SW6241005_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20241105

NkarC
7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive,
Suite 800
Charlotte,North Carolina 28273
ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL Phone [phone]
BUILDING SCIENCES • MATERIALS TESTING Fax [phone]
September 16, 2024
Ms. Paige Weidner, PE
Project Manager
CESO
3601 Rigby Road, Suite 300
Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
Subject: Report of Seasonal High Groundwater Table
Popeye's
Spout Springs, North Carolina
ATC Project Number: 199CESO24XX
Dear Mr.Weidner:
Per your request, ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C. (ATC) has reviewed available soil and geological
publications and have completed two hand auger soil borings on the above referenced site to evaluate the
seasonal high groundwater table (SHGWT)for the sand filter in the stormwater management basin.
For this evaluation, we have reviewed our previous geotechnical report titled "Geotechnical Engineering
Services Popeye's" dated January 13, 2023, ATC Project Number 199TDG2206 and the United States
Department of Agriculture(USDA)and National Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)Soil Resource Report.
A copy of the Soil Resource Report for the site is attached herewith.
Two(2) hand auger borings designated HA-01 and HA-02 were performed by ATC representatives on August
30, 2024 to aid in the determination of the seasonal high groundwater table in the vicinity of the sand filter.
The location of the soil test borings was estimated in the field by measuring from existing landmarks. Each
hand auger boring location was performed approximately 2 feet north from the northern edge of the rounded
stone layer exposed at the top of the sand filter. The ground surface elevations of each hand auger boring
was interpolated from the attached civil plan titled"Stormwater Management Details",sheet C4.2 dated May
15, 2023.
It is noted that all depths were measured from the existing ground surface at each boring location. The
provided plan (attached) is not an as-built plan. The reported elevations of the ground surfaces and the
bottom of the sand filter may vary from those indicated on the plan.
The hand auger borings were made by manually rotating a sharpened steel bucket auger into the soil. Soil
cuttings from the bucket auger were collected and placed in plastic bags and sealed. Upon completion of the
hand auger process, each borehole was measured for groundwater and borehole caved depths. The
boreholes were then back filled with the excess auger cuttings.The samples were returned to our laboratory
and examined and classified by the staff engineer. Since these classifications were based solely on visual
examination,the soil descriptions on the attached Hand Auger Borings should be considered approximate.

Popeye's—Sand Filter SHGWT 2
Spout Springs,North Carolina ���
September 16,2024
ENVIRONMENTAL•GEOTECNNICAL
BUILDING SCIENCES•MPIERIAES USING
Generally,each hand auger boring encountered silty SANDS that extended to hand auger boring termination
depth of approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater was encountered at depths
of approximately 2 to 2.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater results encountered in the
hand auger borings are summarized in the table below.
LOCATION EXISTING GROUND APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF
SURFACE DEPTH OF ELEVATION OF BOTTOM OF
ELEVATION,ft. BOREHOLE,ft.
GROUNDWATER ft. SAND FLTER,ft.
HA-01 337 6 Groundwater encountered at 335 334
approximately 2 feet during and
after drilling.Borehole caved in
at approximately 2 feet after
drilling.
HA-02 337 6 Groundwater encountered at 334.5 334
approximately 2.5 feet during
and after drilling.Borehole
caved in at 2.5 feet after drilling.
The following are a summary of the findings from our previous geotechnical services for the site.The soil test
borings performed during the referenced geotechnical evaluation were drilled prior to the development of
the site for the Popeye's. Soil test borings D-01 and D-02 were performed near the vicinity of the sand filter
prior to the site grading for the Popeye's when the ground surface was at higher elevations.This location on
the site is noted to be within the beginning of a topographic draw feature which creates a channel where the
ground surface is lower than and stormwater runoff is likely directed. Borings D-01 and D-02 encountered
groundwater at depths/elevations of approximately 6.5/342.5 and 4/341 feet respectively.
Based on a review of the site Soil Resource Report,the mapped soils in the vicinity of the sand filter include
Gilead loamy sand(GaD)and Lakeland sand(LaB). Pertinent reported characteristics of the Gilead loamy sand
is the presence of a groundwater at approximately 1.5 to 4 feet below the existing ground surface.
Groundwater in the Lakeland sand is reported to be greater than 6.5 feet below the existing ground surface.
The depth to the water table can change (rise or fall) depending on the time of year. During the late winter
and spring after long rainfall event occurs,water on the surface infiltrates into the ground and the water table
rises. When water-loving plants start to grow again in the spring and precipitation gives way to hot, dry
summers,the water table falls because of evapo-transpiration.
The location of Sand Filter is near the location where a pre-development draw existed. Based on results of
the groundwater observations made during previous geotechnical services,groundwater was present within
the soils that were at higher elevations than the sand filters current location. Given the groundwater depths
from the previous borings, the data reported in the Soil Resource Report, and the soil conditions and
groundwater observations made on August 30, 2024, we conclude the seasonal high groundwater table is
approximately 1 to 2 feet below the top of the sand filter.The SHGWT is recommended to be considered to
be at elevation on the order of 336 feet.
www.atcgroupservices.com

Popeye's—Sand Filter SHGWT 3
SpoutSprings,North Carolina NTC
September
1
6,2024
ENVIRONMENTAL•GEOIECRNICAL
BUILDING SCIENCES•MATERIALS TESTING
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service for you on this project. Please give us a call if you have any
questions or concerns.
ATC Group Services
//
Joseph G. Schold, PE George M.A•air, PE
Registered NC No. 21736 Principal Engineer
Email: [e-mail] Email:[e-mail]
Cell: [phone] Cell: [phone]
Attachments: Important Information about This Geotechnical Engineering Report
Boring Location Plan
Boring Logs
Geotechnical Engineering Services Popeye's,ATC Project Number 199TDG2206
Civil Drawings for Popeye's, sheets C4.0 and C4.2
Distribution: Addressee (1 via email:[e-mail])
www.atcgroupservices.com

Important Information about This
(--- Geotecbnical-Engineering
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.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for assessment of their impact.Geotechnical engineers cannot
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the their reports do not consider developments of which they were
specific needs of their clients.A geotechnical-engineering not informed.
study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of
a constructor—a construction contractor—or even another Subsurface Conditions Can Change
civil engineer.Because each geotechnical-engineering study A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that
is unique,each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the
prepared solely for the client.No one except you should rely on study.Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose
this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring adequacy may have been affected by:the passage of time;
with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one man-made events,such as construction on or adjacent to the
—not even you—should apply this report for any purpose or site;or natural events,such as floods,droughts,earthquakes,
project except the one originally contemplated. or groundwater fluctuations.Contact the geotechnical engineer
before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable.A
Read the Full Report minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on major problems.
a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all.Do
not rely on an executive summary.Do not read selected Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
elements only. Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors taken.Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique,project-specific data and then apply their professional judgment to render
factors when establishing the scope of a study.Typical factors an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
include:the client's goals,objectives,and risk-management site.Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes
preferences;the general nature of the structure involved,its significantly—from those indicated in your report.Retaining
size,and configuration;the location of the structure on the the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to
site;and other planned or existing site improvements,such as provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most
access roads,parking lots,and underground utilities.Unless effective method of managing the risks associated with
the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically unanticipated conditions.
indicates otherwise,do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report that was: A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
• not prepared for you; Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent
• not prepared for your project; recommendations included in your report.Confirmation-
• not prepared for the specific site explored;or dependent recommendations are not final,because
• completed before important project changes were made. geotechnical engineers develop them principally from
judgment and opinion.Geotechnical engineers can finalize
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect: conditions revealed during construction.The geotechnical
• the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed engineer who developed your report cannot assume
from a parking garage to an office building,or from a light- responsibility or liability for the report's confirmation-dependent
industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; recommendations if that engineer does not perform the
• the elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or weight geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the
of the proposed structure; recommendations'applicability.
• the composition of the design team;or
• project ownership. A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject
to Misinterpretation
As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer Other design-team members'misinterpretation of
of project changes—even minor ones—and request an geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly

r
problems.Confront that risk by having your geotechnical others recognize their own responsibilities and risks.Read
engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team these provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical
after submitting the report.Also retain your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's
plans and specifications.Constructors can also misinterpret Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
a geotechnical-engineering report.Confront that risk by The equipment,techniques,and personnel used to perform
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
preconstruction conferences,and by providing geotechnical perform a geotechnical study.For that reason,a geotechnical-
construction observation. engineering report does not usually relate any environmental
findings,conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory problems have led to numerous project failures.If you have not
data.To prevent errors or omissions,the logs included in a yet obtained your own environmental information,
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.Only guidance.Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable,but someone else.
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
Give Constructors a Complete Report and with Mold
Guidance Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they construction,operation,and maintenance to prevent
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To be effective,all such strategies should be devised for
To help prevent costly problems,give constructors the the express purpose of mold prevention,integrated into a
complete geotechnical-engineering report,but preface it with comprehensive plan,and executed with diligent oversight by a
a clearly written letter of transmittal.In that letter,advise professional mold-prevention consultant.Because just a small
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; severe mold infestations,many mold-prevention strategies
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer focus on keeping building surfaces dry.While groundwater,
who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required)and/ water infiltration,and similar issues may have been addressed
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of as part of the geotechnical-engineering study whose findings
information they need or prefer.A prebid conference can also are conveyed in this report,the geotechnical engineer in
be valuable.Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
additional study.Only then might you be in a position to none of the services performed in connection with the
give constructors the best information available to you, geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial the purpose of mold prevention.Proper implementation of the
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely involved.
Some clients,design professionals,and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
other engineering disciplines.This lack of understanding for Additional Assistance
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the
disappointments,claims,and disputes.To help reduce the risk Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical
of such outcomes,geotechnical engineers commonly include engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques
a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with
labeled"limitations,"many of these provisions indicate where a construction project.Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineers'responsibilities begin and end,to help geotechnical engineer for more information.
GEOTECHNICAL
BUSINESS COUNCIL
iii of the Geoprofessional Business Association
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,Silver Spring,MD 20910
Telephone:[phone] Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail:[e-mail] www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,or its contents,in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with GBA's specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of GBA may use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report.Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation.
J

I 1 BORING LOCATION PLAN I ON
i / Popeye's-Sand Filter SHGWT
I - - i i/ / / Spout Springs,NC REFER TO 0OI
€1 1 / / ATC Project Number.199CES24XX
38 1 WO-.--..-_.,..._.i� I I i i It
gi4�' F� / ian�.�ti,_- / j � --—
M
— I / / / /
I / ! I ' I� /7/7/1/7/
/ /HA-01�HAA2/ _ lS p }
Viii,
j1 --/ / / I �5 6ii I1
, ,a
/ y �a r 1,1 • � / I x
I i _-1 0, iV ' i0,71fi 4 S y i• ( _._- .1 - / I
I 1 11
irXxx
� y,��•S,Maa= / g _ VI L�
1
IIFLurxxx
i, ..__..zoir:11,- ,. \\\ 1,\,6 \ \ \ 1
I I , �-4—aw— II ► \V A ) I Ill*
tac \ r 37-treiM0Ie1► -�F� I ‘-,::,'-
` _ \`'k_ CODED NOTES.Q
I �� � -k ;
1 II ._ w .o Wax r ` 1 sR` \ S•COAMEPOUT COTOEC'
\ immi� 0,..-- 1 1 e COARACmR TOERSWI
I w` / — - fTi7S71 �N _,-4�\ - \ I 3 PRWiOE ASWAIE SO OP
E?Tv L a Mr it Sfl caws _ i \ PROPOSED STORMNATO
‘ �,, -i `Hand Auger Boring Location PROPERTY
r—'-. - y' 4i _ I` ' - j y% i'/ \ //j/ice-
���` � y® � we� •� AiN t�1 I f li 11/ mo w=- �i /,�- , -'-' \1•
17:41 , � ,
�� '- l ID_Jf I.
- I a t I ' CVIOLV« I I 1 L 1 \�• I T ENTER [

.ATC HAND AUGER BORING LOG
ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA,P.C.
CLIENT CESO BORING# HA-01
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# Pending
PROJECT LOCATION Spout Springs, NC DRAWN BY TB
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 8/30/24 Hammer Wt. NA lbs.
Date Completed 8/30/24 Hammer Drop NA in.
Drill Foreman M. Byrum Spoon Sampler OD NA in. a
t o Y
Inspector ATLAS Rock Core Dia. NA in. o• . -
Boring Method HA Shelby Tube OD NA in. �L m °o 0 c E
QN U N .0 to a) .JJ^.. d 2
O_ iz0 a) a) o OU> O aa)) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION oo E co 'aa) '� g z D a 2 v a i
(6 7 L L 0 p_ O_ d 8 3 -0 _ O_ p. "O U u) Y (6
> %n a m E E E c) o c N E .N = in a) E
SURFACE ELEVATION 337' w cis o o co to z as co ( cis F 0 0 2 a s ii a° Ct
No Sample Obtained
lila
3.0
Light yellowish tan silty fine to medium SAND, 1 CU X
saturated - X
X
•
2 CU
•
X
X
5
3 CU
X
. 6.0
HAND AUGER TERMINATED @ 6'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon A Noted on Drilling Tools NE ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube f At Completion(in augers) - ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC Rock Core g At Completion(open hole) 2.0 ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings After NA hours NA ft. HA -Hand Auger
CT -Continuous Tube 1 After NA hours NA ft. Page 1 of 1
1I Cave Depth 2.0 ft.

RTCHAND AUGER BORING LOG
ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA,P.C.
CLIENT CESO BORING# HA-02
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# Pending
PROJECT LOCATION Spout Springs, NC DRAWN BY TB
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 8/30/24 Hammer Wt. NA lbs.
Date Completed 8/30/24 Hammer Drop NA in.
Drill Foreman M. Byrum Spoon Sampler OD NA in. a
t o Y
Inspector ATLAS Rock Core Dia. NA in. o• . -
Boring Method HA Shelby Tube OD NA in. �L m °o C c E
QN U N .0 to a) .JJ^.. d 2
O_ iz0 a) o OU> O aa)) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION oo E 0 'aa) '� 2' D a 2 v a i
t6 7 L L 0 d Q Cl8 3 "C) _ O_ ? "O U y Y a3
> %n a m E E E c) o c N E .N = V) a) E
SURFACE ELEVATION 337' w cis o o co to z as co ( cis F 0 0 2 a s ii a° Ct
No Sample Obtained
3.0
Light yellowish tan silty fine to medium SAND, 1 CU X
saturated - X
__ 4.0 X
.. Light tannish gray silty fine to medium SAND, 2 CU
saturated - X
X
5
3 CU
X
. I 6.0
HAND AUGER TERMINATED @ 6'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon A Noted on Drilling Tools NE ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube f At Completion(in augers) - ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC Rock Core g At Completion(open hole) 2.5 ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings After NA hours NA ft. HA -Hand Auger
CT -Continuous Tube 1 After NA hours NA ft. Page 1 of 1
111 Cave Depth 2.5 ft.

ATC ii
ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL
BUILDING SCIENCES• MATERIALS TESTING
January 13, 2023
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
POPEYE'S
SPOUTS SPRINGS, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By: Prepared For:
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P. C. Ms. Mollee Mrsny
7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive, Suite 800 The Dimension Group
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273 10755 Sandhill Road
Dallas, Texas 75238

If
January 13, 2023
Ms. Mollee Mrsny
Development Project Manager
The Dimension Group
10755 Sandhill Road
Dallas Texas 75238
CDIMENSION
OUP
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Services
Popeye's
1547 NC-24
Spouts Springs, North Carolina
ATC Project Number 199TDG2206
Dear Ms. Mrsny:
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C. (ATC) has completed the authorized Geotechnical
Engineering Services at the site of the proposed Popeye's development.The attached report reviews
our understanding of the project, discusses exploration procedures, describes existing site and
general subsurface conditions, and presents our geotechnical findings and preliminary
recommendations.
We have enjoyed working with you on this project. Please contact us if you have questions regarding
this report, or if we may be of further service.
Sincerely,
ATC Associates of North Carolina, P.C.
7/2� 'e p1r`, a°°eq°q ® Swims
Joseph G. Schold, PE, NC 21736 deoge . d ' , .
r - 4A
I
Principal Geotechnical Engineer Principal Engineer
704-236-1259 \80-556-3439 ' r s i 026087 t
joe.scholdatcqs.com george.adair(a�atcqs.co� ,
.V1
Ci® rfi�nA � 4'��L
"atSMO%
Distribution: Addressee (1 via email: [e-mail])

ATC
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Information 1
1.2 Site Description 2
1.3 Purpose & Scope of Services 3
2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES 4
2.1 Site Reconnaissance 4
2.2 Field Exploration 4
2.3 LABORATORY TESTING 5
2.3.1 Soil Classification 5
2.3.2 Moisture Content 5
2.3.3 Sieve Analysis 5
2.3.4 Atterberg Limits 6
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 7
3.1 Site Description and Historical Topographic Review 7
3.2 Geology 8
3.3 General Subsurface Conditions 9
3.3.1 Surface Materials 9
3.3.2 Possible Fill and Fill Materials 9
3.3.3 Coastal Plain Soil 10
3.3.4 Groundwater 10
4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 12
4.1 General 12
4.2 Foundation Support 13
4.3 Soil-Supported Slabs 13
4.4 Retaining/Below Grade Concrete Walls 14
4.5 Slope Stability 15
4.6 Pavement Recommendations 16
4.6.1 Flexible Pavements 16
4.6.2 Rigid Pavements 16

;ETC I- II
4.7 Wet Weather Construction 17
5.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 18
5.1 Site and Subgrade Preparation 18
5.2 Structural Fill 19
5.3 Excavation Conditions 20
5.4 Groundwater and Runoff Conditions 20
5.4.1 Groundwater 20
5.4.2 Runoff Conditions 21
5.5 Foundation Construction and Evaluation 21
6.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES 22
7.0 QUALIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS 23
Appendix
GBA Information
Boring Location Plan
Boring Logs
Laboratory Tests
Soil and Rock Classification

;ATC //
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Information
Based on the review of the provided Conceptual Site Plan,sheet CSP-01, dated 11/16/2022,and prepared
by The Dimension Group, the development will include a 2,354 square foot drive-thru restaurant, a
dumpster corral,a detention area,and associated drives and utilities.A partial copy of the plan is inserted
below.
r
.
O de e ,l
' ..L ®c..q• •
w , i.
it,444° air
4 4,,,„,/,,,., ,..,,,,,, , _..... ...,_
...,.., , ,.. ... kkol.ta, 4
. ,f ,p..k. _ .., i , ,
(Partial copy of the Concepual Site Plan)
No additional information has been provided to ATC regarding past activities at the project site. Moreover,
details regarding proposed structural loadings and grading information have not been provided to ATC at
this time. For purposes of this report,the following estimated project details are provided.
II
Popeye's Page I 1
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC //
Project Details (Anticipated)
Construction Type/Building Envelope Single story CMU and light guage steel framed structure,slab—on-grade
with strip and spread footings.
Estimated Design Column Loads Less than 50 Kips
Estimated Wall Loads 1 to 2 kips per foot
Anticipated Cuts and Fill Less than 2 feet
1.2 Site Description
The project site includes 2 parcels of property located at 1547 NC 24-87 Cameron, North Carolina. The
property currently a vacant lot. It appears that site grading has been performed as stockpiles of soil were
located on the southern and northern areas of the site. It appears that the properties to the west of the
subject site are at higher elevations and all runoff from those sites drains by sheet flow into a draw the
crosses the subject site in the center and directs the runoff down to the east. According to the Harnett
County GIS website, https://gis.harnett.org/gisviewer/, the 2 parcels total approximately 2.2 acres. The
project site and two parcels are depicted below.
7 ,
, ,. .- :::-----:.:i :.=-- .. ,.._:„...-_,_. ,„:.::„
...,
..„.
,,
/ J•
II'
r'
April2022 Site Aerial Photograph obtained from Google Earth°
II
Popeye's Page 12
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
Historical aerial photographs beginning in 1955 through 2022 have been reviewed. In 1955,the properties
were undeveloped and sparsely to lightly wooded. In 1971, a 3 or 4 structures appeared to be located on
the central and southern sides of the property.The structures do not appear to be present in 1993. From
1993 through 1999, the southern half of the properties have revegetated. In 2003, the majority of the
properties have been cleared of vegetation. From 2005 through 2018,the properties revegetated and are
shown to be densely vegetated. The properties appear to have been cleared of vegetation in 2021.
Currently, it appears that some land disturbance has occurred on the northern and southern thirds of the
properties and the land is generally cleared of significant vegetation.
1.3 Purpose&Scope of Services
The purpose of our Geotechnical Engineering Services was to assess subsurface soil conditions at the site
of the planned development and provide geotechnical recommendations regarding project design and
construction. Specifically, our services were directed at providing the following requested information:
a. Soil nature and origin, including changes resulting from man's activities;
b. Depths,thicknesses, composition of soil strata that will be appreciably stressed by the
intended construction;
c. Recommendations regarding the on-site fill soils and suitability for use on-site;
d. Depths,thicknesses, composition of soil strata that will be appreciably stressed by the
intended construction;
e. Depths to encountered groundwater, rock, and deleterious soil strata that could affect the
proposed construction;
f. Recommendations regarding any anticipated rock or"soft" soil remediation and/or removal;
g. Recommendations regarding foundation design and construction for the structures;
h. Recommendations pertaining to site development including site preparation, earthwork
construction, unsuitable soils, groundwater control, excavation slopes, and difficult excavations;
and
Discussion of other geotechnical related items identified during the exploration.
The scope of our geotechnical services did not include an environmental assessment or investigation for
the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil,groundwater, or surface water within
or beyond the site. Any statements in this report or on the Test Boring Records regarding odors, staining
of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client.
Popeye's Page 13 II
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC //
2.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
2.1 Site Reconnaissance
Prior to the field exploration,the site and surrounding areas were visually evaluated by an engineer from our
office. The observations made were used in planning this exploration and in determining areas of special
interest.
2.2 Field Exploration
Ten soil test borings were planned to be drilled within the development area.Two soil test borings, B-01 and
B-02,were advanced to a planned depth of approximately fifteen(15)feet below the existing ground surface
in the building area. Six soil test borings, P-01 through P-06 were advanced to a planned depth of
approximately ten (10) feet below the existing ground surface in the parking and drive areas. Two soil test
borings, D-01 and D-02,were advanced to a planned depth of approximately ten (10)feet below the existing
ground surface in the detention area.The approximate locations of the borings are shown below and on the
Boring Location Plan in the Appendix.
��"!
D-1T y..! .- ' ,••
r
„,,,,
0- 1 •
a 1
T.
..
♦ � /• , , ♦4 • ,� ,
..... , ,
.4,, ..„.
•
P-4�, ...„.."---..„,- _if'
1. J .t
1 • P-6¶ ti
1
B �9 t ;
r 1 ,
i i , • 50 p •a, . .
•• , �• • :I I • •
-l+` A
i1
Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were interpolated from a 4-foot contour interval
topographic map obtained from the Harnett County GIS website, https://gis.harnett.org/gisviewer/, All soil
sampling and standard penetration testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D-
1586.The soil test borings were advanced by mechanically turning hollow-stem augers into the soil.At regular
II
Popeye's Page 14
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2.0-inch O.D., split-barrel sampler. The
sampler was first seated 6 inches and then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer
falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final foot was recorded and is
designated the "standard penetration resistance." Penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an
index of the soil strength and foundation support capability.
The borings were sampled using a manual 140-pound hammer to drive the split-spoon sampler.
Representative portions of the soil samples obtained with the split-barrel sampler were sealed in plastic bags
and transported to our laboratory. In the laboratory, they were examined by a geotechnical engineer and
classified using the Unified Soil Classification System. The soil descriptions and classifications are based on
visual examination and should be considered approximate.
Test Boring Records which graphically depict soil descriptions, penetration resistances, and observed
groundwater levels,are included in the Appendix.
Cave-in depths are noted on some of the Test Boring Records. These were recorded when conducting
measurements for groundwater levels after the hollow stem augers used during drilling were removed from
the borehole.
2.3 LABORATORY TESTING
Representative soil samples were tested in our laboratory. The test performed are discussed in the
following sections.
2.3.1 Soil Classification
Soil classifications provide a general guide to the engineering properties of various soil types and enable the
engineer to apply past experience to current problems. In our explorations,samples obtained during drilling
operations are observed in our laboratory and visually classified by an engineer. The soils are classified
according to consistency (based on number of blows from standard penetration tests), color and texture.
These classification descriptions are included on our Test Boring Records.The classification system discussed
above is primarily qualitative; laboratory testing is generally performed for detailed soil classification. Using
the test results, the soils were classified according to the Unified Soil Classification Systems (ASTM D 2487).
This classification system and the in-place physical soil properties provide an index for estimating the soil's
behavior.The soil classification and physical properties obtained are presented in this report.
2.3.2 Moisture Content
The moisture content is the ratio expressed as a percentage of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to
the weight of the solid particles.This test was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 2216.The test
results indicated moisture contents ranged from 6.5 to 24.8 percent.A summary of the moisture contents of
selected samples is included in the Appendix.
2.3.3 Sieve Analysis
The sieve analysis consists of passing a soil sample through a series of standard sieve openings. The
percentage of soil, by weight, passing the individual sieves is then recorded and generally presented in a
graphical format; the percentage of fines passing through the No. 200 sieve is generally considered to
represent the amount of silt and clay of the tested soil sample. The sieve analysis test was conducted in
general accordance with ASTM Designation D 1140.
Popeye's Page 15 II
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

;ETC
2.3.4 Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits, including liquid and plastic limits, are used to define plasticity of clays and silts.As moisture
content increases, fine grained soils changes its state of consistency from solid to plastic and viscous flow
state. Liquid limit is defined as the moisture content at the lower limit of viscous flow or the upper limit of the
plastic state. Plastic limit is defined as the moisture content at the lower limit of the plastic state.The tests
were performed in accordance with ASTM D 4318.
Table 1-Laboratory Test Results—Atterberg Limits and Soil Passing#200 Sieve.
Boring Nos. Sample Depth Liquid Limit,% Plasticity Index,% Passing No.200 Sieve, USCS Class
(ft.) %
B-01 3.5—5 50 29 33.8 SC
P-01 3.5—5 48 28 42.1 SC
P-03 3.5—5 55 35 48.8 SC
Popeye's Page 16
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

;ETC
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Description and Historical Topographic Review
The property is located on the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Olivia, North
Carolina, topographic quadrangle. Please refer to the insert below. The review of local topography
indicates that the property elevation (EL) ranges from below EL 350 feet on the west side down to above
EL 330 feet on the east side. The approximate boundary of the parcels and associated topography are
depicted as follows.
.r.
APPROX. •
SITE
BOUNDARY /
4.40
a
•
r,rr.r�nrr - •
24
• cam
9137
4 nrismn.awft
(USGS Topographic Mop,contour interval:10 feet)
Historical review of available topographic maps indicate no significant changes have occurred to the
mapped area.
The property was reviewed using the Harnett County GIS website. Property topography was obtained
from their GIS website.The topography is depicted on the following page.
Popeye's Page 17
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC //
„ ( v 1
‘Q‘ ‘ \A \ \
r 73
/ri M--- --'--...._____—___ -:)) 4 It ,
4).
CO
01497 (
\
I
l
, t. , / \
, _,‘..„, \ \
According to the GIS topographic map, the ground surface elevations range from approximately EL 848
and EL 850 on the west side sloping down to approximately EL 828 on the east side.
3.2 Geology
According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina,the property is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province.The Coastal Plain is a wedge of mostly marine sedimentary rocks that gradually thickens to the
east. The Coastal Plain is the largest geologic element in the state, covering about 45 percent of the land
area. The most common sediment types are sand and clay, although a significant amount of limestone
occurs in the southern part of the Coastal Plain. The formation of the subsurface is the Middendorf
Formation which is described as sand, sandstone, and mudstone, gray to pale gray with an orange cast,
mottled; clay balls and iron-cemented concretions common, beds laterally discontinuous, cross-bedding
common.
Popeye's Page 18
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
In areas near creeks, rivers, and intermittent streams, alluvium derived from eroded Coastal Plain soil is
often present and such material may be present near drainages on the central area of the parcel.
3.3 General Subsurface Conditions
Data from the soil test borings are shown on the Test Boring Records in the Appendix. The subsurface
conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the Test Boring Records represent an
estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted
geotechnical engineering judgments.We note that the transition between different soil strata is less distinct
than those shown on the Test Boring Records. Although individual test borings are representative of the
subsurface conditions at the boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of
subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times.
The soil test borings encountered fill materials, residual soils, and partially weathered rock.These materials
are described in the following paragraphs.
3.3.1 Surface Materials
Topsoil was encountered in all soil test borings on the ground surface. Thicknesses ranged from
approximately 2 to 12 inches. Organic laden fill soils were also encountered beneath the ground surface
and is discussed in the following section.Surficial soils are typically a dark-colored soil material containing
roots, fibrous matter, and/or other organic components, and are generally unsuitable for engineering
purposes. We note that no laboratory testing has been performed to determine the organic content or
horticultural properties of the observed topsoil materials. Therefore, the term "Topsoil" is not intended
to indicate suitability of the material for landscaping and/or other purposes.The topsoil depths provided
in this report are based on driller observations and should be considered approximate. Actual topsoil
depths should be expected to vary across the site.
3.3.2 Possible Fill and Fill Materials
Possible fill and fill is any material that has or is suspected of being transported and deposited by man.
Possible fill and/or fill materials were encountered in soil test borings B-02 and P-04. These materials
appeared to extend to depths of approximately 6 to 8.5 below the existing ground surface and contained
dark brown organic laden soils.Standard penetration resistances(N-values) in the fill ranged from 2 to 35
blows per foot (bpf).
Loose fill materials with N-Values of less than 6 blows per foot were encountered in the following boring
locations.
Soil Test Boring Designation Approximate Sample Depth N-Value (bpf)
(feet)
B-02 1—2.5 4
3.5—5 2
P-04 6-7.5 4
Popeye's Page 19 II
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
3.3.3 Coastal Plain Soil
Coastal Plain soils were encountered beneath the surface materials and fill. The Coastal Plain soils
extended to the depths of boring termination of 10 and 15 feet below the existing ground surface. The
soils were generally described as silty SANDS,clayey SANDS,and sandy CLAYS. N-values within the residual
soils ranged from 2 to 35 bpf.
Loose Coastal Plain soils with N-Values of less than 6 blows per foot were encountered in the following
boring locations.
Soil Test Boring Designation Approximate Sample Depth N-Value (bpf)
(feet)
D-02 1—2.5 5
P-01 1—2.5 4
P-04 8.5-10 4
13.5—15 3
P-05 3.5—5 5
6—7.5 4
P-06 1—2.5 3
3.5—5 2
3.3.4 Groundwater
Groundwater levels were measured in the soil test borings during drilling and immediately prior to back filling
each borehole. Groundwater was encountered in the following soil test boring locations after drilling.
Soil Test Boring Designation Approximate Depth (feet)
B-01 12
B-02 11.5
D-01 6.5
D-02 4
P-04 11
P-05 5 0.)
Note 1:water noted on drill tolls during drilling.Borehole caved-in at 3 feet after removal of auger.
Popeye's Page 110 I'
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
Groundwater levels are subject to seasonal and climatic variations and may be different at other times and
locations than those stated.Groundwater levels are subject to seasonal and climatic variations and may be
different at other times and locations than those stated.
The presence, depth, and quantity of groundwater seepage may fluctuate based on variations in seasonal
rainfall, climatic conditions, site surface runoff characteristics, permeability of on-site materials,
continuity of pervious materials, irrigation practices, and other factors. These observations do not
constitute a long-term groundwater study nor was such an evaluation authorized as a part of the scope
of this study. Any changes noted in groundwater levels during construction may require a review of the
recommendations presented in this report.
Popeye's Page 111
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

;ATC
4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on our observations at the site, interpretation of
the field and laboratory data obtained during the study, and our experience with similar subsurface
conditions. Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations may vary somewhat from those encountered in
the borings.
Soil conditions at the site that are potential areas of concern:
1. Comparing topographic information to images on Google Earth®,it appears previous site grading and
fill placement occurred on the southern end of the parcels. It appears this area of the site has been filled in.
Based on the soil density and consistency, it does not appear that the fill materials were placement in a
controlled manner. Previously placed miscellaneous fill materials were encountered extending to depths
ranging from approximately 6 to 8.5 feet below the existing ground surface.
Construction on existing fill material requires an owner to accept some risks due to unforeseen conditions
within the material. Associated risks may be additional support related cost (i.e. undercutting, etc.) and
excessive building settlement or pavement deflection. In order to reduce the risks associated with structural
support on existing fill materials,the existing materials should be completely removed and replaced with new
controlled structural fill.
2. Organic laden soils were encountered in soil test borings B-02 located in the proposed building area.
The organic laden soils extended to a depth of approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface.These
materials are not desirable for predicable foundation or floor slab support. These soils should be removed
and replaced with properly placed and engineered fill.The lateral extent of removal should be determined at
the time of construction and verified by a representative of the ATC Geotechnical Engineer.It should be noted
that"additional"organic laden fill materials may be encountered in unexplored areas of the site. If and when
additional organic laden materials are encountered, ATC staff should be notified to examine the materials
and general site conditions and provide additional site recommendations to address the encountered site
conditions.
3. Organic laden soils were encountered in soil test boring P-04 located in the drive areas.The organic
laden soils extended to a depth of approximately 8.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Depending on
proposed grades, these materials may remain in-place, however, they may require partial removal and
replacement aided by mechanical stabilization.The method of treatment should be determined in the field
by a representative of the ATC Geotechnical Engineer. It should be noted that "additional" organic laden fill
materials may be encountered in unexplored areas of the site. If and when additional organic laden materials
are encountered, ATC staff should be notified to examine the materials and general site conditions and
provide additional site recommendations to address the encountered site conditions.
4. Loose near surface soils were encountered in soil test borings P-01, P-05, P-06,and D-02. Depending
on finished grades, some of these materials may be removed during site grading. Where these soils are
encountered,they should be re-compacted as recommended herein.
5. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 4 to 12 feet below the existing
ground surface. Groundwater control may be required depending on finished grades. The shallowest
groundwater was encountered in soil test borings P-05, D-01 and D-02 at depths ranging from 4 to 6.5 feet.
Popeye's Page 112
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
6. Sheet flow from the properties to the west is directed by gravity down to the site's east side where a
draw is present and conveys runoff across the site to the east. During initial site grading,wet conditions may
be encountered during and after periods of rainfall. The site grading contractor will need to re-direct this
drainage so it does not impact earthwork operations and future site and building performance. The Civil
Engineer should be made aware of this condition and provide appropriate storm drainage systems to
intercept and redirect the drainage into the storm drain system.
4.2 Foundation Support
Based on the boring data and the provided structural loading information discussed in the project
information section of this report, the existing soils encountered in soil test borings B-01 considered
suitable for support of a shallow foundation system. The organic laden soils in B-02 should be removed
and replaced with engineered fill for shallow foundation support. Once remediated, the proposed
structure may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on approved Coastal Plain soil or
newly placed controlled structural fill subgrades.
We recommend that building foundations be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of
2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for foundations bearing on approved subgrades. Based on the boring
data,the anticipated structural loads,and removal and replacement of the fill materials,we estimate total
settlements (due to the new building loads) on the order of 1 of an inch (or less), with differential
settlement between column foundations to be less than 1/2 inch.The magnitude of differential settlements
will be influenced by the variation in excavation requirements across the building footprint, the
distribution of loads, and the variability of underlying soils. We recommend widths of not less than 24
inches for rectangular foundations and not less than 18 inches for continuous foundations for ease of
construction and to reduce the possibility of localized shear failures. We recommend that exterior
foundation bottoms be established at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grades for frost and stability
considerations.
Our settlement analysis was performed on the basis of structural and grading assumptions discussed in
the project information section of this report and the removal and replacement of the existing fill
materials.Actual settlements experienced by the structure and the time required for these soils to settle
will be influenced by undetected variations in subsurface conditions, actual structural loads, final grading
plans, and the quality of fill placement and foundation construction.
4.3 Soil-Supported Slabs
After remediation of the organic laden soils in soil test boring B-02, ground floor slabs may be designed as a
slab-on-grade supported by approved existing competent Coastal Plain soils and/or on structural fill placed
above existing competent Coastal Plain soil.Slab-on-grade support is contingent upon successful completion
of the remediation of the existing fill materials and subgrade evaluation process as described in the Site
Preparation section of this report.
We recommend a moisture barrier be included between the slab and subgrade. It may also be prudent to
place a 4 to 6-inch layer of compacted graded aggregate base (GAB) over the slab subgrade to act as a
construction surface and help protect the integrity of the subgrade.
As recommended above, a vapor retarder moisture barrier should be used beneath ground floor slabs that
will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coatings, and/or if other moisture-sensitive
equipment or materials will be in contact with the floor. However, the use of vapor retarders may result in
MAI
Popeye's Page 113
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

;ETC
excessive curling of floor slabs during curing. We refer the floor slab designer to ACI 302.1R, Sections 4.1.5
and 11.11,for further discussion on vapor retarders,curling,and the means to reduce concrete shrinkage and
curling.
Floor slab construction should incorporate isolation joints along bearing walls and around column locations
to allow minor movements to occur without damage. Utility or other construction excavations in the
prepared floor subgrade should be backfilled to a controlled fill criterion to provide uniform floor support.
4.4 Retaining/Below Grade Concrete Walls
Earth pressures on walls below grade are influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall
restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained.
The most common conditions assumed for earth retaining wall design are the active and at-rest conditions.
Active conditions apply to relatively flexible earth retention structures, such as free-standing walls, where
some movement and rotation may occur to mobilize soil shear strength. Walls which are rigidly restrained,
such as basement, pit, and tunnel walls,should be designed for the at-rest condition.
A third condition, the passive state, represents the maximum possible pressure when a structure is pushed
against the soil, and is used in wall foundation design to help resist active or at-rest pressures. Because
significant wall movements are required to develop the passive pressure,the total calculated passive pressure
should be reduced by one-half for design purposes.
Based on previous experience with similar soils and construction, we recommend the following earth
pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid pressures for design of reinforced concrete retaining or below grade
walls:
Earth Pressure Conditions Coefficient Preliminary Recommended Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(psf/ft)
Active(Ka) 0.36 45
At-Rest(K0) 0.53 66
Passive(Kr) 2.77 173
A moist soil unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot should be used for design calculations.A preliminary
allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be used for design of retaining wall footings established in
competent natural soils or new structural fill. A coefficient of friction value of 0.30 may be used between
the concrete footing and soils.
Our recommendations assume that the ground surface above the wall is level and that soils similar to
those found in our borings(except any(CH) and (MH)soils)will be used for wall backfill.
The recommended equivalent fluid pressures assume that constantly functioning drainage systems are
installed between walls and soil backfill to prevent the accidental buildup of hydrostatic pressures and
lateral stresses in excess of those stated. If a functioning drainage system is not installed, then lateral
earth pressures should be determined using the buoyant weight of the soil (approximately 58 pcf).
Popeye's Page 114
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
Hydrostatic pressures calculated with the unit weight of water (62.4 pcf) should be added to these earth
pressures to obtain the total stresses for design.
Tractors and other heavy equipment should not operate within 6 feet of below grade walls to prevent
lateral pressures in excess of those cited. If footings or other surcharge loadings are located a short
distance outside below grade walls,they may also exert appreciable additional lateral pressures that must
be considered in the design of the wall.
These retaining wall/below grade wall recommendations should not be correlated with soil parameters for
use in any Mechanically Stabilized Earth(MSE)wall design.We recommend that soil parameters for any MSE
retaining wall design be established through appropriate laboratory testing by the wall designer.
4.5 Slope Stability
Our exploration did not include a detailed analysis of slope stability for any temporary or permanent
condition. For ease of maintenance(mowing,etc.),we suggest a maximum permanent slope configuration of
3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V). However, where steeper configurations are needed, we generally
recommend permanent slopes no steeper than 2H:1V and temporary slopes no steeper than 1.5H:1V up to
a maximum height of 20 feet and for construction in undisturbed residual soils, PWR, or newly compacted
structural fill placed in accordance with our recommendations. Where temporary slopes are required within
the existing fill materials,a flatter configuration may be required.
While slopes higher than 20 feet should be formally evaluated for stability,we typically recommend that mid-
slope benches or some other mid-slope sheet-flow interceptor/diversion feature be included in the design
where soil slopes heights exceed 30 feet (to divert surface water flow from running down the full extent of
the slope face). Without sufficient surface water diversion at the crest and along the mid-slope line for very
high slopes, significant erosional features can occur which could in-turn facilitate deeper slope failures. We
recommend a planned drainage bench or other mid-slope interceptor/diversion feature be designed for the
top of the retaining wall for the pool.
In general,a minimum top of slope setback distance of%the slope height is required between the outer edge
of building foundations and the slope face. In addition,we recommend a minimum top of slope setback of 5
feet for pavement areas.For building foundations situated near the crest of a slope,an increased embedment
may be needed to meet the recommended setback distance from the closest edge of the footing to a nearby
existing slope face.
During construction, temporary slopes should be regularly evaluated for signs of movement or unsafe
conditions.We recommend that drainage and/or runoff from nearby landscape,pavement and structures be
directed away from the crest and toe of planned cut and fill slopes. Soil slopes should be covered for
protection from rain, and surface runoff should be diverted away from the slopes. In addition, a protective
cover of grass or other vegetation should be established on permanent soil slopes as soon as possible for
erosion protection.These general slope recommendations are appropriate for slopes underlain by competent
materials. However, the provided recommendations should not be used to deviate from OSHA regulations.
Construction should be performed in accordance with applicable OSHA regulations.
All temporary excavations for the installation of foundations, utilities, etc., should be properly laid back or
braced in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and any other applicable
requirements. All existing facilities such as buildings, sidewalks, streets, utilities, etc., should be suitably
MAI
Popeye's Page 115
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

;ETC
protected from undermining due to excavation for the new structure and/or undercutting of unsuitable fill(if
necessary).All federal,state and local safety regulations should be followed in this regard.
4.6 Pavement Recommendations
No design traffic conditions were available. The following flexible and rigid pavement sections are provided
for use on the project assuming typical traffic conditions. The recommended pavement design alternatives
are subject to successful completion of site and subgrade preparation and fill placement as recommended in
this report.
4.6.1 Flexible Pavements
The following flexible pavement recommendations are based on an assumed CBR value of 5 and typical
loading conditions expected for the project:
1. For parking lots restricted to automobile traffic and car parking, we recommend a
light-duty section consisting of:
• 2-1/2 inches asphaltic concrete (9.5mm or 12.5mm Superpave)
• 7 inches of compacted Graded Aggregate Base(G.A.B.)
2. For parking lots or other areas subject to heavy traffic,we recommend a heavy duty
section consisting of:
• 2 inches of asphaltic concrete surface course(9.5mm Superpave)
• 2 inches of asphaltic concrete base course(19mm Superpave)
• 8 inches of compacted Graded Aggregate Base(GAB)
The compaction, quality and gradation of the GAB crushed stone base will directly affect the quality and life
of the pavement section. Consequently, we recommend a minimum compaction of 100 percent of the
maximum dry density for the GAB crushed stone material as determined by the Modified Proctor compaction
test(ASTM D 1557, Method D).
A soil engineering technician working under the direction of a geotechnical engineer should observe
placement and compaction of the base course material and perform density tests to confirm that the material
has been placed in accordance with our recommendations. GAB materials should extend at least 2 feet
horizontally beyond the planned pavement edges.
The GAB crushed stone aggregate in the base should conform with the applicable State of North Carolina,
Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. In addition, all
asphalt material and paving operations should meet applicable specifications of the Asphalt Institute and
North Carolina Department of Transportation.
4.6.2 Rigid Pavements
Rigid pavement design has been based on the assumed traffic conditions and a Modulus of Subgrade value
of 140 psi/inch. The concrete is assumed to have a modulus of rupture of 600 psi or more, and a 28-day
compressive strength of at least 4,000 psi. We recommend the following minimum rigid concrete pavement
thicknesses:
■ Car Parking 6 inches
■ Heavy Traffic 8 inches
MAI
Popeye's Page 116
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
A minimum 4-inch-thickness of GAB base materials compacted to at least 100% of the Modified Proctor
maximum dry density is recommended under rigid pavements.Control joints for 6-inch sections should be 12
feet each way and for 8-inch sections 16 feet each way. Saw-cut joints should extend a minimum of 1/4 of
the concrete thickness.All concrete joints should conform with applicable specifications of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation. We recommend construction joints be underlain by a non-woven geotextile
(about 2 feet wide)to prevent upward "pumping" of soil fines through the joints.As an alternative,the non-
woven geotextile can be replaced with 4 inches of base material. The latest specifications of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation shall govern the design and placement of pavements.
4.7 Wet Weather Construction
Site grading that occurs during traditional wet weather periods will be problematic at this site.Some targeted
undercutting of saturated soils and chemical drying may be required if prolonged periods of unfavorable
weather conditions occur during fill placement operations at the site. Although specific recommendations
would be made at the time of construction,the following guidelines are provided.
• Saturated surface soils are difficult to dry by mechanical and/or chemical methods depending on the
season and the soil type. Consequently, consideration should be given to removal and wasting of
saturated surface soils at the site.
• Lime or cement can be an effective in drying of soils that are typically about 4 to 8 percent wetter
than their optimum moisture content. We expect chemical drying will be required during periods of
wet weather construction in the event the construction schedule does not permit additional time for
drying.
• The on-site soils are sensitive to excessive moisture.These soils types may require undercutting and
chemical drying if subjected to inclement weather conditions.
• Disturbed or uncompacted soils will more readily absorb and hold water. Disturbed or uncompacted
soils should be kept to a minimal area. Special attention and detail should be given to "sealing-off"
or compaction (with a smooth drummed roller)of disturbed areas prior to wet weather periods.The
contractor should also provide cut ditches to channel surface water runoff from the construction
areas. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of water on the site. Pumping should be
performed in a timely manner in areas where water has collected.
Popeye's Page 117
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

;ATC
5.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Site and Subgrade Preparation
Prior to construction,the location of any existing underground utility lines,wells, septic fields, etc, within
the construction area should be established. Provisions should then be made to either relocate any
interfering utility lines or abandon them from the construction area to appropriate locations. In this
regard, it should be noted that if underground pipes are not properly removed or plugged,they may serve
as conduits for subsurface erosion which subsequently may result in excessive settlements.
Stripping of any vegetation,organics,and other unsuitable materials should be performed as well. Existing
topsoil should be stockpiled for later use in landscape areas and the existing gravel should be stockpiled
and used in fill areas. Site grading should be performed during dry weather conditions to reduce the
potential for the operation of heavy equipment rutting and mixing of surficial debris with otherwise
suitable underlying soils. We recommend the clearing operations extend to at least five (5) feet beyond
the development perimeters. Any "topsoil" removed from the planned building and pavement areas
should be stockpiled in designated locations and used later in areas to be grassed or disposed of.
After the site is cleared, the geotechnical engineer should carefully evaluate areas intended to support
foundations, floor slabs, new fill and or pavement. At that time, the exposed subgrade should be
proofrolled,to help detect near surface organics,debris,and other unsuitable/unstable materials. Careful
observations should be made during proof-rolling to help identify any areas of soft yielding soils that may
require over-excavation and replacement.Any buried debris or organics detected during the proof-rolling,
in the excavations for footings and utilities trenches, or during other construction activities should be
undercut and removed from the site.
Organic laden soils were encountered in soil test borings B-02 located in the proposed building area.The
organic laden soils extended to a depth of approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. These
materials are not desirable for predicable foundation or floor slab support.These soils should be removed
and replaced with properly placed and engineered fill.The lateral extent of removal should be determined
at the time of construction and verified by a representative of the ATC Geotechnical Engineer. It should
be noted that"additional"organic laden fill materials may be encountered in unexplored areas of the site.
If and when additional organic laden materials are encountered, ATC staff should be notified to examine
the materials and general site conditions and provide additional site recommendations to address the
encountered site conditions.
Organic laden soils were encountered in soil test boring P-04 located in the drive areas.The organic laden
soils extended to a depth of approximately 8.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Depending on
proposed grades, these materials may remain in-place, however, they may require partial removal and
replacement aided by mechanical stabilization. The method of treatment should be determined in the
field by a representative of the ATC Geotechnical Engineer. It should be noted that "additional" organic
laden fill materials may be encountered in unexplored areas of the site. If and when additional organic
laden materials are encountered, ATC staff should be notified to examine the materials and general site
conditions and provide additional site recommendations to address the encountered site conditions.
These materials may be present at locations between the soil test borings.The characteristics of these fill
soils may be variable and may cause soft or pumping soils where encountered. If encountered, these
materials
MAI
Popeye's Page 118
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
should be further evaluated at the time of construction and further recommendations for either removal
and replacement or stabilization provided.
Any unstable materials detected during proof-rolling should be undercut or stabilized in-place. Approved
methods of stabilization include removal and replacement for building and pavement areas or in-place
methods, such as mechanical stabilization using geotextile products and/or crushed stone products for
pavement areas.
5.2 Structural Fill
Fill used to replace undercut areas or to establish desired finished grades should not be excessively plastic
(Plasticity Index less than 30)and should be generally free of deleterious materials and rock fragments larger
than 3 inches in diameter. We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment on site during
earthwork for both drying and wetting of fill soils. We do not anticipate significant problems in controlling
moistures within the fill during dry weather, but moisture control may be difficult during winter months or
extended periods of rain. Fill soils should have a Standard Proctor(ASTM D-698)maximum dry unit weight of
at least 90 pcf.
If any high plastic on-site soils are encountered across the site the following recommendations are provided.
The use of these materials for direct support of foundation, floor slabs and pavement is generally not
recommended; however, given the presence of these soils, the following considerations for their use are
provided.
• Attempt to utilize high plastic soils in fills and use them at depths at least 2 to 4 feet below
foundations,floor slabs,and pavement.
• Place and compact these soils at a moisture content that is on the "wet" side of the soils optimum
moisture content.
• Maintain positive drainage away for all structures to prevent water from ponding.
• Consider using flexible utility connections where utilities enter structures.
• High plastic soils exposed in the subgrade for structures and pavement could be lime-treated to
reduce potential problems associated with shrinkage and swelling of the soils due to seasonal
moisture variations.
We expect that the some of the on-site materials should be suitable for re-use as structural fill,although any
proposed fill materials should be tested to establish suitability.Any clayey or silty onsite soils may have to be
blended with more granular soils in order to be used as the recommended low-plasticity fill materials. The
clayey or silty soils may be difficult to use as structural fill and would likely require significant moisture
conditioning(drying)to be satisfactory as structural fill.
Structural fill should be placed in lifts of 6 to 8 inches or less loose measure. We recommend that structural
fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density.
Moisture content of the fill should be maintained within a range of+\-3%of the optimum moisture.
All fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts and adequately keyed into stripped and scarified subgrade
soils. All new fill should also be benched into any existing slopes.
Popeye's Page 119
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
In excavated areas, the upper 12 inches of soils intended to support floor slabs and pavements should be
scarified and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density. In confined
areas such as utility trenches, portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of 3 to 4 inches may be required
to achieve specified degrees of compaction.
During fill placement, field density tests should be performed by an ATC soils technician to determine the
degree of compaction and compliance with the project specifications. For underfloor areas,at least one field
density test should be made per 5,000 square feet of fill area for each 1-foot thickness of compacted soil.
Testing frequency should be increased in confined areas. Any areas that do not meet the compaction
specifications should be recompacted to achieve compliance.
5.3 Excavation Conditions
Based on review of the boring data and the proposed construction,we anticipate materials requiring difficult
excavation techniques should not be encountered in during mass grading or trench excavations in the vicinity
of the soil test borings.
5.4 Groundwater and Runoff Conditions
5.4.1 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in the soil test borings. Location and depths are indicated in the following
table.
Soil Test Boring Designation Approximate Depth (feet)
B-01 12
B-02 11.5
D-01 6.5
D-02 4
P-04 11
P-05 5(')
Note 1:water noted on drill tolls during drilling.Borehole caved-in at 3 feet after removal of auger.
Groundwater conditions in soil test borings B-01, B-02 and P-04 may be below the proposed site grades but
may be encountered in utility excavations depending on invert elevations.
Groundwater conditions in soil test borings D-01, D-02, and P-05 are at relatively shallow depths and may be
encountered during site grading and utility excavation depending on proposed grades.
Groundwater levels are subject to seasonal and climatic variations and may be different at other times and
locations than those stated.
Depending on proposed site grades and utility alignments and inverts, groundwater control should be
anticipated during site grading and utility excavations. Once the grading and utility plans become available
we recommended that we be provided with the opportunity to review them. At that time, more specific
recommendations may be provided.
Popeye's Page 120
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

ATC
The contractor should anticipate the potential for groundwater control. The contractor is responsible to
assure adequate groundwater control is in-place and functioning prior to the start of any work then allowing
all work to be performed in a dry (free from flowing or standing water) condition. The contractor is
responsible to establish the means and methods of groundwater control and to include all such items in his
bid and scope of work.
If groundwater conditions are encountered, it has been our experience that groundwater levels when
lowered and maintained at a depth of at least 3 feet below the limits of subgrade excavation and undercutting
elevation typically provide a stable working platform.
Rainwater and runoff should not be allowed to accumulate on the site or in footing excavations. Groundwater
levels are subject to seasonal,climatic and other variations and may be different at other times and locations
than those stated in this report.A site drainage scheme should be implemented and maintained at all times
by the contractor to redirect all off site drainage away from the limits of construction. Ponding or standing
water may result in softening of soils that will require additional remedial work to facilitate construction.
5.4.2 Runoff Conditions
It appears that the properties to the west of the subject site are at higher elevations and all runoff from
those sites drains by sheet flow into a draw the crosses the subject site in the center and directs the runoff
down to the east. During initial site grading,wet conditions may be encountered during and after periods
of rainfall. These condition may include a large volume of runoff from sheet flow entering the west side
of the site and flowing into and through the draw that crosses the center of the site. The site grading
contractor will need to impeded or re-direct this drainage so it does not impact earthwork operations.
The Civil Engineer should be made aware of this condition and provide appropriate storm drainage
systems in the initial erosion control plans to intercept and redirect the drainage into the storm drain
system.
5.5 Foundation Construction and Evaluation
Shallow spread and continuous wall foundation subgrades should be evaluated by an ATC geotechnical
engineer prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete.
This is to verify that adequate bearing materials are present, and that all debris, mud, and loose, frozen or
water-softened soils are removed. The foundation subgrades should be compacted prior to placement of
reinforcing steel.
Spread foundation and floor slab excavations should be concreted as soon as practical after they are
excavated. Water should not be allowed to pond in any excavation. If an excavation is left open for an
extended period, a thin mat of lean concrete should be placed over the bottom to minimize damage to the
bearing surface from weather or construction activities. Foundation concrete should not be placed on frozen
or saturated subgrades.
Popeye's Page 121
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

;ETC
6.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES
Our review of the utility and grading plans are recommended prior to construction. At that time, we can
review locations and depths of utility and site excavations to verify the coverage of the soil test borings is
adequate and provide further recommendations for specific areas of potential groundwater control, runoff
control,and stabilization of soft and organic laden soil areas.
We recommend that ATC be retained for professional and construction materials testing services during
construction of the project. Our continued involvement on the project helps provide continuity for proper
implementation of the recommendations discussed herein. These services are not part of the currently
authorized scope of work.
Popeye's Page 122
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

;ETC
7.0 QUALIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Our geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction conditions have been based on
our understanding of the site,the project information,and the data obtained during our field exploration.
The general subsurface conditions used were based on interpolation of the subsurface data between the
borings. Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the always the possibility
that conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not as
anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore,
geotechnical engineers should evaluate earthwork and foundation construction to verify that the
conditions anticipated in design actually exist.
The design recommendations in this report have been developed on the basis of the previously described
project characteristics and subsurface conditions. When project plans become more finalized, we should
review them and determine if modifications to this report are necessary.
The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until the course of
construction. If such variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the
recommendations of this report after on-site observations of the conditions.
Our professional services have been performed,our findings derived,and our recommendations prepared
in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty
is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. This company is not responsible for the
conclusions, opinions or recommendations of others based on these data.
Popeye's Page 123
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

;ETC
Attachments
Popeye's II
Project Number 199TDG2206
January 13, 2023

Important Information about This
(--- Geotecbnical-Engineering
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.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for assessment of their impact.Geotechnical engineers cannot
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the their reports do not consider developments of which they were
specific needs of their clients.A geotechnical-engineering not informed.
study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of
a constructor—a construction contractor—or even another Subsurface Conditions Can Change
civil engineer.Because each geotechnical-engineering study A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that
is unique,each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the
prepared solely for the client.No one except you should rely on study.Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose
this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring adequacy may have been affected by:the passage of time;
with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one man-made events,such as construction on or adjacent to the
—not even you—should apply this report for any purpose or site;or natural events,such as floods,droughts,earthquakes,
project except the one originally contemplated. or groundwater fluctuations.Contact the geotechnical engineer
before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable.A
Read the Full Report minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on major problems.
a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all.Do
not rely on an executive summary.Do not read selected Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
elements only. Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors taken.Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique,project-specific data and then apply their professional judgment to render
factors when establishing the scope of a study.Typical factors an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
include:the client's goals,objectives,and risk-management site.Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes
preferences;the general nature of the structure involved,its significantly—from those indicated in your report.Retaining
size,and configuration;the location of the structure on the the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to
site;and other planned or existing site improvements,such as provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most
access roads,parking lots,and underground utilities.Unless effective method of managing the risks associated with
the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically unanticipated conditions.
indicates otherwise,do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report that was: A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
• not prepared for you; Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent
• not prepared for your project; recommendations included in your report.Confirmation-
• not prepared for the specific site explored;or dependent recommendations are not final,because
• completed before important project changes were made. geotechnical engineers develop them principally from
judgment and opinion.Geotechnical engineers can finalize
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect: conditions revealed during construction.The geotechnical
• the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed engineer who developed your report cannot assume
from a parking garage to an office building,or from a light- responsibility or liability for the report's confirmation-dependent
industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; recommendations if that engineer does not perform the
• the elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or weight geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the
of the proposed structure; recommendations'applicability.
• the composition of the design team;or
• project ownership. A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject
to Misinterpretation
As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer Other design-team members'misinterpretation of
of project changes—even minor ones—and request an geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly

r
problems.Confront that risk by having your geotechnical others recognize their own responsibilities and risks.Read
engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team these provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical
after submitting the report.Also retain your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's
plans and specifications.Constructors can also misinterpret Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
a geotechnical-engineering report.Confront that risk by The equipment,techniques,and personnel used to perform
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
preconstruction conferences,and by providing geotechnical perform a geotechnical study.For that reason,a geotechnical-
construction observation. engineering report does not usually relate any environmental
findings,conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory problems have led to numerous project failures.If you have not
data.To prevent errors or omissions,the logs included in a yet obtained your own environmental information,
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.Only guidance.Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable,but someone else.
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
Give Constructors a Complete Report and with Mold
Guidance Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they construction,operation,and maintenance to prevent
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To be effective,all such strategies should be devised for
To help prevent costly problems,give constructors the the express purpose of mold prevention,integrated into a
complete geotechnical-engineering report,but preface it with comprehensive plan,and executed with diligent oversight by a
a clearly written letter of transmittal.In that letter,advise professional mold-prevention consultant.Because just a small
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; severe mold infestations,many mold-prevention strategies
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer focus on keeping building surfaces dry.While groundwater,
who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required)and/ water infiltration,and similar issues may have been addressed
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of as part of the geotechnical-engineering study whose findings
information they need or prefer.A prebid conference can also are conveyed in this report,the geotechnical engineer in
be valuable.Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
additional study.Only then might you be in a position to none of the services performed in connection with the
give constructors the best information available to you, geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial the purpose of mold prevention.Proper implementation of the
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely involved.
Some clients,design professionals,and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
other engineering disciplines.This lack of understanding for Additional Assistance
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the
disappointments,claims,and disputes.To help reduce the risk Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical
of such outcomes,geotechnical engineers commonly include engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques
a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with
labeled"limitations,"many of these provisions indicate where a construction project.Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineers'responsibilities begin and end,to help geotechnical engineer for more information.
GEOTECHNICAL
BUSINESS COUNCIL
iii of the Geoprofessional Business Association
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,Silver Spring,MD 20910
Telephone:[phone] Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail:[e-mail] www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,or its contents,in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with GBA's specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of GBA may use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report.Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation.
J

•
i - �' , • Itr •-T '— -
if .
.i1 3' t ) .• . , loce,-_,...,... . ....-., j‘..•
bi' r---+ P-4 '
. 1 . 1 � I + ,ef 'Iv i,` t ' i • . `
' - P-2 P-3-
• -
.
. .r,
S = approximate boring location
. '� L. 7606 Whitehall Executive Center Dr.
�r�'TZ Figure 1 Field Work Location Plan T �� suite 800
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
ATC Proposed Po a e's www.atcqroupservices.com
p p y Phone: [phone]
1517 NC-24 Fax: [phone]
Spout Springs, NC N.C. Engineering License No.C-1598
Date: January 5, 2023 PROJECT No: 199DIM2206
SOURCE: Partial Copy Google Earth Photo Scale: NTS

ATC
7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive TEST BORING LOG
Charlotte, NC 28272
7045293200
Fax
CLIENT The Dimension Group BORING# B-01
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# 199DIM2206
PROJECT LOCATION 1517 NC 24-87,Spouts Springs, North Carolina DRAWN BY NC
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 1/5/23 Hammer Wt. 140 lbs.
Date Completed 1/5/23 Hammer Drop 30 in.
Drill Foreman RDL Spoon Sampler OD 2 in.
Inspector ATC Rock Core Dia. NA in. N
a)
Boring Method _HSA Shelby Tube OD NA in. ° o a a ' _ V CD
2
L O. di N =V) N J d 2
O_N C C v
a 20 12 a) O o > O v a) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION g E �,_La) m z co cl-Z m u) m J J U O Y
s s a a a a w a o " w m <`a
SURFACE ELEVATION 346.0 °' m O m m aa) 2 i a s o iT m c o a)
w (n o 0 U) co Z co co rx O (o 1- 0 0 2 J d LL d CC
\TOPSOIL:3"organic laden soil r,345 a 0.3 _
- : COASTAL PLAIN:Medium dense tannish brown
_ {r SAND with silt _ 1 SS X 7 6.5
342.5 3.5
_,•Dense tannish gray and red clayey SAND = 2 SSX 24 14.5 50 21 33.8
340.0 6.0 _
_ Dense tannish red and brown clayey SAND .. 3 SSX 25 11.9
—
•. 337.5 8.5 _
_ Medium dense tannish red and brown clayey 4 SS X 16 12.3
- SAND -
10 —
332.5 13.5
_* Medium dense gray clayey SAND _ 5 SSX 10 24.8
331.0 15.0
15 —
BORING TERMINATED @ 15'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon I Noted on Drilling Tools 13.0 ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube I At Completion(in augers) NE ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC -Rock Core g At Completion(open hole) 12.0 ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings 7 After - hours - ft.
CT -Continuous Tube t After - hours - ft.
Page 1 of 1
Cave Depth - ft.

ATC
7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive TEST BORING LOG
Charlotte, NC 28272
7045293200
Fax
CLIENT The Dimension Group BORING# B-02
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# 199DIM2206
PROJECT LOCATION 1517 NC 24-87,Spouts Springs, North Carolina DRAWN BY NC
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 1/5/23 Hammer Wt. 140 lbs.
Date Completed 1/5/23 Hammer Drop 30 in.
Drill Foreman RDL Spoon Sampler OD 2 in.
a co
Inspector ATC Rock Core Dia. NA in. c N -
Boring Method _HSA Shelby Tube OD NA in. ° o 2 a ' _ 2
L O. di N =(n N J d 2
O_2 C C
a 20 12 a) O o > O v a) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION g E �%-ai m z m u) m J J U O Y
SURFACE ELEVATION 342.0 ' a) a)0 m a m m a) a 5 a`) a s o a cn c o m
W (n o o(n co Z co co rx 0 (n F CJ o 2 J a LL a CC
4' TOPSOIL:12"organic laden soil _
ii•♦>. 341.0 1.0
_ FILL:Loose to very loose dark red and dark _ 1 SS 4 15.3
brown clayey SAND,organic laden with fibrous _ /X\
— materials —
_ _ 2 SS X 2 21.3
. . 5 —
336.0 6.0 _
_%r COASTAL PLAIN:Medium dense tan and _ 3 SS X 9 14.2
- • brownish red clayey SAND _
—
333.5 8.5 _
_%. Medium dense tannish red clayey SAND = 4 SSX 18 14.9
—
10
0
—0 —
- • 328.5 13.5
_ Medium dense orange,red,and brown clayey _ 5 SS X 9 18.3
SAND _
— f 327.0 15.0 15 —
BORING TERMINATED @ 15'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon I Noted on Drilling Tools 12.0 ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube I At Completion(in augers) NE ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC -Rock Core g At Completion(open hole) 11.5 ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings 7 After - hours - ft.
CT -Continuous Tube t After - hours - ft.
Page 1 of 1
Cave Depth - ft.

NitirC 7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive TEST BORING LOG
Charlotte, NC 28272
/ 7045293200
Fax
CLIENT The Dimension Group BORING# D-01
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# 199DIM2206
PROJECT LOCATION 1517 NC 24-87,Spouts Springs, North Carolina DRAWN BY NC
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 1/5/23 Hammer Wt. 140 lbs.
Date Completed 1/5/23 Hammer Drop 30 in.
Drill Foreman RDL Spoon Sampler OD 2 in.
Inspector ATC Rock Core Dia. NA in. N
a)
Boring Method _HSA Shelby Tube OD NA in. ° o a a ' _ V CD
2
L O. di N =(n N J d 2
O_N C C v
a 20 12 N O o > O v a) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION g E �,_La) m z m u) m J J U O Y
a
SURFACE ELEVATION 349.0 °�' 1 m m a m m aai 2 a�i s o c- go' c o a,W (n o o(n co Z co co rx 0 (n F CJ o 2 J a LL a CC
TOPSOIL:6"organic laden soil 348.5 0.5 _
COASTAL PLAIN:Medium dense red and tan
-/- :• clayey SAND _ 1 SS 12 15.4
-
r? 345.5 3.5
• Medium dense tannish red and gray clayey SAND - 2 SS 13 15.8
5
343.0 6.0 _
I- . Medium dense tan clayey SAND _ 3 SS 7 21.6
f-i•r a
i`� -
f,/� 340.5 8.5- .
-;I. Medium dense reddish tan clayey SAND - 4 SS 7 23.1
_1 339.0 10.0 10
BORING TERMINATED @ 10'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon I Noted on Drilling Tools 7.0 ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube I At Completion(in augers) NE ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC -Rock Core At Completion(open hole) 6.5 ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings 7 After - hours - ft.
CT -Continuous Tube t After - hours - ft.
Page 1 of 1
Cave Depth - ft.

NitirC 7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive TEST BORING LOG
Charlotte, NC 28272
/ 7045293200
Fax
CLIENT The Dimension Group BORING# D-02
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# 199DIM2206
PROJECT LOCATION 1517 NC 24-87,Spouts Springs, North Carolina DRAWN BY NC
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 1/5/23 Hammer Wt. 140 lbs.
Date Completed 1/5/23 Hammer Drop 30 in.
Drill Foreman RDL Spoon Sampler OD 2 in.
Inspector ATC Rock Core Dia. NA in. N -
Boring Method _HSA Shelby Tube OD NA in. ° -o c a ' _ 2
L o. 47 N V) N J d 2
o N C C v
a (L 0 N o o > o v 92 C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION g E 0,_L m z m u) L, J J U O Y
a
SURFACE ELEVATION 345.0 (i) r2 m 6 o m a m m aa) 2 F a s o Fr m c o m
W (n o a U) co Z co co rx O (n— 0 0 2 J a LL a CC
p\TOPSOIL:3"organic laden soil r344 a 0.3
•. COASTAL PLAIN:Loose reddish tan clayey
-/ SAND —
- 1 SS 5
-/%/ -
_ 341.5 3.5
;f Medium dense red and brown clayey SAND - 2 SS 7
5
-
339.0 6.0 _
- Loose tan clayey SAND - 3 SS 6
a
336.5 8.5
-;I.. Medium dense purple and tan clayey SAND - 4 SS 7
_ 335.0 10.0 10
BORING TERMINATED @ 10'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon I Noted on Drilling Tools 7.0 ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube I At Completion(in augers) NE ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC -Rock Core At Completion(open hole) 4.0 ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings 7 After - hours - ft.
CT -Continuous Tube t After - hours - ft.
Page 1 of 1
Cave Depth - ft.

/ 7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive TEST BORING LOG
/itTC Charlotte, NC 28272
/ 7045293200
Fax
CLIENT The Dimension Group BORING# P-01
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# 199DIM2206
PROJECT LOCATION 1517 NC 24-87,Spouts Springs, North Carolina DRAWN BY NC
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 1/5/23 Hammer Wt. 140 lbs.
Date Completed 1/5/23 Hammer Drop 30 in.
Drill Foreman RDL Spoon Sampler OD 2 in.
Inspector ATC Rock Core Dia. NA in. N
a)
Boring Method _HSA Shelby Tube OD NA in. ° o a a ' _ V CD
2
L O. di N =(n N J d 2
O_N C C v
a 20 12 N O o > O v a) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION g E �,_a) a) a)La) m z m aa) m J J U O a)
a
SURFACE ELEVATION 342.0 °�' m m m a m m aii 2 F a`lii s o c- m c o o
W (n o o(n co Z co co rx 0 (n F CJ o 2 J a LL a CC
TOPSOIL:6"organic laden soil 341.5 0.5
COASTAL PLAIN:Loose tannish brown SAND
with silt 1 SS 4 6.6
338.5 3.5
_
Medium dense Tannish gray and red clayey - 2 SS 16 18.2 48 20 42.1
SAND
. 5
336.0 6.0
- Hard to very stiff gray,red,and tan sandy CLAY - 3 SS 21 18.9
- - 4 SS 17 15.6
4 332.0 10.0
10 —
BORING TERMINATED @ 10'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon I Noted on Drilling Tools NE ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube I At Completion(in augers) NE ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC -Rock Core At Completion(open hole) NE ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings 7 After - hours - ft.
CT -Continuous Tube t After - hours - ft.
Page 1 of 1
Cave Depth - ft.

NitirC 7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive TEST BORING LOG
Charlotte, NC 28272
/ 7045293200
Fax
CLIENT The Dimension Group BORING# P-02
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# 199DIM2206
PROJECT LOCATION 1517 NC 24-87,Spouts Springs, North Carolina DRAWN BY NC
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 1/5/23 Hammer Wt. 140 lbs.
Date Completed 1/5/23 Hammer Drop 30 in.
Drill Foreman RDL Spoon Sampler OD 2 in.
Inspector ATC Rock Core Dia. NA in. N
Boring Method _HSA Shelby Tube OD NA in. ° o a a ' _ a)
L O. 5 co CO N J d OL
O_N C C v
a 20 12 a) O o > O v a) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION g E �,_La) m z m u) m J J U a u)
s s a a a a w a o " w m <`a
SURFACE ELEVATION 342.0 °' m O m m aa) 2 i a s o iT m c o a)
w (n o a U) co Z co co a O (n- 0 0 2 J a LL a a
'�'\TOPSOIL:3"organic laden soil �,341 a 0.3 -
COASTAL PLAIN:Medium dense tannish brown
- -:. SAND with silt 1 SS 8
_ 338.5 3.5
Medium dense brown and red clayey SAND - 2 SS 15
—• . 5
336.0 6.0
-• Medium dense gray,tan,and red clayey SAND - 3 SS 15
J'r
- . 333.5 8.5 _
-•
Medium dense tannish red clayey SAND - 4 SS 12
332.0 10.0 10
BORING TERMINATED @ 10'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon I Noted on Drilling Tools NE ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube I At Completion(in augers) NE ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC -Rock Core At Completion(open hole) NE ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings 7 After - hours - ft.
CT -Continuous Tube t After - hours - ft.
Page 1 of 1
Cave Depth - ft.

NitirC 7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive TEST BORING LOG
Charlotte, NC 28272
/ 7045293200
Fax
CLIENT The Dimension Group BORING# P-03
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# 199DIM2206
PROJECT LOCATION 1517 NC 24-87,Spouts Springs, North Carolina DRAWN BY NC
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 1/5/23 Hammer Wt. 140 lbs.
Date Completed 1/5/23 Hammer Drop 30 in.
Drill Foreman RDL Spoon Sampler OD 2 in.
Inspector ATC Rock Core Dia. NA in. N
Boring Method _HSA Shelby Tube OD NA in. co o a a ' _ 2
L O. )N (n N J d 2
O_N C C v
a 20 2 N O o > O v a) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION g E �%_La) m z m u) m J J U O Y
•m Ds s a a a S -a w a 2 -o `-' N m `m
SURFACE ELEVATION 335.0 °�' 1 m m a m m aai 2 a�i a s o c- m c o m
W (n o o(n co Z co co rx 0 (n F CJ o 2 J a LL a CC
TOPSOIL:10"organic laden soil
•' 334.2 0.8
- COASTAL PLAIN:Loose tannish brown SAND 1 SS 6 9.0
with silt _
_ 331.5 3.5
• Dense tannish gray and red clayey SAND _ 2 SS 26 13.6 55 20 48.8
—: . 5
329.0 6.0
_ Dense purple,tan,and gray clayey SAND _ 3 SS 22 11.2
326.5 8.5- .
- Medium dense reddish tan clayey SAND _ 4 SS 11 14.4
325.0 10.0 10
BORING TERMINATED @ 10'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon I Noted on Drilling Tools NE ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube I At Completion(in augers) NE ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC -Rock Core At Completion(open hole) NE ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings 7 After - hours - ft.
CT -Continuous Tube t After - hours - ft.
Page 1 of 1
Cave Depth - ft.

ATC
7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive TEST BORING LOG
Charlotte, NC 28272
7045293200
Fax
CLIENT The Dimension Group BORING# P-04
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# 199DIM2206
PROJECT LOCATION 1517 NC 24-87,Spouts Springs, North Carolina DRAWN BY NC
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 1/5/23 Hammer Wt. 140 lbs.
Date Completed 1/5/23 Hammer Drop 30 in.
Drill Foreman RDL Spoon Sampler OD 2 in.
Inspector ATC Rock Core Dia. NA in. N
Boring Method _HSA Shelby Tube OD NA in. c -o , a ' _ 2
.0 O. di N =(n N J d 2
O_N C C v
a 20 12 e O o > O v a) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION g E �-L m z m u) m J J U O Y
SURFACE ELEVATION 336.0 °�' m m m o m m aai 2 i a s o aT m c o m
W (n o a co co Z co co rx 0 (n- 0 o 2 J a LL a CC
- 4- C TOPSOIL:12"organic laden soil 335.0 1.0 -
- FILL:Medium dense to very dense to loose dark _ 1 SS v 10 11.1
brown clayey SAND,organic laden with fibrous n
— materials and rock fragments -
_ 2 SS v 35 10.0
5 —
_ 3 SS v 4 9.1
-�fr 327.5 8.5
COASTAL PLAIN:Loose red and tan clayey - 4 SS 4 18.0
SAND X-
-
- 10 -
1
—-0 _ I I I 1
322.5 13.5 _
_ Loose tan,gray,and red clayey SAND _ 5 SS v 3
— 15 _
317.5 18.5
-%- Hard gray CLAY - 6 SS v 24
_ 316.0 20.0 20 —
BORING TERMINATED @ 20'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon I Noted on Drilling Tools 8.0 ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube I At Completion(in augers) NE ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC -Rock Core g At Completion(open hole) 11.0 ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings 7 After - hours - ft.
CT -Continuous Tube t After - hours - ft.
Page 1 of 1
Cave Depth - ft.

/ 7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive TEST BORING LOG
/ Charlotte, NC 28272
/ iTC 7045293200
Fax
CLIENT The Dimension Group BORING# P-05
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# 199DIM2206
PROJECT LOCATION 1517 NC 24-87,Spouts Springs, North Carolina DRAWN BY NC
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 1/5/23 Hammer Wt. 140 lbs.
Date Completed 1/5/23 Hammer Drop 30 in.
Drill Foreman RDL Spoon Sampler OD 2 in.
Inspector ATC Rock Core Dia. NA in. N
Boring Method _HSA Shelby Tube OD NA in. ° o a a ' _ a)
L O. 6 co CO N J d OL
O_N C C v
a 20 12 a) O o > O v a) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION g E �,_La) m z m u) m J J U a u)
s s a a a a w a o " w m <`a
SURFACE ELEVATION 343.0 °' m O m m aa) 2 i a s o iT m c o a)
w (n o a U) co Z co co a O (n- 0 0 2 J a LL a a
'�'\TOPSOIL:3"organic laden soil 1,342 a 0.3 -
COASTAL PLAIN:Medium dense brown SAND
- {: with silt 1 SS 7
_ 339.5 3.5
Loose tan and red clayey SAND - 2 SS 5
—• , 5 0
337.0 6.0 _
- Loose tan,red,and gray clayey SAND - 3 SS 4
-'. 334.5 8.5 _
Medium dense purple,gray,and brown clayey - 4 SS 7
SAND
333.0 10.0 10
BORING TERMINATED @ 10'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon I Noted on Drilling Tools 5.0 ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube I At Completion(in augers) NE ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC -Rock Core At Completion(open hole) NE ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings 7 After - hours - ft.
CT -Continuous Tube t After - hours - ft.
Page 1 of 1
iii. Cave Depth 3.0 ft.

NitirC 7606 Whitehall Executive Center Drive TEST BORING LOG
Charlotte, NC 28272
/ 7045293200
Fax
CLIENT The Dimension Group BORING# P-06
PROJECT NAME Popeye's JOB# 199DIM2206
PROJECT LOCATION 1517 NC 24-87,Spouts Springs, North Carolina DRAWN BY NC
GPS COORDINATES LAT: LON: APPROVED BY JGS
DRILLING and SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA
Date Started 1/5/23 Hammer Wt. 140 lbs.
Date Completed 1/5/23 Hammer Drop 30 in.
Drill Foreman RDL Spoon Sampler OD 2 in.
Inspector ATC Rock Core Dia. NA in. N
Boring Method _HSA Shelby Tube OD NA in. co o a a ' _ °'
L O. di N =(n N J d 2
aN C C v
a 20 12 N O o > O v a) C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION g E �,_La) m z m u) m J J U a Y
.75 7 L L O a a a C -O N a 2 -O U y N (6
SURFACE ELEVATION 335.0 °�' m m m a m m aai a a�i a s o c- m c o m
W (n a a(n co Z co co a 0 (n F CJ o 2 J a LL a a
%yy,\TOPSOIL:2"organic laden soil r\334 a 0.2 -
; •- ` COASTAL PLAIN:Very loose brownish red
- clayey SAND - 1 SS 3 15.3
331.5 3.5 _
-•j' Very loose dark brown clayey SAND - 2 SS 2 14.8
/:.
5
329.0 6.0 _
-1- Medium dense red and brown clayey SAND - 3 SS 12 19.4
i`� -
f,/� 326.5 8.5
-
;I. Medium dense reddish tan and gray clayey SAND - 4 SS 7 20.2
—i 325.0 10.0 10
BORING TERMINATED @ 10'
Sample Type Depth to Groundwater Boring Method
SS -Driven Split Spoon I Noted on Drilling Tools NE ft. HSA -Hollow Stem Augers
ST -Pressed Shelby Tube I At Completion(in augers) NE ft. CFA -Continuous Flight Augers
CA -Continuous Flight Auger DC -Driving Casing
RC -Rock Core At Completion(open hole) NE ft. MD -Mud Drilling
CU -Cuttings 7 After - hours - ft.
CT -Continuous Tube t After - hours - ft.
Page 1 of 1
Cave Depth - ft.

7606 Whitehall Executive Center Dr.
- ■ ► Suite 800
�f �� Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
www.atcgroupservices.com
ATC Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
N.C. Engineering License No. C-1598
Moisture Content of Soil
Project: The dimension Group - Popeye's
Project#: 199DIM2206 Tested by: NC
Location : Spouts Springs, NC Calculated by: NC 1/12/2023
Depth (ft) Wet Wt + Dry Wt + Tare Dry Soil
Boring # Tare Tare Wt Water Wt % Moisture
B-1 1-2.5 170.8 162.0 8.9 24.6 137.3 6.5
B-1 3.5-5 484.8 439.5 45.3 127.0 312.5 14.5
B-1 6-7.5 213.4 193.3 20.1 24.0 169.3 11.9
B-1 8.5-10 225.7 203.6 22.1 24.6 179.0 12.3
B-1 13.5-15 211.0 173.9 37.0 24.7 149.2 24.8
B-2 1-2.5 216.7 191.2 25.5 24.2 167.0 15.3
B-2 3.5-5 201.1 170.0 31.1 24.3 145.8 21.3
B-2 6-7.5 214.7 191.1 23.6 24.7 166.3 14.2
B-2 8.5-10 233.9 206.8 27.1 24.7 182.1 14.9
B-2 13.5-15 244.8 210.8 34.0 24.5 186.2 18.3
P-1 1-2.5 180.3 170.6 9.7 24.4 146.2 6.6
P-1 3.5-5 571.7 502.8 68.9 123.6 379.2 18.2
P-1 6-7.5 203.3 174.8 28.5 24.2 150.6 18.9
P-1 8.5-10 212.9 187.5 25.4 25.2 162.4 15.6
P-3 1-2.5 199.4 185.0 14.4 24.6 160.4 9.0
P-3 3.5-5 561.2 509.0 52.2 125.2 383.8 13.6
P-3 6-7.5 210.0 191.5 18.6 25.2 166.3 11.2
P-3 8.5-10 215.9 191.8 24.1 24.6 167.2 14.4
P-4 1-2.5 257.0 233.8 23.2 24.8 209.0 11.1
P-4 3.5-5 265.7 243.8 22.0 24.6 219.1 10.0
P-4 6-7.5 195.6 181.4 14.3 25.1 156.3 9.1
P-4 8.5-10 254.2 219.3 35.0 25.2 194.1 18.0
P-6 1-2.5 229.7 202.7 27.1 25.7 177.0 15.3
P-6 3.5-5 162.6 144.8 17.8 24.9 120.0 14.8
P-6 6-7.5 208.2 178.3 29.8 24.8 153.6 19.4
P-6 8.5-10 210.6 179.3 31.3 24.8 154.5 20.2
D-1 1-2.5 249.6 219.6 30.0 24.7 194.9 15.4
D-1 3.5-5 203.7 179.4 24.3 25.2 154.2 15.8
D-1 6-7.5 246.6 207.1 39.5 24.5 182.6 21.6
D-1 8.5-10 229.9 191.4 38.5 24.7 166.7 23.1
Page 1 of 1

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
50—
G�o�O�
x 40
>-
v 30 •
a 20 01 pl.
10—
Z ML or OL MH or OH
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
56
•
55
54
53
H
52 •
0 51
Q 50
49
48
47
46
5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40
NUMBER OF BLOWS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
• Tannish gray and red clayey SAND 50 21 29 62.2 33.8 SC
Project No. 199DIM2206 Client: The Dimension Group Remarks:
Project: Popeye's
Location: B-1
Sample Number: 2 Depth:-3.5'to-5'
ATC GROUP SERVICES, INC.
Figure
Tested By: NC Checked By: JGS

Particle Size Distribution Report
U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
%in. 3/8 in.
1%in. 1 in. # 0 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200
tool Y Y • I I I 0
90 10
80 20
70 — —30
•
Ce W 60 40 m
Z 0
m
LI z
z 50 50 0
w 0
U D
CC
0 40 60
m
•
•
30 70
20 80
10 90
0 100
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
%Gravel %Sand %Fines
_ Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
O 0.0 0.0 0.7 37.1 28.4 33.8
Identification Date Sampled Date Received Date Tested
Location:B-1 Depth:-3.5'to-5' Sample Number:2 1/5/23 1/6/23 1/11/23
Client The Dimension Group ATC
Project Popeye's - GROUP SERVICES
Project No. 199D1M2206 Figure INC.
Tested By: NC Checked By: JGS

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
50—
G�oO�
x 40
-
0
>-
U 30
•
a 20 01 pl.
10—
z r� Z ML or OL MH or OH
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
59
57
55
53
51
0U 49
Q 47
45
43
41
39
5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40
NUMBER OF BLOWS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
• Tannish gray and red clayey SAND 48 20 28 77.7 42.1 SC
Project No. 199DIM2206 Client: The Dimension Group Remarks:
Project: Popeye's
Location: P-1
Sample Number: 2 Depth:-3.5'to-5'
ATC GROUP SERVICES, INC.
Figure
Tested By: NC Checked By: JGS

Particle Size Distribution Report
U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
%in. 3/8 in.
101%1 in. 1 n. Y 4ta. Y f¢ Th.• #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 0
90 10
80 20
•
70 — —30
Ce W 60 40 m
Z 0
m
LI z
z 50 50 0
W • 0
U D
W •
o- 40 60
m
30 70
20 80
10 90
0 100
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
%Gravel %Sand %Fines
_ Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
O 0.0 0.0 0.8 21.5 35.6 42.1
Identification Date Sampled Date Received Date Tested
Location:P-1 Depth:-3.5'to-5' Sample Number:2 1/5/23 1/6/23 1/11/23
Client The Dimension Group ATC
Project Popeye's - GROUP SERVICES
Project No. 199D1M2206 Figure INC.
Tested By: NC Checked By: JGS

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
50—
G�o�0�
x 40
o •
>-
U 30
a 20 01 pl.
10—
z r� Z ML or OL MH or OH
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
68
66
64
62
60
0U 58
Q 56
54
52
50
48
5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40
NUMBER OF BLOWS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
• Tannish gray and red clayey SAND 55 20 35 63.5 48.8 SC
Project No. 199DIM2206 Client: The Dimension Group Remarks:
Project: Popeye's
Location: P-3
Sample Number: 2 Depth:-3.5'to-5'
ATC GROUP SERVICES, INC.
Figure
Tested By: NC Checked By: JGS

Particle Size Distribution Report
U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
%in. 3/8 in.
101%tin. 1 n. Y sin. Y 4 #10• #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 uzoo 0
90 10
80 20
70 — —30
•
Ce W 60 40 m
Z 0
m
LI z
z 50 �� • 50 0
w U 0D
CC
d 40 60
m
30 70
20 80
10 90
0 100
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm.
%Gravel %Sand %Fines
_ Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
O 0.0 0.0 1.0 35.5 14.7 48.8
Identification Date Sampled Date Received Date Tested
Location:P-3 Depth:-3.5'to-5' Sample Number:2 1/5/23 1/6/23 1/11/23
Client The Dimension Group ATC
Project Popeye's - GROUP SERVICES
Project No. 199D1M2206 Figure INC.
Tested By: NC Checked By: JGS

;ETC
—AN ATLAS COMPANY— SO IL& RO C K C 1ASSWIC A11O N
SO ILCIASSIFICA'IION
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICALDESCRIPIIONS
GW Wellgraded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little orno fines
COARSE GRAVEL Clean Gravels
GRAINED AND GP Poorly graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little orno fines
SOILS GRAVFJJY Gravels GM Silty gravels,gravel-sand-silt mixtures
SOILS
with fines GC Clayey gravels,gravel-sand-clay mixtures
MORE THAN
50%0F SAND SW Wellgraded sands,gravelly sands,little orno fines
MATERIAL IS Clean Sands
LARGER AND SP Poorly graded sands,gravelly sand,little orno fines
THAN NO. SANDY SM Silty sands,sand-silt mixtures
200 SIEVE SOILS
Sand s
with fines SC Clayey sands,sand-clay mixtures
FINE ML Inorganic silts,silty or c la ye y fine sands or c la ye y silts with slight p la stic ity
GRAINED SILTS Liquid limit CL Inorganic c lays of low to moderate plasticity,gravelly c lays,sandy c lays,silty
SOILS AND
less than 50 clays,lean clays
CLAYS
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays oflow plasticity
MORE THAN
MATERIAL 50Ls SILLS Liquid Limit MH Inorganic silts,micaec eons ordiatomac eons fine sand or silty soils
SMALLER AND greater CH Inorganic clays ofhigh plasticity
THAN NO. CLAYS Than 50 OH an Or ic cla sofmoderate to high licit organic silts
200 SIEVE g y past y� g
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Pe at,humus,swamp soils with high organic contents
SOILCONSISTENCY SPTN:Stand and Penetration Test N-Value Nt—Manua l Hammer(Rope&Pulley-60%Efficiency) N2—Auto a tic Hammer(Free-Fall-96%Efficiency)
C O ARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS
SPTNI SPTN2 Re la tive Density SPTNz SPTN2 Field Id a ntific a do n
0-4 0-3 Very loose _ 0-1 0-1 Verysoft-Easilypenetrated severalinchesbyfist
5-10 4-6 those 2-4 2-3 Soft-Easily penetrated severalinchesbythumb
11-30 7-19 Medium dense 5-8 4-5 Firm-Can be penetrated severalinchesbythumb with moderate effort
31-50 20-31 Dense 9-15 6-9 Stiff-Readily indented by thumb but p ene trate d only with great effort
>50 >31 Very dense 16-30 10-19 Very stiff-Readily indented by thumbnail
>30 > 19 Hard -Indented with difficulty by thumbnail
SO ILPARIIC IE SJ7FS RELATIVE PROPORTIONS
Description Size Limits FamiliarExample Description Percent
Boulder 12 inches ormore Largerthan basketball 'Ilace 1-5
Cobble 3 -12 inches Orange to basketball Few 5-15
Coarse gravel 3/4-3 inches Grape to orange Little 15-30
Fine gravel 4.75 mm (No.4 sieve)-%inch Pea to grape Some 30-50
Coarse sand 2-4.75 mm (No. 10 to 4 sieve) Rock Salt Mostly 50-100
Medium sand 0.42-2 mm (No.40 to 10 sieve) Table Salt
Fine sand 0.075-0.42 mm (No.200 to 40 sieve) Powdered sugar
Silt/Clay/Fines Less than 0.075 mm (No.200) Notvisrble to naked eye
ROCK CON'IINUITY ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION ROCK BEDDING
Description Core Recovery(%) Description RQD(%) Description thickness(in)
Incompetent 0-40 Very Poor 0-25 Parting <0.3
Competent 40-70 Poor 25-50 _ _Band 0.3-2.5
Fairly Continuous 70-90 Fair 50-75 _ Thin Bed 2.5-6.0
Continuous 90-100 Good 75-90 Medium bed 6.0-12.0
Excellent 90-100 lhickbed 12.0-36.0
Massive >36.0
RO CK HARDNESS(De sc rip tions for rock core samples) ROCKWEA'IIIERING(Descriptions for rock core samples)
Description Definition Description Definition
Verysoft Can be broken with fingers Completely Rockdecomposed to soil;rockfabric and structure
_ completely destroyed
Soft Can be scratched with fingernail;only Highly Most minerals are decomposed;texture indistinct but
edges can be broken with fingers fabric preserved;strength greatly reduced
Moderately Can be easily scratched with knife; Moderately Discoloration throughout and weakerminerals
hard cannot be scratched with fingernail decomposed;texture preserved but strength less than
unweathered rock
Hard Difficult to scratch with knife;hard Slightly Discoloration around open fractures;strength
hammerblow to break specimen preserved
Very hard Cannot be scratched with knife;several Unweathered No sign ofdecomposition
hard hammerblowsto breakspecimen

( 1 / J I I ) . I I 1 1 / / / / 1 I I GRADING LEGEND
/ / / / J I / / / / / / �I EXISTING
I l / / / /
I/ / // / / / / / / / / / / I I REFER TO C2.0 FOR EXISTING FEATURES LEGEND
o= ‘4
i / / / / / / / / / / / I I PROPOSED
m o r A L LOD LOD / / / / / / / / / / I I I RIGHT-OF-WAY
u ®� _ LOD / / / / / / / / / I I I I �� EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE CESO
I w= ®11,1,-00,,,„ ---.-...01
m / � / /LbD / -e/ / / / / / // / I I I I I ///,//�////� BUILDING V ` O
/ %{ / / t / / / / / / I
345, 960 MAJOR CONTOUR
® rtillath
/ / / / / / / / / I I 1962 MINOR CONTOUR soli o
/ rill / I GRADE BREAK9I / l / / / I/ / / / I / / h-/` FLOW LINE
• CATCH BASIN CESO NC,Co.
/ 4d ® ���
N�e�ii•'IR'SI'��,:i*catai'.-4- �,_A j 1 - / / / / I / / I I co. CLEANOUT 3601 RIGBY ROAD SUITE 300
��i���i-"eit<"IA �xi -°ir�� ''��t� S MIAMISBURG,OH 45342
�{�����®,t��� ,� M�itt / / I FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION (COA:C-47404
8 i�tM� s Ii to 8_ 1 0 / xx kkk
I I I $$I' Ir `"-m nineegirtAT1 feitia,siode ®�� t / g I I I I RIM ELEVATION
11!, /. , g I
I $.0
/ / �48'-24"STM @ 0.53% / Iti Ay!, / �N $ I \I I �BC=XXX.XXI-L BACK OF CURB ELEVATION
I ) 4
TOP• \ \ ^ \_- =�341 ® ® ®®®� \\ \\ ✓ » FLOOD ROUTE
I
I m Ipllll®�® \
®1r STM 1.a3%® 1®� �� \ \ � � v v I CODED NOTES:Q
V I !t\� Z / �Z _ �I 6"DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION.
III
�-90'-1 r ,,1.00'' 6 a �� A \
I I \ e '��®m i� _ TC=346.04�1� ' \ \ 5�� 2. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE.
TC=346.94 i40 FG=345.54 \ \
,yq \_ FG=345.94 Tc=34s.n // I �- \\ \ \\ \ \\ N.
I I i� FG=346.21 Tc=346.35 p ✓ N \ \ N. \ 3. PROVIDE A SWALE SO OFFSITE STORMWATER IS NOT ROUTED THROUGH
\ �� y1 i / FG=315.85 I \ \ \ \ \
/68'^12"STM 1.00% / / /I\/� �, \ ��\ ^ \ \ \ �\ J�J \ \ PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA ON THE POPOEYES
_ - \ / PROPERTY.
\ 4 FG=306.5] \ip, ✓ FG=347.OG / ® TC=347.92 ,Aa / \\ _ / �� \)\ \ \/ / � ��
345>F i 30.04 �\ , U ✓ l 345 / �/ ���\ \
\ -345 Bop / / FG=347 54 � - /^�(✓ /// I �///S.�/ \\ \ __'
\\ \ x lie)
% T=346.78 TCF �C=34g23 TC- � TCJ48.75 O `aJ \'��//�'3d0��j......-'_.--",,2)--\ \ \ \\� ® ,i ��i FG 3347 la
48.20II
T3/87 I �j \ TC-
\ \ \ FG318.28 FGJ47.80 TC-34846 ' -\ / l // \\ \\ L_ I . -�
\ \ / FG347.73 FG-347.98 ( \
\ \ \ f © FG37.6] FG�47.85 1 I \\\ ` \ \\ it __ y y II L ; -
TF348.0] \ \
TCJ71:38 `N\ 4 �_ / / \) \ l \ TC=348.75 II
\ \ \ \ I' rFG=347.97 O _ �/ \ \ \\\\ FG=347.75 ® ® J `�
`RIM�45.60 FG=347.8g ' �/%5.
N TC=340.75
\ \ TC=348.17 / 1 F=4:. ��jy�1 O I 343 \`� / / r \ \ 111=11 -
O /' F-) \ �\ ® ,�y// _\ \ \ \ \\ \ .e.°8.:� TC-348.01
171111
\ \ ® �� - TC=340.20 �` / 345 J/)� \ \ \ \'\ L FG=3Q.51
V,> \ O /�"I �" TC=348,58.25 f' 1 TC=347.390 ® I \\\r� -\_�` \ \ \ \ \\\�\ \ 76'^12"STM((j 1.DD°/a
e \� �� Il
J� \\ \x .�\\ \ FG=347.75 P TC=340.20 �' FG=34fi.89\\�1�.:, J ._\... ']/�/' \ \ \\ \\\ \\ ��fi/ O° L.
3 zQ \ \ POPEYES ., rc=34a.za I �� 345- ` j\\ \ \ \\ r ®R ��� I. 6TCl
a o :S 76'-12"STM @ 1.00% .341- PROTOTYPE BLDG \ FG=347.]0 \ \ I Il -� // ` � _� in /y/♦\ 1 d 1,990 SFi imam
0 \ \ ^ \ / / rc=ue.as
FFE= 348.25 1pi
®O TC=348.57 I � 1I LL TC=348.20 TC=347.82 00� J `• / \ \ ^ FG=347.56 / MI TC=3 88.272 Q
,� \ FG318.W \® >\/lll o FG=347.70 FG=347.82 I J - / //J \ \ // �� \ FG=317.]2 W
5 ��
\ N x m=34ezo , \ \ -344- - - -/� 'L�� \ ) / L - - Z `} r�
\ \ \TC=348.72N IFIPA
`���� \ / / // I / ENLARGED ADA AREA O al9 '�FG=318.22 -� 1h/ /.2 / /( I SCALE 1'=10' ob
W ^U
\ �. TC=348.10 "2 1Y� L � 1I 0J Z
Z \ \ 410 , 1 0TC=348.25 1 WFG=-7.601 -ado' \ \ aNd ! \ ���� �� FG=34775 ' 1 N. FG 347.DB s'4 -347- , ' VA - O
Z t _ - \ \ I I - 1 STORM SEWER STRUCTURE SCHEDULE 2 cD w
C7 \ RIM=318.02 �TCJ48.01 FG=317.06 �_� / \ / Z
\ TC-348.72\ FG=347.51 LOD LOD J II O O r
a F4004822 \ 1 76'^12"STM @ 1.00% I \ / / FC- .69 \\ I \ I I NO. STRUCTURE GRATE INVERT U /� Q
o \ 0 RIM�47.51 li c�
\ �tj !�I STM _ +� ® \ / \`_�\ I( I 1 LEVEL SPREADER A 336.82 334.75(24")NW
U 34'^12"STM @ 1.00% FTCagg.ost,J M M -- 3,7 O` I > - 7' ` I I -349 - Revisions I Submissions
rn rc=34e.zz MV 40( / I 335.00(6")NW
FG=347.5s 7c=347s2 I 2 OUTLET CONTROLSTRUCTUR: 339.30 ID Descri tion Date
w FG=3177z l� 35.00(24")SE P
w FG=347.42 . ....„\ \ 1
y \ REFER TO ENLARGED-/ \ / \� L 1- - 1 REVISIONI 2023/10/02
O TG=349 51 .,I ADA PLAN ON THIS SHEET \v,5.
\ \ _� 1\\ \ I y 3 ENDWALL 340.10 339.00(12")SW 2 REVISION 2023/10/13
F=
\ ' \ TC=340zdI 346.43 ` 1 1 3 REVISION 3 2023/11/06
R \\ \ TC=3 ` \ FG347.74 \ _ 339.87(12")Wol
FG=3 ® ` 4 REVISION4 2023111127
1` 4 CATCH BASIN 345.66 339.55 12"SE
5
\ \�F961 t� / z \ \ FGJ4].98 \ \V C/ / \ 339.55(12")NE 5 REVISION 5 2024101/30
S2\ \ R�YY SBM#2 \ r , \ / RhY ��RhY \ FG=348.82 I \ _ O\ s \ _ RAM11 I - RNv 5 CATCH BASIN 345.55 340.55(12")E
\ \ f N60°11'37"W 200.00'(M) \ \ \ \
\ \ ���
0 \ N5]°0900'W(R) �\ 347.16 \ 6 CATCH BASIN 347.55
343.06(12")SE
m \ - \ SMH-2 343.06 12"N
\ 0 \ �1
c 3s,7, f5^RCPFL:35f.7' 15^RCPFL:3so.s Gi f 1348.41 \ 7 CATCH BASIN 346.97 343.82(12")NW N STM TM \ TM \
STM ST
NI \�\ \ _�N.\ \ ` �iM\\ \ \ STM SSI1IMMf s7M $' om I STM SIB G 2 8 CATCH BASIN 345.45 340.45(12")NW
20 0 20 40
a N. \ 349.3s \ I seMH3 342.71(12")S
n \ \ \ ® \ � 02023 CESO,INC.
9 48"MANHOLE 348.02 341.32(12")N
a°I \ LOD LOD LOD \ \�� •si \ `.� GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET) 343.21(6")E Project Number: 762181
�\ \ \ OD OD ` \ n.=z0e. Scale: 1"=20'
\ .D - ..
\ \ \ !3492 \ �°g'g \ \ BENCHMARKS Drawn By:By: PCW
^ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ A 347.93 a4B \ Checked BAP
�' _ \ \ \ 3s, 9\ \ ELEVATION" DESCRIPTION Date: 05/15/23
a 3, \ \ Issue: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
i \ \ - - - \ \ \ SBM#1 348.73' CUT CHISELED"X"IN CONCRETE
w -- \ \ Drawing Title:
_ \ \ '60+ - - - _ SBM#2 351.20' SET i"REBAR
\ SBM#3 343.83' CUT CHISELED"X"IN CONCRETE SEVENTY-TWO(72)HOURS GRADING PLAN
o \ A/C 24-87 \ BEFORE DIGGING IS TO
\ COMMENCE,THE CONTRACTORS
W \ \ VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY \ VERTICAL DATUM:NAVD88 SHALL NOTIFY THE FOLLOWING
cb
\ \ (AS SHOWN PER PLAT BK 2012,PG 150) \ AGENUTILITCIESES NORTH
CON SERVICE
\ VARIABLE WIDTH AS HALT PAVEMENT \ - I AT811 OR800-632-4949ANDALL
_ �� \ _ - - - _ -, OTHER AGENCIES WHICH MIGHT
o r J HAVE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
o _ - - _ - - - - / �_� INVOLVING THIS PROJECT AND
L- / ' / / \ L ARE NONMEMBERS OF STATE
` C4.0
_ _ - - - UTILITIES PROTECTION SERVICE 4■O

1 // /" // /' / / / / / /
‘4
/ // / / / / / / / STRUCTURE E�TE BOLTED TO I, 6' / 15 6 .7 TOP OF BASIN=341
---(.........2/ // / / �ry / / / / / / AND GRATING PLASTIC I/4'PLATE
1
AND GRATING WITH 1'HOLES AND A MIN.
/ / / / / / / O OF 30%OF OPENING AREA.
/ / / / / 00°00 MANUFACTURED BY PLASTIC SOLUTIONS 12" ELEV.=339.5
°00000° 1 INC OR EQUAL •i
0000 �1
00000
000000
/ / / /- / / /` / ORIFICE o 0 0 0 0 0
000000
_ _.......,_ _
00000000000000 i SWOT 1042,
/// ;7.77-________
// CLASS B
/ `�°� / / / I / / °o°o°o°o°o°o°o� ORIFICE RIP RAP
//� / 1'04 p p4/ - - �����������/ INVERT SHOWN WITH OPTION PLATE C E S O
/L / EMERGENCY SPILLWAY WEIR
/ r i, %1 /
/ Z / �j����. I / / / / • NOT TO SCALE
�-
® / / / �\ j�44• 0 '!� / / / SECTION . .300
.....N� / /
/ °4b,-�. "NOTE: 6' 1El '
/ I d / A#. JJ�� ', / WINDOWS AT EROSION CONTROL STAGE ELEVATION TO BE 3'
CESO NC,Co.
// "' a .I/I� / ,v / LEVEL SPREADER
�/J :11.0
BRICKED AND MORTARED TO ELEVATIONS SHOWN AT ATIME 3601 RICESONC,SUITE 300
�0�// �� / / / PERMITTED BY THE SITE INSPECTOR. 01 RIG Y RO OH 45342
314"CRUSHED AGGREGATE/ ® ® ���ily'1��, / I / SCALE (AASHTO#57) [phone]
/ 61 .,/ „/,„.� ,,, / // „ I / ® VEGETATIVE STRIP
®/ ..
_ --_ / / 88,24"STM @ 0.5�% .�� a i�i i i�
A_sigfeff,
Lam/ =. .,�:Iilk I /� �.�.��a.� �.I� /' 'I� e / / o O O o O O° AASHTO#3 AGGREGATE 1-.- �I
• o 0 o LEVEL SPREADER
.h� .=:�, /111, %. -•� :40, !- _. ar'o. ��!- i!'i , mm o0 0 0° °
.�*.���/• o��C I�i�1�/i�".�/. .��. ��o Ifps.���� / / / m® °00000000000 NOT TOSCALE I.
e.i�tr.F41�r •���I��e�i4.i��.1!1 � ��I�.i�i�.i1..F�_�// / R 1 -941P i / ° mmmm oa oo�oo° m *-:,;
��� �dr�. �i w��1� ��� ��t i��.������ �iw %�� ® • 04 mmmm m°o°°o mm�m s
i�. i F. �b� t1i tr _ I _� / / /� / m m ° 0m m F �4;
,�%�I, :'4 Tb ovl� ers��t�' �% 'rev -s.wir . / ® �, .... i'+ 0 ,,,, ,, ,, ,„, , ,mmmmm ° me®e�m AS BUILT WILL BE REQUIRED OF STORM °
}�/I!f -_v"�Am 4 L i,41 40 _ !" .`�� mm mm ® , m a. SEAL r
��-'LiJ.} :!-tww - iL- 4AF4 SWL �i��ir1 :tff, / / / m rfi,� / LEVELSPREADEm m ®m m WATER AREA. GENERAL CONTRACTOR 029683
20 ��`'T
I / THSSHTEITON m ® 6 P
/ / / / / i•° TO COORDINATE WITH SURVEY AND '1'GINe e
/ SEDIMENTAREq / / / ,�o / / ISOMETRIC ENGINEERING. `YA?��
/ / / / / / / 3" 11/28/2023
/ / / /
/ \ t� \ o o HDPE STRUCTURAL PLASTIC AN PLATE
o°°°°° o° AND GRATING WITH 1"HOLES AND A MIN.
/ � 6---..../ / // o°o°o o° OF 30%OF OPENING AREA.
/ / r / ° °• °o°° MANUFACTURED BY PLASTIC
/ O /�// \ 1 o o SOLUTIONS INC.OR EQUAL.
0 ,°OO°°0°• °0°0 O
3
/7(� CONCRE SCM TE
EFACE STRUCTURE
I ' \ ® oo°oo°°oo° CONCRETE FACE
/ �` 1 0 0 T TRENCH WIDTH� T el 1 RENCH
a I / _ \ 0 ` 1 �/ Pipe O.D.+3'
III III-, GRADE
I I / m \ SINGLE SCM ORIFICE ELEVATION -III III- I-
o g �30'-12"STM @ 1.83% m \ `I 1 IIIII 111_
\ m \ - d\ TRASH RACK DETAIL III II a
\ I \ \ - - - _ �� NOT TO SCALE III - III 18" I
Si _ =1II III III IIII
" -I1 1II-I 1I-111
SfM- Ril-
lICI 111- o
�p srM - %/ , QA hQA I'.4f G =1
sm - - - �� - III 6' III u. IIil=; W
a _ ��; � III //�
0 D 0 zD `I/ILt 1 • • • . �� ��� f 6 O CO
Oa � � v = C ANTI-SEEP _a II �j. / I o W z� . . . -1l - 1- COLLAR ^
w GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET) II III - - II • .: 4�� a II I- s a trrL N Z
I m.=1oa. III II =1 ------.-4---------,-Ja 111- V O
p 24"X24"PROP GRATE � 1 - = o O Z W
BASIN AREA i-1 I -1 1 • ° .. - 1 1 11 I O r
LCI 1 I- I1-111 L
o. OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE TOP OF GRATE=339.3 -1 I I El II .12 -'11=11 111E111- V
(OCS-714)SEE DETAIL DRY DETENTION AREA SEDIMENT AREA I= ANTI-SEEP COLLAR.
CLASS CONCRETE l-
y TOP OF BASIN=341 OCS-714 i 1- Revisions/Submissions
, \ f .
SAND FILTER AREA FOREBAY SURFACE AREA - �Y ID Description Date
= o'� •®-® PLAN VIEW SECTION A-A REVISION 2023/10/02
TOP OF EMERGENCY - 2 REVISION 2 2023/10113
SPILLWAY WEIR=339.50 3"#1 OR#2 WASHED TOP OF SAND °
3 REVISION 3 2023/11/06
Z (SEE THIS SHEET FOR DETAIL) ROUND STONE=336.75 MEDIA=336.5 4' RIP RAP BER D50=6",CLASS B ANTI SEEP COLLAR DETAIL 4 REVISION 4 2023111127
g 111 III=1 3. OBSERVATION TOP=339.5 • 15'DIA.ORIFICE NOT TO SCALE
g CLEANOUTS=337 50 YR ELEV=339.25 °' INV.=338.0
RIP RAP ro �I • - `` TOWA HE S
2
I I-III 1 10 YR ELEV.=339.0 a TRASH RACK WASHED ROUND STONE
o I III 2 YR ELEV. 338.69 ., �m�a��� ----39'-F-QREBAY �'�� •
a
v +=-II�� �r���� /�' 336.5 ,• r vWCIv PROVI V.=337.85 NOTES
fJl = WQv ELEV.-337.85 A• �• �• ,�. �• �---
?I I :`, _.,.:' , 0,� Sr .,- �� Qv PROVIDED=2.065 CF
1 FILL EMBANKMENTS SHALL BE FORMED OF SUITABLE MATERIAL PLACED IN
4 ^�
Ill I` r 1 I tI III III I=I III=I I1-1 III III=III III III 1=I I III=I I1=1 SUCCESSIVE LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED MORE THAN SIX(6)INCHES IN DEPTH
w 111 - III-N III III I-I I=f' III .III III I I II III III III-I I1=I I I- ••'? FOR THE FULL WIDTH OF THE CROSS-SECTION,INCLUDING THE WIDTH OF THE
„I DUMP ROCK FOR ENTIRE _. ;. = J=III = = III=ITI_ - = - L-III�Ii 2q"DIA.STORM SEWER PIPE MY
_ 336.5
WIDTH OF EMERGENCY (( 6"PVC INV 335 1=11 1 1 III = -0, - T,�Ci �� r 4 b _ 4 ffE�S SLOPE AREA.NO STUMPS,TREES,BRUSH,RUBBISH OR OTHER UNSUITABLE
C- 18," 6, 11 SAND MEDIA,NATURAL RIVER OR BANK TOPSOIL/SOD 336.25 MATERIALS OR SUBSTANCES SHALL BE PLACED IN THE EMBANKMENT.EACH
rn'1 SPILLWAY WEIR CLASS B III '„
IIIII : III- SAND MATERIAL(PER ASTM C33) FOR LAWN TOP OF MEDIA SUCCESSIVE SIX(6)INCH LAYER SHALL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BY THE
I.: 1 3'TURNUP 111_ ANTI-SEEPAGE 36"SQ - SHEEPSFOOT TAMPING ROLLER,10-TON POWER ROLLER,PNEUMATIC-TIRED
m Ali II_
I TOP OF GRAVELBOTTOM OF SAND=335 V ROLLER,OR OTHER METHODS APPROVED BY NC DEO.EMBANKMENTS OVER ©2023 CESO,INC.
o° 24"0-RING RCP � "-- � �-
COLLAR • • AND AROUND ALL PIPE CULVERTS SHALL BE OF SELECT MATERIAL,PLACED Project Number: 762181
1 24"STM II I I III. 18 -` 1
II 112111 AND THOROUGHLY TAMPED AND COMPACTED AS DIRECTED BY THE SCM
INV OUT=335 III II r 7..4 II II III h, Scale: 1"=10•
71 ANTI-SEEPAGE COLLAR -�-III 1I III III- DESIGN MANUAL.
SEE DTAILs =11I I I ICI I I ITrrI1 1 Itrl III III III I I III I I III III 11 TOP QF STONE Drawn By: PCW
o. ( ) c -'- - a1I III III III-III III III-III-I -11, I I I-1 III-III-III III-III.,IIIIII 11-111=1' I Ill. POND EMBANKMENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THIS SAME MANNER AND SHALL
§ III I I l I F 1 "' =1T.,III Tii=111 "- - 1 INV. 335 - -" - - 335 BE COMPACTED TO MEETA DENSITY OF 95%STANDARD PROCTOR TEST. Checked By: BAP
0 "l BOTTOM OF GRAVEL=334 OUTFALL=334.75 r / ' �''�t � � Date: 05/15/23
GEOTEXTILE -y-,i
O 12"FROM BANK J FILTER FABRIC ���� _ �` Issue: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NOTES TYPE 1 GRAVEL FILTER LAYER, PLOWABLE FILLy-T 334
6"SOLID TO 6"
w COURSE AGGREGATE, TOP OF CONCRETE FILTER FABRIC OR OPEN WEB TURF MAT OR NOTES: Drawing Title:
g 1. UNDERDRAIN PIPES SHOULD BE MINIMUM 6"PERFORATED SCHEDULE PERFORATED PVC WASHED GRAVEL BLOCK INV.=334 2"#8 OR#89 WASHED CHOKING STONE 1.CLASS B MATERIAL IS TO BE QUARRY STONE,FIELD STONE,OR NATURAL
0 40 PVC(PER AASHTO M278).PERFORATIONS SHOULD BE SPACED 3" PIPE TRANSITION 6"PERFORATED PVC STONE ONLY,BROKEN CONCRETE NOT PERMITTED. STORM WATE R
E ON CENTER ALONG 4 LONGITUDINAL ROWS SPACED 90°APART. UNDERDRAIN"(TYP.)@ 0.00% 6"DIA.PERFORATED STORM SEWER PIPE @ 0.00% 2.SAND MEDIA MATERIAL SHALL MEET ASTM C33 AND IS TO BE FREE OF SILT,
ELEV=335 CLAY,LOAM,FRIABLE OR SOLUBLE MATERIALS,ORGANIC MATTER GRADED IN MANAGEMENT
O 2. ALL SIDE SLOPES TO BE SODDED. PROVIDE 5'SQUARE 10" ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI/ASTM C 136.
o. THINK CONCRETE BLOCK 3.SURFACE COURSE AGGREGATE IS TO BE USED AT THE TOP COURSE OF THE DETAILS
✓ 3. DRAINAGE AREA TO THE SAND FILTER FACILITY MUST BE STABILIZED SURFACE SAND FILTER.AGGREGATE TO FULLY COVER THE UNDERLYING
43 BEFORE FILTRATION CONTROLS AND FILTER MEDIA ARE INSTALLED. OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL WASHED FILTER SAND TO DEPTH AS SHOWN IN THE PLANS AND DETAILS.
2 4, SECTION IS SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONS FOR FOREBAY SAND FILTER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE SURFACE COURSE AGGREGATE SHALL BE WASHED AND FREE OF DEBRIS,DIRT,
SAWDUST,AND FOREIGN MATERIAL.SURFACE COURSE AGGREGATE SHALL BE
NOT TO SCALE ROUNDED,NATURAL RIVER OR BANK AGGREGATE STONE AND NOT CRUSHED, ■
CHIPPED OR BROKEN STONE.THE STONE IS TO BE A NATURAL COLOR,EARTH
TONES,AND UNDYED,WHILE THE SIZES RANGE FROM#1 AND#2.
s