SW3160501_HISTORICAL FILE_20160708

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO. SW
DOC TYPE ❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
❑ COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE c%l1o�27c'
YYYYMMDD

•
TESL
p
�
G
5950 Fairview Rd. • Suite 100 -charlotte, NC 28210
N
[phone] • Fax [phone]
y
b
70 Morn
op
Transmittal
O
Attention: Mr. Mike Randall
NCDEQ - Stormwater Permitting
Division of Energy, Minerals & Land Resources
Physical Location:
512 N. Salisbury Street, gm Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
Mailing Address:
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
From:
Luke Bugenske, PE - Burton Engineering Associates
Project Name:
InterTape Polymer Group
Project Number:
218-106
Date:
May 19, 2016
Re:
InterTape Polymer Group - Stormwater Permitting
Via:
UPS Ground
SfPL<E S
Copies
Date
Pages
Description
1
SSW-SWU-101 Application (1 unsigned copy --signed original and copy
of signed original to be submitted under separate cover
2
5/19/16
Stormwater Management Design Report (includes calcs, narrative,
USGS map, soils map, supplemental forms
1
Application Processing Fee ($505.00)
1
Copy of Deed
O&M Form for each BMP (unsigned -- signed originals to be submitted
1
under separate cover
1
Geotechnical Report
Civil Plans (Sheets C1.0-COVER, C3.0-SITE PLAN, C4.0-GRADING &
2
5/19/16
DRAINAGE PLAN, C4.1-STORMWATER MGMT PLAN, C4.2-
STORMWATER MGMT PLAN
❑ As Requested ❑ For Approval ® For Your Use ❑ For Review and Comment
If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact me at [phone] or by email at
lukeb(a)burtonengineering.com
Sincerely,
Luke Bugenske, PE
PLEASE NOTIFY AT ONCE IF ALL ENCLOSURES ARE NOT INCLUDED

Check Request
Attention: Mr. Andrew Van Ore
o o+
Company:
Address:
Intertape Polymer Group
100 Paramount Dr., Suite 300
. p y'
b
a
City, State Zip:
Sarasota, FL 34232
Phone:
[phone]�
Project Name:
Intertape Polymer Group (Project Burgundy)
Project Number:
Project Location:
218-106
Cabarrus County
Check Amount:
Payable to:
$505.00
NCDENR
Requested for:
NCDENR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
Send to: Burton Engineering Associates
Via:
Requested by:
Date:
❑
Regular Mail
Overnight
❑
Courier
❑
Pick up
❑
Other
Gregory T. Welsh, PE
May 17, 2016
If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact us at [phone] or by email.

I
BURTON
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LAND PLANNERS
5950 Fairview Rd. • Suite 100 •Chadotte, NC 28210
[phone] • Fax [phone]
Transmittal
Attention: Mr. Mike Randall
NCDEQ - Stormwater Permitting
Division of Energy, Minerals & Land Resources
Physical Location:
512 N. Salisbury Street, V Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
Mailing Address:
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
bF
m 2
o m
From: Luke Bugenske, PE - Burton Engineering Associates �D
Project Name: InterTape Polymer Group
Project Number: 218-106
Date: May 25, 2016
Re: InterTape Polymer Group - Stormwater Permitting Signed Applications
Via: UPS Ground
Copies
Date
Pages
Description
2
SSW-SWU-101 Application (1 original and 1 copy)
1'`'
O&M Form for each BMP (1 original and 1 copy for each BMP)
❑ As Requested ❑ For Approval N For Your Use ❑ For Review and Comment
If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact me at [phone] or by email at
lukeb�burtonengineering.com
Sincerely,
_qv�
Luke Bugenske, PE
w.
PLEASE NOTIFY AT ONCE IF ALL ENCLOSURES ARE NOT INCLUDED
Iai�,Y � 6 2016
DEG -WATER RESOURCES
401 & BUFFER PERMITTING

- _ = DEMLR USE ONLY
Date Received
Fee Paid
Permit Number
Applicable Rules: ❑ Coastal SW -1995 ❑ Coastal SW - 2008 ❑ Ph II - Post Construction
(select all that apply) ❑ Non -Coastal SW- HQW/ORW Waters ❑ Universal Stormwater Management Plan
❑ Other WQ M mt Plan:
State of North Carolina
VC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources' r-
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources a
r
A�
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION m
oA
77tis form may be photocopied for use as an original o. to
o
I. GENERAL INFORMATION -
o0
rn
1. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name - should be consistent with proct name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Intertaoe Polvmer Coro.
2. Location of Project (street address)
13722 Bill McGee Road
City:Midland County:Cabarrus Zip:28107
3. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
From NC Hwy 24/27 and Hwy 601, travel south on 601 approximately 2 miles. Turn right an Wallace Road
and then an immediately Right on Bill McGee Road. The project site is on the north side of the Aberdeen.
Carolina Western Railroad
4. Latitude:35° 13' 51.9" N Longitude:80° 31' 12.2" W of the main entrance to the project.
3 • i3i i 86 .Sso ►
if. PERMIT INFORMATION:
1. a. Specify whether project is (check one): ®New ❑Modification ❑ Renewal w/ Modificationt
tRenetoals with modifications also requires SWU-102 - Renewal Application Fonn
b.If this application is being submitted as the result of a modification to an existing permit, list the existing
permit numberN/A , its issue date (if known)N/A and the status of
construction: ❑Not Started ❑Partially Completed* ❑ Completed* 'provide a designer's certification
2. Specify the type of project (check one):
®Low Density ❑High Density ❑Drains to an Offsite Stormwater System ❑Other
3. If this application is being submitted as the result of a previously returned application or a letter from
DEMLR requesting a state stormwater management permit application, list the stormwater project number,
if assigned, N/A and the previous name of the project, if different than currently
proposed, N/A
4. a. Additional Project Requirements (check applicable blanks; information on required state permits can be
obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748):
❑CAMA Major ®Sedimentation/Erosion Control: 20 ac of Disturbed Area
❑NPDES Industrial Stormwater M404/401 Permit: Proposed Impacts WETLANDS
b.If any of these permits have already been acquired please provide the Project Name, Project/Permit Number,
issue date and the type of each permit:INTERTAPE POLYMER GROUP - MASS GRADING - CABAR-2016-
non--clan/l(
5. Is the project located within 5 miles of a public airport? ElNo UYe,
If yes, see S.L. 2012-200, Part VI: ham://portal.ncdetir.org/web/ir/rules-and-regulations
FormSWU-101 Version Oct. 31,2013 Page Iof6

III. CONTACT INFORMATION
1. a. Print Applicant / Signing Official's name and title (specifically the developer, property owner, lessee,
designated government official, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Applicant/Organization:INTERTAPE POLYMER CORP.
Signing Official & Title:SHAWN NELSON, SENIOR VP, SALES
b. Contact information for person listed in item la above:
Street Address:100 PARAMOUNT DRIVE, SUITE 300
City:SARASOTA
Mailing Address (if applicable):SAME
City:
Phone: (941 ) 357-6105
Ema il: avanore®i to pe.co nr
State:FL Zip:34232
Fax:
c. Please check the appropriate box. The applicant listed above is:
® The property owner (Skip to Contact Information, item 3a)
❑ Lessee* (Attach a copy of the lease agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below)
❑ Purchaser* (Attach a copy of the pending sales agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and
2b below)
❑ Developer* (Complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below.)
2. a. Print Property Owner's name and title below, if you are the lessee, purchaser or developer. (This is the
person who owns the property that the project is located on):
Property
Signing Official &
b. Contact information for person listed in item 2a above:
Street Address:_ 100 pa(/AIMalAPI+ hny? SL44e' 300
City: sAYfielli
Mailing Address
City:
Phone: ( )
Email:
L- Zip: 94232
Fax: ( )
3. a. (Optional) Print the name and title of another contact such as the project's construction supervisor or other
person who can answer questions about the project:
Other Contact Person/ Organization: INTE RTAPE POLYMER CORP.
Signing Official & Title:TASON BRAUCH, OPERATIONS MANAGER
b. Contact information for person listed in item 3a above:
Mailing Address:100 PARAMOUNT DRIVE, SUITE 300
City:SARASOTA State:FL Zip:34232
Phone: (920 ) 540-0668 Fax: ( )
Emad:[e-mail]
4. Local jurisdiction for building permits: CABARRUS COUNTY
Point of Contact:SUSIE MORRIS Phone #: (704 ) 920-2141
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 2 of 6

IV. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, briefly summarize how the stormwater runoff will be treated.
STORMWATER RUNOFF WILL BE TREATED BY TWO (2) SAND FILTER BMPs
2. a. If claiming vested rights, identify the supporting documents provided and the date they were approved:
❑ Approval of a Site Specific Development Plan or PUD Approval Date:
❑ Valid Building Permit Issued Date:
❑ Other: Date:
b.If claiming vested rights, identify the regulation(s) the project has been designed in accordance with:
❑ Coastal SW -1995 ❑ Ph II - Post Construction
3. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the YADKIN PEE-DEE River basin.
4. Total Property Area: 40.594 acres 5. Total Coastal Wetlands Area: 0 acres
6. Total Surface Water Area: 0 acres
7. Total Property Area (4) - Total Coastal Wetlands Area (5) - Total Surface Water Area (6) = Total Project
Area':40.594 acres
Total project area shall be calculated to exclude thefollowing: the normal pool of impounded structures, the area
between the barks of streams and rivers, the area below the Normal High Water (NHW) line or Mean High Water
(MHW) line, and coastal wetlands landward from the NHW (or MHYI) line. The resultant project area is used to
calculate overall percent built upon area (BUA). Non -coastal wetlands landward of the NHW (or MHW) line nay
be included in the total project area.
8. Project percent of impervious area: (Total Impervious Area / Total Project Area) X 100 = 4.51 /40.594 =11.1 %
9. How many drainage areas does the project have?1 (For high densihj, count I for each proposed engineered
stornuuater BMP. For lore densihj and other projects, use 1 for the whole property area)
10. Complete the following information for each drainage area identified in Project Information item 9. If there
are more than four drainage areas in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area
provided in the same format as below.
Basin Information
Drainage Area 1
Draina e'Area _
Drainage Area '
Drainage Area
Receiving Stream Name
MUDDY CREEK
Stream Class *
C
Stream Index Number *
13-17-16
Total Drainage Area (so
667,024
On -site drainage Area (so
667,024
Off -site Drainage Area (so
0
Proposed Impervious Area** (so
196,5 9
% Im ervious Area* total
` 29.5 1
Impervious'** Surface Area _
Draina a Area -1
Drauia a Area _
Dra na -e Area .
Draina e Area
On -site Buildings/Lots (so
95,818
On -site Streets (so
65,886
On -site Parking (so
33,187
On -site Sidewalks (so
1,708
Other on -site (so
0
Future (so
0
Off -site (so
0
Existing BUA*** (so
0
Total (so:
1 196,599
" Strewn Class and Index Number can be determined at: irttp://portal.tudenr.org/mebAflalps/csrdclassifcations
`* iin{peruious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sideeualks, gravel areas, etc.
Report only that amount of existing BUA that will remain after development. Do not report any existing BUA that
is to be removed and which Will be replaced by new BUA.
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 3 of 6

11. How was the off -site impervious area listed above determined? Provide documentation.
Projects in Union County: Contact DEMLR Centred Office staff to check if the project is located within a Threatened &
Endangered Species watershed that may be subject to more stringent stormwater requirements as per 15A NCAC 02B .0600.
V. SUPPLEMENT AND O&M FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement and operation and maintenance (O&M) forms
must be submitted for each BMP specified for this project. The latest versions of the forms can be downloaded
fronilittD://i)ortal.ncdenr.org/web/wo/ws/su/brno-iiiantial-
V1. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Energy, Mineral and
Land Resources (DEMLR). A complete package includes all of the items listed below. A detailed application
instruction sheet and BMP checklists are available from
http://portaI.ncderr.org/web/wg/ws/su/statesw/forms does. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate DEMLR Office. (The appropriate office may be found by locating project on the
interactive online map at http://12ortal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/maps.)
Please indicate that the following required information have been provided by initialing in the space provided
for each item. All original documents MUST be signed and initialed in blue ink. Download the latest versions
for each submitted application package from http://yortal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms does.
Initials
1. Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form.
2. Original and one copy of the signed and notarized Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants
Form. (if required as per Part VII belozo)
3. Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) (sealed, signed and dated) and O&M
agreement(s) for each BMP.
4. Permit application processing fee of $505 payable to NCDENR. (For an Express review, refer to
litty://www.envllelp.org/`pages/onestopexRress.htnil for information on the Express program
and the associated fees. Contact the appropriate regional office Express Permit Coordinator for
additional information and to schedule the required application meeting.)
5. A detailed narrative (one to two pages) describing the stormwater treatment/managementfor
the project. This is required in addition to the brief summary provided in the Project
Information, item 1.
6. A USGS map identifying the site location. If the receiving stream is reported as class SA or the
receiving stream drams to class SA waters within 1/2 mile of the site boundary, include tine 1/2
mile radius on the map.
7. Sealed, signed and dated calculations (one copy).
8. Two sets of plans folded to 8.5" x 14" (sealed, signed, & dated), including:
a. Development/Project name.
b. Engineer and firm.
c. Location map with named streets and NCSR numbers.
d. Legend.
e. North arrow.
f. Scale.
g. Revision number and dates.
h. Identify all surface waters on the plans by delineating the normal pool elevation of
impounded structures, the banks of streams and rivers, the MHW or NHW line of tidal
waters, and any coastal wetlands landward of the MHW or NHW lines.
• Delineate the vegetated buffer landward from the normal pool elevation of impounded
structures, the banks of streams or rivers, and the MHW (or NHW) of tidal waters.
i. Dimensioned property/project boundary with bearings & distances.
j. Site Layout with all BUA identified and dimensioned.
k. Existing contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations.
I. Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures.
in. Wetlands delineated, or a note on the plans that none exist. (Must be delineated by a
qualified person. Provide documentation of qualifications and identify the person who
made the determination on the plans.
n. Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations.
o. Drainage areas delineated (included in the main set of plans, not as a separate document).
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 4 of 6

p. Vegetated buffers (where required).
9. Copy of any applicable soils report with the associated SHWT elevations (Please identify _
elevations in addition to depths) as well as a map of the boring locations with the existing
elevations and boring logs. Include an 8.5"xll" copy of the NRCS County Soils map with the
project area clearly delineated. For projects with infiltration BMPs, the report should also
include the soil type, expected infiltration rate, and the method of determining the infiltration rate.
(Infiltration Devices submitted to WiRO: Schedule a site visit for DEMLR to verlfj the SHWT prior
to submittal, [phone].)
10. A copy of the most current property deed. Deed book: 70 Page No: 0110
11. For corporations and limited liability corporations (LLC): Provide documentation from the NC _
Secretary of State or other official documentation, which supports the titles and positions held
by the persons listed in Contact Information, item 1a, 2a, and/or 3a per 15A NCAC 21-1.1003(e).
The corporation or LLC must be listed as an active corporation in good standing with the NC
Secretary of State, otherwise the application will be returned.
littp://www.secretary.state.nc.us/Corporatioiis/CSearch.aspx
VIL DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
For all subdivisions, outparcels, and future development, the appropriate property restrictions and protective
covenants are required to be recorded prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly or the proposed
BUA allocations vary, a table listing each lot number, lot size, and the allowable built -upon area must be provided
as an attachment to the completed and notarized deed restriction form. The appropriate deed restrictions and
protective covenants forms can be downloaded from ham://portal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/state-stormwater-
forms does. Download the latest versions for each submittal.
In the instances where the applicant is different than the property owner, it is the responsibility of the property
owner to sign the deed restrictions and protective covenants form while the applicant is responsible for ensuring
that the deed restrictions are recorded.
By the notarized signature(s) below, the permit holder(s) certify that the recorded property restrictions and
protective covenants for this project, if required, shall include all the items required in the permit and listed
on the forms available on the website, that the covenants will be binding on all parties and persons claiming
under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants cannot be changed or deleted
without concurrence from the NC DEMLR, and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
VIII. CONSULTANT INFORMATION AND AUTHORIZATION
Applicant: Complete this section if you wish to designate authority to another individual and/or firm (such as a
consulting engineer and/or firm) so that they may provide information on your behalf for this project (such as
addressing requests for additional information).
Consulting Engineer:GREGORYT. WELSH PE
Consulting Firm: BURTON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
Mailing Address:5950 FAIRVIEW ROAD, SUITE 100
CATCHARLOTTE State:NC Zip:28210
Phone: L4 ) 553-8881 Fax: (704 ) 553-8860
Email:[e-mail]
IX. PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION (if Contact Ltfonnmtion, item 2 has been filled out, complete this
section)
I, (print or type name of person listed in Con tact Information, item 2n) T1A4-rr+a9e Pof40nr•r CofP. , certify that I
own the property identified in this permit application, and thus give permission to (print or tame of person
listed in Contact Information, item In) 5haWN NekoN with (print or hjpe Dane of organization listed in
Contact Infonnation, item In m I Co( . to develop the project as currently proposed. A copy of
the lease agreement or pending prop rty sales contract ras been provided with the submittal, which indicates the
party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system.
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 5 of 6

As the legal property owner I acknowledge, understand, and agree by my signature below, that if my designated
agent (entity listed in Contact hnformation, item 1) dissolves their company and/or cancels or defaults on their
lease agreement, or pending sale, responsibility for compliance with the DEMLR Stormwater permit reverts back
to me, the property owner. As the property owner, it is my responsibility to notify DEMLR immediately and
submit a completed Name/Ownership Change Form within 30 days; otherwise I will be operating a stormwater
treatment facility without a valid permit. I understand that the operation of a stormwater treatment facility
without a valid permit is a violation of NC General Statue 143-215.1 and may result in appropriate enforcement
action including tjte assessment of pi�il p, �nalties of up to $25,000 per day, pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6.
Date: IMGN '�, 1Olb
I, CJA QA'tIICt110, B✓vu _ a Notary Public for the State of �1 0 A-% � County of
Sa— —t 0l — do hereby certify that 511(ALJt1 IVe Iso rJ personally appeared
before me this,20 day of {1� 2011, , and acknowledge the due execution of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal, UA
......., CHARLETTE BROWN
• 9y ` Commission # FF 947455
Expires April 6, 2020
•�P..,.lx,•+ B dr Rey F.nEOOla4a01a
X. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
SEAL
My commission expires �� 2J-32-0
I, (print or hype name of person listed in Contact Information, item In) 54a4-y n /V-d54,—
certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and
that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans, that the required deed restrictions
and protective covnants ryIII be recorded and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of the
applicable stormlater r es under A AC 21-1.1000 and any other applicable state stormwater requirements.
Date: May 20 1,016
1, ia i .� i { 4e-lizzp. ev � k- a Notary Public for the State of G/ o vi cq(r�s County of
Sit , 5,4, do hereby certify that S11ctvh NdI p rJ personally appeared
before me this day of na4j OD141 and acknowledge the due execution of the application for
a stormwater permit Witness my hand and official seal, 19-Z
CHARLETTE BROWN
ne Commission # FF 947455
F�: Expires April 6, 2020
'�P..',,p4' mwrar�r�F.. u,w.s+emaesroia
SEAL
My commission expires / r Q/LrJ 6 , 2,0 Z-y
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 6 of 6

JL
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engi-
neer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for
the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction
observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineer-
ing reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your
geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geofechnical engineer to review
pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors
can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors 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 ad-
ditional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer.
A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient
tlmeto perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give
contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at
least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unantici-
pated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not 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.
Geoenviponmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually re-
late any geoenvironmental 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 geoenv i ro n mental in-
formation, 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, op-
eration, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from grow-
ing 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, a number of mold prevention
strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, wa-
ter 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
Me geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted
for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper Implementatlon of
the recommendations conveyed In this report wig net of Itself
he sufficient to prevent mold Tram growing In or on the struc-
ture Involved.
Rely on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnical
Engineer For Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engi-
neers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine
benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your
ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASFE
lee 9Pt1 P.e PIe an f.PI!
8811 CcIesviIIe Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:'301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail:'[e-mail] www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited except wim ASFES specific
written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for purposes
of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm,
individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being anASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045.0M

TM
REPORT
OF
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 0
PROJECT BURGUNDY i� r
MIDLAND, NORTH CAROLINA
ECS PROJECT NO. 08-10984 ='
J U LY 17, 2015

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Prepared For:
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
Intertape Polymer Group
100 Paramount Drive, Suite 300
Sarasota, Florida 34232
Prepared By:
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
1812 Center Park Drive
Suite D
Charlotte, NC 28217
ECS Project No:
08-10984
Report Date:
July 17, 2015

0
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP "Setting the standard for Service"
r r. Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered 6gmeing F.7 F-1078
July 17, 2015
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
Director of Operations
Intertape Polymer Group
100 Paramount Drive, Suite 300
Sarasota, Florida 34232
0-o 6
z
Reference: Report of Subsurface Exploration
mp
� tom pP
Project Burgundy
cn
Midland, North Carolina
d a'
ECS Project No. 08-10984
c
Dear Mr. Van Ore:
`D
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration for the above referenced
project. This project was authorized and performed in general accordance with ECS Proposal
No. 08-18373P dated June 12, 2015. The purpose of this exploration was to determine the
general subsurface conditions at the site and to evaluate those conditions with regard to
foundation and floor slab support, along with general site development. This report presents our
findings, conclusions, and recommendations for design and construction of the project.
ECS Carolinas, LLP appreciates the opportunity to assist you during this phase of the project. If
you have questions concerning this report, please contact our office.
Respectfully,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
AVIAILI��
Robert L. Hendrick, III, E.I.
Assistant Project Manager
1812 Center Park Drive, Suite D, Charlotte, NC 28217 • T: 704-525-5152 • F: 704-357-0023 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS C.*d Services, PLLC • ECS CamAmas, LLP • ECS Central, PLLC • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Wd-Atan&, LLC • ECS lvl* sA LLC • ECS SaMreat, LLC • ECS Taros, LLP

Report of Subsurface Exploration Mr. Andrew Van Ore
Project Burgundy / Q��° ECS Project No. 08-10984
Midland, North Carolina �'�, July 17, 2015
Page 2
1 p rt EDUCTION
O� 10
1.1. Project Information �apaQv0
The approximate 60-acre projec�e is located at the end of Bill McGee Road, just east of US
Highway 601 in Midland, North rolina as shown in the Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1) included in
the Appendix. We understand that a new industrial manufacturing facility is planned at this site.
The facility will include the construction of a 214,760 square foot (SF) facility with up to a
100,000 SF addition, loading docks, and associated parking/drive areas. In addition, an
entrance road will be extended from the existing Bill McGee Road into the site. Information
regarding planned site retaining walls and stormwater ponds has not been provided to us at this
time. Therefore, this report does not address these items.
The site is currently moderately to heavily wooded, with some cleared portions during previous site
use. Based on our review of available topographic data, existing site grades range from an
approximate high elevation of 539 feet to an approximate low elevation of 492 feet. Finished Floor
Elevation (FIFE) is provided as 526.4 feet, resulting in maximum cut/fill depths on the order of 10
feet.
Structural loading conditions have not been provided to us at this time. However, we understand
the construction will consist of a structural steel frame with metal siding. Based on our experience
with these type of projects, we anticipate that maximum column and wall footing loads will not
exceed 200 kips and 4 kips per linear foot, respectively.
1.2. Scope of Services
Our scope of services included a subsurface exploration with soil test borings, laboratory testing,
engineering analysis of the foundation support options, and preparation of this report with our
recommendations. The subsurface exploration included twenty-three (23) soil test borings (B-1
through B-23) drilled to depths ranging from 3.5 to 23.5 feet below existing grades. Approximate
boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Diagram (Figure 2) included in the Appendix.
The soil borings were performed using a CME 550 ATV -mounted drill rig using continuous -flight,
hollow -stem augers.
2. FIELD SERVICES
2.1. Test Locations
The soil boring locations were selected and located in the field by ECS using a handheld GPS
device and existing landmarks as reference. The approximate test locations are shown on the
Boring Location Diagram (Figure 2) presented in the Appendix of this report and should be
considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used to obtain them. Ground
surface elevations at the boring locations were obtained from the preliminary topographic plan
and should be considered approximate.
2.2. Soil Test Borings
Twenty-three (23) soil test borings were drilled to evaluate the stratification and engineering
properties of the subsurface soils at the project site. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT's) were
performed at designated intervals in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The Standard
Penetration Test is used to provide an index for estimating soil strength and density. In
conjunction with the penetration testing, split -barrel soil samples were recovered for soil
classification at each test interval. Boring Logs are included in the Appendix.

Report or Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 3
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10984
July 17, 2015
The drill crew also maintained a field log of the soils encountered at each of the boring locations.
After recovery, each sample was removed from the split -spoon sampler and visually classified.
Representative portions of each sample were then sealed and brought to our laboratory in
Charlotte, North Carolina for further visual examination and laboratory testing. Groundwater
measurements were attempted at the termination of drilling at each boring location.
3. LABORATORY SERVICES
Soil samples were collected from the borings and examined in our laboratory to check field
classifications and to determine pertinent engineering properties. Data obtained from the
borings, laboratory testing, and our visual/manual examinations are included on the respective
boring logs in the Appendix.
3.1. Soil Classification
A geotechnical engineer classified each soil sample on the basis of color, texture, and plasticity
characteristics in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The
soil engineer grouped the various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs. The
stratification lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs and
profiles are approximate; in situ, the transition between strata may be gradual in both the vertical
and horizontal directions. The results of the visual classifications are presented on the Boring
Logs included in the Appendix.
3.2 Laboratory Testing
In addition to visual classification, ECS performed seven (7) natural moisture content tests, two
(2) Atterberg limits tests, and two (2) percent fines tests on selected soil samples obtained from
within the borings. The laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with the
applicable ASTM standards. The results of the laboratory testing are presented on the
respective Boring Logs included in the Appendix.
4. SITE AND SUBSURFACE FINDINGS
4.1. Area Geology
The site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The native soils in
the Piedmont Province consist mainly of residuum with underlying saprolites weathered from the
parent bedrock, which can be found in both weathered and unweathered states. Although the
surficial materials normally retain the structure of the original parent bedrock, they typically have
a much lower density and exhibit strengths and other engineering properties typical of soil. In a
mature weathering profile of the Piedmont Province, the soils are generally found to be finer
grained at the surface where more extensive weathering has occurred. The particle size of the
soils generally becomes more granular with increasing depth and gradually changes first to
weathered and finally to unweathered parent bedrock. The mineral composition of the parent
rock and the environment in which weathering occurs largely control the resulting soil's
engineering characteristics. The residual soils are the product of the weathering of the parent
bedrock.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 4
4.2. Subsurface Conditions
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10984
July 17, 2015
The subsurface conditions at the site, as indicated by the borings, generally consisted of
residual soil, partially weathered rock (PWR), and auger refusal to the depths explored. The
generalized subsurface conditions are described below. For soil stratification at a particular test
location, the respective Boring Log found in the Appendix should be reviewed.
Approximately 2 to 3 inches of topsoil (surficial organic laden soil) was present at the ground
surface at Borings B-13, B-14, B-15, B-19, B-20, and B-21. However, mechanical clearing was
performed in order to access the boring locations. Therefore, actual topsoil thickness will likely
vary from those measured at the time of drilling. Please note that these reported values should
not be used in determining topsoil removal quantities.
Residual soil was encountered at the ground surface or below the organic laden soils at Borings
B-1, B-3 through B-5, B-12 through B-14, and B-17 through B-23. At Boring B-16, residual soils
were encountered below a lens of partially weathered rock at a depth of approximately 3 feet
below the existing ground surface. Residual soils are formed by the in -place chemical and
mechanical weathering of the parent bedrock. The residual soils encountered in the borings
generally consisted of Sandy SILT (ML), Sandy CLAY (CL), Silty SAND (SM), and Clayey SAND
(SC) exhibiting SPT N-values ranging from 7 to 92 blows per foot (bpf). However, the majority of
the N-values ranged from 30 to 92 bpf. Boring B-14 was terminated in the residual soils at a
depth of 15 feet below the existing ground surface.
Partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered at the existing ground surface or below the
residual soils at each boring location with the exception of Borings B-14 and B-20 at depths
ranging from the existing ground surface to approximately 12 feet below existing ground surface.
A lens of PWR was encountered at the existing ground surface at Boring B-16 and extended to
approximately 3 feet below the existing ground surface. PWR is defined as residual material
exhibiting SPT N-values greater than 100 bpf. The PWR encountered in the borings generally
consisted of Silty SAND (SM) exhibiting SPT N-values ranging from 50 blows per 5 inches to 50
blows per 0 inches of penetration. Borings B-13, B-19, and B-21 were terminated in the PWR at
a depth of 15 feet below the existing ground surface.
Auger refusal was encountered at Borings B-1 through B-12, B-15 through B-18, B-20, B-21,
and B-22 at depths ranging from 3.5 to 23.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Auger
refusal indicates the presence of material that permitted no further advancement of the hollow
stem auger or split spoon sampler. No sample was recovered in the split -spoon sampler. Rock
core samples were beyond the scope of this exploration.
4.3. Groundwater Observations
Groundwater measurements were attempted at the termination of drilling at the time of our
exploration. Groundwater was encountered at Boring B-1 at a depth of 13'/z feet below existing
grades. Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining boreholes at the time of drilling and
to the depths explored. Borehole cave-in depths were observed at each boring location at
depths ranging from 1.3 to 17.3 feet below the existing ground surface. Cave-in of a soil test
boring can be caused by groundwater hydrostatic pressure, weak soil layers, and/or drilling
activities (i.e. drilling fluid circulation or advancement of bit).
Fluctuations in the groundwater elevation should be expected depending on precipitation, run-
off, utility leaks, and other factors not evident at the time of our evaluation. Normally, highest
groundwater levels occur in late winter and spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 5
Mr, Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10984
July 17, 2015
and fall. Depending on time of construction, groundwater may be encountered at shallower
depths and locations not explored during this study. If encountered during construction,
engineering personnel from our office should be notified immediately.
4.4. Laboratory Test Results
Moisture content test results of the sampled soils range from approximately 8.0 to 21.9 percent.
Atterberg Limits testing was performed on four selected soil samples from B-12 and B-17,
resulting in liquid limits (LL) ranging from 38 to 44 and plasticity indices (PI) ranging from 11 to
17. The selected samples were tested with approximately 62 and 100 percent finer than the No.
200 sieve. The portion of the samples tested were USCS classified as Sandy SILT (ML) for
B-12 and Sandy CLAY (CL) for B-17. For laboratory test results at a particular test location, the
Laboratory Test Summary sheet found in the Appendix should be reviewed.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The borings performed at this site represent the subsurface conditions at the location of the
borings. Due to inconsistencies associated with the prevailing geology, there can be changes in
the subsurface conditions over relatively short distances that have not been disclosed by the
results of the test location performed. Consequently, there may be undisclosed subsurface
conditions that require special treatment or additional preparation once these conditions are
revealed during construction.
Our evaluation of foundation support conditions has been based on our understanding of the
site, project information and the data obtained in our exploration. The general subsurface
conditions utilized in our foundation evaluation have been based on interpolation of subsurface
data between and away from the borings. In evaluating the boring data, we have examined
previous correlations between penetration resistance values and foundation bearing pressures
observed in soil conditions similar to those at your site.
5.1. Organic Laden Soils
A layer of organic laden soil, approximately 2 to 3 inches thick, was encountered at the ground
surface at Borings B-13 through B-15 and B-19 through B-21. Please note mechanical clearing
was performed in order to access the boring locations. Therefore, actual topsoil thickness will
likely vary from those measured at the time of drilling. The surficial organic laden soil is typically
a dark -colored soil material containing roots, fibrous matter, and/or other organic components,
and is generally unsuitable for support of engineering fill, foundations, or slabs -on -grade. ECS
has not performed laboratory testing to determine the organic content or other horticultural
properties of the observed surficial organic laden soils. Therefore, the phrase "surficial organic
laden soil' is not intended to indicate suitability for landscaping and/or other purposes. The
surficial organic laden soil depths provided in this report and on the individual Boring Logs are
based on driller observations and should be considered approximate. Please note that the
transition from surficial organic laden soils to underlying materials may be gradual, and therefore
the observation and measurement of the surficial organic laden soil depth is approximate.
Actual surficial organic laden soil depths should be expected to vary and generally increases
with the amount of vegetation present over the site.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 6
5.2. Seismic Site Class
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10984
July 17, 2015
The North Carolina Building Code (NCBC) requires that the stiffness of the top 100-ft of soil
profile be evaluated in determining a site seismic classification. The method for determining
the Site Class is presented in Section 1613 of the NCBC. The seismic Site Class is typically
determined by calculating a weighted average of the N-values or shear wave velocities recorded
to a depth of 100 feet within the proposed building footprint. Based on the depth of borings
performed as part of this exploration, a seismic site class of "C" is considered appropriate for this
project.
5.3. Structure Foundations
Provided the recommendations outlined herein are implemented, the proposed building can be
adequately supported on a shallow foundation system consisting of spread footings bearing on
approved low plasticity residual soil, PWR, or newly -placed engineered fill. A net allowable soil
bearing capacity of up to 3,000 psf is recommended for foundations bearing on approved low
plasticity residual soil, PWR, or newly -placed engineered fill.
Due to the presence of shallow refusal materials at Borings B-2, B-3, B-5 through B-8, and B-12,
we anticipate that rock will be encountered during excavation of footings. This may result in a
point bearing area that could contribute to additional stress at the isolated location. We
recommend that in areas where rock/PWR is encountered at the bearing elevation, remove an
additional 12 inches of rock and replace with engineered fill. This will provide a cushion that will
reduce the effect of the point bearing and additional stress to the foundations. In addition, due
to the variable foundation bearing materials across the footprint of the building, consideration
should be given to differential settlement for bearing areas within highly variable soils.
Recommendations for project fill within the building footprint are provided within Section 6.2 of
this report.
For this project, minimum wall and column footing dimensions of 18 and 24 inches, respectively,
should be maintained to reduce the possibility of a localized, "punching" type, shear failure.
Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be embedded deep enough
below exterior grades to reduce potential movements from frost action or excessive drying
shrinkage. For this region, we recommend footings bear at least 18 inches below finished
grade.
Total settlement is anticipated to be less than 1 inch, while differential settlement between
columns is anticipated to be less than '/2 inch for shallow foundations bearing on low plasticity
residual soil or newly -placed structural fill. Foundation geometry, loading conditions, and/or
bearing strata different than those described in this report may result in magnitudes of
settlement inconsistent with the previous estimates.
5.4. Slab -On -Grade Support
Slabs -on -grade can be adequately supported on undisturbed low plasticity residual soils or on
newly -placed engineered fill provided the site preparation and fill recommendations outlined
herein are implemented. For a properly prepared site, a modulus of subgrade reaction (ks) for
the soil of 150 pounds per cubic inch for the soil can be used. This value is representative of a
1-ft square loaded area and may need to be adjusted depending on the size and shape of the
loaded area and depending on the method of structural analysis.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 7
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10984
July 17, 2015
We recommend the slabs -on -grade be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of granular material
having a maximum aggregate size of 1Y2 inches and no more than 2 percent fines. Prior to
placing the granular material, the floor subgrade soil should be properly compacted, proofrolled,
and free of standing water, mud, and frozen soil. A properly designed and constructed capillary
break layer can often eliminate the need for a moisture retarder and can assist in more uniform
curing of concrete. If a vapor retarder is considered to provide additional moisture protection,
special attention should be given to the surface curing of the slabs to minimize uneven drying of
the slabs and associated cracking and/or slab curling. The use of a blotter or cushion layer
above the vapor retarder can also be considered for project specific reasons.
Please refer to ACI 302A R96 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction and ASTM E
1643 Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or
Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs for additional guidance on this issue.
Also, in order to minimize the crack width of shrinkage cracks that may develop near the surface
of the slab, we recommend mesh reinforcement as a minimum be included in the design of the
floor slab. For maximum effectiveness, temperature and shrinkage reinforcements in slabs on
ground should be positioned in the upper third of the slab thickness. The Wire Reinforcement
Institute recommends the mesh reinforcement be placed 2 inches below the slab surface or
upper one-third of slab thickness, whichever is closer to the surface.
Adequate construction joints, contraction joints and isolation joints should also be provided in the
slab to reduce the impacts of cracking and shrinkage. Please refer to ACI 302.1 R96 Guide for
Concrete Floor and Slab Construction for additional information regarding concrete slab joint
design.
5.5. Pavement Considerations
For the design and construction of exterior pavements, the subgrades should be prepared in
accordance with the recommendations in the "Site and Subgrade Preparation" and "Engineered
Fill" sections of this report.
An important consideration with the design and construction of pavements is surface and
subsurface drainage. Where standing water develops, either on the pavement surface or within
the aggregate base course layer, softening of the subgrades and other problems related to the
deterioration of the pavement can be expected. Furthermore, positive drainage should help
reduce the possibility of the subgrade materials becoming saturated during the normal service
period of the pavement.
Based on our past experience with similar facilities and subsurface conditions, we present the
following design pavement sections, provided the recommendations contained in this report are
strictly followed. We have developed the pavement sections recommended below using
AASHTO guidelines with a CBR value of 4, assuming the existing subgrades are satisfactorily
evaluated during proofroll and repaired in accordance with the geotechnical engineer's
recommendations. Based upon our previous experience with similar projects, ECS has
estimated the provided pavement sections based upon a 20 year life, with equivalent axle
loadings of approximately 5,000 and 350,000 ESALs for light -duty and heavy-duty pavements,
respectively.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 8
PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10984
July 17, 2015
Light Duty
Asphalt
Heavy Duty
Portland Cement
Material Designation
Pavement
Asphalt
Concrete (PCC)
Overlay
Pavement
Pavement
Asphalt Surface Course (S9.56)
3 inches
1.5 inches
Intermediate Coarse (119.013)
3.5 inches
Portland Cement Concrete
7 inches
Aggregate Base Course
6 inches
8 inches
6 inches
ECS should be allowed to review these recommendations and make appropriate revisions
based upon the formulation of the final traffic design criteria for the project. It is important to
note that the design sections do not account for construction traffic loading.
The aggregate base course materials beneath pavements and sidewalks should be compacted
to at least 95 percent of their modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557).
Front -loading trash dumpsters frequently impose concentrated front -wheel loads on pavements
during loading. This type of loading typically results in rutting of bituminous pavements and
ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. Similarly, drive-thru lanes also create severe
risk of rutting and scuffing. Therefore, we suggest that the pavements in trash pickup and drive-
thru areas utilize the aforementioned Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement section. It
may be prudent to use rigid pavement sections in all areas planned for heavy truck traffic. Such
a PCC section would typically consist of 6 inches of 4,000 psi, air -entrained concrete over not
less than 6 inches of compacted aggregate base course. Appropriate steel reinforcing and
jointing should also be incorporated into the design of all PCC pavements.
It should be noted that these design recommendations may not satisfy the North Carolina
Department of Transportation traffic guidelines. Any roadways constructed for public use and to
be dedicated to the State for repair and maintenance must be designed in accordance with the
State requirements.
We emphasize that good base course drainage is essential for successful pavement
performance. Water buildup in the base course will result in premature pavement failures. The
subgrade and pavement should be graded to provide effective runoff to either the outer limits of
the paved area or to catch basins so that standing water will not accumulate on the subgrade or
pavement.
The pavement at locations for refuse dumpsters should be properly designed for the high axial
loads and twisting movements of the trucks. Consideration should be given to the use of
concrete pavement for the dumpster and approach areas. We recommend that the refuse
collector be consulted to determine the size and thickness of the concrete pads for dumpsters.
At locations where delivery truck, semi -trailers, and/or buses will be turning and maneuvering,
the flexible pavement section should be designed to resist the anticipated shear stress on the
pavement throughout the required pavement service life.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 9
5.6. Below Grade Excavation
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10984
July 17, 2015
The available geotechnical data indicates that PWR and/or refusal material was encountered
within ten feet or less of the proposed finished grade at each boring location with the exception
of Borings B-1 and B-14. ECS has not been provided anticipated underground utility depths at
this time. However, ECS and the civil engineer should work closely together to identify potential
areas of difficult excavation. Please refer to the following summary table for potential areas of
difficult excavation (DE).
DIFFICULT EXCAVATION SUMMARY TABLE
Planned
Auger
Boring
Subgrade
Refusal
Notes
Number
Elevation
Elevation
ft
ft
- PWR within 3 feet of Subgrade.
B-2
526
520
- Anticipate DE during foundation excavation.
- PWR within 3 feet of Subgrade.
B-3
526
515
- Anticipate DE during foundation excavation.
- PWR 3 feet above Subgrade.
B-5
526
508
- Anticipate DE during foundation excavation.
- Mass grading should not encounter DE.
- PWR at existing ground surface.
B-6
526
521
- Anticipate DE during foundation excavation.
- Utility depths in this vicinity should be limited.
- Hard Rock encountered 5 feet above FFE.
B-7
526
531
- Blastingshould be anticipated.
- PWR at existing ground surface.
B-8
526
519
- Anticipate DE during foundation excavation.
- Utility depths in this vicinity should be limited.
B-13.
528
---
- PWR encountered within 3 feet of subgrade.
- Hard Rock encountered within 2 feet of
subgrade.
B-15
532
530
- PWR encountered at surface.
- Utilities should be planned around this area.
B-16
527
513
- PWR encountered within 2 feet of subgrade.
B-18
515
509
- PWR encountered within 3 feet of subgrade.
B-19
494
---
- PWR encountered within 2 feet of subgrade.
- Hard Rock within 4 feet of subgrade
B-20
503
499
- Utility depths in this vicinity should be limited.
- Hard Rock within 1 foot of subgrade.
- DE should be anticipated during Rail Spur
B-22
531
530
construction.
- Possible blasting area.
*Particular care should be given to those locations indicated in Bold.

Report or Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 10
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10964
July 17, 2015
In mass excavation for general site work, dense soils and PWR can usually be removed by
ripping with a single -tooth ripper attached to a large crawler tractor or by breaking it out with a
large front-end loader. In confined excavations such as foundations, utility trenches, etc.,
removal of PWR may require use of heavy duty backhoes, pneumatic spades, or blasting.
Rock materials will normally require blasting for removal in all types of excavations. Any blasting
in foundation excavations must be done carefully to prevent damage to the bearing materials
and nearby buildings or roadways/utilities. The gradation of the material removed by ripping or
blasting will likely be erratic.
As a general guide, we recommend the following definitions be used to define rock:
General Excavation
Rip Rock: Material that cannot be removed by scrapers, loaders, pans, dozers, or
graders; and requires the use of a single -tooth ripper mounted on a
crawler tractor having a minimum draw bar pull rated at not less than
56,000 pounds.
Blast Rock: Material which cannot be excavated with a single -tooth ripper mounted on
a crawler tractor having a minimum draw bar pull rated at not less than
56,000 pounds (Caterpillar D-8 or equivalent) or by a Caterpillar 977 front-
end loader or equivalent; and occupying an original volume of at least one
(1) cubic yard.
Trench Excavation
Blast Rock: Material which cannot be excavated with a backhoe having a bucket
curling force rated at not less than 25,700 pounds (Caterpillar Model 225
or equivalent), and occupying an original volume of at least one-half (1/2)
cubic yard.
As noted in the Geology section of this report, the weathering process in the Piedmont can be
erratic and significant variations of the depths of the more dense materials can occur in relatively
short distances. In some cases, isolated boulders or thin rock seams may be present in the soil
matrix. We have generally found that material that our soil drilling augers can penetrate can also
be excavated with a large backhoe or ripped with a dozer mounted ripper. Weathered rock or
rock that cannot be penetrated by the mechanical auger will normally require blasting to loosen it
for removal. Once foundation and utility plans are finalized, we recommend that seismic
refraction testing and/or test pitting be performed within the deeper cut areas in order to
determine the rippability of the material of the site.

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 11
E
6.1. Site Preparation
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10984
July 17, 2015
Prior to construction, the proposed construction area should be stripped of all topsoil, organic
material, and other soft or unsuitable material. Upon completion of these razing and stripping
operations, the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill should be proofrolled with a loaded
dump truck or similar pneumatic -tired vehicle having a loaded weight of approximately 25 tons.
After excavation, the exposed subgrades in cut areas should be similarly proofrolled.
Proofrolling operations should be performed under the observation of a geotechnical engineer or
his authorized representative. The proofrolling should consist of two (2) complete passes of the
exposed areas, with each pass being in a direction perpendicular to the preceding one. Any
areas which deflect, rut or pump during the proofrolling, and fail to be remedied with successive
passes, should be undercut to suitable soils and backfilled with compacted fill.
The ability to dry wet soils, and therefore the ability to use them for fill, will likely be enhanced if
earthwork is performed during summer or early fall. If earthwork is performed during winter or
after appreciable rainfall then subgrades may be unstable due to wet soil conditions, which could
increase the amount of undercutting required. Drying of wet soils, if encountered, may be
accomplished by spreading and disking or by other mechanical or chemical means.
6.2. Fill Material and Placement
The project fill should be soil that has less than five percent organic content and a liquid limit and
plasticity index less than 50 and 30, respectively. Soils with Unified Soil Classification System
group symbols of SP, SW, SM, SC, and ML are generally suitable for use as project fill. Soils
with USCS group symbol of CL that meet the restrictions for liquid limit and plasticity index are
also suitable for use as project fill. Soils with USCS group symbol of MH or CH (high elasticity
or plasticity soil) or corrosive soils are generally not suitable for use as project fill. However,
these soils may be blended with more suitable soils and placed in deeper fill pavement areas or
stabilized with lime provided they are placed in accordance with the recommendations provided
within this report regarding moisture control, compaction, and stability.
Based on our review of the encountered soils within the soil test borings, it appears the on -site
soils will be suitable for reuse as engineered fill, provided they are placed in accordance with the
recommendations provided within this report.
The fill should exhibit a maximum dry density of at least 90 pounds per cubic foot, as determined
by a standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698). We recommend that moisture control
limits of -3 to +2 percent of the optimum moisture content be used for placement of project fill
with the added requirement that fill soils placed wet of optimum remain stable under heavy
pneumatic -tired construction traffic. During site grading, some moisture modification (drying
and/or wetting) of the onsite soils will likely be required.
In an effort to reduce the impact of differential settlement in dissimilar bearing materials, project
fill should be compacted to at least 98 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density
within the building footprint (plus 5 feet outside the footprint). Project fill in site and pavement
areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density
except within 24 inches of finished soil subgrade elevation beneath slab -on -grade and
pavements. Within the top 24 inches of finished soil subgrade elevation beneath slab on grade
and pavements, the approved project fill should be compacted to at least 100 percent of its

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 12
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10984
July 17, 2015
standard Proctor maximum dry density. Aggregate base course (ABC stone) should be
compacted to 95 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density. However, for isolated
excavations around footing locations or within utility excavations, a hand tamper will likely be
required. ECS recommends that field density tests be performed on the fill as it is being placed,
at a frequency determined by an experienced geotechnical engineer, to verify that proper
compaction is achieved.
The maximum loose lift thickness depends upon the type of compaction equipment used. The
table below provides maximum loose lifts that may be placed based on compaction equipment.
LIFT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS
Equipment
Maximum Loose Lift
Thickness, in.
Large, Self -Propelled Equipment (CAT 815, etc.)
8
Small, Self -Propelled or Remote Controlled Rammax, etc.
6
Hand Operated (Plate Tamps, Jumping Jacks, Wacker-
4
Packers
ECS recommends that fill operations be observed and tested by an engineering technician to
determine if compaction requirements are being met. The testing agency should perform a
sufficient number of tests to confirm that compaction is being achieved. For mass grading
operations we recommend a minimum of one density test per 2,500 SF per lift of fill placed or
per 1 foot of fill thickness, whichever results in more tests. When dry, the majority of the site soil
should provide adequate subgrade support for fill placement and construction operations. When
wet, the soil may degrade quickly with disturbance from construction traffic. Good site drainage
should be maintained during earthwork operations to prevent ponding water on exposed
subgrades.
We recommend at least one test per 1 foot thickness of fill for every 100 linear ft of utility trench
backfill. Where fill will be placed on existing slopes, we recommend that benches be cut in the
existing slope to accept the new fill. Fill slopes should be overbuilt and then cut back to expose
compacted material on the slope face. While compacting adjacent to below -grade walls, heavy
construction equipment should maintain a horizontal distance of 1(H):1(V). If this minimum
distance cannot be maintained, the compaction equipment should run perpendicular, not parallel
to, the long axis of the wall.
6.3. Foundation Construction & Testing
Foundation excavations should be tested to confirm adequate bearing prior to installation of
reinforcing steel or placement of concrete. Unsuitable soils should be undercut to firm soils and the
undercut excavations should be backfilled with compacted controlled fill. Exposure to the
environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations
remain open for too long a time; therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day
that foundations are excavated. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or
exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom
immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight, or if
rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, a 1- to 3-inch thick "mud mat' of
"lean" concrete may be placed on the bearing surface to protect the bearing soils. The mud mat
should not be placed until the bearing soils have been tested for adequate bearing capacity.
Foundations undercut should be backfilled with engineered fill. If lean concrete is placed within
the undercut zone, the foundation footprint does not require oversizing. However, if soil or ABC

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Project Burgundy
Midland, North Carolina
Page 13
Mr. Andrew Van Ore
ECS Project No. 08-10984
July 17, 2015
stone is used in lieu of lean concrete, the foundation footprint should be oversized on a 1V:1H
scale.
We recommend testing shallow foundations to confirm the presence of foundation materials
similar to those assumed in the design. We recommend the testing consist of hand auger
borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing performed by an engineer or
engineering technician.
7. GENERAL COMMENTS
The borings performed at this site represent the subsurface conditions at the location of the
borings only. Due to the prevailing geology, changes in the subsurface conditions can occur
over relatively short distances that have not been disclosed by the results of the borings
performed. Consequently, there may be undisclosed subsurface conditions that require special
treatment or additional preparation once these conditions are revealed during construction.
Our evaluation of foundation support conditions has been based on our understanding of the site
and project information and the data obtained in our exploration. The general subsurface
conditions utilized in our foundation evaluation have been based on interpolation of subsurface
data between and away from the test holes. If the project information is incorrect or if the
structure locations (horizontal or vertical) and/or dimensions are changed, please contact us so
that our recommendations can be reviewed. The discovery of any site or subsurface conditions
during construction which deviate from the data outlined in this exploration should be reported to
us for our evaluation. The assessment of site environmental conditions for the presence of
pollutants in the soil, rock, and groundwater of the site was beyond the scope of this exploration.
The recommendations outlined herein should not be construed to address moisture or water
intrusion effects after construction is completed. Proper design of landscaping, surface and
subsurface water control measures are required to properly address these issues. In addition,
proper operation and maintenance of building systems is required to minimize the effects of
moisture or water intrusion. The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of
waterproofing and dampproofing systems are beyond the scope of services for this project.

Site Vicinity Map
Boring Location Diagram
Anticipated Difficult Excavation Diagram
Borelogs
Cross Sections
Laboratory Testing Summary
ASFE Documents
ad

a
Bethel Elementary School
0
4
LEGEND:
0
US Post
Seals U
d �:c=
_._ ' � SITE
Griffin Oiler
o.
Q c
v v
u Rd�'� —J"Wa�ta%I d
Wallace
r� Knapheide'huck
D e Equipment
Q Linde..
-Wtudey Rd �_..
r+.�
Source:
t
FIGURE 1
PROJ. MDR.
EHF
SCALE
N.T.S.
DRAFTSMAN
DFA
PROJECTNO.
10984
Google Maps
Site Vicinity Map
Project Burgundy
REVISIONS
FIGURE
Midland, North Carolina
1
I
S F_TTING TH F_
DATE
SE s'r.aRVVJ sCE
FOR SEE
7-1-15

I & •'rill
1 , f
_15 fi
B 17��-4
13
B4
1 � µ
V Isj sF.
B-9 IQ
B-21
- � K
LEGEND:
N
!� = Approximate Location of Boring L(
= Approximate Location of Cross Section
Background Image Provided By: FIGURE 2 PROJ. MGR. SCALE
ERF N.T.S.
Client _
Boring Location Diagram ORADFAMAN PROJECT NO.
Project Burgundy o9ea
REVISIONS FIGURE
Midland, North Carolina 2
SETTING THE DATE
srnnlonRo 7.1-15
FOR SERVICE

r
�+w� tiifi B 8 ~
I- 4 B-2 LB O t y d 'F
B l0
�>
3�1 ' B 12 x �,
' - B-21
LEGEND:
N
= Approximate Location of Boring /(
® = Rock Encountered Above / Near Finished Grade ECS
® = PWR Encountered Above / Near Finished Grade s
OJ. MGR. SCALE
Background Image Provided By: FIGURE 3 PREHF N.T.S.
Client DRAFTSMAN PROJECTNO.
Anticipated Difficult Excavation DFA 10984
Diagram REVISIONS FIGURE
�I Project Burgundy 3
G TT1NG t E Midland, North Carolina DATE
FOR S s'rc.ERRVIVJ CEE 7 1 15
S

CLIENT
JOB If
BORING#
SHEET
Interta a Polymer Group10984
B-1
1 OF 1
nI
PROJECTNAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR'•
SITE LOCATION
-0- CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT'
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATIONBRECOVERY
NORTHING LASTING STATION
RQO% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
z
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
—
r
a
BOTTOM OF CASING' mx LOSS OF CIRCULATION
m o
X• �
o
SURFACE ELEVATION 521
w w
3
STANDARD PENETRATION
a
a �
3
0
BLOWSlFT
(SM)RESIDUAL- SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
_
SAND, Gray, Moist, Very Dense
520
9
S-1
SS
18
18
26
1450 62
36
-
26
S-2
SS
18
18
36
81
5
45
515
5
—
S-3
SS
18
18
19
58
39
34
S-4
SS
18
18
26
54
10
28
510
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERJROCK—
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, Gray,
34
S5
SS
15
15
30
1100+
5013
15S-6
5010
SS--v
0
AUGER REFUSAL@15.5'505
166,
20
500
25
495
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
SE WL 13.5 WS❑ WDE
BORING STARTED 06/30/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 15.0'
9. WL(BCR) WL(ACR) 13.9
BORING COMPLETED 06/30/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2,25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB k
BORING IN
SHEET
Interta e Polymer Group10984
B-2
1 OF 1
���®�
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
us
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR
I.
SITE LOCATION
-0- CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSFV
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance Countv, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION B RECOVERY
NORTHING
FASTING BTA IGIN
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
i
DESCH I PRON OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
z'
w
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
o
z
n
F
`-"
o
¢
BOTTOM OF CASING a
LOSS OF CIRCULATION
z
X >,
W
O
d
J
a
Q
J
<
o
SURFACE ELEVATION 523
"' ~
w
3
® STANDARD PENETRATION
0
o
SLOWSIFT
0
(SM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
5-1
SS
5
—57
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, Light Tan, Moist
5015
100f
520
--5-2
50,0
S
0
AUGER REFUSAL @ 3.5'
5
515
10
510
15
505
20
500
25
—
— 495
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. INSITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
Il WL GNE WED WERE
BORING STARTED 06/30115
CAVE IN DEPTH
WUSCR) WL(ACR) ENE
BORINGCOMPLETED 06130/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG SIMCO 2400 FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
Interta e Polymer Group
JOB#
10984
BORING#
B-3
SHEET
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTRI•
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance Count . NC
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT'
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION B RECOVERY
RQD% - - - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
NORTHING
EASTING STATION
'-
a
2
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULatATION
-
o
w
30
X•�
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWSIFT
SURFACE ELEVATION 525
5
-
10 -
15
20
25
30
(SM)RESIDUAL- SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
SAND, Light Gray, Moist, Very Dense
b2b
—
520
-
515
510
505
500
495
17
31
50
5015
5014
5012
5010
81
: t00r
too
100B
S-1
SS
18
18
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, Light Gray, Moist
3
4
4
4
SS
LT
2-
1�
-5
0
0AUGER
REFUSAL@10.2'
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL 7PES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
'=Z WL GNE WS❑ WON
BORING STARTED 06/30/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @6.2-
.E- WL(BCR) T. WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06/30/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
'�-` WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB
BORINGA
SHEET
�1
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
B-4
1 OF 1
(�
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR-I.
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT'
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION B RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING STATION
RQD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
J
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
_
F
o
BOTTOM OF CASING ID LOSS OF CIRCULATION m1
w z
w
0
e
x
i
J
w
SURFACE ELEVATION 530
F
1O >
30
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
a
y
w
3
BLOWSIFT
(SC)RESIDUAL- CLAYEY FINE TO MEDIUM
— 3
SAND, Reddish Brown, Moist, Very Dense to
S-1
SS
18
18
Dense
-
to
22
21.94 57
35
13
S-2
SS
18
18
25
5
5
_
525
25
(SM) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, Gray
S-3
SS
18
78
Moist, Very Dense
—
15
53
32
--
24
5-4
SS
78
18
43
91
10
520
e9
(SM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, Gray, Moist
-
17
S-5
SS
15
15
21
100f
5013
15
575
Sao
6
S
D
0
AUGER REFUSAL @ 15.7'
20
510
25
505
30
500
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
= WL GNE WS❑ WEE.
BORING STARTED 06129/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @15.7'
-Q WUBCR) T. WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06/29115
HAMMER TYPE Auto
2
WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2,25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB
BORING%
SHEET
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
1 B-5
1 OF 1
per®
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
Pro'ect Bur and - DTR
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT'
Bill McGee Road Midland. Alamance Countv. NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION d RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING STATION
ROD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
q
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
p
F
=
r
BOTTOM OF CASING' LOSS OF CIRCULATION N'
w z
�•�
LL
z
o
¢
p
a
J
w
J
00
SURFACE ELEVATION 531
W
w
30
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT
0
(SC)RESIDUAL- CLAYEY FINE TO MEDIUM
-
SAND, Light Brown, Moist, Very Dense
530
16
S-1
SS
18
18
24
62
38
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S2
SS
11
11
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, Light Brown, Moist
sons
100+
5
S3
SS
5
5
525
50S
100+
-
5013
100+
-S=4
5
10
520
-
5014
100+
4
4
15
515
-
5012
Too+
20
510
-
solo
SS
0
AUGER REFUSAL@23.5'
188,
25
-
505
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
8wL GNE WED WDIIZ
BORING STARTED 06/30/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @ITT
-Q WLIBCRI T. WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06/30/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
`'�-- WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2,25 HSA

CLIENT
JOBp
BORING#
SHEET
Interta e Polymer Group10984
B-6
1 OF 1
���II
('��)
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
BEN
NS11.
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR
SITE LOCATION
-Q CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFI'
Bill McGee Road. Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION d RECOVERY
NORTHING
FASTING STATION
RQD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
i
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
z
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
z
F
o
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION
i
Q
Q
a
SURFACE ELEVATION 525
< w
30
®STANDARD PENETRATION
aw
¢
w
BLOWS/FT
—
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, Light Brown, Moist
sots
100t
St
ss
s
s
on
s
p
1
AUGER REFUSAL @ 3.7'
5
520
5010
10
515
15
510
20
505
25
500
30
495
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
'=L WL ONE wS❑ WDZ'
BORING STARTED 06/30/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @2'
%P WL(BCR) T WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06/30/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
$4 WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOBA
BORING
SHEET
Interta e Polymer Group10984
I B-7
OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECTENGINEERmw
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/W
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance Countv. NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& RECOVERY
NORTHING
EATING STATION
ROD% — — — REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
LL
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
m
>
BOTTOM OF CASING lb LOSS OF CIRCULATION to
m z
X
J
J
m
SURFACE ELEVATION 536
STANDARD PENETRATION
o
w
a
3
o
BLOWSIFT
(SM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, Gray, Moist
535
P7
S-1
SS
11
11
—
50l5
100♦
-
-
-
50`2
Too,-
T
5
-
_
_
5
sao
AUGER REFUSAL@5.3'
JAR
S30
10
—
525
15
520
20
515
25
510
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
Q WL GNE WS❑ WD®
BORING STARTED 07/01/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @2,5'
SL WL(RCR) WLIACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 07/01/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
'"_'- WL
RIG 550 AN FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
Interta e Polymer Group
JOB If
10984
I BORING
B-8
SHEET
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR.
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance Countv. NC
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONI IFT'
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION B RECOVERY
ROD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
v
NORTHING
EA5TIN5 STATION
_
o
J
ti
Fa
J
N
z
o
J
g
=
DESCRIPTIONOF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING 3D LOSS OF CIRCULATIOND
—
w
m o
w W
3
3
O
m
�•�
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWSIFT
SURFACE ELEVATION 530
0
-
-
5
-
10
15
20
25
30
(SM PAR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, Light Gray, Moist
0
525
-
520
515
510
505
500I':
IB
5014
5013
50/5
50r3
5010
too+
Too+
100+
100+
S-1
SS
16
16
-S-
S3
SS
5
5
4
AUGER REFUSAL @ 11.3'
100+
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
S5 WL GNE WS❑ WDE
BORING STARTED 07/01/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @6.8'
WL(BCR) WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 07/01/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
=- WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2,25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB d
BORING k
SHEET
�1
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
B-9
1 OF 1
(�
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR,.
SITE LOCATION'
-o- CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION B RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING STATION
RQD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
z
V-
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION ru
w >
o
O
SURFACE ELEVATION 518
w 'w
o
® STANDARD PENETRATION
<
a
BLOWSIFT
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
_
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, Light Gray, Moist
5014
toD+
q
4
515
S-2
ST
0
D
AUGER REFUSAL @ 3.5
50/0
HDOT
5
510
10
505
15
500
20
495
25
490
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
Il WL GNE WS❑ WDZ
BORING STARTED 071)1115
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 1.3'
4- WL(BCR) T WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 07/01/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG 550 AN FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB
BORINGx
SHEET��®�///���,,,
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
B-10
1 OF 1
(�
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
!�
Proiect Burgundy - DTR
SITE LOCATION
-Q- CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT2
Bill McGee Road. Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION 8 RECOVERY
NORTHING FASTING STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
z
F
N
o
¢
BOTTOM OF CASINGD LOSS OF CIRCULATION ��
w
w z
X •—��
3
e
i
SURFACE ELEVATION 514
F
w
30
®STANDARD PENETRATION
wo
u`i
N
3
BLOWSIFT
—
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, Light Gray, Moist
ae
S-1
SS
i
5011
;too+
-
5013'.
100+
5
510
5
5010
-3
SS
0
0
AUGER REFUSAL @ 4.7'
505
10
500
15
495
20
-
490
-
25
405
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT WE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
=Z WL GNE wsD WD�IZ
BORING STARTED 07/01/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @ 1.3'
WLIBCR) WL(ACR) GNE
BORINGCOMPLETED 07/01/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOBp
BORING#
SHEET
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
B-11
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONI
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance County. NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION 8 RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING STATION
ROD% - - - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
-
'-
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
rw
o
Q
BOTTOM OF CASING % LOSS OF CIRGUTATION mt
J
%��L]
zo
g
SURFACE ELEVATION 510
30
®STANDARD PENETRATION
0
<
a
<
3 w
m
BLOWSIFT
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
510
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
32
S-1
SS
10
10
Gray, Moist
50/4
100a
50,5
101
S-2
SS
11
11
5
505
SOIS
100r
S-3
S
5
5
-
5011
100f
.4
1
1
10
500
S010
S-
AUGER REFUSAL @ 13.5'
5
495
20
490
25
485
30
480
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
Il WL GNE WED WDZI
BORING STARTED 07/01/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @5,3'
Q WL(BCR) V WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 07/01/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
'' WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB#
BORING #
SHEET
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
B-12
1 OF 1
ENceS
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
Pro'ect Bur and - DTR
=1.
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFTT
Bill McGee Road. Midland Alamance Countv, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
FASTING STATION
RQD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
—
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
z
E
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
�
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION'
o
o
ti
w
vai
a
SURFACE ELEVATION 523
F w
3
3
(9 STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWSIFT
(ML)RESIDUAL - SILTY SAND, Light Brown,
Moist, Very Stiff to Very Hard
12
B
! 33
11.3- 30C- —'!-&44!
S-1
SS
18
18
520
_
_
21
30
51
S-2
SS
18
18
5
34
50/2
100+
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
-5-3
2
2
Light Brown, Moist
_
515
27
5015
100+
S-4
SS
11
11
10
-
5°I0
0
AUGER REFUSAL@ 12'
100+
510
15
s05
20
500
25
-
- 495
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
=Z WL GNE wS❑ WDF
BORING STARTED 07/01/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @7.9'
=5 WL(BCR) WL(ACR) ONE
BORINGCOMPLETED 07/01/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
S_i WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB k
BORING k
SHEET
I
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
B-13
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR
'
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT'
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION BRECOVERY
NORTHING
FASTING STATION
ROD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
z
—
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
_
F
o
BOTTOM OF CASINGLOSS OF CIRCULATION
o
�•� V
a
SURFACE ELEVATION 529
w w
�-
3
a
STANDARD PENETRATION
a
<
3
BLOWSIFT
Lpsoil Depth I2"j --------------------------------------
a
-
ISM)RESIDUAL- SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
S-t
SS
18
18
SAND, Light Brown, Moist, Medium Dense
m
3
23
-
tom*
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-2
SS
B
s
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
525
sB�a
Light Brown, Moist
-
5
50l4
'�, 100+
B3
-$
4
4
- 520
5a5
: j too+
54
SS
5
5
10
2
-
50r2
100+
515
—
15 _
END OF BORING @ 15'
510
20
505
-
25
500
i
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
II WL ONE WS❑ WDIZ
BORING STARTED 06/29/15
GAVE IN DEPTH @9.8'
R WL(BCR) WLACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06/29/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOBIX
BORING#
SHEET�,,,���,,,i
Interta e Polymer Group10984
B-14
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Pro ect Bur and - DTR
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSFr'
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance Countv, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION B RECOVERY
NORTHING
FASTING STATION
RQD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
z
i
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
vz
i
F
o
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION >x
w
w
o
0
i
oSURFACE
ELEVATION 535
w
3
®STANDARD PENETRATION
o
<
a
m
3
O
BLOWS2FT
To soil Depth [2]
! L'
8
—
(SM)RESIDUAL- SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
S-1
SS
18
18
SAND, Gray, Moist, Very Dense
zs
64
39
31
S-2
SS
18
18
as
g
5
_
530
4e
(SC) CLAYEY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
S-3
SS
18
18
Brown, Moist, Dense to Very Dense
_
18
22
48
26
8
S-4
SS
18
18
_
24
62
10
525
38
-
(SM) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, Grayish
Brown, Moist, Very Dense
,
—
19
S-5
SS
18
18
zs
61
s
520
6
END OF BORING @ 15'
20
515
25
510
30
505
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
$L WL ONE WS❑ WDJZ
BORING STARTED 06129/15
GAVE IN DEPTH @10,5'
WL(BCR) V WL(ACR) ONE
BORING COMPLETED 06/29/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
PL WL
RIG SIMGO 2400 FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 NSA

CLIENT
JOB#
BORING#
SHEET
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
B-15
1 OF 1
(}�1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSlFT'
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION BRECOVERY
NORTHING
EAST NG STATION
RQD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
z
w
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
A
z
w
F
a
_
>
BOTTOM OF CASING ID LOSS OF CIRCULATION
w o
X •-U
J
J
J
o
SURFACE ELEVATION 535
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS!FT
LTgosoil Depth [�
—
ema
100+
SS
5
5
(SM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
—
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
Gray, Moist
—
-
[S�3
-
5011
! 100.
5 —
_ 530
5010
SS
0
0
AUGER REFUSAL@5.1'
10
525
15
520
20
515
25
510
30
505
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
4 WL GNE wS❑ woo
BORING STARTED 06/29/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @3.9'
'-R WL(BCR) VWLIACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06/29/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2,25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB#
BORING#
SHEET
Interta e Polymer Group10984
B-16
1 OF 1
�����,,,/// ,,,1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Project Burgundy - DTR
mi.
SITE LOCATION
-Q- CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT'
Bill McGee Road. Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
NORTHING
PASTING STATION
RQD% - - - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
OESCRIPTIONOFMATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
2
�-
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
ti
z
F
o
BOTTOM OF CASING' LOSS OF CIRCULATION
X 0- - - - - - 761
0
w
J
J
0
SURFACE ELEVATION 525
s w
3
® STANDARD PENETRATION
0
BLOWSIFT
(SM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
—
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
15
S-1
SS
75
16
Reddish Brown, Moist
2e
100+
5014
—
ISM) RESIDUAL -SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
S2
SS
18
10
SAND, Gray, Moist, Dense
34
36
68
5
520
32
(SM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
s 3
SS
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
31
501
DD,
Gray, Moist
50�5
! 100+
S-4
SS
11
11
10
515
som
5
6
0
0
AUGER REFUSAL @ 11.9'
100
5
510
20
505
25
500
30
495
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
=Z WL GNE WS❑ WDE',
BORING STARTED 06/30/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @9,1'
9. WL)BCR) WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06/30/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
SL WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2,25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB
BORING#
SHEET
Interta e Pol mer Group
10984
B-17
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
Pro ect Burgundy - DTR
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT'
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATIONS RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING STATION
ROD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
r
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
BOTTOM OF CASINGH LOSS OF CIRCULATION
w o
SURFACE ELEVATION 522
3
®STANDARD PENETRATION
<
<
0
BLOWS/FT
N
N
6
3 W
_
(CL) RESIDUAL - SANDY LEAN CLAY, Light
--
Brown, Most, Very Stiff
5
15 ;?I
S-1
SS
18
18
ez0
s
12.60 ---�38
0
y
S-z
SS
18
18
_
z
ze
5
s
_
oo+
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-3
SS
7
7
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
31
5011
Light Gray, Moist
515
—
5010
50/0
o
AUGER REFUSAL @ 8.5'
10
510
15
505
20
500
25
495
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL -TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
=L WL GNE WED WD Z''
BORING STARTED 06/30/15
CAVE IN DEPTH
-=L WLIBCH) ]. WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06/30/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB
BORINGk
SHEET
0
Interta e Polymer Group10984
B-18
1 OF 1Fee
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECTENGINEER
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR=1.
SITE LOCATION
-o- CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIW
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION B RECOVERY
NORTHING
FASTING STATION
RQD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
z
LL
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
z
F
o
>
BOTTOM OF CASING 3b LOSS OFCIRCULATION mt
X��
0
i
s
SURFACE ELEVATION 515
w
3
®STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWSIFT
y
N
N
3
ISM) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, Light
1w
Brown, Moist, Very Dense
Ie
S-1
SS
18
18
24
63
39
—
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
2
s
5
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
5015
100.
—
Light Brown, Moist
s
510
so/o
S-3
AUGER REFUSAL @ 5.9'
10
505
15
500
20
495
25
490
30
485
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
=Z WL GNE WED WDE�
BORING STARTED 06/30/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @3'
9= WL(BCR) WLIACRI GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06/30/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB#
BORING
SHEET
�I
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
B-19
1 OF 1
Rio
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR®'-
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT#
Bill McGee Road Midland. Alamance Countv, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION BRECOVERY
NORTHING
FASTING STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OFMATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
z
m j�
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
v n
F
z
F
o
_
>
BOTTOM OF CASING ID LOSS OF CIRCULATION
z
�•�
0
Z.
SURFACE ELEVATION 495
(D STANDARD PENETRATION
o
a
<
y
a
3
BLOWSIFT
Top
4s
13
(SM)RESIDUAL- SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
S-1
SS
18
18
SAND, Grayish Brown, Moist, Dense
19
Os
20
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-2
SS
to
to
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
50°4
IDD,
—
Grayish Brown, Moist
—
5
490
5aa
100a
-3
4
4
-
50N
100•
-4
1
I
10
485
50I1
1001
�5S
1
1
15
_
END OF BORING @ 15'
480
.
20
475
25
470
30
465
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
'II' WL ONE WS❑ AGE
BORING STARTED 06/29/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @9.6'
.SQ WL(OCR) T. WL(ACR) ONE
BORING COMPLETED 06/29/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB#
BORINGk
SHEET®
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
I B-20
I 1 OF 1
(�1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
Pro ect Burgundy - DTR.
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT#
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance Countv, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION 6 RECOVERY
NORTHING
LASTING STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
J P
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
z
F
o
BOTTOM OF CASINGPE ' LOSS OF CIRCULATION w
J
w
�
J
J
J0
SURFACE ELEVATION 505
1° >
3
® STANDARD PENETRATION
N
a
y
¢
3
BLOWSIFT
1Topsoil Depth 3"bUb
5
ISM) RESIDUAL- SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
s-1
SS
18
is
SAND, Gray, Moist, Medium Dense
—
7
8.0-0I 13
6
9
G-2
SS
18
18
5
500
°
—
S0/0
AUGER REFUSAL @ 5.8'
100+
10
495
15
490
20
485
25
480
30
475II
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
Q WL ENE WS❑ WEE
BORING STARTED 06129/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @3'
Il WL(BCR) ! WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06129115
HAMMER TYPE Auto
S_' WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOB p
BORING k
SHEETS®
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
B-21
1 OF 1
((1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSlFT'
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION B RECOVERY
NORTHING EASTING STATION
ROD% - — - REC%
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
r
UMI% CONTENT% LIMIT%
—
o
i
O1
r
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION �'
X•�'T
o
o
Ef
SURFACE ELEVATION 500
w >
30
® STANDARD PENETRATION
a
<
<
<
BLOWSIFT
o
w
y
3
_
To soil Depth 3'
.,
(SM)RESIDUAL- SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
—
7
S-1
SS
1e
18
SAND, Black and Brown, Moist, Loose
3
(W� .50
4
7;
--
(SM) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, Black
5-2
SS
18
18
and Brown, Moist, Dense
IIso
14
_
5
495
30
—
—
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-3
SS
17
17
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
37
30
too.
Grayish Brown, Moist
50/5
32
Son
S4
SS
a
e
10
490
50/3
100+
—
—
15
- a85
END OF BORING @ 15'
20
480
25
475
30
470
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
=Z WL ONE w5❑ WDE
BORING STARTED 06/29/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @10.5'
9. WLIBCR) 7, WLIACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 06/29/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
-Q WL
RIG 550 AN FOREMAN Brlan
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 NSA

CLIENT
JOB
BORING#
SHEET
-1
IntertaPROJECT e
Polymer GroupECT
B-22
1 OF 1
E
PROJECTNAME
ARCHITECT EN
�
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTRI.
SITE LOCATION
-o- CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSIFT#
Bill McGee Road. Midland Alamance County, NC
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION d RECOVERY
NORTHING FASTING STATION
RQD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
=
i
_
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMB%
v
F
ry
a
=
Q
80TTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION ¢1
���
o
SURFACE ELEVATION 536
"' 'm
30
® STANDARD PENETRATION
0
3
BLOWSIFT
(MIL) RESIDUAL - SANDY SILT, Light Brown,
Moist, Stiff
535
S-1
SS
18
18
9
`, 20.
13
22
1Cd1+
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-z
SS
15
15
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
15
39
Gray, Moist
—
5W
5
530
svo
D
AUGER REFUSAL@ 5.8'
10
525
15
520
20
515
25
-
-
510
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAYBE GRADUAL.
'Q WL GNE wso WDE
BORING STARTED 07/01/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @5.8'
=P- WL(BCR) wL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 07/01/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WE
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

CLIENT
JOBp
BORING#
SHEET
Interta e Polymer Group
10984
B-23
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Pro'ect Burgundy - DTR
SITE LOCATION
-Q- CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONSffT°
Bill McGee Road Midland Alamance County. NO
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION 6 RECOVERY
NORTHING
EASTING STATION
ROD% - — - REC% —
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
z
LIMIT% CONTENT% LIMIT%
v n
_
BOTTOM OF CASING' LOSS OF CIRCULATION raz
w o
�•�
"-
SURFACE ELEVATION 525
"' w
o
® STANDARD PENETRATION
o
y
uQi
3
m
BLOWS/FT
—
(SM)RESIDUAL- SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
—
SAND, Light Brown, Moist, Dense to Very
II
s-1
Ss
18
18
Dense
—
20
42.
22
21
S-2
SS
18
18
_
39
8
5
520
46
cola
t00+
ISM PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
3
a
4
SAMPLED AS SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND,
Grayish Brown, Moist
S:4
SS
3—
3
—
50/3
! ! 100+
10
515
5m
g-
g
0
0
AUGER REFUSAL @ 9.9'
100+
15
510
20
505
25
500
30
495
! ;
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.
= WL GNE WS❑ WDE
BORING STARTED 07/01/15
CAVE IN DEPTH @7.1'
�- WL(BCR) WL(ACR) GNE
BORING COMPLETED 07/01/15
HAMMER TYPE Auto
WL
RIG 550 ATV FOREMAN Brian
DRILLING METHOD 2.25 HSA

SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND r M
SURFACE MATERIALS
ROCK TYPES
SYMBOL LEGEND
---A-- �
E.a„.. 0 —
�i�,..,a,.,...a 0,.-,e.w�,.w ��µ.w,„,,.,..a,,,a. �=<a..x.,..e
®a �.a..,,,aaa,....>a.,..,A..
�........,.a....,Ka,.a.
Q«.a
�an�.M.
[-•n.,,.a..,,x.:.»o,.,
Y•
FFE = 626 ft
B-3
sz
SM
525
B-2
01
_ SM PWq
81 1pp.
100. SM PWR
SM
s
BZ 10AUGER
xo
....'
REFUSAL
01
10pa
50
00.
AUGER REFUSAL81D
SM PWfl
10.2'
100,
d
54
m
N
P
LL
c 5
100.
c
10 <
c
SM PWq
100.AUGER
p
REFUSAL
04.]'
N
_
W.
N
W
y
W.
AUGER REFUSAL
@15.5'
Cross Section A -A'
�1
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
NOTES:
1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING L06 AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
•Qj`vJAL
P'O eCt BNr and - DTR
2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).
Inlerta a PO I v m e rGroU
3 HORIZONTAL DISTANCES ARE NOT TO SCALE.
BIII McGee
Road Midland AlemenCe County,NC
�h
PROJECT:
10984 1 DATE,1 2 15 F, 1' _'

SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND
SURFACE MATERIALS
ROCK TYPES
5YI180L LEGEND
a --
�i�... �,....� Q....,,...M,..�e ®.�.�,....�.. v,.
�<a......e
F�aw..................�...wa..
Q,.,-...,,.�....,....�.
Qom
���.A..
;Yfl.,,.a.,,R...�.,
B 14
53
SM
64
Finished Grade = 532 ft
_
es
82
B 4
SG
C
SC
62
SM PWfl
IN.
FFE = 526 ft
fit
B-6
SM NR
SM
100.
BM
100.
R1
-
ID0.
<
IL
51
31
1MAUGER REFUSAL
0
z0
c_ szo
END OF BORING
0
O
@15'
Q
SM PWR
IN+
T
d
p
U
IN.
5.3
515
1N+
AUGER REFUSAL
@ 15.T
IN.
B-11
530
GMTW�
uo
100.
IN.
AUGER REFUSAL
@ 23.5
IN.
5M
SGS
100.
Cross Section B-B'
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
NOTES:
Project Bur and - DTR
1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
9i
Intlrta a PO tiler Group
2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).
3 HORIZONTAL DISTANCES ARE NOT TO SCALE.
BIII McGee Road Midland_AlamanCC Couply NC
Ala
1DATE, 7 1 201 V R C -

SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND
SURFACE MATERIALS
ROCK TYPES
SYMBOL LEGEND
o o�
❑, �
g-,.. ow...M�,._A
Y mN�,.1.y
Ma ,P.,A, -A.. ❑o�._..
�.. ❑
o�
`
,:;
5.p
B.7
Np
$M PWfl
5J5
100.
l5
100.
528ft 10 yUGEF
BB
5,-Finished-Grade
FEFlISAL
B-13
$MYWP
�p
@5.8
Wm SM
100.
FFE = 526 ft
d
SM PWR
m
w
<
LL
O
C
-
O.
B-12
C100.
ML
j
O
_
a
00.
30
d
Im.
p
Sp
W
Sxp N
ID0.
B-e 64
AUGER REFUSAL
SM PWF
@11.]
100. 100. SM PWP
5�5
1 �
515
100.
END OF BORING
AUGER REFUSAL
@ 3.5'
015.
1DD.
SAD
pUGE&AEFUSAL
�p
@12'
Cross Section C-C'
1
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
NOTES:
I SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECRNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
Project Bur and - DTR
2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT CASTM 01586).
Interta a PO mer Grou '
3 HORIZONTAL DISTANCES ARE NOT TO SCALE.
BIII MCIee Road Mldlan Alamance Count
NC
r]ry
PR : 10954 1 DATE, 711712015 1 VERTICAL SCALE: 1'=
'

Laboratory Testing Summary
Page 1 oft
Sample
Source
Sample
Number
Depth
(feet)
MC1
M
Soil
Type2
Atterberg Limits3
Percent
Passing
No. 200
Sieve4
Moisture -Density (Corr.)5
CBR
Value6
Specific Gravity
LL
PL
PI
Maximum
Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
M)
B-1
S-1
1.00 - 2.50
14.5
B-4
S-1
1 .00 - 2.50
21.9
B-12
S-1
1.00 - 2.50
11.3
ML
44
33
11
62
B-17
S-1
1.00 - 2.50
12.6
CL
38
21
17
100
B-20
S-1
1.00 - 2.50
8.0
B-21
S-1
1.00 - 2.50
16.5
B-22
S-1
1.00 - 2.50
20.2
Notes: 1. ASTM D 2216. 2. ASTM D 2487, 3. ASTM D 4318, 4. ASTM D 1140, S. See test reports fattest method, 6. See test reports for test method
Definitions: MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PT: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California Bearing Ratio, DC: Organic Content (ASTM D 2974)
Project No. 10984
Project Name: Project Burgundy DTR
1 1 i Y'
PM: Trey Hendrick
PE: Lee J. McGuinness
Printed On: Friday, July 17, 2015
ECS CAROLINASi LLP
Chat Center Park Drive, Suite D
Phone: (7 4) 2e2n
525-51 6Z
Fax: [phone]

Major Divisions
Group
Symbols
'typical Names
Laboratory Classification Criteria
.'n
C'W
Well graded gravels, gravel-
C— D60/1)10 greater than 4
o
w
sand mixtures, little or no fines
N
C�= (D30)'/(Dlo x D60) between 1 and 3
>
?� >
Poorly graded gravels, gravel-
P.
•
oo
�_
GP
sand mixtures, little or no fines
❑ o y
" "'
Not meetingall gradation requirements for GW
g ` q
a�
=^=
d
N
wz
7
m
a
a
GM
Silty Gravels, gravel -sand -silt
;
=a " c v,
�+'—
Atterberglimits
"A"
s
�
mixtures
�• L -5
5
below line or P.I.
Above "A" line with P.I.
u
o ;,, co
less than 4
between 4 and 7 are
o
to
A
>
v a' O
'v. O
borderline cases requiring
Atterberg limits
on
`�°
U
GC
Clayey Gravels', gravel -sand-
� .9 �
coo a '
above "A" line with
use of dual symbols
u
c =°
clay mixtures
A o
o V U
P.I. greater than 7
h
U
SW
Well -graded sands; gravelly
,_ .o s
C� D6dDI0 greater than 6
?
sands, little or no fines
C�— (D3o)'/(Dln x D60) between 1 and 3
°
J N
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
v v o
o v
SP
sands, little or no fines
a
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
8 0 o
t
d
v �n
Atterberg limits
P
°
=
SM"
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
;; °
below "A" line or P.I.
Limits plotting in hatched
— c^
less than 4
zone with P.I. between 4
m eo
u
.5
and 7 are borderline cases
Clayey sands, sand -clay
Atterberg limits
v
requiring use of dual
2
co
SC
q
above "A" line with
symbols
mixtures
P.I. greater than 7
c
Inorganic silts and very fine sands,
s
ML
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
60
-
>
>, y
sands, or clayey silts with slight
y
R
U
00
Yplasticity
.n o
50
Inorganic clays of low to medium
N
'^
CL
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy
clays, silly clays, lean clays
DL
Organic silts and organic silty
40
v, ..
clays of low plasticitycri
><
O =
y
m
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
;, 30
=
m
ti
MH
diatomaceous fine sandy or silty
e �^
R "
soils, elastic silts:;
U
a 20
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
6- E
fat clays
o
10
7
U
F
s
D
OFI
Organic clays of medium to high
4
plasticity, organic silts
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 too
o
Liquid limit, v
`
�
"o
2 rn
P[
Peat and other highly organic soils
Reference: Winterkom & Pang, 1975 (ASTM D-2487)
'Division of GM and SM groups into subdivision of d and u are for road and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used
when L.L. is 28 or less and the 11.1. is 6 or Tess; the suffix u is used when L.I-. is greater that 28.
bBorderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. for example:
GW-GC, well -graded gravel -sand mixture with clay binder.
® 1812 CENTER PARK DRIVE
SUr1'ND
r{(j�,�,. c"AR5-5152 "c2a2n UNIFIED SOIL
7oalszs-51sz
`Y®
I PAx/704-357-0023 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
r
�
sv
4
O%
V
\q
Ol0?
\CV
—
c°
P
.J/
/
O
MH
or OH
C'
Mt. or OL
�

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS
Drilling Sampling Symbols
SS
Split Spoon Sampler
ST
Shelby Tube Sampler
RC
Rock Core, NX, BX, AX
PM
Pressuremeter
DC
Dutch Cone Penetrometer
RD
Rock Bit Drilling
BS
Bulk Sample of Cuttings
PA
Power Auger (no sample)
HSA
Hollow Stem Auger
WS
Wash sample
REC
Rock Sample Recovery %
ROD
Rock Quality Designation %
II. Correlation of Penetration Resistances to Soil Properties
Standard Penetration (blows/ft) refers to the blows per foot of a 140 Ib. hammer falling 30
inches on a 2-inch OD split -spoon sampler, as specified in ASTM D 1586. The blow count is
commonly referred to as the N-value.
A. Non -Cohesive Soils (Silt, Sand, Gravel and Combinations)
Density Relative Properties
Under 4 blows/ft Very Loose Adjective Form 12% to 49%
5 to 10 blows/ft Loose With 5% to 12%
11 to 30 blows/ft Medium Dense
31 to 50 blows/ft Dense
Over 51 blows/ft Very Dense
Particle Size Identification
Boulders
8 inches or larger
Cobbles
3 to 8 inches
Gravel
Coarse
1 to 3 inches
Medium
/s to 1 inch
Fine
/< to'/z inch
Sand
Coarse
2.00 mm to'/< inch (dia. of lead pencil)
Medium
0.42 to 2.00 mm (dia. of broom straw)
Fine
0.074 to 0.42 mm (dia. of human hair)
Silt and Clay
0.0 to 0.074 mm articles cannot be seen
B. Cohesive Soils (Clay, Silt, and Combinations)
Unconfined
Degree of
Plasticity
Blows/ft
Consistency
Comp. Strength
Plasticity
Index
QP (ISM)
Under 2
Very Soft
Under 0.25
None to slight
0-4
3 to 4
Soft
0.25-0.49
Slight
5-7
5 to 8
Medium Stiff
0.50-0.99
Medium
8 — 22
9 to 15
Stiff
1.00-1.99
High to Very High
Over 22
16 to 30
Very Stiff
2.00-3.00
31 to 50
Hard
4.00-8.00
Over 51
Very Hard
Over 8.00
III. Water Level Measurement Symbols
WL Water Level BCR Before Casing Removal DCI Dry Cave -In
WS While Sampling ACR After Casing Removal WC] Wet Cave -In
WD While Drilling 0 Est. Groundwater Level 8 Est. Seasonal High GWT
The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the
symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in a granular
soil. In clay and plastic silts, the accurate determination of water levels may require several days for
the water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally applied.

0
— Geolechnical Engineering Repopt ,
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 construction contractor or even another civil
engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geo-
technical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one
except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not
even you -should apply the 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.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers considera number of unique, project -specific factors
when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the clients
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 engi-
neer 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 alight industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• 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 cannotaccept responsibility or liability forproblems
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 study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering
reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natu-
ral events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always
contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the 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 indi-
cated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your
report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of
managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
A Reports Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your re-
port. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers
develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers
can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

Transmittal
Attention:
From:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Date:
Re:
Via:
-
ea�e.�ai
p:$i;Pi•� iiii 1 • 1
oe,r`'� iu�•
o��uo
ur•
5950 Fairview Rd. • Suite 100 •Charlotte, NC 28210
[phone] • Fax [phone]
Mr. Mike Randall
NCDEQ - Stormwater Permitting
Division of Energy, Minerals & Land Resources
Physical Location:
512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
O
� O
F
b
ac
0
0 CO
7 C'
oy C.
0
m
RECEIVED
JUL 0 5 2016,
Mailing Address:
1612 Mail Service Center
DENR-LAND QUALITY
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
STORMWATER PERMITTING
Luke Bugenske, PE - Burton Engineering Associates
InterTape Polymer Group
218-106
July 1, 2016
InterTape Polymer Group - Stormwater Permitting Signed Applications
UPS Ground
Copies
Date
Pages
Description
2
InterTape Polymer Group Construction Plans
I
❑ As Requested ❑ For Approval ® For Your Use ❑ For Review and Comment
If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact me at [phone] or by email at
lukebna burtonengineering.com
Sincerely,
Luke Bugenske, PE
PLEASE NOTIFY AT ONCE IF ALL ENCLOSURES ARE NOT INCLUDED