SW6200102_Report (SW)_20200608

March 23, 2020June 8, 2020

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................... 1
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. 2
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... 2
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 3
NCDEQ MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA FOR BIORETENTION CELLS. ................................................... 6
OUTLET PROTECTION ................................................................................................................... 8
WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................................... 8
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL ...................................................................................... 8

TABLES
Table 1 RAINFALL DATA. ....................................................................................................... 2
Table 2 BIORETENTION AREAS PREDEVELOPED RUNOFF ........................................................ 3
Table 3 BIORETENTION AREAS POSTDEVELOPED RUNOFF ...................................................... 3
Table 4 95TH PERCENTILE AND 1” FIRST FLUSH BIORETENTION VOLUMES ................................ 5
Table 5 PROVIDED BIORETENTION STORAGE VOLUME ............................................................ 5
Table 6 BIORETENTION SURFACE VOLUME AND AREAS ........................................................... 5

FIGURES
Figure 1 NCDEQ SUMMARY OF STORMWATER CALCULATIONS..………………..…………………………1
Figure 2 BIORETENTION BASIN. ……………………………………………………………………………….6

APPENDIX
Appendix A USGS PROJECT LOCATION MAP ............................................................................ a.1
Appendix B PREDEVELOPMENT MAP......................................................................................... a.2
Appendix C POSTDEELOPMENT MAP......................................................................................... a.3
Appendix D EISA 438 CALCULATIONS ...................................................................................... a.4
Appendix E STORMWATER CALCULATIONS…………………………………………….... ................ a.5
Appendix F NRCS CUMBERLAND COUNTY SOIL SURVEY MAP ................................................... a.6
Appendix G SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ................. a.7
Appendix H BIORETENTION CELL SUPPLEMENT ......................................................................... a.8
Appendix I OUTLET PROTECTION CALCULATIONS ..................................................................... a.9
Appendix J SKIMMER SEDIMENTATION BASIN CALCULATIONS .................................................. a.10
Appendix K WETLAND MAPS…………………………………………………………………………a.11
Appendix L RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION ………………………………………a.12
Appendix M SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE REPORT ……….………………………………………a.13

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 1 of 9

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 which led to previously removed ammunition supply structures.
The site is bound on the north by Eagle Talon Drive and to the south by wooded area, which is expected
to be developed in the next 18-24 months. The eastern boundary of the site is an existing parking area.
The western boundary is primarily undeveloped, but scheduled to be developed within the next 18-24
months. The project consists of one (1) new one story building totaling approximately 46,014 SF and
associated site work including access drives. Thirty-four (34) Privately owned vehicle (POV) parking
spaces will be provided. The total disturbed site area within the limits of construction is approximately
6.50 acres.
The site prior to construction is undeveloped, consisting of a combination of open area and sparse
vegetation. Vegetation consists primarily of brush, with a limited number of deciduous trees 8 to 12
inches in diameter. Limited asphalt pavement is required to be removed. No existing structures are on-
site. The topography slopes generally towards the southwest, with an elevation range of approximately 6
feet. The soils consists primarily silty sands in the upper 3 to 4 feet with clayey sands and sandy clays
beneath.
The drainage areas for the project are attributed to the watershed of Stewarts Creek, Stream Index 18-
31-24-5-4, 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,
construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent
technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property.

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 2 of 9

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing site where the training facility and associated supporting infrastructure is to be constructed is
approximately 4.76 acres. Necessary utility construction requires additional disturbed acreage, which
brings the total disturbed area to approximately 6.50 acres. The site, prior to construction, is primarily
undeveloped, consisting of a combination of open area and limited vegetation. Vegetation consists
primarily of limited clusters of deciduous trees 8 to 12 inches in diameter. The topography slopes
generally towards the southwest, with an elevation range of approximately 6 feet. Some additional site
drainage sheet flows to the east to an existing drainage swale. The soils consists primarily silty sands in
the upper 3 to 4 feet with clayey sands and sandy clays beneath. Due to the sandy nature of the existing
soils, most first flush drainage permeates into the ground.
The developed site was taken into consideration during the design of the SOF Infrastructure Project. The
overflow drainage from the developed site was intended to discharge into the storm sewer network
running along Eagle Talon, with ultimate discharge to a wet pond located east of the intersection of Eagle
Talon Drive and Tora Bora Blvd.
For purposed of drainage calculations, the open site area is considered in fair to good condition.
No existing structures exist on-site. The site was previously part of an ammunition supply point. The
storage buildings have been previously removed. Limited asphalt and dirt paved roads lead to where the
structures used to reside.
For the purpose of the stormwater calculations, the entire drainage area will be analyzed.
A Subsurface Exploration Report has been performed by Froehling & Robertson, Inc., completed April 2,
2019. In addition, a geotechnical investigation was completed by the Savannah U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in March, 2018, including SHWT determination. These reports are included in Appendix G.
No wetlands exist on or near the site. Refer to the wetlands information maps included in Appendix K.
No endangered species exist on or near the site. Refer to the Record of Environmental Consideration
included in Appendix L.
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 5.4
25YR 6.5
50YR 7.3
100YR 8.2

WinTR55 Small Watershed Hydrology software, developed for the USDA, was utilized to calculate the
peak runoff for both predevelopment 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.

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 3 of 9

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
To better control runoff at the source, and to better calculate strormwater runoff for drainage structures,
the developed site was separated into 2 separate subbasins. A temporary diversion ditch will be
constructed at the onset of construction to divert most of the offsite water to a skimmer sediment basin
located on the southern portion of the site. An additional skimmer sediment basin will be constructed at
the northern portion of the site. Each of these basins will receive runoff from less than 10 acres.
Stormwater runoff from the east portion of the site will be diverted to the southern skimmer basin, as this
runoff may contain construction induced sediment. Stormwater runoff from the west portion of the site will
also flow to this bioretention basin. Flow in the northern portion of the site will be diverted to the
northwestern basin. Clean water flow from the northern basin will discharge directly into the stormwater
conveyance structure at Eagle Talon Drive. Clean water from the southern basin will be discharged to
the existing drainage swale along the eastern portion of the site.
Post construction, the northern skimmer sediment pond will be converted to a bioretention area. The
southern pond will be removed and filled in, with an additional bioretention area constructed in the
southwestern portion of the site. Each of these bioretention areas will have overflow discharge directed
to the existing stormater conveyance structure along Eagle Talon Drive.
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 landscaping, primarily in the form of sod. The contractor is
required to establish 100% groundcover within 1 year of construction. As such, the over CN for the
proposed site does not differ much if any from the existing conditions.

For design of all stormwater structures, AutoDesk Civil3D Hydraflow Extension was utilized. As the total
length of each structure is relatively small and each contributing drainage area has a time of
concentration (Tc) overall less than 10 minutes to the inlet, it was assumed that each inlet on the system
would receive the peak flow input at the same time. 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.
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 1 1.52 65 0.93 4.00 5.72
Bioretention Area 2 2.49 65 1.52 6.54 9.35

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 1 2.58 91 7.36 14.78 18.19
Bioretention Area 2 1.40 95 4.54 8.49 10.31

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 4 of 9

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.
To be in compliance with EISA 438, based upon Option 1 of the EPA Technical Guidance document, the
total volume of runoff from the 95th percentile storm event must be captured and infiltrated on-site. The
method to determine this volume is based upon guidance from the EPA document.
The 95th percentile storm event for the project area is equivalent to 1.8” of rainfall, as provided by the Fort
Bragg Installation Design Guide. Criteria used for determination of total stormwater runoff to capture and
infiltrate, the following criteria was used: Hydrologic Soil Group B, average Maximum Infiltration Rate of
15 inches per hour or as determined by the percolation testing, Minimum Infiltration Rate of 0.1 inches per
hour, a Decay Factor or 2 per hour and Pervious Depression Storage of 0.2 inches.
To provide for this storage, a total of 2 infiltration areas have been designed to help infiltrate the runoff
closest to the source. Each of these areas are bioretention area consisting of a volume of ponding
storage, a section of engineered fill to promote infiltration and sediment removal, and an underdrain
system (see Figure 2). All drainage for the construction portion of the site is routed to an infiltration area.
The design of the bioretention areas is based upon Minimum Design Criteria as set forth by NCDEQ. 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 each area and the amount of storage provided for infiltration is
shown on the plans. Storage is provided in the above ground ponding (maximum 9” for NCDEQ ponding,
and a peak attenuation max of 24”) and the engineered fill media. The bioretention basin design is similar
to and meets the Minimum Design Criteria (MDC) required for NCDEQ C-2 Bioretention Cell, revised
January 19, 2018.
To determine the storage volume to meet EISA 438, the Army LID Planning and Cost Tool was compared
against what was calculated via the Direct Determination method. The database determines the volume
required to be stored and infiltrated onside in order to meet EISA 438. The Army LID Planning and Cost
Tool was developed to MILCON standards for projects within the jurisdiction of the Army. As such, the
volumes determined using the Army LID Planning and Cost Tool are used for the design of the
bioretention 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.
The pre-developed composite weighted CN and peak flows for each bioretention area can be found in the
appendix. A map of the post development drainage areas can be found in Appendix C.

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 5 of 9

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. For bioretention areas where an underdrain is
provided, the volume provided in the peak attenuation volume and the soil media is counted towards the
storage.

TABLE 4 95TH PERCENTILE AND 1” FIRST FLUSH BIORETENTION VOLUMES
DRAINAGE AREA
VOLUME
REQUIRED
EISA438
(CF)
VOLUME
REQUIRED
NCDEQ
(CF)
STORAGE
PROVIDED
EISA438
(CF)
PONDING
VOLUME
PROVIDED
(CF)
Bioretention Area 1 10,765 4,282 14,980 6,300
Bioretention Area 2 6,749 2.888 9,175 3,375

BIORETENTION
AREA
PONDING
DEPTH
PROVIDED
(IN)
PONDING
DEPTH PEAK
ATTENUATION
(IN)
PEAK
PONDING
VOLUME
(CF)
DEPTH OF
ENGINEERED
FILL
(FT)
20% VOIDS
EISA 438
EXCESS
STORAGE
VOLUME IN
SOIL (CF)
Bioretention Area 1 9 18 13,300 1.0 1,600
Bioretention Area 2 9 18 8,275 1.0 950

For all storm events greater than the 95th percentile event, and for other events where the infiltration
areas cannot sufficiently handle the storm event, excess runoff is bypassed directly to the infrastructure
along Eagle Talon. As the soil media fills with water, when the level reaches the top of the upturned
elbow, drainage enters the pipe and is carried to either the next infiltration area, or to the outfall. In
addition, if there is excess ponding due to either the saturation of the engineered fill or a large storm
event, water is collected through the weir in the riser structure. This prevents flooding in areas
surrounding the bioretention basins as the top of the weir is set at an elevation above the 100yr flood
event. The top of the riser is also open, with a trash rack. This top elevation is set below the top of the
pond bank to provide a factor of safety for the surrounding area for subsequent storm events.
The Bioretention Cell Supplement form provided by NCDEQ has been completed for the drainage areas
and included in the appendix.

TABLE 6 BIORETENTION SURFACE AREAS
INFILTRATION AREA
SURFACE AREA
REQUIRED (SF)
NCDEQ
SURFACE
AREA
PROVIDED
(SF)
Bioretention Area 1 5,710 8,400
Bioretention Area 2 3,851 4,500

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 6 of 9

Figure 2 - Bioretention Basin
Seasonal high water table (SHWT) depths was determined in conjunction with the geotechnical report.
SHWT depths were found to be a minimum of 12’ below grade.
As the 95th percentile storm event is being captured and infiltrated on-site and all excess storm drainage
is routed to outlet structures with appropriate energy dissipation, this meets LEED 6.1 Stormwater Design
Quantity Control requirements. The existing site has less than 50% impervious surface, and the
bioretention/infiltration of the 95th percentile storm meets the quantity control requirements.
For any underdrains installed within the bioretention area, cleanouts are provided in addition to the riser
pipes to facilitate cleanout. It is the user’s desire to utilize sod in lieu of vegetation to facilitate
maintenance reduce the risk of floating debris from entering into and clogging the system.
No water supply wells are within 100’ of the project site. No surface waters are within 30’ of the project
site. No Class SA waters are within 50’ of the project site.

NCDEQ Minimum Design Criteria for Bioretention Cells
The Minimum Design Criteria (MDC) for bioretention cells for NCDEQ is as described below. These
criteria are taken from the NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual Section C-2. Bioretention Cell
Revised 1-10-2018.

MDC 1: Separation from the SHWT
The lowest point of all bioretention cells are a minimum of 2 feet above the SHWT.
According to the preliminary investigation by the US Army Corps of Engineers in March 2018, depths to
the SHWT are greater than 120” below the finished grade surface. A boring was extended to 15 feet

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 7 of 9

below the surface, and the SHWT was not encountered. It was noted that the area exhibits pockets of
clay layers which could cause perched water conditions. This seems apparent from the geotechnical
investigation completed by Froehling & Robertson in April 2019. The SHWT investigation was completed
within 2 days of a 0.88” rainfall event. As such, it appears that the SHWT noted in the Froehling &
Robertson investigation was either skewed by the recent rainfall or a perched water table condition
existed.
To verify the assumptions that the SHWT is lower than what was found during the F&R investigation, a
third investigation was performed by ECS Southeast, LLP on May 27th, 2020. According to this
investigation, the SWHT is a minimum of 5’ below the bottom of each cell. See Appendix M.
Cell Bore Elevation Depth to
SHWT (in)
Depth to
SHWT (ft)
SHWT
Elevation
Bottom of
Bio Cell
Separation
(ft)
1 251.75 80 6.67 245.08 252.50 7.42
2 257.37 102 8.50 248.87 254.50 5.63

MDC 2: Maximum Ponding Depth for Design Volume
Maximum ponding depths for both of the bioretention areas is 9” for NCDEQ volumes.

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). Maximum ponding height is 24”.
The emergency spillway is designed for each 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 cleanout per
1,000 square feet of area is provided, with underdrains spaced at no greater than 10’. The underdrain
pipes are sized to handle the infiltration rate of the engineered soil for the times that the internal water
storage zone has reached capacity. All underdrains are 6” diameter.

MDC 5: Media Depth
All bioretention areas are grassed cells, without trees and shrubs. The media depth in both bioretention
areas is 30” as both 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.

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 8 of 9

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
All bioretention areas will be sodded. Hardwood mulch is not desired or allowed by the user due to
maintenance issues. Hardwood mulch tends to float in ponding situations and can clog the overflow
structures.

MDC 12: Clean-Out Pipes
Clean-out pipes are provided in both bioretention areas. The cleanouts are PVC pipes with glued clean-
out fittings with screw type caps that extend at least 2 feet above the surface of the bed. No flexible pipe
is allowed. A minimum of one cleanout per 1,000 square feet of area is provide.

OUTLET PROTECTION
All excess stormwater from the infiltration areas, as well as outlet structures for stormwater routed around
the project site and will be connected directly to the 24” storm conveyance pipe running along Eagle
Talon Road. Outlet protection will be provided in accordance with guidance from Chapter 8.06 Design of
Riprap Outlet Protection of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning and Design Manual for all pipes and headwalls within the project. Calculations for the
outlet protection are shown in the appendix.

WATER QUALITY
To ensure the removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), all runoff is directed to the infiltration areas via
either sheet flow or via storm collection pipes with their outlets at the top of the bioretention basins
(protected with energy dissipaters). This includes runoff from all parking areas and roof drainage
structures. This makes certain that the storm events up to the 95Th percentile event (and first flush for
larger events) will have the runoff filtered through a minimum the vegetative strip and a minimum of 24” of
engineered soil. Additionally, in bioretention areas that do not have landscape rock, an 8” rock filter strip
is included as recommended by NCDEQ for pretreatment at bioretention basins.
In addition, a non-woven geotextile fabric is placed above both the gravel section of the bioretention basin
and the perforated collection pipe to keep sediment and other fines from infiltrating the storage area. It is
generally accepted that bioretention basins of this type will remove between 80-90% of TSS along with
the removal of heavy metals. This design has previously been used on projects at Fort Bragg and has
been approved by NCDEQ for TSS removal requirements. This method will also meet LEED 6.2
Stormwater Quality Control requirements.

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page 9 of 9

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 been approved. Calculations
used for sizing skimmer sedimentation basins is included with this report.

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.1 -

APPENDIX A
USGS PROJECT LOCATION MAP

ELEVATION=265.75'
BOLT OF FIRE HYDRANT
INSCRIBED "X" ON BONNET
#22 TBM
ELEVATION=263.66'
E=1991187.54
N=484419.59
#31 RB&C
ELEVATION=260.32'
E=1990596.36
N=484414.62
#32 RB&C
ELEVATION=251.86'
E=1990440.94
N=483961.51
#7 RB&C
ELEVATION=261.48'
E=1990917.38
N=484492.73
#5 RB&C
ELEVATION=255.43'
E=1990436.55
N=484427.73
#6 RB&C
ELEVATION=262.75'
E=1991205.96
N=484027.22
#3 RB&C
ELEVATION=266.42'
E=1991347.23
N=484491.19
#4 RB&C
ELEVATION=258.52'
BOLT OF FIRE HYDRANT
INSCRIBED "X" ON BONNET
#23 TBM
ELEVATION=261.6'
P-02 BORE HOLE
INV.OUT=244.19' (E)
INV.IN=244.33' (SW)
TOP=249.97'
INV.OUT=241.87' (S)
INV.IN=243.76' (E)
TOP=249.82'
INV.OUT=244.94' (NE)
TOP=247.66'
18" RCP
1 8" RCP
18" RCPELEVATION=257.1'
B-02 BORE HOLE
ELEVATION=255.5'
B-01 BORE HOLE
ELEVATION=259.8'
P-04 BORE HOLE
ELEVATION=256.0'
S-03 BORE HOLE
ELEVATION=253.3'
S-04 BORE HOLE
ELEVATION=252.1'
B-05 BORE HOLE
ELEVATION=259.2'
S-02 BORE HOLE
ELEVATION=258.5'
P-03 BORE HOLE
(NO ACCESS TO INVERTS)
TOP=256.76'
(NO ACCESS TO INVERTS)
TOP=256.80'
CONC
CONC
CI
W/3SBW
84" CHLK
CI
CI
CI
CONC SW
72" CHLK
DI
BOLLARDS (4)
CB CB
ELEVATION=260.8'
S-01 BORE HOLE
ELEVATION=259.7'
B-04 BORE HOLE
72" CHLK
(4)
BOLLARDS
ELEVATION=260.1'
P-01 BORE HOLE
84" CHLK W/3SBW84" CHLK W/3SBWW/3SBW
84" CHLK
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT18" C&G 18" C&G
18" C&G18" C&G
18" C&G18" C&G18" C&G18" C&G18" C&G
18" C&G
(NO ACCESS TO INVERTS)
TOP=265.06'
CI
WW
WW
HW
HW
WW
WW
INV.=260.00'
INV.=260.97'
ASPHALT
TOP=262.48'
COMM MH
BOTTOM BOX=242.28'
TOP=251.94'
COMM MH
BOTTOM BOX=243.25'
TOP=252.87'
COMM MH
PVC PIPES
VERTICAL
UNKNOWN
6" CURB
6" CURB
6" CURB6" CURB
6" CURB6" CURB
6" CURB
6" CURB(NO ACCESS TO INVERTS)
INV 251.25' (FROM ASBUILTS)
TOP=262.10'
(NO ACCESS TO INVERTS)
INV 250.68' (FROM ASBUILTS)
TOP=262.04'24" RCPEXISTING ASPHALTPARKING LOT
EXISTING ASPHALT
PARKING LOT
EXISTING ASPHALT
WOODED AREA
WOODED AREA
WOODED AREA
WOODED AREA
WOODED AREA
247.63
DI
247.65
DI
247.67
DI
247.69
DI248249 249.81
CB249.82
CB
249.94
CB
249.97
CB
249.99
CB250
250250250 250.00
CB
250.18
CB
250.19
CB
2
5
1
251
251251251251251251
T
252 252252252
2
5
2
252252
2
5
2
252
252252252
T
253
253
253253253253253253253
253253253254
254
2
5
4
254254254254254254254254
254254254254P
255255255255255
255255
255
255255255255255255255
255
2
5
6256256256256
256256256256256
2
5
6
25
6
256256256256256256
256256
256
256.74
CI
256.75
CI
256.79
CI
256.80
CI
256.80
CI
256.81
CI 256.87
CI
256.88
CI
2
5
7257257257
257257257257257257257257257257257257257257257257257257 258
258
258258258258258258258258258258
2
5
8258258258258258258258258
258
258
DILAPIDATED FENCEEAGLE TALON DRIVE EAGLE TALON DRIVE259
259259
259259259259
259259
259
259
259259259259259259259 259259259259259260.00
RCP
260 260
260
260
260
260
260
260260260260260260
260260
260
2602602602602602602
6
0
260260260260260
26026018" RCP
260.97
RCP
261261
261261261
261261261261261 261
261
2612612612612612612612612612
6
1
261261261261261261261261261.52
WW
261.58
WW261.86
WW
261.88
WW
261.88
WW
261.89
WW
261.95
CI
262
262
262262262262262
262
2
6
2 2622622622622
62262262262262262262262
262
262.00
CI 262.02
CI
262.03
CI
262.05
CI
262.08
CI
262.10
CI
262.12
CI
T
262.57
WW
262.60
WW262.78
WW
262.79
WW
262.81
WW
262.83
WW
262.85
HW
262.89
HW
263
2632
6
3
263263
2
6
3
263263263263
263
263263
263263263263EL JB #108689
EL JB #112804
WM
WV
WV
WV
WVFH
BOX
HOT
WMV
PIV
FHFH
WV WV
WV
FH
WV
FH
WV
PPL
PPL
PPL
#79677 83696
PPL
PPL
PPL
#108680
EL JB
83648
#79679
PPL
#79677 83740
PPL
83786
#79678
PPL
TOP=254.09'
EL MH
263.76
HW
263.79
HW
264
264
264
264
264
264.99
CB
265
265
265265
265.06
CB
265.12
CB265.20
CB 266
266
26
6
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSHPTC_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\017001\03 CAD_BIM\_Sheets\05_Civil\HPTC_CG750.dgn05-JUN-202014:38 171-20-13R. BOSTONW912PM-19-C-000769 DARLINGTON AVENUEWILMINGTON DISTRICTWILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINAFORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINASOF HUMAN PERFORMANCE TRAINING CENTER (HPTC)FY18 PN 79443W912PM-18-R-0003SOLICITATION NO.:CERTIFIED FINAL FAST-TRACK (ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION)DECEMBER 2019STAGING AREA
CONTRACTOR
CG750S.HAGGARDM.MEYERG.LYNNN
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.
GENERAL NOTES
2.

1.
PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING REQUIREMENTS.
SLOPES AND GRASSED. SEE THE EROSION CONTROL
DISTURBED AREA SHALL BE GRADED TO MATCH EXISTING
REFER TO SHEET C-001 FOR GENERAL NOTES.PRE DEVELOPED HYDROLOGYGRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=40'-0"
120'80'40'020'40'
Q100: 13.99
Q50: 11.50
Q25: 9.35
Q10: 6.54
Q5: 4.90
Q2: 2.69
Q1: 1.52
PEAK FLOW (CFS)
WEIGHTED CN: 65
DRAINAGE AREA: 2.49 ACRES
AREA 2
Q100: 8.56
Q50: 7.03
Q25: 5.72
Q10: 4.00
Q5: 3.00
Q2: 1.64
Q1: 0.93
PEAK FLOW (CFS)
WEIGHTED CN: 65
DRAINAGE AREA: 1.52 ACRES
AREA 1
PRE DEVELOPED
DRAINAGE AREA 1
PREDEVELOPMENT
DRAINAGE AREA 2
PREDEVELOPMENT
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING BUA
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING BUA
GI-3
SDMH-4 SDMH-3 12"ELEVATION=265.75'
BOLT OF FIRE HYDRANT
INSCRIBED "X" ON BONNET
#22 TBM
ELEVATION=263.66'
E=1991187.54
N=484419.59
#31 RB&C
ELEVATION=260.32'
E=1990596.36
N=484414.62
#32 RB&C
ELEVATION=251.86'
E=1990440.94
N=483961.51
#7 RB&C
ELEVATION=261.48'
E=1990917.38
N=484492.73
#5 RB&C
ELEVATION=255.43'
E=1990436.55
N=484427.73
#6 RB&C
ELEVATION=262.75'
E=1991205.96
N=484027.22
#3 RB&C
ELEVATION=266.42'
E=1991347.23
N=484491.19
#4 RB&C
ELEVATION=258.52'
BOLT OF FIRE HYDRANT
INSCRIBED "X" ON BONNET
#23 TBM
INV.OUT=244.19' (E)
INV.IN=244.33' (SW)
TOP=249.97'
INV.OUT=241.87' (S)
INV.IN=243.76' (E)
TOP=249.82'
INV.OUT=244.94' (NE)
TOP=247.66'
18" RCP
1 8" RCP
18" RCP(NO ACCESS TO INVERTS)
TOP=256.76'
(NO ACCESS TO INVERTS)
TOP=256.80'
CONC
CONC
CI
W/3SBW
84" CHLK
CI
CI
CI
CONC SW
72" CHLK
DI
BOLLARDS (4)
CB CB
72" CHLK
(4)
BOLLARDS84" CHLK W/3SBW84" CHLK W/3SBWW/3SBW
84" CHLK
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT18" C&G 18" C&G
18" C&G18" C&G
18" C&G18" C&G18" C&G18" C&G18" C&G
18" C&G
(NO ACCESS TO INVERTS)
TOP=265.06'
CI
WW
WW
HW
HW
WW
WW
INV.=260.00'
INV.=260.97'
ASPHALT
TOP=262.48'
COMM MH
BOTTOM BOX=242.28'
TOP=251.94'
COMM MH
BOTTOM BOX=243.25'
TOP=252.87'
COMM MH
PVC PIPES
VERTICAL
UNKNOWN
6" CURB
6" CURB
6" CURB6" CURB
6" CURB6" CURB
6" CURB
6" CURB(NO ACCESS TO INVERTS)
INV 251.25' (FROM ASBUILTS)
TOP=262.10'
(NO ACCESS TO INVERTS)
INV 250.68' (FROM ASBUILTS)
TOP=262.04'24" RCPEXISTING ASPHALTPARKING LOT
EXISTING ASPHALT
PARKING LOT
EXISTING ASPHALT
WOODED AREA
WOODED AREA
WOODED AREA
WOODED AREA
WOODED AREA
RD
RD RD
CB-1CB-2
SDMH-1HW-1
HW-3
GI-1
HW-2
CI-2CI-1
SDMH-2
HW-6
GI-2
CI-4
HW-4CI-3
15"6"6"10"12"6"15"6"12"15"10"6"10"6"6"6"6"6"6"12"6"15"6"6"15"6"6"6"6"6"12"6"6"
10"
12"
HW-5
12"x18"
1 5 "
18"4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"
4"SDMH-5
SDMH-6
18"12"6"6"15"15"15"15"15"15"6"
6"
6"
6"6"6"6"6"6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"6"6"6"STAGING AREA
CONTRACTOR
(HPTC)
TRAINING CENTER
HUMAN PERFORMANCE
TURF FIELD
FF EL 263.75
247.63
DI
247.65
DI
247.67
DI
247.69
DI248249 249.81
CB249.82
CB
249.94
CB
249.97
CB
249.99
CB250
250250250 250.00
CB
250.18
CB
250.19
CB
2
5
1
251
251251251251251251
T
252 252252252
2
5
2
252252
2
5
2
252
252252252
T
253
253
253253253253253253253
253253253254
254
2
5
4
254254254254254254254254
254254254254P
255255255255255
255255
255
255255255255255255255
255
256256
256
2
5
6256256256256
256256256256256
2
5
6
25
6
256256256256256256
256256
256
256.74
CI
256.75
CI
256.79
CI
256.80
CI
256.80
CI
256.81
CI 256.87
CI
256.88
CI
2
5
7257257257
257257257257257257257257257257257257257257257257257257258
258
258
258
258258258258258258258258258258
2
5
8258258258258258258258258
258
258
DILAPIDATED FENCEEAGLE TALON DRIVE EAGLE TALON DRIVE259
259259
259259259259
259259
259
259
259259259259259259259 259259259259259260.00
RCP
260
260260260260
260
260
260 260260260260260
260
260
260
260
260
260260260260260260
260260
260
2602602602602602602
6
0
260260260260260
26026018" RCP
260.97
RCP
261
261
261
261
261
261261
261261261
261261261261261 261
261
2612612612612612612612612612
6
1
261261261261261261261261261.52
WW
261.58
WW261.86
WW
261.88
WW
261.88
WW
261.89
WW
261.95
CI
262
262
262
2
6
2
262 262
262
262
262
262
262
262262262262262
262
2
6
2 2622622622622
62262262262262262262262
262
262.00
CI 262.02
CI
262.03
CI
262.05
CI
262.08
CI
262.10
CI
262.12
CI
T
262.57
WW
262.60
WW262.78
WW
262.79
WW
262.81
WW
262.83
WW
262.85
HW
262.89
HW
BIO RETENTION AREA #2
263
263
2
6
3
263
263 263263
263263
BIO RETENTION AREA #1
263
2632
6
3
263263
2
6
3
263263263263
263
263263
263263263263EL JB #108689
EL JB #112804
WM
WV
WV
WV
WVFH
BOX
HOT
WMV
PIV
FHFH
WV WV
WV
FH
WV
FH
WV
PPL
PPL
PPL
#79677 83696
PPL
PPL
PPL
#108680
EL JB
83648
#79679
PPL
#79677 83740
PPL
83786
#79678
PPL
TOP=254.09'
EL MH
263.76
HW
263.79
HW
264
264
264
264
264
264
264.99
CB
265
265
265265
265.06
CB
265.12
CB265.20
CB 266
266
26
6
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSHPTC_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\017001\03 CAD_BIM\_Sheets\05_Civil\HPTC_CG751.dgn05-JUN-202015:07 171-20-13R. BOSTONW912PM-19-C-000769 DARLINGTON AVENUEWILMINGTON DISTRICTWILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINAFORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINASOF HUMAN PERFORMANCE TRAINING CENTER (HPTC)FY18 PN 79443W912PM-18-R-0003SOLICITATION NO.:CERTIFIED FINAL FAST-TRACK (ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION)DECEMBER 2019SHWT-01
SHWT-02
CG751S.HAGGARDM.MEYERG.LYNNN
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.
GENERAL NOTES
2.

1.
PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING REQUIREMENTS.
SLOPES AND GRASSED. SEE THE EROSION CONTROL
DISTURBED AREA SHALL BE GRADED TO MATCH EXISTING
REFER TO SHEET C-001 FOR GENERAL NOTES.POST DEVELOPED HYDROLOGYGRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=40'-0"
120'80'40'020'40'
DRAINAGE AREA 1
POST DEVELOPMENT
DRAINAGE AREA 2
POST DEVELOPMENT
Q100: 13.11
Q50: 11.63
Q25: 10.31
Q10: 8.49
Q5: 7.35
Q2: 5.62
Q1: 4.54
PEAK FLOW (CFS)
WEIGHTED CN: 95
EXISTING BUA TO REMAIN: 0 SF
SIDEWALK: 4,440 SF
PARKING: 6,850 SF
STREETS: 19,668 SF
BUIDLINGS: 15,120 SF
BUILT UPON AREA
DRAINAGE AREA: 1.40 ACRES
AREA 2
Q100: 23.43
Q50: 20.66
Q25: 18.19
Q10: 14.78
Q5: 12.63
Q2: 9.37
Q1: 7.36
PEAK FLOW (CFS)
WEIGHTED CN: 91
EXISTING BUA TO REMAIN: 0 SF
SIDEWALKS: 2,042
PARKING: 8,500 SF
STREETS: 6,162 SF
BUILDINGS: 30,894 SF
BUILT UPON AREA
DRAINAGE AREA: 2.58 ACRES
AREA 1
DEVELOPED
TO BE REMOVED
2,570 SF EXISTING BUA
TO BE REMOVED
2,212 SF EXISTING BUA
SHWT-01
LOCATION GROUND ELEVATION OF BORING DEPTH TO SHWT SHWT ELEVATION
SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE (SHWT)
SHWT-02
80"
102"
251.75
257.37
245.08
248.87
REFER TO STORMWATER REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
SHWT DETERMINATIONS WERE MADE BY ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP ON MAY 27, 2020
EISA 438 COMPLIANCE FORM
Project:HPTC
Location:Fort Bragg
Date:3/23/2020
By:FMM
AREA:Bioretention Area 1
Soil Classification a Poorly graded sands (SM), silty sands (SM), clayey sands (SC)
Hydrologic Soil Groupa B
Maximum Infiltration Rateb 0.91 in per hr
Minimum Infiltration Rateb 0.02 in per hr
Decay Factorc 2 per hr
24 Hr Infiltration Lossd 0.96 in
Pervious Depression Storagec 0.2 in
Runoff = Rainfall - Depression Storage - Infiltration Loss
95th Percentile 24hr Rainfalle 1.8 in
Existing Impervious Area 2,570 sf 0.06 acres
New Impervious Area 67,546 sf 1.55 acres
Pervious Area 22,477 sf 0.52 acres
Total Area 92,593 sf 2.13 acres
Runoff Impervious 1.7 in
Runoff Pervious 0.64 in
Runoff Site 1.40
Total Area (Acres)2.13
95th Rainfall Event (inches)1.8
Expected Runoff for the 95th Percentile Rainfall Event (inches)1.40
Storage Required for 95th Percentile Rainfall Event (cu ft)f 10,765 cf
Area of Bioretention Ponds 8,400 sf
Storage Provided by Engineered Soil (12" media depth, 20% voids)1,680 cf
Peak Attenuation Volume (depth of water 18" max)13,300 cf
Underground Storage Required 0 cf
Total Storage Provided (cu ft)14,980 cf
a Geotechnical Report
b Section 438 Technical Guidance, December 2009
c Section 438 Technical Guidance, December 2009
d Horton's Equation
e LID Planning Guide - location Fort Bragg
f Based upon Direct Determination Method, EPA Technical Guidance Manual
EISA 438 COMPLIANCE FORM
Project:HPTC
Location:Fort Bragg
Date:3/23/2020
By:FMM
AREA:Bioretention Area 2
Soil Classification a Poorly graded sands (SM), silty sands (SM), clayey sands (SC)
Hydrologic Soil Groupa B
Maximum Infiltration Rateb 0.91 in per hr
Minimum Infiltration Rateb 0.02 in per hr
Decay Factorc 2 per hr
24 Hr Infiltration Lossd 0.96 in
Pervious Depression Storagec 0.2 in
Runoff = Rainfall - Depression Storage - Infiltration Loss
95th Percentile 24hr Rainfalle 1.8 in
Existing Impervious Area 2,212 sf 0.05 acres
New Impervious Area 46,035 sf 1.06 acres
Pervious Area 4,269 sf 0.10 acres
Total Area 52,516 sf 1.01 acres
Runoff Impervious 1.7 in
Runoff Pervious 0.64 in
Runoff Site 1.54
Total Area (Acres)1.01
95th Rainfall Event (inches)1.8
Expected Runoff for the 95th Percentile Rainfall Event (inches)1.54
Storage Required for 95th Percentile Rainfall Event (cu ft)f 6,749 cf
Area of Bioretention Ponds 4,500 sf
Storage Provided by Engineered Soil (12" media depth, 20% voids)900 cf
Peak Attenuation Volume (depth of water 18" max)8,275 cf
Underground Storage Required 0 cf
Total Storage Provided (cu ft)9,175 cf
a Geotechnical Report
b Section 438 Technical Guidance, December 2009
c Section 438 Technical Guidance, December 2009
d Horton's Equation
e LID Planning Guide - location Fort Bragg
f Based upon Direct Determination Method, EPA Technical Guidance Manual

PRELIMINARY
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

SOF Human Performance Training Center
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina

By
Soils Section
Geotechnical & HTRW Branch
U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah

March 2018

Table of Contents

Section Page

1. PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2. QUALIFICATION OF REPORT ...................................................................................................... 1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................ 1
4. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES .................................................................................................... 2
a. Site Reconnaissance ........................................................................................................................ 2
b. Field Exploration ............................................................................................................................ 2
c. Infiltration Testing .......................................................................................................................... 3
d. Review of available USDA NRCS soils data ................................................................................. 4
5. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 4
a. Site Description ............................................................................................................................... 4
b. Regional and Site Geology ............................................................................................................. 4
c. Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................................... 5
d. Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................. 6
e. Seasonal High Water Table and Infiltration Properties .................................................................. 6
6. ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 7
a. General ............................................................................................................................................ 7
b. Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 7
c. Foundation Design and Construction .............................................................................................. 7
d. Seismic Design ............................................................................................................................... 8
e. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ............................................................................................................... 8
f. Pavement Design ............................................................................................................................. 9
g. Groundwater and Surface-Water Considerations ........................................................................... 9
h. Structural Fill .................................................................................................................................. 9
i. Construction Quality Control Testing ........................................................................................... 10
j. Drawings ........................................................................................................................................ 11
k. Specifications ................................................................................................................................ 12
7. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT .................................................................. 12

ATTACHMENT A: Subsurface Exploration Location Plan
ATTACHMENT B: Subsurface Explorations’ Logs
ATTACHMENT C: Soil Percolation and Infiltration Data
ATTACHMENT D: USDA NRCS Soils Report

1

PRELIMINARY
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
1. PURPOSE
The Government has conducted a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed SOF
Human Performance Training Center (HPTC) project. This report provides a general overview of
the site conditions, including subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. Preliminary
recommendations are also provided with respect to the geotechnical design and construction of the
project.

2. QUALIFICATION OF REPORT
The field exploration performed for this report was made to determine the subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions and was not intended to serve as an assessment of site wetlands,
environmental, or contaminant conditions. No effort was made to define, delineate, or designate
any areas of environmental concern or of contamination. The design-build contractor’s team shall
include a licensed geotechnical engineer to interpret the report and develop foundation and
earthwork recommendations and design parameters on which to base the contractor’s proposal. The
preliminary findings and evaluation presented in this report are based on widely-spaced explorations
performed at the project site. Any additional subsurface investigations and laboratory analyses
conducted to better characterize the site and to develop the final design shall be performed under the
direction of a licensed geotechnical engineer and shall be the full responsibility of the contractor. A
final geotechnical evaluation report shall be prepared by the licensed geotechnical engineer and
submitted along with the first design submittal.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC) project consists of the
design and construction of a 57,050 square foot (SF) HPTC. The building is required to be
constructed with concrete and steel columns and beams with metal deck and concrete floors, and
the structure’s exterior is required to consist of masonry with stone-front glazing. Since the
project will be constructed under a design-build contract, detailed structural information for the
proposed building is unavailable. The project’s supporting facilities include all related site-work
and utilities to include electrical, water, gas, sanitary sewer, and information systems
distribution, security lighting, privately owned vehicle parking, access drives, roads, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage and treatment structures, signage, landscaping, and other site
improvements. The design-build construction contractor shall be responsible for final
connections to all site utilities (including connections from new utilities to existing utilities)
unless otherwise specified in the RFP specification.
Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
2

4. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
a. Site Reconnaissance
Prior to the field explorations, the proposed project site and surrounding areas were
visually inspected by a geotechnical engineer. The observations were used in planning the
exploration, in determining areas of special interest, and in relating site conditions to known
geologic conditions in the area.

b. Field Exploration
(1) Subsurface conditions at the project site were explored by six soil borings and eight
cone penetration test (CPT) soundings. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in three of
the soil borings (B-01 through B-03), while the remaining soil borings (SHWT-01, PT-01 and PT-
02) were simply advanced for the soils to be examined for indications of prior saturation conditions
and infiltration properties. The soil borings were drilled to depths ranging from 11 to 25 feet and
the CPT soundings were pushed to depths ranging from 15 to 81 feet at the approximate locations
shown on the Subsurface Exploration Location Plan in Attachment A of this report.

(2) Boring locations were established in the field by an engineer using a hand-held global
positioning system (GPS) device having sub-meter accuracy. Since the measurements were not
precise, the locations shown on the boring location plans and the locations indicated on the boring
logs should be considered approximate. The ground surface elevation at each boring location was
determined by interpolation from the site topography survey; therefore, the elevations shown on the
boring logs should be considered approximate.

(3) The SPT borings were drilled by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. of Raleigh, North
Carolina, under contract to the Savannah District. The borings were drilled using an all-terrain
vehicle (ATV) CME 550 drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer and using a 2.25-inch
inside diameter (I.D.) hollow stem auger to advance the boreholes. Split-barrel sampling with
standard penetration testing was performed at intervals shown on the boring logs. All soil
sampling in the SPT borings was in accordance with ASTM D 1586. In SPT borings, a soil
sample (splitspoon sample) is obtained with a standard 1 3/8-inch I.D. by 2-inch outside diameter
(O.D.) split-barrel sampler. The sampler is first seated 6 inches and then driven an additional 12
inches with blows from a 140 lb. hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows
required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is recorded and is termed the “standard
penetration resistance,” or the “N-value.” Penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an
index of the soil’s strength, density, and foundation support capability.

(4) The soil auger borings (SHWT-01, PT-01, and PT-02) were also performed by
Froehling & Robertson, Inc. of Raleigh, North Carolina, under contract to the Savannah District,
using a 31⁄4-inch diameter continuous flight spiral auger. Cuttings from the auger borings were
first examined by a geotechnical engineer for indications of a seasonal high water table, and then
soil percolation tests were conducted in borings PT-01 and PT-02.

Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
3

(5) Soil classifications shown on the boring logs were determined in the field by a
geologist. Classification of the soil samples was performed in accordance with ASTM D 2488
(Visual-Manual Procedure for Descriptions of Soils). The soil classifications include the use of
the Unified Soil Classification System described in ASTM D 2487 (Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes). Since the soil descriptions and classifications are based on visual
examination and manual tests, they should be considered approximate. Logs of the soil borings
graphically depicting soil descriptions, N-values, and observed groundwater levels are included
in Attachment B of this report.

(6) The CPT soundings were performed by the Savannah District in accordance with
ASTM D 5778-07. A 10-ton load capacity ARA Vertek cone penetrometer with a 10 square
centimeter tip and 150 square centimeter sleeve was used. A 20-ton, truck-mounted rig was used
to push the cone penetrometer. During a CPT sounding, an electronically instrumented cone is
hydraulically pushed through the soil to measure tip stress, sleeve friction and penetration
induced pore water pressure at two-centimeter intervals. At CPT-08, shear wave velocity
measurements were obtained at one-meter intervals. The CPT sounding data were electrically
recorded and used to determine soil stratigraphy and to estimate soil-engineering parameters
such as strength and compressibility. The logs of the CPT soundings depicting cone tip
resistances, sleeve friction, pore pressures, friction ratio, equivalent N60, shear wave velocities,
and soil behavior types; are also included in Attachment B. Interpretation of the Equivalent N60
values shown on the CPT logs was performed using the Rapid CPT software module developed
by Data Forensics and run as part of the gINT software application. The soil stratigraphic
profiles in the CPT logs represent soil behavior types derived from the established relationships
based on cone tip resistance, sleeve resistance and penetration induced pore pressure described
by Robertson and Campanella (1990). Groundwater levels were estimated from the penetration
induced pore pressure.

c. Infiltration Testing
(1) Two soil percolation tests were conducted at discrete locations and depths where
storm water management features were anticipated at the time of the field investigation - to the
north of the project site. Test locations are identified on the Subsurface Exploration Location
Plan in Attachment A of this report. The percolation tests were done in accordance with USACE
SAD DM 110-1-1 July 1983 chapter 20. Soil percolation rates measured in the tests were
converted to infiltration rates using the Michigan method.

(2) The Michigan method uses an area reduction factor (Rf) to account for the
exfiltration occurring through the sides of a percolation hole. It assumes that the percolation rate
is affected by the depth of water in the hole and that the percolating surface of the hole is in
uniform soil. The Michigan method could thus be used to convert soil percolation rates to
infiltration rates as follows:

Infiltration Rate = Percolation Rate
Reduction Factor

Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
4

where Reduction Factor (R𝑓)is given by: R𝑓 = 2𝑑1 −Δd
𝐷𝐼𝐴+ 1

and:

d1 = initial water depth (in.)
Δd = water level drop (in.)
DIA = diameter of the percolation hole (in.)

Results of the soil percolation tests and the computed infiltration rates are included in
Attachment C.

d. Review of available USDA NRCS soils data
Prior to initiating the abovementioned field investigation, a soil survey for Cumberland
County, North Carolina was obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
website. The report was used to obtain an overview of possible soil series located within the
project area, and it is included as Attachment D of this report.

5. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
a. Site Description
The SOF HPTC is proposed to be sited on approximately 8.5 acres in the northern central
portion of the Yarborough Complex of Fort Bragg, NC. The Yarborough Complex consists of
approximately 600 acres of land on the southeastern boundary of Fort Bragg, NC, jutting into
nearby Fayetteville, NC. This area was previously the location of an Ammunition Supply Point
that has been relocated. Within the last few years the area has undergone, and is still undergoing,
considerable urban development; and thus the site for the proposed SOF HPTC is surrounded by
ongoing adjacent projects. The project area, located approximately 1500 feet east of the
intersection of Eagle Talon Drive and African Lion Boulevard, is bordered to its north by
approximately 600 feet of Eagle Talon Drive, and extends southward for approximately 450 feet.
Most of the site is covered with sparse woodlands consisting of trees spread roughly 25 to 50 feet
apart. There is a very small portion of the site that is void of any vegetation and consists of
remnant portions of a paved road that cuts through the project limits. The topography of the site
gently slopes to the southwest with approximate elevations varying from 263 to 251 feet mean
sea level.

b. Regional and Site Geology
(1) Fort Bragg is situated in the Sand Hills area of the Coastal Plain physiographic
province of North Carolina. The Coastal Plain extends westward from the Atlantic Ocean to the
Fall Line, a distance of about 130 miles. The Fall Line is the boundary between the Coastal
Plain and the Piedmont physiographic provinces.

(2) Geologic units in the area, ranging from oldest to youngest, include the Carolina
Slate Belt rocks, which are the basement rocks, the Cape Fear Formation, and the Middendorf
Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
5

Formation. The Cape Fear and Middendorf Formations overlie the basement rock and are part of
the generally southeastward-dipping and thickening wedge of sediments that constitute the
Atlantic Coastal Plain deposits.

(3) The Middendorf Formation is exposed at land surface throughout the area. The
formation is composed of tan, cross-bedded, medium and fine-grained, micaceous quartz sand
and clayey sand interbedded with clay or sandy clay lenses or layers. Layers of hematite-
cemented sandstone occur locally throughout the Middendorf Formation as do thin layers of hard
kaolin and kaolin-cemented sandstone. Below the water table, these units are generally friable or
plastic. In places, the Middendorf Formation is a mottled orange, gray, and tan color with
streaks and laminae of red and purple hematite and manganese oxide stains.

c. Subsurface Conditions
(1) Field classification of the samples obtained from soil borings drilled at the project
site indicate the area’s subsurface to be comprised primarily of sands of varied gradation and
containing varying amounts of fines. The soil samples recovered were field classified as either
silty sand or clayey sand (SM or SC respectively). Most of the near-surface soils, encountered
within the first 5 feet of the soil borings, are of very loose or loose density based on these soils
exhibiting N-values within the range of 0 to 4 and 4 to 10 blows-per-foot respectively. These
very loose and loose sands are typically underlain by sands of medium density with N-values in
the range of 10 to 30 blows-per-foot that typically extended to the terminations of the borings.
The tip resistance data collected in the CPT soundings correlates with the observations made in
the SPT borings, with cone tip resistances typically increasing with depth. The predicted soil
behavior types roughly correlate the soil samples collected at corresponding depths, indicating
the presence of sandy materials in the subsurface.

(2) The above subsurface description is of a generalized nature to highlight the major
subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. The boring logs should be
reviewed for specific information at individual boring locations. The stratifications shown on the
boring logs represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations are expected
between boring locations. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the
approximate boundaries between the subsurface materials; the actual transitions are typically
more gradual.

(3) According to the USDA NRCS soils report for the project site, the site is
characterized by the Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes (FaB) soil map unit. Per the
report, soils in the FaB soil map unit typically exhibit the following general soil profile:

0 to 7 inches: Loamy sand
7 to 17 inches: Loamy sand
17 to 80 inches: Clay.

Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
6

This general soil profile, described by the USDA NRCS soils report, roughly correlates with the
sands of varied gradation and containing varying amounts of fines that were observed during the
subsurface investigation.

d. Groundwater Conditions
(1) Water levels were measured in all of the boreholes during drilling and at the completion
of drilling. Typically when groundwater is encountered during drilling, a temporary piezometer
is installed in the bore hole to mitigate cave-in, and water level measurements are made 24 hours
after termination of drilling. In such instances, the 24-hour water level is generally considered the
true groundwater level. Additionally, groundwater levels were estimated from the penetration
induced pore pressure in the CPT soundings. Out of the 13 soil explorations that were performed
for this investigation, groundwater was only encountered in 1 CPT sounding. Groundwater was
encountered in CPT-08 where the pore pressures measured indicate a groundwater depth of
approximately 41-feet.

(2) A perched-water condition occurs when water seeping downward is slowed by a low
permeability soil layer, such as clayey sand or clay, and saturates the more permeable soil above
it. The perched-water level can be any number of feet above the true groundwater level. Due to
the prevalence of interbedded fine-grained silty sands and clayey sands at the project site, the
successful design-build contractor should expect to encounter perched water during construction.

(3) It should be noted that groundwater conditions vary during periods of prolonged
drought and excessive rainfall as well as seasonally. Therefore, fluctuations in the elevation of
the groundwater should be anticipated with changing climatic and rainfall conditions.

e. Seasonal High Water Table and Infiltration Properties
(1) The depth to the seasonal high water table (SHWT) is an important parameter in
determining suitability of storm water features. It is defined as the highest groundwater
observed, at atmospheric pressure, for anaerobic conditions to be established. In the southeastern
United States, this typically occurs during periods of sustained precipitation such as the winter or
spring. The SHWT is estimated by soil color, redoximorphic features, saturation observations,
and professional assessment.

(2) At the time of this report, the locations of proposed storm water management
structures for the HPTC project are yet to be finalized. Per the USDA NRCS WSS report the
site’s soil map unit, Faceville loamy sand and Wagram loamy sand, typically exhibits
groundwater at a depth in excess of 60 inches below the ground surface. Soil boring SHWT-01
was drilled to a depth of 15 feet and did not encounter evidence of a SHWT. Based on the
borings for infiltration testing and the SPT borings, the SHWT should be considered to be at a
depth greater than 15 feet below ground surface. This determination roughly correlates with the
NRCS soil survey profile for the Faceville loamy sand soil map unit. Final evaluation of the
SHWT and any recommendations for the storm water features shall be confirmed by the
Contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer.

Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
7

(3) The infiltration tests conducted resulted in the infiltration rates tabulated below. The
tests resulted in low infiltration rates as could be expected based on the gradation and fines
content of the soils typically encountered in the subsurface of the project site. The data collected
during the soil infiltration tests and the computed values of soil infiltration rates are included in
Attachment C.

6. ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
a. General
The following evaluations and recommendations are based on the information available
on the proposed structures, observations made at the project site, interpretation of the data
obtained from the soil test borings, and previous experience with soils and subsurface conditions
similar to those encountered at the site. It is emphasized that the preliminary findings and
evaluation presented in this report are based on widely-spaced explorations performed at the
project site. Additional subsurface investigations and/or laboratory analyses, if required to
determine site soil conditions and develop the final design, shall be performed under the
direction of a licensed geotechnical engineer and shall be the full responsibility of the contractor.

b. Site Preparation
(1) Following clearing and removal of trees, structures, pavement, etc., the construction
area should be grubbed and stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, organics, and other deleterious
materials. Clean topsoil can be stockpiled and reused in landscaped areas. It is recommended
that the zone of stripping extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the outer edges of structures and
pavements. Any utilities in the project area should be located and rerouted or properly
abandoned, as necessary.

(2) Areas to receive fill and excavated subgrade areas of buildings and pavements should
be prepared as follows. Surface areas containing poorly graded sands or silty sands should be
densified by compaction of a vibratory roller weighing at least 7 tons. Areas of cohesive soils
such as clayey sands and clays should be proof rolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck or
similar rubber-tired equipment. Soils which are observed to rut or deflect excessively under the
moving loads should be undercut to firm soil and backfilled with properly compacted, suitable
soils. The proof rolling should be performed only during and following a period of dry weather.

c. Foundation Design and Construction
(1) Given the proposed site and the proposed structures, shallow spread foundations can
most likely be used for support of the proposed buildings. However, the contractor’s consulting
geotechnical engineer must determine the appropriate foundation system for the proposed

Infiltration Test
Test Depth
(feet)
Infiltration Rate
(inches/hour)
PT-01 11 0.02
PT-02 12 0.03
Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
8

structures and evaluate any impacts of the very loose and loose soils that were encountered at
shallow depths ( 0 – 5 feet) in the attached borings. The foundation design shall provide an
adequate level of protection against structural failure due to uniform and/or differential
foundation settlement or general shear.

(2) Assuming shallow foundations are feasible, it is recommended that all load-bearing
wall footings and column footings have a minimum width of 24 inches and a minimum depth of
24 inches, as measured from finish floor or finish grade, whichever is lower, to the bottom of the
footing. For all other wall footings, the recommended minimum width is 18 inches and the
recommended minimum depth is 18 inches, as measured from finish floor or finish grade,
whichever is lower, to the bottom of the footing.

(3) Foundation excavations should be concreted as soon as practical following excavation.
Exposure to the environment could weaken the soils at the footing bearing level should the
foundation excavations remain open for an extended period of time. Bottoms of foundation
excavations should be inspected immediately prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to
verify that adequate bearing soils are present and that all debris, mud, and loose, frozen or water-
softened soils are removed. If the bearing surface soils have been softened by surface-water
intrusion or by exposure, the softened soils must be removed to firm bearing and replaced with
additional concrete during the concreting or replaced to design subgrade with No. 57 or No. 67
stone, compacted to a non-yielding condition. To minimize exposure, the final excavation (4 to 6
inches) to design subgrade could be delayed until just prior to placement of reinforcing steel and
concrete.

d. Seismic Design
Seismic loads should be computed in accordance with the 2015 International Building
Code (IBC 2015) section 1613. Seismic site class should be evaluated using the criteria given in
the ASCE Standard 7-10 - Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures - Chapter
20. The contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer shall make the final determination of the
mapped acceleration parameters, the site class, the site coefficients and adjusted maximum
considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters, the design spectral response
acceleration parameters, and the seismic design category to be used for seismic design of the
project.

e. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
(1) Based upon past experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the site,
concrete floor slabs can be supported on densified in situ soils or on fill soils placed and
compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report regarding structural
fill. It is recommended that all concrete slabs-on-grade in inhabitable areas, including storage
areas, be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of open graded, washed pea gravel or stone, often
termed “capillary water barrier,” to prevent the capillary rise of groundwater. Nos. 57, 67, 78,
or 89 stone could be used. It is also recommended that a moisture vapor barrier consisting of
lapped polyethylene sheeting having a minimum thickness of 10 mils be provided beneath the
building floor slabs to reduce the potential for slab dampness from soil moisture. Concrete slabs
Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
9

should be jointed around columns and along supported walls to minimize cracking due to
possible differential movement.

(2) Construction activities and exposure to the environment often cause deterioration of
the prepared slab-on-grade subgrade. Therefore, the slab subgrade soil shall be inspected and
evaluated immediately prior to floor slab construction. The evaluation might include a
combination of visual observations, hand rod probing, and field density tests to verify that the
subgrade has been properly prepared. If unstable soil is revealed, the affected soil should be
removed to firm bearing. The unstable soil shall then be replaced to design subgrade with
suitable structural fill soil placed and compacted as recommended or replaced with additional
capillary water barrier material.

f. Pavement Design
The contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer must determine the appropriate
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and modulus to be utilized in the design of pavements. Since a
final site grading plan for the project has yet to be developed at the time of this report, it is not
certain where pavements will be located nor what soil types will be in the subgrades. The
contractor’s consulting geotechnical engineer shall also provide recommendations regarding the
treatment and handling of plastic soils that could be encountered in the subgrades of pavements.

g. Groundwater and Surface-Water Considerations
Due to the presence of clayey sand and clay layers in the subsurface soils at the project
site, perched-water conditions could be encountered, and the accumulation of run-off water or
seepage at the base of excavations may occur during foundation construction and site work.
Water should not be allowed to collect near the foundation or on floor slab areas of the building
either during or after construction. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one
corner to facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff. Positive
site drainage should be provided to reduce infiltration of surface water around the perimeter of
the building and beneath floor slabs.

h. Structural Fill
In order to achieve high density structural fill, the following evaluations and
recommendations are offered:

(1) Based on the soil test borings, excavated on-site soils (excluding any organics/topsoil
and debris) can be used as structural fill. Some moisture content adjustment will probably be
necessary to achieve proper compaction. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied
and thoroughly mixed into the soil by discing. It is recommended that the contractor have
appropriate disc harrows on site during earthwork for mixing, drying, and wetting of the soils.

(2) Materials selected for use as structural fill should be free from roots and other
organic matter, trash, debris, frozen soil, and stones larger than 3 inches in any dimension, and in
general, should have a liquid limit less than 50 percent and a plasticity index of less than 30. The
following soils represented by their Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D 2487)
Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
10

group symbols will be suitable for use as structural fill: GP, GW, GC, GM, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC,
SW, SC, SM, SM-SC, CL, and ML. The following soil types are considered unsuitable: Pt, OH,
OL, CH, and MH.

(3) Suitable fill soils should be placed in lifts of maximum eight inches loose
measurement. The soil should be compacted by mechanical means such as steel drum,
sheepsfoot, tamping, or rubber-tired rollers. Compaction of clays is best accomplished with a
sheepsfoot or tamping roller. Periodically rolling with heavily loaded, rubber-tired equipment
may be desirable to seal the surface of the compacted fill, thus reducing the potential for
absorption of surface water following a rain. This sealing operation is particularly important at
the end of the work day and at the end of the week. Within confined areas or foundation
excavations, we recommend the use of manually operated, internal combustion activated
compactors (“whacker packers” or sled tamps). The compactors should have sufficient weight
and striking power to produce the same degree of compaction that is obtained on the other
portions of the fill by the rolling equipment as specified. Where hand operated equipment is
used, the soils should be placed in lifts of maximum four inches loose measurement.
Cut or fill slopes should not be steeper than 3.0H:1.0V. Fill slopes should be compacted in
horizontal lifts not to exceed 8 inches in loose thickness as fill is placed.

(4) It is recommended for all structural fill and subgrades to be compacted, at a
minimum, to dry densities corresponding to 92% of the materials’ maximum dry density at
moisture contents within 2% of the materials’ optimum moisture content as obtained by ASTM
D1557 (Modified Proctor). The top two feet of all areas to receive pavement or structures should
be compacted to 95% of the materials’ Modified Proctor values. The base course beneath paved
areas should be compacted to 100% of the materials’ maximum dry density as determined by
ASTM D1557.

i. Construction Quality Control Testing
(1) Prior to initiating any structural fill placement and/or compaction operations, it is
recommended that representative samples of the soils which will be used as structural fill or
subgrade, both suitable on-site soils and off-site soils (borrow), be obtained and tested to
determine their classification and compaction characteristics. The samples should be carefully
selected to represent the full range of soil types to be used. The moisture content, maximum dry
density, optimum moisture content, grain-size, and plasticity characteristics should be
determined. These tests are required to determine if the fill and subgrade soils are acceptable
and for compaction quality control of the subgrades and structural fill. Tests for the above soil
properties should be in accordance with the following:

Moisture Content ASTM D 2216
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture ASTM D 1557
Grain-Size (Wash No. 200, less hydrometer) ASTM D 422 and D 1140
Plasticity ASTM D 4318
Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
11

(2) A representative number of in-place field density tests should be performed in the
subgrade of compacted on-site soils and in the structural fill and backfill to confirm that the
required degree of compaction has been obtained. In-place density tests should be performed in
accordance with the sand cone method prescribed in ASTM D 1556. The use of the ASTM
D6938 - Standard Test Method for In-Place Density and Water Content of Soil and Soil-
Aggregate by Nuclear Methods is authorized provided the test results are checked for accuracy at
a minimum rate of one ASTM D1556 test for every ten ASTM D6938 tests in the same material.
It is recommend that at least one density test be performed for each 5,000 square feet and 12,500
square feet, or portion thereof, for buildings and pavements, respectively, of compacted native
soil subgrade and in each lift of compacted structural fill. It is also recommended that at least
one density test be performed for each 75 linear feet in the bearing level soils of continuous
footings. Density tests should be performed at 100-foot intervals along roadway subgrades. In
addition, a density test should be performed for each 100 linear feet of backfill placed per foot of
depth in trenches for utilities systems. Where other areas are compacted separately by manually
operated compactors, a minimum of one density test should be performed for every 250 square
feet, or portion thereof, of fill placed per foot of depth.

(3) Compaction control of soils requires the comparison of fill water content and dry
density values obtained in the field density tests with optimum water content and maximum dry
density determined in a laboratory compaction test performed on the same soil. It is, however,
not feasible to do this as the testing could not keep pace with fill construction. It is, therefore,
recommended that compaction control of the earthwork construction be performed using a
“family” of compaction curves and the one-point or two-point compaction methods.

(4) Any area that does not meet the required compaction criteria should be reworked and
retested. If the moisture content of the soil is within the recommended range, additional
compaction may be all that is necessary to increase the density. If the moisture content is not
within the recommended range, the moisture content should be adjusted to within the range and
the area recompacted.

(5) All laboratory and field density testing shall be performed by a commercial testing
laboratory that has been validated by the Engineer Research and Development Center Materials
Testing Center (MTC) under the Corps of Engineers laboratory inspection and validation
program.

j. Drawings
The exploration locations shown in ATTACHMENT A and the soil test boring logs in
ATTACHMENT B shall be shown on the final design and on the project as-built drawings
completed by the design-build contractor. In addition, the selected design-build contractor shall
show all additional soil boring logs, records of additional alternative subsurface investigations,
and laboratory soils test data on the final design drawings and on the as-built drawings.

Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report March 2018
SOF Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
L.I. 79443, FY-18
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
12

k. Specifications
It is recommended that the design-build contractor use the Savannah District’s
EARTHWORK specification 31 00 00 when editing the specifications for this project. It is also
recommended that the design-build contractor use the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications
CHEMICAL TERMITE CONTROL Specification 31 31 16.13. These specifications and
associated compaction figures, are available at the following website:
http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/About/DivisionsandOffices/EngineeringDivision/EngineeringDes
ignCriteria/SASGuideSpecifications.aspx

A SpecsIntact format of the specifications can be obtained by following the instructions provided
at the above website.

7. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
A final geotechnical evaluation report shall be prepared by the contractor’s licensed
geotechnical engineer and submitted along with the first foundation design submittal. The
geotechnical report shall summarize the subsurface conditions and provide recommendations for
the design of appropriate foundations, floor slabs, retaining walls, embankments, roadways, and
pavements. The report shall recommend the type of foundation system to be used, lateral load
resistance capacities for foundation systems, and allowable bearing elevations for footings, grade
beams, slabs, etc. An assessment of post-construction settlement potential including total and
differential shall be provided. Recommendations regarding lateral earth pressures (active, at-
rest, and passive) to be used in the design of retaining walls shall be provided. The report shall
include the recommended spectral accelerations and Site Class for seismic design along with an
evaluation of any seismic hazards and recommendations for mitigation, if required. Calculations
shall be included to support the recommendations for bearing capacity, settlement, and pavement
sections. Supporting documentation shall be included for all recommended design parameters
such as Site Class, shear strength, earth pressure coefficients, friction factors, subgrade modulus,
California Bearing Ratio (CBR), etc. In addition, the report shall provide earthwork
recommendations, expected frost penetration, seasonal high water table levels, soil infiltration
rates, expected groundwater levels, and recommendations for dewatering and groundwater
control. The report must also identify the possible presence of any surface or subsurface features
that may affect the construction of the project such as sinkholes, boulders, shallow rock,
undocumented fill, old structures, soft areas, or unusual soil conditions.

ATTACHMENT A

Subsurface Exploration Location Plan

!<
!*"!*"
!*"
!*"
!*"
!*"
!*"
%,%,%,
!<
!<
!*"
EAGLE TALON DR
B-01
CPT-01 CPT-02
CPT-03CPT-04
CPT-05
CPT-06
CPT-07
SHWT-01
PT-02
PT-01
B-02
B-03
CPT-08257 26225
6
259
264
265259
260
264262
261255256263261 261
2
5
9256
262260265
260254251 259255259256260
2612552602622
6
2 261253249
265
259
257257245257257260
250257 259259253263263
259260260261260256
255260
256255261261261255264
255255260
254254
260
2572582
5
2
2492592592582592582
5
6260
260261260259
249261
250250259
246265
260263
257256259
261260255
2
5
7
263 262
262255
256255250
258 262253257259 260
253254259
2
6
2262
256251258
252259265
262
253262
255260247260
261
260
257263265
2
5
3
244255
255254264257
25
0 257255
2552
5
5
259
254
249255 26
0
260265260260260
260250255260255
265
245255260
255257260
26
0
250255 260 2602
5
5260260
25
0
250
255
265
260
2
5
5
2
6
0
260
255250
26
0255
255
260
260
260
25525
5
260
2552552602592602
5
5
2552
5
5255
254261
259
250257259 264263262263
2592592562572522582
4
92622592592
6
2
256256265
2612582582612
5
9
2
6
2
256258
254252264257
254 262261262261
256
254263261256257256257256248
26
0
252264
2
5
1
260261 2
5
8
25
6
262
262262261263261
253257258263256264
258257263261261263261253
259258261
258
262
258251262
263
259261
2612
6
2
254253262257256261262257256258257
257251263
26
1
257
2
5
3
2
5
4 262249
262
25
7
258
25
9
25
8
25
9
256
251
25
6252
25725325
8256
256
2
5
3
2
5
4
25325
1
25
4
258
252252254
2
5
2
257252
253254259
251256253254 261
2522522
5
6251261
2
5
7
25826
1
2
6
3
263251DATE: JAN 2018 FIGURE: 1
PN 79443 (FY 18) -
SOF HPTC
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
LOCATION PLAN
Fort Bragg, NC
$
U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SAVANNAH DISTRICT
SAVANNAH, GEORGIA
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme,
Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
0 100 20050
Feet
Document Path: G:\EN-GS\FT BRAGG\FY18\PN_79443_SOF HPTC\Drawings\PN79443Borings.mxd
NOTE:
B-XX = Soil Boring Location
PT-XX = Percolation Test
SHWT-XX = Seasonal High
Water Table
CPT-XX = Cone Penetrometer
Test Location
Imagery Date: 20 December 2015
Legend
Existing Topo Line

ATTACHMENT B

Subsurface Explorations’ Logs

2
1
2
13
11
8
7
5
0
1
2
6
6
8
5
2
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
Water Level Data
Reading Depth Notes
1
1
2
10
9
7
6
3
80
100
93
100
100
93
100
100237.5
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, fine to medium grained, very
moist, with rootlets, trace clay.
Reddish brown, fine to coarse grained, moist, no
rootlets, little clay.
Brownish red, fine to medium grained, moist, little clay.
Brownish red, fine grained, moist, some clay.
Reddish brown, fine to medium grained, very moist,
trace clay.
Light gray and light tannish brown, fine to medium
grained, very moist, some clay.
BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 25.0 ft
Notes:
1. Soils visually field classified in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System.
2. N-Value: Total blows over last 1.0 foot of 1.5-foot
driven interval, unless otherwise indicated, using a 1
3/8-inch ID splitspoon with 140-pound hammer falling
30 inches.
3. The CME 550x drilling rig utilizes an automatic trip
hammer.
3
2
4
23
20
15
13
8
After drilling Not Encountered 2/2/2018
25.0
---
Fort Bragg
DISTURBED
6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN
7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK
8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING
STARTEDVERTICAL
1. PROJECT
UNDISTURBED
NGVD29
2. HOLE NUMBER
18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR
CME-550x
BEARING
David Tignor
17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING
2/2/18
SHEETSDRILLING LOG
12. TOTAL SAMPLES
13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
B-01
DIVISION
11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
South Atlantic Division
See Remarks
2/2/18
N/A
14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
SHEET
3. DRILLING AGENCY
1
1
OF
COMPLETED15. DATE BORING
DEG FROM
VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL
2.25" Hollow Stem Auger
INSTALLATION
0
8 0
INCLINED
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
4. NAME OF DRILLER
5. DIRECTION OF BORING
9. COORDINATE SYSTEM
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT
NAD83SOF Human Performance Training Center
PN 79443 FY 18
>
25'
N 484190.66 E 1991071.9
LOCATION COORDINATES
16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING
VERTICAL
Forpu Njikam, Civil (Geotechnical) Engineer
262.5' estimated from plans
State Plane
Boring Designation B-01
Boring Designation B-01 SHEET 1 of 1Blows/0.5 ftRQD%Samp No.%
REC
FEB 08
ELEV
LEGENDSAS FORM 1836-A
FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)N-ValueREMARKSDEPTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
2
7
11
12
15
14
6
18
1
3
4
7
6
5
4
6
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
Water Level Data
Reading Depth Notes
2
5
8
10
9
11
4
16
80
100
100
100
100
100
93
100237.0
SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, fine to medium grained,
very moist, with rootlets.
Reddish brown, fine grained, moist, some clay, few
rootlets.
Reddish brown, fine grained, moist, little clay, no
rootlets.
Light reddish brown, fine to medium grained, moist, little
clay.
Light reddish brown mottled with pale gray, fine grained,
moist, some clay.
Orange reddish brown, fine to medium grained, moist,
trace clay.
Pale orange reddish brown, fine to medium grained,
moist, little clay.
Orangish tan, fine to medium grained, very moist, trace
clay.
BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 25.0 ft
Notes:
1. Soils visually field classified in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System.
2. N-Value: Total blows over last 1.0 foot of 1.5-foot
driven interval, unless otherwise indicated, using a 1
3/8-inch ID splitspoon with 140-pound hammer falling
30 inches.
3. The CME 550x drilling rig utilizes an automatic trip
hammer.
4
12
19
22
24
25
10
34
After drilling Not Encountered 2/2/2018
25.0
---
Fort Bragg
DISTURBED
6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN
7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK
8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING
STARTEDVERTICAL
1. PROJECT
UNDISTURBED
NGVD29
2. HOLE NUMBER
18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR
CME-550x
BEARING
David Tignor
17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING
2/2/18
SHEETSDRILLING LOG
12. TOTAL SAMPLES
13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
B-02
DIVISION
11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
South Atlantic Division
See Remarks
2/2/18
N/A
14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
SHEET
3. DRILLING AGENCY
1
1
OF
COMPLETED15. DATE BORING
DEG FROM
VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL
2.25" Hollow Stem Auger
INSTALLATION
0
8 0
INCLINED
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
4. NAME OF DRILLER
5. DIRECTION OF BORING
9. COORDINATE SYSTEM
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT
NAD83SOF Human Performance Training Center
PN 79443 FY 18
>
25'
N 484155.14 E 1991020.73
LOCATION COORDINATES
16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING
VERTICAL
Forpu Njikam, Civil (Geotechnical) Engineer
262' estimated from plans
State Plane
Boring Designation B-02
Boring Designation B-02 SHEET 1 of 1Blows/0.5 ftRQD%Samp No.%
REC
FEB 08
ELEV
LEGENDSAS FORM 1836-A
FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)N-ValueREMARKSDEPTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
4
5
13
11
11
16
8
12
3
2
7
8
5
12
4
3
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
Water Level Data
Reading Depth Notes
3
3
11
7
8
14
6
8
80
87
73
100
100
100
93
100236.0
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish brown, fine to coarse
grained, very moist, with rootlets, trace clay.
Orangish and reddish brown, fine grained, moist, trace
rootlets, little clay.
Reddish and orangish tan, fine to medium grained,
moist, no rootlets, little clay.
Orangish and reddish tan, fine grained, very moist, some
clay.
Reddish tan, fine to coarse grained, very moist, trace
clay.
Reddish and tannish brown, fine grained, very moist,
some clay.
Orangish tan, fine to coarse grained, very moist, trace
clay.
BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 25.0 ft
Notes:
1. Soils visually field classified in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System.
2. N-Value: Total blows over last 1.0 foot of 1.5-foot
driven interval, unless otherwise indicated, using a 1
3/8-inch ID splitspoon with 140-pound hammer falling
30 inches.
3. The CME 550x drilling rig utilizes an automatic trip
hammer.
7
8
24
18
19
30
14
20
After drilling Not Encountered 2/2/2018
24 hours Not Encountered 2/3/2018
25.0
---
Fort Bragg
DISTURBED
6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN
7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK
8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING
STARTEDVERTICAL
1. PROJECT
UNDISTURBED
NGVD29
2. HOLE NUMBER
18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR
CME-550x
BEARING
David Tignor
17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING
2/2/18
SHEETSDRILLING LOG
12. TOTAL SAMPLES
13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
B-03
DIVISION
11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
South Atlantic Division
See Remarks
2/2/18
N/A
14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
SHEET
3. DRILLING AGENCY
1
1
OF
COMPLETED15. DATE BORING
DEG FROM
VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL
2.25" Hollow Stem Auger
INSTALLATION
0
8 0
INCLINED
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
4. NAME OF DRILLER
5. DIRECTION OF BORING
9. COORDINATE SYSTEM
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT
NAD83SOF Human Performance Training Center
PN 79443 FY 18
>
25'
N 484230.91 E 1991117.57
LOCATION COORDINATES
16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING
VERTICAL
Forpu Njikam, Civil (Geotechnical) Engineer
261' estimated from plans
State Plane
Boring Designation B-03
Boring Designation B-03 SHEET 1 of 1Blows/0.5 ftRQD%Samp No.%
REC
FEB 08
ELEV
LEGENDSAS FORM 1836-A
FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)N-ValueREMARKSDEPTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
Water Level Data
Reading Depth Notes
252.0
247.5
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, fine to medium grained, dry,
with rootlets, trace clay.
Reddish brown, fine to medium grained, no rootlets,
trace clay.
Slightly mottled with gray, few clay clumps.
CLAYEY SAND (SC), brownish gray, fine to medium
grained.
BOTTOM OF BOREHOLE AT 15.0 ft
Notes:
1. Soils visually field classified in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System.
2. The depth to the seasonal high water table (SHWT)
is defined as the highest groundwater observed, at
atmospheric pressure, for anaerobic conditions to be
established.
3. The SHWT is estimated by soil color, redoximorphic
features, saturation observations, and professional
assessment.
4. No indications of prolonged saturation and anaerobic
conditions were observed in this boring down to
termination at a depth of 15', place Seasonal High Water
Table at a depth in excess of 15'.
After drilling Not Encountered 2/2/2018
10.5
15.0
---
Fort Bragg
DISTURBED
6. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN
7. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK
8. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING
STARTEDVERTICAL
1. PROJECT
UNDISTURBED
NGVD29
2. HOLE NUMBER
18. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF INSPECTOR
CME-550x
BEARING
David Tignor
17. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING
2/2/18
SHEETSDRILLING LOG
12. TOTAL SAMPLES
13. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
SHWT-01
DIVISION
11. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
South Atlantic Division
See Remarks
2/2/18
N/A
14. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
SHEET
3. DRILLING AGENCY
1
1
OF
COMPLETED15. DATE BORING
DEG FROM
VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL
3.25" spiral auger
INSTALLATION
0
0 0
INCLINED
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
4. NAME OF DRILLER
5. DIRECTION OF BORING
9. COORDINATE SYSTEM
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT
NAD83SOF Human Performance Training Center
PN 79443 FY 18
>
15'
N 484345.61 E 1990839.9
LOCATION COORDINATES
16. ELEVATION TOP OF BORING
VERTICAL
Forpu Njikam, Civil (Geotechnical) Engineer
262.5' estimated from plans
State Plane
Boring Designation SHWT-01
Boring Designation SHWT-01 SHEET 1 of 1Blows/0.5 ftRQD%Samp No.%
REC
FEB 08
ELEV
LEGENDSAS FORM 1836-A
FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)N-ValueREMARKSDEPTH
0
5
10
15
Electronic Filename:
DI-16-CPT-1-A.cpt
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Page 1 of 1
SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY 18
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Elevation:
Water Depth:
Total Depth:25.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:
Feb. 6, 2018
Adam Tew
USACE, Savannah District
Date:
Operator:
Drilling Agency:DDG1069 / 0.8
CPT REPORT - DYNAMIC BOTTOM LEGEND BRAGG.GPJ COPY THIS TEMPLATE.GDT 2/16/18Latitude:
Longitude:
36° 59' 41.9068"
-76° 58' 56.5586"
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - sandy silt to clayey silt
6 - sand to silty sand
7 - gravelly sand to sand
8 - very stiff fine grained (*)
9 - sand to clayey sand (*)
1 10 100
Equivalent (N1)60
-60 80 220 360
Pore Pressure
u2(psi)
-60 80 220 360
u0
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Tip Resistance
qt(tsf)
40 80 120 160
Friction Ratio
Rf(%)
2 4 6 8
Sleeve Friction
fs(tsf)
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SBT Fr Normalized
MAI = 1
(1990)
2418126qt(tsf)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
Cone Penetration Test CPT-01
Electronic Filename:
DI-16-CPT-1-B.cpt
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Page 1 of 1
SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY 18
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Elevation:
Water Depth:
Total Depth:25.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:
Feb. 5, 2018
Adam Tew
USACE, Savannah District
Date:
Operator:
Drilling Agency:DDG1069 / 0.8
CPT REPORT - DYNAMIC BOTTOM LEGEND BRAGG.GPJ COPY THIS TEMPLATE.GDT 2/16/18Latitude:
Longitude:
35° 4' 50.0866"
-79° 1' 46.2558"
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - sandy silt to clayey silt
6 - sand to silty sand
7 - gravelly sand to sand
8 - very stiff fine grained (*)
9 - sand to clayey sand (*)
1 10 100
Equivalent (N1)60
-60 80 220 360
Pore Pressure
u2(psi)
-60 80 220 360
u0
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Tip Resistance
qt(tsf)
40 80 120 160
Friction Ratio
Rf(%)
2 4 6 8
Sleeve Friction
fs(tsf)
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SBT Fr Normalized
MAI = 1
(1990)
2418126qt(tsf)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
Cone Penetration Test CPT-02
Electronic Filename:
DI-16-CPT-1-D.cpt
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Page 1 of 1
SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY 18
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Elevation:
Water Depth:
Total Depth:25.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:
Feb. 5, 2018
Adam Tew
USACE, Savannah District
Date:
Operator:
Drilling Agency:DDG1069 / 0.8
CPT REPORT - DYNAMIC BOTTOM LEGEND BRAGG.GPJ COPY THIS TEMPLATE.GDT 2/16/18Latitude:
Longitude:
35° 4' 48.6235"
-79° 1' 46.2011"
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - sandy silt to clayey silt
6 - sand to silty sand
7 - gravelly sand to sand
8 - very stiff fine grained (*)
9 - sand to clayey sand (*)
1 10 100
Equivalent (N1)60
-60 80 220 360
Pore Pressure
u2(psi)
-60 80 220 360
u0
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Tip Resistance
qt(tsf)
40 80 120 160
Friction Ratio
Rf(%)
2 4 6 8
Sleeve Friction
fs(tsf)
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SBT Fr Normalized
MAI = 1
(1990)
2418126qt(tsf)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
Cone Penetration Test CPT-03
Electronic Filename:
DI-16-CPT-1-E.cpt
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Page 1 of 1
SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY 18
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Elevation:
Water Depth:
Total Depth:25.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:
Feb. 6, 2018
Adam Tew
USACE, Savannah District
Date:
Operator:
Drilling Agency:DDG1069 / 0.8
CPT REPORT - DYNAMIC BOTTOM LEGEND BRAGG.GPJ COPY THIS TEMPLATE.GDT 2/16/18Latitude:
Longitude:
35° 4' 48.6901"
-79° 1' 47.8981"
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - sandy silt to clayey silt
6 - sand to silty sand
7 - gravelly sand to sand
8 - very stiff fine grained (*)
9 - sand to clayey sand (*)
1 10 100
Equivalent (N1)60
-60 80 220 360
Pore Pressure
u2(psi)
-60 80 220 3601 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SBT Fr Normalized
MAI = 1
(1990)
u0
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Tip Resistance
qt(tsf)
40 80 120 160
Friction Ratio
Rf(%)
2 4 6 8
Sleeve Friction
fs(tsf)
2418126qt(tsf)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cone Penetration Test CPT-04
Electronic Filename:
DI-16-CPT-2-A.cpt
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
Page 1 of 1
SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY 18
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Elevation:
Water Depth:
Total Depth:15.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:
Feb. 6, 2018
Adam Tew
USACE, Savannah District
Date:
Operator:
Drilling Agency:DDG1069 / 0.8
CPT REPORT - DYNAMIC BOTTOM LEGEND BRAGG.GPJ COPY THIS TEMPLATE.GDT 2/16/18Latitude:
Longitude:
35° 4' 50.1377"
-79° 1' 51.0949"
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - sandy silt to clayey silt
6 - sand to silty sand
7 - gravelly sand to sand
8 - very stiff fine grained (*)
9 - sand to clayey sand (*)
1 10 100
Equivalent (N1)60
-60 80 220 360
Pore Pressure
u2(psi)
-60 80 220 360
u0
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
Tip Resistance
qt(tsf)
40 80 120 160
Friction Ratio
Rf(%)
2 4 6 8
Sleeve Friction
fs(tsf)
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SBT Fr Normalized
MAI = 1
(1990)
2418126qt(tsf)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
Cone Penetration Test CPT-05
Electronic Filename:
DI-16-CPT-2-C.cpt
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
Page 1 of 1
SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY 18
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Elevation:
Water Depth:
Total Depth:15.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:
Feb. 6, 2018
Adam Tew
USACE, Savannah District
Date:
Operator:
Drilling Agency:DDG1069 / 0.8
CPT REPORT - DYNAMIC BOTTOM LEGEND BRAGG.GPJ COPY THIS TEMPLATE.GDT 2/16/18Latitude:
Longitude:
35° 4' 49.2676"
-79° 1' 49.9444"
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - sandy silt to clayey silt
6 - sand to silty sand
7 - gravelly sand to sand
8 - very stiff fine grained (*)
9 - sand to clayey sand (*)
1 10 100
Equivalent (N1)60
-60 80 220 360
Pore Pressure
u2(psi)
-60 80 220 360
u0
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
Tip Resistance
qt(tsf)
40 80 120 160
Friction Ratio
Rf(%)
2 4 6 8
Sleeve Friction
fs(tsf)
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SBT Fr Normalized
MAI = 1
(1990)
2418126qt(tsf)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cone Penetration Test CPT-06
Electronic Filename:
DI-16-CPT-2-D.cpt
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
Page 1 of 1
SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY 18
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Elevation:
Water Depth:
Total Depth:15.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:
Feb. 6, 2018
Adam Tew
USACE, Savannah District
Date:
Operator:
Drilling Agency:DDG1069 / 0.8
CPT REPORT - DYNAMIC BOTTOM LEGEND BRAGG.GPJ COPY THIS TEMPLATE.GDT 2/16/18Latitude:
Longitude:
35° 4' 48.0619"
-79° 1' 50.7425"
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - sandy silt to clayey silt
6 - sand to silty sand
7 - gravelly sand to sand
8 - very stiff fine grained (*)
9 - sand to clayey sand (*)
1 10 100
Equivalent (N1)60
-60 80 220 360
Pore Pressure
u2(psi)
-60 80 220 360
u0
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
Tip Resistance
qt(tsf)
40 80 120 160
Friction Ratio
Rf(%)
2 4 6 8
Sleeve Friction
fs(tsf)
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SBT Fr Normalized
MAI = 1
(1990)
2418126qt(tsf)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Cone Penetration Test CPT-07
Electronic Filename:
DI-16-CPT-2-E.cpt
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Page 1 of 1
SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY 18
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Elevation:
Water Depth:
Total Depth:
41.3
81.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:
Feb. 6, 2018
Adam Tew
USACE, Savannah District
Date:
Operator:
Drilling Agency:DDG1069 / 0.8
CPT REPORT - DYNAMIC BOTTOM LEGEND BRAGG.GPJ COPY THIS TEMPLATE.GDT 2/16/18Latitude:
Longitude:
35° 4' 49.4137"
-79° 1' 47.3768"
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - sandy silt to clayey silt
6 - sand to silty sand
7 - gravelly sand to sand
8 - very stiff fine grained (*)
9 - sand to clayey sand (*)
1 10 100
Equivalent (N1)60
-60 80 220 360
Pore Pressure
u2(psi)
-60 80 220 360
u0
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Tip Resistance
qt(tsf)
40 80 120 160
Friction Ratio
Rf(%)
2 4 6 8
Sleeve Friction
fs(tsf)
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SBT Fr Normalized
MAI = 1
(1990)
2418126qt(tsf)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cone Penetration Test CPT-08
Electronic Filename:
DI-16-CPT-2-E.cpt
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Page 1 of 1
SOF HPTC, Fort Bragg PN79443 FY 18
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Elevation:
Water Depth:
Total Depth:
41.3
81.0 ftProbe ID/Net Area Ratio:
Feb. 6, 2018
Adam Tew
USACE, Savannah District
Date:
Operator:
Drilling Agency:DDG1069 / 0.8
CPT REPORT - DYNAMIC BOTTOM LEGEND BRAGG.GPJ COPY THIS TEMPLATE.GDT 2/16/18Latitude:
Longitude:
35° 4' 49.4137"
-79° 1' 47.3768"
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - sandy silt to clayey silt
6 - sand to silty sand
7 - gravelly sand to sand
8 - very stiff fine grained (*)
9 - sand to clayey sand (*)
-60 80 220 360
Pore Pressure
u2(psi)
-60 80 220 360
u0
Shear Wave Velocity
Vs(ft/sec)
800 1600 2400 3200
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Tip Resistance
qt(tsf)
40 80 120 160
Friction Ratio
Rf(%)
2 4 6 8
Sleeve Friction
fs(tsf)
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SBT Fr Normalized
MAI = 1
(1990)
2418126qt(tsf)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cone Penetration Test CPT-08

ATTACHMENT C

Soil Percolation and Infiltration Data

SOF Human Performance Training Center
PN 79443 FY 18
Fort Bragg, NC
Tests PT-1 and PT-2 were performed by Forpu Njikam during the period spanning 01 to 02 February 2018
Soil percolation tests were performed in accordance with DM 110-1-1, Jul 83, chapter 20.
Weather Conditions were 45 - 50F with rains overnight from the 1st to the 2nd and clear skies on the 2nd
Various lengths of slotted pvc pipe screens were placed in each hole to minimize difficulties associated with hole cave-in, and
2 - 3" of pea gravel was placed in the bottom of the holes before water was added.
Water levels were measured by a water level indicator with reference point on the inserted slotted pipe screen.
A minimum 6" water column above gravel was used as the initial height of water, subsequently recharged to
this level after each reading as necessary. All times were noted by digital watch and stop watch.
The Michigan method is used to estimate infiltration rates from percolation rates.
The infiltration rate to use for the design of affected ponds and bioswales is in bold print.
Italicised digits indicate a test water recharge during the test.
An auger boring was advanced to a depth of 15 feet within the proposed footprint of the proposed stormwater
retention structures on the northern extremity of the project site in order to determine the Seasonal High Water Table .
The soil profile observed in the SHWT determination auger boring, indicated below, correlates with the profiles observed in
the corresponding test holes to corresponding depths.
Soil Profile for SHWT-01
Ground Surface Elevation - 262.5 ft. (Estimated from Plans)
Test Location Coordinates (State Plane - North Carolina 3200) - N 484345.61 E 1990839.9
Depth (ft.)USCS Symbol Description
0 SM
2 SM
9 SM
10.5 SC
Boring terminated at 15-ft. No indication of a SHWT
Groundwater not encountered.
Cave-in to 14-ft.
Silty Sand, brown, fine-to-medium grained, trace clay, few rootlets, moist
Silty Sand, reddish brown, fine-to-medium grained, no rootlets, moist
Silty Sand, reddish brown slightly mottled with grey, few clumps of clay
Clayey Sand, light reddish brown slightly mottled with grey, fine-to-medium grained
Soil Percolation Test Data and Computed Soil Infiltration Rates
Soil Percolation Test Data and Computed Soil Infiltration Rates
Percolation Test PT-01
Ground Surface Elevation - 263 ft. (Estimated from Plans)
Test Location Coordinates (State Plane - North Carolina 3200) - N484346.45 E 1990787.26
11.2 (~elev.251.8)
12.2
6.0
Elapsed Initial Reading Final Reading Reduction Infiltration
time from top of riser from top of riser Factor Rate
(min)(ft)(ft)(ft/min)(in/hr)Rf (in/hr)
30 2.78 2.79 0.00 0.24
30 2.79 2.85 0.00 1.44
30 2.85 2.87 0.00 0.48
30 2.87 2.89 0.00 0.48
30 2.89 2.92 0.00 0.72 38.18 0.02
Percolation Test PT-02
Ground Surface Elevation - 261.5 ft. (Estimated from Plans)
Test Location Coordinates (State Plane - North Carolina 3200) - N 484343.81 E 1990898.61
12 (~elev. 249.5)
12.8
6.0
Elapsed Initial Reading Final Reading Reduction Infiltration
time from top of riser from top of riser Factor Rate
(min)(ft)(ft)(ft/min)(in/hr)Rf (in/hr)
30 4.05 4.06 0.00 0.24
30 4.06 4.08 0.00 0.48
30 4.08 4.11 0.00 0.72
30 4.11 4.14 0.00 0.72
30 4.14 4.19 0.00 1.20 35.42 0.03
Rate
depth from top of riser (ft) =
diameter (in.) =
depth from ground surface (ft) =
Test Hole
Percolation
Percolation
Rate
diameter (in.) =
depth from top of riser (ft) =
Test Hole
depth from ground surface (ft) =

ATTACHMENT D

USDA NRCS Soils Report

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
FY 18 PN 79443 SOF HPTC Site
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
February 14, 2018
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
(https://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
2
alternative means 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..................................................................................................................8
Soil Map................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11
Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11
Cumberland County, North Carolina...............................................................13
FaB—Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes.....................................13
References............................................................................................................14
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
5
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
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
Custom Soil Resource Report
6
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
7
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.
8
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
3883650388368038837103883740388377038838003883650388368038837103883740388377038838003883830679420 679450 679480 679510 679540 679570 679600 679630 679660 679690
679420 679450 679480 679510 679540 679570 679600 679630 679660 679690
35° 4' 52'' N 79° 1' 55'' W35° 4' 52'' N79° 1' 44'' W35° 4' 46'' N
79° 1' 55'' W35° 4' 46'' N
79° 1' 44'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 15 30 60 90
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,310 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
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:
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 18, Sep 26, 2017
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 13, 2014—Feb
4, 2017
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
10
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
FaB Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes
8.9 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 8.9 100.0%
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 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.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
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
12
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: Ridges on marine terraces, broad interstream divides 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
13
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
14
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
15
DRAINAGE AREAS
1 Is this a high density project?Yes
2 If so, number of drainage areas/SCMs 2
3
Is all/part of this project subject to previous rule
versions?No
FORMS LOADED
Entire Site 1 2
4 Type of SCM Bioretention Bioretention Bioretention
5 Total BUA in project (sq ft)113581 sf 67546 sf 46035 sf
6
New BUA on subdivided lots (subject to
permitting) (sq ft) sf sf sf
7
New BUA outside of subdivided lots (subject to
permitting) (sf)113581 sf 67546 sf 46035 sf
8 Offsite - total area (sq ft)sf sf sf
9 Offsite BUA (sq ft)sf sf sf
10 Breakdown of new BUA outside subdivided lots:sf sf sf
- Parking (sq ft)15350 sf 8500 sf 6850 sf
- Sidewalk (sq ft)6442 sf 2042 sf 4400 sf
- Roof (sq ft)46014 sf 30894 sf 15120 sf
- Roadway (sq ft)25827 sf 6162 sf 19665 sf
- Future (sq ft)sf sf sf

- Other, please specify in the comment box
below (sq ft) 19948 sf 19948 sf sf
11
New infiltrating permeable pavement on
subdivided lots (sq ft)sf sf sf
12
New infiltrating permeable pavement outside of
subdivided lots (sq ft)sf sf sf
13
Exisitng BUA that will remain (not subject to
permitting) (sq ft)sf sf sf
14 Existing BUA that is already permitted (sq ft)sf sf sf
15 Existing BUA that will be removed (sq ft)4782 sf 2570 sf 2212 sf
16 Percent BUA 66%60%76%
17 Design storm (inches)1 in 1 in 1 in
18 Design volume of SCM (cu ft)7170 cf 4282 cf 2888 cf
19 Calculation method for design volume SCS SCS SCS
20
DRAINAGE AREA INFORMATION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Drainage Area 1 includes area of outdoor astroturf area. Underdrains from
turf area lead to Bioretention Area 1.
Please use this space to provide any additional information about the
drainage area(s):
BIORETENTION CELL
1 Drainage area number 1 2
2 Design volume of SCM (cu ft)4282 cf 2888 cf
3 Is the SCM sized to treat the SW from all surfaces at build-out? Yes Yes
4 Is the SCM located away from contaminated soils?Yes Yes
5 What are the side slopes of the SCM (H:V)?3:1 3:1
6
Does the SCM have retaining walls, gabion walls or other engineered side
slopes? No No
7
Are the inlets, outlets, and receiving stream protected from erosion (10-
year storm)? Yes Yes
8
Is there an overflow or bypass for inflow volume in excess of the design
volume? Yes Yes
9 What is the method for dewatering the SCM for maintenance? Drawdown Orifice
Drawdown
Orifice
10 If applicable, will the SCM be cleaned out after construction?Yes Yes
11 Does the maintenance access comply with General MDC (8)?Yes Yes
12 Does the drainage easement comply with General MDC (9)?Yes Yes
13
If the SCM is on a single family lot, does (will?) the plat comply with
General MDC (10)? Yes Yes
14 Is there an O&M Agreement that complies with General MDC (11)?Yes Yes
15 Is there an O&M Plan that complies with General MDC (12)?Yes Yes
16 Does the SCM follow the device specific MDC?Yes Yes
17 Was the SCM designed by an NC licensed professional?Yes Yes
18 SHWT elevation (fmsl) 245.08 248.87
19 Bottom of the bioretention cell (fmsl)252.50 254.50
20 Ponding depth of the design storm (inches)9 in 9 in
21 Surface area of the bioretention cell (square feet)8400 sf 4500 sf
22 Design volume of the bioretention cell (cubic feet)6225 cf 3788 cf
23 Is the bioretention cell used for peak attenuation?Yes Yes
24 Depth of peak attenuation over planting surface (in)24 in 24 in
25 Height of peak attenuation outlet above the planting surface (in)18 in 18 in
26 Infiltration rate of the in situ soil (inch/hour)1 in/hr 1 in/hr
27 Diameter of the underdrain pipes (if applicable)6 in 6 in
28 Does the design include Internal Water Storage (IWS)?Yes Yes
29 if so, elevation of the top of the IWS (fmsl)254.5 256.5
30 Elevation of the planting surface (fmsl)256 258
31 What type of vegetation will be planted? (grass, trees/shrubs, other)?Grass Grass
32 Media depth (inches)30 in 30 in
33 Percentage of medium to coarse washed sand by volume 85%85%
34 Percentage of fines (silt and clay) by volume 10%10%
35 Percentage of organic matter by volume 5%5%
36 Type of organic material Engineered Fill
Engineere
d Fill
37 Phosphorus Index (P-Index) of media (unitless) 10 10
38 Will compaction be avoided during construction?Yes Yes
39 Will cell be maintained to a one inch/hour standard?Yes Yes
40 Depth of mulch, if applicable (inches)n/a n/a
41 Type of mulch, if applicable n/a n/a
42 How many clean out pipes are being installed?10 6
43 Type of pretreatment that will be used:
Vegetative
Filter/Rip Rap
Vegetativ
e
Filter/Rip
Rap
44
Please use this space to provide any additional information about the
bioretention cell(s):
BIORETENTION CELL MDC FROM 02H .1052
GENERAL MDC FROM 02H .1050
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The engineered fill will infiltrate at approximately 2in/hr (maintained at a min 1in/hr),
which will eliminate the surfae ponded volume within 24 hours, to the storage within
the IWS for ultimate infiltration. Peak attenuation volumes provided in order to
comply with EISA 438. Project based entirely within Fort Bragg (US Gov't property).
Discrete SCS Curve Number Method (NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual 3.3.2)
Location:Bioretention Area 1 Date:5/9/2020
Soil Group:B
Predevelopment BUA Developed BUA
Area 0.06 acres Area 1.55 acres
Area 2,570 sf Area 67,546 sf
CN*98 CN*98
S 0.20 S 0.20
ia 0.04 in ia 0.04 in
P 1 in P 1 in
Q 0.79 in Q 0.79 in
V 169 cf V 4,452 cf
Predevelopment Open Area Developed Open Area
Area 1.46 acres Area 1.03 acres
Area 63,641 sf Area 44,839 sf
CN*65 CN*69
S 5.38 S 4.49
ia 1.08 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 1.52 acres Area 2.58 acres
Total 169 cf Total 4,452 cf
Storage Required 4,282 cf
Pond Area 8,400 sf
Riser 9 in
Surface Area Required 5,710 sf
Storage Provided 6,300 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
Discrete SCS Curve Number Method (NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual 3.3.2)
Location:Bioretention Area 2 Date:5/9/2020
Soil Group:B
Predevelopment BUA Developed BUA
Area 0.05 acres Area 1.06 acres
Area 2,212 sf Area 46,035 sf
CN*98 CN*98
S 0.20 S 0.20
ia 0.04 in ia 0.04 in
P 1 in P 1 in
Q 0.79 in Q 0.79 in
V 146 cf V 3,034 cf
Predevelopment Open Area Developed Open Area
Area 2.44 acres Area 0.34 acres
Area 106,252 sf Area 14,949 sf
CN*65 CN*69
S 5.38 S 4.49
ia 1.08 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 2.49 acres Area 1.40 acres
Total 146 cf Total 3,034 cf
Storage Required 2,888 cf
Pond Area 4,500 sf
Riser 9 in
Surface Area Required 3,851 sf
Storage Provided 3,375 cf
Note: Runnoff depth for CN <= 70 set to 0.00 for 1.0" rainfall event based upon
TR55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Table 2-1
*Composite CN calculated using Army LID Planning and Cost Tool
Developed by USACE Baltimore District and USACE ERDC
Fort Bragg Human Performance Training Center
Bioretention Cell #1 Underdrain Calculations
3/23/2020
By M. Mayer
Engineered Fill Permeability (K)2 in/hr
Surface Area (A)8400 ft2
Maximum Ponding Depth (C H)1 ft
Depth of media (C L)2.5 ft
Flow (Qi)0.54 cfs
Apply 10x Factor of Safety (Q)5.41 cfs
Roughness Factor (n)0.01
Internal Slope (s)0.005
Darcy's Equation
Diameter of Single Pipe (d)15.00 in
Diameter Underdrain Pipes 6 in
Equavalent Number Required 10
Number Underdrain Pipes Provided 10
NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual Common BMP Design Elements, July 2007
5.7 Underdrain Systems
Fort Bragg Human Performance Training Center
Bioretention Cell #2 Underdrain Calculations
3/23/2020
By M. Mayer
Engineered Fill Permeability (K)2 in/hr
Surface Area (A)4500 ft2
Maximum Ponding Depth (C H)1 ft
Depth of media (C L)2.5 ft
Flow (Qi)0.29 cfs
Apply 10x Factor of Safety (Q)2.90 cfs
Roughness Factor (n)0.01
Internal Slope (s)0.005
Darcy's Equation
Diameter of Single Pipe (d)11.87 in
Diameter Underdrain Pipes 6 in
Equavalent Number Required 6
Number Underdrain Pipes Provided 6
NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual Common BMP Design Elements, A-5

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.11 -

APPENDIX K
WETLAND MAPS

PN79443 HPTC Wetlands Inventory
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,[e-mail]
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
March 22, 2020
0 0.35 0.70.175 mi
0 0.6 1.20.3 km
1:2 2,908
This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.
PN69493
528 BDE FY13
PNSFC35
GPHQS
LR
PNSFC34
GSB TEMF
LR
PN79443
THOR III
PN69758
CA BDE HQ FY12
PN69493 TEMF
PN79454
SF TEMF
LR
C
G
T
x
xxS
A
N
SAN SAN
PN76364
SOF BOF (3 OPS CO)
FY12
W
UGT
WSANSAN SAN SAN
S
A
N
SANSAN WWWW
WSANW
SANSANSANSAN
W
SAN
SAN
W W W W W
XXGG
OHP
OHP XXXX
SANX
OHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPXXPN69493
528 BDE FY13
PNSFC35
GPHQS
LR
PNSFC34
GSB TEMF
LR
PN79443
THOR III
PN69758
CA BDE HQ FY12
PN69493 TEMF
PN79454
SF TEMF
LR
C
G
T
x
xxS
A
N
SAN SAN
PN76364
SOF BOF (3 OPS CO)
FY12
W
UGT
WSANSAN SAN SAN
S
A
N
SANSAN WWWW
WSANW
SANSANSANSAN
W
SAN
SAN
W W W W W
TP TPTPTPTPTP TP TPTPTP TP TP TP TPTPTPTPTPTP TP TP
NEW DAWN DRIVE
OP
SFTP
TP
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT
BASIN "8"
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT
BASIN "9"
OP
OP
TD
CWD*
TP
TP
TP
TP
SF
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
DRAINAGE AREA LIMITS (TYP.)
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
DRAINAGE AREA LIMITS (TYP.)
SF
SF
SF
TP
TD
FUTURE WORK UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
IP
OP
SFO
OP
1
C-504
1
C-504
PERMITTED WETLAND IMPACTS &
STREAM CROSSING
(DWQ# 08-1579 Ver.3, MAY 3, 2013)
OP
POROUS BAFFLES
(NCDENR 6.65)
3
C-504
SF
TD
OP
OP
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT
BASIN "11"
1
C-504
SF
TP
PHASE 1
PHASE 2PHASE 1PHASE 2SFO
SFO
B/M
B/M
B/M B/M
B/M
B/M
B/M
B/M
NOTE: INSTALL MATTING IMMEDIATELY
AFTER CONSTRUCTION FOR SLOPES THAT
DISCHARGE INTO CLEANWATER DIVERSION
DITCHES. FOR ALL OTHER SLOPES AND
SLOPES WITH GREATER THAN 10' OF
VERTICAL RELIEF, INSTALL MATTING WITHIN
7 CALENDAR DAYS (TYP.)
MIN. 8" THICK,
W1=10',W2=20',L=20'
MIN. 8" THICK,
W1=10',W2=20',L=20'
NOTE: ALL CWD'S SHALL BE
MATTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER
CONSTRUCTION (TYP.)
CWD*ALL CLEANWATER DIVERSIONS
SHALL BE MATTED
IMMEDIATELY AFTER
CONSTRUCTION (TYP).
CWD*ALL CLEANWATER
DIVERSIONS SHALL BE
MATTED IMMEDIATELY
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
(TYP).
0
SCALE 1"=100'
200'100'NAD 83KEYPLAN
A
B
C D
E
F BGDCE105.dwg5
DESCRIPTIONDATESYMBOLBYSHEET OF 259FILE NAME:SUBMITTED BY:DWN BY:CKD BY:DESIGNED BY:DATE:SOLICITATION NO.:CONTRACT NO.:CATEGORY CODE:PLOT DATE:PLOT SCALE:SIZE: D9/30/151
D
2 3
C
4
A
B
US ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON
YARBOROUGH COMPLEX AT PATRIOT POINTFORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINAPLATE
REFERENCE
NUMBERU. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICTCORPS OF ENGINEERSWILMINGTON DISTRICT22"X34"AS SHOWN11/17/2015W91278-11-X-2905812-42-01JGZ/RMKRMKJGZW91278-11-D-0067-DQ0111/16/15
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET CE102MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET CE106
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET CE104
NOTES:
1.SEE SHEET CE100 FOR OVERALL SITE EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL KEY PLAN AND LEGEND.
2.SEE SHEETS C-501 THROUGH C-505 FOR EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS.
3.PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURES AND PIPING
INDICATED ON THIS PLAN ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED
DURING THE INITIAL STAGE OF EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL OPERATIONS. SEE SITE GRADING
AND DRAINAGE PLANS AND SHEETS CG601 THROUGH
CG602 FOR STORM STRUCTURE AND PIPE TABLES.
4.ALL DITCHES, SWALES AND SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1
SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR
DAYS. SEE GROUND STABILIZATION AND SEEDING
SCHEDULES ON SHEET C-505.
AS BUILT - IFC PLANS HAVE
BEEN REVISED ACCORDING TO
CONTRACTOR'S FIELD NOTES
AND MARKUPS

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.12 -

APPENDIX L
RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

Human Performance Training Center (HPTC)
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Mason & Hanger Page - a.13 -

APPENDIX M
SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE REPORT

May 29, 2020

Mr. Wes Clark, P.E.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Building 2-2414 Woodruff Street
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28307

Reference: Report of Seasonal High Water Table Estimation
SOF HPTC
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 49.11754

Dear Mr. Clark:

ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) recently conducted an estimation of the Seasonal High
Water Table (SHWT) within the existing and proposed stormwater control measure
(SCM) areas at the SOF HPTC Site off of Eagle Talon Drive on Fort Bragg, Cumberland
County, North Carolina. This letter, with attachments, is the report of our estimation.

Field Testing

On May 27th, 2020, ECS conducted an exploration of the subsurface soil and SHWT
conditions, in accordance with the NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual section A-2, at two
requested locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). The
purpose of this exploration was to estimate the SHWT of the in situ soils for the design
of for the existing and proposed SCM areas. ECS met with Mr. Wes Clark on site in
order to locate the borings. ECS explored the subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions by advancing one hand auger boring into the existing ground surface at the
requested boring locations. ECS visually classified the subsurface soils and obtained
representative samples of each soil type encountered. ECS recorded the SHWT
elevation observed at the time of each hand auger boring. The attached SHWT sheet
provides a summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at each hand auger
boring location.

The SHWT elevation was estimated at each boring location below the existing grade
elevation. B-1 was advanced within the sidewall of the existing SCM. Below is a
summary of each boring location.

Location SHWT
B-1 (Cell 1) 80 inches
B-2 (Cell-2) 102 inches

Report of SHWT Estimation
SOF HPTC
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 49.11754
May 29th, 2020
The SHWT may vary within the proposed site due to changes in subsurface conditions
and elevation. Based on the regional geology and the SHWT elevation observed at B-
1, the SHWT elevation observed at B-2 potentially could be perched. ECS
recommends that a licensed surveyor proved the elevations of the boring locations. Closure
ECS’s analysis of the site has been based on our understanding of the site, the project
information provided to us, and the data obtained during our exploration. If the project
information provided to us is changed, please contact us so that our recommendations can
be reviewed and appropriate revisions provided, if necessary. The discovery of any site or
subsurface conditions during construction which deviate from the data outlined in this
exploration should be reported to us for our review, analysis and revision of our
recommendations, if necessary. The assessment of site environmental conditions for the
presence of pollutants in the soil and groundwater of the site is beyond the scope of this
geotechnical exploration. ECS appreciates the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or this project, please contact us at [phone]. Respectfully,

ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP

K. Brooks Wall W. Brandon Fulton, PSC, PWS, LSS
Project Manager Environmental Department Manager
[e-mail] [e-mail]
910-686-9114 704-525-5152

Attachments: Boring Location Plan
SHWT sheet
GBA Document

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS
SCALE SHOWN ABOVE
SOF HPTC Site
Fort Bragg, Cumberland County,
North Carolina
ECS Project # 49.11754
May 27th, 2020
KBW
Figure 1–Boring Location Plan
Provided by: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
B-1
B-2
N
W
S
E
N
W
S
E
Seasonal High Water Table Estimation
SOF HPTC Site
Fort Bragg, Cumberland Co., North Carolina
ECS Project No. 49.11754
May 27th, 2020

Location Depth USCS Soil Description
B-1 0-80” SC Tan/orange/gray clayey SAND

Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 80 inches below the
existing grade elevation.

Location Depth USCS Soil Description
B-2 0-100” SC Red clayey SAND
100”-112” SC Red/gray clayey SAND

Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 102 inches below the
existing grade elevation.

Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly
a client representative – interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively
as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems
that, for decades, have been a principal cause of
construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and
disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a
wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a
construction project.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted
for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-
works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each
geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-
engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client
can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
– not even you – should apply this report for any purpose or project except
the one originally contemplated.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an
executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report
in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
about Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors
when designing the study behind this report and developing the
confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few
typical factors include:
• the client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and
risk-management preferences;
• the general nature of the structure involved, its size,
configuration, and performance criteria;
• the structure’s location and orientation on the site; and
• other planned or existing site improvements, such as
retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and
underground utilities.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the site’s size or shape;
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s
changed from a parking garage to an office building, or
from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a
portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or
environmental remediation, or natural events like floods,
droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified
codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report,
ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.
Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are
Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s
subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The
data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to
form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from
those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your
geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
whenever needed.
This Report’s Recommendations Are
Confirmation-Dependent
The recommendations included in this report – including any options
or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are
not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist
actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming
no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform
construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the
design team, to:
• confer with other design-team members,
• help develop specifications,
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’
plans and specifications, and
• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering
guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this
report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction
observation.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift
unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational
purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note
that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely
on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in
the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific
times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements,
including options selected from the report, only from the design
drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may
perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough
time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position
to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring
them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction
conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured
unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays,
cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical
engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate
where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these
provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental
site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform
a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of
encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management
guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report
prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six
months old.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer’s
services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled
migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through
building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can
cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly,
proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations
will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront
the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold
specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-
envelope or mold specialists.
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any
kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent
Telephone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail] www.geoprofessional.org
1
Mayer, F Michael
From:Clark, Weslyn E (Wes) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 3:16 PM
To:TJ Yonts; Hall, Christopher CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc:Chris Cook; Mason McKnight IV; Frank Barron; John Jordan; Mayer, F Michael
Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Boring Elevations
I appreciate it! I am forwarding the verification report for the SWHT later today.

Wes Clark
(c) 910-633-5171

-------- Original message --------
From: TJ Yonts <[e-mail]>
Date: 6/1/20 2:40 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Clark, Weslyn E (Wes) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)" <[e-mail]>, "Hall,
Christopher CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chris Cook <[e-mail]>, Mason McKnight IV <[e-mail]>, Frank Barron
<[e-mail]>, John Jordan <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Boring Elevations

Wes,
The boring elevations are as follows:
Bio-Retent #1: 251.75
Bio-Retent #2: 257.37

--
TJ Yonts
ACC Const. Co., Inc.
Project Superintendent
Human Performance Training Center
Cell: 706.386.2901
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSHPTC_CG508.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\017001\03 CAD_BIM\_Sheets\05_Civil\HPTC_CG508.dgn04-JUN-202008:41 171-20-13R. BOSTONW912PM-19-C-000769 DARLINGTON AVENUEWILMINGTON DISTRICTWILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINAFORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINASOF HUMAN PERFORMANCE TRAINING CENTER (HPTC)FY18 PN 79443W912PM-18-R-0003SOLICITATION NO.:CERTIFIED FINAL FAST-TRACK (ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION)DECEMBER 2019NOT TO SCALE
DETAIL1

BIO RETENTION BASIN
LOW IMPACT BMP
TYP

REFER TO PLANS FOR FINISH GRADES.
POLLUTANTS ARE REMOVED ON THE SURFACE OF THE BIORETENTION CELL RATHER THAN WITHIN THE CELL.
TSS OR PATHOGENS IS THE TARGET POLLUTANT, THE HIGHER PERMEABILITY CAN BE USED BECAUSE THESE TWO
RATE FOR PERCENT FINES BETWEEN 8 AND 10 CAN BE APPROXIMATED DURING DESIGN BY LINEAR INTERPOLATION. IF
IN/HR FOR 8% AND 10% FINES, RESPECTIVELY, DEPENDING ON THE TARGET POLLUTANT. AN ESTIMATED DRAINAGE
THUMB, USING THE ABOVE-SPECIFIED MEDIA, THE INFILTRATION RATES SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 2 IN/HR AND 1
SHOULD FALL BETWEEN 1 AND 6 INCHES PER HOUR, WITH 1-2 INCHES PER HOUR BEING PREFERRED. AS A RULE OF
THE MEDIA SHOULD BE TESTED TO DETERMINE AN ACTUAL DRAINAGE RATE AFTER PLACEMENT. THE PERMEABILITY
SOIL FOR THE BIORENTENTION BASINS
NOTE: CUT SOIL FROM THE PROJECT SITE OR SOIL FROM THE BORROW PIT MAY NOT BE USED FOR THE ENGINEERED
PHOSPHORUS.
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DESIGN ELEMENT. CELLS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED OF HIGH P-INDEX SOILS CAN EXPORT
REGARDLESS OF THE TARGET POLLUTANT (HARDY ET. AL., 2003 AND HUNT ET. AL., 2006). THE P INDEX IS AN
HAVE THE SOIL ANALYZED. THE P INDEX FOR BIORETENTION SOIL MEDIA SHOULD ALWAYS RANGE BETWEEN 10 AND 30,
NC DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE [NCDA] LABS TO BE ANALYZED. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO
USED. ADDITIONALLY, THE PHOSPHORUS CONTENT OF THE SOIL MIX SHOULD BE LOW. SOIL MEDIA SHALL BE SENT TO
POLLUTANT. IN AREAS WHERE PHOSPHORUS IS THE TARGET POLLUTANT, LOWER (8 PERCENT) FINES SHOULD BE
BARK FINES). HIGHER (10 PERCENT) FINES CONTENT SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR AREAS WHERE TN IS THE TARGET
CLASSIFICATION), 8 TO 10 PERCENT FINES (SILT AND CLAY), AND 5 TO 10 PERCENT ORGANIC MATTER (SUCH AS PINE
SOIL MIX OF 75 TO 85 PERCENT BY VOLUME MEDIUM TO COARSE WASHED SAND (USDA SOIL TEXTURAL
OF STONES, STUMPS, ROOTS OR OTHER SIMILAR MATERIAL GREATER THAN 2 INCHES. IT SHOULD BE A HOMOGENOUS
*BIORETENTION “ENGINEERED SOIL” LAYER SHALL BE MINIMUM 30” DEEP. THE SOIL MIX SHOULD BE UNIFORM AND FREE
REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
DESIGN VOLUME
PEAK ATTENUATION VOLUME
LAYOUT
TO PLAN SHEETS FOR
PIPES INTO RISER. REFER
TIE UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM

SOD
*SEE NOTE BELOW
30" MIN. ENGINEERED SOIL
NCDOT #57 CRUSHED ROCK THE PLANTING SURFACE
OF 18 INCHES BELOW
IWS ZONE A MINIMUM
SET THE TOP OF THE
PERFORATIONS
PVC PIPE WITH
SDR 35 SMOOTH WALL
6" SCHEDULE 40 OR

RISER
SHEET CG508
REFER TO DETAIL 2,
RISER STRUCTURE 18"IWS*
*
IWS=INTERNAL WATER STORAGE3:13:1

CONNECTION
TO BE WRAPPED AROUND
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
ENCASEMENT
CONCRETE
CAST IN PLACE
PIPE
PERFORATED
AS NECESSARY
MATCH INVERTS
PROVIDE SPACER TOCONCRETE COLLAR
TO SUPPORT
CLASS I BEDDINGVARIES
NOT TO SCALE
DETAIL2

RCP PIPE
PERFORATED PIPE TO CONCRETE PIPE CONNECTION
TYP

FINISH GRADE
POND BERM
OUTLET
PEAK ATTENUATION
"O" RING JOINT
WITH LOCKING
RCP CLASS 3
ONE PER UNDERDRAIN
CLEANOUT, MINIMUM
4" DIA ORIFICE

EACH SIDE OF PIPE
ROCK ABOVE AND ON
PROVIDE 3" CRUSHED
TOP ELEV
PLANTING ELEV
ELEV
PEAK ATTENUATION
STEPS
MASTIC (TYP.)
WATERPROOF

BASE 8' x 6' x 1'
ANTI-FLOTATION
W/STAINLESS STEEL HARDWARE.
AND SECTIONS SHALL BE STRAPPED TOGETHER
PROVIDED AT ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS IN RISER
CONTINUOUS RUBBER WATERSTOPS SHALL BE
NOTE:15"OF RISER
LOCATED ON 3 SIDES
6" HIGH X 36" LONG
WEIR DIMENSION
MIN WEIGHT - 23,587 LBS.
w/6" THICK SOLID WALLS
INSIDE DIMENSION
3' x 3' MIN CONCRETE RISER
RISER
NOT TO SCALE
DETAIL2
TYP
RISER STRUCTURE
AWAY FROM DAM.
PRE-CAST BOX. LID SHOULD OPEN
CLASP WITHIN THE INSIDE LIP OF
WITH HINGES AND HOLD DOWN
HORIZONTAL OPENING, MOUNTED
NO.6 REBAR W/ MAX. 12"
DOMED TRASH RACK
"O" RING JOINT
WITH LOCKING
RCP CLASS 3
3' MIN
EACH WAY24"18"(SEE CG601)
INV. ELEV
BASIN 2: 260.50
BASIN 1: 258.50
TOP ELEV
BASIN 2: 259.50
BASIN 1: 257.50
WEIR ELEV
FOR ELEVATIONS
REFER TO TABLE BELOW
NOTE:9"CG508S.HAGGARDM.MEYERG.LYNNSTORM DRAINAGEBIO RETENTION BASIN DETAILS