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 [phone].
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: [phone] FAX: [phone] 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:[e-mail]
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, [phone].)
10. A copy of the most current property deed. Deed book: Page No:
11. For corporations and limited liability corporations (LLC): Provide documentation from the NC 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:[e-mail]
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: [phone]_..._
Fax.
J� —��
�fS
Fax: [phone]
Re:
��o�J� oZ�
C—O rn
.Sly$•
�O�/-in , f /sSt/i--/ — //o/
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 0 [phone] 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: [phone]_ ._._
Fax: 9!0 z/�/ — Z% Z Fax: [phone]
Re:1a�5
M Car dinnl Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 0 [phone] o An L'quaI Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Nelson, Christine
From:
Matt Haley [[e-mail])
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:[e-mail]]
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:[e-mail]]
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:[phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
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 [phone]
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 [phone]
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
[phone]
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 [phone]
FAX [phone]
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: [phone] FAX: [phone] 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 [phone] or email me at
[e-mail].
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:[phone]
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 [phone]"
FM [phone]
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: [phone] • FAX: [phone]
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: [phone] FAX: [phone] 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 [phone] or email me at
[e-mail].
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:[e-mail]]
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 [phone]
FAX [phone]
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 - [e-mail]
Cape Fearing Engineering, Ms. Maria Jones - [e-mail]
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
[phone] 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 [phone] Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 5
ENGINEERING . TESTING [phone] 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
[phone]
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: [phone], Fax:[phone], Email: [e-mail]
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: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
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:[phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.

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 [phone] 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