SW3230301_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20230309

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
BRINGLE FERRY ROAD
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina
January 17, 2022
Prepared For:
MCKIM & CREED
8020 Tower Point Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28146
Prepared By:
GTA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Charlotte, N.C. 28273
[phone] — Office
[phone] - Facsimile
GTA Job No: 35220053

GTA ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
A Practicing GBA Member Firm
January 17, 2022
McKim and Creed
8020 Tower Point Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28146
Attn: Mr. Kyle Crowe
Re: Report of Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration
Bringle Ferry Road
PID 057-174 ±130 Acres
Bringle Ferry Road
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Crowe:
In accordance with our agreement executed on December 8, 2021, GTA Associates, Inc.
(GTA) has performed a geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed residential
development on Bringle Ferry Road in Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina.
The results of the field and laboratory testing as well as our conclusions and
recommendations regarding design and construction of the proposed residential development
project are included in this report. Unless other arrangements are made by Ryan Homes, GTA
will discard the soil samples within sixty days from the date of this report.
GTA appreciates the opportunity to assist you with this project. Should you have questions
or require additional information, please contact at our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
GTA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Andrew Beaty
Project Professional
500W /, VA
John P. Wille, P.E.
Vice President
ZAProject\2022\McKim & Creed\Bringle Ferry RoadGeotechnicalReport.doc Job No. 35220053
cif c�iRo•.,,�
Digitally
FEss,�!`ti.,s
signed by
�`� J o h
n iohn Wille
SEAL
/
�
024901 J
Date:
/��r W I I
2022.02.15
+P�N`'� I
e 15:49:35
05'00'

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................
I
SITECONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................
I
PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION....................................................................................................
2
SITEGEOLOGY............................................................................................................................
2
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION..................................................................................................
3
SUBSURFACECONDITIONS.....................................................................................................
4
LABORATORYTESTING............................................................................................................
5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................
6
FoundationSupport .....................................................................................................................
7
FloorDesign................................................................................................................................
7
SiesmicConsiderations...............................................................................................................
8
SiteGrading................................................................................................................................
8
DifficultExcavation..................................................................................................................
10
SubsurfaceUtilities...................................................................................................................
11
RoadwayAreas.........................................................................................................................
12
Surface and Subsurface Drainage.............................................................................................
13
ADDITIONAL SERVICES..........................................................................................................
13
LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................................
14
ASFEImportant Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report
Appendix A — Figures
Figure No. 1 — Site Location Plan
Figure No. 2 — Exploration Location Plan
Figure No. 3 — Aerial Exploration Location Plan
Figure No. 4 — Site Topography Plan
Appendix B — Soil Boring Logs
Notes for Exploration Logs (1 Sheet)
Summary of Subsurface Exploration (1 Sheet)
Soil Boring Logs (20 Sheets)
Appendix C — Laboratory Results (7 Sheets)
Appendix D — Photographs (10 Sheets)

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
BRINGLE FERRY ROAD
SALISBURY, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
McKim & Creed (Client) is planning to construct a residential development with
townhomes and single-family lots north and south of Bringle Ferry Road just south of Interstate
85 in Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. Please refer the Site Location Plan included as
Figure 1 in Appendix A for the approximate location of the site.
GTA Associates, Inc. (GTA) was retained to perform a geotechnical subsurface exploration
of the project site to characterize the general subsurface conditions in the proposed new
development areas. The scope of this study included a field exploration as well as engineering and
laboratory analysis. Included in our field exploration were twenty (20) Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) borings in the proposed development, roadway, sewer main, and detention basin areas to
depths ranging from approximately 10 to 30 feet below the existing ground surface. Conclusions
and recommendations regarding general site development were derived from the engineering
analysis of the field and laboratory data.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is located north and south of Bringle Ferry Road just south of Interstate 85 in
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. The proposed development encompasses
approximately 130 acres of land and is identified as Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 057-174.
At the time of our investigation, the subject site was heavily wooded with mature trees and some
vehicle trails. There is also an existing house and barn located near Bringle Ferry Road on the
north side of the site. Please refer to the attached Site Photographs included in Appendix D for
pictures of the existing site conditions.
1

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
Based on the topographic information provided by the United States Geologic Survey
(USGS) Topo-View, the ground surface elevations across the site range from a high of
approximate Elevation 754 above mean sea level (AMSL), near Bringle Ferry Road, to a low of
approximate Elevation 670 feet AMSL, near the southern portion of the property near Crane Creek.
Please refer to the attached Topographic Map presented as Figure 3 in Appendix A for more
detailed information.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
GTA was provided with a copy of the "Bubble Plan " prepared by McKim and Creed dated
November 2021. Based on this information, plans consist of constructing 29 four -unit buildings
with 116 townhome units, six BMP ponds, and roadway areas. Plans are to connect the new
residential subdivision with two entrances/exits off Bringle Ferry Road. Detailed information
regarding the site grading as well as the depth and location of the utilities has not been provided
to us at this time.
SITE GEOLOGY
The site is located in the Charlotte Belt of the Piedmont Plateau Geologic Province.
According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985), the site is underlain by metavolcanic
tuffs and flowrock (CZv) and granite of Salisbury plutonic suite (Dsg). Ground surface elevations
within the Piedmont Plateau vary from approximately 400 feet above sea level (AMSL) in the east
to 2,000 feet (AMSL) in the west.
The typical residual soil profile associated with the Charlotte Belt consists of fine-grained
soils (clays/silts) near the surface, where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by more
coarse -grained soils (sandy silts/silty sands) with depth. The boundary between the soil and rock
is not sharply defined. This transitional zone, termed partially weathered rock (PWR), is normally
found overlying the parent bedrock. The degree of weathering is influenced by fractures, joints,
and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Therefore, the profile of the weathered rock and
hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Lenses, boulders,
N

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
hard rock, and zones of weathered rock are often encountered within the soil mantle, well above
the general unweathered bedrock level.
The topography of the Charlotte Belt province consists of well-rounded hills and long
rolling ridges with a northeast -southwest trend. This rolling topography is the result of streams
flowing across and acting on rocks of unequal hardness. The Carolina Slate Belt is underlain by
intrusive and sedimentary volcanic rock formations, typically with slaty cleavage resulting from
low-grade metamorphism, that trend northeast -southwest and vary greatly in their resistance to
weathering and erosion. The major streams generally flow across the rock structures that are more
highly fractured and more prone to weathering. Please refer to the publications for a more detailed
description of the geologic units.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
The field exploration consisted of drilling Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings at
twenty (20) locations, designated as B-1 through B-20, across the property. The soil test borings
were selected and field located by GTA using the existing topography and aerial photographs by
visual estimation. The approximate location of the soil test borings is shown on the attached
Exploration Location Plan presented as Figure 2 in Appendix A. Elevations provided on the boring
logs were interpolated from site topography provided by the Rowan County GIS. Please note that
the boring locations have not been instrument surveyed, and thus, all locations and elevations
should be considered approximate.
The borings were drilled on December 28 and 29, 2021 to depths ranging from
approximately 10 to 30 feet below the existing ground surface using an ATV -mounted CME-550
drill rig provided by HPC Land Services. A skid steer equipped with a mulcher was required to
clear a path to gain access to some of the boring locations. Therefore, some topsoil was partially
removed in the vicinity of the borings during the clearing process.
3

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
Standard Penetration Testing was performed in the boreholes, with soil samples obtained
at approximately 21/z-foot intervals in the upper 10 feet and at 5-foot intervals thereafter. Standard
Penetration Testing involves driving a 2-inch O.D., 1 % -inch I.D. split -spoon sampler with a 140-
pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The SPT N-value, given as blows per foot (bpf), is defined
as the total number of blows required to drive the sampler from 6 to 18 inches. Samples retrieved
from the borings were returned to GTA's laboratory for visual classification by laboratory
personnel. Descriptions as provided on the logs are visual.
Boring logs were prepared using the observations made in the field during drilling, as well
as our visual — manual classification in the laboratory. A geotechnical staff professional classified
each soil sample on the basis of color, texture, and plasticity characteristics in general accordance
with the USCS classification system. The geotechnical staff professional grouped the various soil
types into the major zones noted on the boring logs. The stratification lines designating the
interface between each material on the boring logs is approximate; the transition between the strata
may be gradual in both the vertical and horizontal directions.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The borings confirm the underlying geologic formation as the Charlotte Belt. The test
borings typically encountered topsoil underlain by native residual soils. A layer of topsoil,
approximately 3 to 8 inches thick, was encountered at the surface of the borings. Underlying the
topsoil layer, native residual soils were encountered. The residual soils generally consist of sandy
lean clay, elastic silt, sandy silt, and silty sand. SPT N-values in the residual soils ranged from 6
to 86 blows per foot (bpf), averaging 18 bpf, indicating these soils are generally medium stiff to
hard in consistency. Boring B- I through B-13 and B-15 through B-18 were terminated in the
residual soils at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 30 feet below the existing ground surface.
Below the residual soils at Borings B-14, B-19 and B-20, partially weathered rock (PWR)
was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 6 to 13.5 feet below the existing ground
surface. In addition, a lens of PWR was encountered at Boring B-17 at depths ranging from
approximately 8.5 to 13.5 feet. Partially weathered rock is defined as "residual material with
0

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
Standard Penetration Test resistances exceeding 100 blows/foot." PWR is a decomposed rock that
serves as the transitional zone between soil and rock. While PWR is a rock -like material, it is
often visually classified as a silty sand as the SPT sampler pulverizes the material as it is driven.
Borings B-19 and B-20 were terminated in the PWR at a depth of approximately 13.8 feet below
the existing ground surface elevation. A lens of PWR was encountered in B-17 at a depth of
approximately 8.5 to 13.5 feet.
LABORATORY TESTING
Recovered soil samples were transported to our laboratory where they were subjected to
visual - manual classification by a geotechnical staff professional. Boring Logs were prepared
using the observations made in the field during drilling, as well as the visual — manual classification
in the laboratory, supplemented by laboratory testing.
Three samples obtained from Borings B-2, B-10, and B-18 at depths ranging from
approximately 3.5 to 7.5 feet were tested in our laboratory for Grain -Size Analysis and Atterberg
Limits testing. The laboratory testing was performed to determine the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) designation as well as the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
of the selected samples. The USCS classifications provide information regarding soil engineering
behavior. The results are provided in Tables 2 and 3 as well as in Appendix C:
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Boring No.
Depth (ft)
USCS Classification
LL
pI
Moisture
Content (%)
B-2
3.5 — 7.5
ELASTIC SILT (MH)
56
13
28.8
B-10
3.5-7.5
ELASTIC SILT (MH)
with Sand
56
16
28.0
B-18
3.5-7.5
ELASTIC SILT (MH)
with Sand
54
14
24.7

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF MOISTURE -DENSITY DATA
Standard Proctor (ASTM D698)
Boring
No.
Depth
(ft)
Maximum Dry
Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
(%)
Natural
Moisture (%)
B-2
3.5 to 7.5
95.5
22.1
28.8
B-10
3.5 to 7.5
90.5
29.5
28.0
B-18
3.5 to 7.5
L__24.9
22.5
224.7
Twelve samples were selected for Natural Moisture Content testing at depths ranging from
1 to 7.5 feet below the existing surface. The moisture contents ranged from 8.7 to 38.5 percent,
averaging 24.7 percent. The moisture contents are included on the boring logs in Appendix B as
well as in Appendix C.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the results of this study, it is our opinion that the proposed construction is
feasible, given that the geotechnical recommendations are followed, and that the standard level of
care is maintained during construction. Please note that the presence of weathered and/or
unweathered rock as well as moisture -sensitive soils wet of optimum for compaction will impact
the design and construction of the proposed development and associated costs. A discussion of
GTA's preliminary assessment and recommendations with respect to the proposed construction is
presented in the following paragraphs.
As discussed, only conceptual plans have been provided at this time. This report is
intended to assist the client with preliminary feasibility and planning. When final
grading/development plans as well as locations and depths of utilities become available, it is
recommended that additional explorations be performed to further identify the limits and
characteristics of the near -surface weathered rock and rock. Depending on final design grades and
building layouts, geotechnical recommendations may need to be revised be developed for the
design and construction of foundations and roadway areas.
11

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
1. Foundation Support
In general, the proposed lightly loaded, one- to two-story wood framed structures can be
supported on shallow spread footings. The medium stiff to very hard native non -plastic
soils and controlled compacted fills are generally considered suitable for support of
foundations using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
Exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 12 inches below final exterior grades
to provide protection from frost action. Minimum widths of twenty-four inches for wall
footings and thirty inches for column footings are also recommended. Footings should be
supported on stable, medium stiff non -plastic natural soils, or properly compacted
structural fill as outlined in this report. New fill for support of foundations should be placed
in accordance with GTA's site grading recommendations. Any soft, disturbed, or unstable
soil present at the footing subgrade elevation should be excavated to a stable stratum and
replaced with open -graded stone or concrete.
Over -excavation and replacement, if required, should be performed under the observation
of the project geotechnical engineer or their qualified representative based on actual
conditions encountered in the field at the time of construction. Bearing capacity
evaluations should be performed using a combination of visual observation, hand -auger
probing, and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing. Concrete placement should be
performed the same day the footings are excavated to prevent exposure and potential
weakening of the foundation subgrade.
2. Floor Design
The ground level slabs can be designed as a concrete slab -on -grade. The typical residential
slab construction consists of a minimum 4-inch-thick reinforced concrete. The thickness
of the concrete slab will depend upon the type and intensity of the loading and subgrade
support. GTA recommends that the floor slabs be underlain by a minimum of 4-inches of
open -graded 957 washed stone or Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) stone layer covered with
a polyethylene vapor retarder to interrupt the rise of moisture through the slab.
7

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
For compacted native soils, GTA recommends a design soil support Ks Value (Modulus
of Subgrade Reaction) of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci). Natural and compacted fill
subgrades for support of the floor slab should be checked to verify stability prior to
placement of concrete. Floor slabs should not be rigidly connected to foundation walls so
that slight movement of the walls will not affect the slab. Control j oints should be provided
to control shrinkage cracks of the concrete floor system.
Regardless of the slab type, prior to construction, the subgrade should be proof -rolled with
a loaded dump truck under the observation of a geotechnical engineer or their qualified
representative to evaluate stability. Alternatively, the subgrade can be evaluated by hand
auger probing and DCP testing. Unsuitable soil should be over -excavated to a stable
bearing layer. Should undercutting be required, grades may be reestablished with
approved, controlled, compacted granular fill or 957 washed stone.
3. Seismic Considerations
In accordance with the requirements of the 2018 IBC with South Carolina Amendments,
GTA has evaluated the site subsurface profile to assign a "Site Class". We have evaluated
the Site Seismic Classification for this site according to Section 1613, Earthquake Loads.
Based on the results of the soil test borings performed, we recommend that this project be
designed using a Site Seismic Classification "D"
4. Site Grading
Prior to the placement of rill, where required, the existing subgrade surface should be
stripped and grubbed to remove all existing trees, old foundations, surface vegetation,
topsoil, rootmat, and other deleterious matter. The stripping thickness will be dependent
on a variety of factors, including the soil moisture, construction traffic disturbance, weather
during construction, and contractor care.
E3

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
As previously indicated, the optimum moisture content of the Standard Proctor samples
obtained at Borings B-2, B-10, and B-18 ranged from 22.1 to 29.5 percent. Therefore,
moisture conditioning of the soils will likely be required, especially for moisture contents
greater than 25 percent.
To minimize the economic impact associated with poor workability and/or trafficability of
wet subgrade soils due to moisture sensitive soils, GTA recommends construction during
the dry season (summer/fall) to reduce the effort and cost required for drying of the wet
soils. GTA recommends that a contingency be established for drying and/or over -
excavating, chemical treatment, and replacing unsuitable soils.
After stripping, the fill subgrade should be proof -rolled with a loaded, 10-wheel tandem -
axle dump truck. The proof -rolling should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or their
qualified representative. Any soft or otherwise unsuitable soils should be dried and re -
compacted or removed prior to placement of fill. No fill should be placed until the
subgrade is approved by the geotechnical engineer. Off -site borrow, if required, should
meet Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) designation SM, SP, SW, GP, GM, or
GW and be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. All fills should be constructed in
maximum 8-inch-thick loose lifts and be compacted to the following specifications:
COMPACTION SPECIFICATIONS
Structure / Fill Location
Compaction / Moisture Specification
Below foundations, retaining walls,
95% of ASTM D-698
floor slabs, and within wall backfill or
slopes steeper than 51-1:1V
Moisture: ± 3% of optimum
98% of ASTM D-698
Top 1 foot of pavement subgrade
Moisture: ± 2% of optimum
Fills below 1 foot of pavement
95% of ASTM D-698
subgrade
Moisture: ± 3% of optimum
9

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17. 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
All compactive efforts should be verified by in -place density testing. New fills constructed
on slopes steeper than 5H:1V (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed into existing slopes
for stability considerations. All fill slopes steeper than 5H:1V should generally be placed
as structural fill and be controlled and compacted to minimum densities as specified above.
Fill for slopes in non-structural areas, such as landscape berms, can be constructed as steep
as 3H:1V up to a height of ten feet. Slope's steeper than 3H:1V should be evaluated with
a slope stability analysis.
5. Difficult Excavation
As previously indicated, final site grading and invert elevations of the utility lines have not
been provided to us at this time. It is GTA's opinion that the majority of the excavations
less than 15 feet below the existing grades can be made by conventional means, i.e.
scraping, across the entire site. However, based on the results of the field exploration,
Borings B-14, B-17, B-19, and B-20 encountered PWR at depths of approximately 6 to
13.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Borings 13-14, 13-19 and B-20 were terminated
in the PWR at depths ranging from approximately 13.8 to 15 feet below the existing ground
surface elevation. In addition, a lens of PWR was encountered in B-17 at depths ranging
from approximately 8.5 to 13.5 feet.
The depth to, and thickness of the partially/hard weathered rock, rock lenses, seams, or
bedrock, can vary dramatically in short distances, especially between the boring locations.
Therefore, soft/hard weathered rock and/or bedrock should be anticipated during excavation
below a depth of approximately 6 to 13.5 feet in the vicinity of Borings 13-14, 13-17, 13-19 and
B-20.
It has been our experience in this geologic area, that materials having SPT `N' values of less
than 50 blows per 3 inches can generally be excavated using pans and scrapers by first
loosening with a single tooth ripper attached to a suitable size dozer, such as a Caterpillar D-
8 or D-9. It should be noted that ripping is dependent on the equipment and techniques used
as well as the operator's skill and experience. The success of the ripping operation is
10

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
dependent on finding the proper combination for the conditions encountered. Excavation of
the weathered rock is typically much more difficult in confined excavations, such as utility
excavations. Jack hammering or blasting should be anticipated for materials having SPT `N'
values in excess of 50 blows per 2 inches, or at or near the level that auger refusal is
encountered. Test pits should be performed prior to construction to determine whether these
materials can be excavated by conventional means.
On projects requiring ripping or jack hammering, a controversy sometimes develops as to
whether the material can be removed by ripping or whether blasting is required. The project
specifications and contract should be carefully prepared to reduce the potential for disputes
and claims relating to excavation of very dense weathered or unweathered rock.
6. Subsurface Utilities
The natural soils are considered suitable for support of below grade utilities; however, GTA
recommends a minimum 6-inch-thick granular bedding to provide uniform support as
dictated by site conditions or as required by local code. Based upon the results of the
borings, GTA anticipates that the excavations may be accomplished using standard utility
construction equipment to a depth of up to approximately 5 to 10 feet below existing grades
in the majority of the site. However, based on the results of the field exploration, Borings
B-14, B-17, 13-19, and B-20 encountered PWR at depths of approximately 6 to 13.5 feet
below the existing ground surface. Borings B-14, B-19, and B-20 were terminated in the
PWR at depths ranging from approximately 13.8 to 15 feet below the existing ground
surface elevation. In addition, a lens of PWR was encountered in B-17 at depths ranging
from approximately 8.5 to 13.5 feet. Therefore, difficult excavation should be anticipated
in utility trench excavations in these areas below the PWR depths encountered.
After the utility alignments and elevations are designed and prior to construction, test pits
should be performed to determine if invert elevations can be achieved with conventional
excavation techniques. Due to the potential for collapse of unsupported excavations, the
11

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
utility contractor should be prepared to provide adequate earth support systems during
utility construction.
Compaction of the soils to the degree specified in the Site Grading section of this report
will likely require that the soils be moisture conditioned prior to placement and compaction
within the trench. If the excavated materials are wet of the optimum moisture content, they
should be spread in thin layers and aerated by discing to within ±3 percentage points of the
optimum moisture. If soils are not dried, suitable borrow material will need to be imported
from other areas of the site for utility trench backfill.
7. Roadway Areas
New roadway areas are proposed as part of this project. GTA anticipates that the soil
conditions in the proposed roadway areas will consist of sandy lean clay, elastic silt, sandy
silt and silty sand.
It is recommended that the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade be constructed with soils
meeting the following characteristics:
Liquid Limit (AASHTO T-89) 40 or less
Plastic Index (AASHTO T-89, T-90) 12 or less
CBR 5 minimum
Based on GTA's test borings across the site, the granular/non-plastic residual soils (USCS
ML and SM) are likely to meet these criteria, and are considered suitable for pavement
support. However, if more fine-grained, elastic silts/clayey soils (USCS MH and CL) are
encountered at the subgrade elevation, some over -excavation and replacement or in -place
stabilization may be required where these materials are present at subgrade. Over -
excavations should be backfilled with suitable granular fill material.
12

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
Another alternative to over -excavation may consist of chemical stabilization or utilizing a
stabilization fabric, such as Mirafi 500x or an approved equivalent, near the proposed
subgrade elevation. This should be further evaluated in the field during site grading. A
contingency for subgrade preparation should be considered.
GTA should make observations of trafficability during mass grading and recommends that
a testing program, including moisture -density relationship (proctor), plasticity, and CBR
testing be performed after mass grading. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be
proof -rolled with a loaded tandem -axle dump truck under the direct supervision of the
geotechnical engineer to verify stability. Unstable soil should be over -excavated to a stable
bearing layer. Grades may be reestablished with approved, controlled, compacted granular
fill.
8. Surface and Subsurface Drainage
As previously indicated, preliminary site grading with cut and fill depths has been provided
to us at this time. Final grades should be carefully established to provide adequate surface
drainage away from the foundations. A minimum grade of 3 percent in lawn and landscape
areas is recommended to direct surface water away from the proposed structures.
Groundwater was not encountered in the borings during drilling operations. However,
please note that groundwater levels are likely to fluctuate due to variation in rainfall and
other factors. It is GTA's opinion that excavations to depths of up to 15 to 20 feet will
likely not be impacted by groundwater. Groundwater may be encountered in excavations
at shallower depths, especially along any low-lying portions of the site or at or near the
level of the soft/hard weathered rock. There is also a potential for perched or trapped
groundwater to be encountered at shallow depths in localized portions of the site,
particularly within granular soil seams underlain by less permeable material or at
fill/natural ground interfaces. In the event that localized perched water is encountered, the
contractor should be prepared to dewater the excavations.
13

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
We recommended that during final design and construction of the subject project, a
geotechnical engineer be retained to provide observation and testing services for the following
items.
• Review final site and structural plans to evaluate if they conform with the intent
of this report.
• Perform a test pit exploration along the deeper utilities and significant cut areas
where the soft/hard weathered rock was encountered.
• Observe and test the preparation of the building pads and roadway areas.
• Provide observation and testing during fill placement to evaluate if the work is
being performed in accordance with the project specifications and intent of this
report.
• Observe the proof -rolling of fill subgrade in the building and roadway areas
prior to placing fill or base course to evaluate stability.
• Review footing subgrade/foundation construction for compliance with the
building code and the intent of this geotechnical report.
LINHTATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of McKim & Creed in accordance with
generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty, express or implied, is made.
The analysis and recommendations contained in this report are based on the data obtained from
limited observation and testing of the surface materials. The borings indicate soil conditions only
at specific locations and times, and only to the depths penetrated. They do not necessarily reflect
strata variations that may exist between boring locations. Consequently, the analysis and
recommendations must be considered preliminary until the subsurface conditions can be verified
by direct observation at the time of construction. If variations in subsurface conditions from those
described are noted during construction, recommendations in this report may need to be re-
evaluated.
14

Report of Geotechnical Exploration — Bringle Ferry Road McKim & Creed
January 17, 2022 GTA Proiect No. 35220053
In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the facilities are planned,
the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid
unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are verified in writing. GTA
Associates, Inc. is not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with
interpretation of subsurface data or reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analysis without
the express written authorization of GTA Associates, Inc.
In accordance with the guidelines of Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), it is
recommended that GTA Associates, Inc. be retained to provide continuous soils engineering
services for this project. Participation of GTA will facilitate compliance with GTA's
recommendations, and allow changes to be made in these recommendations, in the event that
subsurface conditions are found to vary from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
This report and the attached logs are instruments of service. If certain conditions or items
are noted during our investigation, GTA Associates, Inc. may be required by prevailing statutes to
notify and provide information to regulatory or enforcement agencies. GTA Associates, Inc. will
notify our client should a required disclosure condition exist.
This report was prepared by GTA Associates, Inc. (GTA) for the sole and exclusive use of
GTA Associates, Inc. and McKim & Creed. Use and reproduction of this report by any other
person without the expressed written permission of GTA or McKim & Creed is unauthorized and
such use is at the sole risk of the user.
35220053
15
GTA ASSOCIATES, INC.

— Geotechnical-Engineering Report
—�
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons. and Projects
Geotechn1cal engineers structure their services to meet the spec it1c needs of
their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each
geatechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely far the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared It. And no one
— not even you —should apply the report far any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Based on
a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project -specific factors
when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's
goals, objectives, and risk -management preferences; the general nature of
the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the struc-
ture on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, Unless the geotech-
nicaI engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise,
do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
■ not prepared for your project,
■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before Important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light -industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechn1cal engineer of project
changes --even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept respons i b ilily or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineer-
ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwa-
ter fluctuations. Always contact the geatechnical engineer before applying
the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional
testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly —
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing lags based upon
their interpretation of field lags and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or eIectran ic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly be]leve they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers comman Iy include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations,"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually
relate any geaenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to
numerous project failures. If you have nat yet obtained your awn g eo e nv i-
ro n me ntal information, ask your geotechnical consultant far risk manage-
ment gu idance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for some-
one else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
maid -prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many
mold -prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While
groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical-engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is nat a mold -prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold
from growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Your GBA-Member Geotechncial Engineer
for hdditional Assistance
Membership in the GEOPROFESSIDNAL BuSINEss Associwim exposes geotech-
nical engineers to a wide array of risk confrontaton techniques that can be
of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with your GBA-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
SABA ASSOCIATION
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, M❑ 20910
Telephone:[phone] Fa[simile:301/589-2017
e-mail: [e-mail] www.geoprofessional.org
copyright 2014 by Geoprofessional Business Association, Inc. (GBA}. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GSA's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GSA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering
report. Any other Iran, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could he commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER 0914/5.0MRP

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

Catawba
1 College
J
°Ma
G (Bill) Heiner©
Aical.Center...
i
J 41t�
1�
Salisbury �s'p
w'�F«ryR7
Hendrix :Barbecue'/spencer Ateansaortation
a�
East Spencer
s
®
6Aroj�
Chick-51-A
The Smoke Pn ® /
T
N
Base map obtained from Google Maps
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina
2021
Chewy
Fullfillmei
11 ■1
- o I
GTA ASSOCIATES, INC.
BRINGLE FERRY ROAD
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
SITE LOCATION PLAN
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Ph. [phone]
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
Fax [phone]
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
FIGURE NO:
35220053
January 13, 2022
NTS
GTA
JPW
1

r
Ll. F FA
-`
t IZ
1
r
J
� r
LEGEND:
SOIL TEST BORING LOCATIONS
ri
'IN
GTA
ASSOCIATES
710 PENINSULA
LANE, SUITE B
CHARLOTTE, NC
28273
[phone] O
[phone] F
EXPLORATION
LOCATION
PLAN
BRINGLE FERRY
ROAD -
BRINGLE FERRY
RD, SALISBURY,
N.C.
DATE:
December 9,
2021
FIGURE NO.
061

IL
dr
IL 'v
pm
ob
04
2101
LEGEND:
(31 SOIL TEST BORING LOCATIONS
GTA
ASSOCIATES
710 PENINSULA
LANE, SUITE B
CHARLOTTE, NC
28273
[phone] 0
[phone] F
SITE
TOPOGRAPHIC
PLAN
BRINGLE FERRY
ROAD -
BRINGLE FERRY
it
RD, SALISBURY,
N.C.
DATE:
December 9,
2021
FIGURE NO.
4

I_1»4LlIQPAV -.3
BORING LOGS

NOTES FOR EXPLORATION LOGS
KEY TO USCS TERMINOLOGY AND GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
SYMBOLS
MAJOR DIVISIONS
(BASED UPON ASTM D 2488)
GRAPHIC
LETTER
GRAVEL
CLEAN
° C5°O°
GW
AND
GRAVELS
o o
•
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(LESS THAN 15% PASSING THE NO.200 SIEVE)
• W
GP
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
GRAVELS WITH
GM
COARSE-
FRACTION
FINES
GRAINED
RETAINED ON NO.
SOILS
4 SIEVE
(MORE THAN 15% PASSING THE NO.200 SIEVE)
GC
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SAND
CLEAN SANDS
SW
LARGER THAN
AND
NO.200 SIEVE
SANDY
SIZE
SOILS
(LESS THAN 15% PASSING THE NO. SIEVE)
:'`':":" :'':.
SP
SANDS WITH
SM
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FINES
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 15% PASSING THE NO.200 SIEVE
( )
`��
M L
SILTS
AND
LEAN CLAYS
CL
FINE-
SILT OR CLAY
— —
GRAINED
(<15% RETAINED ON THE NO.200 SIEVE)
LIQUID LIMIT
SOILS
LESS THAN 50
— —
OL
SILT OR CLAY WITH SAND OR GRAVEL
= _
MORE THAN 50%
(15% TO 30% RETAINED ON THE NO.200 SIEVE)
OF MATERIAL IS
M H
SMALLER THAN
SANDY OR GRAVELLY SILT OR CLAY
ELASTIC SILTS
NO.200 SIEVE
SIZE
(>30% RETAINED ON THE NO. SIEVE)
AND
FAT CLAYS
CH
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
OH
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE COARSE -GRAINED SOILS WHICH CONTAIN AN ESTIMATED 5 TO 15% FINES BASED ON
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION OR BETWEEN 5 AND 12 % FINES BASED ON LABORATORY TESTING; AND FINE-GRAINED SOILS WHEN THE PLOT
OF LIQUID LIMIT & PLASTICITY INDEX VALUES FALLS IN THE PLASTICITY CHART'S CROSS -HATCHED AREA. FINE-GRAINED SOILS ARE
CLASSIFIED AS ORGANIC (OL OR OH) WHEN ENOUGH ORGANIC PARTICLES ARE PRESENT TO INFLUENCE ITS PROPERTIES.
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ARE USED TO SUPPLEMENT SOIL CLASSIFICATION BY THE VISUAL -MANUAL PROCEDURES OF ASTM D 2488.
ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY AND GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
GRAPHIC
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOLS
TOPSOIL'
ADDITIONAL
DESIGNATIONS
MAN MADE FILL
GLACIAL TILL
COBBLES AND BOULDERS
0 0 0 0
o < o < o < o
oQoQoQo
DESCRIPTION
"N" VALUE
RESIDUAL
SOIL
HIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK
50 TO 50/1
DESIGNATIONS
MORE THAN 50 BLOWS FOR 1"
JA 0 0 0 0
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
OF PENETRATION OR LESS,
I 0 0 0 0
AUGER PENETRABLE
COARSE -GRAINED SOILS
(GRAVEL AND SAND)
DESIGNATION
BLOWS PER
FOOT (BPF)
"N"
VERYLOOSE
0-4
LOOSE
5-10
MEDIUM DENSE
11 - 30
DENSE
31 - 50
VERY DENSE
j >50
NOTE: "N" VALUE DETERMINED AS
PER ASTM D 1586
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(SILT AND CLAY)
CONSISTENCY
BPF
„N„
VERY SOFT
<2
SOFT
2-4
MEDIUM STIFF
5-8
STIFF
9 - 15
VERY STIFF
16 - 30
HARD
>30
NOTE: ADDITIONAL DESIGNATIONS
TO ADVANCE SAMPLER INDICATED
IN BLOW COUNT COLUMN:
WOH = WEIGHT OF HAMMER
WOR = WEIGHT OF ROD(S)
SAMPLE TYPE
DESIGNATION
SYMBOL
SOIL SAMPLE
S-
SHELBY TUBE
U-
ROCK CORE
R-
WATER DESIGNATION
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL
ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING
SZ
UPON COMPLETION OF DRILLING
24 HOURS AFTER COMPLETION
1
NOTE: WATER OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE
AT THE TIME INDICATED. POROSITY OF SOIL
STRATA, WEATHER CONDITIONS, SITE
TOPOGRAPHY, ETC. MAY CAUSE WATER
LEVEL CHANGES.
REVISED JUNE 2009

TABLE 1
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION SUMMARY
BRINGLE FERRY ROAD
GTA JOB NO. 35220053
Boring
No.
Depth of
Boring
(ft.)
Approximate Depth
of Soft / Hard
Weathered Rock
ft.
Approximate
Level of
Groundwater
Depth (ft.)
Boring
Cave-in
Depths
(ft.)
B-1
15
N. E.
DRY
10
B-2
30
N. E.
DRY
22.5
B-3
15
N. E.
DRY
11.2
B-4
10
N. E.
DRY
6
B-5
15
N. E.
DRY
10.4
B-6
15
N. E.
DRY
9.5
B-7
15
N. E.
DRY
10.5
B-8
15
N. E.
DRY
9.5
B-9
15
N. E.
DRY
10
B-10
30
N. E.
DRY
21.8
B-11
15
N. E.
DRY
10.4
B-12
10
N. E.
DRY
5
B-13
15
N. E.
DRY
11.2
B-14
15
8.5
DRY
10.6
B-15
10
N. E.
DRY
6.2
B-16
15
N. E.
DRY
10.5
B-17
15
8.5
DRY
10.7
B-18
30
N. E.
DRY
22.9
B-19
13.8
E 13.5
DRY 7_11.2
B-20
13.8
1 6 IL
—DRY
1 10.5
NOTES:
N.E. = Not Encountered
Page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-28-21
12-28-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft): '— DRY '— DRY
DATE: 12 -2 8 -21 12 -2 9 -21
CAVED (ft): 10.5 10.0
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft) DRY
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 692
DATUM: TOPO
EQUIPMENT: CME 550X
LOGGED BY: A. Beaty
CHECKED BY: J.P. Wille
N
wW
J W
w
-i �''
w>-
J
w
-i
z
O
U
U�
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
U)i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
W
o
691.0
Topsoil, 5 in
MH
Red, moist, very stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
6
6-8-8
16
688.5
ML
Tan, moist, stiff, Sandy SILT
S-2
3.5
16
8-10-5
15
5
same, very stiff
S-3
6.0
18
6-9-12
21
S-4
8.5
18
9-10-17
27
10
same, hard
S-5
13.5
18
17-23-24
47
677.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-28-21
12-28-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft): '— DRY '— DRY
DATE: 12-28-21 12-29-21
CAVED (ft): 22.7 22.5
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft) DRY
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 708
DATUM: TOPO
EQUIPMENT: CME 55OX
LOGGED BY: A. Beaty
CHECKED BY: J.P. Wille
N
wW
J W
w
-i �''
w>-
J
w
-i
z
0
U
U�
am
ax
H
a
g�
a(o
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
U)i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
W
o
707.0
Topsoil, 6 in
MH
Red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
12
3-4-8
12
LL=56
S-2
3.5
6
5-5-8
13
PI=13
5
NM%=28.8
702.0
ML
Brown, moist, stiff, Sandy SILT
S-3
6.0
10
2-4-5
9
S-4
8.5
16
3-4-6
10
10
S-5
13.5
16
3-4-6
10
15
S-6
18.5
16
7-7-8
15
20
same, very stiff
S-7
23.5
16
4-6-10
16
25
S-8
28.5
14
6-11-17
28
678.0
30
BORING TERMINATED AT 30.0 FEET
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
� GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
^ ASSOCIATES, INC.
T z
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-28-21
12-28-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft): '— DRY '— DRY
DATE: 12 -2 8 -21 12 -2 9 -21
CAVED (ft): 10.2 11.2
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft) DRY
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 688
DATUM: TOPO
EQUIPMENT: CME 550X
LOGGED BY: A. Beaty
CHECKED BY: J.P. Wille
N
wW
J W
w
-i �''
w>-
J
w
-i
z
O
U
U�
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
U)i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
W
o
687.0
Topsoil, 3 in
ML
Red, moist, very stiff, Sandy SILT
S-1
1.0
6
4-9-11
20
684.5
MH
Red, moist, very stiff, Elastic SILT
S-2
3.5
9
10-13-5
18
5
S-3
6.0
14
5-11-15
26
S-4
8.5
16
9-10-14
24
10
674.5
ML
Brown, moist, very stiff, Sandy SILT
S-5
13.5
6
2-3-3
6
673.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-4
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-28-21
12-28-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft): '— DRY '— DRY
DATE: 12 -2 8 -21 12 -2 9 -21
CAVED (ft): 6.5 6.0
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft) DRY
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 712
DATUM: TOPO
EQUIPMENT: CME 550X
LOGGED BY: A. Beaty
CHECKED BY: J.P. Wille
N
wW
J W
w
-i �''
w>-
J
w
-i
z
O
U
U�
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
W
o
711.0
Topsoil, 3 in
ML
Tan, moist, medium stiff, Sandy SILT
S-1
1.0
6
4-5-9
14
same, very stiff
NM%=20.1
S-2
3.5
16
11-15-5
20
5
S-3
6.0
14
5-12-17
29
S-4
8.5
16
6-10-14
24
702.0
10
BORING TERMINATED AT 10.0 FEET
15
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-4
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-5
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-28-21
12-28-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft): '— DRY '— DRY
DATE: 12 -2 8 -21 12 -2 9 -21
CAVED (ft): 10.5 10.4
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft) DRY
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 727
DATUM: TOPO
EQUIPMENT: CME 550X
LOGGED BY: A. Beaty
CHECKED BY: J.P. Wille
N
wW
J W
w
-i �''
w>-
J
w
-i
z
O
U
U�
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
U)i z
v¢i w
U)i
U)i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
W
o
726.0
Topsoil, 6 in
ML
Dark brown, moist, medium stiff, Sandy SILT
S-1
1.0
12
2-3-4
7
same, red, stiff
NM%=31.3
S-2
3.5
12
3-6-8
14
5
S-3
6.0
16
2-4-8
12
S-4
8.5
16
3-4-5
9
10
same, medium stiff
S-5
13.5
16
2-3-5
8
712.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-5
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-6
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-28-21
12-28-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft): '— DRY '— DRY
DATE: 12 -2 8 -21 12 -2 9 -21
CAVED (ft): 9.0 9.5
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft) DRY
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 725
DATUM: TOPO
EQUIPMENT: CME 550X
LOGGED BY: A. Beaty
CHECKED BY: J.P. Wille
N
wW
J W
w
-i �''
w>-
J
w
-i
z
O
U
U�
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
U)i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
W
o
724.0
Topsoil, 6 in
MH
Red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
8
4-5-7
12
721.5
ML
Tan and white, moist, very stiff, Sandy SILT
S-2
3.5
8
5-7-9
16
5
same, brown
S-3
6.0
12
5-6-10
16
S-4
8.5
14
5-10-12
22
10
S-5
13.5
16
7-10-14
24
710.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-6
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-7
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-28-21
12-28-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft): '— DRY '— DRY
DATE: 12 -2 8 -21 12 -2 9 -21
CAVED (ft): 11.0 10.5
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft) DRY
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 745
DATUM: TOPO
EQUIPMENT: CME 550X
LOGGED BY: A. Beaty
CHECKED BY: J.P. Wille
N
wW
J W
w
-i �''
w>-
J
w
-i
z
O
U
U�
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
W
o
744.0
Topsoil, 2 in
MH
Red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
6
3-5-7
12
same, very stiff
S-2
3.5
16
4-7-10
17
5
739.0
ML
Red, moist, stiff, Sandy SILT
S-3
6.0
8
3-6-8
14
same, medium stiff
S-4
8.5
12
3-3-5
8
10
same, tan, stiff
S-5
13.5
14
2-4-6
10
730.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-7
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-8
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-28-21
12-28-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft): '— DRY '— DRY
DATE: 12 -2 8 -21 12 -2 9 -21
CAVED (ft): 10.0 9.5
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft) DRY
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 748
DATUM: TOPO
EQUIPMENT: CME 550X
LOGGED BY: A. Beaty
CHECKED BY: J.P. Wille
N
wW
J W
w
-i �''
w>-
J
w
-i
z
O
U
U�
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
W
o
747.0
Topsoil, 5 in
MH
Red, moist, very stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
6
6-7-10
17
NM%=30.9
S-2
3.5
8
6-8-11
19
5
742.0
ML
Red, moist, very stiff, Sandy SILT
S-3
6.0
12
5-7-10
17
S-4
8.5
16
4-5-7
12
10
same, medium stiff
S-5
13.5
14
3-3-4
7
733.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-8
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-9
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-28-21
12-28-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft): '— DRY '— DRY
DATE: 12 -2 8 -21 12 -2 9 -21
CAVED (ft): 10.0 10.0
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft) DRY
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 748
DATUM: TOPO
EQUIPMENT: CME 550X
LOGGED BY: A. Beaty
CHECKED BY: J.P. Wille
N
wW
J W
w
-i �''
w>-
J
w
-i
z
O
U
U�
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
U)i z
v¢i w
U)i
U)i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
W
o
747.0
Topsoil, 5 in
MH
Red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
6
3-4-8
12
744.5
ML
Red, moist, stiff, Sandy SILT
S-2
3.5
8
3-4-7
11
5
same, medium stiff
S-3
6.0
10
3-4-6
10
S-4
8.5
10
2-3-4
7
10
S-5
13.5
10
2-3-4
7
733.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-9
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-10
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-28-21
12-28-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft): '— DRY '— DRY
DATE: 12-28-21 12-29-21
CAVED (ft): 21.9 21.8
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft) DRY
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 755
DATUM: TOPO
EQUIPMENT: CME 55OX
LOGGED BY: A. Beaty
CHECKED BY: J.P. Wille
N
wW
J W
w
-i �''
w>-
J
w
-i
z
0
U
U�
am
ax
H
a
g�
a(o
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
W
o
754.0
Topsoil, 4 in
MH
Red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
6
6-7-8
15
same, very stiff
NM%=27.6
LL=56
S-2
3.5
10
4-8-10
18
PI=16
5
NM%=28.0
749.0
ML
Light brown, moist, medium stiff, Sandy SILT
S-3
6.0
16
4-6-7
13
S-
8.5
16
4-4-6
10
10
S-5
13.5
18
2-3-4
7
15
S-6
18.5
16
3-3-5
8
20
S-7
23.5
18
2-3-5
8
25
same, stiff
S-8
28.5
18
4-6-8
14
725.0
30
BORING TERMINATED AT 30.0 FEET
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
� GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-10
^ ASSOCIATES, INC.
T z
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-11
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-29-21
12-29-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft)
DATE
CAVED (ft)
D RY i
12-29-21 _
10.4
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DATUM:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRY
749
TOPO
CME 550X
A. Beaty
J.P. Wille
N
J W
J �''
J
J .-
z
O
U
UJ
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
U) z
v¢i w
U)i
U)i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
w
o
748.0
Topsoil, 6 in
MH
red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
10
3-4-5
9
745.5
ML
Brown, moist, stiff, Sandy SILT
S-2
3.5
12
5-7-7
14
5
same, medium stiff
S-3
6.0
14
5-4-5
9
S-4
8.5
16
2-3-4
7
10
S-5
13.5
16
2-3-5
8
734.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-11
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-12
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-29-21
12-29-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft)
DATE
CAVED (ft)
D RY i
12-29-21 _
5.0
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DATUM:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRY
751
TOPO
CME 550X
A. Beaty
J.P. Wille
N
J W
J �''
J
J .-
z
O
U
UJ
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
w
o
750.0
Topsoil, 5 in
MH
Red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
10
3 4-6
10
747.5
NM%=31.5
ML
Red, moist, very stiff, Sandy SILT
S-2
3.5
14
3-7-9
16
5
same, stiff
S-3
6.0
16
3-5-5
10
same, medium stiff
S-4
8.5
16
3-4-4
8
741.0
10
BORING TERMINATED AT 10.0 FEET
15
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-12
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-13
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-29-21
12-29-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft)
DATE
CAVED (ft)
D RY i
12-29-21 _
11.2
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DATUM:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRY
745
TOPO
CME 550X
A. Beaty
J.P. Wille
N
J W
J �''
J
J .-
z
O
U
UJ
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
w
o
744.0
Topsoil, 6 in
MH
Red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
8
4-5-7
12
741.5
NM%=20.9
ML
Red, moist, very stiff, Sandy SILT
S-2
3.5
14
7-11-14
25
5
same, medium stiff
NM%=34.1
S-3
6.0
16
5-4-4
8
same, stiff
S-4
8.5
16
3-4-6
10
10
S-5
13.5
18
2-4-5
9
730.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-13
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-14
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-29-21
12-29-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft)
DATE
CAVED (ft)
D RY i
12-29-21 _
10.6
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DATUM:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRY
719
TOPO
CME 550X
A. Beaty
J.P. Wille
N
J W
J �''
J
J .-
z
O
U
UJ
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
U)i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
w
o
718.0
Topsoil, 5 in
ML
Tan, moist, very stiff, Sandy SILT
S-1
1.0
8
4-7-10
17
same, greenish brown, hard
S-2
3.5
16
20-29-46
75
710.5
5
S-3
6.0
18
23-37-49
86
�'
SOFT WEATHERED as ROCK, Sampled greenish
p
S-4
8.5
16
19-28-50/6
78/12"
10
Q a
brown, moist, hard, Sandy SILT
o..
0 4
:t� o
S-5
13.5
16
14-27-50/6
77/12"
o a..
o'
704.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-14
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-15
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-29-21
12-29-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft)
DATE
CAVED (ft)
D RY i
12-29-21 _
6.2
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DATUM:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRY
724
TOPO
CME 550X
A. Beaty
J.P. Wille
N
J W
J �''
J
J .-
z
O
U
UJ
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
U)i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
w
o
723.0
Topsoil, 6 in
ML
Tan, moist, very stiff, Sandy SILT
S-1
1.0
12
7-9-10
19
same, hard
NM%=8.7
S-2
3.5
10
20-26-35
61
5
718.0
SM
Light tan, moist, very dense, Silty SAND, with trace
S-3
6.0
14
24-29-37
66
rock fragments
same, dense
S-4
8.5
16
13-19-22
41
714.0
10
BORING TERMINATED AT 10.0 FEET
15
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-15
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-16
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-29-21
12-29-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft)
DATE
CAVED (ft)
D RY i
12-29-21 _
10.5
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DATUM:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRY
751
TOPO
CME 550X
A. Beaty
J.P. Wille
N
J W
J �''
J
J .-
z
O
U
UJ
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
U) z
v¢i w
U)i
U)i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
w
o
750.0
Topsoil, 6 in
MH
Red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
12
6-7-8
15
747.5
ML
Red, moist, stiff, Sandy SILT
S-2
3.5
12
6-6-7
13
5
same, light orange, medium stiff
S-3
6.0
16
3-3-3
6
S-4
8.5
14
2-3-5
8
10
same, stiff
S-5
13.5
18
3-4-5
9
736.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-16
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-17
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-29-21
12-29-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft)
DATE
CAVED (ft)
D RY i
12-29-21 _
10.7
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DATUM:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRY
729
TOPO
CME 550X
A. Beaty
J.P. Wille
N
J W
J �''
J
J .-
z
O
U
UJ
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
U)i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
w
o
728.0
Topsoil, 6 in
MH
Red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
8
3-5-7
12
same, hard
S-2
3.5
12
8-15-24
39
5
723.0
CL
Greenish brown, moist, very stiff, Lean CLAY
S-3
6.0
10
5-12-18
30
720.5
0 o
SOFT WEATHERED ROCK, Sampled as greenish
S-4
8.5
16
23-50/6
73/12"
10
a;
brown, moist, hard, Sandy SILT
© .o
715.5
ML
Greenish brown, moist, hard, Sandy SILT
S-5
13.5
16
15-36-38
74
714.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-17
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-18
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-29-21
12-29-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft)
DATE
CAVED (ft)
D RY i
12-29-21 _
22.9
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DATUM:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRY
740
TOPO
CME 550X
A. Beaty
J.P. Wille
N
J W
J �''
J
J .-
z
O
U
UJ
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
u}i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
w
o
739.0
Topsoil, 8 in
MH
Red, moist, very stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
10
3 4-6
10
same, medium stiff
NM%=23.6
LL=54
S-2
3.5
14
5-10-12
22
PI=14
5
N M %=24.7
734.0
ML
Orange and brown, moist, medium stiff, Sandy
S-3
6.0
12
4 4-4
8
SILT
S-4
8.5
10
3-2-4
6
10
S-5
13.5
16
2-3-5
8
15
same, tan, stiff
S-6
18.5
14
4-4-5
9
20
S-7
23.5
18
4-4-7
11
25
same, very stiff
S-8
28.5
16
5-7-10
17
710.0
30
BORING TERMINATED AT 30.0 FEET
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-18
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-19
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-29-21
12-29-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft)
DATE
CAVED (ft)
D RY i
12-29-21 _
11.2
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DATUM:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRY
714
TOPO
CME 550X
A. Beaty
J.P. Wille
N
J W
J �''
J
J .-
z
O
U
UJ
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
U)i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
w
o
713.0
Topsoil, 6 in
MH
Red, moist, stiff, Elastic SILT
S-1
1.0
8
3 4-7
11
same, very stiff
NM%=13.4
S-2
3.5
12
10-11-14
25
5
708.0
ML
Brown, moist, hard, Sandy SILT
S-3
6.0
10
11-17-24
41
705.5
SM
Tan, moist, very dense, Silty SAND
S-4
8.5
18
17-22-31
53
10
700.5
700.2
S-5
13.5
3
50/3
50/3"
SOFT WEATHERED ROCK, Sampled as tan,
moist, very dense, Silty SAND
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 13.8 FEET
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-19
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

LOG OF BORING NO. B-20
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
DATE STARTED:
DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
Bringle Ferry Road
35220053
Salisbury, N.C.
12-29-21
12-29-21
HPC
ZK
2.25 in Hollow Stem Augers
Standard Penetration Testinq
WATER LEVEL (ft)
DATE
CAVED (ft)
D RY i
12-29-21 _
10.5
WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING (ft)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DATUM:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRY
710
TOPO
CME 550X
A. Beaty
J.P. Wille
N
J W
J �''
J
J .-
z
O
U
UJ
am
ax
H
a
g�
a�
g
o
H
x
H
=
am
v¢i z
v¢i w
v¢i
v¢i S
s
>
w
U)i
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
0
w
O
m
z
J
w
o
709.0
Topsoil, 7 in
ML
Brown, moist, stiff, Sandy SILT
S-1
1.0
10
3-4-5
9
same, very stiff
NM%=15.3
S-2
3.5
10
6-9-10
19
5
704.0
S-3
6.0
10
31-50/4
81/10"
o;
o:
SOFT WEATHERED ROCK, Sampled as brown,
moist, hard, Sandy SILT, with trace rock fragments
'n a:
S-4
8.5
3
50/3
50/3"
10-
..
-:4
-.:
o'4
0'.
696.2
same wet
S-5
13.5
3
50/3
50/3"
BORING TERMINATED AT 13.8 FEET
15
20
25
30
NOTES: GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON SURVEY
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
LOG OF BORING NO. B-20
ASSOCIATES, INC.
710 Peninsula Lane, Suite B
Sheet 1 of 1
Charlotte, NC 28273

APPENDIX C
LABORATORY RESULTS

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT - ASTM D4318
60
50
40
20
10
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
O�
G�
■
CL-ML
ML or
OL
MH or
OH
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LL
PL
PI
%<#40
%<#200
USCS
(MH) Reddish Orange ELASTIC SILT.
56
43
13
97.2
87.7
MH
(MH) Reddish Orange ELASTIC SILT with Sand.
56
40
16
90.8
78.4
MH
(MH) Reddish Orange ELASTIC SILT with Sand.
54
40
14
94.5
72.4
MH
Project No. 35220053 Client: McKim & Creed Remarks:
oProject: Bringle Ferry Road
t
a�
*Location: B-2 Depth: 3.5-7.5' Sample Number: S-2
o ■Location: B-10 Depth: 3.5-7.5' Sample Number: S-2
ALocation: B-18 Depth: 3.5-7.5' Sample Number: S-2
ASSOCIATES, INC.
14280 Park Center Drive, Suite A
Laure1,10D 20707 Figure
Tested By: SC Checked By:

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST REPORT
105
100
c
2.1
%
95.5
95
U
Q
T
:N
C
N
T
0
90
85
ZAV for
Sp.G. _
80
2.55
9 14 19 24 29 34 39
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A Standard
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
3.5-7.5'
MH
A-7-5(17)
28.8
2.55
56
13
0.0
87.7
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 95.5 pcf
Optimum moisture = 22.1 %
(MH) Reddish Orange ELASTIC SILT.
Project No. 35220053 Client: McKim & Creed
Project: Bringle Ferry Road
Date: 1/12/22
Location: B-2 Sample Number: S-2
Remarks:
Figure
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
' v ASSOCIATES, INC.
14280 Park Center Drive, Suite A
Laurel, MD 20707
Tested By: SC Checked By:

100
90
80
70
Of
W 60
Z
LL
Z 50
W
U
W 40
0_
30
20
10
b
h
n
Particle Size Distribution Report
[T [71
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.6 9.5 87.7
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC!
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#4
100.0
#10
99.8
#20
99.2
#40
97.2
#80
93.5
#100
92.4
#200
87.7
(no speccation provided)
Location: B-2
Sample Number: S-2 Depth: 3.5-7.5'
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATES, INC.
..--.
WOW 14280 Park Center Drive, Suite A
Laurel, MD 20707
Soil Description
(MIT) Reddish Orange ELASTIC SILT.
Atterberg Limits
PL= 43 LL= 56 PI= 13 NM= 28.8
Coefficients
D90= 0.1043 D85= D60=
D50= D30= D15=
D10= Cu= Cc=
Classification
USCS= MH AASHTO= A-7-5(17)
Remarks
Date: 1 / 10/21
Client: McKim & Creed
Project: Bringle Ferry Road
Project No: 35220053 Figure
Tested By: SC Checked By:

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST REPORT
102
97
92
CL
T
:N
9.5% 90.5
pc
C
N
T
0
87
82
ZAV for
Sp.G. _
77F-1
Ll
2.65
16 21 26 31 36 41 46
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A Standard
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
3.5-7.5'
MH
A-7-5(16)
28.0
2.65
56
16
0.9
78.4
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 90.5 pcf
Optimum moisture = 29.5 %
H) Reddish Orange ELASTIC SILT with
Sand.
Project No. 35220053 Client: McKim & Creed
Project: Bringle Ferry Road
Date: 1/11/21
Location: 13-10 Sample Number: S-2
Remarks:
Figure
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
' v ASSOCIATES, INC.
14280 Park Center Drive, Suite A
Laurel, MD 20707
Tested By: SC Checked By:

100
90
80
70
Of
W 60
Z
LL
Z 50
W
U
W 40
0_
30
20
10
b
h
n
Particle Size Distribution Report
o N0M00 (0p 0�N0N
IL -L- L
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.9 2.4 5.9 12.4 78.4
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC!
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
3/8
100.0
#4
99.1
#10
96.7
#20
94.9
#40
90.8
#80
84.1
#100
82.6
#200
78.4
(no speccation provided)
Location: B-10
Sample Number: S-2 Depth: 3.5-7.5'
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATES, INC.
..--.
WOW 14280 Park Center Drive, Suite A
Laurel, MD 20707
Soil Description
(MIT) Reddish Orange ELASTIC SILT with Sand.
Atterberg Limits
PL= 40 LL= 56 PI= 16 NM= 28.0
Coefficients
D90= 0.3790
D85= 0.1988
D60=
D50=
D30=
D15=
D10=
Cu=
Cc=
Classification
USCS= MH
AASHTO=
A-7-5(16)
Remarks
Date: 1 / 10/22
Client: McKim & Creed
Project: Bringle Ferry Road
Project No: 35220053 Figure
Tested By: SC Checked By:

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST REPORT
105
100
2.5% 94.9
c
pf
95
U
Q
T
:N
C
N
T
0
90
85
ZAV for
Sp.G. _
80
2.65
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A Standard
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
3.5-7.5'
MH
A-7-5(12)
24.7
2.65
54
14
0.0
72.4
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 94.9 pcf
Optimum moisture = 22.5 %
H) Reddish Orange ELASTIC SILT with
Sand.
Project No. 35220053 Client: McKim & Creed
Project: Bringle Ferry Road
Date: 1/12/22
Location: B-18 Sample Number: S-2
Remarks:
Figure
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATES, INC.
14280 Park Center Drive, Suite A
Laurel, MD 20707
Tested By: SC Checked By:

100
90
80
70
Of
W 60
Z
LL
Z 50
W
U
W 40
0_
30
20
10
b
h
n
Particle Size Distribution Report
[TT7
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.2 22.1 72.4
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC!
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#4
100.0
#10
99.7
#20
98.8
#40
94.5
#80
85.5
#100
82.4
#200
72.4
(no speccation provided)
Location: B-18
Sample Number: S-2 Depth: 3.5-7.5'
GEO-TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATES, INC.
..--.
WOW 14280 Park Center Drive, Suite A
Laurel, MD 20707
Soil Description
(MIT) Reddish Orange ELASTIC SILT with Sand.
Atterberg Limits
PL= 40 LL= 54 PI= 14 NM= 24.7
Coefficients
D90= 0.2534
D85= 0.1751
D60=
D50=
D30=
D15=
D10=
Cu=
Cc=
Classification
USCS= MH
AASHTO=
A-7-5(12)
Remarks
Date: 1 / 11 /22
Client: McKim & Creed
Project: Bringle Ferry Road
Project No: 35220053 Figure
Tested By: SC Checked By:

F".3 :J U 4 Ll I Q PAV C
PHOTOGRAPHS

McKim & Creed
Re: Bringle Ferry Road, Salisbury, N.C.
Date of Photographs: December 27, 2021
Paue 1
VA
- -Op
'� ."�' •.�� '#J� �'s, ..� _ .i,... _ -} �� Imo.
Photograph ll:

McKim & Creed
Re: Bringle Ferry Road, Salisbury, N.C.
Date of Photographs: December 27, 2021
Paue 2
Photo�ra�h 22:

f,

McKim & Creed
Re: Bringle Ferry Road, Salisbury, N.C.
Date of Photographs: December 27, 2021
Paize 4
6,C
III • � 'f..
_ t
eT
hr
V.
Fr
yr. { �:-� _�. r4�.. r4v � { '�__. .{�ti� y' •�-,
x w'•x�i'r," n _, ..n r •}r`r k'7. •' .: may.
'�'�� y'}�''_ ."L�"r!M!�yi "__ _T,' ,���F �1�� �•f}�' _ % .. v�+S. f y._ _. �'i }�,� \
� �'�` +,�tS.+S+� � +• R4 i -�}�'4 ' r..��`C_aT'� ��'.7r,�k,� �'} •4 • �. �37�
Photograph 4:

'Y' �' j n , f •y ' {{�f
4• Jf � .� 5 � Y1�b�Q1y l 'r��-
■"'444_ k': ,l � i� h'�' _r.y ^}` 5{7L[' '�'. .iF�`- '� � -'ih . �� �� t•4 3 $
Id
no
�' � i _ - '� *�.; .l:Yw� �:�i-``i�_ Fes' T. '7 . .i j '•, _. i
v Ili
' .M1
V ,`� +-� � F-14M
k w y3

McKim & Creed
Re: Bringle Ferry Road, Salisbury, N.C.
Date of Photographs: December 27, 2021
Photograph 6:

McKim & Creed
Re: Bringle Ferry Road, Salisbury, N.C.
Date of Photographs: December 27, 2021
Photograph 7:

McKim & Creed
Re: Bringle Ferry Road, Salisbury, N.C.
Date of Photographs: December 27, 2021
Paue 8
Photograph 8:

McKim & Creed
Re: Bringle Ferry Road, Salisbury, N.C.
Date of Photographs: December 27, 2021
Photograph 9:

McKim & Creed
Re: Bringle Ferry Road, Salisbury, N.C.
Date of Photographs: December 27, 2021
Paize 10
Photograph 10: