SW6231203_Stormwater Report_20240412

FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
GILLESPIE - B1.9 SOLAR UTILITY STATION
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
_zsgsr_
Fi1 etteville's
HI OWN UTILITY

FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
GILLESPIE - B1.9 SOLAR UTILITY STATION
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
��i
;:off of ion .;
L
056748 = Booth & Associates, LLC
F Q- Consulting Engineers
•��9 ,Q G NEB Q.�`�� 2300 Rexwoods Drive, Suite 300
'�i,,q����R„'HP.�.` Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Firm License No.: F-0221
D-{-/12/2024
© OCTOBER 2023

FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
GILLESPIE - B1.9 SOLAR UTILITY STATION
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No. Title Page No.
1.0 Project Description 1
2.0 Existing Site Conditions 1
3.0 Design Approach 2
4.0 Site Drainage Features 2
Exhibit No. Exhibit Description
1.0 Copy of Stormwater Management Permit Application Form
2.0 USGS Quadrangle Map
3.0 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report
4.0 Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering
Evaluation
5.0 USDA NRCS Web Soil Report
6.0 General Warranty Deed
7.0 Plat
Project Drawings and Applications Attached to this Report
Booth a Associates
P.0574167.E.TE.8121
©October 2023 TOC-1

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Fayetteville Public Works Commission(PWC)is constructing Gillespie—B 1.9 Solar Utility
Station to meet the growing electrical needs of the surrounding community.The subject property
is located on Gillespie Street, approximately 0.4 miles north of the Elk Road and US Highway
301 intersection in Cumberland County. A copy of the Stormwater Management Permit
Application Form is in Exhibit 1.0 of this plan and a copy of the deed has been provided in
Exhibit 6.0.
Soil disturbing activities will include: obstruction clearing, erosion and sediment control
installation; gravel road and construction entrance installation; grading; and solar panel and
equipment installation; and final stabilization.
Please see the USGS Quadrangle Map and Site Improvement Plans drawings for more
information.
2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
• The site consists of woods with wetlands along the western side of the site,and a gravel road that
runs along the eastern border. Residential lots on the north, west and southwest borders of the
site,Gillespie Street to the southeast and an empty lot with an existing sediment basin to the east.
• The USDA Web Soil Report consists of Blaney loamy sand(BaB),2 to 8 percent slopes,Candor
sand(CaD), 8 to 15 percent slopes,Lakeland sand(LaB), 1 to 8 percent slopes,Lakeland-Urban
land complex(LbB), 1 to 8 percent slopes,water(w),and Wgram-Urban land complex(WgB),0
to 8 percent slopes. Blaney consists of well-drained soil, Candor consists of somewhat
excessively drained soil, Lakeland consists of excessively drained soil, and Wagram-Urban
consists of well-drained soil. Please see the USDA NRCS Custom Soil Resource Report in
Appendix 4.0 for soil information.
• The HUC code is 030300040610 for Little Rockfish Creek.
• The FEMA FIRM panel 3720042400J,effective 01/05/2007,identifies the site as zone X with an
area of minimal flood hazard.
P.0574167.E.TE.8121
©October 2023 -1- Booth&Associates

3.0 DESIGN APPROACH
The proposed project is designed as a low-density project with a BUA not exceeding 24%
impervious area. The solar panels will be installed in a manner to maintain a uniform slope and
grading will be implemented as needed to maintain slopes less than 8%to maintain sheetflow as
shown on sheet CG 102 and sheet CG202 of the accompanying drawing set.Natural infiltration
will be promoted throughout the site by maintaining 14 ft disconnection between the 12 ft wide
panels as shown on sheet CG20 1 of the drawing set and by providing permanent seeding
consisting of a mixture of warm and cool season grasses as stated in the permanent seeding
requirements on sheet CG501. The vertical clearance of the panels will be less than 10 feet to
prevent erosion at the panel driplines as shown in the detail on sheet CG503.
As construction is ending and permanent vegetation is being established,a 30'strip of land from
the east side of the new impervious area shall be maintained to serve as a disconnected
impervious vegetated area. This area is to be well vegetated with white clover and bahiagrass
and is to be uncompacted to promote infiltration. This area is highlighted in yellow in the image
below,which is taken from Sheet CG202 of the Site Improvement Plans drawing set. Permanent
seeding notes are provided on Sheet CG501 of the drawing set.
i
CIS
PROPOSED SOLAR I
f• ',_ - R- 86.5'� i ARRAY PROJECT
� • \ , I k.
> " • AREA • 12.23 ACRES
a (INSIDE FENCE)
\ 4 •.
a
0
i\ • \. � `Y PROPOSED ACCESS
^� \ 1 I \ � 1 j I 1�r.��.. DRIVE -
r a
wan_ — -
5e11 � •
\Ta\i. - - k�. PR(
• V 0 •, n ate' I ° ..."r t\ ELE
• 'ss b II i� x t OF
kL, . .\\ V T �`" �"k fat t. re, -
t; : l�' —Ld ,yv� / PROPOSED
�., \ }. �; APR
__ ==nms ,' -- ENTRAN
n0
• *.- ' v '4 \ \ 1 1 ktiiikV- ''' • 0 /7'.
o•7I VI \ 1�1zimt1\Tlt
® pl Q V V Till •
_Aiiiiaiagiali 4.,
'I' ,' , 1 I-51\`int--i .y
•
!- I-p 1 MUM __. r,
� �IIMMOB► .
1 P •d 1 I.1 «WagklaIL R . 80
7 I "=�s.�w ►ice==i .c= - -- -. • ..,
/ 7 TW-%baCNIEgiiiirlit.ipit4'"'- r ivt
f .
At
moo'.;I ��iiG� v,;
•
v ..: A„7.. --- mter- ..,-, , 44 /
7;___;____,-----5-____"=__ "..-,... w'... . \ , ' : \I"Iikr:` ,.. 30 0
1. • p +► 50' WETLAND AND //
v ; STREAM BUFFER ,0'
P.0574167.E.TE.8121
©October 2023 -2- Booth&Associates

4.0 SITE DRAINAGE FEATURES
Existing Drainage
The site drains to the west towards the pond and streams in the west part of the property. See the
pre-construction drainage area map on Sheet CG 101 of the Site Improvement Plans drawings for
information concerning existing drainage.
Design Drainage
After construction the site will drain to the west similarly to pre-construction. See the post-
construction drainage area map on Sheet CG300 of the Site Improvement Plans drawings for
information concerning design drainage.
P.0574167.E.TE.8121
©October 2023 -3- Booth&Associates

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT NO. 1.0
COPY OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION FORM

DEMLR USE ONLY
Date Received Fee Paid Permit Number
Applicable Rules: E Coastal SW-1995 E Coastal SW-2008 ❑Ph II-Post Construction
(select all that apply) E Non-Coastal SW-HQW/ORW Waters E Universal Stormwater Management Plan
E Other WQ Mgmt Plan:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
This form may be photocopied for use as an original
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Project Name(subdivision,facility,or establishment name-should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications,letters,operation and maintenance agreements,etc.):
Gillespie-B1.9 Solar Utility Station
2. Location of Project(street address):
3858 Gillespie Street
City:Fayetteville County:Cumberland Zip:28306
3. Directions to project(from nearest major intersection):
The proposed project site is located on the west side of Gillespie Street,approximately 0.43 miles north of the
intersection of Elk Rd (NC 162)and Gillespie St(SR 1242)in Fayetteville,North Carolina.Access to the site
will be from Gillespie Street(34.9753°,-78.9109°).The access road will cross an existing right-of-way(ROW)
along the west side of Gillespie Street.
4. Latitude:34°58'31" N Longitude:78°54'39"W of the main entrance to the project.
II. PERMIT INFORMATION:
1.a.Specify whether project is (check one): New ['Modification ❑ Renewal w/ Modificationt
tRenewals with modifications also requires SWU-102-Renewal Application Form
b.If this application is being submitted as the result of a modification to an existing permit,list the existing
permit number ,its issue date (if known) ,and the status of
construction: ['Not Started ['Partially Completed* ❑ Completed* *provide a designer's certification
2. Specify the type of project(check one):
®Low Density ['High Density ['Drains to an Offsite Stormwater System ❑Other
3. If this application is being submitted as the result of a previously returned application or a letter from
DEMLR requesting a state stormwater management permit application,list the stormwater project number,
if assigned, and the previous name of the project,if different than currently
proposed,
4.a.Additional Project Requirements(check applicable blanks;information on required state permits can be
obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748):
❑LAMA Major ®Sedimentation/Erosion Control:17.1 ac of Disturbed Area
❑NPDES Industrial Stormwater 111404/401 Permit:Proposed Impacts
b.If any of these permits have already been acquired please provide the Project Name,Project/Permit Number,
issue date and the type of each permit:
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31,2013 Page 1 of 6

5. Is the project located within 5 miles of a public airport? No ®Yes
If yes,see S.L. 2012-200,Part VI:http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/lr/rules-and-regulations
III. CONTACT INFORMATION
1.a.Print Applicant/ Signing Official's name and title(specifically the developer,property owner,lessee,
designated government official,individual,etc.who owns the project):
Applicant/Organization:Fayetteville Public Works Commission
Signing Official&Title:David Deschamps,Electric Engineering Manager
b.Contact information for person listed in item la above:
Street Address:955 Old Wilmington Rd
City:Fayetteville State:NC Zip:28301
Mailing Address (if applicable):P.O.Box 1089
City:Fayetteville State:NC Zip:28302
Phone: (910 ) 263-1453 Fax: ( )
Email:[e-mail]
c.Please check the appropriate box.The applicant listed above is:
®The property owner(Skip to Contact Information,item 3a)
n Lessee*(Attach a copy of the lease agreement and complete Contact Information,item 2a and 2b below)
n Purchaser*(Attach a copy of the pending sales agreement and complete Contact Information,item 2a and
2b below)
❑ Developer* (Complete Contact Information,item 2a and 2b below.)
2.a.Print Property Owner's name and title below,if you are the lessee,purchaser or developer. (This is the
person who owns the property that the project is located on):
Property Owner/Organization:
Signing Official&Title:
b.Contact information for person listed in item 2a above:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip:
Mailing Address (if applicable):
City: State: Zip:
Phone: ( ) Fax: f )
Email:
3.a. (Optional)Print the name and title of another contact such as the project's construction supervisor or other
person who can answer questions about the project:
Other Contact Person/Organization:Booth&Associates,LLC
Signing Official&Title:Laura Harris,P.E.,Project Engineer III-Team Lead
b.Contact information for person listed in item 3a above:
Mailing Address:2300 Rexwoods Drive,Suite 300
City:Raleigh State:NC Zip:27607
Phone: (919 ) 851-8770 x 179 Fax: f919 ) 859-5918
Email:[e-mail]
4. Local jurisdiction for building permits: Cumberland County
Point of Contact:Rawls Howard Phone#: (910 ) 678-7600
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31,2013 Page 2 of 7

IV. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below,briefly summarize how the stormwater runoff will be treated.
The project in question is a solar utility station and will be a low density project with impervious BUA not
exceeding 24% impervious area. Stormwater is to be treated by disconnection between rows of
solar panels in slopes less than 8%. Compaction of subsoils will be avoided for proper water infiltration and
sheet flow will be maintained throughout.All panels will not exceed a 10'vertical clearance to prevent
erosion at driplines. Permanent grasses for treatment are bahiagrass and white clover mechanically
maintained thru mowing. During site construction,two temporary skimmer basins,one temporary sediment
basin,and silt fence will be used to treat runoff.
2.a.If claiming vested rights,identify the supporting documents provided and the date they were approved:
n Approval of a Site Specific Development Plan or PUD Approval Date:
n Valid Building Permit Issued Date:
❑ Other: Date:
b.If claiming vested rights,identify the regulation(s)the project has been designed in accordance with:
n Coastal SW-1995 n Ph II-Post Construction
3. Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the Cape Fear River basin.
4. Total Property Area:43.75 acres 5. Total Coastal Wetlands Area: 0 acres
6. Total Surface Water Area:3.09 acres
7. Total Property Area(4)-Total Coastal Wetlands Area (5)-Total Surface Water Area(6) =Total Project
Area+:40.66 acres
+ Total project area shall be calculated to exclude the following: the normal pool of impounded structures, the area
between the banks of streams and rivers, the area below the Normal High Water(NHVV)line or Mean High Water
(MHVV) line,and coastal wetlands landward from the NHW(or MHw) line. The resultant project area is used to
calculate overall percent built upon area (BUA). Non-coastal wetlands landward of the NHW(or MHVV) line may
be included in the total project area.
8. Project percent of impervious area: (Total Impervious Area/ Total Project Area)X 100 =8.5
9. How many drainage areas does the project have?1 (For high density, count 1 for each proposed engineered
stormwater BMP. For low density and other projects, use 1 for the whole property area)
10. Complete the following information for each drainage area identified in Project Information item 9. If there
are more than four drainage areas in the project,attach an additional sheet with the information for each area
provided in the same format as below.
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31,2013 Page 3 of 7

Basin Information Drainage Area 1 Drainage Area_ Drainage Area_ Drainage Area
Receiving Stream Name Little Rockfish
Stream Class * C
Stream Index Number* 18-31-24-(7)
Total Drainage Area (sf) 1,771,150
On-site Drainage Area(sf) 1,771,150
Off-site Drainage Area(sf)
Proposed Impervious Area**(sf) 149,947
% Impervious Area**(total) 8.5%
Impervious**Surface Area Drainage Area 1 Drainage Area_ Drainage Area_ Drainage Area
On-site Buildings/Lots (sf) -
On-site Streets (sf) 31,831
On-site Parking (sf) 73,461
On-site Sidewalks (sf) -
Other on-site (sf) 16,946
Future(sf) -
Off-site (sf) -
Existing BUA***(sf) 27,709
Total (sf): 149,947 _
* Stream Class and Index Number can be determined at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
** Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings,roads,parking areas,
sidewalks,gravel areas,etc.
***Report only that amount of existing BUA that will remain after development. Do not report any existing BUA that
is to be removed and which will be replaced by new BUA.
11. How was the off-site impervious area listed above determined?Provide documentation.Areas determined
using AutoCAD measurements of design elements.
Protects in Union County: Contact DEMLR Central Office staff to check if the project is located within a Threatened&
Endangered Species watershed that may be subject to more stringent stormwater requirements as per 15A NCAC 02B.0600.
V. SUPPLEMENT AND O&M FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement and operation and maintenance(O&M)forms
must be submitted for each BMP specified for this project. The latest versions of the forms can be downloaded
from http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/bmp-manual.
VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Energy,Mineral and
Land Resources(DEMLR). A complete package includes all of the items listed below. A detailed application
instruction sheet and BMP checklists are available from
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms_docs. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate DEMLR Office. (The appropriate office may be found by locating project on the
interactive online map at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/maps.)
Please indicate that the following required information have been provided by initialing in the space provided
for each item.All original documents MUST be signed and initialed in blue ink. Download the latest versions
for each submitted application package from http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms_docs.
Initials
1. Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form.
2. Original and one copy of the signed and notarized Deed Restrictions&Protective Covenants
Form. (if required as per Part VII below)
3. Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) (sealed,signed and dated) and O&M
agreement(s)for each BMP.
4. Permit application processing fee of$505 payable to NCDENR. (For an Express review,refer to
http://www.envhelp.org/pages/onestopexpress.html for information on the Express program
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31,2013 Page 4 of 7

and the associated fees. Contact the appropriate regional office Express Permit Coordinator for
additional information and to schedule the required application meeting.)
5. A detailed narrative(one to two pages) describing the stormwater treatment/management for
6. A USGS map identifying the site location. If the receiving stream is reported as class SA or the
receiving stream drains to class SA waters within/mile of the site boundary,include the 1/2
mile radius on the map.
7. Sealed,signed and dated calculations(one copy).
8. Two sets of plans folded to 8.5" x 14" (sealed,signed,&dated),including:
a. Development/Project name.
b. Engineer and firm.
c. Location map with named streets and NCSR numbers.
d. Legend.
e. North arrow.
f. Scale.
g. Revision number and dates.
h. Identify all surface waters on the plans by delineating the normal pool elevation of
impounded structures,the banks of streams and rivers,the MHW or NHW line of tidal
waters,and any coastal wetlands landward of the MHW or NHW lines.
• Delineate the vegetated buffer landward from the normal pool elevation of impounded
structures,the banks of streams or rivers,and the MHW(or NHW)of tidal waters.
i. Dimensioned property/project boundary with bearings&distances.
j. Site Layout with all BUA identified and dimensioned.
k. Existing contours,proposed contours,spot elevations,finished floor elevations.
1. Details of roads,drainage features,collection systems,and stormwater control measures.
m.Wetlands delineated,or a note on the plans that none exist. (Must be delineated by a
qualified person. Provide documentation of qualifications and identify the person who
made the determination on the plans.
n. Existing drainage(including off-site),drainage easements,pipe sizes,runoff calculations.
o. Drainage areas delineated (included in the main set of plans,not as a separate document).
p. Vegetated buffers (where required).
9. Copy of any applicable soils report with the associated SHWT elevations(Please identify
elevations in addition to depths)as well as a map of the boring locations with the existing
elevations and boring logs. Include an 8.5"x11"copy of the NRCS County Soils map with the
project area clearly delineated. For projects with infiltration BMPs,the report should also
include the soil type,expected infiltration rate,and the method of determining the infiltration rate.
(Infiltration Devices submitted to WiRO:Schedule a site visit for DEMLR to verify the SHWT prior
to submittal, [phone].)
10. A copy of the most current property deed.Deed book: 10301 Page No:870
11. For corporations and limited liability corporations(LLC):Provide documentation from the NC
Secretary of State or other official documentation,which supports the titles and positions held
by the persons listed in Contact Information,item la,2a,and/or 3a per 15A NCAC 2H.1003(e).
The corporation or LLC must be listed as an active corporation in good standing with the NC
Secretary of State,otherwise the application will be returned.
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/Corporations/CSearch.aspx
VII. DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
For all subdivisions,outparcels,and future development,the appropriate property restrictions and protective
covenants are required to be recorded prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly or the proposed
BUA allocations vary,a table listing each lot number,lot size,and the allowable built-upon area must be
provided as an attachment to the completed and notarized deed restriction form. The appropriate deed
restrictions and protective covenants forms can be downloaded from http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/lr/state-
stormwater-forms docs.Download the latest versions for each submittal.
In the instances where the applicant is different than the property owner,it is the responsibility of the property
owner to sign the deed restrictions and protective covenants form while the applicant is responsible for ensuring
that the deed restrictions are recorded.
By the notarized signature(s)below,the permit holder(s) certify that the recorded property restrictions and
protective covenants for this project,if required,shall include all the items required in the permit and listed
on the forms available on the website,that the covenants will be binding on all parties and persons claiming
under them,that they will run with the land,that the required covenants cannot be changed or deleted
without concurrence from the NC DEMLR,and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31,2013 Page 5 of 7

VIII. CONSULTANT INFORMATION AND AUTHORIZATION
Applicant: Complete this section if you wish to designate authority to another individual and/or firm(such as a
consulting engineer and/or firm) so that they may provide information on your behalf for this project(such as
addressing requests for additional information).
Consulting Engineer:Laura Harris,P.E.
Consulting Firm:Booth&Associates,LLC
Mailing Address:2300 Rexwoods Drive,Suite 300
City:Raleigh State:NC Zip:27607
Phone: (919 ) 851-8770x179 Fax: (919 ) 859-5918
Email:[e-mail]
IX. PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION (if Contact Information, item 2 has been filled out, complete this
section)
I, (print or type name of person listed in Contact Information, item 2a) ,certify that I
own the property identified in this permit application,and thus give permission to (print or type name of person
listed in Contact Information, item 1a) with(print or type name of organization listed in
Contact Information, item la) to develop the project as currently proposed. A copy of
the lease agreement or pending property sales contract has been provided with the submittal,which indicates the
party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system.
As the legal property owner I acknowledge,understand,and agree by my signature below,that if my designated
agent(entity listed in Contact Information,item 1)dissolves their company and/or cancels or defaults on their
lease agreement,or pending sale,responsibility for compliance with the DEMLR Stormwater permit reverts back
to me,the property owner. As the property owner,it is my responsibility to notify DEMLR immediately and
submit a completed Name/Ownership Change Form within 30 days;otherwise I will be operating a stormwater
treatment facility without a valid permit. I understand that the operation of a stormwater treatment facility
without a valid permit is a violation of NC General Statue 143-215.1 and may result in appropriate enforcement
action including the assessment of civil penalties of up to$25,000 per day,pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6.
Signature: Date:
I, ,a Notary Public for the State of ,County of
,do hereby certify that personally appeared
before me this day of ,and acknowledge the due execution of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal,
SEAL
My commission expires
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31,2013 Page 6 of 7

X. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
I,(print or type name of person listed in Contact Information,item la)David Deschamps
certify that the information included on this permit application form is,to the best of my knowledge,correct and
that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans,that the required deed restrictions
and protective covenants will be recorded,and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of the
applicable stormwate s under 15 NCAC 2H.1000 and any other applicable state stormwater requirements.
Signature: Date: 2( aS 'Aa Ty
I, nn£�7/1a. (flat✓/ L3ei/.S ,a Notary Public for the State of )104k.Ca✓t/A i4& ,County of
l�u t'+'t b a I'tn vl.cl ,do herebycertifythat
L�,��cv( �5C'ita wt'OS personally appeared
before me this% d y of �*tvh 13 t'( , A0A3,and acknowledge the dueee execution of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal, �,rtpf..k) 1LUL Ga r
�P ........O(�,C/i�' SEAL
: gyp•• s ;.
txOTAgy�
n i U =
:: ' PU g 1.\G ' '�� My commission expires /O1fr//d0d1
ivy/ I N+DI C°\\\\
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31,2013 Page 7 of 7

EXHIBIT NO. 2.0
USGS QUADRANGLE MAP

... Aieji - - //
..._ 4./ --/ A., * .i,l/ --,- -,.." tipii. /It* 11-- 4PP -
a\
- ity
Hf/ ;A11115117------195‘111 ° 1
DELBERG Ter.---.4, � / 1 \+mftm
0
----Nr.c. .)," .....,
3
�� � �� '' � So/7
y ;�f�oR 1 �.
��c> 11°-. it 4,41, ,, EROy �� /4�
il 'ir 0
.2 ,÷ \Or
,I.vp C4414_ 1
r
e tra ST 4. , Z,, Or
O/
- �Oak._
200 ' I�p� Gy 1 ofrfr *o ) air
1. CJ o O ��a1` h //// »S 'Pip `\c
1 i ! ►e.
to F�� 3 ��IISIa)�' P�MA �4 �/ s *73V
lh• � . , ^ ICR�Q yQ / O oo tikillit.-p _;, Lake I
J1'. , r- . �� )1:d'sik kop %ir, 4,_ .
.\_,
- re-04
n GILLESPIE B.19 SOLAR LOCATION 0
,3
4 , - • / a e-e° 1.1 t
4,,,,,R4, ,.>. -\,, , -,..7), ,,, et ,Airs1 /Aro ,c, k ;.,%!;.?.:14,‘, # c--.)
I* 'ai ksz,„ 0 PL sO VIA ' ,,,T4'4,7-40161,-)--A pbar-fifi. Ni Ak VA 6
Pt. l.b_gv--- P. 102 1 it *itell:%18 ( 17 .:440
Air
_vmp� . Are (i ,,- R\ Nt y „a; I ' Rockfis _ �_ �����
zz:./,_ \..."..;,...:00. 1 a R,/ ,Q4� / Memorial-Park p'S d 7t,I�/
‘..7 .40C
0..,:\;,;',ThIlt.. .,,:-/te, , lietaco
__,)
, -____\_,_,N) C:: .V."A 7 d
-/-'...\.........._ -1, C;Ott 0 loon _____,,, ,41/4,< - (
(-=-4-;\ --1 - 31 trfri
c IVY Bus
Q �ZJ►
/ sip 0 954 0 p OSIIIIII
AIR
sr,....\....mce/j r Ardulusa 0 I 4i. j 400 ' \),,o" 'b
v'� _ 100 r 1�`:
%ELM%g\
.,• a v 417: Th . %
% i,4r17
5k.\ /_ ' TOMSTARLING,RO %_ .R - �, Q
ORR A , i
o
SITE LOCATION PWC FAYETTEVILLE
3858 GILLESPIE STREET FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28306 GILLESPIE B.19 SOLAR UTILITY STATION
COORDINATES: USGS QUADRANGLE MAP
34°58'28.86"N
78°54'44.98"W 'P� ��tia�so.. .
DWN. WTD DATE: 05/05/2023
CKD. AAI APPD. AAI DWG. NO.
SCALE: 1"=1500' FILE: 12548VM
JOB NOP0574167 DATE REVISION USGS-1
©05/2023

EXHIBIT NO. 3.0
WATERS OF THE U.S. DELINEATION REPORT

WATERS OF THE U.S. DELINEATION REPORT
c it
e \ y
GILLESPIE STREET SOLAR PROJECT
3858 GILLESPIE STREET
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28306
ECS PROJECT NO. 49:20775
FOR: BOOTH & ASSOCIATES, LLC
AUGUST 21 , 2023

ffS
ECS Southeast, LLP "One Firm. One Mission."
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities
August 21, 2023
Mr.James Turley
Booth &Associates, LLC
2300 Rexwoods Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27612
ECS Project No. 49:20775
Reference: Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report, Gillespie Street Solar Project, 3858 Gillespie
Street, Fayetteville, Cumberland County North Carolina
Dear Mr.Turley:
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) is pleased submit this report of the Waters of the U.S. (WOUS) services
for the above-referenced site. ECS services were provided in general accordance with ECS Proposal
No. 49:38031P authorized on July 14, 2023 and generally meets the requirements of the 1987 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region, Version
2.0 dated November 2010. Based on our field reconnaissance, potentially jurisdictional WOUS are
present onsite.
If there are questions regarding this report, or a need for further information, please contact the
undersigned.
ECS Southeast, LLP
mo.14.,Atfrir
Zach Windham Paul M. Stephens IV, P.E., PWS
Assistant Staff Project Manager Associate Principal
[e-mail] [e-mail]
846-987-1610 843-654-4448

August 21, 2023
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of a Waters of the U.S. Delineation study conducted by ECS
Southeast, LLP (ECS) for Booth &Associates, LLC at the Gillespie Street Solar Project located at 3858
Gillespie Street, Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.The project study area (PSA)
consists of one parcel totaling approximately 43.60 acres. According to the Cumberland County
Geographic Information System (GIS)website, the Parcel Identification Number(PIN) is 0424-66-0123
(43.60 acres). The site includes approximately 43.60 acres, as shown on the Site Location Map
(Appendix I, Figure 1).The PSA currently consists of a grassy vacant lot and wooded land.The purpose
of this study was to identify and delineate jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (WOUS)within the project
study area (PSA).
Wetlands are defined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances,
do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In order
for an area to be classified as wetland, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology
indicators must be present described in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual"
and the Appropriate Regional Supplement.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The findings of the WOUS delineation is based on ECS' professional judgment and application of
the technical criteria presented in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain
Region,Version 2.0 dated November 2010.
ECS completed the following tasks to identify and delineate potentially jurisdictional WOUS
boundaries onsite:
2.1 Literature Review
ECS reviewed supporting information from publicly-available databases to identify possible ecological
effects the project may have on potential state- and/or federally-jurisdictional water resources.
During the desktop review, ECS documented relevant, site-specific details (e.g., topographic
characteristics, soil composition, recent precipitation, level of disturbance, plant community
structure, etc.)and integrated the obtained information with the onsite delineation effort.
2.2 Methodology for Field Investigation
Wetland boundaries were delineated using the routine onsite determination method described in
the USACE Manual and Regional Supplement, in conjunction with the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain
2020 Regional Wetland Plant List and the USDA Soil Survey.
ECS Project#49:20775
Page 1 ff

August 21, 2023
ECS performed onsite wetland delineations as described above. First, site hydrology was observed
and the plant community within the data plot was characterized. The dominant plant species within
each community were then identified, and it was determined whether or not hydrophytic (wetland)
plants dominated the plant community. The USFWS has defined five wetland plant indicator
categories including:
• Obligate wetland (OBL)- has>99% probability of occurring in wetlands
• Facultative wetland (FACW)- has 66%to 99% chance of occurring in wetlands
• Facultative (FAC)- has 33%to 66% chance of occurring in wetlands
• Facultative upland (FACU)- has 1 to 33% chance of occurring in wetlands
• Upland (UPL)- has <1% chance of occurring in wetlands
• No Indicator(NI) - no wetland indicator for the specified species, considered UPL
Plants identified as OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered wetland plants(or hydrophytes) by USACE.
In areas determined to have hydrophytic vegetation and potential wetland hydrology, an
approximately 16-24 inch hand auger soil boring or shovel test pit was completed to determine if
hydric soils were present. The soil boring was also inspected to determine if indicators of wetland
hydrology(inundation, soil saturation, etc.)were present.
Once an area is determined to be a wetland, further testing was performed to locate the wetland/
upland (non-wetland) boundary. A second soil data point was completed in the upland area to
document non-wetland conditions. Wetland boundaries were marked with consecutively numbered
surveyor's ribbon flags.
Data forms specified in the Regional Supplement were completed for each wetland and non-wetland
soil data point location. The data forms recorded the vegetation, soils, and hydrology observations
used in making the wetland determinations.
2.3 Methodology for Delineating Streams
During the field investigation for wetlands, ECS identified potential streams onsite that could be
considered jurisdictional by state and federal regulatory agencies. ECS used field indicators such as
flow,substrate composition, presence/absence of defined bed and banks, origin of hydrologic source,
presence/absence of vegetation in the stream channel, and composition and relative abundance of
resident benthic macroinvertebrates to classify onsite streams into three stream types: ephemeral,
intermittent, and perennial.
RGL No. 05-05 provides guidance on identifying physical indicators of Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) as defined in 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1) and discusses implementation of
other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas to establish the
lateral limits of jurisdiction over tidal and non-tidal waters. Per RGL No. 05-05, "the lateral limits of
jurisdiction over non-tidal water bodies extend to the [OHWM], in the absence of adjacent wetlands.
When adjacent wetlands are present, CWAjurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to the limits of the
adjacent wetlands".
ECS Project#49:20775
Page 2 ff

August 21, 2023
3.0 FINDINGS
3.1 Literature Review
ECS professionals reviewed the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)Topographic Map, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service(USDA-NRCS)Web Soil Survey,the Soil Data Access
(SDA) Hydric Soils List, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain Mapping
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper,
and available aerial photographs to identify potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (i.e., streams,
wetlands, natural ponds, lakes) and available watershed information.
3.1.1 Literature Review Summary
The following is a summary of the available desktop information that was reviewed as part of this
study:
• According to the Hope Mills (North Carolina) USGS Topographic Map Quadrangle dated
1987 (Appendix I, Figure 2) depicts ponds and unnamed tributary to Rockfish Creek
within the PSA.The PSA ranges from approximately 125 to 185 feet above mean sea level
(MSL).
• According to the USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey(Appendix I, Figure 3), the PSA consists of the
following soil map units: BaB - Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes; CaD - Candor sand,
8 to 15 percent slopes; LaB - Lakeland sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes; LbB - Lakeland-Urban
land complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes; W - Water; and WgB - Wagram-Urban land complex, 0
to 8 percent slopes. The aforementioned soils are not listed on the SDA Hydric Soils List for
Cumberland County, North Carolina.A pond is depicted on the southern portion of the PSA.
• The USFWS NWI map (Appendix I, Figure 4) depicts wetlands within the PSA. The NWI
Classifications indicates the following: R4SBC- intermittent riverine feature with a streambed
that is seasonally flooded; RSUBH, - unknown perennial riverine feature with an
unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded; PEM1 Fh - emergent palustrine feature
that is persistent, semi-permanently flooded, and diked/impounded; and PUBHh - palustrine
feature with an unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded and diked/
impounded.The site is located within the Upper Cape Fear watershed and is identified as
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030004.
• The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), Panel 3720042400J, dated January 5,
2007 (Appendix I, Figure 5) indicates the PSA is located in unshaded Zone X. These areas are
determined to be outside the 0.2%Annual Chance Floodplain.
• ECS reviewed the NOAA LiDAR Elevation Data of the site (Appendix I, Figure 6). The on-site
elevations range from approximately 122 feet above MSL to approximately 196 feet above
MSL.
ECS Project#49:20775
Page 3 ff

August 21, 2023
3.2 Field Investigation Findings
ECS personnel conducted the field investigation on August 10, 2023. The last precipitation event prior
to the site reconnaissance was on August 8, 2023 and approximately 0.25 inches of precipitation was
recorded.
During the reconnaissance, ECS observed the PSA for evidence of WOUS, including ponds, streams,
and wetlands. Potential streams and ponds were marked with blue flagging tape and potential
wetland areas were marked with pink flagging tape. Potential features were located using a Trimble
GeoX hand-held GPS unit capable of sub-foot accuracy. ECS identified five potentially jurisdictional
areas summarized in the table below:
Table 1: Potential WOUS Summary Table
Approximate Linear Feet(if
Feature ID Approximate Acreage applicable)
Stream S1 0.18 acre 1,072 LF
Wetland W1 0.17 acre N/A
Wetland W2 0.54 acre N/A
Wetland W3 0.37 acre N/A
Pond P1 1.83 acres N/A
3.2.1 Wetland Summary
ECS observed three potentially jurisdictional wetlands areas(W1-W3)within the PSA.Wetland W1 was
observed on the northern portion of the PSA, abutting Stream S1. Wetland W2 was observed on the
central-western portion of the PSA, abutting Stream S1 and Pond P1. Wetland W3 was observed on
the southwestern portion of the PSA and was observed abutting Stream S1. The wetland
areas exhibited wetland indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils
during the site reconnaissance. The wetland areas are depicted on the Waters of the U.S. Delineation
Map (Appendix I, Figure 7). Photographs of the wetlands are presented in Appendix II.
3.2.2 Stream Summary
ECS observed one potentially jurisdictional stream (S1)within the PSA. Stream S1 was observed
transecting the western portion of the PSA, flowing north to south. The stream had well defined bed
and banks, assorted substrate, an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), and standing and/or flowing
water was noted during the site reconnaissance.The stream varied from approximately two to twenty
feet in width and varied from approximately less than a foot to four feet in depth. The stream is
depicted on the Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map(Appendix I, Figure 7). Photographs of the stream
is presented in Appendix II.
ECS Project#49:20775
Page 4 ff

August 21, 2023
4.0 REGULATORY DISCUSSION
After review of the findings in this report and at the client's request, ECS can coordinate with the
USACE and the NCDWR to conduct a jurisdictional determination and field visit, if necessary. The
timeline of this process is dependent on the availability of the regulatory agency. ECS recommends
receipt of the formal jurisdictional determination letter from the necessary agencies prior to
conducting any land-disturbance activities.
The USACE can issue an individual permit or a general permit to authorize activities in WoUS. There
are two types of general permits - nationwide permits and regional general permits. If any potential
impacts are proposed, we can assist you with permitting options and support to complete the
process.
As part of the permitting process, we will conduct a preliminary review of state and federal agency
records pertaining to Section 7 (Federal Endangered Species Act) and Section 106 (National Historic
Preservation Act). If deemed necessary, we can assist you with targeted species surveys or cultural
investigations to satisfy the requirements of the Nationwide Permit (NWP), Individual Permit (IP), or
General Permit conditions.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredge and fill materials into waters of
the United States (lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, etc.), including wetlands. Waters of the United States
include territorial seas, navigable coastal and inland lakes, rivers, perennial streams, intermittent
streams, and wetlands. The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly administer the Section
404 program. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act grants each state the authority to approve,
condition, or deny any Federal permits that could result in a discharge to State waters. Mitigation
and stormwater management plans will be a condition of permits issued for the Site. Buffers may be
required adjacent to streams and water bodies.
In North Carolina, compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required
for all wetland losses that exceed 1/10 (0.1)acre and for stream bed losses of 2/100 (0.02)acre.
The USACE, however, will typically require mitigation at a 2:1 ratio. Mechanisms for providing
compensatory mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act include mitigation banks, in-lieu
fee programs, and permittee-responsible mitigation.
• Mitigation Banks: sites, or a suite of sites, where resources (e.g., wetlands, streams, riparian
areas) are restored, established, enhanced, and/or preserved for the purpose of providing
compensatory mitigation for impacts authorized under USACE permits. In general, a
mitigation bank sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to
provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the mitigation bank sponsor. Means
of establishing the required number of mitigation credits to purchase varies state to state
and between regulatory districts, but may entail estimating linear feet and/or acreage of
impact and completing state-specific calculation worksheets.
• Permittee-responsible Mitigation: enables a developer to create their own mitigation project to
offset ecosystem loss when there are no eligible mitigation banks in a specific area.
ECS Project#49:20775
Page 5 ff

August 21, 2023
• In-lieu Fee Program: a program involving the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/
or preservation of aquatic resources through funds paid to a governmental or non-profit
natural resources management entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements.
To qualify for a general permit, a project must comply with all general, regional or case-specific
conditions imposed by the USACE. If all applicable conditions of the general permit cannot be met, the
prospective permittee may require authorization under an individual permit (IP). The following list
provides examples of activities that may require an IP authorization (Please note: this list is not
comprehensive):
1) the proposed cumulative impact to WoUS (i.e., jurisdictional wetlands, streams, lakes, ponds,
etc.) is greater than 0.5 acre;
2) the proposed loss of stream bed is greater than 0.05 acre; or
3) the proposed activity will result in permanent impacts to WoUS located within the floodway or
mapped 100-year FEMA floodplain.
IP authorizations generally take 4 to 18 months to obtain, due to conditions that may arise during
the USACE review and public comment period and additional permit requirements, which entail
detailed habitat analyses, alternative site analysis, project justification, impact avoidance and
minimization plans, and a mitigation plan. A subsequent Environmental Impact Statement may be
required by the USACE, pursuant to the findings of these analyses and scale of impact.
5.0 WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION/BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a primary classification by the NC DWR. Surface Water
Classifications are designations applied to surface water bodies, such as streams, rivers and lakes,
which define the best uses to be protected within these waters. According to the NC DWR's Find Your
HUC in North Carolina webmap and NC Surface Water Classifications website, the PSA occurs in the
5.1 State Riparian Buffer Requirements
The PSA occurs in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin. According to the NC Riparian Buffer Areas
webmap, no regulated riparian buffer areas have been established by the NC DWR for the Cape Fear
Watershed.
5.2 Local Buffer Requirements
ECS contacted the Cumberland CountyPlanning Department to determine if mandatory vegetative
buffers and/or riparian buffers are required for streams, wetlands, or other waters in Cumberland
County. According to the Cumberland County Planning Department, there are additional riparian
buffer requirements in addition to the state mandated rule.
(A) A minimum one hundred-foot vegetative buffer is required for all new development
activities that exceed the low density option; otherwise, a minimum thirty-foot vegetative
buffer for development activities is required along all perennial waters indicated on the most
ECS Project#49:20775
Page 6

August 21, 2023
recent versions of U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographic maps or as determined
by local government studies. Desirable artificial streambank or shoreline stabilization is
permitted.
(B) No new development is allowed in the buffer except for water dependent structures, other
structures such as flag poles and security lights which result in only diminutive increases in
impervious area and public projects such as road crossings and greenways where no practical
alternative exists. These activities should minimize built-upon surface area, direct runoff away
from the surface waters and maximize the utilization of stormwater Best Management
Practices.
ECS recommends consultation with a civil engineer to determine if mandatory vegetative buffers and/
or regulated development(impervious surfaces)setbacks are required for the site in addition to those
mentioned above.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Three potentially jurisdictional wetland areas totaling approximately 1.08 acres, one potentially
jurisdictional stream totaling approximately 1,072 linear feet (0.18 acre), and one potentially
jurisdictional pond totaling approximately 1.83 acres were identified and delineated within the study
area.The locations and boundaries of the potentially jurisdictional Waters are illustrated on the
attached Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map (Appendix I, Figure 7).
The findings summarized in this report represent our best professional judgment concerning the
presence of potential jurisdictional aquatic resources in the PSA at the time of the study. These
findings are only to be considered preliminary and are for planning purposes only, as they have
not yet been verified by the regulatory agencies and are, therefore, subject to change pending their
review. ECS cannot guarantee that field conditions and/or WoUS boundaries will not change over
time.
Prior to conducting construction-related activities onsite, ECS recommends requesting a
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE for verification of these results to satisfy the
requirements of Section 404 of The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). No earth-disturbing activities
should be conducted within the PSA until a USACE Determination has been issued.
ECS Project#49:20775
Page 7 ff

Appendix I : Figures

r N -
Legend ,,,' \ ei ___,_
,:.9°
Project Study Areai• IS
• ---(--
0 n Client:
y -
lV
p�
00°-Is^dRd ice►3 I Booth&Associates
z
)1)
4z-a / 1
. te 11 Project:
ir
. G
)/41'.•,,� GILLESPIE SOLAR
�� 1/7 PROJECT
fly a
0/4et co3858 GILLESPIE STREET,
et Roc if ; Fayetteville FAYETTEVILLE,
= Regonal CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
A
11ii2 a Airport NORTH CAROLINA
•
� 9��,4^ \IL,1 ' Title:
v.
d 3 SITE
oP•Mills LOCATION
I ci
m° MAP
ad a
cam so•
y:3i1, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
•
• ��.+��+Irarapa��.�;7
•
•
lititg
\ 7
ttri..at
IN
•
♦ .
Drawn By: Scale:
%/ ziW 1 "= 5,280'
Approved By: Date:
WBF 07/18/2023
q bra y s ECS Project No.
49: 20775
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
JJJ FIGURE 1

•
Le• gend • _ ��� �
? Project Study Area • '�+ ``, l_ * .
,; ~110 ,86411
• ' \\.....-t••11:15‘. • s • A, 4, J C Client:
•
: • ''' -
•
•4214 7/7.- / ...•/4 1'
/// S. • • .
• . ,/� Booth 8 Associates
-.14e ,
-..41L\ , .11
. ( c'' , . % . 6 • / •
• Project:
• �J' , GILLESPIE SOLAR
1:1.
• •• i• PROJECT
41/t
•
!! IY'
• (iik / ,
' '�:01,..,........"
;` p�' ;' killi\IIIIIII.
• eon • 3858 GILLESPIE STREET,
• IFAYETTEVILLE,
, Nilli , >� ;:�� ` •, • . ' • • •• •• CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
CI'
•/ %:; • • •• NORTH CAROLINA
•
�' �.r =hit { {wi ` , • •1, , ) 111 •• ••••. •
�l, `., • • • Title: USGS
�} f / \ '\ �/ ,, TOPOGRAPHIC
1 ' el.i� 7k
� j 1 .. _• •
MAP
`i� Sion f�Cif+
'l�,� / '�'� ` �� • HOPE MILLS,NC
*Jo*,• , ‘,1 bk VT I um,,..-....:,_;&‘.. vil • QUADRANGLE
rwl
_ � + • ` jW., DATED: 1987
\, • ?
O,i • I I �� �� f/i / � e • • PROJECT STUDY AREA
.."1\-.11' +0 „.•
'.; ' \ '' ---:.*!-:77-:-•- • 114 .* • /47-- A
.„„,::-....... ,_____ ......--„,...- iiiiiN: .
. .
, i_
......,),*,.... ._ - ___\<..... -. ,k,,,,,,. -,....,:,4,..,, ,,,,,,..„ .
, ..i.,_______. •.. ,_____. . , (Ai, •• „ . •,..
, . . ... . • . •,. . ,........
0
... , .... y."*.- A `,.. . „ ..,...fr, . r
* '':: :- . i tior„fr.:.-- ,,,,-;_._;..../ ( ,:._
. - ....._. .... ..03.1........ - '1.,....\\ i ..,-.-4,_ ..._ :',. •-•-,-"t" 44‘. ''
•
/SP
W ' iiiO4;1,--
f ,1 r �•..) \ Drawn By: Scale:
-' i l t �'�r 1 ' - 1 000'
ZJW
_ ` • L . j•\c - • t��• �� Approved By: Date:
. • ` .,�, :fit / A r i• WBF 07/18/2023
• • • • 1 • t, ' • • J`� _/ •• : �/ ECS Project No.
�i ••
, ;� �, ,,, 49: 20775
0 500 1,000 2,000 — r_: , _. ------ _-- ` 1111a0ik.‘,
_ '
„ '� FIGURE 2
v Feet •• J tiif" \ - . \` v

Legend 1▪ .1. '1 N. % Al
a
• . •
] Project Study Area ti ' '4... :,' P' ;4 f.„1,1/4 ".
Soil Map Units s t/ ^� j'
t. 4. - , 0 -• ,,L „ ;- .
•",. f'-� fi .,�s� •' 1 Client:
BaB-Blaney loamy sand,2 to 8 percent slopes r"?.F♦� . .�
1
CaD-Candor sand,8 to 15 percent slopes , , � ti r..� R `R�` �, , ,� . ' I -�
R f
lo ' a, ! '. W•. Booth&Associates
ILaB-Lakeland sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes •' ^' r-+ ' , A r
• r •
!, L LbB-Lakeland-Urban land complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes ▪ +`••y� N'�,!t-` • >-; �' .
w Water ,/ , • • . • • y /t1 �, ' r Project:
•Y 1 a, I f .. , .01
WgB-Wagram-Urban land :,
complex,0 to 8 percent slopes �� 1.C`
N~)1 GILLESPIE SOLAR
N •
` / • r '}.� ��,,;� . I '- 1 . PROJECT
� ' '. v.. 't. �. �'*'� 4� '• M V - / V� 3858 GILLESPIE STREET,
/� ; .``'"e ya • 1 , !�. !• y`��♦ •
r . . �. ,,'! �. 4 FAYETTEVILLE,
.y ,��, ,,ice�♦ r "'` CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
-'• .. alltit ; s ! Y .per •a ,
{w - lf+ � , � ' � q '' '' 4'' • ,` �'.. r NORTH CAROLINA
M it
Ai
Title:
A �iiip4r7‘ * USDA-NRCS
I r �,(F rig'' ' '' . 1 ��• La LbB ^1' «1" f . - SOIL-SURVEY
' 3 ; r ,, '' MAP
iert
.. 1 •'its ''Ps:11111r
l e. �♦ I ,t , a '� -',r• 1 • _ I I , "!r t ,. SPATIAL SURVEY
,' .+ ,�` a '� `- ,f♦ ' ' '', ' :.., ` CaD +�,�. DATED: 09/16/2019
r '+, 11 • R. Ite
` I '► - A•s i•,.1 PROJECT STUDY AREA
1-- , S . :o, 4.4, ,
40/4)
, el. , . , i- ,.., ...N
. ..< ,, . .,....„. , , . . ... i v. , 7 q , ;„:"4PL
r 3 / i.i M r '4
'. ! •
,•.' ' 1 Drawn By: Scale:
v •• •.� ' a ZJW 1 = 1,000
r ; Approved By: Date:
' •!", '• ! T - r • WBF 07/18/2023
'1•r' -: f r - ECS Project No.
n� i ,% .' 1« 49: 20775
0 500 1,000 2,000 ! ` ,,*•
r 1 FIGURE 3
r . Feet l _ 1 I ,..

•
Legend �_ �.,, 'i - : - • t.i1 `.� • 1. ,r r . � . ;•R ..,,..., ,.... , 'UV
Project Study Area _a \ v Jt• •s i
Wetland Type .4:- . 4-4 1 f 4 , , •
Freshwater Emergent Wetland ��t PF01/4B ' ..r. j• . ; • 5UB . M , j Client:
:ito,4i, '
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland ew( , , A. .4
_ 11 R4SB r0
Freshwater Pond `;�•^~a' ,t. -, I•- '`' • ' a, '. ' /`. 0/4 Booth 8 Associates
- Lake t • .� y • �� .�< � • •
•
Riverine are }' •T {j , AN ' •
' % Project:
,► �'• • 1 .{ if ,
�. it 7' ;r` . �� ,r��� ! GILLESPIE SOLAR
/, I �• �` � `, / • •; �I PROJECT
fp*
�, •
y j ilvait. A.,, I , ` • •
i 1
•
T 'i t ` +,' .1i R- BIC ••t ,• ti •/ 3858 GILLESPIE STREET,
�'* • `,r_!i !�r!'' ,i \ : .y �' • FAYETTEVILLE,
1' 01 , `� *` 4.
��' CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
' 4. f..y , r � • A. l r.�w�`.H • �+i� .+ '' i 41111
NORTH CAROLINA
F. .
h/'i V
+44 • Title:
', _E } �, P. y , I � �` / : S. ,.z• i�,.. • ,x: NATIONAL
• t !s +� � '� '1&'� r.` ' , _ , WETLAND
.,e— t• t "4 ILY
6 , .,6•• 1 • • I I • mil; . ' , "a 't ,'t'� .A INVENTORY
It '� 1.
.c� 'se NL ,� ,_ ,r .-ate T�� ! jj �1 MAP
r > ',. ••., i i .- , ' I • °. ►. , A . �' '! PROJECT STUDY AREA
•
O y •� •' / + `ti i •1
op
• • \ ` 'r 1 i •+ ,kit'1
"�it� �i�� rf. :o, •.a ,
41
, 1 fr . ,. 4 .1140, 4.,/ ,.t........... , 1 ,
- , 0044,. ,
j. 't • 4 ;hi.f . jiW i
,•►. Z 7� Drawn By: Scale:
•fir*.• • ZJW 1 1,000'
r L r -- ; - - Approved By: Date:
• . `, •I^* r !• _ " , i -�' • WBF 07/18/2023
t i
,t•' ,•- ice.• • R5UBH J R4SBC ;y'• ECS Project No.
.�n� • R5UBH ,t
� tr , s • R5UBH PF01C - • 49: 20775
0 500 1,000 2.000 't - •
''' R5UBH FIGURE 4
ee It //
R5UBH

r/yam._� ..nr t• _ --wlttttttFL •■=.Nini![r♦i iR . - A u it - L. -. - / r.ram- /�/1
Legend ir'' " %PANEL-' PANEL , W
s
�.-� --i4 •' • ,� ,I • 1' `N• �•'" r �,��7►20042500J *i;•3+720043500J
Project Study Area ��' `. ` 'eft 1/5/2007 , h G4 1/5/2007.
Flood Hazard Zones � { • ....3
-
Zone Type r i "! 'it". � `
V.1,A, �. ''�� `i. : 1• 1 Client:
1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard *,_. r►! ,' a c.; ��n./`��ti ,1,44 , i. r •
I Regulatory Floodway 7 � , •
" r� f4•. ry /fy ,
14 Special Floodway '1/ ,NN ' a,� ! ; Booth&Associates
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard • . _ , i,fr:.,
"`,,, ..1 j t., •
,
�k s
0.2/o Annual Chance Flood Hazard .0 4 • i �J' .t . �. • y �►� s s . r Project.
IA Future Conditions 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard . .. r 1 ..r '` , .PANEL
1110 Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee •, - �~ + ' ^'
6 •a ,'roto. , l` 3720043400J GILLESPIE SOLAR
Area with Risk Due to Levee •• .. •'°i • '+ ••`• / • � 115'1200.7 PROJECT
pea* ... I PANEL• s ,1° y
•
• <' !� �,• �' - "';�, 37200�4�2400J 4. \�, ` . '/ , 'f 4,
'� �J 4 �r,1 `� '• , .' . V'• 3858 GILLESPIE STREET,
., •��ia `` yq _ eff.� 1%5/20,Q7 ,A1•, �/y.4 - FAYETTEVILLE,
140, ' l> s •, ' y W s1 1.,, ..�' fir. p, • .e. ` w• CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Rr ).. ty NORTH CAROLINA
•t � ti..
Title:
y: tv <C 1r . t � •X�l . j FEMA
�� •
'� E f,, �w ;� h`. / :� . ./, ` FLOOD HAZARD
• 7 �! a 'f 1. ZONE MAP
I f` I. N . r'.b' j I I % , , 4 , PANEL: 3720042400J
► .4 �.�.t4, . f 'r,; '„'' '{ :.,,4' .�.yph .Y 1 • •y, DATED: 01/05/2007
n ' / �. .. ''' ,.. ."h' lit. t • r" tit, A
r '� f j ' ��� .,I •I. `{�+ �lA , �' i� 1 PROJECT STUDY AREA
U. ` •'�. ,.. , f• w 1 �� v� '� 7 I- - . ' w,
I . ! 'N
L' "
• ' 4 2 il ,.4„. .
. . •• 4 .,...... ,
, /, ,•
, 4 ...., N.
1 ,--N .le Ar A,
. • , . , . ,, .., _ ,„„4,1 'N7," .." .. •4.
/ od /l / s • PANEL' Drawn By: Scale:
PANEL .� ZJW 1 "= 1,000'
— !. 37200434dOJ
3720042400J
�~ ; Approved By: Date:
" '`;'� eff. 1/5/2007 1/SZ20.
y_ rL .. WBF 07/18/2023
,y1 . 4 - _ sok�AE °A — I.
P-- -*V �4 ' ECS Project No.
0 500 1,000 2,000 1 -
Feet ;+ ,^' ., FIGURE 5

Legend
Project Study Area 1 SE lea
LiDAR Elevation Map 1
ir
Value
High : 196.352 r if II Client:
ti r
-
Low : 122.568 + Y `/�A Booth 8 Associates
IV op
a e i lik it iii
1 t I Project:
lk
•
11 GILLESPIE SOLAR
i
. PROJECT
h .
v' aliM Ii. . 3858 GILLESPIE STREET,
FAYETTEVILLE,
iliP * CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
L
ti+1, * NORTH CAROLINA
Title:
lir
II
1 It II
f, NOAA LIDAR
0 1 - ELEVATION
h.
i a' MAP
IlL
f i -I
ik
I PROJECT STUDY AREA
0
If
41.
IP
AL1 ill . Drawn By: Scale:
1� • ' ZJW 1 "= 300 '
4 _ Approved By: Date:
WBF 07/18/2023
ECS Project No.
49: 20775
0 150 300 600ilk FIGURE 6
Feet IIC.

• ',., I.l„i
Legend 0 _ • s is wJ
• 4.
«•
,1111 1011_1•6'111.1i6r„ 0•
l kI;..
•
IProjectStudyArea t �• f?• _ .` '� C • ;
Stream ` ' D
Wetland i J
E,. .
i r� ' _ �� ► `O \ Client:
/// Pond , 1' - • • w \
Upland Drainage Conveyance t '
' , titille 4 ' �_ - t: \ , Booth 8.Associates
jit
. .
�, �: t '%
^ "'
l f• I,� . . k...r4f • •`4 Project:
♦ ♦ .�� '.? 01 is
4 • o�' - - , , f..— - Wetland Wr1 • �• .- �' t GILLESPIE SOLAR
p0140,,, t - ,'f , —0.17 acre . ,•• , t•,/
• ',' R� PROJECT
40004
• !•�' .f14 3858 GILLESPIE STREET,
' i_• , 'K / FAYETTEVILLE,
e' •
• ,1 CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
, I f NORTH CAROLINA r.
+• .• Wetland W2 • . • / er Title:
...4
Stream S 1 f -0.54 acre its:
s. i• / °1D
-0.18 acre,-1,072 LF • i!
w + POTENTIAL WATERS
y •
OF THE U.S.
•
>, yolk , ,_ . N �, • DELINEATION MAP
• . 401111fprii •It
•
at1 } �', Pond P1 t •
-1.83 acres :i,.It
/ • NOTES:
1.POTENTIALLY JURISDICTIONAL
' / • • `� WATERS OF THE US WERE
i � �• - .A. , - ' - •v. D ', •• - DELINEATED BY ECS ON
•� •�io
••
1X ' �`- . AUGUST 10,2023.
• ,Ailk '` •_�,' ' } 1�, - P. �� 2. FINDINGS DEPICTED ON THIS
_ - • �� _ _ MAP HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED
5 i� . stSc •f ,1 BY THE USAGE AND/OR NCDWR.
THE DELINEATION FINDINGS ARE
♦• '`t IN 1 •; 4`� K :4440. �/•Z • ,4 ., - SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON
•,, : 11.1�— - , ��1 A _Rr -- 'f .4 •r ,' AGENCY VERIFICATION.
• � r �' ' '1f M3. THIS MAP SHOULD BE USED
r: fir' i ••J, FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNING
*` t, r A— • I" �� PURPOSES.
�0��i0001111
It• , ( � � + • �* � %. ir Drawn By: Scale:
�, , •! • Wetland W3 0 Z J W 1 "= 300 '
/ , • -0.37 acre tr •
r1r- i % Y Approved By: Date:
''! ~' WBF 08/16/2023
Y
. I v• .y i,► ECS Project No.
1011
% .Pihil' • 41 �;;' / j y r 49: 20775
= 150 300 booeet / ••* 1114 FIGURE 7
•
init �

Appendix II : Photographic Log

August 21, 2023 ECS Southeast, LLP
R
, rite . _
14
,..,. . 4 ,, , 1 j,.. , ,..,._ ;
RI
4 A ,,,... ... ,,. .,..:44.,,,a . ,....,...,, "r !tt ",-..4,:...-"" '''' ;IT',=------...r,-
`�'•`c -1 ^fir_ > .
44\
1 -Typical view of an upland area on the northwestern portion of the PSA,facing northwest.
4 . r . . -
x
is .h{{,
5�' :t..
•
a ='ice , e. i .. u` `
, w_
•a^ ''� es`. g--, b r. % 'd!• '. .- 14 .
2-Typical view of an upland area on the eastern portion of the PSA,facing northwest.
ECS Project No.49:20775

August 21, 2023 ECS Southeast, LLP
_ _ -
_ _.. 2,fib=
3-Typical view of an upland area on the eastern portion of the PSA,facing northeast.
t Mi
s21
�
/ f
4-Typical view of an upland area on the southern portion of the PSA,facing northeast.
ECS Project No.49:20775

August 21, 2023 ECS Southeast, LLP
i 3
} r
g• ,•,..Al r
•
t 7 ', .
I •
1 ' S ` �._
4 .1 f �
' i
j,• i
5-Typical view of an upland area on the central-western portion of the PSA,facing north.
' '::;.11'-'41V44.'.:'' !
t,• yA d .� ^ ••t. ` r � �ti.�a i•,
►.
1 r J
`._ al: `i • /
•
w ^fit. .-y a - ,�- ��L
es, ., •
'. wisz Y • y
tom,- t 0:+. Jf � :711 -'77.'5r41.. - 'ICI
l Y ? w
.. ,.''., 3t '.f ,k y Ski i,;,}� -. �y�,K + '�
6-Typical view of an upland area on the western portion of the PSA,facing west.
ECS Project No.49:20775

August 21, 2023 ECS Southeast, LLP
• r"/
tr
c
lie t
i1 Y� iE�f ��A- ` 111 a4-r me,
-. , • ,k111,.,
04.
i .:. 1/ 7r 'fie. . —_��
`
. kir- ,'a.: \ r •
-15 - 4- . ' ,10.14.1' ,
N.
I I, try. __
t WIk« A
er a r \ w'' •41,•r.
7-View of Stream S1 on the southwestern portion of the PSA, facing south.
0
}i . \ _ram
i R0� • :
` T � `}e' er .N.. - Y-.",* ..--"',c'f- `e. '1' . ..0 -- .
.f �r��s
r_-
_1t5-A---- ",im-4,--
s
elr.r? heel' r a : i t r
8-View of Stream S1 on the western portion of the PSA,facing south.
ECS Project No.49:20775

August 21, 2023 ECS Southeast, LLP
ks J t A�t { ,�` `, of • -
f„'-- ,4* ::..s'a- ..aik:-'r - �+y: -44 ;--'..
"V 4
r;
rid s � f ��
9-View of Wetland W1 on the northwestern portion of the PSA, facing south.
/t ° , '
•
w I. f'' I A y 4' -
2 7 - -
I s r s,. Ydry
k z $ a� �•!
-- Z '4, 1 *ar�m s { 4
*y . "i .'i C o'-Y-a as� vr,
" =s -
s 1^Ss T',.RZ uqo , 4 ,
- r '•.- ., _ 'r
ow
•
�+", �" s-.. .` ' ,� -4s= -4 wad T
.,,,,*( --,...,- . .-- . ,---, -,--. . „, -, ,
10 -View of Wetland W2 on the central-western portion of the PSA, facing north.
ECS Project No.49:20775

August 21, 2O23 ECS Southeast, LLP
ly-
!"__41
IV
VOW
11 View of Wetland W3 on the southwestern portion of the PSA, facing northwest.
0-9
12 View of Wetland VV3on the southwestern portion of the PSA'facing west.
E[S Project No.49:2O775

August 21, 2023 ECS Southeast, LLP
,•=14-,-*,-,tik
✓ �` 4S55
V
13 -View of Pond P1 on the western portion of the PSA,facing north.
ECS Project No.49:20775

EXHIBIT NO. 4.0
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION

r&R FRDEHLING Sc ROBERTSON , INC .
Report of Subsurface Exploration and
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Gillespie Solar Farm
Fayetteville, North Carolina
F&R Project No. 668-0122
Prepared For:
McKim & Creed, Inc.
1730 Varsity Drive
Venture IV Building, Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Prepared By:
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
310 Hubert Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Revised: October 16, 2023
Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond,Virginia 23228 T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com
VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A Minority-Owned Business

r$,R
ROBERTSON
Engineering Stability Since 1881
Revised: October 16, 2023
Mr. Robin Lee
Director of Surveying
McKim & Creed Inc.
1730 Varsity Drive
Venture IV Building, Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27606
Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Gillespie Solar Farm
Fayetteville, North Carolina
F&R Project No. 66B-0122
Dear Mr. Lee:
Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R) has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and
geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed Gillespie Solar Farm located in Fayetteville,
North Carolina. Our services were performed in general accordance with F&R's Proposal No. 2366-
00163 REV. 1 dated June 21, 2023. The attached report presents our understanding of the project,
reviews our exploration procedures, describes existing site and general subsurface conditions, and
presents geotechnical engineering design and construction recommendations.
We have enjoyed working with you on this project, and are prepared to assist you with the
recommended quality assurance observation and testing services during construction. Please contact
us if you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further service.
Sincerely,
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC. ,•••\•\ CAR0 ii# i
-4.:�FESS '0 ti ,q 0.
.�
' � SEAL 9! �
i 047377 1
Brian W. McCarthy, P.E. L •
Michael S. Sabodish Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
Staff Geotechnical Engineer '. %••.,r,�,i NE•.••'a.��Q Geotechnical Dept. Manager
,'l1, //iii liit,•s"
Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond,Virginia 23228 T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com
VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A Minority-Owned Business

rs,lz
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1
2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2
3.0 EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES 2
3.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 2
3.2 FIELD RESISTIVITY TESTING 3
3.3 LABORATORY TESTING 4
4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY& SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 4
4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5
4.2.1 GENERAL 5
4.2.2 SURFICIAL MATERIALS 5
4.2.3 POSSIBLE FILL SOILS 6
4.2.4 COASTAL PLAIN SOILS 7
4.3 SOIL MOISTURE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 7
4.4 SOIL CORROSIVITY EVALUATION 8
5.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 9
5.1 GENERAL 9
5.2 SOLAR PANEL FOUNDATION SUPPORT 9
5.3 EQUIPMENT PAD FOUNDATION SUPPORT 10
5.4 ACCESS ROAD DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 11
5.5 SITE SEISMIC CLASSIFICATION 12
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 13
6.1 SITE PREPARATION 13
6.2 STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 14
6.3 EQUIPMENT PAD FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 15
6.4 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 17
6.5 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 17
7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES 18
8.0 LIMITATIONS 19

r•8tR
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
Site Vicinity Map (Figure No. 1)
Boring Location Plan (Figure No. 2)
Subsurface Profile (Figure No. 3)
APPENDIX II
Key to Soil Classification
Unified Soil Classification Chart
Boring Logs
APPENDIX III
Field Resistivity Test Results
Laboratory Test Results
Thermal Resistivity Test Results
Corrosivity Test Report
APPENDIX IV
GBA Document "Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report"

rAZ
1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation was to
explore the subsurface conditions in the area of the proposed development and to provide
geotechnical engineering recommendations that can be used during the design and construction
phases of the project.
F&R's scope of services included the following:
• Completion of five (5) soil test borings (B-1 through B-5) to depths ranging from 30 to 50
feet below the existing ground surface;
• Preparation of typed Boring Logs and development of a Subsurface Profile;
• Performance of geotechnical laboratory testing on representative soil samples;
• Performing field electrical resistivity tests at two locations;
• Performing corrosivity and laboratory thermal resistivity testing;
• Performing a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the subsurface conditions with
regard to their suitability for the proposed construction;
• Preparation of this geotechnical report by professional engineers.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project is located on the west side of Gillespie Street, approximately 250 feet south of the
intersection of Gillespie Street and Sally Hill Circle in Fayetteville, North Carolina (See Figure 1 in
Appendix I). The project site consists of an approximately 44-acre parcel of land that is identified
with Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 0424-66-0123 according to information obtained from
the Cumberland County GIS online database.
Based on observations made during our site activities, the project site mostly consists of cleared
former pastures on the northern half of the project site, and wooded land in the southern half of
the site. Overhead power lines are present along the northeast property line of the project site
and run in southeast to northwest direction. A pond is located in the western portion of the site.
The pond appears to drain to a smaller pond to the south.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
1

r&R
Based on the ground surface elevations obtained from Cumberland County topographic data,the
project site slopes from the northeast towards the pond in the western portion of the site, from
an approximate elevation of EL 190 to EL 150.
2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed development will involve the construction of rows of solar panels within the
northern half of the parcel that will be aligned in an approximate north-south direction. Detailed
information related to panel loading and foundation type was not provided. We anticipate the
panels will be supported on driven piles embedded to depths roughly 5 to 10 feet below the
existing ground surface. Equipment pads with switchboards and transformers is proposed to be
located at the eastern side of the site adjacent to the proposed entrance drive. Information
provided to F&R regarding the weight of equipment pads (mat loading) should not exceed a net
allowable bearing capacity of 500 pounds per square foot (psf). F&R assumes that cut and fills of
less than 3 feet will be required to establish site grades.
3.0 EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
3.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
F&R advanced a total of five (5) soil test borings (B-1 to B-5) as part of this exploration at the
approximate locations requested by Booth & Associates and as shown on the Boring Location
Plan presented as Figure No. 2 in Appendix I.
The test borings locations were established in the field by F&R using a hand-held GPS unit.
Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were interpolated from Cumberland County
GIS topographic information. Given these methods of determination, the boring locations and
ground surface elevations should only be considered approximate.
The test borings were advanced with a track-mounted drill rig using 2-1/4" inside diameter (I.D.)
hollow stem augers for borehole stabilization. Representative soil samples were obtained using
a standard, two-inch outside diameter (O.D.) split-barrel sampler in general accordance with
ASTM D 1586, Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (Standard Penetration Test).
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
2

rAZ
The number of blows required to drive the split barrel sampler three, consecutive 6-inch
increments with an automatic hammer is recorded and the blows of the last two 6-inch
increments are added to obtain the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values representing the
penetration resistance of the soil. Five (5) Standard Penetration Tests were collected within the
top 10 feet and then at a nominal interval of approximately 5 feet thereafter.
A representative portion of the soil was obtained from each SPT sample, sealed in an eight-ounce
glass jar, labeled, and transported to our laboratory for final classification and analysis by a
geotechnical engineer. The soil samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS), using visual-manual identification procedures (ASTM D2488). A
Boring Log for each test boring is presented in Appendix II.
Groundwater level measurements were not attempted at the termination of drilling in the
borings due to utilizing mud rotary drilling techniques. Borings B-3 and B-5 were backfilled
immediately after drilling. Temporary piezometers were installed in borings B-1, B-2, and B-4 to
facilitate the measurement of stabilized groundwater levels. The temporary piezometers
consisted of 1-inch diameter, hand-slotted PVC pipe installed into the completed borings.
Following the collection of the stabilized groundwater readings,the temporary piezometers were
removed from the borings and all of the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings.
3.2 FIELD RESISTIVITY TESTING
F&R also performed a field resistivity survey at the referenced project site at two locations
selected by Booth &Associates (see Figure 2 in Appendix I).The resistivity testing was performed
in general accordance with ASTM G57 by the Wenner 4-point method using a Megger DET 5/4D
Digital Earth Tester. Resistance measurements were made at each test area using electrodes
spaced approximately 2, 5, 10 and 40 feet. The results of the resistivity testing are presented in
Appendix III.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
3

r&R
3.3 LABORATORY TESTING
F&R selected two representative soil samples and subjected them to routine geotechnical index
testing consisting of Natural Moisture Content, Sieve Analysis and Atterberg Limits
determinations. The purpose of the index testing was to aid in our classification of the soil
samples and development of engineering recommendations. The laboratory testing was
performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards and are presented in Appendix
III of this report.
In addition to the geotechnical testing, thermal resistivity and corrosivity tests were also
performed. The thermal resistivity/conductivity testing was performed in general accordance
with ASTM D 5334. Two undisturbed Shelby tube samples and two five gallon bucket samples
from the auger cuttings were collected at/near borings B-2 and B-4 from depths of 1 to 3.5 feet
below the ground surface. Thermal resistivity tests were performed on bulk soil samples
recompacted to 85% of the Modified Proctor and samples from the Shelby Tubes. The results of
the thermal resistivity tests are presented in Appendix III.
Three SPT jar soil samples were subjected to pH, chloride ion, soluble sulfates, electrical
resistivity, redox potential, and sulfides testing to aid in assessing the corrosivity potential of the
on-site soils as will be discussed in Section 4.4. The results of the corrosivity tests are presented
in Appendix III.
4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The project site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North Carolina.The near
surface Coastal Plain soils have resulted from the deposition of sediments several million years
ago during the period that the ocean receded from this area to its present location along the
Atlantic Coast. The Coastal Plain Province is a broad flat plain with widely spaced low rolling hills
where the near-surface soils have their origin from the deposition of sediments several million
years ago during the period that the ocean receded from this area to its present location along
McKim& Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
4

r&R
the Atlantic Coast. It is noted that the Coastal Plain soils vary in thickness from only a few feet
along the western border to over ten thousand feet in some areas along the coast.
According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985), the site is located in the Cape Fear
Formation. The Cape Fear Formation is mapped as Cretaceous period marine deposits that are
described as sandstone and sandy mudstone,yellowish gray to bluish gray, mottled red to yellowish
orange, indurated, graded and laterally continuous bedding, blocky clay, faint cross-bedding,
feldspar and mica common.
4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.2.1 General
The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the
attached Boring Logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on an
interpretation of the boring data using normally-accepted, geotechnical engineering judgments.
Although individual soil test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at the boring
locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of subsurface conditions at
other locations or at other times. A subsurface profile has been prepared from the boring data
to graphically illustrate the subsurface conditions encountered at the site.The subsurface profile
is presented as Figure No. 3 in Appendix I. Strata breaks designated on the boring logs and
subsurface profile represent approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition from
one soil type to another may be gradual or occur between soil samples. More-detailed
descriptions of the subsurface conditions at the individual boring locations are presented on the
boring logs provided in Appendix II.
4.2.2 Surficial Materials
Surficial Organic Soils were encountered at the surface of the borings, from the ground surface to a
depth of 0.2 feet. The Surficial Organic Soils generally consisted of dark-colored soil material
containing roots, fibrous matter, and/or other organic components, and is generally unsuitable for
engineering purposes. F&R has not performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
5

r&R
content or other horticultural properties of the observed Surficial Organic Soil materials.Therefore,
the term Surficial Organic Soil is not intended to indicate suitability for landscaping and/or other
purposes.The Surficial Organic Soil depths provided in this report are based on driller observations
and should be considered approximate. We note that the transition from Surficial Organic Soil to
underlying materials may be gradual, and therefore the observation and measurement of the
Surficial Organic Soil depths is subjective.Actual Surficial Organic Soil depths should be expected to
vary.
4.2.3 Possible Fill Soils
Possible Fill soils were encountered below the surficial soils in boring B-2 and extended to a depth
of 3.5 feet below the existing ground surface. It is noted that sometimes the relatively small and
disturbed sample obtained in the field is insufficient to definitively describe the origin of the
subsurface material. Since man-made materials,deleterious materials, or other obvious evidence
of fill were not encountered in the some of the soil samples, the materials believed to be earth
fill are referred to as "possible fill". Based on a review of historical aerial images, it appears the
existing possible fill materials are located in areas adjacent to historical agricultural fields.
The possible fill soils consisted of moist, loose silty fine sand (SM) with SPT N-values ranging from
6 to 7 bpf. The possible fill soils appeared to contain trace amounts of roots.
Possible fill soils exhibiting SPT N-values of 4 bpf or less are generally indicative of fill with poor
compaction while fill soils exhibiting SPT N-values of 5 to 8 bpf are generally indicative of fill with
moderate compaction. Well-compacted fill, that does not contain gravel, would typically exhibit
SPT N-values of 9 bpf or higher. In general, it appears that the possible fill was moderately
compacted.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
6

rAZ
4.2.4 Coastal Plain Soils
Native coastal plain soils were encountered in all of the borings below the surficial organic and
possible fill soils. The native soils typically consisted of very loose to very dense silty and clayey
sands (USCS—SM and SC) with SPT N-values ranging from 2 to 79 bpf, and soft highly plastic clay
(USCS—CH) with a SPT N-value of 4 bpf.
Very loose sand layers were encountered in borings B-1, B-3, B-4, and B-5 at depths ranging from
just below the existing ground surface to 3.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Deeper
layers of very loose sand were encountered in borings B-3 and B-5 at depth of 38.5 and 28.5 feet,
respectively, and extended to depths of 43.5 and 33.5 feet, respectively.
A layer of soft, highly plastic clay(CH)was encountered in boring B-5 at a depth of 33.5 feet below
the existing ground surface, and extended to the boring termination depth of 35 feet.
4.3 SOIL MOISTURE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Moist soils (i.e., within 3 percentage points of the estimated optimum moisture content) were
encountered in all borings in the upper 2 to 8.5 feet of the soil profile. Wet or saturated soils (3
percentage points or greater over the estimated optimum moisture content) were encountered
in the soil profile of all of the borings, at depths ranging from 2 to 8.5 feet below existing borings.
Once encountered, these wet or saturated soils extended to the boring termination depths, with
the exception of boring B-2, where the wet or saturated soils extended to a depth of 13.5 feet
below the existing ground surface. A deeper layer of saturated soils were encountered in boring
B-2 at a depth of 18.5 feet and extended to the boring termination depth of 30 feet.
Groundwater level measurements were not attempted at the termination of drilling due to
utilizing mud rotary techniques. Borings B-3 and B-5 were backfilled immediately after drilling.
After a stabilization period of approximately 24-hours following completion of drilling,groundwater
levels were measured in borings B-1, B-2, and B-4. Stabilized groundwater was encountered at
depths ranging from 13.9 to 14.8 feet below the existing ground surface in these borings.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
7

rAZ
It should be noted that the groundwater levels fluctuate depending upon seasonal factors such
as precipitation and temperature. As such, soil moisture and groundwater conditions at other
times may vary from those described in this report. F&R notes that due to the presence of
relatively impervious silty and clayey soils, noted on the project site, trapped or perched water
conditions may be encountered during periods of inclement weather and during seasonally wet
periods.
4.4 SOIL CORROSIVITY EVALUATION
Three soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing to determine pH, Chloride and Sulfate
concentrations as well as Electrical Resistivity and Redox Potential. The results of the pH,
Chloride, Sulfate, Sulfide, Electricity Resistivity and Redox Potential testing are presented in the
following table:
Boring Sample Moisture pH Chloride Sulfate Sulfides Electrical Redox
Depth Content (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Resistivity Potential
(ft) (%) (ohm-cm) (mV)
B-1 1-3.5 4.63 5.09 <262* <367* 34.8 3,850 255
B-2 1-3.5 2.21 4.97 <256* <358* <25.5* 2,490 263
B-4 1-3.5 3.42 5.00 <259* <362* <25.8* 4,460 286
*Below indicated method quantitation limit
Corrosion potential of soils for underground structures is dependent upon several factors including
pH, soil moisture, resistivity, sulfates and chlorides. It is F&R's opinion that the soils on this site
appear to have a mild to moderate corrosion potential based on the slightly acidic pH readings,
relatively low chloride and sulfate concentrations and moderately high resistivity.
We are not aware of the existence of other corrosive factors such as coal, cinders, muck, peat,
mine wastes, or landfills at this site, which may categorize the site as highly corrosive and negate
the test results.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
8

r&R
5.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 GENERAL
The geotechnical engineering recommendations contained in this section of the report are based
upon the results of the five soil test borings, the information provided regarding the proposed
construction, and our familiarity with geotechnical engineering practices in this area. It is our
opinion that the subsurface conditions encountered at the project site are suitable for the
proposed construction from a geotechnical engineering perspective provided the
recommendations presented in this report are followed throughout the design and construction
phases of this project. F&R requests an opportunity to review project structural plans and
specifications to confirm that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly
interpreted and implemented, and to determine if additional geotechnical recommendations are
warranted. Please contact F&R at your earliest convenience if you feel additional
recommendations are warranted or if the recommendations in this report need additional
clarification.
5.2 SOLAR PANEL FOUNDATION SUPPORT
Details related to solar panel type,foundation type and design foundation loads are not available.
We anticipate the proposed solar panels will be supported on deep foundation system i.e. driven
piles. The piles should be designed to resist lateral and uplift forces.
In order to assist in the foundation design, L-Pile deep foundation parameters have been
provided in the following table.The L-Pile parameters are provided for the subsurface conditions
encountered in the borings and represents an idealized subsurface profile. Please note that the
tabulated values in Table 1 are for the given layered models with the understanding that the
transitions between different soil strata are usually less distinct than those indicated in the table.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
9

r&R
TABLE 1: L Pile Parameters
L-Pile 5.0 Design
Depth (feet)
Total Unit Cohesive Parameters Friction
Soil Type Weight Strength Static Soil Angle USCS
Strain
Top Bottom (pcf) (psf) Modulus,K (degrees)
Eso
(pci)
0 6.5 Silty Sand 115 - - 25 29 SM
6.5 13.5 Silty Sand 115 - - 25 29 SM
13.5 18.5 Clayey Sand 120 - - 60 33 SC
18.5 28.5 Silty Sand 115 - - 20 29 SM
28.5 35 Clayey Sand/Sandy Clay 110 300 0.02 25 28 SC/CH
Notes:
1.All depths are from existing grade and should be adjusted based on the top of foundation elevation.
2.The soil parameters in the above tables are based on correlations with the SPT values.
5.3 EQUIPMENT PAD Foundation SUPPORT
We understand that equipment pads will be installed for support of various control and
monitoring equipment and transformers. F&R understands that the equipment slabs will consist
of a reinforced 9-inch thick concrete slab supported by a layer of 1-foot thick washed stone or
non-frost structural fill. F&R has been informed that the soil contact pressures generated by the
loading on the mats would not exceed 500 psf. Due to the relatively light expected loading and
the conditions encountered in boring B-1, settlements of the equipment pads are estimated to
be on the order of 1 inch or less. We would expect that the settlements would be relatively
uniform across a rigidly designed mat. Provided that the site preparation and fill placement
recommendations presented in the subsequent sections of this report are followed, the proposed
equipment pad area near B-1 is suitable to support the equipment pads.
The magnitude of settlements will be influenced by the variation in excavation requirements across
the along mat footprint, the distribution of loads, and the variability of underlying soil conditions.
Our settlement analysis was performed on the basis of the provided structural loading at the time
of this report. Actual settlements experienced by the structures and the time required for these
soils to settle will be influenced by undetected variations in subsurface conditions, final grading
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
10

r&R
plans,and the quality of fill placement and foundation construction. If the proposed structure loads
are greater than indicated in earlier in this section or if there are additional mat foundations
proposed that F&R has not been apprised of, please provide pertinent structural information for
F&R to review and comment.
For purposes of design, it is recommended that the mat design be based on a coefficient of
subgrade reaction (K) of 13 pci. F&R recommends that the layer of non-frost structural fill extend
at least 2 feet below exterior grades for frost and bearing capacity considerations. Final slab and
reinforcing sizing should be determined by the Project Structural Engineer based on actual design
loads, building code requirements and other structural considerations.
5.4 ACCESS ROAD DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Due to the presence of some very loose surface soils, unstable subgrade conditions could develop
along the access roadway alignment beneath construction equipment during removal of surficial
organic soils. In order to help prevent unstable conditions from occurring, it is recommended that
the surficial soils be stabilized prior to roadway grading by undercutting and replacing the very
loose soils. F&R anticipates that the subgrade undercut/repair depths will be on the order of 12
to 18 inches. Additional repairs may be recommended at the time of construction. These repairs
will be based upon actual field conditions observed by the geotechnical engineer and should be
determined based upon proofrolling and/or other subgrade evaluations. If these evaluations
reveal unstable conditions, the method of repair should be as directed by the project
geotechnical engineer. Methods of repair may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drying
and re-compaction; additional undercutting; application of lime; use of geotextiles; or other
methods deemed appropriate by the project geotechnical engineer.Any necessary repairs should
be made based upon actual field conditions observed by the geotechnical engineer at the time
of construction, and should be determined based upon proofrolling and other subgrade
evaluations.
We have been informed that the first 50 feet of the entrance driveway will consist of asphalt
pavement, with the remaining length being unpaved. The pavement structure should comply
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
11

rAZ
with the minimum standards for roadways as required by the City of Fayetteville. Proofrolling of
the pavement subgrades, placement of ABC base course and asphalt surface courses, should be
observed, tested and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. Upon request, F&R would
be pleased to provide a site specific pavement design in accordance with the City of Fayetteville
requirements based on the actual soil subgrade strength testing(CBR tests) and estimated traffic
volumes. However, a this time we believe a preliminary asphalt section consisting of 3 inches of
9.5B asphalt and 8 inches of compacted NCDOT ABC stone would likely be sufficient for the
project.
For the interior drives, it is anticipated that one light maintenance pickup truck will visit the site
every day. For light maintenance traffic, we recommend an 8 inch layer of compacted ABC stone
to be placed on the access road. Since the road will not be paved, we recommend a woven geo-
textile (equivalent to Mirafi 500X) be installed on the subgrade prior to placement of the ABC
stone. The subgrade should be confirmed to be stable prior to placement of the geo-textile.
We emphasize that good drainage is essential for successful performance of the road. The access
road should be maintained in a drained condition at all times.Water build-up in the gravel surface
could saturate the underlying soils and result in softening of the subgrade and premature failures.
Proper drainage may be aided by grading the site such that surface water is directed away from
the road,and construction of swales adjacent to the road.The access road should be graded such
that surface water is directed towards the outer limits of the road.
5.5 SITE SEISMIC CLASSIFICATION
The following recommendations are based on the 2018 North Carolina Building Code (NCBC).
Our scope of services did not include site specific soil shear wave velocity testing. F&R has
evaluated the data obtained from the soil test borings for assignment of Seismic Site Class to this
site.
In accordance with procedures outlined in the 2018 NC Building Code for determining Site Class,
a weighted average of the soil conditions in the upper 100 feet was performed using SPT N-values
with the assumption that very dense/very hard soils are present below the maximum 50 foot
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
12

rAZ
exploration depth. Based on this evaluation of the SPT N-values, the soil profile indicates a Site
Class "E" is applicable to the project. It may be beneficial to consider performing shear wave
testing to evaluate whether the site class may be upgraded to Site Class D if the upgrade would
provide significant cost benefits to the project.
Although F&R has not performed a liquefaction evaluation, it is F&R's opinion that there does
not appear to be a potential for liquefaction due to the presence of moderate consistency silty
and clayey sands that typically exist over most of the site within the depths of our exploration. In
addition, the relatively high fines content of the finer grained clays encountered across the site
also indicate that liquefaction is unlikely. If a detailed evaluation of liquefaction is desired, F&R
would be available to perform such an evaluation at your request.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 SITE PREPARATION
Initial site development should include stripping all surficial organic soils, roots, vegetation and
any other deleterious materials from load bearing areas. The stripping should extend a distance
of at least 5 feet beyond the building/foundation perimeters. Following the stripping operations,
the exposed subgrade soils at the finished subgrade level and in fill sections should be proofrolled
with a loaded tandem axle dump truck, scraper, or other similar type of construction equipment
at the option of the geotechnical engineer to confirm the stability of the subgrade soils. The
proofroll operations should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or his representative. If
proofrolling reveals unstable conditions, the method of repair should be as directed by the
project geotechnical engineer. Methods of repair may include, but are not necessarily limited to
drying and re-compaction; undercutting and replacement with suitable structural fill; use of geo-
textiles and/or geo-grids with select fill; use of lime stabilization; or other methods deemed
appropriate by the project geotechnical engineer. Very loose soils were encountered within the
upper 2 to 6.5 feet of the soil profile of the borings and as such, F&R anticipates that subgrade
repairs may be required to establish stable subgrades across portions of the site.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
13

rAZ
Wet to saturated soils conditions were encountered in the borings at depths ranging from 2 to
8.5 feet to termination depths of the borings. As such,the cut soils from mass grading operations
and from utility trench excavations will likely be wet and require drying in order to be successfully
used as compacted, structural fill and backfill. In addition, it is possible that relatively shallow
perched and subsurface water could be encountered during construction depending upon the
time of the year site grading is performed. Open ditches and/or interceptor drains may be
required to improve site and soil profile drainage, improve soil moisture conditions, and help
stabilize near surface conditions.
6.2 STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
Below the surficial and existing possible fill soils, the on-site native near-surface soils that were
encountered typically consisted of silty and clayey sands (SM and SC). These soils should be
suitable for re-use as structural fill but may require drying to achieve adequate compaction and
stability. Structural fill should have moisture contents within 2 to 3 percent of optimum moisture
at the time of placement. If highly plastic soils (CH and MH) soils are encountered during site
grading activities they should not be used as structural fill.
Approved structural fill, not including NCDOT ABC stone, should consist of granular material or
low plasticity (PI less than 15) silty and clayey sandy soils (SM and SC). If imported structural fill
is required for the project,the fill should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to these
materials being transported to the site.All structural fill should be within 2 to 3 percentage points
of optimum moisture content at the time of placement.
Structural fill should be placed in lifts not to exceed 6 to 8 inches and compacted to at least 95
percent of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density. The top 12 inches of
subgrades in all load bearing building and pavement areas should be compacted to at least 98
percent of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density. Utility trench backfill in
load bearing areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-
698) maximum dry density. Fill and backfill materials placed in non-load bearing areas (e.g., non-
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
14

rAZ
vehicular grassed areas)areas should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the Standard Proctor
(ASTM D-698) maximum dry density.
Monitoring of all site preparation including stripping, undercutting and backfilling operations;
fabric/stabilization material placement; and density testing on each lift of backfill to verify that
adequate compaction is being achieved should be performed by a qualified soils technician
working under the direct supervision of the geotechnical engineer.
Depending upon the cut depths and site conditions at the time of construction, some soils may
require moisture conditioning (i.e., drying of wet soils, or wetting of dry soils) prior to use as
structural fill. As such, it is recommended that earthwork be performed during the summer and
early fall months (mid-April through November) when the weather conditions are more
conducive to moisture conditioning of soils.
As previously stated, the on-site soils have sufficient silt/clay content to render them moisture
sensitive. The on-site soils will become unstable (i.e., pump and rut) during normal construction
activities when in the presence of excess moisture. Soils with a moisture content greater than 3
percentage points above the optimum moisture content are generally considered to have
excessive moisture. During earthwork and construction activities, surface-water runoff should be
drained away from construction areas to prevent water from ponding on or saturating the soils
within excavations or on subgrades.
6.3 EQUIPMENT PAD FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that all foundation subgrades and bearing grades be observed by a qualified
geotechnical engineer or their representative prior to placement of reinforcing steel and
concrete. The purpose of the engineering observation would be to determine that the
foundations bear in suitable soils at the proper embedment depths, and that unsuitable soft or
loose materials are undercut and backfilled with approved structural fill material. Hand auguring
and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing should be performed at the direction of the
project geotechnical engineer to verify the consistency of the subgrade soils and underlying
support soils.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
15

r&R
It is recommended that a smooth bladed backhoe bucket be used to remove the final 6 to 12
inches of soils above the subgrade in order to prevent disturbing soils below the subgrade and/or
prevent gouging narrow grooves in the subgrade as may occur with a toothed-end bucket.
If soft, very loose, or otherwise unsuitable soils are encountered at the subgrade elevation,
undercutting and repair may be required. If undercutting is performed,the undercut excavations
should be backfilled with materials approved by the project geotechnical engineer. We
anticipate that most undercuts can be backfilled with clean sands (less than 10 percent fines),
NCDOT ABC stone, and/or No. 57 washed stone up to the planned subgrade. If ABC stone is
utilized, it may be placed in 12 inch thick lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the
Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698). If clean sand is used, it may be placed in
a single 8 to 12 inch thick lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the Standard Proctor
maximum dry density(ASTM D-698).The washed stone thickness should not exceed 2 feet before
the surface of the washed stone is densified with a heavy vibratory plate compactor to the
satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer or their representative. In some circumstances, the
geotechnical engineer may recommend that the undercuts be backfilled with lean concrete or
flowable fill.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the subgrade level if excavations remain
open for long periods of time. The subgrade surface should be level or suitably benched and free
of loose soil, ponded water, and debris. If the subgrade soils are softened by surface water
intrusion or exposure,the softened soils must be removed from the excavation immediately prior
to placement of concrete. Excavations must be maintained in a drained/de-watered condition
throughout the foundation construction process. If the foundation excavations must remain
open overnight,or if rainfall becomes imminent while the subgrade soils are exposed,we strongly
recommend that a 2 to 3 inch thick "mud mat" of lean concrete (2,000 psi) be placed on the
subgrade before placing the reinforcing steel. In addition, F&R stresses the need for positive
perimeter surface drainage around structure areas to direct all runoff water away from structures
and foundations.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
16

rAZ
6.4 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Pavement subgrades should be prepared as outlined in previous sections of this report. All base
course stone beneath flexible pavement should be compacted to at least 100 percent of the
modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557).
We emphasize that good base course drainage is essential for successful pavement performance.
The ABC stone should be maintained in a drained condition at all times. Water build-up in the
base course could result in premature pavement failures. Proper drainage may be aided by
grading the site such that surface water is directed away from pavements and construction of
swales adjacent to pavements. All pavements should be graded such that surface water is
directed towards the outer limits of the paved area or to catch basins located such that surface
water does not remain on the pavement.
Flexible asphalt pavements and bases should be constructed in accordance with the guidelines
of the latest applicable NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. Materials,
weather limitations, placement and compaction are specified under appropriate sections of this
publication.
6.5 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
We anticipate that the excavations at some locations may not be able to be sufficiently sloped
and may require temporary shoring. Trench boxes or internally-braced excavations are
anticipated; however, the type of excavation stabilization or shoring system used should be
selected and designed by the contractor.
Mass excavations and other excavations required for construction of this project must be
performed in accordance with the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines (29 CFR 1926, Subpart P, Excavations) or other
applicable jurisdictional codes for permissible temporary side-slope ratios and/or shoring
requirements. The OSHA guidelines require daily inspections of excavations, adjacent areas and
protective systems by a "competent person" for evidence of situations that could result in cave-
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
17

rAZ
ins, indications of failure of a protective system, or other hazardous conditions. All excavated
soils, equipment, building supplies, etc., should be placed away from the edges of excavations at
a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation. F&R cautions that the actual
excavation slopes will need to be evaluated frequently each day by the "competent person" and
flatter slopes or the use of shoring may be required to maintain a safe excavation depending
upon excavation-specific circumstances. The contractor is responsible for providing the
"competent person" and all aspects of site excavation safety. F&R can evaluate specific
excavation slope situations if we are informed and requested by the owner, designer, or
contractor's "competent person".
7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES
As previously discussed, a geotechnical engineer should be retained to monitor and test
earthwork activities, and observe subgrade preparations for foundations and pavements. It
should be noted that the actual soil conditions at the various subgrade levels and footing bearing
grades will vary across this site and thus the presence of the geotechnical engineer and/or their
representative during construction will serve to validate the subsurface conditions and
recommendations presented in this report.
A geotechnical engineer should be employed to monitor the earthwork,foundation construction,
and pile testing performed by others and to report that the recommendations contained in this
report are completed in a satisfactory manner. The continued geotechnical engineering
involvement on the project will aid in the proper implementation of the recommendations
discussed herein. The following is a recommended scope of services:
• Review of project plans and construction specifications to verify that the recommendations
presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented;
• Observe the earthwork process to document that subsurface conditions encountered during
construction are consistent with the conditions anticipated in this report;
• Observe the subgrade conditions before placing structural fill including proofroll observations;
• Observe the placement and compaction of any structural fill and backfill,and perform laboratory
and field compaction testing of the fill;
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
18

rAZ
• Observe the installation and testing of piles for the solar panel support systems; and,
• Observe all foundation excavations and footing bearing grades for compliance with the
recommended design soil bearing capacity. We also stress the importance of conducting hand
auger and DCP testing at and extending several feet below the footing bearing grade in order to
give an indication of the anticipated subsurface conditions and define footings that should be
undercut and repaired as outlined in this report.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of McKim & Creed and/or their agents, for
specific application to the referenced project in accordance with generally-accepted soil and
foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Our evaluations
and recommendations are based on design information furnished to us;the data obtained from the
previously-described, subsurface exploration program, and generally-accepted geotechnical
engineering practice.The evaluations and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface
conditions,which could exist intermediate of the boring locations or in unexplored areas of the site.
There are important limitations to this and all geotechnical studies. Some of these limitations are
discussed in the information prepared by GBA, which is included in Appendix IV. We ask that you
please review this information.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that conditions
between borings will differ from those at the boring locations,that conditions are not as anticipated
by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore,
experienced geotechnical engineers should evaluate earthwork, pavement, and foundation
construction to verify that the conditions anticipated in design actually exist. Otherwise,we assume
no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or
recommendations.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
19

r81Z
In the event that changes are made in the design or location of the proposed structures, the
recommendations presented in the report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are
reviewed by our firm and conclusions of this report modified and/or verified in writing. If this report
is copied or transmitted to a third party, it must be copied or transmitted in its entirety, including
text, attachments, and enclosures. Interpretations based on only a part of this report may not be
valid.
McKim&Creed Gillespie Solar Farm
F&R Project No. 668-0122 Revised:October 16,2023
20

rslz
APPENDIX
FIGURES

a
Softwoo Lane j ,,'
,.,4,Cl'‘"
__-_-•o.,,,
- .
P
0 b f \. ,
- -• .:., .
i g T -- - :
1,,,, c ,,,. ,,, \ 747 ,.:
7, ' _.., \\.-i
, ,
i „, , 1 ,.., .. , 0 ,
... __
% -,," , :,, „ „ ....
.,. _ ,R,„,,., -.- , ...,.,
--.t,... • '0 P
.,-
,,,, ,,,,,-°'.•, ., ' -- " .s.
./•:" --*4-4.7 ' ,..,
$."
99 '7. ' t,
Tanglewood.\ .
.
..•'.... .55,.. I : .5: %O.. 5' s,,,,,, ---
44;ein.:4 o.„ -_' . •-• ' _ .
._ _ __-- -.Eitates•
--. - -•......," J0
a -- „„0 . • .• .
0 ... ,a ,>0, /",./..r/i.'''•,,s\.''.b '
% e 0
re. 4L. / '--_.
-
) VI./
c____ '', .Cr, _ _ _ e I •
8
,‘.` i..=\ l '!-
\•..... •c 1..). " ,. ',....
e9.. Le
.$ 't
, Pro'ect Site ,„..
,,,
,
Lake lynn Darn
/.
'* ;'•44.
• I. • . e , Nte, i
*i. % •• • . C.-
, '... • : ••.° ,,,,,,O•NA-
... •,,• • s..."'
# ,
iri 14'
3'
3 ,
..3""" 635 Sorcee'S'
„ Lacy quo%ltreet
i a ,,,,, ,t,"'" '161. n;c=`-''''' •iN" n '3> ,,,,
.'
,, , ,,,
,,,,,
; ,4 Soup-mew g,,,,,,
--N, .'40, „
--I s Townhou0'.., ,,2..4 '‘:.,',,,,,, d l'S, / [
I.' :•.''''..,te' 4 ,6". „
i NC 162 1
. .."
Ro,nckohsh f .
j? I ,
e'''',,,,, .%'0, 1 po„' "''',.., F` . ,•
i -..„. ." "9,,, S.-:
1 ! '),"<:—- .‘
I , '.-..•'
'0 Tod 44,,
•-t,.:_.„ ,.
_- - ----
C %
'‘,, , ,,,, r----__._• -..,..„, -, ,
4.... .,'.I' 1.
-....._,.
Circle t„.41, °-
? c,.,
, eroMlyn Q ''R'e,
,,,Stading-.R-Oad-——
IIA.4e 0
O.'i.5
1 '.0
I I,.
tenela Ateen,,,e
4%, 1
-. - 1
6
- - -
,e.. , yeaCcest1-.^.
- =- 0 N
'5'
i
1 \
_ -C..... 4. / .
sk....46-...
Site Vicinity Map 0 sot) 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,0net
Client: McKim&Creed
Project: Gilliespie Solar Farm
r8,R 310 Hubert Street
ORF 0EHLING&ROBERTSON . L cation
EnglneerIng Stability Since 1881 Raleigh,North Carolina 27603 Fayetteville,Cumberland County,NC
T 919.828.3441 Project Number: 66B-0122
FIGURE 1
Data: Open Street
No.: -,-
Date: September 2023 I Scale:1 inch=2,000 feet

AR . =r lb. ' hady, 1' � x' ' ,°
�•t t'; ' „. + V4 Dyr - P ti . •. �.;' '� r • ,
r Fa dDr �a , � * • R
e �p�eX 4q
'„‘,.A.4) , 44 iii 4 . , . - ,,, f,- ' '.-...-. . ' ' .-- - "-) . 41*- . 3, - ,5,4;>, , 7.
a . Cr b:'''e y! s . ,..., s.
, , m , , ., r •
•
t ;� i Wes ' N ,� - ' ?� ° .�. Q,•b , ms, h �� '.'''t • "�' /" r 1g- - *''' ��
r� •r dy p Y Gl,r r - , %it
it
• r/F
ft . :.
� T
"IV
k, . Ott(
4 Mgran ( fL 47-•- ^ C`�
} , ifs •• ¢'1 r
t iy 1 a, N s' j(
64. . frit ‘c ' . 0'. ..,..r. ".
r - ,i L� .e -i
l r
iS F.,`e , ,.* ', 3r0.•• .1, ., ,Cros, j `" , .,
°fr
' )• ,jam a •
, • .9,_' e/' :� r_ , ','s
;Greek Dr a ";NMezza��n{ine Ct *-, :; �1' re • '
R v.
-4 _
*. Ill 4 A' tO q)i;',6' ittilt.P.'L ' ' ' / ....?' ' ^-, ''' '..... " , 4, •,, ; 6,... A
F: sp i
rv/»e, Att, r
4, ; :i y
' 0 r,
� ♦
s
// /(0 7 4-0- - 0. . / � o �, / *4F� /4 I
I.
Boring Location Plan 0 100 200 400 600 $OF0eet
McKim&Creed
f R FROEHLING&ROBERTSON 310 Hubert Street ®Gillespie Solar arm
Location Fayetteville,Cumberland County,NC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Project Number: 66B-0122
Engineering Stability Since 1881 FIGURE
T 919.828.3441 ®NCOne Map Parcel 2023/Aerial 2021 No.: 2
0 121: September 2023

r8cR FROEHLING & ROBERTSON
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Engineering Stability Since 1881
Plot Based on Elevation
Profile Name: Figure No. 3
Project No:66B-0122
Client: McKim &Creed
Project:Gillespie Solar Farm
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
195
B-1
190 . .
.•.13 B-5
:•:4 B-4 .. .
185 ".-... ,•.,.4
0-.*. "-:.-4 :•:5
8 B-2 B-3 •:•
180 -‘ 1-1 .6 --,.:- 6
: : ••••
../< .4
. .
111 . 3.0 :::::-8 • •
Y :•s• '.%17 ... -20 • •
175 -•• •••79
.•.
. . :::24 •.--*
/
. 32
•
••• . 11 .•.28 T ./..12
•••
^ 170 , , i4
. .
ru Y : . •
. .c •.. .••12 .7.)
, 8 •'•11
.•.
..r.. 165 ••• .?..,•8
ra . •'• / .•.
› .•.
...
LTJ . . • •
. . :•,12 •'•22
160 • '14 .••. ,•, •••11
— • •
•••.
•••
••.•
r,
.'.- • 4 .
.•.
0, • 2
1— . 10.4 .—.14 •••9
c'
0 155 :
f2 .7••y .•.
•'•10 4
F. :•:7
o 150
0
9 . .
...
0
ao 145
a.,
.-,.
,-,
9 •
ao
o
o 140
,-,
x • •
.1 .
c°1
..,
5
o
z
Llz :•• 15
>1 130
,,1

rslz
APPENDIX II
BORING LOGS

F&R
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Correlation of Penetration Resistance with
Relative Density and Consistency
Sands and Gravels Silts and Clays
No.of Relative No.of Relative
Blows,N Density Blows,N Density
0- 4 Very loose 0- 2 Very soft
5 - 10 Loose 3 - 4 Soft
11 -30 Medium dense 5 - 8 Firm
31 -50 Dense 9- 15 Stiff
Over 50 Very dense 16-30 Very stiff
31 -50 Hard
Over 50 Very hard
Particle Size Identification
(Unified Classification System)
Boulders: Diameter exceeds 8 inches
Cobbles: 3 to 8 inches diameter
Gravel: Coarse-3/4 to 3 inches diameter
Fine -4.76 mm to 3/4 inch diameter
Sand: Coarse-2.0 mm to 4.76 mm diameter
Medium-0.42 mm to 2.0 mm diameter
Fine -0.074 mm to 0.42 mm diameter
Silt and Clay: Less than 0.07 mm(particles cannot be seen with naked eye)
Modifiers
The modifiers provide our estimate of the amount of silt,clay or sand size particles in the soil sample.
Approximate Field Moisture
Content Modifiers Description
Saturated: Usually liquid; very wet, usually
<_5%: Trace from below the groundwater table
5%to 12%: Slightly silty,slightly clayey, Wet: Semisolid; requires drying to attain
slightly sandy optimum moisture
12%to 30%: Silty,clayey,sandy Moist: Solid;at or near optimum moisture
30%to 50%: Very silty,very clayey,very Dry: Requires additional water to attain
sandy optimum moisture
Ground Water
Water Level in Bore Hole Immediately after Drilling
L Static Water Level after 24 Hours

SINCE
fi*
1 8 8 1
UN IF I ED SOIL CLASS IF ICAT ION SYSTEM (USCS)
MAJOR DIVISION TYP ICAL NAMES
A• ' GW Well graded gravels
GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVEL .•.'I
(little or no fines) • 1GP Poorlgraded ravels
More than 50/ , 1 y9
•
of coarse
fraction larger II GM Silty gravels
than No. 4 sieve GRAVELS
with fines
ri
GC Clayey gravels
•••. SW Well graded sands
SANDS CLEAN SAND
(little or no fines)
More than 50/ SP Poorly graded sands
of coarse
fraction smaller • • • Silty sands,
than No. 4 sieve SAND ••• •• SM sand/silt mixtures
with fines Clayey sands,
- SC sand/clay mixtures
Inorganic silts, sandy
ML and clayey silts with
slightly plasticity
SILTS AND CLAYS Sandy or silty clays
Liquid Limit is less than 50 CL of low to medium
plasticity
OL Organic of low
plasticity
Inorganicsilts silts,
MH sandy micaceous or
clayey elastic silts
SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic clays of
Liquid Limit is greater than 50 CH high plasticity,
fat clays
, Organic clays of
OH medium to high
��� plasticity
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ` PT Peat and other highly
organic soils,A�
�Aro*•
* PWR (Partially
':.. • Weathered Rock)
� Rock
MISCELLANEOUS Asphalt
MATERIALS
ABC Stone
Concrete
•�% ' Surficial Organic Soil

FROEHLING ROBERTSON BORING LOG
Engineering Stability Since 1881 Boring: B-1 (1 of 1)
Project No:66B-0122 Elevation: 190± Drilling Method: Mud Rotary
Client: McKim &Creed Total Depth:30.0' Hammer Type:
Project:Gillespie Solar Farm Boring Location:See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled:8/16/23
City/State: Fayetteville, NC Driller:A.Sturchio
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth Depth ue Remarks
(Classification) Blows (feet) (blows )
189.8 - 0.2 SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS ` 5-6-7 0.0 GROUNDWATER DATA:
13 0 Hr: Not Measured due to
• COASTAL PLAIN:Very Loose to Medium Dense, 1,5 mud rotary techniques
Tan, Moist to Wet,Silty Fine to Coarse SAND 2.0
(SM) 3-2-2 24 Hrs: 14.6' inside PVC
Wet at 2.0' 4
3-2-3 3.5
5
5.0
•
•
183.5 - 6.5 344 6.5
Loose to Medium Dense, Red,Orange,Wet,
Clayey Fine to Coarse SAND(SC) 8
8.0
5-5-6 8.5
10.0 11
176.5 - 13.5 15 32 47 13.5
- ; Medium Dense to Very Dense,
- . Red-Yellow-Orange,Wet to Saturated,Silty Fine 79
to Coarse SAND(SM) 15.0
Saturated 13.5'-28.5'
11-11-11 18.5
22
20.0
•
•
2-4-7 23.5
11
M — 25.0
N
F
C7 -
_ 5-6-8 28.5
9 - 14
160.0 30.0 30.0
Boring Terminated at 30.0 feet.
e-I
9
O
Z
0
O
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30"to drive 2"0.D., 1.375" I.D.sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance,N-Value.

FROEHLING ROBERTSON BORING LOG
Engineering Stability Since 1881 Boring: B-2 (1 of 1)
Project No:66B-0122 Elevation: 181.5± Drilling Method: Mud Rotary
Client: McKim &Creed Total Depth:30.0' Hammer Type:
Project:Gillespie Solar Farm Boring Location:See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled:8/18/23
City/State: Fayetteville, NC Driller:A.Sturchio
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth Depth blows/ft Remarks
( )
(Classification) Blows (feet
181.3 - 0.2 SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS [ 3-3-3 0.0 GROUNDWATER DATA:
6 0 Hr: Not Measured due to
POSSIBLE FILL: Loose,White to Yellow-Tan and 1.5 mud rotary techniques
Brown, Dry to Moist, Poorly Graded SAND 2.0 24 Hrs: 13.9' inside PVC
(SP-SM)with Silt and Trace Roots 3-4-3
;' Moist at 2.0' 7
178.0 3.5 : RESIDUAL: Loose to Medium Dense,Tan, Moist 3-6-5 3.5
to Saturated, Poorly Graded SAND (SP-SM)with 11
Silt and Trace Roots(3.5'-6.5') 5.0
Saturated at 6.5' 4-4-5 6.5
9
8.0
173.0 - 8.5 r. 5-6-5 8.5
Medium Dense,Orangish Tan,Wet,Slightly
Clayey Fine to Medium SAND (SC) 11
10.0
168.0 - i3.5 13.5
- , Medium Dense, Pink and White to Yellow-Tan, 3-5-7
-•:. Moist to Saturated,Silty Fine to Medium SAND 12
(SM) 15.0
Saturated at 18.5' 5-6-6 18.5
12
20.0
158.0 - 23.5 23.5
Loose, Red-Orange-Brown,Saturated, Clayey 3-5-5
Fine to Medium SAND(SC)with Trace Mica 10
25.0
OC
_ 3-5-5 28.5
10
151.5 30.0
30.0 / Boring Terminated at 30.0 feet.
e-I
9
O
Z
0
O
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30"to drive 2"0.D., 1.375" I.D.sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance,N-Value.

r$,R
FROEHLING ROBERTSON BORING LOG
Engineering Stability Since 1881 Boring: B-3 (1 of 1)
Project No:66B-0122 Elevation: 181± Drilling Method: Mud Rotary
Client: McKim &Creed Total Depth:50.0' Hammer Type:
Project:Gillespie Solar Farm Boring Location:See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled:8/18/23
City/State: Fayetteville, NC Driller:A.Sturchio
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth (Classification) Blows Depthfet (blows/ft) Remarks
)
180.8 - 0.2 SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS [ 1-1-2 0.0 0 Hr: Not Measured due to
179.0 - 2.0 COASTAL PLAIN:Very Loose,Tan-Brown, Moist, �:8 3 mud rotary techniques
. `Silty Fine to Medium SAND(SM)with Trace Roots/ 4-5-5
3 5 10
Loose to Medium Dense, Red-Brown, Moist, 4-5-12
- Clayey Fine to Medium SAND (SC) 5.0 17
174.5 6.5 `l Medium Dense, Red-Orange and Yellow,Wet, 10-11-13 6.5
• :• Silty Fine to Coarse SAND(SM) 8:5 24
16-12-16
10.0 28
167.5 - 13.5-• 335 13.5
Loose, Red-Orange and Yellow,Wet, Clayey Fine
to Coarse SAND(SC) 15.0 8
162.5 18.5 8 10 12 18.5
• Very Loose to Medium Dense, Red-Yellow-Tan,
Wet to Saturated,Slightly Clayey Silty Fine to 20.0 22
• : Coarse SAND(SM)with Trace Mica and Fine
- • Gravel (38.5'-48.5')
5-7-7 23.5
25.0 14
Saturated at 28.5' 3-3-4 28.5
30.0 7
3-3-5 33.5
35.0 8
1-1-1 38.5
-
40.0 2
-
Ql
F _
C7 •
-
OC
2-3-3
43.5
45.0 6
o -
o - I
- 48.5
5-7-8
131.0 50.0 50.0 15
Boring Terminated at 50.0 feet.
9
0
z
0
0
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30"to drive 2"0.D., 1.375" I.D.sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance,N-Value.

FROEHLING ROBERTSON BORING LOG
Engineering Stability Since 1881 Boring: B-4 (1 of 1)
Project No:66B-0122 Elevation: 185.5± Drilling Method: Mud Rotary
Client: McKim &Creed Total Depth:30.0' Hammer Type:
Project:Gillespie Solar Farm Boring Location:See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled:8/17/23
City/State: Fayetteville, NC Driller:A.Sturchio
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth Depth blows/ft Remarks
( )
(Classification) Blows (feet
185.3 - 0.2 SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS ` 3-3-1 0.0 GROUNDWATER DATA:
- • 4 0 Hr: Not Measured due to
-• COASTAL PLAIN: Loose to Medium Dense, 1.5 mud rotary techniques
- Red-Orange-Tan, Moist to Wet, Poorly Graded
— SAND(SP-SM)with Silt and Trace Roots(0.0'-2.0') 2-2-7 2'0 24 Hrs: 14.8' inside PVC
•
9
2-3-3 3.5
6
5.0
5-4-4 6.5
8
8.0
-- Wet(8.5'-13.5') 5-6-14 8.5
20
10.0
172.0 - 13.5 13.5
Loose to Medium Dense, Pink and Tan to 4-5-7
1 Red-Orange,Wet,Silty Clayey Fine SAND(SC) 12
15.0
_% 3-3-5 18.5
8
20.0
162.0 - 23.5 - - 4-5-6 23.5
Loose to Medium Dense,Yellow-Tan to
- Red-Orange,Saturated,Slightly Clayey Silty Fine 11
: to Coarse SAND(SM) 25.0
N
F
C7 -
4-4-5 28.5
9
155.5 30.0 30.0
Boring Terminated at 30.0 feet.
e-I
21
O
Z
0
O
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30"to drive 2"0.D., 1.375" I.D.sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance,N-Value.

FROEHLING ROBERTSON BORING LOG
Engineering Stability Since 1881 Boring: B-5 (1 of 1)
Project No:66B-0122 Elevation: 187± Drilling Method: Mud Rotary
Client: McKim &Creed Total Depth:35.0' Hammer Type:
Project:Gillespie Solar Farm Boring Location:See Boring Location Plan Date Drilled:8/17/23
City/State: Fayetteville, NC Driller:A.Sturchio
Description of Materials *Sample Sample N-Value
Elevation Depth Depth blows/ft Remarks
( )
(Classification) Blows (feet)
186.8 - 0.2 °: SURFICIAL ORGANIC SOILS ` 2-2-2 0.0 4 0 Hr: Not Measured due to
- COASTAL PLAIN:Very Loose to Loose, 1.5 mud rotary techniques
- : Yellowish-Orangish Tan, Moist to Saturated,Silty 2-2-3 2.0
_•:• Fine to Coarse SAND(SM) 5
2-2-2 3.5
5.0 4
Wet at 6.5' 4-3-4 6.5
8.0 7
• Saturated at 8.5' 3-3-4 8.5
10.0 7
173.5 - 13.5 Dense,Orange-Tan-Gray,Wet, Clayey Fine to 16-16-16 13.5
- Medium SAND (SC) 15.0 32
168.5 18.5 --/ Loose to Medium Dense, Red-Yellow-Orange, 7-6-5 18.5
Wet,Slightly Clayey Silty Fine to Coarse SAND 11
20.0
(SM)
4-4-4 23.5
25.0 8
158.5 28.5 COASTAL PLAIN:Very Loose, Brown, Gray, Red, 5-1-1 28.5
Yellow,Saturated,Very Clayey Coarse SAND(SC) 30.0 2
o with Fine to Coarse Gravel
153.5 33.5 /-/i 33.5
Soft, Blackish Gray,Wet, Fine to Medium Sandy 3-1-3
152.0 - 35.0 Very Silty CLAY(CH)with Trace Mica 35.0 4
Boring Terminated at 35.0 feet.
9
z
0
0
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30"to drive 2"O.D., 1.375" I.D.sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6"increments.
The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance,N-Value.

rslz
APPENDIX III
FIELD RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS
LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
THERMAL RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS

Froehling&Robertson, Inc.
r8iR FROEHLING ROBERTSON 310 Hubert Street
Engineering Stability Since 1881 Raleigh, NC 27603-2302IUSA
T 919.828.3441 I F 919.828.5751
www.fandr.com
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON "
Soil Resistivity Data Sheet
PROJECT NAME: Gillespie Solar Farm PROJECT NO.: 66B-0122
CLIENT NAME: McKim&Creed DATE: 8/17/2023
PROJECT MANAGER: Brian McCarthy TEST PERFORMED BY: Joshua Davis
A=(ft) 5 10 25 50 -
Formula 957.56*R 1915*R 4788*R 9576*R -
Area 1
(East to West) Average
Measured 453.00 259.00 67.60 40.00 204.90
Resistance,R (CI)
Resistance,R
10)
Area 1
(East to West) Average Resistivity,
Calculated 433773.52 496014.75 323654.41 383022.98 - A (n cm) 409116.42
Resistivity,A
(SI-cm)
Area 1
(North to South) 425.00 211.00 74.10 36.00 - Average 186.53
Measured Resistance,R (CI)
Resistance,R 41)
Area 1
(North to South)
Average Resistivity,
Calculated 406961.91 404089.24 354775.03 344720.68 - A (n cm) 377636.72
Resistivity,A
(ff-cm)
Average Measured Resistance,R
(n) 195.71
Average Calculated Resistivity,A ( -cm) 393376.57

FROEHLING ROBERTSON ATTERBERG LIMITS
Engineering Stability Since 1881 Sheet: 1 of 1
Project No:66B-0122
Client: McKim &Creed
Project:Gillespie Solar Farm
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
60
CL CH
50
40
•
Y30
Vf
f6
20
10
(JCL-ML ML MH
'6 20 40 60 80 100
Liquid Limit
Boring No. Sample# Depth LL PL PI PASSING Classification %Natural
#200 Water Content
• B-2 BS-1 1.0'-4.0' NP NP NP 11.1 PG SAND with SILT(SP-SM) 2.3
m B-4 BS-2 1.0'-4.0' NP NP NP 10.1 PG SAND with SILT(SP-SM) 4.1
m
Ol
01
F
K
6
z_
F
F
CO
z
0
F
U
O
U
I-
F
2
K
m
en
H
H

r$,R FROEHLING ROBERTSON GRAIN SIZE
Engineering Stability Since 1881 DISTRIBUTION
Project No:66B-0122
Client: McKim &Creed
Project:Gillespie Solar Farm
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200
I 1 1 1 I I I 11 I —
. . I I L I l I I I I I
100
95 —
90
•
85 — - - —
80 -
75
L 70 — T
65 —
92 60 -
LL 55
v 50
U
a 45
40 — - —
35
•
30
25 -
20
15 -
10
50
-
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size(mm)
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
Boring No. Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu
• B-2 1.0'-4.0' POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM) NP NP NP 0.54 7.82
N m B-4 1.0'-4.0' POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM) NP NP NP 1.00 5.49
a
z Boring No. Depth D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay co t nt
• B-2 1.0'-4.0' 12.5 0.564 0.148 0.0 88.9 11.1 2.3
m B-4 1.0'-4.0' 12.5 0.41 0.175 0.0 89.9 10.1 4.1
Z
l7
N
7

$ FROEHLING ROBERTSON ASTM MOISTURE-DENSITY
c RELATIONSHIP
Engineering Stability Since 1881
Project No:66B-0122
Client: McKim &Creed
Project:Gillespie Solar Farm
City/State: Fayetteville, NC
0 5 10
130
125
120
41-9\He
115
110
105
100
95
90
850 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Sample Depth (ft) Classification LL PL PI %GRAVEL %SAND %FINES
(+#4) (#4-#200) (-#200)
• B-2 1.0'-4.0' Brown, POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM; NP NP NP 0.0 88.9 11.1
m B-4 1.0'-4.0' Tan, POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM) NP NP NP 0.0 89.9 10.1
c-1
0,
r
I Max Dry Optimum Sample Natural
Sample ASTM Sample Notes
Density(pcf) Moisture(%) Location Moisture(%)
0.
N • B-2 124.8 6.3 D-1557 A B-2 2.3 10.0 lb.Hammer, 18"drop
I B-4 119.6 6.2 D-1557 A B-4 4.1 10.0 lb.Hammer, 18"drop
v
0
0
F
0
O
o_
d

eotec h n i cs
geotechnical &geosynthetic testing
October 5, 2023
Project No. 2023-251-001
Patrick Alton
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
310 Hubert St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
[e-mail]
Transmittal
Laboratory Test Results
Gillespie Solar Farms
Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined
on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was
performed in general accordance with the methods listed on the enclosed data sheets. The test results are
believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of the
specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and imply no
position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the suitability of the
material for its intended use.
The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and disclosed
to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein is considered integral
with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the authorization of the Client
and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be retained for a minimum of 90 days
as directed by the Geotechnics' Quality Program.
We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further
assistance, please contact our office.
Respectively submitted,
Geotechnics, Inc.
Michael P. Smith
Regional Manager
We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services
and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics.
DCAT Data Transmittal Letter Date:1/28/05 Rev..I
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103• Raleigh, NC 27604• Phone[phone]• Fax[phone] •www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
geotechnical&geosynthetic testing
MOISTURE CONTENT
ASTM D 2216-19
Client: Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
Client Reference: Gillespie Solar Farm
Project No.: R-2023-251-001
Lab ID: 001 002
Boring No.: B-2 B-4
Depth (ft): 1-3.5 1-3.5
Sample No.: ST-1 ST-2
Tare Number 4019 3348
Wt. of Tare &Wet Sample (g) 291.22 252.41
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 282.76 226.70
Weight of Tare (g) 8.06 8.06
Weight of Water(g) 8.46 25.71
Weight of Dry Sample (g) 274.70 218.64
Water Content(%) 3.1 11.8
Notes:
Tested By SG Date 6/9/23 Checked By TWV Date 6/9/23
page 1 of 1 DCN:CT-S1 DATE:3/18/13 REVISION:4
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103• Raleigh, NC 27604• Phone[phone]• Fax[phone] •www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
SHELBY TUBE UNIT WEIGHT geotechnical&geosynthetic testing
ASTM D7263-21
Client: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. Boring No.: B-2
Client Reference: Gillespie Solar Farm Depth Pushed (ft): 1-3.5
Project No.: 2023-251-001 Shelby Tube No.: ST-1
Lab ID: 2023-251-001-001 Recovery (ft): 1.0
MOISTURE CONTENT
Section Number 1 2 3 4 5
Tare Number 4019
Weight of Tare &Wet Sample (g) 291.22
Weight of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 282.76
Weight of Tare (g) 8.06
Moisture Content (°/a) 3.08
UNIT WEIGHT
Weight of Tube &Wet Sample (g) 2179.34
Weight of Tube (g) 601.19
Weight of Wet Sample (g) 1578.15
Length 1 (in) 8.369
Length 2 (in) 8.386
Length 3 (in) 8.393
Top Diameter(in) 2.877
Middle Diameter(in) 2.875
Bottom Diameter(in) 2.871
Samnlp\/nli imp (r m31 891.35
Moisture Content (°/a) 3.08
Unit Wet Weight (g/cm3) 1.77
Unit Wet Weight (pcf) 110.48
Unit Dry Weight (q/cm3) 1.72
Unit Dry Weight (pcf) 107.2
SOIL PROFILE AND SAMPLING
DEPTH ELEV SECTION SOIL I SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST
( ) ( ) No. PROFILE AND REMARKS PERFORMED
1.5 —
2.0-
2.5-
3.0 2 ORANGE SAND UNIT WEIGHT
THERMAL
3.5 1 ► Mc ►
Note: When full recovery is not achieved,the elevation can not be accurately defined.
Indicate each cut of the tube with an arrow.
Indicate dividing line between soil types with a solid line.
Indicate wax by cross-hatching. Indicate soil types by standard symbols.
Tested By RPE Date 9/13/23 Checked By KC Date 10/5/23
page 1 of 1 DCN:CT-S37 DATE:4/10/13 REVISION:3
544 Braddock Avenue • East Pittsburgh, PA 15112 • Phone [phone] • Fax[phone] • www.geotechnics.net

geotechnics
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SOILS geotechnical&geosynthetic testing
ASTM D5334-14
Client: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. Boring No.: B-2
Client Reference: Gillespie Solar Farm Depth (ft): 2.6-3.4
Project No.: 2023-251-001 Sample No.: ST-1
Lab ID: 2023-251-001-001
Visual Description: Orange Sand (Undisturbed)
Mold / Specimen
Point No. 1 2 3 4
Mold ID: XX XX XX XX
Weight of Sample and Mold (g): 2206 2154 2148 2145
Weight of Mold (g): 626 626 626 626
Sample Volume (cm3): 891 891 891 891
Moisture Content / Density
Weight of Water(g): 61.00 9.00 3.00 0.00
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 1518.81 1518.81 1518.81 1518.81
Wet Density(g/cm3): 1.77 1.71 1.71 1.70
Wet Density(pcf): 110.6 107.0 106.5 106.3
Moisture Content(%): 4.0 0.6 0.2 0.0
Dry Density(pcf): 106.3 106.3 106.3 106.3
Thermal Conductivity(W/(m•K)) 1.484 0.633 0.489 0.405
Thermal Resistivity(°C•cm/W) 67.37 157.95 204.53 247.20
Thermal Dryout Curve
300.00 - -
250.00
h:::
U i -
t 100.00
H
50.00 -
0.00 , r I I I I I
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
%Moisture Content
Tested By WT Date 9/26/23 Checked By NJM Date 10/5/23
page 1 of 1 DCN:CT-S69, DATE:4/20/18, REVISION: 1 S:ExcellExce7QavSpreadsheetsvThermal Conductivity(rem).xls
544 Braddock Avenue • East Pittsburgh, PA 15112 • Phone [phone] • Fax[phone] • www.geotechnics.net

eotechnics
SHELBY TUBE UNIT WEIGHT geotechnical&geosynthetic testing
ASTM D7263-21
Client: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. Boring No.: B-4
Client Reference: Gillespie Solar Farm Depth Pushed (ft): 1-3.5
Project No.: 2023-251-001 Shelby Tube No.: ST-2
Lab ID: 2023-251-001-002 Recovery (ft): 1.0
MOISTURE CONTENT
Section Number 1 2 3 4 5
Tare Number 3348
Weight of Tare &Wet Sample (g) 252.41
Weight of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 226.70
Weight of Tare (g) 8.06
Moisture Content (°/a) 11.76
UNIT WEIGHT
Weight of Tube &Wet Sample (g) 2321.88
Weight of Tube (g) 595.47
Weight of Wet Sample (g) 1726.41
Length 1 (in) 8.407
Length 2 (in) 8.434
Length 3 (in) 8.417
Top Diameter(in) 2.877
Middle Diameter(in) 2.884
Bottom Diameter(in) 2.880
Samnlp Vnli imp (r m31 898.99
Moisture Content (°/a) 11.76
Unit Wet Weight (g/cm3) 1.92
Unit Wet Weight (pcf) 119.83
Unit Dry Weight (q/cm3) 1.72
Unit Dry Weight (pcf) 107.2
SOIL PROFILE AND SAMPLING
DEPTH ELEV SECTION SOIL SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST
( ) ( ) No. PROFILE AND REMARKS PERFORMED
1.5 —
2.0-
2.5-
GRAY AND BROWN
3.0 2 CLAYEY SAND UNIT WEIGHT
THERMAL —
3.5 1 ► Mc ►
Note: When full recovery is not achieved,the elevation can not be accurately defined.
Indicate each cut of the tube with an arrow.
Indicate dividing line between soil types with a solid line.
Indicate wax by cross-hatching. Indicate soil types by standard symbols.
Tested By RPE Date 9/13/23 Checked By KC Date 10/5/23
page 1 of 1 DCN:CT-S37 DATE:4/10/13 REVISION:3
544 Braddock Avenue • East Pittsburgh, PA 15112 • Phone [phone] • Fax[phone] • www.geotechnics.net

geotechnics
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SOILS geotechnical&geosynthetic testing
ASTM D5334-14
Client: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. Boring No.: B-4
Client Reference: Gillespie Solar Farm Depth (ft): 2.6-3.4
Project No.: 2023-251-001 Sample No.: ST-2
Lab ID: 2023-251-001-002
Visual Description: Gray and Brown Clayey Sand (Undisturbed)
Mold / Specimen
Point No. 1 2 3 4
Mold ID: W W W W
Weight of Sample and Mold (g): 2350 2280 2186 2177
Weight of Mold (g): 621 621 621 621
Sample Volume (cm3): 899 899 899 899
Moisture Content / Density
Weight of Water(g): 173.00 103.00 9.00 0.00
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 1555.53 1555.53 1555.53 1555.53
Wet Density(g/cm3): 1.92 1.84 1.74 1.73
Wet Density(pcf): 120.0 115.1 108.6 108.0
Moisture Content(%): 11.1 6.6 0.6 0.0
Dry Density(pcf): 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0
Thermal Conductivity(W/(m•K)) 1.829 1.614 0.871 0.845
Thermal Resistivity(°C•cm/W) 54.68 61.96 114.78 118.31
Thermal Dryout Curve
140.00 - -
120.00
w 100.00
.5
Vl'�
ai£ 80.00
c2 V
£V 60.00
d
t
I- 40.00
20.00
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
%Moisture Content
Tested By WT Date 9/26/23 Checked By NJM Date 10/5/23
page 1 of 1 DCN:CT-S69, DATE:4/20/18, REVISION: 1 S:ExcellExce7QavSpreadsheetsvThermal Conductivity(rem).xls
544 Braddock Avenue • East Pittsburgh, PA 15112 • Phone [phone] • Fax[phone] • www.geotechnics.net

geotechnics
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SOILS geotechnical&geosynthetic testing
ASTM D5334-14
Client: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. Boring No.: B-2
Client Reference: Gillespie Solar Farm Depth (ft): 1-4
Project No.: 2023-251-001 Sample No.: BS-1
Lab ID: 2023-251-001-003
Visual Description: Brown Sand (Remolded)
Mold / Specimen
Point No. 1 2 3 4
Mold ID: S S S S
Weight of Sample and Mold (g): 2162 2119 2073 2038
Weight of Mold (g): 612 612 612 612
Sample Volume (cm3): 873 873 873 873
Moisture Content / Density
Weight of Water(g): 124.00 81.00 35.00 0.00
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 1426.44 1426.44 1426.44 1426.44
Wet Density(g/cm3): 1.78 1.73 1.67 1.63
Wet Density(pcf): 110.8 107.7 104.4 101.9
Moisture Content(%): 8.7 5.7 2.5 0.0
Dry Density(pcf): 101.9 101.9 101.9 101.9
Thermal Conductivity(W/(m•K)) 1.837 1.494 0.560 0.477
Thermal Resistivity(°C•cm/W) 54.44 66.92 178.44 209.76
Thermal Dryout Curve
250.00 -
200.00 .-
.5
•y g 150.00
ce E
ToU
£ 100.00
a)
s
1-
50.00 •
0.00 1 ,
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
%Moisture Content
Tested By WT Date 9/26/23 Checked By NJM Date 10/5/23
page 1 of 1 DCN:CT-S69, DATE:4/20/18, REVISION: 1 S:ExcellExce7QavSpreadsheetsvThermal Conductivity(rem).xls
544 Braddock Avenue • East Pittsburgh, PA 15112 • Phone [phone] • Fax[phone] • www.geotechnics.net

geotechnics
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SOILS geotechnical&geosynthetic testing
ASTM D5334-14
Client: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. Boring No.: B-4
Client Reference: Gillespie Solar Farm Depth (ft): 1-4
Project No.: 2023-251-001 Sample No.: BS-2
Lab ID: 2023-251-001-004
Visual Description: Brown Sand (Remolded)
Mold / Specimen
Point No. 1 2 3 4
Mold ID: AD AD AD AD
Weight of Sample and Mold (g): 2244 2199 2152 2121
Weight of Mold (g): 612 612 612 612
Sample Volume (cm3): 885 885 885 885
Moisture Content / Density
Weight of Water(g): 123.00 78.00 31.00 0.00
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 1508.63 1508.63 1508.63 1508.63
Wet Density(g/cm3): 1.84 1.79 1.74 1.71
Wet Density(pcf): 115.1 111.9 108.6 106.4
Moisture Content(%): 8.2 5.2 2.1 0.0
Dry Density(pcf): 106.4 106.4 106.4 106.4
Thermal Conductivity(W/(m•K)) 1.946 1.697 0.718 0.465
Thermal Resistivity(°C•cm/W) 51.39 58.93 139.33 214.86
Thermal Dryout Curve
250.00 -
200.00
T
.5
•y g 150.00
ce E
ToU
£ 100.00
a)
s
1-
50.00
0.00 ,
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
%Moisture Content
Tested By WT Date 9/26/23 Checked By NJM Date 10/5/23
page 1 of 1 DCN:CT-S69, DATE:4/20/18, REVISION: 1 S:ExcellExce7QavSpreadsheetsvThermal Conductivity(rem).xls
544 Braddock Avenue • East Pittsburgh, PA 15112 • Phone [phone] • Fax[phone] • www.geotechnics.net

w°
Waypoint 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
9/20/2023
Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (Raleigh)
Brian McCarthy
310 Hubert Street
Raleigh, NC, 27603
Ref: Analytical Testing
Lab Report Number: 23-250-0101
Client Project Description: Gillespie Solan Farm
Dear Brian McCarthy:
Waypoint Analytical, LLC (Charlotte) received sample(s) on 9/7/2023 for the analyses presented in the
following report.
The above referenced project has been analyzed per your instructions. The analyses were performed in
accordance with the applicable analytical method.
The analytical data has been validated using standard quality control measures performed as required by the
analytical method. Quality Assurance, method validations, instrumentation maintenance and calibration for all
parameters were performed in accordance with guidelines established by the USEPA(including 40 CFR 136
Method Update Rule May 2021) unless otherwise indicated.
Certain parameters (chlorine, pH, dissolved oxygen, sulfite...) are required to be analyzed within 15 minutes of
sampling. Usually, but not always, any field parameter analyzed at the laboratory is outside of this holding time.
Refer to sample analysis time for confirmation of holding time compliance.
The results are shown on the attached Report of Analysis(s). Results for solid matrices are reported on an as-
received basis unless otherwise indicated. This report shall not be reproduced except in full and relates only to
the samples included in this report.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or client services if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Angela D Overcash
Senior Project Manager
Laboratory's liability in any claim relating to analyses performed shall be limited to, at laboratory's option, repeating the
analysis in question at laboratory's expense, or the refund of the charges paid for performance of said analysis.
Page 1 of 16

�O
•
Waypoint 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Certification Summary
Laboratory ID: WP CNC: Waypoint Analytical Carolina, Inc. (C), Charlotte, NC
State Program Lab ID Expiration Date
North Carolina State Program 37735 07/31/2024
North Carolina State Program 402 12/31/2023
South Carolina State Program 99012 07/31/2024
South Carolina State Program 99012 12/31/2023
Laboratory ID: WP MTN: Waypoint Analytical, LLC., Memphis,TN
State Program Lab ID Expiration Date
Alabama State Program 40750 02/29/2024
Arkansas State Program 88-0650 02/07/2024
California State Program 2904 06/30/2024
Florida State Program - NELAP E871157 06/30/2024
Georgia State Program C044 11/14/2025
Georgia State Program 04015 06/30/2024
Illinois State Program - NELAP 200078 10/31/2024
Kentucky State Program 80215 06/30/2024
Kentucky State Program KY90047 12/31/2023
Louisiana State Program - NELAP LA037 12/31/2023
Louisiana State Program - NELAP 04015 06/30/2024
Mississippi State Program MS 11/14/2025
North Carolina State Program 47701 07/31/2024
North Carolina State Program 415 12/31/2023
Pennsylvania State Program - NELAP 68-03195 05/31/2024
South Carolina State Program 84002 06/30/2023
Tennessee State Program 02027 11/14/2025
Texas State Program - NELAP T104704180 09/30/2023
Virginia State Program 00106 06/30/2024
Virginia State Program - NELAP 460181 09/14/2024
Page 1 of 1 00016/23-250-0101
Page 2 of 16

wo
V\layP0I tit 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Sample Summary Table
Report Number: 23-250-0101
Client Project Description: Gillespie Solan Farm
Lab No Client Sample ID Matrix Date Collected Date Received Method Lab ID
94378 B-1,S-2,S-3 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023
94378 B-1,S-2,S-3 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023 ASTM-G57-95 WP MTN
94378 B-1,S-2,S-3 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023 9045D WP MTN
94378 B-1,S-2,S-3 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023 SW-9034 WP MTN
94379 B-2,S-2,S-3-1 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023
94379 B-2,S-2,S-3-1 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023 9045D WP MTN
94379 B-2,S-2,S-3-1 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023 ASTM-G57-95 WP MTN
94379 B-2,S-2,S-3-1 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023 SW-9034 WP MTN
94380 B-4,S-2,BS-2 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023
94380 B-4,S-2,BS-2 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023 SW-9034 WP MTN
94380 B-4,S-2,BS-2 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023 9045D WP MTN
94380 B-4,S-2,BS-2 Solids 09/06/2023 09/07/2023 ASTM-G57-95 WP MTN
WP MTN -Memphis,TN: Waypoint Analytical-TN, Memphis,TN
Page 3 of 16

YY
Waypoint 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Summary of Detected Analytes
Project: Gillespie Solan Farm
Report Number: 23-250-0101
Client Sample ID Lab Sample ID
Method Parameters Result Units Report Limit Analyzed Qualifiers
B-1,S-2,S-3 V 94378
9045D pH 5.09 s.u. 09/08/2023 14:44
9045D Oxidation Reduction Potential 255 mV 09/18/2023 09:50
ASTM-G57-95 Resistivity(soil) 3850 ohm-cm 09/18/2023 13:00
SW-9034 Sulfide 34.8 mg/Kg-dry 26.2 09/15/2023 09:24
SW-DRYWT Moisture 4.63 % 09/08/2023 16:45
B-2,S-2,S-3-1 V 94379
9045D pH 4.97 s.u. 09/08/2023 14:44
9045D Oxidation Reduction Potential 263 mV 09/18/2023 09:50
ASTM-G57-95 Resistivity(soil) 2490 ohm-cm 09/18/2023 13:00
SW-DRYWT Moisture 2.21 % 09/08/2023 16:45
B-4,S-2,BS-2 V 94380
9045D pH 5.00 s.u. 09/08/2023 14:44
9045D Oxidation Reduction Potential 286 mV 09/18/2023 09:50
ASTM-G57-95 Resistivity(soil) 4460 ohm-cm 09/18/2023 13:00
SW-DRYWT Moisture 3.42 % 09/08/2023 16:45
Page 4 of 16

Wáypount 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Client: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (Raleigh) CASE NARRATIVE
Project: Gillespie Solan Farm66B-0122-00002
Lab Report Number: 23-250-0101
Date: 9/20/2023
Sulfide by Titration Method SW-9034
Analyte: Sulfide
QC Batch No: L704739
Matrix spike recovery is outside of control limits. Acceptable LCS recovery indicates the system was in control,
but the reported result could be affected by matrix interference.
Anions by Ion Chromatography Method 9056A
Sample 94378 (B-1,S-2,S-3)
Analyte: Sulfate
QC Batch No: V37931/V37906
Relative Percent Difference (RPD)for the duplicate analysis was outside of the allowable QC limits.
Sample 94378 (B-1,S-2,S-3)
Analyte: Sulfate
QC Batch No: V37931/V37906
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries are outside of control limits. Acceptable LCS recovery indicates the
system was in control, but the reported result could be affected by matrix interference.
Sample 94379 (B-2,S-2,S-3-1)
Analyte: Sulfate
QC Batch No: V37931/V37906
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries are outside of control limits. Acceptable LCS recovery indicates the
system was in control, but the reported result could be affected by matrix interference.
Page 5 of 16

Vlaypoint, 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
01083
Froehling&Robertson,Inc. (Raleigh) Project Gillespie Solan Farm
Brian McCarthy Report Date : 09/20/2023
310 Hubert Street Information : Received : 09/07/2023
Raleigh , NC 27603
Report Number :23-250-0101 REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Lab No : 94378 Matrix: Solids
Sample ID : B-1,5-2,5-3 Sampled: 9/6/2023 0:00
Test Results Units MQL DF Date/Time By Analytical
Analyzed Method
Resistivity(soil) 3850 ohm-cm 1 09/18/23 13:00 WP ASTM-G57-95
Oxidation Reduction Potential 255 mV 1 09/18/23 09:50 TKM 9045D
Moisture 4.63 % 1 09/08/23 16:45 CNC SW-DRYWT
Chloride <262 mg/Kg-dry 262 10 09/15/23 15:22 KNC 9056A
pH 5.09 s.u. 1 09/08/23 14:44 EKF 9045D
Sulfate <367 mg/Kg-dry 367 10 09/15/23 15:22 KNC 9056A
Sulfide 34.8 mg/Kg-dry 26.2 1 09/15/23 09:24 ANV SW-9034
Qualifiers/ DF Dilution Factor MQL Method Quantitation Limit
Definitions
Page 6 of 16

Waypoint, 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
01083
Froehling&Robertson,Inc. (Raleigh) Project Gillespie Solan Farm
Brian McCarthy Report Date : 09/20/2023
310 Hubert Street Information : Received : 09/07/2023
Raleigh , NC 27603
Report Number :23-250-0101 REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Lab No : 94379 Matrix: Solids
Sample ID : B-2,S-2,5-3-1 Sampled: 9/6/2023 0:00
Test Results Units MQL DF Date/Time By Analytical
Analyzed Method
Resistivity(soil) 2490 ohm-cm 1 09/18/23 13:00 WP ASTM-G57-95
Oxidation Reduction Potential 263 mV 1 09/18/23 09:50 TKM 9045D
Moisture 2.21 % 1 09/08/23 16:45 CNC SW-DRYWT
Chloride <256 mg/Kg-dry 256 10 09/15/23 15:35 KNC 9056A
pH 4.97 s.u. 1 09/08/23 14:44 EKF 9045D
Sulfate <358 mg/Kg-dry 358 10 09/15/23 15:35 KNC 9056A
Sulfide <25.5 mg/Kg-dry 25.5 1 09/15/23 09:24 ANV SW-9034
Qualifiers/ DF Dilution Factor MQL Method Quantitation Limit
Definitions
Page 7 of 16

Waypoint, 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
01083
Froehling&Robertson,Inc. (Raleigh) Project Gillespie Solan Farm
Brian McCarthy Report Date : 09/20/2023
310 Hubert Street Information : Received : 09/07/2023
Raleigh , NC 27603
Report Number :23-250-0101 REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Lab No : 94380 Matrix: Solids
Sample ID : B-4,5-2,B5-2 Sampled: 9/6/2023 0:00
Test Results Units MQL DF Date/Time By Analytical
Analyzed Method
Resistivity(soil) 4460 ohm-cm 1 09/18/23 13:00 WP ASTM-G57-95
Oxidation Reduction Potential 286 mV 1 09/18/23 09:50 TKM 9045D
Moisture 3.42 % 1 09/08/23 16:45 CNC SW-DRYWT
Chloride <259 mg/Kg-dry 259 10 09/15/23 15:47 KNC 9056A
pH 5.00 s.u. 1 09/08/23 14:44 EKF 9045D
Sulfate <362 mg/Kg-dry 362 10 09/15/23 15:47 KNC 9056A
Sulfide <25.8 mg/Kg-dry 25.8 1 09/15/23 09:24 ANV SW-9034
Qualifiers/ DF Dilution Factor MQL Method Quantitation Limit
Definitions
Page 8 of 16

o
Waypoint - 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Quality Control Data
Client ID: Froehling&Robertson,Inc.(Raleigh)
Project Description: Gillespie Solan Farm
Report No: 23-250-0101
QC Analytical Batch: L704846
Analysis Method: 9045D
Analysis Description: ORP
Laboratory Control Sample LCS
Spike LCS LCS%Rec %Rec
Parameter Units Conc. Result Limits
Oxidation Reduction Potential mV 200 181 91.0 90-110
Duplicate V 94376-DUP
Result DUP Criteria Analyzed
Parameter Units Result
Oxidation Reduction Potential mV 175 183 +/-20 09/18/23 09:50
Date: 09/20/2023 02:06 PM Page 1 of 6
Page 9 of 16

o
Waypoint 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Quality Control Data
Client ID: Froehling&Robertson,Inc.(Raleigh)
Project Description: Gillespie Solan Farm
Report No: 23-250-0101
QC Analytical Batch: V37602
Analysis Method: 9045D
Analysis Description: pH in Solids
Laboratory Control Sample LCS
Spike LCS LCS%Rec %Rec
Parameter Units Conc. Result Limits
pH s.u. 6.86 6.91 101 3.54-101.z
Duplicate V 94004-DUP
Result DUP RPD Max RPD Analyzed
Parameter Units Result
pH s.u. 8.25 8.25 0.0 20.0 09/08/23 14:44
Date: 09/20/2023 02:06 PM Page 2 of 6
Page 10 of 16

wo
V/aypoint 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Quality Control Data
Client ID: Froehling&Robertson,Inc.(Raleigh)
Project Description: Gillespie Solan Farm
Report No: 23-250-0101
QC Prep: V37906 QC Analytical Batch(es): V37931
QC Prep Batch Method: SW-9056A(PREP) Analysis Method: 9056A
Analysis Description: Anions by Ion Chromatography
Lab Reagent Blank LRB-V37906 Matrix: SOL
Associated Lab Samples: 94378, 94379, 94380
Blank MQL Analyzed
Parameter Units Result
Chloride mg/Kg <250 250 09/15/23 19:05
Sulfate mg/Kg <350 350 09/15/23 19:05
Laboratory Control Sample LCS-V37906
Spike LCS LCS%Rec %Rec
Parameter Units Conc. Result Limits
Chloride mg/Kg 400 374 94.0 80-120
Sulfate mg/Kg 400 411 103 80-120
Matrix Spike&Matrix Spike Duplicate V 94378-MS-V37906 V 94378-MSD-V37906
MS Spike MSD MS Result MSD MS MSD %Rec Max
Parameter Units Result Conc. Spike Result %Rec %Rec Limits RPD RPD
Conc.
Chloride mg/Kg <250 400 401 419 415 105 103 80-120 0.9 15
Sulfate mg/Kg <350 400 401 572 706 143* 176* 80-120 20.9* 15
Matrix Spike&Matrix Spike Duplicate V 94379-MS-V37906 V 94379-MSD-V37906
MS Spike MSD MS Result MSD MS MSD a/oRec Max
Parameter Units Result Conc. Spike Result %Rec %Rec Limits RPD RPD
Conc.
Chloride mg/Kg <250 400 399 424 421 106 106 80-120 0.7 15
Sulfate mg/Kg <350 400 399 542 526 136* 132* 80-120 2.9 15
*QC Fail Date: 09/20/2023 02:06 PM Page 3 of 6
Page 11 of 16

o
Waypoint - 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Quality Control Data
Client ID: Froehling&Robertson,Inc.(Raleigh)
Project Description: Gillespie Solan Farm
Report No: 23-250-0101
QC Analytical Batch: L704770
Analysis Method: ASTM-G57-95
Analysis Description: Resistivity
Duplicate V 94376-DUP
Result DUP RPD Max RPD Analyzed
Parameter Units Result
Resistivity(soil) ohm-cm 2210 2240 1.3 20.0 09/18/23 13:00
Date: 09/20/2023 02:06 PM Page 4 of 6
Page 12 of 16

w
V /aypoint - 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Quality Control Data
Client ID: Froehling&Robertson,Inc.(Raleigh)
Project Description: Gillespie Solan Farm
Report No: 23-250-0101
QC Prep: L704616 QC Analytical Batch(es): L704739
QC Prep Batch Method: SW-9030B Analysis Method: SW-9034
Analysis Description: Sulfide by Titration
Lab Reagent Blank LRB-L704616 Matrix: SOL
Associated Lab Samples: 94378, 94379, 94380
Blank MQL Analyzed
Parameter Units Result
Sulfide mg/Kg <25.0 25.0 09/15/23 09:24
Laboratory Control Sample LCS-L704616
Spike LCS LCS%Rec %Rec
Parameter Units Conc. Result Limits
Sulfide mg/Kg 248 168 68.0 32-85
Duplicate V 94377-DUP-L704616
Result DUP RPD Max RPD Analyzed
Parameter Units Result
Sulfide mg/Kg <25.0 <25.0 0.0 20 09/15/23 09:24
Matrix Spike V 94377-MS-L704616
MS Spike MSD MS Result MSD MS %Rec Max
Parameter Units Result Conc. Spike Result %Rec Limits RPD
Conc.
Sulfide mg/Kg <25.0 99.1 80.0 81.0* 25-75
Date: 09/20/2023 02:06 PM Page 5 of 6
Page 13 of 16

o
Waypoint - 449 Springbrook Rd, Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Quality Control Data
Client ID: Froehling&Robertson,Inc.(Raleigh)
Project Description: Gillespie Solan Farm
Report No: 23-250-0101
QC Analytical Batch: V37617
Analysis Method: SW-DRYWT
Analysis Description: Dry Weight Determination
Duplicate V 94378-DUP
Result DUP RPD Max RPD Analyzed
Parameter Units Result
Moisture % 4.63 4.25 8.5 20.0 09/08/23 16:45
Duplicate V 94389-DUP
Result DUP RPD Max RPD Analyzed
Parameter Units Result
Moisture % 11.7 11.8 0.8 20.0 09/08/23 16:45
Date: 09/20/2023 02:06 PM Page 6 of 6
Page 14 of 16

�o
•
Wapoint 449 Springbrook Rd,Charlotte, NC 28217
Main 704.529.6364
ANALYTICAL www.waypointanalytical.com
Shipment Receipt Form
Customer Number:01083
Customer Name: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (Raleigh)
Report Number: 23-250-0101
Shipping Method
O Fed Ex 0 US Postal 0 Lab 0 Other :
0 UPS 0 Client 0 Courier Thermometer ID: IRT15 0.7C
Shipping container/cooler uncompromised? # Yes 0 No
Number of coolers/boxes received 1
Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Not Present
Custody seals intact on sample bottles? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Not Present
Chain of Custody (COC) present? 0 Yes 0 No
COC agrees with sample label(s)? 0 Yes 0 No
COC properly completed 0 Yes 0 No
Samples in proper containers? 0 Yes 0 No
Sample containers intact? 0 Yes 0 No
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test(s)? 0 Yes 0 No
All samples received within holding time? 0 Yes 0 No
Cooler temperature in compliance? 0 Yes 0 No
Cooler/Samples arrived at the laboratory on ice. 0 Yes 0 No
Samples were considered acceptable as cooling
process had begun.
Water- Sample containers properly preserved 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A
Water- VOA vials free of headspace 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A
Trip Blanks received with VOAs 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A
Soil VOA method 5035—compliance criteria met 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A
High concentration container (48 hr) Low concentration EnCore samplers (48 hr)
High concentration pre-weighed (methanol -14 d) Low conc pre-weighed vials (Sod Bis -14 d)
Special precautions or instructions included? 0 Yes 0 No
Comments:
Signature: Angela D Overcash Date &Time: 09/07/2023 16:33:03
Page 15 of 16

c 1—^`I' ri�- 1 11
OOZZo m el • 1c m �� N CA om m = • M n
Z 1 aya 01 Q 00 C7 3 U-' w >> cD cD p y 0 v v
A �I 3 1 1 t i 1 3 r r , 0 0
..
. 73 a .,;, 5 -I °
.. IP i
.�z,r� ram_ 0
D
A I
•T 5Ig - cA (J� ( ) 3 a 3
o On C/� p
o c D n nI 5�� alp 3 N r .< 3 ` 1 H 2. z •2, 0)
O `� ` 891 Z o •• Z 3 ao
c°0i °m° L. $ �!% • 3 `° o>73
1 / :i al oDO
n Z �cmin a9,---- a� �•
C p` m x. m�fl
o 3
-ia a2 2a =30
z m 8 cc.m; C r n N�
OOvm %m ` us jmm ri0
Z x n flu 0
n 2 0 0i ; __._
O Zo a ;a r•D f
co 0!a CO°'0 3 C!J C./3 C' C- !/7 co o m o
Fnl f 51 f , • 7't i,R
A i 2 W and a :m A 'T I D 5 v .9 cn v y
77pp y (� ^^ m 3 0 - a _o O m o a O T O
C (nl'� F �� ao E? Z 11- J' m c. w = °1 0, II lC ( m W S 51
m S
m a <D m w
rn
Z a w m m j a°z a 7 'n a m ' m -1 7 D O Z
n C1 m e:: v
$
L] O n m m �mm c, m ap�� a, DDg TO
to c 1o`°c, v a 0 lla 0 g Z
n :r x z g 1- -- a r Cr 0 cu m Z o = 4 .
m I m 8, ,4 0 m 0 0 Os - t�C' A m - C, D
T 5 1
.Ow • m -,goo `c m - �a ' m 19
GOB �C Or °mac f m < 3 j m � (� s
Zn OA ya.m - y ett y � a •i 0 ♦/
<_- O N -r,• t- Z
G Zma
O Z w1 - r9no - m - --+-�m cqi c
n e g i 0. . .. . '�C ye m
I. q v P m m °i C m rT- c� -
R• ar -im r•ma n a
q
CZ m� yn o o O �C m y
A �< Oom Q 01c y N(7a
Lp� �a - mg1x� L 0 cC.
z
0 I I
D a �.. �.'O7 yOOl
O O ' M �. w a<og c 11 In 0 m
o �j �S Sif.
0
�. _0 g —p O
0) 1-* r4 is y 1— 56 i° io 3
Z = R -5-;- 1!i7 --' c -4,-. a• t ,/a'y -T
0P • 303 C� 07 mmOCm 17
q w• _
•
4,• , "'I A 3 b .. i* 7 r O m a ma 7 Isii z o •qh, C + 6- r m n w Z I.,-
D. __ 3 M C.
C.O.,
,C J'► a CI -10 gzc m0
m o d m -1 Cm 10 O Zm * <_ a m OZOD o- Da ; m
0
c
3 _� o m r-- m 0 cmn d
O n D
m a��oS^' Z > 0
m
o� L.
O Do
I � � m ' n
111 w o
mw
�` r
Z om s I 0I I I I v
D 30 PI
I- Nz Q m J �I? I I I D
r
Page 16 of 16

rslz
APPENDIX IV
GBA DOCUMENT

Important Information about This
(-- Geotecbnical-[ngineering
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly those that affect:
a client representative—interpret and apply this • the site's size or shape;
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively • the function of the proposed structure,as when it's
as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from changed from a parking garage to an office building,or
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or
that,for decades, have been a principal cause of weight of the proposed structure;
construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and • the composition of the design team;or
disputes. If you have questions or want more • project ownership.
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a impact.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
construction project. would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects • for a different client;
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific • for a different project;
needs of their clients.A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a different site(that may or may not include all or a
for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil- portion of the original site);or
works constructor or even a different civil engineer.Because each • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
geotechnical-engineering study is unique,each geotechnical- to it;e.g.,man-made events like construction or
engineering report is unique,prepared solely for the client.Those who environmental remediation,or natural events like floods,
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client droughts,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctuations.
can be seriously misled.No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first Note,too,that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
-not even you-should apply this report for any purpose or project except because of factors like changed subsurface conditions;new or modified
the one originally contemplated. codes,standards,or regulations;or new techniques or tools.If your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an`apply-by"date on the report,
Read this Report in Full ask what it should be,and,in general,if you are the least bit uncertain
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical
engineering report did not read it in its entirety.Do not rely on an engineer before applying it.A minor amount of additional testing or
executive summary.Do not read selected elements only.Read this report analysis-if any is required at all-could prevent major problems.
in full.
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer Professional Opinions
about Change Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
when designing the study behind this report and developing the Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.A few those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed.The
typical factors include: data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
• the client's goals,objectives,budget,schedule,and geotechnical engineer,who then applied professional judgment to
risk-management preferences; form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual
• the general nature of the structure involved,its size, sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ-maybe significantly-from
configuration,and performance criteria; those indicated in this report.Confront that risk by retaining your
• the structure's location and orientation on the site;and geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
• other planned or existing site improvements,such as project finish,so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
retaining walls,access roads,parking lots,and whenever needed.
underground utilities.

This Report's Recommendations Are perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to allow enough
Confirmation-Dependent time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in a position
The recommendations included in this report-including any options to give constructors the information available to you,while requiring
or alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
not final,because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and preconstruction
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction.If through observation your Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do
actually do exist,the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
no other changes have occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared engineering disciplines.That lack of understanding has nurtured
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation- unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments,delays,
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform cost overruns,claims,and disputes.To confront that risk,geotechnical
construction observation. engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled"limitations;'many of these provisions indicate
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted where geotechnical engineers'responsibilities begin and end,to help
Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical- others recognize their own responsibilities and risks.Read these
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical engineer should
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the respond fully and frankly.
design team,to:
• confer with other design-team members, Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
• help develop specifications, The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals' environmental study-e.g.,a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental
plans and specifications,and site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform
• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering a geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical-
guidance is needed. engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
report.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction failures.If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
observation. information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management
guidance.As a general rule,do not rely on an environmental report
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance prepared for a different client,site,or project,or that is more than six
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift months old.
unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the Infiltration and Mold
complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note water infiltration,or similar issues in this report,none of the engineer's
conspicuously that you've included the material for informational services were designed,conducted,or intended to prevent uncontrolled
purposes only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil through
that"informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where it can
on the interpretations,opinions,conclusions,or recommendations in cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.Accordingly,
the report,but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations
times,locations,and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration.Confront
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold
including options selected from the report,only from the design specialists on the design team.Geotechnical engineers are not building-
drawings and specifications.Remind constructors that they may envelope or mold specialists.
5 GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
t ASSOCIATION
Telephone:[phone]
e-mail:[e-mail] wwwgeoprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly
prohibited,except with GBAs specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any
kind.Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

SINCE
8(R
1881
Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond,Virginia 23228 T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com
VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA• MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A Minority-Owned Business

EXHIBIT NO. 5.0
USDA NRCS WEB SOIL REPORT

USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource
Department of Cooperative Soil Survey,
Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for
States Department of
RCS Agriculture and other C u m be ri a n d
Federal agencies, State
Natural agencies including the C o u n ty, N o rt h
Resources Agricultural Experiment
Conservation Stations, and local
Service participants Carolina
Ai 7,,,,,* /
• V ! ..l { I • *fit'
, 1, 404. - '41;44 .• , ': , . . , . ' ,,
, 1.!`.114. 4 1• • • I••. 1,, •..l'* ,,,.., , , :41119 ,•' ."„if a,.. !or'._' •
.• ' >It '-- '4"; Ill *4 I* ! ..
.y -.4. --_` - I ,
.,. 3 i►•
- '� i ,, - Ol4 I 1 f� �,
• S. Iii v 11; I
`1444
I .
�19
4.
•
i I `k,x •
4,01,6: . -..., . . .. _ .1 ' ,,,, , . ' - '
' t ..
k.D I I l l l l i 800 ft e.,
October 27, 2023

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs)or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist(http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call [phone] (voice)or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3

Contents
Preface 2
How Soil Surveys Are Made 5
Soil Map 8
Soil Map (Gillespie- B1.9 Solar Utility Station) 9
Legend 10
Map Unit Legend (Gillespie - B1.9 Solar Utility Station) 11
Map Unit Descriptions (Gillespie - B1.9 Solar Utility Station) 11
Cumberland County, North Carolina 13
BaB—Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes 13
CaD—Candor sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes 14
LaB—Lakeland sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes 15
LbB—Lakeland-Urban land complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes 16
W—Water 17
WgB—Wagram-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes 17
References 19
4

How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5

Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
6

Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
7

Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8

Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map (Gillespie - B1.9 Solar Utility Station) M
t
690200 690290 690380 690470 690560 690650 690740
34°58'42"N . • y / 34°58'42"N
00-
ft Y L
�� Ic �� _... i 4.k
- g3
•
F e ' . 4\ ' i^ \, '•
� 4
M `4. T •` In
11 1 - {`r` L -pry
1
Apo y
1\
g A �;ns
—N
•
s, LaB • r,), h / .
i , . ',&
LbB-. - \ , '' �fr / R
wit..
i CaD ��
r •
\.,-t WgB
> ...- Y
. 0 1444-;4,ips.. 41P, .,. 1!• N
/.......„,;(0. „
: „,....
-4-44:404
.„,..., .
N - - . 1Ij Gi =k nia Ire`.; 1t uII� 1I�,
111 34°58'17"N I Y I' 11 34°58'17'N
690200 690290 690380 690470 690560 690650 690740
3 3
b F.
N Map Scale:1:3,760 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet.
Meters N
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 150 300 600 900
Map projedion:Web Mercator Corner coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 17N WGS84
9

Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(AOI) 14 Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
Area of Interest(AOI) 1:24,000.
Q Stony Spot
Soilsit Very Stony Spot
Soil Map Unit Polygons Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
,..,. Soil Map Unit Lines Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
p Other misunderstandingof the detail of mapping and accuracyof soil
p Soil Map Unit Points pp 9
.• Special Line Features line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of
Special Point Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
Blowout Water Features scale.
-_- Streams and Canals
kg Borrow Pit
Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
* clay Spot 1.44 Rails measurements.
0 Closed Depression
o,/ Interstate Highways
Gravel Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
.r US Routes Web Soil Survey URL:
Gravelly Spot Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
® Landfill Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
• Lava Flow Background projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the
46 Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more
It Mine or Quarry accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
4 Miscellaneous Water This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
O Perennial Water of the version date(s)listed below.
v Rock Outcrop Soil Survey Area: Cumberland County,North Carolina
+ Saline Spot Survey Area Data: Version 25,Sep 13,2023
Sandy Spot Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales
Severely Eroded Spot 1:50,000 or larger.
• Sinkhole Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Apr 11,2022—May
31 Slide or Slip 15,2022
oa Sodic Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
10

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend (Gillespie - B1 .9 Solar
Utility Station)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
BaB Blaney loamy sand,2 to 8 2.7 6.7%
percent slopes
CaD Candor sand,8 to 15 percent 11.1 27.8%
slopes
LaB Lakeland sand, 1 to 8 percent 3.9 9.8%
slopes
LbB Lakeland-Urban land complex, 16.4 41.0%
1 to 8 percent slopes
W Water 2.3 5.7%
WgB Wagram-Urban land complex,0 3.6 9.1%
to 8 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 40.1 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions (Gillespie - B1 .9
Solar Utility Station)
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
Cumberland County, North Carolina
BaB—Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: w6z2
Elevation: 160 to 660 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 52 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 210 to 245 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Blaney and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Blaney
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy and loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
A -0 to 4 inches: loamy sand
E-4 to 25 inches: loamy sand
Bt- 25 to 62 inches: sandy clay loam
C- 62 to 80 inches: loamy coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low(about 4.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: F137XY040SC- Loamy Summit Woodland
Hydric soil rating: No
13

Custom Soil Resource Report
CaD—Candor sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: w6zk
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Candor and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Candor
Setting
Landform: Ridges on marine terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy and loamy marine deposits and/or eolian sands
Typical profile
A -0 to 8 inches: sand
E- 8 to 26 inches: sand
Bt- 26 to 38 inches: loamy sand
E'-38 to 62 inches: sand
B't- 62 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low(about 2.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: F137XY08OSC- Dry Sandy Backslope Woodland
Hydric soil rating: No
14

Custom Soil Resource Report
LaB—Lakeland sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: w714
Elevation: 160 to 660 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 52 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 210 to 245 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Lakeland and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Lakeland
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy marine deposits and/or eolian sands
Typical profile
A -0 to 6 inches: sand
Cl - 6 to 48 inches: sand
C2-48 to 80 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (5.95
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low(about 4.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: F137XY070SC- Dry Sandy Upland Woodland
Hydric soil rating: No
15

Custom Soil Resource Report
LbB—Lakeland-Urban land complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: w715
Elevation: 160 to 660 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 52 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 210 to 245 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Lakeland and similar soils:40 percent
Urban land: 30 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Lakeland
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy marine deposits and/or eolian sands
Typical profile
A -0 to 6 inches: sand
Cl - 6 to 48 inches: sand
C2-48 to 80 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (5.95
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low(about 4.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: F137XY070SC- Dry Sandy Upland Woodland
Hydric soil rating: No
16

Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Urban Land
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydric soil rating: No
W—Water
Map Unit Composition
Water: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Water
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydric soil rating: No
WgB—Wagram-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: w72n
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Wagram and similar soils:40 percent
Urban land: 30 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wagram
Setting
Landform: Ridges on marine terraces, broad interstream divides on marine
terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
17

Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile
Ap- 0 to 8 inches: loamy sand
E- 8 to 24 inches: loamy fine sand
Bt- 24 to 75 inches: sandy clay loam
BC- 75 to 83 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 60 to 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: F153AY030NC - Dry Loamy Rises and Flats
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Urban Land
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydric soil rating: No
18

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nres142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
19

Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
20

EXHIBIT NO. 6.0
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED

a10301 P60870 FILED
CUMBERLAND COUNTY NC
J. LEE WARREN, JR.
REGISTER OF DEEDS
FILED May 10, 2018
AT 09:03:04 am
BOOK 10301
START PAGE 0870
END PAGE 0872
INSTRUMENT # 13898
RECORDING $26.00
EXCISE TAX (None)
BLF
NORTH CAROLINA NON WARRANTY CORRECTION DEED
Excise Tax: $0.00 TITLE NOT CERTIFIED
Parcel Identifier No: 0424-66-0123 LDNB File No: 17RE-28172RML
Mail ox jb: Lewis, Deese,Nance and Briggs, LLP, 330 Dick Street, Fayetteville NC 28301 ROD Box Please
This instrument was prepared by: Richard M. Lewis,Jr.
Brief description for the Index:43.749 Acres Sally Hill Farms
THIS DEED made this I�iday of May, 2018, by and between
GRANTOR GRANTEE
Elizabeth S. Williams,widow The City of Fayetteville, a Municipal
Corporation, by and through Fayetteville
Public Works Commission,a public authority
in accordance with Chapter VIA of the Charter
of the City of Fayetteville
PO Box 1089
Fayetteville, NC 28302
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,their heirs,successors,and assigns,
and shall include singular,plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.
WITNES SETH,that the Grantor,for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee,the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged,has and by these presents does grant,bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple,all
that certain lot or parcel of land situated in Cumberland County,North Carolina and more particularly described
as follows:
SEE SCHEDULE "A" ATTACHED
All or a portion of the property herein conveyed does X_does not include the primary residence of a
Grantor.
A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book 140, Page 127.
NC Bar Association Form No.3©1976,Revised© 1/1/2010
Printed by Agreement with the NC Bar Association

8N10301 P$0871
The purpose of this correction deed is to more accurately describe from an actual survey the land conveyed by the
deed recorded in Book 10232,Page 693,Cumberland County Registry. The land actually conveyed is identified
and described on the above referenced Schedule"A"and shown in Plat Book 140,Page 127,aforesaid Registry.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto
belonging to the Grantee in fee simple.
The Grantor makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the property herein described.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Grantor has duly executed the foregoing as of the day and year first above written.
E �. . � c...w..._ (SEAL)
E ZABETH S.WILLIAMS
State of North Carolina, County of Cumberland
I,certify that the following person(s)personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he
and/or she voluntarily signed the foregoing instrument for the purposes stated therein and in the capacity
indicated: Name of Principal(s): ELIZABETH S. WILLIAMS, aka Betty S. Williams
Date: ` 2018 eri171/e.
tary Public
My Commission Expires: ,\�NI1fltrgeo,,
,,.��'�* M� �•, !d/J4AD , / 4..11
7- �? �OTAR 51
Printed or Typed Name of Notary Public
r
(NIPISEAL)
,,,`,��I�
F:\DATA\RICHARD\REALEST\Deed-Non-Warranty 201 8.doc
NC Bar Association Form No.3© 1976,Revised© l/1/2010
Printed by Agreement with the NC Bar Association

1110301 F10872
SCHEDULE "A"
ROCKFISH TOWNSHIP, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
Being all of that tract of land containing 1,905,717 square feet (43.749 Acres) as shown on that
certain plat entitled "Boundary Survey for PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, Sally Hill Farms Property" and recorded in Plat Book 140, Page 127, Cumberland
County, North Carolina Registry.
NC Bar Association Form No.3© 1976,Revised©1/1/2010
Printed by Agreement with the NC Bar Association

EXHIBIT NO. 7.0
PLAT

drawn by R.S.W.
'•� 14B I Thomas J. Gooden, certify the following for the control of this survey; State of North Carolina ° RLAND County
��l � �' State Plan Grid alignment was obtained by an actual GPS survey made I. Tnorv�s 7.cwoow certify that this plat was drawn under checked T.J.G.
DEED REFERENCES g320 \ '•5. under mysupervision; This GPS surveywasperformed on November 30, m of North
Cam an actual survey made under my supervision
N1c
O P (deed description recorded in Book 1039 Page 687 etc.)
Deed Book 10232 Page 693 eYP t/B 2017; All coordinates were derived byVRS (Virtual Reference Station) (other);that the boundaries not surveyed are clearly indicated reviewed T.J.G.
Dreg Beak 1033 Page 687 G�tO 1.31• GPS usinga To con Hyper-pro Series Dual Frequency receiver. This J.^^••f.,,...:f,,,..,at:,.,,fa,.,,J�„D,.,.k P°y°
Plat Book 106 Page 157,Plat Book 62 Page 89 NC'. 3a9 P9 Y that the ratio of precision as calculated Is 1: t5 a�06 , that date JAN.30,2018
method results in NAD 83, (NRS 2011) positions and NAVD 88 this plat was prepared In accordance with G.S.47-30 as amended.
\/ Elevations usingthe ContinuouslyOperation Reference Stations witness my ongtnal signature,license number and seal this
D.B.3093,PAGE 263-150'WIDE CAROLLNIy POWER&LIGHT POWERLW E EASEMENT / ` 14fi " ' P 1st f Fg8 zme job no. 17-107D-03
EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON MAP; / maintained by the North Carolina Geodetic'Survey. The positional day o auN1Y A.D.,
D.B.2963,PAGE 935-ELECTRIC EASEMENT TO CITY OF FAYET1EVILLE ADJACENT TO WESTERN 9C3- / ^ •
accuracy of this GPS Survey is 0.05 feet. Witness my original signature, •me survey f8 of an existing parcel or parcels of land and
MARGIN OF U.S.301-DEW D0ES'r SPECIFY WIDTH OF EASEMENT BUT 5 ry \ _/ ` 147 registration number and seal this 1th day of February, 2018. - does not create a new sheet or change an existing street. per_Cj
SHOWN A52S WIDE AD]ACENT TO RIGHT-OF-WAY ON MAP; \ / \/ N Z
\ ' 4 INSET-N.T.S. n,,
D.B.35R,PAGE 212-ELECTRIC EASEMENT TO CITY OF FAYETTEWLIE PUBLIC WORKS Q 148 J e.(N CARpL/v,, ,(.,
COMMISSION ADJACENT TO SOUTHERN LINE OF THE CP.&L 150'EASEMENT- \ / ,\,/\ ,.FOR-.•• • / ill
LL
AS SHOWN ON MAP; \ ,c �L v 350 Profession I Land Surveyor L-3196 y, ofBss/a.•V�'iy'',, Seal or Stamp r"^r`�-��u Q o
-// to '� ( :g Z'I'/sY'. rveyor W cc C)
D.B.5058,PAGE 315-BLANKET EASEMENT TO CAROLINA POWER&LIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL N Re(G 149 - Q.• - SEAL - L-3196 2-I-t8 z J W
EQUIPMENT IN DOTING 150'WIDE POWERUNE EASEMENT-AREA REFERRED /CA. - / �`O Lstea License Number 0 J LL TO IN THIS DEED IS SHOWN ON MAP; \ IX'Re8AR EX.REBAR C �,^�i,•z I.-y 9
D.B.9519,PAGE 141-BIANKET EASEMENT TO DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS,INC.FOR OR/`AC\ P O j ISO 349 OJ� �\. \ �'�i�'' �5".j �rgv` (I)> a� m
ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES MOT PLDTTABLE). N.
O \ \�2Q '/IrrnrNt(�"-+` O I-1 L,m/ //t` E.C.M. �.t
`�( cc R
151 �` Stale of NoM Cemrina G in",
v
• Q 347 9 County of Cumberland \. > LLI
/(/ 102 N13°OB'48"W SOUDt/ . O ,,q O)-0
/• I7THVIEE 99.25' \ sec.VI 2 L N,J'P/aporN Review Officer of Cumberland County, .0 >
Tax Pin RECOMBINATION v \ certify that the map or plat to Which this certification la affixed / • 322 \ 'C U LL.N
SEC.THREE, p a
PARXONE LOTS 1438146 / meeb Wtory reauimments for recording. \ \ p 1.Lre
1 P.B,101,PG.147 �SOIITHVIEW SEC.THREE, \ • n • PIA Z re
FLOOD ZONE NOTE ( / \ 348 PART ONE /Nr{L �EYsatw.. / \ m O J
The property Is looted within an area having a Zone Designation"X"by BE RERAR o P.B. PG.17B \ Review Officer \ a
the Secretary of Housing 000 Urban Development,on Road Insurance ON UNE ' ./ \ 0 2 =
Rate Map No.372004240M,with a date of Identification of 01/05/07, \ y� \ /\ ./ 345 Dale o2-02-i v /.• / \ •.• H>. Z
for Community Number 370076,in Cumberland County,State of North 154 5 •$.P C\ U Q-p 3
Carolina,
said which
cpwty s the ituated.
Flood Insurance Rate Map for the mmmunitY �2 / \EX RERAR � h \ \ 323 EX.IRON U Lt,j N o O
��\ 155 qN LIN394 \ • O �'• / °A'A66HOWN ON f--I 11 co
= -
OWNER ' P� /� \ /. ma y/d�b>. \ Sy4o�J / \ $324 \/• \ PP.82.PG.89 ~ a
4033 ty of Fayetteville Street - tss ,�rC� • \ „ A / / / �•• 0 IY
Fayetteville,N.C.26301 1) \ -h 0*X 342 fi�x,ry,GRipF - \ '\
:\ \ �` ,
, VIEW \ / ) --/. " '
/ `` , / /v
/ � SEG.THREE, 158 Approximate _ / \ \/ N
SEC.
RE /,r¢� Location ofsmall //� 343 328
P.B.105,PG.792 FF'�� branch 36 341 1 / / \ \ / \,/ m co
\ 160 o LLNE RECOMBINATION / / • \4' /327 \ /\ / V a (7 l7
` LIT}1t� \ /r�, LOTS 143&146 / a I- !=
SO IEW T 340 SOLfMWEW SEC.THREE, / / .
SEC.FIVE 173 munLI5uh 6y PART ONE /
P.B.107,PG.54 .n P.B.109,PG.179 / \ \./ / m
\ iiy \ \ / CROWN CASTLE 328 Y'>
SOUTH,LLC \ j \
174 SET / D.B.8869,PG. 4$
/ REBAR 339
/ 'D.B.8505 555 •I.
4 lS, \ \\//\ / EN,5726 PG.57 \ / / at 2
/ . /'
/ / CELL /\ / a ¢ E
- 338 \ / TOWER PG. � / ./ `>
/ ^r� `,/ //'• #' / ' FILED Feb 02,2018 04.40.48 Pm FILED @ `�
• WIRE FENCE /7 BOOK DD140T. CUMBERL4ND ,ran
/ ALONG PA 'Y1 337 CO \ \ / '��~ INSTRUMENT if 03368 COUNTY0127
NC
/ Q,2- J.LEE WARREN JR. K
/ 336 V C /' RECORDING $21.00 OF DEEDS
/• o 1 /\ �C'l4 330 / \'/;rycF EXCISE TAX (None) N
_ \ / \' \ PP/ •
9s�• co CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION
�� \ OI THVIEW SEC.SEVEN. (g/ The undersigned hereby acknowledges that the land shown
335 PART TWO / Q. on this Plat is within the subdivision regulation jurisdiction
END yyIRE Approximate P.B.774,PG.20 / �ti. of Cumberland County and that this plat and allotment is
NCE Lotgtlon ofoM / / q• our free act and deed and that we do hereby dedicate forever
• ,� Porxt Bad \qA 991 /'\ / oil ar shown or Indicat `eatd plat
� _ 1,905,717 Sq. Feet /` / 2�• J
p„�m"�^� (43.749 Acres) \ �cv •
andeecla •\/ \
�V�` END WIRE , . �/ /_ State Of North Carolina
,P� 3 / Cumberland County,
/p` RP_ ' i, 7M1MF_5 7, RM-Cr-�-$2. n Notary Public
42
"/} of the County pd. Stotqq aforesaid,
STEPHENSON certify that O•UJ.-T'I- r o in
EXISTING arsanali appeared before me this day and acknowledge
D.B.5751,PG.520 \\� P Y PP Y 9 O
042455-6zee BARN \\ / / — ' ' — ' the execution of the foregoing Instrument CO 3-
m / Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, 00 O
/ - this A,,,d Aay of >-vb ro.n.-..� 2018. 6 N '-
LEGEND a
-BOUNDARY LINE Z WIRE FENCE
PILE I�x-�-x_-�.x�_x 11 EXISTING\�. t��x� / /� HESfEH6164,PG.0264 JR.L.MCFAYDEN, Notary Public Q ,a, V ,�, o
- -ADJOINING PROPERTY UNE(Not Surveyed) I x-_-_x F
—x—x—-EXISTING WIRE PENCE ----x�-x__x_._ n�' 94 $ / sET (TIE UNE) o97A-6&SB78 My commission expires 0 �'I r7.CJ aa- O Z CO 0
P. S76°52'21"W 0 lY) I—-OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE I '] ' 1/ 29.38' r „ , LI-
wx—-EASEMENT or RIGHT OF WAY LINES(Not Surveyed) / / _nu ai o
a.moN-IX.IRON I % FISTING\\\\\\\\ i T.r OHE T �ry •
4 EX REBAR v 9r x�cx (O -
STABLESAlikt �s' / / / 43 'I ✓�'' o o N N
■ECM. -EXIST.R/W MON• / — . !� �' = ,>v-a OD
•O•P.P. -EXIST.POWER POLE E.C.M. .,206.b3' r-x.IRON / ��--etc Y.. 1.' I ,ham „✓,g�?T y �m/ / —7 FA R W . 0 C C
o)r( -LIGHT POLE 527°48'Ol'•W- / 0�" - �aa'/ M,�V/ % i- PUMA° In 0 >, O (D
Q -Set 1/2'Re-Bar - I I % v+'.� ta EHOUSE STING\ ' �j // I.�IL J (1$ L U
m + H VV`„0 Cl, L d J
DB -Deed Book MCFAYDEN / x�. AND GO..
PG -Page I c EXISTING & �/ =3 D.B.D.04D44.88-7896 / 11a,1.\v
N75 -Not to Score I I / GRAVEL
PATRICIA A.GRAY p aft DRIVE P �r7`�
I 0424-65-1210 : N I / , i
h'' o + `.`vtY Jowl.r�D' - .. Q
ill-- anuh, .:
z i % , a• '// -a .`Jd,........,.•�/ice
IPATRIcwaGRAY 4 a4/ �,r, + . . — . . 11 `4°a 1dcr L1, gy.�.d,ti'J*t�nf W
I •D.B.4B53,PG.847 / 4K/ N
u ;'tis CL l.:aic3 [3L _ N`
D.B.7978,PG.O855CROWN CASTLE tnL" j$ i
i 0424-651350 210.22' / 7.---
SOUTH,LLC 1��� • r1 V G FENCED IN COMMUNICATIONS /y .Cr'
ECM. 525°38'49'W E.G.M.
% FA / D,B.8B69,PG.3B9 -.•- .•..,•.•°:a}rjyt.8REF:D.B.5058,PG.0316 p / )?iemaia3 ry:' 0i:., o�.`
i '4 (� D.B,8572 PG.5577� D.B.5726 PG.578 ''i/�O ySi 1 E y, D424.87-0,67 ''/4„Na"M,,••,,•• aIYI •
IJANE L PARKHURST ,-teaRi / i 1 P.P , + / I•
D.B.9244,PG.0317 e k + SHEILA SIBBETT jW
• 0424ES2491 torn ' UC.'p /P.��/ D.B.5130,PG.0653 • N
_ I Z rm. EX"'W.G.. ELEC.UTIL.EMIT.(D.B.2983,PG.435) NO.78 'IQY? 0424-669618 n
EX REBAR IN 'W' ®y r=i
PP 'n° 526 DDDD"W PP k9 1147.27' AP.P. I,P Isnv P.P. I PP +P .
11"
CONCRETE -P.P. .. N TES.°' ti r Iiu14 1, . f m uIrz:. l »I, r y P• • _—' 2)PROPERTY REPRESENTS PI
' ,,, �5, '4,'�?: >6 ,dWlII rL4au9N°YI,Yf�t,'�1,,n� ,� rn )'4' r ' fl1 „• !""^JDi�rR'u 'W(kdJia, M. .)�'.+ �' "'fdwvti"�'s't'6�a . W9,1i3!at�'fG ' .) N0424-66-0123.
EX REBAR 3•)TRACT'CONTAPNS 43.749 ACRES,BY COORDINATES,
N.4.15,44z.ez GILLESPIE STREET (SERVICE ROAD) Ex IRON i
E=2,026,427.55 N.446,473.98 4.)REFERENCE:D.B.1033,PG.687; P.B.106,PG.157. Z
2,026,93048
PG 5.)THERE ARE NO N.C.GRID CONTROL MONUMENTS WITHIN
ja,
U.S. 301 - 1-95 BUSINESS GILLESPIE STREET 61PONP,B.82,PG.88— (7 7
2000'OF SITE. `y2�'
6.)Al.!.DISTANCESIS 98RE HORIZONTAL GROUND; COMBINED GRID ,t1.i
260'R/W 74.
scale
1"=100'
Field Book No.
Syr GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 100-2076
eOo 4ro SHEET
_ . — . — — — . . — — . . — — . — — . _ . . — . . — . . — . . — . . — 1°F1
VICINITY MAP — — — — —

PROJECT DRAWINGS AND APPLICATIONS ATTACHED
TO THIS REPORT