Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SW8130112_HISTORICAL FILE_20130306
STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS PERMIT NO. SW8 I?) 0 l l2 DOC TYPE ❑ CURRENT PERMIT ❑ APPROVED PLANS HISTORICAL FILE ❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION DOC DATE ZGI',O30`-° YYYYMMDD MCDE NR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Pat McCrory Charles Wakild, P. E. John E. Skvarla, III Governor Director Secretary March 6, 2013 Commanding Officer MCB Camp Lejeune c/o Neal Paul, Deputy Public Works Officer Building 1005 Michael Road Camp Lejeune, NC 25842 Subject: State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8 130112 P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops I Maintenance Complex High Density Commercial Wet Detention Pond Project (Class SA waters) Onslow County Dear Mr. Paul: The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit Application for the P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex on March 5, 2013. Staff review of the plans and specifications has determined that the project, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000 and Session Law 2008-211. We are forwarding Permit No. SW8 130112 dated March 6, 2013, for the construction, operation and maintenance of the BMP's and built -upon area associated with the subject project. This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until March 6, 2021, and shall be subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. Please pay special attention to the conditions listed in this permit regarding the Operation and Maintenance of the BMP(s), recordation of deed restrictions, procedures for changes of ownership, transferring the permit,. and renewing the permit. Failure to establish an adequate system for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system, to record deed restrictions, to transfer the permit, or to renew the permit, will result in future compliance problems. If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing by filing a written petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The written petition must conform to Chapter 150E of the North Carolina General Statutes, and must be filed with the OAH within thirty (30) days of receipt of this permit. You should contact the OAH with all questions regarding the filing fee (if a filing fee is required) and/or the details of the filing process at 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, or via telephone at 919-431-3000, or visit their website at www.NCOAH.com. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding. If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Christine Nelson, at (910) 796-7215. Sincerely, Charles Wakild, P.E., Director Division of Water Quality GDS/ can: S:\WQS\Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2013\130112 HD\2013 03 permit 130112 cc: Matthew Haley, Cape Fear Engineer Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File Wilmington Regional Office 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One Phone: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910-350.20041 DENR Assistance 1.877-623-6748 NorthCarolina Internet: www.ncvvatemuality.org Nay jur y l# An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer 666 Lf( State Stormwater Management Systems Permit No. SW8 130112 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SA WATERS In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO US MCB Camp Lejeune P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex Snead's Ferry Road (NC 172), Camp Lejeune, Onslow County FOR THE construction, operation and maintenance of two (2) wet detention ponds discharging to Class SA waters in compliance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 and Session Law 2008-211 (hereafter collectively referred to as the "stormwater rules') the approved stormwater management plans and specifications and other supporting data as attached and on file with and approved by the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this permit. This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until March 6, 2021, and shall be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations: I. DESIGN STANDARDS This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of stormwater described in the application and other supporting data. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater runoff as described in Section 1.12 and 13 on page 4 of this permit. The stormwater controls labeled DA1 and DA2 have been designed to handle the runoff from 1,164,859 and 585,393 square feet of impervious area, respectively. The drainage areas will be limited to the amount of built -upon area indicated in Sections 1.2 and 1.12 of this permit, and per approved plans. 4. The volume in excess of the design storm from the wet pond must flow overland through a level spreader and 50-foot vegetated filter strip designed to pass the peak flow from the 10 year storm in a diffuse, non -erosive manner. Paqe 2 of 9 State Stormwater Management Systems Permit No. SW8 130112 An alternative design has been proposed for the level spreaders and vegetated filter strips required to handle the volume in excess of the design storm from the wet detention ponds. Based on the sealed and signed professional engineers statement and plans, the Division is allowing this design. If the level spreader and filter strip design are found to not meet the intent of the stormwater rules and/or are found to cause erosion or channelized flow, the permit holder will be required to install the bypass system as recommended by the NC BMP Manual or propose another alternative design. 6. Upon completion of construction and certification of the system and continuing for a period of 3 years, the permittee shall submit to the Division quarterly reports for the level spreaders and filter strips to the attention of either the State Stormwater Supervisor or the lead Stormwater Engineer in the Wilmington Regional Office. These level spreaders and filter strips have been approved as an alternative design and therefore it must be demonstrated that they are functioning as designed. The quarterly reports must include photos documenting the current condition of the level spreader and filter strip as well as describe the maintenance performed. After 3 years of compliant reporting, the permittee may submit a request to the Division to lift the quarterly report requirement. The request must include supporting documentation such as rainfall records and photos demonstrating that the system can accommodate the larger design flows without erosion of channelization. 7. In addition to the stormwater system, there is an approximately 5.5 acre 'dig pit' that will be continuously disturbed for equipment training operations. This pit has been designed to function as a large sediment basin with an overflow pipe set at an elevation 3 feet above the bottom of the pit. It has been demonstrated that the 10-year, 24-hour storm event will be able to infiltrate within the pit area and thus will not create a discharge to SA waters as prohibited by Session Law 2008- 211. 8. A 50' wide vegetative buffer must be provided and maintained adjacent surface waters, measured horizontally from and perpendicular to the normal pool of impounded structures, the top of bank of both sides of streams and rivers and the mean high water line of tidal waters. 9. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located in either dedicated common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the project will be recorded showing all required easements. 10. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area(s) of this project must be directed into the permitted stormwater control system. 11. The additional rainwater harvesting system shown on the plans has not been demonstrated to meet the State Stormwater BMP design requirements and therefore is not considered a part of the approved state stormwater treatment system. This additional measure is incorporated only by reference and is not an enforceable part of the permit. Paqe 3 of 9 State Stormwater Management Systems Permit No. SW8 130112 12. The following design criteria have been provided in the wet detention pond and must be maintained at design condition: Design Criteria DA1 DA2 a. Drainage Area, acres: Onsite, ft2: Offsite ft2: 35.94 1,565,484 0 15.33 667,956 0 b. Total Impervious Surfaces, ft : Onsite, ft2: Offsite ft2: 1,164,859 1,164,859 0 585,393 585,393 0 d. Design Storm, in: 3.8 3.8 e. Average Design Depth, ft: 7.5 7.0 f. TSS Removal Efficiency: 90% 90% g. Permanent Pool Elev., FMSL: 24.5 22.5 h. Perm. Pool Surface Area, ft': 47,621 40,700 i. Permitted Storage Volume, ft': 324,753 167,008 j. Temporary Storage Elev., FMSL: 30.1 26.0 k. Pre-dev. 1- r 24-hr Discharge Rate, cfs: 3.08 3.94 I. Controlling Orifice , 4) Inches: 5.0 4.0 m. Orifice Flow Rate, cfs: 0.90 1 0.45 n. Permitted Forebay Volume ft: 72 982 60,882 o. Max. Fountain HP: 1 1 p. Receiving Stream/River Basin Courthouse Bay / White Oak q. Stream Index Number 19-36 r. Classification of Water Body SA; HQW 13. The design storm volume discharged from the wet detention pond must be directed to a secondary BMP in series with the wet detention pond. The secondary BMPs provided to treat the discharge from each wet detention pond are infiltration basins, and the following design criteria have been provided in the secondary BMP and must be maintained at design condition: Design Criteria DA1 DA2 a. Design Flow Rate, cfs: 0.9 0.45 b. Basin Depth, ft: 1.5 1.0 c. Bottom Elevation FMSL: 23.5 22.0 d. Bottom Surface Area ft : 5,148 6,485 e. Bypass Weir Elevation, FMSL: 25.0 23.0 f. Permitted Storage Volume ft' 9,768 7,307 g. Type of Soil: Leon Wando h. Expected Infiltration Rate, in/hr: 12.0 8.85 i. Seasonal High Water Table, FMSL: 21.5 19.98 . Time to Drawdown, hours 4.18 1 4.17 II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE The stormwater management system shall be constructed in its entirety, vegetated and operational for its intended use prior to the construction of any built -upon surface. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of the system will be repaired immediately. Paqe 4 of 9 State Stormwater Management Systems Permit No. SW8 130112 3. Upon completion of construction, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and prior to operation of this permitted facility, the permittee shall cause a certification from an appropriate designer for the system installed to be submitted, certifying that the permitted facility has been installed in accordance with this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting documentation. Any deviations from the approved plans and specifications must be noted on the Certification. A modification may be required for those deviations. If the permanent pool volume is greater than 30,000 cubic feet, a decorative spray fountain will be allowed in the stormwater treatment system, subject to the following criteria: a. The fountain must draw its water from less than 2' below the permanent pool surface. b. Separated units, where the nozzle, pump and intake are connected by tubing, may be used only if they draw water from the surface in the deepest part of the pond. c. The falling water from the fountain must be centered in the pond, away from the shoreline. d. The maximum allowable horsepower for a fountain in either pond 1 or 2 is 1 horsepower. The permittee shall at all times 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. 6. 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 in accordance with the conditions of this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting data. If the stormwater system was used as an Erosion Control device, it must be restored to design condition prior to operation as a stormwater treatment device, and prior to occupancy of the facility. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed below: a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc. b. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the drainage area. C. Further development, subdivision, acquisition, lease or sale of any, all or part of the project area. The project area is defined as all property owned by the permittee, for which Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan approval or a CAMA Major permit was sought. d. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the approved plan. e. The construction of any permitted BUA within the undeveloped future areas shown on the approved plans. 10. Clear access to the stormwater facilities for inspection and maintenance shall be maintained via appropriately recorded easements. Page 5 of 9 State Stormwater Management Systems Permit No. SW8 130112 11. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by the Permittee at all times. 12. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame specified in the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee shall provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director that the changes have been made. III. GENERAL CONDITIONS This permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and approval by the Director. At least 30 days prior to a change of ownership, or a name change of the permittee or of the project, or a mailing address change, the permittee must submit a completed and signed Name/Ownership Change Form to the Division of Water Quality, accompanied by the supporting documentation as listed on the form. The approval of this request will be considered on its merits and may or may not be approved. 2. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such time as the Division approves the transfer request. Neither the sale of the project nor the conveyance of common area to a third party constitutes an approved transfer of the stormwater permit. 3. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may subject the Permittee to enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C. 4. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by other government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction. 5. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily 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. Additional or replacement stormwater management systems shall receive a permit from the Division prior to construction. 6. The permittee grants DENR Staff permission to enter the property during normal business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted stormwater management facility. 7. The permit remains in force and effect until modified, revoked, terminated or renewed. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and re - issuance or termination does not stay any permit condition. 8. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. 9. Approved plans, specifications, application forms, and design calculations for this project are incorporated by reference and are enforceable parts of the permit. Pape 6 of 9 State Stormwater Management Systems Permit No. SW8 130112 10. The permittee shall submit a permit renewal request at least 180 days prior to the expiration date of this permit. The renewal request must include the appropriate documentation and the processing fee. Permit issued this the 6th day of March 2013. NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Division of Water Quality By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission Paqe 7 of 9 State Stormwater Management Systems Permit No. SW8 130112 P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex Stormwater Permit No. SW8 130112 Onslow Countv Designer's Certification I, , as a duly registered in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/ full time) the construction of the project, (Project) for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications. The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification. Noted deviations from approved plans and specifications: Signature Registration Number Date SEAL Paqe 8 of 9 State Stormwater Management Systems Permit No. SW8 130112 Certification Requirements: 1. The drainage area to the system contains approximately the permitted acreage. 2. The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted amount of built -upon area. 3. All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the runoff drains to the system. 4. All roof drains are located such that the runoff is directed into the system 5. The outlet structure elevations are per the approved plan. 6. The outlet structure is located per the approved plans. 7. Trash rack is provided on the outlet structure. 8. All slopes above permanent pool are grassed with permanent vegetation. 9. Vegetated slopes above permanent pool are no steeper than 3:1. 10. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short- circuiting of the system. 11. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been provided. 12. Required drawdown devices are correctly sized and located per the approved plans. 13. All required design depths are provided. 14. All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf, a forebay, a vegetated filter, level spreader and a secondary BMP. 15. The required system dimensions are provided per the approved plans. 16. All components of the stormwater BMP are located in either recorded common areas, or recorded easements. cc: NCDENR-DWQ Regional Office Onslow County Building Inspections Paqe 9 of 9 DWQ USE ONLY Date Received Fee Paid Permit Number Applicable Rules: ❑ Coastal SW -1 95 ❑ Coastal,SW - 2008 ❑ Ph II - Post Construction (select all that apply) ❑ Non -Coastal SW- HQW/ORW Waters ❑ Universal Stormwater Management Plan ❑ Other WO Ml;mt Plan: nX=n off% State of North Carolina A JAN 2 3 2013 Department of Environment and Natural Resources 11 Division of Water Quality gy STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM This form may be photocopied far 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.): P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops/Maintenance Complex 2. Location of Project (street address): Located along Snead's Ferry (NC 172) between DA Munro and India Range Road City:Camp Lejeune County:Onslow Zip:28547 3. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection): Travel east on NC HWY 172 from the intersection of NC HWY 172 and NC 210 Trun right on DA Munro. Project site is on the right 4. Latitude:34° 35' 07" N Longitude:77° 21' 24" W of the main entrance to the project. It. PERMIT INFORMATION: 1. a. Specify whether project is (check one): ®New ❑Modification ❑ Renewal w/ Modificationt tRenewals with modifications also requires SWU-702 -Renewal Application Form b.If this application is being submitted as the result of a modification to an existing permit, list the existing permit 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 ®Sedimentation/Erosion Control: 65.66 ac of Disturbed Area ❑NPDES Industrial Stormwater ❑404/401 Permit: Proposed Impacts b.If any of these permits have already been acquired please provide the Project Name, Project/Permit Number, issue date and the type of each permit:ONSLO-2013-032 approved October 11, 2012 5. Is the project located within 5 miles of a public airport? ®No [-]Yes If yes, see S.L. 2012-200, Part Vl: http:///portal ncdenr.or$ web/wq/ws/su/statesw/rules laws Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 Page I of 6 III. CONTACT INFORMATION ,1, a. Print Applicant / Signing Official's name and title (specifically the developer, property o er, ie ssei designated government official, individual, etc. who owns the project): JAN Signing Official & Title:Mr. Neal Paul Deputy Public Works Director r"' b.Contact information for person listed in item la above: Street Address:1005 Michael Road City:MCB Camp Lejeune State:NC Zip:28542 Mailing Address (if applicable):1005 Michael Road City:MCB Camp Lejeune State:NC Zip:28542 Phone: (910 ) 451-2213 Emait:neal.12aul@usmc.mil Fax: (910 ) 451-2927 EIVE 23 2013 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 Signing Official & Title: b.Contact information for person listed in item 2a above: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Mailing Address (if applicable): City: State: Zip: Phone: ( ) Fax: ( ) 3. a. (Optional) Print the name and title of another contact such as the project's construction supervisor or other person who can answer questions about the project: Other Contact Signing Official & b.Contact information for person listed in item 3a above: Mailing Zip: Phone: ( ) Fax: Email: Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 . Page 2 of 7 4. Local jurisdiction for building permits: N/A -Federal Land Point of Contact: Phone #: IV. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. In the space provided below, briefly summarize how the stormwater runoff will be treated. Primary stormwater treatment will be via wetdetention basins designed to remove 90% TSS Secondary stormwater treatment will be via small infiltration basins dew ned to handle discharge from the oonds drawdown orifices 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 PUDApproval Date: ❑ Valid Building Permit Issued Date: ❑ Other: Date: b.If claiming vested rights, identify the regulation(s) the project has been designed in accordance with: ❑ Coastal SW —1995 ❑ Ph II — Post Construction 3. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the White Oak River basin. 4. Total Property Area: 65.66 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': 65.66 acres Total project area shall be calculated to exclude the following: the normal pool of imppounded structures, the area between the banks of streams and rivers, the area below the Normal High Water (NHW) line or Mean High Water (MHW) line, and coastal wetlands landward from the NHW (or MHW) line. The resultant project area is used to calculate overall percent built upon area (BUA). Non -coastal wetlands landward of the NHW (or MHW) line may be included in the total project area. 8. Project percent of impervious area: (Total Impervious Area / Total Project Area) X 100 = 60.42 % 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. rJ 3Ei `AY E AN 2 3 2013 BY: - Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 Page 3 of 7 Basin Information Drainage Area 1 Drainage Area 2 Drainage Area _ Drainage Area _ Receiving Stream Name _New-Riaer_ fxksu RiueF Stream Class * SA;HQW SA;HQW Stream Index Number * 19-36 19-36 Total Drainage Area (so 1,565,494 667,956 On -site Drainage Area (so 1,565,494 667,956 Off -site Drainage Area (s9 - - Proposed Impervious Area`* (so 1,164,859 585,393 °G, Impervious Area** (total) 74.41%, 87.64%, Im ervious" Surface Area Drainage Area 1 Drainage Area 2 Drainage Area _ Drainage Area _ On -site Buildings/Lots (so 137,872 33,025 On -site Streets (so 960,579 552,368 On -site Parking (so - - On -site Sidewalks (so 44,216 Other on -site (so 22,192 Future (so - - Off -site (so Existing BUA*** (so - Total (so: 1,164,859 585,393 Stream Class and Index Number can be determined at: httn //portal ncdenrncdenr.org/web/wq[ps/csu/classi tcations Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas, sidewalks, gravel areas, etc. * Report only that 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. 11. How was the off -site impervious area listed above determined? Provide documentation. Projects in Union County: Contact DWQ Central Office staff to check if the project is located within a Threatened & Endangered Species watershed that inay be subject to more stringent stornn>>ater requirementa z2.Cr A.Al6AC 2'BvQ600. �C�u�� I V. SUPPLEMENT AND O&M FORMS FEB ��jj zq� t The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement and operation and Ha�ntenanci (V forms must be submitted for each BMP specified for this project. The latest versions of the fc�ru s can be downloaded from htto'//portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/bmp-manual. BY: —�— VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). A complete package includes all of the items listed below. A detailed application instruction sheet and BMP checklists are available from htto //portal.ncdenr org web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms dots. 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 httn'//1ortal ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/mals.) Please indicate that the following required information have been provided by initialing in the space provided for each item. All original documents MUST be signed and initialed in blue ink. Download the latest versions for each submitted application package from http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms does. Initials 1. Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form. 1-"-14 2. Original and one copy of the signed and notarized Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants r4JA Form. (if required as per Part V11 below) 3. Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) (scaled signed and dated) and O&M MMA agreement(s) for each BMP. 4. Permit application processing fee of $505 payable to NCDENR. (For an Express review, refer to /h" -iA htto:/ /www.envhelp.org/12ages/onestol2express.litmi 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.) Form SWU-101 Version06Aug2012 Page 4of7 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 1h mile of the site boundary, include the'1h mile radius on the map. 7. Sealed, signed and dated calculations (one copy). IIhS'� 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. EC 11= o `��gg E g. Revision, number and dates. h. Identify all surface waters on the plans by delineating the normal pool elevation f 1AN 2 3 2013 impounded structures, the banks of streams and rivers, the MHW or NHW line o Ida] waters, and any coastal wetlands landward of the MHW or NHW lines. • Delineate the vegetated buffer landward from the normal pool elevation of impinded-- 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. m. Wetlands delineated, or a note on the plans that none exist. (Must be delineated by a qualified person. Provide documentation of qualifications and identify the person who made the determination on the plans. n. Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations. o. Drainage areas delineated (included in the main set of plans, not as a separate document). p. Vegetated buffers (where required). 9. Copy of any applicable soils report with the associated SHWT elevations (Please identify elevations in addition to depths) as well as a map of the boring locations with the existing elevations and boring logs. Include an 8.5"xll" copy of the NRCS County Soils map with the project area clearly delineated. For projects with infiltration BMPs, the report should also include the soil type, expected infiltration rate, and the method of determining the infiltration rate. (Infiltration Devices submitted to WiRO: Schedule a site visit for D WQ to verify the SH WT prior to submittal, (910) 796-7378.) 10. A copy of the most current property deed. Deed book: Page No: 11. For corporations and limited liability corporations (LLC): Provide documentation from the NC N I -A Secretary of State or other official documentation, which supports the titles and positions held by the persons listed in Contact Information, item la, 2a, and/or 3a per 15A NCAC 2H.1003(e). The corporation or LLC must be listed as an active corporation in good standing with the NC Secretary of State, otherwise the application will be returned. ht42;/ /wwwsecretary state nc us/Corporations/CSearch aspx VII. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS For all subdivisions, outparcels, and future development, the appropriate property restrictions and protective covenants are required to be recorded prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly or the proposed BUA allocations vary, a table listing each lot number, lot size, and the allowable built -upon area must be provided as an attachment to the completed and notarized deed restriction form. The appropriate deed restrictions and protective covenants forms can be downloaded from ht�2:/ [portal ncdenr or /g web/wwq/ws/so/statesw/forms dots. Download the latest versions for each submittal. In the instances where the applicant is different than the property owner, it is the responsibility of the property owner to sign the deed restrictions and protective covenants form while the applicant is responsible for ensuring that the deed restrictions are recorded. By the notarized signature(s) below, the permit holder(s) certify that the recorded property restrictions and protective covenants for this project, if required, shall include all the items required in the permit and listed on the forms available on the website, that the covenants will be binding on all parties and persons claiming under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants cannot be changed or deleted without concurrence from the NC DWQ, and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot. Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 Page 5 of 7 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:Matthew Haley PE Consulting Firm: Cape Fear Engineering,Inc Mailing Address:151 Poole Road Suite 100 City:Belville State:NC Zip:28451 Phone: (910 ) 383-1044 Email:matt.haley@capefearengineering.com Fax: (910 ) 383-1045 IX. PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION (if Contact Information, item 2 has been filled out, complete this section) I, (print or type name of person listed in Contact Information, item 2a) certify that I own the property identified in this permit application, and thus give permission to (print or type name of person listed in Contact Information, item 1a) with (print or type name of organization listed in Contact Information, item 1a) to develop the project as currently proposed. A copy of the lease agreement or pending property sales contract has been provided with the submittal, which indicates the party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system. As the legal property owner I acknowledge, understand, and agree by my signature below, that if my designated agent (entity listed in Contact Information, item 1) dissolves their company and/or cancels or defaults on their lease agreement, or pending sale, responsibility for compliance with the DWQ Stormwater permit reverts back to me, the property owner. As the property owner, it is my responsibility to notify DWQ immediately and submit a completed Name/Ownership Change Form within 30 days; otherwise I will be operating a stormwater treatment facility without a valid permit. I understand that the operation of a stormwater treatment facility without a valid permit is a violation of NC General Statue 143-215.1 and may result in appropriate enforcement action including the assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day, pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6. a Notary Public for the State of County of do hereby certify that personally appeared before me this _ day of and acknowledge the due execution of the application for a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal, SEAL My commission rJCAN 9U EOF 2 3 2013 0 BY:-------- Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 Page 6 of 7 X. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION I, (print or type name of person listed in Contact Information, item 1a) Neal Paul certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans, that the required deed restrictions and protective covenants will be recorded, and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of the applicable storm er ules under WA CAC 21-1.1000 and any other applicable state storm/ water requirements. L/t Si lJ ature: Date: ' �1� �� 11 a No ar P h e S to of P^ C fumy of do hereby� /certify it at personally appeared before me this la day of QV 1 stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official IKL LEYVANDECOEVEF'- NOTARY PUBLIC 4 ONSLOW COUNT' STATE OF NORTH CAr' SEAL My commission expires JAN232013 Form SWU-101 Version 06Aug2012 Page 7 of 7 Ph7� ��: J.LY Iii •I�U���.r MEMORY TRANSMISSION REPORT J FILE NO. 091 DATE 03.06 16:42 TO R 93831045 DOCUMENT PAGES 10 START TIME 03.06 16:44 END TIME 03.06 16:48 PAGES SENT 10 STATUS OR TIME :03-06-'13 16:48 FAX NO.1 :910-350-2004 NAME :DENR Wilmington *** SUCCESSFUL TX NOTICE *** Savor n6 Nnrt6 CnroYnm Ucp�r�mvv( o(Hnv*voomnn� vvd IVv(urvl Roouroev Wi�m�nY[on RaYi���o� U(Ynv Dc�.�r[y haws Pnr'Inr� Gnvvrnnr FAX CO'YII".R 58iE:ET Dev PYvamev� Sacretnry '1'u: /f�lJ--Ti— f�/cam Prem: C v((rIvofi-'13 12') Ceie v+el 01— a, ena I... wil m in Yto n, l , 28<OS s (9 ) 796- 1313 a An c"... 3i-0, State of North Carolina ®epartment of ]Environment and Natural Resources Wilmington Regional Office Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor FAX COVER SHEET ET DeeFreeman, Sectretary Date: �'� 5 No. Pages (excl. cover): / To: �/�TTl e. y� From: Jo Casmer co: Z Z' Phone: (910) 796-7336_..._ Fax. J� —�� �fS Fax: (910)350-2004 Re: ��o�J� oZ� C—O rn .Sly$• �O�/-in , f /sSt/i--/ — //o/ 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 0 (910) 796-7215 o An Equal Opportunity Affirmative. Action Employer MEMORY TRANSMISSION REPORT TIME :03-06-'13 16:44 FAX NO.1 :910-350-2004 NAME :DENR Wilmington FILE NO. 090 DATE 03.06 16:41 TO R 919104512927 DOCUMENT PAGES 10 START TIME 03.06 16:41 END TIME 03.06 16:44 PAGES SENT 10 STATUS OR *** SUCCESSFUL TX NOTICE Savty oP North Cvrotiva Depurtmeot of 8oytroemnut rod Nutuwl R<souraw W 1lmfopfua Ae01aor1 OMv'e 8<.•«Jy E'v�'<s Y<rdu<, Govervor EwX C®VER SJfYEE'M' Drr Fi«mea, gam-aaslry -7 lie: —�/Z � � Z a G m� -a f �i �J � �. s �- / �/�--/>LissG� a �✓ 6i�S 111 Cuamel U-- .on, WY�ming[on, NC 28<05 a I..0) 116-7I I1 o M Equal OpP�+/�+o��]' AfC emat�v<Aet�on A�nplcyar State of North Carohna Department of ]Environment and Natural Resources Wilmington Regional Office Beverly Waves Perdue, Governor 1F.k% COVER SHEET Dee Freeman, Secretary Date: ..-� No. Pages (excl. cover): To: d /,e!SFrom: JoCasmer Co: C�� G Phone: (910) 796-7336_ ._._ Fax: 9!0 z/�/ — Z% Z Fax: (910) 350-2004 Re:1a�5 M Car dinnl Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 0 (910) 796-7215 o An L'quaI Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Nelson, Christine From: Matt Haley [matt.haley@capefearengineering.com) Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:03 AM To: Nelson, Christine Cc: Jennifer Meitin Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Christine, We will have someone deliver two copies of revised Sheet C-207. The overall permanent pool surface areas represent the overall "hole in the ground" and DO NOT consider the volume lost by the forebay berm. Therefore, the surface area of the pond bottom (14,485 for Pond #1 and 17,503 for Pond #2) includes the main pool area, the forebay area, and the forbay berm. The surface areas listed for elevation 12 on the supplements (8,719 for Pond #1 and 9,228 for Pond #2) only represent the area in the Main Pool. Please let me know if you have any more questions or want to discuss in more detail. Thanks, Matthew T. Haley - PE, LEED Green Associate CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING From: Nelson, Christine [mailto:christine.nelson@ncdenr.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:14 AM To: Jennifer Meitin Cc: Matt Haley Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Sheet C207 of the submitted plan set still shows the buffer. You will need to provide 2 copies of that sheet as well. As for the surface areas: Pond 1—the supplement indicates the bottom surface area is 8,719 sq. ft. According to the calculations, the surface area of the permanent pool at 12' is 14,485 sq ft and the surface area of the forebay at 12' is 1,968 sq ft. 14,485 —1,968 = 12,517 sq ft Where did 8,719 come from? Pond 2 —the supplement indicates the bottom surface area is 9,228 sq ft. According to the calculations, the surface area of the permanent pool at 12' is 17,503 sq ft and the surface area of the forebay at 12' is 2,622 sq ft. 17,503 — 2,622 = 14,881 sq ft Where did 9,228 come from? Christine Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. From: Jennifer Meitin [mailto:iennifer.meitinCobcapefearengineering.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:54 PM To: Nelson, Christine Cc: Matt Haley Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Christine, Sheet SW-2 has been updated to include the boundary information. For your question concerning the existing ponds I have attached the Jurisdictional Wetland map and these do not appear on the wetland JD. However, we do know that they do periodically hold water. We felt there did not need to be a buffer delineation shown. On the attached wetland map the area in question is bubbled on sheet 4. As defined in the BMP manual the bottom surface area (Abot_pond) is the area of the main pond only (not including the forebay) at elevation 12.00. This is the area used in the supplement and in the Average Depth Calculation sheet. The permanent pool volume is the total volume beneath the permanent pool water level and above the sediment storage volume, including any volume in the forebay. This is why the surface area at elevation 12.00 is different in the volume calculations - it includes the forebay. Paragraph 2 on page 3 has been updated to reflect the BUA conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions and I will email you once the hard copies have been delivered tomorrow morning. Thank you, Je"AiiferQarc a.MeUUv CAFE FEAR ENGINEERING 0ennifer.meitinncapefearen ing eering com O: 910.383.1044 F: 910.383.1045 From: Nelson, Christine fmailto:christine.nelsonPncdenr.gov] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:47 PM To: Jennifer Meitin; Matt Haley Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Jennifer / Matt I have found a couple items on the latest submittal that need to be corrected / clarified: - Sheet SW-2 no longer includes the boundary information. Please add the boundary info to this sheet. - On the Feb 15th set of plans, there was a note added the overview sheets and C-407 along with a buffer around the existing ponds in the north east corner of the site. This note and delineation were not on the plans submitted on Feb 28. Please confirm if these are or are not ponds. Double check the bottom surface area (@ elevation 12) for both ponds presented on the supplement. The numbers are not consistent with the calculations. Please update second paragraph on page 3 of the narrative to more accurately reflect the existing BUA conditions. Please return the corrected pages to me as soon as possible. Thanks, Christine Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. From: Jennifer Meitin [mailto:iennifer.meitin@capefearengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:07 PM To: Nelson, Christine Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Christine, I have submitted the requested add -info for P1253 and it should be at the front desk now. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else. Thankyou, Jewtfer GarcCa.MeUUv CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING iennifer.meitinCibcaoefearen ing eering.com O: 910.383.1044 F: 910.383.1045 From: Nelson, Christine fmailto:christine.nelson(o)ncdenr.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:54 PM To: Jennifer Meitin Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat I figured I might see this e-mail. Yes, an extension until March 1 is fine with me. Christine Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. From: Jennifer Meitin [mailto:iennifer.meitin(c)capefearengineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:51 PM To: Nelson, Christine Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Christine - Could we please extend the date from February 28 to March 1 for the request for additional information? Thanks, Jewwuler Gas-cut.MeU;tav CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING iennifer. meitin Ca) capefea ren gi neerine. com O: 910.383.1044 F: 910.383.1045 From: Nelson, Christine fmailto:christine.nelson(o)ncdenr.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:35 PM To: Jennifer Meitin Cc: Maria Jones; Matt Haley; Perry Davis Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Jennifer, If you do find you need more time, March 1 would be ok as a new due date but I would just need you to request the extension. In other words, send me an e-mail asking for an extension until March 1 (or a different date). Christine Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. From: Jennifer Meitin[mailto:iennifer.meitin(a)capefearenaineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:13 PM To: Nelson, Christine Cc: Maria Jones; Matt Haley; Perry Davis Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Christine - Thanks for getting back to us. We will address these concerns and comments and try to have something back to you by tomorrow (the 28th). However, if we need more time would be acceptable to return this to you no later than Friday (March 1)? Thank you! Jerwu/er QowciarMeittry CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING 0ennifer.meitin a capefearengineerine com O: 910.383.1044 F: 910.383.1045 From: Nelson, Christine rmailto:christine.nelson(c)ncdenr.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:22 PM To: Jennifer Meitin Cc: Maria Jones; Matt Haley; Perry Davis; Scott, Georgette; Bradshaw CIV Thomas C Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Jennifer, As promised, we discussed the proposed alternative design this morning. The group understood the thought process behind the design and agreed it could be considered as an alternative design. There is some concern on the longevity of the level spreader and filter strip when handling such large flows. To mediate those concerns, please be sure to address the items listed in the latter half of the 3r° paragraph of item 3 in the request for additional information. Assuming the alternative design is proposed, I also want to reiterate that additional conditions will be added to the permit as stated in the 41h paragraph of item 3 in the request for additional information. In addition to the conditions mentioned, a condition will likely also be added requiring the permittee to report to DWQ at pre -determined intervals confirming that the system is functioning as designed. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need an extension for extra day or two in order to return the requested items. Christine Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. From: Nelson, Christine Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:49 AM To: 'Jennifer Meitin' Cc: Maria Jones; Matt Haley; Perry Davis Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Jennifer, I have passed your question on up the chain and they have chosen to discuss it tomorrow morning. I will let you know the outcome of that discussion sometime tomorrow. Christine Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. From: Jennifer Meitin [mailto:iennifer.meitin(obcapefearenaineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:10 AM To: Nelson, Christine Cc: Maria Jones; Matt Haley; Perry Davis Subject: RE: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Good morning Christine, I wanted to check on the status of the alternative design that Matt sent you in regards to the level spreaders and filter strips. Matt is out this week and we want to ensure we are able to get you everything you need by the 28th. If you would like us to give you a call to discuss, we are available this morning around 8:30 or this afternoon after 2:30. Let me know. Thank you, Jerutijer Garoia-Me&t+v CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING iennifer.meitinocapefearengineerin¢ com O: 910.383.1044 F: 910.383.1045 From: Nelson, Christine rmailto:christine.nelson(a)ncdenr aov] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:14 PM To: Matt Haley; Bradshaw CIV Thomas C Cc: Perry Davis; Maria Jones; Russell, Janet Subject: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Matt and Thomas, The second request for additional information is attached for the Combat Engineer Battalion Ops Maintenance Complex stormwater permit application. Item number 3 of the letter is in regards currently proposed design of the level spreaders and filter strips. I will pass up the alternative design and e-mail that Matt provided earlier to see if it is an acceptable option. However, I suspect that additional detailed information supporting the design will likely be necessary. I will let you know what I find out. Copies of this letter will also be sent in the mail. Christine Christine Nelson Environmental Engineer State Stormwater Program NC Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Ext. Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone:910-796-7323 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. From: Matt Haley [mailto: matt. halev(alcapefearengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:52 PM To: Nelson, Christine Cc: Perry Davis; Maria Jones Subject: P1253 Combat - Level Spreaders Christine, I have given the level spreader design at P-1253 some more thought. I have attached an exhibit showing a proposed design alternative for each wet pond that we feel will meet the BMP requirements (sending a max 2-cfs to wooded filter strip while bypassing the rest in a non -erosive manner). We have no problem modifying our submitted design in which all bypassed flow is directed to a level spreader and passed through the wooded filter strip in a non -erosive manner to match the approach shown in the attached exhibit. However we feel very strongly that the originally submitted level spreader design is far superior with respect to minimizing the potential for erosion and protecting water quality. As such we would like for NCDENR to consider approving the submitted design. Please let me know how long you expect it will take to get an answer on whether or not the submitted design will be acceptable. Thanks, Matthew T. Haley - PE, LEED Green Associate CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING matt. Ina ley(akapefearengineering.corn C: 910.338.8602 0: 910.383.1044 ext. 136 F: 910.383.1045 CAPE FEAR Engineering, Inc. 151 Poole Baeq Suite 100 Belvllle, NC 28a51 TEL (810) 383-104 FAX (910)3e3-1045 www.capefearengineering.com To: JNCDENR Water Quality Section - Stormwater 127 Cardinal Dr. Ext Wilmington, NC 28405 Ann: Christine Nelson ❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files ❑ Sent via Mail ❑ Sent via Courier Transmittal Date: March 5, 2013 File: 558-157 "36" Subject: P-1253 Combat Engineering Battalion Maintenance/Ops Complex Express Stormwater Submittal Add -Info Request ❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval Quantity Drawing No. Description 1 Copy REVISED Narrative Pages 3 and 4 2 Copy REVISED Plan Sheet C-207 REMARKS Please find the enclosed documents related to stormwater permitting for the above referenced project Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Thanks. CC: Cape Fear Engineering Inc. File 558-157 "36" REC'D MAR 0 5 2013 Signe I Jennif arcia-Meitin, El' Received By: Date: P:\558\558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\ADMIMSTORMwATER\MAIN SITE@013-03-N Trans_NCDENR_P1253Aoc FM t CAPE FEAR Engineering, Inc. 151 Poole Roeq Suite 100 BeNdle, NC 28451 TEL (810)383-10 FAX (810)383-IN5 www.capefearengineering.com To: JNCDENR Water Quality Section - Stormwater 127 Cardinal Dr. Ext Wilmington, NC 28405 Attn: Christine Nelson ❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files ❑ Sent via Mail ❑ Sent via Courier Transmittal h 5, 2013 157 "36" Subject: P-1253 Combat Engineering Battalion Maintenance/Ops Complex Express Stormwater Submittal Add -Info Request ❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval Quantity Drawing No. Description 1 Original Add -info Response Letter 1 Copy Stormwater Narrative Page 3 2 Copy Stormwater Exhibit SW-2 1 Copy Wetland Map REMARKS Please find the enclosed documents related to stormwater permitting for the above referenced project Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Thanks. CC: Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. File 558-157 "36" REC'D MAR 5 201'� Signed Jennifer rcia-Meitin, El Received By: CEIVE91 1, MAR 0 5 2013 P\558\558-157 P 1253 ENGI NEER ING\ADMI MSTOR MWATER\MAIN SITE2013-03-04 Trans_NCDENR P1253.doc March 4, 2013 Christine Nelson NCDENR Water Quality Section - Stormwater 127 Cardinal Dr. Ext. Wilmington, NC 28405 RE: Request for Additional Information Stormwater Project No. SWS 130112 P-1253 21) Combat Engineer Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex Onslow County Dear Christine, Please find the following responses to your Request for Additional Information dated March 4, 2013 for the above referenced project. 1. Sheet SVV-2 no longer includes the boundary infornunion. Please add the boundary injb to this sheet. Sheet SW-2 has been updated to include the boundary information. 2. On the Feb 15`t' set ot'plans, there was a note adder/ the orerniew sheets and C-407 along with a bt fjer around the existing ponds in the north east comer of the site. This note and delineation were not on the plans submitted on Feb 28. Please couftnn if these arc or are not ponds. I have included the Jurisdictional Wetland map and these do not appear on the wetland JD. However, we do know that they do periodically hold water. We felt there did not need to be a buffer delineation shown. On the wetland map included, the area in question is bubbled on Sheet 4. 3. Double check the bottom sutfihce area (@ cleivi on 12) filr both ponds presented on the supplement. 77te nuhnbers are not coasisleal u:ilh the cah'ulatioths. As defined in the BMP manual the bottom surface area (Abut-p. d) is the area of the main pond only (not including the forebay) at elevation 12.00. This is the area used in the supplement and in the Average Depth Calculation sheet. The permanent pool volume is the total volume beneath the permanent pool water level and above the sediment storage volume, including any volume in the forebay. This is why the surface area at elevation 12.00 is different in the volume calculations - it includes the forebay. 4. Please update second paragraph on page _P of the tmrrom-e to more aecitrotely reflect the existing 13Urt conditions. Paragraph 2 on page 3 has been updated to reflect the existing BUA conditions. Sincerely, %� ECEBVE Jen fer4Garciilia, EI MAR 0 5 2013 CC: CFE File 558-157 "36" BY: P:\558WS 157 P1' 3 ENOINEERINGGI DMIN�I'OR.NI W A'1'ERRIAIN SN EV011-U32X NCDENR Add I.f,, Rt,,mv .doe Stormwater Narrative and Calculations For P-1253: 2D Combat Engineering Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Prepared for Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune Public Works Division ' Date: January 2, 2013 REVISED February 28, 2013 Prepared by Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. 151 Poole Road, Suite 100 Belville, NC 28451 (910)383-1044 NC License No. C-1621 IOEIVE FEB 2 8 W3 BY: — DESIGN NARRATIVE L GENERAL: On behalf of NAVFAC and the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL) — Public Works Division, Cape Fear Engineering is submitting for Stormwater Permitting for the P-1253: 2D Combat Engineering Battalion Ops/Maintenance (CEB) Complex. The project site is located in the Courthouse Bay area of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL). The overall project area is approximately 66 acres. The CEB Complex is located along Sneads Ferry Road (NC HWY 172) between DA Munro Road and India Range Road. The CEB complex will include multiple buildings, POV parking, tactical vehicle parking, recreational and operational areas, and utility and infrastructure improvements to support the missions of the CEB. 2. EXISTING SITE AND DEMOLITION: The P-1253 site is bounded by Sneads Ferry Road and an unpaved tank trail to the north, DA Munro Road to the west, and India Range Road to the east. The site can be accessed by a network of unpaved trails. The majority of the existing site is heavily wooded with mature pines and hardwoods. A portion of the site was previously cleared and currently consists of small pines and sparse ground cover. The entire site will require clearing and grubbing. Any salvageable timber will be harvested by the Base prior to clearing. The contractor will be responsible for the clearing and disposal of all remaining vegetation. Jurisdictional Wetlands have been identified within the proposed project area. These wetlands will be protected during construction and a 100-ft buffer will be maintained where possible. Previously contaminated site IR65 is within the project area. EMD has indicated that any monitoring wells within the proposed project footprint have already been demolished. If any additional monitoring wells unknown to the government are found, they will be brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer and EMD, and will be demolished by a certified well contractor in accordance with NCDENR regulations. A small portion of the site is located within the limits of a historic range boundary which indicates the possible presence of UXOs. A 50-foot buffer will be maintained between the site and the historic range boundary. There is an existing gravel jogging trail with fitness stations running through the site that will be demolished. The existing gravel jogging trail that runs parallel to the tank trail, will be relocated as required. FEB 2 8 2013 BY:-- Existing drainage patterns onsite consist of overland sheet flow to shallow drainage swales onsite. The project site generally drains from north to south towards a wetland area near the middle of the southern boundary. The project site is part of the White Oak river basin and drains to the New River (19-36 SA;HQW). Slopes onsite are generally mild and range from 0 to 5%. There are some areas near the existing drainage features with steeper slopes. The Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina indicates that the existing soils onsite primarily consist of Baymeade (BaB) fine sands, Leon (Ln) poorly drained upland sands, and Wando (WaB) excessively drained fine sands. 3. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: Proposed improvements include the construction of a multiple buildings, POV parking, tactical vehicle parking, recreational and operational areas, and utility and infrastructure improvements to support the missions of the CEB. 4. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed project does not alter the existing drainage patterns onsite. Proposed grading will generally consist of cuts and fills varying from 1 to 5 feet. Some areas may require additional cuts and fills as necessary. During the initial phases of construction, temporary conveyance swales will be utilized to convey runoff to two sediment basins located along the southern boundary of the site. The completed project will utilize a combination of shallow surface swales and piped collection systems to capture stormwater from the site and transport runoff to one of two stormwater BMP areas along the southern boundary of the site. Each of the stormwater areas contains a large wet detention basin and a smaller infiltration area. The wet detention basin is designed to contain runoff from the NCDENR water quality design storm and to slowly drawdown the design volume through a small diameter orifice to a smaller secondary infiltration area. Each wet detention basin also contains a secondary outlet structure and an emergency spillway to handle stormwater flows from storm events in excess of the NCDENR water quality design storm. Level spreaders are proposed at the discharge locations of the secondary outlet structures. In lieu of providing a diversion structure to limit the flow to the level spreaders as prescribed in the BMP manual, the level spreaders are designed to handle the entire flow from the overflow outlet structure. The level spreaders have been designed to be the maximum length of 100-feet and to provide uniform distribution of flow at non -erosive velocities to the vegetated filter strip (existing wooded area) for Q- we FE6 2 8 ZQ13 storm event. The level spreader design includes reinforced concrete to provide additional structural integrity in order to withstand the 10-year design flows. The existing, mature wooded area, serving as the vegetated filter strip, is located in an area designated as a 100-foot buffer around existing wetlands which will never be developed (see the photos attached in the previous add -info submittal). Additional preventative. measures to eliminate the possibility of erosion at the level spreaders has been taken into consideration by increasing the amount of #57 stone downstream of the level spreader from the required length of 3 feet to a length of 5 feet. Also, the plunge pool (blind swale) upstream of the level spreader has been reinforced with rip -rap and is significantly larger than the 6-foot minimum width required by the BMP manual. Lastly, a thorough site investigation was conducted to ensure there were not any natural draws in either area where a level spreader was being installed, which minimizes the possibility of channelized flow occurring. Please note that the existing roads/trails onsite account for approximately 2.5% of the total drainage area for Pond #1 and 1.4% for Pond #2 for the purposes of the NCDENR water quality volume calculations for the 1-year 24-hour storm. The average existing impervious for both drainage areas is approximately 2.17%. This combination of wet detention and infiltration basins is also being used to meet Navy LID requirements for both rate and volume attenuation from the 951h percentile storm event. Please note that a rainwater harvesting system has been designed at the Supply building to provide water to the Wash -Rack in the southeast corner of the site. This rainwater harvesting system has not been considered for NCDENR permitting. There is an approximately 5.5 acre dig pit proposed in the southeast corner of the site. This are will be used for equipment training operations and will be continuously disturbed. This area will be surrounded by a landscape berm and will have an overflow pipe through the southern end of the berm. The overflow pipe through the berm will be elevated a minimum of 3-feel above the bottom of the dig pit. As a result, the dig pit will serve as a large sediment basin. Water below the elevation of the overflow pipe will infiltrate. The dig pit and outlet pipe have been designed to infiltrate the 10-year 24-hour storm without allowing any discharge through the overflow pipe. S. EROSION CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS: Best Management Practices (BMP's), designed in accordance with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, will be utilized to prevent sediment migration and transport from the site. During the initial phases of construction, the proposed stormwater BMPs will serve as sediment basins by installing a skimmer dewatering device on the proposed outlet structures. ECEIVE MAR 0 5 2013 BY: Additional temporary erosion control measures consisting of silt fence, stone construction entrances, swale liners, wattle barrier, stone check dams, and temporary seeding will be implemented and maintained during construction. These temporary measures will be located within the project limits to contain sediment runoff expected from construction operations. ECEIVE MAR 0 5 ton ®r WET DETENTION BA51N DATA 511EET DATE: 2/11/2013 DE51GN CALCULATIONS FOR PROJECT NO.: 558-157 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OP5/MAINT. COMPLEX DE5IGNED BY: MTH POND # I DRAINAGE AREA (Ad) = 1 ,5G5,484 5Q. FT IMPERVIOUS AREA (Ai) BUILDINGS: 137,572 50. PT STREETS i PARKING: 9GO,579 50. FT SIDEWALKS $ ACTIVITY: 44,2 1 G 50. FT OTHER (PV CANOPIES): 22,192 50. FT RESERVE: 5Q. FT TOTAL: 1, 1 G4,859 5Q. FT PERCENT IMPERVIOUS (1): I = Ad/AI = 74.4 1 % V5E 74.5 % CALCULATE AVERAGE DEPTH (Davg): SEE AVERAGE DEPTH CALCULATION 5PREAD5HEET FOR POND # I CALCULATE REQUIRED SURFACE AREA AT PERMANENT POOL: POND # 15HALL HAVE AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 7.5' AND BE DESIGNED TO REMOVE 90% T55. INTERPOLATION OF TABLE 10-4 IN NCDENR 5TORMWATER BMP MANUAL /ail DEPTH = 75' % IMP. 5A/DA 70 2.30 74.5 2.53 80 2.50 5A/DA= 2.53% 5AREo.= 39,528 5F. = 0.91 AC SURFACE AREA PROVIDED AT PERMANENT POOL (ELEV. 24.5) = 47,G2 1 5F 5A PROV'D= 47,G21 > 39,528 =5A REQ'D OK FEB 15 2013 BY;_ POND # I DATA 51JECf PAGE I OF 5 P.\55b\558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CALC5\51ORMWATER\POND5\POND I.a1s Note: System shall be de5gned to store the larger of the 1 .5" water quality design storm or the difference In the pre -development and post -development volume for the I -year 24-hour storm event. 5ee calculations below for how each volume was determined. REQUIRED VOLUME (1 .5" 51MPLE METHOD) = 140,831 CP REQUIRED VOLUME (PRE -POST I -YR 24-HR) = 323,773 CF DE51GN VOLUME = 323,773 CF REQUIRED VOLUME (SIMPLE METHOD BY TOM 5CHOELER): Rv=0.05+0.009'(l) Rv= 0.719G7985G VOLUME= 1 .5"'Rv'Ad = 3.233033 AC -FT 140,531 PT-3 REQUIRED VOLUME (PRE -POST I -YEAR 24-HOUR): PRE -DEVELOPMENT % IMPERVIOU5 = 2.5% Rv=0.05 +0.009' (I) Rv= 0.0725 VOLUME= 3.83"'Rv'Ad = 0.831 G03 AC -FT 3G,225 FT^3 P05T-DEVELOPMENT % IMPERVIOUS = 74.50% Rv=0.05+0.009'(I) Rv= 0.7205 VOLUME= 3.83"'Rv'Ad = 8.2G4418 AC -FT 359,998 "-3 VOLUME P05T - VOLUME PRE = 323,773 CF FEB 15 2013 t. BY: -------�� POND N I DATA 5HEET PAGE 2 OF 5 PA558058-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CALC5\5TOWWATER\POND5\POND 1 ,15 VOLUME PROVIDED AT TEMPORARY POOL: INCPEM. TOTAL El- EA (5F) VOL. (CF) VOL, (CF) 24.5 47,G21 0 0 25 51,194 24,704 24,704 2G 54,109 52,G52 77,355 27 57,081 55,595 132,950 28 GO, 109 58,595 191,545 29 G3, 193 G I ,G5 I 253, 19G 30 GG,334 G4,7G4 317,9GO 31 G9,532 G7,933 355,693 32 72,78G 71,159 457,052 MINIMUM TEMP. POOL ELEVATION (FROM 51MPLE METHOD VOLUME): PEQ'D EL.= 30.09 VOL. REQ'D = 323.773 CF TEMP. POOL ELEVATION: OUTLET EL. = 30.10 VOL. PROV'D = 324,753 CIF NOTE: 51NCE THE ELEVATION OF THE NEXT AVAILABLE OUTLET ABOVE THE NORMAL POOL 15 GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM TEMP. POOL ELEVATION, THE OUTLET ELEVATION 15 Ifin IndY•][8C491•I•]wig IiRINI Eel I VOL.• r • •r • F EJ 15 2013 POND # I DATA 5HEEf PAGE 3 OF 5 PA558658-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CALC55TOR WATER\POND5\POND I..b POREBAY SIZING: PERMANENT POOL VOLUME: INCREM. TOTAL EL 5A (5F) VOL, (CF) VOL, (CF) 12 14,485 0 0 13 1 G,489 15,457 15,467 14 15,571 17,530 33,017 15 20,279 19,425 52,442 I G 22,953 2 I ,G I G 74,058 17 25,244 24,009 98,157 18 27,590 2G,422 124,576 19 30,019 25,509 153,367 20 32,499 31,259 184,G4G 21 35,03G 33,7G8 218,414 22 37,G30 3G,333 254,747 23 40,279 36,955 293,701 24 42,985 41,G32 335,333 24.5 47,G21 22,G52 357,985 REQ'D FOREBAY VOLUME = 71,507 CF CHECK FOREBAY VOLUME INCREM. TOTAL EL SA (SD VOL. (CF) VOL (CF) 12 19G8 0 0 13 IGIG 1,792 1,792 14 3,340 2,478 4,270 15 4,129 3,735 5,005 I G 4,983 4,55G 1 2,5G 1 17 5,902 5,443 15,003 18 G,88G G,394 24,397 19 7,934 7,410 31,807 20 9,04G 8,490 40,297 21 10,223 9,G35 49,932 22 1 1 ,4G4 10,844 GO,775 23 1 2,7G9 1 2, 1 17 72,892 PROV'D VOLUME = 72,592 CF VOL. PROV'D= 72,592 > 71,597 =VOL. REQ'D OK FEB 1 5 2013 P:\5581558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CALC5l5TORMWATER\POND5\POND I.,b POND # I . DATA 5MEET PAGE 4 OF 5 PRIMARY BMP (WET POND) DRAWDOWN NOTE: ORIFICE 51ZED TO DRAWDOWN THE TEMPORARY POOL IN 2-5 DAYS 02= 1 .873G9 CF5 (FOR 2 DAY DRAWDOWN) 05= 0.74945 CF5 (FOR 5 DAY DRAWDOWN) ORIFICE EL.= 24.5 (PERM. POOL EL.) TEMP. POOL EL. = 30. 10 (OUTLET EL.) ORIFICE DIAMETER = 5.0 IN. Q PROV'D= Cd'A'(2gh)- 1/2 WHERE: Cd= O.G A= 0.13G35 5F g= 32.2 FPS/5 h= (TEMP POOL -NORMAL POOL)/3 = I .80007 O PROV'D= 0.5970) =02>0.89701 >Q5 OK DRAWDOWN TIME: TIME = VOLUME = 323773 = 4.15 DAY5 Q PROV'D 0.69701 SECONDARY BMP (INFILTRATION BA51N) DRAWDOWN — &-A\ 4Oi m LINEAR INFILTRATION RATE = 12 IN/MR = 0.000275 FT/5 5A51N BOTTOM AREA = 5,146 SF INFILTRATION FLOWRATE = 1.430 CF5 Q INFILTRATION = 1.430 > 0.897 =Q ORIFICE OK NOTE: THE SECONDARY INFILTRATION BA51N MA5 BEEN DESIGNED TO INFILTRATE THE DE51GN 5TORM DISCHARGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1 5A NCAC 02M. 1 005(a)(I)(C)(u). ALL FLOW5 IN EXCE55 OF THE DE51GN STORM ARE BYPA55ED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1 5A NCAC 02H. 1005(a)(1)(5)(1v). INFILTRATION BA51N VOLUME: INCREM. F„, 5A (5F) VOL. (CF) 23.5 5,148 0 24 G,031 2,795 25 7,915 G,973 P:\558\558 157 P 1253 ENGINEERIPIG\CALC5\5TOR WATERWONDSPOND I. 1s TOTAL VOL (CF) 0 2,795 9,708 r INI FEB 15 2013 POND # I DATA SHEET PAGE 5 OF 5 AVERAGE DEPTH CALCULATION DE51GN CALCULATIONS FOR 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OP5/MAINT. COMPLEX POND # I ELEV. (FT) DEPTH (PT) SURFACE AREA AT DEPTH. (5F) INC. VOL. AT DEPTH. (CF) TOTAL VOL. AT DEPTH. (CF) AVG. DEPTH (FT) 24.5 0.00 47,G21 0 0 0.00 24 0.50 42,555 22,G52 22,G52 0.46 23 1.50 40,279 41 ,G32 G4,284 1.35 22 2.50 37,G30 36,055 103,236 2.17 21 3.50 35,03G 3G,333 139,571 2.93 20 4.50 32,499 33,7G8 173,339 3.G4 19 5.50 30,019 31,259 204,598 4.30 18 G.50 27,599 28,809 233,407 4.90 17 7.50 25,244 2G,422 259,828 5.4G I 5.50 22,953 24,099 283,927 5.9G 15 9.50 20,279 21 ,GIG 305,543 G.42 14 10.50 18,571 19,425 324,9G8 G.82 13 I I .50 1 G,489 17,530 342,498 7.19 121 12.501 14,485 1 15,487 1 357,985 7.52 USE 7.5 FT PA556\558-1 57 P 1253 ENGINEERING\CALC55TORMWATER\POND5\POND I A5 DATE: 211 1 / 13 PROJECT NO.: 558- 1 57 DE51GNED BY: MTH Option #2 Abut shelf = 42,985 5F A e,. of = 47,G2 1 5F Abo r,ra = 5,715 5F Depth = 12.00 PT D,� =I 7.G9 FT POND # I AVG. DEPTH PAGE I OF I WEIGHTED 5C5 CURVE NUMBER DATE: 2/1 1/13 DE51GN CALCULATIONS FOR PROJECT NO.: 558-1 57 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OPS/MAINT. COMPLEX DESIGNED 5Y: MTH POND # I SOIL TYPES h5G Area (AGre5) Ba B, BAYMEADE A 20.98 Pt, PITS B 7.91 Ln, LEON D 7.03 Total Area in h5G A = 20.98 Acres 55.4% Total Area in h5G B = 7.51 Acres 22.0% Total Area In 1-15G C = Acres 0.0% Total Area 1n h5G D = 7.03 Acres 19.G% 35.92 Acres 100.0% 501L TYPE, LAND U5E, CONDITION H.5.G 5C5 CN- PERCENT I CN x % IMPERVIOUS - 98.00 0.070 0.00 Bab-BAYMEADE, WOOD5, GOOD A 3G.00 58.4% 21.03 Pt-PIT5, WOOD5, GOOD B GO.00 22.0% 1 3.2 1 Ln-LEON, WOOD5, GOOD D 79.00 19.G% 1 5.4G From NC Er051011 Control Manual Iable5 b.U3e and 6.036J I UU.U"/o 4t). /U WEIGHTED 5C5 CN = 50 Assume that all perwou5 area will be proportionally divided between Sell groups. Assume that all perwou5 area will be open space good condition (Grass > 75%) 501L TYPE, LAND USE, CONDITION H.E.G 5C5 CN' PERCENT CN x IMPERVIOUS - 55.00 74.50 7301.00 Bab-BAYMEADE, OPEN SPACE, GOOD A 39.00 14.89 580.8G Pt -PITS, OPEN SPACE, GOOD B G1.00 5-.G2 342.54 Ln-LEON, OPEN SPACE, GOOD D 50.00 4.59 399.25 from NC Erosion Control Manual Table 8.03e - Attached 100.00 8623.GG WEIGHTED 5C5 CN = 8G A P:\558\558-157 P1253 ENGINE ERIN G\CALC5\ 1FORMWATER\POND5TOND I.xb ' 71VE FEB 15 2013 Ea. POND # I AVG. DEPTH PAGE I OF I WET DETENTION BA51N DATA 5HEET DATE: 2/2 1/2013 DE51GN CALCULATIONS FOR PROJECT NO.: 558- 1 57 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OP5/MAINT. COMPLEX DESIGNED BY: MTN POND #2 DRAINAGE AREA (Ad) = GG7,95G 50. FT IMPERVIOUS AREA (Ai) BUILDINGS: 33,025 50. FT STREETS # PARKING: 552,3G8 50. FT 51DEWALK5 i ACTIVITY: 5Q. FT FIRE ACCE55: 5Q. FT RESERVE: 50. FT TOTAL: 555,393 5Q. FT PERCENT IMPERVIOUS (1): I = Ad/Ai = 87.G4% U5E 90 % CALCULATE AVERAGE DEPTH (Davg): 5EE AVERAGE DEPTH CALCULATION 5PREAD5HEET FOR POND # I CALCULATE REQUIRED SURFACE AREA AT PERMANENT POOL: POND #2 SHALL HAVE AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 7.0' AND BE DE51GNED TO REMOVE 90%T55. INTERPOLATION OF TABLE 1 0-4 IN NCDENR 5TORMWATER BMP MANUAL (a;? DEPTH = 7.0' % IMP. 5A/DA 80 3.40 90 3.90 90 3.90 5A/DA= 5AREa.= 2G,050 3.90% 51'. = O.GO AC SURFACE AREA PROVIDED AT PERMANENT POOL (ELEV. 22.5) = 40,700 5F 5A PROV'D= 40,700 > 2G,050 =5A P.EQ'D OK FEB 2 B 202 POND #2 DATA 5HEET PAGE I OF 5 PA558058-157 P 1253 ENGINEERING�CALC5\5TORMWATER\POND5'POND 2.15 Note: 5y5tem shall be de5l6jned to store the larger of the 1 .5" water quality desgn storm or the difference in the pre -development and post -development volume for the I -year 24-hour storm event. See_ calculatlon5 below for how each volume was determined. REQUIRED VOLUME (1 .5" SIMPLE METHOD) = 70,031 CIF REQUIRED VOLUME (PRE -POST 1 -YR 24-HR) = I G5,4G8 CF DESIGN VOLUME = I G5,4G8 CF REQUIRED VOLUME (SIMPLE METHOD DY TOM 9CHUELEP): Rv=0.05+0.009'(1) Rv= 0.535755098 VOLUME= 1 .5"'Rv'Ad = I .GO7701 AC -FT 70,031 FT-3 REQUIRED VOLUME (PRE -POST I -YEAR 24-HOUR): PRE -DEVELOPMENT % IMPERVIOUS = 1 .4% Rv=0.05 +0.009' (I ) Rv= O.OG2G VOLUME= 3.83"'Pv'Ad = 0.3OG374 AC -FT raj L = 13,34G FT-3 `PRf-DEVELOPMENT % IMPERVIOUS = 87.G4% Rv=0.05 +0.009' (p Rv= 0.635755095 VOLUME= 3.83"'Rv'Ad = 4,104995 AC -FT 1 78,8 14 FT ^ 3 VOLUME P05T - VOLUME PRE = I G5,4G8 CF EV0VF -". FES 2 @ W3 t POND #2 DATA SHEET PAGE 2 OF 5 PA555\555-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CALC50TORMWATER\POND5\POND 2x1, VOLUME PROVIDED AT TEMPORARY POOL: INCREM. TOTAL EL. 5A (5F) VOL, (CF) VOL (CF) 22.5 40,700 0 0 23 44,74G 2 I ,3G2 21,3G2 24 47,250 45,998 G7,3GO 25 49,810 48,530 115,590 2G 52,427 5 1 , 1 19 1 G7,008 27 55,099 53,7G3 220,771 28 57,629 5G,4G4 277,235 29 GO,G 1 5 59,222 33G,457 30 G3,458 G2,037 „ 308,494 MINIMUM TEMP. POOL ELEVATION (FROM SIMPLE METHOD VOLUME): REQ'D EL.= 25.97 VOL. REO'D = I G5,4G8 CF TEMP. POOL ELEVATION: OUTLET EL. = 2G.00 VOL. PROV'D = I G7,008 CF NOTE: SINCE THE ELEVATION OF THE NEXT AVAILA13LE OUTLET ABOVE THE NORMAL POOL 15 GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM TEMP, POOL ELEVATION, THE OUTLET ELEVATION 15' THE TEMPORARY POOL ELEVATION. VOL. PROV'D= I G7,008 > I G5,4G8 =VOL. REQ'D OK ECEIVEcm FEB 2 8 2013 BY; POND #2 DATA 5HEET PAGE 3 OF 5 P:\558\555-I57 P1253 CIA GIN EERING\CALC5l5TORMWATER\PONDS\POND 2.x1, FOREBAY SIZING: PERMANENT POOL VOLUME: INCREM. TOTAL Ej- SA (SF) VOL (CF) VOL (CF) 12 17,503 0 0 13 1 5, 279 15,351 1 6,30 1 14 21,120 20,200 38,551 15 23,019 22,070 GO,GGO I G 24,974 23,997 84,G57 17 2G,987 25,951 I 10,G37 18 25,055 28,021 138,G58 19 3 1, 181 30,1 18 1 G8,77G 20 33,3G2 32,272 201,048 21 35,GO1 34.482 235,529 22 37,895 3G,748 272,277 22.5 40,700 1 9,G49 251 ,92G REQ'D FOREBAY VOLUME = 55,385 CF CHECK FOREBAY VOLUME INCREM. TOTAL EL. SA (5F) VOL (CF) VOL (CF) 12 2,G22 0 0 13 3,350 3,001 3,001 14 4,203 3,792 G,793 15 5,090 4,G47 1 1,439 1 G G,042 5,5GG 17,005 17 7,058 G,550 23,555 18 8,139 7,599 31 , 154 19 9,253 5,71 I 39,8G5 20 10,493 9,588 49,753 21 1 1 ,7G5 1 1, 1 29 GO,882 PROV'D VOLUME = G0,882 CF VOL. PROV'D= GO,882 > 58,385 =VOL. REQ'D OK ECEIVEli 11 FEB 2 8 2013 POND #2 DATA 5HEET PAGE 4 OF 5 P:\558\558-157 P 1253 ENGINEERING\CALC5\5TOWWATEWOND5POND 2.ds PRIMARY BMP (WET POND) DRAWDOWN NOTE: ORIFICE 51ZED TO DRAWDOWN THE TEMPORARY POOL IN 2-5 DAYS Q2= 0.95757 CF5 (FOR 2 DAY DRAWDOWN) Q5= 0,36303 CF5 (FOR 5 DAY DRAWDOWN) ORIFICE EL.= TEMP. POOL EL. _ ORIFICE DIAMETER = 22.5 (PERM. POOL EL.) 2G.00 (OUTLET EL.) G 11 0 PROV'D= Cd'A'(2gh)^ 1/2 Q PROV'D= 0.45385 WHERE: Cd= O.G A= 0.08727 SF g= 32.2 FP5/5 h= (TEMP POOL -NORMAL POOL)/3 = 1. I GGG7 Q2> 0.45385 >Q5 OK DRAWDOWN TIME: TIME = VOLUME = I G54G8 = Q PROV'D 0.45355 SECONDARY BMP (INFILTRATION BA51N) DRAWDOWN LINEAR INFILTRATION RATE = 8.55 IN/HP = 0.000205 FT/5 BASIN BOTTOM AREA = G,485 5F INFILTRATION FLOWRATE = 1.329 CFS 4.22 DAYS Q INFILTRATION = 1.329 > 0,454 =Q ORIFICE OK NOTE: THE SECONDARY INFILTRATION BASIN HA5 BEEN DESIGNED TO INF: LTRATE THE DE51GN STORM D15CHARGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1 5A NCAC 02H. 1005(a)(1)(C)(u). ALL FLOWS IN EXCE55 OF THE DE51GN STORM ARE BYPASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1 5A NCAC 02H. 1005(a)(I)(B)(Iv). INFILTRATION BA51N VOLUME: EL SA (SF) 22 G,485 23 6,126 INCREM. VOL. (CF) 0 7.307 TOTAL VOL. (CF) 0 7,3C7 ECEaV% FEB 2 8 W3 POND A2 DATA SHEET PAGE 5 OF 5 P.\558\555-157 P1253 ENGINE ERING\CALO5l TORMWATER\PONDS\POND 2.x1, AVERAGE DEPTH CALCULATION DATE: 1 0/26/ 12 DESIGN CALCULATION5 FOR PROJECT NO.: 558- 1 57 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OP5/MAINT. COMPLEX DESIGNED BY: MTH POND #2 ELEV. (FT) DEPTH (FT) SURFACE AREA AT DEPTH. (5F) INC. VOL, AT DEPTH. (CF) TOTAL VOL. AT DEPTH. (CF) AVG. DEPTH (FT) 22.5 0.00 40,700 0 0 0.00 22 0.50 37,805 19,G49 19,G49 0.48 21 1.50 35,G01 3G,748 5G,397 1.39 20 2.50 33,3G2 34,482 90,578 2.23 19 3.50 31 , 151 32,272 123,150 3.03 18 4.50 29,055 30, 118 1 53,2G8 3.77 17 5.50 2G,987 25,021 181,289 4.45 I G G.50 24,974 25,951 207,2C9 5.09 15 7.50 23,019 23,997 23 1 ,2GG 5.G8 14 8.50 21,120 22,070 253,335 G.22 13 9.50 19,279 20,200 273235 G.72 12 10.50 17,503 1 16,391 1 291 ,92G 7.17 PA558\558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CALC5l5TORMWATEP,\PONDS\POND 2.a15 Option #2 A t ehdl = 37,895 5F ,,,, gym, = 40,700 5F Abot Fmo = 9,225 5F Depth = 10.00 FT G.70 FT uor i.0 rl POND #2 AVG. DEPTH PAGE I OF I WEIGHTED 5C5 CURVE NUMBER DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OPS/MAINT, COMPLEX POND k2 H9(" Area (Acre5) Ba B, BAYMEADE A 0.67 WaD, WANDO A 2.90 Pn, PANTEGO B 9.25 Ln, LEON D 2.99 Total Area In H5G A = 3.56 Acre5 22.C% Total Area In H5G B = 9.25 Acres 55.5% Total Area in 115G C = Acres 0.0% Total Area In H5G D = 2.99 Acres 1 53% 15.80 Acres 100.0% DATE: 10126112 PROJECT NO.: 558-1 57 DESIGNED 5Y: MTH 501L TYPE, LAND 1.15E, CONDITION H.5.G 5C5 CN- PERCENT CN x % IMPERVIOUS 98:00 00% 0.00 BaB-BAYMEADE, WOOD5, FAIR A 36.00 ff G% 5.12 Pn-PANTEGO, WOOD5, FAIR B GO.00 58.5% 35. I I Ln-LEON, WOODS, FAIR D 79.00 18.95r. 14.95 From NC Ero5lon Control Manual Table5 8.03e and 8.03g 100.0% 55,15 WEIGHTED 5C5 CN = 58 Assume that all permou5 area will be proportionally divided between 5od groups. A55ume that all perv+ou5 area will be open Space good condition (Gra55 > 75%) 501L TYPE, LAND U5E, CONDITION H.5.G 5C5 CN' PERCENT CN x % IMPERVIOUS - 98.00 80.00 7540.00 Bab-BAYMEADE, OPEN 5PACE, GOOD A 39.00 4.51 175.93 Pn-PANTEGO, OPEN 5PACE, GOOD B G 1.00 I I .70 713.93 Ln-LEON, OPEN 5PACE, GOOD D 50.00 3.79 302.82 From NG Ero5lon Control Manual l able B.OSe - Attached I UO.UU 5u3Z.6o WEIGHTED 5C5 CN = 90 11 POND N2 AVG. DEPTH P.\558658-057 P!253 ENGINEERIPIG4.ALC$5TORkiWATERWO!405\POND 2+I1 PAGE I OF I . / POND #1 / 10—YR 24—HR STORM MAX ELEV = 30.81' VCK \ l (t105 LF WIDE AT TC SLOPE = ±10% (AT TC MANNING'S "n" = 0.1 CALCULATED VELOCITY = 1.43 FT lA- O(INFILTRATION) ) =1.067 CFS I / J n/aw ecc_il O(BYPASS-2) t100—FT CONCRETE =30.10 CFS LEVEL SPREADER 1 INCH = 50 FEET 1=-CEIVEn FEB 2 8 ' 2013 BY: 1 I 1 I 1 POND #2 1 10-YR I 24-HR STORM MAX ELEV = 26.50' O(BY ) =0.00 00 CFS FS I 11_ 1L' 1 Q(INFILTRATION) =0.484 CFS 1/L \.111/L \lll/L 1 llr_ LIL 11i JIL � 11L LIL JIL AIL 11= 0(BYPASS-1) ' =23.26 CFS LLI/L ' \ / 11L LIL AIL ! it A��iyO \ y.�. . _ . - _ . _ . F_Cl1!/E FEB 2 8 2013 BY:---- - t100-FT CONCRETE LEVEL SPREADER 50 0 50 100 1 INCH = 50 FEET Hydraflow Table of Contents POND 1.gpw Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Watershed Model Schematic................................................................................ 1 Hydrograph Return Period Recap........................................................................ 2 1 - Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................... 3 HydrographReports............................................................................................................. 4 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, POND 1 - PRE................................................................ 4 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, POND 1 - POST.............................................................. 5 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, POND 1 - ROUTED............................................................ 6 PondReport - POND 1.................................................................................................. 7 Hydrograph No. 4, Diversionl, TO INF AREA.................................................................... 9 Hydrograph No. 5, Diversion2, BYPASS.......................................................................... 10 Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, INF AREA - ROUTED ....................................................... 11 Pond Report - POND 1 - INF AREA............................................................................. 12 10 - Year SummaryReport ................................................................................................................. 13 HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 14 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, POND 1 - PRE.............................................................. 14 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, POND 1 - POST............................................................ 15 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, POND 1 - ROUTED.......................................................... 16 Hydrograph No. 4, Diversionl, TO INF AREA.................................................................. 17 Hydrograph No. 5, Diversion2, BYPASS.......................................................................... 18 Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, INF AREA - ROUTED ....................................................... 19 - Year > mmary eport ................................................................................................................. 20 �y gr ph Reports........................................................................................................... 21 Hyyd graph No. 1, SCS Runoff, POND 1 - PRE.............................................................. 21 Ho aph No. 2, SCS Runoff, POND 1 - POST............................................................ 22 Hy rogra h No. 3, Reservoir, POND 1 - ROUTED.......................................................... 23 drograph o. 4, Diversionl, TO INF AREA.................................................................. 24 ydrograph N 5, Diversion2, BYPASS.......................................................................... 25 Hydrograph No. Reservoir, INF AREA - ROUTED ....................................................... 26 I Watershed Model y Schemat�r- draflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3002010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 POND 1 - PRE -- POND 1 - POST ��1rr- l.J✓ ��2 W-� 3- POND 1-ROUTED 4-TO INF AREA 5-BYPASS Q 6-INF AREA - ROUTED 7� Legend Hvd Origin Descriotion 1 SCS Runoff POND 1 - PRE 2 SCS Runoff POND 1 - POST 3 Reservoir POND 1 - ROUTED 4 Diversionl TO INF AREA 5 Diversion2 BYPASS 6 Reservoir INF AREA - ROUTED Project: POND 1.gpw Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hydrograph Return Period Refpomrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph No. type hyd(s) Description (origin) 1-yr 2•yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 1 SCS Runoff ------ 3.083 8,828 ------- ------- 39.82 ------- --- --- 134.66 POND 1 - PRE 2 SCS Runoff ------ 74.56 97.62 ------- ------- 169.57 ------- ------- 318.06 POND 1 - POST 3 Reservoir 2 0,914 2.639 ------- ------- 72.20 ------- ------- 295.17 POND 1 - ROUTED 4 Diversionl 3 0.914 1.010 ------- ------- 1.067 ------- ------ 1,133 TO INF AREA 5 Diversion2 3 0.000 1.628 ------- ------- 71.13 ------- ------ 294.04 BYPASS 6 Reservoir 4 0.000 0.000 ------- ------- 0.000 ------- ------ 0.000 INF AREA - ROUTED Proj. file: POND 1.gpw Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 3 Hydrograph Summary RepiRyld aflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D@ 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to Peak (min) Hyd. volume (cuft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Total strge used (cuft) Hydrograph Description 1 SCS Runoff 3.083 2 758 36,854 ------ ------ ------ POND 1 - PRE 2 SCS Runoff 74.56 2 730 304,035 ------ ------ ------ POND 1 - POST 3 Reservoir 0.914 2 1444 208,406 2 29.18 264,641 POND 1 - ROUTED 4 Diversiont 0.914 2 1444 208,406 3 ------ ------ TO INF AREA 5 Diversion2 0.000 2 1218 0 3 ------ ------ 'BYPASS 6 Reservoir 0.000 2 900 0 4 23.77 1,525 INF AREA - ROUTED POND 1.gpw Return Period: 1 Year Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hydrograph Report 4 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hyd. No. 1 POND1-PRE Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 3.083 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 758 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 36,854 cuft Drainage area = 35.900 ac Curve number = 50 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 30.00 min Total precip. = 3.83 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 r GT 1.00 0.00 ' 1 1 1 1 ' 0 120 240 360 480 600 ® Hyd No. 1 POND1-PRE Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year 720 840 Q (cfs) 4.00 3.00 2.00 we, 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time (min) I Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hyd. No. 2 POND 1-POST Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 74.56 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 730 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 304,035 cuft Drainage area = 35.900 ac Curve number = 86 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 15.00 min Total precip. = 3.83 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Q (cfs 80.00 70.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 POND 1-POST Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year 000) Q (cfs) 80.00 70.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Hyd No. 2 Time (min) - 6 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hyd. No. 3 POND 1-ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.914 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 1444 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 208,406 cuft Inflow hyd. No. = 2 - POND 1 -POST Max. Elevation = 29.18 ft Reservoir name = POND 1 Max. Storage = 264,641 cuft Storage Indication method used. POND 1-ROUTED Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Year Q (cfs) 80.00 80.00 70.00 70.00 60.00 60.00 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 I 20.00 20.00 f; 10.00 10.00 0 00 0.00 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 Time (min) Hyd No. 3 — Hyd No. 2 iTl-LZII Total storage used = 264,641 curt Pond Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Au1oCAD® Civil 3DO2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Pond No. 1 - POND 1 Pond Data Contours -User-defined contour areas. Average end area method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 24.50 It Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (scift) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft) 0.00 24.50 46,462 0 0 0.50 25.00 51,194 24,414 24,414 1.50 25.50 54,109 52,652 77,066 2.50 26.00 57,081 55,595 132,661 3.50 28.00 60,109 58,595 191,256 4.50 29.00 63,193 61,651 252,907 5.50 30.00 66,334 64,764 317,670 6.50 31.00 69,532 67,933 385,603 7.50 3200 72,786 71,159 456,762 Culvert I Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise (in) = 36.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 2000, 70.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 36.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 30.10 30.50 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 10 10 0 .0 Weir Coeff. = 3.330.00 2.60 3.33 3.33 Invert El. (ft) = 23.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = 1 Broad -- -- Length (ft) = 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 Multi -Stage = Yes No No No Slope (%) = 0.25 0.50 0.00 n/a N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Exfil.(in/hr) = 0 (by Contour) Multi -Stage = n/a No No No TIN Elev. (ft) = 0.00 Note. Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet tic) and outlet(W) control. Weir risers checked for orifice condltions(ic) and subraergence(s). Stage I Storage I Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation CIv A CIv B CIv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total ft cuft ft cis cis cfs cfs cis cfs cis cfs cfs cis cfs 0.00 0 24.50 0.00 0.00 --- --- 0.00 0.05 2,441 24.55 5.29 oc 0.01 is --- --- 0.00 0.10 4,883 24.60 5.29 oc 0.03 is --- --- 0.00 0.15 7,324 24.65 5.29 oc 0.06 is --- --- 0.00 0.20 9,766 24.70 5.29 oc 0.10 is --- -- 0.00 0.25 12,207 24.75 5.29 oc 0.14 oc --- --- 0.00 0.30 14,648 24.80 5.29 oc 0.18 oc --- --- 0.00 0.35 17,090 24.85 5.29 oc 0.21 oc --- --- 0.00 0.40 19,531 24.90 5.29 oc 0.23 oc --- --- 0.00 0.45 21,973 24.95 5.29 oc 0.23 oc -- --- 0.00 0.50 24,414 25.00 5.29 oc 0.25 oc --- --- 0.00 0.60 29,679 25.10 5.29 oc 0.28 oc --- --- 0.00 0.70 34,944 25.20 5.29 oc 0.31 oc --- -- 0.00 0.80 40,209 25.30 5.29 oc 0.34 oc --- --- 0.00 0.90 45,475 25.40 5.29 oc 0.37 oc --- --- 0.00 1.00 50,740 25.50 5.29 oc 0.39 oc --- --- 0.00 1.10 56,005 25.60 5.29 oc 0.42 oc -- -- 0.00 1.20 61,270 25.70 5.29 oc 0.44 oc --- --- 0.00 1.30 66,535 25.80 5.29 oc 0.46 oc --- --- 0.00 1.40 71,800 25.90 5.29 oc 0.48 oc --- --- 0.00 1.50 77,066 25.50 5.29 oc 0.39 oc --- --- 0.00 1.60 82,625 25.60 5.29 oc 0.42 oc --- --- 0.00 1.70 88,185 25.70 5.29 oc 0.44 oc --- --- 0.00 1.80 93,744 25.80 5.29 oc 0.46 oc --- -- 0.00 1.90 99,304 25.90 5.29 oc 0.48 oc --- --- 0.00 2.00 104,863 - 26.00 5.29 oc 0.50 oc --- --- 0.00 2.10 110,423 26.10 5.29 oc 0.52 oc --- --- 0.00 2.20 115,982 26.20 5.29 oc 0.53 oc --- --- 0.00 2.30 121,542 26.30 5.29 oc 0.55 oc --- --- 0.00 2.40 127,101 26.40 5.29 oc 0.57 oc --- --- 0.00 2.50 132,661 26.00 5.29 oc 0.50 oc ,- --- 0.00 2.60 138,520 26.10 5.29 oc 0.52 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- -- --- 0.000 0.00 --- -- -- -- 0.007 0.00 -- --- --- -- 0.027 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.058 0.00 --- -- --- --- 0.099 0.00 --- --- -- -- 0.142 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0,181 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.213 0.00 -- --- --- --- 0.226 0.00 --- --- -- --- 0.229 0.00 -- --- --- --- 0.248 0.00 -- --- --- --- 0.283 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.314 0.00 -- --- --- --- 0.342 0.00 --- --- --- '-- 0.369 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.393 0.00 --- --- --- -- 0,416 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0A37 0.00 --- -.- --- --- 0.458 0.00 --- --- -'- --- 0.478 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0,393 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.416 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0,437 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.458 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.478 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.497 0.00 --- --- '-- --- 0.515 0.00 -- -- --- --- 0,533 ,- 0.550 0.567QEBpGf __= 0.497 . 0 F59 2 8 NIL, utues --- 0.515 on next page... BY: 8 POND 1 Stage / Storage / Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation Civ A Clv B Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total ft cuft ft cfs cis cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 2.70 144,380 26.20 5.29 oc 0.53 oc -- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.533 2.80 150,239 26.30 5.29 oc 0.55 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.550 2.90 156,099 26.40 5.29 oc 0.57 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.567 3.00 161,958 26.50 5.29 oc 0.58 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- -- 0,583 3.10 167,818 26.60 5.29 oc 0.60 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.598 3.20 173,677 26.70 5.29 oc 0.61 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.614 3.30 179,537 26.80 5.29 oc 0.63 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.629 3.40 185,396 26.90 5.29 oc 0.64 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.643 3.50 191,256 28.00 5.29 oc 0.79 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0,786 3.60 197,421 28.10 5.29 oc 0.80 oc --- -- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.797 3.70 203,586 28.20 5.29 oc 0.81 oc --- -- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.809 3.80 209,751 28.30 5.29 oc 0.82 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.820 3.90 215,916 28.40 5.29 oc 0.83 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.832 4.00 222,081 28.50 5.29 oc 0.84 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.843 4.10 228,246 28.60 5.29 oc 0.85 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.854 4.20 234,411 28.70 5.29 oc 0.86 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- -- --- --- 0.864 4.30 240,576 28.80 5.29 oc 0.87 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- - 0.875 4.40 246,741 28.90 5.29 oc 0.89 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- -- --- 0,885 4.50 252,907 29.00 5.29 oc 0.90 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.896 4.60 259,383 29.10 5.29 oc 0.91 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.906 4.70 265,859 29.20 5.29 oc 0.92 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.916 4.80 272,336 29.30 5.29 oc 0.93 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.926 4.90 278,812 29.40 5.29 oc 0.94 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.936 5.00 285,288 29.50 5.29 oc 0.95 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.946 5.10 291,765 29.60 5.29 oc 0.96 oc ------ 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.956 5.20 298,241 29.70 5.29 oc 0.97 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- -- --- --- 0.966 5.30 304,717 29.80 5.29 oc 0.98 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- -- --- --- 0.975 5.40 311,194 29.90 5.29 oc 0.98 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 -- --- --- --- 0,985 5.50 317,670 30.00 5.29 oc 0.99 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 -- --- --- --- 0.994 5.60 324,463 30.10 5.29 oc 1.00 oc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 1.003 5.70 331,257 30.20 5.29 oc 1.01 oc --- --- 2.11 0.00 --- --- --- --- 3.118 5.80 338,050 30.30 6.04 oc 1.02 oc --- --- 5.96 0.00 --- --- --- --- 6.978 5.90 344,843 30.40 10.99 oc 1.03 oc --- --- 10.94 0.00 --- --- --- --- 11.97 6.00 351,637 30.50 16.85 oc 1.04 oc --- --- 16.85 0.00 --- --- --- --- 17.89 6.10 358,430 30.60 23.55 oc 1.05 oc --- --- 23.55 5.76 --- --- --- --- 30.35 6.20 365,223 30.70 30.95 oc 1.06 oc --- --- 30.95 16.28 --- --- --- --- 48.29 6.30 372,017 30.80 39.01 oc 1.07 oc -__ 39.00 29 9-1 --- --- --- --- 69.98 6.40 378,810 30.90 47.66 oc 1.07 oc _- - 47.66 46.04 -- --- --- --- 94.77 6.50 385,603 31.00 56.87 oc 1.08 oc --- --- 56.86 64.35 --- --- --- --- 122.29 6.60 392,719 31.10 66.60 oc 1.09 oc --- --- 66.60 84.59 --- --- --- --- 152.28 6.70 399,835 31.20 75.82 oc 1.10 oc --- --- 75.82 s 106.59 --- --- --- --- 183.51 6.80 406,951 31.30 79.01 oc 1.11 oc --- --- 79.01 s 130.23 --- --- --- --- 210.35 6.90 414,067 31.40 81.24 oc 1.12 oc --- --- 81.24 s 155.39 --- --- --- --- 237.75 7.00 421,183 31.50 83.05 oc 1.13 oc --- --- 83.05 s 182.00 --- --- --- --- 266.18 7.10 428,298 31.60 84.60 oc 1.13 oc --- --- 84.60 s 209.97 --- --- --- --- 295.71 7.20 435,414 31.70 85.76 is 1.14 oc --- --- 85.76 s 239.25 --- --- --- --- 326.14 7.30 442,530 31.80 86.77 is 1.15 oc --- --- 86.76 s 269.77 --- --- --- --- 357.68 7.40 449,646 31.90 87.71 is 1.16 oc --- --- 87.70 s 301.48 --- --- --- --- 390.34 7.50 456,762 32.00 88.58 is 1.17 oc --- --- 88.58 s 334.36 --- --- --- --- 424.10 ...End IvAl El,�OV 10-YK. =So.81 FtznM j,j-mfUoL-#TIo(J (FROM 'Pl', 13 ttyDFZ)&FAN SOrnrnflKY jZGOOR"T) vVEIF- A 30.80 3°1.00 30. SI 04 1(D) 3DAD 1474-G(0a 30, I0 4 ev.`\ 0/3 Hydrograph Report 9 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hyd. No. 4 TO INF AREA Hydrograph type = Diversion1 Peak discharge = 0.914 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 1444 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 208,406 cuft Inflow hydrograph = 3 - POND 1 - ROUTED 2nd diverted hyd. = 5 Diversion method = Pond -POND 1 Pond structure = Culy/Orf B Q (cfs) 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 MAIN 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 600 1200 1800 ® Hyd No. 4 -- Pond outlet TO INF AREA Hyd. No. 4 -- 1 Year Q (cfs) 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 M M1117 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 Time (min) Hyd No. 3 --Inflow � Hyd No. 5 -- 3 minus 4 Hydrograph Report 10 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. 5 BYPASS Hydrograph type = Diversion2 Peak discharge Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume Inflow hydrograph = 3 - POND 1 - ROUTED 2nd diverted hyd Diversion method = Pond - POND 1 Pond structure BYPASS Q (cfS) Hyd. No. 5 -- 1 Year 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 = 0.000 cfs = 1218 min = 0 cuft =4 = Culy/Orf B 0.00 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 ® Hyd No. 5 -- Qin - Pond outlet — Hyd No. 3 -- Inflow ® Hyd No. 4 5400 Q (CfS) 1.00 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 — 0.00 6000 Time (min) Hydrograph Report 11 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hyd. No. 6 INF AREA - ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.000 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 900 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 0 cult Inflow hyd. No. = 4 - TO INF AREA Max. Elevation = 23.77 ft Reservoir name = POND 1 - INF AREA Max. Storage = 1,525 cuft Storage Indication method used. Exfiltration extracted from Outflow INF AREA - ROUTED Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 6 -- 1 Year 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 600 Hyd No. 6 1200 1800 2400 Hyd No. 4 Q (cfs) 1.00 0.70 0.60 Nl:S9 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 Time (min) �fQTj] Total storage used = 1,525 tuft Pond Report 12 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 31® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Pond No. 2 - POND 1 - INF AREA Pond Data Contours -User-defined contour areas. Average end area method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 23.50 It Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) 0.00 23.50 0.50 24.50 1.50 25.00 Contour area (sqft) 5,148 6,031 7,915 Incr. Storage (cuft) 0 2,795 6,973 Total storage (cuft) 0 2,795 9,768 Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [PrtRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise (in) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) Inactive 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 2,60.00 3.33 3.33 3.33 Invert El. (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Broad --- --- --- Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi -Stage = No No No No Slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Na N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Exfil.(in/hr) = 120 (by Contour) Multi -Stage = n/a No No No TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00 Note'. CulveNOrifice outflows are analyzed under inlet(ic) and outlet (cc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions pc) and submergence(s). Stage I Storage I Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C PrtRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total ft cult ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 0.00 0 23.50 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.000 -- 0.000 0.05 279 23.55 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.168 --- 0,168 0.10 559 23.60 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.335 --- 0.335 0.15 838 23.65 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.503 --- 0.503 0.20 1,118 23.70 --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- 0.670 --- 0,670 0.25 1,397 23.75 --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- 0.838 --- 0.838 0.30 1,677 23.80 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.005 --- 1,005 0.35 1,956 23.85 -- --- --- -- --- --- 1.173 --- 1.173 0.40 2,236 23.90 --- --- --- --- --- -- --- -- 1.340 --- 1.340 0.45 2,515 23.95 --- --- --- -- --- --- 1.508 --- 1.508 0.50 2,795 24.50 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.675 --- 1.675 0.60 3,492 24.60 --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- 1.728 --- 1,728 0.70 4,189 24.70 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.780 --- 1.780 0.80 4,887 24.80 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.832 --- 1.832 0.90 5,584 24.90 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.885 --- 1.885 1.00 6,281 25.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.937 -- 1.937 1.10 6,979 25.10 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.989 --- 1.989 1.20 7,676 25.20 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.042 --- 2.042 1.30 8,373 25.30 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2,094 --- 2.094 1.40 9,070 25.40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.146 --- 2.146 1.50 9,768 25.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.199 --- 2.199 13 Hydrograph Summary Re pi9yldaflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to Peak (min) Hyd. volume (cuft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation- (ft) Total strge used (cuft) Hydrograph Description 1 SCS Runoff 39.82 2 744 234,789 ------ ---- ------ POND 1 - PRE 2 SCS Runoff 169.57 2 730 711,117 ------ ------ ------ POND 1 - POST 3 Reservoir 72.20 2 748 581,789 2 30.81 372,625 POND 1 - ROUTED 4 Diversionl 1.067 2 748 248,068 3 ------ ------ TO INF AREA 5 Diversion2 71.13 2 748 333,721 3 ----- ------ BYPASS 6 Reservoir 0.000 2 772 0 4 23.81 1,721 INF AREA - ROUTED ECEIVE <,, FEB Z 8 1013 POND 1.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hydrograph Report 14 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hyd. No. 1 POND1-PRE Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 39.82 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 744 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 234,789 cuft Drainage area = 35.900 ac Curve number = 50 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 30.00 min Total precip. = 7.24 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Q (cfs) 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 ' 0 120 240 ® Hyd No. 1 POND1-PRE Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year 360 480 600 720 Q (Cfs) 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 ' 0.00 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time (min) 15 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Aulodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hyd. No. 2 POND1-POST Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 169.57 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 730 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 711,117 cuft Drainage area = 35.900 ac Curve number = 86 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of cone. (Tc) = 15.00 min Total precip. = 7.24 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Q (cfs) 180.00 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 POND1-POST Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year Q (cfs) 180.00 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 I 1 1 - 1 1 1 [-- r— 1 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time (min) ® Hyd No. 2 16 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hyd. No. 3 POND 1 - ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 72.20 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 748 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 581,789 cuft Inflow hyd. No. = 2 - POND 1 -POST Max. Elevation = 30.81 ft Reservoir name = POND 1 Max. Storage = 372,625 cuft Storage Indication method used. POND 1-ROUTED Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 10 Year Q (cfs) 180.00 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 000 180.00 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 2160 2520 2880 3240 3600 3960 4320 Time (min) ® Hyd No. 3 o Hyd No. 2 fIDT=] Total storage used = 372,625 cult Hydrograph Report 17 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCA DID Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. 4 TO INF AREA Hydrograph type = Diversionl Peak discharge Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume Inflow hydrograph = 3 -POND 1-ROUTED 2nd diverted hyd Diversion method = Pond -POND 1 Pond structure TO INF AREA Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 = 1.067 cfs = 748 min = 248,068 cuft =5 = Culy/Orf B Q (cfs) Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4 -- 10 Year 80.00 80.00 70.00 70.00 60.00 60.00 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 20,00 20.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 2160 2520 2880 3240 3600 3960 4320 Time (min) ® Hyd No. 4 -- Pond outlet o Hyd No. 3 -- Inflow ® Hyd No. 5 -- 3 minus 4 18 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAM Civil 3D02010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hyd. No. 5 BYPASS Hydrograph type = Diversion2 Peak discharge = 71.13 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 748 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 333,721 cuft Inflow hydrograph = 3 - POND 1 - ROUTED 2nd diverted hyd. = 4 Diversion method = Pond -POND 1 Pond structure = Culy/Orf B Q (CIS) 80.00 70.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 BYPASS Hyd. No. 5 -- 10 Year Q (cfs) 80.00 70.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 L 0.00 0 360 720 1080 1440 1800 2160 2520 2880 3240 3600 3960 4320 Time (min) e Hyd No. 5 -- Qin -Pond outlet — Hyd No. 3 --Inflow ®Hyd No. 4 Hydrograph Report 19 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 Hyd. No. 6 INF AREA - ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.000 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 772 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 0 cult Inflow hyd. No. = 4 - TO INF AREA Max. Elevation = 23.81 ft Reservoir name = POND 1 - INF AREA Max. Storage = 1,721 cuft Storage Indication method used. ExFltration extracted from Outflow Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 0.00 0 600 ® Hyd No. 6 INF AREA - ROUTED Hyd. No. 6 -- 10 Year 1200 1800 2400 Hyd No. 4 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 J= Total storage used = 1,721 cuft Q (cfs) 2.00 1.00 —t 0.00 6000 Time (min) Hydraflow Table of Contents POND 2.gpw Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 25, 2012 WatershedModel Schematic................................................................................ 1 Hydrograph Return Period Recap........................................................................ 2 1 - Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................... 3 HydrographReports............................................................................................................. 4 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, POND 2 - PRE................................................................ 4 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, POND 2 - POST............................................................. 5 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, POND 2 - ROUTED............................................................ 6 PondReport - POND 2.................................................................................................. 7 Hydrograph No. 4, Diversionl, TO INF AREA.................................................................... 9 Hydrograph No. 5, Diversion2, BYPASS.......................................................................... 10 Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, INF AREA - ROUTED ...................................................... 11 PondReport - POND 2 - INF AREA............................................................................. 12 10 -Year SummaryReport...............................................................................................:................. 13 HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 14 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, POND 2 - PRE.............................................................. 14 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, POND 2 - POST.......................................................... 15 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, POND 2 - ROUTED.......................................................... 16 Hydrograph No. 4, Diversionl, TO INF AREA ........................................ ................. I........ 17 Hydrograph No. 5, Diversion2, BYPASS.......................................................................... 18 Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, INF AREA - ROUTED ....................................................... 19 100 -Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................. 20 HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 21 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, POND 2 - PRE ................................ ...... I....................... 21 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, POND 2 - POST............................................................ 22 Hydrograph No. 3, Reservoir, POND 2 - ROUTED.......................................................... 23 Hydrograph No. 4, Diversionl, TO INF AREA.................................................................. 24 Hydrograph No. 5, Diversion2, BYPASS .............................................. .... .............. I......... 25 Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, INF AREA - ROUTED ....................................................... 26 I Watershed Model Schematipdraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 3j�f1 4 • 5 6 _ j( Legend ha Origin Descrlotion 1 SCS Runoff POND 2 - PRE 2 SCS Runoff POND 2 - POST 3 Reservoir POND 2 - ROUTED 4 Diversionl TO INF AREA 5 Diversion2 BYPASS 6 Reservoir INF AREA -ROUTED Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Project: POND 2.gpw Hydrograph Return Period ,yef,"mrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Inflow hyd(s) Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph Description 2-yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 60-yr 100-yr 1 SCS Runoff ---- F38O7 ------ ------- ------- 25.76 ------ ------ 70.79 POND 2 - PRE 2 SCS Runoff ----- ••---- ------ ---•- 84.06 —•---- ------ 152.78 POND2-POST 3 Reservoir 2 0.402 ------ ------ ----•• 23.74 ------- ------- 74,22 POND 2-ROUTED 4 Diversionl 3 0.402 ------ ------- ---.... 0.484 ----- ---- 0.571 TO INF AREA 5 Diversion 3 0.000 -- _ --••••• 23,26 ----- ----- 73.65 BYPASS 6 Reservoir 4 0.000 ------ ----- ----- 0.000 ---- ------ 0,000 INF AREA - ROUTED Proj. file: POND 2.gpw Friday, Oct 26. 2012 3 Hydrograph Summary Re Kydeflow Hydrographs Extension for AuloCA00 Civil MID2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to Peak (min) Hyd. volume (cuft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Total strge used (cuft) Hydrograph Description 1 SCS Runoff 3.936 2 750 29,079 ------ ----- ------ POND2-PRE 2 SCS Runoff 38.07 2 728 147,999 ------ ---- ------ POND2-POST 3 Reservoir 0.402 2 1444 101,328 2 25.28 130,162 POND 2 - ROUTED 4 Diversionl 0.402 2 1444 101,328 3 ----- ------ TO INF AREA 5 Diversion2 0.000 2 1140 0 3 ---- ------ BYPASS 6 Reservoir 0.000 2 826 0 4 22.24 1,720 INF AREA -ROUTED POND 2.gpw Return Period: 1 Year Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Hydrograph Report 4 Hydra How Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Hyd. No. 1 POND2-PRE Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 3.936 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 750 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd..volume = 29,079 cuft Drainage area = 15.000 ac Curve number = 58 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 30.00 min Total precip. = 3.70 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Q (cfs) 4.00 c Me 2.00 POND 2-PRE Hyd, No. 1 -- 1 Year 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 -!0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time (min) Hyd No. 1 M Hydrograph Report HydraFlow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADQ Civil 3D0 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Hyd. No. 2 POND 2-POST Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 38.07 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 728 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 147,999 cuft Drainage area = 15.000 ac Curve number = 90 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 10.00 min Total precip. = 3.70 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Q (cfs) 40.00 30.00 10.00 0.00 --- 0 120 240 — Hyd No. 2 POND 2-POST Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year 360 480 600 720 840 Q (cfs) 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time (min) 6 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26. 2012 Hyd. No. 3 POND 2 - ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.402 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 1444 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 101,328 cuft Inflow hyd. No. = 2 - POND 2 - POST Max. Elevation = 25.28 ft Reservoir name = POND 2 Max. Storage = 130,162 cult storage Indication method used. POND 2 - ROUTED Q (cfs) Q (cfs) . Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Year 40.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 20.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 g�8vu. 0.00 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 0.00 6000 Time (min) =µ==• Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Total storage used = 130,162 tuft 7 Pond Report Hydraflow Hydfog raphs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Pond No, 1 - POND 2 Pond Data Contours -User-defined contour areas. Average end area method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 22.50 ft Stage I Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqk) Incr. Storage (tuft) Total storage (tuft) 0.00 22,50 40,700 0 0 0.50 23.00 44,746 21,362 21,362 1.50 24.00 47,250 45,998 67,360 2,50 25.00 49,810 48,530 115,890 3.50 26.00 52,427 51,119 167,008 4.50 27.00 55,099 53.763 220,771 5.50 28.00 57,829 56,464 277.235 6.50 29,00 60,615 59,222 336.457 7.50 30.00 63,458 62,037 398,494 Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures [AI [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise (In) = 36.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 2000 50.00 0.00 0.00 Span (In) = 36.00 4.00 0.00 0,00 Crest El. (ft) = 2600 28.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 10 10 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.330.00 2.60 3.33 3.33 Invert El. (ft) = 21.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = 1 Broad --- --- Length (ft) = 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 Multi -Stage = Yes No No No Slope (%) = 0.25 0.50 0.00 n/a N-Value = .013 .013 .013 rule Orifice Coen. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Exfil.(Inihr) = 0 (by Contour) Multi -Stage = n1a No No No TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00 Notecelvertoinxe oulflam are analyzed under inlel (Ic) and outlet Inc) control. Weir risers checked for office cartenions (Id and.ubmergenro (a). Stage I Storage I Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation CIvA Ch,B CIvC PrIll WrA WrB WrC WrO Exit User Total It tuft ft cfs cfs cfs cis cis cis cis cis cis cfs cfs 0.00 0 22.50 0.00 0.00 --- --- 0.00 0,00 --- --- .-- --• 0.000 0.05 2,136 22.55 5.29 cc 0.01 is --- --- 0.00 0,00 --- -- -- --- 0,006 0.024 0.10 4,272 22.60 5.29 cc 0.02 is --- -- 0.00 0.00 - --- --- -- 0.050 0.15 6,408 22.65 5.29 cc 0.05 is -- - 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- •- 0.081 0.20 8,545 22.70 5.29 oc 0.08 cc --- - 0.00 0.00 --• -- --- - 0.109 0.25 10,681 22.75 5.29 cc 0.11 cc -- -- 0.00 0.00 --- - -- --- 0.127 0.30 12,817 22.80 5.29 cc 0.13 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 -- --- -- --- 0.126 0.35 14,953 22.85 5.29 cc 0.13 cc ... -- 0.00 0.00 -- -- --- --- 0.138 0A0 17,089 22.90 5.29 oc 0.14 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 -- --- --- -- 0.148 0.45 19,225 22.95 5.29 cc 0.15 cc -- --- 0.00 0.00 --- ••. --- -- 0,158 0.50 21,362 23.00 5.29 cc 0.16 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- ... 0.176 0.60 25,961 23.10 5.29 cc 0.18 cc --- --- 0.00 0,00 ••. --- -- --• 0.192 0.70 30,561 23.20 5.29 cc 0.1900 -- --- 0.00 0,00 -- --- -- -- 0.207 O.BO 35,161 23.30 5.29 cc 0.21 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 -•- -- -- -- - 0.221 0.90 39,761 23.40 5.29 cc 0.22 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- ... --- - D.234 1.00 44,361 23.50 5.29 cc 0.23 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- -- ... 0.247 1.10 48,960 23,60 5.29 cc 0.25 cc -- --- 0.00 0.00 -- ••. --- --• 0,259 1.20 53,560 23.70 5.29 cc 0.26 co --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- ... --- 0.270 1.30 58,160 23.80 5.29 cc 0.27 cc --- -- 0.00 0.00 --- •-- --- -- 0.281 1.40 62,760 23.90 5.29 cc 0.28 cc -- --- 0.00 0.00 --- -- -- --- 0.291 1.50 67,360 24.00 5.29 cc 0.29 cc -- ... 0.00 0.00 - --- -- --- 0.302 1.60 72,213 24.10 5.29 cc 0.30 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 -- --- -- --- 0.311 1.70 77,066 24.20 5.29oc 0.31 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 -- --- --- --- 0.321 1.80 81,919 24.30 5.29 cc 0.32 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- -- --- --- 0,330 1.90 86.772 24,40 5.29 cc 0.33 cc -- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0,339 2.00 91,625 24.50 5.29 cc 0.34 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 -- --- --- --- 0.348 2.10 96,478 24.60 5.29 cc 0.35 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 -- --- -- - 0,356 2.20 101,331 24.70 5.29 cc 0.36 cc --- -- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- -- 0.365 2.30 106,184 24.80 5.29 cc 0.36 cc •-- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.373 2.40 111,037 24.90 5.29 cc 0.37 cc -- --- 0.00 0.00 --- -- - --- 0.381 2.50 115.890 25.00 5.29 cc 0,38 cc -- --- 0.00 0.00 - -- -- --- 0.388 2.60 121,001 25.10 5.29 cc 0.39 cc --- --- 0.00 0.00 -•• - - -- -- Continues on next page... 8 POND 2 Stage I Storage I Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation CIvA CIvB CIvC PrfRsr WrA WrB WrC WrD Ex81 User Total cfs It cult ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs efs cfs 2.70 126,113 25.20 5.29 cc 0,40 cc -- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- - --- 0.396 0.404 2.80 131,225 25.30 5.29 cc 0.40 cc -- -- 0.00 0.00 --- -- --- --- - 0.411 2.90 136.337 25.40 5.29 cc 0.41 cc -- --- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 --- - --- -- •-- --- 0.418 3,00 141,449 25.50 5.29 cc 0.42 cc --• -- 0.00 --- 0.425 3.10 146,551 25.60 5.29 cc 0.43 cc •- -•- 0.00 0.00 --- --- -- --- --- •-_ --- 0.432 3.30 156,784 25.80 5.29 0.43 cc -- --- 0.00 0,00 --. 0.439 3.30 161,896 25.80 cc 5.29 cc 0.44 cc -- -- 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 - - --- '"" 0.446 3.40 161,896 25.90 5.29 cc 0.45 cc --- -- 0.00 0.00 -" -- 0.453 3.50 167,008 26.00 5.29 cc 0.45 cc - - 0.00 -- 2.565 3,60 172,384 26.10 5.29 cc 0.46 cc --- - 2,11 5.96 0.00 000 --- --- '- -' 6.423 3.70 183,13 26.20 6.04 cc 0.47 cc --- -.- _- 11.42 3.80 183,137 26.30 10.99 cc 0,47 cc --- -- 10.94 000 --- ---- --- 17.33 3.90 188,513 26.40 16.85 cc 0.48 cc -- -- 16.85 0.00 --- --- --- --- 24.03 4.00 193,890 26.50 23.55 oc 0.48 oc --- -- 23.55 000 --- 0,00 --- -- --- --- "' 31.44 4.10 199,266 26.60 30.95 cc 0.49 cc --• -- 30.95 0.00 -- - -- - 39.50 4.20 204,642 26.70 39.01 cc 0.50 cc --- --- 39.01 47.66 0.00 -- --- --- --- . 16 4.30 210,018 26.80 47.66 oc 0.50 cc --• --- 53.71 s 0.00 --- --- -- --- 5422 5. 4.40 215,395 26.90 53.71 cc 0.51 cc -- --- 56.90 s 0,00 --- --- "- "• 57.41 4.50 220.771 27.00 56.90 oc 0.51 cc --• --- 59.38 s ' 0.00 --- -- --- --- 59.90 4.60 226,417 27A0 59.38 cc 0.52 cc -- --- -- -- --- - 61.98 4.70 232,064 27.20 61.46 cc 0.53 cc --- --- 61.45 s 0.00 ••• _-- ._ " 63.79 4.80 237,710 27.30 63.26 cc 0.53 cc --- --- 63.26 s 0.00 _ - 65.41 4.90 243,357 27.40 54.89 cc 0.54 cc --- ••• 64.88 s 0.00 --- - :: .-. 66.91 5.00 249,003 27.50 66.37 cc 0.54 cc --- --- 66.36 s 0.00 68.29 5.10 254,649 27.60 67.75 cc 0.55 oc -- --- 67.74 s ..- 0,00 - -- - 69.61 5.20 260.296 27.70 69.05 cc 0.55 oc •-• ••• 69,059 0.00 -- --- --- -- --- 70.84 5.30 265,942 27.80 70.29 cc 0.56 cc -- --- 70.28 s 0.00 --- --- --- -- 72.02 5.40 271,589 27.90 71,47 cc 0.56 cc --- --- 71.46 s 0.00 -- --- -- --- 73.17 5.50 277,235 28.00 72.61 cc 0.5700 --- -- 72.60 s 0.00 --- -- -' --- 78.38 5.60 283,157 28.10 73,71 cc 0.58 cc -- --- 73.69 s 4.11 --- - - -- 86.99 5.70 289,079 28.20 74.78 cc 0.58 oc --- -- 74.78 s 11.63 -- --- --- --- 97.75 5.60 295,002 28.30 75.83 cc 0.59 cc --- --- 75.80 s 21.36 -- --- -- --- 110.32 5.90 300,924 28.40 76,85 cc 0.59 cc -- -•- 76.84 s 77.81 s 32.89 -- 45.96 --- --- -- --- --- --- 124.37 6.00 306,846 28.50 77.84 cc 06000 --- --- --- 139.79 6.10 312,768 28.60 78,82 cc 0.60 cc -- - 78.77 s 60.42 --- -- --- 156.49 6.20 318,690 28.70 79.78 cc 0.61 00 --- --- 79.75 s 76.14 -- --- -- -- --- 174.31 6.30 324,613 28.80 80.72 oc 0.61 oc -- --- 80.68 s 93.02 --- --- --- 19322 6.40 330,535 28.90 81.65 cc 0.62 cc --- -•• 81.61 s 111.00 --- --- -- --- --- 213.14 6.50 336,457. 29.00 82.56 cc 0.62 cc -- -- 82.52 s 130.00 --- --- --- 234.06 6.60 342,661 29.10 83.46 cc 0.63 cc --• -• 83.46 s 149.98 -- - --- --_ 255.83 6.70 348,864 29.20 84.35 oc 0.63 oa --- --- 84.31 s 85.08 s 170.89 -- 192.69 -- -- -- --- -- "- 278.41 6.80 355,068 29.30 85.15 is 0.63 cc -- --• 85.80 s 215.35 --- --- -- -- 325.78 6.90 361,272 29.40 85.84 is 0.64 cc -- --- 86.48 s 238.83 --- --- --- -- 95 350.89 7.00 367,475 29,50 86.53 is 0.64 cc -- --• 87.14 s 263.10 -• --- -- - 376..2 7.10 373.679 29.60 87.21 is 0.65 cc ••- --- 87.82 s 288.15 - -- -- -- 7.20 379,883 29,70 87.88 is 0.65 cc --- --- 88.53 s 313.94 --- --- - - --- 40313 7.30 386,086 29.80 88.55 is 0.66 cc •-- -- 89.19 s 340.47 ••• ••• --- -- 430.31 7.40 392,290 29,90 89.21 is 0.66 cc --- -- 89.80 s 367.70 -- -- --- --- 58.16 4. 7.50 398,494 30,00 89.87 is 0.67 oc --- -- ..End 9 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Hyd. No. 4 TO INF AREA Hydrograph type = Diversionl Peak discharge = 0.402 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs ' Time to peak = 1444 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 101,328 cuff Inflow hydrograph = 3 - POND 2 - ROUTED 2nd diverted hyd. = 5 Diversion method = Pond -POND 2 Pond structure = Culy/Orf B TO INF AREA a (cfs) Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4 -- 1 Year 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 000 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 025 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 bDuO Time (min) Hyd No. 4 -- Pond outlet Hyd No. 3 -- Inflow ® Hyd No. 5 -- 3 minus 4 10 Hydrograph Report Hydraftow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DV 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Hyd. No. 5 BYPASS Hydrograph type = Diversion2 Peak discharge = 0.000 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs. Time to peak = 1140 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 0 cult Inflow hydrograph = 3 - POND 2 - ROUTED 2nd diverted hyd. = 4 Diversion method = Pond -POND 2 Pond structure = Culy/Orf B BYPASS Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 5 -- 1 Year Q (cfs) 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.050.00 0.05 0.00 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 Time (min) _—_• Hyd No. 5 -- Qin - Pond outlet -- Hyd No. 3 -- Inflow — Hyd No. 4 11 Hydrograph Report HydraflowHydrographs Extension for AutoCA04D Civil 3 DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. vs.25 Friday, Oct 26. 2012 Hyd. No. 6 INIF AREA - ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.000 cfs Storm frequency = I yrs Time to peak = 826 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 0 Cuft Inflow hyd. No. = 4 -TO INIF AREA Max. Elevation = 22.24 ft Reservoir name = POND 2 - INF AREA Max. Storage = 1,720 cuft Storage Indication method used. Exfiltration extracted from Outflow Q (Cfs) INIF AREA - ROUTED Q (Cfs) Hyd. No. 6 -- 1 Year 0.50 - 0.50 0.45 0.45 - 0.40 0.40 - U5 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.25 - 0.25 0.20 0.20 - 0.15 0.15 aa 0.10 0.10 - 0.05 0.05 - 000 L L 0.00 0 600 -- Hyd No. 6 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 b4UU buuu Time (min) Hyd No. 4 -1 Total storage used = 1,720 cult 12 Pond Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutOCADS Civil 3DE)2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Pond No. 2 - POND 2 - INF AREA Pond Data Contours -User-defined contour areas. Average end area method used for volume calculation. Beg ining Elevation = 22.00 ft Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (tuft) 0.00 22.00 6,145 0 1.00 23.00 8,128 7,137 Total storage (cult) 0 7,137 Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise (in) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (R) = 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Weir Coati. = 3,330.00 3.33 3.33 3.33 Invert El. (ft) =0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type =... ... -"" Length (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi -Stage = No No No No Slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Extll.(in/hr) 8.850.000 (by Contour) Multi -Stage = nla No No No TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00 Note'. cuivervorifica oulllows are analysed under Inlet (to) and outlet (ocl cont,ol. Weir risers checked tar orifice conditions (ic) and wCmargence (s), Stage I Storage I Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation Chi A Clv B Clv C PriRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total cfs It tuft It cfs cfs efs cfs cfs cis ets cfs cfs cis - -- - 0,000 --- 0.000 0.00 0 22.00 --- --- --- --- --- -- -• 0.167 -- 0.167 0.10 714 22.10 --- --- --- --- ... --- --- 0.333 •-- 0. 333 0.20 1,427 22.20 -- --- --- --- -- --- -- 0,500 -- 0.50 0.30 2,141 22.30 •-- --- --- --- - - --- --- 0.666 -•- 0.666 0.40 2,855 22.40 --- •-- --- -- - - --- 0.833 --- 0.833 0.50 3.568 22.50 --- --- --- -- -- -- -- --• 0.999 -- 0.999 0.60 4,282 22.60 --- -- --- 1,166 0.70 4,996 22.70 --• -- -- -- -- --• -•- 1.332 --- 1.332 0.80 5,709 22.80 -- -- -- --- -- 1.499 --- 1.499 0.90 6,423 22.90 -- - --- --- -- -- -- --- -- 1.665 -- 1.665 1.00 7.137 23.00 - - -- --- -- 13 Hydrograph Summary Repi9yrdtflow Hydrographs Extension for AuloCAD®Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time Interval (min) Time to Peak (min) Hyd. volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Total strge used (cuff) Hydrograph Description 1 SCS Runoff 25.76 2 742 140,141 ------ ----- ---• POND2-PRE 2 SCS Runoff 84.06 2 728 340,197 ---- ----- ...... POND 2 - POST 3 Reservoir 23.74 2 752 269,737 2 25.50 193,657 POND 2 - ROUTED 4 Diversioni 0.484 2 752 120,818 3 ------ ---- TO INF AREA 5 Diversion2 23.26 2 752 148,919 3 ---- --- BYPASS 6 Reservoir 0.000 2 870 0 4 22.28 1,965 INF AREA - ROUTED POND 2.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Friday, Oct26, 2012 14 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Hyd. No. 1 POND2-PRE Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 25.76 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 742 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 140,141 cuft Drainage area = 15.000 ac Curve number = 58 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft TIC method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 30.00 min Total precip. = 7.24 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Q (cfs) 28.00 24.00 16.00 12.00 [1iF] EXIM POND2-PRE Hyd. No. 1 — 10 Year Q (cfs) 28.00 24.00 16.00 12.00 M 4.00 —1- 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time (min) -- Hyd No. 1 15 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Hyd. No. 2 POND2-POST Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff . Peak discharge = 84.06 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 728 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 340,197 cuft Drainage area = 15.000 ac Curve number = 90 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (TO = 10.00 min Total precip. = 7.24 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Q (cfs) 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 000 POND 2-POST Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year Q (cfs) 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 500 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time (min) _-__ = Hyd No. 2 16 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Clvil 3DO2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Hyd. No. 3 POND 2 - ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 23.74 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 752 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 269,737 cult Inflow hyd. No. = 2 - POND 2 - POST Max. Elevation = 26.50 ft Reservoir name = POND 2 Max. Storage = 193,657 cuft Storage Indication method used POND 2 - ROUTED q (cfs) Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3 -- 10 Year 90.00 90.00 80.00 80.00 70.00 70.00 60.00 60.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 4 40.00 3 0.00 30.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 1 10.00 0 600 ---- Hyd No.3 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4Zuu 4buu oquu uuuu Time (min) cuff - Hyd No. 2 ._.'_.J Total storage used = 193,657 Hydrograph Report 17 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk. Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26. 2012 Hyd. No. 4 TO INF AREA Hydrograph type = Diversionl Peak discharge = 0.484 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak Hyd. volume = 752 min = 120,818 cuft .. Time interval Inflow hydrograph = 2 min = 3 - POND 2 - ROUTED 2nd diverted hyd. = 5 Diversion method = Pond -POND 2 Pond structure = Culy/Orf B TO INF AREA Q (Cfs) 4 (Cfs) Hyd. No. 4 -- 10 Year 2 24.00 4.00 2 20.00 0.00 1 16.00 6.00 1 12.00 2.00 8 8.00 .00 4 4.00 .00 0.00 0.00 L 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 Time (min) _-- Hyd No. 4 -- Pond outlet — Hyd No. 3 -- Inflow — Hyd No. 5 -- 3 minus 4 18 Hydrograph Report Hydratlow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 300 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Hyd. No. 5 BYPASS Hydrograph type = Diversion2 Peak discharge = 23.26 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 752 min = 148,919 cuft Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume Inflow hydrograph = 3 - POND 2 - ROUTED 2nd diverted hyd. = 4 Diversion method = Pond -POND 2 Pond structure = Culy/Orf B Q (cfs 24.00 20.00 16.00 12.00 MR 4.00 BYPASS Hyd. No. 5 -- 10 Year Q (cfs) 24.00 WE 16.00 12.00 M 4.00 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 Time (min) Hyd No. 5 -- Qin - Pond outlet - Hyd No. 3 -- Inflow — Hyd No. 4 Hydrograph Report 19 Hydraftow Hydrographs Extension for AutdCADOCivil 3DO2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Friday, Oct 26, 2012 Hyd. No. 6 INF AREA - ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.000 cfs Storm frequency = 10yrs Time to peak = 870 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 0 cult Inflow hyd. No. = 4 - TO INF AREA Max. Elevation = 22.28 ft Reservoir name = POND 2 - INF AREA Max. Storage = 1,965 cult Storage Indication method used. Exfiftration extracted from Outflow INF AREA - ROUTED a (Cfs) 0 (Cfs) Hyd. No. 6 10 Year 0.50 0.50 - 0.45 0.45 0.40 0A0 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 aJ 0.05 0.05 v'A P. 0.00 0 240 480 720 960 1200 1440 1680 1920 2160 2400 0.00 2640 Time (min) Hyd No. 6 — Hyd No. 4 1 Total storage used 1,965 cuft ATTACHMENT Level Spreader and Vegetated Filter Strip Calculations EpCEIVE FEB 15 2013 BY:_------ - - - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' / . — . — . — . — . — . — — / POND #1 / 10—YR 24—HR STORM MAX ELEV = 30.81' / 1 / 1 t70—FT RIP —RAP EMERGENCY SPILLWAY SLOPE = ±10% (AT TOE MANNING'S "n" = 0.104 CALCULATED VELOCITY = 1.43 FT/ / O(INFILTRATION) ) =1.067 CFS II � nlow ecc_�1 O(BYPASS-2) t100—FT CONCRETE_ =30.10 CFS LEVEL SPREADER 1 INCH = 50 FEET ECEIVE FEB 15 200 I j n� I , e i $; - 'K "�. w! a ��•r� r 7 a 3r ., .' 4 chi t �' !� � • @ 4 4 � � h' /� e ['p� a ,',� �_a-/"' � i 3 e t� � � a 74f n u3.: ��s`"� .. �i � �.` � � ��� �r .fit < �•' -t� � �� M�...� a a, i �r r('"i � /�}y iS..� � � s' �Ay x"' +x 'i'g{g� � `• t;r e }. r.1sy�,'4. YKg� a ` -—�}+� },1tj`"Kc e.:: ..'.J1 i 1{ 3• ��v.,ry'' V iti e RX IAA 77 02/1312013 MITI 3 fir(ZI13/213 © »©y ... z -02 /132013 � ! 02/13/2013 1 "T 02/13/2013 ,.��, J.wvi "`-¢ . 02/13/2013 :/�' .af d .t.�dfii a' .d { "'ti"' �... h . •Y y4{{ w� ,�., t '� }J! %ia rr. o �+24 s.�ito v � ,� JJ�3�'.-' n ay"�•T � � + <� w b � x.Y��h• >} r Li✓{ t .- { .. � i3 � i t 3- G a �� i r- <w 3 a k'" { `c. t - £' < �r Ir 6" Lit , a , ' ✓ s Sy Yfr <( 1 -,t "�':' - i •x x "'7 #'' mac- tr"f— 'kt, 9 f � br t u,¢•`5,aJ 4 wT�t .y"�' { y+ � �,I { - `�'' r• +.� 9 -k+• �i �, � +i _v r i re��L + Y r y !� � � I EE $ 1' itH y (t t 1 t � 1 .�� 1`i� - t,{✓wry d'3 r„ Y { 4 c'K tv (t.. t1� A% ,y cd Xat, 5`ti ^M i� l µ-Y*af..'}•'h.-�. ;'e'•-. F'�Ew: i f,', ..t tom`.... r �i;�+�. �.• "t. � _ ku.*� j i a NO 1 ADS fly T .:�` r.. ___ R �..w Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 31D02010 by Autodesk, Inc. VEGETATED FILTER AT POND #1 Rectangular Bottom Width (ft) = 100.00 Total Depth (ft) = 1.00 Invert Elev (ft) = 17.00 Slope (%) = 3.00 N-Value = 0.400 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 39.10 Elev (ft) 19.00 - 18.50 18.00 17.50 17.00 16.50 0 Section Tuesday, Feb 12 2013 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.75 Q (cfs) = 39.10 Area (sqft) = 75.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.52 Wetted Perim (ft) = 101.50 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.17 Top Width (ft) = 100.00 EGL (ft) = 0.75 Depth (ft) 2.00 lei M M C 50 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 T%f2F FEB 15 2013 Reach (ft) Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Aulodesk, Inc. EMERGENCY SPILLWAY AT POND #1 Rectangular Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 105.00 Depth (ft) Total Depth (ft) = 1.00 Q (cfs) Area (sqft) Invert Elev (ft) = 30.50 Velocity (ft/s) Slope (%) = 10.00 Wetted Perim (ft) N-Value = 0.104 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) Top Width (ft) Calculations EGL (ft) Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 30.10 Elev (ft) 32.00 31.50 31.00 30.50 oM Section Tuesday, Feb 12 2013 = 0.20 = 30.10 = 21.00 = 1.43 = 105.40 = 0.14 = 105.00 = 0.23 Reach (ft) Depth (ft) POND #2 10—YR 24—HR STORM MAX ELEV = 26.50' � Q(BYPASS-2) ' =0.00 CFS I Q(INFILTRATION) Q � I i1 Q(BYPASS-1) J I =23.26 CFS / t100—FT CONCRETE LEVEL SPREADER 50 0 50 100 1 INCH = 50 FEET j FEB 15 2013 , POND 2 -EXHIBIT i scnl P.r" = Fm 4r, •Y'�°fti F' !H �tf [� % % �fy' 1 g/ fki i clip � � A / ''Y �r �� � ? h^"�i� �s• xNy�a 'r� � �'�,lgt s I� �•..,� r `yp'PV�T��'l'�Y y r j S ,}� i xa 1 '�Y` 1 ..1 h 1{ 'ice �I Y�. ]j}{{� .a� �1 is �'- ♦ f � 5 d ���" A" ,� S 1 � ! I 4 2 1 TI >•ry 1. 1 v 1 r.. tg,r � ; ` } i; i it � `j`'� r i` v ti q! ('C� �/ jy� :r. G a 1� .i` �. �1� �' {j � yjj{''� ,yyY ,I ✓ y'7+,/y.1 t fk�}—j*{n x �yc *.f act '^� ^�yil� � k �, ,� �-/}'� ..�/J. jq�/j'�#' 5 i`+, � F i NOV 14 �gg �'�• eft i( �.1�,� e t 2 �p 111 1 r � � � � 3 Y �'�G z ar.,- w �'( •9', to `t EE/z Na �w it a 'E ar fr 4+1 �! t, 11z+ R 1 a` t -w Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO2010 by Aulodesk, Inc. VEGETATED FILTER AT POND #2 Rectangular - Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 100.00 Depth (ft) Total Depth (ft) = 1.00 Q (cfs) Area (sqft) Invert Elev (ft) = 20.00 Velocity (ft/s) Slope (%) = 2.00 Wetted Perim (ft) N-Value = 0.400 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) Top Width (ft) Calculations EGL (ft) Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 23.26 Elev (ft) 22.00 21.50 21.00 20.50 20.00 19.50 Section Tuesday, Feb 12 2013 = 0.62 = 23.26 = 62.00 = 0.38 = 101.24 = 0.12 = 100.00 = 0.62 Reach (ft) 'By, _ Depth (ft) An FE5 # I A Appendices NEW YORK DOT DISS1pATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DEFINED CHANNELS (Solace: "Hank and channel Rning procedures", New York Department of Tlansporadon, Division of Design and Construction, 1971.) Note. To use the following Chad you must know: (1) Q full capacity (2) Q10 (3) V full (4) Vto where Q = discharge in cfs and V = Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute now velocity V. at culvert or paved channel Outlet Step 2) For pipe culverts Do is diameter. Do = 1 5 " Fbr pipe arch, arch aad box culverts, and paved channel outlets, De=Aa, wham Ax con"ctionel area of flow At Outlet For multiple culverts, use Do=1.25xDo of single culvert. Stop 3) Fbr apron grades of 10%orsmaper, use recommendations For next higher zone. (Zones I through 6). (SEE STORMDRAIN CALCULATION5) 3.4 FPS 1 5" DIAMETER (Ft.) Figure 8.06.b.1 NOTE: USE ZONE 2 FOR EXTRA PROTECTION 8.06.5 Rev. t7193 FE5 # i A L2=GXDO L2 = G X 1 5/ 1 2 L2 = 7.5' W=3XDo W = 3 X 15/12 W=4' fig.8.06.b.2 VRdd< m 3 dmm Pipe dte. (min.) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIXES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LININGS AND REVg1'MENTS step 1) Use figum LA6,6.3 to demmlisle mudmum alone sin (". for 12 FPa Ior5501bs. Step2) Use Rgare8.06.b.4 to determina. meptableekerangeforstone and min mumS it ismp in fight should be 25-SODIb) end tm maximum Note: In determining channel volocides br stone linings and averment. use the following coefficients of roughaesr Dlemater Manain's of IlI& thidmus _ finches) Ina im Fine 3 0.031 9 12 Light 6 0.035 12 Is Meftm 13 WXD 18 24 30 36 Heavy 23 0.044 panto) (DiuopomT4 ev, IZ93 8.06.6 FE5 #3A Appendices NEW YORK DOT DISS1pATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DINED CHANNELS (Source: "Bank and channel fining procedures", Now Yodc Department of Transportation, Division of Design and Construction, 1971.) Note: To use the following chart you must know: (1) Q full capacity (2) Q10 (3) V Ibli (4) Via where Q = discharge in cis and V = Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute flow velocity Vo at culvert or paved channel outlet. Stop 2) For pipe culverts Do is diameter. D = 1 5" For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel cutlets, ° Da.A% where Au cross-sactional area of flow at outlet. For multiple culverts, use Do=1.25xDo of single culvert. Step 3) For apron grates of 10% or steeper, use recommendations For next higher zone. (Zones I through 6), (5EE 5TORMDRAIN CALCULATION5) 2.4 FPS 1 5" DIAMETER (PI,) Figure 8.06.b.1 NOTE: USE ZONE 2 FOR EXTRA PROTECTION 8.06,5 ROY. 1W9s FE5 #3A L2=GXDo L2 = 6 X 1 5/ 1 2 LZ = 7.5' W=3XDo W = 3 X 15/12 W = 4' Pis.8.D6.b.2 Y ift c 3 times pipe die. (min.) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIXES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LININGS AND REVETMENTS Seep 1) Use figure L00.3 to determinemesdmum atone size (o g. for 12 Pps40"or559lbs. Stap2) Use ftgureL06.b.4todetermineaaeptableslsomvfor alone (for 12 FPS It IS 125.500 Ms. fer74%ofgone. and the maximum OW minimum map inweigk should be 25-SWlbsJ Note: In determining charnel velocides for stone linings and revetment, use the following coelf1cients of toughness: Diameter Maminb No. thtim Fine 3 0.031 9 12. Wt 6 0.035 12 18 Medium 13 0.04D 18 24 Havyr 23 0,044 30 36 (l]nnn4h) (D:ugmn) Rw. 17A9 8.06.6 FES # 1 Appendices NEW YORK DOT DISSIPATOP METHOD FOR USE IN DEFINED CHANNELS (Source: "Bank and channel lining procedures", Now York Department of 7Yamportation, Division of Design and Conswction, 1971.) Noto: 7b use the following chart you must know; (1) Q fullcapacity (2) Qto (3) V full (4) Vio whom Q = dischuge in cis and V = Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute flow velocity Vo at culvert or paved channel outlet. Step 2) For. pipe culverts Do is dismater. Do = 45" For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel Outlets, Do -A., whom A.= crossaectionat area Of flow at cutlet. (SEE 5TORMDRAIN CALCULATIONS) For multiple culverts, use Do=1.25xDo of single culvert. Step 3) For apron grades of 10% orsteeper, use recommendations For next higher zone. gores 1 through 6). E 9.1 PP5 48" DIAMETER (Ft.) Figure 8.06.b.1 �. 12193 8.06.5 FES # 1 --. AFRM MAI Rb1L L2 = 6 X Do 2 STONERLUNG LUG OL.0 x Do 6 x Oa L2 = 6 X 48/ 1 2 3 STONE FILLING MEDIUM CL• 1 4 x De e x Do LZ = 24' 4 STONE FILLING (HEAVY) CL.1 4 x a a StGNE FILLING (HEAVY) CL 2 6 x Do 10 x Da Pig. 8A6b.2 W=3XDo W=3X48/12 W = 12' VAddi - 3 times pipe dil (min.) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIRES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LIVINGS AND REVETMENTS Sop l) Use figum 8.06.b.3 to dat*rmfnemsximum sane dra (e$. for 12 Fpsw2O" or330lbs. Stap2) Use fig=8.00.4todetemdceacceptab(oaim rocgafor III= (to 12 FPS and minimum imap inwaight should be25-SODlbsj� maximum Now; In detwining channel velocido for stone linings and mvetment, us* the foilowiag coefficients of sougbnew. Diameter Mannin'e Min. dddmras _ (inches I ^n" of 0ntag (inclo) Fin* 3 O031 9 12 Light 6 0.035 12 18 Medium 13 0.040 18 24 }ivy 23 0.09 30 36 (Ch mold (Dimpxuo) Ray. 11)93 8.06.6 FE5 #42 Appendices NEW YORK DOT DISSIPATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DEFINED CHANNELS (Source: Bank and channel lining procedures", New York Department of TYanspomition, Division of Design and Consoucdon, 1971.) Note: To use the following chart YOU must know: (1) Q full capacity (2) Qlo (3) V full (4) Vlo where Q = discharge in cfa and V = Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute now velocity vo at culvert or paved channel outlet, Stop 2) For pipe culverts Do is diameter. Do = 54" For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel outlets, DO=Ae, whom A.= cross -sectional area of flow at outlet. (SEE 5TORMDRAIN CALCULATIONS For multiple culverts, usaDa=1.25xDo of single culvert. Step 3) Fbr apron grades of 10% orswcller, use recommendations For next higher zone. '(&ties 1 thmugh 6). 1 8.112 FP5 Figure 8.06.b.1 54" DIKAETER (Ft.) 8,06.5 Rev. IYH3 FES #42 L2=GXDo LZ=GX54/12 Lz = 27' W=3XDo W=3X54/12 W = 13.5' APICti MAI NK Fig, 8.00.2 OL.1 I N a tl x �a CL,1 a CL,2 6xut 10x04 CL8 axDo 10xDo Width a 3 dm® pipe dia (min.) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIXES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LININGS AND REVE710"S Step 1) Use f4pn 8.00.3 to determine maximum One sire (o g. for 12 Pps�O" or550lbs. Step 2) Use figure &00.4 to deterodnesegnAblo sire range for stone a(for 12 FPS itis 125-SOD lbs. fur7S% of stone, andnd minimuma nle:dmum tinge inwwe weight should be 25 =Ibsj Nose: Indotemtiningeha 001velocideeforetonoliningsandrevetment,use the following coefficients of roughaem Diameter Manlfni bfm. thirdmess (inches) "a^ of Btltng Inch Fin 3 0.031 9 12 Lit 6 0.035 12 18 Medium 13 0.040 18 24 Heavy 23 0.044 30 36 (tha"01t) posq ame) nee 1203 8.06.6 FE5 #62 Appendices NEW YORK DOT DISSIPATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DEFINED CHANNELS (Source: "Bank and channel going procedures", New York Department of 'transportation, Division of Design and Construction, 1971.) Note: To use the following chart you must know: (1) Q fullcapacity (2) Qto (3) V full (4) Via where Q = discharge in cfs and V = Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute flow velocity Veat culvert or paved channel outlet. Stop 2) For pipe culverts Do is diameter. Do = 48" For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel outlets, Do=Ao, where A.= cross-mional area of flow at cutlet. (SEE 5TORMDRAIN CALCULATIONS) For multiple culverts, use Du=1.25xDo of single culvert. Step 3) For apron grades of 10% or steeper, use recommendations For next higher zone. '(Zones 1 through 6). 1 7. 4 FPS Figure 8.06.b.1 48" DIAMETER (Ft.) 8.06.5 Rev. 1Z91 L2=GXDo LZ = G X 45/ 1 2 L2 = 24' Fig. 8.06.b.2 W=3X00 W=3X45112 W = 12' Wlddi = 3 dmm pipe die 0*-) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIXES FOR DUMPED STONE CMMEL LININGS AND REVETME"S Stop 1) Use figure 8.06.b.3 to determinemeximum stone sim (e$. for 12 Fps=V or550lbs. Step 2) Use 0gure 8.06b.4 to datetmineaeeeptabla sire range(or stone (for 12 FPS Itis I25-500lbs. fbr75%ofstone- end the ma hnum and minimum mngo In weight slould be 25-500 W Note: In detomlining channel velocities for stone linings and ravetman4 use the following coefficients of roughmeac Diameter Mansint Nfm. llim mess hes) Van of OtdaB (inches) Fine 3 0.031 9 12. Light 6 0.035 12 t8 bmuna 13 0.040 18 24 Navy 23 0.044 30 36 i( ROM11) i"*Wfl) 8.06.E Ray. 1203 FES #52 Appendices NEW YORK DOT DISSIPATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DEFINED CHANNELS (Source: Bank and channel lining procedures". New York Department of Trartsportadon, Division of Design and Construction,1971) Note: To use the following Chan you must know: (1) Q full capacily (2) Qlo (3) V full (4) Via where Q = discharge in cis and V = Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute now velocity V.atculvert or paved channel outlet. Stop 2) For pipeculvens Do is diameter. Do = 3 G" For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel outlets, %wAa, where Am crowsectional area Of flow at autleL (SEE 5TORMDPAIN CALCULATIONS) For multiple culverts, use Do=1.250c of single culvert. Step 3) For apron grades of 10% or steeper, use recommendations For next higher zone. (Zones 1 through 6). Figure 8.06.15.1 3G" DIAMETER (Ft.) Rev. ts,9s 8.06.5 FES #82 LZ = G X Do LZ=GX3G112 LZ = 18' W=3XDo W=3X36/12 W=9' 8.06.6 —► pie, 11.061.2 Wilt o 3 times pipe die. (ndrt.) DFSTTBRMINATION OF STONE SIXES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LININGS AND REVETMENTS Stop 1) Use figure 8.00.3 to detenminermximum bane Sires (eg. for 12 Pps4l)" or550lbs. Step2) UsefigereSA6.b.4todetermineaweptablealrerengefor atone amid min muFPS m mago in ts weight sho d be 25 SW lhs3 maximum Note: In determining channel velocities ibr atone linings NA revelment, use the fallowing coefficients of roughness: Diameter Mandni minof gnbm. Ihlsimess (inches) Fine 3 (1031 9 12 , Usbt 6 0.035 12 18 Medium 13 0.040 18 24 Heavy 23 0.044 30 36 Paftw$) (INUIP 1i tV. roes FE5 MG Appendices NEW YORK DOT DISSIPATOlt METHOD FOR USE IN DEFNW CHANNELS (Some: 'Bank and channel fining procedures", New York Department of tlansponation, Division of Design and Construction, 1971.) Note: To use the following chart you must know: (1) Q fullcapacity (2) Qio (3) V full (4) Vio whose Q = discharge in cfs and V = Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Slap 1) Compute flow velocity V. at culvert or paved channel outlet. Stop 2) For pipe culverts Do is (1iameter. D — 3 G" For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel outlets, ° Do=A,, where Ap crus"ctional ama of flow at outlet. For multiple culverts, use %=1.250c of single culvert. Step 3) For apron grades of 10% or steeper, use mcommendalions For next higher zone. '(Zones 1 through 6). 6.30 (SEE STORMDRAM FPS CALCULATIONS) 3G" DIAMETER (Ft.) Figure 8.06b,1 8.065 ILM 1203 FE5 #5G - L2=GXDo L2 = 6 X 3G/ 1 2 G = 18' W=3XDo W=3X36/12 W=9' Fig. 8.06.b.2 Widdl m 3 dmm pipe dia 0*.) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIRES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LININGS AND REVERRE"S Step 1) Use Rguse 8.06.6.3 to detemdnemadmum stone sae (e g. for 12 I?ps=20" or53016s. Step 2) Uae figure 8 06 b 4 a detmmineaeaeptabta sasrange for stone (for 12 PPS it is 123,3001bs. (W7% of stone. and the mexlmum mid minfsmtm map in weight should be25S00lbs) Now. in determining charnel volooldes for stone liningsand rovetmen4 use the following aoefficfentsof soughsem Dlamear Mmnin'e Min. thicimess _ pnches) on, of lnhm inches Fine 3 0.031 9 12 Light 6 0.035 12 l8 Medfam 13 0.040 18 24 Hea,6, 23 0.044 30 36 (Quamll) (Dluq=O Rev. 1293 8.06.E FE5 #85 Appendices (5EE 5TORMDRAIN CALCULATIONS) NEW YORK DOT DISSIPATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DEFINED CHANNELS (Sc ume: "Hank and chennel lining procedures", New York Department of Ttansportation, Division of Design and Construction, 1971.) Note: To use the following chart you must know: (1) Q fullcapacity (2) QIO (3) V full (4) Vlo when Q = discharge in cis and V = Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute flow velocity V. at culvert or paved channel outlet. Step 2) For pipe culverts Do is diameter. For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel outlets. Do=Aa, wham Am crass -sectional area of flow at Outhet. For multiple culverts, use Do=1.25xDo of single culvert. Stop 3) For apron grades of 10% or steeper, use mcommendadOns For next higher zone. (Zones 1 through 6). 0' Figure 8.06.b,I 51 10' is, Z0' ca DIAMETER (Ft.) U5E Z-oNE ADDinoOL- Z PoQ ppTf'C�Tior 8,06.5 Itcv. 12193 FE5 #56 1- LZ=GXDo L2 = 6 X 18/ 1 2 L2=9' W=3XDo W = 3 X 18/12 W = 4.5' 8.06.6 Fig. 8.0"2 Writ - 3 dmes pipe Ilia (min.) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIRES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LININGS AND REVETMENTS Step U Use figure 8.05.b.3 to deumninamuimum gone size (e g. for 12 FpsoW' or55016e. Step2) Usefigure8.06.b.4todetemdaeacceptableshomagefor Stale and m nbnumimaximum Mop In s ou)d be 25SOO1bL) Note: in determining channel vel0dd0s for atone linings and reveunen4 use the following coefficients of roughsesc Dfsmater Menninl Min. thickness _ (inches) "m' of 8t1ng Was) Fine 3 0.031 9 12 Ught 6 0.035 12 18 Medium 13 OA(0 18 24 Heavy 0.09 30 36 (chaewtt) (98"p tan) Rev. I2M FE5 #89 Appendices NEW YORK DOT DISSIPATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DEFINED CHANNELS (Source: "Bank and channel fining procedures", New York Department of Thnsportation, Division of Design and Construction, I971.) Note: To use the following chart YOU must know: (1) Q full capacity (2) Qlo (3) V full (4) Via whore Q = discharge in cfs and V= Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute flow velocity Vc at culvert or paved channel outlet. Step 2) For pipe culverts Do is dismeter. Do = 18" For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel outlets, Do=Ac, where A.= crossseotional area of flow at outlet. For multiple culverts, use %=1.25xDo of single culvert. Stop3) For apron grades of10%orsteeper,Use recommendations For next higher Eon& (Zones I through 6). (SEE 5TORMDRAIN CALCULATIONS) 2.75 FP5 1811 DIAMETER (FI.) Figure 8.06.15.1 _jdR: USE �►J 2 Fon- APD ITl o N KL PRoTEC-moo fJ 8.06.5 Rev, IM3 FE5 #89 L2=GXDo L2=6X 18/12 LZ_9' W=3XDo W=3X 18/12 W = 4.5' 8.06.6 Fig. 8.e0.2 Wilt o 3 dm® Pip6 die. (Rh-) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIXES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LJNINOS AND REYETMEM Step 1) Use figure 6.06.b.3 to determinemudmum some sin (e4. for 12 Fps4G' or550lbs. Stop 2) Use figure 8A6.b.4 to determineawapteble do range for One (for 12 FPS It is 12S.S o lbs. ibr7s% of stone, and the maximum and minimum tango in weight should be 25 500IbsJ Note: in determining channel velocities for One linings and revetment, ass the following coefficients of roughness: Diameter MamlM Min. thichDesa (inches) "n' of gtshet (inches) Fine 3 0.031 9 12 Light 6 0.035 12 1S Medium 13 0.040 is 24 y 23 0.044 30 36 (Qmwatt) (Dhnpuan) Rev. IZ93 FES #90 Appendices NEW YORK DOT DLSSIPATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DEFPW CHANNELS (Source: 'Monk and channel fining procedures", New York Deparanent Of Transportation, Division of Design and Construction, 1971.) Note: To use the following chart you must know: (1) Q full capacity (2) Q10 (3) V titil (a) Via where Q = discharge in cfa and V = Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute now velocity V.atculvert or paved channel outlet. Step 2) For pipe culverts Do is diameter. D 15" For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel outlets, ° Do=Aa whore A.= crossaectional area of flow at outlet. For multiple culverts, use M=1.25xDo of single culvert. Step 3) Far apron grades of 10% or steeper, use recommendations For nerd higher zone. (Zonos l through 6). (SEE STORMDRAIN CALCULATIONS) 3.48 FPS 18" DIAMETER (Ft.) Figure 8.06.b.1 NOS: U6, ZDNV, 2 Fod tkDD I TI o N P!. P 2af� Cn 8.06.5 Rev. 12,93 FES #90 LZ=6XDo LZ=GX 18/12 Lz=9' W=3XDo W=3X 18112 W = 4.5' 8.06.6 Fig. 8.00.2 VM& m 3 tones plpe dia (jib.) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIRES FOR DUMPED STONE CMANNEL L NINGS AND REVETMENTS sup i) Use flgum 8.06.b.3 to detetminemeaimum sWne size (e g. for 12 FpvW' or5501bs. Stepp Use %um L06,6.4 to determiaeaceeptabh3 sirsrange far storm ()or 12 FPS It is 125-500lbs. fer754h ofstane, and the maximum and minimum map in weight should be 25 5001hs ) Note: in determining channel vehtcides for stone linlapsand revelment, use the following coefficients of roughness: Diameter Mamin's Min. thiclmess (inches) "n° of line --(inch Fine 3 U.WI 9 12 ught 6 0.035 12 18 Medium 23 0.044 30 6 lfeavy (ahannolr) (Dlmpmr0 Rev. 1293 PE5 #91 Appendices NEW YORK DOT DLSSIPATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DEFINED CHANNELS (Source: 'Bank and channel 0ning procedures". Now York Department of llattspottadon, Division of Design and Construction, 1971.) Note: To use the following chart ycu must know: (1) Q tUllcapacity (2) Qlo (3) V fall (4) Via whom Q = discharge in cis and V= Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute now velocity V. at culvert or paved channel outlet. Stop2) For pipe culverts Do is diameter. DO = 1 g" For pipe arch, arch and box culverts. and paved channel Outlets. Do=Ao, whom A.= crosssectionel area of flow at eu1181. For multiple culverts, use Do=1.25xDo of single culvert. Step 3) For apron grades of 10% or steeper, use recommendations For next higher zone. '(Zones I through 6). '(SEE 5TORMDPAIN CALCULATION5) 3.45 FPS I g" DIAMETER (Ft.) Figure 8.06.b.1 NOTE (1Sg 20Ne 2 F°►2 I AD-n0"4W1. eaoTecnoN Rcv. 12/93 8.06.5 PE5 #9 1 L=GXDo Lz=GX 18112 L = 9' W=3XDo W=3X 18/12 W = 4.5' 8.06.E --v Fig. 8116.b.2 VVldd1= 3 dmea pipe &a (min.) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIXES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LININGS AND REVETMENTS Stop 1) Use 0gum 8.06,b,3 to determine MAXIMUM 810tse Site (e g. for 12 FpSa2O" or35O lbe. Step 2) Use figure 8.06.b.4 to detertnineaccaptable Size maga for Saone (for t2 FPS itis 125-5001bs. fos75%ofOwe, and the maximum and minimum mngo inwelght slould be 25 3001bsJ Now In determining channel veiccide8 for atone linings end reveonen4 use the folowingcoeficients Of roughness: Diameaor Maminl MIR. Ckm Inc "a° of going (iachm Pine 3 0.031 9 12 Light 6 0.035 12 IB Medium 13 0.040 i8 24 Heavy 23 0.044 30 36 (chowalr) (VIU*Uoe) Rev. 12193 FE5 #92 Appendices Do = 18" (SEE 5TORMDRAIN CALCULATIONS) Rev. 1293 NEW YORK DOT DOSD?ATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DEFINED CHANNELS (Source: "Bank and channel lining procedures", New Yodc Department of 7iatt9portadon, Division of Design and Construction, 197") Note: To use the following chest you must know: (1) Q full capacity (2) Qio (3) V full (4) Via where Q=discharge in cfs and V=Velocityin FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Stop 1) Compute flow velocity V. at culvert or paved channel outlet. Step 2) Fbr pipe culverts 0u is diameter. For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel outlets, Dodo, where A.- crawactional area of flow at outlet. For multiple culverts, use Do=1.25xDo of single culvert. Step 3) For apron grades of 10% or steeper, use recommendations For next higher zone. (Zones I through 6). 2.12 FF5 1811 DWAETER (Ft.) Figure 8.06.b.1 �: USE �ot�1E 2 Fc(Z /tiDDr�o�f9� P2arTet�olJ 8.06.5 FES #92 - LZ=GXDo LZ = 6 X 15112 L = 9' W=3XDo W=3X 16/12 W = 4.5' 8.06.6 Fig. 8.061.2 wW& - 3 dines pipe dia 0*.) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIXES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LININGS AND REVETMWTS Step I) Use figure 8.003 to detemdne modmam atone sae (e g. for 12 FpscW' orSS0lbs. Step2) Use figam9,06.6.4todetarmilo nzaptablasaermlgefor,tome (fbr 12 PPS it is lW001bs. fm75%ofstone,and the maximum and minimum tangs inweight shouldbe254001W Note: In determining channel velocItIm WON linin8send wveo nem, use the following coefficients of roughness: Dismoter Manoini Min.Oiclaess Onches) "n° of d tnB (inchaL Pine 3 0.031 9 12. Light 6 0.035 12 18 Medium 13 Ifeavy 21 0.09 30 36 (MRnals) (apwma) gev. IZ93 FES #93 Appendices (SEE STORMDRAIN CALCULATIONS) Rev, 12M NEW YORK DOT DISSIPATOR METHOD FOR USE IN DEFINED CHANNELS (Source. "Bank and channel lining procedures", New York Department of Tranapomadon, Divislon of Design and Construction, 1971.) Not:: To use the following chart you must know: (1) Q full capacity (2) Qto (3) V full (4) Vto where Q = discharge in cis and V=Velocity in FPS. ESTIMATION OF STONE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS FOR CULVERT APRONS Step 1) Compute now velocity V. at culvert or paved channel outlet, Step 2) For pipe culverts Dols dismater. For pipe arch, arch and box culverts, and paved channel outlets, Dodo, where A.= amss mcliond area of flow at outlet. For multiple culverts, use D,= 1.25xDo of single culvert. Stop 3) For apron gmdas of 1096 orsteeper, use recommendations For next higher zone. '(lams 1 through 6). 2.12 FPS 01 s to, is w �s 8" DIAMETER (Ft.) Figure 8.06.b.1 Nm:USE�2�'� AmIrrioNRL- �1?o7EC?)o 8.06.5 FES #93 Lz=GXDo L2=6X 18112 LZ_9' W=3XDo W=3X 18112 W = 4.5' 8.06.6 Fig. 8Aft2 TAM = 3 does pipe die. (MID.) DETERMINATION OF STONE SIXES FOR DUMPED STONE CHANNEL LININGS AND REVETME"S Step 1) Use figure 8.06.6.3 to determine modmum stone size (eg. for 12 Fps4V' or350lbs. Step 2) Use figure 8.00.4 to determine acceptable ales nags for Slane ft 12 FPS it Is 125•500lbs. for 75%of stone. and tbs maximum and minimum range in weight should be 25 SW IbsJ Now. In determining channel velocities for stone linings and revetment" use the following coefficients of roughness: Diameter M0110 bon. th(clatess (inches) "a" of fining (Inches) Firm 3 0.031 9 12 Light 61 0.035 12 18 Medium 13 0.040 18 24 Heavy 23 0.0# 30 36 (018Mete) (DtY"tz) Rev. 1203 Hydraflow Table of Contel7tg558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CALCS\STORMWATER\PONDS\DIG PIT.gpw Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Aulodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 Watershed Model Schematic................................................................................ 1 Hydrograph Return Period Recap........................................................................ 2 1 -Year SummaryReport ................................................................................................................... 3 HydrographReports............................................................................................................. 4 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DIG PIT AREA................................................................ 4 Hydrograph No. 2, Reservoir, DIG PIT ROUTED............................................................... 5 PondReport - DIG PIT................................................................................................... 6 10 -Year SummaryReport ................................................................................................................... 8 HydrographReports............................................................................................................. 9 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DIG PIT AREA................................................................ 9 Hydrograph No. 2, Reservoir, DIG PIT ROUTED............................................................. 10 SummaryReport .................................................................................................................. 11 HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 12 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DIG PIT AREA.............................................................. 12 Hydrograph No. 2, Reservoir, DIG PIT ROUTED............................................................. 13 OFReport ............................................................................................................. 14 Watershed Model Schemat icdraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 2 - DIG PIT ROUTED Leaend 1 SCS Runoff DIG PIT AREA 2 Reservoir DIG PIT ROUTED 1 - DIG PIT AREA Project: P:\558\558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CALCS\STORMWATER\PONDS\Dlq PThgWay, Jan 17, 2013 Hydrograph Return Period HydreaftoAprographs Extensionfor AutoCAD®Civil 3DO2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Inflow hyd(s) Peak Outflow (cfs) Hydrograph Description 1-yr 2-yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 1 2 SCS Runoff Reservoir ------ 1 6.656 0.000 ------- ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- 23.92 0.000 ------- ------- ------- ------- 53.31 0.000 DIG PIT AREA DIG PIT ROUTED Proj. file: P:\558\558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CALCS\STORMWATER\P ffD&0Cy,PJNr9lbW 2013 3 Hydrograph Summary Re P9fdtflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D82010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to Peak (min) Hyd. volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Total strge used (cuft) Hydrograph Description 1 SCS Runoff 6.656 2 724 21,220 ------ ------ ------ DIG PIT AREA 2 Reservoir 0.000 2 788 0 1 24.66 13,661 DIG PIT ROUTED P:\558\558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CA T,%CTIC1fYMb'dATR%W?0NDS\DI Plfifiq#ay, Jan 17, 2013 4 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 Hyd. No. 1 DIG PIT AREA Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 6.656 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 21,220 cuft Drainage area = 5.500 ac Curve number = 70 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 Q (cfs) 7.00 AM 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 MR DIG PIT AREA Hyd. No. 1 -- 1 Year Q (Cfs) 7.00 M 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 000 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Hyd No. 1 Time (min) 5 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 Hyd. No. 2 DIG PIT ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.000 cfs Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 788 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 0 cult Inflow hyd. No. = 1 -DIG PIT AREA Max. Elevation = 24.66 ft Reservoir name = DIG PIT Max. Storage = 13,661 cuft Storage Indication method used. Exfiltration extracted from Outflow. DIG PIT ROUTED Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year Q (Cfs) 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 °; lM 0.00 0.00 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 Time (min) — Hyd No. 2 —Hyd No. 1 Total storage used = 13,661 cult Pond Report s Hydrallow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D®2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 Pond No. 1 - DIG PIT Pond Data Contours -User-defined contour areas. Average end area method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 24.00 N Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) 0.00 24.00 1.00 25.00 2.00 26.00 3.00 27.00 4.00 28.00 5.00 29.00 6.00 30.00 7.00 31.00 8.00 32.00 Contour area (sl 12,147 29,122 53,790 85,630 114,842 147,205 185,503 207,030 219,807 Incr. Storage (cuft) 0 20,635 41,456 69,710 100,236 131,024 166,354 196,267 213,419 Total storage (curt) 0 20,635 62,091 131,801 232,037 363,060 529,414 725,681 939,099 Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] IBl [C] [D] Rise (in) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 10 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.330.00 3.33 3.33 3.33 Invert El. (ft) = 27.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weill = --- --- --- --- Length (ft) = 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi -Stage = No No No No Slope (%) = 5.00 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) = 0.520.000 (by Contour) . Multi -Stage = n/a No No No TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00 Nate, GulveN/Onflce outflows are analyzed under inlet(ic) and outlet(oc) control, Weir risers checked for orifice conditions(ic) and submergence(s). Stage / Storage / Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C PrtRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total ft cuft ft cfs cfs cis cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cis 0.00 0 24.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.000 --- 0.000 0.10 2,063 24.10 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.035 --- 0,035 0.20 4,127 24.20 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.070 --- 0.070 0.30 6,190 24.30 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.105 --- 0.105 0.40 8,254 24.40 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.140 --- 0.140 0.50 10,317 24.50 0.00 -- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.175 --- 0.175 0.60 12,381 24.60 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.210 --- 0.210 0.70 14,444 24.70 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.245 --- 0.245 0.80 16,508 24.80 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.280 --- 0.280 0.90 18,571 24.90 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.315 --- 0.315 1.00 20,635 25.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.351 --- 0.351 1.10 24,780 25.10 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.380 --- 0.380 110 28,926 25.20 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.410 --- 0.410 1.30 33,071 25.30 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.440 --- 0.440 1.40 37,217 25.40 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.469 --- 0.469 1.50 41,363 25.50 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.499 --- 0.499 1.60 45,508 25.60 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.529 --- 0.529 1.70 49,654 25.70 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.558 --- 0.558 1.80 53,799 25.80 -0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.588 --- 0.588 1.90 57,945 25.90 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0,618 --- 0.618 2.00 62,091 26.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.647 --- 0,647 2.10 69,062 26.10 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.686 --- 0.686 2.20 76,033 26.20 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.724 ;-- 0.724 2.30 83,004 26.30 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.762 --- 0.762 2.40 89,975 26.40 0.00 --- --- --- --- =-- --- --- 0.801 --- 0.801 2,50 96,946 26.50 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.839 --- 0.839 2.60 103,917 26.60 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.877 --- 0.877 2.70 110,888 26.70 0.00 -- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.916 --- 0.916 2.80 117,859 26.80 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.954 --- 0.954 2.90 124,830 26.90 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.992 --- 0.992 3.00 131,801 27.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- ------ --- 1.031 --- 1.031 3.10 141,824 27.10 0.06 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.066 --- 1.130 Continues on next page... 7 DIG PIT Stage I Storage I Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation Clv A' Clv B Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C MID Exfil User Total It cult It cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 3.20 151,848 27.20 0.25 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.101 --- 1.351 3.30 161,871 27.30 0.55 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.136 --- 1.689 3.40 171,895 27.40 0.97 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.171 --- 2,137 3.50 181,919 27.50 1.48 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,207 --- 2.687 3.60 191,942 27.60 2.10 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.242 --- 3.339 3.70 201,966 27.70 2.80 is --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,277 --- 4.076 3.80 211,989 27.80 3.58 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.312 --- 4,887 3.90 222,013 27.90 4.44 is --- --- --- --- - --- --- 1.347 --- 5.784 4.00 232,037 28.00 5.36 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.382 --- 6.741 4.10 245,139 28.10 6.32 is --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.421 --- 7.746 4.20 258,241 28.20 7.35 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.460 --- 8.810 4.30 271,344 28.30 8.39 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,499 --- 9.891 4.40 284,446 28.40 9.46 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.538 --- 11.00 4.50 297,548 28.50 10.55 is --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,577 --- 12.12 4.60 310,651 28.60 11.61 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.616 --- 13.22 4.70 323,753 28.70 12.64 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.655 --- 14.29 4.80 336,855 28.80 13.61 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.694 --- 15.30 4.90 349,958 28.90 14.47 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.733 --- 16.20 5.00 363,060 29.00 15.12 is --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.772 --- 16.90 5.10 379,695 29.10 15.86 is --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.818 --- 17.68 5.20 396,331 29.20 16.57 is --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.864 --- 18.43 5.30 412,966 29.30 17.24 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.910 --- 19.16 5.40 429,602 29.40 17.90 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.956 --- 19.85 5.50 446,237 29.50 18.52 is --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.002 --- 20.53 5.60 462,872 29.60 19.13 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.048 --- 21.18 5.70 479,508 29.70 19.72 is --- -- --- --- --- --- 2.095 --- 21.81 5.80 496,143 29.80 20.29 is --- - --- --- --- --- --- 2.141 --- 22.43 5.90 512,779 29.90 20.85 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.187 --- 23.03 6.00 529,414 30.00 21.39 is -- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2,233 --- 23.62 6.10 549,041 30.10 21.92 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.259 --- 24.18 6.20 568,667 30.20 22.43 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.285 --- 24.72 6.30 588,294 30.30 22.94 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.311 --- 25.25 6.40 607,921 30.40 23.43 is -- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.337 --- 25.77 6.50 627,547 30.50 23.91 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.362 --- 26.28 6.60 647,174 30.60 24.39 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.388 --- 26.78 6.70 666,800 30.70 24.85 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.414 --- 27.27 6.80 686,427 30.80 25.31 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.440 --- 27.75 6.90 706,054 30.90 25.76 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.466 --- 28.22 7.00 725,681 31.00 26.20 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.492 --- 28.69 7.10 747,022 31A0 26.63 is --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.507 --- 29.14 7.20 768,364 3110 27.06 is --- --- --- --- 2,523 --- 29.58 7.30 789,706 31.30 27.48 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.538 --- 30.01 7.40 811,048 31.40 27.89 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.554 --- 30.44 7.50 832,390 31.50 28.30 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.569 --- 30.86 7.60 853,732 31.60 28.70 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.584 --- 31.28 7.70 875,074 31.70 29.09 is --- --- --- --- -- --- --- 2.600 --- 31.69 7.80 896,416 31.80 29.48 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.615 --- 32.10 7.90 917,757 31.90 29.87 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.630 --- 32.50 8.00 939,099 32.00 30.25 is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.646 --- 32.90 ...End 0 Hydrograph Summary Re pl9yldaflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D02010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to Peak (min) Hyd. volume (cuft) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Total strge used (cuft) Hydrograph Description 1 SCS Runoff 23.92 2 724 71,477 ------ ------ ------ DIG PIT AREA 2 Reservoir 0.000 2 756 0 1 25.74 51,255 DIG PIT ROUTED P:\558\558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CA T&CTrCRMb)dATfffQIR@NDS\DI FihLrg ay, Jan 17, 2013 9 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 31D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 Hyd. No. 1 DIG PIT AREA Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 23.92 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 71,477 cuft Drainage area = 5.500 ac Curve number = 70 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min Total precip. = 7.24 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Q (Cfs) 24.00 16.00 12.00 M 4.00 DIG PIT AREA Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year Q (cfs) 24.00 20.00 16.00 12.00 We MM 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Hyd No. 1 Time (min) 10 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 Hyd. No. 2 DIG PIT ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.000 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 756 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 0 cult Inflow hyd. No. = 1 - DIG PIT AREA Max. Elevation = 25.74 ft Reservoir name = DIG PIT Max. Storage = 51,255 cuft Storage Indication method used. Exfiltration extracted from Outflow. DIG PIT ROUTED Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year Q (cfs) 24.00 24.00 20.00 20.00 16.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 8.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 000 000 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 Time (min) — Hyd No. 2 —Hyd No. 1 V Total storage used = 51,255 cult 11 Hydrograph Summary Re p9ydaflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Hyd. No. Hydrograph type (origin) Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to Peak (min) Hyd. volume (cult) Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Total strge used (cuft) Hydrograph Description 1 SCS Runoff 53.31 2 724 161,720 ------ ------ ------ DIG PIT AREA 2 Reservoir 0.000 2 734 0 1 26.88 123,533 DIG PIT ROUTED PA558\558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\CA T6PWTrCffWM. TERWONDS\DI ihTiq#sy, Jan 17, 2013 12 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 Hyd. No. 1 DIG PIT AREA Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 53.31 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 161,720 cuft Drainage area = 5.500 ac Curve number = 70 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min Total precip. = 12.64 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DIG PIT AREA Q (cfs) Q (Cfs) Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Year 60.00 60.00 50.00 50.00 40.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40.00 30.00 30.00 20.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 Hyd No. 1 Time (min) 13 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 Hyd. No. 2 DIG PIT ROUTED Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.000 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 734 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 0 cult Inflow hyd. No. = 1 - DIG PIT AREA Max. Elevation = 26.88 ft Reservoir name = DIG PIT Max. Storage = 123,533 cuft Storage Indication method used. EAltration extracted from Outflow. Q (cfs) 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 DIG PIT ROUTED Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Year Q (cfs) 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 W48101f, 0.00 0.00 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 Time (min) — Hyd No. 2 —Hyd No. 1 ®Total storage used = 123,533 tuft irl Hydraflow Rainfall Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2010 by Autodesk, Inc. v9.25 Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 Return Period Intensity -Duration -Frequency Equation Coefficients (FHA) (Yrs) B D E (NIA) 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -------- 2 89.6877 12.6000 0.8707 -------- 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -------- 5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -------- 10 NAM 12.6006 0.8087 -------- 25 86.1743 11.1000 0.7415 -------- 50 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 -------- 100 74.7444 9.3000 0.6599 -------- File name: ILM PER 8.03.9.IDF Intensity = B / (Tc + D)^E Return Period Intensity Values (in/hr) (Yrs) 5 min 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 s0 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 7.38 5.94 - 4.99 4.32 3.81 3.42 3.10 2.85 2.63 2.45 2.29 2.15 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 9.69 7.91 6.73 5.88 5.24 4.74 4.33 4.00 3.71 3.47 3.26 3.08 25 10.98 8.98 7.67 6.74 6.03 5.48 5.03 4.66 4.35 4.08 3.85 3.65 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 12.92 10.60 9.11 8.05 7.25 6.63 6.13 5.71 5.36 5.05 4.79 4.56 Tc = time in minutes. Values may exceed 60. Precip, file name: NHC PCP REV 2-23-09.Pcp Storm Rainfall Precipitation Table (in) Distribution 1-yr 2-yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr SCS 24-hour 3.70 4.66 0.00 0.00 7.24 9.10 0.00 12.64 SCS 5-Hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Huff -1st 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 Huff-2nd 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Huff-3rd 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Huff-4th 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Huff-Indy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Custom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CAPE FEAR Engineering, Inc. 151 Poole Road, Suite 100 BeNdle, NC 28451 TEL (910) 383-1044 FAX (910)383-1045 www. capefearengineering.corn To NCDENR Water Quality Section - Stormwater 127 Cardinal Dr. Ext Wilmington, NC 28405 Attn: Christine Nelson ❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files ❑ Sent via Mail ❑ Sent via Courier Transmittal Date: • February 28, 2013 File: 558-157 "36" Subject: P-1253 Combat Engineering Battalion Maintenance/Ops Complex Express Stormwater Submittal Add -Info Request ❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval Quantity Drawing No. Description 1 Original Add -Info Response Letter 1 Original REVISED Pond #1 Supplement 1 Original REVISED Pond #2 Supplement 1 Copy REVISED Pond #2 Calculations 1 Copy REVISED Stormwater Narrative 1 Copy Routing Calculations for Pond #1 Pages 7, 8, and 13 1 Copy REVISED LS-VFS #1 and LS-VFS #2 Exhibits 2 Copy REVISED Stormwater Permit Exhibits 2 Copy REVISED Existing Impervious Area Exhibit 2 Copy REVISED P-1253 Construction Plans (selected sheets only) REMARKS Please find the enclosed documents related to stormwater permitting for the above referenced project Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Thanks. CC: F— EC' �9 E Cape Fear �gineenng, Inc. File 558-157 "36" FEB 2 8 2013 Signed. Jennif Garcia-f elfin, El 13y: Received By: P:\558\558-157 P1253 ENGINEERING\ADMIMSTORMWATER\MAIN SITES 013-02.28 Trans_NCDENRP253.doc c� February 28, 2013 Christine Nelson NCDENR Water Quality Section - Stormwater 127 Cardinal Dr. Ext. Wilmington, NC 28405 RE: Request for Additional Information Stormwater Project No. SW8 130112 P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex Onslow County Dear Christine, Please find the following responses to your Request for Additional Information dated February 21, 2013 for the above referenced project. 1. Please Provide the actual sgrrure firot amount of predevelopment ingrervious area associated within each drainage area. In order to claim pre-devehrpmenI impervious areas It hen tleterrninin, the difference in the pre/post 1-Fear 24-hour storm evert the actual amount of predevelopnacm impervious area must be provided, not (lit approximate percent c f impervious area. The Existing Impervious Exhibit has been modified to show the square foot amounts of predevelopment impervious area associated with each drainage area. Note that the existing impervious percentage originally listed for Pond #2 was incorrect. The Pond #2 calculations and supplement have been revised. 2. Please provide docurnentnlion to support the escess flotrs for the bypass and emergencies spilllral' for Pond 1. The Flows for the bypass and emergency spillway for Pond #1 were determined from interpolation of the pond's Stage -Discharge relationship for the maximum stage expected from the 10-year 24-hour storm. The Pond #1 stage discharge information is shown on Attachment #2-Routing Calculations Pages 7&8. The maximum 10-inch 24-hour storm elevation is shown on Attachment #2 — Routing Calculations Page 13. Pages 7, 8 and 13 from Attachment 2 have been submitted with this request for additional information for your convenience. 3. It semis that the level spreaders have been designed in a it a) to meet nco different requirements of the rule: a. The whine in excess of the design storm must flab overland through o vegetated filter (Per 15 NCAC 02/1. 1005 (a)( I )(B)(iv) ). b. Stot'onvater runoff that is directed toflow through all )� n'etand shallflow into cuul through these it etlamis' a a noa-erosive velociry (per 15 NCAC 02H.1005 (d)(2) ) Please note these are lit o .separate requirements that can often be met simulumeoushfill- lose tliachor,e rates: however the large discharge rate proposed./or this project exceeds the rc(omnnrndcd rate. for vegetated filter sn ip.s by the B,WP mamral. b'or ia.stonce. tte 10n �yJ C'` ,C It vegetated filter strip proposed for reach BAIP has a mw.cinuotn recommended C !/ G 2 cfs' per Table 8-1 of the NC Hb'll' J-lamral. 7'hc Purpose of this /osr flash rate. for' Iron 1 filter strips is to aI'oid com oItrated floII aml erosion It ithht the filter strip. FEB 2 8 2013 PA559\558 I57111253 ENGINEERING%iI,\\STOI%tWXTERUI AIN simu)i202-28NCDLNR Add Irtto Re,p,tt .diu y Please re -consider- this design suit shot the guidance provided in die NC BA If' manta/ is consideieel or provide addilional justification and inforntatiott that demonshateadais alternalive design meets the tivo reyuiretnertis listed above and provides equal or better siorrmwaier control. equal or better protection of uzners in the sloe. and re sidis in no increased potential for nuisance cnndihone. /teat to consider uvuld be fang term stvcuural iniegrbr of lie level spreader. impacts of dm vegetutiotl on channeli-ing die flow. and erosion. If (fit alternative design is pursued and is subsea uenth' foetid acceptable, permit conditions is -ill be added (it know leelging the alternative design eras approved based on the PE stamped and sealed plans. t'alcidotions. and specifications. A condition trill also be added noting that if the alternative design causes erosion or is olherwise found it, not naet tilt, requirements of the ride. the permit holder will have ur install another appropriate design that meets the III o penis listed above. Additional information has been provided in the stormwater narrative to discuss how the alternative design meets the two requirements (a) and (b) above. The level spreader detail has also been modified to ensure its structural integrity withholds against the heavier discharge rates. d. Please include the vegetated filter strips within the project boundary. All included exhibits have been updated to show the new project boundary to include the vegetated filter strips. 5. The revised C-400 set of plans no". includes mote / 3 to idcnlijj- downspows and splash blocks discharging to grade: however, the area this none is refercnciig could toot be located nn ilia revised pages provided. ttrhat area is this note directed toward:' The note is referring to the downspouts on the Headquarters building and is shown on sheet C-405. All of the C-400 sheets have been resubmitted with this add -info response. 6. Please updule the botorn surface area ofpoml I presented oil page 2 of the wet detention pond supplement. The bottom surface area of pond I has been revised on the wet detention pond supplement. 7. The contours far the pond 1 ftltel-sit it) appear to imlicule that there is a natural draw in that litter strip. The filler strip .should not contain any drays (item 16 on page 8-2 in the BAIP manual). We have performed a thorough inspection of the level spreader area and have verified that it does not include any natural draws. As a result of our site inspection, we have slightly modified the existing contours in the area of the level spreader to more closely represent the existing topography. I trust that this information is sufficient to issue the subject stormwater permit. However, if you have any questions or need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, J ?ini!fer Ga cia-Meitin, El CC: CFE File 558-157 "36" P:�58058.157 Dg53 ENGINEiERING�.%IINSTOR.\IWATGRUI AIN SITM2011-01-1N NCDENR Add Emit Rl,,,n�doc MCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Pat McCrory Charles Wakild, P. E. Governor Director February 21, 2013 Commanding Officer MCB. Camp Lejeune c/o Neal Paul, Deputy Public Works Officer Building 1005 Michael Road Camp Lejeune, NC 28542 Subject: Request for Additional Information Stormwater Project No. SW8 130112 P-1253 21) Combat Engineer Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex Onslow County Dear Mr. Paul: John E. Skvarla, III Secretary The Wilmington Regional Office received an Express Stormwater Management Permit Application for the Combat Engineer Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex on February 23, 2013. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the application is not complete. The following information is needed to continue the stormwater review: ti 1. Please provide the actual square foot amount of predevelopment impervious area associated within each drainage area. In order to claim pre -development impervious areas when determining the difference in the pre/post 1-year 24-hour storm event, the actual amount of predevelopment impervious area must be provided, not an approximate percent of impervious area. 2. Please provide documentation to support the excess flows for the bypass and emergency spillway for Pond 1. 3. It seems that the level spreaders have been designed in a way to meet two different requirements of the rule: a. The volume in excess of the design storm must flow overland through a vegetated filter (per 15 NCAC 02H.1005 (a)(1)(6)(iv) ). b. Stormwater runoff that is directed to flow through any wetland shall flow into and through these wetlands at a non -erosive velocity (per 15 NCAC 02H.1005 (d)(2) ) Please note these are two separate requirements that can often be met simultaneously for low discharge rates; however the large discharge rate proposed for this project exceeds the recommended rate for vegetated filter strips by the BMP manual. For instance, the 1 00'wide wooded vegetated filter strip proposed for each BMP has a maximum recommended flow rate of 2 cfs per Table 8-1 of the NC BMP Manual. The .purpose of this low flow rate for wooded filter strips is to avoid concentrated flow and erosion within the filter strip. Please re -consider the design such that the guidance provided in the NC BMP manual is considered or provide additional justification and information that demonstrates this alternative design meets the two requirements listed above and provides equal or better stormwater control, equal or better protection of waters in the state, and results in no increased potential for nuisance conditions. Item to consider would be long term structural integrity of the level spreader, impacts of the vegetation on channelizing the flow, and erosion. Wilmington Regional Office 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One Phone: 910-796.72151 FAX: 910-350-20041 DENR Assistance: 1-877-623-6748 NorthCarolina Internet w .ncwaterquality.org (/yL(( a ft({LNzily An Fann1Onnnonnily l AKrmativc Arlinn Pmnlnvnr Neal Paul February 21, 2013 Stormwater Application No. SW8 130112 If an alternative design is pursued and is subsequently found acceptable, permit conditions will be added acknowledging the alternative design was approved based on the PE stamped and sealed plans, calculations, and specifications. A condition will also be added noting that if the alternative design causes erosion or is otherwise found to not meet the requirements of the rule, the permit holder will have to install another appropriate design that meets the two items listed above. 4. Please include the vegetated filter strips within the project boundary. 5. The revised C-400 set of plans now includes note 13 to identify downspouts and splash blocks discharging to grade; however, the area this note is referencing could not be located on the revised pages provided. What area is this note directed toward? 6. Please update the bottom surface area of pond 1 presented on page 2 of the wet detention pond supplement. Due to the relatively minor nature of these comments, the express additional information fee has been waived for this request. 8. Please keep in mind that changing one number may change other numbers and require the calculations, supplements, and other supporting documentation to be updated. Verify all numbers are correct to ensure consistency in the application documents. Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested information should be received in this Office prior to February 28, 2013, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee. If you need additional time to submit the information, please email or fax your request for a time extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. Please note that a second significant request for additional information may result in the return of the project. If the project is returned, you will need to reschedule the project through the Express coordinator for the next available review date, and resubmit all of the required items, including the application fee. The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under an approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A. Please label all packages and cover letters as "Express" and reference the project name and State assigned project number on all correspondence. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feet free to call me at (910) 796-7323 or email me at christine.nelson@ncdenr.gov. Sincerely, Christine Nelson Environmental Engineer GDS/can: S:\WQS\StormWater\Permits & Projects\2013\130112 HD\2013 02 addinfo_2 130112 cc: Matt Haley, Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. Wilmington Regional Office Page 2 of 2 Nelson, Christine From: 'Nelson, Christine Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:15 PM To: 'Matt Haley'; Bradshaw CIV Thomas C Cc: Perry Davis, Maria Jones; Russell, Janet Subject: 2nd request for additional information - P1253 Combat Attachments: 2013 02 addinfo_2 130112.pdf Matt and Thomas, The second request for additional information is attached for the Combat Engineer Battalion Ops Maintenance Complex stormwater permit application. Item number 3 of the letter is in regards currently proposed design of the level spreaders and filter strips. I will pass up the alternative design and e-mail that Matt provided earlier to see if it is an acceptable option. However, I suspect that additional detailed information supporting the design will likely be necessary. I will let you know what I find out. Copies of this letter will also be sent in the mail. Christine Christine Nelson Environmental Engineer State Stormwater Program NC Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Ext. Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone:910-796-7323 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Low and maybe disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. From: Matt Haley fmailto: matt. halev(d)caoefearengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:52 PM To: Nelson, Christine Cc: Perry Davis; Maria Jones Subject: P1253 Combat - Level Spreaders Christine, I have given the level spreader design at P-1253 some more thought. I have attached an exhibit showing a proposed design alternative for each wet pond that we feel will meet the BMP requirements (sending a max 2-cfs to wooded filter strip while bypassing the rest in a non -erosive manner). We have no problem modifying our submitted design in which all bypassed flow is directed to a level spreader and passed through the wooded filter strip in a non -erosive manner to match the approach shown in the attached exhibit. However we feel very strongly that the originally submitted level spreader design is far superior with respect to minimizing the potential for erosion and protecting water quality. As such we would like for NCDENR to consider approving the submitted design. Please let me know how long you expect it will take to get an answer on whether or not the submitted design will be acceptable. Thanks, Matthew T. Haley - PE, LEED Green Associate CAPE FEAR Engineering, inc. 151 Poole Road,, Suite 100 BeNille, NC 2N51 TEL (810) 383-10" FM (010) 383 1045 www, copefearengineering. com To: Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune Public Works Division, Bldg 1005 Civil Design Division Attn: Christine Nelson ® As Requested ❑ For Your Files ❑ Sent via Mail ❑ Sent via Courier k,Lu r t.?� - Transmittal 5, 2013 Subject: P-1253 Combat Engineering Battalion Mai ntenance/Ops "Corn plex Express Stormwater Add -Info Request ❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval Quantity Drawing No. Description 1 Original Add -Info Response Letter 2 Original & Copy REVISED Page 4 of Stormwater Management Application 1 Original REVISED Pond 1 Supplements and Checklist 1 Original REVISED Infiltration Basin 1 and Infiltration Basin 2 Supplements and Checklists 1 Original LS-VFS #1 and LS-VFS #2 Supplements and Checklists 1 Copy REVISED Pond 1 and Pond 2 O&M Agreements 1 Copy LS-VFS #1 and LS-VFS #2 O&M Agreements 1 Copy Stormwater Narrative and Calculations FCD 13 Z U13 2 Copy REVISED Stormwater Permit Exhibits By. 2 Copy Existing Impervious Area Exhibit 2 Copy REVISED P-1253 Construction Plans (selected sheets only) REMARKS Please find the enclosed documents in response to your Request for Additional Information. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Thanks. CC: File 558-157 "36" Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. Signed: �i'l�}- ,A�tthew Haley, P.E. Received P:\558\558-157P1253ENGINEERINGWDMIN\STORMw ATER\MAINSITE\2013A2-15Trans NCDENR P1253doc CAPE FEAR Engineering, Inc. February 15, 2013 Christine Nelson NCDENR Water Quality Section - Stormwater 127 Cardinal Dr. Est. i m Wilmington, NC 28405 BY RE: Request for Additional information Stormwater Project No. SW8 130112 P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex Onslow County Dear Christine, Please find the following responses to your Request for Additional Information dated February 8, 2013 for the above referenced project. Please note that in addition to your comments, we have also received comments from the project's design team and government reviewers. These additional comments have also been addressed on the revised set of drawings. 12c(,7 Ir m nts, !ot I()/C..t5 11 It rp n uc r r I _ Yi"heel d o steniiig s?or;nii atur i„W/" /itr pr otrecic It'di to-c 141NJI '. i vie o)'nnu draining to I Ivater.s', there arcs III,) dischor ;e i equite;nent4Thal must he inct- <t ! >,i tt'+ 1C` 02PIJ:i(3�hU(lifC."(it) prohihits uety pohits oI disehat f Cfill the Gc>rh;t storm event. 1' m,lama: ✓i the d,?iign slorin i:aa hI! i flinu a e/). c tiV,41 iniiii, need III u 1 atetuud area or for r-1e dzer borne finrn o wal de hfulion lanids, irmwted h,e ,) .cecnndrn,v it-vW, h. /5�t Il'('dC' O J/ l0(J.ilcjt ljI/f1(ini re.lrrirss bhe rt.nn/J'r/net a in erces,s of the dzcign 11f, r oiunia to i)s onpeeted tin-ougti a) 'seated Ittt strip lvith a uiinnnutn /OlIg,rlt'y Ili order to inert bym ,', a useful (1hovi,. the stnrwil otry design pn;pre)'er//01 tlii.s prutcei lucy a s,woiida v intiIii-wion /lush; to itlihratu the (las'ivII sIofm 'o/unte 'ii) olcol [licit Lh li.Uad ohore, then Ii zl V e, .nslt5 ruilLing the opte r ( .wl:nis 1 rri sa-coon i6J.9..r aIIMc '0 it, manual itlat ollOWS an iu FlOzainii ses'rrm to he sized.sm:h that it van hond/o /,le (t _);:or. 2d-hour srorm<;fntni. 77u5 opti'm rot/vil ay rhot the finiin: 10-vval 24-hour Siorni ev,;nl is infiltrated such that [hair, is uo disuhurs;e "rr)nl the 1>dll'. li-: IVTcef it eppaars that itp r ¢ is lief I :zccsc (),I the des-icnsiorm that is hy'Pcssiii,: ilw irJtihration bash, till "lICdt aw!U` Vi dla IL;ft dlrferttion ponds -awl whidi al-e not beitx; tlh rotrd to lho n,Tdrort I aatutavl finer strip. Mc,o I edorU(der ncc design „ jt<ie slormtl'oh.r 811/1S to entire shot these rules or , wet, I)1Vioac fcnadd he to ;Ilcmase: 1lte Run- directed to the iWHII,iWvI ha%ios to (I Land that is sit liial I') lkc iq%iltraiinn rate (asstuning, they pond std7 drx.l., ; u101 nu/aster than 2 daY0 artd o ;,rovirla an dc, ign,ed level epreader r,nd fitter sn ip fo the d);gabs ou1[eu, Section 16.3.9.4 was misinterpreted. Since the wet pond/infiltration system cannot infiltrate the entire 10-year 24-hour storm event, a level spreader/filter strip has been provided at each of the wet -pond outlets. The narrative and pond calculations have been revised to remove reference to "handling the 10-year storm" and to provide a discussion 151 Poole Road, 5uite 100 • Belville, NC 28451 • I -EL: (910)353-1044 • FAX: (910)363-1045 wwwcapefearengineering. coal P:V558\558-151 P 251 ENGINEERINGUOAIIMSIORNiWAI'ERs IA INS] i'1,12012-02 15 NCDIINR Add Infu Rcspunee. dik about the proposed level spreader/filter strip design. Attachment #3 — has been revised to include level spreader sizing and velocity calculations Level Spreader supplements and unsigned O&M Agreements have been provided. The O&M agreements have been provided to Camp Lejeune for signature. The originals will be submitted once they are received. In order u) claim pre -tie velopnrenl imperniolls ureus I -It en dcteI oIitIill g flit- difference in lire pre/poll /-pcar24-hourstorrn creel, please provide a map identifying those misting impervious areas and prorirle (fit Gcplomflion in the narrative regarding dtose areas being considered purl tf the pre -developed (ondition. The existing site conditions included an existing network of roads/trails. The area of these existing roads/trails accounts for approximately 2.5% of the total drainage area for each proposed drainage basin. An "Existing Impervious Area" exhibit has been provided and an explanation has been added to the narrative. 3. Please double check flit! S'VDA calculation fin- pond 1. The numbers used for flit interpolation appear to be associated with an average depth of 7, i fl instead of the 7 ff average depth no rcial.) Proposed wish this pond. The SA/DA calculation for Pond I incorrectly reported values for an average depth of 7.5-ft instead of 7.0-ft. Using the SA/DA values for 7.0-ft does not work based on the provided surface area; therefore, the depth of the proposed Pond I has been increased to yield an average depth of 7.5-ft. This change is reflected in the revised Pond # I Supplement, Attachment #I -Water Quality Calculations, and Pond #1 O&M Agreement 4. Wilco compleling life design specifcsfor the inffllrotion basin on the if fltrcuion basin s'upplemems, please Oilly use fife vulucs related to the inftllralion basbl. VolFor instace, life storage I olmne identified on the strpplenrmn should onlp be the storage rohune relating to that inffltrofioff basin. Notes mqv be. added to the .side of the supplement or o page mai, be tmoched with the Justification that e.rploins the wet pond is acting as the storage device. The Infiltration Basin Supplements for both drainage basins have been revised. i. Please provide additional calculations Jor the, ili ihralion basin .cuing such os file surface areas as well as life incremental and aavunulufed volume. The water quality calculations for each drainage basin have been revised to include more specific information about the secondary infiltration areas. These changes are reflected in the revised Attachment#1-Water Quality Calculations. 6. For fife W it's provided for drainage area 1, please elplahr haw the it filonNon basin has a quicker drawdown time than fife wel detention pond. /.,or instance the design slornr is set la drail down from file st el pond in ju.sl over 4 daps bat the infrllr lion bas'iu supplement imlicales the design storm will drtnrr/own in 2.8 days. 6Nmddn'l the drau2lown time f ,r file infiltration basin be Similar to fhc wel pond drawdowo as if's designed to handle fire onffce flow rale. The drawdown time for Infiltration Basin #1 was incorrectly reported. The drawdown of Infiltration Basin #1 is equal to the drawdown of Pond #1. The Infiltration Basin #1 supplement has been revised. I! \55NWR 157 V1253 ENGINEERIN'(iW )M1N\ I ORM W A'I ERW A N S1' EM01 111'---I5 NCDINR AW 10. Re.pmre.�im 7. It oppeors that photoroluuc canopies are proposed for this project. Please provide addiliolial datails to cal f rm if them have been considered as part of the pervions or impervious (1reas. An analysis of the proposed PV canopies shows that the panels are spaced too close together to consider them pervious. As a result, the portion of PV canopies covering pervious areas has been added to the impervious total for Pond #1. This additional impervious area has increased the required storage volume and required the temporary pool elevation to be raised from 30.00' to 30.10'. These changes are reflected in the revised Application Page 4, Pond #1 Supplement, Attachment #1-Water Quality Calculations, and Attachment #2-Routing Calculations. I trust that this information is sufficient to issue the subject stormwater permit. However, if you have any questions or need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely Matthew , P.E. CC: CFE File 558-157 "36" P:\558�55M 157 PIIo ENGINI'LRINGWl)\IIN6srORNIN'ATF.RbNAIN SITEUM I-0'-.15 NCI)ENR Add Nk, Rcsgm...&I PWA AR MC®E R North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Pat McCrory Charles Wakild, P. E. John E. Skvarla, III Governor Director Secretary February 8, 2013 Commanding Officer MCB Camp Lejeune c/o Neal Paul, Deputy Public Works Officer Building 1005 Michael Road Camp Lejeune, NC 28542 Subject: Request for Additional Information Stormwater Project No. SW8 130112 P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex Onslow County Dear Mr. Paul: The Wilmington Regional Office received an Express Stormwater Management Permit Application for the Combat Engineer Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex on February 23, 2013. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the application is not complete. The following information is needed to continue the stormwater review: When designing stormwater BMPs for projects that are within '/z mile of and draining to SA waters, there are two different discharge requirements that must be met: a. 15A NCAC 02H.1005(a)(1)(C)(ii) prohibits new points of stormwater discharge for the design storm event. The volume of the design storm can be infiltrated, effectively infiltrated in a vegetated area, or for the discharge from wet detention ponds, treated by a secondary BMP. b. 15A NCAC 02H.1005(a)(1)(B)(iv) requires the runoff that is in excess of the design storm volume to be directed through a vegetated filter strip with a minimum length of 50 ft. In order to meet item 1.a listed above, the stormwater design proposed for this project uses a secondary infiltration basin to infiltrate the design storm volume. To meet item 1.b listed above, the narrative discusses utilizing the option presented in Section 16.3.9.4 of the BMP manual that allows an infiltration system to be sized such that it can handle the 10 year, 24-hour storm event. This option requires that the entire 10-year, 24-hour storm event is infiltrated such that there is no discharge from the BMP. However, it appears that there is flow in excess of the design storm that is bypassing the infiltration basin through emergency outlets in the wet detention pond and which are not being directed to the required vegetated filter strip. Please re -consider the design the stormwater BMPs to ensure these rules are met. Options would be to increase the flow directed to the infiltration basins to a level that is similar to the infiltration rate (assuming the pond still draws down no faster than 2 days) and/or provide an appropriately designed level spreaders and filter strips for the bypass outlets. 2. In order to claim pre -development impervious areas when determining the difference in the pre/post 1-year 24-hour storm event, please provide a map identifying those existing impervious areas and provide an explanation in the narrative regarding those areas being considered part of the pre -developed condition. 3. Please double check the SA/DA calculation for pond 1. The numbers used for the interpolation appear to be associated with an average depth of 7.5 ft instead of the 7 ft average depth currently proposed with this pond. Wilmington Regional Office 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One Phone: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910-350-20041 DENR Assistance: 1-877-623-6748 NorthCarolina Internet: w .ncxaterquality.org a'�atually (/ V N(( Neal Paul February 8, 2013 Stormwater Application No. SW8 130112 4. When completing the design specifics for the infiltration basin on the infiltration supplements, please only use the values related to that infiltration basin. For instance, the storage volume identified on the supplement should only be the storage volume relating to that infiltration basin. Notes may be added to the side of the supplement or a page may be attached with the justification that explains the wet pond is acting as the storage device. 5. Please provide additional calculations for the infiltration basin sizing such as the surface areas as well as the incremental and accumulated volume. 6. For the BMPs provided for drainage area 1, please explain how the infiltration basin has a quicker drawdown time than the wet detention pond. For instance the design storm is set to drawdown from the wet pond in just over 4 days but the infiltration basin supplement indicates the design storm will drawdown in 2.8 days. Wouldn't the drawdown time for the infiltration basin be similar to the wet pond drawdown as it's designed to handle the orifice flow rate? 7. It appears that photovoltaic canopies are proposed for this project. Please provide additional details to confirm if they have been considered as part of the pervious or impervious areas. 8.. Due to the relatively minor nature of these comments, the express additional information fee has been waived for this request. 9. Please keep in mind that changing one number may change other numbers and require the calculations, supplements, and other supporting documentation to be updated. Verify all numbers are correct to ensure consistency in the application documents. Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested information should be received in this Office prior to February 15, 2013, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee. If you need additional time to submit the information, please email or fax your request for a time extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. Please note that a second significant request for additional information may result in the return of the project. If the project is returned, you will need to reschedule the project through the Express coordinator for the next available review date, and resubmit all of the required items, including the application fee. The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under an approved Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject to enforcement action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A. Please label all packages and cover letters as "Express" and reference the project name and State assigned project number on all correspondence. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at (910) 796-7323 or email me at christine.nelson@ncdenr.gov. Sincerely, Christine Nelson Environmental Engineer GDS/can: S:\WQS\StormWater\Permits & Projects\2013\130112 HD\2013 02 addinfo 130112 cc: Matt Haley, Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. Wilmington Regional Office Page 2 of 2 Nelson, Christine From: Nelson, Christine Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:22 PM To: 'Matt Haley'; Bradshaw CIV Thomas C Cc: Russell, Janet Subject: Attachments: request,for-additional info for P-1253 Combat Ops C2013r02�addi_nf6,130112°pdf Matt, Here's the request for additional information on this project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Copies:ofthis;lette�ll also be.sent in the mail. Thanks for your patience, Christine Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. From: Matt Haley [mailto:matt.haley@capefearengineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:27 PM To: Nelson, Christine Cc: Perry Davis; Maria Jones; Jennifer Meitin Subject: P-1253 Combat Ops - Stormwater Rules and Design Approach Christine, As we discussed on the phone, I have done some digging through the stormwater regs and have come up with the following regarding the proposed design approach for the P-1253 project. Please let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss any portion of the below in more detail. Thanks. Per Session Law 2008-211 - Section 2.(b) - (2) Development Near Class SA Waters: Development activities within one-half mile of and draining to those waters classified by the Commission as Class SA waters or within one-half mile of waters classtfted by the Commission as Class SA waters and draining to unnamedfreshwater tributaries to Class SA waters shall meet the requirements ofsub-subdivisions a., b., and c. of subdivision (1) of this subsection. The requirements of these referenced subdivisions are shown below. Session Law 2008-211- Section 2.(b) - (1) Development Near Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) - a. Low Density Option: The proposed P-1253 project is greater than 12% impervious and is therefore considered "High Density". This section of Session Law 2008-211 does not apply. Session Law 2008-211 - Section 2.(b) - (1) Development Near Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) - b. High -Density Option: 1. The development has a built upon area ofgreater than twelve percent (1201o) This is true for the subject P-1253 project. 2. The development has no direct outlet channels or pipes to Class SA waters unless permitted in accordance with 1 SA NCAC 02H .0126. Stormwater runofffrom built upon areas that is "directed to flow through any wetlands shall flow into and through these wetlands at a non -erosive velocity. The P-1253 project does NOT propose a direct outlet channel or pipe to SA Waters. This project directs flow into an approximately 100-ft buffer area from an adjacent wetland area. The current P-1253 design includes rip -rap aprons at all pipes outlets and emergency spillways to provide "non -erosive" velocity into the provided buffer area. 3. The development tailizes control systems that are any combination of infiltration systems, bioretention systems, constructed stormwater wetlands, sand filters, rain barrels, cisterns, rain gardens or alternative low impact development stormwater management systems designed in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H.1008 to control and treat the nmofffrom all surfaces generated by one and one-half inches ofrainfa(l, or the difference in the stormwater runofffrom all surfaces from the predevelopment and posidevelopment conditions for a one-year, 24-hour storm, whichever is greater. Wet detention ponds may be used as a stormwater control system to meet the requirements of this sub -sub -subdivision, provided that the stormwater control system fully complies with the requirements of this sub -.subdivision. If wet detention pond is used within one-half mile of Class SA waters. installation of stonnwater best management practice in series with the wet detention pond shall be required to treat the discharge from the wet detention pond Secondary stormwater best management practices that are used in series with another .stormwater best management practice do not require any minimum separation from the seasonal high water table. Alternatives as described in 15A NCAC 02".1008(h) may also be approved if they meet the requirements of this sub -subdivision. The P-1253 project proposes to use a Wet -Detention Basin sized in accordance with the above requirements and a secondary infiltration basin in series. Though not required, the proposed secondary infiltration basin does meet the required minimum separation from the SHWT. 4. Stormwater nmofffrom the development that is in excess of the design volume must flow overland through a vegetative filter designed in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .1008 with a minimum length of 50 feet measured from mean high water of Class SA waters. -Per 15A NCAC 02H.1008 - Design ofstormwater Management Measures subsection f Vegetative Filter Requirements. Vegetative filters shall be used as a non-structural method for providing additional infiltration, filtering of pollutants and minimizing stormwater impacts. Requirements for these filters are as follows: (1) A distribution device such as a swale shall be used to provide even distribution of runoff across the width of the vegetative filter; A level spreader designed in accordance with Chapter 8 of the BMP manual will be provided to evenly distribute runoff across the width of the vegetated filter. Per Chapter 8 of the BMP this level spreader will be designed for a maximum length of 100-ft. Any flows in excess of the Level Spreader's capacity will bypass the level spreader and will be discharged through rip -rap aprons designed to provide non -erosive velocities. (2) The slope and length of the vegetative filter shall be designed, constructed and maintained so as to provide a non -erosive velocity offlow through the filter for the 10 year storm and shall have a slope offtve percent or less, where practicable; and Velocity calculations through the vegetated filter will be provided to ensure that the flow is non -erosive for the 10-year storm event. (3) Vegetation in the filter may be natural vegetation, grasses or artificially planted wetland vegetation appropriate for the site characteristics. The P-1253 project proposes to use the existing vegetation in the provided buffer area adjacent to the existing wetland to meet this requirement. The slope of the existing wooded area is less than 5%. 5. The development contains a 50 foot -wide vegetative buffer for new development activities and a 30 fool -wide vegetative buffer for redevelopment activities. The width of a buffer is measured horizontally f-om the normal pool elevation of impounded. structures, from the bank of each side of streams or rivers, and from the mean high waterline of tidal waters, perpendicular to the shoreline. Page 4 Session Law 2008-211 SL2008-0211 The vegetative buffer may be cleared or graded, but must be planted with, and maintained in, grass or any other vegetative or plant material. Furthermore, stormwater control best management practices (BMPs), or stormwater control structures, with the exception of wet detention ponds, may be located within this vegetative buffer. The Division of Water Quality may, on a case by case basis, grant a minor variance from the vegetative buffer requirements of this section pursuant to the procedures set out in 15A NCAC 028.0233(9)(b). Vegetative buffers and filters required by this section and any other buffers or filter required by State water quality or coastal management rules or local government requirements may be met concurrently and may contain, in whole or in part, coastal, isolated, or 404 jurisdictional wetlands that are located landward of the normal waterline. There are no surface waters in close proximity to the P-1253 project. The required 50-ft buffer is meet and exceeded in the buffer area provided adjacent to the existing wetland. Session Law 2008-211 - Section 2.(b) - (1) Development Near Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) - c. Stormwater Discharges Prohibited: All development activities, including both low- and high -density projects, shall prohibit new points ofstorrnwater discharge to Class SA waters or an increase in the volume ofstorrnwater flow through conveyances or increase in capacity of conveyances of existing stormwater conveyance systems that drain to Class SA waters. Any modification or redesign of a stormwater conveyance system within the contributing drainage basin must not increase the net amount or rate of stormwater discharge through existing outfa(ls to Class SA waters. The following shall not be considered a direct point ofstorrnwater discharge: 1. infiltration of the stormwater runofffrom the design storm as described in .rub -sub -subdivision 3. of sub -subdivision b. of subdivision (1) of this subsection. Because the secondary infiltration basins have been designed to infiltrate the water quality design storm, the requirements this section are met. 2. Diffuse flow of stormwater at a non -erosive velocity to a vegetated buffer or other natural area, that is capable ofproviding effective infiltration of the runofffrom the design storm as described in sub -sub -subdivision 3. ofsub-subdivision b. ofsubdivision (l) of this subsection. Notwithstanding the other requirements of this section, the infiltration mandated in this sub -sub -subdivision does not require a minimum separation from the seasonal high-water table. Because the secondary infiltration basins have been designed to infiltrate the water quality design storm, the requirements this section are met. 3. The discharge from a wet detention pond that is treated by a secondary stormwater best management practice, provided that both the wet detention pond and the secondary stormwater best management practice meet the requirements of this sub -subdivision. Because the secondary infiltration basins have been designed to infiltrate the water quality design storm, the requirements this section are met. Matthew T. Haley - PE, LEED Green Associate CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING matt. haleylia-kapefearengineed ng.com C: 910.338.8602 0: 910.383.1044 ext. 136 F: 910.383.1045 ��0�o�� �' CAPE FEAR Engineering, Inc. 151 Goole Road,, Suite 1W 9elvil1e, NC 28451 TEL (910)383 1044 FAX (910)383-1045 www.capefearengineering.com To: Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune Public Works Division, Bldg 1005 Civil Design Division Attn: Christine Nelson ❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Files ❑ Sent via Mail ❑ Sent via Courier REC'D J A N 2 9 2013 Transmittal File: 558-157 "36" Subject: P-1253 Combat Engineering Battalion Maintenance/Ops Complex Express Stormwater Submittal ❑ For Distribution ® For your Review / Action / Approval Quantity Drawing No. Description 1 Original $4,000 Express Review Fee 2 Original & Copy Stormwater Management Application 1 Original Pond 1 and Pond 2 Supplements and Checklists 1 Original Infiltration Basin 1 and Infiltration Basin 2 Supplements and Checklists 1 Original Pond 1 and Pond 2 O&M Agreements 1 Original Infiltration Basin 1 and Infiltration Basin 2 O&M Agreements 1 Copy Stormwater Narrative and Calculations 1 Copy USGS QUAD Map and Vicinity Map 2 Copy Stormwater Permit Exhibits 2 Copy P-1253 Construction Plans (selected sheets only) KS Please find the enclosed documents related to stormwater permitting for the above referenced project. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Thanks. CC: j File 558-157 "36" BAN 2 3 2013 J BY: GCc-q�}P� ►/ /3 C� Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. Signed: Awf, Matthew Haley, P. . Received By: Date: PA5581558-157 P1253 ENGINEERINGWDMIMSTORMWATER\MAIN SITE 013-01-23 Trans NCDENR P1253. doc Wit, Jacksonwv ville'"; #F.,` �'J•t.,' .�Y���y,-ry Y �A�. }�} `9p�� Fl t1 n ` y7 .a y. 1 1 i ..air Aw�ay�;� sn"fGIF-e en Pafk �. wv \4fNI PMC' 1110 Nevr Rivrer A • 111 _ 4 v e' �. y x •y .1 .�.',N., 4 i tHHI- yy • ' l .� _ � ,� • �r, �—'v 4��."'�t♦�.. ems. nt:' 4\/ r. "`& i v �1 r^ Raie t<- ,b„dA am C e No $ e, G fly �.#i. 'y x� L k`x JJfiC��E ♦ 4 . ^Y. � �(f 2 %`� �'i f � i'�.�. , k w . � lay`• ft - � � �°�a�.. �. € .� � x x HY �_ x5 j¢�,. I 5k+' s t�. kit k •v ' _"`J P IWO 1 k^hy (!ii{ `.1 T �. s',.i'y' ia`'3 J w L JAI 2 3 2013 BY: REVISED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT P-1253 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE COMPLEX MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA SBME Project Number 1061-12-249A Prepared For: RQ / Brasfield-Gorrie JV 3194 Lionshead Ave Carlsbad. CA 92010 Prepared By: 3006 Hall Waters Drive, Suite 100 Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 NC PE Firm License No. F-0176 August 7, 2012 August 7, 2012 Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. 151 Poole Road, Suite 100 Belville, North Carolina 28451 . it, Attention: Mi. Perry Davis Reference: Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Operations/Maintenance Complex Marine Corps Base Carrrp'Lejeune Jacksonville, North Carolina S&IVE Project Number 1061-12-249A Dear Mr. Davis: We are pleased to present this Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report for the above - referenced project. Our services were provided in general accordance with S&ME Proposal Number 061-12 dated June 6, 2012. This report presents the findings of the subsurface explorations along with geotechnical design and construction recommendations based on these findings. S&ME appreciates having the opportunity to be of service to you during this phase of the project. If you have any questions or corrunents after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, �parrmrrr� S&ME,Inc. �`��,••FESS/pti 9 �sv `�i/l/����� SEAL 9� • 8.7- cv Tom Schipporeit, P.E .0,�p':FYCIN�re O� ` Nathan P. Bufftim Branch Manager/SeniorEylglge "S���Qep•�y Geotechnical and Construction N.C. Registration No. 193Services Manager Attachments TMS:NPB/khd Distribution: Cape Fearing Engineering, Mr. Perry Davis - predavis@canefeareneineerine.com Cape Fearing Engineering, Ms. Maria Jones - niaria.mones@capefeuciigincering.com caoefearengineerine.com Cape Fearing Engineering, Mr. Matt Haley - marthaley a capefeareneineerine.com SBME, INC. / 3006 Hall Waters Orive, Suite 100 / Wilmington, NC 28,105-8786 / p 910.799.9945 t 910.799.9958 / vnevt.smeine.com Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Enqineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................I 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......................... ............................................................................. I 1.2 SITE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................4 2 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM...............................................................................................4 2.1 PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS..........................................................................................................4 2.2 S&ME SOIL TEST BORINGS........................................................................................................4 2.3 S&ME SOIL TESTING FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES...............................................................5 3 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................................6 3.1 PREVIOUS LABORATORY TESTING..............................................................................................6 3.2 S&ME LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................................................6 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..........................................................................................................6 4.1 AREA GEOLOGY..........................................................................................................................6 4.2 SOIL SURVEY...............................................................................................................................7 4.3 BUILDING AREAS.........................................................................................................................7 4.4 PAVEMENT AREAS.......................................................................................................................8 4.5 SOIL EVALUATION FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES.....................................................................9 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................... 10 5.1 SITE PREPARATION.................................................................................................................... 10 5.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES................................................................................. II 5.3 MANAGEMENT OF SHALLOW WATER........................................................................................ 11 5.4 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................ 12 5.4.1 Temporary Sloping and Shoring............................................................................................12 5.4.2 Construction Dercatering...._................................................................................................ 13 5.4.3 Drcavatian Bottom Stabilitr.................._............................................................._............... 13 5.5 STRUCTURAL FILL AND BACKFILL............................................................................................ 13 5.5.1 Materials and Placement....................................................................................................... 13 5.5.2 Use afOn-Site Soil as Structural Fill and Backfill.......................................... 14 5.6 SEISMIC DESIGN........................................................................................................................ 15 5.7 FOUNDATION SUPPORT............................................................................................................. 15 5.6 GROUND FLOOR SLABS............................................................................................................ 16 5.9 RETAINING WALLS..................................................................................................................... 17 5.10 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... IR 6 LIMITATIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT........................................................................20 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune, Jacksonville, NC August 7, 2012 APPENDIX Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Figure I Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Boring Location Plan GER Boring Logs GER Cone Penetrometer Test Log GER Shear Wave Velocity Plot GER Laboratory Test Results Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols Boring Logs Seasonal High Water Table Evaluations In -Situ Constant Head Permcameter Results Laboratory Test Results Calculations Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7 2012 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that Cape Fear Engineering is providing engineering and surveying services for the RQ / Brasfield-Gorrie JV for the P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Operations and Maintenance Complex at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, North Carolina. The site is at the approximate location as shown on the attached Figure I. 1.1 Background Information This report is based on the following: • Entails, telephone conversations, and meetings between Cape Fear Engineering and S&ME personnel. • Request for Proposals by NAVFAC Mid Atlantic, Solicitation No. N40085-1 I-R- 4025, dated September 26, 2011. • Conceptual Site Plan, Sheet C-101 R, prepared by HBA & H&A, dated August 6, 2007. • Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration for,the project, prepared by GER Consulting Engineers, dated February 23, 2011. • Site Detail Drawing, Sheet C6, prepared by Cape Fear Engineering, dated February 21, 2012, which shows preliminary pavement section materials and layer thicknesses. • Boring Location Exhibit Drawing, Sheet B-100, prepared by Cape Fear Engineering, emailed to S&ME June 5, 20I2. • Conceptual site, drainage, and utility plans prepared by Cape Fear Engineering dated June 6, 2012. • Heavy vehicle information and specifications from various sources on the Internet. • S&ME's experience with projects and general subsurface conditions at Camp Lejeune. • Site visits by S&ME personnel. The project will include approximately eight buildings and structures, as described in the following table: Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion, Camp Leieune, Jacksonville, NC August 7, 2012 Table 1 — Proposed Buildings and Structures First Deslgn Foundation Deslgn Foundation Designation Name Height Frame Walls Slab Columns Wads - '- klIFNIVEK65-011 Reinforced A Headquarters 2 Steel On CMU with 250 6.S(') Building stories Grade brick veneer 1 or 2 B Maintenance stories, Steel On CMU 100 5(2) - Facility high Grade bay Concrete C Armory 1 story Concrete Grrade with brick N/A 5 veneer Electronic Steel, Concrete D Communications 1 story concrete, or load- On or CMU Not Given Not Given Maintenance bCMUg Grade with brick Facility veneer 1 story, E WarehoSupply use high Steel G ade CMU 100 3 Indoor Simulated Load- CMU with F Marksmanship 1 story Bearing Raised brick N/A 5 Training (ISMT) CMU veneer Building G Covered 1 level Steel On None Light (No NIA Stora a Grade value given) Concrete H HAZMAT i story or load- On CMU Light (No Light (No Storage Shelter bearing Grade value given) value given) CMU Note: (')From GER Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report, except as noted. lzl Provided by RO/Brasfield-Gorrie JV's structural engineer. Built-in equipment includes a vehicle exhaust system, a waste oil storage tank, 15-ton hydraulic lifts, 30-ton and 20-ton bridge cranes (with 7.5-ton auxiliary cranes) in addition to multiple 7.5 ton cranes in the maintenance facility, welding hood, woodworking dust collection system, paint booth, lubricant fluid distribution system, overhead doors, radiant heating system, and waste oil collection. The Wash Racks/Pads and Maintenance Facility building may include below -grade pits with cast -in -place reinforced concrete retaining walls up to approximately 6 feet deep. The Maintenance Facility building floor slab will also be designed to support relatively heavy combat construction vehicles. Available information for the heavy vehicles is given in the following table: Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7, 2012 Table 2 — Heavy Combat Construction Vehicles Vehicle Doslgn Length Width MKwGross Gross No. o} Esdmated Name Quantity (feet) (feet) Weight Weight Axles Axle Load 0111 tons kl s kips111 Buffalo Armored 6 27 8.5 22.65 45 3 15 Vehicle MRAP HEMTT 10 33 8 20 40 4 10 HMMWV 80 15 7 2.6 5.2 2 2.6 MTVR 40 18 8 14 28 3 9 M-9 ACE 10 21 11 26.9 54 2 tracks N/A Bulldozer Husky Mine 8 75 8 9.6 20 2 10 Detection Vehicle Assault Breather 10 40 15 60 120 2 tracks N/A Vehicle M 104 Wolverine 60 (M101 Heavy & M 105 20 10 69.8 140 2 tracks N/A Assault Trailers) Bridge Site preparation will include site clearing, excavation, and preparation for construction. Paving and site improvements include grading, landscaping, sidewalks, curbs, parking, roadways, fencing, and stonnwater drainage. Also included are paved parking areas for the heavy vehicles, open storage areas, vehicle washracks, loading ramps, cantilevered gates, and environmental measures. The proposed parking lot to the west of the Headquarters Building will be asphalt. The remainder of the site pavements will be heavy duty concrete pavement subjected to the heavy combat construction vehicles given in Table 2. Traffic improvements will also include a 240 foot left turn lane on southbound Marines Road onto eastbound NC Highway 172, a 240 foot left turn lane on westbound NC Highway 172 onto Munro Road, and a new 100 foot right turn lane off northbound Munro Road onto eastbound NC Highway 172. Four stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) are also planned. At this time, wet ponds and/or infiltration basins arc planned. Two of the BMPs are 60,000 square feet in area each and two are 12,000 square feet in area each. We understand that cut and till slopes will be no steeper than 31-1:1 V, and that cut and fill depths of up to about 5 feet may be required to achieve design grades. If necessary, site retaining walls will be constructed to achieve design grades at the southern portion of the site near the existing wetland areas. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion, Camp Leieune. Jacksonville, NC August 7, 2012 We assume that: • The design foundation loads for the proposed building and structures will be as given in Table I. • New underground utilities will be less than 5 feet deep. • Design turn -lane traffic will less than 5,000 vehicles per day with 1% dual -axle trucks and 1 % tractor trailer trucks, and the tum-lanes will be asphalt. • Traffic for the asphalt paved parking lot will be limited to personal vehicles and light trucks resulting in less than I equivalent 18-kip single axle load (ESAL) per day. We have made these assumptions based on our experience with similar projects. 1.2 Site Conditions The site is currently undeveloped and primarily wooded. Debris and waste were removed in the past from an area in the central portion of the site, which is now wooded with relatively thick small pine trees. The site slopes downward approximately 15 feet from north to south. Wetlands are located in the south-central portion of the site. Dirt paths used by off -road vehicles are present at the site. Existing developed areas are present near the southwestern portion of the site. 2 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM 2.1 Previous Explorations The GER Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report documents 24 soil test borings drilled to depths of 10 to 60 feet below the ground surface at the site in January of 2011. These borings are designated GB -I through GB-24. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2 of this report. The GER soil test boring logs are attached to this report. Also, the GER report includes one seismic cone penetrometer test (CPT) sounding advanced to a depth of approximately 73 feet below the ground surface on January 27, 2011. The CPT log for CPT -I is attached to this report. This information was used in conjunction with subsurface explorations by S&ME to perform geotechnical analyses and develop the geotechnical recommendations given in this report. 2.2 S&ME Soil Test Borings S&ME's subcontract driller advanced 30 soil test borings (B- l through B-30), each to a depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface, in the proposed pavement areas on Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7, 2012 June 19 and 20, 2012. The boring locations are shown in Figure 2. The borings were located in the field by Cape Fear Engineering's surveyors. The soil test borings were drilled using hollow stem auger drilling procedures with a CME-45 drill rig mounted on tow -behind trailer. Within the borings, samples of subsurface soils were generally taken at 2.5-foot intervals using a split -spoon sampler. Standard penetration testing (SPT) was performed in conjunction with split -spoon sampling in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The SPT values given on the boring logs were measured using a standard safety hammer (i.e. traditional rope and cathead hammer system). Also, five bulk samples of auger cuttings were obtained of soils between depths of I to 3 feet. Representative portions of the split -spoon samples were returned to our laboratory for visual -manual classification in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Boring logs containing soil descriptions, SPT N-values, and drilling observations are included with this report. The ground surface elevations were not provided on the boring logs, since site topographic information had not been provided to us at the time this report was prepared. After measuring the groundwater (or borehole cave-in) depths on June 29, 2012, S&ME personnel backfilled the borcholes with auger cuttings. 2.3 SBME Soil Testing for Stormwater Facilities Our stonnwater suitability evaluations consisted of two tasks — seasonal high water table evaluations and in -situ hydraulic conductivity testing. The seasonal high water table evaluations were performed on June 28, 2012, by advancing hand auger borings to depths ranging from 42 to 96 inches (3.5 to 8 feet) below the existing ground surface at the test locations (designated BMP-I through BMP-8). These locations are shown in Figure 2. Soils were evaluated under by a Licensed Soil Scientist for evidence of seasonal high water table influence. This evaluation involved looking at the actual moisture content in the soil and observing the matrix and mottle colors. Depending on the soil texture, the soil color will indicate processes that are driven by seasonally high water table fluctuations, such as iron reduction and oxidation and organic matter staining. Soil science descriptions and depths to the seasonal high water table from the hand auger borings are given in a table in the Appendix. S&ME performed the in -situ soil hydraulic conductivity testing by using a compact constant heat) permeametcr at two of the test locations (13MP-2 and BMP-3), as requested by Cape Fear Engineering after review of the seasonal high water table data. Hand auger borings were advanced with a 2-inch diameter bucket to depths ranging from 1.05 to 2.13 feet below the existing ground surface. The water dissipating unit was lowered to the bottom of the hole, and water was dispensed from the permeametcr. The water was allowed to move through the unit until steady-state Flow was achieved, and then flow rates were recorded. The last three measurements were averaged to achieve the most Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion, Camp Leieune, Jacksonville, NC August 7. 2012 representative value to express the saturated hydraulic conductivity. The depth interval of the tests corresponded to a layer of material approximately 6 inches thick at the selected testing depths. 3 LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 Previous Laboratory Testing The GER Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report documents soil laboratory tests, including index properties, standard Proctor compaction tests, California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests, and consolidation tests. The CBR tests were performed on samples compacted to approximately 95 percent of the material's standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. The GER laboratory test results are attached to this report. This information was used in conjunction with laboratory testing by S&ME to perform gcotcchnical analyses and develop the geotechnical recommendations given in this report. 3.2 S&ME Laboratory Testing S&ME performed moisture content tests, grain -size tests, Atterberg limits tests, modified Proctor compaction tests, and Califomia Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests on the bulk soil samples. These tests were performed to confirm visual soil classifications and estimate the engineering properties of the soils tested. The CBR tests per performed on samples compacted to approximately 95 percent of the material's modified Proctor (ASTM DI557) maximum dry unit weight, somewhat higher than the compaction effort for the GER tests. The higher compaction effort was used because the Unified Facilities Criteria for Concrete Floor Stabs on Grade Subjected to Heavy Loads requires that soil subgrades be compacted to at least 95 percent of material's CE 55 maximum dry unit weight, which uses the same equipment and energy as the modified Proctor. Laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. Test results are attached in the Appendix. 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Area Geology The site is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The Coastal Plain Province is typically characterized by marine, alluvial, and eolian sediments that were deposited during periods of fluctuating sea levels and moving shorelines. The soils in this province are typical of those laid down in a shallow sloping sea bottom: sands, silts, and clays with irregular deposits of shells. Alluvial sands, silts, and clays are typically present near rivers and creeks. Deposits of peat, organic silt, and organic Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SBME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7. 2012 clay are also typically present in or near current or former tidal marsh areas in the lower portion of the Coastal Plain. According to the 1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina, the site is underlain by the River Bend Formation of Tertiary age. This formation consists of calcarenite (limestone formed by percolation of water through calcareous shells and quartz sand causing the dissolved lime to cement the mass together) overlain by and intercalated with indurated, sandy, molluscan -mold limestone. The coastal formations on the geologic map are typically on the order of 40 to 100 feet below the ground surface. They represent basal, relatively hard formations with consistency over large areas. 4.2 Soil Survey The Soil Survey Report for Onslow, North Carolina, (published by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in 1992) indicates that the project site is underlain primarily by the Baymeade, Onslow, and Torhunta Soil Series. The following soil properties and characteristics are given in the Soil Survey Report for these soils: Table 3 - Soil Survey Soil Properties m1111111111s T.—ieal Unlfled % r LI ultl 9 PlastW tY or anic 9 Fleodln 9 HI-h 9 Name De N (l1 sift R_1On Passim Limit Index Matter Fre uene Q y Wa[er (In) (9/0) Table S1400 Sieve ft BmB- 0-30 sm, SP-SM 5-20 - NP 0.5-1 None 4.0-5.0 Baymeade 30-56 SC, SM, SM-SC 30-49 <25 NP-10 - Apparent 56 - 80 sm, SP-SM 5 - 30 - NP - Dec - Apr On- 0-10 sm, SP-SM 5-38 - NP 0.5-2 None 1.5-3.0 Onslow 10 -68 SM, CL, SC, ML 30 - 55 < 36 NP - 17 - Apparent 68-80 Variable - - - -- Dec - Apr To- 0-14 SM 20-49 <25 NP-4 3-10 None 0.5-1.5 Torhunta 14 -47 sm. SM-SC 20 -40 < 25 NP-7 - Apparent 47-80 sm, SP-SM, 5-35 <25 NP-4 -- Dec- SM-SC May NP = Non Plastic 4.3 Building Areas The soil test borings drilled in the proposed building/structure areas generally encountered 2 to 6 inches of topsoil and rootmat at the ground surface. Below these surficial materials, ' four basic soil strata were encountered within the maximum exploration termination depth of 73 feet. The strata are briefly described in the following table, Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SBME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion, Camp Leieune, Jacksonville, NC August 7, 2012 Table 4 — Generalized. Subsurface Strata in Building Areas Average Navg Stratum De th (F.eet Description (bpi �F,rOm ■T,o7 1` 0.5 15 Loose Sand 7 SP, SP-SM, SM, SC 2 15 32 Medium Dense Sand SP, SP-SM, SM, SC)19 Soft Clay and 3` 32 49 Very Loose Clayey Sand 4 CL, SC RIVER BEND FORMATION: 4 49 73 Dense Silty Sand and Shell, 37 (Ref) Slightly Cemented SC Notes: ND = Not Determined N = Standard Penetration Test blow count bpf = Blows per foot avg = average ` = Not uniformly present across the site Ref = CPT Refusal Water levels were measured in the soil test boring boreholes and estimated from the pore pressure measurements made by the CPT sounding. The water levels varied from depths of approximately 2 to 16 feet below the existing ground surface, with an average depth of 9 feet, in January of 2011. Groundwater levels have been measured or inferred in the explorations at the times and under the conditions stated on the logs in this report. Changes in the groundwater conditions and depths may occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall, evaporation, construction activity, surface water runoff, and other site specific factors. 4.4, Pavement Areas The soil test borings drilled in the proposed pavement areas generally encountered 2 to 6 inches of topsoil and roounat at the ground surface. Some of the borings encountered fill and possible fill soils, which consist of loose to medium dense sand (SP, SP-SM) with trace amounts of'gravel or debris. The fill and possible fill were encountered in Borings B-5, B- 10, B-12, B-14, and B-29 to depths of 3 to 6 feet. Below these surficial materials, three basic soil strata were encountered within the maximum boring termination depth of 10 feet. The strata are briefly described in the following table. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7, 2012 Table 5 — Generalized Subsurface Strata in Pavement Areas Average N-avg Stratum Ue h_ Feet Description (bpi From To 4 Loose Sand 7 A' 0.5 SP, SP-SM, SM B 4 8 Medium Dense Sand 17 SP, SP-SM, SM Stiff Clay and C. 8 10 Medium Dense Clayey Sand 12 CL, SC Notes: ND = Not Determined N = Standard Penetration Test blow count bpf = Blows per foot avg = average = Not uniformly present across the site Please note that Boring B-29 encountered 3 feet of firm sandy lean clay (CL) below the topsoil, which is considered a localized condition based on the relatively uniform near - surface subsurface conditions encountered in the other pavement area soil test borings. Water levels (or cave-in depths) were measured in the soil test boring boreholes. The borcholes were dry, but had caved -in from depths of approximately 2 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface, with an average depth of 6 feet, on June 29, 2012. Boreholes in relatively clean sands (SP, SP-SM) often cave in at the groundwater level. We have interpreted the cave-in depths to be indicative of the groundwater depths at this site. Groundwater levels have been measured or inferred in the explorations at the times and under the conditions stated on the logs in this report. Changes in the groundwater conditions and depths may occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall, evaporation, construction activity, surface water runoff, and other site specific factors. Generalized Subsurface Profiles (Figures 3 through 5) presenting the subsurface information obtained at the pavement area soil test boring locations are also included in this report. The profiles represent an estimate of'how the soil strata within 10 feet of the ground surface vary across the site. 4.5 Soil Evaluation for Stormwater Facilities The soils at the test locations were generally fine sands and very fine sands, with lenses/layers of sandy clay loam at some of the test locations. The results of the seasonal high water table (SH WT) evaluation and hydraulic conductivity testing are given in the following table: Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune. Jacksonville, NC August 7, 2012 Table 6 — Evaluation Results of Soils for Stormwater Facilities Test Location BMP-1 Seasonal High Water Table feet below round surface 7.08 Hydraulic Gonductivity Rate Incheslhour NT BMP-2 2.33 12.00 BMP-3 3.58 8.85 BMP-4 2.33 NT BMP-5 7.25 NT BMP-6 > 8.00 NT BMP-7 7.58 NT BMP-8 > 8.00 NT Note: NT = Not Tested Please note that the seasonal high water table evaluation is based on secondary evidence and not on direct groundwater level measurements. Groundwater levels fluctuate for numerous reasons, and these findings do not indicate that groundwater levels have not or will not rise above the noted depths. 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Site Preparation Site preparation should be initiated by clearing and stripping the proposed construction areas of any asphalt, curbs, trees, shrubs, other plants, topsoil, roots, organics, and other unsuitable material. We anticipate an average stripping depth of 12 inches to remove topsoil and rootmat from the wooded areas of the site. Any buried existing structures, pavements, slabs, or foundations should be completely demolished and removed from the proposed construction areas. Any utilities that may exist within the proposed building areas should be relocated, and any within pavement areas should be evaluated and relocated as needed prior to construction. After stripping in proposed fill areas and after excavation to design subgrade elevations in cut areas, we recommend that the exposed subgrade soils be proofrolled with a loaded tandem -axle dump truck to locate any areas of soft or otherwise unsuitable surface conditions. Any area that ruts or pumps should be disced, moisture conditioned to near the soil's optimum moisture content by drying or wetting, and recompacted. Densification of very loose to loose sands should be performed, as necessary, with a 10-ton self- propelled vibratory roller. Alternatively, unstable soils could be undercut and replaced with compacted backfill, as discussed below. Based on the explorations and our site observations, we anticipate potential densification of exposed subgrade sands with a vibratory 10-ton roller will be needed across the majority of the site. Undercutting of the near -surface sandy clay in the area represented by Boring B-29 may be necessary, depending on the design grades and weather conditions at the time of site preparation. It is typically more practical and economical to undercut and replace soft, wet clays and clayey sands, rather than disc, dry, and 10 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7, 2012 recompact them, especially during the typically cooler, wetter months of the year (November through March). Once the initial proofrolling, densification, and, if necessary, undercutting of the subgrade soils in the building, pavement, and any other structural areas have been completed, the contractor should protect the exposed soil subgrades by smooth -rolling and grading the site to promote surface water runoff. Exposure to the environment and construction activities will likely weaken the exposed subgrade soils. If deterioration of the soil occurs during the construction process, discing and drying, recompaction, densification, stabilization with geotextiles, and/or undercutting and replacement with structural fill may be necessary. Because this site is adjacent to developed areas and was used for disposal of debris and waste, there is a potential for existing fill, buried foundations, utilities, and debris to be present at the site. Some of the borings encountered near surface fill and possible fill with wood pieces and debris. None of the borings encountered refusal on any relatively shallow obstructions, but they were widely spaced, and buried debris or obstructions are possible at this site between the boring locations. 5.2 Stormwater Management Facilities We understand that wet ponds and/or infiltration basins are being considered to provide stonnwater treatment for some of the proposed site improvements. The North Carolina Best Management Practice (BMP) Manual lists the following requirements for wet ponds and infiltration basins: Table 7 — Stormwater BMP Subsurface Requirements Wot Ponds InFlltration Baslns Minimum 2 feet of separation between bottom of infiltration basin and SHWT or Permanent Pool Elevation within 6 impervious soil horizon Minimum infiltration rate of 0.52 inches inches (plus or minus) of SHWT per hour Device must not be sited on fill material. In general, the in situ soils and subsurface conditions at the site appear to be suitable for wet ponds and, at least at BMP-2 and BMP-3, suitable for Stormwater infiltration basins. Due to the relative uniformity of the soils, the other BMP test locations are likely suitable for infiltration. We recommend that additional in situ hydraulic conductivity testing be performed if infiltration devices are designed for the locations not tested to date to confirm this conclusion. 5.3 Management of Shallow Water Based on the observed soil types in the test borings, the soil descriptions from the soil survey, the water levels measured in the borings, and the seasonal high water table depths evaluated, we anticipate that relatively shallow (approximately 2 to 3 feet deep) perched 11 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion, Camp Leieune. Jacksonville, NC August T 2012 water could occur in localized areas at this site, especially during the wetter, cooler months of the year when seasonal high water table conditions typically occur. Shallow water can result in weakening of the building and pavement subgrades, and consequent failure and/or loss of support in the pavement and building Floor slab areas. However, the seasonal high water table depths measured at BMP-1 and BMP-2 in the northern, higher portion of the site are at least 7 to 8 feet deep. We understand that design cut depths will be 5 feet or less. Also, once the site is developed, infiltration and the potential for shallow perched water conditions will decrease due to the new impervious surfaces limiting overall site infiltration. Where site grades are raised in the building and pavement areas, we do not anticipate the need for permanent dcwatering measures, such as French drains. In cut areas, we recommend that the groundwater conditions be evaluated at the time of construction. If perched water is encountered during construction, temporary ditches or French drains should be installed to remove the perched water. If design grades are more than 5 feet below existing grades in the building or pavement areas, permanent French drains may be required. We can provide additional recommendations for temporary and permanent dewatering once a grading plan has been prepared and submitted for our review, and during construction of the project. 5.4 Excavation Considerations Any temporary construction excavations below the water table, such as those that may be required for utility or stormwater system installation more than 5 feet below existing grade, will require temporary sloping and/or shoring in addition to construction dewatering. Shallow utility excavations will also require dcwatering if perched or seasonal high water table conditions occur at the time of construction. 5.4.1 Temporary Sloping and Shoring Temporary construction slopes and excavation shoring should be designed in strict compliance with the most recent local, state, and federal governing regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. Temporary excavations should be cut to a stable slope or the excavations should be temporarily braced, depending on the excavation depth, nearby site features, and encountered subsurface conditions. Temporary slopes should be no steeper than 21-1:I V, provided the excavations are adequately dewatered and surcharge loads are not applied at the top of the slopes. Stockpiles should be placed well away from the top edge of the excavations, and their heights should be controlled so they do not surcharge the sides of the excavations. We recommend that stockpiles be set back a minimum horizontal distance from the top edge of the excavation equal to the maximum depth of the excavation. We anticipate that temporary slopes can be used for relatively shallow construction excavations (approximately 6 feet or less in depth). Prefabricated trench boxes or 12 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7. 2012 predesigncd shoring systems are anticipated for installation of any utilities, stonnwater pipes, or stonnwater structures deeper than 6 feet below the existing ground surface. The responsibility for excavation safety and stability of temporary construction slopes should lie solely with the contractor. This information is provided only as a service, and under no circumstance should S&ME be assumed to be responsible for construction site safety. 5.4.2 Construction Dewatering During construction, we anticipate that the use of sump pumps within some of the excavations will be required to lower and control groundwater levels. Groundwater should be maintained a minimum of 2 feet below the excavation bottom throughout construction to maintain bottom stability. The depths to the seasonal high water table given in this report can be used for design of construction excavation dewatering systems. The responsibility for dewatering of construction excavations should lie solely with the contractor. This information is provided only as a service and under no circumstance should S&ME be assumed to be responsible for the effectiveness of the construction dewatering method(s) selected by the contractor. 5.4.3 Excavation Bottom Stability Bottom stability will be very important for construction at this site for excavations below the groundwater level. Excavation bottom stability will be dependent on the soil type at and below the bottom of the excavation and the effectiveness of the contractor's dewatering system. If clayey sands or clays are present at the pipe or structure bearing elevation, No. 57 stone should be installed below the pipe and structures to provide excavation bottom stability, facilitate construction dewatering, and provide foundation support. 5.5 Structural Fill and Backfill 5.5.1 Materials and Placement Where structural fill and backfill are required to reach finished grades, we recommend that a soil having a Unified Soil Classification of GW, GP, GM, GP -GM, GW-GM, GP - GC, SW, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, SW-SM, SW -SC, or SM be used. The suitability of the fill materials should be based on soil classification detennined by grain -size distribution and plasticity, not by moisture content. Relatively dry or wet soils meeting the recommended classifications can be used as structural fill and backfill, but may require wetting or drying to achieve the recommended moisture content and compaction. The fill should also be generally. free of organics (less than I percent by weight per ASTM D 2974) and free of free of deleterious materials. Pieces of inert debris, such as 13 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SBME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion, Camp Leieune, Jacksonville, NC August 7, 2012 brick and concrete, should be limited to no more than 3 inches in maximum dimension, and should be blended with soil to prevent the formation of voids. Structural fill and backfill should be placed in 10-inch maximum loose lifts in open site areas and 6-inch maximum loose lifts in trench areas. It should be compacted to at least 93 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D 1557) where more than 24 inches below finish subgrade. The upper 24 inches of structural fill under structure or pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's modified Proctor maximum dry unit weight. The moisture content of the fill should be within +/- 3 percent of the material's standard Proctor optimum moisture content for GM, GP -GC, SW -GC, SP-SC, SW -SC, or SM soils and within +/- 5 percent for GW, GP, GP -GM, SW, SP, SW-SM, or SP-SM soils. Even though silty sands (SM) can be used as compacted structural fill, they are moisture sensitive and can be difficult to adequately dry and compact, especially during the wetter, cooler times of the year. To confirm that the specified degree of compaction is being obtained, field density testing should be performed in each fill lift by the geotechnical engineer's representative. We recommend that density tests be performed at a minimum frequency of one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the building and pavement areas, and one test per 50 linear feet per lift of utility trench backfill in structural areas. 5.5.2 Use of On -Site Soil as Structural Fill and Backfill The on -site soils meeting the classifications for recommended suitable structural fill and backfill, plus meeting the restrictions on organic content and debris, may be used as structural fill and backfill. However, they will require careful moisture.control. Any soils excavated from below the water table will require significant drying to achieve the recommended moisture content and minimum compaction. Soils above the water table may also be relatively dry at the time of construction and require wetting to achieve the recommended moisture content and minimum compaction. During excavation of on -site soils, the contractor should segregate suitable and unsuitable soils based on their classifications and other recommended restrictions. Drier suitable soils (e.g., excavated from above the water table) and wetter suitable soils (e.g., excavated from below the water table) should also be segregated. The wetter soils may require spreading, discing, and drying. Wetter sands with low fines content (SP, SW, SP-SM, SW-SM) excavated from the below the water table can typically be stockpiled and allowed to dry. However, during the typically cooler, wetter months of the year, it may be more economical to import suitable soils from off site, rather than to attempt to dry and re -use wet to saturated on -site soils. The use of on -site suitable soils, use of imported off -site soils, wasting of on -site unsuitable soils, and quantities required are subject to the project design grades and the contractors' means and methods. 14 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion, Camp Leieune, Jacksonville, NC August 7, 2012 5.6 Seismic Design Based on the shear wave velocities measured by the GER seismic CPT sounding (CPT - I ), a Seismic Site Class D designation is appropriate for seismic design in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2012 North Carolina Building Code. 5.7 Foundation Support The proposed buildings, structures, and equipment should be supported on shallow foundations. The net allowable soil bearing pressures given in the following table should be used for design of the shallow foundations bearing on suitable natural soils or properly compacted structural fill: Table 7 — Recommended Net Allowable Soil Bearing Pressures Net Allowable Soll Bearing Pressure ' Designation lus Sustained Static1,11ive ora Loads P ry Name LoITdE- A Headquarters; Building 1500 2250 B Maintenance Facility 2000 3000 C Armory 2000 3000 D Electronic Communications Maintenance Facility 2000 3000 E Supply Warehouse 2000 3000 F Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Training (ISMT) 2000 3000 Building G Covered Storage 2000 3000 H HAZMAT Storage Shelter 2000 3000 Equipment with Point Loads <= 120 kips 2000 3000 Equipment with 120 kips <Point Loads < 250 kips 1500 2250 Notes: 1) psf = pounds per square foot 2) dead + live loads from equipment, occupants, etc. 3) seismic and wind temporary, dynamic loads We estimate the total settlement for the footings will be less than I inch, which is typically tolerable by structures similar to that proposed. Differential settlement between column footings and along wall footings should also be tolerable (less than about''/:- inch). Shallow foundations should be designed to bear at (cast 24 inches below finished grades for frost protection, for protective embedment, and to achieve adequate bearing capacity. In accordance with the North Carolina Building Code, column footings should be at least 24 inches square and wall footings should be at least 16 inches wide to prevent a punching shear failure of the foundation bearing soils. Turndown slabs should be at least 12 inches wide under walls in accordance with the North Carolina Building Code. We recommend that the footing excavations be observed by the geotechnical engineer's representative to verify that suitable soils arc present at, and below, the proposed bearing elevation. If'soll, very loose, or unsuitable materials arc encountered in the footing excavations, they should be undercut and replaced with washed crushed stone (NCDOT No. 15 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7 2012 57 or No. 67) or compacted structural fill. Zones of very loose sand (SP, SP-SM) at the bottom of the footing elevation should be densified in place using a julnpingjack compactor or vibratory plate tamp. Based on the soil test borings, we anticipate that undercutting and/or densification of footing bearing soils will be required in the vicinity of Borings GB-1, GB-2, GB-13, GB-14, and GB-15 to remove or density zones of very loose sand. Localized undercutting/densification of footings between the boring locations may also be necessary. Prepared bearing surfaces for foundations should not be disturbed or left exposed during inclement weather. Saturation of the footing subgrade can cause a loss of strength and increased compressibility. If -construction occurs during inclement weather and concreting of foundations is not possible at the time they are excavated, the footing bearing conditions should be re-evaluated after removal of any water and wet, softened soils prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Also, concrete should not be placed on frozen subgradcs. 5.8 Ground Floor Slabs The proposed structures can incorporate slab -on -grade ground floors. Concrete floor slabs should be constructed above suitable existing soils or newly -placed, well -compacted structural fill. A modulus of subgrade reaction value of 250 pci (pounds per cubic inch) may be used to design floor slabs on properly prepared.subgrades. In order to achieve the recommended subgrade design value for floor slabs, clayey sand (SC) and lean clay (CL) should not be present within 24 inches of the finish subgrade elevations in the structure areas. Depending on design grades, the near -surface sandy lean clay (CL) encountered in Boring B-29 and potentially present in other localized areas may need to be undercut to conform to this recommendation. For the Maintenance Building floor slab, which will be subjected to the heavy combat construction vehicles, we recommend a base course of 4 inches ofaggregatc base course (ABC) compacted to at least 98 percent of its modified Proctor maximum dry unit weight. For the other structures with slab -on -grade ground floors, we recommend that at least 6 inches of compacted clean sand be placed beneath the slabs to provide a capillary break, provide more uniform slab support, and reduce damage to subgrade soils during construction. The clean sand should classify as SP or SW in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, which requires that these materials have less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The need for a synthetic vapor barrier should be evaluated by the designer of the structures. Typically, vapor barriers are used for structures with moisture sensitive floor coverings. We anticipate that the Headquarters Building, and possibly some of the other structures, will include moisture sensitive ground floor coverings. We recommend that vapor barriers consist of a minimum 10-mil polyethylene sheeting meeting the requirements of ASTM E 1745, Class A Standards for plastic water vapor retarders used in contact with soil or granular fill under concrete slabs. The vapor barriers should be installed in accordance with ASTM E 1643. 16 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7, 2012 Depending on design grades and the thickness of structural till to be placed in the building areas, undercutting, reconditioning, and/or replacement of the near -surface soils could be required for the ground floor slabs. After rough grading and prior to footing and utility construction, the exposed subgrade soils in the floor slab areas should be rolled with a 10-ton vibratory smooth drum roller to provide densiHcation and stability of the floor slab subgrade. After footing and utility construction, but prior to ABC or capillary break material placement, the exposed subgrade soils in the floor slab areas should be compacted with a vibratory plate tamp. 5.9 Retaining Walls We understand that retaining walls will be constructed to provide grade separation for vehicle maintenance pits inside the Maintenance Facility and at the Wash Racks/Pads. Also, we assume that there may be loading docks at the Maintenance Facility or Supply Warehouse. We recommend that any retaining walls be designed with regard to the lateral pressure exerted by the compacted backfill and retained soils in accordance with the 2012 North Carolina Building Code. In addition to the lateral loads exerted by the soil against the walls, allowances should be included for lateral stresses imposed by any temporary or long -tern surcharge loads, such as vehicles or equipment, adjacent to the walls. We recommend that the following soil properties be used for retaining wall design, provided granular structural fill (Unified Soil Classification of SW, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, SM) be used as backfill against the walls and the foundation bearing soils are firm and stable: Table 8 - Design Parameters for Below Grade Walls Parameter Value Soil Effective Friction Angle 300 Soil Effective Cohesion (c') 0 psf At -Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient (K.) 0.50 Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ka) 0.33 Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient (K,) 3.0 Moist Unit Weight of Backfll 120 pcf Friction Coefficient between Foundation and Bearing Soil 0.45 Allowable Bearing Pressure on Foundation Soil 3,000 psf Cantilever retaining walls should be designed using the active lateral equivalent pressure coefficient given above. Fixed walls should be designed using the at -rest lateral earth pressure coefficient given above. The backfill should be properly drained and meet other requirements given in this report. 17 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7, 2012 Structures, slabs, pavements, or utilities should not be placed at or within one height of the top of cast -in -place site retaining walls, unless the walls are designed to limit horizontal and vertical movement of the backfill and retained soils. This can be done by using the at -rest, rather than the active, earth pressure conditions. External stability of the proposed retaining walls should be checked during design, including resistance to sliding and overturning. Lateral loads applied to the retaining wall footings can be resisted by the friction between the footing concrete and the foundation bearing soil. To achieve the recommended friction coefficient, the bearing surface must be free of mud or loose soil at the time of concrete placement. In addition to the dead weight of the structure and footing concrete, the soil backfill above the footing may be included as dead weight in sliding and overturning analyses. Drainage of the backfill behind the retaining walls should be provided to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from moisture and potentially groundwater in the backfill. We recommend that a prefabricated geocomposite drainage material (Miradrain TM 6000 or equivalent) be applied to the back of cast -in -place concrete walls. This vertical drain should connected to a pipe or prefabricated drain at the bottom of the wall on the footing. The drain pipe should be designed to Flow by gravity and discharge to the site's proposed stormwater system. If gravity drainage of retaining wall cannot be achieved due to site grade restrictions, permanent sump pits and pumps should be included in the project. Alternatively, reinforced concrete retaining walls could be waterproofed and designed to resist potential hydrostatic pressure. Wall backfill materials should be as previously recommended for structural fill and backfill. Heavy compactors and grading equipment should not be allowed to operate within 5 feet of the wall during backfilling to avoid developing excessive temporary or long-term lateral soil pressures. Within 5 feet of the wall, hand-held equipment must be used to avoid placing high stresses on the wall during compaction. 5.10 Pavement Recommendations We anticipate that a majority of the near -surface soils in the proposed pavement areas will classify as slightly silty sand (SP-SM) or silty sand (SM), based on the borings and laboratory test results. Based on the average S&ME laboratory CBR value of 30, we recommend that a design CBR value of 20 be used to design the Flexible asphalt pavements. We recommend that a design modulus of subgrade reaction value (k) of 250 psi/in be used for rigid concrete pavement design. To achieve the design values, the . upper 2 feet of pavement subgrades should be compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry unit weight, as previously recommended. In order to achieve the recommended subgrade design values for pavements, clayey sand (SC) and lean clay (CL) should not be present within 24 inches of the finish subgrade elevations in the pavement areas. Depending on design grades, the near -surface sandy lean clay (CL) encountered in Boring B-29 and potentially present in other localized areas may need to be undercut to conform to this recommendation. IK Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune, Jacksonville, NC August 7, 2012 Based on the anticipated traffic and subgradc conditions (DesiLm CBR=20, design k=250 psi/in), we recommend the pavement thicknesses and configurations over the prepared soil subgrades given in the following tables: Table No. 9-Asphalt Pavement Thickness Recommendations T,fil_ckness] niches Pavement T YPe Material Light -Duty Heavy -Duty, Hi hwa 172 (T (Parking Lot) un Lanes Superpave Asphalt Surface Course - 2 3 (SF9.5A for Light -Duty) (two lifts) (two lifts) Flexible S9.5B for Heavy -Duty) Aggregate Base Course 6 8 ABC Notes: 1) Based on assumed 5000 vehicles per day one-way for each turn lane with 1 % dual axle trucks and 1 % tractor -trailer trucks. Use thicker pavement section if traffic loading is greater than that assumed. Table No. 10 - Concrete Thickness Recommendations TFilakness iiiichie-sjum M Hev-Duty I (Construction Mttt Vehicles E of Rigid Concrete 5.000 psi 7 Aggregate Base Course ABC 4 Early placement of the graded aggregate base course will minimize deterioration of the prepared soil subgrades. However, some loss of graded aggregate due to rutting and surface contamination may occur prior to final asphalt or concrete paving. Some infilling and regrading of the graded aggregate in conjunction with sweeping with a wire broom may be required. Pavements and bases should be constructed in accordance with the guidelines of the current edition of the North Carolina Department of Transportation's "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures". Materials, weather limitations, placement, and compaction are specified under appropriate sections of this publication. Prevention of infiltration of water into the subgrade is essential for the successful performance of any pavement. Both the subgradc and the pavement surface should be sloped to promote surface drainage away from the pavement structure. 19 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC August 7, 2012 Although asphalt pavements should have a 15 to 20-year performance period, our experience indicates an overlay may be needed in approximately 7 to 10 years due to normal weathering of the asphaltic concrete surface. Also, some areas could require repair in a shorter time period. 6 LIMITATIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specific application to this project. Any wetland, environmental, or contaminant assessment efforts are beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration; and therefore, those issues are not addressed in this report. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, upon the data obtained from the geotechnical exploration. The nature and extent of variations between and away from the soil test borings may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, then it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report.. In the event that any changes in the grades, nature, design, or location of the proposed development are planned, the recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified or confirmed in writing. 20 APPENDIX SBME, INC. / 3006 Hall Waters Drive, Suite 100 1 Wilmington, NC 28405 / p 910.799.9945 / w .smeinc.com *S&ME Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Variations in subsurface conditions can be a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns and claims. The following information is provided to assist you in understanding and managing the risk of these variations. Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Geotechnical engineers cannot specify material properties as other design engineers do. Geotechnical material properties have a far broader range on a given site than any manufactured construction material, and some geotechnical material properties may change over time because of exposure to air and water, or human activity. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions at the time of exploration and only at the points where subsurface tests are performed or samples obtained. Geotechnical engineers review Feld and laboratory data and then apply their judgment to render professional opinions about site subsurface conditions. Their recommendations rely upon these professional opinions. Variations in the vertical and lateral extent of subsurface materials may be encountered during construction that significantly impact construction schedules, methods and material volumes. While higher levels of subsurface exploration can mitigate the risk of encountering unanticipated subsurface conditions, no level of subsurface exploration can eliminate this risk. Scope of Geotechnical Services Professional geotechnical engineering judgment is required to develop a geotechnical exploration scope to obtain information necessary to support design and construction. A number of unique project factors are considered in developing the scope of geotechnical services, such as the exploration objective, the location, type, size and weight of the proposed structure; proposed site grades and improvements; the construction schedule and sequence; and the site geology. Geotechnical engineers apply their experience with construction methods, subsurface conditions and exploration methods to develop the exploration scope. The scope of each exploration is unique based on available project and site information. Incomplete project information or constraints on the scope of exploration increases the risk of variations in subsurface conditions not being identified and addressed in the geotechnical report. Services Are Performed for Specific Projects Because the scope of each geotechnical exploration is unique, each geotechnical report is unique. Subsurface conditions are explored and recommendations are made for a specific project. Subsurface information and recommendations may not be adequate for other uses. Changes in a proposed structure location, foundation loads, grades, schedule, etc. may require additional geotechnical exploration, analyses, and consultation. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted to determine if additional services are required in response to changes in proposed construction, location, loads, grades, schedule, etc. Geo-Environmental Issues The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geo-environ mental study differ significantly from those used for a geotechnical exploration. Indications of environmental contamination may be encountered incidental to performance of a geotechnical exploration but go unrecognized. Determination of the presence, type or extent of environmental contamination is beyond the scope of a geotechnical exploration. Geotechnical Recommendations Are Not Final Recommendations are developed based on the geotechnical engineer's understanding of the proposed construction and professional opinion of site subsurface conditions. Observations and tests must be performed during construction to confirm subsurface conditions exposed by construction excavations are consistent with those assumed in development of recommendations. It is advisable to retain the geotechnical engineer that performed the exploration and developed the geotechnical recommendations to conduct tests and observations during construction. This may reduce the risk that variations in subsurface conditions will not be addressed as recommended in the geotechnical report. Portion obtained with permission from "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report", ASFE, 2004 © SSME, Inc. 2010 k} .t New Rber r SITE - { N Sneads.Ferry_ _ f gg New Infe-� Chodwick Atlantic Ocean SCALE: NOT TO SCALE ISITE �" S&ME VICINITY MAP P PCOMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION ONS &MAINTENANCE COMPLEX OPERATIONS MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA FIGURE NUMBER -� CHECKED BY: NPB DRAWN BY: TMS DATE: 71212012 S&ME PROJECT NUMBER: 1061-12-249 Eck"' '' I ♦$ ( `H r�aBMP-2 BMP-0 RjA A CPT' ca6 L �_aB.z r-�8.2 �GB-12 J i I BMP-5 BJ Bfi GA GS-13 .. B.n 1 �l ' r t 6 'Iz 1 1r 11i�?•. B-13 { A\i B-16 ` B-18 B33 L B35 __ B-n J1 B�H it —_�!. I! -T11 GRAB G GB-1AB-15 1� GB48 Fi��1T B-2.`,I __• -I'�� 11 �--BB t N _- e12 H Il�a-n — - �BaB �B-30 r'� B-26 GB-2 1� �..• I ' GBJ GBJ r---- i eM 1 GM B.19 B-n cB-10 BE 19 I� 20 I GB 31 GB22- '. II I ❑l✓ , `1 Y t1E IIII. `�� BMP1 _.�BMP.2 'Zi9 b LEGEND `.- - - - •. - -� �, .- GER BOIL TEST BORINGS DRILLED 1092011 THROUGH 1R6I2011. O - GER CPT BOUNDING ADVANCED 1127R011 1 - SBME SOIL TEST BORINGS DRILLED 6119=12 AND MW2012 GRAPHIC SCALE ® -SdME HAND AUGER BORINGS ADVANCED 62L2012. -T yE GB 24 N \ BMPJ — BMPJ 5$11 Et/ ` REFERENCE: BINNING TITLED 'BUYING LMATON ERNIBR'. ORA'MNG NO. BAN. DATED MY1013. PREPARED BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING, 0' 150 300' FIGURE NO AS SHOWN T2I2012 ]MfiNALLwE EXPLORATION LOCATION PLANPHo]EC061- ORAwN Bv: *s&mrm .DRIVE suDEroP4253 Nc zoos 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OPERATION$ B MAINTENANCE COMPLE%061-12-249 TINSwIIMINGTDN. PNy9m,,9 99 5 MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE L cHEONED Bv: ENGwFf0.1NG. 1FSNNG www.SMEINC.COM JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA NPB ENV10GNMENTAE SEWICLS GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 0 5 10 ._.._....._ .___ .... HC __._...._ B-1 .._. _..... 4 9 HC .......g....._..._ B-2 ....._... _. 4 g............ 8 HC B-3 ......._ _... 7 7...... 8 HC B-4 .............. 8 HC 9 — 15 B-5 ..... 15 19._....... 10 HC 12-._....,. B-6 _......._. _. 12 10.. it HC 17..... B-7 _. _...._.._ 4 4 10 HC.{'. 1.5 ...... B-8 ......._....._ 4 g 6 HC 10_._..._ B-10 ..._...� 21 14.. HC 6_L. 7.......--.. B-11 _...... 4 5 ..... 5 10..... . �..7. . _ , . I' .,i.: ..7. I' .�.; .. :f .14 I .,...' -...12 -:' .. :: : �J.13._.:_._. I: : m 65 x a W 0 20 I 25 1 30 N Fill Ills Low Plasticity Clay. Topsoil SC. Clayey Sand Slightly Silty Sand HC Hole Collapse Poorly -Graded Sand Penetration Test resistance value (blows per foot). The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual subsurface conditions will vary between boning locations. '•I'` = Standard SCALE IV) 1=8• *SME All iiiiiiist 3006 Hall Waters Drive Suite 100 Wil (910) 799 9945405 9(9 799-9-9945 ENGINEERING . TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES www.smeinc.com GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY: T. Schipporeit DATE: 7/5/2012 DATE: 71512012 JOB NO: 1061-12-249 RALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS B-9 B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 B-16 B-19 B-20 0 ............. __...... _.......... .._... .... .. ........ ...... ........ ..... ... ... .._...... .... 4 ..6 8 7 I 13 I' 24 f. 32 `'I: 9 20 I 9 5 _......_. 5 13 ....... 22 18 ... ..{ .42 ..... I: 14... 16 43-._.... ,...23tLc... 97 I ,' HC HC I �.: 7 HC XI 10 — 27 22 16 — 13 11 10 He 16 12 10 I' 14 _.. q __...... 49... _ 25 ... - .21....._ 43... 15 7....... .. '..' 17_........ g 20 1 25 1 30 N Fill''` Slightly Silty Sand Topsoil Poorly -Graded Sand Low Plasticity Clay SM. Silty Sand SC, Clayey Sand HC Hole Collapse Penetration Test resistance value (blows per foot). The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual subsurface conditions will vary between bonng locations. = Standard SCALE: (V) 1-=8- 3006 Hall Waters Drive Spite 100 *S&ME Wil mington, NC (910) 799 9945405 (910) 799-9958 fax ENGINEERING . TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES www.smeinc.com GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS p-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina FIGURE NO. 4 T. chip CHECKED BY: T. Schipporeit DATE' JOB NO: 1061-12-249 0 5 10 20 25 30 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS B-21 ............. ............ B-22 __....__ B-23 _.............. B-24 ...._ B-25 ........ . B-26 _...__ ,.._...... B-27 .... ......... B-28 ............... B-29 --. _.__. B-30 _._ -. _....-..-......_. 13 }_: 24 L.. 15 7 20 19 j . 20 6 7 4 ............ {: 21 1.:.17 _..... ..I': 15.... 16 i.. 15_._.. 4_ .... L: 14 C; 7 _..,.,_.. , ..9..... 6 HC H—CI I�. HC . f HC HC,I tLC.L. HC HC 15 . 21 HC 24 . 18 I. 12 11 8 9 C25 13 ...... 25 13 ......._ 14..... 15 15 - ....... 20.... 20 9 . ._._ 13_.. 17 Topsoil ® Low Plasticity Clay 1' Slightly Silty Sand HC Hole Collapse SM. Silty Sand N = Standard Penetration Test resistance value (blows per foot). The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual subsurface conditions will vary between boring locations. SCALE: (V) 1-8 3006 Hall Waters Drive GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FIGURE Suite 100 NO. CHECKED BY: T. Schipporeit Wilmington, NC 28405 P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion DATE: 7/5/2012 *SME (910) 799-9945 Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 5 ENGINEERING . TESTING (910) 799-9958 fax JOB NO: 1061-12-249 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES www.smeinc.com 'PEST BORING REACORD Environmental, Groundwater, Haz rdousidatedals GectEnvironmental Resources, hte. Geolechnlral& Industrial Englneednq Consultants, Boring fl: GB-1 (Page I Oft ) Project: P1253 2d CLB Ups/A'Ininteumtce Complec GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejemte, NC Driller: Flshburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotm'y Depth (ft.): 60.0 Elevation (fi.): Client: H11A-H&A JV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation ft m Depth ft m Lich_ elegy Material Description Ground WaterComments S P Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resi2Snce(blows/fool)50 10 zs 30 35 I 3 - 7- - 10— I2 ' 'Pn loll- 4 inches Q Perched water ' v > a ' r , r o 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - Slightly Slit), SAND (SP-SAI) Very loose to loose, gray to tan and brown, fine, trace roots 4 to ""j"" _ "_ - -t " .......... ... ... . _.._ " - 1""1 1- _ _ Clean SAND (SP) Loose, tint, line - -i i t - -4- .--i- - -- - B, .._ Silly SAND (SM) Loose, light gmy and tan, fine, trace clay _... .. �L.. . _ : •. Clayey SAND (SC')-�-'- Loose, light gray and omnge, fine - - - - I. - - - - - '•. •-'- : '•' X. Clean SAND (SP) Finn, orange and tell to white, fine ___________ Clean SAND (SP) Firm, grey and brown, fine to medium - - -_--I- i-- 1 - �....�... ' - I �+ .... . .. .. • • - r - � I L. i.. Sandy, Low Plasticity CLAP (CL) Very soft to soft, light gray -+-' - L. _ - - --- - GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712, Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 www.gerontine.com TEST BORING RECORD ronmentnl Resources, Environmental, Hazardous Materials. GeoLnvineeri 8 Consultants e Inc.otechnlcal Industrial Engineering Boring #: GB -I (Page 2 of 2) Project: P1253 2d CGB Opsnlaiuteuance'Contple GER Project Nmnber: 110-5585 Dale Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Com'thouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Flshburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (R.): 60.0 Elevation (oJ: Clicnt: FIBA-H&A JV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation m Depth R m Lith- ology �4alcrinl Description Groun Water Conunenls S T Uncorrected 2 0 Penetration Resign ace (blons7foo)5oft ' 45— so 55 60— 65 70 75 13 14— 16 I g 20 21 23 Sandy, Low Plasticlly CLAY (CL) Very soft to so0, light gra3(cout7mmdJ ' u n -I !I 1 Clayey SAND (SC) Very louse, light greenish -gray, fine -�- 41-•�- - - - - - -- i- .o 0'. 0: o D�._..:....- ' d4 Q. Silty SAND and SHRLL(SM) Dense to 0nn, light gray, fire to coarse, trace clay -- ---I - { =1—_; --, - r -F--54-�-- +- e Boring Icrminaied at 60 feel. ....I_I_ -�.....-.i..-.. ..{.-�_ _... . ..._ If --- - j --- -i , GeoEndronmenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virglnla Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 vm,v.geronline.wm TEST BORING RECORD GeciEnvironmental Resources, Inc. Geolennical&GroutrialEr,Bezardouslsultants. s Geotechnical&Industrial Enpineedng Consultants Boring GB-2 (page b ( g ) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/illolntenance Cont ples GER Project Number: I10-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 - Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Fishburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (ft.): 30.0 Elevation (fl.): Client: 11BA-H&A JV Hammer Type: Autonlatic Elevation n Depth fl m Lith. elegy Material Description Green Water Comments S P Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resistance nce (blows/fool) 50 s 10 20 25 30 3S 2 3 sml/ 7 -'••' g - 9 to _ - 12— ' '1'o soil-6 inches Q v > , .2 ---'--• Slightly Silty SAND(SP-SDI) Very loose, grey m tan and brown, fine, trace organics �'" t_ IT A ..T 1 a - I - - y 1 Clenu SAND (SP) Very loose to loose, white and tan, fine -3 ... _5.. =.. �.-.. ..,__ Silly SAND ISM) Loose, tan, fine .... Nil Clcn I SAND (SP) Finn, Inn and white, fine to medium26- .....� �.. .ram+.........--T. -- '. ,,'. ' ..' • Slightly Silly SAND ($P-SDI) Loose, orange and tan, fine to medium, tram clay -i- - -�- - - -, -- ., •: .' ",,'• '•:' Clem, SAND(SP) Loose, tan, orange and brown, fine to medium - - - - Boring terminated al 30 feet. - _-�_._ I_ T . ..._-. _i ... .. . ...... _ - Geolinvirunmenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA23452 757-463-3200 vvnv.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials. riPoEnvll'onmentAI RCSOUPCCSr .TIIC. Geotachnica18Industrial Engineering Consultants Boring B: GB-3 (Page l of I) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/blaintcnnace Complex GFR Project Number. 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/2512011 Location: Coarthonse Bay, Camp Lejeane, NC Driller: Flslaburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (0.): 30.0 F,levation (ft.): Client: HBA-H&A JV Hammer Type: Anttnantie Elevation 0 in Depth P 0 in Liih- ology Material Description Ground Water S T Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resitnce (blowslfoot)50 . 10 20 30— 3.5 3 5- 0 S 10 it • - Topsoil-4 inches � ' ' ; -4r- - - - Slightly Silly SAND (SP-S\I)- Veryloose, gray and brown, fine, trace roots IB . .' Clean SAND(SP) Loose to very loose, tan and brown, fine - - 7 _ _i. �... IB f _ ., _ i - - f -,- -t-- ..., - -- - ..:.. .:.. Sit", SAND (SM) Loosc to very loose, Ian and light gray, fine I_I_ --1-T ' .:. Clean SAND (SP)- Finn to loose, white and Ian, tine- .. ___ 1 ._____;_ .. (I_ l --- _ 41 - ' , • '• •; sut,•sAND(s�p Very loose, dark brown, fine to medium, trace wood fibers � - �- - Boring terminated at 30 feet. -- i _ I Geolinvironmenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Urglnia Beach, VA 23452 757.4633200 temv.geronlinacom TEST BORING RECORD Materials, nviro mental. Gdusldal lor, Hazard Consultants t Environmental. GeoEnvirownental Resources IIf C. Geotec nIca ,Grestrial Engineering paring #: �iB-4 (Page I of G ( B ) Project: P1253 1d CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Crimp Lejeane, NC Driller: Pishhurne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (tl.): 60.0 Elevation (R.): Client: IIBA-H&A JV - Hatmner Type: Autmnatle Elevation Depth Liih- Material Description Grout Water Comments S T ' Uncorrected Penetration Resi25 nce (blows/fnot)50 0 m tt inol6gy 0 ".' To soil- 3 inchesRir - '. Perched waleLoose Sllghtly Silty SAND (SP-S\I) to finn, brown and gray, fine, trace organicsClean SAND(SP)I 9 Finn to loose, tan with brown and white, fine I 5 i I II SZ _. _-- ' 1 - - • • Silo, SAND(SM) Loose, light gray and Inn, tine to medium, •' little clay, trace organics e ,...�.. ... . .,-. --t ...._ 10 3 hI--- -- - - -HIM :, •. Clean SAND (SP) 4,,Loose, white to to , finehs ::. --- s — SlightlySiltySAND(SP-SJq ' Loose, tan and orate, fine to medium .. _i-r - -_. - ,_ -�._ ._ . l �_ _. _ - FT . Clean SAND (SP) ` - 7 ,'• : ':; Loose to firm, white and tan, fine to medium, trace clay 25 t .. g . ..-..i...,....i_�_ 30 10 I( �f .• �. ,, Clnyey SAND (SC) Very loose, light gray, fine, with thin silty clay lenses WITYcy SA\D (SC) — — — ery loose, dark gray, fine _.._ . ^{ 12 GeoEndronmenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite i01 Virglnla Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 vrxw.gerordmr.wm TEST BORING RECORD EnNronmemal;Groundwater,Hazerdous Maledels, GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. Geolechnical 6 Industrial Eng!needng Consultants gorin K #: GB-4 (Page 2of2 ) Project' P1253 2d CCB Ops/iMatutenanee Complex GER Project Number: I t0-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Pisliburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (RJ:60.0 Elevntion(ft.): Client: HBA-II&AJV Hummer Type:Autonintie Elevation n in Depth n rm Lilh- ology 'Ground Material Description noun Comments S T Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resits nce (blow fool) 4s so 55 60 65 70— 75 13 - _ 17 19— 20I_ 21__. 22— 23 Clayey SAND(SC) Very loose, dark gray, fimQconrinued) , , - Silly SAND ISM) Very loose, dirk gray, Fine to medium, little to some clay - - _2 - - - - -- - t _ :., o'� e Q- ii Silly SAND and SIIGLL (SNI) Finn to dense, light gray, fine to coarse, trace clay, Partly cemented ... _ _.1 _ _ -- 4 - - - - - I I --- - - Boring terminated at 60 feet. j_ i .._ .. ..... .. .. . - ... .. -.._ -. _. _ - — �...... GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 %vim.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials GeoCnvGBlrDnmental Resources, Ine• Geoledmical&industrial EnglneedngConsultants, Boring R: S (P g 1 of 1 ) C�(Page Project: PI253 2d CEB Ops/Alalntenance Complex GFR. Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/27/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Plsllburne Drill Method: 3" Mini Rotary Depth(B.): 15.0 Flevation(ft.): Client: HBA-H&AJV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation Fl io De ah 1 Fl I,ith- elegy Material Description Ground Water Comments S Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resits 5o ace (blows/foot) to-32 ,15 20— 2$ 3$— - 2 5 m! 7 • '.'.' ' Topsoil-3inches g Perched water a r 8 I — ' I - : Silly SAND (Si31) Loose to firm, grey, fine _ -10.. . _ �. _.. ._ F3,'l _..._... :, •.'.'• Clean SAND (SP) Finn to dense, ran to white, fare -- - Boring temainalcd at l$feel. — ... .. . T6 _ T I ti! . ... _r. _ _... ..._.. ..__ GeoEnvironmenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard,, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 %mv.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD GC41Environtnental Resources, Inc. Geolechn!cal3 ndusiriall Engineerriing Consultants' Boring N: GB-6 (Page i of i) Project: IP1253 2d CEB Ops/Maintenonce Complex (;ER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Cnnq> LeJeune, NC Driller, Pispbarne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotm•y Depth (B.): 10.0 Elevation (RJ: Client: RBA-11&A TV ' Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation n In Depth n . ,n I-ith- ology hlntcrial Description Ground Water Continents S T Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resistpnce (blows/fool) 25 501 �. 5 10 20 25 30 35 - 3 4_... 6 7 - t8 1l 12,_I ', '•. ' .. ' Perched water > 'q 3 Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SM) Very loose to loose, Bray to Ian with brown— and white, fine, trace tools _ , rr T I I i : - _ _ Boring tenninnted at 10 feet. _....L.f . . .. ...L... „ 17 !- - _ I ! GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757.4633200 twrw.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD GeUEHVLL•UHHlenfal IZeSOurceS Inc.Envimn meal ,Ind strut ng1reering Cous nsultants s Geotechnipl8lndustrial Engineering Consullonls Boring m: GB-7 (Page 1 of I $ ( g ) aintenance ComPlem Project: P1253 2d CERTBay, GER Project Number: I10-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse nrp Lejeune, NC Driller: Pishbur•ne Drill Method: 3" bloc) Rotary Depth (fl): 15.0 Elevation (R.): Client: H13A-IJ&A JV Harnrner •Type: Automatic Elevation n m Depth A m Lilh- ology Material DescriPrion Ground Water Continents S P Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resi25 nce (blows/foor)50 2 5 10 IS 25 30-10 35 - - 3 4 5- 7-- S - 12 •Popsnh- 12 inches— I .; Slightly Silly SAND (SP-SM)-- Very loose to loose, gmy to tan with brown and white, One, trace tools, trace clay - - - - - -(- • •l.'• Clean SAND (SP) Loose, tun and white, line 7-.. - �- _1_ ._i. t91 _.!-. _ _ _ Silly SAND (Saq Loose, light gray and tan, fine, trace clay _ -�- - :- - - .- - - Boring terminated at 15 feel.M _ _ - - - ill - - GeoErwhonmenlal Resources, Inc. 2112 Southern Boulevard, Sulle 101 V'uginla Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 www.geranlinomm TEST BORING RECORD GeoEnvironnlenttll Resources Inc. Geotecmonlal, GrusUial ngneningConsuer, Hazardous ltants, e Geofechnical&Industrial Engineedng Consultants Rorin N: GB-8 Page I of 8 (Page ) Project: P1253 2d CC13 Ops/Nlaiuteoauee Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse tiny, Camp Lejeuue, NC Driller: Fishhurne Drill Method: 3" Mtid Rotary Depth (0.)r60.0 Elevation(ft): Client: HBA-H&A,7V Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation R III llcplh m l.og ology Material Description Ground lVnler Comments S r Uncorrected O Penetration Resi55 ace(blows/foot)50 2 5 10 20- 30 35 •- - 3 q 5 - 6-7 10 _ - 12 ' " :' '. - Topsoil- 3 inches Q a 7 I r-- Silty SAND (S\I) Loose, brown and grey, fine Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SND Louse I very loose, Inn, fine - t-- i' • Silty SAND (SDI) Loose, light grey, fine, with trace to little clay 1 - - I - -16 Finn, Inn, fine - I 3 .', .. _.... •., •,'• '. SllghIly Silty SAND (SP-Sm) Very loose, orange, fine to medium- Sligltlly Sllt SAND (SP-SDI)—�-- Finn, grey, tine to medium - — ' —' -- -- ' _.1._ ..I. �..... ._ -..._ - - - - _i_.71-1--- city grey Sandy, Lomerr Plaoft, light to grey Soft to very soft, light grey to grey j Geolindronmentai Resources, Inc. 2112 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-403-3200 w .geronlinamm TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater. Hazardous Materials, GeoEnvironniental Resources, Inc. Geotechnica18Industrial Engineering Consultants Boring #: (Page 2 of 2 ) in GB-8 Project: P1253 2d CEB OpsfMaintenance Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse Boy, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Rishburue Drill Method: 3" \Iod Belot Depth (B.): 60.0 Elevation (0.): Client: HBA-H&A JV Hammer Type: Aatmunlle Elevation n m Depth n 4$ 50— 60 65— 7n m 17 20 21 22 24 Lilh- elegy Material Description Smzdy, Low Plasticity, CLAY (CL) son to very son, light grey to grey Ground Water Comments s T G Penelmlion Uncorrected Resi25 nee (6lowslfoot)50 _ ._ ... ..... ._{... T ... ... -. 2. �14 . pul :1:. -- Nil , • • 0.4 Sllly SAND ml SIIr3LL (Shl)16 Dense to finn, grey, line to coarse, with little0: gravel and trnco to little clay �L ,_. Boring terminated at 601eet. I- 4tti- ... - ... .. __ ....... _4_. - ._ .-1... _ I.. T ...... _.: _1 1 !... . +L GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 104 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 ,wsw.geronlinexom TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeoE11V11'Bnnlental Resources, Ine. Geolechniwl& Industrial Engineering Consultants G139 e I of t Boring u: - (page ) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/A Ininteumlee Cornpies GER Project Number. 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/27/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp LeJeune, NC Driller: hishbunte Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary, Depth (ft.): 10.0 Elevation (RJ: Client: fIBA-II&A JV 17amrner Type: Autuniatic Elevalion n n Depth n In Lith- oloBY Material Description GroundS Water Comments T Uncorrected Penetration Resits ace (bl0 Ofoot) 0 50 q— t0 20 25— 30 _ - 2 4- r 7 B 9 10 12 •' ' • ' T soli- 3 inches Y Sz Perched water . ,o , . ' - i- ' '" - - - Silty SAND (SM) Firm, brown and grey, fine _ ...._ .I .. - 17.. ... _ Clean SAND (SP)- Loose, mn to white, fine - B i I Boring terminated at 10 feet. ..� - .. .....1 -- i-- - _ f . - - I -- _ _ _ _ _ ....I_ ..I�.I.. _.�. l.. _. _ 4 U __ GeoEnvimnmenlel Resources, Inc, 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 VoliInia Beach, VA 23452 757 463.3200 Y�.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD Haurdus Material GeoEnvironmental Resources Inc. Geoten meal&Grounrial En,IleerIng Consults Materials, f Gnvinin ental, Groundwater, Borngm GB-10 Pa e I orl g ( g ) Project: P7253 2d CCB Ops/11talntell ance Cmnplex GER Project Number: 110-5555 Date Drilled: 1/27/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Cnny1 LeJcunc, NC Driller: Eishburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (A.): 10.0 Elevation(R): Client: llBA-Il&ASV Hammer Type:. Automatic Elevation it In Depth It 5 10 IS 20 30 35— in 2 _ 4 5 6 7- 8 0 10 _ Lith- ology • .23- .. MaterialDescription To soil-3 inches Gromtd Water T Comments P Perched water S 1, 0 0 Penetration .I 8'- Uncorrected Resisunnce(blows/foot) Silly SAND ISM) Loose to firm, brown and grey, fine �- - _ _'-- -. .. 24-1- -I_; '•. ,' :. .. ... ... Clean SAND (SP) , Finn to dense, tan to while, line .... i.. . -, 33i. - -- 15 t Boring terminated at 10 feet. ' --i...�..._.. .. .. _ _I?. ... .L.. ' I ...... - - ._ .... IT—It- -tLi - ... -_! „ _ t __i.........j- ___ .+ I Ulm , GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Yrginia Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 vrvnv.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD Emironmenlal,Groundwater, Hazardous Materials. GeoEnviro nnentaI Res ourees, Inc, Geotechnlcald industrial Engineering Consultants goringN: GB -II (Pagel oft) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/Maintenance Comple. GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: fishburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (flJ: 10.0 Elevation (it.): Client: IIBA-II&A JV Hummer Type: Autmuntic Elevation 0 in Depih O m 1-iih- elegy Material Description Ground Water Comments S 1, Uncorrected 0 Penetration Res' t ace (blow s7fool)50 , I 5 to 20 5 30 35 3 415— 5 6 g-- to— 1I 0 1oll-4 inches SZ _ , ,. n 2- -- -- Silty SAND ISM) Very loose, brown to orange, One i"'I-' -�,_ i_ -" "' —•—r :. '. slightlySilty SAND (SP-Saq Loose; trot, tine B I_�.. _ l — T ® Boring terminated at 10 feet. . I —- I Li I-'-. — — _i-...." _.... _. _.... ."r _- -' I--� I -_ _. - I -- 1 I _ _ _ t�- _l_ _._ _ .._ . �_L. GeoEndronmentai Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Salle 101. Virginia Beach, VA 234$2 757-403-3200 enmv.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD Materials, GeoEll Vironn1ental Resources Inc. Gootac meal IndGroutrialE Engineering s �Geotechnlcal&Industrial Engineering Consultants Rorie M: GB-12 (Page 1 of S ( B ) Reject: P1253 2d CER Ops/Nlaiatennuee Conlplec CER Project Number. 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse Ray, Caulp Lejetine, NC Driller: Fishburne Drill Method: 4" Mud Rotary Depth (ft.): 60.0 Elevation (A.): Client: HRA-H&A dV Hanmter Type: Aulonratic Elevation 0 m Depth ft m Lilh- ology Material Description GroundS Water Continents 7 Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resign nce (blows/foot)SO E - 10 20 30- 3 4 6- 7 g_ 12 ' SZ o ; r 16 e--- . ,4�-. ... -.... ._ _ ' _.._ .... _. Silly SAND (S\Q Veryloose, brown and grey, fine --- _ _ — SlightlySiltySAND(SP-SM) Very loose to fine, inn, fine I q., _14 I - i 1 LN, 4il_ .1" - IF : Silly S.\\U (SAq Finn, grey, fine, with lilde clay _:_t � ._16 -' 17 - ' ' ' , •, •' Clean SAND (SP) Finn to loose, tan to white, fine _441 I- •,'• x. Slightly Silly SAND(SP-SM) Very loose to loose, orange, One F -- -- -'' -- I- - -- - -.'. ' Silty SAND(SM) Very loose, grey, fine, with trace clay- - I- - -1 i.... -.� i T Geolinvlronmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suge 101 Vlrginla Beach, VA 23452 7574633200 vnvw.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD CieDEnvironlneniaj Re8O113'ceS Inc. Geotechnlual, IndGroustrial ngineerngCordaus nsultants, , Geotechnlcal &Industrial Enpineadng Consultants noting#: GB-1.2 (Page of � ( g ) Project: 111253 2d CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse 13ay, Camp Lejenne, NC Driller: Flshburne Drill Method: 4" Marl Rotary Depth (A.): 60.0 Elevation (ft.): Client: 1113A-11&A JV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation O inO Depth �n Lith- ology h4aterinl Description Ground Water'r Comments s P Uncorrected Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) 0 25 50 45 GO 65 70 7S- - = _ 14- 1 G 17_.. 18 I g- 20 22 23 za- Sanndy:\IL) Soft, greyey,. Wilwith little cla}(canlDucerQ ° " Sandy, Low Plasticity, CLAN' (CL) Very soft, light grey to grey _......_... 0 _. I _ I �1- T25 , ' Silty SAND (SM) Finn, ggrey, One to coarse, Willi little gravel, lime siicll and trace to little cloy 17-I�-If- I_ t I' - Boring terminated at 60 feet. I . II - -I-I GeoFnvlronmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 mnv.geronlinemm TEST BORING RECORD F.nvirenmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeDEnvironmental Resources, Ine. Geolechnical&Industrial Engineering Consultants Boringfl: CrB-13 (Page I Oil ) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/A7alntenmue Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: ColIrthouse Bay, Croup Lejeune, NC Driller. Fishhurnc Drill Method: 3" Mad Rotary Depth (t).): 15.0 Elevation (ft.): Client: 11FIA-n&A JV IlammerType: Automatic Elevation n m Depth n m Lilh- ology Material Description Ground roue Comments S i, Uncorrected ' 0 Penetration Resis ice (blows/fool) 5S 50 5 to- IS 20 25— 30 - - 3 - 4 5 7 9— 10 - 12 .' ' . Topsoll-5 inches+-- 1 9_ Silty SAND (SAI) Very louse, brown and grey, fine, with trace rools -pI I 2__ .T-� - ; - - - - _ -� +' _t I I- l._- _I. + Slightly SIII SAND SP-S\I) Very loose to firm, hill, tineSZ - r _ i '.'. • Clem, SAND (SP) Finn, lair to white, fine Boring terminated at 15 feet. . rH1 - l.. _L.j —FFr. — Il _ ._ _..�_.. _.:_..__ .. .. _'T LL - _ _..... I L_.._,. i _ i 4 1 ... _1 GeoEnvitonmanlal Resources. Inc. 2712 Soulhem Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA23452 757-463-3200 w,wr.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeoTnvironmental Resources, Inc. Geotechnical 8 Industrial Engneering Consultants Boring GB-14 (Pagel I orl g #: ( R ) Project: P1253 2d CEpl Ops/Mahttenanee Complex GER Project Number: 110-5555 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse ploy, Cnngs Lejeune, NC Driller: Elshbmrne Drill Method: 3" Mod Roinry Depth (ft): 30.0 Elevation (0.): Client: HVIA-H&A JV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation R m Depth 0 5 10 15- 20- 30 35- - m25 - M. 2 3- 4 - 6 7 9 to: I I 12] Lith- elegy '... Material Description aoil-4 inches Ground Water Comments S T ;- e s 0 Penetration -2 _�'; _�, Uncorrected Resistance I _ (blowst 01) 0 Su�'1'o >• SAND (SM) Very loose to loose, brown and grey, fine .. I i - - Clean SAND(SP) Loose, Imr, fine PH Silty, High Plasdeity CLAY (CH)----j-- Firm, orange and grey, with trace fine sand - - - ...- - -_I. - --r- - :. Slit), SAND ISM) Loose, brown, fine, with little clay ...i.. : • ' :• :. . r.,• Clenn SAND (SP) Loose to Firm, tan, fine to medimn- .............. - - - I .. __I. _.I.. - 7_ 0 Fi - - Boring terminated at 30 feet, _ ....: l GeoEnvironmentel Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 151-463-3200 www.gero me.com TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeOl,nvlrollnlental Resources, Inn. Geolechnicel d Industrial Engineering Consultants Boring H:. GB-I5 (Page 1 of 2) Project: P1253 2d CCB Ops/Niandmtmtce Cmuplex GER Project Number. 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Locution: Courthouse Bay, Cmnp Lejeune, NC . Driller: Pishburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (ti.):60.0 Elevation(ft.): Client: HBA-H&A.1V IiamnierType: Autontatic Elevation B In1 Depth m Lith- elegy Material Description Ground Water Comments S i Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resistance(blows/foot)SO 10 _ ' 30 35 2 3 g 10 - Ta soil-G inches SZ 3 Silly SAND (SAI) Very loose, brown and grey, fine - 2- Slightly Sill), SAND (SP-SM) Very (nose, Ian, fine, with trace roots , ..'r. ., Silty SAND ISM) Loose, grey, fine, with little clay- • . .. Clean SAND (SP) Loose to finn, tan to white, fine - - - ! --i 25 .. .. 23 ;...i.. .. ... - - -- . Silty SAND (SAI) Loose to finn, light brown, orange to grey, fine tumedium. - - _l-- -- IJ- .... .. ! �... -- ._ Clnyey SAND (SC) Very loose, light grey to grey, fine - - - GeoEnvironrrenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757.4633200 vmw.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. Geolechnical& Indusldol Engineering Consultants i8: GB1 rJ (Page Boring - ( ) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/\7alltteumtce Comple. GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Plshburne Drill Method: 3" Mild Rotary Depth ((t.):60.0 Elevation(B.): Clieiit: IIBA-II&A.IV IlammerType: Atromatic Elevation B nt Depth R nt Lilh- elegy Material Description Ground Water Comments S T Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resistance (blows/f000 -- ;L 45 50 55— 60 GS 70 75 -., - 13 14 16- 17— 19 20_ 21 13 24] ,, O Very to SAND (SC) Very loom, light grey to grey, fine onfinmed) ,e --- -- - - LL --- •- - - - - •.' Ll SlIty SAND (sg)- Dense to firm, grey, fine to coarso, with little- gravel, little shell and trace to little clay - - _L- ,.. I _ _� ---- —29 26 r - - Boring terminated at 60 feet. i- _-. .-..- _ ._ .. ................. .. - - - , .. .. .. . Geo[nvironmenlel Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 www.geronline.com 'rLST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous ldalarials, GetlEnvironmental Resources, Inc. Geotechnical& Industnal Engineering Consultants goring #: GB-1 V (Page Ion) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/blaintenance Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Diiiled: 1/27/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeuue, NC Driller: Rlshburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (11.): 30.0 Elevation (B.): Client: HBA-H&A JV Hammer "type: Automatic Elevation it as Depth R rn Lilh- Lii gy Material Description Ground Water Comments S P, Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resist nce (blows/fool)SO 1 2. Is- - 30 35 I 2 4 - 9- - to-:41 It • a soli- 3 inches : p f a u r r 6 II , 11 5- — - ... t T - _.... - - _ LaryLANDaaq Loose, brown and grey, fin.. 4- Clean SAND (SP) Ve loose, imy fine 1 - I � .. .. l r _... . Si111 SAND(SM) Loose, grey, line, with little clay I _ I _8. - . •. Clear, SAND (SP) Loose to firm, tan to white, fine . - _.. 112-. - - —I- _ I 15 -_ I _ _L_ -�_ Smoly, Lois, Plasticity CLAY (CL) Very soft, grey :... k _ _ -- - - _ 1 - Boring reanimated at 30 feet. - - Q11- _mIr - -11 GeoEndroamemal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southem Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 twrw.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD GeoEnvironnlental l3esources Inc. Geolacmenlal, Groundwater. ngineering CoMaterialstan(, G viarn emit, Ind undw Engineering us t Boring U: GB -I % (Page I of I) Project: P1253 2(1 CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex GBR Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/27/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Comp Lejeune, NC Driller: Flshburne brill Method: 3" IMml Rotary Depth (ft.): 15.0 Elevation (tl.): Client: HBA-HRA JV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation a In Depth H In Lilh- elegy Material Description Ground Water Comments Comments S 1' Uncorrected Penetration Resistance (blows/fool) 0 25 50 5 - is 20 25 30 35— 2 4 s 6 7 0 to - 12— • ' •I'o soil- 3 inches SZT. e ' g - 4- Silty SAND (SM) Finn to loose, brown and grey, fine 'I_ �_( 1 I _ II -11 t I /_'.' Clean SAND (SP) Finn, tan to white, fine- _ .) Silty SAND (SIN) Loose, orange and grey, fine- ....- _ _ I ' .'. Clean SAND (SP) Loose, tan, line 8 Boring terminated at 15 feet. ' - - .. ..I_. .. _.._ _.I_ - _ ' L_ i Kit + ' I tTi�} ..._r : I' lit GeoEndronmental Resources, Inc. 2717 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Vlrglnla Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 vnnv.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD GeoEnvironmental Resources Inc, Environmental, Industrial Engineerious ng r G Environmental, Industrial ter, Hazard Consultants Boring M GB-18 g (Page 1 of[) Project: P1253 2d CE13 Ops/Mahrtenance Complex GER Project Number: I t0-5585 Date Drilled: 1/2712011 Location: Com•thonse Boy, Camp Lejetme, NC Driller: Ptshburne Drill Method: 3" Mutl Rohu',v Depth(ft.): 10.0 Elevation(11.): Client: IIBA-Ii&AJV Hamner Type:Autonlntle Elevation 0 m Depth B Lich- Material Description Groun Comments S P T Uncorrected Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) 0 _ 25 50 -- to-3 20 25 30 35 - 2 _ 4_ 5_ G 7 9- to 12 '1'a sotl-6 inches > _t� _.I - - - •'•' ' ... ' SHlv SAND ISM) very loose to loose, brown and grey, fine, with trace roots ...._i Boring lenuinmed at 10 feet. - - - - ._.. r _. - r - - - -- - -''--- .�_.- I - - - - -_I-; -- - -_ .-- GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Sula 101 Vrginla Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 wwwBeronline.com TEST BORING RECORD UvIrornmental, Groundwater.HazardousMelsGeoEnv11Olmellal Resources, Inc. Goolechn!cal & Industrial Engineering Consultants' Borin 8: GB-19 (Page I of I ) Project: P1253 2d CCB Ops/irinintenance Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejenue, NC Driller: Fishburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth(f).): 10.0 Elevation(ft.): Client: IIBA-II&A,IV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation 0 In Depth in Lith- Material Description Ground Water Comments S P T Uncorrected Penetration Resistpnce (blows/foot) 0 25 50 - 5— 20— 25 35— . - 1 2' _ 4 6- 7 8 1014 - 12 9'upsoll- 3 inches , ° ° a I Slit), SAND (SM) Finn, grey to brown, fine :.: •: Clean SAND (SP) Loose, tan to white, fine 40. - :. Slity SAND (SM) Loose, grey, fame, with little clay r - _.___._.._._.._I__..._I—..._ 1� Clean SAND (SP) Finn, tan and white, fine 45 - IT Boring terminated el 10 feet. -- __ _ .- _ -_ _ _ .. .. ..... _. --... ___ - _ -i-I - t 1 - .. ...._,_. ._ ... _. _.I� GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 7574633200 x+wr.garonlme.com TEST BORING RECORD , n,Gro eeMinerals,GeDEnviCDlleltal Resources, Ile. Geolechnical8lndustrialEngineeringConsultants Boring 8- GB-20 (page I of I ) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ups/Mahltenmlee Com:Plex CCR Project Number: I10-5585 Date Drilled: 1/28/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeaue, NC Driller. Flsltburne Drill Method: 3" Mutd Rotary Depth (B.): 30.0 Elevation (it.): Client: HBA-H&A JV Hamner Type: Aulomalic Elevation O m Depth 0 nr leg elegy Material Description GroundS 1Vntcr Water Comments P T Uncorrected penetration Resi5lpnce (blows/foot) 0 ZS 50 To soil- 4 inches ° ' - - 18� I_. _ . Silty SAND (SM) Finn, brown and grey, fine -- - S"IC- - S- - 2 _ ° ' ' Clear SAND (SP) Finn, Inn, fine 2 n � • Slily SAND (Sbl) Loose to firm, grey, One, with little clay - ' ' 6rL- to- 37 12 4 _. ._... .. ..L. ._.... ... .. _ .�_.. • Clean SANDS p) Finn, tan, One to mediva t-r X. 20 6 I- 7 • Silly SAND (S\I) Very loose, orange, fine - �- - ... -17 _ ... ---- .. Sondy, I.uw Plasilelly CLAY(CL) Finn, Srcy 30 Boring tormented at 30 feet. IO 35 T. - - 121 1 TTTT TJ GeeEnvironmenlel Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Yrginla Beach. VA 23452 757 463-3200 mwcgeronline.com TEST BORING RECORD GectEnVirontinental Resources 1BC. Environmental, Groundwater. En ineeriHa7agConsudows ltants, Geotechnical6lcduslnel Engineering Consultants Baring N: GB-21 (Page I of I S ( 8 ) Project: P1253 2d CCR Ops/Allahttenmtce Complex GER Project Number. 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/28/2011 Location: Courthouse Ray, Camp Lejetrne, NC Driller: hisltburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (R.): 15.0 Elevalion (R): Client: 11BA-H&A JV Haouner Type: Antotnatic Elevation n m Depth R m Lith- olo gy Material Descrip(ion Grand Water Canma0s S P l' Uncorrected Penetration Resi9lpace (blows fool) 0 ZS so - IO IS 30 35 1 2_. 3 4- 7_._..._ g 9 to UTo soil-4 inches ® 9 .y- -2--1 J...._. _ ._ Silly SAND(SM) loose, grey to brown, fine ----- Ti- - -Ve -�_ --- ' ' Slightly Silly SAND(SP-SM) Very loose, tan to white, nne 17 11 ,:.,. Silly SAND(SM) Loose to finn, grey, fine, with little clay - 5 I- ---- - _1142-1-177 . I Finn,.,..• _... _._ _. __..�... .. r Boring terminated at IS feet. ., --' --- ,- ff,41t GeoEnvironmentel Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite tOl Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 wvnv.garonline.co n TEST BORING RECORD GeoEnvirinuuental Resources 111C, Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous ldatedale, GeotechnlcalB Industrial Engineering Consultants Boring N: G13 (Page I of 1) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/Mointenance Complex GGR Project Nwnber: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Cmn'thouse Bay, Camp Lejetme, NC Driller: Fislibm•ne . Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (P.): 15.0 Elevation (B.): Client: IIBA-H&A JV Hammer Type: Automatic it n na Depth n m Log ology Material Description round Water Wale Comments S T Uncorrected Penetration Resi Lance (blows/foot) o �i so 10 15M. 20 25 30 35 2 3 4—,._ - 5— 7 lo— "I I 12 'Topsoil- 3 inches QClean ° ' r 7 _ Silly SAND(S\I) Finn to dense, grey to brown and grey, fine, Willi trace roots - L. _. _. N Clean SAND(SP) Finn, toil to white, fine....i— 20 TJ it i .','• Silly SAND(S\I) Loose, grey, tine, Willi little clay ' SAND (SP) Louse to fimy Ian and white, fine _ _ — — Fie - Boring terminated an 15 feel. I - , , . .. . ........ . .I .... _ Ti GeoEnvironmenlal Resowces, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 www.geronlinoeom TEST BORING RECORD GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. Environmental,us Materials. Industrial EngneeringoConsultants Boring N: GB-23 (Page I oft) Project: P1253 2d CGB Gps/Malutennuce Complex GER Project Number: I10-5585 Date Drilled: 1/27/2011 Location: Courthouse Buy, Coup Lejetme, NC Driller: Fishbm'ne Drill Mcthod: 3" A1ud Rotary Depth (R.): 15.0 F,levation (a.): Client: IIBA-H&A JV Hummer Type: Automatic Elevation D m Depth R m Lith- olo SY Material Description Ground Water Comments P 1' Uncovected Penetration Res iy'I nce(blows/foot) 0 L) 50 to- IS 20 25 30 - 2 - 4'. 6 to---._........ 12- • ` 'ro tsoll- 6 inches ° ° ° ° ° s g Silty SAND (SDI)Lee se, SDI)Loose, brown and grey, fine - - - L • .'.'- : Clean SAND (SP) Loose to fort, Ian nod while, FineI12 ' .•'"' Silty S11-----`.-'-- Loose, grey, fine, trace cloy g Y• Y 8'- I .... -..... _ . •.',' Clean SAND Loose to Onn, white, One g r. ..... j. . ... ...... .._ II - - . •. Sill), SAND (SDI) Finn to loose, light grey, fine, with little clay .. _..-.. - -I _.�_ -I-- ---� _. ..... - _._. ._.. . L...8 4_ _. Boring icnninnled of IS feel. I =-I -- - - ...._ _. I 1- _ ...�_ .... ._ GeoEndronmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Wgials Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 mm ilemnline.cum TEST BORING RECORD GeoEnvironnlental Resources Ine. Environmental, IndGrousuialE gineerngConsuledats' � Geotechnlgl & Industrial Engineeringconsullanls Boring a: GB-24 (Page I of I g ( g ) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/N(nlntennnce Complex 'UR Project Number: I t0-5585 Dale Drilled: Location: Courthouse Bay, Canty Lejeune, NC Driller: Rlshbnrtte Drill Method: 7" Mail Rotary Depth (ft.): 15.0 liicvation (It.): Client: HBA-H&A SV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation 0 m Depth 0 m Lith- olo gy Material Description Ground lVntec Comments S r T Uncorrected Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) 0 25 50 5 10 25 30 35- - 3- 4- _ 7 S 9. t0- I 1 12] • •ropsoil-4 inches ' r Silty SAND ISM)- Very loose, brown and grey, fine, with trace roots - - - M. Clean SAND(SP) Very loose to Ban, ran to white, fine 4, --... ... _...__.;..._ i? J.- ..46---- - _ =LLI- 15__ -- Boring lenuinaled at 15 feel. i -r; -- - - -- - ---- _ _ ., �.___.,�... .. .. _. _.- _. . ... ... _... ... _. ... ... _�__ 08DEnvironmenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 mmileronline.com --- P12532d CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex Cone Penetration Test CPT-9 Courthouse Bay, MCB.Camp Lejeune, NC Project No: 110-5585 Test Date: Jan. 27, 2011 Northing/Latitude: 34.584152 Total Depth: 73.5 (ft) Est. Water Depth: 15 (ft) Easting/Longitude:-77:356172 Termination Criteria: Refusal Rig/Operator: ConeTec Surface Elevation: Cone Size: 15 cm2 Depth Tip Resistance Sleeve Friction Friction Ratio Pore Pressure SET, Equivalent Depth (tt) q, : — R, ua _ _ ua MAI = 1 — Nra (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (%) (psi) 100 200, 300 400 0 10 ... :......:.....! .......... 15 20 . . ....:...... ...... . 25 ..... ..i ... .... .. 30 �.. _ . ... ..... ..... 35 _- .. .... ....... 40 45 ........ 50 55 60 65 — 70 1of1 _* Gravelly saw ld Sand Sam Mirturd. -Slly i ® saw to Sandy Sill Sands -Clean Sorts id SYy Sand Graver, sand w Sam clay'--- Goy loSily Clay city.- Gay to Silty city sands -Cron sand w Say Sand sands - Olean Sand to Silty Sand Sand; - Clean Sara to Silly sand Sam$ -Clean Sorg to S9y Sand 10 100 e' 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Shear Wave Velocity at CPT-1-''='A-= CONETEC 137253 CEB Complex, Courthouse Bay MCB Camp Lejeune, NCY--^-^�---•-- January 27, 2011 Shear Wave Ve roily (Ws) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 5 10 15 20 25 30 v 35 m c 40 45 50 r — — 55 I 80 i 65 - 70 75 80 Page 1 of 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SUMMARY Project: P1253 2n° CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex Courthouse Bay, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC Number: 110-5585 Date: 02/18/2011 SAMPLE; NUMBER: ,DEPTH (feet) SAMPLE' CLA55 MOISTURE .CONTENT `%- 7X FINES LL ,;PL PI :. - DH MAXIMUM :DRY DENSE PT OPTIMUM MOISTURE SOAKED - CBR SWELL -_ (Y) OTHERTESTS T; GB-1 3 SS SP-SM 9.6 7.0 - - $IEVE' GB-1 5 SS SP-SM 11.2 - - - - 5.09 - - - - - GS-1- 9 SS SP- 13.7 2.0 - - - - - - - - - GB-1 14 SS SC 29.1 46.6 39 21 18 - - - - - - GB-1 34 SS CL 25.7 - 33 20 13 - - - - - - GB-2 5 SS - SP-SM 17.7 72 - - - - - - - - SIEVE GB-2 11 SS SM 17.4 17.1 - - - - - - - - - GB-3 3 Ss SP 8.0 3.2 - -- GS-3 9 SS SM 14.9 - - - - - - - - - - GS-3 24 SS SP 22.9 4.8 - - - - - - - - - GB-4 1 SS SP-SM GB4 5 SS SP 11.3 3.8 - - - - - - - - SIEVE GB4 14 SS SP 24.7 GB-4 34 SS SC 32.5 45.7 - - - - - - - - - G8-4 39 SS SC 30.0 43.9 - - - - - - - - - GB-5 3 SS SM 12.8 - - - - - .6.61 Tests performed in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards. GER Page 2 of 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SUMMARY Project: P1253 2"d CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex Courthouse Bay, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC Number: 110-5585 Date: 02/1812011 SAMPLE NUMBER'. DEPTH (feet) SAMPLE' 'TypE .I CLASS MOISTURE' CONTENT % FINES LL Pl. PI pH MAMMUM =DRY_ . �ENSm, OPTIMUM' MOISTURECBR SOAKED 'SWELL OTHER TESTS �. : GB-6 1 W 3 Bulk SP-SM 13.4 5.5 - - - - 98.3 16.3 8.7 0.0 - GB-7 5 SS SPSM 6.9 6.1 - - - - - - - - SIEVE G5-7 9 SS SP 19.5 1.7 GB-8 3 SS SP-SM 9.7 7.6 - - - - - - - - SIEVE GB-8 11 SS - SM 16.1 GB-8 29 SS SP-SM 22.6 10.2 GB$ 49 SS CL 25-2 51.1 32 17 15 - - - - - - GB-9 1 t" 3 Bulk SM 12.4 14.6 - - - 6.54 105.8 13.7 12.1 0.0 - GB-10 7 SS SP 20.1 - - - - - - - - _ - GB-11 5 SS SP-SM 9.5 - - - - 5.47 GS-12 3 SS ( SP-SM 8.1 8.4 - - - - GS-12 14 SS SP 12.6 GB-12 29 SS SP-SM 27.6 10.6 GS-12 41 Tube ML 29.8 12 - - - - - CONSOLIDATION GB-12 46 Tube CL 29.5 - 36 21 15 - - - - - CONSOLIDATION GB-13 3 SS SM 14.8 22.1 - - - - - - - SIEVE Tests performed in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards. GER Page 3 of 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SUMMARY Project: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex Courthouse Bay, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC Number: 110-5585 Date: 02118/2011 SAMPLE; NUMBER.: DEPTH (feet) SAMPLE _i TYPE _. "N.: CLASS ,. _ MOISTURE' CONTENT i%) FlNES LL ;''.PL PI :: ,:..:: PH MAXIMUM ;.DRY DENSITY _ _ OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) .. SOAKED CBR .;. SWELL .. OTHER TESTS -- .. GB-13 11 SS SP-SM 16.7 - - - - - - - - - - GB-14 3 SS SM 10.4 14.4 GB-14 7 SS CH 37.1 90.9 64 28 36 - - - - - - GB-14 19 SS SP 20.9 - - - - - - - - - GB-15 .5 SS SP-SM 9.2 9.3 - - - - - - - - SIEVE 78-15 14 SS SP 24.1 - - - - - - - - - - GB-15 34 SS SC 30.6 49.6 32 23 9 - - - - - - GBA6 3 SS SM 12.1 - - - - - - - - - - - GB-16 7 SS SP 7.5 - - - - - - - - - - GB-17 3 SS SM 14.1 - - - 5.90 - - - - - GBAS 1 to 3 Bulk SM 15.8 - - - - 103.0 14.7 14.0 0.0 - GB-19 IW3 Bulk SP-SM 11A 7.4 - - 102.7 14.8 9.4 0.0 - GB-20 5 SS SM 13.5 - - - - 6.87 - - - - - GS-21 ( 5 SS SP-SM 9.7 8.3 - - - - - - - - - GB-22 1 3 SS SM 11.6 22.1 - - - - - - - - SIEVE GB-24 ( 7 SS SP 5.9 4.5 - - - - - - SIEVE Tests performed in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards. GER One Dimensional Consolidation Test Stress Versus Strain Plot 0 2 4 10 12 14 0.1 1.0 Stress (ksf) 10.0 Compression Index, Cc: 0.205 Estimated Preconsolidation Pressure, P'c (kst): 4 Swelling Index, Cs: 0.026 Estimated Effective Overburden Pressure, P'o (ksf): 2 Recompression Index, Cr: 0.021 Estimated Undrained Strength at Su/P = 0.3 (ksf): 1 Initial Wet Unit Weight (pcf) = 118.6 Project P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf)= 91.4 - Project#: 1105585 Initial Water Content I%) = 29.8 Location: MCB Camp Lejeune, NC Initial Saturation (%) = 98.9 Client HBA-H&AJV Specific Gravity = 2.618 Sample Classificafion: Sandy SILT (ML), Gray, with Clay Initial Void Ratio = 0.788 Boring: GB42 Liquid Limit = 37 Sample Depth Ill): 41 Plasbc Limit = 25 Report Date: 2/21 /2011 100.0 Ao: 0.87 Es9mated OCR: 1.49 GyYem�x,ul x �ir.unw. l - pce,.wu�a CMJ Wp Gryxwn One Dimensional Consolidation Test Stress Versus Strain Plot 0 2 4 10 12 14 0.1 1,0 Stress (ksf) 10.0 100.0 Compression Index, Cc: 0.120 Estimated Preconsoiidation Pressure, P'c (ksf): 4.95 Ao: 0.86 Swelling Index, Cs: 0.016 Estimated Effective Overburden Pressure, Po (ksl): 3.12 Estimated OCR: 1.59 Recompression Index, Cr. 0.011 Estimated Undmined Strength at Su/P = 0.3 (ksf): 1.49 Initial Wet Unit Weight (pcf) = 119.4 Project: P1253 2nd CEB OpslMaintenance Complex Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf) = 92.1 Project #: 11OZ585 Initial Water Content (%)= 29.5 Location: MCB Camp Lejeune,NC +..r.«. �._.. Initial Saturation(%)= 99.9 Client NBA-HBAJV Spec Gravity = 2.621 Sample Classification: Sandy CLAY (CL), Gray, with Silt GE Initial Void Ratio= 0.775 Boring: GB-12 n"°'^ Liquid Limit = 36 Sample Depth (ft): 46 Plastic Limit = 21 Report Date: 2/2112011 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-6 Sample Depth: 1 to 3 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP-SM), Dark Tan, Fine, Trace Silt Test Method: ASTM D 698A Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 98.2 Optimum Moisture (%): 16.3 130.0 125.0 120.0 115.0 I; 110.0 a 105.0 z w } 100.0 0 IIIIIII elan Zino 80.0 , " 1 , I ..., ,i,._., -_ _,.._IJ— 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-6 Sample Depth: 1 to 3 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP-SM), Dark Tan, Fine, Trace Silt Test Method: ASTM D 1883 Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 98.2 Blows Per Layer: 45 Optimum Moisture (%): 16.3 Surcharge Weight (lbs.): 10 In Situ Moisture (%): 13.4 Compaction Before Soaking (%): 95.2 As Tested Moisture (%): 20.0 Compaction After Soaking (%): 95.2 Unsoaked CBR Value: N/A Soaked CBR Value: 8.7 Swell (%): 0.0 250.0 Pz1Z1a#" a 150.0 0 0 J 100.0 50.0 0.0 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 PENETRATION IN INCHES 77Smkcd C©R 1 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-9 Sample Depth: 1 to 3 feet Sample Description: Silty SAND (SM), Gray and Brown, Fine Test Method: ASTM D 698A Maximum Dry Density (pcfl: 105.8 Optimum Moisture (%): 13.7 130.0 125.0 120.0 115.0 U 110.0 a U 105.0 z w y 100.0 0 95.0 90.0 85.0 80.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110.5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-9 Sample Depth: 1 to 3 feet Sample Description: Silty SAND (SM), Gray and Brown, Fine Test Method: ASTM D 1883 Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 105.8 Blows Per Layer: 45 Optimum Moisture (%): 13.7 Surcharge Weight (lbs.): 10 In Situ Moisture (%): 12.4 Compaction Before Soaking (%): 96.5 As Tested Moisture (%): 16.6 Compaction After Soaking (%): 96.5 Unsoaked CBR Value: NIA Soaked CBR Value: 12.1 Swell (%): 0.0 400.0 350.0 Z. 300.0 rn 250.0 n. (z 200.0 Q 150.0 100.0 FM 50.0 0.0 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 PENETRATION IN INCHES Note: CBR value corrected for concave upward shape —o—Sonked CBR 1 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-18 Sample Depth: 1 to 3 feet Sample Description: Silty SAND (SM), Gray and Brown, Fine Test Method: ASTM D 698A Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 103.0 Optimum Moisture (%): 14.7 130.0 125.0 120.0 115.0 u 110.0 a 105.0 z w } 100.0 o: 0 95.0 •1 � GWil 80.0 0.0 .0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB OpslMaintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110.5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-18 Sample Depth: 1 to 3 feet Sample Description: Silty SAND (SM), Gray and Brown, Fine Test Method: ASTM D 1883 Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 103.0 Blows Per Layer: 45 Optimum Moisture (%): 147 Surcharge Weight (lbs.): 10 In Situ Moisture (%): 15.8 Compaction Before Soaking (%): 98.3 As Tested Moisture (%): 16.5 Compaction After Soaking (%): 98.3 Unsoaked CBRLalue: NIA Soaked CBR Value: 14.0 Swell (%): 0.0 —O—Soaked CRR 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 PENETRATION IN INCHES Note: CBR value corrected for concave upward shape Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-19 Sample Depth: 1 to 3 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP-SM), Dark Tan, Fine, Trace Silt Test Method: ASTM D 698A Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 102.7 Optimum Moisture (%): 14.8 130.0 125.0 120.0 115.0 cLLi 110.0 a 105.0 z w y 100.0 0 95.0 a1 1 80.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110.5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-19 Sample Depth: 1 to 3 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP-SM), Dark Tan, Fine, Trace Silt Test Method: ASTM D 1883 Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 102.7 Blows Per Layer: 45 Optimum Moisture (%): 14.8 Surcharge Weight (lbs.): 10 In Situ Moisture (%): 11.4 Compaction Before Soaking (%): 98.3 As Tested Moisture (%): 18.5 Compaction After Soaking (%): 98.3 Unsoaked CBR Value: N/A Soaked CBR Valuo: 9.4 Swell (%): 0.0 400.0 350.0-77 300.0 y 250.0 a Q� 200.0 Q s, 150.0 100.0 ;;" 50.0 0.0 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 PENETRATION IN INCHES —o--Soaked C©R I Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-1 Sample Depth: 3 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP-SM), Tan, Fine, Trace Silt Test Method: ASTM D 422 100 90 c 80 rn 'd 70 T60 a w 50 40 IL c 30 20 v n. 10 Sieve Analysis Data SIEVE NO. PERCENT PASSING 1 Inch 100.0 3/41nch 100.0 1/21nch 100.0 3/81nch 100.0 4 100.0 10 100.0 20 99.9 40 99.8 60 95.3 100 39.3 200 7.0 GRAVEL I SAND I Silt Clay calfsel Fine I Co I Medium I Fine 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 Grain Size (mm) 0.001 0.000 Engineering and Testing. Consultants, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-2 Sample Depth: 5 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP-SM), Tan, Fine, Trace Silt Test Method: ASTM D 422 100 90 t 80 m 70 . a 50 `m iL 40 c 30 20 d 10 - Sieve Analysis Data SIEVE NO. PERCENT PASSING 1 Inch 100.0 3/4Inch 100.0 1/2Inch 100.0 3/8Inch 100.0 4 100.0 10 100.0 20 99.8 ' 99.6 60 94.8 240 100 34.6 200 7.2 Illllll�lrllllllll�■Illllllli!■��������������������������� III�I'',I�IIIII�',■IIIf I'�11I■IIII""■III�I",.II'�'11,■ Ilfll',,I■IIIIIII„■II"I'1,�II �'I11,.IIII'1"■II��II"■ !III 1„I�����'I�„■IIIIII�1, ��I�III"■III"", IIII'11,■ IIfl11, I■II"'I I"■III"'I1,t■I I I I I I"■III"11,■I I II'11,■ III"' 1"I■II"'",■I I III'1, ��I I I I I11, ■III"11 i�I I I"", ■ 'IIIII11�1■Iillllll�■IIIIIIII�\111III11�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ IIIII11�1■IIIIIIII�■IIIIIIII��I!II111��1111111��1111111�■ IIIII11�1�11111111��11111111�■lilllll■�IIIIIIl��IIIIIII■■ 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 Grain Size (mm) 0.001 0.000 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejoune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-4 Sample Depth: 5 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP), Tan, Fine, Trace Silt Test Method: ASTM D 422 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30' 20 10 0 Sieve Analysis Data SIEVE NO. PERCENT PASSING 1 Inch 100.0 3/4Inch 100.0 1/2Inch 100.0 3/8Inch 100.0 4 100.0 10 100.0 20 100.0 40 99.8 60 90.3 100 23.4 200 3.8 IIllllll�lrllllllll�■IIIIII11�■II I1111�■IIII111■■IIII111�■ IIIIIII�I■Illlllll�■IIIIIIIIII■II IIIII�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ IIIIIII�1■IIII1111�■IIIIIII111■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ IIIIIII�1■IIIIIIII�■IIII1111�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ III1111�1■IIIIIIII�■IIIII111���11III11�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ iiiiiiiii■iiiiiiiii■iiiiiiiieiiiiiiiii■iiiiiiii■iiiiiiii■ IIII111�1■IIIIIIII�■IIIIIIII�!lIIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ IIIII11�1■IIIIIIII�■IIIII111�\Illlllli■IIII111�■IIIIIIlO■ IIIIIII�1■IIIIIIII�■IIIIIIII�■II!I111�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 Grain Size (mm) 0.001 0.000 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCS Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-7 Sample Depth: 5 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP-SM),'ran, Fine, Trace Sill Test Method: ASTM D 422 r O1 Z T a v c LL c w a Sieve Analysis Data SIEVE NO, PERCENT PASSING 1 Inch 100.0 3/4Inch 100.0 1/2Inch 100.0 3/8Inch 100.0 4 100.0 10 100.0 20 100.0 40 99.9 60 [i 97.2 100 33.7 200 6.1 100 00 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 Grain Size (mm) 0.010 0,001 0.000 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: G13-8 Sample Depth: 3 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP-SM), Tan, Fine, Trace Silt Test Method: ASTM D 422 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sieve Analysis Data SIEVE NO. PERCENT PASSING finch 100.0 3/4Inch 100.0 1/2Inch 100.0 3/8Inch 100.0 4 100.0 10 100.0 20 100.0 40 99.8 60 s6.8 100 35.2 200 7.6 Ilillll�i■IIIII�II■■Illllli�ii■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■. IIIIIII■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIlilllll■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ IIIIIII■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIII111�'■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ IIIIIII■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ IIIIIII■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ IIIIIII■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■1�1111111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■' IIIIIII■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■��IIII111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ IIIIIII■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■\IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ IIIIIII■I■IIIIIIII■■IIIIIIII■■ lillll■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 Graln Size (mm) 0.001 0.000 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-13 Sample Depth: 3 feet Sample Description: Silty SAND ISM), Tan and Gray, Fine, Trace Clay Test Method: ASTM D 422 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sieve Analysis Data SIEVE NO. PERCENT PASSING 1Inch 100.0 3/4Inch 100.0 1/2Inch 100.0 3/8Inch 100.0 4 100.0 10 100.0 ' 20 40 99.9 60 97.1 100 44.4 20010M0.0 22.1 Ilillll�irlllllill�■Illlll�lii■II IIII1�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ IIIII11�1■IIIIIIII�■IIIIIIII�1■Ilillll�■IIIIIII�■Illilll�■ IIIII11�1■IIII1111�■IIIIIIII�■Ilillll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ IIIII11�1■IIII1111■■IIIIIII1�1�11III11�■IIIIIII�■II11111�■ IIIII11�1■IIIIIIII�■IIIlilll�l/IIIIIiI�■IIIIIII�■IIII111�■ IIIIIII�1■IIIIIIII�■IIIIII�I�EIIIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ Illilll�l■IIIIIIII�■IIIlilll�Pll lllll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ III1111�1■Iillllll�■IIIIIIII�■II!II11�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ IIII111�1■Ililllll�■IIIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ IIII111�1■IIII III1�■IIIIIiII�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII�■ 100.000 %000 1.000 0.100 0.010 Grain Size (mm) 0.001 0.000 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-15 Sample Depth: 5 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP-SM), Tan, Fine, Trace Silt Test Method: ASTM D 422 Sieve Analysis Data SIEVE NO. PERCENT PASSING 11nch 100.0 3/4Inch 100.0 1/2Inch 100.0 3/8Inch 100.0 4 100.0 10 100.0 20 100.0 40 99.9 60 98.8 100 50.1 200 9.3 100. 90 80 70 80 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 .1.000 0.100 0.010 Grain Size (mm) 0.001 0.000 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008-110 Sample Number: GB-22 Sample Depth: 3 feet Sample Description: Silty SAND (SM), Gray and Brown, Fine, Trace Organics Test Method: ASTM D 422 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sieve Analysis Data SIEVE NO. PERCENT PASSING 1Inch 100.0 3/4Inch 100.0 1/2Inch 100.0 3/8Inch 100.0 4 99.9 10 99.8 20 99.6 40 99.2 60 96.7 100 55.8 200 22.1 IIIIIII�Ir11111111��11111111ii�lllllll■■IIIIIII■�IIIIIII�■ II'�' 1"I ■II I I II",■I I II I I"■I I I"",■I II I'11,■II I"",. I���'1"I�II��'If".IIIIIII".II "",�IIII"1,■���"1"� III"1"I■I'II'll„■I I I I II"'1II �I I", ■I I'I1' 1,■I I II""■ I��"I„I■I'IIIII1,��II"I"�I�II'1,■II'II",�III'If 1,■ II I� I11, I���I"I�"■�I I I'I1,■�� � �' 1"■�I ��"„��I') I11, 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 Grain Sizo (mm) 0.010 0,001 0.000 Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS Project Name: P1253 2nd CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex MCB Camp Lejeune, NC GER Project Number: 110-5585 Number: 5008.110 Sample Number: GB-24 Sample Depth: 7 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP), Light Tan, Fine, Trace Silt' Test Method: ASTM D 422 100 90 e0 70 e0 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sieve Analysis Data SIEVE NO. PERCENT PASSING 1 Inch 100.0 3/4Inch 100.0 1/2Inch 100.0 3/8Inch 100.0 4 100.0 10 100.0 20 100.0 40 99.7 60 96.7 100 24.9 200 4.5 Illllll�irllllllll�■IIIIIII17�1111111�■IIIIIII■■Illilll■■ III"",I�II�I'I"�I��III" �III�I",■III"I„■II�""■� II II! 1"I■II I'lll1,■I II"I"��I I"", ■III"' 1,■II II I",■ IIIII11�1�11111111��11111111��11;II11��1111111��1111111■� 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 Grain Size (mm) 0.001 0.000 LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS SOIL TYPES (Shown in Graphic Log) Fill Asphalt p. a.; Concrete ® Topsoil ®Partially Weathered Rock ® Cored Rock \� V �� WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- G W SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES •DOQO• •bb GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILTMIXTURES GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - CLAY MIXTURES SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY NO FINES SANDS, LITTLE OR SP POORLYGRAVEL-GRADEDND, SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITRE OR NO FINES SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES SG. CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, FFLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINEINE SANDS CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY ® MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS ® CH INORGANIC PLASTICITY CLAYS OF HIGH OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS WATER LEVELS (Shown in Water Level Column) -V = Water Level At Termination of Boring S = Water Level Taken After 24 Hours = Loss of Drilling Water HC = Hole Cave CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS STD. PENETRATION RESISTANCE CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT Very Soft 0 to 2 Soft 3 to 4 Firm 5 to 8 Stiff 9 to 15 Very Stiff 16 to 30 Hard 31 to 50 Very Hard Over 50 RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense STD. PENETRATION RESISTANCE BLOWS/FOOT Oto4 5to1O 11 to 30 31 to 50 OVer50 SAMPLER TYPES (Shown in Samples Column) Shelby Tube ® Split Spoon I Rock Core No Recovery TERMS Standard - The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling Penetration 30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1586. REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core Run Times 100%. RQD - Total Length of Sound Rock Segments Recovered that are Longer Than or Equal to 4" (mechanical breaks excluded) Divided by the Total Length of the Core Run Times 100%. S&ME' ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-1 1061.12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6120/12 ELEVATION: Ground Surface Obtained bulk sample of auger cuttings from 1 to 3 DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft feet. LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U J > w w Zp STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w v o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w Q> (blows/ft) N-Value o a N z 3 W 10 20 30 6080 _TOPSOIL 6 inches) - VeryLoose DryTan Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) -..�.`}. % Fines =5A%,LL=19. PI=NP, MC=5.5% - 4 7 Loose to Medium Dense Moist Tan Poorly -Graded SAND(SP) 9 HC _ 12 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 25 NOTES.' 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OFA REPORTPREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION /N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. I.D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT 5, WATERLEVEL ISAT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *SAME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: p-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-2 1061.12.249 Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6120112 ELEVATION: Ground SurfaceNOTES: DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 U J > w w ZO STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA a d o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (K 2 a (blows/) N-value O v QQ K J w I—V Q O w O Z _I3 w 10 20 30 .6.0.8.0. TOPSOIL (6 inches Very Loose Dry Tan Poorly -Graded SAND (SP) 4 _ ------------------------ Loose Moist Tan Poorly -Graded SAND (SP) 6 5-...'. _ HC 8 _ 8 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 — 20— 25 — NOTES. 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRA TION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION N.VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER FALU G 30IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1,4 IN, 1,0. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRA TIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT, 5. WATER LEVEL )SAT TIME OF EXPLORATIONAND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P_1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-3 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/20112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 U LU > w w Op STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w Co MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w d blows/) N-Value o Q> w C < ul Z w 3 10 20 30 6080 JOPSOIL 6inches - Loose Dry Tan Poorly -Graded SAND (SP) 7 Loose Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SANDwith f, Silt(SP-SM) 7 5 HC 8 Medium Dense Moist Tan Poorly -Graded SAND (SP) 13 10--Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15- 20— 25 NOTES: I. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECFAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 2, BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1588. 3. PENETRATION `N-VALUE) 15 THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN, LD. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATIONAND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5, WATERLEVEL ISAF TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *SAME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P_1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-4 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/20I12 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucefte WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 8 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA wW Q_ o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w > d 6lowsl8) N-value W Q N Z W 10 20 30 60 80 TOPSOIL 6 inches Loose Dry Tan Poorly -Graded SAND (SP) - 8 J. Loose Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with �• silt (SP-SM) 7 5-.` j.}. 9 HC _ Stiff Moist Light Gray Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) 15 10 'Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15- 20 - 25 - NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT 2. BORING. SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1566. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *SAME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: p-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejetme, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-5 1061.12.249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6I20/12 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 L) LU > LI w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w Q> @lows/) N-Value J Q U Z J w 3 10 20 30 6080 T P IL 6 inches) XI - FILL: Medium Dense Dry Gray -Brown ' Poody-Graded SANDwith Silt (SP-SM) with Gravel X I 15 X.I I - X..f 19 5 - Loose to Medium Dense Moist Light Gray Clayey SAND(SC) HC 10 12 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 25 - NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT ' 2. BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLO WS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. I . SAMPLER 1 FT 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5, WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: p-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-6 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/20/12 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 U > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION > (blows/ft) N-Value o o O Q z w 3 10 20 30 60 80 6 inches) 'TOPSOIL Medium Dense Dry Tan Poorly -Graded SAND (SP) 12 :I. Loose to Medium Dense Moist Tan Poorly -Graded f, SAND with Silt(SP-SM) 10 5— — — — — — — — — — HC 11 Medium Dense Moist Tan Poorly -Graded SAND 1, with Silt (SP-SM) 17 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 — 20 — 25 NOTES.' 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1566. 3. PENETRATION M-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 IN, REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. I.D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4, STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: p-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejetme, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-7 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/20I12 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U J > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA a aA o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ix blows/fl) N-value Cl J W ((� Z J v 3 U' 10 20 30 60180, TOPSOIL 6 inches Very Loose Dry Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND (SP) with Cemented Sand Pieces _ q :1. Very Loose Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND f, with Silt (SP-SM) q Loose Moist Tan Poorly -Graded SAND(SP) HC 10 Medium Dense Moist Brown -Gray Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) 15 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 25 NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT 2. BORING. SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TESTDATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1585. 3. PENETRATION V-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. LD. SAMPLER IFT 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: p-1253 21) Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-8 1061-12.249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/20/12 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 it LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 8 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 U > w w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA ~ m a U o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a a s (blows/0) N-Value o v It N w a Z w 3 10 20 30 60 80 P IL 6 inches Very Loose Dry Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND - (SP) _ q Loose Moist Brown -Orange Poorly -Graded SAND f, with Silt (SP-SM) 6 L 6 HC Loose Moist Light Gray Poorly -Graded SAND with _ V. } Silt(SP-SM) 10 10— �'- Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15— — 20 25 — NOTES, 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. To SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT, 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 It S E ENGINEERING • TESTING .ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion ' Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-9 1061-12-249 Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/20I12 ELEVATION: Ground SurfaceNOTES: DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 O a O STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA x w d Q, o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w w blows/) N-vane o Q Q N z W 3 10 20 30 6080 -TOPSOIL 6inches Very Loose Moist Brown -Gray Poorly -Graded SAND - with Silt (SP-SM) _ da Loose Moist Brown -Gray Poorly -Graded SAND with V_ " I. r, f, Silt(SP-SM) 5 HC 7 diu Mem DenseMoist Light Gray 5oody-Graded r�� I. ��' f, SANDwith Silt(SP-SM) iq 10- Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15- 20 25- NOTES 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1566. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1 4IN. I . SAMPLER 1 FT 4, STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *SAME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-10 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6I20112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 8 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U W w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA MATERIAL DESCRIPTION j (blows/f) N-value w y o 0 a Z w 3 10 20 30 6.080 -' ^ T P IL(6inches XI POSSIBLE FILL: Medium Dense Moist Light Brown - Ix ' ' Poorly -Graded SANDwith Sill (SP-SM) with Wood :.. Pieces 21 I. Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poody-Graded f, SAND with Silt (SP-SM) _ } 14 Firm Moist Light By Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) - 6 HC _ _ 7 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 - 20 - - 25 - NOTES.' i. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TESr DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION 1N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 14IN. I. D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNOWA TER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5, WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejetme, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-11 1061.12.249 Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6120I12 ELEVATION: Ground SurfaceNOTES: DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0It LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 J a O STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w j °e(blows/ft) N-Value o X w O 9 Q Z J w 10 20 30 .6.0.8.0. TOPSOIL (6 inches Very Loose Dry Light Brown Poody-Graded SAND (SP) with Cemented Sand Pieces _ q Loose Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with `I f silt 5 HC 5 Stiff Moist Light Gray Sandy Lean CLAY (CL 10 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 — 20 — 25 N TE 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORTPREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 1 BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRA TION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3 PENETRATION INVALUE)IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. I . SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-12 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6120112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 It LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 8 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION d (blows)ft) N-value v O W Q> < Z W 3 10 20 30 60 60 TOPSOIL I6 inches) X FILL: Loose Moist Brown -Gray Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) with Rootlets X', i 6 FILL: Medium Dense Moist w Bron-Gray X Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) with Gravel 13 5 X: and Debris _ FRStiff Moist Dark Gray Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) with O Trace Organic Material 10 HC Very Loose Moist Gray -Brown Clayey SAND (SC) 10_ Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20- 25 — NOTES: i. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 2. BORING. SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION rN-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I D. SAMPLER 1 FL 4, STRATIFICATION ANG GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5, WATERLEVEL ISAT TIMEOFEXPLORATIONAND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-13 1061.12.249 Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/20112 ELEVATION: Ground SurfaceNOTES: DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 n LOGGED BY: J. Faucefte WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 U J > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w Q blows/) N-value Too a 0 Q z W 3 10 20 30 60 80 sr' -TOPSOIL (6 inches - - Loose Moist Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) .. 8 ------------------------ Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded f SAND with Silt (SP-SM) with Cemented Sand 22 5 .`!I. }. Pieces I. }. HC 27 L, }. 19 10 -'— Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 25- NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. Z BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0-1566. 3. PENETRATION /N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. I . SAMPLER 1 FT 4. STRATIFIOATIONAND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOTEXACT 5 WATER LEVEL IS ATTIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *SAME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejetme, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-14 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6120112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 4 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U J > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA ~ v a C0 o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a s 0 1- > (blows/ft) N-Value w v o w< w F Q m Z W 3 10 20 30 .6.0.8.0. —TOPSOIL 6inches) X FILL: Loose Dry Gray -Brown Poorly -Graded SAND (SP) with Gravel X' 7 HC Medium Dense Moist Light , ,� �• SAND witch S It (SP SM)withh C ay Lens Lenses 16 Medium Dense Moist Light Gray Clayey SAND (SC) 22 25 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 16— 20 26 NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT 2. BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRA TION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1566. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N I.D. SAMPLER 1 FT 4. STRA HFICATIONAND GROUNDWATER DEPTHSARE NOTEXACT, 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIMEOF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-15 1061.12.249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6120/12 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 It LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 4 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U LU > w w ZU STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION X 2 (blows/ft) N-value w J W N w w Z J 3 w 10 20 30 6080 _TOPSOIL (6 inches) Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded - SAND with Silt (SP-SM) 13 HC ..�. {, 12 16 21 10 --- Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15- 20- 25- NOTES 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. Z BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0-1586. 3. PENETRATION (N.VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REOUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4, STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5, WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-16 1061.12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6119112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface . DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U —I > w w Op STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA ~ v =a C1 o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a s < d (blowslft) N-Value w v o w Q> O Q Inz w g 10 20 30 .6.0.8.0. ' IL 3 inches Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with Sill (SP-SM) 24 14 Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Clayey SAND (SC) HC 13 13 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 — 25 — NOTES' 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORTPREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TES T DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0-1586. J. PENETRATION rN-VALUQ IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N, REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. I . SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: p-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina . TEST BORING RECORD B-17 1061-12-249 ' NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6119112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface Obtained bulk sample of auger cuttings from 1 to 3 DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft feet. . Boring backfilled at completion of drilling. Located LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Dry at TOB in dirt road. DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U - w > w w ZU STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA ~ w w Q. o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a a v (blows/R) N-Value Q. w F Q N w Q � Z W 10 20 30 69.8.0. - P IL 2 inches I: Dense Moist Light Brown Poory-Graded SANDwith ...'.}- Silt (SP-SM) % Fines = 11.6%. LL = 22, PI=NP, MC=7.3% 0 32 I, Medium DenseMoist Brown Poorly-GradedSAND `I�• with (SP-SM)ght 16 11 Medium Dense Moist Light Gray Clayey SAND (SC) , ro 15 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 — 25 — NO TES: 1. THIS LOG IS Oft YA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH AS TM 04566. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1 4IN. I . SAMPLER 1 FT 4. STRATIFICARON AND GROUNDWATER DEPrHS ARE NOT EXACT 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-18 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6119112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 it LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 6.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U In In > ID w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA aa v MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w blows/) N-Value W F h Z UI y w 3 10 20 30 .6.0.8.0. `- '. T IL (3 inches) Loose Moist Gray -Brown Poorly -Graded SANDwith ': �(: - .i: Silt (SP-SM) with Cemented Sand Pieces }. 9 _ NO Stiff Moist Light Gray Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) 13 5 - HC Loose Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SANDwith .• Silt(SP-SM) .1p t0 L Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 - 20 25 NOTES. 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1566. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5, WATERLEVEL ISAT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: p-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-19 1061.12.249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6119112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface Obtained bulk sample of auger cuttings from 1 to 3 DRILLING METHOD: NSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft feet. LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U J > w w ZO STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA aQ o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w � _Ia a v 61ows0) N-value Wd' J w < O w O < N Z w 3 10 20 30 60 80 P IL(3 inches) Medium Dense Moist Brown -Gray Silty SAND(SM) with Clay Lenses % Fines = 17.4%, LL = 19, PI = NP, MC = 7.9% 4 20 _ (j Medium Dense Moist Brown -Gray Poorly -Graded f, SAND with Silt(SP-SM) _ 23 5 j.._ - - :i Medium Dense Moist Tan Poorly -Graded SAND _ _ I.• with Silt (SP-SM) 16 HC 17 10- goring terminated at 10 feet. 15 - 20 25 NOTES. 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJEC rAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 1 BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH AS TM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. I . SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5, WATER LEVEL IS A TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P_1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-21 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6119/12 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 6 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 U J W w w ZO STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w 20 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION j a(blows/0) N-value o o 4 Lu O < Z w 10 20 30 60.80. TOPSOIL 2 inches }: Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poody-Graded SAND with Silt(SP-SM) 13 21 .,_I.. }. HC } 25 25 10 --- Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 — 20 — 25 — NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. - 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3 PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE i, 41N, 1.0. SAMPLER 1 FT 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5, WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-22 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6119112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 c> > W w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA m a c'l o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a s r (blows/ft) N-Value o w N Z w J 3 w 10 20 30 60 80 T P IL(1 inc 71. Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt(SP-SM) I; 1. 24 17 5 `'L } I.j HG 15 13 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 25 — NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT _ 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0-1586. 3. PENETRATION rN-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN, I.D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. S. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-20 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/19112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface ' DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 6.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 U J > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION j (clowsfl) N-value O v < o D W Z J w 3 10 20 30 60 80 " IL (3 inches .�(.. Loose Moist Brown -Gray Poorly -Graded SAND with - silt(SP-SM) _,,4..� 9 Medium Dense Moist Light Gray Poorly -Graded _ f, SAND with Silt(SP-SM) 17 �.}.. HC 12 _ Loose Moist Light Gray Clayey SAND (SC) 9 10—Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 — 25 NOTES' 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORTPREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1585. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF SLOWS OF 140 Le. HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN, TO SAMPLER 1 FT 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *SGUMAE ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: p-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-23 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6I19I12 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 R LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 6.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA m =o. O o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION rL a ¢ E (blows/ft) N-Value w v w Q w 7 F Q N Z W 3 10 20 30 6080, OPSOIL (3 inches) Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt(SP-SM) . r.'. j.. 15 15 l,. HC 21 14 10- — Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15- 20- - 25 - NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONL YA PORTION OF A REPORTPREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DA TA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH AS TM D-15B6. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1A IN, I . SAMPLER 1 FT. 4, STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5, WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-24 1061.12.249 Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/19112 ELEVATION: Ground SurfaceNOTES: DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 N LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 c> J > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION '� j v blows/ft) N-Value o Q z w 3 10 20 30 60 80 PSOIL 3 inches .�� . (, Loose Moist Light Gray Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt(SP-SM) I_ }' _ 7 Medium Dense Moist Light Gray Poorly -Graded .'I. - SAND with Silt (SP-SM) 16 1.f. HC - 24 } 15 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 25 - - NOTES: 1, THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM EL 1586. 3. PENETRATION rN-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1 41N. I D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-25 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/19112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 It LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 U Lu > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA °� MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w "" (blows/ft) N-value w o 0 Q> w 7 < N Z w 310 20 30 6080 T P IL 3 inches) - Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt(SP-SM) .,I:..} 20 I f. 5 HC 16 15 10--- Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 — - 25 N TE 1, THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT 7 BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TESTDATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586, 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB, HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1,4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT 5. WATERLEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORAVONAND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P_1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-26 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/19112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface Obtained bulk sample of auger cuttings from 1 to 3 DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 It feet. LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 6.5 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U J > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w v o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w Q mows0) N-Value N V Q Z J w 3 10 20 30 60 80 (3 inches) Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Silly SAND ISM) % Fines =15.9%,LL=20, PI=NP, MC=10.5% 19 }.• Very Loose Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) q 5 Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded HC f. SANDwith Silt (SP-SM) 12 20 10 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 - 25 NOTES: 1, THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORTPREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 2. BORING. SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DA TA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. I.D. SAMPLER I FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5, WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-27 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6/19112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 V LU > w w ZV STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA v C1 M o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -+ a s I' w (blows/ft) N-Value o y w Q U W v Q Z W w 10 20 30 6080 L inches) I. I.I. Medium Dense Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) 20 14 - 1..1. HC - _ 11 I.1, zo t0 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 — 20 25— NOTES: I. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 2, BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1566. 3. PENETRATION (N.VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN, I.O. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-28 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6119112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 V J > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w Q j v blows/f) N-Value o a Z w 3 10 20 30 60.80. S IL (3 inches) r .� . 12 - Loose Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with Sill (SP-SM) `a. }: 7 HC 8 g 10—`—I- Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20- 25— - NOTES: 1, THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. I.D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1453 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-29 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6119112 ELEVATION: Ground Surface DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 It LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 7 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 U > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA MATERIAL DESCRIPTION >w d nlows/0) N-Value o Wv O < �Z 3 10 20 30 6080 IL 4 inches) 70 Firm Moist Light Gray Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) 7 Loose Moist Light Gray Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) 9 5 }. HC g Medium Dense Moist Light Gray Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt(SP-SM) 13 t0— Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 25 — — NOTES. I. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 2 BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TESTDATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 30IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN, I D. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4, STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT 5. WATERLEVEL ISAT TIME OF EXPLORATIONAND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-30 1061-12-249 NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 6119/12 ELEVATION: Ground Surface Obtained bulk sample of auger cuttings from 1 to 3 DRILLING METHOD: HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft feet. LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: Caved @ 8 feet DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 c> _J > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w w a (blows/ft) N-Value oo 3 w 10 20 30 .6.0.8.0. L 4 inches) Very Loose Moist Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt .,�L.}. % Fines =9.6o%o,)LL=20, PI=NP, MC=6.9% 4. t Brown Loose Moist Liwitght SAND withSilt lay Lensesly-Graded 6 5 MediuDenseMoist 9ht Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with(SP-SM) 13 17 Boring terminated at 10 feet. 15 20 25 — NOTES. 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRA TION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. 3. PENETRATION N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N, 1,0. SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Location Date BMP-I (6/28/ 12) Seasonal High Water Table Evaluations Soil Descriptions P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Lejeunc, North Carolina S&M E Project No. 1061-12-249 Matrix Mottle Depth Huc/Value . Huc/Value Horizon Inches /Chroma /Chroma Texture/Structure A 0-3 IOYR 4/2 I 3-10 IOYR 7/1 E/Bhs 10-15 IOYR 4/6 1 OYR 5/8 I OYR 3/3 2E 15-35 2.5Y 6/4 E/Bt 35-55 2.5Y 8/1 10YR 5/6 Btl 55-85 2.5Y 6/4 10YR 5/8 Bt2 85-96+ 2.5Y 7/3 10YR 5/8 2.5Y 7/1 Dark grayish brown very fine sand, single grain, loose Light gray, very fine sand, single grain, loose Dark yellowish brown very fine sand, single grain loose; common yellowish brown redox concentrations and dark brown cemented pieces Light yellowish brown very fine sand, single grain, loose White very fine sand, single grain, loose, yellowish brown clay lenses Light yellowish brown sandy clay loam, moderate sub -angular blocky, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, firm; common yellowish brown redox concentrations Pale yellow sandy clay loam, moderate sub -angular blocky, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, firm; common yellowish brown redox concentrations and light gray redox depletions Seasonal High Water Table = 85" (7.08 ft) below the existing ground surface. Location Date BMP-2 (6/28/ 12) Seasonal High Water Table Evaluations Soil Descriptions Page Two Matrix Mottle Depth HueNalue Hue/Value Horizon Inches /Chroma /Chroma Texture/Structure A 0-3 I OYR 4/2 E1 3-8 2.5Y 5/3 E2 8-19 2.5Y 6/2 Btl 19-28 2.5Y 5/6 10YR 5/8 Bt2 28-42+ 2.5Y 6/4 10YR 5/8 2.5Y 7/2 Dark grayish brown very fine sand, single grain, loose Light olive brown very fine sand, single grain, loose Light brownish gray very fine sand, single grain, loose Light olive brown sandy clay loam, strong angular blocky, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, firm; common yellowish brown redox concentrations Light yellowish brown sandy loam, moderate to weak angular blocky, friable; common yellowish brown redox concentrations and tight gray redox depletions Seasonal High Water Table = 28" (2.33 ft) below the existing ground surface. BMP-3 A 0-2 IOYR 5/2 (6/28/12) E 2-23 2.5Y 7/3 Bt 23-43 2.5Y 5/6 10YR 5/8 2.5Y 6/3 C 43-61+ 2.5Y 8/1 IOYR 5/8 Grayish brown very fine sand, single grain, loose Pale yellow very fine sand, single grain, loose Light olive brown sandy clay loam, moderate angular blocky, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, firm; common yellowish brown redox concentrations and light yellowish brown sandy seams White fine sand, single grain, loose; common yellowish brown redox concentrations Seasonal High Water Table = 43" (3.58 ft) below the existing ground surface. Seasonal High Water Table Evaluations Soil Descriptions Page Three Matrix Depth FiucNalue Location Horizon Inches /Chroma Date BMP-4 A 0-2 IOYR 5/2 (6/28/ 12) E 2-14 IOYR 7/1 E/Bhs 14-19 2.5Y 6/4 Cl 19-32 2.5Y 7/4 C2 32-48+ 2.5Y 7/2 Mottle Hue/Value /Chroma Texture/Structure Grayish brown very fine sand, single grain, loose Light gray very fine sand, single grain, loose 7.5YR 4/6 Light yellowish brown fine sand, single grain, loose; strong brown cemented pieces Pale yellow fine sand, single grain, loose I OYR 5/8 Light gray fine sand, single grain, 2.5Y 7/1 loose; common yellowish brown redox concentrations and light gray redox depletions Seasonal High Water Table = 28" (2.33 ft) below the existing ground surface BMP-5 A 0-5 10YR 4/2 Dark grayish brown very fine (6/28/12) sand, single grain, loose E 5-10 2.5Y 7/2 Light gray very fine sand, single grain, loose E/Bhsl 10-23 2.5Y 6/4 10YR 4/6 Light yellowish very fine sand, single grain, loose; dark yellowish brown cemented pieces E/Bhs2 23-47 2.5Y 8/3 I OYR 4/6 Pale yellow fine sand, single grain, loose; dark yellowish brown cemented pieces E/Bt 47-65 2.5Y 7/1 10YR 4/6 Light gray very fine sand, single grain, loose; dark yellowish brown clay lenses CI 65-87 2.5Y 7/4 10YR 5/8 Pale yellow very fine sand, single grain, loose; common yellowish brown redox concentrations C2 87-96+ 2.5Y 7/2 10YR 5/8 Light gray very fine sand, single grain, loose; common yellowish brown redox concentrations Seasonal High Water Table = 87" (7.25 ft) below the existing ground surface. Seasonal High Water Table Evaluations Soil Descriptions Page Four Matrix Mottle Depth Hue/Value Hue/Value Location Horizon Inches /Chroma /Chroma Texture/Structure Date BMP-6 A 0-3 1 OYR 4/2 Dark grayish brown very fine (6/28/12) sand, single grain, loose E 3-10 2.5Y 6/3 Light yellowish brown very fine sand, single grain, loose Bt 10-24 I OYR 5/6 Yellowish brown sandy loam, weak angular blocky, friable C1 24-39 2.5Y 6/6 Olive yellow fine sand, single grain, loose C2 39-49 2.5Y 7/4 Pale yellow fine sand, single grain, loose C3 49-68 2.5Y 8/3 , 2.5Y 4/3 Pale yellow fine sand, single grain, loose; common olive brown inclusions C4 68-80 2.5Y 7/3 Pale yellow fine sand, single grain, loose C5 80-86 2.5Y 6/3 I OYR 5/6 Light yellowish brown fine sand, single grain, loose; common yellowish brown redox concentrations C6 89-96+ 2.5Y 7/3 Pale yellow.fine sand, single grain, loose Seasonal High Water Table > 96" (> 8.00 ft) below the existing ground surface. Seasonal High Water Table Evaluations Soil Descriptions Depth Location Horizon Inches Date BMP-7 A 0-2 (6/28/ 12) Page Five Matrix Mottle HueNalue Flue/Value /Chroma /Chroma Texture/Structure 10YR 5/2 E 2-14 2.5Y 7/2 E/Bhs 14-45 2.5Y 6/4 E/Bt 45-74 2.5Y 7/4 Cl 74-86 2.5Y 6/6 C2 86-91 2.5Y 6/4 C3 91-96+ 2.5Y 5/2 Grayish brown very fine sand, single grain, loose Light gray very fine sand, single grain, loose I OYR 3/3 Light yellowish brown very fine sand; dark brown cemented pieces I0YR 5/6 Pale yellow very fine sand, single grain, loose; yellowish brown clay lenses Olive yellow very fine sand, single grain, loose I0YR 5/8 Light yellowish brown very fine sand, single grain, loose; common yellowish brown redox concentrations 2.5Y 6/1 Grayish brown very fine sand, single grain, loose; common gray redox depletions Seasonal High Water Table = 91" (7.58 ft) below the existing ground surface. Seasonal High Water Table Evaluations Soil Descriptions Page Six Matrix Depth HucNalue Location Horizon Inches /Chroma Date BMP-8 A 0-2 10YR 5/2 (6/28/ 12) E 2-11 2.5Y 7/2 E/Bhs 11-40 2.5Y 7/3 Bt 40-47 2.5Y 6/6 Cl 47-61 2.5Y 7/2 C2 61-88 2.5Y 7/4 C3 88-92 2.5Y 4/2 C4 92-96+ 2.5Y 6/3 Mottle Hue/Value /Chroma Texture/Structure Grayish brown very fine sand, single grain, loose Light gray very fine sand, single grain, loose IOYR 3/3 Pale yellow very fine sand, single grain, loose; dark brown cemented ip cccs Olive brown loamy sand, granular, very friable Light gray fine sand, single grain, loose 2.5Y 5/3 Pale yellow fine sand, single grain, 2.5Y 7/3 loose; common light olive brown inclusions Dark grayish brown fine sand, single grain, loose Light yellowish brown fine sand, single grain, loose Seasonal High Water Table > 96" (> 8.00 ft) below the existing ground surface. Date: 7/3/2012 Location: BMP-2 Horizon: A/EI/F2 Client: Cape Fear Engineering Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Project k: 1061-12-249 S&ME "IN -SITU" CONSTANT HEAD PERMEAMETER Hole Depth: 0.75 Feet Hole Radius (r): 0.08 Feet Bubble Tube to Surface: 0.30 Feet Reference Tube to Hole Bottom (D): 1.05 Feet Water Depth in Hole (H): 0.50 Feet CH Tube(s) Setting(hl): 0.55 Feet Chamber Used: I0.11 FC Ksat = CQ/(2PiH') Initial Water in Hole: 0.27 Feet Final Water in Hole: 0.50 Feet C=sinh-t (H/r) - I(r/H)' + 1 In' + r/H sink t = inverse hyperbolic sin of a number H =Height of water in hole (cm) r = radius of hole (cm) Q = Constant Flow Rate (Gal/day) = Cross Sectional.Area of Resevior x Length of Drop in Water Column over Time Drop in Water Column r= 0.08 R Time (It) (cm) H = 0.50 R 14 0.125 15 0.144 C= 1.68 16 0.135 i Q= 167.76 Gallons/Day 17 0.141 18 0.144 19 0.135 20 0.138 21 0.138 22 0.135 23 0.141 Avg. 0.138 Cross Sectional Area = 0.11 ft' Length of Drop in Water Column = 198.43 ft/day K„.= 179.45 Gallons/Day/ft' Cm/Hour 30.47 Inches/Hour = 12.00 Feet/Day 23.99 Note: Mal calculations are based on average drop in Water Column (it) after equilibrium is reached. Prcwwd bv: S&at E. le, 14id M.o'n Time (min 1 Total run time = 23 minutes omfaarese�urra 8 Page 1 513112 Date: 7/3/2012 Location: BMP-3 Horimn: E Client: Cape Fear Engineering Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Project#: 1061-12-249 S&ME "IN -SITU" CONSTANT HEAD PERN1EAMETER Hole Depth: 1.83 Feel Hole Radius (r): 0.08 Feet Bubble Tube to Surface: 0.30 Feet iererence Tube to Hole Bottom (D): 2.13 Feet Water De th in Hole (H): 0.50 Feet CNT Tub4)Setting(h.): 1.63 Feet Chamber Used:10.11 1 Ff Ksat=CQ/(2 PiH 2) Initial Water in Hole: 025 Feet Final Water in Hole: 0.50 Fee( C=sinhu (H/r)-1(r/H)2+1I"+r/H M.1, t = inverse hyperbolic sin of. number H = Height of water in hole (cm) r = radius ofhole (cm) Q = Constant Flow Rate (Ga1/day) = Cross Sectional Area of Resevior x Length of Drop in Water Column over Time r= 0.08 fl H = 0.50 ❑ C= 1.68 Q= 123.83 Gallons/Day Cross Sectional Arc.= 0.11 ❑2 Length of Drop in Water Column= 146.46 fVday K„o= 132.45 Gallons/Day/ft2 Cm/Hour 22.49 Inches/Hour = 8.85 _ Feet/Dar 17.71 Drop in Water Column Time (fl) (cm) 20 0.108 3:3 21 0.000 3.5 22 0.000 3.4 23 0.118 3.6 24 0.108 3.3 25 0.105 3.2 26 0.108 3.3 27 0.098 3.0 28 0.102 3.1 29 0.105 3.2 Avg. 0.102 Note: Ksat calculations are based on average drop in Water Column (ft) after equilibrium is reached. Time (min)= l Total tan time= 29minutes 3 PopwaJ by.5 ME. I.. Paul Maocn Paget 5212 Form No: TR-D6913-WN-1Ga Revision No. 0 Sieve Analysis of Soils *S&ME Revision Date: 05110112 ASTM D 6913 Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/26/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s): 6/22 - 6/26/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring No.: B-I Sample: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/12 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: N/A Depth (ft): 1 - 3 ft. Samnle Descrintion: Tan Poorlv Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) 100 % 90 % 80% ea 70 a 60% u 50 % 91.1 40 % 30% 20% 10% 0% 100.00 3" 1.5" 1"314" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 � 'nrld■■nn� 1mmn� yIn■nn�lln■■nn� IIn ®IMMMEM �®��®���� ®® ��©8®®EC®®®Q©® mom® ©o�mmm � iiiu�nn�nnlon �n■nn��■u�� innn■on�nnnn�nn■no, v■n®■■nnnn� ii�nn■�n n ■nnn� 10.00 lD1illimeters 1.00 0.10 0.01 Cobbles <300 mm (12") and> 75 mm (3") Fine Sand <0.425 mm and> 0.075 mm (#200) Gravel <75 mm and> 4.75 mm (#4) Silt <0.075 and> 0.005 mm Coarse Sand <4.75 mm and>2.00 mm (#10) Clay <0.005 mm Medium Sand < 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40) Colloids < 0.001 mm Maximum Particle Size #4 Coarse Sand 0.1% Fine Sand 94.4% Gravel 0.0% Medium Sand 0.1% Silt & Clay 5.4% Liquid Limit 19 Plastic Limit 0 Plastic Index N.P. Specific Gravity ND Moisture Content 5.5% Coarse Sand 0.1% Medium Sand 0.1% Fine Sand 94.4% Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded ❑O Angular ❑ Hard & Durable ❑O Soft ❑O Weathered & Friable ❑ Notes/Deviations/References: ND=Not Detennined. ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of Soils ASTM D 2487: Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) Tom Schipporeit, P.E.' j`%/ " l Senior Geotechnical Engineer 6/30/2012 Technical Responsibility Signalurr Position Dale This report shall not he reproduced, accept irk full, without the it riaen approval ofS&A1E, Inc. S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 8-1 Bulk (1 - 3 ft) Classification Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page 1 of I Form No: TR-D6913-WH-lGa Revision No. 0 Revision Dale: 05/10/12 Sieve Analysis of Soils ASTM D 6913 Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Project#: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/26/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s): 6/22 - 6/26/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring No.: B-17 Sample: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/12 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: N/A Depth (ft): 1 - 3 ft. Sample Description: Tan -Brown Poorlv Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) 3" 1.5" 1"3/4" 3/8" #4 410 920 #40 #60 4100 0200 100% 90% 80% e_ oa 70 % C .y m 60 % a 50% u u S 40% 30 % 20 % 10% 0 % !_+ 100.00 10.00 f 01illimetcrs 1.00 0.10 0.01 Cobbles < 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3") Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200) Gravel < 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4) Silt < 0.075 and> 0.005 men Coarse Sand <4.75 mm and>2.00 mm (#10) Clay <0.005 mm Medium Sand <2.00 mm and> 0.425 mm (#40) Colloids <0.001 mm Maximum Particle Size #4 Coarse Sand 0.1% Fine Sand 87.6% Gravel 0.0% Medium Sand 0.7% Silt & Clay 11.6% Liquid Limit 22 Plastic Limit 0 Plastic Index N.P. Specific Gravity ND Moisture Content 7.3% Coarse Sand 0.1% Medium Sand 0.7% Fine Sand 87.6% Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded 17 Angular ❑ Hard & Durable O Soft O Weathered & Friable ❑ Notes/Deviations/References: ND=Not Detennined. ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of Soils ASTM D 2487: Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) Tom Schipporcit, P.E. "r� i�y� Senior Geotechnical Engineer 6/30/2012 Technical ResponaihiliN Signature Position Dale This report shall not be reproduced, except in fill, without the arinen approval o(S&ME. Inc. S&M@, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Rood B-17 Bulk (I - 3 ft) Classification Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page 1 of 1 Form No: TR-D6913-WH-ICa Revision No. 0 *vS&ME Revision Dare: 05110112 Sieve Analysis OC Soils ASTM D 6913 Quality Assurance S&D1E, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/26/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s): 6/22 - 6/26/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring No.: B-19 Sample: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/12 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: N/A Depth (ft): l - 3 ft. Sample Description: Gray Silty SAND (SM) 3" 1.5" 1"3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 % 90 % 80 % e n 70 % c .y m 60 % a v 50'% u L C1 0. 40% 30 % 20% 10% 0'% I� 100.00 10.00 Millimeters 1.00 0.10 0.01 Cobbles <300 mm (12") and> 75 mm (3") Fine Sand <0.425 mm and> 0.075 mm (#200) Gravel - < 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (44) Silt < 0.075 and> 0.005 mm Coarse Sand <4.75 mm and>2.00 mm (#10) Clay <0.005 mm Medium Sand < 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40) Colloids < 0.001 mm Maximum Particle Size #4 Coarse Sand 0.4% Fine Sand 81.5% Gravel 0.1% Medium Sand 0.6% Silt & Clay 17.4% Liquid Limit 19 Plastic Limit 0 Plastic Index N.P. Specific Gravity ND Moisture Content 7.9% Coarse Sand 0.4% Medium Sand 0.6% Fine Sand 81.5% Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded ❑O Angular ❑ Hard & Durable IF] Soft O Weathered & Friable ❑ Notes/Deviations/References: ND —.Not Determined. ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of Soils ASTM D 2487: Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) Tom Schipporeit, P.E. ' �` %�Y� Senior Geotechnical Engineer 6/30/2012 Technical Respansibiliry Sigma l"e Position Dale This report shall not be reproduced. ercepl infull. without the wralen approval o/'S&ME, Inc. S&hiF_, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-19 Bulk (I - 3 ft) Classification Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I oft Form No: TR-D6913-W11-IGa Revision No. 0 #S&ME Revision Date: 05110112 Sieve Analysis of Soils ASTM D 6913 Qualigr Assurance S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/26/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Datc(s): 6/22 - 6/26/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring No.: B-26 Sample: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/12 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: N/A Depth (ft): 1 - 3 ft. Samnle Description: Grav Siltv SAND (SM) 3" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/811' #4 #10 #20 #40 060 #100 #200 100 % 90 % 80'% on 70'% J 40% 30 % �I 20 % 10% 0% . 100.00 10.00 Millimeters 1.00 0.10 0.01 Cobbles < 300 mm (12") and> 75 mm (3") Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and> 0.075 mm (#200) Gravel -< 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4) Silt < 0.075 and > 0.005 mm Coarse Sand <4.75 mm and>2.00 mm (#10) Clay <0.005 mm Medium Sand < 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40) Colloids < 0.001 mm Maximum Particle Size #4 Coarse Sand 0.2% Fine Sand 83.6% Gravel 0.0% Medium Sand 0.3% Silt & Clay 15.9% Liquid Limit 20 Plastic Limit 0 Plastic Index N.P. Specific Gravity ND Moisture Content 10.5% Coarse Sand 0.2% Medium Sand 0.3% Fine Sand 83.6% Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded O Angular ❑ Hard & Durable ❑x Soft ❑O Weathered & Friable ❑ Notes/Deviations/References: ND=Not Detennined. ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of Soils - ASTM D 2487: Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) Tom Schipporcit, P.E."'y fl� Senior Geotechnical Engineer 6/30/2012 Technical Respoambilin, Signature Position Date This repurt shall not be reproduced. except in full. without the written approval of S&MF.. ha. S&ME, hie. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-26 Bulk (l - 3 fl) Classification Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of / Form No: TR-D69I3-Wll-IGa Revision No. 0 *S&ME Revision Date: 05110112 Sieve Analysis of Soils ASTM D 6913 Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/26/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s): 6/22 - 6/26/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring No.: B-30 Sample: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/12 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: N/A Depth (ft): I - 3 ft. Sample Description: Tan Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) J" 1.5" 1"314" 3/S" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 IOU% ... .. ��� 90'70 —I 00'% e 70% J 40% 30 20% 10% 0% 100.00 10.00 Millimeters 1.00 0.10 0.01 Cobbles <300 mm (12") and> 75 mm (3") Fine Sand <0.425 mm and> 0.075mm (#200) Gravel < 75 mm and> 4.75 mm (#4) Silt < 0.075 and > 0.005 mm Coarse Sand <4.75 mm and>2.00 mm (#10) Clay <0.005 mm Medium Sand <2.00 mm and> 0.425 mm (#40) Colloids <0.001 mm Maximum Particle Size #4 Coarse Sand 0.2% Fine Sand 89.9% Gravel 0.0% Medium Sand 0.3% Silt & Clay 9.6% Liquid Limit 20 Plastic Limit 0 Plastic Index N.P. Specific Gravity ND Moisture Content 6.9% Coarse Sand 0.2% Medium Sand 0.3% Fine Sand 89.9% Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded ❑O Angular ❑ Hard & Durable ❑x Soft ❑O Weathered & Friable ❑ Notes/Deviations/References: ND=Not Determined. ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of Soils ASTM D 2487: Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) Tom Schipporcit. P.E. x� i Senior Geotechnical Engineer 6/30/2012 Technical Responsibiliq, Signature Position Dale This report shall nor be reproduced, ercepi in f dl, withoul the written approval a(S&ME, Inc. S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring ('ores, Road B-30 Bulk (I - 3 fio Classificalion Raleigh. NC. 27616 Page 1 of I Form No. TR-D698-2 Revision No.: 0 *S&ME Revision Dare: 11121107 Moisture -Density Report Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 S&ME Project#: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/23/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Datc(s): 6/21 - 6/23/12 Client Name: Cane Fear Client Address: Leland, NC Boring #: B-1 Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/2012 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: N/A Depth: I - 3 ft. Sample Description: Tan Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Maximum Dry Density 107.0 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 13.2% ASTM D1557 - - Method A Moisture -Density Relations of Soil and Soil -Aggregate Mixtures I Soil Properties 120.0 Natural Moisture 5.5% Content 115.0 Specific 2.645 Gravity Liquid Limit 19 Plastic Limit 0 110.0 Plastic Index N.P. % Passing u 05.0 314' 100.0% 318" 99.1% O 94 100.0% #10 99.9% 100.0 #40 99.8% #60 • 97.0% #200 5.4% 95.0 Oversize Fraction Bulk Gravity 90.0 _ % Moisture 0.0 5.0 J 1_en 20.0 25.0 %Oversize Moisture Content (%) MDD Opt MC Moisture -Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction 0Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) ❑ I I I I I I\ I I 100%Saturation Curve I I I I 1{ I \\I _ I Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve © 3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑ Mechanical Rammer ' ❑ Manual Rammer El Moist Preparation O Dry Preparation ❑ References / Comments / Deviations: ASTM D 422: Particle Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort Tom Schi000rcit, P.E. _ �syn.�-''l Senior Geotechnical Engineer - Technical Respom'ibilin, Signah.re Position Date This report s'h.11.rot he reproduced, excepl injdl, without Ill,, u'rinen approval t jS&MF•, Inc. S&MEjnc. - Corporale 3201 Spring Forest Road R-1 Bulk (I - 3 fq Proctor Raleigh NC. 27616 Page I of I Form No. TR-D698-1 Revision Na. : S&ME Revision Date: u/z 1/07 Moisture -Density Report Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 S&ME Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/23/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s): 6/21 - 6/23/12 Client Name. Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring #: B-17 Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/2012 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: N/A Depth: 1 - 3 ft. Sample Description: Tan -Brown Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Maximum Dry Density 111.6 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 12.8% ASTM D1557 _ _ Method A Moisture -Density Relations ol"Soil and Soil -Aggregate Mixtures Soil Properties 125.0 Natural Moisture 7.3% YContent 120.0 Specific 2.655 Gravity Liquid Limit 22 Plastic Limit 0 I15.0 Plastic Index N.P. UU a % Passing ; S 10.0 314" 100.0% 318" 100.0% Q #4 100.0% #lo 99.9% 105.0 #40 99.2% #60 94.5% #200 11.6% 100.0 Oversize Fraction Bulk Gravi(v 95.0 % Moisture 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 %Oversize Moisture Content (%) MDD Opt. MC Moisture -Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction ❑O Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) ❑ --{I-- 2.655 --_ � 100% Saturation Curve I I I I S I I I t I I I I I v I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve El3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑ Mechanical Rammer ❑ Manual Rammer O Moist Preparation ❑O Dry Preparation ❑ References / Comments / Deviations: ASTM D 422: Particle Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort Tom Schipporeit. P.E. rs� '4 Senior Geotechnical Engineer 6/30/2012 Technical Responsibility Signaave Position Date This report shall not be reproduced, creep( inJidl, without the written apgrroval at S&A1E, Inc. S&ME,lnc. - Corporale 3201 Spring Forest Rand B-17 Bulk (I - 3 fi) Proctor Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page 1 of Form No. TR-D698-2 Revision No.: 0 #S&ME Revision Date: 11121107 Moisture -Density Report Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 S&ME Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/23/12 Project Name. P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s): 6/21 - 6/23/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring #: B-19 Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/2012 Location: Site -Borehole Offset N/A Depth: I - 3 ft. Sample Description: Gray Silty SAND (SM) Maximum Dry Density 114.8 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 13.1% AJIIr1 (/(JJ/ -- /rIG/rIVUA Moisture -Density Relations of Soil and Soil -Aggregate Mlvtures Soil Properties 130.0 Natural Moisture 7.9% _L 2.655 --t- Content 125.0 Specific Gravity Liquid Limit 19 Plastic Limit 0 120.0 Plastic Index N.P. a i % Passing c I5.0 314" 100.0% O 318" 100.0% #4 99.9% O #10 99.5% 110.0 #40 98.9% #60 96.1% 4200 17.4% 105.0 Oversize Fraction Bulk Gravity 100.0 % Moisture 0.0 5.0 .0 15.0 20.0 25.0 ° % Oversize Moisture Content (%) MDD Opt. MC 100°/ Saturation Moisture -Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction O Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) ❑ Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve ❑O 3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑ Mechanical Rammer ❑ Manual Rammer ❑x Moist Preparation 0Dry Preparation ❑ References/Comments/Deviations: ND=Not Determined. ASTM D 422: Particle Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort Tom Schi000reit, P.E. Senior Geatechnical En ig neer 6/30/2012 Technical Reepora'ihiliN Signarury Position Ontu This report shall net be reprodured, esecp( irtfu/l, without the wrilren approval fS&MF., Inc. S&MF., 1ne. - Corporate 32/1 /Spring Forest Road B-1 9 Bnik (! - 3 Jl) Proctor Rnlciglr. NC. 27616 Page l a/' l Form No. TR-D698-2 Revisions No- : 0 *S&ME Revision Date: 11121107 MOIS1Ure - Density Report Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 S&ME Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/23/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Datc(s): 6/21 - 6/23/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring #: B-26 Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/2012 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: N/A Depth: 1 - 3 ft. Sample Description: Gray Silty SAND (SM) Maximum Dry Density 115.2 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 12.0% 4.QTM O1sS7 _ _ Mothnd 4 Moisture -Density Relations of Soil and Soil -Aggregate Mixtures Soil Properties 130.0 Natural Moisture 10.5% 2.655 —100%Saturation Content Curve 125.0 Specific 2.655 Gravity Liquid Limit 20 Plastic Limit 0 120.0 Plastic Index N.P. 4 i % Passing 715.0 314" 100.0% 318" 100.0% 0 #4 100.0% #10 99.8% 110.0 #40 99.5% #60 96.6% #200 15.9% 105.0 Oversize Fraction Bulk Gravity 100.0 % Moisture 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 % Oversize Moisture Content (%) MDD Opt MC I I II —f fI I I I s l I I I I I �— I I I I I I I I Moisture -Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction ❑g Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) ❑ Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve ❑x 3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑ m Mechanical Rammer ❑ Manual Ramer ❑g Moist Preparation El Dry Preparation ❑ References / Comments / Deviations: ASTM D 422: Particle Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort Tom Schinooreit, P.E. �oy,>..�p` -� Senior Geotechnical Engineer 6/30/2012 Technical Responsibllia• Sigoamre Position Date This report shall owl he reproduced, except lrt fill, without lhu writeve approval ofS&MF., toe. S&ME•hhc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-26 Bulk (1 - 3 ft) I'mcmr Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page l of/ Form No. TR-D698-2 Revision No.: 0 #S&ME Revision Date: 11121107 Moisture - Density Report Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 S&ME Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/26/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s): 6/21 - 6/23/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring #: B-30 Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/ 19/2012 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: N/A Depth: 2 - 6 ft. Sample Description: Tan Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Maximum Dry Density 107.5 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 13.5% ASTM D1557 _ _ Method A Moisture -Density Relations oirSoil and Soil -Aggregate Mixtures Soil Properties 120.0 Natural Moisture 6.9% Content Specific 115.0 Gravity 2.655 Liquid Limit 20 I10.0 Plastic Limit 0 Plastic Index N.P. a. % Passing 05.0 314" 100.0% Q 318 99.1 % #4 100.0% #10 99.8% 100.0 #40 99.5% #60 96.4% #200 9.6% 95.0 Oversize Fraction Bulk Gravity 90.0 %Moisture 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 % Oversize Moisture Content (%) MDD Opt. MC Moisture-Densiry Curve Disnlaved: Fine Fraction ❑x Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) ❑ _100%Saturation Curve I I I I — I 2.655 I I I I I I I ILI ` I I f I � I Z I I I I ' I I �� I I I I II Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve © 3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑ Mechanical Rammer ❑ Manual Rammer ❑O Moist Preparation � Dry Preparation ❑ References / Comments /Deviations: ASTM D 422: Particle Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort Tom Schi000reit, P.E. � ''P i� Senior Gcotechnical Engineer 6/30/2012 Technical Responsihilin, Signature Position Dale This report shall not be itproduced mcepr infill, isahoul the ssrinen approoil ufMAIE. Inc. S&ME,1nc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-30 Bulk (I .3p) Proctor Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page 1 of I Form No. TR-01833-T193-3 *S&ME Revision No.O CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory Revision Date: 216108 Compacted Soil ASTMD 1883 Quality Assurance S&ME, lnc.Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/29/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s) 6/22 - 6/29/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring #: B-I Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/20/12 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: NA Depth (ft): I - 3 ft. Sample Description: Tan Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) ASTM D1557 MethodA Maximum Dry Density: 107.0 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 13.2% Compaction Test performed on the Fine Fraction only % Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0% Uncorrected CBR Values I Corrected CBR Values CBR at 0.1 in. 15.8 CBR at 0.2 in. 33.4 1 CBR at 0.1 in. 37.6_1 CBR at 0.2 in. 43.3 1000.0 ME 900.0 - 800.0 - 700.0 - MEE EM n 600.0 - 500.0 - a 400.0 - 300.0 - 200.0 - 100.0 - 0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.Jo 0.40 0.50 Strain (inches ) CBR Sample Preparation: Performed on the fine fraction Grading was in accordance with the above method and compacted using the 6"diameter CBR mold Before Soaking After Soaking Compactive Effort (Blows per Layer) 45 Final Dry Density (PCF) 101.1 Initial Dry Density (PCF) 102.4 Average Final Moisture Content 14.4% Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen 12.9% Moisture Content (top I" after soaking) 14.8% Percent Compaction 95.7% Percent Swell -0.1% Soak Time: 96-hr Surcharge Weight 20.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 1O1.9 �� ®G c ppppppppp ®® pp 07�C7CW ✓A7COC�7O�� Liquid Limit 19 Plastic Index N.P. Notes/Deviations/References: Test specimen compacted to 95% at opt. moisture. Tom Schinporeit, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer 6/30/2012 Technical Responsibilav Signature Position Date This report shall nut he reproduced, ercept in fill without the written approval of S&ME, Inc. S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-/ Balk (/ - 3 ft) CBR Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of l Form No. TR-D 1833-T193-3 S&ME Revision No. 0 CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory Revision Date: 216108 Compacted Soil ASTM D 1883 Quality Assurance S&ME, Ine.Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/29/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s) 6/22 - 6/29/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring #: B-17 Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/12 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: NA Depth (ft): 1 - 3 ft. Sample Description: Tan -Brown Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) ASTMD1557 MethodA Maximum Dry Density: 111.0 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 12.8% Compaction Test performed on the Fine Fraction only % Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0% Uncorrected CBR Values Corrected CBR Values CBR at 0.1 in. 21.4 CBR at 0.2 in. 31.1 CBR at 0.1 in. 27.8 CBR at 0.2 in. 34.6 1000.0 ' 900.0 ' 800.0'---__ 600.0 Corrected Value at .2" -.- - - _ _ - -/ 500.0' ff a' 400.0 - �Corrected --_-- Value at.l" _ -,---,------ -- --�1----�--t- --- +- - 300.0-10 _ - 2000.--+- -.- --- -- -T�-----1-= 100.0 --- - _ - ---_ 0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0,30 0.40 0.50 Strain ( inches ) CBR Sample Preparation: Performed on the fine fraction Grading was in accordance with the above method and compacted using the 6"diameter CBR mold. Before Soaking After Soaking Compaetive Effort (Blows per Layer) 45 Final Dry Density (PCF) 102.5 Initial Dry Density (PCF) 105.0 Average Final Moisture Content 15.0% Moisture Content or [lie Compacted Specimen 12.4% WiSInre Content (top I" after soaking) 15.1% Percent Compaction 94.6% Percent Swell 0.2% Soak Time: 96-hr Surcharge Weight 20.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 101.9 Liquid Limit 22 Plastic Index N.P. Notes/Deviations/References: Test specimen compacted to 95% at opt. moisture. Tom Schipporcit, P.E.Senior Geotechnical Eneincer 6/30/2012 Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date This report shall not be reproduced, ercept in fill without the ariaea approval ofS&d1F-, Inc. S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-17 Balk' (I - 3 ft) CBR Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I Form No. TR-D1833-T/93-3 *S&ME Revision No. 0 CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory Revision Date: 216108 Compacted Soil ASTMD 1883 Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc.Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/29/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s) 6/22 - 6/29/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring #: B-19 Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/12 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: NA Depth (ft): I - 3 ft. SAND ASTM D1557 Method A Maximum Dry Density: 114.8 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 13.1 % Compaction Test performed on the Fine Fraction only % Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0% Uncorrected CBR Values Corrected CBR Values CBR at 0.1 in. 20.4 CBR at 0.2 in. 31.2 CBR at 0.1 in. 27.2 CBR at 0.2 in. 35.3 1000.0 ----------------------- 900.0 800.0 700.0 600.0 - [Corrected_--_i-'_ _---- Value __ ----_- 500.0 --_-- - �_�---------- - -1- Corrected Value at.l" --r-f- 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Strain (inches) CBR Sample Preparation: Performed on the fine fraction Grading was in accordance with the above method and compacted using the 6"diameter CBR mold. Before Soaking After Soaking Compactive Effort (Blows per Layer) 45 Final Dry Density (PCF) 110.2 Initial Dry Density (PCF) 109.8 Average Final Moisture Content 13.0% Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen 12.7% Moisture Content (top I ".a0er soaking) 13.7% Percent Compaction 95.6% Percent Swell -0.6% Soak Time: 96-hr Surcharge Weight 20.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 101.9 Liquid Limit 19 Plastic Index N.P. Notes/Deviations/References: Test specimen compacted to 95% at opt. moisture. Tom Schipporeit, P.E."�� %� -� Senior Geotechnical Eneinerer 6/30/2012 Technical Rexpmnaihility Signature Position Date This report shall not he reproduced, except in jdl without the a nuen approval of S&MF., Inc. S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-19 Bulk (l - 3 fi) CBR Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I Form No. TB-Dl833-T193-3 S&ME Revision No. o CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory Revision Date. 216108 Compacted Soil ASTMD 1883 Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc.Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/29/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s) 6/22 - 6/29/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring #: B-26 Sample #: Bulk - Sample Date: 6/19/12 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: NA Depth (ft): I - 3 ft. Sample Description: Gray Silty SAND (SM) ASTM D 698 Method Maximum Dry Density: 115.2 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 12.0% Compaction Test performed on the Fine Fraction only % Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0% Uncorrected CBR Values Corrected CBR Values CBR at 0.1 in. 23.2 CBR at 0.2 in. 31.4 CBR at 0.1 in. 27.6 CBR at 0.2 in. 33.3 1000.0 , ra ME ME rMEME M 900.0 -I - 500.0 700.0 - MINE 600.0 a y ti, 500.0 - ING 400.0 .. 300.0 - 200.0 - t00.0 - 0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 030 0.40 0.50 Strain (inches ) CBR Sample Preparation: Performed on the fine fraction Grading was in accordance with the above method and compacted using the 6"diameter CBR mold. Before Soaking After Soaking Compactive Effort (Blows per layer) 45 Final Dry Density (PCF) 106.3 Initial Dry Density (PCF) 109.3 Average Final Moisture Content 14.3% Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen 1 1.4% Moisture Content (top P after soaking) 15.0% Percent Compaction 94.9% Percent Swell 0.2% Soak Time: 96-hr Surcharge Weight 20.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 101.9 Liquid Limit 20 Plastic Index N.P. Notes/Devi ati ons/Re ferences Test specimen compacted to 95% at opt. moisture. Tom Schipporeit, P.E. "r � � Senior Gcotechnical Ent inter 6/30/2012 Technical Responsibility Signature , posili..I Date This report shall not be reproduced. ercept in fdl wither t the written opprorat of S&A1E, Inc. S&ME, Inc. - Caporals 320/ Spring Forest Road B-26 Bulk (1 - 3 ft) CBR Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page 1 ojl Form No. TR-D7833-T193-3 *S&ME Revision No. o CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory Revision Date: 216108 Compacted Soil ASTMD 1883 Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc.Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616 Project #: 1061-12-249 Report Date: 6/29/12 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Test Date(s) 6/22 - 6/29/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering Client Address: Leland, NC Boring #: B-30 Sample #: Bulk Sample Date: 6/19/12 Location: Site -Borehole Offset: NA Depth (11): 1 - 3 ft. Sample Description: Tan Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) ASTMD1557 Methm/A Maximum Dry Density: 107.5 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 13.5% Compaction Test performed on the Fine Fraction only % Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0% Uncorrected CBR Values Corrected CBR Values CBR at 0.1 in. 20.7 1 CBR at 0.2 in. 33.7 CBR at 0.1 in. 28.0 1 CBR at 0.2 in. 36.7 1000.0 . 900.0 - s00.0 - 700.0 - 6 600.0 - 500.0 .. m 400.0 300.0 - 200.0 - 100.0 - 0.00 0.10 0.20 0,31) 0.40 0.50 Strain (iochcs) CBR Sample Preparation: Performed on thefinefraction Grading was in accordance with the above method and compacted using the 6"diameter CBR mold. Before Soaking After Soaking Compactive Effort (Blows per Layer) 45 Final Dry Density (PCF) 100.0 Initial Dry Density (PCF) 102.7 Average Final Moisture Content 15.8% Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen 13.1% Moisture Content (top I" after soaking) 16.2% Percent Compaction 95.5% Percent Swell 0.3% Soak Time: 96-hr Surcharge Weight 20.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 101.9 O7 CCOOCO�b��OCCCO�COCO Liquid Limit 20 Plastic Index N.P. Notes/Deviations/References: Test specimen compacted to 95% at opt. moisture. Tom Schipporcit, P.E. '�N° �� Senior Gcotechnical Engineer 6/30/2012 Technical ResponobiWy , Signalure position Date This report shallow be reproduced, except in %all without the written approval of S&MB, lnc. S&ME, Inc. -Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-30 Bulk (I - 3j) CBR Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page l of l - JOB NO. 1061-12-249 SWE SHEET NO. 1 of BATE 6/27112 Camp Lejeune, JOSNAME P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion NC COMPUTED BY T. Schipporcit SUBJECT Strata & Properties CHECKED BY OBJECTIVES: • Determine subsurface strata for geotechnical analyses. • Estimate soil properties. METHODS: • Geotechnical modeling stratification— averaging, typical worst case • correlations with SPT values. ASSUMPTIONS: As noted in calculations. RF.FF,RENCES: As noted in calculations. 11 P B A •� �f I �- I D. EzynV L r.J I I MGM0 ' -ae-u ae-n gar-n m _ a m r iI �1 �- {� I' hhµI j" i m :� —. — ic4 � �. •� .I ru-n r aw z.' I � + Io - if - .lY�QlFAC = F ii 6 Y g e age 0o ��a - RIG LOCATION EXHSfT .,,-,m,a. PC'C6 UPCl :7 d s 4 S IW-10 ==tom 1 1MW�1/ .. �C4Y�x�alan4llrT, J'�Sl a i " �' j�11 'vn1N1 � r J.: t st4 t;bl �. � FTk j]'r`e N:, .�••13ij 11 11 1• 11 FI .11 11 :11 •IJ 11 hl {� Litholoov Graphics fJ�Tag SPSM. Slightly sk. pooh - I;• SP. PoDyyreded Sand ��� 2r-/ gladec sand LJJ 17•_I SC, C'ayey Sand y//iJ CL, Lew?]set City Clay I Silly Sane and Shells CH, Fcgh Pbsdc1,y Clay J. Stratum 1: Very loose to dense silty, slightly silty and clean SAND with clay and clayey sand lenses Stratum 2: Very soft to firm sandy CLAY and SILT and very loose clayey to silty SAND Stratum 3: Firm to dense silty SAND and SHELL 2 sm. siy said fli ML, Low PIaStlGy So NOTEfl: The subsurface conditions presented are based on the data Collected at specific oonng loratiorts only. Actual subsurface Conditions will fkely%ray freer, those indicated. Elevations and strata depths shall he considered approximate. EmLvnMnul C MVNHU N.uW GeoEmironmental Resources, Inc. zrra�' Wwrot VipinN 9ouO�VA2L52 SUBSURFACE PROFILE P1253, 2d CEB Operatic Maintenance Complex, Courthouse 110-5585 1 3A W 55 60 PROFILE B - B' GS,15 Ga-9 M I ®A 0 200 400 600 600 1,000 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (feet) [���m� Litholoov Graphics Topsoi sPsn,glsMN silly, poorly �J7 gracm sand l`..�SP. PoorNgraEed Sane SC.Clayey SanO CL. Low Pbgicry Clay ' Uty Sand and shells I rj//ice CH. High Rash6ty Clay Stratum 1: Very loose to dense silty, slightly silty and clean SAND with clay and clayey sand lenses Stratum 2: Very soft to firm sandy CLAY and SILT and very loose clayey to silty SAND Stratum 3: Firm;to dense silty SAND and SHELL GB-4 GB-5 1s Topsoil 6 •• 19 17 10 9 7:---�- 32 21 6 ..' .. .. .. -. 1,200 1,400 1.500 0-711 SM, sur Banc ML. Loa Rasta"It NOTES: The subsurface condi0ons presented are based W the dam colacted at specific bonng loratons c,*. Actual subsurface conditions v4 likelyvary from those Indicated. Elevations and stfda depths shall be considered approximate. . G� 9 G� is •, ��� Explanation G&1 a0'°"0k NMpY BwaMo LAY Y SPL Bkwe 'J Wa�mlaq 6oatldg a;txa!`Rrg e wa0.r Lawl Rsaatrg al0ran:L'g ► enoFek Camin pFOs aw.a-w. c.aamud GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. rr+z saazw„ eo-�a, s.+o r m vyu mee�v�zaas SUBSURFACE PROFILE Maintenance Complex, Courthouse 110-55a5 1 313 TEST BORING RECORD $I d,j • IN Environmental Groundwater,Hazardous dls GeoEnvllonlental Resourcess�Ime. Geolechnlca18IndusUrialEngineednq Consultants' Boring It: GB-7wage I of I ) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/Maintenance Complex GER. Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Plslibm•ne Drill Melhnd: 3" Mud Votary Depth (B.): 15.0 Elevation (B.): Client: HBA-II&A JV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation A In Depth a in Lith- Material Description Ground Water Comments S 1, Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resi S ace (blows/fool) $g .. -- - 5 - 10 15_ 20 25 3o 35 - 3 4 - 6-: 7 - S to 12 .- Topsoil- 12 inches Sz o .. qi--- Q\ Slightly Silty SAND (SP-SM)- Very loose to loose, gray to tan with brown and white, line, Imes roots, trace clay - .;:.• Clean SAND(SP) Loose, tan and while, fine Silly SAND (SMr) Loose, light gray and Inn, fine, trace clay _.— _ _ Boring)enninnled nl IS feel. mt+1T 1L _ . ...t_.1.._ , i---- - - ----- ,_L_ GeoEnvironmenlel Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beech, VA 23452 757A63-3200 v"m9eronline.com W TEST BORING RECORD f EnvirGeolaonment1,Grou Groundwater.azardousMaterial GeoEnvironnlental Resources Inc, Environmental, IndusWal EngBezerdoushsultants �-rp Boring$: GB-8 (Page I oft) Project: PI253 2d CEB Ops/Mnlntenance Complex GER Project Number: 110-5555 Dale Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: rishburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (fi.): 60.0 Elevation(B.): Client: IIBA-li&A.IV llanmierType: Automatic Elevation O III Depth O m Lith- ology Material Description Ground Water Comments S P 'r Uncorrected Penetration Resistance blows/foot 0 25 ( )50 to— is 3 _ - ' ' l e ' o Slily SAND (S;•) Loose, brown and grey, fine- - �9`- T--- --- - - i-I- ' S. SlightlySillySAND(SP-SM) Loose to very loose, tan, One- — •:. ' . •,'• .:; Silty SAND(SM) Loose, light grey, fine, with [race to little clay - - II -. HT I ..._ .............. 20 25— 35 - 6 10 Clean SAND (SP) Finn, tan, fine ' L..._.... _ _t - ri ' ' Slightly Silty SAND (SI'-S\I) Very loose, orange, fine to medium- — — — — — — — — — — — — Slightly Silt), SAND(SP-S\t) Finn, grey, tine to medium -- _3 - -- - t j..... _ -- "f-""i- i --I---- - i- Sunity, Low Plasticity CLAY (CL) Soft to very sell, light grey to grey - - t I i .- - - - -- -j-T- _. ..I_. GeolinNronmenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 envv.geronline.coro 0 TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Maledals, GeoEnvirmlmental Resources, Inc. Geolechnlcal& Industrial Engineering Consultants gorin R: GB-8(Page2of2 g ) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/Alalutenance Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 . Location: Courthouse Bay, Cmnp Lejeune, INC Driller: Rl.shburne Drill Method: 3" Alud Rotary Depth (ftJ:60.0 Elevation(0J: Client: HBA-H&AJV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation 0 m Depth 0 inology Lith- Material Description Ground Water3' Comments S P Uncorrected Penetration Resi9raanee (blows/root) 025 5Law J5- 5a 13 14 Is 1' Smulp, Law CLAY(CL) Soft to ver soft, light grey to grey _ _ — _ _ i_.. _r I _ ... . ._._L...... ' _ Y _I_ - - I t -- --- - ss 60 70 IG- 17 _ 19 20 21 22 23 . ;o 0.'0 �- o: 0 Silly SA\D and SIIIiLL (S\I) Dense to lion, grey, fine to coarse, with little gravel and trace to little clay-I- - -r - i--- -'-� I' r . _ � I Boring lenninmed at 60 feet. ...i._ I ... .. .I .. .. I. � I I IT .-Lift . .. .. _. .. ...�. �- .. IT:— GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 SouthernBoulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 21452 757-4633200 w,vs.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD I Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeoEnvlronmell%flt Resources, Inc. Geoleo4nlcal& Industrial Engineering Consultants Boring it: GB-12 (Page I of 2) Project: P1253 2d CCB Ops/Maintenance Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Cana) Lejenne, NC Driller: pishburne Drill Method: 4" Mad Rotary Depth (R.): 60.0 Elevation (11.): Client: HBA-H&A dV Hmnmer Type: Automatic Elevation fl m Depth R 1 in0 - Lith- ology . :'. ' • •' Material Description Ground water Comments S ' r Penetration -' •-, . Uncorrected Res lance -- (blows/fool) --- 50 Silty SAND (SNI)- Ve • loose, brown and grey, fine-'- - - • "• '. Slightly Silty SAND(SP-SM) Very loose Io firm, tan, fine IO- IS 20 25 3 3 6_ 10 - a o a' ' , ` _ Silty SAND IS'Final, grey, fine, with little clay = - - - - ...I,,. I- - -4i_ Clear SAND(SP) • Finn to loose, tan to while, fine ..._ _ �T�21_- _- - r B . . - _ .. .... - __ --f---%-- T '.,'• Slightly Sllty SAND (SP-S\I) Very loose to loose, orange, fine _. -- ..I- _ Sill), SAND ISM) Very loose, grey, fine, with trace clay - - - - GeoEnvironmantal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite tot Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 mw,gemnlina co 3 TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeoEnvironmeMafResources, hic. GeotechnlcelglndusldalEnglneed i#: GB-IZ (Page Boling nE ( 8 ) Project: P1253 2d CFB Ops/AlaBttena lec Complex GER Project Number: 110.5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse Bny, Conip Lejeuue, NC Driller: Plsliburne Drill Method: a" Mud Rotary Depth (ft.): 60.OTEleva(ioll (fl.): Client: ABA-LI&A JV I lan vier •Type: Autontnlie Elevation n n, Depth n Lith. elegy Material Description Ground Water Comments S 7 Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resi@lance (blows/fool) SO - aS SO- 13 Sturdy SIL'1'(ML) Son, grey, with little clal(cunrinued/. i i ....�.. --- ..I. ,.r. _I_ - --- -'- I Sandy, Low Plasticity CLAY (CL) Very son, light grey to grey I 60- 65 75- Is 21 22 23 24 - • :. Firm, grey, fine to coarse, with little gravel, little shell and trace to little clay � „ ....I. .. _ _ e I TI Boring terminated it GO feet. -- - - - --�- i.. I Man L._.. _ .�. ;i, -Ij- _. .........._ - i 1 I GeoEnvironmenlel Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 svww.geroniine.cum TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeoE11V11'o11111ental.Resou'Cesl.Ille• Geotechnical& Industrial Engineering Consultants 'I3-L3 (page I of I Boring fl: G ( g ) Project: 111253 2d CEB Qps/Maintenance Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Cana) Lejeune, NC Driller: Fisliburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (B.): 15.0 Elevation (B.): ClienL•. 11BA-H&A dV Y haunter Type: Automatic Elevation R nr Depth 0 n Lilco- olo gy Material Description Ground water Comments S P T Uncorrected Penetration Resistpuce (blows/fool) 0 25 $0 5 i s— 20 30- 35 1 - 4 -� 8-1- 9 - _ to -�' .. ' Topsoil- 5 inches ® f , ° e .l .. ; - —/ Silty SAND (5,1) loose, brown and grey, fine, with trace, fools I - + t IVery 1 , l I . ! --i-1" ... ' Slightly Silly SAND(3P-SM) Very loose to firm, tail, fine , —ITl t14T. -� Cleno SAND(SP) Firm, can to white, fine- Boning terminated at 15 feet. _ ! -. ,I_.LJ.... _, TF r _� f _- l i.. r _L.. L... ...:.. -- -1- L.. _ .. _.... ...j..-. _. .-.i'--_ - ' _ I I i _,_i_ GeoEnNronmenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Witinla Beach, VA 23452 757-46N200 w,wr.geron:ine.com TEST BORING RECORD GeoEnvironmental ResourcesIHC. Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, r Geolechnical & Industrial Engineering Consultants . poring GB-14 (page i of i g M ( g ) Project: P1253 2d CEB Opsnlaintenance Coniples GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 ' Location: Courthouse Bay, Cmup Lejetine, NC Driller: Fishburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (B.): 30.0 llevation (f.): Client: IIBA-H&A JV HanlmerType: Autoniatic Elevation 0 ni Depth Il na Lith. ology Material Description Ground Water Connnclus S T _ Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resistance (blows/fool) 5- 20 I 2 4 6 7 ' :'. ' ? o ' r 1 -2 I i Silty SAND ISM)- Very loose to loose, brown and grey, fine --: :,:.•• '•'• Clenn SAND(SP) Loose, Inn, tine _._.J ...._.. 1._ ...__ • - -----1-- Silty, High Plns(Icity CLAY (CH) Finn, orange and grey, with trace fine sand 44 Silty SAND(SM) Loose, brown, tine, with little clay-1- - - -1-•- -- 1+ •.'.' ' ...,. • T. Clran SAND (SP) Loose to firm, tan, fine to medium _. - 6 t - - �5 I-- --i ---1_... 30 35 to Boring terminated at 30 feet. ( - - - . .. __ 1- -I I I GeoEnvironmenlel Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3260 vnwi.goronline.com TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials GeoEnvironmental Resources, Ine• Geotechnical& Industrial Engineering Consultants, Boring ll: GB-1rJ (Page1 of 2 ) Project: P1253 2d CE13 Opsalabltemmce Complex GER Project Number. 110.5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Con -thouse Bay, Comp I..ejenne, NC Driller: Eishburne Drill Method: 3" iMud Rotary Depth (fl.): 60.0 Elevation (R.): Client: 11BA-H&A JV IlanunerType: Alrlomntic Elevation 0 m Depth 0 m Lit. elegy Ey Material Description Ground Water Comments S P T Uncorrected Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) 0 26 50 - - - I -•: 2 ' Joinsoll-6 inches Silly SAND (S\f)- • Very loose, brown and grey, rate p I - I- '• ., : Slightly Silly SAND (SP-SM) Very loose, on, fine, with trace roots - Silty SAND(SM) Loose, grey, fine, with little clay- to - IS 20 2S _ 30— 6 7 9 :, •.'.• ' Clean SAND(Sp) Loose to fine, tan to white, fine v „ ; 23 III ._i8 r... i ^� ' •,. SIIIy SAND(SJt) Loose to farm, light brown, orange to grey, tine to medium. ......... ... ._ _ _ - __ jl,_II�=JiI_"JI_" I _ - I III B� .._...._...._...-_. _....__ 10 it 12— ; . •. ' Very loose, light grey to grey, fine35— 1 I .-.. . 1 ... _. .. .. ... �- 2 GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 157-463-3200 vrmv.gerontine.com TEST 13ORING RECORD Endronmenlal, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc, Geolechnical 8 Industrial Engineering Consultants GB] 5 (Page Boring u: -(PB 2 of 2 ) Project: P1253 2d CGB Ops/Milatenmtee Complec GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse Rap, Cnmp C.ejeune, NC Driller. Rlshburnc Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (ft.): 60.0 Elevation (ft.): Client: 1111A-II&A dV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation R m Depth ft In I_ilh- alogy Material Description Ground Water•1• Comments S p Uncorrected Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) 0 .25 50 - 11 Clayey SAND (SC) Very loose, light grey to grey, fine (confirmed) - - - - .- - - ,' .- .. _ .. _L......... I _l...- 45 50 60- 70 75- _ 14- IS 17 18 19 28 21 22 27 24 '.'• '.':•' Silly SAND (SNI) Dense to fine, grey, fine to coarse, with little gravel, little shell and trace to little clay .. le " N , „ 32 .j....L.. .... .. T. 1 _ - f _ Boring terminated at 60 feet. I L- ------I - - -- _ - - I r- 1 �..�.. ..... ... .....I.. .. GeoEnvironmenlal Resources, Inc. 2112 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 VirglNa Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 sml.geh nlinamnn TEST BORING RECORD B Envaonmemal, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeoEnvironmental Resources, Ine. GeolechniczlglndusldalEnglneedngConsultants B-I6 Boring It: G (page I of I) Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/Malntenance Conytlex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/27/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Croup Lejeune, NC Driller: pishburue Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (B.): 30.0 - Elevation (ft.): Client: IIBA-II&A JV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation 0 In Depth In Lith- elegyMaterial Description Ground Water Continents S P T Uncorrected Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) 0 25 50 - - 2 Tn soil-3 inches l __$J______ - Silty SAND(SM) Loose, brown and grey, fine - ----- _q11 _ - - ...I_. - - - - - - - -�T i :. •:.' Clean SAND (SP)41 Very loose, ton, fine Silty SAND (SM) Loose, grey, fine, with little clay - : •:. • Cleat SAND (SP) Loose to Lan, tan to white, fine -- - - - - --` - - 20 25 3. 7 '- .. . Q_28� ((// e u I _ _I if kil I I 22 30 35 9 l o 12 -SnI11T)', I-eN'PIn511c11}'Cri1Y(Ci� VerysoO,greY � 2 _.__ - Boring icnninnied at 30 feel. .. TI _.�.. 1 i--I_ _ . _ .. .. -r 1 111 M-+ _ i GeeEnvlronmenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virg'nia Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 vavv.geronlina.com C TEST BORING RECORD GeoEnvironmentBl Resources, Iltc. Geotedmip & Groundwater, lEngineeringConsultants Boring/P GB-.1 (Page I of2) Project: P1253 2d CCB Ops/\Maintenance Conlple... GFR Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse Bny, Camp Lejeane, NC Driller: Flshburne Drill Melhod: 3" Mad Rolary Depth (ft.): 60.0 F.levatinn (ft.): Client: IIBA-I1&A JV Nammer Type: Automatic Elevation Depth Lith- Material Description Ground Wnler Comments S T Uncorrected Penetration Resistance nce (blowsifoot) n ur n In ology 0 50 To soil- 4 Me le. ' I _ ' Slightly Silly SAND (SP-S\q It Very loose to loose, gray to tan and brown, "'"i _ _ !-i'- fine, trace roots • Clcnn SAND (SP) �_I...�..... t0 3 Lease, Inn, line I Silly SAND (SM) - - Perched water Loose, light gray and tan, fine, trace clay - - - -,- - - - �- • 4- Clayey SAND (SC) -- Loose, light gray and orange, fine is- it- - !• 5 - Clean SAND (Sil) ' . Firm, orange mud tan to while, finei- 5 - ly...l...!. , t 20 6 l 25 - -I . Finn, gray and brown, fine to medium T -I .. ..'• : 30— _ 10 Very soft to soft, lighi gray 35— 11 _ _ - .. ! Y' L I I GeeEnvtrontram al Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 vam.gent6ne.com Li TES'C BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeoEnViroiunental Resources, Inn. Geotechnical3 Industrial Engineering Consultants Boringn: GB-1 (Page2 of 2) Project: P1253 2d CCB Ops/Maintenmtce Complex GGR Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Cauip Lejeune, NC Driller: Elshburne Drill Method: 3" Dind Rolary Depth (ft.): 60.0 Elevation (a.): Client: HBA-H&A dV Hammer Type: Autrnnalic Elevation R m Depth 0 ino clg elegy Material Descriptia' GrOLIFId Water Comments S T Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resits ace (blow foot) - 45- 13 Sandy Low 1'Instlety CLAY (CL) Very sea to soil, light gmycun7inued) 142 - - -- - - Clnpcy SAND Very loose, light greenish -gray, One ---�- -- - _L 50- IG Dense to firm, light gray, fine to coarse, ,e --- - -j- - --Il -- _- - 75- 21 23 24_�--- Boring tenuinmed at GO ! r_ .. ... I r I �- I , T; -t- GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757 463-3200 warw.geronline.cem L TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Ilazardous Materials, GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. Geolechnical& Industrial Engineering Consultants Boring 4: GB-2 (Page I of 1) Project: P1253 2d CCB Ops/tYlnhttenance Complex GER Project Number: I10-5585 Dale Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse nay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Fisliburne Drill Method: 3" Ahtd Rotary Depth (R.):30.0 Elevation(fl.): Client: IIBA-H&AJV HmomerType: Atttonaatle Elcvaliuu 0 In 'Depth R m Lith- ology Material Description Ground Water Comments S T Uncorrected 0 Pcnetrnsion Resits nee (blows/fool) 5 15 - - 57, '. - - ' Topsoil- 6 inches x ' ,2.-•- _ .. Slightly Silly SAND (SI'•S\I) Very loose, gray to tan and brown, fine, trace organics - -- 31- f - , ' '• Men SAND (SP)-....- Very loose to loose, while end tan, fine Silty SAND(SM)-- Loose, tail, fine 20- 25 7 9 • '.. .'.: Clean SAND (SP) Finn, tan and white, fine t6 medium x — .. .._ _ . ti_ _ _ ... _r _L. ..... _ _. . _ - - - _r - - - - -� ., . Slightly Silt>• SAND (SI'•S\q Loose, orange and can, fine.to medium, trace clay .__. _. ..L..• .. .. _ ,6, . .__�___ i Cletus SAN[)(SP) Loose, tail, orange and brown, fine toj-- medium ! 110,_ �----- -r- - 30 35- to- 12--i-'I- Boring terminated at 30 feet. � L.. - - r I. .. ...i... .. __� ti GeoEnvironmenlel Resources, Inc 2712 Southam Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463 3200 vrww.geamline.com TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials' GeoCnvironmental Resources, I11c• Geolechnical&IndusVlalErgineeringConsullanls Borin u: GB-3 Pa e I of I g ( B ) Project: PI253 2d CEB OpsNialntenarce Complex GBR Project Number: 110-5585 Dale Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courlhouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Plshburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth (fL): 30.0 Elevation(a.): Client: IIBA-II&A.IV Iinnuner'1'ype:Automatic Elevation R m Depth B m Leg elegy Material Description Ground \Vnler Watt Comments S T Uncorrected 0 Penetration Resistance (blows/fool) 25 30 35 _ 7 - 12 "' " 'Topsoil-4 inches I ' • . ,i e , 4_'.' - + SllghllySillySAND(SI'-S\I) very loose, gray and brown, fine, trace roots - g' -;- - - - - - '. , •,'.: Clear SAND (SP) Loose to very loose, tan and brown, fine ' • ...-.. Silly SAND(SM) Loose to very loose, lan and light gray, fine Clean SAND (SP) Firm to loose, white and Ian, fine _ ..._..'- --I-- _, _ _ i I-j-i- - -t _ 1 - _T� -1 = -22-Is- - ... ... I-..... _ - _ I , __ _. I . -� 7 ' , ;• •: ; swy SAND (sA)44 Very loose, dark brown, fine to medium,- truce wood fibers q, 1._"._ Boring terminate al M feet. ! II t , F GeriEnvironmenlal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463.3200 www.geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous&tatedais. GeoEllvll•011111e11tBl Resources, Inc. Gootechnical&IndustrialEnglneedngConsultants Boring 8: (Page I oft) in GB-4 Project: P1253 2d CEB Ops/ilaintenance Complex GER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/25/201 I Location: Courthouse Bay, Cmnp Lejeune, NC Driller: Flslrburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Notary Depth (fl.): 60.0 Elevation (ft.): Client: IIBA-H&A AV I lam ner Type: Automatic Elevation Depth Litla- Material Description Groun Water Comments S ', . Uncorrected Penetration (desistance (blows/loot) Il nr it inold 8 y 0 25 50 1-3 inches I6 Slightly Silty' SAND (SP-SAI L Loose to firm, brown and gray, fine, trace organics + 1gClear SAND (SP) Finn to loose, Ian with brown and white, fine --- 2— 6 Silt), SAND (ray Louse, light gray and Ian, fine to medians, Loos 8 8 Y• little clay, trace organics �r IG , } i -i Cleats SAND (SP) 4 . ;' :. Loose, white to tar, rant- • i Slightly Silt), SAND (SP-SM) - - - - -- Loose, Ian and orange, fine to medium 20 6 .. '. Clear SAND (SP)- I- - - 7 '-: ' Loose to firm, white and tan, fine to medium, (race clay - 6 - .- l 25 8- X-- 13 30 :.:.. - 32L_ _- 10_Inycy SAND (.(. ) ) Very loose, light gray, fine, with thin silty —- - - _ - - - clay tenses ________ Clayey SANU (SC) i.i-I- ., Very loose, dark gray, rare 12 GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 767 463-3200 Ye .geronline.com W `TEST BORING RECORD GeDEHVLL+Dn111e11Iaj Resources Ille, Environmental,ndutrIal ngIneeer,Hazleng Consultants � Geolechnlcel & IndusVlal Englneedng Consullanls Boring GB-4 a+e2 of 6 �' b ) Project P1253 2d CLH Ops/Alabtteuance Comple. 'I?R Project Number: 110-5555 Date Drilled: 1/25/2011 Location: Courthouse Hay, Camp Leje ante, NC Driller: Pishburne Drill Method: 3" Mod Rotary Depth (ft.): 60.0 P.Ievation (H.): Client: HHA-H&A JV Hammer Type: Automatic Elevation R m Depth R m Lith- elegyR Material Description Ground , Writer Conmrents S P T Uncorrected Penetration Resislance blows/foot ( ) 0 25 TO - , •. Claycy SAND (SC)i—r Very loose, dark gmy, fmdrordiru ed) �i T� •-I- 13 - • .' Very loose, dark gray, fine to medium, little to some clay -2 45-Al so _.... 15 ; r- —� � i-- 1- — ( o. a °41 SHIN, SAND and SHELL (SM) Pion deuce, light gray, fine to course, [race pertly clay, portly cemented - T _ 16-- fl .. 0. " i 60 IS Q - 7_I_. - 45i Y Eoring IenninateJ n160fec1. JT I I , 19 65 20 70 21 _ _ _ t L 75 23 IT T ._ ...... _. 24 - t - i GeoEnvironmemal Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452. 757-463-3200 % v .geronline.com TEST BORING RECORD GeDEI1vI1'onmental Resources 111C. Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, s Goolechnical & Industrial Engineodng Consultants Boring I/- GB-20 (Page I of I) Project: P1253 2d CGB Ops/AlaIntenance Complex GER Project Number. 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/28/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Rislibm'ne Drill Method: 3" A•ind Rolary Depth (ft.): 30.0 Elevation (11.): Client: llBA-11&A JV Hammer Type: Automalic Flevation i1 rn Depth It m Lith- elegy Mmerial Description Ground Water Continents S P Uncorrected Penetration Resit nce(blows/fuel) 1 0 SOSills, S to-3 Is — 25 2 a— S - ' • ' Topsoil-4 inches Q 1 ' n " ° t 18, SAND (SM) Fina bro vn and grey, fine I .L_ - --l--f-� _ _ ' Clean SAND (SI') Finn, tan, fine -1 22- Silty SAND (SA) Loose to firm, grey, tine, with little clay 12 I -I- -. -. - _...... I . Clenn SAND (SP) Firm, tan, rme to inediuln _� �_ -J -r-+ +B I , - r .: - - --..j. - -I-. _. ,,'. Silty SAND (SAI) Very loose, orange, fine - - - 30 35 9-I-- to_ 121 Snndy, Low Plnsilcity CLAY (CL) Finn, grey Boring tenninnted at 30 feel. - - _L.I.. H.. _ J_ _ •' _._ --.. .. i..-.. _. ... ".. __..._.._ 1 I I 1 I is i GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Vrginls Beach, VA 23452 767-463-3200 www.gorontine.com TEST BORING RECORD G Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardous Materials, GeoEnvironmentRl Resources, Inc. Geolechrdca181ndusV industrial Engineering Consultants Boring N: GB-L7 (page e � 1 of I ) Project: P1253 2d CEB Opsfilahttenmtce Consplex GER Project Number. 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1127/2011 Location: Courthouse Ray, Camp Lejeane, NC Driller: Fishburne Drill Method: 3" Mud Rotary Depth(H.): 15.0 Elevation(RJ: Client: aIRA-11&AJV Hammer Type: Autoruntie Elevation fl m Depth 0 anology Log Material Description Ground Water Comments S P Uncorrected Penetration Resi mote (blows/foot) p �5 50 5- t0 - 20 25 30 35- - ? 3 4 6-7 7 9 ' II 12 • To soll-3 inches 5z . a , - - -I 13 Silty SAND (SM) Finn to loose, brown and grey, tine - - -l-�--'- - - ___ _ Clean SAND(SP) Firm, tan to white, fine- ..:.. ' ,' Sit", SAND(S�M) Loose, orange and grey, fine - - - _ .-:i6 `... I- ._ _. ' .' '. . Clenn SAND (SP) Loose, tan, fine Boring terminated at 15 feet. FT _.1T I...- - i i - --I-I-� -f.. _ ............ .......:...... it I I It .. -- I i GeoEnvironmenlal Resources, Inc 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-4633200 wmo.geromine.com 9 TEST BORING RECORI) Environmental, Groundwater, Hazardoushtatedals, GeoEnvironmental Resources,. Inc. Geoterhniml8lndustrielEnglneedngConsultants GB-22 Boring N: (page 1 of I) Project: P1253 2d CBB Ops/Nlaintenanee Complex CER Project Number: 110-5585 Date Drilled: 1/26/2011 Location: Courthouse Bay, Camp Lejeune, NC Driller: Pishburne Drill Method: 3" Nlud Rotary Depth (R.): 15.0 Elevation (B,): Client: I IBA-H&A JV Hnnnmer Type: Automatic Elevation Fl m Depth 0 m Lith- olo gy Malerini Description Organ Water Comments S P T Uncorrected Penetration Resistance (blows/fooe) 0 25 50 5 10 15 20 z5 35 - - - -'•, 2 3 5- 6- 7 to 'l t 12 -,Topsoil-3 inches - ' n „ s - - 7-I.. ----- --- Slity SAND(SM) - Eimt to dense, grey to brown and grey, fine, with trace roots- -1--- •,' Cleno SAND(SP) Finn, lan to white, rite -- ZOr - • ' .. Sllty SAND ISM) Loose, grey, fine, with little clay . '•. ,'• :. Clear SAND (SP) Loose to firm, tat and white, fine - - .: t....... - - -- -. _I - -I --f.--- Lr. Boring terminated at 15 feet. .._____ _ - - --I- +� .._._4-1L - -- -- .- - ---, j---���---- -- GecEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southard Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-483-3200 m w.geronlinexoni SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Na,e = Co u,a.F c a SP E�aC = Na,e = Co u,a.F c a SP E�aC = One Dimensional Consolidation Test Stress Versus Strain Plot Mi 10 12 14 One Dimensional Consolidation Test Stress Versus Strain Plot 0.1 1.0 Stress (ksf) 10.0 Compression Index, Cc: 0.120 Estimated Preconsolidation Pressure,-P'c (ksf): Swelling Index, Cs: 0.016 Estimated Effective Overburden Pressure, Po (kst): Recompression Index, Cr. 0.011 '� Estimated Undnained Strength at Su[P = 0.3 (ksf): Initial Wet Unit Weight (pcf)= 119.4 Project P1253 2nd CEB OpslMaintenance Complex Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcl)= 92.1 Project#: 110.5585 Initial Water Content (%) = 29.5 Location: MCB Camp Lejeune, NC Initial Saturation(%)= 99.9 Cfent HBA-HBAJV Specific Gravity = 2.621 Sample Classification: Sandy CLAY (CL), Gray, with Silt Initial Vold Ratio= 0.775 Boring: GS-12 Liquid Limit = 36 Sample Depth (ft): 46 Plastic Limit = 21 Report Date: 2/21/2011 100.0 495 AO: 0.86 / ✓ 3.12 Estimated OCR: 1.59 1AS ba.nM M•r we iuro.. SOIL PROPERTIES SAME, INC, MWING TON, NC SHEET OF PROJECT NAME: BUILDINGS A-H BY: T. SCHIPPOREIT DATE: 412712012 PROJECT NAME: P-1253 20 COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OPSIMAINT. COMPLEX LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECTNO.: 1061-12.249 FILE NAME: I. SOIL PROPERTIES UNDRMNED GEOLOGIC SETTIING- Coastal Plvo A DEEP FOUNDATIONS: tlOO. NO. LAYER NO, LAYER DEPTHS ket zdo zbo0am MATERIAL THE GENERAL MATERIAL TYPE Nob 1 SLOW ASLOW. COUNT UNCONF. COMP. SiRENOIH Ru el COHESION c (Ids PHI 0 TOTALUNIT UNIT WEIGHT Y ho BODY. UIG YJP.I(iHT Y_n Me HORZ. REACTIONMOD. SUB. REACTION kc o SO PERCENT STRAIN s-50 Gas 1 00 9.0 SAND 8 0 30 0.110 45 O.ow 2 00 ISO Ski SAND 8 0 am3 O.NO 30 0.10 ONe 05 00m 3 ---Ski 15.0 21.0 SP SAND 1d 0 O.NO 31 0.120 DOES 0.053 105 O.Om OW 4 21.0 ' 32.0 SP SAND li 0 ONO 32 thin 0.0.5E 105 0,000 DEPTH 5 320 49.0 CI. CI AN 3 0 0325 0 DIM DOJA 5 0.020 (fe40 8 490 SO SU SAND 29 0 0.NO 3p 0.420 Dow Ills 0.NO 9.0 T 0.0 00 am 0 amam0 am S 00 0.0 am 0 U.Om am 0 0.ON 9 00 00 1 ONO 01 OON Omal 0 O.Om 10 00 0.0 0.000 0 am ONO al 0.000 I Do 00 CODO 0 am ONO at 0000 12 00 0.6 ONO 0 ammo am 0 o.m0 13 00 00 am 0 am ammo O O.mmO 14 0.0 0.0 am 0NO 0000 0 a000 15 00 0.0 am0 a m am 0 am18 00 0.0 am0 a= ONO o O.Om v 00 00 00N 0 am ONO o ONO 18 0.01 0.0 am 0 Omam0 am 19 0.0 0.0 O.Om 0 Om am 0 ammo 20 0o 00 J' am 0 00m amp 0 ammo 21 0.o 00 a,000 0 am am 0 0.000 NOTES: It Use SAND Iw SP, SW, Shl. SC 2I Uso p.PHC to pieta) Pkl0eldays, sky saMs, A BOPn soft to Arm vllYUays 3I NOI PHIC fw flMmmesllLtlsys,vldaysto AM PM 4I Ulu ROCK lw TdaukBasinaWkT"Ils S SM slo 6) Use ROCKIw Piedmont- last TM-G..- Ad 0062ack.ell Sd1'to 50.aY TMssk Bas'nSWR 8I Gemma�Swry .Gemma-ganammster Gamma-O.m1kG SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS: SAND:- a=0 Wm Mdenoa,aWatar(19m), FuMamenbis of Ga4o J,,iel Pat =282.W4 Matfsis. Fig,291-1 M. CLAY: c=0.125•N(ks9 BmNe1,JE(1930), FouMatlon'NHA ell Desyn, p. 101. PAT = 0 for pMrtlnM kaQ ' HIC 1: TPN 2: ROCK: FN=2AaeglO3 Goodman N9eo), ), T.b. Tah.3a, p.>e (pig umau=0. Vo ora Goodman Own N-min bon Cohesion (ks Phi Itle N�min CONHon -Phi idea)__c<we=put 2 0.1 24 0 DOOI 1 5 0.10 26 9 020 21 9 020 26 18 04D TI 19 Qm 28 35 1.00 23 31 0.40 Aim 28 IN 1.60 25 51 0m 32 20 t.N 25 IN 58 1) Elan based an unpublShed Matlel Meat lestresuls 2) ChemNutleer Sydbms (199J),'Site Chalwe4za50n RepM fw WdkelCMNam Cwnty Pobnfiaey SuikMa Site, S dan 25-GOotach t ICharaclef%6ca. Nall CarMna Low Level RadWactIvo Waste Disposal FaoTly TOT UNITWEIGHT: SAND 111 CLAY 2 P�PHIC J TPHIC f4i ROCK: Gamma-0-155 kd for most ma Goadman(t Sm). ToN923, p. 31 N-min Un9 Welghl kt N-mlo b Unh Webhl kc N-min 6 Unll*MhWe�ght WeWhlh kc 0 0.1N 0 a m 3 0.110000 3 0.1mm 9 0.11510 0110 18 0120N9DIN 31 0.125W51 0.140 1TMuti d5 DIN401m 01SO 30 0,140 TO 0.140160m 0.145 mm 0.7451 SO 113ON+s, E. 11S821. FowMaSon Ansysis all Lesson. Table Z2. P. IN. 2) D Ak JC. (IS62). FooMa5m McYsl3 AM Dil T-VO l3,P 101. 3) UnpubSshN LrxLlwbtlo Conela5ana for Pladrronl sally mceuoua ills vaaN<red ham pmNSa gneise (1995) 4) Chep Nuaaar SystOms(19W).'Site CharaUeaaddon Rep br Waka'Cha mCOunty POteOEegywwWGSdO. SecSon 2.5 - GeotecbnkAt Chamct.15cs, NaM CaraIva Lou -Level RaQ:oacWO Waite DIHNIAl Paoloy" SHEET OF __ 1) LPILE 4.0 Manual, Tada 3.5, P.n 2) LPILF. 4,0 Mama), TWO 34. P. 83 3) LPILE 4,0 Manual, TOM* 3.2. p. W. K ml madeE fw'sof' day ana5451s 4) LPILE 40 Manual, Fp. 3,23. p. IN, K- K PLY• K< N PERCENT &TRAIN N In a-50 0 0ON 5 0010 a ONT Is O.N5 49 0ON s-30=0. la ANO, PPMIC, T-PHIC, S ROCK lar CLAY; LPILE 4.0lranual, ' TWO 3.1. P.52 a Todo 33. P.63 R SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS BORING NO. DYER NO. LAYER DEPTHS L..Ij i.. a...... MATERIAL TYPE GENERAL MATERIAL TYPE NP1.1 AVE. SPY BLOW. COUNT a OROSS ALLOW. BEARING PRESS. b YOUNG'S MODULUS Es ks POISSONS RATIO P CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES CC Cq OCR GBS 1 0.0 9.0 SM SAND 0 1.6 5N 020 ON 0.000 IN 2 &a 15.0 SIA SAND 9 1.5 No on ON 0000 IN GW 3 ISO 21.0 SP SAND 14 ION 0,25 ON O.NO t.N DEPTH A 21.0 32.0 SP D 1 20 lung 025 000 Ian (leap 5 320 49.0 CL WY 3 05 San ON -c 020 OON1 2.20 00 49.0 WO 30 ICan 025 2 0.0 0.0 a e 0 0.6 0 ON -0 BN 0000 IN a 0.0 DO -0---0 0 00 0 On DN 0ON IN 9 0.0 00 0 0 0 00 0 O.N ON 0000 IN 10 0.0 0.0 0 0 a 00 0 O.N 0.Do None IN 11 00 00 0 O a: 0.0 0 ON 000 OOOU IN 12 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 00 0 ON o.N 0000 $.an 13 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 ON ON ONO two In 0. o0 On 0 0 0 00 I,O.N oaa 0N I.N 15 000 00 0 0 0 00 0 ON O.N O O.N IN IC 00 0.0 0 0 0 on o ON ON O.ON 17 On o0 0 0 0 Oa 0 ON O.N am IN IN is 0.0 00 0 0 0 O.O 0 ON NO O.ON IN 00 - 00 0 0 0 0.0 0 ON ON, ON, O.ON IN N 20 00-00-0 O 0 0.0 0 ON ON 0.0n0 t.N 21 00 0.0 0 0 0 00 0 ON ON ONO t.N end Foundae.na. G.M.fat En9ln..6,, Fouts Ed fibn. Tale 10 A, p, 422 G-FiZ- LcL 2-ee,"+s: CC, fl e N min I Es I ( N-min I Es 1 0 FWMe'An SaWO-11 In Riamu l6Ws, nJt:G V 80nlamrai Journal, Vol.1 D3, No. G13 Azi.. sera as fats ROCK: E...NO-o-u forsatstone, sarJf:as: G.Pdmm 110N) Tab. 0.1. P. 177 E-mall • O f EiUWW ROD<N%; peace 8 GNai (1868). FI9. 11.13, p, 225. Cam- pUZ GL, GG �rO01 Boston, Tad. 34, P. IN, 2) BP.Nes, J.E. (1992), Foundabon An.ptls and Deflgo, lNfd Edition, MOGmv NO, New Yolk, Tode 2-6 OWTON.2 7. P. 67. Orb-7 43.5� nro9 0.�09 ors' SHEET OF CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES: FOR CLAY WITH Ne9 bpf: CC=025W65a=0.10 CR-0.10 CC OCR=I.O+W1.5 0 FromarPedence wim laboratory wlsdiaa5on lestrosuts. C. FOOTING FRICTION, PAVEMENTS, AND SLABS NOTE: (Hero shoWd Da a Wvar beak et Ne prpuWrnter WWe BORING NO. LAYER NO, IAYERDEPTH9 feel NO MATERIAL TYPE GENERAL MATERIAL TYPE. Note i AVE.SPT BLOW- COUNT (bPQ SOIL TYPE NO. ULTIMATE CONCRETE FRICTION Ianldeila) CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO CBR MODULUS OF SUBORADE REATION ll RANKINE Ne K. KIP CBS 1 0.0 9.0 SM SANG 0 6 OAS T 150 0.34 0SO 2.98 2 9.0 150 &A SAND B 5 OAS T ISO Du 0.SO 2.98 GW 3 15.0 210 SP SAND 14 4 0.56 10 200 0.31 042 3.21 DEPTH 4 21.0 32.0 SP SAND 14 4 0.5S 10 200 0.31 047 3.21 (feel) 6 32.0 490 CL CLAY 3 0 0.SO 4 IN LOO 1.41 Lw SO 6 49.0 600 SM SAND 29 5 045 T IN 027 042 378 00 D.0 00 0 0 0 ARIA AWA AWA ON D05 ON 8 0.0 00 00 0 0 0 AWA SHIA ARIA DDO 005 ON 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 AWA AWA AWA 0.00 0.05 000 10 0.0 00 00 0 0 0 AWA AWA AWA 000 095 000 11 0.0 00 00 0 0 0 AWA SHIA ONIA 000 0.95 0.00 12 0,0 00 00 0 0 0 SHIA SHIA OWA 0.00 095 0.00 13 00 00 00 0 0 0 SHIA OWA AWA 0GO 095 0.W 14 0.0 00 00 0 0 0 AWA SHIA #WAI 000 OTIS 0., 15 00 0.0 00 0 0 0 Still OWA AWA 0.00 0.95 000 18 0.0 0.0 00 0 0 0 SHIA OWA AWA 0.SO 0.95 000 17 DO 0.0 00 0 0 0 OWA AWA AWA 0.SO 0.95 0.00 18 00 00 00 0 0 0 AWA AWA AWA 000 095 0.00 19 DO 00 00 0 0 0 AWA AWA AWA 0.DO 095 000 20 00 00 DO 0 0 0 AWA SHIA AWA owl 095 am 21 00 00 00 0 0 0 AWA AWA AWA 0.00 . 0.95 am IT NANFAO D16T.2 TSNN FOWKlatlona Ind Ea+II15Vuctures, Table 1, p. 7.2-03. 2) NCOOT H892L PavempN Das!gn Procedures, Fig. 2. 3) Titan Lob Eapodelsca: Tria sWCBR 6 Rw era about 20%of PR AMWtICoastal Plain Velum D. FIT.6 BACKFILL PROPERTIES: GEOLOGY: Coastal Plan SOIL CLASS: SM SCH. NO.: 4 A - 0.100 P61• 30 Gamma• 0120 Couloumb Ka • 0.30 Couloumb Kp- 6.11 Rankine Ka - 0.33 Rankin K,- 300 RanMne Ka = Wn'2(4S,WnT l lne Kp = Wn 2(45+,,V2) Ramon. Ko=6sinlpN) K. • 0.50 GA. f1984): Ka = (I-Aa4Y(t+afly) Ro= (IaIhll) Am SANO Ko = (OASsir4)'SORT(OCR) for C1AY Kp•(Ps'rdy(La'vp) GEOLOGY SOIL TYPE CLASS. SOIL TYPE NO. ry) COHESION A ksQ (1) PHI 4 (deal MOIST (6) UWT WEIGHT T jk4f)de FRICTION ANGLE(2) +6 COULOUMB Ka (31 Np (4) Coastal AIL 1 0025 22 0.116 14.7 0.41 330 FWn CL 2 0075 20 OTIS 13.3 044 289 CH 3 DIDO 17 0.100 11.3 049 2.40 SM 4 O'lm 30 S IM 200 0.30 6.11 MH 6 0.1m 20 0.096 133 0.44 289 SP 8 0ON 33 0,115 220 0.26 am Pfid t MIL 1 0.016 29 0. 116 IS? 0,32 6,18 (or Tdassx) CL 2 0.076 28 0,116 YT3 035 4.46 OH 1 IN IT 0.100 11.3 0.49 240 SM 4 00SO 30 0.120 200 0SO e.11 MN 6 0.100 20 0095 133 0.44 ?80 SP ' 8 0.000 77 0.115 22.0 0,25 800 1) Table 2139. NAVFAC ON 7.2. meIlw l Dosed on ex ceenco. cabers 2)Assumo OeOa•]IJa PN. D30+08Na for bout acS.oaW passive A•Alpha•9Odepfwwc la9ucheam4 3)Ko•I(sM(AsP))"2N(s'vi(A))"2)(aln(A 01111+((sin(P+DIsIn(P-B)ylsln(A D)i'n(A+B1Y0.51)"2) B=SAW = O On No+ Nxinotal 9rwnd vaface B os.J.E.(1982). Finatlatlan Anayals" Doslpq Equation It 3. Is, 384. D-NIW 4)KD'IIsW(A-P)p2HIs9gA)N211t9+(A+OpUH(siryP+O)sin(P+B)plsW(A+D)WKA+e))y0.5r2) P=PN BOMa4. J E. (1962), F.WaWn Ma3a1s AM Dosigq EWebou It 6. P. 384. SOIL PROPERTIES SSME, INC, WI MINGTON. NC SHEET OF PROJECT NAME: BUILDINGS A-H BY: T. SCHIPPOREIT DATE: U2712012 PROJECT RAME: P4253 20 COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OPSIMAINT. COMPLEX LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 1061-12449 FILE NAME: L SOIL PROPERTIES UNORAINED GEOLOGIC SETTIING. coese)Plan A DEEP FOUNDATIONS: unTe. Thnm alv.,Ll nnn me.. n..nt mld.n BORING NO. LAYER NO. LAYEROEPTHS If. .top x�bottom MATERIAL TYPE GENERAL MATERIAL TYPE Note 11 AV SPT SLOW. COUNT b UNCONF. COMP. STRENGTH e.. ( a COHESION b ka PHI 4 (de9) TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT T Teen BOW. UNIT WEIGHT T-% okef)kc NOR2. MOD. SUB. REACTION K a PERCENT STRAIN s-30 GO 1 0.0 9D SM SMO 4 0 0.000 29 C.1001 GAW 45 0000 2 90 160 WI SAND 4 0 GOOD 29 0.1001 0036 _ 35 0.000 3 15.0 21.0 SP SAND 14 0 0000 32 0.120 ONO 105 a.000 GIN -4 21.0 32.0 SP SAND 14 0 0000 32 0.120 PON I% awo DEPTH 5 32.0 490 CL CLAY 1 0 0.125 0 0.000 0028 5 0020 (feel) a 490 600 S61 SAND 29 0 0.000 35 0.120 Goss 105 D.000 90 1 0.0. 00 0D00 0 Omit ow a 0.000 8 0.0 Oo 0Da0 0 Gies 0000 a 000O 9 0.0 0,01 1 0.W0 0 0000 TIM a o.000 to Go 00 0000 0 0o0O Dow a DOW it 5o o0 0000 0 0.000 GOOD 00,000 12 0.0 00 0DW 0 0,000 0000 a 05DD 13 ao o0 0000 a 0.000 GOOD D 0.000 14 0.0 00 0 m 0 O.Wo DEED o 06M is 0.0 00 o000 0 0000 OEM a Dose] t0 00 00 00D0 0 0.000 GOOD -0000 0 000O 17 0.0 oo 0000 a aDOT 0 0505 16 0.0 00 0000 0 0.009 GOOD 0 0DOO 19 0o 00 0OX) 0 0.OX) 0000 0 O.OW 20 Go 00 0TOO 0 0'000 GCOO 0 0000 21 0.0 00 U.OX) 0 0.DOG 0000 0 0.000 NOTES: 1) Use SMD for SP, SW. SM. SC 21 Use CLAY for Coastal Plain sibVWys aW Trisss'u Bas9 son to firm sitildaye 3) Use P-PHIC for NOMOnt siIIYCMyk sdry sands, a M PWR 4) Use LPHIC for TrasaR Basin sell s+hYdays to SOUR 61 Use ROCK I., Pa room coredmd4Ttlasslc Ball Cored reek and SW1' 10 5010- Tr,assk Des rt SOUR 6) G...-bw- Go. -go.. wets, =C..-0002W HEAR STRENGTH PkRAM ETERS: SAND: c=0 Donn, Areemon4Kiefer (IOU), Fodomentals of Gootechnkol Phi-282,M4 Mk wFig, "I.I 291. CLAY: c=0.125'N(ksQ SeMes. J.E.(I NO). Fo .tlun Maly."ere Desgn, P. 101. PN- 0 for oreraln od bedn P. IC 1: 2: ROCK: Phi• 28 dog for..trael Goodmen(IOU). Tab. 33. p. 28 ceom -q' (pee e-mal[a 0. 1... Goednen 11980) - N-min jbPR Coh.[len NOT Phi dag) N-mn (bon Cohesion jk,nde PM 2 0.1 24 0 owl 1 5 0,10 26 9 020 21 9 020 28 10 040 21 18 0.30 28 35 I'M 23 31 040 28 100 1.80 25 51 0.50 32 2M L80 25 00 1.o0 38 1) EiWaleel based on s Thbtished Id.e41 shear lest restate 2) Chem -NW.., SystmI (190J), Bile Charaa.rzatlon Report for WA.Chelham Crony Pot.n!W y S.It-N- &le, S tcre 2.5- Geolechecal CberadedsSa, North Cerebra-wLa,el Radioactive Waste OlelsoIel Feo1ry' TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT: SANG111 1 CLAY I PAHIC 3 TANK I ROCK: Gamma= 0. 155 kd for mosl,o Go rt(IOU). Tad. 2.3. P-31 N-min b UnX Weight kc0 NmIn (bpn Unit Weight Deef)b IT Veil Weight kcl) IT (bon Ur,R Weight thel) a 2:129 0 0090 3 0.110 0 0.100 6 It To ] BAN 9 OM6 9 0.1t0 11 0.120 5 0.110 16 0,120 16 _ GIRO 31 0.130 9 OA20 31 GA25 31 0.190 51 0.140 ty 0.130 45 DAM 51 0,140 100 0.160 3] 0.140 701 0,140 05 OAK f00 0.145 100 0.145 200 0.15] G BPN.a, J.E. (1982), FouMeSon Maysls aM Design. Table S2, p. 100. 2)UnNWJ.E,(1992),FOore05onAwyelialld Desgn, Tate 13,P ous 3) Charn- ool LeMCstm,(1 CamlaEonsfl. FedmanlaMYaior W.k heths,,lC dlmm9raniecS^lssbrbl St.. 4) ChemNodear Systems (199]),'Sdo ChoreNorth C.ro R.1ort t. L Wa tdiosham Canty PotentlaD/ Soitbde Sde, Sacbon 2.5.OeolaWtlal Chamctedstlu, NON CaroSna Lovdevel Radioactiva Waste Osposel FaPLIy SHEET OF _ 1) WILE 4 0 Manual, TOVO 3 S. P. M 2) 1. PILE 40Manual, Table 34. P. 93 3) WILE 40 Manual, Table 3 2, p. N, K rml needed for 'SOW day enadals 4) WILE 40.Nooual, Fig. 3 23. b IN, K I K9N s Kt ST 50PENIO N In 0591040 e -50.0. w FD, P PHIC, T-PHIC, b NOCK for CLAY: WILE 4.0 Manual. Tabla 3. 1, P. 52 A Tada 13, P. E3 H. SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS BORING N0, LAYER NO. LAYER DEPTHS tut nt. abatlom MATERIAL TYPE GENERAL MATERIAL TYPE Note 1 AVE. SPT SLOW- COUNT bon GROSS ALLOW. BEARING PRESS, Ik,n YOUNG'S MODULUS Ee hs POISSOMS RATIO P CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES CC CR OCR GBS 1 0.0 90 52A SAND 4 0.5 200 020 0.00 0000 1.00 2 0.0 150 SM SAND 4 2C0 0.20 0.00 0000 1.Q0 GIN 3 1S0 21.0 SP SAND 14 2.0 1000 0.25 0.00 0000 1.00 DEPTH 21.0 "'4 --_SAN 14 2.0 iW0 025 90 (loan) 5 32.0 49.0' CL CLAY 1 0.6 600 050 02J 0023 1.40 00 00 1000 025 000 2 9 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0000 1.00 9 .0 0 0 0 00 0 coo 000 0000 LIDO 9 0E 0 0 0.0 0 000 0.00 0000 t00 10 .0 0 0 0.0 0 Goo 0.00 0000 1.DO 11 .0 0 0 0o 0 000 D.00 000O 1.00 1z .o 0 0 99 0 00o Gao D.aoo 1JK143 o F:J 0 0 00 0 0000.00 0000 I.GO14 .0 0 000 0 000 000 0000 1.W 0 0 0 Q9 0 000 000 0000 0 0 0 00 0 0.00 0.00 0000 Lw 12 .0 0 0 00 0 000 GOD OODO 119 00 0 0.0 0 9.00000 0.000 1.00 10 0 0 0 00 0 0.00 DCO DOGS IN 20 0 D D 0.0 D 000 9.Oe 0000 Lo0 21 00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 Goo O.OU U. 1.00 anMFouMatons: GaoleunYul EnOlnee09, FwM Eduall, Ted. 10.4. p. 472 I N In I Es I V I N In I Es I P Journal, Vot 103. N. GT3 Tab A.I. P. 122 E-masseOPF-mmfw ROD<50%: Ro.USON00999), F19.11.13.p. 225. Bolton, Tad. 3.4, p. 129. 2) 9.ales, J.E. (1982), FPund.6O, Anarysls and Ued n, TNrd F.diSroO, MCGra4'.Hul, New Mors, Teblo 24 aM Table 24, P. 62. SHEET OF CONSOLIDATION PROPERT TES: FOR CLAY WITH Wit bpl: CC-0.2SW551.0.10 CR = 0.10 CC OCR =1,N W2.5 1) From eapederKa sNN laborelory cortlotde5gn lesl rosu3f. C. FOOTIND FRICTION, PAVEMENTS, AND SLABS BORING NO. LAYER NO. LAYER DEPTHS loaf A.lo a4ro0om MATERIAL TYPE GENERAL MATERIAL TYPE (Net. 1) AVE.SPT BLOW. COUNT b SOIL TYPE NO, ULTIMATE CONCRETE FRICTION Isn(daltel CALIFORNIA BEAMNO RATIO CRR MODULUS OF SUBORADE REATION RANKINE Re K. KP GBSM---" 0 9.0 SM SAND 4 5 0.45 ] 150 034 061 2.91 0 15.0 SM SAND 4 5 RAS T 150 0.34 0.51 2.91 GV]0 21.0 SP SAND 14 4 ass f0 200 031 04T 321 DEPTH0 32.0 SP SAND 14 4 055 10 200 031 04] 321 ((eaf)0 49.0 CL CIAY 1 0 035 4 IN 1.W 1.12 Too SO0 SO0M SAND 29 b 045 1 150 027 042 3.10 0 00 00 0 0 0 NWA NWA NWA 00) 095 DW0 0.0 00 0 0 0 NWA NWA NWA OW 095 000 0 00D0 D 0 O NWA NWAW 095 OW 0 0.000 0 0 0NWA NNIA NWA O.W 095 OW .0 0000 0 0 0 NWA NNIA NWA 0W 095 OW.0 0.0 00 0 0 0 NWA IWA NWA 0.Do 095 0W.0 00 00 D 0 0 NWA NWA NfUA O,W O95 OW.0 00 00 0 0 0 NWA NN/A NWA Ic 095 soo 15 00 GO 00 0 0 0 TWA PTA IWA O,W 0.95 OW 15 00 0.0 00 0 0 0 NWA NWA NWA O.W a 5 OW 17 00 00 00 0 0 0 IWA 0UA NWA O.W 0.95 000 is 00 0.0 00 0 0 0 NWA NWA AWA OW 0.95 0.W 19 00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 WANWA NWA OW 0.95 0W 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 NWA NWA IWA 000 0.95 O.W 21 0o 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 NWA NWAI 0UA 0W 095 OW 1) HAVFAC DMJ.2 (logs). F.rvJalkhe araJ Earth SWaluraf, TWO 1, p. T246T 2) NCDOT(1982), Pavement NOW Procedures, FIVI-2. 3) Than l At, Efpaeenca: Triaesk CDR 6 k.v ore about 70%of Pledr.nb sbl PMIn VNNes a FILL a BACKFILL PROPERTIES: GEOLOGY: CO.MaI Plain SOILCLASS: VA SOIL NO.: 4 0,104) PAT• 30 Gamma. 0.120 Couloumb Ka - O.W Couloumb Kp' 8.11 Rankine Ka= On Rankine Up. 300 Rankine Ke. kn"205-Phi'M R.M oKp. U,0205-Wn) RaNikro K.-14h(ph) Ko. 0ED Oaf 1196Q: Ko=(1-")ri !DkN Ko=(0g& Iw SAND Ko=(1--114r10-04) (OCR)Iw CLAY Np= (»aIn1V(1-firr0l GEOLOGY SOIL TYPE CLASS. SOL TYPE NO. (1) COHESION c ka (1) PHI b deal MOIST (5) UNIT WE1011T 1 (kc FRICTION ANGLE (2) td de COULOUMB Ka 3) KP (4) Coastal ML 1 0075 21 0,115 143 0.41 3,30 min CL 2 0075 20 0.116 133 044 2.99 CH 3 0.100 11 O.iW 11.3 049 2,40 SM 4 also _ W 0.120 200 0.30 0.11 MH 5 also 20 O.ms 133 0.44 2.89 Sp 6 0.000 33 0.115 22.0 ON 9.09 Pbdmpnl ML 1 0075 29 (T115 6.7 032 5.10 W Tdafsic) CL 2 00]6 N 0.f 15 17.3 035 4.40 CH 3 'O.tW 17 0.100 11.3 049 2.40 SM 4 0050 30 0,120 20.( O.W 8.II N.11 5 D.iW 20 005 133 044 2.89 SP 8 0000 33 0.115 22.0 028 AW 1) Table 7.2-39, NAVFAC DM T.2, madfiN based. eapedeme, 'here: 2) Affume Matte• 213 a PH. Use•Nit. W WOa .erM"I" A= Alpha a W deg lo(vartkl ftAKlere"I 3)K..IRr(A-P))2V((aln(A1N2)(sr(A0))101(so(P. O)al(P-B)Y(aM(A D)sin(At BIY051Y21 B= Sale = O deg for h.ri;t.I.I9.urid Burl.. BeA1es, J.E. (1982). F.Malion AnaYsia and W al9n, E9ua5 11-3. P. 384. D- Della 4)Rp•((sIn(A.P)P2yi(Pn(A))12Kak{A.DllI1.lfstn(PrD)$NPrB)V(SWAfOHin(A1B))V0,51"21 P.PHI RmU,s. J E. (1082), FousNaSon AraWb-M Daagn, Ececao 1fE, P.3 JOB NO. 1061-I2-249 *S&ME SHEET NO. t Of DATE 6/27/12 Camp Lejeune, JOBNAME P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion NC COMPUTED BY T. Schipporeit SUBJECT Bearing Capacity CHECKED BY OBJECTIVES: .• Determine bearing capacity of shallow column footings and wall footings. METHODS: Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Theory ASSUMPTIONS: As noted in calculations. REFERENCES: Das, B.M. (1984), Principles of Foundation En ink eering, PWS Publishers, Boston. Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249 P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops/Maintenance Complex June 26, 2012 Estimated Design Loads The project will include approximately eight buildings and structures, as described in the following table: Table 1 — Proposed Buildings and Structures - D¢slgn _ Foundation Design Foundation': Designation Name He Ig' Urame; 'Floor .. Walls Loatl = Load.' , Headquartteo rs Building 2 stories Steel Grade Reinforced CMU vnth brick 250 3 veneer 1 or 2 B Maintenance stories, Steel On CMU 100 3 Facility high Grade bay C Armory 1 story Concrete On Grade Concrete with brick N/A veneer Electronic Steel, - Concrete D Communications 1 story ry concrete; or load- On or CMU Not Given Not Given Maintenance bCMUg Grade with brick Facility veneer Supp 1 story, B Warehouse hhiggh Steel G ade CMU 100 3 ay Indoor F Simulated Marksmanship 1 story Load- Bearing Raised CMU with brick N/A Training (ISMT) CMU veneer Building_ G Covered 1 level Steel On None Light (No N/A Storage Grade value iven Concrete H HAZMAT 1 story or load- On CMU Light (No Light (No Storage Shelter bearing Grade value given) value given) CMU Note: or From GER Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report Built-in equipment includes a vehicle exhaust system, a waste oil storage tank, 15-ton hydraulic lifts, 30-ton and 20-ton bridge manes (with 7.5-ton auxiliary cranes) in addition to multiple 7.5 ton cranes in the maintenance facility, welding hood, woodworking dust collection system, paint booth, lubricant fluid distribution system, overhead doors, radiant heating system, and waste oil collection. The Wash Racks/Pads and Maintenance Facility building may include below -grade pits with cast -in -place reinforced concrete retaining walls up to approximately 6 feet deep. JOBNAME � t?- SUBJECT �ss4m2 JOBNO. SHEET NO. n DATE �/- `1 e-. COMPUTED BY =7�� 9 cell —.._ CHECKED BY GBo"DwA76IL GROUAbIOA7-62— CASE :t C..ME Z Di sb1L x 5A"O d =3 iv Nave=3o,c:o,-9�p u4 wp �r�rNDwk-ra2 Gp56 Z : c7 1'cl � $ GRpJANDwA7b7; CASE CJ J r� 0 1 L (iiSe f rye✓A'es rynr SO)/ L I y j3 25ok trot C.oID.J,...� T•w'i'rns.� � l� j17p�(= 9a11 — 2ksf ��Z 6 B % 11 W = , Foy zksf �i I6 JOB NAME SUBJF.GI Co�u.,-ir1 Fno•k^5 Das (198f)/ 7'ub 2- 2-2-z COMPUTED BY CHECKED BY Das (i�ig9)� C9. 3,9a �a U �✓le fJ — 9 U 2 _ TO 5-4 ZZO 5")y ;/ve/ /Pads 3. �S 2.0 4!;i fnr"/J live /auks I�/a// ioo-Nr�u JOB NO. SHEET NO. DATE (o-2(, �•7a /V Allx gga A) = z2.4D Das (,14�59) � E9, 3, 3 � Skip Foor4✓� �m1n = /,3341 9u +I Aly 4z Ya ti/a a P" Sre)S• come &3$ 1 74Z- S��AIm S�f-9ly—Z20 31 All (nef) U5� `ail (hey-) = 2� oao Psi i 112 Chapter 3 Shallow Foundotions Table 3.2 Bearing Capacity Factors' N. NQ NY N,IN. tnn ¢ 0 5.14 1.00 0100 0.20 0.00 1 5.38 1,09 0.07 0.20 0.02 2 5.63 1.20 0.15 0.21 0.03 3 5.90 1.31 0.9A 0.22 0.05 4 6.19 1.43 0.34 0.23 0.07 5 6.49 1.57 0.45 0.21 0.09 6 6.81 1.72 0.57 0.25 0.11 7 7.16 1.88 0.71 0.26 0.12 8 7,53 2.06 0.86 0.27 0.14 9 7.92 2.25 1.03 0.28 0.16 10 8.35 2.47 1.22 0.30 0.18 11 8.80 2.71 1.44 0.31 0.19 12 0.28 2.97 1.69 0.32 0,21 13 9.81 3.26 1.97 0.33 0.23 14 10.37 3.59 2.29 0.35 0.25 15 10.98 3,94 2.65 0.36 0.27 16 11.63 4.34 3.00 0.17 0.29 17 12.34 4.77 3.53 0.39 0.31 ]8 13.10 5.26 4.07 0.40 0.J2 19 13.93 5:80 4.68 0.42 0.34 20 14.83 6.40 5.39 0.43 0.36 21 15.82 7.07 6.20 0.45 0.38 22 16.88 7.82 7.13 0.46 0.40 23 18,05 8.66 8.20 0.48 0.42 24 10.32 9.60 9.44 0.50 0.45 25. 20.72 10.66 10.88 0.51 0.47 26. 22,25 11.85 12.54 0.53 0.49 27 2.9.94 13.20 14.47 0.55 0.51 28 25.80 14.72 16.72 0.57 0.53 �28� 2 30.1 1644 8.4 19 2AO 0.59 0.61 0.55 0.58 31 32.67 63 0.63 0.60 32 35.49 23.18 30.22 0.65 0.62 33 38.64 26.09 35.10 0.68 0.65 34 42.16 29.44 41.06 0.70 0.67 35 46.12, 33.30 48.03 0.72 0.70 36 50.59 37.75 56.31 0.75 0.73 37 55.63 42.92 66.19 0.77 0.75 38 61.35 48.93 78.03 0.80 0.78 39 67.87 55.96 92.25 0.82 0.81 40 75.31 64.20 109.41 0.85 0.84 41 83.86 73.90 130.22 0.88 0.87 42 93.71 85.38 155.55 0.91 0.90 43 105.11 09.02 186.54 0.94 0.93 44 118.37 115.31 221.64 0.97 0.97 45 133.88 134.88 271.76 1.01 1.00 46 152.10 158.51 330.35 1.04 1.04 47 173.64 187.21 403.67 1.08 1.07 48 109.26 222.31 496.01 1.12 1,11 49 229.93 265.51 613.16 1.15 1.15 50 266.89 319.07 762.89 1.20 1.19 `After Vesle (1073) JOB NAME SUBJECT r1 1p- 125--_2_ m JOB NO. ! o� ` - I SIIEET NO, DATE _—CO���•_ COMPUTED BY CHECKED BY G Ftow1DW A76R.. . G Rp UN b wA76-2 CA4C 1 ' C.ME Z. so1L1 5,NN0 > g Al = 4 - - 5NL'j i �sw�BaJ. 1>lse— (�¢o�NDw,4ra2 (lorJPc-f)l2I)=2.ocU�s� use 1i - �'1-- JB �Ro"NDwA7b7- G¢5E '3 , U � 4 y = ydie- I LAse Y IYI Ren. E9r�a� Sou- � _ Ase- -prope/•a'i'e& -n9Y Soil .Z j -[- \ > B Fr Col. hD�kS Pm*3 2 L p zsn' �d-3 �ascZ �m•�h = �//.5= �p 7c� � 3 Case- 2� v</ _ s 3. 3 -- cl cc s� 3 s �"� ".34RTE3 SUBJECT i Cp/K.r�r) �vo'/tn5 JOB NO, SHEET NO. DATE (,-Z7-IZ_ COMPUTED BY _ CHECKEDBY B\ /y --d) �,2,,4 "t' 13 � ��oO..G2.� = 7(pd- Das Crv84) r E9, 3.7� syua•e /-ao,4nr�-f3t?lS:Gade 0 + 17N, 3 IAl e / J � Zg Das (t9S�F)/ -Tu6 3,2 I`t•3 %u 3z�s�I- 3,z 2) fall (✓lel, 9� 2 — FS (oSrs3-2.00 Nam= Z7.s<0 iV y 212% $f�ls, Code. + ��9 4 ' L Ya Ny (ZOO)(/ (0, Z(�ob)�(.33)il9•�4� 3 Z erS, + 12cs(o = 4 7-1 p� paa (19 gg)1 &j. 3,4b 20� I f� U54ET Fail (Y)4) = Z,-�,oU Psi Check 5"cll/elne,vf- 112 Chapter 3 Shallow Foundotlons Table 3.2 Bearing Capaclty Factors' 95 N. N9 NY Nq/N tan 0. 5.14 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 1 5.38 1.09 0.07 0.20 0.02 2 5.63 1.20 0.15 0.21 0.03 3 5.90 1.31 0.24 0.22 0.05 4 6.19 1.43 0.34 0.23 0.07 5 6.49 1.57 0.45 0.24 .0.09 6 6.81 1.72 0.57 0.25 0.11 7 7.16 1.88 0.71 0.26 0.12 8 7.53 2.06 0.86 0.27 0.14 9 7.92 2.25 1.03 0.28 0.16 10 8.35 2.47 1.22 0.30 0.18 11 8.80 2.71 1.44 0.31 0.19 12 9.28 2,97 1.69 0.32 0,21 13 9.81 3.26 1.97 0.33 0.23 14 10.37 3.59 2.29 0.35 0,25 15 10.98 3.94 2.65 0.36 . 0.27 16 11.63 4.34 3.06 0.37 0.29 17 12.34 4.77 3.53 0.39 0.31 18 13.10 5.26 4.07 0.40 0.82 19 13.93 5.80 4.68 0.42 0.34 20 14.83 6.40 5.39 0,43 0.36 21 15.82 7.07 6.20 0.45 0.38 22 16.88 7.82 7.13 0.46 0.40 23 18.05 8.66 8.20 0.48 0.42 24 19.32 9.60 9.44 0.50 0.45 25. 20.72 10.66 10.88 0.51 0.47 26. 22.25 11.85 12.54 0.53 0.44 27 23.94 13.20 14.47 0.55 0.51 29 25.80 7.86 16.4 19.34 0.57 0.59 0.53 0.55 30 14 40 0.61 0.68 31 32.67 20.63 25.99 0.63 0.60 32 35.49 23.18 30.22 0.65 0.62 33 38.64 26.09 35.19 0.68 0.65 34 42.16 29.44 41.06 0.70 0.67 35 46.12. 33.30 48.03 0.72 0.70 36 50.59 37.75 56.31 0.75 0.73 37 55.63 42.92 66.19 0.77 0.75 38 61.35 48.93 78.03 6.80 0.78 ' 39 67.87 55.96 92.25 0.82 0.81 40 75.31 64.20 109.41 0.85 0.84 41 83.86 73.90 130.22 0.88 0.87 42 93.71 85.38 155.55 0.91 0.90 43 105.11 99.02 186.54 0.94 0.93 44 118.37 115.31 224.64 0.97 0.97 45 133.88 134.88 271.76 1.01 1.00 46 152.10 158.61 330.35 1.04 1.04 47 173.64 187.21 403.67 1.08 1.07 48 199.26 222.31 496.01' 1.12 1.11 49 229.93 265.51 613.16 1.15 1.15 50 266.89 319.07 762.89 1.20 1.19 'After Vesic (1973) JOB NO. 1061-12-249 $MEET NO. I Of *SME. DATE 6/27/2012 Camp Lejeune, JOBNAME P-1253 2DCombat Engineer Battalion NC COMPUTEDBY T. Schipporeit SUBJECT Settlement, CHECKED BY OBJECTIVES: • Estimate settlement of building columns and walls. METHODS: • Elastic Settlement Method using Boussinesq stress approximation. • 1-1)Elastic Theory combined with Terzaghi 1-D Consolidation Theory for soft clays using Boussinesq stress approximation. ASSUMPTIONS: As noted in calculations. REFERENCES: Das, B.M. (1984), Principles of Foundation Engineering, PWS Publishers, Boston. Dunn, I.S., Anderson, L.R., and Kiefer, F.W. (1980), Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York. SUMMARY OF RESULTS: Total Settlement (in.) Stratum 1 N... q-all Elastic Consolidation Total bf s Column, 250 6 2000 0.54 0.01 0.55 kips Wall, 5 klf 6 2000, 0.29 0.01 0.30 Column, 250 4 2000 1.21 0.01 1.22 kips Wall, 5 klf 4 2000 0.63 _ 0.01 0.64 Column, 250 4 1500 0.97 0.01 0.98 kips Column, 120. 4 2000 0.94 0.00 0.94 kips To limit total settlement (<1") and avoid excessive undercutting, use q-all = 1,500 psf for P>120 kips. . Use q-all = 2,000 psf for P<= 120 kips and wall footings for w<= 5 klf LID requirements for both rate and volume attenuation from the 951h percentile storm event. 5. EROSION CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS: Best Management Practices (BMP's), designed in accordance with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, will be utilized to prevent sediment migration and transport from the site. During the initial phases of construction, the proposed stormwater BMPs will serve as sediment basins by installing a skimmer dewatering device on the proposed outlet structures. Additional temporary erosion control measures consisting of silt fence, stone construction entrances, swale liners, wattle barrier, stone check dams, and temporary seeding will be implemented and maintained during construction. These temporary measures will be located within the project limits to contain sediment runoff expected from construction operations. JAN 0 9 REC'7 BY: Z-- _ Existing drainage patterns onsite consist of overland sheet flow to shallow drainage swales onsite. The project site generally drains from north to south towards a wetland area near the middle of the southern boundary. The project site is part of the White Oak river basin and drains to the New River (19-36 SA;HQW). Slopes onsite are generally mild and range from 0 to 5%. There are some areas near the existing drainage features with steeper slopes. The Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina indicates that the existing soils onsite primarily consist of Baymeade (BaB) fine sands, Leon (Ln) poorly drained upland sands, and Wando (WaB) excessively drained fine sands. 3. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: Proposed improvements include the construction of a multiple buildings, POV parking, tactical vehicle parking, recreational and operational areas, and utility and infrastructure improvements to support the missions of the CEB. 4. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed project does not alter the existing drainage patterns onsite. Proposed grading will generally consist of cuts and fills varying from I to 5 feet. Some areas may require additional cuts and fills as necessary. During the initial phases on construction, temporary conveyance swales will be utilized to convey runoff to two sediment basins located along the southern boundary of the site. The completed project will utilize a combination of shallow surface swales and piped collection systems to capture stormwater from the site and transport runoff to one of two stormwater BMP areas along the southern boundary of the site. Each of the stormwater areas contains a large wet detention basin and a smaller infiltration area. The wet detention basin is designed to contain runoff from the NCDENR water quality design storm and to slowly drawdown the design volume through a small diameter orifice to a smaller secondary infiltration area. The infiltration areas have been designed to handle the wetdetention basin drawdown from the 10-year 24-hour strom using only half of the infiltration rate reported in the Geotechnical Report. As a result, no bypass, level spreader, or vegetated filter strip has been provided. Each wet detention basin also contains a secondary outlet structure and an emergency spillway to handle stormwater flows 'from storm events in excess of the NCDENR water quality design storm.sF > ID 413� Coy a This combination of wet detention and infiltration basins is also being used to meet Navy JAN 0 9 REC'D DESIGN NARRATIVE L GENERAL: On behalf of NAVFAC and the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL) — Public Works Division, Cape Fear Engineering is submitting for Stormwater Permitting for the P-1253: 2D Combat Engineering Battalion Ops/Maintenance (CEB) Complex. The project site is located in the Courthouse Bay area of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL). The overall project area is approximately 66 acres. The CEB Complex is located along Sneads Ferry Road (NC HWY 172) between DA Munro Road and India Range Road. The CEB complex will include multiple buildings, POV parking, tactical vehicle parking, recreational and operational areas, and utility and infrastructure improvements to support the missions of the CEB. 2. EXISTING SITE AND DEMOLITION: The P-1253 site is bounded by Sneads Ferry Road and an unpaved tank trail to the north, DA Munro Road to the west, and India Range Road to the east. The site can be accessed by a network of unpaved trails. The majority of the existing site is heavily wooded with mature pines and hardwoods. A portion of the site was previously cleared and currently consists of small pines and sparse ground cover. The entire site will require clearing and grubbing. Any salvageable timber will be harvested by the Base prior to clearing. The contractor will be responsible for the clearing and disposal of all remaining vegetation. Jurisdictional Wetlands have been identified within the proposed project area. These wetlands will be protected during construction and a I00-ft buffer will be maintained where possible. Previously contaminated site IR65 is within the project area. EMD has indicated that any monitoring wells within the proposed project footprint have already been demolished. If any additional monitoring wells unknown to the government are found, they will be brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer and EMD, and will be demolished by a certified well contractor in accordance with NCDENR regulations. A small portion of the site is located within the limits of a historic range boundary which indicates the possible presence of UXOs. A 50-foot buffer will be maintained between the site and the historic range boundary. There is an existing gravel jogging trail with fitness stations running through the site that will be demolished. The existing gravel jogging trail that runs parallel to the tank trail, will be relocated as required. _, IED JAN 0 9 RECD Stormwater Narrative and Calculations For P-1253: 2D Combat Engineering Battalion Ops / Maintenance Complex Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Prepared for Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune Public Works Division Date: January 2, 2013 Prepared by Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. 151 Poole Road, Suite 100 Belville, NC 28451 (910)383-1044 NC License No. C-1621 ALEA North Carolina Department of Environment and �•1 Natural Resources NCDENR Request for Express Permit Review FILL-IN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. Permit Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative, site plan (PDF (le) and vicinity m ap ckage of the project location. Please include this form in the application package. For DENR Use ONLY G Remwer: ' r-- t.cp w a Submit: Time: Confirm: Call and Email the completed form to the • Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 818.296.4698;alison.davidson(dncdenr.gov • Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791.4203; david.lee(a ncdenrgov • Mooresville & Winston Salem Region - Patrick Grogan 704-235.2107 or patrick.groaan(3mcdenr.gov • Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-948.3842 or lyn.hardison(clncdenr.gov • Wilmington Region -Janet Russell910-796.7302 or ianet.russell(Dncdenr.gov • Wilmington Region -Cameron Weaver 910-796.7303 or cameron.weaver(tncdenrigov NOTE: Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day. Permits of Request SW _ SW _ SW_ SW _ SW Project Name: P-1253 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OPS/MAINTENANCE COMPLEX County: ONSLOW Applicant: COMMANDING OFFICER, MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE Company: Address: 1005 MICHAEL ROAD City: MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, State: NC Zip: 28547-_ Phone: 910-451-2213, Fax:910-451-2927, Email: NEAL.PAUL@USMC.MIL Physical Location:LOCATED ALONG SNEADS FERRY ROAD BETWEEN DA MUNRO ROAD & INDIA RANGE ROAD MCB-CAMP LEJEUNE Project Drains into COURTHOUSE BAY waters — Water classification SA-HQW (for classification see- hltp://h2o.enr.state. nc, us/bims/reports/repor[sWB.htm Il Project Located in WHITE OAK River Basin. Is project draining to class ORW waters? N, within Y,, mile and draining to class SA water Y or will and draining to class HQW waters? Y Engineer/Consultant: MATTHEW HALEY, PE Company: CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING. INC Address: 151 POOLE ROAD, SUITE 100 City, BELVILLE, State: NC Zip: 28451-_ JAN O 9 RECD Phone: 910-383-1044, Fax: 910-383-1045, Email: MATT.HALEY@CAPEFEARENGINEERING.COM SECTION ONE: REQUESTING A SCOPING MEETING ONLY lyztv- EJ Scoping Meeting ONLY ❑ DWQ, ❑ DCM, ❑ DLR, ❑ OTHER: SECTION TWO: CHECK ONLY THE PROGRAM IS) YOU ARE REQUESTING FOR EXPRESS PERMITTING ❑ 401 Unit ❑ Stream Odgin Determination: _ # of stream calls — Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions ❑ Intermittent/Perennial Determination: _ # of stream calls — Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions ❑ 401 Water Quality Certification ❑ Isolated Wetland (_linear ft or _acres) ❑ Riparian BufferAulhodzation ❑ Minor Variance ❑ Major General Variance ® State Stormwater ❑ General ❑ SFR, ❑ SFR < 1 ac. ❑ Bkhd & Bt Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility ❑ Other ❑ Low Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter _ If Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW _ (Provide permit #)] ® High Density -Detention Pond 2 # Treatment Systems ® High Density -Infiltration 2 #Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Bio-Retention _ # Treatment Systems ❑ High Densily—SW Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Other _ # Treatment Systems / ❑ MOD:❑ Major ❑ Minor ❑ Plan Revision ❑ Redev. Exclusion SW (Provide permit #) ❑ Coastal Management ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information ❑ Upland Development ❑ Marina Development ❑ Urban Waterfront ❑ Land Quality ❑ Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with _ acres to be disturbed.(CK # (for DENR use)) 1 mile SECTION THREE — PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT IS APPLICABLE TO YOUR PROJECT (for both scopina and express meetina reauest Wetlands on Site ❑ Yes ® No Buffer Impacts: ® No ❑ YES: _acre(s) Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ® Yes ❑ No Isolated wetland on Property ❑ Yes ® No US ALOE Approval of Delineation completed: ® Yes ❑ No 404 Application in Process w/ US ACOE: ❑ Yes ® No Permit Received from US ACOE ® Yes ❑ No DENR use Fee Split for multiple permits: (Check # 1 Total Fee Amount SUBMITTAL DATES Fee SUBMITTAL DATES Fee CAMA $ Variance (❑ Maj; ❑ Min) $ SW (❑ HD, ❑ LD, ❑ Gen) $ 401: $ LDS $ Stream Deter,_ $ NCDENR EXPRESS June 2011 C 'I Y 1 -k it J C T Cif Nelson, Christine From: Nelson, Christine Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:43 PM To: 'Matt Haley'; Bradshaw CIV Thomas C Cc: Russell, Janet; 'Johnson, Kelly' Subject: Forebay berm elevation Matt, I found the section of the BMP manual I was looking for: Section 5.5 on Forebays in Chapter 5 (Common BMP Design Elements). The third paragraph on page 5-9 it says "The elevation of the [forebay berm) can also be as low as (but not exceed) 1 foot below the design storm water elevation." I believe it is has been interpreted that the "design storm water elevation" means the permanent pool elevation but I didn't see that clarification in the errata sheet. I think it's safe to say it wouldn't be the temporary pool elevation. Christine Christine Nelson Environmental Engineer State Stormwater Program NC Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Ext. Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone:910-796-7323 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. Form No: TR-D422-WH-lGa Revision No. 0 Revision Date: 07114108 Sieve Analysis of Soils O FJ-0 ASTM D 422 Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc. - Wilmington, 3006 Hall Waters Drive, Suite 100, Wilmington, NC 28405 Project #: 1061-12-249A Report Date: 9/7/12 Project Name: P-1253 Combat Engineer Dig Pit Test Date(s): 9/5-9/7/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering, Inc Client Address: 151 Poole Rd., Suite 100, Belville, NC 28451 Sample Id. 141 Type: Soil Boring Sample Date: 8/29/12 Location: Camp Lejeune, NC Sample: B-C/S4 Depth(ft) 8.5'-10.0' WMI01 3" 1.5" I"3/4" 3/8" 44 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 90% 80 % e 70 en 0 60% 0. 50 u a 40 % 30 20 % 10"/ 0 % 1-" 100.00 10.00 Millimeters 1.00 0.10 0.01 Cobbles < 300 man (12") and > 75 mm (3") Fine Sand < 0.425 man and > 0.075 mm (#200) Gravel < 75 mat and > 4.75 man (#4) Silt < 0.075 and > 0.005 mm Coarse Sand <4.75 mm and>2.00 mm (#10) Clay <0.005 mm Medium Sand < 2.00 mm and > 0.425 nun (#40) Colloids < 0.001 mm Maximum Particle Size Coarse Sand 0.0% Fine Sand 96.0% Gravel 0.0% Medium Sand 1.7% Silt & Clay 2.3% Liquid Limit NP Plastic Limit NP Plastic Index NP Specific Gravity N/A Cc = 1.029 Cu = 1.400 Moisture Content 24.9% Coarse Sand 0.0% Medium Sand 1.7% Fine Sand 96.0% Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded ❑O Angular O Hard & Durable O Soft ❑ Weathered & Friable ❑ Notes / Deviations / References: Tom Schipporeit, P.E. Torts- Soh.i.anoreif Senior Geotechnical Engineer 9/7/2012 Technical Responxihility Signature Position Date This report shall not be reproduced, except in jtdl irithout the wrinen approval of S&h1E, bre. S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1061-12-249A(3) Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page 1 of 1 Farm No: TR-D422-WN-IGo Revision No. 0 Revision Date: 07114108 Sieve Analysis of Soils Project #: ASTM D 422 Quality Assurance S&q7E, Inc. - Wilmington, 3006 Hall Waters Drive, Suite 100, Wilmington, NC 28405 1061-12-249A Report Date: 9/7/12 Project Name: P-1253 Combat Engineer Dig Pit Test Date(s): 9/5-9/7/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering, Inc Client Address: 151 Poole Rd., Suite 100, Belville, NC 28451 Sample Id. 141 Type: Soil Boring Sample Date: 8/29/12 Location: Camp Lejeune, NC Sample: B-B/S3 Depth(ft) 6.0'-8.0' Sample Deserimion: Light Brown Siltv SAND ISM) 3" 1.5" 1"3N" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 040 #60 #100 #200 100 % 90 % 80 % i e oe 70% 0 a 60% 50 % f u 1 40% I 30% 20% 10% 0% " 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 Millimeters Cobbles < 300 mm (12") and > 75 mm (3") Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200) Gravel <75 mm and> 4.75 mm (#4) Silt <0.075 and> 0.005 mm Coarse Sand <4.75 mm and>2.00 mm(#10) Clay <0.005 mm Medium Sand <2.00 mm and> 0.425 mm (#40) Colloids <0.001 mm Maximum Particle Size Coarse Sand 0.0% Fine Sand 72.2% Gravel 0.0% Medium Sand 0.0% Silt & Clay 27.8% Liquid Limit NP Plastic Limit NP Plastic Index NP Specific Gravity N/A Cc = N/A Cu = N/A Moisture Content 16.2% j Coarse Sand 0.0% Medium Sand 0.0% Fine Sand 72.2% Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded ❑O Angular ❑X j Hard & Durable ❑ Soft ❑ Weathered & Friable ❑ Notes / Deviations /References: Tom Schipporeit, P.E. -rovw S�eif Senior Geotechnical Engineer 9/7/2012 Technical Respon.vihili1v Signalure Position Date This report shallow he reproduced eveepi in fidt• without the written approval rfS&MF., Inc. S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1061-12-249A(2) Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of 1 Form No: TR-D422-WN-lCa Revision No. 0 Sieve Analysis Of Soils #S&ME Revision Date: 07114108 ASTM D 422 Quality Assurance S&ME, Inc. - Wilmington, 3006 Hall Waters Drive, Suite 100, Wilmington, NC 28405 Project #: 1061-12-249A Report Date: 9/7/12 Project Name: P-1253 Combat Engineer Dig Pit Test Date(s): 9/5-9/7/12 Client Name: Cape Fear Engineering, Inc Client Address: 151 Poole Rd., Suite 100, Belville, NC 28451 Sample Id. 141 Type: Soil Boring Sample Date: 8/29/12 Location: Camp Lejeune, NC Sample: B-A/S1 Depth(ft) 1.0'-2.5' Sample Description: Brown Clayey SAND (SC) Maximum Particle Size Coarse Sand 0.0% Fine Sand 61.4% Gravel 0.0% Medium Sand 0.2% Silt & Clay 38.3% Liquid Limit 33 Plastic Limit 18 Plastic Index 15 Specific Gravity N/A Cc = N/A Cu = N/A Moisture Content 19.3% Coarse Sand 0.0% Medium Sand 0.2% Fine Sand 61.4% Description of Sand & Gravel Particles: Rounded IF] Angular O Hard & Durable ❑ Soft ❑ Weathered & Friable ❑ Notes / Deviations / References: Tom Schipporcit, P.E. Tovw Salm j2yoreif Senior Geotechnical Engineer 9/7/2012 Technical Responsibility Signature Position Dale This report shall not be reproduced, accept in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc. S&ME, Inc. - Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road 1061-12-249A(I) Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I oJ'l PROJECT* P-1253 Combat Engineer Dig Pit Camp Lejetme, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-C 1061.12.249A NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 8/29/12 ELEVATION: 22.2 It DRILLING METHOD: Wash Boring BORING DEPTH: 20.0It LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: 8 feet @TOB DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME45 Trailer U UJ > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w a U o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ii a Q y (blows/ft) N-Value v w Q > u v 7 Q D Z m • 3 10 20 30 6080 Leaves and Topsoil (12 inches) Very Loose Moist Brown Silly SAND ISM) - - 4 4 5—�.. 17.2- - Medium Dense Wet Gray Poorly -Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) 15 C7 Medium Dense Saturated Gray Poorly -Graded - _ SAND (SP) - % Fines = 2.3%, LL = NP, PI = NP, MOI = 24.9 % - 17 10—r 12.2 - -- -- 17 15— 7.2 Medium Dense ated e ��- Poorly -Graded SANDwi h Silt (SP-SM) "LLL 15 20 Boring terminated at 20 feet. 2.P NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1566. 3. PENETRATION rN-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N. I . SAMPLER 1 FT. 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT. 5. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 tS E ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 Combat Engineer Dig Pit Camp Lejeune, North Carolina TEST BORING RECORD B-B 1061-12.249A NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 8I29/12 ELEVATION: 27.8 It DRILLING METHOD: Wash Boring BORING DEPTH: 20.0 it LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATERLEVEL: 8feet@TOB DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CME-45 Trailer U J > w w p STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION n. < °� blows)ft) N-value w 3 y Z J w 3 10 20 30 6080 -\Leaves and Topsoil 2 inches) l Medium Dense Moist Gray Poody-Graded SAND _ with Silt (SP-SM) I Ly\ 15 L---------------- __ - Loose Wet Light Brown Poorly -Graded SAND with _ Silt (SP-SM) 9 5- J-}. 22.8- - Medium Dense Wet Tan -Gray Silty SAND (SM) % Fines = 27.8 %, LL = NP, PI = NP, MOI = 16.2% - 15 2 Medium Dense Saturated Tan Poorly -Graded SAND - .:.. f, with Sill (SP-SM) _ 10-?..�: �. L 17.8- -- ffDense Saturated Gray Pra oorly-Gded SAMD with Silt (SP-SM) 32 15-.�I. }. L 12.8 - — - Medium Dense Saturated Tan Poody-Graded SAND _ -': with Silt (SP-SM) 23 20 Boring terminated at 20 fee 7.8 NOTES: 1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PRO,IECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHERWITH THATREPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0-15116. 3. PENETRATION rN-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 301N. REOUIRED TO DRIVE 1.41N I.D. SAMPLER I FT. 4, STRATIFICATIONAND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOTEXACT. 5. WATERLEVEL IS AT TIME OFEXPLORATIONAND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROJECT: P-1253 Combat Engineer Dig Pit Camp Lejetme, North Carolina 1 TEST BORING RECORD B-A 1061-12-249A NOTES: Boring location is approximate. DATE DRILLED: 8/29/12 ELEVATION: 28.6ft DRILLING METHOD: Wash Boring BORING DEPTH: 20.0 ft LOGGED BY: J. Faucette WATER LEVEL: 6 feet @TOB DRILLER: Carolina Drilling DRILL RIG: CMEA5 Trailer U Lu > W w ZU STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA v 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION W w ILw Q> blows/) N-vane F D Z W 3 10 20 30 6080 yy \Leaves and Topsoil (2 inches) Loose Moist Light Brown Clayey SAND (SC) _ % Fines - 38.3%, LL = 33, PI = 15, MOI = 19.3% 5 ,,y��,,�✓ Loose Moist Tan Silty SAND (SM) 6 10 5—::: 23.6 - -- CI Medium Dense Saturated Tan -Orange Silty SAND - ISM) - 14 I 15 10 % 18.6- -- ------ Medium Dense Saturated Light Gray Poorly -Graded SAND with Sill (SP-SM) 17 15i.j. • I' i. 13.6_ Dense Saturated Light Gray Poorly-Gradetl SAND - _�' { with Silt(SP-SM) '� .' I 1 41 20_ Boring terminated at 20 feet. 8.6 NOTE 1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED PROJECTAND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT. 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRA TION TESTDA TA IS IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1 M6 3. PENETRATION (N-VALUE) IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1 4IN, I.D. SAMPLER 1 FT 4. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOTEXACT. & WAlER LEVEL IS AT TIME OFEXPLORATIONAND WILL VARY. Page 1 of 1 *S&ME ENGINEERING • TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 25 5 0 Topsoil Ll Poorly -Graded Sand C7 Water @ TOB SC, Clayey Sand Slightly Silty Sand SM, Say Sand N = Standard Penetration Test resistance value (bows per foot). The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual subsurface conditions W 11 vary between boring locations. SCALE: (v) 1 = r 3006 Hall Waters Drive GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FIGURE CHECKED By: T. Schipporeit Suite 100 NO. *S&MEWilmington NC 28405 P-1253 Combat Engineer Dig Pit //�� DATE: 9/10/2012 — ENGINEERING . TESTING (910) 799-9958 fax Camp Lejeune, North Carolina ` JOB NO: 1061-12-249A ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES www.smeinc.com I �1 i I I I {, •1a LL of� It B-A •` 1'i '9 v_ • a I` YI �... .t • •1 I � I REFERENCE: UNTITLE, UNDATED DIG PIT SITE LEGEND � PLAN PROVIDED BY CAPE FEAR ENGINEERING. Approximate 0• 60 120' Boring Location SCALE: AS SHOWN BORING LOCATION PLAN FIGURE *S&ME P-12B DIG PIT NUMBER CHECKED BY: NPB MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE DRAWN BY: TMS JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA DATE: 916112 S&ME PROJECT NUMBER: 1061.12-249A Addendum No. 1 to Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P 1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops/Maintenance Complex September 13 2012 Permanent Dewatering If the Dig Pit area is to be left at subgrade elevations below the estimated seasonal high water table and/or typical groundwater depths, then permanent dewatering measures should be anticipated to provide access to the Dig Pit by the Combat Engineer Battalion construction equipment. Potential permanent dewatering measures include sump pumps, wells, and French drains. The degree of permanent dewatering efforts will depend on the design Dig Pit grades relative to the estimated seasonal high and typical groundwater depths. Permanent Slopes Based on a majority of the soils encountered in the Dig Pit soil lest borings, we reconunend that the permanent cut and till slopes be no steeper than 31-1:1 V. We also reconunend that file soils exposed on all slope faces be compacted with track-nmunted equipment pricir to final seeding and mulching. Surface water runoff should be directed away from the slopes. CLOSURE S&ME appreciates the opportunity to submit this letter which presents our additional geoteclmical services for the abovereferenced project. If you have any questions concerning this letter, or if additional information is required, please contact its. Sincerely, S&M11 , Lnc. Tom Schipporeit, P.E. Branch Manager/Senior N.C. Registration No. H TMS:NPB/ins Attachments-: Figure I — Boring Location Plan Figure 2 — Subsurface Profile Soil Test Boring Logs Lalwratory Test Results and Construction Services Manager Distribution: Cape Fearing 1?ngineering, Mr. Perry Davis - perrcdae "iccupeli;ueneinecrine.cnm Cape Fearing Engineering, Nis. \•farm Jones -I iuucs'rr:capctianateinra'ina.cum Cape Fearing Engineering, Mr. \•tau Haley - matt.h:drri/cancic:veminedrin;!.cum Addendum No. 1 to Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops/Maintenance Complex September 13, 2012 Dig Pit Excavation Considerations Temporary construction excavations should be made in strict compliance with the most recent local, state, and federal governing regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. Temporary excavations should be cut to a stable slope or the excavations should be temporarily braced, depending on the excavation depth, nearby site features, and encountered subsurface conditions. Temporary slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1 V, provided the excavations arc adequately dewatcrcd and surcharge loads are not applied at the top of the slopes. Stockpiles should be placed well away from the top edge of the excavations, and their heights should be controlled so they do not surcharge the sides of the excavations. We recommend that stockpiles be set back a minimum horizontal distance from the top edge of the excavation equal to the maximum depth of the excavation. During construction, we anticipate that the use of wellpoints and sump pumps will be required to lower and control groundwater levels. Depending on the depth of the excavations, numerous wellpoints external to the excavations and internal sump pumps may be necessary to keep the water table below the bottom of the excavations. Groundwater should be maintained a minimum of 2 feet below the excavation bottom throughout construction to maintain bottom stability. Use of Dig Pit Soils as Structural Fill The on -site soils meeting the classifications for recommended suitable structural fill given in the Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report, plus meeting the restrictions on organic content and debris, may be used as structural fill and backfill. With the exception of the topsoil/rootmat and clayey sand (SC) encountered in Boring B-A, the Dig Pit soils to a depth of 20 feet appear to be suitable for use as compacted structural fill and backfill. However, excavated Dig Pit soils will require careful moisture control for use as structural fill. Any soils excavated from below the water table will require significant drying to achieve the recommended moisture content and minimum compaction. Soils above the water table may also be relatively dry at the time of construction and require wetting to achieve the recommended moisture content and minimum compaction. During excavation of Dig Pit soils, the contractor should segregate suitable and unsuitable soils based on their classifications and other recommended restrictions. Drier suitable soils (e.g., excavated from above the water table) and wetter suitable soils (e.g., excavated from below the water table) should also be segregated. The wetter soils may require spreading, discing, and drying. Wetter sands with low fines content (SP, SW, SP-SM, SW-SM) excavated from the below the water table can typically be stockpiled and allowed to dry. However, during the typically cooler, wetter months of the year, it may be very difficult to adequately dry and re-usc wct to saturated on -site soils. The use of on -site suitable soils, use of imported off -site soils, wasting of on -site soils, and quantities required are subject to the project design grades and the contractors' means and methods. Addendum No. 1 to Geotechnical Engineering Report SBME Project No. 1061-12-249A P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Ops/Maintenance Complex September 13, 2012 ADDITIONAL FIELD EXPLORATION S&ME's subcontract driller advanced three soil test borings (B-A, B-B, and B-C), each to a depth of 20 feet below the existing ground surface, in the proposed Dig Pit area on August 24, 2012. The boring locations are shown in Figure 1. The borings were located in the field by Cape Fear Engineering's surveyors. The soil test borings were drilled using mud rotary drilling procedures with a CME-45 drill rig mounted on a tow -behind trailer. Within the borings, samples of subsurface soils were generally taken at 2.5-foot intervals in the upper 10 feet, and at 5-foot intervals thereafter using a split -spoon sampler. Standard penetration testing (SPT) was performed in conjunction with split -spoon sampling in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The SPT values given on the boring logs were measured using a standard safety hammer (i.e. traditional rope and cathead hammer system). Representative portions of the split -spoon samples were returned to our laboratory for visual -manual classification in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Boring logs containing soil descriptions, SPT N-values, and drilling observations are included with this report. The ground surface elevations on the attached boring logs and profile were interpolated from the spot elevations shown on the site plan provided to us. ADDITIONAL LABORATORY TESTING S&ME performed moisture content tests, grain -size tests, and Atterberg limits tests on representative soil samples. These tests were performed to confirm visual soil classifications and estimate the engineering properties of the soils tested. Laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. Test results are attached in the Appendix. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dig Pit Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions encountered in the three Dig Pit borings were similar to those encountered in the previous soil test borings drilled at the adjacent Operations/Maintenance Complex project site. In general, the borings encountered loose and medium dense sands, with groundwater measured at depths of 6 to 8 feet. These are likely to be indicative of typical groundwater depths for the site, based on the time of year and regional precipitation patterns in 2012. Based on the site topography, the groundwater depths measured in the borings, and the seasonal high water table depths given in the Onslow County Soil Survey report, we estimate the seasonal high water table to be on the order of 3 to 6 feet deep in the proposed Dig Pit area. September 13, 2012 Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. 151 Poole Road, Suite 100 Belville, North Carolina 28451 Attention: Mr. Perry Davis Reference: Addendum No. 1 to Geotechnical Engineering Report P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Operations/Maintenance Complex Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune Jacksonville, North Carolina S&ME Project Number 1061-12-249A Dear Mr. Davis: S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is pleased to submit this addendum to the'Gcotechnical Engineering Report for the above -referenced project. This work was conducted in general accordance with S&ME Proposal No. 192-12 dated August 20, 2012, and Change to Agreement for Services, Form CA-071. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This addendum is based on emails and telephone conversations between Mr. Perry Davis of Cape Fear Engineering and Mr. Tom Schipporeit of S&ME on August 16, 17, and 20, 2012, in addition to the previously completed geotechnical engineering services for this project'. We understand that the project will also include an excavation area for use by the Combat Engineer Battalion equipment for training exercises. The area may first be used as a borrow pit for structural Fill for construction of the Operations/Maintenance Complex. It may be overexcavated and backfilled with strippings prior to use by the Combat Engineer Battalion. Cape Fear Engineering has requested that soil test borings be performed in this area to evaluate the depth to groundwater and soils for potential structural fill. We assume that the proposed borrow pit will be excavated to depths less than 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Report titled "Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report, P-1253 21) Combat Engineer Battalion, Operations/Maintenance Complex, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina, S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249A", prepared for RQ / Brasfield-Gorrie 1 V, prepared by S&ME, dated August 7, 2012. S&ME, INC. / 3006 Hall WatersDrive, Suite 100 /Wilmington, NC 28405-8786 / p 910799.9945 / / 910.799.9958 / w smeinc.com SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS USING 1-D ELASTICITY THEORY VERSION 1.0 6y TMS- 911195 DATE: 07/43/12 FILE: 'WORST TIME: 10:46 PROJECT NAME: P-1263 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 1061-12-249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION WALL LOAD kips/fl NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 3000 psf FOOTINGWIDTH 2.50 It CENTER OR CORNEWCENTER FOOTINGLENG'IH 50.0 It FOOTING DEPTH 2 ft WATER DEPTH 9 ft NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES MODULUS LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER OF NO. TOP BOTTOM' THICKNESS MIDPOINT ELASTICITY ft ft ft n ksf 1 0 9 7 4.5 200 2 9 15 6 12 200 3 15 21 6 18 1000 4 21 32 11 26.5 1000 5 32 49 17 40.5 500 6 49 60 11 54.5 1000 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 1:: STRESS UISTRIBU'fION X= 1.25 Y= 25 LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS NO. MIDPOINT CHANGE fl psf 1 4.5 0.5000 10.0000 0.5498 1649 2 12 0.1250 2.5000 0.1563 469 3 18 0.0781 1.6625, 0.0956 287 4 26.5 0.0510 1.0204 0.0577 173 5 40.5 0,0325 0.8494 0.0304 91 6 54.5 0,0238 0.4762 0.0183 55 7 0 -0.6250 -12.5000 0.0000 0 8 0 -0.6250 -42.5000 0.0000 0 9 0 .0.6260 -12.5000 0,0000 0 10 0 -0.6250 A2.5000 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. N0. STRESS STRESS .THICKNESS COMPRE=OMPRESS psf psf it It in. 1 0 1649 7 0.058 0.6927 2 0 469 6 0.014 0.1688 3 0 287 6 0.002 0.0206 4 0 173 11 0.002 0.0228 5 0 91 17 0.003 0.0372 6 0 55 11 0.001 0.0073 7 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 8 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 9 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 10 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT 0.079 0.95 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS USING 1-0 ELASTICITY THEORY VERSION 1.0by TMS-9/I/95 DATE: 07/13/12 FILE: WORST TIME: 10:46 PROJECT NAME: P-125320 COMBAT ENGINEER BAT TALON PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 1061-12-249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION WALL LOAD 5 klps/fl NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 psf TOO FIND WIDTH - 2.50 fl CENTER OR CORNEWCENTER FOOTING LENGTH 50.0 0 FOOTING DEPTH 2 9 WATER DEPTH 9 fl NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES MODULUS LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER OF NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT ELASTICITY IT It fl 0 ksf 1 0 9 7 4.5 200 2 9 15 6 12 200 3 15 21 6 18 1000 4 21 32 11 26.5 1000 5 32 49 17 40.5 Soo 6 49 60 11 54.5 1000 7 0 0 0 0 0 8- 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 STRESS DISTRIBUTION X= L25 Y= 25 LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS NO, MIDPOINT CHANGE fl psf 1 4,5 0,5000 10,0000 0.5498 1100 2 12 0.1250 2,6000 0.1563 313 3 18 0.0781 1.5625 0.0956 191 4 26.5 0.0510 1,0204 . 0,0577 115 5 40.5 0,0325 0.6494 0.0304 81 6 54.5 0.0238 0,4762 0.0183 37 7 0 -0,6250 -12.5000 0.0000 0 8 0 .0.6250 -12.5000 0,0000 0 9 0 .0.6250 -12,5000 0.0000 0 10 0 -0.6250 -12,5000 0,0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. NO. STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRES£COMPRESS psf psf It It in. 1 0 1100 7 0.038 0,4618 2 0 313 6 0.009 0A126 3 0 191 6 0.001 0.0138 4 0 115 11 0.001 0,0152 5 0 61 17 0.002 0.0248 6 0 37 11 0.000 0.0048 7 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 8 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 9 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 10 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT 0.053 0.63 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS USING 1-D ELASTICITY THEORY VERSION 1.0 by TMS- 911/95 DATE: 07/13/12 FILE: WORST TIME: 10:46 PROJECT NAME: P-1253 21) COMBATENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 1061-12-249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION WALL LOAD kips/ft NET ALL BEARING PRESSU 2250 psf FOOTING WIDTH 4.33 M CENTER OR CORNEWCENTER FOOTING LENGTH 50.0 ft , FOOTING DEPTH 2 ft WATER DEPTH 9 R NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES MODULUS LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER OF NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT ELASTICITY 8 ft It ft ksf 1 0 9 7 4.5 200 2 9 15 6 12 200 3 15 21 6 18 1000 4 21 32 11 26.5 1000 5 32 49 17 40.5 500 6 49 60 11 54.5 1000 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 P: STRESS DISTRIBUTION X = 2.165 Y = 25 LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS NO. MIDPOINT CHANGE n psf 1 4.5 0.8660 10,0000 0.7694 1731 2 12 0.2165 2.5000 0.2653 597 3 18 0,1353 1.5625 0.1641 369 4 26.5 0.0884 1.0204 0.0995 224 5 40.5 0.0562 0.6494 0.0526 118 6 54.5 0,0412 0.4762 0.0317 71 7 0-1.0825-12.5000 0.0000 0 8 0-1.0825-12.5000 0.0000 0 9 0 .1.0825 .-12.5000 0.0000 0. 10 0-1,0825-12.5000 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITtAL FINAL COMPRESS. NO. STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRESECOMPRESS psf psf ft n in. 1 0 1731 7 0.061 0.7270 2 0 597 6 0,018 0.2149 3 0 369 6 0.002 0.0266 4 0 224 11 0.002 0.0295 5 0 118 17 0.004 0.0483 6 0 7/ 11 0.001 0.0094 7 0 0 0 0.000 0,0000 8 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 9 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 10 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT 0.088 1.06 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS USING 1-D ELASTICITY THEORY VERSION 1.0 by TMS- 9/1195 DATE: 07/13/12 FILE: WORST TIME: 10:46 PROJECT NAME: PA2532D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 1061-12-249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION WALL LOAD 6.5 kips/ft NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 1500 psl FOOTINGWIDTH 4.33 ft CENTER OR CORNEWCENTER FOOTING LENGTH 50.0 It FOOTING DEPTH 2 ft WATER DEPTH 9 ft NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES MODULUS LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER OF NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT ELASTICITY It ft ft It ksf 1 0 9 7 4.5 200 2 9 15 6 12 200 3 15 21 6 18 1000 4 21 32 11 26.5 1000 5 32 49 17 40.5 500 6 49 60 11 54.5 1000 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0. 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 1:: STRESS DISTRIBUTION X = 2.166666667 Y = 25 LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS NO. MIDPOINT CHANGE It psf 1 4.5 0.8667 10.0000 0.7696 1154 2 12 0.2167 2.5000 0.2655 398 3 18 0.1354 1.5625 0.1643 246 4 26.5 0.0884 1.0204 0.0996 149 5 40.5 0.0563 0.6494 0,0526 79 6 54.5 0,0413 0.4762 0.0318 48 7 0 4.0833 -12.5000 0.0000 0 8 0 -1.0833 -12.5000 0.0000 0 9 0 -1.0833 -12,5000 0.0000 .0 10 0 -1.0833 -12.6000 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. NO. STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRES:COMPRESS PSI psf ft R in. 1 0 1154 7 0.040 0.4849 2 0 398 6 0.012 0.1434 3 0 246 6 0,001 0.0177 4 0 149 11 0.002 0.0197 5 0 79 17 0.003 0,0322 6 0 48 11 0.001 0.0063 7 0 0 0 0.000 0,0000 8 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 9 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 10 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 . ELASTIC SETTLEMENT 0.059 0.70 Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249 P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion Camp Leieune Jacksonville NC July 11 2012 5.6 Seismic Design Based on the shear wave velocities measured by the GER seismic CPT sounding (CPT- 1), a Seismic Site Class D designation is appropriate for seismic design in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2012 North Carolina Building Code. 5.7 Foundation Support The proposed buildings, structures, and equipment should be supported on shallow foundations. The net allowable soil bearing pressures given in the following table should be used for design of the shallow foundations bearing on suitable natural soils or properly compacted structural fill: Table 7 — Recommended Net Allowable Soil Bearing Pressures 1 Nev Ilowable Soll Beartn'g -� E .. Pressure s ' s Destgnatlon -, .. s t Plus SustalnedFStattc,,- z E Temporary A Headquarters Building 1500 2250 B Maintenance Facility 2000 3000 C Armory 2000 3000 D Electronic Communications Maintenance Facility 2000 3000 E Supply Warehouse 2000 3000 Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Training (ISMT)' F 2000 3000 Building G Covered Storage 2000 3000 H HAZMAT Storage Shelter 2000 3000 Equipment with Point Loads <= 120 kips 2000 3000 Equipment with 120 kips <Point Loads < 250 kips 1500 2250 Notes: 1) psf = pounds per square foot 2) dead + live.loads from equipment, occupants, etc. 3) seismic and wind temporary; dynamic loads We estimate the total settlement for the footings will be less than 1 inch, which is typically tolerable by structures similar to that proposed. Differential settlement between column footings and along wall footings should also be tolerable (less than about %2- inch). Shallow foundations should be designed to bear at least 24 inches below finished grades for frost protection, for protective embedment, and to achieve adequate bearing capateity. In accordance with the North Carolina Building Code, column footings should be at least 24 inches square and wall footings should be at least 16 inches wide to prevent a punching shear failure of the foundation bearing soils. Turndown slabs should be at least 12 inches wide under walls in accordance with the North Carolina Building Code. We recommend that the footing excavations be observed by the geotechnical engineer's representative to verify that suitable soils are present at, and below, the proposed beating elevation. If sots, very loose, or unsuitable materials are encountered in the footing excavations, they should be undercut and replaced with washed crushed stone (NCDOT No. 15 Geotechnical Engineering Report - S&ME Project No. 1061-12-249 P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion, Camp Leieune. Jacksonville, NC July 11, 2012 Table 1 — Proposed Buildings and Structures L Deelgh — Dastgn First � Foundallon Foundation: Designation Name , Height Frame, Floor ". Walls Load .i,_� Load, Slab Columns Walls . -, � � a... _ •�v , -:;:. =.. _.... ki s _ _ ki' slfoot ^- A Headquarters Building 2 stories Steel Grade Grade Reinforced CMU with brick 250 veneer 1 or 2 Maintenance Facility stories, high Steel On Grade CMU 100�-- bay _ C Armory 1 story Concrete Concrete with brick NIA i— C� Grade veneer Electronic Steel, Concrete D Communications 1 story wncrete, or load- On or CMU Not Given Not Given Maintenance bCMUg Grade with brick Facility veneer 1 story, On E Wareholuse bah Steel Grade CMU 100 3 Indoor F Simulated Marksmanship - 1 story Load. Bearing Raised CMU with brick NIA Training (ISMT) CMU veneer Building G Covered 1 level Steel On None Light (No NIA Storage Grade valuegiven) Concrete Fi HAZMAT 1 story or load- On CMU Light (No Light (No Storage Shelter bearing Grade value given) value given) CMU Note: (a From GER Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report Built-in equipment includes a vehicle exhaust system, a waste oil storage tank, 15-ton hydraulic lifts, 30-ton and 20-ton bridge cranes (with 7.5-ton auxiliary cranes) in addition to multiple 7.5 ton cranes in the maintenance facility, welding hood, woodworking dust collection system, paint booth, lubricant fluid distribution system, overhead doors, radiant heating system, and waste oil collection. The Wash Racks/Pads and Maintenance Facility building may include below -grade pits with cast -in -place reinforced concrete retaining walls up to approximately 6 feet deep. The Maintenance Facility building floor slab will also be designed to support relatively heavy combat construction vehicles, Available information for the heavy vehicles is given in the following table: *S&ME JDB ND. SHEET NO. JOBNAME �-1253 SUBJECT 1+Q /� c1 Ar. ody ISmT pAun tL CP�> /sco lobo m DATE 7`124 A 2' COMPUTED BY $"�r�A✓'"� CHECKED BY 2sDt+ % ) A 5;�-emp 13 p g .3 D 7z!s o z- 2.so d.(�3 3600 0.5s� o.3Z e. Nominiformily. Where it is not possible to create uniform subgrade conditions by the methods described herein, the slab design can be varied throughout the project to maximize economy. Con- crete flexural strength, percent reinforcing steel, and slab thickness can all be adjusted to provide a desiggn which is balanced in terms of service life. The specific combinations to be used will depend upon local conditions and costs, and selection of design alternatives is left to the discretion of the design en ineer. Special soils. Although compaction increases the stability and strength of most soils, some soil types show a marked decrease in stability when scarified, worked, and rolled. Also, there are some. soils that shrink excessively during dry periods and expand excessively when allowed to absorb moisture. In general, these are inorganic clays of relatively high plasticity usually classified as CH soils. Special types of soils are discussed in TM 5- 825-2/AFM 88-6, Chap. 2, TM 5-818-1/AFM 88-3, Chap. 7, and TM 5-818-7. g. Back filling. Special care should be exercised in backfill areas around walls and columns to ensure compliance with compaction requirements outlined in the above paragraphs. Backfilling around walls and columns should be performed with pneumatic tampers, gasoline -powered tampers, and other mechanized hand -operated devices. Soil moisture content and lift thickness should be carefully con- trolled to ensure that compaction requirements are met through the full depth of the backfill. h. Treatment of unsuitable materials. Soils desig- nated as unsatisfactory for subgrade use by MIL-. STD-619 should be removed and replaced. The depth to which such undesirable soils should be removed depends on the soil type, drainage conditions, type of material stored, magnitude of tolerable differential settlement, and depth of freezing -temperature penetration. The depth of removal and replacement should be determined by the engineer on the basis of judgement and.previous experience and with due consideration of the traffic to be served as well as the costs involved. In some instances, unsatisfactory or undesirable soils may be improved economically by stabilization with such materials as cement, fly ash, lime, or certain chemical additives whereby the characteristics of the composite material become suitable for use as subgrade. Criteria for soil stabilization are given in TM 5-822-4. Subgrade stabilization, however, should not be attempted unless the cost reflects corresponding savings in base course, floor slabs, or drainage facilities construction and is approved by HQDA (DAEN-ECE-G)"Washington, DC 2031 4-1 000 or Headquarters, Air Force Engineering Services Center (DEMP)Jyndall AFB, Fla. 32403. 4t/AK:: TM 5-809-1/AFM 88-3, Chap. 15 5-4. Base courses. a. Requirements. Base courses may be required under rigid floor slabs top rovide`protection against detrimental frost action, c ramaee, a— Sol agfe ssuu nOrt to Inco noor Stan. I❑ any or Inc aoove- mentioned applicatto— ns or base courses, an economic study is required to determine base course requirements in floor -slab design. The economic study will typically include costs of base course materials such as hauling and required floor -slab thickness with and without base course. Consideration should also he given to the use of the floor slab, i.e., what material is to be stored and what operations are likely to occur on the floor slab. These considerations will also have an impact on whether to include a base course. b. Compaclion. Where base courses are used, the base -course materials should be compacted in accordance with the criteria given above. With this in mind, note that compaction of thin base courses placed on yielding subgrades to high densities is difficult. c. Drainage. Adverse moisture conditions result- ing from high water table and subsoils subject to capillary action may cause damage to floor covering and stored material. If the subgrade soils provide for movement of water by capillary flow (CH, CL, ME, and ML types) and the ground -water table is less than 5 feet from the final grade, a minimum thickness of 6 inches of free -draining base course will be required. Base courses for drainage will not be required under conditions of deep ground -water table. Positive drainage is to be provided to ensure against water being trapped beneath the pavement. The Floor should he protected against the migration of water vapor through the slab and joints. Water vapor damage is to be prevented by an impermeable membrane placed on the subgrade prior to concrete placement. Such vapor barriers shall be installed even in conjunction with base courses if moisture - susceptible floor coverings or conduits are present. See 'I'M 5-809-2/AFM 88-3, Chap. 2 for embedment of conduits. d. Materials. If conditions indicate that a base course is desirable, a thorough investigation should be made to determine the source, quantity, and characteristics of the available materials. A study should be made to determine the most economical thickness of material for a base course that will meet the requirements. The base course may consist of natural materials, processed materials, or stabilized materials as defined in TM•5-882-4. The material selected should be the one that best accomplishes // 5 i CO✓i C /�P 14eo_" Y p,,, O., «eke use d 6 UPY I 1/ABC- 5-5 TM 5-809-1/AFM 88-3, Chap. 15. iu'woxau nvmm �� Rgare 5.2. Dvslgn cures for mncrele(lwr stab,/ or heavy (orhlt/ts. 5-3 TM 5-809-121AFM 88-3, Chap. 15 � ► - S0CC) �5 31-7ta.b633 1Cc = �03 3��► K 5-2 900 800 700 600 400 300 r� r Imo,.•.•,, Ar Figure 5d. Design curves for concrete floor slobs by design index. IC, 14 9 rl U� r Co ff- -e s i6Lb-S 065 V CHAPTER 5 DESIGN PROCEDURE 5-1. General. Once the floor -slab design requirements have been established, i.e., the type of loadings, including wall loads and both stationary live and moving live loads, the requirements are translated into meaningful design data. These design data are then compared with the existing condition data, and a floor slab design is evolved. The design procedure covers sub - grade conditions, steel reinforcing, and various de- tails such as jointing. 5-2. Floor slab loads. a. Traffic loadings. In order to satisfy require- ments of different types of vehicles and traffic vo- lumes, all Category 1, II, and III traffic has been expressed in terms of equivalent operations of a basic axle loading. The basic loading was assumed to be an 18,000-pound single -axle load with two sets of dual wheels spaced 58-1/2 inches apart with 13-1/2 inches between dual wheels. It should be noted that the basic loading was arbitrarily selected to provide a reasonable spread in the loadings and traffic volumes likely to be encountered under normal conditions. A design index (DI) was devised TM 5-809-1/AFM 88-3, Chap. 15 which expresses varying axle loads and traffic volume in terms of relative severity. The DI ranges from I to 10 with the higher number indicating it more severe design requirement. The basic loading described above was used to assign and rank the DI's. More information concerning the DI can be found in TM 5-822-6/AFM 88-7, Chap, 1, Table 5- 1 shows the DI's for various traffic volumes. Thick- ness requirements for floor slabs which contain only temperature reinforcement for the ten DI's are shown in figure 5-1. The floor -slab thickness requirements are a function of concrete strength and subgrade modulus and Of. Larger forklifts having axle loads greater than 25 kips are treated separately. The required slab thickness for pavements designed for these loads are not significantly affected by vehicles having axle loads less than 25 kips (trucks, cars, buses, and small forklifts). These light loads are therefore ignored in determining requirements for pavements carrying axle loads greater than 25 kips. The thickness requirements for these loads are shown in figure 5-2. Table 5-1. Trafccalegoriesfordesign index Maximum Operations Per Day Over 25 Years Load 50 10-kip axle -load forklift truck 250 10-kip axle -load forklift truck 10 15-kip axle -load forklift truck 250 10-kip axle -load forklift truck 100 15-kip axle -load forklift truck 250 15-kip axle -load forklift truck 5 25-kip axle -load forklift truck _z?) 15-^AG'10 -:` G zs - k'P -:L 5-0 klp Design Index / 5-1 4-3. Environmental conditions. a. Freezing and thmving. Special additional design considerations acid measures are necessary where 6-eezing and thawing may occur in underlying soils. The effects of such occurrences, which are termed "frost action," include surface heaving during freezing and loss of bearing capacity upon thawing. Detrimental frost action is the result of the development and/or thawing of segregated ice in underlying soils. Potential difficulties from frost action exist whenever a source of water is available to a frost -susceptible soil which is subject to subfreezing temperatures during a portion of the, year. Conditions necessary for the development of ice segregation in soils together with a description of the ice segregation process and the detrimental effects of frost action are given in TM 5-818- 2/AFM 88-6, Chap. 4. b. Cold storage facilities. A somewhat different problem is encountered in cold storage facilities where a structure in contact with the ground is maintained at subfreezing temperature. Thus, frost action under such structures is a long-term rather than a seasonal phenomenon, and deep frost penetration will eventually result, even in areas where subfreezing ground temperatures are not naturally experienced, unless insulation or provisions for circulation of warm air beneath the slab are provided in design. Recommended as a reference is American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air -Conditioning Engineering ASHRAE Handbook and Product Directory, Equipment, and Applications, (see Biblio). It should be kept in mind that insulation may merely slow frost penetration. It does not prevent heat flow. c. Permafrost. Since construction alters the ex- isting thermal regime in the ground, an additional problem is encountered in regions where heat flow from the facility may result in the progressive thaw- ing of perennially frozen ground (permafrost). Ther- mal degradation of permafrost which contains masses of ice will result in subsidence as well as reduction in bearing capacity. Both may be severe. The most widely employed, effective, and TM 5.809-1/AFM 88-3, Chap. 15 economical means of maintaining a stable thermal regime in permafrost under slabs -on -grade is by means of ventilated foundation. Provision is made for ducted circulation of cold winter air between the insulated floor and underlying ground. The air chculation serves to carry away the heat both from the foundation and the overlying building, freezing back the upper layers of soil which were thawed the preceding summer. The characteristics of permafrost and engineering pinciples in permafrost regions are described in TM 5-852-1/AhM 88-19, Chap. 1, and I'M 5-852-4. d. Applicable technical manuals. Where freezing and/or thawing may occur in underlying soils, slab design will be in accordance, as applicable, with ,rM 5-818-2/AFM 88-6, Chap. 4 and TM 5-852.4. Thermal computatio procedures are detailed in TM 5-852-6/ AFM 88-19, Chap. 6. 4-4. Concrete strength. a. General. For a given water -cement ratio, the concrete strength likely to be obtained in it given locale depends primarily on the aggregate sources available. Maximum particle size and quality of the coarse aggregate will have a pronounced effect on concrete strength as will the gradation of the blended coarse and fine aggregate. In general, I of the bankrun variety, as opposed to crushed aggregates, will produce a lower -strength concrete due to particle shape. Specified concrete Strength should be sufficient to provide high wear resistance properties, constructability, and a reasonably high flexural stress to attain the greatest economy in the design. A study should be made of the strengths likely to be encountered, since specifying an unusually high -strength concrete mix may result in a higher material cost for the project. b. D•afc Apes. The muainmm concrete compres- sive strength for floors subjected to pneumatic tired traffic will be 4,000 pounds per square inch; for floors subjected to abrasive traffic such as steel wheels, the minimum concrete compressive strength will be 5,000 pounds per square inch. lie htUes 4-3 TM 5-809-1/AFM 88-3, Chap. 15 CHAPTER 3 DETERMINATION OF FLOOR SLAB REQUIREMENTS 3-1. Vehicular loads. The following traffic data are required to determine the floor slab thickness requirements: — Types of vehicles — Traffic volume by vehicle type — Wheel loads, including the maximum single -axle and tandem -axle loading for trucks, forklift trucks, and tracked vehicles — The average daily volume of traffic (ADV) which, in turn, determines the total traffic volume anticipated during the design life of the floor slab. For floor slabs, the magnitude of the axle load is of far greater importance than the gross weight. Axle spacings generally are large enough so that there is little or no interaction between axles. Forklift truck traffic is expressed in terms of maximum axle load. Under maximum load conditions, weight d b Foikli Truck Calegoay I II. III IV V VI came y Forkl]fl Truck klaeLnum Axle Load, kips 5to10� 10 to 15 t- M 15 to 25 6- 25 to 36 36 to 43 43 to 120 When forklift trucks have axle loads less than 5 kips and the stationary live loads are less than 400 Pounds per square foot, the floor slab should be designed in accordance with TM 5-809-2/AFM 88- 3, Chap, 2. Vehicles other than forklift trucks such as conventional trucks shall be evaluated by the drive axle of a forklift truck is normally 87 to 94 percent of the total gross weight of the loaded vehicle. For tracked vehicles, the gross weight is evenly divided between two tracks, and the severity of the load can easily be expressed in terms of gross weight. For moving live loads, axle loading is far more important than the number of load repetitions. Full-scale experiments have shown that changes as little as 10 percent in the magnitude of axle loading are equivalent to changes of 300 to 400 percent in the number of load repetitions. 3-2. Traffic distribution. To aid in evaluating traffic for the purposes of floor slab design, typical forklift trucks have been divided into six categories as follows: �O = Ug h 40 cb� 1•larinuan Load / Capocily, kips ll mmjdvI An v6L— 2 to 4 . EM71 Nusf"y 4 to 6 �^R^ \` 6 to 10 � �LOto 16 !0 16 to 20 20 to 52 considering each axle as one forklift truck axle of approximate weight. For example, a three -axle truck with axle loads of 6, 14, and 14 kips will be considered as three forklift truck axles, one in Category I and two in Category 11. Tracked vehicles are categorized as follows: Forkly? Track Tracked Vehicles Calegory klarhnum Bross Weight, kips 10 I less than 40 11 40 to 60 <Y-- M'f NcE 3a Uhl ✓ 111 60 to 90 y IV 90 to 120 g A'91t.v-I'i- VC'at I2r IZC)+ �", Categories for tracked vehicles may be substituted for the same category for forklift trucks. M/0-T Ll901tri-hic 3-1 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION OPS/MAINTENANCE COMPLEX 12P1253 MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA EPROJECTS W.O. No.: 800511 6. ENGINEERING SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS A10 FOUNDATIONS SYSTEM DESCRIPTION Provide the building foundation system in accordance with UFC 3-301.01, Structural Engineering. Foundation shall be designed to suit subsurface conditions, and shall be capable of transmitting all building loads to the ground. See Section B10, Superstructure, for additional loading criteria. In addition, design the structure In accordance with the following loading criteria: Live Loads Live loads for occupancies or uses not provided in UFC 3-301-01 shall be as follows: Fro w. '� � iG(QPdlri / CrrfiS P00m W.f -+rd tb- ti101 n. Z.o r — A10 GENERAL Coordinate with Part 5 Room Requirements for vehicle requirements on floors of Maintenance Facility. Vehicles Include Buffalo MRAP, HEMMT, HMMWV, MTVR, ACE, Husky, Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge and tracked Assault Breacher Vehicles. Design slabs in accordance with UFC 3- 320-06A. The following vehicle weights are provided for reference and shall be verified during design: Vehicle MRAP - 1.1.1 Vf - IY 1V11J u ozer- .9I �FTus y lVime Detectionyehl % r1 ssmd�Vahtcla- GOVERNMENT PROVIDED GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION 69.8 tonsIt heap i �s-I Subsurface soil information, including a geotechnical report, Is included in other portions of this RFP Any Included subsurface Information is only for the Contractor's information and is not guaranteed to fully represent all subsurface conditions. The Government shall not be responsible for any interpretation or conclusion by the Contractor drawn from (he data or Information. Any geotechnical report accompanying the subsurface information is provided only to better convey data (boring logs, testing, etc.) or to document observed site conditions. The assumptions, analysis, and recommendations of any accompanying report were developed for preliminary planning purposes only and may not reflect present project requirements. The Contractor is required to retain a PART 3 - CHAPTER 6 / ESR A10 - Page 1 Notes: 1. All dimensions exclude maneuver and loading area. Proposers shall provide sufficient tarmac/laydown area for tactical vehicles and equipment to permit forklifting, trailer loading and off-loading, maneuvering of vehicles and clearances for visibility and personnel safety. 2. While in garrison, heavy equipment (loaders, backhoes and other off -road -type equipment) is typically not stored on trailers; therefore, provide sufficient, separate parking space for trailers used to transport equipment. P-1253 2D Combat Engineers BN Operations/Maintenance Complex, MCB Camp Lejeune, NC Tactical Vehicle/Equipment Laydown Requirements N40085-11-R-4025 ITEM: QTY: SURFACE S.F. Utility CO: Water Trailers 25 8' x 15' Generators/trailers 40 8' x 15' AC/R unit trailers 40 8' x 15' Floodlight/generator sets 30 8' x 15' Misc. equipment trailers 40 8' x 15' QUADcons 30 9' x 20' PALcons (stack 2 high) 100 6' x 8' SlXcons (stack 2 high) 50 8' x 8' Motor Transport CO: ,HMMWV — 14t vavee- M IVR (7=ton) & variants HEMRjIT Cougar MRAP/4x4 Cougar MRAP/6x4 Recovery Vehicle (MTVR) M101 & M105 Trailers Mobile Assault CO: / Buffalo MRAP/6x65 Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) ABV Blade sets ABV Recovery Vehicle 1BV/Bridge Placement Vehicle `Husky (set) Husky Recovery/Toolset Husky GPR sets M-9 ACE (rj wll�o2t r MK 155 Line Charge Trailer Heavy Equipment CO: 80 40 10 8 12 2 60 6 10 10 1 4 8 2 8 10 30 f— / S ,lac. 1' x 5' 1553 ' x 5' 15' x 40' -- 2 12'x25' 15'x30' 15' x 35' 8'x15' 18' x 40' 20' x 40' 8' x 10' 20' x 40' 20' x 40' 15'x7Y 1S' x 30' 8' x 10' 15' x 30' 8' x 15' Backhoe/Loader, w/trailer 15 15'x 30' TRAM Loader, large, w/trailer 10 15' x 30' Forklift, small, w/trailer 15 10' x 20' Bulldozer, large, w/trailer 10 15' x 30' S•6 Comm/Elect: Floodlight/generator sets 4 8' x 15' HMMWV 8 10' x25' Trailers 4 8' x 15' SlXcons (stack 2 high) 8 8' x 8' TM 5-809-1/AFM 88-3, Chap. 15 CHAPTER 2 BASIS OF FLOOR SLAB ON GRADE DESIGN 2-1. Stresses. The structural design of a concrete floor slab on grade is primarily controlled by the stresses caused by moving live loads and in some cases the stationary loads. Stresses in floor slabs on grade resulting from vehicular loads are a function of floor slab thickness, vehicle weight and weight distribution, vehicle wheel or track configuration, modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio of concrete, and modulus of subgrade reaction of supporting material. The volume of traffic during the design life is important for fatigue consid- .erations. The floor slab design procedure presented herein is based on limiting the critical tensile stresses produced within the slab by the vehicle loading, as in TM 5-822-6/AFM 88-7, Chap, 1. Correlation studies between theory, small-scale model studies, and full-scale accelerated traffic tests have shown that maximum tensile stresses in floor slabs will occur when vehicle wheels are tangent to a free edge. Stresses for the condition of the vehilcle wheels tangent to an interiorjoint where the .two slabs are tied together are less severe than a free edge because of the load transfer across the two adjacent slabs. In the case of floor slabs, the design can be based on the control of stress at interior joints. Exceptions to this assumption for interior joint loading occur when a wheel is placed at the edge at doorways or near a flee edge at a wall. 2.2 Vehicle -imposed loads. For determining floor slab design requirements, mili- tary vehicles have been divided into three general classifications: forklift trucks, other pneumatic and solid tired vehicles, and tracked vehicles. The relative severity of any given load within any of the three classifications is determined by establishing a relationship between the load in question and a standard loading. Floor slab design requirements are then established in terms of the standard load. Other stresses such as restraint stresses resulting from thermal expansion and contraction of the concrete slab and warping stresses resulting from moisture and temperature gradients within the slab, due to their cyclic nature, will at times be added to the moving live load stresses. Provision for these stresses that are not induced by wheel loads is made by safety factors developed empirically from full- scale accelerated traffic tests and from the observed performance of pavements under actual service conditions. 2-3. Stationary live loads. The maximum allowable stational), live load is lim- ited by both the positive bending moment stress under the load and the negative bending moment stresses occurring at some distance from the load. a. Positive bending moments. Stresses due to positive bending moment are relatively simple to compute by using Westergaard's analysis* of elasti- cally supported plates. An appropriate safety factor is applied to determine allowable stresses due to these loads because environmentally imposed stresses must also be accounted for when considering stationary loads. b. Negative bending moments. The effect of negative bending stress is somewhat more difficult to determine. A stab on an elastic subgrade will deform under loading somewhat like a damped sine curve in which the amplitude or deformation of successive cycles at a distance from the loading position decreases asymptotically to zero. Thus, there exists some critical aisle width where the damped sine curves from parallel loading areas are in phase and additive. In this situation, the negative bending moment stresses wit become significant and must be considered. Therefore, allowable stationary live loads were established to include the effects of negative moment bending stresses. . These calculations arc reflected in the tabulated values of allowable stationary live loads. ' Westergaards analysis Is actually for plates on a liquid foundation, sometimes called a Winkler foundation. There Is a distinct difference between the structural behavolr of plates on a liquid and on an elastic foundation. In many textbooks, the term "beam on elastic foundation" Is actually "beam on liquid foundation." 2-1 UFC 3-320-06A 1 March 2005 UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED U� o t -r Page 8 - Pavement Layer Depths • Use the following table in licit of existing table. Maximum layer depths: Inches (mm) f SF9.5A = 3.0 811 L]� — S9.5X 3.0 0) C 1 S12.5X (100) 119.OX=4.0(110) . B25.OX ---no resh ictions B37.5X --'no restrictions 3 ABC = normally limited to 12.(300), recommended depths are typically 6 (150)°, 8 (200), and 10 (250). 'Typically Secondary Roads. CfABC = 8 (200) for plant nixed; for road mixed 8 (200) with top 7 (175) mixed. Single lift depths: Inches (mm) L-D —-r SF9.SA = 1i5)L.(4 1v—� 200 t to,0)) S2.SX 119.OX=2.5(65)to4.O(110) B25.OX = 3 (75)" to 5.5 (1,10) B37.SX= 4.5 (1 IS) to 6.0 (ISO) ' For B25.OX placed on unitabilized subgrade, the minimum lift thickness is 4.0 (IOOrmn). ABC.=6(1SO)•*to10(250) CTABC = 8 (200) `•8" Preferred minimum on unslabilized subgrade for primary & greater roadways. Any deviations from these depths will be noted on the pavement design letter. • Add 1125.0X to the following sentence. When less than 4 in. (I OOmm) of 112S.OX or BB is used under curb and gutter, Asphalt Curing Seal and Blotting Sand will be recommended for low areas that collect water during construction. Page 12 - Pavement Drainage -Shoulder Drains • Use 40,000 in lieu of50,000 in thefollowing sentence. For projects with average daily traffic of 50,000 and heavy tmek percent greater than 15%, shoulder drains are highly recommended. Page 13 - Pavement Type Selection • Use 1986 in lieu of 1993 in the following sentence: The process will closely follow the type selection guidelines as presented in Appendix B of the 1993 Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. n r Ltsl<+ L1.I� 73�a �s� Ls (D,14J 7 MODIFICATIONS TO THE APRIL 2000 INTERIM PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURE March 2006 Page 3 _ Terminal Serviceability Index • Use 40, 000 AD in lieu of 50, 000 ADT in the following sentence. A terminal serviceability index (p) of 2.75 will be used for roadways where the 20-year traffic projection exceeds 50,000 ADT with a high heavy truck volume. Page 4— Layer Coefficients — Superpave Mix Designs • Use the following table in lieu of existing table. En lish Metric Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type S9.5X, SF9.5A .44 O.O17 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, Type S 12.5X 0.017 Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course, Type f 19.OX 0.44 0.017 Asphalt Concrete ➢ase Course, Type B25.OX 0.30 0.012 Asphalt Concrete Base Course, Type B37.5C 0.30 0.012 Page 6 — Loading Levels • Use the fallowing table in lieu of existing table. !=0 =;I Mix Type Loading Range Million ESAL's Asphalt Binder Grade _ .Surface SF9.5A Less Than 0.3 PG64-22 59.513 Less than 3.0 PG64-22 89.5C 3 to 10 P670-22 S12.5C 3 to 30 PG70-22 512.5D _ Over 30 PG76-22 Intermediate _ 119.013 Less than 3.0 P064-22 II9.00 3 to 30 PG64-22, I19.013 Over 30 PG70-22 (lase B25.OB Less than 3.0 PG64.22 B25.00 3 or Greater PG64-22 1337.5C. 3 or Greater PG64-22 ESALIS _ 0,4Corn�l�;a, LSA-L-s asPh4c� A36 - "7 (3�io,99) t ll4f)(D.I`F,� 2•i`� 7 2.4=5/dre' 27 G) C Z7 M 01 m U 6 C v U) w z 00 5 =0 X ar m w Q 4 } a m J m 0 F- m Q a a D 2 2 z �✓Y1 i ✓l — � -�'' 1 r ea"') T REGIONAL FACTOR I Wt 18 10T 5 x 106 ,_.06 Approximate Daily IS Kip Loads (20 yr. design) 1,400 700 400 6 140 )5 5 1 14 ZSbi j-L0ci JIl O •N r b m n A ,,r^►1 co V/ n ' �o r G7 M z 00 a <9 n p - ^' a:m N � fb 'T a t7`36nou s 9 S-SOII SUPPORT VALUE p m J m EOU V. DAILY IBk SINGLE AXLE LOAD APPLICATIONS u o u 0 a N W O 0 , p 0 0 00 oO d P-STRU TURAL.NUMRER a, RE R•REOIONA f CTOR a d k� b SN-WEIGHTED 5TRUCTUR4L NUMBER 4 WIt N V�' q RE AL FACTORS 8 0.5 0 1.57 S l� -2- F[.RK I BLB: 1. Regional factor: See, Figure 3 = O. - 2, Use AASHO Chart 400-2 (Fig. 4) to determine weighted structural number required. 3. Use Figure 5 to determine minimum asphalt thickness on ABC. 4. Work up two or more designs to satisfy required SN. structural Coefficient Per inch Thickness Surface Courses: Bit. Conc., Type I-1 @ 0,44 Bit. Cone., Type 1-2 @ 0.44 Sand Asphalt @ 0.40 Binder Courses: Bit. Co no,, Tjpe H @ 0.44 Base Courses: STBC @ 0 Aec @ 0.14 Bit. Cone., Type HB @ 0.30 Sand Asphalt @ 0.30 .Cem.-Treated ABC @ 0.23 5. Determine quantities and estimated cost per linear foot including shoulder construction. RIGID: 1. Worki Stress in concrete = 490,psi. 2. Use Figure 2 determine K (S est K-200 with untreated base and K-400 with treated base). 3. Use AASNO Chart 400- 6) to determine D2 - required slab thickness. 4. Add one-i if no load transfer vices are to be used. 5. De rmine quantities and estimated cost linear foot including oulder construction. IQL, POT" C IY$ ZJ \I. 94471'ey Pam-- l0 /3E vSF� /n/ Cor �3� vC 7-ivN Lrrr/,r GDO i Truck Loading Factors (January 1990 update) Flexible Pavement �Q(� a y" 18 Kip ESALs \� DUALS TTST ral ral I eeway Other 0.30 an reeway 0.30 2 Urban Other 0.25 0.80 Rural Freeway Rural Other Urban Freeway Urban Other Rigid Pavement 18 Kip ESALs DUALS TTST 0.30 1.60 0.35 1.30, 0.35 1.20 0.25 1.10 �� NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURE ALL TYPES EAL�� DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS October 1, 1981 DESIGN SERVICES UNIT I. Soil types, CBR value, and Soil Support Value supplied by Geotechnical Unit. (Figs. 162) 2. Traffic volumes (Present 6 20-year ADT) and truck co m sition from Planning Department. A55Ljry)e- j�re5eni oZa-aeo ACC_ J. Traffic An = 5a0C) Veh:r-ie5 Pe d7 1e 14wr I7Z. a. Average ADT - _Present ACT + 20-year ADT 2 A-0 SUDO "10"/ b. One direction - Avg. ADT — Spo 2 C. Design Lane = 1-Direction (1 lane each direction). = p or Design Lane = 1-Direction X .80 (2 lanes or more each C\"O 5 Y 070 direction). 7-5T g d. Dual -Tired Trucks = Design Lane Traffic X 1 Duals. - SO TTST = Design Lane Traffic X % 7,rST. -e �'c e.. (1) Flexible Design 0.3o 0.95;- 18 Kip Loads = (No. Duals X a-,")* + (No. TTST X 0," * /(2)—RYTd-VeTgn 18 33)A 4 ,u, I e�-0P ors for number of equivalent daily 18 kip single axleload applications truck based on latest available Truck Weight Survey. L ge / l9O Y061C, (ne4 Pope) S70 (,00d'�5 +(QO�ooO over ZO�� TM 5-809-121AFM 88-3, Chap. 15 Table ✓-l. 71pical rahtes o%moduhis ofsabg,nr7e reac(ion Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k, in lb/in' 1 for Moisture 5 9 13 Contents 17 of 21 25 to to to to to to to Over Tvoes of Materials 4% _ jai ILO ZU 2-U M 2.9% Silts and clays -- 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 ' Liquid limit > 50 (OH, CH, MH) Silts and clays -- 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 Liquid limit < 50 (OL, CL, ML) Silty and clayey 300 250 225 Q10 150 — — -- sands SM & SC) Gravelly nds 300+ 300 (SW & P) Silty and clayey 300+ 300+ 300 250 — — — -- gravels-(GM & GC) Gravel and sandy 300+ 300+ — — — — — -- gravels (GW & GP) NOTE: k values shown are typical for materials having dry densities equal to 90 to 95 percent of the maximum CE 55 density. For materials having dry densities less than 90 percent of maximum CE 55 density, values should be reduced by 50 Win', except that a k of 25 Win' will be the minimum used for design. 4-2 II ,�-,20 00 ! e e CALIFORNIA OEARI113 1 10 - CDR' i � ro Ioteloo UNIFICO SOIL CLASSIFICATION I Caps of Engineers US.Armt and U.3.0ureau of Reelamalbn 1 AASHO Still CLASSIFICATION 0urtou of Public Roade M 1 i I FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY SOIL CLASSIFICATION 1 !o so RESISTANCE VALVE - R eo So a I "1 701 eo u 1 w0 ISO NOOULUS OF SUBGRAOE !00 _._. REACTION•, pu ptrrt 37, _,_SOg,_..,...,ca.,__..soo._eoo _ _T00-I-too 1 � 1 � . I 10 (]0•indiomeler OEARINa, VALUE . 031 I 1 plat, O.Hn defleclldnl !0 SO- eo f0 . I to I s0 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO- CSR I s e e t r I 110 s :o- a so eo so eo to to So too 'Sewtea for .gear 04.1 we 014" m PCA gal N,mt, Approximate Interrelationships of Boll classificationsand bearing values. FG_U,RE-__--2_. n►r.DOTC 198 � JOB NAME SUBJECT JOB. SHEET NO. � � ♦.w r rYr a �,�y , '5441W Loeb %aesk(fS 50 li 3,17 /��J eo'^ i ?e4#4 Il 4� DATE COMPUTED BY CHECKED BY r%j p Gi 37.E 13,Z 27, Z 13.1 Z�-O l3,S cB P-a�5 - Z9 � - 3 r-) JOBNAME P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion SUBJECT Pavements OBJECTIVES: Camp Lejeune, NC JOB NO. 106I-12-2,19 SHEET NO. t of DATE 7/3/2012 COMPUTED BY 'r, Schipporeit CHECKED BY • Determine pavement sections thicknesses for flexible (asphalt) and rigid (concrete) pavements. METHODS: • AASHTO Structural Number (Sn) Method and NCDOT Method for flexible pavements. e Stationary live load method for heavy vehicles on rigid pavements. ASSUMPTIONS: • Light Duty Traffic (Parking Lot) = I ESAL per day (7300 ESAL's over 20-year life) • Heavy Duty Asphalt (Design turn -lane) traffic will less than 5,000 vehicles per day with I% dual -axle trucks and l% tractor trailer trucks. • Others as noted in calculations. REFERENCES: • North Carolina Department of Transportation (1992), "Pavement Design Procedure", Division of Highways, Pavement Design & Analysis Section, Design Services Unit. • North Carolina Department of Transportation (2000), "Interim Pavement Design Procedure", Pavement Management Unit. • North Carolina Department of Transportation (2006), "Modifications to the April 2000 Interim Pavement Design Procedure". • UFC 3-230-06A, March 2005, Concrete Floor Slabs on Grade Subjected to I-feavy Loads IBC Building Code Seismic Site Class Calculation ("N Method") Job No.: 1061-12-249 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion DATE: 6/30/2012 Location: Camp Lejeune, NC Boring No. GB-1 Analysis By: TMS Top Layer (feet) Bottom Layer (feet) d, now) N-value d^ I dIINi - i N,V9 ISeismic Site Class 0 2 2 3, 0.77 9.09 100 ill E 2 4 2 5 0.38 Se C) (S Ove"I 7 I / U s(a S ( Se IS'141C Gf - 4 6 2 5 0.38 6 8 2 5 0.38 8 10 2 7 0.31 10 12, 2 10 0.19 12 15 3 7 0.46 15 20 5 20 0.26 20 25 5 23 021 25 30 5 18 0.27 30 35 5 3 1.92 35 40 5 4 1.28 40 45 5 5 0.96 45 50 5 49 0.10 50 55 5 25 0.20 55 1 60 5 44 0.11 60 65 5 46 0.11 65 70 5 46 0.11 70 75 5 46 0.11 75 80 5 46 0.11 80 85 5 46 0.11 85 100 1 15 46 0.33 Note: User Input Values in Blue, Bottom Layer 100 feet Minimum Depth Reference Section 1615 2000 North Carolina Building Code N„� = E d; / (E (di / No ) (Equation 16-23) where: Navg = Weighted average N value di = thickness of incremental layer in the upper 100 feet with N = N; Ni = N value in incremental layer not to exceed 100 alue /m/xro"/ Ll 5 L/C'. /a PS, S 6-3O.1z-- IBC Building Code Seismic Site Class Calculation ("Vs Method") Job No.: 1061-12-249 Project Name: P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion DATE: 6/30/2012 Location: Camp Lejeune, NC Boring No. CPT-1 Analysis By: TMS Top Layer (feet) Bottom Layer (feet) di(fKq Vs -value dNs; — si i Vs,,,9 Seismic Site Class 0 9 9 550 0.02 0.09 100 11001 D 9 19 10 950 0.01 19 29 10 700 0.01 29 39 10 650 0.02 39 49 10 700 0.01 49 59 10 1800 0.01 59 69 10 2900 0.00 69 73 4 2800 0.00 73 100 27 2800 1 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 " 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 1 0.00 Note: User Input Values in Blue, Bottom Layer 100 feet Minimum Depth Reference Section 1613.5.5 2009 North Carolina Building Code Vo-3vg = E d; / (r (di / Vs) ) (Equation 16-41) where: Vs-avg = Weighted average Vs value di = thickness of incremental layer in the upper 100 feet with n = n; Vsi = Vs value in incremental layer v Camp Lejeune, J09NAME P-1253 2D Combat Engineer Battalion NC SUBJECT Seismic Site Classification OBJECTIVES: • Determine Seismic Site Classification for structural design. METHODS: • IBC N-value method IRC Vs -value method. ASSUMPTIONS: As noted in calculations. REFERENCES: Joe NO. 1061-12-249 SHEET NO. . I of DATE 6/3012012 COMFUTEDaY T. Schipporeit CHECKED BY North Carolina Building Code (2012), based on 2009 International Building Code, published by North Carolina Code Council and North Carolina Department of Insurance. SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS ON CORES WE SOIL USING TER7.AGH 11-0 CONSOLIDATION THEORY VERSION 20 by TMS- 8/3112009 DATE: OC/27/12 BORING'. WORST ' TIME 09'.32 PROJECT NAME' P-125320 COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO. 108t-12 249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPER TIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION COLUMN LOAD 120 kips NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 pit FOOTING WIDTH 7.7 A CENTER OR CORNER'CENTER FOOTING LENGTH 7.7 ft FOOTING DEPTH 2 M1 WATER DEPTH - 9 A NOTE: YOU MUST IIAVE ALAYER BOUNDARY ATWATEROEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES BOUYANT LAYER DEPTH UEPIH COMPRESS. LAYER UNIT INITIAL NO. TOP BOTTOM 'THICKNESS MIDPOINT WEIGHT STRESS 0 ft ft ft I'd pit 1 0 9 7 4.5 100.00 450 2 9 15 6 12 48.00 1044 3 15 21 6 18 68.00 1302 4 21 32 11 28.5 58.00 1855 5 32 49 17 40.6 2800 2412 6 49 60 11 54.5 58W 2%9 7 0 0 0 0, 0.00 0 8 0 0 0 0 0,00 0 9 0 0 0 0 0.Do 0 10 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 COMPRESSION PROPERTIES MAX. PAST LAYER OCR CC CR PRESSURE NO, Pit 1 1.0 000 0.000 450 2 10 0.00 0000 IN4 3 1.0 0.DO 0.000 iW2 4 1.0 0.Do DOW 1865 5 1.0 0.00 0.000 2412 6 1.5 0,11 0.012 4454 7 1.0 0.00 0.000 0 8 1.0 0.00 0000 0 9 1.0 000 0000 0 io 1.0 0.00 0.000 0 I: STRESS DISTRIBUTION X= 3872W3340 Y= 3.872983348 - LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS NO. MIDPOINT CHANGE 9 pit I 4.5 L. 92 1.5492 0.8721 1744 2 12 03873 0,3873 0,2289 458 3 10 0.2421 02421 0.1019 204 4 26.5 BANS 0.1581 0.0458 92 5 40.5 0.1005 0.1006 00190 38 6 m5 0,0739 0.0738 00103 21 " 7 0 -1.9365 -1.9365 0.0000 0 B 0 .1.9365 -1.9365 0.0000 0 9 0 -1.9365 -1.9385 0.0000 0 10 0 -L9365 .1,9385 00000 0 LAYER COMPR F.$SION$ LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS, STRAIN NO. STRESS .STRESS THICKNESS COMPRESZCOMPRESS pit pit A ft In. 1 450 2194 7 00000 0000 0.0000 2 1044 15N 6 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 3 1362 1566 6 0.0000 0 000 00000 4 I855 1947 11 0,0000 0000 00000 5 2412 2450 17 0.0000 0Boo 000DO 6 '2969 2990 11 0.0000 0.000 BOWS 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT 0.000 0.00 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS USING 1-D ELASTICITY THEORY VERSION 1.0 by TMS- 011195 DATE: 06/27/12 CASE: WORST TIME: 09:30 PROJECT NAME: P-1253 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 1061-12-249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION COLUMN LOAD 120kips NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 psi FOOTING WIDTH 7.7 ft - CENTER OR CORNER' CENTER FOOTING LENGTH 7.7 it FOOTINGDEPTH 2 ft WATER DEPTH 9 ft NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES MODULUS LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER OF NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT ELASTICITY I ft ft It ksf 1 0 9 7 4.5 200 2 9 15. 6 12 . 200 3 15 21 6 18 1000 4 21 32 11 26.5 1000 5 32 49 17 40.5 500 6 49 60 11 54.5 . 1000 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 I STRESS DISTRIBUTION X = 3.872983346 Y = 3.872983346 LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS NO. MIDPOINT CHANGE ft psi 1 4.5 1.5492 1.5492 0.8721 1744 2 12 0.3873 0.3873 0.2289 458 3 18 0,2421 0,2421 0.1019 204 4 26.5 0.1581 0.1581 0.0458 92 5 - 40.5 0A006 0.1006 0.0100 38 6 64.5 0,0738 0.0738 0.0103 21 7 0 -1.9365 -1.9365 0.0000 0 8 0 -1.9365 -1.9365 0.0000 0 9 0 -1.9365 -1.9365 0.0000 -' 0 10 0 -1.9365 A.9365 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. NO. STRESS . STRESS THICKNESS COMPRESSCOMPRES! psi psi ft . it in. 1 0 1744 7 0.0610 0.7326 2 0 458 6 0,0137 0.1648 3 0 204 6 0.0012 0.0147 4 0 92 11 0.0010 0.0121 5 0 38 17 0.0013 0.0155 6 0 21 11 0.0002 0.0027 7 0 0 0 0.0000 0,0000 a 0 0 0 0.0000 0,0000 9 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 io 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT 0.1 0.94 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS ON COHESIVE SOIL USING TERZAGHI I-D CONSOLIDATION THEORY VERSION ZO by TMS- MlR DATE: 0607I12 BORING: WORST TIME: 09,32 PROJECT NAME: P-I25320 COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 105142 249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION COLUMN LOAD 250 kips NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 15W psi FOOTING WIDTH 129 R CENTER OR CORNFR'CENI ER FOOTING LENGTH 12.9 R FOOTING DEPTH 2 D WATER DEPTH 9 8 NOTE: YOU MUST HAVEA LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES BOUYANT LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS, LAYER UNIT INITIAL NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT WEIGHT STRESS B B B 0 pd psi 1 0 9 7 4.5 ID0.00 450 2 9 15 6 12 0IN 1044 3 15 21 6.• 1$ 58.00 iW2 .4 21 32 11 28.5 58.00 11155 5 32 49 17 40.5 2800 2412 6 49 60 11 54.5 66.00 2969 7 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 8 0 0 0 0 0DO 0 9 0 0 0 D 0.00 0 10 0 0 0 0 0DO 0 COMPRESSION PROPERTIES MAX PAST LAYER. OCR CC CR PRESSURE NO. Psi 1 10 0.00 0NO 450 2 1.0 0.00 0000 1644 3 1.0 0.00 0000 1362 4 1.0 0 00 0 NO 1855 5 1.0 0.00 0.000 2412 6 1.5 0.11 0.012 4454 1 1.0 0.00 0,000 D 8 Lo 0.00 0000 0 9 1.0 0.00 ONO 0 10 1.0 0.00 OOW 0 C STRESS DISTRIBUTION X = 6 454972244 Y = 6.454972244 LAYER LAYER m 0 Iz STRESS N0, MIDPOINT CHANGE B PSI 1 4S 2.5820 25820 1.0000 I500 2 12 0.6455 0.6455 0.4666 7W 3 IB 04W,l 0.4034 0.2442 366 4 26.5 0,2635 0.2635 0.1188 178 5 40.5 0.1677 0.1671 0.0513 77 6 54 5 0.1230 0.1230 0 W82 42 7 0 32275 -3,2275 00000 0 8 0 32275 32275 00000 0 9 0 .32276 -3n75 00000 0 10 0 3.2275 3.2275 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSION$ LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. STRAIN NO. STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRF=OMPRESS psi psi it B In. 1 450 1950 7 0.0000 0ON OWN 2 IN4 1744 6 00000 0.000 0,0000 3 1362 1728 6 BOON 0.000 0,0000 4 1855 2033 11 0A000 0,ON 0.0000 5 2412 2489 17 0.0000 0000 0.0000 6 2969 WIT 11 0,0001 Owl O.DOB7 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT 0.001 0.01 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS USING 1-D ELASTICITY THEORY VERSION 1.0 by TMS- 91V05 DATE: 06/27/12 CASE: WORST TIME: 09:28 PROJECT NAME: P-1253 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 1061-12-249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION COLUMN LOAD 250 kips NET ALI., BEARING PRESSU 1500 psi FOOTING WIDTH 12.9 It CENTER OR CORNER' CENTER FOOTING LENGTH 12.9 It FOOTING DEPTH 2 ft WATER DEPTH 9 ft NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES MODULUS LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER OF NO, TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT ELASTICITY It ft ft It ksf 1 0 9 7 4.5 200 2 9 15 6 12 200 3 is 21 6 18 1000 4 21 32 11 26.5 1000 5 32 49 17 40.5 500 6 49 60 11 54.5 1000 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 I:: STRESS DISTRIBUTION X= 6.454972244 Y= 6.454972244 LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS NO, MIDPOINT CHANGE 0 psf 1 4.5 2,5820 2.5820 1.0000 1500 2 12 0.6455 0.0455 0.4606 700 3 18 OA034 0.4034 0.2442 366 4 26.5 0.2635 0.2635 0.1188 178 5 40.5 0.1677 0.1677 0.0513 77 6 54.6 0.1230 0.1230 0.0282 42 7 0-3.2275-3.2275 0.0000 0 8 0-3,2275-3.2275 0.0000 0 9 0-3.2275-3.2275 0.0000 0 10 0-3.2275-3.2275 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS, NO. STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRES:COMPRESS psi psf a ft in. 1 0 1500 7 0.0525 0.6300 2 0 700 6 0.0210 0.2520 3 0 366 6 0.0022 0.0264 4 0 178 11 0.0020 0.0235 5 0 77 17 0.0026 0.0314 6 0 42 11 0,0005 0.0056 7 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 8 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 9 0 0 0 0.0000 0,0000. 10 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT 0.1 0.97 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS ON COHESIVE SOIL USING TER7AGHI 1-D CONSOLIDATION THEORY VERSION 2.0 b/ TMS 81312009 DATE: 0627112 FILE: AVE' TIME: W25 PROJECT NAME: P-125320 COMBAT ENGINEER BAT TALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAIAP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO. 1061-12-249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION WALL LOAD 5 KIps70 HE T ALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 Psi FOOTING WIDTH 2.50 B CENTER OR CORNER'CENTER FOOTING LENGTH 500 0 FOOTING DEPTH 2 0 WATER DEPTH 9 0 NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES BOUYANT IAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER UNIT INITIAL NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT WEIGHT STRESS 0 it 0 TI pd psi 1 0 9 7 4.5 100.00 450 2 9 15 6 12 48.00 1044 3 15 21 6 18 5800 1362 4 21 32 11 26.6 5800 1855 5 32 49 17 405 28.00 2412 6 49 80 11 54,5 58.Do 2969 7 0 0 0 0 0Do 0 8 0 0 0 0 0,Do 0 9 0 0 0. 0 0.00 0 10 0 0 0 0 0Do 0 COMPRESSION PROPERTIES MAX PAST LAYER OCR CC CR PRESSURE NO. psi 1 1.0 0.00 0.000 450 2 1,0 0.00 0000 1044 3 1.0 DOD 0.000 1362 4 1.0 Goo 0000 I 5 1.0 0.00 0.000 202 6 1.5 0.11 0012 44U 7 1.0 ODD 0.000 0 6 I.D 0Do 0000 0 9 1.0 (100 0000 0 10 1.0 0.00 0.000 0 C: STRESS DISTRIBUTION X= 1.25 Y= 25 LAYER LAYER m n Iz ` STRESS NO, MIDPOINT CHANGE 0 psL 1 4.5 D5000 10.0000 05498 1100 2 12 0,1260 2,5000 0.1563 313 3 18 00781 L5625 0.0958 191 4 265 00510 1.0204 0.0577 115 5 40.5 0.0325 0.6494 0.0304 61 6 54.5 00238 0.4162 0.0183 31 7 0 -0.6250 -12,6000 00000 0 8 0 0.6250 -12.5000 0.0000 0 9 0 -0.6250 -125000 0.00D0 0 10 0 -06250 -12.5000 000D) 0 IAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. STRAIN NO, STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRE=OMPRESS psL PO 0 0 m. 1 450 1550 7 00000 0.000 D0000. 2 1044 1357 6 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 3 1W2 1553 6 0.DODO 0000 0DODD 4 1855 1970 11 0,0000 0000 00000. 5 2412 2473 17 0.0000 0000 0.0000 6 2969 3006 11 00001 0001 0.0084 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT 0.001 0.01 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS USING 1-D ELASTICITY THEORY VERSION 1.0 by TMS- 9/1/95 DATE: 06/27/12 FILE: WORST TIME: 09:25 PROJECT NAME: P-12532D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: W"-12.249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION WALL LOAD 1 5 kipslfl NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 psf FOOTINGWIDTH 2.50 It CENTER OR CORNEWCENTER FOOTING LENGTH 50.0 It ' FOOTING DEPTH 2 A WATER DEPTH 9 It NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES MODULUS LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER OF NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT ELASTICITY ft 0 0 It ksf 1 0 9 7 4.6 200 2 9 . 15 6 12 200 3 15 21 0 18 1000 4 21 32 11 26.5 1000 5 32 49 17 40.5 500 6 49 60 11 54.5 1000 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 1:: STRESS DISTRIBUTION X = 1.25 Y = 25 LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS N0. MIDPOINT CHANGE 8 psf 1 4.5 0.5000 10.0000 0.5498 1100 2 12 0.1250 2.5000 0.1563 313 3 18 0.0781 1.5625 0.0956 191 4 26.5 0.0510 1.0204 0,0577 115 5 40.5 0.0325 0.6494 0.0304 61 6 54.5 0,0238 0.4762 0.0183 37 7 0-0.6250-12.5000 0,0000 0 8 .0-0.6250-12.5000 0.0000 0 9 0-0,6250,-12.5000 0.0000 0 10 0-0.6250 A2.5000 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. NO. STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRES9COMPRESS psf psf 0 0 In. 1 0 1100 7 0.038 0.4618 2 0 313 6 0.009 0.1126 3 0 191 6 0.001 0.0138 4 0 116 11 0.001 0.0152 5 0 61 17 0.002 0.0248 6 0 37 11 0.000 • 0.0048 7 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 8 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 9 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 10 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT 0.053 0.63 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS ON COHES W SOIL USING TERZAGHI 1-0 CONSOLIDATION THEORY VERSION2.06YTMS W312009 DATE: 0827112 BORING: WORST ' TIME: 09,25 PROJECTNAME: P-12532D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO 1061-12-249 ENGINEER 1. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDAIIONPROPERIIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION COLUMN LOAD 250 kips NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 psi ' FOOTING WIDTH 11.2 it CENTER OR CORNER' CENTER FOOTING LENGTH 11.2 B FOOTING DEPTH 2 0 WATER DEPTH 9 R NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE ALAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPER I IES BOUYANT LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER UNIT INHIAL NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT WEIGHT STRESS 0 IT 0 0 pU psi 1 0 9 7 4.5 10000 460 2 9 15 6 12 48.00 1044 3 15 21 6 18 58.00 1362 4 21 32 14 26.5 58.00 1655 5 32 49 17 40.5 28.00 2412 6 49 SO 11 54.5 68.00 2969 7 0 0 0 0 0.GO 0 e 0 0 0 0 000 0 9 0 0 0 0 000 0 10 - 0 0 0 0 0,00 0 COMPRESSION PROPERTIES MAX PAST LAYER OCR CC CR PRESSURE NO. p31 1 1.0 0.00 0.000 450 2 10 000 Dom 1044 3 1.0 0.00 0.000 1362 4 1.0 0.00 0.000 1655 5 1.0 0.00 0000 2412 6 1.5 0.11 0.012 4454 7 1.0 0.00 0000 0 8 1,0 0.00 0.ODD 0 9 1.0 0.00 BOOR 0 10 1.0 Boo 0,000 0 1: STRESS OIS1ftIBUT10N X. 5, 590169844 Y= 5.590169944 LAYER LAYER in n Iz STRESS N0, MIDPOINT CHANGE 0 PST 1 4.5 2.2361 2.2381 110000 2000 2 12 0.5590 0.5590 0.3909 782 3 18 BUN 0.3494 0.1936 387 4 28.5 02282 0.2282 0.0915 183 5 40.6 OA452 OA452 0,030 78 6 545 0.1065 OAO85 0.0213 43 7 0 -2.7951 -21951 0.0000 0 8 0 .2.7951 -2.7951 0.000 0 9 0 .2.7951 -21951 00000 0 10 0 '2,70S1 -2.7951 00000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. STRAIN NO, STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRESSCOMPRESS psf psi 0 it in. 1 460 2450 7 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 2 1044 1826 6 0.0000 0000 0.0000 3 1362 1749 6 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 4 1655 20M 11 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 5 24/2 2490 17 0.0000 0.000 0,000D 6 2969 W12 11 0.=1 0.001 BMW 7 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 CONSOLIDATION SET TLEMENT 0.001 0.01 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS USING I-D ELASTICITY THEORY VERSION 1.0 by TMS- 911196 DATE: 06/27/12 CASE: WORST TIME: 09:25 PROJECT NAME: P4253 20 COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 1061-12-249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPORFIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION COLUMN LOAD 250 kips NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 psf FOOTING WIDTH 11.2 ft . CENTER OR CORNER' CENTER FOOTING LENGTH 11.2 It FOOTING DEPTH 2 it WATER DEPTH 9 ft NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES MODULUS LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER OF NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT ELASTICITY ft It ft ft ksf 1 0 9 7 4.5 200 2 9 15 6 12 200 3 15 21 6 18 1000 4 21 32 11 26.5 1000 5 32 49 17 40.5 500 6 49 60 11 54.5 1000 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 STRESS DISTRIBUTION X = 5.590169944 Y = 5.590169944 LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS N0. MIDPOINT CHANGE LL psi 1 4.5 2,2361 2.2361 1.0000 2000 2 12 0,5590 0.5590 0.3909 782 3 18 0,3494 0.3494 0.1936 387 4 26.5 0,2282 0.2282 0.0915 183 5 40.5 0.1452 0.1452 0.0389 78 6 54.5 0. 1065 0A065 0,0213 43 7 0 -2.7951 -2.7951 0.0000 0 8 0 -2.7951 -2.7951 0.0000 0 9 0 .2.7951 -2.7951 0.0000 0 10 0 -2.7951 -2,7951 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. NO. STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRES:COMPRESS PSI PSI ft ft In. 1 0 2000 7 0.0700 0.8400 2 0 782 6 0.0235 0.2814 3 0 387 8 0.0023 0.0279 4 0 183 11 0.0020 0.0242 5 0 78 17 0.0026 0.0317 6 0 43 11 0.0005 0.0056 7 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0060 8 0 0 0 o.0000 0.0000 9 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 t0 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT 0.1 1.21 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS ON COHESNE SOIL USING TERZAGHI I D CONSOLIOAI ION THEORY VER31ON 2.0 by IMS. 8131/2009 DATE: OW7112 FILE: AVE TIME: 06.51 PROJECT NAME: P-12W 2D COMBAT ENGINE ER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP IEJEUNE, NO PROJECT NO: iWI-12.249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION WALLLOAD 5 kJpsM NEI ALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 pit FOOTING WIDTH 2,50 R CENTER OR CORNEB'CENTER FOOTING LENGTH S0.0 R FOOTING DEPTH 2 R WATER DEPTH 9 R NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE ALAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES BOUYANT LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER UNIT INITIAL NO, TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT WEIGHT STRESS R 0 R R I'd pel 1 0 9 7 4.5 110 W 495 2 9 15 6 124800 1134 3 IS 21 6 IB 58.M 1452 4 21 32 11 26.5 58,00 INS 5 32 49 17 40.5 38.00 2587 6 49 60 11 54.5 58.00 3229 7 0 0 0 0 000 0 8 0 0 0 0 000 0 9 0 0 0 0 000 0 10 0 0 0 0 000 0 COMPRESSION PROPERTIES MAX.PAST LAYER OCR CC OR PRESSURE NO. psl 1 10 0.00 0.000 495 2 1.0 0.00 0.000 1134 3 1.0 000 0.000 1452 4 1.0 000 0.000 INS 5 1.0 0.00 0.000 2587 6 1.5 0.09 0009 4044 7 1.0 0.00 0.000 0 8 1.0 0.00 0000 0 9 10 0.00 0.000 0 10 1.0 000 0000 0 is STRESS DISTRIBUTION X= 1,25 Y= 25 LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS N0. MIDPOINT CHANGE R pf 1 4.6 0,5000 10.0000 0. U98 1100 2 12 OA250 2.5000 OA563 313 3 18 0.0761 1.5625 0.0958 191 4 20.5 0.0510 1.0204 0.0577 115 5 405 0,0325 06494 OWN 61 6 54.5 0.0236 0.4762 Rolm 37 7 0 Q6250 -12.5000 0.00p0 0 8 0 �OA250 -12.5000 0,0000 '0 9 0 4.0250 -12.5000 0,0000 0 10 0 4.6250 -12.5000 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. STRAIN NO, STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRESECOMPRESS ps/ ps1 R R i0. 1 405 1595 7 0,0000 0.000 0.0000 2 TIN 1447 6 0.0000 0000 00000 3 1452 1643 6 0,OODO 0.000 00000 4 1945 2060 11 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 5 2587 2646 17 0.0000 0000 00000 6 3229 3266 11 00000 0.000 00058 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0. 10 0 0 0 CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT 0.000 0.01 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS USING 1-D ELASTICITY THEORY VERSION 1.0 by TMS- 9/1/95 DATE: 06/27/12 FILE: AVE TIME: 08:49 PROJECT NAME: P-1253 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 1061-12-249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION WALL LOAD 5 kips/ft NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 psi FOOTING WIDTH 2.50 R CENTER OR CORNEW CENTER FOOTING LENGTH 50.0 A FOOTING DEPTH 2 ft WATER DEPTH 9 ft NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES MODULUS LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER OF NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT ELASTICITY ft it ft R ksf 1 0 9 7 4.6 500 2 9 15 6 12 500 3 15 21 6 18 1000 4 21 32 11 26.5 1000 5 32 49 17 40.5 500 6 49 60 11 54.5 1000 7 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 STRESS DISTRIBUTION X1.25 Y= 25 LAYER LAYER m n Iz STRESS NO. MIDPOINT CHANGE ft psi 7 4.5 0.5000 10.0000 0.5498 1100 2 12 0.1250 2.5000 0.1563 313 3 18 0.0781 1.5625 0,0956 191 4 26.6 0.0510 1.0204 0.0577 115 5 40.5 0.0325 0.6494 0,0304 61 8 54.5 0.0238 0.4762 0.0163 37 7 0-0.6250-12.5000 0,0000 0 6 0-0.6250-12.5000 0,0000 0 9 0-0.6250-12.5000 0.0000 0 10 0-0.62.50-12.5000 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. NO. STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRESSCOMPRESS psi psi R It In. I a 1100 7 0.015 0,1947 2 0 313 6 0.004 0.0450 3 0 191 6 0.00/ 0.0138 4 0 I15 I 0.001 0.0152 5 0 61 17 0.002 0.0248 6 0 37 ii 0,000 0.0048 7 0 0 0 0,000 0.0000 8 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 9 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 10 0 0 0 0.000 0.0000 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT 0.024 0.29 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHAI I.OW FOOTINGS ON COHESIVE SOIL USING TERZACHI 1.0 CONSOLIDATION THEORY VERSION 2.0 5y TMS. 8MI12009 DATE: 06/27/12 BORING: WE TIME: 08'.50 PROJECT NAME'. P-12532D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION', CAMP LF.JEUNE, NO PROJECT NO. 1061-12.249 ENGINEERT. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION COLUMNLOAD 2W kips NETALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 PST FOOTING WIDTH 11.2 It CENTER OR CORNER' CENTER FOOTING LENGTH 11.2 8 FOOTING DEPTH 2 9 WATER DEPTH 9 ft NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERI TES BOUYANT LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER UNIT INITIAL NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT WEIGHT STRESS R R A ft "I PSI 1 0 9 7 4.5 11000 495 2 9 15 6 12 48.CO 1134 3 15 21 6 18 58.00 1452 4 21 32 11 26.5 So OD 1945 5 32 49 17 405 38.00 2587 6 49 SO 11 54.5 58.00 32N 7 D 0 0 0 0.00 0 8 0 0 0 0 0.00 D 9 D 0 0 0 000 0 10 0 0 0 0 0.DO .0 COMPRESSION PROPERTIES MAX PAST LAYER OCR CC OR PRESSURE NO. PSI 1 1.0 0.00 0000 495 2 1.0 0.OD 0.000 1134 3 1.0 0.00 0." 1452 4 10 0.00 0.000 1945 5 10 O DO 0.000 2581 6 IS 009 0.009 4844 7 IS 0.00 0000 0 8 1.0 CDC 0,000 0 9 10 000 0.000 0 10 IS 0.00 0.000 0 I: STRESS DISTRIBUTION X - 6590169944 Y = 6.590169944 LAYER LAYER m n I4 STRESS NO, MIDPOINT CHANGE R PSI 1 4.5 2.2361 2,2361 1.00D0 2000 2 12 0,5590 055M 0.3909 782 3 18 0.34N 034" 0.1938 387 4 265 0,2282 0.2262 0.0915 IV 5 40.5 0.1452 0,1452 0.0389 78 6 54.5 0.1D65 BLOBS 0.0213 43 7 0 -2.7951 -2,7951 0.0000 0 8 0 -2.7951 -27951 0,0000 0 9 0 -2.7951 -2.7051 0.000U 0 10 0 -2.7951 -2,7951 OW00 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. STRAIN NO. STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRESECOMPRESS PSI PSI fl ft in. 1 495 2495 7 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 2 1134 1916 a 0.0000 0.000 0,0000 3 1452 1839 6 00000 0000' 0.0000 4 1945 2128 11 0.0000 0000 00000 5 2587 266S 17 0.0000 0.wo 00000 8 3229 3272 11 DOOM OOD1 00067 7 0' 0 0 6 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT 0,001 0.01 SPREADSHEET FOR SETTLEMENT OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS USING 1-D ELASTICITY THEORY - VERSION 1.0 by TMS- 9/1/95 DATE: 06/27/12 BORING: AVE TIME: 08:46 PROJECT NAME: P-1253 2D COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION PROJECT LOCATION: CAMP LEJEUNE, NC PROJECT NO: 1061-12-249 ENGINEER: T. SCHIPPOREIT FOUNDATION PROPERTIES SETTLEMENT LOCATION COLUMN LOAD 250 kips NET ALL. BEARING PRESSU 2000 psf FOOTING WIDTH 11.2 0 CENTER OR CORNER' CENTER FOOTING LENGTH 11.2 0 FOOTING DEPTH 2 It WATER DEPTH 9 8 NOTE: YOU MUST HAVE A LAYER BOUNDARY AT WATER DEPTH SOIL PROPERTIES MODULUS LAYER DEPTH DEPTH COMPRESS. LAYER OF NO. TOP BOTTOM THICKNESS MIDPOINT ELASTICITY fl 6 8 0 ksf 1 0 9 7 4.5 500 2 9 15 6 12 500 3 15 21 6 18 1000 4 21 32 11 26.5 1000 5 32 49 17 40.5 500 6 49 .60 11 54.5 1000 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 STRESS DISTRIBUTION X = 5.590169944 Y = 5.590169944 LAYER LAYER Al n Iz STRESS NO. MIDPOINT CHANGE 0 psf 1 45 2,2381 2.2361 1.0000 2000 2 12 0.5590 0,5590 0.3909 782 3 18 0.3494 0,3494 0A936 387 4 26.5 0.2282 0.2282 0.0915 183 5 40.5 0.1452 0.1452 0.0389 78 6 545 0.1085 0.1065 0.0213 43 7 0 -2.7951 -2.7951 0.0000 0 8 0 -2,7951 -2.7951 0.0000 0 9 0 -2.7951 -2,7951 0.0000 0 10 0 -2.7051 -2.7851 0.0000 0 LAYER COMPRESSIONS LAYER INITIAL FINAL COMPRESS. NO. STRESS STRESS THICKNESS COMPRESECOMPRESS psf psi 8 /t In. 1 0 2000 7 0.0280 0.3360 2 0 782 6 0.0094 0.1126 3 0 387 6 0.0023 0.0279 4 0 183 11 0.0020 0.0242 5 0 78 17 0.0026 0.0317 6 0 43 11 0.0005 0.0056 7 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 8 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 9 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 10 0 0 0 0.0000 0,0000 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT 0.0 0.64 f