SW3220302_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20220322

ECS Southeast, LLP
Data Report of Limited Subsurface Exploration
Palmetto State Armory
Denver, Lincoln County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 08:14711-B
March 18, 2022
CS

C
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP
"Setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities
March 18, 2022
Mr. Ben Wilson
PSA Denver, LLC
3850 Fernandina Road
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
ECS Project No. 08:14711-B
Reference: Data Report of Limited Subsurface Exploration
Palmetto State Armory
Denver, Lincoln County, South Carolina
Dear Mr. Wilson:
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) has completed the limited subsurface exploration and laboratory testing for the
above -referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with our agreed to scope
of work in accordance with ECS Proposal No. 08:27272P. This data report presents the results of the field
exploration and laboratory testing completed.
It has been our pleasure to be of service to PSA Denver, LLC. Should you have any questions concerning
the information contained in this report, or if we can be of further assistance to you �7lease contact us.
'Iti�111 � r1111i/
CAROB••'•.
Respectfully submitted, �.• OQ`•■..••■•+.•■•C1,, •.•
•pF S ta,�,•. 9 •.
ECS Southeast, LLP
AL ..
n: 0 6 }-
y•
•' a
•E■. FfF�t �-
Amanda R. Suttle, P.G.
Project Geologist
[e-mail]
Principal E ineer
CConwa ecslimited-com
NC Registration No. 034746
1812 Center Park Drive, Suite D, Charlotte, NC 28217 • T: 704-525-5152 • www.ecslimited corn
ECS Capitol Services. PLLC • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLP • ECS Southwest, LLP

Palmetto State Armory
ECS Project No. 08:14711-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
March 18, 2022
Page
1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING...........................................................................................................1
1.1 General.............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Previous Exploration.........................................................................................................................1
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING..........................................................................1
2.1 Subsurface Characterization.............................................................................................................1
2.2 Groundwater Observations..............................................................................................................2
2.3 Laboratory Testing............................................................................................................................2
3.0 CLOSING.......................................................................................................................................2
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Drawings & Reports
• Site Location Diagram
• Boring Location Diagram
Appendix B — Field Operations
• Reference Notes for Boring Logs
• Subsurface Exploration Procedure: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)
• Boring Logs
Appendix C — Laboratory Testing
• Laboratory Testing Summary
• Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results
Appendix D — Supplemental Documents
• Seasonal High Water Table Determination Report

Palmetto State Armory March 18, 2022
ECS Project No. 08:14711-8 Page 1
1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
1.1 GENERAL
The purpose of this study was to provide limited subsurface exploration for the planned stormwater
management systems at the Palmetto State Armory facility in Denver, Lincoln County, North Carolina. This
report contains the procedures and results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing programs,
and review of the existing site conditions. The data report includes the following items.
• Description of the field exploration and laboratory tests performed.
• Final logs of the soil borings.
• Records of the laboratory tests performed.
• Observed groundwater level conditions and report of seasonal high water table determinations.
1.2 PREVIOUS EXPLORATION
ECS previously performed subsurface exploration at the site as reported in the "Report of Subsurface
Exploration, Palmetto State Armory' (ECS Project Number 08:14711) dated August 4, 2021. The
supplemental data presented herein should be used in conjunction with our previous report and
recommendations.
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our exploration procedures are explained in greater detail in Appendix B including the insert titled
Subsurface Exploration Procedure. Our current scope of work included drilling two (2) soil borings.
Additionally, one (1) undisturbed thin -walled (Shelby) tube sample was obtained for laboratory hydraulic
conductivity testing. The borings were located using GPS technology and existing site features as
reference, and their approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A. The
approximate ground surface elevations provided on the exploration records were referenced from the
Client provided topographic information and should be considered approximate. The users of the
reported elevations do so at their own risk.
2.1 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION
The following sections provide generalized characterizations of the subsurface conditions. For detailed
information at a specific location, refer to the boring logs in Appendix B.
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Ranges of
Approximate
Stratum
Description
SPTM N-values
Depth (ft)
(bpf)
0 to 0.1
N/A
Surficial organic -laden soil materials. izi
N/A
0.1 to 20
1
RESIDUAL — Sandy SILT (ML), and Silty SAND (SM).
5 to 13
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK (PWR) sampled as Silty
100+
5.5 to 17
II
SAND (SM) (3)i4i(5)
(50/5" to 50/0")
Notes:
(1) Standard Penetration Test in blows per foot (bpf).
(2) Surficial materials are driller reported; therefore, should not be used for material takeoffs.
(3) PWR is defined as residual material exhibiting SPT N-values greater than 100 bpf.
(4) PWR was encountered at Boring B-101 and B-102.
(5) Auger refusal (i.e., possible rock) was encountered at Boring B-101 at a depth of approximately 8.5 feet below existing ground
surface.

Palmetto State Armory March 18, 2022
ECS Project No. 08:14711-8 Page 2
2.2 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
Groundwater measurements were attempted at the termination of drilling and prior to demobilization
from the site. Groundwater was not encountered at the boring locations at the time of drilling within the
depths explored. Cave-in depths were measured at each mechanical soil boring location with cave-in
depths ranging from approximately 5 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface. Cave-in of a soil test
boring can be caused by groundwater hydrostatic pressure, weak soil layers, and/or drilling activities (i.e.
advancement of bit). Variations in the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes in
precipitation, perched water on restrictive soil/rock layers, evaporation, surface water runoff,
construction activities, and other factors not evident at the time of our evaluation.
ECS performed seasonal high water table (SHWT) determinations at the boring locations as presented in
the report titled "Seasonal High Water Table Determination, Palmetto State Armory" (ECS Project No.
49:16345), dated February 14, 2022. The SHWT determination report is included in Appendix D for
reference.
2.3 LABORATORY TESTING
The laboratory testing consisted of selected tests performed on samples obtained during our field
exploration operations. Classification, moisture content, Atterberg limits, and hydraulic conductivity tests
were performed. The laboratory test results are included in Appendix C.
Each sample was visually classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with ASTM D2488
Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedures) and including
USCS classification symbols, and ASTM D2487 Standard Practice for Classification for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System, USCS). After classification, the samples were grouped in the
major zones noted on the boring logs in Appendix B. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in
parentheses along with the soil descriptions. The stratification lines between strata on the logs are
approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.
3.0 CLOSING
We performed these services in accordance with the standard of care expected of professionals in the
industry performing similar services on projects of like size and complexity at this time in the region. No
other representation expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this
report. ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the
data in this report.

APPENDIX A — Diagrams & Reports
Site Location Diagram
Boring Location Diagram

• Clher6ar M•e!i 4 d 14 '' M�
W,
1 Denver ,� �y�'�• ,,�,
rs
`
Gbmmerca
" Alitel
C
'Communications. a-
m
mor. Dr U
_�. fe ,
� r -
,. G
`L —Trivia Z. �R
r \ w
IZ
now I'
Secluded L.�
'! Plaza Dr "
Esat, incoln ' �� �` a Alt Trill Ln
Community
enter
_ a
i OptimietClub

ervice Layer Credits: Esn, HEKE, Garmin, c) OpenStreetMap contributors
N
- VV E
s
—
r— l
c sex
—
f`. o ,,E.,,u
1
----
—
`N
rt
V.°uj
1
LU
LL
srrE DATA TA&LE
�`__^v�-------
w
❑
�-
Cd
U-j
---
om..
— — — — — — — — —
z
LU
rixc?Ir aam�uuxra�wurr I
�w..mr�• I
s III
❑
Legend
a,n '_---------wE
���t—�1-,.����
Approximate Boring
Locations me 0
.100 0 ��' $ 200
REV
Feet
IMPERVIOUS SUMMARY
BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM
�i� EER
SCALE
PALMETTO STATE ARMORY
AS NOTED
PROJECT NO.
jl
08:14711-B
FIGURE
1417 N HIGHWAY 16 BUSINESS, DENVER, NORTH CAROLINA
2
3/118/2022
PSA DENVER, LLC

APPENDIX B — Field Operations
Reference Notes for Boring Logs
Subsurface Exploration Procedure: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)
Boring Logs

ECS
MATERIAL
REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
GRAVEL
TOPSOIL
VOID
BRICK
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
MH
CL
CH
OL
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL
gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL I
gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines
SILTY GRAVEL
gravel -sand -silt mixtures
CLAYEY GRAVEL
gravel -sand -clay mixtures
WELL -GRADED SAND
gravelly sand, little or no fines
POORLY -GRADED SAND
gravelly sand, little or no fines
SILTY SAND
sand -silt mixtures
CLAYEY SAND
sand -clay mixtures
SILT
non -plastic to medium plasticity
ELASTIC SILT
high plasticity
LEAN CLAY
low to medium plasticity
FAT CLAY
high plasticity
ORGANIC SILT or CLAY
non -plastic to low plasticity
DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS
SS
Split Spoon Sampler
PM
Pressuremeter Test
ST
Shelby Tube Sampler
RD
Rock Bit Drilling
WS
Wash Sample
RC
Rock Core, NX, BX, AX
BS
Bulk Sample of Cuttings
REC
Rock Sample Recovery %
PA
Power Auger (no sample)
RQD
Rock Quality Designation %
HSA Hollow Stem Auger
PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
DESIGNATION
PARTICLE SIZES
Boulders
12 inches (300 mm) or larger
Cobbles
3 inches to 12 inches (75 mm to 300 mm)
Gravel: Coarse
% inch to 3 inches (19 mm to 75 mm)
Fine
4.75 mm to 19 mm (No. 4 sieve to % inch)
Sand: Coarse
2.00 mm to 4.75 mm (No. 10 to No. 4 sieve)
Medium
0.425 mm to 2.00 mm (No. 40 to No. 10 sieve)
Fine
0.074 mm to 0.425 mm (No. 200 to No. 40 sieve)
Silt & Clay ("Fines")
<0.074 mm (smaller than a No. 200 sieve)
COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
SPT5
CONSISTENCY'
STRENGTH, QP°
(BPF)
(COHESIVE)
<0.25
<2
Very Soft
0.25 - <0.50
3-4
Soft
0.50 - <1.00
5-8
Firm
1.00 - <2.00
9 - 15
Stiff
2.00 - <4.00
16 - 30
Very Stiff
4.00 - 8.00
31 - 50
Hard
>8.00
>50
Very Hard
GRAVELS, SANDS & NON -COHESIVE SILTS
arl
DENSITY
<5
Very Loose
5-10
Loose
11 - 30
Medium Dense
31 - 50
Dense
>50
Very Dense
RELATIVE
AMOUNT
COARSE
GRAINED
(%)8
FINE
GRAINED
(%)8
Trace
<5
<5
With
10 - 20
10 - 25
Adjective
25 - 45
30 - 45
(ex: "Silty')
WATER LEVELS6
V
WL (First Encountered)
WL (Completion)
WL (Seasonal High Water)
WL (Stabilized)
OH ORGANIC SILT or CLAY FILL AND ROCK
high plasticity
PT PEAT
highly organic soils
FILL POSSIBLE FILL PROBABLE FILL ROCK
'Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-17 (Visual -Manual Procedure) unless noted otherwise.
2To be consistent with general practice, "POORLY GRADED" has been removed from GP, GP -GM, GP -GC, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC soil types on the boring logs.
3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol [Ex: (SM-FILL)].
4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot (tsf).
5Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refers to the number of hammer blows (blow count) of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler
required to drive the sampler 12 inches (ASTM D 1586). "N-value" is another term for "blow count' and is expressed in blows per foot (bpf). SPT correlations per 7.4.2 Method B
and need to be corrected if using an auto hammer.
6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable
when augering, without adding fluids, in granular soils. In clay and cohesive silts, the determination of water levels may require several days for the
water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally employed.
Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-17 Note 14.
8Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5% per ASTM D 2488-17.
Reference Notes for Boring Logs (0324-2021).doc © 2021 ECS Corporate Services, LLC. All Rights Reserved

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURE:
STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT)
ASTM D 1586
Split -Barrel Sampling
Standard Penetration Testing, or SPT, is the most frequently used
subsurface exploration test performed worldwide. This test provides
samples for identification purposes, as well as a measure of penetration
resistance, or N-value. The N-Value, or blow counts, when corrected and
correlated, can approximate engineering properties of soils used for
geotechnical design and engineering purposes.
• Involves driving a hollow tube (split -spoon)
into the ground by dropping a 140-lb hammer
a height of 30-inches at desired depth
• Recording the number of hammer blows re-
quired to drive split -spoon a distance of 12
inches (in 3 or 4 Increments of 6 inches each)
• Auger is advanced* and an additional SPT is
performed
• One SPT testis typically performed for every
two to five feet
• Obtain two-inch diameter soil sample
*Drilling Methods May Vary— The predominant drilling
methods used for SPT are open hole fluid rotary drilling and
hollow -stem auger drilling.

CLIENT:
PSA Denver, LLC
PROJECT NO.:
08:14711-B
BORING NO.:
B-101
SHEET:
1 of 1
PROJECT NAME:
DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
Palmetto State Armory
Total Depth Drilling Company
SITE LOCATION:
1417 N Highway 16 Business, Denver, North Carolina 28037
LOSS oFCIRCULATION
iaaz
NORTHING:
EASTING:
STATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
eorroM of CASING635960.9
'
1405939.2
845.00
C
--
Plastic Limit Water Content Liquid Limit
Co
w
z
z
x o
B-
}
w
J
Z
\
®STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
=
F
z
a
w
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION&RECOVERY
w
J
a
<
J
a
V
Q
j
RQD
Q
Q
w
Co
- REC
O CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TON/SF
[FINES CONTENT] %
(ML) Residuum, SANDY SILT, contains
slight mica, reddish brown, moist, firm
2-2-3
S-1
SS
18
16
(5)
5
(SM) SILTYSAND, light brown, moist,
S-2
SS
18
16
loose
3-2-3
(5)
5
840
(PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
S-3
SS
10
10
36-50/4"
1A6 [21.30/61
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, gray and white
(50/4")
50/4"
50/0"
(50/0")
5010"
AUGER REFUSAL AT 8.6 FT
10
835
15
830
20
825
25
820
30
815
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL (First Encountered) GNE
BORING STARTED: Feb 082022
CAVE IN DEPTH: 5.00
1 WL (Completion) GNE
BORING Feb 082022
COMPLETED:
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
7 WL (Seasonal High Water)
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED
BY:
DRILLING METHOD: 3.25 HSA
SZ WL (Stabilized)
ATV CME-550X
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

CLIENT:
PSA Denver, LLC
PROJECT NO.:
08:14711-B
BORING NO.:
B-102
SHEET:
1 of 1
PROJECT NAME:
Palmetto State Armory
DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
Total Depth Drilling Company
SITE LOCATION:
1417 N Highway 16 Business, Denver, North Carolina 28037
LOSS oFCIRCULATION
iaaz
NORTHING:
EASTING:
1405955.4
STATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
844.00
eorroM of CASING635906.4
'
=
F
w
C
Co
z
J
a
Q
w
B-
a
<
--
z
J
a
Q
z
}
w
V
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
w
J
Q
Z
j
w
\
Co
Plastic Limit Water Content Liquid Limit
x o
®STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION&RECOVERY
RQD
— REC
O CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TON/SF
[FINES CONTENT] %
5
10
15
20
25
30
Topsoil Thickness[1.00"]
839
834
829
824
819
814
2-3-4
(7)
(13)
(13)
6-5-4
(9)
zz-ze-so/s
(50/5")
50/3"
(50/3")
4-4-5
(9)
�3
50/5
50/3"
9
S-1
SS
18
14
(ML) Residuum, SANDY SILT, contains
slight mica, reddish brown, moist, firm
(SM) SILTY SAND, light brown, moist,
medium dense to loose
S-2
SS
18
14
S-3
SS
18
15
(PWR) PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
SAMPLED AS SILTY SAND, light brown
and white
S-4
SS
17
16
(SM) SILTY SAND, contains slight mica,
light brown, moist, loose
S-6
SS
18
14
END OF BORING AT 20.0 FT
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN -SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL (First Encountered) GNE
BORING STARTED: Feb 082022
CAVE IN DEPTH: 13.00
1 WL (Completion) GNE
BORING Feb 082022
COMPLETED:
HAMMER TYPE: Auto
7 WL (Seasonal High Water)
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED
ATV CME-550X
BY:
DRILLING METHOD:3.25HSA
SZ WL (Stabilized)
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

APPENDIX C — Laboratory Testing
Laboratory Testing Summary
Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results

Laboratory Testing Summary
Sample Location
Sample
Number
Depth
(feet)
AMC
( /°)
Soil
Type
Atterberg Limits
**percent
Passing
No. 200
Sieve
Moisture - Density
CBR (%)
#Organic
Content (/°)
LL
PL
PI
<Maximum
Density (pcf)
<Optimum
Moisture (%)
0.1 in.
0.2 in.
B-101
S-1
5-7
16.6
SM
NP
NP
NP
21.3
Notes:
Definitions:
See test reports for test method, ^ASTM D2216-19, *ASTM D2488, **ASTM D1140-17, #ASTM D2974-20e1 < See test report for D4718 corrected
values
MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California
Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content
Project: Palmetto State Armory
Client: PSA Denver, LLC
Project No.: 08:14711-B
Date Reported: March 18, 2022
Office / Lab Address
4811 Koger Boulevard
ECS Southeast LLP -Greensboro
Greensboro, NC 27407
Office Number / Fax
[phone]
[phone]

E5 NAME
NUMBER
ME— DATE
PROJECT MANAGER
ASTM Method
Test Prepared By
Tested By
Sample Classification:
Sample Description
PROJECT INFORMATION
Palmetto State Armory
14711-B
3/17/2022
Suttle, Amanda
ASTM D5084
Muhannad Abdelgadir
Muhannad Abdelgadir
LL: NP
PI: NP
Light Brown SILTY SAND (SM)
ECS Southeast, LLP
4811 Koger Blvd.
Greensboro, NC 27407
Phone: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
www.ecslimited.com
Boring #
B-101
Sample #
S-1
Depth
5 - 7 ft
Tested Date
02/28/22
Assumed SG:
2.50
%Passing #200:
21.30
Sampled Date
02/08/22
Dimensions
Initial Final
7Averagegth
5.335 in.
4.542 in.
meter
2.838 in.
2.889 in.
Area
6.326 sq. in.
6.555 sq. in.
Volume
iw
33.75 cu.in
Moisture Content
Initial
29.774 cu.m.
Final
Wet weight Sample+ Tare
477.3 g
785.9 g
Dry weight Sample+Tare
436.7 g
631.5 g
Weight Tare
191.9 g
181.7 g
Moisture Content
16.6 %
34.3 %
Saturation
37.1 %
75.4
Density Determination
Initial
Final
Weight
761.6 g
868.7 g
Wet Desnsity
86 lbs/ft^3
98 lbs/ft^3
Dry Desnsity
Permeant Liquid
73.8lbs/ft^3 73lbs/ft^3
Permeability Determination
Deaired Tap Water
Back Pressure
19 psi
b-value
10.95
Flow
Inflow
Ou�flow
14.7 cc
14.7 cc
Time
Hours
0.017
Average Test Temperature
21.5 °C
Temperature Correction
0.9647
Testing Pressures
Top Cap
19 psi
Bottom Cap
20 psi
Cell
30 psi
Pressure Head from Cell
70.3 psi
Total Head Pressure
11nitial
177.14
Final
18.53
Average Hydraulic
Conductivity
9.3E-04 cm/sec @ 200C

APPENDIX D — Supplemental Documents
Seasonal High Water Table Determination Report

ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP "Setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities NC Registered Engineering Firm F-1078
NC Registered Geologists Firm C-553
SC Registered Engineering Firm 3239
February 14, 2022
Mr. Benjamin Wilson
PSA Denver, LLC
3850 Fernandina Road
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
Reference: Seasonal High Water Table Determination
Palmetto State Armory
Denver, Lincoln County, North Carolina
ECS Project No: 49:16345
Dear Mr. Wilson:
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) is pleased to submit this report of the Seasonal High Water Table Determination
(SHWT) for the Palmetto State Armory site in Denver, Lincoln County, North Carolina. This report
summarizes our findings for the site.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The approximate 4.5-acre site is located at 1417 N Highway 16 in Denver, Lincoln County, North
Carolina. We understand that the project includes the expansion/modification of an existing stormwater
management pond. ECS previously performed subsurface exploration at the site as outlined in our
"Report of Subsurface Exploration — Palmetto State Armory" (ECS Report No. 08:14711), dated August 4,
2021. ECS has been requested to perform additional exploration for the planned expansion/modification
of the stormwater management pond.
The proposed Geotechnical Boring Plan, was utilized as a background for the attached Figure 1. The soil
investigation was conducted by reviewing split spoons during the Geotechnical drilling operations.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
ECS conducted a study/investigation of the soils to identify the depth of the seasonal high water table, if
present. The properties and characteristics of the soils retrieved from the boring were observed and
recorded in field notes. The properties include texture, depth, the presence of restrictive horizons, depth to
seasonal high water table, coarse fragments, etc. The assessment was conducted in accordance with
current soil science practices and technology.
SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE STUDY
Below is a summary of the soils retrieved from the borings.
SHWT B —101—The surface layer to a depth of approximately 1 inch below ground surface (bgs) was brown
sandy loam with weak, fine, granular structure. The consistence was non -sticky, non -plastic, and friable. The
sub -surface layer from approximately 1 inch to approximately 24 inches bgs was red clay loam with weak,
fine, sub -angular blocky structure. The consistence was slightly sticky, slightly plastic, and firm. The sub-
1812 Center Park Drive, Suite D, Charlotte, NC 28217 • T: 704-525-5152 • F: 704-357-0023 • www.ecslimited.com
ECS Capitol Services, PLLC • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLP • ECS Southwest, LLP

SHwr study
Palmetto State Armory
Denver, Lincoln County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 49:16345
February 14, 2022
Page 2
surface layer from approximately 24 inches to approximately 102 inches (-8.5 feet) bgs was multi -colored
sandy clay loam to sandy loam saprolite.
SHWT B —102 —The surface layer to a depth of approximately 1 inch bgs was brown sandy loam with weak,
fine, granular structure. The consistence was non -sticky, non -plastic, and friable. The sub -surface layer from
approximately 1 inch to approximately 240 inches (-20 feet) bgs was multi -colored sandy clay loam to sandy
loam saprolite.
FINDINGS
SHWT B — 101 — No indicators of SHWT were noted to a depth of approximately 102 inches (-8.5) feet bgs.
Auger refusal was met at approximately 8.5 feet bgs. No free water was observed.
SHWT B —102 — Indicators of SHWT, potentially from perching as a result of poor soil structure and partially
weathered rock were noted at approximately 162 inches (-13.5 feet). No free water was observed.
The type of stormwater management facility designed is based on the depth of the SHWT or confining layer.
The information above may be potentially utilized to determine the type of stormwater management
facility best suited for this site according to the most recent version of the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Stormwater Best Management Practice Manual.
CLOSING
ECS is pleased to offer our professional services and look forward to assisting in any of your site analysis
needs in the future. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact us at 704-525-
5152.
Respectfully,
ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP
'; � � � " t �_'- /,
Jonathan Grubb
Assistant Project Manager
[e-mail]
919-861-9910
Attachment: Figure 1—SHWT Boring Location Map
4
r
W. Brandon Fulton, LSS, PSC, PWS
Environmental Principal
[e-mail]
704-525-5152
tip sol
' $t'A"`"
131 ' 6

r- Geolechnical-EngineePing RePOPI --)
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, clients can benefit from
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems
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 below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a
wide array of risk -confrontation techniques that can
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a
construction project.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs 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. Those who
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client
can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
- not even you - should apply this report for any purpose or project except
the one originally contemplated.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an
executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report
in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
about Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project -specific factors
when designing the study behind this report and developing the
confirmation -dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few
typical factors include:
• the client's goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and
risk -management preferences;
• the general nature of the structure involved, its size,
configuration, and performance criteria;
• the structure's location and orientation on the site; and
• other planned or existing site improvements, such as
retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and
underground utilities.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the sites size or shape;
• the function of the proposed structure, as when its
changed from a parking garage to an office building, or
from a light -industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
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.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a difrerentproject;
• 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, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report whose reliability may have been 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 your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an `apply -by" date on the report,
ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis - if any is required at all - could prevent major problems.
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are
Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a sites
subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The
data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment 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 from project start to
project finish, so the individual can provide 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 judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed 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 full-time 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 on hand quickly 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
observation.
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 informational
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, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific
times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. 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. 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.
Geoenviron mental 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 relate any 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 yet obtained your own environmental
information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report
prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six
months old.
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, none of the engineer's
services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled
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.
GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
&EPA ASSOCIATION
Telephone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail] wwwgeoprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any
kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent