SW6190503_2019-06-27_Spout Springs_Storm_SIGNED_6/27/2019

Stormwater Management Report
for
T\ainbow
CHILD CARE CENTER
95 Centennial Parkway
Cameron, NC 28326
Jurisdiction: Harnett County, NC
Project No. 2017.0643
June, 2018
Revised June 26, 2019
PREPARED BY
INTERPLAW,
604 COURTLAND STREET. SUITE 100
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32804
PH 407.645,5008
FX 407.629.9124
ORLANDO CHICAGO
ARCHITECTURE EN G I N E E R I NG INTERIOR DESIGN PERMITTING
LAS VEGAS PHILADELPHIA
PERMITTING ENTITLEMENTS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
•�P�1'► CARp '�•
e SEAL
040659
r`
STUART ANDERSON, I
NC REG. #040659
(, [7-q, � I I
©The following report and format is the exclusive copyrighted property of Interplan LLC. for the intended use by the
named client for this project only. Any use of this report or format by any other party is strictly prohibited by Law.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT NARRATIVE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. 100-Year Flood Zone
B. Stream Buffers and Wetlands
III. NORTH CAROLINA POST -CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
STANDARDS
A. Review and Permitting Agencies
B. Stormwater Management Manual Standards
C. Proposed Stormwater Design
IV. HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
A. Site Area and Drainage Basins
B. Time of Concentration
C. Soils and Curve Numbers
D. Groundwater Conditions
E. Surface Flow Velocities
F. Rainfall Amounts
G. Tailwater Conditions
H. Downstream Overbank Flood Protection and Stormwater Attenuation
V. MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A. Landscape and Stormwater Facility Maintenance
B. Minimum Construction Erosion Requirements
VI. CONCLUSIONS

APPENDICES
A. Vicinity Map
B. FEMA Flood Map
C. USDA Web Soils Survey
D. Existing and Proposed Drainage Patterns
Existing & Proposed Hydraulics Computations
Water Quality & Erosion Control Computations
G. Secondary Stormwater System Computations
H. Geotechnical Report
Soil Infiltration Testing

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC 2017.0643
PROJECT NARRATIVE
The Rainbow Child Care is on Centennial Parkway, approximately 1 /10 mile north of Highway
24 in Cameron, North Carolina, The Child Care building is 12,000 square feet with nearly
10,000 square feet of play areas.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is undeveloped with a few understory trees. The soil is sandy and the ground cover is
minimal. The site slopes gently to the northwest and the stormwater flows west and north, past
the new storage buildings into a small wooded swale which flows into the Little Bridge Branch
of the Jumping Run Creek. The property is in a Phase II Community, Harnett County.
The property is part of a master development. However, utilities and drainage are not provided
by the master development plan. A Duke Energy transmission line is near the east property
line.
A. 100-Year Flood Zone
The property is above the nearest Flood Zone, per FEMA Panel Number 3710958400J,
revised October 3, 2006. The Flood Zone Maps are available at the FEMA web site at;
https: //msc , fema , aov/porta I/search?Add ressQ uery= 95%20centen nia I%20pa rkway%2
Ocameron%20nc#searchresultsanchor
B. Stream Buffers and Wetlands
There are no wetlands or streams on the property.

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC 2017.0643
III. NORTH CAROLINA POST -CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS
A. Review And Permitting Agencies
0 Harnett County, North Carolina
B. Stormwater Management Manual Standards and Proposed Design
The property is located within a Phase II community - Harnett County. The project is
subject to NCDEQ [North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality] standards
applicable for the Cape Fear River basin, meeting the following water quality criteria;
• Treat runoff of the first inch (1 inch) of rainfall on the site to achieve removal of
85% of the annual TSS in the stormwater runoff.
• Attenuate the 25 year storm event to less than the existing rates and volumes
discharged.
• Provide one foot (1 ft) of freeboard in the stormwater detention facilities during
the design storm.
Provide erosion control for the 10-year storm event.
C. Proposed Stormwater Management System
The Rainbow Child Care stormwater system is composed of a primary
infiltration basin / pond and supplemental underground detention. The
underground detention includes a forebay for pre-treatment of the
underground detention and the downstream infiltration pond. Combined, they
provide the required treatment volume for site as well as attenuating the runoff
in both rate and discharged volume.
The pond / underground detention system is designed to retain and infiltrate
the required treatment volume. Larger storms, up to the 25-year storm event,
are attenuated by the pond and released slowly through the lowest orifice. A
second orifice is added to prevent extreme (50-year and 100-year) storm
events from overtopping the berm.
The proposed play area is entirely pervious. The playground composite rubber
mat provides protection for the children and also serves as a permeable
medium to retain and percolate most of the rainfall directly into the soil,
2

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC 2017.0643
IV. HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
A. Site Area and Drainage Basins
The Child Care property is 1.423 acres, or 61,979 square feet. For the Drainage analysis,
the Existing and Proposed Drainage Basins are concurrent with the properk/s borders.
B. Time of Concentration, Tc
The Time of Concentration (Tc) in the pre- developed conditions was estimated at
approximately 8.9 minutes, which reflects the gentle slope of the land and the sandy,
exposed soils. In the proposed conditions, the Tc is approximately 1 1.4 minimutes due
to the very flat slopes and high Manning's Roughness coefficient on the playground
and the longer travel distance.
C. Soils and Curve Numbers
Curve Numbers are published in the historic USDA TR-55 Manual, Table 2-2a, issued
June 1986.
The Existina Conditions Co
Open Space
Impervious Areas
ite Curve Number is computed;
A 39 61,979 1.423
N/A 98 0 0.0
1.423
The Proposed Conditions Composite Curve Number is computed;
Soil Group AMAMI
Open Space A 39 38,404 0.400
Pond Bottom / Slopes A 39 6,142 0.141
Impervious Areas
N/A
100% 39
0% 0
Use Cn= 39
28.1% 11.0
9.9% 3.9
98 38,404 0.882 62.0%
60.7
1.423 Use Cn= 75.6
3

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC 2017.0643
D. Groundwater Conditions
Per the Geotechnical Engineering Services report, dated Febuary 8, 2018 by Intertek-
PSI, section 3.3.4. "groundwater infiltration was noted in boring B-1 at a depth of about
22 feet beneath the existing ground surface, and groundwater infiltration was not noted
in any of the remaining boring." Therefore, is not anticipated to affect the stormwater
design.
Supplementation geotechnical exploration was performed to evaluate the infiltration
capability of the in -situ soils. A report from Intertek - PSI included as an appendix states
that the infiltration rates beneath the underground stormwater system is very low (+/- 0
in/hr) and the infiltration rates below the infiltration basin / pond range between 5.4 to
7.2 in/hr. A design rate of 6 in/hr is used for the infiltration basin / pond.
E. Surface Flow Velocities
All concentrated water flows on pavement. There are no proposed channels, ditches,
or swales,
F. Rainfall Amounts
The rainfall amounts are derived per NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3, available
at: hftp://hdsc.nws.noaa.goy/hdsc/pfds. The stormwater modeling programs print out the
precipitation amounts to only one decimal,
1 Year
2 Year
5 Year
10 Year
25 Year
50 Year
100 Year
24-Hour
3.06
3.71
4.68
5.44
6.49
7.34
8.20
(inches)
G. Tailwater Conditions
The tailwater condition in the receiving area I estimated as 6 inches above the natural
grade.
H. Downstream Overbank Flood Protection and Stormwater Attenuation
The proposed stormwater system attenuates the runoff to not exceed the pre -
developed conditions for the 25-year design storm.
M

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC 2017.0643
Stormwater Discharae Summary
Event
Existing
Discharge
(cfs)
Proposed
Discharge
(cfs)
Max.
Stage
(ft)
10 Year
0.17
0.34
333.19
25 Year
0.74
0.71
333.68
50 Year
1.38
0.92
334.10
100 Year
2.14
1.08
334.52
V. MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The periodic maintenance of the stormwater management facility is essential.
Exposed soils are easily transported by wind and water into the stormwater inlets and
thence into the receiving rivers. The following Instructions outline a minimum level of
maintenance for the system.
A. Landscape and Stormwater Facility Maintenance
The landscaping must be well maintained. All soil must be protected from
erosion by healthy ground cover plants, turf, and shrubs.
All irrigation fittings and sprinkler heads must be properly operating. Damaged
fittings must be repaired before the irrigation system is operated. When an
irrigation sprinkler head is damaged, any eroded soil must be removed from the
pavement areas and the turf restored.
Drip irrigation is recommended. Overspray is eliminated and damage from
vehicles is reduced.
Storm and tornado debris shall be removed from site. Damaged landscaping
shall be pruned or replaced. Over turned trees shall be immediately removed
and the disturbed soil sodded.
Trim the trees so that a minimum of 4 hours of direct sunlight reaches the ground
cover plants.
Periodically inspect and clean the stormwater inlets, manholes, and pipes.
Inspect and clean the water quality structure. Remove trash and sediment from
the collection manhole.
5

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC 2017.0643
As necessary, clean and vacuum the grit and sediment from the subsurface
pipes.
B. Minimum Construction Erosion Requirements
Minimize the area of exposed earth. Sod, seed, mulch, and protect all exposed
earth.
Use erosion protection such as straw bales, silt fences (as detailed in the
drawings) during the earthwork, grading, landscaping, planting, and other
phases of construction. Avoid using hay bales that might contain weed seeds;
straw bales are much preferred and bio-degrade on site to help form fertile soil.
Place the materials at inlets to prevent soil and sediment from entering the storm
drain system.
New concrete pavement shall have a broom finish. The broom finish surface
retains spilled vehicle fluids, allowing the fuels to be captured and removed
before reaching the storm inlets.
In the event of high seasonal rainfalls, a tarp over the most exposed soil areas
can protect both soil and materials from damage. Slope the runoff away from
disturbed soils.
If rainfall continues, place 6" of mulch or tree chips over filter fabric on exposed
earth. The chips can be recycled into the landscaping materials.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The proposed design complies with the Harnett County and NCDEQ standards. Pre -
and Post- Development basin map and hydraulics computations are provided in
Appendices D & E, respectively.
The proposed design treats more than the runoff of one inch of rainfall and reduces
the TSS by over 85%. Riprap aprons are sized based on the 10-year storm event. Water
quality and erosion control computations are presented in Appendix F.
The stormwater collection system is sized to convey up to the 100-year storm event
without flooding the parking lot or play areas. Secondary stormwater system
computations are provided in Appendix G.
rel

Lf SDA United States
r Department of
Agriculture
N RCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Harnett County,
North Carolina
Rainbow Child Care - Spout
Springs, NC
June 13, 2019

Custom Soil Resource Report
m
Soil Map
679000 679100 679200
35° 1530" N
r `y
ilk
3n
-0 r
,74
4
g
35° 153" N r
679300
679000 679100 679200 679300
m
Map Scale: 1:3,960 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
o Meters N
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 150 300 600 900
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM 7_a3e 17N WGS84
6
679400
I
679400
v
679500
35° 1530" N
I
679500
g
35° 153" N

.N
o a)
m
U)
a)
LL
y
m
-0
o
N o
52
U
o
ayi o
a)
O 0 0
E
a)
U)
U)
N
E
O
a3
a3
Z
m
E
a)
0 O
O a3
O Ln
a) `) N a
m
U
E
E
O
7
N C O
y
a)
O
O
O_ 0
O O E
O
a3 co
(?
O_ 7 N
O m a)
U
af
O_
00
a6
Q
+�- +�" N
a)
U)
O
E as U) 3
L
y
a) (7
a)
O=> Q N
Z
U O
U)
E y
Q
O
O d
a) N a3
Q
N
O
N
`) N
U
O O- 3 y
E
U W
M% 2 O a)
O
a3
3 m 0
n/
a
O
U M= a)
L
U)
C- N "
Z CL
N
N
0 N Q
O
O
m
a) E y
a)
N
U (6
(6.0 O O
2�
� (n
N
0
O- )j E
E
LL
>+
a)
>
p O a)
— C >
O
7 U
O a)
>, O .- U
a) U
O
E
7 L(i
O _
N
0
>, N
y
Z
N
O L
O
a)
'� N a3
7 y U O N
O
w 'O
U OAn
""
O_
N m E N
—
a)a)
Q
U
a)>
U L O
O
C y
N
a)
(6 O N a3
(D C
a)
y
O
a) N
a)
" Q
)
Q
U
a3
y .�.-� E O
3 J>
U N O_ E
C
N—
a)
m>
=
y
'6 p
(6
E
O_
O_ 6 O O
a)
m
Z E
Q Q (Oj
a) O- O
Utl)
N N
N
a3
a)
a)
0 N O
-E
y
O
E O)
E C (p
>+
a7 a5
N N jp
O) (6
a3
O a)
(Op
E
O O N
a)
O 'O
O y
O_ a) >+
N U (6 m7
,y '6
N Q
U)._
T
O '6 M 0_
O
U
C a3 a) y
a) N E rn
0 0
>
3 (n
U a)
O
o_ M
U)
.30
C
E a) .�
a) '6 y
a) E
O — (6
O C
E (u U
O a
U a) ""
'6
O>
aa)
m O
a)
(6
I-
O '6
y O
E
a5
C (6
Q a)
a) 7
tl) y
O
U 'O
y U C
Q a)
7 >+
U a)
E O
.yi
O
O)
o 'Q a) C
N
O 'U) C U
N a)
O a) O
cL
m O n U
0 7
O N
m
O
L
O
LU E— U U)
d E
U> U
Q 'O Q om
L
H O
U U
(n
D V
L O t
H U y
Q
y
d y
R O
(i U
R
L
L
Q
Q
>,
00
0
0
L
d
Q
0 J N
CL
U)CL
a) .0. O
o M
O
� a
0 O
U) U>
Z
N L_ y
O U 2 U
�
O
°
a)
R m
U
3 a Q
0
R
d
R
O
0
C
p
O
W
}{
* R 4
Rt
Y
LU
J
y
a
Q
pCL
y
o
o
)
w
o
a
o
a
N
y
Q
E
Q
a
a
O`
U
C
>
C C a)
> >
CL
Q Q
a w U)3
3 R
y
O >
>
°
w
° LU
Q
_
o
0
a R
R
R R a)
LL 3
O T
`)
a
N > >
= LL O
a R N a)
O
U d
O
U
a)
>
O O
Y N
U)
U)
a
y d
Q
0
U
0 0 c O
U U o m
4
m U
O
U c7 c7
N N R C
J J
V) a)O
a
m
U
R a)
U U
O 0
in in
O
U
w
a
R +p��
u
0
0
+
R
2!
)
y ■ a0.
O
¢¢
Q
U)
ro

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
BnB
Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8
percent slopes
49.9
60.2%
CaB
Candor sand, 0 to 8 percent
slopes
5.4
6.5%
GaB
Gilead loamy sand, 2 to 8
percent slopes
10.6
12.8%
Ro
Roanoke loam, occasionally
flooded
5.4
6.6%
WfB
Wakulla sand, 0 to 8 percent
slopes
11.6
13.9%
Totals for Area of Interest
82.9
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

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

Custom Soil Resource Report
Harnett County, North Carolina
BnB—Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3snx
Elevation: 160 to 660 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 52 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 245 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Blaney and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Blaney
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy and loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
A - 0 to 4 inches: loamy sand
E - 4 to 25 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 25 to 62 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 62 to 80 inches: loamy coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Loamy Summit Woodland - PROVISIONAL (F137XY002GA)
Hydric soil rating: No
10

Custom Soil Resource Report
CaB—Candor sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol. 3snz
Elevation: 160 to 750 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 52 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 245 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Candor, moderately wet, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 8 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Candor, Moderately Wet
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy and loamy marine deposits and/or eolian sands
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: sand
E - 8 to 27 inches: sand
Bt - 27 to 39 inches: loamy sand
E' - 39 to 58 inches: sand
B't - 58 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 48 to 72 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: Dry Sandy Upland Woodland (F137XY001 GA)
Hydric soil rating: No
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Ailey, moderately wet
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Head slope
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Bibb, undrained
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Johnston, undrained
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
GaB—Gilead loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3sph
Elevation: 160 to 660 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 52 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 245 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Gilead and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Gilead
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy and clayey marine deposits
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 5 inches: loamy sand
Bt1 - 5 to 8 inches: sandy loam
Bt2 - 8 to 42 inches: sandy clay
Bt3 - 42 to 52 inches: sandy clay loam
C1 - 52 to 76 inches: clay
C2 - 76 to 80 inches: gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
high (0.00 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 18 to 30 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Very low to moderately
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Bibb, undrained
Percent of map unit. 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Johnston, undrained
Percent of map unit. 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Ro—Roanoke loam, occasionally flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3sgf
Elevation: 80 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 70 degrees F
13

Custom Soil Resource Report
Frost -free period: 210 to 265 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Roanoke, undrained, and similar soils: 85 percent
Roanoke, drained, and similar soils: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Roanoke, Undrained
Setting
Landform: Depressions on stream terraces, backswamps on stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Flat
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Old clayey alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: loam
BAg - 7 to 10 inches: loam
Btg - 10 to 43 inches: clay
BCg - 43 to 52 inches: clay
Cg - 52 to 80 inches: gravelly sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: Rare
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Description of Roanoke, Drained
Setting
Landform: Depressions on stream terraces, backswamps on stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Flat
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Old clayey alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: loam
BAg - 7 to 10 inches: loam
Btg - 10 to 43 inches: clay
BCg - 43 to 52 inches: clay
Cg - 52 to 80 inches: gravelly sandy clay loam
14

Custom Soil Resource Report
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Hydric soil rating: Yes
WfB—Wakulla sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3sgt
Elevation: 160 to 660 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 52 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 245 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Wakulla and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wakulla
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy and loamy marine deposits and/or eolian sands
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: sand
E - 7 to 24 inches: sand
Bt - 24 to 42 inches: loamy sand
C - 42 to 85 inches: sand
15

Custom Soil Resource Report
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (1.98
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: Dry Sandy Upland Woodland (F137XY001 GA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Bibb, undrained
Percent of map unit. 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Johnston, undrained
Percent of map unit. 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
it.

A
Existing and Proposed Drainage Patterns
Rainbow Child Care Spout Springs, NC
2017.0643

RAL OF RALEIGH LLC
PIN: 9594-07-8740
VOL.2551 PG.410
09/11/2008
SOIL
BOUNDARY
I" REBAR END.
\ N: 0.00'
E: 0.00'
Q
4o'� gv
LEXINGTON INVESTORS LLC
PIN: 9594-18-1145
VOL.2490 PG.640
T0
03/30/2008
h�ry � \
a TIC PATH
\\ \\ hE 6
EBAR FND.
I
J. \
°r
\ � KF D.N TT
BEN REB
_ \ \ .15'
w
ECT
ARCE WfB
1.42 Ac.
N" RE00' ND. & 61, .909 Sq. Ft.
. 4. •y \Y / Oyf.
334 FATEMI FRED EDTDEVELO`
594-17P 07 T M1j
9594-17-079 .0000
L.3330 09/015 2015
• �
/'0y
\ SANITARY
SOIL TYPE / NE 8" PVC
P} — 37 j= BEGIN RUN
7 E.
00 — 4.� • 3"
Nj9-p6�A.,02�E—
BASIN LINE T
M Qe- ¢ ez��
FRED FATEMI OF
LINDEN OAKS LLC Q
PIN: 9594-07-9455
VOL.3418 PG.307 12" RCP INV. 329.84 o� G
07/10/2016 (( /
N29.43'16"E 16.00' IL
UTILITY
IMPERVIOUS EASEMENT
N60'16'43"W 28.00' /
L
AREA NW 12S RCP NIV. 332.47
' ARC
HITECTURE/ENGINEERQVG
INTERIOR DESIGN
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
604 COURTLAND STREET
SUITE 100
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32804
PH 407.645.5008
FX 407.629.9124
AA 003420 CA 8660
/ IIP/ EVELOPEMENT AREA TABLE
TOTAL AREA 62,000 SE
MPERMUS AREA 2,800 SE
PERVIOUS AREA 59,200 SE
PRE —DEVELOPMENT BASIN MAP
RAINBOW CHILDCARE
95 CENTENNIAL PARKWAY
SPOUT SPRINGS, NC
COPYRIGHT c YEAR
PROJECTING: 2017.0643
DDERPLAN LLC RESERVES
DATE: 06-08-18
COPYRIGHT & OTHER RIGHTS
RESTRICTING THESE
DOCUMENTS TO THE
ORIGINAL SITE OR PURPOSE
FOR WHICH THEY WERE
PREPARED. REPRODUCTIONS,
CHANGES OR ASSIGNMENTS
ARE PROHIBITED.
CHECKED:
■

X
O
Q
N
\ \
\
N
d
\
\
Q
\ \ \� DUKE DITCH
R OUTFACE DISCHARGE
(OUTFALL/TAILWATER)
STRUCTURE
\\
�
_
oxc oxc _ry FcnirFFFAII'Fy m2 X o oxE
be INFILTRATION
G G 2
f0
i9 J V ° ° P BASIN / POND
^
� yFlLTRATION BASIN
a
o mice °
� I
m w lli
p,
o
llq .113
sPL H Pao y3.
-S,T PLAI RIPRAP APRON
°
4RHE " - FOR EROSION
I
o
_ CONTROL
o
I -N 1
m
0
BASIN LINE —
u
z
I I
ap N„R PLAY ARE °, RAI OW CHILD ARE FACILITY
QyL
C
«goo. SO
11,99 S.F.
m
•Op \ O R 1.
�s I UNDERGROUND
o
o
ti TENTION
�.
v
�. L1� s `� � S TEM
o
o.
—
`,w9 3
n
Q
T
m
c c c - . c^
E m AY /
DE C.0.
s ela 'as" zo f E— -- TMENT
i
SS
CENTENNIAL PARKWAY — ss
SR 2566 (100') PUBLIC
a
S 335 c
c S
N
_
R/W R \ ss
(MAP 2011, PG 548)
0
g
l—
u
R/W R/W
,I
2Sv
m
qy6, vP
A
Val
j
9Gyn
2L aJ
3-
wp.
T
m
POSTDEVELOPEMENT AREA TABLE
TOTAL AREA 61,979 SE
v
MPERMOUS AREA — 38,404 SE
u
PERVIOUS AREA 23,575 SE
0
POST -DEVELOPMENT BASIN MAP
INTERPLAI� NRERIORDESGN ENGINEERING
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
604 COURTLAND STREET
SUITE 100
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32804
PH 407.645.5008
FX 407.629.9124
AA 003420 CA 8660
RAINBOW CHILDCARE
95 CENTENNIAL PARKWAY
SPOUT SPRINGS, NC
COPYRIGHT c YEAR
PROJECTING: 2016.0536
INTERPLAN DO RESERVES
DATE: 06-08-18
COPYRIGHT & OTHER RIGHTS
RESTRICTING THESE
DOCUMENTS TO THE
ORIGINAL SITE OR PURPOSE
FOR WHICH THEY WERE
PREPARED. REPRODUCTIONS,
CHANGES OR ASSIGNMENTS
ARE PROHIBITED.
CHECKED:
■

TOTAL SYSTEM STAGE VS. STORAGE
Total System Storage
Downstream of Stilling Basin
Stage
(ft)
Total Pipe
Volume
(cf)
Total Pond
Volume (cf)
Total System
Volume (cf)
Cummulative
Volume
(ac.-ft.)
330.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00000
330.25
0.00
475.26
475.26
0.01091
330.50
317.10
967.92
1285.02
0.02222
330.75
729.43
1478.20
2207.63
0.03393
331.00
1176.40
2006.31
3182.72
0.04606
331.25
1643.30
2552.49
4195.78
0.05860
331.50
2119.47
3116.94
5236.41
0.07156
331.75
2595.65
3699.90
6295.54
0.08494
332.00
3062.54
4301.58
7364.12
0.09875
332.25
3509.52
4922.20
8431.71
0.11300
332.50
3921.85
5561.98
9483.83
0.12769
332.75
4264.24
6221.16
10485.40
0.14282
333.00
4517.21
6899.93
11417.14
0.15840
333.25
4744.88
7598.54
12343.42
0.17444
333.50
4744.88
8317.19
13062.07
0.19094
333.75
4744.88
9056.11
13800.99
0.20790
334.00
4744.88
9815.53
14560.41
0.22533
334.25
4744.88
10595.65
15340.53
0.24324
334.50
4744.88
11396.71
16141.59
0.26163
334.75
4744.881
12218.92
16963.80
0.28051
335.00
4744.881
13062.50
17807.38
0.29987
Required WQv 3,139 cf
WQv Elevation 331.00
WQv Provided 3182.72 cf

Infiltration Basin / Pond Stage -Storage Summary
Pond Storage Volume
Stage
(ft)
Pond Area (sf)
Pond Area
(ac)
Incremental
Volume (cf)
Cumulative
Volume (cf)
Cumulative
Volume (af)
330.00
1866.58
0.043
0.0
0.0
0.000
330.25
1935.73
0.044
475.3
475.3
0.011
330.50
2005.75
0.046
492.7
967.9
0.022
330.75
2076.66
0.048
510.3
1,478.2
0.034
331.00
2148.46
0.049
528.1
2,006.3
0.046
331.25
2221.14
0.051
546.2
2,552.5
0.059
331.50
2294.70
0.053
564.5
3,116.9
0.072
331.75
2369.15
0.054
583.0
3,699.9
0.085
332.00
2444.48
0.056
601.7
4,301.6
0.099
332.25
2520.69
0.058
620.6
4,922.2
0.113
332.50
2597.79
0.060
639.8
5,562.0
0.128
332.75
2675.77
0.061
659.2
6,221.2
0.143
333.00
2754.64
0.063
678.8
6,899.9
0.158
333.25
2834.39
0.065
698.6
7,598.5
0.174
333.50
2915.03
0.067
718.7
8,317.2
0.191
333.75
2996.54
0.069
738.9
9,056.1
0.208
334.00
3078.95
0.071
759.4
9,815.5
0.225
334.25
3162.23
0.073
780.1
10,595.7
0.243
334.50
3246.40
0.075
801.1
11,396.7
0.262
334.75
3331.46
0.076
822.2
12,218.9
0.281
335.00
3417.40
0.078
843.6
13,062.5
0.300

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
Depth of Water in Horizontal Pipe vs Storage
Gravel Fill
�T�F
4.!y 1 L�Q+4 _'•�i��ff� �
P{} /'yam �{
orosity, FF
f�'~'7 (
eY l r-, F �i Y.�. i.� r •�.r. ,Y
_4.p'}}�#l�R•�_f !l_ 8`-0};.0..'l!8ii.!k(•�'.
y+ Y�•
y
Y Y
1 �i may{., ,,y.,
Y dt I of excavatedTmc 1
In order to accurately describe th,c storage capacity of an exfiltration trench_ the stage vs. area
should be modified to account for the porosity of the gravel fill_
E.levarion, E
Effective z'ea
E&o.`::=E-:=E,
LxWxn
E, -E ~ E,
La[(W -W xn+W,,]
E, —E. =E_
LxWxn
Where Surface Width of Water in Pipe, Wp =
WP=2 (D)Z—L(D)—(g—E'l�lz
J

Total Underground Storage System & Stilling Basin
Pipe Diameter, D =
2.5 ft
Trench Length, L =
641.25
Trench Width, W =
3.9 ft
Porosity, n =
40%
Number of Pipes, #
=
1
Downstream
Upstream
Ebottom =
330.25
Ebottom =
330.25
Et =
330.25
Et =
330.25
EZ =
332.75
EZ =
332.75
Etop =
333.25
Etop =
333.25
Pipe Storage Volume
Stage
(ft)
Downstream
Pipe Width (ft)
Upstream
Pipe Width (ft)
Pipe Area
Trench Area
Incremental
Volcufine
Cummulative
Volume (cf)
330.25
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0
0
330.30
0.70
0.70
454.0
830.3
32
32
330.35
0.98
0.98
635.5
757.7
67
99
330.40
1.19
1.19
770.2
703.8
72
171
330.45
1.36
1.36
879.9
659.9
75
246
330.50
1.50
1.50
973.0
622.7
78
324
330.55
1.62
1.62
1,053.9
590.3
81
405
330.60
1.73
1.73
1,125.3
561.7
83
489
330.65
1.83
1.83
1,189.0
536.3
85
574
330.70
1.92
1.92
1,246.0
513.5
87
661
330.75
2.00
2.00
1,297.3
493.0
89
750
330.80
2.07
2.07
1,343.5
474.5
90
840
330.85
2.14
2.14
1,385.1
457.8
92
932
330.90
2.19
2.19
1,422.6
442.8
93
1,024
330.95
2.24
2.24
1,456.2
429.4
94
1,118
331.00
2.29
2.29
1,486.2
417.4
95
1,213
331.05
2.33
2.33
1,512.9
406.7
96
1,308
331.10
2.37
2.37
1,536.3
397.3
96
1,405
331.15
2.40
2.40
1,556.7
389.2
97
1,502
331.20
2.43
2.43
1,574.2
382.2
98
1,599
331.25
2.45
2.45
1,588.8
376.3
98
1,697
331.30
2.47
2.47
1,600.7
371.6
98
1,796
331.35
2.48
2.48
1,609.9
367.9
99
1,895
331.40
2.49
2.49
1,616.4
365.3
99
1,994
331.45
2.50
2.50
1,620.3
363.8
99
2,093
331.50
2.50
2.50
1,621.6
363.2
99
2,192
331.55
2.50
2.50
1,620.3
363.8
99
2,291
331.60
2.49
2.49
1,616.4
365.3
99
2,390
331.65
2.48
2.48
1,609.9
367.9
99
2,489
331.70
2.47
2.47
1,600.7
371.6
99
2,588
331.75
2.45
2.45
1,588.8
376.3
98
2,686
331.80
2.43
2.43
1,574.2
382.2
98
2,784
331.85
2.40
2.40
1,556.7
389.2
98
2,882
331.90
2.37
2.37
1,536.3
397.3
97
2,979
331.95
2.33
2.33
1,512.9
406.7
96
3,075
332.00
2.29
2.29
1,486.2
417.4
96
3,171
332.05
2.24
2.24
1,456.2
429.4
95
3,266
332.10
2.19
2.19
1,422.6
442.8
94
3,359
332.15
2.14
2.14
1,385.1
457.8
93
3,452
332.20
2.07
2.07
1,343.5
474.5
92
3,544
332.25
2.00
2.00
1,297.3
493.0
90
3,634
332.30
1.92
1.92
1,246.0
513.5
89
3,723
332.35
1.83
1.83
1,189.0
536.3
87
3,810
332.40
1.73
1.73
1,125.3
561.7
85
3,895
332.45
1.62
1.62
1,053.9
590.3
83
3,978
332.50
1.50
1.50
973.0
622.7
81
4,059
332.55
1.36
1.36
879.9
659.9
78
4,138
332.60
1.19
1.19
770.2
703.8
75
4,213
332.65
0.98
0.98
635.5
757.7
72
4,285
332.70
0.70
0.70
454.0
830.3
67
4,352
332.75
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,011.9
57
4,409
332.80
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,011.9
51
4,460
332.85
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,011.9
51
4,510
332.90
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,011.9
51
4,561
332.95
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,011.9
51
4,611
333.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,011.9
51
4,662
333.05
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,011.9
51
4,713
333.10
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,011.9
51
4,763
333.15
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,011.9
51
4,814
333.20
0.00
0.00
0.0
1,011.9
51
4,864
333.25
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
25
4,890
Calculated Storage Volume 4,890
Adjustment Factor 1.012
Volume Ratio 100.00%

F
Water Quality & Erosion Control Computations
Rainbow Child Care Spout Springs, NC
2017.0643

Infiltration Basin / Pond
Treatment Calculation
Infiltration System (Part C.1)
Water Quality Basins: Infiltration Basin
Basin Information
Total Treatment Area 61,979 sf
Impervious Area 38,404 sf
Upstream Treatment Information
Upstream 100% DV
0.0 ft3
DV Provided
0.0%
Upstream Effluent
0.0 ft3
Upstream Efficiency
0.0%
Credit Table
0 A 100 0
Infiltration per MDC Primary 84 B 100 0
C 1 100 1 0
1) Calculate DV
Rv=0.05+0.9(I)
Where: I = Impervious Fraction
DV = 3630 * RD * RV * A + DVupstream
Where: DV = Design Volume (ft)
RD = Design Storm Depth (in)
A = Drainage Area (ac)
RV = 0.608
RD = 1.0 in
DV = 3,138.5 cf
Upstream DV = 0.0 cf, DV effluent from Upstream Systems
Total DV = 3,138.5 cf
2) Calculate Runoff CN
CN = 1000/[10 + 5P + 10QWv - 10(QWv2 + 1.25QWvP)1/2]
Where: P = Rainfall
DV = Design Volume Calculated Above
P =
1.000 in, RD calculated above
Rv =
0.608 in
CN =
95.7
la/P =
0.452

3) Calculate Minimum Required Surface Area of Practice
SA=FS* DV*12
K*T
Where: SA = req'd min. surface area of infiltration system (ft)
FS = factor of safety (minimum of 2)
DV = design volume (ft)
K = hydraulic conductivity of soil (in/hr)
T = dewatering time (72 hours maximum)
FS = 2.0
DV = 3138.5 cf
K = 6.0 in/hr
T = 60 hrs
SA = 209.2 ft2
Provided Surface Area of Practice = 1,866.6 ft
4) Find Provided Design Volume
SA*K*T
DVpROVIDED = FS * 12
SA = 1,866.6 ft2
FS = 2.0
K = 6.0
DV60 = 3,138.5 ft'
DV72 = 3,766.3 ft'
DVprovided = 3,182.7 ft'
Percent Sizing of SCM = 101.4%

5) Calculate SCM Efficiency
Sizing versus Annual Runoff Treated
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
Percent Sizing of SCM = 101.4%
Percent of Annual Runoff Treated = 84.5%
6) Results
TSS
Runoff
Removal by
TSS Remaining
Volume (cf)
Practice
DV * (1-Removal %)
Upstream Effluent 0.0
84.5%
0.0 cf
Untreated Runoff 3,138.5
485.1 cf
Design Volume 3,138.5
84.5%
485.1 cf
Runoff Fates for System (incl. Upstream Runoff)
Treated Runoff 84.5% ET&I 100.0% 3,138.5 cf
Untreated Runoff 15.5% Effluent 0.0% 0 cf
Cumulative Svstem Treatment Summa
Total 100% DV
3,138.5 ft3
Average DV Provided
100.0%
Effluent
0.0 ft3
System Efficiency
84.5%

Riprap Apron, NCDEQ Design
FHWA HEC-14, Chapter 10.2
KinderCare - Spout Springs
Infiltration Pond Inflow Pipe
Design Conditions
Design Flow
4.1 cfs
Culvert Diameter
18 in
Culvert Slope
1.00%
Culvert Material
HDPE, Smooth
Tailwater Depth
2.5 ft, enter 0 if unknown
Project Spout Springs
Job #: 2017.0643
Designed: AA
Date: SA
Depth Ratio 0.42 unitless, Flow Depth / Diameter
Flow Area 0.70 ft2
Flow Velocity 6 fps
Allowable Downstream Velocity (Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, Schwab)
Downstream Condition Silt clay
Allowable Velocity 3.5
Step 1. Determine minimum ripran size
)Y3
DM =0.20 TDZs( TVV)
where,
Dso = riprap size, m (ft)
0 = design discharge, rn'ls (ft3ls)
D = culvert diameter (circular), m (ft)
TW = tailwater depth, m (ft)
g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 mfs2 (32.2 fUs2)
(10.4)
Tailwater depth for Equation 104 should be limited to between OAD and 1 .OD_ If tailwater is
unknown, use Q4D_
Whenever the flow is supercritical in the culvert, the culvert diameter is adjusted as follows:
D'= D y,
where,
D' = adjusted culvert rise, m (ft)
y� = normal (supercritical) depth in the culvert, m (ft)
D' = 1.06125 ft
D50 = 1.4 in

Step 2. Size Riprop Apron
Table 10_1. Example Riprap Classes and Apron dimensions
Class
D5o (mm)
D50 (in)
Apron
Length
Apron
Depth
1
125
5
4D
3.5D,,
2
150
6
413
3.3D,,
3
250
10
5D
2.41D.�,
4
350
14
6D
22D,,
5
500
20
713
2.DD,,
6
550
22
8D
2.0D,,
'D is the culvert rise_
Apron Class 1
NCDOT Riprap Class A
D50 = 4 in
Dmax = 6 in
Apron Length 10.5 ft
Apron Depth 15 in
r.
z
PLAN VIEW
CULVERT WITH STANDARD
END SECTION
r
PLAN VIEW
CULVERT WITHOUT STANDARD
END SECTION
Original
9—frld
Variable Sk
Geotextife
SECTION A -A SECTION 8-8
PROTECTIVE APRON AT CULVERT OUTLET
WITHOUT DITCH

�C
t
C
PLAN VIEW
CUL VER T WTTH S TANDA RD
END SECTION
D E
d J L o°
u
q ��I
PLAN VIEW
CULVERT WITHOUT STANDARD
END SECTION
4D Sloped IV ,
V: 2H
or flatter Driglnaf
grae.nd
Match existing _
Original ditch sln e p
ground
Geotextlfa
f7owfine
Geotextlfe
SECTION C-C SECTION D-D
Original
ground
Match existlny
ditch slope
Geotextile 1
SECTION E-E
PROTECTIVE APRON AT CULVERT OUTLET
WITH DITCH
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMI NISTRATION
CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION
U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL
PLACED RIPRAP
AT CULVERT CUTLETS
+woRweo-.oa r] FTAI I

Riprap Apron, NCDEQ Design
FHWA HEC-14, Chapter 10.2
KinderCare - Spout Springs
Infiltration Pond Outfall
Design Conditions
Design Flow
0.35 cfs
Culvert Diameter
12 in
Culvert Slope
1.00%
Culvert Material
HDPE, Smooth
Tailwater Depth
0 ft, enter 0 if unknown
Project Spout Springs
Job #: 2017.0643
Designed: AA
Date: SA
Depth Ratio 0.35 unitless, Flow Depth / Diameter
Flow Area 0.25 ft2
Flow Velocity 1.4 fps
Allowable Downstream Velocity (Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, Schwab)
Downstream Condition Sand / Silt
Allowable Velocity 2
Step 1. Determine minimum riprap size
)Y3
DM =0.20 TDZs( TVV)
where,
Dso = riprap size, m (ft)
0 = design discharge, rn'ls (ft3ls)
D = culvert diameter (circular), m (ft)
TW = tailwater depth, m (ft)
g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 mfs2 (32.2 fUs2)
(10.4)
Tailwater depth for Equation 104 should be limited to between OAD and 1 .OD_ If tailwater is
unknown, use Q4D_
Whenever the flow is supercritical in the culvert, the culvert diameter is adjusted as follows:
D'= D y,
where,
D' = adjusted culvert rise, m (ft)
y� = normal (supercritical) depth in the culvert, m (ft)
D' = 0.675 ft
D50 = 0.4 in

Step 2. Size Riprop Apron
FHWA Apron / Riprap Class
Table 10.1. Example Riprap Classes and Apron dimensions
Class
Dr,o (mm)
D. (in)
Apron
Length
Apron
depth
1
125
5
4D
3.5D5u
2
150
6
4❑
3.313.�,
3
250
10
5D
2.4D5o
4
350
14
fi❑
2.21>,,
5
50o
20
7d
2-OD,,
6
550
22
81)
2_013f,
'D is the culvert rise_
Apron Class
1
from FHWA HEC-14 Table 10.1
NCDOT Riprap Class
A
from NCDOT Standard Spec 1042 Table 1042-1
D50 =
4
in
Dmax =
6
in
Apron Length
4.50
ft
Apron Depth
15
in
r.
z
J
PLAN VIEW
CULVERT WITH STANDARD
END SECTION
r
PLAN VIEW
CULVERT WITHOUT STANDARD
END SECTION
Original
9—frld
Variable Sk
Geotextife
SECTION A -A SECTION 8-8
PROTECTIVE APRON AT CULVERT OUTLET
WITHOUT DITCH

�C
t
C
PLAN VIEW
CUL VER T WTTH S TANDA RD
END SECTION
D E
d J L o°
u
q ��I
PLAN VIEW
CULVERT WITHOUT STANDARD
END SECTION
4D Sloped IV ,
V: 2H
or flatter Driglnaf
grae.nd
Match existing _
Original ditch sln e p
ground
Geotextlfa
f7owfine
Geotextlfe
SECTION C-C SECTION D-D
Original
ground
Match existlny
ditch slope
Geotextile 1
SECTION E-E
PROTECTIVE APRON AT CULVERT OUTLET
WITH DITCH
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMI NISTRATION
CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION
U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL
PLACED RIPRAP
AT CULVERT CUTLETS
+woRweo-.oa r] FTAI I

H
Geotechnical Report
Rainbow Child Care Spout Springs, NC
2017.0643

Intertek
R-J=I
February 8, 2018
EIG14T Development
1742 Crooks Rd
Troy, MI 48084
Attn: Ms. Amy Labadie
Vice President - Development
email: Am 814cre.com
Re: Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services
Rainbow Child Care
95 Centennial Parkway
Spout Springs, North Carolina
PSI Report No.: 0511835
Dear Ms. Labadie:
Intertek - PSI
5021-A W. WT Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek company, is pleased to transmit our
Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the proposed Rainbow Child Care facility in
Spout Springs, North Carolina. This report includes the results of field and laboratory testing,
and recommendations for foundation and pavement design, as well as general site
development.
PSI appreciates the opportunity to perform this Geotechnical Study and look forward to
continued participation during the design and construction phases of this project. If you have
any questions pertaining to this report, or if PSI may be of further service, please contact our
office at 704-598-2234.
PSI also has great interest in providing materials testing and inspection services during the
construction of this project. If you will advise us of the appropriate time to discuss these
engineering services, we will be pleased to meet with you at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
Andrew 0. Steege, P. G ioZdR ussell, P.E.
Senior Geologist Principal Consultant
www. i me rtek. co m/bu i Id i ng
ee�yG:at�:a;syp���s
"i ■ d
n
964E'L11 4►

Rainbow Child Cars, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
ionFebruary 8, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT INFORMATION.....................................................................................1
1.1 PROPOSAL AND PROJECT AUTHORIZATION ............................................ 1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................. 1
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK............................................................... 2
2 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES............................................................................ 2
2.1 FIELD SERVICES........................................................................................... 2
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING............................................................................... 3
3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................. 3
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION....................................................................................... 3
3.2 SITE GEOLOGY............................................................................................. 4
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................ 4
4 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 6
4.1 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT................................................................... 6
4.2 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK..................................................... 7
4.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................ 9
4.4 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 10
4.5 FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................... 11
4.6 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETAINING WALL DESIGN
AND PARAMETERS............................................................................................ 13
4.7 PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PARAMETERS ........................... 14
5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................16
5.1 GROUNDWATER......................................................................................... 16
5.2 EXCAVATION AND SAFETY........................................................................ 16
6 REPORT LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................17
APPENDIX
Site Vicinity Map
Boring Location Diagram
General Notes and Soil Classification Chart
Boring Logs

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
1 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 PROPOSAL AND PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
This report presents our findings and recommendations of a geotechnical exploration and
assessment performed by Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) for the proposed Rainbow
Child Care facility located at 95 Centennial Parkway in Spout Springs, North Carolina. These
services were performed in accordance with PSI Proposal No. 0511-231975 dated January 5,
2018, as authorized by Ms. Amy Labadie of EIG14T Development on January 19, 2018.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PSI was provided with a request for proposal (RFP) via email on January 4, 2018 from Amy
Labadie of EIG14T Development. The RFP included a drawing titled "Proposed Layout — Linden
Oaks Land", prepared by Orman Engineering, LLC and dated May 9, 2017. This drawing presents
proposed construction superimposed over an aerial photograph, and nine requested boring
locations. In addition, a survey plat of the property, prepared by Innovative Geomatics, PLLC and
dated December 2, 2017, was provided to PSI.
Based on the information provided, we understand that the project consists of the construction of a
one-story building with no basement and a footprint of 11,992 square feet (approximately 155
feet by 77 feet). Details regarding the proposed construction were not provided to PSI. This
proposal is based on the building having a wood frame and supported by spread footings or a
slab -on -grade. We anticipate maximum structural loads of about 2 kips per linear foot for walls
and 50 kips for isolated columns. The provided drawing also indicates that associated surface
parking will be constructed to the east and north of the proposed building. No information on
anticipated traffic has been provided. Recreation/play areas are proposed on the south and
northwest sides of the building.
Proposed grading information was not provided to PSI at this time. Based on the provided
topographic information, we understand the ground surface across the approximately 1.4-acre
site area has a gradual downward slope from east to west. Relief across the proposed site is
about 6 feet, and relief within the proposed building footprint is on the order of 3 feet (excluding
small gravel and soil stockpiles indicated on the survey). This proposal is based on maximum
cut and fill depths within the proposed building footprint not exceeding about 3 feet. We are not
aware of proposed earth retaining structures at this time.
The information presented in this section was used in the evaluation. Estimated loads and
corresponding foundation sizes have a direct effect on the recommendations, including the type
of foundation, the allowable soil bearing pressure, and the estimated settlement. In addition,
estimated subgrade elevations and cut/fill quantities can have a direct effect on the provided
recommendations. If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform
PSI so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate. If PSI
is not retained to perform this function, PSI cannot be responsible for the impact of the changes
on the performance of the project.
Page 1 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of this study was to obtain information regarding the general subsurface conditions
within the proposed construction area, to assess the engineering characteristics of the subsurface
materials, and to provide general design recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the
proposed construction. To accomplish this, PSI performed a site reconnaissance, drilled nine soil
test borings within the areas of proposed site improvements, conducted laboratory classification
testing and prepared this report summarizing the findings, as well as our conclusions and
recommendations.
The scope of our geotechnical services did not include an environmental assessment for
determining the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil,
bedrock, groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site. Any statement in this report or on
the boring logs regarding odors, colors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions are strictly for
the information of our client. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed by PSI
and issued under a separate cover.
PSI did not provide nor was it requested to provide any service to investigate or detect the presence
of moisture, mold or other biological contaminants in or around any structure, or any service that was
designed or intended to prevent or lower the risk of the occurrence of the amplification of the same.
Client acknowledges that mold is ubiquitous to the environment with mold amplification occurring
when building materials are impacted by moisture. Client further acknowledges that site conditions
are outside of PSI's control, and that mold amplification will likely occur, or continue to occur, in the
presence of moisture. As such, PSI cannot and shall not be held responsible for the occurrence or
recurrence of mold amplification.
2 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
2.1 FIELD SERVICES
PSI advanced nine soil test borings (Borings B-1 through B-9) within the proposed site, as requested.
Borings B-1 through B-5 were drilled within the proposed building footprint, borings B-6 through B-8
were drilled within proposed pavement areas, and boring B-9 was drilled within the outdoor
recreation area. The approximate boring locations are shown on the "Boring Location Diagram"
included in the Appendix. Horizontal and vertical survey control was not performed for the test boring
locations prior to our field exploration program. The borings were located based upon measured
distances and relationships to obvious landmarks, and the Conceptual Site Plan provided by the
client. The boring locations are considered accurate to the degree implied by these methods.
Soil test borings were advanced at this site by Carolina Drilling, a subcontractor hired by PSI,
utilizing a CME 45 drilling rig using hollow -stem, continuous -flight augers. All boring and sampling
operations were conducted in general compliance with ASTM D 1586. At regular intervals, soil
samples were obtained with a standard 2-inch O.D. split -barrel sampler.
An automatic trip drop hammer was used for the standard penetration testing, which has a higher
efficiency than a manual cathead-and-rope hammer. Typically, the automatic hammer yields lower
standard penetration test resistances (N-values) than a manual cathead-and-rope hammer. This
Page 2 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
reduction has been taken into account in our evaluation. However, the N-values reported on the
logs, and the consistency descriptions on the boring logs are based on the field -recorded values.
The recovered soil samples were transported to our laboratory where they were visually classified by
a geologist. A "Boring Log" was prepared for each boring and the "Logs" are included in the
Appendix of the report. The logs were prepared using the observations made in the field by the
driller, as well as the classifications in the laboratory and the laboratory test results. Strata
descriptions, presented on the logs, were based on visual -manual evaluations by our engineer and
include the classifications in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
The "Soil Classification Chart', included in the Appendix, illustrates the USCS legend depicted on the
logs. The ground surface elevations presented on the boring logs were interpolated from the
provided topographic information and should be considered approximate.
Groundwater level measurements and caved depths were measured in the boreholes at the
time of boring and upon completion. The results of the readings are included on the soil test
boring logs. We did not perform "stabilized" ground water readings (i.e., 24-hour or greater
readings) for this study since the borings were backfilled immediately upon completion using the
soil cuttings for safety considerations.
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING
A geologist visually -manually classified the soil samples in the laboratory in general accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D2487 and D2488). Percent finer
than the No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140), Atterberg limits tests (ASTM D4318), and natural water
content determinations (ASTM D2216) were conducted on representative samples recovered
from the test boring locations. The laboratory test results are presented in Section 3.3.5 and are
shown on the individual boring logs.
3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed Rainbow Child Care site is located west-northwest of and adjacent to Centennial
Parkway, approximately 500 feet north-northeast of its intersection with NC Hwy 24, in Spout
Springs, North Carolina. The site encompasses an area of 1.42 acres and has a physical
address of 95 Centennial Parkway. The site location is depicted on the "Site Vicinity Map"
included in the Appendix.
At the time of our reconnaissance, the site was generally cleared. However, the central and
north -central site area was generally covered with weeds and underbrush and contained several
trees. A roadway traverses the site in a southeast to northwest direction, parallel to overhead
utility lines in the northeast site area. The roadway is generally unpaved; however, it was
covered with large gravel at its eastern entrance off Centennial parkway. A small gravel
stockpile was observed near this entrance, and several other stockpiles of gravel and soil were
noted on -site. In addition, several piles of discarded wood pallets and frame -like objects were
observed in the north site area, near the overhead utility lines.
Page 3 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
The ground surface across the site area has a gradual downward slope from east to west.
Based on the provided topographic information, relief across the property is about 6 feet
(excluding small gravel and soil stockpiles discussed previously). Buried utility lines were
marked in the eastern corner of the site extending from a conduit off a utility pole and additional
buried utility lines extend along the southeastern edge of the site (adjacent to Centennial
Parkway). The ground surface across the site was firm at the time of our subsurface exploration
and our equipment (a trailer -mounted drill rig) experienced no apparent difficulty moving across
the site.
3.2 SITE GEOLOGY
The project site is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of the eastern United
States. This province is characterized by gently sloping plains with numerous broad, slowly moving
rivers with broad flood plains. Low-lying marsh and swamp regions are also prevalent. The
Coastal Plain is comprised of sediments (mainly sands and clays) that have been transported
eastward from highlands to the west by erosional forces. Some of these sediments have been
consolidated to form sedimentary rock beds such as sandstone and mudstone; however, often the
sediments are poorly consolidated or unconsolidated. This process began approximately 200
million years ago and, based on seismic refraction and well data, the depth of these sediments to
the underlying basement rock ranges from less than 10 feet at the fall line (the western
boundary of the Coastal Plain and the eastern boundary of the Piedmont) to approximately
10,000 feet at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Deposition commonly occurred beneath the sea
and numerous lenses and beds of hard limestone also occur within the Coastal Plain strata.
Review of the Geologic Map of North Carolina (compiled by the North Carolina Geological Survey,
1985) indicates that the subject site is underlain by the Cretaceous age Middendorf Formation,
comprised primarily of sands, sandstone and mudstone.
Existing fill materials were encountered in one of the soil test borings advanced at the site to a
depth of about 3 feet below grade. The suitability of existing fill can vary significantly across the
site. It is not uncommon to encounter buried debris and unsuitable materials on previously
developed sites. Greater fill depths may also be present within unexplored areas of the site.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
General subsurface conditions encountered during the subsurface exploration are described below.
For more detailed soil descriptions and stratifications at the boring locations, the Boring Logs should
be reviewed. The Boring Logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on a
review of the field logs and an engineering examination of the samples. The horizontal stratification
lines designating the interface between various strata represent approximate boundaries. Transition
between different strata in the field may be gradual in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
Groundwater, or lack thereof, encountered in the borings and noted on the "Boring Logs" represents
conditions only at the time of the exploration.
3.3.1 SURFACE
A surficial layer of topsoil was not generally noted at the boring locations. However, topsoil may be
encountered in portions of the site, particularly in the immediate vicinity of trees and vegetation. The
term topsoil, as used in this report, is a general designation given to the surface horizon of soil which
Page 4 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
appears to have an elevated organic content. No laboratory testing was performed on the topsoil to
determine its suitability for supporting plant life, or ability to satisfy a particular specification.
3.3.2 FILL
Apparent fill soils were encountered from the ground surface in boring B-8 to a depth of
approximately 3 feet. The fill consisted primarily of very loose Silty SAND (SM) with organic material
(wood fragments). A Standard Penetration Test resistance (N-value) of 4 blows per foot (bpf) was
recorded in the fill. This penetration resistance value suggests little or no compaction was applied
during fill placement.
3.3.3 COASTAL PLAIN SOILS
Apparent undisturbed native coastal plain soils were encountered beneath the fill at boring B-8
and from the ground surface in the remaining borings. A zone of very loose to loose Silty SAND
(SM) or Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) was penetrated in the upper 3 to 6 feet in
borings. Below this upper soil layer, the soils generally consisted of loose to medium dense
Clayey SAND (SC), Well Graded SAND with Clay (SW -SC) and Well Graded SAND with SILT
(SW-SM). N-values ranging from 4 to 16 bpf were generally recorded in the coastal plain soils.
However, an N-value of 61 bpf was recorded at B-1 at a depth of 18.5 to 20 feet. We note that
the upper 2 to 3 feet of the coastal plain deposits were generally softer or looser than the soils
below this depth. This may be due to disturbance from past cultivation or construction.
The borings were terminated in coastal plain deposit soils at depths ranging from 5 to 30 feet
below the existing ground surface without encountering partially weathered rock or auger
refusal material.
3.3.4 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION
The borings were checked for groundwater at the time of drilling and upon completion. Groundwater
infiltration was noted in boring B-1 at a depth of about 22 feet beneath the existing ground surface,
and groundwater infiltration was not noted in any of the remaining borings. The boreholes were
backfilled upon completion for safety reasons. Therefore, delayed groundwater levels are not
available.
Subsurface water levels within this region tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic changes, as
well as with some types of construction operations. Generally, the highest groundwater levels occur
in late winter and early spring; and the lowest levels in late summer and early fall. Therefore, water
may be encountered during construction at depths not indicated during this study.
Additionally, perched groundwater conditions can develop
rock following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation.
construction at depths not indicated during this exploration.
over low permeability soil or weathered
Groundwater may be encountered during
Page 5 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
3.3.5 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
The results of the laboratory testing program are summarized in the following table.
Sample
Location
Sample
Depth (ft)
Moisture
Content
%
Percent
Fines
%
ATTERBERG LIMITS
USCS
Soil
Classification
LL
PL
PI
B-1
1 — 2.5
7.5
13.0
--
--
--
--
B-1
3.5 - 5
18.8
39.4
44
22
22
SC
B-1
13.5 - 15
10.8
17.3
--
--
--
--
B-1
23.5 — 25
17.2
11.9
--
--
--
--
B-7
1 — 2.5
7.9
9.7
--
--
--
--
4 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
The following geotechnical design recommendations have been developed on the basis of the
previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions encountered. If there are
any changes in these project criteria, including building location on the site or the construction of
earth retaining structures are required, a review should be made by PSI to determine if
modifications to the recommendations are warranted.
Once final design plans and specifications are available, a general review by PSI is
recommended as a means to check that the evaluations made in preparation of this report are
correct and that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and
implemented.
Based on the results of the fieldwork, laboratory evaluation and engineering analyses, we have
identified the following potential constraints to the development of this site; the presence of very
loose, organic -laden fill soils, and the presence of very loose to loose, near -surface soils.
However, we believe with proper planning and execution, the site can be adapted for the
proposed structure and associated improvements.
4.1.1 EXISTING FILL SOILS AND LOOSE UPPER SOILS
As discussed earlier in this report, previously placed very loose fill material was encountered in
one of the nine borings advanced at the site (B-8, located in the northeast site area). The fill
extended to a depth of approximately 3 feet below the existing grade and consisted primarily of
Silty SAND (SM) with organic material (wood fragments). Additional fill may exist in unexplored
areas of the site (between borings). An N-value of 4 bpf was recorded in the fill at B-4,
suggesting a very low level of compaction. We consider these apparent fills to be unsuitable for
support of foundations, slabs or pavements and recommend they be removed and replaced with
compacted fill. We recommend that the existing fill be removed and replaced with suitable
Page 6 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
structural fill, placed and compacted as described in Section 4.2 of this report. Some of the
undercut fill may be suitable for reuse as structural fill, provided material composition and
organic content meet the criteria outlined in Section 4.2. However, based on the fill at B-8 the
undercut fill will require thorough inspection for organic content.
We further recommend that the planned grading activity compact the upper two feet of
subsurface materials to the compaction criteria of Section 4.2. This upper zone includes both
Silty SANDS. To successfully compact a two foot thickness of this material will likely require
partial undercutting so the compaction can be performed in suitable thickness lifts.
4.2 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK
Site clearing, stripping and grubbing operations should only be performed in dry weather conditions.
Initially, wet soils, topsoil, organics, debris, and other unsuitable materials, should be stripped from
an area extending at least 10 feet beyond the outline of the proposed construction. Removal of trees
should include removal of their stumps and root balls, which can extend to several feet below grade.
Removal of the existing fill in the area of B-8 and if encountered in unexplored areas of the site
(between borings), as discussed in Section 4.1.1, will also be required. Depressions or low areas
resulting from stripping and grubbing should be backfilled with compacted structural fill in accordance
with the recommendations presented in this report.
As discussed previously, the site contains several stockpiles of gravel or soil were noted on -site. In
addition, several piles of discarded wood pallets and frame -like objects were observed in the north
site area. If desired, some of the stockpiled material may be suitable for use during grading.
However, the stockpiled contents should be thoroughly inspected for content as discussed later in
this section. All unsuitable soil and debris should be hauled off -site.
The upper two feet of soils is recommended to be compacted to the criteria discussed below. This
may require that the upper 1 to 1 %2 feet be undercut and stockpiled to allow thorough compaction of
the lower portion of the two -foot zone.
After stripping and undercutting as required and removal of unsuitable surface soils or previous
construction, we recommend that areas of at -grade construction or areas to receive that will provide
support for the floor slabs, pavements, and/or structural fill be evaluated carefully for the presence of
soft, surficial soils, loose fill soils and/or elastic soils, by proof -rolling and inspection by the
geotechnical engineer. Actual extents and depths of required undercut will be dependent upon final
site grades, and will be determined in the field by PSI personnel during grading operations.
The proofroll should be performed using a pneumatic tired equipment or smooth steel drum roller, or
similar equipment, weighing between 15 and 20 tons. The vehicle shall make at least four passes
over each location, with the last two passes perpendicular to the first two. Areas that wave, rut, or
deflect significantly and continue to do so after several passes of the proof -roller shall be undercut to
firmer soils. Undercut areas shall be backfilled in thin lifts with approved, compacted fill materials.
Proof -roll operations shall be monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineer.
Drying soils for re -use as structural fill is often considered a routine aspect of typical grading
operations and is not considered a pay item. If unit prices for earthwork operations are established,
Page 7 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
they should be examined closely before the contract is executed. If undercutting is a pay item, then
undercut volumes should be determined by field measurement. Methods such as counting trucks
should not be used for determination of undercut volume, as they are less accurate.
Recommended criteria for soil fill characteristics (both on -site and imported materials) and
compaction procedures are listed below. The project design documents should include the following
recommendations to address proper placement and compaction of project fill materials. Earthwork
operations should not begin until representative samples are collected and tested. The maximum
dry density and optimum moisture content should be determined.
EARTH FILL MATERIALS
Imported fill material satisfactory for structural fill should include clean soil material with
USCS classifications of (GW, GM, SW, SP, SM, and some SC, CL or ML). The fill
material should have a Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) Maximum Dry Density of at least
100 pcf, a maximum Liquid Limit of 45 and a Plasticity Index of 25 or less.
Organic content or other foreign matter (debris) should be no greater than 3 percent by
weight, and no large roots (greater than '/4 inch in diameter) should be allowed. Organic
materials should not be intentionally mixed into structural fill.
Material utilized as fill should not contain rocks greater that 3 inches in diameter or
greater than 30 percent retained on the %-inch sieve.
COMPACTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Maximum loose lift thickness — 8 inches, mass fill. Loose lifts of 4 to 6 inches in
trenches and other confined spaces where hand operated equipment is used.
Compaction requirements — 95 percent of the maximum dry density and 98 percent
within the upper 12 inches as determined by the standard Proctor (ASTM D698)
compaction test.
Soil moisture content at time of compaction — within ±3 percent of the optimum moisture
content.
TEST CRITERIA TO EVALUATE FILL AND COMPACTION
One standard Proctor compaction test and one Atterberg limits test for each soil type
used as project fill. Gradation tests may be necessary and should be performed at the
geotechnical engineer's discretion.
One density test about every 2,500 square feet for each lift or two tests per lift,
whichever is greater (for preliminary planning only; the test frequency should be
determined by our engineering staff).
Trench fill areas — one density test every 75 linear feet at vertical intervals of 2 feet or
less.
Page 8 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
It will be important to maintain positive site drainage throughout construction. Storm water runoff
should be diverted around the building and pavement areas. The site should be graded at all times
such that water is not allowed to pond. The surface should be sealed with a smooth drum roller to
enhance drainage if precipitation is expected. Subgrades damaged by construction equipment
should be repaired immediately to avoid further degradation in adjacent areas and to help prevent
water ponding.
Should there be a significant time lag or period of inclement weather between site grading and the
fine grading of the slab prior to the placement of stone or concrete, the Geotechnical Engineer of
Record or qualified representative should assess the condition of the prepared subgrade. The
subgrade may require scarification and re -compaction or other remedial measures to provide a firm
and unyielding subgrade prior to final slab construction.
4.3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The project site is located within a municipality that employs the 2009 International Building
Code® (IBC). As part of this Code, the design of structures must consider dynamic forces
resulting from seismic events. These forces are dependent upon the magnitude of the
earthquake event, as well as the properties of the soils that underlie the site. As part of the
procedure to evaluate seismic forces, the Code requires the evaluation of the Seismic Site
Class, which categorizes the site based upon the characteristics of the subsurface profile within
the upper 100 feet of the ground surface.
To define the Site Class for this project, we first interpreted the results of soil test borings drilled
within the project site and estimated appropriate soil properties below the base of the borings to
a depth of 100 feet, as permitted by the Code. The estimated soil properties were based upon
our experience with subsurface conditions in the general site area.
Based upon the SPT N-values recorded during the field exploration, the subsurface conditions
within the site are consistent with the characteristics of a Site Class "D" as defined in Table
1613.5.2 of the Code
The associated IBC (2009) probabilistic ground acceleration values and site coefficients for the
general site area were obtained from the USGS U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application
(http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php) and are presented in the table
below:
Page 9 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
Ground Motion Values for Site Class "D"*
Mapped MCE
Adjusted MCE
Design
Period
Spectral
Site
Spectral
Spectral
(sec)
Response
Coefficients
Response
Response
Acceleration**
Acceleration
Acceleration
0.2
Ss
0.275
Fa
1.580
SMs
0.435
SDs
0.290
1.0
S,
0.097
F,
2.400
SM,
0.234
SD,
0.156
*2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years for Latitude 35.25482 and Longitude-79.02992
**At 8-C interface (i.e. top of bedrock).
MCE = Maximum Considered Earthquake
The Site Coefficients, Fa and F, presented in the above tables were obtained also from the
noted USGS webpage, as a function of the site classification and mapped spectral response
acceleration at the short (Ss) and 1-second (Si) periods, but can also be interpolated from IBC
Tables 1613.5.3(1) and 1613.5.3(2).
4.4 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the subsurface exploration performed at the site, following recommendations are
provided to support the proposed structure at the site.
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Based on the results of the geotechnical exploration, we recommend that the proposed
structure be supported on conventional shallow spread and wall footings. We recommend that
footings be designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. This
recommendation assumes that the building foundations will bear in natural undisturbed soil or
new structural fill placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report.
Foundations should not bear in existing fill. We recommend continuous wall and column
footings with minimum widths of at least 18 inches and 24 inches, respectively regardless of the
actual resulting bearing pressure. The recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may be
increased by one-third for short term wind and/or seismic loads.
Footing excavations should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer or Record, or his
representative to determine that soils capable of supporting the recommended design bearing
pressures are present at and immediately below the bearing level after excavation and prior to
placement of reinforcing steel in the footing excavations. We recommend that the bearing soils
at the bottom of and below the footing excavations be verified with a dynamic cone
penetrometer to assess the suitability of the soils. A hand auger should be used to advance a
borehole for this evaluation to a depth equal to at least the foundation width or 3 feet, whichever
is greater. Footing evaluations should be performed prior to reinforcement and concrete
placement.
All foundation excavations should be evaluated for the presence of organic -laden and/or poorly
compacted fill soils. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered, these materials should be
Page 10 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
removed. The foundations can then be established at the new, lower bearing elevation, or the
unsuitable material can be replaced with properly compacted fill, flowable fill, or lean concrete. If
compacted structural fill is used as backfill, the undercut excavations to remove unsuitable
materials should be centered beneath the footing and widened 1/2 foot for each foot of undercut
depth, measured from the outside edge of the new foundation. If lean concrete or flowable fill is
used as backfill, the foundation excavation need not be widened. Open graded stone, such as
No. 57 stone, should not be used to backfill foundation excavations.
All foundations should bear at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final
ground surface for frost penetration, and protective embedment. PSI recommends that the
foundations be designed in accordance with the 2009 International Building Code.
We recommend that footings with width no larger than 10 feet, designed and constructed in
accordance with the recommendations herein will experience post -construction total settlements
generally less than 1-inch with differential settlement along a 40-foot long portion of a
continuous footing, or similarly spaced column footings generally less than %2-inch. Total and
differential settlements of these magnitudes are usually considered tolerable for the anticipated
construction. However, the tolerance of the proposed structure to the predicted total and
differential settlements should be confirmed by the structural engineer.
Foundation concrete should be placed as soon as possible after excavation. If foundation
excavations must be left open overnight, or exposed to inclement weather, the base of the
excavation should be protected with a "mud mat" consisting of a couple of inches of lean
concrete. Footing excavations should be protected from surface water run-off and freezing. If
water is allowed to accumulate within a footing excavation and soften the bearing soils, or if the
bearing soils are allowed to freeze, the deficient soils should be removed from the excavation
prior to concrete placement.
4.5 FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
Floor slabs may be supported on subgrades prepared in accordance with the SITE
PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK section of this report.
Where concrete slabs are designed as beams on an elastic foundation, the soils that will
comprise the subgrade soils should be assumed to have a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of
125 pounds per cubic inch (pci). This value is estimated based on the expected results of a
plate load test using a nominal 12-inch diameter plate.
In order to provide uniform support beneath any proposed floor slab -on -grade, we recommend
that floor slabs be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of compacted aggregate base course
material. The estimated modulus of subgrade reaction after the addition of 4 inches of
aggregate subbase material is 160 pci.
Page 11 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
The aggregate base course material should be compacted to at least 98 percent of its standard
Proctor maximum dry density. Open -graded crushed stone, such as No. 57 stone, may also be
used; however, it is our experience that open graded crushed stone can collect water during
periods of rain and cause saturation and softening of the subgrade soils prior to placement of
the floor slab concrete. Therefore, construction sequencing/timing, and the season in which the
stone is placed, should be taken into consideration.
The crushed rock is intended to provide a capillary break to limit migration of moisture through
the slab. If additional protection against moisture vapor is desired, a vapor retarding membrane
may also be incorporated into the design; however, there are no specific conditions that
mandate its use. Factors such as cost, special considerations for construction, and the floor
coverings suggest that decisions on the use of vapor retarding membranes be made by the
architect and owner. Based on the subsurface materials and the intended use of the structure,
we recommend the use of a vapor retarding membrane. Vapor retarders, if used, should be
installed in accordance with ACI 302.1, Chapter 3.
The precautions listed below should be closely followed for construction of slabs -on -grade.
These details will not prevent the amount of slab movement, but are intended to reduce
potential damage should some settlement of the supporting subgrade take place.
Cracking of slabs -on -grade is normal and should be expected. Cracking can occur not
only as a result of heaving or compression of the supporting soil, but also as a result of
concrete curing stresses. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks, and problems
associated with concrete curing may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the water
to cement ratio of the concrete, proper concrete placement, finishing, and curing, and by
the placement of crack control joints at frequent intervals, particularly, where re-entrant
slab corners occur. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommends a maximum
panel size (in feet) equal to approximately three times the thickness of the slab (in
inches) in both directions. For example, joints are recommended at a maximum spacing
of 12 feet assuming a four -inch thick slab. We also recommend that control joints be
scored three feet in from and parallel to all foundation walls. Using fiber reinforcement in
the concrete can also control shrinkage cracking.
Some increase in moisture content is inevitable as a result of development and
associated landscaping; however, extreme moisture content increases can be largely
controlled by proper and responsible site drainage, building maintenance and irrigation
practices.
All backfill in areas supporting slabs should be moisture conditioned and compacted as
described earlier in this report. Backfill in all interior and exterior utility line trenches
should be carefully compacted.
• Exterior slabs should be isolated from the building. These slabs should be reinforced to
function as independent units. Movement of these slabs should not be transmitted to the
building foundation or superstructure.
Page 12 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
4.6 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND
PARAMETERS
Currently PSI is not aware of proposed retaining wall construction as part of site development.
However, we are providing the following preliminary retaining wall recommendations if walls are
incorporated into the project.
Retaining walls must be capable of resisting the lateral earth pressures that will be imposed on
them. Shear strength testing was not performed on the soils sampled during this exploration.
However, based on the material types and our experience, the earth pressure coefficients
detailed below are recommended.
Walls that will be laterally restrained and not free to deflect or rotate (i.e., loading dock walls tied
into existing slabs -on -grade) should be designed using the "at -rest' (Ko) earth pressure
condition. Walls that are not restrained (retaining walls) and can tolerate the required movement
can be designed using the "active" (Ka) earth pressure condition. A third condition, the "passive
state" (Kp) represents the maximum possible pressure when a structure is pushed against the
soil and is used in wall foundation design to help resist "active" or "at -rest" pressures. The earth
pressure coefficients used in the design will depend upon the type of backfill used.
Imported No. 57 stone or approved free draining granular soil typically is suitable for use as
backfill within the "active" zone of retaining walls. Soils with Plasticity Index values greater than
10 (PI>10) should not be used for backfill behind the walls within the "active" zone. Additionally,
soils with high mica content should not be considered for use as backfill behind the walls within
the "active" zone. The active zone is typically modeled by an area extending rearward one foot
from the base of the wall footing and then extending upward toward the ground surface at an
inclination of 45 degrees plus one-half of the internal angle of friction (451 + 0/2).
Based on the results of our geotechnical exploration, we recommend the following lateral earth
pressure coefficients be used for design purposes:
Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters
Earth Pressure
Internal
Cohesion
Moist Unit
Coefficients
Friction
Weight,
Activ
At -Rest
Passiv
Material Group Symbol
Angle
c
y
(psf)
(pcf)
e
(Ko)
e
(Ka)
(Kp)
Free draining granular soil —
30
0
120
0.33
0.50
3.00
Medium dense or greater
No. 57 Stone
36
1 0
1 110
0.26
1 0.41
3.85
These recommendations are for a drained condition and assume that water will not be allowed
to accumulate behind the wall by means of a drainage system(s) and the use of granular fill
material. Drainage systems should be provided to collect/remove water and to reduce infiltration
of surface water around the perimeter of the wall. The grades should be sloped away from the
wall and drainage should be collected and discharged such that water is not permitted to
accumulate behind the retaining wall. If provisions to prevent accumulation of water behind the
Page 13 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
walls are not provided, the walls should be designed to resist the hydrostatic head in addition to
the buoyant lateral earth pressures.
For design for sliding, PSI recommends a coefficient of sliding friction of 0.35 for concrete
sliding on firm subgrade. Additional lateral pressures due to surcharge loading, such as
adjacent floor loads, traffic loads, or parking loads, must be added to the above lateral earth
pressure. Traffic surcharges may be modeled as a uniform 250 psf pressure.
Special care should be taken while compacting the backfill behind below grade and retaining
walls. Over -compaction of backfill behind retaining walls may result in the buildup of excessive
lateral pressures, and potential structural distress. To avoid over -compaction of the backfill
behind walls, we recommend that the backfill within 5 feet of the wall be compacted with small
hand operated equipment to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the modified
Proctor as determined by ASTM D1557. Heavy compactors and large pieces of construction
equipment should not operate within 5 feet of the embedded wall to avoid the buildup of
excessive lateral pressures unless the walls have been designed to accommodate these forces.
4.7 PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PARAMETERS
4.7.1 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION
Following the stripping of deleterious materials, we recommend the proposed pavement subgrade be
prepared and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 4.2 "SITE
PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK" of this report.
We recommend proof -rolling and re -compacting the upper 1-foot of subgrade immediately prior to
placement of the ABC base course. The exposed pavement subgrade should also be evaluated by a
representative of PSI immediately prior to placing ABC. If low consistency soils are encountered
which cannot be adequately compacted in place, such soils should be removed and replaced with
well -compacted soil fill or crushed stone materials.
Based upon the findings of our borings and the assumed grading, we anticipate residual SM or SP-
SM soils, or newly placed structural fill soils will be present at the subgrade elevation. A California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of about 6 can be reasonably assumed for the structural fill at compaction
levels of about 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density within about 3 percent of
optimum moisture.
Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. Subsequently as construction
proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation,
and rainfall. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction and
corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of
pavement construction and subgrade areas should be reworked, moisture conditioned, and property
compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving.
Prevention of infiltration of water into the subgrade is essential for the successful long-term
performance of any pavement. Both the subgrade and the pavement surface should be sloped to
promote surface drainage away from the pavement structure.
Page 14 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
4.7.2 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Traffic loading information was not provided at the time of this report. Therefore, specific detailed
pavement sections cannot be provided. However, we anticipate that traffic loads will be produced
primarily by automobile traffic, occasional delivery and trash removal trucks, and fully loaded semi -
tractor trailers. A conservative California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 6 was assumed for the
on -site SANDS, or newly placed structural fill, at compaction levels of about 98 percent of the
standard Proctor maximum dry density within about 3 percent of optimum moisture.
Based on our experience with similar facilities and subgrade conditions which are typical for this
region, we recommend the following preliminary pavement sections. Once detailed traffic
information is available, actual pavement section calculations should be performed to develop
the design sections.
MATERIAL THICKNESS (in.)
TOTAL
Asphalt Course
Asphalt Course
PAVEMENT
PAVEMEN
SECTION
Graded
INTERMEDIAT
SURFACE
T SECTION
Aggregate Base
E
(S-9.5B)
(in.)
in
I-19.0B
Light Duty Areas
6
2
1
9
Heavy Duty Areas
8
2.5
1.5
12
Notes: 1) Light Duty Areas calculated based on traffic loading of 25, 000 ESALS or less. Parking
stalls only with no through traffic.
2) Heavy Duty Areas calculated based on traffic loading of 125,000 ESALS or less.
Actual pavement section thickness should be provided by the design civil engineer based upon
anticipated traffic loads, volume, and the owner's design life requirements. The above sections
represent minimum thickness representative of typical, local construction practices, and as such
periodic maintenance should be anticipated.
4.7.3 RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The use of concrete for paving has become more prevalent in recent years due to the long-term
maintenance cost benefits of concrete compared to asphaltic pavements. Proper finishing of
concrete pavements requires the use of appropriate construction joints to reduce the potential
for cracking. Construction joints should be designed in accordance with current Portland
Cement Association guidelines. Joints should be sealed to reduce the potential for water
infiltration into pavement joints and subsequent infiltration into the supporting soils. The
concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days. The concrete
should also be designed with 5 ± 1 percent entrained air to improve workability and durability.
All pavement materials and construction procedures should conform to NCDOT or appropriate
city, county requirements.
Large front -loading trash dump trucks frequently impose concentrated front -wheel loads on
pavements during loading. This type of loading typically results in rutting of the pavement and
ultimately, pavement failures. Therefore, we recommend that the pavement in trash pickup
areas consist of a minimum 6-inch graded aggregate base overlain by a minimum 6-inch thick,
rigid pavement.
Page 15 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
RIGID (CONCRETE) PAVEMENT
LIGHT -DUTY*
HEAVY-DUTY
Portland Cement Concrete (4,000 psi)
5 inches
6 inches
Graded Aggregate Base (ABC)
4 inches
6 inches
Notes: *Parking stalls only.
5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 GROUNDWATER
Based on the results of the boring explorations, it appears that groundwater will not significantly
impact the proposed construction. However, groundwater levels within this region tend to fluctuate
with seasonal and climatic changes, and confined pockets of perched water often occur above the
groundwater table. Generally, the highest groundwater levels occur in late winter and early spring;
and the lowest levels in late summer and early fall. Therefore, water may be encountered during
construction at depths not indicated during this study.
If groundwater is encountered, we recommend that the groundwater table be lowered and
maintained at a depth of at least 2 feet below bearing levels and excavation bottoms during
construction. Adequate control of groundwater could likely be accomplished by means of pumping
from gravel -lined, cased sumps. However, the contractor should be responsible for selecting the
most optimal dewatering method. If sheet pile wall is installed to cut-off the groundwater seepage
into the excavation, sump and pump technique can be employed to dewater the excavation pit.
Furthermore, we recommend that the Contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time
of construction to determine the groundwater impact on the construction procedures.
The contractor should be prepared to promptly remove surface water from the general construction
area by similar methods. If groundwater is encountered during trenching or foundation installation,
PSI should be notified so that we might determine whether there is a need for underslab drainage,
perimeter drains, or other recommendations for dewatering.
5.2 EXCAVATION AND SAFETY
Based on the data available from the borings, anticipated excavations during site grading will
encounter stiff soils that can generally be removed by conventional earthmoving equipment such as
pans, scrapers, and backhoes. Some localized pre -loosening of higher consistency soils may be
necessary.
In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction Standards for
Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P". This document was issued to better allow for the
safety of workers entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that
excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavations or footing excavations, be
constructed in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines. It is our understanding that these
Page 16 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the
Contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.
The Contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations
and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations 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 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 all local, state, and federal safety regulations.
We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. PSI does not assume
responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's or other parties' compliance with local,
state, and federal safety or other regulations. Groundwater control is critical to excavation safety and
is described above.
6 REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface information obtained by
PSI and design details furnished by EIG14T Development for the proposed project. If there are
any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in
this report are encountered during construction, PSI should be notified immediately to determine
if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If PSI is not retained to perform
these functions, we will not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the
geotechnical recommendations for the project.
PSI warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice
contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional
geotechnical engineering practices in the local area at the date of this report. No other
warranties are implied or expressed.
After the plans and specifications are more complete, PSI should be retained and provided the
opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to check that our engineering
recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents. At that time, it
may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations. This report has been prepared
for the exclusive use of EIG14T Development and their consultants for the specific application
to the Proposed Rainbow Child Care in Spout Springs, North Carolina.
Page 17 of 17

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
APPENDICES

ion
SITE VICINITY MAP
Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018

F ^^ :odch ft'"x '+arfi `fitMMoe
df)
ti
Spout Springs
Approximate
Site Location
eld�a yy r enyalfp'
S .0 �.. � ��y may,,_ ? � 1 '. .? 1`'t•�7 \} 4i!"
flper . ¢f�...
m "

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
BORING LOCATION PLAN

A
LEGEND
40 Approximate Boring Location
Project Name:
Proposed Rainbow Child Care
95 Centennial Parkway
Spout Springs, North Carolina
Project No.: Date:
0511835 Febru
VIP,
IC4 if A,
OSE4
ARFA . �� I yF • Y
3 S.F. ¢ /� "� 7" /► r. ?
= B-4� �. o
4
I B-3 ' h~7' &P.ROPOSED �~ �• ■
II CFMLDCARE
I B.. I FACILITY
1.992 S.F. I
B-5
ry 2 -4
- I
Base Drawing "Project Layout" prepared by Orman Engineering, LLC and dated 05-09-2017
2018
Figure 2
Boring Location Diagram
51

Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
ionPSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018
GENERAL NOTES AND
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

VVMM9
GENERAL NOTES
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), AASHTO 1988 and ASTM designations D2487 and D-2488 are
used to identify the encountered materials unless otherwise noted. Coarse -grained soils are defined as having
more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve (0.075mm); they are described as: boulders,
cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine-grained soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve;
they are defined as silts or clay depending on their Atterberg Limit attributes. Major constituents may be added
as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size.
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS
SFA: Solid Flight Auger - typically 4" diameter SS: Split -Spoon - 1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., except
flights, except where noted. where noted.
HSA: Hollow Stem Auger - typically 31/" or 41/ I.D.
openings, except where noted. ST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D., except where noted.
M.R.: Mud Rotary - Uses a rotary head with 0 RC: Rock Core
Bentonite or Polymer Slurry ® TC: Texas Cone
R.C.: Diamond Bit Core Sampler
H.A.: Hand Auger BS: Bulk Sample
P.A.: Power Auger - Handheld motorized auger
0 PM: Pressuremeter
CPT-U: Cone Penetrometer Testing with
SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS Pore -Pressure Readings
N: Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D.
Split -Spoon.
N60: A "N" penetration value corrected to an equivalent 60% hammer energy transfer efficiency (ETR)
Qu: Unconfined compressive strength, TSF
QP: Pocket penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, TSF
w%: Moisture/water content, %
LL: Liquid Limit, %
PL: Plastic Limit, %
PI: Plasticity Index = (LL-PL),%
DD: Dry unit weight, pcf
1 E,�r Apparent groundwater level at time noted
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE -GRAINED SOILS ANGULARITY OF COARSE -GRAINED PARTICLES
Relative Density N - Blows/foot Description Criteria
Very Loose 0-4
Angular: Particles have sharp edges and relatively plane
sides with unpolished surfaces
Loose 4 - 10 Subangular: Particles are similar to angular description, but have
Medium Dense 10 - 30 rounded edges
Dense 30 - 50 Subrounded: Particles have nearly plane sides, but have
Very Dense 50 - 80 well-rounded corners and edges
Extremely Dense 80+ Rounded: Particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges
GRAIN -SIZE TERMINOLOGY
PARTICLE SHAPE
Component Size Range Description Criteria
Boulders: Over 300 mm (>12 in.) Flat: Particles with width/thickness ratio > 3
Cobbles: 75 mm to 300 mm (3 in. to 12 in.) Elongated: Particles with length/width ratio > 3
Coarse -Grained Gravel: 19 mm to 75 mm (% in. to 3 in.) Flat & Elongated: Particles meet criteria for both flat and
Fine -Grained Gravel: 4.75 mm to 19 mm (No.4 to % in.) elongated
Coarse -Grained Sand: 2 mm to 4.75 mm (No.10 to No.4)
Medium -Grained Sand: 0.42 mm to 2 mm (No.40 to No.10) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES
Fine -Grained Sand: 0.075 mm to 0.42 mm (No. 200 to No.40) Descriptive Term % Dry Weight
Silt: 0.005 mm to 0.075 mm Trace: < 5%
Clay: <0.005 mm With: 5% to 12%
Modifier: >12% Page 1 of 2

Mom'
GENERAL NOTES
(Continued)
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS MOISTURE CONDITION DESCRIPTION
Q -
TSF
N - Blows/foot
Consistency
Description
Criteria
Dry:
Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
0 -
0-2
Very Soft
Moist:
Damp but no visible water
0.
0. 50
-.00
2-4
Soft
Wet:
Visible free water, usually soil is below water table
0.50-1
4-8
Firm (Medium Stiff)
1.00
- 2.00
8 -
15
Stiff
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
2.00
- 4.00
15
- 30
Very Stiff
Descriptive Term % Dry Weight
4.00
- 8.00
30-50
Hard
Trace: < 15%
8.00+
50+
Very Hard
With: 15% to 30%
Modifier: >30%
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION
Description
Criteria
Description
Criteria
Stratified:
Alternating layers of varying material or color with
Blocky:
Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small
layers at least'/ -inch (6 mm) thick
angular lumps which resist further breakdown
Laminated:
Alternating layers of varying material or color with
Lensed:
Inclusion of small pockets of different soils
layers less than '/-inch (6 mm) thick
Layer:
Inclusion greater than 3 inches thick (75 mm)
Fissured:
Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little
Seam:
Inclusion 1/8-inch to 3 inches (3 to 75 mm) thick
resistance to fracturing
extending through the sample
Slickensided:
Fracture planes appear polished or glossy,
Parting:
Inclusion less than 1/8-inch (3 mm) thick
sometimes striated
SCALE OF RELATIVE ROCK HARDNESS
Q -
TSF
Consistency
2.5
- 10
Extremely Soft
10-50
Very Soft
50 -
250
Soft
250
- 525
Medium Hard
525 -
1,050
Moderately Hard
1,050
- 2,600
Hard
>2,600
Very Hard
ROCK VOIDS
ROCK BEDDING THICKNESSES
Description
Criteria
Very Thick Bedded
Greater than 3-foot (>1.0 m)
Thick Bedded
1-foot to 3-foot (0.3 m to 1.0 m)
Medium Bedded
4-inch to 1-foot (0.1 m to 0.3 m)
Thin Bedded
1'/-inch to 4-inch (30 mm to 100 mm)
Very Thin Bedded
'h-inch to 1'/-inch (10 mm to 30 mm)
Thickly Laminated
1/8-inch to'h-inch (3 mm to 10 mm)
Thinly Laminated
1/8-inch or less "paper thin" (<3 mm)
GRAIN -SIZED TERMINOLOGY
Voids Void Diameter
(Typically Sedimentary Rock)
Pit <6 mm (<0.25 in)
Component Size Range
Vug 6 mm to 50 mm (0.25 in to 2 in)
Very Coarse Grained >4.76 mm
Cavity 50 mm to 600 mm (2 in to 24 in)
Coarse Grained 2.0 mm - 4.76 mm
Cave >600 mm (>24 in)
Medium Grained 0.42 mm - 2.0 mm
Fine Grained 0.075 mm - 0.42 mm
Very Fine Grained <0.075 mm
ROCK QUALITY DESCRIPTION
DEGREE OF WEATHERING
Rock Mass Description RQD Value
Slightly Weathered: Rock generally fresh, joints stained and discoloration
Excellent 90 -100
extends into rock up to 25 mm (1 in), open joints may
Good 75 - 90
contain clay, core rings under hammer impact.
Fair 50-75
Poor 25-50
Weathered: Rock mass is decomposed 50% or less, significant
Very Poor Less than 25
portions of the rock show discoloration and
weathering effects, cores cannot be broken by hand
or scraped by knife.
Highly Weathered: Rock mass is more than 50% decomposed, complete
discoloration of rock fabric, core may be extremely
broken and gives clunk sound when struck by
hammer, may be shaved with a knife.
Page 2 of 2

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOLS
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
GRAPH
LETTER
GRAVEL
AND
CLEAN
GRAVELS
�'�'�'�
: :
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
° �o o �o
o DDo D
00
° °� °
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL
- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
° �°
c D
c)
° °
c
o
°
D
O
°
GM
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
OF FINES)
LIE
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
SAND
CLEAN SANDS
SW
WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
AND
SANDY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SP
POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES
o
MORE THAN 50%
SANDS WITH
FINES
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO. 4
SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT
OF FINES)
v7
SC
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
ML
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
SILTS
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
AND LIQUID LIMIT
CLAYS LESS THAN 50
CL
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,
LEAN CLAYS
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY
CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
MH
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY
SOILS
SIZE
SILTS
LIQUID LIMIT
AND GREATER THAN50
CLAYS
CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
OH
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH
PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
.' . ' . ' . '
PT
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
Mom'

ion
C=3��rIIOZ�-1
Rainbow Child Care, Spout Springs, NC
PSI Report No. 0511835
February 8, 2018

DATE STARTED: 1/31/18 DRILL COMPANY: Carolina Drilling BORING B-1
DATE COMPLETED: 1/31/18 DRILLER: M. Redford LOGGED BY: Steege
COMPLETION DEPTH 30.0 ft DRILL RIG: CME 45 While Drilling 22 feet
BENCHMARK: N/A DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger m 1 Upon Completion 22 feet
ELEVATION: 334 ft SAMPLING METHOD: 2-in SS, Standard �: 7 Delay N/A
LATITUDE: HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
LONGITUDE: EFFICIENCY N/A See boring location plan
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A REVIEWED BY: AOS
REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion.
�
STANDARD PENETRATION
c
0
L
TEST DATA
o
a
o
o
N in blows/ft OO
o
r
J
r
z
a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
m
Q
a
X Moisture 0 PL
f LL
Additional
a
a
E
m
>
0
0
0 25 e0
Remarks
w
c7
U
>
3
m
0
tY
U
STRENGTH, tsf
IL
A Qu X Qp
0 2.0 4.0
0
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT -Very Loose,
Brown, Silty SAND (SM) - Moist
1
SM
2-2-2
8
° X
Fines = 13.0%
N=4
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT - Loose to Medium
330
Mm'/-
Dense, Brown/Tan, Clayey SAND (SC) - Moist
LL = 44
-
2
2 3 4
19
°
X
PL=22
5
N=7
Fines = 39.4%
3
3-4-3
°
SC
N=7
325
4
6-7-7
°
10
N=14
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose,
Brown/Tan, Clayey SAND (SC) - Moist
320
5
SC
4-3-5
11
°
Fines = 17.3%
15
N=8
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT -Very Dense,
Brown & Tan, SAND (SW -SC) with Clay -Moist
315
6
W-S
12-23-38
>>
20
N=61
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT -Very Loose to
Loose, Brown/Red, SAND (SW-SM) with Silt -
Wet
310
7
3-2-2
17
°
X
Fines = 11.9%
25
N=4
W-S
305
8
4-4-5
°
30
N=9
Boring terminated at 30 feet.
uitertek Professional Service Industries, Inc. PROJECT NO.: 0511835
5021-A West W.T. Harris Boulevard PROJECT: Proposed Rainbow Child Care
Charlotte, NC 28269 LOCATION: 95 Centennial Parkway
1
PIS Telephone: [phone] Spout springs, NC
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1

DATE STARTED: 1/31/18 DRILL COMPANY: Carolina Drilling BORING B-2
DATE COMPLETED: 1/31/18 DRILLER: M. Redford LOGGED BY: Steege
COMPLETION DEPTH 15.0 ft DRILL RIG: CME 45 While Drilling None
BENCHMARK: N/A DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger m 1 Upon Completion Dry
ELEVATION: 334 ft SAMPLING METHOD: 2-in SS, Standard �: 7- Delay N/A
LATITUDE: HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
LONGITUDE: EFFICIENCY N/A See boring location plan
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A REVIEWED BY: AOS
REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion.
�
STANDARD PENETRATION
c
0
L
TEST DATA
o
a
o
o
N in blows/ft OO
o
r
J
r
z
a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
m
Q
a
X Moisture 0 PL
f LL
Additional
a
a
E
m
0
0
0 25 e0
Remarks
w
c7
U
>
3
m
0
tY
U
STRENGTH, tsf
IL
Qu X Qp
0 2.0 4.0
0
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Medium Dense,
Brown, Silty SAND (SM) - Moist
1
SM
6-7-4
N=11
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Tan,
330
SAND (SP-SM) with Silt - Moist
::
2
P-SM
3-2-3
5
N=5
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Brown,
3
Clayey SAND (SC) - Moist
2-3-4
0
N=7
325
4
SC
3-3-4
0
10
N=7
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Medium Dense,
Brown, SAND (SW -SC) with Clay - Moist
W-S
320
5
4-6-5
0
15
N=11
Boring terminated at 15 feet.
uitertek Professional Service Industries, Inc. PROJECT NO.: 0511835
5021-A West W.T. Harris Boulevard PROJECT: Proposed Rainbow Child Care
Charlotte, NC 28269 LOCATION: 95 Centennial Parkway
ps Telephone: [phone] Spout springs, NC
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1

DATE STARTED: 1/31/18 DRILL COMPANY: Carolina Drilling BORING B-3
DATE COMPLETED: 1/31/18 DRILLER: M. Redford LOGGED BY: Steege
COMPLETION DEPTH 15.0 ft DRILL RIG: CME 45 While Drilling None
BENCHMARK: N/A DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger m 1 Upon Completion Dry
ELEVATION: 332 ft SAMPLING METHOD: 2-in SS, Standard �: 7- Delay N/A
LATITUDE: HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
LONGITUDE: EFFICIENCY N/A See boring location plan
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A REVIEWED BY: AOS
REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion.
�
STANDARD PENETRATION
c
0
L
TEST DATA
o
a
o
o
N in blows/ft OO
o
r
J
r
z
a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
m
Q
a
X Moisture 0 PL
f LL
Additional
a
a
E
m
0
0
o z5 5o
Remarks
w
c7
U
>
3
m
0
tY
U
STRENGTH, tsf
IL
A Qu X Qp
o 2.0 4.0
0
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Brown,
TY
SAND (SP-SM) with Silt - Moist
330
1
P-SM
2-3-3
N=6
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose,
Brown/Red, Clayey SAND (SC) - Moist
2
2-3-6
0
5
N=9
SC
325
3
2-3-4
a
N=7
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose,
Brown/Tan, SAND (SW -SC) with Clay -Moist
4
3-4-3
0
10
N=7
W-S
320
5
3-3-5
0
15
N-8
Boring terminated at 15 feet.
uitertek Professional Service Industries, Inc. PROJECT NO.: 0511835
5021-A West W.T. Harris Boulevard PROJECT: Proposed Rainbow Child Care
Charlotte, NC 28269 LOCATION: 95 Centennial Parkway
ps Telephone: [phone] Spout springs, NC
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1

DATE STARTED: 1/31/18 DRILL COMPANY: Carolina Drilling BORING B-4
DATE COMPLETED: 1/31/18 DRILLER: M. Redford LOGGED BY: Steege
COMPLETION DEPTH 15.0 ft DRILL RIG: CME 45 While Drilling None
BENCHMARK: N/A DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger m 1 Upon Completion Dry
ELEVATION: 335 ft SAMPLING METHOD: 2-in SS, Standard �: 7- Delay N/A
LATITUDE: HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
LONGITUDE: EFFICIENCY N/A See boring location plan
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A REVIEWED BY: AOS
REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion.
�
STANDARD PENETRATION
c
0
L
TEST DATA
o
a
o
o
N in blows/ft OO
o
r
J
r
z
a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
m
Q
a
X Moisture 0 PL
f LL
Additional
a
a
E
m
0
0
0 25 e0
Remarks
w
c7
U
>
3
m
0
tY
U
STRENGTH, tsf
IL
A Qu X Qp
0 2.0 4.0
0
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Brown,
SAND (SP-SM) with Silt - Moist
1
P-SM
4-4-4
0
N=8
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT - Medium Dense &
Loose, Brown/Tan, Clayey SAND (SC) - Moist
2
3-5-6
0
330
5
N=11
3
2-3-5
0
SC
N=8
4
3-5-7
325
10
N=12
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Brown &
Tan, SAND (SW -SC) with Clay - Moist
W-S
5
3-3-3
0
320
15
N=6
Boring terminated at 15 feet.
uitertek Professional Service Industries, Inc. PROJECT NO.: 0511835
5021-A West W.T. Harris Boulevard PROJECT: Proposed Rainbow Child Care
Charlotte, NC 28269 LOCATION: 95 Centennial Parkway
ps Telephone: [phone] Spout springs, NC
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1

DATE STARTED: 1/31/18 DRILL COMPANY: Carolina Drilling BORING B-5
DATE COMPLETED: 1/31/18 DRILLER: M. Redford LOGGED BY: Steege
COMPLETION DEPTH 15.0 ft DRILL RIG: CME 45 While Drilling None
BENCHMARK: N/A DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger m 1 Upon Completion Dry
ELEVATION: 332 ft SAMPLING METHOD: 2-in SS, Standard �: 7- Delay N/A
LATITUDE: HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
LONGITUDE: EFFICIENCY N/A See boring location plan
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A REVIEWED BY: AOS
REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion.
�
STANDARD PENETRATION
c
0
L
TEST DATA
o
a
o
o
N in blows/ft OO
o
r
J
r
z
a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
m
Q
a
X Moisture 0 PL
f LL
Additional
a
a
E
m
0
0
o z5 5o
Remarks
w
c7
U
>
3
m
0
tY
U
STRENGTH, tsf
IL
A Qu X Qp
o 2.0 4.0
0
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Tan,
TY
SAND (SP-SM) with Silt - Moist
330
1
P-SM
3-2-3
o
N=5
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose,
MR,/.
Brown/Tan, Clayey SAND (SC) - Moist
-
2
3-3-4
0
5
N=7
SC
325
3
3-4-6
0
N=10
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose,
Tan/Brown, SAND (SW -SC) with Clay -Moist
4
3-3-3
0
10
N=6
W-S
320
5
4-5-5
0
15
N=10
Boring terminated at 15 feet.
uitertek Professional Service Industries, Inc. PROJECT NO.: 0511835
5021-A West W.T. Harris Boulevard PROJECT: Proposed Rainbow Child Care
Charlotte, NC 28269 LOCATION: 95 Centennial Parkway
ps Telephone: [phone] Spout springs, NC
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1

DATE STARTED: 1/31/18 DRILL COMPANY: Carolina Drilling BORING B-6
DATE COMPLETED: 1/31/18 DRILLER: M. Redford LOGGED BY: Steege
COMPLETION DEPTH 5.0 ft DRILL RIG: CME 45 While Drilling None
BENCHMARK: N/A DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger m 1 Upon Completion Dry
ELEVATION: 335 ft SAMPLING METHOD: 2-in SS, Standard �: 7- Delay N/A
LATITUDE: HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
LONGITUDE: EFFICIENCY N/A See boring location plan
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A REVIEWED BY: AOS
REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion.
�
STANDARD PENETRATION
c
0
L
TEST DATA
o
a
o
o
N in blows/ft OO
o
r
J
r
z
a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
m
Q
a
X Moisture 0 PL
f LL
Additional
a
a
E
m
0
0
0 25 e0
Remarks
w
c7
U
>
3
m
0
tY
U
STRENGTH, tsf
IL
Qu X Qp
0 2.0 4.0
0
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Brown,
Silty SAND (SM) - Moist
1
SM
3-3-3
N=6
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose,
Tan/Brown, SAND (SP-SM) with Silt - Moist
P-SM
2
2-4-5
0
330
5
N=9
Boring terminated at 5 feet.
uitertek Professional Service Industries, Inc. PROJECT NO.: 0511835
5021-A West W.T. Harris Boulevard PROJECT: Proposed Rainbow Child Care
Charlotte, NC 28269 LOCATION: 95 Centennial Parkway
ps Telephone: [phone] Spout springs, NC
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1

DATE STARTED: 1/31/18 DRILL COMPANY: Carolina Drilling BORING B-7
DATE COMPLETED: 1/31/18 DRILLER: M. Redford LOGGED BY: Steege
COMPLETION DEPTH 10.0 ft DRILL RIG: CME 45 While Drilling None
BENCHMARK: N/A DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger m 1 Upon Completion Dry
ELEVATION: 337 ft SAMPLING METHOD: 2-in SS, Standard �: 7- Delay N/A
LATITUDE: HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
LONGITUDE: EFFICIENCY N/A See boring location plan
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A REVIEWED BY: AOS
REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion.
�
STANDARD PENETRATION
c
0
L
TEST DATA
o
a
o
o
N in blows/ft OO
o
r
J
r
z
a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
m
Q
a
X Moisture 0 PL
f LL
Additional
a
a
E
m
0
0
0 25 e0
Remarks
w
c7
U
>
3
m
0
tY
U
STRENGTH, tsf
IL
Qu X Qp
0 2.0 4.0
0
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Dark
Brown to Brown, SAND (SP-SM) with Silt -
335
1
Moist
2-3-3
8
Fines = 9.7%
N=6
P-SM
2
3-4-3
°
5
N=7
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Medium Dense,
Brown, Clayey SAND (SC) - Moist
330
3
6-7-8
°
N=15
SC
4
6-9-7
°
10
N=16
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
uitertek Professional Service Industries, Inc. PROJECT NO.: 0511835
5021-A West W.T. Harris Boulevard PROJECT: Proposed Rainbow Child Care
Charlotte, NC 28269 LOCATION: 95 Centennial Parkway
ps Telephone: [phone] Spout springs, NC
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1

DATE STARTED: 1/31/18 DRILL COMPANY: Carolina Drilling BORING B-8
DATE COMPLETED: 1/31/18 DRILLER: M. Redford LOGGED BY: Steege
COMPLETION DEPTH 10.0 ft DRILL RIG: CME 45 While Drilling None
BENCHMARK: N/A DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger m 1 Upon Completion Dry
ELEVATION: 335 ft SAMPLING METHOD: 2-in SS, Standard �: 7- Delay N/A
LATITUDE: HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
LONGITUDE: EFFICIENCY N/A See boring location plan
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A REVIEWED BY: AOS
REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion.
�
STANDARD PENETRATION
c
0
L
TEST DATA
o
a
o
o
N in blows/ft OO
o
r
J
r
z
a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
m
Q
a
X Moisture 0 PL
f LL
Additional
a
a
E
m
0
0
o z5 5o
Remarks
w
c7
U
>
3
m
0
tY
U
STRENGTH, tsf
a
Qu X Qp
o 2.0 4.0
0
FILL - Very Loose, Brown, Silty SAND (SM) with
wood fragments - Moist
1
SM
2-2-2
0
N=4
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Brown,
Silty SAND (SM) - Moist
2
SM
2-2-3
0
330
5
N=5
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Medium Dense,
Brown/Tan, Clayey SAND (SC) - Moist
3
5-7-4
0
N=11
SC
4
5-7-9
0
325
10
N=16
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
uitertek Professional Service Industries, Inc. PROJECT NO.: 0511835
5021-A West W.T. Harris Boulevard PROJECT: Proposed Rainbow Child Care
Charlotte, NC 28269 LOCATION: 95 Centennial Parkway
ps Telephone: [phone] Spout springs, NC
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1

DATE STARTED: 1/31/18 DRILL COMPANY: Carolina Drilling BORING B-9
DATE COMPLETED: 1/31/18 DRILLER: M. Redford LOGGED BY: Steege
COMPLETION DEPTH 5.0 ft DRILL RIG: CME 45 While Drilling None
BENCHMARK: N/A DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger m 1 Upon Completion Dry
ELEVATION: 333 ft SAMPLING METHOD: 2-in SS, Standard �: 7- Delay N/A
LATITUDE: HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
LONGITUDE: EFFICIENCY N/A See boring location plan
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A REVIEWED BY: AOS
REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with the auger cuttings upon completion.
�
STANDARD PENETRATION
c
0
L
TEST DATA
o
a
o
o
N in blows/ft OO
o
r
J
r
z
a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
N
m
Q
a
X Moisture 0 PL
f LL
Additional
a
a
E
m
0
0
0 25 e0
Remarks
w
c7
U
>
3
m
0
tY
U
STRENGTH, tsf
IL
A Qu X Qp
0 2.0 4.0
0
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Dark
Brown, Silty SAND (SM) - Moist
1
SM
2-3-4
N=7
330
COASTAL PLAIN DEPOSIT- Loose, Brown,
SAND (SP-SM) with Silt - Moist
P-SM
2
2-2-3
0
5
N=5
Boring terminated at 5 feet.
uitertek Professional Service Industries, Inc. PROJECT NO.: 0511835
5021-A West W.T. Harris Boulevard PROJECT: Proposed Rainbow Child Care
Charlotte, NC 28269 LOCATION: 95 Centennial Parkway
ps Telephone: [phone] Spout springs, NC
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1

Soil Infiltration Testing
Rainbow Child Care Spout Springs, NC
2017.0643

Lnterkek
Psi
June 24, 2019
EIG14T Development
3221 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 111
Troy, Michigan 48084
Attn: Ms. Samantha Coponen
Email: Samantha(a)-814cre.com
Re: Letter Report of Infiltration Testing
Rainbow Child Care Center
95 Centennial Parkway
Spout Springs, North Carolina
PSI Project No.: 0511916
Dear Ms. Coponen:
Intertek - PSI
5021-A W. WT Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
As requested, Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek Company, has performed
infiltration testing at the proposed Rainbow Child Care Center in Spout Springs, North Carolina.
The purpose of the testing was to collect the necessary data for establishing the infiltration rate
of the subsurface soils in the areas of two proposed stormwater management facilities. These
services were performed in accordance with PSI Proposal No. 0511-281186 dated June 17,
2019, and authorized by Mr. Mark Kellenberger of 814 Development, LLC on the same date.
PSI was provided with a request for proposal (RFP) via email from Samantha Coponen of
EIG14T on June 13, 2019. The RFP included a drawing titled "Site Drainage Plan," (Sheet C3.1)
prepared by Interplane and dated February 12, 2018. This drawing presents proposed
construction plans for the site, including a detention pond area in the northwest site area and
underground bioretention structures in the northeast site area. Two requested boring locations
for infiltration testing are illustrated in each of these structures.
Based on a June 14, 2019 telephone conversation with Stuart Anderson of Interplane, PSI
understands the infiltration testing should be performed at elevation 330 feet. Mr. Anderson
also indicated that elevation 330 feet is on the order of 2 and 5 feet below the original ground
surface elevations of the detention pond area and underground bioretention structures area,
respectively. However, Mr. Anderson was unsure whether the original ground surface had been
altered in the requested test areas through recent site grading activities. On June 17, 2019, Ms.
Coponen provided contact information for EIG14T's general contractor for this project, Randy
Horst. Mr. Horst indicated that site work had commenced in the area of the detention pond,
which been partially excavated, and that no work had yet been done in the area of the
bioretention and this area was believed to be roughly at the original grade.
A representative of PSI mobilized to the site to perform the infiltration testing on June 19, 2019.
Upon arrival it was noted that portions of the detention pond in the NW site area were partially
excavated and standing water was noted in the bottom. As such, offsetting of the requested
boring locations in the pond area to higher, dry areas near the edge of the excavation was
www.intertek.com/building Lon

Proposal No.: 0511-254772
Rainbow CC Infiltration Testing, Spout Springs, NC
LonJune 24, 2019
Page 2 of 3
required. The NW site area (underground bioretention structures area) appeared to be at the
original grade.
The site location and approximate infiltration test locations are presented on the "Site Vicinity
Map" (Figure 1) and "Infiltration Test Location Diagram" (Figure 2), respectively, attached to this
letter. PSI performed the infiltration testing using a Precision Permeameter-rm, an instrument
used to measure Ksat of soils in the vadose zone (earth and rock zone above the permanent
water table) by establishing a constant head of water at a predetermined depth in a borehole,
then measuring the rate of water flow into the borehole required to maintain the constant head.
In order to conduct the test, an open borehole was required to maintain the constant head.
Infiltration tests IT-1 and IT-2 were performed in the northwest pond area. The hand auger
boreholes at IT-1 and IT-2 were both advanced to a depth of about 2 feet. The soils
encountered in IT-1 and IT-2 appeared to consist of moist, tan silty sand. The results of the soil
infiltration test at IT-1 indicate a Ksat value of 5.06E-03 cm/sec. At IT-1 a constant head of
about 31 cm was maintained during the test. The results of the soil infiltration test at IT-2
indicate a Ksat value of 3.80E-03 cm/sec. A constant head of about 31 cm was also maintained
at IT-2.
Infiltration tests IT-3 and IT-4 were performed in the northeast underground bioretention
structures area. The hand auger boreholes at IT-3 and IT-4 were both advanced to a depth of
about 5 feet. The soils encountered in IT-3 and IT-4 appeared to consist of moist, tan silty sand
to a depth of about 4.5 feet (similar to that encountered at IT-1 and IT-2), underlain by moist,
tan/gray clayey sand. As such, the infiltration testing at IT-3 and IT-4 was performed in the
clayey sand soil. The results of the soil infiltration test at IT-3 indicate a Ksat value of 5.06E-07
cm/sec. At IT-3 a constant head of about 31 cm was maintained during the test. The results of
the soil infiltration test at IT-4 indicate a Ksat value of 1.27E-06 cm/sec. A constant head of
about 31 cm was also maintained At IT-4.
The results of this investigation indicate varying soil types occur across the area of testing. The
upper soils appeared to consist of Silty SAND (SM) with a corresponding high infiltration rate. In
the northwest site area (stormwater detention pond area) the SM soil was noted to extend to a
depth of about 3.5 feet below the existing ground surface in a test hand auger boring. As
discussed above, the SM soils extended to a depth of about 4.5 feet in the northeast site area
(area of the proposed underground bioretention structures). Low permeability, apparent Clayey
SAND (SC) soils were encountered beneath the SM soil layer in the northeast test area. We
caution that the visual soil classifications provided herein are estimates and would require
laboratory testing for verification, which was beyond our scope of services. Furthermore, the
designer should determine if an appropriate factor of safety should be used to account for future
silting of the bottom of the basin.
PSI was previously authorized to perform a subsurface investigation and geotechnical
engineering analysis for this site by EIG14T Development, which is discussed in PSI Report No.
0511835, dated February 8, 2018. Nine soil test borings were performed, and at the time of
drilling (January 31, 2018) groundwater infiltration was noted in one boring (B-1) at a depth of
about 22 feet below the existing ground surface. B-1 was advanced to a depth of 30 feet.
Groundwater infiltration was not encountered in the other eight borings, which were advanced to
depths ranging from about 5 to 15 feet below grade. Based on this, it appears the standing
water noted in the bottom of the stormwater pond excavation, discussed previously, is likely due
to runoff from recent rainfall that accumulated in the pond, not groundwater. Based on our hand
www.intertek.com/building

ton
Proposal INo.: 0511-254772
Rainbow CC Infiltration Testing, Spout Springs, NC
June 24, 2079
Page 3 of 3
hand auger borings performed in the northern site area, soils at the bottom of the pond
excavation are anticipated to consist of low -permeability Clayey SAND (SC).
We trust that this information is responsive to your needs at this time
questions, please feel free to call at your convenience.
Very truly yours.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
G�o�=
Andrew ❑. Steege, P.G
Senior Geologist
Steven Putnam `�a��ztieee�esse�f�pr.�s
Project Manager ,•,•.� CAR
P.E.
Principal Consultant
i
SEAL
a ��Attachments: Site VicinityMao
Infiltration Test cationYqla�na[Figure 2}
If you have any
ww--intertek.corn/buIlding

kv
- .,A
Spout 5p`rin.9'
ApproximateSite Location
t
el
_ C
i sip.
sue; C *
l
W at1P
a
1 m

LEGEND
Approximate Infiltration Test L
DOWNSPOUT AND �
N
Project Name:
Proposed Rainbow Child Care
95 Centennial Parkway
Spout Springs, North Carolina
Project No.: I Date:
0511916 1 June, 2019
Base drawing "Site Drainage Plan", prepared by Interplane and dated 2/12/18
Figure 2 wl��l%`"O
Infiltration Test Location Diagram psi