SW4201201_FR Geotech Report (Coldwater) 4-14 2020_20201221

Report of
Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services

Coldwater Road Site
Stokesdale, North Carolina

Prepared for:
First Carolina Homes, LLC
5411 Tory Hill Drive
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410

Prepared by:
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
3300 International Airport Drive, Suite 600
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208

Revised
14 April 2020

F&R Project No. 63X-0199

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020

Page ii of ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1
1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICE ................................................................................... 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 4
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ....................................................................................... 5
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION METHODS .............................................................................. 5
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ............................................................................................ 7
SOIL LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................ 7
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 8
REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................................................................................... 8
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 8
4.2.1 Surficial Materials ............................................................................................... 9
4.2.2 Fill/Possible Fill Materials ................................................................................... 9
4.2.3 Cultivated Soils ................................................................................................. 10
4.2.4 Alluvial Soils ..................................................................................................... 10
4.2.5 Residual Soils .................................................................................................... 10
4.2.6 Partially Weathered Rock .................................................................................. 10
4.2.7 Auger Refusal ................................................................................................... 10
4.2.8 Groundwater Data ............................................................................................ 11
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ......................................................................................... 11
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 12
GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 12
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 12
CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE ....................................................................................... 13
PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 14
6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 16
6.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 16
SITE PREPARATION .................................................................................................... 16
SHALLOW FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 17
REUSE OF EXISTING SOIL .............................................................................................. 17
CONTROLLED STRUCTURAL FILL ..................................................................................... 18
MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS.......................................................................................... 19
EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................... 19
SURFACE WATER CONTROL .......................................................................................... 20

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020

Page ii of ii
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 21
7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES ................................................................................... 22
8.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................ 23

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I
Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1)
Boring Location Plan (Drawing No. 2)

APPENDIX II
Key to Soil Classification
Soil Classification Chart
Subsurface Profile – West Side (SW to NE)
Boring Logs (B-1 through B-17 and B-1A)
Hand Auger Data Sheet

APPENDIX III
Laboratory Test Summary Sheet

APPENDIX IV
GBA Publication “Important Information about This Geotechnical Engineering Report”

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 1 of 34
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary is provided as a brief overview of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the
project and is not intended to replace more detailed information contained elsewhere in this report. As
an overview, this summary inherently omits details that could be very important to the proper application
of the provided geotechnical design recommendations. This report should be read in its entirety prior to
implementation into design and construction. The Project Information section of this report should be
particularly reviewed by project designers to confirm that the geotechnical engineer’s understanding of
the project concurs with the current project parameters at the time of project design.

 The site was explored by seventeen (17) SPT soil borings (designated as B-1 through B-17) and one
offset boring (B-1A) performed on 8 and 9 January 2020 and 30 March 2020 as well as five (5) hand
auger borings (HA-1 through HA-5) performed on 31 January 2020. Site subsurface soils generally
consisted of surficial soils underlain by fill materials or cultivated soils, residual soils, partially
weathered rock and auger refusal materials. The SPT borings were extended to depths of 7.5 to 25
feet below the existing ground surface.
 The proposed clubhouse structure may be supported on shallow foundation systems bearing on
approved residual soil or controlled structural fill placed in accordance with our recommendations.
We recommend that the clubhouse foundations be designed for a maximum allowable bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings bearing on approved subgrades.
 We recommend the following flexible pavement sections based on the assumed loading conditions
and recommended subgrade preparation:
o Roadways: 1.5 inches Asphalt Pavement Surface Mix, 2.5 inches Asphalt Intermediate
Course, 6.0 inches ABC, 6.0 inches Compacted Subgrade Soil (100% ASTM D698)
o Clubhouse Parking Area: 2.0 inches Asphalt Pavement Surface Mix, 6.0 inches ABC, 6.0
inches Compacted Subgrade Soil (100% ASTM D698)
 Groundwater was encountered in borings B-10 and B-13 through B-15 at depths ranging from 1.5
feet to 14.8 feet below the existing ground surfaces. Based on our grading assumptions, we do
not anticipate groundwater will be encountered during mass grading across the majority of the
project site; however, groundwater may be encountered during excavations for utility trenches,
particularly in the area of boring B-13 near the proposed entrance. Further, the shallow
groundwater in the areas of B-10 and B-13 may cause difficulty establishing a stable subgrade for
fill placement or pavement section construction, as applicable.
 PWR was encountered in borings B-1, B-7, and B-14 at depths of 6 feet, 8.5 feet, and 18.5 feet
below the existing ground surfaces, respectively. Auger refusal materials were encountered in
borings B-1, B-1A and B-14 at approximate depths of 8 feet, 7.5 feet and 19 feet, respectively.
Based on our previously stated grading assumptions, we anticipate PWR and auger refusal
materials will be encountered during mass grading for the proposed roadway on the west side of
the site. Materials requiring difficult excavation techniques should also be anticipated during
excavations for utility trenches in this area of the site.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 2 of 34
1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICE
The purpose of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation was to
explore the subsurface conditions in the planned roadway areas of the proposed subdivision in
Stokesdale, North Carolina. The vicinity and site location are shown on the attached Site Vicinity
Map, Drawing No. 1 included in Appendix I.
In order to accomplish these objectives, we undertook the following scope of services:
 Reviewed readily available geologic and subsurface information relative to the projec t
site.
 Executed the requested original subsurface exploration program consisting of thirteen
(13) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings and five (5) hand auger borings. The SPT
borings were drilled to depths of 10 to 25 feet below the existing ground surface. The
hand auger borings were advanced to depths of 6.5 to 66 inches below the existing
ground surface.
 Executed a supplemental subsurface exploration program consisting of four (4) SPT
borings and one offset boring. The supplemental borings were performed to correct
the location of boring B-1 and further explore areas where hand auger refusal was
encountered in HA-2, HA-3 and HA-5 with SPT borings B-15, B-16 and B-17, respectively.
 Performed laboratory testing on selected samples recovered from the borings. Four (4)
samples were selected for soil classification tests consisting of water content (ASTM
D2216), Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318), and sieve analysis (ASTM D6913 without
hydrometer).

At the completion of the exploration and laboratory testing, the results were evaluated by a
professional geotechnical engineer (PE) from F&R and this engineering report was prepared. This
report includes the following information (where recommendations are provided relative to
building support components, they are limited to the proposed Club House structure and are not
intended to be extrapolated for use on other site structures including future individual residential
development):
 Allowable bearing capacity and minimum bearing depth for shallow foundations.
 Estimated potential total and differential settlement of shallow foundations.
 Potential shrink-swell conditions for existing subgrade soils, based on correlations with
laboratory classification tests.
 Recommendations for slab-on-grade.
 Subgrade preparation, and placement and compaction of new fill materials required
during construction.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 3 of 34
 An asphalt pavement section for the assumed traffic volume and type for the developed
property.
 Provide excavation recommendations for the proposed waterline alignment.
By the nature of the work performed, our field exploration activities result ed in disturbances to
the site. Reasonable efforts were made to lessen potential impacts with the borings being
backfilled with auger soil cuttings. As stated in our proposal, F&R assumes no responsibility for
borehole subsidence after demobilizing from the site and recommends that others occasionally
observe the boring locations and provide any additional infill that may be needed.
F&R’s geotechnical services did not include topographic or field surveying, development of
quantity estimates, preparation of plans and specifications, or the identification and evaluation
of wetlands or other environmental aspects of the project site.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Property was prepared by F&R under
separate cover.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 4 of 34
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Project information was provided to F&R by First Carolina Home via email correspondence. We
were provided with a Conceptual Layout – Option C site plan prepared by Timmons Group dated
November 18, 2019.
The project consists of the development of an approximately 78.28-acre property west of
Coldwater Road in Stokesdale, North Carolina. A portion of the property is located in Guilford
County (Parcel ID 6990458600) with the remainder in Forsyth County.
The property will be developed into a subdivision with 54 single-family home lots, amenity areas,
underground utilities and several residential streets. We understand it is First Carolina Homes’
intent to develop the initial infrastructure for the subdivision, including constructing the
neighborhood streets and an 8-inch waterline along the west side of Coldwater Road from
Highway 158 to the subdivision. Undeveloped individual home lots will then be sold for
development by others.
The property is currently wooded and undeveloped. A dilapidated house was observed in the
central portion of the property. A small pond was observed to the north of the house. Belews
Lake borders the west side of the property and Coldwater Road borders a portion of the eastern
property boundary. A creek runs through the eastern edge of the property in a generally north -
south orientation.
Based on the topography on the provided Conceptual Layout – Option C site plan, the property
slopes downward from an approximate elevation of 840 feet (MSL) on the north side to
approximately 740 feet in sections of the western, southern and eastern property boundaries.
Grading plans were not provided at the time of this report; we understand cuts on the order of
10 to 15 feet are anticipated in the roadways on the west side of the property.
We understand that it is First Carolina Homes’ intent to sell the individual undeveloped home
lots for development by others. Evaluation of subsurface conditions for foundation
considerations for the single-family homes was not requested; however, a clubhouse structure is
proposed in the northwest portion of the property. We have assumed the clubhouse will be a
wood-framed, single-level structure with slab-on-grade.
Traffic type and volume have not been specified for the development. F&R has assumed
subdivision vehicular traffic and volume on the order of that which we have experienced with
similar projects for use in our evaluation for pavements section design.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 5 of 34
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
Subsurface Exploration Methods
The subsurface exploration program consisted of seventeen (17) SPT soil borings (designated as B-
1 through B-17) and one offset boring (B-1A) performed on 8 and 9 January 2020 and 30 March 2020
as well as five (5) hand auger borings (HA-1 through HA-5) performed on 31 January 2020. The
approximate locations of the SPT and Hand Auger Borings are shown on the attached Boring
Location Plan (Drawing No. 2, Appendix II). F&R personnel marked boring locations in the field by
using a handheld GPS. In consideration of the methods used in their determination, the test boring
locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan should be considered approximate.
The test borings were performed in accordance with generally accepted practice using a rubber-
tired All-Terrain (ATV)-mounted CME 550X rotary drill rigs equipped with an automatic hammer.
Hollow-stem augers were advanced to pre-selected depths, the center plug was removed, and
representative soil samples were recovered with a standard split-spoon sampler (1 3/8 in. ID, 2 in.
OD) in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, the Standard Penetration Test. In this test, a weight
of 140 pounds is freely dropped from a height of 30 inches to drive the split-spoon sampler into the
soil. The number of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler three consecutive 6-inch
increments is recorded, and the blows of the last two increments are summed to obtain the
Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value). On some occasions the Standard Penetration Test blow
count is recorded as “0”, weight of hammer (WOH), or weight of rod (WOR). In these cases, the
static weight of the hammer, rods, and sampler, or the rods and sampler alone, penetrated into
the soft subsurface soil with no hammer blows. The N-value provides a general indication of in-
situ soil conditions and has been correlated with certain engineering properties of soils.
In some soils it is not always practical to drive a split-spoon sampler the full three consecutive 6-
inch increments. Whenever more than 50 blows are required to drive the sampler over a 6 -inch
increment, or the sampler is observed not to penetrate after 50 blows, the condition is called
split-spoon refusal. Split-spoon refusal conditions may occur because of obstructions or because
the earth materials being tested are very dense or very hard. When split -spoon refusal occurs,
often little or no sample is recovered. The SPT N-value for split-spoon refusal conditions is
typically estimated as greater than 100 blows per foot (bpf). Where the sampler is observed not
to penetrate after 50 blows, the N-value is reported as 50/0. Otherwise, the depth of penetration
after 50 blows is reported in inches, i.e. 50/5, etc.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 6 of 34
An automatic hammer was used to perform the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) on this project.
Research has shown that the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value) determined by an
automatic hammer is different than the N-value determined by the safety hammer method. Most
correlations that are published in the technical literature are based on the N-value determined by
the safety hammer method. This is commonly termed N60 as the rope and cathead with a safety
hammer delivers about 60 percent of the theoretical energy delivered by a 140-pound hammer
falling 30 inches. Several researchers have proposed correction factors for the use of hammers
other than the safety hammer to correct the values to be equivalent to the safety hammer SPT N60-
values. The correction is made using the following equation:
N60 = Nfield x CE
Nfield in the equation above is the SPT N-value as recorded with the equipment utilized in the field,
and for our use of this equation, CE a relative hammer efficiency ratio, i.e. our automatic hammer
efficiency (specifically 88.6% for the ATV-mounted drill rig used on this project) divided by the
theoretical N60 efficiency (60%). Accordingly, we recommend a correction factor (CE) of
approximately 1.48 for conversion of the recorded Nfield values to normalized N60 values for the
automatic hammer used on this project. We note that the N-values reported on the Boring Logs
included in this report are the actual, uncorrected, field derived N-values (Nfield).
Subsurface water level readings were taken in each of the borings immediately upon completion
of the soil drilling process. Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with auger
cuttings (soil). Periodic observation and maintenance of the boreholes should be performed due
to potential subsidence at the ground surface, as the borehole backfill could settle over time.
Representative portions of the split-spoon soil samples obtained throughout the exploration
program were placed in airtight containers and transported to our laboratory. In the laboratory, the
soil samples were classified by a member of our professional staff in general accordance with
techniques outlined in the visual-manual identification procedure (ASTM D 2488) and the Unified
Soil Classification System. The soil descriptions and classifications discussed in this report and shown
on the attached boring logs are generally based on visual observation and should be considered
approximate. Copies of the boring logs are provided and classification procedures are further
explained in the attached Appendix II. Split-spoon soil samples recovered on this project will be
stored at F&R’s office for a period of sixty days. After sixty days, the samples will be discarded unless
prior notification is provided to us in writing.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 7 of 34
Subsurface Exploration
F&R drilled seventeen (17) SPT borings (designated as B-1 through B-17) and one offset boring
(B-1A) across the site to obtain information on the subsurface conditions of the property. The
SPT borings were extended to depths of 7.5 to 25 feet below the existing ground surface. Borings
B-1, B-1A and B-14 encountered auger refusal prior to the planned drilling depths.
Five (5) hand auger borings (designated as HA-1 through HA-5) were performed along the
shoulder of Coldwater Road for the proposed 8 -inch waterline to avoid the need for traffic
control, which would be required to access the locations with the drill rig. The hand auger borings
were extended to depths of 6.5 to 66 inches below the existing ground surface. Hand auger
borings HA-2, HA-3 and HA-5 encountered hand auger refusal prior to planned drilling depths.
Boring locations were staked at the site by F&R personnel by locating the locations with a
handheld GPS and should be considered approximate, as they were not surveyed. Ground
surface elevations at the boring locations were interpolated from topographic information on
the provided Conceptual Layout – Option C prepared by Timmons Group dated 18 November
2019 and since interpolation was employed, the boring elevations shown on the attached Boring
Logs and Subsurface Profile should be considered approximate.
Soil Laboratory Testing
Four (4) split-spoon soil samples were selected for additional laboratory classification testing.
This testing included water content determination (ASTM D2216), Atterberg limits tests (ASTM
D4318), and sieve analysis (ASTM D6913 without hydrometer). Based on the results of these
tests, the soils from these selected samples were then classified in general accordance with
Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).
The results of the laboratory testing program are summarized in a table in Section 4.3, Laboratory
Test Results of this report and presented in the Laboratory Test Summary Sheet in Appendix III.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 8 of 34
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Regional Geology
The project site is located in the Milton Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province, and is
underlain by metamorphic rocks, including feldspar, schist, and amphibolite, and contains small
masses of granitic rock, according to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985). The topography
of the Piedmont Plateau consists of well-rounded hills and long-rolling ridges with a northeast-
southwest trend.
The soils resulting from in-situ weathering of the parent rock, without significant transportation,
are called residual soils and may retain some of the structure of the rock from which they
weathered. The residual soil profile generally grades downward gradually from fine-grained plastic
soils near the ground surface to coarser-grained soils at greater depth. A transitional zone of
“partially weathered rock” of varying thickness can occur between the coarser-grained residual
soils and the underlying bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as
residual material with standard penetration resistances in excess of 100 blows per foot.
Weathering of the parent bedrock is generally more rapid near fracture zones and therefore, the
bedrock surface may be irregular. Irregular patterns of differential weathering may also result in
zones of rock and partially weathered rock embedded within the more completely weathered
coarse-grained soils.
Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs, and shown on the Boring Logs
in Appendix II, represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the
field and laboratory data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. In
addition, a Subsurface Profile has been provided, in Appendix II, to conceptually illustrate
potential subsurface conditions in a cross-section of the area where deepest cuts are anticipated.
Further Subsurface Profiles have not been provided as they were deemed ineffective for
illustrative purposes given the variability of surface elevations across the site and the
comparatively short boring lengths.
The strata breaks designated on the boring logs and subsurface profiles represent approximate
boundaries between soil types. Actual transitions between soil strata are generally less distinct
than the immediate transitions depicted on the Boring L ogs and Subsurface Profile. Although
individual soil test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions encountered at the

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 9 of 34
boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of subsurface conditions
at other locations or at other times. Given the spacing between boring locations, it is anticipated
that subsurface conditions will vary between the borings.
Sometimes the relatively small sample obtained in the field is insufficient to definitively describe
the origin of the subsurface material. In these cases, we qualify our origin descriptions with
“possible” before the word describing the material’s origin (i.e. possible fill, possible residuum,
etc.). Below the existing ground surface, the borings generally encountered surficial soils
underlain by existing fill/possible fill or cultivated soils over residual soils, partially weathered
rock (PWR) and auger refusal materials. These various materials are discussed further below:
4.2.1 Surficial Materials
A surficial layer of soil material was encountered in each boring with variable thicknesses ranging
from about 2 to 6 inches. Surficial soil is typically dark-colored soil material containing roots,
fibrous matter, and or other organic components, and is gener ally unsuitable for engineering
purposes. F&R has not performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic content or
other horticultural properties of the observed surficial soil materials. Therefore, the term
surficial soil is not intended to indicate suitability for landscaping and or other purposes. The
surficial soil depth provided in this report is based on visual observations and should be
considered approximate. We note that the transition from surficial soil to underlying materials
may be gradual and, therefore, the observation and measurement of surficial soil is subjective.
Actual surficial soil depths should be expected to vary across the site.
4.2.2 Fill/Possible Fill Materials
Fill materials include those materials deposited by man. Materials identified as existing fill were
encountered in borings B-10, B-15 and B-16 to approximate depths of 4 feet, 2 feet, and 2 feet
below the existing ground surface, respectively. Sampled fill materials were described as silty
CLAY (CL), sandy SILT (MH) and clayey SAND (SC). The standard penetration resistance (N-values)
observed within the fill ranged from 2 to 7 blows per foot (bpf).
Although borings were not conducted in the immediate area, formations appearing to be
unnatural tiers, hills, or windbreaks were observed during boring layout in the central portion of
the site around the dilapidated house. Previously placed fill may exist in this area and in other
areas of the site between out boring locations.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 10 of 34
4.2.3 Cultivated Soils
Cultivated soils, sometimes referred to as cultivated till, have been disturbed by previous
agricultural activities. Materials sampled as cultivated soil were encountered in borings B-3, B-9,
B-11 and B-12 beneath the surficial soil to depths ranging from approximately 10 inches to 18
inches below the existing ground surfaces. The sampled cultivated soils were described as sandy
and silty CLAY (CL). SPT N-values in the cultivated soils ranged from 3 to 5 bpf. Cultivated soils
frequently contain organic materials throughout the previously tilled layer. These soils are
susceptible to moisture absorption, which can result in wet near-surface zones.
4.2.4 Alluvial Soils
Alluvial soils, consisting of materials that have been transported and deposited by flowing water,
were encountered in boring B-10 from approximately 4 to 13.5 feet below the existing ground
surface. Sampled alluvium was described as silty SAND (SM) with N-values of 0 (weight of
hammer) to 3 bpf.
4.2.5 Residual Soils
Residual soils, formed by the in-place weathering of the parent rock, were encountered beneath the
surficial soils, existing fill/cultivated materials, or alluvial soils in each SPT boring. Sampled residual
soils were generally described as silty or sandy CLAY (CL), sandy or clayey SILT (ML&MH), silty SAND
(SM), clayey SAND (SC), or FAT CLAY (CH). Standard penetration resistances within the sampled
residuum ranged from 3 to 68 bpf.
4.2.6 Partially Weathered Rock
Partially weathered rock (PWR) is a transitional material between soil and rock, which retains the
relic structure of the rock and has very hard or very dense consistencies. PWR was encountered
in borings B-1, B-7, and B-14 at depths of 6 feet, 8.5 feet, and 18.5 feet below the existing ground
surfaces, respectively. The sampled PWR was described as silty SAND (SM) with trace rock
fragments. The sampled PWR exhibited penetration resistances ranging from 50 blows per 6
inches of split-spoon penetration to 50 blows per 4 inches of penetration (50/6 to 50/4).
4.2.7 Auger Refusal
Auger refusal occurs when materials are encountered that cannot be penetrated by the soil auger
and is normally indicative of a hard or very dense material, such as debris within fill, boulders,
rock lenses, pinnacles, or the upper surface of bedrock. Auger refusal was encountered in borings
B-1, B-1A and B-14 at depths of 8 feet, 7.5 feetand 19 feet below the existing site grades,
respectively.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 11 of 34
Auger refusal discussed herein is based on conditions impenetrable to our drilling equipment
(CME-550X rotary drill rig). Auger refusal conditions with a CME-550X do not necessarily indicate
conditions impenetrable to other equipment. Auger refusal conditions may exist intermedi ate
of the boring locations or in unexplored areas of the site.
4.2.8 Groundwater Data
Groundwater measurements were attempted at the termination of drilling at each boring
location as well as on the day following drilling. Groundwater was encountered in borings B-10
and B-13 through B-15 at depths ranging from 1.5 feet to 14.8 feet below the existing ground
surfaces.
Due to the presence of silty and clayey soils, which generally have very low hydraulic conductivity,
trapped or perched water conditions may be encountered at some point during project
development, especially during periods of inclement weather and seasonally wet periods.
It should be noted that the groundwater levels fluctuate depending upon seasonal factors such
as precipitation and temperature. As such, soil moisture and groundwater conditions at other
times may vary from those described in this report.
Laboratory Test Results
Selected split-spoon samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in general
accordance with applicable ASTM International (ASTM) test methods for water content
determination (ASTM D2216), sieve analysis (ASTM D6913 without hydrometer), and Atterberg
limits tests (ASTM D4318). Based on the results of these tests, the se soil samples were then
classified in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).
The revised results of the soil classification testing are summarized in the following table.
Soil Classification Test Summary
Boring
No.
Sample
Depth
(ft)
Water
Content
(%)
% Finer than
No. 200 Sieve
Atterberg Limits USCS
Classification LL PL PI
B-2 1.5-3.5 28.7 53.0 45 33 12 ML
B-7 1.5-3.5 30.6 56.5 52 37 15 MH
B-9 1.5-6.0 25.6 80.5 50 23 27 CH
B-14 0.4-6.5 30.1 58.9 52 26 26 CH
Notes: LL – Liquid Limit, PL – Plastic Limit, PI – Plastic Index, NP – Non-Plastic

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 12 of 34
5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
General
The following evaluations and recommendations are based on interpretation of the field and
laboratory data obtained during this exploration and our experience with similar subsurface
conditions and projects. Soil penetration data has been used to develop an allowable bearing
pressure and estimate associated settlements using established correlations. Subsurface conditions
in unexplored locations may vary from those encountered. If structure locations, loadings, or
elevations are changed, we should be notified and requested to confirm and, if necessary,
re-evaluate our recommendations.
Determination of an appropriate foundation system for a given structure is dependent on the
proposed structural loads, soil conditions, settlement, and construction constraints such as
proximity to other structures, etc. The subsurface exploration aids the geotechnical engineer in
determining the soil stratum appropriate for structural support . This determination includes
considerations with regard to both allowable bearing capacity and compressibility of the soil
strata. In addition, since the method of construction greatly affects the soils intended for
structural support, consideration must be given to the implementation of suitable methods of
site preparation, fill compaction, and other aspects of construction. Please refer to the
Construction Recommendations included in Section 6 of this report.
Foundation Recommendations
We understand it is First Carolina Homes’ intent to sell the individual undeveloped home lots for
development by others. Evaluation of subsurface conditions for foundation considerations for
the single-family homes was not requested; however, a clubhouse structure is proposed in the
northwest portion of the property. We have assumed the clubhouse will be a wood-framed,
single-level structure with slab-on-grade.
The proposed clubhouse structure may be supported on shallow foundation systems bearing on
approved residual soil or controlled structural fill placed in accordance with our recommendations.
We recommend that the clubhouse foundations be designed for a maximum allowable bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings bearing on approved subgrades.
To reduce the possibility of localized shear failures, spread and strip footings should be a minimum
of 3 feet and 18 inches wide, respectively. Exterior footings should be constructed at least 18 inches
below adjacent exterior grades in order to bear below normal frost depth.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 13 of 34
Foundation settlement was estimated, using the grading assumptions stated in Section 2.1, to be
less than about 1 inch. Differential settlement between new foundations is expected to be less
than about ½ inch. The magnitude of differential settlements will be influenced by the variation
in excavation requirements across the footprint of the structure, the distribution of loads, and
the variability of underlying soils.
Our settlement analysis was performed based on provided grading assumptions discussed in the
project information section of this report. 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.
Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
Concrete slabs not structurally supported as part of the building may be placed on properly
compacted controlled structural fill over an approved soil subgrade following subgrade
preparation as discussed in Section 6 of this report. Slabs should be structurally isolated (float
freely) from the foundations to allow for differential movement between the slabs and the
structure.
A six-inch thick layer of open graded coarse aggregate such as No. 57 or No. 67 should be placed
beneath the floor slab. This granular base would function as a leveling and load distributing
material as well as a capillary break beneath the slab.
A vapor retarder should be used beneath slabs that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet,
impermeable coatings, or if other moisture-sensitive equipment or materials will be in contact
with the slab. However, the use of vapor retarders may result in excessive c urling of concrete
slabs during curing. We refer the concrete slab designer to ACI 302.1R -15, Sections 5.2.3 and
13.11, for further discussion on vapor retarders, curling, and the means to lessen potential
concrete shrinkage and curling.
Proper jointing of the concrete slabs-on-grade is also essential to reduce cracking. ACI suggests
that unreinforced, plain concrete slabs may be jointed at spacing of 24 to 36 times the slab
thickness, up to a maximum spacing of 15 feet. Slab construction should incorp orate isolation
joints along walls and column locations to allow minor movements to occur without damage.
Utility or other construction excavations in the prepared subgrade should be backfilled to a
controlled fill criterion to provide uniform support.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 14 of 34
Pavement Section Recommendations
The following pavement design recommendations were developed based on the NCDOT
Pavement Design Procedure – AASHTO 1993 Method, NCDOT maximum and minimum
application thicknesses for asphalt courses, and the following assumptions:
 a 20-year design life;
 a design CBR of 4 (Our design CBR value was developed based on our experience with
soils similar to those encountered at the project site and the presumptive preliminary
NCDOT Piedmont Province CBR value of 6);
 assumed traffic loads consisting of up to 250 passenger cars per day, up to 10 delivery
trucks per day and several garbage trucks per week for the planned subdivision roadways,
and up to 50 cars per day and 5 delivery trucks per day for the clubhouse parking lot ;
 pavement subgrade will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations indicated
here and the construction recommendation presented in Section 6.
Based on the above assumptions, we recommend using the following pavement sections:
Roadways:
1.5 inches Asphalt Pavement Surface Mix
2.5 inches Asphalt Intermediate Course
6.0 inches ABC
6.0 inches Compacted Subgrade Soil (100% ASTM D698)
Clubhouse Parking Area:
2.0 inches Asphalt Pavement Surface Mix
6.0 inches ABC
6.0 inches Compacted Subgrade Soil (100% ASTM D698)
The roadway pavement section recommended above has not been evaluated against the
requirements of any municipal party which may assume ownership of the subdivision roadways
in the future.
Our pavement recommendations are based on pavement s being supported on soils with similar
CBR characteristics to those used in design or better. Soft and/or wet near-surface soils were
encountered in portions of the project site. Grading plans were not provided at the time of this
study; however, some moisture conditioning and compactive efforts may be required to achieve
the support characteristics used in this design.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 15 of 34
Where off-site borrow materials are required to develop pavement support areas, the proposed
borrow should be tested to confirm that its CBR value is sufficient. Fill materials underlying
pavements should be placed in accordance with the controlled fill and pavement subgrade
recommendations contained in this report. In addition, all pavement subgrades should be
evaluated by a geotechnical engineer prior to base stone placement. If excessive subgrade
movement is observed, appropriate improvements such as undercutting and/or in-place
stabilization will be required at that time.
Actual pavement lifetime is dependent upon site development, traffic type and volume, and
adherence to recommended site-specific development guidelines and an effective pavement
maintenance program. Pavement materials and construction methods should be in accordance
with the guidelines provided in the latest edition of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads
and Structures.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 16 of 34
6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
The principal purpose of this section is to comment in general on the items related to earthwork
and associated geotechnical engineering aspects of construction that should be expected for this
project. It is recommended that F&R’s geotechnical engineer be retained to provide soil
engineering services during the construction phases of the project and perform appropriate
evaluations to help confirm that conditions encountered during construction are similar to
conditions observed in the borings. The geotechnical engineer can also assist in interpretation
of differing subsurface conditions that may be encountered and recommend re medial work, if
needed.
Site Preparation
Before proceeding with construction, any surficial soils, roots, building/foundation remnants,
and any other deleterious non-soil materials should be stripped or removed from the proposed
construction area. During the clearing and stripping operations, positive surface drainage should
be maintained to prevent the accumulation of water.
After stripping, areas intended to support new fill, pavements, floor slabs, and foundations
should be carefully evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. At that time, the
engineer may require proofrolling of the subgrade with a 20- to 30-ton loaded truck or other
pneumatic-tired vehicle of similar size and weight. Proofrolling should be performed during a
time of good weather and not while the site is wet, frozen, or severely desiccated. The purpose
of the proofrolling is to locate soft, weak, or excessively wet soils present at the time of
construction and provides an opportunity for the geotechnical engineer to locate inconsistencies
intermediate of the boring locations.
If soft or weak zones are identified during proofrolling, such areas should be undercut and
replaced with properly compacted engineered fill prior to the foundation construction. We
suggest that contingency funds be allotted within the project budget for over-excavating and
replacing weak, deleterious soils within the proposed building and pavement areas.
It is recommended that in-place compaction of the subgrade soils be performed after site
stripping of surficial organics and immediately prior to placement of fill or pavement sections.
In-place compaction of the exposed subgrade should be observed by the geotechnical engineer
and may also detect previously unidentified soft/ weak zones that require repair or replacement.
Compaction will also aid in sealing off and protecting the working surface from precipitation.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 17 of 34
Any areas that deflect (pump) during proofrolling or in-place compaction procedures should be
over-excavated to firm material and be replaced with compacted structural fill, as recommended
by the geotechnical engineer and as directed by the Owner.
Undercutting or additional in-place compaction may be necessary if the exposed subgrade soils
become unstable during construction. Any fill materials, aggregate, and or concrete should be
placed as soon as possible over the approved subgrade in order to reduce exposure of the subgrade
to weather and construction activity.
It is important to stress that if site preparation or construction are performed during the winter
months, additional undercutting of the subgrade soils (including in-place residual soils) may be
required if the subgrade is not properly prepared or protected.
Shallow Foundation Construction
The clubhouse foundation subgrade should be observed, evaluated, and verified for the design
bearing pressure by a representative of the geotechnical engineer after excavation and prior to
reinforcement steel placement. If less than favorable conditions are encountered at the
foundation subgrade during construction, additional localized undercutting and/or in-place
stabilization of foundation subgrade may be required. While not expected, as cuts on the order
of 10 feet are currently proposed in the area, the actual need for, and extent of, undercutting or
in-place stabilization should be based on field observations made by a representative of the
geotechnical engineer at the time of construction.
Excavations for footings should be made in such a way as to provide bearing surfaces that are
firm and free of loose, soft, wet, or otherwise disturbed soils. Foundation concrete should not
be placed on frozen or saturated subgrades. If such materials are allowed to remain below
foundations, settlements will increase. Foundation excavations should be concreted as soon as
practical after they are excavated. 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. Water should not be allowed to pond in any
excavation.
Reuse of Existing Soil
Sampled residual soils were generally described as silty or sandy CLAY (CL), sandy or clayey SILT
(ML&MH), silty SAND (SM), clayey SAND (SC), or FAT CLAY (CH). Reuse of moisture sensitive fat clay
(CH) is discussed in Section 6.5. With exception to the fat clay, excavated residual soil materials can
potentially be used as structural backfill material; however, additional study for backfill suitability
should be performed as described in Section 6.6, to confirm if this material is suitable for reuse as

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 18 of 34
backfill. Based on visual classification and limited laboratory testing, much of the near surface soil
sampled appeared wet of anticipated optimum moisture content. Residual soils, particularly below
the groundwater elevation, may be too wet for immediate reuse as select backfill and drying of this
material may not be cost effective.
Cultivated soils frequently contain organic materials throughout the previously tilled layer and
are susceptible to moisture absorption, which can result in wet near-surface zones. Limited
laboratory testing showed high moisture in near-surface soils on the property. Testing of the
organic content of the cultivated soils encountered was not performed as part of this study. Most
of the cultivated soils on the project site will likely require significant drying for reuse. Depending
on soil plasticity and organic content, cultivated soils may not be suitable for reuse as structural
fill.
Controlled Structural Fill
Based on the boring data, controlled structural fill may be co nstructed using excavated residual
materials, with exception to the fat clay. If an off-site borrow source is required to balance the
site, the imported materials should have a classification of CL, ML, SC, or SM as defined by the
Unified Soil Classification System. Other materials may be suitable for use as controlled structural
fill material and should be individually evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. If encountered,
CH soils should not be used for backfill. Controlled structural fill should be free of boulders,
organic matter, debris, or other deleterious materials and should have a maximum particle size
no greater than 3 inches. In addition, we recommend a minimum standard Proctor (ASTM D 698)
maximum dry density of approximately 90 pounds per cubic feet for fill materials.
Fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts with maximum height of 8 inches loose measure.
New fill should be adequately keyed into stripped and scarified subgrade soils and should, where
applicable, be benched into the existing slopes. During fill operations, positive surface drainage
should be maintained to prevent the accumulation of water. We recommend that structural fill
be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. In conf ined
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. Each lift of fill should be tested in order
to confirm that the recommended degree of compaction is attained.
In general, we recommend that the moisture content of fill materials be maintained within three
percentage points of the optimum moisture content as determined from the standard Proctor
density test. We recommend that the contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for
both drying and wetting of fill soils. Moisture control may be especially difficult during winter
months or extended periods of rain. Attempts to work the soils when wet can be expected to

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 19 of 34
result in deterioration of otherwise suitable soil conditions or of previously placed and properly
compacted fill. Where construction traffic or weather has disturbed the subgrade, the upper 8
inches of soils (or more if warranted) intended for structural support should be scarified and re-
compacted. Each lift of fill should be tested in order to confirm that the recommended degree
of compaction is attained.
Moisture Sensitive Soils
Based on the results of our visual-manual classification and laboratory testing, moisture sensitive
fat CLAY (CH) and elastic SILT (MH) were encountered within the residual soil profile. In general,
fat clays and elastic silts are highly moisture sensitive and can undergo significant changes in
volume (shrink and swell) with changes in their moisture content, and are generally considered
unsuitable for direct structural or pavement support. Evaluation of subgrades by the
geotechnical engineer or his representative should be performed during construction to help
reduce the potential for soil movement from such materials directly underlying structures.
Pending a successful proofroll and if Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing indicates suitable
bearing conditions, these soils potentially may be left in place. If the soils evaluated are
considered unstable, they should be undercut to suitable, stable soils. Due to the nature of these
moisture sensitive soils, we recommend positive drainage be provided away from the building
pads and pavement areas during and after construction.
Please be aware that there is the possibility that problems may arise when using fat clays or
elastic silts as structural fill. If fat clays or elastic silts are to be used as structural fill, we
recommend using these soils in deeper fill areas if laboratory testing indicates dry unit weights
of 90 pounds or greater per cubic foot (pcf). If the fat clays and elastic silts are tested and are
lightweight (less than 90 pcf), they may be used in landscaped areas. Fat clays and elastic silts
should not be used as structural fill within the upper 2 feet of the foundation, slab or pavement
subgrade elevations.
Excavation Characteristics
PWR was encountered in borings B-1, B-7, and B-14 at depths of 6 feet, 8.5 feet, and 18.5 feet
below the existing ground surfaces, respectively. Auger refusal materials were encountered in
borings B-1, B-1A and B-14 at depth of 8 feet, 7.5 feet and 19 feet, respectively. Based on our
previously stated grading assumptions, we anticipate PWR and auger refusal materials will be
encountered during mass grading for the proposed roadway on the west side of the site.
Materials requiring difficult excavation techniques should also be anticipated during excavations
for utility trenches in this area of the site.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 20 of 34

Hand auger borings HA-2, HA-3 and HA-5, performed for the proposed waterline along Coldwater
Road, encountered auger refusal at depths of 21.5 inches, 6.5 inches and 19 inches, respectively;
however, the supplemental borings (B-15, B-16 and B-17) performed in each location did not
encounter materials which would require difficult excavation techniques.
In confined excavations such as foundations, utility trenches, elevator pits, etc., removal of
partially weathered rock typically requires use of large backhoes, pneumatic spades, or light
blasting. Refusal materials will normally require blasting for removal in all types of excavations.
Any blasting in footing excavations must be done carefully to prevent damage to the bearing
materials.
The definition of rock can be a source of conflict during construction. The following definitions have
been incorporated into specifications on other projects and are provided for your general guidance:
GENERAL EXCAVATION:
Rip Rock - Any material that cannot be removed by scrapers, loaders, pans, dozers, or
graders; and requires the use of a single-tooth ripper mounted on a crawler
tractor having a minimum draw bar pull rated at not less than 56,000 pounds.
Blast Rock - Any material which cannot be excavated with a single-tooth ripper mounted on
a crawler tractor having a minimum draw bar pull rated at not less than 56,000
pounds (Caterpillar D-8K or equivalent) or by a Caterpillar 977 front-end loader
or equivalent; and occupying an original volume of at least one (1) cubic yard.
TRENCH EXCAVATION:
Blast Rock - Any material which cannot be excavated with a backhoe having a bucket curling
force rated at not less than 25,700 pounds (Caterpillar Model 225 or equivalent),
and occupying an original volume of at least one -half (1/2) cubic yard.
Surface Water Control
If free water is allowed to stand on stable subgrade soils, silty and clayey soils can absorb water,
swell, and experience a reduction in their support capability. As a result, we recommend that
the subgrade surface be graded to provide positive drainage away from the construction areas
and towards suitable drainage handling areas, such as a perimeter ditch, French drain, culvert ,
or retention pond. Where pockets of silty and clayey soils exist, trapped or perched water
conditions could develop during periods of inclement weather and during seasonally wet periods.
Such conditions could cause seepage into excavations and deeper cuts. In addition, if site grading
is performed during the seasonally wet months or after extended periods of inclement weather,
wet and water softened near surface soil conditions should be expected across the site.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 21 of 34
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was encountered in borings B-10 and B-13 through B-15 at depths ranging from 1.5
feet to 14.8 feet below the existing ground surfaces.
Based on our previously stated grading assumptions, we do not anticipate groundwater will be
encountered during mass grading for the majority of the project site; however, groundwater may
be encountered during excavations for utility trenches, particularly in the area of boring B-13
near the proposed entrance. Further, the shallow groundwater in the areas of B-10 and B-13
may cause difficulty establishing a stable subgrade for fill placement or pavement section
construction, as applicable. If unstable subgrade conditions are encountered at the time of
construction, remedial recommendations should be provided by the geotechnica l engineer.
Examples of potential remedial recommendations may include drying of the subgrade and re -
compaction, reinforcement with geotextile, and/or a system of French drains.
Due to the presence of silty and clayey soils, which generally have very low hydraulic conductivity,
trapped or perched water conditions may also be encountered at some point during project
development, especially during periods of inclement weather and seasonally wet periods.
Groundwater levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations as well as with some
types of construction operations. Generally, the highest subsurface water levels occur in late
winter and early spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and early fall. If encountered
during construction, engineering personnel from our office should be notified immediately.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 22 of 34
7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES
F&R recommends that we 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.
Additionally, we request the opportunity to review the foundation plans and project specifications
when these construction documents approach completion. This review evaluates whether the
recommendations and comments provided herein have been understood and properly
implemented. The above listed services are not part of the currently authorized scope of services.

First Carolina Homes, LLC Coldwater Road Site
F&R Project No. 63X-0199 revised 14 April 2020
Page 23 of 34
8.0 LIMITATIONS
There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical studies. Some of these limitations are
discussed in the information prepared by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), which is
included in Appendix IV. We recommend that you review the GBA information.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of First Carolina Homes, LLC for the specific
application to the planned subdivision off Coldwater Road in Stokesdale, North Carolina, in
accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty,
express or implied, is made. Our recommendations are based on design information furnished to
us at the time the work was performed; the data obtained from the previously described subsurface
exploration program, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. The findings and
recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions, which could exist in unexplored
areas of the site. In areas where variations from the available subsurface data become apparent
during construction, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our recommendations based upon on-site
observations of the conditions.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that conditions
in other areas 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, our
experienced geotechnical engineers should evaluate foundation construction to verify that the
conditions anticipated in design actually exist. Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for
construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations. In the
event that changes are made in the design or location of the proposed structures, the
recommendations presented in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are
reviewed by our firm and recommendations of this report modified or verified in writing. If this
report is copied or transmitted to a third party, it must be copied or transmitted in its entirety,
including text, attachments, and enclosures. Interpretations based on only a part of this report may
not be valid.

APPENDIX I
Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1)
Boring Location Plan (Drawing No. 2)

FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Engineering Stability Since 1881
3300 International Airport Drive, Suite 600
Charlotte, North Carolina, 28208
T 704.596.2889 I F 704.596.3784
DATE: February 2020
SCALE: As Shown
DRAWN: ATK 63X0199
First Carolina Homes, LLC
Coldwater Road Site SITE VICINITY MAP
Stokesdale, North Carolina

DRAWING NO.
1
N
Source: Google Maps 2020
Project Site
5000’ 0’ 2500’

FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Engineering Stability Since 1881
1734 Seibel Drive, NE
Roanoke, Virginia 24012-5624 I USA
T 540.344.7939 I F 540.344.3657

Source: Conceptual Layout – Option C prepared by Timmons Group dated November 18, 2019

DRAWING NO.

2
DATE: April 2020
SCALE: As Shown
63X0199 DRAWN: ATK
First Carolina Homes, LLC
Coldwater Road Site
Stokesdale, North Carolina

BORING LOCATION PLAN
(REV 1)

Legend: = Approximate F&R Test Boring Locations
= Approximate F&R Hand Auger Boring Locations

B-10
B-3
400’ 200’ 0’
B-1
B-2
B-6
B-5
B-4
B-9
B-8
B-7
B-12
B-11
B-16/HA-3
HA-4
B-15/HA-2
HA-1
B-13
B-14
B-17/HA-5

APPENDIX II
Key to Soil Classification
Soil Classification Chart
Subsurface Profile – West Side (SW to NE)
Boring Logs (B-1 through B-17 and B-1A)
Hand Auger Data Sheet

KEY TO BORING LOG SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Particle Size and Proportion

Visual descriptions are assigned to each soil sample or stratum based on estimates of the
particle size of each component of the soil and the percentage of each component of the soil.

Particle Size

Descriptive Terms
Proportion

Descriptive Terms
Soil Component Particle Size Component Term Percentage
Boulder > 12 inch Major Uppercase Letters > 50%
Cobble 3 - 12 inch (e.g., SAND, CLAY)
Gravel-Coarse 3/4 - 3 inch
-Fine #4 - 3/4 inch Secondary Adjective 20% - 50%
Sand-Coarse #10 - #4 (e.g., sandy, clayey)
-Medium #40 - #10
-Fine #200 - #40 Minor Some 15% - 25%
Silt (non-cohesive) < #200 Little 5% - 15%
Clay (cohesive) < #200 Trace 0% - 5%
Notes:
1. Particle size is designated by U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
2. Because of the small size of the split-spoon sampler relative to the size of gravel, the true percentage of gravel
may not be accurately estimated.

Density or Consistency

The standard penetration resistance values (N-values) are used to describe the density of
coarse-grained soils (GRAVEL, SAND) or the consistency of fine-grained soils (SILT, CLAY).
Sandy silts of very low plasticity may be assigned a density instead of a consistency.

DENSITY CONSISTENCY
Term N-Value Term N-Value
Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft 0 - 1
Loose 5 - 10 Soft 2 - 4
Medium Dense 11 - 30 Firm 5 - 8
Dense 31 - 50 Stiff 9 - 15
Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 16 - 30
Hard > 30
Notes:
1. The N-value is the number of blows of a 140 lb. Hammer freely falling 30 inches required to drive a standard
split-spoon sampler (2.0 in. O.D., 1-3/8 in. I.D.) 12 inches into the soil after properly seating the sampler 6
inches.
2. When encountered, gravel may increase the N-value of the standard penetration test and may not accurately
represent the in-situ density or consistency of the soil sampled.

F:\Branch 62\GEOWORD\REPORTS\keyblsc.enc.doc
LETTER
GC
GM
GP
GW
SM
GRAPH
SYMBOLSMAJOR DIVISIONS
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
SC
SP
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
SW
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
ML
SANDS WITH
FINESMORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
CLEAN
GRAVELS
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
CLEAN SANDS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
755
760
765
770
775
780
785
790
795
800
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Profile Name: West Side (SW to NE)Elevation (ft)Plot Based on Elevation
Project No: 63X-0199
Client: First Carolina Homes
Project: Coldwater Road Site
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
3
5
68
50/4
B-01
2
6
7
29
39
10
15
22
B-02 4
6
5
5
10
9
18
11
B-03
BT 25'
-BT - Boring Terminated, AR- Auger Refusal
Subsurface Profile Notes:
- See the boring logs in Appendix II for a description of the graphic symbols and soil classification
-Standard Penetration Resistance*
CULTIVATED SOIL
*
BT 25'
RESIDUUM
RESIDUUM
SURFICIAL
PWR
- Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings shown in this profile
50/0
AR 8'
3
5
68
100+
100+
1.5
3.5
5.0
2-2-1
4-2-3
21-32-36
50/4
50/0
SURFICIAL SOIL: 3 inches
RESIDUUM: Soft to firm, red-brown, fine tocoarse sandy SILT (MH) with some clay, moist
Very dense, tan-orange-brown, silty fine tocoarse SAND (SM) with some rock fragments,moist
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Sampled as verydense, tan and brown, silty fine to coarse SAND(SM) with trace rock fragments, moist
Auger refusal at 8 feet.
781.8
778.5
776.0
774.0
0.3
3.5
6.0
8.0
0.0
2.0
3.5
6.0
8.0
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling.
Elevation: 782 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 8.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-01 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 3/30/20
SURFICIAL SOIL: 3 inches
Auger probe only - no samples collected
Auger refusal at 7.5 feet.
781.8
774.5
0.3
7.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling.
Elevation: 782 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 7.5'
Boring Location: Offset 5 feet SW of B-1
BORING LOG
Boring: B-01A (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 3/30/20
2
6
7
29
39
10
15
22
1.5
3.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
2-1-1
3-3-3
3-4-3
5-8-21
11-14-25
3-5-5
6-8-7
6-10-12
SURFICIAL SOIL: 6 inches
RESIDUUM: Very loose, brown, clayey fineSAND (SC), moist
Firm, orange-brown, slightly micaceous, finesandy SILT (ML) with some clay, moist
Loose to dense, brown and tan, micaceous, siltyfine SAND (SM) with trace clay, moist to dry
Loose to medium dense, tan and gray, silty fineSAND (SM), dry
Medium dense, brown, highly micaceous, siltyfine SAND (SM), moist
Boring terminated at 25.0 feet.
793.5
792.5
790.5
780.5
770.5
769.0
0.5
1.5
3.5
13.5
23.5
25.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
18.5
23.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling or 24 hoursthereafter.
Elevation: 794 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 25.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-02 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/8/19
4
6
5
5
10
9
18
11
1.5
3.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1-2-2
3-3-3
2-2-3
2-2-3
3-5-5
3-4-5
3-6-12
6-5-6
SURFICIAL SOIL: 4 inches
CULTIVATED SOIL: Sampled as soft, tan andbrown, slightly micaceous, fine sandy CLAY (CL)with trace organics, moist
RESIDUUM: Soft, tan and brown, slightlymicaceous, fine sandy CLAY (CL), moist
Firm, tan and brown, slightly micaceous, fine tomedium sandy CLAY (CL) with some silt, moist
Loose, brown, highly micaceous, silty fine SAND(SM), moist
Loose, tan and brown, micaceous, silty fine tomedium SAND (SM), dry
Very stiff to stiff, brown, highly micaceous, finesandy SILT (ML), moist
Boring terminated at 25.0 feet.
793.7793.2
792.5
790.5
785.5
775.5
769.0
0.30.8
1.5
3.5
8.5
18.5
25.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
18.5
23.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling or 24 hoursthereafter.
Elevation: 794 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 25.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-03 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/8/19
5
6
4
5
6
7
1.5
3.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
2-2-3
3-3-3
2-2-2
2-2-3
3-3-3
3-3-4
SURFICIAL SOIL: 5 inches
RESIDUUM: Firm, orange-brown, clayey SILT(ML) with some fine sand, moist
Loose to very loose, brown and tan, highlymicaceous, silty fine SAND (SM) with trace rockfragments, moist
Loose, tan, clayey fine to medium SAND (SC)with little silt, dry
Loose, brown, highly micaceous, silty fine SAND(SM)
Boring terminated at 15.0 feet.
793.6
792.5
787.5
780.5
779.0
0.4
1.5
6.5
13.5
15.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling or 24 hoursthereafter.
Elevation: 794 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 15.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-04 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/9/19
8
14
15
23
6
7
1.5
3.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
2-4-4
4-6-8
4-6-9
7-11-12
3-3-3
3-3-4
SURFICIAL SOIL: 6 inches
RESIDUUM: Firm to stiff, red-brown, fine sandyCLAY (CL) with some silt, moist
Medium dense, orange-brown, micaceous, siltyfine SAND (SM) with trace clay, dry
Firm, brown and orange, highly micaceous, finesandy SILT (ML), moist
Loose, brown and tan, silty fine SAND (SM), dry
Boring terminated at 15.0 feet.
815.5
809.0
807.5
802.5
801.0
0.5
7.0
8.5
13.5
15.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling or 24 hoursthereafter.
Elevation: 816 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 15.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-05 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/9/19
12
12
13
8
12
12
1.5
3.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
3-5-7
4-5-7
5-6-7
3-4-4
4-5-7
4-6-6
SURFICIAL SOIL: 4 inches
RESIDUUM: Stiff, red-brown, slightlymicaceous, fine sandy CLAY (CL) with some silt,moist
Medium dense, orange-brown, clayey fine tomedium SAND (SC) with trace silt, moist
Stiff, orange-brown, slightly micaceous, finesandy SILT (ML) with some clay, moist
Firm to stiff, tan and brown, highly micaceous,silty fine SAND (SM), dry
Stiff, tan and orange-brown, fine sandy SILT(ML), dry
Boring terminated at 15.0 feet.
825.7
824.5
822.0
819.0
812.5
811.0
0.3
1.5
4.0
7.0
13.5
15.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling or 24 hoursthereafter.
Elevation: 826 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 15.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-06 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/9/19
4
9
6
28
100+
14
1.5
3.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
2-2-2
3-4-5
2-3-3
21-18-10
30-50/6
4-5-9
SURFICIAL SOIL: 5 inches
RESIDUUM: Soft, orange-brown, fine sandyCLAY (CL), moist
Stiff, orange-brown, micaceous, fine sandy SILT(MH) with some clay, moist
Loose, brown, micaceous, silty fine SAND (SM),moist
Medium dense, gray and brown, slightlymicaceous, silty fine to medium SAND (SM) withtrace rock fragments, dry
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Sampled as verydense, gray and brown, slightly micaceous, siltyfine to medium SAND (SM) with trace rockfragments, dry
RESIDUUM: Medium dense, tan and brown,micaceous, silty fine SAND (SM), dry
Boring terminated at 15.0 feet.
777.6
776.5
774.5
771.5
769.5
764.5
763.0
0.4
1.5
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
15.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling or 24 hoursthereafter.
Elevation: 778 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 15.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-07 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/9/19
5
5
4
8
4
1.5
3.0
5.0
7.5
10.0
2-2-3
2-2-3
2-2-2
2-3-5
1-2-2
SURFICIAL SOIL: 6 inches
RESIDUUM: Firm, orange-brown, slightlymicaceous, clayey SILT (MH) with little fine sand,moist
Soft to firm, gray and orange-tan, slightlymicaceous, silty CLAY (CL) with little fine sand,moist
Soft, gray and tan, micaceous, clayey SILT (ML),moist
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.
757.5
754.0
749.5
748.0
0.5
4.0
8.5
10.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.0
8.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling or 24 hoursthereafter.
Elevation: 758 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 10.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-08 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/9/19
3
8
11
12
11
9
1.5
3.0
5.0
7.5
10.0
15.0
1-1-2
2-4-4
5-5-6
4-5-7
4-4-7
3-5-4
SURFICIAL SOIL: 6 inches
CULTIVATED SOIL: Sampled as soft,orange-brown, slightly micaceous, CLAY (CL)
RESIDUUM: Firm to stiff, red-brown, silty FATCLAY (CH) with some fine sand, moist
Stiff, orange-brown, fine sandy CLAY (CL), moist
Medium dense, orange-brown and tan, clayeyfine to medium SAND (SC), moist
Loose, tan and brown, micaceous, silty fineSAND (SM), dry
Boring terminated at 15.0 feet.
763.5
762.5
758.0
755.5
750.5
749.0
0.5
1.5
6.0
8.5
13.5
15.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.0
8.5
13.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling or 24 hoursthereafter.
Elevation: 764 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 15.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-09 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/9/19
3
2
3
0
1
14
1.5
3.0
5.0
7.5
10.0
15.0
2-1-2
2-1-1
2-1-2
WOH-WOH-WOH
WOH-WOH-1
5-6-8
SURFICIAL SOIL: 8 inches
FILL: Sampled as soft to very soft,orange-brown and brown, silty CLAY (CL) withsome fine sand, wet
ALLUVIUM: Sampled as very loose, gray,micaceous, silty fine SAND (SM), wet
Sampled as very loose, tan and green-gray, siltyfine SAND (SM) with little clay, wet
RESIDUUM: Medium dense, brown,micaceous, clayey fine to medium SAND (SC)with little silt, moist
Boring terminated at 15.0 feet.
745.3
742.0
737.5
732.5
731.0
0.7
4.0
8.5
13.5
15.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.0
8.5
13.5
Groundwater wasmeasured at 1.5 feet at 24hours after drilling.
Elevation: 746 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 15.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-10 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/8/19
5
9
6
5
10
1.5
3.0
5.0
7.5
10.0
2-2-3
2-4-5
3-3-3
3-2-3
3-5-5
SURFICIAL SOIL: 3 inches
CULTIVATED SOIL: Sampled as firm, red-brown,slightly micaceous, fine sandy CLAY (CL) withlittle organics, moist
RESIDUUM: Firm, red-brown, slightlymicaceous, fine sandy CLAY (CL), moist
Stiff, orange-brown, micaceous, fine sandy SILT(ML) with little clay, moist
Loose, orange-brown, micaceous, silty fine tomedium SAND (SM) with little clay, moist
Loose, brown, highly micaceous, silty fine SAND(SM), moist
Boring terminated at 10.0 feet.
801.8
801.0800.5
798.5
793.5
792.0
0.3
1.01.5
3.5
8.5
10.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.0
8.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling or 24 hoursthereafter.
Elevation: 802 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 10.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-11 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/9/19
4
8
9
12
12
12
1.5
3.0
5.0
7.5
10.0
15.0
WOH-2-2
3-3-5
3-4-5
3-5-7
5-5-7
6-5-7
SURFICIAL SOIL: 6 inches
CULTIVATED SOIL: Sampled as soft, brown,silty CLAY (CL) with some fine sand and organics,moist
RESIDUUM: Firm to stiff, orange-brown,slightly micaceous, clayey SILT (MH) with littlefine sand, moist
Stiff, orange-brown, micaceous, SILT (ML) withtrace clay, moist
Stiff, brown, micaceous, fine sandy SILT (ML),dry
Boring terminated at 15.0 feet.
789.5
788.5
784.0
781.5
775.0
0.5
1.5
6.0
8.5
15.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.0
8.5
13.5
Groundwater was notencountered at the timeof drilling or 24 hoursthereafter.
Elevation: 790 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 15.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-12 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/8/19
5
4
8
3
5
20
1.5
3.0
5.0
7.5
10.0
15.0
2-2-3
2-2-2
3-4-4
2-1-2
1-2-3
7-8-12
SURFICIAL SOIL: 6 inches
RESIDUUM: Firm, tan and brown, silty CLAY(CL), moist
Soft, tan and gray mottled, silty CLAY (CL) withlittle fine sand, moist
Loose, light gray, silty fine SAND (SM) with traceclay, moist
Soft to firm, orange-brown, slightly micaceous,clayey SILT (ML) with little fine sand, moist towet
Loose, brown, micaceous, silty fine to mediumSAND (SM)
Boring terminated at 15.0 feet.
751.5
750.5
748.0
746.0
738.5
737.0
0.5
1.5
4.0
6.0
13.5
15.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.0
8.5
13.5
Groundwater wasmeasured at 2.2 feet at 24hours after drilling.
Elevation: 752 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 15.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-13 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/8/19
6
8
7
7
8
9
100+
1.5
3.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
15.0
2-3-3
2-4-4
3-3-4
2-2-5
3-3-5
3-4-5
50/4
SURFICIAL SOIL: 5 inches
RESIDUUM: Firm, orange-brown, fine sandyFAT CLAY (CH), moist
Firm, tan and orange-brown, clayey SILT (ML)with some fine sand, moist
Loose, tan and brown, slightly micaceous, siltyfine SAND (SM) with trace clay, dry
Loose, tan and brown, micaceous, silty fine tomedium SAND (SM), moist
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: Sampled as verydense, tan and brown, micaceous, silty fine tomedium SAND (SM) with trace rock fragments,dry
Auger refusal at 19.0 feet.
761.6
755.5
754.5
748.0
743.5743.0
0.4
6.5
7.5
14.0
18.519.0
0.0
1.5
3.5
6.5
8.5
13.5
18.5
Groundwater wasmeasured at 14.8 feet at24 hours after drilling.
Elevation: 762 ±Drilling Method: HSA
Hammer Type: AutomaticClient: First Carolina Homes
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
Project: Coldwater Road Site
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 63X-0199
Total Depth: 19.0'
Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOG
Boring: B-14 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: F&R/Skoglund
SampleDepth(feet)Depth * Sample
BlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 1/8/19


2




2














 


 
 0)

1!




 !
"#$
%&'(


) !



6
 +


 !
"#$
%&#(


 +


+ !
)


 
"#$
%&#(

.#"$
'"$&

6 1

22
2
2
2



2



34 
 
4







))+
!"#$
2
5
""$
%#&
',
''
()
,4 "$
6
7 )
'
"(*
/ )
-
7 )
#+,
7) 
8 

9-4

)
:4



)
 
00+
 ;

1
;
<.
2;
".
 0)

 )





;

$
4







0 



  
0 
 
-
* )4
#+,
-#
=
>>
#

)%
2?
.#"$
#,"#$

@+
# 
A) ͕
.
-/

/
.#"$
@


%

(
-
* )4
%)(

"
6B8/+)4
 0)
.0
%(
.09
 0)
@)C)1 8 /.0

&  )
%7)  (



"&
 
at previous HA-2 location
2
2





2












 


 
 0)

)


) !!


 
,-.
%7(

 

 +


6



 !
7#,D
%7#(

 
 

#
 +

) !!


4
,-.
%7(

 
 

*!
)

+ !
 +
) !!


4
,-.
%7(

.#"$
'"$&

6 1

2
2 
2
2
2



2



!"#$
2
5
""$
%#&
',
''
()
,4 "$
6
7 )
'
"(*
/ )
-
7 )
#+,
7) 
8 

9-4

)
:4



)
 
00+
 ;

1
;
<.
2;
".
 0)

 )





;

$
4







0 



  
0 
 
-
* )4
#+,
-#
=
>>
#

)%
2?
.#"$
#,"#$

@+
# 
A) 
.
-/

/
.#"$
@


%

(
-
* )4
%)(

"
6B8/+)4
 0)
.0
%(
.09
 0)
@)C)1 8 /.0

&  )
%7)  (



"&
 
at previous HA-3 location
2






2














 




6




4
 !
"#$
%&'(

 

 +

 

6
 +

"#$
%&#(

 
 

6
 +


 !
"#$
%&#(

 
 

.#"$
'"$&

6 1

222
2
2
2 



2



34 
 
4




))+
!"#$
2
5
""$
%#&
',
''
()
,4 "$
6
7 )
'
"(*
/ )
-
7 )
#+,
7) 
8 

9-4

)
:4



)
 
00+
 ;

1
;
<.
2;
".
 0)

 )





;

$
4







0 



  
0 
 
-
* )4
#+,
-#
=
>>
#

)%
2?
.#"$
#,"#$

@+
# 
A) 
.
-/

/
.#"$
@
2

%

(
-
* )4
%)(

"
6B8/+)4
 0)
.0
%(
.09
 0)
@)C)1 8 /.0

&  )
%7)  (



"&
 
at previous HA-5 location
Project:Location:Stokesdale, NC
Client:Date (on-site):1/31/2020
F&R Rep:Project No.:63X-0199
Test
No.
Test
Depth1
0"
-5"
-24"
-60"
0"
-4"
-21.5"
0"
-4"
-6.5"
0"
-3"
-24"
-48"
-60"
-66"
0"
-5"
-19"
1 Depth Below Existing Ground Surface
HAND AUGER DATA SHEET
Coldwater Road Site
First Carolina Homes
J.Hernand / A.Kuczero
Brown, slightly micaceous, clayey fine SAND (SC) with trace silt, moist
Hand auger boring terminated at 60 inches
Surficial Soil (4 inches)
Visual Classification of Subsurface Conditions
Surficial Soil (5 inches)
HA-1 RESIDUUM: Red-brown, micaceous, fine sandy SILT (ML/MH) with trace clay, moist
RESIDUUM: Red-brown, micaceous, clayey SILT (MH) with some fine sand, moist
Gray-brown, clayey fine to medium SAND (SC) with trace silt and rock fragments, moist
Hand auger refusal at 19 inches
Hand auger refusal at 6.5 inches
Surficial Soil (3 inches)
HA-2
Hand auger boring terminated at 66 inches
Surficial Soil (5 inches)
Hand auger refusal at 21.5 inches
Surficial Soil (4 inches)
FILL: Sampled as orange-brown, micaceous, fine sandy SILT (ML/MH) with some clay, moist
FILL: Sampled as orange-brown, micaceous, fine sandy SILT (ML/MH) with some clay, moist
HA-3
HA-4
HA-5
Brown, micaceous, silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace clay, moist
Brown-gray, micaceous, clayey SILT (MH) with trace fine sand, moist to wet
RESIDUUM: Red-brown, highly micaceous, fine to medium sandy SILT (MH) with some clay, moist
Form No. 512 (rev 4/1/07)

APPENDIX III

Laboratory Test Summary Sheet

B-02 45 33 12 28.7 0.0 47.0 53.0 ML A-7-5
B-07 52 37 15 30.6 0.0 43.5 56.5 MH A-7-5
B-09 50 23 27 25.6 0.0 19.5 80.5 CH A-7-6
B-14 52 26 26 30.1 0.0 41.1 58.9 CH A-7-6
Sheet: 1 of 1
AASHTOClass.
%Gravel %Sand %Fines USCSClass.
LABORATORY TESTSUMMARY SHEET
CBRValue@ 0.1
Boring/Sample No.LL PL PI
WaterContent (%)
OptimumWaterContent (%)
MaximumDry Density(pcf)Depth (ft)
Project No: 63X-0199
Client: First Carolina Homes
Project: Coldwater Road Site
City/State: Stokesdale, North Carolina
1.5-3.5
1.5-3.5
1.5-6.0
0.4-6.5

APPENDIX IV

GBA Publication “Important Information about This
Geotechnical Engineering Report”

Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly
a client representative – interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as
possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered
exposure to problems associated with subsurface
conditions at project sites and development of
them that, for decades, have been a principal cause
of construction delays, cost overruns, claims,
and disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed herein,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for
everyone involved with a construction project.
Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services
Provided for this Report
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning,
collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from
widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined
with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained
from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site
reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models
of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology
and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and
proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical
engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment
to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface
model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that
will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected
performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or
affected by construction activities.
The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a
geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion
of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering
assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed
to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be
titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.
Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an
engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context
of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic
inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed
for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects,
and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A
geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer
will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a
different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared
solely for the client.
Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific
project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-
engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as
one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during
a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to
develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project or purpose;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of
the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;
e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental
remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations.

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


,Y͗ϯϬϭϱhDZdKEZKZ/,DKE͕s/Z'/E/ϮϯϮϮϴdϴϬϰ͘Ϯϲϰ͘ϮϳϬϭ&ϴϬϰ͘Ϯϲϰ͘ϭϮϬϮǁǁǁ͘ĨĂŶĚƌ͘ĐŽŵ
s/Z'/E/ͻEKZd,ZK>/Eͻ^Khd,ZK>/EͻDZz>Eͻ/^dZ/dK&K>hD/