SW6120304_HISTORICAL FILE_20120327

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW 44D�
DOC TYPE
El CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
DOC DATE
YYYYMMDD

ENGINEERS
PLANNERS \
SURVEYORS
MOORMAN, KIZER & REITZEL, INC.
115 0roadfoot Ave.
P.O. Box 53774
Fayetteville, NC 28305
March 27, 2012 [phone]
FaA:MO} 484-03BB
www.inkrinc.corn
Mr. Robert D. Patterson, PE
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Ref: Southeastern Medical Clinic Grays Creek
S.R. 2252 (Chickenfoot Road), Near Hope Mills,
Cumberland County, NC
Dear Mr. Patterson,
Enclosed are the revised documents you requested in your emails to us. Thanks for
your quick response in reviewing our project.
Sincerely,
Moorman, Kizer & Reitzel, Inc.
0 PAald j6. WIMa n-6 MAR 3 0 2012
Ronald S. Williams � .8nds� .
rsw/enclosures

Post -Developed Impervious Information
Basin "A" total to Pond
Total Basin Area
Cover Description
Building
Asphalt and Conc. Curb
Concrete Walk
Conc. Dumpster Pad
Future Building Expansion
Future Asphalt Expansion
Future Conc. Curb Expansion
102366.00 2.35
10, 361.00
38, 284.00
7,439.00
380.00
56, 464.00 1.30
1,814.00
2,817.00
375.00
5,006.00 0.11
Exist. Impervious 9,930.00 0.2
Total = 71,400 1.64
% Impervious = 69.75%

ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
SURVEYORS MM
MOORMAN, KIZER & REfTZEL, INC.
115 Broadloot Ave.
P.O. Box 53774
Fayetteville, NC 28305
March 14, 2012 [phone]
F ax;(910}494-0388
www.mkrin¢.com
Mr. Mike Randall
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Ref: Southeastern Medical Clinic Grays Creek
S.R. 2262 (Chickenfoot Road), Near Hope Mills,
Cumberland County, NC
Dear Mr. Randall,
Enclosed are stormwater documents, plans, calculations and a check for the permit
fee for a project here in Cumberland County. Please review and let me know as soon as
possible should you need anything else.
Please note that the existing wetlands boundary shown on plans was taken from a set
of asbuilt plans for the sanitary sewer extension for the Public Works Commission, said
sewer extension running parallel to our rear boundary line. A copy of the plan is
included for your use.
Please let me know should you have any questions. My email is ron(@mkrinc.com.
Sincerely,
Moorman, Kizer & Reitzel, Inc.
FIR
Ronald S. Williams
rsw/enclosures

Patterson, Robert
From:
Patterson, Robert
Sent:
Friday, March 23, 2012 2;31 PM
To:
'Jimmy Kizer'
Cc:
[e-mail]'
Subject:
FW: SW6120304 - Gray's Creek Medical Building - Additional Information Request
Jimmy / Ron,
Noticed one other thing when putting the DA info in our database. Please revise the table in IV,10. of SWU-101. The
numbers don't add up and the %BUA is not correct.
Thanks
From: Patterson, Robert
Seat: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:18 PM
To: 'Jimmy Kizer'
Cc: '[e-mail]'
Subject: SW6120304 - Gray's Creek Medical Building - Additional Information Request
Jimmy / Ron,
Great application! The only thing that needs to be addressed is on sheet 6. The "Planting Specification" table in the
upper right shows different plants and spacing than the "Pond Section" detail in the middle area of the sheet. Please
make all consistent. Once I get 2 copies of this revised sheet, I'll get this permit issued.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Robert D. Patterson, PE
Environmental Engineer
NCDF.NR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Nluil 1 512 N. Salisbury 51., 91n Floor, Raleigh, NC 27604 L.ocat.iou &. Parcels
[phone] Phone- 1 [phone] l-ax I Robert.Patterso a,ncdenr,g_ov E?nmil I http://aortal,ncdenr.orp,/web/wq/ws/su Wcbsitr:
h.A Before printing this email, please consider your budget and the environment.
E-mail correspondence to and From this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties unless the content is
exempt by statute or other regulation.

MOORMAN, KIZER and REITZEL, INC.
FAYETTEVILLE, NC
In 0.13 c 0.9/0.5/0.25 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS •-: S.E. MEDICAL CLINIC GRAYS CREEK 07FEB2012
•
•
MEN
`
SIZE & SLOPE
■ESIGN PIPE
SIZE & SLOPE
��
1 •1
1 1
1 •1
1 •f
1 •1
f .i
1 •1
1 •1
1 •1
1 1
f 1
■..■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

• r � � � � ,
• ! � �
' � � _ r .i .
t �
� • � •t � �
• � � � �
� I
a � � � � �

2D3D`i
NCDENR STORMWATER
DESIGN NARRATIVE,
CALCULATIONS AND SUPPORTING DATA
FOR
Grays Creek Medical Building
January 2012
Prepared for:
j
MAR 16 2012
DEMR - WATER Ql►AL1
ak nn. e._ _
Ty
Southeastern Regional Medical Center
Lumberton, NC 28358
Prepared by:
ENGINEERS 115 Broadfoot Ave.
PLANNERS P.O. Box 53774
SURVEYORS 1wM
MOORMAN,KIZER&REITZEL,INC. Fayetteville, NC 8305
,1,11111101"
�`�N CA
�r:3f 0 Y
'r11/ff11111t,`,

� .J !
. � �� �
Its
l F11 L i i�.t 'i
S;!
,,..

Grays Creek Medical Building
Table of Contents
DESIGN NARRATIVE
1" Runoff Treatment Calculations
Detention Pond Stage Storage
Deed Book 08557 Page 0125
Geotechnical Engineering Report
SCS Soils Information
Stream Classification

Grays Creek Medical Building
DESIGN NARRATIVE
Southeastern Regional Medical Center is proposing to construct a permanent medical facility to
replace a temporary one on an adjacent lot leased from the Prewitt's. This facility will be
constructed on two lots purchased from the Prewitt's adjacent to Pait's Place burgers on
Chickenfoot Road in southern Cumberland County. An existing common drive off of
Chickenfoot Road will serve both sites. Construction will involve the building, adjacent parking,
a temporary sediment basin to be converted to a permanent stormwater basin, and water and
sewer construction. Some drainage modifications and grading along the existing state road will
direct offsite drainage away from the proposed construction. The adjacent Prewitt erosion
control measures will have to be modified to be located only on the Prewitt property. A total of
2.95 acres of new disturbed area will be involved. A permanent storm drainage system will
direct the runoff to the permanent stormwater basin when complete.
Figure 1 - USGS
The project site is currently cleared and grassed. The waters run into Grays Creek (Stream
Index Number 18-31-(1)) which eventually runs to Rainey Pond. The highest area is near the
state road and the property drains from front to back. An existing sanitary sewer easement runs
along the rear of the site. Other than tying into an existing manhole, no land disturbing will

occur in the easement
area. A portion of Pait's
Place burgers drains
toward our site and the
storm runoff will have to
be picked up within our
storm drainage system.
The area surrounding the
site is all Prewitt land and
mostly commercial.
Existing wetlands and an
existing sanitary sewer
easement run adjacent to
the commercial on the
northeastern side and
separates the commercial
from residential and
woodland.
The soils on the property consist of Wagram Loamy Sand (WaB). WaB is a part of hydrologic
group A according to USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The surface runoff
rating for these soils is medium to low.
Post -Developed Impervious Information
.Basin " A" total to Pond
Area (SF)
Total Basin Area
102366.D0
2.35 Ac
Cover Description
Building
10,361.00
Asphalt
34,206.00
Concrete Walk
7,439,00
Concrete Curb
4,078.00
Conc. Dumpster Pad
380.00
56,464.00
1.30 Ac
Future Building Expansion
1,814.00
Future Asphalt Expansion
2,817.00
Future Conc. Curb Expansion
375.00
5,006.00
0.11 Ac
Exist. Impervious
9,930.00
0.2 Ac
Total Impervious =
1.64 Ac
% Impervious =
69.75%.
The drainage basin the wet
detention pond has been
sized for the 2.35 acre area
which includes the impervious
areas from the proposed,
future and some existing
offsite areas. The total
impervious area of this
drainage basin is is 1.64 acres
sf , 69.75% of the drainage
area.
The amount of impervious
area and the use of the curb
and gutter and storm pipe
collection systems makes this
a high density project, per 15A
NCAC 2H.1005 (3a) of the
Administrative Code. Because
the project is high density,
stormwater treatment will be provided in an on -site wet detention pond. Site runoff will be
transported to the pond via overland flow, concrete curb and gutter and a network of stormdrain
pipes that have been sized for a 10 year storm events. The pond has been sized to provide
treatment for the first 1" of runoff and during the construction of the project the stormwater
detention pond will be used as a sediment basin.

Pond "A"
NC DENR Retention Calculation and Requirements
Objective: design a wet detention basin with the following characteristics., a permanent water pool depth between 3- and
8-feet, a surface area that meets TSS removal requirements (values set by NC DENR and included here), a forebay that
is approximately 20% of the total pond volume, a temporary water pool sized to detain the initial 1 inch of rainfall runoff, an
outlet device that drains the temporary water pool within 2-5 days, and a length -to -width ratio of approximately 3: 1.
Step 1: Determine the surface area required for 90% TSS removal
Post -Development Conditions
Total Drainage Area
Impervious Drainage Area
Impervious Cover
Elevation of Permanent Pool Surface
Average Depth of Permanent Pool
Elevation of Wet Detention Pond Bottom not
including 1' sediment storage
Determin Required SA/DA by Interpolating
known values
102366.00 SgFt Pond 'A"
71400.00 SgFt Value from CAD
69.75 Impervious Cover --(Impervious Drainage
Area)/(Total Drainage Area)*100%
149.5 FT Value selected by designer
3.0 FT Value selected by designer
145.0 FT (Bottom Elevation)=(Permanent Pool Surface
Elevation) -(Depth of Permanent Pool)
Impervious %
TSS
values from 90% SA-DA Ratio Table
60
3.5
70
4.0
Required SA1DA Ratio for 90% TSS Removal 3.987 Interpolated value from above
Required Permanent Pool Surface Area 4,082 SF Required Surface Area=(Required SAIDA
Ratio)"(Total Drainage Area)
Provided Permanent Pool Surface Area 4,547 SF Interpolated value from stage -storage
calculations
Step 2: Determine the 1-inch runoff elevation within the wet detention pond.
Runoff Coefficient, Rv
0.678
MIN
Rv=0.05+0.009*(% Impervious)
Required 1" Runoff Volume (Volume of Temporary
5,781.5
CF
1 "Runoff Volume =1 inch *Rv*1 foot/12
Pool)
inch*(Total Drainage Area)
Total Volume at Overflow Elevation
5,810
CF
Temporary Volume Provided at Pond Overflow
Elevation
1" Runoff Volume Elevation
150.48
FT
Value is interpolation based upon stage -storage
values. See stage -storage calculations
Value from stage -storage calculations
Volume Below Permanent Pool
9.364
CF
(cumulative pond volume at permanent pool
elevation)
Step 3: Calculate the required forebay volume (18-22% of total
pond volume) and compare to the forebay volume provided.
Total Pond Volume
9,364
CF
Value from stage -storage calculations
Required Forebay Volume
1,873
CF
Forebay Volume= Total Pond Volume *20%
Provided Forebay Volume
2,028
CF
Value from stage -storage calculations
Provided Forebay Volume:Total Pond Volume
22%
(Provided Forebay Volume)/(Total Pond
Volume) *100 %
Step 4: Verify that time required to drawdown the 1-inch runoff volume is within 2 to 5 days. _
Diameter of Proposed Low -flow Orifice
1.250
IN
Value chosen by designer
Overflow elevation
150.48
FT
Value chosen by designer
(Total Elevation Head Above Orifice)=(Overflow
Total Elevation Head Above Orifice
0.98
FT
Elevation) -(Elevation of Permanent Pool
Surface)
(Driving Head Above Orifice)=[(Elevation at
Driving Head Above Orifice
0.3
FT
Overflow Volume) -(Elevation of Permanent Pool
Surface)p
Cd, Coefficient of Discharge
0.60
Value chosen by designer
0, Flowrate Through Low -flow Orifice
0A2
CFS
Q=Cd*(Pi)*[(Diameter of Orifice)*(i ft/12
in)]A214* 2*32.2* Drivin Head 1/2
Drawdown Time for 1-inch Runoff
2.85
DAYS
(Drawdown Time)=(1 "Runoff Volume)/Q*(1
1 /25/2012
10F1

Pond"A"
Stage -Storage Calculations for Proposed Wet Detention Pond
determine the storage capacity and characteristics of the proposed wet detention pond.
Pond side slope above Permanent Pool 3
0.5' above and 0.5' below Permanent Po( 10
Side Slope below planted shelf 2
incremental and cumulative storage of the wet detention pond per contour interval
Stage/Storage Above Permanent Pool (Including Forebay)
Cumulative
Contour
Incremental
Volume, S
Contour
Area SF
Volume (CF)
(CF)
149.5
4,547
0
0 -Permanent Pool
Req'd Surface Area
160.0
6,223
2,693
2,693
4081.83
150.48
6,766
3,117
5,810 -.Treatment Volume
5781.53
151.0
7,355
6,789
9,482
Req'd Volume
161.5
8,193
3,887
13,369
152.0
9,929
4,531
17,899
153.0
10,580
10,255
28,154
Stage/Storage Total Pond (Including Forebay)
Cumulative
Contour
Incremental
Volume, S
Contour
Area (SF)
Volume (CF)
(CF)
144.0
440
0
0 -Bottom Elev.
145.0
790
615
615
146.0
1,210
1,000
1,615
147.0
1,695
1,453
3,068
148.0
2,250
1,973
5,040
149.0
2,749
2,500
7,540
149.5
4,547
1,824
9,364 -Permanent Pool
160.0
6,223
2,693
12,056
151.0
7,355
6,789
18,845
151.5
8,193
3,887
22,732
152.0
8,673
4,217
26,949
153.0
10,050
9,362
36,310
Forebay Only
(20% of Total Pond)
Cumulative
Contour
Incremental
Volume, S
Contour
Area (SF)
Volume (CF)
(CF)
144.0
88
0
0 -Bottom Elev.
145.0
158
123
123
146A
242
200
323
147.0
339
291
614
148.0
450
395
1,008
149.5
909
1,020
2,028 -.Forebay Volume
Average Pond Depth Calculation
[0.25 x (1+ Abot_shelf 1 Aperm_pool)] + [((Abot_shelf + Abot_pond) 12) x (Depth 1 Abot_shelf)]
2.98 Avgerage Depth

0125 808551 NO125
FILED
CUMBERLAND COUNTY NC
J. LEE WARREN, JR.
FILED Dec 30, 2010
AT 02:47:00 pm
BOOK
OB557
START PAGE
0125
END PAGE
0126
INSTRUMENT #
426U
RECORDING
$22,00
EXCISE TAX
$951.00
RT
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED ,
Parcel 1D Number: Revenue Stamps: $951.00
LDN FILE NO.- l0 RC-A1g54C.
Prepared By: John G. Briggs III, Atty at Law, of Lewis, Dcese & Nance, L.L.P.
& ReturnTo: o I
,a T�,s
Brief Descrip. For index: i s 3& 4 PB 1 i 1 at P 161 2 Z r 7
This Deed made this the of December, 2010, by and between:
GRANTORS
PREWnT LAND COMPANY, LLC, a
North Carolina Llmitod Liability
Company
2126 Cypress lakes Road
Hope Mills, North Carolina 28348
GRANTEES
SOUTEASTERN REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER, a North Carolina
Not For Profit Organization
Mailing Address:
300 West 2r stied
laumbaion, Nortb Carolina 28358
The won G mator and Grantee as used hm = shall mclude said Parties, their hens,
successors and assipps, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuteir as
required by context.
WITNFSSETH, that the Grantors, for valuable and good consideration paid by the
(seises, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, bas and by these pry does grate
bargain, sell and convey unto the Gramm in fee simple, all that certain lot or parcel of b and
Page 1 of 2

8557
0126
108551 PGO12b
situated in or near the City of Fayetteville, Gray's Creek Township, County of Cumberland,
Stxto of North Carolina and note particularly described as follows:
BRING all of Late 3 (11kree) and 4 (Four) as shown on a plat entitled, "R/W
DEDICATION TO N C.R O.T. & COMMERCIAL PHASE 1, A ZERO LOT LINE
DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OF BIRCHWOOD FARMS, INC.", chary recorded in Plat
Book 111, at Page 161, Cumberhnd County Registry, State of North Carolina; to which
plat reference is hereby made for a moo particular description of same.
Subject to all taxes, tights of way, restrictions, permits, cova>mrds and easements of
recont Cumberland County Rcgstry. North Carolim really subject to those covenants,
restrictions and condiltons recorded in Book 7059 at Page 430, Cumberlmtd COW* Registry,
State of North Carolina
For history of title, please see Book 7767, at Page 322, Cumberland County Registry,
State of North Carolina
TO HAVE AND TO SOLD the aforesaid lot or parod of land and all privileges and
apptntenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple.
And tine Gcaraors covanant with the Grantees. that Grsat n are scized of the premises m
The simple, have the right to convey the same in fee simple, that tick is miaketable and free and
clear of all encumbranocs, and that Grantors will warrant nod defer the We against the lawful
claim of all persona whomsoever except for the ezoeptians Irer+ewaft stated. Title to the
property hercinabove des=IW is subject to all easements, rights of way, and tares, as the same
may appear of public record.
IPt WITKM WHEREOF, the Grantors have hammbo set their hands and seals, or if
corporate, has caused this instrument to be signed in its corporate name by its duly authm ized
office= by authority of its Hoard ofDftwk rs'ar Members, whichever applicable, eli'octive the
date first writmm above `,rt�tkt:r�►►►
Thomas R. Frewitt, Member -Manager of �r r t*01 pqt s'
P>ewftt Land Company, LLCSTATE OF NORTH CAROUNA 's q �/B �IG �• _
COUMY OF CUbMERLAND
1 etatlfy that the R.W tn& pt wtK.) pity *M ared bdm r46 MAO end aclottwrtedged to me that
be or she vnteatarily sighed the Bing 4actunmgs) for Ore purposes stated th mein and in the capacity indicated:
Nave of Pt�selpah: , Iliembe Marmger of Preaitt Land Cwnpsay, Lt.0
Notary Public
MY Cam=. Exp: lOj 2 -
(N. P. SEAL)
Page 2 of 2

�a FFF�n�, F. TF,.�...,,�•
c s — o t---
a
t Vj
IAMNITY UAP ~`s_
a
NOTES
I a OIe T,wff.S S,vAw ARE NOR1 7*` GROIxOlitM]
FACTOR lye W4W
2J REFERENCE FOILMYMI(' FLITS
PB Z, I
P B ,OL m
P e , PG. 161.
AOORgNAL T a RN TU -YNY 4 HEREBY REEER
AL 0,10 CNIG,E-I TROAD (5 R. MZ
. y REFS M A F W AOOESS FASEYENT FOR Al OT5 A�
CNI04V OOT Rp,p le R. Z232y.
5.1 BONCO,FORWIG 6RNGTlRES „aK NOT BEf. (,REIFFD
BY TMB TY isEOI,ED OR
7, FRnEnn IS GF'iCowa., lN.
r.l rwrfR .Fn sEv,ER xRvfo er FtlecF: r�oRRs caF.ussoR
aF cR. of Favenfvu-e-
e 1 EAUi�+O FLIs_ti pRl,Rvur accFss oFf c,.c,ff-rEaoT RDAs
SEFMSROTN saR({t6 sNARn THEVFf s6F
LEGEND�
�� 1}
lam- W ^Y
Il ,15
V 1,
""o •' • r���5u+tlrsiMn IiephnRl MMiuI �`-\�\ ,
ww
'Il I
m
f
RP E
(CYPRESS LAKES COMMERCIAL PHASE 1)
PROPERTY Oi
�,•'
��t'
SOV 71'.EASiErN REGIONA! MEDICAL CEN IER
GRAYS CFEE1 Tw5. CVMBE CO. N.^-
T
JUNE
SCAI-E� 1"- 50' l3rvE 2011
n..Rera n
ARKrdx9
—
ufi.SC /-O,Oe
,5 r•xsrtwu..c-
YI0CPUAN,K1ZER & RZ:ITZEL.INC.
•OO.Nu., van , xFlrrz� RC 9Fcu.OFTn

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED GRAY'S CREEK MEDICAL BUILDING
HOPE MILLSo NORTH CAROLINA
5&ME Project No. 1031- I 1-104
Prepared for.
Southeastern Regional Medical Center
P. 0. Box 1408
Lumberton, North Carolina 28359
clo
Peterson Associates, P.A.
2115 Rexford Road, Ste. 500
Charlotte, North Carolina 28211
Prepared By:
-- SME
409 Chicago Drive #1 IG
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28306
March 14, 2011

March 14, 2011
Southeastern Regional Medical Center
P. O. Box 1408
Lumberton, North Carolina 28359
c/o Peterson Associates, P.A.
2115 Rexford Road, Ste, 500
Charlotte, North Carolina i8211
Attention: Mr. David Cherry
Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Cray's Creek Medical Building
Hope Mills, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1031-11-104
Dear Mr. Cherry:
S&ME, Inc. is pleased to submit this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed
new Gray's Creek Medical Building located on Chickenfoot Road near its intersection
%vith Celebration Drive in Hope Mills, North Carolina. Our exploration was performed in
general accordance with our proposal No. FAY.] 18-11, dated February 4, 2011. The
purpose of this exploration was to explore general subsurface conditions at the site and
evaluate those conditions with regard to site preparation and foundation support for the
new building. 'Phis report presents a summary of pertinent project information, results of
our field and lab testing, and our geotechnical recommendations and conclusions.
Authorization to proceed with this report was provided through your execution of our
"Agreement for Services" Farm AS-071 which was incorporated into our proposal.
S&ME, Inc. appreciates 'his opportunity to he of service to you. Please call if you
questions concerning this report or any of our services. J
wt
Respectfully submitted,
S&ME, Inc.
hn
M. N. Khan
Staff Professional
S&M E. Inc. NC PC Firm License No. F-0176
SEAL
023916
rug
frian D. Kenney, P.E
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
lrC Registration No. 23916
5,%I D3 PREPORTSU-011'0031-1 1.1Q4 Grave Creek hlpdical NIdg11031-11-I 04 (Uradis Creek Medical Building-FINAL.doc
3WE, INC. 1 409 Chicago Drive, Stalls 11$ ; Fayett&AIle, PVC 28300 i p 510,323.109! f 914.323.3499 ! %wvw.sm9irc.co n

Gectechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1031-11.104
Proposed Gray's Greek Medical Bullding March 14. 2011
Hope Mills, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................... 3
2.
EXPLORATION
PROCEDURES....................................................._..._.._...........
3
3.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................. .............M..M.Muu.u_o.
3.1
Natural Soils....................................................................,..................................
4
3.2
Subsurface Water................................................................................................
4
3.3
Laboratory Test Results .................. ....................................................................
5
4.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................—............................
5
4.1
Limitation of Report...........................................................................................
5
4.2
General Assessment............................................................................................
G
4.3
Site Preparation...................................................................................................
G
4.3.1 Structural Fill.........................................................................................
7
4.4
Foundation Recommendations...........................................................................
7
4.4.1 Shallow Foundations.............................................................................. 7
4.4.2 Foundation Evaluation............................................................................ 8
4.4.3 Slabs-on-Grade........................................................... ........................
8
4.4.4 Anticipated Settlements.......................................................................... 8
4.5
Seismic Considerations.......................................................................................
9
4.5.1 Site Class............................................................................................ 9
4.5.2 Potential Liquefaction............................................................................. 9
4.6
Lateral Earth Pressures....................................................................................... 9
4.7
Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes..........................................................................
10
4.8
Pavement Considcrations..................................................................................
10
4.9
Construction Considerations......................................................... ...............
11
4.9.1 Off Site Borrow.......................................,............................................
11
4.9.2 Excavations ...........................................................................................12
4.10
Materials Testing During Construction............................................................
12
2

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1031-11-104
Proposed Gray's Creek Medical Building March 14, 2011
Hope Mills; North Carolina
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that a single -story 11,000 square foot medical building is planned on a
recently cleared parcel tin Chickenfoot Road near its intersection "ith Celebration Drive
in Hope Mills. North Carolina. A preliminary site grading plan dated February 28, 2011
provided by Peterson Associates and based upon die existing grades, the building pad
will receive as much as 2 to 3 feet of rill. The proposed building; final floor elevation is
162 feet. At the time of our drilling the site had been cleared of trees And had been rough
graded,.but not to final grades. Associated parking and driveway areas, and a wet
detention basin will also be constructed.
We understand the new building will be steel -frame with a concrete slab -on -grade.
Structural loads were provided by Fitzpatrick Engineering Group Y1.1-C, with column
loads ranging from 6 to 84 kips.
Additionally, an off -site borrow source located in a horse pasture, at the Prewitt propeny
off of Celebration Drive has also been identified as a potential borrow area for this
project.
Z. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
S&ME, Inc. drilled five (5) soil test borings (designated B-1 through B-5) to obtain
subsurface information within the proposed building footprint (and future footprint) and
parking lot areas, t3oring 13-5 was offset about 20 feet nonheast of the planned location
due to the nearby overhead powerlines. Boring locations were selected and located in the
field by S&ME personnel by measuring distances from the existing site features. Since
the borings were established without survey control, their locations should be considered
approximate. The approximate baring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan,
Figure 1 in the Appendix of this report.
The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 5 to 50 feet below existing grades.
Borings were performed using 3 %-inch hollow stem augers and 2'/-inch tricone wash
drilling procedures with a CME-550x drill rig mounted on an all -terrain vehicle. Samples
of subsurface soils were obtained at 2.5-foot intervals above a depth of 10 feet and at 5-
foot intervals below 10 feet using a split spoon sampler. Standard penetration testing
(SPT) was performed in conjunction with split -spoon sampling in general accordance
with AS'1'M D 1586. The CME-55OX drill rig used to drill the borings is equipped with a
hydraulic automatic hammer for Standard Penetrations tests rather than the traditional
rope; cathead and safety hammer. The N-values reported on the attached Boring Logs arc
the actual field measured blow counts and are not corrected for the haminer onergy.
Borehole B-5 was backfllled using auger cuttings after drilling completion and borcholes
B-1 through B-4 were back611ed aller the 24-hour water level reading. Split -spoon
samples obtained from standard penetration testing were transported to, our laboratory
3

Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Gray's Creek Medical Building
Hope Mills, North Carolina
S&ME Project No_ 1031-11-104
March 14, 2011
and visually classified in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification Sys tern
(USCS) guidelines
Generalized Subsurface Profile dra%Ning (Figure 2) and Boring Logs presenting specific
subsurface information from the borings are included in the Appendix. Stratification
lines shown on the Boring Logs and profile are intended to represent approximate depths
of changes in soil types. Natural transitional changes in soil types are often gradual and
vary in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Boring elevations indicated on the lofts
were interpolated from the grading plans mentioned earlier. These elevations should be
considered approximate since they were not sun eyed.
An auger only boring (designated B-b) was also performed at the proposed off -site
borrow source located in a horse pasture, at the Prewitt properly off Celebrtition Drive, to
obtain a bulk soil sample. The borrow- location for the bulk soil sample was identified in
the field by Mr. Ronald Williams of Moorman, Kizer, and Reitzel, Inc_ The bulls sample
collected from auger cuttings was laboratory tested for natural moisture and standard
Proctor compaction.
3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Details of subsurface conditions encountered in borings are presented on the Boring Logs
in the Appendix, and represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions encountered
based upon the driller's field lobs and our visual examination of split -spoon samples.
General subsurface conditions are discussed in the following paragraphs.
3.1 Natural Soils
Tlic site has been cleared and grubbed of tree stumps at the: time of our exploration,
therefore no topsoil was encountered within borings. Natural soils were encountered
from the ground surface to boring termination depths. Li general, the natural soils
consisted of inter -bedded layers of silly and clayey sands (classified as Slut, SP-SK SP,
SC-STV1 and SC) and silty clays (classified as CH).
Standard penetration test (SPT) N-values,ranged from I to 26 blows per root (bpt� in the
sands and 2 to 23 bpf in the clay; indicating very loose to medium dense relative density
for sands and very sots to very stiff' consistency for clay. Loose clayey sands (N-value of
4 to d bpf} were encountered from the existing ground surface to about 3 feet within
borings, except boring 13.1. A very soft to stiff silt} clay layer (Nv value of 2 to 4 bpf)
was encountered from about 13 to 22 feet below the existing ground surface within the
borings. Based on the borings, this clay layer is about 5 feet or less. A very loose to
loose sand layers (N-values of I to 5 bpf) was also encountered from about 12 to 25 feet
above and below the clay layers in the borings. Natural soils were damp to wet.
3.2 Subsurface Water
Watcr was observed in borings 13-1 through B-4 from 8.3 to 13.8 feet, at the time of
drilling completion. A temporary piezometer (PVC pipe) was installed in boring B-2 in
4

Geotechnical Engineering Report SWE Project No. 1031-11-104
Proposed Gray's Creek Medical Building March 14, 2011
Hope Mills, North Carolina
order to facilitate measurement of subsurFace water. The temporary piezometer was
removed after the 24-hour water level reading and the boreholes backfilled using Auger
cuttings.
Long term monitoring of water levels requires installation of piezorneters which was
beyond`the scope of our services. It is important to realize that groundwater levels will
fluctuate with changes in rainfall, evaporation rates, near -by construction activity and
may occur at higher elevations at other times of the year. in addition, `perched" water
conditions can be present within sand layers overlying less permeable materials (such as
clay), especially after rainfall.
3.3 Laboratory Test Results
A standard Proctor moisture -density test (ASTN4 D698) was performed on a bulk sample
obtained from boring B-6. '1'lic soil cuttings were blended from soil obtained between
depths of 1 to 10 feet. The results of the tests indicate, a maximum dry density of 119.7
pounds per cubic foot (pef) with an optimum moisture content of 12 percent. The natural
moisture content of the sample was 13.3 percent.
4. CONCLUSIONS LINO RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Limitation of Report
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice
for specific application to this project. j"y wetland, envirorunental, or contaminant
assessment efforts are beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration; and therefore,
those issues are not addressed in this geotechnical exploration report. The
recommendations contained in this report are based on the applicable standards of our
profession at die time this report was prepared. No other warranty; express or implied; is
made.
Analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the geotcchnical exploration and'our understanding of the proposed construction.
The nature and extent of variations between and outside of the boring locations may not
become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, then it will be necessary
to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. In the event that the assumptions
presented in this report regarding site grades, design, structural loads or location of the
proposed structures are incorrect, the recommendations contained in this report should be
reviewed and modified or verified in writing.
We strongly recommend S&ME be provided the crppurtunity to review the final design
plans and specifications in order that our earthwork- and foundation recommendations are
properly interpreted and implemented. Tie recommendations in this report are
contingent on SRME, inc.'s observation and monitoring of grading and foundation
construction activities.
5

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1031-11-104
Proposed Gray's Creek Medical Building March 14, 2011
Hope Mills; North Carolina
4.2 General Assessment
Ise general., the subsurface conditions at this site appear suitable for support of the
proposed single -story structure on shallow foundations provided the site is prepared in
accordance with the site grading recommendations presented below. The primary
geotechnical concern at this site is the very loose to loose near -surface sands found at
most boring locations which will need to be repaired prior to till placement in the
building; and pavement areas. Repair of these loose surface soils will most likely involve
in -place densifcation or undercut and replacement. Because of these loose near Surface
soils, all footing excavations will need to be evaluated for adequate bearing support by
the,geotechnical engineer prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete.
Layers of coEnpressible clay are present at depths of between about 13 and 22 feet below
existing grade at this site. The soil clays are deep enough that they will not be
significantly influenced by the anticipated structural loads of the building (i.e., maximum
column loads of 84 kips). However, the placement of widespread loads at the surface
such as from the planned fill wrill induce deeper soil stresses and cause the clay laver to
slowly consolidate. If fill placements exceed 5 feet under proposed and future building
areas plus 10 feet beyond, then waiting periods will be required. To reduce total post -
construction settlements and pre -load or pre -settle the soil clay laver due to the weight of
the planned till, we recommended that the new fill (placed above existing site grades) be
placed at (cast 30 days in advance of settlement -sensitive building construction.
Our general rocorntnendations regarding site preparation, subgrade repair, field
evaluations, and foundation support are presented in the following sections of this report.
4.3 Site Preparation
At the time,of our exploration, the site had been cleared and grubbed. The exposed
subgrades in till areas as well as finished subgrades in cut areas should be thoroughly
rolled with a large vibratory roller operating at walking speed in order to help densify the
near surface sandy soils. At least four complete passes should be made over all subgrade
areas with two passes perpendicular to the earlier two. During the in -place soil
densification the geotechnical engineer should observe the subgrade reaction to the
vibratory equipment and determine if further rolling or other repair measures are
warranted.
It should be expected that nzirilmal subgrade unprovemcnt with the vibratory roller will
occur in areas where the sands contain appreciable silt and clay. In these areas, other
possible repair measures could include. undercutting to stable soils and backfilling with
well -compacted, low -plasticity materials, discing of in -situ soils to dry to proper moisture
content and then re -compacting, placement of eeotextile stabilization fabric on
unsuitable materials and placement of crushed stone, or some combination of these. The
most practical repair measure will be influenced by the degree of instability which exists
and weather conditions. As such, actual repair measures should be detennined by the
Oeotechnical Engineer in the field at time of construction.
6

Geotechnical Engineering Report S&ME Project No. 1031-11-104
Proposed Gray's Creek Medical Building March 14, 2011
Hope Mills, North Carolina
Site grading will be difficult during periods of extended rainral l that generally occur
during the typically wetter winter months. When wet, soils tend to rut and pump under
rubber-tircd traffic and provide poor subgrade support for foundations, floor slabs, and
pavements. To reduce potential earthwork problems, site preparation and grading should
be scheduled during the drier months of May through November, if possible. If grading
operations are conducted during wet winter months, delays and additional undercutting
costs should be expected, Even during drier periods of the year. Nye recommend that the
exposed subgrades be sloped and "sealed" at the end of each day to promote runoff' and
reduce infiltration from ruinfull.
4.3.1 Structural Fill
Structural fill placed within building and pavement areas should be low plasticity
(plasticity index less than 20) and free of debris and organics. Structural fill should have
a rnininium dry density of 100 pounds per cubic foot based on the laboratory standard
Proctor (AS-I'M D 698) test. We recommend the fill have Unified soil classifications of
SP, SW, SM or SC.
All structural fill should he placed in 8 to I 0-inch loose lifts and compacted to at least. 95
percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) except within the
final one foot of finished subgrade where this requirement should be increased to at least
98 percent. Soil moisture should he maintained within two (2) percent of the optimum
moisture content during compaction.
Site preparation including till placement and cornpaCdon should be observed by the
project Geotech.nical Engineer or a qualified soils technician. A sufficient number of
density tests should be conducted on each sail lift to evaluate whether adequate
compaction has been achieved prior to additional fill placement or foundation
construction.
In areas where 5 feet or more of new till will be placed beneath proposed building and
future building footprints plus ten feet beyond, we recommend that several settlement
hubs be installed at the top of the compacted dill to monitor settlements. The elevation
readings on the hubs should show that rill settlement has stabilized prior to concrete
placements. We estimate that about 50 days be accounted for waiting periods prior to
building construction.
4.4 Foundation Recommendations
4.4.1 Shallow Foundations
Following site preparation, undercutting operations, fill placement, and any subgrade
repair work as recommended in this report; the building may be supported on shallow
spread footings designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds
per square. fooi (psf). Continuous wall footings should be a minimum of 18 inches N%ide
and isolated column footings should be at least 24 inches wide to help prevent localircd
7

Geotechnical Engineering Report UME Project No. 1031-11-104
Proposed Gray's Creek Medical Building March 14, 2011
Hope Mills, Nonh Carolina
or "punching" shear failure which can occur with very narrow footings. Foundations
should be embedded at least 18 inches below finishers exterior grades to provide adequate
embedment against t rost penetration. After the excavation process, the exposed
foundation bearing soils should be compacted using suitable equipment to density surface
soils disturbed during the excavation process.
If rainwater collects in foundation excavations, it should be removed promptly to help
prevent softening of foundation supporting soils. To further reduce the potential for
deterioration of bearing soils, we recommend that foundation excavation and placement
of concrete be conducted on the same day if practical.
4.4.2 Foundation Evaluation
The Geoteclutical Engineer or his representative should evaluate the foundation bearing
conditions prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. This evaluation sllauld
include performing shallow hand auger borings with dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP)
testing to evaluate the suitability of underlying soils for foundation support. Foundation
excavation or exposure to the envirorunent will cause the bearing surface soils 10 loosen
or soften. Softenediloosened soils at the foundation surface bearing should be removed
or densified in -place with suitable compaction equipment. Any excessively loose;soil
soils or other unsuitable materials should -be repaired prior to concrete placement.
Repairs are typically performed by undercutting unsuitable soils and baekftlling with
washed NCDo,r No. 57 stone, or lowering the foundation bearing level to more
competent bearing soils.
4.4.3 Slabs -on -Grade
The floor slab design should include isolation of the slab from column and wall footings
to allow for relative displacement. The slab-ua-grade should be constructed above
newly -placed, well compacted stnictural till. We recommend that a minimum of 4 incites
of compacted crushed aggregate base course i'CABC) underlain by a suitable plastic
vapor barrier be considerc-d for placement beneath the floor slab to provide more uniform
slab support and to reduce damage to wbgrade soils by construction traffic. Exposure to
the enviranmenr and construction activities will cause subgrade soils to become unstable.
Therefore, we. recommend that subgrade soils in slab areas be evaluated just prior to
crushed stone placement. If deterioration of the soils has occurred, undercutting and soil
replacement may be necessary. !assuming a 4-inch CABC stone layer is placed, the slab -
on -grade may be designed using a subgrade modulus of 120 pci.
4.4.4 Anticipated Settlements
The results of the building settlement analysis, which was based on an allowable soil
bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square Coot and column lop ds of 84 kips or less
indicate total foundation settlements will be on the order of 1 inch or less provided that
our recommendations in this report are followed. This magnitude of settlement is
based on the near surface loose sandy soils being repaired during site,grading, any
isolated footings having loose soils at the bearing elevation are repaired and
compacted fill depths are no greater than 5 feet. We expect differential settlements

Geotechnical Engineering Report SBME Project No. 1031-11-104
Proposed Gray's Creek Medical Building March 14, 2011
Hope Mills, North Carolina
will be 112 inch or less following implementation of the recommended site preparation.
These settlement magnitudes are expected to be tolerable; however, this should be
confirnied by the structural engineer.
4.5 Seismic ConsiderafGons
4.5.1 Site Class
Site class was detennined based on the soil conditions encountered by the borings and in
accordance with the 2009 North Carolina State Building Code. Based on the soil strength
information (Standard Penetration Test (SPT) "N-value") obtained during our subsurface
exploration and our experiences in this arcs, a 'Site Class U' is recommended fur design.
4.5.2 Potentiai Liquefaction
The liquefaction' susceptibility of the on -site soils was evaluated using the 2009 North
Carolina State Building Code design earthquake. Liquefaction is the loss of a soil's
slicar strength due to the increase in pore -water pressure resulting from seismic
vibrations. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction generally consist of saturated, loose,
"clean" (i.e., plasticity indices less than 5), fine (IWo size ranging from 0.07 to 0.25 mm)
sands. The results of the liquefaction analysis indicate that the sands at this site have a
relatively low potential for liquefaction due to the design earthquake.
4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures
Below grade structures must be capable of resisting lateral earth pressures that will be
imposed on them. Lateral earth pressures to be resisted will be partially dependent upon
the method of construction. Assuming that the walls are relatively rigid and structurally
braced against rotation, they shall be designed for a condition approaching, the "at -rest"
lateral pressure. However, in the event that the wails are free to deflect during
backfilling, as for any exterior walls chat are not restrained or rigidly braced, the "active"
pressure conditions will be applicable for design. The following earth pressure
parameters are recommended for design based on the on -site soils. These parameters
assume a level backfill, a frictionless wall, and no hydrostatic pressure.
The recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid pressures do not
consider the development of hydrostatic pressure behind the earth retaining; wall
structures. As such, positive wall drainage must be provided for all earth retaining;
structures. These drainage systerns can be constructed of open -graded washed stone
isolated from the soil backfill with a non -woven geosynthctic filter fabric and drained by
perforated pipe, or several wall drainage products which are made specifically for this
Liquefaction is the loss ora wil'sshrar strength due to the in.,rmw in pmc water precsurti: ru:w!tiog from
seismic vibrations.
` Thr 2006 IDC design earthquakm has a 98%probability of non-meedance in 50 years. Our liquefaction
analysis Wus hmcd on an eaNignke wits a magnitude of 7.3 and ground surface acceleration of 0,24g.
9

Geotechnical Engineering Report SBME Project No. 1031-11-104
Proposed Gray's Creek Medical Building March '14, 2011
Hope Mills, North Carolina
application. Lateral earth pressures arising from surcharge loading shall be added to the
above earth pressures to determine the total lateral. pressure.
Table 1: Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters
'EQUIVALENT
LATERAL F.ARTtd'PRESM EtONDrI106
COEFFICIENT
OURD~PRESSVRE
At -Rest Condition ([J = 0.53
66 psl/fi
Active Condition I (K,,) a 0.36
45 pst t
Passive Condition (Kp) = 2.77
346 psYll
1JNI'I ,W iGHT OF'S01JL (MOIST) 125 pcf
' FRIGTTI�N FACTQR�F'QR'F4�fND'ATI!)N$ • '�
AND BEARING SOILS0.35
.`'ore: E€rrth pressure coejlicients are based upon an angle aj'28 degrees.
The soil backfill placed hehind retaining walls shall be compacted to 95 percent of the
soil's standard Proctor maximum dry density. We caution that operating compaction
equipment directly behind the retaining structures can create lateral earth pressures far in
excess of those recommended for design resulting in structural distress. Therefore,
bracing of the walls may be needed during backtilling operations.
4.7 Penrnanent Cut and Fill Slopes
Permanent cut and fill slopes should have side slopes of at least 2(H):l(V) or flatter for
long term stability and erosion control for embankment heights of 10 feet or less. lfslope
heights will be greater than 10 feet their stability should be evaluated by a geotechnical
engineer to determine the appropriate slope configuration. If mowing of slopes is to be
conducted. slopes of 3(H ):l(V j or flatter will be required. If seepage is obscured along
permanent out slopes, flattening of the slope angle, installation of a toe or blanket drain or
other measures may be required to improve long-term stabilit),.
Based on our expericnce, compaction equipment often has difficulty compacting soils
along the faces of fill slopes. As such, we recommend that fill slopes be. slightly
overbuilt and then cut back to the design geometry, leaving the slope face compacted to
the required degree.
Rainwater should be diverted away from the top edges of slopes. Slope surfaces should
be vegetated as soon as practical aver grading.
4.8 Pavement Considerations
S&Mr %as not provided traffic frequency or vehicle weight information and thus a
detailed pavement thickness design was not conducted. However, based upon the
in

Geotechnical Engineering Report UME Project No. 1031-11-104
Proposed Gray's Creek Medical Building March 14, 2011
Mope Mills, North Carolina
number of parking spaces and typical car traffic for parking areas, we generally
recommend a minimum pavement section consisting of 2 inches of asphalt underlain by 6
inches of aggregate base course (ABC) stone. In the main access drives and truck
(dumpster) routes, we generally recommend a minimum of 3 to 4 inches of asphalt
underlain by 8 inches of aggregate base course. These thicknesses arc based on our
experience, and assume that the subgrade soils are well compacted and consist of soils
comparable to those we laboratory tested. Design pavement sections should be
determined after detailed traffic information is provided and laboratory soaked Californiit
Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing; is performed of off site borrow soils samples to verify
pavement subgrade design parameters.
Prior to till placement or pavement construction, the entire pavement subgrade area
should be thoroughly rolled (several passes made) with a large vibratory roller to help
densi fy the very loose to loose near surface sandy soils. After the vibratory rolling the
subgrade should be evaluated by the project Geotechnical Engineer by observing the
proofrolling of exposed soils using a loaded tandem -axle dump truck. Any areas which
are observed to be unstable will require repair prior to fill placement or pavement
construction. As recommended earlier it should be expected that the loose more clayey
and silty sands will need to be undercut and replaced. Specific recommendations
regarding subgrade repair are best given in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer at the
time of evaluation.
Adequate drainage of the pavement subgrade will be critical to pavement performance, as
accumulation of water in the subgrade soils and pavement base course will significantly
decrease the useful life of the pavement. Finished grades of the pavement should be
higher than the surrounding grades, and if necessary, swales or underdrains may be
constructed along the sides of the roadway to divert runoff away from the pavement. All
materials and workmanship should meet the requirements of NCDOT "S'rondard
Specijicalronts for Roads and Slrucrtrres ".
4.9 Construction Considerations
If during site grading subsurface conditions are encountered which are different from our
test boring findings, SAME will need to further evaluate such conditions. This evaluation
should occur in the field as our geotechnical engineer or his representative is monitoring
situ grading operations..
4.9.1 Off Site Borrow
The soils obtained and laboratory tested froth the proposed off -site borrow source located
in the horse pasture, at the Prc%vitt property, should be suitable for reuse as structural fill
provided their moisture content is properly controlled during placement and compaction.
Based upon the natural moisture content, these soils were wet of optimum moisture,
therefore, prior to structural till placement, moislum conditioning (drying) will likely be
required to achieve adequate compaction. Also, to account for possible wet weather,
additional drying time should be expected to achieve adequate compaction. Drying can
11

Geotechnical Engineering Report SUIE Project No. 1031-11-104
Proposed Gray's Creek Medical Building March 14, 2011
Hope Mills, North Carolina
normally be accomplished by aerating the soils during, favorable weather conditions (i.e.,
Sun and wind).
4.9.2 Excavations
Difficult to excavate materials were not encountered within the depths of the borings.
Soils encountered within the upper ten 1'eet generally consisted of very loose to medium
dense sands. Our experience indicates that on -site soils can be excavated using.
conventional grading equipment. All excavations should be sloped or shored in
accordance with local, state; and federal regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part
1926) excavation trench safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for site
safety. This information is provided only as a service, and under no circumstances. should
S&ME be assumed to be responsible for construction site safety.
4.10 Materials Testing During Construction
Field evaluations and tesring will be very important during construction at this site so that
the upper loose soil conditions are properly repaired to provide adequate support for the
building slab and footings and pavements. A soils technician working; under the direction
of the project Geotechnical Engineer should be present during subgrade preparation, fill
placement and foundation installation. During the fill placement activities, a soils
technician is recommended to perform field density tests to confirm compaction of fill
soils is achieved. We recommend that foundation bearing surfaces be evaluated by the
project Geotechnical Engineer or senior engineering; technician under his direction prior
to concrete placement to confirm foundation bearing conditions assumed in design are
available.
12

tS&ME
Important information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Variations in subsurface conditions can be a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns and claims.
Ttk-1`ollowii�g information is provided to Assist you in understanding and managing the risk of these variations.
Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Geotechnical engineers cannot specify material
properties as other design engineers do.
Geotechnical material properties have a tar broader
range on a given site than any manufactured
construction material, and some geotechnical
material properties may change overtime because
of exposure to air and water, or human activity.
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions at
the time of exploration and only at the points where
subsurface tests are performed or samples
obtained. Geotechnical engineers review field and
laboratory data and then apply their judgment to
render professional opinions about site subsurface
conditions. Their recommendations rely upon these
professional opinions. Variations In the vertical and
lateral extent of subsurface materials may be
encountered during construction that significantly
impact construction schedules, methods and
material vclumes. While higher levels of subsurface
exploration can mitigate the risk of encountering
unanticipated subsurface conditions, no level of
subsurface exploration can eliminate this risk.
Scope of Geotechnical Services
P rofessional geotechnical engineering judgment is
required to develop a geotechnical exploration
scope to obtain information necessary to support
design and construction: A number of unique
project factors are considered in developing the
scope of geotechnical services, such as the
exploration objective; the iocation, type, size and
weight of the proposed structure; proposed site
grades and improvements; the construction
schedule and sequence; and the site geology.
Geotechnical engineers apply their experience with
construction methods, subsurface conditions and
exploration methods to develop the exploration
scope. The scope of each exploration is unique
based on available project and site information.
incomplete project information or constraints on the
scope of exploration increases the risk of variations
in subsurface conditions not being identified and
addressed in the geotechnical report.
Services Are Performed for Specific Projects
Because the scope of each geotechnical
exploration Is unique, each geotechnical report Is
unique. Subsurface conditions are explored and
recommendations are made for a specific project.
Subsurface information and recommendations may
not be adequate for other uses. Changes in a
proposed structure location, foundation loads,
grades, schedule. etc. may require additional
geotechnical exploration, analyses, and
consultation. The geotechnical engineer should be
consulted to determine if additional services are
required in response to changes in proposed
construction, location, loads, grades, schedule. etc.
Geo-Environmental Issues
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to
perform a geo-environmental study differ
significantly from those used for a geotechnical
exploration, Indlcations of environmental
contamination may be encountered incidental to
performance of a geotechnical exploration but go
unrecognized. Determination of the presence, type
or extant of environmental contamination Is beyond
the scope of a geotechnical exploration.
Geotechnical Recommendations Are Not
Final
Recommendations are developed based an the
geotechnical engineer's understanding of the
proposed construction and professional opinion of
site subsurface conditions. Observations and tests
must be performed during construction to confirm
subsurface conditions exposed by construction
excavations are consistent with those assumed in
development of recommendations. It is advisable to
retain the geotechnical engineer that performed the
exploration and developed the geotechnical
recommendations to conduct tests and
observations • during construction. This may reduce
the risk that variations in subsurface conditions will
not be addressed as recommended in the
geotechnical reoort.
Parrlan obrairro udth permissiar, frorn-rrnpartanr Jnrormaticn About Yaur Geoteeh. i ar Enginoexing Raporf , ASFE, 20061
0 SBA E. itrc. 2010

N
Ar
IV
NQ
4,1
R-5
Lot
Job No: 1031-11-104 BORING LOCATION PLAN FIGURE
DATE: 03;400 ���� Gray's Creek Medical Building
SCALE: NT$ Hope Mills, North Carolina

165
160
156
150
146
m
too
z
0
C 135
LU 130
126
120
115
110
I
B-1
I
I k
B-2
I I I
I
B-5
N_
N
8-3
B-4 N
12
N
O
12
12
5
6 ETAS
F
ti
j
• '�
liC �`
FYC
.
10
S
i
5
2
�•
4
�•
4
r.
1
2
HC
7
3
5
5
►�
3
10
?
BT A 2S
y
ST 30-
: �,
' �'
12
23
BT @ 30'
22
r 2G
24
BT�50'
Sd1y Sand
F] Sand
MSCJSK Clayey Sand
/ GOyey Sand
® CH, Agh Plasticity Clay
SPISiA. Pmch9bdad Sand wiLti Sid I
N = Stardord Penotratian Tosl resatinco valuo (Maws per foal). The dopided stratigraphy is shown for Wuwaliva purpasos only. The oclual subsurfocc ow dtiorn wdl vary bahwcen boring bmWns
JOB NO: 1031-11AM GenendLted SUbslrfim Profile
409 v ftDrive. Suite 118
raycuede�;oe, NC 23306 p C-9ws Creekmeftal Bumkng Figure 2
Pfi: 910-3231091
dli'E: 3r 11l11 *S&ME
t.acatrrxs: Hap M,lts• NC

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS I
SOIL TYPES
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
(Shown in Graphic Log)
STD, PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
CONSISTENCY BLOWSFOOT
®
Fill
Very Soft 0 to 2
Soft 3 to 4
®
Asphalt
Firm 5 to $
Stiff 9 to 15
Very Stiff 16 to 30
A
Concrete
Hard 31 to 50
Very Hard Over 50
®
Topsoil
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
�: o.
P
Gravel
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
El
Sand
RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS!FOOT
Very Loose 0 to 4
Silt
Loose 5 to 10
Medium Dense 11 to 30
Dense 31 to 50
'J7
Clay
Very Dense Over 50
Organic
SAMPLER TYPES
(Shown in Samples Column)
:•�:,:
Silty Sand
Shelby Tube
Clayey Sand
® SpIll Spoon
Sandy Silt
m Rock Core
No Recovery
Clayey Silt
TERMS
Sandy Clay
Silty Clay
Standard The Number of Blows of 140 Ito. Hammer Failing
Penotration30 in, Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon
Partially Weathered
Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1586.
Rock
REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core
Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core Run
�-.
Cored Rock
Times 100 ,
ROD - Total Length of Sound Rock Segments Recovered
WATER
LEVELS
that are Longer Than or Equal to 4' (mechanical
breaks excluded) Divided by the Total Length of
the Core Run Times 100%.
(Shown in Water Level Column)
= Water
Level At Termination of Baring
J = Water
Level Taien After 24 Fioxs
= Loss of Drilling Water
S&ME
B�C = Hole Cave

PROJECT: Gray's Creek Medical Building
Hope Mills, NC
BORING LOG B-1
SWE Projatt No.1031-11-104
DATE DRILLEO: 2f24111
ELEV PT 10 19; 161.0 ft
NOTES.
DRILL RIG: CME 55OX
BOR{NG DEPTH: 30.0 ft
DRILLER: T J Williams
WATER LEVEL: 15.1 ft aftar 24-hour 13.6 ft at TOO
MtER T
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING:
FASTING:
DRILLING METHOD:
3Y." HA A,
U
�
w
�
Ui
z
p
Z
dLCnw COUN
CORE DATA
�
STMtt)AaDP'et7E'TRAT1CNTt:STDATA
w
9
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
s
kY` S
a
�filF}IA�K3
z
3
m
V)
V1 N
10 20 30 608D
SILTY SAND SM
medium dense, tan -gray, fine, damp
5
6
fi
1
12
2
5
G
6
12
5
156.0
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SCSMI
loose to medium dense, brown gray, fine, damp
3
2
2
3
5
to moist
4 N
4
5
6
11
10
'610
V
SILTY CLAY (CHI
firm, brown, with fine sand lenses, moist
5 `
2
2
3
5
15
746 0
1'`�•.
SAND (SPSMI
very loose, white, with silt, fine to medlvm, poorly
graded, wet
6
1
VO
1
20
SAND (SP)
loose, white -light gray, tine to m--dium, Doody
graded, wet
7 11
1
3
5
25
136 0
CLAY CH
firm, dart gray, with Erne sand tenses, damp
B 1
3
3
5
a
30
-.31,0
Boring terminated at 30 feet
OEM }}�� � p �r ry�
r` PRO.IECOTO MUST ONL Y SOi/SF� 70GE7 $/1 RM7lR�{ OHO
T R�% p
2 80RkYG SA MOf'I.INOANOPCOVETRAT10 TWOArAINORNML ACCORDANCE
>R+1TIrA� rar G13".
SrRAr1F1CA TON AND GWI ND WA MR DEPTF S ARE N0 r FXAC T.
A WArFR4ZVEL fS AI UVE OF EXP4 ORA PON ANOWU-L VAR V.
r
Page 1 of i

I
PROJECT: Gray's Creek Medical Building
Hope Mills, NC
BORING LOG B-2
S&ME ProjeclNo. 1031-11.104
TE DRILLED: Z7W11
LE ATM: 161,0 ft
NOTES'
DRILL RIG: CINE 550X
BORING CEPTH: 50.0 ft
DRILLER: T J Williams
WATER LEVEL: 0.6 ft afilar 24-hour 11.6 R al TO
IXPgoLOGGED
BY- M. "an
.HAMMffB
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING: E STING:
DRILLING fvMi:T OD: 31/" H.S.A.
-j
4
z &
BLUR COUNT
i �ORf DATA
STANDARD PEVET;RATION TEST DATA
w
T
°
iV1ATEi21AL DESCRIPTION
3 m
�5
a
—
a
1REr �I(5
_
3
w
u N n
10 2030 6090
f�f
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
loose, brown, fine, damp
3
3
3
T
8
SILTY SAND (SM)
medium dense, orange -red to mange, tine, damp
2
3
5
T
12
5
150
3
a
6
1
13
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SCSM)
loose, orange -brown, with gravel, fine to med;um,
t
a
1
4
5
10
}}
moist
151
HC
SILTY SAND (SM)
vary loose, orange -gray, Fine to medium, wet
$
1
1
1
2
I fi
141i
SILTY CLAY (CHI
very soft, dark gray, moist
6
1
1
1
2
20
141
SAND SP
loose, %Yhlte-I'gh1 gray. fine to medium, poorly
graded, wet
7
1
2
3
s
25
136
SAND (SP-SM1
loose, dark gray, with sit, and clay Tenses, fine,
poorly graded, wet
$
g
4
5
9
30
.}.; i;
131
SILTY CLAY ICH)
very stiff, dark gray. with sand layers. moist
g
5
10
13
23
p q /�ppr� R �r� /yq
PR10J8GiANbMMUSr�NLY98CEi11QGF�NEYt?�TREPORT1ICED
Z 60RW0 SAMPL4VpANpP'�N�fR/lTfS7H12ST0ATAlJr'GENERAL ACCORDANCEIM17TT1 A Iry D458&
I.$rRAPFWAPONAND CROUNDWAiERDEFTHSARE NOrEXACr.
4. WATERLEVEL ITSAr RVEOFEXPLORAVONAND MLL VARY,
Page 1 of 2
1

PROJECT: Gray's Creek Medical Building
Hope Mills, IBC
BORING LOG B-2
SaMt Projoct No, 1031-11-104
DATE DRILLED: 212Sl11
ELEVATION: 161.0 ft
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME SSOX
WRING DEPTH: SO.0 ft
DRILLER: T J Willlams
WATER LEVEL: 9.6 ft alter 24-hour.11.6 ft at TO
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
LOGGED 8Y_ M, Khan
METHOD; S li
NORTHING-
EASTING:
.SAMPUNG
DRILLING
METHOD' 31J." H.S.A.
v
�+
w
ut
i
BL4MCWN
;CORE DATA
3TAIIWDP'st1ETP ,10,NTESTDATA
w
CL
o
MATERIAL (DESCRIPTION
�
w
a _j
Uj
_s
IRElaaSaxs
w
U) y
10 20 30 SUO
SAND (SPSMI
.'•.l..�
medium dense, gray, with silt, fine to medium,
poorty graded, wet
l '
10
4
a
W
22
40
: 1
21.0
?C•
I1
5
13
13
26
45
4':
;I.
IBA
i.�
I2
9
12
12
24
50
1110-
Boring terminated at 50 feet
eCT AND utlS7 QN VT
E USFo 700L'Ti4El� N TH�A R Rr�EO
2. SORWQSAAtPLWGANDPENETRATPJNTESTpATAINGENERAL ACCORDTWCE
NryTH TMD-1588.
7. STRA TEFICA rIW1 AHD GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE HOr t7rACT.
C WATER LEVEL ISATTIME OFEWPLORATrONANDWILLVARY,
Page 2 of 2
c
• I

n
8
J
z
a
2
PROJECT: Gray's Creek'Medical Building
Hope Mills, NC BORING LOG B-3
98,ME Ploloct No. 1031.11-104
--____...---•--•-- -__ NOTES:
I DRILLER T J Williams I WATER LEVEL_ 8.3 ft after 24-hour.9.6 R at TOO
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
loose, tan -brown, fine, damp
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SCSMI
loose to medium dense, tan -orange. fine, damp
NORTHING: I E4STING:
CL
Z
z
^ l
koTV 07UN f
i CORE QATA
STANDARD RE NETRA710N TEST DATA
w
T
a
cr
i FEVAR{S
Z
w
v
10 20 30 eA Q
t
2
2
3
5
2
3
3
5
r3
3
4
9
15
f'' ] SANG (SPSW 9
loose to very loose, orange to vellovi-orange, with S 4 3 4 5 �o
silt, fine to medium, poorly graded, wet 460
{'4 -
I' 5 2 2 2 C
SILTY CLAY icHi
stiff, dark gray, damp
SILTY SAND MMl
t very toose, tan -gray, nne. wet
SANDISP-Sh4
medium dense, tan-graV, -Mth silt, tine to rne6um,
poorly graded, wet
y i-
8oring terminated at 30 feet
,, T" LOCI 1SONLYA PQRr10N 0P REPORTPR�PA1ijaf rrIF�N �MED
PR TN
UST NLy a US O T'O ErN Nt r
S 904 G SAmpLwa AND PENemA noN rEsr oA rA & GENERAL ACCORDANCE
W11r ad7M D-reea.
J. STRA77RCA TrON A14D GROU#DWA TER DEPTHS ARE A'OT EXACT.
1, WA WA LeM W A T TIME OFEXPLORATION AND MLL VARY.
2
3
6
t3
y
i350
1
1
2
7
3
.33,0
2
3
9
8
i2
;280
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: Gray's Creek Medical Building
Hope Mills, NC
BORING LOG B4
S81AE Prn)oct No. 1031-11.1114
DATE DRILLED: 2124111
ELEVATIOM 159.0 ft
NOTES'
DRILL RIG: CME 550X
BORING DEPTH: 25.0 ft
DRILLER: TJ Williams
WATER LEVEL: 0 3ft after24-hour
HAMMER TYPE; Auto
LOGGED BY: M. Khan
SAMPLING .METHOD: Split spoon
NORTHING:
EASTtNG:
DRILLING METHOD: 3Y." H.S.A.
w
9LOWCOUN
Q
I CORE DATA
STAADARI) PENETRATION TEST OP.TA
u1
m
_
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
j
LQ
� a
x
a
tzro�,�n�
c
iRENARiS
3
w
v'
1(l 2D 30. .()PBa
CLAYEY SANDISCI
loose, tan -brown, fine, damp
3
2
4
SILTY CLAYEY SAND SC-3M
medium dense, orange -brown to orange -fight
2
3
5
8
13
5
gray, fine to medium, damp
3
5
5
6
1t
t
SRTY SAND [SM1
loose to very loose, orange -light gray, some clay,
4
2
3
2
5
10
,l
fine, moist to wet
In
1490
5
1
1
3
a
15
144.0
SILTY CLAY (CH)
firm, dark gray, with Fine sand lenses, damp
20
129,0
o"
2
3
L
7
SILTY SAND ISM)
loose, tan -gray. find, wet
3
5
5
1a
25
134.
Boring termfnated at 25 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE MAR£D
PROJECT AND 11USY ONLY BE USED TOGETHER MW TIiAT REPORT.
! ABORiHGSAMPtWOANDPENETRATIONTESTDATAINGENERALACCORDANCE
WRH TM asses.
3. STRATIFICA VON AND GROUNDWA TEA DEPTHS ARE Nor EXACT.
4, WATERLEVELWATTFMEOFEXPLORAnONANDMLLVARY.
Page T of f

PROJECT: Gray's Creek Medical Building
Hope Mills, NC
BORING LOG M
S&ME Pro]ect Na. 1031-11-104
DATE DRILLED, 2124$11
ELEVATION: 162.0 ff
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 5=
BORING DEPTH' 5.0 tt
DRILLER: T J Williams
WATER LEVEL:
HPAIMER TYPE Auto
i,b r=0 BY: M. Ktmn
SAMPLING METHOD! Spill spoon
I NORTHING:
E4STING:
DRILLING
METHOD: 3'/," H.S.A.
z
u
w
�
2
_
w
O s IL
Z �
9LOWCWN
ICOUDATd
�
STANDARD PE.vETithTION TEST DATi.
u�
8
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
.4
d
w U w
g+
a is3
�la+s1�Y
—
--a.
zErtiawcs
c5 a
30 6480
z
SILTY SANQ ISM)
very loose to loose, gray -tan to brcwn, fine, damp
2
2
2
1
a
2 }
3
3
4
5
557.0
Boring terminated at 5 feet
riu�rs:
i. THIS LOG IS ONLY APORrMOFAREPORTPREPAREOFOR rrrENA✓IED
PROJECT ANO.HW ONLY SE USED TOGETHER WITH THATREPORT.
7. = S MiSWO AND PENETRATION TESTDATA M GENERAL ACCUROANCE
7. SrRATYRCA►TONAkDGROLWOWATERDEPTHSARE NOTEXACT.
4. WATERLEVELISATTJMEOFEICPLORATMANOMLL VARY_
Page i of 1
I - . I J.
VA

Farm Na TR-D698-2
Revision .4ro.: U Moisture -Density Report ���- 4tS&ME
Revision Dale: 11171107
Qual1{t' Amurance
S&NI E, Inc. Raleigh, 3201 Spring Forest Road, Raleigh,North Carolina 27616
S&MB Project 9: 1031-11-104 Report Date: 3114111
Project Name. Gray's Creek ;Medical Building Test ❑ate(s): 3/12 - 3'1411 1
Client Name: Southeastern Regional Medical Center
Client Address: 300 W. 27th Street, Lumberton, NC 28358
Boring 4: B-6 Sample #: S-1 Sample Date: 3!9/201 1
Location: Site -Borehole Offset: NiA Depth: 1 - 10 R.
Sample Description: Tait -Brown Silty Clayey SAND
Maximum Dry Density 119.7 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 12.0%
ASTM D 698 - - Method A
130.0
125.0
105.0
100.0
0.0
—
25.0
Saf! Proirerltes
rti awr•cr1
4loislure 15.3%
C d1tr�'rlr
Sfxc;frc 2.650
1 igrrid 1_irrrN ND
Plastic Limit ND
Pliwic lndew ND
Melt'
trro-Dentity
Refarions
of Safi
and
Soll,Aggmgate
Mixtures
100%Saturadoo
Curvy
�
4
'
—
`
I
—
—
I
:
�
% Passing
100.09'U
04 100.1)9'a
sir! ND
4.0 ND
p2WI ND
Oversize Fraction
HUM G rm if!•
94.Voi Lowe
% nveyr'si=e
MDD
—OPL MC
1
I
t
I
I
—
—
—
1
—�--
I
I
Ti
I
t
l
i
l i
E
I
1 I
I
;0
10.0
Moisture
15.0
20.0
Content
(%)
\•tnisture-Density Curve Displayed: Fine fraction ® Corrected forOveniae Fraction (AS•TM D4718) ❑
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: 04 Sieve ® 3M inch Sicvc ❑ 314 inch Sieve ❑
Mechanical Ramener ❑ Manual Rummer ® N]oist Preparation © Dry Pre atution ❑
Referenem I Comamms/Deviations: ND=Not Determined:
ASTPI D a?'': Particle Size Analvsis of Soils
ASTM l) 2316; 1•ahnr:uom. Dvumninaliun ol'1Vutcr iMoisturo Canleat of Soil taxi Bock by 4toss
AS'fA3 1) (Je]li: Lahorwory Conilmoiun Characiciisiics ol'Soil Using Slundlsd lillim
Brian D. Keanek, PE ..Wan 0.3 Sr. Gemechnicai Engineer 31141'2f)I I
Tertfive(f Reximmihrlur S:gftr:rnr, pnsiOD11 1>err
7bes rrf +rr rhoU Ant h.! n!pmi;Grc¢/e. exc epl in frrN, %--ahnnr The vrWra Airi• llf.
S&AfE.lrre. - Corlwate 32W Spring Forest Rand 4.6 S-1 fl - 10 fit 1'rocrovx4
RaMe gh. k'C.: 7616 Page 1 of 1

farm No. TR-D2116-T263-2
fl !?evrsinn Ib'o.
Revision > o. 0 OJ22io� Laboratory Determination of Water Content
4STX1 D 22 b Cf ,)ASIITO T 26 ❑
!A'EL'7171;
Quality Aswrance
S&ME, Inc. Raleigh, 3201. Spring Forest Road, Raleigh, Nortb Carolina 27616
Project #: 1431-11-104 Report Date: 3114111
Project Name: Gruy's Creel: Medical Building Test Date(s): 3/12 - 3/14/1 1
Client Name: Southeasteni Regional Medical Center
CI lent ,address: 300 W. 271h Street, Lumberton, NC 28358
Sample by: S&ME Sample Uate(s): 3/9)'I 1
Sampling klcthod: Borehole Drill Rig : NA
Method: A (1%) ❑ B (0.1%) Q liedemce 10. f024 CedibrnNarl ' care: 1114110
If 1
' 11 1Tare•
1 I
_
wet Wt
1
1
1 .-
Notes / Devialiont 1 Rrfetancar
AAS14TQ T 265: Labof'atory Determination of .'Ooisture Content of Sails
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination Cf'Ar'ater(MolStute) Content of Soil and Rock by glass
Jeff Riddle NA
1'rrlrnlcran I�'uula GXrrnrurr Chif%rruliw� l i fir �'u. !Ju1r
Brian D. I(eanev. PE r?ilxialt ix Sr. Geotechnical l;3'14r2011
l'rrh;fi[ol Hralrprr�ibrlNi' Signorwr Pns&iuu !hnr
1'bm ewP14 ibalr nor be repr'odisce.y. rxcep in full. wJ1110141 1nr 11 mien oppnmvl njS\4,WE. Inr,
SNA-.'E. 1nr. - C.orportrfe 3201 Spring rores! Road Adristure Tab?e.As
Raleigh.,VC. 27616 Page , of 1

March 9, 2012
Moorman, Kizer & Reitzel, Inc.
115 13roadfoot Avenue — P.O. Box 53774
Fayetteville, NC 28305
Attention: Mr. Ron Williams, P.E.
Reference: Soil Evaluation & Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) Estimation
Gray's Creek Medical Center
1-10pe Mills, Cumberland County, North Carolina
SRME Project No. 1054-12-087
Dear Mr. Williams:
S&ME, [tic. (S&MH) has conducted a soil evaluation including Seasonal High Water "fable
(SI-IW-1) estimation in general accordance with S&ME Proposal No. 11044-12V dated February
24, 2012. Our evaluation was conducted to review the site and soil conditions for the
conversion ofan existing temporary storimvater 13MP to a permanent wet detention basin. A
soil scientist evaluated the soil conditions adjacent to the existing stormwatcr 13M1'.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Gray's Creek Medical Center is located at 1249 Chickenfoot Road, in Hope Mills, NC. The
site location and proposed wet detention basin location is shown on the attached USGS
"topographic Map (Figure 1), USDA-NRCS Cumberland County Soil Survey map (Figure 2).
and Color Aerial Map (Figure 3). As it result of the construction and impervious surfaces, the use
of a wet detention basin is currently being considered in Girder to comply with State storn-twater
manaLelllent 1t(IllilClllellis. Use ofstorrllwater 13MP's are sub ect to the sultability of soils on -site
and regulatory Approval. Regulatory guidance on recluiremeints filr permitting of stormwatcr
RMP's are provided in the North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Stormwater Best
Management Practices Manual (NCDI?NR-SW-I3MP), dated July 2007 (Revised September,
2009).
FINDINGS
The Soil CValliatiOn was periornled with hand auger borings at filar different locations adjacent
to (lie existing temporary stormwatcr 13MP as shown on the attached Fit ure 4. Our evaluation
consisted of identifying and recording the soil morphological conditions at those locations in
order to develop soil profile descriptions, which are also shown on the attachcd Figure 4.
SWE, INC. / 3201 Spring Forest Road 1 Raleigh, NC 27616 1 p 919.872.2660 1919.876.3956 / www.smeinc.com

Soil Evaluation for Stormwater Wet Detention Basin S&ME Job No. 1054-12-087
Gray's Creek Medical Center, Hope Mills, North Carolina March 9, 2012
SHWT Estimation & OWT Measurement
Under current NCDWQ regulations, the depth ofvarious stormwater BMP devices from the
SI-IWT is an important design consideration. Current regulations for wet detention basins
require that the permanent pool elevation shall be no more than six inches above or below the
SHWT in order to maintain a permanent pool of water and to avoid doing a hydrogeologic
analysis.
Therefore, S&ME evaluated the SHWT by advancing hand auger borings and evaluating; the
soil for evidence of SI-IWT influence. This evaluation involved looking at the actual moisture
content in the soil and observing, the matrix and mottle colors. Depending; oil the soil texture,
the soil color will indicate processes that are driven by SHWT fluctuations, such as iron
reduction and oxidation and organic matter staining. Please note that these SI-IWT evaluations
by soil indicators are based on secondary evidence and not on direct groundwater level
measurements.
In addition, S&ME recorded the observed water table (OWT) level where possible. '['he OWT
was measured as the static water level in each of the temporary hand auger boring locations.
See Table l and the soil profile descriptions on Figure =4 for tile estimated seasonal high water
table depths based on soil saturation and measured OWT depths. It should be noted that the
static water level/OWT measured in the auger holes is a measurement of the water table at that
moment and does not represent in average water level or the highest point at which tile water
table may rise to. Furthermore, it is expected that groundwater elevations in the study area will
likely be influenced by factors such as precipitation, and proximity to surface water
discharge/recharge features.
Please note that Boring l was performed on top of the existing, fill material, not native soil, that
was used to construct the berm ofthe existing temporary stormwater BMP and therelorc, we
NVe1'e unable to estimale the SHWTat this location, however an observed water table (OWT)
reading was provided for this location. In addition, Borings 1-3 all had soil characteristics that
indicated a Si-IWT less than 12 inches from the natural ground surfitce and Boring d had ground
water at the surface.
Table I below shows the sviW I and UW r depths fronh existing grOLlnd level 601- the fOUr
boring locations.
Table 1: SHWT and OWT Information
Boring
Location
SHWi_
inches below Existin� GroundLevel
:.,(inches below Existing Ground Level)
B-1
NIA
60
B-2
<12
12
B-3
<12
NIA
B-4
0
0

Soil Evaluation for Stormwater Wet Detention Basin S&ME Job No. 1054-12-087
Gray's Creek Medical Center, Hope Mills, North Carolina March 9, 2012
CONCLUSION
Based on our observations regarding; the SHWT' and OWT at the four boring locations, the
permanent pool elevation of the wet detention basin should be +/- 6 inches from the existing
ground level elevation located adjacent to the existing temporary stormwater BMP.
LIMITATIONS
• Data only from hand auger borings, where performed, and conditions may vary in other
areas of the basin.
• A significant amount ofcutting and tilling; across the site has resulted in the alteration
of the soil conditions.
CLOSURE
S&M1', appreciates the opportunity to provide these services to you. II'you have any questions,
please contact Lis.
Sincerely,
/12
1_:nvironmental Scientist
[phone]
wcole uismcinc.com
s
Rob Willcox, I,.S.S.
Natural Resources Services Leader
Attachments: t igure 1: USGS 'topographic Site Map
k ig;ure ?: USDA-NRCS Cumberland County Soil Survey Map
Figure 3 Color Aerial Map
Figure 4: Sti�rmwater BMP - Soil 1-;valuation Map
S:1Projects\EnvironmentaH1054-1 M871Gray's Creek Medical CenterL orrnwater soil evaWation.doc

MAP SOURCE: MY TOPO TERRAIN NAVIGATOR; USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAPS; MAP EDITION 4.0
SCALE: 1 . i ,0ao FIGURE N0.
"":: S&ME
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
MARCH 2012 HOPE MILLS QUADRANGLE 1DRAWN BY: WC
WWW.SMEINC.COM GRAYS CREEK MEDICAL CENTER - STORMWATER
PROJECT NO: NC ENGINEER LICENSE#F-0176 1249 CHICKENFOOT ROAD, CUMBERLAND CO., NC
1054-12-087 3201 SPRING FOREST RD, RALEIGH, NC 27616

MAP SOURCE: USDA-NRCS PERSON COUNTY SOIL SURVEY MAP;1995
SCALE: 1:2 06p FIGURE N0.
DATE: MARCH 2O12 � M
� UMBERL N SOIL SURVEY MAP
CUMBER!_AND COUNTY; SHEET 17 2
DRAWN BY: we
WWW.SMEINC.COM GRAY'S CREEK MEDICAL CENTER - STORMWATER
PROJECTNO: NC ENGINEER LICENSE #F-0176 1249 CHICKENFOOT ROAD, CkJMBERLAND CO. NC
1054-12-087 3201 SPRING FOREST RD. RALEIGH, NC 27616

• 4� � �t� fil'��,s�y'41�j�4Q)h ��1'41 Tf�`j�. + �f : '�` _
1= Jl
?' ` moo'ow _
° u �-+ r' ��''+. .1 � ` ` � � �� �^f� x � ems„' s' s v �� � h �. [ ' � •�
��ir�!•>••1'� � a f ' f ") �. i�' '��� 4.� �:'� � ? � � "J�a�!:'"'P";1r� �'�'r•(?'� ��{�'`��c.
� may �� .rt4 1� ' `� j� ,.� �(.' � i • i i�� V {J7�ti tir_ f ��. ,' '.�7 �.i.,A f i a f
4` �7$ ` � � �' ~.�[. r ra�a . �'�.r f ` � � _ � - � � �A•� f � 't!; Ld `fitr ., yyi'��y�� ' awl w4;
�{\Jj4fq {.[ 3 \h� r I itH�a7 i �71 1 rot'�j�i el�.
�j:4,i�'f��,SS?u ,�v'�.I • D ���,j,.,+;�� ; , �� r.
g
ab Ni
.i �' z!&��. •�r � ♦ f �s �'$4 �f{••b.s. � 'L�;, �'(�'``�l +�`yM�'" 'L yy� '�r{�,+�v '.�.:
�y ��, �' ♦ i�'� � t�.s{;i." �Gqy� �� 2' {r rr 7`}1"?7i� i 'F°,. 1 �;;`� '' ii�
••,`WIS'?1� zyPWk- 'S 4 ' �1� C sy�Slii-j�r. ?�• 4 T _ �". �� ln;.
,. '�1�E�{t. �r.u•M�• ��' , �4. .�,'• .ti �'•T`Ka���''r �-S".Ir� i1 din S �''``�
"I43,
F, ta
Lft
. ��. �xX I. � ��� �ffJ44•�A�4� ' .µ1 + Y � �� ��y� 1,/a- •. t'~
'� -• ;. _ .;� `.. .} y y i,� if �i rlt� :y,,•i.?tiel�.' L6t'k 5'fi]f ti .�!'y a�
[.� 5 4 d v��.0 v J 1 t� �.1�'� M, •� r �
• ��' :� � 5!fts ��, ',5' , `"_ ' � ;��Pj ��'�'•�;,�'w;�� t is � � t °� '~`-�" ��+ i ti �r��',5',
Al�.
Ilk,
��+i�`7f� - 1i�. d r'�Y, 4�� � �.i* , y��.^ �1�! � � •�•'�5� • t -� .; �
41.' �r.Q•` �iw s _•�... ,.a'�'�4�� 'hy?�"k �•1-)��!(�_3�'�i d4i".�+� _
i ilts``�r't�}f' STh �.i�� �..�. .. f"�. - - - ��rh��}�_. _ •,tom •��i•�•':1. itR �� '�'�I - .- ,4�1a�

0

46
unit are irregular in shape and range from 5 acres to
more than 80 acres in size.
Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown
loamy sand 4 inches thick. The subsurface layer is
yellowish brown loamy sand 5 inches thick. The subsoil
is 51 inches thick. The upper part is yellowish red sandy
clay loam, the middle part is red sandy clay loam, and
the lower part is yellowish red sandy clay loam, The
underlying material to a depth of 73 inches is reddish
yellow sandy loam.
Permeability is moderately slow in the upper part of
the subsoil and slow in the lower part. Reaction ranges
from extremely acid through strongly acid in all horizons,
except where the surface has been limed. The hazard of
erosion is severe where the soil is exposed.
Included with this soil in mapping are areas of a soil
that is eroded and has a surface layer of gravelly loamy
sand. Also included are more clayey Gilead soils and
sandier Blaney and Candor soils. These included soils
make up less than 20 percent of most mapped areas.
Most areas of this soil are in woodland. A small
acreage is in pasture or in cultivated crops.
Vaucluse soil is poorly suited to growing cultivated
crops. The main limitation is susceptibility to erosion. If
this soil is used for row crops, such practices as
minimum tillage, contour farming, striperopping, grassed
waterways, crop residue management, and including
grasses and legumes in the cropping system help to
reduce runoff and to control erosion.
This soil is suited to grasses and legumes for hay and
pasture. Using this soil for pasture is a good way of
controlling erosion.
This soil is suited to loblolly pine. The dominant trees
are loblolly pine, longleaf pine, white oak, and red oak.
The main understory includes dogwood, sourwood, holly,
and threeawn.
This soil is suited to most urban and recreational uses.
Slope is a limitation to building site development. Erosion
from areas where the soil has been disturbed can be a
problem. To help prevent this, vegetative cover must be
established as soon after soil disturbance as possible.
This soil has severe limitations for onsite sewage
disposal. The restricting factors are slow permeability of
the brittle layer in the subsoil and steepness of slope,
This soil is in capability subclass IVe and woodland
suitability group 3o.
VgE—Vaucluse-Gilead loamy sands, 15 to 25
percent slopes. This map unit consists of areas of
Vaucluse soil and Gilead soil on long, narrow side
slopes of uplands. This unit is most extensive in the
northern and western parts of Cumberland and Hoke
Counties. Individual areas of this unit are long and
narrow in shape and range from 5 acres to more than 40
acres in size. These two soils are so intricately mixed
and so similar in use and management that they were
not separated in mapping. This unit consists of about 40
Soil Survey
percent Vaucluse soil, 35 percent Gilead soil, and 25
percent soils of minor extent.
Typically. Vaucluse soil has a surface layer of dark
grayish brown loamy sand 4 inches thick. The
subsurface layer is yellowish brown loamy sand 5 inches
thick. The subsoil is 51 inches thick. It is yellowish red
sandy clay loam in the upper part, red sandy clay loam
in the middle part, and yellowish red sandy clay loam in
the lower part. The underlying material to a depth of 73
inches is reddish yellow sandy loam.
Typically, Gilead soil has a surface layer of dark gray
loamy sand 4 inches thick. The subsurface layer is light
yellowlsh brown loamy sand 9 inches thick. The subsoil
to a depth of 70 inches is brownish yellow sandy clay In
the upper part; mottled strong brown, brownish yellow,
and light gray sandy clay in the middle part; and reddish
yellow sandy loam in the lower part.
Permeability of Vaucluse and Gilead soils is
moderately slow to slow. Available water capacity is low
to medium. Reaction ranges from extremely acid through
strongly acid in all horizons, except where the surface
has been limed. The hazard of erosion is severe where
the soil is exposed. A perched water table is above the
brittle layers in the subsoil for brief periods during wet
seasons.
Included with these soils in mapping are small areas of
sandier Blaney and Candor soils and small areas similar
to Vaucluse and Gilead soils, except for the gravelly
surface layer. Also included are small seep areas where
water draining from the uplands comes to the surface.
This unit has numerous areas where the soil mass has
slipped downslope. This has exposed short, vertical
walls consisting of massive, gray clay. These vertical
faces typically are less than 15 feet high.
Nearly all areas of this unit are in native woodland,
mostly loblolly pine, oaks, and hickories.
These soils are suited to hardwood and pine. The
dominant trees are loblolly pine, longleaf pine, while oak,
and southern red oak. The main understory includes
dogwood, sourwood, holly, and threeawn.
These soils are poorly suited to farming and to urban
and recreational uses. Slope and slow permeability are
the main limitations.
These soils are in capability subclass Vie and
woodland suitability group 3o.
WaB--Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes.
This well drained soil is on broad, smooth flats and side
slopes of uplands. It is throughout the survey area.
Individual areas of this unit are irregular in shape and
range from 5 to 300 acres in size.
Typically, the surface layer is grayish brown loamy
sand 8 inches thick. The subsurface layer is pale brown
loamy sand 17 inches thick. The subsoil to a depth of 72
inches is yellowish brown sandy clay loam.
Permeability is moderately rapid, and available water
capacity is low to medium. Reaction is very strongly acid

Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina
or strongly acid throughout the soil, except where the
surface has been limed.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
sandier Autryville and Candor soils and Fuquay soils,
which contain more than 5 percent plinthite in the
subsoil. Also included are small areas of less sandy
Norfolk and Faceviile soils and Goldsboro soils, which
are wetter and less sandy. Typically, only two or three of
these included soils are in any one mapped area, and
they make up less than 20 percent of most delineations.
Most areas of this soil are in cultivated crops. The rest
are in pasture or woodland.
Wagram soil is suited to cultivated crops, such as
corn, soybeans, tobacco, and truck crops or to grasses
and legumes for hay and pasture. If this soil is used for
cultivated crops, minimum tillage, crop residue
management, winter cover crops, and windbreaks can be
used to control wind erosion, to reduce leaching of plant
nutrients, and to conserve moisture.
This soil is suited to loblolly pine, longleaf pine, white
oak, southern red oak, and hickory. The main understory
includes dogwood, sassafras, and waxmyrtle.
This soil is well suited to most urban uses. Because of
droughtiness, landscape management commonly
includes frequent applications of fertilizer and irrigation
water during long, dry periods. This soil is suited to most
recreational uses. The thick, sandy surface layer can
limit some types of recreational uses.
This soil is in capability subclass lls and woodland
suitability group 3s.
WgB—Wagram-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent
slopes. This map unit consists of areas of Wagram soil
and areas of Urban land that are too small and too
intermingled to be mapped separately. About 40 to 50
percent of the unit is Wagram soil and about 30 to 40
percent is Urban land. This map unit is most extensive in
and around the city of Fayetteville. Mapped areas are 10
acres to more than 250 acres in size and are irregular in
shape.
Typically, Wagram soil has a surface layer of grayish
brown loamy sand 8 inches thick. The subsurface layer
is pale brown loamy sand 17 inches thick. The subsoil to
a depth of 72 inches is yellowish brown sandy clay loam.
Permeability is moderately rapid, and available water
capacity is low to medium. Reaction is very strongly acid
or strongly acid throughout the soil, except where the
surface has been limed.
Urban land consists of areas where the original soil
has been covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, or
other impervious surfaces. Slope is modified to fit the
site and commonly ranges from 0 to 4 percent.
Included in this unit are small areas of Autryville and
Candor soils, which are sandier than Wagram soil, and
small areas of Norfolk and Faceville soils, which are less
sandy than Wagram soil. Also included are small areas
of Fuquay soils, which contain more than 5 percent
EVA
plinthite in the subsoil. Some delineations contain small
areas of the wetter, less sandy Goldsboro soils, which
usually are in small depressions. These included soils
make up 10 to 20 percent of most mapped areas.
Undeveloped areas of this soil are being converted to
urban uses very rapidly. This map unit is well suited to
most urban and recreational uses. Because of
droughtiness, landscape management commonly
includes frequent applications of fertilizer and irrigation
water during long, dry periods. The thick, sandy surface
layer can limit some types of recreational uses.
This unit has not been assigned to a capability
subclass or a woodland suitability group.
WmB—Wickham fine sandy loam, t to 6 percent
slopes. This well drained soil is on slightly convex ridges
of stream terraces along the Cape Fear River, Lower
Little River, and Rockfish Creek. This soil is in
Cumberland County. Individual areas of this unit are
generally long and narrow in shape and parallel to the
stream channel. Mapped areas range from 5 to 50 acres
in size.
Typically, the surface layer is dark brown fine sandy
loam 7 inches thick. The subsoil is 39 inches thick. It is
red sandy clay loam in the upper part and yellowish red
sandy loam in the lower part. The underlying material to
a depth of 80 inches is yellowish red loamy sand in the
upper part and strong brown sand in the lower part.
Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity
is medium. Reaction ranges from very strongly acid
through medium acid in all horizons, except where the
surface has been limed. The hazard of erosion is
moderate. Wickham soil is subject to rare flooding.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
sandier Tarboro soils; wetter Altavista soils; and wetter,
more clayey Dogue, Roanoke, and Wahee soils. Tarboro
soils are on higher ridges, Altavista and Dogue soils are
in slight depressions, and Roanoke and Wahee soils are
along drainageways. These included soils make up less
than 20 percent of most mapped areas.
Most areas of this soil are in cultivated crops or
pasture, and the rest are mostly in woodland. A few
small areas are urban.
Wickham soil is well suited to growing cultivated crops,
such as corn, soybeans, tobacco, and small grains, or to
grasses and legumes for hay and pasture. Susceptibility
to erosion is the main limitation. Minimum tillage, winter
cover crops, striperopping, field borders, farming on the
contour, and crop residue management help to reduce
surface runoff and maintain tilth. The use of this soil for
pasture maintains constant cover and is a good way to
reduce erosion.
This soil is well suited to hardwoods and pines. The
dominant trees are loblolly pine, red maple, hickory,
yellow -poplar, black tupelo, American elm, American
beech, southern red oak, water oak, and white oak. The

Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina 145
TABLE 14.--ENGINEERING INDEX PROPERTIES --Continued
---
'�'
-`-i-
lassiiica oii n,Frag--T-----Pe�cT'age passing -?-_--
Soil name and
;Depth; USDA
texture
;
;ments
; sieve number--
;Liquid ;
Plas-
map symbol
; ;
; Unified
; AASHTO ;
S 3
_
7�`-T -T
; limit ;
ticity
�
;inches; 4 ; 10 ; 4200
, ' ,
Index
In
Pet t
; -- ; --�T-0
_
; P e t ;
TR**:
Lynn Haven ------
; 0-15;Sand-------------
;SP,
SP-SM,;A-3,
0
; 100 ; 100 180-100; 2-14
---
NP
;
; SM
; A-2-4
;15-56;Sand,
fine sand
;SM,
SP-SM
;A-3, ;
0
; 100 ; 100 ;70-100; 5-20
--- ;
NP
; A-2-4
; '
156-801Sand,
fine sand
ISP,
SP-SM
;A-3, ;
0
; 100 ; 1CC ;80-100; 2-12
; --- ;
NP
A-2-4
Ud**.
Udorthents
Ur**.
Urban land
Vas, VaD---------
; 0-9 ;Loamy
sand-------
;SM,
SP-SM
;A-2, A-3 ;
0-5
190-100;90-10C;51-75 ; 8-30
; ---
NP
Vaucluse
; 9-25;Sandy
clay loam,
;SC,
SM-SC
;A-2, A-4,;
0-5
190-100;90-100;57-75 ;25-50
; 20-40 ;
5-18
; sandy
loam.
; A-6
;25-50;Sandy
clay loam,
;SC,
SM-SC,;A-2,
A-4,;
0-5
195-100:92-100;51-80 ;20-50
; <40
NP-20
sandy
loam,
; SM
; A-6 ;
sandy
clay.
;50-73;Sandy
loam,. sandy:SM,
SC,
;A-2, A-4,;
0-2
;95-100;95-100;51-90 ;15-50
<30 ;
NP-12
i ; clay
loam, loamy;
SM-SC
; A-6
sand.
VgE**=
Vaucluse--------;
0-9 ;Loamy
sand-------
;SM,
SP-SM
;A-2, A-3
0-5
;90-100;90-100;51-75 ; 8-30
; --- ;
NP
9-25;Sandy
clay loam,
;SC,
SM-SC
iA-2, A-4,;
0-5
:90-100:90-100151-75 ;25-50
20-40 ;
5-18
; sandy
loam.
;
; A-6
i i i
k ;
25-50;Sandy
clay loam,
;SC,
SM-SC,;A-2,
A-4,;
0-5
:95-100:92-100;51-80 ;20-50
; <40 ;
NP-20
sandy
loam,
; SM
; A-6
Sandy
clay.
:5C-73;Sandy
loam, sandy;SM,
SC,
;A-2, A-4,;
0-2
195-100:95-100;51-9C ;15-50
; <30 ;
NP-12
clay
loam, loamy;
5M-5C
; A-6
sand.
Gilead----------;
0-13:Loamy
sand -------
;SP-SM, SM
;A-2 ;
0-5
190-100;75-100;55-85 �10-35
; --- ;
NP
113-32;Sandy
clay, clay
;SC,
CL
;A-6, A-7
0-5
195-100185-iC0;75-98 ;45-80
; 30-44 ;
18-30
loam,
clay.
132-70;Sandy
loam, sandy;SC,
CL
;A-2, A-6
0-5
;95-100;85-100170-98 ;30-60
20-35
11-20
clay
loam.
WaB--------------
: 0-25;Loamy
sand-------
;SM,
SP-SM
:A-2, A-3 i
0
; 100 :98-100;50-85 ; 8-35
; --- ;
NP
Wagram
;25-72;Sandy
clay loam,
;SC
;A-2, A-4,;
0
; 100 :98-100160-95 131-49
; 21-41 ;
8-25
sandy
loam.
;
; A-6, A-7;
WgB**:
Wagram----------;
0-25;Loamy
sand-------
;SM,
SP-SM
;A-2, A-3 ;
0
; 100 :98-100;50-85 ; 8-35
; --- ;
NP
;25-72;Sandy
clay loam,
;SC
;A-2, A-4,;
0
; 100 ;98-100;60-95 :31-49
; 21-41 ;
8-25
sandy
loam.
;
; A-6, A-7;
Urban land.
WmB--------------; 0-7 ;Fine sandy
loam
;SM,
SM-SC,;A-4
0
;95-100;90-10D;70-100:45-80
; <25 ;
NP-7
Wickham
; ;
; ML,
CL-ML;
7-46;Sandy
clay loam,
;CL-ML, CL,;A-2,
A-4,;
0
i95-100;90-100;75-100:30-70
; 20-41 ;
5-15
clay
loam, sandy;
SC,
SM-SC; A-6,
loam.
A-7-6
;
;46-80;Variable-
WnB**•
Wickham---------; 0-7 ;Fine sandy
loam
;SM,
SM-SC,;A-4
;
0
;95-100;90-100;70-100:45-80
; <25 ;
NP-7
; ML,
CL-ML;
;
;
; 7-46;Sandy
clay loam,
;CL-ML, CL,;A-2,
A-4,;
0
;95-10D;90-100:75-100;30-70
: 20-41
5-15
clay
loam, sandy;
SC,
SM-SC; A-6,
loam
.
:
; A-7-6
146-80:Variable---------'
See footnote at end of table.

150
TABLE 15.--PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS --Continued
Soil survey
---i
----
r- ----- ro�Yo s l o n----
-r------
Soil name and ;
Depth
; Permeability
;Available; Soil
1 Shrink -swell
; factors
�- ��
1 Organic
map symbol
1
1 water ;reaction; potential
;
; matter
_
;capacity
i
i K -�--
T -
Tn
; In%hr
; In/in ; PH',�
Pet
TRO;
1
Lynn Haven------;
0-15
6.0-20
;0.05-0.1013.6-5.5
;Low------------
; 0.10 ;
5 ; 1-4
15-56
; 0.6-6.0
10.10-0.20;3.6-5.5
;Low------------
; 0.15
56-80
; >20
;0.01-0.0513.6-5.5
;Low------------
0.10
Udl.
;
Udorthents
Ur'.
,
Urban land
VaB, VaD---------1
0-9
i 6.0-20
;0.04-0.0814.5-6.0
1Low------------
0.15 1
3 ; <1
Vaueluse ;
9-25
; 0.6-6.0
;0.10-0.1513.6-5.5
;Low------------
0.24
25-50
; o.06-o.6
;0.04-0.0813.E-5.5
;Low------------
; 0.24
;
50-73
2.0-6.0
10.04-0.0813.6-5.5
1Low------------
1 0.17 ;
VgE*:
Vaucluse--------1
0-9
6.0-20
10.04-0.08:4.5-6.0
;Low------------
; 0.15 1
3 1 <1
;
9-25
1 0.6-6.0
;0.10-0.1513.6-5.5
1Low------------
; 0.24
1
25-50
1 0.06-0.6
10.04-0.OB13.6-5.5
;Low------------
1 0.24 ;
50-73
1 2.0-6.0
;0.04-0.0813.6-5.5
1Low------------
; 0.17 1
Gilead ---------- 1
0-13
1 2.0-6.0
10.05-0.0914.5-5.5
;Low------------
,
1 0.17 1
3 1 .5-1
1
13-32
1 0.06-0.6
10.12-0.1614.5-5.5
;Low------------
0,28
;
1
32-70
1 0.2-0.6
10.10-0.13:4.5-5.5
;Low------------
0.24
1
;
1
WeB--------------1
0-25
1
1 6.0-20
10.05-0.0814.5-6.0
;Low------------
; 0.15 1
5 1 .5-2
Wagram 1
25-72
1 0.6-2.0
;0.12-0.1614.5-6.0
1Low------------
0.20
WOO:
,
Wagram----------1
0-25
; 6.0-20
10.05-0.08:4.5-6.0
:Low------------
; 0.15 I
5 1 .5-2
25-72
; 0.6-2.0
;0.12-0.1614.5-6.0
;Low------------
; 0.20
Urban land.
,
WmB-------------- 1
0-7
; 2.0-6.0
,
10.11-0.16;4.5-6.0
;Low------------
; 0.24 ;
5 1 .5-2
Wickham 1
7-46
0.6-2.0
;0.12-0.1714.5-6.0
!Low------------
1 C.24 1
;
1
46-80
1 ___
1 --- 1---
1---------------
WnB*:
Wickham---------1
0-7
2.0-6.0
10.11-0.16;4.5-6.0
1Low------------
1 0.24 1
5 ; .5-2
7-46
; 0.6-2.0
10.12-C.1714.5-6.0
;Low------------
i 0.24
1
46-80
; ---
,
1 --- ; ---
1---------------
Urban land.
,
We --------------- 1
0-11
1 6.0-20
,
10.06-0.1113.6-5.5
1Low------------
0.10 1
5 2-4
Woodington ;
11-28
1 2.0-6.0
;0.10-0.15;3.6-5.5
;Low------------
; 0.20
28-65
1 2.0-20
;0.06-0.15;3.6-5.5
;Low------------
1 0.10
• See description of the map unit for composition and behavior characteristics of the map unit.

CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream Subbasin Stream Index Number Map Number Class
Fish Creek
CPF07
18-14
F23NW6
wS-IV
Fishing Creek
CPF23
18-74-35
I27SE5
C;Sw
Fishing Creek
CPF23
18-74-59
J27SW4
C;Sw
Fishing Creek
CPF17
18-88-1-4-1
L27NW1
SC;Sw,HQW
Fishing Creek
CPF17
18-88-8-4-1
L27SW2
SA;HQW
Flat Creek
CPF09
17-24
E20SE5
C
Flat Creek
CPF14
18-23-15
G22NW7
WS-III
Flat Swamp
CPF23
16-74-33-4-1-2
I28S84
C;Sw
Flat Swamp Ditch
CPF15
16-28-1-1
G23SE2
C
Flyrod Lake
CPF14
16-23-4
F21SW9
WS-III
Folkner Branch
CPF05
16-41-3-(1)
D23SW7
WS-IV;NSW
Folkner Branch
CPF05
16-41-3-(2)
D23SW7
WS-IV;NSW,CA
Fork Creek
CPF09
17-25
E20SW4
C
Foust Creek
CPF04
16-28-4
D21NW9
WS-V;NSW
Fox Grape Branch
CPF17
18-64-IS-2
J25SW5
C;Sw
Frank Creek
CPF02
16-IB-2-1
C22NW1
WS-II;HQW,NSW
Free Will Creek
CPF19
18-6B-3-2
H26SW7
C;Sw
Frenches Creek )Frenches Creek Swamp)
CPF16
18-55
J25NE1
WS-IV
Frenches Creek (Frenches Creek Swamp)
CPF20
18-55
725NE1
WS-IV
Fussell Mill Branch
CPF22
18-74-29-2.5
H26SEB
C;Sw
Futch Creek
CPF24
18-87-19
J27SEG
SA;HQW
Gabriels Creek
CPF09
17-14
E19NE3
C
Gaddy Branch
CPF19
18-68-2-16
H25SE5
C;Sw
Gapway Creek
CPF17
18-64-2
K26NW1
C;Sw
Gapway Swamp
CPF17
1B-64-2-1
K26NW1
C;Sw
Gardners Branch
CPF13
18-20-32
F23SE6
WS-IV
Garrett Branch
CPF05
16-41-1-3
D22NE1
WS-V;NSW
Gastors Creek
CPF13
18-20-5
F22NW6
C
George Brown Branch
CPF17
18-66-6-1
J26SW6
C;Sw
Georges Creek
CPF11
17-41
E21SE3
C
Georgia Branch (Prospect Hall Creek)
CPF16
18-38
H23SE4
WS-IV
Gibsons Creek (Gibson Creek)
CPF14
18-23-28
G23NW5
C
Giffords Branch
CPF22
18-74-19-17
G27SW6
C;Sw
Giles Creek
CPF01
16-9
B20SEB
WS-V;NSW
Gillmore Swamp
CPF19
18-68-2-3
G25SE2
C;Sw
Glady Creek
CPF01
16-6-1-(1)
B20SW4
WS-III,B;NSW
Glady Creek
CPF01
16-6-1-(2)
B20SW4
WS-III,B;NSW,CA
Glenwood Creek
CPF02
16-11-14-2-2
C19SE5
WS-V;NSW
Godfrey Creek
CPF23
18-74-49-1
J28NW7
C;SW
Gold Mine Branch
CPF10
17-28-2
F20NE3
C
Goodland Branch
CPF17
16-81-8
K26NES
C;Sw
Goshen Swamp
CPF22
16-74-19
025NE6
C;Sw
Governors Creek
CPF17
16-68-1-4
K27SW7
SC;Sw,HQW
Grape Branch
CPF22
18-74-19-18
027SW6
C;SW
Grassy Creek
CPF10
17-25.5
F20NE1
C
Graveyard Creek
CPF23
18-74-43
J27NEI
C;Sw
Grays Branch
CPF02
16-14-2
B21SW7
WS-II;HQW,NSW
Grays Creek
CPF15
18-35-(2)
H23NE4
wS-IV
Grays Creek (Rainey Pond, Rainbow Pond)
CPF15
18-35-(1)
H23NE4
B
Great Branch (Hussey Pond)
CPF21
18-74-11
G27NE8
C;Sw
Great Coharie Creek (Blackmans Pond)
CPF19
18-68-1
G25NW2
C;Sw
Green Channel
CPF24
18-87-16
J28SW4
SA;ORW
Green Oak Creek
CPF23
18-74-44
727NE2
C;Sw
Page 10 of 31 2010-01-30 07:24716

LEGEND
134 APPROXIMATE SOIL AUGER BORING LOCATION
® WITH ASSOCIATED PROFILE DESCRIPTION ABOVE
THIS MAP IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGEMER VV H THAT REPORT
'BACKGROUND AUTOCAD MAP FROM FILE SUPPLIED BY MOORMAN. MZER 6 REITZEL NAMED URGEMTCARE strnwAwDetdwp
Gray's Creel{ Medical Center
S&ME Projtict No.1064-12.087
i Bodrig-1
Color
depth
Moist
Wet
Horizon
(In)
(Matrix)
(Moutes)
Texture
Grade
Structure
Consistancy
Consistancy
Notes
sandy
loam !
ntin•siitky,
All material thaas used to
t w
fill.
0-52
5YR 516
sandy
mascrve
Friable - very
firm
; non -plastic -
va etic
conirucs the berm of the
clay login
very tiles{ c'
sior.water 8MP
! cla
Al
52-62,
10YR T11
sandy
weak
granular
&iablaj,,,n
non-sticky,
saturated soil @ 66'
aoem
n- tic
A2
82-72+
10YR 211
sandy
weak
granular
[dableon-sticky;
wood debris, -organic manor
.loflm
an- antic
rcoating sand grains
-��
€- i-
Observed Water Table from NGLa
60
inches -
{S feet }_
---�--
-I
Boring2
Color
Depth,
Moist
Wet
Horizon
(In)
(Matrix)
{Mottles)
Texture
Grade
Structure
Consistency
Conalstancy
Notes
Al
0 B
10YR 2/1
sandy
weak
granular
friable
non -sticky,
saturated soil
loam
non antic
A2
8 18
2.5Y 3!3
sandy
week
granular
friable
non -sticky,
saturated Boll
loam
fro astir
sandy
granular -
8tg1
16-30+
2.5Y 5/2
loam
weak
subangular
friable
non -sticky,
sandy
bl ky
non -plastic
clay loam
T
Seaa�o an I Hlgh Water Table from NGL:j
412 _
12 linches
inches
Ili
I (<.1 toot
foot I-F
Observed Water Table from NGL:j
—
--
-- - - -
Boring 31
Horizon
Dept){
(in}
Color
Texture
Grade
Structure
Moist
Consistancy
Wet
Consititang
Notes
(Matrix)
(Mottles)
Al
0-6
10YR 211
candy
loam
weak
granular
friable
non -sticky,
non - antic
A2
6-10
2.5Y 313
sandy .
loam
was
granular
friable
non sticky,
non-pisstir
Bt91
10.24+
10YR 711
clay
massive
wry firm
wry sticky;
w � antic .
expansive clay mineralogy
Sedeanal Hlgh Water Table from NGL:
„ _ <12
lnchei
(< t foot)
-
--
--
Boring 4-
- --
Color
- -
Depth
Moist
Wet
Horizon
i (€n)
iMatrixlFtua].)Texture
Grade
Structure
Consistancy
Consist2ney
Notes.
At
0-8
10YR 211'
sandy
weak
granular
friable
non-slicky,
saturated at ground surface,
loam
non astir
evidence of iron oxidizing bacteria
Btgt
8-24+
2.5Y 512
1OR 418
sandy
clay loam
week
granular -
subanguter
friable - firm
slightly sticky,
slightly plastic
oxidized mizosperes
blocky
La aoa�iraI High Water Table from NGL:
K12
Inches
(< 1 foot)
Observed Water Table from NGL:
0
Inches
(at ground lovely _
w LU
m Q In
N
LLi z , z
0 w o
U Z K T
cn tL Q
LL10 i
U �
W Q L.L
Lud
Cd � w22
z co
ww
LL
Of w'nO
Of C7
wz
z�
' z ur
wr
Uo
Z m
Z
_O
JW
N
W w
J_ X
O06
U) �
W
d Y
mZ
w2
O
O
FIGURE NO.