SW6200101_PN 69552 CIVIL AFFAIRS TEMF - REPORT JAN2020_1/20/2020






67250:$7(50$1$*(0(173(50,7


'HVLJQ%XLOG
62)&LYLO$IIDLUV7(0)
)RUW%UDJJ1RUWK&DUROLQD

5(3257




-DQXDU\
&RQWUDFW:305
31
0 +3URMHFW








:LOPLQJWRQ'LVWULFW


Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................ 1
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. 2
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... 3
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 5
NCDEQ MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA FOR BIORETENTION CELLS. ................................................... 7
NCDEQ MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA FOR W ET PONDS ................................................................... 9
OUTLET PROTECTION ................................................................................................................. 12
WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................................... 13
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL .................................................................................... 13

TABLES
Table 1 RAINFALL DATA. ....................................................................................................... 2
Table 2 BIORETENTION AREAS PRE-DEVELOPED RUNOFF ....................................................... 4
Table 3 BIORETENTION AREAS POST-DEVELOPED RUNOFF ..................................................... 4
Table 4 95TH PERCENTILE AND 1” FIRST FLUSH BIORETENTION VOLUMES ................................ 6
Table 5 PROVIDED BIORETENTION STORAGE VOLUME ............................................................ 6
Table 6 BIORETENTION SURFACE VOLUME AND AREAS ........................................................... 6
Table 7 WET POND VOLUME REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 9

FIGURES
Figure 1 NCDEQ SUMMARY OF STORMWATER CALCULATIONS.………………..……………………….…1
Figure 2 BIORETENTION BASIN. ……………………………………………………………………………….7
Figure 3 WET POND CROSS-SECTION VIEW..……………………………………………………………….10
Figure 4 WET POND OUTLET STRUCTURE SECTION. ………………………………………………...…….11
Figure 5 WET POND OUTLET STRUCTURE……………………………...…………………………………….7

APPENDIX
Appendix A USGS PROJECT LOCATION MAP ............................................................................ a.1
Appendix B PRE-DEVELOPMENT MAP ....................................................................................... a.2
Appendix C POST-DEVELOPMENT 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 WET POND BASIN CALCULATIONS .......................................................................... a.9
Appendix J OUTLET PROTECTION CALCULATIONS ................................................................... a.10
Appendix K TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASIN CALCULATIONS ............................................. a.11
Appendix L TEMPORARY DIVERSION CALCULATIONS ............................................................... a.12
Appendix M ENERGY DISSIPATOR CALCULATIONS.................................................................... a.13

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 1 of 12

GENERAL INFORMATION
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 construction limits. The site is bound on the north by developed
facilities and to the south by Leadership Drive. The eastern boundary of the site is undeveloped. The
western boundary is also developed by a newly constructed facility. The project consists of one (1) new
Tactical Equipment Maintenance Facility (TEMF) totaling approximately 58,200 SF and associated
organizational storage buildings, hazardous material storage buildings and all site work including access
drives and concrete hardstand for motor pool storage. Privately owned vehicle (POV) parking is not
included in the project. The total disturbed site area within the limits of construction is approximately 24.1
acres. Total site drainage area is approximately 22.3 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 west, with an elevation range of approximately 15 feet.
A large swale crosses the site from east to west conveying existing runoff from adjacent developed sites.
Drainage currently flows to an existing 36” headwall, discharging ultimately to an existing storm water
storage basin. The soils consists primarily silty sands in the upper 3 to 4 feet with clayey sands and
sandy clays beneath.
All drainage areas for the project are in 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.

Figure 1 - Ref: NCDEQ Stormwater BMP 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,

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 2 of 12

construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent
technically feasible, the pre-development hydrology of the property.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing site where the TEMF and associated supporting infrastructure is to be constructed is
approximately 29.7 acres within the construction limits. The site, prior to construction, is primarily
undeveloped, consisting of a combination of open area, limited vegetation, and wooded. The wooded
and vegetated areas consists primarily of deciduous trees 8 to 12 inches in diameter. The topography
slopes generally towards the west to an existing 36” headwall, with an elevation range of approximately
15 feet. The stormwater runoff ultimately discharges west of the African Lion Boulevard. 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.
For purposed of drainage calculations, the existing site is considered wooded in fair to poor condition
(curve number of 66).
There are no existing structures on-site, but limited asphalt and dirt service roads are present.
An existing drainage swale runs east to west across the site conveying stormwater from developed sites
to the east. This runoff will be captured and will bypass the TEMF site via reinforced concrete piping.
A Subsurface Exploration Report has been performed by Froehling & Robertson , dated April 12, 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 10yr 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 (IN)
1YR 3.03
2YR 3.67
5YR 4.71
10YR 5.55
25YR 6.74
50YR 7.72
100YR 8.75

WinTR55 Small Watershed Hydrology software, developed for the USDA, was utilized to calculate the
peak runoff for both pre-development and post-development runoff. This software has been used in the
past for other projects located at Fort Bragg and for NCDEQ, and is an approved method for stormwater
calculations. The composite runoff curve number calculations for each area were entered into WinTR55
and the results are shown in the appendix and on the plan drawings.

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 3 of 12

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
To better control runoff at the source, and to better calculate stormwater runoff for drainage structures,
the developed site is separated into three separate sub-basins. Temporary diversion ditches will be
constructed at the onset of construction to divert the onsite water to sediment basins located on the west
and south portions of the site in areas where the stormwater basins will ultimately be located. Each of
these basins will receive runoff from less than 10 acres.
Three stormwater treatment basins shall be constructed to control the post-development stormwater
quality and quantity. These three basins consist of one bioretention basin (Bioretention Basin) and two
wet pond basins (Wet Pond #1 and Wet Pond #2). The bioretention basin is located to the north west of
the site. The Bioretention Basin will receive all of the TEMF rooftop runoff, all rooftop runoff from the
Organizational Storage structures A, B, & C, and some hardstand runoff. Wet Pond #1 is located along
the western edge of the concrete hardstand. This basin will receive all hardstand (CN of 98) within the
vicinity of the basin. To the south of the site, Wet Pond #2, is a large wet pond that will receive a large
majority of the concrete hardstand parking (CN of 98). All wet ponds shall have a forebay that will receive
the stormwater. The forebay shall be a minimum of 15% of the main basin volume.
Sheet flowing the concrete parking hardstand to the wet ponds proved to be the only solution in getting
storm water to the ponds. Long piping runs made storm water piping impossible due to less than 0.5%
slopes and little to no cover over the pipes. Due to the site sheet flowing towards the south, a concrete
channel shall be provided to capture the storm water and route it to the wet pond forebay. Concrete
energy dissipation baffles on concrete mats shall be provided to reduce the velocity of the storm water.
Rip rap shall be provided at the toe-of-slope of the mats to prevent erosion and any scour that may occur.
The wet pond forebay shall have a 30-inch minimum depth with a minimum 12-inch for sediment storage.
The main pool depth shall have a 3-foot minimum and 8-foot maximum depth. It shall also have a
minimum 12-inch for sediment storage.
Storm water runoff from the north will be diverted to the northwestern sediment basin (Temporary
Sediment Basin #1). Storm water runoff from the southwestern sector of the site shall drain to the
sediment basin along the western edge of the site (Temporary Sediment Basin #2). Storm water runoff
from the eastern half of the site shall be diverted to the sediment basin located at the south (Temporary
Sediment Basin #3). We will be using the existing service road that runs north to south as a natural
diversion dike.
Clean water flow from each of the sediment basins will either be routed to the existing outfall pipe which
runs west the site or will drained to existing swales. Both will maintain the existing point of discharge.
Post construction, each of these sediment basins will be converted to either a bioretention area or wet
ponds.
The post-developed composite weighted CN calculations for each subbasin used in WinTR-55 as well as
post-developed peak flows are shown in the appendix for the pipe networks, in Tables 2 and 3, and on
the plan drawings. In general, the existing area is poorly grassed/brush area, which exhibits high rates of
runoff. The proposed conditions include a large majority of concrete hardstand and any landscaping
areas shall be in the form of sod. The contractor is required to establish 100% groundcover within 1 year
of construction.

For design of all storm water structures, AutoDesk Civil3D 2017 was utilized. The contributing drainage
areas for each structure and basin varies, but since the post-development surface is all hardstand, the
minimum time of concentration (Tc) shall be 8 minutes. This results in a “worst case” scenario for the
stormwater system, and ensures an adequate design for the 10yr storm event. Pipe sizes were
calculated using the software, with minimum pipe sizes directed by UFC 3-201-01 Civil Engineering. The
results of the stormwater structure designs are included in the appendices including HGL calculations.

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 4 of 12

TABLE 2 PRE-DEVELOPED COMPOSITE RUNOFF CURVE
NUMBER CALCULATIONS AND PEAK FLOW

DRAINAGE AREA AREA (AC)

WEIGHTED
CN Q1 (CFS) Q10 (CFS) Q25 (CFS)
Bioretention Area (Basin #1) 5.6 69 5.11 19.14 26.89
Wet Pond #1 (Basin #2) 4.2 69 3.83 14.35 20.16
Wet Pond #2 (Basin #3) 12.5 69 9.65 36.97 51.84

TABLE 3 POST-DEVELOPED COMPOSITE RUNOFF CURVE
NUMBER CALCULATIONS AND PEAK FLOW

DRAINAGE AREA AREA (AC)

WEIGHTED
CN Q1 (CFS) Q10 (CFS) Q25 (CFS)
Bioretention Area (Basin #1) 5.6 98 14.36 32.42 40.96
Wet Pond #1 (Basin #2) 4.2 92 13.07 26.54 32.84
Wet Pond #2 (Basin #3) 12.5 93 40.19 80.16 98.78

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 5 of 12

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
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 for the Bioretention basin (Basin #1). Option 2 was selected for both
Wet Pond #1 and Wet Pond #2.
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.
To be in compliance with EISA 438, based upon Option 2 of the EPA Technical Guidance document, a
site specific hydrologic analysis is used to preserve pre-development runoff conditions.
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, a total of three storm water basins (one infiltration area, and two wet ponds)
have been designed to help infiltrate and capture the runoff closest to the source.
BIORETENTION BASIN
The bioretention area consisting of a volume of ponding storage, a section of engineered fill to promote
infiltration and sediment removal, and 8-inch perforated pipe encased in crushed stone (see Figure 2). All
drainage for the construction portion of the site is routed to an infiltration area. The bioretention areas are
designed to infiltrate the 95th percentile storm event as close as practical to the origin of the drainage. All
drainage enters the bioretention areas 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. The storage required for
the area and the amount of storage provided for infiltration is shown on the plans. Storage is provided in
the above ground ponding (maximum 18”) and engineered fill media. The bioretention basin design
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 basins. Although the database was used to determine volume required, it was not used to
design the bioretention areas. 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. WinTR-55 was utilized to calculate pre and post developed composite
runoff curve numbers and peak flows for the areas draining to each bioretention area.

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 6 of 12

The pre-developed and post-development composite weighted CN and peak flows for the bioretention
area can be found in the appendix. A map of the pre & post development drainage areas can be found in
Appendix B & C.
In addition, the volume required for the first flush, or 1” rainfall event, as required by NCDEQ was
calculated. This would equate to the minimum required volume to store to meet NCDEQ requirements.
This volume is required to be stored in a ponding volume. For EISA 438, the volume required was
calculated via the Army LID Planning and Cost Tool.

DRAINAGE AREA
VOLUME
REQUIRED
EISA 438
(CF)
VOLUME
REQUIRED
NCDEQ
(CF)
PONDING
VOLUME PROVIDED
(CF)
Bioretention Area (Basin #1) 17,212 9,761 26,276

BIORETENTION AREA
PONDING DEPTH
PROVIDED
(IN)
PONDING VOLUME
(CF)
STORAGE VOLUME IN
SOIL (CF)

Bioretention Area (Basin #1) 18 26,276 4,805

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 outfall area. As
the engineered media with water, when the level reaches the bottom of the perforated pipe, 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 grate in the riser structure. This prevents flooding in areas surrounding the bioretention
basins as the top of the grate is set at an elevation below the surrounding grade.
Although the design of the bioretention areas are not completely compatible with the Bioretention Cell
Supplement form provided by NCDEQ, this form has been completed for the drainage areas and included
in the appendix.
INFILTRATION AREA
SURFACE AREA
REQUIRED (SF)
NCDEQ
SURFACE AREA PROVIDED
(SF)
Bioretention Area (Basin #1) 15,900 16,015

Figure 2 - Bioretention Basin

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 7 of 12

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 all bioretention cells are a minimum of 2 feet above the SHWT. Depths to the SHWT
are greater than 120” below the surface.

MDC 2: Maximum Ponding Depth for Design Volume
Ponding depths for the bioretention areas is 18”.

MDC 3: Peak Attenuation Volume
Each 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).
This additional ponding volume would not necessarily be considered to store the peak attenuation
volume, however it acts as a measure of safety for the areas and is a maximum of 30” above the planting
surface to the emergency spillway.
The emergency spillway is designed for the bioretention basin to handle the entire flow from the 100-year
storm event in case of failure of the primary outfall and storage within each basin.

MDC 4: Underdrain
Infiltration testing was done in conjunction with design at each bioretention basin. As the Ksat values
attained are less than 2” per hour, underdrains are installed in both basins. At least one underdrain pipe
per 1,000 square feet of area is provided, 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.

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 8 of 12

MDC 5: Media Depth
The bioretention area is a grassed cell without trees and shrubs. The engineered soil media depth in the
bioretention area is 30” and include 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-Index 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
areas.

MDC 10: Planting Plan
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
The bioretention basin 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.

WET POND
The wet ponds shall capture the 10-year design storm and release the runoff slowly over a period of two
to five days through an outlet structure. The wet ponds have a forebay that is no less than 15% of main
pond volume. The forebay acts as a water quality unit to capture TSS and sediment. The forebay is
easier to maintain than the rest of the larger main pond. The design volume requirements for the wet
pond is mandated by EISA 438, Option 2. But, the wet pond layout design follows the NCDEQ Wet Pond,
C-3, of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 9 of 12

The pre-developed and post-development composite weighted CN and peak flows for each wet pond
area can be found in the appendix. A map of the pre & post development drainage areas can be found in
Appendix B & C.

TABLE 7 WET POND VOLUME REQUIREMENTS
INFILTRATION AREA
MIN VOLUME
REQUIRED (CF)
NCDEQ
DESIGN
VOLUME
PROVIDED (CF)
MIN FOREBAY
VOLUME
REQUIRED (CF)
Wet Pond #1 (Basin #2) 28,756 35,310 5,297
Wet Pond #2 (Basin #3) 89,090 110,281 16,542

The wet pond design volumes are designed for the 10-year storm event. For any larger storm events, an
emergency spillway is provided to prevent flooding in the surrounding areas. Refer to Figures 3, 4 & 5
below.

Figure 3 – Wet Pond Cross-Section View

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 10 of 12

Figure 4 – Wet Pond Outlet Structure Section

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 11 of 12

Figure 5 – Wet Pond Outlet Structure
MDC 1: Main Pool Surface Area and Volume
The design volumes for the wet ponds are calculated using EISA 438, Option 2 which is more stringent
than the NCDEQ Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) Method. All other design criteria and layout of the wet
ponds use the design criteria of NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual, section C-3, Wet Pond.
MDC 2: Main Pool Depth
The average depth of the wet ponds shall be no less than 3-feet below the permanent pool elevation.
MDC 3: Sediment Storage
A minimum of 6-inches of depth is provide for the storage of sediment in both the forebay and main pond.
MDC 4: Location of Inlets and Outlets
Due to the layout of the project site, the pond shapes are long and narrow which naturally maximize the
flow path between the inlet and outlet. This is a favorable layout as per the NCDEQ design criteria.
MDC 5: Forebay
The forebays are designed to capture a minimum of 15% of the main pond volume. The storm water
flowing over the structure into the main pond, shall have the velocity reduced using a mat of rip rap.
MDC 6: Vegetated Shelf
A vegetated shelf of sod is provided adjacent to the wet ponds.
MDC 7: Drawdown Time
The design volume shall draw down to permanent pool levels between two and five days.
MDC 8: Protection of the Receiving Stream
Overflow from Basin #2 exists the pond via a storm water pipe that ties into the existing system. Erosion
control measures are currently in place at the downstream outlet for this system. Basin #3 will overflow
into an existing grassed swale. Outlet protection in the form of rip rap shall be provided to reduce velocity.
The grassed swale will provide further water quality prior to the run off entering into the existing storm
water piping system.
MDC 9: Fountains
Fountains are not provided as part of this project scope.
MDC 10: Trash Rack
A trash rack shall be provided on the outlet structure of both Basin #2 and Basin #3.
MDC 11: Vegetation
Sodding shall be provided in all disturbed areas adjacent to the pond and shall extend into the pond to
provide additional stability for the side slope.

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 12 of 12

OUTLET PROTECTION
All excess stormwater from basins, as well as stormwater routed around the project site, shall have rip rap
outlet protection. Basin #1 and Basin #2 will connect directly to the 36” storm conveyance piping running
from the east to the west of the site. 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 bioretention basin
infiltration area via storm collection pipes and sheet flow or sheet flow to a concrete swale for the wet
ponds. 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. The wet ponds will utilize forebays to meet water quality
criteria as per NCDEQ.
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
Separate erosion and sedimentation control during construction plans have been developed for submittal
to NCDEQ for permit requirements. The permit, CUMBE-2019-068, has not yet been submitted.
Calculations used for sizing skimmer sedimentation basins are included with this report.

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.1 -

APPENDIX A
USGS PROJECT LOCATION MAP

NC Surface Water Classification
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Surface Water Classifications
River Basins
CPF
5/22/2019, 2:43:00 PM
0 0.65 1.30.33 mi
0 1 20.5 km
1:36,112
NCDENR Div. Water Resources
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources | Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed |

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.2 -

APPENDIX B
PRE-DEVELOPMENT MAP

ELEV.=246.5'
BH-3
ELEV.=247.4'
BH-4
ELEV.=245.5'
BH-2
ELEV.=247.6'
BH-5
ELEV.=247.6'
BH-8
ELEV.=239.5'
BH-16
ELEV.=250.5'
BH-6
ELEV.=247.3'
BH-13
ELEV.=246.6'
BH-1
ELEV.=244.6'
BH-2
ELEV.=244.8'
BH-1
ELEV.=237.1'
BH-14
ELEV.=243.8'
BH-7
ELEV.=242.8'
BH-12
ELEV.=244.0'
BH-17
ELEV.=241.5'
BH-1524" RCP18" RCPASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
WV
CONC
CONC
CONC
CONC
(102")
WALL
BRICK
TOP=246.58'
TMH
WV
WV
FH
WV
MARKER
GAS
PAD
CONC CHILLERHOT BOX
HOT BOX
MARKER
GAS
FH
WV
TOP=250.25'
TMH
HOT BOX
CHILLERCHILLERBOX
HOT
CONC
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
(96" HIGH)
12" BLOCK WALL
BOL (2)
CONCGATEBOL (2)
WV FH
FH
WV
WM
U/G STEAM LINES (2)
O/H STEAM LINES (2)
GV
O/H STEAM LINES (2)
BOX
HOT ASPHALTBOLBOL
BOLBOL
BOL
BOL BOL
BOL
TOP=251.19'
TMH
BOL
247.53'
TOP=
TMH
15" RCPDRIVE
ROCK
ELEV.=249.9'
BH-10
ELEV.=246.2
BH-11
TPED
TPED
CONC
CONC
CONC
CONC
ASPHALT15" RCPELEV.=250.6
BH-9
224
225225
225 226226226S
P
HH
227227
227227
228228
228228 INV.=229.24'
42" RCP
229229
229229P
230230
230230
RAP
RIP
15" RCP15" RCP
INV.=230.37'INV.=228.44'
INV.=231.70'
INV.=230.88'
INV.=232.92'
INV.=225.70' (E)
INV.=225.68' (W)
INV.=232.30' (N)
INV.=232.70' (E)
INV.=230.36' (S)
INV.=233.91' (E)
INV.=230.34' (N)
INV.=231.40' (SE)
INV.=231.35' (NW)
INV.=232.26' (S)
INV.=231.89' (NW)
INV.=232.65' (S)
INV.=232.40' (N)
INV.=233.20' (S)
INV.=233.08' (N)
INV.=233.57' (N)
INV.=232.10' (W)
INV.=231.95' (E)
INV.=229.39' (N)
INV.=229.10' (SW)
24" RCP
RCP
36" 24" RCPTOP=233.29'
TOP=238.89'
TOP=240.20'
TOP=237.40'
TOP=236.32'
TOP=236.85'
TOP=236.45'
TOP=236.81'
TOP=242.93'
TOP=243.10'
FES
RAP
RIP
RAP
RIP
RAP
RIP
RAP
RIP
CONC HW
CONC HW
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
RAP
RIP
RAP
RIP
RAP
RIP
6" CPP231
23123
1
231232
232
2
32
232233
233
233233
233
23336" RCP
36" RCP
36" RCP
S
234234
234234234234234234
234
P
235235
235
235 235235235235235235236236236
236236 236
236
2362362362362
3
6236P
237237237
237237237 237237
237237
2
3
7 237237
237237
237
23723723723723724" RCPS
24" RCP
238238238238238238238238
238
238
2382382
3
8
238238
238
238238
238
238238238
23823823823823842" RCP36" RCPS
GATE
72" CHLK GRAVEL
GRAVEL72" CHLK72" CHLK72" CHLK72" CHLK72" CHLK72" CHLK2
3
9
239239239239239239239239
239
239
239
2392392392392392392
3
9
2
3
9
239
239
239
2392392392
3
9
239239239239239239
GATE
BOL
BOL (10)GATE
18" RCP
239.872402402402402402402402402
4
0
240
240
240
240240240240
240240240240240240240240240240240240240
240
240
240
240240240 240240240240S
15" RCPHHHH RCP
18" 241241 2412
4
1
2412
4
1
2
4
1
241
241
241
241
241241241
241241241241241241241241241241241241
241
241
241
241241241241241241
241
241
241241241241
241241241241241241241241241241241241241 2412412412412 41
241
241241241241241241241241241241241
241 241241241241P
P
CONC DITCH
CONC DITCH
CONC DITCH
CONC DITCH2422422422422422
4
2242
242
242
242242
242
242 242
2422422422422422422422422422422422
4
2
242242
242
242
242
242
242242242242242242242242242242
242
242
242242242242
242242242242242242242242242 242242
242242242242242242242242242242242242242 242242
24218" RCP15" RCP
S15" RCP
243243243243243243243243243243
243
243
2
4
3
2
43
243
243 243243243243243243243243243243243243243243243
243243
243
2
43
243
243
243
243
243243243243243243243243243
243
2
43243243
243243243243
243243243243243243243243243243243243 243243243243
243243243243243243243243 243243S
ASPHALTHH
P244244244
244
244244
244
244
244
244244244244244244244244244244244244244244244
244244244
244
244
244
244
244
244244244244244
244244244
244
2
4
4244244244244244244
244244244244244244244244244244244244244 244244244244
244244244244
244 244
244
244244244244 24424415" RCP6" CPP6" CPPINV.=240.72'
INV.=240.57'INV.=237.81'
INV.=237.98'
PES PES PES
PESPESPES
15 " RCP
15" RCPP 6" PVC6" PVC245245
245245245245245245
245245245245245245245
245
245
2
4
5
245
245
24
5
245
245 245245245245245245245245245245 245245245245245245245
245245 245245245
245245245245245245245245245 245245245245245
245245245245
245245245245245
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALTASPHALTASPHALTASPHALTASPHALTASPHALTT
15" RCP
24624624624624
6246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246
246
246 246246246246246246246246
246246246
246246
246 246246246246246246246246
24624624615" RCP
S
15" CPP
T
14103
246.77
14098
246.77
14102
246.83
14099
246.84
S
2472472472472
4
7
2
4
7
247247247247247247247247
24
72472
47
247
247247247247247247247
247247 247247247
247247247247247247247
247 247247247247247247247
247
247247
247
247
247247
14101
247.07
14100
247.09
HH
S
8"
PVC

W
W
P
T18" RCPCPP
18" 15" CPPS
248
248
248 248248248248248248248248248
248248248248248
24824824824824814097
248.20
14096
248.43
T
249
249249
249249249
249 249249249249249
249249
18" RCP
14095
249.21
S
S
14094
249.89250250250250
250 250250250
250250250250250250
14092
250.03
14093
250.06
T

W
251
251251251251251251 251251 T
P
14420
251.92
25214419
252.13 RCP18" S
14418
253.21
14415
253.75
14417
253.77
14416
254.00
CONC SW
MOUNTAIN VIPER DRIVEMOUNTAIN VIPER DRIVEMOUNTAIN VIPER DRIVE
INV.=214.81'
FH
WV
WV
GV
FH
WV
FH
WVWV
WV
WV
PIV
WV
WMV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
PIVWV
WV
WVWV
WV
FH
WMV
TOP=247.09'
TEL HH
WV
WV
PIV
WMV WV
FH
WV
WV WV
WV
FH
PIV
WV
WV
WV WV
WV
FH
CB
TOP=224.25'
INV.=217.90' (SE)
2
4
" RCPDI
DI
DI
DI
DI
28"x44" RCP
28"x44" RCP
TOP=226.11'INV.=214.82'
TOP=224.30'
INV.=217.59' (NW)
DI
24" RCPINV.=217.59' (S)24" RCPLVL B
DUCT BANK
EMPTY COMM
LVL B
DUCT BANK
EMPTY COMM
DUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMM DUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMM
DUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMMDUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMM
DUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMM
DUCT BANK LVL C
EMPTY COMM
DUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMM
LVL B
DUCT BANK
EMPTY COMM
FH
WV
UKN
UKN
RAP
RIP
BLDG
WD
CONCCONCCONCCONCCONCCONC
FITNESS AREA
PILE
DEBRIS FENCE (ABANDONED)FENCE (ABANDONED)PILE
DEBRIS
PILE
DEBRIS
PP
GUY
PP
PP
GUY
GRAVEL
GAZEBO
TRAINING AREA
95TH COUNTER IED
(APPROXIMATE LOCATION, NO ACCESS)
UNDER STORAGE CONTAINER
POSSIBLE DI
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
PINE WOODS
GRAVEL
8" PVC
UKN UKN
15" RCPFES FES
INV.=244.05'
FES
INV.=244.13'
DRAIN
TRENCH
DRAIN
TRENCH
DRAIN
TRENCH
INV.=246.44'
DIRECTION ONLY
DRAIN
TRENCH
6" PP
6" PP
INV.=246.58'
DIRECTION ONLY
INV.=244.14'
FES
INV.=239.77'
FES
238.85'
INV.=
238.40'
INV.=
WW
HW
WW 24" RCPWW
HW
WW
FES
INV.=241.14'
WW
WW
HW
INV.=242.44'
FES
INV.=242.98'
TOP=246.51'
INV.=236.96' (E)
INV.=236.96' (W)
INV.=240.28'
TOP=247.73'
BOX
JUNCTION
TOP=246.93'
INV.=239.59'
TOP=242.56'
INV.=235.94' (E)
INV.=235.66' (W)
TOP=252.44'
INV.=242.99' (SW)
OFF-SITE
TOP=250.31'
DI15" RCP
INV.=242.11' (W)
TOP=250.06'
DI
INV.=240.17' (E)
15" RCP
INV.=240.11' (W)
TOP=250.14'
DI
INV.=237.89' (E)
INV.=237.76' (W)
18" RCP
TOP=249.36'
INV.=236.82' (W)
INV.=236.94' (E)
18" RCP
TOP=246.49'
DI
INV.=235.86' (E)
INV.=235.83' (W)24" RCP
TOP=246.45'
DI
INV.=234.05' (E)
INV.=233.52' (W)
24" RCP
TOP=246.41'
DI
INV.=231.99' (E)
INV.=231.68' (W)
24" RCP
TOP=249.33'
INV.=242.14' (NE)
INV.=242.08' (SW)
TOP=247.15'
INV.=241.33' (NE)
INV.=241.26' (S)
INV.=240.57' (S)
OUTFALL STRUCTURE
INV.=240.09' (SW)
INV.=244.23' (NE)
INV.=244.22' (S)
INV.=244.24' (E)
8" PVC
ONLY
DIRECTION
DI
INV.=244.49' (N)
INV.=244.36' (E)
DI
TOP=246.62'
TOP=246.78'
ONLY
DIRECTION
INV.=244.54' (S)
INV.=244.58' (E)
DI
TOP=246.80'
8" PVC
ONLY
DIRECTION
8" PVC
ONLY
DIRECTION
INV.=244.45' (E)
INV.=244.38' (N)
DI
TOP=246.78'
INV.=244.42' (S)
STRUCTURE
OUTFALL
FES
INV.=240.89'
INV.=240.01' (NW)
INV.=241.15' (SE)END NOT FOUNDINV.=237.95' (W)
INV.=240.11' (N)
INV.=238.05' (E)
243.93'
INV.=
UKN
UKN
UKN U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSSCAT_CG750.dgnANSI DCHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:SHEET ID FILENAME:B
C
D
E
F
G
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DESIGNED BY:1
A MARKSIZE:SUBMITTED BY:DATECONTRACT NO.:®of Engineers
US Army Corps
CATEGORY CODEDESCRIPTIONP:\Projects\017101\03 CAD_BIM\_Sheets\05_Civil\SCAT_CG750.dgn04-SEP-201908:12 XXX-XX-XXR. BOSTONW912PM-19-C-000869 DARLINGTON AVENUEWILMINGTON DISTRICTWILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINAFORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINASPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES (SOF)FY 18 / PN 69552CIVIL AFFAIRS TEMFAUGUST 2019VOLUME 1 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
TO THE NORTH OF THE PROJECT.
CONTROL FROM DEVELOPMENT
FROM STORM WATER QUANTITY
RUNOFF INCLUDES OVERFLOW
SITE VIA STORM WATER PIPE.
WILL BYPASS THE PROJECT
OFFSITE RUNOFF THAT
TO THE EAST OF THE PROJECT.
CONTROL FROM DEVELOPMENT
FROM STORM WATER QUANTITY
RUNOFF INCLUDES OVERFLOW
SITE VIA STORM WATER PIPE.
WILL BYPASS THE PROJECT
OFFSITE RUNOFF THAT
TO THE EAST OF THE PROJECT.
CONTROL FROM DEVELOPMENT
FROM STORM WATER QUANTITY
RUNOFF INCLUDES OVERFLOW
SITE VIA STORM WATER PIPE.
WILL BYPASS THE PROJECT
OFFSITE RUNOFF THAT
DRAINAGE AREA = 23.4 Ac
TOTAL APPROXIMATE
LANE TO THE EAST.
NORTH BOUND BY CHAOS
NEW DAWN DRIVE TO THE
DRIVE TO THE SOUTH TO
NORTH, MOUNTAIN VIPER
THE PARKING LOT TO THE
DRAINAGE AREA INCLUDES
SITE VIA STORM WATER PIPE.
WILL BYPASS THE PROJECT
OFFSITE RUN-OFF THAT
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
Q100= 133.3
Q25 = 86.1
Q10 = 59.9
Q2 = 23.6
Q1 = 13.4
PEAK FLOW (CFS)
TOC = 15 MIN
WEIGHTED CN: 66
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP B
DRAINAGE AREA = 22.9 Ac
CG750S.HAGGARDS.CURRYM.MAYERN
GEOGRAPHIC COORDINATE DATA
HORIZONTAL DATUM:
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD83.
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88.
UNITS OF MEASURE: U.S. SURVEY FEET.
COORDINATES SHOWN IN FORMAT OF
EASTING, NORTHING AND ELEVATION.
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=80'-0"
240'160'80'040'80'PRE DEVELOPED HYDROLOGYPRE DEVELOPED HYDROLOGY

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.3 -

APPENDIX C
POST-DEVELOPMENT MAP

ELEV.=244.6'
BH-2
ELEV.=244.8'
BH-1
ELEV.=244.0'
BH-1724" RCP18" RCPASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
WV
CONC
CONC
CONC
CONC
(102")
WALL
BRICK
TOP=246.58'
TMH
WV
WV
FH
WV
MARKER
GAS
PAD
CONC CHILLERHOT BOX
HOT BOX
MARKER
GAS
FH
WV
TOP=250.25'
TMH
HOT BOX
CHILLERCHILLERBOX
HOT
CONC
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
(96" HIGH)
12" BLOCK WALL
BOL (2)
CONC
GATEBOL (2)
WV FH
FH
WV
WM
U/G STEAM LINES (2)
O/H STEAM LINES (2)
GV
O/H STEAM LINES (2)
BOX
HOT
BOLBOL
BOLBOL
BOL
BOL BOL
BOL
TOP=251.19'
TMH
BOL
247.53'
TOP=
TMH
15" RCPTPED
TPED
CONC
CONC
CONC
CONC
15" RCP224
S
225225
225 226226226S
P
HH
227227
227227
228228
228228 INV.=229.24'
42" RCP
229229
229229P
230230
230230
RAP
RIP
15" RCP15" RCP
INV.=230.37'INV.=228.44'
INV.=231.70'
INV.=230.88'
INV.=234.99' (N)
INV.=234.93' (S)
INV.=225.70' (E)
INV.=225.68' (W)
INV.=237.44' (S)
INV.=237.70' (W)
INV.=237.84' (N)
INV.=239.17' (E)
INV.=232.30' (N)
INV.=232.70' (E)
INV.=235.53' (N)
INV.=235.38' (S)
INV.=235.77' (S)
INV.=235.85' (NW)
INV.=230.36' (S)
INV.=233.91' (E)
INV.=230.34' (N)
INV.=236.52' (N)
INV.=236.50' (SE)
INV.=231.40' (SE)
INV.=231.35' (NW)
INV.=233.52' (S)
INV.=233.79' (NW)
INV.=232.26' (S)
INV.=231.89' (NW)
INV.=232.65' (S)
INV.=232.40' (N)
INV.=233.20' (S)
INV.=233.08' (N)
INV.=233.57' (N)
INV.=232.10' (W)
INV.=231.95' (E)
INV.=229.39' (N)
INV.=229.10' (SW)
24" RCP 24" RCPTOP=240.38'
TOP=233.29'
TOP=243.04'
TOP=225.88'
TOP OF PIPE=220.29' (S)
TOP=238.89'
TOP=240.84'
TOP=240.94'
TOP=240.20'
TOP=241.68'
TOP=237.40'
TOP=236.43'
TOP=236.32'
TOP=236.85'
TOP=236.45'
TOP=236.81'
TOP=242.93'
TOP=243.10'
FES
RAP
RIP
CONC HW
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
6" CPP10" PVC (0D)231
231
23
1231232
23223
2
232233
233
233233
233
23336" RCP
36" RCP
36" RCP
S
234234
234234234234234234
234
P
235235
235
235 235235235235235235236236236
236236 236
236
23623623623623
6 236P
OFF-SITE
237237237
237237237 237237
237237
2
37 237237
237237
237
23723723723723724" RCPS
24" RCP
238238238238238238238238
238
238
2382382
3
8
238238
23
8
238238
23823823823
8
23823823823823836" RCPS
72" CHLK72" CHLK72" CHLK72" CHLK72" CHLK72" CHLK2
3
9
239239239239239239239239
239
239
239
239239239239239239
2
3
9
2
3
9
239
239
239
2392392392
3
9
239239239239239239
GATE
BOL
BOL (10)GATE
18" RCP
239.87
2
40
240240240240240
2402402
4
0
240
240
240
240240240240
240240240240240240240240240240240240240
240
240
240
240240240 240240240240S
HHHH RCP
18" 24124
1 241241
2412
4
1
2
4
1
241
241
241
241
241241241
241241241241241241241241241241241241
241
241
241
241241241241241241
241
241
241241241241
241241241241241241241241241241241241241 241241241241241
241
241241241241241241241241241241241
2
4
1 241241241241P
P
CONC DITCH242242242242242242
242
242
24
2
2422
4
2
242
242 242
2422422422422422422422422422422422
4
2
242242
242
242
242
242
242242242242242242242242242242
242
242
24224224224
2
2422422422422422422422422
4
2 242242
242242242242242242242242242242242242242 242242
242 243243243243243243243243243243
243
24
3
2
4
3
24
3
243
243 243243243243243243243243243243243243243243243
24324
3
243
243
243
243
243
243
2432432
43243243243
243243243
243
24
3243243
243243243243
24324324324324324324324324324324
3243 243243243243
243243243243243243243243 243243S
HH
P244244244
244
24424
4
2
44
24
4
244
244244244244244244244244244244244244244244244
244244244
244
24
4
244
244
244
244244244244244
244244244
244
244244244
244244244244
244244244244244244244244244244244244244 244244244244
244244244244
244 244
244
244244244244 24424415" RCP6" CPP6" CPPINV.=240.72'
INV.=240.57'INV.=237.81'
INV.=237.98'
PES PES PES
PESPESPES
1 5 " RCP
15" RCPP 6" PVC6" PVC245245
245245245245245245
2452452452452452452
4
5
245
245
2
4
5
245
24
5
2
4
5
245
245 245245245245245245245245245245 245245245245245245245
245245 245245245
245245245245245245245245245 245245245245245
245245245245
245245245245245
T
24624624624624
6246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246246
246
246 246246246246246246246246
246246246
246246
24
6 24624624
6246246246246246
24624624615" CPP
T
2472472472472
4
7
2
4
7
247247247247247247247247
24
7
247247
247
2472472472472472472
4
7
247247 24724724
7
247247247247247247247
247 247247247247247247247
247
247247
247
247
247247
HH
S
8" PVC

W
W
P
T18" RCPCPP
18
" 15" CPPS
24
8
24
8
2
4
8 248248248248248248248248248
248248248248248
248248248248248T
249
249249
249249249
249249 249249249249
249249
18" RCP
S
S
250250
25025
0
250 250250250
250250250250250250
T

W
251
2512512512512512
5
1 251251 T
P
252RCP18" S
CONC SW
MOUNTAIN VIPER DRIVEMOUNTAIN VIPER DRIVEMOUNTAIN VIPER DRIVE
INV.=214.81'
FH
WV
WV
GV
FH
WV
FH
WVWV
WV
WV
PIV
WV
WMV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
PIVWV
WV
WV
WV
WV
FH
WMV
TOP=247.09'
TEL HH
WV
WV
PIV
WMV WV
FH
WV
WV WV
WV
FH
PIV
WV
WV
WV WV
WV
FH
TOP=247.23'
INV.=241.32' (S)OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
CB
TOP=224.25'
INV.=217.90' (SE)
2
4
" RCPTOP=241.84'
INV.=234.08' (N)
INV.=234.08' (S)
TOP=237.00'
INV.=233.89' (W)
INV.=232.06' (N)
INV.=232.05' (S)
TOP=242.31'
INV.=230.10' (W)
INV.=230.04' (N)
INV.=229.83' (S)
TOP=238.12'
INV.=231.01' (N)
INV.=230.88' (E)
AND DEBRIS)
FULL OF WATER
(NO INFO -
TOP=237.44'
DI
DI
DI
DI
DI
28"x44" RCP
28"x44" RCP
TOP=226.11'INV.=214.82'
TOP=238.28'
INV.=228.36' (N)
INV.=228.32' (E)
TOP=244.48'
INV.=231.44' (W)
INV.=231.51' (E)
TOP=241.33'
INV.=227.83' (W)
INV.=228.18' (E)
INV.=227.77' (S)TOP=246.27'
INV.=238.38' (N)
INV.=235.32' (W)
TOP=224.30'
INV.=217.59' (NW)
DI
24" RCPINV.=217.59' (S)
TOP=224.98'24" RCPINV.=213.87' (N)
(STRUCTURE FULL OF WATER)
LVL B
DUCT BANK
EMPTY COMM
LVL B
DUCT BANK
EMPTY COMM
DUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMM DUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMM
DUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMMDUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMM
DUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMM
DUCT BANK LVL C
EMPTY COMM
DUCT BANK LVL B
EMPTY COMM
LVL B
DUCT BANK
EMPTY COMM
FH
WV
UKN
UKN
RAP
RIP
BLDG
WD
CONCCONCCONCCONCCONCCONC
FITNESS AREA
(APPROXIMATE LOCATION, NO ACCESS)
UNDER STORAGE CONTAINER
POSSIBLE DI
8" PVC
UKN UKN
15" RCPFES FES
INV.=244.05'
FES
INV.=244.13'
DRAIN
TRENCH
DRAIN
TRENCH
DRAIN
TRENCH
INV.=246.44'
DIRECTION ONLY
DRAIN
TRENCH
6" PP
6" PP INV.=246.58'
DIRECTION ONLY
INV.=244.14'
FES
INV.=239.77'
FES 24" RCPWW
HW
WW
FES
INV.=241.14'
TOP=246.51'
INV.=236.96' (E)
INV.=236.96' (W)
INV.=240.28'
TOP=247.73'
BOX
JUNCTION
TOP=252.44'
INV.=242.99' (SW)
OFF-SITE
TOP=250.31'
DI15" RCP
INV.=242.11' (W)
TOP=250.06'
DI
INV.=240.17' (E)
15" RCP
INV.=240.11' (W)
TOP=250.14'
DI
INV.=237.89' (E)
INV.=237.76' (W)
18" RCP
TOP=249.36'
INV.=236.82' (W)
INV.=236.94' (E)
18" RCP
TOP=246.49'
DI
INV.=235.86' (E)
INV.=235.83' (W)24" RCP
TOP=246.45'
DI
INV.=234.05' (E)
INV.=233.52' (W)
24" RCP
TOP=246.41'
DI
INV.=231.99' (E)
INV.=231.68' (W)
24" RCP
TOP=249.33'
INV.=242.14' (NE)
INV.=242.08' (SW)
TOP=247.15'
INV.=241.33' (NE)
INV.=241.26' (S)
INV.=240.57' (S)
OUTFALL STRUCTURE
INV.=240.09' (SW)
INV.=244.23' (NE)
INV.=244.22' (S)
INV.=244.24' (E)
8" PVC
ONLY
DIRECTION
DI
INV.=244.49' (N)
INV.=244.36' (E)
DI
TOP=246.62'
TOP=246.78'
ONLY
DIRECTION
INV.=244.54' (S)
INV.=244.58' (E)
DI
TOP=246.80'
8" PVC
ONLY
DIRECTION
8" PVC
ONLY
DIRECTION
INV.=244.45' (E)
INV.=244.38' (N)
DI
TOP=246.78'
INV.=244.42' (S)
STRUCTURE
OUTFALL
FES
INV.=240.89'
INV.=240.01' (NW)
INV.=241.15' (SE)END NOT FOUNDINV.=237.95' (W)
INV.=240.11' (N)
INV.=238.05' (E)
243.93'
INV.=
UKN
UKN
UKN U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSSCAT_CG751.dgnANSI DCHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:ISSUE DATE:SHEET ID FILENAME:B
C
D
E
F
G
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DESIGNED BY:1
A MARKSIZE:SUBMITTED BY:DATECONTRACT NO.:®of Engineers
US Army Corps
CATEGORY CODEDESCRIPTIONP:\Projects\017101\03 CAD_BIM\_Sheets\05_Civil\SCAT_CG751.dgn04-SEP-201914:34 XXX-XX-XXR. BOSTONW912PM-19-C-000869 DARLINGTON AVENUEWILMINGTON DISTRICTWILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINAFORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINASPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES (SOF)FY 18 / PN 69552CIVIL AFFAIRS TEMFAUGUST 2019VOLUME 1 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
STORM WATER TREATMENT BASIN
DEADLINE PARKING
STORM WATER TREATMENT BASINFF EL 247.00
CIVIL AFFAIRS TEMF
FF EL 247.00
CIVIL AFFAIRS TEMF
FF EL 246.25
ORG STORAGE "B"
FF EL 247.00
ORG STORAGE "C"FF EL 247.00ORG STORAGE "D"TREATMENT BASIN
STORM WATER
HAZ STORAGE
FF EL 244.75
POL STORAGE
FF EL 245.75ORG STORAGE "A"FF EL 246.25BIO RETENTION BASINGI-4
GI-5
SDMH-4
SDMH-5
SDMH-3
SDMH-2SDMH-1
GI-1
GI-2
GI-6
HW-4
CO COCO
CO
COCO
CO
SDMH-8 SDMH-9
RD RD RDRDRD RD RD RD RD RD RD
RD
RD RD RDRDRDRD
DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS
DSDSDSDSDSDS
DS
DS
DS
DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS
18"24"
15"15"15"15"18"
SDMH-6
SDMH-12
RDRD
SDMH-7
CB-8
AD-1 AD-2 AD-4 AD-5 AD-6 AD-8
HW-5
HW-6
HW-7
HW-8
36"36"36"
36"
6"
6"10"6"
6"12"6"12"10"
6"
12"15"15"36"36"3
6
"
HW-3
SDMH-11
CB-1 CB-2 CB-5 CB-6
CB-7
24"
24"
18"
18"24"36"
CO CO CO CO
COCO
CO CO
CO
CO
CO
RD
AD-3 AD-7
CB-3 CB-4 24"
30"
SDMH-10 30"
SDMH-13
SDMH-14 SDMH-16
SDMH-15
10"
RD12"12"10"6"
RD 12"10"10"RD RD
6"6"12"6"10"
RD RD
12"15"6"6"10"
10"
12"
CO CO CO CO
CO CO
RD RD RD RD RD
CO CO CO CO CO CO CORDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD6"6"6"6"6"6"6"12"12"12"12"10"
RD RDRDRDRDRD
6"6"6"10"12"10"10"12"12"12"12"15"RDRDRD RD
RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD
6"10"10"10"10"6"6"6"12"12"12"RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRD6"6"10"10"12"12"15"15"15"15"15"15"15"15"RDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDCO
CO
CO 6"6"10"10"12"12"15"15"15"15"15"15"15"15"15"18"18"18"SDMH-17 SDMH-18
SDMH-22
SDMH-21
SDMH-20
SDMH-23
SDMH-24
SDMH-25
SDMH-19
CO CO
HW-1
CO
CO
COCO
CO
CO
CO CO
CO
1
2"
+
CO
CO
GI-318"24"24"8" PERF.8" PERF.30"
24"
HW-9
233.5233.5
233.5
234.5 235
235235235235235
235 235236.5236.5238238238240240240240240240240240240240240240 240 240
240240240240240
24"243242
2428" PERF.8" PERF.8" PERF.8" PERF.8" PERF.8" PERF.8" PERF.243
243 243243
243
243
243
24
3
243
243243243
243
245
244 244244
24
4
244
244
245
245
245245245245 245245245
245
24
5
245
246 246246 246
246
2
4
6
246
246
246
246
246246246246246246
247
247
247248250249250POST-DEVELOPMENT
BASIN #2BASIN #1BASIN #3
Q100 = 130.0
Q25 = 98.8
Q10 = 80.2
Q2 = 50.4
Q1 = 40.2
PEAK FLOW (CFS)
TOC = 8 MIN
WEIGHTED CN: 93
DRAINAGE AREA = 12.6
STORMWATER BASIN #3
Q100 = 43.4
Q25 = 32.8
Q10 = 26.5
Q2 = 16.5
Q1 = 13.1
PEAK FLOW (CFS)
TOC = 8 MIN
WEIGHTED CN: 92
DRAINAGE AREA = 4.2
STORMWATER BASIN #2
Q100 = 53.9
Q25 = 40.5
Q10 = 32.4
Q2 = 19.7
Q1 = 15.3
PEAK FLOW (CFS)
TOC = 8 MIN
WEIGHTED CN: 90
DRAINAGE AREA = 5.6
STORMWATER BASIN #1
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP B
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA = 22.4 Ac
CG751S.HAGGARDS.CURRYM.MAYERN
GEOGRAPHIC COORDINATE DATA
HORIZONTAL DATUM:
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAD83.
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88.
UNITS OF MEASURE: U.S. SURVEY FEET.
COORDINATES SHOWN IN FORMAT OF
EASTING, NORTHING AND ELEVATION.
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=80'-0"
240'160'80'040'80'POST DEVELOPED HYDROLOGY

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.4 -

APPENDIX D
EISA 438 CALCULATIONS

Army LID Planning and Cost Tool Report
Date 5/21/2019
Army Installation Fort Bragg
Master Planner
Project name Ft Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF Ba
Project description
Civil Affairs TEMF Basin #1
Project limit of disturbance (ac) 5.6
95% rainfall depth (in)1.8
Soil type Sandy-Loam
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) B
Pre-project curve number (CN) 66
Post-project curve number (CN)91
User Name Scurry
PROJECT INFO SITE INFO AND EISA VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
Pre-project runoff volume (cf)2034
Post-project runoff volume (cf) 20138
LID PLANNING SUMMARY
Bioretention: 22300
Swale:
Permeable Pavement:
Rainwater Harvesting:
Green Roof:
Infiltration Practice:
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Short Grass): 0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Tall Grass):0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Short Grass):0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Tall Grass): 0.00
Reforestation (Trees - Short Grass): 0.00
Reforestation (Trees - Shrubs and Tall Grass):0.00
Structural BMP Non-structural BMP Surface
area (ac)
Surface area
(sf)
Runoff volume
retained (cf)
18106
0
0
0
0
0
Total retention volume provided by BMPs (cf):18106
EISA Section 438 retention volume
requirement (cf)
18105
LID COST SUMMARY
Project complies with EISA Section 438.
Army Command IMCOM
Army LID Planning and Cost Tool Report
Date 5/21/2019
Army Installation Fort Bragg
Master Planner
Project name Ft Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF Ba
Project description
Civil Affairs TEMF Basin #2
Project limit of disturbance (ac) 4.2
95% rainfall depth (in)1.8
Soil type Sandy-Loam
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) B
Pre-project curve number (CN) 66
Post-project curve number (CN)92
User Name Scurry
PROJECT INFO SITE INFO AND EISA VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
Pre-project runoff volume (cf)1525
Post-project runoff volume (cf) 16153
LID PLANNING SUMMARY
Bioretention: 18250
Swale:
Permeable Pavement:
Rainwater Harvesting:
Green Roof:
Infiltration Practice:
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Short Grass): 0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Tall Grass):0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Short Grass):0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Tall Grass): 0.00
Reforestation (Trees - Short Grass): 0.00
Reforestation (Trees - Shrubs and Tall Grass):0.00
Structural BMP Non-structural BMP Surface
area (ac)
Surface area
(sf)
Runoff volume
retained (cf)
14817
0
0
0
0
0
Total retention volume provided by BMPs (cf):14817
EISA Section 438 retention volume
requirement (cf)
14628
LID COST SUMMARY
Project complies with EISA Section 438.
Army Command IMCOM
Army LID Planning and Cost Tool Report
Date 10/7/2019
Army Installation Fort Bragg
Master Planner
Project name Ft Bragg TEMF Wet Pond #2
Project description
Ft Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF Wet Pond #2
Project limit of disturbance (ac) 12.5
95% rainfall depth (in)1.8
Soil type Sandy-Loam
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) B
Pre-project curve number (CN) 69
Post-project curve number (CN)93
User Name Stephen Curry
PROJECT INFO SITE INFO AND EISA VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
Pre-project runoff volume (cf)6836
Post-project runoff volume (cf) 51393
LID PLANNING SUMMARY
Bioretention: 55000
Swale:
Permeable Pavement:
Rainwater Harvesting:
Green Roof:
Infiltration Practice:
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Short Grass): 0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Tall Grass):0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Short Grass):0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Tall Grass): 0.00
Reforestation (Trees - Short Grass): 0.00
Reforestation (Trees - Shrubs and Tall Grass):0.00
Structural BMP Non-structural BMP Surface
area (ac)
Surface area
(sf)
Runoff volume
retained (cf)
44655
0
0
0
0
0
Total retention volume provided by BMPs (cf):44655
EISA Section 438 retention volume
requirement (cf)
44557
LID COST SUMMARY
Project complies with EISA Section 438.
Army Command IMCOM
Ft Bragg Civil Affairs
Stormwater Pond Volume Comparison
October-2019
Bioretention Pond #1
Bioretentin Storage Requirements 15,900 16,378 16,701
Wet Pond #1
Volume Main Pool VMP 28,756 37,893 38,241
Volume of Forebay VFB 4,313 5,684 6,330
Design Volume DV 11,805 21,429 30,501
Wet Pond #2
Volume Main Pool VMP 89,090 111,165 116,538
Volume of Forebay VFB 13,364 16,675 18,930
Design Volume DV 36,572 65,830 74,633
NCDEQ Requirements (cf)EISA Option #2 Requirements (cf)
Pre vs Post Development (10-yr)Provided in Design (cf)
NCDEQ Requirements (cf) EISA Option #1 Requirements (cf) Provided in Design (cf)
NCDEQ Requirements (cf)EISA Option #2 Requirements (cf)
Pre vs Post Development (10-yr)Provided in Design (cf)

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.5 -

APPENDIX E
STORMWATER CALCULATIONS
WinTR-55 Current Data Description
--- Identification Data ---
User: SCurry Date: 5/30/2019
Project: Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PreDev Units: English
SubTitle: Pre-Development Areal Units: Acres
State: North Carolina
County: Cumberland NOAA-B
Filename: P:\Projects\017101\02 Design\Civil\Storm Water Design\PreDevelopment Files\PreDevelopment_CA_TR5
--- Sub-Area Data ---
Name Description Reach Area(ac) RCN Tc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PreDevelop Outlet 22.9 66 .242
Total area: 22.90 (ac)
--- Storm Data --
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 5/30/2019 8:16:02 AM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PreDev
Pre-Development
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Storm Data
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 5/30/2019 8:16:02 AM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PreDev
Pre-Development
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Watershed Peak Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
PreDevelop 23.56 59.89 86.10 133.27 13.39
REACHES
OUTLET 23.56 59.89 86.10 133.27 13.39
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 5/30/2019 8:16:02 AM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PreDev
Pre-Development
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Hydrograph Peak/Peak Time Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow and Peak Time (hr) by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
(hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
PreDevelop 23.56 59.89 86.10 133.27 13.39
12.06 12.05 12.04 12.04 12.07
REACHES
OUTLET 23.56 59.89 86.10 133.27 13.39
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 5/30/2019 8:16:02 AM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PreDev
Pre-Development
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Summary Table
Sub-Area Drainage Time of Curve Receiving Sub-Area
Identifier Area Concentration Number Reach Description
(ac) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PreDevelop 22.90 0.242 66 Outlet
Total Area: 22.90 (ac)
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 5/30/2019 8:16:02 AM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PreDev
Pre-Development
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Time of Concentration Details
Sub-Area Flow Mannings's End Wetted Travel
Identifier/ Length Slope n Area Perimeter Velocity Time
(ft) (ft/ft) (sq ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PreDevelop
SHEET 30 0.0133 0.400 0.150
SHALLOW 524 0.0240 0.050 0.058
CHANNEL 1430 0.0560 0.050 31.70 15.00 11.683 0.034
Time of Concentration .242
========
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 5/30/2019 8:16:02 AM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PreDev
Pre-Development
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Land Use and Curve Number Details
Sub-Area Hydrologic Sub-Area Curve
Identifier Land Use Soil Area Number
Group (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PreDevelopWoods (poor) B 22.9 66
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 22.9 66
==== ==
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 5/30/2019 8:16:03 AM
WinTR-55 Current Data Description
--- Identification Data ---
User: SCurry Date: 6/19/2019
Project: Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PostDev Units: English
SubTitle: Post-Development Basin Qp Areal Units: Acres
State: North Carolina
County: Cumberland NOAA-B
Filename: P:\Projects\017101\02 Design\Civil\Storm Water Design\PostDevelopment Files\PostDevelopment_CA_TR55_Basin Peak Flows.w55
--- Sub-Area Data ---
Name Description Reach Area(ac) RCN Tc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin #1 Outlet 5.3 90 0.133
Basin #2 Outlet 4.2 92 0.133
Basin #3 Outlet 12.5 93 0.133
Total area: 22 (ac)
--- Storm Data --
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 6/19/2019 6:08:05 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PostDev
Post-Development Basin Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Storm Data
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 6/19/2019 6:08:05 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PostDev
Post-Development Basin Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Watershed Peak Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
Basin #1 19.70 32.44 40.46 53.87 15.33
Basin #2 16.50 26.54 32.84 43.38 13.07
Basin #3 50.44 80.16 98.78 130.04 40.19
REACHES
OUTLET 86.64 139.14 172.04 227.21 68.57
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 6/19/2019 6:08:05 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PostDev
Post-Development Basin Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Hydrograph Peak/Peak Time Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow and Peak Time (hr) by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
(hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
Basin #1 19.70 32.44 40.46 53.87 15.33
11.95 11.95 11.95 11.95 11.96
Basin #2 16.50 26.54 32.84 43.38 13.07
11.95 11.94 11.95 11.94 11.95
Basin #3 50.44 80.16 98.78 130.04 40.19
11.95 11.95 11.95 11.94 11.95
REACHES
OUTLET 86.64 139.14 172.04 227.21 68.57
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 6/19/2019 6:08:05 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PostDev
Post-Development Basin Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Summary Table
Sub-Area Drainage Time of Curve Receiving Sub-Area
Identifier Area Concentration Number Reach Description
(ac) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin #1 5.30 0.133 90 Outlet
Basin #2 4.20 0.133 92 Outlet
Basin #3 12.50 0.133 93 Outlet
Total Area: 22 (ac)
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 6/19/2019 6:08:05 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PostDev
Post-Development Basin Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Time of Concentration Details
Sub-Area Flow Mannings's End Wetted Travel
Identifier/ Length Slope n Area Perimeter Velocity Time
(ft) (ft/ft) (sq ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin #1
User-provided 0.133
Time of Concentration 0.133
========
Basin #2
User-provided 0.133
Time of Concentration 0.133
========
Basin #3
User-provided 0.133
Time of Concentration 0.133
========
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 6/19/2019 6:08:05 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_PostDev
Post-Development Basin Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Land Use and Curve Number Details
Sub-Area Hydrologic Sub-Area Curve
Identifier Land Use Soil Area Number
Group (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin #1 Open space; grass cover 50% to 75% (fair) B 1.4 69
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways B 3.9 98
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 5.3 90
=== ==
Basin #2 Open space; grass cover 50% to 75% (fair) B .82 69
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways B 3.38 98
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 4.2 92
=== ==
Basin #3 Open space; grass cover 50% to 75% (fair) B 2 69
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways B 10.5 98
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 12.5 93
==== ==
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 6/19/2019 6:08:05 PM

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.6 -

APPENDIX F
NRCS CUMBERLAND COUNTY SOIL SURVEY MAP
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Cumberland
County, North
Carolina
SOF CIvil Affairs BN
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
October 3, 2016
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For
more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://
offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
2
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call [phone]
(voice) or [phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map..................................................................................................................7
Soil Map................................................................................................................8
Legend..................................................................................................................9
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................10
Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................10
Cumberland County, North Carolina...............................................................12
FaB—Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes.....................................12
GoA—Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Southern Coastal
Plain......................................................................................................13
NoA—Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes........................................14
VaD—Vaucluse loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes..................................15
WaB—Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes.....................................16
References............................................................................................................19
Glossary................................................................................................................21
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
5
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
6
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
7
8
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
388293038829903883050388311038831703883230388329038833503883410388293038829903883050388311038831703883230388329038833503883410679140 679200 679260 679320 679380 679440 679500
679140 679200 679260 679320 679380 679440 679500
35° 4' 39'' N 79° 2' 7'' W35° 4' 39'' N79° 1' 51'' W35° 4' 23'' N
79° 2' 7'' W35° 4' 23'' N
79° 1' 51'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 35 70 140 210
Meters
Map Scale: 1:2,520 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Cumberland County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 29, 2015
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Feb 14, 2011—Mar 3,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
9
Map Unit Legend
Cumberland County, North Carolina (NC051)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
FaB Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes
16.2 49.2%
GoA Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes, Southern
Coastal Plain
2.2 6.6%
NoA Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
0.9 2.8%
VaD Vaucluse loamy sand, 8 to 15
percent slopes
0.7 2.1%
WaB Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6
percent slopes
12.9 39.2%
Totals for Area of Interest 32.8 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
Cumberland County, North Carolina
FaB—Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: w70c
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Faceville and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Faceville
Setting
Landform: Broad interstream divides on marine terraces, ridges on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Clayey marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loamy sand
E - 7 to 17 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 17 to 80 inches: clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
GoA—Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Southern Coastal
Plain
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2v750
Elevation: 110 to 300 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 280 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Goldsboro and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Goldsboro
Setting
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, broad interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 9 inches: loamy sand
E - 9 to 12 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 12 to 62 inches: sandy clay loam
Btg - 62 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 24 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
Minor Components
Norfolk
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Landform: Broad interstream divides on marine terraces, flats on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across-slope shape: Convex, linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Lynchburg
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, broad interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
NoA—Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: w71h
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Norfolk and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Norfolk
Setting
Landform: Broad interstream divides on marine terraces, flats on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 9 inches: loamy sand
E - 9 to 14 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 14 to 70 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 70 to 100 inches: sandy clay loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 40 to 72 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 1
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Rains, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces, carolina bays on marine terraces, broad
interstream divides on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
VaD—Vaucluse loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: w72d
Elevation: 80 to 660 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Vaucluse and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Vaucluse
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy and sandy marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: loamy sand
E - 6 to 15 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 15 to 29 inches: sandy clay loam
Btx - 29 to 58 inches: sandy clay loam
BC - 58 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 15 to 35 inches to fragipan
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Loamy Backslope Woodland - PROVISIONAL (F137XY006GA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Bibb, undrained
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Johnston, undrained
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
WaB—Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: w72m
Custom Soil Resource Report
16
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Wagram and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wagram
Setting
Landform: Broad interstream divides on marine terraces, ridges on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: loamy sand
E - 8 to 24 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 24 to 75 inches: sandy clay loam
BC - 75 to 83 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 60 to 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Bibb, undrained
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Johnston, undrained
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
17
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
18
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
19
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
20

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.7 -

APPENDIX G
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING REPORT

HQ:   3015 DUMBARTON ROAD    RICHMOND, VA   23228    USA     T 804.264.2701      F 804.264.1202     www.fandr.com 
VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  
A Minority‐Owned Business 

Report of Subsurface Exploration and 
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 

Large TEMF – SOF Civil Affairs BN Complex 
FY‐17 / PN 69552 
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 
F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 

Prepared For: 
ACC Construction Company, Inc. 
635‐A NW Frontage Road 
Augusta, GA  30907 

Prepared By: 
Froehling & Robertson, Inc. 
310 Hubert Street 
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 

April 12, 2019 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
            PAGE
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................. 1 
1.1  PURPOSE OF STUDY ................................................................................................................... 1 
1.2  SCOPE OF SERVICES.................................................................................................................... 1 
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................................................................................... 1 
2.1  SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 1 
2.2  PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................... 2 
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ............................................................................................. 3 
3.1  FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................... 3 
3.2  LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................ 4 
3.3  SHWT DETERMINATIONS & INFILTRATION TESTING ................................................................. 4 
4.0  SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 5 
4.1  REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 5 
4.2  SOIL CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 5 
4.2.1  Surficial Materials ............................................................................................................. 6 
4.2.2  Possible Fill Soils ................................................................................................................ 6 
4.2.3  Native Soils ......................................................................................................................... 7 
4.3  SOIL MOISTURE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 8 
5.0  GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 9 
5.1  GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATION ..................................................................................... 9 
5.2  BUILDING FOUNDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 11 
5.3  SLAB‐ON‐GRADE FLOORS ......................................................................................................... 12 
5.4  RETAINING WALLS ................................................................................................................... 13 
5.5  PAVEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 1 5 
5.5.1  GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 15 
5.7.2  FLEXIBLE ASPHALT PAVEMENT ................................................................................................... 16 
5.7.3  RIGID CONCRETE PAVEMENT ..................................................................................................... 16 
5.6  CUT AND FILL SLOPES ............................................................................................................... 17 
6.0  GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 18 
6.1  SITE PREPARATION .................................................................................................................. 18 
6.2  STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ......................................................................... 20 
6.3  FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................... 21 
6.4  FLOOR SLAB CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... 22 
6.5  PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................... 23 
6.6  SLOPE CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................. 23 
6.7  TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ....................................................................................................... 24 
7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES ....................................................................................... 24 
8.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 25  

APPENDIX I  SITE VICINITY MAP, FIGURE 1 
    BORING LOCATION PLAN, FIGURE 2 
  SUBSURFACE PROFILES, FIGURES 3 to 5 

APPENDIX II KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART 
  BORING LOGS 

APPENDIX III LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS 

APPENDIX IV SHWT DETERMINATION & INFILTRATION TESTING 

APPENDIX V CALCULATIONS 

 APPENDIX VI USACE “Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering 
Report” dated November 2, 2016 

APPENDIX VII GBA DOCUMENT “IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR 
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  1  April 12, 2019 

1.0  PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 
1.1  PURPOSE OF STUDY 
The purpose of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation was to 
explore the subsurface conditions in the building, pavement and stormwater pond areas by 
performing a series of soil test borings and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations 
that can be used during the design and construction phases of the project. 
1.2  SCOPE OF SERVICES 
F&R’s scope of services included the following: 
 Review  of  the  U.S.  Army  Corps  of  Engineers  (USACE)  report  titled  “Preliminary 
Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report” dated November 2, 2016;  
 Completion of 17 supplemental soil test borings to depths ranging from 5 to 55 feet 
below the existing ground surface; 
 Preparation of typed Boring Logs and development of Subsurface Profiles; 
 Performing laboratory testing on representative soil samples; 
 Performing seasonal high water table (SHWT) determinations and infiltration testing; 
 Performing  a  geotechnical  engineering  evaluation  of  the  subsurface  conditions  with 
regard to their suitability for the proposed construction; and, 
 Preparation of this geotechnical report by professional engineers.  
2.0  PROJECT INFORMATION 
2.1  SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 
The project site is located on the north side of Mountain Viper Drive at a point approximately 
600 feet east of its intersection with Ammo Pointe Boulevard (see Figure No. 1 in Appendix I).  
The project site covers an area of approximately 22 acres and consists primarily of undeveloped 
wooded land, and is bordered by paved roads and recently developed property on all sides of 
the site. A paved road crosses the site in a north‐south direction on the east side of the project. 
Topographically,  the  ground  surface  slopes  generally  downhill  toward  a  central  drainage 
feature that traverses the site in an east‐west direction. Drainage of the property along this 

ACC Construction  F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF 2 April 12, 2019 

drainage feature flows toward the western side of the property from most areas of the site 
including discharge from 4 to 6 foot deep ditches along the eastern boundary of the project. At 
the lower western side of the site, it appeared that discharge from the east‐west drainage 
feature flows into a concrete box inlet that carries site runoff to offsite areas. Existing site 
grades vary from about elevations (EL) 244 to 248 along the higher perimeter north, south and 
eastern borders of the property to lower elevations of EL 235 to 240 along the major drainage 
features that traverse the site.  No groundwater was observed in the major drainage features at 
the time of our recent exploration. However, water was observed in several of the drainage 
features during a subsequent site reconnaissance that was performed within 1 to 2 days of 
rainfall across the area.  
2.2  PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 
The  project  will  include  the  construction  of  an  approximately  58,200  square  feet  Tactical 
Equipment Maintenance Facility (TEMF) and four 7,350 square feet each organizational storage 
buildings (A, B, C and D). The TEMF building will be a two‐story steel frame structure. Structural 
information related to the proposed buildings were not available at the time of this report 
preparation.  However,  based  on  our  recent  communication  with  Mason  &  Hanger,  it  is 
anticipated that column loads will range from approximately 30 to 90 kips.  The maximum slab‐
on‐grade live load is 250 psf. No retaining wall construction is proposed for the project with the 
exception of elevator pit walls for the elevator construction inside the building.  
Preliminary grading plans furnished to F&R for the project indicate that the TEMF building, 
which will be located at the northern end of the project, will have a finished floor elevation of 
247.25. Grading for the TEMF building will require maximum fill depths of 4 feet to establish the 
floor slab subgrade.  No earth cuts will be required. Grading for the storage buildings that are 
located to the north and west of the TEMF building will require approximately 2 to 10 feet of fill 
placement for the western storage building and 2 to 3 feet or less of cut for the two northern 
storage buildings.  

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  3  April 12, 2019 

The majority of the 22 acre tract of property outside the proposed building limits will be graded 
as a paved parking lot with a capacity for 735 parking spaces. Grading for the parking lot will 
primarily require fill placement with fill depths typically on the order of 2 to 6 feet; however, fill 
depths will increase to 7 to 10 feet to finish grade the lower elevation swale feature at the 
central western portion of the site.  We understand the pavement for the parking lot will be of 
concrete  construction.  Two  storm  water  treatment  basins  will  be constructed along the 
western  border  of  the  site  and  a  third  basin  is  planned  along  the  southern  margin  of  the 
project.   
3.0  EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 
3.1  FIELD EXPLORATION 
The  subsurface  conditions  explored  by  F&R  during  this  phase  of the  project  consisted  of 
performing a total of 17 soil test borings (C‐1 to C‐17) to depths ranging from 5 to 55 feet (see 
Figure 2 in Appendix I).  The locations of the nine preliminary test borings (B‐1 to B‐9) performed 
by F&R in 2016 for the USACE are also presented in Figure 2.  The associated USACE preliminary 
geotechnical report is included in Appendix VI.  
The test borings were established in the field by F&R using a Trimble GPS unit with reported sub 
meter accuracy.  Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were interpolated from the 
furnished preliminary grading plan.  Given the method of determination, the boring locations 
and ground surface elevations should only be considered approximate.  
The test borings were advanced by a track mounted drill rig using 2‐1/4” inside diameter (I.D.) 
hollow stem augers drilling for borehole stabilization.  Representative soil samples were obtained 
using a standard two‐inch outside diameter (O.D.) split barrel sampler in general accordance with 
ASTM D 1586, Penetration Test and Split‐Barrel Sampling of Soils (Standard Penetration Test).  
The  number  of  blows  required  to  drive  the  split  barrel  sampler three  consecutive  6‐inch 
increments  with  an  automatic  hammer  is  recorded  and  the  blows  of the last two 6‐inch 
increments are added to obtain the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N‐values representing the 
penetration  resistance  of  the  soil.  Standard  Penetration  Tests were  performed  almost 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  4  April 12, 2019 

continuously to a depth of 10 feet and at a nominal interval of no greater than 5 feet thereafter.   
A representative portion of soil was obtained from each SPT sample, sealed in an eight‐ounce glass 
jar, labeled and transported to our laboratory for final classification and analysis by a geotechnical 
engineer.  The soil samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification 
System (USCS), using visual‐manual identification procedures (ASTM D 2488).  A Boring Log for each 
test boring is presented in Appendix II.  
Water level measurements were attempted at each boring at the termination of drilling and 
again  after  a  stabilization  period  of  approximately  24  hours.  Additionally,  temporary 
observation wells were installed in borings C‐1, C‐2, C‐4 to C‐9, C‐11 and C‐17 at completion of 
drilling to aid in obtaining stabilized groundwater readings.  The observation wells consisted of 
1‐inch diameter hand‐slotted PVC pipe inserted into the borehole. 
3.2  LABORATORY TESTING 
Representative soil samples were subjected to geotechnical index testing consisting of Natural 
Moisture  Content,  Atterberg  Limits  and  Sieve  Analysis.    Additionally,  moisture‐density 
relationship testing (Proctor Test) and CBR tests were performed on bulk soil samples obtained 
from borings C‐12 and C‐15.  The purpose of the geotechnical laboratory testing was to aid in 
our  classification  of  the  samples  and  development  of  engineering recommendations.  The 
completed laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix III. 
3.3  SHWT DETERMINATIONS & INFILTRATION TESTING  
Seasonal high water table (SHWT) determinations and infiltration testing were performed at 
two locations at each of the three stormwater ponds. The infiltration testing was performed 
using  a  compact  constant‐head  permeameter  to  determine  the  saturated  hydraulic 
conductivity (KSAT).  F&R retained Three Oaks Engineering to perform the SHWT determinations 
and infiltration testing, and a report of this work is included in Appendix IV.  The work was 
conducted by a NC Licensed Soil Scientist. 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  5  April 12, 2019 

4.0   SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 
4.1  REGIONAL GEOLOGY  
The referenced site is located within the Coastal Plain Province of North Carolina.  The Coastal 
Plain Province is a broad flat plain with widely spaced low rolling hills where the near surface soils 
have their origin from the deposition of sediments several million years ago during the period that 
the ocean receded from this area to its present location along the Atlantic Coast.  It is noted that 
the Coastal Plain soils vary in thickness from only a few feet along the western border (one to two 
counties west of the site) to over ten thousand feet in some areas along the coast.  Our test 
borings were terminated in Coastal Plain soils. 
According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985), the site is located within an area mapped 
as Cretaceous period deposits and is comprised of sedimentary deposits that appear to be located 
within the Middendorf Formation.  The Middendorf   Formation is also described as sandy deposits 
that vary in color from gray to pale gray with an orange cast with discontinuous bedding with cross 
bedding common. 
4.2  SOIL CONDITIONS 
The  subsurface conditions  discussed  in  this  section  and those  shown  on  the  attached  F&R 
Boring Logs in Appendix II represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on an 
interpretation of the boring data using normally‐accepted, geotechnical engineering judgments. 
Although individual soil test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at the 
boring  locations  on  the  dates  shown,  they  are  not  necessarily  indicative  of  subsurface 
conditions at other locations or at other times. Subsurface Profiles have been prepared from 
the boring data to graphically illustrate the subsurface conditions encountered at the site. The 
Subsurface Profiles are presented as Figure Nos. 3 to 5 in Appendix I. Strata breaks designated 
on the boring logs and subsurface profiles represent approximate boundaries between soil 
types. The transition from one soil type to another may be gradual or occur between soil 
samples.  This  section  of  the  report  provides  a  general  discussion  of  subsurface  conditions 
encountered  in  F&R’s  borings  within  areas  of  proposed  construction.  More  detailed 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  6  April 12, 2019 

descriptions of the subsurface conditions at the individual boring locations are presented on 
the  boring  logs.    It  is  also  noted  that  the  preliminary  test  boring  data  presented  in  the 
geotechnical report prepared by the USACE is included in Appendix VI. 
4.2.1  Surficial Materials 
The test borings typically encountered a layer of Surficial Organic Soil from the ground surface to 
depths ranging from approximately 0.2 to 0.7 feet. In some of the borings, roots extended to depths 
ranging from 2 to 6 feet. Surficial organic soils were not encountered in borings C‐10 and C‐13. The 
Surficial  Organic  Soils  generally  consisted  of  dark‐colored  soil  material  containing  roots,  fibrous 
matter, and/or other organic components, and is generally unsuitable for engineering purposes. 
F&R  has  not  performed  any  laboratory  testing  to  determine  the  organic  content  or  other 
horticultural properties of the observed Surficial Organic Soil materials. Therefore, the term Surficial 
Organic  Soil  is  not  intended  to  indicate  suitability  for  landscaping  and/or  other  purposes.  The 
Surficial Organic Soil depths provided in this report are based on driller observations and should be 
considered  approximate.  We  note  that  the  transition  from  Surficial  Organic  Soil  to  underlying 
materials may be gradual, and therefore the observation and measurement of the Surficial Organic 
Soil depths is subjective. Actual Surficial Organic Soil depths should be expected to vary.   
4.2.2  Possible Fill Soils 
Material that F&R believes may be fill (referred to as “possible fill” on the attached boring log) 
was encountered in boring C‐16 to a depth of 2 feet. The possible fill soils exhibited a Standard 
Penetration Test (SPT) N‐value of 15 blows per foot (bpf) and consisted of medium dense silty 
sand (USCS – SM soil) with trace fine to coarse gravel. SPT N‐values of 9 bpf or greater are 
generally indicative of these type fill soils being well compacted. In general, it appears that the fill 
was well‐compacted; however, the presence of gravel in the fill may have amplified the SPT N‐
value. 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  7  April 12, 2019 

4.2.3  Native Soils 
The test borings typically encountered silty or clayey sand (USCS ‐ SM and SC soils) and low to 
moderate plasticity fine sandy clay and silt (CL and ML soils) below the surficial organic soils and 
extending  to  the  termination  depths  of  5  to  55  feet  in  the  borings. Borings B‐5 and C‐3 
encountered fine sands with varying minor amounts of silt and clay (SP soils) to depths of 2 to 
3.5 and 37 to 47 feet, respectively. A layer of highly plastic clay soil with varying amounts of fine 
sand (CH soils) was encountered in boring C‐6 from a depth of 22 feet to the termination depth 
25 feet of the boring.   
Very loose soils with SPT N‐value of 4 bpf or less were encountered in about half of the recent 
borings in the upper 2 to 3.5 feet of the soil profile.  Below depths of 2 to 3.5 feet, the SPT N‐
values of the sandy soils typically increased to 6 to 10 bpf to depths of 5 to 6 feet and then to 
generally 12 to 25 bpf or higher below these levels. A deeper layer of loose to very loose sandy 
soils exhibiting SPT values of 3 to 8 bpf was encountered in boring C‐3 from a depth of 37 to 55 
feet. A majority of the cohesionless (sandy) soils had relative densities ranging from loose to 
dense with SPT N‐values ranging from 5 to 42 blows per foot (bpf).  The cohesive (clayey) soils 
had consistencies ranging from firm to stiff with SPT N‐values ranging from 7 to 14 bpf.  
In addition, a petroleum odor was noted in boring C‐16 from a depth of 2 to 5 feet. 
The subsurface conditions encountered in F&R’s preliminary borings performed for USACE in 
2016  were  generally  very  similar  to  the  conditions  encountered in  our  recent  borings  as 
described above. That is, very loose to loose sandy soils exhibiting SPT values of 2 to 8 bpf were 
typically encountered in the upper 2 to 4 feet of the soil profile and were underlain by higher 
consistency soils throughout the remaining 10 to 20 foot depths of these borings.  

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  8  April 12, 2019 

4.3  SOIL MOISTURE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 
The sampled soils were generally observed to be moist to wet or saturated (considered to be 5 to 
6 percent or greater above the estimated optimum moisture content) from the ground surface to 
depths of 2 to 6 feet, and then again below depths of approximately 8.5 to 13 feet and extending 
to termination depth of the borings.  The shallow relatively wet soil conditions appear to be 
primarily related to infiltration into the sandy soils from runoff and/or from development of 
perched water that may occur during periods of wet weather. The underlying wet soils may also 
be somewhat related to trapped or perched water in the overburden, but are also related to the 
presence of the underlying groundwater table.  
Groundwater level readings were recorded in the borings upon completion of drilling. After a 24 
hour stabilization period following completion of drilling operations, groundwater level readings 
were again recorded in the borings. Also, temporary piezometers were installed in 10 of our 
recently drilled borings (C‐1, C‐2, C‐4 to C‐9, C‐11 and C‐17) to facilitate obtaining stabilized 
groundwater levels. Stabilized groundwater was recorded in seven of our recently deeper drilled 
borings (C‐1 to C‐6 and C‐11) at depths ranging from approximately 14 to 22 feet. It is noted that 
F&R’s previously performed borings (B‐1 to B‐9) were backfilled after completion of drilling and 
thus  no  stabilized  groundwater  levels  were  recorded  in  these  borings.  However,  upon 
completion of drilling, groundwater was observed in B‐5 and B‐9 at depths of 5 and 6 feet, 
respectively, just before backfilling of the borings.  It appears that the water levels in these 
borings may reflect shallow perched conditions due to infiltration of surface runoff into the more 
permeable sandy soils above depths of 5 to 6 feet at these locations.  This  would  not  be 
considered unexpected, especially at B‐5 which was drilled at the lower end of the east‐west 
running drainage feature where most of the site runoff is directed. 
Based on the observed groundwater readings, it does not appear that the static water table will 
be encountered during mass grading of the site or foundation construction given the relatively 
shallow planned cut depths.  However, wet soils conditions were noted in most of the borings 
within depths of 2 to 3 feet of the ground surface and as such, could be encountered during 
construction.  In addition, due to the presence of relatively impermeable shallow clayey sands 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  9  April 12, 2019 

and underlying clayey soils, perched water conditions should also be anticipated during periods 
of inclement weather and during seasonally wet periods.  
It  should  be  noted  that  soil  moisture  and  groundwater  elevations  vary  depending  upon 
seasonal factors such as precipitation and temperature.  As previously indicated, perched or 
trapped water could develop at shallow depths in the soil profile during periods of inclement 
weather and during seasonally wet periods. As such, soil moisture and groundwater conditions 
at other times of the year may vary or be different from those observed at the time of this 
exploration and described in this report. 
5.0   GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 
5.1  GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATION 
The geotechnical engineering recommendations contained in this section of the report are based 
upon the results of the 17 recent and nine previous soil test borings performed by F&R, our review 
of the preliminary geotechnical report provided by the USACE, the laboratory testing results, the 
limited  information  provided  regarding  the  proposed  development,  and  our  familiarity  with 
geotechnical engineering practices in this area.  It is our opinion that the subsurface conditions 
encountered at the project site are suitable for the proposed construction from a geotechnical 
engineering  perspective  provided  the  recommendations  presented in  this  report  are  followed 
throughout the design and construction phases of this project.  As building design progresses, F&R 
requests  an  opportunity  to  review  project  plans  and  specifications to confirm that the 
recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented, and 
to determine if additional geotechnical recommendations are warranted.  
The presence of very loose soils in the upper 2 to 4 feet of the soil profile and wet soil conditions 
that extend to depths of 2 to 8.5 feet will require conventional ground improvement and repair 
activities to create stable subgrades and bearing grades. Although some of the very loose soils will 
be removed during site stripping activities, very loose/wet and unstable soils will likely be present 
following stripping and may require undercutting and/or other repair activities (e.g., manipulation, 

ACC Construction  F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF 10 April 12, 2019 

drying and re‐compaction) in order to establish stable subgrades that are suitable to support the 
proposed building and pavements.  
Depending on the time of year of construction and prevalent weather conditions, standing water 
could be present in the deeper drainage features across the site. In these areas, drainage of the 
water would be required prior to backfilling operations. Also, depending on the stability of the 
exposed subgrades in the swale features, the best approach to repairing these areas of the parking 
lot may be to spread 1.5 to 2.5 feet of clean sand (less than 10 to 15 percent fines) over the 
exposed soils in order to stabilize the in‐place soils instead of attempting to undercut soft, wet 
near surface soils in the swale areas. Subsequent to stabilizing the exposed subgrade, backfilling 
the areas to finished grade levels may be accomplished. It appears that most of the major swale 
features are located in the areas to be paved and will typically require 3 to 5 feet of fill to reach 
finished grade levels.  
It is expected that some of the cut soils from mass grading operations and some of the excavated 
soils  from  utility  trenches  will  be  wet  and  require  drying  in  order  to  be  successfully  used  as 
compacted structural fill and backfill.  The on‐site soils also contain significant fines (silt and clay 
size particles) to render them moisture sensitive.  Due to the moisture sensitivity of the on‐site 
soils, it is typically recommended that earthwork operations be performed during the seasonally 
drier months (typically May to October) when weather conditions are more conducive to moisture 
conditioning of earth fill (i.e., drying of wet soil, or wetting of dry soil) and achieving proper 
compaction of structural fill. If earthwork is performed during the seasonally wet months, it may 
be difficult to properly compact structural fill and additional subgrade undercutting and repair will 
likely be required.   
Subsequent to approved subgrade repairs and bringing below‐grade areas to finished grade levels 
with adequately compacted structural fill, the site should be suitable for support of the proposed 
structure  on  conventional  shallow  spread  foundations  that  are  sized for a net allowable soil 
bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. 

ACC Construction  F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF 11 April 12, 2019 

5.2  BUILDING FOUNDATIONS 
The project site is suitable to support the proposed structure on conventional shallow spread 
foundations  provided  the  site  preparation,  subgrade  repair  and fill  placement 
recommendations presented in this report are followed. 
For foundations bearing on medium dense/stiff native soils or properly compacted structural fill 
overlying approved native materials, F&R recommends the use of a net allowable soil bearing 
pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for the design of  foundations.    Spread 
foundations should bear directly upon approved structural fill or native soils and should be 
embedded at least 24 inches below adjacent exterior grades for bearing capacity and frost 
protection considerations.  Wall foundations should have a minimum width of at least 2 feet 
and column foundations should have a minimum width of at least 3 feet.  Final foundation sizes 
should be determined by the project structural engineer based on actual design loads, building 
code requirements and other structural considerations.  
For foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided 
in this report, we have estimated that maximum total settlements will be on the order of 0.75 
inches to 1 inch for column loads in the 80 to 90 kip range.  Maximum differential settlements 
should be on the order of ½‐inch.  We anticipate that such settlements will be structurally 
acceptable to building; however, this should be verified by the Project Structural Engineer. 
The borings generally encountered loose to dense sandy soils underlain by firm to stiff clayey 
soils in the upper 20 feet of the soil profile which were in turn underlain by typically medium 
dense to loose sands to boring termination.  In accordance with procedures outlined in the 
2018 NC Building Code (IBC 2015) for determining seismic Site Class, a weighted average of the 
soil conditions in the upper 100 feet was performed using SPT N‐values with the reasonable 
assumption that medium dense to dense soils are present below the maximum 55 foot depth 
explored.  Based on this evaluation of the SPT N‐values, the soil profile indicates a seismic Site 
Class “D” is applicable to the project.   

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  12  April 12, 2019 

F&R was informed by Mason & Hangar that the project is Risk Category II.  F&R recommends 
the following site coefficients and acceleration parameters: 
 Ss = 0.21  (per UFC 3‐301‐01) 
 S1 = 0.10  (per UFC 3‐301‐01) 
 Fa = 1.6  (per IBC 2015 & ASCE 7‐10) 
 Fv = 2.4  (per IBC 2015 & ASCE 7‐10) 
 SMS = 0.336  (per IBC 2015 & ASCE 7‐10) 
 SM1 = 0.240  (per IBC 2015 & ASCE 7‐10) 
 SDS =  0.224  (per IBC 2015 & ASCE 7‐10) 
 SD1 = 0.160  (per IBC 2015 & ASCE 7‐10) 
 Seismic Design Category = C (SD1 condition governs per IBC 2015) 
Although F&R has not performed a formal liquefaction evaluation, it is F&R’s opinion that there 
does not appear to be a significant potential for liquefaction of the soils that underlie the site 
above depths 35 to 40 feet due to the generally medium dense to dense consistency of these 
materials, relatively high fines content observed in the soil samples and the plasticity of the 
finer grained soils encountered at the site.  Also, the potential for liquefaction of the lower 
consistency sands encountered below depths of 37 feet in boring C‐3 also appears relatively 
remote due to the deep groundwater table (19 to 20 feet or more below existing grades) 
encountered across the site. In addition, based on the available boring data, the 10 to 20 feet 
thick layer of medium dense to dense overburden soils would limit the likelihood of the more 
damaging effects from liquefaction of the loose sands encountered between depths of 37 and 
55 feet. 
5.3  SLAB‐ON‐GRADE FLOORS 
Ground floors may be designed as a slab‐on‐grade. We recommend that a modulus of subgrade 
reaction (k) of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) be used for slab design.  The subgrade soils for 
support of floor slabs should be prepared as outlined in subsequent sections of this report.  The 
floor slab should be supported on at least 4 inches of NCDOT #57 to provide a uniformly well‐
compacted material immediately beneath the slab.  The floor slab should be underlain by a 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  13  April 12, 2019 

vapor retarder to reduce the potential for floor slab dampness.  Vapor retarder construction 
should be performed in accordance with applicable ACI guidelines. 
Floor slab design and construction should incorporate isolation joints around columns, utility 
penetrations,  and  along  bearing  walls  to  allow  for  differential  movement  to  occur  without 
damage to the floor.  Final slab design should be determined by the project structural engineer 
based on actual design loads, building code requirements and other structural considerations. 
5.4  RETAINING WALLS 
We understand there are no retaining walls associated with the building construction except for 
elevator pit walls for the elevators to be constructed in the TEMF building. The elevator pit 
walls  are  anticipated  to  conventional  cast‐in‐place  concrete  walls  that  are  laterally  loaded.  
Conventional, cast‐in‐place concrete retaining walls should be designed to resist applied earth 
pressures.  Laterally loaded walls that are restrained from movement, such as the pit walls, or 
walls that are braced on the top and bottom by structural framing, should be designed based 
on at‐rest lateral earth pressures.  If the on‐site sandy soils or low plasticity sandy clays are 
used to backfill the walls, the walls should be designed using an at‐rest coefficient (ko) of 0.60.  
Assuming a moist backfill unit weight of 115 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), F&R recommends that 
an at‐rest earth pressure equivalent fluid weight (EFW) of 70 pcf be used in design.  No highly 
plastic silt or clay soils should be used as backfill for retaining walls. 
Exterior cast in‐place walls, which will be designed to be able to rotate slightly at the top of the 
wall, should be designed based on active lateral earth pressure conditions.  Assuming the walls 
will be backfilled with on‐site sands or low plasticity sandy clays, the walls should be designed 
using an active coefficient (ka) of 0.40.  Assuming a moist backfill unit weight of 115 pounds per 
cubic foot (pcf), F&R recommends that an active earth pressure equivalent fluid weight (EFW) 
of 45 pcf be used in design.   
For sliding resistance along the base of the foundation, a friction factor (tan δ) of 0.35 should be 
utilized.  For cases where passive earth pressure resisting forces are present, a passive earth 
pressure coefficient (kp) of 1.5 can be used in design where foundation faces bear directly 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  14  April 12, 2019 

against undisturbed stiff native/residual soils or well compacted structural fill; this coefficient 
incorporates a factor of safety of 2.0 to limit the amount of movement to mobilize the passive 
resistance.  Assuming an in‐situ density of approximately 100 pcf for native undisturbed soils, 
the passive earth pressure EFW would be 150 pcf.  It is recommended that the upper 2 feet of 
soil not be considered as contributing to the passive resistance due to possible disturbances 
during construction (e.g., installation of utilities, re‐grading, etc.).  
Lateral earth pressures arising from surcharge loading, foundations in the backfill zone, and 
earthquake loading should be added to the above soil earth pressures to determine the total 
lateral earth pressure, which the walls must resist.  In addition, transient loads imposed on the 
walls by construction equipment during backfilling should be taken into account during design. 
Compaction of backfill behind the walls should be on the order of 92 percent of the Modified 
Proctor maximum dry density in structural areas.  In non‐structural areas, backfill compaction 
can be reduced to 90 percent.  Excessive compaction may cause damage to the walls.  Walls 
should  be  adequately  braced  during  compaction  of  the  wall  backfill.    Heavy  compaction 
equipment should not be allowed within 10 feet of the walls. 
Although groundwater is not expected above the base of the walls, F&R recommends that 
laterally loaded walls be provided with a drainage system to maintain the wall backfill in a 
drained condition at all times such that the walls are not subject to hydrostatic pressures.  We 
recommend that a one‐foot wide zone of free‐draining NCDOT #57 washed stone be 
constructed  adjacent  to  the  back  of  the  walls  and  extend  down  to  a  foundation  drain 
(perforated drain pipe).  A geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 180N or equivalent) should be placed 
between the washed stone drainage layer and the remaining backfill material.  The foundation 
drain should be positively graded to allow drainage of any water that may collect in the wall 
backfill. It is assumed that the collection drain will be designed for gravity discharge of collected 
seepage in the backfill. It is recommended that the fabric encased washed stone extend to 
within approximately 12 inches of the ground surface and covered with more impermeable silty 
clayey soils in order to help prevent surface runoff or infiltration from rainfall being directed 
into the wall drain backfill.   Alternatively, a geo‐composite drainage material such as Miradrain 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  15  April 12, 2019 

6000 may be installed against the wall and connected to an appropriately designed footing 
drain to suitably outlet collected water.  The foundation drain should be positively graded to 
allow drainage of any water that may collect in the wall backfill. 
5.5  PAVEMENTS 
5.5.1  GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 
A  paved  parking  lot  with  approximately  735  parking  spaces  is  proposed  south  of  the  TEMF 
building and is proposed to be of concrete construction. Although no flexible pavements were 
indicated in the RFP for this project, at your request we are providing flexible pavement design 
parameters assuming that the same traffic information furnished for the rigid pavement design is 
applicable to flexible pavements.  
The project RFP indicates that the rigid pavements should be designed to support one 10‐kip 
forklift per day, 10 heavy tactical vehicles (HEMTT A4 M984A4 Wrecker with 25 Ton trailer) per 
day, 20 medium tactical vehicles (one 22‐kip tandem axle and one 8‐kip single axle) per day, 500 
two 5‐kip axles passes per day, one fire apparatus (one 23‐kip tandem axle and one 54‐kip single 
axle) per week, one front‐loading refuse truck (one 46‐kip tandem axle and one 20‐kip single 
axle) per week and two tractor‐trailers (two 36‐kip tandem axle and one 8‐kip single axle) per 
week.   
The pavement subgrade materials are anticipated to consist of silty/clayey sand (USCS –SM/SC) 
or low to moderate plasticity sandy silty clay soils (CL soils). Even though not anticipated, if highly 
plastic clays are encountered at the pavement subgrade level, they should be replaced with 
approved lower plasticity soils or granular materials.   
As part of our exploration, F&R obtained two bulk samples of the near surface soils from borings 
C‐12 and C‐15, and subjected them to proctor and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing (ASTM 
D‐1883) to assist us in evaluating soil subgrade strength. The laboratory testing indicated an 
average  soaked  CBR  values  of  10.9  and  33.5  at  the  0.2”  penetration  reading  for  a  samples 
compacted to 96.9 percent Standard Proctor maximum (ASTM D‐698) near optimum moisture 
content. Typical CBR values for soils similar to those encountered at the site would be expected 

ACC Construction  F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF 16 April 12, 2019 

to be in the range of generally 4 to 15. The laboratory results are located in Appendix III.  Based 
on the results of the CBR testing and some expected variation of near surface soils across the 
site, a CBR value of 10 was used for design purposes, which correlates to a modulus of subgrade 
reaction (k‐values) of 200 pci. 
5.7.2  FLEXIBLE ASPHALT PAVEMENT  
F&R performed a flexible asphalt pavement design using the NCDOT Pavement Design Procedure 
based  on  a  design  life  of  25  years.  We  used  previously  presented traffic volume for rigid 
pavements for flexible pavements analysis. As such, the traffic volume for flexible pavements is 
equal to approximately 1,588 daily 18‐kip equivalent single axle loads (ESAL).  Based on the 
above subgrade parameters and traffic volume, we recommend the following flexible pavement 
section over a prepared subgrade: 
Traffic 
NCDOT Asphalt 
Concrete 
Surface, 
Type SF9.5B or C 
NCDOT Asphalt 
Concrete 
Intermediate  
Course, Type I 19.0 
B 
NCDOT 
Pavement Base 
Course, Type 
B25.0B 
NCDOT  
ABC Stone 
Base Course 
Thickness  

Total 
Thicknes
s 
‐ As provided in 
the RFP 

1.5”  4”  4”  8”  11” 

5.7.3  RIGID CONCRETE PAVEMENT 
F&R  performed  a  rigid  asphalt  pavement  design  using  the  USACE  PCASE computer model 
(Version 2.09.02) based on a design life of 25 years.  The previously presented traffic volume for 
rigid pavement is equal to approximately 1,588 daily 18‐kip equivalent single axle loads (ESAL).  
Based  on  the  above  subgrade  parameters  and  traffic  volume  it  is  recommended  that  the 
concrete pavement section be at least 6 inches thick  and be underlain by at least 6 inches of well 
compacted NCDOT ABC stone.  
Concrete  pavements  should  be  constructed  of  air‐entrained  concrete  with  a  28‐day  design 
compressive  strength  of  at  least  4,500  psi  and  a  flexural  strength  of  at  least  650  psi.    The 
contractor  should  submit  a  concrete  mix  design  to  the  designer  for  approval  prior  to 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  17  April 12, 2019 

construction.  All concrete pavements should be designed and constructed in accordance with 
UFC 3‐250‐01, ACI 330R‐08 and ACI 250.12R, as applicable, including requirements for jointing 
and curing.   
5.6  CUT AND FILL SLOPES 
Although it appears that there will likely be no significant slope construction on this project, 
should modifications in design result in construction of slopes, F&R recommends designing 
permanent project slopes on a grade of 3H:1V or flatter. The tops of slopes should normally be 
located a minimum of 10 feet from structural limits. If steeper slopes are planned, F&R should 
be contacted during early grading plan development to perform slope stability analyses prior to 
finalizing the grading plans. It is F&R’s opinion that 3H:1V slopes will be stable from a slope 
stability standpoint, for slope heights not exceeding 10 to 15 feet, provided the fill slopes are 
constructed of properly compacted and tested structural fill and that the slopes are constructed 
on subgrades approved by F&R. However, seepage and surface runoff may cause the slopes to 
slough and erode resulting in shallow surface failures. The slopes should be vegetated as soon 
as possible to minimize surface sloughing and erosion. A swale or shallow ditch should be 
constructed near the tops of slopes to prevent surface water from flowing onto the slopes. We 
recommend  that  all  cut  and  fill  slopes  be  observed  by  a  geotechnical  engineer  or  his 
representative during construction. Additional slope drainage and protection measures may be 
required  in  certain  areas  depending  upon  conditions  observed  at the time of slope 
construction. 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  18  April 12, 2019 

6.0   GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 
6.1  SITE PREPARATION 
Initial site preparation should include stripping of vegetation, surficial organic soils and other 
deleterious materials from within the proposed development area.  If any existing utility lines 
are located within the proposed development areas that are below planned finished grades and 
are  to  be  abandoned  (e.g.,  stormwater  lines,  water  lines,  telephone,  etc.),  they  should  be 
removed.  The resulting excavations should be backfilled with controlled structural fill placed in 
accordance with the recommendations presented in other sections of this report.  Open pipes 
or  conduits,  if  left  in‐place,  adjacent  to  the  construction  area  should  be  bulk‐headed  and 
grouted as they might serve as conduits for subsurface erosion.   
Following stripping, we recommend that all areas at or below final subgrade be evaluated by 
the geotechnical engineer and/or proofrolled at his direction.  Proofrolling should be performed 
with a loaded tandem axle dump truck, scraper, or other similar heavy construction equipment 
to confirm the stability of the subgrade soils and detect the presence of soft or unstable areas.  
The  proofrolling  operations  should  be  observed  by  a  geotechnical  engineer  or  his 
representative.  If proofrolling reveals unstable conditions, the method of repair should be as 
directed by the project geotechnical engineer.  Methods of repair may include, but are not 
necessarily limited to drying and re‐compaction; undercutting and replacement with suitable 
structural fill; use of geo‐textiles and/or geo‐grids with select fill or other methods deemed 
appropriate by the project geotechnical engineer.  As previously indicated, very loose soils were 
encountered in the upper 2 to 4 feet of the soil profile at several boring locations.  As such, 
some repair activities of the near‐surface soils should be expected.   
As previously discussed, depending on the time of year of construction and prevalent weather 
conditions, some water could be present in the several drainage features across the site.  The 
water in the drainage features will need to be removed prior to backfilling operations. It is 
expected that the exposed soils may be unstable after the surface water is removed and as 
such, stabilization of the exposed subgrade would be required prior to fill placement. One 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  19  April 12, 2019 

option to consider instead of attempting to undercut significant depths of soft wet soils in the 
deeper  swale  features  of  the  parking  lot  would  be  to  stabilize the  existing  subgrade  by 
placement an initial 1.5 to 2.5 foot thick lift of clean sand (less than 10 % to 15% fines) over the 
exposed subgrade. The purpose of the less moisture sensitive initial clean sand lift is to stabilize 
subgrade  conditions  so  that  the  overlying  soil  type  fill  can  be  adequately  compacted  and 
stabilized.  In building areas that may extend into swale features (south end of west storage 
building),  soft  wet  subgrade  materials  would  need  to  be  undercut  before  stabilizing  the 
subgrade with clean sand due to settlement considerations. 
Depending on the stability of the subgrade at the undercut level, installation of a geotextile or 
geogrid (Tensar BX 1100 or approved equivalent) over the subgrade may be recommended to 
limit undercutting and improve efforts to stabilize the subgrade. Densification of the clean sand 
fill should be accomplished from the surface of the sand lift with a 5 to 10 ton roller as directed 
by the geotechnical engineer. The sand fill should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the 
Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D‐1557).  Subsequent to stabilization of the 
initial lift of sand, any approved soil type fill may be used to bring the area to finished grade 
levels. 
The in‐situ soils are moisture sensitive and can become unstable during normal construction 
traffic and grading activities when wet.  During earthwork and construction activities, surface 
water runoff should be drained away from the construction areas in order to prevent water 
from  ponding  on  or  saturating  the  exposed  soils  within  excavations  or  on  subgrades.  
Otherwise,  weakening  of  subgrades  could  occur,  which  may  result  in  unstable  subgrade 
conditions and necessitate additional undercutting.  If possible, it would be better to perform 
any required earth grading activities during the seasonally dryer months. 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  20  April 12, 2019 

6.2  STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 
The borings predominantly encountered clayey/silty sands and low to moderately plastic sandy 
clays.  These  granular  and  lower‐plasticity  soil  types  are  generally  considered  fair  to  good 
materials for use as structural earth fill.  If soils are required to be imported to the site to 
achieve  subgrade  levels,  F&R  recommends  that  a  qualified  geotechnical  engineer  or 
engineering technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer approve the 
suitability of the imported soils prior to their delivery to the site.  Except for the clean sand 
previously referenced, imported structural fill should consist of low plasticity soil (LL<35, PI<20), 
have a maximum dry density of at least 100 pcf, and be free or organic and other deleterious 
materials.  
Structural earth fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches when large self‐
propelled  compaction  equipment  is  being  utilized  and  in  lifts  not  exceeding  4  inches  for 
small/light compaction equipment (e.g., walk behind Rammax roller).  Structural fill should be 
compacted to at least 92 percent of the Modified Proctor (ASTM D‐1557) maximum dry density.  
Utility trench backfill in load bearing areas should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the 
Modified Proctor (ASTM D‐1557) maximum dry density.  The top 12 inches of all structural fill 
and backfill in building, pavement and other load bearing structure areas should be compacted 
to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density.  Fill and backfill materials 
placed in non‐load bearing areas (e.g., non‐vehicular grassed areas) areas should be compacted 
to at least 85 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. 
The on‐site soils have sufficient silt/clay content to render them moisture sensitive. The on‐site 
soils will become unstable (i.e., pump and rut) during normal construction activities when in the 
presence of excess moisture. Soils with a moisture content greater than three percent above 
the  optimum  moisture  content  are  generally  considered  to  have  excessive  moisture.  It  is 
expected that some of the cut soils from mass grading operations and some of the excavated 
soils from utility trenches will be wet and require drying in order to be successfully used as 
compacted structural fill and backfill.  During earthwork and construction activities, surface‐
water runoff must be drained away from construction areas to prevent water from ponding on 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  21  April 12, 2019 

or saturating the soils within excavations or on subgrades.  It is recommended that earthwork 
be performed during the summer and early fall months (typically May to October) when the 
weather conditions are more conducive to moisture conditioning of fill materials. 
Monitoring of all site preparation activities including stripping, subgrade repairs and density 
testing on each lift of fill/backfill to verify that adequate compaction is being achieved should 
be  performed  by  a  qualified  soils  technician  working  under  the direct  supervision  of  the 
geotechnical engineer. At least one in‐place density test (compaction test) should be performed 
at subgrade and at each layer of structural fill in load bearing building and pavement areas for 
every 2,500 ft2 or less, but in no case fewer than three tests.  For trench backfill, perform at 
least one in‐place density test (compaction test) at subgrade and at each layer of backfill for 
every 100 linear feet or less of trench, but in no case fewer than 2 tests.  In non‐load bearing, 
non‐structural areas, perform one in‐place density test (compaction test) per every 5,000 ft2 of 
fill/backfill per lift. 
6.3  FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION 
We recommend that the footing excavations be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer 
or his representative prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete.  The purpose of the 
observation would be to determine that the foundations bear in suitable native soils at the 
proper  embedment  depths,  and  that  unsuitable  soft  or  loose  materials  are  undercut  and 
backfilled  with  approved  structural  fill  material.    Hand  auguring  and  Dynamic  Cone 
Penetrometer (DCP) testing should be performed at the direction of the project geotechnical 
engineer  to  verify  the  consistency  of  the  bearing  soils  and  underlying  support  soils.    It  is 
recommended that a smooth bladed backhoe bucket be used to remove the final 6 to 12 inches 
of soils above the foundation bearing grade in order to prevent disturbing soils below the 
bearing grade and/or prevent gouging narrow grooves in the  bearing grade as may occur with 
a toothed‐end bucket.   
It is possible that unsuitable soils will be encountered at the foundation bearing grade in some 
areas of the building and undercutting may be recommended by the geotechnical engineer.  If 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  22  April 12, 2019 

undercutting  is  performed,  the  undercut  excavations  should  be  backfilled  with  materials 
approved by the project geotechnical engineer.  Some undercuts may be recommended to be 
backfilled with NCDOT No. 57 washed stone up to the planned bearing grade.  The washed 
stone thickness should not exceed 2 feet before the surface of the washed stone is densified 
with a heavy vibratory plate compactor to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer or his 
representative.   
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if excavations 
remain  open  for  long  periods  of  time.    The  foundation  bearing  surface  should  be  level  or 
suitably benched and free of loose soil, ponded water and debris.  If the bearing soils are 
softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the 
foundation excavation immediately prior to placement of concrete.  Foundation excavations 
must be maintained in a drained/de‐watered condition throughout the foundation construction 
process.  If the foundation excavations must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes 
imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that a 2 to 4 inch thick “mud 
mat” of lean concrete (1,500 psi) be placed on the bearing soils before placing the reinforcing 
steel.    In  addition,  F&R  stresses  the  need  for  positive  perimeter  surface  drainage  around 
building areas to direct all runoff water away from buildings and foundation. 
6.4  FLOOR SLAB CONSTRUCTION 
The subgrade soils for support of floor slabs should be prepared as outlined in sections 6.1 and 
6.2 of this report.  Utility and other construction excavations performed in the prepared floor 
slab subgrade should be backfilled with properly compacted structural fill to aid in providing 
uniform slab support.  Prior to base course placement, the subgrade should be evaluated by the 
project engineer and soft, wet or otherwise unsuitable subgrade soils should be removed. To 
reduce  the  risks  of  unsightly  slab  cracking,  F&R  recommends  that  concrete  quality  control 
testing be performed during concrete placement, control joints (as designed by the structural 
engineer) be cut into the slab as soon as possible after the concrete placement, and the slab be 
cured as appropriate for the prevailing weather conditions. 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  23  April 12, 2019 

6.5  PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION 
Proofrolling of the pavement subgrades, and placement of ABC base course and asphalt surface 
courses, should be observed, tested, and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. All 
base course stone beneath flexible and rigid pavement should be compacted to at least 100 
percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D‐1557).  We emphasize that 
good base course drainage is essential for successful pavement performance.  The ABC stone 
should be maintained in a drained condition at all times.  Water build‐up in the base course 
could result in premature pavement failures.  Proper drainage may be aided by grading the site 
such that surface water is directed away from pavements and construction of swales adjacent 
to pavements.  All pavements should be graded such that surface water is directed towards the 
outer limits of the paved area or to catch basins located such that surface water does not 
remain on the pavement.   
Flexible  asphalt  pavements,  concrete  pavements,  and  bases  should  be  constructed  in 
accordance with the guidelines of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures 
as well as applicable military and ACI standards. 
6.6  SLOPE CONSTRUCTION 
Fill slopes should be prepared as outlined in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of this report.  Fill slopes 
should be over built at least 1‐foot and then cut back to assure the slope face is well compacted 
material.  The slopes should be vegetated as soon as possible to minimize surface sloughing and 
erosion.  However, seepage and surface runoff may cause the slopes to slough and erode 
resulting in shallow surface failures.  A swale or shallow ditch should be constructed near the 
top of slopes to prevent surface water from flowing onto the slopes.  We recommend that all 
cut  and  fill  slopes  be  observed  by  a  geotechnical  engineer  or  his  representative  during 
construction.  Additional slope drainage and protection/stabilization measures may be required 
in certain areas depending upon conditions observed at the time of slope construction. 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  24  April 12, 2019 

6.7  TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS 
Mass excavations and other excavations required for construction of this project should be 
performed in accordance with the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
Health  Administration  (OSHA)  guidelines  (29  CFR  1926,  Subpart  P,  Excavations),  or  other 
applicable  jurisdictional  codes for  permissible  temporary  side‐slope  ratios  and/or  shoring 
requirements. The OSHA guidelines require daily inspections of excavations, adjacent areas and 
protective systems by a “competent person” for evidence of situations that could result in cave‐
ins, indications of failure of a protective system, or other hazardous conditions. All excavated 
soils, equipment, building supplies, etc., should be placed away from the edges of excavations 
at a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation. F&R cautions that the actual 
excavation slopes will need to be evaluated frequently each day by the “competent person” 
and  flatter  slopes  or  the  use  of  shoring  may  be  required  to  maintain  a  safe  excavation 
depending upon excavation‐specific circumstances. The contractor is responsible for providing 
the “competent person” and all aspects of site excavation safety. F&R can evaluate specific 
excavation  slope  situations  if  we  are  informed  and  requested  by the owner, designer or 
contractor’s “competent person”. 
7.0  CONTINUATION  OF SERVICES 
As previously discussed, the Geotechnical Engineer of Record should be retained to monitor and 
test earthwork activities, and subgrade preparations for foundations, floor slabs and pavements.  It 
should be noted that the actual soil conditions at the various subgrade levels and footing bearing 
grades will vary across this site and thus the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his 
representative  during  construction  will  serve  to  validate  the  subsurface  conditions  and 
recommendations presented in this report.      
We recommend that F&R be employed to monitor the earthwork and foundation construction, 
and to report that the recommendations contained in this report are completed in a satisfactory 
manner.  Our continued involvement on the project will aid in the proper implementation of the 
recommendations discussed herein.  The following is a recommended scope of services: 

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  25  April 12, 2019 

 Review of project plans and construction specifications to verify that the recommendations 
presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented; 
 Observe  the  earthwork  process  to  document  that  subsurface  conditions  encountered 
during construction are consistent with the conditions anticipated in this report; 
 Observe subgrade preparation including any proofrolling operations, undercutting of soft 
unsuitable soils, installation of stabilization geotextile and fill placement;  
 Observe the densification and compaction of any structural fill and backfill, and perform 
laboratory and field compaction testing of the fill; 
 Observe all foundation excavations, washed stone backfill and footing bearing grades for 
compliance with the recommended design soil bearing capacity. 
8.0  LIMITATIONS 
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of ACC Construction and/or their agents, for 
specific application to the referenced project in accordance with  generally‐accepted  soil  and 
foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Our evaluations 
and recommendations are based on design information furnished to us; the data obtained from 
the previously‐described, subsurface exploration program, and generally‐accepted geotechnical 
engineering practice. The evaluations and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface 
conditions, which could exist intermediate of the boring locations or in unexplored areas of the 
site.  Should  such  variations  become  apparent  during  construction, it will be necessary to re‐
evaluate our recommendations based upon our on‐site observations of the conditions. 
There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical studies. Some of these limitations are 
discussed in the information prepared by GBA, which is included in Appendix VII. We ask that you 
please review this information. 
Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that conditions 
between borings will differ from those at the boring locations,  that  conditions  are  not  as 
anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions.  
Therefore,  experienced  geotechnical  engineers  should  evaluate  earthwork,  pavement,  and 
foundation  construction  to  verify  that  the  conditions  anticipated in design actually exist.  

ACC Construction    F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  26  April 12, 2019 

Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, 
specifications, or recommendations. 
In the event that changes are made in the design or location or the proposed structures, the 
recommendations presented in the report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are 
reviewed by our firm and conclusions of this report modified and/or verified in writing.  If this 
report is copied or transmitted to a third party, it must be copied or transmitted in its entirety, 
including text, attachments, and enclosures.  Interpretations based on only a part of this report 
may not be valid. 

ACC Construction  F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  April 12, 2019 

APPENDIX I 
FIGURES 
CLIENT:  ACC ConstructionPROJECT:  SOF Large TEMFLOCATION:  Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North CarolinaF&R PROJECT No:  66X‐0030DRAWN BY:  T.T. WalkerDATE:  April 2019SCALE: Not to scaleFIGURENo.:SITE VICINITY MAP1CHECKED BY: R. Sanders, P.E.FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.310 Hubert StreetRaleigh, North Carolina 27603‐2302|USAT 919.828.3441 | F 919.828.5751www.fandr.comEngineering Stability Since 1881Project SiteMountain Viper Drive
CLIENT:  ACC ConstructionPROJECT:  SOF Large TEMFLOCATION:  Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North CarolinaF&R PROJECT No:  66X‐0030DRAWN BY:  T.T. WalkerDATE:  April 2019SCALE: Not to scaleFIGURENo.:BORING LOCATION MAP2CHECKED BY: R. Sanders, P.E.FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.310 Hubert StreetRaleigh, North Carolina 27603‐2302|USAT 919.828.3441 | F 919.828.5751www.fandr.comEngineering Stability Since 1881Approximate F&R Boring Location (2019)C-1C-6C-9C-8C-2C-12C-14C-16C-13C-7C-17C-3C-4C-5C-10C-11C-15Approximate F&R Boring Location (2016)Approximate Percolation Test Location (2016)
1901952002052102152202252302352402452504911242034127C‐191530252029C‐101489161810C‐114892516141119C‐2491010823111729198553C‐33910222327721C‐44891623181219C‐5111117243916137C‐6576121211C‐7287151916C‐881321353516C‐9SUBSURFACE PROFILEProfile Name: Figure No. 3Plot Based on ElevationElevation (feet)City/State: Fayetteville, NCProject: Large TEMFClient: ACC Construction CompanyFroehling & Robertson, Inc.Project No: 66X‐0030RELEV_LANDSCAPE_8.5X11  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/2/19
2302322342362382402422442462485713C‐12998C‐1341321C‐149410C‐151578C‐16266C‐17SUBSURFACE PROFILEProfile Name: Figure No. 4Plot Based on ElevationElevation (feet)City/State: Fayetteville, NCProject: Large TEMFClient: ACC Construction CompanyFroehling & Robertson, Inc.Project No: 66X‐0030RELEV_LANDSCAPE_8.5X11  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/2/19
22422622823023223423623824024224424624825025515271211B‐145613182511B‐2678814B‐34883537B‐422489B‐521081611B‐659134217B‐72772129B‐82693917B‐9SUBSURFACE PROFILEProfile Name: Figure No. 5Plot Based on ElevationElevation (feet)City/State: Fort Bragg, NCProject: SOF Civil AffairsClient: USACOEFroehling & Robertson, Inc.Project No: 66U‐0198RELEV_LANDSCAPE_8.5X11  66U‐0198 BORINGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19

ACC Construction  F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  April 12, 2019 

APPENDIX II 
BORING LOGS 
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Correlation of Penetration Resistance with
Relative Density and Consistency

Sands and Gravels Silts and Clays
No. of Relative No. of Relative
Blows, N Density Blows, N Density
0 - 4 Very loo se 0 - 2 Very soft
5 - 10 Loose 3 - 4 Soft
11 - 30 Medium dense 5 - 8 Firm
31 - 50 Dense 9 - 15 Stiff
Over 50 Very dense 16 - 30 Very stiff
31 - 50 Hard
Over 50 Very hard

Particle Size Identification
(Unified Classification System)
Boulders: Diameter exceeds 8 inches
Cobbles: 3 to 8 inches diameter
Gravel: Coarse - 3/4 to 3 inches diameter
Fine - 4.76 mm to 3/4 inch diameter
Sand: Coarse - 2.0 mm to 4.76 mm diameter
Medium - 0.42 mm to 2.0 mm diameter
Fine - 0.074 mm to 0.42 mm diameter
Silt and Clay: Less than 0.07 mm (particles cannot be seen with naked eye)

Modifiers
The modifiers provide our estimate of the amount of silt, clay or sand size particles in the soil
sample.

Approximate
Content

Modifiers
Field Moisture
Description

≤ 5%:

Trace
Saturated: Usually liquid; very wet, usually
from below the groundwater table
5% to 12%: Slightly silty, slightly clayey,
slightly sandy
Wet: Semisolid; requires drying to attain
optimum moisture
12% to 30%: Silty, clayey, sandy Moist: Solid; at or near optimum moisture
30% to 50%: Very silty, very clayey, very
sandy
Dry: Requires additional water to attain
optimum moisture
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1‐2‐2
3‐4‐5
3‐4‐7
5‐10‐14
8‐9‐11
11‐16‐18
4‐5‐7
2‐3‐4
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry inside PVC
24 Hrs: 22.2' inside PVC
0.5
2.0
6.0
8.0
12.0
17.0
22.0
25.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
18.5
23.5
4
9
11
24
20
34
12
7
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Very Loose, Tan, Wet, Very Silty
Fine SAND (SM)
Loose to Medium Dense, Orange‐Brown, Wet,
Silty Clayey Fine to Medium SAND (SC)
Medium Dense, Brown‐Red, Moist, Slightly
Clayey Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM)
Medium Dense, Gray‐Brown‐Pink, Wet, Silty
Clayey Fine to Medium SAND (SC)
Dense, Gray‐Brown, Wet, Silty Fine to Coarse
SAND (SM)
Medium Dense, Brown‐Gray, Wet, Silty Clayey
Fine to Medium SAND (SC)
Firm, Brown, Wet, Fine to Medium Sandy Silty
CLAY (CL)
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
245.0
243.5
239.5
237.5
233.5
228.5
223.5
220.5
Elevation: 245.5 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 25.0'
Date Drilled: 3/11/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐1  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1‐2‐2
2‐3‐5
4‐3‐6
8‐10‐15
8‐6‐10
5‐6‐8
5‐6‐5
2‐7‐12
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: 22.0 inside PVC
24 Hrs: 19.4' inside PVC
0.7
2.0
6.0
8.0
12.0
17.0
25.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
18.5
23.5
4
8
9
25
16
14
11
19
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Very Loose, Tan, Wet, Silty Fine
SAND (SM) with Trace Roots
Loose, Brown, Wet, Silty Clayey Fine to Medium
SAND (SC) with Trace Roots
Medium Dense, Brown‐Orange, Moist, Very Silty
Fine SAND (SM)
Medium Dense, Gray‐Brown, Wet, Clayey Fine to
Medium SAND (SC)
Stiff, Brown, Wet, Fine to Medium Sandy CLAY
(CL)
Medium Dense, Brown, Moist to Wet, Silty Fine
SAND (SM) with Trace Fine Gravel (23.5'‐25.0')
Wet from 23.5'‐25.0'
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
243.8
242.5
238.5
236.5
232.5
227.5
219.5
Elevation: 244.5 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 25.0'
Date Drilled: 3/11/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐2  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
2‐2‐2
2‐4‐5
3‐4‐6
3‐4‐6
4‐4‐4
11‐9‐14
2‐4‐7
8‐12‐5
9‐12‐17
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: 21.5', Caved at 22.0'
24 Hrs: 20.5', Caved at
21.4'
0.5
2.0
6.0
17.0
22.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
18.5
23.5
28.5
4
9
10
10
8
23
11
17
29
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Very Loose, Gray, Wet, Silty Fine
SAND (SM)
Loose, Orange‐Brown, Moist, Silty Clayey Fine to
Medium SAND (SC)
Loose to Medium Dense, Brown, Moist, Slightly
Clayey Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM)
Noted Trace Roots at 8.5'‐10.0'
Medium Dense, Brown, Wet, Silty Clayey Fine to
Medium SAND (SC)
Medium Dense, Gray‐Brown, Wet, Silty Fine to
Medium SAND (SM)
245.5
244.0
240.0
229.0
224.0
Elevation: 246 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 55.0'
Date Drilled: 3/13/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐3  (1 of 2)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
3‐8‐11
5‐4‐4
3‐2‐3
1‐2‐3
WOH‐1‐2
37.0
47.0
55.0
33.5
38.5
43.5
48.5
53.5
19
8
5
5
3
Loose, Gray‐Brown, Saturated, Fine to Medium
SAND (SP) with Trace Silt
Very Loose to Loose, Brown to Gray, Wet, Silty
Fine to Coarse SAND (SM) with Fine to Coarse
Gravel
Boring Terminated at 55 feet.
209.0
199.0
191.0
Elevation: 246 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 55.0'
Date Drilled: 3/13/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐3  (2 of 2)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1‐1‐2
3‐4‐5
4‐4‐6
7‐10‐12
10‐11‐12
6‐12‐15
3‐3‐4
7‐9‐12
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: 21.0' inside PVC
24 Hrs: 21.1' inside PVC
0.5
2.0
8.0
17.0
22.0
25.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
18.5
23.5
3
9
10
22
23
27
7
21
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Very Loose, Tan‐Gray, Wet, Silty
Fine SAND (SM) with Trace Roots
Loose to Medium Dense, Brown, Moist, Clayey
Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM)
Noted Trace Fine Gravel at 6.5'‐8.0'
Medium Dense, Brown, Moist, Slightly Clayey
Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM) with Trace Fine
Gravel (8.5'‐10.0')
Firm, Pink‐Orange, Wet, Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
(ML)
Medium Dense, Tan, Wet, Fine to Medium SAND
(SM) with Trace Silt and Fine Gravel
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
246.5
245.0
239.0
230.0
225.0
222.0
Elevation: 247 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 25.0'
Date Drilled: 3/11/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐4  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1‐2‐2
2‐3‐5
3‐4‐5
4‐7‐9
8‐15‐8
8‐8‐10
3‐6‐6
5‐9‐10
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: 19.6' inside PVC
24 Hrs: 20.0' inside PVC
0.3
2.0
6.0
17.0
22.0
25.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
18.5
23.5
4
8
9
16
23
18
12
19
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Very Loose, Gray, Wet, Silty Fine
SAND (SM) with Trace Roots
Loose, Orange‐Brown, Wet, Silty Clayey Fine to
Medium SAND (SC) with Trace Roots
Medium Dense, Red‐Brown to Gray‐Brown,
Moist to Wet, Clayey Silty Fine to Medium SAND
(SM)
Wet from 13.5'‐15.0'
Stiff, Brown‐Pink, Wet, Fine Sandy CLAY (CL)
Medium Dense, Brown, Wet, Silty Fine to Coarse
SAND (SM) with Trace Fine Gravel
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
246.7
245.0
241.0
230.0
225.0
222.0
Elevation: 247 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 25.0'
Date Drilled: 3/11/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐5  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
2‐4‐7
3‐4‐7
5‐6‐11
10‐12‐12
16‐21‐18
5‐7‐9
5‐6‐7
2‐3‐4
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: 23.0' inside PVC
24 Hrs: 21.5' inside PVC
0.4
2.0
6.0
12.0
17.0
22.0
25.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
18.5
23.5
11
11
17
24
39
16
13
7
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Medium Dense, Tan, Moist, Very
Silty Fine SAND (SM)
Medium Dense, Orange‐Brown, Wet, Silty Clayey
Fine to Medium SAND (SC)
Medium Dense, Orange‐Brown, Moist, Slightly
Clayey Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM)
Noted Quartz Fragments from 8.5'‐10.0'
Medium Dense, Brown‐Gray, Wet, Silty Clayey
Fine to Medium SAND (SC)
Stiff, Brown, Wet, Fine to Medium Sandy CLAY
(CL)
Firm, Brown, Wet, Fine Sandy CLAY (CH)
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
246.1
244.5
240.5
234.5
229.5
224.5
221.5
Elevation: 246.5 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 25.0'
Date Drilled: 3/12/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐6  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
1‐2‐3
2‐3‐4
3‐2‐4
3‐6‐6
5‐5‐7
8‐5‐6
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry inside PVC
24 Hrs: Dry inside PVC
0.5
2.0
3.5
15.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
5
7
6
12
12
11
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Loose, Tan, Moist, Silty Fine SAND
(SM) with Trace Roots
Loose, Orange, Wet, Silty Clayey Fine to Medium
SAND (SC) with Trace Roots
Loose to Medium Dense, Brown, Moist to Wet,
Clayey Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM) with
Trace Fine Gravel (8.5'‐10.0')
Wet from 8.5'‐10.0'
Boring Terminated at 15 feet.
242.5
241.0
239.5
228.0
Elevation: 243 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 15.0'
Date Drilled: 3/11/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐7  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
1‐1‐1
2‐4‐4
2‐3‐4
3‐7‐8
5‐8‐11
8‐7‐9
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry inside PVC
24 Hrs: Dry inside PVC
0.7
2.0
6.0
8.0
12.0
15.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
2
8
7
15
19
16
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Very Loose, Tan‐Gray, Wet, Very
Silty Fine SAND (SM)
Loose, Brown‐Orange, Moist, Silty Clayey Fine to
Medium SAND (SC) with Trace Roots
Medium Dense, Brown, Moist, Slightly Clayey
Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM) with Trace
Roots
Medium Dense, Gray‐Brown‐Orange, Wet, Silty
Clayey Fine to Medium SAND (SC)
Medium Dense, Brown‐Gray, Wet, Clayey Silty
Fine to Medium SAND (SM)
Boring Terminated at 15 feet.
246.3
245.0
241.0
239.0
235.0
232.0
Elevation: 247 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 15.0'
Date Drilled: 3/11/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐8  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
3‐4‐4
3‐6‐7
4‐7‐14
14‐16‐19
9‐17‐18
5‐6‐10
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry inside PVC
24 Hrs: Dry inside PVC
0.2
2.0
8.0
15.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
8
13
21
35
35
16
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Loose, Gray, Moist, Very Silty Fine
SAND (SM)
Medium Dense to Dense, Brown‐Orange to
Red‐Brown, Wet to Moist, Clayey Silty Fine to
Medium SAND (SM)
Moist from 6'‐8'
Medium Dense to Dense, Red‐Brown to Brown,
Moist, Very Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM)
Boring Terminated at 15 feet.
248.8
247.0
241.0
234.0
Elevation: 249 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 15.0'
Date Drilled: 3/12/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐9  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
2‐5‐4
4‐6‐9
6‐12‐18
12‐13‐12
7‐11‐9
11‐16‐13
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry, Caved at 12.8'
24 Hrs: Dry, Caved at 11.3'
3.5
6.0
12.0
15.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
9
15
30
25
20
29
NATIVE SOILS: Loose to Medium Dense,
Orange‐Brown, Wet, Silty Clayey Fine to Medium
SAND (SC)
Medium Dense, Orange‐Brown, Moist, Clayey
Silty Fine SAND (SM)
Medium Dense, Orange‐Brown, Moist, Very Silty
Fine SAND (SM)
Medium Dense, Pink‐Brown, Moist, Silty Fine to
Medium SAND (SM)
Boring Terminated at 15 feet.
245.5
243.0
237.0
234.0
Elevation: 249 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 15.0'
Date Drilled: 3/12/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐10  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
2‐6‐8
2‐4‐4
3‐4‐5
4‐7‐9
10‐11‐7
3‐4‐6
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry inside PVC
24 Hrs: 14.0' inside PVC
0.4
2.0
3.5
12.0
15.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
14
8
9
16
18
10
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Medium Dense, Tan, Moist, Very
Silty Fine SAND (SM)
Loose, Orange‐Brown, Wet, Silty Clayey Fine to
Medium SAND (SC)
Loose to Medium Dense, Brown to Pink‐Gray,
Moist to Wet, Clayey Silty Fine to Medium SAND
(SM)
Wet from 8.5'‐12.0'
Loose, Brown, Wet, Clayey Very Silty Fine SAND
(SM)
Boring Terminated at 15 feet.
245.1
243.5
242.0
233.5
230.5
Elevation: 245.5 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 15.0'
Date Drilled: 3/12/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐11  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
1‐2‐3
1‐3‐4
2‐5‐8
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry, Caved at 3.5'
24 Hrs: Dry, Caved at 3.0'
0.5
2.0
5.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
5
7
13
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Loose, Tan, Moist, Silty Fine to
Medium SAND (SM) with Trace Roots and Fine
Gravel
Loose to Medium Dense, Orange‐Brown to
Tan‐Brown, Moist to Wet, Silty Clayey Fine to
Medium SAND (SC)
Moist from 2'‐3.5'
Boring Terminated at 5 feet.
242.0
240.5
237.5
Elevation: 242.5 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 5.0'
Date Drilled: 3/12/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐12  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
3‐5‐4
4‐4‐5
2‐4‐4
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry, Caved at 3.0'
24 Hrs: Dry, Caved at 2.9'
2.0
5.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
9
9
8
NATIVE SOILS: Loose, Dark Gray, Moist, Very Silty
Fine SAND (SM) with Trace Roots
Loose, Brown, Wet, Silty Clayey Fine to Medium
SAND (SC)
Boring Terminated at 5 feet.
245.0
242.0
Elevation: 247 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 5.0'
Date Drilled: 3/12/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐13  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
1‐2‐2
3‐6‐7
6‐9‐12
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry, Caved at 3.0'
24 Hrs: Dry, Caved at 2.9'
0.3
2.0
5.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
4
13
21
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Very Loose, Tan, Moist, Silty Fine
to Medium SAND (SM)
Medium Dense, Brown, Wet, Silty Clayey Fine to
Coarse SAND (SC)
Boring Terminated at 5 feet.
236.2
234.5
231.5
Elevation: 236.5 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 5.0'
Date Drilled: 3/12/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐14  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
1‐4‐5
2‐1‐3
4‐4‐6
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry, Caved at 3.0'
24 Hrs: Dry, Caved at 2.8'
0.4
2.0
3.5
5.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
9
4
10
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Loose, Dark Gray and Gray, Moist,
Very Silty Fine SAND (SM)
Very Loose, Gray, Wet, Clayey Silty Fine to
Medium SAND (SM) with Trace Roots
Loose, Brown‐Gray, Wet, Silty Clayey Fine to
Medium SAND (SC)
Boring Terminated at 5 feet.
240.6
239.0
237.5
236.0
Elevation: 241 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 5.0'
Date Drilled: 3/12/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐15  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
9‐6‐9
2‐3‐4
2‐4‐4
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry, Caved at 3.0'
24 Hrs: Dry, Caved at 2.9'
0.1
0.8
2.0
5.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
15
7
8
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
POSSIBLE FILL: Medium Dense, Tan‐Gray, Moist,
Silty Fine SAND (SM)
POSSIBLE FILL: Medium Dense, Gray, Moist, Silty
Fine to Coarse SAND (SM) with Trace Roots and
Fine to Coarse Gravel
NATIVE SOILS: Loose, Brown, Wet, Silty Clayey
Fine to Medium SAND (SC) with Trace Fine
Gravel
Noted Petroleum Odor form 2.0'‐5.0'
Boring Terminated at 5 feet.
239.9
239.2
238.0
235.0
Elevation: 240 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 5.0'
Date Drilled: 3/12/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐16  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
1.5
3.5
5.0
1‐1‐1
3‐2‐4
2‐2‐4
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hr: Dry inside PVC
24 Hrs: Dry inside PVC
0.5
5.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
2
6
6
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS
NATIVE SOILS: Very Loose to Loose, Brown, Wet,
Silty Clayey Fine to Medium SAND (SC)
Boring Terminated at 5 feet.
243.5
239.0
Elevation: 244 ±Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Hammer Type: Automatic
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Total Depth: 5.0'
Date Drilled: 3/12/19
Remarks* Sample
BlowsElevationDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: C‐17  (1 of 1)
Driller: F&R Renza
SampleDepth(feet)Depth
R
N‐Value(blows/ft)
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N‐Value.
Client: ACC Construction Company
Project No: 66X‐0030
BORING_LOG  66X‐0030 BORING LOGS.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19

ACC Construction  F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  April 12, 2019 

APPENDIX III 
LABORATORY RESULTS 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20406080100
PI
14
NP
23
21
36
PLLL Classification % Natural Water Content
15.7
9.8
18.2
16.8
23.9
ATTERBERG LIMITS
33
NP
48
48
70
19
NP
25
27
34

Liquid LimitPlasticity IndexFinesBoring No. Depth
CH
ML MH
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
SILTY SAND (SM)
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
SILTY SAND (SM)
40.5
26.0
38.2
43.7
41.1
CL‐ML
CL
Sheet: 1 of 1
C‐12 (Bag)
C‐15 (Bag)
C‐3
C‐5
C‐9
1.0' ‐ 3.0'
1.0' ‐ 3.0'
2' ‐ 3.5'
3.5' ‐ 5'
2' ‐ 3.5'
Client: ACC
City/State: Fort Bragg, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Project No: 66X‐0030
R
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.ATTERBERG_LIMITS_USCS  66X‐0030 LAB TESTING.GPJ  F&R.GDT  4/12/19
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10
C-12
C-15
0.0
0.0
C-12
C-15
15.7
9.8
5.5 lb Hammer, 12" Drop
5.5 lb Hammer, 12" Drop
1.0' - 3.0'
1.0' - 3.0'
40.5
26.0
12.0
8.6
33
NP
19
NP
14
NP
120.4
126.9
D-698 A
D-698 A
59.5
74.0
Brown, CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Gray, SILTY SAND (SM)
ASTM MOISTURE-DENSITYRELATIONSHIP
Client: ACC
City/State: Fort Bragg, NC
Project: Large TEMF
Project No: 66X-0030
R
PROCTOR CURVE 66X-0030 LAB TESTING.GPJ F&R.GDT 4/10/19Bag: C-12
Bag: C-15
Sample
Depth (ft)Classification PLSample
Sample Notes
% GRAVEL
(+ #4)
Sample
Location
Natural
Moisture (%)
Max Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum
Moisture (%)
LL PI % SAND
(#4 - #200)
% FINES
(- #200)
ASTM
C-15 Bag: C-15 SM 26
C-15 Silty Sand (SM)126.9 8.6
Boring Number Sample Location USCS % - #200
C-12 Bag: C-12 SC 40.5
Sample Information Proctor Value (ASTM D-698)
Boring Number Classification Max. Dry Density (pcf)Optimum Moisture %
C-12 Clayey Sand (SC)120.4 12.0
Project Number:66X-0030 Percent Swell A B
Project Location:Fort Bragg, NC C-15 -0.150 -0.110
Date Received:3/29/2019 C-12 0.020 -0.020
Project Information Natural Moisture (%)
Project Name:Large TEMF C-12 15.7
Client Name:ACC C-15 9.8
Final Moisture (%)12.9 12.7 9.6 9.6
Final Density (pcf)118.0 118.3 126.6 125.8
Initial Moisture (%)12.1 12.2 9.1 9.3
Initial Density (pcf)117.3 117.4 126.4 125.2
C-15 (B)
California Bearing Ratio Test Report - ASTM D-1883
0.1" Penetration 9.8 8.8 23.6 29.3
SOAKED CBR TEST RESULTS
Results C-12 (A)C-12 (B)C-15 (A) Corrrected
0.2" Penetration 11.2 10.7 31.3 33.8
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500Force on Piston (psi)Penetration (in)
Load Penetration Curve
C-12 (A)
C-12 (B)
C-15 (A) Corrrected
C-15 (B)
Project No.66X-0030 Date Tested
Project Name:Large TEMF 15.7
Client:ACC USCS:SC
Sample Location:Bag: C-12 10.0
Sample Description:Clayey Sand (SC)
96
Soaked Height (in):4.55 Liquid Limit:33 Max Dry Dens. (pcf):120.40
Swell (%):0.02 Plastic Limit:19 Opt. Moisture (%):12.00
Initial Final
4.54 Moist Soil + tare (g)433.70 811.20
6939.30 Dry Soil + tare (g)403.50 736.10
25.13 tare (g)154.70 155.10
4459.48 Moisture (%)12.1 12.9
129.1
117.3
97.4
-21.74 0.000
141.94 0.050
211.02 0.075
273.70 0.100
333.58 0.125
387.85 0.150
437.41 0.175
484.28 0.200
527.05 0.225
568.12 0.250
606.04 0.275
641.54 0.300
676.71 0.325
709.31 0.350
739.94 0.375
771.20 0.400
831.13 0.450
859.75 0.475
Drew CouncilTest Performed By:
16 264.3 0.405
18 284.3 0.456
Specimen C-12 (A) Information
Specimen Data
Hours Soaked
19 293.8 0.482 11.30
11.49
0.00
14 243.7 0.355 0.00
15 253.9 0.380
11 209.3 0.279 0.00
0.00
12 221.1 0.304 11.64
13 232.8 0.329 0.00
8 168.7 0.203 11.24
9 182.9 0.228 0.00
10 196.6 0.253 0.00
5 118.4 0.127 0.00
6 136.5 0.152 0.00
7 153.0 0.177 0.00
2 54.6 0.051 0.00
3 77.6 0.076 0.00
4 98.5 0.101 9.85
Actual Compaction (%)
Specimen Test Data
Soil Weight (g)
0 0.0 0.000 0.00
Load
(lbs)
Disp.
(in)
Force on Piston
(psi)
Penetration
(in)
Corrected CBR
ValueRead Number
Mold Volume (in3)
Dry Density (pcf)
Weight (g)
Soil Weight + Mold (g)
Height (in)
Project Information
3/29/2019
Natural Moisture:
Surcharge Weight (lb.):
% Retained on 19.0 mm:
Compacted Specimen Moisture Percentage
CBR Test - Results Page 2 of 5
Project No.66X-0030 Date Tested
Project Name:Large TEMF 15.7
Client:ACC USCS:SC
Sample Location:Bag: C-12 10.0
Sample Description:Clayey Sand (SC)
96
Soaked Height (in):4.58 Liquid Limit:33 Max Dry Dens. (pcf):120.40
Swell (%):-0.02 Plastic Limit:19 Opt. Moisture (%):12.00
Initial Final
4.58 Moist Soil + tare (g)486.90 758.40
7072.10 Dry Soil + tare (g)450.90 690.00
25.49 tare (g)155.60 151.50
4487.70 Moisture (%)12.2 12.7
4459.5
117.4
97.5
-12.91 0.000
127.48 0.050
189.84 0.075
251.37 0.100
309.83 0.125
365.67 0.150
419.19 0.175
468.32 0.200
516.48 0.225
561.90 0.250
604.68 0.275
644.68 0.300
683.54 0.325
720.07 0.350
755.32 0.375
789.05 0.400
858.13 0.450
889.40 0.475
Drew CouncilTest Performed By:
16 267.3 0.405
18 290.3 0.456
Specimen C-12 (B) Information
Hours Soaked
Specimen Data
19 300.8 0.481 11.57
11.62
0.00
14 244.3 0.355 0.00
15 256.1 0.380
11 205.9 0.279 0.00
0.00
12 219.2 0.304 11.54
13 232.2 0.329 0.00
8 160.4 0.203 10.69
9 176.5 0.228 0.00
10 191.6 0.253 0.00
5 107.6 0.127 0.00
6 126.2 0.152 0.00
7 144.0 0.177 0.00
2 46.8 0.051 0.00
3 67.6 0.076 0.00
4 88.1 0.101 8.81
Actual Compaction (%)
Specimen Test Data
Soil Weight (g)
0 0.0 0.000 0.00
Read Number Load
(lbs)
Disp.
(in)
Force on Piston
(psi)
Penetration
(in)
Corrected CBR
Value
Mold Volume (in3)
Dry Density (pcf)
Weight (g)
Soil Weight + Mold (g)
Height (in)
Project Information
3/29/2019
Natural Moisture:
Surcharge Weight (lb.):
% Retained on 19.0 mm:
Compacted Specimen Moisture Percentage
CBR Test - Results Page 3 of 5
Project No.66X-0030 Date Tested
Project Name:Large TEMF 9.8
Client:ACC USCS:SM
Sample Location:Bag: C-15 10.0
Sample Description:Silty Sand (SM)
96
Soaked Height (in):4.58 Liquid Limit:0 Max Dry Dens. (pcf):126.90
Swell (%):-0.15 Plastic Limit:0 Opt. Moisture (%):8.60
Initial Final
4.59 Moist Soil + tare (g)555.50 1071.40
8050.70 Dry Soil + tare (g)522.40 991.60
28.10 tare (g)156.60 157.00
4695.93 Moisture (%)9.1 9.6
129.8
126.4
99.6
-21.18 0.002
126.60 0.052
244.36 0.077
385.26 0.102
555.78 0.127
738.34 0.152
918.70 0.177
1091.69 0.202
1264.64 0.227
1433.61 0.252
1592.51 0.277
1745.41 0.302
1897.14 0.327
2047.24 0.352
2194.81 0.377
2339.91 0.402
2635.32 0.452
2768.84 0.477
Drew Council
18 885.5 0.456 0.00
19 930.0 0.481 0.00
Test Performed By:
14 689.5 0.355 0.00
15 738.7 0.380 0.00
16 787.0 0.405 37.89
11 537.9 0.279 0.00
12 588.9 0.304 35.53
13 639.4 0.329 0.00
8 371.0 0.203 31.25
9 428.6 0.228 0.00
10 484.9 0.253 0.00
5 192.3 0.127 0.00
6 253.2 0.152 0.00
7 313.3 0.177 0.00
2 49.3 0.051 0.00
3 88.5 0.076 0.00
4 135.5 0.102 23.58
Actual Compaction (%)
Specimen Test Data
Soil Weight (g)
0 0.0 0.000 0.00
Load
(lbs)
Disp.
(in)
Force on Piston
(psi)
Penetration
(in)
Corrected CBR
ValueRead Number
Mold Volume (in3)
Dry Density (pcf)
Weight (g)
Soil Weight + Mold (g)
Height (in)
Specimen C-15 (A) Corrrected Information
Compacted Specimen Moisture Percentage
Project Information
Hours Soaked
3/29/2019
Natural Moisture:
Surcharge Weight (lb.):
% Retained on 19.0 mm:
Specimen Data
CBR Test - Results Page 4 of 5
Project No.66X-0030 Date Tested
Project Name:Large TEMF 9.8
Client:ACC USCS:SM
Sample Location:Bag: C-15 10.0
Sample Description:Silty Sand (SM)
96
Soaked Height (in):4.57 Liquid Limit:0 Max Dry Dens. (pcf):126.90
Swell (%):-0.11 Plastic Limit:0 Opt. Moisture (%):8.60
Initial Final
4.58 Moist Soil + tare (g)504.60 1021.10
8026.20 Dry Soil + tare (g)474.70 945.10
27.95 tare (g)153.80 153.90
4652.84 Moisture (%)9.3 9.6
129.5
125.2
98.7
-114.41 0.001
402.61 0.051
586.09 0.076
765.10 0.101
936.76 0.126
1096.98 0.151
1253.93 0.176
1405.23 0.201
1549.90 0.226
1697.96 0.251
1841.73 0.276
1974.91 0.301
2077.65 0.326
2100.43 0.351
2052.97 0.376
1952.51 0.401
1860.30 0.451
1856.11 0.476
Drew Council
Specimen C-15 (B) Information
Hours Soaked
19 656.8 0.481 25.26
14 738.3 0.355 0.00
15 722.5 0.380 0.00
12 696.4
11 652.0 0.279 0.00
0.304 36.65
13 730.7
Test Performed By:
16 689.0 0.405 29.96
18 658.2 0.456 0.00
0.330 0.00
8 506.5 0.203 33.77
9 554.8 0.228 0.00
10 604.1 0.253 0.00
5 350.4 0.127 0.00
6 403.8 0.152 0.00
7 456.1 0.177 0.00
2 172.3 0.051 0.00
3 233.5 0.076 0.00
4 293.2 0.101 29.32
Actual Compaction (%)
Specimen Test Data
Soil Weight (g)
0 0.0 0.000 0.00
Load
(lbs)
Disp.
(in)
Force on Piston
(psi)
Penetration
(in)
Corrected CBR
ValueRead Number
Mold Volume (in3)
Dry Density (pcf)
Weight (g)
Soil Weight + Mold (g)
Height (in)
Project Information
Specimen Data
3/29/2019
Natural Moisture:
Surcharge Weight (lb.):
% Retained on 19.0 mm:
Compacted Specimen Moisture Percentage
CBR Test - Results Page 5 of 5

ACC Construction  F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  April 12, 2019 

APENDIX IV 
SHWT DETERMINATION & 
INFILTRATION TESTING 

SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE DETERMINATION
AND HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING

Large TEMF Project Site
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Three Oaks Job # 19-702

Prepared For:

Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
310 Hubert Street
Raleigh, NC 27603

Prepared By:

324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]

March 27, 2019

Evan Morgan
Large TEMF SHWT and KSAT Testing March 27, 2019
Three Oaks Job #19-702 1
INTRODUCTION

Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R) is investigating the construction of stormwater control measures
(SCM) within the Large TEMF project site located on Fort Bragg in Cumberland County, NC. The
SCMs are being considered to collect and treat runoff from impervious surfaces. As part of the
application process, a soils investigation detailing soil type and depth to the seasonal high water table
(SHWT) and saturated hydraulic conductivity (KSAT) testing is required. Three Oaks Engineering
(Three Oaks) has been retained to perform the soils investigation.

INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

The field investigation was performed on March 7th and 20th, 2019, by Evan T. Morgan, LSS and
John C. Roberts, LSS. The study area is a pine stand mixed with smaller hardwood species. Soil
borings were advanced via a hand auger at two locations determined by the client within each
proposed SCM. Observations of the landscape (slope, drainage patterns, etc.) as well as soil
properties (depth, texture, structure, seasonal wetness, restrictive horizons, etc.) were recorded. Soil
borings and profiles were described per the USDA-NRCS, Field Book for Describing and Sampling
Soils, version 3.0. Soil color was determined with a Munsell Soil Color Chart.

The Web Soil Survey was referenced prior to the field investigation to get an overview of the
possible soil series located at the SCM locations. The Faceville and Wagram soil series are mapped
at the SCM location. Information for the soil series is listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Map Unit Symbol, Soil Series, and Taxonomic Classification
Map Unit Symbol Soil Series Taxonomic Class
FaB Faceville Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kandiudults
WaB Wagram Loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Arenic Kandiudults

Soil borings B5 and B6 were conducted approximately 1-foot above the v-ditch that crosses the
proposed basin footprint. The tests were conducted here as the proposed basin footprint includes an
existing paved road and constructed slopes.

The infiltration rate was determined by measuring the saturated hydraulic conductivity (KSAT) rate of
the soil with a compact constant-head permeameter (Amoozemeter). KSAT test values were generated
using the published calculations and formulas found in the meter ’s User’s Manual. The Glover
solution was chosen as the most appropriate method for calculating KSAT rates. The Glover solution
is recommended when the distance between the bottom of the auger hole and any impermeable
layer(s) is greater than two times the head (H), or constant water level in the hole.

The Glover solution is given by: KSAT = AQ

Where: A= {sinh-1(H/r)-[(r/H)2+1] 1/2+r/H} / (2πH2)
And: Q is the steady-state rate of water flow from the Amoozemeter into the auger
hole.
To solve for A: H is the head in the hole (i.e. total water depth) and r is the radius of the hole.
Values for H and r can be found on the attached KSAT data sheets.

Large TEMF SHWT and KSAT Testing March 27, 2019
Three Oaks Job #19-702 2
RESULTS

Soil Series and SHWT Determinations
A soil series determination was attempted by comparing the soil boring profile descriptions to the
NRCS Official Series Description (OSD) and the results listed in Table 2. All soil borings were
representative of the Faceville soil series.

Soil characteristics indicative of a SHWT (redox concentrations and depletions) were observed at all
six boring locations and the depths shown in Table 2. Full soil profile descriptions are attached.
Table 2. Soil Series Determination, and SHWT Depth
Soil
Boring
Soil Series
Determination
SHWT
(in. below surface)
B1 Faceville 82
B2 Faceville >136
B3 Faceville 73
B4 Faceville 70
B5 Faceville 72
B6 Faceville 40

Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements
KSAT tests were completed in the most limiting soil horizon within two feet of the SHWT and the
results are listed in Table 3 below. It should be noted that KSAT values only represent the infiltration
rate within the tested soil horizon and cannot be applied to other soil horizons with differing soil
properties (texture, structure, consistence, mineralogy, etc.).

Table 3: Hydraulic conductivity tests results parameters
Test # Soil Boring # Horizon/
Texture Test Depth (in) Measured KSAT (in/hr)
1 B1 BC1 / C 76 0.0114
2 B2 C / SL 110 0.4533
3 B3 Bt / C 56 0.0483
4 B4 Bt2 / C 62 0.1074
5 B5 BC1 / SCL 65 0.1791
6 B6 BC1 / C 36 0.0231

CONCLUSIONS

The findings presented herein represent Three Oaks’ professional opinion based on our soil
investigation. Soil characteristics indicative of a SHWT was observed at all six boring locations.
KSAT tests were conducted at each boring location in the most limiting soil horizon that occurs within
2-feet of the SHWT.

Due to the inherent variability of soils to change over short distances the soil profile description
presented in this report may not be representative of the entire soil system of the SCM footprint.
This report is provided to assist in the application for the SCMs by providing the soil information.
The permitting agency must issue the final permit. Any concurrence with the findings in this report
would be made at that time.

Three Oaks Engineering Job #: 19-702 Large TEMF
Date:3/20/2019 Weather Condition:Sunny, 50
Test #:K1 Location:B1
Horizon:BC1 cm in
Depth(inches):76.0 Target Water Level:15.2 6.00
cm in Beginning Water Level:15.2 6.00
Hole Depth:193.0 76.0 Ending Water Level:15.2 6.00
Reference:+10.2 4.0
Head:-15.2 6.0
CHT Tube(s) setting:=188.0 74.0 Hole diameter (d):5.0 cm
Hole radius (r):2.5 cm
x coefficient A:0.001136
1-ON 2-ON Note: Changed to 1-On at 2:51pm
Initial Reservoir Reading (cm)33.46
Coversion Factor (C.F.):105.0 Formula Used: x s>=2H {sinh^-1(H/r)-[(r/H)^2+1]^1/2+r/H}/(2πH^2)
s<2H {3ln(H/r)/[πH(3H+2s)]}
Date/Time Logger Reservoir Change in Chamber Clock Q K K
Reading (m)Reading (cm)Water Level (cm)C.F.Time (min)(min)(hr)(cm3/hr)(cm/hr)(in/hr)
03/20/19 11:46:17AM 0.3346 33.46 0.0 105.0 0.0 0.5
03/20/19 12:01:17PM 0.3337 33.37 0.1 105.0 15.0 15.00 0.250 38.5 0.04373 0.0172
03/20/19 12:16:17PM 0.3341 33.41 0.0 105.0 30.0 15.00 0.250 -15.6 -0.01767 -0.0070
03/20/19 12:31:17PM 0.3318 33.18 0.2 105.0 45.0 15.00 0.250 94.4 0.10725 0.0422
03/20/19 12:46:17PM 0.3299 32.99 0.2 105.0 60.0 15.00 0.250 81.8 0.09293 0.0366
03/20/19 01:01:17PM 0.3304 33.04 -0.1 105.0 75.0 15.00 0.250 -22.2 -0.02524 -0.0099
03/20/19 01:16:17PM 0.3277 32.76 0.3 105.0 90.0 15.00 0.250 115.5 0.13126 0.0517
03/20/19 01:31:17PM 0.3261 32.61 0.2 105.0 105.0 15.00 0.250 65.3 0.07416 0.0292
03/20/19 01:46:17PM 0.3274 32.74 -0.1 105.0 120.0 15.00 0.250 -53.5 -0.06080 -0.0239
03/20/19 02:01:17PM 0.3254 32.54 0.2 105.0 135.0 15.00 0.250 81.9 0.09309 0.0366
03/20/19 02:16:17PM 0.3264 32.64 -0.1 105.0 150.0 15.00 0.250 -40.9 -0.04648 -0.0183
03/20/19 02:31:17PM 0.3248 32.47 0.2 105.0 165.0 15.00 0.250 68.8 0.07814 0.0308
03/20/19 02:46:17PM 0.3237 32.36 0.1 105.0 180.0 15.00 0.250 46.7 0.05312 0.0209
03/20/19 03:01:17PM 0.3223 32.23 0.1 105.0 195.0 15.00 0.250 55.9 0.06354 0.0250
03/20/19 03:16:17PM 0.3212 32.12 0.1 20.0 210.0 15.00 0.250 8.8 0.01004 0.0040
03/20/19 03:31:17PM 0.3175 31.75 0.4 20.0 225.0 15.00 0.250 29.9 0.03399 0.0134
03/20/19 03:46:17PM 0.3128 31.28 0.5 20.0 240.0 15.00 0.250 37.6 0.04270 0.0168
Last 3 Average 0.0114
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
SET UP
Valve Setting:
Elapsed Time
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 50 100 150 200 250 300In/HourTime (min)
In/Hour vs. Time
Three Oaks Engineering Job #: 19-702 Large TEMF
Date:3/20/2019 Weather Condition:Sunny, 50
Test #:K2 Location:B2
Horizon:C cm in
Depth(inches):110.0 Target Water Level:15.2 6.00
cm in Beginning Water Level:15.2 6.00
Hole Depth:279.4 110.0 Ending Water Level:15.2 6.00
Reference:+10.2 4.0
Head:-15.2 6.0
CHT Tube(s) setting:=274.3 108.0 Hole diameter (d):5.0 cm
Hole radius (r):2.5 cm
x coefficient A:0.001136
1-ON 2-ON
Initial Reservoir Reading (cm)26.84
Coversion Factor (C.F.):105.0 Formula Used: x s>=2H {sinh^-1(H/r)-[(r/H)^2+1]^1/2+r/H}/(2πH^2)
s<2H {3ln(H/r)/[πH(3H+2s)]}
Date/Time Logger Reservoir Change in Chamber Clock Q K K
Reading (m)Reading (cm)Water Level (cm)C.F.Time (min)(min)(hr)(cm3/hr)(cm/hr)(in/hr)
03/20/19 11:31:40AM 0.2684 26.84 0.0 105.0 0.0
03/20/19 11:46:40AM 0.2384 23.84 3.0 105.0 15.0 15.00 0.250 1259.4 1.43094 0.5634
03/20/19 12:01:40PM 0.2051 20.52 3.3 105.0 30.0 15.00 0.250 1396.7 1.58691 0.6248
03/20/19 12:16:40PM 0.1759 17.59 2.9 105.0 45.0 15.00 0.250 1230.1 1.39771 0.5503
03/20/19 12:31:40PM 0.1479 14.79 2.8 105.0 60.0 15.00 0.250 1174.5 1.33452 0.5254
03/20/19 12:46:40PM 0.1213 12.14 2.7 105.0 75.0 15.00 0.250 1115.4 1.26730 0.4989
03/20/19 01:01:40PM 0.0963 9.63 2.5 105.0 90.0 15.00 0.250 1050.7 1.19379 0.4700
03/20/19 01:16:40PM 0.0755 7.55 2.1 105.0 105.0 15.00 0.250 873.7 0.99271 0.3908
Last 3 Average 0.4533
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
SET UP
Valve Setting:
Elapsed Time
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120In/HourTime (min)
In/Hour vs. Time
Three Oaks Engineering Job #: 19-702 Large TEMF
Date:3/20/2019 Weather Condition:Sunny, 50
Test #:K3 Location:B3
Horizon:Bt cm in
Depth(inches):56.0 Target Water Level:15.2 6.00
cm in Beginning Water Level:15.2 6.00
Hole Depth:142.2 56.0 Ending Water Level:15.2 6.00
Reference:+10.2 4.0
Head:-15.2 6.0
CHT Tube(s) setting:=137.2 54.0 Hole diameter (d):5.0 cm
Hole radius (r):2.5 cm
x coefficient A:0.001136
1-ON 2-ON
Initial Reservoir Reading (cm)36.51
Coversion Factor (C.F.):105.0 Formula Used: x s>=2H {sinh^-1(H/r)-[(r/H)^2+1]^1/2+r/H}/(2πH^2)
s<2H {3ln(H/r)/[πH(3H+2s)]}
Date/Time Logger Reservoir Change in Chamber Clock Q K K
Reading (m)Reading (cm)Water Level (cm)C.F.Time (min)(min)(hr)(cm3/hr)(cm/hr)(in/hr)
03/20/19 01:30:00PM 0.3651 36.51 0.0 105.0 0.0
03/20/19 01:31:40PM 0.3600 36.00 0.5 105.0 1.0 1.00 0.017 3217.8 3.65617 1.4394
03/20/19 01:46:40PM 0.3602 36.02 0.0 105.0 16.0 15.00 0.250 -6.7 -0.00759 -0.0030
03/20/19 02:01:40PM 0.3584 35.84 0.2 105.0 31.0 15.00 0.250 74.5 0.08467 0.0333
03/20/19 02:16:40PM 0.3555 35.55 0.3 105.0 45.0 14.00 0.233 130.1 0.14786 0.0582
03/20/19 02:31:40PM 0.3571 35.71 -0.2 105.0 61.0 16.00 0.267 -65.4 -0.07427 -0.0292
03/20/19 02:46:40PM 0.3576 35.76 -0.1 105.0 76.0 15.00 0.250 -21.2 -0.02407 -0.0095
03/20/19 03:01:40PM 0.3538 35.38 0.4 105.0 91.0 15.00 0.250 162.2 0.18427 0.0725
03/20/19 03:16:40PM 0.3549 35.49 -0.1 105.0 106.0 15.00 0.250 -45.2 -0.05132 -0.0202
03/20/19 03:31:40PM 0.3544 35.44 0.0 105.0 121.0 15.00 0.250 20.3 0.02303 0.0091
03/20/19 03:46:40PM 0.3461 34.61 0.8 105.0 136.0 15.00 0.250 349.0 0.39657 0.1561
Last 3 Average 0.0483
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
SET UP
Valve Setting:
Elapsed Time
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160In/HourTime (min)
In/Hour vs. Time
Three Oaks Engineering Job #: 19-702 Large TEMF
Date:3/20/2019 Weather Condition:Sunny, 50
Test #:K4 Location:B4
Horizon:Bt2 cm in
Depth(inches):62.0 Target Water Level:15.2 6.00
cm in Beginning Water Level:15.2 6.00
Hole Depth:157.5 62.0 Ending Water Level:15.2 6.00
Reference:+10.2 4.0
Head:-15.2 6.0
CHT Tube(s) setting:=152.4 60.0 Hole diameter (d):5.0 cm
Hole radius (r):2.5 cm
x coefficient A:0.001136
1-ON 2-ON
Initial Reservoir Reading (cm)33.6
Coversion Factor (C.F.):105.0 Formula Used: x s>=2H {sinh^-1(H/r)-[(r/H)^2+1]^1/2+r/H}/(2πH^2)
s<2H {3ln(H/r)/[πH(3H+2s)]}
Date/Time Logger Reservoir Change in Chamber Clock Q K K
Reading (m)Reading (cm)Water Level (cm)C.F.Time (min)(min)(hr)(cm3/hr)(cm/hr)(in/hr)
03/20/19 01:31:20PM 0.3360 33.6 0.0 105.0 0.0 0.5
03/20/19 01:46:20PM 0.3314 33.14 0.5 105.0 15.0 15.00 0.250 193.4 0.21975 0.0865
03/20/19 02:01:20PM 0.3240 32.41 0.7 105.0 30.0 15.00 0.250 308.1 0.35008 0.1378
03/20/19 02:16:20PM 0.3228 32.28 0.1 105.0 45.0 15.00 0.250 53.2 0.06042 0.0238
03/20/19 02:31:20PM 0.3187 31.87 0.4 105.0 60.0 15.00 0.250 171.1 0.19436 0.0765
03/20/19 02:46:20PM 0.3139 31.40 0.5 105.0 75.0 15.00 0.250 200.0 0.22728 0.0895
03/20/19 03:01:20PM 0.3081 30.81 0.6 105.0 90.0 15.00 0.250 245.4 0.27879 0.1098
03/20/19 03:16:20PM 0.3018 30.18 0.6 105.0 105.0 15.00 0.250 263.9 0.29984 0.1180
03/20/19 03:31:20PM 0.2957 29.57 0.6 105.0 120.0 15.00 0.250 256.3 0.29122 0.1147
03/20/19 03:46:20PM 0.2909 29.10 0.5 105.0 135.0 15.00 0.250 200.0 0.22728 0.0895
Last 3 Average 0.1074
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
SET UP
Valve Setting:
Elapsed Time
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160In/HourTime (min)
In/Hour vs. Time
Three Oaks Engineering Job #: 19-702 Large TEMF
Date:3/20/2019 Weather Condition:Sunny, 50
Test #:K5 Location:B5
Horizon:BC1 cm in
Depth(inches):65.0 Target Water Level:15.2 6.00
cm in Beginning Water Level:15.2 6.00
Hole Depth:165.1 65.0 Ending Water Level:15.2 6.00
Reference:+10.2 4.0
Head:-15.2 6.0
CHT Tube(s) setting:=160.0 63.0 Hole diameter (d):5.0 cm
Hole radius (r):2.5 cm
x coefficient A:0.001136
1-ON 2-ON
Initial Reservoir Reading (cm)33.17
Coversion Factor (C.F.):105.0 Formula Used: x s>=2H {sinh^-1(H/r)-[(r/H)^2+1]^1/2+r/H}/(2πH^2)
s<2H {3ln(H/r)/[πH(3H+2s)]}
Date/Time Logger Reservoir Change in Chamber Clock Q K K
Reading (m)Reading (cm)Water Level (cm)C.F.Time (min)(min)(hr)(cm3/hr)(cm/hr)(in/hr)
03/20/19 01:32:45PM 0.3317 33.17 0.0 105.0 0.0 0.5
03/20/19 01:47:45PM 0.3274 32.74 0.4 105.0 15.0 15.00 0.250 181.5 0.20627 0.0812
03/20/19 02:02:45PM 0.3159 31.59 1.1 105.0 30.0 15.00 0.250 480.9 0.54637 0.2151
03/20/19 02:17:45PM 0.3072 30.72 0.9 105.0 45.0 15.00 0.250 365.2 0.41498 0.1634
03/20/19 02:32:45PM 0.3009 30.09 0.6 105.0 60.0 15.00 0.250 267.0 0.30333 0.1194
03/20/19 02:47:45PM 0.2948 29.48 0.6 105.0 75.0 15.00 0.250 253.2 0.28765 0.1132
03/20/19 03:02:45PM 0.2870 28.70 0.8 105.0 90.0 15.00 0.250 328.8 0.37362 0.1471
03/20/19 03:17:45PM 0.2768 27.68 1.0 105.0 105.0 15.00 0.250 427.3 0.48554 0.1912
03/20/19 03:32:45PM 0.2720 27.21 0.5 105.0 120.0 15.00 0.250 201.1 0.22844 0.0899
03/20/19 03:47:45PM 0.2613 26.13 1.1 105.0 135.0 15.00 0.250 452.8 0.51447 0.2025
03/20/19 04:02:45PM 0.2482 24.83 1.3 105.0 150.0 15.00 0.250 547.0 0.62153 0.2447
Last 3 Average 0.1791
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
SET UP
Valve Setting:
Elapsed Time
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160In/HourTime (min)
In/Hour vs. Time
Three Oaks Engineering Job #: 19-702 Large TEMF
Date:3/20/2019 Weather Condition:Sunny, 50
Test #:K6 Location:B6
Horizon:BC1 cm in
Depth(inches):36.0 Target Water Level:15.2 6.00
cm in Beginning Water Level:15.2 6.00
Hole Depth:91.4 36.0 Ending Water Level:15.2 6.00
Reference:+10.2 4.0
Head:-15.2 6.0
CHT Tube(s) setting:=86.4 34.0 Hole diameter (d):5.0 cm
Hole radius (r):2.5 cm
x coefficient A:0.001136
1-ON 2-ON
Initial Reservoir Reading (cm)33.64
Coversion Factor (C.F.):105.0 Formula Used: x s>=2H {sinh^-1(H/r)-[(r/H)^2+1]^1/2+r/H}/(2πH^2)
s<2H {3ln(H/r)/[πH(3H+2s)]}
Date/Time Logger Reservoir Change in Chamber Clock Q K K
Reading (m)Reading (cm)Water Level (cm)C.F.Time (min)(min)(hr)(cm3/hr)(cm/hr)(in/hr)
03/20/19 01:05:21PM 0.3364 33.64 0.0 105.0 0.0 0.5
03/20/19 01:20:21PM 0.3342 33.42 0.2 105.0 15.0 15.00 0.250 94.5 0.10736 0.0423
03/20/19 01:35:21PM 0.3346 33.46 0.0 105.0 30.0 15.00 0.250 -18.2 -0.02070 -0.0081
03/20/19 01:50:21PM 0.3329 33.28 0.2 105.0 45.0 15.00 0.250 73.2 0.08318 0.0327
03/20/19 02:05:21PM 0.3356 33.56 -0.3 105.0 60.0 15.00 0.250 -114.8 -0.13046 -0.0514
03/20/19 02:20:21PM 0.3329 33.29 0.3 105.0 75.0 15.00 0.250 111.9 0.12713 0.0501
03/20/19 02:35:21PM 0.3321 33.21 0.1 105.0 90.0 15.00 0.250 32.6 0.03709 0.0146
03/20/19 02:50:21PM 0.3310 33.09 0.1 105.0 105.0 15.00 0.250 50.2 0.05701 0.0224
03/20/19 03:05:21PM 0.3322 33.22 -0.1 105.0 120.0 15.00 0.250 -53.0 -0.06019 -0.0237
03/20/19 03:20:21PM 0.3312 33.11 0.1 105.0 135.0 15.00 0.250 44.6 0.05063 0.0199
03/20/19 03:35:21PM 0.3295 32.94 0.2 105.0 150.0 15.00 0.250 71.5 0.08119 0.0320
03/20/19 03:50:21PM 0.3285 32.85 0.1 105.0 165.0 15.00 0.250 38.7 0.04395 0.0173
Last 3 Average 0.0231
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
SET UP
Valve Setting:
Elapsed Time
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 50 100 150 200In/HourTime (min)
In/Hour vs. Time

ACC Construction  F&R Project No. 66X‐0030 
Proposed SOF Large TEMF  April 12, 2019 

APPENDIX V 
CALCULATIONS 
Page 1Page 2FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, Inc. Date 4/12/2019FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, Inc. Date 4/12/2019SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONSSchmertmann MethodSchmertmann MethodProject: Large TEMFProject: Large TEMFF&R Project Number: 66X-0030 F&R Project Number: 66X-0030Boring C-3Input ResultsColumn Load90,000lbs Footing Size6.0 ftSoil Typeqc/NBearing Pressure2,500psfPo 250 psfCL 3Depth (ft) IzFooting Depth2ftPo0.125 tsfSM 42.0 0.1125pcfP 2,250 psfSC 45.0 0.689737time from load 1yearsP 1.125 tsfSP 514.0 0GWT20.5ftGP 5GW 5Depth to Soil LayerDegrees RadiansTop (ft)Bottom (ft)ZSPT-N SOIL qc/N qc (tsf)IzIz Z / 2.5qc11.12 0.19410Top Angle2.0 12.0 10.012 SC4 48 0.536462 0.0447052 4.38 0.07649 Bottom Angle12.0 14.0 2.030 SM4 120 0.0766370.0005109ok (tsf) 0.0452161c10.94Total Settlement 0.058 ft7.0c21.20Total Settlement 0.7 inches13.0Influence Diagram0.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8DepthIzInfluence DiagramTheoreticalCalculated
Page 1Page 2FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, Inc. Date 4/12/2019FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, Inc. Date 4/12/2019SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONSSchmertmann MethodSchmertmann MethodProject: Large TEMFProject: Large TEMFF&R Project Number: 66X-0030 F&R Project Number: 66X-0030Boring C-7Input ResultsColumn Load90,000lbs Footing Size6.0 ftSoil Typeqc/NBearing Pressure2,500psfPo 250 psfCL 3Depth (ft) IzFooting Depth2ftPo0.125 tsfSM 42.0 0.1125pcfP 2,250 psfSM/SC 45.0 0.689737time from load 1yearsP 1.125 tsfSP 514.0 0GP 5GW 5Depth to Soil LayerDegrees RadiansTop (ft)Bottom (ft)ZSPT-N SOIL qc/N qc (tsf)IzIz Z / 2.5qc11.12 0.19410Top Angle2.0 6.0 4.08 SM/SC4 32 0.493158 0.0246579 4.38 0.07649 Bottom Angle6.0 14.0 8.015 SM4 60 0.306550.0163493ok (tsf) 0.04100724.0c10.94Total Settlement 0.052 ft10.0c21.20Total Settlement 0.6 inchesInfluence Diagram0.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8DepthIzInfluence DiagramTheoreticalSeries2
Project Name: Large TEMF
F&R Project No.: 66X-0030
Design CBR:10 Design Period (years):25
Current Traffic 500 *18 kip ESAL Factor for Light Trucks:0.2500
% of Light Trucks:0 18 kip ESAL Factor for Heavy Trucks:5.0000
% of Heavy Trucks:63.24 18 kip ESAL Factor for Cars:0.015
Lane Distribution Factor 1 Assumed Annual Growth Rate:0.0%
Assumed Growth Factor:25.00 ** Terminal Serviceability:2.5
*18-kip (80kN) equivalent single axle load applications
**Assumed Growth Factor is calculated using the following formula: ((1+g)^n-1)/g;
Where: g = growth factor; n = design period
Log Wt18(80kN) = 9.36*log(SN+1) - 0.20 + (Gt/(0.40+(1094/(SN+1)5.19))) + log (1/R) + 0.372 * (SSV-3.0)
Where:
W t18(80kN) = number of 18 kip (80kN) single axle load applications during design life
SN = required structural number
Gt = log ((4.2-pt)/2.7)= -0.200914843
Pt = terminal serviceability
Regional factor ( R ) =0.5 (for Cumberland County)
SSV = Soil Support Value = 5.32 * log (CBR) - 1.49
Soil Support Value (SSV): 3.830
Vehicle Current 20 Year Design Traffic EASL Design
Type Traffic Growth (D)Factor EASL
(A) (B) Factor (C)(B * C * 365)(E) (D*E)
Passenger Cars 500 25.00 4562555 0.015 68438
Light Trucks 0 25.00 0 0.2500 0
Heavy Trucks 316.2 25.00 2885360 5.0000 14426798
Cumulative EASLs 14495236
Traffic in Design Lane (Wt18(80kN)) = Cumulative ESALs
Wt18(80kN) =14495236
Assume:
A = Log(Wt18(80kN))
B = 9.36*log(SN+1) - 0.20
C = (Gt/(0.40+(1094/(SN+1)5.19)
D = log (1/R) + 0.372 * (SSV-3.0)
SN = Structural Number
Flexible Pavement Design Equation : A = B+C+D
Substituting the design parameters in the above equation:
A B C D B+C+D Required SN
7.16123 6.94569 -0.38686 0.60979 7.16862 4.8
Verification:
Since A<B+C+D; a Structural number of 4.8 is safe;
Layer Equivalent
Layer Type Layer Co-efficient Thickness SN
(in)
Asphalt Pavement Surface Course, Type SF 9.5B or C 0.44 1.5 0.66
Asphalt Pavement Intermediate Course, Type I19.0B 0.44 4.0 1.76
Asphalt Pavement Base Course, Type B25.0B 0.30 4.0 1.20
Aggregate Base Course (ABC stone) 0.14 8.0 1.12
Total equivalent structural number 4.74
Since the design structural number is greater than the required, structural number, the above layer thickness is safe
DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS
(per NCDOT {AASHTO} Pavement Design Procedure)
DESIGN PARAMETERS
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN EQUATION
CALCULATION OF 18-kip EASL FOR ASSUMED TRAFFIC VOLUME
CALCULATION OF STRUCTURAL NUMBER
NAME OF THE STREET: Main Parking Lot. Adjusted % heavy trucks & ESAL until ESAL matched
the PCASE calculation of 14,493,312 ESAL for 25 yr design life
Pavement Thickness ReportU.S. Army Corps of EngineersPCASE Version 2.09.02Date : 4/12/2019Design Name : LARGE TEMFDesign Type : RoadsPavement Type : RigidRoad Type : Parking AreaTerrain Type : RollingAnalysis Type : KDepth of Frost (in) : 6Wander Width (in) : 33.35% Load Transfer : 25Effective K (pci) : 260Reduced Sub Effective K (pci) : 37Joint Spacing : 10 to 15 ftDowel Spacing : 12.00 inDowel Length : 16.00 inDowel Diameter: .75 inLayer InformationLayer Type Material Type Frost CodeFlexural Strength (psi)% SteelAnalysisNon frost Design Thickness (in)Reduced Subgrade Strength (in)Limited Subgrade Penetration (in)K Strength (pci)PCC N/A NFS 650 0 Compute 6 9 6 0Base Unbound Crushed Stone NFS 0 0 Manual 6 6 6 0Natural Subgrade Cohesionless Fill F3/F4 0 0 Manual 0 0 0 200Traffic InformationPattern Name : LARGE TEMFVehicles Weight (lb)Passes per Life SpanEquivalent PassesCMP 60 FORKLIFT 10000 9125 1M983 HEMTT W/XM860A1 TRAILER150000 91250 91250P-23 CRASH TRUCK (FIRE TRUCK)77000 1300 394TRUCK, 3 AXLE 30000 182500 1TRUCK, 3 AXLE 66000 1300 291TRUCK, 5 AXLE 80000 2600 7TRUCK, SMALL PICKUP OR SUV10000 4562500 1Equivalent Single Axle Loads 14493312

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.8 -

APPENDIX H
NCDEQ BIORETENTION CELL SUPPLEMENT FORMS

QuantityInfiltration SystemBioretention Cell 1Wet Pond 2Stormwater WetlandPermeable PavementSand FilterRainwater HarvestingGreen RoofLevel Spreader-Filter StripDisconnected Impervious SurfaceTreatment SwaleDry PondApplicant:Name and Title:Organization:Street address:City, State, Zip:Phone number(s):Email:DesignerCertification Statement:Signature of DesignerDateEmail:Bldg 3-1333 Butner RdFort Bragg, NC 28310(910) 396-2301Company:Contact:Mailing Address:City, State, Zip:Project Name:AddressCity / TownFort Bragg DPWLee WardSOF Civil AffairsFayettevilleFort BraggSUPPLEMENT-EZ FORM COVER PAGESealviolations as well as a report being made to my professional board. - that the information provided in the form is, to the best of my knowledge - that the engineering plans, specifications, operation and maintenancethe information provided here.I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting falseinformation including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing and belief, true, accurate, and complete; andagreements and other supporting information are consistent with I certify, under penalty of law: that this Supplement-EZ form and all supportinginformation were prepared under my direction or supervision; Designer information for this project:Location(s)Please indicate the types, quantities and locations of SCMs that will be used on this project:[e-mail] number(s):Mike Mayer, Civil EngineerMason & Hanger300 W Vine St Suite 1300Lexington, KY [e-mail] PondWet Pond #1 & Wet Pond #2Cover Page18:00 AM 10/4/2019
Ft Bragg Civil Affairs
Stormwater Pond Volume Comparison
October-2019
Bioretention Pond #1
9,761 17,212 26,276
NCDEQ Requirements (cf)EISA Requirements (cf)
1.8" 95th Percentile Provided in Design (cf)
Army LID Planning and Cost Tool Report
Date 7/18/2019
Army Installation Fort Bragg
Master Planner
Project name Ft Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF Ba
Project description
Civil Affairs TEMF Basin #1
Project limit of disturbance (ac) 5.6
95% rainfall depth (in)1.8
Soil type Sandy-Loam
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) B
Pre-project curve number (CN) 72
Post-project curve number (CN)92
User Name Scurry
PROJECT INFO SITE INFO AND EISA VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
Pre-project runoff volume (cf)4325
Post-project runoff volume (cf) 21538
LID PLANNING SUMMARY
Bioretention: 32352
Swale:
Permeable Pavement:
Rainwater Harvesting:
Green Roof:
Infiltration Practice:
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Short Grass): 0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Tall Grass):0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Short Grass):0.00
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Tall Grass): 0.00
Reforestation (Trees - Short Grass): 0.00
Reforestation (Trees - Shrubs and Tall Grass):0.00
Structural BMP Non-structural BMP Surface
area (ac)
Surface area
(sf)
Runoff volume
retained (cf)
26267
0
0
0
0
0
Total retention volume provided by BMPs (cf):26267
EISA Section 438 retention volume
requirement (cf)
17212
LID COST SUMMARY
Project complies with EISA Section 438.
Army Command IMCOM
Discrete SCS Curve Number Method (NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual 3.3.2)
Location:Bioretention Basin #1 - Civil Affairs TEMF Date: 6/19/2019
Soil Group:B
Predevelopment BUA Developed BUA
Area 0 acres Area 3.4 acres
Area 0 sf Area 148,104 sf
CN* 69 CN* 98
S 4.49 S 0.20
ia 0.90 in ia 0.04 in
P 1 in P 1 in
Q 0.00 in Q 0.79 in
V 0 cf V 9,761 cf
Predevelopment Open Area Developed Open Area
Area 5.6 acres Area 2.2 acres
Area 243,936 sf Area 95,832 sf
CN* 69 CN* 69
S 4.49 S 4.49
ia 0.90 in ia 0.90 in
P 1 in P 1 in
Q 0.00 in Q 0.00 in
V 0 cf V 0 cf
Area 5.6 acres Area 5.6 acres
Total 0 cf Total 9,761 cf
Storage Required 9,761 cf
Surface Area 15,900 sf
Riser 12 in
Storage Provided 15,900 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
BIORETENTION CELL1Drainage area number1Total coastal wetlands area (sq ft) sf - Parking / driveway (sq ft)90254 sfTotal surface water area (sq ft) sf - Sidewalk (sq ft)1850 sfTotal drainage area (sq ft)243936 sf - Roof (sq ft)56000 sfBUA associated with existing development (sq ft) sf - Roadway (sq ft) sfProposed new BUA (sq ft)148104 sf - Other, please specify in the comment box below (sq ft) sfPercent BUA of drainage area61%Total BUA (sq ft)148104 sfDesign rainfall depth (in)1.0 inMinimum volume required (cu ft)9761 cfDesign volume of SCM (cu ft)26267 cf#1 Is the SCM sized to treat the SW from all surfaces at build-out?Yes#7 If applicable, with the SCM be cleaned out after construction?Yes#2 Is the SCM located on or near contaminated soils?No#8 Does the mainetenance access comply with General MDC (8)?Yes#3 What are the side slopes of the SCM (H:V)?3:1#9 Does the drainage easement comply with General MDC (9)?Yes#3 Does the SCM have retaining walls, gabion walls or other engineered side slopes? No#10 If the SCM is on a single family lot, does the plat comply with General MDC (10)?Yes#4 Are the inlets, outlets, and receiving stream protected from erosion (10-year storm)?Yes#11 Is there an O&M Agreement that complies with General MDC (11)?Yes#5 Is there a a bypass for flows in excess of the design flow?Yes#12 Is there an O&M Plan that complies with General MDC (12)?Yes#6 What is the method for dewatering the SCM for maintenance?Other#13 Was the SCM designed by an NC licensed professional?Yes#1 SHWT elevation (fmsl)230.00 ft #6 Percentage of medium to coarse washed sand by volume 85%#1 Bottom of the bioretention cell (fmsl)234.33 ft #6 Percentage of fines (silt and clay) by volume10%#1 Distance from bottom to SHWT (feet)4.33 ft #6 Percentage of organic matter by volume 5%#2 Surface area of the bioretention cell (square feet)16015 sf#6 Type of organic materialEngineered Fill#2 Design volume of the bioretention cell (cubic feet)26267 cf#7 Phosphorus Index (P-Index) of media (unitless) 10#2 Ponding depth of the design storm (inches)12 in#8 Will compaction be avoided during construction?Yes#3 Is the bioretention cell used for peak attenuation?Yes#9 Will cell be maintained to a one inch/hour standard?Yes#3 Depth of peak attenuation over planting surface (in)18 in #10 Describe the planting plan:#3 Height of peak attenuation outlet above the planting surface (in)18 in#4 Infiltration rate of the in situ soil (inch/hour).1 in/hr#4 Diameter of the underdrain pipes (if applicable)8 in#4 Does the design include Internal Water Storage (IWS)?Yes #11 Depth of mulch, if applicable (inches) in#4 if so, elevation of the top of the IWS (fmsl)236.50 ft #11 Type of mulch, if applicablena#4 Elevation of the planting surface (fmsl)238.00 ft #12 How many clean out pipes are being installed?11#5 Will the cell contain trees and shrubs?No#12 Briefly describe the pretreatment that will be used:#5 Media depth (inches)30 inTHE DRAINAGE AREABIORETENTION CELL MDC FROM 02H .1052Beehive grated catch basins are provided as first-line overflow at the top of the peak attenuation volume. Maximum depth of storage of cell to emergency overflow is 2.5-ft. Emergency overflow weir designed for 100yr storm event. Project based entirely within Fort Bragg (US Gov't property). No easements required. User requires no hardwood mulch due to maintenance issues.Break down of BUA in the drainage area (both new and existing):COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE STORMWATER PROGRAMStormwater program(s) that apply (please specify):EISA 438, ARMY LID, FORT BRAGG IDGGENERAL MDC FROM 02H .1050ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONPlease use this space to provide any additional information about this bioretention cell that you think is relevant to the review:Contractor to provide landscape establishment to achieve 100% coverage throughout site in 12 months. Sod is desired by the user for cell. User requires no hardwood mulch within cell.Minimum 3' sod strip. All outlet headwalls to cell have rip-rap outlet protection per NCDEQ requirements.SOF Civil Affairs Bioretention BasinsBioretention18:29 AM 10/3/2019
Ft Bragg Civil Affairs - Bioretention Basin #1
Stormwater Pond Riser Summary
October-2019
Bioretention Basin #1
1 0.59 239.64 28,971
2 2.43 239.88 33,439
5 5.49 240.33 42,417
10 12.46 240.63 48,531
25 26.79 240.82 52,410
50 36.98 240.93 54,754
100 42.88 Spillway
Overflow
***Storage Volume at Peak Attenuation 239.50-ft = 26,267 cf***
Storm Return Interval
(yr)
Peak Flow (Qp)
w/ Inlet Control
Maximum Elevation (ft)
w/ Inlet Control
Maximum Storage (ft)
w/ Inlet Control
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2019 Wednesday, 10 / 2 / 2019
Pond No. 1 - Bioretention Basin #1
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 238.00 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 238.00 16,015 0 0
1.00 239.00 17,817 16,906 16,906
2.00 240.00 19,644 18,721 35,628
3.00 241.00 21,496 20,561 56,188
Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in)= 24.00 6.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in)= 24.00 36.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0
Invert El. (ft)= 238.01 239.50 0.00 0.00
Length (ft)= 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%)= 1.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a
Orifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multi-Stage = n/a Yes No No
Crest Len (ft)= 16.00 20.00 0.00 0.00
Crest El. (ft)= 240.50 240.50 0.00 0.00
Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Weir Type = 1 Ciplti --- ---
Multi-Stage = Yes No No No
Exfil.(in/hr)= 0.900 (by Contour)
TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).
0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 32.00 36.00 40.00 44.00
Stage (ft)
0.00 238.00
1.00 239.00
2.00 240.00
3.00 241.00
Elev (ft)
Discharge (cfs)
Stage / Discharge
Total Q
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® 2019 by Autodesk, Inc. v2019 Wednesday, 10 / 2 / 2019
Pond No. 1 - Bioretention Basin #1
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 238.00 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 238.00 16,015 0 0
1.00 239.00 17,817 16,906 16,906
2.00 240.00 19,644 18,721 35,628
3.00 241.00 21,496 20,561 56,188
Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in)= 24.00 6.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in)= 24.00 36.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0
Invert El. (ft)= 238.01 239.50 0.00 0.00
Length (ft)= 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%)= 1.00 0.00 0.00 n/a
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a
Orifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multi-Stage = n/a Yes No No
Crest Len (ft)= 16.00 20.00 0.00 0.00
Crest El. (ft)= 240.50 240.50 0.00 0.00
Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Weir Type = 1 Ciplti --- ---
Multi-Stage = Yes No No No
Exfil.(in/hr)= 0.900 (by Contour)
TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).
0 6,000 12,000 18,000 24,000 30,000 36,000 42,000 48,000 54,000 60,000
Stage (ft)
0.00 238.00
1.00 239.00
2.00 240.00
3.00 241.00
Elev (ft)
Storage (cuft)
Stage / Storage
Storage
Fort Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF
Bioretention Cell #1 Underdrain Calculations
6/20/2019
Engineered Fill Permeability (K)2 in/hr
Surface Area (A)22300 ft2
Maximum Ponding Depth (C H)3.25 ft
Depth of media (C L)2.5 ft
Flow (Qi)1.33 cfs
Apply 10x Factor of Safety (Q)13.34 cfs
Roughness Factor (n)0.01
Internal Slope (s)0.005
Darcy's Equation
Diameter of Single Pipe (d)21.04 in
Diameter Underdrain Pipes 8 in
Equavalent Number Required 10
Number Underdrain Pipes Provided 12
NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual Common BMP Design Elements, July 2007
5.7 Underdrain Systems

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.9 -

APPENDIX I
WET POND BASIN CALCULATIONS

QuantityInfiltration SystemBioretention Cell 1Wet Pond 2Stormwater WetlandPermeable PavementSand FilterRainwater HarvestingGreen RoofLevel Spreader-Filter StripDisconnected Impervious SurfaceTreatment SwaleDry PondApplicant:Name and Title:Organization:Street address:City, State, Zip:Phone number(s):Email:DesignerCertification Statement:Signature of DesignerDateEmail:Bldg 3-1333 Butner RdFort Bragg, NC 28310(910) 396-2301Company:Contact:Mailing Address:City, State, Zip:Project Name:AddressCity / TownFort Bragg DPWLee WardSOF Civil AffairsFayettevilleFort BraggSUPPLEMENT-EZ FORM COVER PAGESealviolations as well as a report being made to my professional board. - that the information provided in the form is, to the best of my knowledge - that the engineering plans, specifications, operation and maintenancethe information provided here.I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting falseinformation including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing and belief, true, accurate, and complete; andagreements and other supporting information are consistent with I certify, under penalty of law: that this Supplement-EZ form and all supportinginformation were prepared under my direction or supervision; Designer information for this project:Location(s)Please indicate the types, quantities and locations of SCMs that will be used on this project:[e-mail] number(s):Mike Mayer, Civil EngineerMason & Hanger300 W Vine St Suite 1300Lexington, KY [e-mail] PondWet Pond #1 & Wet Pond #2Cover Page18:00 AM 10/4/2019
Ft Bragg Civil Affairs
Stormwater Pond Volume Comparison
October-2019
Bioretention Pond #1
Bioretentin Storage Requirements 15,900 16,378 16,701
Wet Pond #1
Volume Main Pool VMP 28,756 37,893 38,241
Volume of Forebay VFB 4,313 5,684 6,330
Design Volume DV 11,805 21,429 30,501
Wet Pond #2
Volume Main Pool VMP 89,090 111,165 116,538
Volume of Forebay VFB 13,364 16,675 18,930
Design Volume DV 36,572 65,830 74,633
NCDEQ Requirements (cf)EISA Option #2 Requirements (cf)
Pre vs Post Development (10-yr)Provided in Design (cf)
NCDEQ Requirements (cf) EISA Option #1 Requirements (cf) Provided in Design (cf)
NCDEQ Requirements (cf)EISA Option #2 Requirements (cf)
Pre vs Post Development (10-yr)Provided in Design (cf)

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.12 -

STORM WATER WET POND #1
(BASIN #2)
CALCULATIONS

WinTR-55 Current Data Description
--- Identification Data ---
User: SCurry Date: 10/3/2019
Project: Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond Units: English
SubTitle: Pre-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp Areal Units: Acres
State: North Carolina
County: Cumberland NOAA-B
Filename: P:\Projects\017101\02 Design\Civil\Storm Water Design\Basin Design\Basin #2\PreDevelopment_CA_TR55_Basin#2.w55
--- Sub-Area Data ---
Name Description Reach Area(ac) RCN Tc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond # Outlet 4.2 69 0.133
Total area: 4.20 (ac)
--- Storm Data --
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:21:07 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Storm Data
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:21:07 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Watershed Peak Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
Wet Pond # 6.13 10.48 14.35 20.16 25.14 30.48 3.83
REACHES
OUTLET 6.13 10.48 14.35 20.16 25.14 30.48 3.83
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:21:07 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Hydrograph Peak/Peak Time Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow and Peak Time (hr) by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
(hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
Wet Pond # 6.13 10.48 14.35 20.16 25.14 30.48 3.83
12.00 11.97 11.96 11.96 11.96 11.95 12.01
REACHES
OUTLET 6.13 10.48 14.35 20.16 25.14 30.48 3.83
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:21:07 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Summary Table
Sub-Area Drainage Time of Curve Receiving Sub-Area
Identifier Area Concentration Number Reach Description
(ac) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond # 4.20 0.133 69 Outlet
Total Area: 4.20 (ac)
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:21:07 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Time of Concentration Details
Sub-Area Flow Mannings's End Wetted Travel
Identifier/ Length Slope n Area Perimeter Velocity Time
(ft) (ft/ft) (sq ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond #
User-provided 0.133
Time of Concentration 0.133
========
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:21:07 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Land Use and Curve Number Details
Sub-Area Hydrologic Sub-Area Curve
Identifier Land Use Soil Area Number
Group (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond #Open space; grass cover 50% to 75% (fair) B 4.2 69
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 4.2 69
=== ==
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:21:07 PM
WinTR-55 Current Data Description
--- Identification Data ---
User: SCurry Date: 10/3/2019
Project: Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond Units: English
SubTitle: Post-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp Areal Units: Acres
State: North Carolina
County: Cumberland NOAA-B
Filename: P:\Projects\017101\02 Design\Civil\Storm Water Design\Basin Design\Basin #2\PostDevelopment_CA_TR55_Basin#2.w55
--- Sub-Area Data ---
Name Description Reach Area(ac) RCN Tc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond 1 Outlet 4.2 92 0.133
Total area: 4.20 (ac)
--- Storm Data --
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:23:51 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Storm Data
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:23:51 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Watershed Peak Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
Wet Pond 1 16.50 22.08 26.54 32.84 37.98 43.38 13.07
REACHES
OUTLET 16.50 22.08 26.54 32.84 37.98 43.38 13.07
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:23:51 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Hydrograph Peak/Peak Time Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow and Peak Time (hr) by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
(hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
Wet Pond 1 16.50 22.08 26.54 32.84 37.98 43.38 13.07
11.95 11.95 11.94 11.95 11.95 11.94 11.95
REACHES
OUTLET 16.50 22.08 26.54 32.84 37.98 43.38 13.07
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:23:51 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Summary Table
Sub-Area Drainage Time of Curve Receiving Sub-Area
Identifier Area Concentration Number Reach Description
(ac) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond 1 4.20 0.133 92 Outlet
Total Area: 4.20 (ac)
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:23:51 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Time of Concentration Details
Sub-Area Flow Mannings's End Wetted Travel
Identifier/ Length Slope n Area Perimeter Velocity Time
(ft) (ft/ft) (sq ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond 1
User-provided 0.133
Time of Concentration 0.133
========
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:23:51 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #1, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Land Use and Curve Number Details
Sub-Area Hydrologic Sub-Area Curve
Identifier Land Use Soil Area Number
Group (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond 1Open space; grass cover 50% to 75% (fair) B .82 69
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways B 3.38 98
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 4.2 92
=== ==
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 2:23:51 PM
Ft Bragg Civil Affairs
Stormwater Pond Volume Comparison
October-2019
Wet Pond #1
Volume Main Pool VMP 233-240 28,756 37,893 38,241
Volume of Forebay VFB 236-240 4,313 5,684 6,330
Design Volume DV 240-241.50 11,805 21,249 30,501
Pre-Development = 35,502 cf
Post-Development = 73,395 cf
∆ = 37,893 cf
EISA Option #2 Requirements (cf)
Pre vs Post Development (10-yr)NCDEQ Requirements (cf)Provided in Design (cf)Contour Intervals (ft)
WET POND #11Drainage area numberWet Pond #1Total coastal wetlands area (sq ft) sf - Parking / driveway (sq ft)146003 sfTotal surface water area (sq ft) sf - Sidewalk (sq ft) sfTotal drainage area (sq ft)182952 sf - Roof (sq ft)1230 sfBUA associated with existing development (sq ft) sf - Roadway (sq ft) sfProposed new BUA (sq ft)147233 sf - Other, please specify in the comment box below (sq ft) sfPercent BUA of drainage area80%Total BUA (sq ft)147233 sfDesign rainfall depth (in)1.0 inMinimum volume required (cu ft)11805 cfDesign volume of SCM (cu ft)30501 cf#1 Is the SCM sized to treat the SW from all surfaces at build-out?Yes#7 If applicable, with the SCM be cleaned out after construction?Yes#2 Is the SCM located on or near contaminated soils?No#8 Does the mainetenance access comply with General MDC (8)?Yes#3 What are the side slopes of the SCM (H:V)?3:1#9 Does the drainage easement comply with General MDC (9)?Yes#3 Does the SCM have retaining walls, gabion walls or other engineered side slopes? No#10 If the SCM is on a single family lot, does the plat comply with General MDC (10)?Yes#4 Are the inlets, outlets, and receiving stream protected from erosion (10-year storm)? Yes#11 Is there an O&M Agreement that complies with General MDC (11)?Yes#5 Is there a a bypass for flows in excess of the design flow?Yes#12 Is there an O&M Plan that complies with General MDC (12)?Yes#6 What is the method for dewatering the SCM for maintenance?Other#13 Was the SCM designed by an NC licensed professional?Yes#1 Method usedHRT#6 Width of the vegetated shelf (feet)6 ft#1 Surface area of the main permanent pool (square feet)9917 sf#6 Location of vegetated shelf@ Normal Pool#1 Volume of the main permanent pool (cubic feet)38241 cf#6 Elevation of top of shelf (fmsl)240 ft#2 Average depth of the main pool (feet)6 ft #6 Elevation of bottom of shelf (fmsl)239 ft#2 Was the vegetated shelf included in the calculation of average depth? Yes #6 Slope of vegetated shelf (H:V)6:1#2 Elevation of the bottom of the permanent pool (fmsl)234 ft #7 Diameter of drawdown orifice (inches)4.0 in#2 Elevation of the top of the permanent pool (fmsl)240 ft #7 Drawdown time for the temporary pool (hours)59 hrs#2 Elevation of the top of the temporary pool (fmsl)241.50 ft #7 Does the orifice drawdown from below the top surface of the permanent pool?No#3 Depth provided for sediment storage (inches)12 in#8 Does the pond minimize impacts to the receiving channel from the 1-yr, 24-hr storm? Yes#4 Are the inlet(s) and outlet located in a manner that avoids short-circuiting?Yes #9 Are fountains proposed?No#9 If yes, is documentation provided per Wet Pond MDC (9)?No#10 Is a trash rack or other device provided to protect the outlet system? Yes#5 Volume of the forebay (cubic feet)6330#11 Are the dam and embankment planted in non-clumping turf grass?Yes#5 Is this 15-20% of the volume in the main pool?Yes#11 Species of turf that will be used on the dam and embankmentSod#5 Depth of forebay at entrance (inches)48 in#11 Describe the planting plan for the vegetated shelf:#5 Depth of forebay at exit (inches)48 in#5 Does water flow out of the forebay in a non-erosive manner?Yes#5 Clean-out depth for forebay (inches)12 in#5 Will the forebay be cleaned out when the depth is reduced to less than the above? YesGENERAL MDC FROM 02H .1050WET POND MDC FROM 02H .1053#4 Describe any measures, such as berms or baffles, that will be taken to improve the flow path:Contractor to provide landscape establishment to achieve 100% coverage throughout site in 12 months. Sod is desired by the User for embankments.ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONSOF Civil AffairsTHE DRAINAGE AREABreak down of BUA in the drainage area (both new and existing):COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE STORMWATER PROGRAMStormwater program(s) that apply (please specify):EISA 438, ARMY LID, FORT BRAGG IDGPlease use this space to provide any additional information about this wet pond that you think is relevant to the review:Project based entirely within Fort Bragg (US Gov't property). No easements required.Wet Pond #118:51 AM 10/4/2019
Permit No.______________________
(to be provided by DWQ)
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name
Contact person
Phone number
Date
Drainage area number
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 182,952 ft2
Impervious area, post-development 147,233 ft2
% impervious 80.48 %
Design rainfall depth 1.0 in
Storage Volume: Non-SA Waters
Minimum volume required 11,805 ft3
OK, volume provided is equal to or in excess of volume required.
Storage Volume: SA Waters
1.5" runoff volume ft3
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Minimum volume required ft3
Peak Flow Calculations
Is the pre/post control of the 1yr 24hr storm peak flow required? Y (Y or N)
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth 3.1 in
Rational C, pre-development 0.20 (unitless)
Rational C, post-development 93.00 (unitless)
Rainfall intensity: 1-yr, 24-hr storm 2.38 in/hr OK
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 3.83 ft3/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 13.07 ft3/sec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow control 9.24 ft3/sec
Elevations
Temporary pool elevation 241.50 fmsl
Permanent pool elevation 240.00 fmsl
SHWT elevation (approx. at the perm. pool elevation) 240.00 fmsl
Top of 10ft vegetated shelf elevation 240.00 fmsl
Bottom of 10ft vegetated shelf elevation 241.00 fmsl Data not needed for calculation option #1, but OK if provided.
Sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond) 233.00 fmsl
Sediment cleanout, bottom elevation 232.00 fmsl Data not needed for calculation option #1, but OK if provided.
Sediment storage provided 1.00 ft
Is there additional volume stored above the state-required temp. pool? N (Y or N)
Elevation of the top of the additional volume fmsl
859.280.3581
10/4/2019
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
Volume provided
ft3
ft3
Fort Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF - Wet Pond #1
Volume provided 30,501
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
Stephen Curry, P.E.
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
The Required Items Checklist (Part III) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
Wet Pond #1
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.9-4/18/12 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2
Permit No.______________________
(to be provided by DWQ)
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Surface Areas
Area, temporary pool 17,674 ft2
Area REQUIRED, permanent pool 183 ft2
SA/DA ratio 0.10 (unitless)
Area PROVIDED, permanent pool, Aperm_pool 9,917 ft2 OK
Area, bottom of 10ft vegetated shelf, Abot_shelf 8,536 ft2
Area, sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond), Abot_pond 2,513 ft2
Volumes
Volume, temporary pool 30,501 ft3 OK
Volume, permanent pool, Vperm_pool 38,118 ft3
Volume, forebay (sum of forebays if more than one forebay) 6,330 ft3
Forebay % of permanent pool volume 16.6% % Insufficient forebay volume.
SA/DA Table Data
Design TSS removal 85 %
Coastal SA/DA Table Used?N (Y or N)
Mountain/Piedmont SA/DA Table Used? Y (Y or N)
SA/DA ratio 0.10 (unitless)
Average depth (used in SA/DA table):
Calculation option 1 used? (See Figure 10-2b) Y (Y or N)
Volume, permanent pool, Vperm_pool 38,118 ft3
Area provided, permanent pool, Aperm_pool 9,917 ft2
Average depth calculated 3.80 ft OK
Average depth used in SA/DA, dav, (Round to nearest 0.5ft)4.0 ft OK
Calculation option 2 used? (See Figure 10-2b) N (Y or N)
Area provided, permanent pool, Aperm_pool 9,917 ft2
Area, bottom of 10ft vegetated shelf, Abot_shelf 8,536 ft2
Area, sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond), Abot_pond 2,513 ft2
"Depth" (distance b/w bottom of 10ft shelf and top of sediment) 8.00 ft
Average depth calculated ft
Average depth used in SA/DA, dav, (Round to down to nearest 0.5ft)ft
Drawdown Calculations
Drawdown through orifice?Y (Y or N)
Diameter of orifice (if circular)4.00 in
Area of orifice (if-non-circular)in2
Coefficient of discharge (CD)0.60 (unitless)
Driving head (Ho)241.50 ft
Drawdown through weir?N (Y or N)
Weir type (unitless)
Coefficient of discharge (Cw)(unitless)
Length of weir (L)ft
Driving head (H)ft
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 3.83 ft3/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 13.07 ft3/sec
Storage volume discharge rate (through discharge orifice or weir) 0.25 ft3/sec
OK, draws down in 2-5 days.
Additional Information
Vegetated side slopes 3 :1 OK
Vegetated shelf slope 10 :1 OK
Vegetated shelf width 10.0 ft OK
Length of flowpath to width ratio 3 :1 OK
Length to width ratio 3.4 :1 OK
Trash rack for overflow & orifice?Y (Y or N) OK
Freeboard provided 1.0 ft OK
Vegetated filter provided?Y (Y or N) OK
Recorded drainage easement provided? N (Y or N) Insufficient. Recorded drainage easement required.
Capures all runoff at ultimate build-out? Y (Y or N) OK
Drain mechanism for maintenance or emergencies is:Pump
Storage volume drawdown time 2.50 days
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.9-4/18/12 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2
Project:Ft Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF - Wet Basin #2
Date:19-Jun-19
Rv=0.05 +0.9*I A
Rv - Runoff Coefficient
IA - Impervious fraction
Dv=3630*R D*RV*A
Dv - Design Volume (cf)
RD - Desing Storm Depth (in)
A - Drainage Area (Ac)
Impervious Area (Ac)=3.38
Pervious Area (Ac)=0.82
Total Area (Ac)=4.2
IA=0.80
RD, Design Storm Depth (in)=1.0
Rv= 0.77
Dv= 11,805 NCDEQ Minimum Design Volume
Project:Ft Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF - Wet Basin #2
Date:19-Jun-19
Hydraullic Retention Time (HRT) Method
Dv - Design Volume (cf) From Simple Method
Dv=11,805 cf
VMP =28,756 cf
Ft Bragg Civil Affairs - Wet Pond #1
Stormwater Pond Riser Summary
October-2019
Wet Pond #1
1 0 239.77
2 0.15 240.29
5 0.32 240.76
10 0.44 241.24
25 1.67 241.57
50 5.09 241.69
100 14.02 241.98
Peak Flow (Qp)
w/ Inlet Control
Maximum Elevation (ft)
w/ Inlet Control
Storm Return Interval
(yr)
Wet Pond #1 Drawdown Time
Ft Bragg CA TEMF
Oct-19
Orifice Diameter 4 inches
Discharge Rate of Orifice (cuft/s)0.25
Volume of Stormwater for Drawdown 53,023
Incremental Storage (cuft):
242 18,912
241 16,437
241.50 17,674
Total Storage (cuft)53,023
Drawdown Rate:
Volume of Stormwater / Discharge Rate 212092 sec
59 hrs
2.5 days
Main Pond Volume.txtWet Pond #1 Main Pond Volume Project: Ft Bragg Civil Affairs Basin Description: Wet Pond #1 Main Pond Volume Contour Contour Depth Incremental Cumulative IncrementalCumulative Elevation Area (ft) Volume Volume Volume Volume (sq. ft) Avg. End Avg. End Conic Conic (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) 233.0 1,510.0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 234.0 2,513.0 1.00 2011.50 2011.50 1990.33 1990.33 235.0 3,587.0 1.00 3050.00 5061.50 3034.12 5024.45 236.0 4,734.0 1.00 4160.50 9222.00 4147.26 9171.71 237.0 5,945.0 1.00 5339.50 14561.50 5328.02 14499.73 238.0 7,212.0 1.00 6578.50 21140.00 6568.31 21068.03 239.0 8,536.0 1.00 7874.00 29014.00 7864.71 28932.74 240.0 9,917.0 1.00 9226.50 38240.50 9217.88 38150.62Page 1
Forebay Volume.txtWet Pond #1 - Forebay Project: Ft Bragg Civil Affairs Basin Description: Wet Pond #1 - Forebay Contour Contour Depth Incremental Cumulative IncrementalCumulative Elevation Area (ft) Volume Volume Volume Volume (sq. ft) Avg. End Avg. End Conic Conic (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) 236.0 774.0 N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 237.0 1,129.0 1 952 952 946 946 238.0 1,540.0 1 1335 2286 1329 2275 239.0 2,008.0 1 1774 4060 1769 4044 240.0 2,532.0 1 2270 6330 2265 6309Page 1
Design Volume.txtWet Pond #1 - Design Volume Project: Ft Bragg Civil Affairs Basin Description: Wet Pond #1 - Design Volume Contour Contour Depth Incremental Cumulative IncrementalCumulative Elevation Area (ft) Volume Volume Volume Volume (sq. ft) Avg. End Avg. End Conic Conic (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) 240.0 12,449.0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 241.0 16,437.0 1.00 14443.00 14443.00 14396.90 14396.90 242.0 18,912.0 1.00 17674.50 32117.50 17660.04 32056.94Page 1

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.13 -

STORM WATER WET POND #2
(BASIN #3)
CALCULATIONS

WinTR-55 Current Data Description
--- Identification Data ---
User: SCurry Date: 10/3/2019
Project: Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond Units: English
SubTitle: Pre-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp Areal Units: Acres
State: North Carolina
County: Cumberland NOAA-B
Filename: P:\Projects\017101\02 Design\Civil\Storm Water Design\Basin Design\Basin #3\PreDevelopment_CA_TR55_Basin#3.w55
--- Sub-Area Data ---
Name Description Reach Area(ac) RCN Tc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond#2 Outlet 12.5 69 0.242
Total area: 12.50 (ac)
--- Storm Data --
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:32:15 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Storm Data
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:32:15 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Watershed Peak Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
Wet Pond#2 15.76 27.04 36.97 51.84 64.60 78.30 9.65
REACHES
OUTLET 15.76 27.04 36.97 51.84 64.60 78.30 9.65
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:32:15 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Hydrograph Peak/Peak Time Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow and Peak Time (hr) by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
(hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
Wet Pond#2 15.76 27.04 36.97 51.84 64.60 78.30 9.65
12.06 12.05 12.05 12.04 12.04 12.04 12.06
REACHES
OUTLET 15.76 27.04 36.97 51.84 64.60 78.30 9.65
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:32:15 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Summary Table
Sub-Area Drainage Time of Curve Receiving Sub-Area
Identifier Area Concentration Number Reach Description
(ac) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond#2 12.50 0.242 69 Outlet
Total Area: 12.50 (ac)
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:32:15 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Time of Concentration Details
Sub-Area Flow Mannings's End Wetted Travel
Identifier/ Length Slope n Area Perimeter Velocity Time
(ft) (ft/ft) (sq ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond#2
User-provided 0.242
Time of Concentration 0.242
========
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:32:15 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Pre-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Land Use and Curve Number Details
Sub-Area Hydrologic Sub-Area Curve
Identifier Land Use Soil Area Number
Group (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond#2Open space; grass cover 50% to 75% (fair) B 12.5 69
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 12.5 69
==== ==
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:32:15 PM
WinTR-55 Current Data Description
--- Identification Data ---
User: SCurry Date: 10/3/2019
Project: Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond Units: English
SubTitle: Post-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp Areal Units: Acres
State: North Carolina
County: Cumberland NOAA-B
Filename: P:\Projects\017101\02 Design\Civil\Storm Water Design\Basin Design\Basin #3\PostDevelopment_CA_TR55_Basin#3.w55
--- Sub-Area Data ---
Name Description Reach Area(ac) RCN Tc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond#3 Outlet 12.5 93 0.133
Total area: 12.50 (ac)
--- Storm Data --
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:35:44 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Storm Data
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:35:44 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Watershed Peak Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
Wet Pond#3 50.44 66.93 80.16 98.78 114.05 130.04 40.19
REACHES
OUTLET 50.44 66.93 80.16 98.78 114.05 130.04 40.19
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:35:44 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Hydrograph Peak/Peak Time Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow and Peak Time (hr) by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
(hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
Wet Pond#3 50.44 66.93 80.16 98.78 114.05 130.04 40.19
11.95 11.95 11.95 11.95 11.95 11.94 11.95
REACHES
OUTLET 50.44 66.93 80.16 98.78 114.05 130.04 40.19
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:35:44 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Summary Table
Sub-Area Drainage Time of Curve Receiving Sub-Area
Identifier Area Concentration Number Reach Description
(ac) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond#3 12.50 0.133 93 Outlet
Total Area: 12.50 (ac)
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:35:44 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Time of Concentration Details
Sub-Area Flow Mannings's End Wetted Travel
Identifier/ Length Slope n Area Perimeter Velocity Time
(ft) (ft/ft) (sq ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond#3
User-provided 0.133
Time of Concentration 0.133
========
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:35:44 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_Wet Pond
Post-Development Wet Pond #2, Qp
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Land Use and Curve Number Details
Sub-Area Hydrologic Sub-Area Curve
Identifier Land Use Soil Area Number
Group (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Pond#3Open space; grass cover 50% to 75% (fair) B 2 69
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways B 10.5 98
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 12.5 93
==== ==
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 10/3/2019 4:35:44 PM
Ft Bragg Civil Affairs
Stormwater Pond Volume Comparison
October-2019
Wet Pond #2
Volume Main Pool VMP 234-239 89,090 111,165 116,538
Volume of Forebay VFB 235-239 13,364 16,675 18,930
Design Volume DV 239-240.50 36,572 65,830 74,633
Pre-Development = 109,103 cf
Post-Development = 220,268 cf
∆ = 111,165 cf
NCDEQ Requirements (cf)EISA Option #2 Requirements (cf)
Pre vs Post Development (10-yr)Provided in Design (cf)Contour Intervals (ft)
WET POND #21Drainage area numberWet Pond #2Total coastal wetlands area (sq ft) sf - Parking / driveway (sq ft)453520 sfTotal surface water area (sq ft) sf - Sidewalk (sq ft) sfTotal drainage area (sq ft)544500 sf - Roof (sq ft)3860 sfBUA associated with existing development (sq ft) sf - Roadway (sq ft) sfProposed new BUA (sq ft)457380 sf - Other, please specify in the comment box below (sq ft) sfPercent BUA of drainage area84%Total BUA (sq ft)457380 sfDesign rainfall depth (in)1.0 inMinimum volume required (cu ft)36572 cfDesign volume of SCM (cu ft)74633 cf#1 Is the SCM sized to treat the SW from all surfaces at build-out?Yes#7 If applicable, with the SCM be cleaned out after construction?Yes#2 Is the SCM located on or near contaminated soils?No#8 Does the mainetenance access comply with General MDC (8)?Yes#3 What are the side slopes of the SCM (H:V)?3:1#9 Does the drainage easement comply with General MDC (9)?Yes#3 Does the SCM have retaining walls, gabion walls or other engineered side slopes? No#10 If the SCM is on a single family lot, does the plat comply with General MDC (10)?Yes#4 Are the inlets, outlets, and receiving stream protected from erosion (10-year storm)?Yes#11 Is there an O&M Agreement that complies with General MDC (11)?Yes#5 Is there a a bypass for flows in excess of the design flow?Yes#12 Is there an O&M Plan that complies with General MDC (12)?Yes#6 What is the method for dewatering the SCM for maintenance?Other#13 Was the SCM designed by an NC licensed professional?Yes#1 Method usedHRT#6 Width of the vegetated shelf (feet)6 ft#1 Surface area of the main permanent pool (square feet)38125 sf#6 Location of vegetated shelf@ Normal Pool#1 Volume of the main permanent pool (cubic feet)116538 cf#6 Elevation of top of shelf (fmsl)239 ft#2 Average depth of the main pool (feet)5 ft #6 Elevation of bottom of shelf (fmsl)238 ft#2 Was the vegetated shelf included in the calculation of average depth?Yes #6 Slope of vegetated shelf (H:V)6:1#2 Elevation of the bottom of the permanent pool (fmsl)234 ft #7 Diameter of drawdown orifice (inches)6.0 in#2 Elevation of the top of the permanent pool (fmsl)239 ft #7 Drawdown time for the temporary pool (hours)88 hrs#2 Elevation of the top of the temporary pool (fmsl)240.50 ft #7 Does the orifice drawdown from below the top surface of the permanent pool?No#3 Depth provided for sediment storage (inches)12 in#8 Does the pond minimize impacts to the receiving channel from the 1-yr, 24-hr storm?Yes#4 Are the inlet(s) and outlet located in a manner that avoids short-circuiting?Yes #9 Are fountains proposed?No#9 If yes, is documentation provided per Wet Pond MDC (9)?No#10 Is a trash rack or other device provided to protect the outlet system?Yes#5 Volume of the forebay (cubic feet)18930#11 Are the dam and embankment planted in non-clumping turf grass?Yes#5 Is this 15-20% of the volume in the main pool?Yes#11 Species of turf that will be used on the dam and embankmentSod#5 Depth of forebay at entrance (inches)48 in#11 Describe the planting plan for the vegetated shelf:#5 Depth of forebay at exit (inches)48 in#5 Does water flow out of the forebay in a non-erosive manner?Yes#5 Clean-out depth for forebay (inches)12 in#5 Will the forebay be cleaned out when the depth is reduced to less than the above?YesGENERAL MDC FROM 02H .1050WET POND MDC FROM 02H .1053#4 Describe any measures, such as berms or baffles, that will be taken to improve the flow path:Contractor to provide landscape establishment to achieve 100% coverage throughout site in 12 months. Sod is desired by the User for embankments.ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONSOF Civil AffairsTHE DRAINAGE AREABreak down of BUA in the drainage area (both new and existing):COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE STORMWATER PROGRAMStormwater program(s) that apply (please specify):EISA 438, ARMY LID, FORT BRAGG IDGPlease use this space to provide any additional information about this wet pond that you think is relevant to the review:Project based entirely within Fort Bragg (US Gov't property). No easements required.Wet Pond #219:58 AM 10/4/2019
Permit No.______________________
(to be provided by DWQ)
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name
Contact person
Phone number
Date
Drainage area number
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 544,500 ft2
Impervious area, post-development 457,380 ft2
% impervious 84.00 %
Design rainfall depth 1.0 in
Storage Volume: Non-SA Waters
Minimum volume required 36,572 ft3
OK, volume provided is equal to or in excess of volume required.
Storage Volume: SA Waters
1.5" runoff volume ft3
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Minimum volume required ft3
Peak Flow Calculations
Is the pre/post control of the 1yr 24hr storm peak flow required? Y (Y or N)
1-yr, 24-hr rainfall depth 3.1 in
Rational C, pre-development 0.20 (unitless)
Rational C, post-development 93.00 (unitless)
Rainfall intensity: 1-yr, 24-hr storm 2.38 in/hr OK
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 13.40 ft3/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 40.20 ft3/sec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow control 26.80 ft3/sec
Elevations
Temporary pool elevation 240.50 fmsl
Permanent pool elevation 239.00 fmsl
SHWT elevation (approx. at the perm. pool elevation) 239.00 fmsl
Top of 10ft vegetated shelf elevation 239.00 fmsl
Bottom of 10ft vegetated shelf elevation 238.00 fmsl Data not needed for calculation option #1, but OK if provided.
Sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond) 234.00 fmsl
Sediment cleanout, bottom elevation 233.00 fmsl Data not needed for calculation option #1, but OK if provided.
Sediment storage provided 1.00 ft
Is there additional volume stored above the state-required temp. pool? N (Y or N)
Elevation of the top of the additional volume fmsl
859.280.3581
10/4/2019
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
WET DETENTION BASIN SUPPLEMENT
Volume provided
ft3
ft3
Fort Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF - Wet Pond #2
Volume provided 74,633
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
Stephen Curry, P.E.
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
The Required Items Checklist (Part III) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
Wet Pond #2
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.9-4/18/12 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2
Permit No.______________________
(to be provided by DWQ)
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Surface Areas
Area, temporary pool 53,661 ft2
Area REQUIRED, permanent pool 545 ft2
SA/DA ratio 0.10 (unitless)
Area PROVIDED, permanent pool, Aperm_pool 38,125 ft2 OK
Area, bottom of 10ft vegetated shelf, Abot_shelf 29,282 ft2
Area, sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond), Abot_pond 12,276 ft2
Volumes
Volume, temporary pool 74,633 ft3 OK
Volume, permanent pool, Vperm_pool 116,538 ft3
Volume, forebay (sum of forebays if more than one forebay) 18,930 ft3
Forebay % of permanent pool volume 16.2% % Insufficient forebay volume.
SA/DA Table Data
Design TSS removal 85 %
Coastal SA/DA Table Used?N (Y or N)
Mountain/Piedmont SA/DA Table Used? Y (Y or N)
SA/DA ratio 0.10 (unitless)
Average depth (used in SA/DA table):
Calculation option 1 used? (See Figure 10-2b) Y (Y or N)
Volume, permanent pool, Vperm_pool 116,538 ft3
Area provided, permanent pool, Aperm_pool 38,125 ft2
Average depth calculated 3.10 ft OK
Average depth used in SA/DA, dav, (Round to nearest 0.5ft)5.0 ft Insufficient. Check calculation.
Calculation option 2 used? (See Figure 10-2b) N (Y or N)
Area provided, permanent pool, Aperm_pool 38,125 ft2
Area, bottom of 10ft vegetated shelf, Abot_shelf 29,282 ft2
Area, sediment cleanout, top elevation (bottom of pond), Abot_pond 12,276 ft2
"Depth" (distance b/w bottom of 10ft shelf and top of sediment) 4.00 ft
Average depth calculated ft
Average depth used in SA/DA, dav, (Round to down to nearest 0.5ft)ft
Drawdown Calculations
Drawdown through orifice?Y (Y or N)
Diameter of orifice (if circular)6.00 in
Area of orifice (if-non-circular)in2
Coefficient of discharge (CD)0.60 (unitless)
Driving head (Ho)239.00 ft
Drawdown through weir?N (Y or N)
Weir type (unitless)
Coefficient of discharge (Cw)(unitless)
Length of weir (L)ft
Driving head (H)ft
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 13.40 ft3/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 40.20 ft3/sec
Storage volume discharge rate (through discharge orifice or weir)ft3/sec
OK, draws down in 2-5 days.
Additional Information
Vegetated side slopes 3 :1 OK
Vegetated shelf slope 10 :1 OK
Vegetated shelf width 10.0 ft OK
Length of flowpath to width ratio 8 :1 OK
Length to width ratio 12.0 :1 OK
Trash rack for overflow & orifice?Y (Y or N) OK
Freeboard provided 1.0 ft OK
Vegetated filter provided?Y (Y or N) OK
Recorded drainage easement provided? N (Y or N) Insufficient. Recorded drainage easement required.
Capures all runoff at ultimate build-out? Y (Y or N) OK
Drain mechanism for maintenance or emergencies is:Pump
Storage volume drawdown time 3.70 days
Form SW401-Wet Detention Basin-Rev.9-4/18/12 Parts I. & II. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2
Project:Ft Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF - Wet Basin #3
Date:19-Jun-19
Rv=0.05 +0.9*I A
Rv - Runoff Coefficient
IA - Impervious fraction
Dv=3630*R D*RV*A
Dv - Design Volume (cf)
RD - Desing Storm Depth (in)
A - Drainage Area (Ac)
Impervious Area (Ac)=10.5
Pervious Area (Ac)=2
Total Area (Ac)=12.5
IA=0.84
RD, Design Storm Depth (in)=1.0
Rv= 0.806
Dv= 36,572 NCDEQ Minimum Design Volume
Project:Ft Bragg Civil Affairs TEMF - Wet Basin #3
Date:19-Jun-19
Hydraullic Retention Time (HRT) Method
Dv - Design Volume (cf) From Simple Method
Dv=36,572 cf
VMP =89,090 cf
Ft Bragg Civil Affairs - Wet Pond #2
Stormwater Pond Riser Summary
October-2019
Wet Pond #2
1 0 238.72
2 0.25 239.32
5 0.71 239.81
10 0.97 240.30
25 3.48 240.62
50 8.77 240.77
100 20.61 241.01
Storm Return Interval
(yr)
Peak Flow (Qp)
w/ Inlet Control
Maximum Elevation (ft)
w/ Inlet Control
Wet Pond #2 Drawdown Time
Ft Bragg CA TEMF
Oct-19
Orifice Diameter 6 inches
Discharge Rate of Orifice (cuft/s)0.47
Volume of Stormwater for Drawdown 149,264
Incremental Storage (cuft):
239 44,625
240 50,978
240.50 53,661
Total Storage (cuft)149,264
Drawdown Rate:
Volume of Stormwater / Discharge Rate 317583 sec
88 hrs
3.7 days
Main Pool Volume.txtWet Pond #2 ‐ Volume of Main Pool Project: Ft Bragg Civil Affairs Basin Description: Wet Pond #2 Volume of Main Pool  Contour Contour Depth Incremental Cumulative Incremental Cumulative Elevation Area (ft) Volume Volume Volume Volume              (sq. ft)        Avg. End Avg. End Conic Conic                              (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft)  234.0 12,276.0 N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 235.0 16,443.0 1 14360 14360 14309 14309 236.0 20,666.0 1 18555 32914 18514 32823 237.0 24,946.0 1 22806 55720 22772 55596 238.0 29,282.0 1 27114 82834 27085 82681 239.0 38,125.0 1 33704 116538 33606 116287Page 1
Forebay Volume.txtWet Pond #2 ‐ Volume of Forebay Project: Ft Bragg Civil Affairs Basin Description: Wet Pond #2 Volume of Forebay  Contour Contour Depth Incremental Cumulative Incremental Cumulative Elevation Area (ft) Volume Volume Volume Volume              (sq. ft)        Avg. End Avg. End Conic Conic                              (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft)  235.0 3,106.0 N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 236.0 3,870.0 1 3488 3488 3481 3481 237.0 4,690.0 1 4280 7768 4273 7754 238.0 5,567.0 1 5129 12897 5122 12877 239.0 6,500.0 1 6034 18930 6027 18904Page 1
Design Volume.txtWet Pond #2 ‐ Design Volume Project: Ft Bragg Civil Affairs Basin Description: Wet Pond #2 Design Volume  Contour Contour Depth Incremental Cumulative Incremental Cumulative Elevation Area (ft) Volume Volume Volume Volume              (sq. ft)        Avg. End Avg. End Conic Conic                              (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft)  239.0 44,625.0 N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 240.0 50,978.0 1 47802 47802 47766 47766 241.0 56,345.0 1 53662 101463 53639 101405Page 1

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.10 -

APPENDIX J
OUTLET PROTECTION CALCULATIONS

PIPE DIA Tw DISCHARGEd50 Lad WIDTH AT OUTLET WIDTH AT END(in)(in) (CFS)(ft) (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)HW-1180.110.940.50 0.50 101.504.55.5HW-330 20.00 22.426.29 0.50 181.507.510.0HW-6189.00 11.367.99 0.50 101.504.55.5HW-818 15.00 5.114.17 0.50 101.504.55.5HW-936 18.00 79.0011.20 0.50 401.759.019.0Basin 2-Flume N/AN/A 26.005.00 0.75 201.7515.020.0Basin 2-Forebay N/AN/AN/AN/A 0.75 501.5025.025.0Basin 3-Flume N/AN/A 64.207.80 0.75 201.7521.025.0Basin 3-Forebay N/AN/AN/AN/A 0.75 501.5025.025.0OUTLET PROTECTION SCHEDULEHWVELOCITY (CF+/s)
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:SRC Date:8/29/2019
Checked By:FMM Date:
Company:
Project Name:Civil Affairs TEMF
Project No.:171.01
Site Location (City/Town)Fort Bragg
Culvert Id.HW1
Total Drainage Area (acres)
Rational Method for Flow
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.)18
Tailwater depth (in.) 0.11
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Min TW (Fig. 8.06a)
Discharge (cfs) 0.94
Velocity (ft./s) 1
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d50, (ft.)0.5 0.5
Minimum apron length, La (ft.)10
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 4.5 4.5
Apron shape TRAPEZOID TRAPEZOID
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 5.5 1.5
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0.75 0.75
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.)1.125 1.125
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:SRC Date:6/20/2019
Checked By:FMM Date:
Company:
Project Name:Civil Affairs TEMF
Project No.:171.01
Site Location (City/Town)Fort Bragg
Culvert Id.HW3
Total Drainage Area (acres)4.68
Rational Method for Flow
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.)30
Tailwater depth (in.) 20
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Max TW (Fig. 8.06b)
Discharge (cfs) 22.42
Velocity (ft./s) 6.29
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d50, (ft.)0.5 0.5
Minimum apron length, La (ft.)18
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 7.5 7.5
Apron shape TRAPEZOID
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 2.5 9.7
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0.75 0.75
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) 1.125 1.125
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:SRC Date:10/21/2019
Checked By:FMM Date:
Company:
Project Name:Civil Affairs TEMF
Project No.:171.01
Site Location (City/Town)Fort Bragg
Culvert Id.HW6
Total Drainage Area (acres)
Rational Method for Flow
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.)18
Tailwater depth (in.)9
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Max TW (Fig. 8.06b)
Discharge (cfs)11.36
Velocity (ft./s)7.99
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d50, (ft.)0.5
Minimum apron length, La (ft.)10
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 4.5 4.5
Apron shape TRAPEZOID TRAPEZOID
Apron width at outlet end (ft.)1.5 5.5
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.)0 0.75
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.)0 1.125
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:SRC Date:8/29/2019
Checked By:FMM Date:
Company:
Project Name:Civil Affairs TEMF
Project No.:171.01
Site Location (City/Town)Fort Bragg
Culvert Id.HW8
Total Drainage Area (acres)0.9
Rational Method for Flow
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.)18
Tailwater depth (in.) 15
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Max TW (Fig. 8.06b)
Discharge (cfs) 5.11
Velocity (ft./s) 4.17
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d50, (ft.)0.5 0.5
Minimum apron length, La (ft.)10 10
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 4.5 4.5
Apron shape TRAPEZOID
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 11.5 5.5
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 0.75 0.75
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) 1.125 1.125
User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:SRC Date:8/29/2019
Checked By:FMM Date:
Company:
Project Name:Civil Affairs TEMF
Project No.:171.01
Site Location (City/Town)Fort Bragg
Culvert Id.HW9
Total Drainage Area (acres)N/A
Rational Method for Flow
Outlet pipe diameter, Do (in.)36
Tailwater depth (in.) 18
Minimum/Maximum tailwater? Max TW (Fig. 8.06b)
Discharge (cfs) 79
Velocity (ft./s) 11.2
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Figure 8.06a Figure 8.06b
Riprap d50, (ft.)0.75 0.75
Minimum apron length, La (ft.)40
Apron width at pipe outlet (ft.) 9 9
Apron shape TRAPEZOID
Apron width at outlet end (ft.) 3 19
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Max Stone Diameter, dmax (ft.) 1.125 1.125
Minimum TW Maximum TW
Apron Thickness(ft.) 1.6875 1.6875
Figure 8.06a: Design of outlet protection from a round pipe flowing full, minimum
tailwater condition (Tw<0.5 diameter)
Figure 8.06b: Design of outlet protection from a round pipe flowing full, maximum
tailwater condition (Tw>=0.5 diameter)

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.11 -

APPENDIX K
TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASIN CALCULATIONS

WinTR-55 Current Data Description
--- Identification Data ---
User: SCurry Date: 8/29/2019
Project: Ft Bragg CA TEMF_SB Units: English
SubTitle: Skimmer Basin Calculations Areal Units: Acres
State: North Carolina
County: Cumberland NOAA-B
Filename: P:\Projects\017101\02 Design\Civil\Storm Water Design\Skimmer & Sediment Basins\PreDevelopment_C
--- Sub-Area Data ---
Name Description Reach Area(ac) RCN Tc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB#1 Skimmer Basin #1 Outlet 6.7 82 0.100
SB#2 Skimmer Basin #2 Outlet 7.6 82 0.100
SB#3 Skimmber Basin #3 Outlet 5.1 82 0.100
Total area: 19.40 (ac)
--- Storm Data --
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 8/29/2019 3:45:57 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_SB
Skimmer Basin Calculations
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Storm Data
Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period
2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.67 4.71 5.55 6.74 7.72 8.75 3.03
Storm Data Source: User-provided custom storm data
Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II
Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard>
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 8/29/2019 3:45:57 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_SB
Skimmer Basin Calculations
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Watershed Peak Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
SB#1 19.87 29.03 36.61 47.38 56.28 65.64 14.45
SB#2 22.55 32.94 41.54 53.76 63.86 74.48 16.39
SB#3 15.13 22.10 27.87 36.06 42.84 49.96 11.00
REACHES
OUTLET 57.55 84.07 106.03 137.20 162.98 190.08 41.83
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 8/29/2019 3:45:57 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_SB
Skimmer Basin Calculations
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Hydrograph Peak/Peak Time Table
Sub-Area Peak Flow and Peak Time (hr) by Rainfall Return Period
or Reach 2-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1-Yr
Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
(hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBAREAS
SB#1 19.87 29.03 36.61 47.38 56.28 65.64 14.45
11.94 11.93 11.93 11.93 11.93 11.93 11.93
SB#2 22.55 32.94 41.54 53.76 63.86 74.48 16.39
11.94 11.93 11.93 11.93 11.93 11.93 11.93
SB#3 15.13 22.10 27.87 36.06 42.84 49.96 11.00
11.94 11.93 11.93 11.93 11.93 11.93 11.93
REACHES
OUTLET 57.55 84.07 106.03 137.20 162.98 190.08 41.83
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 8/29/2019 3:45:57 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_SB
Skimmer Basin Calculations
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Summary Table
Sub-Area Drainage Time of Curve Receiving Sub-Area
Identifier Area Concentration Number Reach Description
(ac) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB#1 6.70 0.100 82 Outlet Skimmer Basin #1
SB#2 7.60 0.100 82 Outlet Skimmer Basin #2
SB#3 5.10 0.100 82 Outlet Skimmber Basin #3
Total Area: 19.40 (ac)
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 8/29/2019 3:45:57 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_SB
Skimmer Basin Calculations
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Time of Concentration Details
Sub-Area Flow Mannings's End Wetted Travel
Identifier/ Length Slope n Area Perimeter Velocity Time
(ft) (ft/ft) (sq ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB#1
User-provided 0.100
Time of Concentration 0.100
========
SB#2
User-provided 0.100
Time of Concentration 0.100
========
SB#3
User-provided 0.100
Time of Concentration 0.100
========
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 8/29/2019 3:45:57 PM
SCurry Ft Bragg CA TEMF_SB
Skimmer Basin Calculations
Cumberland NOAA-B County, North Carolina
Sub-Area Land Use and Curve Number Details
Sub-Area Hydrologic Sub-Area Curve
Identifier Land Use Soil Area Number
Group (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB#1 Dirt (w/ right-of-way) B 6.7 82
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 6.7 82
=== ==
SB#2 Dirt (w/ right-of-way) B 7.6 82
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 7.6 82
=== ==
SB#3 Dirt (w/ right-of-way) B 5.1 82
Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 5.1 82
=== ==
WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 8/29/2019 3:45:57 PM
Okay
6.7 Disturbed Area (Acres)
36.6 Peak Flow from 10-year Storm (cfs)
12060 Required Volume ft3
15943 Required Surface Area ft2
89.3 Suggested Width ft
178.6 Suggested Length ft
90 Trial Top Width at Spillway Invert ft
180 Trial Top Length at Spillway Invert ft
3 Trial Side Slope Ratio Z:1
2 Trial Depth ft (2 to 13 feet above grade)
78 Bottom Width ft
168 Bottom Length ft
13104 Bottom Area ft2
29256 Actual Volume ft3 Okay
16200 Actual Surface Area ft2 Okay
Use Spillway Capacity Sheet to Size Primary and Emergency Spillways
4 Skimmer Size (inches) Skimmer Size
0.333 Head on Skimmer (feet) (Inches)
1.75 Orifice Size (1/4 inch increments) 1.5
2.95 Dewatering Time (days) 2
Suggest about 3 days 2.5
3
4
5
6
8
Temporary Sediment Basin 1
Spillway Capacity Spreadsheet10/22/2019By: S.CurryPipe Flow (Inlet Control)Weir Flow Orifice Flow Primary Emergency Spillway FlowTotal Spillway CapacityFullOrifice RiserRiserSpillwayFlowInlet Invert = 231.50 Co = 0.6 Crest Elev. = 237 Crest Elev. = 237Bottom Elevation 238Outlet Invert = 230.50Material = RCPPipe Diameter (ins.) = 24 Pipe Diameter (ins.) = 24Bottom Width 20Diameter (ins) = 24Ke = 0.5BoxBoxn for Pipe = 0.013L (ft) = 4 L (ft) = 4 Weir Equation Q= C L H^1.5Length (ft) = 200W (ft) = 4 W (ft) = 4Kp = 0.012432Cw= 2.8Area (sq ft) = 3.14159Cw = 3 Co = 0.6Area (sq ft) = 19.14159Elevation H Q Outlet H Q H Q H Q Q max Elevation Head QQ cfsElevation Elevation NotesCFS. V CFS.CFS.CFS. CFS.-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00235.00 3.5 23.61 7.51 2.50 23.90 -2.00 #NUM! -2.00 #NUM! #NUM! 235.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!235.00Bottom of Basin236.00 4.5 26.77 8.52 3.50 28.28 -1.00 #NUM! -1.00 #NUM! #NUM! 236.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!236.00Clean-Out Elevation237.00 5.5 29.59 9.42 4.50 32.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 237.00 0.00 0.000.00237.00Top of Riser237.50 6 30.91 9.84 5.00 33.80 0.50 23.63 0.50 65.13 23.63 237.50 0.00 0.0023.63237.50238.00 6.5 32.17 10.24 5.50 35.45 1.00 66.85 1.00 92.11 32.17238.00 0.00 0.0032.17238.00Emergency Spillway Crest238.50 7 33.39 10.63 6.00 37.03 1.50 122.81 1.50 112.81 33.39238.50 0.50 19.8053.19238.50Emergency Spillway Head239.00 7.5 34.56 11.00 6.50 38.54 2.00 189.08 2.00 130.26 34.56 239.00 1.00 56.0090.56239.00Top of Berm-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-231.5#NUM!#NUM!-232.50#NUM!-237.00#NUM!-237.00#NUM!#NUM!0.000.000.00#NUM!0.00-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-231.5 #NUM! #NUM! -232.50 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00PIPE FRICTION COEFFICIENTSPIPECOEFFICIENTSMOOTH CEMENT 0.013ROUGH CEMENT 0.015CORRUGATED METAL 0.024SMOOTH STEEL 0.013RIVETED STEEL 0.016CAST IRON 0.014TGH Revised 12/13/2006Date: Checked:Pipe Flow(Outlet Control)
Okay
7.6 Disturbed Area (Acres)
41.5 Peak Flow from 10-year Storm (cfs)
13680 Required Volume ft3
18077 Required Surface Area ft2
95.1 Suggested Width ft
190.1 Suggested Length ft
100 Trial Top Width at Spillway Invert ft
200 Trial Top Length at Spillway Invert ft
3 Trial Side Slope Ratio Z:1
2 Trial Depth ft (2 to 13 feet above grade)
88 Bottom Width ft
188 Bottom Length ft
16544 Bottom Area ft2
36496 Actual Volume ft3 Okay
20000 Actual Surface Area ft2 Okay
Use Spillway Capacity Sheet to Size Primary and Emergency Spillways
3 Skimmer Size (inches) Skimmer Size
0.25 Head on Skimmer (feet) (Inches)
2 Orifice Size (1/4 inch increments) 1.5
2.96 Dewatering Time (days) 2
Suggest about 3 days 2.5
3
4
5
6
8
Temporary Sediment Basin 2
Spillway Capacity Spreadsheet10/22/2019By: S.CurryPipe Flow (Inlet Control)Weir Flow Orifice Flow Primary Emergency Spillway FlowTotal Spillway CapacityFullOrifice RiserRiserSpillwayFlowInlet Invert = 234.50 Co = 0.6 Crest Elev. = 237 Crest Elev. = 237Bottom Elevation 238Outlet Invert = 234.00Material = ConcretePipe Diameter (ins.) = 24 Pipe Diameter (ins.) = 24Bottom Width 30Diameter (ins) = 18Ke = 0.5BoxBoxn for Pipe = 0.013L (ft) = 4 L (ft) = 4 Weir Equation Q= C L H^1.5Length (ft) = 127W (ft) = 4 W (ft) = 4Kp = 0.018242Cw= 2.8Area (sq ft) = 1.767144Cw = 3 Co = 0.6Area (sq ft) = 19.14159Elevation H Q Outlet H Q H Q H Q Q max Elevation Head QQ cfsElevation Elevation NotesCFS. V CFS.CFS.CFS. CFS.-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00235.00 0.25 3.63 2.05 -0.25 #NUM! -2.00 #NUM! -2.00 #NUM! #NUM! 235.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!235.00Bottom of Basin236.00 1.25 8.11 4.59 0.75 7.36 -1.00 #NUM! -1.00 #NUM! #NUM!236.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!236.00Clean-Out Elevation237.00 2.25 10.88 6.16 1.75 11.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 237.00 0.00 0.000.00237.00Top of Riser237.50 2.75 12.03 6.81 2.25 12.76 0.50 23.63 0.50 65.13 12.03237.50 0.00 0.0012.03237.50238.00 3.25 13.08 7.40 2.75 14.10 1.00 66.85 1.00 92.11 13.08238.00 0.00 0.0013.08238.00Emergency Spillway Crest238.50 3.75 14.05 7.95 3.25 15.33 1.50 122.81 1.50 112.81 14.05 238.50 0.50 29.7043.75238.50Emergency Spillway Head239.00 4.25 14.96 8.46 3.75 16.47 2.00 189.08 2.00 130.26 14.96 239.00 1.00 84.0098.96239.00Top of Berm-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-234.75#NUM!#NUM!-235.25#NUM!-237.00#NUM!-237.00#NUM!#NUM!0.000.000.00#NUM!0.00-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-234.75 #NUM! #NUM! -235.25 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! -237.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00PIPE FRICTION COEFFICIENTSPIPECOEFFICIENTSMOOTH CEMENT 0.013ROUGH CEMENT 0.015CORRUGATED METAL 0.024SMOOTH STEEL 0.013RIVETED STEEL 0.016CAST IRON 0.014TGH Revised 12/13/2006Date: Checked:Pipe Flow(Outlet Control)
Okay
5.1 Disturbed Area (Acres)
27.9 Peak Flow from 10-year Storm (cfs)
9180 Required Volume ft3
12153 Required Surface Area ft2
78.0 Suggested Width ft
155.9 Suggested Length ft
80 Trial Top Width at Spillway Invert ft
160 Trial Top Length at Spillway Invert ft
3 Trial Side Slope Ratio Z:1
2 Trial Depth ft (2 to 13 feet above grade)
68 Bottom Width ft
148 Bottom Length ft
10064 Bottom Area ft2
22816 Actual Volume ft3 Okay
12800 Actual Surface Area ft2 Okay
Use Spillway Capacity Sheet to Size Primary and Emergency Spillways
4 Skimmer Size (inches) Skimmer Size
0.333 Head on Skimmer (feet) (Inches)
1.5 Orifice Size (1/4 inch increments) 1.5
3.06 Dewatering Time (days) 2
Suggest about 3 days 2.5
3
4
5
6
8
Temporary Sediment Basin 3
Spillway Capacity Spreadsheet10/22/2019By: S. CurryPipe Flow (Inlet Control)Weir Flow Orifice Flow Primary Emergency Spillway FlowTotal Spillway CapacityFullOrifice RiserRiserSpillwayFlowInlet Invert = 238.00 Co = 0.6 Crest Elev. = 240 Crest Elev. = 240Bottom Elevation 241Outlet Invert = 237.00Material = ConcretePipe Diameter (ins.) = 15 Pipe Diameter (ins.) = 15Bottom Width 20Diameter (ins) = 15Ke = 0.5BoxBoxn for Pipe = 0.013L (ft) = 4 L (ft) = 4 Weir Equation Q= C L H^1.5Length (ft) = 64W (ft) = 4 W (ft) = 4Kp = 0.02326Cw= 2.8Area (sq ft) = 1.227184Cw = 3 Co = 0.6Area (sq ft) = 17.22718Elevation H Q Outlet H Q H Q H Q Q max Elevation Head QQ cfsElevation Elevation NotesCFS. V CFS.CFS.CFS. CFS.-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00238.00 0.375 3.49 2.84 -0.63 #NUM! -2.00 #NUM! -2.00 #NUM! #NUM! 238.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!238.00Bottom of Basin239.00 1.375 6.68 5.44 0.38 3.62 -1.00 #NUM! -1.00 #NUM! #NUM! 239.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!239.00Clean-Out Elevation240.00 2.375 8.77 7.15 1.38 6.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240.00 0.00 0.000.00240.00Top of Riser241.00 3.375 10.46 8.52 2.38 9.10 1.00 59.78 1.00 82.90 9.10 241.00 0.00 0.009.10241.00Emergency Spillway Crest241.50 3.875 11.21 9.13 2.88 10.01 1.50 109.82 1.50 101.53 10.01 241.50 0.50 19.8029.81241.50Emergency Spillway Head242.00 4.375 11.91 9.70 3.38 10.85 2.00 169.09 2.00 117.23 10.85 242.00 1.00 56.0066.85242.00243.00 5.375 13.20 10.76 4.38 12.35 3.00 310.63 3.00 143.58 12.35 243.00 2.00 158.39170.74243.00243.50 5.875 13.80 11.24 4.88 13.04 3.50 391.44 3.50 155.09 13.04 243.50 2.50 221.36234.40243.50244.00 6.375 14.37 11.71 5.38 13.69 4.00 478.25 4.00 165.79 13.69 244.00 3.00 290.98304.68244.00Top of Berm-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00-237.625 #NUM! #NUM! -238.63 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! -240.00 #NUM! #NUM! 0.00 0.00 0.00#NUM!0.00PIPE FRICTION COEFFICIENTSPIPECOEFFICIENTSMOOTH CEMENT 0.013ROUGH CEMENT 0.015CORRUGATED METAL 0.024SMOOTH STEEL 0.013RIVETED STEEL 0.016CAST IRON 0.014TGH Revised 12/13/2006Date: Checked:Pipe Flow(Outlet Control)

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.14 -

APPENDIX L
TEMPORARY DIVERSION

Ft Bragg Civil Affairs TEMFErosion & Sediment ControlTemporary Diversion CalculationsNovember 2019CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH (FT)SIDE SLOPE (H:V)CHANNEL GRADECHANNEL LENGTHDRAINAGE AREA (AC)Q10 MAX (CFS)V10 (FT/S)DEPTH (FT)TEMPORARY LININGPermissible Shear Stress     Td (lb per SF)PERMANENT  LININGMIN WIDTH LINING (FT)MIN DEPTH LINING (IN)TD‐1 (Pre‐Initial Phase)3 3:1 0.45% 340 10.70 48.43 4.92 1.38 Synthetic Mat 0.39N/A 3 18TD‐2 (Pre‐Initial Phase)3 3:1 0.50% 506 6.30 30.5 4.17 1.14 Synthetic Mat 0.36N/A 3 18TD‐3 (Initial Phase)3 3:1 3.30% 213 0.34 1.29 3.20 0.12 Synthetic Mat 0.25N/A 3 12TD‐4 (Initial Phase)3 3:1 1.16% 690 5.50 20.84 5.50 0.73 Synthetic Mat 0.53N/A 3 12TD‐5 (Initial Phase)3 3:1 2.36% 254 6.80 25.76 7.52 0.68 Synthetic Mat 1.00N/A 3 12TD‐6 (Initial Phase)3 3:1 0.30% 514 7.00 26.52 3.58 1.15 Synthetic Mat 0.22N/A 3 18TD‐7 (Initial Phase)3 3:1 0.60% 475 7.00 26.52 3.58 1.15 Synthetic Mat 0.43N/A 3 18GL‐1 (Pre‐Initial Phase)7.5 3:1 0.50% 312 0.90 4.56 3.22 1.25 N/A0.39Sod 3 18GL‐2 (Intermediate Phase)6 3:1 0.50% 333 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/ASod 3 FullStable Channel Design Method:Tractive Force ApproachNCDEQ Appendices 8Permissible Shear Stress
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-1 (Pre-Initial Phase)
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 3.00
Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00
Total Depth (ft) = 6.00
Invert Elev (ft) = 241.00
Slope (%) = 0.45
N-Value = 0.018
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 48.43
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 1.38
Q (cfs) = 48.43
Area (sqft) = 9.85
Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92
Wetted Perim (ft) = 11.73
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.33
Top Width (ft) = 11.28
EGL (ft) = 1.76
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
240.00 -1.00
241.00 0.00
242.00 1.00
243.00 2.00
244.00 3.00
245.00 4.00
246.00 5.00
247.00 6.00
248.00 7.00
Reach (ft)
Hydrology Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-1 (Pre-Initial Phase)
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 48.43
Storm frequency (yrs) = 10 Time interval (min) = 1
Drainage area (ac) = 10.700 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.75
Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 6.034 Tc by User (min) = 12
IDF Curve = Fort Bragg IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 34,866 (cuft); 0.800 (acft)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
10.00 10.00
20.00 20.00
30.00 30.00
40.00 40.00
50.00 50.00
Q (cfs)
Time (min)
Runoff Hydrograph
10-yr frequency
Runoff Hyd - Qp = 48.43 (cfs)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-2 (Pre-Initial Phase)
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 3.00
Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00
Total Depth (ft) = 2.00
Invert Elev (ft) = 240.00
Slope (%) = 0.40
N-Value = 0.018
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 30.55
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 1.14
Q (cfs) = 30.55
Area (sqft) = 7.32
Velocity (ft/s) = 4.17
Wetted Perim (ft) = 10.21
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.06
Top Width (ft) = 9.84
EGL (ft) = 1.41
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
239.50 -0.50
240.00 0.00
240.50 0.50
241.00 1.00
241.50 1.50
242.00 2.00
242.50 2.50
243.00 3.00
Reach (ft)
Hydrology Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-2 (Pre-Initial Phase)
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 30.55
Storm frequency (yrs) = 10 Time interval (min) = 1
Drainage area (ac) = 6.300 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.75
Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 6.465 Tc by User (min) = 10
IDF Curve = Fort Bragg IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 18,328 (cuft); 0.421 (acft)
0 5 10 15 20
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
5.00 5.00
10.00 10.00
15.00 15.00
20.00 20.00
25.00 25.00
30.00 30.00
35.00 35.00
Q (cfs)
Time (min)
Runoff Hydrograph
10-yr frequency
Runoff Hyd - Qp = 30.55 (cfs)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-3 (Initial Phase)
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 3.00
Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00
Total Depth (ft) = 1.50
Invert Elev (ft) = 238.00
Slope (%) = 3.30
N-Value = 0.018
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 1.29
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.12
Q (cfs) = 1.290
Area (sqft) = 0.40
Velocity (ft/s) = 3.20
Wetted Perim (ft) = 3.76
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.17
Top Width (ft) = 3.72
EGL (ft) = 0.28
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
237.50 -0.50
238.00 0.00
238.50 0.50
239.00 1.00
239.50 1.50
240.00 2.00
Reach (ft)
Hydrology Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-3 (Initial Phase)
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 1.288
Storm frequency (yrs) = 10 Time interval (min) = 1
Drainage area (ac) = 0.340 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.5
Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 7.577 Tc by User (min) = 6
IDF Curve = Fort Bragg IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 464 (cuft); 0.011 (acft)
0 5 10 15
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
Q (cfs)
Time (min)
Runoff Hydrograph
10-yr frequency
Runoff Hyd - Qp = 1.29 (cfs)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-4 (Initial Phase)
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 3.00
Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00
Total Depth (ft) = 1.50
Invert Elev (ft) = 237.00
Slope (%) = 1.16
N-Value = 0.018
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 20.84
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.73
Q (cfs) = 20.84
Area (sqft) = 3.79
Velocity (ft/s) = 5.50
Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.62
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.86
Top Width (ft) = 7.38
EGL (ft) = 1.20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
236.50 -0.50
237.00 0.00
237.50 0.50
238.00 1.00
238.50 1.50
239.00 2.00
Reach (ft)
Hydrology Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-4 (Initial Phase)
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 20.84
Storm frequency (yrs) = 10 Time interval (min) = 1
Drainage area (ac) = 5.500 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.5
Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 7.577 Tc by User (min) = 6
IDF Curve = Fort Bragg IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 7,501 (cuft); 0.172 (acft)
0 5 10 15
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
3.00 3.00
6.00 6.00
9.00 9.00
12.00 12.00
15.00 15.00
18.00 18.00
21.00 21.00
Q (cfs)
Time (min)
Runoff Hydrograph
10-yr frequency
Runoff Hyd - Qp = 20.84 (cfs)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-5 (Initial Phase)
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 3.00
Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00
Total Depth (ft) = 2.00
Invert Elev (ft) = 234.00
Slope (%) = 2.36
N-Value = 0.018
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 25.76
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.68
Q (cfs) = 25.76
Area (sqft) = 3.43
Velocity (ft/s) = 7.52
Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.30
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.97
Top Width (ft) = 7.08
EGL (ft) = 1.56
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
233.50 -0.50
234.00 0.00
234.50 0.50
235.00 1.00
235.50 1.50
236.00 2.00
236.50 2.50
237.00 3.00
Reach (ft)
Hydrology Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-5 (Initial Phase)
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 25.76
Storm frequency (yrs) = 10 Time interval (min) = 1
Drainage area (ac) = 6.800 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.5
Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 7.577 Tc by User (min) = 6
IDF Curve = Fort Bragg IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 9,274 (cuft); 0.213 (acft)
0 5 10 15
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
4.00 4.00
8.00 8.00
12.00 12.00
16.00 16.00
20.00 20.00
24.00 24.00
28.00 28.00
Q (cfs)
Time (min)
Runoff Hydrograph
10-yr frequency
Runoff Hyd - Qp = 25.76 (cfs)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-6 (Initial Phase)
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 3.00
Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00
Total Depth (ft) = 2.00
Invert Elev (ft) = 238.00
Slope (%) = 0.30
N-Value = 0.018
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 26.52
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 1.15
Q (cfs) = 26.52
Area (sqft) = 7.42
Velocity (ft/s) = 3.58
Wetted Perim (ft) = 10.27
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.98
Top Width (ft) = 9.90
EGL (ft) = 1.35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
237.50 -0.50
238.00 0.00
238.50 0.50
239.00 1.00
239.50 1.50
240.00 2.00
240.50 2.50
241.00 3.00
Reach (ft)
Hydrology Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Aug 30 2019
TD-6 (Initial Phase)
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 26.52
Storm frequency (yrs) = 10 Time interval (min) = 1
Drainage area (ac) = 7.000 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.5
Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 7.577 Tc by User (min) = 6
IDF Curve = Fort Bragg IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 9,547 (cuft); 0.219 (acft)
0 5 10 15
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
4.00 4.00
8.00 8.00
12.00 12.00
16.00 16.00
20.00 20.00
24.00 24.00
28.00 28.00
Q (cfs)
Time (min)
Runoff Hydrograph
10-yr frequency
Runoff Hyd - Qp = 26.52 (cfs)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Sep 4 2019
TD-7 (Initial Phase)
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 3.00
Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00
Total Depth (ft) = 2.00
Invert Elev (ft) = 238.00
Slope (%) = 0.30
N-Value = 0.018
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 26.52
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 1.15
Q (cfs) = 26.52
Area (sqft) = 7.42
Velocity (ft/s) = 3.58
Wetted Perim (ft) = 10.27
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.98
Top Width (ft) = 9.90
EGL (ft) = 1.35
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
237.50 -0.50
238.00 0.00
238.50 0.50
239.00 1.00
239.50 1.50
240.00 2.00
240.50 2.50
241.00 3.00
Reach (ft)
Hydrology Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Sep 4 2019
TD-7 (Initial Phase)
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 26.52
Storm frequency (yrs) = 10 Time interval (min) = 1
Drainage area (ac) = 7.000 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.5
Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 7.577 Tc by User (min) = 6
IDF Curve = Fort Bragg IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 9,547 (cuft); 0.219 (acft)
0 5 10 15
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
4.00 4.00
8.00 8.00
12.00 12.00
16.00 16.00
20.00 20.00
24.00 24.00
28.00 28.00
Q (cfs)
Time (min)
Runoff Hydrograph
10-yr frequency
Runoff Hyd - Qp = 26.52 (cfs)

Civil Affairs TEMF
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.15 -

APPENDIX M
ENERGY DISSIPATOR CALCULATIONS

Concrete Swale Calculations

Hydrology Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Jul 24 2019
Concrete Channel Q10
Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge (cfs) = 64.22
Storm frequency (yrs) = 10 Time interval (min) = 1
Drainage area (ac) = 9.400 Runoff coeff. (C) = 0.98
Rainfall Inten (in/hr) = 6.971 Tc by User (min) = 8
IDF Curve = Fort Bragg IDF.IDF Rec limb factor = 1.00
Hydrograph Volume = 30,825 (cuft); 0.708 (acft)
0 5 10 15 20
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
10.00 10.00
20.00 20.00
30.00 30.00
40.00 40.00
50.00 50.00
60.00 60.00
70.00 70.00
Q (cfs)
Time (min)
Runoff Hydrograph
10-yr frequency
Runoff Hyd - Qp = 64.22 (cfs)
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Jul 24 2019
Concrete Channel
Rectangular
Bottom Width (ft) = 6.00
Total Depth (ft) = 1.50
Invert Elev (ft) = 243.10
Slope (%) = 0.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 64.20
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 1.38
Q (cfs) = 64.20
Area (sqft) = 8.28
Velocity (ft/s) = 7.75
Wetted Perim (ft) = 8.76
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.50
Top Width (ft) = 6.00
EGL (ft) = 2.31
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Elev (ft) Depth (ft)Section
242.50 -0.60
243.00 -0.10
243.50 0.40
244.00 0.90
244.50 1.40
245.00 1.90
Reach (ft)