SW6120502_HISTORICAL FILE_20120509

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW &ZA,021
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
DOC DATE
//fD1
YYYYMMDD

AfflAaLWKWA
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources .
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. K. Joshua Hurst, PE
Clark Nexsen Architecture & Engineering
4000 We��s��tchase Blvd., Ste. 280
�c7.leiyii, iY,- 276017
Dear Mr. Hurst:
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Director
May 9, 2012
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW6120502
Ammo Pointe Blvd. & MacRidge Rd.
Improvements
Cumberland County
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality Central Office received a Stormwater Management Permit Application
for the subject project on May 4, 2012. A preliminary review of that information has determined that
the application is not complete. As we discussed today on the phone, the following information is
needed to continue the stormwater review:
1. The O&M Agreement provided is a photocopy. Please submit an original.
2. This application appears to be for two unrelated road improvement projects in two different
locations. The MacRidge Rd. part has no net increase in BUA, and appears to be excluded
from permitting under Section 8 of SI- 2006-246. 1 would like to these as two separate
projects. There is no fee for requesting a permit exclusion for the MacRidge Rd. part.
3. The pond outlet structure rim elevation is not consistent on the talcs, plans, detail, and
supplement form.
4. Note that if the future lane(s) and sidewalk will impact the adjacent wetlands, a 404/401
approval will be needed prior to impacts.
5. Note that table 10-3 may be used for projects in this location instead of table 10-4.
Please note that this request for additional infort-rtation is in response to a preliminary review. The
requested information should be received by this Office prior to June 9, 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.
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
!nternet: 4n:vv,no:rate qua!!ty.o g
An Equal Opportunity t Affirmative Action Employer
Nne
orthCarolina
Naturally

Mr. K. Joshua Hurst, PE
SW6120502 - Ammo Pointe Blvd. & MacRidge Rd. Improvements
May 9, 2012
The construction of any impervious surfaces, other than a construction entrance under an approved
Sedimentation Erosion Control Plan, is a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and is subject to enforcement
action pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6A.
All revised original signed documents must he returned or new originals must he provided, Copies are
not acceptable. P%ny revised calculations or plans must be sealed, signed, and dated; and have a
revision date shown. Please reference the State assigned project number SW6120502 on all
correspondence. if you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at (919)
807-6375, or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Robert D. Patterson, PE
Environmental Engineer
Stormwater Permitting Unit
cc: �SW6120502 File
ec: David Heins - Ft. Bragg DPW
Lee Ward - Ft. Bragg DPW / WMB
Mike Lawyer - Fayetteville Regional Office
Page 2 of 2

�I�IIIIII illll_IIIII IIIII IIIII I1111111
�38967
7 �
FROM
FAST LANE PICKUP DATE S'-7•-I 7 PICKUP TIME 1 • i ._.,L
SAME DAY DRIVER # OF PIECES-L_WEIGHT
BILL TO: SHIPPER RECEIVER 3RD PARTY.
NEXT DAY CAR VAN ROUND TRIP CHARGES_
CLARK NEXSEN
4000 WESTCHASE BLVD., STE. 280
RALEIGH, NC 27607
[phone]
JOB# REF# Slr1IQ� 1
DATEr---,—T TIME 41f
l
828-0303
TO
COMPANY NAMEn
STREET ADDRESSI Z N• S� I '�htxry S-��
nn iI ` r
CITY KA1�P,roh ST AV' ZIP QXMI
CONTACT NAME
PHONE #
SIGNATURE'//l,�G%�
�� �1 n)1,p0•YL

Architecture & Engineering
4000 Westchase Boulevard, Suite 280
Raleigh, NC 27607
P. 919.828.1876
F. 919,828.1877
www.claFknexsen.corn
transmittal
DATE:
May 03, 2012
PROJECT:
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and
MacRidge Road Improvements
TO:
Stormwater Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street,
9t' Floor,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
919/807-6300
FROM:
K. Joshua Hurst, PE
SUBJECT:
Post -Construction Stormwater
Permit Application
COMMISSION NUMBER:
3818
VIA:
ROUTE TO:
CC:
We transmit the following:
® Drawings
❑ Change Order
❑ Computer File(s)
D
MAY 4 2012
DENR - -- WATER QUALITY
b«---
❑ Specifications
❑ Shop Drawings
❑ Samples
❑ Product Literature ® Calculations
Copies Description
1 Stormwater Calculations
2 Construction Plans
2 Stormwater Permit Application (1 original, 1
copy)
1 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
1 Wet Detention Basin O&M Agreement
1 Stormwater Permit Application Fee ($505)
Remarks:
Attached are the Stormwater Calculations, Plans, Application, Supplement,
0&M Agreement, and Application Fee for the Ammo Pointe Boulevard and
MacRidge Road Improvements (PN 70751) at Fort Bragg, for review.
Please contact me via email ([e-mail]) or at 919/576-
2120 if you have questions or need anything else regarding this submittal.
Page i of 1

t Au P,w ` o K 4 6 r - 4Q-1 s,, /
Application Completeness Review
First Submittal ❑ Re -submittal Date Received:5 Date Reviewed
Development/Project Name:Am.ri o roe, ke
Receiving stream name .$omz: s eAZp E-f_ Classic
Liver Basin: CA pE F'F_
L By Bill Diuguid N_
For post -construction requirements, a program will be dee.med compliant for the areas where it is
implementing any of the following programs: WS-I, `dVS-II, v"JS-;II, 1JVS-IV, NQW, ORVIV, 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): Al a
Latitude and Longitude: 35 OS zf; qq Al -'Z d2 //. °I 1n/ ;urisdictionF e 6v�/� u�
Project Address: v
Engineer name and firm: a---;��•��
Phone: 9! 9-576 r2-/2,n Email. u X CA -If s C; 0 "Y1
Is the project confirmed to be in the State MSI Stormwater Permit jurisdiction? es or ❑ No
❑ Low Density (no curb and gutter) ❑ Low Density with curb and gutter outlets i en i ❑ Other
yjl _-Le­401/404 impacts to surface waters, wetlands, and buffers (add language to cover letter and/or add info letter)
UA
,Check for $505.00 included
W/ Original signature (not photocopy) on application
Legal signature (Corporation-VP/higher, Partnership -General Partnerlhigher, LLC-member/manager; Agent).
Check spelling, capitalization, punctuation: hitp://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/thepage.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.
Voor subdivided projects, a signed and notarized deed restriction statement
Baled, 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
❑ Infiltration Basin
❑ Infiltration Trench
❑ Level Spreader
❑ Permeable Pavement
❑ Restored Riparian Buffer
❑ Rooftop Runoff Management
❑ Sand Filter
❑ S�ormwater Wetland
et Detention Basin
❑ Low Density
❑ Curb Outlet
❑ Off -Site
❑ NCDOT Linear Road
o sets of sealed, signed & dated layout & finish grading plans with appropriate details
Description of stormwater management provided
��alrrative
Sols report provided bra a T��1-t
P P �-
--cr—Wetlands delineated or a note on the plans or in the accompanying documents that none exist on site and/or
adjacent property
M/' Details for the roads, parking area, cul-de-sac radii, sidewalk widths, curb and gutter;
w,"' Dimensions & slopes provided
Drainage areas delineated Pervious and impervious reported for each ❑ Areas of high density
We"' BMP operation and maintenance agreements provided
VAppiication complete ❑ Application Incomplete Returned: (Date)
is .9 r W sews
o 17 TF_('_
May 5, 2011 Revision, Bill Diuguid

3L 2006-246 Section 9 Past Construction Requirements for Non -Coastal Counties
Low -density protects
❑ No more than two dwelling units per acre or 24% built -upon area;
❑ Vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable;
❑ Built -upon areas at least 30 feet landward of perennial and intermittent surface waters;
❑ Deed restrictions, protective covenants, and/.nr other restrictive languagelmeasures.
High density protects
❑ Control and treat runoff from the first one -inch of rain,
❑ Runoff volume drawdown time must be a minimum of 48 hours, but not more than 120 hours;
❑ Discharge the storage volume at a rate equal to or less than the predevelopment discharge rate for the
one-year, 24-hour storm.
❑ Achieve 85% average annual removal of total suspended solids.
❑ For BMPs that require a separation from the seasonal high-water table (SHWT), the separation shall include
at least 12 inches of naturally occurring soil above the SHWT.
❑ Stormwater management measures must comply with the General Engineering Design Criteria For All
Projects requirements listed in 15A NCAC 2H .1008(c);
❑ All built -upon areas are at least 30 feet landward of perennial and intermittent surface waters,
❑ Deed restrictions, protective covenants, and/or other restrictive language/measures
❑ Provide a mechanism to require long-term operation and maintenance of Best Management Practices
Goose Creek, Six Mile Creek and Waxhaw Creek Watersheds
Buffer Requirements
❑ Undisturbed riparian buffers within 200 feet of water bodies within the 100-Year Floodplain and within 100 feet
of water bodies that are not within the 100-Year Floodplain. Exceptions to the undisturbed buffer
requirements are set forth in 15A NCAC 02B .0607
Stormwater Controls as required by 15A NCAC 02B .0602
❑ Control and treat the difference between the pre -development and post -development conditions for the one-
year, 24-hour storm with structural controls.
❑ Development and redevelopment shall implement stormwater management measures that promote infiltration
of flows and ground water recharge for the purpose of maintaining stream base flow.
❑ 85% average annual removal of total suspended solids.
❑ Draw down the treatment volume no faster than 48 hours, but no slower than 120 hours, for detention ponds.
❑ Discharge the storage volume at a rate equal or less than the pre -development discharge rate for the one-
year, 24-hour storm.
❑ Meet design or stormwater management measures set forth in 15A NCAC 2H .1008.
High Density Projects that require a 4011404 within an NSW
❑ 85% TSS
❑ 30% TN
❑ 30% TP
May 5, 2011 Revision, Bill Diuguid

13
Architecture & Engineering
4000 Westchase Boulevard, Suite 280
Raleigh, NC 27607
P. 919.828.1876
F. 919.826.1877
www.clarknexsen.com
transmittal
DATE: We transmit the following:
5-10-12
PROJECT: ® Drawings
Chicken Road ACP
TO:
Robert D. Patterson, PE
Wetlands and Stormwater
Branch
512 N. Salisbury Street,
9" Floor,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
FROM:
K. Joshua Hurst, PE
SUBJECT:
Additional Information
❑ Change Order
❑ Computer File(s)
❑ Specifications
❑ Shop Drawings
❑ Samples
❑ Product Literature ® Revised Permit Document
Copies Description
IFA
1
Revised Construction Plans
Original Signed O&M
ii11 ��''JJ J 1
SW6120502Ll
Ammo Pointe Blvd. & MacRidge L(ENR
2�1�
Rd. Improvements
Remarks: R QUALITYCOMMISSION NUMBER: at@rBranch
3818 Robert,
VIA: Enclosed you will find the revised stormwater documents per
your review comment. We have included responses to your comments
hPlnw_
cc
1.The O&M Agreement provided is a photocopy. Please submit
an original.
Response: The original 4&M is enclosed.
2.This application appears to be for two unrelated road
improvement projects in two different locations. The MacRidge
Rd. part has no net increase in BUA, and appears to be
excluded from permitting under Section 8 of SL 2006-246. I
would like to these as two separate projects. There is no fee
for requesting a permit exclusion for the MacRidge Rd. part.
Page Iof2

7
Architecture & Engineering COMMISSION NUMBER: 3818 DATE: 5-10-12
transmittal
Response: These projects will be separated. An email was sent
on May gth requesting for MacRidge Road to be excluded.
3. The pond outlet structure rim elevation is not consistent on the
calcs, plans, detail, and supplement form.
Response: The outlet structure has been updated to include
slots that drain volumes in excess of the temporary pool. The
calcs and supplements were for a structure with slots, however
the plans did not accurately depict this.
4. Note that if the future lane(s) and sidewalk will impact the
adjacent wetlands, a 404/401 approval will be needed prior to
impacts.
Response: Acknowledged.
5. Note that table 10-3 may be used for projects in this location
instead of table 10-4
Response: Acknowledged.
Thank you for your help during this review process and please feel free to contact us should you
have any questions.
Page 2 of 2

1111111 Hill 111111111111111 IIII IIII
38672
a a c
7 v o 0 0**4
A7 = Cl . S W D
a
FROM
Is-110:4011:04:101
FAST LANE PICKUPDATE
I Il� I Q, PICKUP TIME i 3 CC)
DRIVER l I/'r # OF PIECES- WEIGHT
SAME DAY
BILL TO : SHIPPER RECEIVER 3RD PARTY
NEXT DAY CAR VAN ROUND TRIP CHARGES
4000 WESTCHASE BLVD., STE. 280
RALEIGH, NC 27607
[phone]
ram.• .. ., •�. :.. ,,,
828=`0303
TO
COMPANY NAME - # .
STREET ADDRESS '-�I�KI. I 11_r\i}-
CITY �f'1r� ST i�ic� ZIP
CONTACT NAME
JoB# REF#_ In_ A� PHONE # Q1� - S�`l t „-,C1C�
SIGNATURE
DATE �Ilhl 1 2_ TIME r��r1
1 I

F lul lILY iviap
mered by ArcGIS Server
)pynghl 2008 ESRI. Ali ngtAs reserved Printed on Fri Oct 212011 0817M AM.

Ammo Point Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvements
CN Comm. No. 3818
Stormwater Narrative & Calculations
Clark*Nexsen
Ammo POINTE BOULEVARD AND
MACIRJDGE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
STORMWATER NARRATIVE &
CALCULATIONS
PERMIT SUBMITTAL
3 May 2012
I?ngineer.(s): Josh Hurst, PIS,
Whitney Duff}, PE
Wyatt Boric, ICI
V 33574
U A
CELEBRATING 90 PEARS
Architecturr & Engineering
6160 Kemp.wille Circle, Suite 200
AT,Plk, l/,l 23502
111C$FI S Re
i.rlrzrlion #C-1028

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................ I
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ]EXISTING CONDITIONS.................................................................. 1
2.0 DESIGN APPROACH ....................................................................................................... 2
2.1 STORM DRAINAGE- 13113INC . .................................................................................................... 2
2.2 WATFR Qu.,u,un, ANALYS1 ..................................................................................................... 3
2.3 WET POND DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 3
2.4 WeVIT RQu,\1.Tn7C,,u,Cul,\'fl0NS .......................................................................................... 3
2.5 WATER QUANTrn? ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 3
2.5.1. l)Rl,--I-)I,-\TEI.(:)PNfEN'I'CONI:)1'1'ION'; .......................................................................................... 4
2.5.2. POST I)E\'E],OPINil,--N'I'CONDI'l'iON,; ....................................................................................... 4
APPENDIX A: STORM SYSTEM CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX B: DRAINAGE AREA MAPS
APPENDIX C: EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX D: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvments Calculations
CN Comm. No. 3818
Stonnwater Calculations Clark*Nexsen
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Ammo Pointe Boulevard is an existing roadway that serves as the primary access from Chicken
Road to the 108th ADA Complex at the southern end of Fort Bragg. As part of the planned
Patriot Point development north of the 108,h ADA Complex, approximately 1,500 linear feet of
Ammo Pointe Boulevard will be shifted west on a new alignment. The project will also include
traffic signal and turn lane inlprovetnents at the new intersection of Ammo Pointe Boulevard
and Chicken Road. The site for the relocated Ammo Pointe Boulevard is east of Bones Creek
V on partially to densely wooded lan''he site slopes from a high elevation of approximately 263
feet near the Ammo Pointe Boulevard / Chicken Road intersection to a low of 215 feet near
where the new Ammo Pointe Ioulevard ties back, to existing Ammo Pointe Boulevard.
The MacRidge Road "Triangle area consists of MacRidge Road which provides access between
Chicken and Longstreet Road and Maclidge Triangle Road which provides access for
construction traffic. Work in the area will reroute traffic off the existing MacRidge Road
approaching Longstreet Road and onto MacRidge Road "Triangle Road approaching Longstreet
Road. The general alignment of the construction road will be paged and serve as the new access
between Chicken and Longstreet Road. The project will also include a traffic signal northwest of
the intersection of MacRidge and MacRidge Traingle Road. The site for the roadway intersection
is located on the existing MacRidge Road with a SOl" complex oil the north and a range Oil the
south side. The site slopes from a Iligh elevation of approximately 370 feet along AacRidge
Triangle Road to a low of 354 feet along MacRidge Road.
Project Description
"File total drainage area for the Ammo Pointe Boulevard site is 3.98 acres. The pre -development
conditions are 5.30/4 impervious whereas the post development conditions are 61.65%
impervious. The project site has no existing stormwater treatment. The site currently flows
overland from north to south toward Bones Creek. A future \videning of Ammo Pointe
Boulevard to a four -lane divided roadwa} is accounted for in the storm calculations and poi
64--'xisting Chicken Road will be widened where the new Ammo Pointe Blvd connects to it.

Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvments Calculations
CN Comm. No. 3818
Stormwater Calculations C1ark*Nexsen
This widening will account for an additional 0.50 acres of BUA that will discharge to the existing
grassed road side swales.
The total drainage area for the MacRidge Road Triangle site is 1.57 acres. The pre-developmenf
conditions are 37.7% impervious whereas the post development conditions are 31.8%
imperious. The project site has no existing stormwater treatment. No stonmvater treatment will
be provided for these roadway improvements as there will be a reduction in 13UA from
predevelopment to post development conditions. The site currently flows overland from the
northwest to the southeast down MacRidge Road.
2.0 DESIGN APPROACH
2.1 STORM DRAINAGE PIPING
Permanent storm drainage piping systems are designed for a 10-year storm event using the
Rational Method for rainfall analysis. Rainfall intensity values were taken from the NOAA
website. Runoff coefficients are based on the following values:
Description Runoff Coefficient, C
Paved and Roof Areas 0.95
Unimproved Areas 0.35
Using 1-laestad StormCAD version 5.5, the pre -development and post development storm water
collection system was modeled. An analysis of the hydraulic grade line for the 10-year design
rainfall event found the new structures' rim elevations to be above the water level. See
Appendix A for detailed information of the post -developed analysis.
The new system of pipes and inlets will collect storm water runoff from overland flow from the
road area and some grassed areas. The new collection system will outfall into one wet pond to
treat the 1" event.
2

Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvments Calculations
CN Comm. No. 3818
Stonnwater Calculations Clark*Nexsen
2.2 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
The calculations for the wet pond system are based on the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDI---NR), Stormwater Best Management Practices
(l3N41-') Manual, September, 2007. The wet pond was designed for 90% TSS removal rate. The
impervious area for the wet pond is 2.45 acres and the drainage area is 3.98 acres. The pre -
development percent impervious cover for the basin drainage area was 5.3%; the post
development drainage area is 61.6% which was used to find the required volume of treatment of
8,741 ft3. The wet pond provides 10,889 ft3 of storage.
2.3 WET POND DESIGN
One new wet pond will be provided on the site, located near the tie-in to existing Ammo Pointe
Boulevard on the south end of the alignment. The bottom elevation of the wet pond is at
elevation 211.0 feet. A clay liner will be used to maintain the water level at the permanent pool.
2.4 WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS
According to the NCDENR Design Guide, the stormwater treatment system should be designed
to remove 90 percent of the average annual post development total suspended solids (1'SS), 40
percent of the average annual post development total phosphorus (113), and 25 percent of the
average annual post development total nitrogen (1N) by implementing Best Management
Practices (BMP's).
2.5 WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS
The wet pond routing was performed using the rational hydrograph storage estimation method
in the l-iydraflow Hydrographs 2009 computer program. The analysis indicates that the total site
post development condition peak ninoff for all the design storms is less than the
predevelopment conditions.
3

a
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvments Calculations
CN Comm. No. 3818
Stormwater Calculations Clark*Ncxsen
2.5.1. PREDEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
The table below summarizes the predevelopment conditions peak runoff.
Predevelopment Condition Peak Runoff Summary
1-year Peak
10-year Peak
100-year Peak
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Total Existing Drainage
7.81
11.97
15.55
Area Runoff
2.5.2. POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
The post development site drains from Chicken Road to the south and outfalls into the new wet
pond. The method of conveyance is overland flow and piped system that includes catch basins.
Construction details are provided on the plans; storm system sizing and basin routing
calculations are provided in Appendix A. The table below summarizes the post development
conditions peak runoff.
Post development Condition Peak Runoff Summary
1-year Peak
10-year Peak
100-year Peak
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Runoff (cfs)
Post Development Drainage —
14.80
22.68
29.46
Routed To BMP
The analysis shows a decrease in post development runoff for all storm events analyzed. The
table below summarizes the total predevelopment and post development runoff for the project.
E

Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvments Calculations
CN Comm. No. 3818
Stonnwater Calculations Clark*Ncxsen
1-year
10-year
100-year
Peak
Peak
Peak
Runoff
Runoff
Runoff
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
Total Predevelopment
Runoff
7.81
11.97
15.55
Total Post Development
Runoff With Pond
0.05
0.06
0.07
Net Difference in Runoff
-7.76
-11.91
-15.48

a
Profile Report
Engineering Profile - Profile - A-1 to Pond (APB StormCAD_Full build_updated.stc)
265.00 ---j--A-1
! Rio
Inv
260.00
I
255.00
1-1k N.0 ft
Circutai Pipe - 1
i
250.00
c
0
y !
'L 240.00
235-00 i4
230,00
225.00
220.00
-0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+p0 4+50 5-GO 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00
Station Ift)
ft
Bft
6.00 ft
20.50 ft
Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 2)
APB StormCAD_Full build_updated.stc Bentley Systems, Inc- Haestad Methods Solution Center [08.11.02.35)
2127/2012 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 VV Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1

AMMO POINTE BOULEVARD
FORT BRAGG, NC
100% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 2012
CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND DOT REPORT
Label
Upstream
Inlet Area
(acres)
Upstream
Rational
Flow (ft31s)
Upstream
CA (acres)
System CA
(acres)
System
Intensity (inlh)
Section
Discharge
Capacity
(ft�ls)
Length
(User
Defined) (ft}
Slope
(ft/ft)
Conduit Description
-Invert- Upstream
Downstream (ft)
Cover (Start)
(ft)
Cover (Stop)
(ft)
-HGL-
Upstream
Downstream
(ft)
-Ground-
Upstream
Downstream
(ft)
3-4
0.334
7.41
1.257
1.257
5.850
7.41
303.0
0.045
Circular Pipe - 15.0 in
244.76
3.21
3.86
245.84
249.22
13.66
231.21
232.67
236.32
4-5
0.170
10.28
1.777
1.777
5.736
10.28
155.0
0.033
Circular Pipe - 15.0 in
231.21
3.86
3.85
232.40
236.32
11.72
226.11
227.74
231.21
5-6
M73
12.16
2.126
2.126
5.674
12.16
206.0
0.020
Circular Pipe - 18.0 in
226.11
3.60
3.83
227.43
231.21
14.69
222.08
223.98
227.41
6-8
0.056
14.11
2.509
2.509
5.579
14.11
38.0
0.042
Circular Pipe - 18.0 in
222.08
3.83
4.00
223.46
227.41
21.42
220.50
221.47
226.00
2-3
0.161
4.29
0.709
0.709
6.008
4.29
303.0
0.028
Circular Pipe - 15.0 in
253.19
5.60
3.21
254.03
260.04
10.77
244.76
246.01
249.22
1-1A
0.252
1.39
0.208
0.208
6.630
1.39
68.0
0.003
Circular Pipe - 15.0 in
254.30
3.40
3.58
255.00
258.95
3.59
254.09
254.96
258.92
1A-2
NIA
2.76
0.427
0.427
6.413
2.76
300.0
0.003
Circular Pipe - 15.0 in
254.09
3.58
5.60
254.92
258.92
3.54
253.19
254.12
260.04
5A-5
0.154
2.02
0.303
0.303
6.596
2.02
31.0
0.003
Circular Pipe - 15.0 in
226.20
3.00
3.85
227.77
230.45
3.54
226.11
227.74
231.21
4A-4
0.162
2.66
0.400
0.400
6.599
2.66
31.0
0.003
Circular Pipe - 15.0 in
231.31
3.00
3.86
232.72
235.56
3.67
231.21
232.67
236.32
7-7A
0.245
1.24
0.186
0.186
6.630
1.24
28.0
0.003
Circular Pipe - 15.0 in
222.25
3.00
3.53
224.00
226.50
3.66
222.16
223.99
226.94
7A-6
NIA
1.25
0.216
0.216
5.759
1.25
24.0
0.003
Circular Pipe - 15.0 in
222.16
3.53
4.08
223.99
226.94
3.73
222.08
223.98
227.41
6A-7A
0.133
0.20
0.030
0.030
6.630
0.20
33.0
0.017
Circular Pipe - 15.0 in
222.71
3.00
3.53
223.99
226.96
8.34
222.16
223.99
226.94
2/27/2012 DOT Report - Ammo Pointe Blvd

AMMO POINTE BOULEVARD
FORT BRAGG, NC
100% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 2012
Spread Calculations
Label
Efficiency
(%)
Discharge
(ft3/s)
Slope
(ft/ft)
Grate
Width
(ft)
Intercepted
Flow (ft3/s)
Bypass Flow
(ft3/s)
Spread
(ft)
Depth
(ft)
Flow
Area
(ft2)
Velocity
(ft/s)
Combination Inlet On Grade - 1-1
95.28
0.83
0.0301
1.51
0.79
0.04
3.75
0.16
0.21
3.99
Combination Inlet On Grade - 1-2
99.97
0.59
0.05
1.5
0.59
0.00
2.30
0.14
0.12
4.91
Combination Inlet On Grade - 1-3
93.83
1.08
0.05
1.5
1.01
0.07
3.77
0.17
0.21
5.15
Combination Inlet On Grade - 1-4
100.00
0.48
0.051
1.5
0.48
0.00
1.81
0.13
0.1
4.78
Combination Inlet On Grade - 1-5
100.00
0.14
0.05
1.5
0.14
0.00
0.99
0.08
0.04
3.52
Combination Inlet On Grade - 1-6
100.00
0.19
0.0163
1.51
0.19
0.00
1.36
0.11
0.07
2.49
Combination Inlet On Grade - I-4A
100.00
0.53
0.05
1.51
0.53
0.00
2.04
0.13
0.11
4.85
Combination Inlet On Grade - I-5A
100.00
0.19
0.05
1.51
0.19
0.00
1.10
0.09
0.05
3.79
Combination Inlet On Grade - I-6A 1
97.95
0.57
0.0163
1.51
0.56
0.01
3.56
0.16
0.19
2.92
Comination Inlet in Sag - 1-7
N/A
0.68
N/A
1.5
N/A
N/ I Al
2.051
0.12
N/A
N/A

Project Information
WET DETENTION POND 1
Project Name: Ammo Pointe Blvd
Project #: 3818
Designed by: WLS Date: 4/6/2012
Checked by: KJH Date: 416/2012
Site Information
Sub Area Location:
Wet Pond 1
Drainage Area (DA) =
173,433
sf
Impervious Area (IA) =
106,914
sf
Percent impervious (I) =
61.6
%
Elevations
Top of Bank Elevation =
224.00
it
Emergency Elevation =
222.50
ft
Temporary Pool Elevation =
221.50
Permanent Pool Elevation =
220.50
ft
Bottom of Pond Elevation =
212.00
If
Sediment Cleanout, Bottom Elevation =
211.00
ft
Basin Areas/Volumes
Area of Permanent Pool =
9,250 sf
Area of Bottom of Shelf =
7.435 sf
Area of Bottom of Pond =
550 sf
Area of Temporary Pool =
12,184 sf
Volume, main pool =
22,859 cf
Volume, forebay (sum of forebays) =
6,100 cf
Volume, permanent pool =
28,959 cf
Forebay % of permanent pool volume =
211 %
Average Depth
A parrrpool (includes main pond & forebays) (Elev = 220.50 )
A p„ fhe1r (includes main pond & forebays)
A bo, p d (excluding sediment storage & forebays)
A lempyond (includes main pond and forebays) (Elev = 221,50 J
Vmein_pool (from Hydraflow)
V,Ofepey (from Hydraflow)
V perm pool (VioreheY+Vmein_pool)
OK
Depth of Pond = 8 ft Depth (dist. btwn. bot. of shelf & btm. of pond, excludes sediment)
Average Depth = 4.75 ft
Use Average Depth of = 4.50 ft Round down to nearest 0.5
Required Surface Area - Wetland
SAIDA = 4.92 (90% TSS Removal via Pond)
Min Req'd Surface Area = 8,533 sf (at Permanent Pool)
Required Storage Volume - Using Simple Method
Design Storm = 1 inch (Project Does Not Drain to SA waters)
Determine Rv Value = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) = 0.60 inlin
Storage Volume Required = 8,741 cf (above Permanent Pool)
Side Slopes of Pond = 3 :1
Is Permenant Pool Surface Area Sufficient (yes/no)? Yes ( 9250 n 8533 ) sf

WET DETENTION POND 1
1.0" Volume Elevation
Required Temporary Pool Volume =
8,741 cu ft
Temporary Pool Lower Elevation Bound =
221.00
Temporary Pool Upper Elevation Bound =
222.00
Temporary Pool Lower Volume Bound =
5,114 cu ft
Temporary Pool Upper Volume Bound =
16,980 cu ft
Temporary Pool Elevation =
221.50
Orifice Sizing - Wet Detention
02D.,=
0.0630
cfs
05Dara=
0.0252
cfs
Orifice Size =
1.75
in
Driving Head (Ho) =
0.31
ft
0 onR_ =
0.045
cfs
Drawdown Time =
2.3
days
less than 5 days (yeslno) ?
Yes
greater than 2 days (yestno) ?
Yes
Anti -Flotation Device
4-ft x 4-ft Riser Box
Top of Riser:
222.71
sf
Invert of Riser:
220.50
cf
Area:
16.0
st
Volume:
35
cf
Weight:
2,206
Ibs
Factor of Safety
1.10
WT Req'd of Anti -Flotation Device:
2,427
Ibs
Volume of Concrete Req'd:
27.7
cf
Depth Provided:
1.75
ft
Volume Provided:
28.0
cf
WT of Anti -Flotation Device Provided:
2,453
Ibs
Contour
Contour
Area
Incremental Accumulated
Volume Volume, S
Stage, Z
sq ft
cu ft
cu ft
ft
220.50
9,250
0
0
0.00
221.00
11,241
5,114
5,114
0.50
221.50
11,866
5,775
10,889
1.00
222.00
12,505
6.091
16,980
1.50
223.00
13,825
13,158
30,138
2.50
224.00
15,202
14,507
44,645
3.50
(Flowrate required for a 2 day drawdown)
(Flowrate required for a 5 day drawdown)
(Diameter)
(Top of Riser {Elev. 222.711 - Bottom of Riser [Elev. 220.501)
(Outside Dim. = 4-ft x 4-ft, Inside Dim. = 3-ft x 3-ft)
(Water Displaced - Top of Riser to Invert of Riser)
(Weight Water Displaced)
(Unit WT of Concrete = 150 pcf) Submerged Concrete Unit Weight 87.6 pcf
(4-ft x 4-11 Box filled 1.75-ft deep with concrete)
OK

Hydraflow Table of Contents
Pond.gpw
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. vB
1 - Year
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
SummaryReport ......................................................................................................................... 1
HydrographReports................................................................................................................... 2
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Rational Pre................................................................................
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Rational Post.............................................................................. 3
Hydrograph No. 4, Reservoir, Rational Post wl Pond............................................................. 4
PondReport - Pond.............................................................................................................
10 - Year
SummaryReport......................................................................................................................... 6
HydrographReports..........................................................................................
Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, Rational Pre................................................................................ 7
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Rational Post.............................................................................. 8
Hydrograph No. 4, Reservoir, Rational Post wl Pond............................................................. 9
100 - Year
SummaryReport ....................................................................................................................... 10
HydrographReports................................................................................................................. 11
Hydrograph No, 1, Rational, Rational Pre.............................................................................. 11
Hydrograph No. 2, Rational, Rational Post............................................................................ 12
Hydrograph No. 4, Reservoir, Rational Post wl Pond........................................................... 13

Hydrograph Summary Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, lnc. v8
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
Peak
(min)
Hyd,
volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(tuft)
Hydrograph
Description
1
Rational
7.813
1
5
2,344
------
-- -
----
Rational Pre
2
Rational
14.80
1
5
4,441
------
------
-----
Rational Post
4
Reservoir
0.047
1
10
3,885
2
220.93
4,426
Rational Post w/ Pond
Pond.gpw
Return Period: 1 Year
Friday, Apr 6, 2012

d ro ra h Report 2 H`
Y 9 p`
Hydraffow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
Hyd. No. 1
Rational Pre
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
= 7.813 cfs
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time to peak
= 5 min
Time interval
= 1 min
Hyd. volume
= 2,344 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.980 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.38*
Intensity
= 5.166 inlhr
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
OF Curve
= Ft. Bragg.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 111
' Composite (Area/C) = [(0.200 x 0.95) + (3.780 x 0.35)] 13.980
Q (cfs)
8.00
.M
Mid
2.00
Rational Pre
Hyd, No. 1 -- 1 Year
Q (cfs)
8.00
4.00
2.00
0.00 K_ , I I I I I I I _I -- v 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hyd No. 1 Time (min)

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Hyd. No. 2
Rational Post
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 3.980 ac
Intensity
= 5.166 inlhr
OF Curve
= Ft. Bragg.IDF
Composite (Area/C) = [(2.450 x 0.95) + (1,530 x 0.35)113.980
Q (cis)
15.00
12.00
R114181
N. fe
3.00
0.00 --X
0
3
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
Peak discharge
= 14.80 cfs
Time to peak
= 5 min
Hyd. volume
= 4,441 cult
Runoff coeff.
= 0.72W
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1 /1
Rational Post
Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Hyd No. 2
Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
Wile]
MI
3.00
` 0,00
9 10
Time (min)

Hydrograph Report
`4
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Hyd. No. 4
Rational Post w/ Pond
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Storm frequency
= 1 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Inflow hyd. No.
= 2 - Rational Post
Reservoir name
= Pond
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
15.00
M1117
m
. to
c r�
0.00 -8
0
Peak discharge
Time to peak
Hyd. volume
Max. Elevation
Max. Storage
Rational Post wl Pond
Hyd. No. 4 -- 1 Year
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
= 0.047 cfs
= 10 min
= 3,885 cult
= 220.93 ft
= 4,426 cuft
Q (cfs)
15.00
12.00
ms,
"O olt
3.00
0.00
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
Time (min)
Hyd No. 4 Hyd No. 2 [EEEEW Total storage used = 4,426 cuff

Pond Report
Hydraftow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 300 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
Pond No. 1 - Pond
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas.
Conic method used for volume calculation, Begining
Elevation = 220.50 ft
Stage 1 Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (cult)
0,00 220.50
9,250
0
0
0.50 221,00
11,241
5,114
5,114
1.00 221.50
11,866
5,775
10,890
1.50 222.00
12,505
6,091
16,981
2.50 223.00
13,825
13,158
30,139
3.50 224.00
15,202
14,507
44,646
Culvert 1 Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A)
[B]
[C]
[PrfRsr]
[A]
[131
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 18.00
1.75
6.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft)
= 12.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 18.00
1.75
36.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft)
= 222.71
222.50
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
1
3
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
Invert El. (ft)
= 220,50
220.50
221.50
0.00
Weir Type
= 1
Ciplti
-
---
Length (ft)
= 33.67
0.00
0,00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= Yes
No
No
No
Slope (%)
= 0.30
0.00
0.00
nla
N-Value
= .013
.013
.013
nla
Orifice Coeff.
= 0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Exfil.(inlhr)
= 0,000 (by
Contour)
Multi -Stage
= nla
Yes
Yes
No
TW Elev. (ft)
= 0.00
Stage (ft)
4,00
3.00
2,00
1.00
Note. CulvertlOdfice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control, Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).
Stage 1 Discharge
Ell (ft)
224.50
223,50
222.50
221,50
0,00 220.50
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0
Total Q Discharge (cfs)

6
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hydraftow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAl]®Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
Peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(cuft)
Hydrograph
Description
1
Rational
11.97
1
5
3,5911
-
------
------
Rational Pre
2
Rational
22.68
1
5
6,805
- ---
---
---
Rational Post
4
Reservoir
0.059
1
10
5,938
2
221.14
6,785
Rational Post w! Pond
Pond.gpw
Return Period: 10 Year
Friday, Apr 6, 2012

Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAIM Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Hyd. No. 1
Rational Pre
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 3.980 ac
Intensity
= 7.915 inthr
OF Curve
= Ft. Bragg.IDF
" Composite (Area1C) = [(0.200 x 0.95) + (3,780 x 0.35)] / 3.980
Q (cfs)
12,00
10.00
m
Am
4.00
W1191
7
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
Peak discharge
= 11.97 cfs
Time to peak
= 5 min
Hyd. volume
= 3,591 cuft
Runoff coeff.
= 0.38*
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 111
Rational Pre
Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Year
0.00 -= 1 1 1 1 k I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Hyd No. 1
0 (cfs)
12.00
10.00
[•111I0]
M
4.00
"1 0.00
8 9 10
Time (min)

Hydrograph Report
Hydraftow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Hyd. No. 2
Rational Post
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Storm frequency
= 10 yrs
Time interval
= 1 min
Drainage area
= 3.980 ac
Intensity
= 7.915 inlhr
OF Curve
= Ft. Bragg.IDF
* Composite (Area/C) = 1(2.450 x 0.95) + (1.530 x 0.35)1/ 1980
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
M
4.00
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
Peak discharge
= 22.68 cfs
Time to peak
= 5 min
Hyd. volume
= 6,805 cuft
Runoff coeff.
= 0.72*
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 111
Rational Post
Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Year
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
I &MM
4.00
0.00 v ' 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 N 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hyd No. 2 Time (min)

Hydrograph Report
9
Hydraflow Hydrograp hs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 6y Autodesk, Inc. v8
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
Hyd. No. 4
Rational Post wl Pond
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.059 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs
Time to peak
= 10 min
Time interval = 1 min
Hyd. volume
= 5,938 cult
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 -Rational Post
Max. Elevation
= 221.14 ft
Reservoir name = Pond
Max. Storage
= 6,785 cult
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
8.00
4.00
0.00
0 300 600
Hyd No. 4
Rational Post wl Pond
Hyd. No. 4 -- 10 Year
Q (cfs)
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
4,00
1 I I I ' 0.00
900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
Time (min)
Hyd No. 2 [1=1� L1=1� Total storage used = 6,785 cult

Hydrograph Summary Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
Peak
(min)
Hyd.
volume
(tuft)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Total
strge used
(cuft)
Hydrograph
Description
1
Rational
15.55
1
5
4,664
--
---
-- -
Rational Pre
2
Rational
29.46
1
5
8,837
------
-----
-----
Rational Post
4
Reservoir
0.067
1
10
7,529
2
221.32
8,813
Rational Post w/ Pond
Pond.gpw
Return Period: 100 Year
Friday, Apr 6, 2012

11
Hydrograph
Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil MID 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
Hyd. No. 1
Rational Pre
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
= 15.55 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 5 min
Time interval
= 1 min
Hyd. volume
= 4,664 cuft
Drainage area
= 3.980 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.38*
Intensity
= 10.279 in/hr
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
OF Curve
= Ft. Bragg.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 1/1
Composite (Area1C) _ [(0.200 x 0.95) + (3.780 x 0.35)] / 3.980
0 (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
• m
3.00
Rational Pre
Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Year
0 (cfs)
18.00
15.00
12.00
3.00
0.00 V I I _ I I 1 l I 1 I V 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10
Time (min)
Hyd No. 1

12
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
Hyd. No. 2
Rational Post
Hydrograph type
= Rational
Peak discharge
= 29.46 cfs
Storm frequency
= 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 5 min
Time interval
= 1 min
Hyd. volume
= 8,837 cult
Drainage area
= 3.980 ac
Runoff coeff.
= 0.72*
Intensity
= 10.279 inlhr
Tc by User
= 5.00 min
OF Curve
= Ft. Bragg.IDF
Asc/Rec limb fact
= 111
* Composite (Area1C) = [(2.450 x 0.95) + (1.530 x 0.35)] 13.980
Q (cfs)
30.00
25.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
Rational Post
Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Year
Q (cfs)
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 V I , I I I I 1 I I N 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hyd No. 2 Time (min)

13
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DID 2011 by Autodesk, Inc. v8
Friday, Apr 6, 2012
Hyd. No. 4
Rational Post wl Pond
Hydrograph type = Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 0.067 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs
Time to peak
= 10 min
Time interval = 1 min
Hyd. volume
= 7,529 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 -Rational Post
Max. Elevation
= 221.32 ft
Reservoir name = Pond
Max. Storage
= 8,813 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
Q (cfs)
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0 300
Hyd No. 4
Rational Post wl Pond
Hyd. No. 4 -- 100 Year
600 900 1200
Hyd No. 2
1500 1800 2100 2400 2700
fI TMjj Total storage used = 8,813 tuft
Q (cfs;
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
--1- 0.00
3000
Time (min)

h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
10 ((f
PRE -DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA MAP
MACRIDGE ROAD
FORT BRAGG, NTC
FEBRUARY, 2012
SCALE
NMR
a 160. zaa'

---------------
o�.;*ll
POST -DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA MAP
MACRIDGE ROAD
FORT BRAGG, NC
FEBRUARY, 2012
SCALE
OUR
0 10D' 200'

I ,",1 1:01
IMPEPVIOVS-8.757 SF
PERVIOUS-164.676 SF
c-am
m To
7 77=11 7 -
It I
AT/.'
�� hf_�_ 77
P j
LVD
PRE -DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA MAP
AMMO POINTE BOULEVARD
FORT BRAGG, NC
FEBRUARY, 2012
SCALE
0 160, 200'

POST -DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA MAP
AMMO POINTE BOULEVARD
FORT BRAGG, NC
FEBRUARY. 2012
SCALE
mm
0 160, 200'

M\
POST -DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA MAP
AMMO POINTE BOULEVARD
FORT BRAGG, NC
FEBRUARY, 2012
SCALE
0 100' 200'

APPENDIX C
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
CALCULATIONS

DESIGN OF RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION WORKSHEET
Project Ammo Point Boulevard Date Apr-06-2012
Location Fort Bragg, NC Designed W. Bone
Project No. 3818 Checked K. Hurst
Outlet ID
Skimmer Outlet
Pipe diameter
4
inches
Pipe slope
0.5
percent
Roughness Coe£
0.013
Full Flow Capacity
0.13
cfs
Full now velocity
1.54
ft/sec
o
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pipe diameter (ft)
Zone from graph above =
1
Is grade of apron 10% or more
Y YIN
Zone used =
1
Outlet pipe diameter
4 in.
Outlet flowrate
0.1 cfs
Outlet velocity
1.54 ft/sec
Material =
Class A
Length =
1.3 ft.
Width at Outlet =
1.0 ft.
Width at end of Pad
2.5 ft.
Stone diameter=
4 in.
Thickness =
9 in.
Zone
Material
Diameter
Thickness
I Length
1
Class A
4
9
4 x D(o)
2
Class B
8
18
6 x D(o)
3
Class I
10
25.5
8 x D(o)
4
Class I
10
25.5
8 x D(o)
5
Class II
14
34.5
10 x D(o)
6
Class II
14
34.5
10 x D(o)
7
Special study required
Calculations based on NY DOT method - Pages 8.06.05 through 8.06.06 in NC Erosion Control Manual
Rip Rap Apron Design
4/6/2012

DESIGN OF RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION WORKSHEET
Project
Ammo Point Boulevard Date Apr-06-2012
Location
Fort Bragg,
_
NC Designed W. Bone T
Project No.
3818
Checked K. Hurst
Outlet ID
A-8
Pipe diameter
18
inches
Pipe slope
0.6
percent
Roughness Coef.
0.013
Full Flow Capacity
8.14
efs
Full flow velocity
4.60
ft/sec
Zoac 2
0
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pipe diameter (ft)
Zone from graph above =
Is grade of apron 10% or more
Y Y/N
Zone used =
Outlet pipe diameter
18 in.
Outlet llowrate
8.1 cfs
Outlet velocity
4.60 it/sec
Material =
Class A
Length =
6.0 ft.
Width at Outlet =
4.5 ft.
Width at end of Pad
11.4 ft.
Stone diameter=
4 in.
Thickness =
9 in.
Zone
Material
Diameter
Thickness I
Length
1
Class A
4
9
4 x D(o)
2
Class B
8
18
6 x D(o)
3
Class 1
10
25.5
8 x D(o)
4
Class I
10
25.5
8 x D(o)
5
Class II
14
34.5
10 x D(o)
6
Class 1I
14
34.5
10 x D(o)
7
Special study required
Calculations based on NY DOT method - Pages 8.06.05 through 8.06.06 in NC Erosion Control Manual
Rip Rap Apron Design
4/6/2012

DESIGN OF RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION WORKSHIEET
Project
Ammo Point Boulevard Date Apr-06-2012
Location
Fort Bragg, NC Designed W. Bone
Project No.
3818 Checked K. Hurst
Outlet ID
C3
Pipe diameter
36 inches
Pipe slope
0.3 percent
Roughness Coef.
0.013
Full Flow Capacity
36.53 cfs
Full flow velocity
5.17 f /sec
— e
a-4-
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pipe diameter (ft)
Zone from graph above = 1
Is grade of apron 10% or more N Y/N
Zone used = I
Outlet pipe diameter 36 in.
Outlet flowrate 36.5 cfs
Outlet velocity 5.17 It/sec
Material = Class A
Length =
12.0 ft.
Width at Outlet =
9.0 ft.
Width at end of Pad
22.9 ft.
Stone diameter =
4 in.
Thickness =
9 in.
Zone
Material
Diameter
Thickness
I Length
1
Class A
4
9
4 x D(o)
2
Class B
8
18
6 x D(o)
3
Class I
10
25.5
8 x D(o)
4
Class 1
10
25.5
8 x D(o)
5
Class 11
14
34.5
10 x D(o)
6
Class II
14
34.5
10 x D(o)
7
Sp eciai study required
Calculations based on NY DOT method - Pages 9.06.05 through 8.06.06 in NC Erosion Control Manual
Rip Rap Apron Design
4/6/2012

DESIGN OF RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION WORKSHEET
Project
Amino Point Boulevard
Location
Fort Bragg, NC
Project No.
3818
Outlet ID
2 Culvert Pines
Pipe diameter
48
inches
Pipe slope
1.79
percent
Roughness Coef.
0.013
Full Flow Capacity
192.18
cfs
Full flow velocity
15.29
ft/sec
Date
Designed
Checked
Apr-06-2012
W. Bone
K. Hurst
0
Zone.2
a,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 la
Pipe diameter (ft)
Zone from graph above = 5
Is grade of apron 10% or more N YIN
Zone used = 5 Length =
Outlet pipe diameter 48 in. Width at Outlet, W 1 =
Outlet flowrate 192.2 cfs Width at end of Pad, W2
Outlet velocity 15.29 ft/sec Stone diameter =
Material = Class li Thickness =
40.0 ft.
18.7 ft. DOUBLE PIPES
64.8 ft. DOUBLE PIPES
14 in.
35 in.
Zone
Material
Diameter
Thickness I
Length
1
Class A
4
9
4 x D(o)
2
Class B
8
18
6 x D(o)
3
Class I
10
25.5
8 x D(o)
4
Class I
10
25.5
8 x D(o)
5
Class 11
14
34.5
10 x D(o)
6
Class 11
14
34.5
10 x D(o)
7
Special study
required
Calculations based on NY DOT method - Pages 8.06.05 through 8.06.06 in NC Erosion Control Manual
Rip Rap Apron Design
4/6/2012

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
(PRELIMINARY)
NZ
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and
MacRidge Road`I p\ovements
/-,FY-12, FIN70\5J/�
Fort. ragg, North Carolina
UJVJ 0
Geotechnical & HTRW Branch
U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah
April 2012

This report was prepared by the Savannah District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
initials or signatures and registration designation of individuals appear on these documents
within the scope of their employment as required by the Engineer Regulation 1110-1-8152.
Date: 30 April 2012
0
NO. 28134 if
PRQFMOM
r
Leland H Schuman, P.E.
Georgia Registration No. 25134
Expiration Date;31 December 2012

Table of Contents
Section Page
1. PURPOSE..........................................................................................................................................
2. QUALIFICATION OF REPORT...................................................................................................... 1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................... i
4. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES.....................................1....................................................2
a. Site Reconnaissance..............................................................-----.----.-----..............----.---•-.-----.......2
b. Field Exploration..................................................../....!\.�....................................
....
5. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........ n..3
...........
-- -.......................................
a. Site Description ................................................ ...........................\..........................................3
b. Regional and Site Geology. l.................................................... 3
c. Subsurface Conditions -............................... .\---.............................\..\.................................3
d. Groundwater Conditions ................................. \..\........�................\.\............................4
e. Seasonal High Water Table......... .................. ... ....................... .........................4
6. ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS�AND�RECOMMENDATIONS................................................5
a. General ..........................................� \\ \ \ \ 5 .................................................................................
b. Site Preparation ................................ \\....................................................5
c. Pavement Design Criteria- �. �....... � 5
....................
d. Groundwater and Surface -Water Consid'erations...... ^.. .....
e. Structural Fili....�...`........\.�. \ ... 6
.. ..... ..... ......
l
f. Construction Quality ControlTesting ......... ..................................................�-----.-----.-----.-•------...----7
g. Drawings ................ N. �...... j....E-.................. .................................................................. 8
h. Specificafions 1........ v --- ----.- .............8
...... ............................................................
7. FINAL/GEOTECHNIGAL EV,A1.,UATION,REPORT ....................................................................8
ATTACHMENT A Soil Test Boring.Location Plan
ATTACHMENT B Soil\1 east Boring Logs
ATTACHMENT\C NRCS Soil Survey Report
ATTACHMENT D� OnetPoint and Two -Point Compaction Method

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
(PRELIMINARY)
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and
MacRidge Road Improvements
FY-12, PN 70751/�
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
1. PURPOSE. \\ � \\
The Government has conducted a preliminary geotechnical,investigation for the,proposed project.
This subsurface characterization report provides a general overview of the site conditions, including
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, with detailed 'descriptions at individual exploration
locations.
2. QUALIFICATION OF -REPORT.
The field explorations performed \r this report were made twdetermine the subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions�and were not intended to serve as an assessment of site wetlands,
environmental,-or_coniammait\conditions:No effort�was made to define, delineate, or designate
any areas -of enviro�i nental concern ro of contamination. The contractor's seam shall include a
licensed geote hni al engineer to,interpret the report•and develop foundation and earthwork
recommendations and design parameters on which to base the contractor's proposal. The
preliminary fin dings and evaluation presented in this report are based on widely -spaced explorations
performed at the project site. Any,additionalsubsurface investigations and laboratory analyses
conducted to better characterize�the site and to develop the final design shall be performed under the
direction of a licensed geotechnical engineer and shall be the full responsibility of the contractor.
V
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
As part of the proposed Patriot Point development in the southwestern portion of the Fort Bragg
Military Installation located in Cumberland County, North Carolina it is planned that
approximately 1,500 linear feet of Ammo Pointe Boulevard will be shifted west for a new four -
lane alignment and a new intersection for MacRidge Road and MacRidge Triangle Road will be
constructed. The relocated portion of Ammo Pointe Boulevard will include a storm water
detention basin to the south and a traffic signal and turn lane improvements at its intersection.
with Chicken Road to the north.

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report (Preliminary)
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road lmprovcments
FY-12, PN 70751
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
4. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES.
a. Site Reconnaissance.
Prior to the field explorations, the proposed project site and surrounding areas were visually
inspected by a geotechnical engineer. The observations were used in planning the exploration, in
determining areas of special interest, and in relating site conditions to known geologic conditions
in the area.
b. Field Exploration.
(1) Subsurface conditions at the project sites were explored by eight soil test borings,
(designated P-1 through P-5, SHWT-1, SP-1, and SP=2) The locations of the borings are shown
on the attached Boring Plans in Attachment A. Borings were drilled to,depths of 10 to l I feet
beneath the existing ground surface.
(2) Boring locations were established in the field using a hand-held'Global Positioning
System (GPS) device having sub -meter, accuracy. The ground surface elevation�t each boring
location was interpolated from plans,pro` ided by Josh Hurst of Clark Nexsen Architecture &
Engineering via email on March 20, 201'2"%Since the measurements were not precise, the
locations shown on the boring location plan as nd the.elevation indicated on the boring logs
should be considered approximate.
(3) The soil itest,bor ni gs� e drilled by+roehling &Robertson, Inc. of Raleigh, North
Carolina, under contract to the Savannah District. The borings were drilled with an ATV CME
550 drill rig; a 2 1/4-inch inside diameter (I.D.) hollow stem auger was used to advance the
boreholes S`plif--Barresampling with -Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was performed in the
soil test,boring"s at•intervals shown,on the boring-logs.)A11 soil sampling and Standard
i 'I-,X \. 1%
m Penetration Testing were lsubstantlal accordance,with ASTM D 1586. In the Standard
Penetration Test, a soil sample,\ obtained with a standard I % inch I.D., 2 inch O.D. split -barrel
sampler. The sampler is first,seated 6 inches and then driven an additional 12 inches with blows
from a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to
drive the sampler'the,final 12 inches is recorded and is termed the "standard penetration
resistance," or the `N value." Penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index of the
soil's strength, density ndffoiundation support capability.
(4) Representative portions of the soil samples obtained at each of the standard
penetration test intervals were sealed in airtight containers and transported back to the Savannah
District office where they will be stored in case additional laboratory testing is determined to be
necessary. During drilling, classification of the soil samples was performed in general
accordance with ASTM D 2488 (Visual -Manual Procedure for Descriptions of Soils). The soil
classifications include the use of the Unified Soil Classification System described in ASTM D
2487 (Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes). Since the soil descriptions and
classifications are based on visual examination, they should be considered approximate.
2

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report (Preliminary)
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvements
FY-12, PN 70751
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
(5) Logs of the soil test borings graphically depicting soil descriptions, standard
penetration resistances, and observed groundwater levels are included in Attachment B of this
report.
5. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.
a. Site Description.
The relocated portion of Ammo Pointe Boulevard is located tc the east of Bones Creek in a
relatively undeveloped portion of the installation. Site vegetationforthis area consists mainly of
medium to large trees with light to moderate underbrush!Site topography consists of gentle to
moderate slopes descending to the south from an elevatlon,o`f-approximately 263 feet near
Chicken Road to an elevation of 215 feet where the,"roadway willjoin with the existing Ammo
Pointe Boulevard. The new MacRidge Road/MacRidge Road Triangle intersection is located on
an existing portion of MacRidge Road just south of Longstreet Road Based on the provided
plans, finish grades are anticipated to be at or near•existing grades with only minimal cuts and
fills (less than 5 ft) for portions of the proposed Ammo Point'Boulevard relocation. Cuts in
excess of 10 feet are anticipated for the.new storm water 'detention basin located in the southern
portion of the Ammo Pointe Boulevard relocation.
b. Regional and Site Geology.
T�
(1) Fort Bragg'is located'in the Sand Hills area ftl e.Coastal Plain physiographic
province of North Carolina. The Coastal Plain extends westward- from the Atlantic Ocean to the
Fall Line, a distance of approximately 130 miles. The Fall Line is the boundary between the
Coastal Plain and the Piedmo
nt yslograp\ro�aging
rs.
�(-2) Geologic�mt`F gg.area;from oldest to youngest, include the
Caroli \ State Belt rocks., which comprise the basement rock, the Cape Fear Formation, and the
MiddendorfFormation. The Cape Fear and Middendorf Formations overlie the basement rock
and are a part, of the generally southeast \ rd-dipping and thickening wedge of sediments that
constitute the Atlantic Coastal Plain deposits.
(3) The�Mddendorf Formation is exposed at land surface throughout the Fort Bragg
area. The formation it composedfof tan, cross -bedded, medium- and fine-grained, micaceous
quartz sand and clayey sand interbedded with clay or sandy clay lenses or layers. Layers of
hematite -cemented sandstone occur locally throughout the Middendorf Formation as do thin
layers of hard kaolin and kaolin -cemented sandstone. Below the water table, these units are
generally friable or plastic. In places, the Middendorf Formation is mottled orange, gray, and tan
color with streaks and laminae of red and purple hematite and manganese oxide stains.
c. Subsurface Conditions.
(1) Subsurface soils for all boring locations consist primarily of interbedded layers of
clayey and silty sands (SC, and SM). A few isolated layers of lean sandy silt (ML) and sandy,
silty clays (CH) were also encountered. Standard penetration resistance values in these materials
3

Subsurface Exploration and Geolechnical Report (Preliminary)
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvements
FY-12, [IN 70751
Fort Bragg, Norlh Carolina
were generally indicative of loose to dense and firm to stiff consistency. Neither hard drilling
materials nor auger refusal was encountered at any of the boring locations. Groundwater was
encountered as noted on the individual Drilling Logs and below in the Groundwater Conditions
section.
(2) The above subsurface description is of a generalized nature to highlight the major
subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. The boring logs should be
reviewed for specific information at individual boring locations. The stratifications shown on the
boring logs represent the conditions only at the actual boringlocations. Variations may occur
and should be expected between boring locations. The stratification lines shown on the boring
logs represent the approximate boundaries between the subsurface materials-, the actual
transitions are typically more gradual.
d. Groundwater Conditions.
(1) Water levels were measured at the completion of drilling at cach of the boring
locations. Groundwater was encountered at SHWT-I\a`a dep't�of approximately 9.0 feet (elev.
210.0 feet) at the time of drilling. SHWT-1 was performed within the proposcd,slorm water
detention basin. According to provided,plans the proposed detention pond has been designed as
a "wet" detention basin with a permanent pool elevation of�?2 0 50 feet. Groundwater was not
encountered at any of the other boring locati nos llnless perched -water conditions are
encountered, ground water -should not be ofconseq consequence during general site grading for the
Ammo Pointe Boulevard
relocatibn\and thetM\acR dgee/MacRidge Triangle intersection.
\
(2) A "perched -water" condition occurs �when water seeping downward is blocked by an
impermeable soil layer, such,as clayey -sand or clay�and saturates the more permeable soil above
it. The true grou dwater level can be-several.to many.feet below the perched -water level. Due
to the prealen eof-interbedded sands, clayey and`and clays at the project site, perched -water
conditions during and after�construction, could�be.encountered.
(I should be no\th t groundwater conditions vary during periods of prolonged
drought and excessive rainfall as well as seasonally. Therefore, fluctuations in the elevation of
the groundwater should be anticipated with changing climatic and rainfall conditions.
Seasonal H
(1) The depth to the seasonal high water table (SHWT) is an important parameter in determining
suitability of storm water features. It is defined as the highest groundwater observed, at
atmospheric pressure, for anaerobic conditions to be established. In North Carolina, this
typically occurs during the wet months or during the winter or spring. The SHWT is estimated
by soil color, redoximorphic features, saturation observations, and professional assessment.
(2) A wet storm water detention pond is anticipated at the lowest point of the proposed site. The
subsurface within the footprint of the proposed storm water detention area was investigated by
soil boring SHWT-1 which was drilled to a depth of I I feet. The soil encountered in this boring
consists of clayey sand (SC). The coloration of this clayey sand varied with depth and exhibited
4

Subsurface Exploralion and Geotechnical Report (Preliminary)
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvements
FY-12, PN 70751
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
the low chroma characteristic of extensively submerged soils from a depth of 5.5 feet.
According the NRCS Soil Resource Report (see Attachment C), the main NRCS soil identified
in this area, is Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes (BaD). Per the report, groundwater is
typically encountered in these soils at a depth in excess of 80 inches below the ground surface;
however, groundwater was encountered in the boring during drilling at 7 feet, and measured at
approximately 9 feet after drilling. Based on these observations, it is recommended that for the
purposes of designing the proposed storm water detention structure, the seasonal high water table
'should be placed at a depth of three feet below the surface, corresponding to an approximate
elevation of 216 feet msl.
6. ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
a. General. \\
The following evaluations and recommendations �e'based on the mfor`mation available on the
proposed roadway improvements, observations made at the project site, interpretation of the data
obtained from the soil test borings, and previousexperiencewith soils and subsurface conditions
similar to those encountered at the site. It is emphasized thatthe,preliminarytindings and
evaluation presented in this report are,based on widely -spaced explorations performed at the project
site. Additional subsurface investigations and/or laboratoryranalyses required to determine site
soil conditions and develop the final design. hs all be performed under the direction of a licensed
geotechnical engineer and shall be the full responsibility of the contractor.
b. Site Preparation,i \ ` .
Following cicaring and removal �of4ees, structures. epave ment . etc., along the proposed
roadway improvements. theconstruc Lion area should be grubbed and stripped of all vegetation,
topsoil, organics, and other deleterious_materials lean topsoil can be stockpiled and reused in
landscaped areas It,is recommended-tha the zonerofstripping extend a minimum of 10 feet
beyond tl e outer -edges of pavements and any�prvsed structures.
c: Pavement Design Criteria.
1 i\\� like\\ encountered at the i e clayey sands SC an silty sand O The so types most y to be tered site are y y sa ( } d s y s
(SM). Any unsatisfactory subgrade soils that are encountered should be removed and replaced
with satisfactory soils in accordance with the requirements of Specification Section 31 00 00
EARTHWORK. Soft c nsistency surface soils were encountered at boring locations P-I and P-2
extending to depths of 12\to J 4 inches beneath the existing ground surface. It is possible that
some of these soft soils will be removed during site stripping and grading operations; however,
any remaining soft soils should be stabilized by compaction or undercut and replaced with
suitable compacted fill.
(2) The following subgrade values for satisfactory soils are anticipated for design of the
pavements; however, these values shall be confirmed by the Contractor's consulting geotechnical
engineer when grade and location of pavements have been finalized:
(1) Flexible Pavement:
Compacted subgrade, use CBR of 8.

subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report {Preliminary}
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvements
FY-12, ]IN 70751
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
(2) Rigid Pavement:
(a) Corrected modulus of subgrade reaction, use K of 150 psi per inch.
(b) Design 28-day concrete flexural strength, use 650 psi.
d. Groundwater and Surface -Water Considerations.
Due to the presence of clayey sand and clay layers in the subsoils at the project site, "perched -
water" conditions could be encountered, and the accumulation of run-off water or seepage at the
base of excavations will likely occur during underground utility installation and site work.
e. Structural Fill.
In order to achieve high density structural fill, the following evaluations and recommendations
are offered: //�> (1) Based on the soil test borings, excavated on-site'soils (excluding any organics/topsoil
and debris) can be used as structural fill. Some moisture content adjustmen�will probably be
necessary to achieve proper compaction. If water must `be/added, it should be;n f rmly applied
and thoroughly mixed into the soil by discing.
(2) It is recommended that the contractor have appropriate disc harrows available during
earthwork for mixing, drying, and wetting of the•soils for any areas to undergo mass grading.
3 Materials srleetedfo-r,use as s\uctural fill shouldlbe free'from roots and other
organic matter, traszdebris, frozen soil, and stones larger tHan 3,,inches in any dimension, and in
general, should have \liquid limitless than 50�percent and a plastic index of less than 30. The
following soils represented by their Unified SoihClassification System (ASTM D 2487) group
symbols will"be usus itable for use as structural fill: 36GW, GC, GM, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, SW,
SC, SMSM=SC; CL, and ML. The following soil types are considered unsuitable: Pt, OH, OL,
CH, and MH.
\(4),N'�Iuitable fill soils should be placed in lifts of maximum 8 inches loose measurement.
The soil should`e, co mpacted by rmechanical means such as steel drum, sheepsfoot, tamping, or
rubber -tired rollers. Compaction of clays is best accomplished with a sheepsfoot or tamping
roller. Periodically rolling with heavily loaded, rubber -tired equipment may be desirable to seal
the surface of the compact`ed,fill,,thus reducing the potential for absorption of surface water
following a rain. This seaii`g,o`peration is particularly important at the end of the work day and
at the end of the week. Within confined areas or foundation excavations, the use of manually
operated, internal combustion activated compactors ("whacker packers" or sled tamps) is
recommended. The compactors should have sufficient weight and striking power to produce the
same degree of compaction that is obtained on the other portions of the fill by the rolling
equipment, as specified. Where hand operated equipment is used, the soils should be placed in
lifts of maximum 4 inches loose measurement.
C''

Subsurface Fxploratiun and Geolechnical Report (Preliminary)
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvements
PY-12, PN 70751
Port Bragg, North Carolina
(5) It is recommended that the structural till and subgrades be compacted to the
following minimum percents of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557):
Beneath structures and building slabs,
to 5 feet beyond building and structure line,
around footings and in trenches
92 percent
Beneath paved areas, except top 12 inches
92 percent
Beneath paved areas, top 12 inches
95" ercent
Beneath shoulders ,'90
percent
Beneath sidewalks and grassed areas /
85' ercent
Base course beneath paved areas ( /
1 dQ ercent
f. Construction Quality Control T
(1) Prior to initiating any structural fill placement ands/ r compact iomoperations, it is
recommend that representative samples•of the soils, which.will be used as structural fill or
subgrade, both suitable on -site soils el
�ana aff sib sails (bo>;ra \), be obtained and tested to
determine their classification and compaction characteristics The samples should be carefully
selected to represent the full range of soil types tobe,used. The moisture content, maximum dry
density, optimum moisture —content, grain -size, and plasticity characteristics should be
determined. These tests are required to de ermine•if the fill and subgrade soils are acceptable
and for compaction quality control of the subgrades,and structural fill. Tests for the above soil
properties should be in,accordance with the following:
,IVloisture Content \ �\ \ \ 1
ASTM D 2216
Maximum Dry'Densii ,and O timum,Moisture
ASTM D 1557
Grain -Size (Wash'No. 200, -less h drornefer
ASTM D 422 and D 1140
P- sticit \ \ \ \
ASTM D 4318
(2) A representative number of in -place field density tests should be performed in the
subgrade of compacted on -site soils and in the structural fill and backfill to confirm that the
required degree of compaction'has�been obtained. In -place density tests should be performed in
accordance with the sand, one method prescribed in ASTM D 1556. It is recommend at least
one density test be performed for each 5,000 square feet and 12,500 square feet, or portion
thereof, for buildings and pavements, respectively, of compacted native soil subgrade and in each
lift of compacted structural fill. It is also recommend that at least one density test be performed
for each 100 linear feet in the bearing level soils of continuous footings. Density tests should be
performed at 100-foot intervals along roadway subgrades. In addition, a density test should be
performed for each 100 linear feet of backfill placed per foot of depth in trenches for utilities
systems. Where other areas are compacted separately by manually operated compactors, a
minimum of one density test should be performed for every 250 square feet, or portion thereof,
of fill placed per foot of depth.
h

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report (Preliminary)
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvements
FY-12, PN 70751
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
(3) Compaction control of soils requires the comparison of fill water content and dry
density values obtained in the field density tests with optimum water content and maximum dry
density determined in a laboratory compaction test performed on the same soil. It is, however,
not feasible to do this as the testing could not keep pace with fill construction. It is, therefore,
recommended that compaction control of the earthwork construction be performed using a
"family" of compaction curves and the one -point or two -point compaction methods. Excerpts
from construction specifications which describe the approach and its use are included in
Attachment D.
(4) Any area that does not meet the required compaction'criteria should be reworked and
retested. If the moisture content of the soil is within the recommended range, additional
compaction may be all that is necessary to increase the density, if the moisture content is not
within the recommended range; then, the moisture content should be,adjusted to within the range
and the area recompacted.
(5) All laboratory and field density testing should be performed by a commercial testing
laboratory that has been validated by the Engineer,Research,i nd%Development Center Materials
Testing Center (MTC) under the Corps•of Engineers laboratory inspection and validation
program.
g. Drawings.
The drawings showing locations and results of the soil borings completed by the Government
are included in this RFP. These locations and the loc itions of�any additional investigations (SPT
r f N \ i�
borings, test pits, cone penetrometentests, laboratory/soils test,data, etc.) performed by the AE's
consulting geotechnical engineer shall be shown on the final design and on the project as -built
drawings completed by the design'build.contraciorNIn addition, the selected design -build
contractor shal sl how.` boring'logsNZ ; GKI'/DMT soundings, and soil laboratory test data
including those in this report and any additional investigations or test data used for design on the
final design drawings and on the as -built drawing
raw ni gs!
\\Supecifications
.
It is recommended that the AE use the Savannah District's EARTHWORK specification,
31 00 00, when editing the specifications for this project. The specification (Specslntact format)
can be found at the following website: http://en.sas.usace.army.mil/enwebAittproot/ae/index.htm,
under menu "SAS Guide Specifications
7. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT.
A final geotechnical evaluation report shall be prepared by the contractor's licensed
geotechnical engineer and submitted along with the first design submittal. The geotechnical
report shall summarize the subsurface conditions and provide recommendations for the design of
appropriate retaining walls, embankments, roadways, and pavements. The report shall
recommend the type of any retaining wall system to be used, lateral load resistance capacities for
any retaining wall systems, and appropriate design values for roadways, pavements, etc.
Recommendations regarding lateral earth pressures (active, at -rest, and passive) to be used in the
design of retaining walls shall be provided. Calculations shall be included to support the
recommendations for pavement sections. Supporting documentation shall be included for all
8

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Report (Preliminary)
Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRidge Road Improvements
FY-12, PN 70751
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
recommended design parameters such as shear strength, earth pressure coefficients, friction
factors, subgrade modulus, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), etc. In addition, the report shall
provide earthwork recommendations, expected frost penetration, expected groundwater levels,
recommendations for dewatering and groundwater control, and identify the possible presence of
any surface or subsurface features that may affect the construction of the project such as
sinkholes, boulders, shallow rock, undocumented fill, old structures, soft areas, or unusual soil
conditions.
6

C
C
B
1 2 3 4 15
VS ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
SAVANNAH
rr `
w
\ � I
�p
I I
i
-
i
N 486,752
II
I I
o
E 1,988,580
I I
\
TOH EL. 256.0
SP-1
P_ 2,�
� �
N 486,718
78.5
X5880EL.
Xs38�
TOH988,
N486,667—
I
y
— 1
E 1,988,637
1
yl
r`
I
TOH EL. 261.0
y
I ``�
x
FIELD OPERATIONS
ly
', ; BREAK
oi
OFFICE
AND
'
LJ ROOM
o�
CHANGE
HOUSE
`
6
yy
00
P-
00
�
I
I
»
�s
r.
X
I
OLD ASP SITE
z
„
m
o
G
s
Ez
W
o
y
N 486,216
y
E 1,988,853 1
��
,�
r-,
y
x
TOH EL. 259.5In
Z Z
O
W
�0
2
Z
i/
PARKING
do�
_—
a
c�
N aa5,850
'
- ZZ
E 1,989,013
h0
J
GU
RD
TOH EL. 236.5
a w
cna-
INERT
SE
�4�
(�
STORAGE
(�
�1'
N 485.592
LEGEND
0
W o
[]
PUMP
�p1
E 1.989.149
(3 SOIL TEST BORING LOCATIONS
~ }
f
X7169
HOUSE
TOH EL. 219.0� Y
2
O
7 S
cn
II
PLATE
100 50 0 100 200F1
REFERENCE
FERE RE
B-101
SCALE: V- 100'
SHEET
SIDGrureu!

1
1
DON5
PCC33
SSVSERNAME$S
0
lam 9
/ I I a D
rI I pO6o
\ I
\\ r r FT�
\\ I ! D
VI I!
4V /I
14 //
rl //
II //
II //
II //
II //
II //
i
AkLEI, rRA1NjNG
/ D^
r
\1 D
MOD
11\V
r_PI)
FmOD
^'N)
rn
O
IIV
W
cn
111
Ln
I V\
O 1 1
1\
V 1
11
VI
1V
1 VI
\ \\ 11
\\ V V
\\ l y\
\ \\ II V
\\ 1 V
\\ V 1
\\\ Vyl
\\ l
\ V\
\ V
0 m
o �
m
O Z
n r-
m to m
cn
C) m
o p
X
`z
C, c)
rr
a
n
N
O
o p
z
W
AMMO POINTE BOULEVARD AND MACRIDGE ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS
In
M m
W
FORT EIRAG.NORTH CAROLINA
C m
N n�
SOIL TEST BORING
m
LAYOUT PLAN
U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SAVANNAH DISTRICT
DESIGNED BY:
DATE:
own BY: CKO Bv:
90ucrcAnON Noy
SUBMITTEOBY:
CONTRACT NO-'
FILE NAME:
SSFILENAME33
CATEGORY CODE:
221-tl�5
SRE:D PLOTSCALF: PLOTDATE:
22'XM' 33PLOT SCALESS SSPLOT DArt33
z yNy
y Z DJ
Z 2 K a
K
M 9
BYMBOL DESCRIPTION DATE BY

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOLS
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
GRAPH I
LETTER
GRAVEL
AND
CLEAN
GRAVELS
'` • '•
�' I
.•
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SOILS
{LITTLE OR NO FINES)
P
°Qa Qa
o �� o
p °p
G p
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
COARSE
°
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
GRAVELS WITH
F1NES
°Q�'°
o
a
o
GM
SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL -SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO,
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
MORE THAN SO%
OF MATERIAL IS
SAND
AND
CLEAN SANDS
SW
WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
:.
Sp
POORLY -GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
LARGER THAN
NO, 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SANDY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES
:: '
qq
j:'•i:1;>: .;'i;
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MIXTURES
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
SC
CLAYEYSANDS.SAND -CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
M L
SANDS. ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
SILTS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
AND E88TAMIT
LH
CLAYS
CL
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS.
LEAN CLAYS
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
M H
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
SIZE
SILTS
AND LIQUID LIMIT
CLAYS GREATER THAN 50
CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
ssss
OH I
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
—' "
PT
PEAT. HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

CSINCE
r& FROEHLING
1 tee,'
& ROBERTSONp INC.
BORING LOG
Boring: P-1 (1 of 1)
Project No: 66L-0454-0015 Elevation: 236.5 (EST. FROM PLAN) Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Client: US Army Corps of Engineers Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: 108 ADA Infrastructure, LI: 70751, FY-12 Boring Location: N 485,850 E 1,989,013 Date Drilled: 4/4/12
City/State: Ft. Bragg, NC Driller: F&R Tignor
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
(Classification)
* Sample
Blows
Sample
Depth
feet
N Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
0.4
SURFIClAL ORGANIC SOIL W
H-WOH
H
0
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hrs.: Dry /caved at 6.7'
NATIVE: Very loose, moist, tan -brown silty fine
SAND (SM), trace small roots.
1.5
2.0
2.5
Loose, moist, red -brown clayey fine SAND (SC).
2-4-5
9
4.0
4.0
Stiff, moist, red, orange & tan fine sandy silty
CLAY (CH).
J
5.0
3-5-8
13
6.5
-
7.0
Loose, moist, orange -tan silty fine SAND (SM),
trace small roots.
8'5
4-4-4
8
10.0
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.
u1.1 - vi ui- icyuii cu n ivi o i-ry iu annnl/ cl uI VPn IV, w w U51vc L V.U., 1..]i3 I.U. SdMPIUF J WWI flT io mcnes In [nree t) increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

BORING LOG
SINCE
�& FROEHLING
& ROBERTSONg INC.
Boring: P-2 (1 of 1)
Project No: 66L-0454-0015 Elevation: 259.5 (EST. FROM PLAN) Drilling Method: 2.25" ID H5A
Client: US Army Corps of Engineers Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: 108 ADA Infrastructure, LI: 70751, FY-12 Boring Location: N 486,216 E 1,988,853 Date Drilled: 4/4/12
City/State: Ft. Bragg, NC Driller: F&R Tignor
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
(Classification)
* Sample
Blows
Sample
Depth
feet
N-Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
0.3
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL
1-2-3
5
GROUNDWATER DATA:},
0 Hrs.: Dry / caged at 6.5'
NATIVE: Loose, moist, tan silty fine SAND (SM
trace small roots.
1.5
2.a
Loose, moist, orange -brown clayey fine SAND
(SC)-
2.5
2-2-3
5
4.0
5.0
4-4-5
9
6.5
7.0
Dense, moist, red -tan clayey fine to coarse SAND
(SC), with quartz rock fragments.
8.5
26-26-22
48
10.0
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.
IlclnniCl 44 uppli Ir, JU LU VI IVC L v. V., i.j/7 I.U. Sdfllplef d LOLdI D, 18 Imes In Lnree t) Increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

SINCE
r& FROEHLING
1 1BB1
& ROBERTSON9 1 NC.
BORING LOG
Boring: P-3 (1 of 1)
Project No: 66L-0454-0015 Elevation: 259.5 (EST. FROM PLAN) Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Client: US Army Corps of Engineers Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: 108 ADA Infrastructure, LI: 70751, FY-12 Boring Location: N 486,667 E 1,988,637 Date Drilled: 4/4/12
City/State: Ft. Bragg, NC Driller: F&R Tignor
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
{Classification}
` Sample
Blows
Sample
Dfet
eet
N-Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL
2-3-4
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hrs.: Dry /caved at 6.2'
NATIVE: Loose, moist, brown clayey fine SAND
Y Y
(SC).
1.5
2.0
2 5
Medium dense, moist, red -brown clayey fine
SAND (SC), with trace coarse sand.
4-12-16
28
4 0
4.0
Dense, moist, orange -brown silty fine SAND
(SM).
15-18-22
5.0
40
6.5
15-19-26
8.5
45
10.0
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.
I�UI,IUCf VI UIVwJ [LIqu IFUU IVr d 1•iv IU rid(r1rtiur vrvpping 3u to anve z u.U., l.�n i.u. sampler a iotai oT its incnes in tnree b increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

BORING LOG
SINCE
F& FROEHLING &
ROBERTSONp INC.
Boring: P-4 (1 of 1)
Project No: 66L-0454-0015 Elevation: 360.5 (EST. FROM PLAN) Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Client: US Army Corps of Engineers Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: 108 ADA Infrastructure, LI: 70751, FY-12 Boring Location: N 502,675 E 1,982,630 Date Drilled: 4/4/12
City/State: Ft. Bragg, NC Driller: F&R Tignor
Elevation
Depth
p
Description of Materials
(Classification)
* Sample
Blows
Sample
Dfeeth
N-Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
0.3
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL
4-4-7
11
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hrs.: Dry / caved at 7.0'
NATIVE: Medium dense, moist, red & brown
clayey fine SAND (SC), trace small roots.
1.5
2.0
2.5
Medium dense, moist, orange -tan clayey fine
SAND (SC).
6-5-11
16
4.0
4.0
Stiff, moist, brown & tan fine sandy SILT (ML).
5.0
3-6-7
13
6.5
7.0
Loose, moist, brown & tan silty fine SAND (SM).
8'5
3-3-5
8
10.0
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.
• •-••••-.-• ­ ­• ma +.". y.­ -�........— u. vVF ..5 w w UI I.O L W.V., 1.JIJ I.L.I. �auIPICI d LULdI VI tomr ley rrl lrlree O IrlUel lens.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

SINCE
BORING
FROEHLING & ROP-5LOG
BERT5ON, INC.
Boring: -5 (1 of 1)
18BM1
Project No: 66L-0454-0015 Elevation: 369.0 (EST. FROM PLAN) Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Client: US Army Corps of Engineers Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: 108 ADA Infrastructure, LI: 70751, FY-12 Boring Location: N 502,961 E 1,982,553 Date Drilled: 4/4/12
City/State: Ft. Bragg, NC Driller: F&R Tignor
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
(Classification)
* Sample
Blows
Sample
Depth
feet
N-Value
blows/ft)
Remarks
1
POSSIBLE FILL: Medium dense, moist, dark brown
silty fine to coarse SAND (SM), some gravel.
4-9-8
1 5
17
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hrs.: Dry /caved at 6.4'
NATIVE: Medium dense, moist, red -brown clayey
fine SAND (SC).
2.0
2.5
Medium dense, moist, red, orange & tan silty
fine SAND (SM).
7-6-7
13
4.0
4.0
Medium dense to loose, moist, orange -tan silty
fine SAND (SM).
5.0
6-8-8
16
6.5
8.5
6-4-5
9
I
10.0
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.
'Ivumuer OT mows require❑ Tor a 14u to nammer uropping 3u to ❑rive L U.U., I.U. Sampler a total vT lb Incnes In inree O Increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

SINCE
F& FROEHLING
1661
ROBERT5ONy INC.
BORING LOG
Boring: SP-1 (1 of 1)
Project No: 66L-0454-0015 Elevation: 256.0 (EST. FROM PLAN) Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Client: US Army Corps of Engineers Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: 108 ADA Infrastructure, LI: 70751, FY-12 Boring Location: N 486,752 E 1,988,580 Date Drilled: 4/4/12
City/State: Ft. Bragg, NC Driller: F&R Tignor
Elevation
Depth
Description of Materials
(Classification)
* sample
Blows
Sample
Depth
feet
N-Value
ft
blows/i
Remarks
0.2
SURFICIAL QRGANIC SOIL
1-5-16
1.0
21
GROUNDWATER DATA.
0 Hrs.: Dry / caved at 6.6
NATIVE: Medium dense, moist, red, orange & tan
silty fine SAND {SM), trace small roots.
Dense, moist, red -brown clayey fine to coarse
SAND (SC) with quartz rock fragments.
1.5
11-15-20
2.5
35
4.0
5.0
5.0
Medium dense, moist, pink -tan silty fine SAND
6-9-9
(SM).
18
6.5
7.0
Firm, moist, tan, gray & mauve fine sandy CLAY
(CH).
8.S
9-4-4
8
10.0
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.
vuniuci vi U-3 icyuiicu IVI a aYV lu nanlrf]CI UTUP.lInt' u w unve [ v.u., 1.3fo I.U. sampler a imal oT L?J Incnes In inree b Increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

SINCE
FROEHLING &
BORING LOG
z
c
RoBERTSE3N, INC.
Boring: SP-2 (1 of 1)
Project No: 66L-0454-0015 Elevation: 258.5 (EST. FROM PLAN) Drilling Method: 2.25" ID HSA
Client: US Army Corps of Engineers Total Depth: 10.0' Hammer Type: Automatic
Project: 108 ADA Infrastructure, LI: 70751, FY-12 Boring Location: N 486,718 E 1,988,678 Date Drilled: 4/4/12
City/State: Ft. Bragg, NC Driller: F&R Tignor
Elevation
Depth
p
Description of Materials
(Classification)
* Sample
Blows
Sample
Depth
N-Value
(blows/ft)
Remarks
.
SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOIL
2-2-4
b
GROUNDWATER DATA:
0 Hrs.: Dry /caved at 6.7'
NATIVE: Loose, moist, orange -brown clayey fine
SAND (SC).
1.5
2.a
14-18-16
2.5
Dense, moist, red, orange & tan clayey fine to
medium SAND (SC), trace coarse sand.
34
4.0
4.0
Dense, moist, red -brown clayey fine SAND (SC).
18-19-22
5.0
41
6.5
7.a
Medium dense, orange -brown clayey fine SAND
(SC).
8.5
9-10-8
18
10.0
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.
uivNNnig w W 4'-G V.V., S.J/J LU. �OfI1FJICf d LVld, Uf 18 In Cr1eS In Lflfee O Increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.

LOG OF BORING
SHEET 10F1
BORING NO.
CONTRACTED WITH; U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - SAVANNAH SHWT-1
DATE:
PROJECT NAME: Ammo Pointe Boulevard and MacRid a Road Improvements - PN 70751, FY12 4/4/2012
LOCATION: Fort Bragg, North Carolina - Cumberland County
Auto Hammer, 2-114"I.D. HSA NC STATE PLANE COORDINATES: N 485 50 F 1 9R9 1d9
ELEV.
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
(ft)
�"
SAMPLES
NOTES
Topsoil - 3.0" dark brown clayey sand with
some organics
No.
TYPEJ
BLOWSI6"
"N"
FEET
219.0
Clayey Sand, Orangish Brown, fine to
Drilling soft
medium grained, moist (SC)
1
2
3
4
5 5
Clayey Sand , Light Brown, fine to
medium grained, moist (SC)
7
Clayey Sand , Greyish Brown, fine to
medium grained, wet (SC)
8
210.0
9
Water table at 0 hrs
10
208.0
12
Boring terminated at 11.0 feet
13
14
Note: hole plugged at 10.4 ft
15
at 0 hrs
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

USDA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
o
NRCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Cumberland
County, North
Carolina
April 12, 2012

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain
conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact
your local USDA Service Center (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?
agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://soils.usda.gov/contact/
state offices/).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil
Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call [phone]
(voice) or [phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.

Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
SoilMap..................................................................................................................7
SoilMap................................................................................................................8
Legend..................................................................................................................9
MapUnit Legend................................................................................................10
MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................10
Cumberland County, North Carolina...............................................................12
BaD—Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes......................................12
FaB—Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes.....................................12
References............................................................................................................14
4

How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the

Custom Soil Resource Report
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
A

Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
m
N
A
O�
r
35' 5' 5" w
•M �
3
G
35' 5' 0" _
678980 678990 679000
Map Scale: 1:484 if printed on B size (11"x 117") sheet.
N N
Meters
0 3 6 12 18
Feet
0 10 20 40 60
JSU b/9U4U b/`JUSU bfYUbU bf`JVYU
N
'
F
N
m
^i�
n
NQQ
W
M
S
OI
-
'
W
M
W
J
t00n
Q
1'
'
{{
S
M
t
o
I
W
�
t
'
tYr
I
J
r
:� 9 "+C ac- o C r� Cc+ q Ca LLiCL _ -¢a �•. � o0 o n d �M1 b C � .� '[p - � - CG-�m-iGv ^'•'='C
r�
P9010 679020 67903(
In
35' 5' 5"
35. 5' 0"
m
N
vA,

Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
IZ
Very Stony Spot
Map Scale: 1:484 if printed on B size (11" x 17"),sheet.
Area of Interest (AOI)
�
Wet Spot
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Soils
Other
0
Soil Map Units
Special
Line Features
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Special
Point Features
r,,L
44.•-�
Gully
V
Blowout
Is,J
'�' r
Short Steep Slope
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
®
Borrow Pit
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
M.
Other
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
X..
Clay Spot.
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Political Features
Closed Depression
0
cities
x
Gravel Pit
water Features
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Gravelly Spot
y..
Streams and Canals
Landfill
transportation
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
I
Rails
Web Soil Survey URL: hftp:Nwebsoitsurvey.nrrs.usda.gov
!ova Flow
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N NAD83
.&
Marsh or swamp
Interstate Highways
x
Mine or Quarry
.v
US Routes
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
Major Roads
the version date(s) listed below.
©
Miscellaneous Water
(D
Perennial Water
Local Roads
Soil Survey Area: Cumberland County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 10, Jun 5, 2009
v
Rock Outcrop
+
Saline Spot
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 6/22/2006
Sandy Spot
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil fines were
Severely Eroded Spot
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
C
Sinkhole
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
37
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
_
Spoil Area
j)
Stony Spot

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Cumberland County, North Carolina (NC051)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Bad
Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
1.6
97.2%
FaB
Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
0.0
2.8%
Totals for Area of Interest
1.7
100.0%
Map Unit (Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. if included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
10

Custom Soil Resource Report
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
Cumberland County, North Carolina
BaD—Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 160 to 660 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 52 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 245 days
Map Unit Composition
Blaney and similar soils: 85 percent
Description of Blaney
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy and loamy marine deposits
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class. Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to
0.57 inlhr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding. None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Low (about 4.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated). 3e
Typical profile
0 to 4 inches: Loamy sand
4 to 25 inches: Loamy sand
25 to 62 inches: Sandy clay loam
62 to 80 inches: Loamy coarse sand
FaB—Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period., 210 to 265 days
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Composition
Faceville and similar soils. 80 percent
Description of Faceville
Setting
Landform: Broad interstream divides on marine terraces, ridges on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit
Landform positron (three-dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Clayey marine deposits
Properties and qualities
Slope. 2 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 inlhr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency ofponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
Typical profile
0 to 7 inches: Loamy sand
7 to 17 inches., Loamy sand
17 to 80 inches: Clay
13

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79131.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994, Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://soils,usda.gov/
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://soils.usda.gov/
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:/isoils.usda.gov/
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://soils.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.glti.nrrs.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 43041. http://soils.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://soils.usda.gov/
14

Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210.
15

I
ATTACHMENT D
One -Point and Two -Point Compaction Method

♦. J
Compaction Control
For fine grained (clayey and silty) soils and for sands with appreciable fines such that normal
shaped compaction curves are obtained, results of all compaction tests shall be plotted on a
common plot as a family of curves. For each field density test performed, a one -point
compaction test, with additional points as needed, shall be performed on the same material on
which the field density test was conducted. The one -point compaction test shall be performed on
the dry side of the optimum moisture content. For comparison of field density data to the proper
laboratory compaction test results, the procedures for the one -point and/or two -point compaction
control methods as described in paragraph Compaction Procedure, shall be used. Compaction
curves plotted on the family of curves shall be of such a scale that the optimum moisture content
can be interpreted to the nearest 0.1 percent and the maximum dry density can be interpreted to
the nearest 0.1 pcf (or 2 kg/m). When a one -point test plots outside the range of the family of
curves, an additional five -point compaction test shall be performed.
Compaction Procedure
General
The following paragraphs describe methods of relating field density data to desired or specified
values. Compaction control of soils requires comparison of fill water content and/or dry density
values obtained in field density tests with optimum water content and/or maximum dry density.
At a minimum, control shall be in accordance with the One -Point Compaction Method. Where
conditions require, the Two -Point Compaction Method shall be used.
One -Point Compaction Method
The material from the field density test is allowed to dry to a water content on the dry side of
estimated optimum, and then compacted using the same equipment and procedures used in the
five -point compaction test. Thorough mixing is required to obtain uniform drying; otherwise,
results obtained may be erroneous. The water content and dry density of the compacted sample
are determined and then used to estimate its optimum water content and maximum dry density as
illustrated in Figure I at the end of this section. In Figure 1, the line of optimums is well defined
and the compaction curves are approximately parallel to each other, consequently, the one -point
compaction method could be used with a relatively high degree of confidence. However, in
Figure 2 at the end of this section, the curves are not parallel to each other and in several
instances will cross if extended on the dry side. Consequently, the correct curve cannot be
determined from the one -point method; therefore, the two -point compaction method should be
used. The one -point method should be used only when the data define a relatively good line of
optimums.
Two -Point Compaction Method

1 • .
In the two -point test, one sample of material from the location of the field density test is
compacted at the fill water content if thought to be at or on the dry side of optimum water
content (otherwise, reduced by drying to this condition) using the same equipment and
procedures used in the five -point compaction test. A second sample of material is allowed to dry
back about 2 to 3 percentage points dry of the water content of the first sample and then
compacted in the same manner. At least one point shall fall within 3 percent of the line of
optimums. After compaction, the water contents and dry densities for the two samples are
determined. The results are used to identify the appropriate compaction curve for the material
being tested as shown in Figure 2 at the end of this section. The data shown in Figure 2 warrant
the use of the two -point compaction test because the five -point compaction curves are not
parallel. Using point A only, as in the one -point test method, would result in appreciable error as
the shape of the curve would not be defined. The estimated compaction curve can be more
accurately defined by two compaction points.

P ,t;
V)
z
w
0
100
0 i.1.G00
95
(�1.520.
90
(1440)
5
PROCEDURE:
LOCUS :OF
MAX'. DRY
DENS''ITY
AND OPT.]MUM`WATER
CONTENT
(LINE
OF OPTIMUMS)
ESTIMATED
MAX.
DENSITY =
'104 PCF
0
(1664
Kg/m3)
��
OF
A
�
\
O
A
v�
EST]MATED
V
GOf
OPT.
We = ,20- i \
os
COMi'ACTiON CURVE-
FROM
FIVE -POINT TEST REQUIRED
�
\�
BY SPECIFICATIONS
10 15 20 25 130 35
WATER CONTENT - 7
1. Point A is the result of a one -point compaction test on material
from field density test. This point must be on the dry side of
optimum water content.
2. Point O is the estimated optimum water content and maximum
density of the fill material based on a projection of point A
approximately parallel to the adjacent compaction curves.
3. Point A must plot within 3 percent of the line of optimums.
Figure 1. Illustration of one -point compaction method.

r'
w
-11'5
(r`1.840
110
(`1760`
'1 05
(1,680
1010,
95
(.1.520
S,C)
C1440')
5
PROCEDURE:
r
1
1
\
L.00US
OF ;MAX. DRY
DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM
WATER
CONTENT
\
\
(LANE
;OF OPTIMUMS)
\
\
EST I MATED,
1. 6
COMPACTION
\
CURVE
\.
p:
- \
G
Q�as
COMPACTION CURVES
FROM FIVE —POINT
TEST REQUIRED BY
SPEC I F.ICAT.I ONS
\
10 1.5 20 25 30 35
WA7ER. 'OQNTENT — '-
1. Points A and B are results of a two -point compaction test on material from
field density test. Points A and B must be on the dry side of optimum
water content.
2. The estimated compaction curve based on Points A and B establishes
Point O on the locus, which is the estimated maximum dry density and
optimum water content of the fill material.
3. One point must plot within 3 percent of the line of optimums.
Figure 2. Illustration of two -point compaction method.