SW4210803_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20220120

# ESP
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE
EXPLORATION
Proposed Delivery Station 3
Lexington, North Carolina
ESP Project Number: E413-IV18.300
Prepared For:
Southeastern Consulting Engineers, Inc.
600 Minuet Lane
Charlotte, North Carolina 28224
Prepared By:
ESP Associates, Inc.
7144 Waddington Road, NW
Suite 110
Concord, NC 28027
July 20, 2021

4 ESP
July 20, 2021
Mr. Jeremy Furr
Southeastern Consulting Engineers, Inc.
600 Minuet Lane
Charlotte, North Carolina 28224
Reference: REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Proposed Delivery Station 3
Concord, North Carolina
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300
Mr. Furr:
ESP Associates, Inc. (ESP) has completed the Subsurface Exploration for the Proposed Delivery Station 3
in Lexington, North Carolina. This exploration was performed in general accordance with our Proposal
No.E2-21173, dated March 11, 2021, as authorized by you.
ESP appreciates the opportunity to assist you during this phase of the project. If you should have any
questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
ESP Associates, Inc.
Matthew J. Amick
Project Manager
Electronic submission (1)
oo
i LICENSE NO.: i =
F-1407
16
FOCI AA,
�nnn
\01111 A/1////'i
�•`��O��o Ess pO��y
Q 9� •;
SEAL =
0847
�� •. GIN .,.••
D.?ytf�e(� tiern'1 , ri .
N.C. tA�ti\�i+D`.28947

4 ESP
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of Services......................................................................................................................1
1.2 Site Description.............................................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Description........................................................................................................................1
2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES.........................................................................................................2
2.1 Field...............................................................................................................................................2
2.1.1 Soil Test Borings...................................................................................................................2
2.2 Laboratory.....................................................................................................................................
2
2.3 Seasonal High Water Table Evaluation........................................................................................
3
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITION...............................................................................................................4
3.1 Site Geology..................................................................................................................................4
3.2 Subsurface Findings.....................................................................................................................4
3.2.1 Surface..................................................................................................................................
4
3.2.2 Residuum..............................................................................................................................4
3.3 Subsurface Water.........................................................................................................................
5
3.4 Laboratory Test Results................................................................................................................
5
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMIARY RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................6
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations........................................................................................................6
4.2 Site Development..........................................................................................................................6
4.2.1 High Plasticity Clay................................................................................................................6
4.2.2 Site Preparation.....................................................................................................................7
4.2.3 Fill Material and Placement...................................................................................................8
4.2.4 Cut and Fill Slopes................................................................................................................
8
4.2.5 Temporary Excavations........................................................................................................8
4.2.6 Structural Fill Greater Than 10 Feet In Thickness................................................................
8
4.3 Foundation Support.......................................................................................................................9
4.3.1 Shallow Foundation Support.................................................................................................9
4.3.2 Deep Foundation Support.....................................................................................................9
4.4 Slab-On-Grade............................................................................................................................11
4.5 Pavements..................................................................................................................................11
5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................................12
5.1 Drainage......................................................................................................................................12
6.0 LIMITATIONS of REPORT................................................................................................................13

4 ESP
APPENDIX I
Field Exploration Procedures
Laboratory Procedures
Boring Location Plan with Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1
Legend To Soil Classification And Symbols
Test Boring Records (B-01 Through B-03)
Atterberg Limits' Results
Grain Size Distribution
APPENDIX II
Stormwater Control Measure (SCM) Soil Testing Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT)
Evaluation Proposed SCM, Community Road Substation - Davidson County, NC

REPORT OFSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION D �) ESP
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Services
The purpose of the exploration was to evaluate the general subsurface conditions within the proposed
substation area with regard to the design and construction of the foundation systems. This report presents
our findings, conclusions and recommendations for foundation design, as well as construction
considerations for the proposed foundations.
1.2 Site Description
The proposed site is located west of Community Road approximately 2,000 feet south of the intersection
of Mt Olivet Church Road and Community Road in Lexington, North Carolina (reference "Site Vicinity Map"
within Figure 1). The 1.32 acre site is currently undeveloped with vegetation primarily consisting of pasture
grasses. Based on visual observations, the site generally slopes downward from northeast to southwest
with approximately 10 feet of relief.
1.3 Project Description
We understand that plans are to construct a substation on the property. We understand the structures will
be supported with shallow and deep foundations as well as slab foundations. No other detailed information
has been provided at this time.
1

REPORT OFSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION D �) ESP
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
2.1 Field
The following methods were used to evaluate the subsurface conditions of the site. Additional descriptions
of the field exploration procedures are also presented in Appendix I. The test locations were located in the
field by a representative from our office using a Hand Held GPS. While in the field and where applicable, a
representative of the geotechnical engineer visually examined the samples obtained or subsurface material
encountered to evaluate the type of soil, soil plasticity, moisture condition, organic content, presence of
lenses and seams, colors and apparent geological origin using general guidance from "ASTM D 2488
Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual Manual Procedures)." Approximate
boring locations are shown on the attached "Boring Location Plan," Figure 1.
2.1.1 Soil Test Borings
Three soil test borings (Borings B-01 through B-03) were extended to approximately 25 feet below the
existing ground surface using a CME55OX (ATV) drill rig. Hollow -stem, continuous flight augers were used
to advance the borings into the ground. Standard Penetration Tests were performed within the soil test
borings using an automatic hammer. The Standard Penetration Test provides the Standard Penetration
Resistances (N-values) reported in blows per foot (bpf) as outlined in the Field Exploration Procedures
section located in Appendix I. Water level measurements were attempted at, and up to 1 day after, the
termination of drilling. After subsequent water level measurements were attempted, the bore holes were
backfilled with auger cuttings.
The results of the visual soil classifications for the borings, as well as field test results and N-values, are
presented on the individual "Test Boring Records," included in Appendix I. Similar soils were grouped into
strata on the records. The strata lines represent approximate boundaries between the soil types; however,
the actual transition between soil types in the field may be gradual in both the horizontal and vertical
directions.
2.2 Laboratory
Select samples of the on -site soils obtained during the field testing program were tested in the laboratory.
Tests performed included:
• Atterberg Limits, and
• Grain Size Distribution
The results of the laboratory tests performed for this study are attached in Appendix I. A brief description
of the procedures used are also presented in Appendix I.
►:

REPORT OFSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION D �) ESP
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
2.3 Seasonal High Water Table Evaluation
ESP subcontracted Willcox and Mabe Soil Solutions, PLLC (WMSS) to perform Storm Control Measures Soil
Testing and evaluate the Seasonal High Water Table within the proposed water quality area at Borings B-03.
The Seasonal High Water Table Evaluation performed by WMSS, dated June 25, 2021 is included in Appendix
II of this report.

REPORT OFSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION D �) ESP
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITION
3.1 Site Geology
The referenced property is located in Lexington, North Carolina which is in the Piedmont Physiographic
Province. The Piedmont Province generally consists of hills and ridges which are intertwined with an
established system of draws and streams. The Piedmont Province is predominately underlain by igneous
rock (formed from molten material) and metamorphic rock (formed by heat, pressure and/or chemical
action), which were initially formed during the Precambrian and Paleozoic eras.
The residual soils encountered in this area are the product of in -place chemical weathering of rock which
was similar to the rock presently underlying the site. In areas not altered by erosion or disturbed by the
activities of man, the typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the surface, where soil
weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands. The boundary between soil and
rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone termed "partially weathered rock" is normally found
overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual
material with Standard Penetration Resistances in excess of 100 blows per foot (bpf). Weathering is
facilitated by fractures, joints and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of
the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances.
Also, it is common to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock within the
soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level.
3.2 Subsurface Findings
Subsurface conditions as indicated by the borings generally consist of topsoil, underlain by residual soils.
The generalized subsurface conditions at the site are described below and are graphically depicted in
Appendix I. For more detailed soil descriptions and stratifications at a particular test location, the attached
"Test Boring Record" should be reviewed.
surrace
A topsoil or topsoil/grassmat layer approximately 2 to 4-inches thick was encountered at each boring
location. It is expected that the topsoil or topsoil/grassmat thicknesses will vary across the site and may be
greater than indicated on the Test Boring Records.
3.2.2 Residuum
Beneath the surface materials in each boring, residual soils were encountered. Residual soils are mineral
material accumulated by the in -place chemical weathering of the underlying parent rock. Beneath the topsoil
in Borings B-01 through B-03 residual soils were encountered. The residuum generally consists of firm to
very stiff sandy silts, sandy clays, and sandy high plasticity clays and medium dense to very dense silty
sands. N-values in the residuum varied between 5 and 61 bpf. Soil Test Borings B-01 through B-03, were
terminated in the residual soils at approximately 25 feet below the existing ground surface.
4

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
3.3 Subsurface Water
4 ESP
Water levels were attempted at the termination of drilling and 1 day following drilling operations. The soil
test borings were dry at the termination of drilling and 1 day after drilling.
Subsurface water levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations, as well as with some types
of construction operations. Therefore, water may be encountered during construction at depths not
indicated during this study.
3.4 Laboratory Test Results
Laboratory tests were performed on select samples obtained from split spoon samples. Laboratory testing
consisted of Atterberg Limits and Grain Size Analysis. A summary of the laboratory test results are
presented in Table 2.
Table 2 — Summary of Laboratory Test Results
k,

REPORT OFSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION D �) ESP
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMIARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations
Based on the project information previously discussed, the data obtained from the field and laboratory
testing program and our analysis, the following conditions should be considered and addressed in the
proposed development and are further discussed in the following sections of this report.
• High Plasticity Clay
Our conclusions and preliminary recommendations are based on the project information previously
discussed and on the data obtained from the field and laboratory testing program. If the structural loading,
geometry or proposed structure locations are changed or significantly differ from those discussed, or if
conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those encountered by the borings, ESP
requests the opportunity to review our recommendations based on the new information and make any
necessary changes.
4.2 Site Development
4.2.1 High Plasticity Clay
Laboratory tests were performed on select samples obtained from the split spoon samples. Laboratory
testing consisted of Atterberg Limits and Grain Size Analysis. Typically, soils with a Plasticity Index (PI)
less than 30 are considered to be low to moderate plasticity material. A summary of laboratory test results
for soils classifying as high plasticity are presented below in Table 6.
Table 6 — Summary of Laboratory Test Results for High Plasticity Soil
High plasticity clays with a PI greater than 30 were not encountered in our borings. If high plasticity clay
soils with a PI greater than 30 become wet during or after construction, there may be an increase in their
volume (swelling) and/or a reduction in their strength. In addition, if these materials are in -place during
construction and subsequently dry out, there may be a decrease in their volume (shrinking) resulting in
settlement. Soils with a plasticity indices greater than 30 within the near surface (upper 2 to 3 feet) soil
profile may present an increased risk of distress to the proposed foundations, or slabs -on -grade due to
swell or shrinkage of these materials with variations in moisture content.

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
4 ESP
Foundations, slabs and/or pavements may not be sufficiently weighted to reduce the potential for swell
and/or heave, if bearing directly on high plasticity clays. If high plasticity soils with a PI greater than 30 are
encountered during construction, ESP recommends undercutting and replacing with select fill to achieve
three (3) feet of separation between stable high plasticity clay and bottom of bearing, slab and pavement
section elevations,
A thorough field evaluation should be performed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer at the
time of construction to further determine the presence of high plasticity clay soils that may adversely affect
the performance of the proposed structures and pavements.
4.2.2 Site Preparation
The entire building and pavement areas should be stripped of all topsoil, high plasticity near surface soils,
trash, debris and other organic materials to a minimum of 10 feet and 5 feet beyond the structural and
pavement limits, respectively. It has been our experience that stripping depths of topsoil may vary from the
depths recorded on the Test Boring Records due to variability between boring locations. Deeper stripping
may be required to adequately remove rootmat and stumps from wooded sites and may be dependent on
surface conditions at the time of grading, such as wetter conditions during winter months. It is often desired
by project owners to place topsoil/strippings in non-structural areas of the site, such as in over -built slopes
or buried in on -site borrow pits. If on -site topsoil disposal is considered, the geotechnical engineer should
be consulted to provide additional analysis and recommendations, as needed in this regard.
Upon completion of the stripping operations, the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill should be
proofrolled with a loaded dump truck or similar pneumatic tired vehicle (minimum loaded weight of 20 tons)
under the observation of a representative of the geotechnical engineer. The proofrolling procedures should
consist of complete passes of the exposed areas, with half of the passes being in a direction perpendicular
to the preceding ones. After excavation of the site has been completed, the exposed subgrade in cut areas
should also be proofrolled as previously described. Any areas which deflect, rut or pump excessively during
proofrolling or fail to improve sufficiently after successive passes should be undercut to suitable soils and
replaced with structural fill.
Unsuitable soils may be encountered between the borings during site grading or excavation for foundations.
Some undercutting of soft near surface soils in various portions of the site, as well as the areas where high
plasticity clay soils are present within the upper 3 feet of subgrade or the bearing surface should be
anticipated. The extent of the undercut required should be evaluated in the field by an experienced
representative of the geotechnical engineer while monitoring construction activity. The evaluation should
consist of a comprehensive proofrolling program and thorough field evaluation during construction. After
the proofrolling operation has been completed and approved, final site grading should proceed immediately.
If construction progresses during wet weather, the proofrolling operation should be repeated with at least
one pass in each direction immediately prior to proceeding with site grading. If unstable conditions are
exposed during this operation, then undercutting should be performed.

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
4.2.3 Fill Material and Placement
4 ESP
All fill used for site grading operations should consist of a clean (free of organics and debris), low plasticity
soil. The proposed fill should have a maximum dry density of at least 90 pounds per cubic foot as
determined by a Standard Proctor Moisture -Density Relationship test, ASTM D 698. All fill should be placed
in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its Standard
Proctor maximum dry density, with at least 100 percent achieved in the upper 12 inches. We recommend
that field density tests, including one -point Proctor verification tests, be performed on the fill as it is being
placed at a frequency determined by an experienced geotechnical engineer to verify the compaction criteria.
Any fills that may be constructed greater than 10 feet in height should be evaluated with regard to long term
settlement, consolidation and slope stability. This analysis should be requested of the geotechnical
engineer once grading plans are complete and available.
Based on the results of the soil test borings and our past experience with similar type materials, the residual
soils encountered, appear suitable for re -use as structural fill. If encountered, high plasticity clay soils may
be used in deep fill areas (more than 5 feet of fill) or in landscaped areas provided they can be manipulated
and properly compacted. As with any grading operation, moisture conditioning of the fill soils may be
required.
4.2.4 Cut and Fill Slopes
Final project slopes should be designed to be 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Slopes can be designed
as steep as 2 horizontal to 1 vertical; however, soil erosion, slope sloughing and slope maintenance should
be expected. If designing slopes steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, a slope stability analysis should be
performed to verify stability of the slope. The tops and bases of all slopes should be located a minimum of
10 feet from structural and 5 feet from pavement limits. The fill slopes should be adequately compacted as
outlined within this report, and all slopes should be seeded and maintained after construction.
4.2.5 Temporary Excavations
Excavations greater than four feet in depth should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and
federal regulations, including OSHA "Construction Standard for Excavations" (29 CFR Part 1926.650-652).
The contractor is usually solely responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a service
and under no circumstances should ESP be assumed to be responsible for construction site safety.
4.2.6 Structural Fill Greater Than 10 Feet In Thickness
Any structural fills that may be constructed greater than 10 feet in height should be monitored prior to
constructing the foundations and slab -on -grade. Settlement monitoring points should be embedded at the
proposed subgrade level and monitored regularly by a licensed surveyor. Once the magnitude and rate of
settlement are within acceptable levels, then foundation and slab -on -grade construction may begin. Based
on our previous experience and soil types at the site, we anticipate the time required to reduce settlements
to an acceptable level may be on the order of 60 days. Should the constructed pad be left in place for an
extended period of time prior to construction of a building, the need and/or timeframe for settlement
monitoring may lessen.

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
4 ESP
We recommend that the settlement monitoring data be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to determine
when foundation and slab -on -grade construction may proceed. Failure to allow adequate time for the
settlement to occur may result in excessive settlement of the buildings and subsequent damage to the
structures. Therefore, the owner is taking a risk if construction is allowed to proceed prematurely.
4.3 Foundation Support
For satisfactory performance, the foundation for any structure must satisfy two independent design criteria.
First, it must have an acceptable factor of safety against bearing failure of the foundation soils under the
maximum design loads. Second, the settlement or swell of the foundations due to consolidation or uplift of
the underlying soils should be within tolerable limits for the structures.
4.3.1 Shallow Foundation Support
The results of the soil test borings indicate that the proposed structures can be adequately supported on
shallow foundations bearing on the low -plasticity residual soils, or newly placed structural fill, provided the
site preparation and fill placement procedures outlined in this report are implemented. A net allowable
bearing pressure of up to 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used for design of the foundations. In
addition, at least three (3) feet of separation should be provided between stable high plasticity clay and
bottom of footing elevations.
Based on the general stratigraphy in the substation area, past experience with similar projects and the
anticipated magnitude of the structural loads, it is our opinion that the total and differential settlement
potentials for the building should be on the order of 1 inch and '/ inch, respectively. This conclusion is
contingent upon compliance with the site preparation and fill placement recommendations outlined in this
report.
Minimum wall and column footing dimensions of 18 and 24 inches, respectively, should be maintained to
reduce the possibility of a localized, punching -type shear failure. Exterior foundations and foundations in
unheated areas should be designed to bear at least 18 inches below finished grade for frost protection.
We recommend that the subgrade soils be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior
to foundation installation. This is to assess their suitability for foundation support and confirm their
consistency with the conditions upon which our recommendations are based.
The subgrade materials can be sensitive to moisture variations; therefore, foundation excavations should
be opened for a minimum amount of time, particularly during inclement weather. Soils exposed to moisture
variations may become highly disturbed and require undercutting prior to placing foundations.
4.3.2 Deep Foundation Support
The design considerations for the proposed drilled shaft foundations are summarized in the following tables.
For specific details concerning an individual boring please refer to the specific and "Test Boring Record".
E

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
4 ESP
BORING B-01: Groundwater was not observed at the time of boring, and up to 1 day after termination of
drilling. The following soil design parameters may be utilized during foundation design:
Effective
Uplift
Ultimate
Angle of
End
(Effective)
Internal
Skin
Bearing
Wet Unit
Depth
Skin Friction
Friction
Pressure
Cohesion
Friction,
Wt
(feet)
(psf)
(psf)
(psf)
(psf)
(degrees)
(pcf)
0 to 5
Ignore
Ignore
Ignore
Ignore
Ignore
Ignore
5 to 20
155
95
2,500
100
24
110
20 to 25
290
175
3,000
75
28
115
BORING B-02: Groundwater was not observed at the time of boring, and up to 1 day after termination of
drilling . The following soil design parameters may be utilized during foundation design.
Effective
Uplift
Ultimate
Angle of
End
(Effective)
Internal
Skin
Bearing
Wet
Depth
Skin Friction
Friction
Pressure
Cohesion
Friction,
Unit Wt
(feet)
(psf)
(psf)
(psf)
(psf)
(degrees)
(pcf)
0 to 5
Ignore
Ignore
Ignore
Ignore
Ignore
Ignore
5 to 13.5
40
25
2,000
100
24
110
13.5 to 20
150
90
3,000
75
28
115
20 to 25
240
145
3,500
75
28
120
10

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
4.4 Slab -On -Grade
4 ESP
The slab -on -grade foundation system can be adequately supported on the low -plasticity residual/native
soils or newly compacted fill, provided the site preparation and fill placement procedures outlined in this
report are implemented. In addition, at least three (3) feet of separation should be provided between stable
high plasticity clay and bottom of slab elevations.
Based on our experience on the subject site, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction, K of 100 psi
per inch be used for initial slab -on -grade design. This assumes the slab subgrade soils are reworked or
stabilized prior to slab construction. We recommend the structural engineer provide the implied slab
stresses to ESP after initial design and the modules of subgrade reaction can be modified in an interactive
process to optimize the slab -on -grade design.
Immediately prior to constructing the slab -on -grade, we recommend that the areas be proofrolled or
otherwise evaluated to detect unstable, low consistency/relative density areas or areas that may have been
exposed to wet weather or construction traffic. Areas that are found to be unstable or indicate low
consistency/relative density during the evaluation should be undercut and replaced with adequately
compacted structural fill. The evaluation should be performed by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
4.5 Pavements
We recommend that special care be given to providing adequate drainage away from pavement areas to
reduce infiltration of surface water to the base course and subgrade materials in these areas. If these
materials are allowed to become saturated during the life of the pavement section, then there will be a
strength reduction of the materials that could result in a reduced life of the pavement section. All water
should be routed away from the pavement areas and adequate slopes provided to maintain drainage off
site. Pavement areas should be proofrolled prior to placing structural fill and/or base course. Proofrolling
procedures are outlined in subsequent sections of this report. At least three (3) feet of separation should
be provided between stable high plasticity clay silt and bottom of pavement section elevations.
11

REPORT OFSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION D �) ESP
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Drainage
Soil strength and settlement potential is highly dependent upon the moisture condition of the supportive
soil. Soil characteristics can change dramatically when moisture conditions change. As such, roadways,
structures and surrounding grades should be properly designed and constructed to properly control water
(surface and subsurface). Building pads should be designed to shed surface water prior to building
construction. Grades surrounding structures should be adequately sloped away from the structure to
promote positive drainage and prevent water from ponding near or against the structure. Swales and/or
storm drainage structures should be constructed to collect and remove all surface water run-off. Foundation
drains should be designed and constructed to properly protect foundations from changing moisture conditions.
Foundation drains constructed should be properly daylighted or connected to storm drain structures to remove
all water from foundation areas. Any subsurface water that may rise near structural grades should be controlled
by adequately constructed subsurface drainage mechanisms.
12

REPORT OFSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION D �) ESP
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION 3
ESP Project No. E4B-IV18.300 1 July 20, 2021
6.0 LIMITATIONS of REPORT
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice
with regard to the specific conditions and requirements of this site. The conclusions and preliminary
recommendations contained in this report were based on the applicable standards of our practice in this
geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
The analysis and preliminary recommendations submitted herein are based, in part, upon the data obtained
from the subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations between the borings will not be known
until construction is underway. If variations appear evident, then we request the opportunity to re-evaluate
the recommendations of this report. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the
structures are planned, the conclusions and preliminary recommendations contained in this report will not
be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions modified or verified in writing by
ESP.
In order to verify that earthwork and foundation preliminary recommendations are properly interpreted and
implemented, we recommend that ESP be provided the opportunity to review the final plans and
specifications. Any concerns observed will be brought to our client's attention in writing.
Our conclusions and preliminary recommendations are based on the project information previously
discussed and on the data obtained from the field and laboratory testing program. If the structural loading,
geometry or proposed structure locations are changed or significantly differ from those discussed, or if
conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those encountered by the borings, ESP
requests the opportunity to review our preliminary recommendations based on the new information and
make any necessary changes.
13

APPENDIX I

4 ESP
FIELD EXPLORATION
Soil Test Boring: Three (3) soil test borings were drilled at the approximate locations shown on the
attached Boring Location Plan, Figure 1. Soil sampling and penetration testing were performed using
general guidance from ASTM D 1586.
The borings were advanced with hollow -stem augers and, at standard intervals, soil samples were obtained
with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D., split -tube sampler. The sampler was first seated six (6) inches to
penetrate any loose cuttings, then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30
inches with the exception of penetration restrictions. The sum of the last foot of hammer blows is designated
the "Standard Penetration Resistance." Standard Penetration Tests were performed within the soil test
borings utilizing an automatic hammer attached to the referenced drill rig(s) utilized in this exploration. The
Standard Penetration Test values shown on the "Test Boring Records" have not been corrected for
theoretical energy or depths adjustments. When properly evaluated, the Standard Penetration Resistances
provide an index to soil strength, relative density, and ability to support foundations.
Select portions of each soil sample were placed in sealed containers and taken to our office. The samples
were examined by a representative of the geotechnical engineer for classification. Test Boring Records are
attached showing the soil descriptions and Standard Penetration Resistances.

4 ESP
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
Soil Plasticity Tests (Atterberg Limits Test): Select samples were identified for Atterberg Limits testing
to determine the soil's plasticity characteristics. This test was conducted using general guidance from ASTM
D 4318. The Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this characteristic and is determined utilizing the Liquid
Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The Liquid Limit is the moisture content at which the soil will flow as a
heavy viscous. The Plastic Limit is the moisture content at which the soil transitions between the plastic
and semi -solid states. The data obtained is presented on the attached Atterberg Limits' Results sheet.
Grain Size Test: Grain size tests were performed to determine the particle size and distribution of the
samples tested. The grain size distribution of soils coarser than a No. 200 sieve was determined by passing
the samples through a set of nested sieves. This test was conducted using general guidance from ASTM
D 421 and 422. The results are presented on the attached Grain Size Distribution Sheets.

I,IXo7N111 F-A I 161k, 1101 N ;181.11�
p Link -perry Ter
ea
L
Q
D
N
O
Oa
`cl Site or�
�f
D-
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
USGS, Intermap,
INCREMENT R NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China
(Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri
SITE VICINITY MAP
(Not to Scale)
Legend
Approximate Boring Location
Approximate SHWT Boring Location
I
�'.\ ��.Y�M v•a'°' \ter \^•R •+\\ +w \w•� � \'\.,��r,d r/ 4
\rM»tlMy^ r� wv,p ~ww'V ®•w �+^w y�i.+v \\e`Y,.a w•.NJ % i 1 i
~ 4 PP
\•�.»w.n .,. 'na •p.x.x,.v +ww~a"^w.o, �w.°'",�/'/'!��T\\�� !�\..�\#,.n..\�,v •,••� �S �_� t♦'�
is
M
w. +.nn " �"'^ v-a �\ •+� C,e• ® � *"<Ki++.rwK' a.n •en r r / S� � $
. _ _ �i0'_ \ ,y, ,1•'p'� SM �Mwf d� .CIS% ;
...Mv�n.e�•n.i. are.+ w�j, •1••n" +�+ ' '^tlYf a L •";?!° \ Z Veww •.a•_ `"w„+.w
vim\ •'� 4.w"""^y'4►>w .� w.li.,� '•
� an
S
4c c
t!
t s t s P
t •� .n..r � ,� Mra Jr .1 4
s
/ / S M
11
ra pr!> t� S4N\ -Ja
%w d
aT40
!<! S<y � �.,a•�� ,r"``x.. ++w\ww y..w�'Mv x\ � � pp.l' �,r. ,•� tt ,�aa
! - � `a•wyc ,. .rye
B-01°,...a,^rr•.
..w X
>� d w�« 0.3,to ;3.5'
J.
! i,,,rw '+•w.x,o, ay"wv �\ 1 v!
ppp"'
� �..`` !' . "YM. ww v.•x•,„•'w.w .x, Mb � • w v w. •� \ ,ar. ` � � a- M .<! �A i
® � l•,� j' lm*ewe.» ,n Y w .,n .n", r,w �. .aP•p'=1i74r
,46
l' t `�� w .: .. tir •••IIIZZZ
• x I� f x S S
�:.!» '� w w,.a. w.., w.• .nw..: qF......., ...ao w. ^ "„ �3f t
��w� .�w.vw• .»a.nw »w.-»..nw....,��+. -'•a �
"'r•we..«,•, .w.,,. u»ea»r.w+»..r.,r v:�S /` / ar• y+Ra 4, `;, `/ Ap j'.% P /,% � �/ ✓ E rp
� p
4 Jp
/ jr Jp
p r +�dN r•/'f �. d ar' Jd rr�'er r �✓ + � r i /
� rip•. r ; Mf p� r P :/ M ✓... � � � � / � ✓
p i / ! f •fIe y p
Depth of High Pasticity Clay Soils
rWWI
This drawing is intended to show approximate
oorin'g locations only No other information is
} 4 S 1% : E rl, M G- Ey-, E G gr ph C ESAlrbu DS, SDA, USGS, A- OGf xpressedorimplied I l9 C un'
SHEET TITLE:
N ROPOSAL NO.: N'4
Boring Location Plan
� ESP
Figure 1
SCALE: NTS
The reproduction, alteration, copying, or other DRAWN BY: MJA
7144 Weddington Road NW
Suite 110
Community Road Substation
use of this drawing without written consent is
Concord, NC 28027
Lexington, North Carolina
prohibited and any infringement will be DATE: July 19, 2021 CHECKED BY: DCS
www.espassociates.com
subject to legal action.
Phone- 704-793-9855

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS
o. 0.4 ° . .a ABC Stone Asphalt/Concrete
Concrete/Brick Debris a ° o ° ° Coquina Shell Base Course
0
To soil/Rootmat x.- ;11rt To soil/Grassmat
x p ..x p
,�Ir,,
Topsoil x x Wood and Roots
x
High Plasticity Clay Moderate Plasticity Clay
Clay Clayey Silt
Elastic Silt Silt
Organic Clay Organic Silt
Organic Silt and Clay r` r' Peat
b p b
Poorly Graded Gravel Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt
b b
Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay Clayey Gravel
b b
Silty Gravel Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Clay
A Well Graded Gravel + A Well Graded Gravel with Silt
* Well Graded Gravel with Clay Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand Poorly Graded Sand with Clay
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt ' ❑. ' a Well Graded Sand
6 6 �
Well Graded Sand with Clay Well Graded Sand with Silt
MI
Partially Weathered Rock MI Cored Rock 4) ESP_
Page 1 of 2

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS
SAMPLER TYPES
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
(Shown in Samples Column)
STANDARD PENETRATION
'
Shelby Tube
RESISTANCE
CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT
Split Spoon
Very Soft 0 to 2
Soft 3 to 4
Rock Core
Firm 5 to 8
Stiff 9 to 15
No Recovery
Very Stiff 16 to 30
Hard 31 to 50
Very Hard Over 50
WATER LEVELS
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
= Water Level at Boring Termination
= Water Level at 1 Day
Q = Loss of Drilling Fluid
HC = Hole Cave
CONSISTENCY
TERMS
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
STANDARD PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
BLOWS/FOOT
0to4
5 to 10
11to30
31to50
Over 50
Standard Penetration Resistance - The number of blows it takes a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 in. to drive a 1.4 in I.D. split spoon
sampler 1 foot (N-Value) as specified in ASTM D-1586.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Data - The cone point is driven up to three 1 1/4 inch intervals using a 15-pound weight falling
20 inches. The penetrometer test result is the average number of blows per interval. The penetrometer test result is similar to the
Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value), as defined by ASTM D 1586. When properly evaluated, the penetrometer test results
provide an index for estimating soil strength and relative density.
Kessler Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Data — The cone point is driven using a 17.6-pound weight falling 22.6 inches. The
total penetration for a given number of blows is measured and recorded in mm/blow as specified in ASTM D 6951. When properly
evaluated, the penetrometer test result can be used to describe soil stiffness and estimate an in -situ CBR strength from an appropriate
correlation chart.
REC - Total length of rock recovered in the core barrel divided by the total length of the core run times 100 (expressed as a
percentage).
RQD - Total length of sound rock segments recovered that are longer than or equal to 4" (mechanical breaks included) divided by
the total length of the core run times 100 (expressed as a percentage).
ESPI
Page 2 of 2

PROJECT: Proposed Delivery Station 3
Lexington, North Carolina
TEST BORING RECORD
B-01
PROJECT No.:
IV18.300
ELEVATION:
Existing Ground Surface
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
AUGER I.D.:
2.25 in
DRILLING COMPANY:
CG2
LOGGED BY:
Mike Oreste
BORING DEPTH:
25.0 Feet
DRILL RIG:
CME550X (ATV)
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED:
06/25/21
WATER LEVEL:
sz Dry @ TOB i Dry @ 1 days
I—_
L
(7
a O
ry J
(D
SOIL DESCRIPTION
w w
>
Lu J
Q
U)
> ^
Lu
L
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
(Blows/ft)
L
a
m
10 30 50 7090
5
10
15
20
25
30
Topsoil
HC
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
12
8
7
8
6
8
15
RESIDUUM: Stiff Reddish Orange High Plasticity CLAY
RESIDUUM: Firm Tannish Orange SILT
RESIDUUM: Firm Tannish Orange SILT with sand
RESIDUUM: Firm To Stiff Tannish White Sandy SILT, moderately
micaceous
Boringwas terminated at 25.0 feet. Cave-in depth at 14.0 feet.
Page 1 of 1
DEPTH MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN TO ILLUSTRATE THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE SOIL
TYPES ENCOUNTERED AT THE BOREHOLE LOCATIONS. DO NOT USE DEPTH MEASUREMENTS FOR ESP
DETERMINATION OF DISTANCES OR QUANTITIES.

PROJECT: Proposed Delivery Station 3
Lexington, North Carolina
TEST BORING RECORD
B_02
PROJECT No.:
IV18.300
ELEVATION:
Existing Ground Surface
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
AUGER I.D.:
2.25 in
DRILLING COMPANY:
CG2
LOGGED BY:
Mike Oreste
BORING DEPTH:
25.0 Feet
DRILL RIG:
CME550X (ATV)
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED:
06/25/21
WATER LEVEL:
sz Dry @ TOB i Dry @ 1 days
I—_
L
(7
a O
ry J
(D
SOIL DESCRIPTION
w w
>
Lu J
Q
U)
> ^
Lu
L
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
(Blows/ft)
L
a
m
10 30 50 7090
5
10
15
20
25
30
Topsoil
HC
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
9
8
6
5
10
11
16
RESIDUUM: Stiff To Firm Reddish Orange SILT
RESIDUUM: Firm Orange Tan SILT with sand
RESIDUUM: Stiff To Very Stiff Tannish White Sandy SILT,
moderately micaceous
Boring was terminated at 25.0 feet. Cave-in depth at 15.5 feet.
Page 1 of 1
DEPTH MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN TO ILLUSTRATE THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE SOIL
TYPES ENCOUNTERED AT THE BOREHOLE LOCATIONS. DO NOT USE DEPTH MEASUREMENTS FOR ESP
DETERMINATION OF DISTANCES OR QUANTITIES.

PROJECT: Proposed Delivery Station 3
Lexington, North Carolina
TEST BORING RECORD
B-03
PROJECT No.:
IV18.300
ELEVATION:
Existing Ground Surface
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
AUGER I.D.:
2.25 in
DRILLING COMPANY:
CG2
LOGGED BY:
Mike Oreste
BORING DEPTH:
25.0 Feet
DRILL RIG:
CME550X (ATV)
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED:
06/25/21
WATER LEVEL:
sz Dry @ TOB i Dry @ 1 days
I—_
L
(7
a O
ry J
(D
SOIL DESCRIPTION
w w
>
Lu J
Q
U)
> ^
Lu
L
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
(Blows/ft)
L
a
m
10 30 50 7090
5
10
15
20
25
30
Topsoil
HC
�
-5.0
10.0
-15.0
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
11
12
13
20
8
11
9
11
14
42
61
RESIDUUM: Medium Dense Tannish Brown Silty SAND
RESIDUUM: Stiff To Very Stiff Tannish Orange Sandy CLAY
RESIDUUM: Firm To Stiff Tannish Orange Sandy SILT
RESIDUUM: Stiff Tannish White Sandy SILT
RESIDUUM: Dense To Very Dense Tannish White Silty SAND,
fine to coarse
Boringwas terminated at 25.0 feet. Cave-in depth at 18.0 feet.
Page 1 of 1
DEPTH MEASUREMENTS ARE SHOWN TO ILLUSTRATE THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE SOIL
TYPES ENCOUNTERED AT THE BOREHOLE LOCATIONS. DO NOT USE DEPTH MEASUREMENTS FOR ESP
DETERMINATION OF DISTANCES OR QUANTITIES.

P
L
A
S
T
1
C
I
T
Y
1
N
D
E
X
50
40
3r
20
0
CL-MIL
CL
MIL
I CH
MH
0 20
40
LIQUID LIMIT 60
Specimen Identification
ILL
PL
PI
Fines
Classification
S-1 B-01 (1'- 2.5')
58
29
29
59.0
Sandy fat clay CH
♦
S-2 B-03 (1'- 2.5')
51
42
9
43.2
Silty sand SM
Remarks:
ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
TEST METHOD: ASTM D4318
7144 Weddington Rd NW
Address: Suite 110
Concord, NC 28024
ESP Telephone: [phone]
Project: Proposed Delivery Station 3
Number: IV18.300
Lab Technician: bpierce
Project Manager: Mamick
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the prior written approval of ESP Associates, Inc. 1 of 1
The test results shown are specific to the specimen/sample numbers tested, as noted above.

III
IIIN■11�111�11111
III
IIIN■11�111�11111
III
IIII■11�111�11111
III
IIII■11�111�1�1
fat clay CH
oSandy
mmo��
Grainsize Requirement Limits: NA
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
TEST METHOD: ASTM D6913
7144 Weddington Rd NW
Concord, NC 28024
SpAddress: Suite 110
Telephone: [phone]
Project: Proposed Delivery Station 3
Number: IV18.300
Lab Technician: bpierce
Project Manager: Mamick
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the prior written approval of ESP Associates, Inc.
The test results shown are specific to the specimen/sample numbers tested, as noted above. 1 of 1

APPENDIX II

willcox&mabe
SOI L SOLUTIONS
June 25, 2021
ESP Associates, Inc.
7144 Weddington Road NW — Suite 110
Concord, North Carolina 28027
Attention: Mr. Matthew J. Amick
Reference: Stormwater Control Measures (SCM) Soil Testing
Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) Evaluation
Proposed SCM
Community Road Substation — Davidson County, N.C.
Willcox & Mabe Soil Solutions, PLLC Project No. 16-06; Phase: 71
Dear Mr. Amick:
Willcox & Mabe Soil Solutions, PLLC (WMSS) has conducted Stormwater Control
Measures (SCM) Soil Testing in accordance with ESP Associates, Inc. (ESP) Subcontract
Agreement dated January 8, 2021, and WMSS Subcontract Work Authorization No. 16-
21 dated June 25, 2021. The SCM Soil Testing was performed to provide information for
technical assistance with the design of a proposed SCM. A soil scientist investigation
was conducted to evaluate the soil properties at one location being considered for a
possible SCM, to determine suitability for stormwater management systems. The soil
scientist investigation was conducted to evaluate: seasonal high water table (SHWT)
elevations below existing ground surface. A "Site Plan" was provided to WMSS by ESP
that identified relative site features and potential location for the proposed SCM.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The area evaluated was located within the area associated with a planned SCM. The
SCM is planned in conjunction with proposed site improvements associated with the
Community Road Substation site in Davidson County, North Carolina. The site is
located southwest of Community Road, southeast of the intersection of Community Road
and Mt. Olivet Church Road (Figure 1). Proposed SCM, boring location B-03 is within
the edge of an open field within the proposed development area (Figure 2).
Use of on -site stormwater management systems, is being considered to comply with
stormwater management requirements. The use of stormwater SCMs is subject to the
suitability of site soils and regulatory approval. Regulatory guidance on requirements for
permitting of stormwater SCMs is provided in the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Willcox & Mabe Soil Solutions, PLLC / 7231 B Summerfield Road / Summerfield, NC 27358 / Rob 336.339.9128 or
Martin 336.312.1396 / www.willcoxmabesoil.com

SHWT Evaluation WMSS Project No. 16-06; Phase: 71
Community Road Substation June 25, 2021
(DEMLR) — Stormwater Design Manual (NCDEQ-DEMLR-SDM), (Revised, 2017).
The NCDEQ-DEMLR-SDM requires that the SHWT shall be taken into consideration for
the design of most SCMs.
WMSS conducted an evaluation of the soils through the review of a drill rig boring,
within the area identified on a base map provided by ESP, and located in the field by
ESP. Maps were prepared using Arcview 10.8 a Geographic Information System (GIS).
Base maps were generated using information from the ESRI Web site and maps provided
by ESP (Figures 1 and 2).
FINDINGS
Seasonal High Water Table Evaluation
The SHWT evaluation was performed on June 25, 2021 by evaluating one drill rig boring
(Location B-03), to a depth of approximately 26 feet below the existing ground surface
(bgs) (Figure 2). The soils were evaluated under the guidance of a NC Licensed Soil
Scientist for evidence of seasonal high water table influence. This evaluation involved
observing the actual moisture content in the soil and observing the matrix and mottle
colors. Depending on the soil texture, the soil color will indicate processes that are driven
by SHWT fluctuations such as iron reduction and oxidation and organic matter staining.
Location B-03 was observed to consist of sandy loam texture in the upper soil horizon, to
sandy clay loam texture in the subsurface horizons. B-03 transitioned into massive
structure (saprolite) at approximately 28 inches bgs that consisted of sandy loam texture
to 312 inches bgs where the boring was terminated. Evidence of a SHWT was observed
at a depth of approximately 264 inches bgs and an apparent water table (AWT) was
observed below the SHWT. Reference attached Figure 2 for the approximate SHWT test
location, and Table 1 and the attached soil profile description for the approximated
SHWT depth.
Please note that SHWT evaluations are based on secondary evidence and not on direct
groundwater level measurements. Groundwater levels fluctuate for numerous reasons
and these findings do not indicate that groundwater levels have not or will not rise above
the noted depths.

SHWT Evaluation
Community Road Substation
Table 1: Approximated SHWT and AWT Depths
WMSS Project No. 16-06; Phase: 71
June 25, 2021
Boring
Seasonal High
Water Table
Apparent Water Table
Depth Boring
Location
(SHWT)
(AWT)
Terminated
(inches bgs)
(inches bgs)
(inches bgs)
B-03
264
>264
312
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon our findings associated with the location evaluated, the SHWT was identified
at approximately 264 inches bgs. These findings should be taken into careful
consideration when designing an appropriate SCM for the proposed location.
CLOSING
Willcox & Mabe Soil Solutions appreciates the opportunity to provide these services to
you. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Willcox & Mabe Soil Solutions, PLLC
1 WN I JL WE
Martin Mabe Rob Willcox, L.S.S.
Agronomist Soil Scientist
Tables: Approximated SHWT and AWT Depth
Attachments: Figure 1 —Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Boring Location Map
Boring Profile Sheet
Shared\WMSS Projects\2016\16-06 ESP Associates\Phase 71 - Community Road Substation SHWT\16-06, Phase 71
Community Road Substation SCM Soil Report.doc

N
�.r+-a..-. �...�:-�. ,w ww"...,.,ax+.�•a. �wcFwv,..,,awi,� � '� .a "•a` �a.� d '"'d k 7 x ��"
•L < wy4�
s ��r to +P y • 1 x
�.. / / ✓ dg �. .�� 4q ~sue �� �aq q �s,,,w. > i$
F i k }
4�� M Y
3 �; � s e� 't , w.w»M orM �Md drr .✓' �,s '3 ,,r
/f S M XF dM N �q L ".
lrtG.
»y way
s
w �
g w »
yAr•'`gS
a�[ i
Ns
x
»h 0
...�,a v k r• / M ,w...,. .'" `n.r.+e. ay � •x m � / A � F dr M / 9 r/ % F � b `F JdA
«,,. ."...e.� �� ��'; 'e'er' .: �: r `�, � �` �"` J v 7' � />� J AI is •JF
LY .. d •/. • p 1 F J
�' � � � r Jd ei 1.•. � . w ' � �r� F " • M � Ir � � � J
A. I d d MFr.• nMd,rpr ,, �x ,rw - I� I P / / k k
" I M p d A `d.aF.Yd d Xr ,?arg // L ! ✓r y
REFERENCE:
GIS DATA LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM ESP ASSOCIATES. PLEASE NOTETHIS MAP IS FOR
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, ORANY OTHER USES.
® A roximate Borin Location THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. WMSS,PLLCASSUMES NORESPONSIBILITY
pp g FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
SCALE: Not to Scale FIGURE NO.
.r+
DATE: 06-25-21 �j�II BORING LOCATION MAP
DRAWN BY: MEM * 11
PROJECT NO: SO IL SOLUTI DNS COMMUNITY ROAD SUBSTATION
L 16-06 Ph:71 DAVIDSON COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA

WILLCOX & MABE SOIL SOLUTIONS, PLLC
SITE/SOIL EVALUATION
Project No. )(o-O (, , Pk', _7-J Phone No. Date:
Location (`110 ;1 J�. ins County:. , ,G
Proposed Facility: -�)LJT 1vw Water Supply: On -Site Well
Community
Described By:?�t,,L �,� 6f• Public
Weather: ��n.,.�,-7o-&f Antecedent Moisture
Property Size
V-)r; I I P,.1A
❑ Evaluation: Auger Boring
❑ Pit
❑ Cut
Surface Water:
FACTORS
PROFILE
- i
PROFILE r
,j 611Q,
PROFILE
PROFILE
Landscape Position %
,t�
,,,i_77
Horizon Depth I
b—
—
Color Munsell
-7,
Texture
Structure
ri►w� r—
Consistence
S 1/1
Boundary
Horizon Depth II
Color — Munsell
Texture
%
Mottles
Structure
4 /1 n
Consistence
45
Boundary
Horizon Depth III
Color — Munsell
Texture
k%k
Mottles
,r r
Structure
S ;
Consistence
Boundary
Horizon Depth IV
Color — Munsell
Texture
Mottles
Structure
Consistence
Boundary
Soil Wetness
�1
Restrictive Horizon
Saprolite'
LTAR
Classification
LEGEND
LANDSCAPE POSITION
R
Ridge Interfluve
S
Shoulder
L
Linear Slope
FS
Foot Slope
N
Nose Slope
H
Head Slope
Cc
Concave Slope
Cv
Convex Slope
T
Terrace
P
Flood Plain
TEXTURE
s
sand
Is
loamy sand
sl
sandy loam
1
loam
si
silt
sil
silt loam
sicl
silty clay loam
cl
clay loam
scl
sandy clay loam
sc
sandy clay
sic
silty clay
c
clay
CONSISTENCE WET
Ns
non -sticky
Ss
slightly sticky
S
sticky
Vs
very sticky
Np
non -plastic
Sp
slightly plastic
P
plastic
Vp
very plastic
MOIST
vfr
Very friable
fr
friable
fi
firm
vfi
Very firm
STRUCTURE
sg
single grain
in
massive
cr
crumb
gr
granular
sbk
subangular blocky
abk
angular blocky
p1
platy
pr
prismatic

Raleigh
2200 Gateway Centre Blvd
Suite 216
Morrisville, NC 27560
919.678.1070
Columbia
2711 Alpine Rd.
Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29223
803.705.2229
+ ESP
ESP Corporate Office
3475 Lakemont Blvd.
Fort Mill, SC 29708
803.802.2440
Mailing
PO Box 7030
Charlotte, NC 28241
Greensboro
7011 Albert Pick Rd.
Suite E
Greensboro, NC 27409
336.334.7724
Charleston
2154 N. Center St.
Suite E-503
North Charleston, SC 29406
843.714.2040
Concord
7144 Weddington Rd
NW Suite 110
Concord, NC 28027
704.793.9855
Wilmington
211 Racine Dr.
Suite 101
Wilmington, NC 28403
910.313.6648
Lake Norman
20484 Chartwell Center Dr.
Suite D
Cornelius, NC 28031
704.990.9428
Indianapolis
8673 Bash St.
Indianapolis, IN 46256
317.537.6979
Bradenton Nashville Pittsburgh
518 13th St. West 500 Wilson Pike Cir. One Williamsburg PI.
Bradenton, FL 34205 Suite 310 Suite G-5, Box 13
941.345.5451 Brentwood, TN 37024 Warrendale, PA 15086
615.760.8300 878.332.2163
800.960.7317
www.espassociates.com