SW1240901_Soils Report20241118 (13)

~
ECS Southeast LLP
Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes
95US64W
Cashiers, North Carolina
ECS Project Number 31:4488
October 24, 2022

ECS SOUTHEAST, LLP setting the Standard for Service"
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental • Facilities
October 24, 2022
Mr. Cliff Pepper
Cashiers Properties of Jax, LLC
PO Box 351209
Jacksonville, Florida 32235
ECS Project No. 31:4488
Reference: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes
95US64W
Cashiers, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Cliff Pepper:
ECS Southeast, LLP (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and
geotechnical engineering analyses for the above-referenced project. This report presents our
understanding of the geotechnical aspects of the project, along with the results of the field
explorations and laboratory testing conducted, and our design and construction recommendations.
It has been our pleasure to be of service to Cashiers Properties of Jax, LLC in the design phase of this
project. We would appreciate the opportunity to remain involved during the continuation of the
design phase, and we would like to provide our services during construction phase operations as well
to verify the assumptions of subsurface conditions made for this report. Should you have any
questions concerning the information contained in this report, or if we can be of further assistance to
you, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
ECS Southeast, LLP
Asher B. Blackmore Robert H. Barnes, P.E., P.G.
Assistant Staff Project Engineer Geotechnical Principal Engineer
Ablackmore@)ecslimited.corn [e-mail]
���111111/11�/
„iv
'
O �SStp' .ti
2 . C-Zy-2ticv'.�
;a SEAL
•
'.'P. . INE 0�k.�.
� �FRT H. ,PQ``\\
1281 Kennestone Circle,Suite 200, Marietta,GA 30066 • T: 770.590.1971 • F:770.590.1975 • ecslimited.com
ECS Capitol Services,PLLC • ECS Florida,LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic,LLC • ECS Midwest,LLC • ECS Southeast,LLP • ECS Southwest,LLP

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2
2.1 Project Location and Site Conditions 2
2.2 Proposed Construction 2
3.0 Site and subsurface conditions 3
3.1 Regonal/site geology 3
3.2 Subsurface Characterization 5
3.3 Groundwater Observations 6
3.4 Laboratory Testing 6
4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 7
4.1 General 7
4.2 Impacts on Site Development and Design 7
4.2.1 Geotechnical Implications of Undocumented Fill and Alluvium 7
4.2.2 Geotechnical Implications of Highly Plastic Clay(CH) Soils 8
4.3 Ground Improvement and Foundation Alternatives 8
4.3.1 Alternative 1—Complete Removal and Replacement 9
4.3.2 Alternative 2 - Partial Removal and Replacement 9
4.3.3 Alternative 3—Helical Piles for Foundations and Floor Slab 9
4.3.4 Foundation Design Recomendation (Alternative 2) 10
4.4 Slab on Grade (Alternative 2) 10
4.5 Pavements 11
5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 13
5.1 Subgrade Preparation 13
5.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing 13
5.1.2 Fill and Alluvium Removal from Building Area (Alternative 2) 13
5.1.3 Grading Allowance (Haul off and Replacement) 13
5.1.4 Proofrolling 14
5.1.5 Site Temporary Dewatering 14
5.1.6 Stabilization of Wet or Soft Subgrades 16
5.2 Earthwork Operations 16
5.2.1 Structural Fill 16
5.3 Foundation and Slab Observations 18
5.4 Utility Installations 18
6.0 CLOSING 19

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A—Diagrams
• Site Location Diagram
• Boring Location Diagram
Appendix B—Field Explorations
• Reference Notes for Boring Logs
• Boring Logs (B-1 through B-9)
• Field Procedures
Appendix C—Laboratory Testing
• Laboratory Test Results Summary
Appendix D—Supplemental Report Documents
• GBA Important Information About this Geotechnical Report

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a
cost impact on the planned development. Further, our foundation recommendations are
summarized. Information gleaned from the executive summary should not be utilized in lieu of
reading the entire geotechnical report.
• Based on the boring data, ground improvement is recommended to improve the
subsurface soils supporting the proposed structure and to reduce post construction
settlements. Ground improvement and foundation alternatives considered for this project
included: 1) complete fill and alluvial removal, 2) partial fill and alluvial removal, and 3)
supporting the structure on Helical Piles. These alternatives are discussed in Section 4.0 of
this report.
• Ground improvement is recommended for the building areas. Alternative 2 (partial
removal and replacement) is recommended. Provided the building pads are prepared as
outlined in this report and the upper four feet of poor-quality fill and alluvial soils are
removed from the expanded building footprint and replaced with structural fill, the
building foundations can be designed as shallow foundations utilizing a net allowable
bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The building pad preparation is discussed in more detail in
this report.
• The soils on this site will be sensitive to changes in moisture content. If these soils are
exposed to moisture and poor surface drainage for prolonged periods, their strength and
workability will rapidly deteriorate.
• Highly plastic soils meeting classifications of CH or MH should not be reused as engineered
fill within the building envelop or as pavement subgrade. They can be wasted in fills
outside the limits of the improvements.
• Groundwater could be encountered during construction excavations that extend deeper
than about 3.5 feet below existing grade. Dewatering should be planned for these
excavations.
• Field observations and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation
installation are an extension of and integral to the geotechnical design recommendation.
We recommend the Owner/Developer retain these quality assurance services and that ECS
be allowed to continue our involvement throughout these critical phases of construction to
provide general consultation as issues arise.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the design of the proposed
prefabricated buildings with associated paved parking areas and driveways.
Our drilling and engineering services were provided in general accordance with our Proposal
Number 31-7247-P, dated August 25, 2022. The work was authorized by Cashiers Properties of Jax,
LLC representative Mr. Cliff Pepper on September 1, 2022. The Terms and conditions included in
our proposal preside over this document.
The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by
Cashiers Properties of Jax, LLC. This report contains the procedures and results of our subsurface
explorations and laboratory testing programs, site characterization, engineering analyses, and
recommendations for the design and construction of the planned prefabricated buildings. The
report includes the following items:
1. Results of the exploration including boring logs and laboratory testing results.
2. Foundation design recommendations.
3. Pavement design recommendations.
4. Determination of potential poor-quality soil or fill material.
5. Site preparation and fill placement recommendations.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is located on a 2.38-acre parcel identified by Jackson County PIN 7572-31-
3478. The property is a mix of wooded and open grassy areas. An existing structure is located near
the northeastern portion and remnants of a foundation were observed adjacent to US 64 and
directly west of the existing structure. What appears to be a well house is located near the old
foundation. According to the provided plans, existing site elevations across the site range from
about 3480 feet to 3485 feet. A Site Location Diagram has been included in Appendix A.
Based on a review of available online historic aerial and satellite images, it appears that the subject
property has historically been developed since the oldest available imagery dating to 1995. A
structure previously setting on the observed remaining foundation appears to have been demoed
between 2018 and 2020.
2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The planned project will consist of 4 prefabricated single-story structures for retail use with
associated paved parking areas and driveways. The site is relatively flat and somewhat level.
Existing grades range between about elevation 3480 feet at the southwestern corner and about
elevation 3485 feet at the northwestern corner of the site, respectively.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 3
Based on a proposed finished floor elevation (FFE) of 3485 feet at each building, it is our
understanding that minimal cuts and/or fills on the order of 5 feet or less will be required for most
of the site. Structural loading information was not provided. However, we have assumed isolated
columns and continuous wall footings will not exceed 50 kips and 3 kips per lineal foot,
respectively.
3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 REGONAL/SITE GEOLOGY
The property is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of Western North Carolina. The
Blue Ridge generally consists of residual soils underlain by a variety of igneous and high-grade
metamorphic rocks. The Bedrock Geologic Map of the Horseshoe 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (NCGS,
2009) indicates that underlying bedrock at the site belongs to the Blue Ridge Belt and consists of
Whiteside Granite(Pzw).
In the Blue Ridge geology, the typical soil profile in areas of natural, un-modified grades usually
consist of residual soils. Residual soils are the product of in-place chemical weathering of the
parent bedrock. The typical residual soil profile consists of silty or clayey soils near the surface
where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands that generally
become harder with depth to the top of parent bedrock.
The boundary between soil and rock in the Blue Ridge is not always sharply defined. A transitional
zone termed "partially weathered rock" (PWR) is often found overlying the parent bedrock.
Partially weathered rock is defined for engineering purposes as residual material with standard
penetration test resistance exceeding 100 blows per foot but can still be penetrated by a machine
auger. The transition between hard/dense residual soils and partially weathered rock occurs at
irregular depths due to variations in the degree of weathering.
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, which provides soil
information to a shallow depth (generally less than 6 feet), indicates that the site soils are mapped
as:
• UfB—This soil type covers the northern portion of the property and is described as Urban
Land consisting of impervious layers over human-transported material.
• NkA —This soil type covers a majority of the site. It consists of loamy alluvium over sandy
and gravelly alluvium located in depressions on flood plains with 0 to 2 percent slopes.
Depth to groundwater is reported to be 0 to 1 foot.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 4
111
i. t
� 1
T.t ( •
oow,00my WI®s MIN)me We=mow 1111
Figure 3.1 USDA Soil Survey Map
Fill: The natural geology of portions of the site was modified in the past by grading activities and
the placement of apparent fill materials. The quality of man-made fills can vary significantly, and it
is often difficult to assess the engineering properties of fill. Furthermore, there is no specific
correlation between resistance values from penetration testing and the degree of compaction of
existing fill soils. However, a qualitative assessment of existing fills can sometimes be made based
on the resistance values obtained and observations of the materials sampled in the borings. The
existing fill generally appeared to consist of suitable material substantially free of organics,
deleterious debris, and other deleterious materials.
Alluvium: Water deposited soils, known as alluvium, are present throughout mountains basins and
flood plains in Western North Carolina. Alluvium is typically derived from the parent bedrock,
residuum, or colluvium and deposited in fast- or slow-moving water bodies. Alluvium in high flow
creeks typically consist of coarse sand and gravel while alluvium in low flow water bodies, such as
behind dammed creeks or within ponds, are typically comprised of finer material included silts and
clays.Alluvium is often wet or saturated and is usually contains a shallow groundwater table.
Residuum: The residual soils in this region are the product of the in-place chemical weathering of
the parent bedrock. The mineral composition of the parent rock and the environment in which
weathering occurs largely control the resulting soil's engineering characteristics. Residuum
normally retains the structure of the original parent bedrock, but it typically has a much lower
density and exhibits strengths and other engineering properties typical of soil, not bedrock. In a
mature weathering profile, the residuum is generally found to be finer grained at the surface
where more extensive weathering has occurred. The particle size of the soils generally becomes
more granular with increasing depth and gradually changes first to weathered and finally to
unweathered parent bedrock.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 5
Weathered Rock: The boundary between soil and rock in this geology is not sharply defined. A
transitional zone termed "weathered rock" is normally found overlying the parent bedrock.
Partially weathered rock is defined for engineering purposes as residual material with standard
penetration test resistance exceeding 100 blows per foot but can still be penetrated with a power
auger. The transition between hard/dense residual soils and weathered rock can occur at irregular
depths due to variations in the degree of weathering. The variable weathering can also cause rock
fragments and boulders to remain within the residual soil matrix.
3.2 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION
Our exploration procedures are explained in greater detail in Appendix B including the insert titled
Subsurface Exploration Procedures. Our scope of work included drilling nine borings. Our borings
were located with a handheld GPS unit/etc. and their approximate locations are shown on the
Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A.
The following sections provide generalized characterizations of the soil. The subsurface conditions
discussed in the following table and those shown on the boring logs represent an estimate of the
subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted
geotechnical engineering judgments. We note that the transition between different soil strata is
usually less distinct than those shown on the boring logs. The following sections provide
generalized characterizations of the soil strata encountered during our subsurface explorations.
Please refer to individual boring logs that are contained in Appendix B.
Stratum Description Ranges of
SPT(A)N-values(bpf)
Topsoil — The surface layer in the borings consists of topsoil
N/A ranging from approximately 3 to 16 inches in thickness at the test N/A
locations. B-02 did not have topsoil. Thicknesses are expected to
be variable across the project site.
Fill — Undocumented fill was present in boring B-05 extending to
a depth of approximately 1 foot below current grade. The fill 2
material encountered within the borings can be described as silty
Sand (SM).
Alluvium (B)—Alluvial soils described as soft gravelly lean clay(CL),
very loose silty sand (SM), very soft sandy fat clay (CH), very soft
elastic silt (MH), and soft to very soft sandy silt (ML) was
encountered beneath the fill at Boring B-05 and directly under (CI
II the topsoil and B-01 thru B-04 and B-06 thru B-09. The alluvial 0 to 5
soils extended to depths ranging from 3 to 5 feet below current
grades.
Residual Soils — Residual soils were encountered beneath the
III existing alluvial soils at all boring locations. The residual soil was 0 to 8
described as very loose to loose silty Sand (SM).
Notes:
(A)-Standard Penetration Testing.
(B)-Alluvium is a material that has been transported and deposited by flowing water.
(C)—Weight of Hammer(WOH),zero blows per foot.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 6
3.3 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
Groundwater was encountered in all the soil test borings. Water levels measured in the soil test
borings during our field investigation are noted on the Boring Logs in Appendix B. Water was
encountered during our exploration at depths ranging from 3.5 to 5.5 feet below the ground
surface. The data indicates that the groundwater is likely confined ("perched") within the finer
grained and plastic alluvium. Based on the groundwater observations in the borings, the
groundwater surface elevations generally varied between approximately EL 3479 feet and 3478
feet in a southwesterly flow direction.
Groundwater elevations should be expected to vary depending on seasonal fluctuations in
precipitation, surface water absorption characteristics, and other factors not readily apparent at
the time of our exploration and may be higher or lower than inferred from the test data. Normally,
highest groundwater levels occur in late winter and spring and the lowest levels occur in late
summer and fall.
3.4 LABORATORY TESTING
The laboratory testing consisted of selected tests performed on samples obtained during our field
exploration operations. Classification and index property tests were performed on representative
soil samples.The geotechnical laboratory testing included:
• Visual classification of soil samples in general conformance with ASTM D 2487,
• Index property testing of select soils samples including:
o Natural moisture content determinations (ASTM D 2216),
o Washed Sieve Analysis (ASTM D6913M-17-METHOD A)
o Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Each sample was visually classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with ASTM
D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures) and
including USCS classification symbols, and ASTM D2487 Standard Practice for Classification for
Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)).
The laboratory test results are included on the Laboratory Testing Summary and the individual
laboratory reports provided in Appendix C.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 7
4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 GENERAL
The following sections provide recommendations for foundation design, soil supported slabs, and
seismic design parameters. Based on the proposed finished floor elevation (FFE) of 3485 feet, it
appears that most building and pavement subgrades will be within 5 feet from current site grades.
4.2 IMPACTS ON SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
The proposed layout of the four single-story buildings and surrounding pavements is shown on the
Boring Layout Diagram in Appendix A. Geotechnical related concerns identified during this study
that will potentially impact the project include: 1) the presence of poor-quality undocumented fill
and alluvial soils and 2) the presence of near surface highly plastic clay (CH) and elastic silt (MH)
soils.These issues are discussed in more detail below.
4.2.1 Geotechnical Implications of Undocumented Fill and Alluvium
Very loose or very soft fill, alluvial, and residual soils were present within the borings performed on
the project site. The loose/soft soils are of poor-quality for supporting structures in their current
state. Ground improvement through partial excavation and replacement as discussed in this report
is recommended for the new buildings.
Fill: Existing fill is present at boring B-05. The existing fill should be removed and replaced during
the undercut for the soft soils as discussed in this report. In the event that existing fills are found
to extend deeper than reported herein or be found in additional locations, ECS should be contacted
immediately to evaluate the situation and provide direction to the project team.
Alluvium: The clayey and silty alluvial soils are moisture sensitive and can be difficult to dry and
compact when exposed to excessive moisture. Much of these soils are already wet due to the
shallow groundwater table and will require drying to be re-used as fill or backfill. These soils also
can be subject to deterioration and loss of strength with exposure to moisture and repeated
construction traffic.
Keeping the exposed ground surface (subgrade and finished grade) sealed and protected from
surface water infiltration will be critical to minimizing degradation of the subgrade. Exposed
subgrades should be sealed with a smooth drum roller and the site should be graded to provide
positive drainage away from areas of fill to minimize deterioration due to moisture. Areas of
standing water should not be allowed to develop on the exposed subgrade. Moisture-related
difficulties can be reduced by performing the earthwork activities during the hotter and drier
months of the year,which are typically late summer and fall.
The contractor should anticipate controlling groundwater using ditches, sumps, and gravel drains.
Some of these measures may be needed at the start of construction to provide stable subgrades
from which to start placing fill. Even with appropriate groundwater control measures, low-
consistency soils are prevalent throughout the site, and areas of the exposed ground surface in cut
areas, as well as in areas to receive fill, may be unstable and will need to be stabilized.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 8
Summary of Fill and Alluvial Soil Conditions
Approximate Approximate
Boring Undocumented Fill Depth Alluvial Soil Depth
(feet) (feet)
B-1 NE 5
B-2 NE 3
B-3 NE 3
B-4 NE 5
B-5 1 5
B-6 NE 5
B-7 NE 3
B-8 NE 5
B-9 NE 5
Note: NE— Not encountered in boring
4.2.2 Geotechnical Implications of Highly Plastic Clay(CH)Soils
Sandy fat clays (CH) and sandy elastic silts (CH/MH) were encountered in borings B-04 and B-05
These materials have a potential to exhibit shrinking and swelling during seasonal moisture
fluctuation. To help mitigate the effect of the highly plastic material we recommend removing the
soils from beneath building footprints and pavements where practical. Alternatively, we
recommend providing a minimum 12-inch separation between any highly plastic soils (MH or CH
material) and the bottom of footings or pavement base course and 24 inches below slabs on grade.
The separation material could consist of low plasticity structural fill.
We also recommend any highly plastic soils not be reused as structural fill in the building or
pavement areas without blending with more sandy soils or separation discussed above. The actual
extent and nature of the required remedial measures can be determined from additional
borings/test pits and the recommended laboratory testing at the time of construction.
4.3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT AND FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES
Based on the boring data, ground improvement is recommended to improve the subsurface soils
supporting the proposed structure and to reduce post construction settlements. In our opinion,the
loose/soft soils underlying the building are poor materials for supporting the proposed
construction on shallow foundations. If the subsurface soils are not improved during construction,
then excessive differential settlements could occur in response to new structural loads and weight
of any new fill. If such non-uniform settlements occur,then moderate distress could result.
From experience, we offer the following conceptual recommendations on how to prepare the site
for building. Once you have reviewed these scenarios, we would be happy to discuss the matter
further with you and your structural engineer to finalize the foundation recommendations.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 9
4.3.1 Alternative 1—Complete Removal and Replacement
The most assured method of site preparation would be to totally over-excavate the existing fill and
alluvium within expanded building footprint down to suitable residual soils and replace it in a
controlled manner with suitable structural fill. While this alternative would significantly reduce the
potential for damaging settlements to that of any other structure supported by engineered fill, it is
our opinion the disposal of the excavated soils, depth of excavation required, and cost of new fill
make this option impractical and excessively costly.
4.3.2 Alternative 2-Partial Removal and Replacement
As a possible cost saving option, we considered partial removal of the highly variable fill and
alluvium. Considering the relatively light loads of the planned structure, this option is considered
viable. Conceptually, this option includes excavating the building footprint plus a 10-foot margin
on all sides, densifying the cut subgrade in place using proofrolling, and installing new compacted
structural fill to grade. Depending upon the subgrade condition at the bottom of the excavation at
the time of construction, geogrid reinforcement may be required to stabilize the bottom of the
excavation to allow proper soil fill placement. The need for geogrid reinforcement can be
evaluated by an ECS representative at the time of construction.
While we believe that replacing these soils with clean, properly compacted engineered fill installed
over stabilized soils can reduce the risk of uneven foundation and floor slab settlement, greater
than normal long-term settlement could still occur at this site due to the depth very soft alluvial
soils. The amount of settlement is difficult to predict with the very loose and very soft alluvial soil
conditions present. In selecting this alternative, the Owner/Developer must be willing to accept
some potential risk that settlement and associated distress could occur to the structure.
4.3.3 Alternative 3—Helical Piles for Foundations and Floor Slab
Another option for foundation and slab support would be to install Helical Piles to support the
building foundations and slab. Helical piles, also known as screw piles, can be an effective deep
foundation support system for relatively light structural loads, such as those associated with the
buildings proposed for this site. The helical piles are designed to convey the structural loads through
the unsuitable existing fill and alluvial soils deeper into the substrata and into the natural soils below.
The borings drilled during exploration did not extend deep enough to evaluate the foundation lengths.
With this in mind, we know that the foundation lengths would likely be longer than 30 feet. This
foundation option will likely be the most expensive.
The specific design of the helical piers including the number and arrangement of helices, shaft and
helix size, pier spacing, minimum installation torque, and connection to the structure foundation
should be developed by the structural engineer, or a licensed engineer working under the direction of
a design/build contractor. The structural engineer should specify the number of helices and the
minimum pier spacing considering the spanning capabilities of the structural members.The structural
engineer should also specify the pier shaft and helix sizes and steel grades based on the necessary
mechanical capacities to achieve the required structural loads.
Installation Monitoring: ECS should be present to observe the installation of the helical piles and
should be provided with the structural engineer's pile foundation plan prior to arriving on-site. The
contractor should provide the torque-to-pile capacity Kt factor and calibration documentation to ECS

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 10
on-site. The piles should be drilled until the minimum specified depth is achieved and the allowable
bearing capacity is achieved via the torque ratings.
4.3.4 Foundation Design Recomendation (Alternative 2)
Subgrade preparation for this alternative involves the partial removal of the upper fill and alluvial
materials from the expanded building limits and placement of new structural fill. Provided
subgrades and structural fills are prepared as discussed herein, it is our opinion that foundations
constructed on a stabilized fill subgrade may be designed for a net allowable soil bearing pressure
of 2,000 psf. Footings should be placed at a depth to provide adequate bearing capacity. For this
site, we recommend foundations bear at least 1.5 feet below finished grade. To increase resistance
to cosmetic cracking associated with higher-than-normal differential settlement associated with
Alternative 2,foundations could be designed with top and bottom reinforcing steel.
Even with the partial undercut as described above, greater than normal long-term settlement
could occur at this site due to questionable material at greater depth. The amount of settlement is
difficult to predict with the limited subsurface data obtained and the highly variable fill conditions
present. While the partial undercut and replacement are expected to create a stable foundation
platform near the surface and more uniform settlement, the Owner must be willing to accept a
higher risk of potential building settlement and associated distress.
4.4 SLAB ON GRADE (ALTERNATIVE 2)
The building slab on grade may be constructed on the engineer-approved structural fill. Soft or
yielding soils may be encountered in some areas. Those soils should be removed and replaced with
compacted structural fill in accordance with the recommendations included in this report. To
increase resistance to cosmetic cracking associated with higher-than-normal differential settlement
associated with Alternative 2, we recommend the floor slab be reinforced with rebar or wire mesh
throughout. We recommend the drainage layer thickness be 6 inches and the drainage layer
material comprise of processed aggregate (e.g., graded aggregate base (GAB)). The following
graphic depicts our soil-supported slab recommendations:
Concrete Slab
0 0 0 d o o0 0 0o 0 00 0 o00 0 O O O O o A
0 0 0 , 0o O o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Granular Capillary Break/Drainage Layer
V
Compacted Subgrade
Figure 4.4.1
1. Drainage Layer Thickness: 6 inches.
2. Drainage Layer Material: granular material such as GAB having a maximum aggregate size of
1.5 inches and no more than 10 percent of fines.
3. Subgrade:Subgrade compacted to 98%maximum dry density per ASTM D698.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 11
Subgrade Modulus: Provided the structural fill and granular drainage layer are constructed in
accordance with our recommendations,the slab may be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade
reaction, kJ.of 120 pci (lbs./cu. inch).
Slab Isolation: Soil-supported slabs should be isolated from the foundations and foundation-
supported elements of the structure so that differential movement between the foundations and
slab will not induce excessive shear and bending stresses in the floor slab. Where the structural
configuration does not permit the use of a free-floating slab such as in a drop-down
footing/monolithic slab configuration, the slab should be designed with reinforcement and load
transfer devices to reduce the risk of overstressing of the slab.
The above should be considered general guidance to assist the Owner/Developer and design team.
Project specific designs, plan details or other input from the Structural Engineer of Record should
control.
4.5 PAVEMENTS
Existing Fill in Pavement Areas: In pavement areas, shallow fill soils and very soft alluvial soils
(typically 3 ft or less) can typically be improved during grading by in-place compaction or simple
removal and replacement. Some undercutting of soft soils and poor-quality materials, if
encountered during construction, should be anticipated during site preparation.
Subgrade Characteristics: Based on the results of our borings, it appears that the pavement
subgrades in cuts will consist mainly of sandy silt (ML). If sandy fat clay (CH) or elastic silt (MH) is
encountered at the pavement subgrade elevation, we recommend undercutting and providing a
minimum 12-inch separation between the highly plastic soils (CH material) and the pavement base
course aggregate. The separation material should consist of low plasticity structural fill (outlined in
this report).
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing was not performed as part of this study. Therefore, we have
assumed a CBR value of 4 for preliminary design purposes. We were not provided traffic loading
information, so we have assumed loadings typical of this type of project.
Proposed Pavement Sections
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT RIGID PAVEMENT
MATERIAL Heavy Duty Light Duty Heavy Duty Light Duty
Portland Cement Concrete
(f'c=4000 psi) - 6 in. 5 in.
Asphaltic Concrete Surface
Course (HMA Superpave— 1.5 in 2 in - -
9.5mm)
Asphaltic Concrete Surface
Course (HMA Superpave—19.0 2 in - - -
mm)
Graded Aggregate Base
Course (GDOT GAB) 8in 6 in 6 in 4 in

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 12
The preliminary pavement sections above are guidelines that may or may not comply with local
jurisdictional minimums.
In general, heavy-duty sections are areas that will be subjected to delivery trucks or other similar
vehicles including main drive lanes of the development. Light duty sections are appropriate for
passenger vehicular traffic and parking areas.
Large, front loading trash dumpsters frequently impose concentrated front wheel loads on
pavements during loading. This type of loading typically results in rutting of asphalt pavement and
ultimately pavement failures. For preliminary design purposes, we recommend that the pavement
in trash pickup areas consist of a 6-inch thick, 4,000 psi, reinforced concrete slab over 6-inches of
dense graded aggregate. Jointing details for concrete pavements should be consistent with ACI
and PCA guidelines. Doweled and reinforced joints will improve rigid pavement performance.
When traffic loading becomes available ECS, or the Civil Engineer can design the pavements.
Prior to subbase placement and paving, CBR testing of the subgrade soils (both natural and fill soils)
should be performed to determine the soil engineering properties for final pavement design.
We recommend that the top 12 inches of the proposed pavement subgrade be firm and unyielding
and be compacted to at least 98 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM-D-698,
Standard Proctor Method. The gradation of the aggregate material used as base course must
comply with the requirements established by the GDOT. Aggregate material should be compacted
to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM-D-1557,
Modified Proctor.
Construction Vehicle Traffic on Pavements: It should also be noted that the pavement sections
specified in the table above was developed for the anticipated in-service traffic conditions only and
do not provide an allowance for construction traffic conditions or traffic conditions more than
typical commercial driveway traffic. Likewise, existing pavements subjected to construction vehicle
traffic may experience load related distress. Some distress of pavements subjected to construction
traffic conditions may require repairs prior to completing the final pavement section. These repairs
typically include, but are not limited to, the removal of distressed bituminous concrete, the
removal and replacement of contaminated or degraded base course aggregate and repair of
softened subgrade soils.
Drainage: An important consideration with the design and construction of pavements is surface
and subsurface drainage. Where standing water develops, either on the pavement surface or
within the base course layer, softening of the subgrade and other problems related to the
deterioration of the pavement can be expected. Furthermore, good drainage should reduce the
risk of the subgrade materials becoming saturated over a long period of time.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 13
5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
5.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing
The subgrade preparation should consist of stripping all vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, existing fill,
and any soft or poor-quality materials from the 10-foot expanded building and 5-foot expanded
pavement limits, and 5 feet beyond the toe of structural fills or front of retaining walls, where
practical.
5.1.2 Fill and Alluvium Removal from Building Area (Alternative 2)
As discussed in the Foundations Section 4.3 Ground Improvement and Foundation Alternatives, one
alternative method of ground improvement for the planned building is to partially remove the
poor-quality existing fill and alluvium and install new structural fill. Temporary site dewatering
(Section 5.1.5) will likely be required to lower the groundwater level in the planned building areas.
In addition, wet of soft subgrades will require stabilization as discussed in Section 5.1.6.
For Alternative 2, we recommend removing the top 4 feet of the existing poor-quality fill and
alluvium from beneath the structural footprint as defined by the actual building footprint plus a 5-
foot margin and an influence zone extending vertically downward and horizontally outward from
the 5-foot margin on a 1H:1V projection.
To facilitate the preparation of the building subgrade, we recommend the Owner/Developer retain
the services of ECS to observe the partial removal of the fill and alluvium materials on a full-time
basis so that excavation can be evaluated as it proceeds.
Dry Excavations: After over excavation is complete the exposed subgrade at the bottom of the
excavation should be graded to allow the area to be proofrolled. The cut subgrade should be
densified in place using proofrolling as described in Section 5.1.4. Prior to the placement of new
structural fill, the subgrade should be evaluated by the on-site ECS representative. New structural
fill should be installed as described in Sections 5.2.
Wet Excavations: If water seepage or wet soil conditions are present at the exposed cut subgrade,
temporary site dewatering (Section 5.1.5) will be required to lower the groundwater level in the
planned building areas. In addition, wet of soft subgrades will require stabilization as discussed in
Section 5.1.6.
5.1.3 Grading Allowance(Haul off and Replacement)
It is likely that the existing fill and alluvium to be removed will require some drying and possibly
screening to remove debris if it is to be re-used to backfill the excavation. We recommend that
moisture content tests and Standard Proctor tests be performed on the existing fill and alluvium to
determine its compaction characteristics and suitability for re-use.
The reuse of the onsite fill and alluvium is expected to be limited due to elevated in-situ moisture,
presence and moderately to highly plastic alluvium soil, and relatively high percentage of fines. The

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 14
removal and replacement of highly plastic and poor-quality soils should be anticipated during
building pad and site preparation.
We recommend a grading allowance for the removal and replacement of highly plastic and poor-
quality materials be set aside as a contingency and that the Owner/Developer anticipate
undercutting of poor-quality existing fill and highly plastic materials will be necessary during
building pad preparation, utility installation, and site grading. The actual extent and nature of the
required remedial measures can be determined by ECS from supplemental proof rolling at the time
of construction.
5.1.4 Proofrolling
Prior to fill placement or other construction on subgrades, the subgrades should be evaluated by
an ECS field technician. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly proofrolled with construction
equipment having a minimum axle load of 10 tons [e.g., fully loaded tandem-axle dump truck].
Proofrolling should be traversed in two perpendicular directions with overlapping passes of the
vehicle under the observation of an ECS technician. This procedure is intended to assist in
identifying any localized yielding materials. Subgrades should be "firm and unyielding" as
determined by proofroll inspection prior to new fill placement.
Where proofrolling identifies areas that are unstable or "pumping" subgrade those areas should be
repaired prior to the placement of any subsequent structural fill or other construction materials.
Methods of stabilization include undercutting, moisture conditioning, or chemical stabilization. The
situation should be discussed with ECS to determine the appropriate procedure. Test pits may be
excavated to explore the shallow subsurface materials to help in determining the cause of the
observed unstable materials, and to assist in the evaluation of appropriate remedial actions to
stabilize the subgrade.
5.1.5 Site Temporary Dewatering
The contractor shall make their own assessment of temporary dewatering needs based upon the
limited subsurface groundwater information presented in this report. Soil sampling is not
continuous, and thus soil and groundwater conditions may vary between sampling intervals
(typically 5 feet). If the contractor believes additional subsurface information is needed to assess
dewatering needs, they should obtain such information at their own expense. ECS makes no
warranties or guarantees regarding the adequacy of the provided information to determine
dewatering requirements; such recommendations are beyond our scope of services.
Dewatering systems are a critical component of many construction projects. Dewatering systems
must be selected, designed, and maintained by a qualified and experienced (specialty or other)
contractor familiar with the geotechnical and other aspects of the project. The failure to properly
design and maintain a dewatering system for a given project can result in delayed construction,
unnecessary foundation subgrade undercuts, detrimental phenomena such as 'running sand'
conditions, internal erosion (i.e., 'piping'), the migration of 'fines' down-gradient towards the
dewatering system, localized settlement of nearby infrastructure, foundations, slabs-on-grade, and
pavements, etc. Water discharged from any site dewatering system shall be discharged in
accordance with all local, state, and federal requirements.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 15
Strategies for Addressing Perched Groundwater:
The typical primary strategy for addressing perched groundwater seeping into excavations is
pumping from trench (or French) and sump pits with sump pumps. A typical sump pump drain
(found in a sump pit or along a French drain) is depicted below. The inlet of the sump pump is
placed at the bottom of the corrugated pipe and the discharge end of the sump is directed to an
appropriate stormwater drain.
SOLID PIPE/HOSE TO DISCHARGE POINT
�.. 1 !
12'-24'DIAMETER
PERFORATED PIPE - __
- SIDE SLOPE OPTIONAL(AS
NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION)
REE.OAAMENDED 12' Jtr,!1�,I�j�t' =AASHTO#57 STONE
AGGREGATE BELOW BASET �f.4 fy1! -
RECOMMENDED 12"MIN.A66REA&ATE
BETWEEN PERFORATED PIPE AND SODS
Sump Pit/Pump Diagram
Details of a typical French drainage installation are included in Appendix D. A typical French drain
consists of an 18 to 24-inch wide by 18- to 24-inch-deep bed of AASHTO #57 (or similar open
graded aggregate) aggregate wrapped in a medium duty, non-woven geotextile and (sometimes)
containing a 6-inch diameter, Schedule 40 PVC perforated or slotted pipe. Actual dimensions
should be as determined necessary by ECS during construction. After the installation has been
completed, the geotextile should be wrapped over the top of the aggregate and pipe followed by
placement of backfill.The top of the drain should be positioned at least 18 inches below the design
subgrade elevations. Drains should not be routed within the expanded building limits.
Pumping wells or a vacuum system could also be used to address perched groundwater. These
techniques often are only effective during the initial depletion of the perched water quantity and
may quickly be ineffective at addressing accumulation of water from rain, snow, etc.
Strategies for Addressing Water Table Aquifer:
Excavation to planned subgrade levels will encounter the water table aquifer which will adversely
affect construction below-grade. We recommend that groundwater be lowered to at least 3 feet
below planned cut subgrades so that excavations and foundation subgrades remain stable.
Techniques for lowering groundwater deep enough to allow for construction typically include
pumping from deep wells with down-hole submersible pumps, vacuum system dewatering (i.e.,
well points) and possibly eductor wells. These techniques are significantly different from sump
pumping and require engineering design. We recommend a delegated design for dewatering and

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 16
hiring a design/build contractor specializing in dewatering; ECS should be retained to review the
delegated design before it is implemented.
The stabilized pumping rate for the temporary dewatering system shall be established by
calculation submitted in the delegated design. The actual dewatering flow rates should be
measured during construction to confirm the adequacy of the delegated design.
As is often the case, saturated subgrade can exist even after the implementation of the strategies
mentioned above. In these instances, adding supplemental dewatering such as French drains and
sump pumping(described in the Perched Groundwater Strategy above) are often required.
5.1.6 Stabilization of Wet or Soft Subgrades
If wet or soft subgrades are encountered at the time of subgrade preparation, ECS should be
notified so that the conditions can be evaluated, and further recommendations provided. The
stabilization of soft or wet subgrades should be performed prior to the placement of new structural
fill for structures and pavements.
Conceptually, subgrade stabilization involves removing the surface vegetation, topsoil, and soft
soils down to a firm subgrade or to the minimum depth as instructed by the engineer's on-site
representative. For Foundation Alternative 2, the programed undercut is 4 feet below current
grades. Any standing water should be removed using pumps and ditches. Once the subgrade is
de-watered and stripped to a firm subgrade, the bottom of the excavation should be stabilized
with a woven geosynthetic designed for soil stabilization and reinforcement such as Mirafi RS570
(or similar product) or a biaxial geogrid material such as Tensar BX 1200 or similar strength
material. "Bridge"lifts should not be used in areas supporting structures.
The geosynthetic or geogrid would then be covered with a layer of #57 stone or GAB fill,
approximately 18 to 24 inches in thickness, to provide a working platform to allow proper soil fill
placement. The aggregate should be spread across the geogrid and densified with lightweight
tracked equipment. Care should be taken to avoid contact of the tracked equipment with the
geogrid.
A layer of geotextile filter fabric should be placed over the #57 stone prior to filling with soil fill.
The geotextile filter fabric should consist of a non-woven fabric such as Mirafi 140 N or higher
strength material. The geotextile filter fabric is not required if a layer of GAB is placed on top of
the #57 stone to "choke" the voids of the #57 stone. Once stabilized, the area can then be filled
with suitable compacted structural fill to the required subgrade elevation as discussed in the next
section.
5.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS
5.2.1 Structural Fill
Prior to placement of structural fill, representative bulk samples (about 50 pounds) of on-site and
off-site borrow should be submitted to ECS for laboratory testing, which will include Atterberg
limits, natural moisture content, grain-size distribution, and moisture-density relationships (i.e.,
Proctors) for compaction. Import materials should be tested prior to being hauled to the site to
determine if they meet project specifications.

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 17
Satisfactory Structural Fill Materials: Materials satisfactory for use as structural fill should consist
of inorganic soils with the following engineering properties and compaction requirements.
Structural Fill Index Properties
Subject Property
Buildings,Structures and Pavement Areas LL<50, PI <20
Max. Particle Size 4 inches
Dry Unit Weight >95 pcf
Fines Content(%passing#200 sieve) Less than 65%
Max.organic content <5%by dry weight
Structural Fill Compaction Requirements
Subject Requirement
Compaction Standard Standard Proctor,ASTM D698
Required Compaction(1) 95%of Max. Dry Density
+3 % points of the soil's optimum
Moisture Content —
value
Loose Thickness 8 inches prior to compaction
Note:
(1) - 98% of Max. Dry Density for the upper one foot of fill
supporting structures, pavements, slabs-on-grade, and
sidewalks.
Unsatisfactory (Poor-Quality) Materials: Unsatisfactory fill materials include materials which do
not satisfy the requirements for suitable materials, as well as topsoil and organic materials, organic
soils (OH, OL), elastic Silt (MH), and high plasticity Clay (CH). Unsatisfactory fill materials also
include lightweight material with a maximum dry density less than 95 pcf.
Fill Placement: Grade control should be maintained throughout the fill placement operations. All
fill operations should be observed on a full-time basis by a qualified soil technician from ECS to
determine that minimum compaction requirements are being met. A minimum of one compaction
test per 2,500 square foot area should be performed in every lift placed. The elevation and
location of the tests should be clearly identified and recorded at the time of fill placement.
Fill materials should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and moisture
conditioned to within +/- 3 percent of the optimum moisture content to facilitate proper
compaction. Controlled fill soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the
maximum dry density obtained in accordance with ASTM Specification D-698, Standard Proctor
Method.
The upper one foot of soil supporting structures, slabs-on-grade, and sidewalks, should be
compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the maximum dry density obtained in accordance with

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 18
ASTM Specification D-698, Standard Proctor Method. Subgrades should be "firm and unyielding"
as determined by proofroll inspection prior to construction.
Additional Considerations: Fill materials should not be placed on excessively wet soils. wet soils or
aggregates should be scarified, aerated, and moisture conditioned.
5.3 FOUNDATION AND SLAB OBSERVATIONS
Protection of Foundation Excavations: Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the
footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore,
foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing soils
are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the
foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must
remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, the
bearing soils should be protected with tarps or plastic sheeting. Alternatively, a 1 to 3-inch thick
"mud mat" of "lean" concrete could be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of
reinforcing steel.
Footing Subgrade Observations: The foundation subgrade should be observed by the
Geotechnical Engineer of record, or their authorized representative, to confirm the bearing soils
are suitable for supporting the structure prior to placing foundation concrete.
Slab Subgrade Verification: Prior to fine grading and placement of drainage layers, a
representative of ECS should be called on to observe exposed slab subgrades. A proofroll using
engineer-approved construction equipment suitable for the area being tested may be requested by
the Geotechnical Engineer at that time. Once subgrades have been prepared to the satisfaction of
ECS,the capillary drainage layer can be placed.
5.4 UTILITY INSTALLATIONS
Utility Subgrades: The soils encountered in our exploration are expected to be generally suitable
for support of utility pipes. The pipe subgrade should be observed and probed for stability by ECS
to evaluate the suitability of the materials encountered. Any loose or poor-quality materials
encountered at the utility pipe subgrade elevation should be removed and replaced with suitable
compacted structural fill or pipe bedding material.
Utility Backfilling:The granular bedding material should be at least 4 inches thick, but not less than
that specified by the project drawings and specifications. Fill placed for support of the utilities, as
well as backfill over the utilities, should satisfy the requirements for structural fill given in this
report. Compacted backfill should be free of topsoil, roots, ice, or any other material designated by
ECS as unsuitable. The backfill should be moisture conditioned, placed, and compacted in
accordance with the recommendations of this report.
Excavation Safety: All excavations and slopes should be made and maintained in accordance with
OSHA excavation safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and
constructing stable, temporary excavations and slopes and should shore, slope, or bench the sides
of the excavations and slopes as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and
bottom. The contractor's responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the

Wormy Chestnut Shoppes October 24,2022
ECS Project No.31:4488 Page 19
soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should
slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth,
exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. ECS is providing this
information solely as a service to our client. ECS is not assuming responsibility for construction site
safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be
inferred.
6.0 CLOSING
ECS has prepared this report to guide the geotechnical-related design and construction aspects of
the project. We performed these services in accordance with the standard of care expected of
professionals in the industry performing similar services on projects of like size and complexity at
this time in the region. No other representation expressed or implied, and no warranty or
guarantee is included or intended in this report.
The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS by Cashiers
Properties of Jax, LLC. If any of this information is inaccurate or changes, either because of our
interpretation of the documents provided or site or design changes that may occur later, ECS
should be contacted so we can review our recommendations and provide additional or alternate
recommendations that reflect the proposed construction.
We recommend that ECS review the project plans and specifications so we can confirm that those
plans/specifications are in accordance with the recommendations of this geotechnical report.
Field observations, and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation installation are
an extension of, and integral to, the geotechnical design. We recommend that ECS be retained to
apply our expertise throughout the geotechnical phases of construction, and to provide
consultation and recommendation should issues arise.
ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the
data in this report.

APPENDIX A— Diagrams
• Site Location Diagram
Boring Location Diagram

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin,(c)OpenStreetMap contributors
N
Ay W E
�— S
" ) o A// '' 4
107
(f
4
c.\ Q'
°akm on,
O
rl U gtwl aY�
C _ Ca s h ler s 64 as USIHiyhwa 16 . J`"•'
— • 4
a
I_I I
- _J.. (,07) —1
3 a
--.r____A 1 107
0
aelitt AU A._
P\\e`
Cashiers Valley F,
o"If
el 0 300 600
Feet
SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM ENGINEER
SCALE
AS NOTED
WORMY CHESTNUT SHOPPES P3�4488No.
95 US 64 W, CASHIERS, NC SHEET
1
1M- CASHIERS PROPERTIES OF JAX LLC DATE
10/19/2022
I

M341114.7 INLET
HDCP. RAMP
In E71.EDGE OF PAVEMENT
CO ••• • NEW 10'-15
rl5' SIDEWALK' . . "t RIP-RAPCP- i0
3483. 1 CURB AND GUTTER ,. •• _ - 're" — �� J 47 •
ER
EP
— .i���.. ,—_- — �— 't • _tea �� ' �.
'___ �� � '• • y 4• 3484 J . - • 1.1
14 li
461 x ', >1�t1 , '— — � 'iG7CT—�-� I`3434.0 3483.75 : .7 •Ar I 34:2\ o
NEW , I t NEW..-1484 SF I I $F • I 4 II `� r xJgJ.7 x 3Enw \ TI
BU B_O 1 BUILDING ` .-NG B-06 �� V 3, j 11 I I' \ N_
III 5 B-05 \11 xSW.t
FFE-348S.Ot F'FE-. Isis I IFFE-3485.01 , 0. IFFE-34B5.1] ` '0 �,— x«'s I I �'7
Fl
„b+�D.i 0 1 I ,._._, I ' ,yhe x 34314 x3 --- /iv (n
6 ,/, B-03 II {I
9LT FENCE ! I 1,,PP I i - „Sal 34811 -0 n �— I I
k , 4tas4 \ o
♦xlk i4i 3481.7 3�• ;�/ '� �11( SIMA SA It Co:_ 13 08 : _..��11 L >, U ti
1 B-02 = B-04 1• B-07 3 • �I` I LIMIT OF
\a +0 ,,,,a,,,,,,,.,„n• RAI UP fcowoEhr smug DRAINAGE BASIN
x}MILy'� ��75 �3482.75 I ``
x l
SILT FENCE
- .' _ 3482.5 t
x (� r x34a1.1
SILT FENCE I v` x4401A ' //f • 3483.0„rir- x 7 1
xN3 3482.70 \3482.70 3482.85 at �1
INEW a
LIMIT OF 1
DRAINAGE BASIN 464' W 1 l
h.
A C R •`3482.25 x. 3482.60 3483.0 1 j 1
3482.85 '..^� I 1 60
3410.0 B-09 _� x 1l
o\...T?"1/.3 . // I•I
x x
t
7.10\ RETENTION �••ii�i x
•
BASIN • ������4 1.7. `•...f• '• ...; lilt L u•MAG• I11
X •� BLOCK AND GRAVEL '•..••:•-.'••,.. .. Nr 341+I I I
'OVERFLOW INLET 4, ' 10 WO
�` TOP EL. - 3482.0 .a -3482;SOL___
9L7 MICE INV. EL - 3479.5 •.' %`emsI I I
SIDEBANK FILTER •` `•. ,'•?.•.. xt4 7 I
x �� \ t (SEE DETAIL) 1 1-"1 .��•r A. I:
N 89•'1.12' L x34762 1.' 4 4 =-p-P ---1,,. _ _ — -- — 7Y.t- _a__
Sketch adapted from Wormy Chestnut Shoppes, sheet C-4, prepared by Jehle Engineering, PLLC, dated August 2022
LEGEND BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM
. . . Lms- ,r _ IFt Ilh, Wormy Chestnut Shoppes
Approximate Boring Location 11 Cashiers, Jackson County, North Carolina
ECS Proposal #31-4488

APPENDIX B— Field Explorations
• Reference Notes for Boring Logs
• Boring Logs (B-1 through B-9)
• Field Procedures

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS
MATERIAL1'2 DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS&ABBREVIATIONS
SS Split Spoon Sampler PM Pressuremeter Test
ASPHALT
ST Shelby Tube Sampler RD Rock Bit Drilling
WS Wash Sample RC Rock Core,NX,BX,AX
CONCRETE BS Bulk Sample of Cuttings REC Rock Sample Recovery%
6 ::.':a: PA Power Auger(no sample) RQD Rock Quality Designation%
<•:o;P•;-,% GRAVEL
. HSA Hollow Stem Auger
TOPSOIL PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
VOID DESIGNATION I PARTICLE SIZES
Boulders 12 inches(300 mm)or larger
BRICK Cobbles 3 inches to 12 inches(75 mm to 300 mm)
o , Gravel: Coarse 3/4 inch to 3 inches(19 mm to 75 mm)
P ri ao AGGREGATE BASE COURSE Fine 4.75 mm to 19 mm(No.4 sieve to%inch)
ItSand: Coarse 2.00 mm to 4.75 mm(No. 10 to No.4 sieve)
741 GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL Medium 0.425 mm to 2.00 mm(No.40 to No. 10 sieve)
w + gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines
Q�a Fine 0.074 mm to 0.425 mm(No.200 to No.40 sieve)
GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL Silt&ClayFines" I
fa a gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines ("Fines") <0.074 mm(smaller than a No.200 sieve)
.&Q Ql GM SILTY GRAVEL
gravel-sand-silt mixtures COHESIVE SILTS&CLAYS I COARSE FINE
�- GC CLAYEY GRAVEL UNCONFINED
RELATIVE GRAINED GRAINED
7 (%/a)8 (%/a)8
gravel-sand-clay mixtures COMPRESSIVE SPT5 CONSISTENCY AMOUNT
■ n SW WELL-GRADED SAND STRENGTH,OP4 (BPF) (COHESIVE)
• ■ Trace <5 <5
o • gravelly sand,little or no fines <0.25 <2 Very Soft
SP POORLY-GRADED SAND 0.25-<0.50 3-4 Soft With 10-20 10-25
: : . gravelly sand,little or no fines 0.50-<1.00 5-8 Firm Adjective 25-45 30-45
• : : 1 :: SM SILTY SAND 1.00-<2.00 9-15 Stiff (ex:"Silty")
• •
• sand-silt mixtures
2.00-<4.00 16-30 Very Stiff
SC CLAYEY SAND 4.00-8.00 31 -50 Hard
:: : 7 sand-clay mixtures >8.00 >50 Very Hard s
ML SILT WATER LEVELS
non-plastic to medium plasticity
MH ELASTIC SILT GRAVELS,SANDS&NON-COHESIVE SILTS 7 WL(First Encountered)
high plasticity SPT DENSITY V WL(Completion)
I/// CL LEAN CLAY <5 Very Loose
low to medium plasticity 5-10 Loose \ WL(Seasonal High Water)
// � /, CH 11 -30 Medium Dense
// // highFAT plasticity 31 -50 Dense I 7 WL(Stabilized)
S f.55
s s f 5 OL ORGANIC SILT or CLAY >50 Very Dense
S non-plastic to low plasticity
5 S OH ORGANIC SILT or CLAY
high plasticity FILL AND ROCK
a •�• PT PEAT
>r, •1 highly organic soils
FILL POSSIBLE FILL PROBABLE FILL ROCK
'Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-17(Visual-Manual Procedure)unless noted otherwise.
2To be consistent with general practice,"POORLY GRADED"has been removed from GP,GP-GM,GP-GC,SP,SP-SM,SP-SC soil types on the boring logs.
3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol[Ex:(SM-FILL)].
4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot(tsf).
6Standard Penetration Test(SPT)refers to the number of hammer blows(blow count)of a 140 lb.hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler
required to drive the sampler 12 inches(ASTM D 1586)."N-value"is another term for"blow count"and is expressed in blows per foot(bpf).SPT correlations per 7.4.2 Method B
and need to be corrected if using an auto hammer.
6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol.The measurements are relatively reliable
when augering,without adding fluids,in granular soils.In clay and cohesive silts,the determination of water levels may require several days for the
water level to stabilize. In such cases,additional methods of measurement are generally employed.
7Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-17 Note 14.
8Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5%per ASTM D 2488-17.
Reference Notes for Boring Logs(03-24-2021).doc ©2021 ECS Corporate Services,LLC.All Rights Reserved

CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC 31:4488 B-01 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
FE
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes M&M Drilling
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
95 US 64 W,Cashiers,North Carolina,28717
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: '
BOTTOM OF CASING
3484+/-
UJ
m Lu it Z J L A LIQUID LIMIT
L~i F ; LD X PLASTIC LIMIT
LJ p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'LiDESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 O CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
WD CL Q d 0 Q w m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
N W J RECOVERY
•WATER CONTENT%
UI N W RQD [FINES CONTENT]%
— REC 10 20 30 40 50
\Topsoil Thickness[3"]
(CL)Alluvium, GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY, _
trace organics, brown,wet,soft
1-2-1
_ S-1 SS 18 15 (SM)Alluvium,SILTY FINE SAND, E I : (3)
brown and gray,wet,very loose _
5 3479
S 2 SS 18 14 (SM) Residuum,SILTY SAND,gray 1-2-2
white and tan,saturated,very loose - (4)
0-1-1
S-3 SS 18 6 - (2)
10 3474—
_ S-4 SS 18 15 — 0(z)1
S-5 SS 18 14 o(2�1
15 END OF BORING AT 15 FT 3469—
[1s.s •
45.7'
%]
20— 3464—
25— 3459-
30— 3454—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) 8.0 BORING STARTED: Sep 19 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 8.5
Y WL(Completion) 4.5 BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Sep 192022 HAMMER TYPE: Auto
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:WL(Stabilized) Truck DRILLING METHOD:3-1/4"Hollow stem auger
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC 31:4488 B-02 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
FE
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes M&M Drilling
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
95 US 64 W,Cashiers,North Carolina,28717
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: '
BOTTOM OF CASING
3483+/-
cc
m Lu it Z J LLL Q LIQUID LIMIT
L~i F ; LO X PLASTIC LIMIT
LJ p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'Li
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
WD CL Q Cl_ 0 I- > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
N W > J RECOVERY
< CC > •WATER CONTENT%
UT N W RQD [FINES CONTENT]%
- REC 10 20 30 40 50
(SM)Alluvium,SILTY FINE SAND,
contains slight roots, light brown,wet, 0-0-1 •
S 1 SS 18 16 very loose — (1) �i 37.5
[41.7%]
(SM) Residuum,SILTY FINE TO
S-2 SS 18 16 MEDIUM SAND, contains slight mica, - 1�1�° c�
5 gray and white to tan,saturated,very = 3478—
loose _
— S-3 SS 18 6 — 01o0i0 ® •
Q o [29.6%] 58.6
- S-4 SS 18 10 - °l0i°
10 3473
S-5 SS 18 14 0(13'z
15 END OF BORING AT 15 FT 3468
20— 3463
25— 3458—
30— 3453
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) 7.5 BORING STARTED: Sep 19 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 8.0
Y WL(Completion) 5.0 BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Sep 192022 HAMMER TYPE: Auto
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:WL(Stabilized) Truck DRILLING METHOD:3-1/4"Hollow stem auger
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC 31:4488 B-03 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
FE
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes M&M Drilling
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
95 US 64 W,Cashiers,North Carolina,28717
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: '
BOTTOM OF CASING
3483+/-
cc
m Lu it Z J L Q LIQUID LIMIT
L~i F ; LO X PLASTIC LIMIT
LLJ p J p N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
a w d 'Li
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
w CL Q d 8 Q > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
N W > J RECOVERY
> •WATER CONTENT%
UT N W RQD [FINES CONTENT]%
— REC 10 20 30 40 50
Topsoil Thickness[411] /- '' -
(SM)Alluvium,SILTY SAND,contains 1-1.1
S 1 SS 18 16 •
slight mica, light brown,wet,very • — (2) D'
loose /
(SM) Residuum,SILTY SAND,contains = 1-0-1
-- S-2 SS 18 5 slight rock fragments,white and gray, (1) J.
5 _ saturated,very loose 3478-
o-o-o
_ S-3 SS 18 6 = (o)
- S-4 SS 18 12 - °(°)1
10 3473
(SM) Residuum,SILTY SAND,contains
— mica, brown red and white,saturated, -
very loose 0-1-1
S 5 SS 18 14 - (2) z
15 END OF BORING AT 15 FT 3468-
20— 3463
25— 3458—
30— 3453
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) 7.0 BORING STARTED: Sep 19 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 6.0
Y WL(Completion) 4.0 BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Sep 192022 HAMMER TYPE: Auto
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:WL(Stabilized) Truck DRILLING METHOD:3-1/4"Hollow stem auger
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC 31:4488 B-04 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
FE
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes M&M Drilling
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
95 US 64 W,Cashiers,North Carolina,28717
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: '
BOTTOM OF CASING
3482+/-
UJ
m Lu it Z J L Q LIQUID LIMIT
L~i F ; LC/ X PLASTIC LIMIT
LJ p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'LiDESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 O CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
WD CL Q d 0 Q w m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
N W J RECOVERY
•WATER CONTENT%
UI N W RQD [FINES CONTENT]%
- REC 10 20 30 40 50
Topsoil Thickness[4"]
(CH)Alluvium,SANDY FAT CLAY,trace o-o-o
S 1 SS 18 15 0
gravel,gray,wet,very soft — (0)
•
(SM)Alluvium,SILTY FINE SAND,gray
S-2 SS 18 16 and dark brown,wet,very loose _ 1(4)a
(4)
5 (SM) Residuum,SILTY FINE TO 3477_
MEDIUM SAND,contains slight rock 1-1-1
_ S-3 SS 18 6 fragments,tan brown and white, — (2) 2
_ saturated,very loose —
S-4 SS 18 15 0-1-1
- (2)
10 3472—
S-5 SS 18 8 1-2-2
(4) 4
15 END OF BORING AT 15 FT 3467—
20— 3462—
25— 3457-
30— 3452—
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) 7.0 BORING STARTED: Sep 19 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 5.5
Y WL(Completion) 4.0 BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Sep 192022 HAMMER TYPE: Auto
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:WL(Stabilized) Truck DRILLING METHOD:3-1/4"Hollow stem auger
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC 31:4488 B-05 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
FiSi
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes M&M Drilling
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION In
95 US 64 W,Cashiers,North Carolina,28717
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: '
BOTTOM OF CASING
3484+/-
cc
m Lu
it Z J LL Q LIQUID LIMIT
I- F ; L. X PLASTIC LIMIT
w p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
wJ DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
w0 CL Q Cl- 8 Q > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
QN Q CC > w RECOVERY •WATER CONTENT%
UT N > RQD
[FINES CONTENT]%
- REC 10 20 30 40 50
-.
Topsoil Thickness[4"] /
(SM PROBABLE FILL)SILTY SAND, light _ 1-1-1
_ S 1 SS 18 15 I brown,wet,very loose I — (2)
(MH)Alluvium, ELASTIC SILT,gray,
wet,very soft _ 0-0-1
- S-2 SS 18 15 _ (1)
5 - (SM) Residuum,SILTY FINE TO . 3479=
MEDIUM SAND, contains mica,gray to 1-2-1
— S-3 SS 18 12 tan and white,saturated,very loose — (3) 3
_ Q
-
S-4 SS 18 16 - 0
- (2)1
10 3474—
_ S-5 SS 18 16 - 1(3)z 1
15 END OF BORING AT 15 FT 3469
20— 3464
25— 3459
30— 3454
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) 8.0 BORING STARTED: Sep 19 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 8.0
Y WL(Completion) 5.5 BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Sep 192022 HAMMER TYPE: Auto
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:WL(Stabilized) Truck DRILLING METHOD:3-1/4"Hollow stem auger
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC 31:4488 B-06 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
FiSi
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes M&M Drilling
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
95 US 64 W,Cashiers,North Carolina,28717
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: '
BOTTOM OF CASING
3484+/-
cc
m it Z J L Q LIQUID LIMIT
L~i F ; L. X PLASTIC LIMIT
W p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'LiDESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
WD CL Q d 8 Q w CO ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
N W > J RECOVERY
CC > •WATER CONTENT%
UT N W — RQD [FINES CONTENT]%
REC 10 20 30 40 50
_ Topsoil Thickness[9"]
(ML)Alluvium,SILT WITH SAND, 2-1-2
_ S-1 SS 18 16 brown to dark gray,wet,soft to very — (3)
soft
S-2 SS 18 8 -- o(o-o
5 (SM) Residuum,SILTY SAND,contains :i 3479
slight rock fragments,gray and white, 4-2-2
_ S-3 SS 18 7 saturated,very loose — (4)
_ _ 0-1-1
S-4 SS 18 12 (2)
10 3474
o-1-z
S-5 SS 18 16 (3)
15 END OF BORING AT 15 FT 3469
20— 3464
25— 3459—
30— 3454
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) 6.0 BORING STARTED: Sep 19 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 7.0
Y WL(Completion) 5.0 BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Sep 192022 HAMMER TYPE: Auto
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:WL(Stabilized) Truck DRILLING METHOD:3-1/4"Hollow stem auger
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC 31:4488 B-07 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
FiSi
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes M&M Drilling
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
95 US 64 W,Cashiers,North Carolina,28717
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: '
BOTTOM OF CASING
3482+/-
cc
m it Z J L A LIQUID LIMIT
L~i F ; VD X PLASTIC LIMIT
W p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'LiDESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
w0 0_ Q d Q w CO ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
N W > J RECOVERY
> •WATER CONTENT%
UT N W — RQD [FINES CONTENT]%
— RED 10 20 30 40 50
Topsoil Thickness[161
_ S-1 SS 18 16 (ML)Alluvium,SANDY SILT,contains _ 0-0-0
- (0)
slight roots,dark brown to gray,wet, [52.2m 8$'6
very soft
S-2 SS 18 8 (SM) Residuum,SILTY FINE TO — s(8)
5 MEDIUM SAND, contains slight rock 3477—
fragments,gray and white,saturated,
S-3 SS 18 0 very loose i 2-3-3
— (6)
— _ 1-1-2
S-4 SS 18 0 (3) B
10 3472—
•
_ 5-5 SS 18 5 1- (3)2 1
15 3467—
S-6 SS 18 8 - 2(4)2
20 3462—
S-7 SS 18 6 2-2-3
®
(5) 5 (16.2%) 31
25 3457—
_ — 1-2-2
S-8 SS 18 10 - (4) C4
30 END OF BORING AT 30 FT 3452_
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) 6.5 BORING STARTED: Sep 19 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 6.0
Y WL(Completion) 3.5 BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Sep 192022 HAMMER TYPE: Auto
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:WL(Stabilized) Truck DRILLING METHOD:3-1/4"Hollow stem auger
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC 31:4488 B-08 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
FE
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes M&M Drilling
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
95 US 64 W,Cashiers,North Carolina,28717
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: '
BOTTOM OF CASING
3481.5+/-
cc
m Lu it Z J L Q LIQUID LIMIT
L~i F ; l0 X PLASTIC LIMIT
1± p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w d 'Li
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
WD CL Q Cl- 8 Q > m ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
N W > J RECOVERY
> •WATER CONTENT%
UT VI W RQD [FINES CONTENT]%
— REC 10 20 30 40 50
Topsoil Thickness[7"]
(ML)Alluvium,SANDY SILT,contains 0-1-1
_ S-1 SS 18 15 slight mica and roots,gray and dark - (2) 2
brown,wet,very soft
S-2 SS 18 8 = 3477— (1)
5
(SM) Residuum,SILTY SAND,contains
slight mica and rock fragments,gray _ 1-2-3
_ S-3 SS 18 4 and white,saturated, loose to very - (5)
_ loose
_ _ 0-1-1
S-4 SS 18 15 3472— (2) 2
10 END OF BORING AT 10 FT _
3467—
15
3462
20
3457
25
3452
30
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) 6.0 BORING STARTED: Sep 19 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 5.0
Y WL(Completion) 4.5 BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Sep 192022 HAMMER TYPE: Auto
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:WL(Stabilized) Truck DRILLING METHOD:3-1/4"Hollow stem auger
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.: SHEET:
Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC 31:4488 B-09 1 of 1
PROJECT NAME: DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:
FE
Wormy Chestnut Shoppes M&M Drilling
SITE LOCATION:
LOSS OF CIRCULATION MD
95 US 64 W,Cashiers,North Carolina,28717
NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION: '
BOTTOM OF CASING
3481+/-
cc
m it Z J L Q LIQUID LIMIT
L~i F ; L. X PLASTIC LIMIT
W p J Q N 0 STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT
w 'LiDESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w Q O 20 40 60 80 100 0 CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF
WD CL Q d 8 Q w CO ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION& 1 2 3 4 5
N a, > J RECOVERY
CC > •WATER CONTENT%
UT N W — RQD [FINES CONTENT]%
- REC 10 20 30 40 50
Topsoil Thickness[611) , —
' `
(ML)Alluvium,SANDY SILT,contains 1-1-0
S 1 SS 18 16 slight mica,gray, brown,wet,very soft — (1)
i
- S-2 SS 18 15 - o(2)1
5 (SM) Residuum,SILTY SAND,contains 3476=
slight mica and rock fragments,gray - 2-2-2
_ S-3 SS 18 6 and white and tan,saturated,very — (4) r
_ loose —
- S-4 SS 18 8 - 1(3�Z
10 END OF BORING AT10FT 3471—
15— 3466
20— 3461
25— 3456—
30— 3451
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
SZ WL(First Encountered) 4.0 BORING STARTED: Sep 19 2022 CAVE IN DEPTH: 5.0
Y WL(Completion) 3.5 BORING
7 WL(Seasonal High Water)
COMPLETED: Sep 192022 HAMMER TYPE: Auto
EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY:WL(Stabilized) Truck DRILLING METHOD:3-1/4"Hollow stem auger
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
B.1 Mechanized Soil Test Borings
The boring locations were established in the field by ECS personnel by estimating distances and angles
from existing site features. The boring locations shown in Appendix A should be considered approximate.
The elevations shown on the boring logs were extracted from the Wormy Chestnut Shoppes, sheet C-4
contours provided by the client.The individual Boring Logs provided in Appendix B are for reference.
The mechanical soil borings were performed using a truck-mounted, drilling rig. Representative soil
samples were obtained by means of the split-barrel sampling procedure in general accordance with ASTM
D 1586. In this procedure,a 2-inch O.D., split-barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches
by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
The number of blows required to drive the sampler through a 12-inch interval is termed the Standard
Penetration Test value (N-value) and is indicated for each sample on the boring logs. This value can be
used as a qualitative indication of the in-place relative density of non-cohesive soils. In a less reliable way,
it also indicates the consistency of cohesive soils. This indication is qualitative, since many factors can
significantly affect the standard penetration resistance value and prevent a direct correlation between
drill crews, drill rigs, drilling procedures, and hammer-rod-sampler assemblies. Split-spoon samples were
obtained at approximate 2%foot intervals within the upper 10 feet of the test borings and at approximate
5-foot intervals thereafter.
The drilling crew maintained a field log of the strata encountered in the borings. After recovery, each
sample was removed from the sampler and visually classified. Representative portions of each sample
were then sealed in airtight bags and returned to our laboratory for visual examination by a geotechnical
engineer and subsequent laboratory testing.
0

APPENDIX C — Laboratory Testing
• Laboratory Test Results Summary

Laboratory Testing Summary
Atterberg Limits **Percent Moisture-Density CBR(%)
Sample Location Sample Depth AMC Soil Passing #Organic
Number (feet) (%) Type LL PL PI No.200 `Maximum `Optimum 0.1 in. 0.2 in. Content(%)
Sieve Density(pcf) Moisture(%)
B-01 S-5 13.5-15 45.7 SM 18.5
B-02 S-1 1-2.5 37.5 SM NP NP NP 41.7
B-02 S-3 6-7.5 58.6 SM 29.6
B-07 S-1 1-2.5 88.6 ML NP NP NP 52.2
B-07 S-7 23.5-25 31.3 SM 16.2
Notes: See test reports for test method,AASTM D2216-19,"ASTM D2488,""ASTM D1140-17, #ASTM D2974-20e1 `See test report for D4718 corrected values
Definitions: MC: Moisture Content,Soil Type: USCS(Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index,CBR:California
Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content
Project: Wormy Chestnut Shoppes Project No.: 31:4488
Client: Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC Date Reported: 10/4/2022
Office/Lab Address Office Number/Fax
1900 Hendersonville Rd, [phone]
ECS Southeast LLP-Asheville Suite 10
Asheville, NC 28803
Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received
DR JDK ABB 9/27/2022

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Very Coarse GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
Coarse Medium Fine
3" 2"1.5" 1"3/4" 1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60#100 #140#200
100 T
1 11 II- I I I I I
! I
90 +—
80 - 1 + —
oI
70 - 1--- -
0)
c '
cn
as 1 I i
it 50 -- -
a)
0) 1 1
vo 40 - T
a)
2 30 - T
^a) '
LL
20 - - T
10 Ii i i I I ' '
II I I
i I I , ,
I I
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size mm
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6913M-17-METHOD A)
Sieving Hydrometer Sedimentation
Dry Mass of sample, g 388.2
Particle Size %Passing Particle Size mm %Passing
3" 100 Sample Proportions % dry mass
2" 100
1 1/2" 100 Very coarse,>3"sieve 0
1" 100
3/4" 100 — Gravel,3"to#4 sieve 0
3/8" 100
#4 100 Coarse Sand,#4 to#10 sieve 3
#10 97
#20 84 Medium Sand,#10 to#40 35
#40 63
#60 43 Fine Sand,#40 to#200 44
#100 29
#140 23 Fines<#200 19
#200 19
USCS Silty Sand Liquid Limit D90 1.272 D50 0.303 Dio
AASHTO Plastic Limit D85 0.933 D30 0.157 C
USCS Group Name SM Plasticity Index D60 0.396 D15 C,
Project: Wormy Chestnut Shoppes Project No.: 31:4488
Client: Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC Depth (ft): 13.5-15
Sample No.: S-5
Sample Source: B-01 Date Reported: 10/4/2022
Office/Lab Address Office Number/Fax
ECS Southeast LLP -Asheville
1900 Hendersonville Rd,
Suite 10 [phone]
Asheville, NC 28803
Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received Remarks
DR JDK ABB 9/27/2022

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Very Coarse GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
Coarse Medium Fine
3" 2"1.5" 1"3/4" 1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60#100 #140#200
100 i ' I II Ii-
I I
90 , , 1 1 �, : .
80 - +_
70 -
0 '
c
,
cn I
as I
it 50 -
a)
0
vo 40 - T
a)
2 30 - T
^a) ''
LL
20 - - -1
10 I I I I i i i I I
, , ,! I ! I i I I I !
0 —
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size mm
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6913M-17-METHOD A)
Sieving Hydrometer Sedimentation
Dry Mass of sample, g 334.9
Particle Size %Passing Particle Size mm %Passing
3" 100 Sample Proportions % dry mass
2" 100
1 1/2" 100 Very coarse,>3"sieve 0
1" 100
3/8" 100 — Gravel,3"to#4 sieve 0
#4 100
#10 97 Coarse Sand,#4 to#10 sieve 3
#20 87
#40 70 Medium Sand,#10 to#40 27
#60 56
#100 48 Fine Sand,#40 to#200 28
#140 44
#200 42 Fines<#200 42
USCS SM Liquid Limit NP D90 1.067 DSo 0.173 Dio
AASHTO Plastic Limit NP D85 0.772 D30 C„
USCS Group Name Silty sand Plasticity Index NP D60 0.290 D15 C,
Project: Wormy Chestnut Shoppes Project No.: 31:4488
Client: Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC Depth (ft): 1 -2.5
Sample No.: S-1
Sample Source: B-02 Date Reported: 10/4/2022
Office/Lab Address Office Number/Fax
ECS Southeast LLP -Asheville
1900 Hendersonville Rd,
Suite 10 [phone]
Asheville, NC 28803
Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received Remarks
DR JDK ABB 9/27/2022

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Very Coarse GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
Coarse Medium Fine
3" 2"1.5" 1"3/4" 1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60#100 #140#200
100 Ti 1 II II- - I I I I I
I I
I
90 I
80 - lIluR
70 +;
il
0)
c '
'y 60 -- ' ' 1
cn
I
as I 1
it 50 -- -
a) I
0)
vo 40 - -r f
E. I
a)
2 30 - T
a) '
0 I
20 - - -'r- r
10 I I I I I I• I '
I I I 1 I I I I
0 - I I I I i l' . r
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size mm
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6913M-17-METHOD A)
Sieving Hydrometer Sedimentation
Dry Mass of sample, g 133.1
Particle Size %Passing Particle Size mm %Passing
3" 100 Sample Proportions % dry mass
2" 100
1 1/2" 100 Very coarse,>3"sieve 0
1" 100
3/4" 100 — Gravel,3"to#4 sieve 0
3/8" 100
#4 100 Coarse Sand,#4 to#10 sieve 1
#10 99
#20 88 Medium Sand,#10 to#40 30
#40 69
#60 50 Fine Sand,#40 to#200 39
#100 38
#140 33 Fines<#200 30
#200 30
USCS SM Liquid Limit D90 1.025 D50 0.251 Dio
AASHTO Plastic Limit D85 0.775 D30 0.078 C
USCS Group Name Silty Sand Plasticity Index D60 0.333 D15 C,
Project: Wormy Chestnut Shoppes Project No.: 31:4488
Client: Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC Depth (ft): 6-7.5
Sample No.: S-3
Sample Source: B-02 Date Reported:
Office/Lab Address Office Number/Fax
ECS Southeast LLP -Asheville
1900 Hendersonville Rd,
Suite 10 [phone]
Asheville, NC 28803
Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received Remarks
DR JDK ABB 9/27/2022

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Very Coarse GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
Coarse Medium Fine
3" 2"1.5" 1"3/4" 1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60#100 #140#200
10011 I II II ! „ I 1I i I
90 P +—
80 -
O
70 -
0
c '
cn I
as I
it 50 -- - T r
a)
cm
40 - -r
c
a)
2 30 - T
a) '
0 I
20 — T
10 I I I I I I i I I
II I I I
I I I ! I i I i ! !
0 —
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size mm
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6913M-17-METHOD A)
Sieving Hydrometer Sedimentation
Dry Mass of sample, g 218.6
Particle Size %Passing Particle Size mm %Passing
3" 100 Sample Proportions % dry mass
2" 100
1 1/2" 100 Very coarse,>3"sieve 0
1" 100
3/4" 100 — Gravel,3"to#4 sieve 0
3/8" 100
#4 100 Coarse Sand,#4 to#10 sieve 5
#10 95
#20 g7 Medium Sand,#10 to#40 15
#40 80
#60 73 Fine Sand,#40 to#200 28
#100 63
#140 57 Fines<#200 52
#200 52
USCS ML Liquid Limit NP D90 1.135 D50 D10
AASHTO Plastic Limit NP D85 0.677 D30 C„
USCS Group Name Sandy silt Plasticity Index NP D60 0.126 D15 C,
Project: Wormy Chestnut Shoppes Project No.: 31:4488
Client: Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC Depth (ft): 1 -2.5
Sample No.: S-1
Sample Source: B-07 Date Reported: 10/4/2022
Office/Lab Address Office Number/Fax
ECS Southeast LLP -Asheville
1900 Hendersonville Rd,
Suite 10 [phone]
Asheville, NC 28803
Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received Remarks
DR JDK ABB 9/27/2022

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Very Coarse GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
Coarse Medium Fine
3" 2"1.5" 1"3/4" 1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60#100 #140#200
100 � I I I II I I I I I
90
80 -
o
70 + .
0) 1 1
c
i '
'y 60 -- T 1
as as 1 ii it 50 -- - —*
a)
0) 1 1
vo 40 - T
a)
2 30 - T
^a) '
LL '
20 - T
10 I i i i 1 • i i
i
i i 1 I I I I
0 — I
! I i I I !
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size mm
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D6913M-17-METHOD A)
Sieving Hydrometer Sedimentation
Dry Mass of sample, g 174.4
Particle Size %Passing Particle Size mm %Passing
3" 100 Sample Proportions % dry mass
2" 100
1 1/2" 100 Very coarse,>3"sieve 0
1" 100
3/4" 100 — Gravel,3"to#4 sieve 0
3/8" 100
#4 100 Coarse Sand,#4 to#10 sieve 0
#10 100
#20 91 Medium Sand,#10 to#40 28
#40 72
#60 50 Fine Sand,#40 to#200 56
#100 31
#140 22 Fines<#200 16
#200 16
USCS SM Liquid Limit D90 0.829 D50 0.253 Dio
AASHTO Plastic Limit D85 0.690 D30 0.146 C
USCS Group Name Silty Sand Plasticity Index D60 0.321 D15 C,
Project: Wormy Chestnut Shoppes Project No.: 31:4488
Client: Cashiers Properties of Jax LLC Depth (ft): 23.5-25
Sample No.: S-7
Sample Source: B-07 Date Reported: 10/4/2022
Office/Lab Address Office Number/Fax
ECS Southeast LLP -Asheville
1900 Hendersonville Rd,
Suite 10 [phone]
Asheville, NC 28803
Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received Remarks
DR JDK ABB 9/27/2022

APPENDIX D — Supplemental Report Documents
• GBA Important Information About this Geotechnical Report

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) will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a
has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly different civil engineer.Because each geotechnical-engineering study
a client representative—interpret and apply this is unique,each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,prepared
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as solely for the client.
possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered Likewise,geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific
exposure to problems associated with subsurface project and purpose.For example,it is unlikely that a geotechnical
conditions at project sites and development of engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as
them that,for decades, have been a principal cause one prepared for a parking garage;and a few borings drilled during
of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to
and disputes. If you have questions or want more develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.
information about any of the issues discussed herein,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical . for a different client;
engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation • for a different project or purpose;
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for • for a different site(that may or may not include all or a portion of
everyone involved with a construction project. the original site);or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;
e.g.,man-made events like construction or environmental
Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services remediation,or natural events like floods,droughts,earthquakes,
Provided for this Report or groundwater fluctuations.
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning,
collection,interpretation,and analysis of exploratory data from Note,too,the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can
widely spaced borings and/or test pits.Field data are combined be affected by the passage of time,because of factors like changed
with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained subsurface conditions;new or modified codes,standards,or
from field exploration(if applicable),observations made during site regulations;or new techniques or tools.If you are the least bit uncertain
reconnaissance,and historical information to form one or more models about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical
of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site.Local geology engineer before applying the recommendations in it.A minor amount
and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time-if any is
proposed construction are also important considerations.Geotechnical required at all-could prevent major problems.
engineers apply their engineering training,experience,and judgment
to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface Read this Report in Full
model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected engineering report did not read the report in its entirety.Do not rely on
performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or an executive summary.Do not read selective elements only.Read and
affected by construction activities. refer to the report in full.
The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained,a discussion About Change
of the subsurface model(s),the engineering and geologic engineering Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors
assessments and analyses made,and the recommendations developed when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing
to satisfy the given requirements of the project.These reports may be the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.
titled investigations,explorations,studies,assessments,or evaluations. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
Regardless of the title used,the geotechnical-engineering report is an those that affect:
engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context • the site's size or shape;
of the project and does not represent a close examination,systematic
inquiry,or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. •
the elevation,configuration,location,orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team;or
for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, • project ownership.
and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
needs,goals,and risk management preferences of their clients.A or site changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their
eotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer impact.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept

-,
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical conspicuously that you've included the material for information purposes
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note that
would have considered. "informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely on
the interpretations,opinions,conclusions,or recommendations in the
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report report.Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific
Are Professional Opinions project requirements,including options selected from the report,only
Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's from the design drawings and specifications.Remind constructors
subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures.Geotechnical that they may perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to
engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific allow enough time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in
locations where sampling and testing is performed.The data derived from a position to give constructors the information available to you,while
that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about stemming from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and
subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual sitewide-subsurface preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
conditions may differ-maybe significantly-from those indicated in
this report.Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do
informed guidance quickly,whenever needed. not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines.This happens in part because soil and rock on
This Report's Recommendations Are project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials
Confirmation-Dependent with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete.That
The recommendations included in this report-including any options or lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have
resulted in disappointments,delays,cost overruns,claims,and disputes.
alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are not
final,because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily To confront that risk,geotechnical engineers commonly include
on judgement and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer can finalize explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes labeled"limitations:'
the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'
exposed during construction.If through observation your geotechnical responsibilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own
responsibilities and risks.Read these provisions closely.Ask questions.
engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist,
the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming no other changes have Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an
environmental study-e.g.,a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform a
geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical-engineering
Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk report does not usually provide environmental findings,conclusions,or
recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of
the design team,to: storage tanks or regulated contaminants.Unanticipated subsurface
• confer with other design-team members; environmental problems have led to project failures.If you have not
• help develop specifications; obtained your own environmental information about the project site,
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals'plans and ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find
specifications;and environmental risk-management guidance.
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this Moisture Infiltration and Mold
report.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- water infiltration,or similar issues in this report,the engineer's
phase observations. services were not designed,conducted,or intended to prevent
migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance through building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.
unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting Accordingly,proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's
the information they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent
the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the moisture infiltration.Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by
complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.
or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
GEArtGEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
a
ASSOCIATION
Telephone:[phone]
e-mail:[e-mail] www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly
prohibited,except with 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 or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation. J