n d
m
n v
w
Description
n
m
n o
E z
o-
E$
E
o
u
'
w
o E
�,
o
rn
m a
z\
Moisture Content -•
N-Value -
10 inches of TOPSOIL ;;; 2
1 24 ss 2 4
Tan -Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with "$'f y r z
silt, very loose 4
5
Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose to medium dense 2 24 ss 5 10
Perched water encountered at 3 feet: 4
Mottled Light Gray -Reddish Tan from 4 feet 3
...... 3 16 ss c 11
Reddish Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay, loose 4 18 ss iws
9
4
2
41'
Wet from 9feet 5 t5 ss 36
0,, 43
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, wet, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose x:. 3
6 16 ss 5 a
4
13 �r4 9
Reddish Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with 4
silt, loose rr°cv 12 ss 4 a
15 6
Borino terminated at 15 ft.
Notes: Existing site grade elevations estimated based on topographic information provided on the project site plan
j
1
1
. :..:...:
..:...:...:
..:...:...
..:.. :. .:.. :..
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

d
GET
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
--
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29 MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: gwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
B-9
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': S 9 AFTER 24 HOURS: E CAVING> L
g
L
U
v
W
0o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
>
d
y$
n v
Description
E
m
a o
E Z
a>
E
a °1
E
3 'o
o
m
#
W
a E
w �,
o
m
rn
rn I-
m n
Z\
Moisture Content - e
N-Value -
10 20 0 4 50 60 70
a
o
4 inches of Topsoil
woH
1
11
Ss
woH
woH
O
.3
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with organics, Very
Loose
woH
2
11
SS
woH
2
2$
4
2
7
2.
/i
j 4
5
Light gray, moist, Silty Clayey One to medium SAND (SC-SM), LoosE
3
22
SS
3
°
2
°
: 1
/ I\
Tan, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace'�:��'ti
Silt, Loose
;j:r{
3
s
8
Tan, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) , Very Loose
_
5
24
SS
2
2
4
5.1.;
1
2
10
2
Tan and orangish brown, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with
trace Clay, Very Loose
E
...
6
22
SS
2
2
4
:\
°
1
1'irr
2
\
\
Orangish brown, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)
with trace Silt, Loose
2
1
a:f[
7
18
SS
3
6
/- {
15
rxr1:
4
AlC( C
4Ctl
l la 1:
uI[-
4[1
3
1
16i i i
ra:[1:
8
20
SS
3
6
j\
'
6
2
is°i1
L n:il.
3
/... A:
•i d(i i
\
23
\:
Gray, wet, Fat CLAY (CH) with trace SAND, Very S000r
9
23
SS
o
0
1:.
25
28
Dark gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with
trace Silt, Very Loose
'� "� i i
Ni L+
10
23
SS
3
1
1
2
0
10
3
Boring terminated at 30 O.
3$
-10
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.

GETPROJECT:
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
w.r-a.l
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 28 MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: qwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
B-1 U
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL-: 8 8 AFTER 24 HOURS: a CAVING> _L
n
n °1
fD
w
oo
TEST RESULTS
> -�
w
m w
a w
w
Description
n
m
o
E Z
n>
E>
E
0 y
m
u
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
w i
p E
o ro
O
N
N W
y 1_
in n
z
Moisture Content - •
tLI
(ifN-Value
o
-
10 20 30 40 50 60 7
0
0
8 inches of Topsoil
1
23
SS
p
3
.6V1
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace organics,
Very Loose
2
z
25
2
21
SS
3
5
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND
ISM) with trace Clay, Loose
2
5
3
21
SS
2
5
2
2
4.�
j . t-t
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND:::
(SC), Loose
4
24
ss
a
4
Tan and orangish brown, wet. Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with
trace Clay, Loose
[
??
5
27
SS
a
3
6
-'
10
3
4
0
Tan and orangish brown, wet, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC),
Very Loose
6
24
SS
2
2
1
3
Orangish brown, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND ISM). Very Loose
5
y
1
7
18
SS
p
4
15
8
2
10
5
20
Orangish brown, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)
with trace Silt, Very Loose
"VI.
8
16
SS
1
2
2
ii tL
7?a [
Cf•tl
iJar
'i[uri
2
.- .-..-
9
18
SS
25
F{1
]u:rt
I.J:t}.
Jxt r
:...: .: ...:. .:.. .
0
28
Gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with traces
Silt, Very Loose
' '
a. t i
f Y n f
10
19
SS
woN
wort
wort
1
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
35
-10
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
---- --- ----- --�-- -HA-=HandAuger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GETPROJECT:
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 29 MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: gwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
B-11
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: $ 9 AFTER 24 HOURS: T _ CAVING> L
PAS
C�
w
_
o
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
"
m
Description
n
o
E z
E$
E
o y
A
a
>
W
m v
o E
m
o
0
fin
W
m n
z
V
Moisture Content - o
Co
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
4 inches of Topsoil
2
1
24
SS
2
4
.34
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose
2
Orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loos
2
22
SS
2
3
25
a
Light gray, moist, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), Medium Stiff
?
3
23
SS
2
2
3
5
%<
2
2
7
Light gray, moist to wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace
to little Clay, Very Loose to Loose
!;;!
; ;
4
24
SS
3ne
3
n
5
2
zo
5
20
SS
2
4
.: ..: .: _.:. .:...: ..
10
3
3
6
24
SS
2
4
A
2
15
Orangish brown, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)
with trace Silt, Very Loose to Loose
xt
r r+
7
zz
SS
2
2
a
2
GltS1:
i rtt
16:ii
2
10
:f i'i:
8
21
SS
2
5
2
I a:n
i afir
r 1:11'
1:Ctl
V:Sf
3
5
1:r.[r
9
18
SS
3
zs
e
a: n'
t{tl
I:I ( f
I:4[f
1
o
10
19
SS
2
10
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
-5
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
- HA = HandAugerSample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
�.,.®
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 30 MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: gwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
B-12
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: $ 10 AFTER 24 HOURS: a CAVING> -C
r_
v
y
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
a m
m
Description
o.
a o
Z
a>
�- w
0
o E
o„
N
N
N
m n
Z
Moisture Content - o
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
30
o
a
4 Inches of Topsoil
2
[
1
24
SS
3
3
6
7
23
'
j: o
.3
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND ISM), Loose
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND
(SM), Loose
2
20
SS
3
4
3
4
%z
%
6'
25
5
Light gray, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND ISM) with little Clay,
Very Loose
3
z2
SS
2
2
2
3
8
Tan, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace
Sill, Loose
uiii.
.vc[r
y3.Ef
4
23
SS
2
4
nar
r)
5
2
5
19
SS
3
7-
20
10,,
10
Tan and orangish brown, moist to wet, Poorly Graded fine to mediu
SAND (SP-SM) with trace Silt, Very Loose to Loose
16i i f
n:
i
6
24
SS
3
3
3
3
6
ir
L01.
2
2
i i,ir
7
20
SS
3
4
s
1
i.r1.
afii
: n
2
XLIr
:ii
}iril
!]i[P
l :rlr
4
b
i
8
19
SS
2
2
10
2
Tr[
2
1 :plj
2
Orangish brown, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)
with trace Sill, VeryLoose
1';t i f
ri:[t:
Gr[
9
23
SS
2
1
3
5
2
u:ii.
2
a:cr r
e
n:[r
r is[1r
2
10
24
SS
0
30
t
t
10
Boring terminated at 30 ft.
-s
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
BMP-1
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 28 MSL
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: gwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': S 8 AFTER 24 HOURS: a 4_8 CAVING> L
�
O
w 2
L
p E
n
m
Description
U
m
d
E o
z
w2,m
o. >
E$
0,
a
E
F-
'
o
m n
y
Z\
oo
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - o
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
9
8�
8
8
1
1
1
31.1
2 inches of Topsoil
T
':
1
2
24
24
SS
SS
3
4
4%:
<%j
a
°
o .
.
MR,
i
.1
Dark brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Loose
2
Grayish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Loose
Estimated SHWT @ 4-feet below site grade
2
6
3
23
SS
4
3
3
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND
(SM) with trace Clay, Loose
20
2
Tan, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace
Silt, Loose
1;t;ij
n:i1:
'11f
4
24
SS
3
44
n
Gray, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with some Clay, Very
Loose
5
24
SS
'
°
0
°
10
Gray, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose
12
Gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace
Silt, Very Loose
....'
L?: F!.
; t v
1pa [
6
24
SS
o
z
1s
7
20
SS
1
4
15
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
6
10
20
8
25
0
10
35
-i
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
BMP-2
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 28 MSL
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: qwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL-: S 8 AFTER 24 HOURS: a 5.29 CAVING> S
D
>
'w �
L
d
w d
o E
L
aai
p
Description
V
L
m
d
o.
E Z
to
N v
E >
E
In ,
N o
o-
E
�-
y c
3 0
o v>
m a
j
z
o
O
�'
\
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
q
Moisture Content- •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
7
8'
6
7
4
16/
7
4 inches of Topsoil
24
SS
3
3
3
y V
j
%
.3j
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Loose
Estimated SHWi @ 4-feet below site grade
Light gray and orangish brown, moist to wet, Silty fine to medium
SAND (SM) with trace Clay, Very Loose to Loose
-10
Light gray to tan, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-
SM) with trace Silt, Loose to Medium Dense
2s
'
2
3
23
SS
SS
3
°
e
3
2
4
23
SS
3
3
d
20
9:(1:
5irr
:rrt
11'rl
t'rr
5
6
24
24
SS
SS
3
2
5
5
s
1
d
5
7
24
SS
3
n
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
10
20
s
e
z
0
35
.10
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
-- --'—'- ----' _HA '='Hand -Auger Sample—
SS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

GETPROJECT:
,, ``f`' -•
BORING LOG
BMP-3
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Lejeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 30 MSL
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: qwh
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': S 13 AFTER 24 HOURS: 3 9.875 CAVING> f-
o
19
W
d
aai v
p E
a'm
w m
p
Description
n
C7
n o
E Z
N
o. >
E$
N
a
E
3 m
o y
m n
m"
Z\
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - o
N-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
3
5
6
7
4
6
4
4.
2 inches of Topsoil
1
20
SS
1
2
2
` R .
}
n
I
}
1.
: 1
. :
.1
Brown, moist, Silly fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose
Brown and tan, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace
Clay, Loose
Estimated SHWT @ 6-feet below site grade
2
19
SS
2
3
3
z
5
i
3
20
SS
2
3
3
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND
(SM), Loose
6
Orangish brown, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP-
SM), Very Loose to Loose
-
1?f f f
,�
ti: ii.
:qi r
'ti
1:L1:
n.Li
x t I
i 1tt1:
4
5
22
24
SS
SS
3
a
z
2
2
20
0
4
6
24
SS
3
3
3
7
24
SS
2
2
1
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
10
z0
5
2
0
30
3
NOtes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
- — ------------ — --- HA'= Hand Auger Sample—
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 Of l Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1566.

GET
®
BORING LOG
BMP-4
PROJECT: P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
CLIENT: M.B. Kahn Construction Co., Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp Leleune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: JX10-113G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 30 MSL
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: own
DRILLING METHOD: Rotaey Wash Mud Drilling DATE: 10-29-10
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': S 13.5 AFTER 24 HOURS: 3 9.92 CAVING> L
c
g
m
w�
n m
o E
n m
o
Description
o,
O
m
E o
m z
m
m
a o
w
w
E °'
w
m n"
w
z
oo
e
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content -•
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
W
0
0
4
5
8
11
7
7
7
17.
2 inches of Topsoil
1
23
SS
2
2
_ q
j }.
I
}
% : 1
: 3
.
.1
Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), Very Loose
Brown and tan, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace
Clay, Loose
Tan, moist, Silly fine to medium SAND (SM), Loose
Estimated SHWT @ 6-feet below site grade
2
3
21
19
SS
SS
2
3
23
3
a�
2
5
25
4
20
SS
4;
s
5
Light gray and orangish brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND
(SM) with trace Clay, Loose to Medium Dense
10
Light gray and orangish brown, moist to wet, Poorly Graded fine to
medium SAND (SP-SM) with trace Silt, Loose
f 't
ryjii-
Ja[f
5
21
SS
a
3
2
i
20
is
a
7
24
SS
4
5
15
15
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
10
20
e
5
25
30
10
a
Sample
ST = Shele Sample
Notes: SS = SplitLAuger
' '- ---------'—'--'—HA='HanSample
BS = Bulk e
PAGE 1 of l Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. 1

m,
--- -
--
--
-
-
--
--
-i
t =-
- -
:-
- _ .......
-
-
ME

ELEVATION{NFE£!'
Z w
W o Z
w
J_ =
LL o
cd
U
U
J o
O Q>
¢ N
Q
a
C)¢ O
6
o W>
N m >G
W o
Z
U
W
U a
tVn N
vu v.v
nv
-
N N
S
Zz
2
Z 2
E
2
5
UJ N
U
L
N �
U �
`m
y
in v
a u
a - N U ttn U
or
'-
«
n
O
127d N{NOLLYA:!/!

APPENDIX IV
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE ORIGINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTED ON THE
DATE OF FEBRUARY 19, 2010 (GET Project No. EC09-106G)

S,yolutto`ris�'Inc. t'
February 19, 2010
TO: JMT, Inc.
272 Bendix Road
Suite 260
Virginia Beach, VA 23452
Attn: Mr. Timothy Gaffney, P.E.
RE: Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-106G
Addendum No.1
Dear Mr. Gaffney:
Pursuant to your request, G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our supplemental
subsurface investigation and Geotechnical Engineering analysis for above noted project.
The purpose of our supplemental subsurface investigation was to further delineate the
presence of subsurface voids encountered during our original Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) boring program and noted in our "Report of Subsurface Investigation and
Geotechnical Engineering" issued on the date of April 17, 2009. Additionally, our
supplemental services included a seismic site classification analysis. This report is
provided to serve as a summation of our supplemental field exploration services as well as
the results of our Geotechnical Engineering analysis.
The supplemental subsurface investigation and geotechnical engineering services for this
project in accordance with G E T Solutions, Inc. Proposal No. PEC09-179G, dated May
19, 2009 and subsequently revised on the date of May 29, 2009. Authorization to proceed
with the services was provided in the form of subcontract agreement (contract N40085-08-
D-1412, TO #1) authorized by Mr. Timothy Gaffney, P.E. with JMT, Inc. on January 12,
2010.
Proiect and Site Discussion
As indicated in our above referenced report, subsurface voids were encountered at the
location of our previously completed SPT borings designated as B-7 and B-8. These
borings were performed at the locations established by JMT, Inc. and were generally
positioned slightly west of the west building wall line. Additionally, the results of the
remaining previously completed borings performed within the vicinity of the original building
limits (designated as B-5 and B-6 which were performed east of the east wall line) did not
indicate the presence of subsurface voids. Subsequently, it was our understanding that the
building location was shifted slightly to the east in an effort to locate the building outside
the limits of the encountered subsurface voids.
504 East Elizabeth Street • Elizabeth City, NC 27909 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
-- — info@getsolutionsinc:oom—--------

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Analysis
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-106G
Addendum No.1
Field Exploration
2/19/10 ,
In order to explore the presence of potential subsurface voids along the western portion of
the newly established building limits, a total of three (3) 30-foot deep Cone Penetrometer
Test (CPT) soundings (designated as CPT-2 through CPT-4) were performed at the
locations designated by representatives of NAVFAC.
Additionally, in order to perform a seismic site evaluation, one (1) 36-foot deep CPT
sounding (designated as CPT-1) was performed within the approximate center of the newly
established building limits. This CPT sounding was limited to a depth of 36 feet below
existing grades as penetration refusal was encountered at the termination depth. Shear
wave velocity testing was performed at the location of CPT-1 from the existing surface
grade elevations to the termination depth of 36 feet. The results of the CPT soundings are
provided on the attached CPT Sounding and/or Shear Wave Velocity sheets.
The CPT sounding locations were established by representatives of NAVFAC and
subsequently identified in the field by G E T Solutions Inc. personnel with the use of a
Global Positions System unit based on the coordinates and dimensions indicated on the
project site plan provided by The Spectra Group. More specific information regarding
boring locations and depths is provided in the following table (Table I — Sounding
Schedule).
Table I — Sounding Schedule
Boring
Boring
Depth
Boring Location 1+1
Number
(feet)
CPT-1
36
Approximate Center Building
CPT-2
30
Approximate Southwest Building Corner
CPT-3
30
West Wing; Approximate Center of West Wall
CPT-4
30
Northwest Wing; Approximate Northwest Corner
Note (1): The boring locations noted above are considered to be approximate and are referenced from the
newly established building limits.
Subsurface Conditions
Based on the results of CPT soundings (CPT-1 through CPT-4) performed to depths
ranging from 30 to 36 feet, subsurface voids were not encountered at the newly explored
locations. Accordingly, the subsurface improvements, as indicated in Section 4.7 of our
"Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering" (dated April 17, 2009;
GET Project No. EC09-106G), do not appear to be warranted at this time.
Solutionsjnc.,. ,
I
I

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Analysis 2/19/10
P-1310 Pre -Trial Detainee Facility
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-106G
Addendum No.1
Furthermore, the CPT soundings indicated that the subsurface soils at the recently tested
locations are generally consistent with those encountered during our SPT exploration
procedures. Accordingly, it is our professional opinion that the remaining
recommendations, excluding the subsurface grouting improvements, presented in our
above referenced report remain valid.
Additional subsurface exploration and Geotechnical Engineering services, as indicated in
Section 5.3 of our "Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering'
(dated April 17, 2009; GET Project No. EC09-106G), are recommended to be completed
once the Design/Build team has been selected in order to substantiate the
recommendations presented herein and/or in our previously referenced report.
Seismic Design Recommendations:
The results of our field exploration indicate that the average shear wave velocity recorded
in the upper 36 feet (refusal depth) was about 1,330 ft/sec. As such, the project site is
within a site class 'C' in accordance with Table 1613.5.5 of the 2006 International Building
' Code. The comprehensive results of the CPT soundings are provided on the attached CPT
Sounding and/or Shear Wave Velocity sheets.
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.
r
i
LCsi.AJ,
Gerald W. Stalls Jr., P.E..�o.tH CARpZ�•,,,��
Senior Project Engineer �..•oFESS/O� :y9
NC Reg. # 034336 SEAL q�
034336
.ENGINE`..
.
�'•�� W. Sia��.�`�
,n.umD••
Camille A. Kattan, P.E. ;; �N.\ CARO"'o,
SSiO.% ;
SEAL r
014103
Principal Engineer
NC Reg. # 14103
Attachments: CPT Sounding and Shear Wave Velocity test sheets (CPT-1)
CPT Sounding test sheets (CPT-2 through CPT-4)
' Copies: (3) Client
-- ----- - ----- - GET

I
F
1
CAROLINA DRILLING
'
Bridger Drilling Enterprises Inc.
dba Carolina Drilling
114 Chimney Lane
Wilmington, INC 28409
'
910.799.0493 w
910.799.5945 f
910.512.4600 m
[e-mail]
'
CPT Analysis Results
All information obtained utilizing Geoprobe® 6625 CPT, GeoTech Cones,
'
and CPT Pro by Geosoft.
Data interpretation to be exclusively determined by the client's engineering staff.
'
r

Classification by
' Robertson 1990 —
Clean sands to silty sands (6)
Silty santl to sandy silt (5) —
6
Clean sands to silty sands (6) C
t Clayey sill to silty clay(4)
Clean sands to silty sands (6)
Silty sand to sandy silt (5)
' -Clean sands to silly sands (6)
Silty sand to sandy silt (5)
_ Clean sands to silly santls (6)
Silly sand to sandy silt (5)
Silty send to sandy silt (5)
sands to silty sands (6)
Silly sand to sandy silt (5)
Clayey sill to silty clay(4)
Silty sand to sandy silt (5)
Clayey silt to silty, clay(4)
Clays: clay to silty clay (3)
Organic soilsyeats (2)
Clayey sill to silty day (4)
to silty sands (6)
OWN wft
CAROLINA GRILLING
vz
Cone No 4227
Tip.re.IrJn21'. 10
9leelre area Icm2I'. 150
LIlU U Li LI11J U LI LI1U L1 Gt XiOib
,II 111111 II I IIII IIII IIII II '11
1 n1llnnnTnnrlTn nr
1ILILIIUULIlUUL111111ULI1111JL
III IIII11111111111111
lr4 rnnnrrtnnrmlTn nnrn nr
u Ulu U UULU UL
IJ 111111111y11111................
u ulu1JU11JUU...I.
11111111111111111 1 .... 1
Ri'n n r1 TIT Il n nTlr n n rlTll ll r
.11 11 L IJIJ H 111 J w w LI 11J II
11I H II1I111I I1 II II III III
i17.7--i i 1ir1T1r1r11r1.11.1-
r(111 I11 1.4 `I IIIIIIIIiIH a
11t-1111 rI rIr ll rl rl TlT 11 r1 rIlI �II
11111HH1HwwH1HN I-L-HNC
111..................
it II��III1111111111111IIIII1111111
hI+JY H H fli lY H ..... H ....... H.
ILT II
I I¢Il1l1l .lI.L.._.._....I.IL.._.._....i.l.._.._..11`1y'^„nY'"I_
"TIT
IIIIIIII I11111111111111
nrl+n "U
n rl+ "U
nn rn nr
LL11iyaJ ULI l UULLL UULll I lUUL
I 1 11111111111111111111111111111
r¢.+Tnnrrtnnn1JUUL1Tnr
IL IUUULUUUUILLUUU1u UL
n "tU ............. 111n (IIIII
ry T T n n rlTTl n n rlTnnnTn nr
kL. lI J U U 1111J U U LI.I U ULIlU U L
111111n nr: 1111111111n nr: TITn
�nrlTnnrrtnnnrrtn nnrnnr
I yL'ILUUULU IJ VLI LIIV VLlill LJl
IIf?II nrIT1T1T nil TlTn nr?lint
I L iJu uLuu u.
II IIInIIlil lilull111111 nnu111
Tlnlnn Trtn nnrnn nnrnnr
HaIJw FILHw w
1 111111111111111111 ~ iii 111111 ~I IF
___ 111 r1 TIT 1111 r1T11 i1i
hlYNww1HH HH41aN HH1HN�
111111/1 �111_____................
________
Irk Ihlllllilil~111111~III IY
1r�-Iiinili1r1111 i1i1i1iili liiHi
"Y HFl fIYnTH fITnTIT1YH'MI
1 n1lJ 1J LI LIL IJ LI LI LIL IJ LI LIL IJ IJt
- Iilllnnlnn111 Will
1 Tlr li l'11'1 flT n n n in n n rlrn nr
1ULUU ULILIJ LI LILLIJ LI LILViJL
INI :1: 1111I111111
I II111 ULILI'll, ILI UULIL Il U... I I I I
TI1 n n rITIT n IITIT n n rIrIT nr
I LILUULI1111 I ULI LIlU ULIlUU1
1111111111111111111111n nr,111111
1 r1 r1 I n nI n n n rim n n Aril nr
I LIlUU LI LIlU ULI LIlU ULILUUL
I1':1 nil ilTn nil T ITn n rrt 11 1
LLLLuu uluu uu Ij UULJIJ I
IIIII
i rrtnnln rrt nrn rrni n nnrn nr
u u LU IJ UL
u 1I1I111,1
_______71IrITIrlIrlTim -
111H hI h HH N hH IYN1
_ IIII_II I_ _I_II
111 1111 T
11111 ~ _ 1_II IJIII
11111111
IIILIJ n hl III, rl III n n rlrn nr
LI LIJU111 i111Jll L11111J UL111J IJt
IIIII I1111 I1
rlTn rlr
!LILY IJ VLLLIJ L1 L111UJUULV Vt
I II111111 'n'
Tn n r1T4 n n II I n rl T IT !
ILUUU ULIU ULIIUu ULLLIJuI
111�11Ill: 1111111111 IIIIIII I1111
1 rl TIT n n -ITll n n 111 n n LIIII nr
1 LI11 J U U LI l U U U 11J U UULU UI
1111111111111
(nrn nn rrr lnnnrin n nnrnnr
JLJIJ�l IJ U LILIl uu LIlU LI
1111111111111111111111111111111111
1 Winn nrrrll n nrlTn nrlrnnr
I LILIJ U U 1111J V II... u .11.1J UI
59
5 6 7 8 9 10
J_1_L
i i r
- - I'T-r T'r I-'-T-r
I 1
l-
T-rl-r-rl-r -I-I -L
I 1_I I
)J -
T-r I-r-- T—r -'-'-r
�i-TYI-T'I-I-r-I' T-f
1 ri r--i-r 1-4-1
1 I
1i I
I_I _I_ 1_L __
I I I I I I Y I I
y-r-YY-r Y
I
_1_l I_ J_ L J_ 1_L
I 1 1-r-I--1-r-T-r
_ 1_ LJ_ L_I_ J_ LJ_ 1_L
I I I I I
__1_LJ_L _I_J_I I_I_L
I I I I
I-
T-rl-r -rI I-1-T-r
I-T-I I- r--l'r-I-T-r
1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1
--r-r l-r-r l-r-I-T—r
JI I I 111 I I I II
-1
_I 1
--rY-r-r+-
r
-r+-r
J_J_L J_1_L
I
Tl r-I-+
I_1_LJ_LJ_L I_1_L
-,T rl-r
_1_LJ_ L_I_ J_ L J_ 1_L
I I
l'T rl'r-rl-r �I-T-r
-T -rl-r-l'1-1-1-1
_J__I_ _ I _I_J -L -I L1_L I I I I I
-
-T-rl -r -i T- r -I-TT
T_r �I_1T_______7 _r
-L-I-J -I-l-
I I
_I -_II_____
I I I I
_1_I_ J_1 J_J_L
J_ LJ_ J_ LJ_ 1_L
I I I I
I-T T-r
J_1 _L J_L_I_J_LJ_I _L
J-T-rl-r-rl-r-rI-L
I I_I J_L_I_J_
-1-11-r ri r 1-1-r
J_I _L J_L_I_J_L _1_I_L
PosiUon:
Client:
J J L_1_J__I_-L
-i-I--'r-T_I--r"r
J_ 1__L_L_J__I__L
-['-1--1--rr-I- --- -r
T I__1__r _1 _�I
__r_r
T_I--1--r-T_I--1--r
-`d----r-T-T--i-'1r
_I4_ ____1_i_i__i_
_I _r
J, -L
I
_1_ J_J__ L_ 1_ J__I__L
1
_T (l_ -1__r._T_ I__i__r
_J__I__L
tr 1
T\\-I---r-T-I--I -r
r�J I _ L i i _I L
-T;I
JI
-T-IT-1--r-T-l--i -r
__
_I__
l I I
"-I--L- 1-J--I--L
_1_J _I _L_1_J _L
l -I- - T l -I
J__I__L _1_J_ I__L
-
T-T -I ----—- r
L
-
T-I- .--r- T -I-T-r
L
-
r-T-l -r
_____________I_____
I_
_I Ir
J
_1_ J_ J__ L_ 1_J__I__L
J _I__L_I _J _I__L
T - l -I
1_ J__I__ L_ 1_ J__I_-L
-
T-l -I - r -T'-l -I
_ J__I__ L_ L_ J__I__L
-
I-I--I--r-I-I - -I- -
r
_1_J _I L 1 J _I _L
trail detainee site

Classification 0 0,9578544 1.9157088 2.8735632 3,8314176 4.7892720 5.7471264 6.7049808
Robertson 1990 1 � I I I I I I I I I
Clean sands to silty sands (6)
1
_ L - � c 1 - 1 - J - J - J - J !_ _ _ _ _ -I_ OaU\Lf$
Silty sand to sandy silt (5)
:
_____r____r_____r_____7_____n__________-_____--- ____--- _____
p
_L ! _L _1 _1 _J _J _J _! _I _
Clean sands to ally sends 6
C
�-
I I
Clayey silt to silly clay(4)
i'---___.L__
r_
Clean sands to silty sands (6)
7;
_____ L_ ____ y
Silty sand to sandy sill (5)
_
_____4_�___.�=r='____a_____ a_____a_____�__________________
Clean sands to silty sands (fi)
1 -
r - - - - ---'-�" ' ' '
-`—
Silty send to standWilt (5)
y
Clean santls to silty sands (6)
11 '
` r -
Silty sandtosandvsilt (5)
1
_ _ .. _________________
I I
Clean sands to silty sands (6)
1 _
_____ _____ _____ _____4--__-'___________ ______I______I______
- -
gilty santl to santltl silt ((5
GleansandstosiliysaQ' (6)
14
I C'=
___________ --- ___
- -�'--'---- ______J_____
1
_____L_____!_____!-I-----� !___ I ______ _____________________
Silty sand to sandy silt (5)
I
�_1_I I
1 .
_____r____=__-�_____-_____y_____ 1______I_-----I______
Clean sends to siltysands (6)
21=
_____r_____r_____T_____T�__`r_____r_____ 1______I____________
__
Silty sand to sandy sill (5)
p
_____i _____LJ_____J_____!______I______
2
______ _____r_____r_ _ r_____T_____T_____n_____�_-__________
I I
Clae sill to sil clay4
2
I
-----1�=�-----I- - - - --
-Silty
_
sand to sandy
sandy sill (5)
I
Clayey sill to silly clay (4)
27
2
_____"- ___ I_____ I ------ I ------ ______
2
Clays. clay to silly day (3)
_.__•____._____-_____ _____ __________________
31
___-
Organic soils -pears (2)
3
---- _ -;
I
Clayey sill to silty Clay (4)
34'
- - -- i_-----------a--_-_-
sends to silty sands (fi)
L__ I __ I
_____r_____I_____I_____-_____ y_____ y_____ y-_._=.,--
_Clean
_ _ ______ J______I____________
3
_____ L_____ L_____1I !_____ J_____ J_____ J______ I______
I I I I
Q
_____L_____r_____r_____T_____r_____-___ — -______I______I_ _____
41
_L _L _1 _1 _J _J _J _!______I______
42.
_ I_____ _
_r _r _r _I _ __
Q
_L __J _J J
45-
I
-f -T -i -1 -1 -1 -1 -I -1
4 _
_L _L i i _J i _J _I I
f -T -T -1 -1 -1 -I -I -I
474
_L _L L _J _J _J _J _I _I
_f _r _T _1 _l _l _I -I _i
4
__ - L _L _� _� _� _� I _I
5 _
-r __I ___I __ _ -1
y512 _____-_________________a=____ a_____ I_-__________
5
-. -« -a -. -y -. -I -I -I
____ I_ _ _ _ __________--- ___
_____L_____ L_____L_____!_____J_____J_____ !__ __ _ !_____
___ __-_
I
6
:_
_L _L _1 _1 _J _J _J _J _I______
6
I I
f T T -T -1 -'I l
64_
L _L _L _J _J _J _J _J _ ___ __
I I I I I I
_____i-_____L_____L_____J_____J_____J_____J__________________
67: I I I I I I I I
______L_____L_____L_____J_____J_____J_____J_____!______I______
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 11
qc IT/fl^21
Location: Position: Groundlevel: Test m
'n
X: 0.00 itV: 0.00 ft 0.00 001
Project ID: Client Date: Scale:
1: 100
C
DRILLING2/18/2010
Cone
ProlecL Page: Fig:
1 /1
rip areaa [cm2l cm2tl In
Sleeve ane lcm2l
Ica
File:
pre trail detainee site 2.CPT

uXi y a n a o a a N n N v 0 X> N `m d v X> N
In VI 41 V1 N N N Ul N 4 0. d
HHHIIIHHHIII
LLLLLLLLLLLL
I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I
I
1
1
�
I I
I I
11
I I
I I
I
I
LI
!
I 1 I
I i
I
I
I I I
I
'
I I 1
i I
'
i
I I
I
I I I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
M
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
i
1
I
1
1
I I
I
I I I
I
i I
I I
I I
I
I
i
I
I I
I I I
I
i I
U
n
I
I I; I
11
I I
I I I I I
I
I
i
�
0
I I I I
I
I
O
I I
I
I
I
! I I I
I 11
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
l 1
I I 1
I
I
I I i
I
I
O
N
I
I I I
I I
I i
I II I I I I
I I II
! I
I I
I
! 1
I I I 1
1 I
I I
O
1
I
1 I
I I I I
I I
I I
I I I
I I I I I I
I I I!
I
IA ry M N Q N N t0 m N O
(w) glde(l

I
1
o� ry m n r rc r n r m r r M n n ry ry m m m m m r rn M r M
m �rl, m w m ro m m- rw m m � --
� � � �
a- �- —
LLLLLLLLLL?LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLI
N N V1 M UJ ? U1 N Y1 W N n w W UI m N O N N
�-..—�—�—�
(w)Ul�aa
I
I
I
11
t
I

Classification by
Robertson 1986
Silty sand to sandy sill (7)
Sandy silt to clayey sill (6)
Silty send to sandy sill (7)
-Sandy silt to dayey silt (6)
Clay (3)
Silty day to day (4)
Clay (3)
Silty sand to sandy sill (7)
Sand to silty sand (8)
Silly sand to sandy sill (7)
Sand to silty send (8)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
Sand to silty sand (8)
Clayey silt to silty clay(5)
Sandy silt to clayey sill (6)
Sand to silty sand (8)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
Clayey silt to silty clay(5)
CAROLINA DRILLING
awr
qc IMPar fs IT/fl^21 u21TIV21 So(gt.WL) IMP-1
0 1 2 3-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 00.13333R4U.r.13®71118391
�
I111 II111
1
L 1
�I1r111llllll
I �
11u1
1 I
QIII
u n IIII
I I
_-__1_____I____
__7-r-rl-r-1--
1
- - - - -
IInnnIn n n n
II II IInI mm�nIIIIII II IIInIIII
1 1
1
I I I I
i
I 1
u 1111IIlI In II1 n I1
�1
1 1 1 1 i
' 1
II
rinnrnlm nrtnnn
--r----r---
--�-r 1 r
i
I ljln lnlullnilllnnin
InyInIIuII1InI nIIlIlIlIlnn111n11
1 I
1----
I I I I I I
111
4-
Jrin
1-1-r-
------I1
------ --
............
1 r
1 1
1
II .......................
I
n rinnlrlmnnlinn
----r ----1----
J
-1 1-r-I-- -r-
1
-----r-----1--
-
137
IIIn1111111111111Illlln
III II II II IIIIIII II I I II II n
/ I
l 1
I I I I I I
I
1 1
I rinililrrtIII linIII nn
1 1 1
IlailulnilllnIIIIII
1 1
\I
1 1 1 1
7.
I u11111nnnI111nnu11
r
I r 1 I 1
J______ _____
I I
_____________
IfiF71
nIf11111111111n1I 1I11n
IIIIn1111n111111111I1111
'__--
IIII
I 1
1nln IIIllnllllnnlnn
III11r 1 I1111111111 IIII
__�--'_---
4 1
1
I I I I I I I
I r
1
IIIIII.
III
, 1
IILI!If_I
Ier1111Ir1111ItI 1r11 r1I 111
n.H1111n1111InI1I1 l
(__I
Irl=1-1 1 1 I
1 1
y`1JL11LLIJI
U JU UU
___J_ ___
`—
J_1_L J_1 _I_!__
_ _ ___
I JI
.
Illljllllllllllll111IIIIII
I I
I I I I I I
11
ULLL111111J 1111IJlJU
-----J----
1_IL I_1_L J--
----------JI
11111II1111111111.........
f I
r
I
.
Intl sU1111111111 I, I. 111
l( 1 1
r 1 1 1 1
1 1
1
L1 Ll Ln.ILIlI11JIJ ll tl ll Ll
I IIIIIfIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII1111111111
> I I
I I I I I I
I I
1
uuL YILI1111JIJuu uu
IIIII 1111111111111111111
r
_r_1 _1
/ I I
_1_1_L I_J_L I
( I I I I I
_1 _J
II111 `IIIIII III III111111
I
1
1 1 1 I
1
III IIIIIIIII,III I'J u u Y
- � -I - _ _ _ J_ _ _ _
I- , I I I I I
I I
1
II11`�` IIIIII111JHHI 111u
_�
F I
_I
�11
.III
FI R111111,111111111111
1111111J 111n111n 11H
i I
I I 1 I I
1 1 1 1
I
1 1
1
I
IIIIYN�II
F i
y
II I 11111111111111
IIII IIIIIII II1111111
\ I I
1 I I I I I
I
17
1H H lflflr HH H H H H
1 -1
-1 T - . -1- ♦ -1
-1 ~
"
1111111ill llll11111111IIII
`-
� I I
I I I I I I I
I I
1
.IIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIf II11111111111- -
H YISIfnHlyHnn HH
IIII IIII IIIII II II
I
- 1 -1
l� I I
� T-r-1-f-r-1
II I I I I I I
1
-1 -y
I I
II IIIIA I1111111111111111
1
I I
1 _
nnflnTl TlT llnnnnrl
z I -1
-I�I-r-I-T
-I I
"
11114111111111111111111111
IIIIII IIIIII11111111111111
/ I I
I I I I I I I
I I
2 _
111\I111111111111111111111
I/
C I
11
-I -�
I
217
1In�hnInnn7n nnnnn
_________I____
l_r _1_r_r n__
__________
II n1n. 111u111 I1
I 1
I
1 1 1 1 1
11
2
'nnElnnrrrnlnnnnln
_l _r________
1 1 1 1 1
_ T_r_I_T_r _I__
_____i_____r__
Will 11nn11111111nn1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
n I III 1i IIIII n1I 11
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
2
nnA^nrrtrtrtnnn n n
__ _r----1----
-1 1-r-rl-r-1--
-----11-----n--
In
2
-j ---1----
---r----1-'
-IIIIII
.lirinrlr.rrrnnnnnn
n11111111111u1n 1I1
1
rr-l-rrl—
2.
r 1111111innl lnln''i 11
�- __i ____�____
i_7�1 1 1 1 1
_i__�__
1
_____________
I
rl rl rlilrlTl III ilr rind
LIInluulllnu111u1111
1_r
I
IL{1lun ulr11u1nn1n1
I 1
1 1 Y 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 f 1
1
2
---- ---
nfr,IIIIIHIIIIII11111111
1 1
1 1
1 1
27
1I1i111i IIII l it 111 I
II
III I II
!
1
1
-
I In 111111111111111111111
I114�1111111111111111111111
I
I_
2 8-I
-i
ll II II I I IIIIII
I
2 -
I111in
LIL 11lLJIJ LLIL'
__I____!____
'_!_L!_'_!!__
____________
....LI
II IIIIIIIII11111111111I
d1ut-L'11111I1111111
ULTY+LLYlL11J
1 1
1 1
I I I I I I I
1I 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1
30
U L
1!JULI LI
n1 u1111ull nllln1111
____1____!____
!_\1 _!J_1_L!__
1
__
1nn1uu1111I 11n111u11
1 r 1 1 1
31-
ULI LI LI LI l III UUUU
I II11111111111111111111111
_1 _J
J_1 _L J_1 _LJ
_I_____J
-
32
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
u u L1u11Luuuu uuu
111I1111111111 n1I11111111
____1____J__
I 1
J_1_LJ_J_LJ__
1 1 I 1 1 I I
_____1_____J__
1 I
1n1111I111111 n11I 11u111
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
'�
uuulluuJuuuuuu
____1_____1____
J_1_L_1_1 _LJ__
_____1_____J__
111unn1111nun111n1I
nllnllnlnll Willi
1 1
1 I
1 1 1 1 I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
36
ul
11
uuuuLuuuuuuuu
____1_____I____
J_1_L_I_J_L_I__
_____1_____J_
uz
t
Cone No 4227
Tip area Icm1) 10
Sleare area 111 150
in
level:

Classification by
Robertson 1986
Sensitive fine grained (1)
Sandy silt to clayey sill (6)
Silly sand to sandy silt (7)
Silty clay to clay(4)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
Clay (3)
Silty no to sandy silt (7)
Sand to silty sand (8)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
Sand to silty sand (8)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
Sand to silty sand (8)
Sandy silt to clayey silt (6)
Sand to silty sand (8)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
Sandy silt to clayey silt (6)
Silty sale to sandy silt (7)
Sand to silly sand (8)
Sandy silt to clayey silt (6)
Clay (3)
Silty sand to sandy silt (7)
Sandy silt to clayey silt (6)
CM. MM Dfll_ LUNG
yin llnunnlu lralw4c
11 lulu ill ill
Prl
y
. . l a lllllllulnnnn
11{I{I {I T:T lT rl rl ll rl
rl rl TI TI TIT IT IT Il fl fl n
-
1y 11 lu llllll ill
T TT TT TT Tlnl
I'r1 a u11
'n
4
n n rinrrtlnlnnrnn
III r l l
...................
1111111111111..
il T. C
IJpir1r111Trrn1111n❑❑
_
,Il111llllllln IIIIIIIII
0 Till liliili
it
itT,-, T.
T TIn TT TTT T TTTT II TT
7
I' u7,nn711, 111111i1ir:rl
17n 11n 111n n1111111n1
t11
_n
I II UI nTIIII uTn TTTTTTTTT
1 C>'l lll111111111111111111
UUULIl000L1
III IIIL�/111I......II IIII11111
I III2111111111IUI I V II V IIUI
nIp ........... ulllllu
u uu
1 L1 L111 L11111111LL LI LI LI LJ
I III I'111111111111111111111
I II I11111111111111u u u 4
I11 11�11111111�11111111
I lllrllll11111111+11111111
FLr1'14141111HIi HHHH
y II I1111111111111111
Il l+ill III II II III IIII
, INN
11 T11u 111 a 11 uynrrH
I II 11 11 IIIIIIIIn 111111111
Tu%I 'Ill 'Ill ul'Ill I'll I'll it I", I", 11
1 u.1 u11111111n 111111111
1 nnslnmm�nnnnn
1
n 51111111111u 11 n11111
I I 111111111 1111n I I
nirsl lln nnlu In ulTlT
Of
I I
Cone No: 4227
nv area Icre21to
slesre area Icn21150
^llllll1 1111111 rynnil
...................11ll
IIII III
1 T1 gr1r17IT17 ITIT rl n!1 n
1 ; rI 7Ir: TITI:T 111111 Il n n
NJI ITII TI III TLIT TT T T T Tn
1rL'r1 T.............. n n n
ul
111 lirT - TT T T_---
rinrrlTl-l-llnrlrl
1 IIIIIII III IIIIIII II
1 µ 111111I11111111IIII 11111
I I(IIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIII
I Ivry LI LI IIII_ I_ I_ I_ I_ LI LI
- �nnlin n111111111ru
pp nlnn1n 11111 n1n1
!yL1 LILLLIL1111U1J IJ UIU
IAlllllllllllll ll lllllllll
!I LI LLLLLLLIlUUUL UL
nlll uln 11 1111
11
IU U UL111111111111 U U U
11111111111111111111111111
l l ll lll1111111111 u u u
1 IJ LI LI L1111111111 LI LI LI LI
l l l l 1l LllllllU l l u u U U
I IIII II IIIIIIIII
I 1
1 I 1
l
I
I I
I I
--___--- ___
�I I
I 1
I 1
T I I
I I
I 1
I I
\ I I
I I
_I I
I
1
I I
I
I I
I I
-1 I
1 I
I
/ 1 I
I I
I
1
_ 1 _
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
_I _I
4 5 6 7
11 1 1 1 1
T_r_I__
1 I 1 1
I I I I I
i I
i 1 I I
-'
1 I I I
i I 1 I
i
1 I_ 1 1_
L J_1_L
1 1 1 1 1
1_L!_LL!__
i l l I I I
1_1_L__1_L J__
1 I I
I I 1 I
I 11 I 1
I I I I
I
I-~ I
I I 1 I
I I I 1 1
i I I I I I I
I I I I
_I[T I 1 I Ir I
T-r -1-rr
1 1 1 1
T1 T I 1 I
T_r _I_T___I__
i_T__
III 1
T1 1_T _I -I'-___
-1
h i l l
_1_L 1_1 I
L .1 _L
11 1 I I
L.
1 I
1
I
I
I
I 1
I
J__
T T
I I
1 I
1 I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
_I J
I
I
I y
1 I
1 I
I I
1
I I
I I
-I I I
-I- -1
I
I
T1
_____I ___-_I__
__ _
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
no
J

qc IMPal
fs IT/fl^21
u21T/0^2I
Su(g6WL) IMPa1
Classification
by
_n
3gi`g7':.•,{'
it
1
2IiIrII�lI'IIIIIIIrII1IIIIIII
5 7 R110
00.1A9_____I3IIJ__-_IIIIIIIIIIII1I4IrrII�III�IIII
Elk ®____-_-__
TW-_JJJ_��nIIIIII'8III
3-1 0IIIII'I!°1'iiiIiIiilII
9-
3,rIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIrI
6IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIsIII
2IIIILIIIIILIirIrIrl1IIr_I1II_
I
IIl1I1IIIlIIlllI1llIl
.',IIrIl11IIIl1InnI1II
IIJIIIlIIII1IIIIr11IIII
�,I��j
rt1lI1lIl1lIllInlII11II1Il
nnLiLInl1IIIlnu1lllInI1IIIII
I1U1111Il11IfI111IlI1lJIll111111Il1l1IlllI111Il1l
_�=-_.-�
TllIIll11I1ll1IulI11lIllInlIll111I1ll1IAlI11lUIl4lllrinl1lllInIlI11In1II1In
.
�1nIlLIInI1IIIn1IIIIIII1I
'
lllIlllflI11lIllII111II
r_1J4Tr11IIIIIIIIIIIlIIIII
lrin1rlrIlIl11Il1II1IHlInnnIll11Illn1IlI11lInll
/___-)=1J
1TLIlI1lIIIlnInnI11lIllIrtll1l1IIIlIlI11lIuLllTI1l1IIlnnlI11lIllllI1I
1iL1lnM1llInl1I1lu1nlI1Ill
__-J-__
fI1�f
___-___
lr1rl,IIl1l1IIITII1III
IIIllII
__-
TrLIlllI1l1IIIlIIllI11lIIllIrtlnu1l1IIIlIIlllI11lInIll
1IlIIlI11IIIiI1lIIII
11llnnIl11I1l1IlI1InIl
1Trrr__J1
.
1;I1lInnnln1IIIIl11G1/4,IIII
C\L
JluIun1I11111Ilu1InI111Il1l
'
YLi,nnIiIIlnu1I1IIIlII1ll
f____--)

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX V '
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS I
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
'RO
O
j
�
J
O
o
O
M
O
0
0
0
0
y
a
Z
N
u
i
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
C
O
L
N
y
C
L
Z"
0
L
�
In
0
(n
>
�i
0y
i
O)
r
N
W
Cl!
In
N
d
a
c
o
+
>
oY
g
3
3
a
.�
O
U
O
O
U
+
W
_
LLJ
E
aL
c
N
O
O
O
90
0
0
O
_
'6
fRll
0
w
w
w
w
w
w
W
w
0
L
U
M
N
O
Y
H
D
C
E
.M-
(O
N
p
r
�n
Q
Q
c+i
r
Z
a
R
y=
.j
-M
R
C
p
N
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
}
1-
11
j
E
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z
Z
N
N
N
~
O
Q
l
O
O0i
0'
Zd
q
N
N
Q
Oi
I-�
[D
co
O
Y
R
J
❑
f
w
a
m
U
U
o
LL E
7
ai
u
u
u
w
E
m
Q
7
O
N
N
N
U
E
OJ
r
O
N
of
IN
_
__
N
lfJ
ui
0
M
Q
r
m
O
M
Q
Q
a
O
d
Q
N
M
0
0
0
6
G_
D
}
a
N
0
n
C7
w
C_
O
«
U
W
N
~
U
o
E
m
m
L
(n
=
y
N
N
Q
l0
O
W
N
Q
S=
2
R
y
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
(n
W
y
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
'S
E
O
m
In
Z
L
u0i
.d.
o
U
C
J❑
LL
U
M
J
Z
�
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o
R
LLJ
LL
y
In
to
N
6
r
uD
m
N
E
«
R
n
utEi
'C
e
U
w
Q
C
N
O
N
n
Z
O
17
Q
O
1P
++
a
b
m R
m
E
o
_m
E
d
m
v
W
«
w
An
y
A
Ap
00
y
A
m
O
y
LL
z
z
m❑
p
m
E
C
O
N
M
C
C
C
In�
.o
a
O
In
>
E
O
In
O
m
O
m
R
z
N
D
in

O]
m
M
O
m�
(fl
iD
M
M
N
In
C
A
L
O
'O
O1
O
10
i
_T
__
m
r
__
m
(D
m
__
O
w
r
Q
Q
(D
O
r
r
N
r
O
(D
O
O)
O
O
O
m
r
Z
i
t
Q
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
LO
•3
O
L
N
�'
II
U)
Z,
M
r
0
0
0
r
M
Q
(n
N
(n
'j
30
d
d=
U
a
U
C
O
C
M
co
O
(O
N
m
r
r
(D
O
(D
1�
C6
E
Y
F
o
`—'
`o
o
u�
M
M
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
d
N
W
E
L
N
m
o
0
0
o
g
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
=
a
'-
`-
Y
d
d
w
W
w
w
w
w
W
w
W
W
W
W
w
in
U)
0
U
.
d
—
r
O
N
m
Q
�O
N
O
M
M
r
Q
r
Y
A
E
M—
M—
(D
Q
Q
M
r
m
N
O
O
N
d
M
06
r
r
lD
lD
m
tD
Q
Q
Q
W
Z
O
A
T
a
A
(n
'
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
L'
y
a=
r
U
a
U
_
—
z
z
—
r
r
In
cD
ID
v
(D
rn
.-
QN
m
n
d—
ID
m
o
m
m
M
v,
Wm
<D
rn
o
Z
d A
(o
ID
m
c'i
(D
cli
Q
(D
M
1*
o
M,
0
M
0
o
rn
m
O
m
N
Y
A
J
❑
d
U
U
o f
w
a
LL E
u
p
u
cEi
W
`m
x
E
Q
3
O
N
N
E•
ifl
m
N
---
O
M
M
r
r
m
O
M
M
—
--
Ix
d
"w
ifi
N
O
M
(D
r
r
0)
m
m
C7
N
Q
p
4
p
M
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
a
>-
'u
Ljf
N
�
d
E
L
L
1
~
o
E
w
w
U
(n
W
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
W
6
C
n
3
E
o
o
m
cn
y
Z
U
U
J❑
LL
3:
U
N
J
Z
A
0
0)
N
M
r
M
01
m
Q
N
tD
4t
U
a
M
Q
lD
m
r
m
0)
>T
C
C
d
d
F c
N
A
J
c
"«
E
a
a
c
o
p
Q
o
a
0 R
(n
p
a`
m
C
o
N
E
M
d
>
d
w m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
--
d
ti
V
E
p
c.
z
Z
rn
lalK
J E
U
v
O
i
A
c
c
1
«
U
o
m
z�
in

(O
UJ
M
N
Ol
d'
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
C
R
S
w
!7
�
p
p
OJ
N
N
V
M
V
N
O1
f0
N
M
Z
V
O
O
N
O
.L-•
N
m
C_
(n
O
r
C
N
6
m
m
vt5
c
a
o
c
ui
co
ai
v
o
ai
U
C
O
L=
d
ry
M
N
N
m
T
G
0
p
N
O
>
Y
o
3
m
o
U
W
W
G
10
N
N
0
0
0
_
W
E
A
t°
N
w
p
o
0
0
0
w
W
w
w
W
W
0
N
Y
in
0=
,
E
O
N
r
M
N
O
QJ
C
O
?
M
N
�
�
N
z
U
C
N
o
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
F
„
E
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
>
y
E
F
Y
C7
_
Y
O
U
Z
Z
�
—
—
a_
N
T
O
m
Y
m
m
a
Zi
Z
y
cEi
E
cEi
w
E
d
Q
J
O
N
N
f'
O
U
E
N
m
r
O
M
N
—
N
O
NE0
�
a
d
}
O
H
to
C
m
W
C
'
�2
E
O
M
C
W
O
o
y
WU
o
E
a
00
m
E
t
a
t
n
F
U
N
M
M
V
(n
W
y
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
3
E
O
0
o:
m
q
o
Z
N
`
o
J
J❑
LL
U
N%
Z
Q
.�
o
r
o
N
v
U
U
W d
rn
v
W
H C
N
N
J
c
E
'N
m
w
E
E
t
-
°r,
o°
r
❑
U
m
_
_
_
_
_
C
°°
7r
co
Z
o
~
Iri
a
a+
a
ti
m
m
o
cn
.
E
CL
=
>
d
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.R.
ai
W
0w
iconin'
>
U
m
z
5O
rn

6J
N
0)
I�
i-
O
M
M
01
Q7
co
0
0
0
m
m-
r
m
m-
N
m
m
C
@
--
--
C
O
O
O
'
T
N
O
N
m
M
0O
OMi
-9
O)
O
OJ
W
CO
W
W
aD
Z
1
M
"00
N
t
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
0
0
0
0
O
O
N
O
i
to
-O
2.
m
O)
U
�O
O
C
C
C
t
=
y@
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
V
N
N
T
C
0
O
o
i>
Y
o
3
3
�n
•�
u
F
O
V
O
U
N
W
R
V
O
V
V
_
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
d'
W
�_
N
W
E
N
L
�_
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
=
T
'�
-`�
Y
U
w
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
N
(/)
F
(O
(O
N
N
N
N
N
N
(O
'L
E
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>
N
E
U
Z
Z
M
v
M
0
o
v
7
—
—
~
O
O a
o
IT
N
N
Q
L: `w
'
ri
o
ri
N
ui
z
«@
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
Y
T
@
U
@
� C
❑
J
_
3 E
w
a
«
LL
@
d
u
u
w
E
'
d
6
ULLE
YG
N
z
_N
O
O
M
N
N
of
N
O
M
M
Q
3
O
N
N
N
O'
E
W
ui
ui
o
-
1�
r
r
W
00
N
w
OJ
O
M
M
M
C>
Q
O
a
0
N
e-
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rG
E
.Q
=
O
C)
W
w
'u
@
M
C_
•E
O
O
w
U
oN
m
t
.c
y
a
~
U
E
m
a
x
❑
❑
L
N
S
N
r
S
S=
W
N
(A
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
A
3
E
O
o
o
m
n
o
J
u
V
U
L
N
J❑
w
LL
U
i
Z
rG
2E
'.'E
2
p
W
N
C
~ •E
41
y
'a
J
w
c
A
o
n
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z
y
N
M
N
N
co
7?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
C
O
N
o
@
U
o
Y
cf)
M
4
O
••
O
W
OO
I�
N
N
V
M
N"
O
O)
N
I�
'
1�
z
z
m❑
o
w
J E
c
c
c
U
3
c
V
o
2
�
a
m°
�
m°
m°
m°
z
w

GET
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
Elizabeth City Office
504 Fast Elizabeth St. Suite 2
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
[phone]
Standard Penetration Test (SPT). N-value
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil samples were obtained with a
standard 1.4" LID., 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 (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and is shown on the
boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.
NON COHESIVE SOILS
(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)
Relative Density
Very Loose
4 blows/ft. or less
Loose
5 to 10 blows/ft.
Medium Dense
I to 30 blows/ft.
Dense
31 to 50 blows/ft.
Very Dense
51 blows/ft. or more
Particle
Size Identification
Boulders
8 inch diameter or more
Cobbles
3 to 8 inch diameter
Gravel
Coarse 1 to 3 inch diameter
Medium 1/2 to I inch diameter
Fine I/a to 1/z inch diameter
Sand
Coarse 2.00 mm to 1/a inch
(diameter of pencil lead)
Medium 0.42 to 2.00 mm
(diameter of broom straw)
Fine 0.074 to 0.42 mm
(diameter of human hair)
Silt
0.002 to 0.074 mm
(cannot see particles)
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)
Coarse Grained Soils
More than 50%retained on No 200 sieve
GW - Well -graded Gravel
GP - Poorly graded Gravel
GW-GM - Well -graded Gravel w/Silt
GW-GC - Well -graded Gravel w/Clay
GP -GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt
GP -CC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay
GM - Silty Gravel
GC - Clayey Gravel
GC -GM - Silty, Clayey Gravel
SW - Well -graded Sand
SP - Poorly graded Sand
SW-SM - Well -graded Sand w/Silt
SW -SC - Well -graded Sand w/Clay
SP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/Silt
SP-SC - Poorly graded Sand w/Clay
SM - Silty Sand
SC - Clayey Sand
SC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand
Fine -Gained Soils
50%or more pass s the No. 200 sieve
CL - Lean Clay
CL-ML - Silty Clay
ML - Silt
OL - Organic Clay/Silt
Liquid Limit 50%orgreater
CH - Fat Clay
MH - Elastic Silt
OH - Organic 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 blows/ft.
Medium Stiff
5 to 8 blows/ft.
Stiff
9 to 15 blows/ft.
Very Stiff
16 to 30 blows/ft.
Hard
31 blows/ft. or more
Relative Proportions
Descriptive
Term Percent
Trace
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.
roundwater Readings
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, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking
lots, side walks, etc.).
Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No.
200 sieve size), coarse -grained soils are classified as follows:
Less than 5 percent G W, GP, SW,SP
More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SC '
5 to 12 percent Borderline cases requiring dual
symbols
Plasticity Chart
■■■■■■■■.,
t
�.
twttta
w
a
GET Revision 1V12/07 LIQUID LIMIT ILL) (%)

ir
41,
1
I
7p7
I
{
1!
f
rn
aFi
{�I
FFF
I.
i

`1
1.
It
1f
j
♦a
a f }
{
c
o
+
lJ
f T
4
< 1
♦.
L nwi I 1
4
V
f
i
0