250029 Facility Geotechnical Report.pdf

Geotechnical Engineering Report

22-0047: PRACTICAL APPLICATION FACILITY

MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

PREPARED BY:

151 Poole Road, Suite 100

Leland, NC 28451

(910) 383-1044

NC License C-1621

PREPARED FOR:

PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

PROJECT NO. G2025-161

DECEMBER 17, 2025

1 5 1 P o o l e R o a d , S u i t e 1 0 0 • L e l a n d , N C 2 8 4 5 1 • T E L : ( 9 1 0 ) 3 8 3 - 1 0 4 4 • F A X ( 9 1 0 ) 3 8 3 - 1 0 4 5 w w w . c a p e f e a r e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

December 17, 2025

Commanding General Attn: Public Works Division Joe Cirillo, Project Manager MCB, PSC Box 20004 Camp Lejeune, NC 28542-0004

RE: Geotechnical Engineering Report Project 22-0047: Practical Application Facility MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Project No: G2025-161

Dear Mr. Cirillo:

Cape Fear Engineering, Inc. (CFE) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and provides our geotechnical engineering recommendations.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us.

Respectfully Submitted, Cape Fear Engineering

Michael C. Raup, P.E.

Senior Project Engineer NC Reg. # 045271

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Site Location and Description

1.2 Scope of Services

1.3 Project Authorization

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

2.2 Laboratory Testing

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

3.3 Groundwater

4.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Earthwork - Site Clearing and Grading

4.2 Earthwork - Subgrade Preparation and Evaluation

4.3 Earthwork – Suitable Structural Fill, Placement, and Compaction Requirements

4.4 Foundations

4.5 Building Floor Slabs

4.6 Pavement Sections

4.7 Seismic Evaluation

4.8 Construction Considerations

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION EXHIBIT

APPENDIX II CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

APPENDIX III BORING LOGS

APPENDIX IV SOIL PROFILE

APPENDIX V LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

22-0047 Practical Application Training Facility MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Site Location and Description

Cape Fear Engineering has completed our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed new building to be constructed at the 22-0047 MARSOC Practical Application Training Facility site within the MARSOC section of the Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Lejeune military installation in North Carolina. It is our understanding that the 22-0047 MARSOC Practical Application Training Facility project will include the construction of a 1-story pre-engineered metal building. The 22- 0047 MARSOC Practical Application Training Facility development will also provide gravel drive access, underground utilities, and other infrastructure features. The purpose of this geotechnical engineering evaluation was to determine pertinent subsurface information for earthwork and foundation design considerations.

The proposed pre-engineered metal building will consist of steel frame and a standing seam metal roof, translucent panels, a concrete monolithic slab-on-grade, supported on a shallow foundation system. The maximum wall and column loads associated with the new structure are not expected to exceed 1.5 kips per linear foot and 65 kips, respectively.

Based on the previously discussed project information, documents provided by the client, and observations during our site reconnaissance, site elevations within the project area are anticipated to be at or near current elevations. Therefore, we anticipate that less than 2-feet of fill is expected to establish final site grades.

The project site is located in a wooded tract with minimal grade grades across the project location.

The surrounding area includes existing MARSOC military facilities, parking areas, existing roadways, and wooded tracts of land.

A site vicinity map showing the project area is provided below.

Project Site

CFE Project No.: G2024-161 2

Project Site General Vicinity

1.2 Scope of Services

The purpose of this investigation was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions within the project area. The subsurface conditions were evaluated to provide our engineering assessments. For this project, the following items were evaluated to provide geotechnical engineering information and recommendations:

General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the project site, as well as provide the depth of groundwater at the boring locations at the time of drilling.

General location and description of any potentially deleterious materials encountered in the borings that may interfere with the construction process or structural performance of the proposed new building. Potential deleterious materials include existing fills, expansive soils, substantial organics, or other unsuitable materials.

Interpretation of the soil test borings to provide earthwork design and construction recommendations including stripping, grading, engineering requirements for structural fill, placement, and compaction.

Interpretation of the soil test borings to provide recommendations for a shallow foundation system and other foundation construction recommendations for support of the proposed structure. Design and construction requirements including allowable bearing pressures, foundation sizes, foundation embedment, expected total and differential settlements, foundation excavation preparation, and required foundation observation and testing.

Seismic site class determination in accordance with the 2018 International Building Code (IBC).

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or in the vicinity of the project site.

1.3 Project Authorization

The Geotechnical Engineering Services were conducted in general accordance with the Cape Fear Engineering proposed services. Authorization to proceed with our services was received from Mr. Joe Cirillo of the MCB Camp Lejeune Public Works Division.

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 3

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

The general subsurface soil types were explored by completing Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in the area noted in Table I below. The information obtained from our field exploration program was used to assist in developing the design and construction recommendations.

Table I – Boring Schedule

Boring Number

(1) Boring Depth (feet)

Boring Location Description

B-1 30.0 Building boring located in the approximate Northern portion of the proposed building footprint.

B-2 30.0 Building boring located in the approximate Northern half of the proposed building footprint.

P-1 10.0 Parking area boring in the approximate Northwestern entrance.

P-2 10.0 Parking area boring in the approximate Northern portion of the proposed parking area.

(1) Boring depth measured from the existing ground elevation at time of drilling.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) using mud rotary techniques with a drill rig were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D1586 and ASTM D5783. The tests were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to a depth of 12 feet and at 5-foot intervals, thereafter, starting at a depth of 13 feet below existing grade. The soil samples were obtained with a standard split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven 24-inches with blows from an automatic hammer weighing 140 pounds, 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 (uncorrected for automatic hammer). A representative portion of each disturbed split-spoon sample was collected with each SPT, placed in glass jars, sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review and classification.

The boring locations were initially established by a representative of Cape Fear Engineering. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached “Boring Location Exhibit” (Appendix I), which was reproduced from a plan provided by the Earth Science, LLC.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Soil testing provided by Cape Fear Engineering was performed in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. All soil testing was performed in our Leland, North Carolina laboratory.

Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling operations were labeled, sealed in a glass jar, and transferred to our laboratory in accordance with ASTM D4220 for classification and analysis. Soil descriptions on the boring logs are provided in general accordance with ASTM D2488 using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil samples that were selected for

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 4 testing were classified in general accordance with ASTM D2487. Some variation can be expected between samples classified using the visual-manual procedure (ASTM D2488) and the USCS (ASTM D2487.) A summary of the soil classification system is provided in Appendix II.

As indicated above, representative soil samples were selected and subjected to natural moisture, and No. 200 sieve wash testing to verify the visual classification. These test results are tabulated below in Table II – Summary of Laboratory Test Results. These results are also presented on the Boring Logs provided in Appendix III and on the individual Laboratory Test Reports in Appendix V.

Table II – Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Boring Number

Sample Type

Depth (feet)

Natural Moisture

Passing No. 200

Sieve

Atterberg Limits

(LL/PL/PI)

USCS Classification

B-1 Split Spoon 2-4 7.7 5.1 Non-Plastic Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace Silt

B-1 Split Spoon 10-12 19.6 10.8 Non-Plastic Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace Silt

B-1 Split Spoon 13-15 29.2 49.0 34/16/18 Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC)

B-1 Split Spoon 23-25 33.9 68.0 43/22/21 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)

B-2 Split Spoon 4-6 19.4 9.0 Non-Plastic Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace Silt

B-2 Split Spoon 8-10 23.2 5.9 Non-Plastic Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace Silt

B-2 Split Spoon 10-12 49.7 43.4 44/18/26 Clayey fine SAND (SC)

B-2 Split Spoon 18-20 36.3 65.1 42/17/25 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)

P-1 Split Spoon 0-2 10.9 11.3 Non-Plastic Poorly Graded fine SAND (SP) with trace Silt

P-1 Split Spoon 4-6 20.4 10.3 Non-Plastic Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace Silt

P-2 Split Spoon 2-4 27.1 10.8 Non-Plastic Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace Silt

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 5

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

The project site lies within a major physiographic province of North Carolina 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 exploration generally consisted of marine deposited sands.

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

A summary of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the boring locations are presented in Table III.

Table III – Subsurface Soil Conditions

Average Depth (ft.) Stratum Description Range of

SPT (1) Values to

0.0-1. 5 Surficial 0-18 inches of Topsoil -

0.0-1.5 to

12.0-17.0 I

Grayish brown, light yellowish brown, brown, yellowish brown, dark gray and gray SAND (SP-SM, SM, SC) with varying amounts of silt and clay.

Granular 2 – 18

12.0-17.0 to

27.0-30.0

II

Mottled gray-reddish brown-dark gray, dark gray, gray, dark gray-light gray-yellowish brown CLAY (CL) with varying amounts of silt and sand.

A dark gray and orange, SAND (SC) layer was encountered at boring B-2 at approximately 27.0 feet below existing ground surface.

Cohesive 3 – 6

Granular

Note(s):

(1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, N-Values in blows per foot (uncorrected) (2)

The subsurface descriptions are of a generalized nature and were provided to highlight the major soil strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix III (Boring Log sheets) and in Appendix IV (Soil Profile), which should be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on the record of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected across the site. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the transition may be gradual.

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 6

3.3 Groundwater

The initial 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 a depths ranging from 3.1 to 3.9 feet below the existing site grade at the boring locations to the depth explored. Any variations in groundwater readings are anticipated to be the result of the effects of rain events, associated man-made disturbances, and drainage features. The boreholes were backfilled upon completion for safety considerations. Seasonal groundwater fluctuations of 2± feet or more are common in the project’s area; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. The contractor should determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of construction to determine groundwater impacts that may affect the construction procedures.

Perched groundwater conditions are likely to be encountered at the project site. The perched condition is anticipated to occur during periods of heavy precipitation and/or during the wet season in the areas where shallow subsurface clayey soils were encountered. These soils will act as a restrictive layer allowing excessive moisture to accumulate within the overlying granular soils.

Perched groundwater, if encountered, can adversely affect foundation excavation, roadway, underground utility installation and other construction activities. The contractor should determine the actual groundwater levels and potential perched groundwater conditions at the time of construction to determine groundwater and potential perched groundwater impacts that may affect the construction procedures.

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 7

4.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Our design and construction recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, interpretation of the soil test borings, review of the provided documents from the client, and 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 Earthwork - Site Clearing and Grading

The proposed construction area (study area) is a cleared tract of land located on an undeveloped parcel of land. The study area may have been impacted by prior construction activities associated with the surrounding area. These impacts may have included placement of uncontrolled earthfill and/or other construction debris, underground utility installations and/or other potential construction activities which may have disturbed the project study area and could affect the performance of the new structure. It is estimated that a cut of about 8 – 18 inches in depth will be required to remove the topsoil material encountered in the SPT borings. This initial cut of the project site could extend deeper (18 to 24 inches, or more) to remove any deeper organic laden soils and/or uncontrolled fill materials associated with previous developments. Therefore, the new building area should be cleared by means of removing the existing topsoil, any deeper organic laden soils and root mat, and any other unsuitable materials. It is recommended that the clearing operations extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed construction areas.

Once site clearing is completed, the exposed subgrade will generally be comprised of medium dense Sand (SM, SP-SM). Excess surface moisture from precipitation ponding on the site, along with construction equipment traffic, may make this site susceptible to pumping and general deterioration of the bearing capabilities of the surface soils because of the presence of the medium dense Sand soil materials encountered at the boring locations. Therefore, undercutting to remove loose wet 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 and test pits.) The project’s budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements (building and other structural areas - undercut and backfill with structural fill.)

Uncontrolled Earthfill materials were not encountered in the borings; however, as indicated above, it is possible that these materials may be encountered at this site during site clearing operations. Prior development in the immediate vicinity of the study area included construction of buildings, parking areas, and underground utilities. These activities may have impacted the site. Uncontrolled earth fill may have been placed as part of the original development within the project study area. If encountered, it is possible these materials can be left in place beneath building and other new construction areas provided that substantial amounts of organics or other unsuitable materials are not present. This should be verified in the field during the subgrade evaluation performed as described in section 4.2 of this report. However, all foundation bearing surfaces must penetrate any Uncontrolled Earthfill materials, if encountered.

To reduce the potential for subgrade improvements, it is recommended that the grading operations be performed during the drier months of the year (generally April through November.)

This should help minimize these potential problems. If grading is attempted during the winter months, the site should be graded to enhance surface water runoff. However, stabilization of wet

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 8 soils should be anticipated. Methods to address wet soils may include undercutting and backfilling with structural fill. However, during the drier months of the year, wet soils could be dried by disking or implementing other drying procedures such as stockpiling or spreading the soils in thin lifts, to achieve moisture contents necessary to reach adequate degrees of compaction. As previously stated, the project’s budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements as described above.

Any undercut and backfill should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative who will evaluate the composition of the recovered soils.

Recommendations concerning the subgrade improvements (as necessary) will be provided in the field following the testing procedures.

Perched groundwater conditions are likely to be encountered at the project site. The perched condition is anticipated to occur during periods of heavy precipitation and/or during the wet season in the areas where shallow subsurface clayey soils were encountered. These soils will act as a restrictive layer allowing excessive moisture to accumulate within the overlying granular soils.

Perched groundwater, if encountered, can adversely affect foundation excavation, roadway, underground utility installation and other construction activities. The contractor should determine the actual groundwater levels and potential perched groundwater conditions at the time of construction to determine groundwater and potential perched groundwater impacts that may affect the construction procedures.

4.2 Earthwork - Subgrade Preparation and Evaluation

Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a large static drum roller, as needed. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative for stability. The subgrade soils should be proofrolled to check for pockets of soft material hidden beneath a crust of better soil. Several passes should be made by a large roller compactor (with at least 2-rubber tires) or a 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 their qualified representative. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the initial clearing cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the direction of the geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative.

In addition to the proofroll, a series of test pit excavations should be performed to determine if any unsuitable materials are located within the building pad and any other structural areas. The test pit excavations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative to determine the thickness and composition of the shallow subsurface soils and the suitability of these materials for reuse as structural fill and/or to remain in place in any structural areas.

The prepared subgrade should be sloped to prevent the accumulation and/or ponding of surface water. If the exposed subgrade becomes wet or frozen, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted.

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 9

4.3 Earthwork – Suitable Structural Fill, Placement, and Compaction Requirements

Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by a geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative, 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 a qualified inspector and laboratory 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, SP-SM, SM, SW, SW-SM, GP, GP-GM, GW, GW-GM), have 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.

All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698.) 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 qualified inspector 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 and be compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D698. 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 large vibratory rollers remain at least 25 feet away from existing structures. Areas within 25 feet of existing structures should be compacted with small, hand-operated compaction equipment.

Based on the completed laboratory testing and visual soil classification of the soils recovered from the borings, the shallow subsurface SAND (SP-SM and SM) may meet the criteria recommended in this report for reuse as structural fill. The Clay (SC and CL) soils encountered at the boring locations do not appear to meet the criteria recommended in this report for reuse as structural fill; however, they may be used as fill in non-structural green areas.

At a minimum, further classification testing including natural moisture content, No. 200 sieve wash analysis, and Proctor testing should be performed at the time of construction to evaluate the suitability of the excavated soils for reuse as structural fill.

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 10

4.4 Foundations

Based on the laboratory classification results, the shallow subsurface sandy soils (upper 8 feet) encountered at the boring locations are not considered to be expansive in accordance with

1803.5.3 of the 2018 IBC.

Shallow Foundations Provided that the construction procedures provided in Section 4.0 are properly performed, the proposed structure can be supported by isolated or continuous spread footings or a monolithic slab with turn down edges, bearing upon firm natural soil or well-compacted structural fill material. These 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, need not be considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above the foundation need to be used for dimensioning the footings.

To develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), we recommend the footings be undercut 12 inches from the proposed bottom of footing elevation and backfilled with compacted No. 57 stone. The footing undercut should extend 12 inches laterally on each side of the proposed footing. The base of the footings should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches beneath finished grades and should have a minimum width of 18 inches.

In addition, isolated square column footings (if deemed necessary) 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 also considered sufficient to provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearing soils.

Settlements It is estimated that, with proper site preparation, the maximum resulting post-construction total settlement of the proposed foundations should be up to 1 inch. The maximum differential settlement magnitude is expected to be less than ½ inch between adjacent footings (wall footings and column footings of varying loading conditions). The settlements were estimated based on the results of the field penetration tests. Careful field control will contribute substantially towards minimizing the settlements.

Foundation Excavations In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into firm natural soil or well-compacted structural fill. All foundation bearing surfaces must penetrate any existing Uncontrolled Earthfill materials, if encountered. The foundation bearing capacities should be verified in the field during construction by performing a foundation inspection for the structures. At that time, the geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative should also explore the extent of any excessively loose, soft, Uncontrolled Earthfill or any otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed excavations. Also, at the time of footing observations, the geotechnical engineer or qualified representative should advance hand auger borings and use a hand penetration device in the base of the foundation excavations to verify that the recovered soils are consistent with those documented in this report. The necessary depth of penetration will be established during the footing subgrade observations.

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 11

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 No. 57 Stone, “flowable fill”, or lean concrete prior to concrete placement. This construction procedure will provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.

Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of all footing and floor slab areas be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers to a dry density of at least 95% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698) as tested to a depth of 8 to 12 inches for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized areas which have been loosened by excavation operations should be adequately re-compacted. The compaction testing in the base of the footings may be waived by the geotechnical engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the footing inspections.

Soils exposed in the base 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.

4.5 Building Floor Slabs

The building floor slabs may be constructed as slab-on-grade members provided the previously recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It is recommended that the ground floor slab be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5% passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as a capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab. The slabs can be designed with the use of a subgrade modulus on the order of about 125 psi/in bearing on the existing natural subgrade soils or bearing on structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698).

It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or retarder to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the performance of glued tile, carpet, or other moisture sensitive floor coverings. 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.

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 12

4.6 Pavement Sections

Based on the results of our field exploration which included size (4) SPT building and access lane borings within the limits of the project site and our experience with similar compacted soils, we estimate that the in-place-soaked California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values will range from 5 to 10 within the upper 2-feet of the existing site grade elevations. Multiplying the estimated CBR range for the on-site soils by a factor of two-thirds provides an estimated pavement design CBR value ranging from 3.3 to 6.7 with an estimated average design CBR value of 5. The two-thirds factor provides the necessary safety margins to compensate for some non-uniformity of the soil.

Therefore, an estimated CBR value of 5 may be used in designing the pavement sections.

The typical pavement sections provided in Table V on the following page are based on the results of our field explorations, and experience with similar soil conditions. Furthermore, these typical sections do not represent a completed pavement design in accordance with the NCDOT requirements and are typical for the region.

Table V – Minimum Pavement Sections

Section Aggregate Base (1) Subgrade (2)

Gravel 8” Firm, Stable, and Compacted, lined with AASHTO M288 Class 1 Woven Geotextile fabric

Note(s): (1) NCDOT ABC Stone compacted to a dry density of at least 100% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557).

(2) Stabilization geotextile fabric meeting AASHTO M288 Class 1 woven geotextile (elongation <50%) with seams overlapped a minimum of 24-inches.

Actual pavement section thickness should be approved by the design civil engineer based on traffic loads, volume, and the owner’s design life requirements. The above sections correspond to thickness representative of typical local construction practices and as such periodic maintenance should be anticipated. All pavement material and construction procedures should conform to North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requirements.

In preparation for a stable subgrade support for the pavement sections, the following construction steps are recommended:

After 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 loose/soft material hidden beneath a thin crust of better soil. In addition to the proofroll, a series of test pit excavations should be performed to determine the extent of any potential deeper organics or any other unsuitable materials within the pavement areas. The test pit excavations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative to determine the thickness and composition of any deeper unsuitable materials and the suitability of the materials to remain in place or the necessity for these materials to be removed from the pavement areas. Any unsuitable materials thus exposed should be removed and replaced with a well-compacted material. The inspection of these phases should be performed by a geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative. Areas of unstable natural soil conditions and/or unsuitable subgrade soils are likely to occur at the time of construction and some ground improvements may be needed. Therefore, the project’s budget should include a contingency to accommodate the potential ground improvements.

CFE Project No.: G2024-161 13

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 undercutting and replacing with suitable material, thickening the base course layer by 2 to 4 inches (or more), and/or lining the subgrade with additional geotextile fabric (Mirafi HP270 or equivalent) and/or Geogrid (such as Tensar TX140, BX1100 or equivalent). These alternates are to be addressed by the geotechnical engineer during construction.

4.7 Seismic Evaluation

Based on the data obtained from the 30-foot deep SPT borings and our experience with 100-foot-deep CPT soundings and SPT borings performed within the vicinity of the project site, this site should be classified as a Site Class ‘D’ in accordance with the 2018 IBC.

4.8 Construction Considerations

Based on the results of this exploration, varying soil conditions and compositions are expected to be encountered throughout the project limits. Open-cut excavations will likely extend through natural soils that are relatively “clean” (i.e., soil that is free of deleterious debris that may hinder excavation or installation). Debris typically considered unsuitable consist of wood, glass, organics, plastics, coal, brick, or any other material larger than 2 inches in diameter. Based on these characteristics, it is anticipated that some of the shallow subsurface materials encountered within the project alignment may be reusable as backfill. Soils containing appreciable amounts of deleterious debris should be discarded; however, an effort should be made during excavation to segregate potentially suitable in-situ fill soils for reuse.

The shallow subsurface within the project limits is comprised of granular soils; however, the contractor should anticipate that some of these soils will have relatively little cohesion and have a high potential for caving. Additionally, water seepage at varying elevations should be expected within the side walls of the open cut areas, increasing the potential for caving.

Temporary Slopes Due to the limited space for construction, temporary slopes may not be a feasible option. The contractor should be aware that temporary slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depths should in no case exceed those specified in local, state and/or federal safety regulations. Where temporary slopes are not feasible, shoring by means of sheeting and/or trench boxes may be appropriate. Where the stability of adjoining structures, pavements, or other improvements is endangered by excavation operations, support systems such as shoring, bracing, or underpinning may be required to provide structural stability. Shoring, bracing, or underpinning (if required) shall be designed by a professional engineer.

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 14

Shoring Shoring design and installation should be the responsibility of the contractor. Shoring systems required for this project should be designed by a professional engineer. Shoring systems should be designed to provide positive restraint of trench walls to protect against lateral deformation that may result in ground cracks, settlement, and/or other ground movements that may affect adjacent underground utilities, pavements, structures, and surface improvements. The contractor should be made aware of this potential condition so that preventative or repair measures can be implemented.

Depending on the shoring system used, the removal process may create voids along the walls of the excavations. If these voids are left in place and are significant, backfill and/or the retained soil may shift laterally, resulting in settlement of overlying structures/pavements. As such, care should be taken to remove the shoring systems and backfilling the trenches so that these voids are not created.

In all cases, the contractor should select an excavation and/or shoring scheme that will protect adjacent and overlying improvements, including below grade utilities.

Dewatering It is expected that dewatering will 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 will require well pointing and possibly shoring. Since temporary dewatering will impact construction and be dependent on construction methods and scheduling, we recommend the contractor be solely responsible for the design, installation, maintenance, and performance of all temporary dewatering systems. Where shoring is employed, the dewatering system should be compatible with the type of shoring to be used. We recommend the Contractor verify groundwater conditions and evaluate dewatering requirements prior to construction.

Lowering the groundwater table during dewatering activities will result in an increase in effective stresses and may induce settlements of the soils underlying adjacent structures/pavements.

Additionally, hydraulic compaction of the predominately granular soils (e.g., SP, SP-SM, SM soils) should be anticipated because of lowering the groundwater table. We recommend that the dewatering be performed so that the groundwater-level is lowered by no more than approximately 5 feet below the proposed excavation depth. It may be advantageous to install settlement monuments in areas where dewatering by means of well pointing is required.

Site Utility Installation The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the pipe placement to verify the suitability of the bearing soils. Based on the results of our field exploration program, it is expected that the utilities located below the groundwater level will bear in the wet granular soils. In these instances, the bearing soils may require some stabilization to provide suitable bedding. This stabilization is commonly accomplished by adding 12 inches or more of bedding stone (Type NCDOT #57). The resulting excavations located within structural areas should be backfilled with structural fill, provided the construction procedures provided in Section

4.3 are properly performed. Imported fill should be included in the construction budget to backfill the utility excavations within the structural areas of the project site.

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 15

Excavations Federal regulation requires all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavation, or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with (OSHA) guidelines.

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 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.

MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina CFE Project No.: G2024-161 16

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by Cape Fear Engineering 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, Cape Fear Engineering should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the recommendations are warranted. If Cape Fear Engineering is not retained to perform these functions, Cape Fear Engineering cannot be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.

The geotechnical engineer of record 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 of record should be provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to make sure 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 the client and their designated agents for the specific application to 22-0047 Practical Application Facility project located on the MCB Camp Lejeune military installation in Jacksonville, North Carolina.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX III

APPENDIX IV

APPEDNIX V

BORING LOCATION EXHIBIT

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

BORING LOGS

SOIL PROFILE

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX I

BORING LOCATION EXHIBIT

STONE BAY

NEW RIVER

COURTHOUSE BAY

STO

NES

CR

EEK

EVERETT CREEK

SNEADS CREEK

MUDDY CREEK

POWERLINE POND

COURTHOUSE BAY PONDPARADE FIELD

PARA

DE FI

ELD

RR150

SRR616B

BB180

SRR477

SBB322

SRR89

SBB51A

RR505

RR249

SBB46

SRR212

SRR117

SRR118

SRR116

SRR211

RR243

RR500

SRR252

SRR64

SBB338

BB292

SRR513

SRR66

SRR65

SBB307SBB305 SBB321

SRR486

SRR23

SRR601

SBB154

SRR602SRR600

SRR21

SRR18

SRR25

SBB155

SBB159

SBB158

A47

RR400

BB362

RR450

RR465

RR530

A66

RR614

RR616

BB355

RR612

RR460

BB2

SBB355A

A71

RR425

RR455

BB353

RR405

RR610

RR3

BB361

BB148

A1

RR123

BB137

BB360

A2

RR430

RR120

BB125

A68

RR122

RR526

A69

A67

RR135

RR415

RR141

RR139

RR140

RR2

RR5

BB274

BB275

RR4

RR1

RR136

BB329

BB330

BB255

BB250

A8

RR280

BB270

A9

BB260

BB11

BB265

A73

BB45

BB118

BB14

BB12

BB13

A72

RR8

A45

A3

BB6

BB56

BB27

BB5

BB365

BB8

BB328

BB28

RR6

BB219

RR44

RR49

SA52

RR83

RR516

BB361A

RR7

BB346

BB117

BB16

RR12

RR40

RR41

RR39

RR154

BB288

RR10

RR452

RR14

SRR188

BB160

RR467

RR48

RR50

RR51

RR463

RR461

RR462

RR474

RR403

RR468

RR466

BB147

RR121

RR520

BB136

RR136A

BB327

BB150

RR207

RR206

BB9

SA117

RR209

BB248

RR533

SBB50D

RR134

SBB150A

A47B

RR606

A47D

RR11D

BB13B

BB49C

SBB52B

RR266

RR24RR22

RR17

RR15

RR281

RR41B

RR282

BB22

BB24

BB23

BB21

RR11F

RR11E

RR93B

RR11B

RR11C

A71F

RR20

RR195

RR192

RR196

SRR160A

RR11J

SRR534

SRR150B

RR193

RR11H

RR194

SRR105

SRR534A

RR11G

SRR44A

SRR102

SRR122C

SRR123C

RR427

RR406

SBB331

RR13

SRR19A

RR481

A111

RR236RR235RR234

BB366

BB20

BB19

BB17

BB18

RR104

SRR16A

SA72A

BB86

BB117C

RR143

BB13A

BB8D

SRR416B

BB326G

SBB345B

BB50C

BB326E

BB326A

BB326BBB326C

BB326D

BB69

RR100

SA64

RR92

S1658H

BB117A

BB288A

SRR249G

BB246

RR485

BB326

RR501

BB48

BB50

RR155

A11

BB49

RR440

RR525

A10

BB52

A112

A113

A114

RR11

PVBB360

RR618

BB54

RR480

RR445

RR531

RR532

BB51

RR476

BB363

RR149

RR11K

SRR227

BB364

BB245

BB250C

SBB102

SBB119

1658P

SBB28C

SRR160B

SBB48B

BB272

BB49B

SRR404

RR248

BB326L

BB326K

BB350

RR420

SRR249D

RR160

SBB135

SBB329A

SA72B

BB293

SA72C

BB111

SRR122D

RR110

BB194A

SBB229

SBB328C

SRR123D

SRR249F

SBB265B

SBB263D

SBB344A

RR11

BB326

SRR516

SA14

SA13

SBB347

SRR163

SA83

SA83

SRR280G

SA54

SRR602A

SA50

PVB260

SRR436

SBB329B

SA58

BB219A

SRR138B

SRR140B

SA42

CONT161

SRR400K

SRR514

SBB361C

SBB361D

SBB29

SBB237

SBB108

SBB361E

RR135

SBB361B

SA57

SA103

SA75

BB125

SA59

SRR504

SA56

SRR502

SRR503

SRR55

PVB353

SRR80

RR121A

SBB355N

SBB355M

SBB274A

SBB355B

SBB355E

UNNAMED

UNNAMED

UNNAMED

UNNAMED

UNNAMED

UNNAMED

ALZ-8

ALZ-32

ALZ-27

TLZ KITE

TLZ FINCH

TLZ EGRET

TLZ ORIOLE

TLZ VULTURE

TLZ LHD DECK

TLZ SANDPIPER

NC 210

NC

ETA

7 R

D

L5 R

ANG

E R D

J2 RD

ROBER

SON RD

IE AREA RD

MUNRO RD

EXPEDITIONARY RD

EVERETT CREEK RD

FOYS LANDING RD

HOR

N R

D

GLOBE RD

ELLIS COVE RD

HATHCOCK RANGE RD

HARVEY ST

BUTTS AVE

ALP

HA

RD

DEMO RANGE RD

BOO

KER

T W

ASH

ING

TON

BL

VD

GP31 RD

BRA

VO

RD

PHIPPS RD

TNT RD

CHARLIE RD

TLZ

EGRET

RD

ETA

6 RD

STO

NE

BAY

AV

E

ALP

HA

RAN

GE

IMP

ACT

RD

CLINTON ST

MIDDLE ST

W ANCHOR RD

GP32 R

D

POE RD

COURTHOUSE RD

JAR

RETT

S PO

INT RD

EAGLE LOOP

JACKSON ST

W POWDER LN

EMBASSY RDRIF

LE

RAN

GE

RD

COMMAND DR

E ANCHOR RD

PISTOL LN

CHARLIE RANGE IMPACT RD

INDIA 1 RANGE RD

CAMP SWEAT RD

E POWDER LN

LHD DECK RD

PEA

CH

ST

OLD RIFLE RANGE RD

EAGLE EXT

S D R G

W C

ARV

ER

ST

TANK FARM CONNECTOR RD

N D R G

W C

ARV

ER

ST

OLD RIFLE RANGE RD

DEMO RANGE RD PA

B-2

B-1

P-1

P-2

BORING LOCATION

EXHIBIT

PRACTICAL APPLICATION FACILITY

MARSOC 22-0047

MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NC

LEGEND

NOTES

BORING LOCATIONS

(10 - 30 FT)

DATE: 11/11/2025

SCALE: NOT TO SCALE

DRAWN: JGC

APPROVED: MCR

PREPARED FOR:

MARINE CORPS BASE

CAMP LEJEUNE, NC

1. THIS BORING LOCATION EXHIBIT WAS

REPRODUCED FROM A SITE PLAN

PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT.

2. THIS BORING EXHIBIT IS NOT TO SCALE.

3. THE BORING LOCATIONS ARE

APPROXIMATE.

BORING LOCATION EXHIBIT PLAN

N.T.S.1

151 Poole Rd. Suite 100 | Leland, NC, 28451

TEL (910) 383-1044 | FAX (910) 383-1045

www.capefearengineering.com | N.C. LICENSE # C-1621

EX1G2025-161

VICNITY MAP

N.T.S.

SITE LOCATION

AutoCAD SHX Text A

AutoCAD SHX Text A

AutoCAD SHX Text A

AutoCAD SHX Text L

AutoCAD SHX Text T

AutoCAD SHX Text Z

AutoCAD SHX Text L

AutoCAD SHX Text T

AutoCAD SHX Text Z

AutoCAD SHX Text L

AutoCAD SHX Text T

AutoCAD SHX Text Z

AutoCAD SHX Text L

AutoCAD SHX Text T

AutoCAD SHX Text Z

AutoCAD SHX Text L

AutoCAD SHX Text T

AutoCAD SHX Text Z

AutoCAD SHX Text L

AutoCAD SHX Text T

AutoCAD SHX Text Z

AutoCAD SHX Text L

AutoCAD SHX Text T

AutoCAD SHX Text Z

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHEET NUMBER

AutoCAD SHX Text

JOB NUMBER

APPENDIX II

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

Standard Penetration Test (SPT), N-value Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4” 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.

Groundwater Readings Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as tidal influences and man-made influences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking lots, sidewalks, etc.).

Strata Changes In the column “Description” on the boring log, the horizontal lines represent approximate strata changes.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

NON COHESIVE SOILS

(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)

Relative Density

Very Loose 4 blows/ft. or less Loose 5 to 10 blows/ft.

Medium Dense 11 to 30 blows/ft.

Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft.

Very Dense 51 blows/ft. or more

Particle Size Identification Boulders 8 inch diameter or more Cobbles 3 to 8 inch diameter Gravel Coarse 1 to 3 inch diameter

Medium 1/2 to 1 inch diameter Fine 1/4 to 1/2 inch diameter

Sand Coarse 2.00 mm to 1/4 inch (Dia. of Pencil Lead) Medium 0.42 to 2.00 mm (Dia. of Broom Straw) Fine 0.074 to 0.42 mm (Dia. of Humar Hair)

(Cannot Visually See Individual Particles) Silt 0.002 to 0.074 mm Clay 0.002 mm or smaller

Coarse Grained Soils Classification Symbols (More than 50% retained on No. 200 Sieve)

GW - Well-graded Gravel GP - Poorly graded Gravel GW-GM - Well-graded Gravel w/Silt GW-GC - Well-graded Gravel w/Clay GP-GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt GP-GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay GM - Silty Gravel GC - Clayey Gravel GC-GM - Silty, Clayey Gravel SW - Well-graded Sand SP - Poorly graded Sand SW-SM - Well-graded Sand w/Silt SW-SC - Well-graded Sand w/Clay SP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/Silt SP-SC - Poorly graded Sand w/Clay SM - Silty Sand SC - Clayey Sand SC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand

COHESIVE SOILS

(CLAY, SILT, and Combinations)

Consistency

Very Soft 2 blows/ft. or less Soft 3 to 4 blows/ft.

Medium Stiff 5 to 8 blows/ft.

Stiff 9 to 15 blows/ft.

Very Stiff 16 to 30 blows/ft.

Hard 31 blows/ft. or more

Relative Proportions Descriptive Term Percent Trace 0-5 Few 5-12

Little 12-30 Some 31-50

Fine Grained Soils Classification Symbols (More than 50% passing the No. 200 Sieve)

CL - Lean Clay CL-ML - Silty Clay ML - Silt OL - Organic Clay/Silt CH - Fat Clay MH - Elastic Silt OH - Organic Clay/Silt PT - Peat

APPENDIX III

BORING LOGS

12 inches of Topsoil

Grayish brown, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP- SM) with Silt, Very Loose

Light yellowish brown, moist to wet,…