SW6190508_SWM Report_20190708

"FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY"
Design/Build
SOF Battalion Administration
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Contract No. W912PM-15-C-0015
•
Storrnwater Report
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
GENERAL INFORMATION.........................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................1
EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................2
PROPOSED CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................3
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................3
OUTLET PROTECTION.............................................................................................................10
WATERQUALITY......................................................................................................................10
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL....................................................................................10
TABLES
Table 1 RAINFALL DATA............................................................................................................2
Table 2 BIORETENTION AREAS PREDELOPED RUNOFF......................................................3
Table 3 BIORETENTION AREAS POSTDELOPED RUNOFF....................................................3
Table 4 95TH PERCENTILE AND 1" FIRST FLUSH BIORETENTION VOLUME .........................5
Table 5 PROVIDED BIORETENTION STORAGE VOLUME......................................................5
Table 6 BIORETENTION SURFACE VOLUMES AND AREAS..................................................6
FIGURES
Figure 1 NCDEQ SUMMARY OF STORMWATER CALCULATIONS...................................1
Figure 2 BIORETENTION BASIN.................................................................................7
APPENDIX
Appendix A USGS PROJECT LOCATION MAP.....................................................................a.1
Appendix B PRE DEVELOPMENT MAP.................................................................................a.2
Appendix C POST DEVELOPMENT MAP...............................................................................a.3
Appendix D EISA 438 CALCULATIONS.................................................................................a.4
Appendix E STORMWATER CALCULATIONS............................................................a.5
Appendix F NRCS CUMBERLAND COUNTY SOIL SURVEY MAP.......................................a.6
Appendix G SUBSURFACE AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ....................a.7
Appendix H NCDEQ BIORETENTION CELL SUPPLEMENT.................................................a.8
Appendix I OUTLET PROTECTION CALCULATIONS...........................................................a.9

GENERAL INFORMATION
The Special Operations Forces (SOF) project is located within the Fort Bragg,
Cumberland County, North Carolina Army Installation. The site is a vacant lot, covered
with native vegetation and limited abandoned access roads, both dirt and asphalt. The
project is to design and construct a support battalion administration facility. The
supporting facilities include all related site -work and utilities, security fencing, privately
owned vehicle parking, access drives, roads, curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage
and treatment structures, signage, landscaping, and other improvements.
The site prior to construction consists of a combination of open area and sparse
vegetation. The vegetation is primarily of grass with some shrubs. Limited asphalt
pavement is required to be removed. No existing structures are on -site. Half of the
existing topography slopes toward southwest and the other half toward southeast, with
an elevation range of approximately 11 feet. Drainage currently flows to an existing
detention pond and then to an existing bioretention pond which discharges water to
Stewarts Creek southeast of the project location. The soils consist primarily of loamy
sands with 2 to 6 percent slopes.
All drainage areas for the proposed project are in the watershed of Stewarts Creek,
Stream Index 18-31-24-5-4, Classification C: Aquatic Life, Secondary Recreation,
Freshwater, in the Cape Fear River Basin.
METHODOLOGY
Per the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), the approved
methods used in stormwater calculations are as shown in Figure 1.
Catculation of:
Section
3,2
Allowable Methods
RHtional Method
Peak Flow
Runoff Volum@
33
Simple Method
Discrete SCS Curve Number Method
Storage Volume
3.4
Sta -Stara Table
Hydraulic Performance of the
315
Weir Equations
Outlet Deice
4ruke Eqmatio
Stage -Storage -Discharge
16
Chaaisaw Routing
Others- HEC-HR4S,1 iriTR-55, SI IMM
Channel ci.-ometry
3,7
NLAnning Equation
I utvient Loading
18
DWQ Neuse TN Export 1 orksheet
DWQ Tar-Panilico Nutrient EKport Worksheet
Pollutant Rennuval of SMPs
3.9
Stand-aloxp WvWs
Multiple Dunnage divas
BMPs in Parallel
1#MPa in Series
Note: Designers isway adopt different calcination methods, but the mothod chasm must provide
equivalent or greater protection than the methods tnvsented here.
Figure 1 — NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual
1 I Page

All methodology used to determine both peak flow and storm event volumes follows the
guidelines set by the Corps of Engineers Fayetteville District and NCDEQ. As this is a
federal project which exceeds 5,000 square feet of footprint, Section 438 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act or 2007 (EISA 438) mandates the use of site planning,
design, construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore,
to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the
property.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site where the SOF Battalion Administration Facility and associated supporting
infrastructure is located in the Yarborough Complex of Fort Bragg, on the north side of
Urban Freedom Way, west of the Tora Road. The construction area is approximately
9.55 acres. Surface elevation range from approximately 259 to 268 feet. The soils
consist primarily of topsoil in the upper 3 to 12 inches with sandy silts, silty sands and
clayey sands beneath. Due to the sandy nature of the existing soils, most first flush
drainage permeates into the ground.
No existing structures exist on -site. Limited asphalt and dirt roads are located at the
site. The full drainage area is approximately 6.14 acres. Subsurface Exploration Report
has been performed by Building & Earth, completed November 1, 2018.
This report included precipitation frequency data from NOAA and NWS to calculate
storm data, with 24hr rainfall data used for design was provided for by Fort Bragg. The
rainfall data used are given in Table 1. For stormwater design, the 10yr event will be
used per the RFP and UFC 3-201-01 Civil Engineering.
The Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for
Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA
438) was utilized to calculate the peak runoff for both predevelopment and post
development runoff.
TABLE 1 RAINFALL DATA
STORM EVENT
(YEAR)
24 HR RAINFALL DATA
(INCH)
1
3.06
2
3.71
5
4.69
10
5.46
25
6.53
5D
7.39
100
8.27
2 1 P a g e

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
The drainage post -development includes the construction of four (4) bioretention ponds
to control the stormwater runoff. The runoff for the final design will be retained and
stored in these areas throughout the site.
In general, the existing area is a poorly grassed/brush area. The proposed conditions
include landscaping, primarily in the form of sod. The contractor is required to establish
100% groundcover within 1 year of construction.
The post -developed bioretention pond calculations are shown in Tables 4 - 7 and on
the plan drawings.
For design of all stormwater structures, Bentley Storm CAD V8i was utilized. As the total
length of each structure is relatively small and each contributing drainage area has a
time of concentration (Tc) overall less than 8 minutes to the inlet, it was assumed that
each inlet on the system would receive the peak flow input at the same time. This
results in a "worst case" scenario for the stormwater system, and ensures an adequate
design for the 10yr storm event. Pipe sizes were calculated using the software, with
minimum pipe sizes directed by UFC 3-201-01 Civil Engineering. The results of the
stormwater structure designs are included in the appendices.
TABLE 2 PRE -DEVELOPMENT PEAK FLOW CALCULATIONS
DRAINAGE AREA
AREA AC
WEIGHTED COEFFICIENT
Q10
I Q100
DX-01
2.62
0.48
6.81
10.31
DX-02
1.2
0.45
2.89
4.43
DX-03
1.14
0.46
2.82
4.30
DX-04
0.97
0.43
2.28
3.42
DX-05
0.22
0.46
0.54
0.83
DX-06
0.21
0.40
0.45
0.69
TABLE 3 POST -DEVELOPMENT PEAK FLOW CALCULATIONS
DRAINAGE AREA
AREA AC
WEIGHTED COEFFICIENT
Q10
Q100
DA1
1.2
0.71
4.6
6.99
DA2
0.78
0.78
3.29
4.99
DA3
0.6
0.86
2.79
4.23
DA4
1.36
0.7
5.14
7.81
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
As the project is a Federal facility over 5,000 square feet, the stormwater requirements
of EISA Section 438 (Title 42, US Code, Section 17094) must be met. In accordance
with the Department of Defense (DoD) memo dated January 19, 2010 entitled DoD
Implementation of Storm Water Requirements under Section 438 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) the designer of record shall implement the
procedures for complying with EISA 438 as outlined in the EPA Technical Guidance on
Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section
438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act.
3 1 P a g e

The EPA Guidance manual prescribes two options to comply with the EISA 438
mandate. Option 1 is to retain and infiltrate the 95th percentile storm event onsite.
Option 2 allows site -specific hydrologic analysis to determine the types of stormwater
practices necessary to preserve predevelopment runoff conditions. Option 2 is provided
for situations where pre -development conditions can be maintained by retaining less
than the 95th percentile storm event, or where site -specific parameters dictate a
prescriptive methodology be used or Option 1 is not protective enough, for example at
the headwater of an impaired stream. For this project, Option 1 was selected.
To be in compliance with EISA 438, based upon Option 1 of the EPA Technical
Guidance document, the total volume of runoff from the 95th percentile storm event
must be captured and infiltrated on -site. The method to determine this volume is based
upon guidance from the EPA document.
The 95th percentile storm event for the project area is equivalent to 1.8 inches of rainfall
depth (See Appendix D — EISA 438 Calculations), as provided by the Fort Bragg
Installation Design Guide. Criteria used for determination of total stormwater runoff to
capture and infiltrate, the following criteria was used: Hydrologic Soil Group B, average
Maximum Infiltration Rate of 4.32 inches per hour or as determined by the percolation
testing, Minimum Infiltration Rate of 0.24 inch per hour, a Decay Factor of 2 per hour
and Pervious Depression Storage of 0.2 inch.
The design of the bioretention areas is based upon design criteria from NCDEQ
Stormwater Design Manual which is compatible with the Minimum Design Criteria
(MDC) that are codified in the stormwater rules that went into effect on January 1, 2017.
The bioretention areas are designed to infiltrate the 95th percentile storm event as close
as practical to the origin of the drainage. All drainage enters the bioretention areas via
surface flow, or via stormwater collection pipes with the outlet at the top of the pond
area, allowing for sediment to be removed via infiltration. The storage required for each
area and the amount of storage provided for infiltration is shown on the plans. Storage
is provided in the above ground ponding (maximum 12 inches), media and the open
graded aggregate (minimum 2 feet). The bioretention basin design is similar and meets
the Minimum Design Criteria (MDC) required for NCDEQ C-2 Bioretention Cell, revised
January 19, 2018.
To determine the storage volume to meet EISA 438, the Army LID Planning and Cost
Tool was compared against what was calculated via the Direct Determination method.
The database determines the volume required to be stored and infiltrated onside in
order to meet EISA 438. The Army LID Planning and Cost Tool was developed to
MILCON standards for projects within the jurisdiction of the Army. As such, the volumes
determined using the Army LID Planning and Cost Tool are used for the design of the
bioretention basins. Although the database was used to determine volume required, it
was not used to design the bioretention areas. See Tables 4 - 5 below for the design of
the bioretention area.

The Army LID Planning and Cost Tool looks at the pre -developed and post -developed
areas to calculate the storage volume requirements. AISA 438 technical guidance on
implementing the stormwater runoff requirements was utilized to calculate pre and post
developed composite runoff curve numbers and peak flows for the areas draining to
each bioretention area.
The Discrete SCS Curve Number (CN) and peak flows for each bioretention area can
be found in the Appendix D. A map of the post development drainage areas can be
found in Appendix C.
In addition, the volume required for the first flush, or 1 inch rainfall event, as required by
NCDEQ was calculated. This would equate to the minimum required volume to store to
meet NCDEQ requirements. This volume is smaller than the required volume to be
stored to meet EISA 438, hence the requirements for NCDEQ in terms of storage
volume are met. The volume provided is a combination of the ponding depth of the
water, storage in the engineered soil calculate at 10% voids and storage within the
aggregate storage layer calculated at 40% voids. The volumes provided in each area
within the respective bioretention area are shown in Appendix E.
TABLE 4 95T"PERCENTILE AND 1" FIRST FLUSH BIORETENTION VOLUMES
VOLUME
STORAGE
PONDING
REQUIRED
VOLUME
PROVIDED
VOLUME
EISA 438
REQUIRED
EISA 438
PROVIDED
DRAINAGE AREA
(CF)
NCDEQ (CF)
(CF)
(CF)
Bioretention Area 1
2,838
1747.77
3,477
3,213.3
Bioretention Area 2
2,362
1543.79
2,393
2,210.3
Bioretention Area 3
1,162
691.55
1,796
1,659.0
Bioretention Area 4
2,615
1613.82
2,778
2,565.8
TABLE 5 PROVIDED BIORETENTION STORAGE VOLUME
BIORETENTION AREA
PONDING
DEPTH
PROVIDED
(IN)
PONDING
VOLUME
(CF)
STORAGE
VOLUME IN
SOIL (CF)
10% VOIDS
DEPTH OF
AGGGREGATE
(FT)
40% VOIDS
STORAGE
VOLUME IN
AGGREGATE
(CF)
Bioretention Area 1
9
3213
535
2.5
3426
Bioretention Area 2
9
2210
368
2.5
2358
Bioretention Area 3
9
1659
277
2.5
1770
Bioretention Area 4
9
2565
428
2.5
2738
For all storm events greater than the 95th percentile event, and for other events where
the infiltration areas cannot sufficiently handle the storm event, excess runoff is
bypassed directly to the outfall area. As the open aggregate fills with water, when the
level reaches the bottom of the perforated pipe, drainage enters the pipe and is carried
to either the next infiltration area, or to the outfall. In addition, if there is excess ponding
due to either the saturation of the engineered fill or a large storm event, water is
collected through the grate in the riser structure. This prevents flooding in areas
5 1 P a g e

surrounding the bioretention basins as the top of the grate is set at an elevation below
the surrounding grade.
Although the design of the bioretention areas are not completely compatible with the
Bioretention Cell Supplement form provided by NCDEQ, this form has been completed
for the drainage areas and included in the appendix.
TABLE 6 BIORETENTION
SURFACE VOLUMES AND AREAS
DRAINAGE AREA
SURFACE
VOLUME
PROVIDED (CF)
SURFACE AREA
PROVIDED (SF)
Bioretention Area 1
3213.00
4,283
Bioretention Area 2
2210.00
2,947
Bioretention Area 3
1659.00
2,212
Bioretention Area 4
2565.00
3,422
6 1 P a g e

RETENTION AREA SHALL BE 2' SQ. CATCH BASIN WITH
LEVEL AND DEPRESSED A STEEL GALVANIZED GRATE.
MINIMUM OF 6"FROM THE REFERTO DETAIL 2 THIS
SURROUNDING GRADE SHEET.
FtO N SOD
III —II a
III
I I —III —I � —III—III—III—III—
I I I III=1 � 1-III-1 � I -I � I
— — III- TIE TO STORM DRAIN 2' SO-
SYSTEM. REFER TO PRECAS
III -III, III- SHEETS CG1O2 INLET
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER
FABRIC- MARAFI 25ONW OR
APPROVED EQUAL_
PERFORATED PIPE (�+ }
`2INTERNAL YVATEF
l
PERFCRATED
LATERAL PIPE (YP.)
30" MIN- ENGINEERED SOIL
RE. NOTE 3 BELOW
PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE _
RE: NOTE 7 BELOW
CLEANOUT PIPE
WITH CAP (TYPICAL)
SOD .ev I � I
PIPE
TIE PIPE INTO INLET
NCDOT #67
CRUSHED ROCK
BID -RETENTION "ENGINEERED SOIL'° LAYER SHALL BE MINIMUM 30" DEEP- THE SOIL MIX SHOULD BE UNIFORM AND
FREE OF STONES, STUMPS, ROOTS OR OTHER SIMILAR MATERIAL GREATER THAN 2 INCHES- IT SHOULD BE A
HOMOGENOUS SOIL MIX OF 75 TO 85 PERCENT MEDIUM TO COARSE WASHED SAND (ASTM C33, AASHTO M 61M 8D,
ASTM C330, AASHTO M195, OR EQUIVALENT), 8 TO 15 PERCENT FINES (SILT AND CLAY), AND 5 TO 10 PERCENT
ORGANIC MATTER (SUCH AS PINE BARK FINES)- HIGHER (12 PERCENT) FINES CONTENT SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR
AREAS WHERE TOTAL NITROGEN (TN) IS THE TARGET POLLUTANT. IN AREAS WHERE PHOSPHORUS IS THE TARGET
POLLUTANT, LOWER (8 PERCENT) FINES SHOULD BE USED. ADDITIONALLY, THE PHOSPHORUS CONTENT OF THE
SOIL MIX SHOULD BE LOW. SOIL MEDIA SHALL BE SENT TO INC DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE [NCDA] LABS TO BE
ANALYZED. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO HAVE THE SOIL ANALYZED- THE P INDEX FOR
BID -RETENTION SOIL MEDIA SHOULD ALWAYS RANGE BETWEEN 10 AND 30, REGARDLESS OF THE TARGET
POLLUTANT (HARDY ET- AL., 20D3 AND HUNT ET- AL., 20D6)- THE P INDEX IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DESIGN
ELEMENT. CELLS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED OF HIGH P-INDEX SOILS CAN EXPORT PHOSPHORUS.
2. CUT SOIL FROM THE PROJECT SITE OR SOIL FROM THE BORROW PIT MAY NOT BE USED FOR THE ENGINEERED SOIL
FOR THE BIORENTENTION BASINS
3. THE MEDIA SHOULD BE TESTED TO DETERMINE AN ACTUAL DRAINAGE RATE AFTER PLACEMENT- THE
PERMEABILITY SHOULD FALL BETWEEN 1 AND 6 INCHES PER HOUR, WITH 1-2 INCHES PER HOUR BEING PREFERRED.
AS A RULE OF THUMB, USING THE ABOVE -SPECIFIED MEDIA, THE INFILTRATION RATES SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY
2 INIHR AND 1 INIHR FOR 8% AND 12% FINES, RESPECTIVELY, DEPENDING ON THE TARGET POLLUTANT. AN
ESTIMATED DRAINAGE RATE FOR PERCENT FINES BETWEEN 8 AND 12 CAN BE APPROXIMATED DURING DESIGN BY
LINEAR INTERPOLATION. IF TSS OR PATHOGENS IS THE TARGET POLLUTANT, THE HIGHER PERMEABILITY CAN BE
USED BECAUSE THESE TWO POLLUTANTS ARE REMOVED ON THE SURFACE OF THE BIORETENTION CELL RATHER
THAN WITHIN THE CELL.
4. REFER TO GRADING PLAN CG101 FOR FINISH GRADES AND CG1D2 FOR STORM PIPE AND GRATE ELEVATIONS.
5. NCDOT#67 CRUSHED ROCK LAYER SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 24" BUT MAY BE DEEPENED TO INCREASE THE
INFILTRATION AND STORAGE ABILITY OF THE BASIN.
6. PROVIDE A T LAP AT NON -WOVEN FABRIC SEAMS OR MATERIAL CUTS-
7- USE 8" OR 6" 0 SDR-25 OR SCH. 44 PVC PERFORATED PIPE WITH (.4} 3I8" HOLES SPACED AT 6-INCHES ON CENTER.
Figure 2 — Bioretention Basin
7 1 P a g e

Seasonal high water table (SHWT) depths was determined in conjunction with the
geotechnical report. SHWT depths were found to be a minimum of 10 feet below grade.
As the 95th percentile storm event is being captured and infiltrated on -site and all
excess storm drainage is routed to outlet structures with appropriate energy dissipation,
this meets LEED 6.1 Stormwater Design Quantity Control requirements. The existing
site has less than 50% impervious surface, and the bioretention/infiltration of the 95th
percentile storm meets the quantity control requirements.
For any underdrains installed within the bioretention area, cleanouts are provided in
addition to the riser pipes to facilitate cleanout. It is the user's desire to utilize sod in lieu
of vegetation to facilitate maintenance to reduce the risk of floating debris from entering
into and clogging the system.
No water supply wells are within 100 feet of the project site. No surface waters are
within 30 feet of the project site. No Class SA waters are within 50 feet of the project
site.
NCDEQ MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA FOR BIORETENTION CELLS
The Minimum Design Criteria (MDC) for bioretention cells for NCDEQ is as described
below. These criteria are taken from the NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual Section C-
2. Bioretention Cell Revised 1-10-2018.
MDC 1: SEPARATION FROM THE SHWT
The lowest point of all bioretention cells are a minimum of 2 feet above the SHWT.
Depths to the SHWT are greater than 10 feet below the surface.
MDC 2: MAXIMUM PONDING DEPTH FOR DESIGN VOLUME
Ponding depths for all of the bioretention areas are 9 inches.
MDC 3: PEAK ATTENUATION VOLUME
Each bioretention area is designed to store the required volume to meet EISA 438,
which is greater than the first flush volume. At volumes above this storm event, the
primary outlet structure is placed 9 inches above planting surface.
This additional ponding volume would not necessarily be considered to store the peak
attenuation volume, however it acts as a measure of safety for the areas and is a
maximum of 18 inches above the planting surface to the emergency spillway.
The emergency spillway is designed for each bioretention basin to handle the entire
flow from the 100-year storm event in case of failure of the primary outfall and storage
within each basin.

MDC 4: UNDERDRAIN
Infiltration testing was performed as part of the design process. The soils report
included in this stormwater report indicated that the highest infiltration rate on the site is
0.003 inch per hour. As the Ksat values attained are less than 2" per hour, underdrains
are installed in both basins. At least one underdrain pipe per 1,000 square feet of area
is provided, spaced at no greater than 10'. The underdrain pipes are sized to handle the
infiltration rate of the engineered soil for the times that the internal water storage zone
has reached capacity.
MDC 5: MEDIA DEPTH
All bioretention areas are grassed cells, without trees and shrubs. The media depth in
bioretention areas are 30 inches (2.5 feet) as they include underdrains.
Note: Bioretention Cell 1 does not incorporate Internal Water Storage therefor the
engineered soil layer shall be a minimum 24" depth
MDC 6: MEDIA MIX
The media shall be a homogeneous soil mix engineered media blend with approximate
volumes of:
a) 75 to 85 percent medium to coarse washed sand (ASTM C33, AASHTO M
6/M 80, ASTM C330, AASHTO M195, or the equivalent);
b) 8 to 15 percent fines (silt and clay); and
c) 5 to 10 percent organic matter (such as pine bark fines).
MDC 7: NO MECHANICAL COMPACTION
The soil media will not be mechanically compacted.
MDC 8: MAINTENANCE OF MEDIA
An O&M agreement will be signed by the Owner to maintain the bioretention areas.
MDC 9: PLANTING PLAN
In accordance with the plans and specifications, the grassed cells shall achieve 100
percent cover during the 1 year establishment period. Plants chosen for the cells are in
accordance with the Fort Bragg Installation Design Guide.
MDC 10: MULCH
All bioretention areas will be sodded. Hardwood mulch is not desired or allowed by the
user due to maintenance issues. Hardwood mulch tends to float in ponding situations
and can clog the overflow structures.
9 1 P a g e

MDC 11: CLEAN -OUT PIPES
Clean -out pipes are provided in both bioretention areas. The cleanouts are PVC pipes
with glued clean -out fittings with screw type caps that extend at least 2 feet above the
surface of the bed. No flexible pipe is allowed.
OUTLET PROTECTION
All excess stormwater from the infiltration areas, as well as outlet structures for
stormwater routed around the project site and will be connected directly to the storm
conveyance pipe. Outlet protection will be provided in accordance with guidance from
Chapter 8.06 Design of Riprap Outlet Protection of the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Quality Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual for
all pipes and headwalls within the project. Calculations for the outlet protection are
shown in Appendix I.
WATER QUALITY
To ensure the removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), all runoff is directed to the
infiltration areas via either sheet flow or via storm collection pipes with their outlets at
the top of the bioretention basins. This includes runoff from all parking areas and roof
drainage structures. This makes certain that the storm events up to the 95Th percentile
event (and first flush for larger events) will have the runoff filtered through a minimum
the vegetative strip and a minimum of 30 inches of engineered soil. Additionally, in
bioretention areas and the infiltration trench that do not have landscape rock, an 8 inch
rock filter strip is included as recommended by NCDEQ for pretreatment. In addition, a
non -woven geotextile fabric is placed above both the gravel sections of the bioretention
basin and the perforated collection pipe to keep sediment and other fines from
infiltrating the storage area.
It is generally accepted that bioretention basins of this type will remove between 80-
90% of TSS along with the removal of heavy metals. This design has previously been
used on projects at Fort Bragg and has been approved by NCDEQ for TSS removal
requirements. This method will also meet LEED 6.2 Stormwater Quality Control
requirements.
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
Separate erosion and sedimentation control during construction plans have been
developed for submittal to NCDEQ for permit requirements.
l01Page

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility, 12/14/2018
Appendix A — USGS Project Location Map
a.1 I Page

S-DEU5. WOG SURVEY IGR
MUSG5 u'
w•'e
•�a
..• r
I
�aAr.rryr
a. uwr x.�ae..m.o- �e...r
CLIFDALE QUADRANGLE
US Two
»o�.NcAAaN.
� t
E
e
ro
Oil
SCAI.k 117� 97D �°�°
nm�.® n�.:.�r.p�a,rmwnr�nex •rw. nr.n ul
CLIFDALE N[
��r'w•i`

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility, 12/14/2018
Appendix B — Pre Development Map
a.2 I Sage

1
2
3
T
5
N.
FA
N.
�7
10
G
F \
\ \
_ 264
\ \
-j9
i
E
-ET (ABANDONED)
ASPHALT
C
IV
0
DX-06 / ���\\ ��001
>001
AC=0.21077
I \ /Q0/
\ I
\ DX-03 \\ / DX-02
AC=1.14 / AC=1.20
I I I
\ I
3 26 \ �266� ! PCj�,/ / I a;
262// f
_ 263 -264 r_ 266 \
_ 261 262 _ _- _ 63-4 265 �� /265-
_ _ _ v-
----- _--------- 262 263
262 _ J
REACT i- - -263_
262 263
J-
-- - - - - - - - -
t-- \
1 I92� n \
292!i
Z9,7
-
1 _ 261
DX-04
\ AC=0.97 \
DX-01
\ I I AC=2.62
1
Im \ \
-262-/ /£9Z Z9Z -7
N_ I
263-
\ �� - \� 262
264 261
REACH=168' - _ 261- - --259-
/ 263 262
- �Z9Z - -- - -- - -- -09Z -_------L - - - - ___ -- -- 6= - -
09Z-
SZ
Gx DX-05 - 9x - - I9Z Gx Gx ,�n
x WX wv V1
x Cu X AC=0.22 --� CLCU x \x CU x
�z r9z FH 260.45
BOTTOM
N
/ ASPHALT ASPHALT
EXISTING 0 30' 60'
1 DRAINAGE AREA MAP
N
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
- REACH-235' \
i
EXISTING DRAINAGE AREAS
AREA
ACRES
COEFFICIENT
110
1100
Q10
Q100
DX-01
2.62
0.48
5.46
8.2
6.88
10.31
DX-02
1.2
0.45
5.46
8.2
2.92
4.43
DX-03
1 1.14
0.46
5.46
8.2
2.85
1 4.3
DX-04
0.97
0.43
5.46
8.2
2.30
3.42
DX-05
0.22
0.46
5.46
8.2
0.55
0.83
DX-06
0.21
0.4
5.46
8.2
0.46
0.69
US Army Corps
of Engineers
w
Q
0
z
O
U
U)
u1
0
Q
o CO
LO -w
o z o 0 0
RR
NDTYZUOU
LLI 0 H 00 >-
QOfQof co
o < < 0 N
u10UUo
W m J z -
v
0
ui
�0
co Q UI
z o
CO m W J ap
o= ��
W� W �U
z
Lu of
0
(n z Q Of W p M Q bi (n
W>- Of_= J D Q N z
U
co
U
W Q
Of 00
N
W uj Q
zU5 J
z
wW <<
OLL 0z
U) 0 W
0z JO
Q z
�J00
< z
J
U
LL
W
Qz
z
Q
oa
Z
Q (
IZ
Uz
Q
Q
=moLO
o00
LL
OQc`'
0
z z..
0 d
!!nn
V
W
Q
7
mQ
L
LL O
x
W
U)
TL
O
U
SHEET ID
FILENAME: 63850_CG 104
PRINTED: 2/22/2019 10:31:59 AM
CG104
VOLUME 01 - DESIGN COMPLETE

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility, 12/14/2018
Appendix C — Post Development Map
a.3 I Sage

1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8
10
G
F
E
I
C
IV
0
I V4�I
1
I
I \
1
I
I
I
I
1 \
I
I
I
l
/
Ly� • -------------------
�268 • /) /266j`
/ •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
_----------------------------------------------- •
1
------------------------------------ -------------- •
•
•
•
•
•
/ I BIORETENTION I •.
CELL 4
FiE
2s — — \ ti DA-04 ! l
/ \ •
AC=1.36
- 264
262
> 26 3�
c _
•
FMR
E J
—261
_ ° ° • i
- 5 M
£9Z Z9Z J .
Li 7
F9
9 I z
1 /
W V � •
-
N I
•
J I 1
DA-02 % DA-03
-1' I
BIORETENTION
CELL 3ff
'
�S
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0•
SS
N 1 I > \
PF SD I :
BIORETENTION SDI L
�� / �/� • • •
261-- — 25
--- -- 6?---------------- -- = �—
wv
WX
-�SOB
/� • �__--- CLI X O�X XFH 260.45 CU X
•• 9` •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ... •• ... ••••
... ..... ... ...
URBAN FREEDOM WAY \ \
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
i
PROPOSED
1 DRAINAGE AREA MAP
US Army Corps
of Engineers
O CO
LD ui
rn Z 0 0 0
NDcLzUOU
W 0 H 00 >-
Q�Q�UOf co
pQ�QON
W�UW�W CEO
co
�1iW��0U�U
In
Lu O
co Q UI
Z C)
omw co C)Jw
0 m 0
W� W �U
0
Z
(n Z Q W p CO Q W (n
W Of 1: 1: J Q N Z
Q
Q�
U
� � U
V)< � � Q
Lu
W W W
Z U Z Z J U
w FQ°
LL C) U ~
�00
U� W
0 >
UZ-J
Qo
�~c/j.
J
U
L
Qo
<
Z�
J Q
0 �
Q
Q
H
U
z
�W/
I..L
Z Z:
^
1 1 1
00
O
V
mm
z
LL°
d
d
Q
U
W
O
U
SHEET ID
FILENAME: 63850_CG 105
PRINTED: 7/8/2019 1:38:37 PM
CG105
VOLUME 01 - DESIGN COMPLETE

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility, 12/14/2018
Appendix D — EISA 438 Calculations
a.4 1 gage

Army LID Planning and Cost Tool Report
PROJECT INFO
Date 7 / 1 / 2019
Army Command IMCOM
Army Installation Fort Bragg
Project name SOF BATT BIO Pond 1
Project description
Bioretention Area 1
User Name SAT
Master Planner
SITE INFO AND EISA VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
Project limit of disturbance (ac)
1.2
9 3 % rainfall depth (in)
F 1. 8
Soil type
Sandy -Loam
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
B
Pre -project curve number (CN)
62
Post -project curve number (CN)
86
Pre -project runoff volume (cf)
214
Post -project runoff volume (cf)
3032
EISA Section 438 retention volume
2838
requirement (cf)
LID PLANNING SUMMARY
Structural BMP
Surface area
Runoff volume
Non-structural BMP
Surface
(so
retained (co
area (ac)
Bioretention:
4283
3477
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Short Grass):
0.00
Swale:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Tall Grass):
0.00
Permeable Pavement:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Short Grass):
0.00
Rainwater Harvesting:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Tall Grass):
0.00
Green Roof:
0
Reforestation (Trees - Short Grass):
0.00
Infiltration Practice:
0
0
Reforestation (Trees - Shrubs and Tall Grass):
0.00
Total retention volume
provided by BMPs (cf): 3477
Project complies with EISA Section
438.
LID COST SUMMARY

Army LID Planning and Cost Tool Report
PROJECT INFO
Date 7 / 1 / 2019
Army Command IMCOM
Army Installation Fort Bragg
Project name SOF BATT BIO Pond 2
Project description
Bioretention Pond 2
User Name SAT
Master Planner
SITE INFO AND EISA VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
Project limit of disturbance (ac)
0.78
9 3 % rainfall depth (in)
F 1. 8
Soil type
Sandy -Loam
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
B
Pre -project curve number (CN)
60
Post -project curve number (CN)
89
Pre -project runoff volume (cf)
86
Post -project runoff volume (cf)
2448
EISA Section 438 retention volume
2362
requirement (cf)
LID PLANNING SUMMARY
Structural BMP Surface area
Runoff volume
Non-structural BMP
Surface
(so
retained (co
area (ac)
Bioretention: 2947
2393
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Short Grass):
0.00
Swale:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Tall Grass):
0.00
Permeable Pavement:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Short Grass):
0.00
Rainwater Harvesting:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Tall Grass):
0.00
Green Roof:
0
Reforestation (Trees - Short Grass):
0.00
Infiltration Practice:
0
Reforestation (Trees - Shrubs and Tall Grass):
0.00
Total retention volume provided by BMPs (cf): 2393
Project complies with EISA Section
438.
LID COST SUMMARY

Army LID Planning and Cost Tool Report
PROJECT INFO
Date 7 / 1 / 2019
Army Command IMCOM
Army Installation Fort Bragg
Project name SOF BATT BIO Pond 3
Project description
Bioretention Pond 3
User Name SAT
Master Planner
SITE INFO AND EISA VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
Project limit of disturbance (ac)
0.6
9 3 % rainfall depth (in)
F 1. 8
Soil type
Sandy -Loam
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
B
Pre -project curve number (CN)
64
Post -project curve number (CN)
84
Pre -project runoff volume (cf)
138
Post -project runoff volume (cf)
1320
EISA Section 438 retention volume
1162
requirement (cf)
LID PLANNING SUMMARY
Structural BMP
Surface area
Runoff volume
Non-structural BMP
Surface
(so
retained (co
area (ac)
Bioretention:
2212
1796
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Short Grass):
0.00
Swale:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Tall Grass):
0.00
Permeable Pavement:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Short Grass):
0.00
Rainwater Harvesting:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Tall Grass):
0.00
Green Roof:
0
Reforestation (Trees - Short Grass):
0.00
Infiltration Practice:
0
0
Reforestation (Trees - Shrubs and Tall Grass):
0.00
Total retention volume
provided by BMPs (cf): 1796
Project complies with EISA Section
438.
LID COST SUMMARY

Army LID Planning and Cost Tool Report
PROJECT INFO
Date 7 / 1 / 2019
Army Command IMCOM
Army Installation Fort Bragg
Project name SOF BATT BIO Pond 4
Project description
Bioretention Pond 4
User Name SAT
Master Planner
SITE INFO AND EISA VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
Project limit of disturbance (ac)
1.35
95% rainfall depth (in)
F 1.8
Soil type
Sandy -Loam
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
B
Pre -project curve number (CN)
64
Post -project curve number (CN)
84
Pre -project runoff volume (cf)
354
Post -project runoff volume (cf)
2969
EISA Section 438 retention volume
2615
requirement (cf)
LID PLANNING SUMMARY
Structural BMP Surface area
Runoff volume
Non-structural BMP
Surface
(so
retained (co
area (ac)
Bioretention: 3422
2778
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Short Grass):
0.00
Swale:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope >2%, Tall Grass):
0.00
Permeable Pavement:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Short Grass):
0.00
Rainwater Harvesting:
0
Veg. Filter Strip (Slope <2%, Tall Grass):
0.00
Green Roof:
0
Reforestation (Trees - Short Grass):
0.00
Infiltration Practice:
0
Reforestation (Trees - Shrubs and Tall Grass):
0.00
Total retention volume provided by BMPs (cf): 2778
Project complies with EISA Section
438.
LID COST SUMMARY

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility, 12/14/2018
Appendix E — Stormwater Calculations
a.5 I Sage

• - — � r
-_---�-------- -------------- ------- ------- ------- -------- -- - -"--- --------------- --------------- ------- ------- --- ------- ------- -------- __y-------- ------- --- --_--- �I
I ~` 267 267 / r
267 FUTURE PARKINLT� ACCES"RI r
It I 1 AL
• 267
6
i
j rr I� 265 ID f 1 Icy
+ I to 5D LINE C y p v _
ABM2 ` ! 0% S27 526 � (o ELK, I f
266 to N �-W ni r rf
• Jof
I �6 P26 P25 f II o 11 I ra
� 5
cI GI m I
264 — S25 IS35 l I rJ
S23 f
STRE p� � N N ,N 26L 515 ~ — —28F: — �i � 2�Q- u � •l l �, `
ANDD ) C S34
CI I
� zsa
_ i y S'4 537 518
22
5r
P 13 s�rur>r F L 60.2 — �sz �� I ` + ✓
W- w
oMH �S_ ce E� • ,�7 i �zs�a
LDIB� SDJ 1 CVI P16 S17 }�' I�� 2 •- -� �I
N
sil
5❑LNED l P17l �' sz9 a
ECAI I _— f I f 1 I S28
1�B 5P22.1.1 �TSOF SUPPORT TALI�t�
0 P2.3
�Im ADMINISTRATICI FACILITY
GI
\ r P21.1 i
s5 P N 88
2' CLEAR AT CROSSING SD LINE B I —261(g ��
o I P4-FL= 257.61 FFE = 265.60 ` o
I w E SS - FL = 255.00 f [v N I 1 r
2' CLE AT CR SSING iS36 F
I IIE +
EII��zeA
-F .54P31- =4qr W IIzN°N
'njGN'ILTE
S4 p FCITy
BkETEIDN�
4.
SDMH 'PSI �t m -- - — +
SS :L
264 P3 M P32 r 7
11 SDMH — 5D LINE A J l
! I SDMH_ 261, — 265 264 ' I S32 l
J I E P5 ' EC i7n� i t Ex
ci BI0-RET�NTION AREA 2 530 I S41 S� '� 542 S2 26'� x1
+ 58 PF P36 S�LINE E:
i OMH
P35 - — -
— .• —�_ E x T x 263 x6z `�_J --6e— ~� S12
w 262 261- — �— z5�
'x wvx - --------- ------- ---- - ---- -- -----
EXISTING SDHM X1
x �= URBAN FREEDOM WAY �= IV' FL=252-72
cn J 1

SUMP PUMP1
T!R = 265.10
L.iJ LEI ® 0
xFMR hldlk
r
j - -
�p�
INV. 261.82
Q 6" FL (IN) = 259.92
L_
�4 4" FL (OUT) =262.90
�- --
5Dh9H
E6
G = 261.35
INV. 262.68
SD-P13 S��
FL = 260.20
15"
Spp�
sir 1a
_
S - 0,5°/° MIN, RD
FL 261.60
- p17
r2, S - 5D'
SDJB SDJB �" 8" <
S,6 z' SD-P16 S17 6-
-_
co R2 N
1
1
GM
R3 INV. 262.00
DOWNSPOUT in
INV.262.36 (TYP.) :6
6
1
W
Q 1
`7 TAP PIPE WITH
STORM
Z
1
INSERTA TEE OR APPROVED
EQUAL (TYP. 4 PLACES)
I- 1
Z
w I
SOF SUPPORT BATTALION
o
w
6 I
ADMINISTRATION FACILITY
�
coI
PN63850
1----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIDGE LINE
RIDGE LINE
—
1
1
FFE = 265.60
lla
6"
� r
MIN.
SD
BIO-RETENTION AREA 2
r S)-\
DOWNSPOUT DO P NSPOUT
(TYP.) ( )
cD SD3 H co io R7 6 P32
S = 1 % MIN. ° MINI
5Dh1H 12„
r = INV. 260.60 INV262.22 S33
coN
� r
rl
E� S N
FEr SD FEi'
FL 26D., SD LINE A
1 SC RE: CG 102
5D
9
Z 1
°I
I
ZI
1
I
�I
m
1 ES
—L S32
I
I '�— FL 262.0
In
�1 J

EXISTING DRAINAGE
AREAS
AREA
ACRES
COEFFICIENT
Ito
1100
Q10
Qloo
DX-01
2.62
0.48
5.4
8.2
6.81
10.31
DX-02
1.2
0.45
5.4
8.2
2.89
4.43
DX-03
1.14
0.46
5.4
8.2
2.82
4.3
DX-04
0.97
0.43
5.4
8.2
2.28
3.42
DX-05
0.22
0.46
5.4
8.2
0.54
0.83
DX-06
0.21
0.4
5.4
8.2
0.45
0.69
PROPOSED DRAINAGE
AREAS
AREA
ACRES
COEFFICIENT
Igo
1100
Q10
Qloo
DA1
0.59
0.43
5.4
8.2
1.37
2.08
DA2
1.41
0.66
5.4
8.2
5.03
7.63
DA3
0.40
0.92
5.4
8.2
1.99
3.02
DA4
0.37
0.89
5.4
8.2
1.78
2.7
DA5
0.15
0.98
5.4
8.2
0.79
1.21
DA6
0.07
0.4
5.4
8.2
0.15
0.23
DA7
0.03
0.41
5.4
8.2
0.07
0.1
DA8
0.02
0.98
5.4
8.2
0.11
0.16
DA9
0.04
0.98
5.4
8.2
0.21
0.32
DA10
0.03
0.4
5.4
8.2
0.06
0.1
DA11
0.31
0.72
5.4
8.2
1.21
1.83
DA12
0.02
0.4
5.4
8.2
0.04
0.07
DA13
0.41
0.98
5.4
8.2
2.17
3.29
DA14
0.52
0.43
5.4
8.2
1.21
1.83
DA15
0.05
0.42
5.4
8.2
0.11
0.17
DA16
0.14
0.98
5.4
8.2
0.74
1.13
DA17
0.78
0.78
5.4
8.2
3.29
4.99
DA 18
0.55
0.56
5.4
8.2
1.66
2.53
DA 19
0.46
0.64
5.4
8.2
1.59
2.41

STORM SEWER TABULATION
Label
Length
(ft)
Diameter
(in)
Number of
Barrels
Start
Node
Stop
Node
Invert (Start)
(ft)
Invert (Stop)
(ft)
Slope (Calculated)
(ft/ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Velocity (Out)
(ft/s)
Hydraulic Grade
Line (In) (ft)
Hydraulic Grade
Line (Out) (ft)
Energy Grade
Line (In) (ft)
Energy Grade Line
(Out) (ft)
Depth (In)
(ft)
Depth (Out)
(ft)
P1
80.7
24
1
S2
S1
253.2
252.8
0.005
14.2
6.25
254.67
254.16
255.18
254.77
1.47
1.36
P2
230
15
1
S3
S2
254.07
253.2
0.004
8.57
6.98
258.72
254.67
259.48
255.43
4.65
1.47
P2.1
11.5
12
1
S2.1
S21
257.12
257
0.01
1.94
5.07
257.71
257.49
257.96
257.89
0.59
0.49
P2.3
20.8
8
1
S28
S51
261.35
261
0.017
0.19
3.66
261.55
261.14
261.62
261.35
0.2
0.14
P2.4
44.7
8
1
S29
S28
261.9
261.35
0.012
0.15
1.7
262.08
261.55
262.14
261.6
0.18
0.2
P3
88.4
15
1
S4
S3
254.4
254.07
0.004
8.57
6.98
260.28
258.72
261.03
259.48
5.88
4.65
P4
91.8
12
1
S5
S4
258
257.54
0.005
6.66
8.48
263.48
260.28
264.6
261.39
5.48
2.74
P5
11.4
8
1
S8
S4
255.9
255.8
0.009
1.91
5.47
260.44
260.28
260.91
260.74
4.54
4.48
P13
40.1
15
1
S14
S13
261.82
261.6
0.005
5.46
5.47
262.94
262.55
263.28
263.01
1.12
0.95
P14
36.4
12
1
S15
S14
262
261.22
0.021
0.8
1.02
262.96
262.94
262.97
262.96
0.96
1.72
P15
35.8
12
1
S16
S14
262
261.82
0.005
4.29
5.46
263.46
262.94
263.92
263.4
1.46
1.12
P16
71.9
12
1
S17
S16
262.36
262
0.005
1.72
2.19
263.56
263.46
263.63
263.53
1.2
1.46
P17
63.5
12
1
S18
S17
262.68
262.36
0.005
1.23
1.57
263.63
263.56
263.67
263.6
0.95
1.2
P20
14.1
15
1
S20
S12
253.5
253.4
0.007
1.14
0.93
254.68
254.68
254.69
254.69
1.18
1.28
P21
125.4
15
1
S21
S2
254.6
253.97
0.005
4.49
4.99
255.6
254.83
255.88
255.22
1
0.86
P21.1
16.6
15
1
S51
S21
254.68
254.6
0.005
2.55
2.41
255.62
255.6
255.72
255.69
0.94
1
P22
84
12
1
S22
S51
255.42
254.68
0.009
2.36
3.08
256.08
255.62
256.37
255.77
0.66
0.94
P23
58
12
1
S23
S22
255.71
255.42
0.005
2.36
4.54
256.37
256.05
256.66
256.37
0.66
0.63
P25
73.7
12
1
S26
S25
260.6
260.23
0.005
3.81
5.47
261.99
261.06
262.35
261.52
1.39
0.83
P26
50.3
12
1
S27
S26
260.85
260.6
0.005
1.8
2.29
262.11
261.99
262.2
262.07
1.26
1.39
P31
29.3
12
1
S31
S30
260.6
260.45
0.005
1.44
3.59
261.14
260.96
261.31
261.16
0.54
0.51
P32
44.5
12
1
J7
S32
262.22
262
0.005
0.87
3.06
262.63
262.39
262.76
262.54
0.41
0.39
P33
13.9
15
1
CB-24
0-7
261.1
261
0.007
1.43
4.24
261.97
261.8
262.15
262.08
0.47
0.4
P34
14.3
15
1
S12
S2
253.4
253.3
0.007
1.14
0.93
254.68
254.67
254.69
254.68
1.28
1.37
P35
66.5
12
1
S41
S40
260.73
260.4
0.005
1.45
3.6
261.28
260.91
261.45
261.11
0.55
0.51
P36
112
12
1
S42
S41
261.29
260.73
0.005
0.81
1.85
261.68
261.28
261.81
261.33
0.39
0.55
AD1
18.6
6
1
S36
J7
262.5
262.22
0.015
0.07
0.41
262.63
262.63
262.68
262.63
0.13
0.41
AD2
40.5
6
1
S37
S38
262.65
261.65
0.025
0.07
0.36
263.57
263.57
263.57
263.57
0.92
1.92
AD3
11.9
6
1
S38
S17
261.65
262.36
-0.06
0.18
0.92
263.57
263.56
263.58
263.57
1.92
1.2
L 1
10
6
1
DS 1
11
261.7
261.6
0.01
0.16
2.46
261.9
261.78
261.97
261.88
0.2
0.18
L2
10
6
1
DS2
J2
261.11
261.01
0.01
0.32
2.05
261.4
261.38
261.51
261.45
0.29
0.37
L3
10.3
6
1
DS3
S31
260.7
260.6
0.01
0.32
1.63
261.17
261.14
261.21
261.18
0.47
0.54
L4
10.1
6
1
DS4
J3
261.08
260.98
0.01
0.32
2.02
261.37
261.36
261.48
261.42
0.29
0.38
L5
9.8
6
1
DS5
J4
261.7
261.6
0.01
0.32
2.98
261.99
261.87
262.1
262.01
0.29
0.27
L6
9.8
6
1
DS6
J5
263.32
263.22
0.01
0.32
2.97
263.61
263.49
263.72
263.63
0.29
0.27
L7
10
6
1
DS7
J6
262.68
262.58
0.01
0.32
2.02
262.97
262.96
263.08
263.02
0.29
0.38
L8
9.9
6
1
DS8
J7
262.32
262.22
0.01
0.16
0.94
262.63
262.63
262.65
262.64
0.31
0.41
RD1
36.8
6
1
11
J2
261.6
261.01
0.016
0.16
1.02
261.8
261.38
261.87
261.4
0.2
0.37
RD2
41.4
6
1
J2
S31
261.01
260.6
0.01
0.48
2.44
261.38
261.14
261.53
261.23
0.37
0.54
RD3
38.5
8
1
J3
S31
260.98
260.6
0.01
0.64
2.12
261.36
261.14
261.51
261.21
0.38
0.54
RD4
42
6
1
J4
J3
261.6
260.98
0.015
0.32
2.02
261.89
261.36
262
261.42
0.29
0.38
RD5
41.9
6
1
J5
J6
263.22
262.58
0.015
0.32
2.02
263.51
262.96
263.62
263.02
0.29
0.38
RD6
36.4
1 8
1 1
J6
J7
262.58
1 262.22
1 0.01
1 0.64
1 2.87
1 262.96
1 262.63
1 263.11
1 262.75
1 0.38
1 0.41

OUTFALL SUMMARY CHART
Of
w
z
w
0
v)
ui
z
w
o
0
� �
Q
w
UJ >
ui
U)
> w
o
z z
w
d
z w
O
w J
cl
d
LL
U)
1
LL
U
LL
u-
S1
MANHOLE
252.8
14.2
254.16
1.36
S13
HEADWALL
261.6
5.46
262.55
0.95
S25
HEADWALL
260.23
3.81
261.06
0.83
S30
HEADWALL
260.45
1.44
260.96
0.51
S32
HEADWALL
262
0.87
262.39
0.39
S40
IHEADWALL
260.4
1 1.45
1 260.91
0.51

�—
Y�
o
.o x
"
�
�
C
a
d
d �
T_
o
0
0
0
0
0
d V
0
a'
cc
d
C
d
d
a'
d
d
W
d
>
a'
3
d
cc
N
N
N
0
0
N
0
N
0
3
d
2
a
a
a
E
•y ,K
io
io
io
m
io
io
d
a
3
a
a
—
0
0
0
0
0
o K
d
0
V
F
L
'6
vt
vl
vl
oq
vl
vl
a
0
L
C K
o
o
0
0
o
o
X
d
L
jol
O
O
co
N
d
a
O
m
m
m
m
m
m
d
d
Q
y
m
N
n
N
O
O
o
O
O
O
C
C
d
L
V
IZ
m
a
m
m
m
O
C
•d
m
e•I
N
M
a
Vf
b
d
Y
N

User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:
Carlo Colibao Date: 7/2/2019
Checked By:
Date:
Company:
CYNTERGY
Project Name:
Fort Bragg - SOF
Project No.:
P04585.0100
Site Location (City/Town) Fort Bragg
Channel/Waterway Id. ST1
Step 1. Detemune the required Bow capacity. Q. by estimating peak nutoff
rate for the design storm (Appendix 8.03).
Design storm 10-yr
Required Flow, Q (cfs) 1.53
Step 2. Determne the slope and select chauuel geometry. and limnug.
Slope (ft/ft) 0.02
Channel geometry: V, Parabolic,
or Trapezoidal Trapezoidal
Channel lining Tall Fescue
Step 3. Determine the permissible velocity for the lining selected, or the
desired velocity if pared. (see Table 8.05a, page 8.05.4)
Permissible velocity (ft/s) 4.5 Table 8_05a
Step 4. Make an initial estimate of ebannel size —divide the required Q by the
permissible velocity to reach a "first try" estimate of channel flow area Then
select a geometry_ depth_ and top width to St site conditions.
Channel flow area (ft) "first try" 0.34
Step 5. Calculate the hydraulic radius, R, from channel geometry (Figure
8.05b, page 8.05.5).
Step 6. Determine roughness coefficient n.
Structural Linings —see Table 8.05b, page 8.05.6.
Grass Lining:
a. Determine retardance class for vegetation from Table 8.05c, page
8.05.8. To meet stability requirement, use retardance for newly
mowed condition (generally C or D). To determine channel capacity,
use at least one retardance class higher.
b. Determine n from Figure 8.05c, page 8.05.7.
Step 7. Calculate the actual channel velocity, V, using Manning's equation
(Figure 8.05a, pg. 8.05.3), and calculate channel capacity, Q, using the
continuity equation.
Step 8. Check results against permissible velocity and required design
capacity to determine if design is acceptable.
Step 9. If design is not acceptable, alter channel dimensions as appropriate.
For trapezoidal channels. this adjustment is usually made by changing the
bottom width.
See table below for Steps 5-9

N L
a
a 5
Q
o E
� o
0
Trapezoidal U) m
Figure 8.05b (ft)
(6
Y
a
~
°
a
c
o
L
O
!?
a)
aL-•
U
Q
a iv
a)a
U
C
m m
C
a
C
MA)
>
U
0
aT -6�i
m
�
�
�a
m
=�
a1 a)a
>�>
� �
��
�8
a)
>
a)�
>
C)
c�C)
(ft)
(ft)
(ff)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/s)
(gfs)
m
U N 9
m
CD
U H
W
LO
> H CO
>
W
W
W
U
W
U
O
O
0.5
4.5
1.5
4.66
0.32
1.45
D
0.051
1.94
a ❑
2-9
a ❑
w
w
w
w
O
O
O
O
0.45
4.2
1.2825
4.35
0.30
1.33
D
0.055
1.70
a 0
2-2
a ❑
0
0
0
0
0.00
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
######
0 0 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 lot ######

User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:
Carlo Colibao Date: 7/2/2019
Checked By:
Date:
Company:
CYNTERGY
Project Name:
Fort Bragg - SOF
Project No.:
P04585.0100
Site Location (City/Town) Fort Bragg
Channel/Waterway Id. ST2
Step 1. Detennnine the required flow capacity, Q, by estimating peak runoff
rate for the design storm (Appendix 8.03).
Design storm 10-yr
Required Flow, Q (cfs) 1.24
Step 2. Deter rye the slope and select channel geometry and Hiring.
Slope (ft/ft) 0.02
Channel geometry: V, Parabolic,
or Trapezoidal Trapezoidal
Channel lining Tall Fescue
Step 3. Determine the permissible velocity for the lifting selected. or the
desired velocity, tf paved. (see Table 8.05a, page 8.05.4)
Permissible velocity (ft/s) 4.5 Table 8.05a
Step 4, Make an uutial estimate of channel size —divide the required Q by the
permissible velocity to reach a 'fast try" estimate of channel flow area Theft
select a geometry. deptlt. and top width to fit site conditions.
Channel flow area (ft) "first try" 0.28
Step 5. Calculate the hydraulic radius, R, from channel geometry (Figure
8.05b, page 8.05.5).
Step 6. Determine roughness coefficient n.
Structural Linings —see Table 8.05b, page 8.05.6.
Grass Lining:
a. Determine retardance class for %vegetation from Table 8.05c, page
8.05.8. To meet stability requirement, use retardance for newly
mowed condition (generally C or D). To determine channel capacity,
use at least one retardance class higher
b. Determine n from Figure 8.05c, page 8.05.7.
Step 7. Calculate the actual channel velocity. V. using Manning's equation
(Figure 8.05a. pg. 8.05.3), and calculate channel capacity. Q, using the
continuity equation.
Step 8. Check results against permissible velocity and required design
capacity to determine if design is acceptable.
Step 9. If design is not acceptable, alter channel dimensions as appropriate.
For trapezoidal channels, this adjustment is usually made by changing the
bottom width.
See table below for Steps 5-9

N
L a
a_ t
Q
� �
N
O
E
°
a
Trapezoidal U)
X
m 9
Figure 8.05b
0
.0W
(ft) (ft)
0 0
LLB LLB LL
3 1.5
0.5
3 1.5
0.45
o
Y
C
H O
C
U
o Q
�'
a a�
—
� �n
�o �6
a
a
C
O
_
Y
Y
5
� a5
a) E
�
a5
�
� t/1
w
C
0
O
0
O
m
m cYi
O `a5
3.a
=�
id'i
d'O
�Q
cc V
>
>
�(¢
C)
�(¢
V O
(ft) (ff)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/s)
(gfs)
m
9
U a)LO
9 O
a
U) H 00
10
LLl
L
L
>
.o
>
L
LLl
LU
LU
LU
U
LU
U
O
O
4.5 1.5
4.66
0.32
1.45
D
0.051
1.94
a ❑
2-9
a ❑
LU
LU
LU
LU
O
O
O
O
42 12825
4.35
0.30
1.33
D
0.055
1.70
a ❑
2-2
a ❑
0
0
0 0
0.00
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
######
0 0 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 /#

User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:
Carlo Colibao Date: 7/2/2019
Checked By:
Date:
Company:
CYNTERGY
Project Name:
Fort Bragg - SOF
Project No.:
P04585.0100
Site Location (City/Town) Fort Bragg
Channel/Waterway Id. ST3
Step 1. Detennnine the required flow capacity, Q, by estimating peak runoff
rate for the design storm (Appendix 8.03).
Design storm 10-yr
Required Flow, Q (cfs) 3.45
Step 2. Deter rye the slope and select channel geometry and Hiring.
Slope (ft/ft) 0.02
Channel geometry: V, Parabolic,
or Trapezoidal Trapezoidal
Channel lining Tall Fescue
Step 3. Determine the permissible velocity for the lining selected. or the
desired velocity, tf paved. (see Table 8.05a, page 8.05.4)
Permissible velocity (ft/s) 4.5 Table 8.05a
Step 4, Make an uutial estimate of channel size —divide the required Q by the
permissible velocity to reach a 'fast try" estimate of channel flow area Theft
select a geometry. depth. and top width to fit site conditions.
Channel flow area (ft) "first try" 0.77
Step 5. Calculate the hydraulic radius, R, from channel geometry (Figure
8.05b, page 8.05.5).
Step 6. Determine roughness coefficient n.
Structural Linings —see Table 8.05b, page 8.05.6.
Grass Lining:
a. Determine retardance class for %vegetation from Table 8.05c, page
8.05.8. To meet stability requirement, use retardance for newly
mowed condition (generally C or D). To determine channel capacity,
use at least one retardance class hngher
b. Determine n from Figure 8.05c, page 8.05.7.
Step 7. Calculate the actual channel velocity. V. using Manning's equation
(Figure 8.05a. pg. 8.05.3), and calculate channel capacity. Q, using the
continuity equation.
Step 8. Check results against permissible velocity and required design
capacity to determine if design is acceptable.
Step 9. If design is not acceptable, alter channel dimensions as appropriate.
For trapezoidal channels, this adjustment is usually made by changing the
bottom width.
See table below for Steps 5-9

N
L a
a_ t
Q
� �
N
O
E
°
a
Trapezoidal U)
X
m 9
Figure 8.05b
0
.0W
(ft) (ft)
0 0
LLB LLB LL
3 1.5
0.55
3 1.5
0.6
o
Y
C
H O
d
C
U
0
O
—
a
a
MA)
C
O
_
Y
Y
� a5
a) E
�
a5
�
� t/1
w
C
0
O
0
O
m
m cYi
O `a5
3.a
=�
id'i
d'O
�Q
cc V
>
>
�(¢
C)
�(¢
V O
(ft) (ff)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/s)
(gfs)
m
9
U a)LO
9 O
a .
U) H oo
LLl
L
L
>
.o
>
L
L'
LU
LU
LU
U
LU
U
O
O
4.8 1.7325
4.98
0.35
1.57
D
0.052
2.00
a ❑
3.5
a ❑
LU
LU
LU
LU
O
O
O
O
5.1 1.98
529
0.37
1.68
D
0.055
1.99
a ❑
3.9
a ❑
0
0
0 0
0.00
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
######
0 0 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #

User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:
Carlo Colibao Date: 7/2/2019
Checked By:
Date:
Company:
CYNTERGY
Project Name:
Fort Bragg - SOF
Project No.:
P04585.0100
Site Location (City/Town) Fort Bragg
Channel/Waterway Id. ST4
Step 1. Determine the requied flow capacity. Q, by estimating peak nmoff
rate for the design storm (Appendix 8.03).
Design storm 10-yr
Required Flow, Q (cfs) 3.25
Step 2. Determine the slope and select channel geometry and lining.
Slope (ft/ft) 0.02
Channel geometry: V, Parabolic,
or Trapezoidal Trapezoidal
Channel lining Tall Fescue
Step 3. Determine the permissible velocity for the lining selected, or the
desired velocity if paved (see Table 8.05a. page 8.05 4)
Permissible velocity (ft/s) 4.5 Table 8.05a
Step 4. Make an initial estimate of chatmel size —di -Me the required Q by the
permissible velocity to reach a " mt try" estimate of charnel flow area. Then
select a geometry. depth. and top width to fit site conditions.
Channel flow area (ft) "first try" 0.72
Step 5. Calculate the hydraulic radius. R. from channel geometry (Figure
8.05b, page 8.05.5).
Step 5. Determine roughness coefficient n.
Structural Linings —see Table &05b. page 9 05.6.
Grass Lining:
a. Determine retardance class for vegetation from Table 8.05e, page
8.05.8. To meet stability requirement, use retardance for newly
mowed condition (generally C or D). To determine channel capacity,
use at least one retardance class tugher.
b. Determine n from Figure 8.05c, page 8.05.7.
Step 7. Calculate the actual channel velocity, V, using Manning's equation
(Figure 8.05a, pg. 8.05.3), and calculate channel capacity. Q, using the
continuity equation.
Step 8. Check results against permissible velocity and required design
capacity to determine if design is acceptable.
Step 9, rf design is not acceptable. alter channel dimensions as appropriate.
For trapezoidal channels, this ad)ustment is usually made by changing the
bottom width.
See table below for Steps 5-9

N L
a
a 5
Q
o E
� o
0
Trapezoidal U) m
Figure 8.05b (ft)
(6
Y
a
~
°
a
c
o
L
O
!?
a)
aL-•
U
Q
a iv
a)a
U
C
m m
C
a
C
MA)
>
U
0
aT -6�i
m
�
�
�a
m
=�
a1 a)a
>�>
� �
��
�8
a)
>
a)�
>
C)
c�C)
(ft)
(ft)
(ff)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/s)
(gfs)
m
U N 9
m
CD
U H
W
LO
> H CO
>
W
W
W
U
W
U
O
O
0.55
4.8
1.7325
4.98
0.35
1.57
D
0.052
2.00
a 0
3.5
a ❑
w
w
w
w
O
O
O
O
0.55
4.8
1.7325
4.98
0.35
1.57
D
0.055
1.90
a 0
3.3
a ❑
0
0
0
0
0.00
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
######
0 0 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 lot ######

User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:
Carlo Colibao Date: 7/2/2019
Checked By:
Date:
Company:
CYNTERGY
Project Name:
Fort Bragg - SOF
Project No.:
P04585.0100
Site Location (City/Town) Fort Bragg
Channel/Waterway Id. ST5
Step 1. Detennnine the required flow capacity, Q, by estimating peak runoff
rate for the design storm (Appendix 8.03).
Design storm 10-yr
Required Flow, Q (cfs) 0.61
Step 2. Deter rye the slope and select channel geometry and Hiring.
Slope (ft/ft) 0.02
Channel geometry: V, Parabolic,
or Trapezoidal Trapezoidal
Channel lining Tall Fescue
Step 3. Determine the permissible velocity for the lifting selected. or the
desired velocity, tf paved. (see Table 8.05a, page 8.05.4)
Permissible velocity (ft/s) 4.5 Table 8.05a
Step 4, Make an uutial estimate of channel size —divide the required Q by the
permissible velocity to reach a 'fast try" estimate of channel flow area Theft
select a geometry. depth. and top width to fit site conditions.
Channel flow area (ft) "first try" 0.14
Step 5. Calculate the hydraulic radius, R, from channel geometry (Figure
8.05b, page 8.05.5).
Step 6. Determine roughness coefficient n.
Structural Linings —see Table 8.05b, page 8.05.6.
Grass Lining:
a. Determine retardance class for %vegetation from Table 8.05c, page
8.05.8. To meet stability requirement, use retardance for newly
mowed condition (generally C or D). To determine channel capacity,
use at least one retardance class higher
b. Determine n from Figure 8.05c, page 8.05.7.
Step 7. Calculate the actual channel velocity. V. using Manning's equation
(Figure 8.05a. pg. 8.05.3), and calculate channel capacity. Q, using the
continuity equation.
Step 8. Check results against permissible velocity and required design
capacity to determine if design is acceptable.
Step 9. If design is not acceptable, alter channel dimensions as appropriate.
For trapezoidal channels, this adjustment is usually made by changing the
bottom width.
See table below for Steps 5-9

N
L a
a_ t
Q
� �
N
O
E
°
a
Trapezoidal U)
X
m 9
Figure 8.05b
0
.0W
(ft) (ft)
0 0
LLB LLB LL
3 1.5
0.5
3 1.5
0.45
o
Y
C
H O
C
U
o Q
�'
a a�
—
� �n
�o �6
a
a
C
O
_
Y
Y
5
� a5
a) E
�
a5
�
� t/1
w
C
0
O
0
O
m
m cYi
O `a5
3.a
=�
id'i
d'O
�Q
cc V
>
>
�(¢
C)
�(¢
V O
(ft) (ff)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/s)
(gfs)
m
9
U a)LO
9 O
a
U) H 00
10
LLl
L
L
>
.o
>
L
LLl
LU
LU
LU
U
LU
U
O
O
4.5 1.5
4.66
0.32
1.45
D
0.051
1.94
a ❑
2-9
a ❑
LU
LU
LU
LU
O
O
O
O
42 12825
4.35
0.30
1.33
D
0.055
1.70
a ❑
2-2
a ❑
0
0
0 0
0.00
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
######
0 0 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 /#

User Input Data
Calculated Value
Reference Data
Designed By:
Carlo Colibao Date: 7/2/2019
Checked By:
Date:
Company:
CYNTERGY
Project Name:
Fort Bragg - SOF
Project No.:
P04585.0100
Site Location (City/Town) Fort Bragg
Channel/Waterway Id. ST6
Step 1. Determine the requied flow capacity. Q, by estimating peak nmoff
rate for the design storm (Appendix 8.03).
Design storm 10-yr
Required Flow, Q (cfs) 1.23
Step 2. Determine the slope and select channel geometry and lining.
Slope (ft/ft) 0.02
Channel geometry: V, Parabolic,
or Trapezoidal Trapezoidal
Channel lining Tall Fescue
Step 3. Determine the permissible velocity for the lining selected, or the
desired velocity if paved (see Table 8.05a. page 8.05 4)
Permissible velocity (ft/s) 4.5 Table 8.05a
Step 4. Make an initial estimate of chatmel size —di -Me the required Q by the
permissible velocity to reach a " mt try" estimate of charnel flow area. Then
select a geometry. depth. and top width to fit site conditions.
Channel flow area (ft) "first try" 0.27
Step 5. Calculate the hydraulic radius. R. from channel geometry (Figure
8.05b, page 8.05.5).
Step 5. Determine roughness coefficient n.
Structural Linings —see Table &05b. page 9 05.6.
Grass Lining:
a. Determine retardance class for vegetation from Table 8.05e, page
8.05.8. To meet stability requirement, use retardance for newly
mowed condition (generally C or D). To determine channel capacity,
use at least one retardance class tugher.
b. Determine n from Figure 8.05c, page 8.05.7.
Step 7. Calculate the actual channel velocity, V, using Manning's equation
(Figure 8.05a, pg. 8.05.3), and calculate channel capacity. Q, using the
continuity equation.
Step 8. Check results against permissible velocity and required design
capacity to determine if design is acceptable.
Step 9, rf design is not acceptable. alter channel dimensions as appropriate.
For trapezoidal channels, this ad)ustment is usually made by changing the
bottom width.
See table below for Steps 5-9

N L
a
a 5
Q
o E
� o
0
Trapezoidal U) m
Figure 8.05b (ft)
(6
Y
a
~
°
a
c
o
L
O
!?
a)
aL-•
U
Q
a iv
a)a
U
C
m m
C
a
C
MA)
>
U
0
aT -6�i
m
�
�
�a
m
=�
a1 a)a
>�>
� �
��
�8
a)
>
a)�
>
C)
c�C)
(ft)
(ft)
(ff)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/s)
(gfs)
m
U N 9
m
CD
U H
W
LO
> H CO
>
W
W
W
U
W
U
O
O
0.5
4.5
1.5
4.66
0.32
1.45
D
0.051
1.94
a ❑
2-9
a ❑
w
w
w
w
O
O
O
O
0.45
4.2
1.2825
4.35
0.30
1.33
D
0.055
1.70
a 0
2-2
a ❑
0
0
0
0
0.00
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
#DIV/01
######
0 0 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 lot ######

FILENAME: 63850_CG201 VOLUME 01 - DESIGN COMPLETE
PRINTED: 7/2/2019 4:49:40 PM

FILENAME: 63850_CG202 VOLUME 01 - DESIGN COMPLETE
PRINTED: 7/2/2019 4:49:45 PM

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility, 12/14/2018
Appendix F — NRCS Cumberland County Soil Survey Map
a.6 I Sage

USDA United States
A product of the National
Custom Soil Resource
Department of
Agriculture
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
Report for
N
���
States Department ofAgriculture and other
Cumberland
Federal agencies, State
Natural
agencies including the
� o � n ty, North
Resources
Agricultural Experiment
Conservation
Stations, and local
Service
participants
Carolina
0 ========8.000 ft
— , .
November 13, 2018

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https:Hoffices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

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

Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................
2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
SoilMap..................................................................................................................
8
SoilMap................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
MapUnit Legend................................................................................................
11
MapUnit Descriptions.........................................................................................11
Cumberland County, North Carolina...............................................................13
FaB—Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes .....................................
13
Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................14
Soil Properties and Qualities..............................................................................
14
Soil Qualities and Features.............................................................................14
Hydrologic Soil Group (SOF Support Battalion)..........................................14
References............................................................................................................19

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

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

Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

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

Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
679200 679230 679260 679290 679320 679350 67MM
679410 679440 679470 679500
35° 58" N
I I
35° 58" N
X
i3
1
0
OP-
-J-. -
0
Soil MaN may not he valiel at this scale.
350 5' 1" N
350 51" N
679200 679230 679260 679290 679320 679350 679380
679410 679440 679470 679500
Map Scale: 1:1,460 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Meters
0
N 0 20 40 80 120
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator Comereoordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM 7_a3e 17N WGS84
9

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
0
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
Iwo
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
A.
Lava Flow
.&
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
oa
Sodic Spot
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
Other
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
�-
Special Line Features
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
Water Features
scale.
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
--+-*
Rails
measurements.
. 0
Interstate Highways
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
US Routes
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Major Roads
Local Roads
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Background
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Aerial Photography
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Cumberland County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 19, Sep 10, 2018
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 13, 2014—Feb
4, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
10

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
FaB
Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes
8.8
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
8.8
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
Cumberland County, North Carolina
FaB—Faceville loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: w70c
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Faceville and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Faceville
Setting
Landform: Broad interstream divides on marine terraces, ridges on marine
terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Clayey marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loamy sand
E - 7 to 17 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 17 to 80 inches: clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
13

Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Properties and Qualities
The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and
qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in
the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated
by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This
aggregation process is defined for each property or quality.
Soil Qualities and Features
Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly
measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil
properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil
features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features
include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the
use and management of the soil.
Hydrologic Soil Group (SOF Support Battalion)
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long -duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
14

Custom Soil Resource Report
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at
or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
15

679200
35° 5'8"N
0
35° 5' 1" N
679200 679230 679260 679290 679320 679350
Map Scale: 1:1,460 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Meters N
0 20 40 80 120
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
16
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map —Hydrologic Soil Group (SOF Support Battalion)
679230 679260 679290 679320 679350 679380 679410
679440 679470
679380 679410 679440 679470
o
679500
35° 58" N
0
35° 51" N
679500
o

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating
Polygons
0
A
0
A/D
0
B
0
B/D
0
C
0
C/o
0
D
0
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating
Lines
. .
A
.
A/D
r r
B
r 0
B/D
.
C
.
C/o
.
D
.
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating
Points
❑
A
❑
A/D
0
B
0
B/D
Custom Soil Resource Report
❑ C
❑ C/o
0 D
❑ Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
i-" Rails
, 0 Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Cumberland County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 19, Sep 10, 2018
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 13, 2014—Feb
4, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
17

Custom Soil Resource Report
Table —Hydrologic Soil Group (SOF Support Battalion)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
FaB
Faceville loamy sand, 2
to 6 percent slopes
B
8.8
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
8.8
100.0%
Rating Options —Hydrologic Soil Group (SOF Support Battalion)
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff.- None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Higher
18

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
n res/d eta i I/n ati o n a I/s o i Is/?cid = n res 142 p2_0 54262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nres142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepastu re/?cid=stelprdb1043084
19

Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
n res/d eta i I/so i Is/scie ntists/?cid=n res 142 p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid = n res 142 p2_05 3624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:H
www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl 42p2_052290. pdf
20

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility, 12/14/2018
Appendix G — Subsurface and Geotechnical Engineering
Report
a.7 I Sage

r
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
BUILDING & EARTH PROJECT NUMBER RD180509
PREPARED FOR. -
ACC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
NOVEMBER 1, 2018
BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers

610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
www.BuildinciAndEarth.com
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
November 1, 2018
ACC Construction Company
635 NW Frontage Road
Augusta, GA 30907
Attention: Mr. Mason McKnight, IV
Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
PN 63850
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Building & Earth ProjectNo: :i 1•
Mr. McKnight:
Building & Earth Sciences, LLP has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and
geotechnical engineering evaluation for the Ft. Bragg, SOF Battalion Administration Facility
located within the Yarborough Complex of 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 twenty-two (22) 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
Engineering Firm F- 7081
llhane Rougul, PE (AL)
Staff Engineer
George P. Ballock, PE (AL)
Regional Vice President
`>>0\11INlt//Jj
�� Q•I C -4
��,,t?�4kESSj0 liy�.
• 4 SEAL
031353 •
! ^Y�/✓Ili/r� /RK N0N
C. Mark Nolen, PE 71g
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 Contents
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.....................................................................................................................................6
3.3.1 TOPSOIL............................................................................................................................................................7
3.3.2 SANDY SILT OR ELASTIC SILT (ML OR MH).................................................................................................7
3.3.3 SILTY SAND OR POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SM OR SP-SM).....................................................7
3.3.4 CLAYEY SAND(SC)..........................................................................................................................................8
3.3.5 AUGER REFUSAL...............................................................................................................................................8
3.3.6 GROUNDWATER...............................................................................................................................................8
3.3.7 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION........................................................................................................................9
3.4 SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE AND INFILTRATION TESTING...........................................................................9
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................10
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION..................................................................................................................................
11
4.2 SUBGRADE EVALUATION......................................................................................................................................
11
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS................................................................................................................................
12
4.4 UNDERCUTTING OR STABILIZATION OF LOW CONSISTENCY/RELATIVE DENSITY SOILS ..............................
12
4.5 EVALUATION OF ELASTIC SILTS...........................................................................................................................
13
4.6 STRUCTURAL FILL..................................................................................................................................................
13
4.7 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................................................
14
4.7.1 GROUNDWATER............................................................................................................................................
15
4.8 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL...................................................................................................................................
15
4.9 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION.............................................................................................
15
4.10 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION......................................................................................................................
15
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................16
5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS.................................................................................................................................... 16
6.0 FLOOR SLABS..........................................................................................................................................................17
7.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................................18
7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT............................................................................................................................................. 19
7.2 RIGID PAVEMENT.................................................................................................................................................. 19
8.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION............................................................................................................................20
9.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.......................................................................................................................20
10.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................................21
APPENDIX
Page I i

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
1.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located in the Yarborough Complex of Fort Bragg, on the north side of
Urban Freedom Way, west of Tora Bora Road. Information relative to the proposed site
and the proposed development is listed in Table 1 below. Photographs depicting the
current site condition are presented on the following page.
Size (Ac.) Approximately 6 Acres
Existing Development Vacant
Vegetation Grass with some trees and shrubs
General Site Slopes No
Retaining Walls No
Drainage Fair
Cuts & Fills Up to 4 feet of fill (assumed)
No. of Bldgs 1
Square Ft. 45,000
Stories 1
Proposed Construction
Masonry and metal
Buildings Column Loads
150 kips
Wall Loads Aklf
Preferred Foundation
Conventional shallow spread
Preferred Slab
Concrete slab -on -grade
Traffic
Provided
Pavements Standard Duty Yes, Flexible
Heavy Duty Yes, Rigid and Flexible
Table 1: Project and Site Description
Reference: RFP Documents — SOF Battalion Administration Facility at Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Notes.
1. If actual loading conditions exceed our anticipated loads, Building & Earth Sciences should
be allowed to review the proposed structural design and its effects on our recommendations
for foundation design.
2. Since information on final grades 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 plans, when they become available, and be contracted to
provide supplemental recommendations prior to starting construction.
Page 11

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
Figure 1: Typical Site Conditions
Figure 2: Looking west from NE boundary
Page 12

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The authorized subsurface exploration was performed on September 25 and 26, 2018 in
general conformance with our proposal RD20257, dated May 25, 2018.
The purpose of the geotechnical exploration was to determine 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 twenty-two (22) soil test borings. The site was drilled using a Diedrich
D50 drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer.
In addition to SPT sampling, our testing also included dilatometer testing in general
accordance with ASTM D6635. This method of testing in -situ soil advances a flat plate
dilatometer into the soil profile using the downward pressure from a truck mounted drill
rig. At selected depths, the dilatometer is expanded into the soil mass and is able to
provide information regarding penetration resistance, lateral stress and deformation
modulus of the soil. Using empirical data this dilatometer information can better predict
soil strength parameters that are used in the settlement analysis. The intent of this
additional testing was to better evaluate the settlement potential of the soils within the
upper 10 to 15 feet of the soil profile.
The soil boring locations were determined in the field by a representative of our staff by
measuring from existing site features. As such, the boring locations shown on the Boring
Location Plan attached to this report should be considered approximate.
The soil samples recovered during our site investigation were visually classified and
specific samples were selected by the project engineer for laboratory analysis. The
laboratory analysis consisted of:
No. of Tests
Natural Moisture Content D2216 20
Atterberg Limits D4318 10
Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve by Washing D1140 10
Modified Proctor with California Bearing ratio I D1557/D1883
Table 2: Scope of Laboratory Tests
The results of the laboratory analysis are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs and in
tabular form in the Appendix of this report. Descriptions of the laboratory tests that were
performed are also included in the Appendix.
Page 13

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
The 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
earthwork phase of the project.
The results of the work are presented within this report that addresses:
Summary of existing surface conditions.
A description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the exploration
locations.
Site preparation considerations including material types to be expected during
foundation construction and mass 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.
Subsurface soil logs that detail properties of the materials encountered with soil
classifications and depth to bedrock (if encountered).
Presentation of laboratory test results.
Recommendations for foundation, slab -on -grade, and pavement designs.
Plans and maps showing the location of the project and our onsite work.
Presentation of design calculations attached to this report.
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The following discussion is intended to create a general understanding of the site from a
geotechnical engineering perspective. It is not intended to be a discussion of every
potential geotechnical issue that may arise, nor to provide every possible interpretation
of the conditions identified. The following conditions and subsequent 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 the geologic conditions at the site, and it
will be necessary to evaluate the assumed conditions during site grading and foundation
installation.
Page 14

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
3.1 rFninry
Situated near the western boundary of the North Carolina Coastal Plain physiographic
province, published geologic maps indicate that the subject site is underlain by cretaceous
aged soil deposits associated with the Middendorf and Cape Fear geologic formations.
These formations are generally composed of sandstone and mudstone. The Soil Survey
of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina (USDA Soil Conservation Service)
describes the area as characterized by deep sedimentary soils, ranging in depth from
about 200 to about 400 feet in depth.
S.1 EXISTING JURFACE LONDITIONS
The SOF Battalion Administration Facility site is described as fairly level and at the time of
our field exploration, the site had isolated areas of shallow standing water. Surface
elevations range from approximately 259 to 268 ft. MSL.
An existing asphalt roadway was observed at the site. A chain link fence was present along
the center east side of the site, immediately east of the existing asphalt roadway. An
existing dirt road was observed along the western end of the project site. From a review
of historical aerial photographs on Google Earth, the southwestern portion of the site may
have been used as a storage area for what appears to be metal shipping containers. This
can be seen in the photographs from October 2015 to May 2016. Storm drainage has
been installed along Urban Freedom Way, and temporary storm basins are also present.
Ground cover is generally grass, with some shrubs that will require removal as part of site
preparation operations. Below is an aerial photograph of the site as it appeared in
February 2018.
Page 15

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
Figure 3: Google Earth Aerial Photograph with Approximate Site Boundary
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITION'.
A generalized stratification summary has been prepared using data from the soil test
borings drilled by Building & Earth and is presented in the table below. The stratification
depicts the general soil conditions and strata types encountered during our field
investigation.
1 3 to 12 Topsoil N.A.
inches
Typically Stiff to Very Stiff;
2 3 - 30 ft. Sandy Silt (ML) and Elastic Silt (MH) Medium Stiff in the upper 2 feet
_ in B-04 through B-07 and P-06
3 1 — 23.5 ft. Silty Sand (SM) and Poorly Graded Sand Typically Loose to Medium Dense
with Silt (SP-SM)
4 1.5 — 17 ft. Clayey Sand (SC) Typically Loose to Medium Dense
Table 3: Stratification Summary
Subsurface soil profiles have also been prepared based on the data obtained at the
specific boring locations. The subsurface soil profiles are presented in the Appendix. For
specific details on the information obtained from individual soil borings, please refer to
the Boring Logs included in the Appendix.
Page 16

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
The elevations of the borings indicated in this report, and shown on the boring logs, were
estimated from the provided Grade and Drain Plan prepared by the US Army Corps of
Engineers, undated.
3.1 TOPSOIL
Topsoil encountered on site ranged from about 3 to 12 inches, with an average of about
8 inches. No testing has been performed to verify these soils meet any specific
requirements for "topsoil". Topsoil depths reported on the boring logs should only be
considered an estimate and topsoil thickness may vary in unexplored portions of the site.
.3.3,2 SANDY SILT OR ELASTIC SILT (MI ')R MH)
Sandy silt (ML) was observed in all of the building borings except B-02 and B-08 and in
pavement boring P-06. The sandy silt material was encountered at the surface or beneath
the topsoil layer and extended to depths ranging from 4 to 13 feet below the surface.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values within the ML soils typically ranged from 4 to
33, with values in the range of 7 to 20 blows per foot considered representative. Low
consistency soils (N<_6) were encountered in the upper 2 feet in borings B-04 through 13-
07 and P-06. Atterberg Limits tests performed on selected ML soil samples indicated low
plasticity with Liquid Limits (LL) of 38 and 40 and Plasticity Indices (PI) of 11, and contained
approximately 53 and 55 percent fines.
Sandy elastic silt or elastic silt (MH) soils were encountered from approximately 8.5 to 13.5
feet below the surface in boring B-01. The MH soils were also encountered at the surface
in boring B-02 and extended to termination depth (30 ft). The MH soils were generally
stiff to hard with N-values ranging from 7 to 31. Atterberg Limits tests performed on
selected MH soil samples exhibited medium plasticity with Liquid Limits (LL) ranging from
50 to 57 and Plasticity Indices (PI) ranging from 16 to 18. Wash No. 200 Sieve tests
indicated the MH soil samples contained approximately 58 to 88 percent fines.
.3.3.3 SILTY SAND OR POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SM OR SP-SM
Soils described as silty sand (SM) were observed in 19 of the 22 borings. The silty sand
was not encountered in borings B-01, B-02, P-06, and P-14. The SM soils were generally
loose to medium dense, and occasionally very loose or dense to very dense. N-values
within the SM soils ranged from 2 to 44 blows per foot, with values in the range of 9 to
23 blows per foot considered representative. Low relative density soils (N<_8) were
encountered in the upper 2 to 4 feet in borings B-08, P-01 through P-04, P-05, P-07, P-09
and P-11 through P-13. In P-01 and P-03, the low relative density soils extended to a
depth of 6 feet.
Page 17

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
Poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) was encountered in borings B-01 and B-07, at depths
of approximately 23.5 to 28.5 feet below the surface and extended to termination depths.
The SP-SM soils were described as loose in B-01 and dense in B-07.
Atterberg Limits tests performed on a selected SM sample indicated a Liquid Limit (LL) of
39 and a Plasticity Index (PI) of 11, and contained approximately 45 percent fines. Wash
#200 sieves tests performed on selected non -plastic soil samples indicated the samples
contained approximately 5 to 20 percent fines.
3.4 CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Clayey sand (SC) was encountered below the silty sand layer in borings B-03 through 13-
05, B-07, B-08, P-01 through P-04, P-07, P-09 through P-11, and P-13. Clayey sands were
also encountered at the surface in P-04 and extended to termination depth (10 feet). The
SC soils were generally described as loose to medium dense, and occasionally described
as very loose or dense. N-values within the SC soils ranged from 2 to 33 blows per foot,
with values in the range 9 to 20 blows per foot considered representative.
Atterberg Limits tests performed on a selected SC soil sample indicated low plasticity with
a Liquid Limit (LL) of 37, a Plasticity Index (PI) of 15, and contained approximately 49
percent fines.
-.3.5 AUGER REFUSAL
Auger refusal is the drilling depth at which the 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 the material below auger refusal. Auger refusal
was not encountered in borings drilled for this study.
3.3.6 GROUNDWATER
At the time of drilling, groundwater was not observed in the test borings. Water levels
reported are accurate only for the time and date that 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.
Page 18

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
3,3,7 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION
Ir- -r asis of Evaluation -A —=' U Recommended S'
2015 International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE 7, Chapter 20 D
The SeisOpt® refraction microtremor (ReMi®) method was used to determine the Seismic Site Class of
the building areas. SeisOpt® ReMi® V,30 software uses data from conventional seismograph and P-wave
geophones to estimate average shear wave velocities and one and two-dimensional shear wave profiles
to a depth of 100 feet below the existing site grades. These velocities are used to classify a building site
with the IBC site Class A through E designation. The average shear wave velocity (Vs) in the upper 100
feet was 1,134 feet per second (ft/s). The results of the shear wave velocity analysis are included in the
Appendix.
Table 4: Seismic Site Classification
According to Figure 1613.3.1(1) of the IBC 2015, the project site has a mapped 0.2 second
spectral response acceleration (Ss) of 0.215g. Based on Figure 1613.3.1(2), the project has
a mapped 1.0 second spectral response acceleration (Si) of 0.096g.
Using Tables 1613.3.3(1) and 1613.3.3(2), the mapped spectral accelerations, and Site
Class D; the site coefficients Fa and Fv have been determined to be 1.6 and 2.4, respectively.
The maximum considered spectral response accelerations, SMs and SM1, were determined
to be 0.345g and 0.229g, respectively. The design spectral response accelerations, SDs and
SD1, were determined to be 0.230g and 0.153g, respectively.
3.4 SLASUNAL 1'IIGN VVAI tK 1 ABLE ANU INFILI KAI IUN 1 ESTING
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.
Once the SHWT was measured, infiltration testing was performed. The results of the
testing are included in the Appendix of this report.
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.
Page 19

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
To develop our results, Building & Earth has measured the saturated flow rate (Ksat) for
the soils at the site using accepted test methods and equipment in general accordance
with ASTM D5126 14.1.61 (Standard Guide for Comparison of Field Methods for
Determining Hydraulic Conductivity in the Vadose Zone). Ultimately, the drainage of the
basins will be a function of the saturated flow rate of the soils, the surface area of the
basin geometry, and the pressure differential (hydraulic head) induced by the storm water
levels in the pond.
In order to determine the appropriate Ksat for the soils in the basin, a small diameter bore
hole was advanced to a pre -determined depth of interest. At this depth, a constant head
(pressure) was established and maintained. Once our measurements approached a
stabilized flow rate, our test was terminated.
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Since information on final grades 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 plans, when they become available, and be
contracted to provide supplemental recommendations prior to starting construction.
Based on surface elevations at the boring sites, we anticipate cuts and fills in the range of
about 3 to 4 feet will be required to prepare the site for the building pad and pavement
areas.
Based on our evaluation of the subsurface soil information, and the anticipated
foundation loads, it appears that construction with a conventional spread foundation
system is feasible. The site development recommendations outlined below are intended
for development of the site to support construction with a conventional spread
foundation 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.
The primary geotechnical concerns for this project are:
Relatively soft and loose soils at the project surface, extending to depths of
generally 2 to 3 feet (B-04 through B-08, P-02, P-05, P-06, P-11, P-13), and in some
cases up to 6 to 8 feet below the surface (P-01, P-03, P-04).
Elastic silt soils present in B-02.
Moisture sensitive soils.
Recommendations addressing the site conditions are presented in the following sections.
Page 110

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
All trees, roots, topsoil and deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed
construction areas. Approximately 3 to 12 inches of topsoil were observed in 14 of the
22 borings. A geotechnical engineer should observe stripping, grubbing, and
undercutting operations to evaluate that all unsuitable materials are removed from areas
to receive buildings and pavements.
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.
.1 SUBuKAut 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, and relatively soft or loose soils were noted
within the upper 2 to 4 feet in most borings, occasionally extending to depths of 6 to 8
feet below the surface. 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 fi I I.
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.
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.
Page 111

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
1.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS
Moisture sensitive silty sands (SM), clayey sands (SC), sandy silts (ML), and elastic silts
(MH) 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'TING UR STAtsiLicHfION OF Low CONSISI ENCY/RELATIVE DENSITY SOILS
Low consistency/relative density soils (N <_6/N <8) were encountered in 5 of the 8 borings
within the building footprint (13-04 through B-08) in the upper 2 to 3 feet. Soft or loose
soils may be encountered in unexplored areas of the site. The near -surface low
consistency soils encountered within the building footprint should be undercut to a
stable, suitable subgrade. Although it may be possible to stabilize some of the surficial
soils in -place, it appears undercuts on the order of 2 to 3 feet can be anticipated within
the building pad. The undercutting should extend laterally at least 5 feet outside the
building footprint. Deeper undercuts may be required beneath foundations in isolated
areas, which is discussed further in Section 5.0.
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.
Soft or loose soils were also encountered in 9 of the 14 pavement borings (P-02, P-06 and
P-11 through P-13) in the upper 2 to 4 feet. Loose soils, extending to depths of about 6
to 8 feet were encountered in borings P-01, P-03, and P-04. At boring P-13, relatively
loose soils extended to termination depth (10 feet). Undercut depths within the planned
pavement areas will be highly dependent upon final grades and subgrade evaluation
results. Undercutting should extend laterally at least 3 feet outside of the edge of
pavement. In pavement areas, it may be possible to reduce undercutting or stabilize the
soft soils in place.
Page 112

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
Typical stabilization methods vary widely and include modification of the soft soils with
the addition of shot rock or No. 2 stone, modification of the soft soils with the addition
of cement, as well as utilization of geogrids and graded aggregates.
The design of a specific stabilization method is beyond the scope of this investigation but
can be provided by Building & Earth as an additional service if desired. Any undercutting
or stabilization performed in pavement areas 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 proofrolled
in order to identify any additional soft soils requiring removal.
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 on -site MH soils
are not suitable for reuse 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.
E.5 EVALUATION OF ELASTIC SILTS
Based on the laboratory test results, elastic silt soils are present in the western portion of
the building (borings B-01 and B-02). In B-02, the elastic silts were encountered at the
surface and extended to boring termination depth. Elastic soils are normally not suitable
for conventional shallow foundations and floor slabs because of the potential for
significant shrinkage or swelling due to moisture variation. However, the laboratory test
results indicated medium plasticity of the elastic soils, and the near surface soils tested
contained approximately 58 percent fines. Therefore, it is our opinion that the on -site
elastic soils can remain in place, but it will be necessary to verify subsurface conditions
during grading and foundation installation. It should be noted that a swell test was not
performed at this time and swell potential was estimated based on the Atterberg Limits
tests. We strongly recommend that any additional fill placed at the site consist of low
plasticity soils placed in accordance with the Structural Fill section of this report.
-4.0 STRUCTURAL FILL
Requirements for structural fill on this project are as follows:
Page 113

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
Sand and GW, GP, GM, SW, Pavement subgrades, building pads
Gravel SP, SM or Maximum 2" particle size where the material can be confined.
combinations
Clay CL, SC, GC LL<50, PI <25, yd> 100 pcf All areas
Clay CH N/A Not recommended for use
Silt ML (with no sand), N/A
I MH
Not recommended for use
On -site SM, ML, SC, SP-SM LL<50, PI<25, yd>100 pcf All Areas
soils
Table 5: Structural Fill Requirements
Notes:
1. 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.
2. 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.
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
92 Percent maximum per ASTM D-1557 all structural areas below 24 inches
Density
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
t.7 EXCAVATION CONSIDEkATIONS
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.
Page 114

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
4.7.1 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered in the test borings. However, groundwater could be
encountered during construction, particularly during undercutting operations. 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.
4AS UTILITY I RENCH 13ACKFILL
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.
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.
in WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION
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 silty and higher consistency soils encountered below the surficial
layers, 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.
Page 115

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
It is our understanding that individual column loads will be less than 150 kips, and that
wall loads will be less than 3 kips per lineal foot. Our geotechnical analysis and
recommendations are based upon these loading magnitudes. If these assumptions
concerning structural loading are incorrect, our office should be contacted, such that
our recommendations can be reviewed.
5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Based on the 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 an allowable soil
bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.
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 footing subgrades disturbed by the excavation
process and the 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 footings designed and constructed as
recommended above should be 1 inch or less.
Depending on the building finish floor elevation, soft and loose soils may be encountered
at or below anticipated footing depth; therefore, verification of bearing capacity will be
critical. We recommend that 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 interior column footings, and
for each 50-foot increment of wall footings.
In the event that loose/soft soils are encountered during footing inspections, undercutting
and/or stabilization recommendations will be determined based on the results of these
tests. The contractor should be prepared to undercut these soils to the recommended
depth and backfill with NCDOT washed No. 57 stone. The washed No. 57 stone should
be wrapped in filter fabric if groundwater (perched or otherwise) is encountered.
The following items should be considered during the preparation of construction
documents and foundation installation:
Page 116

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
The geotechnical engineer of record should observe the exposed foundation
bearing surfaces prior to concrete placement to verify that the 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 the 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.
■ Water should not be allowed to pond in foundation excavations prior to concrete
placement or above the concrete after the foundation is completed.
■ 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.
■ The building pad should be sloped to drain away from the building foundations.
■ Roof drains should be routed away from the foundation soils.
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.
Floor slabs for the proposed building should be supported on a minimum four (4) inches
thick compacted layer of free -draining, granular material, such as AASHTO No. 610 or 57
stone. The purpose of this layer is to serve as a leveling course and act as a capillary break
for moisture migration through the subgrade soil. With addition of the granular material,
an effective modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pci can be used in the design of grade
supported building floor slabs.
Depending on the proposed floor covering, consideration should be given to the use of
a polyethylene vapor barrier. The slabs should be appropriately reinforced (if required) to
support the proposed loads.
Page 117

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
7.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the materials encountered at the boring locations and after our
recommendations for site preparation are implemented, pavements at the subject site
may be designed based on a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of five (5) percent. Note that
CBR testing was performed, and under ideal circumstances, the subgrade soils can be
compacted to achieve a considerably higher CBR value. However, for the purposes of this
final geotechnical report, a CBR of 5% was used to evaluate the required pavement
thicknesses.
Pavement design has been performed to address parameters appearing in 3.6 of Section
01 11 01 of the RFP documents. This document references the 2012 edition of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures,
Department of Defense document UFC 3-250-01 Pavement Design for Roads and Parking
Areas, and Ft. Bragg Installation Requirements.
Pavement analysis and design has been completed using the U.S. Army COE PCASE
2.09.05 pavement design program. Traffic loads, as required in the proposal documents,
appear in Table 7, below. Design and analysis are based on the provided traffic loading
over a 25-year design life.
I
HS20 Trucks 5-Axle
(72,000 # Vehicle Wt.)
CMP 60 Fork Lift
(10,000# Vehicle Wt.)
HMMWV 1.25-Ton Carrier
(10,000# Vehicle Wt.)
P-23 Crash Truck (Fire Truck)
(77,880 # Vehicle Wt.)
Truck — 3-Axle
(66,000# Vehicle Wt.)
0 0 1,300
4,562,500 4,562,500 4,562,500
0 1,300 1,300
0 2,600 1,300
Table 7: Provided Traffic Volume
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.
Page 118

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
Note: All subgrade, base and pavement construction operations should meet minimum
requirements of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
The applicable sections of the specifications are identified as follows:
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
710
Bituminous Asphalt Wearing Layer
610
Bituminous Asphalt Binder Layer
610
Mineral Aggregate Base Materials
520
Soil
500
Table 8: NCDOT Specification Sections
7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
The asphalt pavement sections described herein were evaluated using the pavement
design program PCASE 2.09.05 described above. The program analysis indicated that the
minimum required pavement sections appearing in 3.6.3 of Section 01 11 01 of the RFP
documents were not adequate for the provided traffic information. The following
pavement sections were evaluated and found to be acceptable.
7.2 RIGID PAVEMENT
4.25
6.0
1
Asphalt
Unbound Crushed Stone Base
Table 9: Asphalt Pavement Recommendations
The following rigid pavement section is a minimum acceptable section. The program
analysis indicated that the minimum required rigid pavement section was not adequate.
Analysis confirmed this section is suitable for support of the heavy-duty traffic
summarized in Table 7. This section was analyzed for suitability based upon the traffic
loading and other parameters tabulated above.
6.25 1 Portland Cement Concrete, (S'c) of 650 psi
6.0 Crushed Stone Base
Table 10: Rigid Pavement Recommendations
Page 119

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
The concrete should be protected against moisture loss, rapid temperature fluctuations,
and construction traffic for several days after placement. All pavements should be sloped
for positive drainage. We recommend that the pavements be reinforced to hold any
cracks that might develop tightly together and restrain their growth.
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.
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.
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.
).0 17ONSTRUCTION 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
Structural framing
Pavement subgrade and crushed stone base installation
All other items subject to IBC Special Inspections
Page 120

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation,
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project No: RD180509, November 1, 2018
10.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for ACC Construction Company, for specific application to the
SOF Battalion Administration Facility located within 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.
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 Geotechnical Report, has been included in the Appendix. We
encourage all individuals to become familiar with the article to help manage risk.
Page 121

Appendix Table of Contents
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES........................................................................................... 1
DRILLING PROCEDURES —STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586)...........................1
BULKSAMPLING............................................................................................................................................1
UNDISTURBED SAMPLING.........................................................................................................................2
BORING LOG DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................3
DEPTH AND ELEVATION.............................................................................................................................3
SAMPLETYPE...................................................................................................................................................3
SAMPLENUMBER..........................................................................................................................................3
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD%...............................................................................................3
SOILDATA........................................................................................................................................................ 3
SOIL DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................................4
GRAPHIC...........................................................................................................................................................4
REMARKS..........................................................................................................................................................4
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................... 5
KEYTO LOGS......................................................................................................................................................................... 7
KEYTO HATCHES................................................................................................................................................................9
BORING LOCATION PLAN.............................................................................................................................................10
SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES........................................................................................................................................11
BORINGLOGS.....................................................................................................................................................................12
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES..............................................................................................................................13
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488)............................13
POCKET PENETROMETER.........................................................................................................................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
CBRTEST RESULT..............................................................................................................................................................16

SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE..................................................................................................................................17
INFILTRATION TESTING..................................................................................................................................................18
DILATOMETER TEST RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................19
SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION (REMI®).................................................................................................................20
GEOTECHNICAL CALCULATION SAMPLES..............................................................................................................21
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT ............................22

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 1586)
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 automatic 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.
The SPT testing was performed using a drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer.
Automatic hammers mechanically control the height of the hammer drop, and doing so,
deliver higher energy efficiency (90 to 99 % efficiency) than manual hammers (60 %
efficiency) which are dropped using a manually operated rope and cathead system. Because
historic data correlations were developed based on use of a manual hammer, it is necessary
to adjust the N-values obtained using an automatic hammer to make these correlations
valid. Therefore, an energy correction factor of 1.3 was applied to the recorded field N-values
from the automatic hammer for the purpose of our evaluation. The N-values discussed or
mentioned in this report and shown on the boring logs are recorded field values.
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.
BULK SAMPLING
Bulk sample are obtained for the evaluation of the compaction characteristics of the site soils
and for determination of the California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The bulk samples are obtained
from manual excavations, backhoe test pits, or from auger cutting. Similar soils are normally
combined to provide samples of adequate size for compaction or CBR testing.
Page I A-1

UNDISTURBED SAMPLING
Soil samples are obtained using Shelby tube samplers. The Shelby tube is a three (3) inch
diameter, thin walled sampling tube that allows for relatively undisturbed sampling of soil.
The undisturbed or thin -walled tube sampling is conducted in general accordance with
ASTM D1587.
The sampling procedure consists of augering to the sample depth, then cleaning out the
open borehole and continuously pushing the thin -walled, metal Shelby tube into the soil.
The Shelby tubes are carefully withdrawn from the borehole to reduce the possibility of
disturbing the sample. The ends of the Shelby tube are sealed in the field and the tubes are
transported to the laboratory for testing.
Page I A-2

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:
The depth below the ground surface and the corresponding elevation are shown in the first
two columns.
�7_'WIJ��1%Ja
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.
W0114F.�'1r_l
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.
• Qu —Unconfined Compressive Strength estimate from the Pocket Penetrometer test in
tons per square foot (tsf). The graph labels range from 0 to 5 tsf.
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-3

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.
REMARKS
Remarks regarding borehole observations, and additional information regarding the
laboratory results and groundwater observations.

BUILDING & EARTH SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
1'W M •'W'
Gravel and
' 60 1. �0
GW
Well -graded gravels, gravel - sand mixtures, little or
Gravelly
y
Clean Gravels
�� ��
no fines
Soils
(Less than 5% fines)
o 30 00 �a<
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel - sand mixtures, little
o D�0 D
GP
or no fines
Coarse More than
va
50% of
Grained coarse
O
o
<
GM
Silty gravels, gravel - sand - silt mixtures
Soils fraction is
Gravels with Fines
larger than
(More than 72% fines)
No. 4 sieveVI-A,GC
Clayey gravels, gravel - sand - clay mixtures
More than
50% of Sand and
Sand
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
material is y
Clean Sands
larger than Soils
No. 200
(Less than 5% fines)
SP
Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no
sieve More than
fines
size 50% of
coarse
SM
Silty sands, sand - silt mixtures
fraction is
Sands with Fines
smaller than
No. 4
(More than 72% fines)
$C
Clayey sands, sand - clay mixtures
sieve
ML
Inorganic silts and very find sands, rock flour, silty or
Fine Silts and
clayey fine sands or clayey silt with slight plasticity
clays
Inorganic
Grained
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly
Soils
clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
Liquid Limit
_ _ _
_
less than 50
Organic
= _ —
OL
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
More than
— — — -
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
50% of
material is Silts and
sand, or silty soils
smaller Clays
Inorganic
than
No. 200
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity
Liquid Limit
sieve
greater than
size
50 sieve
Organic
�-
OH
Organic clays o medium to high plasticity, organic
g y f g P Y g
silts
PT
Peat humus, swamp soils with high organic
Highly Organic
Soils
contents
rage 1.

BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, 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.
II —
Non -cohesive: Coarse -Grained Soil
I _
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
60
�e
50 1.1117
J1
CH c, OH
a
X 40
v
30 P
CL or OL
20
a
10 MH orOH
7 CL M
4 MLorOL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (LL)
SPT Penetration
(blows/foot)
Automatic Manual
Hammer* Hammer
0-3 0-4
3-8 4-10
8-23 10-30
Relative
Density
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
SPT Penetration
(blows/foot)
Automatic
Hammer*
< 2
2-3
3-6
6 - 12
Manual
Hammer
< 2
2-4
4-8
8 - 15
23 - 38
30-50
Dense
12 -23
15 - 30
> 38
> 50
Very Dense
> 23
> 30
* - Modified based on 80% hammer efficiency
Cohesive: Fine -Grained Soil
Estimated Range of
Consistency Unconfined Compressive
Strength (tsf)
Very Soft
< 0.25
Soft
0.25 — 0.50
Medium Stiff
0.50 — 1.00
Stiff
1.00 — 2.00
Very Stiff
2.00 — 4.00
> 4.00
Hard
F.

BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Standard
Penetration Test
ASTM D1586 or
AASHTO T-206
Shelby Tube
Sampler
ASTM D1587
Rock Core Sample
ASTM D2113
Auger Cuttings
Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer
(Sower DCP)
ASTM STP-399
ONo Sample
Recovery
Groundwater at
Time of Drilling
Groundwater as
Indicated
KEY TO LOGS
Soil
Particle Size
U.S. Standard
Boulders
Larger than 300 mm
300 mm to 75 mm
75 mm to 4.75 mm
N.A.
Cobbles
N.A.
Gravel
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.
Less than 2 pm N.A.
TableStandard
Clay
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
� 206. Calculated as sum of original, field Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this
�� characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit (LQ
recorded values. PL LL
and the Plastic Limit (PL).
Ru Unconfined compressive strength, typically p 9 tYp Y 36 Moisture percent natural moisture content in general
Aestimated 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.
MV
Descriptor
Meaning
Trace
Likely less than 5%
Few
5 to 10%
Little
15 to 25%
Some
30 to 45%
Mostly
50 to 100%
Table
Page I A-7

KEY TO LOGS
Geotechnical, 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.

BUILDING
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
KEY TO HATCHES
HatchDescription Description
Hi Description
• �' '• r' GW - Well -graded gravels, gravel — sand
Asphalt
Clay Gravel
mixtures, little or no fines
with
GP - Poorly -graded gravels, gravel —sand G
°Q°
ate Base re Aggg
na
Sand with Gravel
O� aOD mixtures, little or no fines
a' Dr' -D.
GM - Siltygrovels, gravel— sand — silt ,� a,T,�.:\;_.;r '1,',� •. Topsoil
°
°
Silt with Gravel
o d mixtures
o
c b
GC - Clayey gravels, gravel — sand — clay
■. ' ��.
mixtures
�:'i'.•? i a"
�:r; .:;�... �•:
Concrete
Gravel with Sand
SW - Well -graded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fines
Coal
►
Gravel with Clay
a
SP - Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands,
r +
little or no fines
CL-ML -Silty Clay
Gravel with Silt
SM - Silty sands, sand — silt mixtures
Sandy Clay
Clayey Chert
Limestone
Chalk
SC - Clayey sands, sand — clay mixtures
ML - Inorganic silts and very find sands,
Low and High
" " " " x "
x x x x x x
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
Plasticity Clay
x x x x x x
Siltstone
sands or clayey silt with slight plasticit
x x x x x x
CL - Inorganic clays of low to medium
Low Plasticity Silt and
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy
clayTill
clays, silt clays, lean clays
=
OL -Organic silts and organic silty clays
High Plasticity Silt
`? =
Sandy Clay with
=
of low plasticity
and Clay
�?;•h.'
Cobbles and Boulders
Fill
Sandstone with Shale
MH - Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sand, or silty soils
CH - Inorganic clays of high plasticity
as ' °
Weathered Rock
-# 4 -0
Coral
c a
�r Ys Yt
OH - Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity, organic silts
...... ............
Sandstone
Boulders and Cobbles
L \s, „ \„/ PT- Peat humus, swamp soils with high Shale
0. .\ o•
Soil and Weathered
organic contents
o
RockTable
1: Key to Hatches Used for Boring Logs and Soil Profiles
Page I A-9

BORING LOCATION PLAN
Page I A-10

UMMITU
......
-_4 .........
----i
C,
...............................
71i I ---- - ------
I ------ -
:M -------
111111
11U1111 II
wr
0 N 013
P� -L-Lnp 07
I PH
MENT
[ON #5
12!
P-01
P+p,jjnjjF1
PARACHIVTE RIGGING
FACILITY
BY 01HERS (NI C)
PAVEMEN'r S_OL,l
01PTION im
owl
'01 B-04 B-07
P-0
LJ
*F SUPPORT SATTAILIONIL-
MINISTRATION FACILIT'?f
api'low
-13
B-03 PIN63850 B-06IA
OQ
.k
L
S-04
J Bz
Bt--68—
-- "GEND
P -0 -
col
1—
d.A.43i
PAVE NT
Glib TI at
S 3--"*D cl n I
C�TIM LNM
— - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
—
j
URBAN rREEWPOWAY
---- — - ---- ----------------------------
I
d=8 ATE
M r Q N w
MY u.r uA.
Building Boring Location Storm Basin Boring + Pavement Boring Location
Boring
Location Map
BES Project
#:
RD180509
Address:
Urban Freedom Way
BUILDING & EARTH
Drawing Source:
RFP Drawings: Sheet CS1 02
City:
I
Fort Bragg, NC
Client:
USACE
Figure 1
-4
Project:
SOF Support Battalion Admin Fac.
I

SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES
Page I A-11

W
E
A
At
o� 1, o�
280
280
• • •
03 06
6' 6'
27s
275
270
270
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 255 feet
Explanation
N
B-01 Qu
N B-03
N B-04
2s5
17
10
6
B-06
B-07
265
BT=Boring Termination
N
N
8
1.5
10
11
6
6
AR=Auger Refusal
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
z
O
260
8
1.75
12
12
16
11
260
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
Q
15
1.5
20
22 T
17
15
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
LU
255
12
3.5
14
26
20
44�
255
Topsoil USCS Sandy
12
2.5
18
33
22
16
Silt
15
23
250
14
16
11
zso
®USCS ElasticUSCS
Poorly -graded
]Sand
15
12
Silt
with Silt
245
16
19
17
245
USCS Clayey USCS Silty
Sand Sand
19
17
a Water Level Reading
240
5
20
15
240
at time of drilling.
11
9
1 Water Level Reading
after drilling.
0 70
7
19 .::..
9
235
BT=30.0
BT=30.0
BT=30.0
z35
4
32
BT=30.0
BT=30.0
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: 7x
Building & Earth
230
230
Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Building Borings A -A'
225
225
Subsurface Profile
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
220
220
Fort Bragg, NC
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE
RD180509
Plate A-1
10/25/18

W
E
A
At
03 06
6' 6'
280
280
275
275
270
270
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 255 feet
N
B-02Qu
Explanation
N B-03
265
7
.� L .
10
B-06
B-08
2s5
BT=Boring Termination
8
1.5
N
B-05 Qu
N
N
10
6
5
AR=Auger Refusal
w
9
1.5
6
1.75
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
z
260
12
9
1 5
16
6
zso
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
0
Q
17
2.5
20
9
1.25
17
12
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
>
17
4
w
LU
255
31
14
18
17
1.5
20
22
$
17
zss
®USCS Elastic
TOpS011
Silt:.a
15
13
12
15
12
250
16
250
USCS Sandy USCS Clayey
Silt Sand
14
15
13
12
245
19
245
USCS Silty
19
10
Sand
26
22
a Water Level Reading
zao
20
zao
at time of drilling.
11
8
1 Water Level Reading
14
after drilling.
g
0 70
235
BT=30.0
19
235
BT=30.0
12
liu
BT=30.0
4
BT=30.0
15
IL
BT=30.0
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: 7x
Building & Earth
230
230
Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Building Borings A -A'
225
225
Subsurface Profile
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
220
220
Fort Bragg, NC
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE
RD180509
Plate A-2
10/25/18

W
E
B
Bf
Q o'�
280
280
•
27s
275
270
270
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 110 feet
Explanation
265
265
BT=Boring Termination
P-02
N P-03
AR=Auger Refusal
N
6
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
z
260
q
260
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
0
6
Q3
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
>
2
w
zss
27
22
2
zss
IMUSCS Silty USCS Clayey
Sand Sand
s
13 '.
BT=10.0
250
BT=10.0
250
24s
245
Q Water Level Reading
240
240
at time of drilling.
1 Water Level Reading
after drilling.
0 30
235
235
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: 3x
Building & Earth
230
230
Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Pavement Option#1 Borings B-B'
225
225
Subsurface Profile
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
220
220
Fort Bragg, NC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE
RD180509
Plate B-1
10/25/18

S
N
i
�y
Va
C
Cf
T
i
280
280
i
i
i
i
275
275
A�
i
270
270
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 110 feet
Explanation
265
265
BT=Boring Termination
P-04
P-05
AR=Auger Refusal
N
N
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
z
260
3
8
260
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
O
Q6
9
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
w
255
2
1s
255
IMUSCS SiltyUSCS Clayey
Sand Sand
e
17
19
17
250
BT=10.0
BT=10.0
250
;Topsoil
245
245
Q_ Water Level Reading
240
240
at time of drilling.
1 Water Level Reading
after drilling.
0 30
235
235
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: 3x
Building & Earth
230
230
Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Pavement Option#2 Borings C-C'
225
225
Subsurface Profile
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
220
220
Fort Bragg, NC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE
RD180509
Plate C-1
10/25/18

w
E
D
D'
280
-
-
280
..........................
275
-
-
275
270
-
-
270
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 145 feet
Explanation
N P-06 Qu
I .
P-07
N
265-
4 1.75
7
-
265
BT=Boring Termination
N P-08
7 2.25
N P-09
11
AR=Auger Refusal
11
7 1.5
7
16
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
Z
0
260-
15 2
-260
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
F-
<
15
10
20
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
>
111
18
17U 1.25
L
1
12
LU
255
-
33
BT=10.0
114
BT=10.0
255
Topsoil USCS Sandy
Silt
27
1
0
250
-
BT=10.0
BT=10.0
250
Clayey
IMUSCS silty USCS Cl
Sand Sand
245
-
245
a Water Level Reading
240
-
240
at time of drilling.
y Water Level Reading
after drilling.
0 40
235-
-235
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration 4x
Building & Earth
230-
-
230
Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Pavement Option#3 Borings D-D'
225-
-
225
Subsurface Profile
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
220-
-220
Fort Bragg, NC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE-
I � RD180509
Plate D-1
10/25/18

S
N^^
E
Ef
I
280
280
•
I
i3
275
275
g"
i
270
270
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 295 feet
P-11
Explanation
N
265—
N P-14
N P-13
5
265
BT=Boring Termination
13
4
14
AR=Auger Refusal
7
8
N P-12
20
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
z
260
260
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
0
6
8
8
36
H
Q
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
w
12
8
16
33
LU
255
16
8
18
BT=10.0
255
Topsoil USCS Silty
Sand
BT=10.0
BT=10.0
21
250
20
250
USCS Clayey
BT=10.0
Sand
24s
245
Q_ Water Level Reading
240
240
at time of drilling.
1 Water Level Reading
after drilling.
0 80
235
235
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration: 8x
Building & Earth
230
230
Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Pavement Option#4 Borings E-E'
225
225
Subsurface Profile
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
220
220
Fort Bragg, NC
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE
RD180509
Plate E-1
10/25/18

w
E
F
F9
280
-
-
280
275
-
-
275
270-
-270
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 110 feet
P-01
Explanation
N
265-
6
-265
BT=Boring Termination
6
AR=Auger Refusal
N P-10
6
PPqu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
Z
260-
-260
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
0
13
11
F-
<
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
>
18
17
LU
255
-
13
BT=10.0
255
Topsoil USCS Silty
Sand
20
250
-
19
250
USCS Clayey
BT=10.0
R. Sand
245-
-245
a Water Level Reading
240-
-240
at time of drilling.
y Water Level Reading
after drilling.
0 30
235-
-235
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration 3x
Building & Earth
230-
-
230
Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Pavement Option#5 Borings F-F'
225-
-
225
Subsurface Profile
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
220-
-220
Fort Bragg, NC
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
JOB NUMBER
PLATE NUMBER
DATE-
I � RD180509
Plate F-1
10/25/18

BORING LOGS
Page I A-12

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
BUILDING & EARTH
Designation: B-01
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 265
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Building Northwest Corner Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
Qa
o IT,
4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
P.
P.
a� w U
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
26
0.7 TOPSOIL = 8 inches 264.3
.�
SANDY SILT (ML): very stiff, tan, dry
1
4-9-8-4
. ..
Sample #2
2
3-4-4-6
..: )c I ....:.....
stiff, red, moist.
Liquid Limit (LL) —40
Plastic Limit (PL) = 29
Plasticity Index (PI) = 11
5
6
3
3-4-4-5
% Pass #200 Sieve = 52.7
4
2-6-9-10
......... ................:....
very stiff
...:....:..:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
8 5 256.5
.
LT (MH): stiff, and red
ELASTIC SILT tan
5
5-5-7-15
.. i<. � . .
I iq ud Limit (LL) = 57
mottled, moist
Plastic Limit (PL) = 39
1
5
Plasticity Index (PI) = 18
6
5-7-5-6
.......
% Pass #200 Sieve = 63.4
:...:.............:...:....
13.0 252.0
SANDY SILT (ML): very stiff, red, tan, dry
...........
_X
7
3-6-8
15
5
_X
8
3-7-9
2
4
........................:...........
23.5 241.5
WITH SILT POORLY GRADED SAND WI
Sample #9
9
3-2-3
(SP-SM): loose, red, tan, moist
Non -plastic
25
4
% Pass #200 Sieve = 5.1
...:...:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:.
No groundwater encountered
10
2-3-4
wet
at time of drilling, or after 24
3
30.0 235.0::..
hrs
Bo
Boring terminated at 30 feet.
3
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
g
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-02
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 266
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Building Southwest Corner Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o IT,
4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
P
P
a3 w U
Q
W
4
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
SANDY ELASTIC SILT (MIT): stiff, light
6
1
2-3-4-3
...: .:... : ... : .......... : ....
brown, dry
2
4-4-4-4
.... ............:...:...:....
red, moist
Sample #3
5
3
3-4-5-7
Liquid Limit (LL) = 50
Plastic Limit (PL) = 34
6
Plasticity Index (P = 16
4
4-8-9-4
very stiff
% Pass #200 Sieve = 58.0
8.5 ____________ 257.5
Sample#4
5
5-7-10-1247
.... A...
ELASTIC SI ff, r SILT sti red and
Liquid Limit (LL)=50
gray mottled, moist
Plastic Limit (PL) = 34
1
Plasticity Index (PI) = 16
5
6
6-12-19-17
...:....:...:...:...:...
hard r ed
% Pass #200Sieve =88.1
°/
..........:
very stiff, �ff, dry
15
5
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
8
3-4-8
tan
2
4
9
5-12-10
25
4
............ :..:............ :...:........
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
10
2-4-4
0 stiff, wet
30. 236.0
at time of drilling,r after 24
o
hrs
3
Boring terminated at 30 feet.
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
3
........... ..:...
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
BUILDING & EARTH
Designation: B-03
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/25/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 265
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Middle of Building - West Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
Qu
o IT,
4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
P.
P.
a� w U
Q
W
4
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
26
0.7 TOPSOIL = 8 inches 264.3
.�
1
2-4-6-4
. . .
SANDY SILT (ML): stiff, orange, red, moist
2
4-4-6-9
...:.....
5
6
3
4-5-7-6
very stiff
4
6-9-11-15
...:....:...:..
5
4-6-8-10
............ :...:.......... :...:.......
1
5
6
7-9-9-15
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
12.5 252.5
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, red,
............:...:............;...;........
gray, moist
7
3-7-9-16
......... ..:............. ...:....:....
15
5
8
4-5-14
tan
20—
4
9
9-11-9
25-x
4
. . .
. . . . .
28.5 236.5
No groundwater encountered
SILTY SAND medium den S D (SM): se, red, dry:.
10
5-8-11
at time of drilling, or after 24
3
30.0 235.0
::
hrs
Boring terminated at 30 feet.
3
Boring backfilled on 9/25/18
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
BUILDING & EARTH
Designation: B-04
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/25/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 265
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Middle of Building - North Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
Qa
o IT,
4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
P.
P.
a� w U
Q
W
4
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
26
TOPSOIL 12 inches
1.0 264.0
..
1
1-3-3-4
...�.......................
SILT ( ) d t
SANDY T ML : medium stiff, orange,
red, wet
2
4-5-6-6
...:... ....
stiff
5
6
3
4-5-7-10
very stiff
4
4-10-12-14
............:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
5
10-15-11-14
............:...:...........:...:.
hard
1
5
6
10-17-16-15
13.0 252.0
.
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, gray
...:....:...:................:...:....:....
7
3-4-7
.......... ...:.
and orange, mottled, wet
15-25ty
.......... :...:............ :...:........
17.5 247.5
SILTY SAND (S): medium dense red dry
.......... :................ ............
-X
8
4-6-11
2
4
9
4-6-9
25
4
...:....:..:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
10
3-4-5
at time of drilling, or after 24
3
30.0 235.0
:.. :.
hrs
Boring terminated at 30 feet.
3
Boring backfilled on 9/25/18
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-05
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/25/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 262.5
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Middle of Building - South Logged By: BTC
Q
W
W
pW
o W
❑ N-Value ❑
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
x
a
REMARKS
1 �° 4
I Atterberg Limits
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
20 40 60 80
0.7 TOPSOIL = 8 inches 261.8
.�
1
2-2-4-5
' �; ..` .
SANDY SILT (ML): medium stiff, red, moist
6
2
4-4-5-6
.......
stiff
5
3
4-4-5-6
......:...:...........
very stiff
4
4-7-10-11
...:....:... ..:...:....:...:...:...:....
255-x
8.5 254.0
.
ND (SC): medium den red
CLAYEY SA se
and gray mottled, moist
_X
5
3-9-6-7
.. > < ..
1
6
3-6-6-8
...:....:
5
. .
13.5 249.0
:. ..:
-X
7
5-8-6
.. ....:........ ;...:
SILTY SAND (SM): � se,
medium den red and
gray mottled, moist
15
4
8
5-11-15
dense
2
40
9
4-7-7
medium den et
se, w
25
3
No groundwater encountered
3
-x
10
5-7-5
..:....:
30.0 232.5
�� �
at time of drilling, or after 24
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/25/18
Boring terminated at 30 feet.
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-06
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/25/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 263
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Middle of Building - East Logged By: BTC
Q
W
W
pW
o W
❑ N-Value ❑
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
x
a
REMARKS
1 �° 4
I Atterberg Limits
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
20 40 60 80
1
1-2-4-4>
TOPSOIL 12 inches
1.0 262.0
..
T ML : medium stiff, red, moist
SANDY SILML): ( ) d t t
6
2
4-7-9-11
.......... .............:
very stiff
5
3
5-7-10-12
..........:.............:...........
6.5 256.5
SILTY (SM): medium dense red,
moist
4
11-9-11-11
..........:..
5
5
7-12 10 12
............ :...:.......... :...:........
1
6
6-5-10-13
...:....:..
5
............
... :............ :...:........
-X
7
6-8-7
15
4
................................:...
-X
8
6-8-11
2
4
...........:...:............;...:...
-X
9
2-4-7
25
3
3
10
2-2-2
loose, et 1 se, pink, w
30.0 233.0
:.. :.
No groundwater encountered
at time of drilling, or after 24
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/25/18
Boring terminated at 30 feet.
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-07
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/25/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 263
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Building Northeast Corner Logged By: BTC
Q
W
W
pW
P
P
IT,
13 w U
4
❑ N-Value ❑
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
x
a
REMARKS
�° 4
I Atterberg Limits
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
20 40 60 80
X
1
3-3-3-5>
: . . . : :
...;...:....
TOPSOIL 12 inches
1.0 262.0
..
SANDY SILML): ( ) d t t
T ML : medium stiff, red, moist
6
2
3-4-7-9
...:...
tff
stiff
4.0 259.0
.
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, red,
..........:....:................
5
3
4-7-8-15
moist
4
10-24-20-19
very dense
5
...:...:... ..:...:...:....
5
7-8-8-6
...;....;... ............:...:........
medium dense
1
6
6-13-10-8
...:....:...:...:
5
............: ..:............:...:........
-X
7
4-5-7
.....................
14.5 248.5
.:
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, tan,
moist
15
4
.......... ................. ...:........
8
3-5-12
2
4
...:...:..:...:...:...:...;...:...
-X
9
3-5-4
25
28.0 235.0
235-
No groundwater encountered
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH
3
10
5-17-15
SILT (SP SM): dense, tan, orange, dry
30.0 233.0.:<....
T.
at time of drilling, or after 24
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/25/18
Boring terminated at 30 feet.
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
BUILDING & EARTH
Designation: B-08
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 263
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Building Southeast Corner Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, tan, dry
1
2-3-2-3
......:... : ............... : .......
Sample #2
6
2
1-1-5-10
. . .. .... .............:
moist to wet::
Non-plastic
% Pass #20 Sieve =
O S 20.3
5
3
6-9-3-6
medium dense, moist
4
2-4-4-5
...:. :...:...:...:....:...:...:
loed, trace clay
ose, red and gray mottled,
5
5
3-7-10-11
medium dense
1
6
3-5-7-11
...:....:
12.0 251.0
:....
...:....:..:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, gray
5
and red moist
mottled, m
7
3-5-8
..........:...:............:...:.........
15
4
........ ................. ...:........
_X
8
2-4-6
:...:...'...:...:...:.
wet
2
4
...........:...:...........;...:...
_x
....
loose
9
4-4-4
25—
. . . . . . . . .
29.0 234.0
�'.
No groundwater encountered
10
3-5-10
attim o
t i e of drilling, rafter 24
ahrs
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, red, tan,
`:.
3
0 0
3 moist 233.0
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
onng terminate at eet.
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-01
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 266
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: 120 ft North of B-03 Logged By: BTC
Q
W
W
pW
o W
❑ N-Value ❑
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
x
a
REMARKS
1 �° 4
I Atterberg Limits
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
20 40 60 80
0.7 TOPSOIL = 8 inches 265.3
.�
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, red, moist
6
1
3-3-3-3?
2
2-3-3-4
......
0.:...:...................... .
5
3
2-2-4-4
6
.......... :...:............ ;...:........
4
2-4-7-7
...:... ....
medium dense
.... ...................................
8.5 257.5
e
CLAYEY SAND (SC): m...:...:........ dium dense, gray,
10.0 tan and red mottled, moist 256.0
.
1
5
8-8 9 11
..........:...:.......
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
5
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
2
4
25
4
............ :...:............ :...:........
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
3
...............:...
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-02
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 261
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: South Parking Lot Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, red, moist
6
1
7-2-2-3
.............. : .....
-X
2
2-2-1-5
5
3
5-12-15-16
5.0 256.0
CLAYEY SAND (SC): dense, red
5
................ :...:... ........ ;...:........
4
7-13-9-12
...:.......:...:...:....:...:...:...:.
medium dense
5
3-5-8-10
............ :...:...:........ :...:........
tan
1
10.0 251.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
4
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
2
4
25
3
............ :...:.......... :...:........
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
3
.............:...............:...
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-03
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 262
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Southeast Parking Lot Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, brown, dry
1
1-3-3-3
...........:... : ............. ... : ........
6
Sample #2
2
3-3-3-2
............................
Non -plastic
% Pass #200 Sieve = 14.9
5
3
2-1-1-1
very loose
........... :................ :............
6.5 255.5
se red m CLAYEY SAND (SC): very loose, oist
5
4
1-1-1-1
.......:...:..............
5
2-4-5-7
....
medium dense
1
10.0 252.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
4
............ :...:............ :...:........
2
4
............ ...:............. ...:........
25
3
............
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-04
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 261
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: SE Pavement Option 42 Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
SILTY SAND (SM): very loose, brown,
6
1
2-1-2-6
..... :...:............... .
moist
....
2.5 258.5
2
3-3-3-3
...........
oose, red, moist
CLAYEY SAND (SC): lm
5
3
2-1-1-2
very loose, wet
5
.......... :...:........... ;...:.......
4
1-2-3-3
... ... :...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
loosemoist
5
5-8-11-12
............:. .............:...:........
medium dense
1
10.0 251.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
4
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
2
4
25
3
............ :...:............ :...:........
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
3
.......... ...:............ ...:.......
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-05
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 261
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: E Pavement Option 42 Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL = 3 inches
6
1
2-4-4-5
..... ;
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, red, wet
2
3-4-5-6
... :....... :...:...:....:...:...:...:....
medium dense
5
3
4-5-11-11
5
...........:...:...........;...:...
4
3-6-11-12
...:....:...:...:...:.
5
4-11 6 7
1
10.0 251.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
4
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
2
4
25
3
............ :...:............ :...:........
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
3
.......... ...:............. ...:...
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-06
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 266.5
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: NW in North Parking Lot Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL = 6 inches
1
1-1-3-5
..
SANDY SILT (ML): medium stiff, red, moist
265-X
-X
SamplI
2
3-3-4-5
..: •H: �► ....
stiff
.
Liquid Limit (LL) = 38
Plastic Limit (PL) = 27
Plasticity Index (PI) = 11
5
3
2-3-4-4
% Pass #200 Sieve = 55.2
6
4
4-6-9-10
......... J ...................
very stiff
X5
4-8-9-6
...;....:.A:... :............ :...:........
10-
10.0 256.5
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
5
2
4
25
4
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
SA E TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-07
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 265.5
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: NE in North Parking Lot Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
6
SILTY AND (SM): loose, red, moist
1
4-4-3-3
... .............?......'
2
3-4-7-8
.. ....
medium dense
5
3
4-7-9-11
5.0 260.5
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, red
6
......... : ...:........... ; ...:.......
and a mottled, gray moist
4
4-9-11-12
...:....:...:..
0
8.0 257.5
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, red and
...:....:...:..:...:....:...:...:...:....
5
3-4-8-14
......... ............ ........
tan mottled, dry
1
10.0 255.5
.:..::
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
5
2
4
25
4
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
3F777
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-08
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 261.5
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: SW in North Parking Lot Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
0 g TOPSOIL = 10 inches 260.7
1
2-4-7-9
SILTY SAND (S): medium dense, red, wet
6
2
8-8-7-14
.........
5
3
4-8-10-12
5
4
4-14-19-20
dense moist
5
6-13-14-15
............:...:...: .:...:...:........
1
10.0 251.5
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
4
2
4
25
3
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
SAIWE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-09
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 262
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: SE in North Parking Lot Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL 12 inches
1.0 261.0
..
-x
1
2-4-3-5
...
SILTY SAN ( ) 1 t
D SM : loose, red, moist
6
2
2-4-6-8
... :....... :...:...:....:...:...:...:....
medium dense
5
3
4-7-7-6
255-X4
2-4-7-8
...:...
8.5 253.5
CLAYEY SA se tan
ND (SC): medium dense,
-x
5
4-6-4-8
........... : ... %
10.0 and red mottled, wet 252.0
.
1
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
4
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
2
4
............ ...:............. ...:........
25
3
............ :...:......;...;...:...
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-10
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 260
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Pavement Option 45 Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
Qu
o IT,
4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
P.
P.
a� w U
Q
W
4
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
26
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, red,
Sample #1
1
12-7-6-6
...> .01 - - - - -> - - - - - . ; ..
moist
.
Liquid Limit (LL) = 39
Plastic Limit (PL) = 28
11
Plasticity Index (PI) = 11
8-8-10-11
::::
... :.... :... ... ....... ... .........CLAYEY
3.0 257.0
Pass #200 Sieve = 45.42
/
SAND (SC): medium dense, red,
....
moist
5
5
3
3-6-7-9
............ :................ :...........
6.5 253.5
SILTY SA se
ND (SM): medium den red and
4
4-6-14-14
..........:..
gray mottled, dry
5
4-71212
............:. :..........:...:........
1
10.0 250.0
: ...
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
4
2
4
25
3
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
3
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-11
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 266
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Northernmost Point Pavement Option 44 Logged By: BTC
Q
W
W
pW
o W
❑ N-Value ❑
10 20 30 40
SOIL DESCRIPTION
x
a
REMARKS
1 �° 4
I Atterberg Limits
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL = 6 inches
6
1
2-3-2-3
.. .
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, tan, dry
2
6-7-7-9
........ ....
medium dense, m
5
3
6-10-10-12
6
.......... :...:..... .... :...:.......
4
7-14-22-24
...:....:...:...:...:....:... ....
dense
......:...:....
8.5 257.5
ND (SC): den red and gray
CLAYEY SA se
10.0 mottled, moist 256.0
.
1
5
8-15-18-22
Boring terminated at 10 feet
5
15
5
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
2
4
25
4
............ :...:............ :...:........
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
3
...............:...
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-12
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 260
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: N Middle Point Pavement Option 44 Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
Qu
o IT,
4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
P.
P.
a� w U
Q
W
4
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
26
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, red, moist
1
6-4-4-2
...:. ............:... : ........
2
8-7-9-9
...:....:...
medium dense
5
5
3
4-7-11-11
4
5-10-11-12
... :....:...:... ... :....:...:...:...:....
5
8-10-10-18
1
10.0 250.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
4
2
4
25
3
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
e of drilling, attimr after 24 o
3
hrs
3
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-13
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 264
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: S Middle Point Pavement Option 44 Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
TOPSOIL = 6 inches
1
2-2-2-2
ULiq
SILTY SAND (SM): loose, tan, dry
2
4-4-4-6
..: :...:...:....3.0
261.0
Sample #2
id Limit (LL) = 37
CLAYEY SAND( ) 1
SC : loose, red, moist.
Plastic Limit (PL) = 22
6
......"......'.......".......
Plasticity Index (PI) = 15
5
3
2-4-4-6
% Pass #200 Sieve = 48.8
4
2-3-5-8
... :.
:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
5
5
3-6-2-g
............:...:...
tan w et
1
10.0 254.0
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
............ ...:........... ...:.......
15
4
2
4
... ...:....:...:...:...:....
25
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:...:....
No groundwater encountered
3
at time of drilling, o r after 24
a
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-14
610 Spring Branch Road
NC 28334
Office: [phone]u 05 836 6300
BUILDING & EARTH
Sheet 1 of 1
Fax: [phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
www.BuildingAndEarth.com
Project Name: SOF Battalion Administration Facility Project Location: Fort Bragg, NC
Project Number: RD180509 Date Drilled: 9/26/18
Drilling Method: HS AUGER Weather Conditions: Clear, 90 degrees
Equipment Used: Diedrich D-50 ATV Surface Elevation: 263.5
Hammer Type: Automatic Drill Crew: MG Drilling
Boring Location: Southernmost Point Pavement Option 44 Logged By: BTC
❑ N-Value ❑
pW
10 20 30 40
x
�°
o W
1 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
a
REMARKS
I Atterberg Limits
Q
W
20 40 60 80
• %Moisture •
W
20 40 60 80
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, tan,
1
5-6-7-5
... ...... ..:... :................ :.......
dry
2
3-3-4-5
loose, m
6
5
3
4-2-4-5
4
4-5-7-11
....
medium dense
5
5
5-7-9-12
1
10.0 253.5
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
5
15
4
2
4
25
3
...:....:...:...:...:....:...:...:
No groundwater encountered
at time drilling, of drillr g, or after 24
3
hrs
Boring backfilled on 9/26/18
SAMPLE TYPE ® Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
17 GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE UD UNDISTURBED
Qu UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ESTIMATE FROM POCKET PENETROMETER TEST
■ Birmingham, AU Huntsville, ALE Auburn, AL ■ Columbus, GAN Savannah, GAP Raleigh, Na Tulsa, OK■ Springdale, ARN Shreveport, LAP Louisville, KYO Niceville, FL

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
A brief description of the laboratorytests 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).
POCKET PENETROMETER
Pocket Penetrometer tests were performed on cohesive soil samples. The pocket
penetrometer provides a consistency classification, and an indication of the soils unconfined
compressive strength (Qu).
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2276)
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 D4378)
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 FINLK 1"HAN ivu. 200 SIEVL BY WASHING (ASTM D7740)
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 D7557)
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
Page I A-13

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 D7883)
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.
Page I A-14

The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the following table.
Sample Depth
Boring Location
(ft)
:
I LL
I PL
PI % Passing
#200 Sieve
Moisture
Content (%)
.0
mmm
:.
' .
eee
•
�=
-
mmm
�
- •
-
mmm
- •
- '
eee
•
-
eee
e
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.
Page I A-15

CBR TEST RESULT
Page I A-16

October 19, 2018
Project No R-2018-291-001
Mr. Kurt Miller
Building & Earth Sciences, LLC
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
e�technics
geotechnicaI & gcosy nth etic testing
Transmittal
Laboratory Test Results
RD180509 SOF Battalion
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 ;
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 T—snittal Letter Date: I/28105 Rev.: I
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotechnid & geosyothetic testing
SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-16
Client
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
Boring No.
P-8/P-9
Client Reference
RD180509 SOF Battalion
Depth(ft.)
N/A
Project No.
R-2018-291-001
Sample No.
CBR
Lab ID
R-2018-291-001-001
Visual Description
RED SANDY
CLAY
Test Type
STANDARD
Molding Method
C
Density
Before
After
Mold ID
R433
Measurement
Soaking
Soaking
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
4230.7
Wt. Mold & WS (gm.)
8298.1
8490
Mold Volume (cc)
2121
Wt. WS (gm.)
4067.4
4259
Surcharge (lbs.)
10
Sample Volume (cc)
2121
2125
Piston Area (in2)
3
Wet Density (gm./cc)
1.92
2.00
Sample Height
4.58
Wet Density (pcf)
119.7
125.1
Sample Conditions
Soaked
Blows per Layer
35
Dry Density (pcf)
106.7
107.1
Dry Density (gm./cc)
1.71
1.72
Water
As Begining
After
Before
After
Top 1"
Contents
Rec'd Compaction
Compaction
Soaking
Soaking
After Soak
Tare No.
911 NA
834
832
831
Wt. of T+WS (gm.)
275.63 NA
1065.9
909.28
883.53
Wt. of T+DS (gm.)
259.25 NA
978.87
815.88
781.4
Wt of Tare (gm.)
101.93 NA
260.29
259.48
263.65
Moisture Content(%)
10.4 NA
12.1
12.1
16.8
19.7
Piston Penetration
Displacement Load Stress Swell
(in.) (lbs.) (psi.) Measurement
0
3.57
1.2
0.025
184.51
61.5
0.050
305.50
101.8
0.075
381.81
127.3
0.100
430.07
143.4
0.125
470.28
156.8
0.150
508.61
169.5
0.175
541.77
180.6
0.200
569.03
189.7
0.250
613.46
204.5
0.300
647.59
215.9
0.350
681.23
227.1
0.400
711.28
237.1
0.450
743.89
248.0
0.500
769.47
256.5
0.550
795.95
265.3
0.600
819.62
273.2
Elapsed Dial Percent
Time Gauge Swell
(hrs) (Div)
0.00 443 0.00%
67.50 452 0.20%
97.50 451 0.17%
1Division = 0.001 in.
Tested By SFS Date 10112118 Checked By GEM Date 10/19/18
page 1 of 2 DCN: CT-S27 RBVEMEOT01MLOWGI®EARTH SCIENCES12018-291 BUILDING & EARTH - RD180509 SOF BATTALIONI[2018-291-001-001 1CBR TESTNET.xis]SHEET1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

SINGLE POINT CBR TEST
ASTM D 1883-16
Client Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. Boring No.
Client Reference RD180509 SOF Battalion Depth(ft.)
Project No. R-2018-291-001 Sample No.
Lab ID R-2018-291-001-001 Visual Description
300.0
250.0
200.0
Cn 150.0
c
0
R
L
r
r-
4)
a
50.0
CBR VALUE (0.1") 14.3 %
CBR VALUE (0.2") 12.6 %
Penetration Stress vs. Penetration
ectechnics
geotechni[al &geosynthetic testing
P-8/P-9
N/A
CBR
RED SANDY
CLAY
0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
Penetration (in)
Tested By SFS Date 10112118 Approved By MPS Date 10/19/18
page 2of2 DCN:CT-S27 REVEMNSH3®'BID@t1f31&lE)WTHSCIENCES12018-291BUILDING& EARTH -RD180509SOFBATTALION1[2018-291-001-001ICBRTESTNETxls]SHEETI
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE
Page I A-17

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]D
Email [e-mail]
October 8, 2018
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, SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility, Urban Freedom
Way, 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. The purpose of the investigation was to determine soil water
table depths (SHWT) for use in stormwater retention/treatment design.
Soils at the test site are most similar to the Faceville soil series (see attached boring logs).
Four borings were advanced to a depth of at least 10.0 feet below the soil surface. The
shallowest Seasonal High -Water Table SHWT as determined by evidence of colors of
chroma 2 or less was encountered at a denth of 114 inches below the gound surface
5-01 • see attached chart). The attached map shows the location of the sample points (as
requested by the design engineer).
I trust this is the information you require at this time.
Sincerely,
Mike Eaker
President
Y"
�rF 7M e
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. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email mike Gsoutheasternsoil.com
Soil Profile Description (S-01), SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility, Fort Bragg,
NC
This map unit consists of well drained that formed in sandy and loamy sediment on uplands.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
Btl - 0 to 24 inches; yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; moderate medium subangular
blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic; few fine and medium roots; gradual wavy boundary.
Bt2 - 24 to 75 inches; red (2.5YR 518) sandy clay loam; moderate medium to weak fine
subangular blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic; gradual wavy boundary.
Bt3 - 75 to 100 inches; red (2.5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; many medium prominent yellow (10YR
7/8) mottles; weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic; gradual wavy boundary.
BC - 100 to 114 inches; mixed mottled red (2.5YR 5/8) and yellow (10YR 7/8) sandy clay loam;
many medium prominent very pale brown (I OYR 7/3) mottles; massive structure; firm; gradual
wavy boundary.
C - 114 to 126 inches; mixed mottled red (2.5YR 5/8) and brownish yellow (IOYR 6/6) sandy
loam; many medium prominent light gray (IOYR 7/1) mottles; massive structure; friable.
SHWT @ 114 inches in borings S-01 (10YR 7/1)
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]
Typical Proflde Description (5-02, 5-03, 5-04), SOF Support Battalion Administration
Facility, Fort Bragg, NC
This map unit consists of well drained that formed in sandy and loamy sediment on uplands.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
A - 0 to 2 inches; pale brown (IOYR 6/3) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very friable;
common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
E - 2 to 17 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loamy sand; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; common fine and few medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
Btl - 17 to 62 inches; yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; moderate medium subangular
blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic; few fine and medium roots; gradual wavy boundary.
Bt2 - 62 to 92 inches; red (2.5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; few prominent yellowish brown (10YR
5/8) mottles; moderate medium to weak fine subangular blocky structure; firm; sticky, plastic;
gradual wavy boundary.
130 - 92 to 120 inches; red (2.5YR 4/8) sandy clay loam; weak fine subangular blocky structure;
firm; slightly sticky, slightly plastic; gradual wavy boundary.
SHWT > 120 inches in borings 5-02, S-03, 5-04
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 mike (9southeasternsoil.com
SHWT depths, SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility HQ,
Urban Freedom Way, Fort Bragg, NC
BORING SHWT DEPTH inches Observed Water inches
S-01 114 None
S-02 >120 None
S-03 >120 None
S-04 >1.20 None
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION - SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING - WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING - SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

INFILTRATION TESTING
Page I A-18

GeOtechnicA Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: SOF Battalion Admin Facality
Client Name: ACC Construction Company, Inc
Technician: Joshua Oneal
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: S1
Project Number: RD180509
Report Number: 1 of 4
Date: 10/26/2018
Depth of Water Table: 117 Water Temp (°F):
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm'/cm
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
20.000
Storage Tube
5L
2 On
105.000
Depth of Observed Water
Flow rate used: 20 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 8:10 Water Head:
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth:
71 OF
NA inches
2.4 inches
11.5 inches
93 inches
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A Total
Flow Readings
Flow Rate
in3/hr
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
u e
Flow
Flow
cm3
Ksat In/hr
1
S
10/26
8:13
0.70
0.70
33.1
20
10
0.87
0.002
E
1 10/26
8:55
32.6
2
S
10/26
8:55
0.67
1.37
32.6
20
10
0.92
0.002
E
10/26
9:35
32.1
3
S
10/26
9:35
0.63
1 2.00
32.1
20
10
0.96
0.002
E
10/26
10:13
31.6
4
S
E
5
S
E
6
S
E
7
SE
8
S
E
9
S
E
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
E
Stabilized K,in/hr
0.002
S_1

GeOtechnicA Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: SOF Battalion Admin Facality
Client Name: ACC Construction Company, Inc
Technician: Joshua Oneal
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: S2
Project Number: RD180509
Report Number: 2 of 4
Date: 10/26/2018
Depth of Water Table: >120 Water Temp (°F):
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm'/cm
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
20.000
Storage Tube
5L
2 On
105.000
Depth of Observed Water
Flow rate used: 20 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 10:18 Water Head:
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth:
71 OF
NA inches
2.4 inches
11.5 inches
60 inches
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A I Total
Flow Readings
Flow Rate
in3/hr
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
u e
Flow
Flow
cm3
Ksat In/hr
1
S
10/26
10 :20
0.63
0.63
28.3
20
10
0.96
0.002
E
1 10/26
10:58
27.8
2
S
10/26
10:58
0.63
1.27
27.8
20
10
0.96
0.002
E
10/26
11 :36
27.3
3
S
10/26
11 :36
0.62
1.88
27.3
20
10
0.99
0.002
E
10/26
12:13
26.8
4
S
E
5
S
E
6
S
E
7
SE
8
S
E
9
S
E
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
E
Stabilized Ksat'n/hr
0.002
S_2

Project Name:
Client Name:
Technician:
GeOtechnicA Environmental, and Materials Engineers
SOF Battalion Admin Facality
ACC Construction Company, Inc
Joshua Oneal
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: S-3
Depth of Water Table:
Constants:
71
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm'/cm
Project Number: RD180509
Report Number: 3 of
Date: 10/26/2018
> 120 Water Temp (IF):
Depth of Observed Water
Flow rate used: 20 Hole Diameter:
I
71 OF
NA inches
2.4 inches
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
20.000
Start Saturation: 12:18 Water Head: 11.25 inches
Storage Tube
5L
2 On
105.000
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth: 80 inches
Test a a
�*
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A Total
Flow Readings
Flow Kate
in3/hr
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
Me
Flow
Flow
cm3
Ksat in/hr
1
S
10/26
12:20
1.65
1.65
21.6
20
10
0.37
0.001
E
10/26
13:59
21.1
2
S
10/26
13:59
1.10
2.75
21.1
20
10
0.55
0.001
E
10/26
15:05
20.6
3
S
10/26
15:05
1.25
4.00
20.6
20
10
0.49
0.001
E
10/26
16:20
20.1
4
S
E
5
S
E
6
S
E
7
S
E
8
S
E
9
S
E
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
E
Stabilized 's tlnih,
0.001
S-3

GeOtechnicA Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Project Name: SOF Battalion Admin Facality
Client Name: ACC Construction Company, Inc
Technician: Joshua Oneal
Test Constants
Liquid Used: Municipal Water
Test Location: S-4
Project Number: RD180509
Report Number: 4 of 4
Date: 10/26/2018
Depth of Water Table: >120 Water Temp (°F):
Constants:
Capacity
Liquid Containers
setting
Rate cm'/cm
Sight Tube
1 L
1 On
20.000
Storage Tube
5L
2 On
105.000
Depth of Observed Water
Flow rate used: 20 Hole Diameter:
Start Saturation: 16:30 Water Head:
Hole Radius: 1.200 Hole Depth:
71 OF
NA inches
2.4 inches
10.25 inches
48 inches
Date
Time
Elapsed
Time (hrs)
A Total
Flow Readings
Flow Rate
in3/hr
Conductivity
Remarks: Weather conditions, etc.
Reading
u e
Flow
Flow
cm3
Ksat In/hr
1
S
10/26
16:30
0.58
0.58
18.9
20
10
1.05
0.003
E
1 10/26
17:05
18.4
2
S
10/26
17:05
0.60
1.18
18.4
20
10
1.02
0.003
E
10/26
17 :41
17.9
3
S
10/26
17:41
0.65
1.83
17.9
20
10
0.94
0.003
E
10/26
18:20
17.4
4
S
E
5
S
E
6
S
E
7
SE
8
S
E
9
S
E
10
S
E
11
S
E
12
S
E
13
S
E
14
S
E
Stabilized Ksat'n/hr
2
0.003

DiLATOMETER TEST RESULTS
Page I A-19

M(ksf)
Depth
B-1
B-2
B-7
B-8
1
3423
630
2473
1955
2
895
1307
1828
902
3
593
798
2029
833
4
615
741
2750
2465
5
523
--
2735
--
6
1191
1860
1308
--
7
1633
1710
--
--
8
1770
1439
--
--
9
1628
895
--
--
10
1386
2227
--
--
11
1254
--
--
12
1799
--
--
13
1651
--
--
14
1061
--
15
1028
--
16
864
--
17
696
--
18
924
--
19
611
--
20
1383
21
1178
Summary of Results
c(psf)
Depth
B-1
B-2
B-7
B-8
1
5625
--
--
--
2
2309
2434
--
--
3
--
1251
--
--
4
—
—
—
—
5
1027
--
4471
--
6
2062
4948
6339
--
7
2809
5614
--
--
8
3805
6567
--
--
9
3244
7564
--
--
10
3079
--
--
--
11
3877
--
--
12
3251
--
--
13
4768
--
--
14
2158
--
15
2453
--
16
2595
--
17
2492
--
18
--
--
19
2593
--
20
2445
21
--
Phi(degrees) Soil Type
Depth
B-1
B-2
B-7
B-8
1
Silt
Sand
Silty Sand
Silty Sand
2
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Sandy Silt
3
Sandy Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand
4
Sandy Silt
Sandy Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand
5
Silt
--
Silt
--
6
Silt
Clayey Silt
Silty Clay
--
7
Silt
Silty Clay
--
--
8
1 Silt
Silty Clay
I
--
9
Silt
Clay
--
--
10
Silt
Sandy Silt
--
--
11
Silty Clay
--
--
12
Silt
--
--
13
Clayey Silt
--
--
14
Silt
--
15
Silt
--
16
Clayey Silt
--
17
Silty Clay
--
18
Sandy Silt
--
19
Silty Clay
--
20
Silt
21
Sandy Silt

B-1
Eff. Depth
Id
kd
Su(psf)
Phi
M(ksf)
1
1.1
144.2
5625
3423
2
0.7
41.9
2309
895
3
1.2
14.2
--
593
4
1.3
11.7
--
615
5
1.0
11.0
1027
523
6
1.0
16.6
2062
1191
7
1.0
18.6
2809
1633
8
0.8
21.1
3805
1770
9
0.9
16.8
3244
1628
10
0.8
14.8
3079
1386
11
38 77
1254
12
0
132
3251
1799
13
0.6
16.8
4768
1651
Summary of Results
B-2
Eff. Depth
Id
kd
su(psf
Phi
M(ksf)
1
4.4
13.8
41.9
630
2
0.9
46.2
2434
--
1307
3
1.1
19.5
1251
798
4
1.2
14.0
741
5
6
0.7
32.7
4948
1860
7
0.5
31.8
5614
1710
1 8
1 0
0
1 622
1439
+ 0 �12
Nt
564895
19
0
1.4
14.1
12227
B-7
Eff. Depth
Id
kd
Su(psf)
Phi
M(ksf)
1
2.6
56.5
47.1
2473
2
1.6
38.7
1828
3
1.6
298
2029
4
1.4
33.0
2750
5
1.1
33.7
4471
2735
6
0.4
38.5
6339
1308
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.0
8.2
2158
1061
15
0.8
8.6
2453
1028
16
0.6
8.5
2595
864
17
L
7.9
2492
696
18
1.7
4�3
1
19
6 �5
7.5
1 2593
B-8

Geotechnical and Construction Materials Testing Services
Id
0 2 4 6
0
2
4
6
8
w
a
10
d
12
14
16
18
20
:♦
c
CO
♦
(n
♦
Water Depth 20 ft
DILATOMETER TEST RESULTS
Project Name:
Project Number
Date:
11
Fort Bragg SOF Battalion Administration
1180593EA
9/28/2018
IIIIIIIII III I II III
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�III III�IIIIII�IIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�III III�IIIIII�IIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Geotechnical and Construction Materials Testing Services
Id
0 2 4 6
0
2
4
6
8
w
r 10
a
m
0
12
14
16
18
20
c
c6
�
Water Depth 20 ft
DILATOMETER TEST RESULTS
Project Name:
Project Number
Date:
Fort Bragg SOF Battalion Administration
1180593EA
9/28/2018
Su (psf) Friction Angle (deg)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 250 300 350 400 450
Illllllllllllllllli

Geotechnical and Construction Materials Testing Services
Id
0 2 4 6
0
2
4
6
8
w
r 10
a
m
0
12
14
16
18
20
}
(A
s
Water Depth 20 ft
DILATOMETER TEST RESULTS
Project Name:
Project Number
Date:
ltm
Fort Bragg SOF Battalion Administration
1180593EA
9/28/2018
Su (psf) Friction Angle (deg)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 250 300 350 400 450

Geotechnical and Construction Materials Testing Services
Id
0 2
4 6
0
ca •= �; to
U• CO!:�,
cc
CO
10
w
r
a
G
15
20
25
Water Depth
20 ft
DILATOMETER TEST RESULTS
Project Name:
Project Number
Date:
Modulus (ksf)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250
0 i . . i
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
20
25
Fort Bragg SOF Battalion Administration
1180593EA
9/28/2018
Su (psf) Friction Angle (deg)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 250 300 350 400 450
5
10
15
20
25

0
5
10
x
a
W
15
20
25
MODULUS vs DEPTH
M (ksf)
0 250 500 750 1,000
Job Name : Fort Bragg SOF Battalion Administration
GeoTech Job No.: 1180593EA
Date : 9/28/2018
■
X
♦ B-1
■ B-2
♦ B-7
X B-8
FIGURE 5

ft
t
a
v
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
C (psf) vs DEPTH
COHESION (psf)
0 250 500 750 1,000
Job Name : Fort Bragg SOF Battalion Administration
GeoTech Job No.: 1180593EA FIGURE 6
Date : 9/28/2018
♦ B-1
■ B-2
B-7
X B-8

SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION (REMI ®)
Page I A-20

0
-10
-20
-30
.� -40
w
A
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
SOF Battalion Admin Facility: Vs Model
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Shear -Wave Velocity, ft/s

6000
0 5000
4000
a 3000
a�
2000
•� 1000
9 0
2.0 Plane
0.0
mness, seolmete
0.00E
SOF Battalion Admin Facility: Supportive Illustration
Dispersion Curve Showing Picks and Fit
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Period, s
p-f Image with Dispersion Modeling Picks
ReMi Spectral Ratio
0.0 2.5
SeisOptfR)ReW(TM1 V4.0 Vspect unUbredsov + Step 2. 3. 4

GEOTECHNICAL CALCULATION SAMPLES
Page I A-21

o
n
�rd�t
O
9' SQ Column
Schmertmann: 0.12 in
o
-&
ontinuous Footing
Ischmertmann:
o 0.02 in
1
0
0 10 20
Project
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
tip,�
Analysis Description Settlement B-01
Drawn By JR
Company Building & Earth
ETTLE3D 4.012
Date
10/26/2018
File mama B-01. s3z

SET E3D 4.011
SOF Battalion Administration Facility: Page 1 of 4
Settle3D Analysis Information
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project Settings
Document Name
Project Title
Analysis
Author
Company
Date Created
Stress Computation Method
Minimum settlement ratio for subgrade modulus
B-01.s3z
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Settlement B-01
JR
Building & Earth
10/26/2018
Boussinesq
0.9
Use average properties to calculate layered stresses
Improve consolidation accuracy
Ignore negative effective stresses in settlement calculations
Stage Settings
Stage # Name
1 Stage 1
Loads
1. Rectangular Load: "9' SQ Column"
Length
9 ft
Width
9 ft
Rotation angle
0 degrees
Load Type
Flexible
Area of Load
81 ft2
Load
2 ksf
Depth
0 ft
Installation Stage
Stage 1
Coordinates
X [ft] Y [ft]
5.924
9.186
14.924
9.186
14.924
18.186
5.924
18.186
B-01.s3z Building & Earth 10/26/2018

SET M 4.012
Chi►.
SOF Battalion Administration Facility: Page 2 of 4
2. Rectangular Load: "Continuous Footing"
Length
30 ft
Width
1.5 ft
Rotation angle
0 degrees
Load Type
Flexible
Area of Load
45 ft2
Load
2 ksf
Depth
0 ft
Installation Stage
Stage 1
Coordinates
X [ft] Y [ft]
-4.348 -7.31
25.652 -7.31
25.652 -5.81
-4.348 -5.81
Empirical Results
9' SQ Column
Modified Schmertmann No
Consider Time Dependent Settlement No
Schmertmann Method
Thickness [ft]
Es [ksf]
Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
Sat. Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
Layer 1
1
3423
0.1
0.115
Layer 2
1
895
0.1
0.115
Layer 3
1
593
0.1
0.115
Layer 4
1
615
0.1
0.115
Layer 5
1
523
0.1
0.115
Layer 6
1
1191
0.1
0.115
Layer 7
1
1633
0.1
0.115
Layer 8
1
1770
0.1
0.115
Layer 9
1
1628
0.1
0.115
Layer 10
1
1386
0.1
0.115
Layer 11
1
1254
0.1
0.115
Layer 12
1
1799
0.1
0.115
Layer 13
10
1654
0.1
0.115
Settlement Results
Schmertmann [in]
[Stage 1 0.124708
Continuous Footing
Modified Schmertmann No
Consider Time Dependent Settlement No
B-01.s3z Building & Earth 10/26/2018

SET E3D 4.011
SOF Battalion Administration Facility: Page 3 of 4
Schmertmann Method
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
Layer 9
Layer 10
Layer 11
Layer 12
Layer 13
Thickness [ft]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
Settlement Results
Schmertmann [in]
[Stage 1 0.0187194
Soil Layers
Es [ksf]
3423
895
593
615
523
1191
1633
1770
1628
1386
1254
1799
1654
Layer # Type Thickness [ft] Depth [ft]
1 Soil Property 1 10 0
2 Soil Property 2 1 10
3 Soil Property 1 20 11
10
31 ft
Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Sat. Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
0.115
0.115
0.115
0.115
0.115
0.115
0.115
0.115
0.115
0.115
0.115
0.115
0.115
B-01.s3z Building & Earth 10/26/2018

SET E3DIDII
Il ►r
'i•. _
SOF Battalion Administration Facility: Page 4 of 4
Soil Proaerties
Property
Color
Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
Saturated Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
KO
Primary Consolidation
Material Type
Cc
Cr
e0
OCR
Undrained Su A [kips/ft2]
Undrained Su S
Undrained Su m
Piezo Line ID
Groundwater
Soil Property 1
Soil Property 2
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.115
0.115
1
1
Enabled
Enabled
Non -Linear
Non -Linear
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
1.1
1.1
1
1
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.8
0
0
Groundwater method Piezometric Lines
Water Unit Weight 0.0624 kips/ft3
B-01.s3z Building & Earth 10/26/2018

O
N
ab
prb�t
i
O
9' SQ Column
Schmertmann: 0.:06:in]
O
Continuous Footing
o Schmertmann: 0.02 in
0
0 10 20
Project
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
tit,�
Analysis Description Settlement B-08
Drawn By JR
Company Building & Earth
ETTLE3D 4.012
Date
10/26/2018
File mama B-08. s3z

SET E3D 4.011
SOF Battalion Administration Facility: Page 1 of 4
Settle3D Analysis Information
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Project Settings
Document Name
Project Title
Analysis
Author
Company
Date Created
Stress Computation Method
Minimum settlement ratio for subgrade modulus
B-08. s3z
SOF Battalion Administration Facility
Settlement B-08
JR
Building & Earth
10/26/2018
Boussinesq
0.9
Use average properties to calculate layered stresses
Improve consolidation accuracy
Ignore negative effective stresses in settlement calculations
Stage Settings
Stage # Name
1 Stage 1
Loads
1. Rectangular Load: "9' SQ Column"
Length
9 ft
Width
9 ft
Rotation angle
0 degrees
Load Type
Flexible
Area of Load
81 ft2
Load
2 ksf
Depth
0 ft
Installation Stage
Stage 1
Coordinates
X [ft] Y [ft]
5.924
9.186
14.924
9.186
14.924
18.186
5.924
18.186
B-08.s3z Building & Earth 10/26/2018

SET M 4.012
Chi►.
SOF Battalion Administration Facility: Page 2 of 4
2. Rectangular Load: "Continuous Footing"
Length
30 ft
Width
1.5 ft
Rotation angle
0 degrees
Load Type
Flexible
Area of Load
45 ft2
Load
2 ksf
Depth
0 ft
Installation Stage
Stage 1
Coordinates
X [ft] Y [ft]
-4.348 -7.31
25.652 -7.31
25.652 -5.81
-4.348 -5.81
Empirical Results
9' SQ Column
Modified Schmertmann No
Consider Time Dependent Settlement No
Schmertmann Method
Thickness [ft]
Es [ksf]
Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
Sat. Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
Layer 1
1
1955
0.1
0.115
Layer 2
1
902
0.1
0.115
Layer 3
1
833
0.1
0.115
Layer 4
16
2465
0.1
0.115
Layer 5
1
1383
0.1
0.115
Layer 6
10
1178
0.1
0.115
Settlement Results
Schmertmann [in]
[Stage 1 0.0626046
Continuous Footing
Modified Schmertmann No
Consider Time Dependent Settlement No
Schmertmann Method
Thickness [ft]
Es [ksf]
Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
Sat. Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
Layer 1
1
1955
0.1
0.115
Layer 2
1
902
0.1
0.115
Layer 3
1
833
0.1
0.115
Layer 4
16
2465
0.1
0.115
Layer 5
1
1383
0.1
0.115
Layer 6
10
1178
0.1
0.115
B-08.s3z Building & Earth 10/26/2018

SET M 4.012
Chi►.
SOF Battalion Administration Facility: Page 3 of 4
Settlement Results
Schmertmann [in]
[Stage 1 0.0190313
Soil Layers
Layer # Type Thickness [ft] Depth [ft]
1 Soil Property 1 14 0
2 Soil Property 2 14.5 14
3 Soil Property 1 10 28.5
0
14
28.5
38.5 ft
Soil Properties
Property
Color
Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
Saturated Unit Weight [kips/ft3]
KO
Soil Property 1 Soil Property 2
0 0
0.1 0.1
0.115 0.115
1 1
Primary Consolidation
Enabled
Enabled
Material Type
Non -Linear
Non -Linear
Cc
0.3
0.3
Cr
0.1
0.1
e0
1.1
1.1
OCR
1
1
Undrained Su A [kips/ft2]
0
0
Undrained Su S
0.2
0.2
Undrained Su m
0.8
0.8
Piezo Line ID
0
0
Groundwater
Groundwater method Piezometric Lines
Water Unit Weight 0.0624 kips/ft3
B-08.s3z Building & Earth 10/26/2018

SET E3D 4.012
.-1�ience
SOF Battalion Administration Facility: Page 4 of 4
B-08.s3z Building & Earth 10/26/2018

Design Name:
SD FLEX
Design Type :
Roads
Pavement Type :
Flexible
Road Type :
Road
Terrain Type :
Flat
Analysis Type :
CBR
Depth of Frost (in) :
0
Wander Width (in) :
33.35
Layer Information
Layer Type Material Type
Pavement Design Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PCASE Version 2.09.05
Date : 10/30/2018
Non frost
Frost Code Analysis Design
Thickness
(in)
Reduced
Limited
Subgrade
Subgrade CBR
Strength
Penetratio Strength
(in)
n (in)
Asphalt Asphalt NFS Compute 2 0 0 0
Base Unbound NFS Manual 6 0 0 100
Crushed Stone
Natural Subgrade Cohesive Cut NFS Manual 0 0 0 5
Traffic Information
Pattern Name : TRAFFIC3
Passes per Life Equivalent
Vehicles
Weight (lb)
Span Passes
M998, HMMWV, 1.25-TON
CARRIER, 4X4
7900 4562500 4562500
M998, HMMWV, 1.25-TON
7900 4562500
CARRIER, 4X4
PCASE Equivalent Single Axle 32359205
Loads

Design Name:
HD FLEX
Design Type :
Roads
Pavement Type :
Flexible
Road Type :
Road
Terrain Type :
Flat
Analysis Type :
CBR
Depth of Frost (in) :
0
Wander Width (in) :
33.35
Layer Information
Layer Type Material Type
Pavement Design Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PCASE Version 2.09.05
Date : 10/30/2018
Non frost
Frost Code Analysis Design
Thickness
(in)
Reduced
Limited
Subgrade
Subgrade CBR
Strength
Penetratio Strength
(in)
n (in)
Asphalt Asphalt NFS Compute 4.17 0 0 0
Base Unbound NFS Manual 6 0 0 100
Crushed Stone
Natural Subgrade Cohesive Cut NFS Manual 0 0 0 5
Traffic Information
Pattern Name : TRAFFIC2
Passes per Life
Equivalent
Vehicles
Weight (lb)
Span
Passes
M998, HMMWV, 1.25-TON
7900
4562500
1
CARRIER, 4X4
P-23 CRASH TRUCK (FIRE
77880
1300
1300
TRUCK)
TRUCK, 3 AXLE
66000
1300
29
TRUCK, 5 AXLE
72000
2600
1
P-23 CRASH TRUCK (FIRE
77880
1331
TRUCK)
PCASE Equivalent Single Axle 32359205
Loads

Design Name:
HD RIGID
Design Type :
Roads
Pavement Type :
Rigid
Road Type :
Road
Terrain Type :
Flat
Analysis Type :
K
Depth of Frost (in) :
0
Wander Width (in) :
33.35
% Load Transfer:
0
Effective K (pci) :
132
Reduced Sub Effective K (pci) :
0
Joint Spacing :
10 to 15 ft
Dowel Spacing :
12.00 in
Dowel Length
16.00 in
Dowel Diameter:
.75 in
Layer Information
Layer Type Material Type
Pavement Thickness Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PCASE Version 2.09.05
Date : 10/30/2018
Flexural o Non frost
Frost Code Strength �0 Analysis Design
(psi) Steel Thickness
(in)
Reduced
Limited K
Subgrade
Subgrade Strength
Strength
Penetration (pci)
(in)
(in)
PCC N/A NFS 650 0 Compute 6.19 0 0 0
Base bound Crushed St( NFS 0 0 Manual 6 0 0 0
Natural Subgrade Cohesive Cut NFS 0 0 Manual 0 0 0 90
Traffic Information
Pattern Name : TRAFFIC1
Passes per Life
Equivalent
Vehicles
Weight (lb)
Span
Passes
CMP 60 FORKLIFT
10000
1300
1
M998, HMMWV, 1.25-TON
7900
4562500
1
CARRIER, 4X4
P-23 CRASH TRUCK (FIRE
77880
1300
1300
TRUCK)
TRUCK, 3 AXLE
66000
1300
867
TRUCK, 5 AXLE
72000
2600
28
P-23 CRASH TRUCK (FIRE
77880
2197
TRUCK)

PCASE Equivalent Single Axle
Loads
Pavement Thickness Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PCASE Version 2.09.05
3235920gate : 10/30/2018

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 notperform 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-22

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
havingyour 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 laboratoiy
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 a geotechnical 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 fromgrowing 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
GARCIUM BUSINESS COUNCIL
of fix Geopr*,sionWBruinec Asmciahon
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone; 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail; [e-mail] www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GSA). 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 GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Page I A-23

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
SOF Support Battalion Administration Facility, 12/14/2018
Appendix H — NCDEQ Bioretention Cell Supplement
a.8 1 gage

o
L >
O O
d
N
N
�
E
N
z CL
'a
E 0 3
� a
E
..E
C7
N
N
C7
N
C Z Q
'a
� L
Q N
O
O
O
O
Ec6
c6
c6
c6
D
o
C?
6
C6
0
CY
LO
ti
Cl?
o
0
N
N
0
0
0
0
�. C
O
w
^�CL
0
0
0
0
Cn0
C7
I-
C7
N
Q 7 Q �"'
�
N
N
C7
O
O
N
Cl)
IT
� Q
m
MINE
L
+L*
V
s
a�
W C.
�a
N_
L �
41
�
�J
N�
0 c.
'all
a
2
-1�1■91@I��■
1�1�9BB9��■
• I�B■@BB9��■
1�@■ki�99
B■�■�19

PROJECT INFORMATION
1 1 Project Name SOF Battalion Administration Facility--,---
2 Project Area (ac) 9.55
3 Coastal Wetland Area (ac) N/A
4 Surface Water Area (ac) N/A
5 Is this project High or Low Density'? High
6 Does this project use an off -site SCM? Yes
COMPLIANCE WITH 02H .1003(4)
7 Width of vegetated setbacks provided (feet) N/A
8 Will the vegetated setback remain vegetated? No
9 Is BLIA other that as listed in .1003(4)(c-d) out of the setback? Yes
10 Is streambank stabilization proposed on this project? No
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SCMs:
11 Infiltration System
12 Bioretention Cell 4.
13 Wet Pond 0
14 Stormwater Wetland 0
15
Permeable Pavement
-0
0
16
Sand Filter
17
Rainwater Harvesting (RWH)
0
0
0
0
0
18
Green Roof
19
Level Spreader -Filter Strip (LS-FS)
20
Disconnected Impervious Surface (DIS)
21
Treatment Swale
22
Dry Pond
0
23
StormFilter
0
0
0
0
24
Silva Cell
Bayfilter
Filterra
25
26
I FORMS LOADED
CERTIFICATION
, and Title:
28 Organization:_
29 Street address:
30 City, State, Zip:
31 Phone number(
32 Email:
Robert L. Day, PE Principal
810 S. Cincinnati Second Floor
Tulsa, OK 74119
918.877.6000
Certification Statement:
I certify, under penalty of law that this Supplement-EZ form and all supporting information were prepared under my direction or
supervision; that the information provided in the form is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete; and
that the engineering plans, specifications, operation and maintenance agreements and other supporting information are consistent
with the information provided here.
11111%%
Seal
Designer
Ce
Date

1 1 Drainage area number 1 ! 2 3 4
2 Design volume of SCM (cu ft) 1748 cf ', 1544 cf 692 cf 1614 cf
-----t_ .__ _ _
GENERAL MDC FROM 02H .105 - -- -
3 Is the SCM sized to treat the SW from all surfaces at build -out? Yes Yes - Yes � i� Yeses>)
4
5
Is the SCM located away from contaminated soils?
What are the side slopes of the SCM (H:V)?
Yes
3:1
Yes Yeses Yes
3:1 3:1 f 3:1 11
6
Does the SCM have retaining walls, gabion walls or other engineered side
slopes?
No
No No
r
No
7
Are the inlets, outlets, and receiving stream protected from erosion (10-.
year storm)?
Yes Yes Yes Yes
!I
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Other Other Others Other
Yes Yes Yes 'Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
8
Is there an overflow or bypass for inflow volume in excess of the design
volume?
9
What is the method for dewatering the SCM for maintenance?
10
If applicable, will the SCM be cleaned out after construction?
11
Does the maintenance access comply with General MDC (8)?
12
Does the drainage easement comply with General MDC (9)?
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
13
14
If the SCM is on a single family lot, does (will?) the plat comply with
General MDC (10)?
Is there an O&M Agreement that complies with General MDC (11)?
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Ye 41
Yes
15
Is there an O&M Plan that complies with General MDC (12)?
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
16
Does the SCM follow the device specific MDC?
Yes
Yes
254.50
Yes Yes IEes�
Yes es
253.00 ii 250.00 ' 254.00
260.15 261.75 259.75
17
as t e esigne y an icense proessional
IORETFNTION
CELL MnC; FROu n414 ,10r'
SHWT elevation (fmsl)
Bottom of the bioretention cell (fmsl)
Ponding depth of the design storm (inches)
Surface area of the bioretention cell (square feet)
Design volume of the bioretention cell (cubic feet)
18
19
261.60
20
9 in
9 in
gin 9 in
21
4283 sf
3212_cf _
No
in
2947 sf
2210 cf f
No
in
in
2212 ssf i 3421 sf
1659of 256
; No No
in j in
in in
22
23
Ps the bioretention cell used for peak attenuation?
24
Depth of peak attenuation over planting surface (in)
Height of peak attenuation outlet above the planting surface (in)
25
in
26
Infiltration rate of the in situ soil (inch/hour)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003 !
27
Diameter of the underdrain pipes (if applicable)
8 in
6 in
I 8 in
6 in q
28
Does the design include Internal Water Storage (IWS)?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes';
29
if so, elevation of the top of the IWS (fmsl)
258.5
256.5
257.12
25K_7
30
Elevation of the planting surface (fmsl)
261.6
261
262
260
31
What type of vegetation will be planted? 1grass, trees/shrubs, other)?
Grass
Grass
Grass
Grass
32
Media depth (inches)
30 in
30 in
30 in
30 in
33
Percentage of medium to coarse washed sand by volume
85%
85%
85%
'85%
34
Percentage of fines (silt and clay) by volume
Percentage of organic matter by volume
10%
10%
10%
10%
35
5%
5%
5%
5%
36
Type of organic material
Engineered Fill
same
same
same
37
Phosphorus Index (P-Index) of media (unitless)
10
_ 10
10
10
38
Will compaction be avoided during construction?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
39
Will cell be maintained to a one inch/hour standard?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
40
Depth of mulch, if applicable (inches)
NIAMN/AIA
N/A
41
Type ofmulch, if applicable
NIAIA
NIA
42
How many clean out pipes are being installed?
42
4
43
ype o pretreatmen t at wi a use
ameme ame
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Please use this space to provide any additional information about the
44 bioretention cell(s):
43. Minimum 3' sod strip. All outlet headwalls to cell have rip -rap outlet protection
per NCDEQ requirements.
kThe project is located in Fort Bragg (North Carolina Army Installation). The soil
media will not be mechanically compacted. All bioretention areas will be sodded.
Mulch is not allowed by the user due to maintenance issues. The emergency
spillway is designed for each cell to handle the entire flow from the 100-year storm
event in case of failure of the primary outfall and storage within each basin.
Bioretention 1 2:15 PM 7/1/2019

Discrete SCS Curve Number Method (NCDEQ Sormwater BMP Manual 3.3.2)
Location: Bioretention Area I
Predevelopment BUA
Predevelopment Open Area
jArea 1 1.201acres
ITotal I 196.301cf
Date 07103/2019
Developed BUA
FTIT
Developed Open Area
F-w
�
jArea I acres
ITotal I 1,944.071cf
Storage Required
CIF
1,747.77
Surface Area
SF
4,283
Riser
IN
9
Storage Provided
CF
3,212.3
Note: Runoff Depth for CN <= 60 set to 0.00 for 1.0" rainfall event.
Composite CN calculated using Army LID Planning and Cost Tool
Developed by USACE Baltimore District and USACE ERDC

Discrete SCS Curve Number Method (NCDEQ Sormwater BMP Manual 3.3.2)
Location: Bioretention Area 2
a I :
Predevelopment BUA
Predevelopment Open Area
jArea I 0.781a�cres
ITotal 1 0.001cf
Date 07/03/2019
Developed BUA
F-,W- -W
®''�-
F-,M-
Developed Open Area
jArea I 0.78jacres I
ITotal 1 1,543.79 1 cf I
Storage Required
CF 1,543.79
Surface Area
SF 2,947
Riser
IN 9
Storage Provided
jCF 2,210.31
Note: Runoff Depth for CN <= 60 set to 0.00 for 1.0" rainfall event.
Composite CN calculated using Army LID Planning and Cost Tool
Developed by USACE Baltimore District and USACE ERDC

Discrete SCS Curve Number Method (NCDEQ Sormwater BMP Manual 3.3.2)
Location: Bioretention Area 3
Predevelopment BUA
Predevelopment Open Area
jArea I 0.60jacres I
11M. M�Emmm, M-1
Date 07/03/2019
- �,Zyj
- �,KFW,
- �,KFW,
=..,
jArea 1 0.60 acres
ITotal I 887.851cf
Storage Required
CF
691.55
Surface Area
SF
2,212
Riser
IN
9
Storage Provided
CF
1,659.0
Note: Runoff Depth for CN <= 60 set to 0.00 for 1.0" rainfall event
Composite CN calculated using Army LID Planning and Cost Tool
Developed by USAGE Baltimore District and USACE ERDC

Discrete SCS Curve Number Method (NCDEQ Sormwater BMP Manual 3.3.2)
Location: Bloretention Area 4
Predevelopment BUA
Predevelopment Open Area
-�Wqnw
jArea 1 1.35 1 acres
ITotal 1 396.321cf
Date 07/03/2019
Developed BUA
jArea 1 1.35 1 acres
ITotal 1 396.321cf
Date 07/03/2019
Developed BUA
F-w
Developed Open Area
jArea I 1.351a�cres
ITotal 1 2,010.1�4�
Storage Required
CF 1,613.82
Surface Area
SF 3,421
Riser
IN 9
Storage Provided
JCF 17-2;565.8j
Note: Runoff Depth for CN <= 60 set to 0.00 for 1.0" rainfall event.
Composite CN calculated using Army LID Planning and Cost Tool
Developed by USACE Baltimore District and USACE ERDC

0
Z
W
Q
N
_
O)
>0
W
J
D
0
Lo
Q `
M
2
LO
U')
LO
U')
LO
LU
J
^
N
N
N
N
N
LU
_
_
J
00
CO
CO
CO
C0
z
O
ULo
LoU-)
LoU-)
o
o
LU-LO
H
U +
't
00
M
N
O
O LL
U
Lo
Lo
M
M
M
J
LU
H
>
D
O
W
Qcn
rnLOItiLO
_ LL
M
M
't
vU
�riri�o�
0
LOLOLOLO
Q
0 ..
lf)
N
N
N
N
2
(A
(A
(A
(A
(A