SW6120303_HISTORICAL FILE_20120524

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SWADM"J
DOC TYPE
❑CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
DOC DATE
YYYYMMDD

4� •�7
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Yeznik S. Yeretzain
Barge Waggoner Summer & Canrion, Inc
8280 Yankee Street
Dayton, OH 45458
Dear Mr, Yeretzain:
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Director
May 24, 2012
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW6120303
3rd Brigade Combat Team Complex,
Brigade Headquarters
Cumberland County
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality Central Office received a Stormwater Management Permit Application for the subject project
on May 18, 2012. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the application is not complete. The
following information is needed to continue the stormwater review:
j . This project must control and treat runoff from the first one inch of rain for all of the added Built Upon Area
(BUA) on the site. The current design bypasses some of the stormwater from the new BUA and does not treat
all of the stormwater. Again, existing BUR may be treated in lieu of treating the new BUA. Please revise the
design to treat the stormwater from the proposed BUA and update all the appropriate forms. Please also
include a summary of the existing BUA and the amount added. We may consider the underground detention as
treatment but it is the burden of the designer to provide enough information to show how to design meets the
meets the rules.
2. Please provide a summary or calculation that clearly shows the comparison of existing BUA verse proposed BUA
and how much is treated.
3. Please update the tree planting detail to match our requirements in the BMP for plant trees in bioretention
cells. See 12.3.8. Step 8: Select Plants and Mulch in the BMP manual for more information.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested information
should be received by this Office prior to June 8, 2012, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a
project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time extension to the Division at
the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you expect to submit
the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed application to issue the permit.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Brian Lowther
Frwir:. imcntal Enginccr
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
SW6120303 File
Mr. David Heins, Environmental Division Chief (DPW)
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, Nortn Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
r hone: 919-807-6300 L FAX 9 i 9-807.6494
Internet www.ncwalerquality.org
An E4pal Op0001,111ity % Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Natu,nacly

Lowther, Briar
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag
Flag Status:
Brian
Nick Yeretzian [[e-mail]]
Friday, June 08, 2012 9:23 AM
Lowther, Brian
Joe Landrum; James Kramek; Steve Schultz
RE: Stormwater Project No. SW5120303 Requested Additiona! Information for the
Headquarters Facility
BCT_----C-301--.pdf; BCT_----C-515--.pdf, BCT_---C-524--.pdf; Proposed Additional
Measures.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
Thank you for your quick response. To address your concerns regarding the portion of the new BUA that is bypassing
treatment and going to the underground detention basin we offer the following:
Run-off from this bypass area will pass through a "sediment trap" prior to entering the underground detention basin.
The "sediment trap" is the first stage of sediment removal and will ensure that larger sediments "debris" are not
entering the underground detention basin and hence the storm sewer system. I have included drawings C-524, C-515
and C-301 showing this structure. Detail 06/C-524 is the "sediment trap" detail. Drawing C-515 is the actual structural
detail for the trap. Detail 03/C-301 shows the location and profile of the trap in relation to the underground detention
basin.
To address your concerns regarding the TSS removal and the flushing of the sediments during larger storm events we
propose to add a "weir structure" at the outlet from the underground detention basin. The "weir structure" will be
placed on the 12-inch pipe outlet at BHQ Manhole F. The weir will be equipped with a 1-inch diameter orifice and a
hood. The weir, along with the 1--inch orifice, will ensure extended detention and allow for sediment settlement. The
weir will also ensure that the sediments will not be flushed out during larger storm events. The hood over the 1-inch
orifice will ensure that the opening will not be clogged between scheduled maintenance events. Please refer to the
attachment "Proposed Additional Measures" for additional information regarding this proposed measure.
Please review this information and let us know if what we propose is acceptable to address your concerns. Should our
proposed resolution to address your concerns not be acceptable, please let us know of other viable options we can
implement at the underground detention basin to ensure that your concerns are addressed.
Due to our efforts to coordinate with you to ensure that all of the additional requested information is provided in our
next submittal, we will not be able to resubmit our responses by June 8,2012 as outlined in your May 24,2012 dated
response letters . Please consider this email as our official request for additional time to submit the information for both
applications (SW6120302 and SW6120303). Although we would like to resubmit early next week, we would like to ask
for an extension for July 15,2012.
Thanks
Nick
From: Lowther, Brian[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:44 AM
To: Nick Yeretzian
Subject: RE: Stormwater Project No. SW6120303 - Requested Additional Information for the Headquarters Facility
Nick,

Thanks for the provided information. This is definitely headed in the right direction. It seems like the only issue left is
the portion of new BUA that is bypassing treatment and only going to the under detention area. I think we can consider
your design but I would like more information on the underground detention area. Our rules require this area to have
85% TSS removal. Can you show how the configuration of the underground detention area will provide this and make
sure sediment is not flushed out during a large storm event? I didn't see any details of the outlet structure on the plans.
That might be necessary.
Brian
From: Nick Y&etzian mailto:Nick.Yeretzian bwsc.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:59 PM
To: Lowther, Brian
Cc: Steve Schultz; Joe Landrum; James Kramek
Subject: RE: Stormwater Project No. SW6120303 - Requested Additional Information for the Headquarters Facility
Brian
We received the Request for Additional Information for the above referenced project. Similar to the In/Out Processing
Facility, before we resubmit, I would like to make sure that we are providing the correct additional information needed
to secure the water quality permit.
We have done the following to address your request:
1. Added a drawing and a table to the Headquarters Water Quality Calculations (See attached), showing the
existing BUA, added BUA areas and, the Bypass BUAs. The drawing and the tables in the spreadsheet
calculations are color coded for ease of reference. All existing BUAs are shown in purple, the blue areas are the
BUA bypass, the yellow areas are the added BUAs and finally the hatched green areas are the existing BUAs
which are being treated to account for the added BUA bypass areas.
We have increased the sizes of bio-retention basins (BHQ-RG#1 and BHQ-RG#2) to ensure that all of the Water
Quality Volume; and not a portion of it, is treated by these basins. See attached drawing C-509.
3. We have updated all of the Bioretention Cell Supplement forms and form SWU-101 and provided a summary
calculation in a spreadsheet form showing the comparison of existing BUA verses proposed BUA.
The project controls and treats the first inch of rain for all of the added built upon areas (except the bypass areas). A
total of 8,027 SF of added BUA is bypassed. We are able to treat a total of 6,079 SF of existing BUA to offset the BUA
bypass. Although there is a difference of 1,948 SF of bypass BUA, this run-off will not be directly released to the storm
sewer system. A total of 5,663 SF of added BUA bypass (of the total 8,027 SF) is directed to an underground detention
basin before it is released. The entire parking lot to the east of the proposed HQ facility will drain to an underground
extended detention basin before it is released to the storm sewer system. We have attached drawings C-505, C-507 and
C-508 depicting the underground basin where the bypass run-off will discharge to. We are requesting that you look into
the possibility of considering the extended detention basin as a means of treatment for the difference (0.04 ac). Please
note that although the detention basin is less efficient in removing the total suspended solids as the bio-retention
basins, we are treating a larger volume (5,663 SF) by this method to account for the difference.
As discussed with you over the phone last week, there is a possibility that the parking lot, to the.east of the
Headquarters facility, may increase in size. Should the parking expansion become a reality we plan to apply for an
amendment to the stormwater quality permit we are procuring for this site. Please let us know if this route (amending
the permit) is feasible and if not, can you please provide us with suggestions as to how to proceed regarding this matter.

70A
11C&DENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P.E.
Governor
Mr. Yeznik S. Yeretzain
Barge Waggoner Summer & Cannon, Inc
8280 Yankee Street
Dayton, OH 45458
Dear Mr. Yeretzain:
Director
May 4, 2012
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW6120303
3`d Brigade Combat Team Complex,
Brigade Headquarters
Cumberland County
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality Central Office received additional information for a Stormwater Management Permit
Application for the subject project on May 3, 2012. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the
application is not complete. The following information is needed to continue the stormwater review:
l . Please provide supporting any documents that need to be updated based on the changes to the BMPs. This
includes the calculations for the updated BMPs and the required items checklists.
2. Please provide a summary or calculation that clearly shows the comparison of existing BUA verse proposed BUA
and how much is treated.
3. Please clearly show how the soil permeability was found. I could not find this in the soils report.
4. The inlets to the bioretention cells must be non -erosive. Please provide calculations showing each inlet is non -
erosive or provide inlet protection.
5. Please provide more information and calculations on how the cells north of the BHQ facility are connected by
the 6-inch HDPE pipe.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested information
should be received by this Office prior to May 18, 2012, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a
project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time extension to the Division at
the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you expect to submit
the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed application to issue the permit.
If you have any grlestions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
SW6120303 File
Mr. David Heins, Environmental Division Chief (DPW)
Wetlands and 5lormwater Branch 1�TOne I , t 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1617 1 V O ti iCa1'Q11n i
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 91 M07.6300 \ FAY, 919 007-6494 �� �tt�t'�lll/
lnternel: www.ncwaterquality.org ;//
An Equal Cpporlunitp Y Affirmative Aclion Employer

'�MA71-a
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P.E.
Governor Director
March 23, 2012
Mr. Yeznik S. Yeretzain
Barge Waggoner Summer & Cannon, Inc
8280 Yankee Street
Dayton, OH 45458
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW6120303
3 r d Brigade Combat Team Complex,
Brigade Headquarters
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Yeretzain:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality Central Office received a Stormwater Management Permit Application for the subject project
on March 19, 2012. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the application is not complete. The
following information is needed to continue the stormwater review:
. Since this a high -density project, structural stormwater management systems must be used to control and treat
runoff from the first one inch of rain for all of the added Built Upon Area (BUA) on the site. The current design
bypasses some of the stormwater from the new BUA. Existing BUA may be treated in lieu of treating the new
BUA. Please revise the design to treat the stormwater from the proposed BUA and update all the appropriate
forms. Please also include a summary of the existing BUA and the amount added.
2. Please make sure the delineated drainage areas are clearly shown on the plan sheets.
3. Please make sure all items were included from the Supplement Checklist. Missing items include boundaries of
drainage easements, and public right of ways.
4. Please clearly show the inlet and outlets to the bioretention cells.
5. The plans must be signed, sealed, and dated by a North Carolina certified professional.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested information
should be received by this Office prior to April 20, 2012, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a
project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
if you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time extension to the Division at
the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you expect to submit
the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed application to issue the permit.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
`SW6120303 File
Mr. David Heins, Environmental Division Chief (DPW)
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919-807 v3001 FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncvaterquality.org
An Fqual opportonity i Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturall#

B etter B ui It 0 C I ark AEC emars. ion
A N 8( a) J 0 1 N T V E N T U R E
rr rrrcrtlur/��r•o�r:�r; BWSOC3
_ RO[WAGGONER
8u,..rp aANNON, INC.
May 17, 2012
WETLANDS & STORMWATER BRANCH
1617 Mail service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn.: Mr. Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
Reference: 3`d BCT BDE HQ, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina
Stormwater Project No. SW6120303
Request for Additional Information
Subject: Responses to Request for Additional Information
0.
M A Y 1 8 2 0 ]12
Dear Mr. Lowther: ri
rsH Quay#n
We have addressed your review comments and offer the following responses to the
questions listed below:
1. Please provide supporting any documents that need to be updated based on
the changes to the BMPs. This includes the calculations for the updated BMPs
and the required items checklists.
Response:
Complete "Bioretention Cell Supplement" forms for all the basins at the Brigade
Headquarters Facility site are included (total of 2). This includes the required
item checklists and water quality volume calculations. Please note that because
the cells to the north of the Brigade Headquarters Facility are connected, a
single cell supplement form is included for these basins. Also included, please
find the "Stormwater Management Permit Application Form". Please note that
the original application form was submitted earlier, this form is included to only
show the revisions to item 10 on page 3 of 6 of the application form. These
revisions are in compliance to your review comments. Supporting calculations
are included showing how the water quality volumes are calculated using the
NC Division of Water Quality, Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual,
section 3.3.1 (the simple method).
May 17, 2012 Page 1 of 3

Responses to Request for Additional Information
2. Please provide a summary or calculation that clearly shows the comparison of
existing BUA verses proposed BUA and how much is treated.
Response:
Water quality supporting calculations are included. The calculations contain a
description of the project and its watersheds, a schematic showing the existing
BUA verses the proposed BUA and indicating how much run-off volume is
treated. The schematic drawing, along with the site grading and drainage plans
is intended to further clarify the areas. Please note that the "Stormwater
Management Permit Application Form" discussed in item 1 above also contains
the revised existing and proposed BUAs. The revisions are shown on item 10 on
page 3 of 6.
3. Please clearly show how the soil permeability was found. I could not find this in
the soils report.
Response:
The soil permeability was field measured and is included in the Geotechnical
report. A summary of the findings is provided on page 7 of the report in a tabular
form. The entire geotechnical report is also included for your reference.
4. The inlets to the bioretention cells must be non -erosive. Please provide
calculations showing each inlet is non -erosive or provide inlet protection.
Response:
The velocities of stormwater run-off to the bioretention cells will be larger than 2
ft/s and inlet protection is provided in the form of NC Class "A" Erosion Stone.
Please refer to detail 02/C-509 showing where inlet protection is provided.
5. Please provide more information and calculations on how the cells north of the
BHQ facility are connected by the 6-inch HDPE pipe.
Response:
An explanation on how the north cells of the BHQ facility are connected is
provided on page 8/9 of the included Water Quality Supporting Calculations.
In addition to the items described above, please find two sets of the following NC signed
and sealed drawings:
C-113, C-114, C-129, C-509, L-501, L-502. These sheets correspond to the item checklist
requested in item 1 above.
Please note that the bioretention Maintenance agreements for the Brigade Headquarters
May 17, 2012 Page 2 of 3

Responses to Request for Additional Information
facility were submitted earlier.
Should you have any questions, or require any additional information, please let us know.
Sincerely
ick S. Yeretzian, PE
Civil Engineer
Cc: Joe Landrum/ BWSC
Lee Ward/ Fort Bragg DPW Water Management Branch
James Kramek/ Better Built Clark
Damon Halsey/ Better Built Clark
May 17, 2012 Page 3 of 3

Better Built* Clark AEC P-m a r s i n n
A N 8 (a 1 J 4 1 N T V E N T U R E
a rnerrlot./protege parmersh l)
l
aw��
WwppCNER
13wss"
S IJti N[R d
CANNON. INC.
May 1, 2012
WETLANDS & STORMWATER BRANCH
1617 Mail service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn.: Mr. Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
Reference: 3rd BCT BDE HQ, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina
Stormwater Project No. SW6120303
Request for Additional Information
Subject: Responses to Request for Additional Information
Dear Mr, Lowther:
We have addressed your review comments and included two sets of the plans signed by a
North Carolina certified engineer. Below are the compliance comments. They are
numbered in the same numbering sequence as your review letter.
The watersheds were revised as shown on sheet C-113. Watershed CA-2 was
revised to include portions of the new HQ facility roof and portions of the existing
(BUA) HQ facility. The run-off from the roofs were collected from the roof
downspouts and directed to bio-retention basin BHQ-RG#1. Bio-retention basin
BHQ-RG#1 outlet structure is the overflow catch basin BHQ CB-B. The bio-
retention basins to the north of the BHQ facility were combined by connecting them
using a 6-inch HDPE pipe; see detail 02/C-509. The combined watershed includes
the remainder of the new HQ facility roof and portions of the existing (BUA) HQ
facility. The run-off from the roofs were collected from the roof downspouts and
directed to bio-retention basins BHQ-RG#2 and BHQ-RG#3. The outlets to these
basins are overflow catch basins BHQ CB-E and BHQ CB-F. All overflow outlet
structures are placed 12-inches above the bottom of the basins (See detail 01/C-
509). Please note that existing BUA areas were included to account for the
bypassed areas from the new site. The revised areas are shown on bullet #10 of
page 3/6 of the included revised SWU-101 form. The revised bio-retention
calculations are also included.
2. The delineated areas, CA-2 and CA-5 are shown on sheet C-113.
3. The BHQ site is located within the confines of Fort Bragg and there are no
May 1, 2012 Page 1 of 2

Responses to Request for Additional Information
boundaries of drainage easements and/or public right of ways.
4. The plans are signed and sealed by a North Carolina registered engineer.
Should you have any questions, or require any additional information, please let us know.
Sincerely
ef,
Nick S. Yeretzian, PE
Civil Engineer
Cc: Joe Landrum
Damon Halsey
May 1, 2012 Page 2 of 2

1
L_
Better Built♦Clark AEC PmPrsinn
a InentorlProlegeporlm"I"Vhih A N 8 (a ) J D E N T V E N T U R E
RXXTCr 1 BuwNcw 6
June 14, 2012
WETLANDS & STORMWATER BRANCH
1617 Mail service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn.: Mr. Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
Reference: 3rd BCT BDE HQ, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina
Stormwater Project No. SW6120303
Request for Additional Information
Subject: Responses to Request for Additional information
Dear Mr. Lowther:
�@ cR 0W0', to
il.lN 1 Z012
1
- WA
We have addressed your review comments and offer the following responses to the
questions listed below. Please note that we have coordinated these responses with you
prior to this submittal to ensure that we address all of your concerns.
The project must control and treat runoff from the first one inch of rain for all of the
added Built Upon Area (BUA) on the site. The current design bypasses some of the
stormwater from the new BUA and does not treat all of the stormwater. Again,
existing BUA may be treated in lieu of treating the new BUA. Please revise the
design to treat the stormwater from the proposed BUA and update all the
appropriate forms. Please also include a summary of the existing BUA and the
amount added. We may consider the underground detention as treatment but it is
the burden of the designer to provide enough information to show how the design
meets the rules.
Response:
In order to comply with this request for additional information we have:
a) Added a drawing and a table to the Headquarters Water Quality Calculations (See
attached), showing the existing BUA, added BUA areas and, the Bypass BUAs.
The drawing and the tables in the spreadsheet calculations are color coded for
ease of reference. All existing BUAs are shown in purple, the blue areas are the
BUA bypass, the yellow areas are the added BUAs and finally the hatched green
areas are the existing BUAs which are being treated to account for the added BUA
June 14, 2012 Page 1 of 3

Responses to Request for Additional Information
bypass areas.
b) We have increased the sizes of bio-retention basins (BHQ-RG#1 and BHQ-RG#2)
to ensure that all of the Water Quality Volume, and not a portion of it, is treated by
these basins. See attached drawing C-509.
c) We have updated all of the Bioretention Cell Supplement forms and form SWU-101
and provided a summary calculation in a spreadsheet form showing the
comparison of existing BUA verses proposed BUA.
The project controls and treats the first inch of rain for all of the added built upon areas
(except the bypass areas). A total of 8,027 SF of added BUA is bypassed. We are able to
treat a total of 6,079 SF of existing BUA to offset the BUA bypass. Although there is a
difference of 1,948 SF of bypass BUA, this run-off will not be directly released to the storm
sewer system. A total of 5,663 SF of added BUA bypass (of the total 8,027 SF) is directed
to an underground detention basin before it is released. The entire parking lot to the east
of the proposed HQ facility will drain to an underground extended detention basin before it
is released to the storm sewer system. We have attached drawings C-505, C-507 and C-
508 depicting the underground basin where the bypass run-off will discharge to.
Run-off from this bypass area will pass through a "sediment trap" prior to entering the
underground detention basin. The "sediment trap" is the first stage of sediment removal
and will ensure that larger sediments "debris" are not entering the underground detention
basin and hence the storm sewer system. We have included drawings C-524, C-515 and
C-301 showing this structure. Detail 061C-524 is the "sediment trap" detail. Drawing C-515
is the actual structural detail for the trap. Detail 031C-301 shows the location and profile of
the trap in relation to the underground detention basin.
To. address your concerns regarding the TSS removal and the flushing of the sediments
during larger storm events we added a "weir structure" at the outlet from the underground
detention basin. The "weir structure" is placed on the 12-inch pipe outlet at BHQ Manhole
F and is equipped with a 1-inch diameter orifice and a hood. The weir, along with the 1 —
inch orifice, will ensure extended detention and allow for sediment settlement. The weir
will also ensure that the sediments will not be flushed out during larger storm events. The
hood over the 1-inch orifice will ensure that the opening will not be clogged between
scheduled maintenance events. Please refer to detail 031C-524 and keynotes 2 and 3 on
C-505.
2. Please provide a summary or calculation that clearly shows the comparison of
existing BUA verses proposed BUA and how much is treated.
Response:
Please see response to 1 above.
June 14, 2012 Page 2 of 3

L
Responses to Request for Additional Information
3. Please update the tree planting detail to match our requirements in the BMP for
plant trees in bioretention cells. See 12.3.8. Step 8. Select Plants and Mulch in the
BMP manual for more information.
Response:
Landscape drawings L-501 and L-503 were updated to meet the requirements of the
NCDENR BMP manual requirements and specifically section 12.3.8 Step 8 requirements.
In addition to the items described above, enclosed please find two full size sets of the
following NC signed and sealed drawings:
C-113, C-129, C-301, C-505, C-507, C-508, C-509, C-515, C-524, L-501 and L-502.
These sheets correspond to the Bioretention Cell Supplement forms listed in item 1(c)
above.
Please note that the bioretention Maintenance agreements were submitted earlier.
Should you have any questions, please let us know.
Sincerely
e_re--(,2�
ick S. Yeretzian, PE
Civil Engineer
Cc: Joe Landrum/ BWSC
Lee Ward/ Fort Bragg DPW Water Management Branch
James Kramek/ Better Built Clark
Damon Halsey/ Better Built Clark
enclosures
June 14, 2012 Page 3 of 3

8280 Yankee Street
Dayton, Ohio 45458-1806
[phone]
[phone] Fax
WIA U^A1 w
TO: Wetlands and Stormwater Branch DATE:
1617 Mail Service Center FILE NO.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
SUBJECT:
• ff''�� BARGE
WAGGONER
SGGOR &
TT
CANNON, INC.
March 16, 2012
3520200/6000
3ro BCT BIDE HQ, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina I
Stormwater Management Permit MAR I 2012
_ OFNR • WATER QUALITY
wlDSA0 MMWATER BRANCH
TRANSMITTED HEREWITH ARE THE FOLLOWING:
NO.
COPIES
DATE
DESCRIPTION
1
03/17/2012
Stormwater Management Permit Application and check
2
03/17/2012
Two sets of full size plans folded to 8.5"x14"
1
03/17/2012
Stormwater permit narrative and USGS map showing project location
1
03/17/2012
Bioretention cell supplements A total of 3
1
03/17/2012
Operation and Maintenance agreements A total of 3
1
03/17/2012
(1) Stormwater Calculations Report and (1) Soil Report
REMARKS Please note contact phone number and email address provided on permit application form.
COPY TO:
File
Joe Landrum, Joe Bissaillon, Jeremy Kramek
By
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.
1
Nick Yeretzian, PE
11DaOOI \usersS\ysyeretzian\My DocumentslMyFilcs\Projects\Fort
Bragg\Correspondence\TR 120316a_NCDEN R.doCXEqual Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Re_4UA4, —4 gX« &4 1_o W 4_A dc,_
Application Completeness Review
First Submittal ❑ Re -submittal Date Received: 3 y Date Reviewed: 3 aZ /L By Bill
Development/Project Name; 1f ,
Receiving stream name k CK.-- &-_ d-23-717Classi ication: C
uguid
Ziver Basin: %-t Ne ,grr_ -cudsK�
For post -construction requirements, a program will be deemed compliant for the areas where it is
implementing any of the following programs: WS-I, WS-Il, WS-III, WS-IV, HQW, ORW, Neuse River Basin
NSW, Tar -Pamlico River Basin NSW, and the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Nutrient
Management Strategy.
High Density Projects that require a 401/404 within an NSW require 85% TSS, 30% TN and 30% TP removal.
T&E Species (Goose Creek, Waxhaw Creek or Six Mile Creek Water Sheds): 1,4-
Latitude and LongitudeSj5- D 8 8 S Al —7 f 0/ * 8 la/ Jurisdiction Foe-B
Project Address: T L o 12 S xx
Engineer name and firm; S. YE 0-f- ejAA1 0 P,G, o 5,, ,,,
Phone: $ --,5:z#=f Email: Aroe .car r ` Aj jQ bws e .
Is the project confirmed to be in the State MSI Stormwater Permit jurisdiction? C�t'Yes ~or ❑ No
ci Low Density (no curb and gutter) ❑ Low Density with curb and gutter outlets UkHigh Density ❑ Other
-ta—~401/404 impacts to surface waters, wetlands, and buffers (add language to cover letter and/or add info letter)
B UA !S�3 %
��eck for $505.00 included
riginal signature (not photocopy) on application
Legal signature (Corporation-VP/higher, Partnership -General Partner/higher, LLC-member/manager, Agent).
Check spelling, capitalization, punctuation: littp://wwW.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/tliepage.aspx
If an agent signs the application, a signed letter of authorization from the applicant must be provided which
includes the name, title, mailing address and phone number of the person signing the letter.
or subdivided projects, a signed and notarized deed restriction statement
sealed, signed & dated calculations
[Correct supplement and O&M provided for each BMP on site (check all that were provided & number of each)
Bioretention
Dry Detention Basin
Filter Strip
Grass Swale
a
Infiltration Basin
a
Infiltration Trench
ci
Level Spreader
❑
Permeable Pavement
•
Restored Riparian Buffer
❑ Rooftop Runoff Management
❑ Sand Filter
❑ Stormwater Wetland
❑ Wet Detention Basin
❑ Low Density
❑ Curb Outlet
❑ Off -Site
❑ NCDOT Linear Road
Fd2l wo sets of sealed, signed & dated layout & finish grading plans with appropriate details
�/ Narrative Description of stormwater management provided
Soils report provided -t-- �erf ac4
-rci— Wetlands delineated or a note on the plans or in the accompanying documents that none exist on site and/or
adjacent property
V" Details for the roads, parking area, cul-de-sac radii, sidewalk widths, curb and gutter;
id' Dimensions & slopes provided
Drainage areas delineated ❑ Pervious and impervious reported for each ❑ Areas of high density
BMP operation and maintenance agreements provided
Application complete ❑ Application Incomplete Returned: (Date)
Com me ants : S 6
%n/W
C.*.1N4 J
May 5, 2011 Revision, Bill Diuguid

BETTER BUILT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. / FT. BRAGG ACCOUNT
001022
NCDNR Check: 1022
N.C. Dept. of Environment Date: 3/14/2012
& Natural Resources Vendor: NCDENR
Prior
invoice P.G. Nulrt. invoice Amt Balance Retention Discount Amt. Paid
Bragg - 05 288-005 '505.00 '505.00 0.00 0.00 505.00
Permit Headquarters
RE C E V'E D 505.00 505.00 0.00 0.00 505.00
MAR' 1, 5 201t
!jVVSC:
06
r.:. BETTER BUILT Z?`.l?r 1, �3
d.�{ 'CONS: RUCTIOWSERVICES, INC . RHSTFINANCIAL9ANlC 00.1022 ;
' llFT: BRAGG'ACCOUNTi" ss s1raz2
'! ° 1240,C66tral Avenue "
M Middletowh,!OW6a 45044' '
w� 1022
Fax':(513) 217-'4696 DATE AMOUNT
3/14/2012 *,.**,.**,.*******505.00
PAV THE SUM,OF FIVE'HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS AND NO CENTS
TO THE I
ORDER
OF NCDNR E F
N.C. Dept. of Environrnenf,
z SENs,,
& Natural Reso,urces',:,, 211�
�� I!
:�- ---- --- ' - —--------------- ---- - -----i

STORMWATER PROJECT NO. SW6120303
YRD BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM COMPLEX
BRIGADE HEADQUARTERS
WATER QUALITY SUPPORING CALCULATIONS
RESUBMITTAL
June 6, 2012

3'rd Brigade Combat Team Complex
Headquarters Facility
Summary of proposed Water Quality BMP watershed information
BMP
Draiange Area
Basin Information
CA2
CAS
Total Drainage Area
29,336.00
24,535.00
On -site Buildings
11,785.00
9,459.00
On -Site Streets
-
-
On -site Parking
-
-
On -site Sidewalks
3,238.00
3,742.00
Existing BUA
2,761.00
2,705.00
Existing BUA
Area
BUA-1
1,096.00
BUA-2
3,996.00
BUA-3
103.00
BUA-A
1,980.00
BUA-B
5,045.0)
BUA-D (Drains to CA2)
BUA-E (Drains to CA5)
i t
Total Existing BUA (Purple & Green Areas) I
Bypass BUA
Area
BUA-1
1,994.00
BUA-2
7,301.00
BUA-3
141.00
BUA-4
77.00
BUA-5
103.00
BUA-6
359.00
Total Bypass BUA (Blue Areas) E 9,975.00
Total Added BUA (Area in Yellow) 23,728.00
Total area treated (CA2 & CA5) 53,871.00
Total added BUA bypassed 8,027.00
Total existing BUA treated to account for bypass 6,079.00
Total area treated (53,871 SF) exceeds the total added BUA of 23,728 SF by 30,143 SF.
A total of 6,079 SF of existing BUA is treated to account for the 8,027 SF of bypass added BUA.
Of the total 8,027 SF added BUA bypass, a total of 5,663 SF is directed to an extended detnetion
basin prior to being released to the storm sewer system.

• � x IS-ri u Ca
• � �� � . ,_� .tea � .�. �'�-�-.�,._�, - , x
j
�4 y
Ol
I �
E xls; r►, G �
11
3
$`tPRs5 LI"t4- S � 10 F
tX1s��� ���•. - 3 -- 1J�r'
-Eat
S�
-Cltt AK E
9�
�YpAs
Cit:{
11
4 I I
r
r'Qfl as ,�]](Z#l., /ti
:A-
_ 3 `% S t'
( •r
------------- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - —

BY DATE SUBJECT SHEET NO. OF
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.

BY
CHKD. BY.
DATE SUBJECT
DATE
SHEET NO. _ -OF
JOB NO.

BY DATE SUBJECT SHEET NO. OF
CH}q]. BY DATE JOB NO.

BY DATE SUBJECT SHEET NO. OF
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
BARGE, WAGGONER.,SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.
........ .. .�.......... � ..... .. ,�......... ,..,� ....- ..... ..... :.... ..... . .. ......:

BY DATE SUBJECT SHEET NO. OF
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.

BY DATE SUBJECT SHEET NO. OF
CHKD. BY
DATE
JOB NO.
8` c e A s S Prg � 04, r " r-A, TCJs IR LC t Ca ,
Ru t.► - 4 r r t�r.�t i l� .� ? �_-�C� FJ is T-0 1-r�-
U Y o ri t o PA N 1-0G ► -T' c� rl.
'Ho,P— 4- o E` 1 �T L i' fC C}') t. Bre1(� Vtz &D613.r,.! A 6-7-16 4 .S.
of^,%- rnecA_<ury 0-k `tuna_ -f0Lj t_af-i�ers
Vi,rRrorC[ �l._61`'✓��onti.�,n �v��i Sirv'-Fv��-.
cor•e'ern Ce�ox�.r
6a4 GTuP�P
2UP�t.S
1
"�(o
r
Pr0v.G e— 4L
Ujft r �rLi c--�Ure-
t wr
e-- LLI ; «
`•r, 0 n Ci
. 1 W f
/�.
L/ I e- "t-+, '"TGIF
S C i;� V (� t
r� &,j e. � e-+C� to P U!
�}-1'�
!
U r , n
U L
2J��to
Lv
en�Vr C
9)e,+ r\
cn
m' r_,n S
+c
0N.1 f r n1L
o f 1
o re
Sma�
()UlLiT AT a�j G. M H - r
l.,l£r2 Lo iTTt ttoall D13F=R- 11 r-rGE-
1A
3
hl .' • 5
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY DATE SUBJECT —SHEET NO. i OF
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
5T—o R o\k [L Pry R_ P Rzrj E CG l T 10 • 5• u1612 O 3 0
1
.a SE L •
031943 ;
at
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY
CHKD.BY
DATE SUBJECT
DATE
!
SHEET NO._,?__ _OF�—
JOB NO.
4'L-l-)I do -Fta �j i z�
Tkl rXksT r 0 Cam- 51 NGL-P - -STD �i _ �fZIf'sP-- :. 3
r= Pz C.� r< i �(. . _.. �t r i�.�t t i FJ [��. , TT) o +J
OF Tlfir �ktSTi �] t=�lC t:L �i-Y. Ir��
t LL :I ►.a cLuL F— L)o,KJ_: n' Al
Cot.JGre_i rtf1-r4N*�, �l?S.I, i �.-; f:--'A5'T_, at= cL
TH {�.or.� sT t�.;c. i�aN 0.;=._'�_ , . 2t�-;_. i , iw D F. kE/ _
tu_E- _ .71
Lu .c T!-f _'T (-ta- EXc--toilp'
i
t(-u FP C_iLTTc)
c6us ;.iu CTt� *�uL�� uPo# ,
1 �f Ru Q _ o r F FPo. t-k ---r->EV.i.QQ.P F 5.1t
C (3 K) .s r. sT- - _ T��j _ ' _ c.0 T P �s lt-Z� S. j _ N' NL l L`(? `L)I1 A-T - CSIIEL-)s
_l 'tt E TZ)T!' Cr.-..-,b k:Poi -,f�2
33
Z-�. 336 5c ��+� �t=��%. 2_�_, 6 ( S." r,_ _.SSA EX,L,
LLT._ uQo N p� A- _ P,u.�tj� E .L rnW fJD�
2 6 � 5 5. 5 . F,
w :A A I n3s iZ�D
E- .:r t.7iZ p til - .� AS r lL1 � _�-}� �' - R �. # ' t-
[
txlsit►�C? 3u uPc�.til ! flR�, �.�u �}r. iktE
r- r
RYMA.tN.P�. Z �J&3C�2�r7 L Ra
3� 51 �5� S .T. a.Sz7 ��i►1.16s, �� w
L4j eSrE� --pp-h'N .
LTE -Y 1� N
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY
CHKD. BY
DATE SUBJECT
DATE
SHEET NO, 3 of=�
JOB NO.
tru�LL -\CT—
:�'
v t� t-t i +'y L � � `•ica 2a� _ : He;a;t�. av� 1 _f�� = �"Zt �S_ ; .L� �.P�"iRo.�-I, - .-T���
PJE
�0 7 7Dd-- ;TLtT I I'c Lti SF- i D
,� i �t PrT {�`u !t� b F.r _ . _ ± .fit
_
t 1`]__ _ la7_l,L+�" FC;LL_ L_L#C _ . _8P< 1,L l..
L I i I i I
S i o i� f�-'� ._.tS �Lu-� +e ' �S �S �� _� . Cat e'T �} �
I c �-=T�� -� Q�.s.r_►,�_ � ����-� ', '-t-�,r.�_�-:�La_tit S� _ O i`4_" ; t 2_I,�� r:
7_� trE--+_AS_1_S' j 5
-
I 7
_._ � �. Ca-!- _ ,. G� - - ._ ._ �-.(� _ T _ _ : � X �ST_c N C�� ,_ A� ► �� . _ .,- 1J.�-c-U_ .� _ G�.�.l..i?t S'..e ,
1�L Uoi -+ ; t1 mQ.�tJPo's+.�1_"_
} ,
lt! i0v�2.5.t��yS.��.1rL
+
•
I
C - ' I .
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY DATE SUBJECT
CHKD.BY DATE
SHEET NO. `' l OF
JOB NO.
I 1
; i
- --_� t
Faws-p ti.G
I � I
{
{
No _ LOlk , of PaU LO -- f:S 3�6ao
,
' � I
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY DATE SUBJECT —SHEET NO. ./r OF
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
Qua4 Cr3oL(iro, 1S :GRtrcuL:A 1.E_ tfr
C�aQ0 f f r5 �.1,V1 S1U D) OF,
M'Pr M.0 Pr L'r; G Tl 0, _
- 3 3 , � � � I M � � � i•-M �� off, -� - ._ - -
J_ r ;
3'
J es t. n I-S4-o c rn (�,t
0: 5 ' 4- : O ', 5'
rn p el-(- u , oar_ �Ca._a i_�:
I � ,
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY DATE SUBJECT
CHKD.BY DATE
SHEET NO. OF.
JOB NO.
W R-) k C�.0 R.I✓_I I'C, VbLU ML- y .CPcLCtut_l i1o.�] �...
I ,
I
ttil z g� 3.3S .
OL-
1 +
' f 1
A.�
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY
y r
CHKD. BY
DATE SUBJECT
DATE
}
SHEET NO. OF—U)
JOB NO.
.�Li I,L,-' '-E.;Qt) }_ C01.] i r-tiL_ M A-SU-kC-!5
�'t r e�,v f'� i S , r K� f�� �.r2;d�t �i.5 ; _._� 0 B I O._, 2 -i ► �T?a l�i_� GAS
i-�-Tb
,V L c].C1 L iZ t
O
?'► k"m��fl ' f
_.-V�G
CS:-
-r.L d,.N, M ;Pvs'u..'e- e
j 41
i � I I • i
fi - r
I
I I I
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY
CHKD. BY
DATE SUBJECT
DATE
SHEET NO. OF
JOB NO.
�1Q_�itTth]ilO.►.�..�:f�.rN, ���(�,. _V'CG���,� �; RC-�-�-3�--CDIJIJCL�ON
k,E-7. TZO. I `_ i3#�c51 6S' SkiL�, 0 2-1
s'' Is)NG� ..B�s1�1, +_.H-Y.
1 _2UC 5-5 N� Z �►.� ,Pt +2u_+�t_� CZL[�u R ►n u.i 5°
�_.l�_�. �kP!L-kS-PL�cCL�
t o_'- .Go. 1 k'r' t t
1 �..P�.Q! pf- C.)),["j �2 / f_ Li 1.��. ':(f.L'�%�� '.. 1 vt j
TH E-'6-,' :d� ;
rLc0,u-) L.l_N rl _ EL. �J `RO.N_S. .-b^Z _2 (�_. l.y ;.� Z �r`]C. tls
ThA A i h 3.�c5_�v`� a�-r o
PT 1 p !v _ _27 r ,r�fi L
I I ! I
r Y 7 1 P,� : P� :i , 2 6 �t .d. o - i, T' -�r l
t - i
.
W . �.. L ki U_ R E- 0'3 & { - t t' h l NJ
GW.i L+_ _ 1-t ULI�.�_N.a�
Ot-CT—� %,T1 ,Q-Ll
eve �2 L-b.uJ .� 2 _ .N CGtSS
r
(D 1
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.
St�► �1.
�

BY
CHKD. BY
DATE SUBJECT
DATE
SHEET NO. 0\ 0F�1.()_
JOB NO.
C J? Gl P 1 It t 1 ly —
C� L --IL) JD
Coo _ :Zit J 3is .
1� m.� , r / o-.2 s , o .3
c� L
�i �-let, a
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY DATE SUBJECT _ SHEET NO. OF l ?
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
i r
PCIols, < - • rar, el4f\n,
til T I
or
-4
4n s7 T �OV� j w F Cd,l
PIA
u -r1
I 1 I
1
i
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

i
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP "Setting the Standard for Service"
. Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered Engineering Firm F•1073
SC Registered Engineerng Firm 3230
October 11, 2011
Ms. Diane Major
Preconstruction Manager
Clark Construction Company
1000 Town center, Suite 2450
Southfield, Michigan 48075
RE: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3m BCT Headquarters
Taylor Street
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
Dear Ms. Major:
As authorized, we have completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
analysis for the above referenced project. This report presents the findings of our subsurface
exploration and our evaluations, as well as recommendations, regarding geotechnical-related
design and construction considerations for the site.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. We would also at this time like to
express our interest in providing the field construction testing and observation services that will
be required during the construction phase of this project.
Should you have any questions or if we could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Respectfully Submitted,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
i624'4-
Thomas B. Baird, P.E.►'•a .•'
Senior Geotechnical Engineo �'%AS �•
NC PE License No. 016244'
I:1_PR0Jt:CTS11751 HQ - 3' BCT HeadquarterslReport11751 HQ.doc
7L'7/�
Anc V. Geda, P.E.
Principal Engineer
NC PE License No. 035138
726 Ramsey Street, Suite 3, Fayetteville, NC 28301 • T; 910-401-3288 • F: 910-323-0539 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
3RD BCT HEADQUARTERS
TAYLOR STREET
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
Ms. Diane Major
Preconstruction Manager
Clark Construction Company
1000 Town Center, Suite 2450
Southfield, Michigan 48075
ECS PROJECT NUMBER 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011

I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................................................................I
......................
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW................................................................................. ....................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................1
1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION....................................................................................................................1
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................. .........3
2.1 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES..................................................................................................................3
2.2 INFILTRATION TEST PROCEDURES...........................................................................................................3
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING.......................................................................................................................4
3.1 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM...........................................................................................................4
3.2 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION.........................................................................................................................4
3.3 LABORATORY TESTING METHODS...........................................................................................................4
3.3.1 Moisture Content Tests.................................................................................................................4
3.3.2 Atterberg Limits.............................................................................................................................4
3.3.3 Percent of Particles Finer Than the U.S. Standard No. 200 Mesh Sieve......................................5
3.3.4 Modified Proctor............................................................................................................................ 5
3.3.5 Califomia Bearing Ratio (CBR).........................................................
... 5
4.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS.....................................................................................................................6
4.1 SITE CONDITIONS...................................................................:...............................................................6
4.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................6
4.3 SOIL CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................................6
4.4 GROUNDWATER.....................................................................................................................................7
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................8
5.1 FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................................................................8
5.2 SETTLEMENT..........................................................................................................................................9
5.3 FLOOR SLABS........................................................................................................................................9
5.4 SEISMIC SITE. CLASS DETERMINATION.....................................................................................................9
5.5 SITE DRAINAGE.....................................................................................................................................10
5.6 GROUNDWATER CONTROL....................................................................................................................10
5.7 CUT AND FILL SLOPES..........................................................................................................................10
5.8 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................................10
5.9 PAVEMENTS.........................................................................................................................................11
5.10 RETAINING WALLS.............................................................................................................................12
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................14
6.1 SITE PREPARATION AND CLEARING...,....................................................................................................14
6.2 FILL PLACEMENT AND SOIL COMPACTION..............................................................................................15
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS.......................................................................................................................16
APPENDICES:
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Unified Soil Classification System, Reference Notes for Boring Logs, Subsurface
Cross -Section, Boring Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Testing Summary
Appendix D General Conditions
Appendix E Procedures Regarding Field Logs, Laboratory Data Sheets, and Samples

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3rd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) has completed a report of subsurface exploration and geotechnical
engineering services for the for the new 3`d Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Headquarters located
at Taylor Street on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina. This
summary should not be considered apart from the entire text of the report with all the
qualifications and conditions mentioned herein.
The project entails the construction of the new 3`d BCT Headquarters lat Taylor Street on the
Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The new headquarters facility
will be located on the north side of building A-2356 (Hall of Heroes). The headquarters building
will be a two-story steel -framed structure with a concrete slab -on -grade floor. The proposed
finished floor elevation is 272.20 feet. Structural loading information was not furnished. To
facilitate our analysis, we have assumed maximum column and wall loads will not exceed 100
kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. Other improvements to the site include rigid
concrete pavement areas and three retention ponds. Also included in the project, is a small
expansion to an existing parking lot located on the south side of Taylor Street.
Based on the existing topography across the proposed headquarters facility, earth cuts and fill
placement on the order of 1 to 2 feet or less will be required to establish the building'and
pavement design elevations. At the parking lot expansion fill placement of about 3 feet will be
required to establish pavement design elevations.
The subsurface conditions at site were explored by drilling eight soil test borings (BHQ-1
through BHQ-8). Borings BHQ-1 through BHQ-4 were completed in the proposed building area
and borings BHQ-5 through BHQ-8 were completed in the proposed pavement areas. The
borings in the building area were advanced to depths of about 25 feet below existing site
grades with the exception of BHQ-1, which was advanced to a depth of about 75 feet. The
borings in the pavement areas were advanced to depths of about 5 feet below existing site
grades. One bulk sample of the soils anticipated to be used as pavement subgrade were
obtained for laboratory testing. In addition, two in -situ infiltration tests and seasonal high water
table (SHWT) determinations (1-1 and 1-2) were performed at the requested locations on the
site.
Borings BHQ-1 through BHQ-7 initially penetrated a surficial layer of topsoil. The topsoil was
about 2 to 4 inches thick and consists of brown silty sand with fine roots and organic matter.
The topsoil thickness will likely differ at other locations.
Fill was encountered beneath the topsoil in boring BHQ-2 and from the ground surface in boring
BHQ-8. The fill soils consisted of moist silty sand and were found to extend to a depth of about
3 feet below the ground surface. The SPT N-values in the fill were 17 and 25 blows per foot
(bpf).
The natural site soils are Coastal Plain sediments of sand and clay strata that extend to the 5,
25, and 75-foot depths explored. The sand strata consisted of silty sand (SM), clayey sand
(SC), and slightly silty poorly graded sand (SP-SM). The SPT N-values for the sand layers
encountered ranged from 5 to 25 bpf denoting loose to medium dense relative densities. The
clay strata consisted of sandy clay (CL). The SPT N-values for clay layers ranged from 7 to
greater than 100 bpf indicating firm to very hard consistencies.

Groundwater was observed shortly after completion of the drilling operations in boring B-1 at a
depth of about 34 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was not observed in the
remaining borings at the completion of drilling operations. Boring cave-in depths ranged from
15 to 36.5 feet below the existing site grades. Based on observed conditions, color and degree
of saturation of soils, it is our opinion that the long term groundwater level most likely exists at a
depth of 20 feet or more below the existing site grades.
Based on the in -situ infiltration tests, the apparent seasonal high water table is greater that 108
inches below existing grades and infiltrations rates ranged from 5.6 to 12.6 inches per hour at a
depth of 84 inches below existing site grades.
After the subgrades have been prepared as recommended in Section 6 of this report, the
proposed building may be supported on conventional shallow footing foundations and a ground -
supported floor slab. An allowable design soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf is recommended
for footings placed on properly evaluated and approved existing fill, natural soils, and/or
engineered fill. At the northeast corner of the proposed building (boring BHQ-3), loose sand
was encountered from approximately 3 to 8 feet below existing site grades. It should be
anticipated that up to 8 feet of this material will require removal and re -compaction.
Based on Section 1615 of the 2009 North Carolina State Building Code the weighted average
N-values from standard penetration testing resulted in a seismic site class of "D".

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3r° BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HO
October 11, 2011
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Project Description and Scope of Work
This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
analysis for the new 3`d Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Headquarters located at Taylor Street on
the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina. We have been provided with
a Site Grading Plan which illustrates the proposed site layout, existing and proposed grade, and
other site features.
The subsurface conditions at site were explored by drilling eight soil test borings (BHQ-1
through BHQ-8). Borings BHQ-1 through BHQ-4 were completed in the proposed building area
and borings BHQ-5 through BHQ-8 were completed in the proposed pavement areas. The
borings in the building area were advanced to depths of about 25 feet below existing site
grades with the exception of BHQ-1, which was advanced to a depth of about 75 feet. The
borings in the pavement areas were advanced to depths of about 5 feet below existing site
grades. One bulk sample of the soils anticipated to be used as pavement subgrade were
obtained for laboratory testing. In addition, two in -situ infiltration tests and seasonal high water
table (SHWT) determinations (I-1 and 1-2) were performed at the requested locations on the
site.
The soil test borings were staked in the field by a survey crew prior to our site exploration. The
infiltration tests were located in the field by ECS personnel using measurements off existing site
features. The approximate boring and infiltration test locations are shown on the Boring
Location Plan provided in Appendix A of this report. The ground surface elevations at the
boring locations were interpolated from topographic information provided on the Site Grading
Plan and should be considered approximate.
In conjunction with the soil borings, laboratory testing was performed to help characterize the
soil samples obtained from the drilling operations. This report was prepared based upon the
results of the boring and laboratory data. The purpose of this exploration is to describe the soil
and groundwater conditions that were encountered in the test borings, to analyze and evaluate
the test data obtained, and to submit recommendations regarding foundations, slabs,
pavements, earthwork, construction, and other geotechnical-related considerations of design
and construction.
1.2 Proposed Construction
ECS understands that the project consists of the construction of the new 3'd BCT Headquarters
lat Taylor Street on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The new
headquarters facility will be located on the north side of building A-2356 (Hall of Heroes). The
headquarters building will be a two-story steel -framed structure with a concrete slab -on -grade
floor. The proposed finished floor elevation is 272.20 feet. Structural loading information was
not furnished. To facilitate our analysis, we have assumed maximum column and wall loads will
not exceed 100 kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. Other improvements to the site
include rigid concrete pavement areas and three retention ponds. Also included in the project,
is a small expansion to an existing parking lot located on the south side of Taylor Street.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'" 13CT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
Based on the existing topography across the proposed headquarters facility, earth cuts and fill
placement on the order of 1 to 2 feet or less will be required to establish the building and
pavement design elevations. At the parking lot expansion fill placement of about 3 feet will be
required to establish pavement design elevations.
If actual loads and fill heights exceed these assumptions, ECS should' be allowed the
opportunity to reassess our recommendations.

e
Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3id BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
2.1 Exploration Procedures
The soil test borings were completed using truck -mounted CME 75-truck mounted drilling rig.
The borings were advanced using 2—'/4 inch I.D. hollow -stem augers. Drilling fluid was not used
to advance the borings.
Representative soil samples were obtained by means of the split -barrel sampling procedure in
general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In this procedure, a 2-inch O. D. split -
barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches by a 140 pound hammer with a free
fall of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through the final 12 inch
interval is termed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value and is indicated for each
sample on the boring logs.
The SPT N-value can be used to provide a qualitative indication of the in -place relative density
of cohesionless soils. In a less reliable way, SPT N-values provide an indication of consistency
for cohesive soils. These indications of relative density and consistency are qualitative, since
many factors can significantly affect the SPT N-value and prevent a direct correlation between
drill crews, drip rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer -rod -sampler assemblies,
Field logs of the soils encountered in the borings were maintained by the drill crew. The soil
samples obtained from the drilling operations were sealed and were brought to our laboratory
for further examination and testing.
2.2 Infiltration Test Procedures
The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the infiltration test locations were explored
by advancing a hand auger boring. The groundwater level and the seasonal high water table
(SHWT) observed in each hand auger boring at the time of drilling was recorded. An infiltration
test utilizing a compact constant head permeameter was conducted near each hand auger
boring to estimate the infiltration rate for the subsurface soils. Infiltration tests are typically
conducted at two feet above the SHWT. If the. SHWT is less than three feet, the test is
conducted at ten inches below the surface elevation.

Report of Subsurface Expioratlon and Geotechnicai Engineering Services
V OCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING
3.1 Laboratory Testing Program
Laboratory tests were performed on a representative portion of the soil samples obtained during
the exploration. These included tests for natural moisture content, Atterberg limits, and
percent of particles finer than the U.S. Standard No. 200 mesh sieve. Modified Proctor
compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were performed on the bulk sample to aid
in evaluating the on -site soils for use as pavement subgrade. The data obtained from the
laboratory tests are included in the Laboratory Testing Summary in Appendix C of this report.
The soil samples collected for this exploration will be retained at our laboratory for a period of
sixty days, after which they will be discarded unless other instructions are received as to their
disposition.
3.2 Visual Classification
An engineer classified each soil sample on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The group symbols for each soil type are
indicated in the parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. A brief
explanation of the USCS is included in Appendix B of this report. The engineer grouped the
various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs. The stratification lines
designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs are approximate; in -situ,
the transitions will be gradual and/or at slightly different elevations/depths.
3.3 Laboratory Testing Methods
3.3.1 Moisture Content Tests
ASTM Designation D2216 gives the standard procedure for determining the moisture content of
soil. The moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water to the weight of solids in
a given soil mass and is usually expressed as a percentage. The moisture content is
determined by weighing a soil sample, thoroughly drying it at a specified temperature; and
weighing it after drying.
3.3.2 Atterberg Limits
ASTM Designation D4318 gives the standard procedure for determining the Plastic and Liquid
Limits of soil. The sample for the Liquid and Plastic Limit tests is prepared by removing any
material larger than the #40 (425pm) sieve.
The Liquid Limit test is determined by performing multiple trials in which a portion of the
prepared sample is spread in a cup (of specified material and dimensions), divided by a
grooving tool, and allowed to flow together a distance of 1/2 inch by the force of repeatedly
dropping the cup in a standard mechanical device. Data from the multiple trials is plotted with
the water content on the y-axis and the number of drops required to close the groove on the x-

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
T4 BCT Headquarters
EC Project Number 33:1751HO
October 11, 2011
axis. The Liquid Limit is defined as the water content at which 25 drops are required to close
the groove made in the soil.
The Plastic Limit is determined by rolling a small portion of the prepared soil sample to a thread
with a uniform diameter of 118 inch. The thread is rolled into a ball and rerolled into a thread
with a uniform diameter of 118 inch. The process is repeated until the thread crumbles and can
no longer be rolled into a thread. The water content of the soil at this point is the Plastic Limit.
The Plasticity Index is defined as the difference between the Liquid Limit and the Plastic Limit.
3.3.3 Percent of Particles Finer Than the U.S. Standard No. 200 Mesh Sieve
ASTM Designation D1140 gives the standard procedure for determining the amount of material
in a soil finer than the No. 200 (75-microns) sieve. The sample is dried, soaked in water,
agitated, and poured over the No. 200 sieve. The material retained on the No. 200 sieve is
dried, and weighed. The No. 200 sieve represents the boundary in the Unified Classification
System between coarse grained soils (sand) and fine grained soils (silt and clay).
3.3.4 Modified Proctor
ASTM Designation D1557 gives laboratory compaction procedures to determine the
relationship between the water content and dry unit weight of soils. The test is performed by
placing three layers of soil at a selected water content into a mold of specified dimensions and
compacting each layer 25 times with a 10-pound rammer. The rammer is dropped a distance
of 18 inches and subjects the soil sample to a total compactive effort of approximately 56,000
ft-lblft3. The resulting dry unit weight is determined. This procedure is repeated for a sufficient
number of water contents to establish a relationship between the dry unit weight and water
content for the soil. This data, when plotted, represents a curvilinear relationship known as the
compaction.
3.3.5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM Designation D1883 gives the test method to determine the California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) of pavement sub -grade sub -base and base/course materials from laboratory compacted
specimens. This test is performed by compacting a soil sample to a specified density using
laboratory compaction techniques. The sample is then soaked for 96 hours and subjected to
penetration by a 2-inch diameter cylindrical piston. The stress at penetrations of 0.1 inch and
0.2 inch in the wet conditions are used to calculate the CBR values for the soil. Typically the
CBR value determined for a penetration of 0.1 inch on the soaked sample is used for pavement
design.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HO
October 11, 2011
4.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS
4.1 Site Conditions
The site planned for the new headquarters facility is located on the north side of building A-
2356 (Hall of Heroes). The site is currently a grass cover courtyard developed with concrete
sidewalks and landscape features. The current site grades are relatively flat with an estimated
elevation differential of about 1 to 2 feet across the proposed building and pavement areas. A
small expansion is planned for an existing parking lot located on the south side of Taylor Street.
Ground cover at the parking lot expansion site consists of grass. The current site grades slope
downward from north to south with an estimated elevation differential of about 3 feet.
4.2 Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions
The referenced site is located within the Coastal Plain Province of North Carolina. The Coastal
Plain Province is a broad flat plain with widely spaced low rolling hills where the near surface
soils have their origin from the deposition of sediments several million years ago during the
period that the ocean receded from this area to its present location along the Atlantic Coast. It
is noted that the Coastal Plain soils vary in thickness from only a few feet along the western
border to over ten thousand feet in some areas along the coast. The sedimentary deposits of
the Coastal Plain rest upon consolidated rocks similar to those underlying the Piedmont and
Mountain Physiographic Provinces. In general, shallow unconfined groundwater movement
within the overlying soils is largely controlled by topographic gradients. Recharge occurs
primarily by infiltration along higher elevations and typically discharges into streams or other
surface water bodies. The elevation of the shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly
with seasonal fluctuations in precipitation.
4.3 Soil Conditions
The specific soil conditions at each boring location are noted on the individual boring logs
presented in Appendix B. A general description is also provided below. Subsurface conditions
can and often do vary between boring locations and in unexplored areas.
Borings BHQ-1 through BHQ-7 initially penetrated a surficial layer of topsoil. The topsoil was
about 2 to 4 inches thick and consists of brown silty sand with fine roots and organic matter.
The topsoil thickness will likely differ at other locations.
Fill was encountered beneath the topsoil in boring BHQ-2 and from the ground surface in boring
BHQ-8. The fill soils consisted of moist silty sand and were found to extend to a depth of about
3 feet below the ground surface. The SPT N-values in the fill were 17 and 25 blows per foot
(bpf).
The natural site soils are Coastal Plain sediments of sand and clay strata that extend to the 5,
25, and 75-foot depths explored. The sand strata consisted of silty sand (SM), clayey sand
(SC), and slightly silty poorly graded sand (SP-SM). The SPT N-values for the sand layers
encountered ranged from 5 to 25 bpf denoting loose to medium dense relative densities. The
clay strata consisted of sandy clay (CL). The SPT N-values for clay layers ranged from 7 to
greater than 100 bpf indicating firm to very hard consistencies.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3ro BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
4.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was observed shortly after completion of the drilling operations in boring B-1 at a
depth of about 34 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was not observed in the
remaining borings at the completion of drilling operations. Boring cave-in depths ranged from
15 to 36.5 feet below the existing site grades. Based on observed conditions, color and degree
of saturation of soils, it is our opinion that the long term groundwater level most likely exists at a
depth of 20 feet or more below the existing site grades. Seasonal variations in groundwater
levels should be anticipated due to precipitation changes, evaporation, surface water runoff,
and other factors. Also, perched water conditions may exist when absorbed surface water
becomes trapped above fine grained cohesive soils.
Based upon the in -situ testing performed; the following seasonal high water table and infiltration
rates were obtained. The in -situ infiltration tests were performed at 7 feet below existing site
grades.
Location ID
Seasonal Nigh
Water Table
Infiltration Rates
1-1
> 108 inches
12.6 inlhr
1-2
> 108 inches
5.6 inlhr

Report of subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3rd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1?S1Ho
October 11, 2011
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following design and construction recommendations are based on our above -stated
understanding of the proposed construction and on the data obtained from the field exploration
and visual soil classification. If the structural loading, geometry, or proposed building location is
changed, we request the opportunity to review our recommendations in light of the new
information and revise them as necessary. The following recommendations are for design
purposes and may require modification. Any environmental or contaminant assessment efforts
are beyond the scope of this exploration.
5.1 Foundations
After the subgrades have been prepared as recommended in Section 6 of this report, support of
the proposed building may be achieved using conventional shallow spread foundations bearing
directly upon properly evaluated and approved natural soils and/or properly compacted
structural fill. At the northeast comer of the proposed building (boring BHQ-3), loose sand was
encountered from approximately 3 to 8 feet below existing site grades. It should be anticipated
that up to 8 feet of this material will require removal and re -compaction. Foundations may be
proportioned for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square
foot.
Where new foundations will be constructed next to the existing building, temporary support of
the existing foundations may be necessary to reduce disturbance and/or loss of support
(undermining) to the existing building. New foundations constructed adjacent to the existing
building should bear at the same elevation as the existing foundations. New and existing
foundations should be separated by a "bond breaker".
The exterior foundations should bear at least 18 inches below the adjacent exterior design
grade to afford protective embedment. The interior foundations should bear at least 12 inches
below the floor slab. The edges of "turned -down" slab designs should bear at least 12 inches
below adjacent exterior grades. The column foundation should have a minimum width of 24
inches. The wall foundations should have a minimum width of 18 inches.
Uplift loads can be resisted by the weight of the foundation concrete and the weight of the soil
backfill over the foundations. The unit weight of the soil can be assumed to be 100 pcf. This
unit weight assumes that the soils are compacted to the minimum density recommendations.
Lateral loads can be resisted by passive resistance of the soil as well as friction of the
foundation on the underlying bearing materials. The passive resistance can be calculated
assuming the soil acts as a fluid with an equivalent unit weight of 300 pcf. Soil friction can be
calculated based on the compressive load on the foundation multiplied by a friction coefficient
of 0.4. We recommend a safety factor of at least 2 be used in calculating the restraining forces.
The stability of the site soils encountered at the foundation bearing grades should be
determined with field tests as foundation excavation progresses. As a test procedure, dynamic
- .-cone penetration.(DCP-).tests should.be.performed in the -foundation. excavations as:determined__
by our project geotechnical engineer. Our project engineer should evaluate the results of the
tests to ascertain that adequate soil bearing capacity is achieved.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'd 8CT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:175INQ
October 11, 2011
Soils loosened by the excavation process should be re -compacted to an acceptable density or
hand trimmed and removed. If unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of a
foundation excavation, it will be necessary to lower the base of the footing through the
unsuitable materials or to undercut the unsuitable soils and to restore original bearing levels by
placing engineered fill materials, No. 57 or No. 67 stone, or flowable fill.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing levels if the
foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation concrete should
be placed during the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing soils are softened by
surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation
excavations prior to placement of concrete. No foundation should be constructed on frozen
subgrade.
5.2 Settlement
Total settlements of individual footings, designed in accordance with our recommendations
presented in this report, are expected to be on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement
between any adjacent, similarly -loaded columns is expected to be on the order of '/2 inch.
Sufficient time should be allowed for any newly -placed fill settlements to stabilize prior to
beginning foundation construction.
5.3 Floor Slabs
The slab -on -grade subgrade should be prepared as outlined in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of this
report. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pci is recommended for site soils or properly
placed and compacted structural fill. To reduce curling of the floor slab and the resulting
cracking, proper curing techniques should be used.
We recommend that a capillary cutoff layer be provided under -the floor slabs to prevent the rise
of moisture to the slab. The capillary layer should consist, at a minimum, of a 4-inch thick clean
sand, crushed stone or washed gravel layer, having a maximum size of 1.5 inches with a
maximum of 2 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. A vapor barrier should be utilized on top of
the aggregate to provide additional moisture protection. This vapor barrier should be placed
immediately before the placement of the floor slab concrete to help minimize damages. Prior to
placing the aggregate for the capillary cutoff layer, the floor slab subgrade soil should be
properly compacted, free of standing water or mud, and stable during a final proofroll.
5.4 Seismic Site Class Determination
Based on Section 1615 of the 2009 North Carolina Building Code, the site has the following
characteristics:
Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion 0.2 sec. Spectral Response, Ss — 0.29 g
Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion 1.0 sec. Spectral Response, S1 — 0.10 g
Site Classification — D
Site Coefficient Fa — 1.6; Spectral Response Acceleration SDS — 0.310 g
Site Coefficient Fv — 2.4; Spectral Response Acceleration SD1 — 0.160 g

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3r4 OCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HO
October 11, 2011
Development of the general design response spectrum curve in accordance with Building Code
requires the fundamental period for the structure and, therefore, is left to the Structural
Engineer.
5.5 Site Drainage
We recommend the ground surface be sloped away from the building and pavements for a
minimum distance of 14 feet, and that all downspouts be connected to tightline drains that
discharge to a suitable location downslope of the building or discharge directly into below -grade
storm water piping. In addition, any pavement areas should have positive drainage.
5.6 Groundwater Control
Based on the results of the borings, we do not anticipate that dewatering will be necessary
during construction. If groundwater or a perched water condition is encountered during
construction, it probably can be controlled through the use of ditches, sumps, and pumps. If
water is encountered that cannot be controlled by such procedures, ECS should be further
consulted. Earthwork and trench excavation in saturated materials may require sheeting and
shoring, slope flattening, or benching to control sloughing of soils.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove the water from the
excavation, remove the saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface to
support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
5.7 Cut and Fill Slopes
We recommend that any cut and fill slopes be constructed at 2.5H:1V (horizontal to vertical) or
flatter. A slope of 3H:1V or flatter is recommended for safer operation of mowing equipment.
Fill slopes should be compacted to 92 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in
accordance with ASTM Specification D 1557, Modified Proctor Method. Fill slopes should be
overbuilt and cut back to expose well compacted fill on the face of the slope. Where fill is being
placed on existing slopes, the new fill should be benched into the existing slope.
For slope stabilization purposes, we recommend that the slopes be adequately vegetated to
reduce the risk of erosion. Slopes should be graded such that surface water does not flow over
the face of the slope. Drains should be extended to below the toe of the slope rather than
discharged onto the face of the slope.
5.8 Excavation Considerations
The sidewalls of excavations should be stepped back with benches or slopes in accordance
with the requirements of the most current Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) 29 CFR Part 1926, "Occupational Safety and Health Standards -Excavations." The
soils classify as Type C and Type B according to the OSHA trenching and excavation
guidelines. Excavation sidewalls that cannot be properly stepped back should be braced
against collapse. The design of the bracing system should include lateral earth pressures and
temporary surcharge loads from construction traffic and materials stockpiled next to the
excavation. The design and construction of excavation bracing is typically the responsibility of
10

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geatechnical Engineering Services
3r° BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
the specialty subcontractor selected to install the system. Regardless, site safety shall be the
sole responsibility of the contractor and his subcontractors.
5.9 Pavements
Pavement subgrades should be prepared as outlined in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of this report. We
were not provided with vehicle counts and axle -loading information associated with the traffic
volume at the facility. However, for purposes of this study, we have assumed that parking
areas will receive primarily automobile traffic, and the entrances and service drives will be
subjected to some heavy truck traffic. We have assumed traffic loads of 10,000 and 100,000
18-kip equivalent single axle loadings (ESALS) for standard -duty and heavy-duty pavements,
respectively_
In the parking and service drive areas, we recommend that the pavements be designed as
Flexible pavements using guidelines established by the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). One California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was
performed on the anticipated subgrade soils consisting of silty sand. Based on our experience
with the anticipated subgrade conditions and the results of our laboratory tests performed, we
expect that the subgrade conditions will provide a minimum CBR value of about 8, which has
been used in the thickness design of each pavement section.
Based on the above CBR value and assumed traffic loading conditions, various pavement
sections were evaluated in general accordance to the 1993 "Guide for the Design of Pavement
Structures" by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). For the purposes of this report the following pavement design criteria was used:
initial serviceability index of 4.2, terminal serviceability index of 2.0, reliability level of 90 percent,
and an overall standard deviation of 0.45.
Heavy Duty
Material Designation
Standard Duty
Heavy Duty
Portland Cement
Asphalt
Asphalt
Concrete (PCC)
Pavement
Pavement**
Pavement'
As halt Surface Course S-9.5B
1.5 inches
1.5 inches
Asphalt Binder Course I-19.06
-
2.5 inches
-
Portland Cement Concrete
-
-
6 inches
Aggregate Base Course (NCDOT
6 inches
6 inches
6 inches
ABC
Note`* : Geogrid such as Tesar BX1100 or woven geotextile fabric and additional stone base
course materials may be necessary in localized areas to achieve subgrade stabilization. The
need for such materials will be a function of subgrade conditions at the time of pavement
construction.
The base course materials beneath pavements should be compacted to 98 percent of their
modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). The asphalt concrete and crushed
stone materials should conform to the North Carolina Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures. For Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement
sections, the concrete should be plant -mixed with a minimum compressive strength of 4,000-psi
at 28-days and should contain 4 to 6 percent entrained air. Appropriate steel reinforcing and
jointing should be incorporated into the design of PCC pavements.
11

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3`d BCT Headquarters
EC5 Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
Front -loading trash trucks frequently impose concentrated front -wheel loads on pavements
while lifting the dumpster. This type of loading typically results in rutting of bituminous
pavements and ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. Therefore, we recommend a
heavy duty PCC pavement section in the area of the trash dumpster, including the area where
the front axle of the trash truck will be located while lifting the dumpster.
Regardless of the section and type of construction utilized, saturation of the subgrade materials
will result in a softening of the subgrade materials and shortened life span for the pavement.
Risk of subgrade softening can be reduced by means of quickly removing surface and
subsurface water, resulting in an increased likelihood of improved pavement performance.
Therefore, we recommend that both the surface and subsurface materials for the pavement be
properly graded to enhance surface and subgrade drainage. In addition, placement of '/z-inch
diameter holes drilled through catch basins at or slightly above the subgrade elevation will
facilitate base course drainage into the catch basin.
5.10 Retaining Walls
ECS can provide design services for any proposed retaining walls or stabilized slopes if you
desire. Retaining walls must be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from the backfill. We
recommend the following lateral earth pressure values for proposed retaining walls:
Onsite Soils Consisting of SM, SC, and SP-SM
Angle of internal friction ((p) = 30'
Moist Unit Weight (y,,,,�jn) = 115 pcf
Active earth pressure (Ka) = 0.33
Active equivalent fluid density (y,,) = 38 pcf
At -rest pressure (Ke) = 0.5
At -rest equivalent fluid density (yeq) T 57.5 pcf
Passive pressure (Kp) = 3
Passive equivalent fluid density (y,,) = 345 pcf
Coefficient of sliding friction (p) = 0.4
These ultimate values are based on a level ground surface, well -drained backfill, and the
placement of properly compacted backfill between the walls and undisturbed natural soils.
Appropriate factors of safety should be applied. Additional laboratory testing should be performed
to verify these parameters, as well as others, required for the proper design of any retaining walls
at the site.
High plasticity soils should not be used in the backfill of the site walls, and should be undercut if
encountered in the footings, zone of influence, or retention zone in the case of segmental walls
The values for active conditions should be used if the wall is allowed to tilt out a sufficient distance
to fully mobilize soil strengths. The amount of movement is approximately 1 inch for every 20 feet
of height of wall for loose sand conditions. For rigid, non -yielding walls, at -rest conditions should
be used.
12

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'd BC7 Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
In addition to the lateral stresses from the backfill, the walls may be subjected to additional
surcharge loading from adjacent traffic, stockpiled materials, sloping backfill or stresses from
nearby footings or floor slabs. If present, these surcharge stresses should be resolved into
appropriate lateral stress distributions and added to the earth pressures outlined above. Typically,
where vehicles can approach within half the height of a retaining wall, a surcharge equivalent to 2
feet of additional fill should be included.
Groundwater should be considered in the design of any retaining walls on site. An adequate
drainage system must be designed and installed. The drainage system should consist of a
vertical wall drain consisting of a designed filtered aggregate drain or commercial geosynthetic
drain such as Enka -Drain or Mirra-Drain. The vertical drain should be connected to a foundation
drain, which drains by gravity to a low point on site.
Backfill placed within a distance of one-half the height of retaining walls should be compacted
with Land guided equipment to avoid overstressing the walls during construction. Similarly,
heavy equipment should not be operated adjacent to the walls without adequate bracing. High
plasticity soils should not be used as backfill as they may adsorb water, expand and exert
significant lateral loads on the wall. Therefore, the contractor should use granular materials that
are easily compacted in thin lifts with light equipment.
13

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'" BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HO
October 11, 2011
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Site Preparation and Clearing
We recommend that a pre -construction survey of the existing building be performed in order to
avoid disputes during construction and/or completion of the project. The survey should consist
of documenting existing cracks, damages, or cosmetic flaws in the building. A pre -construction
awareness meeting with all parties to acknowledge existing conditions should be considered.
The installation of crack monitors or other monitoring devices may be warranted as well.
Site preparation should commence with demolition and removal of the existing concrete
sidewalks and the clearing and stripping of all trees, vegetation, topsoil, debis, deleterious
materials, and any other soft or unsuitable materials from the existing ground surface. These
operations should extend at least 10 feet beyond the limits of the planned building and
pavement construction.
All existing underground utilities within the proposed building area should be removed including
bedding and backfill materials. Excavations resulting from underground utility removal should
be backfilled with structural fill. Pockets of trapped water could be encountered in utility trench
excavations and during the removal of underground structures and should be promptly
removed. Pumping from a sump pit located within the excavation should be an effective
method of controlling such groundwater seepage. Soft wet soils remaining in the bottoms of
excavations should be undercut and removed to establish firm subgrade conditions prior to
backfilling. All undercut areas should be backfilled with compacted structural fill.
Once the site is cleared and stripped as outlined above, we recommend that areas at grade and
areas to be filled be thoroughly proofrolled. The proofrolling should be accomplished using a
loaded dump truck having an axle weight of at least 10 tons or rubber -tired equipment of similar
weight and tire pressures. The proofrolling should be observed by an experienced geotechnical
engineer, or his representative, at the time of construction to aid in identifying any areas with
soft or unsuitable materials. Any soft or unsuitable materials identified during proofrolling
operations should be either repaired in -place or removed and replaced with an approved fill
material placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section
6.2 Fill Placement and Soil Compaction.
The natural soils at this site will deteriorate when exposed to moisture. The exposed subgrades
should be sloped to promote surface runoff and reduce the ponding of water. When rainfall is
anticipated during grading operations, we recommend that areas of disturbed soil be sealed
using a smooth drum roller or rubber -tired equipment to reduce the infiltration of water and
grading activities cease until the site has had a chance to dry. Water that may accumulate in
the footing excavations as a result of rainfall or surface water runoff should be immediately
removed. Loosened or disturbed materials at the base of footing excavations should be
removed prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
To facilitate heavy truck traffic in and out of the site during construction, temporary construction
roads may be necessary. On a preliminary basis, we expect that the construction roads would
need to consist of at least 12 inches of coarse aggregate base stone underlain with a woven
geotextile such as Mirafi 50OX or Tensar BX-1100 Geogrid. An additional thickness of stone
14

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
will likely be required to maintain the roadways in localized areas of concentrated traffic or
where soft ground or shallow groundwater conditions might exist.
Grading operations at this site will be more economical if performed during the drier periods of
the year (typically April to November). During the drier periods of the year, wet soils may be
dried -back by using discing operations or other drying procedures to obtain moisture contents
necessary to achieve adequate degrees of compaction.
6.2 Fill Placement and Soil Compaction
Soils used as fill and backfill should be approved materials, free of organics, debris, frozen and
foreign material, and generally having a maximum Liquid Limit of 50 and a maximum Plasticity
Index of 20. The on -site soils consisting of silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), slightly silty
poorly graded sand (SP-SM), and sandy clay (CL) should be able to be used as fill and backfill
material for this project provided moisture contents are controlled. Importing of fill material may
be necessary to balance the site. All imported fill should be tested for conformance with above
requirements before being transported to the site. The maximum particle size in the fill should
be less than '/2 the thickness of the compacted lift.
Any fill or backfill placed in foundation, slab, pavement, utility trench, or sidewalk areas should
be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance
with.ASTM Specification D 1557, Modified Proctor Method. However, the upper 18 inches of fill
below the pavement areas should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Fill
should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness with fill operations
continuing until the subgrade elevations are achieved. In areas where hand compaction
equipment is used, fill should be placed in loose lifts no more than 4 inches thick.
Any fill or backfill placed in landscaped areas should be compacted to a minimum of 85 percent
of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM Specification 01557, Modified
Proctor Method.
We recommend that the placement of compacted structural fill and recompaction of the
subgrade be observed to determine if proper compaction is being achieved. In -place density
tests made in accordance with ASTM Designation 0 1556 or equivalent should be used to verify
compaction. We recommend a minimum of one test per lift for every 5,000 square foot area, or
fraction thereof for each lift of fill placed. We also recommend at least one test per lift for every
100 linear feet of utility trench and roadway backfill, or fraction thereof.
15

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3r° BCT Headquarters
ECS Protect Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
This report has been prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the
architect and/or engineer in the design of this project. The scope is limited to the specific
project and locations described herein and our description of the project represents our
understanding of the significant aspects relative to soil and foundation characteristics. In the
event that any changes in the nature or location of the proposed construction outlined in this
report are planned, we should be informed so that the changes can be reviewed and the
conclusions of this report modified or approved in writing by the geotechnical engineer. It is
recommended that all construction operations dealing with earthwork and foundations are
reviewed by an experienced geotechnical engineer to provide information as to whether the
design requirements are fulfilled in the actual construction. If you wish, we would welcome the
opportunity to provide field construction services for you during construction.
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the soil borings and tests performed at the locations as indicated on the Boring Location
Diagram and other information referenced in this report. This report does not reflect any
variations which may occur between the borings. In the performance of the subsurface
exploration, specific information is obtained at specific locations at specific times. However, it is
a well-known fact that variations in soil conditions exist on most sites between boring locations
and also such situations as groundwater levels vary from time to time. The nature and extent of
variations may not become evident until during the course of construction. If site conditions vary
from those identified during the subsurface explorations, the recommendations contained in this
report may require revision.
16

• �i-� � , n, � � # i �,+-.�, ./" � y �' �t'�1�E ��, Wit' ;�� �y,• - '.�„ W...IL
140
Opp-
0011S3rryt �. t F * �-r : s- vi• i '! �ii
ID �}� , � ,+ t '� �-` �h 1 �' i -,r� /!� ,+►� fit i�, ..,�. �
'y ... ��. �••- , -w- ':," � .�,- r .�. .V'�y-� �u. ,�'�+3 mot,
r^ Olt
PZ4 1',—, ,
Wit— t
Ira
1
w • W: .Y`r� I- �r.r�+�•.�'" ' 'rr s .r /' n '"'l,.a t C '! .a ' -�'.
zl-
a:w- - k. �ik M .�`�-^ a f_ '3 J:11(�E4�i� . i• _ 4 �. � !�u3.r. +i ' t, ��,:
rr.44 q s.
!.•., >Jy.,. c� L�IfeL:..'�� .� n tr"1�j�'r�+lt�� -KJ!.ti*k•� y „.�1,�,?'`r'`� �.i - k t
iJF,•( ;�F�"'• �,!' ��.?
ENGINEER SCALE
SITE VICITNITV � 3rd BCT HQ DRAFTBSMAN PRO7ECTNO. NTs
MAS 33:1751
DIAGRAM � Taylor Street REVISIONS SHEET
Fi .1
Clark Construction Fort Bragg, NC DATE 10/05/11

BORING LOCATION 3rd SCT Headquarters
DIAGRAM ECS Taylor Street
Clark Construction Fort Bragg, NC
N
W
EN&INEER [SCALE
E
DRAFTSMAN! I PROJECT NO.
MAS 33:1751
2
10/05/11

APPENDIX B
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM,
REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS,
SUBSURFACE CROSS-SECTION
BORING LOGS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)
Major Divisions
Group
Symbols
Typical Names
Laboratory Classification Criteria
Well -graded gravels, gravel -
°c
GW
sand mixtures, little or no
N
C = Dw/D,o greater than 4
fines
o
C� _ (D3o)21(❑1ox0ao) between 1 and 3
Vl
O ;
N
o
c ;w
Poorly graded gravels,
u N
_m _J
~
GP
gravel -sand mixtures, little or
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
U
no fines
.L
. N
O 3 R
o
U
Ln
C3_z°
a
o
d
m
_ m
� o
GM'
Silty gravels, gravel -sand
m
Atterberg limits below "A" line
r
L m
mixtures
or P1 less than 4
Above 'A" line with P.I.
Z
.3 c
u
a
between 4 and 7 are
o
°} m
2
m o o
borderline cases requiring
z
0
o
i'
f6
3 N -0
U
use of dual symbols
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand-
Atterberg limits below "A" line
C
i
Q
E
-NL "
m
clay mixtures
M a
or P.I. less than 7
[22
t
�
a o
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly
C° = D&)D,o greater than 6
Z
Qm m`
sands, little or no fines
c
C� _ (Dmo /(D,oxDw) between 1 and 3
8 f6
m
y O y
U
? O N
� �
SP
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
E
m .14
W
d
� U y
c � N y �
r
.t
U
sands, little or no fines
M 0 0. Lj .5
C
l6
N v
0 VI
G[.�-- ��=W
r-
m
_Q U
?
a t5 8 in
a
N O Z
O
d
CD
0, W L�
tc
'n
SM•
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
°
Atlarberg limits above "A" line
c
m r
m °
or P.I. less than 4
Limits plotting in CL•ML
. a1 d
u
0 a m a —
a
zone with P.I, between 4
m f0
�
N@ ,r
a o N v
and 7 are borderline
N
a'
` m m a
cases requiring use of
Q
€ c -S N
dual symbols
SC
Clayey sands, sand -clay
m (1) CL H v o
W
Atterberg limits above "A" line
mixtures
(D
with P.I. greater than 7
Inorganic silts and very fine
ML
sands, rock flour, silty or
Plasticity Chart
clayey fine sands, or clayey
silts with slight plasficity
60
Inorganic clays of low to
_
CL
medium plasticity, gravelly
NEU
clays, sandy clays, silty clays,
"A"
line
in .Cr
lean clays
gQ
—
Organic silts and organic silty
D
z
c
?
OL
clays of low plasticity
40
CH
m
N t
a1
Inorganic silts, micaceous_ or
c
CL
m
n
MH
diatomaceous fine sandy or
> 30
:�
N
c
silty soils, elastic silts
t6
C1
20
c
MH
and OH
c
a c
CH
Inorganic clays of high
@
m
plasticity, fat clays
E_
E
10
ip
(r)
L
'
OH
Organic clays of medium to
L ads OL
V
high plasticity, organic silts
0
c
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
r 1° o
Pt
Peat and other highly organic
Liquid Linit
m
2 0 V)
soils
° Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when
L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28.
b Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example.
GW-GC,well-graded gravel -sand mixture with clay binder. (From Table 2.16 - Winterkom and Fang, 1975)

Reference Notes for Boring Logs
Drilling and Sampling Symbols:
SS - Split Spoon Sampler
ST - Shelby Tube Sampler
RC - Rock Core: NX, BX, AX
PM - Pressuremeter
DC - Dutch Cone Penetrometer
RB - Rock Bit Drilling
BS - Bulk Sample of Cuttings
PA - Power Auger (no sample)
HSA - Hollow Stem Auger
WS - Wash Sample
Standard Penetration (Blows/Ft) refers to the blows per foot of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on
a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler, as specified in ASTM D-1586. The blow count is commonly
referred to as the N-value.
Correlation of Penetration Resistances to Soil Properties:
Relative Density -Sands, Silts Consistency of Cohesive Soils
SPT-N
Relative Density
N-Values
Consistency
0-4
Very Loose
0-2
Very Soft
5 - 10
Loose
3-4
Soft
11 - 30
Medium Dense
5-8
Firm
31 - 50
Dense
9-15
Stiff
51 or more
Very Dense
16-30
Very Stiff
31-50
Hard
51 or more
Very Hard
Unified Soil Classification Symbols:
GP -
Poorly Graded Gravel
ML -
Low Plasticity Silts
GW -
Well Graded Gravel
MH -
High Plasticity Silts
GM -
Silty Gravel
CL -
Low Plasticity Clays
GC
- Clayey Gravels
CH -
High Plasticity Clays
SP
- Poorly Graded Sands
OL -
Low Plasticity Organics
SW
- Well Graded Sands
OH -
High Plasticity Organics
SM
- Silty Sands
CL-ML -
Dual Classification
SC
- Clayey Sands
(Typical)
IV. Water Level Measurement Symbols:
WL - Water Level BCR -
Before Casing Removal
WS - While Sampling ACR -
After Casing Removal
WD . - While Drilling WCI -
Wet Cave In
DCI -
Dry Cave In
The water levels are those water levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the
symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in a granular soil.
In clays and plastic silts, the accurate determination of water levels may require several days for the water
level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally applied.

280-
-
8HQ-1
BHQ-2
BHQ-3
BHQ-4
BHQ-5
BHQ-6
SHQ-7
270
16
sm
17
14 Sm
is Sm
13
15 5M
25 1111 SM
16
sm
13
SC
5
5P-5m
10
Sm
5
SM
5C
12
Sm
m
BHQ-8
13
SC
11
7
SfI-5m
8
sm
E08 5.0'
EOB 510'
E08 @ 5.0'
28
28
25
11
EL 266.00
EL 267.00
EL 267.00
26o
CL
a
$M
(DRY)
(DRY)
(DRY)
I
10
19
18
a
17
23
SM
Sm
Sm
sm
14
18
EOB @ 5.0'
15
7
EL 256.00
250
sm
sm
sm
CL
(DRY)
9
13
41
a
Z8
CL
z
SP-SM
E08 25.0
EOB @25.0'
EOB @25.0'
0
23
CL
EL 247
EL 246.50
EL 246.50
r
240
a
(OPY)
(DRY)
(DRY)
,CC
7
>
LLJ
CL
LU
14
230
Sm
12
15
c
s
220-
21
Sm
13
a
210—
CL
ZO
SP
50/5
200
CL
50/4
E09 @ 75.0'
EL 197.00
SUBSURFACE
CROSS SECTION
Clark Construction
CMIS
I
3rd BCT Headquarters
Taygor Street
Fort Bragg, NC
ENGINEER
T
SCALE
NTS
DRAFTag MAN
PROJECTNO.
33-1751
REVrSION5
SHEET
Fi 3
DATE
to
177�

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB #
1751
BORING
1 BHQ-1
SHEEP
1 OF 3
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT-•-ENGENEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER
1 2 TON 3 4 5+
PLASTIC HATER UQUM
LDaT x CONTENT x LIWT z
X — ~--��- -- --�
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
ROD%— — — REC.%
20%4OX-6OX-8O%--IO0%
'N
® STANDARDBLOON
10 20 90 40 ISO+
a
_
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING lb —LOSS OF CIRCUTATION 100
z
SURFACE ELEVATION 272.0
Topsoil Depth 4"
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Yellow, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
270
16 (6-8-8}
2
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Brown, Tan. Clayey,
Medium SAND (SM)
265
13:(4-7-6) :
3
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan. Brown, Orange,
Clayey, Medium SAND (SC)
Moist. Very Stiff, Gray, Tan. Red,
4
SS
18
18
Medium, Sandy CLAY (CL)
- '28 (8-16-n)
t
260
- -
Moist, Loose, Ton, Light Gray, Clayey,
5
SS
18
18
Medium SAND (SM)
10
255
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Yellow, White,
6
SS
18
18
Silty, Medium SAND (SM)
- 14 (54-7)
20
250
l
-
9 (44-5) = =
Wet, Loose, Tan, Orange. Slightly Sil
Poorly Graded, Medium SAND (SP-SMA
7
SS
18
18
25
245
Wet, Very Stiff, Tan, Gray, Silty CLAY
8
SS
18
18
(CL)
230-8-141.
30
--------•------_
—----------
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.
i
? THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LIMES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES UN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
6q VAL 34.00 ® OR WD
80RING STARTED 09/26/1 1
DRILLER-. J do L Drilling, Inc.
7 VUEICR) TWL(ACR)
BORDriG COMPLLtI'ED 0 g 2 6 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH a 36.5'
S
!fwL
REG CME 75 FDREm&N-S. Bowman
DRILIdNG METHOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB # BORING #
1751 BH0-1
SHEET
2 OF 3
F-s
410116
PROJECT NAME
3rd BCT HQ
ARCHITECT —ENGINEER
-�-
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fart Bragg, NC
-o- CALLBRATED PENEMOMETER
I 2 Tax 3 4 s+
PLASTIC RATER LIQUID
IIl[!'T X CONTENT X L MT X
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION dr REXOVERY
RQD%— — -- REC.X
20%-40%--6OX-80%100%
® STANDARD PRS/i NETRATION
ID 20 30 40 50+
d
09
a
..
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING ®— LASS OF CIRCULATION 1D0
9
e
SURFACE ELEVATION
3
3
4
so—
55
60
Wet, Very Stiff, Tan, Gray, Silty CLAY
(CL)
—
;
:7 (24-4)
12 (5-54)
($-7-e)
21 0-12)
13:(5-6-n;
--- W—:—�: _--_
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.
Wet, Firm, Gray, Brown, Silty CLAY
(CL)?
9
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Gray, Orange,
Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
10
SS
18
18
Wet, Medium Dense, Tan, Yellow, Red,
Clayey, Medium SAND (SC)
R1$
11
SS
18
18
12
SS
18
18
Wet, Medium Dense, Tan, Gray, Red,
Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
13
SS
18
18
Stiff, Tan, Gray, Red, Medium Sandy
------------
J14j��M(CL)
THE STRATIFICATION LIKES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNOARY LINES BETVEEN SOIL TYPES IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
Y*ti 34.00 ®aR
BORaVG STARTED 09/26/ 1 1
DRILLER: J & L Drilling, Inc.
TVUBCR) TRL(ACR)
BORING COMPIA'TED 26 1
CAVE IN DEPTH • 36.5'
YWL
RIG CME 75 F'ORLvAN S. Bowman
DRUIMO b%?HOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB # BORING #
1751 BHQ-1
SHEET
3 OF 3
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
-0- CeusaAT I) PENETROMETER
TONS/FTTaylor
Street, Fort Bragg, NC
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER UQUEU
LIKIT X CONTENT X LWT X
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
CIf QUALTTy DESIGNATION & RECOVERy
p
BOTTOM OF CASING ®- [AS3 OF CIRCULATION
rR020X-40%-60%
RQDX— — — RECX
—8O%-100%
A
o
`
s
STANDARD PENETRATION
® BLOWS/FP
10 20 30 40 60+
SURFACE ELEVATION
GG—
Wet, Stiff, Tan, Gray, Red, Medium Sandy
CLAY (CL)
:
Wet, Medium Dense, Yellow, Orange, Red,
15
SS
18
18
Poorly Graded, Coarse SAND (SP)
20 (s-s-n)
Wet, Very. Hard, Gray, Orange, Red, Silty
16
SS
18
18
CLAY (CL)
7
17
SS
18
18
7
END OF BORING @ 75.0'
80
85
i
90
s
i
THE STRATIFICATION LIMES REPRESENT THE APPRaxI]MATE SMINDARY LIMES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES In -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY HE GRAOUAL
3 PL 34.00 0 oR wD
BoRmr. sPAwm 09/26/ 1 1
DRILLER: J & L Drilling, Inc.
�RUBCR) TWQACR)
BORING COMPLETED 09 26 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH s 36.5'
!fwL
RIG CME 75 FOREMAN S. Bowman
DRILLING IMMOO H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB #
1751
BORING
BHQ-2
SHEET'+
1 OF 1
EtPdndM;kaeM-M
PROJECT NAME
3rd BCT HQ
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
lit
-- -
SITE LOCATION LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
-o- CAUHRAUM PENEPROIMM
t z 1ON83E'I 4 s+
PTASPIC WATER EUA UID
tall % CONTENT % LWT %
ROCK QI7ALITY DESIGNATION do RECOVERY
ROD%— — — REC.%
20%40%-60% 80% 10a%
MWPsE� RATION
® STANDARDBMWs/Fr.
20 so 40 50+
ca
a
z
as
F
51
a
1 1to
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING ® LOSS OF CIRCUI.AT[OIV too
P
SURFACE ELEVATION 272.0
0
rj
15
20
25
30
Topsoil Depth 4"
278
265
260
255
250
245
-
17 (9-10-7)
13:(4-6-7) :
11 (6-6-5)
28 (e42-16)
-
18 (5-4-10)
=
1
SS
18
18
FILL - Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, grown,
Silty, Medium Sand
2
SS
18
18
Coastal Plain Sediments - Moist, Medium
Dense, Tan, Yellow, Brown, Clayey, Medium
SAND (SC)
3
SS
18
18
Moist, Very Stiff, Gray, Red, Medium
Sandy CLAY (CL)
4
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Gray, Red,
Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
5
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Red, Silty,
tine SAND (SM)
6
SS
18
18
7
S S
18
18
END OF BORING @ 25.0'
THE STRATIFICATION LInES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETVEEM SOD- TYPES IN -SITU THE TRANSITIM MAY BE GRADUAL
7WL DRY ® OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/26/1 1
DRILLER: J dt L Drilling, Inc.
'YWL(BCR) ! f wxACR)
BORING COMPIETED 0 9 2 6 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH O 1 rj.a'
!gWL
RIG CME 75 FOREMAN S. Bowman
DRUJMG METHOD H.s.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB BORING SHEET
1751 BHQ-3 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
��-----=+-
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
-a- CALIBRATED PE 06rZM
1_ z a 4 a+
PLASTIC WAXER LIQUID
LWT X CONTENT X U11IT X
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQDX•- — — REC.%
100%
® STANDARD PENETRATION
Lo 20 BLO SM. 40 go+
c
o
x
w
_
o
�
A
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING ®- [ASS of CIRCULATION 10D 1-20-40%-60%-80%—
�
9
SURFACE ELEVATION
271.5
Topsoil Depth 2"
-
270
14 (4-e-s)
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Tan, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
=
5 (4-2--
2
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan, Yellow, Red, Slightly
Silty, Poorly Graded, Medium SAND
5
(SP-SM)
265
:7 (3_34) ;
:
3
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan, Yellow, Slightly
Silty, Poorly Graded, Medium SAND
(SP-SM)
2S (e-tz-i3}
4
SS
18
18
Moist, Very Stiff, Tan, Gray, Medium
Sandy CLAY (CL)
260
18 (54-11)
S
SS
18
IS
15
255
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Red,
b
SS
18
I8
Silty, Medium SAND (SM)
15 (a-s-iJ
20
250
Moist, Hard, Tan, Gray, Silty, CLAY (CL)
7
SS
18
18
(9-tB-2I} 41
25
END 'OF BORING ® 25.0'
245
, 30
i
1 THE STRATIFICATION LIMES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETHEEN SOIL TYPES IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
Yn DRY ®oR 11D
BORING STARTED 09/22/1 1
DRILLER. J dI L Drilling, Inc.
TIIL(BCR) Tr11.(ACR)
BORING COMPEM 09 22 1 1
CAVE IN DEPM a 16.0'
!�*L
RIG CME 75 Founu N S. Bowman
DRILLING MMOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB #
1751
BORING N SHEET
BHQ-4 1 of 1
—�
E&
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
- -�-
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
CAIBRATENP3ENLIIOMETER
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LLMir x CONTENT x LIICT x
l{—�--------,n
ROCK QUALCIY DESIGNATION 8 RECOVERY
ROD%— — — REC.%
20%--40%-60%-8OX-100%
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
IO 20 30 40 50+
o
z
w
`
a
_
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS�
BOTTOM OF CASING®— LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100
z
`
SURFACE ELEVATION
2 71. 5
O
Topsoil Depth 3"
270
- 18
I
SS
1B
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Tan, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
10 (5=5-5)
2
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan, Yellow, Silty, Medium
SAND (SM)
5
265
B (4-4-5)
3
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan, Red, Silty, Medium
SAND (SM)
11 (s-5_6)
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Light Gray,
Red, Silty, Medium SAND {SM)
4
SS
18
1$
i
260
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Silty,
5
SS
18
18
Medium SAND (SM)
7 (7-fig)
255
Moist, Firm, Gray, Brown, Medium Sandy
6
SS
1$
18
CLAY (CL)
:7 (3-3 4)
20
250
Wet, Very Stiff, Gray, Red, Silty CLAY
7
SS
18
18
(CQ
28 (9 2-16)
25
END OF BORING @ 25.0'
245
_
30
f
I THE STRATIFIrATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPRO%InATE BOUNDARY LILIES BETVEEM SOIL TYPES In -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL '
!PL DRY ®OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/22/1 1
DRILLER: J & L Drilling, Inc.
:ZWL(BCR) !FWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 09 22 1
CAVE IN DEPTH O 15.0'
i!gWL
RIG CME 75 FOREMAN S. Bowman
DRILLING METHOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

I
11
CLIENT
JOB #
BORING
SHEET
Clark
Construction Company
1751
BHQ-5
1 OR 187
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT
HQ+
-
SITE LOCATION
—0— CALIBRATED PENETROMETER
TONS/FT
Taylor
Street,
Fort Bragg, NC
I 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LLMPT X CONTENT X L[MLT X
X--^------- 1w-------- —A
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
oa
�
ROCK QUAY DESIGNATION de RECOVERY
c
z
a
-
BOTTOM OF CASING { LASS OF CDiCULATION I00
z
P.
RQD%— — — REC.X
20%--40%----6Q%-8O%-100%—
r,
SURFACE ELEVATION, 271.0
® STANDARD PENETRATION
0
r�
to 20 so 40 50+
Topsoil Depth 3"
270
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense. Orange, Tan, Silty,
13:(9-7-8);
Medium SAND (SM)
=
Moist, Loose, Ton, Orange, Clayey,
2
SS
18
1B
Medium SAND (SC)
(2-2-3)
5
END OF BORING @ 5.0'
26.5
1
1
26
F-2
K
1 THE STRATIFICATION LIMES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LIMES OETVEEN SOIL TYPES IM-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL 1
PL DRY ® OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/22/ 1 1
DRILLER: J dI L Drilling. Inc.
:gWL(BCR) jWQACR)
BORING COMPLETED 09 22 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH O
:fWL
RIG CME 75 FoREmm S. Bowman
DRILLING METHOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB #
1751
BORING
BHQ--6
SHEET-"�
1 of 1
SCS
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT —ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION LOCATION
CALMRATED PENETROMETER
T°NS3lrf
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
I 2 4 �+
PLASTIC WATER LNQUID
LWr X CONTENT X LDAIT X
F
sn
_
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
i✓
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION do RECOVERY
o
BOTTOM OF CASING PASS OF CIRCULATION t 00
RQDX— -- — REC.X
�
20%-40%-60X---80X-100
a
SURFACE ELEVATION 272.0
h
STANDARD P£NEl'RATION
® BLOWS/T•
10 20 30 40 50+
0
Topsoil Depth 3"
270
15 (67-8)
1
55
I$
1$
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Tan, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
Moist, Medium Dense, Red, Orange, Silty,
2
55
IB
1$
Medium SAND (SM)
12 �g_T_5)
rJ
:
END OF BORING ® 5.0'
265
1
260
15
255
20
250
25
245
30
THE STRATIFICATION LIMES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETVEEII SOIL TYPES IN —SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
7wL DRY (BoR Wo
BORING STARTS 09/22/1 1
DRILLER: J & L Drilling, Inc.
TWI.(BCR) TI"ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 09 22 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH 0
dal.
RIG CME 75 FOREmAN S. Bowman
DRILLING METHOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
JOB
BORING #
SHEET
+
Clark Construction Company
1751
BHQ-7
I 1 OF 1
it
W_
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
��-
SITE LOCATION
-0- CAIRRATExsENET40METER
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER UQUM
LOGT X CONTENT X I31BT X
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
ROCK QUAi1TY DESIGNATION di RECOVERY
c
HOTTOkI OF CASING*-RQO%—
LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100
x
— — REC.X
20%-40%-60%-80%100%
e
SURFACE ELEVATION
272.0
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
0
to 2D s0 40 50+
Topsoil Depth 3"
270/14�9-9-
(12-13-12)
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Tan, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
Moist, Medium Dense, Red, Tan, Silty,
2
SS
18
18
Medium SAND (SM)
5)25
5
END OF BORING 0 5.0'
265
1
260
= =
15
255
20
250
25
t
245
S
, 30
S
d
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE 9OU'IOARY LINES BETVEEM SOIL TYPES D1-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
YWL DRY ® OR WD
130PMG STARTED 09/22/ 1 1
DRILLER: J EI L Drilling, Inc.
WL(BCR) 'TWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 09/2-2/11
CAVE IN DEPTH O
S
3 YWL
fuG CME 75 I'Dmm" S. Bowman
DRIISSNG UMOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
Clark Construction Company
1751
1 BHQ-8
1 OF 1
ELc
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT —ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
-�-
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETJOMEETER
Taylor, Street, Fort Bragg, NC
I 2 3� 4 s+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LiHIT x CONTENT X LIMIT R
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
�
y
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION A RECOVERY
X
BOTTOM OF CASING W— LOSS OF CIRCULATION t
x
ROD%— — — REC.%
e
20%--40X--fi0%SOX-100X
PENETRATION
SURFACE ELEVATION
261.0
® STANDARD
BLOWS/Fr.
10 20 30 40 50+
0
FILL — Moist, Medium Dense, Orange,
Brown, Silty, Medium Sand
260
1
SS
18
is
: 25 (tD�-t2�t3
Coastal Plain Sediments — Moist, Medium
2
SS
18
18
Dense, Tan, Yellow, Silty, Medium SAND
23
5
(SM)
255
:
1
250
15
245
20
240
25
f
235
-
30d
END OF BORING ® 5.0'
THE STRATIFICATIUM LIMES REPRESENT THE APPRaXIiATE BUUMOARY LIMES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES EN -SITU THE TRAMSITIOM MAY BE GRADUAL
$WL DRY 4D0R HD
BORING STARTED 09/22/1 1
DRILLER: J do L Drilling, Inc.
I �NL(BCR) !IMUACR)
BORING COLIPLEMD 09 22 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH et
RIG CME 75 FDPEum S. Bowman
DRUJiG METHOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY

Project Number: 1751
Project Engineer: T.B.B
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Laboratory Testing Summary
Project Name: 3RD BCT Headquarters
Principal Engineer: C.N.0
Date: 1011012011
Summary by: K.A.P
Boring Number
/ Sample
Number
Sample I. D.
Depth
(Feet)
Moisture
Content
M
USCS
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Percent
Passing
No. 200
Sieve
Compaction
Test Standard Deviation
Maximum
Density
(pcf)
I OFt—imum
Moisture
M
Swell
M
Value
M
B - 4 HQ
1128
1.0 - 2.5
7.6
SM
NP
NP
NP
15.5
None Noted
B - 8 HQ
1129
0.0 - 5.0
15.6
SM
29
23
6
35.0
125.2
8.1
0.5
20.2
None Noted
Test Methods: ASTM D854-00 :
ASTM D698-07 :
ASTM D4318-00
ASTM D422-63 :
ASTM D2487-00
ASTM D2216-00
ASTM 01883-99
ASTM D1557-00
ASTM D1140-00
Summary Key:
Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer
Laboratory Compaction Characteristic of Soil Using Standard Effort ((12,400 ft-lbf/ft'(600 kN-m/m''))
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
Particle -Size Analysis of Soils
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (unified Soil Classification System)
Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory -Compacted Soils
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft')
Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than the No. 200 Sieve
NC = NCDOT Test Method Hyd = Hydrometer UCS = Unconfined Compression Soil SA = See Attached
S = Standard Proctor Con = Consolidation UCR = Unconfined Compression Rock NP = Non Plastic
M= Modified Proctor -DS = Direct Shear LS = Lime Stabilization = Test Not Conducted
GS = Specific Gravity CS = Cement Stabilization OC = Organic Content
Prepared by Engineering Consulting services 10/10/2011

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
71
01
50
40
x
to
z
30
U
F-
a
20
lo-14.1,
-
Tested By: K.A.P Checked By: T.B.B

COMPACTION TEST REPORT
135
130
125
U
Q.
•N
C
—
4
120
01
7AV for
—
—
—
—
Sp.G. =
115
2.60
110
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-07 Method A Modified
Elegy!
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
0.0 - 5.0
feet
SM
*
15.6
2.6
29
6
< 5%
35.0
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 125.2 pef
Optimutn moisture = 8.1 %
Gray red tan, silty SAND
Project No. 33:1751 Client: -Clark Construction Company
Project: 3RD BCT ] leadquarters
o Location: B - 8 HQ Depth: 0.0 - 5.0 feet Sample Number: 1129
Remarks:
None noted
Figure
FCS Carolinas, LLP
Fayetteville, NC
Tested By: N.E.W Checked By: K.A.P

CBR Penetration
ASTM D-1883
800
700
600
500
.y
C
400
0
J
300
200
100
0
0.000 0.050 0,100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500
Penetration (inch)
Deviation from Standard ASTM D1883
Procedure:
None Noted
Sample No.: 1129
Street: Fort Bragg, NC
_Description: Gray red tan, silty SAND
Station No.: B - 8 HQ
Classification: SM
Remark: Modified Effort - D 1557
Maximum Dry Density (pcq
125.2
CBR 1129
Opt. Moisture Content (%)
8.1
Corrected CBR @ 0.1"
20.2
Natural Moisture Content
15.6
Corrected CBR @ 0.2'
27.7
Liquid Limit (LL)
29
Reported CBR (%)
20.2
Plastic Limit (PL)
23
Dry Density as Molded
122.8
Plasticity Index (PI)
6
Molded Moisture Content
6.8
Liquidity Index (LI)
*
Percent of Maximum Density -
98.1
Percent Retained 3/4" Sieve
None
Moisture Content +1- Opt
-1.3
Percent Retained No. 4 Sieve
< 5%
Percent (%)Swell
0.5
Percent Passing No.200 Sieve
35.0
Project: 3RD BCT Headquarters
Project No.: 1751
Date: 10-Oct-11
R
Fayetteville, North Carolina
California Bearinq Ratio Curves

APPENDIX D
GENERAL CONDITIONS
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the
exploration previously outlined and the data collected at the boring locations shown on the
attached boring location plan. This report does not reflect specific variations that may occur
between test locations. The borings were located where site conditions permitted and where it
is believed representative conditions occur, but the full nature and extent of variations between
borings and of subsurface conditions not encountered by any boring may not become evident
until the course of construction, if variations become evident at any time before or during the
course of construction, it will be necessary to make a re-evaluation of the conclusions and
recommendations of this report and further exploration, observation, and/or testing may be
required.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practices and makes no other warranties, either express or implied, as to the
professional advice under the terms of our agreement and included in this report. The
recommendations contained herein are made with the understanding that the contract
documents between the owner and foundation or earthwork contractor or between the owner
and the general contractor and the caisson, foundation, excavating and earthwork
subcontractors, if any, shall require that the contractor certify that all work in connection with
foundations, piles, caissons, compacted fills and other elements of the foundation or other
support components are in place at the locations, with proper dimensions and plumb, as shown
on the plans and specifications for the project.
Further, it is understood the contract documents will specify that the contractor will, upon
becoming aware of apparent or latent subsurface conditions differing from those disclosed by
the original soil exploration work, promptly notify the owner, both verbally to permit immediate
verification of the change, and in writing, as to the nature and extent of the differing conditions
and that no claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the
plans and specifications and disclosed by the soil exploration will be allowed under the contract
unless the contractor has so notified the owner both verbally and in writing, as required above,
of such changed conditions. The owner will, in turn, promptly notify this firm of the existence of
such unanticipated conditions and will authorize such further exploration as may be required to
properly evaluate these conditions.
Recommendations made in this report as to on -site construction review by this firm will be
authorized and funds and facilities for such review will be provided at the times recommended if
we are to be held responsible for the design recommendations.

APPENDIX E
PROCEDURES REGARDING FIELD LOGS, LABORATORY DATA SHEETS AND SAMPLES
In the process of obtaining and testing soil samples and preparing this report, procedures are
followed that represent reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil and foundation
engineering.
Specifically, field logs are prepared during performance of the drilling and sampling operations
which are intended to portray essentially field occurrences, sampling locations, and other
information.
Samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to additional testing and final
classification in the laboratory by experienced soil engineers, and differences between the field
logs and the final logs exist.
The engineer preparing the report reviews the field and laboratory data, classifications and test
data, and his judgment in interpreting this data, may make further changes.
Samples are taken in the field, some of which are later subjected to laboratory tests, are
retained in our laboratory for sixty days and are then discarded unless special disposition is
requested by our client. Samples retained over a long period of time, even if sealed in jars, are
subject to moisture loss which changes the apparent strength of cohesive soil generally
increasing the strength from what was originally encountered in the field. Since they are then no
longer representative of the moisture conditions initially encountered, an inspection of these
samples should recognize this factor.
Field logs and laboratory data sheets have not been included in our engineering reports
because they do not represent the engineer's final opinions as to appropriate descriptions for
conditions encountered in the exploration and testing work. Results of the laboratory tests are
generally described in the appendices, shown on the boring logs and/or described in the extent
of the report, as appropriate.

ECS CAROLINAS,- LLP "Setting the Standard for Service"
0. Geotechnical • Construction Materials - Environmental • Facilities NC Reg t6md Eng menng Arm F-1073
SC RegWwed Engineering Firm 3239
October 11, 2011
Ms. Diane Major
Preconstruction Manager
Clark Construction Company
1000 Town center, Suite 2450
Southfield, Michigan 48075
RE: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3`d BCT Headquarters
Taylor Street
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33,1751HO
Dear Ms. Major:
As authorized, we have completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
analysis for the above referenced project. This report presents the findings of our subsurface
exploration and our evaluations, as well as recommendations, regarding geotechnical-related
design and construction considerations for the site.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. We would also at this time like to
express our interest in providing the field construction testing and observation services that will
be required during the construction phase of this'project.
Should you have any,questions or if we could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Respectfully Submitted,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP '
•
•
Thomas B. Baird, P.E.�;�;Q •••.••�P Aric V. Geda, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engine e ' 4lgg 9. Principal Engineer
NC PE License No. 016244 It ii NC PE License No. 035138
ia_PROJECTS11751 i iQ = 3nd BCT NeadquarterslReportli 751
726 Ramsey Street, Suite 3, Fayetteville, NC 28301 T: 010-401-3288 • F: 910-323-0539 • wwwecsllmited.corm
ECS Carollnas. LLP • ECS Florida, LLC - ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Adantic, LLC - ECS Southeast, LLC - ECS Texas, LLP

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
3RD BCT HEADQUARTERS
TAYLOR STREET
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
Ms. Diane Major
Preconstruction Manager
Clark Construction Company
1000 Town Center, Suite 2450
Southfield, Michigan 48075
ECS PROJECT NUMBER 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................:...............................................I
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................1
1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION....................................................................................................................1
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ..............................
2.1 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES..................................................................................................................3
2.2 INFILTRATION TEST PROCEDURES...........................................................................................................3
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING.......................................................................................................................4
3.1 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM............................................................................................................4
3.2 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION.........................................................................................................................4
3.3 LABORATORY TESTING METHODS...........................................................................................................4
3.3.1 Moisture Content Tests.................................................................................................................4
3.3.2 Atterberg Limits.............................................................................................................................4
3.3.3 Percent of Particles Finer Than the U.S. Standard No. 200 Mesh Sieve......................................5
3.3.4 Modified Proctor............................................................................................................................5
3.3.5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR).....................................................................................................5
Mull 0 (:1141:7-A116N1:1*91%IF
4.1 SITE CONDITIONS ............... ............................................................................ :....................................... 6
4.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................6
4.3 SOIL CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................................6
4.4 GROUNDWATER.....................................................................................................................................7
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................8
5.1 FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................:...............................................8
5.2SETTLEMENT .................................................................::......:..:.......:..................:.......:............:.............9
.5.3 FLOOR SLABS....................................................................................................................
5.4 SEISMIC SITE CLASS DETERMINATION.....................................................................................................9
5.5 SITE DRAINAGE .......... ... ........ .....:..:...:........................................................................................ I ..........
10
5.6 GROUNDWATER CONTROL....................................................................................................................10
5.7 CUT AND FILL SLOPES..........................................................................................................................10
5.8 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................................10
5.9 PAVEMENTS ........ _ _ _-
5.10 RETAINING WALLS.............................................................................................................................12
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................14
6.1 SITE PREPARATION AND CLEARING ...... :.................................................................................. :............. 14
6.2 FILL PLACEMENT AND SOIL COMPACTION..............................................................................................15
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS............................................................................................ ........ .........16
APPENDICES:
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Unified Soil Classification System, Reference Notes for Boring Logs, Subsurface
Cross -Section, Boring Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Testing Summary
Appendix D General Conditions
Appendix E Procedures Regarding Field Logs, Laboratory Data Sheets, and Samples

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotachnical Engineering Services
3rd 13CT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751 HQ
October 11, 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) has completed a report of subsurface exploration and geotechnical
engineering services for the for the new 31d Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Headquarters located
at Taylor Street on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina. This
summary should not be considered apart from the entire text of the report with all the
qualifications and conditions mentioned herein.
The project entails the construction of the new 3'd BCT Headquarters lat Taylor Street on the
Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The new headquarters facility
will be located on the north side of building A-2356 (Hall of Heroes). The headquarters building
will be a two-story steel -framed structure with a concrete slab -on -grade floor. The proposed
finished floor elevation is 272.20 feet. Structural loading information was not furnished. To
facilitate our analysis, we have assumed maximum column and wall loads will not exceed 100
kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. Other improvements to the site include rigid
concrete pavement areas and three retention ponds. Also included in the project, is a small
expansion to an existing parking lot located on the south side of Taylor Street.
Based on the existing topography across the proposed' headquarters facility, earth cuts and fill
placement on the order of 1 to 2 feet or less will be required to establish the building *and
pavement design elevations. At the parking lot expansion fill placement of about 3 feet will be
required to establish pavement design elevations.
The subsurface conditions at site were explored by drilling eight soil test borings (BHQ-1
through 131-10-8). Borings BHQ-1 through BHQ-4 were completed in the proposed building area
and borings BHQ-5 through BHQ-8 were completed in the proposed pavement areas. The
borings in the building area were advanced to depths of about 25 feet below existing site
grades with the exception of BHQ-1, which was advanced to a depth of about 75 feet. The
borings in the pavement areas were advanced to depths of about 5 feet below existing site
grades. One bulk sample of the soils anticipated to be used as pavement subgrade were
obtained for laboratory testing. In addition, two in -situ infiltration tests and seasonal high water
table (SHWT) determinations (1-1 and 1-2) were performed at the requested locations on the
site.
_ Borings BHQ-1 through BHQ-7 initially penetrated a surficial layer of topsoil. The topsoil was
about-27ta 4-inches tliick and consists of -brown silty sand witli fine roots and organic matter.
The topsoil thickness will likely differ at other locations.
Fill was encountered beneath the topsoil in boring BHQ-2 and from the ground surface in boring
BHQ-8. The fill soils consisted of moist silty sand and were found to extend to a depth of about
3 feet below the ground surface. The SPT N-values in the fill were 17 and 25 blows per foot
(bpf).
The natural site soils are Coastal'hain sediments of sand and clay strata that extend` to the 5,
25, and 75-foot depths explored. The sand strata consisted of silty sand (SM), clayey sand
(SC), and slightly silty poorly graded sand (SP-SM). The SPT N-values for the sand layers
encountered ranged from 5 to 25 bpf denoting loose to medium dense relative densities. 'The
clay strata consisted of sandy clay (CL). The SPT N'-values for clay layers ranged from 7 to
greater than 100 bpf indicating firm to very hard consistencies.

Groundwater was observed shortly after completion of the drilling operations in boring B-1 at a
depth of about 34 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was not observed in the
remaining borings at the completion of drilling operations. Boring cave-in depths ranged from
15 to 36.5 feet below the existing site grades. Based on observed conditions, color and degree
of saturation of soils, it is our opinion that the long term groundwater level most likely exists at a
depth of 20 feet or more below the existing site grades.
Based on the in -situ infiltration tests, the apparent seasonal high water table is greater that 108
inches below existing grades and infiltrations rates ranged from 5.6 to 12.6 inches per hour at a
depth of 84 inches below existing site grades.
After the subgrades have been prepared as recommended in Section 6 of this report, the
proposed building may be supported on conventional shallow footing foundations and a ground -
supported floor slab. An allowable design soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf is recommended
for footings placed on properly evaluated and approved existing fill, natural soils, and/or
engineered fill. At the northeast corner of the proposed building (boring BHQ-3), loose sand
was encountered from approximately 3 to 8 feet below existing site grades. It should be
anticipated that up to 8 feet of this material will require removal and re -compaction.
Based on Section 1615 of the 2009 North Carolina State Building Code the weighted average
N-values from standard penetration testing resulted in a seismic site class of °Dp.

Reporl of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HO
October 11, 2011
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Project Description and Scope of Work
This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
analysis for the new 3rd Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Headquarters located at Taylor Street on
the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina. We have been provided with
a Site Grading Plan which illustrates the proposed site layout, existing and proposed grade, and
other site features.
The subsurface conditions at site were explored by drilling eight soil test borings (BHQ-1
through BHQ-8). Borings BHQ-1 through BHQ-4 were completed in the proposed building area
and borings BHQ-5 through BHQ-8 were completed in the proposed pavement areas. The
borings in the building area were advanced to depths of about 25 feet below existing site
grades with the exception of BHQ-1, which was advanced to a depth of about 75 feet. The
borings in the pavement areas were advanced to depths of about 5 feet below existing site
grades. One bulk sample of the soils anticipated to be used as pavement subgrade were
obtained for laboratory testing, In addition, two in -situ infiltration tests and seasonal high water
table (SHWT) determinations (I-1 and 1-2) were performed at the requested locations on the
site.
The soil test borings were staked in the field by a survey crew prior to our site exploration. The
infiltration tests were located in the field by ECS personnel using measurements off existing site
features. The approximate boring and infiltration test locations are shown on the Boring
Location Plan provided in Appendix A of this report. The ground surface elevations at the
boring locations were interpolated from topographic information provided on the Site Grading
Plan and should be considered approximate.
In conjunction with the soil borings, laboratory testing was performed to help characterize the
soil samples obtained from the drilling operations. This report was prepared based upon the
results of the goring and laboratory data. The purpose of this exploration is to describe the soil
and groundwater conditions that were encountered in the test borings, to analyze and evaluate
the test data obtained, and to submit recommendations regarding foundations, slabs,
---- - ----pavements,-earthwork,_construction,- and -other_geotechnica l-related_considerations-of_design--_
and construction.
1.2 Proposed Construction
ECS understands that the project consists of the construction of the new 3'd BCT Headquarters
lat Taylor Street on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The new
headquarters facility will be located on the north side of building A-2356 (Hall of Heroes). The
headquarters building will be a two-story steel -framed structure with a concrete slab -on -grade
floor. The proposed finished floor elevation is 272.20. feet. Structural loading information was
not furnished. To facilitate our analysis, we have assumed maximum column and wall loads will
not exceed 100 kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. Other improvements to the site
include rigid concrete pavement areas and three retention ponds. Also included in the project,
is a small expansion, to an existing parking lot located on the south side of Taylor Street.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Gootochnlcal Engineering Services
3nd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1731HQ
October 11, 2011
Based on the existing topography across the proposed headquarters facility, earth cuts and fill
placement on the order of 1 to 2 feet or less will be required to establish the building and
pavement design elevations. At the parking lot expansion fill placement of about 3 feet will be
required to establish pavement design elevations.
If actual loads and fill heights exceed these assumptions, ECS should be allowed the
opportunity to reassess our recommendations.
2

Report of subsurface Exploration and Geotachnlcal Engineering Services
3'd BCi Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
2.1 Exploration Procedures
The soil test borings were completed using truck -mounted CME 75-truck mounted drilling rig.
The borings were advanced using 2-% inch I.D. hollow -stem augers. Drilling fluid was not used
to advance the borings.
Representative soil samples were obtained by means of the split -barrel sampling procedure in
general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In this procedure, a 2-inch O. D. split -
barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches by a 140 pound hammer with a free
fall of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through the final 12 inch
interval is termed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value and is indicated for each
sample on the boring logs.
The SPT N-value can be used to provide a qualitative indication of the in -place relative density
of cohesionless soils. In a less reliable way, SPT N-values provide an indication of consistency
for cohesive soils. These indications of relative density and consistency are qualitative, since
many factors can significantly affect the SPT N-value and prevent a direct correlation between
drill crews, drill rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer -rod -sampler assemblies.
Field logs of the soils encountered in the borings were maintained by the drill crew. The soil
samples obtained from the drilling operations were sealed and were brought to our laboratory
for further examination and testing.
2.2 Infiltration Test Procedures
The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the infiltration test locations were explored
by advancing a hand auger boring. The groundwater level and the seasonal high water table
(SHWT) observed in each hand auger boring at the time of drilling was recorded. An infiltration
test utilizing a compact constant head permeameter was conducted near each hand auger
boring to estimate the infiltration rate for the subsurface soils. Infiltration tests are typically
conducted at two feet above the SHWT. If the. SHWT is less than three feet, the test is
---conducted-at ten inches�below the, surface'elevation — — -----------~ - — - ----- - - -

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnicai Engineering Services
To BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33-1751HO
October 11, 2011
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING
3.1 Laboratory Testing Program
Laboratory tests were performed on a representative portion of the soil samples obtained during
the exploration. These included tests for natural moisture content, Atterberg limits, and
percent of particles finer than the U.S. Standard No. 200 mesh sieve. Modified Proctor
compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were performed on the bulk sample to aid
in evaluating the on -site soils for use as pavement subgrade. The data obtained from the
laboratory tests are included in the Laboratory Testing Summary in Appendix C of this report.
The soil samples collected for this exploration will be retained at our laboratory for a period of
sixty days, after which they will be discarded unless other instructions are received as to their
disposition.
3.2 Visual Classification
An engineer classified each soil sample on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The group symbols for each soil type are
indicated in the parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. A brief
explanation of the USCS is included in Appendix B of this report. The engineer grouped the
various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs. The stratification lines
designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs are approximate; in -situ,
the transitions will be gradual and/or at slightly different elevations/depths.
3.3 Laboratory Testing Methods
3.3.1 Moisture Content Tests
ASTM Designation D2216 gives the standard procedure for determining the moisture content of
soil. The moisture content is defined as,the ratio of the weight of water to the weight of solids in
a given soil mass and is usually expressed as a percentage. The moisture content is
_determined_ by, weighing a soil sample,. thoroughly drying. it at a specified temperature; and _
weighing it after drying.
3.3.2 Atterberg Limits
ASTM Designation D4318 gives the standard procedure for determining the Plastic and Liquid
Limits of soil. The sample for the Liquid and Plastic Limit tests is prepared by removing any
material larger than the #40 (425pm) sieve.
The Liquid Limit test is determined by performing multiple trials in which a portion of the
prepared sample is spread in a cup (of specified material and dimensions), divided by a
grooving tool, and allowed to flow together a distance of 112 inch by the force of repeatedly
dropping the cup in a standard mechanical device. Data from the multiple trials is plotted with
the water content on the y-axis and the number of drops required to close the groove on the x-

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geot@chnical Engineering Services
Yd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HO
October 11, 2011
axis. The Liquid Limit is defined as the water content at which 25 drops are required to close
the groove made in the soil.
The Plastic Limit is determined by roiling a small portion of the prepared soil sample to a thread
with a uniform diameter of 118 inch. The thread is rolled into a ball and rerolled into a thread
with a uniform diameter of 118 inch. The process is repeated until the thread crumbles and can
no longer be rolled into a thread. The water content of the soil at this point is the Plastic Limit.
The Plasticity Index is defined as the difference between the Liquid Limit and the Plastic Limit.
3.3.3 Percent of Particles Finer Than the U.S. Standard No. 200 Mesh Sieve
ASTM Designation D1140 gives the standard procedure for determining the amount of material
in a soil finer than the No. 200 (75-microns) sieve. The sample is dried, soaked in water,
agitated, and poured over the No. 200 sieve. The material retained on the No. 200 sieve is
dried, and weighed. The No. 200 sieve represents the boundary in the Unified Classification
System between coarse grained soils (sand) and fine grained soils (silt and clay).
3.3.4 Modified Proctor
ASTM Designation D1557 gives laboratory compaction procedures to determine the
relationship between the, water content and dry unit weight of soils. The test is performed by
placing three layers of soil at a selected water content into a mold of specified dimensions and
compacting each layer 25 times with a 10-pound rammer. The rammer is dropped a distance
of 18 inches and subjects the soil sample to a total compactive effort of approximately 56,000
ft-Ib/ft3. The resulting dry unit weight is determined. This procedure is repeated for a sufficient
number of water contents to establish a relationship between the dry unit weight and water
content for the soil. This data, when plotted, represents a curvilinear relationship known as the
compaction.
3.3.5 California. Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM Designation D1883 gives the test method to determine the California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) of pavement sub -grade sub -base and base/course materials from laboratory compacted
specimens. This test is performed by compacting a soil sample to a specified density using
�` " la`baratory compaction techniques. The sample is then soaked`for,-96-11ours—and-subjected"to
penetration by a 2-inch diameter cylindrical piston. The stress at penetrations of 0.1 inch and
0.2 inch in the wet conditions are used to calculate the CBR values for the soil. Typically the
CBR value determined for a penetration of 0.1 inch on the soaked sample is used for pavement
design.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Yd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
4.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS
4.1 Site Conditions
The site planned for the new headquarters facility is located on the north side of building A-
2356 (Hall of Heroes). The site is currently a grass cover courtyard developed with concrete
sidewalks and landscape features. The current site grades are relatively flat with an estimated
elevation differential of about 1 to 2 feet across the proposed building and pavement areas. A
small expansion is planned for an existing parking lot located on the south side of Taylor Street.
Ground cover at the parking lot expansion site consists of grass: The current site grades slope
downward from north to south with an estimated elevation differential of about 3 feet.
4.2 Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions
The referenced site is located within the Coastal Plain Province of North Carolina. The Coastal
Plain Province is a broad flat plain with widely spaced low rolling hills where the near surface
soils have their origin from the deposition of sediments several million years ago during the
period that the ocean receded from this area to its present location along the Atlantic Coast. It
is noted that the Coastal Plain soils vary in thickness from only a few feet along the western
border to over ten thousand feet in some areas along the coast. The sedimentary deposits of
the Coastal Plain rest upon consolidated rocks similar to those underlying the Piedmont and
Mountain Physiographic Provinces. In general, shallow unconfined groundwater movement
within the overlying soils is largely controlled by topographic gradients. Recharge occurs
primarily by infiltration along higher elevations and typically discharges into streams or other
surface water bodies. The elevation of the shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly
with seasonal fluctuations in precipitation.
4.3 Soil Conditions
The specific soil conditions at each boring location are noted on the individual boring logs
presented in Appendix B. A general description is also provided below. Subsurface conditions
can and often do vary between boring locations and in unexplored areas.
Borings BHQ-1 through BHQ-7 initially penetrated a surficial layer of topsoil. The topsoil was
about, 2-to-4-inches thick-and`consists-of- brown -silty'sand- with- fine- roots- and -organic -matter
The topsoil thickness will likely differ at other locations.
Fill was encountered beneath the topsoil in boring BHQ-2 and from the ground surface in boring
BHQ-S. The fill soils consisted of moist silty sand and were found to extend to a depth of about
3 feet below the ground surface. The SPT N-values in the fill were 17 and 25 blows per foot
(bpf).
The natural site soils are Coastal Plain sediments of sand and clay strata that extend to the 5,
25, and 75-foot depths explored. The sand strata consisted of silty sand (SM), clayey sand
(SC), and slightly silty poorly graded sand (SP-SM). The SPT N-values for the sand layers
encountered ranged from 5 to 25 bpf denoting loose to medium dense relative densities. The
clay strata consisted of sandy clay (CL). The SPT N-values for clay layers ranged from 7 to
greater than 100 bpf indicating firm to Very hard consistencies.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Yd 6CT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
4.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was observed shortly.after completion of the drilling operations in boring B-1 at a
depth of about 34 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was not observed in the
remaining borings at the completion of drilling operations. Boring cave-in depths ranged from
15 to 36.5 feet below the existing site grades. Based on observed conditions, color and degree
of saturation of soils, it is our opinion that the long term groundwater level most likely exists at a
depth of 20 feet or more below the existing site grades. Seasonal variations in groundwater
levels should be anticipated due to precipitation changes, evaporation, surface water runoff,
and other factors. Also, perched water conditions may exist when absorbed surface water
becomes trapped above fine grained cohesive soils.
Based upon the in -situ testing performed, the following seasonal high water table and infiltration
rates were obtained. The in -situ infiltration tests were performed at 7 feet below existing. site
grades.
Location ID
Seasonal High
Water Table
Infiltration Rates
1-1
> 108 inches
12.6 inlhr
1-2
> 108 inches
5.6 inlhr
7

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3i° OCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HO
October 11, 2011
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following design and construction recommendations are based on our above -stated
understanding of the proposed construction and on the data obtained from the field exploration
and visual soil classification. If the structural loading, geometry, or proposed building location is
changed, we request the opportunity to review our recommendations in light of the new
information and revise them as necessary. The following -recommendations are for design
purposes and may require modification. Any environmental or contaminant assessment efforts
are beyond the scope of this exploration.
5.1 Foundations
After the subgrades have been prepared as recommended in Section 6 of this report, support of
the proposed building may be achieved using conventional shallow spread foundations bearing
directly upon properly evaluated and approved natural soils and/or properly compacted
structural fill. At the northeast corner of the proposed building (boring BHQ-3), loose sand was
encountered from approximately 3 to 8 feet below existing site grades. It should be anticipated
that up to 8 feet of this material will require removal and re -compaction. Foundations may be
proportioned for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square
foot.
Where new foundations will be constructed next to the existing building, temporary support of
the existing foundations may be necessary to reduce disturbance and/or loss of support
(undermining) to the existing building. New foundations constructed adjacent to the existing
building should bear at the same elevation as the existing foundations_ . New and existing
foundations should be separated by a "bond breaker".
The exterior foundations should bear at least 18 inches below the adjacent exterior design
grade to afford protective embedment. The interior foundations should bear at least 12 inches
below the floor slab. The edges of "turned -down' slab designs should bear at least 12 inches
below adjacent exterior grades. The column foundation should have a minimum width of 24
inches. The wall foundations should have a minimum width of 18 inches.
_Uplift.loads-can be_ resisted_ by_the weight of thefoundation concrete and the weight of the soil
backfill over the foundations. The unit weight of the soil can be assumed to be 100 pcf. This
unit weight assumes that the soils are compacted to the minimum density recommendations.
Lateral loads can, be resisted by passive resistance of the soil as well as friction of the
foundation on the underlying bearing materials. The passive resistance can be calculated
assuming the soil acts as a fluid with -an equivalent unit weight of 300 pcf. Soil friction can be
calculated based on the compressive load on the foundation multiplied by a friction coefficient
of 0.4. We recommend a safety factor of at least 2 be used in calculating the restraining forces.
The stability of the site soils encountered at the foundation bearing grades should be
determined with field tests as foundation excavation progresses. As a test procedure, dynamic
cone. penetration .(DCP_)_tests.should .be.performed. in.the .foundation.excavations -as Aetermined
by our project geotechnical engineer. Our project engineer should evaluate the results of the
tests to ascertain that adequate soil bearing capacity is achieved.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnlcal Engineering Services
3`d SCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751 HQ
October 11, 2011
Soils loosened by the excavation process should be re -compacted to an acceptable density or
hand trimmed and removed. If unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of a
foundation excavation, it will be necessary to lower the base of the footing through the
unsuitable materials or to undercut the unsuitable soils and to restore original bearing levels by
placing engineered fill materials, No. 57 or No. 67 stone, or flowable fill.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing levels if the
foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation concrete should
be placed during the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing soils are softened by
surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation
excavations prior to placement of concrete. No foundation should be constructed on frozen
subgrade.
5.2 Settlement
Total settlements of individual footings, designed in accordance with our recommendations
presented in this report, are expected to be on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement
between any adjacent, similarly -loaded columns is expected to be on the order of '/2 inch.
Sufficient time should be allowed for any newly -placed fill settlements to stabilize prior to
beginning foundation construction.
5.3 Floor Slabs
The slab -on -grade subgrade should be prepared as outlined in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of this
report. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pci is recommended for site soils or properly
placed and compacted structural fill. To reduce curling of the floor slab and the resulting
cracking, proper curing techniques should be used.
We recommend that a capillary cutoff layer be provided under the floor slabs to prevent the rise
of moisture to the slab. The capillary layer should consist, at a minimum, of a 4-inch thick clean
sand, crushed stone or washed gravel layer, having a maximum size of 1.5 inches with a
maximum of 2 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. A vapor barrier should be utilized on top of
the aggregate to provide additional moisture protection. This vapor barrier should be placed
immediately before the placement of the floor slab concrete to help minimize damages. Prior to
_ placing the aggregate for the capillary cutoff layer, the floor slab subgrade soil should be
properly compacted, free of standing water or mud, and stable during a final proofroil.
5.4 Seismic Site Class Determination
Based on Section 1615 of the 2009 North Carolina Building Code, the site has the following
characteristics:
Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion 0.2 sec. Spectral Response; Ss — 0.29 g
Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion 1.0 sec. Spectral Response, S1 — 0.10 g
Site Classification — D
Site Coefficient Fa —1.6; Spectral Response Acceleration SIDS — 0.310 g
Site Coefficient Fv — 2.4; Spectral Response Acceleration SD1 — 0.160 9

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
V BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HO
October 11, 2011
Development of the general design response spectrum curve in accordance with Building Code
requires the fundamental period for the structure and, therefore, is left to the Structural
Engineer.
5.5 Site Drainage
We recommend the ground surface be sloped away from the building and pavements for a
minimum distance of 10 feet, and that all downspouts be connectedto tightline drains that
discharge to a suitable location downslope of the building or discharge'directly into below -grade
storm water piping. In addition, any pavement areas should have positive drainage.
5.6 Groundwater Control
Based on the results of the borings, we do not anticipate that dewatering will be necessary
during construction. If groundwater or a perched water condition is encountered during
construction, it probably can be controlled through the use of ditches, sumps, and pumps. If
water is encountered that cannot be controlled by such procedures, ECS should be further
consulted. Earthwork and trench excavation in saturated materials may require sheeting and
shoring,, slope flattening, or benching to control sloughing of soils.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove the water from the
excavation, remove the saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface to
support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
5.7 Cut and Fill Slopes.
We recommend that any cut and fill slopes be constructed at 2.5HAV (horizontal to vertical) or
flatter. A slope of 3H:1 V or flatter is recommended for safer operation of mowing equipment.
Fill slopes should be compacted to 92 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in
accordance with ASTM Specification D 1557, Modified Proctor Method. Fill slopes should be
overbuilt and cut back to expose well compacted fill on the face of the slope. Where fill is being
placed on existing slopes, the new fill should be benched into the existing slope.
For slope stabilization purposes, we recommend that the slopes be adequately vegetated to
reduce the risk of erosion. Slopes should be graded such that surface water does- not flow over
the face of the slope. Drains should be extended to below the toe of the slope rather 'than
discharged onto the face of the slope.
5.8 Excavation Considerations
The sidewalls of excavations should be stepped back with benches or slopes in accordance
with the requirements of the most current Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) 29, CFR Part 1926, "Occupational Safety and Health Standards -Excavations." The
soils classify as Type C and Type B according to the OSHA trenching and excavation
guidelines. Excavation sidewalls that cannot be properly stepped back should be braced
against collapse. The design of the bracing system should include lateral earth pressures and
temporary surcharge loads from construction traffic and materials stockpiled next to the
excavation. The design and construction of excavation bracing is typically the responsibility of
10

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Yd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1151HQ
October 11, 2011
the specialty subcontractor selected to install the system. Regardless, site safety shall be the
sole responsibility of the contractor and his subcontractors.
5.9 Pavements
Pavement subgrades should be prepared as outlined in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of this report. We
were not provided with vehicle counts and axle -loading information associated with the traffic
volume at the facility. However, for purposes of this study, we have assumed that parking
areas will receive primarily automobile traffic, and the entrances and service drives will be
subjected to some heavy truck traffic. We have assumed traffic loads of 10,000 and 100,000
18-kip equivalent single axle loadings (ESALS) for standard -duty and heavy-duty pavements,
respectively.
In the parking and service drive areas, we recommend that the pavements be designed as
flexible pavements using guidelines established by the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). One California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was
performed on the anticipated subgrade soils consisting of silty sand. Based on our experience
with the anticipated subgrade conditions and the results of our laboratory tests performed, we
expect that the subgrade conditions will provide a minimum CBR value of about 8, which has
been used in the thickness design of each pavement section.
Based on the above CBR value and assumed traffic loading conditions, various pavement
sections were evaluated in general accordance to the 1993 "Guide for the Design of Pavement
Structures" by the American Association of State; Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). For the purposes of this report the following pavement design criteria was used:
initial serviceability index of 4.2, terminal serviceability index of 2.0, reliability level of-90 percent,
and an overall standard deviation of 0.45.
Heavy Duty
Material Designation
Standard Duty
Heavy Duty
Portland Cemr. ent
Asphalt
Asphalt
Concrete (PCC)
Pavement"
Pavement"
Pavement"
Asphalt Surface Course S-9.5B
1.5 inches
1.5 inches
Asphalt Binder Course 1-19.0B
-
2.5 inches
-
Portland Cement Concrete
-
-
6 inches
Aggregate Base Course (NCDOT
6 inches
6' inches
6 inches
ABC
Note" : Geogrid such as Tesar BX1100 or woven geotextile fabric and additional stone base
course materials may be necessary in localized areas to achieve subgrade stabilization. The
need for such materials will be a function of subgrade conditions at .the time of pavement
construction.
The base course materials beneath pavements should be compacted to 98 percent of their
modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). The asphalt concrete and crushed
stone materials should conform to the North Carolina Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures. For Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement
sections, the concrete should be plant -mixed with a minimum compressive strength of 4,000-psi
at 28-days and should contain 4 to 6 percent entrained air. Appropriate steel reinforcing and
jointing should be incorporated into the design of PCC pavements.
11

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Gootechnlcal Engineering Services
3'd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33AT51HQ
October 11, 2011
Front -loading trash trucks frequently impose concentrated front -wheel loads on pavements
while lifting the dumpster. This type of loading typically results in rutting of bituminous
pavements and ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. Therefore, we recommend a
heavy duty PCC pavement section in the area of the trash dumpster, including the area where
the front axle of the trash truck will be located while lifting the dumpster.
Regardless of the section and type of construction utilized, saturation of the subgrade materials
will result in a softening of the subgrade materials and shortened life span for the pavement.
Risk of subgrade softening can be reduced by means of quickly removing surface and
Subsurface water, resulting in an increased likelihood of improved pavement performance.
Therefore, we recommend that both the surface and subsurface materials for the pavement be
properly graded to enhance surface and subgrade drainage. In addition, placement of '/z-inch
diameter holes drilled through catch basins at or slightly above the subgrade elevation will
facilitate base course drainage into the catch basin.
5.10 Retaining Walls
ECS can provide design services for any proposed retaining walls or stabilized slopes if you
desire. Retaining walls must be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from the backfill. We
recommend the following lateral earth pressure values for proposed retaining walls:
Onslte Solis Consistinsi of SM. SC, and SP-SM
Angle of internal friction ((p) = 30°
Moist Unit Weight (y,,,aln) = 115 pcf
Active earth pressure (Ka) = 0.33
Active equivalent fluid density (y,,) = 38 pcf
At -rest pressure (Ko) = 0.5
At -rest equivalent fluid density (yam) = 57.5 pof
Passive pressure (Kp) = 3
Passive equivalent fluid density (yam,) = 345 pcf
Coefficient of sliding friction (p) = 0.4
These__ultimate values -are -.based_ on_a.- level -ground _surface,_well-drai nedrbackfill,_and_the_
placement of properly compacted backfill between the walls and undisturbed natural soils.
Appropriate factors of safety should be applied. Additional laboratory testing should be performed
to verify these parameters, as well as others, required for the proper design of any retaining walls
at the site.
High plasticity soils should not be used in the backfill of the site walls, and should be undercut if
encountered in the footings, zone of influence, or retention zone in the case of segmental walls
The values for active conditions should be used if the wall is allowed to tilt out a sufficient distance
to fully mobilize soil strengths. The amount of movement is approximately 1 inch for every 20 feet
of height of wall for loose sand conditions. For rigid, non -yielding walls, at -rest conditions should
be used.
12

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'" BCT Headquarters
EC Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
In addition to the lateral stresses from the backfill, the walls may be subjected to additional
surcharge loading from adjacent traffic, stockpiled materials, sloping backfill or stresses from
nearby footings or floor slabs. If present, these surcharge stresses should be resolved into
appropriate lateral stress distributions and added to the earth pressures outlined above. Typically,
where vehicles can approach within half the height of a retaining wall, a surcharge equivalent to 2
feet of additional fill should. be included.
Groundwater should be considered in the design of any retaining walls on site. An adequate
drainage system must be designed and installed. The drainage system should consist of a
vertical wall drain consisting of a designed filtered aggregate drain or commercial geosynthetic
drain such as Enka -Drain or Mirra-Drain. The vertical drain should be connected to a foundation
drain, which drains by gravity to a low point on site.
Backfill placed within a distance of one-half the height of retaining walls should be compacted
with hand guided equipment to avoid overstressing the walls during construction. Similarly,
heavy equipment should not be operated adjacent to the walls without adequate bracing. High
plasticity soils should not be used as backfill as they may adsorb water, expand and exert
significant lateral loads on the wall. Therefore, the contractor should use granular materials that
are easily compacted in thin lifts with light equipment.
13

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Gootechnical Engineering Services
Yd BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751HQ
October 11, 2011
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Site Preparation and Clearing
We recommend that a pre -construction survey of the existing building be performed in order to
avoid disputes during construction and/or completion of the project. The survey should consist
of,documenting existing cracks, damages, or cosmetic flaws in the building. A pre -construction
awareness meeting with all parties to acknowledge existing conditions should be considered.
The installation of crack monitors or other monitoring devices may be warranted as well.
Site preparation should commence with demolition and removal of the existing concrete
sidewalks and the clearing and stripping of all trees, vegetation, topsoil, debis, deleterious
materials, and any other soft or unsuitable materials from the existing ground surface. These
operations should extend at least 10 feet beyond the limits of the planned building and
pavement construction.
All existing underground utilities within the proposed building area should be removed including
bedding and backfill materials. Excavations resulting from underground utility removal should
be backfilled with structural fill. Pockets of trapped water could be encountered in utility trench
excavations and during the removal of underground structures and should be promptly
removed. Pumping from a sump pit located within the excavation should be an effective
method of controlling such groundwater seepage. Soft wet soils remaining in the bottoms of
excavations should be undercut and removed to establish firm subgrade conditions prior to
backfilling. All undercut areas should be backfiiled with compacted structural fill.
Once the site is cleared and stripped as outlined above, we recommend that areas at grade and
areas to be filled be thoroughly proofrolled. The proofrolling should be accomplished using a
loaded dump truck having an axle weight of at least 10 tons or rubber -tired equipment of similar
weight and tire pressures. The proofrolling should be observed by an experienced geotechnical
engineer, or his representative; at the time of construction to aid in identifying any areas with
soft or unsuitable materials. Any soft or unsuitable materials identified during proofrolling
operations should be either repaired in -place or removed and replaced with an approved fill
material placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section
6.2 Fill Placement and Soil Compaction.
The natural soils at this site will deteriorate when exposed to moisture. The exposed subgrades
should be sloped to promote surface runoff and reduce the ponding of water. When rainfall is
anticipated during grading operations, we recommend that areas of disturbed soil be sealed
using a smooth drum roller or. rubber -tired equipment to reduce the infiltration of water and
grading activities cease until the site has had a chance to dry. Water that may accumulate in
the footing excavations as a result of rainfall or surface water runoff should be immediately
removed. loosened or disturbed materials at the base of footing excavations should be
removed prior to the placement of reinforcing steel -or concrete.
To facilitate heavy truck traffic in and out of the site during construction, temporary construction
roads may be necessary. On a preliminary basis, we expect that the construction roads would
need to consist of at least 12 inches of coarse aggregate base stone underlain with a woven
geotextile such as Mirafi 50OX or Tensar SX-1100 Geogrid. An additional thickness of stone
14

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'd BCT Headquarter
ECS Project Number 33:1751 HO
October 11, 2011
will likely be required to maintain the roadways in localized areas of concentrated traffic or
where soft ground or shallow groundwater conditions might exist.
Grading operations at this site will be more economical iUperformed during the drier periods of
the year (typically April to November). During the drier periods of the year, wet soils may be
dried -back by using discing operations or other drying procedures to obtain moisture contents
necessary to achieve adequate degrees of compaction.
6.2 Fill Placement and Soil Compaction
Soils used as fill and backfill should be approved materials, free of organics, debris, frozen and
foreign material, and generally having a maximum Liquid Limit of 50 and a maximum Plasticity
Index of 20. The on -site soils consisting of silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), slightly silty
poorly graded sand (SP-SM), and sanely clay (CL) should be able to be used as fill and backfill
material for this project provided moisture contents are controlled. Importing of fill material may
be necessary to balance the site. All imported fill should be tested for conformance with above
requirements before being transported to the site. The maximum particle size in the fill should
be less than 1/2 the thickness of the compacted lift.
Any fill or backfill placed in foundation, slab, pavement, utility trench, or sidewalk areas should
be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance
with ASTM Specification D 1557, Modified Proctor Method. However, the upper 18 inches of fill
below the pavement areas should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Fill
should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness with fill operations
continuing until the subgrade elevations are achieved. In areas where hand compaction
equipment is used, fill should be placed in loose lifts no more than 4 inches thick.
Any fill or backfill placed in landscaped areas should be compacted to a minimum of 85, percent
of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM Specification D1557, Modified
Proctor Method.
We recommend that the placement of compacted structural fill and recompaction' of the
subgrade be observed to determine if proper compaction is being achieved. In -place density
tests made in accordance with ASTM Designation D 1556 or equivalent should be used to verify
compaction. _We.recommend. a.minimum.of..one_test. per, lift.for_every_5,000_square.foot.area,.or _
fraction thereof for each lift of fill placed. We also recommend at least one test per lift for every
100 linear feet of utility trench and roadway backfill, or fraction thereof.
15

Report of Subsurface ExploratEon and Geotechnlcal Engineering Servlcea
Ta BCT Headquarters
ECS Project Number 33:1751 HQ
October 11, 2011
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
This report has been prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the
architect and/or engineer in the design of this project. The scope is limited to the specific
project and locations described herein and our description of the project represents our
understanding of the significant aspects relative to soil and foundation characteristics. In the
event that any changes in the nature or location of the proposed construction outlined in this
report are planned,, we should be informed so that the changes can be reviewed and the
conclusions of this report modified or approved in writing by the geotechnical engineer. It is
recommended that all construction operations dealing with earthwork and foundations are
reviewed by an experienced geotechnical engineer to provide information as to whether the
design requirements are fulfilled in the actual construction. If you wish, we would welcome the
opportunity to provide field construction services for you during construction.
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the soil borings and tests performed at the locations as indicated on the Boring Location
Diagram and other information referenced in this report. This report does not reflect any
variations which may occur between the borings. In the performance of the subsurface
exploration, specific information is obtained at specific locations at specific times. However, it is
a well-known fact that variations in soil conditions exist on most sites between boring locations
and also such situations as groundwater levels vary from time to time. The nature and extent of
variations may not become evident until during the course of construction. If site conditions vary
from those identified during the subsurface explorations, the recommendations contained in this
report may require revision.
16

1 � , i 'E� . ` ' �.. � � �y i� � '..•,fir -� ,�.{ �( I � __ �ti' '�f � �y f`dl .
� _ w r ��� � `+�j ��y � if � . �.. -r �„� k' ) -',. �'�'" � a3 -r,�i } T��. v TM� 1CI�. x � p� -+, if:-•����"
` •i fr-i �., `1 't �: �, �F �-; tip F * �J � ""�'
-� r• wry ,� �` -�.a'i .J +w'�
i a f�' � ^ rt, ►-.v '-C7� �.Ql ..'-:+ r � i .tirN. .- � r'(i
„�-y-•�_ _ �. �- D' y- -� ,�, �� �'EV� Vic:, -+� i:� � ��
�. '4 ,yh _ r•"_Limp.' �� �A .yam .� y'��y,,a
� r �•�' 1. � � 't � G ter'•. - � .q 'Tp ±�� i�.' t
:.gyp ,� �„ � � �,- _!.� •`��.,4r' � �_+^ � .s[ n , 1 �� �'�
ID
ak
Ao
rp
cl
IL
Le
' iss7 ' t� p ¢• lt' r 1p11�4f
,1�:+i '� :•�'!. 1 � „� lip' �' � ......,r-.Y-'3'�3 ' `: �� : ' "' sr.�s.�• �.`'i! � 1 r�, Z
ENGINEER SCALE
SOTS VOCOTNITV 3rd OCT HO DRAFTSMAN PRWECT NO. ivTs
MAS
DuAc mm Taylor Street REVISIONS SHEET 33:N.1
N.
Clark Construction Fort Bragg, NC SATE 10/05/11

APPENDIX B
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM,
REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS,
SUBSURFACE CROSS-SECTION
BORING LOGS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)
Major Divisions
SGrobuopis
Typical Names
Laboratory Classification Criteria
Well -graded gravels, gravel-
M o
GW
sand mixtures, little or no
w
C = D,olD,o greater than 4
y c
fines
C. = (D3o)1(D,oxD0'0) between 1 and 3
o m
Q, 01
c �'
c
Poorlygraded gravels,
5
a� v
GP
gravel -sand mixtures, little or
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
J: m
U
no fines
E.ems'
N
N
- R {� N
l�pp
U
ra°
>� o
o Z
o
d
ns
co
M
c
GM'
Silty gravels, gravel -sand
Atterberg limits below `A" line
�
ro
mixtures
'
or P.I. less than 4
Above 'A' line with Rl.
$
m m
N
m ar
u
y a
between 4 and 7 are
d
m P
—
N
ai N
borderline cases requiring
Z
>
o
use of dual symbols
GC
Clayey gravels, grave[ -sand-
N N
Atterberg limits below "A" line
m`
clay mixtures
r
or P.l, less than 7
LV.2
� a
C° = DedD,o greater than B
N
o
SW
Well�raded sands, gravelly
C
g g 5
y c
sands, little or no fines
o U
C� _ (Dso) /(D,oxD*o) between 1 and 3
N a
c
2 �
co14
N
o
" 14
g CDsands,
U
SP
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
little or no fines
-o to
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
t
C
9m
C sc ID Ir-D
_
01
N v
w
N 4, (D ('} 0
0
o
�Zo
o
d
y..
m
c 'a
SM°
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
� o �
Atterberg limits above "A' line
Q1
= E
N
c 2
a `"
or P.I. less than 4
Limits plotting In CL-ML
u
i4' «
zone with P.I. between 4
2 E
N `
C o r
and 7 are borderline
w
'm
c S m r a
cases requiring use of
--
Q
@ 6 04
dual symbols
gSc
Clayey sands, sand -clay
m m w . P Q
0
Atterberg limits above 'A' line
mixtures
o o 2 o
with P.I. greater than 7
Inorganic slits and very fine
$
ML
sands, rock flour, silty or
Plasticity Chart
clayey fine sands, or clayey
silts with slight Plasticity
Inorganic days of low to
60
N
_
CL
medium plasticity, gravelly
days, sandy clays, silty clays,
I "A' line
-lean clays
w
Organic silts and organic silty
Z
c
OL
clays of low plasticity
40
CH
y G
81
Inorganic silts; micaceous or
'o
CL
E
o
c
MH
diatomaceous fine sandy or
30
silty soils, elastic silts
20
c c
c
CH
Inorganic clays of high
°"
MH
and
OH
plasticity, fat days
E
10
OH
Organic days of medium to
L;
L.
OL
to
c
0V
m
high plasticity, organic silts
q
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10.0
c
C
Liquid Limit
Pt
Peat and other highly organic
]C 0
soils
° Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when
L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. Is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28.
b Sorderiine classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example:
GW-GC,well-graded gravel -sand mixture with clay binder. (From Table 2.16 - Winterkom and Fang, 1975)

IV
Reference Notes for Boring Logs
Drilling and Sampling Symbols:
SS - Split Spoon Sampler
ST - Shelby Tube Sampler
RC - Rock Core: NX, BX, AX
PM - Pressuremeter
DC - Dutch Cone Penetrometer
RB - Rock Bit Drilling
BS - Bulk Sample of Cuttings
PA - Power Auger (no sample)
HSA - Hollow Stem Auger
WS - Wash Sample
Standard Penetration (Blows/Ft) refers to the blows per foot of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on
a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler, as specified in ASTM D-1586. The blow count is commonly
referred to as the N-value.
Correlation of Penetration Resistances to Soil Properties:
Relative Density -Sands, Silts Consistency of Cohesive Soils
SPT-N
Relative Density
N-Values
Consistency
0-4
Very Loose
0-2
Very Soft
5 - 10
Loose
3-4
Soft
11 - 30
Medium Dense
5-8
Firm
31 - 50
Dense
9-15
Stiff
51 or more
Very Dense
16-30
Very Stiff
31-50
Hard
51 or more
Very Hard
Unified Soil Classification Symbols:
GP -
Poorly Graded Gravel
ML -
Low Plasticity Silts
GW -
Well Graded Gravel
MH -
High Plasticity Silts
GM -
Silty Gravel
CL -
Low Plasticity Clays
GC -
Clayey Gravels
CH -
High Plasticity Clays
SP
- Poorly Graded Sands
OL -
Low Plasticity Organics
SW
- Well Graded Sands
OH -
High Plasticity Organics
SM
- Silty Sands
CL-ML -
Dual Classification
SC
- Clayey Sands
(Typical)
Water Level Measurement Symbols:
WL
- Water Level
BCR -
Before Casing Removal
WS
- While Sampling
ACR -
After Casing Removal
WD .
- While Drilling
WC] -
Wet Cave In
DCl -
Dry Cave In
The water levels are those water levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the
symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in a granular soil.
In clays and plastic slits, the accurate determination of water levels may require several days for the water
level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally applied.

280-
-
8HQ-1
8HQ-2
81HQ-3
BHQ-4
RHQ-5
RHQ-6
8HQ-7
270
16
Sm
17
14 sm
is sm
13
1,
5m
'5 111
1-4:1
M.
sm
16
13
5C
5
SP-SM
10
: : SM
5
sM
sc
12
Sm
14
RHQ-8
13
SC
11
7
SP-SM
a
Sm
E08 @ 5.0
E08 @ 5 0'
EL 267.00
E08 5.0'
EL 267.00
28
29
25
11
EL 266.00
(DRY)
(DRY}SM
260
CL
a
(DRY);
25
10
Sm
19
Sm
is
CL
17
23
Sm
5M
E08 5.0'i
14
is
15
7
EL 256.00
250—
sm
Sm
il SM
CL
(DRY)
9
13
I
41
CL
28
CL
z
p -sm
E08 @ 25-0'
E09 @ 25.0-
E08 Lm 25.0-
0
23
a_
EL 247.00
EL 246.50
EL 246.50
(DRY)
(DRY)
(DRY)
7
Uj
CL
14
230
12
1.5
220
21
sm
13
210
CL
29
50/5
200
CL
-1014
E08 @ 75.0'
EL 197.00
SUBSURFACE
CROSS SECTOON
Clark Construction
C
3rd BCT Headquarters
Taylor Street
Fort Bragg, NC
ENGINEER
TBB
SCALE
NT5
DRAFTSMAN
MAS
PROJECT NO.
33:1751
REVISIONS
SHEET
Fig.
DATE

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING B
SHEET
Clark Construction Company
1751
I 8HQ-1
1 OF 3
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
CAILBRATED PKNET�01�
1 2 TO s T. 4 a+
PLAMC VATM LIQUID
LIMIT S CONTENT x LIMIT I
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION Ik REOOVSRY
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
z
BOTTOM OF CASINO L03S OF CWCULATION 10
s;
�
— — RE
20%4%-4 --B0%-60%O%-100
® STANDARD TION
10 20 30 40 50+
SURFACE ELEVATION 272.0
0
Topson Depth 4"
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Yellow, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
274
(7-8 8)
2
SS
18
18
Molst, Medium Dense, Brown, Tan, Clayey,
Medium SAND (SM)
265
13'(4-7-8):
3
SS
18,
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Brown. Orange,
Clayey, Medium SAND (SC)
-
'28 (P-io-12)
Moist, Very Stiff, Gray, Tan, Red,
Medium, Sandy CLAY (CL)
4
SS
18
18
260
to (3 ")
Moist, Loose, Tan, Light Gray. Clayey,
Medium SAND (SM)
S
SS
18
18
15
-
-255
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Yellow, White,
6
S511
18
18
Silty, Medium SAND (SM)
14 (5-7-71.
20
-
9 {4 4
Wet, Loose, Tan, Orange, Slightly Silly.
Poorly Graded, Medium SAND (SP-SM)
7
SS
18
18
25
i
I
245
I
23:(6-9-1'�)
Wet, Very Stiff. Tan, Gray. Silty CLAY
(CL).
8
5S
18
18
3
r;
----------...._..._._
—--_—.--.----
I
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.
j THE STRATIFICATION LINES FEPRESEMT THE APPROXIMATE BaUNCLARY Lfn6 BET TEE MIL TYPES M-SITU THE TRAMitWh MAY BE GRADUAL
!� PL 34.00 ® OR WD
BORING STARTM 09 26/ 1 1
DRILLER: J dI L Drilling, Inc.
111I.(BCR) ;ifOCH)
BORING COMMEM 09 26 1 1
CAVE W DBPT[i a 36.5'
iWL
IaG CM 75 IPOR=AN-S. Bowman
DRUZAG bMM0D H.S.A 2--1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB #
1751
BORING #
GHQ-1
SHM
2 OF 3
_
PROJECT NAME
3rd BCT HQ
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, SIC
-0-
SIXIOMETER
1 x 3 4 s+
PLASTIC RATER LIQUID
LDIIT X CONTENT X En x
x ,p
QUALITY DMGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD%— — — REC.%
20X-40X-60X—BO%1a0
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BIARB/FT.
to 20 30 40 50+
o
z
11
m
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGL[SH UNITSROCS:
BOTTOM OF CASING La99 OF CIRCULATION 1O4
z
p:
SURFACE ELEVATION
3
3
4
4
50
55
Go—
Wet, Very Stiff, Tan, Gray, Silty CLAY
(CL)
:7 (2-3A
14 (4-e-ek
12 (5-")
21 (7-e-12)
_-- ----.— __
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.
Wet, Firm, Gray, Brown, Silty CLAY
(CL)?
9
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Gray, Orange,
Silty, Fine SAND (5M)
10
SS
18
18
Wet., Medium Dense, Tan, Yellow, Red,
Clayey, Medium SAND (SC)
11
SS
18
18
12
SS
18
18
Wet, Medium Dense, Tan, Gray, Red,
Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
13
SS
18
18
Wet, Stiff, Tan, Gray, Red,. Medium Sandy
CLAY (CL)
-----------.
14
SS
18
18
THE STRATIFICATIUn LUTES REPRESE11T ME APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LBYES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES III -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL ;
VWL 34.00 OR"
BORING STARTED 09/26/ 1 1
DRILLER: J & L Drilling, Inc.
!gRL(BCR) TRL(ACR)
HOMNG COMPI.UM 09 26 1 1
CAVE IN DEM O 36.5-
W
RIG CME 75 FOREMAN S. Bowman
DRQJ,ING bMMOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
J06 #
1751
BORING #
1 BHQ-1
SHEET
3 OF 3
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT —ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
'0' CAIMMM PMMMM ER
1 e TONS3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LOUT x CONTENT x LDIIT x
40
ROCK QUALITY DMGNATION A RECOVERY
ROD%— — •— REC.X
2aX 40X---607iFW—B011fr-100
® STANDARD
o
x
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING W- LOSS OF C[RCUIIITION
z
e
SURFACE ELEVATION
6
10 20 80 40 50+
Wet, Stiff, Tan, Gray, Red, Medium Sandy
CLAY (CL)
-
=
20 (e=s-u)
Wet, Medium Dense, Yellow. Orange, Red,
Poorly Graded, Coarse SAND (SP)
15
SS
18
18
6
Wet, Very !lard, Gray, Orange, Red, Silty
CLAY (CQ
16
SS
18
18
7
17
SS
18
1B
7
END OF BORING 0 75.0'
84
85
so
TIC STRATIFICATM11 LIMES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LUTES BETVEEJN SOIL TYPES IM-SITU THE TRAMSITIOM MAY BE GRADUAL
YWL 34.00 4DoR WD
BORING STARTED 09 2g 1 1
DRILLER: J & L Drilling, Inc.
YWL(BCR) =WL(ACR)
ROBING COMPETED QQ 26 1 I
CAVE IN DEPTH O 36.5'
TWL
RIG CME 75 FOREXAN S. Bowman
DRUING IeMOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

__
CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB j
1751
BORING #
BHQ-2
SHERT
1 OF i
Ecq
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bra , NC
-0- CALan= PENE'I� Mr=
t 2 TON / . 4 5+
PIJItiT(p WATi:B LIQUID
LET X CONTENT % t"M X
a
x
IlESCRII''TION OF MATERIAL ENGIdSFI UNTiS
BOMM OF CASING ®- LOSS OF CIRCUTATION 100
X — a
ROC{ QUAI.ZTY DES[GNATION do RECOVIM
20%40%-60% C80%-100%
® STAND TION
BWW0
SURFACE ELEVATION 272.0
to 20 so 40 50+
Topsoil Depth 4'
1
SS
18
I8
FILL - Moist, Medium Dense, Tan. Brown,
Silty, Medium Sand
270
17 (�1q-7)
2
SS
18
18
Coastal Plain Sediments - Moist, Medium
Dense. Tan, Yellow. Brown, Clayey. Medium
Aj
SAND (SC)
265
11 ("-5)
3
SS
18
18
28 (e42-15)
Moist. Very Stiff, Gray, Red, Medium
Sandy CLAY (CL)
4
SS
18
18
1
260
=
19 (s-a-11)
Moist, Medium Dense. Tan, Gray, Red,
Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
5
SS
18
18
15
255
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Red, Silty,
G
SS
18
18
Rne SAND (SM)
18 (54-10)
20
-
-
250
13 :(6-e^7)
7
SS
18
18
25
-
END OF BORING ® 25.0'
245
30
THE STRATiFICATIM LD S REPRESENT THE APPRDXRIATE.GOUNOARY LIKES 2ETVEEn SM TYPES IN -SITU THE TRAKSITRIN MAY BE GRADUAL
71FL DRY (9 OR fro
BORING STARTED 09/26/ 1 1
DRILLER: J r¢ L Drilling, Inc.
' prioCR) TIUACR)
BORING CGMr[ n 09 26 1 1
cAvs IN DEPTH a 15.0'
:jffL
R1G CME 75 iroREr w S. Bowman
DRIVING MMOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
SOB S
1751
BORING #
1 BHQ-3
SHEET
1 or 1
PROTECT NAME
ARCEMCT-ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
- -
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
CAIIHRs'1ED PE gMHE M
1 2 T0N sFT' a Ns+
PIlAMC WATER LIQUID
ITT % CONTENT X LWT %
X ----- qP�—�—d
ROCK QUAINY DESIGNATION k RECOMY
20% AO%-80X— 0%-1 DO
® STAND RO R 'ION
10 20 30 40 00+
z
DESCRUMON OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
801701! OF CASING®- GOS9 OF L'iBCUIAITON 10U
-
SURFACE ELEVATION 271.5
Topsoil Depth 2'
:
274
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Tan, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
5 (4-2-3
2
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan, Yellow, Red, Slightly
Silty, Poorly Graded, Medium SAND
5
(SP-SM)
=
265
7 (3-34) -
3
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan, Yellow, Slightly
Silty, Poorly Graded, Medium SAND
(SP-SM)
1
25 (6-12- N3)
4
SS
18
18
Moist, Very Stiff, Tan, Gray, M"um
Sandy CLAY (CL)
260
.18 (5-1-11)
5
SS
18
18
255
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Red,
Silty. Medium SAND (SM)
6
SS
18
18
20
- -
- -
- - -
250
-
Moist. Hard, Tan, Gray. Silty, CLAY (CL)
7
SS
18
18
(0-18--23)- 41
25
END -OF BORING ® 25.0'
245
;
3
!
I
i THE STRATiFICATrM LINES REPRESENT THE APPRMUUTE 60UNOARY LINES BETVEEN SOIL TYPES IM-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
Yn DRY ® OR 1ID
BORING STAWM 09 22 1 1
DRILLER: J dI L Drilling, Inc.
TW10CR) ;1R4ACR)
BOMNG COMP1Sr6D 09 22 1 1
WE [N DLPTH ar t g.o'
1 YWI.
1110 CME 75 FOREw S. Bowman
DRIUMG iWMOD H.S:A 2-1/4"

CLiE1V'I
Clark Construction Comeany
FOB #
1751
BORING f
1 9HQ--4
SHEET
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3 rd B CT HQ
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
-O- CAtEBRATED P6NET>�OURM
t 2 rGx �' 4 6+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
L r x CONTENT X L[ r x
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & SSOOVERY
RQDX— , REC.X
2OX-40X-60%-80%--100
® STMDAM PPFBLOWS� ATION
a
o
z
.,
`�
DESCRIP'i'ION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CiRCUTATION 100
x
9
SURFACE ELEVATION 271 .5
-
to 20 30 40 60t
Q
Topsoil Depth 3'
270
18 (10-10-0
1
SS
18r1163
Moist. Medium Dense, Orange, Tan, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)Moist,
10 (sus-s)
2
SS18
Loose, Tan, Yellow, Silty, Medium
SAND (SM)
265
8
3
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan, Red, Silty. Medium
SAND (SM)
-
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Light Gray,
4
SS
18
18
Red, Silty, Medium SAND (SM)
1.
' 260
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Silty,
5
SS
18
18
Medium SAND (SM)
17 (7-97:9)
15
..
255
;7
Moist, Firm, Gray, Brown, Medium Sandy
CLAY (CL)
6
S5118
18
20
--
-
-
-
- - -- — - -
250
- -
Wet, Very Stiff, Gray, Red, Silty CLAY
7
SS
18
18
(CL)
28 (942-15)
25
:
`
END OF BORING ® 25.0"
245
30,
l
TFE STRATIFICATION LIMES RE 4MSMT THE APPROXIMATE BMtMARY LINES BETVEEN SOIL TYPES IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
!WWL DRY ®OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/22/1 1 .
DRILLER: J dI L Drilling, Inc.
I 7IIL(BCR) TAI.(ACR)
BORING COUPIMD 09 22 1 1
CAVa IN DWTH S 15.0-
+n
Ric CME 75 roxE"N S. Bowman
DRILLING MMOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING i
SHEET
Clark Construction Company
1751
•
BHQ-5
1 OF 1
"Res
PROJECT NAME
ARCBMCT-ENGRUM
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
-0— CAUBRAT D PP)TONSNET�O
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
1 x 9 4 a+
PLASTIC WAT£R UQUW
UwT x CONi6NT x Ina x
X--------�
DESCRU"TION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
1
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION It MCOVM
z
F
BOTTOM OF CASING W- LOSS OF CIRCULATION 1
�d
e
— X8
20%-4X-40%—fi00X 100
SURFACE ELEVATION. 271.0
® STANDARD P�l� RATION
io 20 8o 40 50+
a
Topsoil Depth 3"
270
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dante, Orange, Tan, Silty,
13:(9-1-4)'
Medium SAND (SM)
Moist, Loose, Tan, Orange, Clayey,
2
SS
f8
18
Medium SAND (SC)
5 (2-2-3)
5
END OF BORING 0 5.0'
265
1
260
15
255
20
250
I
i 25
•
i
245
i
3
i
T THE STRATIFICATION LIMES REPFESEMT THE APPROXIMATE WIIOMY LUES.BETWEEM SOIL TYPES In�STTU NE TRArISITIOn MAY BE GRAWAL
!; VL DRY 4DoR WD
BORING STARTED 09/22/1 1
DRILLER. J & L Drilling, Inc.
71141 cs) TV4ACR)
BORING COMPL&TO 09 22 1 1
c"It IN Dunu O
3 TWL
RIG C M E 75 FOREw S. Bowman
DRUJMG METI•IOU H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
JOB
BORING
SHEET
Clark Construction Company
1751
-BHQ-6
1 OF 1
ESS
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
--.�.
SITE LOCATION
-0- CAUMUTED PI�+Ii�r�oMETER
FO
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
1 2 3 4 b+
PLASTIC WATER IIQUED
LWT X CONTENT X LEM X
X —A
ROCK QUAi1TY DESIGNATION dc`RECOV6RY
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
,.
o
BOTTOM OF CASING �— UM08 CIIiC[1I�lTION 1O0
z
ROD%— — — REC.%
+
v
e
20%-40%—&0%-80%-10
SURFACE ELEVATION 272.0
0 1
® STANDARD M/ENETRATIOx
0
iO 24 30 40 50+
Topsoil Depth 3'
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Tan, Silty,
270
15 (5-7-8)
Medium SAND (SM)
Moist, Medium Dense. Red, Orange, Silty,
2
SS
18
18
Medium SAND (SM)
12 (6-7-5)
5
END OF BORING ® 5.0'
265
1
z60
15
z55
20
250
25
245
THE STRATIFICATION LIMES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE 8=10ARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES Di -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
�PL DRY (0 Da WD
BORMO START® 09/22 1 1
DRILLER: J & L. Drilling, Inc.
TV1413CR) TWL(ACR)
BOMNG COUPLE= 09 22 1 1
CAVE IN DEEM e
Tr
RIG CME 75 FOnmAK S. Bowman
DRRuxG isMOD H.S.A 2-1/4`

cum
JOB f
BORING #
SHEET
Clark Construction. Company
1751
BHQ--7
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARcHrmCT-ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
_-+-
SITE LOCATION
-0- CALIBRATED PnMMP M1M
TO
NS/nTa
for Street, Fort Bragg, NC
1 2 3 4 a+
PLUM HATER UQUa)
war x CONTE" % war x
X---_-�_ ON
aocit Di':slaxArlorr z� RECOVE&7l
DESCRIPTION OF MAMUAL ENGLISH UNITS
�
�
QuAlrrr
x
BOTTOM OF CASING ®- LOW OF CMUL&TION �
RODX�- — = REC.%
2O%4o%-60%8O%--100
SURFACE ELEVATION 272.0
72.D
® STAIN RD PB/KrMTION
10 20 30 40 50+
Topsoil Depth 3'
270/14
2� (12-13-12)
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Ton, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
Moist, Medium Dense, Red, Tan, Silty,
2
SS
18
18
Medium SAND (SM)
-5t
5
1-265
END OF BORING @ 5.0'
:
1
260
15
25�
20
—250
` 25
245
3
t
i
THE STRATIFICATION LUNES REPRESEtT THE APPROXIMATE MUMARY LASS BET%IM SOUL TYPES M-SM THE TRAMSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
Y*L DRY ® OR AID
BORWG STARTED 09 22 1 1
DRILLER: J do L Drilling, Inc.
rR4,cit) jW14ACR)
BORING COMPUT M 09 2-2 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTR 0
YWL
RIG CME 75 1101 rAN S. Bowman
DMUING bWMOD H.S.A. 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB #
1751
BORING #
1 BHQ-8
SHEET
1 OF 1
Rota
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
Taylor. Street, Fort Bragg, NC
-0CAIMRATM Pi61 WffER
I 8 s 4 a+
PLAMC WATER UQUM
U14T x CONTENT X fWT x
x e
ROCK QUALM DESIGNATION A RECOVRRY
RQDX-- REC.%
20%40%--60% ---80%-1
® STANDAM PEBLOVSNETRATION
z
as
1
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGUISH UNWS
BOTTOM OF CASING W-- WS8 OF CIRGUI ATION
c
6d
SURFACE ELEVATION Z61.0
to 20 so 40 60+
FILL - Moist, Medium Dense, Orange,
Brown, Silty, Medium Sand
- 260
25 (lo-v-' ij)
1*
SS
18
18
Coastal Plain Sediments - Moist, Medium
2
SS
18
18
(ense, Tan, Yellow. Silty, Medium SAND
S
255
1
250
15
245
20
240
25
235
2!j
END OF BORING ® 5.0'
THE STRATIFICATION LMES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BDUNDARY LIKES BETVEE14 SOIL TYPES In -SITU THE TRAKSITrON MAY BE GRADUAL
Y"L DRY ®OR RD
BORING STARTED 09�22 f 1
DRILLER: J do L Drilling, Inc.
TTI'48m) TWL<ACR)
BORING COHPUMD 09 22 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH O
TWL
RIG CME 75 FOR&wm S. Bowman
DRaUXG METHOD N.S.A 2-1/4"

APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY

Project Number: 1751
Project Engineer: T.B-B
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Laboratory Testing Summary
�Project.Name: 3RD BCT Headquarters
Principal Engineer: C.N.0
i
Date: 10/10/2011
Summary by: K.A.P
Boring Number
1 Sample
Number
Sample I. D.
Depth
(Feet)
Moisture
Content
(%)
USCS
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Percent
Passing
No. 200
Sieve.
Compaction
Test Standard Deviation
Maximum
Density
(pcf}
ptimum
Moisture
(°Y°)
Swell
I M
Value
M
B - 4 HQ
1128
1.0 - 2.5
7.6
SM
NP
NP
NP
15.5
*
None Noted
B - 8 HQ
1129
0.0 - 5.0
15.6
SM
29
23
6
35.0
125.2
8.1
0.5
20.2
None Noted
Test Methods: ASTM D854-00 : Specific Gravity of Sail Solids by'Water Pycnometer
ASTM D698-07 : Laboratory Compaction Characteristic of Soil Using Standard Effort ((12,400 ft-Ibf/ft°(600 kN-mlm"))
ASTM D4318-00 : Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
ASTM D422-63 : Particle -Size Analysis ofSoils
ASTM D2487-00 : Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified. Soil Classification System)
ASTM D2216-00 : Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D1883-99 :.Califomia Bearing Ratio of Laboratory -Compacted Soils
ASTM D1557-00 : Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified'EfFort (56,000 ft-Ibf/fr)
ASTM'D1140-00 : Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than the No. 200 Sieve
Summary Key:
NC = NCDOT Test Method
S = Standard Proctor
M= Modified Proctor
GS = Specific Gravity
i
Hyd = Hydrometer
Con = Consolidation
DS = Direct Shear
CS = Cement Stabilization
UCS = Unconfined Compression Soil
UCR = Unconfined Compression Rock
LS = Lime Stabilization:
OC = Organic Content
SA = See Attached
NP = Non Plastic
` = Test Not -Conducted
Prepared by Engineering Consulting Services 10/10/2011

60
50
4C
0
z
3C
U
H
g
a
2C
st
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Dashed line indicates time approximate
/
/
upper limit boundary for natural soils
/
/
O
71
e�
Z11
ML or
OL
W or Oil
i
0
0
lu lU W 4U bU bu
LIQUID LIMIT
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL
Yellowish brown, silty SAND NP NP
Gray red tan, silty SAND 29 23
Project No. 33:1751 Client: Clark Construction Company
Project: 3RD BCT Headquarters
• Location: B - 4 HQ Depth: 1.0 - 2.5 feet Sample Number: 1128
s Location: B - 8 HQ Depth: 0.0 - 5.0 feet Sample Number: 1129
nas, LLP
Ile, NC
lu bu vu 1uU flu
PI W40 W200 USCS
NP " 15.5 SM
6 * 35.0 SM
*None noted
QNone noted
re
Tested By: K.A.P Checked By: T.B.B

..............................
MINN
■.■■.
■
�...■■.■■■■.■E■i■.IMMOM....
...■■■.■..
■■■■■
■■
■
.■■
...........
..............................
■
■.■..■■■�O■■..E.■.■tea
■i�■■.
-
mom
►ii■■■.■.■■■E■`N.■►■■■
,■■...■■
■■■■■■■■EM■■■■■■■■■i■■■
Is
�■EN
.■■■■■�%....i■■■■N■E.i■EEi\:�..
MEN
0
�■�N■■■■CCC
ENO
■MENNEN■■■.
C............................
.■
NOON■..■
■■.■■.........
,NONE
■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■.■■■■■
Elevi
Classification
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
OptimumMaxi,fry,fensity = 125.2 2pef
moisture
Gray red tan, silty SAND
Project:..: ... ....
....
Tested By: N.E.W Checked By: K.A.R

CBR
Penetration
800
ASTM
D-1883
700
600
500
as
a
400
0
J
300
200
100
0
0.000
0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500
Penetration (inch)
iation from Standard ASTM D1883 Procedure:
None Noted
Sample No.: 1129 Street: Fort Bragg, NC
Description: Gray red tan, silty SAND Station No.: B - 8 H0
Classification: SM Remark: Modified Effort - D 1557
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
125.2
CBR 1129
Opt. Moisture Content (%)
8.1
Corrected CBR @ 0.1"
20.2
Natural Moisture Content
15.6
Corrected CBR @ 0.2"
27.7
Liquid Limit (LL)
29
Reported CBR (%)
20.2
Plastic Limit (PL)
23
Dry Density as Molded
122.8
Plasticity Index (PI)
6
Molded Moisture Content
6.8
Liquidity Index (LI)
Percent of Maximum Density
98.1
Percent Retained 3/4" Sieve
None
Moisture Content +/- opt
-1.3
Percent Retained No. 4 Sieve
< 5%
Percent (%),Swell
0.5
Percent Passino No.200 Sieve
35.0
Project: 3RD BCT Headquarters
Project No.: 1751
Date: 10-Oct-11
Fayetteville, North Carolina
California Bearing Ratio Curves

APPENDIX D
GENERAL CONDITIONS
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the
exploration previously outlined and the data collected at the boring locations shown on the
attached boring location plan. This report does not reflect specific variations that may occur
between test locations. The borings were located where site conditions permitted and where it
is believed representative conditions occur, but the full nature and extent of variations between
borings and of subsurface conditions not encountered by any boring may not become evident
until the course of construction. If variations become evident at any time before or during the
course of construction, it will be necessary to make a re-evaluation of the conclusions and
recommendations of this report and further exploration, observation, and/or testing may be
required.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practices and makes no other warranties, either express or implied, as to the
professional advice under the terms of our agreement and included in this report.. The
recommendations contained herein are made with the understanding that the contract
documents between the owner and foundation or earthwork contractor or between the owner
and the general contractor and the caisson, foundation, excavating • and earthwork
subcontractors, if any, shall require that the contractor certify that all work in connection with
foundations, piles, caissons, compacted fills and other elements of the foundation or other
support components are in place at the locations, with proper dimensions and plumb, as shown
on the plans and specifications for the project.
Further, it is understood the contract documents will specify that the contractor will, upon
becoming aware of apparent or latent subsurface conditions differing from those disclosed by
the original soil exploration work, promptly notify the owner, both verbally to permit immediate
verification of the change, and in writing, as to the nature and extent of the differing conditions
and that no claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the
plans and specifications and disclosed by the soil exploration will be allowed under the contract
unless the contractor has so notified the owner both verbally and in writing, as required above,
of such changed conditions. The owner will, in turn, promptly notify this firm of the existence of
-such"unanticipatedµconditions-and-will` authorize -such,further •exploration -as -may be -required -to -
properly evaluate these conditions.
Recommendations made in this report as to on -site construction review by this firm will be
authorized and funds and facilities for such review will be provided at the times recommended if
we are to be held responsible for the design recommendations.

APPENDIX E
PROCEDURES REGARDING FIELD LOGS, LABORATORY DATA SHEETS AND SAMPLES
In the process of obtaining and testing soil samples and preparing this report, procedures are
followed that represent reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil and foundation
engineering.
Specifically, field logs are prepared during performance of the drilling and sampling operations
which are intended to portray essentially field occurrences, sampling locations, and other
information.
Samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to additional testing and final
classification in the laboratory by experienced soil engineers, and differences between the field
logs and the final logs exist.
The engineer preparing the report reviews the field and laboratory data, classifications and test
data, and his judgment in interpreting this data, may make further changes.
Samples are taken in the field, some of which are later subjected to laboratory tests, are
retained in our laboratory for sixty days and are then discarded unless special disposition is
requested by our client. Samples retained over a long period of time, even if sealed in jars, are
subject to moisture loss which changes the apparent strength of cohesive soil generally
increasing the strength from what was originally encountered in the field. Since they are then no
longer representative of the moisture conditions initially encountered, an inspection of these
samples should recognize this factor.
Field logs and laboratory data sheets have not been included in our engineering reports
because they do not represent the engineer's final opinions as to appropriate descriptions for
conditions encountered in the exploration and testing work. Results of the laboratory tests are
generally described in the appendices, shown on the boring logs and/or described in the extent
of the report, as appropriate.