SWA000214_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20230705

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL
EXPLORATION
PROPOSED NAPA AND MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
DEVELOPMENT
LOWES BOULEVARD AND SPARKS XING
FOREST CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared For:
Maxus Construction
700 Southgate Drive
Pelham, Alabama 35124
BLE Project Number J23-19494-02
March 14,2023
II I
BUNNELL
II
LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
5004 Ponders Court I Greenville,SC 29615
854,288.1255 a 854288.4330 PAg info©blecorp.com
BLECORP.COM

I
� ' '• BUNNELL
� LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
March 14, 2023
Maxus Construction Company
700 Southgate Drive
Pelham,Alabama 35124
Attention: Mr.Darren Scotch
[e-mail]
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Proposed NAPA and Medical Office Building Development
Lowes Blvd and Sparks Xing
Forest City,North Carolina
BLE Project No.J23-19494-02
Dear Mr. Scotch:
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Incorporated (BLE) is pleased to present this report of geotechnical
exploration for the proposed NAPA retail and Medical Office Building (MOB) development located
southeast of the intersection of Lowes Boulevard and Sparks Xing in Forest City, North Carolina. This
exploration was performed generally as described in Bunnell-Lammons Engineering (BLE) Proposal No.
P23-0158R2 dated February 7,2023. The exploration was authorized on February 8,2023 by the signature
of Mr. Scotch on our Proposal Acceptance Sheet.
Sincerely,
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING,INC. \�\\��N�CA����ii�
BLE NC License No. C-1538 \� ••••••• O �',
�0 •FESSio �'L�':
I _ o ,
__ ¢ SEAL 9<
_laid cillaze-ite:t
i @ 0 4 5811 ' 'il
Irv2 .... Fti eq....
Engineering Associate Senior Engineer % /v. ' ..oiNE .••#Qi \�
Registered,North Carolina#045811 �'", IMF•
F SO\-' \\\`�
l'/IIIIIII\\\\
I 6004 Ponders Court,Greenville,SC 29615 1.864.2E1E1265 61864.288.4430 [e-mail]
BLECORP.COM

Report of Geotechnical Exploration March 14, 2023
Proposed NAPA and MOB—Forest City,NC BLE Project No.J23-19494-02
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 AUTHORIZATION 1
2.0 SCOPE OF EXPLORATION 1
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1
4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION 2
5.0 SITE GEOLOGY 2
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2
7.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 3
7.1 Foundations 3
7.2 Settlement 4
7.3 Lateral Earth Pressure 4
7.4 Grade Slabs 5
7.5 Pavement 5
7.6 Secondary Design Considerations 6
8.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 6
8.1 Clearing and Grubbing 6
8.2 Drainage 6
8.3 Proofrolling 7
8.4 Engineered Fill 7
8.5 Slopes 8
9.0 SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW 8
10.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS 8
Appendix
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Field Exploration Procedures
Appendix C Boring Logs
Appendix D A Key to Soil Classifications
Appendix E Important Information About This Geotechnical Report
i of i

Report of Geotechnical Exploration March 14,2023
Proposed NAPA and MOB—Forest City,NC BLE Project No.J23-19494-02
1.0 AUTHORIZATION
A geotechnical exploration for the proposed NAPA retail and Medical Office Building(MOB)development
in Forest City, North Carolina was performed generally as described in Bunnell-Lammons Engineering
(BLE)Proposal No. P23-0158R2 dated February 7, 2023. The exploration was authorized on February 8,
2023 by the signature of Mr. Scotch on our Proposal Acceptance Sheet.
2.0 SCOPE OF EXPLORATION
This report presents the findings of the geotechnical exploration performed for the proposed NAPA retail
and MOB development in Forest City,North Carolina(reference Figure 1 in Appendix A). The intent of
this exploration was to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site and provide
geotechnical recommendations for design of the foundations, floor slabs and associated project elements.
We have also included a discussion of secondary design considerations and provided geotechnical related
construction recommendations.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The following project information was provided in a request for proposal (RFP) from Mr. Ralph Dickson
IV of Dickson Auto Parts to our Mr. Prescott May. Included with the RFP was a preliminary site plan of
the proposed development. The original proposal dated January 27, 2023 was revised based on a January
30, 2023 conversation between Mr. Scotch of Maxus Construction Company and our Mrs. Gwen
Sollenberger.
The site is located southeast of the intersection of Lowes Boulevard and Sparks Xing in Forest City,NC.
Based on the provided preliminary site plan, it is proposed to construct a new retail building(NAPA Auto
Parts) and a Medical Office Building (MOB) on the property. The retail building is proposed to be
approximately±12,495 square-feet (SF) and located in the western portion of the property. The medical
office building is proposed to be 12,865 SF and located in the southeastern portion of the property. We
assume that these structures will be one story tall and supported by conventional shallow foundations with
a concrete slab on grade. There will be associated parking and access drives on the property connecting to
Lowes Boulevard. In addition, it is also proposed to construct a pond of approximately±9,500 cubic-feet
(CF)in the southernmost portion of the property.
The project area consists of a relatively level maintained grass lot with various existing utility lines running
through the property. A small retaining wall exists on the northwest corner,protecting the grades around
the existing powerline tower and power poll. The marked utilities included an overhead power line that
runs along the western portion of the property,another overhead line running east to west on the north end
of the property that turns into a ground line on the property, and sewer manholes at the corners of the
property. Based on a review of available historical aerial imagery,the site was mass graded prior to 1993
and has otherwise remained essentially undeveloped for the last 25 years.
Structural information was not provided as of the date of this report. Based on our experience with similar
projects, we anticipate maximum individual column and continuous wall loads of approximately 100 kips
and 3 kips per linear foot,respectively. Final grading information was not available at this time. However,
we assume minimal(less than 5 feet)of earthwork cut and fill be required for construction of the proposed
1 of 8

Report of Geotechnical Exploration March 14,2023
Proposed NAPA and MOB—Forest City,NC BLE Project No.J23-19494-02
development and up to 15 feet of earthwork cut will be required for construction of the proposed detention
pond.
4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
The site was explored by drilling the thirteen (13) requested soil test borings (ASTM D1586) at the
approximate locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan (reference Figure 2 in Appendix A).
Boring Logs are presented in Appendix C. The borings were located in the field by our Mr.Harold Cameron
by referencing the provided site plan and identifiable site landmarks. The boring locations shown in Appendix
A should be considered approximate. A description of our field procedures is also included as Appendix B.
5.0 SITE GEOLOGY
The project site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, an area underlain by ancient igneous
and metamorphic rocks. The virgin soils encountered in this area are the residual product of in-place
chemical weathering of the rock. In areas not altered by erosion, previous construction or other human
activities,the typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the surface where soil weathering is
more advanced. The near surface clayey soils are typically underlain by sandy silts and silty sands.
The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone is termed partially
weathered rock (PWR) and is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. For engineering purposes,
partially weathered rock is defined as residual material with a standard penetration resistance of at least 100
blows per foot. Weathering is facilitated by fractures,joints, and the presence of less resistant rock types.
As a result,the profile of the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic,even over
short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of
partially weathered rock within the soil mantle,well above the general bedrock level.
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Beneath a surficial layer of approximately 2 to 4 inches of topsoil, the borings drilled for this exploration
encountered fill/possible fill, residual soils, and partially weathered rock.
Fill/possible fill soils were encountered in borings B-1,B-6,B-7,D-1, and P-4 extending to depths ranging
from approximately 3 feet to 6 feet below the ground surface. The fill soils were noted to consist generally
of firm to very stiff sandy lean clay(CL) and dense silty sand(SM).
Residual soils were encountered below the fill/possible fill in the borings noted above and below the topsoil
in the remaining borings. The residual soils were noted to consist generally of firm to very stiff sandy lean
clay(CL),very stiff to very hard sandy silt(ML), and firm to very dense silty sand(SM).
The soils were noted to be generally micaceous. The letters in parentheses represent a visual classification
of the soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. A key to symbols and classification
is included as Appendix D.
Partially weathered rock was encountered in Boring B-5 at a depth of 18 feet below the ground surface.
Boring B-5 was terminated at its proposed depth of 20 feet below the ground surface.
2 of 8

Report of Geotechnical Exploration March 14,2023
Proposed NAPA and MOB—Forest City,NC BLE Project No.J23-19494-02
Groundwater was not encountered in borings at the time of drilling. It should be noted that groundwater
levels may fluctuate several feet with seasonal and rainfall variations and with changes in the water level
in adjacent drainage features. Normally,the highest groundwater levels occur in late winter and spring and
the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall.
The above descriptions provide a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered. The Boring
Logs included in Appendix C contain detailed information recorded at each boring location. The Boring
Logs represent our interpretation of the field logs based on engineering examination of the field samples.
The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries and the
transition between strata may be gradual. It should be noted that the soil conditions will vary between
boring locations.
7.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Foundations
Based on the boring data and our experience with similar soil conditions, the existing fill and residual soils
are suitable for shallow foundation support of the proposed construction. Satisfactory performance of the
shallow foundations is subject to the criteria and site preparation recommendations contained in this report.
Foundations bearing in the fill and residual soils may be sized for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000
pounds per square foot(psf). Foundations bearing on new engineered fill that is placed on approved soil and
compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698), as
recommended later in this report,may also be sized for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf.
We recommend that the minimum widths for individual column and continuous wall footings be 24 inches
and 18 inches,respectfully. The minimum widths will provide a margin of safety against a local or punching
shear failure of the foundation soils. Footings should bear at least 18 inches below final grade to provide frost
protection and protective embedment. We recommend that walls be provided with movement joints to
accommodate some possible differential settlement.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the foundation bearing level if the foundation
excavations remain open for long periods of time. Therefore, we recommend that once each foundation
excavation is extended to final grade, the foundation be constructed as soon as possible to minimize the
potential damage to bearing soils. The foundation bearing area should be level or benched and free of loose
soil,ponded water and debris. Foundation concrete should not be placed on soils that have been disturbed by
seepage. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be
removed from the foundation excavation bottom prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain
open overnight or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that a
2 to 4-inch thick"mud-mat"of"lean"(2,000 psi)concrete be placed on the bearing soils for protection before
the placement of reinforcing steel.
To verify that the soils encountered in footing excavations are similar to those encountered by the soil test
borings, we recommend that foundation excavations be examined. Part of this examination should include
checking the foundation bearing soils with a dynamic cone penetrometer performed by an experienced
engineering technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer.
3 of 8

Report of Geotechnical Exploration March 14,2023
Proposed NAPA and MOB—Forest City,NC BLE Project No.J23-19494-02
7.2 Settlement
We conducted settlement estimates assuming conventional shallow foundations were used to support the
structures. The settlement estimates are based on the maximum estimated column load of 100 kips.
Assuming foundations are designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in
this report, we estimate the total foundation settlement to be less than 1 inch. Maximum differential
settlement between adjacent similarly loaded foundations is estimated to be less than 3/4 inch.
7.3 Lateral Earth Pressure
Retaining walls must be capable of resisting the lateral earth pressures that will be imposed on them. Walls
which will be permitted to rotate at the top, such as cantilever retaining walls,may be designed to resist the
active earth pressure. The active earth pressure coefficient is designated as Ka. Typically, a top rotation of
about 1 inch per 10 feet height of wall is sufficient to develop active pressure conditions in soils similar to
those encountered at the site. We recommend a Ka value of 0.33 for the soils encountered at this site when
placed in accordance with the requirements for engineered fill.
Walls which will be prevented from rotating such as laterally braced retaining walls should be designed to
resist the at-rest lateral earth pressure. The at-rest earth pressure coefficient is designated as Ko. We
recommend a Ko value of 0.5 for the soils encountered at this site when placed in accordance with the
requirements for engineered fill.
The passive earth pressure may be considered as the pressure exerted on the side of a foundation which aids
in resisting sliding of the foundation. The passive earth pressure coefficient is designated as Kp. Friction
resistance along the base of the foundation may also be used to resist sliding. The coefficient of frictional
resistance is designated as fs. We recommend a fs value of 0.4 and a Kp value of 3.0 for the soils encountered
at this site. Consideration should be given to dividing the passive earth pressure coefficient by a safety factor
of 2 to limit the amount of lateral deformation required to mobilize the passive resistance. Published
documentation' indicates that very little horizontal compression (approximately 0.5% relative to wall
height)is required to develop one-half of the available passive resistance,hence the suggested safety factor
of 2. However,depending on soil type and relative density it may take 2 to 15%horizontal compression to
develop the full passive resistance.
The values presented above assume that the ground surface is level. Sloping backfill(or sloping soil surfaces
in front of a footing when considering passive resistance) will dramatically influence the earth pressure
coefficients. Bunnell-Lammons Engineering should be consulted concerning applicable earth pressure
coefficients where sloping soil surfaces may be present.
The compacted mass unit weight of the backfill soil,which we estimate to be approximately 125 pcf, should
be used with the earth pressure coefficients to calculate lateral earth pressures. Lateral pressure arising from
surcharge loading, earthquake loading, and groundwater should be added to the above soil earth pressures to
determine the total lateral pressures which the walls must resist. Where practical, we recommend that
retaining walls and other below grade walls incorporate filtered gravity drainage systems to prevent the
buildup of excess hydrostatic pressures behind the walls. In addition,transient loads imposed on the walls by
construction equipment during backfilling should be taken into consideration during design and construction.
Excessively heavy grading equipment should not be allowed within about 5 feet horizontally of the walls.
'Soil Mechanics by T.William Lambe and Robert V.Whitman;Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1969;
p.165.
4 of 8

Report of Geotechnical Exploration March 14,2023
Proposed NAPA and MOB—Forest City,NC BLE Project No.J23-19494-02
7.4 Grade Slabs
The grade slab may be soil supported assuming that the site is prepared in accordance with the
recommendations in this report. The grade slab should be jointed around columns and along footing supported
walls so that the slab and foundations can settle differentially without damage. This jointing is not required
when slabs and foundations are cast as a monolithic unit(i.e.,thickened edge foundations). If slab thickness
permits,joints containing dowels or keys may be used in the slab to permit movement between parts of the
slab without cracking or sharp vertical displacements.
Floor slabs supported on grade which will be carpeted, tiled, painted or receive some other covering or
sealant should incorporate a vapor barrier. The vapor barrier should be installed in accordance with the
requirements of ACI 302 and per the manufacturer's recommendations.
7.5 Pavement
A site-specific pavement design requires detailed information about projected traffic frequency and intensity,
acceptable service limits,life expectancy and other factors which are not currently available. It also requires
site specific laboratory testing which was not part of the scope of this exploration. However,presented below
are recommended pavement sections based on our experience on similar projects in this region. These
pavement sections have demonstrated acceptable performance with subsurface conditions similar to this site.
Assuming the site is prepared in accordance with the recommendations of this report,the pavement sections
presented below could be expected to provide adequate performance considering a 15 to 20-year service life.
For the purpose of this report,light duty pavement is considered to be subject to automobile traffic,such as a
car parking lot. Medium duty pavement is considered to be subject to a heavy concentration of automobiles
and occasional loaded trucks, such as drive lanes.
Pavement 1P Thickness(Inches)
Layers Material
Type Light-Duty Medium Duty
Flexible a. Asphaltic concrete surface course 2 3
b. Aggregate base course 6 8
Rigid a. Concrete 6 6
The asphaltic concrete should conform to the South Carolina Department of Transportation Supplemental
Technical Specification for Hot-Mix Asphalt Material Properties (SCDOT Designation: SC-M-402)Type C
HMA Surface Course. The stone base course should meet the requirements of Section 305 of SCDOT
Standard Specifications for Macadam base. The base course should be compacted to 100 percent of the
modified Proctor(ASTM D1557)maximum dry density.
The concrete for rigid pavement should be air-entrained and have a minimum flexural strength (third point
loading)of 550 psi which could likely be achieved by a concrete mix having a compressive strength of at least
4,000 psi at 28 days. Recommended air contents from the Portland Cement Association(PCA)are as follows:
Maximum Aggregate Size Percent Air
11/2 inches 5 percent plus or minus 11/2 percent
3/4 to 1-inch 6 percent plus or minus 11/2 percent
In addition,we recommend a maximum slump of 4 inches for plastic concrete.
5 of 8

Report of Geotechnical Exploration March 14,2023
Proposed NAPA and MOB—Forest City,NC BLE Project No.J23-19494-02
Joint spacing for the recommended concrete thickness should be on the order of 12 to 15 feet. Control joints
should be sawed as soon as the cut can be made, without raveling (aggregate pulling out of the concrete
matrix) or cracks forming ahead of the saw blade. Joints should be sawed consecutively so that the joints
commence working together. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) suggests that transverse contraction joints should be one quarter of the slab thickness and
longitudinal joints should be one third of the slab thickness. All joints should be filled with flexible joint
filler.
Curing of the concrete slab should begin as soon as the slab has been finished and the joints sawed. Moist
curing by fog spray nozzles or wet burlap is the most dependable curing procedure. Other methods of curing
could consist of spray applied curing compounds or covering the slab with waterproof paper or heavy plastic.
If paper or plastic is used for curing, the edges of the cover should be anchored and joints between sheets
should be taped or sealed.
Related civil design factors such as subgrade drainage, shoulder support, cross-sectional configurations,
surface elevations,and environmental factors which will significantly affect the service life must be included
in the preparation of the construction drawings and specifications. Normal periodic maintenance will be
required.
7.6 Secondary Design Considerations
The following items are presented for your consideration. These items are known to generally enhance
performance of structural and pavement systems.
• Roof drainage should be collected by a system of gutters and downspouts and directed away from
all structures.
• Sidewalks should be sloped so that water drains away from the structures.
• Site grading and paving should result in positive drainage away from the structures. Water should
not be allowed to pond around the structures or in such locations that would lead to saturation of
pavement subgrade materials. A minimum slope of approximately 1/4 to 1/2-inch per foot should
provide adequate drainage.
• Backfill for utility lines should be placed in accordance with the requirements for engineered fill to
minimize the potential for differential settlement.
8.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Clearing and Grubbing
All existing topsoil, vegetation, trees, roots, asphalt, gravel, disturbed soils, unsuitable soils and surface
soils containing organic matter or other deleterious materials should be stripped from within the proposed
building and pavement areas. Topsoil and organic soils may be stockpiled for later use in areas to be
landscaped. Other deleterious material should be disposed of offsite or in areas of the site that will not be
developed.
8.2 Drainage
Groundwater was not encountered within the expected excavation depths. However, it should be noted that
groundwater levels may fluctuate several feet with seasonal and rainfall variations and with changes in the
water level in adjacent drainage features. Normally,the highest groundwater levels occur in late winter and
spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall. The contractor should be prepared to promptly
6 of 8

Report of Geotechnical Exploration March 14,2023
Proposed NAPA and MOB—Forest City,NC BLE Project No.J23-19494-02
remove any surface water or groundwater from the construction area. This has been done effectively on past
jobs by means of gravity ditches and pumping from filtered sumps.
8.3 Proofrolling
After stripping and rough excavation grading, we recommend that areas to provide support for the
foundations, floor slab, engineered fill and pavement be carefully inspected for soft surficial soils and
proofrolled with a 25 to 35-ton, four-wheeled, rubber-tired roller or similar approved equipment. This will
assist in identifying any very soft soils within the building and pavement areas that may be present. The
proofroller should make at least four passes over each location,with the last two passes perpendicular to the
first two where practical.
Any areas which wave,rut,or deflect excessively and continue to do so after several passes of the proofroller
should be excavated to firmer soils. The excavated areas should be backfilled in thin lifts with engineered
fill. The proofrolling and excavating operations should be carefully monitored by an experienced engineering
technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer. Proofrolling should not be performed
when the ground is frozen or wet from recent precipitation.
8.4 Engineered Fill
All fill used for raising site grade or for replacement of material that is undercut should be uniformly
compacted in thin lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density(ASTM D698). In
addition,at least the upper 12 inches of subgrade fill beneath pavements and floor slabs should be compacted
to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density. We recommend that the fill be placed and compacted at a
moisture content within three percent of the standard Proctor optimum moisture content.
Based on our visual examination and experience with similar soil types,the on-site soil appears to be suitable
for use as engineered fill with proper moisture adjustment. In general, soils having a Plasticity Index (PI)
greater than 30(less than 15 is preferable)should not be used for fill. Soils used for engineered fill should be
reasonably free from organics (less than 3% organics by weight) and should exhibit a standard Proctor
maximum dry density greater than 90 pcf.
Before filling operations begin,representative samples of each proposed fill material should be collected and
tested to determine the compaction and classification characteristics. The maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content should be determined. Once compaction begins,a sufficient number of density tests should
be performed by an experienced engineering technician working under the direction of the geotechnical
engineer to measure the degree of compaction being obtained. Existing slopes steeper than 6:1
(horizontal:vertical) should be benched prior to placement of engineered fill such that the fill is placed in
horizontal layers and keyed into the existing slopes.
The edge of engineered fill extending above surrounding grade should extend horizontally beyond the outside
edge of the building foundations at least 10 feet or a distance equivalent to the height of fill to be placed,
whichever is greater,before sloping. Fill slope surfaces should be protected from erosion by grassing or some
other means.
The surface of compacted subgrade soils can deteriorate and lose its support capabilities when exposed to
environmental changes and construction activity. Deterioration can occur in the form of freezing, formation
of erosion gullies, extreme drying, exposure for a long period of time or rutting by construction traffic. We
recommend that the surfaces of floor slab and pavement subgrades that have deteriorated or softened be
recompacted prior to construction of the floor slab or pavement. Additionally, any excavations through the
7 of 8

Report of Geotechnical Exploration March 14,2023
Proposed NAPA and MOB—Forest City,NC BLE Project No.J23-19494-02
subgrade soils (such as utility trenches) should be properly backfilled in compacted lifts. Recompaction of
subgrade surfaces and compaction of backfill should be checked with a sufficient number of density tests to
determine if adequate compaction is being achieved.
8.5 Slopes
Confined temporary excavations such as for utility installation or below-grade wall construction should
conform to OSHA regulations. For permanent slopes which are not confined, our experience suggests that
excavation side slopes through the existing soil overburden at the site should be laid back at a 2H:1 V
(horizontal to vertical) slope or flatter. Permanent fill slopes placed on a suitable foundation should be
constructed at 2.5:1,or flatter. Fill slopes should be adequately compacted. Cut and fill slope surfaces should
be protected from erosion by grassing or other means. Permanent slopes of 3:1 or flatter may be desirable for
mowing.
9.0 SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
It is recommended that Bunnell-Lammons Engineering be retained to make a general review of the foundation
and earthwork plans and specifications prepared from the recommendations presented in this report. We
would then suggest any modifications so that our recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented.
10.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Our evaluation of foundation support conditions has been based on our understanding of the project
information and data obtained in our exploration as well as our experience on similar projects. The
generalized subsurface conditions utilized in our foundation evaluation have been based on interpolation of
the subsurface data between the widely spaced borings. Subsurface conditions between the borings may
differ. If the project information is incorrect or the structure location(horizontal or vertical)and/or dimensions
are changed,please contact us so that our recommendations can be reviewed. The discovery of any site or
subsurface conditions during construction which deviate from the data obtained in this exploration should be
reported to us for our evaluation. The assessment of site environmental conditions for presence of pollutants
in the soil,rock and groundwater of the site was beyond the scope of this exploration. Soil cuttings used as
backfill in boreholes will settle over time resulting in a depression at the surface. It is beyond the scope of
our services to return to the site to repair boreholes that have exhibited settlement of the backfill soils.
8 of 8

APPENDIX A
Figures

r - If
2E ST t \ \o-
J4 g
/‹ v..
,.
u 0
r 1 4 I 000'61, Forest Lake ' .-:
lle Z 0 o ya
• c CP
Hear 33 . e�\
IDA A`V p .� \�. �S� •
E+t, W MILLER sr \ �0 ��� 20 /
Vj O z
A . Z rpA/LM s WAY 4 ¢SF /..
AN .0 ‘ �J
/•' r.
0
J2 CAB(•E 7 4'E
411% -•,, Q o RRaJ 0� QO o
�E MAIN ST 3 W MAIN ST `` oOJCL 0{ •_ Bus
:em nn 74 0 �P
❑ o kin- S` 7 i- �10 Off.
0 - �c z
1 Cr o-- ROBERSON RD
o z o \.
vA
C1- O \ 5
7,41K
e�
t" WlTHROW RD \000 \o' SURtyER
Fraternal Order ii
`/ of Eals Lake '�1
41.64...E is
it.
Isothermal COrninunitylei
College Lake leg
-- _ DAN\� ',FOREST CITY o
Isothermal Community 1D�~ A• `94, I I^
College 1146-119
�pR ,oC1A R `I }l'\ ,racketts Gr ♦ t.tmCO,-MtR r Oo
1iali
lFrog Level 4 --- ���� I /b
—daville Baptist-Church
e�—Cem 1 ` .�
,� XOOAK sr
ivocb-
Z k, k o ti9Nir
QO
R O� OO ,tiF� CO
� / t *
•
h Q 'Pi0 '$ �4,420
•
,..
41\
1\ 21'a .9.
r3 0 \ro � l f NA `�
J •,f \Cj'- . l \- Si
IIIr 4+O 000 a P 0 �_ \ Q FRANKLIN DR
o Sunset EC t 0� I S./
L
9 Memorial soles \ see-
\ cp n Park / S
O r�
iip
'-------c
Y z I/ \Jt 0,0�1 DR
2000 1000 0 2000 4000 REFERENCE:
I I I I USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES,
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET RUTHERFORDTON SOUTH, N.C. QUADRANGLE, 2022.
DRAWN: DATE: FIGURE
ACE 03-06-23 II
Imig
CANNONS BUNNELL SITE LOCATION MAP
CHECKED:GFSCAD: ENGINEERING NAPA AND MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
MAPAAMOB-SLM LOWES BOULEVARD AND SPARKS XING
6004 Ponders Court,Greenville,SC 29615 FOREST CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPROVED: JOB NO: Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
WAM J23-19494-02

t.
4_ 1 i k. .
- % / ���-�,-`-,�1 It/ i _ LOINS 0�(EVq�� R +. ill .
I._,-• .1• 4. ..7.,,,,,„: - . 0'
r
ft• •,1(.I,)
z
B-1 !�'`�� ` 'f P7-,..1 -�''
2 ,t\_A_
-1L----_ib *-.4 \litt. .i., i _ - •
. 1.(:* ii. . 35.6.
•
• Or , 171
f.
r
• e
/
/� 7All OV4p DWG •RI "1 l3.
, 211�S8F -- k,
.FI
11
1111111V-
1
.--,
li "f:. -
.!.ffigro
_ _ _..
i 0/ i
r P-5 P-4
B-4 '�7 s �t e
rikit .s�i / B-5 Q �'p.'� 1
ok-�` D-1 B-7 .
1 e t7,MS:SF
LEGEND
50 25 0 50 100 APPROXIMATE LOCATION
I I I I I � REFERENCE:
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET OF SOIL TEST BORING DRAWING PROVIDED BY MAXUS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
DRAWN: FIGURE
ACE DATE. 03-06-23 BUNNELL
N N E L L
li
' ' PLAN
CANNONS NAPA AND MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
CHECKED: GFS CAD: NAPAAMOB-BLP BORING LOCATION PLAN
LOWES BOULEVARD AND SPARTS XING 2
APPROVED: JOB N0:
WAM6004 Ponders Court,Greenville,Sc 29615 FOREST CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
J23-19494-02 Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]

APPENDIX B
Field Exploration Procedures

Field Exploration Procedures
Soil Test Borings
The soil test borings were made by mechanically twisting a continuous flight steel auger into the
soil. Soil sampling and penetration testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM D
1586. At assigned 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 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then
driven an additional 12 inches with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number
of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches was recorded and is designated
the "standard penetration resistance." The penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an
index to the strength of the soil and foundation supporting capability.
Representative portions of the soil samples,thus obtained,were placed in glass jars and transported
to the laboratory. In the laboratory,the samples were examined by a geotechnical engineer to verify
the field classifications of the driller. Test Boring Records are attached, showing the soil
descriptions and penetration resistance.

APPENDIX C
Boring Logs

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-1
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,T.Brown LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALANDENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME 45;2-1/4 inch hollow stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\3-inches of TOPSOIL ' '
- Stiff to very stiff,red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean j 4
CLAY-(fill) / 5 ' '
with hairlike roots •
_ 9
10 •
12 — •
—5 . •
. .
. . .
Very stiff,dusky red and tan,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT- 9 • •
- (residuum) X 9 :.: : ...:
X
9
9
•
—10 9 — •
Dense,dusky red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium SAND 13 •
;C.,:: 14 :..
—15 18 _ . .
Hard,dusky red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT 13
18 , � •
—20 20 — . . . •
Boring terminated at 20.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of , , ,
- drilling.
—25 — . . .
—30 — . . .
•
N : •
M
a
C7
tV
01 -
J
W
O
F' SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-1
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-2
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,T.Brown LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALANDENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME 45;2-1/4 inch hollow stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\3-inches of TOPSOIL /��j��'
- Firm to very stiff,red and brown,moist,micaceous,fine to medium 3
sandy,lean CLAY-(residuum) / 4
7
9 •
13 • • • •
Very stiff,dusky red and tan,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT X 9 •
12 +.. •
X 9
. . : •
12
—10 15 — •
.
Dense,red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium SAND — 11 . . . •
—15 20 — . . : •«
Very hard,dusky red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT 12
24 :0.
—20 32 — •
Boring terminated at 20.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of , , • •
- drilling.
—25 — . . .
—30 — . . .
N :
M
a
C7
tV
01 -
J
W
O
F' SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-2
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-3
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,T.Brown LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALANDENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME 45;2-1/4 inch hollow stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\4-inches of TOPSOIL ',A 7 `/,
- Firm,red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium SAND with trace " '`'''
clay-(residuum)-
:.:.: 9 '
•
Hard,tan and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT X9 15 :..:
25 '
—5 — . .. .
Dense to very dense,red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium : 12 :
- SAND . r.+..' 20 • • : i.:
22
fine sand .••..,.••••.••• 10 . . •
0
—10 ;•:�:::'.': 21 . . .
18
—15 42 — . . .
•
Very hard,red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT 16
•
25 :..
—20 37 — .
Boring terminated at 20.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of •
- drilling.
—25 — . . .
—30 — . . .
N : •:
M
a
C7
tV
9 .
01 _
J
.
W
O
F' SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-3
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-4
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,T.Brown LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALANDENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME 45;2-1/4 inch hollow stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\4-inches of TOPSOIL ' 1.- Very stiff,red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean CLAY- / 7 .
(residuum) j s
: :
•
Very stiff,tan and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT X 10 . . . •
15
—5 15 .
Dense to very firm,red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium 15
- SAND •'"';:;:' 19 ' ' Y•....Y
10
—10 15 — . . �. .•
Very hard to hard,red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT X 20 •
•
22
—15 29 _ 11 ]
.
tan and brown ""' " „ "
19
20 ._.._. ._. ..
—20 20 . .
Boring terminated at 20.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of , , ,
- drilling.
—25 — . . .
—30 — . . .
•
N : •
M
a
C7
tV
01 -
J
.
W
O
F' SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-4
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-5
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,T.Brown LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALANDENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME 45;2-1/4 inch hollow stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>377
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\4-inches of TOPSOIL / ;%i.
- Very stiff to stiff,red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean j 9
CLAY with trace silt-(residuum) j 12
15
5
5 — •
—5 6
•
Dense to very firm,red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium :: 10 • • •
. :•..•.. 15 : : :
- SAND :�•... . . .0. .. .. ....
18
- tan and brown .; . 7 , , ••
9 •
—10 ;•:�.:::. 12 — .
•
•
•
—15 •
16 —
•
•
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as red and brown, •
- micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT re 25 .
50 5" soi5•
—20 — . . .
Boring terminated at 20.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of , , • •
- drilling.
•
—25 — :
•
—30 — :
•
•
N :
M
a
C7
tV
9
01
J
W
O •
F' SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-5
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-6
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,T.Brown LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALANDENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME 45;2-1/4 inch hollow stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
3 inches of TOPSOIL i.,' "!•'
- Dense,red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium SAND with trace ::::\•::.:: 10 •
clay and rock fragments-(possible fill) y 10::
21
Stiff,red and brown,slightly micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean r*-
6 : : :- CLAY-(residuum)
—5 / 6 — •.
Firm to very dense,red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium 12
.
- SAND :'.. .▪:: 12 : : •�.......
- •.••••••:•X8
—10 •:\.:.:*:'• 8 — .
•
•
gray,tan and brown,moist
▪ 9
—15 ▪ 9 — .
•
- red and brown •
25 •
n 35 0
—20 42 — . . .
Boring terminated at 20.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of , , • •
- drilling.
—25 — : . .
—30 — : . .
N :
M
a
C7
tV
V •
01 -
J
F' SOIL TEST BORING•NO. B-6
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-7
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,T.Brown LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALANDENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME 45;2-1/4 inch hollow stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\4-inches of TOPSOIL _/ •"• "'
•
- Very stiff,red and brown,slightly micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean . 7
CLAY with trace rock fragments-(fill) 11 9
12
- Very stiff,red and brown,slightly micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean . 8 •
- CLAY-(residuum) 10
—5 A 15 — . . • •
- with trace silt ' 10
1 4 •
- Hard,red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT ' 16 •
. .
18
—10 II
18 —
•
•
- Very dense to very firm,tan and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium •' . .
- SAND ..... 23
30 •:..:
'.;' 36 «
—15 — . . . •
•
fine sand _..... ... .... .
-
. ..• •.• 14 -..... ... .... ..
.:.. .... ......
—20 ••:•.;11 14 —
Boring terminated at 20.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of • • • •
•
- drilling.
•
•
•
—25 — :
•
•
•
—30 — :
N
M
a
C7 •
tV
V .
01 -
J
.
W
O .
F' SOIL TEST BORING NO. B-7
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. D-1
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,RC LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALAND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: Acker Soil Sentry;2-1/4 inch holloe stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\3-inches of TOPSOIL j* ' . : :
- Firm,red and brown,slightly micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean 9
CLAY-(fill) / 10 •,,,•
9
Stiff,red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean CLAY- •
8 •
- (residuum) 7 •
—5 •
-
with trace hairlike roots $ •
8
Firm to dense,dusky red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine SAND ••;.• 6
v� g • •
—10 — •
•
- tan and brown .;r :'.X22
28 �
—15 _ . . .
Boring terminated at 15.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of , , , •
- drilling.
•
•
—20 — :
•
—25 — •
•
•
—30 — :
N :
M
a
C7
tV
9
J
W
O •
z1 SOIL TEST BORING NO. D-1
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. P-1
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,RC LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALAND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: Acker Soil Sentry;2-1/4 inch holloe stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\3-inches of TOPSOIL / j��' . : :
- Stiff,red and brown,slightly micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean 5
CLAY-(residuum) / 6 .„
7
6
7
7 •
—5 —
/X •
5
Very firm,tan and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium SAND ••: •' 10 •
. •
—10
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
- drilling.
•
•
•
—15 — :
•
•
•
—20 — :
•
•
•
—25 — :
•
•
—30 — :
N :
M
a
C7
tV
9
J
W
O •
F' SOIL TEST BORING NO. P-1
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. P-2
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,RC LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALAND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: Acker Soil Sentry;2-1/4 inch holloe stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
\2-inches of TOPSOIL / j
- Stiff,red and brown,slightly micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean 5
CLAY-(residuum) 5 • •
.
5
—5 6 —
Firm to very firm,red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium SAND '•'"' 7 ' '
:
•
- •:.*:•••:•::::.)( 12 •
}.::r''•: 12 •
—10 —
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of • • • •
- drilling.
—15 — :
—20 — :
—25 — :
—30 — :
N :
M
a
C7
tV
9 -
V .
J
.
W
O •
F' SOIL TEST BORING NO. P-2
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. P-3
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,RC LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALAND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: Acker Soil Sentry;2-1/4 inch holloe stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\2-inches of TOPSOIL / j
- Stiff,red and brown,slightly micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean 5
CLAY-(residuum) 6
8
7 «
—5 6 _ .
7 . .
- 6 •..: :......./
Hard,dusky red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT 12 . . . •
X
16
—10 20 _
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
- drilling.
•
•
•
•
—15 — :
•
•
—20 — :
•
•
•
•
•
—25 — :
—30 — :
el N :
M
a
C7
tV
9 -
V .
J
.
O
F' SOIL TEST BORING'NO. P-3
Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. P-4
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,RC LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALAND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: Acker Soil Sentry;2-1/4 inch holloe stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\3-inches of TOPSOIL / j
- Stiff,red and brown,slightly micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean 5
CLAY-(possible fill) 5
Stiff,red and brown,slightly micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean 5
- CLAY-(residuum) /
Firm,red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium SAND with trace 6
- clay :,�::... s ....: _ ..._ .. .. ....
Very stiff,dusky red and brown,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT 7 , , . •
10
—10 12 — .
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of • • • •
•
- drilling.
•
•
—15 — :
•
•
•
—20 — :
•
•
—25 — :
•
•
•
—30 — :
N :
M
a
C7
tV
9
01
J
W
O •
�' SOIL TEST BORING NO. P-4
Lii Sheet 1 of 1

I '� SOIL TEST BORING NO. P-5
ZINC. PROJECT: Napa and Medical Office Building PROJECT NO.: J23-19494-02
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Maxus Construction Company START: 2-16-23 END: 2-16-23
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Forest City,North Carolina ELEVATION:
DRILLER: Metro Drill,Inc.,RC LOGGED BY: S.Interlicchia
GEOTECHNICALAND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: Acker Soil Sentry;2-1/4 inch holloe stem auger
DEPTH TO-WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: 1 CAVING>3
w
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH(FT) TYPE 2 BLOWS/FOOT
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
\2-inches of TOPSOIL /
- Stiff,red and brown,slightly micaceous,fine to medium sandy,lean 6 : :
CLAY-(residuum) 6
5
.
5
7 «
—5 —
Firm,red and brown,micaceous,silty,fine to medium SAND 5 ' ' ' •
Hard,dusky red and tan,micaceous,fine to medium sandy SILT — 16 . . . •
20 0:
—10 1 _ 24 —
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
- drilling.
•
•
•
•
—15 — :
•
•
—20 — :
•
•
•
•
•
—25 — :
—30 — :
N
M
a
C7
tV
9 -
V .
J
.
W
O •
F' SOIL TEST BORING NO. P-5
Sheet 1 of 1

APPENDIX D
A Key to Soil Classification

KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONS
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
Penetration Resistance* Relative
Blows per Foot Density Particle Size Identification
SANDS Boulder: Greater than 300 mm
Cobble: 75 to 300 mm
0 to 4 Very Loose Gravel:
5 to 10 Loose Coarse-19 to 75 mm
11 to 20 Firm Fine-4.75 to 19 mm
21 to 30 Very Firm Sand:
31 to 50 Dense Coarse-2 to 4.75 mm
over 50 Very Dense Medium-0.425 to 2 mm
Fine-0.075 to 0.425 mm
Silt&Clay:Less than 0.075 mm
Penetration Resistance* Consistency
Blows per Foot
SILTS and CLAYS
0 to 2 Very Soft
3 to 4 Soft
5 to 8 Firm
9 to 15 Stiff
16 to 30 Very Stiff
31 to 50 Hard
over 50 Very Hard
*ASTM D 1586
KEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLS
SGrab Sample
X
NR=No reaction to HCL Groundwater Table at Time of Drilling
Split Spoon Sample NA=Not applicable
INS=No sample .
Undisturbed Sample Groundwater Table 24 Hours after Completion of Drilling
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
iTionwio
.▪,��� Well-graded Gravel / Low Plasticity Clay Clayey Silt Silty Sand
es.4 GW / CL MH .% :':`:.•.%• SM
0• bcDc Poorly-graded Gravel Sandy Clay Sandy Silt '_,•>'/y••>'/% Topsoil
00 0 of GP CLS MLS :\kr,.;T1).:�‘ TOPSOIL
•mi S •' //////////
i.. ,4116. Partially Weathered Rock IIIIIIIIII Silty Clay Sand — E Liquid Sludge
•e 1 BLDRCBBL ��1������� CL-ML —SW �� SLUDGE
S //////////
High PlasticityClaySilt %i .
Cla e Sand ififif
�i Y Y Fill
CH ML SC i FILL
Poorly Graded Sand Bedrock Waste
SP BEDROCK WOOD

APPENDIX E
Important Information About This Geotechnical
Report

Important Information about This
Geotecbnical-[ngineering
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a
has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly different civil engineer.Because each geotechnical-engineering study
a client representative—interpret and apply this is unique,each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,prepared
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as solely for the client.
possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered Likewise,geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific
exposure to problems associated with subsurface project and purpose.For example,it is unlikely that a geotechnical
conditions at project sites and development of engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as
them that,for decades, have been a principal cause one prepared for a parking garage;and a few borings drilled during
of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to
and disputes. If you have questions or want more develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.
information about any of the issues discussed herein,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical . for a different client;
engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation • for a different project or purpose;
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for • for a different site(that may or may not include all or a portion of
everyone involved with a construction project. the original site);or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;
e.g.,man-made events like construction or environmental
Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services remediation,or natural events like floods,droughts,earthquakes,
Provided for this Report or groundwater fluctuations.
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning,
collection,interpretation,and analysis of exploratory data from Note,too,the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can
widely spaced borings and/or test pits.Field data are combined be affected by the passage of time,because of factors like changed
with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained subsurface conditions;new or modified codes,standards,or
from field exploration(if applicable),observations made during site regulations;or new techniques or tools.If you are the least bit uncertain
reconnaissance,and historical information to form one or more models about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical
of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site.Local geology engineer before applying the recommendations in it.A minor amount
and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time-if any is
proposed construction are also important considerations.Geotechnical required at all-could prevent major problems.
engineers apply their engineering training,experience,and judgment
to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface Read this Report in Full
model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected engineering report did not read the report in its entirety.Do not rely on
performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or an executive summary.Do not read selective elements only.Read and
affected by construction activities. refer to the report in full.
The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained,a discussion About Change
of the subsurface model(s),the engineering and geologic engineering Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors
assessments and analyses made,and the recommendations developed when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing
to satisfy the given requirements of the project.These reports may be the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.
titled investigations,explorations,studies,assessments,or evaluations. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
Regardless of the title used,the geotechnical-engineering report is an those that affect:
engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context • the site's size or shape;
of the project and does not represent a close examination,systematic
inquiry,or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. •
the elevation,configuration,location,orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team;or
for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, • project ownership.
and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
needs,goals,and risk management preferences of their clients.A or site changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their
eotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer impact.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept

-,
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical conspicuously that you've included the material for information purposes
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note that
would have considered. "informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely on
the interpretations,opinions,conclusions,or recommendations in the
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report report.Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific
Are Professional Opinions project requirements,including options selected from the report,only
Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's from the design drawings and specifications.Remind constructors
subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures.Geotechnical that they may perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to
engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific allow enough time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in
locations where sampling and testing is performed.The data derived from a position to give constructors the information available to you,while
that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about stemming from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and
subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual sitewide-subsurface preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
conditions may differ-maybe significantly-from those indicated in
this report.Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do
informed guidance quickly,whenever needed. not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines.This happens in part because soil and rock on
This Report's Recommendations Are project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials
Confirmation-Dependent with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete.That
The recommendations included in this report-including any options or lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have
resulted in disappointments,delays,cost overruns,claims,and disputes.
alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are not
final,because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily To confront that risk,geotechnical engineers commonly include
on judgement and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer can finalize explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes labeled"limitations:'
the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'
exposed during construction.If through observation your geotechnical responsibilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own
responsibilities and risks.Read these provisions closely.Ask questions.
engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist,
the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming no other changes have Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an
environmental study-e.g.,a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform a
geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical-engineering
Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk report does not usually provide environmental findings,conclusions,or
recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of
the design team,to: storage tanks or regulated contaminants.Unanticipated subsurface
• confer with other design-team members; environmental problems have led to project failures.If you have not
• help develop specifications; obtained your own environmental information about the project site,
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals'plans and ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find
specifications;and environmental risk-management guidance.
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this Moisture Infiltration and Mold
report.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- water infiltration,or similar issues in this report,the engineer's
phase observations. services were not designed,conducted,or intended to prevent
migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance through building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.
unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting Accordingly,proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's
the information they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent
the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the moisture infiltration.Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by
complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.
or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
GEArtGEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
a
ASSOCIATION
Telephone:[phone]
e-mail:[e-mail] www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly
prohibited,except with GBAs specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of
GBA,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.
Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation. J