SW6201101_MWD Facility Geotechnical Report - Building & Earth_20201130

Sta me
44
y�
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
MILITARY WORKING DOG FACILITY (PN 92426)
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
BUILDING & EARTH PROJECT NO.: RD190229
PREPARED FOR:
Stantec
MAY 21, 2019
BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
May 21, 2019
Stantec
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606-3394
Attention: Mr. Dan Saltsman, PE
2664 Timber Drive, Suite 128
Garner, North Carolina 27529
Ph: (910) 292 - 2085
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation
Military Working Dog Facility (PN 92426)
SOTF Compound, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Building & Earth Project No: RD190229
Dear Mr. Saltsman:
Building & Earth Sciences, LLP has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and
geotechnical engineering evaluation for the Military Working Dog Facility located near Lamont
Road in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
The purpose of this exploration and evaluation was to determine general subsurface conditions
at the site and to address applicable geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction and site
development. The recommendations in this report are based on a physical reconnaissance of the
site and observation and classification of samples obtained from ten (10) soil test borings
conducted at the site. Confirmation of the anticipated subsurface conditions during construction
is an essential part of geotechnical services.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide consultation services for the proposed project. If you
have any questions regarding the information in this report or need any additional information,
please call us.
Respectfully Submitted,
BUILDING & EARTH SCIENCES, LLP.
North Carolina Engineering License Number F-7087 Cgg4
Q+ ESS1� �j
G . -rw -YI/ —
Nathan Anderson, E.I.T. -Kurt A. Miller, 'R�yr�',a� C. Mark Nolen, P.E.
Staff Professional Regional Vice P d�pt •r� y Senior Vice President
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL • Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC • Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR • Tulsa, OK • Oklahoma City, OK • Durant, OK

Table Of COr1Ler1L
1.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.....................................................................................................................................................................3
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION........................................................................................................................4
3.1 GEOLOGY..................................................................................................................................................................5
3.2 EXISTING SURFACE CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................5
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................................5
3.3,1 TOPSOIL............................................................................................................................................................6
3.3,2 CLAYEY SAND (SC) OR SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SC-SM)...............................................................................6
3.3.3 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT(SP-SM)..............................................................................................6
3.3,4 SILTY SAND (SM)............................................................................................................................................6
3.3.5 FAT CLAY(CH).................................................................................................................................................7
3.3,6 AUGER REFUSAL...............................................................................................................................................7
3.3,7 GROUNDWATER...............................................................................................................................................7
3.3.8 SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE AND INFILTRATION TESTING...................................................................8
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................................................................8
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION.....................................................................................................................................9
4.2 SUBGRADE EVALUATION.........................................................................................................................................9
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS................................................................................................................................
10
4.4 UNDERCUTTING OF LOW CONSISTENCY SOILS.................................................................................................
10
4.5 EVALUATION OF HIGHLY PLASTIC SOILS............................................................................................................
11
4.6 STRUCTURAL FILL..................................................................................................................................................
11
4.7 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................................................
12
4.7.1 GROUNDWATER............................................................................................................................................
12
4.8 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL...................................................................................................................................
12
4.9 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION............................................................................................
13
4.10 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION......................................................................................................................
13
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................13
5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS....................................................................................................................................
14
6.0 FLOOR SLABS................................................................................................................................................................................15
7.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................................................................................16
7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT.............................................................................................................................................
17
7.2 GRAVEL PAVEMENT..............................................................................................................................................
17
8.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION.................................................................................................................................................17
9.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING............................................................................................................................................18
10.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS...............................................................................................................................................18
APPENDIX
Page I i

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
1.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION
Proposed for construction is a new Military Working Dog Training Facility (PN 92426)
located on the Ft. Bragg Army Base, North Carolina. The training building will be
approximately 19,500 square feet, one story in height and of pre-engineered metal
construction. The building will house kennels, a veterinary clinic, surgery rooms,
educational spaces, and an administrative area. Foundation loads are not available at this
writing. Additional information regarding the project is summarized below in Table 1. A
site aerial photograph and a site diagram follow the table.
Size (Ac.)
Existing Development
Vegetation
General Site Slopes
Retaining Walls
Drainage
Cuts & Fills'
No. of Bldgs
Square Ft.
Stories
Proposed Construction
Buildings Column Loads'
Wall Loads'
Preferred Foundation
Preferred Slab
Traffic
Pavements Standard Duty
<1 acre
Immediate area undeveloped — Existing structures surround site
Trees and grass
No
No
Fairly well drained
:-6 ft. of Fill, :-3 ft. of Cut (Assumed)
1
19,500 SF
1
Pre-engineered metal construction
<<<50 kips (Assumed)
i<<<? Of (Assumed)
Conventional shallow spread
Concrete slab-on-gra
Not Provided
Yes, Flexible and Gravel
Heavy Duty I Yes, Flexible
Table 1: Project and Site Description
Reference: 1. MWD Facility "Notational Site Plan", RFP Document W912HN-15-D-0070
2. Stantec RFP Information, D. Saltsman (71312079)
Notes:
1. If actual loading conditions exceed anticipated loads, Building & Earth Sciences should be allowed to
review the proposed structural design and its effects on our recommendations for foundation design.
Page 11

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
2. Since a final grading plan was not provided for this site, assumptions have been made regarding grades
for the purpose of this report. Therefore, it will be essential for Building & Earth to review the final
grading plan, when it becomes available, and be contracted to provide supplemental recommendations
prior to starting construction
's
ExIST, 5
Figure 1: Aerial Image DepJi�cting Site Location (Google Earth)
tir�t�fiSE'ri'f
y l
T
p v it 26'3,3'
jr KSCW7E 31C
++��I'�,,�_�_• yy '1F % \tom ��,
1•N{jog 1,0 }
t
4- +. ;
+
+
°
1
�,, - +
Figure 2: Site Plan (Provided by Stantec - Undated)
Page 12

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The authorized subsurface exploration was performed on April 30, 2019 in conformance
with Building & Earth proposal RD21034, dated January 20, 2019, and in accordance with
Stantec's Task Order referencing the project.
The purpose of the geotechnical exploration has been to assess general subsurface
conditions at specific boring locations and to gather data on which to base a geotechnical
evaluation with respect to the proposed construction. The subsurface exploration for this
project consisted of ten (10) soil test borings. The site was drilled using a CME 550 ATV
drilling rig equipped with a manual hammer.
Soil boring sites were field located by a representative of our staff using Google Earth
imagery. Boring locations were selected, and the selected sites approved by the client
before drilling. Boring positions appearing on the attached Boring Location Plan should
be considered approximate.
Soil samples recovered during our site investigation were visually classified and specific
samples were selected by the project engineer for laboratory analysis. The laboratory
analyses consisted of:
Natural Moisture Content
Atterberg Limits
D2216 1 12
D4318 1 8
Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve by Washing D1140 8
Modified Proctor Compaction Test D1557 1
Laboratory California Bearing Ratio D1883 1
Sieve Analysis D6913 1
Table 2: Scope of Laboratory Tests
Results of the laboratory analyses are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs and in
tabular form in the report Appendix. Descriptions of tests performed for this study are
also included in the Appendix.
Information gathered from the exploration was evaluated to determine a suitable
foundation type for the proposed structure. The information was also evaluated to help
determine if any special subgrade preparation procedures will be required during the
project earthworks phase.
Page 13

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
Results of the work presented in this report address:
Summary of existing surface conditions.
A description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations.
Site preparation considerations including material types to be expected during
grading as well as recommendations regarding handling and treatment of
unsuitable soils, if encountered.
Compaction requirements and recommended criteria to establish suitable surfaces
for structural backfill.
Boring logs detailing the materials encountered with soil classifications,
penetration values, and groundwater levels (if measured).
Presentation of laboratory test results.
Recommendations for foundation design, pavement design, and slab -on -grade
recommendations.
Depth to SHWT and Infiltration Rates to be used in the design of storm water
basins.
Presentation of the estimated settlement.
Supporting geotechnical calculations.
■ Plans and maps showing the location of the project and our onsite work.
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The following paragraphs are intended to provide a general characterization of the site
from a geotechnical engineering perspective. It is not of the intention of this report to
address every potential geotechnical issue that may arise, nor to provide every possible
interpretation of conditions encountered. The following condition description and
subsequent geotechnical recommendations are based on the assumption that significant
changes in subsurface conditions do not occur between boreholes. However, anomalous
conditions can occur due to variations in existing fill that may be present at the site, or
due to variations in site geologic conditions. It will be necessary to evaluate the assumed
conditions during site grading and foundation installation.
Page 14

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
3.1 GEOLOGY
Situated on the boundary of the North Carolina Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic
provinces, published geologic maps indicate the site is underlain by cretaceous aged soil
deposits associated with the Middendorf and Pinehurst geologic formations. These
formations are generally composed of very deep (over 100 ft.) unconsolidated sand,
sandstone, clay, and mudstone.
3.2 EXISTING SURFALL %,uNDITI0IN5
The proposed new Military Working Dog Facility is located near Lamont Road on the Fort
Bragg army base. The project site is currently undeveloped, but existing structures
surround the general project area. According to an undated, unnamed topographic
survey and site plan provided by Stantec, the site generally slopes downward in an easterly
direction, from an elevation of approximately 285 to 270 feet. Ground cover consists of
trees and grass.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A generalized stratification summary has been prepared using data from the soil test
borings and is presented in the table below. The stratification depicts general soil
conditions and strata types encountered during our field investigation.
1
3 — 7 in.
Topsoil
N/A
2A
213
3
4
5.5 — 13.5 ft.
5.5 ft.
6.5 — 14+ ft.
4.1 ft.
Clayey Sand (SC) or Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM)
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM)
Silty Sand (SM)
Fat Clay (CH)
Loose to Dense
Loose
Loose to Medium Dense
Very Stiff
Table 3: Stratification Summary
Subsurface soil profiles, presented in the Appendix, have also been prepared based on
data obtained at the specific boring locations. For specific details on the information
obtained from individual soil borings, please refer to the Boring Logs included in the
Appendix. Ground surface elevations reported on the boring logs were estimated from
contours appearing on the referenced topographic survey and site plan provided by
Stantec.
Page 15

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
3.3.1 TOPSOIL
Topsoil depths observed in the test borings range from 3 to 7 inches. No testing has been
performed to verify these soils meet the requirements of "topsoil". Topsoil depths
reported on the boring logs should only be considered an estimate and topsoil thickness
may vary in unexplored areas of the site.
-i,2 CLAYEY SAND (SC) OR SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)
Soils described as Clayey Sand (SC) or Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM) were observed in all the
test borings beginning just below the topsoil and extending to depths of about 5.5 to
13.5 feet below the surface. SPT N-values in this soil layer range from 6 to 47, with values
in the range of 7 to 11 considered representative in the upper 3 feet, and 25+ blows per
foot considered representative below 3 feet.
Soils of this stratum are further described as loose to dense, reddish brown to reddish
yellow, fine to medium grained, and moist. Laboratory classification testing was
performed on Samples 3 and 5 collected from respective depth intervals 4 to 6 and 8 to
10 feet in B-08. The testing indicates liquid limits of 23 to 40, plasticity indices of 4 to 16,
and a 16.3 to 24.8 percent fines (passing US Standard #200 Sieve) content. This testing
corresponds to USCS SC (Clayey Sand) or SC-SM (Silty Clayey Sand) classifications.
3.3.3 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)
In boring B-06, a Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) soil layer was observed below the
topsoil, and above the SC layer, extending to a depth of approximately 6.0 feet. This soil
type was not observed in the other nine test borings. This material is further described as
loose, brown to light brown, and moist. SPT-N values in this material range from 5 to 9.
Wash 200 grain size testing was performed on Sample 2 collected from B-06. Results of
the testing indicate 10.2 percent passing the #200 sieve, with the fine fraction non -plastic.
These data correspond to a SP-SM (Poorly Graded Sand with Silt) USCS classification.
3.3.4 SILTY SAND SM
Soils described as Silty Sand (SM) were observed in all the test borings beginning just
below the SC layer and extending to the boring termination depths. An interval of Fat
Clay (CH) (see report section 3.3.5 below) was observed in boring B-09 through the
approximate interval 19.5 to 23.5 feet. SPT N-values in this soil layer range from 6 to 28,
with values in the range of 13 to 19 considered representative.
Page 16

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
Soils of this stratum are further described as loose to medium dense, brown to reddish
yellow, fine to medium grained, and moist to wet. Laboratory classification testing
performed on 4 samples of this material indicates a liquid limit in the range 21 to 25, a
plasticity index in the range 1 to 3, and fines (passing US Standard #200 Sieve) content in
the range 14.6 to 21.8 percent. This testing corresponds to a USCS SM (Silty Sand)
classification.
3.3.5 FAT CLAY (CH)
A Fat Clay (CH) soil layer was observed in B-09, extending through the approximate depth
interval 19.5 to 23.5 feet. This soil type was not observed in the other nine test borings.
The fat clay soils are described as very stiff, gray, and moist. On SPT test in this material
indicates a 17 bpf N-value. Wash 200 grain size testing was performed on Sample 8 from
B-09 indicating 93.3 percent passing the #200 sieve. Atterberg limits testing indicates a
liquid limit of 94 and a plasticity index of 47. These data correspond to a CH (Fat Clay)
USCS classification.
..6 AUGER kEFUSAL
Auger refusal is the drilling depth at which a borehole can no longer be advanced using
soil drilling procedures. Auger refusal can occur on hard soil, boulders, buried debris or
bedrock. Coring is required to sample materials below auger refusal. Auger refusal was
not encountered in borings drilled for this study.
3.3.7 GROUNDWATER
At the time of drilling, groundwater (perched or otherwise) was encountered in borings
B-07 through B-10, and was not observed in the remaining borings. Water levels reported
are accurate only for the time and date the borings were drilled. Long term monitoring
of the boreholes was not included as part of our subsurface exploration. The borings
were backfilled the same day that they were drilled. Groundwater data is included in the
following table.
:.
B-01
Dry
N/A
Boring
B-06
Dry
N/A
B-02
Dry
N/A
B-07
18.5
259.5
B-03
Dry
N/A
B-08
18.0
258.0
B-04
Dry
N/A
B-09
23.5
255.5
B-05
Dry
N/A
B-10
23.5
252.5
Table 4: Approximate Groundwater Depth/Elevation
Page 17

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
3.3.8 SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE AND INFILTRATION TESTING
In order to measure the depth to the Season High Water Table (SHWT), Mr. Mike Eaker, a
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist with Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates,
Inc., under contract to Building & Earth Sciences, performed the field measurements and
provided a letter summarizing his work. Mr. Eaker's report details the procedures used in
his field evaluation, the results of his soil observations, the depth to SHWT, and the depth
to observed water at each test location. Mr. Eaker's report is included in the Appendix.
As requested, Building & Earth performed infiltration testing on the project site once the
SHWT was measured. The flow of the near -surface soils has been approximated using the
concepts presented in Bernoulli's Equation for steady state flow and Darcy's Law for fluid
flow through a porous media. Additionally, our Ksat values were calculated using the
Glover solution, which is dependent on the geometry of the borehole and the hydraulic
head.
Our testing was performed on May 2, 2019 at the locations shown on the Boring Location
map, and identified as 1-02 and 1-03. Based on the results of our testing, the soils at the
site have a stabilized Ksat drainage rate of 0.22 to 1.25 inches per hour. The data sheet for
infiltration testing is included in the Appendix of this report.
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
A grading plan was not available at the time of this report preparation. A finished floor
elevation of 280 ft. has been assumed for purposes of this study. Based on the referenced
topographic survey and site plan information, we anticipate up to 6 feet of fill and 3 feet
of cut will be required to reach finished grades. When a grading plan is finalized,
Building & Earth should be allowed to review the plan and its effects on our
recommendations.
Based on our evaluation of the subsurface soil information, and anticipated foundation
loads, it appears that building support with a conventional shallow spread foundation
system is feasible. Site development recommendations presented below are intended for
development of the site to support construction with a shallow spread system. If a
different type of foundation system is preferred, Building & Earth should be allowed
to review the site development recommendations to verify that they are appropriate
for the preferred foundation system.
Page 18

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
The primary geotechnical concerns for this project are:
Moisture sensitive soils encountered across the site.
Proper placement of fill to achieve final grades.
Low consistency soils (N-value <_6), extending to depths of about 1 to 4 feet below
the surface in borings B-06 and B-09.
Recommendations addressing the site conditions are presented in the following sections.
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
All trees, roots, topsoil and deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed
construction areas. Approximately 6 inches of topsoil were observed in the borings. A
geotechnical engineer should observe stripping and grubbing operations to evaluate that
all unsuitable materials are removed from locations for proposed construction.
Materials disturbed during clearing operations should be stabilized in place or, if
necessary, undercut to undisturbed materials and backfilled with properly compacted,
approved structural fill.
During site preparation activities, the contractor should identify borrow source materials
that will be used as structural fill and provide samples to the testing laboratory so that
conformance to the Structural Fill requirements outlined below and appropriate moisture -
density relationship curves can be determined.
,.Z SUBGRADE EVALUATION
We recommend that the project geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative
evaluate the subgrade after the site is prepared. Some unsuitable or unstable areas may
be present in unexplored areas of the site. All areas that will require fill or that will support
structures should be carefully proofrolled with a heavy (40,000 # minimum), rubber -tired
vehicle at the following times.
After an area has been stripped, and undercut if required, prior to the placement
of any fill.
After grading an area to the finished subgrade elevation in a building or pavement
area.
After areas have been exposed to any precipitation, and/or have been exposed for
more than 48 hours.
Page 19

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
Some instability may exist during construction, depending on climatic and other factors
immediately preceding and during construction. If any soft or otherwise unsuitable soils
are identified during the proofrolling process, they must be undercut or stabilized prior
to fill placement, pavement construction, or floor slab construction. All unsuitable material
identified during the construction shall be removed and replaced in accordance with the
Structural Fill section of this report.
1.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS
Moisture sensitive clayey sands (SC) and poorly graded sands with silt (SP-SM) were
encountered across the site during the subsurface exploration. These soils will degrade if
allowed to become saturated. Therefore, not allowing water to pond by maintaining
positive drainage and temporary dewatering methods (if required) is important to help
avoid degradation and softening of the soils.
The contractor should anticipate some difficulty during the earthwork phase of this
project if moisture levels are moderate to high during construction. Increased moisture
levels will soften the subgrade and the soils may become unstable under the influence of
construction traffic. Accordingly, construction during wet weather conditions should be
avoided, as this could result in soft and unstable soil conditions that would require ground
modification, such as in place stabilization or undercutting.
4.4 UNULKLU i i GNU Ur ww wNsis i ENCY SOILS
Low consistency soils (N<_6) were encountered in borings B-06 and B-09, within the
building footprint, in the upper 1 to 4 feet below present grades. Low consistency soils
should be undercut to a stable, suitable subgrade or stabilized in place as part of the initial
site preparation activities. Where soft or loose surficial soils can be stabilized in place, it is
recommended these materials be densified using a heavy (10-ton minimum), smooth -
drum vibratory roller. A rolling pattern should be determined during densification
operations that will result in a sufficiently stable subgrade. If in -place stabilization is not
viable, the material should be undercut and replaced with compaction, or stabilized using
mechanical means. Undercutting will be highly dependent upon final grades. Any
undercutting or backfill performed within the building footprint should be conducted
under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or his representative.
Some unsuitable or unstable areas may be present in unexplored areas of the site. Once
the known undercut is complete, the areas planned for construction should be further
evaluated in accordance with the Subgrade Evaluation section in order to identify any
additional soft soils requiring removal.
Page 110

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
Undercut soils should be replaced with structural fill. Clean, non -organic, non -saturated
soils taken from the undercut area can be re -used as structural fill. The placement
procedure, compaction and composition of the structural fill must meet the requirements
of the Structural Fill section of this report.
1.5 EVALUATION OF HIGHLY PLASTIC SOILS
Based on the laboratory test results, highly plastic clay (CH) was encountered in building
boring B-09 through a depth interval of about 19.5 to 23.5 feet below the surface.
Therefore, it appears this material will be ±20 feet below finished grade and will not pose
an issue to site grading or foundation installation. If this material were to be encountered
in unexplored areas during site grading or in foundation excavations, we recommend it
be removed to a minimum 3.0 feet depth below finished floor elevation and 5 feet laterally
beyond building footprints. Any undercutting required to maintain at this depth should
be backfilled in accordance with the Structural Fill report section below. The undercutting
should be conducted under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or his
representative.
4.6 STRUCTURAL FILL
Requirements for structural fill on this project are as follows:
Sand and
Gravel
SW, SP, SM or
combinations
Clay
CL, SC, GC
Clay
CH
Silt
ML, MH
Maximum 2" particle size
LL<50, PI <25, yd> 100 pcf
LL>50, PI>25, yd>100 pcf
N/A
Areas where the material can be
confined.
All areas
Not recommended for use
Not recommended for use
On -site SC, SC-SM, SM, ' SC, SM, SC-SM, SP-SM: Areas where
soils SP-SM, CH Maximum 2" particle size material can be confined.
CH: Not recommended for use.
Table 5: Structural Fill Requirements
Notes:
1. All structural fill should be free of vegetation, topsoil, and any other deleterious materials. The
organic content of materials to be used for fill should be less than 3 percent.
2. LL indicates the soil Liquid Limit; PI indicates the soil Plasticity Index; yd indicates the maximum dry
density as defined by the density standard outlined in the table below.
Page 111

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
3. Laboratory testing of the soils proposed for fill must be performed in order to verify their
conformance with the above recommendations.
4. Any fill to be placed at the site should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
Placement requirements for structural fill are as follows:
Lift Thickness
8" loose, 6" compacted
� Density
92 Percent maximum per ASTM D-1557 all structural areas below 24 inches
95 percent maximum per ASTM D-1557, all structural areas, top 24 inches
Moisture
+/- 3.0 Percentage Points ASTM D-1557 Optimum
Density Testing
1 test per 2,500 S.F. Minimum 2 tests per lift
Frequency
Table 6: Structural Fill Placement Requirements
4.7 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS
All excavations performed at the site should follow OSHA guidelines for temporary
excavations. Excavated soils should be stockpiled according to OSHA regulations to limit
the potential cave-in of soils.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 18 to 23.5 feet in four of the
ten borings. Based on this data, it is unlikely that groundwater will be encountered during
site construction. However, it should be noted that fluctuations in the water level could
occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall. The contractor must be prepared to remove
groundwater seepage from excavations if encountered during construction. Excavations
extending below groundwater levels will require dewatering systems (such as well points,
sump pumps or trench drains). The contractor should evaluate the most economical and
practical dewatering method.
4.8 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
All utility trenches must be backfilled and compacted in the manner specified above for
structural fill. It may be necessary to reduce the lift thickness to 4 to 6 inches to achieve
compaction using hand -operated equipment.
Page 112

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
4.9 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION
The potential for soil moisture fluctuations within building areas and pavement subgrades
should be reduced to lessen the potential of subgrade movement. Site grading should
include positive drainage away from buildings and pavements. Excessive irrigation of
landscaping poses a risk of saturating and softening soils below shallow footings and
pavements, which could result in settlement of footings and premature failure of
pavements.
4.10 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION
Excessive movement of construction equipment across the site during wet weather may
result in ruts, which will collect rainwater, prolonging the time required to dry the
subgrade soils.
During rainy periods, additional effort will be required to properly prepare the site and
establish/maintain an acceptable subgrade. The difficulty will increase in areas where clay
or silty soils are exposed at the subgrade elevation. Likewise, rainwater may become
perched on the higher consistency soils encountered below the surface across the
site, which could require additional dewatering efforts not needed during dry
conditions.
Grading contractors typically postpone grading operations during wet weather to wait for
conditions that are more favorable. Contractors can typically disk or aerate the upper
soils to promote drying during intermittent periods of favorable weather. When deadlines
restrict postponement of grading operations, additional measures such as undercutting
and replacing saturated soils or stabilization can be utilized to facilitate placement of
additional fill material.
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific structural loading conditions were not provided for this study; however, based on
our experience with similar projects, we anticipate individual column loads will be less
than 50 kips and wall loads will be less than 2 kips per linear foot. If these assumptions
concerning structural loading are incorrect, our office should be contacted, such that
our recommendations can be reviewed.
Page 113

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Based on conditions encountered during our field investigation and after our site
preparation and grading recommendations are implemented, the proposed structure can
be supported on conventional shallow foundations designed using a 2,000 psf allowable
soil bearing capacity.
We recommend hand rod probing and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing, in
accordance with ASTM STP-399, be performed for all foundation excavations. Hand rod
probing should be performed for 100 percent of the excavations, and DCP testing should
be performed for at least 30 percent of the footings. Soils not meeting the 2,000 psf
allowable capacity recommendation should be undercut and backfilled with structural fill.
Undercut depths may vary depending upon conditions observed during construction and
final grading plans.
Even though computed footing dimensions may be less, column footings should be at
least 24 inches wide and strip footings should be at least 18 inches wide. These
dimensions facilitate hand cleaning of bearing surface disturbed by the excavation
process and placement of reinforcing steel. They also reduce the potential for localized
punching shear failure.
All exterior footings should bear at least 24 inches below the adjacent exterior grade. Total
settlement of foundations designed and constructed as recommended above should be
1 inch or less. Settlement calculations were performed in accordance with Schmertmann's
Method for calculating settlement in non -cohesive soils (1978). These calculations can be
found in the Appendix section of the report.
The following items should be considered during the preparation of construction
documents and during foundation installation:
The geotechnical engineer of record should observe exposed foundation bearing
surfaces prior to concrete placement to verify conditions anticipated during the
subsurface exploration are encountered.
All bearing surfaces must be free of soft or loose soil prior to placing concrete.
Concrete should be placed the same day excavations are completed and bearing
materials verified by the engineer. If the excavations are left open for an extended
period, or if the bearing surfaces are disturbed after the initial observation, then
the bearing surfaces should be reevaluated prior to concrete placement.
Page 114

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
Water should not be allowed to pond in foundation excavations prior to concrete
placement or above the concrete after the foundation is completed.
Foundation concrete should not be placed over saturated or frozen ground.
Wherever possible, the foundation concrete should be placed "neat", using the
sides of the excavations as forms. Where this is not possible, the excavations
created by forming the foundations must be backfilled with suitable structural fill
and properly compacted.
■ Foundation concrete should not be place over saturated or frozen ground.
6.0 FLOOR SLABS
Site development recommendations presented in this report should be followed to
provide for subgrade conditions suitable for support of grade supported slabs. Floor
slabs will be supported on either stable, natural subgrade or on compacted structural fill.
We recommend floor slabs for the proposed structures be supported on a minimum four -
inch layer of 1/2-inch up to 11/2-inch, free -draining, gap -graded gravel, such as AASHTO
No. 57 stone, with no more than 5 percent passing the ASTM No. 200 sieve. The purpose
of this layer is to help distribute concentrated loads and act as a capillary break for
moisture migration through the subgrade soil. This gravel material should be
consolidated in -place with vibratory equipment. With the gravel material, such as
AASHTO No. 57 stone, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pci is recommended for
use in the design of grade -supported slabs.
We recommend a minimum 10-mil thick vapor retarder meeting ASTM E 1745, Class C
requirements be placed directly below the slab -on -grade floors. A higher quality vapor
retarder (Class A or B) may be used if desired to further inhibit the migration of moisture
through the slab -on -grade and should be evaluated based on the floor covering and
use. The vapor retarder should extend to the edge of the slab -on -grade floors and should
be sealed at all seams and penetrations. The slab should be appropriately reinforced (if
required) to support the proposed loads.
Page 115

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
7.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
It is our understanding that a parking lot will be constructed for the Military Working Dog
Facility with approximately 30 parking spaces. As requested, both flexible and gravel
pavement recommendations have been included in the following sections. Based on the
materials encountered at the boring locations and after our recommendations for site
preparation are implemented, site pavements may be designed based on a California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 10. CBR testing has been completed on the subject site, and results
can be found in the "Laboratory Testing" section of the appendix.
Pavement analysis and design has been completed using the U.S. Army COE PCASE
2.09.05 pavement design program. Assumed traffic loads can be found in table 6 below.
Design and analysis are based on the provided traffic loading over a 25-year design life.
Car— Passenger 1,825,000 1,825,000 2,737,500
Truck — 2 Axle, 6 Tire -- -- 27,375
Truck — 3 Axle -- -- 19,714
Truck — 4 Axle -- -- I 21,434
Table 7: Assumed Traffic Volume J
It is the owner's responsibility to evaluate whether or not the traffic volumes shown
above are in line with those expected. If the owner would like Building & Earth to assess
other likely traffic volumes, we will gladly review other options.
Note: All subgrade, base and pavement construction operations should meet minimum
requirements of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The
applicable sections of the specifications are identified as follows:
Bituminous Asphalt Wearing Layer Division 6
Bituminous Asphalt Binder Layer Division 6
Mineral Aggregate Base Materials Div. 5, Section 520
Table 8: NCDOT Specification Sections
Page 116

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
The following flexible pavement sections were analyzed for suitability based upon the
traffic loading and other parameters tabulated above.
.e
Table 9: Flexible Pavement Recommendations
Asphalt
Stabilized Base
All pavement components must be placed and compacted in accordance with the
applicable sections of the North Carolina Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction. All subgrade, base and pavement construction operations should meet
minimum requirements of this document.
7.2 GRAVEL PAVEMENT
The following gravel pavement sections are based on the design parameters presented
a bove:
6.0 ABC Stone (Aggregate Base Course)
Table 10: Gravel Pavement Recommendations
It is our understanding that a new gravel parking lot option will be considered for the
project site. Building & Earth recommends pavement section consisting of at least 6 inches
of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) compliant ABC Stone on
stabilized subbase.
8.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION
The subgrade soils often become disturbed during the period between initial site grading
and construction of surface improvements. The amount and depth of disturbance will
vary with soil type, weather conditions, construction traffic, and drainage. The engineer
should evaluate the subgrade soil during final grading and prior to stone placement to
verify that the subgrade is suitable to receive pavement base or floor slabs. The final
evaluation may include proofrolling or density tests.
Page 117

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
Subgrade rehabilitation can become a point of controversy when different contractors are
responsible for mass and final grading. The construction documents should specifically
state which contractor will be responsible for maintaining and rehabilitating the subgrade.
Rehabilitation may include wetting, mixing, and re -compacting soils that have dried
excessively or drying soils that have become wet.
9.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Field verification of site conditions is an essential part of the services provided by the
geotechnical consultant. In order to confirm our recommendations, it will be necessary
for Building & Earth personnel to make periodic visits to the site during site grading.
Typical construction monitoring services are listed below.
Site stripping and subgrade evaluation
Placement of controlled, engineered fill
Foundation bearing surfaces, reinforcing steel and concrete
■ All other items subject to IBC Special Inspections
10.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for Stantec, for specific application to the Military Working Dog
Training Facility located in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The information in this report is not
transferable. This report should not be used for a different development on the same
property without first being evaluated by the engineer.
The recommendations in this report were based on the information obtained from our
field exploration and laboratory analysis. The data collected is representative of the
locations tested. Variations are likely to occur at other locations throughout the site.
Engineering judgment was applied in regards to conditions between borings. It will be
necessary to confirm the anticipated subsurface conditions during construction.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted standards of
geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is expressed or implied. In the
event that changes are made, or anticipated to be made, to the nature, design, or location
of the project as outlined in this report, Building & Earth must be informed of the changes
and given the opportunity to either verify or modify the conclusions of this report in
writing, or the recommendations of this report will no longer be valid.
Page 118

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
Military Working Dog Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Project No: RD190229, May 21, 2019
The scope of services for this project did not include any environmental assessment of
the site or identification of pollutants or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner
is concerned about environmental issues Building & Earth would be happy to provide an
additional scope of services to address those concerns.
This report is intended for use during design and preparation of specifications and may
not address all conditions at the site during construction. Contractors reviewing this
information should acknowledge that this document is for design information only.
An article published by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), titled Important
Information About Your Geotechnica( Report, has been included in the Appendix. We
encourage all individuals to become familiar with the article to help manage risk.
Page 119

Appendix Table of Contents
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES........................................................................................... 1
DRILLING PROCEDURES —STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586)........................... 1
BORING LOG DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................2
DEPTH AND ELEVATION................................................................................................................................ 2
SAMPLETYPE.....................................................................................................................................................2
SAMPLENUMBER.............................................................................................................................................2
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD%................................................................................................. 2
SOILDATA...........................................................................................................................................................2
SOIL DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................................... 3
GRAPHIC.............................................................................................................................................................. 3
REMARKS............................................................................................................................................................. 3
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................4
KEYTO LOGS......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
KEYTO HATCHES................................................................................................................................................................7
BORING LOCATION PLAN...............................................................................................................................................
8
SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES..........................................................................................................................................9
BORINGLOGS.....................................................................................................................................................................10
INFILTRATION DATA........................................................................................................................................................11
SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE DATA.....................................................................................................................12
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES..............................................................................................................................13
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488) .............................13
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2216)...............................................................................13
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318)..........................................................................................................13
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTM D1140).....................................13
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D1557)............................................................13
LABORATORY CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (ASTM D1883).......................................................14
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS.....................................................................................................................15
Table A-1: General Soil Classification Test Results.......................................................................15
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT ............................16

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES
The subsurface exploration, which is the basis of the recommendations of this report, has
been performed in accordance with industry standards. Detailed methodologies employed
in the investigation are presented in the following sections.
DRILLING PROCEDURES — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D 7586)
At each boring location, soil samples were obtained at standard sampling intervals with a
split -spoon sampler. The borehole was first advanced to the sample depth by augering and
the sampling tools were placed in the open hole. The sampler was then driven 18 inches
into the ground with a 140-pound manual hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of
blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment was recorded. The initial
increment is considered the "seating" blows, where the sampler penetrates loose or
disturbed soil in the bottom of the borehole.
The blows required to penetrate the final two (2) increments are added together and are
referred to as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value. The N-value, when properly
evaluated, gives an indication of the soil's strength and ability to support structural loads.
Many factors can affect the SPT N-value, so this result cannot be used exclusively to evaluate
soil conditions.
Samples retrieved from the boring locations were labeled and stored in plastic bags at the
jobsite before being transported to our laboratory for analysis. The project engineer
prepared Boring Logs summarizing the subsurface conditions at the boring locations.

BORING LOG DESCRIPTION
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. used the gINT software program to prepare the attached boring
logs. The gINT program provides the flexibility to custom design the boring logs to include
the pertinent information from the subsurface exploration and results of our laboratory
analysis. The soil and laboratory information included on our logs is summarized below:
DEPTH AND ELEVATION
The depth below the ground surface and the corresponding elevation are shown in the first
two columns.
The method used to collect the sample is shown. The typical sampling methods include Split
Spoon Sampling, Shelby Tube Sampling, Grab Samples, and Rock Core. A key is provided at
the bottom of the log showing the graphic symbol for each sample type.
SAMPLE NUMBER
Each sample collected is numbered sequentially.
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD%
When Standard Split Spoon sampling is used, the blows required to drive the sampler each 6-
inch increment are recorded and shown in column 5. When rock core is obtained the recovery
ration (REC%) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD%) is recorded.
SOIL DATA
Column 6 is a graphic representation of four different soil parameters. Each of the parameters
use the same graph, however, the values of the graph subdivisions vary with each parameter.
Each parameter presented on column 6 is summarized below:
N-value- The Standard Penetration Test N-value, obtained by adding the number of
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches, is recorded . The graph labels
range from 0 to 50.
• Atterberg Limits — The Atterberg Limits are plotted with the plastic limit to the left, and
liquid limit to the right, connected by a horizontal line. The difference in the plastic and
liquid limits is referred to as the Plasticity Index. The Atterberg Limits test results are
also included in the Remarks column on the far right of the boring log. The Atterberg
Limits graph labels range from 0 to 100%.
— The Natural Moisture Content of the soil sample as determined in our
laboratory.
Page I A-2

SOIL DESCRIPTION
The soil description prepared in accordance with ASTM D2488, Visual Description of Soil
Samples. The Munsel Color chart is used to determine the soil color. Strata changes are
indicated by a solid line, with the depth of the change indicated on the left side of the line and
the elevation of the change indicated on the right side of the line. If subtle changes within a
soil type occur, a broken line is used. The Boring Termination or Auger Refusal depth is shown
as a solid line at the bottom of the boring.
GRAPHIC.
The graphic representation of the soil type is shown. The graphic used for each soil type is
related to the Unified Soil Classification chart. A chart showing the graphic associated with
each soil classification is included.
HLMAHK.
Remarks regarding borehole observations, and additional information regarding the
laboratory results and groundwater observations.
Page I A-3

Geocechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Coarse
Grained
Soils
More than
50% of
material is
larger than
No. 200
sieve
size
Fine
Grained
Soils
More than
50% of
material is
smaller
than
No. 200
sieve
size
Gravel and
Gravelly
Soils
More than
50% of
coarse
fraction is
larger than
No. 4 sieve
Sand and
Sandy
Soils
More than
50% of
coarse
fraction is
smaller than
No. 4
sieve
Silts and
Clays
Liquid Limit
less than 50
Silts and
Clays
Liquid Limit
greater than
50 sieve
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
1 � Im / � Im
91166 S• 6',
Gw
Well -graded gravels, gravel — sand mixtures, little or
Clean Gravels
,
no fines
(Less than 5% fines)
0 0� oo °�
Id
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel — sand mixtures, little
D� pFGP
0
or no fines
a
L
C
GM
Silty gravels, gravel —sand —silt mixtures
Gravels with Fines
(More than 72% fines)
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel —sand —clay mixtures
Clean Sands
SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
(Less than 5% fines) Sp Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no
fines
Sands with Fines SM Silty sands, sand —silt mixtures
(More than 72% fines)
Inorganic
Organic
Inorganic
Organic
Highly Organic Soils
SC
Clayey sands, sand — clay mixtures
Inorganic silts and very find sands, rock flour, silty or
ML
clayey fine sands or clayey silt with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly
clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
jCL
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
— — — —
— — _
OL
MH IInorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
sand, or silty soils
CH I Inorganic clays of high plasticity
OH IOrganic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic
silts
„ PT Peat humus, swamp soils with high organic
L� r � r • r
contents
.1 11 %% 11 14 fr 11
Page I A-4

Geotechnica1, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Building & Earth Sciences classifies soil in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) presented in ASTM D2487. Table 1
and Figure 1 exemplify the general guidance of
the USCS. Soil consistencies and relative densities
are presented in general accordance with
Terzaghi, Peck, & Mesri's (1996) method, as
shown on Table 2, when quantitative field and/or
laboratory data is available. Table 2 includes
Consistency and Relative Density correlations
with N-values obtained using either a manual
hammer (60 percent efficiency) or automatic
hammer (90 percent efficiency). The Blows Per
Increment and SPT N-values displayed on the
boring logs are the unaltered values measured in
the field. When field and/or laboratory data is not
available, we may classify soil in general
accordance with the Visual Manual Procedure
presented in ASTM D2488.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
60
oe
50 J�
CH or OH
a
X 40
v
30 P
a✓
CL or OL
20
a
10 MH orOH
4 CL M MLorOL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (LL)
Non -cohesive: Coarse -Grained Soil
Cohesive: Fine -Grained
Soil
SPT Penetration
Estimated Range of
SPT Penetration
(blows/foot)
Unconfined Compressive
Consistency
(blows/foot)
Relative
Automatic
Manual
Strength (tsf)
Density
Hammer*
Hammer
Automatic Manual
< 2
< 2
Very Soft
< 0.25
Hammer* Hammer
0-3 0-4
Very Loose
2 - 3
2-4
Soft
0.25 — 0.50
3-8 4 - 10
Loose
3-6
4-8
Medium Stiff
0.50 — 1.00
8-23 10- 30
Medium Dense
6 - 12
8 - 15
15 - 30
Stiff
Very Stiff
1.00 — 2.00
2.00 — 4.00
> 4.00
23 - 38
30- 50
Dense 12 -23
Very Dense > 23
> 38
> 50
> 30
Hard
* - Modified based on 80% hammer efficiency
Page I A-5

Geocechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Standard Dynamic Cone
Penetration Test Penetrometer
ASTM D1586 or (Sower DCP)
AASHTO T-206 ASTM STP-399
Shelby Tube
Sampler No Sample
O
ASTM D1587 Recovery
Rock Core Sample -v Groundwater at
ASTM D2113 - Time of Drilling
Auger Cuttings
Groundwater as
Indicated
KEY TO LOGS
Soil
Particle Size
U.S. Standard
Boulders
Larger than 300 mm
N.A.
Cobbles
300 mm to 75 mm
N.A.
Gravel
75 mm to 4.75 mm
3-inch to #4 sieve
Coarse
75 mm to 19 mm
3-inch to 3/4-inch sieve
Fine
19 mm to 4.75 mm
3/4-inch to #4 sieve
Sand
4.75 mm to 0.075 mm
#4 to #200 Sieve
Coarse
4.75 mm to 2 mm
#4 to #10 Sieve
Medium
2 mm to 0.425 mm
#10 to #40 Sieve
Fine
0.425 mm to 0.075 mm
#40 to #200 Sieve
Fines
Less than 0.075 mm
Passing #200 Sieve
Silt
Less than 5 pm
N.A.
Clay
Less than 2 pm N.A.
Table•. • Sieve Sizes
Standard Penetration Test Resistance A measure of a soil's plasticity characteristics in
N-Value Atterberg general accordance with ASTM D4318. The soil
calculated using ASTM D1586 or AASHTO T- Limits
Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this
❑ 206. Calculated as sum of original, field i characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit (LL)
recorded values. PL LL
and the Plastic Limit (PL).
Qu Unconfined compressive strength, typically P 9 tYP Y 35 Moisture percent natural moisture content in general
estimated from a pocket penetrometer. Results
are presented in tons per square foot (tsf). accordance with ASTM D2216.
Hollow Stem Auger Flights on the outside of the shaft advance soil cuttings to the surface. The
hollow stem allows sampling through the middle of the auger flights.
Mud Rotary / A cutting head advances the boring and discharges a drilling fluid to
Wash Bore support the borehole and circulate cuttings to the surface.
Solid Flight Auger Flights on the outside bring soil cuttings to the surface. Solid stem requires
removal from borehole during sampling.
Hand Auger Cylindrical bucket (typically 3-inch diameter and 8 inches long) attached to a
metal rod and turned by human force.
Descriptor
Meaning
Trace
Likely less than 5%
Few
5 to 10%
Little
15 to 25%
Some
30 to 45%
Mostly
50 to 100%
. •le
5: Descripto
Page I A-6

BUILDING
KEY TO LOGS
G eatec h n ical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Manual Hammer
The operator tightens and loosens the rope around a rotating drum assembly to lift
and drop a sliding, 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
Automatic Trip Hammer
An automatic mechanism is used to lift and drop a sliding, 140-pound hammer
falling 30 inches.
Uses a 15-pound steel mass falling 20 inches to strike an anvil and cause penetration
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
of a 1.5-inch diameter cone seated in the bottom of a hand augered borehole. The
(Sower DCP) ASTM STP-399
blows required to drive the embedded cone a depth of 1-3/4 inches have been
correlated by others to N-values derived from the Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
Non -plastic A 1/8-inch thread cannot be rolled at any water content.
Low
The thread can barely be rolled and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the
plastic limit.
The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The
Medium thread cannot be re -rolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when
drier than the plastic limit. _ _
It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit The thread
High can be re -rolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be
formed without crumblina when drier than the plastic limit.
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.
Moist Damp but no visible water.
Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table.
Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/2 inch thick.
Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4 inch thick.
Fissured Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing.
Slickensides Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.
Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further
breakdown.
Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered
through a mass of clay.
Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.
.. -
Page I A-7

BUILDING &EARTH
Geocechnlcal. Environmental, and Materials Engineers
IMP IM /W
`� �■ �`� GW - Well -graded gravels, gravel — sand
+ + mixtures, little or no fines
ya° '0 GP - Poorly -graded gravels, gravel — sand
o O a b mixtures, little or no fines
v �
°o a - GM - Silty gravels, gravel — sand — silt
O� mixtures
GC - Clayey gravels, gravel — sand — clay
mixtures
SW - Well -graded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fines
SP - Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fines
' SM - Silty sands, sand — silt mixtures
F SC - Clayey sands, sand — clay mixtures
ML - Inorganic silts and very find sands,
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
sands or clayey silt with slight plasticity
CL - Inorganic clays of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy
days, si!ty clays, lean clays
OL - Organic silts and organic silty clays
of low plasticity
MH - Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sand, or silty soils
CH - Inorganic clays of high plasticity
OH - Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity, organic silts
PT - Peat, humus, swamp soils with high
organic contents
W0--9,Q
Asphalt
P,�
aim
°" `` a •.'a "fi}a Concrete
�:•8': d :.'A'•..: a ::�': s
KEY TO HATCHES
Clay with Gravel
a• • Q '•'Qa• • Q
.{ Sand with Gravel
Silt with Gravel
r' &�� Gravel with Sand
.� b.
all
•� Gravel with Clay
� S s
Gravel with Silt
Limestone
Chalk
Low and
Plasticity .
, .
Till
0
Cobbles and Boulders
�������♦
Sandstone with Shale
Weathered .,
. .
Sandstone Boulders and Cobbles
o• do• Soil and Weathered
Shale
n '� Rock
V
Page I A-8

BORING LOCATION PLAN
Page I A-9

��, � t � � L. f J•� '% � ' �..� � � I� J f f i r r lI ' • � / f � � r
O
• J
("--r err,/f-' rrJ f -'' �'l;i J ,. r �r I•�`i'if - �,�"/�-�•
Gl
C
m
L
r6
O
!4p
wlwl
CN
'
C
U
N
LL
"0 r8
cm
i
V LT
u
L
ru
jk
O
i+
+ Jy + ;J r r $ y
3w r
J
v
�A
v
�- LL
AA
a
CAUJ
to
v
O
Ll
A rig,
. i F Ur
YflIA
cl
o
r
c
�,% ❑� � � r
co
■
A

SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES
Page I A-10

W
v
km
1
{j
LL
c
i
H
N
oa
0
W
Q
w
I
0
b
'
1
o
N
C z
T o
=
a y
ml
H
Vi Q
U-
O
co
O O
m 7
Q
b
�
O
c
ai
I
v
R �
� �
7•�
Z
I
LU
Y
1
m O m
m
a
.5
c
=
O
y
w
I
n
�LL
N
N
E
LL
L.
c
v
1
m
O
v
p
Z
�
m
I I
�
O
Z
m
c[
I
v
E o
v
v
M. s v O
o
o
v v v E
v o
1 0
N
v N E-
v O
.O .� Ul Ol Ol
Ul
^
J Q aci E v K K
a Y
c w
m° o v v
-6
u
II Q a J >
1
m o E
0 0 v v o
= v
>
01
a
01
Z D
�1
II
a y N
01
01
E1
H
i0 1
cI
0
N1
c �
m
d1
rn1
O
Y ai
cu
V V
DI
> >a
I
01
O I
V1 0
W
N1
V V
I
LLIco
_�
V V
I
Z
N
EI
ro
O ro
N
o
Y
cI
W1
�Y
o 3
U
0 O c
O
N
�a°v
�
I I
1
I
Z m m
m m
�n O ro
N m
O to
N
I
I
I
0
m�
I
0
`
1
�-
Z
Z
m N N
m ro
m
N
m� o
COO
N N
N N
N
(}aa}) NOIlVAII3
N N
N
rn
6l/£l/S fd9'1NI5snonNIlNOD6ZZ0614?J M3N 3TJMJd

�
d
_
:
`
0
°
/
3
�\
@)
§
2
■a\2
.�
2
_
=
Ea—
)az
I�§
� %
®
�b
r
_
.E
».
^
oƒ
N■-
/
o
-
�f
4 t
.M
j
-
z
L\
j
m
§
2
3
>
/
!)f/
>�\)/_
\�\VE -
:c
/)/-uwo
j
_
/ƒ\o o _
;\23±!! o-
o)
_ )tt--,
\\`))
,
\ >#
�
ff]
ul
m
I u
0 )
:
�:
`
/
J
�
j 2
py No Azn
mmmr ae:mmmm6EE06ra mN 3,m+

BORING LOGS
Page I A-11

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Military Working Dog Facility @ SOTF
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190229
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550 ATV
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
South Parking Lot Entrance
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-01
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/30/19
WEATHER:
69 degrees, sunny
ELEVATION:
274.0
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
M. Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
a
p
z
O
Q
w
w
w
J
a
zz
J
0-
<
`^
H
n w
w 2
Z
10 20 30 40
Q
m
Q
SOIL DESCRIPTION
V
_
l7
REMARKS
A Qu (tsf) A
1 2 3 4
1 Atterberg Limits I
20 40 60 80
• % Moisture •
20 40 60 80
1
4-4-6-5
.. .:..:..:..:..:..:.
Sample 1
M: . /
12 2
0.6 TOPSOIL: (Approximately 7") 273.4
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, red dish
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
2
8-19-22-31
..:..:..:... :..:..:..:.
dense, reddish -yellow
270
5
3
18-24-23-2
4
16-24-16-3
..:..:.....:..:..:..:..:..:..
7.8 266.2
'
265
5
11-1z-11-1s
":'
8 f t
cave-in at 7 ee
after pulling augers
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense,Boring
reddish -yellow, fine to medium grained, moist
10
10.0 264.0
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
260
15
255
20
250
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
25
drilling.
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
245
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Military Working Dog Facility @ SOTF
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190229
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550 ATV
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
North Parking Lot Entrance
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-02
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/29/19
WEATHER:
69 degrees, sunny
ELEVATION:
269.0
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
M. Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
a
p
z
O
Q
w
w
w
J
a
zz
J
0-
<
`^
H
n w
w 2
Z
10 20 30 40
Q
m
Q
SOIL DESCRIPTION
V
_
l7
REMARKS
A Qu (tsf) A
1 2 3 4
1 Atterberg Limits I
20 40 60 80
• % Moisture •
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: (Approximately 3")
1
9-11-9-12
...................:..
I en CLAYEY SAND (SC): med�um d se,
reddish -yellow, fine to medium grained, moist
2
13-16-13-1
..:..: :..:..:..:..:..:..:..
265-X
5
3
12-12-13-1
4
14-16-18-1
..:..:..: :..:..:..:..:.
dense
10
260
X
5
12-9-9-8
• .
. . . . . . .
Sample 5
111
M: %
medium dense
10.0 259.0':
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Bo cave in at 8
ring c 6 feet
after pulling augers
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
255
15
250
20
245
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
25
drilling.
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
240
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Military Working Dog Facility @ SOTF
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190229
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550 ATV
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
South Parking Lot
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-03
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/30/19
WEATHER:
69 degrees, sunny
ELEVATION:
276.0
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
M. Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: (Approximately 6")
i CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, se,
275
1
3-7-8-8
..: ...............
reddish -yellow, fine to medium grained, moist
2
8-23-17-24
..:..:..: :..:..:..:..:.
dense
5
3
15-19-21-2
Sample 3
M: 13.1 %
270
4
15-9-9-12
":""':":":":":":":"
7.4 medium dense 268.E:'.
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, light
Boring caved -in at 7.5 feet
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
,. .: ..
after pulling augers
5
9-10-10-14
..:. .:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
10
10.0 266.0
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 10 feet
265
15
260
20
255
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
25
drilling.
250
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Military Working Dog Facility @ SOTF
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190229
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550 ATV
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
North Parking Lot
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-04
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/29/19
WEATHER:
69 degrees, sunny
ELEVATION:
270.0
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
M. Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
a
p
z
O
Q
w
w
w
J
a
zz
J
0-
<
`^
H
n w
w 2
Z
10 20 30 40
Q
m
Q
SOIL DESCRIPTION
V
_
l7
REMARKS
A Qu (tsf) A
1 2 3 4
1 Atterberg Limits I
20 40 60 80
• % Moisture •
20 40 60 80
-
2­1
TOPSOIL: (Approximately 6")
'� '' '��
e i CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium m dense, reddish
X
1
4-6-5-7
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
2
4-4-4-5
.....:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
loose
5
265
3
5-6-5-4
medium dense
6.0 264.0
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, reddish -yellow, fine
to medium grained, moist
4
3-3-3-8
Sample 4
M: 5 .5 o
5
4-6-8-7
medium dense
Boring caved -in at 9 feet
10
260
10.0 260.0
(COASTAL PLAIN)
:: '
after pulling augers
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
15
255
20
250
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Groundwater not
encountered at time of
25
245
drilling.
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Military Working Dog Facility @ SOTF
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190229
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550 ATV
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
South East Corner Builidng Pad
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-05
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/30/19
WEATHER:
69 degrees, sunny
ELEVATION:
279.5
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
M. Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
_X
TOPSOIL: (Approximately 6")
'� ' ��
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium d dense,
1
14-10-8-8
... ...............
reddish -yellow, fine to medium grained, moist
_X
2
5-6-6-8
.....:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
275-X
5
3
3-4-7-9
4
8-21-23-30
........: .........
dense
_X
6
0-16-20-2
.......... ................
270
10
-
_X
6
16-23-22-2
..:..:..:..: :..:..:..:..:..
'
Sample 7
13.5 266.0
LL:25
7
PL: 22
SILTY SAND (SM). medium dense, light brown,
265
11-11-12
0
PI: 3
fine to medium grained, moist
15
M: 12.4%
F: 20.3 %
260
8
11-12-14
..:..:
.:..:..:..:..:..:.
Boring caved -in at 19.4 feet
20
after pulling augers
9
..:..:.
:..:..:..:..:.
Groundwater not
255
13-13-1a
25.0 254.5
:':
encountered at time of
25
(COASTAL PLAIN)
drilling.
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
250
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Military Working Dog Facility @ SOTF
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190229
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550 ATV
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
South West Corner Building Pad
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-06
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/29/19
WEATHER:
69 degrees, sunny
ELEVATION:
283.0
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
M. Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: (Approximately 6")
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP SM):
1
3-2-3-4
..................
Sample 2
loose, brown, fine to medium grained, moist
LL: NP
280
2
3-3-3-3
P L: NP
PI: NP
M: 5.1
F: 10.2%
5
3
s-s-e-s
light brown
..... .......................
6.0 277.0
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense,
4
9-12-14-18
":":""':":":":":":"
brown, fine to medium grained, moist
275
_X
5
11-16-20-2
dense, reddish -yellow
10
6
12-21-22-23
..:..:..:..: :..:..:..:..:..
:..
270
7
14-13-15
..:..:. :..:..:..:..:..:..:
medium dense
15
265
18.5 264.5:.
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense,
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
8
10-e-10
reddish -yellow, fine to medium grained, moist
20
Boring caved -in at 20.5 feet
after pulling augers
260
g
..:. :..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Groundwater not
e-8-11
25.0 258.0
:::
encountered at time of
25
(COASTAL PLAIN)
drilling.
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Military Working Dog Facility @ SOTF
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190229
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550 ATV
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
South Center Building Pad
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-07
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/29/19
WEATHER:
69 degrees, sunny
ELEVATION:
278.0
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
M. Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: (Approximately 6")
CLAYEY SAND (SC)brown, loose, b , fine to
1
3-3-5-4
medium grained, moist
275
2
3-8-17-15
medium dense
5
3
10-15-18-2
dense, reddish -yellow
4
12-16-15-1
..:..:. .:..:..:..:..:..:..
','.
270
8.2 269.8
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense reddish
sh
5
9-9-7-9
yellow, fine to medium grained, moist
e w, f m ra d,
10
Sample 6
LL:22
_X
6
8767
.. .R.:..:..:..:..:..:..:
PL:20
PI:2
M: 10.4%
F: 14.6%
265
7
8-5-7
.. ..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
15
260
ft GW encountered at 18.5 .
brown, et
light wn, w
t time of drilling
a d Il ng
8
6_g_7
20
Boring caved -in at 18.5 feet
after pulling augers
255
........
9
3-6-12
................. :..:..:..:..
25
25.0 253.0
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Military Working Dog Facility @ SOTF
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190229
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550 ATV
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
North Center Building Pad
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-08
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/29/19
WEATHER:
69 degrees, sunny
ELEVATION:
276.0
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
M. Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: (Approximately 6")
I CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, se,
275
1
4-6-7-11
..: ...............
reddish -brown, fine to medium grained, moist
2
6-4-4-4
..... :..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
loose
Sample 3
ILL: 40
5
3
4-3-4-3
PL:24
PI:16
270
M: 12.7%
24 8 /
F: . o
_X
4
:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
7.0 269.0.
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC SM): loose,
3-3-3-4
Sample 5
f m ra d,
reddish-yellow,ine to medium grained, moist
LL:23
5
'................
P L: 19
6-5-3-4
PI: 4
10
M: 9.7 %
F: 16.3%
265
6
6-9-5-3
11.0 265.0
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, light
brownt d , fine o me ium grained, moist
6-6-5
15
260
.................:..:..
_ �
GW encountered at 18 ft.
at time of drilling
$
8-7 $
te, w
white, et
Boring caved -in at 1 86 feet
20
after pulling augers
255
9
13-15-14
light brown
'.'.
25
25.0 251.0
'.'
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 25 feet n T
250
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Military Working Dog Facility @ SOTF
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190229
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550 ATV
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
North West Corner Building Pad
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-09
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/29/19
WEATHER:
69 degrees, sunny
ELEVATION:
279.0
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
M. Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: (Approximately 6")
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, red -yellow, f me to
1
3-3-3-5
...:..:..:..:..:..:....
.....:..:..:..:..:........
medium grained, moist
2
11-13-19-21
..:..:..:.....:..:..:..:..:..
dense
275
5
3
13-13-11-1
medium dense
Sample 4
6.0 273.0
LL: 23
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, light brown,
4
6-6-6-9
" :1
PL :22
PI: 1
fine to medium grained, moist
M: 12.7%
F: 21.8 %
270
5
8-9-11-10
.............................
10
_X
6
7-9-10-12
:. ......................
'
265
7
9-9-11
15
.................:..:..
Sample 8
LL:83
260
8
9-8-16
.......................
•
PL. 36
PI: 47
19.4 259.6
:..' .'.'
HIGH PLASTICITY CLAY (CH): very stiff,
20
M: 29.6%
Boring caved -in at 20 feet
F: 93.3%
gray, moist
after pulling augers
23.5 Q255.5
SILTY SAND (SM): dense, light brown, fine to
255
GW encountered at 23.5 ft.
9
11-n-16
medium grained, wet
25.0 254.0
:.
at time of drilling
g
25
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
250
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME:
Military Working Dog Facility @ SOTF
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD190229
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550 ATV
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
BORING LOCATION:
North East Corner Building Pad
LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-10
Sheet 1 of 1
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
LOCATION:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
DATE DRILLED:
4/29/19
WEATHER:
69 degrees, sunny
ELEVATION:
276.0
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drilling
LOGGED BY:
M. Lumpkin
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
z
zz
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL: (Approximately 6"
d
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, reddish brown,
275
1
1-2-5-10
........
fine to medium grained, moist
2
13-18-21-23
..:..:..:.....:..:..:..:.
dense
5
3
12-17-22-2
reddish yellow
270
_X
4
8-12-13-14
..:..: :..:..:..:..:..:
medium dense
5
14-15-15-1
..:..:. .:..:..:..:..:..:.
dense
10
265
14.0 262.0
7
8-10-13
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, reddish
15
yellow, fine to medium grained, moist
260
8
11-15-15
20
Boring caved -in at 20 feet
after fter pulling augers
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Sample 9
�
LL: 21
GW encountered at 23.5 ft.
X
9
7-9-11
p
I: 18
wet
at time of drilling
25
. . . . . . . . .
M:21.9%
25.0 251.0.::
'.
F: 16.1 %
(COASTAL PLAIN)
Boring Terminated at 25 feet.
250
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL • Tuscaloosa, AL
Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC • Jacksonville, NC
Springdale, AR 9 Little Rock, AR 9 Tulsa, OK 9 Oklahoma City, OK 9 Durant, OK

INFILTRATION DATA
Page I A-12

Project Name: MWD Facility @ SOTF
Client Name: Stantec
Technician: Monique Lumpkin
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: 1-02
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Depth of Water Table:
Constants:
Capacity
LiquidContainers
setting
Rate cm'/cm
Sight Tube
1 L
n
27979--
Storage Tube
5L
n
5.
Flow rate use
Project Number: RD190229
Report Number: 1 of
Date: 5/2/2019
N/A Water Temp (IF):
Depth of Observed Water
d: 105 Hole Diameter:
2
rr or
N/A inches
3 inches
Start Saturation: 9:04 Water Head: 5.4 inches
Hole Radius: 1.500 Hole Depth: 45 inches
Test Data
MEN
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A I Total
Flow Readings
Flow Kate
in'/hr
Conductivity
Stabilized Kat in /hr

Project Name: MWD Facility @ SOTF
Client Name: Stantec
Technician: Monique Lumpkin
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: 1-03
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Depth of Water Table:
Constants:
Capacity
LiquidContainers
setting
Rate cm'/cm
Sight Tube
1 L
n
27979--
Storage Tube
5L
n
5.
Flow rate use
Project Number: RD190229
Report Number: 2 of
Date: 5/2/2019
N/A Water Temp (IF):
Depth of Observed Water
d: 105 Hole Diameter:
2
cr or
N/A inches
3 inches
Start Saturation: 10:07 Water Head: 11.75 inches
Hole Radius: 1.500 Hole Depth: 54 inches
I-est Vata
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A Total
Flow Readings
Flow Kate
in3/hr
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
Flow
cm3
Ksat In/hr
1
S
5/2
10 :07
0.02
0.02
48.0
105
105
384.45
0.83
E
5/2
10:08
47.0
2
S
5/2
10 :08
0.02
0.03
47.0
105
105
384.45
0.83
E
5/2
10:09
46.0
3
S
5/2
10 :09
0.02
0.05
46.0
105
157.5
576.67
1.25
E
5/2
10 :10
44.5
4
S
5/2
10 :10
0.02
0.07
44.5
105
105
384.45
0.83
E
5/2
10:11
43.5
5
S
5/2
10 :11
0.02
0.08
43.5
105
157.5
576.67
1.25
E
5/2
10 :12
42.0
6
S
5/2
10 :12
0 02
0.10105
157.5
576.67
1.25
E
5/2
10:13
N
7E
S
5/2
10 :13
0 02
0.12105
157.5
576.67
1.25
5/2
10:14
8
S
E
9
S
E
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
Stabilized Ksatln/hr
1.25
1-03

SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE DATA
Page I A-13

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
May 16, 2019
Mr. Kurt Miller, PE
Building and Earth Sciences, LLP
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Re: Seasonal High -Water Table (SHWT) evaluation for potential stormwater
retention/treatment areas, BES Project ## RD 1902129, MWD Facility @ SOTF off
Lamont Road, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Miller,
An evaluation of soil properties on a portion of the aforementioned property has been
conducted at your request. A map showing the test locations is attached. The purpose
of the investigation was to determine seasonal soil water table depths for use in
stormwater retention/treatment design.
Soils at the test site appear to be most similar to the Blaney soil series (see attached
boring logs). Three borings were advanced to a depth of at least 8.0 feet below the soil
surface. Seasonal High -Water Table (SHWT) as determined by evidence of colors of
chroma 2 or less was encountered at varying deaths (greater than 72 inches) below the
existing ground surface. The attached chart shows each boring with SHWT depths.
I trust this is the information you require at this time.
Sincerely,
XV, 4 6 5 � _0
Mike Eaker
President
SOIL ic"'
7r_L D.
SOIUSITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Sox 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
SHWT depths, MWD Facility@SOTF, off Lamont Road, Fort Bragg,
NC
BORING SHWT DEPTH (inches) Observed Water inches
I-01 >72 None
I-02 106 86
I-03 84 72
Observed water is related to temporary lateral water (not SHWT).
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 23311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Soil Boring Log (Boring 1-01), MWD Facility @ SOTF, off Lamont Road, Fort
Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained soils on uplands_ These soils formed in loamy
and sandy sediments. Slopes range from 2 to 8 percent.
A - 0 to 2 inches; brown (IOYR 4/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; many fine roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
E - 2 to 14 inches; yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) loamy sand; approximately 10 percent
clean sand; single grained; loose; very friable; abrupt smooth boundary.
Bt - 14 to 42 inches; yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy loam to sandy clay loam; moderate
medium to weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable to firm; gradual wavy
boundary.
BC - 42 to 50 inches; mixed mottled yellowish red (5YR 5/8) and red (2.5YR 4/8) sandy
clay loam to clay loam; weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual diffuse
boundary.
C - 50 to 72 inches; mixed mottled yellowish red (5YR 5/8) and red (2.5YR 4/8) sandy
loam.; weak fine subangular blocky structure; very friable.
SHWT > 72 inches
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Soil Boring Log (Boring I-02), MWD Facility @ SOTF, off Lamont Road, Fort
Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained soils on uplands. These soils formed in loamy
and sandy sediments. Slopes range from 2 to 8 percent.
A - 0 to 2 inches; brown (10YR 4/2) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; many fine roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
E - 2 to 34 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) loamy sand; single grained; loose; very
friable; abrupt smooth boundary.
Bt - 34 to 56 inches; yellowish red (5YR 4/6) sandy loam to sandy clay loam; moderate
medium to weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable to firm; gradual wavy
boundary.
C 1 - 56 to 106 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) to yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy
loam; weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual diffuse boundary.
C2 - 106 to 118 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam; many medium
prominent (10YR 7/2) mottles; massive structure; very friable.
SHWT @ 106 inches (10YR 7/2)
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USEISUBDIV00N PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING - SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email mike @southeasternsoil.com
Soil Boring Log (Boring 1-03), MWD Facility @ SOTF, off Lamont Road, Fort
Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained soils on uplands. These soils formed in loamy
and sandy sediments. Slopes range from 2 to 8 percent.
A - 0 to 10 inches; dark gray (IOYR 4/1) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; many fine roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
E - 10 to 49 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) to yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) coarse
sand; single grained; loose; very friable; gradual diffuse smooth boundary.
Bt - 49 to 84 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) to yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) sandy
loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; gradual diffuse boundary.
C - 84 to 98 inches; gray (IOYR 5/1) coarse sand; single grained; loose; very friable.
SHWT @ 84 inches (10YR 5/1)
SOIUSITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

fM
60
r
n
m
0
A
0
w
0 ,1
ro
�-Ln
n
l�1
LOU'
.ate-, ryCb >TI �.%+7'p
f, ocrk r ;
cn- jp >
O E7 -
�y t
M14 m +�
M :#
a
OCVI
r^�
� N
as
p' N
w 5s
a

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
A brief description of the laboratory tests performed is provided in the following sections.
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488)
The soil samples were visually examined by our engineer and soil descriptions were
provided. Representative samples were then selected and tested in accordance with the
aforementioned laboratory -testing program to determine soil classifications and
engineering properties. This data was used to correlate our visual descriptions with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2216)
Natural moisture contents (M%) were determined on selected samples. The natural moisture
content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the weight of water in a given amount of
soil to the weight of solid particles.
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318)
The Atterberg Limits test was performed to evaluate the soil's plasticity characteristics. The soil
Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit
(LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The Liquid Limit is the moisture content at which the soil will
flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The Plastic Limit is the moisture content at which the soil is
between "plastic" and the semi -solid stage. The Plasticity Index (PI = LL - PL) is a frequently
used indicator for a soil's potential for volume change. Typically, a soil's potential for volume
change increases with higher plasticity indices.
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTM D 1140)
Grain -size tests were performed to determine the partial soil particle size distribution. The
amount of material finer than the openings on the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm) was determined
by washing soil over the No. 200 sieve. The results of wash #200 tests are presented on the
boring logs included in this report and in the table of laboratory test results.
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D 7557)
Modified Proctor compaction tests were performed to determine the maximum dry density
and optimum moisture content for the soil, for use as a comparative basis during fill placement.
The Modified Proctor test consists of the compaction of soil with known moisture content into
a steel mold of fixed height and diameter. The soil is compacted in the mold in five lifts of
equal volume using a 10 lb. manual hammer with an 18-inch free fall, to produce a consistent
compactive effort. The test procedure is repeated on samples at several different moisture
contents until a curve showing the relationship between moisture content and dry density of
the soil is established. From this curve, the maximum dry density (peak density value) and
optimum moisture content (moisture content correlating to the maximum dry density) are
obtained.

LABORATORY CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (ASTM D 7883)
The California Bearing Ratio, usually abbreviated CBR, is a punching shear test. The CBR value
is a semi -empirical index of the soil's strength and deflection characteristics and has been
correlated with pavement performance to establish design curves for pavement thickness. The
tests were performed on six-inch diameter, five -inch thick disks of compacted soil, confined in
steel cylinders. The specimens were soaked for at least 96 hours prior to testing. A piston,
approximately two inches in diameter, was forced into the soaked soil at a standard rate to
determine the soil's resistance to penetration. The CBR value is the ratio, expressed as a
percentage, of the actual load required to produce a 0.1-inch deflection to that required for
the same deflection in a certain standard crushed stone.

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the following tables.
ample
Boring or Test Pit SDh
e t
Location a p)
LL PL
pl
% Passing Moisture
#200 Sieve Content (%)
Table A-1: General Soil Classification Test Results
Soils with a Liquid Limit (LL) greater than 50 and Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 25 usually
exhibit significant volume change with varying moisture content and are considered to be
highly plastic. Soils with a LOI value greater than 3 percent are usually not suitable for
supporting building and pavement sections.

Schmertmann Settlement Analysis
Job No.: RD190229 Job Name: Military Working Dog Training Facility
Calculations based on Boring No:
Footing Size, B 6 ft
Bearing Pressure,p 2000 psf
Soil Unit Wt. 115 pcf
Bearing Depth, Fd 2 ft
B-06 (Worst Case Scenario) I Notes
C1= 0.94
C2 = 1.60
t = 100 years
Settlement Estimate
Using N for the layer
Top of
Layer (ft)
*Btm of
Layer (ft)
dz
(inches)
N count (bpf)
Es (tsf)
Zc (inches)
Zc (ft)
Iz
Iz*dz/Es
(in/tsf)
1
2
12
5
4
20
18
1.5
-0.100
-0.060
2
3
12
6
4
24
30
2.5
0.100
0.050
3
4
12
9
4
36
42
3.5
0.300
0.100
4
12
96
26
4
104
96
8
0.400
0.369
Sum = 0.459
Total Estimated Settlement by Schmertmann = 0.69 in
Estimated Potential Settlement = 1 0.35 in
(Schmertmann is typically reduced by a factor of 2)
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
Using Bowles' Equations - Foundation Analysis and Design, 5 ed.
For footing (width, greater than 4 ft.:
l4) l8 B 11z
J kips
QQ = K = allowable soil bearing capacity, in i
z
Qa = \4� \7 7 1� = 2.05 ksf = 2,050 psf z� 2,000 psf allowable bearing capacity
1.11
where:
N=7
K = 1.11
B=6ft.
D=2ft.

May 14, 2019
Project No R-2019-137-001
Mr. Kurt Miller
Building & Earth Sciences, LLC
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
eotechnics
geotechnicaI & geosynthetit testing
Transmittal
Laboratory Test Results
MWD Facility - Fort Bracm, NC
Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined
on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was
performed in general accordance with the methods listed on the enclosed data sheets. The test results are
believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of the
specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and imply no
position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the suitability of the
material for its intended use.
The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and disclosed
to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein is considered integral
with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the authorization of the Client
and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be retained for a minimum of 90 days
as directed by the Geotechnics' Quality Program.
We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further
assistance, please contact our office.
Respectively submitted,
Geotechnics, Inc.
/4.;. "l* �
-
Michael P. Smith
Regional Manager
We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services
and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics.
DCN. Data Tranandttal Letter Date: I128105 Rev.: I
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotechnical & geosynthetic testing
SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-16
Client
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
Boring No.
B-08
Client Reference
MWD Facility - Fort Brag, NC
Depth(ft.)
1-5
Project No.
R-2019-137-001
Sample No.
19-0091-01
Lab ID
R-2019-137-001-001
Visual Description
BROWN
SAND
Test Type
MODIFIED
Molding Method
C
Density
Before
After
Mold ID
R433
Measurement
Soaking
Soaking
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
4225.4
Wt. Mold & WS (gm.)
8526.1
8592.9
Mold Volume (cc)
2121
Wt. WS (gm.)
4300.7
4368
Surcharge (lbs.)
10
Sample Volume (cc)
2121
2121
Piston Area (in2)
3
Wet Density (gm./cc)
2.03
2.06
Sample Height
4.58
Wet Density (pcf)
126.5
128.5
Sample Conditions
Soaked
Blows per Layer
60
Dry Density (pcf)
115.3
115.2
Dry Density (gm./cc)
1.85
1.85
Water
As Begining
After
Before
After
Top 1"
Contents
Rec'd Compaction
Compaction
Soaking
Soaking
After Soak
Tare No.
851 NA
SS-1
AF-05
SS-6
Wt. of T+WS (gm.)
289.62 NA
465.44
1218.49
698.37
Wt. of T+DS (gm.)
282.91 NA
433.08
1116.18
630.07
Wt of Tare (gm.)
139.89 NA
100.27
228.44
100.9
Moisture Content(%)
4.7 NA
9.7
9.7
11.5
12.9
Piston Penetration
Displacement Load Stress Swell
(in.) (lbs.) (psi.) Measurement
0
9.41
3.1
Elapsed
Dial
Percent
0.025
196.31
65.4
Time
Gauge
Swell
0.050
444.35
148.1
(hrs)
(Div)
0.075
682.74
227.6
0.100
939.00
313.0
0.00
131
0.00%
0.125
1135.76
378.6
20.50
131
0.00%
0.150
1268.57
422.9
98.00
132
0.02%
0.175
1347.24
449.1
0.200
1371.65
457.2
0.250
1357.24
452.4
0.300
1342.22
447.4
0.350
1329.76
443.3
0.400
1325.44
441.8
0.450
1332.84
444.3
0.500
1303.39
434.5
0.550
1271.68
423.9
0.600
1266.75
422.3
1Division =
0.001
in.
Tested By SFS Date
519119
Checked By GEM
Date
5/14/19
page 1 of 2
DCN: CT-S27 REVSION: 5 DATE: 11/15/05
Z: 12019 PROJECTSWILDING & EARTH12019-137 B&E - MWD FACILITYI[2019-137-001-001 1CBR TESTNET.xis]SHEET1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Client
Client Reference
Project No.
Lab ID
450.0
400.0
350.0
a 300.0
a
a
L
250.0
c
0
L
c 200.0
N
a
150.0
M
1.1919
eotechnics
geotechnical & geosynthetic testing
SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-16
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. Boring No.
MWD Facility - Fort Brag, NC Depth(ft.)
R-2019-137-001 Sample No.
R-2019-137-001-001 Visual Description
B-08
1-5
19-0091-01
BROWN
SAND
CBR VALUE (0.1") 31.3 %
CBR VALUE (0.2") 30.5 %
CORRECTED CBR VALUE (0.1") 32.8 %
CORRECTED CBR VALUE (0.2") 30.5 %
Penetration Stress vs. Penetration
1
0.0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
Penetration (in)
Tested By SFS Date 519119 Approved By MPS Date 5/14/19
page 2 of 2 DCN: CT-S27 REVSION: 5 DATE: 11/15/05 Z12019 PROJECTSIBUILDING & EARTH12019-137 B&E - MWD FACILITY[2019-137-001-001 1CBR TESTNET.xls]SHEET1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

±U2e#aor
====-I m
I =
§ & < g m
/�ƒ0)co
&
2 y
-
}
-
<
\
c
>
/
Cl)
GGGGGG��
®eeeee>=
_ � _ _ Ln o
)�n®2at
§
/0F
%a\
E
_
/ k7
40-
�
\
�\
3
\
�
|C) \ J
,o 0 0
W�RmKwmmmo
IN IT o
3
3
/@
S
S
a
J
J
=
§>
g
g w
\
j
\
2
2
0
0
LLJ
£
kGS
\
\
\
\
/mCL
j
\
\
_
E
c
\
c
�
5
E
§
ƒ
��
0
/
S
//
S
k
2_
4
k
0
\
0
\
G
=
E
/e
z
a
a =
_
§
_
ƒ
/
/
\
3
3 Cl)
0)k
=
\
co
co -0k
/
J
3
£
\
/
/ 7
<<
z
/
e
Q
Q Cl)
<
0
_

0LO
�-
=c0)
a22/
\\0
@ &'
c \ a
o > g
5*&%
E E m 2
<
}\a
5
j#235c�G
> § g < z
/ w
=
/��_
Cl)
%
e 3i
e
<
\
c
>
/
G G G G G
G��
®eeeee>=
_ _ _
D o t
0
%� 3 0
LL
§
/@ % a »
� ®
a 0
E
_
/
<-F
40-
3
\
�
| \ 2
, o 0
.or_jmmmr_-
■ � o
E
o
/
§
/
7
}
_/
/
\k
/
Cl)
_
E
e
\
§ E
%
r
\
E \
\
\
£
\
°
\
�
e
\ \ \ \ 1-
IIJ = _ _
_
|\

F}0
�-
=c0)
a22/
\\§/
@ &'
c \ a
o > g
5*&%
E E m 2
<
}\a
5
±U2e#aor
====-I m
\/\< C)
\
/
\ �
\
\ \
\
G G G G G G��
®eeeee>=
= D o t
-
c e-
�n(iƒ\ (/
®<_0
&
cam/
(3) m
Jo-
£
\
3
\
-i
|) \ J
,o 0 0
I�
\ }
�/ )
±�
£
_
Cl)
Cl) Cl)
E
E
e
z
\
§
%
r
\
c
E
\
5
=
=
=
J
0
k
q
/
-
Co
\
<
#
\
\
�
e
rITITIT
w — CO a 1-
CO 1- IT LO
wo==
a=ae
S r r r
rwww
»corm
rwww
\-
=0000
=0000
=0000
=moor
amfa
ƒ
/
/f
2! 2
LU
Cl)
0
_

100
90
80
70
iY
W 60
Z
LL
Z 50
W
U
IY
W 40
0_
30
20
10
Particle Size Distribution Report
_ o00
77\
M N \` � 3k 3k 3k 3k 3k 3k 3k 3k
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
% +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt
0.0 0.1 0.1 1.6 40.7 45.1 12.4
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC."
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
1
100.0
.75
99.9
.375
99.9
#4
99.8
#10
98.2
#20
85.1
#40
57.5
#60
32.3
#140
15.2
#200
12.4
(no specification provided)
Location: B-08
Sample Number: 19-0091-01 Depth: 1-5'
Material Description
Brown silty sand
Atterberg Limits
PL= NP LL= NP P1= NP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Coefficients
D90= 1.0375
D85= 0.8482
D60= 0.4475
D50= 0.3661
D30= 0.2349
D15= 0.1032
Dip=
CU=
Cc=
Classification
USCS= SM
AASHTO=
A-2-4(0)
Remarks
As -received water
content=5.3%
Date: 05-08-19
Client: Stantec, Inc.
BUILDING & EARTH Project: MWD Facility (GEO) Fort Bragg, NC
Project No: RD190229 Figure
Checked By: John Dailly

COMPACTION TEST REPORT
126
124
9.3% 122.5
c
122
U
Q
T
.N
C
N
ZAV for
p`
Sp.G. _
120
2.65
118
116
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
1-5'
SM
A-2-4(0)
5.3
NP
NP
0.2
12.4
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 122.5 pcf
Optimum moisture = 9.3 %
Brown silty sand
Project No. RD190229 Client: Stantec, Inc.
Project: MWD Facility (GEO) Fort Bragg, NC
Date: 05-08-19
O Location: B-08 Sample Number: 19-0091-01
Remarks:
Figure
BUILDING & EARTH
Checked By: John Dailly

r- Geotechnical-Engineering Report --)
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the
specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering
study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of
a constructor a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,
prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on
this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or
project except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on
a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do
not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected
elements only.
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on
a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project -specific
factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk -management
preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its
size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the
site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless
the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically
indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report that was:
• not prepared for you;
• not prepared for your project;
• not prepared for the specific site explored; or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed
from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light -
industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight
of the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer
of project changes —even minor ones —and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because
their reports do not consider developments of which they were
not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the
study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the
site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer
before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A
minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory
data and then apply their professional judgment to render
an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes
significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining
the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to
provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most
effective method of managing the risks associated with
unanticipated conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the confirmation -dependent
recommendations included in your report. Confirmation -
dependent recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from
judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize
their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for the report's confirmation -dependent
recommendations if that engineer does not perform the
geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the
recommendations' applicability.
A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject
to Misinterpretation
Other design -team members' misinterpretation of
geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly
Page I A-17

problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical
engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's
plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret
a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and
preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical
construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.
To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with
a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited;
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of
information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also
be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform
additional study. Only then might you be in a position to
give constructors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to
disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include
a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes
labeled "limitations," many of these provisions indicate where
geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform
an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform ageotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental
findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about
the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks
or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental
problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not
yet obtained your own environmental information,
ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent
significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for
the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a
comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a
professional mold -prevention consultant. Because just a small
amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies
focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater,
water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed
as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in
charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
none of the services performed in connection with the
geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for
the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the
recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure
involved.
Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
for Additional Assistance
Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the
Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk -confrontation techniques
that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with
a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineer for more information.
FTMWA GEOTECHNICAL
BUSINESS COUNCIL
,GH4C1&= ofdw GeoprofessionWBusinwAs dadon
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone.[phone] Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail; [e-mail] www.geoprofessionatorg
Copyright 201: by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review- Only members of GBA may use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a CBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Page I A-18