SW8090815_HISTORICAL FILE_20100201

1�r
STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW8 Oq o 8 15
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
20 10 020 1
YYYYMMDD

North Carolina
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
February 1, 2010
lea
NCDENR
Department of Environment and
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
Natural Resources
Commanding Officer c/o Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
US MCB Camp Lejeune
Bldg 1005 Michael Rd.
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542
Subject: State Stormwater Management Permit No. SW8 090815
Lincoln Park Residential Development
High Density Commercial Wet Detention Pond Project
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit
Application for Lincoln Park Residential Development on January 27, 2010. 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 090815 dated February 1, 2010, for the
construction of the subject project.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until February 1, 2020, and shall
be subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. Please pay special
attention to the Operation and. Maintenance requirements in this permit. Failure to
establish an adequate system for operation and maintenance of the stormwater
management system will result in future compliance problems.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you
have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this permit. This request must be in the form of a written
petition, conforming to Chapter 150E of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed
with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-
7447. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please
contact Christine Nelson, or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
eorgett Se colt
Stormwater Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
GDS/ can: S:\WQS\STORMWATER\PERMIT\090815.jan10
cc: Ted Miller, Kimley-Horn and Associates
Christine Nelson
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-6236748
NorthCarolina
Internet:w .nmaterquality.org
Lf1
(.�/�/ �p�aturally
An Equal Opportunity l Atfrmative Action Employer

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090815
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Commanding Officer & MCB Camp Lejeune
Lincoln Park School Development
Brewster Blvd, Camp Lejeune, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of one wet detention pond in compliance with
the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 and Session Law 2008-211 (hereafter collectively
referred to as the "stormwater rules') the approved stormwater management plans and
specifications and other supporting data as attached and on file with and approved by
the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until February 1, 2020, 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.
2. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater
runoff as described in Section 1.8 on page 3 of this permit. The stormwater
control has been designed to handle the runoff from 1,658,016 square feet of
impervious area.
3. A 50' wide vegetative buffer must be provided adjacent impounded structures,
streams, rivers and tidal waters.
4. A vegetated filter strip is not required for this wet detention pond as it has been
designed to remove 90% of the total suspended solids.
The tract will be limited to the amount of built -upon area indicated on page 3 of
this permit, and per approved plans. The built -upon area for the future
development is limited to 591,545 square feet.
Page 2 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090815
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Commanding Officer & MCB Camp Lejeune
Lincoln Park Residential Development
Brewster Blvd, Camp Lejeune, Onslow County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of one wet detention pond in compliance with
the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000 and Session Law 2008-211 (hereafter collectively
referred to as the "stormwater rules') the approved stormwater management plans and
specifications and other supporting data as attached and on file with and approved by
the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until February 1, 2020, 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.
2. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater
runoff as described in Section 1.8 on page 3 of this permit. The stormwater
control has been designed to handle the runoff from 1,658,016 square feet of
impervious area.
A 50' wide vegetative buffer must be provided adjacent impounded structures,
streams, rivers and tidal waters.
4. A vegetated filter strip is not required for this wet detention pond as it has been
designed to remove 90% of the total suspended solids.
The tract will be limited to the amount of built -upon area indicated on page 3 of
this permit, and per approved plans. The built -upon area for the future
development is limited to 591,545 square feet.
Page 2 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090815
6. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located in either
dedicated common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the project
will be recorded showing all such required easements, in accordance with the
approved plans.
7. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area(s) of this
project must be directed into the permitted stormwater control system.
The following design criteria have been provided in the wet detention pond and
must be maintained at design condition:
a. Drainage Area, acres:
Onsite, ft :
Offsite, ft2:
b. Total Imperviou� Surfaces, ft2:
Onsite, ft :
Offsite, ft2:
C. Design Storm, inches:
d. Average Pond Design Depth, feet:
e. TSS removal efficiency:
f. Permanent Pool Elevation, FMS,�:
g. Permanent Pool Surface Areq, ft
h. Permitted Storage Volume, ft :
i. Temporary Storage Elevation, FMSL:
j. Pre-dev. 1 yr-24 hr. discharge rate, cfs:
k. Controlling Orifice:
I. Orifice flowrate, cfs:
M. Permitted Forebay Volume, ft3:
n. Fountain Horsepower
o. Receiving Stream/River Basin:
P. Stream Index Number:
q. Classification of Water Body:
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
121.68
5,204,643
95,817
1,658,016
1,655,125
2,891
1.5
3.0
90%
11.00
260,225
808,863
14.00
6.36
6.0" 0 pipe
0.91
143,037
3 HP
Morgan Bay / White Oak
19-18
"SC"
1. The stormwater management system shall be constructed in its entirety,
vegetated and operational for its intended use prior to the construction of any
built -upon surface.
2. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of
the system will be repaired immediately.
3. The permittee shall at all time provide the operation and maintenance necessary
to assure the permitted stormwater system functions at optimum efficiency. The
approved Operation and Maintenance Plan must be followed in its entirety and
maintenance must occur at the scheduled intervals including, but not limited to:
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months).
b. Sediment removal.
C. Mowin.9 and re -vegetation of slopes and the vegetated filter.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of all slopes in accordance with approved plans and
specifications.
f. Debris removal and unclogging of outlet structure, orifice device, flow
spreader, catch basins and piping.
g. Access to the outlet structure must be available at all times.
Page 3 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090815
4. Records of maintenance activities must be kept and made available upon
request to authorized personnel of DWQ. The records will indicate the date,
activity, name of person performing the work and what actions were taken.
5. Decorative spray fountains will be allowed in the stormwater treatment system,
subject to the following criteria:
a. The fountain must draw its water from less than 2' below the permanent
pool surface.
b. Separated units, where the nozzle, pump and intake are connected by
tubing, may be used only if they draw water from the surface in the
deepest part of the pond.
c. The falling water from the fountain must be centered in the pond, away
from the shoreline.
d. The maximum horsepower for a fountain in this pond is 3 horsepower.
6. The facilities shall be constructed as shown on the approved plans. This permit
shall become void unless the facilities are constructed in accordance with the
conditions of this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting data.
7. Upon completion of construction, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received
from an appropriate designer for the system installed certifying that the permitted
facility has been installed in accordance with this permit, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting documentation. Any deviations from the
approved plans and specifications must be noted on the Certification. A
modification may be required for those deviations.
8. If the stormwater system was used as an Erosion Control device, it must be
restored to design condition prior to operation as a stormwater treatment device,
and prior to occupancy of the facility.
9. Access to the stormwater facilities for inspection and maintenance shall be
maintained via appropriate recorded easements at all times.
10. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed
below:
a. Any revision to any item shown on the approved plans, including the
stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
e. Further development, subdivision, acquisition, lease or sale of any, all or
part of the project area. The project area is defined as all property owned
by the permittee, for which Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan
approval or a CAMA Major permit was sought.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
11. Prior to the construction of any permitted future areas shown on the approved
plans; the permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans to the
Division for approval.
Page 4 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090815
12. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by
the Permittee at all times.
13. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one
or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame
specified in the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the
Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee
shall provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director
that the changes have been made.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
This permit is not transferable to any person or entity except after notice to and
approval by the Director. In the event of a change of ownership, or a name
change, the permittee must submit a completed Name/Ownership Change Form
signed by both parties, to the Division of Water Quality, accompanied by the
supporting documentation as listed on page 2 of the form. The approval of this
request will be considered on its merits and may or may not be approved.
The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such
time as the Division approves the transfer request. Neither the sale of the project
nor the transfer of common area to a third party constitutes an approved transfer
of the stormwater permit.
3. Failure to abide by the conditions -and limitations contained in this permit may
subject the Permittee to enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality, in
accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
4. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction.
5. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of
nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action,
including those as may be required by this Division, such as the construction of
additional or replacement stormwater management systems.
6. The permittee grants DENR Staff permission to enter the property during normal
business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted
stormwater management facility.
7. The permit remains in force and effect until modified, revoked, terminated or
renewed. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for
cause. The filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and re -
issuance or termination does not stay any permit condition.
8. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
9. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference
and are enforceable parts of the permit.
10. The permittee shall notify the Division of any name, ownership or mailing address
changes at least 30 days prior to making such changes.
Page 5 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090815
11. The permittee shall submit a permit renewal request at least 180 days prior to the
expiration date of this permit. The renewal request must include the appropriate
documentation and the processing fee.
Permit issued this the 1st day of February, 2010.
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
�c
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 6 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090815
Lincoln Park Residential Development
Stormwater Permit No. SW8 090815
Onslow Countv
Designer's Certification
I, , as'a duly registered in the
State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/ full
time) the construction of the project,
(Project)
for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specifications:
Signature
Registration Number
Date
SEAL
Page 7 of 8

State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 090815
Certification Requirements:
1. The drainage area to the system contains approximately the permitted
acreage.
2. The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted
amount of built -upon area.
3. All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the
runoff drains to the system.
4. All roof drains are located such that the runoff is directed into the system.
5. The outlet structure elevations are per the approved plan.
6. The outlet structure is located per the approved plans.
7. Trash rack is provided on the outlet structure.
8. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation.
9. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
10. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-
circuiting of the system.
11. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been
provided.
12. Required drawdown devices are correctly sized and located per the
approved plans.
13. All required design depths are provided.
14. All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf,
and a forebay.
15. The required system dimensions are provided per the approved plans.
16. All components of the stormwater BMP are located in either recorded
common areas, or recorded easements.
cc: NCDENR-DWQ Regional Office

P. 01
TRANSACTION REPORT
I FEB-09-2010 TUE 10:30 AM
FOR: NCDENR 910 350 2004
SEND
DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
Im Ili
l ''FEB-09 10:29 AM 917575487301, 28" 3 FAX TX OK 423
TOTAL 28S PAGES: 3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor FAX COVER STET Dee Preenion, Secretary
Date:
To:
Co:
>ex 757 r-5~9T-730/
No. Pages (excl. cover):2--
From: Jo Casmer
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 29405 • [phone] • An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
L
i
i

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
} Wilmington Regional Office
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor FAX COVER SHEET Dee Freeman, Secretary
Date: No. Pages (excl. cover):y
To: " / ep A7 Ile From: Jo Casmer
Co: /7 //Ll LAY /-,/tr�� Phone: [phone]
Fax: /1— 75 S/-70 - 70�l Fax: [phone]
L Re: //7coZ-4 /��i� /�`Sio�sl7�/,lyL Q�(�•
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405 • [phone] • An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

:s
..
i
.
e'
i
.q
it
J�
J'_
�/
I�/
'
�l
1•
•
/.•
r '
!e
l..
F•
��
v�
��
u
.'+. �
.��
i
'
1
l•
1 i�
•+
,`�
L
•
�' �
}.
'�
�r
�
i �
/
V.
;�'
�
"L.
:%
',
'1�
J�
.�
.�/
� �
i
!
.')
ti
� i
1
�
r,
%'
•
"",
,.
•.'
,,.•
,.
l
�
'•
,,
v
ti.
�`
r
.,
.%
� �, J.
r

Russell, Janet
To: Ted. Miller@kimley-horn,corn
Cc: Towler CIV David W
Subject: RE: Lincoln Park Residential Development
Ted, Thanks for spotting that error. I will notify Christine. I'm sure we'll "re -do" that page.
Janet
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:52 PM
To: Russell, Janet; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Lincoln Park Residential Development
Janet: It appears that the first page of the permit— not the cover letter- references the Lincoln Park School Development
in the "Permission is hereby granted to" section. Can you please revise that to reference the Residential development
and resend to avoid any future problems?
Ted Miller, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Direct: 757-548-7333
From: Russell, Janet[ma ilto:janet. [e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:38 AM
To: Miller, Ted; [e-mail]
Cc: Oberle (Watts), Rachel
Subject: Lincoln Park Residential Development
Ted/Rachel/David:
The Stormwater Permit for the Lincoln Park Residential Development was issued yesterday. I am faxing a copy of the
permit to the engineer/applicant this morning. David, can we hand you the approved plans and permit original
tomorrow when you come down?
Thanks,
Janet
Janet M. Russell
Express Coordinator
910 796-7421
NOTE: change in email address: [e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

FOR: NCDENR
SEND
DATE START RECEIVER
FEB-02 10:44 AM 919104512976
P. Ol
TRANSACTION REPORT
FEB-02-2010 TUE 10;46 AM
910 350 2004
St
Department of E
111 I Wil
Beverly B aves Perdue, Governor
I I
FAX
Date: 2 21110
To:
CO:
FAX #:_ \o +�-z 1 "Z9Z�
REMARKS: 7lyr 1
VOc�
TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
4'35" 9 FAX TX OK (05) 392
TOTAL 4M 35S PAGES: 9
ate of North Carolina
nvironment and Natural Resources
mington Regional Office
kl
Dee Freeman, Secretary
COVER SHEET
No. Of Pages: (excluding cover)
From: Prue-T
CO: NC DENR
FAX#: [phone]
Lmccilm 'PAr /
i
1:7 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C.'_1N05-3845 Telephone (910) 796JE15 Fa: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
I '
I

P. 01
TRANSACTION REPORT
FOR: NCDENR
FEB-02-2010 TUE 09:47 AM
910 350 2004
a<
SEND
'DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
w
FEB-02 09:45 AM 917575487301 1'22" 9 FAX TX OK 385
TOTAL 1M 22S PAGES: 9
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
i
i
Dee Freeman, Secretary
FAX COVER SHEET
Date: _ I� ?� 2010
To: e�
CO:
FAX
REMARKS:
k
No, Of Pages: (excluding cover)
From:
CO: NC DENR
FAX#: [phone]
IV Cardinal Drive Exton tlon, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 Telephone [phone]Is Fax [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

E_❑ Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
January 26, 2010
Christine Nelson
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Re: Express Permitting: Request for Additional Information II
Stormwater Project No. SW8 090815
Lincoln Park Residential Development
Onslow County
Dear Christine Nelson:
501 Independence Parkway
Suite 300
Chesapeake, Virginia
23320
TFI, 757,548.7300
FAX [phone]
Please accept this letter as a response to the comments contained in your letter dated January
20, 2010. This letter will address each comment through additional information, figures and
attachments. The responses below are numbered to correspond with the comments contained
in the January 20, 2010 letter (see attached).
1. Please see the attached stormwater calculations. The SA/DA ratio has been updated to
reflect the new impervious area found within the drainage area.
2. Please see the attached plans.
3. Please see attached two sets of the stormwater plans. Each page of each set has been
signed, sealed, and dated.
4. The additional information review fee has been waived.
5. Please see attached stormwater calculations and plans, both have been reviewed for
consistency and accuracy.
Minor changes have been made to the invert and RIM of several structures; however, please
note that no changes have been made to the drainage areas. For your reference an updated set
of calculations has been attached. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please contact me at [phone] or email me at Rachel.OberleRkimley-
horn.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
JAN 2 7 2010
Rachel Oberle, EIT
Environmental Scientist BY:F-11ress 10:0" N
Enclosures: Stormwater Permit Application, Including Supporting Calculations and Plans

STORMWATER CALCULATIONS
LINCOLN PARK RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AT CAMP LEJEUNE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PREPARED BY:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
501 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD SUITE 300
CHESAPEAKE, NC 23320
JANUARY 2010
KHA #1 16319001
JAN 2 7 2010
E"Y:

�„ Kimley Horn
hl M and Assodates, Inc.
Wet Detention Basin
Stage -Storage
Project Information
Project Name: Lincoln Park Residential Development at Camp Lejeune
KHA Project #: 116319001
Designed by: RAO Date: 1/6/2010
Checked by: TM Date: 1/6/2010
BMP: BMP #1
WET DETENTION BASIN 1
Pond
Contour
Contour
Incremental
Accumulated
Stage,
Counlour
Area
Area
Volume
Volume, S
Z
sq it
acre
or It
cu It
It
6.00
161,315
3.70
0
0
0.00
7.00
168,018
3.86
164.666
0
1.00
7.50
171,431
3.94
84,862
0
1.50
8.00
174,844
4.01
86,569
86.569
2.00
9.00
181,791
4.17
178,317
264,886
3,00
10.00
188,855
4,34
185,323
450,209
4,00
10.50
192,431
4.42
95,321
545,531
4.50
11.00
213,014
4.89
101,361
646,892
5.00
11.50
261.238
6.00
118,563
765,455
5.50
12.00
265,270
6.09
131,627
897,082
6.00
13.00
273,410
6.28
269,340
1,166,422
7.00
14.00
281,650
6.47
277,530
1,443,952
8.00
15.00
289.992
6.66
285.821
1,729,773
9.00
16.00
298,434
6.85
294,213
2,023,986
10.00
17,00
306,978
7.05
302,706
2,326,692
11.00
18.00
315,622
7.25
311,300
2,637.992
12.00
19.00
324,368
7.45
319,995
2,957.986
13.00
Foreba
Contour
Contour
Incremental
Accumulated
Stage,
Countour
Area
Area
Volume
Volume, S
Z
sq
It
acre
or It
cu It
It
6.00
30,
912
0.71
0
0
0.00
7.00
33,790
0.78
32,351
0
1.00
7.50
35,288
0.81
17,269
0
1.50
8.00
36.785
0,84
18,018
18,018
2.00
9.00
39,897
0,92
38,341
56,359
3,00
10,00
43.124
0.99
41,510
97,870
L00
10.50
45.167
1,04
22.073
119,942
4,50
11.00
47,211
1.08
23,095
143,037
5.00
Sediment
Storage
NWSE
Top of Riser
Pond
t Foreba
Contour
Contour
Incremental
Accumulated
Stage,
Counlour
Area
Area
Volume
Volume, 5
2
sq fit
acre
cu ft
cu It
It
6.00
192,227
4,41
0
0
0.00
7,00
201,808
4.63
197.017
0
1.00
7,50
206,719
4.75
102,132
0
1.50
8.00
211,629
4,86
104,587
104.587
2.00
9.00
221,688
5.09
216,659
321,245
3.00
10.00
231,979
5.33
226,833
548,079
4.00
10.50
23Z598
5.45
117,394
665,473
4.50
11.00
260,225
5.97
124,456
789,929
5.00
11.50
261,238
6.00
130,366
920,295
5.50
12.00
265,270
6.09
131,627
1.051,922
6,00
13.00
273410
6.28
269.340
1.321,261
7.00
14.00
281,650
6.47
277,530
1,598,791
8.00
15,00
289,992
6,66
285,821
1,884,612
9.00
16.00
298,434
6,85
294,213
2,178,825
10,00
17.00
306,978
7.05
302,706
2.481,531
11.00
18,00
315,622
7.25
311,300
2,792,831
12,00
19.00
324, 368
7.45
319,995
3,112,826
13.00
Sediment
Storage
NWSE
Sediment
Storage
NWSE
Top of Riser
JAN a 1 MID
BY:_--

CI F'j Kimley-Horn
® and Associates, Inc.
Wet Detention Basin Design Summary
Project Information
Project Name: Lincoln Park Residential Development at Camp Lejeune
KHA Project #: 116319001
Designed by: RAO Date: 1/26/2010
Checked by: TM Date: 1/26/2010
Design Resource: NCDENR - Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual ( July 2007)
Site Information
Sub Area Location:
BMP # 1
Drainage Area (DA) =
121.68
Acres
Impervious Area (IA) =
38.06
Acres
Percent Impervious (1) =
31.28%
Required Storage Volume (Water Quality)
Design Storm =
1.5
inch
Determine Rv Value (in/in) =
0.05 + .009 (1) =
0.33
Storage Volume Required =
219,648
cf (above Permanent Pool)
Storage Volume Provided =
808,863
Required Surface Area
Average Depth-
3.04
ft
SA/DA =
3.81
(90%TSS Removal via Pond)
Min Req'd Surface Area =
201,945
sf (at Permanent Pool)
Surface Area Provided =
260,225
sf (at Permanent Pool)
Required Length to Width Ratio
1.5 to 1
Length to Width Provided =
2.50
Required Length of flowpath to Width Ratio
3 to 1
Length of (towpath to Width Provided =
3.00
Pretreatment Device
Forebay
Required Forebay Sizing
Required Volume =
20.00%
of Permenant Pool
Permanent Pool Volume =
789,929
cf
Required Forbay Volume =
157,986
cf
Forebay Volume Provided =
143,037
cf
18.11%
of Permenant Pool
Summary of Proposed Pond
Bottom of Pond Elevation =
Sediment Storage Depth =
Permanent Pool Elevation =
Temporary Pool Elevation =
Top of Pond Elevation =
Permanent Pool Surface Area =
Temporary Pool (water quality storage) _
Area @ Top of Temporary Pool =
Side Slopes of Pond =
Volume of Forebay 1 =
Length to Width Ratio =
Length of Towpath to Width Ratio =
7.50
ft
1.50
ft.
11.00
ft
14.00
ft
19.00
ft
260,225
sf
808,863
cf
281,650
sf
4
:1
143,037
cf
2.5
:1
7JAN 2 7 2010
BY;

CI_®� Kimley-Horn
® and Associates, Inc.
Wet Detention Basin
ORFICE EQUATION
Project Information
Project Name: Lincoln Park Residential Development at Camp Lejeune
KHA Project #: 116319001
Designed by: RAO Date: 1/6/2010
Checked by: TM Date: 1/6/2010
Sub Area Location: BMP 41
Water Qualitv Orifice
Orfice Equation Determination of Water Quality Volume Drawdown Time
Temporary Pool Elev (Riser Elev) = 14 It
Permanent Pool Elev (Invert of Orfice) = 11 It
Diameter of Orfice = 6 in
Orifice Discharge Equation:
r
1 Q _ CDA(29H0)VzLL-W._—.�
where,
Co=
description
0.6 (unitless)
A =
Trr2
0.1963 ft2
g =
force of gravity
32.2 ft/sec2
Ho =
H/3
0.92 ft
Orfice Diameter
_Ho=(Pond Elevation • Elevation of Orfice Invert) _(Orfice Diameter/2)
Q = 0.905 cfs
Required Temporary Storage = 219,648 ft3
Drawdown Time, t = 242,659 sec
t = 67.41 hours
t = 2.81 days
JAN 2 7 2010
SY:

C _„ Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Post -Development Percent Impervious Calculation
Project Information
Project Name: Lincoln Park Residential Development
KHA Project #: 116319001
Designed by: RO Date:
Checked by: TM Date:
1 /6/2010
1 /6/2010
Proposed Development
BASIN DRAINAGE AREA (AC) IMPERVIOUS AREA (AC) % IMPERVIOUS
BMP1
67.94
4.03
5.9 %
FOREBAY 2
25.87
10.46
40.4%
FOREBAY 5
27.87
9.99
35.8%
Total
121.68
24.48
Future Development (Full Build Out)
BASIN DRAINAGE AREA (AC) IMPERVIOUS AREA (AC) % IMPERVIOUS
BMP1
67.94
17.62
25.9
FOREBAY2
25.87
10.46
40.4%
FOREBAY 5
27.87
9.99
35.8
Total
121.68
38.06
rV�C 1CIED
JAN 2 7 2010
BY:_ ==

FOREBAY #5 - Proposed
Impervious Area of Housing
Duplex Type Approximate Area of No of Structures Total Area (sf) Total Area (ac)
Structure
1
4,700
9
42,300
0.97
2
4,550
9
40,950
0.94
3
4,700
10
47,000
1.08
4
5,800
9
52,200
1.20
5
4,800
4
19,200
0.44
6
6,250
2
12,500
0.29
Total
�`'t`; 214150 =x.
° + •"492 �` �°' +'
Impervious Area of Roadways and Sidewalks
Road Name Right of Way Verge Road Length Road Area (sf) Road Area (ac)
A
54
9
920
41,400
0.95
B
69
12
400
22,800
0.52
B
59
8
250
12,750
0.29
D
45
8
780
30,420
0.70
E
45
8
925
36,075
0.83
F
45
8
1,080
44,280
1.02
G
45
8
580
23,780
0.55
Cul-de-sac
8,300
0.19
Total
0'"
Offsite Impervious Area to BMP ''; r-1,121 SF
or AC
Total Impervious Area to BMP 4.: 435"07 SF
or�r:99Q AC
Total Drainage Area to BMP 7
1 21,4'12 SF
0 AC
Therefore, Percent Impervious=!'�
7�'Z' �CLiI'C%�r�
JAN 2 7 2010
BY:-----

FOREBAY #2- Proposed
Impervious Area of Housing
Duplex Type Approximate Area of No of Total Area (so Total Area (ac)
Structure Structures
1
4,700
5
23,500
0.54
2
4,550
13
59,150
1.36
3
4,700
15
70,500
1.62
4
5,800
7
40,600
0.93
5
4,800
7
33,600
0.77
6
6,250
3
18,750
0.43
Total
` , g 24fi 100+9;'
rs�5 65
Impervious Area of Roadways and Sidewalks
Road Lable Riaht of Wav Verge Road Length Road Area (so Road Area (ac)
A
54
9
1,050
47,250
1.08
B
59
8
550
28,050
0.64
C
27
4.5
415
9,338
0.21
D
45
8
490
20,090
0.46
H
45
8
1,115
45,715
1.05
1
45
8
1,115
45,715
1.05
J
45
8
285
1 11,685
0.27
Total
Off site Impervious Area to BMP 4a'+x t;yx1 7t0 SF
or AC
Total Impervious Area to BMP ;lnk*Y 7J1'3 SF
or �Z F g10i46 AC
Total Drainage Area to BMP=1126754 SF
or?`�'�25'87 C
Therefore, Percent Impervious=b'f< 4034%
JAN 2 7 2010
BY:

BMP #1 - Proposed
Impervious Area of Housing
Duplex Type Approximate Area of No of Structures Total Area (sf) Total Area (ac)
Structure
1
4,700
2
9,400
0.22
2
4,550
5
22,750
0.52
3
4,700
5
23,500
0.54
4
5,800
2
11,600
0.27
5
4,800
2
9,600
0.22
6
6,250
1
6,250
0.14
==:9Total
_ 83100`
': 191
Impervious Area of Community Center
Facility Area (sf) Area (ac)
Pool
8,900
0.20
Buildings
6,797
0.16
Parking/Sidewalks
14,360
0.33
Total
+r *30057vif`:{E""Or?69'3'."�"
Impervious Area of Roadways and Sidewalks
Road Lable Right of Way Verge Road Length Road Area (so Road Area (ac)
C
54
9
755
33,975
0.78
D
45
8
1,195
48,995
1.12
J
45
8
330
13,530
0.31
Total
t; �62,525...'x-<.
T44F ,7
Total Impervious Area to BMP= a, *,5i,.�175 682 SF
or AC
Total Drainage Area to BMP= .,".;, 12,959 581 SF
o e'Fkx.' 67.9 AC
Therefore, Percent Impervious= �.p 3:,t "P .r59%
BAN 2 7 2010
BY:-----

CM„ Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
Pre -Development Time of Concentration Calculation
Project Information
Project Name: Lincoln Park Development at Camp Lejeune
KHA Project #: 16319000
Designed by. RAO Date: 11/1/2009
Checked by: TM Date: 11/2/2009
To = 0.225'L"(.42)'S^(-0.19)'C"(-1) (Seelye Equation)
Seelye Equation Reference - Data Book for Civil Engineers Vol. I - Design 2nd Edehon (1951) By E.E. Seelye
Out/all
Overland Flow Time (Pervious)
L = 200 it (200' max)
S = 0.006 full
C = 0.25
Tc = 42 0 min
V=L+0:151 IUs
' Enter Values'
Southern Out/all
Overland Flow Time (Pervious)
L = 200 II (200' max)
S = 0.004 (lift
C = 0.25
TC= .�334it min
V = . 0.140 thi
Blvd
'Enter Values'
Overland Flow Time (Pervious)
L = 200 ft (200' max)
S = 0.005 fufl
C = 0.25
Tc = " 22.8 min
V = 0146 IUs
' Enter Values'
Overland Flow Time (Impervious)
L-Hit (200 max)
S- fUft
C=
T
c J= 0.0 in
V=#DIVIOI fus
Overall Tc= 61 min
Overland Flow Time (Impervious)
L =POOOO
(I (200' max)
S =(Vff
C=
Tc = ` 0.0 1 min
V=Y!DIWO! IUs
Overall Tc= 126 min
Overland Flow Time (Impervious)
L=�h(t max)
s o.004 tun
C= 09
Tc= 0101 min
V= #DIV/bJ its
Overall Tc= 67 min
Shallow Concentrated Flow
L 1160 it
V=' 0.5 fUs
Tc= L68:7 min
Channel/Gutter Flow Time
L=
V = 2 fus
Tc = I;_:.-' 0.01min
Shallow Concentrated Flow
L = 3056 it
V = 0,5 [us
-01 a
Tc = "1min
Channel/Gutter Flow Time
L=
V=
Tc =
Shallow Concentrated Flow
L = 1308 It
v = t1.5 fus
Tc= °tiL min
ChannellGutter Flow Time
L=
V=
Tc =
14N 2 7 2010

Lincoln Park Reside
ntiai ueveiopment
Nodes
A Stage/Area
v Stage/volume
T Time/Stage
M Manhole
Basins
O Overland Flow
U SCS Unit Hydro
S Santa Barbara
Links
P Pipe
W Weir
C Channel
D Drop Structure
B Bridge
R Rating Curve
H Breach
A: FOREBATXS _
O: Residential 15
P: FOREBAY45 Out
1
A: FOREBAYI2
U:Residential X2
D: FOREBAYX2 Out
T: Pre -Bound South
U: Pre -Area South
M: Junction B
U: Residential 02
U: Residential B
P: JuddB-Ju-
M: Junction C
U: Residential C
T: Post -Bound 5
P: JuncC-BNPI1
A: BMPI1
D: BMPI1 Out U: BMPX1 A[ea
W. BMPX1 Spillway U: Oim tit SF.eet
W Fu: a Resitlent
Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.

,incoln Park Residential Development
Basins___ --------------------------
-------------------
________-----------------------------------------
Name: BMP#1 Area
Node: BMP#1
Status: Onsite
Group: BASE
Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph
Unit Hydrograph:
Uh484
Peaking Factor:
484.0
Rainfall File:
Storm Duration(hrs):
0.00
Rainfall Amount(in):
0.000
Time of Conc(min):
5.00
Area(ac):
7.680
Time Shift(hrs):
0.00
Curve Number:
98.00
Max Allowable Q(cfs):
999999.000
DCIA(%):
0.00
Inly area including the pond itself
----------------------------------------------
Name: Direct Sheet
---------------------
Node: BMP#1
Status:
----------------------
Onsite
Group: BASE
Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph
Unit Hydrograph:
Uh484
Peaking Factor:
484.0
Rainfall File:
Storm Duration(hrs):
0.00
Rainfall Amount(in):
0.000
Time of Conc(min):
30.00
Area(ac):
8.630
Time Shift(hrs):
0.00
Curve Number:
60.00
Max Allowable Q(cfs):
999999.000
DCIA(%):
0.00
;beat flow into BMP41
.___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Name: Future Resident
Node: BMP#1.
Status:
Onsite
Group: BASE
Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph
Unit Hydrograph:
Uh484
Peaking Factor:
484.0
Rainfall File:
Storm Duration(hrs):
0.00
Rainfall. Amount(in):
0.000
Time of Conc(min):
15.00
Area(ac):
22.180
Time Shift(hrs):
0.00
Curve Number:
80.00
Max Allowable Q(cfs):
999999.000
DCIA(%):
0.00
.___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Name: Pre -Area
South
Node: Pre -Bound South
Status:
Onsite
Group: BASE
Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph
Unit Hydrograph:
Uh484
Peaking Factor:
484.0
Rainfall File:
Storm Duration(hrs):
0.00
Rainfall Amount(in):
0.000
Time of Conc(min):
126.00
• Area(ac):
84.590
Time Shift(hrs):
0.00
Curve Number:
55.00
Max Allowable Q(cfs):
999999.000
DCIA(%):
0.00
._______________________________________________________________
Name: Residential #2
Node: FOREBAY#2
Status:
____________________
Onsite
Group: BASE
Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph
Unit Hydrograph:
Uh484
Peaking Factor:
484.0
Rainfall File:
Storm Duration(hrs):
0.00
Rainfall Amount(in):
0.000
Time of Conc(min):
25.00
Area(ac):
25.870
Time Shift(hrs):
0.00
Curve Number:
80.00
Max Allowable Q(cfs):
999999.000Gvr
rlf��
DCIA(%):
0.00
v .�i
JAN 2 7 2010
BY:
nterconnected Channel and fond
Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies,
Inc.
g
I of I

,incoln Park Residential Development
___________________________________ ________________
Name: Residential #5 Node: FOREBAY#5 Status: Onsite
Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph
Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor:
Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs):
Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min):
Area(ac): 27.870 Time Shift(hrs):
Curve Number: 80.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs):
DCIA(%): 0.00
______________________________ ___________
Name: Residential. B Node: Junction B
Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph
.Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor:
Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs):
Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min):
Area(ac): 6.580 'rime Shift(hrs):
Curve Number: 80.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs):
DCIA(%): 0.00
484.0
0.00
25.00
0.00
999999.000
-------------------------------
Status: Onsite
484.0
0.00
25.00
0.00
999999.000
_______________________________ -__ _ _-_________ _ _ _
Name: Residential. B2 Node: Junction B Status: Onsite
Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph
Unit Hydrograph: Uh484
Rainfall File:
Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000
Area(ac): 15.580
Curve Number: 80.00
DCIA(%): 0.00
Peaking Factor: 484.0
Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00
Time of Conc(min): 25.00
Time Shift(hrs): 0.00
Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Residential.
C
Node: Junction C
Status: Onsite
Group: BASE
Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph
Unit Hydrograph:
Uh484
Peaking Factor:
484.0
Rainfall File:
Storm Duration(hrs):
0.00
Rainfall Amount(in):
0.000
Time of Conc(min):
20.00
Area(ac):
7.290
Time Shift(hrs):
0.00
Curve Number:
80.00
Max Allowable Q(Cfs):
999999.000
DCIA(%):
0.00
=== Nodes
Name: BMP#1
Group: BASE
Type: Stage/Area
Stage(ft) Area(ac)
-----------------------------
Base Flow(Cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 11.000
Warn Stage(ft): 19.000
nicrconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.
JAN 17 2010
BY;
Page 2 of I

.incoln Park Residential Development
7.000
3.8600
8.
000
4.0100
9.
000
4.1700
10.000
4.3400
11.000
4.8900
1.1.500
6.0000
12.000
6.0900
13.000
6.2800
14.000
6.4700
15.000
6.6600
16.000
6.8500
17.000
7.0500
18.000
7.2500
19.000
7.4500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:
FOREBAY02
Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 13.500
Group:
BASE
Warn Stage(ft): 22.000
Type:
Stage/Area
Stage(ft) Area(ac)
12.000
0.6000
13.000
0.6600
13.500
0.7000
14.000
0.7300
15.000
0.8100
16.000
0.8800
17.000
0.9600
18.000
1.0400
19.000
1.
1300
21.000
1.3000
22.000
1.4000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:
FOREBA.Y#5
Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 13.500
Group:
BASE
Warn Stage(ft): 21.000
Type:
Stage/Area
Stage(ft) Area(ac)
12.000 0.6500
13.000 0.7100
13.500 0.7500
14.000 0.7800
15.000 0.8500
16.000 0.9200
17.000 1.0000
18.000 1.0800
19.000 1.1600
20.000 1.2400
21.000 1.3200
_________________________________________________________9_____-____________
Name: Junction B Base Flow(cfs) 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 8.540
Group: BASE Plunge Factor: 1.00 Warn Stage(ft): 23.500
Type: Manhole, 112 Diameter Grooved
Stage(ft) Areal---
9.330 0.0003 v
JAN 2 7 2010
merconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. BY:� P= f I

incoln Park Residential Development
23.500 0.0003
----------------------------------------
Name:
Junction C
Base Flow(cfs): 0.000
-----------------------
Init Stage(ft): 8.400
Group:
BASE
Plunge Factor: 1.00
Warn Stage(ft): 25.500
Type:
Manhole, 1/2
Diameter Grooved
Stage(ft) Area(ac)
------------------------
8.400 0.0003
25.500 0.0003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Post -Bound S Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 8.000
Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 14.000
Type: Time/Stage
Time(hrs)
0.00
10.00
12.00
120.00
Stage(ft)
8.000
12.000
12.000
a.000
_______________________________________________________ _
Name: Pre -Bound South Base Fiow(cfs) 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 8.000
Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 14.000
Type: Time/Stage
Time(hrs)
0.00
10.00
14.00
120.00
SLage(f )
8.000
12.000
12.000
8.000
==` Cross Sections _______________________________________
Name: Group: BASE
Encroachment: No
Station(ft) Elevation(ft) Manning's N
______________ _______________ _______________
OperatingTables =__—____----------- =--------------- ====== ________________
Name: Group: BASE
,Type: Bottom Clip
Function: Time vs. Depth of Clip
=7Y
Time(hrs) ClipDepth(-------- -----Time -----Clip---------
nterconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 4 of I

,incoln Park Residential Development
Pipes =—_ --------- _—____________________--------------
,Name: FOREBAY#5 Out
Group: BASE
UPSTREAM
Geometry: Circular
Span(in): 48.00
Rise(in): 48.00
Invert(ft): 10.300
Manning's N: 0.013000
Top Clip(in): 0.000
Bar Clip(in): 0.000
From Node: FOREBAY#5
To Node: FOREBAY#2
DOWNSTREAM
Circular
48.00
48.00
8.000
0.013000
0.000
0.000
Ipstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
:ircular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
)ownstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
:ircular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
Length(ft):
Count:
Friction Equation:
Solution Algorithm:
Flow:
Entrance Loss Coef:
Exit Loss Coef:
Bend Loss Coef:
Outlet Ctrl Spec:
Inlet Ctrl Spec:
Stabilizer Option:
1158.00
1
Average Conveyance
Automatic
Both
0.50
1.00
1.00
Use do or tw
Use do
None
----------------------
Name:
JuncB-JuncC
From Node:
------ -----------------
Junction B Len-th(ft)
620.00
Group:
BASE
To Node:
Junction C Count:
1
Friction Equation:
Average Conveyance
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
Solution Algorithm:
Automatic
Geometry:
Circular
Circular
Flow:
Both
Span(in):
54.00
54.00
Entrance Loss Coef:
0.50
Rise(in):
54.00
54.00
Exit Loss Coef:
0.00
Invert(ft):
8.830
7.910
Bend Loss Coef:
0.00
Manning's N:
0.013000
0.013000
Outlet Ctrl Spec:
Use do or tw
Top Clip(in):
0.000
0.000
Inlet Ctrl Spec:
Use do
Rot Clip(in):
0.000
0.000
Stabilizer Option:
None
Ipstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
:ircular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
)ownstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
:ircular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
______________________________
Name:
JuncC-B1,1P#1
From Node:
Junction C Length(ft):
252.00
Group:
BASE
To Node:
BMP#1 Count:
1
Friction Equation:
Average Conveyance
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
Solution Algorithm:
Automatic
Geometry:
Circular
Circular
Flow:
Both
Span(in):
60.00
60.00
Entrance Loss Coef:
0.50
Rise(in):
60.00
60.00
Exit Loss Coef:
1.00
Invert(ft):
7.910
7.300
Bend Loss Coef:
0.00
Manning's N:
0.013000
0.013000
Outlet Ctrl Spec:
Use do or tw
Top Clip(in):
0.000
0.000
Inlet Ctrl Spec:
Use do
Bot Clip(in):
0.000
0.000
Stabilizer Option:
None
Ipstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: JA N 2 ZO1O
:ircular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
BY:
nterconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Strea)nline Technologies, Inc. Page S of I

Lincoln Park Residential Development
)ownstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
:ircular Concrete: Groove end projecting
Channels=--------------_---__-------_----__--
----------------------------------------------
Name:
Group: BASE
From Node:
To Node:
Length(ft): 0.00
Count: 1
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
Friction Equation:
Geometry:
Trapezoidal
Trapezoidal
Solution Algorithm:
Invert(ft):
0.000
0.000
Flow:
TC1pInitZ(ft):
9999.000
9999.000
Contraction Coef:
Manning's N:
0.000000
0.000000
Expansion Coef:
Top Clip(ft):
0.000
0.000
Entrance Loss Coef:
Bot Clip(ft):
0.000
0.000
Exit Loss Coef:
Main XSec:
Outlet Ctrl Spec:
AuxElevl(ft):
Inlet Ctrl Spec:
Aux XSecl:
Stabilizer Option:
AuxElev2(ft):
Aux XSec2:
Top Width(ft):
Depth(ft):
Bot Width(ft):
0.000
0.000
LtSdSlp(h/v):
0.00
0.00
RtSdSlp(h/v):
0.00
0.00
Average Conveyance
Automatic
Both
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Use do or tw
Use do
None
Drop Structures =_____ —____-------------_______-----------------
Name: BMP41 Out
Group: BASE
UPSTREAM
Geometry: Circular
Span(in): 24.00
Rise(iin): 24.00
Invert(ft): 10.600
Manni.ng's N: 0.013000
Top Clip(in): 0.000
Bot Clip(in): 0.000
From Node: BMP#1 Length(ft): 120.00
To Node: Post -Bound S Count: 1
DOWNSTREAM
Herz Ellipse
24.00
24.00
9.000
0.013000
0.000
0.000
Ipstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
:ircular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
)ownstream FHWA Tn1.et Edge Description:
lorizontal Ellipse Concrete: Square edge with headwall
** Weir 1 of 2 for Drop Structure BMP#1 Out **
Count: 1.
Type: Horizontal
Flow: Both
Geometry: Circular
Span(in): 36.00
Rise(in): 36.00
Friction Equation: Average Conveyance
Solution Algorithm: Automatic
Flow: Both
Entrance Loss Coef: 0.500
Exit Loss Coef: 0.000
Outlet Ctrl. Spec: Use do or tw
Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use on
Solution Incs: 10
Bottom Clip(in): 0.000
Top Clip(in): 0.000
Weir Disc Coef: 3.200
Orifice Disc Coef: 0.600
** Weir 2 of 2 for Drop Structure BMP#1 Out ***
Invert(ft): 14.000
Control Elev(ft): 14.000
TABLE
RECEg� lE�
JAN 2 7 2010
BY:
nterconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page 6 of 1

,incoln Park Residential Development
TABLE
Count:
1
Bottom
Clip(in):
0.000
Type:
Vertical: Mavis
Top
Clip(in):
0.000
Flow:
Both
Weir
Disc Coef:
3.200
Geometry:
Circular
Orifice
Disc Coef:
0.600
Span(in):
6.00
Invert(ft):
11.000
Rise(in):
6.00
Control
Elev(ft):
11.000
._--_-____-__
Name:
FOREBAY#2
_
Out From Node:
______________
FOREBAY42
-______________-__
Length(ft):
581.00
Group:
BASE
To Node:
Junction
B
Count:
1
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
Friction
Equation:
Average Conveyance
Geometry:
Circular
Herz Ellipse
Solution
Algorithm:
Automatic
Span(in):
48.00
48.00
Flow:
Both
Rise(in):
48.00
48.00
Entrance
Loss Coef:
0.500
Invert(ft):
9.500
8.830
Exit
Loss Coef:
0.000
Manning's N:
0.013000
0.013000
Outlet
Ctrl Spec:
Use do or tw
Top Cl.ip(i.n):
0.000
0.000
Inlet
Ctrl Spec:
Use do
sot Clip(in):
0.000
0.000
Solution
Incs:
10
IpstreamFHWA
Inlet Edge
Description:
:ircular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall
)ownstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description:
lorizontal Ellipse
Concrete: Square edge with
headwall
*' Weir 1 of 1 for Drop Structure FOREBAY#2 Out *"
TABLE
Count:
1
Bottom Clip(in):
0.000
Type:
Horizontal
Top Clip(in):
0.000
Flow:
Both
Weir Disc Coef:
3.200
Geometry:
Circular
Orifice Disc Coef:
0.600
Span(in):
60.00
Invert(ft):
13.500
Rise(in):
60.00
Control. Elev(ft):
13.500
_____
Weirs ____
---------
----------
________________________---------
_
-------________----------
Name:
BMP#1 Spillway
From Node:
BMP#1
Group:
BASE
To Node:
Post -Bound S
Flow:
Both
Count:
1
Type:
Vertical:
Mavis
Geometry:
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width(ft): 100.00
Left Side Slope(h/v): 5.00
Right Side Slope(h/v): 5.00
Invert(ft): 18.000
Control Elevation(ft): 18.000
Struct Opening Dim(ft): 1.50
TABLE
Bottom Clip(ft):
0.000
Top Clip(ft):
0.000
Weir Discharge Coef:
3.200
Orifice Discharge Coef:
0.600
JAN 2 7 2010
---------------------------
---------------- ----------_______________--
---_
Bridges__------------ _____
------ _________________________-----------------
ruerconnected Channel and Pond Routing
Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.
Page 7 of I

.incoln Park Residential Development
Name:
From Node:
Flow:
Both
Group: BASE
To Node:
Run WSPRO:
No
XSEC TYPE NAME
INV(ft)
STAT(ft)
SKEW(deg)
EXPAN
CON:
Exit
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.500
0
Full Valley
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.500
0
Approach
0.000
0.00
0.000
0.500
0
Roadway
0.000
0.00
0.000
Road Surface Material:
Paved
Road Embankment Top Width(ft):
0.00
Road Unsubmerged Weir Q Coef:
0.000
tATING CURVE CONTROL
TW(ft) QMin(cfs)
QMax(cfs)
_______________
Qlnc(cfs)
.______________ _______________ _______________
0.000 0.000
0.000
0.000
Hydrology Simulations
Name: FIFTY
Filename: K:\HRO-Civil\1163i9001 - Camp Lejeune HOUSING\Engineering\Drainage\Drainage 65%\ICPR\FIFTY.R:
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall File: Scsiii
Rainfall Amount(in): 8.70
'ime(hrs) Print Inc(min)
_______--___
.0.000 15.00
.4.000 5.00
i0.000 15.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: HUNDRED
Filename: K:\HRO-Civil\116319001 - Camp Lejeune HOUSING\Engineering\Drainage\Drainage 65%\ICPR\HUNDRED
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall File: Scsiii
Rainfall Amount(in): 9.90
'ime(hrs) Print Inc(min)
-------------- _______________
0.000 15.00
4.000 5.00
)0.000 15.00
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------
Name : , NC
Filename:`K:\HRO Civil\116319001 - Camp Lejeune HOUSING\Engineering\Drainage\Drainage 65%\ICPR\NC.R32
.Override Defaults: Yes
rstorm Duration(hrs): 24.00�
Rainfall File: Scsiii
Rainfall. Amount(in): 1.50 7BY:
'ime(hrs) Print Inc(min) 2 7 2010
nterconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies. Inc. Page 8 of I

,incoln Park Residential Development
.0.000 15.00
.4.000 5.00
10.000 15.00
------ ---------------------------------------
,Name: ONE - - -
Filename�K:\HRO Civil\116319001 - Camp Lejeune HOUSING\Engineering\Drainage\Drainage 65%\ICPR\ONE.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall File: Scsiii
Rainfall Amount(in): 3.68
lime(hrs) Print Inc(min)
._____________________________
.0.000 15.00
.4.000 5.00
10.000 15.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: TEN
Filename: K:\HRO-Civi.1\116319001 - Camp Lejeune HOUSING\Engineering\Drainage\Drainage 65%\ICPR\TEN.R32
Override Defaults: Yes
Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00
Rainfall File: Scsiii
Rainfal.l Amount(in): 6.90
'ime(hrs) Print Inc(min)
-------------- _______________
.0.000 1.5.00
.9.000 5.00
10.000 15.00
------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
Routing Simulations -_—_ ----- —_—_—_—__-----------------------------------------
--------------------- ________________________________________________________________
Name: FIFTY Hydrology Sim: FIFTY
Filename: K:\HRO Civil\116319001 - Camp Lejeune HOUSING\Engineering\Drainage\Drainage 65%\ICPR\FIFTY.L
Execute: Yes Restart: No
Alternative: Ho
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00
'rime Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000
Min Calc Time(sec): 0.5000
Boundary Stages:
'ime(hrs) Print Inc(min)
.______________ _______________
.0.000 15.000
.9 .000 5.000
10.000 15.000
Troup Run
.______________ _____
EASE Yes
Patch: No
Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
End Time(hrs): 90.00
Max Calc Time(sec): 90.0000
Boundary flows:
.___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Name: HUNDRED Hydrology Sim: HUNDRED
Filename: K:\HRO-Civil\116319001 - Camp Lejeune HOUSING\Engineering\Drainage\Drainage 65%\ICPR\HUNDRED
nterconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (]CPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. JAN 8 7 2010age 9 of I
BY:�--

,incoln Park Residential Development
Execute: Yes Restart: No
Alternative: No
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000
Min Cale Time(sec): 0.5000
Boundary Stages:
'ime(hrs) Print Inc(min)
-------------- ---------------
15.000
.4. 000 5.000
10.000 15.000
;roup Run
--------------- -----
SASE Yes
Patch: No
Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
End Time(hrs): 90.00
Max Cale Time(sec): 90.0000
Boundary Flows:
--___-__--------------------------- __
Name: NO - Hydrology Sim: NO
Filename: K:\HRO-Civil\116319001 - Camp Lejeune HOUSING\Engineering\Drainage\Drainage 65%\ICPR\NC.132
Execute: Yes Restart: No
Alternative: No
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000
Min Calc Time(sec): 0.5000
Boundary Stages:
'ime(hrs) Print Inc(min)
--_--- -----------------------
.0.000 15.000
.4.000 5.000
10.000 15.000
;roup Run
SASE Yes
Patch: No
Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
End Time(hrs): 90.00
Max Calc Time(sec): 90.0000
Boundary Flows:
-------------------------y--------------- -- -- --- -- ----- ---------------
Name: ONE Hydrology
ydrolo y Sim: ONE
Filename: K:\HRO-Civil\116319001 - Camp Lejeune HOUSING\Engineering\Drainage\Drainage 65%\ICPR\ONE.I32
Execute: Yes Restart: No
Alternative: No
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000
Min Calc 'Time(sec): 0.5000
Boundary Stages:
'ime(hrs) Print Inc(min)
.-------------- _______________
.0.000 15.000
4.000 5.000
Patch: No
Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
End Time(hrs): 90.00
Max Calc Time(sec): 90.0000
Boundary Flows:
l
nterconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model ([CPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. JAN 2 7 Z010 Page 10 of 1

,incoln Park Residential Development
10.000 15.000
Troup Run
SASE Yes
---------------------------------
Name: TEN Hydrology Sim: TEN
Filename: K:\HRO-Civil\116319061 - Camp Lejeune HOUSING\Engineering\Drainage\Drainage 65s\ICPR\TEN.I32
Execute: Yes Restart: No
Alternative: No
Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00
Time Step Optimizer: 10.000
Start Time(hrs): 0.000
Min Cale Time(sec): 0.5000
Boundary Stages:
'ime(hrs) Print Inc(min)
.-----------------------------
15.000
.4.000 5.000
i0.000 15.000
Troup Run
.-------------- -----
SASE Yes
Patch: No
Delta Z Factor: 0.00500
End Time(hrs): 90.00
Max Cale Time(sec): 90.0000
Boundary Flows:
Boundary Conditions =_—_-_---------------- ------------------
-----------------------
JAN 2 1 2010
merconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (]CPR) 02002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page I I of I

Lincoln Park Residential Development
Max Time
Max
Warning
Max
Delta
Max Surf
Max Time
�
Max
Max Time
Max
Name
Group
Simulation
Stage
Stage
Stage
Stage
Area
Inflow
Inflow
Outflow
Outflow-
hrs
ft
ft
ft
ft2
hrs
cfs
hrs
cfs
BMP#1
BASE
NC
24.62
11.651
19.000
0.0005
262995
12.22
19.303
33.31
:0.562
FOREBAY#2
BASE
NC
12.83
13.688
22.000
0.0008
31071
12.42
5.534
12.83
-
14'1'09-
FOREBAY#5
BASE
NC
12.84
13.702
21.000
0.0009
33285
12.42
4.852
12.89
2.120
Junction B
BASE
NC
24.44
11.651
23.
500
-0.2900
1387
12.53
6.493
13.23
8.294
Junction C
BASE
NC
24.59
11.648
25.500
0.0138
1751
12.67
8.625
12.42
10.867
Post -Bound S
BASE
NC
10.00
12.000
14.000
0.0100
0
33.31
0.562
0.00
0.000
Pre -Bound South
BASE
NC
10.00
12.000
14.000
0.0100
0
0.00
0.000
0.00
BMP#1
BASE
ONE
24.36
13.741
19.000
0.0028
279720
12.25
113.079
39.00
_0..000
1.425
FOREBAY#2
BASE
ONE
12.51
14.355
22.000
0.0025
33121
12.36
43.563
12.51
39.709
FOREBAY#5
BASE
ONE
12.71
15.058
21.000
0.0031
37290
12.33
36.025
12.84
16.171
Junction B
BASE
ONE
24.16
13.741
23.500
-0.2900
183
12.42
64.885
12.42
64.439
Junction C
BASE
ONE
24.26
13.754
25.
500
-0.0210
214
12.42
72.989
12.42
72.
641
Post -Bound S
BASE
ONE
10.00
12.000
14.000
0.0094
0
39.00
., i..425
? 0.00
0.000
Pre -Bound South
BASE
ONE
10.00
12.000
14.000
0.0094
0
14.00
-6.361
0.00
0.000
BMP#1
BASE
TEN
16.46
15.501
19.000
0.0030
294288
12.25
237.019
16.86
27.167
FOREBAY#2
BASE
TEN
12.71
17.472
22.000
0.0031
43551
12.33
94.707
12.85
52.386
FOREBAY#5
BASE
TEN
13.03
18.408
21.000
0.0031
48554
12.33
91.714
13.63
22.069
Junction B
BASE
TEN
12.49
16.564
23.500
-0.2900
183
12.44
92.165
12.44
92.077
Junction C
BASE
TEN
16.00
15.543
25.500
-0.0160
214
12.36
113.706
12.36
113.533
Post -Bound S
BASE
TEN
10.00
12.000
14.000
0.0039
0
16.86
27.167
0.00
0.000
Pre -Bound South
BASE
TEN
10.00
12.000
14.000
0.0039
0
13.50
45.226
0.00
0.000
ti F_ T V L' J
JAI I 1 111,
Inte Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc. Page I of I

Scenario: BMP #1
Inlet Report -
Label
Rim
Elevation
(ft)
Sump
Elevation
(ft)
Structure
Depth
(ft)
Inlet
Inlet
Location
omjpositE
Rational
C
Time
of
3oncentratior
(min)
Area
(acres)
Invert In Elevation 1
(ft)
Invert In Elevation 2
(ft)
Invert Out Elevation
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
A2
21.6C
18.10
3.50
Generic Default 1005
In Sag
0.35
15.00
1.19
N/A
N/A
18.10
21.41
21.48
Al
21.30
17.80
3.50
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0,25
15.00
1.22
N/A
N/A
17,80
21.21
21.24
A3
21.9C
17,39
4.51
Combination NC_Cot
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.63
17.39
N/A
17.39
21.14
21.27
A7
21.52
18,02
3.50
Combination NC_Coi
On Grade
0.65
10-00
0.51
N/A
N/A
18.02
20.48
20.50
A5
21.85
18,35
3,50
Generic Default 1005
In Sag
0.25
15.00
0.90
N/A
N/A
18.35
20.51
20.52
A4
21.90
17.02
4,88
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.65
17.25
17.02
17.02
20.97
21,10
A8
21.52
17.87
3.64
Combination NC_Coi
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.54
17.87
N/A
17.87
20.44
20.46
A9
21.00
17.50
3.50
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.28
N/A
N/A
17.50
20.46
20,52
A6
21.50
16, 17
5,33
Combination NC_Co
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0,74
16.17
17.57
16.17
20.41
20.52
A10
21.00
17.36
3.64
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.68
10.00
0.21
17.44
17.36
17,36
20.39
20A7
A20
21.44
18.00
3.44
Combination NC -Co
In Sag
0.73
10.00
0.53
N/A
N/A
18.00
19.18
19.26
All
21.70
16.02
5,68
Combination NC Cot
In Sag
0,70
10.00
0.13
17.23
16.02
16,02
20,29
20.53
A21
21.50
17.84
3.66
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.74
10.00
0.29
17.84
N/A
17.84
19.05
19.27
A13
21.50
18.00
3.50
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.25
20.00
4.70
N/A
N/A
18.00
21.50
21.95
A11-A
21.50
15.75
5.76
Generic Default 1 OM
In Sag
0.35
10.00
0.34
15.75
N/A
15.75
20.00
20,26
A23
13.50
9.50
4.00
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.00
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
9.50
13.50
13.66
A22
22.28
17.62
4.66
Combination NC_Co
On Grade
0.55
10.00
0.23
17.62
N/A
1Z62
18.70
18.94
A25
21.15
17.65
3.50
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.30
15.00
1.25
N/A
N/A
17.65
18.36
18.52
A14
21.60
17.27
4.34
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.74
17.27
N/A
17.27
19.90
20.78
Al2
22.00
15.36
6.64
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.46
15.36
N/A
15.36
19.60
19.90
A24
23.44
9.30
14.14
Combination NC_Co
On Grade
0.65
5.00
0.05
16.61
9.30
9.30
18A 7
18.37
A26
21.35
16.75
4.60
Generic Default 1000,
In Sag
0.30
10.00
0.29
16.75
N/A
16.75
18.15
18.23
A28
20.85
17.35
3.50
Generic Default 1000,
In Sag
0.72
10.00
0.90
N/A
N/A
17.35
20.12
20.23
A15
21.60
15.03
6.57
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.50
15.00
0.81
15.03
17.12
15,03
18.82
19.15
A16
22AL
18.93
3.51
Combination NC_Co
On Grade
0.55
10.00
0.65
N/A
N/A
18.93
19.45
19.62
A27
22,95
8.93
14.02
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.52
16.17
8.93
8.93
17,83
18.07
A29
20.85
17.20
3.66
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.72
10.00
0.89
17.20
N/A
17.20
19.91
20.35
A17
21,65
14.17
7.48
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.55
10.00
0.37
18.74
14.17
14.17
17.93
18,31
A39
19.85
16.35
3.50
Generic Default 1000,
In Sag
0.70
10.00
0.73
N/A
N/A
16.35
17.76
17,91
A38
20.22
16.72
3.50
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.70
10.00
0.63
N/A
N/A
16,72
17.81
17.94
A30
21,65
8,73
12.92
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.73
10.00
0.41
15,82
8.73
8,73
17A9
17.83
A18
21,65
14,08
7.57
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.66
10.00
0.43
14.08
N/A
14,08
17.64
18.05
A40
19,85
16,20
3.65
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.70
10.00
0.33
16.20
16.36
16.20
17.55
17.65
A41
19.85
16.35
3.50
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.80
10.00
0,43
N/A
N/A
16,35
17,45
17,52
A31
21.65
8.69
12.96
Combination NC Cc
In Sag
0.79
10.00
0,29
8.69
N/A
8.69
17.26
17.61
A19
22.05
13.96
8,09
Combination MC Cc
On Grade
0.70
10.00
Q23
13.96
N/A
13.96
17.29
17.72
A33
21.15
17.65
3,50
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.35
10.00
0.92
N/A
N/A
17.65
18.29
18.51
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 HousingCµs`r L� Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl phl housing_bmpl.slm �L StormCAD v5.6 [05.06.007.00]
01/26/10 OL45:06 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 U A tilh-L557162010 Page 1 of 2
oy

Scenario: BMP #1
Inlet Report
Label
Rim
Elevation
(ft)
Sump
Elevation
(ft)
Structure
Depth
(ft)
Inlet
Inlet
Location
!;OmpositE
Rational
C
Time
of
oncentratior
(min)
Area
(acres)
Invert In Elevation 1
(ft)
Invert In Elevation 2
(ft)
Invert Out Elevation
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(f0
Energy
Grade
Line Out
Of)
A42
19-85
15,77
4.09
Generic Default 1001
In Sag
0,73
10,00
0.70
16,20
15,77
15.77
17.28
17.80
A43
22.55
19.05
3,50
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.80
10.00
0.45
N/A
N/A
19.05
19.73
19.97
A32
22.05
8,63
13,42
Combination NC_Coi
On Grade
0,65
10.00
0.19
8.63
13.85
8.63
16.86
17,77
A34
21.85
16,49
5.36
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.35
10.00
0,75
16.49
N/A
16A9
17,43
17.70
A44
22.55
14.73
7.83
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.80
10.00
0,45
18.90
14.73
14.73
16.23
16.85
A35
24,88
8.39
16,49
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.55
10.00
0.12
15.71
8,39
8.39
15.52
16.12
A36
25.38
21.88
3.50
Generic Default 1005
In Sag
0.60
10.00
0.09
N/A
N/A
21.88
22.13
22.21
A45
24.43
13.62
10.81
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.80
10.00
0.50
13.62
N/A
13.62
15.52
15.99
A37
24.88
7,95
16.93
Generic Default 1009
In Sag
0,55
10.00
0,15
7.95
21.72
7,95
14.40
15,00
A46
24 43
13.46
10.97
Generic Default 1009
In Sag
0.80
10.00
0.53
13.46
N/A
13.46
15.24
15,93
r�C Z. �% ED
JAN 2 7 2010
BY:
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl phl housing_bmpt.stm SlormCAD v5.6 [05.06.007.00]
O1/26/10 01:45:06 PM 9 Bentley Systems. Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 2 of 2

Scenario: BMP #1
Pipe Report -
Pipe
Upstream
Node
Downstream
Node
Length
(it)
Constructed
Slope
(%)
Section
Size
Upstream
Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Average
Velocity
(iUs)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line In
(it)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(it)
Energy
Grade
Line In
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
P-82
A2
A3
142.00
0.50
15 inch
18.10
17.39
2.11
21.41
21.19
21.48
21.25
P-83
Al
A4
154.00
1
15 inch
17.80
17.02
1.54
21.21
21.07
21.24
21 A I
P-29
A3
A4
29.00
0.48
18 inch
17.39
17.25
2.84
21.14
21.07
21.27
21.20
P-56
A7
A8
29,00
0.50
15 inch
18.02
17.87
1,24
20,48
20,46
20.50
20A9
P-80
A5
A6
155.00
0.50
18 inch
18.35
17.57
1
21
20 49
20.52
20.50
P-30
A4
A6
281,00
0.30
24 inch
17,02
16.17
2,98
20,97
2049.
21.10
2062
P-55
A8
A10
87,00
0.50
24 inch
17,87
17.44
0.98
20.44
20A3
20.46
20.44
P-37
A9
A10
30.00
0.48
15 inch
17.50
17.36
1,84
21
2043.
20.52
2048
P-31
A6
A71
51.00
0,29
30 inch
16A7
16.02
2.69
20.41
21
20,52
2047
P-38
A10
A11
39.00
0.31
24 inch
17.36
17.23
2.22
20.39
20.35
20.47
20.43
P-75
A20
A21
30.00
0.53
15 inch
18,00
17.84
4.02
19,18
1912
19.26
19.21
P-84
A11
At 1-A
93,00
0,30
30 inch
16,02
15.75
3.97
20.29
20.08
20,53
20.32
P-76
A21
A22
43.00
0,50
15 inch
17.84
17.62
4.24
19.05
18,86
19.27
19.08
P-86
A13
A14
147.00
0,50
15 inch
18.00
17,27
5.40
21.69
20,15
22.15
20.60
P-85
A11-A
Al2
130.00
0.30
30 inch
15.75
15.36
4.08
20.00
19,69
20,26
19.95
P-79
A23
A24
130.00
0.15
48 inch
9.50
9.30
3.18
18.38
18.28
18.54
18A4
P-77
A22
A24
201.00
0.50
18 inch
1T62
16.61
4.59
18.70
18.28
18.94
18.42
P-73
A25
A26
180.00
0.50
15 inch
17.65
16.75
3.74
18.36
18.17
18.52
18.23
P-40
A14
A15
29.00
0.50
15 inch
17.27
17.12
7.54
19.90
19.30
20.78
20,19
P-72
Al2
A15
108.00
0.30
30 inch
15.36
15.03
4.38
19.60
19.30
19.90
19.60
P-78
A24
A27
248.00
0.15
48 inch
9.30
8.93
3.61
18.17
17.92
18.37
18.13
P-70
A26
A27
116.00
0.50
15 inch
16.75
16.17
2.30
18.15
17.92
18.23
18.01
P-41
A28
A29
31.00
0.50
18 inch
17.35
17.20
2.71
20.12
20.05
20.23
20.17
P-63
A15
A17
286.00
0.30
36 inch
15.03
14.17
4.61
18.82
18.14
19.15
18.47
P-57
A16
A17
40.00
0.48
15 inch
18.93
18.74
3.33
19.45
19.24
19.62
19.43
P-69
A27
A30
133.00
0.15
48 inch
8.93
8.73
3.93
17.83
17.67
18.07
17.91
P-42
A29
A30
276.00
0.50
18 inch
17.20
15.82
5.34
19.91
17.67
20.35
18.12
P-64
A17
A18
29.00
0.31
36 inch
14.17
14.08
4.95
17.93
17.85
18.31
18.23
P-61
A39
A40
30,00
0.50
15 inch
16.35
16.20
3.07
17.76
17.66
17.91
17.81
P-60
A38
A40
72.00
0.50
15 inch
16.72
16.36
4.04
17.81
17.66
17.94
17.77
P-44
A30
A31
28.00
0.16
48 inch
8.73
8.69
4.68
17.49
17.44
17,83
17.78
P-65
A18
A19
42.00
0.30
36 inch
14.08
13.96
5.17
17.64
17.51
18.05
17.93
P-39
A40
A42
87.00
0.50
18 inch
16.20
15.77
4.36
17.55
17,41
17.65
17.51
P-62
A41
A42
30.00
0.50
15 inch
16.35
16.20
3.82
17.45
17.41
17.52
17.48
P-45
A31
A32
42.00
0.15
48 inch
8.69
8,63
4.79
17,26
17.18
17.61
17.54
P-66
A19
A32
35.00
0.31
36 inch
13.96
13.85
5.27
17.29
17.18
17.72
17.61
P-74
A33
A34
232.00
0.50
15 inch
17.65
16,49
3.76
18.29
17.49
18.51
17.57
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl ph1 housing_bmptstm StormCAD v5.6 [05.06.007.00]
01/26/10 01.49:58 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA �1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2

Scenario: BMP #1
Pipe Report
Pipe
Upstream
Node
Downstream
Node
Length
IN
Constructed
Slope
(%)
Section
Size
Upstream
Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Average
Velocity
(ft/s)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line In
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line In
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
P-43
A42
A44
208.00
0.50
24 inch
15,77
14.73
5.78
17.28
16.44
17.80
16.85
P-53
A43
A44
30.00
0.50
15 inch
19.05
18.90
3.86
19.73
19.55
19.97
19.81
P-81
A32
A35
162,00
0.15
48 inch
8.63
8.39
7.65
16,86
16,13
17.77
17,04
P-46
A34
A35
156.00
0.50
15 inch
16.49
15.71
4,22
17.43
16.54
17.70
16.90
P-47
A44
A45
222.00
0,50
30 inch
14,73
13.62
6,33
16,23
15.79
16.85
16.08
P-51
A35
A37
291.00
0.15
54 inch
8.39
7.95
6,24
15.52
14.78
16.12
15.38
P-52
A36
A37
33.00
0,50
15 inch
21.88
21.72
2,29
22,13
21.96
22.21
22.05
P-58
A45
A46
32.00
0.50
30 inch
13.62
13.46
6.50
15.52
15.47
15.99
15.89
P-48
A37
A47
168.00
0.15
54 inch
7.95
7.70
6,22
14.40
13.98
15.00
14.58
P-59
A46
A47
170.00
0.50
30 inch
13 46
12.61
6.64
15.24
14.31
15.93
15.07
P-49
A47
A48
252.00
0.16
60 inch
7.70
7.30
5.97
13.56
13.05
14.11
13.60
JAN2 7 2010
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl phl housing_bmpl.slm StormCAD v5.6 [05.06.007.00]
01/26/10 01:49:58 PM © Bentley Systems. Inc. Haeslad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 2 of 2

Scenario: BMP #1
A2
Rim: 21.60 ft
Inv Out: 18.10 ft
H: 3.50 It -
A3
Rim: 21.90 ft
Inv In 1: 17.39 ft
Inv Out: 17.39 ft
H: 4.51 ft
P-82 `i
142.00ft-15inch
0.50
A4
Rim: 21.90 ft
Inv In 1: 17.25 ft
Inv Out: 17.02 ft
Inv In 2: 17.02ft
H: 4.88 ft
75q,O0h83 -�
0. S0 15inch
Al
Rim: 21.30 x
Inv Out: 17.80 ft
H: 3.50 ft
U
G
s t�N
OQ
A7 ro
Rim: 21.52 ft r `�
Inv Out: 18.02 ft c ARim 9 A9 21.00 ft
H: 3.50 ft �`�� \ Inv Out: 17.50 ft
Q"o ho H: 3.50 ft r /A6
A22 A8 ry o nUi� nvInRim211: 16.17 ft
Rim: 22.28 It Rim: 21.52 ft 0
Inv In 1: 17.62 k Inv In 1: 17.87 f�J \ / Qz' Inv In 2: 17,57 ft
Inv Out: 17.62 ft Inv Out: 17.87 k 00f, o o Inv Out: 16.17 ft
H: 5.33 ft
H: 4.66 It H: 3.64 it 0 %�^chomp \ n
A10 0 �.01 cc�` 7SSO 180
Rim: 21.00ft O 07
Inv In 1: 17.44 ft $ � Off\ 9°I° S0 8�nch A5
d Inv In 2. 17.36 It
Inv Out: 17.36 ft Rim: ut 18 ft
OO -O H: 3.64 ft ` Rim: 21.70 ft Inv Out: 18.35 ft
0 0 • c H: 3.50 ft
�a o Inv In 1: 17.23 ft
��op. All- Q,toInv In2:16.02ft
A23 Rim: 21.50 ft oo "> Inv Out: 16.02 ft
Rim: 13.50 ft H: 5.76 ft o�. o H: 5,68 ft
Inv Out: 9.50 ft Inv In 1: 15.75 ft�
H: 4.00 It Inv Out 15.75 fl
"10iA24
Rim: 23.44 ft �}0 �0�5 Rim: 22.00 ft Al2�4' off
Inv In 1: 16.61 ft Inv In 1: 15.36 k Qop �O
Inv In 2: 9.30 ft Inv Out: 15.36 ft
Inv Out: 9.30 ft H: 6.64 ft
H 14.14 ft
A,s RECUT VIEiD
D o w Rim: 21.60It 2 M
LP �. Inv In t 1s.o3 ft o . JAN 2 7 2010
Inv In 2: 17.12 it Co
0� Inv Out: 15.03 ft �A14
H: 6.57 ft Rim: 21_60 ft BY:
A27 Inv Out: 17.27 ft
Rim: 22.95 ft 29 H: 4.34 It
A26 Inv In 1: 16.17 ft o�v v In 1. 17.27 ft
Rim: 21.35 ft Inv In 2: 8.93 ft �`So A13
Inv In 1: 16.75 ft Inv Out 8.93 ft % o� Rim: 21,5011
Inv Out 16.75 ft H: 14.02 ft A17 r �vj ,o . H: 3.50 ft
H: 4 60 ft Rim: 21.65 ft 00 6�c�O 8 Inv Out: 18.00 ft
Title: Camp L \c1 ip e_Phou Br 1"r sing Inv In 1: 18.74 k Q' 'D° O Of 6 Project Engineer: Joe Modica
ka._\stortncad\cl ph1 houfin-yn. �n stm Inv In 2: 14,17 ft Oo�O 1O `s0 �S Storn-CAD v5.6 [05.06.007.00]
p_-PyV26/10 02:07"12 P 6 OOtt-7°%�ng�w Rim:V�3.440ffy Systdff1'Qt1b)4F134md olution Center Watertcwn,79 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

H:3.50h yyy�
vQ o
1?Oo o A22 Scenario: BMP #1 000
A20r�
Rim o0'F.� Rim:22.28ft A8 a �,
Rim: 21.44 ft S {� - - Rim: 21.52 h
Inv Out: 18.00It `2o'>. Inv In 1: 17.62 ft Inv In t: 17.87 hg p
H: 3.44 ft h Inv Out: 17.62 ft Inv Out 17.87 ff -000_�S
y--, H: 4.66 ft
H: 3.64 ft 0Sp o lnc
A21 P-76\ A10 �
Rim: 21.50 ft 43.00ft-15inch Rim: 21.00 It
Inv In 1: 17.84 It 0.50 % Inv In 1: 17.44 It
Inv Out: 17.84It \A24.'��'
Inv In 2: 17.36 h
H: 3.66 h Inv Out: 17.36 h
H: 3.64 It
A11-A
A23 Rim:21.50ftRim: 13.50 ft H: 5.76ftInv Out: t (t Inv In 1: 15.75 ftH: 4.00ft Inv Out: 75.75\nc�R: 23.44 h ` .�g00p�16°IO Rim: 22.00 h/11
Inv In 1: 9.30 h \ Inv In 1: 15.36 fInv In 2: 9.30 ft \ Inv Out: 15.36 fo o
Inv Out: 9.30 ft H: 6.64 ft
H: 14.14 ft
A25
Rim:21.15ft
Inv Out 17.65 ft
H: 3.50 It
e� p-73
180 0Ott-151nch
050%
A29
Rim: 20.85 ft
Inv In 1: 17.20 It
Inv Out: 17.20 ft
H: 3.66 It
w p.4218.inch
O50
0o r 2l6OOf/
o o l�
p�
A28
5 Rim: 20.85 It
Inv Out: 17.35 ft
H: 3.50 ft
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing
k:\...\stormcad\cl phi housing_bmpl.slm
01/26/10 02:05:29 PM
A26
Rim: 21.35 ft
Inv In 1: 16.75 h
Inv Out: 16.75 It
H: 4.60 ft
P-70
A A 6 06,'fy 5inch
0.% w
0
�oV
�A6,
A30 =e
Rim: 21.65It
Inv In 1: 15.82 e�
Inv In 2: 8,73 ft
Inv Out: 8.73 ft
H: 12.92It
Him: L I.uu n
Inv Out: 17.50 It
H: 3.50 ft r
A6
c
Rim: 21
Inv In 1
Inv In 2
% oo
Inv Out.
H: 5.33
ti
All
c Rim: 21.70 ft
acb Inv In1:17.23ft
Qro Inv In 2: 16.02It
o "> Inv Out: 16.02 It
m o H: 5.68 It
IA16
A15
Rim: 21.60 ft
Inv In 1: 15.03It 400 �0
Inv In 2: 17.12ft ��
Inv Out: 15.03 ft �A14
A27
H: 6.57 It Rini* 21 60 It
Inv Out: 17.27 ft
Rim: 22.95 It
2,9 ,o�H: 4.34 ft
o0,v
Inv In 1: 16.17 h
Inv In 2: 8.93It
Inv In 1. 17.27 h
�Se"%1
Inv Out: 8.93 It
A17 O%S�°hi A13
Rim: 21.50 ft
H: 14.02 ft
Rim: 21.65 It g ccC` Qj .o > H. 3.50 ft
Inv In 1. 18.74 ft Q 5 ,50� p 0.86 In Out: 78.00 h
Inv In 2: 14.17 ft �
Rim: 22,44 It
Inv Out: 14,Lg6 Q)
Inv Out: 18.93 It
H. 3.51 ft 4n - p,c.
H: 7.48 ft
o�
l!
O1wa
A315
Rim:21.65ft 4200"'-I� p
Inv In 1: 8.69ft 0, 7So8/nc
Inv Out: 8.69 ft o h
H: 12.96 It
Rini: 22.05 ft
Inv In 1: 8 63 ft
Inv In 2: 13.85
Inv Out: 8.63 ft
ft H: 13.42
ft
o oo� A 18
y� ° n L¢n Rim: 21.65 ft
;o`5 °m. Inv In 1: 14.08 ft
Inv Out: 14.08ft
o / 5 H: 7.57 ft
P'6�6\nch A19
.�co OOhj"� °lo Rim: 22.05 ft
0 Inv In 1: 13.96ft
Inv Out: 13.96 ItQ, H: 8.09 It
N
oo'a
a➢l
© Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Sofdilkfm_peOler Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone]
JAN 2 7 2010
3Y:
Project Engineer: Joe Modica
Storm CAD v5.6 (05.06.007.00]
Page 1 of 1

A40
A42
Rim: 19.85 ft
Rim. 19.85 ft
Inv In 1: 16.20 ft
Inv In 1: 16,20 It
A38 Inv In 2: 16.36 h P-39
Inv In 2: 15.77 h
Rim: Out: 16 ft Inv Out: 16.20 00ft-18inc
Inv Out: 16.72 ft
Inv Out: 15.77 ft
�i:
H: 3.65 ft 0.50
% 4.09 ft _
H: 3.SO h °
43
P-60 u
o 208.00ft-24
72.0011-15inch'j Lco
o o-p 0.50 %
0.50% c Goo
o1� A41
A39 aoo
o c±iN Rim: 19.85 ft
Rim: 19.85 ft O
'r, Out: 16.35 ft
Inv Out: 16.35 fr
s Hv
H: 3.50 ft
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing
k:\...\stormcad\cl phi housing_bmp 1.stm
01/26/10 01 53:18 PM
,-----'p-73
S OG: BMP #1
A29
Rim: 20.85 ft
Inv In 1: 17.20 ft
Inv Out: 17.20 h
H: 3.66 It
116 Uun-��•�
0.50 % w
�o D
obi
A30 0,
Rim: 21.65-If
Inv In 1: 15.82 ft=
Inv In 2: 8.73 ft
Inv Out: 8.73 ft
H: 12.92 ft
00
O-p
276 OQ5olaSinch
q
OiA I
A28
Rim:20.85ft
Inv Out: 17.35 ft
H: 3.50 ft
p-74
232 0p0ft-50 /o Znch
A33
Rim: 21.15 ft
Inv Out: 17.65 ft
H: 3.50 ft
22.44 ft
Inv Out: 18.93
H: 3.51 If i
w
A31 a
Rim: 21.65 ft 420pfp-
Inv Out: 8.Inv In 1: 69 fftt /S o8/nch\
H: 12.96 ft A32
Rim: 22.05 ft
Inv In 1: 8.63 ft
Inv In 2: 13.85 ft
Inv Out: 8.63 ft
H: 13,42 ft
A44
Rim: 22.55 ft
Inv In 1: 18.90 It
Inv In 2: 14.73 ft
Inv Out: 14.73 ft
H: 7.83 ft P,47
-a
o 222.00 5 a0inch
A43
Rim:22.55ft
Inv Out: 19.05 ft
a H: 3.50 It
A48
Sump: 7.30 ft
Inv Out: 14.17 ft/ .tibl O'
H: 7�ft
nc�
A18
Inv In121: 14.08 ft
n Inv Out: 14.08 ft
H. 7.57 ft
rob nch
35 00 3� alo
P-46
156.00ft-15inch
0.50 %
A34
Rim: 21.85 ft
Inv In 1: 16.49 ft
Inv Out: 16.49 ft
H: 5.36 If
A45
Rim: 24.43 ft
Inv In 1: 13.62 ft
Inv Out: 13,62 ft
H: 10.81 ft N
ia o
A46 \
Rim. 24.43 h
Inv In 1: 13.46 ft
Inv Out: 13,46 ft n
H: 10,97 ft o
0
0 ov
o
0
\0 3
A19
Rim: 22.05 ft
Inv In 1: 13.96 ft
Inv Out: 13.96 ft
H: 8.09 ft
A35
Rim: 24.88 ft
Inv In 1: 15.71 ft
Inv In 2: 8.39 It
Inv Out: 8.39 ft
H: 16.49 If
A37 \
Rim: 24.88 ft
Inv In 1: 7.95 ft
Inv In 2: 21.72 ft
Inv Out: 7.95 ft 57-
H: 16.93 ft /� p- knch
33 00R-
0 50
A47
Rim: 24.50 ft
Inv In 1: 12.61 ft
Inv In 2: 7.70 ft
Inv Out* 7.70 ft
H: 16.80 It
© Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone]
A36
Rim: 25,38 ft
Inv Out: 21.88 ft
H: 3.50 ft
RECEIVED
JAN 2 7 2010
BY:
Project Engineer: Joe Modica
StormCAD v5.6 [05.06.007.00]
Page 1 of 1

Scenario: BMP #2
Inlet Report
Label
Rim
Elevation
(ft)
Sump
Elevation
(ft)
Structure
Depth
(ft)
Inlet
Inlet
Location
0h it
Rational
C
Time
of
oncentratio
(min)
Area
(acres)
Invert In Elevation 1
(ft)
Invert In Elevation 2
(ft)
Invert Out Elevation
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
B8
21.32
18.17
3.15
Combination NC_Col
In Sag
0.54
10.00
0.19
N/A
N/A
18.17
20.51
20,52
B10
21.32
1847
2.85
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10,00
0.48
N/A
N/A
18A7
20.44
20.57
B9
21.32
18.05
3.27
Combination NC_Cor
In Sag
0.67
0.00
0.29
18.05
N/A
18.05
20,47
20.58
B12
21.54
18,25
3.29
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.59
N/A
N/A
18.25
2014
20,22
311
21.75
17.93
3.82
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.27
17,93
18.38
17,93
20.22
20.27
B23
22.35
19.35
3.00
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.35
11
0.66
N/A
N/A
19.35
19,94
20,08
B1
21.00
10.30
10.70
Generic Default 10i
In Sag
0.00
0.00
0.00
N/A
N/A
10.30
19,14
19.19
B4
22.50
19.00
3,50
Combination NC_Coi
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.47
N/A
N/A
19.00
19.96
20,02
B13
21.54
17,28
4.25
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0,65
10.00
0.56
17,28
18.10
17.28
20,01
20,18
B24
22.64
18.84
3.80
Combination NC_Co
On Grade
0.75
10.00
0.19
18.84
N/A
18.84
19.59
1971.
B25
22.00
11
3.50
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.25
20.00
1.42
N/A
N/A
18.50
19.99
20.10
B2
21.89
10.07
11_82
Combination NC_Coi
On Grade
0,65
5.00
0,04
10.07
N/A
10.07
19,08
19,13
B5
22.50
18.75
3.75
Combination NC_Col
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.44
18.91
N/A
18.75
19.87
19.93
136
22.05
18.55
3.50
Combination NC_Cor
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.53
N/A
N/A
18.55
20.09
20.37
B14
22.25
16,68
5.57
Combination NC -Co
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0,09
16,68
N/A
16.68
19.58
19.75
515
21.65
18.15
3.50
Combination NICE
In Sag
a65
10.00
0.34
N/A
N/A
18.15
19.46
19.52
B26
22.64
17.80
4.84
Combination NC_Cor
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.64
18.76
17.80
17,80
19A6
19,60
B34
23.18
17,64
5.54
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.34
N/A
N/A
17.64
19.42
19.45
B36
21.50
18.25
3,25
Generic Default 100°
In Sag
0,35
15.00
1.03
N/A
N/A
18.25
19.50
19.55
B18
22.35
18.85
3,50
Generic Default 1009
In Sag
0,35
10,00
0,70
N/A
N/A
18.85
19,45
19.60
B3
21.65
9.72
11_93
Combination NC_Co,
In Sag
0.65
10,00
0.34
9.72
N/A
9,72
19.01
19.07
37
22.05
18,30
3.75
Combination NC_Col
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0,52
18,47
18.30
18.30
19.60
19.88
B16
21.65
16.39
5.26
Combination NC_Col
In Sag
0.69
10.00
0.34
11
18.00
16.39
19.29
19.56
B27
22.25
17.56
4.69
Combination NC_Cor
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.45
17.56
N/A
17.56
1917
19,29
B35
23.18
17.55
5.63
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.39
17.55
N/A
17.55
19,38
19A4
B37
22.05
17,81
4.24
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0,65
10.00
0,57
17,81
N/A
17.81
19,28
19.48
B19
21.95
18.14
3.81
Generic Default 1009
In Sag
0.35
10.00
0,67
18.14
N/A
18.14
18,89
19.20
B20
21.85
18.85
3,00
Generic Default 10i
In Sag
0.35
10.00
043
N/A
N/A
18.85
19.27
19.42
B17
21.65
9.64
12,01
Combination NC_Col
In Sag
0.72
10.00
0,39
16,12
9.64
9.64
18.84
19.01
B28
21,90
17.38
4.52
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.58
17,38
N/A
17.38
19.02
19,22
B39
21,35
17.85
3.50
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0,70
10.00
0,40
N/A
N/A
17.85
18.49
18.65
B38
22.05
16,86
5.19
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0,57
16,86
17,73
16.86
18,97
19. 11
B21
22.35
9.18
13.17
Combination NC Co
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.07
18.39
9.18
9.18
18,56
18,76
B29
21.90
17.29
4.61
Combination NC Cc
In Sag
0.65
10,00
0.56
17.29
N/A
17.29
18.80
19,03
830
22.05
18.05
4.00
Combination NC Co
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.48
N/A
N/A
18.05
18.60
18,77
B40
21.35
16.03
5.32
Combination NC Co
In Sag
0.67
10.00
0.32
16.03
17.70
16.03
18.39
18.49
B22
21.35
8.83
12.52
Combination NC Co
In Sag
0.69
10.00
0.42
8.83
N/A
8.63
18.34
18,56
1
_..._..-...�-�ti�
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing
k:\...\stormcad\cl ph1 housing_bmp2.stm
01/26/10 02:09:44 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA
hL' V LYJ
1-21-1666� 2010
Project Engineer: Joe Modica
Storn-CAD v5.6 [05.06.007.001
Page 1 of 2

Scenario: BMP #2
Inlet Report
Label
Rim
Elevation
(it)
Sump
Elevation
(ft)
Structure
Depth
(ft)
Inlet
Inlet
Location
ompostE
Rational
C
Time
of
oncentratior
(min)
Area
(acres)
Invert In Elevation 1
(ft)
Invert In Elevation 2
(ft)
Invert Out Elevation
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
B31
22.05
16.07
5-98
Combination NC Cot
On Grade
0.65
10.00
045
17,91
16.07
16.07
18.46
18.58
B41
21.35
8,76
12.59
Combination NC_Cot
In Sag
0.67
10.00
0.35
15.75
8.76
8.76
18.19
18.66
B43
20.85
17A0
3.45
Generic Default 1005
In Sag
0.35
15.00
1.38
N/A
N/A
17 40
18.14
18.38
B44
21.20
8.39
12.81
Combination NC_Cci
On Grade
0.75
10.00
0.11
8.39
1 Z28
8,39
17.58
18.08
645
2038.
17.13
3.25
Combination NC Cot
In Sag
0.45
10.00
0.63
N/A
N/A
17.13
17.81
18.02
B47
21.15
17.64
3,51
Combination NC Cot
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.54
N/A
N/A
17.64
18.27
18.37
B49
20,38
17.13
3.25
Combination NC Cot
In Sag
0.49
10.00
0.93
N/A
N/A
17.13
17.92
18A8
B46
2038
8.08
12-30
Combination NC Cot
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.18
16,95
8.08
8.08
16.92
17.26
B48
21 A
17,50
3.65
Combination NC Cot
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.51
17.50
N/A
17,50
18.18
18.43
B50
20.38
7.87
12.51
Combination NC Coi
In Sag
0.82
10.00
0.46
16.95
7.87
7.87
16.64
17.04
C "a K F-
JAN 2 7 2010
BY: ---
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl phi housing_bmp2.stm StormCAD v5.6 (05.06.007.00]
01/26/10 02:09:44 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haeslad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 2 of 2

Scenario: BMP #2
Pipe Report
Pipe
Upstream
Node
Downstream
Node
Length
(ft)
Constructed
Slope
(%)
Section
Size
Upstream
Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Average
Velocity
(ft/s)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line In
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line In
(it)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
P-65
B8
B9
40,00
0,30
12 inch
18.17
18.05
0,96
20.51
20.49
20.52
20.51
P-45
B10
B11
29,00
0,31
12 inch
18.47
18.38
2.93
20.44
20.32
20,57
2045
P-66
B9
B11
42.00
0.29
12 inch
18.05
17.93
2.71
20A7
20.32
20.58
20.43
P-44
B12
B13
30.00
0.50
15 inch
18.25
18.10
2.30
20.14
20.08
20.22
20.16
P-40
B11
B13
232.00
0.28
24 inch
17.93
17.28
1.78
20,22
20.08
20.27
2013
P-55
B23
B24
151.00
0.33
15 inch
19.35
18.84
2.97
19.94
19,64
20.08
19.71
P-46
B1
B2
113,00
0,20
42 inch
10.30
10.07
1.81
19,14
19.10
1919
19.16
P-30
B4
B5
29,00
0.30
12 inch
19.00
18.91
2.72
19.96
19,92
20.02
19.97
P-41
B13
B14
184.00
0.33
24 inch
17.28
16.68
3.24
20.01
19.64
20.18
19.81
P-10
B24
B26
29.00
0.30
18 inch
18.84
18.76
3.13
19,59
19.55
19.71
19,66
P-64
B25
B26
140.00
0.50
12 inch
18.50
17,80
2.55
19.99
19.55
20,10
19.65
P-50
B2
B3
145.00
0.25
42 inch
10.07
9.72
1.83
19.08
19.04
19A3
19,09
P-29
B5
B7
89.00
0.51
18 inch
18.75
18.30
3.92
19.87
19.83
19.93
19.87
P-49
B6
B7
29.00
0.28
12 inch
18.55
18.47
4.27
20.09
19.83
20.37
20.12
P-42
B14
616
93.00
0.31
24 inch
16.68
16.39
3.24
19.58
19.39
19.75
19.56
P-39
B15
B16
29.00
0.50
12 inch
18.15
18.00
2.08
19A6
19.39
19.52
19,46
P-11
B26
B27
78.00
0.30
18 inch
17.80
17.56
2.95
19,46
19.27
19,60
1941.
P-61
B34
B35
31.00
0.30
15 inch
17,64
17.55
1.33
19.42
19.40
19,45
19A3
P-62
B36
B37
144.00
0.30
15 inch
18.25
17,81
3.07
19,50
19.32
19.55
19.37
P-36
B18
619
193.00
0.37
15 inch
18.85
18.14
3.12
19,45
18,97
19.60
19.03
P-25
B3
B17
28.00
0.26
42 inch
9.72
9.64
2.00
19.01
19.00
19.07
19.06
P-28
B7
617
258.00
0.30
24 inch
18.30
17.53
4.31
19,60
19.00
19.88
19.22
P-27
B16
617
90.00
0.30
24 inch
16,39
16.12
4.11
19.29
19.00
19,56
19.26
P-12
B27
B28
60.00
0.30
24 inch
1T56
17.38
4.18
19.17
19.12
19,29
19.23
P-56
B35
B38
227.00
0.30
18 inch
17.55
16.86
1.95
19.38
19.13
19.44
19.19
P-59
B37
B38
30.00
0,28
15 inch
1T81
17.73
3.65
19.28
19.13
1948.
19.34
P-19
B19
B21
97.00
0.76
15 inch
18.14
17,41
4.80
18.89
18.69
19.20
18.81
P-20
B20
B21
93.00
0.50
15 inch
18.85
18.39
3.07
19.27
18.80
19A2
18.95
P-26
617
B21
185.00
0.25
48 inch
9.64
9.18
3.29
18,84
18.69
19.01
18.85
P-57
B28
B29
29.00
0.30
24 inch
17.38
17,29
4.38
19.02
18.97
19.22
19.16
P-43
B39
B40
29.00
0.50
15 inch
17.85
17.70
3.62
18A9
18 47
18.65
18.57
P-58
B38
B40
27T00
0.30
24 inch
16.86
16.03
3.06
18.97
18.47
19.11
18.61
P-18
B21
B22
140.00
0.25
48 inch
9.18
8.83
3.58
18.56
18.42
18.76
18.62
P-31
B29
B31
408.00
0.30
30 inch
17.29
16.07
4.64
18.80
18,51
19,03
18.60
P-33
B30
B31
28.00
0.50
12 inch
18.05
17.91
3,33
18.60
18.51
18.77
18.65
P-14
B40
B41
92.00
0.30
30 inch
16.03
15.75
4.68
18.39
18.31
18,49
18.41
P-60
B22
I B41
1 29.00
0.25
48 inch
1 8,83
8.76
3.75
18,34
18.31
18.56
18.53
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl ph1 housing_bmp2.stm Storn-CAD v5.6 [05.06.007.001
O1/26/10 02:10:06 PM 0 Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 2

Scenario: BMP #2
Pipe Report
Pipe
Upstream
Node
Downstream
Node
Length
(ft)
Constructed
Slope
(%)
Section
Size
Upstream
Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Average
Velocity
(ft/s)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line In
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line In
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
P-32
631
B41
139.00
0.30
30 inch
16.07
15.65
4.79
18 46
18.31
18.58
18.43
P-15
B41
B44
148.00
0.25
48 inch
8.76
8.39
5.50
18.19
17.84
18.66
18.31
P-9
B43
B44
24,00
0.50
15 inch
17,40
17,28
3.97
18.14
17,98
18.38
18.26
P-24
B44
B46
121.00
0.25
48 inch
8.39
8.08
5.69
17.58
17.28
18,08
17.78
P-22
B45
B46
34.00
0.51
12 inch
17,13
16,95
3,63
17.81
1 Z57
1802
17.83
P-35
B47
B48
28.00
0,50
15 inch
17.64
17,50
3,39
18.27
18.25
18.37
18.32
P-47
B49
B50
35.00
0.50
15 inch
17.13
16-95
4.06
17,92
17.69
18.18
18.00
P-23
B46
B50
85.00
0,25
54 inch
8.08
7.87
4.64
16.92
16,80
17.26
17.14
P-34
B48
B50
54,00
0.50
18 inch
17.50
17.23
4.01
18,18
17.90
18.43
18.16
P-48
650
B51
191.00
0.25
54 inch
7.87
7.40
5.06
16,64
16.32
17.04
16.72
JAN 2 7 2010
1-3v.
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl ph1 housing_bmp2.stm StormCAD v5.6 (05.06.007.00]
01/26/10 02:10:06 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 2 of 2

B10
Rim: 21.32 ft
Inv Out: 18.47
ft
H: 2.85 ft
=
B11
Rim: 21.75 ft
, F`l
Inv In 1: 17.93 ft
'T
Inv In 2: 18.38 ft
aoo
Inv Out: 17.93 ft
N 1
H: 3.82 ft
P-65 c
40.00ft-12inch
0.30%
B8
Rim: 21.32 ft
Inv Out: 18.17 ft
H: 3.15 k Rim 21.32 It
H: 3.27 ft
Inv In 1: 18.05 ft
Inv Out: 18.05 ft
634
Rim: 23.18 k
Inv Out: 17.64 k c
H: 5,54 ft
n
B35
Rim: 23.18 ft
Inv In 1: 1Z55 ft
Inv Out: 17.55 ft
22I0p��:
H: 5.63 ft
0,30
232.00ft424inch
0.28 %
Scenario: BMP #2
B12
Rim: 21.54It r
Inv Out: 18.25 ft
H: 3.29It o�^o
doh
00
o
B13 \
Rim: 21.54 ft
Inv In 1: 17.28 It 1846
Inv In 2: 18.10 ft 0
Inv Out: 17.28 ft
H: 4.25 ft
B36
Rim: 21.50 ft
Inv Out: 18.25 ft
H: 3.25 ft
B37
Rim: 22.05 ft
r
Inv In 1: 17.81 ft
c`
Inv Out: 17.81 ft
m'n
H: 4.24ft
aoN
00
B38
Rim: 22.05 ft
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Inv In 1: 16.86 It
k:\...\stormcad\cl pht housing_bmp2.slm Inv In 2: 17.73 It
01/26/10 02:11'49 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haehta®fu1Iet1&86$olution Center Wat"3 ,n
B1
Rim: 21.00 ft
In Out: 10.30 ft
H: 10.70 t 32
11019
q Rim: 21.89 ft
11 19 91 Inv In 1: "fD.07 ft
-�oo�ch HV11821ft.07ft
s
0 0�
B15
B.
Rim: 21.65ft
\��
Ri
B14
Inv Out: 18.15ft �
In
Rim: 22.25 ft
H: 3.50 ftIn
p�NaHInv
In 1: 16.68 ft
pC? .
N
Inv Out :16.68ft
Iao"'
Qog"
d
H: 5.57 ft
P=42
93.00k-24inch
P-27
0.31 %
B16 90.00ft-24mch
B
Rim: 21.65 ft
0.30 %
F
Inv In 1: 16.39 ft
Ir
Inv In 2: 18.00 ft
It
Inv Out: 16.39 ft
It
H: 5.26 ft
h
4o N
oa
h
m
B20
Rim: 21.85 ft
Inv Out: 18.85 ft
H: 3.00 ft
88 00f10-
, -?0
0.50 Sigch
91
B21
Rim: 22.35 ft
Inv In 1: 18.3f
Inv In 2: 9.18
Inv In 3: 17.4
�CE1 V F
Y.�yyIrojec
Inv Out: 9.18
H: 13.17 ft
JAN 2 2201
B39
a �p0D
Ri .. 5 ft ngineer
Inv- c
JoRModica
H: 3.50 k �o E8qPnc.ao vss Ids.aE.5oo7.001
[phone] p� r� Rim: 21.35 ft
I Pa� 1 of 1

0 3
\ B3
Scenario: BMP #2
21.65 ft
B4
s I9.72
-
B
Rim: 22.50 h
Out, 1
c Inv Outt: 9.72
Rim: 22.05 ft
Inv Out: 19.00 ft
H. 11.93 ft
Inv Out: 18.55 ft r
H: 3.50 ft
lON
H: 3.50 ft
,cN0
U
O�
.I
.7 �
C
N
�a0�
PoNc
B 17
nch Rim: 21_65 ft
258.00f28ginch
B7
P-29
Inv In 1: 16.12 ft
0.30 %
Rim: 22.05 ft
89.00k-18inch BS
Inv In 2: 9.64 ft
Inv In 1: 18.47 ft
0.51 % Rim: 22.50 ft
Inv In 3: 17.53 ft
Inv In 2. 18.30 ft
Inv In 1: 18.91 ft
Inv Out: 9.64 It
Inv Out: 18.30 ft
Inv Out: 18.75 h
H: 12.01 ft
H: 3.75 ft
H: 3.75 ft
r
U
/ao
N
/mo B19
Rim: 21.95 ft
Inv In 1: 18.14 ft
Inv Out: 18.14 ft
H: 3.81 k
B18
Rim :22.35
ft
P _15\nch
P-36
Inv Out: 18.85
H: 3.50 ft
h
97 OOn °°
-1 0j6
193.00ft-15inch
m: 22.35 ft
0.37%
v In 1: 18.391
v In 2: 9.18 ft
v In 3: 17.41 ft
v Out: 9A8 h
13.17 ft
a
0
o�
;o
ae'
s
U
630
Rim: 22.05ft
Inv Out: 18.05 ft
N 139.00ft 2 do o
Oft-3
H: 4.00 ft
0.30 o �
N
B23
Rim: 22,35 It
Inv Out: 19.35 ft
H: 3,00 It
B24
Rim: 22.64 ft
Inv In 1: 18.84 ft
Inv Out: 18.84 ft
H: 3.80 It
B26
Rinr 22.64 ft
Inv In 1: 18.76 ft
Inv Out: 17.80 ft
B25
H: 4,84 ft
Rim: 22.00 It
Inv In 2: 1 Z80 It
H: 3.50 ft
Inv Out: 18.50 h
29.0Oft-j8inch
0.30 %
l: 21.35- ft -_� B29 c OOn 24. ch
In 1: 15.75 It B31 Ri 21 90 It n v � 60. 30 %
P-64
r
U
140.0 Oft-12inch
sz
0.50 %
o
d n
00
In 2: 8.76 ft Rim: 22.0511
In 3: 15.65 ft Inv In 1: 1Z91 h
-,..�
a
Inv In 1: 17.29 ft
Inv Out: 17.29 ft
`%'0 0. B27
aoo Rim: 22.25 ft
Out- 8.76 ft Inv In 2: 16.07 ft
1 �.C.�,E+'XJF rD
P-31
H: 4.61 k
o; B28
Inv In 1: 17.56 ft
2.59 ft Inv Out: 16.07 k
408.00ft_30inch
Rim: 21.90 ft
Inv Out: 17.56 ft
H: 4.69 ft
H: 5.98 ft
JAN 2 � 2010
°
0.30 %
Inv In 1: 17.38 k
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing
Inv Out: 17.38 h
H: 4.52 k
Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl phl housing_bmp2.slm
StormCAD v5.6 [05.06.007.00j
01/26/10 02:15:23 PM
-1
tad Methods Solution Center
Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone]
Page 1 of 1

Rim: 21.50 It
Inv Out: 18.25 It
H: 3.25 It
Scenario: BMP #2
B37
Rim: 22.05 ft
r
Inv In 1: 17.81 It
c
Inv Out: 17.81 ft
m
H:424It
00
B38
Rim: 22.05 ft
Inv In 1: 16.86 It
Inv In 2: 17.73 ft
Inv Out: 16.86 It
H: 5.19 It
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing
k:\...\stormcad\cl phi housing_bmp2.stm
01/26/10 02:17:20 PM
27I�00ft 24i
0.36 %nch
B20
Rim: 21.85 It
Inv Out: 18.85 ft
H: 3.00 It
B39
Rim: 21.35 ft
Inv Out: 17.85 ft
H: 3.50 ft
B40
Rim: 21.35 ft
Inv In 1: 16.03 It
Inv In 2: 17.70 It
Inv Out: 16.03 ft
H: 5.32 ft
93.
o B22
Rim:21.3511
o Inv In 1: 8.83If
Inv Out: 8.83 It
H: 12.52 It
92.00ft-30inch
0.30 %
B19
Rim: 21.95 ft
Inv In 1: 18.14 ft
Inv Out: 18.14 h
H: 3.81 ft
B21 97 p
Rim: 22.35 If
Inv In 1: 18.39 ft
Inv In 2: 9.18 If
Inv In 3: 17.41 It
Inv Out: 9.18 ft
H: 13.17 ft
A
O
(n �
o' m
5
n
T
U
c
� PN
laoo
N
841
Rim: 21.35 It
Inv In 1: 15.75 ft
139.00ft330inch
Inv In 2: 8.76 If
0.30 %
Inv In 3: 15.65 It
Inv Out: 8.76It
H: 12.59 ft
Rim
:
/ im:21_2Rim 0ft Rim:20.85ft
Inv In 1: 8.39 ft Inv Out 17.40 ft
Inv In 2: 17.28 It H: 3.45 It
Inv Out: 8.39 ft
H: 12.81 ft
?q p pft -9
ur, p.sp o/nch
7Rim:
B45Rim:20.38It v46
Inv Out: 17.13 ft 20.38 ftH: 3.25It v In 1: 16.95It
�v In 2: 8.08 ft
3?Oph22 �� Inv Out: 8.08It
072/ H: 12.30 ft
© Bentley Systems, Inc. SA6'2F& Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone]
193.00P-36
ft-15inch
0.37 %
B30
Rim: 22.05 It
Inv Out: 18.05 It
H: 4.00 It
B31
Rim: 22.05 It
Inv In 1: 17.91 ft
Inv In 2: 16.07 It
Inv Out: 16.07 It
H: 5.98 ft
Cr� '1VED
JAN 2 7 2010
BY: === -
Project Engineer: Joe Modica
StormCAD v5.6 (05.06.007.00]
Page 1 of 1

134U
Rim: 21.35ItInv In 1: �
Inv In 2: 17.70 ft 92.00ft-30i
Inv Out: 16.03 ft _ 0.30 %
nch
H: 5.32 ft
Q�
c
b�
C?
I
c
aoo
FFB41 $Cellarl0'2
-Scenario:
N
Rim: 21.35ft
P_32
Inv In 1: 15.75 ft
139,00ft-30inch
Inv In 2: 8.76 ft
0,30 %
Inv In 3: 15.65 ft
Inv Out: 8.76 ft
H: 12.59 It
/ B43
Rim
Rim: 21.20 ft Rini : 20.85 ft
Inv In 1: 8.39 ft Inv Out: 17.40 ft
Inv In 2: 17.28 ft H: 3.45 ft
Inv Out: 8.39 ft
H: 12.81 ft
2q
0�Op of rnch
c
B45Rim:
20.38 ft
46
Inv Out 17.13 ft
ini: 20.38 ft
11nv
H: 3.25 ft
nv In 1: 16,95 ftnv
'74-00";"2�
In 2: 8.08 ft
Out: 8.08 ft
I?inch
0 S7
7 H: 12.30ft
B49
Rim: 20.38 ft
Inv Out: 17.13 ft
H: 3.25 ft
0 6
0 Si/nch
B50
Rim: 20.38 ft
Inv In 1: 16.95 It
Inv In 2: 7.87 It
Inv In 3: 17.23 ft
Inv Out: 7.87 It
H: 12.51 It
0
N
0
-c B47
c Rim: 21.15 ft
Inv Out: 17.64 ft
'ry Q'o ,moo �n H: 3.51 ft
Sa.o0i3iaincn B48
0.50% Ri m: 21.15ft
Inv In 1: 17.50 It
Inv Out: 17.50 ft
H: 3.65 ft
H 4.00 ft v
B31
Rim: 22.05 ft
Inv In 1: 17.91 ft
Inv In 2: 16.07 ft
Inv Out: 16.07 ft
H: 5.98 ft
TitleCamp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing I B51
k:\...\stormcad\cl phl housing_bmp2.slm Sump: 7.40 If
01/26/10 02:16.53 PM it, © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA 1-203-755-1666
408.00h 1
0.30 j0fnch
JAN 2 1 2010
Project Engineer: Joe Modica
StormCAD v5.6 [05.06.007.00]
Page 1 of 1

Scenario: BMP #5
InletReport
Label
Rim
Elevation
(ft)
Sump
Elevation
(ft)
Structure
Depth
(ft)
Inlet
Inlet
Location
ompositE
Rational
C
Time
of
oncentratior
(min)
Area
(acres)
Invert In Elevation 1
(ft)
Invert In Elevation 2
(ft)
Invert Out Elevation
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
Ill)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
E36
21 40
18.56
2.84
Generic Default 1009
In Sag
0,25
20.00
1.51
N/A
N/A
18.56
21.00
21.05
E31
21.50
18.55
2.95
Generic Default 100°
In Sag
0.25
20.00
0.92
N/A
N/A
18.55
20.89
20-90
E4
22.69
18.90
3.79
Combination NC_Coi
On Grade
0.65
15.00
0.27
N/A
N/A
18.90
20.01
20-03
E35
23,25
20.00
3.25
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.30
15.00
0.47
N/A
N/A
20.00
20.77
20.80
E37
21.75
18.15
3.60
Combination NC_Cor
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.91
18,15
N/A
18.15
20.82
20.96
E33
21.00
18.25
2.75
Generic Default 1009
In Sag
0.30
15.00
0.46
N/A
N/A
18.25
20.79
20,81
E32
21.45
18.20
3.25
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10,00
0.81
18,20
N/A
18.20
20,81
20.90
E18
21.00
18.25
2,75
Generic Default 100°
In Sag
0.30
15.00
0.76
N/A
N/A
18.25
20.88
20.93
E5
21.59
18.25
3,34
Combination NC_Coi
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.47
18.25
N/A
18.25
19.92
20.03
E6
20.85
17.60
3.25
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0,80
10.00
0,48
N/A
N/A
17.60
19.43
19,49
E1
22.21
18.50
3.71
Combination NC_Coi
On Grade
0,65
10.00
0.50
N/A
N/A
18.50
19.76
19.83
E38
21.75
18,07
3.68
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.77
10.00
0.31
18.07
19.46
18.07
20.61
20.88
E34
21,45
18,13
3,32
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.27
18.09
18,13
18.13
20.69
20.85
E20
21,81
18.81
3.00
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.64
10.00
0.47
N/A
N/A
18.81
20.37
20.50
E19
21.00
17.77
3.23
Generic Default 100°
In Sag
0.30
15.00
0.37
17.77
N/A
17.77
20.58
20.69
E22
22.16
1916
3.00
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.64
10.00
0.22
N/A
N/A
19.16
20.18
20.21
E10
21.25
18.50
2.75
Generic Default 100°
In Sag
0.30
15.00
0.72
N/A
N/A
18.50
19.61
19.66
E7
20.85
17.51
3.34
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.47
17.51
17.81
17.51
19.34
19.42
E3
20.85
17.35
3.50
Combination NC_Co
In Sag
0.80
10.00
0.56
N/A
N/A
17.35
19.36
19.48
E2
21A5
1744
3.71
Combination NC_ Cot
On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.47
17,44
N/A
17.44
19,44
19.55
E42
21.25
18.25
3.00
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.30
15.00
0.65
N/A
N/A
18.25
19.10
19A 3
E39
21.68
17.76
3.92
Combination NC_Cot
On Grade
0.80
10.00
0.03
17.76
17.84
17.76
20.09
20.35
E40
20.58
17.58
3.00
Combination NC Got
In Sag
0.65
10,00
0.88
N/A
N/A
17.58
19.45
19.64
E21
21.69
17.42
4.27
Combination NC_Cot
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.38
18.58
17.42
17.42
20.11
20.25
E23
22.16
18.95
3.21
Combination NC Cut
In Sag
0.80
10.00
0.28
18.95
N/A
18.95
20.10
20,28
E9
21.35
17.85
3.50
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.30
15.00
0.64
N/A
N/A
17.85
19,18
19.21
Ell
21_25
17,85
3.40
Generic Default 1000
In Sag
0.30
15,00
0.64
17.85
N/A
17.85
19.28
19.34
E8
20,85
17.00
3.85
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
O,65
10.00
0.32
17,14
17.20
17.00
19.21
19.36
E14
21.05
18.30
2,75
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.83
N/A
N/A
18.30
19.89
20.29
E43
21,00
17.05
3.95
Generic Default 1009
In Sag
0.35
10.00
0.65
17.05
N/A
17.05
19.01
19.08
E41
20,58
17.18
3.41
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0,85
17.51
17,18
17.18
19.18
19.48
E24
21.78
17.12
4.66
Combination NC -Co
r On Grade
0.65
10.00
0.03
18,73
17.12
17.12
19.78
19.87
E25
21.00
17.75
3.25
Combination NC_CoiLIn
0.65
10.00
0.65
N/A
N/A
17.75
19.67
19,77
E12
21.70
16.23
5.47
Combination NC_Coi
0.80
10.00
0.02
17.25
16.23
16.23
18.97
19.18
E15
21.05
17.30
3.75
Combination NC Cc
0.65
10.00
0.78
18.21
N/A
17.30
19.24
19.34
E16
20.65
17.65
3.00
Combination NC_Cor
0.65
10.00
0.58
N/A
N/A
17.65
18.9519.03
E44
21A5
16.68
447
Combination NC Coi
0.65
10.00
0.10
16.68
16.47
16.68
18.70
19.07
�CR1 v "AID �roject Engineer: Joe Modica
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing
k:\...\stormcad\cl phi housing_bmp5.stm I S
01/26/10 02:17:49 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-75JU6 2 7 2010 ormCAD v5.6 [05.06.007.00]
Page 1 of 2
I-V

Scenario: BMP #5
Inlet Report
Label
Rim
Elevation
(11)
Sump
Elevation
(h)
Structure
Depth
(ft)
Inlet
Inlet
Location
--ompositc
Rational
C
Time
of
oncentratior
(min)
Area
(acres)
Invert In Elevation 1
(ft)
Invert In Elevation 2
TO
Invert Out Elevation
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
E45
20.28
17.28
3,00
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.51
N/A
N/A
17.28
18.41
18.48
E26
21.00
16.65
4.35
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.65
16,65
17.61
16.65
19.52
19.75
E13
20.65
15,47
5.19
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0.63
15.47
N/A
15,47
18.58
18.83
E17
20,65
16.70
3.95
Generic Default 1009
In Sag
0.65
10,00
0.59
17,56
16.70
16.70
18.81
19.06
E28
21.05
18,05
3.00
Generic Default 100°
In Sag
0.30
15,00
0.56
N/A
N/A
18.05
18.52
18,61
E46
20.28
16.36
3.92
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.65
10.00
0 40
17.20
16.36
16.36
.18.22
18.63
E27
20.65
15.33
5.33
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0.63
1000
0.57
15.61
15.33
15.33
18.32
18.91
E29
21.05
17.51
3.54
Generic Default 100°
In Sag
0.30
15.00
0.85
17.51
N/A
17.51
18.30
18.45
E47
20.90
16,19
4.71
Combination NC_Coi
In Sag
0,70
10.00
0.15
16.19
N/A
16.19
17.77
18.39
E30
22.00
14.56
7.44
Combination NC_Cor
In Sag
0.00
10.00
0.00
14.56
16.91
14.56
17 43
18.10
E48
21.41
14,16
7.25
Combination NC Coi
On Grade
0.70
10,00
0.07
14A6
14.91
14.16
16,69
17.88
JAN 2 7 2010
BY:
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl phi housing_bmp5.stm Storm CAD v5.6 [05.06.007.00]
01/26/10 02:17:49 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 2 of 2

Scenario: BMP #5
Pipe. Report
Pipe
Upstrearr
Node
Downstream
Node
Length
(ft)
Constructed
Slope
(%)
Section
Size
Upstream
Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Downstream
Invert
Elevation
(ft)
Average
Velocity
(ft/s)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line In
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line In
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
P-69
E36
E37
136.00
0.30
15 inch
18.56
18.15
1.74
21.00
20.85
21_05
20.90
P-68
E31
E32
138.00
0.25
15 inch
18.55
18.20
1.06
20.89
20.83
20.90
20.85
P-62
E4
E5
216.00
0.30
12 inch
18.90
18.25
1.07
20.01
19.94
20.03
19.96
P-63
E35
E38
106.00
0.50
12 inch
20.00
19.46
3.54
20.77
20.74
2080.
20.76
P-30
E37
E38
29.00
0.30
18 inch
18.15
18.07
3.01
20.82
20.74
2096.
20.89
P-64
E33
E34
65.00
0.25
12 inch
18.25
18.09
L09
20.79
20.77
20.81
20.79
P-32
E32
E34
29.00
0.25
18 inch
18.20
18.13
2.31
20.81
20.77
20.90
20.85
P-57
E18
E19
160.00
0.30
12 inch
18.25
17.77
1.80
20.88
20.63
20.93
20.68
P-41
E5
E7
149-00
0.30
12 inch
18.25
17.81
2.70
19.92
19.39
20.03
19.50
P-44
E6
E7
29.00
0.31
12 inch
17.60
17.51
1.80
19.43
19.39
19.49
19A4
P-61
E1
E2
212.00
0.50
12 inch
18.50
1744
2.16
19.76
19A7
19.83
19.54
P-31
E38
E39
74.00
0.30
18 inch
18.07
17.84
4.17
20.61
20.25
20.88
20.52
P-24
E34
E39
147.00
0.25
18 inch
18.13
17.76
3.25
20.69
20.25
20.85
20.41
P-9
E20
E21
46.00
0:50
12 inch
18.81
18.58
2.82
20.37
20.19
20.50
20.32
P-13
E19
E21
117.00
0.30
12 inch
17.77
17.42
2.61
20.58
20.19
20.69
20.30
P-67
E22
E23
42.00
0.50
12 inch
19.16
18.95
1.32
20A8
20.14
20.21
20.17
P-49
E10
E11
220.00
0.30
12 inch
18.50
17.85
1.71
19.61
19.30
19.66
19.35
P-66
E7
E8
100.00
0.51
24 inch
17.51
17.00
6.01
19.34
19.29
19A2
19.37
P-48
E3
E8
29.00
0.52
15 inch
17.35
17.20
2.69
19.36
19.29
19.48
19.40
P-42
E2
E8
59.00
0.50
15 inch
17.44
17.14
2.66
19.44
19.29
19.55
19.40
P-55
E42
E43
241.00
0.50
15 inch
18.25
17.05
3.14
19.10
19.03
19.13
19.05
P-25
E39
E41
234.00
0.25
24 inch
17.76
17.18
4.11
2009,
19.33
20.35
19.59
P-29
E40
E41
29.00
0.25
15 inch
17.58
17.51
3.43
19A5
19.33
19.64
19.51
P-10
E21
E24
101.00
0.30
18 inch
17.42
17.12
2.99
20.11
19.86
20.25
20.00
P-38
E23
E24
43.00
0.50
12 inch
18.95
18.73
340
20.10
19.86
20.28
20.04
P-34
E9
E12
121.00
0.50
12 inch
17.85
17.25
1.52
19.18
19.04
19.21
19.08
P-71
E11
E12
168.00
0.30
15 inch
17.85
17.35
1.98
19.28
19.04
19.34
19.10
P-70
E8
E12
153.00
0.50
30 inch
17.00
16.23
5.91
19.21
19.04
19.36
19.18
P-17
E14
E15
29.00
0.30
12 inch
18.30
18.21
5.06
19.89
19.53
20.29
19.93
P-56
E43
E44
126.00
0.46
15 inch
17.05
16.47
2.09
19.01
18.81
19.08
18.88
P-53
E41
E44
201.00
0.25
30 inch
17A8
16.68
4.72
19.18
18.81
19.48
19.08
P-11
E24
E26
158.00
0.30
24 inch
17.12
16.65
2.38
19.78
19.61
19.87
1969.
P-16
E25
E26
29.00
0.48
15 inch
17.75
17.61
2.54
19.67
19.61
19.77
19.71
P-46
E12
E13
153.00
0.50
30 inch
16.23
15.47
3.63
18.97
18.68
19.18
18.89
P-18
E15
E17
299.00
0.20
24 inch
17.30
16.70
3.54
19.24
18.90
19.34
18.99
P-20
E16
E17
29.00
0.30
15 inch
17.65
17.56
2.26
18.95
18.90
19.03
18.98
P-54
E44
E46
123.00
0.25
30 inch
16.68
16.36
4.78
18.70
18.38
19.07
18.75
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl ph9 housing_bmp5.stm StormCAD v5.6 105.06.007.00]
01/26/10 02:18:10 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown. CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 2

Scenario: BMP #5
Pipe Report
Pipe
Upstream
Node
Downstream
Node
Length
(ft)
Constructed
Slope
(%)
Section
Size
Upstream
Invert
Elevation
IN
Downstream
Invert
Elevation
(K)
Average
Velocity
MIS)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line In
(ft)
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line In
(ft)
Energy
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
P-37
E45
E46
29.00
0,29
15 inch
17,28
17,20
3.07
18,41
18.38
18,48
18.44
P-12
E26
E27
347,00
0.30
24 inch
16.65
15.61
3.89
19.52
18.51
19,75
18.74
P-6
E13
E27
28.00
0.50
30 inch
15.47
15.33
4.06
18.58
18.51
18,83
18.77
P-19
E17
E27
95.00
0.20
24 inch
16.70
16.51
4.04
18.81
18.51
19.06
18.76
P-50
E28
E29
180.00
0.30
15 inch
18.05
17.51
2.51
18,52
18.33
18.61
18.35
P-36
E46
E47
70,00
0.25
36 inch
16.36
16.19
5.08
18,22
18.05
18,63
18 45
P-22
E27
E30
153.00
0.50
36 inch
15,33
14.56
7,57
18,32
17.67
18.91
18.26
P-21
E29
E30
201.00
0.30
15 inch
17.51
16.91
3.14
18.30
17.67
18,45
17.84
P-58
E47
E48
80.00
1.60
36 inch
16.19
14.91
10.27
17.77
17.11
18.39
17.40
P-59
E30
E48
81.00
0,49
36 inch
14,56
14.16
7.56
17,43
17.11
18.10
17,76
P-60
E48
E49
67.00
0.99
42 inch
14A6
13.50
11.05
16.69
16.41
17.88
17.31
-c x cr-D
JAN 2 7 2010
By..--]
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing _ Project Engineer: Joe Modica
k:\...\stormcad\cl ph1 housing_bmp5.stm StormCAD v5.6 105.06.007.00)
01/26/10 02:18:10 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 2 of 2

Scenario: BMP #5
P-61
212.00ft-12inch
0.50
E1
Rim: 22.21 ft
Inv Out: 18.50 ft
H: 3.71 ft
E18
_ram Rim: 21.00 ft
Inv Out: 18.25 ft
H: 2.75 ft
Sft
fhe:-�amp Lejeune Phase 1 Hou
IPU�stormcad\cl phi housing_bm
01/AEi/10 02 2t:4-1-PM
P-12 ginch
3q� 3
E3
Rim: 20.85 ft
Inv Out: 17.35 ft
H: 3.50 ft
P-42.
59.00ft-1 o Inch
0.50 /
E2
Rim: 21.15 ft
Inv In 1: 17.44 ft
Inv Out: 17.44 ft
H: 3.71 ft
N
E6
Rim: 20.85 ft
o o-o
Inv Out: 17.60 ft� p
H:3.25ft
oNa
°
p-66
flinch
7
100.00
0°.51 /° _
E8
Rim: 20.85 ft
Inv In 1: 17.14 ft
Inv In 2: 17.20 ft
Inv Out 17.00 ft
H: 3.85 ft
Inv In 3: 17.00 ft
J
o -\
po 0
o. \a
121 . p-34o inch
pOft-
0.50
E9
Rim: 21.35 ft
Inv Out: 1 Z85 ft
H: 3.50 ft
© Bentley Systems, Inc.
p-41
)Oft-1°2tnch /° , zo
E7
Rim: 20.85 ft
Inv In 1: 1Z51 ft
Inv In 2: 17.81 ft
Inv Out: 17.51 ft
H: 3.34 ft
E12
Rim: 21.70 It
Inv In 1: 17.25 ft
Inv In 2: 16.23 ft
Inv In 3: 17.35 ft
Inv Out: 16.23 ft
H: 5.47 ft
P-71
,Oft-1°5inch
i �0 /° _
E13
Rim: 20.65 ft 000-ol
Inv Out: 15.47 ft'W-^
H: 5.19 ft o �o
Inv In 1: 15.47 ft
E27
Rim: 20.65 ft
Inv In 1: 15.61 ft
Inv In 2: 15.33 ft
Inv In 3: 16.51 ft
Haestad Me1hoppr.=0yVgJ 5.jM.ft
p-19 .
95.00ft-2o Inch
o.20 /°
E16
Rim: 20.65 It
Inv Out: 17.65 ft
H: 3.00 ft
E17
Rim: 20.65 ft
Inv In 1: 17.56 ft
Inv In 2: 16.70 ft
Inv Out: 16.70 ft
H: 3.95 It
P '1ft
OO20&
216.- °
0.30 /° _
E5
Rim: 21.59 ft
Inv In 1: 18.25 ft
Inv Out: 18.25 ft
H: 3.34 ft
p-49
220 0 301° otn=h
E11
Rim: 21.25 ft
Inv In 1: 17.85 ft
Inv Out: 17.85 ft
H: 3.40 ft
299 0 ft-2o inch
JAN 2 7 WID
BY:
Project Engineer: Joe Modica
StormCAD v5.6 [05,06.007.00)
CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of f

Scenario: BMP #5
E19 P-57 E18
Inv Rim:
in2l : 0107 ft 77 ft 160 ()Oft- o2lnch e Rim : 21.00 ft
0.30 - Inv Out: 18.25 ft
Inv Out: 17.77 ft H: 2.75 ft
H: 3.23 ft I�
p_9
46.00ft-12inch
0.50
E20
Rim: 21.81 It
Inv Out: 18.81 ft
H: 3.00 It
E21
Rim: 21.69 ft
Inv In 1: 18.58 it
Inv In 2: 17.42 ft
Inv Out: 17.42 It
H: 4.27 It
i
0
i
o $-o
Wry
O �O
a �
E25
N0
Rim: 21.00 ft
o$-o
Inv Out: 17.75 ft
'n'"
H: 3.25 It �,,�
co L'
P-11
158 OOft-2a4inch
0.30�
E22 ") tea. E24
Rim: 22.16 ft Q "` o Rim: 21.78 ft
Inv Out: 19.16 ft�o 4 Inv In 1: 18.73 ft
H: 3.00It p� / Inv In 2: 17.12 k
e( Inv Out: 17.12 ft
p--vim p-6H. 4.66 ft
7
42,00ft-lolnch Rim: 22.16 ft
0.50 Inv In 1: 18.95 ft
Inv Out: 18.95 ft
H: 3.21 ft
E26
Rim: 21.00 ft
Inv In 1: 16.65 ft
Inv In 2: 17.61 ft
Inv Out: 16.65 ft
H: 4.35 ft
161
p-34
121 OOft- o2inch
0.50 / E12
Rim: 21.70 ft
c- Inv In 1: 17.25
E9 Inv In 2: 16.23
Rim: 21.35 ft Inv In 3: 17.35
Inv Out: 17.85 ft Inv Out: 16.23
H: 3.50 It r H: 5.47 ft
�Mo
vro
ao�
00
ri
N
E13
N Rim: 20.65 ft o
o o Inv Out: 15.47 ft .4
U,xv H: 5.19 It
o �,o llnv In 1: 15.47 It 2
0 0.
-19 -
p19
95,OOn-24in
P-1 Zq\nch
i 0.20
0()030 0/'
347
Rim: 20.65 ft
Inv In 1: 15.61 ft W
Inv In 2: 15.33 It o
Inv In 3: 16.51 ft\ ���
Inv Out: 15.33 ft L. t`'
H: 5.33 k 0
S
E30
Rim: 22.00 ft
Inv In 1: 1456
Inv In 2: 1611
Inv Out: 14.56 k
H: 7.44 ft
00
E
JAN 2 7 2010
-rnI
I
BY:
�
--
E49 0
6 f
Title' Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Sump: QdWt@ _ i0 .9 11
k'\... \stormcad\cl pht housing_bmp5.stm SlormCAD v5.0.(99.%.C87
01/26/10 02'21:01 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page:3

Scenario: BMP #5
3
im: 20.85 ft
v Out: 17.35 ft
3.50 ft p
p.42
3.00ft-15inch
n: 21.15 ft
In 1: 17.44 ft
Out: 17.44 ft
3.71 ft
E6
Rim: 20.85 ft o o-O
Inv Out: 17.60 fto
H: 3.25 ft o NA P_412inch
P-66 j 490 30%
100.0Oft-24inch
0.51
ES
Rim: 20.85 ft
Inv In 1: 17.14 ft
Inv In 2: 1T20 ft
Inv Out: 17.00 ft
H: 3\lnv
85 ft
3: 17.00 ft
o$
P-342inch
121.00ft-
0.50
0/6
1.35 ft
t 17.85 ft
)ft
E7
Rim: 20.85 ft
Inv In 1: 17.51 ft
Inv In 2: 17.81 ft
Inv Out: 17.51 ft
H: 3.34 ft
P-71
168.00tt- o5�nch
--
E12
Rim: 21.70 It
Inv In 1: 17.25 ft
Inv In 2: 16.23 ft
Inv In 3: 17.35 ft
Inv Out: 16.23 ft
L
H: 5.47 ft
I
U
C
moo
4'
viol
aoLq
00
rj
E13
Rim: 20.65 ft o$.
o
Inv Out: 15.47 ft W-^
CDC)
H: 5.19 It O �
o wa,M
inv in 1: 15.47 ft a
95.00H124inch
0.20
E27
Rim: 20.65 fl
Inv In 1: 15.61 ft w
E16
Rim: 20.65 ft
Inv Out: 1 T65 It
H: 3.00 It
E17
Rim: 20.65 ft
Inv In 1: 17.56 ft
Inv In 2: 16.70 It
Inv Out: 16.70 ft
H: 3.95 ft
E5
Rim: 21.59 It
Inv In 1: 18.25 ft
Inv Out: 18.25 It
H: 3.34 ft
Ell
Rim: 21.25 ft
Inv In 1: 17.85 ft
Inv Out: 17.85 ft
H: 3.40 ft
p_62
,,,.,Oft-1°2inch /°
0.30 _
P_49 2\nch
220 0030
E4
Rim: 22.69 ft
Inv Out: 18.90 ft
H: 3.79 ft
E10
Rim: 21.25 ft
Inv Out: 18.50 ft
H: 2.75 ft
E14
Rim: 21.05 ft 1,,
Inv Out: 18.30 ft o
H:2.75ft ❑\yoo-o
of �l
N.
5
E15
Rim: 21.05 ft
Inv In 1: 18.21 ft
Inv Out: 17.30 ft
H: 3.75 ft
��Y �1D
JAN 2 7 20
10
7BY:
Title: Camp Le+n�Fatos\\irg p N E28 Project Engineer: Joe Modica
011.\ /10 02: 56 r(tCAD v5.6 05.06.007.00
q Rim: 21.SJ6 [ ]
Ot/26/10 02:2 'i} ft = p� © Bentley Systems. Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 067 1$b1 OqG -203-755-1666--0 Inv OUt: 18.05 ft Page 1 of 1

I OP.tjoZ ,pinch
E15
Rim: 21.05 ft
Inv In 1: 18.21 ft
Inv Out: 17.30 ft
H: 3.75 ft
P-50 Synch
180 0030
E29
Rim: 21.05 ft
Inv In 1: 17.51 ft
Inv Out: 17.51 ft
H: 3.54 ft
E44
Rim: 21.15 ft
Inv In 1: 16.68 ft
Inv In 2: 16.47 ft
Inv Out: 16.68 ft
H: 4.47 ft
201 00tt- 01nch
0.2
E28
Rim: 21.0511
Inv Out: 18.05 ft
H: 3.00 ft
E40
Rim: 20.58 ft o o v
Inv Out: 17.58 f[j ;' N
H: 3.00 ft 011 o
o
\ 3
E41
Rim: 20.58 ft
Inv In 1: 17.51 it
Inv In 2: 17.18 It
Inv Out: 17.18 ft
H: 3.41 ft
Scenario: BMP #5
E33
Rim: 21.00 It
Inv Out: 18.25
H: 2.75 ft
p`t 24inch
2340025
0 %/
nch
m
o CD
p
�
\
E42
n
7
P-505 ch
Rim: 21.25 ft
Ir
241. 5-I5on
HvOOutt:ft8.25ft
65P.00ft-64
\02.5 afnch
E34Rim P-3,
Rim: %ch
21.45 ft OOft-
Inv in 1. 18.09 ft 29 0.25
Inv In2:18.13ft
Inv Out: 18.13 ft
H: 3.32 ft
L
U
N,� N
N
aoo
E39
Rim: 21.68 ft
Inv In 1: 17.76 ft
Inv In 2: 17.84 ft
Inv Out: 17.76 ft
H: 3.92 ft
„
o -
ag
E38 \ 05
Rim: 21.75 If
Inv In 1: 18.07 ft
Inv In 2: 19.46 ft
Inv Out: 18.07 ft
E32
Rim: 21.45 ft
Inv In 1: 18.20 ft
Inv Out: 18.20 ft
H: 3.25 ft �P 68
139 OOf 5 0 olnch
0.2
E37
Rim: 21.75 it
Inv Out: 18.15 It
H: 3.60 ft
Inv In 1: 18.15 ft
\0�-a---
1
P-69
F-30
29.00ft-18inch
136.00ft-15inch
0.30 %
0.30
E35
Rim: 23.25 ft
Inv Out: 20.00 ft
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing H: 3.25 ft
k:\_.\stormcad\cl phl housing_6mp5Tlm
01 6110 10222:56 PM'� © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone]
E31
Rim: 21.50 ft
H: 2.95 ft
Inv Out: 18.55 ft
E36
Rim: 21.40 ft
H: 2.84 ft
Inv Out: 18.5
JAN 2 9 2010
BY: �---
Project Engineer: Joe Modica
StormCAD v5.6 (05.06.007.00]
Page 1 of 1

W milli: Lu.00 It 00
0o InvOut:15.47ft9
Nov H:5.19ft O1,
owo Inv In1:15.47ft o°u,
o, 9
3 it19
- -� �\ 001-24inch
95. 0.20
E27
Rim: 20.65 ft
Inv In 1: 15.61 ft w
Inv In 2: 15.33 f� o o-O
Inv In 3: 16.51 ft �1` r N
Inv Out: 15.33 It _ oowN
H: 5.33 ft 6'
\� n
5
E30
Rim: 22.00 ft
Inv In 1: 14.56 ft�
Inv In 2: 16.91 ft
Inv Out: 14.56 ftl
H: 7.44 ft
o'o
a �
5
n
7
E49 6
Sump: 13.50 It
P-60
67.0OH-42inch
0,99 % o
0
�o
om
E47
E17
Rim: 20.65 ft
Inv In 1: 17.56 It
Inv In 2: 16.70 ft
Inv Out: 16.70 ft
H: 3.95 ft
P-2 �5inch
201 -O n % _
E48
Rim: 21.41 ft
Inv In 1: 14.16 It
Inv In 2: 14.91 ft
Inv Out: 14.16 ft
H: 7.25 ft
E45
Rim: 20.28It N
Inv Out: 17.28 ftS"
H:3.00ftR o0-0
o o)
o cn
Rim: 20.90 It 7p.00 t36
Inv In 1: 16.19 ft 36inch
Inv Out: 16.19 ft 0.25 %
H: 4.71 It
t NIN
Inv In 1: 18.21 ft
Inv Out: 17.30 It
H: 3.75 ft
180 50 . ch
030. °!
E29
Rim: 21.05 It
Inv In 1: 17.51 ft
Inv Out: 17.51 It
H: 3.54 ft
E44
Rim: 21.15 ft
Inv In 1: 16.68 ft
Inv In 2: 16.47 ft
Inv Out: 16.68 ft
H: 4.47 It
-7 P-54inch
E46 123.00f5%
0.2
rn
Rim: 20.28 It
00,
Inv In 1: 17.20 ft
Inv In2: 16.36ft
rnxU'
Inv Out: 16.36 It
'' a vt°�
H: 3.92 It
5
n
7
P-53 Inch
2p1 0 0/
E28
Rim: 21.05 ft
Inv Out: 18.05 ft
H: 3.00 ft
E40
Rim: 20.58 ft .O
Inv Out: 17.58 fv";� N
H: 3.00 ft U` i c0 -6 �.
241 0 5 55tinch
E43 I
Rim: 21.00 ft
Title: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Housing Inv In 1: 17.05 ft
k:\...\stormcad\cl phl housing_bmp5.stm Inv Out :{�17.05 ft
01/26/10 02.25:06 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution &t�9watertown, CT 06795 USA a1.203-755-
E41
Rim: 20.58 ft
Inv In 1: 17.51 ft
Inv In 2: 17.18 ft
Inv Out: 17.18 ft
H: 3.41 ft
JAN 2 7 2010
Project
E:
R
In
H
P-25
234 O �5[
E42
Rim: 21.25 ft
Inv Out: 18.2:
H: 3.00 ft
igineer Joe Modica
v5.6 [05.06.007.001
Page 1 of 1

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
January 20, 2010
Commanding Officer c/o Carl Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
US MCB Camp Lejeune
Bldg 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 090815
Lincoln Park Residential Development
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Wilmington Regional Office received an Express Stormwater Management Permit
Application for Lincoln Park Residential Development on December 15, 2009 with
additional information received on January 11, 2010. A preliminary review of that
information has determined that the application is not complete. The following
information is needed to continue the stormwater review:
1. It appears that the SA/DA ratio has not been updated to consider the new
percent of impervious area found within the drainage area. Please modify the
calculations and other supporting documents to reflect the correct SA/DA ratio.
2. The layer for the proposed contours/BMPs appears to be turned off on plan sheet
CS-107. Please submit a plan sheet with this layer turned onto indicate the
location of forebay #2.
Please provide two sets plans with each sheet signed, sealed, and dated. The
permit cannot be approved with only the title page of the plan set signed, sealed,
and dated.
4. Due to the minor nature of these comments, the express Add Info fee has been
waived for this request for additional information.
5. 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 January
27, 2010, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will
necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncvvaterquality.org
NorthCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

Carl Baker
January 20, 2010
Stormwater Application No. SW8 090815
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\ADDINFO\2010\090815.jan10
cc: Ted Miller, Kimley - Horn and Associates
Christine Nelson
Wilmington Regional Office
Page 2 of 2

Nelson, Christine
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:45 AM
To: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: 2nd request for additional info: SW Project No. 090815 Lincoln Park Residential Development
Attachments: 090815 jan10.pdf
All,
I have attached a pdf of my 2 " [equest.for.additional.information.for Stormwater Project SW8.090815 — Lincoln -Park
Residential-Developm nene t. I will alsosend opies in the mail'. Please let me know if you have questions.
Thanks,
Christine
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
NC DWQ - Stormwater Program
Wilmington Regional Office
910-796-7323
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

® Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
January 8, 2010
Christine Nelson
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Re: Request for Additional Information
StormwaterProject No. SW809011"'S 09DY15
Lincoln Park Residential Development
Onslow County
Dear Christine Nelson:
501 Independence Parkway
Suite 300
Chesapeake, Virginia
23320
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Please accept this letter as a response to the comments contained in your letter dated
December 21, 2010. This letter will address each comment through additional information,
figures and attachments. The responses below are numbered to correspond with the
comments contained in the December 21, 2010 letter (see attached).
1. Please see the attached Typical Duplex Unit Planting Plans, which provides a key between
duplex number (I through 6) and housing style (A through F).
2. Please see the attached plans, which have been modified to illustrate access to the pool.
The impervious calculation has been updated to reflect this change.
3. Please see the attached plans and the supporting impervious calculations. Additional
information has been provided for clarity. Please note that an allowance has been provided for
future impervious area due to expansion of the Community Center and/or the parking area.
4. Please see attached stormwater plans. The offsite drainage area has been labeled on the
stormwater drainage area plan sheet.
5. Please see attached stormwater plan sheet CG-500.
6. Please see attached grading plans. Additional grading information for the driveways to
Lincoln Park School has been included and is illustrated on the plan sheets and is accounted
for in the impervious area calculations.
7. The label for "Residential 5" has been removed from plan sheet CG-101.
8. For your information, gutters will be used on all of the houses to collect stormwater
runoff. To ensure that all runoff from the rear of lots 18, 170, 161 and 156 is collected and
conveyed to the BMP, we've revised the grading behind these units to ensure the runoff will
sheet flow to a drainage Swale that is directed to the stormwater system.
9. Please see attached grading plans. Additional spot elevations and proposed contours ha
been added to further demonstrate drainage patterns in common areas. ��J j�j�
JAN 1 .1 ZO10
BY:____

10. Please see attached grading plans. Finished floor elevations and spot elevations have been
added to the community center, sidewalks, pools, and maintenance building.
11. Please see attached grading plans. Finished floor elevations and spot elevations have been
added to lots 153 and 154.
12. The water surface in Forebay 5 is controlled by the downstream pond, Forebay 2, not by
the invert of the pipe outlet. Forebay 2 is maintained at an elevation of 13.5; therefore,
Forebay 5 will maintain an elevation of 13.5. The pipe connecting Forebay 5 and Forebay 2
will be submerged.
13. Please see attached forebay plan sheets. The proposed side slope of the forebays below
the water surface is I to 4.
14. Please see attached forebay plan sheets. A note has been added that sod will be used to
stabilize the side slopes above the water surface.
15. Please see attached plan sheet for BMP# I, which has been modified to reflect all
proposed inlets.
16. Please see attached two sets of the revised stormwater plans. The title page of each set has
been signed, sealed, and dated.
17. Please see attached additional review fee check for $500.00
18. Please see attached stormwater calculations and plans, both have been reviewed for
consistency and accuracy.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (757)548-
7324 or email me at [e-mail]. We look forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerely,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
4 Y�PA
Rachel Oberle, EIT
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures: Stormwater Permit Application, Including Supporting Calculations and Plans

Nelson, Christine
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:39 AM
To: 'Ted. Miller@kim ley -horn. com'
Cc: Russell, Janet; Weaver, Cameron
Subject: RE: request for additional info: SW Project No. 090915 Lincoln Park Residential Development
Ted,
We only allow up to 5 working days to respond to the request for additional information in the Express program. The
best I can do is to grant an extension until Monday, January 11. The information must be received by this office on the
11tn
Christine
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 3:19 PM
To: Nelson, Christine
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: RE: request for additional info: SW Project No. 090915 Lincoln Park Residential Development
Christine: Both Rachel and I will be on vacation until Jan 4. Consequently, I would like to officially request an extension
until Jan 13. That will give us 7 days to respond and to get the plans and talcs in the mail to you.
Ted Miller, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Direct: 757-548-7333
From: Nelson, Christine[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:24 PM
To: [e-mail]; Miller, Ted; Oberle (Watts), Rachel
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: RE: request for additional info: SW Project No. 090915 Lincoln Park Residential Development
All,
I put the wrong permit # on the letter. The number should be SW8 090815.
Sorry!
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:21 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: request for additional info: SW Project No. 090915 Lincoln Park Residential Development
All,
I have attached a pdf version of my request for additional information for Stormwater Project SW8 090915 — Lincoln
Park Residential Development. I will also send copies in the mail. Please be advised that I will be out of the office
starting around 2:30 pm tomorrow and will be returning on December 291h. Let me know if you have questions!

4 9 A
.01:=��
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
December 21, 2009
Commanding Officer c/o Carl
US MCB Camp Lejeune
Bldg 1005 Michael Road
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
Baker, Deputy Public Works Officer
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW8 090816
Lincoln Park Residential Development
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Baker:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Wilmington Regional Office received an Express Stormwater Management Permit Application
for Lincoln Park Residential Development on December 15, 2009. A preliminary review of that
information has determined that the application is not complete. The following information is needed
to continue the stormwater review:
1. In the calculations, the proposed amount of impervious area for the housing is broken down
by the house style. Please provide a key or some means of relating the house style to the
housing information on the plans, which uses labels A to F. For instance, which house style
relates to the duplex labeled with an A and D as located on lot 11?
2. Please demonstrate on the plans how the pool will be accessed by visitors. No sidewalks or
other means of access have been indicated on the plans.
3. Plan sheet CS-107 indicates that the Community Center is 51,000 sf. Please clarify if this is
the area dedicated to the community center or the amount of impervious used by to the
community center.
4. Please identify the offsite drainage area(s) on the plans, preferably on the drainage area
map.
5. Provide the information on the stormwater collection system, including pipe inverts, in the
plans.
6. Please provide more grading details for the driveways to Lincoln Park School (state
stormwater permit no. SW8 090918). If runoff from these areas will be directed to the
stormwater collection. system for the Lincoln Park residential development, this additional
area and impervious area will need to be considered within the offsite drainage area and
offsite impervious area for this project.
7. The label for "Residential 5" is blocking some of the details on plan sheet CG-101. Please
ensure labels are not blocking information on the plans.
8. Will gutters be used on the houses to collect runoff and direct it to the stormwater collection
system? For instance the runoff from the back of the houses on lot 18 and half of lot 170 at
the intersection of Road F and Road D do not appear to be collected. Other lots in question
include: half of lot 161, lot 156, and 156. If so, show the roof drain collection lines on the
plans. If the proposed or existing grade will be utilized to sheet flow the runoff to the
collection system, please ensure enough detail is provided to demonstrate the drainage
pattern.
9. Please provide proposed contours or additional spot elevations in the common areas, such
as on plan sheets CG-104 to CG-106, to help demonstrate the drainage patterns.
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]N4 Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 NorthCarOlina
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org -7� ����`l1Hn���
An Equal Opponumty l Affirmative Action Employer l�/�/

Carl Baker
December 21, 2009
Stormwater Application No SW8 090815
10. Please provide finished floor elevations, proposed spot elevations, or proposed contours for
the community center, sidewalks, pool, and maintenance building shown on plan sheet CG-
107.
11. Please provide the finished floor elevation, and proposed spot elevations for lots 153 and
154.
12. Please demonstrate how the water surface in forebay 5 will be maintained at an elevation of
13.5 ft if there is no riser structure proposed and the invert of the pipe outlet is at an elevation
of 10.3 ft.
13. Please specify the proposed side slopes of the forebays below the water surface on the
plans.
14. Please add a note to the forebay plan sheets to specify the type of seeding to be used on the
side slopes above the water surface.
15. The plan sheet for BMP #1 identifies a second inlet on the northwestern corner of the pond;
however no inlet is shown for this corner. If an inlet is proposed, please include it on the
plans, if not please remove the label.
16. Please provide two sets plans with each sheet signed, sealed, and dated.
17. Please submit a $500 fee for the additional review required for this application.
18. 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 December 31, 2009, or the
application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of all
required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please email or fax your request for a time
extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. Please note that
a second significant request for additional information may result in the return of the project. If the
project is returned, you will need to reschedule the project through the Express coordinator for the
next available review date, and resubmit all of the required items, including the application fee.
The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under an approved
Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject to enforcement
action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
Please label all packages and cover letters as "Express" and reference the project name and State
assigned project number on all correspondence. If you have any questions concerning this matter
please feel free to call me at [phone] or email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely, C"V�4 rwao�
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
GDS/can: S:\WQS\STORMWATERWDDINFO\2009\090815.dec09
cc: Ted Miller, Kimley - Horn and Associates
Christine Nelson
Wilmington Regional Office
Page 2 of 2

Nelson, Christine
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:37 PM
To: Nelson, Christine; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: RE: request for additional info: SW Project No. 090915 Lincoln Park Residential Development
Thanks for the email Christine. I've read through the comments and look forward to responding asap. I'm on vacation
myself over Christmas and New Years and will be returning Jan 4. Consequently, I'm quite certain that we will not be
able to resubmit by 12/29 and request an extension on the resubmittal date. I'll get with Rachel in the morning and will
determine when we think we could adequately respond, but I wanted to give you a heads up about my vacation.
Ted Miller, P.E.
Klmley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Direct: 757-548-7333
From: Nelson, Christine[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:21 PM
To: [e-mail]; Miller, Ted; Oberle (Watts), Rachel
Cc: Russell, Janet
Subject: request for addiEional ino: SW Project No. 090915 Lincoln Park Residential Development
All,
I have attached a pdf version of my request for additional information for Stormwater Project SW8 090915 — Lincoln
Park Residential Development. I will also,send.copies.m.the.mail: Please be advised that I will be out of the office
starting around 2:30 pm tomorrow and will be returning on December 291h. Let me know if you have questions!
Thanks,
Christine
Christine Nelson
Environmental Engineer
NC DWQ - Stormwater Program
Wilmington Regional Office
910-796-7323
i
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

C]®® Kimley-Horn
® and Associates, Inc.
November 16, 2009
Christine Nelson
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Stormwater Permit Application
Lincoln Park-Sehml Development
Onslow County �-05 awn 4-, AAL'
Dear Christine Nelson:
Please find attached the stormwater permit application for Lincoln Park Residential
Development.
501 Independence Parkway
Suite 300
Chesapeake, Virginia
23320
TEL [phone]
FAX 757,548.7301
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (757)548-
7324 or email me at Rachel.Oberle(rckimley-hom.com. We look forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerely,
Kimley-Florn and Associates, Inc.
Rachel Oberle, EIT
Environmental Scientist
E- Insures: Stormwater Permit Application, Including Supporting Calculations and Plans
RECEIVED
DEC 1 5 2009
BY:
NOV\ k 9 2009
BY:

20
y graded Sand
Al
y sand
Clay
NoFat/Elastic organic Clay/Sill
0.25
6.2
11
12
22
22
22
3
3]
a 5
5 i
5 b
J
Fi.li 4
5
E
57
11
;.116
4
1 11
) 9
111 1
I�II'll
S1
i -
ID I
1 ]
3 e
=I
I I -
IfLI
I
l N
II.
9 t2
t3
y
CJFT SOLIUMIS, Inc.
GENERALIZED SOIL PF
L DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY
it I (;Wy;
Family Housing 1MCB Camp
Camp Le.leunc. North Ca
DJECT NO. EC09-227G
ID
0
10
20
HLE
DATE DRAWN
9/ 142(
Le,ICU11C

r1-
xt
c ':J
j:::.....
z
w
m
w
J
Q
a
v rtt
O
o�
m
d
=
u
J
o
Nm
_u
= L
z
W
v
o
O
—
G
w
z
w
—
v
ou
w`u
a m
✓, N T .L � U
O T J
E r in a° 3 U

_ 35 2 e J< a 3- / f 2]
a JS I ] ] J , ] 5 < ] a IIr: ] ]
f x 13 3 iG s 5 '//f/�/f< �I •Ji
2 J /I JNM_lo.< 5 6 LL=2]
] 5 L '� ]fi.. J5 6fi' Sfi ]2
1 5' ] 2 N M=29 6 .. 5 q ' ! { 5] 5 5 " 1 6 6
_ ] LL=S] 6 E 6 2 4 t I6 6
�� 2] 2
<J 5
< M .16 65 I� 25
I 1 2
I 2 J 1 1 1 l]< 21
_ I I
55 22
/�1;1'Y h� 22
] 5 .I f l ] < 2 2
Top it
Sill Sand
Poory
Lijj'! vvir Silt
Clayey Sand
02 Lean Clay
Fal/Elastic organic Clay/Silt
Poorly graded Sand
Peat
Sill
9,
Silty Sand with
or
jl Fat Clay
I
[{j Silty Clayey Sand
GET Solutions, Inc.
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
]u
20
0
0
20
UA It UNAVVN
W 14/2009
Famih' Housing NICB Camp Le.lewie
PROJECT NO. EC09-227G
FIGURE N

JVRluV11Sj HE1C Ws awl
l
RI I tl 1 I1 '�
Not' —' L
4111-
\ 192 009
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND
GEOTECHNCIAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
G E T PROJECT NO: EC09-227G
September 11, 2009
Prepared for
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Suite 300
501 Independence Parkway
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
ATTN-. MR. Thomas J. Sauro, P.E
Prepared by
GET Solutions, Inc.
CEIV'
DEC 1 5 2009
BY:
504 E. Elizabeth Street Ste. 2, Elizabeth City, NC 27909 ♦ Phone [phone] ♦ Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

Solutions; cam: r F4
TO: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Suite 300
501 Independence Parkway
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
Attn: Mr. Thomas J. Sauro, P.E.
September 11, 2009
RE: Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services —
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Dear Mr. Sauro:
In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Subsurface Investigation and
Geotechnical Engineering Services for the referenced project. The results of this study,
together with our recommendations, are presented in this report.
Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise
concerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to continue its
role as Geotechnical Engineer during the project implementation.
We trust that the information contained herein meets your immediate need, and we would
ask that you call this office with any questions that you may have.
Respectfully Submitted, ,.•``•CyRO
�"''•.,
G E T Solutions, Inc. °�Q` ....... 141
E e�FO4/".
SEAL
034336
Gerald W. Stalls Jr., P.E.
Senior Project Engineer �'•.7� W, ST�••`•
NC Reg. #034336 """""'1�
Camille A. Kattan, P.E. = sear
ul.:tus
Principal Engineer 7DEC
NC Reg. # 014103Copies: (3) Client i 5 2009
504 East Elizabeth Street: Suite 2 Elizabeth City. NC 27909 Phone: (252)23�-976? I as:
info(r�ee6olulionsinccom

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY..............................................................................................i
1.0
PROJECT INFORMATION..............................................................................1
1.1 Project Authorization... ............. ... __ ............................................
..................... 1
1.2 Project Description..............................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services.........................................................................2
+s:
2.0
FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES..................................................3
2.1 Field Exploration.................................................................................................3
2.2 Laboratory Testing..............................................................................................7
3.0
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................8
3.1 Site Location and Description.............................................................................8
3.2 Site Geology........................................................................................................9
3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions.................................................................................9
3.4 Groundwater Information..................................................................................10
4.0
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................12
4.1 Clearing and Grading.. ............ ...................................... _ ..... ...
4.2 Subgrade Preparation...............................................................
4.3 Structural Fill and Placement ....................................................
4.4 Suitability of On -Site Soils. ..................... ..................................
4.5 Foundation Discussion.............................................................
4.5.1 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations .......................
4.5.2 Preliminary Alternative Foundation Design Recommendations
4.6 Shallow Foundation Settlements ..............................................
4.7 Shallow Foundation Excavations ..............................................
4.8 Floor Slabs................................................................................
4.9 Pavement Design......................................................................
4.10 Seismic Evaluation....................................................................
4.11 Storm Water Design Parameters ..............................................
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................22
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns .............. .... ...................................... -..:22
5.2 Site Utility Installation........................................................................................22
5.3 Excavations ........................... ................. ............... -... ....................................... 23
6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS.................................................................................23
APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX II BORING LOGS
APPENDIX III GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILTA =ems �q CEIV�
DEC 1 5 2009
Is
APPENDIX VI SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS BY:
-
APPENDIX VIII CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
GET

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project site is generally located along the south side of Brewster Boulevard within
the Camp Lejune military installation in North Carolina. The construction within the
Phase I portion of the site is planned to consist of building 103 duplex structures, one
(1) community center (approximately 10,000 square feet in plan area), associated
paved roadways, storm water management (BMP) ponds, and other pertinent
infrastructure components.
Our field exploration program included thirty-three (33) 20- to 25-foot deep SPT borings,
six (6) 15-foot deep SPT borings, as well as twelve (12) 10-foot deep hand auger
borings drilled by G E T Solutions, Inc. within the footprints of the proposed structure,
pavement areas, and storm water management pond (BMP) areas. A brief description
of the natural subsurface soil conditions is tabulated below:
AVERAGE
RANGES OF
DEPTH (Feet)
STRATUM
DESCRIPTION
SPTI'I N-
VALUES
0.0
to
Topsoil
2 to 24 inches of Topsoil
0.2 — 2.0
0.2 — 2.0
to
SAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC) with varying
10, 15, 20, or 25
amounts of silt and/or clay
2 to 36
0.25
CLAY (CL, CL-ML, CH) and/or SILT (ML); Borings
to
II
B-6, B-7, B10, B-28, B-33, B-35 through B-37, B-
3 to 17
9 0
43, B-46, B-49, B-50, B-52, B-54, B-55, CBR-3,
CBR-17 through CBR-20, and BMP-6 only.
9.0 — 10.0
to
III
SAND (SP-SM, SM) with trace amounts of
13.0
organics; Borings B-33 and B-35 only
2 to 3
8.0 — 11.5
PEAT (PT) with varying amounts of silt and/or clay
to
IV
and/or Organic Fat CLAY (OH); Borings B-28,
2 to 4
9.5 — 15.0
B-32, B-35, and CBR-19 only
Note (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, N-Values in Blows -per -foot
The groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through
the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial
groundwater table was measured to occur at depths ranging from 7 to 16 feet below
varying existing site grades at the boring locations, which corresponded to an elevation
ranging from 6 to 16 feet MSL. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the
location of borings BMP-4 through BMP-6 and BMP-8 and 48-hour groundwater
readings were noted to indicate a static water level of 8 to 15 feet below exi rades,
which corresponds to an elevation ranging from 7 to 9.5 feet MSL. RECF`1
DEC 1 5 2009

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
The following preliminary evaluations and recommendations were developed based on
our field exploration and laboratory -testing program:
• Field testing program during construction to include, subgrade proofrolling,
compaction testing, and foundation excavation observations for bearing capacity
verification. All other applicable testing, inspections, and evaluations should be
performed as indicated in the North Carolina State Building Code (2006
International Building Code with North Carolina Amendments) and/or UFC
(Unified Facilities Criteria). - - - - - —
• An estimated cut depth of approximately 8 to 12 inches with isolated areas up to
about 24 inches will be required to remove the topsoil and associated root mat.
• The subgrade evaluation procedures should include a series of test pit
excavations to further evaluate these soils and to substantiate their suitability to
remain in -place.
Some subgrade improvements should be anticipated within the construction
areas (undercutting and backfilling with select fill) as a result of potentially
unsuitable/unstable cohesive subgrade soils.
• Building shallow foundations designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of
2,000 psf (24-inch embedment, 24-inch width).
• Estimated post -construction total and differential settlements for the buildings up
to 1-inch and 1/2-inch, respectively.
• The PEAT (PT) soils encountered at the location of boring B-32 are not
considered to be suitable for shallow foundation support. Furthermore, these
soils are anticipated to result in adverse long term settlements. Preliminary
alternative foundation design recommendations for the structures within the
vicinity of this boring are provided in Section 4.5.2. Additional borings should be
performed within the vicinity of boring B-32 (Lot 27) in order to delineate the
extent of the PEAT (PT) soils and more accurately determine alternative
foundation design criteria.
• Based on our experience with similar construction in the general area of the
project site, the site is within a site class 'D' in accordance with Table 1615.1.1 of
the 2006 International Building Code.
This summary briefly discusses some of the major topics mentioned in the attached
report. Accordingly, this report should be read in its entirety to thoroughly evaluate the
contents.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Project Authorization
G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our subsurface investigation and geotechnical
engineering services for the proposed Family Housing project located along the south side
of Brewster Boulevard within the MCB Camp Lejeune military installation in North Carolina.
The Geotechnical Engineering Services were conducted in general accordance with G E T
Solutions, Inc. revised Proposal No. PEC09-116G, dated February 5,-2009 and submitted on the date of February 6, 2009. Furthermore, these services were provided in conjunction
with our previously completed feasibility study reported on the date of October 14, 2008
(GET Project No. EC08-321G). Authorization to proceed with the Geotechnical
Engineering Services was received from Mr. Tom Sauro of Kimley-Horn and Associates, on
the date of July 28, 2009 in the form of an email.
1.2 Project Description
The construction within the Phase I portion of the site is planned to consist of building 103
duplex structures, one (1) community center (approximately 10,000 square feet in plan
area), associated paved roadways, storm water management (BMP) ponds, and other
pertinent infrastructure components. The proposed residential structures are anticipated to
consist of single to two-story buildings constructed of wood frame design and supported by
shallow foundations. The proposed loading conditions associated with the residential
structures were not known at this time. However, the maximum wall loads are not
anticipated to exceed about 3 klf. The first floors are anticipated to consist of either a slab -
on -grade design or post -tensioned slab design with their distributed loads not expected to
exceed 150 pounds per square foot.
The proposed community center structure is anticipated to be of a single story building
constructed of a combination of load bearing concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls, structural
steel, and/or light gauge metal stud frame design. The proposed loading conditions
associated with the structure were not known at this time. However, based on our
experience with similar projects the maximum column and wall loads are not anticipated to
exceed about 30 kips and 3 klf.
The first floor is anticipated to be of slab -on -grade design with their distributed loads not
expected to exceed 150 pounds per square foot. The structures' first floor elevations are
expected to be located slightly above the existing site grades, which were generally noted
to range from about 16 to 25 feet MSL. Accordingly, fill operations are expected to be
minimal (up to 2 feet) in order to establish the design grade elevations.
If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform G E T Solutions,
Inc. so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if aAropriate.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Carnp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions
at the proposed project site. The subsurface conditions encountered were then evaluated
with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering
assessments for the following items were formulated:
1. General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the
proposed development. - — -- ----
2. General location and description of potentially deleterious material
encountered in the borings that may interfere with construction progress or
structure performance, including existing fills or surficial/subsurface organics.
3. Soil subgrade preparation, including stripping, grading, and compaction.
Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of approved structural fill
material.
4. Construction considerations for fill placement, subgrade preparation, and
foundation excavations.
5. Feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the
proposed structures. Design parameters required for the foundation
systems, including foundation sizes, allowable bearing pressures, foundation
levels, and expected total and differential settlements.
6. Preliminary alternative foundation design recommendations are provided due
to subsurface organic soils encountered within the northeast portion of the
proposed development.
Seismic site classification provided based on the results of the 25-foot deep
SPT borings performed at the project site as well as our experience with
similar projects within the vicinity of the site.
8. Typical pavement sections based on the field exploration activities [twelve
(12) 10-foot deep hand auger borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(DCP) testing and twelve (12) CBR tests] and our experience with similar soil
conditions.
9. Permeability (infiltration) values and storm water design parameters are
provided based on our field exploration activities (in -situ permeability tests)
and our experience with similar soil conditions.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune. North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the
presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock,
surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Any statements in this
report or on the boring logs regarding odors, color, unusual or suspicious items or
conditions are strictly for the information of the client. Prior to development of this site, an
environmental assessment is advisable.
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
2.1 Field Exploration
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
foundation design parameters within the proposed building areas, a total of thirty three (33)
20- to 25-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings (designated as B-23 through
B-55) were drilled by G E T Solutions, Inc. within the limits of the proposed structures.
Additionally, a total of ten (10) 25-foot deep SPT borings (designated as B-3 through B-12)
were completed during our original feasibility study of the Family Housing project site and
provided in our report dated October 14, 2008 (GET Project No. EC08-321G).
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
pavement design parameters within the proposed pavement areas, twelve (12) 10-foot
deep hand auger borings (designated as CBR-10 through CBR-21) were drilled within the
proposed roadway areas. Additionally, a total of three (3)10-foot deep borings (designated
as CBR-1, CBR-3, CBR-4) were completed within the proposed pavement areas during our
previously referenced feasibility study of the Family Housing project site. Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer (DCP) testing and bulk soil sampling was performed at each of the pavement
boring locations. The bulk subgrade soil samples were collected from depths ranging from
0.5 to 3.0 feet below existing grades. The bulk soil samples were returned to our
laboratory and subjected to CBR testing in accordance with ASTM standards.
Finally, in order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing
associated storm water design parameters, six (6) 15-foot deep SPT borings (designated
as BMP-3 through BMP-8) were performed within the proposed storm water management
pond areas. Additionally, a groundwater monitoring well was installed at each of the boring
locations identified as BMP-4 through BMP-6 and BMP-8. The number of borings to be
drilled for this project was specified by the developer and Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc., and their locations were established and identified in the field by G E T Solutions,
Inc.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
The recently completed borings were performed in conjunction with and labeled
consecutively with the previously completed borings for the project's feasibility study as
well as the subsurface exploration procedures recently completed for the proposed Camp
LeJeUne Elementary School project reported on the date of September 11, 2009 (GET
Project No. EC09-228G).
Accordingly, the borings performed during our initial feasibility study for the proposed
housing project (B-3 through B-12, CBR-1, CBR-3, and CBR-4) are included herein.
Whereas, the remaining borings identified as B-1, B-2, B-13 through B-22, CBR-2, CBR-5
through CBR-9, BMP-1, and BMP-2 are not provided as they were not performed within the
limits of the proposed housing project.
Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM
D 1586. The tests were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to depths
of 12 feet, and at 5-foot intervals thereafter. The soil samples were obtained with a
standard 1.4" I.D., 2" O.D., 30" long split -spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with
blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the
sampler each 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring
logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.
A representative portion of each disturbed split -spoon sample was collected with each
SPT, placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review.
Following the exploration procedures, the borings were backfilled with a neat cement grout
mix in accordance with NCDENR requirements, excluding the locations where groundwater
monitoring wells were installed. More specific information regarding boring locations and
depths is provided in the following table (Table I — Boring Schedule).
Table I — Boring Schedule
Boring
Number
Boring
Depth
(feet)
Boring
Surface
Elevation
(ft MSL)*
Boring Location Description
GPS Coordinates
Latitude
Longitude
B-3
25
22.5
Lot 11, Approximate Center of Lot
340 42.863'
770 21.996'
B-4
25
16.5
Lot 6; Approximate Center of Lot
340 42.892'
770 21.896'
3-5
25
24.0
Lot 34; Approx. Southwest Corner of Lot
340 42.782'
770 21.879'
B-6
25
22.5
Lot 61, Approx. Northwest Corner of Lot
340 42.728'
770 21.972'
B-7
25
21.5
Lot 126; Approx. Southwest Corner of Lot
340 42.644'
770 22A 41'
B-8
25
21.5
Lot 136; Approx. Center of Lot
340 42.525'
770 22.075'
B-9
25
23.5
Lot 159, Approx. Northeast Building Corner
340 42.656'
770 21.802'
B-10
25
23.5
Lot 154, Approx. Northwest Building Corner
340 42.569'
770 21.838'
= Surface elevations are estimated based on the topographic information provided by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.
Solutions„Inc) ; ,Ii4

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No\ EC09-227G
Table I - Boring Schedule: Continued
Boring
Number
Boring
Depth
feet)
Boring
Surface
Elevation
ft MSL
Boring Location Description
GPS Coordinates
Latitude
Longitude
B-11
25
24.0
Lot 117; Approx. Center of Building
340 42.495'
770 21.967'
B-12
25
17.5
Lot 143, Approx. Northwest Building Corner
340 42.437'
770 22,055'
B-23 '
20
23.0
Lot 1, Approximate Center of Building -
340 42.882`
770 22.033'
B-24
20
22.0
Lot 4, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.839'
770 21.962'
B-25
20
23.0
Lot 9; Approximate Center of Building
340 42.853'
770 22.034'
B-26
20
23.0
Lot 13; Approximate Center of Building
340 42,862'
77° 21.952'
B-27
20
22.5
Lot 14; Approximate Center of Building
340 42.868'
770 21.914'
B-28
20
22.0
Lot 18; Approximate Center of Building
340 42.884'
770 21.827'
B-29
20
23.5
Lot 19; Approximate Center of Building
340 42,826'
770 22.030'
B-30
20
24.0
Lot 22; Approximate Center of Building
340 42.836'
770 21,950'
B-31
20
23.0
Lot 24, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.845'
770 21.885'
B-32
20
22.0
Lot 27, Approximate Center of Building
340 42,856'
770 21,823'
B-33
20
22.0
Lot 170, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.867'
770 21.792'
B-34
20
23.5
Lot 28; Approximate Center of Building
340 42.812'
770 21 M6'
B-35
20
22.0
Lot 32, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.829'
77021.821
B-36
20
23.5
Lot 167; Approximate Center of Building
340 42.814'
770 21.783'
B-37
20
22.0
Lot 37, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.803'
770 21.816'
B-38
20
23.5
Lot 38, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.788'
770 22.026'
B-39
20
23.0
Lot 41, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.775'
770 21.966'
B-40
20
23.5
Lot 43, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.769'
770 21,904'
B-41
20
23.5
Lot 47, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.766'
770 21.817'
B-42
20
22.0
Lot 52; Approximate Center of Building
340 42,745'
770 21.946'
B-43
20
23.5
Lot 54, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.742'
770 21.882'
B-44
20
23.5
Lot 163: Approximate Center of Building
340 42.725'
770 21.787'
B-45
20
21.0
Lot 58, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.735'
770 22,029'
B-46
20
22.0
Lot 71; Approximate Center of Building
340 42.698'
770 21.982'
B-47
20
23.0
Lot 63, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.713'
770 21.915'
5-48
20
24.0
Lot 77, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.676'
770 21.833'
B-49
20
24.0
Lot 86; Approximate Center of Building
340 42.647'
770 21.914'
B-50
20
23.0
Lot 89, Approximate Center of Building
340 42.621'
770 21.850'
B-51
20
23.5
Lot 90, Approximate Center of Building
340 42,633'
770 21.944'
B-52
20
23.0
Lot 93; Approximate Center of Building
340 42.608'
770 21.885'
B-53
20
23.0
Lot 155, Approx. Center of Building
340 42.587'
770 21.828'
= Surface elevations are estimated based on the topographic information provided by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geolechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Table I - Boring Schedule: Continued
Boring
Boring
GPS Coordinates
Boring
Surface
Depth
Boring Location Description
Number
(feet)
Elevation
Latitude
Longitude
ft MSL
B-54
25
21.0
Community Building; Approx. Southeast Corner
340 42.562'
770 21.908'
B-55
25
21.0
Community Building; Approx. Southeast Corner
340 42.546'
770 21.910'
CBR-1
10
23.5
Roadway West of Lot 28, STA 18+00
340 42.810'
770 2L927'
CBR-3
10
19.0
Roadway West of Lot 135, Center of Intersection
340 42.562'
770 22.070'
CBR-4
10
23.5
Roadway West of Lot 161, STA 21+00
340 42.695'
770 21,809'
CBR-10
10
22.5
West Main Entrance, STA 11+25
340 42.911'
770 22+061'
CBR-11
10
21.0
Roadway North of Lot 4, STA 14+50
340 42.903'
770 2L969'
CBR-12
10
22.0
Roadway North of Lot 7; STA 19+75
340 42.914'
770 21.864'
CBR-13
10
23.0
Roadway South of Lot 16, STA 19+75
340 42.864'
770 21,857'
CBR-14
10
23.0
Roadway South of Lot 10; STA 12+40
340 42+841'
770 22.005'
CBR-15
10
23.0
Roadway West of Lot 167; STA 13+50
340 42.818'
770 21+800'
CBR-16
10
23.5
Roadway North of Lot 54: STA 18+00
340 42.754'
770 21.887'
CBR-17
10
21.0
Roadway North of Lot 68; West End (Intersection)
340 42.727'
770 22.052'
CBR-18
10
22.5
Roadway East of Lot 72; STA 25+00
340 42+701'
770 2L937'
CBR-19
10
23.0
Roadway North of Lot 93; STA 14+50
340 42,619'
770 2t878'
CBR-20
10
22.5
Roadway South of the Community Center;
34042+589,
770 21.970'
STA 11+75
CBR-21
10
22.0
Roadway East of the Community Center;
340 42.548'
770 21.874'
STA 30+50
BMP-3
15
INA
BMP Storm Water Pond West of Development;
340 42.694'
770 22.311'
Approx. Northeast Corner
BMP-4
15
INA
BMP Storm Water Pond West of Development;
340 42.628'
770 22.377'
Approx. Southwest Corner
BMP-5
15
24.0
BMP Storm Water Pond North of Lot 42,
340 42.802'
770 21.958'
Approx. Center
BMP-6
15
23.0
BMP Storm Water Pond Northwest of the
34° 42.598'
77° 21.938'
CommunityCenter; Approx. Center
BMP Storm Water Pond South of Lot 144
BMP-7
15
18.0
Phase II ; Approx. Northeast Corner
340 42 409'
770 21 989'
BMP-8
15
15.5-
BMP Storm Water Pond South of Lot 144
340 42.337'
770 22.058'
Phase II ; Approx. Southwest Corner
= Surface elevations are estimated based on the topographic information provided by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
The number of borings to be drilled for this project was specified by the developer and
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Furthermore, the recently completed boring locations
were previously established by G E T Solutions, Inc. during the proposal process in
conjunction with the reduced scope of services stipulated by the developer at an
approximate frequency of 1 boring for every fourth or fifth duplex structure. These
previously established boring locations were identified in the field by G E T Solutions Inc.
personnel with the use of a Global Positions System unit as well as the "State Plane"
coordinates selected from the project site plan and converted to latitude and longitude
coordinates. The approximate boring locations are shown on the "Boring Location Plan" —
attached to this report (Appendix I, Figure 1). This plan was developed based on the site
plan provided to G E T Solutions, Inc. by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass
jars, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis. The soil
classification was performed by a Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with ASTM D2488.
Twenty eight (28) representative soil samples were selected and subjected to laboratory
testing, which included natural moisture, 4200 sieve wash, Atterberg Limits, and/or organic
content testing and analysis, in order to corroborate the visual classification. These test
results are provided in the following table (Table II — Laboratory Test Results) and are
presented on the "Boring Log" sheets (Appendix II), included with this report.
Table II - Laboratory Test Results
Boring
No.
Sample
Type
Depth
(Feet)
Natural
Moisture
_(%)
%
Passing
#200
Atterberg
Limits
LL/PL/PI
Organic
Content(%)
USCS
Classification
B-3
S-6
13-15
21
6.6
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP-SM
B-4
S-5
9-10
5
2.9
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP
B-6
S-2
2-4
22
78.3
Not Tested
Not Tested
CH
B-8
S-4
6-8
8
9.7
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP-SM
B-9
S-7
18-20
25
22.5
Not Tested
Not Tested
Sc
B-10
S-2
2-4
22
82.5
Not Tested
Not Tested
CH
B-12
S-5
8-10
20
1 30.2
Not Tested
Not Tested
Sc
B-24
SS
4-6
8.4
9.9
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP-SM
B-27
SS
18-20
26.7
16.2
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
B-28
SS
4-6
22.1
67.1
45/18/27
Not Tested
CL
B-32
SS
14.5-15
20.9
16.5
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
B-33
SS
10-12
34.5
8.2
Not Tested
2.1%
SP-SM
B-36
SS
6-8
29.6
93.2
53/18/35
Not Tested
CH
SS = Split Spoon Sample
MEMNON
Sbiut+or s,4iic'Q6; Cf�F1

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune. North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G I
I
Table II - Laboratory Test Results: Continued
i
Boring
No.
Sample
Type
Depth
(Feet)
Natural
Moisture
%
�)
° /d
Passing
#200
Atterberg
Limits
(LL/PLIPI)
Organic
°
Content (/°)
USCS
Classification
B-37
SS
8-10
20.5
22!3
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
B-39
SS
2-4
10.4
29.2
23/13/10
Not Tested
Sc
B-41
SS
8-10
17.9
31!9
21/14/7
Not Tested
SC-SM
B-43
SS
0-2 --
20.1
54W
37/14/23
Not Tested
- CL
B-46
SS
2-4
25.6
82!8
52/19/33
Not Tested
CH
B-48
SS
2-4
12.1
30:2
Not Tested
Not Tested
SC
B-49
SS
4-6
29.4
9119
56/19/37
Not Tested
CH
B-54
SS
2-4
30.6
87!8
59/18/41
Not Tested
CH
B-55
SS
4-6
20.6
5113
Not Tested
Not Tested
CL
BMP-3
SS
10.5-11
26.5
19.8
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
BMP-4
SS
6.5-7
20.4
27t9
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
BMP-5
SS
9.5-10
6.3
4.5
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP
BMP-6
SS
9.5-10
32.1
181.8
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM with SC
ribbons
BMP-7
SS
7-7.5
28.1
17.5
Not Tested
Not Tested
SM
BMP-8
SS
7-7.5
14.5
7.4
Not Tested
Not Tested
SP-SM
SS = Split Spoon Sample
The fifteen (15) bulk soil samples (CBR-1, CBR-3, CBR-4, CBR-10 through CBR-21) were
subjected to Atterberg Limits, natural moisture content, gradation analysis, standard
Proctor, and CBR testing in accordance with ASTM standards. A comprehensive summary
of the CBR test data and the moisture density relationship curves (Proctors) are presented
in Appendix IV. Additionally, the results of the field DCP testing procedures are presented
in Appendix V.
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location and Description
I
The project site is located along the south 'side of Brewster Boulevard just west of the
intersection with Stone Street in the Camp L,ejeune military installation in North Carolina.
The site currently consists of an undeveloped wooded parcel with an existing dirt roadway
bisecting the site and an open agricultural area located within the east portion of the site.
Existing grade elevations throughout the proposed project site generally ranged from about
16 to 25 feel MSL, as indicated on the topographic site plan provided by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. Furthermore, the site was visually estimated to be relatively level with less
than 1 to 2 feet of change in elevation in 50!linear feet.
RECEIV'
DEC 1 5 2009

i
i
Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11. 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune I
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
The project site is bordered to the east by a wooded area followed by an existing
recreational area associated with an existing school, to the north by Brewster Boulevard
followed by a wooded parcel, and to the west and south by a wooded parcel.
3.2 Site Geology
The project site lies within a major physiographic province called the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine,
lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, and —
generally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts and clays.
Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the geologic stratigraphy
encountered in our subsurface explorations generally consisted of marine deposited sands,
silts and clays.
3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions
The results of our recently and previously completed soil test borings at this site indicated
the presence of approximately 2 to 24 inches of topsoil material at the boring locations.
Underlying the surficial organic materials (Topsoil) and extending to the boring termination
depths of 10, 15, 20, and 25 feet below existing site grades, the natural subsurface soils
were generally uniform throughout the site. These soils were noted to be primarily granular
in nature and were classified as SAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC) with varying
amounts of silt and clay. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results, N-values, recorded
within these granular soils ranged from 2 to 36 blows -per -foot (BPF), indicating a very
loose to dense relative density.
The granular soils encountered at the location of borings B-33 and B-35, at a depth ranging
from and 9 to 13 feet below existing grades were noted to contain trace amounts of
organics. These organic granular soil deposits were noted to range in thickness from
about 3 to 4 feet. Additionally, more significant deposits of organic soils were encountered
at the location of borings B-28, B-32, B-35, and CBR-19 at varying depths ranging from 8
to 9.5 feet and 10 to 15 feet below existing grades. These organic soil deposits were noted
to range in consistency from PEAT (PT) with varying amounts of silt, clay, and/or sand to
Organic Fat CLAY (OH) with varying amounts of Peat, and ranged in thickness from 0.5 to
4 feet.
Finally, deposits of CLAY (CL, CL-ML, CH) and/or SILT (ML) were encountered within the
subsurface granular soils between varying depths ranging from 0.25 to 9 feet below the
existing site grade elevations at the location of borings B-6, B-7, B-10, B-28, B-33, B-35
through B-37, B-43, B-46, B-49, B-50, B-52, B-54, B-55, CBR-3, CBR-17 through CBR-20,
and BMP-6.
DEC 1 5 2009

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil
strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix II
(Boring Log sheets) and in the Generalized Soil Profile presented in Appendix III, which
should be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications
shown on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the
actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring
locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface
materials and the transition may be gradual.
3.3 Groundwater Information
The groundwater level was recorded at the location of borings B-3 through B-12, B-23
through B-55, CBR-3, CBR-15, and BMP-3 through BMP-8 as observed through the
wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial
groundwater table was measured to occur at depths ranging from 7 to 16 feet below
current grades at the boring locations. Based on the site topography information provided
by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., the encountered groundwater level corresponds to an
elevation generally ranging from 6 to 16 feet MSL. However, the groundwater levels
encountered at the location of borings B-33 and B-41 (14 feet MSL and 16 feet MSL,
respectively) may be perched water as a result of restrictive Clayey SAND (SC) layers.
The groundwater level was not encountered at the location of borings CBR-1, CBR-4,
CBR-10 through CBR-14 and CBR-16 through CBR-21 as the boring termination depth
occurred at about 10 feet below the existing site grade elevations. The varying ground
water depths and elevations appear to have been contributed by variations of the existing
site grade elevations in combination with the natural site drainage features.
The boreholes at the location of borings B-3 through B-12, B-23 through B-55, CBR-1,
CBR-3, CBR-4, CBR-10 through CBR-21, BMP-3, and BMP-7 were backfilled upon
completion for safety considerations. As such, the reported groundwater levels may not be
indicative of the static groundwater level. However, groundwater monitoring wells were
installed at the location of borings BMP-4 through BMP-6 and BMP-8. The static
groundwater levels encountered following a period of 48-hours after the monitoring wells
were installed were noted to occur at depths ranging from 8 to 15 feet below the existing
site grade elevations. These groundwater depths were correlated to elevations ranging
from about 7 to 9.5 feet MSL at the location of borings BMP-5, BMP-6, and BMP-8.
Existing site grade elevations were not available within the vicinity of boring BMP-4.
More specific information regarding the 48-hour groundwater readings and estimated
seasonal high groundwater depths and elevations for each boring location within the
proposed storm water management (BMP) pond areas are provided in the following table
(Table III — Groundwater Summary). Additionally, Table III on the following page includes
the average estimated seasonal high ground water elevations for each BMP pond location.
10
1 5 2009

lJ
ZQ2
DEC 1 5 2009
BY.-

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Table III — Groundwater Summary
September 11, 2009
48-hour
Estimated
Average Estimated
Boring
Initial
48-hour
Groundwater
Seasonal High
Seasonal High
No.
Groundwater
Groundwater
Elevation
Groundwater
Groundwater
Level (ft)'
Level (ft)*
(ft MSL) "
Elevation
Elevation
(ft M S L
ft MSL '"
BMP-3 _
12.0.__.
Monitoring
Well Not
Monitoring Well
Information Not
BMP POND #7
Installed
Not Installed
Available
Topographic
Information Not
InformationAvailable
NotInformationAvailable
Not
BMP-4
8.0
8.2
Available
Available
Available
BMP POND #5
BMP-5
15.0
15.0
9.0
12.0
Average Estimated
SHWT Elevation = 12.0
BMP POND #2
BMP-6
12.0
12.25
10.75
14.0
Average Estimated
SHWT Elevation = 14.0
Monitoring
Monitoring Well
BMP POND #1
BMP-7
8.5
Well Not
Not Installed
12.0
Average Estimated
Installed
SHWT Elevation =
1 11.25
BMP-8
1 8.5
1 8.5
1 7.0
10.5
= Groundwater levels noted above are referenced from the existing site grade elevations encountered at
the individual boring locations.
` = 48 hour groundwater elevations and estimated seasonal high groundwater elevations are estimated
based on the topographic information provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
As previously noted, the seasonal high ground water elevation information noted above is
considered to be estimated and is based on the results of our visual soil classification
program. Additionally, the static ground water levels encountered at the monitoring well
locations as well as the seasonal high ground water levels are likely affected by variations
in seasonal precipitation magnitudes, in -situ soil conditions throughout the BMP pond
areas, in conjunction with the existing and finished elevations.
Perched groundwater levels are anticipated to occur throughout the site as a result of
potential restrictive SAND (SC, SC-SM), SILT (ML) and/or CLAY (CL, CL-ML, CH)
encountered throughout the site at depths ranging from 0.2 feet to 9 feet below existing
grades.
Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions,
such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences,
such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved
parking lots, sidewalks, etc.). Seasonal groundwater fluctuations of±2 feet are common in
the project's area, however, greater fluctuations have been documented. We recommend
that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the construction
to determine groundwater impact on the construction procedures.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, our
interpretation of the soil test borings and laboratory data, and our observations during our
site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we
request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.
The subsurface soils generally encountered throughout a majority of the project site are
-suitable for the use of shallow foundation designs. However, subsurface organic laden
granular soils (SAND, SP-SM, SM) and/or more significant deposits of organic soils (Fat
Organic CLAY; OH and/or PEAT; PT) were encountered at the location of borings B-28, 13-
32, B-33, B-35, and CBR-19 at depths ranging from 8 to 15 feet below existing grades.
The granular soils noted to contain trace amounts of organics and the relatively thin
deposits of more significant organics are not anticipated to contribute significant foundation
settlement magnitudes associated with the proposed structures. However, excessive
shallow foundation settlements are anticipated to occur for the structures within the vicinity
of boring B-32 associated with the PEAT (PT) soils encountered at a depth of 10 to 14.5
feet below existing grades. Additional subsurface explorations within the vicinity of boring
B-32 is considered to be advisable in order to delineate the limits of the PEAT (PT) soils
and identify those structures requiring alternative foundation systems. Preliminary
alternative foundation design recommendations are presented in Section 4.5.2 of this
report.
4.1 Clearing and Grading
The proposed construction area should be cleared by means of removing the existing
topsoil and associated root mat. It is estimated that a cut averaging about 8 inches in
depth, with isolated areas exceeding 12 inches (such as B-4, B-9, B-41, CBR-15, CBR-19,
and BMP-8), will be required to remove the topsoil and its associated root mat and expose
the underlying CLAY (CL, CL-ML), SILT (ML), and/or SAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM,
SC). This cut is expected to extend deeper in isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of
unsuitable material which become evident during the clearing. It is recommended that the
clearing operations extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed
construction areas.
t =BY:
GET

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Following the initial clearing, the resulting exposed subgradewill generally be comprised of
CLAY (CL, CL-ML), SILT (ML), and/or SAND (SM, SC-SM, SC) containing an appreciable
amount of fines. Accordingly, combinations of excess surface moisture from precipitation
ponding on the site and the construction traffic, including heavy compaction equipment,
may create pumping and general deterioration of the bearing capabilities of the surface
soils. Therefore, undercutting to remove loose/soft soils in isolated areas should be
expected. The extent of the undercut will be determined in the field during construction
based on the outcome of the field testing procedures (subgrade proofroll). In this regard,
-- and in order to -reduce undercutting, care should be exercised during the -grading -and - —
construction operations at the site.
Furthermore, inherently wet subgrade soils combined with potential poor site drainage
make this site particularly susceptible to subgrade deterioration. Thus, grading should be
performed during a dry season if at all possible. This should minimize these potential
problems, although they may not be eliminated. The project's budget should include an
allowance for subgrade improvements (undercut and backfill with structural fill or aggregate
base in the building and pavement areas).
4.2 Subgrade Preparation
Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a
large static drum roller. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be
evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the subgrade soils should be
proofrolled to check for pockets of loose material hidden beneath a crust of better soil.
Several passes should be made by a large rubber -tired roller or loaded dump truck over
the construction areas, with the successive passes aligned perpendicularly. The number of
passes will be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer depending on the soils
conditions. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the
initial cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the directions of the Geotechnical
Engineer.
Following the proofroll and approval by the engineer, it is recommended that the newly
exposed subgrade soils be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the
Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557), as tested to a depth of at least 12
inches.
4.3 Structural Fill and Placement
Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by the Geotechnical Engineer, the
placement of the fill required to establish the design grades may begin. Any material to be
used for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by G E T Solutions, Inc. prior to
placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fill
material should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 20% by weight of fines (SP,
SM, SW, GP, GW), having a liquid limit less than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, and
should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable material.
13 !ZffcE1v_K75 SET
DEC 1 5 2009
BY:

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11. 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Other soils types such as SAND (SC-SM, SC) and/or CLAY (CL) may be used as fill
provided that they are properly placed and compacted as noted herein. These soil types
are typically moisture sensitive and unstable conditions and/or the inability of the materials
to be properly compacted may occur. Accordingly, should these soils be selected for use
as fill it is considered necessary to allow them to be dried to a moisture content suitable for
placement and compaction.
All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the Modified
Proctor -maximum dry density-(ASTM-D1557). In general, the compaction should be
accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically
compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A representative of
G E T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure
that adequate compaction is achieved.
Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of structural
fill (as previously above), and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D1557.
This fill should be placed in 4 to 6 inch loose lifts when hand compaction equipment is
used.
Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoid
transmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. In
this regard, it is recommended that the vibratory roller remain at least 25 feet away from
existing structures; these areas should be compacted with small, hand -operated
compaction equipment.
4.4 Suitability of On -site Soils
The subsurface CLAY (OH, CL, CL-ML, and CH), SILT (ML), PEAT (PT), and/or SAND
(SC and SC-SM) soils encountered at the boring locations do not appear to meet the
criteria recommended in this report for reuse as structural fill, but may be used as fill within
green areas. However, the SAND (SM, SP-SM, and SP) soils may be suitable for reuse as
structural fill. Further classification testing (natural moisture content, gradation analysis,
and Proctor testing) should be performed in the field during construction to substantiate the
suitability of excavated soils for reuse as fill within construction areas.
4.5 Foundation Discussion
As previously indicated in Sections 3.3 and 4.0 of this report, the subsurface soils generally
encountered throughout a majority of the project site are suitable for the use of shallow
foundation designs. However, the subsurface soils encountered at the location of borings
B-28, B-32, B-33, B-35, and CBR-19 were noted to contain organic deposits. Furthermore,
these organic soil deposits were noted to range in consistency from SAND (SP-SM, SM)
with trace organics, to more significant organic soils consisting of Organic Fat CLAY (OH)
and/or PEAT (PT).
14 PIECE' Jvk T; GET
DEC 1 5 2009
BY:�

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Although the granular soils (SAND: SP-SM, SM) noted to contain trace amounts of
organics as well as the relatively thin more substantial organic soil layers are not
anticipated to contribute significant amounts of shallow foundation settlement, the PEAT
(PT) deposit is anticipated to present more detrimental settlement magnitudes. The above
mentioned organic laden granular soils and relatively thin deposits of more significant
organics were generally encountered at the location of borings B-33, B-35, and CBR-19.
The PEAT (PT) soils anticipated to result in adverse shallow foundation settlements were
encountered at the location of boring B-32 (Lot 27).
Considering the proposed construction scheme consisting of 1 to 2 story wood frame
structures supported by shallow foundations, the organic laden soils are anticipated to be
located generally below the foundation zone of influence. Accordingly, the granular soils
noted to contain trace amounts of organics and the relatively thin deposits of more
significant organics are anticipated to result in tolerable shallow foundation settlements (up
to 1-inch). However, the PEAT (PT) soils are anticipated to result in global long term
settlements estimated to exceed about 2 to 3 inches.
Accordingly, as an alternative to the proposed shallow foundation designs, reinforced mat
foundations, post tensioned reinforced slabs, and/or deep foundations can be used to
minimize and/or prevent these settlement magnitudes. The use of mat foundations and/or
post tensioned reinforced slabs will not eliminate the potential for these settlement
magnitudes to occur, however they would be more uniform in nature and minimize
differential settlements. The use of deep foundations with pile supported first floor slabs
(structural slabs) would eliminate the potential for these adverse foundation settlements.
However, global settlements of the adjacent site grade elevations are anticipated to occur
differentially from the structure. Additional borings will need to be performed within the
vicinity of boring B-32 (Lot 27) in order to delineate the extent of the PEAT (PT) soils.
4.5.1 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations
Provided that the recommended earthwork construction procedures are properly
performed, the proposed structures (excluding those within the vicinity of boring B-32, Lot
27) can be supported by shallow spread footings, bearing over firm natural soil or well
compacted structural fill material. The footings can be designed using a net allowable soil
pressure of up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of
the footings and backfill over the footings, including the weight of the floor slab, need not
be considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above the finished floor need to be used
for dimensioning the footings.
In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity, the base of the footings should
have an embedment of at least 24 inches beneath finished grades, and wall footings
should have a minimum width of 24 inches. In addition, isolated square column footings
are recommended to be a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet in area for bearing capacity
consideration. The recommended 24-inch footing embedment is considered sufficient to
provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearing soils.
1' ' CJI;FE.,ZD GET
DEC 1 5

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
4.5.2 Preliminary Alternative Foundation Design Recommendations
As indicated in Section 4.5 of this report, the subsurface organic soils encountered at the
location of borings B-28, B-32, B-33, B-35, and CBR-19 are anticipated to result in adverse
long term global settlement magnitudes exceeding that indicated in Section 4.5.1 of this
report for shallow foundation design/construction. Accordingly, it may be advantageous to
support the proposed structures within the vicinity of these borings by means of reinforced
mat foundations, post tensioned reinforced slabs, and/or deep foundations.
The use of mat foundations and/or post tensioned reinforced slabs will not eliminate the
potential for these settlement magnitudes to occur, however they would be more uniform in
nature and minimize differential settlements. The use of deep foundations with pile
supported first floor slabs (structural slabs) would eliminate the potential for these adverse
foundation settlements. However, global settlements of the adjacent site grade elevations
are anticipated to occur differentially from the structure.
In the event that deep foundations are selected it is recommended that both the structure
and its first floor slabs be supported by the pile foundation system. Additionally, it is
anticipated that a deep foundation design may consist of driven round timber piles and/or
helical anchors installed to a depth of at least 25 to 30 feet below existing site grade
elevations. In order to provide deep foundation design recommendations and to more
accurately delineate the limits of the subsurface organic soils it would be necessary to
perform additional Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the vicinity of the above
mentioned boring locations.
4.6 Shallow Foundation Settlements
As previously indicated, the subsurface soils encountered within the vicinity of boring B-32
(Lot 27) were noted to contain a deposit of PEAT (PT). Furthermore, these soils will result
in excessive long term foundation settlements without the use of a pile supported structure
and first floor slab. Accordingly, it is considered advisable to complete additional
subsurface explorations (SPT borings) within the vicinity of boring B-32 in order to more
accurately delineate the limits of these unsuitable soils. Preliminary alternative foundation
design recommendations are presented in Section 4.5.2 of this report.
It is estimated that, with proper site preparation, the maximum resulting total settlement of
the foundations associated with the remaining structures should be up to 1 inch. The
maximum differential settlement magnitude is expected to be less than %-inch between
adjacent footings (wall footings and column footings of widely varying loading conditions).
The settlements were estimated on the basis of the results of the field penetration tests.
Careful field control will contribute substantially towards minimizing the settlements.
16
DEC 1 5 2009

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
4.7 Shallow Foundation Excavations
In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into
firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill. All foundation excavations should be
observed by G E T Solutions, Inc. At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer should also
explore the extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the
exposed excavations. Also, at the time of footing observations, the Geotechnical Engineer
may find it necessary to perform hand auger borings or use a hand penetration device in
the bases of the foundation excavations.- - - -
If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations,
the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with
"flowable fill", an open graded washed stone (such as No. 57 stone or equivalent), or a
suitable structural fill material compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the
Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557), as described in Section 4.3 of this
report. This construction procedure will provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of
2,000 psf. A
Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of
all footings be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers, to a dry density of at
least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) as tested to a
depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized
areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be adequately re -
compacted.
Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected
against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain or
frost. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be
allowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed the same day the
excavation is made. If this is not possible, the footing excavations should be adequately
protected.
4.8 Floor Slabs
The floor slabs may be constructed as slab -on -grade members provided the previously
recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out property. It is
recommended that the ground floor slab be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of
relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5%
passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as a
capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab.
'~CEIVE )
17 DEC 15 2009 ET
BY:�_

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
It is noted that all ground floor slabs may consist of "floating" slabs that are ground
supported and not rigidly connected to walls or foundations. Alternatively, monolithic slab -
on -grades with turn down foundations may be used. However, as previously indicated,
slab -on -grade construction (monolithic and/or floating slabs) is anticipated to experience
excessive settlements for the structures within the vicinity of borings B-28, B-32, B-33, B-
35, and CBR-19. Alternative recommendations for the first floor construction are provided
in Section 4.5.2 of this report.
It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing -soils be covered by a vapor barrier or
retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the
performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor
resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions or other
considerations require greater vapor resistance protection, consideration should be given
to using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the
Architect based on project requirements.
4.9 Pavement Design
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results indicated soaked CBR values ranging from
11.1 to 25.7, averaging 18.6. The in -situ field Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test
results indicated an in -place correlated CBR value ranging from about 5 to 9. The
relatively low correlated CBR values obtained from the field DCP testing procedures is
contributed to the very loose condition (not compacted) of the shallow subsurface soils.
These associated CBR values will be greatly improved provided that the earthwork
recommendations, including the subgrade preparation and fill placement/compaction
procedures are successfully completed as recommended in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this
report.
A comprehensive summary of the CBR test data and the moisture density relationship
curves (Proctors) are presented in Appendix IV. Additionally, the results of the field DCP
testing procedures are presented in Appendix V.
The average CBR value obtained from the laboratory CBR testing procedures was
multiplied by a factor of two-thirds to determine a pavement design CBR value. The two-
thirds factor provides the necessary safety margins to compensate for some non -uniformity
of the soil. Therefore, a CBR value of 12.4 was used in designing the pavement sections.
Furthermore, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) loading criteria provided by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. and the information listed on the following page were also used to
complete the pavement design analysis, which was performed in accordance with
AASHTO requirements.
IS I•��Erw� . T
DEC 1 tong

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Should any of the information provided below be incorrect, G E T Solutions, Inc. should
be notified to perform a subsequent analysis prior to paving operations.
Average Daily Traffic: Ranging from 80 to 5000 Trips Per Day
Percent Trucks: 8%
Design Life Criteria: 20 Years
Percent Growth Rate: 0.0%
Total Design ESALs ranging from 226,800 to 1,889,996
Reliability = 75.0% -.- - -- .- _-- -.---- _-- ----
Overall Deviation = 0.49
Soil Resilient Modulus = 10,878.0 psi
Initial Serviceability = 4.20
Terminal Serviceability = 2.80
The pavement calculations were performed using proprietary software WinPAS and the
pavement sections noted in Table IV below are recommended, which vary with the ADT
loading criteria provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table IV —Pavement Sections
Hot Mix Asphalt
Aggregate
Surface
Surface
Intermediate
m
Section
Base*
Subgrade"
SF-9.5A
S-12.5
1-19B
ADT 5000 Vehicles Per Da —Alternative I
Heavy Duty Asphalt
1.5"
N/A
2.5"
12"
Firm, Stable, and
Com acted
ADT 5000 Vehicles Per Da — Alternative 11
Heavy Duty Asphalt
2"
N/A
3"
10"
Firm, Stable, and
Compacted
r ADT 4500 Vehicles Per Da — Alternative I -
Heavy Duty Asphalt
1.5"
N/A
2.5"
12"
Firm, Stable, and
Compacted
ADT 4500 Vehicles Per Da — Alternative II
Heavy Duty Asphalt
2"
N/A
3" 17
8•
Firm, Stable, and
Com acted
. ADT 80 to 600 Vehicles Per Da -
Standard Duty 1"
2"
N/A
8",
Firm, Stable, and
Asphalt
Compacted
NCDOT ABC compacted to a dry density of at least 100% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density
(ASTM D 1557).
Compacted to a dry density of at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557).
The results of the pavement design analysis are included in Appendix VI (Pavement
Design Analysis). All pavement material and construction procedures should conform to
Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
requirements.
2009 ElI utli Inc. Zt s

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Following pavement rough grading operations, the exposed subgrade should be observed
under proofrolling. This proofrolling should be accomplished with a fully loaded dump truck
or 7 to 10 ton drum roller to check for pockets of soft material hidden beneath a thin crust
of better soil. Any unsuitable materials thus exposed should be removed and replaced with
a well -compacted material. The inspection of these phases should be performed by the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The subgrade soils are likely to be unstable
at the time of construction and some ground improvements are likely. As such, the
project's budget should include a contingency to accommodate the potential ground
improvements.
Where excessively unstable subgrade soils are observed during proofrolling and/or fill
placement, it is expected that these weak areas can be stabilized by means of thickening
the base course layer by 2 to 4 inches and/or lining the subgrade with geotextile fabric
(Mirafi 500x or equivalent). These alternatives are to be addressed by the Geotechnical
Engineer during construction, if necessary, who will recommend the most economical
approach at the time.
4.10 Seismic Evaluation
It is noted that, in accordance with the INC Building Code; Chapter 16, this site is classified
as a site Class D, based on which seismic designs should be incorporated. This
recommendation is based on the data obtained from the completed 25-foot deep SPT
borings as well as our experience with shear wave velocity testing performed on projects
within the vicinity of this site. In order to substantiate the site classification provided above
a 100-foot deep CPT boring and soil shear wave velocity testing with liquefaction potential
analysis should be performed. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to provide these
services should they be determined necessary.
4.11 Storm Water Design Parameters
Six (6) infiltration tests were performed at the location of borings BMP-3 through BMP-8.
The tests were performed at depths ranging from about 7 to 11 feet below current grades,
respectively. The boreholes were prepared utilizing an auger to remove soil clippings from
the base. Infiltration testing was then conducted within the vadose zone utilizing a
Precision Permeameter and the following testing procedures.
20
DEC 1 5 2009

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
A support stand was assembled and placed adjacent to each borehole. This stand holds a
calibrated reservoir (200 ml or 2000 ml) and a cable used to raise and lower the water
control unit (WCU). The WCU establishes a constant water head within the borehole
during testing by use of a precision valve and float assembly. The WCU was attached to
the flow reservoir with a 4-meter (approximately 13-foot) braided PVC hose and then
lowered by cable into the borehole to the test depth elevation. As required by the Glover
solution, the WCU was suspended above the bottom of the borehole at an elevation of
approximately 5 times the borehole diameter. The shut-off valve was then opened allowing
water to pass through the WCU to fill the borehole to the constant_water_Ievel_elevation.
The absorption rate slowed as the soil voids became filled and an equilibrium developed as
a wetting bulb developed around the borehole. Water was continuously added until the
flow rate stabilized. The reservoir was then re -filled in order to begin testing. During
testing, as the water drained into the borehole and surrounding soils, the water level within
the calibrated reservoir was recorded as well as the elapsed time during each interval. The
test was continued until relatively consistent flow rates were documented. During testing
the quick release connections and shutoff valve were monitored to ensure that no leakage
occurred. The flow rate (0), height of the constant water level (H), and borehole diameter
(D) were used to calculate Ks utilizing the Glover Solution. Based on the field testing and
corroborated with laboratory testing results (published values compared to classification
tests), the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soils is tabulated in the following table
(Table V) and is presented on the "Hydraulic Conductivity Worksheet" reports (Appendix
VII), included with this report.
Table V - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results
Test No.
Test
Depth (ft*)
Static
Groundwater
Level (*ft.)
Percent Silt
and/or Clay
Average Infiltration Test
Results (Ksat Values)
cm/sec
cm/day
in/hour
BMP-3
11.0
12.0
19.8
1.37E-0 3
118.6
1.945
BMP-4
7.0
8.2
27.9
2.00E-04
17.3
0.284
BMP-5
10.0
15.0
4.5
9.65E-03
834.1
13.683
BMP-6
10.0
22.25
8.8
9.52E-04
82.3
1.350
BMP-7
7.5
8.5J::l
17.5
3.69E-03
319.1
5.235
BMP-8
7.5
8.5
7.4
1 3.77E-03
1 325.4
5.338
' The ground water level was initially encountered at depths ranging from 8 to 15 feel below the existing site
grade elevations. 48-hour ground water level readings indicated static water levels ranging from 8.2 to 15 feet
below the existing site grade elevations.
21 fy�&vrC,Erv)Eb GET
DEC 1 5 2009

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11. 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune.
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns
It is expected that dewatering may be required for excavations that extend near or below
the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be
accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level
may require well pointing.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove the water form
the excavation, remove the saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface
soils to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
Perched water table conditions within the select fill materials and/or shallow subsurface
soils may be encountered throughout the project site during periods of heavy precipitation
and/or during the "wet' season. This is expected to occur as a result of the surficial and/or
shallow subsurface restrictive soil layers generally encountered throughout the project site
at depths ranging from 0.3 feet to 9 feet.
Accordingly, some undercut and backfill with suitable structural fill materials and/or de -
watering of the structural fill materials and/or shallow subsurface soils may be required
during the subgrade preparation and/or foundation construction procedures. Alternatively,
an under drain system may be used in order to aid in alleviating the potential for saturated
bearing soil conditions and/or to aid in minimizing foundation undercutting procedures.
It would be advantageous to construct all fills early in the construction. If this is not
accomplished, disturbance of the existing site drainage could result in collection of surface
water in some areas, thus rendering these areas wet and very loose. Temporary drainage
ditches should be employed by the contractor to accentuate drainage during construction.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove water from the
excavations, remove saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface soils
to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
5.2 Site Utility Installation
The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the
pipe and structure placements to verify the suitability of the bearing soils. If unstable
bearing soils are encountered during installation some form of stabilization may be required
to provide suitable bedding. This stabilization is typically accomplished by providing
additional bedding materials (NCDOT No. 57 stone). In addition, depending on the depth
of the utility trench excavation, some means of dewatering may be required to facilitate the
utility installation and associated backfilling.
All utility excavations should be backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 4.3 of
this report.
22 11"R�C�K-Tv�FmD GET
DEC 1 5 2009

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina _
GET Project No: EC09-227G
The subsurface CLAY (OH, CL, CL-ML, and CH), SILT (ML), PEAT (PT), and/or SAND
(SC and SC-SM) soils encountered at the boring locations do not appear to meet the
criteria recommended in this report for reuse as structural fill, but may be used as fill within
green areas. However, the SAND (SM, SP-SM, and SP) soils may be suitable for reuse as
structural fill. Further classification testing (natural moisture content, gradation analysis,
and Proctor testing) should be performed in the field during construction to substantiate the
suitability of excavated soils for reuse as fill within construction areas.
- 5.3 Excavations -- - -- -- -
In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction
Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P". This document was issued to
better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by
this federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement
excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new (OSHA)
guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if
they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial
penalties.
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary
excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to
maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's responsible
person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the
excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should slope height,
slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed
those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions, Inc. is
not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such
responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by
G E T Solutions, Inc. and the information supplied by the client for the proposed project.
If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface
conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, G E T Solutions, Inc.
should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations
are required. If G E T Solutions, Inc. is not retained to perform these functions, G E T
Solutions, Inc. can not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the
geotechnical recommendations for the project.
23
DEC 1 5 2009

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services September 11, 2009
Family Housing MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications or
professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally
accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other
warranties are implied or expressed.
After the plans and specifications are more complete the Geotechnical Engineer should be
provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to assure our
engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents,
in order that the earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted- - and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary
recommendations. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. and their consultants for the specific application to the Camp LeJeune
Family Housing project located within the Camp Lejeune military installation in North
Carolina.
24 DEVf
C 1 5 2009

APPENDICES
BORING LOCATION PLAN
II BORING LOGS
III GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
IV
V �A Y Qw�o+�Z C4J
V I G2r^a+f
VII SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
VIII CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
DEC 1 5 2009

APPENDIX I
BORING LOCATION PLAN
DEC I s 2609

BMP-3
BMP-4
! BMP-5 - .
IP-8
O)
O
O
N
Lo
14
CU
W

APPENDIX II
BORING LOGS
Ut C 1 5 2009

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc.
`�-
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
-
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0'MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Welsh) DATE: 8-29-09
B-23
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': 16' AFTER 24 HOURS: '- CAVING> C-
c _z
g
tw
p E
a °1
p `°r-'
Description
w
E 6
w
E o
m
w
E
00
3;iD
6 y
m a
v
m
oo
u
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Llmil H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value- FMMM
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
_
t 4 inches of TOPSOIL I
0.3
,'
_
_
_
2
—
!'
1
24
SS
z
2
3
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist. Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to
loose
—
z
- 20
_ _
—
_. _. _ _-. ____. Tan from 2 feet . _
2
24
SS
3
-6
4
—
s
3
24
SS
7
—
6
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium
SAND (SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
trace clay. loose to medium dense
i.---
I
,: f :
'1o: rr...
ai.
'1
—
24
—
SS
—
5
5
s
9
13
:.. : .I.. .....
15
_
5
24
SS
j
_
—
10
......
11
Mottled Light Tan -Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) wiR1 clay,
medium dense
: f
6
24
SS
3
4
r
:.:.
12
. ..... .......... .. .....
Light Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium
dense
1 4:
L'
,r
v.
7
24
SS
5
5
15
—
Wet from 16 Feet
..:.i
- ;__ _. ............
--
5
—
6
—
5
:. :. :...
78
Light Gray, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, loose
_--
8
24
SS
2
3
3
20
_
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
—
—
0
_
25
5
30
—
to
10
35
15
cc
Notes: V �," SS= Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
DEC 1 5 2009 HA = Bulk Auger Sample
a5 = Bulk Sample
P ri oroundwatPrI/1 It P P VVOH = W,ioht of Hammer
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in IA�Y,; eral' a WSTM D 156E

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-hlorn & Associates, Inc_
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
.^
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-29-09
B-24
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': ? 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: T' _ CAVING> C.
c =
r.
v
v
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
a m
a w
Description
a
E o
z
a o
? iD
1,
wo
E
o m
N
N t-'
m o.
z
v
Moisture Content -
N-Value - F=
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
4 inches of TOPSOIL
—
03
1
24
SS
z
1
—�
20
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with sill to
Silty One SAND (SM), very loose to medium dense
—
—
—
2
—
3
Gray -Tan from 4 feet
5
_
3
5
3
24
SS
5
9
9.9
'
—
7
2
Tan -Gray from 6 feet+
15
4
24
SS
G
12
.,
3
—
8.
--_
Tan -Gray, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to
Lei r:
_
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt. medium
:'1_11�
5
24
SS
0
16
_.
--
i°
dense
':�:,',.--
).....
11
.I :. ..: ..
—
4
l4a i.i
6
24
SS
9
lA
..: ...'. .:.. .:.. :..
—
10
a:coi
le
:...:...:.. :. :...:.
—
—
—
a
7
24
SS
a
15
1
_
-
Wet from 15 feet
:, Si � r
5
is
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC), very loose
?
8
24
SS
4
e
—
20
3
Boring terminated at 20 fir
0
B
25
—
5
30
0
_
10
.
3s
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST - Shelby Tube Sample
DEC "A = "and Auger sample
15 2009 BS = Bulk Sample
initial rPrrpadrno may r
T.
PAGE i of 7 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in ante with ASTM D 7 86.

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn 8 Associates Inc.
+�
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EFT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-30-09
B-25
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': - 14.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> L.
--
g
t 2
,_
R
u
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Li uid Limit
g
v
'-
a v
Description
,=
a
a>
g
a m
3 m
o;
—'
>
V
p E
p r.
z°
F
m a
Z
Moisture Content -
W
m
N-Value
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
o
p
3
_
4 inches of TOPSOIL
0 J
1
24
_
SS
_
I
?
z
2
—
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to medium dense
—
---
.
20
2
24
SS
- z
4
3
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 4 feet
3
—
=
3
24
SS
]
7
z
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan and with trace clay from 6 feet
3
4
24
SS
5
11
—
is.
8;.
---
7
5
Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND SP to poorly1S:i15
7
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium dense
)��, d -
24
SS
0
6
24
SS
4
6
—
+dii
13
e
to
---
a
—3
7
24
SS
to
17
i
15-'
Wet from 14.5 feet
c;r
—
ciu
aarr
Tan, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, loose 18
f
—
—
z
—
8
24
SS
3
5
_—
6
0
3
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
—
0
]5
—
e
—
s
30
—
l0
10
'
35
15
Notes: V ED SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shell Tube Sample
EC 1 5 2009 BS = BulkdSampleAer 5a Sample
PAGE 1 0/ 1 Slaodard Penetralion Tests were performed in the fiel + _ ante with AST D 1586.

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
"_+�_�_-,--+�.•+�-
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 8-30-09
B-26
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: Q 14.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: -T- CAVING> S.
cc
.0
N
N
v
o
O
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
.�
a w
fi w
m
D2SCfl�llCf1
n
a o
m
a'
_N
o,
m
' m
0
m
u
m
O E
Q
`6
Z
w
r>
n
°
Moisture Content -
M
C7
rn
rn K
N
Z
e
',I -Value - f%jiT?
_
0
0
3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
6 inches of TOPSOIL
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
_
1
_
24
_
SS
1
z
2
Tan -Gray from 2 feel
z
zo.
2
24
SS
3
5
—
3
s
—
5
4
Light Tan, moist poorly graded fine to medium SAND I to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose to medium
a:c t r'
?'=r +,
—
3
—
24
—
s5
y
—
dense
tt
—
—
—
5
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan and with clay from 6 to 10 feed
ir. L f
—
—
4
24
SS
]
14
15
i�cr Ll
8
s
Mottled Light Tan -Tan from 8 feet
�'� �'r
'
5
22
SS
6
12
—
tori:Lv
Tan -Gray from 10 feet'
' ' `� `
'v[rr.
_
s
6
22
SS
7
14
8
10
y
Light Tan -Reddish Tan from 13 feet
0
:(rii
1::C1'
t. 1
3
—
i)
7
24
SS
5
17
15 --
Wet from 14.5 feet
:
ire
12
—
—
iak6i�
11:
—
5_
r.r
___
1
Tan -Reddish Tan from 18 feet
F' 1
—i'�i
8
24
SS
3
3
6
_—
0
abler'
3
Boring terminated at 20 it,
0
25
—
8
—
5
30
—
110
0
35
Notes: 1 ! SS = Split Spoon Sample
20�9 ple
Tube mple
HA = Haelld Auger Saby
BS = Bulk Sample
l +
PAGE 1 of "I Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance w1 ,Tyl D 1586.

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc.
.-..,...-�:o>;,•_•_..
BORING LOG
B-27
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rota(Wish) DATE: 8-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: s'- 14.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: -7- _ CAVING>
_ J
>
_
v
w v
m`
Description
o-
a o
E
°' v
E >g
°1
a v
e
-
iD
o v
m a
�
m
z
o
o
rt
°
u`
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
MOisture Content -
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
—
20
0
0
4
6
8
11
14
10
14
5
162
` 4 inches of TOPSOIL I"
03
Tan, moist Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
... _ With clay from 0.3 to 4 feet- --- -
_
1
_
24
_
SS
2
2
-
-
_
- •- -
—
—
—__
- 2
24
SS
z
3
3
24
SS
4
_
—
6
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to
medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay,
loose to medium dense
Wet from 14.5 feet
n
24
SS
5
6
7
is
—
_
—
--
5
24
—
SS
5
�
10
10
4
—
6
24
—
SS
6
8
_
—
5
7
24
SS
9
9
IS
—�_—
8
24
SS
20
Boring terminated at 20 it,
_
—
_0
—
8
25
—
10
-10
-
30
-
35
15
-
7,75oo
—
---
Notes: SS = Spl1t Spoon Sarnple
BY: Sl = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hann Auger Sample
BS =Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in qeneral accordance with ASTM D 1586,

GEL
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn &Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeunc, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLINGMETHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 8-17-09
B-28
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: =? 8' AFTER 24 HOURS: ?- CAVII C.
C=
—
u
m
d
O
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
m
u'
fi ^!
fi v
�'
Description
a
,�
o
E Z
°-'o
E
�-
E
tO
o 8
m
a
o
o
T
m o-
z
V
Moisture Content- •
w
N-Value - [��_.'•;?l/i(
_
0
0
5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70.
—(
6 inches of TOPSOIL
0�
Tan -Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND ISM),
_
t
_
24
_
SS
z
2
2
- -
-
-
20
—
2
---
—
Mottled Reddish Tan -Gray, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
2.
—
2"
20
SS
4
5
-
_
_
4..
...
_
5
5
Mottled Reddish Tan -Gray, moist, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), stiff
/
3
20
SS
5
7
12
37.1
—
15
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND ISM), very
loose to loose
- Wet from 8 feet
n
22
SS
5
10
z
5
20
SS
]
5
'
—
—
10
2
2
... .. ..: :...: .:.
6
24
SS
2
3
..:...:.. :. .. ..... .. ...
t0
11.5
Black, wet, Organic Fat CLAY (ON) mixed with Peat, soft
4
1
7
24
SS
a
—
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
Silty fne SAND (SM), with clay, medium dense
-
_
--
—
—
—
_
a
—
20
8
18
SS
10
16
Boring terminated at 20 it.
0
25
—
e
—
5
w
—
10
35
10
V
Notes: SS � Split mple
DEC 1 5 2009 pTube ear Sample
ST = Shelby
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
indicative Of1ho slaa, ernij,dwatpripyPI
rarer. t
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Pene0alion Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: KimleY-Horn &Associates, Inc.
- —=
•. ...... ...........
BORING LOG
B-29
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, FIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': -'? 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: -_- CAVING> C.
'm
W
o m
E
0 v
Description
a
'°
O
E o
m Z
N
m w
00 Ce
a-
0
is f
m o.
m
Z
O
a
°
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
P:loisture Content - •
N-Value
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
6
7
11
1g
16
13
10
11
-
6 inches of TOPSOIL
06�
ffff
_!i
��
///---
/
_
1
---
2
_
24
24
_
55
SS
2
s
3
3
- 3
a
_
:...:. :...:. .:.. ..
..:...: ..:. .. :. :.. :...
-
I.. :. I..
...._ .
—
—t
—
Tan -Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
2
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey fine -SAND (SC) with silt
loose to rnedium dense
—
—
zp
—
s
3
24
SS
5
—
_
Light Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose to
medium dense
Light Tan -Tan from 8 feeti:drri:
trace clay from 10 feeti:'i-
—
Wet from l5 feel
:1 ;�;
an:r r.
:,r.r it
4
11
.l.:i r�
r.:ti'---
.�:. r:
is---
`7
24
55
,0
11
—
a
24
SS
e
s
—
10
—
10With
6
24
SS
7
7
-
7
24
SS
3
6
'
—
is��
_
5
—
3
8
24
SS
20
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
locc
5
200
—
0
—
e
—
25
—
—
0
30
10
—
Notes: Dv SS = Split Spoon Sample
D i ; ST = Shelby Tube Sample
��� HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
P
PAGE 1 of 1 Slandard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kirnley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 24.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, FIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 8-30-09
B-30
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': a 16' AFTER 24 HOURS: '- _ CAVING> C.
c _�
w
Z
v
v
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
w
Description
o.
o
m
o- w
a
m
1D
m
n
w
Q E
o
E
z
rn
w
r-
a1
m o.
v
Moisture Content -
w ?
c8
cn
z
o
N-Value - `/ /l
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
6 inches of TOPSOIL
:...: :..
1
24
SS
?
3
..:..
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to medium dense
—
2
---
3
-2
za
ss
-3-'7
--
--
20
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan with trace clay from 4 feet
�!
s
—
=
3
24
SS
i
12
7
6
Light Tan -Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
1 1,
7
_
(SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt and
f.
4
2.1
SS
e
15
—
trace clay, medium dense
6
24
SS
5
6
a
5
—
1
.... ..
15
.
10
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan from 10 feet
—
.1zrl
6
24
SS
12
ii.
a
10
ii
i10
7
24
SS
9
14
15_
Wet from l6 feet
r
- ------- ---
—
8
22
5
Light Gray, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, loose
8
24
55
3
5-
—
6
20
/
3
_
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
0
'
25
5
30
10
-10
35
15
Notes:
SS = Split Spoon Sample
1BY:BS
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
= Hand Auger Sample
����
*Tli�,titfi,itar,iin(iw,it�rreadino irtay not be 11
BS = Bulk Sample
WOH _
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn &Associates Inc.
-
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
�•+-���-:�.-__.%:•.
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0 MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-15-09
B-31
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: 13' AFTER 24 HOURS: -'- _ CAVING> _C
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
m
a v
v
fi v
v v
�escfi tIOH
p
n
v- 0
E
4>
E o
4 01
E
s '0
0
,�
a
v
Moisture Content - •
o
N-Value -
a
0
4
_6.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1 4 inches of TOPSOIL1
I
20
SS
+
2
., .,_ ........ .._ .._
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM). very loose to loose
20
—
—__
2--22-
SS._
2
j
Mottled Reddish Tan -Tan with trace Clay from 4 feet
4
-
_
_
_
3
—
s
3
24
ss
3
7
z
7
15
.... ....... ... .....
—
0
Tan -Light Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium
.:ir
4
24
Ss
5
e
—
15
dense
4kri.--
9
.
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan -Gray from 8 feet
�'<r
_
—
IC:if,
5
20
SS
e
1A
.'...,.� .:. :...:.,.
—
10
—
io
Light Tan -Tan from 10 feet
�1---
r,.
B
18
SS
o
17
—
n:r1
8
��
10
a
13
Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
--
2
_
Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
7
18
SS
5
S
5
-
5
Tan -Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), medium
5
_
.0
dense`
8
18
SS
2
12�
20
9
—
Boring terminated at 20 it
0
25
—
a
..:
5
30
..... ...... .... ... ........
-15
—
t
—
—
NOTES: ukc1 6 7005 SS =Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
By;
BS = Bulk Sample
Pr P
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance wish Fl STM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
"-
-�-•"-.•
BORING LOG
B-32
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-17-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': -`-? 8' AFTER 24 HOURS: 3T CAVING> C-
=
m
> N
w
--
a w
w w
o E
a w
w m
m=
Description
a
m
a o
E z
1n
a>
E o
m~
a o
E
5 iO
o
m a
w
m
Z\
o
u
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value- [F;1'1'!�
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
_
0
a
3
t2
10
6
2
2
15
-
20
—
6 inches of TOPSOIL
O SI
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loos P
_
1
_
24
_
SS
I
I
2
-
..:...: ..: :.. .
..:.. .:_.: ..:...
•
—
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
I
2
20
-SS
2
—
_
5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist. Silty fine SAND (SM), loose to
medium dense
;....
6
22
SS
s
7
r
_
4
24
SS
4
4
[I
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly grade
fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose
! i
.11'.
5
20
SS
3
3
---
10
—
—
5
—
_
_—
te—
Black, wet, Silty, Clayey PEAT (PT), very soft
w
w
6
7
20
20
SS
SS
I
1
2
I
—
145
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to medium dense
—
-
78
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium dense
_
! l
;,: �;
—_—
6
20
SS
s
10
20
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
0
25
5
—
10
30
10
15
35
Notes: v SS = Split Spoon Sample
Bl ST = Shelby Tube Sample
1 HA =Hand Auger Sample
SS = Bulk Sample
n fr n
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn &Associates, Inc.
—'°
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
-•
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rota (Wash) DATE: 8-17-09
B-33
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': 4 8' AFTER 24 HOURS: -- _ CAVING> C.
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
-6
>
a _`v
W
g `m
W N
Description
n
E o
a>
E o
E °'
o tO
v>
a
w h
N
o E
o --
(7
z
N
ina
z
Moisture Content- •
<
N-Value - F� 7z7l'
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
a
o
—
—
—
—
6 inches of TOPSOIL
0�
_
_
3
t
20
SS
z
n
Gray, moist, SILT (ML), soft
20
3
—
_
2
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
r
---
'2A
_
2
3
.7 _
_
_ _
—
2
SS
4
_
4
_
3
6_—_
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium
SAND (SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
>
r L:
t:
3
4
24
24
SS
Ss
s
e
j
7
0
14
_
15
—
—
with Clay. medium edium dense..
z
—
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, wet, Clayey SAND (SC), very loose
/1...
5
22
SS
1
3
—
ID
—
10/
Dark Brown -Black, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP
SM) with silt to Silty fine SAND (SM) with trace organics, very loose
-
E 3i E
6
24
SS
2
3
8.2
•
�'....�.
—°
Organic Content=2.2%
€ ::.k---
.. ...�. .�._�...
Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly graded
i
tt
_
fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose to medium dense
�.r
7
24
Ss
22
_
Gray with trace Clay from 18 feet
:�'_�; �;
. . .
3
8
24
SS
a
8
6
20.!i.f'
f
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
0
2s
5
.
30
10
35
15
_
-
EV
-
Notes: Z009
SS = Split Spoon Sample
1BY:_
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
Sample
P __'f
8S= Bulk
Hammer
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were perlotmed in the (field in general accordance with ASTM 0 1586,

GET
1�
Y
",--�••+............. .r..:r•,
BORING LOG
B-34
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn&Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: .Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.5' MSL
DRILLER: G ETSolutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford. EIT
DRILLING METHOD: fvlud Rolary(Wash) DATE: 8-15-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL* -' 16' AFTER 24 HOURS: -7- CAVING> -C.
w> Ng
ow v
sw
m m
o
In-aw
o
,mM
be 0
EDescription
m a
zE
v
0
TEST RESULTS
lastic Limit H Liquid LimitE
oisture Content - •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
a
3
5---
8
19
16
18
7
14
4 inches of TOPSOIL
t
24
SS
2
I
-' -
.
:...: ....:.. :.. :..
:.... .. .....: :.. :..
—
O J
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (Slut), very loose to loose
6
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium
SAND (SP) to poorly fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt,
with trace Clay, medium dense
—
20
—
---
2
24-
SS
z
-3
3
_—
2
—
r r. ,:
i.,
4i[ri.
1:
—
3
4
—
24
24
SS
SS
2
5
s
10
111
—
—
—
15
---
5
18
SS
y'
1t
—_
1
0
_
10L,LL
6
15
SS
2
y
—
-13
Light Gray. moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP
SIv1) with silt to Silly fine SAND ISM), with Clay, loose to medium
dense
= Wet Gorn 16 feet
i:i
;..
''''
7
t2
SS
4
'1
—
15
-
6
—
8
18
SS
9
Boring terminated at 20 't.
25
—
—
,0
30
—
t0
—
35
_.15
Notes:ample
SS � Slit
DEC 1 5 2009 ST = Shel y Tub.bne Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
_ BS = Bulk Sample
_
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
a
'-
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
.a ­.
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-17-09
B-35
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL* g 10' AFTER 24 HOURS: ' _ CAVING> C.
o c
r N
t^
u
v
w w
w
m
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
g
>
m
w `m
v a21
Description
s
�
a
E-
E o
�- °'
c>
3 i°
o w
l
`"
�
°
w
0 E
o '-
m
e w
N
m a
Z
Moisture Content - •
N-Value -�i�
0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
8 inches of TOPSOIL
_
_
_
2
1
24
SS
z
4
—�
07
Gray -Tan, moist. Silly fine SAND (SM), very loose
20
2
—
—
-6
- — ---; -
_
2
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Lean CLAY (CL), medium stiff
2
-
2-
24
SS
3
.
—
—
—
s
4
Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with Clay, loose
3
3
24
SS
5
10
15
Gray, racist. Fat CLAY (CH), stiff
a
4
24
SS
13
Black, most, Organic Fat CLAY (OH), very soft
1
9*-
5
2a
SS
2
_
—
10 1
Dark Gray, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (Sell with trace organics,
very loose
: I4 G
1.
1
Wet from 10 feet
_j'E
6
24
SS
2
10
—
4
13
Gray -Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
;3
_
—
_
15
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, with Clay, medium
dense
s
[i
7
20
SS
12
9
25
---
fi
Gray, wet. Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
1{
a
8
20
SS
z
6
_
20
5
—
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
- -
0
25
s
30
10
-.
35
DE
1520
tj
-
Notes: Dom) 55 = Split Spoon Sample
O l -- SL =Shehelby Tube Sample
HA = Hantl Auger Sample
'The initial BS = Bulk Sample
fP( P 1P C II - lil of Hammer
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were perfonrred in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
Li
- -.-.
BORING LOG
B-36
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T SGlutions. Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-17-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL`: '_ 8.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVIL S.
> N
0 �
w?
m w
M E
m w
0=
Description
��
E z
E o
N v
m
v
EPlastic
rn �
m ci
Z
o
o
v
o
TEST RESULTS
Limit H Liquid Limit
hgoisture Content - •
N-Value
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
—
_0
0
5
7
11
6
3
3
9
11
93.
)u inches of TOPSOIL
-
7
22
SS
2
3
3
.
-
- ---
. . . . .. ;...:.
... . ... .... .. ... .... ...
- ...
—
0.5
Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (Slut). loose
—
2
Gray, Gray, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
_ _
Ir
2
22
SS
y
3
4
—
20
—
—
—
—
5
4
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan. moist. Silty fine SAND (SM) with Clay,e
medium dense
3
24
SS
7
6
Gray, moist. Fat CLAY (CH), medium stiff
4
24
SS
3
3
-
_
15
_
" Gray, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (Sfvl) . very loose to loose B
Wet from 8.5 feet
Gray -Tan with Clay from 10 feet
"
5
24
SS
z
1
10
;
; j!
6
24
SS
i
2
10
7
24
SS
2
5
5
5
—
—
—"'
15
6
18
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly grade
fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium dense
' 1
�'
8
20
SS
a
4
7
_
20
Boring terminated at 20 Ft,
25
10
30
—
-10
5
35
—
Notes:
nBY:!!
n Sample
be Sample
er Sample
7Bulkple
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field O.general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

GETPROJECT:
•—'Si'='�-`-r`'^
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimlev-Horn & Associates, Inc.
'--
BORING LOG
B-37
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 8-17-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': '= 8AFTER 24 HOURS: T- CAVING> .0
> rp
w g
aw
v w
o E
a w
v v
O—
Description
n
m
v.aa>aw
E z
E o
E
N
a vn
$ w
m a
m
>
z
o
a�'x
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
g
Moisture Content - •
N-Value-�
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
_
0
0
4
6
11
8
2
3
6
10
22.
—
20
—
—
_
15
8 inches of TOPSOIL
0%'1
Gray -Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) to Silty, Clayey SAND (SC
Stvl), very loose to loose
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with sill
medium dense
_
> N.:
."2
_
1
24
SS
2
2
"
.:...:.......:. ..
:_.:...: _:...:. .:...:...
..:...: _:. .:...: _.:,..
—r
—
_
3
—
20
—
24
—
SS
SS
2
3
5
6
2
5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Fat CLAY (CH), medium stiff
4
24
SS
2
a
—
—
—
75
Gray, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SAA) with Clay. very loose
Wet from 8 feet
Tan from 10 feet
.
—'Dark
.
:' :
I `.
—
5
—
24
—
SS
3
1
1
10
_
a
i---
6
24
SS
i
2
3
10
—
_
—
5
—
_
i.
—
13
Gray -Tan, wet, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
—
24
—
SS
z
5
tom__—
6
Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose
8
20
SS
5
20
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
0
25
5
—
0
30
35
15
-
-
Y
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
BY: HA Hand Auger Sample
BS =Bulk Sample
initial r r nr i it r-� frl c -Wip
PAGE 1 of 1 Slanrlard Penetration rests were performed in the field in general accordance with AS TM D 1586.

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
�•--�[-+-•-.�-.
BORING LOG
B-38
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 8-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': -L` 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: -7CAVING> _C-
=
.�
1 ,,,
--
a °i
n'v
--
Description
n
a 6
Z
m
v>
a
E g=
�, v
o- 0
F
I„
_
3 m
o v
m a
7
m
z
o
u
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit I Liquid Lirnit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value- `ill /.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
—
—
20
—
—
0
0
7
10
12
is
14
15
10
5
6 inches of TOPSOIL
0.`ii
Gray -Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
_
1
_
24
_
SS
_
3
1
5
-
..:._: t. .:. .:...:...
.:_ ..:._:. .:.......
...:.. : .:...:...:...
.
.. .: .. :...:. :...:..
-1
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan. moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with sllt2
loose
2
24
SS
5
z
5
4
Gray -Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay, medium dense
3
24
SS
6
7
—
_
6
Light Gray -Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
(SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt and..;
trace clay, loose to medium dense
Light Gray from 13 feet;"
: [ i
�.
iitil
Sir
1
rl.
his
__—
4
24
SS
B
—
—
15
5
24
SS
6
6
9
_
10
16
a
6
24
SS
5
a
-----'
7
24
SS
3
6
15,
6
5
8
24
SS
z
s
a
0
—_2
—
Boring terminated at 20 fl.
—
25
0
10
—
's5
.15
Notes: DEC 1 5 2009 ST= Stelby7ube Sampee
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Balk Sample
om .... rin,x, dadoc a, ,t o, q,cat,e gfih� i,ii, gm ... 2dwacr leye' Ly. WnH - Weiphi, of HAmmmr I
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
�=
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn& Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
�.,...••. -�_. -.•, ....,,�.,.._„
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Borinq Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(W ash) DATE: 8-31-09
B-39
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': ... 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: 7 CAVING> L
c c
_
w
z
1
o
TEST RESULTS
a
a m
v
Description
o.
a o,
0
a m
3 `°
m
u
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
v
o F
j
z°
v
m a
Z
moisture Content -•
w
—
C7
rn
rn
cn
p
N-Value - PlIT/T�i.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
_
—I
4 inches of TOPSOIL
0d1
'J
_
_
_
3
—
4
"
1
24
SS
6
7
Mottled Gray -Tan, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, loose
'
,1
—
3
4
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 2 feet
20
—
2
24
SS
6
10
9
f--1
__---
Light Gray, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP
6
_
SM) with silt to Silty fine SAND ISM), very loose to medium dense
;',
3
24
SS
5
11
..
—
6
---
5
2
15
7
Willi clay from 8 feet
___
e
—
5
24
SS
B
13
—
10
0
6
24
SS
E
15
.�.. ...:. .'...:. .
9
2
7
24
SS
s
g
.
15"
6
'
- Wet from 15 feet
-
---- �
s
'
8
24
ss
2
4
—
_
6
—
20
2iiif
2
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
0
6
....: .. .:. .: .. :...:... :.. :...
25
—
—
5
so—
10
.10
35
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
= Hand Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
3S
"i
'The inbliafamunovraev ,arfina may not 1, indiralve of the Vatic orougnivary level
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in die field in general ace rdancA'vSlt&Sz_ 6'& G
BY:___

GET
_
^__•�•_`>_-••}xr
BORING LOG
B-40
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotarv_(Wash) DATE: 8-17-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: S- 8' AFTER 24 HOURS: '- CAVING> C.
o
> J
w
v v
E
v w
Description
a
a d
z
L
0
a o
0
°- fl
3 cO
m n
0
m
z°
o
,t
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limil H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content -•
N-Value- l�
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
—
—
_20
0
0
6
7
5
12
12
8
13
18
1 6 inches of TOPSOIL
__
1
22
SS
z
a
3
.:_ .:._:. .:.. :...
..... .. :.......
:.. .:...:. .:...:...
-
.. :. .
......
....:...:.. .:. :...:. .:.. :...
.. ..:.. .:.. :.. '.
—
0 s
Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
Gray -Ten with Clay from 2 feet
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, most, poorly graded fine to medium
SAND (SP-SN1) with sill to Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
g,1---
Light Gray, moist to wet, poorly
9 Y, p y graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt. with Clay.
loose to medium dense
Wet from 8 feet
—
f1':':.
'
�l:pi.---
ii v i'
is---
1Yri.
r.
-
2
3
4
.
20
20
22
SS
—
SS
SS
3
3
3
a
,
'
6
6
—
5
1s
—
_
10
-
—
—
,�
5
20
SS
j
to
—
6
18
SS
6
2
n
7
—
—13
Gray -Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND i to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium dense
.�iI' t2:
.I
rIY
L•:.
..i,.
1
18
SS
e
515
io
5
—
--
p
p
8
12
SS
9
r
20 __
—
—
8
Boring terminated al 20 ft.
—
—
_
—
25
—
—
—
10
30
—
.10
35
15 .
Notes: cEy .. pill Spoon Sample
V SY_', Sbelby Tube Sample
DEC 1 HA = Hand Auger Sample
hP i i n 90nQ BS = Bulk Sample
r CHammer
PAGE 1 o/ 1 Slandard Penetration Tests were per owned w the heldin general actor kith AS TM

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
,;�.,,I. -= .•-r.•I•-1....
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.5' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary ffYash) DATE: 8-17-09
B-41
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': ' 7.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: ' CAVING> C
u
v
v z
v
-
v
o
TEST RESULTS
m
>
t
a v
v
6. `m
v m
Description
oa
n o
E
N
o, o
E
F o
>
6 1D
b v
m
u
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
W
0 E
0 =
2
c9
z
u
m I-
m a
L
\
f.loisture Content - •
in
rn �
N-Value - Pl/�jfj�
0
0
_
_
_
_
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
12 inches of TOPSOIL
1
—
1
1
24
SS
3
5
—
Tan -Gray. moist, Silty fine SAND (SM). loose
3
—
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 2 feet
3
20
--
2
24
SS
a
8
—
5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist. Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
f
3_.
,
—
3
22
SS
3
7
z
—
fi
J
—
Gray. moist to wet Silty fine SAND (SM) , medium dense
n
24
ss
�

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kinney -Horn & Associates, Inc.
---
-,•-••-. -.,-.. •,...,
BORING LOG
B-42
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0' MSL
DRILLER: G ET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, FIT
DRILLINGMETHOD: Mud Rolary(W ash) DATE: 8-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: 5 CAVING> S.
2
m
w
t
o
L
a v
o m
Description
u
'oa
0z
w
n o
vt
v
a>
rn m
m
v 0
0>
,�-�
vt
iO
m a>
m
z
o
�
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Lintit I -I Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value- �%!a
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
d
11
14
tl
8
8
3
—
20
7 inches TOPSOIL
1 0 5
Gray -Tan, moist. Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, very loose to
medium dense
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 2 feet
i,t1;
/y
1
24
SS
1
z
3
-
:...: ..:. .:...1...:..
.... __.... ..
._:... ..
I.........
—
—
_
—
---°
—
_
z
—
24
—
s6
3
5
_
Tan -Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), medium dense
3
D1
SS
6
7
0
Light Gray -Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SE) to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose to
medium dense
Light Gray and with trace clay from 10 feet
....i
;:i:{ir---
n
r!l,
(�
l
'' `'�':
,1�;
5
24
SS
s
a
'
4
6
18
SS
s
5
10
—
—
s
7
24
SS
°
s
Light Gray, moist to wet. Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, loose
Wet from 15 (eet---
—
15
8
2a
SS
2
2
_
5
18
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, very loose
_
20
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
0
2s
5
—
10
30
10
1s
3s
Notes:
' hc' ii r l e
JG SS = Split Siouan Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
2009 BS =Bulk Sample
- u
PAGE 1 of Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the Geld in pe w
^'''^^�P-. th AS7M D 154

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
n •....
BORING LOG
B-43
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford; FIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-10-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': s 13' AFTER 24 HOURS: T- CAVING> C_
0
m�
N
IL ?
t `v
a_'v.
o E
_
m
o v
Description
u
-E
n
E
c7
n o
,� z
m
o- >
o
B
N
" m
E P
w t'
rn
i m
o
m a
y
J
m
z`
z
o
tt
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Li uid Limit
g
Moisture Content -
rd-Value
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
—
0
0
3
9
20
24
13
17
10
8
54 a2
I 4 inches of TOPSOIL 1
"3
�j�
/%
??' `.6
i. .;,. ;I:.
'"`"
J.
r
:I:I[1
VI
1
2
22
22
_
SS
SS
'-
z
5
F-+1
..
..:. ..: :.. :..
...:.. .:. :. :...
... :.. :.. :...
....:.. .:. .: _ I...I. I.. '_ .
_
_Mottled
Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, Lean CLAY (CL), soft
Gray -Reddish Tan. moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
- --_ --_ -. .--
—
_
—?
—
—
s
3
4
24
24
SS
SS
6
io
6
i3
451/---
Tan -Light Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
(SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt. with
Clay, loose to medium dense
Light Tan from 8 feet
With Clayey SAND (SC) lenses from 10 feetr'
Wet from l3 feel
Light Tan -Tan, wet, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose
—
15
10
5
12
SS
i
10
6
18
SS
c
I61
7
g
18
1g
SS
SS
5
6
2
7
---
—
IS
_
s
zo
9
10
—
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
—
0
25
5
30
—
10
—
—
3e
15
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
DEC 1 5 Aer 2009 BS BulkdSample5ample
*The,nitialIP Por Ihp bAlir nondwat-r levpl- Welarit of Hammer I
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the Held �d c��_ TM 0158E

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
••,.�._���•'+_•�=.r.;a..
BORING LOG
B-44
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, FIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': 2�' 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: -'- CAVING> C.
t=
o�
w �
r m
v
0 c
t�
o —
Description
�
L
T
O
v
O- 6
E z
�
v z
a>
E o
� �
v
(1 UI
o
E>
� F-
�-
i lJ
a
m a
w
m
_
o
N
u
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
R9oisture Content -
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
3
8
it
15
13
13
7
7 inches of TOPSOIL
058
Mottled Gray -Tan. moist Clayey fine SAND (SC) with silt, very loose
to loose
1
24
SS
2
-
.
-
- -
_
—L
—
—
20
—
—
—
-
—
—
—
2
24
SS
z
5
--//
2
—
5
4.11
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with sit to
Silly fine SAND (SM) with trace clay, medium dense
Mottled Tan -Light Tan from 6 feet
:11
':@r.l
r:` I
aa:rr
it r J.
---
3
24
SS
3
8
___
4
5
24
24
SS
SS
7
e
,o
7
6
—
Ta, moist to wet. poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medwrn SAND (SP-SM) with trace clay, loose to
medium dense
= Wet from 15 feet
10
430
6
24
SS
6
5
7
24
SS
;
6
15cr
—
8
24
SS
2
9
3
20
—
a
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
__
—
0
—
25
—
30
10
—
10
—
�5
-15
—
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
T S OF0.41r b Shelby geSample
HA =- Hand Auger Sample
'Tire inila, BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in genera ante with ASTM D 566.

GETPROJECT:
"
�• ` `—" �'°}''^"
....... _... �:., :.,:���
BORING LOG
B-45
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 8-31-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': '- 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: ' CAVING> 1
E
n
TEST RESULTS
Pastic Limit H Liquid LimitDeSCl�tlOn
Moisture Content -
N-Value - r
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
5
11
14
15
11
11
7
6
2a
7 inches of TOPSOIL
058
Gray -Tan, moist. Clayey fine SAND (SC) with sill, loose to medium
dense
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 2 feel
y�✓
��---
1
24
SS
_
2
j
_A
_
2
24
SS
s
5
Tan, moist. Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay, medium dense
3
24
SS
a
7
a
—
15
—
_
—
6
Tan -Light Tan, nlolst, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM)
with silt to Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay. medium dense
Light Tan with clay lenses
___
4
24
SS
7
e
g
—
_—
10
—
_
5
—
—
_—
0
---
5
24
Ss
5
s
—
10
n
___
6
24
SS
s
s
13
Light Gray, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP)
loose
7
With clay lenses from 13 to 18 feet
_--
7
24
SS
3
j
--
15
5i
--_
8
2,11
SS
2
3
5
20
Boring terminated a1 20 ft.
5
9
25
-m
J0
10
-15
—35
Notes: /'ter SS = Split Spoon Sample
E Stielby Tube
HA Hand Asample
Auger Sale
'Th. initiaD `/� BS = Bulk Sample
I ra ri air a c T rl �" H=Welsh, eH miner I
PAGE 1 0/ 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field 1� elal accordan\ D 1 86.

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
-• ^•-• •- -•-•
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 8-31-09
B-46
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL": 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: 7- CAVING> C_
m
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
o
Description
z
E o
m
F
o
>
w a
Q E
E
m a
z
ivl0isnlre Content -
r
N-Value - ?lam/�ij
6
10 20 30 40 50 "u0 70
6 inches of TOPSOIL
Tan, moist, Silly fine SAND (SM), loose
1
24
SS
2
j
d
-
'
70
—
_
8
2B
• .
2
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Fat CLAY (CH) with trace sand,
medium stiff to stiff
--_
2
24
SS
3
,
—
5
—
3
24
SS
s
7
9
_
1s
—
z
Tan -Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
___
e
silt to Silly One SAND (SM), medium dense,
I:.: n:
4
24
SS
10
18
;,:; };
.
8.i
Tan -Light Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
(SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt,
1i_r. i r
5
24
SS
10
t
—
22
_
10
medium dense
J'i if'--
15
--
—
i SiF.
1'.n t!'
6
24
SS
n
31
10
—
r.r. t 1.
ili----
20
Light Gray from 13 feet
rJ.
—
'�'"
7
24
SS
a
13
15cr
Wet from 15 feet
5
rr
—
8
24
SS
e
13
_
20
p
—
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
0
25
—
9
—
5
30
0
0
—
—
15
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sompie
CC ST = Shelby Tube Sample
gr' I S HA = Hand Auger Sample
( ' 1 ?0 BS = Bulk Sample
r I
m erir nr<rn - ai 1I n
PAGE 7 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general acc Jce with ASTM D 586.

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
. . ..,
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 8-15-09
B-47
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': v. 11.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: 7 CAVING> _C
c a
o
N
Z
T
o
TEST RESULTS
,6
a m
$ w
Description
a
E o
a>
e g
w
E>
i tO
0 ;,
m
>
�',
PlasliC Limit tml Liquid Limit
0
tj E
0-
�
z
be
m F-
m a
�
ftloisture Content -
tt
0
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
6 inches of TOPSOIL
1
20
SS
2
5
Gray -Tan, moist. Silty fine SAND ISM), loose
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan with Clay from 2 feet
z
20
2
20
SS
8
'i.v'[;
3
5
Tan -Light Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
5
_
(SP) to poorly graded fine to med'wrn SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose
:':': r'
3
20
55
5
10
—
to medium dense
—
—
—
e
Light Tan with Clay lenses from 6 to 10 feet
;i: rtiI
—
4
24
SS
9
15
15
—
at
i.aru
5
to
S5
a
13
Light Tan -Tan from 10 feel
d:ri,.
.
5
6
18
SS
5
11
-'
Wet from 11.5 feet,;.
10
4
:bate Il
7
78
SS
7
12
15
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, wet, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, medium
—
5
dense
8
76
SS
6
7
13
_—_20
Boring terminated at 20 it.
__
a
25
—
s
—
30
10
-10
35
Notes: SS = Spill Spoon Sample
T ST = Shelby Tube Sample lHA = Hand Auger Sample
O
F BS =Bulk Sample
BS
"i I r n ra r -n !rh<c it r o _ ,t f
v pp/f
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetrahan Tests were performed in the fie l rat accordance ,N,Pi>91STM 7586.

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
y
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 24.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 8-14-09
pp
B-48
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': = 13' AFTER 24 HOURS: - CAVING> -C
o`
L
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
-$
m
N
ar
v
oa v
4 v
Description
fl
�- o
F z
m g
v
m
>
u
2
v
o E
p ;.
O
m
N
ME
m
We
Z"
Moisture Content -
w
0
N-Value- %T7i7lJ
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
o
o
_
4 inches of TOPSOIL
3
—
031
�;
.y
1
20
SS
3
—�
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC). very loose to
��---
3
—
loose
3
2
20
SS
a
7
<
3020
3
22
SS
- 5
6
10
5.5
=2
ND poorly
ight Tan, moist. poorly graded fine to medium SA(SP)
=
4
—
silt, looseto
graded fine to mediurn SAND (SP-SM) with
I
4
24
SS
7
14
JJ�
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist. Clayey SAND (SC) with sill
medium dense I
!
—
is
—I
a!�
—
—
—
2
2
—
1
5
20
SS
12
18
:. _.
9
0
Light Tan, moist. poorly graded fine to medium SAND I to poorly
, r f
I
o
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with sill, medium dense
;;,_;
—
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan with Clay from 10 feet
'ri. i i
6
20
SS
e
14
. . -
- Wet from 13 feet
-
s
iorS:ir
'r:1: i s
7
22
SS
7
14
is
2
5
—
''
8
20
SS
1e
8
16
20
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
e
:
25
30
0
—
—
-10
35
5
—
Notes: DEC I ampl
�oo" ST = Sheldy ToenSampeie
HA = Hand Auger Sample
lip
BS = Bulk Sample
I *The ii' r n m el 3z. wnH - waiah, of H a ari
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the Held in general accordance ml

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn 8 Associates Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
....... � •-•••
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 24.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-1-09
B-49
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': $ 16' AFTER 24 HOURS: 7- CAVING> -C
r
oo
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid
LrnitDescription
E
a
r.-
,
EO-
0
°
kloisture Content -
oue-
_
o
o
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
6 inches of TOPSOIL
_
_
_
2
-
-
1
t
24
SS
a
7
—
0.5
Mottled Tan -Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
3
—
2
24
SS
4
8
3
20
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with sill,
I- - loose -
-
-
-
_
_
_=
-
4-
-
5
4
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, Fat CLAY (CH) with trace sand, stiff
3
24
SS
5
5
t0
t.
- •
—
6
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist. Silty fine SAND ISM) with clay
medium dense
��L
a
2a
55
t5
—
5
8
15
Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poor)
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, loose to medium
i r
"I
24
SS
a
io
19
--
105
dense
:,:; �,
10
..: ..:...:. :.. :...
---
s
4
--
7
24
SS
to
'.
.r i:ir
7515
:.... - :...:..
—
Wet from 16 feet;
—
Light Gray from 18 feet
r(;1.
s
5
`"
8
24
SS
5
9
4
Boring terminated at 20 ft.
0
25
5
30
—
10
—
0
35
15
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
Tube
RECEIVED le
Hand Auger Samlby
ple
BS =
Io
PAGE i of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the Geld in .pe je j accordance with S D 158
BY:_�_

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kinney -Horn & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
c,,.,.,..::,.:.r.:;,•., ,, 6",
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G ET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: B-14-09
B-50
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL* -4 13' AFTER 24 HOURS: '- CAVING> -C.
c a
`m
v N
w�
p E
Q o
Description
m Z
rn
m v
0oi0
ry H
g tO
m a
m
z
o
u
°
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
fvloislure Content - •
N-Value-
0
0
3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
_
—
—
6 inches of TOPSOIL
1
20
SS
z
—(
—
0�
Gray, moist, Lean CLAY (CL), soft
20
---
z°1--
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Fat CLAY (CH), medium stiff
z
za
ss
3
,
6
—
—
13
5
4
Gray Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
sill to Silty fine SAND (SM), medium dense
3
20
SS
2
6
t5
13
_
_
15
6---
Mottled Light Tan -Tan, moist to wet. poorly graded fine to medium
SAND (SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt,
with Clay lenses, loose to medium dense
Mottled Tan -Gray from 8 feet
r;
�':;,!�: i-.
4
20
SS
6
0
s
—
—
5
—
19
—
SS
e
_
to
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 10 feet--
rah'
�
-
6
20
SS
6
10
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan from 13 feet';',
a
-'
—
—
Wet from 13 feet
,.:,,
7
20
SS
6
8
to
� I
iI
10
9
_
_—
6
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), medium
dense
a
e
ss
�o
6
20
Boring terminated at 20 fl.
0
25
-5
30
0
le
t5
f_
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
le
DEC 1 5 2009 HA= Htanld Auger sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration rests were performed in the field in gerMX"=_-= �T, n_ 86I

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kirnley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
.,.......
BORING LOG
B-51
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-1-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: g. 18' AFTER 24 HOURS: -_- CAVING> L
g
'
> N
m
1
w N
m v
Description
u
s
m
a
E z
w
am
B b
no W,
Ct�
ar
a
>_
I
-
�u
o v
m
�
j
z
oo
r�
u
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- 0
N-ValHe - F�=I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
—
—
Z0
—
0
0
5
6
0
19
23
30
17
1 t
—(
6 inches of TOPSOIL
0.I
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
_
1
_
24
_
SS
2
3
3
:..
-
... -... -
.. .................
... :.. : .. :...
: ...:. ..:...
.. .. .:.. ..:...:. .. :...
1
1.
_
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC), loose 2
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 4 feet-
//
/j/
/
�---
___
2
24
55
3
3
—
3
_
3
24
SS
3
s
4
24
SS
7:.
10
10
—
7
Tan -Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-Sfvl) with
silt to Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay. medium dense
—
15
-
; ; i
_
S
_
24
_
SS
a
12
t3
-
10
—
10
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan. moist, poorly graded fine to medium
SAND (SP)to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SNI)with silt,
medium dense
Tan -Light Tan and with trace clay from 13 feet
1,
......
'�i;`:
-..:a;.
. ....
..: r.,
a?:t/'
—
6
t8
SS
19n
ie
—
—
-
--
—
10—
7
14
SS
e
5
—
e
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), medium
dense
8
24
SS
—
20
—
Boring terminated at 20 it.
25
—
5
;o
45
30
—
35
Notes: '.r G��� SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
BS = Hand Auger Sample
BS =Bulk Simple
["DEC
i <eP- 1 of Hammer I
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field it yG at accordance with ASTM D 586.
l3 —_

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
�••- -I- -.--_..
BORING LOG
B-52
—
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-14-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': 11.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: '- CAVING> .C.
m
> m
W S
'd 1D
v v
E
_
.c r.
a v
v v
--
Description
n
m
w
�- 6
E z
rn
v c,
a >
E o
w
w v
a
E
N
m-
'> tO
o v
m a
v
o
m
z
a
8
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit I— Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
-Value-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
_
o
0
2
5
11
15
1110
13
12
16
6 inches of TOPSOIL
Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose
_
1
_
24
_
SS
2
— —
'...: ;...
:...: :...:.
..... .... ....
—
20
—
_
2
Mottled Gmy-Reddish Tan, moist, Lean CLAY (Cl medium stiff
j
2
20
SS
z
2
3
a
—
_
_
—
5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), medium
dense
�R)
3
20
SS
5
7
—
15
6
Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poor)
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium dense
With Clay from 8 feet"��t1'
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 10 feel
Wet from 11.5 feet�`�
.. 1..
�:' �'.
r.---
---
a
22
SS
a
7
5
20
SS
3
10
_
a
6
18
SS
3
6
s
--
13',
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
(Stwith silt to Silly fine SAND (SM), medium dense
With Clay from 18 feet
—__
20
SS
5
5
7
9
_
15
j '.
: �
:
5
5
8
18
SS
0
9
—
_20
Boring terminated a1 20 ft.
g
0
e
25
—
5
0
10
1a
15
—
35
Notes:
)P ' II I n1 I I)P 'I f livp of I P CI II P IP ,PI
Split Sonample
ShelbyTube Sample
Hand Auger Sample
Bulk Sample
- Weight Of Hammer I
RECEIVE
HA
E 5 1009 BS
PAGE 1 of 1 Slandard Penetration 7'estS were performed in the field in ,general acc rdance with ASTM D 1586,
BY:

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
•
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
"--" --'^•' -�'
r...,..:�:•�<=._.,.:�,:.: ;.,,
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, FIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 8-15-09
B-53
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': 3 13' AFTER 24 HOURS: -5 _ CAVING> -C.
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
f�
v
Description
'9
n o
�-'
i
3 D
m
w
o E
o
z
$
F
m
°
P,loisture Coment- •
N-Value- //,' /; ��
—
o
o
2
10 20 30 40 50 6G 70
—
1 4 inches of TOPSOIL
I
_
1
_
24
_
SS
a
I
_
03
Gray, moist, Silty One SAND (SM), very loose
zo
2
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, very
2
loose
2
24
SS
2
2
4
_
—
—
5
_ 4
Light Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
---
a
3
silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), with Clay, loose to medium dense
3
22
SS
e
9
---
i
z
.,..
4
22
SS
s
16
.. .
—
15
Mottled Light Tan -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded tine to
ri I r
—
medium SAND (SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM).''''''
S
20
SS
3
9
...._
--
10
with silt with Clay, loose:,:
,f;l---?
:. .:...:_.
6
18
SS
5
10
r7
10
- Wet from 13 feet
_I.cr r,--
.i....,
—
z
7:rr i;
7
18
SS15
a
rf,
_5
12
Boring terminated at 20 I'L
a
zs
5
30
—
10 10
10
—
35
_I-,—
I
M
NOfOS: - pooh Sample
1 Tube Sample
A��1
HA = Hand Auger Sample
t - ulk Samweahtplenf Hammer
PAGE 1 0( 1 Standwd Penetration Tests were performed In the field in general accordance I th ASTM D 1586,

GEL PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
` PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
-. ••• - BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.0' MSL
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
BORING LOG
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-14-09
B-54 DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': = 10' AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> C.
r_ M'q
�' a - d °- u Plastic Limit H Li uid Limit
Description zE gM \ Moisture Content -
N-Value - (7� !Ta
4 inches of TOPSOIL I� r
03// 1 18 SS z 3
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan. moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, very ;
loose
3
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Fat CLAY (CH), loose 2 20 SS 3 0
4
3. _.
3 24 SS 5 0
5.5 5
Gray -Tan, rnoist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt, loose 1;_
.:
s
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium 0
t
4
24
SS
10
18
SAND (SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with sit
with Clay, medium dense
�"
9
3
_ Mottled TanReddishTan, rnoist, poorly graded fine to medium
a:ri
G
6
IS
18
SS
SS
3
6
SAND (SP-Slvl) with silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), medium dense
j
1
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
(SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt,';'-11
--
—
medlumdense
':';i
;:
5
Light Gray from 13 feet
i,:;
7
18
SS
e
13
PAGE
5
20
SS
3
c
9
u.
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan with Clay from 18 feet 4
8 20 SS e h1
l i:rtl--- 9
h
Reddish Tan, wet. poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), 7
medium dense 0 20 SS s 13
©tiring terminated at 25 it,
Notes: r -._. SS = Split Spoon Sample
j �Li V D I ST = Shelby Sample
HA = Hand Augeruger Sample
BS =Bulk Sample
7 0/ 1 Sfandartl Penetration Tests were performed in the Held inlgeneral accordance wi(h ASTM D

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
s.::.,.::,::,.,-,.I:,:,
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-14-09
B-55
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': Q 11 5' AFTER 24 HOURS: :7- CAVING> C.
O `-.
L f2
W
_N
_
O
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
> N
aai m
w m
Description
m
E z
E
E
o v
_
j
w❑
E
o=
N
m a
z\
Moisture Content -
rn
N-Value- �T7__/
_
0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
zo
1 4 inches of TOPSOIL
_
_
_
2
1
20
SS
z
4
_
0.31
Gray. moist, Lean CLAY (CL), soft
2
_
2..
---
z
_
—
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan. moist, Fat CLAY (CH), medium stiff
2
18
SS
3
7
—
5
5
4
Gray. moist Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), stiff
3
—
j
3
20
SS
5
9
51 a
—
15
z
5
��:
5
Tan -Light Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
r.' c
(SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, with
!: (f
4
24
SS
0
16
—
Clay, medium dense
1
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan from 8 feet
:i6: i
5
20
SS
�
12
—
10
6
10
6
18
SS
B
11
= Wet from 11.5 feet
f:r i::
6
.:...:.. ...
6
7
20
SS
j�
14
_
15
6
20
SS
10
6
rl
19
—
20
'�'f
10
l:rr l:
---
23
---
Tan -Reddish Tan, wet. poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP)
9
—
medium dense
9
20
SS
3
16
_
25
Boring terminated at 25 ft.
6
10
30
10
35
15
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
Shelby Tube Sample
^mv,
rt,(s = Hand Auger Sample
= Bulk Sample
'ThP mda, Pr ,nding m, nnt, n
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general acco dance w !fhASTA AP
BY:�_

GET
!•'r"'
�• ^^-_r.-- � r..,--�
BORING LOG
CBR-10
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kinney -Horn & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Baring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.5' MSL
DRILLER: G ETSolutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-5-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': _ AFTER 24 HOURS: _- _ CAVING> S.
o
-> uj
w g
s E
w w
c
t
m w
Description
u
v
E 0
M
an
v
E 0
w
v
E
F—
_
o v>
m a
d
z"
o
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content -0 •
N-Value
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
0
0
HA
HBS
A
HA
HA
4
8 inches of TOPSOIL
07
1 Tan -brown, moist Silly fine SAND (SM)
"
'T,>"j
.....
..
-
-..... .. ... .... ....
—`
_
sa
15
Tan -Gray. moist. Clayey SAND (SC)ij'
z
3
Tan -Gray, moist, Silly fine SAND (SM)
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 5 feet
—
—
is
-
—
ro
s
—
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan. rnoist, poorly graded fine to medium
SAND (SP) to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
Boring terminated at 10 (I.
rs
6
20
—
0
5
25
5
—
ro
30
10
—
—
35
rs
—
Notes:
rn nr rPr ro . i n 1 I yr ,
DEC 1 5 2009 S
H
B
L34
ShelbyrTubelie
= Hand Auger
= Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1
Standard Poneba(ion Tests were performed in the Held in genera I accordance with ASTM D 1566.

GETPROJECT:
BORING LOG
CBR-11
Family HOusing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn R Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T SOILAI011s, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-5-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL*: x AFTER 24 HOURS: -7- CAVING> C.
=
> N
w g
—
w v
c) c
aai w
C—
Description
�
Ij
E z
rn
E 'o
m m
m
c a
>
o�
m a
>
Z
o
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content- •
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-
0
0
HA
BS
HA
31.7
20
—
8 inches of TOPSOIL
0 7
Tan -Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND ISM)
Gray from 2 feet
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan with Clay from 4 feet
-
—
.. .:...: ..: :...:. .:.. :..
.
-
...
2
5
Is
—
—
—
g....::
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-Slut) with Silt
.....
I
10
to
Boring terminated al 10 (t.
6
—
IS
0
20
&
5
25
-I➢
30
_
10
35
15
Notes:
'ThBS
P Ii III P 1 +P
DEC 1 5 2009
SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube le
HA = Hand Auger Sample
= Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 Of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field R " 1586.

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kinney -Horn & Associates, Inc. '
:••••+:,:�.•--::::.:.::...,
BORING LOG
CBR-12
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T SOIL111011S, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-5-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: - AFTER 24 HOURS: 7- CAVING> C.
c =
m^
Au
_
fl
0 m
a w
w
Description
a
19
0
F' o
m Z
N
re
a
m
N a
°' a
m F
m
m n
m
Z
o
ir,
°
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value - ,Z-=
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
HA
BS
HA
HA
HA.......'.
79
_
—
10 inches of TOPSOIL
08
Tan -Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM)
Gray from 2 feet
•
... ...... '.. .'... .
/
—
_
2
— 3 0
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist. Clayey SAND (SC)--
5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with Clay
—
15
-
—
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with Silt
_
10
10
Boring terminated at 10I'L
is
5
0
�-
20
25
10
50
—
10
_
15
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Shelby Sanlpie
��1 V HA Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
a bli.l r nr o h<in i r r' w o - Weioht of Hammer
�F` i a cuuy I
PAGE 7 0/ 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general ccordance with ASTM D 1586,
BY:__ I

GET
" - -
Dog
,,,...,....�....... ,...,.�. r,n„
BORING LOG
CBR-13
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kirnley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Bering Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-20-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': ` AFTER 24 HOURS: 7 _ CAVING> C
> vt
v m
o F
m v
❑ =
Description
F Z
rn
a 'o
rn
o
m a
j
7
>`
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value- 1i/TT%'.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
ryq
BS
HA
of
_
zo
_
u
4 inches of TOPSOIL 17
i
��
:.�.
i-
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt
s
Gray -Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with Clay
Gray from 5feet
Light Gray from 8.5 feet
—
to
.t
Boring terminated at 10 it
10
6
—
Is
s
20
0
5
25
30
10
to
35
t5
Notes k S =Split Spoon Sample
DEC 1 5 2009 T - Shelby Tube Sample
A = Hand Auger Sample
S = Bulk Sample
- ha biti 1 ar r no pndirntivp nfthp nrofindwalpr le •ol -
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general - akdrdai+�� -• ��+ a cr_.,� J-Q 1586

m
GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates Inc.
._.....,.-,...,_„ ,,.,,,..,.
BORING LOG
CBR-14
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
DRILLER: G ET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, FIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-20-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': _ AFTER 24 HOURS: T- _ CAVING> C
o -
'2 `
> N
0
ILI
o m
vavv
o E
a �,
o_
Description
n
ti
T
a o
-
N
o_
g
N
a o
I -
y m
_o a>
m a
w
z
o
V
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value-l/T/J,�il
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
HA
BS
HA
25
20
—
—
—
1 I inches of TOPSOIL )
d a
�
_..:...:...:...:. .: .. .:...:...
_ :...:...:.. {...: :...
..: ..:...: ..:...:.
.. ..I ........ ..:. :. :..
_..:...:...: ..: .:. .: :..
Tan. moist, Silty fine SAND ISM)
With Clay from 2.5 feel
2
5
J
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt to
Silty fine SAND(SM)
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan with Clay from 5.5 feet
Light Gray from 8.5 feet
_
10
Boring terminated al 10 ft10
5
—
5
—
—
5
0
—
25
—
5
10
10
—
IS
_35
Notes: C�+ i�"�y> SS = Split Spoon Sample
1J ST - Shelby Tube Sample
DEC 1 5 HA= Hand Auger Sample
2009 BS = Bulk Sample
liri 1 n f ra r 1 JWOH = W-iolit of Hamm
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed In the field in g rByxcordance with ASTM D 5581.

GET
PROJECT: Family HOUSinQ MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
'}"^
-„n�,.�-�� --.,•..,,.......,
BORING LOG
CBR-15
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-20-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL' rc 9' AFTER 24 HOURS: -<- _ CAVING> .0
o'-.a
m �
%
a m
m m
t_
a v
v v
Description
u
$
v
6 6°>
E 7
v�
v
E n
v
— v
n n
c>
r-
3 tO
o v
m a
w
m
z\
o
u
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit i-I Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value - IW_EM
10 20 30 40
50 60 70
gS
HA
HA
t 7
—
—
18 inches of TOPSOIL
•
i.
........................... ..
. .........................
5
Tan -Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SIVI)
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 3.5 feet
z
_
s
4.5
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt
l
—
—
6
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM)
With Clay from 9 feet
Wet from 9feet
--
CJ
10
q
Boring terminated at 10 ft.
'
10
—
15
5
6
—
20
0
-5
t0
25
30
10
—
JS
15
Notes, Split oon Sample
V �Y\ 7 _ ShebypTube Sample
L1J A - Hand Auger Sample
PailiNal arountaiat., P wo I 1P C r DEC S=Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in .peneral 6
ance wah ASTM D 1586,

GETPROJECT:
Fad Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kirnley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
t
�•.'.... ....
BORING LOG
CBR-16
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-20-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': ?= AFTER 24 HOURS: '- CAVING> F
_ -5
>
°1
w�
m
v v
E
v v
o '-
Description
n
a o
E z
a o
rn m
°'
E
m
�-
`o
o;
m a
N
m
—
o
,`a
°
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
fiAoislure Content -
N-Value - P%77,7M
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
e
e
HA
SS
HA
HA
23 1
t 6 inches of TOPSOIL
- a .:
-
—
—
Tan, moist Silty fine Sand (SM)
—
—
20
Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt 2.50zy
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 4.5 feet
—
s
—
t
Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
—
15
—
10
—
—
10
Boring terminated at 10ft.
15
6
20
0
—
3
25
—
10
30
—
10
—
5
15
_—
Notes: '1"( y��
itS'i 1 v
rr
1 O 2009
SS = Split Spoon Sample
Sample
ST = Shelby Auger
HA =Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general ccordance with ASTM D 1586.
BY:�---

GET
c-�.,=aa.c-/+.•:,.,:,I. r,„.,.
BORING LOG
CBR-17
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kinney -Horn & Associates Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.0 MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-20-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': _ AFTER 24 HOURS: v- _ CAVING> C.
o=
w 2
L
o E
t
o=
Description
u
2
E S
m
O. >
E�
v
4
E�
,�
o
m a
w
m
o
N
4r
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit ti Liquid Limit
Moisture Content-
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
HA
BS
HA
HA
HA
38
—
_
1 6 inches of TOPSOIL 0 �
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND ISM)
:
I
—
Reddish Tan, moist Clayey SAND (SC) Z
2
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist Fat CLAY (CH)
15
—
—
_—
t0
—
6
Tan. moist, Silty fine SAND (SM)
—
Tan, moist. poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poorly
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
Reddish Tan from 9 feet
10
4
Boring terminated at 10 ft.
—
5
—
—
0
5
5
9
—220
25
—
30
—
10
35
Notes: -'- SS= Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
/1 Ito i/ a /1/ I P C
VLV a v
PAGE 7 of 1 Standard Penetration 1'esis were performed in the field to gene l accordance with ASTM D 1586-
BY:�----

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
s•.
u,v„.n..:..��.",..•.-.,.,. �,:_.
BORING LOG
C BR-18
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-19-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': s AFTER 24 HOURS: -7- CAVING> C
O `..
w_
L
`v
o
j v
Description
a
o
E z
0N
-
v
o v
m L
w
m
z
u
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
kloisture Content -
N-Value- jT �'i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
HA
1
HA
HA
HA
51.2
4 inches of TOPSOIL
0.�
j
/'.
:/': rl:
_ r15
:L 1* 11.
ccr r,
F�-1
_
-
I
—
—
20
—
—
Tan -Gray, moist, Lean CLAY (CL)
Tan frorn 1.5 feet 3
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist. Fat CLAY (CH)
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC)
_
5
—
5.5
Reddish Tan, moist. poorly graded fine to medium SAND I to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
Tan from 6 feet
—
—
10
a
Boring terminated at 101
to
s
—
s
6
-
—
-
20
g
0
—
—
25
y
—
i0
0
—
35
a5
—
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
8S =Bulk Sample
P
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in ge rail a}¢9 wQlt F+S7(y1,fJ 1586
BY: 1 �7--000j

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
'---^^'
c:,.:..,..c..,-,....�.:,,
BORING LOG
C BR-19
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-19-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': '- AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> C.
o`
-
wo
N
L w
E
L
Q v
Description
.
a
m
n o
N Z
w Z
�-'
N
N I-
-
3 m
m a
v
m
z
o
u
V
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit ti Liquid Lir l
Moisture Content -
N-Value -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
o
o
HA
BS
A
HHA
HA
HA
HA
HA
_
-
—
15
24 inches of TOPSOIL
Gray, moist, Silty. Clayey SAND (SC-SM) to Clayey SAND (SC) with
silt_._-45
%G
/l-
: -
_
_
2
s
I Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Fat CLAY (CH)
Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM)
-
—
7
Gray, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt
--!0
- &
Gray, moist, Fat CLAY (CH)
g
Dark Gray, moist, Organic Fat CLAY (OH) I
9.
ight Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) wit
silt to Silt finND e SA(SM
A
—
—
to
5
odbelermmate at 10 t.
is
20
9
a
2s
5
—
10
-10
JS
15
Notes:
Split spoon Sample
DEC 1 5 2009 ST Shelby Tube Sample
HA Hand Auger Sample
BS Bulk Sample
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accc 13'ye%,•i�

GET
PROJECT: Fad Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn &Associates, Inc.
_
�.4
........,a.._,. .......,, _
BORING LOG
CBR-20
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, FIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-19-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': = AFTER 24 HOURS: '- CAVING> S.
m,
>
w `
v v
W.
o E
W v
v
0-
Description
a
�
E o
E z
�
v v
a>
E g
� m
_v y
n-
E
m
-
3 1O
o
m a
v
m
z
o
it
\
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content -
N-Value - r%///
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
—
0
0
HA
BS
HA
HA
6A�
( 6 inches Of TOPSOIL a
Mottled Gray -Tan, moist. Lean CLAY (CL) 0.�
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 2.5 feel
jj
' .,;
—
20
—
_I-5
_
2
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist,.Fat CLAY (CH).
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium
SAND SP to poorly graded fine to medium SAND SP-SM with sl
Light Tan from 7 feel
—
—
_
—
_
—
_0
5
—
85
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium
SAND SP-SM with silt to Silt fine SAND SNt
10
n
Boring terminated at 10 ft.
—
—
15
—
0
—
0
5
10
—
-15.
20
8
25
—
10
35_
SSpoon Sample
Notes: �c1r-1 V SS = ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
Bulk
BS = Sample
'The initial arcumdryappy rpidurg maynnr h, irdw,96y, f rhn lad, ormplowar, r •nl W
- 1 of Hammer
PAGE 1 0l 1 Slaltlarcf Penelrarion Tests ::ere performed in the field in pener I accordance .10 AS TM D 1586,
BY:�---

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
<.*•..,•...« ..,, ..-.,...,.-.,
BORING LOG
C BR-21
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P Lankford, FIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 8-19-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': AFTER 24 HOURS: 7- CAVING> C.
m
oI
w`
`o- v
o E
a
o
Description
n
r?
a o
z
N
v L
°- >a
o
in
v v
P F
m
_
"`"0Plastic
o v
m a
?
z
o
,
c
TEST RESULTS
Limit H LiquidLimit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value- (%7T/_�O
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
o
0
HA
oS
HA
33,1
4 inches of TOPSOIL I
_-03
Gray, mold, Silt Clayey SAND SC-SM to Clayey SAND SC with
Y Y Y Y i ) Y Y ( )
silt
Tan -Brown from 1 fool
t Gray -Tan from 2 feet
�-
-
_
zo
—
—
—
—
15
—
2
5
Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-Sm) with silt to
Silty fine SAND (SM)
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan wish Clay from 5 feet
_
—
—
10
_
10-
—
0
4
Horing terminated at 10 ft.
—
is
6
-
20
-
8
25
—
—
5
30
0
10
—
1�
—
]5
Notes: %Pj SS = Splii Spoon Sample
DEC 1 5 2009 SS = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
eS =Bulk Sample
ni I 'ii maynq he iqdi,aliv,r -
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in

GETPROJECT:
• n,--- --;-�
BORING LOG
Bill
Family. Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn &Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: INA
DRILLER: G ET Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotarj(Wash) DATE: 9-2-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`: '? 12' AFTER 24 HOURS: •' CAVING> L
` =
O
>
w z
v ti
E
v v
in
Description
E z
m
E g
N w
E>
N H
_
o v
m rs
j
z
o
O
#
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
9
Moisture Content - •
N-Value - jG]
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
3
6
10"
7
7
12
17
1g 8
9 inches of TOPSOIL
076
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan and with clay from 2 feet
- Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan from 4feet-
Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Level = 9 feet
:
1
24
SS
2
a
.'. - :.. ...
- -
•
s.
—
2
24
SS
z
9
--
3
24
SS
5
-
4
24
SS
n
7
-
: !
5
22
SS
4
a
moo:
a
Mottled Gray -Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay to
Silty Clayey SAND (SC-SM), medium dense
= Wet from 12 feet{'
r
�.
6
24
SS
6
6
7
_
—
—
—
13.I—__--_
Light Gray. wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), medium dense
7
2.1
SS
s
10
10
—
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
a
za
—
2s
10
35
Notes:
r r m' Y 1 c
SS = Split Spoon Sample
ST = Shelby Tube sample
DECHA = Hand Auger Sample
1 5 2009 BS = Bulk Sample
_ nmmar
PAGE 7 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in goo Mycprdance wilh ASTM D 1586,

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kirnley-Horn &Associates Inc.
r---- _- •�,�-_*,
BORING LOG
BM P-4
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: INA
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 9-2-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL- 8' AFTER 24 HOURS: -S- 8.2' CAVING> .C.
C
A
D "-
v N
w?
L N
m m
c
m _w
Description
V
L
N
z
N
v W
o. 'o
N v
m
_W
E
N
_
o v
m a
N
J
j
z
a
a
v
o
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Lintil
Moisture Content - •
N-Value
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
6
9
Ia
a
3
27 g
( 5 inches of TOPSOIL I>-r--
_
_
24
_
SS
3
3
...
_
_
..:...... .:..
.
. ........ ..................
-
—
Tan, moist, Silty Clayey fine SAND (SC- SM) to Clayey fine SAND
(SC), loose
Mottled Reddish Tan -Gray from 2 feet
-
—
2
—
24
-
SS
4
5
—
5
q
Light Gray, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to poor)
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt. medium dense
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist to very moist, Silty fine SAND (SM)
with trace clay, very loose to loose
Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Level = 6 Feet
Gray -Tan from 8 feet
Wet from 8 feet
4" 1:
[:
: !
_--
3
4
2n
24
SS
ss
6
10
48
—
—
—
_
_".
'' �
5
24
SS
a
2
10
6
24
SS
z
i
2
Gray, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC) with sill, very loose
I
//
15
Gray, wet, Silly fine SAND (SM) with trace clay, loose
7
24
SS
2
3
2
Ooriny terminated at 15 ft.
6
—
20
e
25
—
30
10
35
Notes:
I i it c l a t rrn n PI
y = Split Spoon Sample
=Tube Shelby Sample
H =Hantl Auger Sample
DEC 1 5 200 B=Bulk Sample
- Wpioht
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penelraboo Tests we;e performed in the field in general ad6Pco with ASTM D 1586.

GETPROJECT:
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
'
BORING LOG
BMP-5
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 24.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash) DATE: 8-30-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: 7- 15' AFTER 24 HOURS: 7- 15' CAVING> r
c =
io
N
—
mv
o. v
v N
a v
v
Description
o.
m
y
�- o
E z
-
a o
E
_ v
�
E F
_
3 `''
c;
m L
m
z
o
p
ai
Is
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content -
N-Value - F/
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2
6
9
12
is
17
10
—
4.5
-
—
-_—
Q_
6 inches of TOPSOIL
-
1
18
SS
2
z
-
-
-
- -
:...: .:........... :..
I
—(
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to medium dense
' Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan from 4 feel �"' -
:::::
::...
---
2
24
SS
3
3
2
___
3
24
SS
- a
5
s
_
_--
4
24
SS
a
5
—
is
_
Light Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to rnediunl SAND SP to poorly
9 P Y 9 ( ) P Y
graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SNI) with sill, loose to medium
dense
Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Level = 12 Feet
Wel from l5 feet
Boring terminated at 15 fl.
i i
r.L 11:
._.
t:. r r'
a-� r r
ii':cil
4::t
a 1:pt
...
5
24
SS
e
a
9
10
6
24
SS
9
-
5
7
24
SS
e
rs
20
—
5
0
25
5
30
10
10
35
5
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
= Shelby Tube Sample
C'f'( YL: 'f�11 = Hand Auger Sample
1 V 1, "L�9 = Bulk Sample
p e
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general a ordank ki h U4 9949,
BY:

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn &Associates, Inc.
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan
SURFACE ELEVATION: 23.0' MSL
BORING LOG
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc.
LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, FIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary(Wash)
DATE: 9-1-09
BM P-6
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': 12' AFTER 24 HOURS: T- 12.25' CAVING> .C.
a .2
y
LI
v
w m
w
-
m
oo
TEST RESULTS
PlasticLimit H LiquidLitmo"
'2
n w
fi
Description
- o
.-
�' v%"
m
i
"
S
o
'9
C7
z
ul
m w
F
in
m a
z
°
moisture Content - •
w ?
rn
o
N-Value- ffZ17,7l
8 inches of TOPSOIL
0.61
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty CLAY (CL-ML) with sand to
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), medium stiff
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Fat CLAY (CH) with trace sand,
- ..medium stiff - -
Mottled Tan -Reddish Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium
SAND (SP-SM) with sill to Silty fine SAND (SM), medium dense
E
Light Gray -Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, medium
dense
E
Light Gray -Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND
(SP-SM) with silt to Silty fine SAND (SM), mixed with Clayey SAND
(SC) Ribbons, medium dense
Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Level = 9 Feet
Wet from 12 feet
at 15
1
18
SS
3
6
—__
3
2
2
18
SS
7
5
3
24
SS
1e
18
S
4
24
SS
j7
31
20
10
5
24
SS
10
19
9
6
18
SS
4
11
e
SS
y
18
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Sample
RTy� $T =Shelby Tube Sample
CEIV� =RuIk�G ogelrSample
PAGE 1 of l Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the Held in general arleordance v+61 Ask ( QG9

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
r�
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn&Associates, Inc.
BORING LOG
BM P-7
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, ELT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary (Wash) DATE: 9-1-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL*: g 8.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: T- CAVING> L
`0 -'
> m
w
a
v v
o E
�- v
v m
o -
Description
m
E d
z
rn
E o¢
u
to
v
<11 ~
o v>
m a
i0
z
o
\
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value- fa�/7
10203040506070
4
6
4
8
9
11
II
-
—
15
18 inches of TOPSOIL
1
12
SS
2
3
- -
... -
-
-
-
_ -
1.5
Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to loose
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 2 feet
Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Level = 6 feet
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) with clay,
loose
Reddish Tan, moist to wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP)
to poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt. loose to
medium dense----
Tan-Gray from 10 feet
".'.
'.:
!
2
--
18
SS
,
3
3
a
-
—
10
—
2
5
.
.:.
3
24
SS
2
2
3
—�
4
24
SS
a
5
—
—)
10
_
:, ,;
1 "'
rf
---
5
24
SS
a
e
-
24
SS
3
—
s—
_
Gray -Tan, wet, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with sills
to Silty fine SAND (SM), loose
T
24
SS
s
e
_
ts
Boring terminated at 15 fit.
�—
p
20
5
10
25
30
10
-15
35
20
Notes: SS = split Spoon Sample
T - Shelby Tube Sample
CE7 A _ Hand Auger Sample
S = Bulk Sample
P (P In I1 ( rIP tOH -
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general IccordUanFlo rva6 APTA Y586.
BY:_�_

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates. Inc.
„•••.•_. ,,.�-•,+,•.•, =......
• BORING LOG
BM P—H
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 15.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T SolutiduS, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford. FIT
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rolary(Wash) DATE: 9-1-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL': '- 8.5' AFTER 24 HOURS: -T- 8.5' CAVING> C.
m J
a N
w
fl v
v v
E
v. w
N w
=
Description
u
a
m
tj
v
a o
m Z
a>
E$
N v
v-
N
o
m a
v
m
z
o
u
a
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value - (�/7
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1$
0
0
3
11
18
11
6
5
7 4
14 inches of TOPSOIL
_
1
_
19
_
SS
_
1
2
2
•
_
—
_
—
_
—
1,17-'"1
Gray -Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose to medium dense
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 2 feet
_
2
_
24
_
SS
3
7
g
z
—
-.. 4..i
Light Gray -Tan, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND (BE) to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt. medium
I dense
Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Level = 5 Feet
�I ' l i
I "t i
3
18
SS
s
10
�0
—
10
--
—
—
—
+
j
4
—
18
—
SS
s
s
—
—
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan, moist to wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC) wit
- silt, loose to medium dense
Wet from 8.5 feet
_
5
24
SS
3
0
10
.1
6
22
SS
9
3
—
13
Light Gray, wet, poorly graded fne to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
silt to Silty fine SAND(SM), loose
---
7
24
SS
3
3
3
-
5
_
0.
—
5
Boring terminated at 15 ft.
6
—
20
0
--
15
25
30
— —
20
35
—
SS = Split Spoon Sample
Notes: �.7HT
S=Shelby Tube Sample
DEC 1A = HandAuger Sample
5 BS =Balk sample
Wright
PAGE 1 Of 1 Slandard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in gener cbr ce with ASTM D 1586.

KEY I U SYIVIBULS
Symbol Description
Strata symbols
Topsoil
Silty Sand
Poorly graded Sand
with Silt
Clayey Sand
-Lean Clay
Symbol
Description
Silty Clay
Misc.
Symbols
Water table during
drilling
Water table at
boring completion
Fat/Elastic organic Clay/Silt
Poorly graded Sand
LLJ
MI
Peat
HH
Silt
i
i
Silty Sand with
organics
Fat Clay
UllilCl�l
Silty Clayey Sand
Notes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 9-1-09 using a
4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. No free water was encountered at the time of drilling or
when re -checked the following day.
3. Boring locations were taped from existing features and
elevations extrapolated from the final design schematic plan.
4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
recommendations in this report.
5. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported
on the logs.
DEC 1 5 2009

APPENDIX III
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
R� 7ED
DEC 1 5 2009
BY: �_

E_❑ Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
December 3, 2009
Janet Russell
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Stormwater Permit Application, Additional Information
Lincoln Park Residential Development
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Dear Janet Russell:
501 Independence Parkway
Suite 300
Chesapeake, Virginia
23320
THI, 757.548.7300
FAX 75T548.7301
Please find attached the original and one copy of the signed and notarized stormwater permit
application for Lincoln Park Residential Development. Please note that some of the permit
application information has changed since the time of signature. An updated permit
application was submitted to NCDENR with the Lincoln Park Residential Development
stormwater permit application package.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (757)548-
7324 or email me at Rachel.Oberle(n7kimley-horn.com.
Sincerely,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Rachel Oberle, EIT
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures: Stormwater Permit Application, Signed and Notarized
DEC 1 5 2009 E C I V E D
IuUf DEC 4 2009 !lIII���J'
�wc
PRUJ i7 t l/h

Mm
S.P:.4}xdTi.v�:�N'aJ� t
TO: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Suite 300
501 Independence Parkway
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
Attn: Mr. Thomas J. Sauro, P.E.
October 28, 2009
RE: Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Family Housing — MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Addendum No.1
Dear Mr. Sauro:
The following is an addendum to our original "Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and
Geotechnical Engineering Services" (EC09-227G; dated September 11, 2009) as it applies
specifically to the newly proposed storm water management pond Nos. 3 and 4 for the
above referenced project. More specifically, following the completion of our subsurface
exploration procedures and Geotechnical Engineering analysis, it was requested to perform
additional explorations and Geotechnical Engineering services associated with the above
mentioned newly proposed storm water management ponds.
Field Exploration and Testing:
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
storm water design parameters, two (2) 12-foot deep hand auger borings (designated as
BMP-9 and BMP-10) were performed within the proposed storm water management pond
areas. The exploration depths were limited to that noted above due to cave-in occurring as
a result of the encountered ground water levels and associated granular soil conditions.
More specific information regarding boring locations and depths is provided in the following
table (Table I — Boring Schedule).
Table I — Boring Schedule
Boring
Boring
GPS Coordinates
Boring
Depth
Surface
Boring Location Description
Number
(feet)
Elevation
Latitude
Longitude
ft MSL)`
BMP-9
15
21.5
BMP Pond No. 4; Approximate Center
34' 42.600'
77' 22,151'
BMP-10
15
19.0
BMP Pond No. 3, Approximate Center
340 42.489'
770 22.109'
Additionally, saturated hydraulic conductivity (infiltration) testing was performed at each
boring location in order to provide additional storm water design parameters.
50 1 F;as't Elizabeth Slice( • Elizabeih City. NBC 27909 • Phone: [phone], • Fav
info ngcuolwionsincnnn
DEC 1 5 2009

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Family Housing - MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Amendment No. 1
October 28, 2009
These boring and infiltration test locations were identified in the field by G E T Solutions
Inc. personnel with the use of a Global Positions System unit as well as the "State Plane"
coordinates selected from the project site plan and converted to latitude and longitude
coordinates. The approximate boring locations are shown on the "Boring Location Plan"
attached to this report (Appendix I, Figure 1). This plan was developed based on the site
plan provided to G E T Solutions, Inc. by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Laboratory Testing:
Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass
jars, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis. The soil
classification was performed bya Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with ASTM D2488.
A total of two (2) representative soil samples were selected and subjected to laboratory
testing, which included natural moisture and -#200 sieve wash testing and analysis, in
order to corroborate the visual classification. These test results are provided in the
following table (Table II - Laboratory Test Results) and are presented on the "Boring Log"
sheets, included with this report.
Table II - Laboratory Test Results
Boring
Sample
Depth
Natural
% Passing
USCS
No.
Type
(Feet)
Moisture (%)
#200
Classification
BMP-9
Hand
10
19.9
11.5
SP-SM
Auger
BMP-10
Hand
9
14.3
19.6
SM
Auger
Subsurface Soil Conditions:
The results of our recently completed soil test borings at this site indicated the presence of
approximately 10 to 12 inches of topsoil material at the boring locations. Underlying the
surficial organic materials (Topsoil) and extending to the boring termination depths of 12
feet below existing site grades, the natural subsurface soils were generally uniform
throughout the site. These soils were noted to be primarily granular in nature and were
classified as SAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC) with varying amounts of silt and/or clay
CEIVED
DEC 1 5 2009
G

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services October28,2009
Family Housing — MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Amendment No. 1
The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil
strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Boring Log
sheets and in the Generalized Soil Profile, which should be reviewed for specific
information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on the records of the
subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations.
Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratifications
represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the transition may
be gradual.
Groundwater Information:
The groundwater level was recorded at the location of borings BMP-9 and BMP-10 as
observed through the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations.
The initial groundwater table was measured to occur at depths ranging from 10 to 11 feet
below current grades at the boring locations. Based on the site topography information
provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., the encountered groundwater level
corresponds to an elevation generally ranging from 9 to 10.5 feet MSL. The boreholes at
the location of borings BMP-9 and BMP-10 were backfilled upon completion for safety
considerations. As such, the reported groundwater levels may not be indicative of the
static groundwater level.
The "Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina" provided by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture indicates that soils located within this project site consist predominantly of the
Onslow loamy fine sand, Baymeade fine sand, Rains fine sandy loam, and Kureb fine
sand. More specifically, it was determined that the proposed storm water retention pond
No. 3 (boring BMP-10) and No. 4 (boring BMP-9) are located within the areas identified in
the "Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina" to contain the Baymeade and Onslow
series soils, respectively. These associations indicate moderately well drained to well
drained soils with moderately high to high water transmittal capabilities. The soils
recovered at the project site appear to be consistent with the information provided on the
"Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina". Table III on the following page of this
report provides more detailed information regarding the soil series indicated in the "Soil
Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina" within the vicinity of the completed borings BMP-
9 and BMP-10 as well as the associated soil characteristics.
1 5 2009

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services October 28, 2009
Family Housing - MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Amendment No. 1
Table III -
Storm Water Pond Soils: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey
Storm Water
Drainage
Water
Pond No.
Boring No.
Soil Series**
Class**
Transmittal
Capacity**
3
BMP-10
Baymeade fine
Well Drained
High
Sand
4
3MP-9
Onslow Loamy
Moderately
Moderately
fine Sand
I Well Drained
I Hi h to Hi h
- The information provided above is based on our review of the "Soil Survey of Onslow County, North
Carolina" provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
As previously noted, the soil sample colors were identified using the Munsell°Soil Color
Charts to aid in identifying the estimated SHWT. It is noted that soil morphology is not a
reliable indicator of the SHWT in drained soils, as indicated in the "Soil Morphology as an
Indicator of Seasonal High Water Tables" (prepared by Peter C. Fletcher; U.S. Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service). Accordingly, the SHWT depths at the location of
borings 3MP-9 and BMP-10 were estimated based on a combination of the Munsell° color
classifications and our experience with similar soil and site conditions. The current
groundwater levels encountered at the project site and the estimated SHWT depths are
anticipated to be contributed to a combination of the varying existing site grade elevations
as well as the existing drainage features.
Table IV below includes the encountered ground water elevations and the individual
estimated seasonal high ground water elevations for each BMP boring.
Table IV - Groundwater Summary
Approximate
Initial
48-hour
Estimated
Storm Water
Surface
Groundwater
Groundwater
Seasonal High
Pond
Boring No.
Elevation
Elevation
Elevation
Groundwater
(ft MSL)
(ft)*
(ft MSL) **
Elevation
**
ft MSL
Monitoring
No. 4
BMP-9
21.5
10.5
Well Not
14.5
Installed
Monitoring
No. 3
BMP-10
19.0
9.0
Well Not
14.5
Installed
= Elevations indicated above are estimated based on the topographic information provided by Kinney -
Horn and Associates, Inc.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services October 28, 2009
Family Housing — MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Amendment No. 1
Storm Water Desiqn Parameters:
One (1) infiltration test was performed at each of the boring locations (BMP-9 and
BMP-10). The tests were performed at depths ranging from about 9 to 10 feet below
current grades, respectively. The boreholes were prepared utilizing an auger to remove soil
clippings from the base. Infiltration testing was then conducted within the vadose zone
utilizing a Precision Permeameter and the following testing procedures.
A support stand was assembled and placed adjacent to each borehole. This stand holds a
calibrated reservoir (200 ml or 2000 ml) and a cable used to raise and lower the water
control unit (WCU). The WCU establishes a constant water head within the borehole
during testing by use of a precision valve and float assembly. The WCU was attached to
the flow reservoir with a 4-meter (approximately 13-foot) braided PVC hose and then
lowered by cable into the borehole to the test depth elevation. As required by the Glover
solution, the WCU was suspended above the bottom of the borehole at an elevation of
approximately 5 times the borehole diameter. The shut-off valve was then opened allowing
water to pass through the WCU to fill the borehole to the constant water level elevation.
The absorption rate slowed as the soil voids became filled and an equilibrium developed as
a wetting bulb developed around the borehole. Water was continuously added until the
flow rate stabilized. The reservoir was then re -filled in order to begin testing. During
testing, as the water drained into the borehole and surrounding soils, the water level within
the calibrated reservoir was recorded as well as the elapsed time during each interval. The
test was continued until relatively consistent flow rates were documented. During testing
the quick release connections and shutoff valve were monitored to ensure that no leakage
occurred. The flow rate (Q), height of the constant water level (H), and borehole diameter
(D) were used to calculate Ks utilizing the Glover Solution. Based on the field testing and
corroborated with laboratory testing results (published values compared to classification
tests), the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soils is tabulated in the following table
(Table V) and is presented on the "Hydraulic Conductivity Worksheet° reports (Appendix
VII), included with this report.
Table V - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results
Test
Groundwater
Percent Silt
Average Infiltration Test
Test No.
Depth (ft*)
Level (*ft.)
and/or Clay
Results (Ksat Values)
cm/sec
cm/day
in/hour
BMP-9
10.0
11.0
11.5
6.82E-04
58.9
0.967
BMP-10
9.0
10.0
19.6
7.16E-04
61.9
1.015
" Depths noted above are referenced from below the existing site grade elevations.

Final Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Engineering Services October 28, 2009
Family Housing — MCB Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
GET Project No: EC09-227G
Amendment No. 1
We trust that the information contained herein meets your immediate need, and we would
ask that you call this office with any questions that you may have.
Respectfully Submitted,
G E T Solutions, Inc.
Gerald W. Stalls Jr., P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
NC Reg.#34336
Camille A. Kattan, P.E.
Principal Engineer
INC Reg. # 14103
SEAL
03433E
1V..Sia�
CARP/',
01
SEAT.
0i11103
Attachments: Boring Location Plan (. A.
Boring Log(s)
Generalized Soil Profile
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Worksheets
Copies: (3) Client
DEC 1 5 2009 I GET

O
m
c)
en
N
O
O
t0
Pro Lect Name
CAMP LEJEUNE MCB FAMILY MOUSING
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

GETPROJECT:
r.
Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn &Associates, Inc.
J
BORING LOG
BM P-9
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune, North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.5' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, EIT
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 9-1-09
DEPTH TO WATER -INITIAL': a 11' AFTER 24 HOURS: .- CAVING> S. 12'
,K
>
m °'
w
w v
o E
aai w
❑=
Description
P
r7
m
6
m z
to
E >o
rn m
m I-
rn
o m
m a.
v
i0
z
o
v
TEST RESULTS
Plastic Limit H Liquid Limit
Moisture Content - •
N-Value - / /
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
20
—
_
—
15
—
—
--
—
10
—
—
s
—
o
—
--
0
0
HA
HA
HA
HA
1tf
12 inches of TOPSOIL
mT
....:. .: ..: :...
........... ... .. ;...
RECE
DEC.1:5
t
Tan -Gray, moist. Silty fine SAND (SM)
Tan, moist, Clayey SAND (SC) with silt
2
s
4
Tan. moist. Silty fine SAND (SN1) to Silty. Clayey SAND (SC-SM)'"•.
5
Tan -Reddish Tan, moist. poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP
SM) with sill to Silty fine SAND ISrvt)
}
—
—
�
Tan -Gray. moist to wet. poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) to
poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt
Gray -Tan from 9.5 feet',i�i;,.
Wet from 11 feet
Cave-in at 12 feet
!i
of
'�S:ris
,.
10
a
'
Boring terminated at 12 ft.
5
fi
-
20
-
—
25
10
a0
—
-
35
-
is
-
—
-
-
Notes: SS = Split Spoon Samp e
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger Sample
BS = Bulk Sample
e frill n n �- ri1 n to he inri.. Pn(hPc ,' n.i dre —
009
PAGE 1 of 1 Sland2rd Peoel,alioo 7esls weld performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586,

GET
PROJECT: Family Housing MCB Camp LeJeune
CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
BORING LOG
BM P-10
PROJECT LOCATION: Camp LeJeune North Carolina PROJECT NO.: EC09-227G
BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.0' MSL
DRILLER: G E T Solutions, Inc. LOGGED BY: P. Lankford, I
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATE: 9-1-09
DEPTH TO WATER - INITIAL`. s 10' AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> C 12'
w
o E
a m
o
c7
o
E'o
of
E
3 c0uPlastic
o-
m
W
z�fi
o
o
v
TEST RESULTSo
Limit H Liquid LimitDescription
Moisture Content - •ed
tJ-Value- ..
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0
HA
HA
HA
10.
_
—
10 inches of TOPSOIL
08
( Gray -Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM) t
�[
- •.TVED
2069
—
—
15
4%-5
:---
Tan -Gray. moist. Clayey SAND (SC) with silt
Mottled Gray -Reddish Tan from 4.5 feet
I EstimaMted SHWT Depth = 4.5 feet I'r
Estimated SNT Elevation = 14.5' MSL
p
—
5
—
10
5
Tan, moist to wet. poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with
silt to Silty fine SAND (SM)
Tan -Gray with clay from 9 feel
- Wet from 10 feet
Cave-in at 12 feet',
-
_
—
Boring terminated at 12 ft.
t5
¢—
0
20
8
-5
—
25
—
t0
15
0
10
__
—
-
-20
35
-
Notes: SS = Sp e
ST = Shelby Tube Sample
HA = Hand Auger sample
BS = Bulk Sample
he inrri 1 rnnn rcr ra . rn nr hn Ind it rr rn ,Oh, ,Ifi, vjnH = Wpiohl 1 HadjMPr
PAGE 1 of 1 Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

KEY TO SYMBOLS
Symbol Description
Strata symbols
El Topsoil
MI Silty Sand
Clayey Sand
441I Silty Clayey Sand
Poorly graded Sand
with Silt
Misc. Symbols
s Water table during
drilling
C Depth to caving
Notes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 9-1-09 using a
4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. No free water was encountered at the time of drilling or
when re -checked the following day.
3. Boring locations were taped from existing features and
elevations extrapolated from the final design schematic plan.
4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
recommendations in this report.
DEC b
5. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported
j 5 2009
on the logs.
BY,�

25—
5
B:dc e
20
—10
BNP.10
l.j
UC i I
NM=199
_
10
Nir1=1i.] 10
5
0
a
5
strata
�y
yy
Topsoil
G
� ,
m
GET SOILM011S. Inc.
Silly Sand
`'
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
pt
HORIZONTAL
SCALE DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE DRAWN
/.:
Clayey Sand
SCALEVERTICAL'.: /ILK'S 111/J$/�l)11�
Ff
N
O
I'Cllllll_l' I-IOLISillu NICB Ca1111) LC.ICLInC
J1 ''
Silty Clayey&
d
ji
(p
Cam) Le'eune. North Carolina
1.17'
Poorly graded
and
FIGURE NUMBER
L:
wt SitPRO,IICI
NO. EC09-227G

G E T Solutions, Inc.
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET Sheet No.: 1 of 1
Project Name.: Family Housing Camp LeJeune
Parcel ...............:
IForebay #4 Approximate Center
Terminology and Solution
Boring No......: BMP-9
Date .................: 10/21/2009
Ksat : Saturated hydraulic conductivity
Investigators.: J. Meads
File Name.........:
O: Steady-state rate of water flow into the soil
Boring Depth.: 10 feet
WCU Base. Ht. h: 15.0 cm
H: Constant height of water in borehole
Boring Dia..... : 8.3 cm
IWCU Susp. Ht. S: 15.2 cm
r: Radius of cylindrical borehole
Boring Rad. (r): 4.15 cm
I Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 30.2 cm
Ksat = O[sinh-1(H/r) - (r2/H2+1).5 + r/Hj / (2pH2) [Glover So
VOLUME
Volume Out
ml a
TIME
hr:min:sec a/
Elapsed Time
Flow Rate O
mllm in alb
------------------- Ksat Equivalent Values ------------------
hr:min:sec
min b
cm/min)
cm/sec
(cm/day)in/hr
ft/da
20001
9:30:00 AM
1
I
1990
10
9:30:04 AM
00004
0.07
150.00
0.047
7.90E-04
68.2
1.120I
2.24
1980
10I
9.30:08 AM
1 0:00:04
0.07
150.00
0.047
7.90E-04
68.2
1.1201
2.24
1970
10
9:3012 AM
00004
0.07
150.00I
0.047
7.90E-04I
68.2
1.120
2.24
1960
10
9.30:16 AM
0:00:04
0.07
150.00I
0.047
7.90E-04I
68.2
1.1201
2.24
1950
1940
1930
1920
1 ()1
10
10I
10I
9:30:21 AM
9:30:26 AM
9.30.30 AM
9:30:34 AM
00005
00005
0:00:04
00004
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
120.00
120.00
150.00
150.00
_ - 0.038
0.038
0.047
0.047I
_6.32E-04
_ 6.32E-04
7.90E-04
7.90E-04
54.6
54.6
0.896
0.896
1.79
1.79
_
68.2
68.2
_
1.120
1.120
2.24
2.24
1910
10I
9:30:39 AM
I 00005
0.08
120.00
0 038
6.32E-04
54.6
0.896
1.79
1900}
10I
9:30:45 AM
00006
0.10
100.00
0.032
5.27E-04
45.5
0.746
1.49
1890I
10)
9:30:50 AM
00005
0.08
120.00
0.0381
6.32E-04I
54.6
0.896
1.79
1880
101
9:30:54 AM
00004
0.07
150.00
0.047
7.90E-04
68.2
1.120
2.24
18701
10I
9:30:59 AM
0:00:051
0.08
120.00I
0.038I
6.32E-04I
54.6
0.896
1.79
18C'01
10I
9:31:04 AMI
00005
0.08
120.00I
0.038I
6.32E-04I
54.6
0.896
1.79
1850I
10I
9:31:09 AMI
000051
0.08
120.00I
0.038I
6.32E-041
54.6
0.896
1.79
18401
10I
9:31:14 AM
0:00:051
0.08
120.00I
0.038I
6.32E-04I
54.6
0.896
1.79
1830
10I
9:31:19 AM
00005
0,081
120.00I
0.038I
6.32E-04I
54.6
0.896
1.79
18201
10I
9:31:24 AM
0:00:05
0.081
120.00
0.038I
6.32E-04I
54.6
0.8961
1.79
1810I
10I
9:31:29 AM
0:00:051
0.081
120.001
0.038I
6.32E-04
54.61
0.8961
1.79
1800
10I
9:31.34 AM
0:00:05
0.081
120.00I
0.0381
6,32E-041
54.6
0.896
1.79
O
I
I
I
I
ur oisture:I
19.9%
Init. Satur.Time: 9:00:00 AM
ESTIMATED FIELD KSAT:I
0.041I
6.82E-04I
58.91
0.9671
1.93
Saxt Class if:
ISAND (SP-SM)
Consistency:
I
10epth to an Impermeable Layer: N/A
Notes: % Passing #200 Sieve = 11.5 %
nt
a/Fabric:
SlopelLandsc:
I Depth to Bedrock ...................: N/A
tRe
tl.xls Precision Permeameter"" Rev. 4/5/002

G E T Solutions, Inc.
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET Sheet No.. 1 of 1
Project Name.: Family Housing Camp LeJeune
Parcel ...............:
Forebay #3 Approximate Center
Terminology and Solution
Boring No......: BMP-10
Date .................: 10/21/2009
Ksat Saturated hydraulic conductivity
Investigators.: J. Meads
IFile Name.........:
0: Steady-state rate of water flow into the soil
Boring Depth.: 9 feet
WCU Base. Ht. h: 15.0 cm
H. Constant height of water in borehole
Boring Dia..... : 8.3 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 15.2 cm
r. Radius of cylindrical borehole
Boring Rad. (r): 4.15 cm
lConst. Wtr. Ht. H: 30.2 cm
Ksat = O[sinh-1(H/r) - (r2/H2+1).5 + r/H] / (2pH2) [Glover So
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml a
TIME
hr:m in: sec al
Elapsed Time
Flow Rate O
mllmin a/b
------------------- Ksat Equivalent Values------------------
hr:min:sec
min b
cmlmin(cm/sec(cm/day)
inlhr
ft/da
20001.
1 11:30:00 AM
19901
10I
11:30:05 AM
1 00005
o.o8l
120.001
0.0381
6.32E-041
54.6
0.8961
1.79
19801
101
11:30: 10 AM
0:00:05
0.08
120.00
0.038
6.32E-041
54.6
O.8961
1.79
19701
101
11:30:15 AM
1 0.0005
O.081
120.001
0.0381
6.32E-041
54.6
0.8961
1.79
19601
10I
11:30:21 AMI
00006
0.10l
100.00
0.032
5.27E-041
45.5
0.746
1.49
1950
_ _194_0
1930
___ 101
101
101
11:30:26 AM
11:30:30 AM
00005
00004
0.08
0.07
120.00_0.038
_ 150.00
150.00
_ 0.047
0.047
_ _6.3_2E-04_
7,90E-04
7.90E-04
54.6
0.896
1.79
_
68.2
1.120
2.24
11. 30.34 AM
_
000.04
0.07
68.2
1.120
2.24
19201
101
11:30:38 AM
000,04
0.07
150.001
0.047
7.90E-04
68.2
1.120
2.24
1910I
101
11.30:43 AM
00005
0.08
120,001
0.038
6.32E-04)
54.6
0.8961
1.79
1900I
101
11:30:47 AM
0:00:041
0.071
150.001
0.0471
7.90E-041
68.21
1.1201
2.24
18901
101
11:30:51 AM
00004
0071
150.001
0.0471
7.90E-04
1 68.2
1.1201
2.24
18801
10
11:30:55 AM
00004
0.071
150.001
0.0471
7.90E-041
68.2
1.120
2.24
18701
101
11:30: 59 AM
0.00:04
0.07
150.00
0.047
7.90E-04
68.2
1.120
2.24
1860
101
11:31, 03 AM
o:00:04
0.07
150.00
0.047
7.90E-04
68.2
1.1201
2.24
1850
101
11:31:07 AM
0:00:04
0.07
150.00
0.047
7.90E-04
68.2
1.1201
2.24
18401
101
11:31:12 AM
0:00:05
0.08
120.00
0.038
6.32E-041
54.6
0.8961
1.79
18301
101
11:31:16 AM
0:00:04
0.07
150,001
0.0471
T90E-041
68.2
1.120
2.24
1820
10
11:31:20 AM
0:00:04
0.07
150.00
0.0471
7.90E-04I
68.2
1.120
2.24
1810
101
11:31:24 AM
1 0:00:04
0.07
150.00
0.047
7.90E-041
68.2
1.120
2.24
1800
101
11:31 30 AM
0.00:06
0.10
100.00
0.032
5.27E-04
45.5
0.746
1.49
I
Natural Moisture:)
14.3%
Init. Satur.Time: 11:0000 AM
ESTIMATED FIELD KSAT:1
0.0431
7.16E-041
61.91
1.0151
2.03
Texture/Classif:
SAND (SM)
Consistency:
Depth to an Impermeable Layer: N/A
Notes: % Passing #200 Sieve = 19.6%
Structure/Fabric:
Slope/Landsc:
IDepth to Bedrock ...................: N/A
ksalReportl.xls Precision Permeameter " Rev. 4/51002

]°
]0
i
a]
I z z 1 N1,1=20.1 I I
]] a / z. L1=n z z a 6
z _
z ] ✓ f' /'. s 6 i s �a 5 z 3 ] -
] a ] 5 �(I-�.., (/'''/ 6 t0
6 6 7 1010
Q� 6 5 ] 9 I:I I, ! 1 I19 5 10 16 i ] 5
11 NM=t]5 7 s L 1 ] 6 57 i> �r to It
.l 12 LL=21
13 J.I 6 i VI a5 1111. 11 i0 ILL 60 59
..
691 t { �44
�1 t. 45
10 1.5 .I'/.: ).'11 a] 55 .'.I 1 10
4 5
I'7 B / 0:
.r.�. �l I ..I j 5 '_tJ�, 6]
2 i
° - -._ - 0
10
'0
20
a0
]n
Strata
symbols
Fat/Elastic organic Clay/Silt
%JI Fat Clay
1
Topsoil-
Poorly $and
Silty Clayey
fn
graded
[1 f: Sand
k}1
_
GFl SOlLIl10Il5. ll)C.
Silty Sall
..
.�
Peat
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
I
Poorly g
d San?
'�
scRaIE° n DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE DRAWN
[,
wlth Silt
O
Silt
TICnL
scnL-_r=1a' (IAA's 9/Id/2To
ClayeyS
C
1-ellllly 1-I0LISIIIfl .MC13 Camp Le.leune
Sisand wnh
ad nics
orga
Calll) LCA"Lllle. lAooh Carolina
can Clay
FIGURE NUMBER
t
PROJECT NO. EC09-227G

3o
m
Strata SMbals
Topsoil
Silty So
Poorly c
with Sil
Clayey.
ri
Lean
e-+9
]Z
IS
'6
r"
2fi
6
9J:
L I i
B 9
.1.',ii 'I
0 ]
FatfElasic organic ClaylSilt
0
Poorly graded Sand
J
Peal
F
Sand
C71
�
fijjjij, Sill
ILIAILIlI llll
N
O
O
9
LFij'� Silly Send with
trzto organics
b-+9
f1
15
<
5 6 LL-56a
T/I
YB9
010
1
A I I. 11
. L'J.
IJ_L _1
Z/I Fat Clay
Llfrl Silty Clayey Sand
10
10
20
a0
I
CET Solutions, Inc.
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
SCALE rFL DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY
$C:.LE. DATE DRAWN
v finc].L
ScLE .., G%vS F wi4/200I
Family Housing iMCB Camp Le.leune
PROJECTNO. EC09-227G

tl 5]
''
20
II BS
II1
` 2 1n
�J. �� 1 3 I � � i/� S��A1
l t
I I
3 ] .
J J
6 9 jl
3] /
B /
2 l LL=59 6
J LL=59
J+
55
2-
(I .
10 9
J9
i5
10
, 6
6 6
69
6]
67
Strata symbols
Fat/Elastic organic Clayl$ilt
Topsa
�.�y
IW
�'
Poorly graded Sand
Silly
nd
m
L--)
'
^
"j
Peat
Poorly
raded
S"n
with S
�
�`�
Silt
Claye
Lean
and
ay
'
N
�.,
u
l
�j
j.
Silly Sand with
organics
H
e p.lo I
B 5 C R 2
22 NM=,7.9 CBR ,J
_..2_2 ..
;J , i:tT
TI I�I
0 5 NM=2Ilb J J � 1
,0 ��. 1fiI fI
I , 5 r,iti
6i
,6,0
!L
6
0 ]
I/ I Fat Clay
In: Silty Clayey Sand
N.1=,i 1
GET Soluticros. lnC.
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFIT F
Famik: Housing
PROJECT NO. EC09-227G
10
a
30
UAIc, UKHWN
9y 1 d2009
LeJeune

O
Tops
m
nd
'—'
II�Silty
al
Poorl graded
3bO—
�'?
with It
O
O
Clay Sand
c.o
Lean ay
a
FaVElastic organic Clay/Silt ijI Fat Clay
Poorly graded Sand l ii Silty Clayey Sand
Peal
Silt
?. Silty Sand with
organics
30
20
10
GFT Solutions, Inc.
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
SORIZOnTAL
CALD. DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE DRAWN
VERTSCILE'i-IY' (i\1'S 9/112009
FZ111111V HousillU 1\11CB Camp LcICun
Callm Lc.lcunc. North Carolina
FIGURE NUMBER
PROJECT NO. LC09-227G

Jc
E] Topso
Silty Sc
Poorly
with SII
j'. Clayey
Lean C
NM=15.J
LL41
Fall Elastic organic Clay/Sill
�I Fat Clay
I�
Poorly graded Sand
'1IyY. Silly Clayey Sand
�Y F.
Peat
F� Silty Clay
n
:t
SanC
_
Sill
Silty Sand with
I
I.
-::I
organics
9tdP-fi
3J
JJ
<J
S
66
io t5
] la
I] 20
t0 to
:
9 a n1A=J2.t
]8
09
19 10
BbIP ]
t2
J 2
IyI
__:I
3 J
:I
1M
' S ft L� 36.t
56
J a
I'CC:
le
Uli"I Solutions; Inc.
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
ScaLe. ORIZONTAL DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE DRAWN
H RiIcnL
ScaLe' r•Ilo GPW dI 'J 00J
Family I-lousinL IMCB Camp LCICuuC
Cam ) LaJeune. North Carolina
FIGURE NUMBER
PROJECT NO. L C09-227G

Topsail
Silty &
Poorly
_!!! with Sil
Clayey
Lean C
Fat/Ela Sic organic Clay/Silt
O
fli
Poorly graded Sand
Peat
F+
Sam
i�
Silt
N
0
o
ao
Silty Sand with
z"fffl
organics
amv.
11
zz
ao
10
010
5 5 Nw:14,5
] 5
/ Y
J l
T� ��T�fl�
1.: I:1_I_I_I
a 3
] ]
Fat Clay
I�
dill Silty Clayey Sand
N,�[LL
O Silty Clay
0
n
10
Gl- 1, Solutions. Inc.
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
°'t sL DRAWN BY/APPROVED BY DATE DRAWN
'vi'-m' f.iAA',P 9/14/2 mq
Famihl Housing IIMCB Camp LeJCune
Camp LaJeunc_ North Carolina
FIGURE NUMBER
P120.II70'NO. LC09-227G

Top'.
Silty
Silty
lj
Clay
Poo
with
0
m
SarW.,
:i
IV
0
0
d 5Od
MF-dF-a
z l
xx
i-
ss
55
' IOB
a 7
as Nra=zoa
[I[[1
laI�IfI
]z
I[
Ja
: zf
. .r.
:1
6 ] NM-16.5
3 2
'
5010
GLT Solutions. Inc.
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
10
10
30
00
50
W
Family Housing NICE Camp Leleune
Cam) Le.leunC. North Carolina
_ FIGURE NUMBER
PROII�C"1 NO. L C'�9-227Ci

KtY I U JYIVIbULJ
"Symbol Description
Strata symbols
f.... Topsoil
Silty Sand
Poorly graded Sand
with Silt
/' Clayey Sand
Lean Clay
Symbol
Description
f j
Silty Clay
Misc.
Symbols
Water table during
drilling
Water table at
boring completion
ti Fat/Elastic organic Clay/Silt
w
Poorly graded Sand
Peat
Silt
Silty Sand with
organics
Fat Clay
Silty Clayey Sand
Notes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 9-1-09 using a
4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. No.free water was encountered at the time of drilling or
when re -checked the following day.
3. Boring locations were taped from existing features and
elevations extrapolated from the final design schematic plan.
4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
recommendations in this report.
5. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported) — "' �'
on the logs. DEC 1 5 2009

APPENDIX VII
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
RECEIVED
DEC 1 5 2009
BY:

G E T Solutions, Inc.
C'7
N
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET Sheet No.: 1 of 1
Project Name.: Family Housing Camp LeJeune
Parcel ...............: Pond West of Development
Terminology and Solution
Boring No......: BMP-3
Investigators.: R. Woodard
Date .................: 9/2/2009
File Name.........:
Ksat. Saturated hydraulic conductivity
0. Steady-state rate of water flow into the soil
Boring Depth.: 11-feet
WCU Base. Ht. h: 15.0 cm
H. Constant height of water in borehole
Boring Dia..... : 8.3 crn
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 15.2 cm
r. Radius of cylindrical borehole
Boring Rad. (r): 4.15 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 30.2 cm
Ksat = 0[sinh-l(H/r) - (r2/H2+1).5 + r/H] / (2pH2) (Glover So
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml a
TIME
hr:min: sec al
Elapsed Time
Flow Rate 0
ml/min alb
------------------- Ksat Equivalent Values------------------
(hr:min:sec
min b
cm/min
(cm/sec
cm/da
(in/hr
ft/da
20001
7:30:00 AM
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
10001
1001
1001
loot
1001
_ 100
100
1001
100
100
1001
7: 30: 19 AM
7:30:38 AM
7:30: 58 AM
7,31,20 AM
731:41 AM
7:3205 AM
7:32:32 AM
7:32:59 AM
7:33:28 AM
7:33:56 AM
0:00:191
0:00: 19
0:00:20
0.00:22
0:00:21
00024
0,0027
0:00.27
00029
0:00:28
0.321
0.32
0.33
0.37
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.45
0.48
0.47
315.79
315.79
300.00
272.73
285.71
250.00
222.22
222.22
206.901
214.29
0.100I
0.100
0.095
0.086
0.0901
0.079
0.070
0.070
0.065
0.0681
1.66E-03I
1.66E-03
1.58E-03
:1.44E-03
1.50E-03
1.32E-03
1.17E-03
1.17E-03
1.09E-03
1.13E-03
143.7f
143.71
136.5
124.1
130.0
113.7
101.1
101.1
94.1
97.51
2.3571
2.357
2.239I
2.035
2.1321
t8fi6
1.659
1.659
1.5441
1.5991
4.71
4.71
4.48
4.07
4.26
_ 3.73
3.32
3.32
3.09
3.20
�I
N ral Moisture: 26.5%
Init. Satur.Time: 7:00.00 AM
ESTIMATED FIELD KSAT:
0.0821
1.37E-03I
118.61
1.945I
3.89
T re/Classif: Clayey SAND
Consistency:
Medium dense
Depth to an Impermeable Layer: N/A
Notes: % Passing #200 Sieve = 19.8%
S turelFa brit:
Slope/Landsc:
Depth to Bedrock ...................: N/A
ks oul.xls Precision Permea meter"
Rev. 4/5/002
0

G E T Solutions, Inc.
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET Sheet No.: 1 of 1
Project Name.: Family Housing Camp LeJeune
Parcel ............... IPond West of Development
Terminology and Solution
Boring No......: BMP-4
Date .................: 9l2/2009
Ksat : Saturated hydraulic conductivity
Investigators.: R. Woodard
File Name.........:
0: Steady-state rate of water flow into the soil
Boring Depth.: 7-feet
IWCU Base. Ht. h: 15.0 cm
H: Constant height of water in borehole
Boring Dia..... : 8.3 cm
JWCU Susp. Ht. S: 15.2 cm
r: Radius of cylindrical borehole
Boring Rad. (r): 4.15 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 30.2 cm
Ksat = Q[sinh-1(H/r) - (r2/H2+1).5 + r/Hj / (2pH2) (Glover So
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml a
TIME
hr:min:sec a/
Elapsed Time
Flow Rate Q
mllmin a/b
------------------- Ksat Equivalent Values------------------
hr:min:sec
min b
cm/min
cm/sec
(cm/day)
in/hr
ft/da
120
-
9:30:00 AM
_:....
.. ._
J
110
1001
901
0
101
101
9:30:14 AM
9:30:28 AM
9:30:42 AM
000:14
0:00:14
0:00:14
.
0.231
0.231
.
42.861
42.86
,
0.0141
0.014
2.26E-041
2.26E-04
9
.5
19.51
19,51
0.3201
0.3201
0.3201
0.64
0.64
0.64
80
101
9:30:57 AM
0.00'15
0.25
40,001
0,013
2 11 E-041
18.2
0,2991
0,60
70
101
9,31:12 AM
000:15
0.25
40.00
0.013
'2.11 E-04
18.2
0.299
0.60
60
101
9:31:28 AM
0:00:16
0.27I
37,501
0.012
1.97E-04
17A
_
0 280
0.56
50
40
30
101
101
101
9:31:44 AM
9:32:00 AM
9,32:18 AM
0.00:16
000:16
0.00:181
0.27
0.271
0.301
37.50
37.50
33.331
0,012I
1 0,012
0.011
,1.97E-04
11.97E-04
1.76E-04
17.1
17.1
15,21
0.280
0280
0.2491
0.56
0,56
0.50
20
10
0
10
101
10
9:32:35AM1
9:32:52 AM
9:33.11 AM
0,00.171
0:00:17
0:00.19
0,281
0 28
0.32
35.29
35,29
31.58
0.011
0.011
0.010
;1.86E-041
1.86E-04
1.66E-04
16.11
16.1
14.4I
0.2631
0.263
Q236
0.53
0.53
0.47
1
�
I
I
�
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
�
I
tural Moisture: 20.4%
Init. Satur.Time: 9.00:00 AM
ESTIMATED FIELD KSAT:
0.012
2.00E-041
17.31
0.2841
0.57
xture/Classif: Silty SAND
Consistency: Loose
Depth to an Impermeable Layer: N/A
Nofes: % Passing #200 Sieve = 27.9%
�ucture/Fabric:
Slope/Landsc:
Depth to Bedrock ...................: N/A
ksatReponl.xls Precision Permeameter"
Rev. 4/5/002

G E T Solutions, Inc.
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET
Sheet No.: 1 of 1
Project Name.: Family Housing Camp LeJeune
Parcel
Pond North Lot 42
...............:
of
Terminology and Solution
Boring No......: BMP-5
Date .................: 9/3/2009
Ksat : Saturated hydraulic conductivity
Investigators.: R. Woodard
File Name.........:
Q: Steady-state rate of water flow into the soil
Boring Depth.: 10-feet
WCU Base. Ht. h: 15.0 cm
H: Constant height of water in borehole
Boring Dia.....: 8.3 cm
IWCU Susp. Ht. S: 15.2 cm
r: Radius of cylindrical borehole
Boring Rad. (r): 4.15 cm
lConst. Wtr. Ht. H: 30.2 cm
Ksat = Ojsinh-l(H/r) - (r2/H2+1).5 + r/Hj / (2pH2) [Glover So
VOLUME
Volume Out
TIME
Elapsed
Time
Flow Rate O
-------------------
Ksat
Equivalent
Values------------------
ml
ml a
hr:min:sec a/
ml/min alb
hr:min:sec
"
min b
cm/min
cm/sec
(cm/da
(in/hr
ft/da
2000
-
7:30:00 AM
.
1900
100
7:30:03 AMI
0 00:03I
0.05
2000.00
0.632
1.05E-02
909.91
14.9271
29.85
1800
100l
7:30:06 AM
I 00003
0.05
2000.00
0.632
11.05E-02
909.9
14.927I
29.85
1700
1600
100I
100I
7:30:09 AM
7:30.13 AM
0:00:03
00004
0.05
2000.00
0.632
1.05E-02
909.9
14.927
29.85
0.07
1500.00
0.474
7.90E-03
682.5
11.195
22.39
1500
100
7:30:16 AM
0:00:03
0.05
2000.00
0.632
1.05E-02
909 9
14.927
29.85
1300
1001
7:3
7:3023 AM]
00004
14.927
12001
0.07
1500.00
0.474
7.90E-03
682.5�
11.1195
22.39
1001
7:30: 26 AM
0:00:031
0.05
2000.00
0.632
1.05E-02
909.91
14,927
29.85
11001
100I
7:30:30 AM
000.04
0.07
1500.00
0.474
,7.90E-03
682.51
11.195
22.39
1000
1001
7: 30: 33 AM I
00003
0.05
2000,00
0.632
1.05E-02
909.91
14.927
29.85
9001
1001
7:30:37 AM I
0:00:04
0.07
1500.00
0.474
7.90E-03I
682.5
11.1951
22.39
800
1001
7:30:40 AM
I
0:00:031
0.05
2000.001
0.6321
1.05E-02
90991
14.9271
29 85
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
Moisture: 6.3%
Init. Satur.Time: 7:00:00 AM
ESTIMATED FIELD KSAT: 0.5791
9.65E-03I 834.11 13.6831 27.37
Classif: SAND (SP)
Lee
Consistency: (Medium dense
Depth to an Impermeable Layer: N/A
Notes: % Passing #200 Sieve = 4.5°//Fabric:
Groundwater in excess of 12' B.E.G.
Slope/Landsc;
Depth to Bedrock ...................: N/A
l.xls Precision Permeameter"
Rev. 4/5/002

G E T Solutions, Inc.
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET
Sheet No.: 1 of 1
Project Name.: Family Housing Camp Laieune
Parcel ...............: Northwest of CommunityCenter
Terminology and Solution "
Boring No......: BMP-6
Investigators.: R. Woodard
Date .................: 9/1/2009
File Name.........:
Ksat : Saturated hydraulic conductivity
0: Steady-state rate of water flow into the soil
Boring Depth.: 10-feet
WCU Base. Ht. h: 15.0 cm
H: Constant height of water in borehole
Boring Dia..... : 8.3 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 15.2 cm
r: Radius of cylindrical borehole
Boring Rad. (r): 4.15 cm
Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 30.2 cm
Ksat = 0[sinh-1(H/r) - (r2/H2+1).5 + r/Hj / (2pH2) jGlover So
VOLUME
ml
1201
Volume Out
I
TIME
thr,mimsec a/
7:30:00 AM
Elapsed Time
Flow Rate O
ml/min[alb]
------------=----- Ksat Equivalent Values------------------
hr:min:sec
min to
cm/min
cm/sec
cm/da
(in/hr)
(ft/da
110
100
90
80
_70_
60
50
40
30
201
101
0_
101
10
10
10
10�
10
10
101
10
101
101
101
7,30.03 AM
7:30:05 AM
7:30:08 AM
7:30:11 AM
i3015 AM�
7:30:19 AM
7:30:22 AM
7:30:26 AM
7:30:31 AMl
7:30:35 AM
7:30:38 AM
7.30:42 AM
00003
0
0:00.
Ej]0:00:03
0:00:04
0:00.04
0.00:03
0:00:041
O:OO:OS
0:00:041
0:00:031
00004
005
.
0051
0.05
0.07I
0.07
0.05
0.071
0.08
0.07
0 05
0.07
200.00
.
200.00
200.001
150.00
150.00
200.00
150.001
120.00
150,001
200.00
15o.001
0.063
0095
0.0631
0.063I
0.047
0 047
0.063
0.0471
0.038
0.0471
0.063I
0.047
1.05E-03I
1.58E-03
11.05E-03
1.05E-03
;7.90E-04
7.90E-04
:1.05E-03
7.90E-041
6.32E-04
7.90E-04I
1.05E-03
7.90E-041
91.01
136.5
91.0
91.0
68.2
_68.2
91.0
68.21
54.6
68.21
91.0
68.2
1.4931
2.239
1.4931
1.493I
1.120
1.120
1.4931
1.1201
0.896
71201
1 4931
1.1201
2.99
4.48
2.99
2.99
224
2.24
2.99
2.24
1.79
2.24
299
224
1
1
1
1
I
Fralisture: 32.1%
ssif: (SM) w/ (SC)
Init. Satur.Time: 7:00:00 AM
Consistency: Medium dense
ESTIMATED FIELD KSAT:
Depth to an Impermeable Layer:
I
0.057I
N/A
I II I
9.52E-0482.3 1.3501 2.70
Notes: °/ Passing #200 Sieve = 18.8%
Groundwater in excess of 12' B.E.G.
abric:
Slope/Landsc:
Depth to Bedrock ...................: N/A
k eportlAs Precision Permeameter'
t Rev. 4/5/002
11

G E T Solutions, Inc.
Project Name.: Family Housing Camp LeJeune
Boring No......: BMP-7
Investigators.: R. Woodard
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET
Sheet No.: 1 of 1
Parcel ...............: I Pond South of Lot 144 Terminology and Solution
Date .................: 9/1/2009 Ksat : Saturated hydraulic conductivity
File Name.........: 0: Steady-state rate of water flow into the soil
WCU Base. Ht. h: 15.0 cm H: Constant height of water in borehole
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 15.2 cm r: Radius of cylindrical borehole
Boring Depth.: 7.5-feet
Boring Dia..... : 8.3 cm
Boring Rad. (r):
VOLUME
ml
20001
1900I
1800
17001
1600
1300
12001
1000
9001
8001
4.15
Volume Out
ml a
a
1001
1001
1001
100
100I
100
100
1001
100'
100
1001
100i
cm
TIME
hr.min sec a/
9 30:00 AM
9.30:09 AM
9:30:17 AM
9:30:25 AM
9:30:34 AM
9304 3 AM
9:30:52 AM
9:31:01 AM
931:10 AM
AM
M3
91.2
9:31:35 AM 1
9:31:43 AMi
Const. Wtr. Ht. H:
Elapsed
30.2
Time
cm
Flow Rate O
ml/min alb
666.67
750.00l
750.00
666.67
666.67
666.67
666.67
666.67
75&001,
666.67
750.00
Ksat = 0[sinh-1(H/r)
---•---------------
- (r2/H2+1).5
Ksat
+
Equivalent
r/H] / (2pH2)
Values---------
(Glover So
hr:min:sec
_
0:00:09
0:00:08
0:00:08
I 0:00:09
0:00:09I_
0:00:09
0:00.
0:00:09
0:00:09
0:00:08
min b
:. '
0.15
0.13
0.13I
0.15
0.15I
0.15I
0.15
0.15
.13
0.151
0.13
cm/min
0.211
0.237�
0.237
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.2111
0.237
0.2111
0.237
cm/sec
3.51E-03
3.95E-03
3.95E-03
3.51 E-03
3.51 E-03
3.51 E-03
3.51 E-03
3.51 E-03I
195E-031
3.51E-03
3.95E-03
(cm/da
303.3
34t2
341.2
341 2
_ 303 3
303.3
303.3I
303.31
341.2
303.31
34L21
(in/hr
4.976
5.598
5.598
4.976
4.g7'
4.g7c
4.976
4.976
98
5.5981
4.9761
5.598
(ft/da
11
9.95
11.20
11.20
9.95
295
g,gg
9.95
9.9
12
11.20
9,95
11.20
i
al Moisture: 28.1%
re/Classif: Clayey SAND
Init. Satur.Time: 9:00:00 AM
Consistency: Loose
ESTIMATED FIELD KSAT: 0.222I
Depth to an Impermeable Layer: N/A
3.69E-03I 319.1 5.2351 10.47
Notes: %Passing #200 Sieve = 17.5
cture/Fabric:
Slope/Landsc:
Depth to Bedrock ...................: N/A
eportl As Precision Permeameter"
.. Rev. 4/5/002
g

rn
n
"4
N
O
O
C{3
G E T Solutions, Inc.
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEET
Sheet No.: 1 of 1
Project Name.: Family Housing Camp LeJeune
IParcel ...............:
IPond South of Lot 144
Terminology and Solution
Boring No......: BMP-8
Investigators.: R. Woodard
Date .................: 9/1/2009
File Name.........:
Ksat . Saturated hydraulic conductivity
O: Steady-state rate of water flow into the soil
Boring Depth.: ZS-feet
WCU Base. Ht. h: 15.0 cm
H: Constant height of water in borehole
Boring Dia.....: 8.3 cm
WCU Susp. Ht. S: 15.2 cm
r Radius of cylindrical borehole
Boring Rad. (r): 4.15 cm
Const. Wtr. Hit. H: 30.2 cm
Ksat = Olsinh-l(H/r) - (r2/H2+1)_5 + r/H) / (2oH2)„ _[Glover So
VOLUME
ml
Volume Out
ml a
TIME
hr:min:sec al
Elapsed Time
Flow Rate O
ml/min alb
------------------- Ksat Equivalent Values------------------
hr:min:sec
-
min b
cm/min
cm/sec
(cm/day(ir
ft/da
2000
1 11:30:00 AM
_
I -
I
I
I
19001
1800
1700
1600
____ 1500
1400
1300
1100
1000
900
800
tool
1001
1001
1001
1001
_ 100
100
I
1001
1001
100
100
11:30:08 AM
11.30:16 AM
11:3025 AM
1130:33 AM
11.30:41 AM
1130:49 AM
11:30:58 AM
11:31:15 AM
11:31:24 AM
1 1:31:33 AM I
11:31:41 AM
00008
00008
0:00:091
000081
0:00:081
1 0:00:08
0:00:09
I 0,00:08
0:00:09
0:00:09
0:00:08
0.13
0.131
0.15
0.13
0.13
0A 31
0.15
0.13
0.151
0.15I
0.13
759.00
75CW01
666.671
750.00
750.00
750.00
666.67
750.00
666.67
666.67
750.00
0.237
0.237
0.211
0.237
0.237
0.237
0.211
0.237
Q211
0.211
0.237
3,95E-031
3.95E-03
3.51 E-03
3 95E-031
3.95E-03
3.95E-03
3.51E-03
3.95E03
3.51E-03
3.51 E-03
3.95E-03
3412
3412
303.3
341.2
341.2
_ _ 341 2
303.3
3441.21
303.3
303,31
341.2
5.598
5.5981
4.9761
5.5981
5.5981
___ 5.5981
4.976
5.5981
4.976
4.976
5.5981
.
11.20
11.20
9.95
11.20
11.20
1.1.20
9.95
111.20
9.95
9.95
11.20
1
1
I
I
Natural Moisture: 14.5%
�,. Te#u re/Classif: SAND (SP-SM)
Init. Satur.Time: 11:00:00 AM
Consistency: (Medium dense
ESTIMATED FIELD KSAT: 0.2261
Depth to an Impermeable Layer: N/A
3.77E-03I 325.41 5,3381 10.68
Notes: % Passing #200 Sieve = 7.4%
Structure/Fabric:
Slope/Landsc: IDepth
to Bedrock ...................: N/A
IAs
Precision Permeameter"

APPENDIX VIII
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
DEC Y 6 2009 ��

Solatlons;,lricia�;�
�1u
Virginia Beach Office
20-1 Grayson Road
V',,groin Beach, A'A 23462
[phone]
Williamsburg Office
1592 Penniman Rd. Suite E
Williamsburg. Virginia 23185
(757) 564 -6 152
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
Elizabeth City Office
504 Fast Elizabeth Sr Suite 2
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
[phone]
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value
Stu ndard I'aneu;uion'I'esa (SPI) were performed in the field in general accordance with AS'I iM D 1586. 'rlte soil samples were obtained with a
standard I " I.D.. 2" O,D.. 30" long split -spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 Ib, hammer falling 30 inches. 'rhe numberof
blows required to drive tite sampler each 6-inch increment (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration h%as recorded and is shown on the
boring logs. The Bunt of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.
NON COHESIVE SOILS
(SII:I', SAND, GRAA/FL:md Coin binaLIORS)
Relative Density
c", I,""o 4 blows/ftor less -
Loose 5 to 10 blows/fi.
Nledlum Ocnsa II to 30 blows/ft.
I)ensc 31 to 50 blows/rr-
Veiq Uensc' 51 blows/h. or more
Particle Size Identification
Boulders 8 inch diameter or more
Cobbles 3 to 8 inch diameter
Gravel Coarse 1 to 3 inch diameter
Mediwn A no I inch diameter
Fine t/a to t/a inch diameter
Sand Coarse 2.00 arm to '/a inch
((Iiameter of pencil lead)
,\tedium 0A2 to 2.00 in.
(diameter of broom straw)
Fine 0.074 to 0,42 mm
(diameter of human hair)
Silt 0.002000.074 ram
(cannot see particles)
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)
Coarse Granted Soils
%L`m dam 511^a 11 111nvd ern No. 200 site
GW -Well-graded Grn,el
GP - Pool ly graded Gravel
GW-GM - Well -graded G,ayel wlSdr
GW-GC- Well -graded Gmecl w/Clay
Gli - Poorly g,adoil GtosoI by/Silt
GP -GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay
GM -Silt, Graccl
GC - Clavee G, reel
GC -GM - Silty. Chose G,aeel
SW - \Yell-g,aded Sand
SP - Poorly graded Sand
SW-SM - Well -graded Sand w/Silt
SW -SC- %cell-g,aded Sand /Clay
SP-SNI - Poorly graded Sand sc/Silt
SPSC - Poorly graded Sand "'Clay
SM -Silt, Sand
SC - Clayey Sand
SC-SM -Silty, Claye, Sand
Fine -Grained Soils
5110b a� mare passes t he Nu. 200 in,
CL - Lean Clay
CL-ML -Silty Clay
ML - Stir
OL - Organ,c Clay/Silt
Liquid Limit 50%1r grexmr
CH - Fat Clay
MH - Elastic Silt
OH - Organic Clay/Silt
COHESIVE SOILS
(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)
Consistency
Very Soft
2 blows/ftor less
Soli
3 to 4 blows/([.
Medium Stiff
5 in 8 blows/ft.
Stiff
9 to 15 blows/ft.
V'cry Stiff
16 to 30 blows/ft.
]find
31blows/ft-ormore
Relative Proportions
Descriptive Term
Percent
race
0-5
Few
5-10
Little
15-25
Some
30-45
t\lostly
50-100
Strata Changes
In the enlumn "Description" on the boring log, the horizontal
lines represent approximate strata changes.
Groundwater Readings
Groundwater conditions will vary with eneironmental
variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequent -,mcl
magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as tidal influences and
roan -made inferences, such as existing swales, drainage
ponds, undeFit rains mtd areas ofcovered soil(paved parking
lots, side walks, etc).
Depending on percentage of fines (hacrion smaller than No.
200 sieve size), coarse -grained soils are classified as follows
Less than 5 percent G\\', GI', S\\',SI'
More than 12 percent GNI, GC, StNI. SC
5 to 12 percent Borderline cases requiring dual
symbols
Highly Organic Soils
PT - Peat 61
W
:a
>2
t
IU
_V
a
Page , of 1
GET Revision 12/12/07
Plasticity Chart

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page 1 of 3
POINT PRECIPITATION
gtfTT�
FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
sW1
FROM NOAA ATLAS 14
,,,. ,
SNEADS FERRY, NOR '1'11 CAROIANA (31-8037) 34.55 N 77.4 W 49 feet
from'erecipientionrFrequency Atlas of the United States' 60 AA Ades 14, Volume 2, Version 3
GM. Nero , D. Martin. 13. Lin, f. Yuaylnok MRekea, and D. Rid,
NUAA, National Weather Service, SiNcr Sproil , Maryland, 2004
8atneced', Mon Sap 2N 1009
I Confidence Limits I Seasonality I Location Maps I Other Info. 1, GIS data I Maps I Docs I eturn to State Map
Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches)
(years)
min
m n
min
m n
Elio
2n
3 hr
6 hr
12 hr
24 hr
48 hr
4 dnv
7 day
dL
d Y 11
dim11
day 11
day
I�Q49
0.7r)
U.99
L35
1.69
2A6
2.23
2.72
7.21
3.68
4.28
.75
5.48
6.06
798
9.79
12.33
14.95
2�0.59
0.94
1.18
1.63
2.04
.52
2.72
3.31
3.91
.48
5.17
5.75
6.60
7.27
.49
11.64
14.60
IZ63
S�U.69
1.10
1.39
197
2.53
3.2U
3.47
.25
5.04
5.79
6.65
7.31
H.30
9DI
I1.55
14.00
17.43
0.80
IU
U.77
L22
L55
.24
2.92
.77
.12
5.04
6.01
.91
7.91
8.60
.70
10.44
13.23
15.88
19.75
334
25
U.87
1.78
1.75
.5'J
3.45
.57
5.05
6.2U
.®8.56
9.82
10.49
11.72
12.50
15.62
IH.48
23.01
6.80
SU
094
LSU
1.9U
2.86
3.87
5.22
5.85
7.19
8.69
.98
11.49
12.09
13.41
14.21
17.58
20.57
25.66
9.52
IOU
Efl
Efl
2.U4
3.13
ED
5.93
6.71
8.29
IO.U7
11.56
13.34
13.83
1A22
16.04
19.64
22.69
28.4U
2.28
200
1.09
1.73
2.19
3.41
4.78
6.69
7.66
9.49
11.61
13.32
15.41
15.72
17.17
18.00
1.82
24.88
31.26
5.07
SUU
1.19
1.8')
2.37
3.78
5.42
7.77
9A5
11.28
13.91
15.94
I8.5-5
I8.80
19.9-9
20.80
4.88
27.88
35.22
8.84
ODU
L27
2.UU
2.52
D7
5.95
8.66
IU.23
12.79
15.91
18.19
21.26
1.44
2.32
23.11
7J4
30.22
38.38
1.74
These prezz,hc on facial aetmabs are based on a pamd daatnn urns Mile The Aeroga Rerun. Interval,
event rotor o NOM Are* 14 Document for more nlorlra0on. NOTE'. Foriont knew rescreen near zero to appear as zero.
* Upper bound of the 90% confidence interval
Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches)
ARI•`
(years) ❑ IU IS JU 63❑447❑ 0 20 30 46
men men mn numen hr rh� 8dy]yhdaI day 11 day 11 day 11 dvy 11 day
D
U.53
0.85
1.07
1.46
1.82
2.21
2J9
2Jt 4
.52
.US
4.75
5.27
6. 33
6.67
8.67
10.56
13.45
16.09
2�0.63
IAI
L27
1.75
2.20
2.7U
292
3.5'7
.28
.93
5.76
6.38
7.25
S.UI
10.32
12.54
I5.'/l
19.01
�U.74
LIH
1.49
2.12
2.72
3.43
3.72
4.59
5.4rJ
6.35
7J8
S.IU
9.11
9.9U
12.54
IS.U6
1902
2.41
10
U.82
1.32
1.67
2.41
3.14
4D4
4.41
5.45
h56
7.55
8.78
9.52
10.63
11.46
14.34
17.09
21.56
5.11
25
0.93
Efl
1.88
2.78
3.70
.88
5.39
6.68
H.09
.35
10.88
I L57
12.79
13.68
16.99
19.88
25.15
8.82
50
IAI
1.61
2.U4
3.07
4.16
5.59
6.24
7.75
.47
10.89
12.74
13.31
14.64
IS56
19 oo
22.16
28.04
31.76
IOU
[gfl
1.74
E2lfl
FE
4.64
6.35
7.16
8.91
10.91
12.59
14.79
15.24
16.63
7 576
1.28
24.47
31.07
K72
200
1.18
1.87
.36
7.67
5.15
7.16
8.18
10.22
12.57
14.51
IZI4
17.36
18.78
19.75
3.68
26.89
34.18
3 884
SOU
1.29
ETIETI
.U9 ]EQ
8.34
9.69
12.15
IS.U9
17.41
2U.69
0.87
24..0748
2225..9696
230.O9U
3302..3909
342H..6374
25..514
IUUU
1.38
.17
2.77
.42
6.45
9.33
10.99
13.81
17.29
19.98
23.83
3.99
The
upper hound of the confdenze interval at %%confidence level a the soon winch 5%of the siona s, gmNk won far a grain hequerlay era grater than.
" These prttipdefon Fequel trig es are hazed on a Wli MIie he Anall Recurrence Interal.
amee offer in NOM Aden 14 Decumenl for mom northern NOTE: Formanng parents estimabs mar zero to appear o zero
* Lower bound of the 90% confidence interval
Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches)
ARI** 5❑ IU IS 3U 60 120 3 6❑ 12 24 48 4❑ 7❑ IU 20 30 45 60
(years) min min min men men men hr hr hr hr hr day anyI day day day day 11 day
1�0.46
.74
.92
1.26
L57
1.97
2.U9
2.53
.95
3.38
3.SN
4.30
5.00
5.55
7.37
.13
11.41
13.98
DO.55
.87
1.10
1.52
1.90
2.35
2.55
3.07
3.58
.II
.69
5.21
6.U3
6.65
8.77
10.86
13.49
16.49
5�0.64
1.02
L29
LU
.35
2.98
3.24
3.92
.6U
5.31
6.00
6.6E
7.57
8.22
10.62
13.03
16.08
19.41
10
0.71
1.14
1.44
.OS
.71
3.49
3.82
4.65
5.47
6.3U
7.11
Z74
8.81
9.48 I
12.15
14.75
18.19
21.74
25
U
7-61
9.39
10.60
IL30
14.25
t
21.08
24.84
SU
U.86
1.38
1.74
2.62
.56
4.79
5.34
6.53
7.80
8.95
10.18
10.76
12.04
I2.78
15.96
18.93
23.41
2 229
IUU
U.93
1.48
1.87
2.86
.94
54U
6.U9
7.45
8.97
10.28
11.71
12.2E
13.56
14.34
EMT
DIE]
29.68
200
Efl
1.58
1.99
3.IU
.34
6.04
Ffl
8.45
IU.22
11.70
E3fl
13.73
I5.15
15.90
19.51
2.63
28.11
32.07
SUU
LU7
1.70
.13
7.4U
.88
6.95
8.04
9B9
12.08
13.75
15.72
16.17
17.40
18.16
F-19(l
31.26
35.18
1000
1.13
1.7)
2.24
7.63
5.30
7.69
8.99
ILIE
13.62
15.46
17.72
18.20
19.19
19.92
3.84
7.00
33.71
37.54
The loser hound of the confeence Interval at 90% confidence level a the aloe which 5% of the analated col valor M eglen regmncy are 14b then.
1RECEIVED
DEC 1 5 2009
BY:__�
http://hdsc.nws.noaa. gov/cgi-bin/hdsc/bui ldout. perl?type=pf&units=us&series=pd&statena... 9/28/2009

Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page 2 of 3
" fosse prenULal2n heVuency 9alaNteS are re5e0 m a pgtiNgY_ra�bn magma 6are5_ MI is lice Arerage Recurtence'nRnai
%enae rabr b NOAA Anna it Oxurreni br rtcre bbrmelipn NOTE FpmaNng gavenls esbmales rear zero to aDDear az mD
Text version of tables
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
n
26
mo 29
22
° 2e
q to
16
a 14
l2
o l0
B
6
2
0
Partial duration based Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates - Version' 3
34.55 M 77.4 4 49 ft
4 �-
?t"
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
Average Recurrence Interval (years)
Mon Sep 28 14:15:34 2009
ra ti.n
-�-
10-min-�-
+- s
r
12-br 10-day
60-m 24-M1r 20 tlsz 11
Partial duration based Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates - Version: 3
34.35 M 77.4 U 49 it
42
40
38
36
34
c 32
30
L 28
n 26
a 24
22
20
18
16
a 14
12
10
n 8
6
4
2
e
VI
i
�
m Y
o m
ru
n
m 4
n v In
A
N m
6
i
In d
P
UVratlo
^ N
rh
Y N
Mon Sep 28 14115,34 2009
Average e�ence n�—
)
1 -*
lee —
9-�rv-
2N -e.- 00 t
25 -- 100e -o-
Maps -
�FCFIVED
DEC 1 5 ZQC9
BY:
http: //hdsc.tiw s.noaa. gov/egi -bin/hdse/bui ldout. perl'?type —pf&units=us&series=pd&statena... 9/2 S/2009

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page 3 of 3
atecattan
170-W I n-w Iori"w th1"W no�"W 701w
Thu. maps vere pmduee, uurg a ared map r,t sv lmm the
V 5. GB'RUa s"Ise vans J s Ki a kq o W7,011410
Tiger M, Sarav
Ylenr Trot-lndnr^;p As more urlwnvniun
LEGEND
State — Connector
County MAN..Stream
Indian Resv Military Area
ON LakelPmM/Ocean National Park
Street Other Park
Expressway City
Highway o 2 CBunty6 8 at
Scale I,Zzlt t
[average --true scale depends on monitor rcsolat on
Other Maps/Photographs -
View USGS digital urthophoto quadrangle tUQQ) covenng this location from 7"erraSerscr: USGS Aerial Photograph may also be available
from this site A DOQ is a computer generated image of an aerial photograph in which image displacement caused by terrain relief and eamem
lilts has been removed. It combines the image characteristics DID photograph with the geometric qualities of a map. Visit the USGS for moremlilrmation.
Watershed/Stream Flow Information -
Lied the Watcralicd for this location using the U.S. Environmental Protection .Agency's site.
Climate Data Sources -
Precip6atioo Jreyuency resulb' ore breed on data from a vnrieq• f sutoeex, but [argeiv NCUC. the Jollawiag Gnks provide general iorJoI-Duawo
about observing silos irl the area. regardless oI of their r].to woo used in Ihn stud, Yor drmiled it fornmlion about the smlfarrs Itied to this sludI,
tieae'e re/er to A'UAA d(lut 14 Uo(tlrpeal,
Using the National Climatic onto Center's LNCDC) station search engine, locate other climate stations within'.
+1-30 minutes I .Ug-, +1-1 degree lot this location (34"551-77,4). Digital ASCII data can be obtained directly from NC DC.
1pdronmlenrulaglval Dmlgn Swain (crag
D0U/N0AA/Nrtiom1 %'mother Stniw
1325 f W-W trt llighwry
S o- Spring, Mit 20910
I3011713-1669
Quambr.:I ND}'(��.,�„a,,,n,.,�.�,. REC,Er,
>,xlain..t
DEC I 5 200
http: //hdsc. nws. noaa. gov/cgi-bin/hdse/buildout. perl?type—pf&un its=us&series=pd&statena... 9/28/2009

NCU6NR Stormwater B%lP Manua I Chaptor Rcvi5ml 09-25-07
32. Peak Flow Ca1CuJatlOnS
Spine of the slate's stoI III 'ester programs require prop iding attenuation of p,�ak runoff;
for example, that the post -development flow rate fat the one-\ ear, 2-1-hour storm min;
not exceed tltc ptc-cevelopment floe rate (Neese an(I'fat-Pamlico NSIV Programs). In
addition, it is also important to compute flow testes front the watershed tcheo designing
BIMPs such as grassed swales, filter strips, and restored riparian buffers_
The primary method that is used to determine peak runoff rate for North Cajohna's
stolillwater programs is the Rational Method. The Rational equation is given as:
Q=C*I*A
Where: Q = Estimated design discharge (cfs)
C = Composite runoff coefficient (unitless) for the �%atershed
I = Rainfall intensity (in/hr) for the designated design slot u in the
geographic region of interest
A = Watershed area (ac)
The composite runoff coefficient reflects the surface characteristics of the contributing
watershed. The range of runoff coefficient values varies from 0 - 1.0, with higher values
corresponding to greater runoff rate potential. The runoff coefficient is determined by
estimating the area of different land uses within each drainage area. Table 3-2 presents
values of runoff coefficients forvarious pervious and impervious u s surfaces. The
Division believes that the Rational Method is most applicable to drainage areas
approximately 20 acres or less.
Table 3-2
Rational runoff coefficients (ASCE, '1975; Viessman, et al., 1996; and Malcom, 1999)
Description of Surface
Rational Runoff Coefficients, C
Unimproved Areas
0-35
Asphalt
0.95
Concrete
0.95
li rick
0-85
Roofs, inclined
1,00
Roofs, flat
0.90
Lawns, sandy soil, flat (<2%)
O.10
Lawns, sandy soil, average (2-7%)
0.15
Lawns, sandy soil, steep (>7%)
020
Lawns, heavy soil, flat (<2%)
O.15
Lawns, heavy soil, average (2-5%)
0.20
Lawns, heavy soil, steep (>7%)
0,30
Wooded areas
0.15
The appropriate value for I, precipitation intensity in inches per hour, can be obtained
from the NOAA web site at: http://hdsc.iiws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/. This web site
pE� 1 5 2009
Stormwater Management and Calculations 3-2 July 2007

U.S. RAI1' CORPS OF ENGINEERS �j. IOL r
WILMINGP)N DISTRICT
Action Id. 2008 2571) C'oumv Onslo % I, S G S Quad: Camp Leieune �9
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONA1, DETERMINATION
Properr. Oatier':\cent. USNIC —C'anro Leieune Consultani, Geo-Marine Incorporated
Mdrevs: attic Marty Kurenek alto: .ter De Berry
PSC Box 20004 2713 Magruder Blvd, Suite D
Canhp Leieune. :NC 28i42 Hamilton. VA 23666
Property description
Size (acres) + 2000 acres Newest Town Camp Leieune
Nearest Waterway Northeast and i\etc River Watersheds River Rasin While Oak
USGS 1-Itic 03030001 Coordinates N 34.7247 W 77.3770
Location description The reviety area is located within C'antp Leieune specifically within Camp, Johnson and a
project area known as the PPV 14 on the opposite banks of the Northeast Creek from Camp Johnson, Onslow County.
Indicate Which of the Following Apah':
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Deparnnent of the Army (DA)jurisdiction. To be considered final. it
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative the
Process I Reference 33 Cl-R Part 331 ).
13. Approval Determination
'I here are NaN wable Waters of the United States within file above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this detenumution may be retied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
There are wetly (k on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the I:nv nr our published regulations. this determination may be
rlied upon for a period not to exceed five years rrom the date of this notification.
We strongly suggc;l. you have the wetlands on your properly delineated. Due to the size of your property ambor our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this Wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, You may \\ ish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
The wetland on your property have been delineated and file delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation sun eyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified be the Corps.
Once verified, this survey \till provide ❑n accurate depiction of all area subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
\chich, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
The wetlands have been delineated and surveved and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corp;
Regulatory Official identified below on 3/16/2009. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations. this
detel"m t ttal0ii may be relied upon fort period not to exceed five years front the date of this notification.
"There are no evaters orthe U.S.. m include wetlands. present on the above described property Which are subject to the
pennit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless dare is a change in the law or our
published regulations. this determination may be relied upon fora period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The propcm is located in one of dtc 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CE\,\I:\). }ort should contact the Di% won of Coastal planagcment in Washington. \'C, at (2: _���n Tate
their requirements. 1 V
Pane I of c DEC 1 5 ,20[1-
BY:

Action ID:
Plaxntcnl of dredged or till material within orators of the L•S and or .ycoanda v1 11110ut.1 Dcp.nownt of'tile rArlm perm t ma;
cunsutwe a vlohntoo of Section 3W of the Clean \Valet Act f 33 LIS( ; 13111. it you have any questions reeanling this
determination and/or the Corps ragulatory program, pleas con fact Brad Shaver at 910-251-4611
C. I.asis For Determination
D. Remarks
Th • site was new verified by Emily livahes and Brad Shar,r on 5/27108 6/24!08. 7/29/03. 81L2ii)8. 8/19t08 8/21i108.
419/08 ;md 9116108.
I . Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
ts. above)
'iltis correspondence constitute; :in approved jurisdictiomd determination for the above described site If you object to this
dcmnuination. you may rcqust an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 33 1. Enclosed you a ill find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you most submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer. Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Brad Shaver. Project Manager.
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmimlton. North Carolina'_8402-1890
In order for an RVA to he accepted by the Corps. the Corps IIRut determine that it is Complete, That it Trice IS the criteria lilt
appeal under 33 CFR pant 131 .5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it Most be received at the above address by 5/l6/2009.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA fixnt to the District Office if you do not object to the determination m this
correspondence
Corp, Re ulatory Official,
Date 3/I6/2009 Expiration Date 3/16/2014
'file Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To heir its ensure We commilu, to
do so, pleas, a MPICIC the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
hop. �s a=,m usacc.u'm v.nnl.'VV GfL:ANDS' indey.hunl to complete the survey online.
COPY tarnished:
Charles F. Riggs & Associates, Inc. attn: Charles Rigus. P.L.S P.O. Bo,x 1571) Jacksom ille. NC'_8=41
DEC 1 5.200L
Page 2 Ill''_

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: USMC - Camp Le l.'lttlC
File Number: 2008 2570
Date: 3/16/2009
Attached is:D
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
permission)
A
_
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpe!miS-S,011)1
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
_ _
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at htto://www.Lisace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/ree or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: im'rIAI. PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: Ifyuu received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
. objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you it proftcred permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
13: PROFFERED PERM IT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: Ifyuu received it Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received it letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, yrou
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: YOU may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. '['his form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the (late of this notice.
D: APPROVED .JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
e ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 (nays of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved 1D under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. ]DECEIVED
DEC 15 ,2009
BY: -

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION 11 - RE UEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
may also contact:
Project Manager
Mr. Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Brad Shaver
CESAD-ET-CO-R
69 Darlington Ave
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Wilmington. NC 28402-I890
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta. Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature ofappellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Brad Shaver, Project Manager,
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 91N115, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8801
DEC 1 5 2009

For DENR Use ONLY 1
AA North
Carolina Department of Environment and Reviewer:
Natural Resources submit. 10 - 1 [ $
NCDENR Request for Express Permit Review Time _10: 1 .
Confirm: !J:L to —
FILL -IN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. FAX or Email the completed form to Express
Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative, site plan (PDF file) and vicinity map (same items expected in the application package
of the project location. Please include this form in the application package.
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828-296.4698;alison.davidsorr(ZDncmail.net Enter Related SW
Permits of request
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791-4203; daviddee(alncmail.net
• Mooresville & -Patrick Grogan 704-663.3772 or patrick.oroc an(tDncmail.net SW
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-946.9215 or Iyn.hardison(-ncmail.net SW
. Wilmington Region -Janet Russell 910-350.2004 or ianet.russellft- cmail.net SW u
SW
NOTE: Project application received after 12 noon will be stamped in the following work day. SW
Project Name: LINCOLN PARK RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT County: ONSLOW
Applicant: JARL BLISS Company: MID -ATLANTIC MILITARY FAMILY COMMUNITIES, LLC
Address: 200 FAIRBROOK DRIVE SUITE 101 City: HERNDON State: VA Zip: 20170-_ �oW ..�..
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
Physical Location:LATITUDE: 34° 42' 41" LONGITUDE: -77° 21' 58" 1 ; 3 0 Z; 30
Project Drains into TIDAL waters - Water classification SC (for classification see-http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reporlsWB.hlml) .g Project Located in WHITE OAK River Basin. Is project draining to class ORW waters? N , within Y2 mile and draining to class SA waters N or within 1 mile
and draining to class HOW waters? N p_ R
'Engineer/Consultant: TED MILLER Company: KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES l A one, ECE r V E DAddress: 501 INDEPENDENCE PARKWAT SUITE 300 City: CHESAPEAKE, State: VIRGINIA Zip: 23320-5159
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail] SEP I i 2009
SECTION ONE: REQUESTING A SCOPING MEETING ONLY Q Act-c. I -lj1 548 --Z32-q
❑ DCM, [_1DLR, El OTHER: REQUEST FOR FILING ONLY. MEETING HAS TAKROPLACr DWQ
SECTION TWO: CHECK ONLY THE PROGRAM (S) YOU ARE REQUESTING FOR EXPRESS PERMITTING
® 401 Unit ❑ Stream Origin Determination: _# of stream calls - Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
❑ IntermittenUPerennial.Determination: _ # of stream calls - Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
® 401 Water Quality Certification ® Isolated Wetland L_linear ft or <0.1 acres)
❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization ❑ Minor Variance ❑ Major General Variance
® State Stormwater ❑ General ❑ SFR, ❑ SFR < 1 ac. ❑Bkhd & Bt Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility ❑ Other
❑ Low Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter _ # Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW _ (Provide permit #)]
® High Density -Detention Pond 1 # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration _ #Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Bio-Retention _ # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -SW Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems
ElHigh 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 dislurbed.(CK # (for DENR use))
SECTION THREE - PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT IS APPLICABLE TO YOUR PROJECT (for both scopinq and express meeting reauest
Wetlands on Site ® Yes ❑ No Buffer Impacts: ® No ❑ YES: —acre(s)
Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ® Yes ❑ No i Isolated wetland on Property ® Yes ❑ No
US ACOE Approval of Delineation completed: ® Yes ❑ No 404 Application in Process w/ US ACOE: ® Yes ❑ No Permit
Received from US ACOE ® Yes ❑ No
rr ar rr ar ararr rr rr rrrrr rrraraaaaa♦a raarrrrurrar aaurr car For DENR use only"*.ar•rrarrrrr rrrr•aaaaaraaaar ♦rrrrrrar •r rarra rr rirr•ea arrr
Fees lit for multiplepermits: Check# Total Fee Amount $
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
SUBMITTAL DATES
1 Fee
LAMA
$
Variance (❑ Maj; ❑ Min)
$
SW (❑ HD, ❑ LD, ❑ Gen)
$
401:
$
Los
$
Stream Deter,_
1 $
NCDENR EXPRESS March 2009

Russell, Janet
From: [e-mail]
Sent:: , Friday, September 11, 2009 11:43 AM
To: Russell, Janet
Subject: Request for Express Permit Review: Lincoln Park Residential Development
Attachments: Express Request_ Lincoln Park Residential_Partl.pdf
Janet,; _, r
During our scoping meeting we decided to permit the Lincoln Park development as two separate projects. One permit for the Lincoln
Park School development and one permit for the Lincoln Park Residential development. I have edited the previous Request for
Express Permit Review application to account for this change.
Please find attached a Request for Express Permit Review for Lincoln Park Residential Development. Due to the size of the file, I
have broke[' the submittal into three parts. The second and third parts will be send in a following email. 1 will also send three
additional emails to submit the Lincoln Park School Development Request for Express Permit Review.
We do not intend to schedule an additional scoping meeting, as this has already occurred.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you,
Rachel A. Oberle, EIT
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. I Hampton Roads Office
501 Independence Parkway � Suite 300 ) Chesapeake, VA 23320
(p) 757-548-7324 (f) 757-548-7301 (e) Rachel.Oberlega Kimley-Horn.com
ph Help reduce paper waste. Please print only if necessary.

PRELIMINARY
STORMWATER NARRATIVE
LINCOLN PARK RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CAMP LEJEUNE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PREPARED BY:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
501 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD SUITE 300
CHESAPEAKE, NC 23320
SEPTEMBER 2009
KHA # 116319001
�E C E I V ED
�ppp�,Vuu{ SEP 1 12009
DWQ
PROJ #

OVERVIEW
1. Back round
This report contains the approach and preliminary results of a stormwater impact analysis conducted for
the proposed Lincoln Park Residential Development. The project site is located at Marine Corps Base
(MCB) Camp Lejeune in Onslow County, North Carolina. The project site is on approximately 140 acres
bounded by Brewster Boulevard to the North, east of Paradise Point Golf Course, and west of Stone Street
as shown in Appendix A: Vicinity Map. The proposed project includes the development of an elementary
school as shown in Appendix B: Residential Site Plan.
LA ncoln Park School development is being proposed adjacent to the school development. The Lincoln School Development includes the development one Department of Defense Education ActivityEA) School. A separate permit application will be submitted for the school development. The layoute both the proposed school and residential development are shown in Appendix C: Phase I Site Plan.proposed school and residential developments are Phase 1 of six proposed phases of development at
Camp Lejeune. The proposed master development is shown in Appendix D: Master Development. An
Environmental Assessment (EA) of the master development was completed by the United States Marine
Corps in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to this report, A
Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in August 2008.
11. Existing Conditions
The proposed project site is currently an undeveloped, wooded area. There is a narrow dirt road running
from the northeast corner of the project site in the southwest direction. A review of the topographic survey
shows grades on the site ranging from elevation 14 to elevation 30. A preliminary geotechnical
investigation was completed in August 2008. An executive summary of the results is attached in Appendix
E: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.
III. Wetlands and Waters of the United States
A wetland delineation of the proposed project area was confirmed by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers on March 2009. The Notification of Jurisdictional Determination is attached in Appendix F.
Less than 0.1 of an acre of wetlands will be impacted due to underground utilities associated with the
proposed development. There are no Waters of the Unites States on the proposed project site.
IV. Pr000sed Development
The proposed project includes the development of 340 family housing units for enlisted military personnel,
one community center, and connecting right-of-ways. The layout of the proposed project is shown in
Appendix B: Residential Site Plan.
Five interconnected wet detention basins will serve the residential development site to treat stormwater
runoff. The proposed project is on approximately 140 acres, of which approximately 130 acres will be
disturbed. The post -development impervious area of the proposed development was calculated to be
approximately 32% or 45 acres. E C E I V ED
SEP 1 1 2009
DWQ
PROJ #

V. Stormwater Analvsis
Onslow County is a coastal county located within the White Oak River Basin. Thus, stormwatcr
management measures shall be designed in accordance with the Coastal Stormwater Rules Session Law
2008-211. The proposed project area drains to the Morgan Bay, Index Number: 19-18. According to
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality
the proposed project drains to SC waters. The build upon area is greater than 24%; therefore, the proposed
project is considered High -Density.
Per the stormwater quality requirements, the first 1.5" of rain must be stored, controlled, and treated for
85% of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS). If wet ponds are used as a Best Management Practice (BMP)
the temporary pool must drawdown between 48 and 120 hours. Per the Stormwater quantity requirements,
the storage volume must be discharged at a rate equal to or less than the pre -development discharge rate for
the l-year 24-hour storm. Additionally, discharge directed to flow through wetlands must do so at a non -
erosive velocity.
VI. Desien Procedure
The limits of the study area were established by determining the areas contributing runoff to the site using
available topographic information. The topographic information further revealed three main stormwater
egress points, each of which has a significant drainage area composed of lands that are both a part of and
separate from the proposed project site.
According to Table 34 in the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) Stormwater BMP Manual, the near surface soils in Onslow County are classified as
Hydrologic Group B.
Structural measures will be required for conveying and controlling increases in stormwater runoff directly
related to the increase in impervious area due to the Lincoln Park Residential Development. These
measures will be designed to meet both the quantity and quality requirements for the State of North
Carolina as described in Section V.
Runoff from rainfall events will be controlled by a series of drainage inlets and be conveyed using
underground piping networks. Each of these networks will empty directly into one of the on -site wet ponds.
Five interconnected wet ponds have been designed to control and treat stormwater runoff from the
residential development. The locations of the proposed ponds are illustrated on Appendix B: Residential
Site Plan.
The five interconnected wet ponds controlling and treating runoff from the residential development will
have a single outfall into an unnamed ditch on the south west corner of the subject property. This unnamed
ditch flows to an existing culvert under Eden Street and outfalls into Morgan Bay, an arm of the New
River.
The stormwater networks and wet ponds will treat runoff from the entire project area with exception to two
areas. The first area is approximately 3 grassed acres on the north boundary, which will sheet flow to
existing culverts on Brewster Boulevard. The second area includes the back yards of the homes on the
eastern project boundary, which will sheet flow to an undeveloped wooded area to the east.
�E C E 6 V ED
�U;SO SEP 1 12009
DWO
PROJ R

The proposed ponds will have a combined footprint area of approximately 6.5 acres (normal water surface
area). They are expected to have a minimum of 3:1 side slopes with a 10' wide aquatic bench with 10:1
side slopes. The proposed pond will have a forebay sized at 20% of the volume of the permanent pool.
The bottom elevations are expected to be 5.0' below the normal water surface elevation for all the proposed
ponds. The volume between the pond bottom and the normal pool is considered the water quality or
permanent pool volume. The volume above the normal pool elevation is for water quantity (stormwater
management). Based on the existing wetland areas and groundwater information, we expect the normal
water surface elevations can be maintained by the groundwater.
The existing and proposed drainage systems will be evaluated for peak flow rates using ICPR software.
ICPR utilizes SCS curve number methods of generating hydrographs. Rational Method (Q=CIA),
Manning's Equation, and StormCAD software will also be used in the design of the proposed stormwater
system. A Manning's n value of 0.013 will be used for the storm sewer pipe.
VII. Erosion Control
Erosion and Sedimentation control measures shall be designed in accordance with 15A NCAC, Chapter 4
(NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973).
The project site will be surrounded by silt fence and all existing and proposed stormwater structures will be
fitted with inlet protection devices to prevent sediment from exiting the project site. Tree protection will be
utilized in all tree -save areas. The proposed ponds are anticipated to act as temporary sediment basins
during construction.
p�E C E B 11 ED
SEP 1 12009
�:� a

f -
Golf
E
.AIMEWSTiil P a rq 10-1, 5
SOU EVAR
sarwSTE Golf Course
Off WHITE: ----")0 A K
lank
z
. . . . . . . . . .
47
. . . . . ........ Z
C::g
41 �4zl.
LEGEND
0; Fo i.
?o
SUBJECT PROPERTY LIMITS-, IV
LINCOLN PARK RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ng E C E FIGURE 1
CAMP LEJEUNE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NC lv� SITE VICINITY
Kimley-Horn DATA SOURCE: U.S.G.S., SNEADS FERRY, NC QUAD SEP QPCGRAPHIC MAP
7.5 MINUTE TOPO SERIES
and Associates, Inc. 1 INCH EQUALS 1,750 FEET DWQ

iR�C SC

w

W, om 0
anx warm woc'a �Lra
waax
N pue um0
C E B V ED
SEP 1 12009
;,p.c:,,

GET
tiNm*,dwr • F.noirvnrtrcnml •Testing
TO: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Suite 300
501 Independence Parkway
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
Attn: Mr. Joseph V. Modica, P.E.
October 14. 2008
RE: Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
Dear Mr. Modica:
In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Services for the above referenced project. The results of this study, together
with our recommendations, are presented in this report.
Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise
concerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to continue its
role as Geotechnical Engineer during the earthwork implementation phase of this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. We trust that the
information contained herein meets your immediate need, and should you have any
questions or if we could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
'unu1ifi%,,
Respectfully Submitted, N.� ...
GGEE T Solutions, Inc.SEAL
o �;�pFESS/p19 y
/�Cc.�C'��eJ: , 34336�
Gerald W. Stalls Jr., P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
NC Reg. #034336 �r,,,,,,,.•
C�_wfMµ�•r—•A• T•Y"'T�
Camille A. Kattan, P.E.
Principal Engineer
NC Reg. # 14103
Copies: (1) Client
CA....
ESSip
Q 9'•.
SEAL
014103
l e.. A
504 East Elizabeth Strect: Suite • Elizabeth City. NC 27909 • Phone: [phone] • : E52)8 5-L766 V E D
in fo n gctsolutionsinc.com
SEP 1 12009
DWQ
PROD #

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION..............................................................................1
1.1 Project Authorization..............................................................................1
1.2 Project Description.................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services............................................................2
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES..................................................3
2.1 Field Exploration.................................................................................... 3
2.2 Laboratory Testing.................................................................................3
3.0
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................4
3.1 Site Location and Description................................................................4
3.2 Site Geology..........................................................................................4
3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions....................................................................5
3.4 Groundwater Information.......................................................................5
4.0
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................6
4.1 Clearing and Grading.............................................................................6
4.2 Subgrade Preparation............................................................................7
4.3 Structural Fill and Placement.................................................................7
4.4 Suitability of On -site Soils......................................................................
8
4.5 Foundation Design Recommendations..................................................8
4.6 Settlements............................................................................................9
4.7 Foundation Excavations........................................................................9
4.8 Slab -on -Grade Design.........................................................................10
4.9 Pavement Design................................................................................11
4.10 Seismic Evaluation..............................................................................12
4.11 Soil Permeability..................................................................................12
5.0
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................13
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns.................................................13
5.2 Site Utility Installation...........................................................................14
5.3 Additional Geotechnical Investigation..................................................14
5.4 Excavations.........................................................................................14
6.0
REPORT LIMITATIONS.................................................................................15
APPENDIX I - BORING LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX II - BORING LOGS
APPENDIX III - GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
APPENDIX IV - CBR TEST DATA
APPENDIX V - PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS
APPENDIX VI - CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION
Solutions, Inc. .

GET
Geotechnica! •Environmental .Testing
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND
GEOTECHNCIAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Camp LeJeune Family Housing
MCB, Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T PROJECT NO: EC08-321G
October 14, 2008
Prepared for
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Suite 300
501 Independence Parkway
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
ATTN: MR. Joe V. Modica, P.E.
Prepared by
GET Solutions, Inc.
�ECEbYEp
SEP 1 12009
DWO
aaoJ a
L
lizabeth Street Ste. 2, Elizabeth City, NC 27909 ♦ Phone [phone] ♦ Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

Appendix 8

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Project Authorization
G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our preliminary subsurface investigation and
geotechnical engineering services forthe proposed Camp LeJeune Family Housing project
located along the south side of Brewster Boulevard within the Camp LeJeune military
installation in North Carolina. The geotechnical engineering services were conducted in
general accordance with the scope presented in G E T Proposal No. PVB08-463G, dated
August 12, 2008. Authorization to proceed with the services was obtained from Mr. Joseph
V. Modica, P.E. of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1.2 Project Description
The construction within the Phase I portion of the site is planned to consist of building 190
duplex structures, one (1) 500-student elementary school (approximately 100,000 square
feet in plan area), one (1) community center (approximately 10,000 square feet in plan
area), associated paved roadways and other infrastructure components. The proposed
residential structures are anticipated to consist of single to two-story buildings constructed
of wood frame design and supported by shallow foundations. The proposed loading
conditions associated with the residential structures were not known at this time. However,
the maximum wall loads are not anticipated to exceed about 3 klf. The first floors are
anticipated to consist of either a slab -on -grade design or post tension slab design with their
distributed loads not expected to exceed 150 pounds per square foot.
The proposed school and community center structures are anticipated to consist of single
story buildings constructed of a combination of load bearing concrete masonry unit (CMU)
walls, structural steel, and/or light gauge metal stud frame design. The proposed loading
conditions associated with these structures were not known at this time. However, the
maximum column and wall loads are not anticipated to exceed about 100 kips and 6 klf.
The first floor is anticipated to consist of slab -on -grade design with their distributed loads
not expected to exceed 150 pounds per square foot.
The structures' first floor elevations are expected to be located slightly above the existing
site grades, thus fills are expected to be minimal (up to 2 feet). Additionally, associated
paved roadways and other pertinent infrastructure will be implemented at this property.
If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform G E T Solutions,
Inc. so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate.
E C E u V E D
SEP 1 12009
DwO GET

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321G
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions
at the proposed project site. The subsurface conditions encountered were then evaluated
with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering
assessments for the following items were formulated:
General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the
proposed development.
2. General location and description of potentially deleterious material
encountered in the borings that may interfere with construction progress or
structure performance, including existing fills or surficial/subsurface organics.
3. Soil subgrade preparation, including stripping, grading and compaction.
Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of approved structural fill
material.
4. Construction considerations for fill placement, subgrade preparation, and
foundation excavations.
5. Evaluation of the on -site soils for re -use as structural fill.
6. Feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the
proposed structures. Preliminary design parameters required for the
foundation system, including foundation sizes, allowable bearing pressures,
foundation levels, and expected total and differential settlements.
Pavement design based on the field exploration activities (4 CBR tests with
10-foot deep hand auger borings), our experience with similar soil conditions,
as well as the anticipated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) loads provided by
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the
presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock,
surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Prior to development of
this site, an environmental assessment is advisable.
Nil
Solutions, Inc.It

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
2.1 Field Exploration
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
foundation design parameters, twelve (12) 25-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
borings (designated as B-1 through B-12) and four (4) 10-foot deep hand auger borings
(designated as CBR-1 through CBR-4) were drilled within the proposed construction areas.
Specifically, borings B-1 and B-2 were performed within the proposed school footprint and
borings B-3 through B-12 and CBR-1 through CBR-4 were performed within the proposed
residential construction area.
The SPT borings were performed utilizing mud -rotary drilling techniques with a truck -
mounted drill rig. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general
accordance with ASTM D 1586. The tests were performed continuously from the existing
ground surface to a depth of 10 feet, and at 5-foot intervals thereafter. The soil samples
were obtained with a standard 1.4" I.D., 2" O.D., 30" long split -spoon sampler. The
sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows
required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and is
shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is
termed the SPT N-value. A representative portion of each disturbed split -spoon sample
was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our
laboratory for review. Following the completion of each boring, the bore holes were
backfilled with grout as required by NCDENR regulations.
Additionally, a total of four (4) bulk soil samples were collected from the approximate
pavement subgrade elevation in the vicinity of borings CBR-1 through CBR-4. The bulk
subgrade samples were collected from beneath the existing surficial organic soils at depths
ranging from 0.5 to 2 feet below existing grades. The bulk soil samples were returned to
our laboratory and subjected to CBR testing in accordance with ASTM standards.
The boring locations were located and staked in the field by a representative of G E T
Solutions, Inc. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached 'Boring
Location Plan", (Appendix 1).
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass
jars, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis. The soil
classification was performed by a staff Geotechnical Engineer -In -Training in accordance
with ASTM D2488.
A total of eight (8) representative split spoon soil samples were selected and subjected to
natural moisture and 4200 sieve wash testing and analysis in order to corroborate the
visual classification of the granular soils. These test results are tabulated on the following
page and are also presented on the 'Boring Log" sheets (Appendix 11).
Solu[bns, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation 8 Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321G
Table I - Laboratory Test Results
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(Ft)
Natural
Moisture
Content
N
4200
Sieve
N
Classification
B-1
S-3
4-6
12
20.6
SM
B-3
S-6
13-15
21
6.6
SP-SM
B-4
S-5
9-10
5
2.9
SP
B-6
S-2
2-4
22
78.3
CH
B-8
S-4
6-8
8
9.7
SP-SM
B-9
S-7
18-20
25
22.5
SC
B-10
S-2
2-4
22
82.5
CH
B-12
S-5
8-10
20
30.2
SC
The four (4) bulk soil samples (CBR-1 through CBR-4) were subjected to Atterberg Limits,
natural moisture content, gradation analysis, standard Proctor, and CBR testing in
accordance with ASTM standards. A summary of the CBR test data and the moisture
density relationship curves (Proctors) are presented in Appendix IV.
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location and Description
The project site is located along the south side of Brewster Boulevard just west of the
intersection with Stone Street in the Camp LeJeune military installation in North Carolina.
Specifically, the project site is bordered to the east by a wooded area followed by an
existing recreational area associated with an existing school, to the north by Brewster
Boulevard followed by a wooded parcel, and to the west and south by a wooded parcel.
The proposed project site currently consists of a wooded parcel with an existing dirt
roadway bisecting the site and an open agricultural area located within the east portion of
the site.
3.2 Site Geology
The project site lies within a major physiographic province called the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine,
lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, and
generally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts, clays and
marine shell deposits. Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the
geologic stratigraphy encountered in our subsurface explorations which generally consisted
of marine deposited sands, silt and clays of the Belgrade Formation.
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321G
3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions
The results of our soil test borings indicated the presence of topsoil material at each boring
location ranging in thickness from 2 to 24 inches. Underlying the surficial organic materials
(Topsoil) and extending to the boring termination depths of 10 and 25 feet below existing
site grades, the natural subsurface soils were generally uniform throughout the site. These
soils were noted to be primarily granular in nature and classified to consist of SAND (SP,
SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC) with varying amounts of silt and clay. The Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) results, N-values, recorded within these granular soils ranged from 2 to 36
blows -per -foot (BPF), indicating a very loose to dense relative density. Deposits of CLAY
(CL, CH) were encountered within the subsurface granular soils between varying depths
ranging from 0.25 to 6 feet and 18 to 25 feet below the existing site grade elevations at the
location of borings B-1, B-2, B-6, B-7, B-10, and CBR-3.
The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil
strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix II
(Boring Log sheets) and in the Generalized Soil Profile presented in Appendix III, which
should be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications
shown on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the
actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring
locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface
materials and the transition may be gradual.
3.4 Groundwater Information
The groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through the
relative wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial
groundwater table, where encountered, was determined to occur at depths ranging from 7
to 11.5 feet below current grades at the boring locations identified as B-1 through B-12 at
the time of our site reconnaissance. The groundwater level was not encountered at the
hand auger boring locations identified as CBR-1 through CBR-4. The boreholes were
backfilled upon completion for safety considerations. As such, the reported groundwater
levels may not be indicative of the static groundwater level.
Perched groundwater levels are anticipated to occur throughout the site as a result of
potential restrictive soil layers noted to consist of SAND (SC, SC-SM) and/or CLAY (CL, CH)
encountered at a majority of the boring locations at depths ranging from 0.2 feet to 6 feet.
WN
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation 8 Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions,
such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences,
such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved
parking lots, side walks, etc.). In the project's area, seasonal groundwater fluctuations of±
2 feet are common; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. We
recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the
construction to determine groundwater impact on the construction procedures, if
necessary.
4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, our
interpretation of the soil test borings and laboratory data, and our observations during our
site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we
request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.
4.1 Clearing and Grading
The proposed construction areas should be cleared by means of removing all trees,
surface vegetation, root mat, and topsoil or any otherwise unsuitable materials. It is
estimated that a cut of about 6 to 8 inches in depth, with isolated areas of about 24 inches
(such as B-4 and B-9) will be required to remove the topsoil materials. This cut is expected
to extend deeper in isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of unsuitable soils, which
become evident during the clearing. It is recommended that the clearing operations extend
laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed construction areas.
The soils noted directly below the surficial organic materials (Topsoil) within the vicinity of
borings CBR-2, CBR-3, B-4, B-7, B-9, and B-10 were noted to contain appreciable
amounts of fines (SAND; SC, SC-SM and/or CLAY; CL, CH). The current (natural)
moisture contents of the surface soils at the explored locations were estimated to be near
or above their optimum moisture. Accordingly, combinations of excess surface moisture
from precipitation ponding on the site and the construction traffic, including heavy
compaction equipment, may create pumping and general deterioration of the bearing
capabilities of the surface soils. Therefore, undercutting to remove very soft soils may be
required. The extent of the undercut will be determined in the field during construction,
based on the outcome of the field testing procedures (subgrade proofroll).
Furthermore, inherently wet subgrade soils combined with potential poor site drainage
make this site particularly susceptible to subgrade deterioration. Thus, grading should be
performed during a dry season if at all possible. This should minimize these potential
problems, although they may not be eliminated.
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
Due to the potential for perched water and the presence of moisture sensitive soils near
the surface, control of surface water is very important to the successful completion of the
proposed construction. The contractor should plan his grading activities to control surface
water and minimize erosion of exposed cut or fill material. This may include constructing
temporary berms, ditches, flumes and/or slope drains to intercept runoff and discharge it in
a controlled fashion, while complying with state and local regulations.
4.2 Subgrade Preparation
Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a
large static drum roller. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be
evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the subgrade soils should be
proofrolled to check for pockets of loose material hidden beneath a crust of better soil.
Several passes should be made by a large rubber -tired roller or loaded dump truck over
the construction areas, with the successive passes aligned perpendicularly. The number of
passes will be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative
depending on the soils conditions. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during
proofrolling (beyond the initial cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the directions of
the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative.
Subsequently and prior to the placement of any select fill materials, compaction tests
should be performed on the existing subgrade soils within the proposed building and/or
pavement footprints in order to verify that they have been compacted to at least 95% of the
Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557). It is possible that some subgrade improvements will be
required to provide suitable soils for foundation, slab, and/or pavement support.
Preliminarily, unstable pavement and/or slab -on -grade subgrade soils are anticipated to be
corrected by means of undercutting the subgrade soils, where necessary, to a depth of
about 12 to 18 inches and backfill the resulting excavations with suitable select fill
materials. Similarly, in the event that unstable foundation bearing soils are encountered it
is anticipated that an undercut depth of about 1 to 2 feet and subsequent backfill with
suitable select fill materials will result in suitable bearing conditions. Recommendations
concerning the subgrade improvements (as necessary) should be more accurately
determined in the field following the testing procedures as conditions are anticipated to
vary. The project's budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements
(undercut and backfill with structural fill).
4.3 Structural Fill and Placement
Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by the Geotechnical Engineer, the
placement of the fill required to establish the design grades may begin. Any material to be
used for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by G E T Solutions, Inc. prior to
placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fill
material should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 25% by weight of fines (SP,
SM, SW, GP, GW), having a liquid limit less than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, and
should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable material.
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321G
Other soils types such as SAND (SC-SM, SC) and/or CLAY (CL) may be used as fill
provided that they are properly placed and compacted as noted herein. These soil types
are typically moisture sensitive and unstable conditions and/or the inability of the materials
to be properly compacted may occur. Accordingly, should these soils be selected for use
as fill it is considered necessary to allow them to be dried to a moisture content suitable for
placement and compaction.
All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the Modified
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). In general, the compaction should be
accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically
compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A representative of
G E T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure
that adequate compaction is achieved.
Backfill material in utility trenches should be placed in 4 to 8 inch loose lifts when
compacted with the use of hand operated equipment and should be compacted to at least
95 percent of ASTM D1557.
Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoid
transmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. In
this regard, it is recommended that the vibratory roller remain at least 25 feet away from
existing structures; these areas should be compacted with small, hand -operated
compaction equipment.
4.4 Suitability of On -site Soils
The subsurface CLAY (CL and CH) and/or SAND (SC and SC-SM) soils encountered at
the boring locations do not appear to meet the criteria recommended in this report for
reuse as structural fill, but may be used as fill within green areas. However, the SAND
(SM, SP-SM, and SP) soils may be suitable for reuse as structural fill. Further
classification testing (natural moisture content, gradation analysis, and Proctor testing)
should be performed in the field during construction to substantiate the suitability of
excavated soils for reuse as fill within construction areas.
4.5 Preliminary Foundation Design Recommendations
Provided that the construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed structures
can be supported by shallow spread footings bearing upon firm natural soil, well
compacted structural fill material The footings can be designed using a net allowable soil
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the
footings and backfill over the footings, including the weight of the floor slab, need not be
considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above the finished floor need to be used for
dimensioning the footings.
Solutions, Inc.-

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot
(psf), the base of the footings should have an embedment of at least 18 inches beneath
finished grades and wall footings should have a minimum width of 20 inches for the
proposed residential structures and 24 inches for the proposed elementary school and
community center. In addition, isolated square column footings are recommended to be a
minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet in area for bearing capacity consideration. The recommended
18-inch footing embedment is considered sufficient to provide adequate cover against frost
penetration to the bearing soils.
Alternatively, post -tensioned slab construction may be utilized to support the proposed
residential structures. The post -tension slab foundations should be sized by the structural
engineer. A subgrade modulus of 125 psi/in for compacted structural fill can be used in the
design of the post -tensioned slab foundations.
4.6 Settlements
It is estimated that, with proper site preparation, the maximum resulting total settlement of
the proposed building foundations should be up to 1 inch. The maximum differential
settlement magnitude is expected to be less than 1/2-inch between adjacent footings (wall
footings and column footings of widely varying loading conditions). The settlements were
estimated on the basis of the results of the field penetration tests. Careful field control will
contribute substantially towards minimizing the settlements.
4.7 Foundation Excavations
In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into
firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill. The foundation bearing capacities should
be verified in the field during construction by means of performing an inspection of all
footings. At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative will explore the
extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed
excavations. Also, at the time of the footing observations, the Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative should determine and perform the necessary testing and evaluations to
further evaluate the foundation bearing soils.
If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations,
the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with
"flowable fill" or a suitable structural fill material compacted to a dry density of at least 95
percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557), as described in
Section 4.3 of this report, prior to concrete placement. This construction procedure will
provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of
all footing and floor slab areas be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers, to
a dry density of at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557)
as tested to a depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any
localized areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be
adequately recompacted. The compaction testing in the base of the foundation may be
waived by the Geotechnical Engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the
foundation inspections.
Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected
against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain or
frost. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be
allowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed the same day the
excavation is made. If this is not possible, the footing excavations should be adequately
protected.
4.8 Slab -on -Grade. Design
The floor slabs may be constructed as slab -on -grade members provided the previously
recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It is
recommended that all ground floor slabs be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of
relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5%
passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as a
capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab.
It is noted that all ground floor slabs may consist of "floating" slabs that are ground
supported and not rigidly connected to walls or foundations. Alternatively, monolithic slab -
on -grades with turn down foundations may be used.
The slab -on -grade subgrade should be established by means of placing the recommended
structural fill and compacting to at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density
(ASTM D 1557). This construction procedure will provide a subgrade modulus of at least
125 psi/in.
It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or
retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the
performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor
resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions or other
considerations require greater vapor resistance protection; consideration should be given
to using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the
Architect based on project requirements.
10
Solutlons, Inc.:.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
4.9 Pavement Design
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results indicated soaked CBR values ranging from
14.1 to 17.9, averaging 15.7. The average soaked CBR value was multiplied by a factor of
two-thirds to determine a pavement design CBR value. The two-thirds factor provides the
necessary safety margins to compensate for some non -uniformity of the soil. Therefore, a
CBR value of 10.5 was used in designing the pavement sections. Furthermore, the
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) loading criteria provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
and the information listed below were also used to complete the pavement design analysis,
which was performed in accordance with AASHTO requirements. Should any of the
information below be incorrect G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified to perform a
subsequent analysis prior to paving operations.
Average Daily Traffic: Ranging from 80 to 4500 Trips Per Day
Percent Trucks: 8%
Design Life Criteria: 20 Years
Percent Growth Rate: 0.0%
Total Design ESALs ranging from 94,399 to 2,359,977
Reliability = 75.0%
Overall Deviation = 0.45
Soil Resilient Modulus = 9,707.5 psi
Initial Serviceability = 4.20
Terminal Serviceability = 2.00
The pavement calculations were performed using proprietary software WinPas and the
pavement sections noted in Table II below are recommended, which vary with the ADT
loading criteria provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table II —Pavement Sections
Hot Mix Asphalt
Aggregate
Surface
I Surface
IntermediateJ
Section
Base*
Subgrade**
SF-9.5A
5-12.5
I-198
ADT 4500 Vehicles Per Da — Alternative I
Heavy Duty Asphalt
1.5"
N/A
2.5"
12"
Firm, Stable, and
Compacted
ADT 4500 Vehicles Per Da — Alternative II
Heavy Duty Asphalt
2"
N/A
3"
8"
Firm, Stable, and
Compact d
ADT 80 to 600 Vehicles Per Da
Standard Duty
1"
2"
N/A 8" Firm, Stable, and
I I I
Asphalt
Compacted
NCDOT ABC compacted to a dry density of at least 100% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density
(ASTM D 1557).
" Compacted to a dry density of at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557).
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321G
The results of the pavement design analysis are included in Appendix V (Pavement Design
Analysis). All pavement material and construction procedures should conform to Unified
Facilities Criteria (UFC) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
requirements.
Following pavement rough grading operations, the exposed subgrade should be observed
under proofrolling. This proofrolling should be accomplished with a fully loaded dump truck
or 7 to 10 ton drum roller to check for pockets of soft material hidden beneath a thin crust
of better soil. Any unsuitable materials thus exposed should be removed and replaced with
a well -compacted material. The inspection of these phases should be performed by the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The subgrade soils are likely to be unstable
at the time of construction and some ground improvements are likely. As such, the
project's budget should include a contingency to accommodate the potential ground
improvements.
Where excessively unstable subgrade soils are observed during proofrolling and/or fill
placement, it is expected that these weak areas can be stabilized by means of thickening
the base course layer by 2 to 4 inches and/or lining the subgrade with geotextile fabric
(Mirafi 500x or equivalent). These alternatives are to be addressed by the Geotechnical
Engineer during construction, if necessary, who will recommend the most economical
approach at the time.
4.10 Seismic Evaluation
It is noted that, in accordance with the INC Building Code; Chapter 16, this site is classified
as a site Class D, based on which seismic designs should be incorporated. This
recommendation is based on the data obtained from the completed 25-foot deep SPT
borings as well as our experience with SPT borings and CPT soundings with shear wave
velocity testing performed within the vicinity of this project site. In order to substantiate the
site classification provided above a 100-foot deep CPT boring and soil shear wave velocity
testing with liquefaction potential analysis should be performed. G E T Solutions, Inc.
would be pleased to provide these services should they be determined necessary.
4.11 Soil Permeability
At this time saturated hydraulic conductivity testing was not included in our scope of
services. However, in order to assist with the storm water design, estimated permeability
values of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the completed boring locations are
provided in Table III. Should a more accurate groundwater level be required, G E T
Solutions, Inc. can install a series of ground water monitoring wells when we re -visit the
project site to perform field saturated hydraulic conductivity testing.
12
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation 8 Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
Table III - Estimated Permeability Values
Soil
Classification
Percent Silt and/or Clay
Estimated
Permeability
Rate
SP, SP-SM
0% to 15%
1.0E-03 cm/sec
SM, SM-SC
15% to 30%
1.0E-05 cm/sec
SC
30% to 50%
1.0E-06 cm/sec
CL
50% to 70% with Liquid Limit less than 50
1.0E-07 cm/sec
CL, CH
70% to 100%
1.0E-07 cm/sec
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns
It is expected that dewatering may be required for excavations that extend near or below
the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be
accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level
may require well pointing.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove the water form
the excavation, remove the saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface
soils to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
Perched water table conditions within the select fill materials and/or shallow subsurface
soils may be encountered throughout the project site during periods of heavy precipitation
and/or during the "wet' season. This is expected to occur as a result of the surficial
restrictive soil layers (CLAY: CL, SAND: SC, SC-SM) that were encountered at the location
of borings B-1 through B-4, B-6, B-7, B-9, B-10, B-12, and CBR-1 through CBR-4 at depths
ranging from 0.2 feet to 6 feet. Accordingly, some undercut and backfill with suitable
structural fill materials and/or de -watering of the structural fill materials and/or shallow
subsurface soils may be required during the subgrade preparation and/or foundation
construction procedures. Alternatively, an under drain system may be used in order to aid
in alleviating the potential for saturated bearing soil conditions and/or to aid in minimizing
foundation undercutting procedures.
It would be advantageous to construct all fills early in the construction. If this is not
accomplished, disturbance of the existing site drainage could result in collection of surface
water in some areas, thus rendering these areas wet and very loose. Temporary drainage
ditches should be employed by the contractor to accentuate drainage during construction.
Again, we recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the
time of construction to determine groundwater impact on this project.
13
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321G
5.2 Site Utility Installation
The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the
pipe and structure placements to verify the suitability of the bearing soils. If unstable
bearing soils are encountered during installation some form of stabilization may be required
to provide a suitable bedding. This stabilization is typically accomplished by providing
additional bedding materials (No. 57 stone). In addition depending on the depth of the
utility trench excavation, some means of dewatering may be required to facilitate the utility
installation and associated backfilling.
All utility excavations should be backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 4.3 of
this report.
5.3 Additional Geotechnical Investigation
A comprehensive geotechnical investigation is recommended once the final layout
(structure footprints and design grades), structural characteristics, and the structural loads
are determined. The subsurface data documented during this feasibility study can be
incorporated within the final geotechnical investigation. Specifically, it is recommended to
perform additional SPT borings and/or DMT Soundings within the limits of the proposed
commercial building areas along with a comprehensive laboratory testing program.
Furthermore, it is recommended to perform CBR tests within the pavement areas to
provide pavement design parameters. The frequency of tests should be developed based
on the final design scheme.
5.4 Excavations
In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction
Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P". This document was issued to
better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by
this federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement
excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new (OSHA)
guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if
they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial
penalties.
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary
excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to
maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's responsible
person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the
excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should slope height,
slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed
those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
GET
14

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions, Inc. is
not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such
responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by
G E T Solutions, Inc. and the information supplied by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
and their consultants for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for
this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are
encountered during construction, G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified immediately to
determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If G E T Solutions,
Inc. is not retained to perform these functions, G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be
responsible for the impact of those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for
the project.
The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications or
professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally
accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other
warranties are implied or expressed.
After the plans and specifications are more complete the Geotechnical Engineer should be
provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to assure our
engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents,
in order that the earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted
and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary
recommendations. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. and their consultants for the specific application to the Camp LeJeune
Family Housing project located within the Camp LeJeune military installation in North
Carolina.
15
Solutions, Inc. q

Appendix F

r
Nelson, Christine
From: Nelson, Christine
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:22 PM
To: 'Towler, David'; '[e-mail]', '[e-mail]'; 'Rachel.oberle@kimley-
horn.com'
Cc: Russell, Janet; Hall, Rhonda; Weaver, Cameron
Subject: "Lincoln Park" @ Camp Lejeune
All,
It was nice meeting all of you this morning to scope on the project currently called Lincoln Park on Camp Lejeune.
I've tried to gather answers to the questions that were brought up in the meeting.
The BMP website is: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/bmp forms htm
This website has the application (SWU-101), application instruction sheet, supplement forms, and 0&M
agreements. Please also ensure you are looking at the latest BMP chapters and using the most recent
forms.
Some of your questions (how deep can ponds be and SHWT in relation to ponds) can be answered by the
updated BMP chapter as well as in the policy and technical guidance documents that were posted prior to
the chapter being updated: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/state sw notices htm (this link is also available
at the top of the BMP website)
2. Deep wet detention pond SW guidance: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/documents/Deepponds Original pdf
Basically ponds can be a maximum of 20 ft deep, however it unclear if this 20 ft includes the sediment
storage depth or not. If you think the final pond design will be deeper than 20 ft (including sediment
storage), I will have to look into this a bit further.
For Erosion & Sediment Control, Rhonda doesn't have an issue with a deep pond. She was thinking of
another requirement when she mentioned the 15 ft.
3. Ponds and SHWT elevation guidance: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/documents/PondSHWT Original 1df
This guidance discusses the criteria that must be evaluated in order for the permanent pool to be set more
than 6" below the water table. Section 10.3.2 of the wet detention pond chapter in the BMP manual also
mimics the guidance document.
4. Section 10.3.3 of the wet detention pond chapter in the BMP manual briefly goes into using multiple
forebays. However, this section mostly covers how to size these multiple forebays such as providing a
drainage area map for each forebay and calculations of the design volume in each forebay and the percent
of the overall design volume in each forebay will be needed.
With wet detention pond systems that propose to use multiple forebays separate from the main pond there
are often 2 scenarios:
a. the water level in the forebays are at the same elevation as the main pond
b. the water level in the forebays are higher than in the main pond
In scenario a, the forebays can be considered part of the main pond. Also remember to include the forebays
in the average depth calcs.
In scenario b, the forebay is excluded from the main pond. This means that the provided surface area,
average depth, the temporary storage volume, and other pond design criteria must only be considered and
contained in the main pond.

In both of these scenarios, the supplement will need to be modified or another page should be added to
describe the forebays in a similar manner as on the supplement. Also keep in mind that the pipes
connecting these forebays to the main pond should be set above the sediment storage to prevent these
from getting clogged up over time.
When you are ready to schedule a submittal meeting, please contact Janet. It's best to contact her approx 2 weeks
before the desired submittal date.
Let me know if you have additional questions!
Thanks,
Christine
Christine Nelson
State Stormwater Program - Express Permitting
NC Division of Water Quality
Wilmington Regional Office
910-796-7323
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Russell, Janet
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:39 PM
To: Russell, Janet; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Lincoln Park Residential Development
We do. We look forward to seeing you then —thanks!
Ted Miller, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Direct 757-548-7333
From: Russell, Janet(mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:14 PM
To: Oberle (Watts), Rachel; Miller, Ted
Subject: Lincoln Park Residential Development
September 15, 2009
Rachel & Ted:
The Express Stormwater submittal meeting has been scheduled with Christine Nelson on October 1, 2009 at 10:00 AM
here in the Wilmington Regional Office. We have received confirmation from David Towler with Camp Lejeune that he is
available to meet that day. Are you available? Please confirm that you have this date/time on your calendar.
Thanks,
Janet
Janet M. Russell
Express Coordinator
910 796-7421
NOTE: change in email address: [e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Nelson, Christine
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 4:12 PM
To: Nelson, Christine
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Lincoln Park SHWT
Understood completely. We'll set the PPE of the two forebay's at 13.5 (SHWT of upstream BMP is 12.0 and SHWT of
downstream forebay is 14.0). As you recall, forebay #1 drains to forebay #2 which drains to the large wet pond. FYI -the
PPE of the wet pond will be somewhere between 10.5 and 12.0 (still trying to determine this PPE).
Thanks Christine.
Ted Miller, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Direct: 757-548-7333
From: Nelson, Christine [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 4:05 PM
To: Miller, Ted
Cc: [e-mail]; Oberle (Watts), Rachel
Subject: RE: Lincoln Park SHWT
Ted,
As I mentioned on the phone, the wet pond chapter has recently changed and we are still working the kinks out.
I talkith Linda regarding our question on the permanent pool being set above the SHWT. It's ok if the permanent
pool elevation (PPE) is above the SHWT elevation. It's just that the PPE shouldn't be set significantly above the SHWT.
For example, the SHWT shouldn't be below the bottom of the pond. Some of the concerns are: How will water stay in
pond? Why not consider infiltration at this point?
Hopefully this makes sense. Let me know if you have additional questions.
Christine
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 1:39 PM
To: Nelson, Christine
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Lincoln Park SHWT
Christine: I wanted to pass along the SHWT information that we've rec'd for Lincoln Park. Please review the boring
location map and the reported SHWT. I'd like to discuss with you the varying results for the SHWT for the various ponds
to determine how best to proceed.
I'll call you to discuss —thanks.
Ted Miller, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
501 Independence Parkway, Suite 300
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
Direct: 757-548-7333 Office: 757-548-7300

Russell, Janet
From:
[e-mail]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4,42 PM
To:
Russell, Janet; [e-mail]
Cc:
[e-mail]
Subject:
RE: Camp Lejeune Housing & School (Lincoln Park Area)
Thanks Janet. We will plan to be there next Thursday and would appreciate it if you could line up an E&S reviewer to
attend as well. Thanks!
Ted Miller, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Direct: 757-548-7333
From: Russell, Janet [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:23 PM
To: Miller, Ted; Oberle (Watts), Rachel
Cc: Towler CIV David W
Subject: Camp Lejeune Housing & School (Lincoln Park Area)
August 26, 2009
Ted / Rachel:
The Express Stormwater Scope Meeting has been scheduled with Christine Nelson on Thursday, September 3, 2009 at
10:00 AM here in the Wilmington Regional Office, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, 28405.
Please review the attachment, "Stormwater at Camp Lejeune". The BMP Manual and the checklist for a complete
project are available on the bmp manual web site and are good resources to help prepare the stormwater application.
Camp Lejeune is subject to the Coastal Stormwater Rules, 2008-211. Please read these over. See the attachment for
more information.
165 acres of land disturbance cannot be reviewed through the Express Erosion Control Program — it's capped at 20 acres
of disturbance for a quick review turnaround. However, if feel you could benefit from meeting with an erosion control
reviewer while you are here, I will ask someone to attend the meeting. Let me know.
*Please reply to this email to confirm and reserve the meeting date/time.
Thanks,
Janet
Janet M. Russell
Express Coordinator
910 796-7421
NOTE: change in email address: [e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina

IM

Russell, Janet
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:59 AM
To: Russell, Janet
Subject: RE: Request for Express Permit Review Scoping Meeting: Camp Lejeune Phase 1
Development
Janet,
Thank you for getting back to us. We are trying to get concurrence from our client before setting a date for the Scoping meeting. I
will have the dates for you at the end of the week. We have re -named the project to: Brewster Boulevard Housing and School.
Thank you again,
Rachel A. Oberle, EIT
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. I Hampton Roads Office
501 Independence Parkway I Suite 300 1 Chesapeake, VA 23320
(p) 757-548-7324 (f) 757-548-7301 (e) Rachel.Oberle o Kimley-Horn.com
AHelp reduce paper waste. Please print only if necessary.
From: Russell, Janet [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:28 PM
To: Oberle (Watts), Rachel
Subject: RE: Request for Express Permit Review Scoping Meeting: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Development
Rachel:
I have attached some stormwater information specific to Camp Lejeune for your information.
We are not able to review the Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan through the Express Process since the express review
is capped at 20 acres of disturbed area. The standard Erosion Control Review is generally pretty fast anyway — 25 days —
which is about how long it takes to review the stormwater application in Express.
Please forward me 3 or 4 dates/times that you are available to meet starting with the 31".
Thanks,
Janet
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 12:34 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Request for Express Permit Review Scoping Meeting: Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Development
Janet,
Please find attached a Request for Express Permit Review for Camp Lejeune Phase 1 Development. Due to the size of the file, I have
broken the submittal into two parts. The second part will be send in a following email. We intend to schedule a Scoping meeting so
the we can further discuss this project.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. I look forward to hearing from you
Thank you,

L;r,Lc7_"1�lr
A
NCDENR
6W�0"�O�Is�
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Request for Express Permit Review
Scbfv
For OENR Use ONLY - 1 1
svom't: J �� 3 1hU-f- S
Time - _ I l Q ;00
Confirm: 8-2-to
FILL-IN all the information below and CHECK the Permit(s) you are requesting for express review. FAX or Email the completed form to Express
Coordinator along with a completed DETAILED narrative, site plan (PDF file) and vicinity map (same items expected in the application package
of the project location. Please include this form in the application package. oU
• Asheville Region -Alison Davidson 828-296-4698;alison.davidson(cbncmail.net
• Fayetteville or Raleigh Region -David Lee 919-791-4203; david.lee(ancmail.net
• Mooresville & -Patrick Grogan 704-663-3772 or patrick.grogan(ftcmail.net
• Washington Region -Lyn Hardison 252-946.9215 or lyn.hardison(a),
cmail.net
• Wilmington Region -Janet Russell 910-350-2004 orianetrussell(a)ncmail.net
NOTE: Project ap lication received er noon will be stam ed in the followin work day.
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
l0 — 12
'B fts't 1
Project Name: County:ONSLOW L--�11\c0\1-\ ?P'r-Tto%-LStnC-X
Applicant: JARL BLISS Company: MID -ATLANTIC MILITARY FAMILY COMMUNITIES, LLC SGt„ pQ 1 1 ' CW S'11,(" 0
CJ
Address: 200 FAIRBROOK DRIVE SUITE 101 City: HERNDON, State: VA Zip: 20170
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: GSCOLA(cDLPSI.COM
Physical Location:LATITUDE: 34* 42' 41" LONGITUDE: -77* 21' 58"
Project Drains into TIDAL waters - Water classification SC (for classification see-htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.uslbims/rer)orts/repoosWB,html)
Project Located in WHITE OAK River Basin. Is project draining to class ORW waters? N , within Y2 mile and draining to class SA waters N or within 1 mile
and draining to Gass HOW waters? N
Engineer/Consultant: TED MILLER Company: KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES
Address: 501 INDEPENDENCE PARKWAT SUITE 300 City: CHESAPEAKE, Slate: VIRGINIA Zip: 23320-5159
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
SECTION ONE: REQUESTING A SCOPING MEETING ONLY
® Seeping Meeting ONLY ® DWO, ❑ DCM, ❑ DLR, ❑ OTHER:
SECTION TWO: CHECK ONLY THE PROGRAM (S) YOU ARE REQUESTING FOR EXPRESS PERMITTING
® 401 Unit ❑ Stream Origin Determination: _ # of stream calls - Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
❑ Intermittent/Perennial Determination: _ # of stream calls - Please attach TOPO map marking the areas in questions
® 401 Water Quality Certification ® Isolated Wetland (_linear fl or <0.1acres)
❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization ❑ Minor Variance ❑ Major General Variance
® State Stormwater ❑ General ❑ SFR, ❑ SFR < 1 ac. ❑Bkhd & Bit Rmp, ❑ Clear & Grub, ❑ Utility ❑ Other
❑ Low Density ❑ Low Density -Curb & Gutter _ # Curb Outlet Swales ❑ Off -site [SW _ (Provide permit #))
® High Density -Detention Pond 6 # Treatment Systems ❑ High Density -Infiltration _ #Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Bio-Retention _ # Treatment Systems ElHigh Density -SW Wetlands _ # Treatment Systems
❑ High Density -Other _ # Treatment Systems /❑ MOD:❑ Major ❑ Minor ❑ Plan Revision ❑ Redev. Exclusion SW (Provide permit th
❑ Coastal Management ❑ Excavation & Fill ❑ Bridges & Culverts ❑ Structures Information
❑ Upland Development ❑ Marina Development ❑ Urban Waterfront
® Land Quality
SECTION THREE -
® Erosion and
165 acres t0 be
(for DENR use))
Wetlands on Site ® Yes ❑ No Buffer Impacts: ® No ❑ YES: —acre(s)
Wetlands Delineation has been completed: ® Yes ❑ No Isolated wefland on Property ® Yes ❑ No
US ACOE Approval of Delineation completed: ® Yes ❑ No 404 Application in Process w/ US ACOE: ® Yes ❑ No Permit
Received from US ACOE ® Yes ❑ No
PFNR use
Fee Split for multiple Permits: (Check# 1 Total Fee Amount E
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
SUBMITTAL DATES
Fee
CAMA
S
Variance ( Maj; Min)
$
SW ( HD, LD, U Gen)
S
401:
$
Los
I
S
Stream Deter,_
$
NCDENR EXPRESS March 2009
DECEIVED
AUG 2 12009
DWQ
PROJ #

PRELIMINARY
STORMWATER NARRATIVE
CAMP LEJEUNE PHASE I DEVELOPMENT
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PREPARED BY:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
501 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD SUITE 300
CHESAPEAKE, NC 23320
AUGUST 2009
KHA #116319001

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Project Authorization
G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our preliminary subsurface investigation and
geotechnical engineering services for the proposed Camp LeJeune Family Housing project
located along the south side of Brewster Boulevard within the Camp LeJeune military
installation in North Carolina. The geotechnical engineering services were conducted in
general accordance with the scope presented in G E T Proposal No. PVB08-463G, dated
August 12, 2008. Authorization to proceed with the services was obtained from Mr. Joseph
V. Modica, P.E. of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1.2 Project Description
The construction within the Phase I portion of the site is planned to consist of building 190
duplex structures, one (1) 500-student elementary school (approximately 100,000 square
feet in plan area), one (1) community center (approximately 10,000 square feet in plan
area), associated paved roadways and other infrastructure components. The proposed
residential structures are anticipated to consist of single to two-story buildings constructed
of wood frame design and supported by shallow foundations. The proposed loading
conditions associated with the residential structures were not known at this time. However,
the maximum wall loads are not anticipated to exceed about 3 klf. The first floors are
anticipated to consist of either a slab -on -grade design or post tension slab design with their
distributed loads not expected to exceed 150 pounds per square foot.
The proposed school and community center structures are anticipated to consist of single
story buildings constructed of a combination of load bearing concrete masonry unit (CMU)
walls, structural steel, and/or light gauge metal stud frame design. The proposed loading
conditions associated with these structures were not known at this time. However, the
maximum column and wall loads are not anticipated to exceed about 100 kips and 6 klf.
The first floor is anticipated to consist of slab -on -grade design with their distributed loads
not expected to exceed 150 pounds per square foot.
The structures' first floor elevations are expected to be located slightly above the existing
site grades, thus fills are expected to be minimal (up to 2 feet). Additionally, associated
paved roadways and other pertinent infrastructure will be implemented at this property.
If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform G E T Solutions,
Inc. so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate.
® E C E U V E�
AUG 2 12009
DWQ
PROJ if ---
Solutions, Inc. iw

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions
at the proposed project site. The subsurface conditions encountered were then evaluated
with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering
assessments for the following items were formulated:
General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the
proposed development.
2. General location and description of potentially deleterious material
encountered in the borings that may interfere with construction progress or
structure performance, including existing fills or surficial/subsurface organics.
3. Soil subgrade preparation, including stripping, grading and compaction.
Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of approved structural fill
material.
4. Construction considerations for fill placement, subgrade preparation, and
foundation excavations.
5. Evaluation of the on -site soils for re -use as structural fill.
6. Feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the
proposed structures. Preliminary design parameters required for the
foundation system, including foundation sizes, allowable bearing pressures,
foundation levels, and expected total and differential settlements.
7. Pavement design based on the field exploration activities (4 CBR tests with
10-foot deep hand auger borings), ourexperience with similar soil conditions,
as well as the anticipated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) loads provided by
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the
presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock,
surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Prior to development of
this site. an environmental assessment is advisable.
.Solutions, Inc*1P

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
2.1 Field Exploration
In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated
foundation design parameters, twelve (12) 25-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
borings (designated as B-1 through B-12) and four (4) 10-foot deep hand auger borings
(designated as CBR-1 through CBR-4) were drilled within the proposed construction areas.
Specifically, borings B-1 and B-2 were performed within the proposed school footprint and
borings B-3 through B-12 and CBR-1 through CBR-4 were performed within the proposed
residential construction area.
The SPT borings were performed utilizing mud -rotary drilling techniques with a truck -
mounted drill rig. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general
accordance with ASTM D 1586. The tests were performed continuously from the existing
ground surface to a depth of 10 feet, and at 5-foot intervals thereafter. The soil samples
were obtained with a standard 1.4" I.D., 2" O.D., 30" long split -spoon sampler. The
sampler was driven with blows of a 140 Ib. hammer falling 30 inches. The numberof blows
required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and is
shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is
termed the SPT N-value. A representative portion of each disturbed split -spoon sample
was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our
laboratory for review. Following the completion of each boring, the bore holes were
backfilled with grout as required by NCDENR regulations.
Additionally, a total of four (4) bulk soil samples were collected from the approximate
pavement subgrade elevation in the vicinity of borings CBR-1 through CBR-4. The bulk
subgrade samples were collected from beneath the existing surficial organic soils at depths
ranging from 0.5 to 2 feet below existing grades. The bulk soil samples were returned to
our laboratory and subjected to CBR testing in accordance with ASTM standards.
The boring locations were located and staked in the field by a representative of G E T
Solutions, Inc. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached "Boring
Location Plan", (Appendix 1).
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass
jars, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis. The soil
classification was performed by a staff Geotechnical Engineer -In -Training in accordance
with ASTM D2488.
A total of eight (8) representative split spoon soil samples were selected and subjected to
natural moisture and 4200 sieve wash testing and analysis in order to corroborate the
visual classification of the granular soils. These test results are tabulated on the following
page and are also presented on the "Boring Log" sheets (Appendix II). E C E V E
,
3
DWQ
I

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
Table I - Laboratory Test Results
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(Ft)
Natural
Moisture
Content
N
4200
Sieve
N
Classification
B-1
S-3
4-6
12
20.6
SM
B-3
S-6
13-15
21
6.6
SP-SM
B-4
S-5
9-10
5
2.9
SP
B-6
S-2
1 2-4
1 22
78.3
CH
B-8
S-4
6-8
8
9.7
SP-SM
B-9
S-7
18-20
25
22.5
SC
B-10
S-2
2-4
22
82.5
CH
B-12
S-5
8-10
20
30.2
SC
The four (4) bulk soil samples (CBR-1 through CBR-4) were subjected to Atterberg Limits,
natural moisture content, gradation analysis, standard Proctor, and CBR testing in
accordance with ASTM standards. A summary of the CBR test data and the moisture
density relationship curves (Proctors) are presented in Appendix IV.
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location and Description
The project site is located along the south side of Brewster Boulevard just west of the
intersection with Stone Street in the Camp LeJeune military installation in North Carolina.
Specifically, the project site is bordered to the east by a wooded area followed by an
existing recreational area associated with an existing school, to the north by Brewster
Boulevard followed by a wooded parcel, and to the west and south by a wooded parcel.
The proposed project site currently consists of a wooded parcel with an existing dirt
roadway bisecting the site and an open agricultural area located "ithin the east portion of
the site.
3.2 Site Geology
The project site lies within a major physiographic province called the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine,
lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, and
generally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts, clays and
marine shell deposits. Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the
geologic stratigraphy encountered in our subsurface explorations which generally consisted
of marine deposited sands, silt and clays of the Belgrade Formation.
4
"Solutlons, nc,,

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions
The results of our soil test borings indicated the presence of topsoil material at each boring
location ranging in thickness from 2 to 24 inches. Underlying the surficial organic materials
(Topsoil) and extending to the boring termination depths of 10 and 25 feet below existing
site grades, the natural subsurface soils were generally uniform throughout the site. These
soils were noted to be primarily granular in nature and classified to consist of SAND (SP,
SP-SM, SM, SC-SM, SC) with varying amounts of silt and clay. The Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) results, N-values, recorded within these granular soils ranged from 2 to 36
blows -per -foot (BPF), indicating a very loose to dense relative density. Deposits of CLAY
(CL, CH) were encountered within the subsurface granular soils between varying depths
ranging from 0.25 to 6 feet and 18 to 25 feet below the existing site grade elevations at the
location of borings B-1, B-2, B-6, B-7, B-10, and CBR-3.
The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil
strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix II
(Boring Log sheets) and in the Generalized Soil Profile presented in Appendix III, which
should be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications
shown on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the
actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring
locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface
materials and the transition may be gradual.
3.4 Groundwater Information
The groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through the
relative wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial
groundwater table, where encountered, was determined to occur at depths ranging from 7
to 11.5 feet below current grades at the boring locations identified as B-1 through B-12 at
the time of our site reconnaissance. The groundwater level was not encountered at the
hand auger boring locations identified as CBR-1 through CBR-4. The boreholes were
backfilled upon completion for safety considerations. As such, the reported groundwater
levels may not be indicative of the static groundwater level.
Perched groundwater levels are anticipated to occur throughout the site as a result of
potential restrictive soil layers noted to consist of SAND (SC, SC-SM) and/or CLAY (CL, CH)
encountered at a majority of the boring locations at depths ranging from 0.2 feet to 6 feet.
D E C E O V E D
AUG 2 12009
Dwa
PROJ #
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions,
such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences,
such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved
parking lots, side walks, etc.). In the project's area, seasonal groundwater fluctuations of±
2 feet are common; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. We
recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the
construction to determine groundwater impact on the construction procedures, if
necessary.
4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, our
interpretation of the soil test borings and laboratory data, and our observations during our
site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we
request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.
4.1 Clearing and Grading
The proposed construction areas should be cleared by means of removing all trees,
surface vegetation, root mat, and topsoil or any otherwise unsuitable materials. It is
estimated that a cut of about 6 to 8 inches in depth, with isolated areas of about 24 inches
(such as B-4 and B-9) will be required to remove the topsoil materials. This cut is expected
to extend deeper in isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of unsuitable soils, which
become evident during the clearing. It is recommended that the clearing operations extend
laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed construction areas.
The soils noted directly below the surficial organic materials (Topsoil) within the vicinity of
borings CBR-2, CBR-3, B-4, B-7, B-9, and B-10 were noted to contain appreciable
amounts of fines (SAND; SC, SC-SM and/or CLAY; CL, CH). The current (natural)
moisture contents of the surface soils at the explored locations were estimated to be near
or above their optimum moisture. Accordingly, combinations of excess surface moisture
from precipitation ponding on the site and the construction traffic, including heavy
compaction equipment, may create pumping and general deterioration of the bearing
capabilities of the surface soils. Therefore, undercutting to remove very soft soils may be
required. The extent of the undercut will be determined in the field during construction,
based on the outcome of the field testing procedures (subgrade proofroll).
Furthermore, inherently wet subgrade soils combined with potential poor site drainage
make this site particularly susceptible to subgrade deterioration. Thus, grading should be
performed during a dry season if at all possible. This should minimize these potential
problems, although they may not be eliminated.
SoludonsJncf.,,,i,,,VM

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
Due to the potential for perched water and the presence of moisture sensitive soils near
the surface, control of surface water is very important to the successful completion of the
proposed construction. The contractor should plan his grading activities to control surface
water and minimize erosion of exposed cut or fill material. This may include constructing
temporary berms, ditches, flumes and/or slope drains to intercept runoff and discharge it in
a controlled fashion, while complying with state and local regulations.
4.2 Subgrade Preparation
Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a
large static drum roller. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be
evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the subgrade soils should be
proofrolled to check for pockets of loose material hidden beneath a crust of better soil.
Several passes should be made by a large rubber -tired roller or loaded dump truck over
the construction areas, with the successive passes aligned perpendicularly. The number of
passes will be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative
depending on the soils conditions. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during
proofrolling (beyond the initial cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the directions of
the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative.
Subsequently and prior to the placement of any select fill materials, compaction tests
should be performed on the existing subgrade soils within the proposed building and/or
pavement footprints in order to verify that they have been compacted to at least 95% of the
Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557). It is possible that some subgrade improvements will be
required to provide suitable soils for foundation, slab, and/or pavement support.
Preliminarily, unstable pavement and/or slab -on -grade subgrade soils are anticipated to be
corrected by means of undercutting the subgrade soils, where necessary, to a depth of
about 12 to 18 inches and backfill the resulting excavations with suitable select fill
materials. Similarly, in the event that unstable foundation bearing soils are encountered it
is anticipated that an undercut depth of about 1 to 2 feet and subsequent backfill with
suitable select fill materials will result in suitable bearing conditions. Recommendations
concerning the subgrade improvements (as necessary) should be more accurately
determined in the field following the testing procedures as conditions are anticipated to
vary. The project's budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements
(undercut and backfill with structural fill).
4.3 Structural Fill and Placement
Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by the Geotechnical Engineer, the
placement of the fill required to establish the design grades may begin. Any material to be
used for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by G E T Solutions, Inc. prior to
placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fill
material should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 25% by weight of fines (SP,
SM, SW, GP, GW), having a liquid limit less than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, and
should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable material.
�ECEIV ED
AU0 2 1 2009
Solutions, Inc. _�
DWO
PROJ F --

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation 8 Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
Other soils types such as SAND (SC-SM, SC) and/or CLAY (CL) may be used as fill
provided that they are properly placed and compacted as noted herein. These soil types
are typically moisture sensitive and unstable conditions and/or the inability of the materials
to be properly compacted may occur. Accordingly, should these soils be selected for use
as fill it is considered necessary to allow them to be dried to a moisture content suitable for
placement and compaction.
All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the Modified
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). In general, the compaction should be
accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically
compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A representative of
G E T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure
that adequate compaction is achieved.
Backfill material in utility trenches should be placed in 4 to 8 inch loose lifts when
compacted with the use of hand operated equipment and should be compacted to at least
95 percent of ASTM D1557.
Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoid
transmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. In
this regard, it is recommended that the vibratory roller remain at least 25 feet away from
existing structures; these areas should be compacted with small, hand -operated
compaction equipment.
4.4 Suitability of On -site Soils
The subsurface CLAY (CL and CH) and/or SAND (SC and SC-SM) soils encountered at
the boring locations do not appear to meet the criteria recommended in this report for
reuse as structural fill, but may be used as fill within green areas. However, the SAND
(SM, SP-SM, and SP) soils may be suitable for reuse as structural fill. Further
classification testing (natural moisture content, gradation analysis, and Proctor testing)
should be performed in the field during construction to substantiate the suitability of
excavated soils for reuse as fill within construction areas.
4.5 Preliminary Foundation Design Recommendations
Provided that the construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed structures
can be supported by shallow spread footings bearing upon firm natural soil, well
compacted structural fill material The footings can be designed using a net allowable soil
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the
footings and backfill over the footings, including the weight of the floor slab, need not be
considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above the finished floor need to be used for
dimensioning the footings.
(Solutions; ;Inc ,; 'Mi

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot
(psf), the base of the footings should have an embedment of at least 18 inches beneath
finished grades and wall footings should have a minimum width of 20 inches for the
proposed residential structures and 24 inches for the proposed elementary school and
community center. In addition, isolated square column footings are recommended to be a
minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet in area for bearing capacity consideration. The recommended
18-inch footing embedment is considered sufficient to provide adequate cover against frost
penetration to the bearing soils.
Alternatively, post -tensioned slab construction may be utilized to support the proposed
residential structures. The post -tension slab foundations should be sized by the structural
engineer. A subgrade modulus of 125 psi/in for compacted structural fill can be used in the
design of the post -tensioned slab foundations.
4.6 Settlements
It is estimated that, with proper site preparation, the maximum resulting total settlement of
the proposed building foundations should be up to 1 inch. The maximum differential
settlement magnitude is expected to be less than 1/2-inch between adjacent footings (wall
footings and column footings of widely varying loading conditions). The settlements were
estimated on the basis of the results of the field penetration tests. Careful field control will
contribute substantially towards minimizing the settlements.
4.7 Foundation Excavations
In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into
firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill. The foundation bearing capacities should
be verified in the field during construction by means of performing an inspection of all
footings. At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative will explore the
extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed
excavations. Also, at the time of the footing observations, the Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative should determine and perform the necessary testing and evaluations to
further evaluate the foundation bearing soils.
If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations,
the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with
"flowable fill" or a suitable structural fill material compacted to a dry density of at least 95
percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557), as described in
Section 4.3 of this report, prior to concrete placement. This construction procedure will
provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.
Solution

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321G
Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of
all footing and floor slab areas be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers, to
a dry density of at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557)
as tested to a depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any
localized areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be
adequately recompacted. The compaction testing in the base of the foundation may be
waived by the Geotechnical Engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the
foundation inspections.
Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected
against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain or
frost. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be
allowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed the same day the
excavation is made. If this is not possible, the footing excavations should be adequately
protected.
4.8 Slab -on -Grade Design
The floor slabs may be constructed as slab -on -grade members provided the previously
recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It is
recommended that all ground floor slabs be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of
relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5%
passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as a
capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab.
It is noted that all ground floor slabs may consist of "floating" slabs that are ground
supported and not rigidly connected to walls or foundations. Alternatively, monolithic slab -
on -grades with turn down foundations may be used.
The slab -on -grade subgrade should be established by means of placing the recommended
structural fill and compacting to at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density
(ASTM D 1557). This construction procedure will provide a subgrade modulus of at least
125 psi/in.
It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or
retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the
performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor
resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions orother
considerations require greater vapor resistance protection; consideration should be given
to using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the
Architect based on project requirements.
n

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
4.9 Pavement Design
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results indicated soaked CBR values ranging from
14.1 to 17.9, averaging 15.7. The average soaked CBR value was multiplied by a factor of
two-thirds to determine a pavement design CBR value. The two-thirds factor provides the
necessary safety margins to compensate for some non -uniformity of the soil. Therefore, a
CBR value of 10.5 was used in designing the pavement sections. Furthermore, the
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) loading criteria provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
and the information listed below were also used to complete the pavement design analysis,
which was performed in accordance with AASHTO requirements. Should any of the
information below be incorrect G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified to perform a
subsequent analysis prior to paving operations.
Average Daily Traffic: Ranging from 80 to 4500 Trips Per Day
Percent Trucks: 8%
Design Life Criteria: 20 Years
Percent Growth Rate: 0.0%
Total Design ESALs ranging from 94,399 to 2,359,977
Reliability = 75.0%
Overall Deviation = 0.45
Soil Resilient Modulus = 9,707.5 psi
Initial Serviceability = 4.20
Terminal Serviceability = 2.00
The pavement calculations were performed using proprietary software WinPas and the
pavement sections noted in Table II below are recommended, which vary with the ADT
loading criteria provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Table II —Pavement Sections
Hot Mix Asphalt
Aggregate
Surface
Surface
Intermediate
Section
Base*
Subgrade*'
SF-9.5A
S-12.5
1-1913
ADT 4500 Vehicles Per Da — Alternative I
Heavy Duty Asphalt
1.51,
N/A
2.5^
12"
Firm, Stable, and
Compacted
ADT 4500 Vehicles Per Da — Alternative II
Heavy Duty Asphalt
2"
N/A
T
8°
Firm, Stable, and
Compacted
ADT 80 to 600 Vehicles Per Da
Standard Duty
1"
2" N/A
8"
F inn, Stable, and
Asphalt
Compacted
NCDOT ABC compacted to a dry density of at least 100% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density
(ASTM D 1557).
Compacted to a dry density of at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557).
Solutions, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
The results of the pavement design analysis are included in Appendix V (Pavement Design
Analysis). All pavement material and construction procedures should conform to Unified
Facilities Criteria (UFC) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
requirements.
Following pavement rough grading operations, the exposed subgrade should be observed
under proofrolling. This proofrolling should be accomplished with a fully loaded dump truck
or 7 to 10 ton drum roller to check for pockets of soft material hidden beneath a thin crust
of better soil. Any unsuitable materials thus exposed should be removed and replaced with
a well -compacted material. The inspection of these phases should be performed by the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The subgrade soils are likely to be unstable
at the time of construction and some ground improvements are likely. As such, the
project's budget should include a contingency to accommodate the potential ground
improvements.
Where excessively unstable subgrade soils are observed during proofrolling and/or fill
placement, it is expected that these weak areas can be stabilized by means of thickening
the base course layer by 2 to 4 inches and/or lining the subgrade with geotextile fabric
(Mirafi 500x or equivalent). These alternatives are to be addressed by the Geotechnical
Engineer during construction, if necessary, who will recommend the most economical
approach at the time.
4.10 Seismic Evaluation
It is noted that, in accordance with the INC Building Code; Chapter 16, this site is classified
as a site Class D, based on which seismic designs should be incorporated. This
recommendation is based on the data obtained from the completed 25-foot deep SPT
borings as well as our experience with SPT borings and CPT soundings with shear wave
velocity testing performed within the vicinity of this project site. In order to substantiate the
site classification provided above a 100-foot deep CPT boring and soil shear wave velocity
testing with liquefaction potential analysis should be performed. G E T Solutions, Inc.
would be pleased to provide these services should they be determined necessary.
4.11 Soil Permeability
At this time saturated hydraulic conductivity testing was not included in our scope of
services. However, in order to assist with the storm water design, estimated permeability
values of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the completed boring locations are
provided in Table III. Should a more accurate groundwater level be required, G E T
Solutions, Inc. can install a series of ground water monitoring wells when we re -visit the
project site to perform field saturated hydraulic conductivity testing.
12
Solutions, Inc ,_i

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321G
Table III - Estimated Permeability Values
Soil
Classification
Percent Silt and/or Clay
Estimated
Permeability
Rate
SP, SP-SM
0% to 15%
1.0E-03 cm/sec
SM, SM-SC
15% to 30%
1.0E-05 cm/sec
SC
30% to 50%
1.0E-06 cm/sec
CL
50% to 70% with Liquid Limit less than 50
1.0E-07 cm/sec
CL, CH
70% to 100%
1.0E-07 cm/sec
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns
It is expected that dewatering may be required for excavations that extend near or below
the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be
accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level
may require well pointing.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove the water form
the excavation, remove the saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface
soils to support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
Perched water table conditions within the select fill materials and/or shallow subsurface
soils may be encountered throughout the project site during periods of heavy precipitation
and/or during the "wet' season. This is expected to occur as a result of the surficial
restrictive soil layers (CLAY: CL, SAND: SC, SC-SM) that were encountered at the location
of borings B-1 through B-4, B-6, B-7, B-9, B-10, B-12, and CBR-1 through CBR-4 at depths
ranging from 0.2 feet to 6 feet. Accordingly, some undercut and backfill with suitable
structural fill materials and/or de -watering of the structural fill materials and/or shallow
subsurface soils may be required during the subgrade preparation and/or foundation
construction procedures. Alternatively, an under drain system may be used in order to aid
in alleviating the potential for saturated bearing soil conditions and/or to aid in minimizing
foundation undercutting procedures.
It would be advantageous to construct all fills early in the construction. If this is not
accomplished, disturbance of the existing site drainage could result in collection of surface
water in some areas, thus rendering these areas wet and very loose. Temporary drainage
ditches should be employed by the contractor to accentuate drainage during construction.
Again, we recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the
time of construction to determine groundwater impact on this project.
13
Solu[lons, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
5.2 Site Utility Installation
The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the
pipe and structure placements to verify the suitability of the bearing soils. If unstable
bearing soils are encountered during installation some form of stabilization may be required
to provide a suitable bedding. This stabilization is typically accomplished by providing
additional bedding materials (No. 57 stone). In addition depending on the depth of the
utility trench excavation, some means of dewatering may be required to facilitate the utility
installation and associated backfilling.
All utility excavations should be backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 4.3 of
this report.
5.3 Additional Geotechnical Investigation
A comprehensive geotechnical investigation is recommended once the final layout
(structure footprints and design grades), structural characteristics, and the structural loads
are determined. The subsurface data documented during this feasibility study can be
incorporated within the final geotechnical investigation. Specifically, it is recommended to
perform additional SPT borings and/or DMT Soundings within the limits of the proposed
commercial building areas along with a comprehensive laboratory testing program.
Furthermore, it is recommended to perform CBR tests within the pavement areas to
provide pavement design parameters. The frequency of tests should be developed based
on the final design scheme.
5.4 Excavations
In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction
Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P". This document was issued to
better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by
this federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement
excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new (OSHA)
guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if
they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial
penalties.
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary
excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to
maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's responsible
person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the
excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should slope height,
slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed
those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
14
WN
Solutions, Inc. :'i

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Investigation & Geotechnical Engineering Services October 14, 2008
Camp LeJeune Family Housing — Feasibility Study
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
G E T Project No: EC08-321 G
We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions, Inc. is
not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such
responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by
G E T Solutions, Inc. and the information supplied by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
and their consultants for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for
this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are
encountered during construction, G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified immediately to
determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If G E T Solutions,
Inc. is not retained to perform these functions, G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be
responsible for the impact of those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for
the project.
The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications or
professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally
accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other
warranties are implied or expressed.
After the plans and specifications are more complete the Geotechnical Engineer should be
provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to assure our
engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents,
in order that the earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted
and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary
recommendations. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Kirr Horn
and Associates, Inc. and their consultants for the specific application to the Camp LeJeune
Family Housing project located within the Camp LeJeune military installation in North
Carolina.
® E C EA V E
A! ►G 2 , 2009 D
Dwa
PROJ "I
15
Solutions, Inc.

Appendix C

OVERVIEW
Backeround
This report contains the approach and preliminary results of a stormwater impact analysis conducted for
the proposed Camp Lejeune Phase I Development. The project site is located at Marine Corps Base
(MCB) Camp Lejeune in Onslow County, North Carolina. The project site is on approximately 170 acres
bounded by Brewster Boulevard to the North, cast of Paradise Point Golf Course, and west of Stone Street
as shown in Appendix A: Vicinity Map. The proposed project is Phase I of six proposed phases of
development at Camp Lcjcunc. An Environmental Assessment (EA) of the master development was
completed by the United States Marine Corps in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Pursuant to this report, A Finding Of' No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in August
2008.
Existine Conditions
The proposed project site is currently an undeveloped, wooded area. There is a narrow dirt road running
from the northeast corner of the project site in the southwest direction. A review of the topographic survey
shows grades on the site ranging from elevation 14 to elevation 30. A preliminary geotechnical
investigation was completed in August 2008. An executive summary of the results is attached in Appendix
D: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.
Ill. Wetlands and Waters of the United States
A wetland delineation of the proposed project area was confirmed by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers on March 2009. The Notification of Jurisdictional Determination is attached in Appendix E.
Less than 0.1 of an acre of wetlands will be impacted due to underground utilities associated with the
proposed development. There arc no Waters of the Unites States on the proposed project site.
IV. Proposed Development
The proposed project includes the development of 340 family housing units for enlisted military personnel,
one community center, one Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) School, and connecting
right-of-ways. The layout of the proposed project is shown in Appendix B: Proposed Site Plan. Five
interconnected wet detention basins will serve the residential development site to treat stormwater runoff
and one wet detention basins will serve the school development site to treat stormwater runoff. The
proposed project is on approximately 170 acres, of which approximately 128 acres will be disturbed. The
post -development impervious area of the proposed development was calculated to be approximately 34% or
57 acres.
The proposed development is Phase I of a master development including six phases. It is anticipated that
future phases of development will require additional stormwater infrastructure. The layout of the
proposed master development is shown in Appendix C: Proposed master Development.
®ECE111E�
AUG 21 2009
DWQ

V. Stormwater Analvsis
Onslow County is a coastal county located within the White Oak River Basin. Thus, stormwater
management measures shall be designed in accordance with the Coastal Stormwater Rules Session Law
2008-2 1I. The proposed project area drains to the Morgan Bay, Index Number: 19-18. According to
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality
the proposed project drains to SC waters. The build upon area is greater than 24%; therefore, the proposed
project is considered High -Density.
Per the stornnvater quality requirements, the first 1.5" of rain must be stored, controlled, and treated for
85% of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS). If wet ponds are used as a Best Management Practice (BMP)
the temporary pool most drawdown between 48 and 120 hours. Per the stormwater quantity requirements,
the storage volume must be discharged at a rate equal to or less than the pre -development discharge rate for
the I -year 24-hour storm.
VI. Design Procedure
The limits of the study area were established by determining the areas contributing runoff to the site using
available topographic information. The topographic information further revealed three main stormwatcr
egress points, each of which has a significant drainage area composed of lands that are both a part of and
separate from the proposed project site.
According to Table 3-4 in the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) Stormwater BMP Manual, the near surface soils in Onslow County are classified as
Hydrologic Group B.
Structural measures will be required for conveying and controlling increases in stormwater runoff directly
related to the increase in impervious area due to the Camp Lejeune development. These measures will be
designed to meet both the quantity and quality requirements for the State of North Carolina as described in
Section V.
Runoff from rainfall events will be controlled by a series of drainage inlets and be conveyed using
underground piping networks. Each of these networks will empty directly into one of the on -site wet ponds.
Five interconnected wet ponds have been designed to control and treat stormwater runoff front the
residential development and one wet pond BMP has been designed to control and treat stormwater runoff
from the school development. The locations of the proposed ponds are illustrated on Appendix C: Proposed
Site Plan.
The five interconnected wet ponds controlling and treating runoff from the residential development will
outfall into an unnamed ditch on the south west corner of the subject property. This unnamed ditch flows
to an existing culvert under Eden Street and outfalls into Morgan Bay, an arm of the New River. The wet
pond controlling and treating runoff from the school development will outfall into an unnamed ditch on the
west side of the subject property. This unnamed ditch flows to an existing culvert under a dirt road and
outfalls into Morgan Bay, an arm of the New River.
The stormwater networks and wet ponds will treat runoff from the entire project area with exception to
approximately 3 grassed acres on the north boundary, which will sheet Flow to existing culverts on
Brewster Boulevard.

The proposed ponds will have a combined footprint area of approximately 8 acres (normal water surface
area). They are expected to have a minimum of 3:1 side slopes with a 10' wide aquatic bench with 10:1
side slopes. The bottom elevations are expected to be 5.0' below the normal water surface elevation for all
the proposed ponds. The volume between the pond bottom and the normal pool is considered the water
quality or permanent pool volume. The volume above the normal pool elevation is for water quantity
(stormwater management). Based on the existing wetland areas and groundwater information, we expect
the normal water surface elevations can be maintained by the groundwater.
The existing and proposed drainage systems will be evaluated for peak Flow rates using ICPR software.
ICPR utilizes SCS curve number methods of generating hydrographs. Rational Method (Q=CIA),
Manning's Equation, and StormCAD software will also be used in the design of the proposed stormwater
system. A Manning's n value ol'0.013 will be used for the storm sewer pipe.
VII. Erosion Control
Erosion and Sedimentation control measures shall be designed in accordance with 15A NCAC, Chapter 4
(NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973).
The project site will be surrounded by silt fence and all existing and proposed stormwater structures will be
fitted with inlet protection devices to prevent sediment from exiting the project site. The proposed ponds
are anticipated to act as temporary sediment basins during construction.
DECEoVED
AUG 21 2009
DWQ
PROJ # �'—"—

Appcndix A

A
S
�� �9 (xi' +'r 1 l3 • r/I� �h/l /f'1 � ��Is; T��i� �\
SNORTS ! v c
ti i >y
C
God
U `Y.��
1
1 Set tnp., je
°)�• Paradrs�e
_ 1I 80�1 VA AR r
\�25,
3, .REW3TER „IMF ;e Gell Course
9 WHITE- 3)0AK
lank `J7 yk-
ryl� I� 1 J PRI✓ A ��,�I r'`� o • � �. w �";7 a• '�.
�.yx�,.�,
'• t , k``-'-+.
-21
-� 1/5 ✓j4E fi �K^` f h�YrlT1'�jA d / � //, t � �� I� Phil/��))) mil
vF es 1V('11 a�4Y w"1�5, f•�aot x� * i �}�: /� Q di n� s i �J /»>��..
)v
.� �xltiTCs `'y�1F - Y f�4 v ,{/'.Y 1 ry ,✓ \ "ti (a ..� a
{� r ♦`� '. K'y'�. 4 < r wy 1� a.rf�� �.. ����"��` /^`1 a '� { as IlS {lI _
+'4 -wi w ♦S � s i ,� f+ �. 9, \JWh \\ �ti] yerO� _..,. goyvi\L , �.1
` �i + 1„f(�i 'i ! C3� (' �n ♦ii,Y"�sr`��' �4 �9y. Fo 1 V
1^x�P }.s[tii x4151,. �f •, �i* Ty ! ;�ea44� rl� K28
w Q,R. (r A%'X t "� r ,r• )I I 111 y ,�� v : t %I / t�j��`1� ,�- r
�'�� ti � ":� i'llr 3 � ,'� F:� a �" 1 '"� 4 'Ruins �!y�A`� �,., //\� S �• C� '�f � ���n�. �.7 {1"�V",� ���i'��.
�LEGENaDT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Pilee - '�• - I--•t, .'\, r1�J, ._.:}!//:..i'.1'\ J��"v
CAMP LEJEUNE PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT N FIGURE 1
CC� ONSLOW COUNTY, NC � � � � � SITE VICINITY
KimleyHorn DATA SOURCE: U.S.G.S., SNEADS FERRY, NC TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
7.5 MINUTE TOPO SERIES
and Associates, Inc. 1 iNCH EQUALS 2,000 FEET AUG
n
OWO
PROJ

Appendix B

EW RIVER
1
i
� I
E
u AUG 21 2009
Dwo
Park 3
r,w,r nva ..I
PMSE29 2
N S
� m0`iUmrrs .......5
�
�sa
41
r 4^..
;FMP
ROAD
i
ElEFd
p MAN
P LEJEUNI
_ I

U.S. ARLMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 2003 2570 County: Onslow US.G S. Quad: Camp Leieune
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
.Property Owner/Agent: USN4C—Camp Leieune Consultant: Geo-Marinelnem-porated
Address: attic Marty Korenek attn: Jef DeBerry
PSC Box 20004 2713 Maeruder Blvd, Suite D
Canon Leieune, NC 28542 Ilamphm, VA 23666
Property description:
Size (acres) + 2000 acres Nearest Town Camp Leieune
Nearest Waterway Northeast and New River Watersheds River Basin White Oak
USGS HUC 03030001 Coordinates N 34.7247 W 77.3770
Location description The review area is located within Camp Leieune specifically within Camp Johnson and a
oroiect area known as the PPV 1.4 mi the opposite banks of the Northeast Creek from Clumv Johnson, Onslow County.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Bused on preliminary information, there may be wetlands of the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)juri=_diction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely nianner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in die law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
N The wetlands have been delineated and surveved and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on 3/16/2009. Unless there is a change in the law or out published regulations, this -
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
pcmnit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coasted Area Management Act
(CANIA). you should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Page f or z Rn
,
a€;G Z t zoos
PRo,I # DWQ

Action 1D:
Placement of dredged or till material within waters or the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permi[ nrty
coustinne a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). 1f you have any questions regarding this
determination undlor the Corps regulatory program, please contact Brad Shaver at 910-2514611.
C. Basis For Determination
The subfect area exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Delineation Manual and is abuttim, or
represented by relatively permanent waterbodies which ultimately flow into the Northeast Creek and New River, both
traditional navieahle waters of the US.
D. Remarks
The site was field verified by Emily Hughes and Brad Shaver on 5/27/08, 6/24/08. 7/29/08, $112/08, 8119/08. 8/26108
9/9/08 and 9/16/08.
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This cmrespondeoce constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site, If you object to this
determination. you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR pan 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Brad Shaver, Project Manager,
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlinuton Ave
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps nttist determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 C'FR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 5/16/2009.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence."
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 3/16/'2009 Expiration Date 3/16/2014
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level orsupport to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
htt�:'t�mvhhsau.usace.armv.milJWL"fLANDS/inde.<.hunl toconipletethesurveyonline.
Copy famished:
Charles F. Riggs & Associates; Inc. aun: Charles Riggs. P.L.S P.O. Box 1570 Jacksonville, NC 28541
Page 2 of 2

NOTIFICATION OF ADMIMSTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: USMC -Cam Le'cune
File Number: 2003 2570
Date: 3/16/2009
Attached is:D
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
lu
SECTION T77he following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.anny.mil/ineUfimctions/cw/ceewo/reg or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. _
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. Ifyou received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections most be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
.permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some ol'your objections, or (c) not modity the penmil
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the pennit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP mid your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must. be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

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