SW6120302_HISTORICAL FILE_20120620

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW�I!
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
DOC DATE
d_6z2d6 DI!/
YYYYMMDD

DENR--FRO
.'�L
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Division of Water Quality
Charles V'Jakild, PE
Director
June 20, 2012
Mr. David Heins, Environmental Division Works (DPW)
Directorate of Public Works
2175 Reilly Road Stop A
Fort Bragg, NC 28310
JUN x 2 2012
Natural Resources Dwo
Subject: Stormwater Permit No. SW6120302
3rd Brigade Combat Team Complex, In/Out Processing Facility
High Density Commercial Bio-Retention Project
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Heins:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Stormwater Permitting Unit received a complete Stormwater Management Permit Application for 3rd
Brigade Combat Team Complex, In/Out Processing Facility on June 18, 2012 after additional information
requested on March 23, May 4, and May 24. Staff review of the plans and specifications has determined
that the project, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC
2H.1000 and Session Law 2006-246. We are forwarding Permit No. SW6120302, dated June 19, 2012,
for the construction, operation and maintenance of the subject project and the stormwater BMPs.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until June 19, 2020 and shall be subject to the
conditions and limitations as specified therein, and does not supersede any other agency permit that may
be required. Please pay special attention to the conditions listed in this permit regarding the Operation and
Maintenance of the BMP(s), recordation of deed restrictions, procedures for changes of ownership,
transferring the permit, and renewing the permit. Failure to establish an adequate system for operation and
maintenance of the stormwater management system, to record deed restrictions, to follow the procedures
for transfer of the permit, or to renew the permit, will result in future compliance problems.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the right to
request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this permit.
This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150E of the North Carolina
General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, NC
27611-7447. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
This project will be kept on file at the Fayetteville Regional Office. If you have any questions, or need
additional information concerning this matter, please contact Brian Lowther at [phone]; or
brian.lowther [e-mail].
Sincerely,,
for Charles Wakild, P.E.
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
SW6120302
ec: Yeznik S . Yeretzian, PE — [e-mail]
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Empioyer
One
NorthCarohna
Natumily

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No, Sy 6120302
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT
in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION 1S HEREBY GRANTED TO
Directorate of Public Works (DPWj
PBrigade Combat Team Complex, In/Out Processing Facility
Fort Bragg and Cumberland County
FOR THE
construction, operation and maintenance of four (4) bioretention cell(s) in compliance
with the provisions of Session Law 2006-246 and 15A NCAC 2H .1000 (hereafter
referred to as the "stormwater rules') and the approved stormwater management plans
and specifications and other supporting data as attached and on file with and approved
by the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until .tune 19, 2020, and shall
be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. DESIGN STANDARDS
1. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of stormwater
described in the application and other supporting data.
2. This stormwater system has been approved for the management of stormwater
runoff as described in the attached supplement forms. The stormwater control
has been designed to handle the runoff from 42,804 square feet of impervious
area.
3. The tract will be limited to the amount of built -Upon area per the application
documents and as shown on the approved plans. The built -upon area for the
future development is limited to 0 square feet.
4. All stormwater collection and treatment systems must be located in either
dedicated common areas or recorded easements. The final plats for the project
will be recorded showing all such required easements, in accordance with the
approved plans.
5. The runoff from all built -upon area within the permitted drainage area of this
project must be directed into the permitted stormwater control system.
6. The built -upon areas associated with this project shall be located at !east 30 feet
landward of all perennial and intermittent surface waters.
Page 1 of 6

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SVV6120302
7. The design criteria for each bioretention cell has been attached to this permit
and must be maintained at design condition.
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The stormwater management system shall be constructed in its entirety;
vegetated and operational for its intended use prior to the construction of any
built -upon surface.
2. During construction, erosion shall be kept to a minimum and any eroded areas of
the system will be repaired immediately.
3. The permittee shall at all time provide the operation and maintenance necessary
to assure the permitted stormwater system functions at optimum efficiency. The
approved Operation and Maintenance Plan must be followed in its entirety and
maintenance must occur at the scheduled intervals including, but not limited to:
a. Semiannual scheduled inspections (every 6 months).
b. Sediment removal.
c. Mowing and re -vegetation of slopes and the filter strip.
d. Immediate repair of eroded areas.
e. Maintenance of all slopes in accordance with approved plans.
f. Debris removal and unclogging of all drainage structures, level spreader,
filter media, planting media, underdrains, catch basins and piping.
g. Access to the cell and outlet structure must be available at all times.
4. Records of maintenance activities must be kept for each permitted BMP. The
reports will indicate the date, activity, name of person performing the work and
what actions were taken.
5. The permittee shall submit to the Division of Water Quality an annual summary
report of the maintenance and inspection records for each BMP. The report
shall summarize the inspection dates, results of the inspections, and the
maintenance work performed at each inspection.
6. The stormwater treatment system shall be constructed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications, the conditions of this permit, and with other
supporting data.
7. Upon completion of construction, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received
from an appropriate designer for the system installed certifying that the permitted
facility has been installed in accordance with this permit, the approvO", plans and
specifications, and other supporting documentation. Any deviations from the
approved plans and specifications must be noted on the Certification. A
modification may be required for those deviations.
8. If the stormwater system was used as an Erosion Control device, it must be
restored to design condition prior to operation as a stormwater treatment device,
and prior to occupancy of the facility.
9. Access to the stormwater facilities shall be maintained via appropriate recorded
easements at all times.
10. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction, for any
modification to the approved plans, including, but not limited to, those listed
below:
a. Any revision to any. itern shown on the approved plans, including the
Page 2 of 6

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW6120302
stormwater management measures, built -upon area, details, etc.
b. Project name change.
C. Transfer of ownership.
d. Redesign or addition to the approved amount of built -upon area or to the
drainage area.
e. Further subdivision acquisition, lease or sale of all or part of the project
area. The project area is defined as all property owned by the permittee,
for which Sedimentation. and Erosion Control Plan approval or a CAMA.
Mayor permit was sought.
f. Filling in, altering, or piping of any vegetative conveyance shown on the
approved plan.
11. The permittee shall submit final site layout and grading plans for any permitted
future areas shown on the approved plans, prior to construction.
12. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by
the Permittee for a minimum of ten years from the date of the completion of
construction.
13. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one
or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame
specified in the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the
Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee
shall provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director
that the changes have been made.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. This permit is not transferable except after notice to and approval by the Director.
In the event of a change of ownership, or a name change, the permittee must
submit a completed Name/Ownership Change form signed by both parties, to the
Division of Water Quality, accompanied by the supporting documentation} as
listed on page 2 of the form. The approval of this request will be considered on
its merits and may or may not be approved.
2. The permittee is responsible for compliance with all permit conditions until such
time as the Division approves a request to transfer the permit.
3. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may
subject the Permittee to enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality, in
accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
4. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regu!aticns, or ordinances, which. may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) having jurisdiction.
5. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation
of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action,
including those as maybe required by this Division, such as the construction of
additional or replacement stormwater management systems.
6. The permittee grants DENR Staff permission to enter the property durir;g normal
business hours for the purpose of inspecting all components of the permitted
stormwater management facility.
7. The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until revoked or terminated.
The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The
filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and re -issuance or
termination does not stay any permit condition.
Page 3 of 6

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW6120302
8. Unless specified elsewhere, permanent seeding requirements for the stormwater
control must follow the guidelines established in the North Carolina Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
9. Approved plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference
and are enforceable harts of the hermit.
10. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and
modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit
as allowed by the laws, rules and regulations contained in Session Law 2006-
246, Title 15A NCAC 2H.1000, and NCGS 143-215.1 et.al.
11. The permittee shall notify the Division in writing of any name, ownership or
mailing address changes at least 30 days prior to making such changes.
12. The permittee shall submit a reneII request with all required forms and
documentation at least 180 days prior to the expiration date of this permit.
Permit issued this the 20th day of June 2012.
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
for Charles Wakild, PE, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 4 of 6

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. SW6120302
3rd Brigrade Combat Team Complex, In/Out Processing Facility
Stormwater Permit No, SW6120302
Cumberland County
Designer's Certification
I, , as a duly registered in the
State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically/ weekly/
full time) the construction of the project,
(Project Name)
for (Project Owner) hereby state that, to the
best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the project
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the approved plans and specifications.
The checklist of items on page 2 of this form is included in the Certification.
Noted deviations from approved plans and specification.
Signature
Registration Number
Date
SEAL
Page 5 of 6

State Stormwater Permit
Permit No. Sift/%6120?02 '
Certification Requirements:
_1. The drainage area to the system contains approximately the permitted
acreage.
_2. The drainage area to the system contains no more than the permitted
amount of built -upon area.
_3. All the built -upon area associated with the project is graded such that the
runoff drains to the system.
4. All roof drains are located such that the runoff is directed into the system.
_5. The outlet/bypass structure elevations are per the approved plan.
6. The outlet structure is located per the approved plans.
7. Trash rack is provided on the outlet/bypass structure.
.8. All slopes are grassed with permanent vegetation, per the vegetation plan.
9. Vegetated slopes are no steeper than 3:1.
10. The inlets are located per the approved plans and do not cause short-
circuiting of the system.
11. The permitted amounts of surface area and/or volume have been
provided.
12. Required drawdown devices are correctly sized per the approved plans.
13. All required design depths are provided.
14. All required parts of the system are provided, such as a vegetated shelf,
and a forebay.
15. The required system dimensions are provided per the approved plans.
cc: NCDENR-DWQ Regional Office
Cumberland County Building Inspections
Page 6 of 6

r` S]NfTED STATES UNITED BTAT£S OVERHILIS CAR O N NflLE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMkHT UP THE ARMY N9R'fn n rrOP A `
OEOLOOICJIL SURVEY CLAPS OF EMpINEF.RS 79 MINw. t�6yAl 11w -- APX IC/
�•VINu w wl PY rrn 60mmul S—"
bIR�VSUGi•+WN
'�-��� ����'0" �
H.bly._w^� liV�9.«., �.�
��
p�rMw wb ►VbYW+w r�n+.RY raw.w
Ma�AeM.M..� 1�4-l9a/, M1r�.`i wblwwY
II�T
� lrb RuM
hh.� 1Yd� IfS1 tiN MwYI M�
O�br l�uW�R.wf wyRMr•
+I .x�.,
n
DVERHILCA N. G
S
..�.:r..r. b w
.�a•w� lr ru.,..wa
an......'.i.w"pi..�i°..
br w• Mw4Y na.� .«lour rirr
ron wA N u a aparrsliiw�.
ate+-..
;;I'�
nms+nml
��
� or. wbwr. wr �A r rrr� r nARn
ar �m � w�w:a Inw
F

MAR 1 9 2012
DENR - WATER 4UALISY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATERB99 CR
3`d Brigade Combat Team Complex
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
In/Out Processing Facility
Stormsewef Permit Narrative
W,r4-or--
�E °F o
YMIK '• __
- , S. -
; YERETVAN
E-59092
••...........
.sa,. 20 2a 1 2—

Page 2
............... .. ........
General Discussion (_L PF)
Storm water management for the In/Out Processing Facility site will entail the design of
permanent measures to keep post construction rates of sOlm water discharges for the 10
year 24 hour storm at or below the pre -developed discharge rates. The designed
permanent measures shall accommodate the 100 year, 24 hour storm without significant
flooding or damage to the storm water system and facilities/improvements in the
surrounding area.
The pre and post construction peak discharges and discharge volumes are calculated
using the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) method; formerly the
US Soil Conservation Service. The pre -developed discharge rates and volumes are
calculated as if the sites were completely undeveloped forest land.
_Storm Water Manaqement Implementation:
The total area disturbed by construction activity is 3.10 acres. Because of the topography
of the proposed site (i.e. grading) the run-off from IPF sub -watersheds A3, A4, A5 and A6
will not be collected in the proposed underground detention basin. In order to comply with
the storm water management requirement of keeping the post -developed discharge from
the entire site to pre -developed levels for the 10-year, 24 hour storm, run-off from these
areas will be treated as bypass.
The post -developed 10 year 24 hour peak discharge from the underground detention
basin will further be curtailed from the pre -developed values calculated for the entire site
(3.10 acres) by the sum of the difference in peak discharges between pre and post
developed conditions for the bypass sub -watersheds described above. The process
described above will ensure that post developed peak discharge rate of storm water run-
offs for the 10 year 24 hour storm are kept at or below the pre -developed level for the
entire disturbed site.
A storm water collection system is designed to collect the surface run-off from the site and
direct it to an underground detention basin located to the north of the new In/Out
Processing facility. The underground detention basin is comprised of a total of five, 118-ft,
48 inch diameter interconnected Corrugated Metal Pipes. A sediment trap manhole placed
just upstream from the inlet to the basin, will ensure that sedimentation into the
underground storage facility is minimized. A 9-inch orifice placed at the outlet end of the
basin will control post developed run-off to the pre -developed levels described above.
In/Out Processing Facility, Storm Sewer Design
The storm sewer system is designed to accommodate the 10-year storm peak discharges.
The 25-year storm is used for the hydraulic gradient calculations. The Rational method is
used to calculate the peak discharge rates. Roof downspouts are connected to a roof drain
collection system and directed to the storm sewer system.
Storm Water Detailed Narrative

Page 3
In/Out Processing Facility, Storm Water Quality
The storm water quality volume is calculated using the "North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual".
The "Simple Method", as outlined in section 3.3.1 of the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, Stomwater Best Management Practices Manual, is used to calculate the storm
water quality volume. A total of three bioretention basins (03, 04 and 05) are used for this
purpose.
_Brigade Headquarters, Energy Independence and Security Act 2007
Section 438 re uirements
In compliance with EISA Section 438 requirements, permanent measures shall be
designed to keep the post construction ug antitVof stormwater discharges for the 95
percentile rain event (1.8 inch 24 hour rainfall) at or below the pre developed Quantity of
discharge, unless it can be shown to be technically unfeasible due to soil types and/or
space constraints. Stormwater pre and post construction quantities (volumes) for the 95
percentile rain event are calculated using the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) method; formerly the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
Discussion of BMPs used to address the stormwater quality and
quantity
Bio retention basins are used to address both stormwater quality and quantity. The bio
retention basins are designed per the guidelines as described in Section 12, Bio retention
of the "North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual". Because the bio retention basins will be utilized to address stormwater
_quantities, as well as quali, underdrains will not be used.
Catch basins, with their grates placed 12-inches above the bottom elevations of the bio
retention basins will be used as overflow structures. A 1-ft free board will be provided in
each of the three bioretention basins. Stormwaters in excess of the treatment/quantity
volumes will be discharged to the stormwater system.
The selected BMPs (i.e. bio retention basins) are Low Impact Design (LID) measures
which rely on infiltration, a natural method of pollutant removal.
Storm Water Detailed Narrative

Better Built* Clark AEC P_mPrsjnn
A N B (a J J O I N T V E N T U R E
rr Inell lor/PrWr,�r, �,nrrnrsr:slrr��
BWSOWAOGGU cw
B-
Suurrcw 6
CA 0H .r.
May 17, 2012
WETLANDS & STORMWATER BRANCH
1617 Mail service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn.: Mr. Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
Reference: 3�d BCT BDE IOPC, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina
Stormwater Project No. SW6120302
Request for Additional Information
Subject: Responses to Request for Additional InformationIN�g
��
�
PRAY
Dear Mr. Lowther:
DEN
�
Weltanda WATER Qi
watea Sri
We have addressed your review comments and offer the following responses to the
questions listed below:
1. Please provide any supporting documents that need to be updated based on
the changes to the BMPs. This includes the calculations for the updated BMPs,
the required items checklists, and O&M for the added BMP.
Response:
Complete "Bioretention Cell Supplement" forms for all the basins at the In/Out
Processing Facility site are included (total of 4). This includes the required item
checklists and water quality volume calculations. Also included, please find the
"Stormwater Management Permit Application Form". Please note that the
original application form was submitted earlier, this form is included to only show
the revisions to item 10 on page 3 of 6 of the application form. These revisions
are in compliance to your review comments. Supporting calculations are
included showing how the water quality volumes are calculated using the NC
Division of Water Quality, Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual,
section 3.3.1 (the simple method).
The O&M (Maintenance Agreement form) for the added bioretention basin (IPF
RG#4) located at the northwest corner of the POV lot is not included in this
package and will be submitted to your attention separately by Fort Bragg.
May 17, 2012 Page 1 of 3

Responses to Request for Additional Information
2. Please provide a summary or calculation that clearly shows the comparison of
existing BUA verse proposed BUA and how much is treated.
Response:
Water quality supporting calculations are included. The calculations contain a
description of the project and its watersheds, a schematic showing the existing
BUA verses the proposed BUA and indicating how much run-off volume is
treated. The schematic drawing, along with the site grading and drainage plans
is intended to further clarify the areas. Please note that the "Stormwater
Management Permit Application Form" discussed in item 1 above does contain
the revised existing and proposed BUAs. The revisions are shown on item 10 on
page 3 of 6.
Please clearly show how the soil permeability was found. I could not find this in
the soils report.
Response:
The soil permeability was field measured and is included in the Geotechnical
report. A summary of the findings is provided on page 7 of the report in a tabular
form. The entire geotechnical report is also included for your reference.
Because of the low permeability values for the In/Out processing facility site,
underdrains are added to the bio-retention basins. Please refer to plans C-510
and C-510A.
4. The drainage area for Basin IPF #4 looks to be larger than is shown. While the
project only has to treat the additional BUA the BMP must be sized for the
drainage area going to that BMP. Please verify the size of the drainage area.
Response:
The subject watershed area was revised. The larger area is reflected on
drawing C-115 and all the supporting calculations, including the "Bioretnetion
Cell Supplement' form and the "Stormwater Management Permit Application
Form", item 10 on page 3 of 6.
5. The inlets to the bioretention cells must be non -erosive. Please provide
calculations showing each inlet is non -erosive or provide inlet protection.
Response:
May 17, 2012 Page 2 of 3

Responses to Request for Additional Information
The velocities of stormwater run-off to the bioretention cells will be larger than 2
ft/s and inlet protection is provided in the form of NC Class "A" Erosion Stone.
Please refer to detail 02/C-510 showing where inlet protection is provided.
Should you have any questions, or require any additional information, please let us know.
In addition to the items described above, please find two sets of the following NC signed
and sealed drawings:
C-115, C-116, C-130, C-510, C-510A, L-501, L-503. These sheets correspond to the item
checklist requested in item 1 above.
Sincerely
Nick S. Yeretzian, PE
Civil Engineer
Cc: Joe Landrum/ BWSC
Lee Ward/ Fort Bragg DPW Water Management Branch
James Kramek/ Better Built Clark
Damon Halsey/ Better Built Clark
May 17, 2012 Page 3 of 3

s
Better Built+Clark AEC A m e r % i n n
A N B (a j J o t N T V E N T u R E
a mentor/��roleg�'c parmersh'
BWSC
WACOONER
ski -ER a
CANNON. INC.
May 1, 2012
WETLANDS & STORMWATER BRANCH
1617 Mail service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn.: Mr. Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
Reference: 3rd BCT BDE IOPC, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina
Stormwater Project No. SW6120302
Request for Additional Information
Subject: Responses to Request for Additional Information
Dear Mr. Lowther:
We have addressed your review comments and included two sets of the plans signed by a
North Carolina certified engineer. Below are the compliance comments. They are
numbered in the same numbering sequence as your review letter.
1. The watersheds were revised as shown on sheets C-115 and C-116. Watershed
CA-3 includes the portions of the new In/Out facility roof. The run-off from the roofs
were collected from the roof downspouts and directed to bio-retention basin IPF-
RG#1. Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#1 outlet structure is the overflow catch basin
IPF CB -A. Watershed CA-4 was revised to include the remainder from the new
In/Out facility roof. The roof downspouts collect the discharges from the roof and
direct them to bio-retention basin IPF-RG#2. Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#2 outlet
structure is the overflow catch basin IPF CB-B. The run-off from watershed CA-5
surface flows to Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#3. Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#3 outlet
structure is the overflow catch basin IPF CB-F. A new basin, basin IPF-RG#4 was
added to account for the POV parking lot discharges (See detail 011C-510A). The
watershed for this area is CA-6. Basin IPF-RG#4 outlet structure is the overflow
catch basin IPF CB-G. All overflow outlet structures are placed 12-inches above the
bottom of the basins (See details 01 /C-510A). Please note that the revised areas
are shown on the bullet #10 of page 316 of the included revised SWU-101 form.
The revised bio-retention calculations are also included.
2. The delineated areas, CA-3, CA-4, CA-5 and CA-6 are shown on sheet C-115 and
C-116.
May 1, 2012 Page 1 of 2

Responses to Request for Additional Information
3. The In/Out Processing facility site is located within the confines of Fort Bragg and
there are no boundaries of drainage easements and/or public right of ways.
4. The plans are signed and sealed by a North Carolina registered engineer.
Should you have any questions, or require any additional information, please let us know.
Sincerely
ick S. Yeretzian, PE
Civil Engineer
Cc: Joe Landrum
Damon Halsey
May 1, 2012 Page 2 of 2

tter Built* Clark AEC PmPrnion
A N 8{ a f J O I N T V E N T U R E
a InC/I1011Prnreg-C pa rrmershi��
BWK-,
I Bwwoc N�I�[lOONCR
$IJMNLR &
C:wNNgN, INp,
May 1, 2012
WETLANDS & STORMWATER BRANCH
1617 Mail service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn.: Mr. Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
Reference: 3d BCT BDE IOPC, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina
Stormwater Project No. SW6120302
Request for Additional Information MAY 4 2012
Subject: Responses to Request for Additional Information
Dear Mr. Lowther:
We have addressed your review comments and included two sets of the plans signed by a
North Carolina certified engineer. Below are the compliance comments. They are
numbered in the same numbering sequence as your review letter.
1. The watersheds were revised as shown on sheets C-115 and C-116. Watershed
CA-3 includes the portions of the new In/Out facility roof. The run-off from the roofs
were collected from the roof downspouts and directed to bio-retention basin IPF-
RG#1. Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#1 outlet structure is the overflow catch basin
IPF CB -A. Watershed CA-4 was revised to include the remainder from the new
In/Out facility roof. The roof downspouts collect the discharges from the roof and
direct them to bio-retention basin IPF-RG#2. Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#2 outlet
structure is the overflow catch basin IPF CB-B. The run-off from watershed CA-5
surface flows to Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#3. Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#3 outlet
structure is the overflow catch basin IPF CB-F. A new basin, basin IPF-RG#4 was
added to account for the POV parking lot discharges (See detail 011C-510A). The
watershed for this area is CA-6. Basin IPF-RG#4 outlet structure is the overflow
catch basin IPF CB-G. All overflow outlet structures are placed 12-inches above the
bottom of the basins (See details 011C-510A), Please note that the revised areas
are shown on the bullet #10 of page 316 of the included revised SWU-101 form.
The revised bio-retention calculations are also included.
2. The delineated areas, CA-3, CA-4, CA-5 and CA-6 are shown on sheet C-115 and
C-116.
May 1, 2012 Page 1 of 2

Responses to Request for Additional Information
3. The In/Out Processing facility site is located within the confines of Fort Bragg and
there are no boundaries of drainage easements and/or public right of ways.
4. The plans are signed and sealed by a North Carolina registered engineer.
Should you have any questions, or require any additional information, please let us know.
Sincerely
j ' &' an
ick S. Yeretzian, PE
Civil Engineer
Cc: ,doe Landrum
Damon Halsey
May 1, 2012 Page 2 of 2

Better Built* Clark AEC a m P- r% i a n
A N 8{ a) J 0 1 N T V E N T U R F
a nrcrr for/��rolr�Y<��nlYrrf�r's'lri��
Bwscl B. Qo�
wwaaow r.R
SUMw[R 6
clwwow, iwp.
May 1, 2012
WETLANDS & STORMWATER BRANCH
1617 Mail service Center 1J
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 MAY 2 2012
Attn.: Mr, Brian Lowther DENR - vvhr� L7U:ITY
Environmental Engineer W_4Va1d9� ste�a#0 R,e,-k
Reference: 3rd BCT BDE IOPC, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina
Stormwater Project No. SW6120302
Request for Additional Information
Subject: Responses to Request for Additional Information
Dear Mr. Lowther:
We have addressed your review comments and included two sets of the plans signed by a
North Carolina certified engineer. Below are the compliance comments. They are
numbered in the same numbering sequence as your review letter.
The watersheds were revised as shown on sheets C-115 and C-116. Watershed
CA-3 includes the portions of the new In/Out facility roof. The run-off from the roofs
were collected from the roof downspouts and directed to bio-retention basin IPF-
RG#1. Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#1 outlet structure is the overflow catch basin
IPF CB -A. Watershed CA-4 was revised to include the remainder from the new
In/Out facility roof. The roof downspouts collect the discharges from the roof and
direct them to bio-retention basin IPF-RG#2. Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#2 outlet
structure is the overflow catch basin IPF CB-B. The run-off from watershed CA-5
surface flows to Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#3. Bio-retention basin IPF-RG#3 outlet
structure is the overflow catch basin IPF CB-F. A new basin, basin IPF-RG#4 was
added to account for the POV parking lot discharges (See detail 011C-510A). The
watershed for this area is CA-6. Basin IPF-RG#4 outlet structure is the overflow
catch basin IPF CB-G. All overflow outlet structures are placed 12-inches above the
bottom of the basins (See details 011C-510A). Please note that the revised areas
are shown on the bullet #10 of page 316 of the included revised SWU-101 form.
The revised bio-retention calculations are also included.
2. The delineated areas, CA-3, CA-4, CA-5 and CA-6 are shown on sheet C-115 and
C-116.
May 1, 2012 Page 1 of 2

Responses to Request for Additional Information
3. The In/Out Processing facility site is located within the confines of Fort Bragg and
there are no boundaries of drainage easements and/or public right of ways.
4. The plans are signed and sealed by a North Carolina registered engineer.
Should you have any questions, or require any additional information, please let us know.
Sincerely
ick S. Yeretzian, PE
Civil Engineer
Cc: Joe Landrum
Damon Halsey
May 1, 2012
Page 2 of 2

A 1,7A
L174 0 0 RIA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Yeznik S. Yeretzain
Barge Waggoner Summer & Cannon, Inc
8280 Yankee Street
Dayton, OH 45458
Dear Mr. Yeretzain:
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Director
May 24, 2012
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW6120302
3`d Brigade Combat Team Complex,
In/Out Processing Facility
Cumberland County
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water quality Central Office received additional information for a Stormwater Management Permit
Application for the subject project on May 18, 2012. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the
application is not complete. The following information is needed to continue the stormwater review:
1. This project must control and treat runoff from the first one inch of rain for all of the added Built Upon Area
(BUA) on the site. The current design bypasses some of the stormwater from the new BUA and does not treat
all of the stormwater. Again, existing BUA may be treated in lieu of treating the new BUA. Please revise the
design to treat the stormwater from the proposed BUA and update all the appropriate forms. Please also
include a summary of the existing BUA and the amount added. We may consider the underground detention as
treatment but it is the burden of the designer to provide enough information to show how to design meets the
meets the rules.
2. Please provide a summary or calculation that clearly shows the comparison of existing BUA verse proposed BUA
and how much is treated.
3. Please update the tree planting detail to match our requirements in the BMP for plant trees in bioretention
cells. See 12.3.8. Step 8: Select Plants and Mulch in the BMP manual for more information.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested information
should be received by this Office prior to June 8, 2012, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a
project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time extension to the Division at
the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you expect to submit
the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed application to issue the permit.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Brian Lowther
Environmental Enginec.
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
SW6120302 File
Mr, David Heins, Environmental Division Chief (DPW)
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-161'1
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh. North Carolina 27604
Phone: 91 M(17-6300 .+ FAX: [phone]y4
Intemet: www.ncwalerquality.org
An Eaual O000rtunity 1 Affirmalive Action Emolover
NorthCarolina
,Xutuwlt�

North Carolina
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Yeznik S. Yeretzain
Barge Waggoner Summer & Cannon, Inc
8280 Yankee Street
Dayton, OH 45458
Dear Mr. Yeretzain:
NC®ENR
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Director
May 4, 2012
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW6120302
3rd Brigade Combat Team Complex,
In/Out Processing Facility
Cumberland County
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality Central Office received additional information for a Stormwater Management Permit
Application for the subject project on May 3, 2012. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the
application is not complete. The following information is needed to continue the stormwater review:
1. Please provide any supporting documents that need to be updated based on the changes to the BMPs. This
includes the calculations for the updated BMPs, the required items checklists, and O&M for the added BMP.
2. Please provide a summary or calculation that clearly shows the comparison of existing BUA verse proposed BUA
and how much is treated.
3. Please clearly show how the soil permeability was found. I could not find this in the soils report.
4. The drainage area for Basin IPF #4 looks to be larger than is shown. While the project only has to treat the
additional BUA the BMP must be sized for the drainage area going to that BMP. Please verify the size of the
drainage area.
5. The inlets to the bioretention cells must be non -erosive. Please provide calculations showing each inlet is non -
erosive or provide inlet protection.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested information
should be received by this Office prior to May 18, 2012, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a
project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time extension to the Division at
the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you expect to submit
the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed application to issue the permit.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
cc: Fayetievilie Regional Office
SW612030IFile
Mr. David Heins, Environmental Division Chief (DPW)
wetlands and Stormwaler Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St, Ralegh, Noah Carolina 27604
Phorc: 910M7.63001 FAY,: 919-807-6494
Internet www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
Nne
orthCarolina

Xk*A
S�
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Yeznik S. Yeretzain
Barge Waggoner Summer & Cannon, Inc
8280 Yankee Street
Dayton, OH 45458
Dear Mr. Yeretzain:
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Director
March 23, 2012
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW6120302
3rd Brigade Combat Team Complex,
In/Out Processing facility
Cumberland County
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality Central Office received a Stormwater Management Permit Application for the subject project
on March 19, 2012, A preliminary review of that information has determined that the application is not complete. The
following information is needed to continue the stormwater review:
l . Since this a high -density project, structural stormwater management systems must be used to control and treat
runoff from the first one inch of rain for all of the added Built Upon Area (BUA) on the site. The current design
bypasses some of the stormwater from the new BUA. These areas must be treated by an 85%TSS removal
BMP. Please revise the design to treat the stormwater from the proposed BUA and update all the appropriate
forms.
2. Please make sure the delineated drainage areas are clearly shown on the plan sheets.
3. Please make sure all items were included from the Supplement Checklist. Missing items include boundaries of
drainage easements, and public right of ways.
4. Please clearly show the inlet and outlets to the bioretention cells.
5. The plans must be signed, sealed, and dated by a North Carolina certified professional.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested information
should be received by this Office prior to April 20, 2012, or the application will be returned as incomplete. The return of a
project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time extension to the Division at
the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you expect to submit
the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed application to issue the permit.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely, _
C.��
Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
SW6120303 File
Mr. David Heins, Environmental Division Chief (DPW)
Wetlands and 5lormwaier Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury 5t. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919M7-63001 FAX: [phone]
Internet: www,ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity 4 AHirmalive Action Employer
One
No thCarolina
;gtimal #

BETTER BUILT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. / FT. BRAGG ACCOUNT 001023
NCDNR Check: 1023
MC. Dept. of Environment Date: 3/14/2012
& Natural Resources Vendor: NCDENR
Prior
Invoice P.O. Num. invoice Amt Balance Retention Discount Ami. Paid
Bragg - 06 288-005 505.00. 505.00 0.00 0,00 505.00
Permit - In/Out Processing >=ac
'R E�C.EI V E�� 505.00 505.00 0.00 0.00 505.00
MAR 15. zait, _
. BWSC .:
_., : BETTER BUIlT ;ti�uv a, D! 3
1 FIRST FINANCIAL BANK
= CONIS.'RUCTION:5ERVICES, iNc 001023
FT-.ZRAGG:!ACCOUNT' 56-91/422
1240Central Avenue '
Middletown; Ohio' 45044'
„�' •(513)�727=8637 '
1023
Fax' (513217-:4606 DATE
AMOUNT
3/14/2012 ***************505.00
PAY THE 5UM & FIVE','HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS AND NO CENTS
TO THE
ORDER
OF NCDNR
N.C. Dept. of Environment
& Natural Resources i ' wy Mf
s,-
1a'

Application Completeness Review
First Submittal ❑ Re -submittal Date Received
Development/Project Name: 3'¢p I3xc 6,4_bjE
Receiving stream name GLf' -f+ i R.►►k Cam-
►Z Date Reviewed:By Bill Diuguid !�
TOArM `omk4c
L l,h,9 Classification
a a 7-
fiver Basin: C* ne F g,&+L
For past -construction requirements, a program will be deemed compliant for the areas where it is
implementing any of the following programs: WS-I, WS-ll, WS-III, WS-IV, HQW, ORW, Neuse River Basin
NSW, Tar -Pamlico River Basin NSW, and the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Nutrient
Management Strategy.
High Density Projects that require a 401/404 within an NSW require 85% TSS, 30% TN and 30% TP removal.
T&E Species (Goose Creek, Waxhaw Creek or Six Mile Creek Water Sheds): A f}
Latitude and Longitude: -75 07 B-5 W ---72 O/ */ W Juriscriction
Project Address: /I/. 04:�- 4A-d c,1yr_s .S' E�W, GF_Lq
Engineer name and firm: VA,3L5. c-F . ' 8 ., As4 Asax '0�" C
Phone: 937 - JfZ 8 - ? Email: c sC
Is the project confirmed to be in the State MSI Stormwater Permit jurisdiction? [YYes or ❑ No
ci Low Density (no curb and gutter) ❑ Low Density with curb and gutter outlets 55,High Density ❑ Other
401/404 impacts to surface waters, wetlands, and buffers (add language to cover letter and/or add info letter)
UA f 3 %a
,heck for $505.00 included
riginal signature (not photocopy) on application
ta' Legal signature (Corporation-VP/higher, Partnership -General Partner/higher, LLC-member/manager, Agent).
Check spelling, capitalization, punctuation: htip://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/thepage.aspx
If an agent signs the application, a signed letter of authorization from the applicant must be provided which
includes the name, title, mailing address and phone number of the person signing the letter.
i for subdivided projects, a signed and notarized deed restriction statement
jell' Sealed, signed & dated calculations
GK Correct supplement and O&M provided for each BMP on site (check all that were provided & number of each)
V'Bioretention
Dry Detention Basin
G Filter Strip
Q Grass Swale
Ci Infiltration Basin
Ct Infiltration Trench
• Level Spreader
• Permeable Pavement
❑ Rooftop Runoff Management
❑ Sand Filter
❑ Stormwater Wetland
❑ Wet Detention Basin
❑ Low Density
❑ Curb Outlet
❑ Off -Site
❑ NCDOT Linear Road
/ ❑ Restored Riparian Buffer
;Two sets of sealed, signed & dated layout & finish grading plans with appropriate details
/ 9
[/Narrative Description of stormwater management provided
; Soils report provided
—a--Wetlands delineated or a note on the plans or in the accompanying documents that none exist on site and/or
adjacent property
cd/ Details for the roads, parking area, cul-de-sac radii, sidewalk widths, curb and gutter;
ae`�Dimensions & slopes provided
[Drainage areas delineated ❑ Pervious and impervious reported for each ❑ Areas of high density
MP operation and maintenance agreements provided
IL Application complete ❑ Application Incomplete Returned: (Date)
Comments
May 5, 2011 Revision, Bill Diuguid
FAG/,�y

Lowther, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc: /�
Subject
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Brian
Nick Yeretzian [[e-mail]]
Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:59 PM
Lowther, Brian
Steve Schultz; Joe Landrum; James Kramek
RE: Storm:•:ater Pr ecr No. S.N6120303 - Requested Additicnal information for the
Headquarters Facility
BCT_----C-509--.pdf; BCT�---C-113--.pdf; BCT_ -- C-505--.pdf; BCT�---C-507--:pdf;
BCT�---C-508--.pdf; Headquarters Water Quality Calculations.pdf
Follow up
Completed
We received the Request for Additional Information for the above referenced project. Similar to the In/Out Processing
Facility, before we resubmit, I would like to make sure that we are providing the correct additional information needed
to secure the water quality permit.
We have done the following to address your request:
Added a drawing and a table to the Headquarters Water Quality Calculations (See attached); showing the
existing BUA, added BUA areas and, the Bypass BUAs. The drawing and the tables in the.spreadsheet
calculations are color coded for ease of reference. All existing BUAs are shown in purple, the blue•areas are the
BUA bypass, the yellow areas are the added BUAs and finally the hatched green areas are the existing BUAs
which are being treated to account for the added BUA bypass areas.
We have increased the sizes of bio-retention basins (BHQ-RG#1 and BHQ-RG#2) to ensure that all of theWater
Quality Volume, and not a portion of it, is treated by these basins. See attached drawing C-509.
We have updated all of the Bioretention Cell Supplement forms and form SWU-101 and provided a summary
calculation in a spreadsheet form showing the comparison of existing BUA verses proposed BUA.
The project controls and treats the first inch.of rain for all of the added built upon areas (except the bypass areas). A
total of 8,027 SF of added BUA is bypassed. We are able to treat a total of 6,079 SF of existing-BUA-to offset the BUA
bypass. Although there is a difference of 1,948 SF of bypass BUA, this run-off will not be directly released to.the storm
sewer system. A total of 5,663 SF of added BUA bypass (of the total 8,027 SF) is directed to an undergrouh.d.detention
basin before it is released. The entire parking lot to the east of the proposed HQ'.facility will.drain to an underground
extended detention basin before it is released to the storm sewer system. We have attached drawings C-505, C-507 and
C-508 depicting the underground basin where the bypass run-off will discharge -to. We are requesting that you'look into
the possibility of considering the extended detention basin as a means of treatment for the difference (0.04 ac). Please
note that although the detention basin is less efficient in removing the total'suspended solids as the bio-retention
basins, we are treating a larger volume (5,663 SF) by this method to account for the difference.
As discussed with you over the phone last week, there is a possibility that the parking lot, to the east of the
Headquarters facility, may increase in size. Should the parking expansion become a reality -we plan,to apply for an -
amendment to the stormwater quality permit we are procuring for this site. Please let us know if this.route (amending
the permit) is feasible and if not, can you please provide us with suggestions as to how to proceed regarding this matter.
Similar to the In/Out Processing Facility submittal, we would like to ask you to please review this information and let us
know if we are on the right track prior to making our official submittal to you. We will update the landscaping drawings

per your latest landscape comments as part of the final submittai and upon hearing back from you that we are on the
right track.
Please note that the final drawings will be, sealed and signed by NC engineer and landscape architect as we have done
before.
Your timel, response is greatly appreciated and sp;e are %vorking rdiligently to adhere to all of the NCDENR regU remnntc
to secure the stormwater permits as soon as possible.
Thanks
Nick
BWSC Privacy Clause
The information transrnitted s intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed Hnd ,nay contain Confidential, proprietary,
and/or onvileged niat`nal. Aorevue,.%, rctransni*sion, dissemination or other use Of, or taking Df a,iv action m reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received tins n error, please contact the sender,
delete the material from art rnrnpnters, and destroy any copies of this dOCUMent.
Eqj,-i! Gml, } -, ' r'3 A' �. .
http-/lwww.barpewaggoner,com
Think Green: Only print this e-mail and any attachment if necessary.

Lowther, Briar
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc{:
Subjcct.
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Brian
Nick Yeretzian [[e-mail]]
Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:13 PM
Lowther, Brian
Steve Schultz; Joe Landrum; James Kramek
Re: Stormwater Prciect No. S:^:6120302 - Re -nested Additional !nformaticn for the !n/Out
Processing Facility
IPF Water Qua!ity.Calculations and forms.pdf; BCT_---C-115--.pdf; BCT=---C-116--.pdf;
BCT_----C-510= -.pdf; BCT=---C-510A--.pdf
Follow up
Completed
We received the Request for Additional Information for the above referenced project. Before we resubmit, I would like
to make sure that we are providing the correct additional information needed to secure the water quality permit.
We have done the following to address your request:
Added a drawing and a table to the !PF Water Quality Calculations (See attached), showing all of the existing
BUA areas and all of the Bypass BUA and demonstrated by detailed calculation that the existing BUA treated
area exceeds the bypass BUA by 1,995 SF for the In/Out Processing facility. As you can see, watersheds CA-3 and
CA-4 do not have existing Built Upon Areas, whereas watersheds CA-5 and CA-6 do. The numbers on the
calculation sheets and the forms reflect this. The existing built upon areas are shown hatched in green and their
areas called out (740 SF draining to area CA-5 and 3,880 SF draining to area CA-6, for a total Existing BUA treated
of 4,620 SF). The bypass BUAs are shown in blue their areas are Bypass BUA-1=534 SF, Bypass BUA-2=69 SF,
Bypass BUA-3=322 SF and Bypass BUA-4=1,700 SF for a total area of 2,625 SF.
2. We have increased the size of the bio-retention basin to the north of the POV lot to ensure that all of the Water
Quality Volume is treated by basin IPF-RG#4. The remainder of the basins treat all of the water quality volumes
for their respective sub -areas.
3. We have updated all of the Bioretention Cell Supplement forms and form SWU-101 and provided a summary
calculation in a spreadsheet form showing the comparison of existing BUA verses proposed BUA. We have also
shown and stated that a total of 4,620 SF of existing Build Upon Area is treated to account for a total of 2,625 SF
of bypass built upon area.
The project controls and treats the first inch of rain for all of the added built upon areas (except the bypass areas). A
total of 4,620 SF of existing Build Upon Area is treated to account for a total of 2,625 SF of bypass built upon area.
We would like to ask you to please review the submitted information and let us know if we are on the right track prior to
making our official submittal to you. We will update the landscaping drawings per your latest landscape comments as
part of the final submittal and upon hearing back from you that we are on the right track.
Please note that the final drawings will be sealed and signed by NC engineer and landscape architect as we have done
before. We plan to submit the same type of information for the NQfacility for input from you prior to our official
submittal.
Your timely response is greatly appreciated and we are working diligently to adhere to all of the NCDENR requirements
to secure the stormwater permits as soon as possible.

Thanks
Nick
BWSC Privacy Clause
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary,
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or takioq of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in crror, please contact the sender,
delete the material from all computers, and destroy any copies of this document.
Fquai Employment Clpporrunity/Affirriative Action empoyer
http://www.baLgewaggoner.com
Think Green: Only print this e-mail and any attachment if necessary,

Similar to the In/Out Processing Facility submittal, we would like to ask you to please review this information and let us
know if we are on the right track prior to making our official submittal to you. We will update the iandscaping drawings
per your latest landscape comments as part of the final submittal and upon hearing back from you that we are on the
right track.
Please note that the final drawings will be sealed and signed by NC engineer and landscape architect as we have done
before.
Your timely response is greatly appreciated and we are working diligently to adhere to all of the NCDENR requirements
to secure the stormwater permits as soon as possible.
Thanks
Nick
BWSC Privacy Clause
The Information transmltter4 Is Inr1 nded owy fnr the pE,rsn,{ >r ' nhry 'o %, lllch It Is addressed jnd m.ly ' —ir n1n _,WInert{al, ;)ropnet_sry
and/or pnvllegr>ci material Any rovlrw, rQtr7nSm15sion, lissemInat-ii nr otheru5,F' Of, or taklno of any ari-inrl n rphw nce Ilpnn hhlS
11 IfuI I I I cltiun oy per 50I 1_� ill 7t+rtl t'tt' ,•,'It IIIdI1 Ll it" it ltt'I Iota It 11 nk:'rI 1p t,i t.,I I I U I I L:iI. tl yUtI ICI c'I It'11 tI 1.1 n. 011 11. U1t.d.,,. COI ACIt I I+1• Jt•t.
delete the material from .ill con;puters, Ind destroy any copies of t.Iis document.
httn:l
h.jj � l ].IIUII,,I11CIIi lil7f,Uni,n , , 1i1I1. . „rI I_ . u L,
lklvw_bargewaggoner. com
Think Green: Only prim this e-mail and any attachment if necessary.
al4'SC Privacy Claus^
1 Ile iflrormatiorl -wiy for Fels, pertillr'I i,r I`n(It',, ro WIR[I1 it. IS r1q' t";tiPd -fII{I 111,4y ' oj'1 ♦111 i1n 11(Il'111'1.11 nnlfll'I(•1.{ry
6JI"i VilCrj,.d III�It. i l�i1 ',fir .. i 1, �-.i'.� . ,...,� I ..• .� Dui. ,i Jth:"i ",�_ �:f, .� � a.I li . 1. .:'..I I
i nformation by persons or entities other than the intended recIpient IS prohibited. If you received thib In error, please conta,:t the sender,
,felete the nldtcrial f!ulll all colnpuier�, 1I11d destroy any wpiL� of this Lio,urneU.
ht{ue11 tilllplu)•Inu1[ Oi,t,oliuna, riilll,lld[Il: ,',.,w�I ,=1nt,lglc:r
htl[)://www.bargewaggoneT.COM
Think Green: Only print this e-mail and any attachment if necessary.

BeAerBuilt♦Clark AEC Pmersioin
A N S (a) J 0 1 N T V E N T U R E
rr rrl errlur/P rrrlege partnership x
T{ T
{f (zlf---, 19um"EN S 1�
June 14, 2012
WETLANDS & STORMWATER BRANCH
1617 Mail service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attn.: Mr. Brian Lowther
Environmental Engineer
Reference: P BCT BDE IOPC, Ft.
Stormwater Project No
Request for Additional
Bragg, North Carolina
SW6120302
Information
Subject: Responses to Request for Additional Information
Dear Mr. Lowther:
We have addressed your review comments and offer the following responses to the
questions listed below. Please note that we have coordinated these responses with you
prior to this submittal to ensure that we address all of your concerns.
The project must control and treat runoff from the first one inch of rain for all of the
added Built Upon Area (BUA) on the site. The current design bypasses some of the
stormwater from the new BUA and does not treat all of the stormwater. Again,
existing BUA may be treated in lieu of treating the new BUA. Please revise the
design to treat the stormwater from the proposed BUA and update all the
appropriate forms. Please also include a summary of the existing BUA and the
amount added. We may consider the underground detention as treatment but it is
the burden of the designer to provide enough information to show how the design
meets the rules.
Response:
In order to comply with this request for additional information we have:
a) Added a drawing and a table to the IPF Water Quality Calculations (See attached),
showing all of the existing BUA areas and all of the Bypass BUA and demonstrated by
detailed calculation that the existing BUA treated area exceeds the bypass BUA by
1,995 SF for the In/Out Processing facility. As you can see, watersheds CA-3 and CA-
4 do not have existing Built Upon Areas, whereas watersheds CA-5 and CA-6 do. The
June 14, 2012 Page 1 of 3

VZesponses to Request for Additional Information
numbers on the calculation sheets and the forms reflect this. The existing built upon
areas are shown hatched in green and their areas called out (740 SF draining to area
CA-5 and 3,880 SF draining to area CA-6, for a total Existing BUA treated of 4,620
SF). The bypass BUAs are shown in blue their areas are Bypass BUA-1=534 SF,
Bypass BUA-2=69 SF, Bypass BUA-3=322 SF and Bypass BUA-4=1,700 SF fora total
area of 2,625 SF.
b) We have increased the size of the bio-retention basin to the north of the POV lot to
ensure that all of the Water Quality Volume is treated by basin IPF-RG#4. The
remainder of the basins treats all of the water quality volumes for their respective
sub -areas.
c) We have updated all of the Bioretention Cell Supplement forms and form SWU-101
and provided a summary calculation in a spreadsheet form showing the
comparison of existing BUA verses proposed BUA. We have also shown and
stated that a total of 4,620 SF of existing Build Upon Area is treated to account for
a total of 2,625 SF of bypass built upon area.
Please note that the project controls and treats the first inch of rain for all of the added
built upon areas (except the bypass areas). A total of 4,620 SF of existing Build Upon
Area is treated to account for a total of 2,625 SF of bypass built upon area.
2. Please provide a summary or calculation that clearly shows the comparison of
existing BUA verse proposed BUA and how much is treated.
Response:
Please see response to 1 above.
3. Please update the tree planting detail to match our requirements in the BMP for
plant trees in ,bioretention cells. See 12.3.8. Step 8: Select Plants and Mulch in the
BMP manual for more information.
Response:
Landscape drawings L-501 and L-503 were updated to meet the requirements of the
NCDENR BMP manual requirements and specifically section 12.3.8 Step 8 requirements.
In addition to the items described above, please find two full size sets of the following NC
signed and sealed drawings:
C-115, C-116, C-130, C-510, C-510A, L-501, L-503. These sheets correspond to the
Bioretention Cell Supplement forms listed in item 1(c) above.
June 14, 2012 Page 2 of 3

4Responses to Request for Additional Information
Please note that the bioretention Maintenance agreements were submitted earlier.
Should you have any questions, please let us know.
Sincerely
1� er
Nick S. Yeretzian, PE
Civil Engineer
Cc: Joe Landrum/ BWSC
Lee Ward/ Fort Bragg DPW Water Management Branch
James Kramek/ Better Built Clark
Damon Halsey/ Better Built Clark
enclosures
June 14, 2012 Page 3 of 3

8280 Yankee Street
Dayton, Ohio 45458-1806
[phone]
[phone] Fax
VIA FedEx
TO: Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
SUBJECT: 3ra BCT IOPC, Ft. Bragg, North Carolina
Stormwater Management Permit
TRANSMITTED HEREWITH ARE THE FOLLOWING -
DATE: March 16, 2012
FILE NO. 3520200/6000
. BARGE
WAGOONER
8 L]MNER &
CANNON, INC.
NO,
COPIES
DATE
DESCRIPTION
1
03/17/2012
Stormwater Management Permit Application and check
2
03/17/2012
Two sets of full size plans folded to 8.5"x14"
1
03/17/2012
Stormwater permit narrative and USGS map showing project location
1
03/17/2012
Bioretention cell supplements A total of 3
1
03/17/2012
Operation and Maintenance agreements A total of 3
1
03/17/2012
(1) Stormwater Calculations Report and (1) Soil Report
REMARKS Please note contact phone number and email address provided on permit application form.
"VIAR i U 201Z
COPY TO: DERR•WATER QUAUTY
VEiMDSAWST4RWp 7A RWSp
File
Joe Landrum, Joe Bissaillon, Jeremy Kramek By
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.
C-CZAA9 -- 4
eretzian, PE
11Da0011usersSlysyeretz1an\My Documents\MyFiles\Projects\Fort
Bragg\Correspondence\TR 1203 1 6b_NCDENR.doCXEqual Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Lowther, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag
Flag Status:
Brian
Nick Yeretzian [[e-mail]]
Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:13 PM
Lowther, Brian
Steve Schultz; Joe Landrum; James Kramek
Re: Stormwater Project No. SW6120302 - Requested Additional Information for the In/Out
Processing Facility
IPF Water Quality Calculations and forms.pdf; BCT`---C-115--.pdf; BCT_---C-116--.pdf;
BCT-w---C-510_--.pdf; BCT-----C-510A--.pdf
Follow up
Completed
We received the Request for Additional Information for the above referenced project. Before we resubmit, I would like
to make sure that we are providing the correct additional information needed to secure the water quality permit.
We have done the following to address your request:
Added a drawing and a table to the IPF Water Quality Calculations (See attached), showing all of the existing
BUA areas and all of the Bypass BUA and demonstrated by detailed calculation that the existing BUA treated
area exceeds the bypass BUA by 1,995 SF forthe In/Out Processing facility. As you can see, watersheds CA-3 and
CA-4 do not have existing Built Upon Areas, whereas watersheds CA-5 and CA-6 do. The numbers on the
calculation sheets and the forms reflect this. The existing built upon areas are shown hatched in green and their
areas called out (740 SF draining to area CA-5 and 3,880 SF draining to area CA-6, for a total Existing BUA treated
of 4,620 SF). The bypass BUAs are shown in blue their areas are Bypass BUA-1=534 SF, Bypass BUA-2=69 SF,
Bypass BUA-3=322 SF and Bypass BUA-4=1,700 SF for a total area of 2,625 5F.
We have increased the size of the bio-retention basin to the north of the PQV lot to ensure that all of the Water
Quality Volume is treated by basin IPF-RG#4. The remainder of the basins treat all of the water quality volumes
for their respective sub -areas.
3. We have updated all of the Bioretention Cell Supplement forms and form SWU-101 and provided a summary
calculation in a spreadsheet form showing the comparison of existing BUA verses proposed BUA. We have also
shown and stated that a total of 4,620 SF of existing Build Upon Area is treated to account for a total of 2,625 SF
of bypass built upon area.
The project controls and treats the first inch of rain for all of the added built upon areas (except the bypass areas). A
total of 4,620 SF of existing Build Upon Area is treated to account for a total of 2,625 SF of bypass built upon area.
We would like to ask you to please review the submitted information and let us know if we are on the right track prior to
making our official submittal to you. We will update the landscaping drawings per your latest landscape comments as
part of the final submittal and upon hearing back from you that we are on the right track.
Please note that the final drawings will be seated and signed by NC engineer and landscape architect as we have done
before. We plan to submit the same type of information for the HQ facility for input from you prior to our official
submittal.
Your timely response is greatly appreciated and we are working diligently to adhere to all of the NCDENR requirements
to secure the stormwater permits as soon as possible.

Thanks
Nick
BWSC Privacy Clause
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary,
and/or privileged material, Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. It you received this in error, please contact the sender,
delete the material from all computers, and destroy any copies of this document.
Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
bttp:ll www.bargewaggoner. com
Think Green: Only print this e-mail and any attachment if necessary.

Lowther, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Brian:
Nick Yeretzian [[e-mail]]
Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:59 PM
Lowther, Brian
Steve Schultz; Joe Landrum; James Kramek
RE: Stormwater Project No. SW6120303 - Requested Additional Information for the
Headquarters Facility
BCT_---- C-509--.pdf; BCT_---C-113--.pdf; BCT---- C-505--.pdf; BCT_---C-507--.pdf;
BCT----C-508--,pdf; Headquarters Water Quality Calculations, pdf
Fallow up
Completed
We received the Request for Additional Information for the above referenced project. Similar to the In/Out Processing
Facility, before we resubmit, I would like to make sure that we are providing the correct additional information needed
to secure the water quality permit.
We have done the following to address your request:
Added a drawing and a table to the Headquarters Water Quality Calculations (See attached), showing the
existing BUA, added BUA areas and, the Bypass BUAs. The drawing and the tables in the spreadsheet
calculations are color coded for ease of reference. All existing BUAs are shown in purple, the blue areas are the
BUA bypass, the yellow areas are the added BUAs and finally the hatched green areas are the existing BUAs
which are being treated to account for the added BUA bypass areas.
2. We have increased the sizes of bio-retention basins (BHQ-RG#1 and BHQ-RG#2) to ensure that all of the Water
Quality Volume, and not a portion of it, is treated by these basins. See attached drawing C-509.
3. We have updated all of the Bioretention Cell Supplement forms and form SWU-101 and provided a summary
calculation in a spreadsheet form showing the comparison of existing BUA verses proposed BUA.
The project controls and treats the first inch of rain for all of the added built upon areas (except the bypass areas). A
total of 8,027 SF of added BUA is bypassed. We are able to treat a total of 6,079 SF of existing BUA to offset the BUA
bypass. Although there is a difference of 1,948 SF of bypass BUA, this run-off will not be directly released to the storm
sewer system. A total of 5,663 SF of added BUA bypass (of the total 8,027 SF) is directed to an underground detention
basin before it is released. The entire parking lot to the east of the proposed HQ facility will drain to an underground
extended detention basin before it is released to the storm sewer system. We have attached drawings C-505, C-507 and
C-508 depicting the underground basin where the bypass run-off will discharge to. We are requesting that you look into
the possibility of considering the extended detention basin as a means of treatment for the difference (0.04 ac). Please
note that although the detention basin is less efficient in removing the total suspended solids as the bio-retention
basins, we are treating a larger volume (5,663 SF) by this method to account for the difference.
As discussed with you over the phone last week, there is a possibility that the parking lot, to the east of the
Headquarters facility, may increase in size. Should the parking expansion become a reality we plan to apply for an
amendment to the stormwater quality permit we are procuring for this site. Please let us know if this route (amending
the permit) is feasible and if not, can you please provide us with suggestions as to how to proceed regarding this matter.
Similar to the In/Out Processing Facility submittal, we would like to ask you to please review this information and let us
know if we are on the right track prior to making our official submittal to you. We will update the landscaping drawings

per your latest landscape comments as part of the final submittal and upon hearing back from you that we are on the
right track.
Please note that the final drawings will be sealed and signed by NC engineer and landscape architect as we have done
before.
Your timely response is greatly appreciated and we are working diligently to adhere to all of the NCDENR requirements
to secure the stormwater permits as soon as possible.
Thanks
Nick
BWSC Privacy Clause
The information transmitted is 'intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary,
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender,
delete the material front all computers, and destroy any copies of this document.
lulual lamploymmit OpportunityiARninative Action Employer
htto:/!W%""'rf Irgccovageoner.com
Think Green: Only print this c-maii and any aitachnitnt if necessary.

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

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

Similar to the In/Out Processing Facility submittal, we would like to ask you to please review this information and let us
know if we are on the right track prior to making our official submittal to you. We will update the landscaping drawings
per your latest landscape comments as part of the final submittal and upon hearing back from you that we are on the
right track.
Please note that the final drawings will be sealed and signed by NC engineer and landscape architect as we have done
before.
Your timely response is greatly appreciated and we are working diligently to adhere to all of the NCDENR requirements
to secure the stormwater permits as soon as possible.
7ifTil!�?
Nick
BWSC Privacy Clause
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary,
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the sender,
delete the material from all computers, and destroy any copies of this document.
l'40 timplovnium OppialtmiWAI'lirmative Action Employer
It tip:Y/w,Nvw, ha rgcwaggoner.coni
Think Greek Only print this e-mail anti any attachment if necessary.
BWSC Privacy Clause
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary,
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender,
delete the material from aii computers, and destroy any copies of this document.
liqual Iimploynicnl {lpixirtunirylAClirnrttiyc:laiim l'smpioper
httpW"-ww,hargewageoner.com
Think Green: Only print this e-mail and any attachment if necessary.

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

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

Similar to the In/Out Processing Facility submittal, we would like to ask you to please review this information and let us
know if we are on the right track prior to making our official submittal to you. We will update the landscaping drawings
per your latest landscape comments as part of the final submittal and upon hearing back from you that we are on the
right track.
Please note that the final drawings will be sealed and signed by NC engineer and landscape architect as we have done
before.
Your timely response is greatly appreciated and we are working diligently to adhere to all of the NCDENR requirements
to secure the stormwater permits as soon as possible.
Thanks
Nick
BWSC Privacy Clause
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary,
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender,
delete the material from all computers, and destroy any copies of this document,
Egnai Emplomient OpporuurityiAflirmatire Action Finploycr
httPW%k1%'.bargcwaggoner.com
"think Green: Only print this e-mail and any attachment irnecessary.
BWSC Privacy Clause
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary,
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender,
delete the material from ah computers, and destroy any copies of this document.
Equal lintploymcnl ()pportwriq'/Afiirntaliie Action I mi�loycr
hill):/ix%,,.vw,ImTge%yaggoner.com
Think Green: Only print this e-mail and arm attachment if necessary,

Lowther, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Brian:
Nick Yeretzian [[e-mail]]
Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:59 PM
Lowther, Brian
Steve Schultz; Joe Landrum; James Kramek
RE: Stormwater Project No. SW6120303 - Requested Additional Information for the
Headquarters Facility
BCT_----C-509--.pdf; BCT=---C-113--.pdf; BCT-----C-505--.pdf; BCT=---C-507--.pdf;
BCT_---C-508--.pdf; Headquarters Water Quality Calculations.pdf
Follow up
Completed
We received the Request for Additional Information for the above referenced project. Similar to the in/Out Processing
Facility, before we resubmit, I would like to make sure that we are providing the correct additional information needed
to secure the water quality permit.
We have done the following to address your request:
1. Added a drawing and a table to the Headquarters Water Quality Calculations (See attached), showing the
existing BUA, added BUA areas and, the Bypass BUAs. The drawing and the tables in the spreadsheet
calculations are color coded for ease of reference. All existing BUAs are shown in purple, the blue areas are the
BUA bypass, the yellow areas are the added BUAs and finally the hatched green areas are the existing BUAs
which are being treated to account for the added BUA bypass areas.
We have increased the sizes of bio-retention basins (BHQ-RG41 and BHQ-RG#2) to ensure that all of the Water
Quality Volume, and not a portion of it, is treated by these basins. See attached drawing C-509.
3. We have updated all of the Bioretention Cell Supplement forms and form SWU-101 and provided a summary
calculation in a spreadsheet form showing the comparison of existing BUA verses proposed BUA.
The project controls and treats the first inch of rain for all of the added built upon areas (except the bypass areas). A
total of 8,027 SF of added BUA is bypassed. We are able to treat a total of 6,079 SF of existing BUA to offset the BUA
bypass. Although there is a difference of 1,948 SF of bypass BUA, this run-off will not be directly released to the storm
sewer system. A total of 5,663 SF of added BUA bypass (of the total 8,027 SF) is directed to an underground detention
basin before it is released. The entire parking lot to the east of the proposed HQ facility will drain to an underground
extended detention basin before it is released to the storm sewer system. We have attached drawings C-505, C-507 and
C-508 depicting the underground basin where the bypass run-off will discharge to. We are requesting that you look into
the possibility of considering the extended detention basin as a means of treatment for the difference (0.04 ac). Please
note that although the detention basin is less efficient in removing the total suspended solids as the bio-retention
basins, we are treating a larger volume (5,663 SF) by this method to account for the difference.
As discussed with you over the phone last week, there is a possibility that the parking lot, to the east of the
Headquarters facility, may increase in size. Should the parking expansion become a reality we plan to apply for an
amendment to the sormwater quality permit we are procuring for this site. Please let us know if this route (amending
the permit) is feasible and if not, can you please provide us with suggestions as to how to proceed regarding this matter.
Similar to the In/Out Processing Facility submittal, we would like to ask you to please review this information and let us
know if we are on the right track prior to making our official submittal to you. We will update the landscaping drawings

per your latest landscape comments as part of the final submittal and upon hearing back from you that we are on the
right track.
Please note that the final drawings will be sealed and signed by NC engineer and landscape architect as we have done
before.
Your timely response is greatly appreciated and we are working diligently to adhere to all of the NCDENR requirements
to secure the stormwater permits as soon as possible.
Thanks
Nick
BWSC Privacy Clause
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary,
and/or privileged material, Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender,
delete the material morn all computers, and destroy any copies of this document,
F(IiW I:mploYmeol i)phortuniiyiAfliirnzttirc Action I mploycr
http://_vk-%; -.birge}vaggonercorn
Think Green: Only print this c-mail and any attachment if ncc"sary,

Lowther, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag
Flag Status:
Brian:
Nick Yeretzian [[e-mail]]
Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:13 PM
Lowther, Brian
Steve Schultz; Joe Landrum; James Kramek
Re: Stormwater Project No. SW6120302 - Requested Additional Information for the In/Out
Processing Facility
IPF Water Quality Calculations and forms.pdf; BCT—---C-115--.pdf; BCT=---C-116--.pdf;
BCT_----C-510= -.pdf; BCT_---C-51OA--.pdf
Follow up
Completed
We received the Request for Additional Information for the above referenced project. Before we resubmit, I would like
to make sure that we are providing the correct additional information needed to secure the water quality permit.
We have done the following to address your request:
Added a drawing and a table to the IPF Water Quality Calculations (See attached), showing all of the existing
BUA areas and all of the Bypass BUA and demonstrated by detailed calculation that the existing BUA treated
area exceeds the bypass BUA by 1,995 SF for the In/Out Processing facility. As you can see, watersheds CA-3 and
CA-4 do not have existing Built Upon Areas, whereas watersheds CA-5 and CA-6 do. The numbers on the
calculation sheets and the forms reflect this. The existing built upon areas are shown hatched in green and their
areas called out (740 SF draining to area CA-5 and 3,880 SF draining to area CA-6, for a total Existing BUA treated
of 4,620 SF). The bypass BUAs are shown in blue their areas are Bypass BUA-1=534 SF, Bypass BUA-2=69 SF,
Bypass BUA-3=322 SF and Bypass BUA-4=1,700 SF for a total area of 2,625 SF.
2. We have increased the size of the bio-retention basin to the north of the POV lot to ensure that all of the Water
Quality Volume is treated by basin IPF-RG#4. The remainder of the basins treat all of the water quality volumes
for their respective sub -areas.
3. We have updated all of the Bioretention Cell Supplement forms and form SWU-101 and provided a summary
calculation ina spreadsheet form showing the comparison of existing BUA verses proposed BUA. We have also
shown and stated that a total of 4,620 SF of existing Build Upon Area is treated to account for a total of 2,625 SF
of bypass built upon area.
The project controls and treats the first inch of rain for all of the added built upon areas (except the bypass areas). A
total of 4,620 SF of existing Build Upon Area is treated to account for a total of 2,625 SF of bypass built upon area.
We would like to ask you to please review the submitted information and let us know if we are on the right track prior to
making our official submittal to you. We will update the landscaping drawings per your latest landscape comments as
part of the final submittal and upon hearing back from you that we are on the right track.
Please note that the final drawings will be sealed and signed by NC engineer and landscape architect as we have done
before. We plan to submit the same type of information for the HQ facility for input from you prior to our official
submittal.
Your timely response is greatly appreciated and we are working diligently to adhere to all of the NCDENR requirements
to secure the stormwater permits as soon as possible.

Thanks
Nick
BWSC Privacy Clause
The information transmitted is intended only For the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary,
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. if you received this in error, please contact the sender,
delete the material from all computers, and destroy any copies of this document.
Eguai Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-
http://www.bargewaQQoner.com
Think Green: Only print this e-mail and any attachment if necessary.

I
BY DATE SUBJECT SHEeT NO. OF
CHKO. BY DATE JOB NO.
SW 12- 0 30
fa Cc J4-- Corr, �., 1. 1 ea m Com . e-A
f t C u �a �a�• S
!A!!II �
;a SEAL -
031943
��✓,� • h(.. jai ��
BARGE, WAGOONER, SUMMER AND CANNON, INC.

BY,.
CHKD. BY
DATE SUBJECT
DATE
SHEET NO. OF10
JOB NO.
u-) P� + E ks l:t& j 5! .
t i ; RO i E c i co K IS s, 5; 'n r. ! tTL- � D. u s_TaQ cTl oI P J ; -o i= S i u 6 L' - -I
,STTAy 1-N�a.uT oR0 c - SSA; 3 C� ACl-I��;-T _� }�6� 7_-tZL'..._tKPAk S) U�tJ
'dT-' ,-fim' - :)(!ji1.N t��V $.� tN.G 1r01.'.
L
E-w c-t L l ; y_ _'PAS P trr' o F-- .
i , S _ a ► _ au } L--r u Po 0K1
CONSIST , Dom., rQU. Qj P'-j_
�
i (tAK
► S (:g r1.1-1 scluAda-° -F LE c Tmt-- �; .N� ��x�s�t►�_C�
i u .t LT __ue0 J P[_,Rx ft S S A -71t L�" w:as.It 4 . --
OT.gL �u_i_Z6GATl7— —
._S f"_._. TL'jry l4(1L 11JD { x.i ZuCD __Bu.L
Lj Pd t\J A�S C �3 L/ f�i 1 } 1L] 76�- 1S .- Lb Pr: i2�e-S�-
7H TEA L_ � fl i'" A �r LQ- .Pc -row ; w_. _C'
gui�
u Qa ti t PI-5 �Lsu 1 S Ljj A-;t_FiP S t�-7� ,
� I
tj -N ftRZ'-A . t' . c A - Co
t.S f�-+S i i N. Cam; Sur L - L, 0 1.1
AnIN-71-6— to C=, abJ
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.
N�rC�'

BY., DATE
CHKD. BY DATE
SUBJECT
SHEET NO. 3 OF�
JOB NO.
a
cL j: .:4�
13 4-
17
' I
a kk
00
v
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY DATE SUBJECT _ SHEET NO, — 1 OF lb
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
f� LtiC,ALLI.ItrPs ii01S_i
U 0 L c.:u_ N - i;—:: Z� U
t r.1 .� v S.l. o. tJ o r . - _ w fl —)F- v9' �- V A Lr I-T `(r
STn b� M��_P;� r� � � S T M A I� .R . G F .IJ� t , DJ T � ►A L11 c�, � g , � � ti v � L ?l
carte 3 3, s t P..L
E
rYl.
. �u c
-o� ~ U 1 p.ce. s t 0 ►� t M p ? ; U. �`-.nv -,j
I
i
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY DATE SUBJECT _ SHEET NO, OF�
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
W 4_�
I I i I i
I ,
� .. _�� COT-� � �- I _l��r_4.�.S,pi S. �._-� _I� � o=, 2 �'-- �•-�' - _i _ _� -_ ,
kzUv'�
} 8Z
i E / I� I ' I } i ' [
I
. � I
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC. I

BY. DATE SUBJECT _ SHEET NO. (Q OF�
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
J jQ._
I 1
<- - t
i I
_ ,+
cc
413
61
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY- DATE SUBJECT
CHKD. BY DATE
SHEET NO. _;�: OF_
JOB NO.
(n u..i
I
i 1 I 1 k I I
✓Zo o;r ) 12'Pr 1 w 5. r o rC _w e i �. Ks ,h-+
.4 -A - 3. Pt LL LA U'F— L1
-,R� �_�eRi' �ti►�� Trr.�,� . �� ��+� nr- �iL"=G(�'.�1:s�s �'���,�4.�:RRS��oN��.s.i��� _�
Rov7z'�� (T 1T'li 5 -'its r.t:-r2
I I
- i;sGl1-4& ZS 'T>6-S)i3 r R)6,*OtiL�l1�1Ai).)616'.
co - S i- T. t� r w. _ fit: N G r� N rJ _ c� �-�,o ui . I —. h j C lfi �t ►�. AJ L
v S U its.- LF—S VV� t� oJ 2 - r=/',5 T 0, :kc)-s.�
CX .NOT
-
'
III1 I
I _
,
i
• o
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY- DATE SUBJECT SHEET NO.
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
OF J()—
�RPtItiJ L C��,ftila
�tOULl1t ;I r_k� s., u_� So4�s. ��rti,� ►, i
l fC L_ (
SFPCti��i
iNlJ,rr51_vr_OUv__�_FZ,po2T
a►'3DIeR.,S,
1rF55
:>H Rti] �t51_CA>gL « ,�� iJLP, ¢106�7_ `2A-i S
c).lo Ta Q r +X_ I N cm -S __ P + � ' Ltn u
U. tiJ 17. � PJ_ re._i� r ►� S .� CJ.� t �� _ !3 � ,�' � C�-v_ , r2 � �,
G
., _ I
- -
T.1 ttzL. _ S_ -_AS o f"A A i� 4 fl 16!Iq :.. Ll+ _� i � �' _i _ .1 iA S.L r�
� t r--)�-�'
I S S' i7 sy- �l c �:� r`-a �i .. �3 a _ ��
r.�� o
I MP L: L Pu�-L N i 1 oo ` m
.
a
U P, P" i 'LS L'C
FL-rIDS ,pL_Gt.-F-.f-- lD
'�'�loE. of . 17
r '
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY . DATE
CHKD.BY DATE
SUBJECT
SHEET NO. OF ID
JOB NO.
V_ her- 1�I�.'fLf ;_►j
�1[�`�►Jt�, ��a�n►�w ��_� �'�n.P ' r�nA�vu�,L��- S� Gc�o.1�1 _ S', �;).,
k A ,L �] S. CS .; t +JtS /, M t 1-{ o.n o. LO V Y 1 S i 7�
S t'v ►`]_ % q E- r-n 2;Pt �r.i SYST N\
`T r .. _ I r`t :t eLA-T af'. K A T'�-- o -.. 'Ttr E ' So t.L mE-L) I r°c _ Q—s
' .1 S � 2 _ LNC:Cj >✓5 ;. �� i2 i �:Oi.7Y� � � i
su=� �� R►crlo►:1 Of-- M!5�,R I S
6aX-6_o
-_ - _ -t.._ i . - - � � Lr �1D,-T�TCA pan,; � � � -• ,
,
t
r �r_r y _ R.0
3/t
f rfle`�� f G r� 1 e
R'ov Gne k-,o - 0,6 11
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY, DATE SUBJECT
CHKD.BY DATE
SHEET NO. 10OF�
JOB NO.
_'� � o _�� i �-►.��o� :�tt51 t� � � ._�� R'1,1�r�.�C or= Sr'I�]Gl� PEP_ �'.►�.-
1'p��G3
L '
�j STo R kw t"+Irut_P .IM.
IQ _ kZ• -" K 11.pM fl51N E
I 1
,
I I
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

STORMWATER PROJECT NO. SW6120302
3'RD BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM COMPLEX
IN/OUT PROCESSING FACILITY
WATER QUALITY SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS
RESUBMITTAL
June 5, 2012

Trd Brigade Combat Team Complex
in/Out Processing Facility
Summary of proposed Water Quality BMP watershed information
BMP Draiange Area
Basin Information
CA-3
CA-4
CA-5
CA-6
Total Drainage Area
18,111.00
10,966.00
14,375.00
28,883.00
On -site Buildings
7,577.00
7,175,00
-
-
On -Site Streets
-
-
5,130.00
-
On -site Parking
-
-
-
15,887.00
On -site Sidewalks
1,344.00
407.00
1,404.00
-
Existing BUA
-
-
740.001
3,880.00
Bypass BUA
Area
BUA-1
534.00
BUA-2
69.00
BUA-3
322.00
BUA-4 1
1,700.00
Total Bypass BUA 1 2,625.00
Total Existing BUA 4,620.0D
Total Bypass BUA 2,625.00
The total existing BUA treated is larger than bypass BUA by 1 1,995.00 SF

�f
CA-6
{ TOTAL AREA=28,883 SF
I'
PARKING= 15,887 SF
EXISTING BUA=3,880 SF
EXISTING BUA=3,880 S.F.
DRAINING TO CA-6
CA-5
TOTAL AREA= 4,375 SF
STREETS- 5,f
WALKS=1,404 SF
--- BYPASS BUA-1=534 SFJ,�
1
1
EXISTING BUA-740 S.F.
DRAINING TO CA-5
rfI - CA-4
�.- TOTAL G E.6 SF
175 SF
i 1 0 % .; WALKS=407 �SFCA 3
_.. t
TOTAL AREA=18,111 SF
BUILDING=7,577 SF
WALKS=1,344 SF j
BYPASS BUA-4=1,700 SF ---
TOTAL BYPA S BUA = 2,625 SF
TOTAL EXISTING BUA TREATED = 4,520 SF
I
BYPASS BUA-2=69 S
--� -- BYPASS BUA-3=322 SF

, 1 1
BY DATESUBJECT
CHKD. BY DATE
v. a AT R 0 u i4L 1" s� C AL. L U L P,-)-L 011J S
SHEET NO. "1 OF
JOB NO.
w PR i ' aU 14LL i 1 Y U 0L cU fN` F— l =� GALGv.�� ►� LJ-a ? kJb —1 �t r
Ct�'— V 0 [— I �j } S 1 0 0 w P, F— 'R, L3 v�A-' L 1-T �( ?
1 � L) rri 1 r u (N.� .� rrl
ti r �i.2 _ Cl e Si d� n s� t vrn
64; (m dal i 1, { Gti Sp
1 ll J
DS
1 r 1n? r V )O U. � ra L�l' \Q 1� 1 M1� U 1 zu
�I}or- O-v area L f11 0're_d�
dfArf A G C..
re U11i C�e-ss
�J
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY DATE
CHKD.BY DATE
SUBJECT
i.u�i i �1P �uL�iY �pLumt CAL�uL,{ti��fvS
0.05 t 0 (0'�
t-u i ASH CA
SHEET NO. 5 OF - 0
JOB NO.
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY DATE
CHKD.BY DATE
SUBJECT
L-0 D i e 4S vt G i C a- 3
SHEET NC. _4_CF_11)
JOB NO,
37 j
-7 z?4 0.5
• DS o,q�p.51
o•SI
Kb 33
5 . F O.6�, o�
2 8� S Y 3
3

BY DATE SUBJECT SHEET NO. --- OF
CHKD. BY DATE _ JOB NO.
E R061 0 Q Cam i VzL- f&1:ksu kF S
I tt a��+✓ � rRoi� ►2oo�! Z) VLA ►js FOK, wAi E: CIS hti-E)S
to-3 ,-utLL LAtFvr ko�lur- `1L0C-L?1rS
R1 P P-f�� 1� Th+� �r`1 or 1"iL. CL"s �,���, ER ?5torv._ S ie��
L i 5 0 1��Ef�S �� ✓? i?� s�� fl �L
jac scri ,e�w s T© ��s�ra�j l At - P6� t- & A P,P.� Co►kziiiA,-jtd�.)
C5 7— . i P L a w �� �, t -� C r1 A s j 1,1 P L L o W w r 1 H C l-f A u Aj r L
u-7L DLiii s LEIS5 iVr6 Z._%-i/s k 01)
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY
CHKD, BY
DATE SUBJECT
DATE
a)RFkINAG-t-- CP,LC�--I-A-I,-OJJ3,
SHEET NO. 2 OF
JOB NO,
ALjt'ioL-jvi� tiT_ 1)3 -SIiLA sol�-.5 .spc.-}'1jl�'(
�j --� i
L— Y I j lJ Z-5I Ca idf J� Q r� i i= 0 R77 11 1�� �. A i iJ � � L5 5
2 A i F— -S C-, ! tii Ca r- re-o rv�
t-to u'Q .
L) Q + 6 ,A, s u 1, >rL 6 r R[;-t-, I re L
5F 6Iq Uu A i —P, TN L;^ ZDtPT-! 4F— i
ki C Z-1 -L S —c' S ft i`l S7- + C 78 P—Y -6 R 1 - t�' +`� i a.s'11 U L� �� r $.j
I- o i� � „} 1= c � T rz� p n] ./� P,- + �5 P ►�'� � �' �-s v � 1 � L �-� � �� i-}. u-1 f, i � �
Prf�L
G yo LL Lq C-L-1 0 t A c_ rQ-j:-,0a P 1
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

t
BY DATE SUBJECT
CHKD.BY DATE
��ESIclQ 0+-fit UI)Tr`Ak-A-IQ �-k.
SHEET NO. r OF
JOB NO.
V n1 P� k A t� .SYS i:F- A-k-S M E-1-i o D a LO G Y 1-S V.S i� } o
E S t 6,1\3 1 r_ u ul� f- 2f� /t\j K
-I } tJ t i� o 6� ^ �` - o+- T �i So L nn>~J I )A
1 2 - t NLtj G-:a, Houe-
_dire
Q xz V r
{�
L sftSl r� ►.► . ,. ��
i-T�:0Zo0 AS I �j P'E Irf, RGf CFs
d , zi22
I 3-7(�
r 3�$
L C0.5
1 +�
r
c'19
.o
XO
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

BY
CHKO. BY.
DATE SUBJECT
DATE
+3 1 O -K!�-T£ L- 101'� S ft�'1 Q
SHEET NO. _��OF�-
JOB NO.
�rfirfA K OQ 6L-a PiPw CI kj
i
ii, z
�•c��
� ,p
IPr — �� #�
• �LI
U S A r� Ca N C_� � ti� s� 2 M Lij S &A M A tj
INS t f j t= Pe3 OR GZu r
ll
1 P t= _ RCa # Z 2 r-- 2-t 1� 't S
Lin Q,PE- S
BARGE, WAGGONER, SUMNER AND CANNON, INC.

0
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP "Setting the Standard for Service"
O+u Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered Engineering RnnF-1073
SC Registered Engineering Firm 3239
October 11, 2011
Ms. Diane Major
Preconstruction Manager
Clark Construction Company
1000 Town center, Suite 2450
Southfield, Michigan 48075
RE: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3rd BCT In/Out Processing Facility
Ardennes Street
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 33:175110P
Dear Ms. Major:
As authorized, we have completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
analysis for the above referenced project. This report presents the findings of our subsurface
exploration and our evaluations, as well as recommendations, regarding geotechnical-related
design and construction considerations for the site.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. We would also at this time like to
express our interest in providing the field construction testing and observation services that will
be required during the construction phase of this project.
Should you have any questions or if we could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Respectfully Submitted,
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
-7t
Thomas B. Baird, P.E. Obf% 8•�
Senior Geotechnical Engineer q
NC PE License No. 016244 Iv i� ►►
L•1_PROJECTSW5i IOP - 3id BCT HeadquarterslRepofl117511OP.doc
Anc V. Geda, P.E.
Principal Engineer
NC PE License No. 035138
\ 726 Ramsey Street, Suite 3, Fayetteville, NC 28301 • T: 910-401-3288 • F: 910-323-0539 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
3RD BCT INIOUT PROCESSING FACILITY
ARDENNES STREET
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
Ms. Diane Major
Preconstruction Manager
Clark Construction Company
1000 Town Center, Suite 2450
Southfield, Michigan 48075
ECS PROJECT NUMBER 33:175110P
October 11, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................................................................I
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................1
1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION....................................................................................................................1
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION............................................................................... .................3
...........................
2.1 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES..................................................................................................................3
2.2 INFILTRATION TEST PROCEDURES...........................................................................................................3
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING........................................................................................................................4
3.1 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM...........................................................................................................4
3.2 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION.........................................................................................................................4
3.3 LABORATORY TESTING METHODS...........................................................................................................4
3. 3.1 Moisture Content Tests.................................................................................................................
4
3.3.2 Atterberg Limits.............................................................................................................................
4
3.3.3 Percent of Particles Finer Than the U.S. Standard No. 200 Mesh Sieve......................................5
3.3.4 Modified Proctor............................................................................................................................5
3.3.5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR}.....................................................................................................5
4.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS....................................................................................................................6
4.1 SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................6
4.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................6
4.3 SOIL CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................................6
4.4 GROUNDWATER.....................................................................................................................................7
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................8
5.1 FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................................................................8
5.2 SETTLEMENT..............................................................................................................................:...........9
5.3 FLOOR SLABS....................................................................................................................... .................
5.4 SEISMIC SITE CLASS DETERMINATION.....................................................................................................9
5.5 SITE DRAINAGE....................................................................................................................................10
5.6 GROUNDWATER CONTROL....................................................................................................................10
5.7 CUT AND FILL SLOPES..........................................................................................................................10
5.8 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................................10
5.9 PAVEMENTS.........................................................................................................................................11
5.10 RETAINING WALLS.............................................................................................................................12
5.11 C-130 FOUNDATION...........................................................................................................................13
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................14
6.1 SITE PREPARATION AND CLEARING.......................................................................................................14
6.2 FILL PLACEMENT AND SOIL COMPACTION..............................................................................................15
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS.......................................................................................................................16
APPENDICES:
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Unified Soil Classification System, Reference Notes for Boring Logs, Subsurface
Cross -Section, Boring Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Testing Summary
Appendix D General Conditions
Appendix E Procedures Regarding Field Logs, Laboratory Data Sheets, and Samples

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
V BCT in/Out Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33.175110P
October 11, 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECS Carolinas, LLP (ECS) has completed a report of subsurface exploration and geotechnical
engineering services for the for the new T6 Brigade Combat Team (BCT) In/Out Processing
Facility located at Ardennes Street on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North
Carolina. This summary should not be considered apart from the entire text of the report with
all the qualifications and conditions mentioned herein.
The project entails the construction of the new 3rd BCT In/Out Processing Facility at Ardennes
Street on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The in/out
processing facility will be located to the northwest of the 82"1 Airborne Division Museum. The
in/out processing building will be a one-story steel -framed structure with a concrete slab -on -
grade floor. The proposed finished floor elevation is 378.75 feet. Structural loading information
was not furnished. To facilitate our analysis, we have assumed maximum column and wall
loads will not exceed 100 kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. Other improvements to
the site include paved service drives and parking areas, and three retention ponds. Also
included in the project, is the relocation of the C-130.
Based on the existing topography across the proposed in/out processing facility, earth cuts and
fill placement on the order of 2 to 3 feet will be required to establish the building and pavement
design elevations. At the new C-130 site earth cuts up to about 8 feet will be required to
establish design elevations.
The subsurface conditions at site were explored by drilling eight soil test borings -(BIOP-1
through BIOP-8). Borings BIOP-1 through BIOP-4 were completed in the proposed building
area, boring BIOP-5 was completed at the C-130 relocation site, and borings BIOP-6 through
BHQ-8 were completed in the proposed pavement areas. The borings in the building area were
advanced to depths of about 25 feet below existing site grades with the exception of BIOP-1,
which was advanced to a depth of about 75 feet. The boring at the C-130 relocation site was
advanced to a depth of about 15 feet below existing site grades. The borings in the pavement
areas were advanced to depths of about 5 feet below existing site grades. One bulk sample of
the soils anticipated to be used as pavement subgrade was obtained for laboratory testing. In
addition, three in -situ infiltration tests and seasonal high water table (SHWT) determinations (1-1
through 1-3) were performed at the requested locations on the site.
Borings BIOP-1, BIOP-2, BIOP-3, BIOP-4, BIOP-6, and BlOP-7 initially penetrated a surficial
layer of topsoil. The topsoil was about 2 to 3 inches thick and consists of brown silty sand with
fine roots and organic matter. The topsoil thickness will likely differ at other locations.
Fill was encountered at the ground surface in boring BIOP-8. The fill soils consisted of moist
silty sand and were found to extend to a depth of about 3 feet below the ground surface. The
SPT N-value in the fill was 19 blows per foot (bpf).
The natural site soils are Coastal Plain sediments of sand and clay strata that extend to the 5,
25, and 75-foot depths explored. The sand strata consisted of silty sand (SM), clayey sand
(SC), and slightly silty poorly graded sand (SP-SM). The SPT N-values for the sand layers
encountered ranged from 6 to 40 bpf denoting loose to dense relative densities. The clay strata
consisted of sandy clay (CL and CH). The SPT N-values for clay layers ranged from 12 to
greater than 24 bpf indicating stiff to very stiff consistencies.

Groundwater was not observed in the borings at the completion of drilling operations. Boring
cave-in depths ranged from 10 to 58 feet below the existing site grades. Based on observed
conditions, color and degree of saturation of soils, it is our opinion that the long term
groundwater level most likely exists at a depth of 20 feet or more below the existing site grades.
Seasonal variations in groundwater levels should be anticipated due to precipitation changes,
evaporation, surface water runoff, and other factors. Also, perched water conditions may exist
when absorbed surface water becomes trapped above fine grained cohesive soils.
Based on the in -situ infiltration tests, the apparent seasonal high water table is greater that 108
inches below existing grades and infiltrations rates ranged from 0.10 to 0.18 inches per hour at
a depth of 84 inches below existing site grades.
Moderate to highly plastic clayey soils (CH) were encountered in the boring BIOP-1. These
materials have a moderate to high shrink -swell potential and should not be used as structural fill
immediately beneath the building foundations, floor slab, and pavements, but can be used in
landscape areas or hauled off -site. Any moderate to highly plastic soils (CH) encountered at
building foundation bearing grades should be undercut 3 feet and replaced with structural fill in
accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 6.2 Fill Placement and Soil
Compaction. Similarly, any moderate to highly plastic clayey soils encountered at floor slab and
pavement subgrades should be undercut 18 inches and replaced with structural fill. This
recommendation is provided to reduce the potential risk of shrinking and swelling of these
moisture sensitive soils, and the adverse effects to the structures supported by them.
After the subgrades have been prepared as recommended in Section 6 of this report, the
proposed building may be supported on conventional shallow footing foundations and a ground -
supported floor slab. An allowable design soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf is recommended
for footings placed on properly evaluated and approved natural soils and/or engineered fill. At
the southwest corner of the proposed building (boring BIOP-4), loose sand was encountered to
approximately 3 feet below existing site grades. It should be anticipated that up to 3 feet of this
material will require removal and re -compaction.
Based on Section 1615 of the 2009 North Carolina State Building Code the weighted average
N-values from standard penetration testing resulted in a seismic site class of "D".

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
T4 BCT In/Out Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33:175110P
October 11, 2011
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Project Description and Scope of Work
This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
analysis for the new 3rd Brigade Combat Team (BCT) In/Out processing Facility located at
Ardennes Street on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville, North Carolina. We
have been provided with a Site Grading Plan which illustrates the proposed site layout, existing
and proposed grade, and other site features.
The subsurface conditions at site were explored by drilling eight soil test borings (BIOP-1
through BIOP-8). Borings BIOP-1 through BIOP-4 were completed in the proposed building
area, boring BIOP-5 was completed at the C-130 relocation site, and borings BIOP-6 through
BHQ-8 were completed in the proposed pavement areas. The borings in the building area were
advanced to depths of about 25 feet below existing site grades with the exception of BIOP-1,
which was advanced to a depth of about 75 feet. The boring at the C-130 relocation site was
advanced to a depth of about 15 feet below existing site grades. The borings in the pavement
areas were advanced to depths of about 5 feet below existing site grades. One bulk sample of
the soils anticipated to be used as pavement subgrade was obtained for laboratory testing. In
addition, three in -situ infiltration tests and seasonal high water table (SHWT) determinations (1-1
through 1-3) were performed at the requested locations on the site.
The soil test borings were staked in the field by a survey crew prior to our site exploration. The
infiltration tests were located in the field by ECS personnel using measurements off existing site
features. The approximate boring and infiltration test locations are shown on the Boring
Location Plan provided in Appendix A of this report. The ground surface elevations at the
boring locations were interpolated from topographic information provided on the Site Grading
Plan and should be considered approximate.
In conjunction with the soil borings, laboratory testing was performed to help characterize the
soil samples obtained from the drilling operations. This report was prepared based upon the
results of the boring and laboratory data. The purpose of this exploration is to describe the soil
and groundwater conditions that were encountered in the test borings, to analyze and evaluate
the test data obtained, and to submit recommendations regarding foundations, slabs,
pavements, earthwork, construction, and other geotechnical-related considerations of design
and construction.
1.2 Proposed Construction
ECS understands that the project consists of the construction of the new 3rd BCT In/Out
Processing Facility at Ardennes Street on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in Fayetteville,
North Carolina. The inlout processing facility will be located to the northwest of the `2nd
Airborne Division Museum. The in/out processing building will be a one-story steel -framed
structure with a concrete slab -on -grade floor. The proposed finished floor elevation is 378,75
feet. Structural loading information was not furnished. To facilitate our analysis, we have
assumed maximum column and wall loads will not exceed 100 kips and 3 kips per linear foot,
respectively. Other improvements to the site include paved service drives and parking areas,
and three retention ponds. Also included in the project, is the relocation of the C-130.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
Y4 BCT InlOut Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33:175110P
October 11, 2011
Based on the existing topography across the proposed in/out processing facility, earth cuts and
fill placement on the order of 2 to 3 feet will be required to establish the building and pavement
design elevations. At the new C-130 site earth cuts up to about 8 feet will be required to
establish design elevations.
If actual loads and fill heights exceed these assumptions, ECS should be allowed the
opportunity to reassess our recommendations.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3rd BCT In/Out Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33:175110P
October 11, 2011
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
2.1 Exploration Procedures
The soil test borings were completed using truck -mounted CME 75-truck mounted drilling rig.
The borings were advanced using 2-1/ inch I.D. hollow -stem augers. Drilling fluid was not used
to advance the borings.
Representative soil samples were obtained by means of the split -barrel sampling procedure in
general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In this procedure, a 2-inch 0. D. split -
barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches by a 140 pound hammer with a free
fall of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through the final 12 inch
interval is termed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value and is indicated for each
sample on the boring logs.
The SPT N-value can be used to provide a qualitative indication of the in -place relative density
of cohesionless soils. In a less reliable way, SPT N-values provide an indication of consistency
for cohesive soils. These indications of relative density and consistency are qualitative, since
many factors can significantly affect the SPT N-value and prevent a direct correlation between
drill crews, drill rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer -rod -sampler assemblies.
Field logs of the soils encountered in the borings were maintained by the drill crew. The sail
samples obtained from the drilling operations were sealed and were brought to our laboratory
for further examination and testing.
2.2 Infiltration Test Procedures
The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the infiltration test locations were explored
by advancing a hand auger boring. The groundwater level and the seasonal high water table
(SHWT) observed in each hand auger boring at the time of drilling was recorded. An infiltration
test utilizing a compact constant head permeameter was conducted near each hand auger
boring to estimate the infiltration rate for the subsurface soils. Infiltration tests are typically
conducted at two feet above the SHWT. If the SHWT is less than three feet, the test is
conducted at ten inches below the surface elevation.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotochnical Engineering services
Yd BCT InlOul Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33.17511OP .
October 11, 2011
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING
3.1 Laboratory Testing Program
Laboratory tests were performed on a representative portion of the soil samples obtained during
the exploration. These included tests for natural moisture content, Atterberg limits, and
percent of particles finer than the U.S. Standard No. 200 mesh sieve. Modified Proctor
compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were performed on the bulk sample to aid
in evaluating the on -site soils for use as pavement subgrade. The data obtained from the
laboratory tests are included in the Laboratory Testing Summary in Appendix C of this report.
The soil samples collected for this exploration will be retained at our laboratory for a period of
sixty days, after which they will be discarded unless other instructions are received as to their
disposition.
3.2 Visual Classification
An engineer classified each soil sample on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The group symbols for each soil type are
indicated in the parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. A brief
explanation of the USCS is included in Appendix B of this report. The engineer grouped the
various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs. The stratification lines
designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs are approximate; in -situ,
the transitions will be gradual and/or at slightly different elevations/depths.
3.3 Laboratory Testing Methods
3.3.1 Moisture Content Tests
ASTM Designation D2216 gives the standard procedure for determining the moisture content of
soil. The moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water to the weight of solids in
a given soil mass and is usually expressed as a percentage. The moisture content is
determined by weighing a soil sample, thoroughly drying it at a specified temperature, and
weighing it after drying.
3.3.2 Atterberg Limits
ASTM Designation D4318 gives the standard procedure for determining the Plastic and Liquid
Limits of soil. The sample for the Liquid and Plastic limit tests is prepared by removing any
material larger than the #40 (425pm) sieve.
The Liquid ,Limit test is determined by performing multiple trials in which a portion of the
prepared sample is spread in a cup (of specified material and dimensions), divided by a
grooving tool, and allowed to flow together a distance of 1/2 inch by the force of repeatedly
dropping the cup in a standard mechanical device. Data from the multiple trials is plotted with
the water content on the y-axis and the number of drops required to close the groove on the x-

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3rd BCT In/Out Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33.17511OP
October 11, 2011
axis. The Liquid Limit is defined as the water content at which 25 drops are required to close
the groove made in the soil.
The Plastic Limit is determined by rolling a small portion of the prepared soil sample to a thread
with a uniform diameter of 1/8 inch. The thread is rolled into a ball and rerolled into a thread
with a uniform diameter of 1/8 inch. The process is repeated until the thread crumbles and can
no longer be rolled into a thread. The water content of the soil at this point is the Plastic Limit.
The Plasticity Index is defined as the difference between the Liquid Limit and the Plastic Limit.
3.3.3 Percent of Particles Finer Than the U.S. Standard No. 200 Mesh Sieve
ASTM Designation Di 140 gives the standard procedure for determining the amount of material
in a soil finer than the No. 200 (75-microns) sieve. The sample is dried, soaked in water,
agitated, and poured over the No. 200 sieve. The material retained on the No. 200 sieve is
dried, and weighed. The No. 200 sieve represents the boundary in the Unified Classification
System between coarse grained soils (sand) and fine grained soils (silt and clay).
3.3.4 Modified Proctor
ASTM Designation D1557 gives laboratory compaction procedures to determine the
relationship between the water content and dry unit weight of soils. The test is performed by
placing three layers of soil at a selected water content into a mold of specified dimensions and
compacting each layer 25 times with a 10-pound rammer. The rammer is dropped a distance
of 18 inches and subjects the soil sample to a total compactive effort of approximately 56,000
ft-Ib/ft3. The resulting dry unit weight is determined. This procedure is repeated for a sufficient
number of water contents to establish a relationship between 'the dry unit weight and water
content for the soil. This data, when plotted, represents a curvilinear relationship known as the
compaction.
3.3.5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM Designation D1883 gives the test method to determine the California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) of pavement sub -grade sub -base and base/course materials from laboratory compacted
specimens. This test is performed by compacting a soil sample to a specified density using
laboratory compaction techniques. The sample is then soaked for 96 hours and subjected to
penetration by a 2-inch diameter cylindrical piston. The stress at penetrations of 0.1 inch and
0.2 inch In the wet conditions are used to calculate the CBR values for the soil. Typically the
CBR value determined for a penetration of 0.1 inch on the soaked sample is used for pavement
design.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P BCT In/Out Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33:1751top
October 11, 2011
4.0 EXPLORATION RESULTS
4.1 Site Conditions
The site planned for the new in/out processing facility is located to the northwest of the 82nd
Airborne Division Museum. The site is currently a grass cover parade field with the C-130
exhibit. The current site grades are relatively flat with an estimated elevation differential of
about 1 to 3 feet across the proposed building and pavement areas. The C-130 relocation site
is wooded and located to the northeast of the in/out processing facility. The current site grades
at the C-130 relocation site slope downward from the northeast to southwest with an estimated
differential of about 8 feet.
4.2 Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions
The referenced site is located within the Coastal Plain Province of North Carolina. The Coastal
Plain Province is a broad flat plain with widely spaced low rolling hills where the near surface
soils have their origin from the deposition of sediments several million years ago during the
period that the ocean receded from this area to its present location along the Atlantic Coast. It
is noted that the Coastal Plain soils vary in thickness from only a few feet along the western
border to over ten thousand feet in some areas along the coast. The sedimentary deposits of
the Coastal Plain rest upon consolidated rocks similar to those underlying the Piedmont and
Mountain Physiographic Provinces. In general, shallow unconfined groundwater movement
within the overlying soils is largely controlled by topographic gradients. Recharge occurs
primarily by infiltration along higher elevations and typically discharges into streams or other
surface water bodies. The elevation of the shallow water table is transient and can vary greatly
with seasonal fluctuations in precipitation.
4.3 Soil Conditions
The specific soil conditions at each boring location are noted on the individual boring logs
presented in Appendix B. A general description is also provided below. Subsurface conditions
can and often do vary between boring locations and in unexplored areas.
Borings BIOP-1, BIOP-2, BIOP-3, BI0P-4, BIOP-6, and BIOP-7 initially penetrated a surficial
layer of topsoil. The topsoil was about 2 to 3 inches thick and consists of brown silty sand with
fine roots and organic matter. The topsoil thickness will likely differ at other locations.
Fill. was encountered at the ground surface in boring BIOP-8. The fill soils consisted of moist
silty sand and were found to extend to a depth of about 3 feet below the ground surface. The
SPT N-value in the fill was 19 blows per foot (bpf).
The natural site soils are Coastal Plain sediments of sand and clay strata that extend to the 5,
25, and 75-foot depths explored. The sand strata consisted of silty sand, (SM), clayey sand
(SC), and slightly silty poorly graded sand (SP-SM). The SPT N-values for the sand layers
encountered ranged from 6 to 40 bpf denoting loose to dense relative densities. The clay strata
consisted of sandy clay (CL and CH). The SPT N-values for clay layers ranged from 12 to
greater than 24 bpf indicating stiff to very stiff consistencies.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'd BCi In/Out Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33:1751IOP
October 11, 2011
4.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was not observed in the borings at the completion of drilling operations. Boring
cave-in depths ranged from 10 to 58 feet below the existing site grades. Based on observed
conditions, color and degree of saturation of soils, it is our opinion that the long term
groundwater level most likely exists at a depth of 20 feet or more below the existing site grades.
Seasonal variations in groundwater levels should be anticipated due to precipitation changes,
evaporation, surface water runoff, and other factors. Also, perched water conditions may exist
when absorbed surface water becomes trapped above fine grained cohesive soils.
Based upon the in -situ testing performed; the following seasonal high water table and infiltration
rates were obtained. The in -situ infiltration tests were performed at 7 feet below existing site
grades.
Location ID
Seasonal High
Water Table
Infiltration Rates
1-1
> 108 inches
0.10 in/hr
1-2
> 108 inches
0.18 in/hr
1-3
> 108 inches
0.13 in/hr

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
P BCT In/Out Processing Facility
ECS Projoct Number 33:1751IOP
October 11, 2011
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following design and construction recommendations are based on our above -stated
understanding of the proposed construction and on the data obtained from the field exploration
and visual soil classification. If the structural loading, geometry, or proposed building location is
changed, we request the opportunity to review our recommendations in light of the new
information and revise them as necessary. The following recommendations are for design
purposes and may require modification. Any environmental or contaminant assessment efforts
are beyond the scope of this exploration.
5.1 Foundations
After the subgrades have been prepared as recommended in Section 6 of this report, support of
the proposed building may be achieved using conventional shallow spread foundations bearing
directly upon properly evaluated and approved natural soils and/or properly compacted
structural fill. At the southwest corner of the proposed building (boring BIOP-4), loose sand
was encountered from approximately 3 feet below existing site grades. It should be anticipated
that up to 3 feet of this material will require removal and re -compaction. Foundations may be
proportioned for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square
foot.
The exterior foundations should bear at least 18 inches below the adjacent exterior design
grade to afford protective embedment. The interior foundations should bear at least 12 inches
below the floor slab. The edges of "turned -down" slab designs should bear at least 12 inches
below adjacent exterior grades. The column foundation should have a minimum width of 24
inches. The wall foundations should have a minimum width of 18 inches.
Uplift loads can be resisted by the weight of the foundation concrete and the weight of the soil
backfill over the foundations. The unit weight of the soil can be assumed to be 100 pcf. This
unit weight assumes that the soils are compacted to the minimum density recommendations.
Lateral loads can be resisted by passive resistance of the soil as well as friction of the
foundation on the underlying bearing materials. The passive resistance can be calculated
assuming the soil acts as a fluid with an equivalent unit weight of 300 pcf. Soil friction can be
calculated based on the compressive load on the foundation multiplied by a friction coefficient
of 0.4. We recommend a safety factor of at least 2 be used in calculating the restraining forces.
The stability of the site soils encountered at the foundation bearing grades should be
determined with field tests as foundation excavation progresses. As a test procedure, dynamic
cone penetration (DCP) tests should be performed in the foundation excavations as determined
by our project geotechnical engineer. Our project engineer should evaluate the results of the
tests to ascertain that adequate soil bearing capacity is achieved.
Soils loosened by the excavation process should be re -compacted to an acceptable density or
hand trimmed and removed. If unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of a
foundation excavation, it will be necessary to lower the base of the footing through the
unsuitable materials or to undercut the unsuitable soils and to restore original bearing levels by
placing engineered fill materials, No. 57 or No. 67 stone, or flowable fill.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3id BCT In/Out Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33A751IOP
October 11, 2011
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing levels if the
foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation concrete should
be placed during the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing soils are softened by
surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation
excavations prior to placement of concrete. No foundation 'should be constructed on frozen
subgrade.
5.2 Settlement
Total settlements of individual footings, designed in accordance with our recommendations
presented in this report, are expected to be on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement
between any adjacent, similarly -loaded columns is expected to be on the order of '/2 inch.
Sufficient time should be allowed for any newly -placed fill settlements to stabilize prior to
beginning foundation construction.
5.3 Floor Stabs
The slab -on -grade subgrade should be prepared as outlined in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of this
report. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pci is recommended for site soils or properly
placed and compacted structural fill. To reduce curling of the floor slab and the resulting
cracking, proper curing techniques should be used.
We recommend that a capillary cutoff layer be provided under the floor slabs to prevent the rise
of moisture to the slab. The capillary layer should consist, at a minimum, of a 4-inch thick clean
sand, crushed stone or washed gravel layer, having a maximum size of 1.5 inches with a
maximum of 2 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. A vapor barrier should be utilized on top of
the aggregate to provide additional moisture protection. This vapor barrier should be placed
immediately before the placement of the floor slab concrete to help minimize damages. Prior to
placing the aggregate for the capillary cutoff layer, the floor slab subgrade soil should be
properly compacted, free of standing water or mud, and stable during a final proofroll.
5.4 Seismic Site Class Determination
Based on Section 1615 of the 2009 North Carolina Building Code, the site has the following
characteristics:
Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion 0.2 sec. Spectral Response, Ss — 0.29 g
Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion.1.0 sec. Spectral Response, S1 —0.10 g
Site Classification — D
Site Coefficient Fa — 1.6; Spectral Response Acceleration SIDS — 0.310 g
Site Coefficient Fv — 2.4; Spectral Response Acceleration SD1 — 0.160 g
Development of the general design response spectrum curve in accordance with Building Code
requires the fundamental period for the structure and, therefore, is left to the Structural.
Engineer.

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'd SCT in/Out Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33:175110P
October 11, 2011
5.5 Site Drainage
We recommend the ground surface be sloped away from the building and pavements for a
minimum distance of 10 feet, and that all downspouts be connected to tightline drains that
discharge to a suitable location downslope of the building or discharge directly into below -grade
storm water piping. In addition, any pavement areas should have positive drainage.
5.6 Groundwater Control
Based on the results of the borings, we do not anticipate that dewatering will be necessary
during construction. If groundwater or a perched water condition is encountered during
construction, it probably can be controlled through the use of ditches, sumps, and pumps. If
water is encountered that cannot be controlled by such procedures, ECS should be further
consulted. Earthwork and trench excavation in saturated materials may require sheeting and
shoring, slope flattening, or benching to control sloughing of soils.
If water collects in foundation excavations, it will be necessary to remove the water from the
excavation, remove the saturated soils, and re -test the adequacy of the bearing surface to
support the design bearing pressure prior to concrete placement.
5.7 Cut and Fill Slopes
We recommend that any cut and fill slopes be constructed at 2.5H:1V (horizontal to vertical) or
flatter. A slope of 3H:1 V or flatter is recommended for safer operation of mowing equipment.
Fill slopes should be compacted to 92 percent of the. maximum dry density obtained in
accordance with ASTM Specification D 1557, Modified Proctor Method. Fill slopes should be
overbuilt and cut back to expose well compacted fill on the face of the slope. Where fill is being
placed on existing slopes, the new fill should be benched into the existing slope.
For slope stabilization purposes, we recommend that the slopes be adequately vegetated to
reduce the risk of erosion. Slopes should be graded such that surface water does not flow over
the face of the slope. Drains should be extended to below the toe of the slope rather than
discharged onto the face of the slope.
5.8 Excavation Considerations
The sidewalls of excavations should be stepped back with benches or slopes in accordance
with the requirements of the most current Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) 29 CFR Part 1926, "Occupational Safety and Health Standards -Excavations." The
soils classify as Type C and Type B according to the OSHA trenching and excavation
guidelines. Excavation sidewalls that cannot be properly stepped back should be braced
against collapse. The design of the bracing system should include lateral earth pressures and
temporary surcharge loads from construction traffic and materials stockpiled next to the
excavation. The design and construction of excavation bracing is typically the responsibility of
the specialty subcontractor selected to install the system. Regardless, site safety shall be the
sole responsibility of the contractor and his subcontractors.
10

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'd BCT InfOut Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33:175110P
October 11, 2011
5.9 Pavements
Pavement subgrades should be prepared as outlined in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of this report. We
were not provided with vehicle counts and axle -loading information associated with the traffic
volume at the facility. However, for purposes of this study, we have assumed that parking
areas will receive primarily automobile traffic, and the entrances and service drives will be
subjected to some heavy truck traffic. We have assumed traffic loads of 10,000 and 100,000
18-kip equivalent single axle loadings (ESALS) for standard -duty and heavy-duty pavements,
respectively.
In the parking and service drive areas, we recommend that the pavements be designed as
flexible pavements using guidelines established by the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). One California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was
performed on the anticipated subgrade soils consisting of silty sand. Based on our experience
with the anticipated subgrade conditions and the results of our laboratory tests performed, we
expect that the subgrade conditions will provide a minimum CBR value of about 8, which has
been used in the thickness design of each pavement section.
Based on the above CBR value and assumed traffic loading conditions, various pavement
sections were evaluated in general accordance to the 1993 "Guide for the Design of Pavement
Structures" by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). For the purposes of this report the following pavement design criteria was used:
initial serviceability index of 4.2, terminal serviceability index of 2.0, reliability level of 90 percent,
and an overall standard deviation of 0.45.
Heavy Duty
Material Designation
Standard Duty
Heavy Duty
Portland Cement
Asphalt
Asphalt
Concrete (PCC)
Pavement'
Pavement**
Pavement**
Asphalt Surface Course
1.5 inches
1.5 inches
-
SF9.5B
Asphalt Binder Course 119.OB
-
2.5 inches
-
Portland Cement Concrete
-
-
6 inches
Aggregate Base Course
6 inches
6 inches
6 inches
NCDOT ABC
Note** : Geogrid such as Teser BX1100 or woven geotextile fabric and additional stone base
course materials may be necessary in localized areas to achieve subgrade stabilization. The
need for such materials will be a function of subgrade conditions at the time of pavement
construction.
The base course materials beneath pavements should be compacted to 98 percent of their
modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). The asphalt concrete and crushed
stone materials should conform to the North Carolina Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures. For Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement
sections, the concrete should be plant -mixed with a minimum compressive strength of 4,000-psi
at 28-days and should contain 4 to 6 percent entrained air. Appropriate steel reinforcing and
jointing should be incorporated into the design of PCC pavements.
El

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotochnical Engineering Services
3rd OCT InlOut Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33:1751IOP
October 11, 20i1
Front -loading trash trucks frequently impose concentrated front -wheel loads on pavements
while lifting the dumpster. This type of loading typically results in rutting of bituminous
pavements and ultimately pavement failures and costly repairs. Therefore, we recommend a
heavy duty PCC pavement section in the area of the trash dumpster, including the area where
the front axle of the trash truck will be located while lifting the dumpster.
Regardless of the section and type of construction utilized, saturation of the subgrade materials
will result in a softening of the subgrade materials and shortened life span for the pavement.
Risk of subgrade softening can be reduced by means of quickly removing surface and
subsurface water, resulting in an increased likelihood of improved pavement performance.
Therefore, we recommend that both the surface and subsurface materials for the pavement be
properly graded to enhance surface and subgrade drainage. In addition, placement of 1/2-inch
diameter holes drilled through catch basins at or slightly above the subgrade elevation will
facilitate base course drainage into the catch basin.
5.10 Retaining Walls
ECS can provide design services for any proposed retaining walls or stabilized slopes if you
desire. Retaining walls must be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from the backfill. We
recommend the following lateral earth pressure values for proposed retaining walls:
Onsite Soils Consisting of SM. SC, and SP-SM
Angle of internal friction (y) = 30'
Moist Unit Weight (y id l) = 115 pcf
Active earth pressure (Ka) = 0.33
Active equivalent fluid density (yeq) = 38 pcf
At -rest pressure (K,) = 0.5
At -rest equivalent fluid density NO = 57.5 pcf
Passive pressure (Kp) = 3
Passive equivalent fluid density (yeq) = 345 pcf
Coefficient of sliding friction (p) = 0.4
These ultimate values are based on a level ground surface, well -drained backfill, and the
placement of property compacted backfill between the walls and undisturbed natural soils.
Appropriate factors of safety should be applied. Additional laboratory testing should be performed
to verify these parameters, as well as others, required for the proper design of any retaining walls
at the site.
High plasticity soils should not be used in the backfill of the site walls, and should be undercut if
encountered in the footings, zone of influence, or retention zone in the case of segmental walls
The values for active conditions should be used if the wall is allowed to tilt out a sufficient distance
to fully mobilize soil strengths. The amount of movement is approximately 1 inch for every 20 feet
of height of wall for loose sand conditions. For rigid, non -yielding walls, at -rest conditions should
be used.
In addition to the lateral stresses from the backfill, the walls may be subjected to additional
surcharge loading from adjacent traffic, stockpiled materials, sloping backfill or stresses from
12

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'4 BCT InlOut Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33:1751I0P
October 11, 2011
nearby footings or floor slabs. If present, these surcharge stresses should be resolved into
appropriate lateral stress distributions and added to the earth pressures outlined above. Typically,
where vehicles can approach within half the height of a retaining wall, a surcharge equivalent to 2
feet of additional fill should be included.
Groundwater should be considered in the design of any retaining walls on site. An adequate
drainage system must be designed and installed. The drainage system should consist of a
vertical wall drain consisting of a designed filtered aggregate drain or commercial geosynthetic
drain such as Enka -Drain or Mirra-Drain. The vertical drain should be connected to a foundation
drain, which drains by gravity to a low point on site.
Backfll placed within a distance of one-half the height of retaining walls should be compacted
with hand guided equipment to avoid overstressing the walls during construction. Similarly,
heavy equipment should not be operated adjacent to the walls without adequate bracing. High
plasticity soils should not be used as backfill as they may adsorb water, expand and exert
significant lateral loads on the wall. Therefore, the contractor should use granular materials that
are easily compacted in thin lifts with light equipment.
5.11 C-130 Foundation
Based upon our findings, the C-130 may be supported using conventional shallow spread
foundations bearing directly upon properly evaluated and approved natural soils and/or properly
compacted structural fill: Foundations may be proportioned for a maximum net allowable soil
bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot.
The foundations should be designed to bear at least 18 inches below the final exterior grades.
The foundation bearing grades should be evaluated immediately prior to concrete placement by
ECS to verify that the exposed subgrade is capable of satisfactorily supporting the design
loads.
13

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'" BCT In/Out Processing Facility
EC Project Number 33:1751IOP
October 11, 2011
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Site Preparation and Clearing
Site preparation should commence with the clearing and stripping of all trees, vegetation,
topsoil, debis, deleterious materials, and any other soft or unsuitable materials from the existing
ground surface. These operations should extend at least 10 feet beyond the limits of the
planned building and pavement construction.
All existing underground utilities within the proposed building area should be removed including
bedding and backfill materials. Excavations resulting from underground utility removal should
be backfilled with structural fill. Pockets of trapped water could be encountered in utility trench
excavations and during the removal of underground structures and should be promptly
removed. Pumping from a sump pit located within the excavation should be an effective
method of controlling such groundwater seepage. Soft wet soils remaining in the bottoms of
excavations should be undercut and removed to establish firm subgrade conditions prior to
backfilling. All undercut areas should be backfilled with compacted structural fill.
Once the site is cleared and stripped as outlined above, we recommend that areas at grade and
areas to be filled be thoroughly proofrolled. The proofrolling should be accomplished using a
loaded dump truck having an axle weight of at least 10 tons or rubber -tired equipment of similar
weight and tire pressures. The proofrolling should be observed by an experienced geotechnical
engineer, or his representative, at the time of construction to aid in identifying any areas with
soft or unsuitable materials. Any soft or unsuitable materials identified during proofrolling
operations should be either repaired in -place or removed and replaced with an approved fill
material placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section
6.2 Fill Placement and Soil Compaction. Potential undercutting of low SPT N-value materials
should be anticipated to depths of about 3 feet in the vicinity of borings BIOP-4 and BIOP-7.
Moderate to highly plastic clayey soils (CH) were encountered in the boring BIOP-1. These
materials have a moderate to high shrink -swell potential and should not be used as structural fill
immediately beneath the building foundations, floor slab, and pavements, but can be used in
landscape areas or hauled off -site. Any moderate to highly plastic soils (CH) encountered at
building foundation bearing grades should be undercut 3 feet and replaced with structural fill in
accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 6.2 Fill Placement and Soil
Compaction. .Similarly, any moderate to highly plastic clayey soils encountered at floor slab and
pavement subgrades should be undercut 18 inches and replaced with structural fill. This
recommendation is provided to reduce the potential risk of shrinking and swelling of these
moisture sensitive soils, and the adverse effects to the structures supported by them. The
plastic soils removed can be used as structural fill; however, they should be placed in deeper fill
areas to insure a minimum of 3 foot separation between the top of the plastic soils and the
bottom of footings or pavements. Alternately, these soils could be blended with non -plastic
soils at a ratio of 1 plastic to 2 non -plastic.
The natural soils at this site will deteriorate when exposed to moisture. The exposed subgrades
should be sloped to promote surface runoff and reduce the ponding of water. When rainfall is
anticipated during grading operations, we recommend that areas of disturbed soil be sealed
using a smooth drum roller or rubber -tired equipment to reduce the infiltration of water and
grading activities cease until the site has had a chance to dry. Water that may accumulate in
14

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3' BCT InfOut Processing Facility
ECS Project Number 33:175110P
October 11, 2611
the footing excavations as a result of rainfall or surface water runoff should be immediately
removed. Loosened or disturbed materials at the base of footing excavations should be
removed prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
To facilitate heavy truck traffic in and out of the site during construction, temporary construction
roads may be necessary. On a preliminary basis, we expect that the construction roads would
need to consist of at least 12 inches of coarse aggregate base stone underlain with a woven
geotextile such as Mirafi 50OX or Tensar BX-1100 Geogrid. An additional thickness of stone
will likely be required to maintain the roadways in localized areas of concentrated traffic or
where soft ground or shallow groundwater conditions might exist.
Grading operations at this site will be more economical if performed during the drier periods of
the year (typically April to November). During the drier periods of the year, wet soils may be
dried -back by using discing operations or other drying procedures to obtain moisture contents
necessary to achieve adequate degrees of compaction.
6.2 Fill Placement and Sail Compaction
Soils used as fill and backfill should be approved materials, free of organics, debris, frozen and
foreign material, and generally having a maximum Liquid Limit of 50 and a maximum Plasticity
Index of 20. The on -site soils consisting of silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), and slightly silty
poorly graded sand (SP-SM) should be able to be used as fill and backfill material for this
project provided moisture contents are controlled. Importing of fill material may be necessary to
balance the site. All imported fill should be tested for conformance with above requirements
before being transported to the site. The maximum particle size in the fill should be less than
the thickness of the compacted lift.
Any fill or backfill placed in foundation, slab, pavement, utility trench, or sidewalk areas should
be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance
with ASTM Specification D 1557, Modified Proctor Method. However, the upper 18 inches of fill
below the pavement areas should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Fill
should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness with fill operations
continuing until the subgrade elevations are achieved. In areas where hand compaction
equipment is used, fill should be placed in loose lifts no more than 4 inches thick.
Any fill or backfill placed in landscaped areas should be compacted to a minimum of 85 percent
of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM Specification D1557, Modified
Proctor Method.
We recommend that the placement of compacted structural fill and recompaction of the
subgrade be observed to determine if proper compaction is being achieved. In -place density
tests made in accordance with ASTM Designation D 1556 or equivalent should be used to verify
compaction. We recommend a minimum of one test per lift for every 5,000 square foot area, or
fraction thereof for each lift of fill placed. We also recommend at least one test per lift for every
100 linear feet of utility trench and roadway backfill, or fraction thereof.
15

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
3'6 BCT inlOut Processing Facility
ECs Project Number 33:175110P
October 11, 2011
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
This report has been prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the
architect and/or engineer in the design of this project. The scope is limited to the specific
project and locations described herein and our description of the project represents our
understanding of the significant aspects relative to soil and foundation characteristics. In the
event that any changes in the nature or location of the proposed construction outlined in this
report are planned, we should be informed so that the changes can be reviewed and the
conclusions of this report modified or approved in writing by the geotechnical engineer. It is
recommended that all construction operations dealing with earthwork and foundations are
reviewed by an experienced geotechnical engineer to provide information as to whether the
design requirements are fulfilled in the actual construction. If you wish, we would welcome the
opportunity to provide field construction services for you during construction.
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the soil borings and tests performed at the locations as indicated on the Boring.Location
Diagram and other information referenced in this report. This report does not reflect any
variations which may occur between the borings. In the performance of the subsurface
exploration, specific information is obtained at specific locations at specific times. However, it is
a well-known fact that variations in soil conditions exist on most sites between boring locations
and also such situations as groundwater levels vary from time to time. The nature and extent of
variations may not become evident until during the course of construction. If site conditions vary
from those identified during the subsurface explorations, the recommendations contained in this
report may require revision.
16

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

i AR
I.F.
Jf
I. y E
Lt
•f 4
{
'�`r '3� ��' �•',.�.ir ' Wit, .
li 'p.`.7 :... ,� #��: ,.rick 1 >♦..� .
at� "� �� j� � ` � � 1. ,f .�•Y ��
JJ
16,
in
ENGINEER SCALE
TH
SITE VICINITY� 3rd BCC IOP DRAFT MAN PR07ECTND, Nrs
MAS 33:1751
DIAGRAM tCS
Ardennes Street REVISIONS SHEET
Fi . i
Clark Construction Fort Bragg, NC DATE 10F05n1

N
W � � E
S
B -
0
P 13 -
-q—
F 1OP-1 1 STY. BIOP-2
IN/OUT PROCESSING
FACILITY
tv
IOP-4 BTOP-3
i
i
X�'
B C3P b
i"
i
.t
BORING
I�� /r p �+ ENGINEER SCALE
BORING LOCATION � 3rd BCC I®P DRAFTSMAN PROJECT NO, SITS
MAS 33:1751
DIAGRAM ECS
Ardennes Street REVISIONS SHEET
Fi .2
DArE
Clark Construction ® Fort Bragg, NC 1OiO�

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

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)
Major Divisions
Group
Symbols
Typical Names
Laboratory Classification Criteria
Well -graded gravels, gravel-
6 o
GW
sand mixtures, little or no
y
C = DaalD,a greater than 4
> c
fines
o
C� = (D,u} 1(D1000D) between 1 and 3
y
2 y
N
o
tM N
CD
a
Poorly graded gravels,
U a
m -1
r
GP
gravel -sand mixtures, little or
m
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
.t; m
U
no fines
rn
m s
E2 S?
6
Lo
N
>
Op
p
N
w
o
Z
d
.0 0
(D
GM,
Silty gravels, gravel -sand
w
Atterberg limits below 'A' line
)
c =
y _
mixtures
or P.I. less than 4
Above "A" line with P.I.
N
f°
py
cEn m
3 a)
u
m
sX d
between 4 and 7 are
d
¢� @
ai o
borderline cases requiring
c
—
m '�
N
use of dual symbols
"A'
ca
N r
o
v'
¢
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand-
N
Atterberg limits below line
ib
clay mixtures
'L
or P.I. less than 7
q% N
c
k2
O
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly
o
C" = DwAo greater than 6
m
U
y
c c
°
sands, little or no fines
m
' °
CG = (D�)z/(D,axLlau) between 1 and 3
`a
E
o
m m
a'
�uv7 ro
Co = y
ai `�
U --
SP
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
N
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
c
;
sands, little or no fines
m a c E-
G
N N
a C (7 (rS N
o
oa
d
C N C9 (} m
M O Z
d
L L
c °
SM°
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
m
Atterberg limits above "A' line
-
E
.§
� m ° 0 2
or P.I. less than 4
Limits plotting in CL-ML
m w
iJ
U n o=
C FL
zone with P.I. between 4
N E
N R
4)
0-8 N N
and 7 are borderline
0 N
'S Z
c c � @ED
cases requiring use of
U) CL
1 c m J N
a
dual symbols
C
SC
Clayey sands, sand -clay
w � y r
Atterberg limits above "A' line
mixtures
o y ro )
with P.I. greater than 7
Inorganic silts and very fine
ML
sands, rock flour, silty or
Plasticity Chart
H =
clayey fine sands, or clayey
m .2
silts with slight IasGci
Inorganic days of low to
>
60
U)m
E
CL
medium plasticity, gravelly
42
clays, sandy clays, silty clays,
"A°
line
N
O p
lean clays50
Organic silts and organic silty
z
c
OL
Gays of low plasticity
40
CH
N L
:y
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
CL
m
$
MH
diatomaceous fine sandy or
? 3D
U
c E
C
silty soils, elastic silts
CH
Inorganic clays of high
c
20
K
I1 and
OH
m O°
plasticity, fat clays
I
E
10
1
C
v
0E I
Organic days of medium to
i�M'L and OL
high plasticity, organic silts
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
T G N
4, o
Pt
Peat and other highly organic
Liquid Limit
z O N
soils
' Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when
L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28.
° Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example;
GW-GC,well-graded gravel -sand mixture with clay hinder. (From Table 2.16 - Winterkom and Fang, 1975)

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

BIOP-2
RIOP-4
RIOP-6
390—
13IOP-1
BIOP-3
81OP-5
BIOP-7
sm
sm
9 5m
SIOP-8
17
CH
to
5C
13 sm
16
Sc
9 Sm
14
380
24
CH
19
11
Sm
it
10
sm
12
11
sm
10
15
24 51A
sm
E08 @ 5,0'
EL
19
SAA
5C
9
: sm
40 vi
MR.
5C
12
5C
2D
EOR (P 5.0'
sm
EL 376-00
E09 @ 5.0'
370
15
16
30 sm
(DRY)
EL 374.00
26 11
22 5m
E08 LZ 15.0'
(DRY)
is
sea
17 sm
EL 370.00
(DRY)
SP-SM
16 sc
12 sm
360
21
E09 @ 25.0'
22 sm
LIM
EO8 @ 25.0'
SC
EL 362.00
EO8 @ 25. 01
EL 362.00
14
(DRY)
EL 359.50
(DRY)
Sm
(DRY) -
350
21
24
LU
340 =
14 SC
12
CL
330—
21
5C
25 Sm
5m
320
16
24 sc
310 —
24 Sm
—
EOB @ 75.0'
EL 309.50
(DRY)
SUBSURFACE
CROSS SECTION
Clark Construction
C
3rd BCT IOP
Ardennes Street
Fort Bragg,, NC
ENGINEER
T8
SCALE
NTS
SMAN
DRAFT MAN
MAS
PROJECT NO-
33:1751
REVISIONS
- SHEET H9.3
DATE 10/05/11

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company_1751
JOB #
1 BORING p SHEET
BIOP-1 1 OF 3
�1
PROJECT NAME
3rd BCT HQ
ARCHITECT --ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bra , NC
O - CALHIRATEDNs EnOMETER
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LIWT % CONTENT X IIMPP %
X
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION k RECOVERY
RQDX— — — REC.X
20X-40X---6OX-8OX 100%
(& STANDARD PENETRATION
BLDWs/Ir.
10 20 30 40 50+
ca
E
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENCLLSH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LASS OF CIRCULATION 1 oa
Q
:
SURFACE ELEVATION
384.5
0
rJ
1
15
20
25
i
—
, 30
Topsoil Depth 2"
380
375
370
365
360
355
- 17 (4-�-10) =
24 (10-10-14)
: t9 (7s_1o)
15 (12-74)
18 (7-4-10)
21 (6-10-11)
14 (5-7-7?
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.
1
SS
I8
18
Moist, Very Stiff, Tan, Orange, Red,
Medium Sandy CLAY (CH)
2
SS
18
18
Moist, Very Stiff, Ton, Orange, Medium
Sandy CLAY (CH)
3
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Yellow, Orange,
Silty, Medium SAND (SM)
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Yellow, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
4
SS
18
18
5
SS
i8
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange,
Slightly, Poorly Graded, Medium SAND
(sP-SM)
6
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Ton, Orange, Red,
Clayey, Medium SAND {SC)
7
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense. Tan, Orange, Brown,
Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
IL
B
SS
18
i
IS
I
S THE STRATIFICATION LIMES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BDUMDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IM-SITU THE TRANSITION NAY BE GRADUAL
VWL DRY ®OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/26/1 1
DRILLER: J & L Drilling, Inc.
TW14BCR) TWL4ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 0 26 1 1
CAVE tN DEPTH 0 58.0'
iWL
RIG CME 75 FOREMAN S. Bowman
DRI11 G METHOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB
1751
BORING
B10P-1
SHEET
2 OF 3
-
PROJECT NAME
3rd BCT HQ-=_--=��
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
-0- CALMIRA17DP/NNETgONETKR
1 2 3 a 6+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
Ia4T % CONTENT X [MIT X
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
RQD%— — �— REC.X
® STANDARD PENETRATION
10 20 30 40 50+
o
�
a
Q
�
papd�
C,
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGIISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASINGLOSS OF CIRCULATION 10
zo
—20%-40%-60%—&0%-100%
SURFACE ELEVATION
3rf
4
4
50
55
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Brown,
Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
21 (9-10-11)
24 (11-12-i2)
14 (6-7-71
12 (5-4-5)
-
21 (s-to 1t)
25 (to-t2�t3)
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.
9
SS
18
la
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Light Orange,
Clayey, Fine to Medium SAND (SC)
10
SS
18
18
11
SS
18
18
Moist, Stiff, Tan, Orange, Red, Fine
Sandy CLAY (CL)
12
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Brown,
Clayey, Medium SAND (SC)
13
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, .Orange, Tan, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
------------
14
SS
18
18
THE STRATIFICATION LIMES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IM-SITU TFIE TRANSITION MAY 8E GRADUAL
!3WL DRY ® OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/26/1 1
DRILLER: J dI L Drilling, Inc.
ITUBCR) YWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 09 2G
CAVE IN DEPTH • 58.0-
i#�
RIG C ME 75 FOREMAN S. Bowman
DR112MG I LrTHOD H S.A 2--1 /4"

CLIENT
REN
J013 # BORING #
SHEET
Clark Construction Company
1751 P=1
3 OF 3
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
-o- CAUBRA TONS%BETE OI[BLER
Taylor Street, Forf Bragg, NC
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER UQUID
LD11e x CONrBNT x IWT X
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
as
ROCK gUAI rer DESIGNATION k RECOVERY
z
a
BOTTOM OF CASING LASS OF CIRCULATION � �
®- ©
o
�
0X-4 — 6 —8
20%40%-6OX-80X-1OOX
e
SURFACE ELEVATION
® STANDARDOWSE/NSIZtAT[ON
6
10 20 30 40 50+
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Tan, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Brown,
15
SS
1B
IB
Clayey, Medium SAND (SC)
(7-84)
6
24 (9-11-0)
1s
SS
1B
18
7
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Yellow, Brown,
17
SS
18
18
Silty, Medium SAND (SM)
24 (10-12-12)
75
END OF BORING ® 75.0'
80
i
;
a5
=
I
90
-
s
i THE STRATIFICATION LIMES REPRESEMT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BErVEEH SOIL TYPES IM-SITU THE TRAn5ITION MAY BE GRADUAL
3 7VL DRY OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/26/1 1
DRILLER: J & L Drilling, Inc.
4 TWL(BCR) !ZWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 09 26 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH o 58.0'
!f»
RIG CME 75 Fonum S. Bowman 1
DR11I1NG MEMOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB #
1751 j
BORING # SHEET
BIOP-2 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQSITE
LOCATION LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
-0- CAIMRATEDP�METER
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
LnuT A CONTENT x tD HT X
X-------- -----L1
ROCK QUAL+TY DESIGNATION k RECOVERY
RQD%-�- -- -- REC.X
20%-40X-6O%-8O%-10O%
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
to 20 30 40 50+
Ca
o
w
,a-
�
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING ®— LASS OF CIRCULATION 100
o
SURFACE ELEVATION
387.0
0
Topsoll Depth 2"
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan Orange, Slity, Medium
SAND (SM)
385
8 (3-4-4)
10 (4-5-5)
2
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan Orange, Clayey,
Medlum SAND (SC)
5
380
11 (5-6-5)
=
3
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Red, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
11 (5-5-6)
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Silty,
Fine SAND (SM)
4
SS
18
18
1
= -
375
18 (5-s-10)
5
SS
18
18
15
370
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, light Gray,
6
SS
18
18
Orange, Clayey, Medium SAND (SM)6
(7-107,16)
20
365
Moist, Medium Dense, Tart, Light Gray,
Brown, Clayey, Medium SAND (SC)
7
SS
18
18
25
END OF BORING ® 25.0'
360
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIIIATE BOUMOARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN -SITU THE TRAIISITMh MAY BE GRADUAL
VwL DRY (9OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/26/1 1
DRILLER: J & L Drilling, Inc.
NL(BCR) YNL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 09 26 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH O 14.0'
TYL
E
RIG C ME 75 FOREMAN S. Bowman
DRIL IING METHOD H.S.A 2-1 /4"

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING g
SHEET
Clark
Construction Company
1751
1 8IOP-3
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT --ENGINEER
Q7
3rd BCT
HQ-----==1_
SITE LOCATION
-0- CALIBRATED PENS aOMETER
Taylor
Street,
Fort Bragg, NC
I 2 TON 3FT4 5+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
UMIT X 'CONTENT X LIMIT X
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
z
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION k RDCOVERY
o
z
BOTTOM OF CASING @�— LOSS OF CIRCULATION 100
z
0
ROD%— — — REC.%
2Q%----40%-60%8O%--1DO%
a
SURFACE ELEVATION
38 4. 5
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/FT.
0
:`_
10 20 30 40 'SD+
Topsoil Depth 2"
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, grown,
Silty, Medium SAND (SM}
Molsi, Loose, Orange, Tan, Silty. Medlum
2
SS
18
18
SAND (SM)
380
10 (5=5-5)
5
1
1
3 SS I 1$ 1 18 1 Moist, Medium Dense, Ton, Orange,
Clayey, Medium SAND (SC)
Moist, Loose, Orange, Clayey, Medium
4 SS 18 18 SAND (SC)
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Red,
5 I SS 1 18 1 18 Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
761SSIle1181
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Yellow, Silty,
7 SS 18 18 Fine SAND (SM)
g 25
END OF BORING ® 25.0'
Ix- 13
12
375
9 (r4-sl
370
16 (5-74)
365
17 (5-7=10)
ZGA
1
12 (4-5-7)
THE STRATIFICATI13N LIMES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOLVIDARY LILIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IM-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL I
VwL DRY (9OR WD
E*RING STARTED 09/26/1 1
DRILLER. J & L Drilling, Inc.
TW6(BCR) TWL(ACR)
BORING coMPIzTED 09 26 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH O 15.0'
'f WL
RIG CME 75 FORm" S. Bowman
DRIIMG METHOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB
1751
BORING N
BIOP-4
SHEET
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
CAUBRATED PENETROMBTSR
I 2 TONS/ - 4 s+
PI.AMIC WATER LIQUID
LDAT % CONTENT % LBaT X
ROCK QUALM DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
ROD%— — — REC.X
® STANDARD PENETRATION
10 20 30 40 50+•
0
d
x
w
a
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING IAS3 OF CIRCULATION 100
z
1 020%----4O%-60%-8OX-100%
SURFACE ELEVATION 3S7`0
Topsoii Depth 2"
:
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan, Red, Silty, Medium
SAND (SM)
385
t6 (6-7-9)
2
SS
1B
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange,
Clayey, Medium SAND (SC)
380
3
SS
IB
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Silty,
Fine SAND (SM)
Moist, Loose, Tan, Orange, Silty, Fine
4
SS
18
18
SAND (SM)
IO (4-5-5)
375
;
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Brown, Red,
5
SS
18
18
Silty. Medium SAND (SM)
20 (47'9-11)
15
370
22 (9-10-12)
6
SS
1@
18
20
365
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Red,
7
SS
18
18
Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
12 (4-5-7)
25
END OF BORING 0 25.0'
360
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
YWL DRY (a oft WD
BORING STARTED 09/22/1 1
DRILLER: J do L Drilling, Inc.
yvgBCR) TWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 09 22 1 1
CA" IN DEPTH * 14.0'
�g W'
RIG C ME 7 5 rom" S. Bowman'
DEtHJMG 5LMOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB #
1751
I BORING #
BIOP-5
I SHEET
1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT —ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
—0- CALIBRATED PENETIOMETBR
t 2 tnN93i'f 4 s+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
t.IaT x CONTENT x Lauur x
0I
x
as
i?5
t,
r
tto
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION IOD
©
o
e
ROCK QUALITY DI5[GNATION & RBCDVERY
RODX— — — REC.X
20X-40%--60%80%--100X
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/Fr.
20 so 40 50+
SURFACE ELEVATION
385.0
Moist, Loose, Tan, Yellow, Silty, Fine
SAND (SM)
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Red, Silty,
2
SS
18
18
Fine SAND (SM)
15 (6-74)
5
380
24 ($-9-15)
3
Ss
18
18
(14-19-21) 40
Moist, Dense, Orange, Silty, Medium SAND
(SM)
4
SS
18
18
f
375
(12;14-16) 30
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Tan, Silty,
Medium SAND (SM)
5
SS
18
18
15
370
END OF BORING @ 15.0'
20
365
25
360
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LIMES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
VWL DRY OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/26/1 1
DRILLER: J dI L Drilling, Inc.
TWL(BCR) TWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED 09 26 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH • 10.0'
S
YWL
RIG CME 75 FOREMAN S. Bowman
DRILLING bWMOD H.S.A 2-1/4"

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
Clark Construction Company
1751
1 BIOP-6
1 or 1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT --ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
CALIBRATED PEE NETROMER
TONS/FTTaylor
Street, Fort Bragg, NC
1 2 3 4 6+
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
Lwr x CONTENT X LWT X
x-—-------------- —n
_
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
ua
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION k RECOVERY
d
x
I3OITOM aF CASING LASS OF CIRCULATION i DO
(�
z
o
n
RQD%— — r REC.X
20%-40%-60%-80%-100%
a
o
SURFACE ELEVATION
386.0
s
STANDARD PENETRATION
BLDIrs/e'r.
tG 20 30 40 50+
0
Topsoil Depth 3"
385
1
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Tan, Yellow, Silty, Fine
9 (3-4-5)
SAND (SM)
Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange, Red,
2
SS
18
18
Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
14. (e-7-71
5
END OF BORING @ 5.0'
380
1
375
:
15
370
20
365
25
360
30
THE STRATIFICATIOII LMS REPRESENT THE APPRGXEMATE BOUNDARY LII'li S BETWEEN SOIL TYPES In -SITU THE TRANSITION 11AY BE GRADUAL
7wL DRY 4DoR ND
BORING STARTED 09/22/1 1
DRILLER: J do L Drilling, Inc.
:f WT4BCR) TWL(ACR)
BORING COUPLETED 09 22 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH o
TWL
RIG CME 75 ImREMAN S. Bowman
DRKUNG METHOD H.S.A. 2-1/4"

CLIENT
JOB #
BORING #
SHEET
=�
Clark Construction Company
1751
I BIOP-7
1 of 119,
9i
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
11
SITE LOCATION
-0- CAIIHRATED PENEnOMETER
TON
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
1 2 � 4 s+
PLASTIC HATER LIQUID
LIMIT X CONTENT X LIMIT X
as
..
�
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
ROCK QUAi1'I'Y D£BICNATION & RECOVERY
z
BOTTOM OF CASING ® -- LOSS OF CIRCULATION I
o
F
RQD%— — — REC.X
20%40%-60%-80%--100%
a
s
® STANDARD PENETRATION
BLOWS/Fr.
SURFACE ELEVATION
.381.0
0
to EO so 40 50+
Topsoil Depth 2"
380
L
SS
18
18
Moist, Loose, Orange, Brown, Silty,
S (4-2-3)
Medium SAND (SM)
Moist, Medium Dense, Orange, Tan,
2
SS
18
18
Clayey, Medium SAND (Sc)
5
END OF BORING CAD 5.0'
375
1
370
15
365
20
;
360
I 25
355
I
30
:
i
THE STRATIFICATION LILIES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LILIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES III -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
3 YwL DRY ®OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/22/1 1 .
DRILLER: J dI L Drilling, inn.
&WQBCR) YWVACR)
BORING COMPLETED 03 ZZ 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH O
�ZWL
RIG CME 75 FOREum S. Bowman
DRIISINO METHOD H.S.A 2--1/4"

CLIENT
Clark Construction Company
JOB
1751
BORING #
BIOP-8
SHEET
1 OF 1.r�
t
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
3rd BCT HQ
SITE LOCATION
Taylor Street, Fort Bragg, NC
-a- CAI.IBRA `E OMMR
TONS4
1 2 3 4 5+
PLASTIC WATER UQUED
LEMrr % CONTENT X LIMlr x
x---------
Q
o
x
a
'
w
t3
�
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ENGLISH UNITS
BOTTOM OF CASING ®- LASS 4R CIRCULATION100
o
P
e
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY
ROD%— — — REC.%
20%-40X---6O%—Box--100
® STANDARD PRNEI'RATION
T.
BLOWS/FT.
SURFACE ELEVATION
379.0
0
10 20 30 40 50+
FILL - Moist, Medium Dense, Tan, Orange,
Silty, Medium Sand
i9 (I5m-1I-a)
1
SS
18
18
375
12 t7-8-4) -
Coastal Plain Sediments - Moist, Medium
Dense. Tan, Brown, Silty, Fine SAND (SM)
2
SS
1B
18
5
END OF BORING ® 5.0'
370
1
365
15
360
20
355
25
350
30
THE STRATIFICATIOn LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE 80UMDARY LIMES-BETVEEM SOIL TYPES IfI-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
7WL DRY ®OR WD
BORING STARTED 09/22/1 1
DRILLER: J & L Drilling, Inc.
!gwgBCR) !fWL(ACR)
BORING COMPLETED O9 22 1 1
CAVE IN DEPTH •
+►L
E
RIG CME 75 FoREMAx S. Bowman
DRUMG METHOD H.S.A 2-1�4"

APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY

Project Number: 1751
Project Engineer: T.B.B
ECS CAROLINAS, LLP
Fayetteville, North Carolina
Laboratory Testing Summary
Project Name: 3RD BCT IOP
Principal Engineer: C.N.0
Date: 10110/2011
Summary by: K.A.P
Boring Number
/ Sample
Number
Sample I. D.
Depth
(Feet)
Moisture
Content
(%)
USCS
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Percent
Passing
No. 200
Sieve
Compaction
Test Standard Deviation
Maximum
Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
(%)
Swell
(%)
Value
(%)
B - 1 IOP
1130
1.0 - 2.5
18.1
CH
53
23
30
58.4
*
*
Highly Plastic Material
B - 7 IOP
1131
0.0 - 5.0
10.2
SM
NP
NP
NP
20.3
126.8
8.8
0.1
19.2
None Noted
Test Methods: ASTM D854-00 :
ASTM D698-07 :
ASTM D4318-00
ASTM D422-63 :
ASTM D2487-00
ASTM 02216-00
ASTM D1883-99
ASTM D1557-00
ASTM D1140-00
Summary Key:
Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer
Laboratory Compaction Characteristic of Soil Using Standard Effort ((12,400 ft-Ibf/ft'(600 kN-mlm"))
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils
Particle -Size Analysis of Soils
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)
Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory -Compacted Soils
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 tt-lbflft")
Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than the No. 200 Sieve
NC = NCDOT Test Method Hyd = Hydrometer UCS = Unconfined Compression Soil SA = See Attached
S = Standard Proctor Con = Consolidation UCR = Unconfined Compression Rock NP = Non Plastic
M= Modified Proctor DS = Direct Shear LS = Lime Stabilization = Test Not Conducted
GS = Specific Gravity CS = Cement Stabilization OC = Organic Content
Prepared by Engineering Consulting Services 10/10/2011

Tested By: K.A.P Checked By: T.B.B

COMPACTION TEST REPORT
133
Ns
128
I
I
123
U
a
C
m
o
ZAV for
118
—
Sp.G. =
2.60
113
10$
1
1+1
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-07 Method A Modified
Elevl
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp'G.
LL
PI
%>
#4
%<
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
0.0 - 5.0
feet
SM
+
10.2
2.6
NP
NP
< 5%
20.3
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 125.8 pcF
Optimum moisture = 8.8 %
Reddish brown, silty SAND
Project No. 33:1751 Client. Clark Construction Company
Project: 3RD BCT 101?
o Location: B - 7 IOP Depth: 0.0 - 5.0 feet Sample Number: 1131
Remarks:
None noted
Figure
ECS Carolinas, LLP
Fayetteville NC
Tested By: N.E.W
Checked By: K.A.P

CBR Penetration
600 ASTM D-1883
500
400
N
a -
300
ro
0
J
200
100
0
V
i
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500
Penetration (inch)
iation from Standard ASTM D1883 Procedure:
None Noted
Sample No.: 1131
Street: Fort Bragg, NC
Description: Reddish Brown, silty SAND
Station No.: B - 7 lOP
Classification: SM
Remark: Modified Effort D - 1557
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
126.8
CBR 1131
Opt. Moisture Content (%)
8.8
Corrected CBR @ 0.1"
19.2
Natural Moisture Content
10.2
Corrected CBR @ 0.2"
31.7
Liquid Limit (LL)
NP
Reported CBR
19.2
Plastic Limit (PL)
NP I
Dry Density as Molded
124.3
Plasticity Index (PI)
NP
Molded Moisture Content
7.1
Liquidity Index (LI)
'
Percent of Maximum Density
98.0
Percent Retained 314" Sieve
None
Moisture Content +/- Opt
-1.7
Percent Retained No. 4 Sieve
< 6%
Percent (%)Swell
0.1
Percent Passing No.200 Sieve
20.3
Project: 3RD BCT IOP -
Project No.: 1751
Date: 10-Oct-11
5CS CAROLINAS, LLP
Fayetteville, North Carolina
California Bearing Ratio Curves

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

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