20221617 Ver 1_09 - RD210331 Geotechnical Report, 2021-07-08_20230301

7- -:AO %:t:f
y
it
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
EASTFI ELD CROSSING DEVELOPMENT, BLOCK A - RETAIL (TO- 10)
SELMA, NC
BUILDING & EARTH PROJECT No.: RD210331
PREPARED FOR:
AdVenture Development, LLC
JULY8,2021
BUILDING & EARTH
Geatechnical. Environmental. and Mate mils Engineers

610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, North Carolina 28334
Ph: [phone]
www.BuildinciAndEarth.com
Geotechnical. Environmental, and Materials Engineers
July 8, 2021
Ad Venture Development, LLC
111 E. Oak Street
Selma, NC 27576
Attention: Mr. Larry Lane
Project Manager/Owner's Representative
Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Building & Earth Project No: RD210331
Mr. Lane:
Building & Earth Sciences, LLP. has completed an authorized subsurface exploration and
geotechnical engineering evaluation for the property described as Block A, planned for within the
Eastfield Crossing Development project. The project is situated on Absher Road in Selma, NC.
The purpose of this exploration and evaluation has been to generally characterize subsurface
conditions at the site and to address applicable geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction
and site development. Recommendations in this report are based on a physical reconnaissance of
the property and observation and classification of samples obtained from eleven (11) soil test
borings drilled at the site. Five (5) Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) borings were also drilled
by Mr. Mike Eaker, a subcontractor to Building and Earth. Confirmation of anticipated subsurface
conditions during construction is an essential part of geotechnical services.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide consultation services for the proposed project. If you
have any questions regarding the information in this report or need any additional information,
please call us.
Respectfully Submitted,
BUILDING & EARTH SCIE
North Carolina Firm License A
Malcolm D. Barrett, PE (VA)
Senior Engineer
Birmingham, AL • Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL • Montgomery, AL • Mobile, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL • Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY • Raleigh, NC • Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC • Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR • Tulsa, OK • Oklahoma City, OK • Durant, OK
Metroplex, TX- Virginia Beach, VA

Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES...............................................................................................................................................4
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION...................................................................................................5
3.1 GEOLOGY....................................................................................................................................................................6
3.2 EXISTING SURFACE CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................6
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................................6
3.3.1 TOPSOIL............................................................................................................................................................7
3.3.2 CLAYEY SAND(SC)..........................................................................................................................................7
3.3.3 SANDY FAT CLAY (CH) OR SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)..................................................................................7
3.3.4 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC).............................................................................................7
3.3.5 AUGER REFUSAL...............................................................................................................................................8
3.3.6 GROUNDWATER...............................................................................................................................................8
3.4 SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE TESTING........................................................................................................8
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................9
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION..................................................................................................................................9
4.2 SUBGRADE EVALUATION......................................................................................................................................
10
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS................................................................................................................................
10
4.4 UNDERCUTTING OF LOW CONSISTENCY SOILS.................................................................................................
11
4.5 STRUCTURAL FILL..................................................................................................................................................
12
4.6 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................................................
13
4.6.1 GROUNDWATER............................................................................................................................................
13
4.7 UTILITYTRENCH BACKFILL...................................................................................................................................
13
4.8 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION.............................................................................................
13
4.9 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION.........................................................................................................................
14
5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................14
5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS.................................................................................................................................... 14
6.0 FLOOR SLABS..........................................................................................................................................................15
7.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................................16
7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT............................................................................................................................................. 17
7.2 RIGID PAVEMENT.................................................................................................................................................. 18
8.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION............................................................................................................................18
9.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.......................................................................................................................19
10.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................................19
APPENDIX
Page I i

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
1.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION
Proposed for construction is a retail center within the Eastfield Crossing Development.
The subject project will occupy approximately 17.02 acres. Eastfield Crossing is located at
the north end of Absher Road, and is bounded on the east by interstate 95 in Selma, North
Carolina.
The subject site is located at the North end of Absher Road, East of 195 in Selma, NC. Tall
trees and shrubs occupied the study area at the time of our exploration. The development
will consist of six connected buildings. For purposes of this study, we assume the
buildings will be single story in height, with exterior masonry walls and roofs supported
on columns. Total building area is about 102,136 sq. ft.
Additional information regarding the proposed site and the development is tabulated
below (Table 1). Photographs showing site conditions at this writing follow Table 1.
Page 11

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
General Sit
Proposed
Buildings
Pavements
M&iI
Size (Ac.)
e
.,
17.02 (Retail), 9.67 (Combined Stormwater Management
Areas)
Undeveloped
Existing Development
Vegetation
Wooded; both naturally occurring and man-made
The site is mostly level
None shown
Slopes
Retaining Walls
Drainage
Well Drained
Cuts & Fills
Building Areas: Maximum fills of 6 feet with no cuts
Pavement Areas: Maximum fills of 3 feet with 1 foot of cut
No. of Bldgs
6
102,136 Combined
1
Square Ft.
Stories
Construction
Masonry with Structural Steel on interior column footings
Column Loads
100 kips max.
Wall Loads
Preferred Foundation
Preferred Slab
3 klf
Shallow
Concrete Slab -on -Grade
Traffic
Grade level parking for 624 auto spaces,
and retail deliveries to shops
Parking Lots, Flexible Pavement
Standard Duty
r- Heavy Duty
Access Areas and Truck Docks, Rigid and Flexible Pavement
Table 1: Project and Site Description
Reference: Information from Charlie Yowell and Gary Zurawski of Bohler Engineering
Notes:
1. If actual loading conditions exceed our anticipated loads, Building & Earth Sciences should
be allowed to review the proposed structural design and its effects on our recommendations
for foundation design.
2. When a grading plan is finalized, Building & Earth should be allowed to review the plan and
its effects on our recommendations.
Page 12

SWM COMMONqAREA.'081ACETL/CREA:79 A(A
Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
r
{ • + 4.06 AC -
SWM COMMON AREA: SEAS
4.76 AG
.� , A
1702,
E
14,46 aC
Figure 2: Roadway Branching off Absher Road Figure 3: Pond West of Retail Property
Page 13

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICE;
The authorized subsurface exploration was initially performed on June 1, 2021. However,
inclement weather caused a delay. The remainder of the subsurface exploration was
completed on June 7, 2021 in conformance with our proposal RD23241, dated May 12,
2021. The notice to proceed was provided by Mr. Larry Lane of AdVenture Development,
LLC via signed proposal.
The purpose of the geotechnical exploration has been to characterize general subsurface
conditions at specific boring locations and to gather data on which to base a geotechnical
evaluation with respect to the project. The subsurface exploration for this project
consisted of eleven (11) soil test borings and five (5) seasonal high water table borings.
Soil test borings were drilled using a CM 550X ATV rig equipped with a manual hammer.
Seasonal high water table borings were also performed for this study. The hand augers
were performed by Mr. Mike Eaker of Southeastern Soil and Environmental Associates.
The borings were advanced by hand using a 3-inch hand auger.
Test boring sites were field located by a representative of our staff using a hand-held
Garmin GPS. Boring site coordinates were superimposed on a Google Earth overlay. As
such, the boring positions appearing on the attached Boring Location Plan should be
considered approximate. Soil samples recovered during our site investigation were
visually classified and specific samples were selected by the project engineer for
laboratory analysis. The laboratory analyses consisted of:
Ell
Natural Moisture Content
Atterberg Limits
Particle Size Distribution of Soils (Gradation)
Table 2: Scope of Laboratory Tests
Results of the laboratory analyses are presented on the attached Boring Logs and in
tabular form in the report Appendix. Descriptions of the laboratory tests that were
performed for this study are also included in the Appendix.
Information gathered from the exploration was evaluated to identify a suitable foundation
type for the project. The information was also evaluated to help identify any special
subgrade preparation procedures that may be required during the project earthworks
phase. Results of the work, presented within this report, addresses:
Page 14

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
■ Summary of existing surface conditions
■ A description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations.
■ Site preparation considerations including material types to be expected during
grading as well as recommendations regarding handling and treatment of
unsuitable soils, if encountered.
■ Compaction requirements and recommended criteria to establish suitable surfaces
for structural backfill.
■ Boring logs detailing the materials encountered with soil classifications,
penetration values, and groundwater levels (if measured).
■ Presentation of laboratory test results.
■ Recommendations for foundation bearing capacity.
■ Summary of settlement estimates for the new foundations.
■ Recommendations for lateral earth pressures.
■ Recommendations for light and heavy-duty asphalt paving.
■ Recommendations for rigid concrete receiving slabs and truck pavement.
■ Plans and maps showing the location of the project and our onsite work.
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The following paragraphs are intended to provide a general characterization of the site
from a geotechnical engineering perspective. It is neither the intention of this report to
address every potential geotechnical matter that may arise, nor to provide every possible
interpretation of conditions identified. The following condition descriptions, and
subsequent geotechnical recommendations are based on the assumption significant
changes in subsurface conditions do not occur between boreholes. However, anomalous
conditions can occur due to variations in existing fill that may be present at the site, or
due to natural variations in site geologic conditions. For this reason, it will be necessary
to evaluate the site conditions with respect to those reported herein during site grading
and foundation installation.
Page 15

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
3.1 GEOLOGY
Appearing on the USGS Geologic Map of North Carolina, the project site is situated in the
North Carolina Coastal Plain region. Soil deposition in this environment is dynamic, with
dune and slews formed by wind and water erosion, resulting in a variable profile over
relatively short distances. The site is underlain by terrace deposits and upland sediments
consisting of gravel, clayey sand, and sand, primarily caused by oceanic subsidence during
the Cenozoic era (65 million years of age). Conditions encountered in borings drilled for
this study generally correlate to the published geological information.
3.2 EXISTING SURFACE CONDITIONS
At the time of our fieldwork, the site was described as generally flat, with elevations
ranging from 171 to 174 feet (Proposed CGU Documents, Grading Plan-C). The site is
currently undeveloped, and occupied by mature trees and significant understory. Access
paths were cleared for this geotechnical work, composing approximately 30% of the site.
Generally described as well -drained, stormwater is directed to a pond on the east side of
the property, and a stormwater basin near the southern property boundary.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A generalized stratification summary has been prepared using data from the soil test
borings and is presented in the table below. The stratification depicts the general soil
conditions and stratum types encountered during our field investigation.
1 0.3'-1'
Topsoil
N/A
2 0.3'-13.5'
Clayey Sand (SC)
Loose to Dense
3 3.5'-9.2'
Sandy Fat Clay (CH) & Sandy Lean Clay (CLS)
Stiff to Hard
4 4.3'-20'
I Poorly Graded Sand with Clay (SP-SC)
Loose to Medium Dense
Table 3: Stratification Summary
Results of the laboratory tests are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs and in tabular
form in the Appendix of this report. Descriptions of the laboratory tests that were
performed are also included in the Appendix.
Information gathered from the exploration was evaluated to determine a suitable
foundation type and bearing capacity for the proposed structure, along with settlement
Page 16

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
estimates. The information was also evaluated to help identify any special subgrade
preparation procedures that might be required during the project earthworks phase.
3.3.1 TOPSOIL
Topsoil depths observed within the soil borings generally range from 3 to 12 inches. An
estimated 1 to 2 inches was lost from the observed topsoil thickness at some areas due
to clearing for drill rig access. No testing has been performed to verify that these soils
meet general characteristics of "topsoil" (humus and root content). Topsoil depths
reported on the boring logs should only be considered an estimate as topsoil thickness
may vary in unexplored portions of the site.
3.3.2 CLAYEY SAND (SC)
In -situ soils identified as clayey sand (SC) were encountered in all the test borings,
extending as deep as 13.5 feet below ground surface. In every boring, the clayey sand (SC)
layer began just below the topsoil layer. Most of this (SC) soil is naturally occurring, with
the exception of P-01 where it is described as existing fill extending to a depth of about
4.3 ft. This stratum exhibits SPT N-values ranging from 4 to 32 blows per foot, values in
the range 11 to 15 considered representative. Additional characteristics for this stratum
include fine to medium grained soil, brownish yellow and red colors, and a loose to dense
consistency. Laboratory testing indicates a plasticity index of 36 and approximately 18
percent passing the #200 sieve. ASTM D2488 classifies this material at clayey sand (SC).
3.3.3 SANDY FAT CLAY (CH) OR SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)
Naturally occurring soils classified as sandy fat clay (CH) and sandy lean clay (CL) were
observed in borings B-04, B-06 and P-03, extending from below the SC stratum to depths
4.8 to 9.2 feet below the surface. This stratum is generally described as brownish yellow
and gray, fine to coarse grained with a stiff to hard consistency. SPT N-values in this
stratum range from 13 to 31 blows per foot, with representative values from 13-17 blows
per foot. Laboratory testing reveals a Plasticity Index of 31-34, and approximately 68-76
percent passing the #200 sieve for the (CH) layers. ASTM D2488 classifies the material as
Sandy Fat Clay (CH).
3.3.4 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC)
Fine to coarse grained soil classified as poorly graded sand with clay (SP-SC) was
encountered in all borings extending from just below the SC or CH-CL strata to below the
boring termination depths. This stratum contains loose to medium dense soils displaying
SPT N-values ranging from 5 to 25 blows per foot. N-values in the ranges of 8 to 12 blows
per foot are considered representative.
Page 17

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
1.3.5 AUGER REFUSAL
Auger refusal is the drilling depth at which the borehole can no longer be advanced using
soil drilling procedures. Auger refusal can occur on hard soil, boulders, buried debris or
bedrock. Coring is required to sample material below auger refusal. Auger refusal was
not encountered in any of the borings for this project.
3.3.6 GROUNDWATER
At the time of drilling, groundwater was observed in all building borings, with depths
ranging from 4.0 to 10.0 feet below ground surface. No water was observed in any of the
pavement borings during drilling. However, stabilized groundwater was present in both
building and pavement borings, indicating a stabilized level ranging approximately 4.0 to
6.3 feet below the surface. A piezometer was installed in boring B-02 to assist in a more
accurate reading. Groundwater data is summarized in the following table.
:.
B-01
(ft.)
7.0
Stabilized
..Elevation
Drilling (ft.) kk (ft.)
166.0 Boring caved above groundwater level No data
167.5 4.4 169.1
163.0 4.2 168.8
B-02
6.0
B-03
10.0
B-04
4.0
168.0
Boring caved above ground water level
No data
B-05
10.0
163.5
5.3
168.2
B-06
4.0
168.5
4.0
168.5
P-01
Dry
Dry
4.2
167.8
P-02
Dry
Dry
6.3
167.7
P-03
Dry
Dry
4.7
169.3
P-04
Dry
Dry
4.3
168.7
P-05
Dry
Dry
5.0
167.5
Table 4: Groundwater Depths
3.4 SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE TESTING
Depths of the Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) were measured by Mr. Mike Eaker,
a North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist with Southeastern Soil & Environmental
Associates, Inc. Under contract to Building & Earth Sciences, he performed the field
measurements and provided a letter summarizing his work. Mr. Eaker's report details the
procedures used in his field evaluation, the results of his soil observations, the depth of
SHWT, and the depth of observed water at each test location. The SHWT report is
Page 18

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
included in the Appendix. Because the SHWT table was encountered at the ground
surface in 3 of the 5 borings, and within the upper 34 inches in the remaining two
locations, infiltration testing was not performed.
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
A grading plan has not been made available at the time of this reporting. Using estimated
ground surface elevations at the boring sites (172.5 to 174.0 ft.), we estimated up to 4 ft.
of cut and grade -raise fill placement will be required to achieve final grades.
Based on our evaluation of the subsurface soil information, and the anticipated
foundation loads, it appears that construction with a conventional shallow spread
foundation system is appropriate to this project. Site development recommendations
presented below are intended for development of the site to support construction with
this type of foundation system. If an alternative type of foundation system is preferred,
Building & Earth should be allowed to review the site development
recommendations to verify that they are appropriate for the preferred foundation
system.
Primary geotechnical concerns affecting this project are:
Significant clearing and grading to prepare building pads and parking areas
Clearing and grubbing of established wooded areas
Recommendations addressing the site conditions are presented in the following sections.
4.1 INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
Initial site preparation should include clearing and grubbing to remove all trees, roots,
topsoil, and otherwise deleterious materials from areas to receive grade -raise fill,
pavements, buildings, and other permanent development components. Up to 12 inches
of topsoil were observed in the borings, and removal of significantly sized mature tree
roots should be expected. A geotechnical engineer should observe stripping and
grubbing operations to confirm all unsuitable materials are removed from areas proposed
for construction.
Materials disturbed during clearing operations
necessary, undercut to undisturbed materials and
approved structural fill.
should be stabilized in place or, if
backfilled with properly compacted,
Page 19

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
During site preparation activities, the contractor should identify borrow source materials
that will be used as structural fill and provide samples to the testing laboratory so that
conformance to the Structural Fill requirements, appearing below, below can be assessed
and so that laboratory moisture density (Proctor) testing can be completed prior to
commencement of earthworks operations.
4.2 SUBGRADE EVALUATION
We recommend the project geotechnical engineer, or a qualified representative of the
engineer evaluate the subgrade after the site is prepared. Some unsuitable or unstable
areas may be present in unexplored areas of the site. All areas that will require fill or that
will support structures should be carefully proofrolled with a heavy (40,000 # minimum),
rubber -tired vehicle at the following times.
■ After an area has been stripped, and undercut if required, prior to the placement
of any fill.
■ After grading an area to the finished subgrade elevation in a building or pavement
area.
■ After areas have been exposed to any precipitation, and/or have been exposed for
more than 48 hours.
Some instability may exist during construction, depending on climatic and other factors
immediately preceding and during construction. If any soft or otherwise unsuitable soils
are identified during the proofrolling process, they must be undercut or stabilized prior
to fill placement, pavement construction, or floor slab construction. All unsuitable material
identified during the construction shall be removed and replaced in accordance with the
Structural Fill section of this report.
4.3 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS
Moisture sensitive clayey sand soils (SC) were encountered at the surface across most of
the site during the subsurface exploration. These soils will degrade if allowed to become
saturated. Therefore, not allowing water to pond by maintaining positive drainage and
temporary dewatering methods (if required) is important to help avoid degradation and
softening of the soils.
The contractor should anticipate some difficulty during the earthwork phase of this
project if moisture levels are moderate to high during construction. Increased moisture
levels will soften the subgrade and the soils may become unstable under the influence of
construction traffic. Accordingly, construction during wet weather conditions should be
Page 110

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
avoided, as this could result in soft and unstable soil conditions that would require ground
modification, such as in place stabilization or undercutting.
4.4 UNDERCUTTING OF Low CONSISTENCY SOILS
Low consistency soils (N<_6) were encountered in some of the borings within about 1.5
feet of the surface. Low consistency soils should be stabilized in place. This will require
discing and drying in order to bring the surface soils to within 2 percent of the material's
optimum moisture content prior to attempting compaction. If the soils cannot be dried
from the surface, the low consistency soils should be undercut to a stable, suitable
subgrade. The undercutting should extend laterally 5 feet outside building, fill pad, and
parking lot footprints. It may be possible to stabilize relatively soft soils in in place. Typical
stabilization methods vary widely and include modification of the soft soils with the
addition of shot rock or No. 2 stone, as well as utilization of geogrids and graded
aggregates. The design of a specific stabilization method is beyond the scope of this
investigation but can be provided by Building & Earth as an additional service if desired.
Any undercutting or stabilization performed in pavement areas should be conducted
under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or his representative. The limited
depth of this material likely indicates scarification and re -compaction will be the
appropriate stabilization method.
Some unsuitable or unstable areas may be present in unexplored areas of the site. Once
the known undercut is complete, the areas planned for construction should be proofrolled
in order to identify any additional soft soils requiring removal.
Undercut soils should be replaced with structural fill. Clean, non -organic, non -saturated
soils taken from the undercut area can be re -used as structural fill. The placement
procedure, compaction and composition of the structural fill must meet the requirements
of the Structural Fill section of this report.
Page 111

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
4.5 STRUCTURAL FILL
Recommendations for structural fill on this project follow:
Soil USCS ype Classification property Requirements Placement Location
Gravel
SW, SP, SM or
combinations
Clay
CL, SC, GC
Clay
CH
Silt
ML, MH
Maximum 2" particle size
LL<50, PI<25, yd>100 pcf
LL>50, PI>25, yd>100 pcf
All areas where material is con ine .
All locations
Not recommended for use
N/A Use should be evaluated if this material
type is encountered.
On -site SC, CL, CH,
As listed above As listed above
soils SP-SC
I
Table 5: Structural Fill Requirements
Notes:
1. LL indicates the soil Liquid Limit; PI indicates the soil Plasticity Index; yd indicates the maximum dry
density as defined by the density standard outlined in the table below.
2. Laboratory testing of the soils proposed for fill must be performed to verify their conformance with
the above recommendations.
3. Any fill to be placed at the site should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
Placement requirements for structural fill are as follows:
- . ..
Lift Thickness
8-inch loose, 6-inch compacted
Density
Minimum 98 percent std. Proctor (ASTM D-698)
Moisture
+/- 2 percent of optimum
Density Testing
1 test per 5,000 s.f., minimum 2 tests per lift
Frequency
Table 6: Structural Fill Placement Requirements
Page 112

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
4.6 EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS
All excavations performed at the site should follow OSHA guidelines for temporary
excavations. Excavated soils should be stockpiled according to OSHA regulations to limit
the potential cave-in of soils.
4.6.1 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 4 to 10 feet below the ground
surface in test borings drilled for this study, with stabilized water depths at about 4 to 6
feet. Groundwater will likely be encountered at these depths during construction,
particularly during undercutting operations. It should be noted that fluctuations in the
water level could occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall. The contractor must be
prepared to remove groundwater seepage from excavations if encountered during
construction. Excavations extending below groundwater levels will require dewatering
systems (such as well points, sump pumps or trench drains). The contractor should
evaluate the most economical and practical dewatering method.
It is important to note that structural fill soils that have a lower fines content than the
underlying (naturally occurring) soils will be prone to developing a perched water
condition. Care should be taken to prevent this. An evaluation of the proposed structural
fill borrow sources should preclude the use of sandy soils with less than 15% fines, unless
preventative measures are implemented to relieve perched water conditions. These
measures could include sloping the subgrade soils to drain toward the stoprm drain
ponds, installing permanent French drains, or capping the new fill with a low permeability
material such as NCDOT Aggregate Base Course (ABC) stone.
4.7 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
All utility trenches should be backfilled and compacted in the manner specified above for
structural fill. It may be necessary to reduce the lift thickness to 4 to 6 inches to achieve
compaction using hand -operated equipment.
4.8 LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION
The potential for soil moisture fluctuations within building areas and pavement subgrades
should be reduced to lessen the potential of subgrade movement. Site grading should
include positive drainage away from buildings and pavements. Excessive irrigation of
landscaping poses a risk of saturating and softening soils below shallow footings and
pavements, which could result in settlement of footings and premature failure of
pavements.
Page 113

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
4.9 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION
Excessive movement of construction equipment across the site during wet weather may
result in ruts, which will collect rainwater, prolonging the time required to dry the
subgrade soils.
During rainy periods, additional effort will be required to properly prepare the site and
establish/maintain an acceptable subgrade. The difficulty will increase in areas where clay
or silty soils are exposed at the subgrade elevation. Grading contractors typically
postpone grading operations during wet weather to wait for conditions that are more
favorable. Contractors can typically disk or aerate the upper soils to promote drying
during intermittent periods of favorable weather. When deadlines restrict postponement
of grading operations, additional measures such as undercutting and replacing saturated
soils or stabilization can be utilized to facilitate placement of additional fill material.
;.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific structural loading conditions were not provided for use in preparation of
foundation support recommendations. For purposes of this reporting, maximum 3.0 klf
wall and 100 kip column foundation loads are assumed. If these assumptions
concerning structural loading are incorrect, our office should be contacted, such that
our recommendations can be reviewed.
5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Based on the conditions encountered during our field investigation and after our site
preparation and grading recommendations are implemented, the proposed structure can
be supported on conventional shallow foundations designed using an allowable 3,000 psf
soil bearing capacity.
Even though computed footing dimensions may be less, column footings should be at
least 24 inches wide and strip footings should be at least 18 inches wide. These
dimensions facilitate hand cleaning of footing subgrades disturbed by the excavation
process and the placement of reinforcing steel. They also reduce the potential for
localized punching shear failure. All exterior footings should bear at least 24 inches
below the adjacent exterior grade. Total settlement of footings designed and
constructed as recommended above should be 1 inch or less.
The following items should be considered during the preparation of construction
documents and foundation installation:
Page 114

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
The geotechnical engineer of record should observe the exposed foundation
bearing surfaces prior to concrete placement to verify that the conditions
anticipated during the subsurface exploration are encountered.
All bearing surfaces must be free of soft or loose soil prior to placing concrete.
Concrete should be placed the same day the excavations are completed and
bearing materials verified by the engineer. If the excavations are left open for an
extended period, or if the bearing surfaces are disturbed after the initial
observation, then the bearing surfaces should be reevaluated prior to concrete
placement.
Water should not be allowed to pond in foundation excavations prior to concrete
placement or above the concrete after the foundation is completed.
Wherever possible, the foundation concrete should be placed "neat", using the
sides of the excavations as forms. Where this is not possible, the excavations
created by forming the foundations must be backfilled with suitable structural fill
and properly compacted.
The building pad should be sloped to drain away from the building foundations.
Roof drains should be routed away from the foundation soils.
6.0 FLOOR SLABS
Site development recommendations presented in this report should be followed to
provide for subgrade conditions suitable for support of grade supported slabs. Floor
slabs will be supported on leveling stone placed directly over building pad subgrades.
We recommend floor slabs for the proposed structure be supported on a minimum -
inch layer of 1/2-inch up to 11/2-inch, free -draining, gap -graded gravel, such as AASHTO
No. 57 stone, with no more than 5 percent passing the ASTM No. 200 sieve. The purpose
of this layer is to help distribute concentrated loads and act as a capillary break for
moisture migration through the subgrade soil. This gravel material should be
consolidated in -place with vibratory equipment. With the gravel material, such as
AASHTO No. 57 stone, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 140 pci is recommended for
slab design.
We recommend a minimum 10-mil thick vapor retarder meeting ASTM E 1745, Class C
requirements be placed directly below the slab -on -grade floors. A higher quality vapor
retarder (Class A or B) may be used if desired to further inhibit the migration of moisture
through the slab -on -grade and should be evaluated based on the floor covering and
Page 115

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
use. The vapor retarder should extend to the edge of the slab -on -grade floors and should
be sealed at all seams and penetrations. The slab should be appropriately reinforced (if
required) to support the proposed loads.
7.0 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATION
Based on the materials encountered at the boring locations and after our
recommendations for site preparation are implemented, pavements at the subject site
may be designed based on a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of five (5). Note that no CBR
or plate load testing was completed to develop these recommendations.
For pavement design purposes, we have assumed two levels of traffic shown on the table
below, for commonly used pavement sections. Specific traffic information was not
provided. If the pavement were a typical roadway, according to the "AASHTO Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures, 1993", these pavement sections would be adequate for
the following daily traffic volume:
5
5
Table 7: Assumed Traffic Volume
The volumes shown above arejust one example of possible vehicle types and daily traffic
that would result in the total equivalent 18-kip single -axle load (ESAL) shown.
It has been our experience that parking lots experience a certain level of wear and stress
greater than roadways designed for similar traffic volumes. Therefore, parking lots are
typically designed using the AASHTO method and adjusted based on experience. If the
owner would like Building & Earth to assess other likely traffic volumes, we will gladly
review other options.
Page 116

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
In addition, we have assumed the following design parameters:
Design
Design life (Years)
Terminal Serviceability
20
2.0
Reliability
85%
Initial Serviceability
4.2
Standard Deviation
Standard Deviation
0.45(Flexible)
0.35(Rigid)
Table 8: Assumed Design Parameters
Note: All subgrade, base and pavement construction operations should meet minimum
requirements of the North Carolina DOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge
Construction. The applicable sections of the specifications are identified as follows:
I Portland Cement Concrete Pavement 1 710
Bituminous Asphalt Wearing Layer 1 610
Bituminous Asphalt Binder Layer 1 610
Mineral Aggregate Base Materials 520
Soil 1 500
Table 9: NC -DOT Specification Sections
7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
The asphalt pavement sections described herein were designed using the "AASHTO Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993". Alternative pavement sections were designed
by establishing the structural numbers used for the AASHTO design system and
substituting materials based upon structural equivalency as follows:
Asphalt Concrete 0.44
Crushed Stone Base 0.14
Table 10: Structural Equivalent Coefficient
The following flexible pavement sections are based on the design parameters presented
above:
Page 117

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
2.0 1 2.0 1 Surface Course
-- 1 2.0 1 Binder Course
6.0 8.0 1 ABC Stone Base
Table 11: Asphalt Pavement Recommendations
7.2 RIGID PAVEMENT
The following rigid pavement sections are based on the design parameters presented
above. We assume an effective modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 150 pci. We have
assumed concrete elastic modulus (Ec) of 3.6 X 106 psi, and a concrete modulus of rupture
(S'c) of 650 psi.
5.0 1 6.0 1 Portland Cement Concrete, f'c=4000 psi
4.0 I 4.0 NCDOT ABC Stone Base
Table 12: Rigid Pavement Recommendations
The concrete should be protected against moisture loss, rapid temperature fluctuations,
and construction traffic for several days after placement. All pavements should be sloped
for positive drainage. We recommended that the pavements be reinforced to hold any
cracks that might develop tightly together and restrain their growth.
All pavement components must be placed and compacted in accordance with the
applicable sections of the North Carolina DOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge
Construction. All subgrade, base and pavement construction operations should meet
minimum requirements of the North Carolina DOT Standard Specification for Road and
Bridge Construction.
8.0 SUBGRADE REHABILITATION
The subgrade soils often become disturbed during the period between initial site grading
and construction of surface improvements. The amount and depth of disturbance will
vary with soil type, weather conditions, construction traffic, and drainage.
Page 118

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
The engineer should evaluate the subgrade soil during final grading to verify that the
subgrade is suitable to receive pavement and/or concrete slab base materials. The final
evaluation may include proofrolling or density tests.
Subgrade rehabilitation can become a point of controversy when different contractors are
responsible for site grading and building construction. The construction documents
should specifically state which contractor will be responsible for maintaining and
rehabilitating the subgrade. Rehabilitation may include moisture conditioning and re -
compacting soils. When deadlines or weather restrict grading operations, additional
measures such as undercutting and replacing saturated soils or chemical stabilization can
often be utilized.
9.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Field verification of site conditions is an essential part of the services provided by the
geotechnical consultant. To confirm our recommendations, it will be necessary for
Building & Earth personnel to make periodic visits to the site during site grading. Typical
construction monitoring services are listed below.
Field observation during clearing and grubbing
Fill material sampling and laboratory (index and Proctor) testing
Fill placement
■ Foundation bearing surface preparation
■ All other special inspection requirements under the applicable Building Code
10.0 CLOSING AND LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for AdVenture Development, for specific application to the Block
A — Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby located in the Eastfield Crossing development, Selma
North Carolina. The information in this report is not transferable. This report should not
be used for a different development on the same property without first being evaluated
by the engineer.
The recommendations in this report were based on the information obtained from our
field exploration and laboratory analysis. The data collected is representative of the
locations tested. Variations are likely to occur at other locations throughout the site.
Engineering judgment was applied to conditions between borings. It will be necessary to
confirm the anticipated subsurface conditions during construction.
Page 119

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Evaluation - Eastfield Crossing Development
Task Order 10: Block A -Retail (Except for Hobby Lobby)
Selma, North Carolina
Project No: RD210331, July 8, 2021
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted standards of
geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is expressed or implied. In the
event changes are made, or anticipated to be made, to the nature, design, or location of
the project as outlined in this report, Building & Earth must be informed of the changes
and given the opportunity to either verify or modify the conclusions of this report in
writing, or the recommendations of this report will no longer be valid.
The scope of services for this project did not include any environmental assessment of
the site or identification of pollutants or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner
is concerned about environmental issues Building & Earth would be happy to provide an
additional scope of services to address those concerns.
This report is intended for use during design and preparation of specifications and may
not address all conditions at the site during construction. Contractors reviewing this
information should acknowledge that this document is for design information only.
An article published by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), titled Important
Information About Your Geotechnical Report, has been included in the Appendix. We
encourage all individuals to become familiar with the article to help manage risk.
Page 120

Appendix Table of Contents
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES...........................................................................................1
DRILLING PROCEDURES — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586) ...........................1
BORING LOG DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................2
DEPTH AND ELEVATION.............................................................................................................................2
SAMPLETYPE...................................................................................................................................................2
SAMPLENUMBER..........................................................................................................................................2
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD%...............................................................................................2
SOILDATA........................................................................................................................................................2
SOIL DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................................3
GRAPHIC...........................................................................................................................................................3
REMARKS..........................................................................................................................................................3
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................4
KEYTO LOGS.........................................................................................................................................................................
6
KEYTO HATCHES................................................................................................................................................................8
BORING LOCATION PLAN...............................................................................................................................................
9
SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES........................................................................................................................................10
BORINGLOGS.....................................................................................................................................................................11
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES..............................................................................................................................12
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488)............................12
POCKET PENETROMETER.........................................................................................................................12
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2216).............................................................................12
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318).......................................................................................................12
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTM D1140)....................................12
Table A-1: General Soil Classification Test Results.....................................................................13
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT ............................14

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGIES
The subsurface exploration, which is the basis of the recommendations of this report, has
been performed in accordance with industry standards. Detailed methodologies employed
in the investigation are presented in the following sections.
DRILLING PROCEDURES — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D 7586)
At each boring location, soil samples were obtained at standard sampling intervals with a
split -spoon sampler. The borehole was first advanced to the sample depth by augering and
the sampling tools were placed in the open hole. The sampler was then driven 18 inches
into the ground with a 140-pound manual hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of
blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment was recorded. The initial
increment is considered the "seating" blows, where the sampler penetrates loose or
disturbed soil in the bottom of the borehole.
The blows required to penetrate the final two (2) increments are added together and are
referred to as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value. The N-value, when properly
evaluated, gives an indication of the soil's strength and ability to support structural loads.
Many factors can affect the SPT N-value, so this result cannot be used exclusively to evaluate
soil conditions.
The SPT testing was performed using a drill rig equipped with a manual hammer. Manual
hammers are dropped using a manually operated rope and cathead system. The N-values
discussed or mentioned in this report and shown on the boring logs are recorded field
values.
Samples retrieved from the boring locations were labeled and stored in plastic bags at the
jobsite before being transported to our laboratory for analysis. The project engineer
prepared Boring Logs summarizing the subsurface conditions at the boring locations.
Page I A-1

BORING LOG DESCRIPTION
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. used the gINT software program to prepare the attached boring
logs. The gINT program provides the flexibility to custom design the boring logs to include
the pertinent information from the subsurface exploration and results of our laboratory
analysis. The soil and laboratory information included on our logs is summarized below:
i.»ira� ►&j0%j j#j i� rr�•j►'i
The depth below the ground surface and the corresponding elevation are shown in the first
two columns.
KETAINMRAINA
The method used to collect the sample is shown. The typical sampling methods include Split
Spoon Sampling, Shelby Tube Sampling, Grab Samples, and Rock Core. A key is provided at
the bottom of the log showing the graphic symbol for each sample type.
SAMPLE NUMBER
Each sample collected is numbered sequentially.
BLOWS PER INCREMENT, REC%, RQD%
When Standard Split Spoon sampling is used, the blows required to drive the sampler each 6-
inch increment are recorded and shown in column 5. When rock core is obtained the recovery
ration (REC%) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD%) is recorded.
W0116.�,rr_•l
Column 6 is a graphic representation of four different soil parameters. Each of the parameters
use the same graph, however, the values of the graph subdivisions vary with each parameter.
Each parameter presented on column 6 is summarized below:
N-value- The Standard Penetration Test N-value, obtained by adding the number of
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches, is recorded . The graph labels
range from 0 to 50.
— Unconfined Compressive Strength estimate from the Pocket Penetrometer test in
tons per square foot (tsf). The graph labels range from 0 to 5 tsf.
Atterberg Limits — The Atterberg Limits are plotted with the plastic limit to the left, and
liquid limit to the right, connected by a horizontal line. The difference in the plastic and
liquid limits is referred to as the Plasticity Index. The Atterberg Limits test results are
also included in the Remarks column on the far right of the boring log. The Atterberg
Limits graph labels range from 0 to 100%.
• Moisture — The Natural Moisture Content of the soil sample as determined in our
laboratory.
Page I A-2

SOIL DESCRIPTION
The soil description prepared in accordance with ASTM D2488, Visual Description of Soil
Samples. The Munsel Color chart is used to determine the soil color. Strata changes are
indicated by a solid line, with the depth of the change indicated on the left side of the line and
the elevation of the change indicated on the right side of the line. If subtle changes within a
soil type occur, a broken line is used. The Boring Termination or Auger Refusal depth is shown
as a solid line at the bottom of the boring.
GRAPHIC
The graphic representation of the soil type is shown. The graphic used for each soil type is
related to the Unified Soil Classification chart. A chart showing the graphic associated with
each soil classification is included.
Remarks regarding borehole observations, and additional information regarding the
laboratory results and groundwater observations.
Page I A-3

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
BUILDING & EARTH
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
Gravel and
1� �— IM
r :` lie/
G W
Well -graded gravels, gravel - sand mixtures, little or
Gravelly
Clean Gravels
�� �r
no fines
"jVo��
�° °o &
Soils
(Less than 5% fines)
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little
DOo D
GP
or no fines
Coarse More than
va
50% of
Grained coarse
�
o
�
p<
GM
Silty gravels, gravel - sand - silt mixtures
Soils fraction is
Gravels with Fines
o
larger than
(More than 12% fines)
No. 4 sieve
Fffl-A
GC
Clayey gravels, grave( - sand - clay mixtures
More than
50% of Sand and
Sand
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
material is y
Clean Sands
larger than Soils
No. 200
(Less than 5% fines)
$p
Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no
sieve More than
fines
size 50% of
coarse
SM
Silty sands, sand - silt mixtures
fraction is
Sands with Fines
smaller than
No. 4
(More than 72% fines)
$C
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures
sieve
ML
Inorganic silts and very find sands, rock flour, silty or
Fine Silts and
clayey fine sands or clayey sift with slight plasticity
clays
Inorganic
Grained
CL
Inorganic clays of (ow to medium plasticity, gravelly
Soils
clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
Liquid Limit
_ _ _
less than 50
Organic
= _ —
OL
Organic silts and organic silty clays of (ow plasticity
More than
— — — -
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
50% of
material is Silts and
sand, or silty soils
smaller Clays
Inorganic
than
No. 200
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity
Liquid Limit
sieve
greater than
size 50
Organic
OH
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic
silts
, _
t r,
—
PT
Peat humus, swamp soils with high organic
Highly Organic
Soils
contents
Page I A-4

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Building & Earth Sciences classifies soil in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) presented in ASTM D2487. Table 1
and Figure 1 exemplify the general guidance of
the USCS. Soil consistencies and relative densities
are presented in general accordance with
Terzaghi, Peck, & Mesri's (1996) method, as
shown on Table 2, when quantitative field and/or
laboratory data is available. Table 2 includes
Consistency and Relative Density correlations
with N-values obtained using either a manual
hammer (60 percent efficiency) or automatic
hammer (90 percent efficiency). The Blows Per
Increment and SPT N-values displayed on the
boring logs are the unaltered values measured in
the field. When field and/or laboratory data is not
available, we may classify soil in general
accordance with the Visual Manual Procedure
presented in ASTM D2488.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY
60
J�
50
CH or OH
a
'
40
X
�
�
e
30
Y
CL or OL
20
a
MH or OH
10
7
CL-M
ML
or OL
4
0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit (LL)
Non -cohesive: Coarse
-Grained Soil
Cohesive: Fine -Grained Soil
SPT Penetration
Estimated Range of
SPT Penetration
(blows/foot)
Unconfined Compressive
Consistency
(blows/foot)
Relative
Automatic
Manual
Strength (tsf)
Density
Hammer*
Hammer
Automatic Manual
< 2
< 2
Very Soft
< 0.25
Hammer* Hammer
0-3
0-4
Very Loose
Loose
2 -3
3 - 6
2-4
4-8
Soft
Medium Stiff
0.25 — 0.50
0.50 — 1.00
3 - 8
4-10
8 - 23
10-30
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
6 - 12
12 - 23
> 23
8 - 15
15 - 30
> 30
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
1.00 — 2.00
2.00 — 4.00
> 4.00
23 - 38
30-50
> 38
> 50
* - Modified based on 80% hammer efficiency
Page I A-5

Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Standard Dynamic Cone Soil Particle Size
Penetration Test Penetrometer Boulders Larger than 300 mm
ASTM D1586 or (Sower DCP)
AASHTO T-206 ASTM STP-399 Cobbles 300 mm to 75 mm
Gravel 75 mm to 4.75 mm
Shelby Tube
Sampler O Re Sample Coarse 75 mm to 19 mm
ASTM D1587 Recovery
Fine 19 mm to 4.75 mm
Sand 4.75 mm to 0.075 mm
Rock Core Sample Groundwater at
ASTM D2113 Time of Drilling Coarse 4.75 mm to 2 mm_
Medium 2 mm to 0.425 mm
Fine 0.425 mm to 0.075 mm
Auger Cuttings Groundwater as Fines Less than 0.075 mm
Indicated
Silt Less than 5 Nm
Clay Less than 2 Nm
KEY TO LOGS
U.S. Standard
N.A.
N.A.
3-inch to #4 sieve
3-inch to 3/4-inch sieve
3/4-inch to #4 sieve
#4 to #200 Sieve
#4 to #10 Sieve
#10 to #40 Sieve
#40 to #200 Sieve
Passing #200 Sieve
N.A.
Nal
Standard Penetration Test Resistance A measure of a soil's plasticity characteristics in
N-value Atterberg general accordance with ASTM D4318. The soil
calculated using ASTM D1586 or AASHTO T- Limits Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this
❑ 206. Calculated as sum of original, field i�
recorded values. PL ILL and
and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit (LL)
and the Plastic Limit (PL).
Qu
Unconfined compressive strength, typically % Moisture Percent natural moisture content in general
- estimated from a pocket penetrometer. Results
are presented in tons per square foot (tsf). accordance with ASTM D2216.
F
Hollow Stem Auger Flights on the outside of the shaft advance soil cuttings to the surface. The
hollow stem allows sampling through the middle of the auger flights.
Mud Rotary / A cutting head advances the boring and discharges a drilling fluid to
Wash Bore support the borehole and circulate cuttings to the surface.
Solid Flight Auger Flights on the outside bring soil cuttings to the surface. Solid stem requires
removal from borehole during sampling.
Hand Auger Cylindrical bucket (typically 3-inch diameter and 8 inches long) attached to a
metal rod and turned by human force.
Descriptor
Meaning
Trace
Likely less than 5%
Few
5 to 10%
Little
15 to 25%
Some
30 to 45%
Mostly 50 to 100%
TableDescriptors
Page I A-6

KEY TO LOGS
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Manual Hammer The operator tightens and loosens the rope around a rotating drum assembly to lift
and drop a sliding, 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
Automatic Trip Hammer
An automatic mechanism is used to lift and drop a sliding, 140-pound hammer
falling 30 inches.
Uses a 15-pound steel mass falling 20 inches to strike an anvil and cause penetration
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer of a 1.5-inch diameter cone seated in the bottom of a hand augered borehole. The
(Sower DCP) ASTM STP-399 blows required to drive the embedded cone a depth of 1-3/4 inches have been
correlated by others to N-values derived from the Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
Non -plastic I A 1/8-inch thread cannot be rolled at any water content.
Low
The thread can barely be rolled and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the
plastic limit.
The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The
Medium thread cannot be re -rolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when
drier than the plastic limit. _
It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread
High can be re -rolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be
formed without crumblina when drier than the plastic limit.
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.
Moist Damp but no visible water.
Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table.
Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least'/z inch thick.
Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than'/a inch thick.
Fissured Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing.
Slickensides Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.
Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further
breakdown.
Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered
through a mass of clay.
Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.
Page I A-7

BUILDING
KEY TO HATCHES
Geotechnical, Environmcntal, and Materials Engineers
• �' ' • �'
GW - Well -graded gravels, grave( - sand
• �'+
mixtures, little or no fines
Asphalt
Clay with Gravel
.j
&° ° 30
Aggregate Base
o--'O o- °•
Sand with Gravel
GP - Poorly -graded gravels, gravel - sand
DOp D
mixtures, little or no fines
O O
n
1 ti
a1 �y�'<l �.•. �i T�.' .�1.1
"
l�
o
lJ
o ° o °
GM - Silty gravels, grave( - sand - silt
i_i,'.;�
°
D
Topsoil
Silt with Grave(
O
mixtures
••
i �[�
o
0
0
I•• • �i •.�i C•
06.,.e
GC - Clayey gravels, grave( - sand - clay4
pt
A...a
Ct
Concrete
•
Grave( with Sand
mixtures
SW - We(( -graded sands, gravelly sands,
•
,
little or no fines
Coal
�_
Gravel with Clay
•
SP - Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands,
• `• •
CL-ML - Silty Clay
Grave( with Silt
little or no fines
•
Sandy Clay
SM - Silty sands, sand - silt mixtures
Limestone
�` •����� SC - Cla e clay
sands, sand - C(a e Chert Chalk
YY Y mixtures YY
X x X K X X
ML - Inorganic sifts and very find sands, Low and High X x X x X X
rock flour, silty or clayey fine Plasticity Clay X x x x X x Si(tstone
sands or clayey sift with slight plasticity X x x x X x
j CL - Inorganic clays of (ow to medium
Low Plasticity Silt and
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clayTill
clays, sift clays, lean clays
'i1'tph:
OL - Organic silts and organic silty clays High Plasticity Silt `? Sandy Clay with
- — — of (ow plasticity and Clay''" Cobbles and Boulders
v• b
MH - Inorganic silts, micaceous or Fill Sandstone with Shale
diatomaceous fine sand, or silty soils
CH - Inorganic clays of high plasticity a ° Weathered Rock## Cora(
a ..
OH - Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity, organic silts Sandstone Boulders and Cobbles
PT - Peat, humus, swamp soils with high Shale � } Soil and Weathered
! organic contents o' B Rock
01 .
Page I A-8

BORING LOCATION PLAN
Page I A-9

Al
YM ;t
- Fence A' 041
rrcr �
Fence B'
.�
AREk
FenceA
-
e
• . Li
~ S.
4 Building Borings Pavement Borings .j SHWT Borings O
Boring Location Map
BES Project #: RD210331 Address: E Preston St & Crocker Rd
Eastfield Development —Overall City: Selma, NC
EARTH
h Drawing Source: Map North of US 70A
r
• ING • Client: AdVenture Development, LLC
Project: Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A Figure 1
— Retail (TO-10)

SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILES
Page I A-10

SIN
NE
A
A'
180
.................................................................................
FF=178 feet.
180
17s
175
B-01
N Qu
B 04
7
N Qu
6
13
170
9
170
24
13 2.5
18SZ '
165
16 2.75
165
10
18 3
Z
0 160
H
60
>
w
12
w
9
155
155
5
BT=20.0
9
BT=20.0
150
150
14s
145
Key to Hatches
Legend
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road, Dunn, NC 28334
g-04
�..'
Topsoil
USCS Clayey Sand USCS Silty Sand
BT=Boring Termination, TPT=Test Pit Terminated
AR=Auger Refusal, ER=Excavation Refusal
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-1 0)
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Selma, NC
Profile A -A': Subsurface Profile
compressive strength estimate
Poorly -graded Rplasticity Clay from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
fl USCS USCS High
Sand with Clay
as
PROJECT NO: RD210331 PLATE NO: A -A' DATE: 6/17/21
Q Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
1 Water Level Reading after drilling.
0 33
11111111116mm"
BUILDING & EARTH
Horizontal Scale (feet)
Vertical Exaggeration:4.5x
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 205 feet

SIN
NE
B
B'
180
FF= 178 feet. -
. . . . . . . . . . . .
180
175
-
B-02
B-05
-
175
N Qu
� .
B-03
N Qu
N Qu
B-06
22
A
8
N Qu
V
4
20
11
1
4
no
X
X
9
170
17
22
11
17 3.5
13
23
14
17
165
1
65
17
13a . .
13a
11
0 160
-
160
>
8
8
9
25
155
-
155
8
0.5
8
BT=20.0
BT=20.0
11
BT=20.0
BT=20.0
150
-
-
150
145
-
-
145
Key
to Hatches
Legend
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
610 Spring Branch Road, Dunn, NC 28334
Topsoil
.
Ifl
USCS Clayey Sand
L1 SCS
Poorly -graded
1fl
BT=Boring Termination, TPT=Test Pit Terminated
AR=Auger Refusal, ER=Excavation Refusal
-
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A Retail (TO-10)
Sand with Clay
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Selma, NC
Profile B-B': Subsurface Profile
®USCS High Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
Plasticity Clay from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
PROJECT NO: RD210331 I PLATE NO: 13-13' DATE: 6/22/21
a Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
T drilling.
Water Level Reading after
0 65•
0 0
11111111116mm"
BUILDING & EARTH
Horizontal Scale (feet)
0 0 0
Vertical Exaggeration: 9x
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 400 feet

SIN
NE
C
C,
180
-
-
180
FSG=175 feet.
175
-
P-02
P-03 FSG = 174 feet . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
175
FSG=173 feet.
N Qu . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P-04
.......
......
,A I,
P-05
4 N Qu
N Qu
N Qu
5
'A 1.
9
11
5
16
13
170
-�2
13
10
no12
15
19
2
2
19
31 3.75
I
15
X/
16
165
9
16
19
165
BT=10.0
BT=10.0 11
12
a)
7
BT=10.0
BT=10.0
BT=10.0
0 160
160
155
155
150
150
145
145
Key to Hatches
Legend
Building & Earth Sciences, Inc.
610Spring Branch Road, Dunn, NC28334
Topsoil
Fill
USCS
Poorly -graded
1fl
BT=Boring Termination, TPT=Test Pit Terminated
AR=Auger Refusal, ER=Excavation Refusal
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
Sand with Clay
N=Standard Penetration Test N-Value
Selma, NC
USCS Clayey
USCS Low
Sand Plasticity Sandy
MClay
Qu=Unconfined compressive strength estimate
from pocket penetrometer test (tsf)
Profile C-C': Subsurface Profile
a Water Level Reading at time of drilling.
7 Water Level Reading after drilling.
PROJECT NO: RD210331 I PLATE NO: C-C'
PROJECT 6/17/21
0 130
11111111116mm"
BUILDING & EARTH
Horizontal Scale (feet)
0 0 0
Vertical Exaggeration: 18x
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
Site Map Scale 1 inch equals 795 feet

BORING LOGS
Page I A-11

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-01
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/7/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Cloudy
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
173.0
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.52256801,-78.28116533
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
Z
ZZ
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
2
TOPSOIL: 5 inches
S-1
3
4
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, brown, fine o
t
medium grained, moist
5
:..:.
medium dense
S
7
170
6
:..:..: .:..:..:..:..:.
Sample
S 33
3.5 169.5
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense, brownish
_x
4
ILL: 83
S
11
•
PL:40
yellow, red, fine to medium grained, moist
13
PI: 43
5
M: 18.9%
F: 39.6%
........... .............
6.0 167.0.
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
4
S
8
medium dense, reddish yellow, gray, fine to01
10
medium grained, moist
Groundwater encountered at
7 feet (EL 166.0) at time o
165
drilling and caved -in above
3
loose
stabilized water level.
S
6
4
pink
10
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
01
Boring cave-in at 11 feet.
160
01
-X
5
medium dense, wet
S
6
15
6
155
.
01
-X
4
loose, brownish yellow, fine to coarse grained
S
3
20
20.0 153.0
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
150
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virqinia Beach, VA

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-02
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/1/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
173.5
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.52210119,-78.28117747
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
Z
w
ZZ
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
6
0.5 TOPSOIL: 6 inches 173.0
S-1
10
12
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, brownish
yellow, fine to medium grained, moist
5
11
9
170
S
5
7
=
_x
10
4.7 168.8.
,
Groundwater encountered at
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
5
6 feet (EL 167.5) at time of
medium dense, gray, brownish yellow, fine to
drilling and stabilized at 4.4
medium grained, moist -
feet (EL 169.1).
4
S
6
7
165
6
brownish yellow, fine to coarse grained
Z.
S
8
10
9
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
Boring cave-in at 12 feet.
160
3
loose, light gray, wet
S
3
15
5
155
S
4
20
20.0 153.5
:.
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
150
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virqinia Beach, VA

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-03
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/1/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
173.0
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.52250869,-78.28073393
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
Z
ZZ
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
0.8 TOPSOIL 172.2
.'.
S 1
3
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, brown, fine to
3
medium grained moist
_x
5
medium dense, gray, brownish yellow
S
5
170
=
S
11
Groundwater encountered at
5
1
10 feet (EL 163) at time of
drilling and stabilized at 4.2
........
feet (EL 168.8).
6
S
12
............ ................
11
165
:... . :..:..:..:..:..:..
Sample
S-5
4
ILL: 57
fine to coarse grained
S
6
PL: 21
7
PI: 36
10
M: 17.1 %
F: 18.3%
160
........
13.5 159.5
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
3
S
4
loose, gray, brownish yellow, wet
Boring cave-in at 14 feet.
15
5
pink
155
.
4
fine to medium grained
S
4
20
4
20.0 153.0
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
150
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virginia Beach, VA

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-04
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/7/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Cloudy
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
172.0
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.52303522,-78.28042931
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
Z
ZZ
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w<
m Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
2
TOPSOIL: 8 inches
0.7 171.3
-,
S-1
2
4
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, brownish yellow,
to grained,oast
1brownishdylum m
170
2
Sample
graredy,ne
yellow
S
4
5
M: 20.7%
3.5 168.5.
2
Sample
Q
SANDY FAT CLAY (CH): stiff, gray, brownish _
S
6
•
S=3
yellow, fine to medium grained, moist
Groundwater encountered at
7
M:19.2%
4 feet (EL 168.0) at time o
5
drilling and caved -in above
Sample
stabilized water level.
S4
5
LL 51
very stiff
165
S
5
11
......... ..................
PL:20
PI: 31
gray
M: 22.0%
F: 75.3 %
4
Sample
9.2 162.8
S
9
SS=S
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
9
M: 17.9%
10
medium dense, brownish yellow, fine to
coarse grained, moist
...... ....................
pink
160
t 12 feet. Boring cave-in a ee .
4
loose, wet
S
4
15
5
155
.
woh
S
3
20
6
20.0 152.0
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
150
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virqinia Beach, VA

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-05
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/1/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
173.5
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.52253002,-78.28013151
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
Z
w
ZZ
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
3
TOPSOIL: 4 inches
S-1
3
5
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, brownish yellow,
II
fine to medium grained, moist
3
medium dense
S
5
9
170
5
brownish yellow, gray
_X
S
5
5
6
1
Groundwater encountered at
10 feet (EL 163.5) at time of
S
4
6.8 166.7
drilling and stabilized at 5.3
g
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
ee ( 168 ) f t EL .2 .
medium dense, brownish yellow, gray, fine to
medium grained, moist
165
5
S
6
brownish yellow, gray, red, fine to coarse
10
7
grained
160
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:.
Boring cave-in at 13 feet.
3
loose, wet
S
4
light gray, brown
15
4
155
4
S-
4
20
4
20.0 pink 153.5
';'.'
. .
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
150
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virqinia Beach, VA

LOG OF BORING
Designation: B-06
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/7/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Cloudy
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
172.5
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.52293478,-78.27975405
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
w
H
w
10 20 30 40
V
A Qu (tsf) A
Z
ZZ
n
Q
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
1
TOPSOIL: 12 inches
S-1
2
.. .........................
1.0 171.5
CLAYEY SAND (SC): very loose, brown, fine to
?
3
Sample
medium grained, moist
170
S
4
�:
SS-2
loose, brownish yellow, red
5
M: 25.2 %
SampleS
3
3.5 169.0
SANDY FAT CLAY (CH): very stiff, brownish =
6
LL 59
_x
S
7
PL: 25
yellow, red, fine to medium grained, moist
Groundwater encountered at
10
PI: 34
4.8 167.7
4 feet (EL 168.5) at time of
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
5
M: 23.4%
drilling and stabilized at 4
F: 68.6%
medium dense, brownish yellow, fine to
feet (EL 168.5).
Sample
d
medium grained, moist
S
5
8
S=4
9
.:..:..:..:..:..:..
M:23.9%
165
3
........
Sample
S
4
S=5
M: 24.0%
10
Boring c
cave in at 11.5 feet.
160
7
fine to coarse grained, wet
S
12
15
13
155
S
5
20-6
20.0 152.5
. ;..,
Boring Terminated at 20 feet.
150
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virqinia Beach, VA

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-01
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/1/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
172.0
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.52115813,-78.28178188
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
Z
w
ZZ
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
4
0.5 TOPSOIL: 6 inches 171.5
S-1
7
9
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense, brown,
fine to medium grained, moist, (FILL)
170
13
:..:.
dense
S
16
16
_X
6
medium dense, gray, brownish yellow, red
4.3 1167.7
S
7
12
No groundwater was
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
5
medium dense, brownish yellow, fine to
encountered at time of
medium grained, moist
drilling, but stabilized at 4.2
feet (EL 167.8).
3
loose
165
S
5
.
4
..:. :..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
Boring cave-in at 8 feet.
-X
2......:..
wet
S
4
10
3
10.0 light brown 162.0
';'.'
.'.
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
160
15
155
20
150
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virqinia Beach, VA

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-02
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/1/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Sunny
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
174.0
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.5214763,-78.28074679
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
Z
w
ZZ
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
5
: : : : : : : ; ;
0.6 TOPSOIL: 7 inches
_x
S-1
2
4
t CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, brown, fine o
medium grained, moist
4
brownish yellow
S
5
4
170
4
. .
medium dense
S
5
brownish yellow, red
5
$
.........................
6.0 168.0
. '
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC : -
5
No groundwater was
S
10
medium dense, gray, brownish yellow, fine to
01
encountered at time of
9
coarse grained, moist
drilling, but stabilized at 6.3
feet (EL 167.7).
Boring cave-in at 7 feet.
165
S
7
6
10
10
10.0 164.0
. i..'
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
160
15
155
20
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
150
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virqinia Beach, VA

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-03
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/7/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Cloudy
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
174.0
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.52176923,-78.28011177
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
Z
w
ZZ
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
1
TOPSOIL: 5 inches
'' �' �`
S-1
2
2
t
CLAYEY SAND (SC): very loose, brown, fine o
medium grained moist
4
:..:.
Sample
medium dense
S
5
6
S_2
- 21 7%
brownish yellow, red
170
4
.....: .:..:..:..:..:..:.
Sample
x
S
5
S-3
1
5
7
M: 25.9 %
No groundwater was
encountered at time of
6.0 168.0
drilling, but stabilized at 4.7
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL): hard, gray, brownish
6
Sample
feet (EL 169.3).
S
13
�..:..:..:..'. '�'
S=4
grained, of some
yellow, fine to medium ra d moist,
18
M: 18.7%
SP material present
Boring cave-in at 7 feet.
165
6
...... ......:..:..:..
8.8 165.2
very stiff
5
8
11
10.0 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC): 164.0
10
medium dense, light brownish gray, fine to
medium grained, moist
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..:..
160
15
155
20
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
150
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virqinia Beach, VA

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-04
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/7/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Cloudy
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
173.0
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.52211577,-78.27929037
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
Z
w
ZZ
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
2
TOPSOIL: 12 inches
S-1
1
... .........................
1.0 172.01
' a.i'•
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, brown, fine to
4
_x
4
medium grained, moist
S
6
medium dense, brownish yellow
170
7
4
gray, brownish yellow
1
S-
6
g
No groundwater was
5
encountered at time of
drilling, but stabilized at 4.3
feet (EL 168.7).
S
6
8
gray, brownish yellow, red
Boring cave-in at 6.5 feet.
7
165
3
9.0 164.0
.
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC):
S
5
10
5
10.0 medium dense, brownish yellow, fine to 163.0
.,
:
medium grained, moist
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
160
15
155
20
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
150
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virqinia Beach, VA

LOG OF BORING
Designation: P-05
Sheet 1 of 1
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Office: [phone]
PROJECT NAME:
Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A - Retail (TO-10)
LOCATION:
Selma, NC
PROJECT NUMBER:
RD210331
DATE DRILLED:
6/7/21
DRILLING METHOD:
Hollow Stem Auger
WEATHER:
80s, Cloudy
EQUIPMENT USED:
CME 550X ATV
ELEVATION:
172.5
HAMMER TYPE:
Manual
DRILL CREW:
J&L Drillers
BORING LOCATION:
35.52244633,-78.27860506
LOGGED BY:
B.Pham
❑ N-Value ❑
Z
w
ZZ
H
n w
10 20 30 40
Q
V
A Qu (tsf) A
O
J
J
w 2
1 2 3 4
SOIL DESCRIPTION
_
REMARKS
1 Atterberg Limits I
a
Q
a
0-
m
p
w
<
Z
20 40 60 80
Q
l7
• % Moisture •
w
`^
20 40 60 80
2
TOPSOIL: 3 inches
S-1
2
3
t
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose, brown, fine o
t
medium grained, moist
5
.............
Sample
brownishyellow,
ye w, red
170
S
5
5
S=2
M: 24.1
7
.. .................
Sample
medium dense
S
10
S=3
4.5 168.0
.' :.
5
_X
12
M: 16.6%
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC): 1
medium dense, brownish yellow, fine to
No groundwater was
m
mediu g ine oist ra d m
encountered at time of
4
Sample
drilling, but stabilized at 5.0
S
8
.
SS=4
feet 16
et (EL 7.5.
8
..:........:..:..:...
M: 17.8%
Boring cave-inat 6 feet.
165
5.............................
X
S
6
10
6
10.0 162.5'.`:.'
Boring Terminated at 10 feet.
160
15
155
20
150
............................
Borehole backfilled on date
drilled unless otherwise
noted.
Consistency/Relative Density
based on correction factor
for Manual hammer.
SAMPLE TYPE N Split Spoon
N-VALUE STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (AASHTO T-206) REC RECOVERY LL: LIQUID LIMIT M: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
% MOISTURE PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RQD ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION PL: PLASTIC LIMIT F: PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
SZ GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN THE BOREHOLE AT TIME OF DRILLING UD UNDISTURBED PI: PLASTICITY INDEX
1 STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qu POCKET PENETROMETER UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL• Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NC9 Dunn, NC
Jacksonville, NC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR# Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 9 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virqinia Beach, VA

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
A brief description of the laboratory tests performed is provided in the following sections.
DESCRIPTION OF SOILS (VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURE) (ASTM D2488)
The soil samples were visually examined by our engineer and soil descriptions were
provided. Representative samples were then selected and tested in accordance with the
aforementioned laboratory -testing program to determine soil classifications and
engineering properties. This data was used to correlate our visual descriptions with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
POCKET PENETROMETER
Pocket Penetrometer tests were performed on cohesive soil samples. The pocket
penetrometer provides a consistency classification, and an indication of the soils unconfined
compressive strength (Qu).
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2276)
Natural moisture contents (M%) were determined on selected samples. The natural moisture
content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the weight of water in a given amount of
soil to the weight of solid particles.
ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4378)
The Atterberg Limits test was performed to evaluate the soil's plasticity characteristics. The soil
Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid Limit
(LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The Liquid Limit is the moisture content at which the soil will
flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The Plastic Limit is the moisture content at which the soil is
between "plastic" and the semi -solid stage. The Plasticity Index (PI = ILL - PL) is a frequently
used indicator for a soil's potential for volume change. Typically, a soil's potential for volume
change increases with higher plasticity indices.
MATERIAL FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE BY WASHING (ASTM D 7 740)
Grain -size tests were performed to determine the partial soil particle size distribution. The
amount of material finer than the openings on the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm) was determined
by washing soil over the No. 200 sieve. The results of wash #200 tests are presented on the
boring logs included in this report and in the table of laboratory test results.
Page I A-12

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the following tables.
B-01
B-03
B-04
B-04
B-04
B-04
B-06
B-06
B-06
B-06
P-03
P-03
P-03
P-05
P-05
P-05
3.5 - 5.0
8.5 - 10.0
1.5 - 3.0
3.5 - 5.0
6.0 - 7.5
8.5 - 10.0
1.5 - 3.0
3.5 - 5.0
6.0 - 7.5
8.5 - 10.0
1.5 - 3.0
3.5 - 5.0
6.0 - 7.5
1.5 -3.0
3.5 - 5.0
6.0 - 7.5
TABLE L-1: General Soil Classification Test Results
Soils with a Liquid Limit (LL) greater than 50 and Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 25 usually exhibit
s�nificant volume change with varying moisture content and are considered to be highly plastic
(' Indicates visual classification. WR indicates weathered rock.
Page j A-13

610 Spring Branch Road ATTERBERG LIMIT RESULTS
Dunn, INC 28334 ASTM D4318-17
[phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A -Retail (TO-10) PROJECT NUMBER RD210331
CLIENT AdVenture Development, LLC PROJECT LOCATION Selma, NC
60
50
40
x
w
0
z
30
Q
a
20
10
0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
SOURCE
DEPTH
LL
PL
PI
FINES DESCRIPTION
B-01
3.5
83
40
43
40
SILTY SAND(SM)
m
B-03
8.5
57
21
36
18
CLAYEY SAND(SC)
A
B-04
6
51
20
31
75
FAT CLAY with SAND(CH)
*
B-06
3.5
59
25
34
69
SANDY FAT CLAY(CH)
EST MAX SIZE
(mm)
ESTIMATED
+NO. 40%
MOISTURE %
AS RECEIVED
PREP
METHOD
+NO. 40 REMOVAL LL
METHOD TYPE
LL
EQUIPMENT
PL
EQUIPMENT
GROOVING
TOOL
4.75
50
18.9
Dry
Manual
Multipoint
Manual
Hand
Metal
m
4.75
62
17.1
Dry
Manual
Multipoint
Manual
Hand
Metal
A
2
5
22.0
Dry
Manual
Multipoint
Manual
Hand
Metal
*
2
3
23.4
Dry
Manual
Multipoint
Manual
Hand
Metal
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL* Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NCO Dunn, INC
Jacksonville, INC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR& Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 0 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virginia Beach, VA

610 Spring Branch Road GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Dunn, INC 28334 ASTM D6913-17
[phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A -Retail (TO-10) PROJECT NUMBER RD210331
CLIENT AdVenture Development, LLC PROJECT LOCATION Selma, NC
100
90
80
70
z 60
Q
50
z
w
U
w 40
a
30
20
10
0
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE (MM)
(USCS MATERIAL DESIGNATIONS)
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
Coarse Fine
oars Medium I Fine
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
SOURCE: B-01 DEPTH: 3.5 FT DESCRIPTION:
GENERAL SAMPLE AND TEST DATA
SOURCE: B-01
DEPTH: 3.5 FT SYMBOL:
TESTED BY: J.Dailly TEST METHOD: A
SPECIMEN PROCUREMENT: Oven Dried
USCS: SILTY SAND(SM)
DISPERSION: Shaking Apparatus
PRIOR TESTING:
EXCLUDED MATERIAL OR TEST PROBLEMS: None
SOURCE: B-03
DEPTH: 8.5 FT SYMBOL: m
TESTED BY: J.Dailly TEST METHOD: B
SPECIMEN PROCUREMENT: Oven Dried
USCS: CLAYEY SAND(SC)
DISPERSION: Shaking Apparatus
PRIOR TESTING:
EXCLUDED MATERIAL OR TEST PROBLEMS: None
SOURCE: B-04
DEPTH: 6.0 FT SYMBOL: A
TESTED BY: J.Dailly TEST METHOD: B
SPECIMEN PROCUREMENT: Oven Dried
USCS: FAT CLAY with SAND(CH)
DISPERSION: Shaking Apparatus
PRIOR TESTING:
EXCLUDED MATERIAL OR TEST PROBLEMS: None
Sieve
3/8"
No.4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No.60
No.140
No.200
Size (mm)
9.5
4.75
2
0.85
0.425
0.25
0.106
0.075
% Passing
100
100
98
74
50
43
40
40
SYMBOL:
D100
D60
D30
D70
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt and %Clay
LL
PL
PI
Cc
Cu
Composite Sieving: No
9.5
0.567
0.1
60.3
39.6
83
40
43
Split Sieve Size: None
SOURCE: B-03 DEPTH:8.5 FT DESCRIPTION:
Sieve
3/8"
No.4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No.60
No.140
No.200
Size (mm)
9.5
4.75
2
0.85
0.425
0.25
0.106
0.075
% Passing
100.0
91.8
77.5
49.5
37.8
24.6
19.4
18.3
SYMBOL:
D100
D60
D30
D70
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt and %Clay
LL
PL
PI
Cc
Cu
Composite Sieving: No
m
9.5
1.172
0.311
8.2
73.5
18.3
57
21
36
Split Sieve Size: None
SOURCE: B-04 DEPTH: 6.0 FT DESCRIPTION:
Sieve
No.4
No. 10
No. 20
No. 40
No.60
No.140
No.200
Size (mm)
4.75
2
0.85
0.425
0.25
0.106
0.075
% Passing
100.0
99.9
98.7
94.9
89.8
79.7
75.3
SYMBOL:
D100
D60
D30
D70
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt and %Clay
LL
PL
PI
Cc
Cu
Composite Sieving: No
A
4.75
0.0
24.7
75.3
51
20
31
Split Sieve Size: None
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL* Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NCO Dunn, INC
Jacksonville, INC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR& Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 0 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virginia Beach, VA

610 Spring Branch Road GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Dunn, INC 28334 ASTM D6913-17
[phone]
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Materials Engineers
PROJECT NAME Eastfield Crossing Development, Block A -Retail (TO-10) PROJECT NUMBER RD210331
CLIENT AdVenture Development, LLC PROJECT LOCATION Selma, NC
100
90
80
70
z 60
Q
50
z
w
U
w 40
a
30
20
10
0
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE (MM)
(USCS MATERIAL DESIGNATIONS)
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
Coarse Fine
oars Medium I Fine
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
SOURCE: B-06 DEPTH: 3.5 FT DESCRIPTION:
GENERAL SAMPLE AND TEST DATA
SOURCE: B-06
DEPTH: 3.5 FT SYMBOL:
TESTED BY: J.Dailly TEST METHOD: B
SPECIMEN PROCUREMENT: Oven Dried
USCS: SANDY FAT CLAY(CH)
DISPERSION: Shaking Apparatus
PRIOR TESTING:
EXCLUDED MATERIAL OR TEST PROBLEMS: None
Sieve
No.4
No. 10
No.20
No.40
No.60
No.140
No.200
Size (mm)
4.75
2
0.85
0.425
0.25
0.106
0.075
% Passing
100.0
99.5
98.9
96.9
90.2
72.6
68.6
SYMBOL:
D100
D60
D30
D70
%Gravel
%Sand
%Silt and %Clay
LL
PL
PI
Cc
Cu
Composite Sieving: No
4.75
0.0
31.4
68.6
59
25
34
Split Sieve Size: None
Birmingham, AL *Auburn, AL • Huntsville, AL* Montgomery, AL
Tuscaloosa, AL *Columbus, GA • Louisville, KY• Raleigh, NCO Dunn, INC
Jacksonville, INC *Springdale, AR • Little Rock, AR• Ft. Smith, AR& Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK 0 DFW Metroplex, TX• Virginia Beach, VA

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc,
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
June 17, 2021
Mr. Bangnhi Pham
Building and Earth, LLP
610 Spring Branch Road
Dunn, NC 28334
Re: Seasonal High -Water Table determination for proposed stormwater treatment/retention
areas, Eastfield Development (North of US 70A), off Absher Drive, Johnston County, North
Carolina
Dear Mr. Pham,
An evaluation of soil properties has been conducted at your request on portions of the
aforementioned property. The purpose of the investigation was to determine Seasonal High -
Water Table depths (SHWT) based on soil profiles.
Soils at the proposed basin site are most similar to the Rains (S14WT-01, SHWT-02, SHWT-03,
SHWT-05) and Goldsboro (SHWT-04) soil series (see attached boring logs). Five (5) soil
borings were advanced to 4.0 or more feet below the soil surface. Seasonal High -Water Table
(SHWT) as determined by evidence of colors of chroma 2 or less (and/or concentrations of high
redox mottles) was encountered at depths ranging from 0 to 34 inches below the existing ground
surface (see chart attached).
It should be noted that the reported SHWT does not necessarily reflect the elevation of static
groundwater at the time of testing (due to variations in groundwater recharge rates, weekly and/or
annual rainfall, drought conditions or other factors).
The data presented in this report are limited by a number of considerations. The primary
consideration is that soil formations can be highly variable. The soils found on this site can be
subject to inclusions of other soil types, perched water, artesian conditions and/or layers of
undulating low permeability clay seams. These and other soil conditions can have an effect on
the steady state of groundwater flow. To the extent possible, we have identified the soil types
that will impact the flow of groundwater, and have provided a professional opinion as to the
depth of SHWT.
Sincerely,
Mike Eaker
NC Licensed Soil Scientist 41030
��Jlp SOIL SC
t �y\4 D.
SOIUSITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAft 07ZMZSrW*6SN PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email mike@southeasternsoil_com
SHWT depths, Eastfield Development (North of US 70A), off Absher
Drive, Johnston County, NC
BORING SHWT DEPTH inches Observed Water inches
SHWT-01 34 None
SHWT-02 0 None
SHWT-03 0 None
SHWT-04 28 None
SHWT-05 0 30
Note: SHWT-01 exhibits 34" of fill and construction debris. SHWT is at the
original soil surface (34 inches below the existing ground surface).
SOIL/SITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS ^ LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER D RAI NAGEIMOUN DING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax (010) B22-4540
Email [e-mail]
Typical Soil Profile Description (SHWT-01), Eastfield Development (North of US 70A), off
Absher Drive, Johnston County, North Carolina
This area contains 34 or more inches of soil fill, building debris and rubble. The original soil
map unit consists of poorly drained soils that formed in loamy sediments on uplands. Slope is
less than 1 percent. Seasonal High -Water Table (SHWT) is at or near the original soil surface
(34 inches below the existing soil surface).
0 to 34 inches; fill, debris, rubble.
A - 34 to 40 inches; black (2.5Y 2.5/1) silty clay loam; massive structure; firm; gradual wavy
boundary.
Btgl - 40 to 48 inches; gray (2.5Y 6/1) silty clay loam; common medium prominent brownish
yellow (10YR 6/8) mottles; firm.
SHWT @ 34" below existing surface (top of original soil surface)
SOIL/SfTE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGEIMOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DFSIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
PhoneiFax [phone]
Email mike @southeasternsoil.com
Typical Soil Profile Description (SHWT-02, SHWT-03, S111WT-05), Eastfield Development
(North of US 70A), off Absher Drive, Johnston County, North Carolina
This map unit consists of poorly drained soils that formed in loamy sediments on uplands_ Slope
is less than 2 percent. Seasonal High -Water Table (SHWT) is at or near the soil surface.
A - 0 to 6 inches; black (2.5Y 2.5/1) silt loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; common
fine and medium roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
Btgl - 6 to 12 inches; gray (2.5Y 6/1) silt loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; gradual
wavy boundary.
Btg2 - 12 to 24 inebes; gray (2.5Y 6/1) silt loam; common medium prominent brownish yellow
(10 YR 6/8) mottles; massive structure; friable; gradual wavy boundary.
Btg3 - 24 to 48 inches; gray (1 OYR 5/1, 1OYR 6/1) silty clay loam to silty clay; many fine
brownish yellow (IOYR 6/8) mottles; massive structure; firm to very firm.
SHWT @ 0" (ground surface)
SOIUSITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS - LAND USE/SUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGEIMOUNDING • SURFACE/SUBSURFACE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Southeastern Soil & Environmental Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 9321
Fayetteville, NC 28311
Phone/Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
Typical Soil Profile Description (SHWT-04), Eastfield Development (North of US 70A), off
Absher Drive, Johnston County, North Carolina
This map unit consists of somewhat poorly drained soils on uplands. These soils formed
in loamy marine sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
A - 0 to 6 inches; black (1 OYR 2/1) loam; weak: medium granular structure; very friable;
many fine roots; abrupt smooth boundary
Bt - 6 to 28 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8) sandy clay loam; moderate medium
subangular blocky structure; firm; gradual diffuse boundary.
BC - 28 to 40 inches; mixed yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8) and brownish yellow (I OYR
6/8) sandy clay loam.; many medium prominent red (2.5YR 4/8) and gray (1 OYR 6/1)
mottles; firm; weak fine subangular blocky structure; gradual diffuse boundary.
C - 40 to 48 inches; mixed light yellowish (1 OYR 5/8), red (2.5YR 4/8) and gray (I OYR
6/1) sandy clay loam; massive structure.
SHWT @ 28 inches (I OYR 6/1)
SOIIJSITE EVALUATION • SOIL PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • LAND USEISUBDIVISION PLANNING • WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER DRAINAGE/MOUNDING • SURFACE/SUSSURFACF WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, EVALUATION & DESIGN

Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Geotechnical 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 civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of
a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,
prepared solely for the client. No one except you 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 the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on
a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do
not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected
elements only.
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on
a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project -specific
factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk -management
preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its
size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the
site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless
the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically
indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report that was:
• not prepared for you;
• not prepared for your project;
• not prepared for the specific site explored; or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's 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. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because
their reports do not consider developments of which they were
not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the geoteclhnical engineer performed the
study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;
man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the
site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer
before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A
minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory
data and then apply their professional judgment to render
an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ sometimes
significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining
the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to
provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most
effective method of managing the risks associated with
unanticipated conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the confirmation -dependent
recommendations included in your report. Confirmation -
dependent recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from
judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize
their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for the report's confirmation -dependent
recommendations if that engineer does notperform the
geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the
recommendations' applicability.
A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject
to Misinterpretation
Other design -team members' misinterpretation of
geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly
Page I A-14

problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical
engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's
plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret
a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by
havingyour geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and
preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical
construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratoiy
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, Only
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.
To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with
a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited;
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of
information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also
be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform
additional study. Only then might you be in a position to
give constructors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to
disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include
a variety of 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.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform
an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical 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 environmental
problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not
yet obtained your own environmental information,
ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent
significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for
the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a
comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a
professional mold -prevention consultant. Because just a small
amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies
focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater,
water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed
as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in
charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
none of the services performed in connection with the
geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for
the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the
recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold fromgrowing in or on the structure
involved.
Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
for Additional Assistance
Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of 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. Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineer for more information.
FTMWA GEOTECHNICAL
GARCIUM BUSINESS COUNCIL
of fix Geopr*,sionWBruinec Amciahon
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:[phone] Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail; [e-mail] www.geoprofessionatorg
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review_ Only members of GBA may use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Page I A-15