SW6210304_PN 87437 SOF HQ - STORMWATER REPORT_20210329

STORMWATER REPORT
PN 87437
SOF Headquarters Facility
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
ANALYSIS & CALCULATIONS
-ssG
SEAL
03959
'41 0 0 k*,
I I
Ne
Mason&Hanger
A Day &Zimmermann Company
March 1, 2021
M&H Project#: 0145.05
prepared for
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District

MasonJanger PN87437 SOF Headquarters
AD,y&Z,.- ... C,.p,,,y Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
TABLES
Table 1 RAINFALL DATA . ....................................................................................................... 2
Table 2 95 TH PERCENTILE AND 1" FIRST FLUSH BiORETENTION VOLUMES ................................ 5
Table 3 BiORETENTION SURFACE VOLUME AND AREAS ........................................................... 5
FIGURES
Figure 1 INCDEQ SUMMARY OF STORMWATER CALCULATIONS .................................................... 1
Figure 2 BIORETENTION BASIN . ........................................................................................... 6
APPENDIX
Appendix A
USGS PROJECT LOCATION MAP ............................................................................
a. 1
Appendix B
PREDEVELOPMENT MAP .........................................................................................
a.2
Appendix C
POSTIDEELOPMENT MAP .........................................................................................
a.3
Appendix D
EISA 438 CALCULATIONS ......................................................................................
a.4
Appendix E
STORMWATER CALCULATIONS .......................................................................
a.5
Appendix F
NRCS CUMBERLAND COUNTY SOIL SURVEY MAP ...................................................
a.6
Appendix G
SUBSURFACE ExPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT .................
a.7
Appendix H
BiORETENTION CELL SUPPLEMENT .........................................................................
a.8
Appendix I
OUTLET PROTECTION CALCULATIONS .....................................................................
a.9
Appendix J
SKIMMER SEDIMENTATION BASIN CALCULATIONS ..................................................
a.10
Mason & Hanger Page - i -

0001�
MasonJanger
A Dy&Zi.­­ C-p-y
GENERAL INFORMATION,
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
The project is located within the Fort Bragg Army Installation. The site is part of the development of
Patriot Point, and is located within or near multiple projects either developed or to be developed. The site
is currently primarily undeveloped and covered with native vegetation. Limited abandoned access roads,
both dirt and asphalt, are within the site which led to previously removed ammunition supply structures.
The site is bound on the north by Eagle Talon Drive and the PN79443 Human Performance Training
Center project currently under development, and to the south by New Dawn Drive. The eastern boundary
of the site is an existing parking area. The western boundary is 'B' Street. Access to the project site will
be via two entrance drives off of 'B' Street. The project consists of one (1) new one story building totaling
approximately 96,016 SF and associated site work including access drives. Two hundred and ninety
(290) Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) parking spaces will be provided. The total disturbed site area within
the limits of construction is approximately 8.56 acres.
The site prior to construction is undeveloped, consisting of a combination of open area and sparse
vegetation. Vegetation consists primarily of brush, with a limited number of deciduous trees 8 to 12
inches in diameter. Limited asphalt pavement is required to be removed. No existing structures are on -
site. The topography slopes generally towards the southwest, with an elevation range of approximately 6
feet. The soils consists primarily silty sands in the upper 3 to 4 feet with clayey sands and sandy clays
beneath.
The drainage areas for the project are attributed to the watershed of Bones Creek, Stream Index 18-31 -
24-2, Classification C: Aquatic Life, Secondary Recreation, Freshwater, in the Cape Fear River Basin.
METHODOLOGY
Per the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), the approved methods used in
stormwater calculations are as shown in Figure 1.
Table 3-1
Sunin-Luy of Stormwater Calculations
Calculation of:
Section
Allowable Methods
Peak Flow
3.2
Rational Method
Runoff Volume
3.3
Simple Method
Discrete SCS Curve Number Method
Storage Volume
3.4
Stage -Storage Table
Hydraulic Performance of the
3.5
Weir Equations
Outlet Device
Orifice Equation
Stage-Storage-Discbarge
3.6
Chamsaw Routing
Others: HEC-HMS, WinTR-55, SWIMM
Channel Geometry
3.7
Manning Equation
Nutrient Loading
33
DWQ Neuse TN Export Worksheet
DWQ Tar-Pairdico Nutrient Export Worksheet
Pollutmit Removal of BMTs
3.9
Stand-alone BMPs
Multiple Drainage Areas
BMPs in Parallel
BMps in Series
Note: Designers may adopt different calculation methods, but the method chosen must provide
equivalent or greater protection than the methods presented here.
Figure 1 - Ref: NCDEQ StormwaterBMP Manual
All methodology used to determine both peak flow and storm event volumes follows the guidelines set by
the Corp of Engineers Wilmington District and NCDEQ.
As the project is a federal project which exceeds 5,000 square feet of footprint, Section 438 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act or 2007 (EISA 438) mandates the use of site planning, design,
construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent
technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property.
Altason & Hanger Page I of 7

r
N
MasonJanger
AD,y&Z­­ ... C,.p,,,y
ExISTING CONDITIONS
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
The existing site where the training facility and associated supporting infrastructure is to be constructed is
approximately 11 acres. Total disturbed area and drainage area within the site is approximately 8.56
acres (no offsite drainage). The site, prior to construction, is primarily undeveloped, consisting of a
combination of open area and limited vegetation. Vegetation consists primarily of limited clusters of
deciduous trees 8 to 12 inches in diameter. The topography slopes generally towards the southwest, with
an elevation range of approximately 6 feet. Some additional site drainage sheet flows to the east to an
existing drainage swale. The soils consists primarily silty sands in the upper 3 to 4 feet with clayey sands
and sandy clays beneath. Due to the sandy nature of the existing soils, most first flush drainage
permeates into the ground.
The developed site was taken into consideration during the design of the SOF Infrastructure Project. The
overflow drainage from the developed site was intended to discharge into the storm sewer network
running along New Dawn Drive, with ultimate discharge to a wet pond located east of the intersection of
New Dawn Drive and Ammo Pointe Blvd.
For purposed of drainage calculations, the open site area is considered in fair to good condition.
No existing structures exist on -site. The site was previously part of an ammunition supply point. The
storage buildings have been previously removed. Limited asphalt and dirt paved roads lead to where the
structures used to reside, and will be demolished.
For the purpose of the stormwater calculations, the entire drainage area will be analyzed.
A Subsurface Exploration Report has been performed by Building and Earth, completed January 31,
2019. This report is included in Appendix G.
To calculate storm data, 24hr rainfall data to use for design was provided for by Fort Bragg. The rainfall
data used are given in Table 1. For stormwater design, the 1 Oyr event will be used. For temporary
erosion control measures during construction, the 2yr event will be used.
TABLE 1 RAINFALL DATA
STORm EVENT
24HR RAINFALL
DATA (I N)
1YR
3.03
2YR
3.67
5YR
4.71
10YR
5.4
25YR
6.5
50YR
7.3
100YR
8.2
Peak runoff was calculated using the Rational Method as outlined in eh NCDEQ Stormwater Design
Manual. Calculations are included in the appendix.
Altason & Hanger Page 2 of 7

r
N 0001�
MasonJanger
AD,y&Z­­ ... C,.p,,,y
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Existing conditions exist such that all drainage from the site flows towards existing stormwater structures
and bioretention cells which run along the southern portion of the site. To mimic this flow, all stormwater
runoff will be diverted towards a stormwater management area located on the southeastern portion of the
site. Stormwater conveyance structures will direct flow into the stormwater BMP area at three locations.
All conveyance structures are designed in accordance with NCDEQ and UFC 3-201-01 Civil Engineering,
With Change 2, standards.
The bioretention BMP is designed per NCDEQ Minimum Design Criteria as outlined in Part C-2.
Bioretention Cell. In addition, the bioretention cell is designed to meet EISA 438 in that the Peak
Attenuation Volume retained by the cell meets EISA 438 requirements as discussed below.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Based upon the Discrete SCS Curve Number Method (NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual 3.3.2) to
determine total volume of storage for the bioretention area, 13,631 cf of storage is required for the 1
storm event as required by NCDEQ. This volume will be stored in the ponding volume of the bioretention
cell, with a maximum ponding depth of 12".
As the project is a Federal facility over 5,000 square feet, the stormwater requirements of EISA Section
438 (Title 42, US Code, Section 17094) must be met. In accordance with the Department of Defense
memo dated January 19, 2010 entitled DoD Implementation of Storm Water Requirements under Section
438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) the designer of record shall implement the
procedures for complying with EISA 438 as outlined in the EPA Technical Guidance on Implementing the
Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence
and Security Act.
The EPA Guidance manual prescribes two options to comply with the EISA 438 mandate. Option 1 is to
retain and infiltrate the 95th percentile storm event onsite. Option 2 allows site -specific hydrologic analysis
to determine the types of stormwater practices necessary to preserve predevelopment runoff conditions.
Option 2 is provided for situations where pre -development conditions can be maintained by retaining less
than the 95th percentile storm event, or where site -specific parameters dictate a prescriptive methodology
be used or Option 1 is not protective enough, for example at the headwater of an impaired stream. For
this project, Option 1 was selected.
To be in compliance with EISA 438, based upon Option 1 of the EPA Technical Guidance document, the
total volume of runoff from the 95th percentile storm event must be captured and infiltrated on -site. The
method to determine this volume is based upon guidance from the EPA document.
The 95th percentile storm event for the project area is equivalent to 1.8" of rainfall, as provided by the Fort
Bragg Installation Design Guide. Criteria used for determination of total stormwater runoff to capture and
infiltrate, the following criteria was used: Hydrologic Soil Group B, average Maximum Infiltration Rate of
15 inches per hour or as determined by the percolation testing, Minimum Infiltration Rate of 0.1 inches per
hour, a Decay Factor or 2 per hour and Pervious Depression Storage of 0.2 inches.
To provide for this storage, the infiltration areas have been designed to help infiltrate the runoff closest to
the source or outfall of the project site. The bioretention area consists of a volume of ponding storage, a
section of engineered fill to promote infiltration and sediment removal, and an underdrain system (see
Figure 2). All drainage for the construction portion of the site is routed to the infiltration area. The design
of the bioretention areas is based upon Minimum Design Criteria as set forth by NCDEQ. The bioretention
area is designed to infiltrate the 95th percentile storm event as close as practical to the origin of the
drainage. All drainage enters the bioretention area via surface flow, or via stormwater collection pipes
with the outlet at the top of the pond area, allowing for sediment to be removed via infiltration. Storage
is provided in the above ground ponding (maximum 12" for NCDEQ ponding, and a peak attenuation max
Altason & Hanger Page 3 of 7

r
N 000�
MasonJanger PN87437 SOF Headquarters
AD,y&Z­­ ... C,.p,,,, Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
of 24") and the engineered fill media. The bioretention basin design is similar to and meets the Minimum
Design Criteria (MDC) required for NCDEQ C-2 Bioretention Cell, revised January 19, 2018.
To determine the storage volume to meet EISA 438, the Army LID Planning and Cost Tool was compared
against what was calculated via the Direct Determination method. The database determines the volume
required to be stored and infiltrated onside in order to meet EISA 438. The Army LID Planning and Cost
Tool was developed to MILCON standards for projects within the jurisdiction of the Army. As such, the
volumes determined using the Army LID Planning and Cost Tool are used for the design of the
bioretention basin. Although the database was used to determine volume required, it was not used to
design the bioretention area. See below for the design of the bioretention area.
The Army LID Planning and Cost Tool looks as the pre -developed and post -developed areas to calculate
the storage volume requirements.
The pre -developed composite weighted CN and peak flows for the bioretention area can be found in the
appendix. A map of the post development drainage areas can be found in Appendix C.
TABLE 2 95rH PERCENTILE AND 1 " FIRST FLUSH BIORETENTION VOLUMES
VOLUME
VOLUME
STORAGE
PONDING
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
VOLUME
DRAINAGE AREA
EISA438
NCDEQ
EISA438
PROVIDED
(CF)
CF)
(CF)
(CF)
Bioretention Area 1
9,354
13,631
14,410
14,410
PONDING
PONDING
PEAK
DEPTH OF
EISA 438
BORETENTION
DEPTH
DEPTH PEAK
PONDING
ENGINEERED
ExCESS
PROVIDED
ATTENUATION
VOLUME
FILL
STORAGE
AREA
(IN)
(IN)
(CF)
(FT)
VOLUME IN
20% VOIDS
SOIL (CF)
Bioretention Area 1
12
18
22,275
1.0
3,946
For all storm events greater than the 95th percentile event, and for other events where the infiltration
areas cannot sufficiently handle the storm event, excess runoff is bypassed directly to the infrastructure
along Eagle Talon. As the soil media fills with water, when the level reaches the top of the upturned
elbow, drainage enters the pipe and is carried to either the next infiltration area, or to the outfall. In
addition, if there is excess ponding due to either the saturation of the engineered fill or a large storm
event, water is collected through the weir in the riser structure. This prevents flooding in areas
surrounding the bioretention basins as the top of the weir is set at an elevation above the 1 00yr flood
event. The top of the riser is also open, with a trash rack. This top elevation is set below the top of the
pond bank to provide a factor of safety for the surrounding area for subsequent storm events.
The Bioretention Cell Supplement form provided by NCDEQ has been completed for the drainage areas
and included in the appendix.
TABLE3 BIORETENTION SURFACE AREAS
SURFACE AREA
SURFACE
INFILTRATION AREA
REQUIRED (SF)
AREA
NCDEQ
PROVIDED
(SF)
Bioretention Area 1
13,631
15,725 1
Mason & Hanger Page 4 of 7

MasonJanger PN87437 SOF Headquarters
A Dqy&Zi.­­ C—p-y Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
PEAK ATTENUATION --
4" DIA ORflCE�
PEAK ATTENUATION VOLUME
PLANTING FLEV SOD-�
DESIGN VOLUME
SET TH 'E TOP OF THE
IWSZONEAMINIMUM
OUEANOuT. MINIMUM
F "
OF 10 INCHES BELOW
THE PLANTING SURFACE
(CLASS
ONE PER U NDERDRAIN
GIBE S L
-SEE NOTE BELOW
OT
NUI cE EXTILE
ROP 3
REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS
RISER
-KING
WITH,LOCKING
01 RING JOINT
NCDOT V,57 CRUSHED ROCK
a, SCHEDULE 4C OR
SMO WALL
'90R 35 OTH
3.C;RUSHED
��YY- —,- ...- V.
VC PIPE WITH
PERFORATIONS
R SER STRUCTURE
RI I
- IWSmIN7ERNALWA7ERS7ORAGE
-RI0RETFNT' ON "ENGINEERED SOIL' LAYER SHALL RE MINIMUM 2n" DEEP THE SOIL MIX SHOULD RE UNIFORM AND FREE
OF STONES. STUMPS. ROOTS OR OTHER SIMILAR MATERIAL GREATER THAN 2 INCHES. IT SHOULD BE A HoMI
SOIL MIX OF 75 TO a5 PERCENT By VOLUME MEDIUM TO COARSE WASHED SAN SDA SOIL TEXTURAL
CLASSIFICATION 10 PERCENT FINES &ILNTTAND GLAYdLrD 5 TO 10 PERCEWORGANIC ER UCHASPINE
ENTSHO BE N 148
BARK FIN HijkLETRCI 0 PERE S TARS RESERVED FOR AREAS WHI THE TARGET
P R1 EHNWIHORUS IS THE ET POLLUTANT, LO ER ERCEM
OLLU ANT N WHERE P P
U MIX SHOULEr
BE LTVP
M� FINES SHOULD BE
SEE ADDITIONALLY, THE PHOSPHORUS CONTENT OF THE SOIL SOIL DIA SHALL BE SEM T TO
NCDEPARTMEMTOFAGRICULTURF CDA ABSTOBEANALYZE AT 15 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO
S IXEX Fj�
HAVE THE OIL ANALYZED. THEP R 8 ORETENTION SOIL MEDIA SHOULD ALWAYS RANGE BETWEEN 10 AND 30.
SOFTHE RGET POLLUTANT (,HARDYET.A NO HUNT ET.
RE&kRDUES TA ME LXWEr"OASTRUCTED 01,�l D _X IS AN
Y . E Hp�,THEFIN F
EXTREMEL IMPORTANT DESIGN ELE NT LLS THAT F H NI SOILS CAN EXPORT
PHOSFHORUS.
NOTE; CUT SOIL FROM THE PROJECT SITE OR SOIL FROM THE BORROW PIT MAY NOT RE USED FOR THE ENGINEERED
SOIL FOR THE HIORENTENTION BASINS
THE MEDIA SHOULD HE TESTED TO DETERMINE AN ACTUAL DRAINAGE RATE AFTER PLACEMENT. THE PERMEABILD'y
SHOULD FALL BETVEEN I �SPEI -2 INCHES PER HOUR BEING IREIERRED.AS A RULE OF
B'US T T."r
THUM IN HE AE _ �.CHES PER HOUR. WTrH 1
FIED MEDIATHE INr LTRATION RATES SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 2 INIHR AND I
INIHR FOR 8% AND 10% FINES. RESPEC71VEL DEPENDING ON THE TARGET POLLUTANT. AN ESTIMATED DRAINAGE
RArEFORP RCENT FINES BETWEEN 8 AND 10 CAN BE APPROXIMATED DURING DESIGN BY LINEAR INTERPOLATION. IF
TSS OR PATHCGENS157HE TARGET POLLUTANT, THE HIGHER PERMEABILITY CAN BE USED BECAUSE THESE TWO
POLLUTANTS ARE REMOVED ON THE SURFACE OF THE BIORETENTION CELL RATHER THAN W17HIN THE CELL.
REFER 70 PLANS FOR FINISH GRADES
Figure 2 - Bioretention Basin
Seasonal high water table (SHWT) depths was determined in conjunction with the geotechnical report.
SHWT depths were found to be a minimum of 12' below grade.
As the 95th percentile storm event is being captured and infiltrated on -site and all excess storm drainage
is routed to outlet structures with appropriate energy dissipation, this meets LEED 6.1 Stormwater Design
Quantity Control requirements. The existing site has less than 50% impervious surface, and the
bioretention/infiltration of the 95th percentile storm meets the quantity control requirements.
For any underdrains installed within the bioretention area, cleanouts are provided in addition to the riser
pipes to facilitate cleanout. It is the user's desire to utilize sod in lieu of vegetation to facilitate
maintenance reduce the risk of floating debris from entering into and clogging the system.
No water supply wells are within 100' of the project site. No surface waters are within 30' of the project
site. No Class SA waters are within 50' of the project site.
NCDEQ Minimum Design Criteria for Bioretention Cells
The Minimum Design Criteria (MDC) for bioretention cells for NCDEQ is as described below. These
criteria are taken from the NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual Section C-2. Bioretention Cell
Revised 1-10-2018.
MDC 1: Separation from the SHWT
The lowest point of the bioretention cell is a minimum of 2 feet above the SHWT. Depths to the SHWT
are greater than 96" below the surface.
Altason & Hanger Page 5 of 7

r
N
MasonJanger
AD,y&Z­­ ... C,.p,,,y
MDC 2: Maximum Ponding Depth for Design Volume
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Maximum ponding depths for the bioretention area is 10" for NCDEQ volumes.
MDC 3: Peak Attenuation Volume
The bioretention area is designed to store the required volume to meet EISA 438, which is greater than
the first flush volume. At volumes above this storm event, primary outlet structure is placed (18 inches
above planting surface). Maximum ponding height is 24".
The emergency spillway is designed for the bioretention basin to handle the entire flow from the 1 00-year
storm event in case of failure of the primary outfall and storage within each basin.
M DC 4: Underdrain
Infiltration testing was done in conjunction with design at the bioretention basin. As the Ksat values
attained are less than 2" per hour, underdrains are installed in the basin. At least one cleanout per 1,000
square feet of pond area is provided (14), with underdrains spaced at no greater than 10'. The
underdrain pipes are sized to handle the infiltration rate of the engineered soil for the times that the
internal water storage zone has reached capacity. All underdrains are 6" diameter.
MDC 5: Media Depth
The bioretention area is a grassed cell as requested by Fort Bragg DPW, without trees and shrubs. The
media depth in the bioretention area is 30" as the cell includes underdrains.
MDC 6: Media Mix
The planting media consists of 85% sands (by volume), 10% fines (by volume) and 5% organics (by
volume).
MDC 7: Media P-Index
The P-1 ndex for the soil media is 10.
MDC 8: No Mechanical Compaction
The soil media will not be mechanically compacted.
MDC 9: Maintenance of Media
An in -lieu of O&M agreement with Fort Bragg DPW has been signed and provided for the bioretention
area.
Altason & Hanger Page 6 of 7

r
N 0001�
MasonJanger
AD,y&Z­­ ... C,.p,,,y
MDC 10: Planting Plan
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
In accordance with the plans and specifications, the grassed cells shall achieve 100 percent cover during
the 1 year establishment period. Plants chosen for the cells are in accordance with the Fort Bragg
Installation Design Guide.
MDC 11: Mulch
All bioretention areas will be sodded. Hardwood mulch is not desired or allowed by the user due to
maintenance issues. Hardwood mulch tends to float in ponding situations and can clog the overflow
structures.
MDC 12: Clean -Out Pipes
Clean -out pipes are provided in the bioretention area. The cleanouts are PVC pipes with glued clean -out
fittings with screw type caps that extend at least 2 feet above the surface of the bed. No flexible pipe is
allowed. A minimum of one cleanout per 1,000 square feet of area is provide.
OUTLET PROTECTION
All excess stormwater from the infiltration area, as well as outlet structures for stormwater routed around
the project site and will be connected directly to the 24" storm conveyance pipe running along New Dawn
Drive. Outlet protection will be provided in accordance with guidance from Chapter 8.06 Design of Riprap
Outlet Protection of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual for all pipes and headwalls within the project. Calculations for the outlet
protection are shown in the appendix.
WATER QUALITY
To ensure the removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), all runoff is directed to the infiltration areas via
either sheet flow or via storm collection pipes with their outlets at the top of the bioretention basin
(protected with energy dissipaters). This includes runoff from all parking areas and roof drainage
structures. This makes certain that the storm events up to the 95Th percentile event (and first flush for
larger events) will have the runoff filtered through a minimum the vegetative strip and a minimum of 24" of
engineered soil. Additionally, in bioretention areas that do not have landscape rock, an 8" rock filter strip
is included as recommended by NCDEQ for pretreatment at bioretention basins.
In addition, a non -woven geotextile fabric is placed above both the gravel section of the bioretention basin
and the perforated collection pipe to keep sediment and other fines from infiltrating the storage area. It is
generally accepted that bioretention basins of this type will remove between 80-90% of TSS along with
the removal of heavy metals. This design has previously been used on projects at Fort Bragg and has
been approved by NCDEQ for TSS removal requirements. This method will also meet LEED 6.2
Stormwater Quality Control requirements.
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
Separate erosion and sedimentation control during construction plans have been developed for submittal
to NCDEQ for permit requirements. Calculations used for sizing skimmer sedimentation basins is
included with this report.
Altason & Hanger Page 7 of 7

0001�
MasonJanger
A Dy&Zi..-.- C-p-y
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDix A
USGS PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Altason & Hanger Page - a.] -

CPAKtKENT DF THE KrMfl
ZUSGS "'Ou.s. Gt�06JCAL SURVEY
0.- 7N,
FORT
mmV,;
H6
U, rTc o
Tr
Fl T
curDALE QUADRANGLE
WM C"MINA
-7i
CLIFDALE, NC

0001�
MasonJanger
A Dy&Zi..-.- C-p-y
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDix B
PREDEVELOPMENT MAP
Altason & Hanger Page - a.2 -

.......... C
osew M��IAAAG A�d Lr)
I —A CD
-11-
9--- - —.1 'All VNI—VI H—N 0-0 1—
W2
S. NH
<
o'
LU
LU
L" . - N
z
I f
, )��-
�4
�Iw I I� I �,I� jly�,�
lol, I
wA� U I �jj �Ijjl�I
fl
f HI,
r
- — — — — — — — — — --- — — —
— — — — — — — — --
......... ..........
................
r7
I,j
"j,
r
F-
C,
LU
F--
L)
LU
0
L)

0001�
MasonJanger
A Dy&Zi..-.- C-p-y
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDIX C
POSTDEVELOPMENT MAP
Altason & Hanger Page - a.3 -

a
1110 Alo AD IOUUAH UadO13A3C ISOd
U)
—111 H
nNI N N— 69 �N�1� OG
.N N.1-1— A. N.— --1. N I.". ­­nw— dn
ail 3
8 8 RA,
0
9
z 6
Ws� 0
< �w -,> 1. �z
i6, <z fij
<
0 z
01 w
0 wo
< Z� z
Z6
0
< <
2 K'QUIR5
L
OL LU
<
w Q, ZWK4 ..w 0�
> >
R
< zwn'M
z zz z:-
6N
z
III 1w 11 1 111 Jill I:
11J
i Jill
Pil Oil
///j Jill
r
sg
L)
cs- —
.4'
7-- : ...... 7
L6
71�
cp�
<
/>
C:;
V�
A
L)
C;
—ir------------------- -- —
1A I t, I
1/r I -�-L I I
7�1 - -------
N A
-7
ig
w

0001�
MasonJanger
A Dy&Zi..-.- C-p-y
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDix D
EISA 438 CALCULATIONS
Altason & Hanger Page - a.4 -

Army LID Planning and Cost Tool Report
PROJECT INFO
Date
Army Command �Army Reserve
Army Installation
Project name �O�Q
Project description
User Name
Master Planner
SITE INFO AND EISA VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
Project limit of disturbance (ac)
8.36
93% rainfall depth (in)
1.8
Soil type
Sandy -Loam
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
F B
Pre -project curve number (CN)
74=
Post -project curve number (CN)
83
Pre -project runoff volume (cf)
8114
Post -project runoff volume (cf)
17469
EISA Section 438 retention volume
9354
requirement (cf)
LID PLANNING SUMMARY
Structural BMP Surface area
Runoff volume
Non-structural BMP
Surface
(S�
retained (co
area (ac)
Bioretention: 13631]
11067
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Short Grass):
Swale:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Tall Grass):
Permeable Pavement:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Short Grass):
Rainwater Harvesting:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Tall Grass):
Green Roof:
0
Reforestation (Trees - Short Grass):
Infiltration Practice:
o
Reforestation (Trees - Shrubs and Tall Grass):
Total retention volume provided by BMPs (co: 11067
Project complies with EISA Section
438.
LID COST SUMMARY

0001�
MasonJanger
A Dy&Zi..-.- C-p-y
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDix G
SUBSURFACE ExPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING REPORT
Altason & Hanger Page - a. 7 -

7
IF 40ON41.
1, 1
AIIIIIIIIIIII11001
asonJanger
Day&Zimmerwann Compan
Is--fil
liffill
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE ExPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR
SOF Group Headquarters
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
BUILDING & EARTH PROJECT NUMBER RD180628
PREPARED FOR:
Mason & Hanger Group, Inc.
JANUARY 31, 2019
Ew
BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechn[cal, Environmental, and Materials Englneers

BUILDING & EARTH
-0- -0
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
January 31, 2019
Mason & Hanger Group, Inc.
300 West Vine Street, Suite 1300
Lexington, Kentucky 40507
Attention: Mr. Warren Foy, PE
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, North Carolina 28334
Ph: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation
SOG Group Headquarters
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Building & Earth Project No: RD180628
M r. Foy:
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and
geotechnical engineering evaluation for the SOG Group Headquarters located on New Dawn Drive
in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
The purpose of this exploration and evaluation was to determine general subsurface conditions
at the site and to address applicable geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction and site
development. The recommendations in this report are based on a physical reconnaissance of the
site and observation and classification of samples obtained from fourteen (14) soil test borings
conducted at the site. Confirmation of the anticipated subsurface conditions during construction
is an essential part of geotechnical services.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide consultation services for the proposed project. If you
have any questions regarding the information in this report or need any additional information,
please call us.
Respectfully Submitted,
BUILDING & EARTH SCIENCES, INC. CA&0
North Corolino Engineering Firm F- 7087 e-f's S/0 .0
ON 11
SEAL 7
24 8
Nathan Anderson, E.I.T. Kurt Miller, P.E. -v C. Mark Nolen, P.E.
Staff Professional Sr. Geotechnical Engin Sr. Vice President
Birmingham, AL - Auburn, AL - Huntsville, AL - Montgomery, AL - Mobile, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL - Columbus, GA - Louisville, KY - Raleigh, NIC - Dunn, NIC
Jacksonville, NIC - Springdale, AR - Little Rock, AR - Tulsa, OK - Oklahoma City, OK - Durant, OK

Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................... 5
3.1 GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.2 EXISTING SURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 6
33.1 TOPSOIL ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
3.3.2 CLAYEY SAND (SC) .......................................................................................................................................... 7
33,3 ELASTIC SILT (MH) .......................................................................................................................................... 7
3,3A SILTY SAND (SM) ............................................................................................................................................ 8
3.3.5 AUGER REFUSAL ............................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.6 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.7 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................................................ 9
3.4 SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE AND INFILTRATION TESTING ........................................................................... 9
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 10
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION ..................................................................................................................................
11
4.2 SUBGRADE EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................................
11
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS ................................................................................................................................
12
4.4 UNDERCUTTING OF Low CONSISTENCY SOILS .................................................................................................
12
4.5 EVALUATION OF ELASTIC SILTS ...........................................................................................................................
13
4.6 STRUCTURAL FILL ..................................................................................................................................................
13
4.7 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................................................
14
4,7-1 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................
15
4.8 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL ...................................................................................................................................
15
4.9 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION ............................................................................................
15
4.10 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................................
15
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 16
5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 16
6.0 FLOOR SLABS .......................................................................................................................................................... 17
7.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 18
8.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 19
8.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 20
8.2 RIGID PAVEMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 20
9.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION ............................................................................................................................ 21
10.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING .................................................................................................................... 21
11.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX
Page I iii

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
i 9120.1ke3j:14 IUM Ill 9:111 *-714.1111:11101 L1 I
The subject site is located on New Dawn Drive in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Information
relative to the proposed site and the proposed development is listed in Table 1 below.
Photographs depicting the current site condition are presented on the following page.
escription J
Size (Ac.) Ap.proximately 15 acres
Existing Development Vacant Lot
Vegetation Grass with trees and shrubs
General Site Slopes No
Proposed
Buildings
Retaining Walls'
Yes — North Property Line
Appears poorly drained
Up to 4 feet of fill (assumed)
Drainage
Cuts & Fills'
No. of Bldgs
1
Square Ft.
13,200
Stories
2
Construction
Structural Steel with Brick Veneer
Column Loads'
235 kips
. Wall Loads'
1.5 klf (typical), 2.6 klf (gable ends)
Preferred Foundation
Conventional Shallow Spread
Preferred Slab
Slab -on -Grade
Traffic
Not Provided
Pavements Standard Duty
Heavy Duty
Yes, Flexible
Yes, Rigid and Flexible
Table 1: Project and Site Description
Reference: Mason & Hanger RFP Documents
Notes:
7. If actual loading conditions exceed our anticipated loads, Building & Earth Sciences should
be allowed to review the proposed structural design and its effects on our recommendations
for foundation design.
2. Since information on final grades was not provided, assumptions have been made regarding
grades for the purpose of this report. Therefore, it will be essential for Building & Earth to
review the final grading plan, when it becomes available, and be contracted to provide
supplemental recommendations prior to starting construction.
Page 11

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
3. Based on the site layout provided, a retaining wall system will be constructed along the
northern side of the proposed structure. The maximum height of the walls, nor any plans for
the retaining walls, were not available at the time this report was prepared. When plans
become available, Building & Earth should be contracted to review them. Retaining wall
design is beyond the scope of this report. The retaining wall design, performed by others,
should consider a global stability study on the slope being supported by retaining wall, as
part of the retaining wall design. A global stability study was not performed at part Building
& Earth's evaluation of this site.
77777�ff
7�
j_r
4'
Figure 1: Aerial of Site (Google Earth)
Page 12

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The authorized subsurface exploration was performed on December 5, 2018 in
conformance with our proposal RD20539, dated August 24, 2018. Occasionally some
modification of the scope outlined in our proposal is required to provide for proper
evaluation of the encountered subsurface conditions. Our proposal stated that Seasonal
High Water Table (SHWT) determination and infiltration would be performed as part of
the subsurface exploration. Infiltration testing could not be performed due to presence
of perched groundwater on site above test elevation; SHWT determination was performed
and is included in this report.
The purpose of the geotechnical exploration was to determine general subsurface
conditions at specific boring locations and to gather data on which to base a geotechnical
evaluation with respect to the proposed construction. The subsurface exploration for this
project consisted of fourteen (14) soil test borings. The site was drilled using a CIVIE 55
rig equipped with manual hammer.
The soil boring locations were determined in the field by a representative of our staff by
measuring from existing site features. As such, the boring locations shown on the Boring
Location Plan attached to this report should be considered approximate.
Page 13

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
The soil samples recovered during our site investigation were visually classified and
specific samples were selected by the project engineer for laboratory analysis. The
laboratory analysis consisted of:
Natural Moisture Content
Atterberg Limits
Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve by Washing
Triaxial Shear Test (Consolidated-Undrained)
D2216
18
D4318
8
D1 140
8
D4767
2
Modified Proctor Compaction Test
D1 557
2
Laboratory California Bearing Ratio
D1 883
1
Particle Size Distribution with Hydrometer Analysis D422 2
Table 2: Scope of Laboratory Tests
The results of the laboratory analysis are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs and in
tabular form in the Appendix of this report. Descriptions of the laboratory tests that were
performed are also included in the Appendix.
The information gathered from the exploration was evaluated to determine a suitable
foundation type for the proposed structure. The information was also evaluated to help
determine if any special subgrade preparation procedures will be required during the
earthwork phase of the project.
The results of the work are presented within this report that addresses:
Summary of existing surface conditions.
A description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the exploration
locations.
Site preparation considerations including material types to be expected during
foundation construction and mass grading as well as recommendations regarding
handling and treatment of unsuitable soils, if encountered.
Compaction requirements and recommended criteria to establish suitable surfaces
for structural backfill.
Subsurface soil logs that detail properties of the materials encountered with soil
classifications and depth to bedrock (if encountered).
Presentation of laboratory test results.
Page 14

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
Seismic Site Classification per IBC 2015.
Recommendations for foundation and slab -on -grade design.
Recommendations for pavement design based on provided traffic loading.
Plans and maps showing the location of the project and our onsite work.
1-0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The following discussion is intended to create a general understanding of the site from a
geotechnical engineering perspective. It is not intended to be a discussion of every
potential geotechnical issue that may arise, nor to provide every possible interpretation
of the conditions identified. The following conditions and subsequent recommendations
are based on the assumption that significant changes in subsurface conditions do not
occur between boreholes. However, anomalous conditions can occur due to variations in
existing fill that may be present at the site, or the geologic conditions at the site, and it
will be necessary to evaluate the assumed conditions during site grading and foundation
installation.
— I UWLUbY
Situated near the western boundary of the North Carolina Coastal Plain physiographic
province, published geologic maps indicate that the subject site is underlain by cretaceous
aged soil deposits associated with the Middendorf and Cape Fear geologic formations.
These formations are generally composed of sandstone and mudstone. The Soil Survey
of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina (USDA Soil Conservation Service)
describes the area as characterized by deep sedimentary soils, ranging in depth from
about 200 to about 400 feet in depth.
3.2 ExiSTING SURFACE CONDITIONS
The SOF Group Headquarters site is described as fairly flat with a downward slope from
northeast to southwest and at the time of our site reconnaissance; the site was wet from
recent rains. Surface elevations range from approximately 250 to 260 ft. MSL. Although
the finished floor elevation had not been established at the time of this report, we
estimate that up to 4 feet of fill will be placed in the southwest portion of the site to
achieve the finished grade. The remainder of the site will be cut to grade, and a 4 to 6-
foot high retaining wall is planned for the north property line.
The site appears to have been used in the past as part of an ammunitions storage area.
From a review of historical aerial photographs on Google Earth, a munitions bunker
appears to have been located near the northeast corner of the site. This bunker is able to
be seen in the photographs before 2012.
Page 15

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
Ground cover is currently grass, with small trees and shrubs that will require removal as
part of site preparation operations. Below is an aerial photograph of the site as it appears
at the time of the 2/2018 aerial photograph.
(7
LO
Figure 3: Google Earth Aerial Photograph with Approximate Site Boundary
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A generalized stratification summary has been prepared using data from the soil test
borings and is presented in the table below. The stratification depicts the general soil
conditions and strata types encountered during our field investigation.
1 0.5 to 1 ft.
Topsoil
2A 5.5 to 10.8 ft.
Clayey Sand (SC)
213 13.5 ft
Elastic Silt (MH)
Silty Sand (SM)
3 2 to 7.5 ft.
Table 3: Stratification Summary
N/A
Very Loose to Very Dense
Medium Stiff to Hard
Loose to Very Dense
Page 16

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180628, 1/31/19
Subsurface soil profiles have also been prepared based on the data obtained at the
specific boring locations. The subsurface soil profiles are presented in the Appendix. For
specific details on the information obtained from individual soil borings, please refer to
the Boring Logs included in the Appendix. The elevations of the borings indicated in this
report were obtained from information provided by Joyner Keeny Land Surveyors.
Topsoil encountered on site ranged from about 6 to 12 inches, with an average about 6
to 8 inches. No testing has been performed to verify these soils meet the requirements
of "topsoil". Topsoil depths reported on the boring logs should only be considered an
estimate and topsoil thickness may vary in unexplored portions of the site.
3.3.2 CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Soils described as Clayey Sand (SC) were encountered in 13 of the 14 total borings. This
layer begins below the topsoil in two (2) of the building borings and five (5) of the parking
area borings, with a typical thickness of approximately 5 to 10 feet. In the remainder of
the borings, the clayey sand lies in the middle of a Silty Sand (SM) layer, as described in
section 3.3.4 and has a thickness ranging from about 7.5 to 20+ feet. Overall, this material
is inconsistently layered in the test borings, resulting in significant variation with respect
to classification and consistency.
This soil is generally described as very loose to very dense, reddish brown to tan, and
moist to wet. In the upper 5 feet of Clayey Sand, N-values typically range from 3 to 15
blows per foot, with values in the range 6 to 10 blows per foot considered representative.
As depth of the layer increases, N-values become represent much stiffer soil, ranging from
15 to 40 blows per foot.
Atterberg limits and wash 200 grain size testing was performed on representative samples
collected from this layer. The testing indicates a fines content of 23 to 46 percent, liquid
limits ranging from 32 to 52, and a plastic index of 12 to 24.
3.3.3 ELASTIC SILT (MH)
Elastic Silt (MH) soils were encountered from approximately 0.5 to 14.0 feet below the
surface in boring B-04. The Elastic Silt soils were medium stiff to hard with N-values
ranging from 6 to 49. Atterberg Limits tests performed on selected MH soil samples
indicated a Liquid Limit (LL) of 68 and Plasticity Index (PI) of 29. Wash No. 200 Sieve tests
indicated the MH soil samples contained 53 percent fines.
Page 17

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180628, 1/31/19
3.3.4 SILTY SAND (SM)
Soils described as silty sand (SM) were observed in 11 of the 14 borings. The silty sand
material typically lies in the middle of a clayey sand layer, with thicknesses ranging from
approximately 2 to 7.5 feet. However, much like the clayey sand soils, this material is
inconsistently layered in the borings, resulting in variation with respect to classification
and consistency.
This soil is further described as loose to very dense, red to tan, and moist to wet. When
found within 5 feet below the surface, N-values range from 2 to 12 blows per foot, with
values in the range 4 to 7 blows per foot considered representative. Much like the clayey
sand soils described in section 3.3.2, as depth of the silty sand soils increase, N-values
increase as well. When encountered more than 5 feet below the surface, the silty sands
exhibited N-values in the range of 18 to 50+ blows per foot, with values in the range of
31 to 45 being considered representative.
Atterberg limits and wash 200 grain size testing was performed on samples collected from
the silty sand soils. The testing indicates a liquid limit of 22 to 54, a plasticity index of 2
to 23, and 39 to 47 percent of the material passes a #200 sieve. These data correspond
to an ASTM classification Silty Sand (SM).
3.3.5 AUGt:R REFUSAL
Auger refusal is the drilling depth at which the borehole can no longer be advanced using
soil drilling procedures. Auger refusal can occur on hard soil, boulders, buried debris or
bedrock. Coring is required to sample the material below auger refusal. Auger refusal
was not encountered in borings drilled for this study.
,.3.6 GROUNDWATER
At the time of drilling, groundwater was not observed in the test borings. Water levels
reported are accurate only for the time and date that the borings were drilled. Long term
monitoring of the boreholes was not included as part of our subsurface exploration. The
borings were backfilled the same day that they were drilled.
Page 18

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RID180628, 1/31/19
3.3.7 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION
L Basis of Evaluation r Recommended Site Classification
r L ad 6-
2015 International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE 7, Chapter 20 D
The SeisOpt' refraction microtremor (ReMi') method was used to determine the Seismic Site Class of
the building areas. SeisOpt' ReMi' V,30 software uses data from conventional seismograph and P-wave
geophones to estimate average shear wave velocities and one and two-dimensional shear wave profiles
to a depth of 100 feet below the existing site grades. These velocities are used to classify a building site
with the IBC site Class A through E designation. The average shear wave velocity (Vs) in the upper 100
feet was 1,133 feet per second (ft/s). The results of the shear wave velocity analysis are included in the
Appendix.
Table 4: Seismic Site Classification
According to Figure 1613.3.1(1) of the IBC 2015, the project site has a mapped 0.2 second
spectral response acceleration (Ss) of 0.225g. Based on Figure 1613.3.1(2), the project has
a mapped 1.0 second spectral response acceleration (Si) of 0.098g.
Using Tables 1613.3.3(l) and 1613.3.3(2), the mapped spectral accelerations, and Site
Class D; the site coefficients Fa and Fv have been determined to be 1.6 and 2.4, respectively.
The maximum considered spectral response accelerations, Sms and Smi, were determined
to be 0.361g and 0.235g, respectively. The design spectral response accelerations, SDs and
SD1, were determined to be 0.240g and 0.157g, respectively. The analysis indicated the
probability of liquefaction under the design seismic event is low.
'4 SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE AND INFILTRATION TESTING
In order to measure the depth to the Season High Water Table (SHWT), Mr. Mike Eaker, a
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist with Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates,
Inc., under contract to Building & Earth Sciences, performed the field measurements and
provided a letter summarizing his work. Mr. Eaker's report details the procedures used in
his field evaluation, the results of his soil observations, the depth to SHWT, and the depth
to observed water at each test location. Mr. Eaker's report is included in the Appendix.
Once the SHWT was measured, infiltration testing was attempted two (2) times at the
project site. However, infiltration testing was unable to be performed either time due to
the presence of perched groundwater on site above planned test elevation.
Page 19

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
U SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Since information on final grades was not provided for this site, assumptions have been
made regarding grades for the purpose of this report. Therefore, it will be essential for
Building & Earth to review the final grading plans, when they become available, and be
contracted to provide supplemental recommendations prior to starting construction.
Based on surface elevations at the boring sites, we anticipate cuts and fills in the range of
about 3 to 4 feet will be required to prepare the site for the building pad and pavement
areas.
We understand, a retaining wall system will be constructed along the northern side of the
proposed structure. The maximum height of the walls, nor any plans for the retaining
walls, were not available at the time this report was prepared. When plans become
available, Building & Earth should be contracted to review them. Retaining wall design is
beyond the scope of this report. The retaining wall design, performed by others, should
consider a global stability study on the slope being supported by retaining wall, as part
of the retaining wall design. A global stability study was not performed at part Building &
Earth's evaluation of this site.
Based on our evaluation of the subsurface soil information, and the anticipated
foundation loads, it appears that construction with a conventional spread foundation
system is feasible. The site development recommendations outlined below are intended
for development of the site to support construction with a conventional spread system.
If a different type of foundation system is preferred, Building & Earth should be allowed to
review the site development recommendations to verify that they Cire appropriate for the
preferred foundation system.
The primary geotechnical concerns for this project are:
Moisture sensitive soils encountered across the site.
Elastic silt (MH) soils encountered in B-04.
Low consistency soils (N-value:�6), generally extending to depths of 2 to 5 feet in
borings B-01 through B-04, B-06, P-01, P-02, P-05, P-06.
Proper placement of fill to achieve final grades across the site.
Potential for a perched water condition across the site.
Recommendations addressing the site conditions are presented in the following sections.
Page 110

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
All trees, roots, topsoil and deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed
construction areas. Approximately 6 to 8 inches of topsoil were observed in the borings,
with up to 12 inches observed in one of the borings. A geotechnical engineer should
observe stripping and grubbing operations to evaluate that all unsuitable materials are
removed from locations for proposed construction.
Because of past use of the site, buried structures could be encountered such as
foundations, utility lines, septic tanks, etc. If encountered, they should be removed
and backfilled in accordance with requirements outlined in the Structural Fill section
of this report.
Due to the moisture sensitive nature of the on -site soils, positive drainage and temporary
clewatering methods (as discussed in Section 4.3) is important to help avoid degradation
and softening of the soils.
Materials disturbed during clearing operations should be stabilized in place or, if
necessary, undercut to undisturbed materials and backfilled with properly compacted,
approved structural fill. During site preparation activities, the contractor should identify
borrow source materials that will be used as structural fill and provide samples to the
testing laboratory so that conformance to the Structural Fill requirements outlined below
and appropriate moi stu re -density relationship curves can be determined.
4.2 SUBGRADE EVALUATION
We recommend that the project geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative
evaluate the subgrade after the site is prepared. Some unsuitable or unstable areas may
be present in unexplored areas of the site. All areas that will require fill or that will support
structures should be carefully proofrolled with a heavy (40,000 # minimum), rubber -tired
vehicle at the following times.
After an area has been stripped, and undercut if required, prior to the placement
of any fill.
After grading an area to the finished subgrade elevation in a building or pavement
a rea.
After areas have been exposed to any precipitation, and/or have been exposed for
more than 48 hours.
Page 111

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
Some instability may exist during construction, depending on climatic and other factors
immediately preceding and during construction. If any soft or otherwise unsuitable soils
are identified during the proofrolling process, they must be undercut or stabilized prior
to fill placement, pavement construction, or floor slab construction. All unsuitable material
identified during the construction shall be removed and replaced in accordance with the
Structural Fill section of this report.
1.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS
Moisture sensitive silty sands (SM), clayey sands (SQ, and elastic silts (MH) were
encountered across most of the site during the subsurface exploration. These soils will
degrade if allowed to become saturated. Therefore, not allowing water to pond by
maintaining positive drainage and temporary clewatering methods (if required) is
important to help avoid degradation and softening of the soils.
The contractor should anticipate some difficulty during the earthwork phase of this
project if moisture levels are moderate to high during construction. Increased moisture
levels will soften the subgrade and the soils may become unstable under the influence of
construction traffic. Accordingly, construction during wet weather conditions should be
avoided, as this could result in soft and unstable soil conditions that would require ground
modification, such as in place stabilization or undercutting.
4.4 UNUI:KLUIIINU(JI-L(JWL.(jNsisiENCYZIL)ILS
Low consistency soils (N:�6) were encountered in nine (9) of the fourteen (14) borings on
the site in the upper 2 to 5 feet. The near -surface low consistency soils encountered within
the building footprint should be undercut to a stable, suitable subgrade. Although it may
be possible to stabilize some of the surficial soils in -place, it appears undercuts on the
order of 2 to 5 feet can be anticipated within the building pad. The undercutting should
extend laterally 5 feet outside the building footprint.
In the planned pavement areas, undercut depths will be highly dependent upon final
grades and subgrade evaluation results. Undercutting should extend laterally 3 feet
outside of the edge of pavement. It may be possible to stabilize the soft soils in the
pavement areas in place. Typical stabilization methods vary widely and include
modification of the soft soils with the addition of shot rock or No. 2 stone, as well as
utilization of geogrids and graded aggregates. The design of a specific stabilization
method is beyond the scope of this investigation but can be provided by Building & Earth
as an additional service if desired. Any undercutting or stabilization performed in
pavement areas should be conducted under the observation of the geotechnical engineer
or his representative.
Page 112

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
Some unsuitable or unstable areas may be present in unexplored areas of the site. The
final vertical and horizontal extent of undercutting should be determined by the
geotechnical engineer, or his qualified representative, during construction and could vary
based on final grades and conditions observed. Once the known undercut is complete,
the areas planned for construction should be proofrolled in order to identify any
additional soft soils requiring removal.
Undercut soils should be replaced with structural fill. Clean, non -organic, non -saturated
soils taken from the undercut area can be re -used as structural fill. The placement
procedure, compaction and composition of the structural fill must meet the requirements
of the Structural Fill section of this report.
4.5 SOIL DQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Soil liquefaction occurs during seismic events when pore water pressure increases, driving
soil particles apart. This results in soil shear strength loss and a soil mass approaching a
liquid state. In level ground conditions such as at the subject site, surface deformation is
expressed as soil spreading, resulting in ground settlement at the surface. Site analysis
including a refraction microtremor (ReMi) geophysical study indicates a low susceptibility
to liquefaction.
.4.o EVALUATION OF ELASTIC SILTS
Based on the laboratory test results, elastic silt soils are present in the eastern portion of
the building pad (boring B-04). The elastic silts were encountered below the topsoil and
extended to 14.0 feet below existing surface. Elastic soils are normally not suitable for
conventional shallow foundations and floor slabs because of the potential for significant
shrinkage or swelling due to moisture variation.
Therefore, it is our opinion that the elastic silts should be undercut to a minimum of 12
inches below pavement subgrade and 36 inches below slab -on -grade elevations. It should
be noted that a swell test was not performed at this time and swell potential was
estimated based on the Atterberg Limits tests. We strongly recommend that any
additional fill placed at the site consist of low plasticity soils placed in accordance with the
Structural Fill section of this report.
4.7 STRUCTURAL FILL
Requirements for structural fill on this project are as follows:
Page 113

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RID1 80628, 1/31/19
Sand and
GW, GP, GM,
Gravel
SW, SP, SM or
Maximum 2" particle size
combinations
Clay
CL, SC, GC
LL<50, PI<25, Yd>1 00 PCf
Clay
CH
LL>50, PI >25, Yd> 100 PCf
Silt
ML, MH
N/A
On -site SC, SM, MH LL<50, PI <25, Yd> 100 PCf
soils
Pavement subgrades, building pads
where material can be confined.
All areas
Not recommended for use
Not recommended for use
SC, SM: All areas
MH: Not recommended for use
Table 5: Structural Fill Requirements
Notes:
1. All structural fill should be free of vegetation, topsoil, and any other deleterious materials. The
organic content of materials to be used for fill should be less than 3 percent.
2. LL indicates the soil Liquid Limit; PI indicates the soil Plasticity Index; Yd indicates the maximum dry
density as defined by the density standard outlined in the table below.
3. Laboratory testing of the soils proposed for fill must be performed in order to verify their
conformance with the above recommendations.
4. Any fill to be placed at the site should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
Placement requirements for structural fill are as follows:
Lift Thickness 8" loose, 6" compacted
92 Percent maximum per ASTM D-1 557 all structural areas below 24 inches
Density 95 percent maximum per ASTM D-1 557, all structural areas, top 24 inches
Moisture +/- 3.0 Percentage Points ASTM D-1 557 Optimum
Density Testing 1 test per 2,500 S.F. Minimum 2 tests per lift
Frequency
Table 6: Structural Fill Placement Requirements
1.8 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS.
All excavations performed at the site should follow OSHA guidelines for temporary
excavations. Excavated soils should be stockpiled according to OSHA regulations to limit
the potential cave-in of soils.
Page 114

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD180628, 1/31/19
4.8.1 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered in the test borings. However, it should be noted that
fluctuations in the water level could occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall. The
contractor must be prepared to remove groundwater seepage from excavations if
encountered during construction. Excavations extending below groundwater levels will
require clewatering systems (such as well points, sump pumps or trench drains). The
contractor should evaluate the most economical and practical clewatering method.
4.9 UTILI I Y I KENCH BALKI-ILL
All utility trenches must be backfilled and compacted in the manner specified above for
structural fill. It may be necessary to reduce the lift thickness to 4 to 6 inches to achieve
compaction using hand -operated equipment.
4.10 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION
The potential for soil moisture fluctuations within building areas and pavement subgrades
should be reduced to lessen the potential of subgrade movement. Site grading should
include positive drainage away from buildings and pavements. Excessive irrigation of
landscaping poses a risk of saturating and softening soils below shallow footings and
pavements, which could result in settlement of footings and premature failure of
pavements.
11 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION
Excessive movement of construction equipment across the site during wet weather may
result in ruts, which will collect rainwater, prolonging the time required to dry the
subgrade soils. At the time of the exploration, the site was wet due to recent rains. During
rainy periods, additional effort will be required to properly prepare the site and
establish/maintain an acceptable subgrade. The difficulty will increase in areas where clay
or silty soils are exposed at the subgrade elevation.
Likewise, rainwater may become perched on the sandy clay and higher consistency
soils encountered below the surficial layers. which could require additional
dewatering efforts not needed during dry conditions. Grading contractors typically
postpone grading operations during wet weather to wait for conditions that are more
favorable. Contractors can typically disk or aerate the upper soils to promote drying
during intermittent periods of favorable weather. When deadlines restrict postponement
of grading operations, additional measures such as undercutting and replacing saturated
soils or stabilization can be utilized to facilitate placement of additional fill material.
Page 115

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
61112 10111 L1 11011101 L1 I ILI :14(01 LVA I LVA 14 L1 I 07il 1101 L1 M
It is our understanding that individual column loads will be less than 235 kips, and that
wall loads will typically be less than 1.5 kips per lineal foot, with gable ends up to 2.6 kips
per lineal foot. Our geotechnical analysis and recommendations are based upon these
loading magnitudes. If these assumptions concerning structural loading are incorrect,
our office should be contacted, such that our recommendations can be reviewed.
5.1 SHALLow FoUNDATIONS
Based on the conditions encountered during our field investigation and after our site
preparation and grading recommendations are implemented, the proposed structure the
proposed structure can be supported on conventional shallow foundations designed
using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 psf.
Even though computed footing dimensions may be less, column footings should be at
least 24 inches wide and strip footings should be at least 18 inches wide. These
dimensions facilitate hand cleaning of footing subgrades disturbed by the excavation
process and the placement of reinforcing steel. They also reduce the potential for
localized punching shear failure. All exterior footings should becir Cit least 24 inches below
the adjacent exterior grade for frost protection.
Settlement calculations were performed in accordance with Schmertmann's settlement
method, along with the soil types described in previous sections. Total settlement of
footings designed and constructed as recommended above should be 1 inch or less.
Depending on the building finished floor elevation, soft and loose soils may be
encountered at or below anticipated footing depth; therefore, verification of bearing
capacity will be critical. We recommend that hand rod probing and dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP) testing in accordance with ASTIVI STP-399 be performed for all
foundation excavations. Hand rod probing should be performed for 100 percent of the
excavations, and DCP testing should be performed for at least 30 percent of the interior
column footings, and for each 50-foot increment of wall footings.
The following items should be considered during the preparation of construction
documents and foundation installation:
The geotechnical engineer of record should observe the exposed foundation
bearing surfaces prior to concrete placement to verify that the conditions
anticipated during the subsurface exploration are encountered.
0 All bearing surfaces must be free of soft or loose soil prior to placing concrete.
Page 116

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
Concrete should be placed the same day the excavations are completed and
bearing materials verified by the engineer. If the excavations are left open for an
extended period, or if the bearing surfaces are disturbed after the initial
observation, then the bearing surfaces should be reevaluated prior to concrete
placement.
Water should not be allowed to pond in foundation excavations prior to concrete
placement or above the concrete after the foundation is completed.
Wherever possible, the foundation concrete should be placed "neat", using the
sides of the excavations as forms. Where this is not possible, the excavations
created by forming the foundations must be backfilled with suitable structural fill
and properly compacted.
0 Foundation concrete should not be place over saturated or frozen ground.
0 Roof drains should be routed away from the foundation soils.
6.0 FLOOR SLABS
Site development recommendations presented in this report should be followed to
provide for subgrade conditions suitable for support of grade supported slabs. Floor
slabs will be supported on either stable, natural subgrade or on compacted structural fill.
We recommend floor slabs for the proposed structure be supported on a minimum four -
inch layer of 1/2-inch up to 11/2-inch, free -draining, gap -graded gravel, such as AASHTO
No. 57 stone, with no more than 5 percent passing the ASTIVI No. 200 sieve. The purpose
of this layer is to help distribute concentrated loads and act as a capillary break for
moisture migration through the subgrade soil. This gravel material should be
consolidated in -place with vibratory equipment. With the gravel material, such as
AASHTO No. 57 stone, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci can be used in the
design of a grade -supported building floor slab.
We recommend a minimum 10-mil thick vapor retarder meeting ASTIVI E 1745, Class C
requirements be placed directly below the slab -on -grade floors. A higher quality vapor
retarder (Class A or 13) may be used if desired to further inhibit the migration of moisture
through the slab -on -grade and should be evaluated based on the floor covering and
use. The vapor retarder should extend to the edge of the slab -on -grade floors and should
be sealed at all seams and penetrations. The slab should be appropriately reinforced (if
required) to support the proposed loads.
Page 117

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
7.0 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the site layout provided, a retaining wall will be constructed along the northern
side of the proposed structure. We assume the wall will range in height from 4 to 6 feet,
and will require a site -specific design. The type of wall planned is currently unknown.
For concrete retaining walls (does not include segmental retaining walls), the following
table provides recommended soil specific parameters to be used by the concrete wall
designer for calculation of the lateral loads to the foundations.
Soil Parameter
Static Coefficient of Sliding Friction between concrete and Washed Stone
Value
0.55
Static Coefficient of Sliding Friction between concrete and in -situ soils
0.35
Assumed unit weight of compacted structural fill
120 pcf
Ko = at -rest earth pressure for (p = 320
0.47
K�, = active earth pressure for (P = 320
0.31
Kp = passive earth pressure for (p = 320
3.22
Equivalent Fluid Weight for structural fill (Ko) — Drained Condition
56 pcf
Equivalent Fluid Weight for structural fill (Ko) — Undrained Condition
94 pcf
Table 7: Soil Parameters and Lateral Earth Pressure Values
Freestanding retaining walls typically are not restrained at the top of the wall, but are
deigned to resist rotation under the action induced by earth pressure. Such walls should
therefore be designed for the active stress conditions. For the evaluation of the resistance
of soil to lateral loads, which is frequently necessary for evaluating the stability of retaining
walls; the passive earth pressure must be calculated. However, the walls of the structure
are designed based upon a "fixed" condition with no rotation. As such, the walls should
be designed under "at -rest" conditions. We have assumed that the clayey and silty sand
(SC, SM) soils will be used as earthen fill to backfill the foundation walls. The elastic silt
(MH) soils encountered at the site will not be suitable for use as backfill.
The above design recommendations assume the following:
0 The wall backfill will be horizontal.
The backfill will be compacted to 92 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry
density. However, we recommend that the compaction of soils behind the wall do
not exceed 95percent in order to limit the lateral stresses applied by the soil into
the wall. Compaction of retained soils should be performed using hand
compaction equipment as heavier equipment will likely over -stress the wall.
Page 118

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
• Drainage behind the retaining wall will not allow development of hydrostatic
pressure.
• No safety factor is included in the design factors provided.
• Any surcharge is uniform.
• Wall friction is negligible.
• We are provided the opportunity to perform tests on the proposed, imported
backfill material to confirm it meets design criteria.
Depending upon the analysis of the specialty wall designer, consideration should be
provided towards incorporating surcharge loading from the sloped structural fill and the
building loads into the wall design. Additionally, the designer should perform a global
stability analysis as part of the retaining wall design.
8.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the materials encountered at the boring locations and after our
recommendations for site preparation are implemented, pavements at the subject site
may be designed based on a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of eight (8).
Pavement analysis and design has been completed using the U.S. Army COE PCASE
2.09.05 pavement design program. Traffic loads were provided by Mr. Michael Mayer, PE
of Mason and Hanger, and appear in Table 8, below. Design and analysis are based on
the provided traffic loading over a 25-year design life.
Car — Passenger 1,642,500 1,642,500
(3,000 # Vehicle Wt.)
M1 097 HMMWV, Heavy Variant 4x4 1,095,000 1,095,000
(10,000# Vehicle Wt.)
P-23 Crash Truck (Fire Truck) 0 300
(77,880 # Vehicle Wt.)
Truck — 2-Axle, 6-Tire 0 91,950
(25,000 # Vehicle Wt.)
Truck — 3-Axle 0 6,500
(35,000 # Vehicle Wt.)
Table 8: Assumed Traffic Volume
Page 119

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
It is the owner's responsibility to evaluate whether or not the traffic volumes shown
above are in line with those expected. If the owner would like Building & Earth to assess
other likely traffic volumes, we will gladly review other options.
Note: All subgrade, base and pavement construction operations should meet minimum
requirements of the NCIDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The
applicable sections of the specifications are identified as follows:
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
710
Bituminous Asphalt Wearing Layer
610
Bituminous Asphalt Binder Layer
610
Mineral Aggregate Base Materials
520
Soil =I off-
500
Table 9: NCDOT Specification Sections
8.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
The asphalt pavement section described herein was evaluated using the pavement design
program IDCASE 2.09.05 described above. The minimum required pavement section was
evaluated and found to be acceptable. This section is summarized below in Table 10.
r Material
Surface Course
Table 10: Asphalt Pavement Recommendations
8.2 RIGID PAVEMENT
The following rigid pavement sections are based on the design parameters presented
above. Analysis confirms this section is suitable for support of the heavy-duty traffic
summarized in Table 8. We have assumed concrete elastic modulus (Ec) of 3.6 X 106 psi,
and a concrete modulus of rupture (S'J of 650 psi.
Table 11: Rigid Pavement Recommendations
Page 120

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
The concrete should be protected against moisture loss, rapid temperature fluctuations,
and construction traffic for several days after placement. All pavements should be sloped
for positive drainage. We recommended that the pavements be reinforced to hold any
cracks that might develop tightly together and restrain their growth.
All pavement components must be placed and compacted in accordance with the
applicable sections of the North Carolina Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction. All subgrade, base and pavement construction operations should meet
minimum requirements of this document.
9.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION
The subgrade soils often become disturbed during the period between initial site grading
and construction of surface improvements. The amount and depth of disturbance will
vary with soil type, weather conditions, construction traffic, and drainage.
The engineer should evaluate the subgrade soil during final grading to verify that the
subgrade is suitable to receive pavement and/or concrete slab base materials. The final
evaluation may include proofrolling or density tests.
Subgrade rehabilitation can become a point of controversy when different contractors are
responsible for site grading and building construction. The construction documents
should specifically state which contractor will be responsible for maintaining and
rehabilitating the subgrade. Rehabilitation may include moisture conditioning and re -
compacting soils. When deadlines or weather restrict grading operations, additional
measures such as undercutting and replacing saturated soils or chemical stabilization can
often be utilized.
10.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Field verification of site conditions is an essential part of the services provided by the
geotechnical consultant. In order to confirm our recommendations, it will be necessary
for Building & Earth personnel to make periodic visits to the site during site grading.
Typical construction monitoring services are listed below.
Site stripping and subgrade evaluation
Placement of controlled, engineered fill
Foundation bearing surfaces, reinforcing steel and concrete
0 Structural framing
Page 121

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Group Headquarters, Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD1 80628, 1/31/19
I Pavement subgrade and crushed stone base installation
0 All other items subject to IBC Special Inspections
11.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for Mason & Hanger, for specific application to the SOF Group
Headquarters located in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The information in this report is not
transferable. This report should not be used for a different development on the same
property without first being evaluated by the engineer.
The recommendations in this report were based on the information obtained from our
field exploration and laboratory analysis. The data collected is representative of the
locations tested. Variations are likely to occur at other locations throughout the site.
Engineering judgment was applied in regards to conditions between borings. It will be
necessary to confirm the anticipated subsurface conditions during construction.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted standards of
geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is expressed or implied. In the
event that changes are made, or anticipated to be made, to the nature, design, or location
of the project as outlined in this report, Building & Earth must be informed of the changes
and given the opportunity to either verify or modify the conclusions of this report in
writing, or the recommendations of this report will no longer be valid.
The scope of services for this project did not include any environmental assessment of
the site or identification of pollutants or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner
is concerned about environmental issues Building & Earth would be happy to provide an
additional scope of services to address those concerns.
This report is intended for use during design and preparation of specifications and may
not address all conditions at the site during construction. Contractors reviewing this
information should acknowledge that this document is for design information only.
An article published by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), titled Important
Information About Your Geotechnical Report, has been included in the Appendix. We
encourage all individuals to become familiar with the article to help manage risk.
Page 122

Appendix Table of Contents
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES ........................................................................................... 1
DRILLING PROCEDURES —STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586) ........................... 1
BORINGLOG DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................ 2
DEPTH AND ELEVATION ............................................................................................................................. 2
SAMPLETYPE ................................................................................................................................................... 2
SAMPLENUMBER .......................................................................................................................................... 2
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD% ...............................................................................................
2
SOILDATA ........................................................................................................................................................
2
SOILDESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................
3
GRAPHIC...........................................................................................................................................................
3
REMARKS..........................................................................................................................................................
3
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................................
4
KEYTO LOGS .........................................................................................................................................................................
6
KEYTO HATCHES ................................................................................................................................................................
8
BORINGLOCATION PLAN ...............................................................................................................................................
9
SUBSURFACESOIL PROFILES ........................................................................................................................................
10
BORING LOGS.
SEISMIC DATA (REMi) ......................
11
12
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES .............................................................................................................................. 13
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488) ............................ 13
POCKET PENETROMETER ......................................................................................................................... 13
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2216) ............................................................................. 13
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318) ....................................................................................................... 13
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTIVI D1 140) .................................... 13
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 14
Table A-1: General Soil Classification Test Results ..................................................................... 14
SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE REPORT ................................................................................................................ is
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT ............................ 16

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES
The subsurface exploration, which is the basis of the recommendations of this report, has
been performed in accordance with industry standards. Detailed methodologies employed
in the investigation are presented in the following sections.
DRILLING PROCEDURES — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D 7586)
At each boring location, soil samples were obtained at standard sampling intervals with a
split -spoon sampler. The borehole was first advanced to the sample depth by augering and
the sampling tools were placed in the open hole. The first 12 feet of each boring was
sampled continuously at 24 inches with a 140-pound manual hammer free -falling 30 inches.
From 12 feet to termination of boring, the sampler was driven 18 inches into the ground.
The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment was recorded.
The initial increment is considered the "seating" blows, where the sampler penetrates loose
or disturbed soil in the bottom of the borehole.
The blows required to penetrate the middle two (2) increments for continuous sampling,
and final two (2) increments for standard sampling are added together and are referred to
as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value. The N-value, when properly evaluated, gives
an indication of the soil's strength and ability to support structural loads. Many factors can
affect the SPT N-value, so this result cannot be used exclusively to evaluate soil conditions.
Samples retrieved from the boring locations were labeled and stored in plastic bags at the
jobsite before being transported to our laboratory for analysis. The project engineer
prepared Boring Logs summarizing the subsurface conditions at the boring locations.
Page I A-1

BORING LOG DESCRIPTION
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. used the gINT software program to prepare the attached boring
logs. The gINT program provides the flexibility to custom design the boring logs to include
the pertinent information from the subsurface exploration and results of our laboratory
analysis. The soil and laboratory information included on our logs is summarized below:
DEPTH AND ELEVATION
The depth below the ground surface and the corresponding elevation are shown in the first
two columns.
SAMPLE TYPE
The method used to collect the sample is shown. The typical sampling methods include Split
Spoon Sampling, Shelby Tube Sampling, Grab Samples, and Rock Core. A key is provided at
the bottom of the log showing the graphic symbol for each sample type.
SAMPLE NUMBER
Each sample collected is numbered sequentially.
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC'%, RQD%
When Standard Split Spoon sampling is used, the blows required to drive the sampler each 6-
inch increment are recorded and shown in column 5. When rock core is obtained the recovery
ration (REC%) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD%) is recorded.
SOIL DATA
Column 6 is a graphic representation of four different soil parameters. Each of the parameters
use the same graph, however, the values of the graph subdivisions vary with each parameter.
Each parameter presented on column 6 is summarized below:
• N-value- The Standard Penetration Test N-value, obtained by adding the number of
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches, is recorded . The graph labels
range from 0 to 50.
• Qu — Unconfined Compressive Strength estimate from the Pocket Penetrometer test in
tons per square foot (tsf). The graph labels range from 0 to 5 tsf.
• Atterberg Limits — The Atterberg Limits are plotted with the plastic limit to the left, and
liquid limit to the right, connected by a horizontal line. The difference in the plastic and
liquid limits is referred to as the Plasticity Index. The Atterberg Limits test results are
also included in the Remarks column on the far right of the boring log. The Atterberg
Limits graph labels range from 0 to 100%.
• Moisture — The Natural Moisture Content of the soil sample as determined in our
laboratory.
Page I A-2

SOIL DESCRIPTION
The soil description prepared in accordance with ASTIVI D2488, Visual Description of Soil
Samples. The Munsel Color chart is used to determine the soil color. Strata changes are
indicated by a solid line, with the depth of the change indicated on the left side of the line and
the elevation of the change indicated on the right side of the line. If subtle changes within a
soil type occur, a broken line is used. The Boring Termination or Auger Refusal depth is shown
as a solid line at the bottom of the boring.
GRAPHIC
The graphic representation of the soil type is shown. The graphic used for each soil type is
related to the Unified Soil Classification chart. A chart showing the graphic associated with
each soil classification is included.
REMARKS
Remarks regarding borehole observations, and additional information regarding the
laboratory results and groundwater observations.
Page I A-3

SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Gravel and
O'W V #'W IN
,,be %,be
P& pt ft i�
G W
Well-groded gravels, gravel — sand mixtures, little or
Gravelly
Clean Grovels
b4
'40u,416
no fines
Soils
(Less than 5% fines)
) "-) �j 0 1-J �—
o o,(
Poorly-groded gravels, gravel — sand mixtures, little
GP
or no fines
More than
Coarse
r 0 r-1
01p �-
Grained 50% of
coarse
J— r\ C,
<
GM
Silty gravels, gravel — sand — silt mixtures
Soils fraction is
Grovels with Fines
larger than
(More than 72% fines)
WI
No. 4 sieve
-A, I
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel — sand — clay mixtures
More than
t 4
50% of Sand and
Sandy
SW
Well-groded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
material is
Clean Sands
larger than Soils
No. 200
(Less than 5% fines)
SP
Poorly-groded sands, gravelly sands, little or no
sieve More than
fines
size 50% of
coarse
SM
Silty sands, sand — silt mixtures
fraction is
Sands with Fines
smaller than
No. 4
(More than 72% fines)
SC
Clc7yey sands, sand — clay mixtures
sieve
ML
Inorganic silts and very find sands, rock flour, silty or
Fine Silts and
clayey fine sands or clayey silt with slight plasticity
Clays
Inorganic
Grained
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity gravelly
Soils
clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
Liquid Limit
less than 50
Organic
OL
Organic silts and organic silty cloys of low plasticity
More than
50% of
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
material is Silts and
MH
sand, or silty soils
smaller Clays
than
Inorganic
No. 200
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity
Liquid Limit
sieve greater than
­A-,&-,N-A-A-A-A-A-
size
50 sieve
llk�
,-A-A-,A-A-A-A-A-A-
Organk OH
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity organic
silts
Highly Organic
Soils PT
Peat, humus, swomp soils with high organic
I
contents
Page I A-4

�� 0 -0
BUILDING & EARTH
EME"1111111 0 0
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Building & Earth Sciences classifies soil in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) presented in ASTM D2487. Table 1
and Figure 1 exemplify the general guidance of
the USCS. Soil consistencies and relative densities
are presented in general accordance with
Terzaghi, Peck, & Mesri's (1996) method, as
shown on Table 2, when quantitative field and/or
laboratory data is available. Table 2 includes
Consistency and Relative Density correlations
with N-values obtained using either a manual
hammer (60 percent efficiency) or automatic
hammer (90 percent efficiency). The Blows Per
Increment and SPT N-volues displayed on the
boring logs are the unaltered values measured in
the field. When field and/or laboratory data is not
available, we may classify soil in general
accordance with the Visual Manual Procedure
presented in ASTM D2488.
Non -cohesive: Coarse -Grained Soil
SPT Penetration
(blows/foot)
Automatic
Manual
Hammer*
Hammer
0-3
0-4
3 -8
4-10
8-23
10-30
23 -38
30-50
> 38
> 50
Relative
Density
Very Loose
Loose
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
60
50
CHZorOH
40
X
30
.Y CL or OL
I L
20
10 or
7 CLJM�� ML or OL
0 4 4 1 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (U-)
Cohesive: Fine -Grained Soil
SPT Penetration I
I Estimated Range of
(blows/foot)
Unconfined Compressive
Consistency
Automatic Manual
Strength (tsf)
Hammer*-- Hammer
< 2
< 2
Very Soft < 0.25
2 - 3
2-4
Soft 0.25-0.50
3-6 1 4-8 Medium Stiff
Medium Dense 6- 12 1 8- 15
Dense
Very Dense
12 - 23 1 15 - 30
> 23 1 > 30
* - Modified based on 80% hammer efficiency
stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
0.50-1.00
1.00-2.00
2.00-4.00
> 4.00
Page I A-5

BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Standard
Penetration Test
ASTIVI DI 586 or
AASHTO T-206
Shelby Tube
Sampler
ASTIVI D1587
Rock Core Sample
ASTIVI D2113
IAuger Cuttings
Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer
(Sower DCP)
ASTIVI STP-399
0 No Sample
Recovery
Groundwater at
Time of Drilling
Groundwater as
Indicated
KEY TO LOGS
Soil
Particle Size
U.S. Standard
Boulders
Larger than 300 mm
300 mm to 75 mm
75 mm to 4.75 mm
N.A.
Cobbles
N.A.
Gravel
3-inch to #4 sieve
Coarse
75 mm to 19 mm
3-inch to 3/4-inch sieve
Fine
19 mm to 4.75 mm
3/4-inch to #4 sieve
Sand
4.75 mm to 0.075 mm
4.75 mm to 2 mm
2 mm to 0.425 mm
#4 to #200 Sieve
Coarse
#4 to #10 Sieve
Medium
#10 to #40 Sieve
Fine
0.425 mm to 0.075 mm
#40 to #200 Sieve
Fines
Less than 0.075 mm
Passing #200 Sieve
Silt
Less than 5 pm N.A.
Less than 2 pm N.A.
--qommwv---
Table 2: Standard Sieve Sizes
Clay
Standard Penetration Test Resistance
A measure of a soil's plasticity characteristics in
N Value
calculated using ASTM D1586 or AASHTO T-
Atterberg
Limits
general accordance with ASTM D4318. The soil
206. Calculated as sum of original, field
i
Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this
characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit (ILL)
recorded values.
PL ILL
and the Plastic Limit (PL).
Qu
A
Unconfined compressive strength, typically
from Results
% Molsture
Percent natural moisture content in general
estimated a pocket penetrometer.
accordance with ASTM D2216.
are presented in tons per square foot (tsf).
Hollow Stem Auger Flights on the outside of the shaft advance soil cuttings to the surface. The
hollow stem allows sampling through the middle of the auger flights.
Mud Rotary/ A cutting head advances the boring and discharges a drilling fluid to
Wash Bore support the borehole and circulate cuttings to the surface.
Solid Flight Auger Flights on the outside bring soil cuttings to the surface. Solid stem requires
removal from borehole during sampling.
Hand Auger Cylindrical bucket (typically 3-inch diameter and 8 inches long) attached to a
I metal rod and turned by human force. I
Table 4: Soil Drilling Methods
Descriptor
Meaning
Trace
Likely less than 5%
Few
5 to 10%
Little
15 to 25%
Some
30 to 45%
Mostly 50 to 100%
Table 5: Descriptors
Page I A-6

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Manual Hammer
Automatic Trip Hammer
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
(Sower DCP) ASTM STP-399
Non -plastic
Low
Medium
High
KEY TO LOGS
The operator tightens and loosens the rope around a rotating drum assembly to lift
and drop a sliding, 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
An automatic mechanism is used to lift and drop a sliding, 140-pound hammer
falling 30 inches.
Uses a 15-pound steel mass falling 20 inches to strike an anvil and cause penetration
of a 1.5-inch diameter cone seated in the bottom of a hand augered borehole. The
blows required to drive the embedded cone a depth of 1-3/4 inches have been
correlated by others to N-values derived from the Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
A 1/8-inch thread cannot be rolled at any water content.
The thread can barely be rolled and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the
plastic limit.
The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The
thread cannot be re -rolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when
drier than the plastic limit.
It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread
can be re -rolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be
formed without crumblina when drier than the Dlastic limit.
Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/2 inch thick.
Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4 inch thick.
Fissured Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing.
Slickensides Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.
Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further
breakdown.
Lensed
Homogeneous
Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered
throuah a mass of clay.
Same color and appearance throughout.
Page I A-7

BUILDING & EARTH
0 0 0 KEY TO HATCHES
Geotechnical, Environmental, an� Materials Engineers
GW - Well -graded grovels, gravel - sand Asphalt Clay with Gravel
d1 mixtures, little or no fines
a a GP - Poorly -graded grovels, gravel - sand
AggregGte Bose
r3' mixtures, little or no fines Sand with Gravel
r
GM - Silty grovels, gravel - sand - silt T oil < Silt with Gravel
LQ� b< mixtures OPS
1� .0 b'' .0 0 1,
GC - Clayey grovels, gravel - sand - clay
Concrete Gravel with Sand
mixtures
Aw
NP
SW - Well -graded sands, gravelly sands,
Coal Gravel with Clay
little or no fines
SP - Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands,
CL-ML - Silty k7y Gravel with Silt
little or no fines
90
SM - Silty sands, sand - silt mixtures Sandy Cloy Limestone
C
S - Clayey sands, sand - clay mixtures
ML - Inorganic silts and very find sands,
lc7yey Chert
Chalk
Low and High
X X X X X X
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
Plasticity Clay
x x x x x x
X X X X X X
Siltstone
sands or clayey silt with slight losticity
X X X X X X
CL - Inorganic clays of low to medium
Low Plasticity Silt and
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy
Clay
Till
clays, silty clays, lean clays
OL - Organic silts and organic silty clays
High Plasticity Silt
1'.
Sandy Cloy with
of low plasticity
and Clay
Cobbles Gnd Boulders
MH - Inorganic silts, micaceous or
Fill
Sandstone with Shale
diatomaceous fine sand, or silty soils
. yk
CH - Inorganic clays of high plasticity
I . <
Weathered Rock
Coral
4 ;1 x 4 XA
.....................
OH - Organic clays of medium to high
A� Sandstone Boulders and Cobbles
plasticity organic silts
PT- P . eat, humus, swamp soils with high Shale 0. . 0. Soil and Weathered
organic contents Rock
11 t, 0
Page I A-8

BORING LOCATION PLAN
Page I A-9

MIND
In 1111111
0
U-
co
0
u_
IMMA
Ll
Li w
T T
OME1
K 47L
L
rrm I 11 rttrrrr bj�o AT)l
--- - 77777= f
173H�S.Q. -- E7
il;�%
0
CD
Q)
ru
u
Q)
=
Q)
u
0
Ln
Q)
CD
0
Ln
2
co
CL
CL
<
CD
LU
LL
Li
wl
Ln
a)
u
m
ru (3)
co
r
"o
ru
0
.2
S
o 0
*-
M
—
n
U-
u-
0
w
0
CE
C12
—j
cm
c
0
Co
0
tA
tm
aj
LA
LU
Ll
I

SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES
Page I A-10

-1 lo oN
LLA
0
c
U;
ap-.
0
ol o) o)
ID
Q N
r u
"
w
09
O-Z
(D
�o
M
LU
+
t
(A
z
w
E
0 u
;-;
o
m LL
9
I
>
LL
0
c
w
o
LL.
o
E
ca
o
o
-E zt:�
w v 6)
> - S
z
E
V E
2
r
- E 2 -o -�o t U
E
j o o mu
o 11 u Q-) Q-) Im I
D� -2
< w & > > o
E -w -w
o o >
o
ou 2
cy DI,
cD
rn
ul
m
0
cD
o
o
LLIJ
o
cD
U.
UM
NOUVAIII
W/LA rdE)E)Nl]dNVSsnonNIiNOD2E902LCI�J AA3N 3TJMJd

-1 lo oN
LLA
0
c
U;
ID
r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....
wo
,L
LA
LLJ 2
'm
0 0
Q-D LL
LL
0
4)
o
LL.
ca
o
-E zt:�
w v 6)
> - S q
F
z
o
E
V E
w 2
E o >
-uj u
E x
o o
u u Q-) Q)
o M
u
E
o o >
ou m m
cy DI,
u
u
(D
(D
o
o
(D
(D
U.
UM
NOUVAIII
W/LA rdE)E)Nl]dNVSsnonNIiNOD2E902LCI�J AA3N 3TJMJd

-1 lo oN
6i
ID
r u
a z
09
O-Z
LA
LLA
E
0 0
(3 LL
I
CL
>
LL
0
c
w
o
LL.
ca
o
o
(D
rn
z 2
-E zt:�
w v 6)
z
o
E
V E
2
-o
u
g f
E < E
o o
—j o 11 uo w) w
< > >
E
o o
o
U
cy DI,
0
o
o
(D
u')
U�
UM
NOUVAIII
W/LA rdE)E)Nl]dNVSsnonNIiNOD2E902LCI�J AA3N 3TJMJd

-1 lo oN
cy ID
r\j
rL
r
z
09
O-Z
LA
1 0
.0 1
LLA
50-
(A q
-
E
0 0
LL
o
I
LL
0
>
o
LL.
ca
o
o
z
cy (D
-E
v zt�
mu v 6)
>
z
o
-Fu E
V E
w p
E o > mu
-vi u
mu
E o f
o
u
u Q-) Q)
o
u
E
o >
o
ou m m
cy DI,
0
o
o
6 (D
u
u
NOUVAIII
W/LA rdE)E)Nl]dNVSsnonNIiNOD2E902LCI�J AA3N 3TJMJd

BORING LOGS
Page I A-1 1

0
0 0
LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Rd.
BUILDING
& EARTH
Designation: B-01
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Sheet 1 of 2
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental,
and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DATE DRILLED:
12/5/18
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
ELEVATION:
255.5
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
BORING LOCATION:
Northwest Building Corner
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
z
LU
d
z
z
LU
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
LU
0-
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
255-X
1
2-2-1-1
0.7 254.8
\TOPSOIL: 8 inches
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: very loose, reddish brown,
moist
-X
2
1-2-3-4
Sample 3
loose
11:52
5 -
250-
X
3
4-6-9-10
. .. . . . .
PL:28
PI: 24
M: 23.7%
medium dense
-X
F: 44.9%
4
3-6-10-12
-
X
5
7-10-14-1
.....
10-
245-
X
6
5-12-21-16
11.5 244.0
SILTY SAND (SM): dense, red, moist
7
6-15-26
15—
. . . . . . .
240-
19.0 236.5.1.
20—
X
8
19-23-30
>>E]
. . . . . .
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: very dense, tan, moist
235-
Sample 9
11:32
-X
9
4-7-8
PL: 20
PI: 12
medium dense
25—
M: 18.7%
230-
F: 28.3%
10
12-21-19
dense
SAMPLE TYPE Z Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
y STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
Northwest Building Corner
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
—
'*f
Z
—
-
A Qu (ts� A
LU
0-
3: 0� 2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
1 Atterberg Limits I
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
LU
Ln
Ln
0 % Moisture 0
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-01
Sheet 2 of 2
SOIL DESCRIPTION
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/5/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
255.5
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
REMARKS
225-
SaMIDle
medium dense, wet
35-
M: 19.7%
220-
12
12-20-24
dense
40—
40.0 215.5
Boring Terminated at 40 feet.
215-
45-
210-
50-
205-
55—
Groundwater not
200-
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
fnr Mnn—1 hAmmor
SAMPLE TYPE LX� Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
y STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

0
0 0
LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Rd.
BUILDING
& EARTH
Designation: B-02
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental,
and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DATE DRILLED:
12/5/18
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
ELEVATION:
257.1
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
BORING LOCATION:
Northwest Buiding Corner
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
z
LU
d
z
z
LU
10 20 30 40
A Qu (tsf) A
LU
0-
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
. . . . . . .
10 TOPSOIL: 12 inches 256.1
1-2-2-2
..... ........
SILTY SAND (SM): very loose, red, moist
255-
_X
2
1-2-4-4
.. ... 6'.
Sample 2
M: 22.5%
loose
5—
3
3-6-17-18
medium dense
250-
4
7-24-34-29
>>11
very dense
-X
5
13-14-18-21
...........
dense
10—
6
5-12-23-25..:
tan, gray
245--
7
11-14-19
tan, brown
15-
240-
8
13-19-26
20—
. . . . . . . . .
20.0 237.1
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
235-
25—
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
230-
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
-
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE Z Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
y STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
North Building Middle
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-03
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/5/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
257.8
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
z
z
LU
LU
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0-
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
20 40 60 80
-�'—�TOPS�OIL6 in�ch
es
1
2-2-2-3
........
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: very loose, red, moist
255-
X
2
4-6-9-10
Sample 2
M: 23.7%
medium dense
5 —
3
8-14-22-35
dense
X
4
5-23-38-34
7.0 250.8
SILTY SAND (SM): very dense, red, moist
250
5
14-16-15-17
dense
10—
-X
. . . . . . .
Sample 6
ILL: 22
-X
6
5-10-11-15
- -:.
.:**:**:*--*
PL: 20
PI: 2
. . ...
--
M: 19.3%
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: dense, red, moist
F: 38.9%
245-
7
7-10-13
tan, mottled
15—
...........
..........
240-
8
8-8-13
20—
20.0 237.8
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
235-
25—
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
y STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
Northest Building Corner
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-04
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/4/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
259.7
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
z
z
LU
LU
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0-
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
20 40 60 80
-X
1
2-2-4-4
..... . . . . . .
ELASTIC SILT (MH): medium stiff, red, moist
X
2
3-4-12-16
Sample 3
11:68
5 —
255-X
312-20-29-32
PL: 39
PI: 29
hard
M: 23 3%
F: 52.9%
4
5-17-22-25
-X
red, gray
-X
5
8-16-21-21
. ......
10—
250-
6
6-10-17-22
-X
very stiff
14.0 245.7
Jill
7
12-13-16
.................
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, gray, moist
15-
245-
18.5 241.2
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: medium dense, mottled,
240-
8
8-11-13
. . . . . . . . .
20.0 m O'st 239.7.
20—
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
25—
235-
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
y STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
Southwest Building Corner
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-05
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/5/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
252.1
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
z
z
LU
LU
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0-
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
20 40 60 80
-�'-�TOPS�OIL6,n�cheF..��
2-3-4-4
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, gray, moist
U,
250-
—
2.5 249.6.
:
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: loose, red, moist
X
2
2-3-6-8
Sample 3
ILL: 47
5—
3
3-7-9-12
PL: 26
PI: 21
medium dense
M: 20.0%
F: 46.2%
245-
4
2-4-8-14
5
6-12-19-22
........... .....
9.0 243.1
SILTY SAND (SM): dense, gray, red, tan, moist
10-
6
5-8-16-23
medium dense
240-
7
7-11-16
red
15—
235-
8
5-19-26
dense, tan
20—
20.0 232.1
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
230-
25—
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
225-
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
-
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
T- STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
South Building Middle
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-06
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/5/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
255.1
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
z
z
LU
LU
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0-
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0
2---
: : : :
-�'-�TOPS�OIL6 in�cheF
SILTY SAND (SM): very loose, tan, moist
2
3-6-7-9
3.0 252.1
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: medium dense, red, moist
5—
250-
3
4-5-8-8
Sample 3
M: 14.8%
4
3-5-9-11
5
5 -8-12-21
9.5 245.6..
SILTY SAND (SM): dense, red, moist
10—
245--
6
5-8-26-28
7
8-11-19
medium dense, tan
15—
240-
X
8
8-11-20
dense
20—
235-
20.0 235.1
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
25—
230-
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
T- STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

0
0 0
LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Rd.
BUILDING
& EARTH
Designation: B-07
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Sheet 1 of 2
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental,
and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DATE DRILLED:
12/4/18
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
ELEVATION:
257.3
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
BORING LOCATION:
Southeast Building Corner
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
z
LU
d
z
z
LU
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
LU
0-
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
-X
4-7-5-5
216.6
�TOPSOIL- �8,nchesF
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, red, moist
255-X
2
4-7-11-11
. . . . . . .
Sample 2
M: 20.5%
medium dense
5
-
x
3
8-23-19-20
dense
250-
X
4
10-19-21-19
-X
5
9-19-27-20
10—
-X
6
9-17-26-25
tan
245-
7
19-19-18
:E
15-
240-
8
14-19-18
20-
235-
9
10-23-50/4
�;E
I
very dense
25-
230
29.0 228.3
10
19-41-42
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: very dense, red, moist
SAMPLE TYPE Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
T- STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
Southeast Building Corner
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
—
'*f
Z
—
-
A Qu (ts� A
LU
0-
3: 0� 2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
1 Atterberg Limits I
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
LU
Ln
Ln
0 % Moisture 0
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-07
Sheet 2 of 2
SOIL DESCRIPTION
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/4/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
257.3
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
REMARKS
225-
1
7-9-9
medium dense, tan
35—
220-
...........
. . . . . . .
38.5 218.8
SILTY SAND (SM): very dense, tan, wet
12
15-24-28
.......................
>>E]
40—
40.0 217.3
Boring Terminated at 40 feet.
215-
45-
210-
50-
205-
55—
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
200-
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE M Split Sp...
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
T- STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
Northwest Parking Lot Corner
LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-01
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/4/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
260.1
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
z
z
LU
LU
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0-
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
20 40 60 80
z -
1
2-3-3-4
471-: -
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: loose, red, moist
2
3-4-6-7
5—
255-
3
10-17-27-30
. . . . . . .
5.0 255.1
Sample 4
SILTY SAND (SM): very dense, red, moist
ILL: 54
X
4
8-24-30-31
PL: 31
PI: 23
M: 22.4%
F: 46.6%
red/tan
5
7-18-28-34
10—
250-
10.0 250.1
.
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
15—
245-
20—
240-
25—
235-
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
y STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
Northeast Parking Lot Corner
LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-02
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/4/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
261.6
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
z
z
LU
LU
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0-
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
20 40 60 80
2611
-0---�TOPSOIL: 6 inches
1
1-1-3-5
..... ........
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: very loose, red, moist
260-X
X
2
4-10-9-9
Sample 2
M: 21.5%
medium dense
5 —
X
3
6-11-18-27
255-X
4
4-13-26-33
............
dense
_X
5
18-26-34-38
very dense, tan, red
10—
10.0 251.6
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
250-
15-
245-
20-
240-
25—
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
235-
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
y STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
West (North Middle) Parking Lot
LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-03
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/4/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
258.5
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
z
z
LU
LU
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0-
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
20 40 60 80
2 a n
-0---�TOPSOIL: 6 inches
X
1
1-3-7-9
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: loose, red, moist
2
6-6-5-8
Sample 2
M: 29.7%
255-X
medium dense
5
-
x
3
14-23-31-35
very dense, tan, gray
4
10-22-35-47
250-
red
5
10—
10.0 248.5
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
245-
15-
240-
20-
235-
25—
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
230-
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
y STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

0
0 0
LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Rd.
BUILDING
& EARTH
Designation: P-04
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental,
and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DATE DRILLED:
12/4/18
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
ELEVATION:
259.8
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
BORING LOCATION:
East (North Middle) Parking Lot
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
z
LU
d
z
z
LU
10 20 30 40
A Qu (tsf) A
LU
0-
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
_X
TOPSOIL: 6 inches
1
2-4-6-9
ND (SQ: loose, red, moist
2
7-12-22-27
Sample 2
M: 27.8%
dense
5—
255-
3
9-17-25-26
. . . . . . . . .
4
10-18-29-34
tan, red
5
8-13-18-15
.............. ..
10—
250-X
. . . . . .
10.0
249.8..
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
15—
245-
. . . . . . . . .
20—
240-
25—
235-
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE
Z Split Spoon
N-VALUE
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206)
REC RECOVERY
LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE
PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17
GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED
PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
y
STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL
Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
Southwest Parking Corner
LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-05
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/4/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
249.3
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
z
z
LU
LU
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0-
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
20 40 60 80
0.7 inches 248.6
X
1-3-3-2
. . . . . .
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: loose, tan, moist
-X
3.0 246.3
2
3-3-3-3
Sample 3
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, tan, moist
ILL: 53
245-X
5—
3
4-8-14-19
PL: 32
PI: 21
medium dense
M: 19 0%
-X
F: 41.0%
4
6-16-23-29
dense
-X
240-
5
9-19-26-25
10—
10.0 239.3
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
235-
15-
230-
20-
225-
25—
-
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
220
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
T- STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
Southeast Parking Corner
LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-06
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/4/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
250.7
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
z
z
LU
LU
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0-
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
20 40 60 80
250-
-�'-�TOPS�OIL6
inches
X
1
1-2-2-1
........
SILTY SAND (SM): very loose, tan, moist
X
2
1-1-3-5
.....
3.5 247.2
- - -
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: loose, red, moist
7—
. . . . . . .
5—
3
4-5-10-13
Sample 3
M: 19.6%
245-X
Sample 4
medium dense
ILL: 37
X
4
6-16-20-17
PL: 21
PI: 16
dense, tan
M: 12.7%
242.7.
. ......
F: 23.3%
-8.0
SILTY SAND (SM): very dense, tan, moist
X
5
8-16-24-31
10-
10.0 240.7
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
240-
15-
235-
20-
230-
25—
Groundwater not
225-
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
T- STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
SOF Group Headquarters
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD180628
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 55
HAMMERTYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
NE Corner (Concrete Parking Lot)
LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-07
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Rd.
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, NC
DATE DRILLED:
12/4/18
WEATHER:
Clear, 40s
ELEVATION:
262.7
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
J. Hill
El N-Value 0
LU
d
z
10 20 30 40
A Qu (ts� A
z
z
LU
LU
2
0 LU
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
0-
LU
0
>
LU
2
<
Z
20 40 60 80
0 % Moisture 0
LU
V)
V)
20 40 60 80
: :
�Ij
Sample 1
TOPSOIL: 6 inches
X
1
2-3-4-4
........
M: 12.6%
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, red, brown, gray,
........
moist
260-
X
2
2-3-5-7
4.5 258.2
CLAYEY SAND (SQ: medium dense, red, moist
5 —
X
3
7-13-10-10
4
9-12-23-35
255-X
dense
-X
5
7-16-24-31
10—
10.0 red, tan 252.7
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
250-
15-
245-
.................
20-
240-
25—
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
drilling.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITYINDEX
y STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL 9 Auburn, AL 9 Huntsville, AL 0 Montgomery, AL e Mobile, AL 0 Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA 9 Louisville, KY e Raleigh, NC 9 Dunn, NC 9 Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

SEISMIC DATA (REMi)
Page I A-12

Z
MW
3000
4111111
1000
N
SOF Group HQ (k Yarborough Complex
Dispersion Curve Showing Picks and Fit
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Period, s
0.0
Aness, secimeter
0.00666
p-f Image with Dispersion Modeling Picks
Averaged ReMi Spectral Ratio
0.0 1111�2.5

I
-10
-20
-30
40
50
M
-70
-100
SOF Group HQ (�� Yarborough Complex
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Shear -Wave Velocityfils
-VslOO'= 1,133 ft/s IBC
site class 'D'

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
A brief description of the laboratorytests performed is provided in the following sections.
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488)
The soil samples were visually examined by our engineer and soil descriptions were
provided. Representative samples were then selected and tested in accordance with the
aforementioned laboratory -testing program to determine soil classifications and
engineering properties. This data was used to correlate our visual descriptions with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
POCKET PENETROMETER
Pocket Penetrometer tests were performed on cohesive soil samples. The pocket
penetrometer provides a consistency classification, and an indication of the soils unconfined
compressive strength (Qu).
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D22 7 6)
Natural moisture contents (M%) were determined on selected samples. The natural moisture
content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the weight of water in a given amount of
soil to the weight of solid particles.
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4378)
The Atterberg Limits test was performed to evaluate the soil's plasticity characteristics. The soil
Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit
(LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The Liquid Limit is the moisture content at which the soil will
flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The Plastic Limit is the moisture content at which the soil is
between "plastic" and the semi -solid stage. The Plasticity Index (PI = LL - PL) is a frequently
used indicator for a soil's potential for volume change. Typically, a soil's potential for volume
change increases with higher plasticity indices.
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTM D7 740)
Grain -size tests were performed to determine the partial soil particle size distribution. The
amount of material finer than the openings on the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm) was determined
by washing soil over the No. 200 sieve. The results of wash #200 tests are presented on the
boring logs included in this report and in the table of laboratory test results.
Page I A-13

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the following tables.
Boring or Test Sample Depth LL PL
Pit Location (ft)
B-01 4-6 52 28
B-01 23.5 - 25 32 20
B-01 33.5 -35 -- --
Pi
24
% Passing Moisture
#200 Sieve Content (%)
44.9 23.7
12
28.3
18.7
--
--
19.7
B-02
2-4
22.5
B-03
2-4
--
--
--
--
23.7
B-03
10-12
22
20
2
38.9
19.3
B-04
4-6
68
39
29
52.9
23.3
B-05
4-6
47
26
21
46.2
20.0
B-06
4-6
--
--
--
--
14.8
B-07
2-4
--
--
--
--
20.5
P-01
6-8
54
31
23
46.6
22.4
P-02
2-4
--
--
--
--
21.5
P-03
2-4
29.7
P-04
2-4
--
--
--
--
27.8
P-05
4-6
53
32
21
41.0
19.0
P-06
4-6
--
--
--
--
19.6
P-06
6-8
3
21
16
23.3
12.7
P-07
0-2
--
--
--
-- 12.6
Table A-1: General Soil Classification Test Results
Soils with a Liquid Limit (LL) greater than 50 and Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 25 usually
exhibit significant volume change with varying moisture content and cire considered to be
highly plastic. Soils with a LOI value greater than 3 percent cire usually not suitable for
supporting building and pavement sections.
Page I A-14

Particle Size Distribution
Report
CO 10 C)
100
0
go
10
80
20
70
130
M
W
Z
60
-40
0
LL
M
Z
Z
50
50
W
0
0
0
W
>
W
40
60
X
W
M
30
70
20
80
101
90
0
1100
10
1 0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Silt
Clay
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
14.5
45.4
36.5
SIEVE
PASS? Material Description
PERCENT
SPEC.*
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO) Dark red silty sand
100.0
.75
.375
99.9
#4
98.2
#10
96.4
Atterberg Limits
#20
92.0
PL= 28
LL= 44
Pl=
16
#40
81.9
Coeff icients
#100
54.8
D90= 0.7077
D85= 0.5021
D60= 0.1806
#200
36.5
D50= 0.1255
D30=
D15=
D10=
cu=
cc=
Classification
USCS= SM
AASHTO= A-7-6(l)
Remarks
As -received water
content � 22.9%
(no specification
provided)
Location: B-4
(bulk)
Sample Number:
18-3142-01
Depth:
0-5'
Date:
12-18-18
0 0
0
Client: Mason &Hanger
Project: SOF Group HQ g Yarborough Complex (GEO) Fort
Bragg, NC
BUILDING
&
EARTH
Project No: RD180628
Figure

Particle Size Distribution
Report
0 0 0 0 C)
100
go
10
80
-20
70
30
M
W
Z
60
-40
LL
M
Z
Z
50
E60
50
W
0
0
>
W
40
X
W
M
30
70
20
80
10
90
0
100
10
1 0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Silt
Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
13.2
25.3
61.2
SIEVE
PASS? Material Description
PERCENT
SPEC.*
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO) Dark red sandy silt
100.0
#4
#10
99.7
#20
95.8
#40
86.5
Atterberg Limits
#100
69.0
PL= 33
LL= 47
Pl= 14
#200
61.2
Coeff icients
D90= 0.5296
D85= 0.3886
D60=
D50=
D30=
D15=
D10=
cu=
cc=
Classification
USCS= ML
AASHTO= A-7-5(8)
Remarks
As -received water
content � 25.2%
(no specification
provided)
Location: P-4
(bulk)
Sample Number:
18-3142-02
Depth:
0-5'
Date: 12-18-18
0 0
0
Client: Mason &Hanger
Project: SOF Group HQ g Yarborough Complex (GEO) Fort Bragg, NC
BUILDING
&
EARTH
Project No: RD180628
Figure

125
120--
16.0%
116
C
115--
110--
ZAV for
Sp.G.
105----/
—2.75
100i
-T]
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
%>
#4
%<
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
0-5'
SM
A-7-6(1)
44
16
1.8
36.5
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 116.4 pcf
Optimum moisture = 16.0 %
Dark red silty sand
Project No. RD180628 Client: Mason&Hanger
Project: SOF Group HQ @ Yarborough Complex (GEO) Fort Bragg, NC
Date: 12-18-18
0 Location: B-4 (bulk) Sample Number: 18-3142-01
Remarks:
Figure
III 1 0
BUILDING & EARTH
ME 0 1

118
16.
9 1'12.
q
113
108
\
-C
103
ZAV for
Sp.G.
2.65
98
93
11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
%>
#4
%<
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
0-5'
NIL
A-7-5(8)
25.2
47
14
0.0
61.2
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 112.7 pcf
Optimum moisture = 16.9 %
Dark red sandy silt
Project No. RD180628 Client: Mason&Hanger
Project: SOF Group HQ @ Yarborough Complex (GEO) Fort Bragg, NC
Date: 12-18-18
0 Location: P-4 (bulk) Sample Number: 18-3142-02
Remarks:
Figure
III 1 0
BUILDING & EARTH
ME 0

January 4, 2019
Project No R-2018-338-001
Mr. Kurt Miller
Building & Earth Sciences, LLC
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
e technics
I g eotech n ica I & g cosy nth eti c tesfi n g
Transmittal
Laboratory Test Results
RDII 80628 SOF Group HQ - Yarborough
Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined
on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was
performed in general accordance with the methods listed on the enclosed data sheets. The test results are
believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of the
specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and imply no
position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the suitability of the
material for its intended use.
The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and disclosed
to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein is considered integral
with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the authorization of the Client
and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be retained for a minimum of 90 days
as directed by the Geotechnics' Quality Program.
We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further
assistance, please contact our office.
Respectively submitted,
Geotechnics, Inc.
/4 ;
z1
.-2
Michael P. Smith
Regional Manager
We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services
and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics.
DCN. Data T—snuttal Letter Date 1128105 Rev. I
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

technics
geotechnid & geosyothetic testing
SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-16
Client
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
Boring No.
B-4 BULK
Client Reference
RD1 80628 SOF Group
HQ -Yarborough
Depth(ft.)
0-5
Project No.
R-2018-338-001
Sample No.
18-3142-01
Lab ID
R-2018-338-001-001
Visual Description
DARK RED SANDY
CLAY
Test Type
MODIFIED
Molding Method
C
Density
Before
After
Mold ID
R354
Measurement
Soaking
Soaking
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
4208.9
Wt. Mold & WS (gm.)
8569.6
8641.7
Mold Volume (cc)
2123
Wt. WS (gm.)
4360.7
4433
Surcharge (lbs.)
20
Sample Volume (cc)
2123
2128
Piston Area (in 2)
3
Wet Density (gm./cc)
2.05
2.08
Sample Height
4.58
Wet Density (pcf)
128.2
130.0
Sample Conditions
Soaked
Blows per Layer
35
Dry Density (pcf)
109.9
109.6
Dry Density (gm./cc)
1.76
1.76
Water
As Begining
After
Before
After
Top 1"
Contents
Rec'd Compaction
Compaction
Soaking
Soaking
After Soak
Tare No.
857 NA
317
AF-07
NE-03
Wt. of T+WS (gm.)
287.94 NA
328.36
901.82
623.22
Wt. of T+DS (gm.)
280.2 NA
293.61
796.13
561.55
Wt of Tare (gm.)
136.87 NA
83.97
228.67
228.54
Moisture Content(%)
5.4 NA
16.6
16.6
18.6
18.5
Piston Penetration
Displacement Load Stress Swell
(in.) (lbs.) (psi.) Measurement
0
16.40
5.5
0.025
413.81
137.9
0.050
691.10
230.4
0.075
837.85
279.3
0.100
944.63
314.9
0.125
1033.12
344.4
0.150
1106.45
368.8
0.175
1169.10
389.7
0.200
1221.70
407.2
0.250
1296.73
432.2
0.300
1369.88
456.6
0.350
1434.62
478.2
0.400
1501.93
500.6
0.450
1558.33
519.4
0.500
1619.75
539.9
0.550
1671.52
557.2
0.600
1725.13
575.0
Elapsed Dial Percent
Time Gauge Swell
(h rs) (Div)
0.00 495 0.00%
144.00 505 0.22%
1 Division = 0.001 in.
Tested By SFS Date 12118118 Checked By MPS Date 12/27/18
page lof2 DCN CT-S27 REVS10N 5 DA2EM91RR&OCTSOUILDING & EARTH SCIENCES�2018-338 BUILDING & EARTH - RD1806M[2018-338-001-001 ICBR TESTNETxis]SHEETI
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

SINGLE POINT CIBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-16
Client Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. Boring No.
Client Reference RD180628 SOF Group HQ - Yarborough Depth(ft.)
Project No. R-2018-338-001 Sample No.
Lab ID R-2018-338-001 -001 Visual Description
700.0
11-1091191
500.0
400.0
4)
ze
r-
0
M
300.0
4)
r-
4)
CL
MI9191
CIBR VALUE (0. 1 ") 31.5 %
CIBR VALUE (0.2") 27.1 %
Penetration Stress vs. Penetration
technics
geotechnical &geosyrahetic testing
B-4 BULK
0-5
18-3142-01
DARK RED SANDY
CLAY
0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
Penetration (in)
Tested By SFS Date 12118118 Approved By MPS Date 12/27/18
page 2 of 2 DCN: CT-S27 REVS10hY-E2a1A-RR0JE16)MBU/LD/NG & EARTH SCIENCES�2018-338 BUILDING & EARTH - RD1806281[2018-338-001-001 ICBR TESTNETxls]SHEETI
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

Client:
Client Reference
Project No.:
Lab ID:
35
25
a20
IS
15
10
5
0 +
0
technics
CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST geotechnical &geosyrahetic testing
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTIVI D4767-11
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. Boring No.: P-4 BULK
RD1 80628 SOF Group HQ -Yarborough Depth (ft): 0-5
R-2018-338-001 Sample No.: 18-3142-02
R-2018-338-001-002
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test with Pore Pressure
SIN (D = TAN (x
a
C= ------
Cos q)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
P, (psi)
Max. Effec. Stress Ratio Points -Failure Envelope -Test No. 1
a 0.00 0.00
OC 36.4 47.59
IV
40 45 50
Test No. 2
Tested By: MY Date: 12/20/19 Approved By: MPS Date: 1/4/19
page I of I I DCN: CT-S28 DATE 4/12/13 REVISION 3 Sigmatriax.xis
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

MOHR TOTAL STRENGTH ENVELOPE
ASTM D4767-11
Client: Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. Boring No.:
Client Reference: RD1 80628 SOF Group HQ -Yarborough Depth (ft):
Project No.: R-2018-338-001 Sample No.:
Lab ID: R-2018-338-001-002
Visual Description: RED SILT (REMOLDED)
40
C 3.44
(D 31.98
35
30
25
U)
CL
20
15
10
5
0 +
0
technics
geotechnid & geosywhetic testing
P-4 BULK
0-5
18-3142-02
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
cy (psi)
Failure Based on Maximum Effective Principal Stress Ratio
NOTE: GRAPH NOT TO SCALE
Tested By. MY Date: 12/20/19 Approved By: MPS Date: 1/4/19
page 2 of 11 DCN CT-S28 DATE 4/12/13 REVISION 3
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

technics
CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST geotec h n u I & geo syo : hetic test I ng
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
Boring No.: P-4 BULK
Client Reference:
RD1 80628 SOF Group HQ -Yarborough
Depth (ft): 0-5
Project No.:
R-2018-338-001
Sample No.: 18-3142-02
Lab ID:
R-2018-338-001-002
Visual Description:
RED SILT (REMOLDED)
Stage No.
1
INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.
1
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1:
2.864
PRESSURES (psi)
Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2:
2.864
Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3:
2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)
53.5 Avg.
Length: 5.995 Avg. Diam.:
2.864
Back Pressure (psi)
50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi)
3.5
VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure
Initial Burette Reading (ml)
Response 1(%)
95
Final Burette Reading (ml)
Final Change (ml)
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)
11.41
Dial Reading After Saturation (mil)
Q
10.13
Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)
LOAD
DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB)
(IN)
(PSI)
5.3
0.000
50.0
8.2
0.001
50.0
12.6
0.002
50.0
55.7
0.007
51.1
106.9
0.012
52.0
136.7
0.018
52.2
149.9
0.026
51.5
155.4
0.035
50.7
153.8
0.047
49.9
154.3
0.069
49.4
158.6
0.098
49.0
165.8
0.133
48.6
171.2
0.169
48.3
176.0
0.211
48.0
178.4
0.241
47.8
183.0
0.281
47.6
189.3
0.337
47.3
196.7
0.397
47.0
202.5
0.442
46.8
210.7
0.500
46.4
218.0
0.543
46.2
224.4
0.588
45.9
230.8
0.634
45.6
234.6
0.664
45.4
239.0
0.692
45.2
243.8
0.721
45.1
248.2
0.749
44.9
254.5
0.795
44.6
262.0
0.840
44.3
265.8
0.869
44.1
270.1
0.923
43.9
Tested By: MY
Date: 12/20/19
Input Checked By: GEM
Date: 1/4/19
page 3 of 11
DCN CT-S28 DATE 4/12/13 REVISION 3
Sigmatriax.xls
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client: Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. Boring No.:
Client Reference: RD1 80628 SOF Group HQ - Yarborough Depth (ft):
Project No.: R-2018-338-001 Sample No.
Lab ID: R-2018-338-001-002
Visual Description: RED SILT (REMOLDED)
P-4 BULK
0-5
18-3142-02
technics
geotechnical &geasynthetic testing
Effective Confining Pressure (psi) 3.5 Stage No. 1
Test No 1
INITIAL DIMENSIONS
Initial Sample Length (in)
Initial Sample Diameter (in)
Initial Sample Area (in 2)
Initial Sample Volume (in 3)
6.00
2.86
6.44
38.62
VOLUME CHANGE
Volume After Consolidation (in 3)
Length After Consolidation (in)
Area After Consolidation (in 2)
38.62
6.00
6.442
Strain
Deviation
A U
C71
C73
Effective Principle
A
P
Q
N
Stress
Stress Ratio
0.02
0.46
0.00
3.96
3.5
1.132
0.00
3.73
0.23
0.03
1.14
-0.05
4.68
3.5
1.323
-0.04
4.11
0.57
0.12
7.82
1.08
10.24
2.4
4.241
0.15
6.32
3.91
0.21
15.74
2.01
17.23
1.5
11.570
0.13
9.36
7.87
0.30
20.34
2.22
21.62
1.3
16.917
0.11
11.45
10.17
0.44
22.36
1.46
24.39
2.0
11.972
0.07
13.22
11.18
0.59
23.17
0.68
25.98
2.8
9.231
0.03
14.40
11.58
0.79
22.87
-0.13
26.50
3.6
7.301
-0.01
15.06
11.43
1.14
22.87
-0.63
26.99
4.1
6.547
-0.03
15.56
11.43
1.63
23.42
-0.98
27.90
4.5
6.228
-0.04
16.19
11.71
2.22
24.36
-1.36
29.22
4.9
6.014
-0.06
17.04
12.18
2.81
25.03
-1.69
30.22
5.2
5.831
-0.07
17.70
12.52
3.52
25.57
-2.03
31.09
5.5
5.628
-0.08
18.31
12.78
4.02
25.79
-2.20
31.48
5.7
5.531
-0.09
18.59
12.90
4.69
26.29
-2.39
32.18
5.9
5.469
-0.10
19.03
13.15
5.61
26.96
-2.70
33.15
6.2
5.354
-0.11
19.67
13.48
6.62
27.74
-2.99
34.23
6.5
5.277
-0.11
20.36
13.87
7.37
28.35
-3.24
35.08
6.7
5.213
-0.12
20.91
14.18
8.35
29.23
-3.55
36.28
7.0
5.147
-0.13
21.67
14.62
9.06
30.02
-3.84
37.36
7.3
5.094
-0.13
22.35
15.01
9.81
30.67
-4.09
38.26
7.6
5.043
-0.14
22.92
15.34
10.57
31.31
-4.38
39.19
7.9
4.975
-0.15
23.53
15.65
11.07
31.65
-4.57
39.72
8.1
4.924
-0.15
23.89
15.83
11.55
32.10
-4.76
40.35
8.3
4.888
-0.16
24.30
16.05
12.02
32.58
-4.94
41.01
8.4
4.861
-0.16
24.73
16.29
12.50
33.00
-5.14
41.63
8.6
4.824
-0.16
25.13
16.50
13.26
33.56
-5.43
42.49
8.9
4.759
-0.17
25.71
16.78
14.01
34.27
-5.73
43.49
9.2
4.715
-0.18
26.36
17.13
14.49
34.58
-5.92
44.00
9.4
4.674
-0.18
26.71
17.29
15.40
34.78
-6.13
44.40
9.6
4.615
-0.19
27.01
17.39
page 4 of I I
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client: Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. Boring No.:
Client Reference: RD1 80628 SOF Group HQ -Yarborough Depth (ft):
Project No.: R-2018-338-001 Sample No
Lab ID: R-2018-338-001-002
Visual Description: RED SILT (REMOLDED)
Stage No. 1
Test No. 2
PRESSURES (psi)
Cell Pressure (psi) 56.9
Back Pressure (psi) 50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 6.9
Pore Pressure
Response 1(%) 97
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
P-4 BULK
0-5
18-3142-02
INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
technics
geotechnid & geosywhetic testing
Length 1:
5.995
Diameter 1:
2.864
Length 2:
5.995
Diameter 2:
2.864
Length 3:
5.995
Diameter 3:
2.864
Avg. Length
5.995
Avg. Diam.:
2.864
VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Burette Reading (ml)
Final Burette Reading (ml)
Final Change (ml)
Initial Dial Reading (mil)
16.58 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil)
Q 13.95 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)
LOAD
DEFORMATION
PORE PRESSURE
(LB)
(IN)
(PSI)
8.0
0.000
50.0
9.6
0.001
50.0
16.4
0.002
50.2
89.3
0.008
52.3
157.1
0.013
53.8
188.2
0.019
54.3
193.2
0.028
53.2
183.8
0.037
52.2
180.8
0.049
51.5
185.5
0.070
51.2
194.3
0.100
50.9
205.4
0.136
50.6
216.3
0.171
50.1
225.2
0.214
49.5
229.8
0.244
49.0
237.0
0.286
48.5
245.2
0.343
48.0
254.9
0.403
47.5
259.7
0.448
47.1
268.5
0.508
46.7
272.8
0.554
46.4
278.3
0.598
46.1
285.9
0.644
45.8
289.3
0.674
45.6
293.4
0.704
45.3
296.8
0.733
45.1
302.5
0.764
44.9
308.1
0.809
44.6
315.1
0.854
44.4
319.7
0.884
44.2
324.1
0.914
44.0
Tested By: MY
Date: 12/20/19 Input Checked By:
GEM Date: 1/4/19
page 5 of 11
DCN CT-S28 DATE 4/12/13 REVISION 3
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client: Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. Boring No.:
Client Reference: RD1 80628 SOF Group HQ - Yarborough Depth (ft):
Project No.: R-2018-338-001 Sample No.
Lab ID: R-2018-338-001-002
Visual Description: RED SILT (REMOLDED)
P-4 BULK
0-5
18-3142-02
technics
geotechnical &geasynthetic testing
Effective Confining Pressure (psi) 6.9 Stage No. 1
Test No 2
INITIAL DIMENSIONS
Initial Sample Length (in)
Initial Sample Diameter (in)
Initial Sample Area (in 2)
Initial Sample Volume (in 3)
6.00
2.86
6.44
38.62
VOLUME CHANGE
Volume After Consolidation (in 3)
Length After Consolidation (in)
Area After Consolidation (in 2)
38.62
6.00
6.442
Strain
Deviation
A U
C71
C73
Effective Principle
A
P
Q
N
Stress
Stress Ratio
0.01
0.25
0.01
7.12
6.9
1.036
0.06
7.00
0.12
0.04
1.30
0.21
7.98
6.7
1.195
0.17
7.33
0.65
0.13
12.60
2.28
17.21
4.6
3.732
0.19
10.91
6.30
0.22
23.08
3.77
26.20
3.1
8.404
0.17
14.66
11.54
0.32
27.89
4.26
30.52
2.6
11.597
0.16
16.57
13.94
0.47
28.62
3.25
32.25
3.6
8.863
0.12
17.95
14.31
0.62
27.11
2.16
31.84
4.7
6.737
0.08
18.28
13.56
0.83
26.59
1.54
31.94
5.3
5.971
0.06
18.64
13.30
1.16
27.23
1.17
32.94
5.7
5.762
0.04
19.33
13.61
1.66
28.43
0.90
34.42
6.0
5.747
0.03
20.20
14.21
2.26
29.94
0.57
36.27
6.3
5.736
0.02
21.29
14.97
2.86
31.41
0.12
38.18
6.8
5.644
0.00
22.47
15.71
3.56
32.52
-0.51
39.91
7.4
5.396
-0.02
23.65
16.26
4.07
33.02
-0.97
40.88
7.9
5.204
-0.03
24.37
16.51
4.77
33.85
-1.54
42.28
8.4
5.018
-0.05
25.35
16.93
5.72
34.71
-2.01
43.61
8.9
4.900
-0.06
26.25
17.35
6.72
35.75
-2.53
45.17
9.4
4.795
-0.07
27.29
17.87
7.47
36.14
-2.87
45.90
9.8
4.705
-0.08
27.83
18.07
8.48
37.01
-3.29
47.19
10.2
4.634
-0.09
28.69
18.50
9.24
37.30
-3.59
47.78
10.5
4.560
-0.10
29.13
18.65
9.97
37.77
-3.90
48.56
10.8
4.502
-0.11
29.67
18.89
10.74
38.50
-4.20
49.59
11.1
4.472
-0.11
30.34
19.25
11.24
38.76
-4.43
50.08
11.3
4.424
-0.12
30.70
19.38
11.74
39.09
-4.66
50.64
11.5
4.384
-0.12
31.09
19.55
12.23
39.35
-4.88
51.11
11.8
4.343
-0.13
31.44
19.67
12.75
39.88
-5.07
51.84
12.0
4.336
-0.13
31.90
19.94
13.49
40.29
-5.36
52.54
12.2
4.290
-0.14
32.39
20.15
14.25
40.88
-5.65
53.41
12.5
4.261
-0.14
32.97
20.44
14.75
41.25
-5.85
53.98
12.7
4.239
-0.15
33.36
20.62
15.25
41.58
-6.04
54.51
12.9
4.215
-0.15
33.72
20.79
page 6 of I I
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

Client:
Client Reference:
Project No.:
Lab ID:
Visual Description:
45 -r-
40
35
on
25
AR
> 20
15
IN
5
0 a
0
CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. Boring No.:
RID1 80628 SOF Group HQ -Yarborough Depth (ft):
R-2018-338-001 Sample No.:
R-2018-338-001-002
RED SILT (REMOLDED)
P-4 BULK
0-5
18-3142-02
technics
geotechnical &geosyrahetic testing
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Strain (%)
Test No. 1 8 Test No. 2
Tested By: MY Date: 12/20/19 Approved By: MPS Date: 1/4/19
page 9 of 11
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client: Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
Client Reference: RD1 80628 SOF Group HQ - Yarborough
Project No.: R-2018-338-001
Lab ID: R-2018-338-001-002 Specific Gravity (assumed)
Visual Description: RED SILT (REMOLDED)
SAMPLE CONDITION SUMMARY
Boring No.:
P-4 BULK
P-4 BULK
Depth (ft):
0-5
0-5
Sample No.:
18-3142-02
18-3142-02
Test No.
T1
T2
Deformation Rate (in/min)
0.002
0.002
Back Pressure (psi)
50.0
50.0
Consolidation Time (days)
1
1
Moisture Content I(%) (INITIAL)
17.3
17.3
Total Unit Weight (pcf)
124.4
124.5
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
106.1
106.1
Moisture Content I(%) (FINAL)
21.9
21.9
Initial State Void Ratio,e
0.589
0.588
Void Ratio at Shear, e
0.589
0.588
2.7
technics
geotechnical &geasynthetic testing
Tested By: MY Date: 12/20/19 Input Checked By: GEM Date: 1/4/19
page 10 of 11 DCN CT-S28 DATE 4/12/13 REVISION 3
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTIVI D4767-11
Client: Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. Boring No.:
Client Reference: RD1 80628 SOF Group HQ - Yarborough Depth (ft):
Project No.: R-2018-338-001 Sample No
Lab ID: R-2018-338-001-002
TEST 1 INITIAL
NIA
TESrTM7r=
NIA
TEsrTTR77=
NIA
L--
TEST I FINAL
TEST 2 FINAL
TEST 3 FINAL
technics
geotechnical &geasynthetic testing
P-4 BULK
0-5
18-3142-02
T sted B Date 12120119 Approved By MPS Date 1/4/19
page 11 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISIOND3PRojEcTsOUILDING &EARTH SCIENCES�2018-338 BUILDING& EARTH - RDI80628�[2018-338-001-002 SIGMATRIAX 2ptXI—ISIMMARY
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 - Raleigh, NC 27604 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] - www.geotechnics.net

SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE REPORT
Page I A-15

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
December 14,2018
Mr. Kurt Miller, PE
Building and Earth Sciences, LLP
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Re: Seasonal High -Water Table (SHWT) evaluation for potential stormwatej7
retention/treatment areas, SOF Group Headquarters, "B" Street, off Chicken Road, Fort
Bragg, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Miller,
An evaluation of soil properties on a portion of the aforementioned property has been
conducted at your request. The purpose of the investigation was to determine soil water
table depths for use in stormwater retention design.
Soils at the test site are most similar to the Faceville soil series (see attached boring logs).
Fight (8) soil borings were advanced to depths varying between 8.0 to 10.0 feet. The
shallowest Seasonal High -Water Table (SHWT) as determined by evidence of colors of
chroma 2 or less was encountered at a depth of 59 inches below the ground surface (K3;
see attached chart). The attached map shows the approximate location of the sample
points (as requested by the design engineer).
I trust this is the information you require at this time.
Sincerely,
Mike Eaker
President
gl-D 5
t ri
qp
Cl
SOIUSITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USE�SUBDIVISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING - SURFACE/SUBSUR.FACF WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
SHWT depths, SOF Group Headquarters, "B" Street, Fort Bragg, NC
BORING SHWT DEPTH (inches), Observed Water (inches)
S-01 95 53
S-02 59 7
S-03 102 16
S-04 100 105
S-05 81 43
S-06 63 None
S-07 87 97
S-08 109 102
Shallow observed water levels reflect lateral flow into bore holes after recent heavy
rainfall (not SHWT)
SOILISITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSiCAL ANALYSIS - LAND USEiSUBDiVISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAI NAGE/MOU N DING - SURFACL/SUBSURFACL WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NG 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email mike @southeasternsoil.com
Profile Description (S-01), SOF Group Headquarters, "B" Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained that formed in sandy and loamy sediment on uplands.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
E - 0 to I I inches; pale brown (IOYR 5/3) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very friable;
common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
Btl - I I to 31 inches; yellowish red (5YR 5/8) clay; moderate medium subangular blocky
structure; firm; sticky, plastic; few fine and medium roots; gradual wavy boundary.
l3t2 - 31 to 67 inches; red (I OR 4/8) clay loam; moderate medium subangular blocky structure;
firm; slightly sticky, slightly plastic; gradual wavy boundary,
BC - 67 to 95 inches; red (2.5YR 5/8) clay loam; few to many medium prominent brownish
yellow (I OYR 6/6) mottles; weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm; slightly sticky, slightly
plastic; gradual wavy boundary.
C I - 95 to 105 inches; red (2.5YR 5/8) clay loam; many medium prominent brownish yellow
(I OYR 6/6) and light gray Q OYR 7/2) mottles; weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm;
slightly sticky, slightly plastic; gradual wavy boundary.
C4 - 105 to 120 inches; light gray (I OYR 7/1) clay loam; many medium prominent brownish
yellow (I OYR 6/6) and red (2.5YR 416) mottles; firm; massive structure.
SHWT @ 95 inches (I OYR 7/2)
SOIUSITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USEISUBDtVISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGEMOUNDING - SURFACL/SUSSURFACE WASTE TREATMENTSYSTEMS. EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Profile Description (S-02), SOF Group Headquarters, "B" Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained that formed in sandy and loamy sediment on uplands.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
A — 0 to 4 inches; very dark brown (I OYR 2/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary
E - 4 to 14 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
Bt I - 14 to 24 inches; dark yellowish brown (I OYR 4/6) sandy clay loarn; moderate medium
subangular blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic; few fine and medium roots; gradual wavy
boundary.
Bt2 - 24 to 59 inches; mixed mottled yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8) and red (2-5YR 4/8) sandy
clay; weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm; slightly sticky, slightly plastic; gradual wavy
boundary.
l3t2 - 5 9 to 80 inches; mixed mottled yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8), red (2.5YR 4/8) and light gray
(I OYR 7/1) sandy clay; massive structure; very finn; gradual wavy boundary.
C I - 8 0 to 96 inches; light gray (I OYR 7/ 1) sandy clay; many medium prominent brownish yellow
(I OYR 6/6) and red (2.5YR 4/8) mottles; massive structure; very firm.
SHWT @ 5 9 inches (I OYR 7/ 1)
SOJUSITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USE/SUBDfVISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING - SURFACEISUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

oft
boutheastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
RO. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NG 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Profile Description (S-03), SOF Group Headquarters,"B" Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained that formed in sandy and loamy sediment on uplands.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
A — 0 to 4 inches; very dark brown (I OYR 2/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary
E - 4 to 26 inches; brownish yellow (I OYR 6/6) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
Btl - 26 to 70 inches; mixed mottled red (2.5YR 4/8) and brownish yellow (lOYR 6/6) silty clay
loam; weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic; few fine and medium roots;
gradual wavy boundary.
l3t2 - 70 to 86 inches; mixed mottled red (2.5YR 4/8), brownish yellow (I OYR 6/6) and white
(I OYR 8/ 1) silty clay loam; massive structure; very firm; slightly sticky, slightly plastic; gradual
wavy boundary.
BC - 86 to 102 inches; red (1 OR 4/6) sandy loam; massive structure; very friable; gradual wavy
boundary.
C I - 102 to 120 inches; red (I OR 4/6) sandy loam; many medium prominent light gray (I OYR 7/1)
mottles; massive structure; very friable.
SHWT @ 1.02 inches (IOYR 7/1)
SOIUStTE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USE/SURDIVISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING - SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Profile Description (S-04), SOF Group Headquarters, "B" Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This Map unit consists of well drained that formed in sandy and loamy sediment on uplands.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
A — 0 to 4 inches; very dark brown (I OYR 2/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary
E - 4 to 3 6 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
Bt I - 36 to 80 inches; yellowish red (5YR 4/8) sandy clay; moderate medium subangular blocky
structure; firm; sticky, plastic; few fine and medium roots; gradual wavy boundary.
Bt2 - 80 to 100 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8) silty clay loam; massive structure; firm;
slightly sticky, slightly plastic; gradual wavy boundary.
Cl- 100 to 120 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR5/8) sandy clay loam; many medium. prominent
light gray (I OYR 7/ 1 ) mottles; mas s ive structure; firm.
SRWT @ 100 inches (I OYR 7/ 1)
SOIUSITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING - SURFACEISUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION 8, DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Profile Description (S-05), SOF Group Headquarters, "B" Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained that formed in sandy and loamy sediment on uplands.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
A — 0 to 4 inches; very dark brown (I OYR 2/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary
E - 4 to 3 6 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
Bt I - 3 6 to 5 3 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR A) sandy clay loam; moderate medium
subangular blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic; few fine and medium roots; gradual wavy
boundary.
W - 53 to 81 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) silty clay loam; few to many medium
prominent red (2-5Yr 4/8), yellowish red (5YR 4/6) and yellow (I OYR 7/6) mottles; weak fine
subangular blocky structure; firm; slightly sticky, slightly plastic; gradual wavy boundary.
BC - 81 to 8 7 inches; mixed mottled brownish yellow (10 YR 6/8) and red (2.5YR 4/8) s i Ity clay
loam; many medium prominent light gray (10YR 7/1) mottles; massive structure; firm; gradual
wavy boundary.
Cl- 87 to 96 inches; light gray (10-YR 7/1) sandy clay; many medium prominent red (I OR 5/6)
mottles; massive structure; very firm.
SHWT @ 81 inches (I OYR 7/1)
SOIUSITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSlS - LAND US E/S UBDI VISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUN DING - SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Profile Description (S-06), SOF Group Headquarters, "B" Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained that formed in sandy and loamy sediment on uplands.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent,
A — 0 to 4 inches; very dark brown (I OYR 2/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary
E - 4 to 26 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) loamy sand-, weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
Btl - 26 to 55 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8) sandy clay loam; moderate medium
subangular blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic; few fine and medium roots; gradual wavy
boundary.
l3t2 - 55 to 63 inches; brownish yellow (I OYR 6/8) silty clay loam; few to many medium
Prominent yellowish red (5YR 5/8) and pale brown (I OYR 6/3) mottles; weak fine subangular
blocky structure; firm; slightly sticky, slightly plastic; gradual wavy boundary.
BC - 63 to 75 inches; brownish yellow (I OYR 6/8) silty clay loam; few to many medium
prominent yellow ish red (5YR 5/8), pale brown (I OYR 6/3) and light gray (I OYR 7/2) mottles;
weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm; slightly sticky, slightly plastic; gradual wavy
boundary.
C l- 74 to 96 inches; light gray (I OYR 7/ 1) sandy clay; many medium prominent red (2.5YR 5/8)
and brownish yellow (I OYR 6/6) mottles; massive structure; firm.
SHWT @ 63 inches (I OYR 7/ 1)
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USEJSUBDIVISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING - SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email mike @southeasternsoil,com
Profile Description (S-07), SOF Group Headquarters, "B" Street, Fort Bragg, NC
ri�t consists of well drained that formed in sandy and loamy sediment on uplands.
This map unj
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
A — 0 to 20 inches; very dark brown (I OYR 2/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
ffiable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary
E - 20 to 37 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/6) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
Btl - 37 to 56 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; moderate medium
subangular blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic; few fine and medium roots; gradual wavy
boundary.
Bt:2 - 56 to 87 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; few to many medium
prominent red (2.5YR 4/8) mottles; weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm; slightly sticky,
slightly plastic; gradual wavy boundary.
BC - 87 to 96 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; many medium prominent light
gray (I OYR 7/1) mottles; weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm; slightly sticky, slightly
plastic.
SHWT @ 8 7 inches (I OYR 7/1)
SOIUSITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USEJSUBDIVIStON PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING - SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS. EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayefteville, NG 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Profile Description (S-08), SOF Group Headquarters, "B" Street, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained that fon-ned in sandy and loamy sediment on uplands.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
A — 0 to 4 inches; very dark brown (I OYR 2/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary
Bt I - 4 to 22 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8) sandy clay loam; moderate medium subangular
blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic; few fine and medium roots; gradual wavy boundary.
W - 22 to 67 inches; yellowish red (5Y-R 5/8) sandy clay loam; moderate medium subangular
blocky structure; firm; slightly sticky, slightly plastic; gradual wavy boundary.
130 - 67 to 81 inches; yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; many medium prominent light
gray (I OYR 7/1) and red (2.5YR 4/8) mottles; massive structure; firm; slightly sticky, slightly
plastic; clear smooth boundary.
BC - 81 to 109 inches; mixed mottled yellowish red (5YR 5/8) to yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8)
coarse sand; very friable; massive structure; gradual diffuse boundary.
C I - 109 to 120 inches; mixed mottled yellowish red (5YR 5/8) to yellowish brown (I OYR 518)
silt loam; many medium prominent light gray (I OYR 7/1) mottles; very friable; massive structure.
SHWT @ 109 inches (I OYR 7/1)
SOIUSITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING - SURFACEISUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS. EVALUATION & DESIGN

U111 t 11 � I
I III F
W1
(A
CA
fftfl tff H
lift,
60
11 WIN
I Ll
m
m
FT
0
r
Les
V
,
�0.
m
I —
0
100
64,
IT:
F
Fr
Z3
OD
CD
c3r)
cc
CL
La
CD
OD
TFFFTTFFITFMTFFFMMTMTMM7
-MTHTFFMTFMIII
III Im in
ri
III lilt 1111 mflm
IA
LI
m
cu
I wu*n��ns� i FFT[Fr�, 111 H11 1111 111 11
-n
0
L2-
rMD
(DO
CD
rD
U�
(D CD
C
2-
Nho
-0,
z

Geolechnicol-Enuineeping Repopt
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the
specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical- engineering
study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of
a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study
is unique, each geotechnicat-enginecring report is unique,
prepared solely for the client. No one except youshould rely on
this geotechnical- engineering report without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or
project except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on
a geotecbnical- engineering report did not read it all. Do
not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected
elements only-
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on
a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project -specific
factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk -management
preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its
size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the
site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless
the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically
indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report that was:
• not prepared for you;
• not prepared for your project;
• not prepared for the specific site explored; or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical -engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed
from a parking garage to an office building, or from a Light -
industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight
of the proposed structure;
the composition of the design team; or
project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer
of project changes —even minor ones —and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liabilityfor problems that occur because
their reports do not consider developments of which they were
not i-formed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical- engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the
study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the
site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer
before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A
minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory
data and then apply their professional judgment to render
an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes
significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining
the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to
provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most
effective method of managing the risks associated with
unanticipated conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the confirmation -dependent
recommendations included in your report. Confirmation -
dependent recommendations are notfinal, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from
judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize
their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. Yhe geotechnical
engineer who developedyaur report cannot assume
responsibility or liabilityfor the report's confirmation -dependent
recommendations if that engineer does notperform the
geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the
recommendations'applicability.
A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject
to Misinterpretation
Other design -team members' misinterpretation of
geotechnical -engineering reports has resulted in costly
Page I A-16

problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical
engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's
plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret
a geatechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by
havingyour geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and
preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical
construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratoi y
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical- engineering report should never be redrawn
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, Only
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but
recognize that separating logsftom the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.
To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the
complete geotechnical-onginecring report, but preface it with
a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise
constructors that the report was not pf epared for purposes
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited;
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of
information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also
be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform
additional study. Only then might you be in a position to
give constructors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to
&appointments, claims, and disputes, To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include
a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes
labeled "limitations:' many of these provisions indicate where
geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
theseprovisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform
an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental
findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about
the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks
or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental
problems have led to numerous projectfailures. If you have not
yet obtained your own environmental information,
ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance, Do not rely on an environmental report preparedfor
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent
significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for
the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a
comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a
professional mold -prevention consultant. Because just a small
amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies
focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater,
water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed
as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in
charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
none of the services performed in connection with the
geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conductedfor
thepurpose of moldprevention. Proper implementation of the
recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itse�be
sufficient toprevent moldftomgrowing in or on the structure
involved,
Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
for Additional Assistance
Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the
Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk- confrontation techniques
that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with
a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineer for more information.
FTMWA GEOTECHNICAL
BUSINESS COUNCIL
GARCIUM qffixC�pr*,sionWBzwinwAmciahon
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone; 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: [e-mail] wwwgeoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Gooprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part,
1�y any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with CIIA's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only witlo the express written permisqion of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly neqearch or book review- Only members of GBA may use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-ongincering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA meniber could 1,e commiting negligent or intentional (f=dulent) misrepresentation,
Page I A-17

0001�
MasonJanger
A Dy&Zi..-.- C-p-y
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDix H
NCDEQ MORETENTION CELL SUPPLEMENT FORMS
Altason & Hanger Page - a.8 -

SUPPLEMENT-EZ COVER PAGE
I FORMS LOADED
PROJECT INFORMATIO
1 1 Project Name
SOF HQ
2 Project Area (ac)
8.56
3 Coastal Wetland Area (ac)
0
4 Surface Water Area (ac)
0
5
Is this project High or Low Density?
High
r,
Does this Droiect use an off -site SCM?
No
COMPLIANCE WITH 02H.1003(4)
7
Width of vegetated setbacks provided (feet)
10
8
Will the vegetated setback remain vegetated?
Yes
9
Is BLIA other that as listed in .1 003(4)(c-d) out of the setback?
Yes
10
Is streambank stabilization proposed on this project?
No
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SCMs: or
11
Infiltration System
0
12
Bioretention Cell
1
13
Wet Pond
0
14
Stormwater V\Ietland
0
15
Permeable Pavement
0
16
Sand Filter
0
17
Rainwater Harvesting (RWH)
0
18
Green Roof
0
19
Level Spreader -Filter Strip (LS-FS)
0
20
Disconnected Impervious Surface (DIS)
0
21
Treatment Swale
0
22
1 Dry Pond
0
23
Stor Filter
0
24
Silva Cell
0
25
Bayfilter
0
26
Filterra
0
I FORMS LOADED
DESIGNER CERTIFICATION
27
Name and Title:
F. Michael Mayer, PE Civil Engineer
28
Organization:
Mason & Hanger
29
Street address:
300 W Vine St Suite 1300
30
City, State, Zip:
Lexington, KY 40507
31
Phone number(s):
859-280-3557
32
Email:
mike. [e-mail]
Certification Statement
I certify, under penalty of law that this Supplement-EZ form and all supporting information were prepared under my direction or
supervision, that the information provided in the form is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete, and
that the engineering plans, specifications, operation and maintenance agreements and other supporting information are consistent
with the information provided here.
Signature of Designer
Date

DRAINAGE AREAS
1
Is this a high density project?
Yes
2
If so, number of drainage areas/SCMs
1
3
Is all/part of this project subject to previous rule
versions?
SOF HQ
I FORMS LOADED
DRAINAGE AREA INFORMATION
Entire Site
1
4
Type of SCM
Bioretention
Bioretention
5
Total BUA in project (sq ft)
224111 sf
224111 sf
6
New BUA on subdivided lots (subject to
permitting) (sq ft)
224111 sf
224111 sf
7
New BUA outside of suEdivided lots (subject to
permitting) (so
Offsite - total area (sq ft
Offsite BUA (sq ft)
sf
sf
8
sf
sf
9
sf
sf
10
Breakdown of new BUA outside subdivided lots:
sf
sf
Parking (sq ft)
142603 sf
142603 sf
Sidewalk (sq ft)
26590 sf
26590 sf
Roof (sq ft)
54918 sf
54918 sf
Roadway (sq ft)
sf
sf
Future (sq ft)
sf
sf
Other, please specii�,n the comment box
below (sq ft)
sf
sf
11
New infiltrating permeable pavement on
subdivided lots (sq ft)
sf
sf
12
New infiltrating permeable pavement outside of
Isubdivided lots (sq ft)
sf
sf
13
Exisitng BUA that will remain (not subject to
permitting) (sq ft)
sf
sf
14
Existing BUA that is already permitted (sq ft)
sf
sf
15
Existing BUA that will be removed (sq ft)
8712 sf
8712 sf
16
Percent BUA
60%
60%
17
Design storm (inches)
1 in
1 in
18
1 Design volume of SCM (cu ft)
13631 ef
13631
19
lCalculation method for design volume
SCS
SCS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
20
I Please use this space to provide any additional information about the
drainage area(s):
DRAINAGE AREA INFORMATION
Entire Site
1
4
Type of SCM
N/A
5
Total BUA from project (sq ft)
6
1995 rules
SL 2006-246
2008 rules
2017 rules
7
New BUA on subdivided lots (subject to
1permitting) (sq ft)
1995 rules
SL 2006-246
2008 rules
2017 rules
8
New BUA outside of subdivided lots (subject
to permitting) (so
1 1995 rules
SL 2006-246
2008 rules
2017 rules
9
Offsite - total area (sq ft)
1995 rules
SL 2006-246
2008 rules
2017 rules
10
lOffsiteBUA(sqft)
1 1995 rules

SL 2006-246
2008 rules
2017 rules
11
Design storm (inches)
1995 rules
SL 2006-246
2008 rules
2017 rules
Breakdown of new BUA:
12
Parking (sq ft)
Sidewalk (sq ft)
Roof (sq ft)
Roadway (sq ft)
Future (sq ft)
Other, please specify in tke comment box
below (sq ft)
13
New infiltrating permeable pavement on
subdivided lots (sq ft)
14
New infiltrating permeaEle pavement outside of
subdivided lots (sq ft)
15
Exisitng BUA that will remain (not subject to
permitting) (sq ft)
16
Existing BUA that is already permitted (sq ft)
17
1 Existing BUA that will be removed (sq ft)
18
Percent BUA
19
Design volume of SCM (cu ft)
20
lCalculation method for design volume
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Pleas use this space to provide any additional
21 information about the drainage area(s):

BIORETENTION CELL
1
Drainage area number
1
2
IDesign volume of SCM (cu ft)
13631 ef
GENERAL MQC FROM 02H.1050 I
3
Is the SCM sized to treat the SW from all surfaces at build -out?
SOF HQ
4
Is the SCM located away from contaminated soils?
Yes
5
What are the side slopes of the SCM (H:V)?
3:1
6
Does the SCM have retaining walls, gabion walls or other engineered side
slopes?
No
7
Are the inlets, outlets, and receiving stream protected from erosion (10-
year storm)?
Yes
8
Is there an overflow or bypass for inflow volume in excess of the design
Ivolume?
Yes
9
What is the method for dewatering the SCM for maintenance?
Drawdown Orifice
10
If applicable, will the SCM be cleaned out after construction?
Yes
11
Does the maintenance access comply with General MDC (8)?
Yes
12
Does the drainage easement comply with General MDC (9)?
Yes
13
If the SCM is on a single family lot, does (will?) the plat comply with
General MDC (10)?
Yes
14
Is there an O&M Agreement that complies with General MDC (11)?
Yes
15
Is there an 0& M Plan that complies with General M DC (12)?
Yes
16
Does the SCM follow the device specific MDC?
Yes
17
JWas the SCM designed by an NC licensed professional?
Yes
BIORETENTION
CELL MDC FROM 02H.1052.
18
SHWT elevation (fmsl)
242.92
19
Bottom of the bioretention cell (fmsl)
245.33
20
Ponding depth of the design storm (inches)
12 in
21
Surface area of the bioretention cell (square feet)
15725 sf
22
Design volume of the bioretention cell (cubic feet)
14410 ef
23
Is the bioretention cell used for peak attenuation?
Yes
24
Depth of peak attenuation over planting surface (in)
18 in
25
Height of peak attenuation outlet above the planting surface (in)
18 in
26
Infiltration rate of the in situ soil (inch/hour)
1 in/hr
27
Diameter of the underdrain pipes (if applicable)
6 in
28
Does the design include Internal Water Storage (IWS)?
Yes
29
if so, elevation of the top of the IWS (fmsl)
247.5
30
Elevation of the planting surface (fmsl)
249
31
What type of vegetation will be planted? (grass, trees/shrubs, other)?
Grass
32
Media depth (inches)
30 in
33
Percentage of medium to coarse washed sand by volume
85%
34
Percentage of fines (silt and clay) by volume
10%
35
Percentage of organic matter by volume
5%
36
Type of organic material
Engineered Fill
37
Phosphorus Index (P-Index) of media (unitless)
10
38
Will compaction be avoided during construction?
Yes
39
Will cell be maintained to a one inch/hour standard?
Yes
40
Depth of mulch, if applicable (inches)
n/a
41
Type of mulch, if applicable
n/a
42
How many clean out pipes are being installed?
5
43 Type of pretreatment that will be used:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Please use this space to provide any additional information about the
44 Jbioretention cell(s):
Vegetative
Filter/Rip Rap
The engineered fill will infiltrate at approximately 2in/hr (maintained at a min 1 in/hr),
which will eliminate the surfae ponded volume within 24 hours, to the storage
within the IWS for ultimate infiltration. Peak attenuation volumes provided in order
to comply with EISA 438. Project based entirely within Fort Bragg (US Gov't
property).

Discrete SCS Curve Number Method (NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual 3.3.2)
Location: Bioretention Total Date: 2/23/2021
Soil Group: B
Predevelopment BUA
Area
0.2
acres
Area
8,712
sf
CN*
98
S
0.20
ia
0.04
in
P
1
in
Q
0.79
in
V
574
cf
Predevelopment Open Area
Area
9.1
acres
Area
396,396
sf
CN*
73
S
3.70
ia
0.74
in
P
1
in
Q
0.02
in
V
565
cf
jArea 9.3 ac
ITotal 1,139 cf
Developed BUA
Area
5.14
acres
Area
224,111
sf
CN*
98
S
0.20
ia
0.04
in
P
1
in
Q
0.79
in
V
14,771
Developed Open Area
Area
3.42
acres
Area
148,850
sf
CN*
61
S
6.39
ia
1.28
in
P
1
in
Q
0.00
in
V
0
jArea 8.56 acres
ITotal 14,771 cf
Storage Required 13,631 cf
Pond Area 13,153 sf
Surface Area 15,725 sf
Riser 12 in
IStorage Provided 14,410 cf
Note: Runnoff depth for CN <= 70 set to 0.00 for 1.0" rainfall event based upon
TR55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Table 2-1
Composite CN calculated using Army LID Planning and Cost Tool
Developed by USACE Baltimore District and USACE ERDC

Fort Bragg SOF HQ
Bioretention Cell #1 Underdrain Calculations
2/26/2021
By M. Mayer
Engineered Fill Permeability (K)
Surface Area (A)
Maximum Poncling Depth ( H)
Depth of media ( Q
Flow (Cli)
Apply 1Ox Factor of Safety (Q)
Roughness Factor (n)
Internal Slope (s)
Diameter of Single Pipe (d)
Diameter Underdrain Pipes
Equavalent Number Required
Number Underdrain Pipes Provided
2 in/hr
13153 ft2
0.833 ft
2.5 ft
0.81 cfs
8.07 cfs
0.01
0.005
Q = 2.3e-' K A AH
AL
Where:
Q = Flow mte through bioretention (cfs)
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the filter media (inchea/hoin)
(Value varies bwed on actual filter media used)
A = Surface area of Bioretention (feet)
AM = Maximum ponding depth above bottom of filter media (feet)
AL = Depth of filter media (feet)
Darcy's Equation
17.42 in
6 in
14 8
14 (Q
D=1 -
SO.5
NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual Common BMP Design Elements, July 2007
5.7 Underdrain Systems
How Many Pipes of a Smaller Size Equal the Carrying
Capacity of a Larger Pipe Size
DIA M��
IN.' V2 V4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 16 IS 20 24 30 36 42 48
2 32.0 11.7 53 1.0 1
3
88.2
32.0
15.6
2.8
1.0
4
181.0
65.7
32.0
5.7
2.1
1.0
5
316.0
115.0
55.9
9.9
3.6
1.7
1.0
6
499-0
181.0
88.2
15.6
5-7
2-8
1-6
1-0
7
1733.0
126&0
130.01
22.9
8.3
1 4.1
1 2.3
L5
1 1.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
8
3710
181.0
32.0
11.7
5.7
3.2
2A
1.4
1.0
10
649D
316.0
55.9
20.3
9.9
5.7
3�6
2.4
1.7
1.0
11
401.0
70.9
25.7
12.5
7-2
4-6
3-1
2-2
1-3
12
499.0
98.2
32.0
15.6
9-9
5-7
3-8
2-8
1-6
1-0
13
609.0
108.0
39.1
19.0
10.9
7A
4.7
3.4
1.9
1.2
14
733.0
130.0
47.1
22.9
13.1
83
5.7
4.1
2.3
1.5
1.0
15
787.0
154.055.9
27.2115.6
9�9
1 6.7
1 4.8
2.8
1.7
1.2
16
191.0
65.7
32.0
18.3
1 L7
7-9
5-7
3-2
1 2.1
1 1-4
1-0
17
211.0
76.4
37.2
21.3
13.5
9.2
6.6
3.8
2.4
1.6
1.2
is
243.0
88.2143.0
24.6
15.6
10.6
7.6
43
2.8
1.9
1.3
1.0
19
278.0
101.049.1
28.1
17.8
12.1
8.7
4�8
3.2
2.1
1.5
1.1
20
316.0
115.0
55-9
32-0
20-3
13-8
9-9
5-7
3.6
2-4
1.7
1 1.3
1.0
22
401.0
146.0
70.9140.6
25.7
117.5
112.5
7�2
4.6
3.1
2.2
1.7
1.3
24
499.0
181.0
88.2
50.5
32.0
21.8
15.6
&9
1 5.7
1 3.8
2.8
2.1
1.6
1.0
30
27.2
15.6
10.0
6.7
4.8
3.6
2.9
1.7
1.0
36
24-6
1 5 -6
10-6
7.6
5-7
4-3
2.8
1.6
1.0
42
36.2
:2:2:9
15�6
#2L8
1 L2
8.3
6.4
4.1
2.3
1.5
1.0
1 48
1
1
1
1
50.5
32.0
115�6
111.7
18.9
15.7
13.2
12.1
11.4
11.0

0001�
MasonJanger
A Dy&Zi..-.- C-p-y
PN87437 SOF Headquarters
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDIX I
OUTLET PROTECTION CALCULATIONS
Altason & Hanger Page - a.9 -

11.1ser Input Data
lCalculated Value
lReference Data
)esigned By: FMM Date: 6/4/201�
'hecked By:
Date:
'ompany:
Droject Name: SOF Grp HQ
Droject No.:
Site Location (City/Town) Fort Bragg
Culvert Id. HW1
Step 1. Detertimic the tailwater depth from chaiinel characteristics below the
pipe outlet for the design capacity of the pipe. If the tailwater depth is less
than halfthe outlet pipe dianieter, it is classified minimuna tailwater condition.
If it is greater than half the pipe diameter, it is classafted maximum condition
Pipes that outlet orito wide flat areas with no defii-d channel me —umed
to ha— a m --un, tailwatet conditicii unless reliable flood stage elevations
show od—
Outlet pipe diameter, D. (in.) 24
Tailwater depth (in.) 11
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Min TW (Fig. 8.06a)
Discharge (cfs) 14.2
Velocity (ft./s) 6.17
Step 2. Based on the tailwater conditions determined in step 1, ont- Figure
8.06a or Figure 8.06b, =d deternune d,� riprap size and inimmuin apron length
(L). The d� sme is the median stone size to a well -graded nprap apron.
Stop 3. Determine apron width at the pipe outlet, the apron shape, and the
apron width at the outlet eud from the same figure used in Step 2.
Minimum TVV Maximum TVV
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d5o, (ft.) 0.5 2
Minimum apron length, La (ft 12 10
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 6 6
Apron shape TRAPEZOID TRAPEZOID
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 14 6
Stop 4. Determine the --rauin stone diameter
d_ � 1 5 x d.,
Minimum TVV Maximum TVV
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0.75 3
Step 5. Determine, the apron tlutkii—
Apron thickness � 1.5 x d_
Minimum TVV Maximum TVV
Apron Thickness(ft.) 1.125 4.5
Step 6. Fit the riprap apron to the site by making it le%,el for the mininiuni
length, L, from Figure 8.06a or Figure 8-06b. Extend the apron farther
downstrezim and along channel banks unial stability is assmed- Keep the
apim as straight as possible andaliguit -ith the flow ofthe reeei—g strearn.
M.k� any noressary alignment bend. -- the pipe outlet .. that the orar—
into the reteii-ing st— is straight
Some locations may require luting ofthe entire channeltross section to asswe
stabihty�
It may be zieeos-ry to — the size of rip—p where protect— of the
channel side slope. . necessary (Appeadi. 8.05)- Wh— —fiill. —.t at
pipe outlets or flows are excessii-e, a plunge pc�ol should be considered, see
page 8.06.8.

11.1ser Input Data
lCalculated Value
lReference Data
)esigned By: FMM Date: 6/4/201�
'hecked By:
Date:
'ompany:
Droject Name: SOF Grp HQ
Droject No.:
Site Location (City/Town) Fort Bragg
Culvert Id. HW2
Step 1. Deteriume the tailwater depth from channel characteristics below the
pipe outlet for the design capacity of the pipe. If the tailwater depth is less
than halfthe outlet pipe dianieter, it is classified nunimum, tailwater condition.
If it is greater than half the pipe diameter, it is classafted rnaxinitim. condition
Pipes that outlet onto wide flat areas with no defii-d channel me —umed
to ha— a m --un, tailwatet conditioii unless reliable flood stage elevations
show od—
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.) 18
Tailwater depth (in.) 8
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Min TW (Fig. 8.06a)
Discharge (cfs) 7.05
Velocity (ft./s) 6.8
Step 2. Based on the tailwater conditions determined in step 1, ont- Figure
8.06a "Figureg.06b,and determined,triprap size and minimum, apron length
(L). The d� sme is the median stone size to a well -graded nprap apron.
Stop 3. Determine apron width at the pipe outlet, the apron shape, and the
apron width at the outlet end from the same figure used in Step 2.
Minimum TVV Maximum TVV
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d5o, (ft.) 0.5 0.75
Minimum apron length, La (ft 10 10
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 4.5 4.5
Apron shape TRAPEZOID TRAPEZOID
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 11.5 5.5
Stop 4. Determine the --omin stone diameter
d_ � 1 5 x d.,
Minimum TVV Maximum TVV
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0.75 1.125
Step 5. Deterinine, the apron tlutkii—
Apron thickness � 1.5 x d
Minimum TVV Maximum TVV
Apron Thickness(ft.) 1.125 1.6875
Step 6. Fit the riprap apron to the site by making it le%,el for the minimum,
length, L, fircan Figure 8.06a or Figure 8-06b. Extend the apron farther
downstrezim. and along channel banks unial stability is ass;txred- Keep the
apim as straight as possible andaliguit -ith the flow ofthe reeei—g strearn.
M.k� any noressary lignmerri bends -- the pipe outlet .. that the orar—
into the reteii-ing snearu is straight
Some locanons may require luting ofthe entire channeltross section to asswe
stabihty�
It may be zieeos-ry to — the size of rip—p where protect— of the
channel side slope. . necessary (App—di. 8.05)- Where —fiill. —.t at
pipe outlets or flows are excessii-e, a plunge pc�ol should be considered, see
page 8.06.8.

11.1ser Input Data
lCalculated Value
lReference Data
)esigned By: FMM Date: 6/4/201�
'hecked By:
Date:
'ompany:
Droject Name: SOF Grp HQ
Droject No.:
Site Location (City/Town) Fort Bragg
Culvert Id. HW3
Step 1. Deteriume the tailwater depth from channel characteristics below the
pipe outlet for the design capacity of the pipe. If the tailwater depth is less
than halfthe outlet pipe dianieter, it is classified nunimum, tailwater condition.
If it is greater than half the pipe diameter, it is classafted rnaxinitim. condition
Pipes that outlet onto wide flat areas with no defii-d channel me —umed
to ha— a m --un, tailwatet conditioii unless reliable flood stage elevations
show od—
Outlet pipe diameter, D. (in.) 30
Tailwater depth (in.) 14
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Min TW (Fig. 8.06a)
Discharge (cfs) 23.2
Velocity (ft./s) 7.02
Step 2. Based on the tailwater conditions determined in step 1, ont- Figure
8.06a or Figure 8.06b, =d determine d,� riprap size and minimum, apron length
(L). The d� sme is the median stone size to a well -graded nprap apron.
Stop 3. Determine apron width at the pipe outlet, the apron shape, and the
apron width at the outlet eud from the same figure used in Step 2.
Minimum TVV Maximum TVV
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d5o, (ft.) 0.5 4
Minimum apron length, La (ft 14 10
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 7.5 7.5
Apron shape TRAPEZOID TRAPEZOID
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 16.5 6.5
Stop 4. Determine the --omin stone diameter
d_ � 1 5 x d.,
Minimum TVV Maximum TVV
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0.75 6
Step 5. Deterinine, the apron tlutkii—
Apron thickness � 1.5 x d_
Minimum TVV Maximum TVV
Apron Thickness(ft.) 1.125 9
Step 6. Fit the riprap apron to the site by making it le%,el for the minimum,
length, L, fircan Figure 8.06a or Figure 8-06b. Extend the apron farther
downstrezim. and along channel banks unial stability is ass;txred- Keep the
apim as straight as possible andaliguit -ith the flow ofthe reeei—g strearn.
M.k� any noressary lignmerri bends -- the pipe outlet .. that the orar—
into the reteii-ing snearu is straight
Some locanons may require luting ofthe entire channeltross section to asswe
stabihty�
It may be zieeos-ry to — the size of rip—p where protect— of the
channel side slope. . necessary (App—di. 8.05)- Wh— —fiill. —.t at
pipe outlets or flows are excessii-e, a plunge pc�ol should be considered, see
page 8.06.8.

MasonJanger Human Per(brmance Training Center (HPTC)
A Dy&Zi..-.- C-p-y Fort Bragg, Cumherland County, North Carolina
APPENDIX J
SKIMMER SEDIMENTATION BASIN CALCULATIONS
Mason & Hanger page - a. 10 -

Skimmer Basin
Okay
9.3 Disturbed Area (Acres)
42.72 Peak Flow from 1 0-year Storm (cfs)
16740 Required Volume ft3
13884 Required Surface Area ft2
83.3 Suggested Width ft
166.6 Suggested Length ft
60 Trial Top Width at Spillway Invert ft
250 Trial Top Length at Spillway Invert ft
3 Trial Side Slope Ratio Z:1
2.5 Trial Depth ft (2 to 3.5 feet above grade)
45 Bottom Width ft
235 Bottom Length ft
10575 Bottom Area ft2
31875 Actual Volume ft3 Okay
15000 Actual Surface Area ft2 Okay
40 Trial Weir Length ft
0.75 Trial Depth of Flow ft
77.9 Spillway Capacity cfs Okay
4 Skimmer Size (inches)
Skimmer Size
0.333 Head on Skimmer (feet)
(Inches)
2 Orifice Size (1/4 inch increments)
1.5
I
3.14 Dewatering Time (days)
2
Suggest about 3 days
2.5
4
5
6
8
�

Mason & Hanger
300 West Vine Street
Suite 1300
Lex�ngton, KY 40507
859.252.9980
masonandhanger.com