20081100 Ver 1_Stormwater Info_20081201

U8- o C)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL nD
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. DEC U
8386 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 2008
Raleigh North, Carolina 27615-5088 UENK. WAQ:
[phone] Fax: [phone] ETLANDSAND STORE RBRANCH
To:__ a22,U& Za"'., Date: aoo
Company: ZM IJ40 i L
We are sending you: -Attached -Under separate cover via
the following:
-Shop drawings -Prints -Plans -Samples
-Specifications -Copy of letter -Change order
-Other
These are Transmitted as checked below:
4/For approval -Approved as submitted
For your use -Approved as noted
requested -Returned for corrections
V For review & comment Other
-Resubmit copies for approval
-Submit -copies for distribution
-Return -corrected prints
Remarks:

Copy To: Signed: 44
GREENSBORO GATEWAY GARDENS
STORMWATER WATER QUALITY
ANALYSIS & BMP DESIGN
November 26, 2007
Prepared For:
City of Greensboro
WARD
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
y
Prepared By:
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P. C.
8386 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 101
r4RALEIGH, NC 27615-5088
00 PH: 919-870-0526
F'/ FAX: [phone]
?_I'3SEAL- 0'- L
344 ,3344
?
?
10.
°
icy
•
GREENSBORO GATEWAY GARDENS
STORMWATER WATER QUALITY
ANALYSIS & BMP DESIGN
November 26, 2007
0
Prepared For:
City of Greensboro

Prepared By:
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.
FENGCINEER 8386 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 101
Rn CAS of RALEIGH, NC 27615-5088
LTING
PH: 919-870-0526
FAX: [phone]
E
• 13344
19/ N
yIYNNE
??NIItt1N1`
u? ? ? 7nos
i?tivK - °'NA1 tk UUALi I Y
WETLANDS AND STpRMwATER BRANCH
Permit No:
(to be auigned by DWQ)
III. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found. An incomplete submittal package will
• result in a request for additional information. This will delay final review and approval of the project Initial in the space provided to
indicate the following design requirements have been met. If the applicant has designated an agent, the agent may initial below. If a requirement
has not been met, attach justification.
Pagel Plan
?Ini`tia`ls? Sheet No.
901. Plans (1' - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
Design at ultimate build-out,
Off-site drainage (if applicable),
Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
Cell dimensions,
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Recorded drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Clean out pipe locations,
Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
L 2. Plan details (1' = 30' or larger) for the bioretention cell showing:
Cell dimensions
Pretreatment system,
High flow bypass system,
Maintenance access,
Recorded drainage easement and public right of way (ROW),
Design at ultimate build-out,
Off-site drainage (if applicable),
Clean out pipe locations,
Overflow device, and
Boundaries of drainage easement.
• Indicate the P-Index between 10 and 30
3.`?O 3. Section view of the bioretention cell (1' = 20' or larger) showing:
Side slopes, 3:1 or lower
Underdrain system (if applicable), and
Bioretention cell layers [ground level and slope, pre-treatment, ponding depth, mulch depth, fill media depth,
washed sand, filter fabric (or choking stone if applicable), #57 stone, underdrains (if applicable), SHWT
level(s), and overflow structure)
J
,J(AC46J 4. A soils report that is based upon an actual field investigation, soil borings, and infiltration tests. The results of
the soils report must be verified in the field by DWO, by completing & submitting the soils investigation
/ request form. County soil maps are not an acceptable source of soils information. All elevations shall be in
feet mean sea level (fmsl). Results of soils tests of both the planting soil and the in situ soil must include:
Soil permeability,
Soil composition (% sand, % fines, % organic), and
P-index.
az? ?- L 5. A detailed planting plan (1' = 20' or larger) prepared by a qualified individual showing:
A variety, of suitable species,
Sizes, spacing and locations of plantings,
Total quantity of each type of plant specified,
A planting detail,
The source nursery for the plants, and
Fertilizer and watering requirements to establish vegetation.
6
A
.
n assurance that the installed system will meet design specifications upon initial operation once the project
L
is complete and the entire drainage area is stabilized.
(A) ! V 7. A construction sequence that shows how the bioretention cell will be protected from sediment until the entire
drainage area is stabilized.
• 8. The supporting calculations (including underdrain calculations
if a
licable)
,
pp
.
9. A copy of the signed and notarized inspection and maintenance (I&M) agreement.
10. A copy of the deed restriction. 1

Form SW401-Bioretention-Rev.5 Part M. Page 1 of 1
• Table of Contents
1.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................3
2.0 Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................3
3.0 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................3
4.0 Proposed Improvements ................................................................................................4
5.0 Analysis .........................................................................................................................5
6.0 Best Management Practice Design (BMP) ....................................................................6
6.1 Bioretention Basin A- Drainage Area A ....................................................................7
6.2 Bioretention Basin B- Drainage Area C ....................................................................7
6.3 Bioretention Basin C-Drainage Area D .....................................................................7
Tables
Table A: % Impervious Proposed Project Site ...................................................................5
Table B: % Impervious with Proposed BMP's ....................................................6
Appendices
Appendix A - Site % Impervious Calculations
Appendix B - Bioretention Cell Supplement Forms & Supporting Calculations
Appendix C - Plan Sheets
Appendix D - Bioretention Cell Planting Plan
• Appendix E - Soils Information and Subsurface Exploration Report
Appendix F - Permeable Pavers Information
Appendix G - Operation 7 Maintenance Agreement
Appendix H - Designers Assurance
•
2
Greensboro Gateway Gardens
Stormwater Water Quality Analysis
1.0 Project Description
The Greensboro Gateway Gardens project is located on an undeveloped triangular shaped
piece of land in the eastern part of Greensboro, North Carolina owned by the City of
Greensboro, Parcel Number 00-03-0148-0-0534-00-003, DB 1693 Pg 0127, 10.899 acres.
The property lies to the south of East Lee Street, north of East Florida Street and borders
the single-family residential properties of the Buffer Hill Subdivision on Dans Road to
the east. The development plan is to place a visitor center and multiple gardens on the
site for the City of Greensboro. Since the city of Greensboro owns the land and the
future facilities no easements will be required for any BNIP device located on the
property.
2.0 Goals and Objectives
The objective of this study is to evaluate the stormwater water quality impacts of the
development of the Gateway Gardens Visitors Center and Park. The goal of this study is
to identify and implement stormwater best management practices as needed for
compliance with the State of North Carolina Water Quality standards. An additional
stormwater impact analysis was submitted to the City of Greensboro addressing storm
water quantity for the proposed development.
• 3.0 Existing Site Conditions
Currently the land for the park is wooded for approximately two thirds of the western
portion of the site. The eastern one third has an existing welcome to Greensboro sign
located in a grassed area that is being mowed and maintained by the City of Greensboro.
The property has two existing drainage pipes that convey stormwater from two drainage
features under Florida Street to the City owned property in which Barber Park is currently
located. Stormwater from the project site also exits the property through a 15-inch pipe
under E. Florida Street at the intersection of E. Florida and E. Lee Street. The street curb
inlet located on E. Florida Street approximately 520 feet south of the intersection with E.
Lee Street collects drainage from the project site as well as the street.
For the purpose of this analysis the first watershed basin will be referred to as Basin A
which is currently collects water from the western one half of the site. A 24-inch RCP,
located approximately 145 feet east of the southwestern property corner, provides the
outlet for this basin under Florida Street. The drainage way feeding this area is a swale
that has an average slope of 3.5%. There is no identifiable stream feature at this location.
The steepest slope adjacent to this feature is at 13%. The existing drainage area
discharging stormwater runoff to Basin A is approximately 5.56 acres located all within
the project property.
The second drainage basin is located on the eastern half of the project site will be referred
to as Basin B in the study. A 24-inch RCP pipe, located approximately 635 feet east of
the southwest property corner, provides the outlet for this basin under Florida Street.
This drainage feature currently collects stormwater from an area that is composed of
• approximately 6.88 acres from within the project site as well as an additional offsite 9.76
acres from residential areas and Lee Street to the north for a total of 16.64 acres.
The drainage feature within the project property in Basin B was reviewed with Mr.
Monte Matthews with the US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office in the field
on September 20, 2006 to confirm the limits of the existing wetlands and stream
classification preformed by The Catena Group, Inc. It was determined that the stream
identified as UT to South Buffalo Creek should be classified as an intermittent
unimportant stream and that 0.146 acres of wetlands were identified as jurisdictional
within the project site. These limits are shown on the existing site layout plan sheet CD
0.10. The total existing stream length was identified as approximately 355 linear feet. The
stream within the project site does not appear on the USGS topographic map or the
NRCS Soil Survey of Guilford County. The City of Greensboro Stormwater
Management Division visited the site on April 3, 2007 and classified the stream as
intermittent in a non-water supply watershed and determined no buffers are required.
The north eastern portion of the site and some of Lee Street drains to an existing 15 inch
pipe under Florida Street. The drainage area is less than 3 acres and is composed of one
third pavement and 2/3 grassy area.
4.0 Proposed Improvements
The development plan will include the construction of a visitor center and multiple
• gardens on the site for the City of Greensboro. The visitor center and parking lot will be
located in the northwestern corner of the property with access off of Lee Street. To the
south of the visitor's center will be a wedding garden. Further south the trails within the
project enter an elevated boardwalk area will wind through preserved woods. East of the
wooded area a Japanese garden is planned with a pond surrounded by a semi-circular
retaining wall that opens on the northern end. North of the Japanese garden will be a
children's garden. In the eastern end of the park a formal garden will be located featuring
curving rows of gardens and walkways that focus on a sculpture and fountain.
Throughout the park there will be paved walking paths connecting the various gardens.
Existing Basin A will receive the majority of the impervious stormwater drainage from
the developed site and the existing offsite stormwater from Pear Street. An inlet has been
placed to the west of the entrance drive to the visitor center to collect water from the
eastbound lanes of Lee Street. The proposed drainage area to Basin A will include the
visitors' center parking area and building, the wedding garden, the boardwalk and
wooded area, and a portion of the Japanese garden. The proposed drainage area for Basin
A will include its existing area of 5.56 acres in addition to approximately 2.13 acres from
offsite residential areas to the north and 2.12 acres within the park that currently drain to
Pond B for a total of 9.81 acres.
As a part of the stormwater management plan, a riser barrel structure will be installed as
the outlet to convert this area into a dry detention basin to control the post project
• discharges to predevelopment conditions. A storm drainage system has been designed to
carry the water from the parking areas, Pear Street, and the Wedding Garden to a single
4
• outlet located in Basin A within the existing wooded area. The system consists of yard
inlets, curb inlets, junction boxes and reinforced concrete pipe segments.
The plan for the basin at location B is to create a permanent pond that will become a
water feature for the park. The planned permanent pool location will be maintained at
elevation 748.0 (NGVD 29). The drainage area was reduced to Basin B to minimize the
amount of storage that would be required above the permanent pool elevation to prevent
overtopping of the retaining walls and Florida Street during large storm events. The
drainage area to Basin B under the proposed conditions will include the loss of 2.13 acres
of drainage area from residential areas to the north and 2.48 acres within the park to
Basin A. Including the proposed grading revisions to drainage patterns within the project
site, which include some diversion of drainage to the streets, the total proposed drainage
area to Pond B will be 11.66 acres. Pond B will retain much of its current shape and will
be bordered by semicircular-tiered retaining walls along its southern side.
The Children's Garden will be located adjacent to the northern border in the middle one
third of the property. An existing 18inch pipe enters the site from the median of E. Lee
Street approximately in the middle of the garden. This pipe conveys 7.63 acres of offsite
drainage from single-family residential neighborhoods and Lee Street to the north of the
project. In the design of the Children's Garden the stream was re-routed to the north of
the proposed trail and routed into the top of the existing wetlands. With the proposed
development at the top of the site the concern was that the wetland might dry out without
• this diversion of off site water into it. A new channel is proposed 154 linear feet that will
connect to the top of the existing wetland.
The existing 15-inch pipe will remain under E. Florida Street to the east. Drop inlets will
be added along with additional pipe to allow water to enter the system with the proposed
grading for the site within this drainage area. The proposed drainage area to the 15-inch
pipe is 1.38 acres, which is a reduction in the existing drainage area.
5.0 Analysis
•
The drainage basins on the project site were evaluated to determine the percent
imperviousness in the post project conditions. Drainage basins with a percentage of
imperviousness greater than 24% will be required to have best management practices put
in place to meet water quality standards. The project site was evaluated based on the
western drainage basin A, the eastern drainage basin B, and the total project site. The
results of this analysis showed that drainage basin A with an impervious percentage of
34.5% will required BMP treatment and basin B with an impervious percentage of 21%
will not. Table A below tabulates the basin data:
Table A: % Impervious Proposed Project Site
Drainage Basin Project Site Drainage
Area Acres Impervious Site
Area Acres % Impervious
A 5.05 1.74 34.5%
B 4.41 0.89 20.1%
Total Site 12.17 3.33 27%
5
• Drainage basin A therefore was evaluated further to determine the placement of site
BMP's to mitigate for the increased impervious area beyond the state standards. Three
bioretention areas were selected within the proposed parking lot which will treat 0.544
acres of impervious surface. With this treatment the proposed impervious surface will be
reduced from 1.74 acres to 1.199 acres and the percent impervious to 23.7% which falls
within the state standards. Table B below summarizes the site percent impervious with
the installation of three bioretention basins:
Table B: % Impervious With Proposed BMP's
Project Site Drainage Impervious Site Area
Drainage Basin Area (Acres) with Bioretention Basins % Impervious
(Acres)
A 5.05 1.199 23.7%
Total Site 12.17 2.79 22.9%
The supporting calculations for this analysis are included in Appendix A.
6.0 Best Management Practice Design (BMP)
Bioretention basins were designed for the new parking lot area to reduce the impacts of
the increased impervious surfaces on the western half of the project as discussed in the
analysis above. The Bioretention basins will all be located within the planted medians
between the parking rows in the proposed lot.
• The bioretention basins were designed in compliance with NCDENR standards.
Bioretention Cell Supplement forms have been included in Appendix B along with the
required items checklist. Plan sheets pertaining to the Bioretention cells have been
included in Appendix C. These plan sheets meet the requirements of the check list.
Written calculations for the bioretention cells are included behind each supplement in
Appendix A as supporting documentation. Dr. Bill Hunt's spreadsheet analysis for
bioretention cell design was also used in the analysis and is included on a CD attached to
this report.
Several other Appendices are included as a part of this report. Appendix C & D include
the plan sheets for the bioretention cells and the planting plan. Soils information and the
subsurface exploration report for the project are included in Appendix E. The subsurface
report's applicable soils borings are the two (B 1 and B2) that were taken at the future
building location. These borings are the close to the bioretention cells that are proposed
for the parking lot area. Appendix F includes information on the permeable pavers for the
parking lot. These pavers have not been included in any of our designs for the
bioretention basins. We have for the purposes of our design considered them
impermeable.
All of the outlet structures have removable grates for access to the system. Cleanouts
have been designed into the pipe system for maintenance.
•
6
• 6.1 Bioretention Basin A- Drainage Area A
Basin A is located in the western most portion of the parking lot. The drainage area for
this basin is 0.31 acres. The drainage basin consists of grass, sidewalks, and a parking
area. The drainage area includes a majority of the western one half of the parking spaces.
The drainage area contains no off site drainage and is contained within the park property.
The area is planned to be stabilized with grass and park landscaping that will be
maintained. Stormwater will flow from the grassed area over the curbing for the parking
spaces and across the parking lot. The water will flow through three curb cuts that are
planned to be each 6 feet in length. Class B riprap has been placed at each opening down
the slope to the basin to reduce energy and erosion. The parking bays on the north east
side of the median will also drain into the basin through an 8 foot opening on the south
west corner of the parking area. The bioretention area will be excavated due to the
unsuitable existing soils and will be replaced with soil media. A drop inlet will be
installed to bypass flows larger than design into a proposed storm drainage system. The
cell has been designed so that the 10 year event will not overtop the curbing and enter the
parking area.
6.2 Bioretention Basin B- Drainage Area C
Basin B is located near the entrance to the parking area. The drainage area for this basin,
0.34 acres, consists of grass and parking lot. The area is completely contained within the
park and does not have any off site drainage. The water from the roadway in this area will
• be graded to drain into a drop inlet near the park entrance. The water from the drainage
area will flow over the curbing and into the parking area. The eastern one half of the
parking area drains towards a center median. Three six foot openings in the curbing
provide access into the planted median and then into the basin. The parking spaces to the
south of the median drain into a 10 foot gap in the curb. All of the openings have class B
riprap located to the basin elevation to dissipate energy and reduce erosion. The cell will
have underdrains and fill media. A drop inlet will provide for bypass flows from this cell
into a storm drainage system. The 10 year storm event will not overtop the proposed
curb.
6.3 Bioretention Basin C-Drainage Area D
Basin C is located in the center of the parking area directly in front of the drop off circle
for the visitor's center. The area is 0.174 acres and drains primarily pavement from the
north and south into the basin. The drainage from the north will flow over a 6" gravel
edge and into the basin. The water from the north will flow through three curb cuts that
are 6 foot long each. These openings will have class B riprap placed at the openings to
the basin elevation. A drop inlet is proposed for the outlet structure. The 10 year event
will not overtop the proposed curbing or sidewalk.
•
7
•
Appendix A - Site % Impervious Calculations
r?
u
0
C?u1
• J'?1r?2Uri17L_ ?_
/ICJ ??G Y?lGri lvta.t n°7 - ©. ao
r
-ell
% e 7?? 4u -nap c ov? 44./,/ YL4 w P,7, A
%? /9e c c, = /,7q3 r4c. pr o "",?? u
?/Zoa = 0,07 3 Idle - 15qY rye = d. Gbh Ae
(T G
f
? ? ? € . ?? ? 15 yU L.F la w,cf . = ?i1? 0, a I ? Ac i
?.e `? ? z ElrNwk.
?,vt • tJu4- Gwv?
(mac" - ! ate, Zr = 0,4 ?8 Ac. n
T
ac-o-'.)'a IVAV-4 w 0.080 Ao
a.Um sew t r 0. cJ 63 A (L
To Vim; Tmr - +44q-AO--- I. 4 3 A e.
t?? 5.0 5
???• 075 c T?.?.a?'vn a,, A . La
?
o ( ?
Xdto. 1
i
c A
cna
??-ate' . V
Z
• ???,a i,na ?,?. Qne ta. = 19'a, 10-7 5 +A Z - H , L11 ? c.
walk w? 1 5 = Q.a a rye
S 5O x Ll ? = 0.05 l AC.
6, WojkW I3aG x = 0, 8a Ac.
°? WaAw 15s s x E = 0, avb Ac.
Woltz = 0.0 31 At
51.?d, ? - s RP.
0. 3e8 Ac,
0.8 o. a o 1 = @0.170 4 aq to
H-41
0
--
8' W?c? - 300x b = 0.055
Pa1hti
O.a qg
LeF-
Tu6& i??i s nom. a.,x - 55) 3`15 +f?- = I. al At
Cx?s;, riy /Ocu?,? Let 5t. -
S' t,UOj kw '-i7 4ao x 5' _
Li v.AQ v .? NO k a
v&, pa-h.6 wC UB/?. =
a3 - 0,31 =ZOO
I , a-I
j TUU Projce? Ac4,4t C
Ta.4 '1?r I"t ?v
IIUA
5.v5 + ti,4I + I,LIN+ I.aLj = ?I? Ac_
?? -ac) + 0 51 + . Zo + . LIO a,IR Ac,
TvlulC !v 13VA ? .-? =
?a??, y
0. Q,38 Ac.
O, 0S')
O.GII
0.0SI?
o. 39 Ac.
AA ?0 L71? LO p C".*
lob- 600
a 170 74? &Q-rz` e 4g CdjI6
9
•
Appendix B - Bioretention Cell Supplement Forms
& Supporting Calculations

Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
ITMA
.AV*A
WDENR
o`,OF W ATF9oG
O Y
• STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
BIORETENTION CELL SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part 111) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name Greensboro Gateway Gardens
Contact name Becky L. Ward, P.E.
Phone number 919-870-0526
Date November 23, 2008
Drainage area number Bioretention Cell A- Drainage Area A
11. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 13,392 ftz
Impervious area 8,538 fly
Percent impervious 63.8% %
Design rainfall depth 1.2 inch
Peak Flow Calculations
Is pre/post control of the 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow required? N (Y or N)
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth 2.79 in
1-yr, 24-hr intensity 0.12 in/hr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 507 ft3/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 0.025 ft3/sec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak control 0.018 ft3/sec
Storage Volume: Non-SA Waters
Minimum volume required 726.0 ft3
•
Volume provided 788.0 ft3 OK
Storage Volume: SA Waters
1.5" runoff volume ft
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Minimum volume required 0 ft
Volume provided ft3
Cell Dimensions
Ponding depth of water 11.5 inches OK
Ponding depth of water 0.96 ft
Surface area of the top of the bioretention cell 822.5 fe OK
Length: 44 ft OK
Width: 27 ft OK
-or- Radius ft
Media and Soils Summary
Drawdown time, ponded volume 7.75 hr OK
Drawdown time, to 24 inches below surface 7.9 hr OK
Drawdown time, total: 15.65 hr
In-situ soil:
Soil permeability .06-0.2 in/hr OK
Planting media soil:
Soil permeability 1.00 in/hr OK
Soil composition
% Sand (by weight) 85% OK
% Fines (by weight) 12% OK
% Organic (by weight) 3% OK
Total: 100%
Phosphorus Index (P-Index) of media 30 (unitiess) OK
Form SW401-Bioretention-Rev.5 Parts I and 11. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)

•

Basin Elevations
Temporary pool elevation
Type of bioretention cell (answer 'r to only one of the two following
questions):
Is this a grassed cell?
Is this a cell with trees/shrubs?
Planting elevation (top of the mulch or grass sod layer)
Depth of mulch
Bottom of the planting media soil
Planting media depth
Depth of washed sand below planting media soil
Are underdrains being installed?
769.96 fmsl Insufficient temporary pool elevation.
(Y or N)
y (Y or N) OK media depth
769 fmsl
3 inches OK
764.5 fmsl
4.5 ft
4 inches
y (Y or N)
How many clean out pipes are being installed? 3 OK
What factor of safety is used for sizing the underdrains? (See 10 OK
BMP Manual Section 12.3.6)
Additional distance between the bottom of the planting media and 1 ft
the bottom of the cell to account for underdrains
Bottom of the cell required 759.5 fmsl 3 Z - '`
SHWT elevation 760 fmsl
Distance from bottom to SHWT : 7 , 1 5 ft Insufficient distance to SHWT.
Planting Plan
( l' i I
'/
Number of tree species 2 (r`
' '
Number of shrub species 3
Number of herbaceous groundcover species 3 OK
Additional Information
Does volume in excess of the design volume bypass the
y (Y or N)
OK
bioretention cell?
Does volume in excess of the design volume flow evenly distributed y (Y or N) OK
through a vegetated filter?
What is the length of the vegetated filter? 26 ft
Does the design use a level spreader to evenly distribute flow? n (Y or N) Show how flow is evenly distributed.
Is the BMP located at least 30 feet from surface waters (50 feet if

SA waters)? y (Y or N) OK
Is the BMP localed at least 100 feet from water supply wells? y (Y or N) OK
Are the vegetated side slopes equal to or less than 3:1? y (Y or N) OK
Is the BMP located in a proposed drainage easement with access to n (Y or N) Insufficient ROW location.
a public Right of Way (ROW)?
Inlet velocity (from treatment system) 0.002 ft/sec OK
Is the area surrounding the cell likely to undergo development in the

future? n (Y or N) OK
Are the slopes draining to the bioretention cell greater than 20%? n (Y or N) OK
Is the drainage area permanently stabilized? y (Y or N) OK
Pretreatment Used
(Indicate Type Used with an "X" in the shaded cell)
Gravel and grass
(81inches gravel followed by 3-5 ft of grass)
Grassed swale #VALUE!
Forebay
Other x
Form SW401-Bioretantion-Rev.5
Parts I and 11. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2

010
?'"` 0, /oZ f N1,Z
s c? w a l 3 qd' . Q• 30-1
= 0,007
Cam, aaoCo.ia)e a. 3csr,71
G?? •? $537,70 ?? G• 95"
Z.
Ina 5.6
SU-75yv
? '.' r??S Ss37.76 ?- _r a ?y?lnc
/S? 39a

o.6blo,/a) (o.,,3cn 0 a5,
Otte? v e to
o??v C ?,.rc?, dam- n
l3 Itz

.= 0.00) 1jlSre? I-I gIsce,
o-9_•

l
i
j
i
Depth-Duration-Frequency Table for Greensboro, NC
Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches)
r:
•
Rainfall Annual Exceedance Probability (1 in _ years)
Duration 1-yr 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr
5 min 0.38 0.45 0.53 0.57 0.63 0.66 0.69
10 min 0.61 0.72 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.06 1.1
15 min 0.76 0.91 1.07 1.16 1.27 1.34 1.39
30 min 1.04 1.26 1.52 1.68 1.88 2.01 2.13
60 min 1.3 1.58 1.95 2.18 2.51 2.73 2.93
2 hr 1.53 1.86 2.32 2.62 3.06 3.36 3.66
3 hr 1.64 1.99 2.48 2.81 3.28 3.62 3.95
6 hr 1.99 ? 2.41 3.00 ? 3.42 / 4.03 4.49 / 4.95
12 hr 2.36 2.86 3.57 4.1 4.9 5.52 6.16
,24 hr 2.79 3.38 4.21 4.82 5.73 6.43 7.15
Intensity-Duration-Frequency Table for Greensboro, NC
Precipitation Intensity Estimates (inches/hour)
Rainfall Annual Exceedance Probability (1 in _ years)
Duration 1-yr 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr
5 min 4.57 5.44 .' 6.34 6.87 7.55 7.96 8.31
10 min' 3.65 4.35 5.08 5.49 6.02 6.33 6.6
15 min 3.05 3.65 4.28 4.63 5.09 5.35 5.56
30 min 2.09 2.52 3.04 3.35 3.77 4.03 4.26
60 min 1.3 1.58 1.95 2.18 2.51 2.73 2.93
2 hr 0.77 093 1.16 1.31 1.53 1.68 1.83
3 hr 0.55 0.66 0.83 0.94 1.09 1.21 1.31
6 hr 0.33 0.4 0.5 0.57 0.67 0.75 0.83
12 hr 0.2 0.24 0.30 0.34 0.41 0.46 0.51
,24 hr 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.3
Source: NOAA Atlas 14, Vol. 2, Version 3 (2004) for East Greensboro - 36.083 N 79.8 W
Note: For the 1, 2, and 5 year recurrence intervals, precipitation values were obtained from a partial
duration series. The 10, 25; 50, and 100 year recurrence interval precipitation values were obtained
from an annual maximum series
•

0
/d - C r-(rt Ct5/? CSI nJ ?/4S1X? -?
%o ( vuyC zce,- z
l /fn z y3560 z
14
o. J/ y ?9e. `7 9
'G ct 50-757o
r
5?u
i
Alt
?? . d 3 off. 0 04
lveai
l ?p 4Z = 0,95
aJl?/ L r 0.4a
-20

•
.45_ 11..
a

17-e, C?c
D• a Q2c -rn x y35?o Zx? 7:a ? ,? s
is rA
rr
e&ntC
yoyea"- eVV4 44,(r = -76 1, /6
41? f -?Y;•c, r or, w votuw -
(? s Lacw
g = Ca.3 Hof}• k. q?
a' C? hr ,, t r:
Ctd
Ca x,US? •Crwn) hY? gaa5> Z
3=?? a
TT_S :C
`TIS =.1,?? ?,uws L ! a ?rs? ??C.
T, nv, ?o cl faw dam, LA ?? CYO , a?
h UU faCL
AsscmL car s i ? = q 510 G?« ak?lt -tea
vs-? _ ? 88?,5? - G•LI5
v5_a. -?ILI 3

0t

T
Toi-4 ?`? M:i 41-r WJAC, 4 l- S
b
T = TS_, 4.7 ? 5+x.51= 15•
S-Z
Lill w ? N
Un?.?.d, i ? ? ? ? G ro?vc2 ?i+nve Gumol.?w- ok
i
o ff,, I o
r a
us C. N CucR,c?, ?eA,
j c
G
F
Ip = dui ? ? ? ? r ''
e- avov.4
mcvh ?- ,C? 15
rv =
s = sly :- . 'CX),S . .
I\Js rJ = 110 '
a
' 1'V • ? _ ?. 9 N ? ncArw
as 10% saw ,
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
ITMA
NCDENR
ho?'o? W arF9oG
r
? ,y
O Y
• STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
BIORETENTION CELL SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part 111) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name Greensboro Gateway Gardens
Contact name Becky L. Ward, P.E.
Phone number 919-870-0526
Date November 13, 2008
Drainage area number Bioretention Cell B- Drainage Area C
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 13,373 to
Impervious area 8,015 fe
Percent impervious 59.9% %
Design rainfall depth 1.2 inch
Peak Flow Calculations
Is pre/post control of the 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow required? N (Y or N)
1 -yr, 24-hr runoff depth 2.79 in
1-yr, 24-hr intensity 0.12 in/hr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 0.007 ft3/sec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 0.025 ft/sec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak control 0.017 ft3/sec
Storage Volume: Non-SA Waters
Minimum volume required 689.0 ft3
•
Volume provided 693.0 ft3 OK
Storage Volume: SA Waters
1.5" runoff volume ft3
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Minimum volume required 0 ft,
Volume provided ft3
Cell Dimensions
Ponding depth of water 10 inches OK
Ponding depth of water 0.83 ft
Surface area of the top of the bioretention cell 835.0 fe OK
Length: 44 ft OK
Width: 33 ft OK
-or- Radius ft
Media and Soils Summary
Drawdown time, ponded volume 7.13 hr OK
Drawdown time, to 24 inches below surface 7.73 hr OK
Drawdown time, total: 14.86 hr
In-situ soil:
Sal permeability .06-0.2 in/hr OK
Planting media soil.
Soil permeability 1.00 in/hr OK
Soil composition
• Sand (by weight) 85% OK
• Fines (by weight) 12% OK
Organic (by weight) 3% OK
Total: 100%
•
Phosphorus Index (P-Index) of media 30 (unities) OK
Form SW401-Bioretention-Rev.5 Parts I and ll. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
•
•
•
Basin Elevations
Temporary pool elevation
Type of bioretention cell (answer "Y" to only one of the two following
questions):
Is this a grassed cell?
Is this a cell with trees/shrubs?
Planting elevation (top of the mulch or grass sod layer)
Depth of mulch
Bottom of the planting media soil
Planting media depth
Depth of washed sand below planting media soil
Are underdrains being installed?
Planting Plan
768.13 fmsl Insufficient temporary pool elevation.
(Y or N)
y (Y or N) OK media depth
767.29 fmsl
3 inches OK
764 fmsl
3.29 It
4 inches
y (Y or N)
How many clean out pipes are being installed? 4 OK
What factor of safety is used for sizing the underdrains? (See 10 OK
BMP Manual Section 12.3.6)
Additional distance between the bottom of the planting media and /
the bottom of the cell to account for underdrains 1 ft
3 3 = 7?jpt (s ])
Bottom of the cell required 1(Oo?.?p 759 fmsl( 0 L&O-4.,6Yi G rru A
SHWT elevation 760 fmsl
Distance from bottom to SHWT 7 1 ft Insufficient distance to SHWT.
Number of tree species 2
Number of shrub species 2
Number of herbaceous groundcover species 7 OK
Additional Information
Does volume in excess of the design volume bypass the
y (Y or N)
OK
bioretention cell?
Does volume in excess of the design volume flow evenly distributed y (Y or N) OK
through a vegetated filter?
What is the length of the vegetated filter? 28 ft
Does the design use a level spreader to evenly distribute flow? n (Y or N) Show how flow is evenly distributed.
Is the BMP located at least 30 feet from surface waters (50 feet if y (Y or N) OK
SA waters)?
Is the BMP located at least 100 feet from water supply wells? y (Y or N) OK
Are the vegetated side slopes equal to or less than 3:1? y (Y or N) OK
Is the BMP located in a proposed drainage easement with access to n (Y or N) Insufficient ROW location.
a public Right of Way (ROW)?
Inlet velocity (from treatment system) 0.002 fVsec OK
Is the area surrounding the cell likely to undergo development in the n (Y or N) OK
future?
Are the slopes draining to the bioretention cell greater than 20%? n (Y or N) OK
Is the drainage area permanently stabilized? y (Y or N) OK
Pretreatment Used
(Indicate Type Used with an "X° in the shaded cell)
Gravel and grass
(81inches gravel followed by 3-5 It of grass)
Grassed swale #VALUE!
Forebay
other x
Form SW401-Bioretention-Rev.5
Parts I and II. Design Summary, Page 2 or 2
•

?? o," Q. 0
2
fl-a "i° ,u.. = 13 3,1 3'x . W-41 Z = 13 , 313 Pna
,Itl., r
acco- = was C19a) -1-3,37-3 = D, 3o7k-
Z/ 3 5GC7
00737 31scc.
?c
71 S, x 0, aO
G.17
"j ® nln2 ?o
?3 G +
a All
-? _ ens = 0.0018,, f s .
0
Gtr. rQ ° f?
itJ d ??G rt 17GGri f 1 ,
hod GvI" /t44'»a yc a,- /A a64("l paVao ?O V IL AJOYr L
= 13,13 r?Z x L x -AAL- O.3o7
err ?° ?t3???.(??
6
40
1
?n 4 35(o0,?
a
i
lo-61- O- zoa + G.o35 = 4.3q k
/ham
1 n 96 N4?c°,? = 06 64, Ac.
11 u/yaysu,, OAR.#. = o.011+ O. o65 = C. 156 Ac.
f
z ,. 1
hoa-%. Co = 980.1 a Sq
07.34
per-, n Az fit" = 4 1 /t4 .c a ao 5-
?? S ?? = c?.09a 3 ? ?-?
13.03.3
/,PO 4
v . -5 /t-24 = %3 (.0 993 ) + '13 ?.0 3 3 = o. 053
#/fAl
?vnvf s 0.95
?6-yL O. as C . X56) = o I - ?? --c
?.3y
sqlo
ao 0. O's
+i L prt- dos
31
,GGs?L 10 Me- l a rn +
-76b = 10 3/,5l . Z 1/a-Qum I C(,44k = 6, Z 4)03
/?v czu?a. =H 3 5 ? 1 x.a3- 69,33
• /c4??n?,zG .?icse?L f /0 `? = 0. 63
/..?'
"
?35x . 3 = 768 68? 3
d
767.,-3
?? ip = 7 ?, y
'7 (o 7 6 5,1
t
r3
?,c?w ? umL
tuAt, Pow o!
cuQ' s Lave -
U q=(a.3xiU5)-k,A4

a ????= X35I , ?? 9nv-
a +f

?N
?L
q = 0.001"1 o-fs d r"CLU N, `6Y Ar.
1?
v=-5 _ .83 x 0135 6-f
693 g3
Tr-s = ?r-s # a
?? 3 3 ' e?.aa`1 ens
= a 5 ?L ? sce?,ds
T=_S = 1.13 hours
Tj?ti,a ?o ct,raw clo v, wo.4Tr atwa.i, Svr?o C °?
h6ovj- "C'?et
A-r,sume- ?' ,oS? _ List - i s a d = 0.45
Vs _a a facc a4&, • a?
I/s-a = -a - 635. 0,45
VS-a - `15i 5 .?+3

1Z
• Ti rr4 -6 amm rvc. wa.k (Yowx `15 I , 5 4-f
Ts -a vs -a
?? g33 see.
3 Maur

Un&vjraiv\ Apt A Gam! &ve4pc.
'?rc??u?n nc??. c? = D.Od`1 ens
? O?, 50.x, = I a
0 a1 C1 61- o. a-e cis,
use, M- ;01(5 ech 0 i Sh e. = 0.51a 05 ? -
?hcm?
?mu•, n i r?c? S CIO
c .315
N • b - 5 . ?I? i ?? cl?.a

Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
A&
TA
HCDENR
OBOE W ATFAOG
h ?
? -i
o
• STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
BIORETENTION CELL SUPPLEMENT
This form must be filled out, printed and submitted.
The Required Items Checklist (Part III) must be printed, filled out and submitted along with all of the required information.
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name Greensboro Gateway Gardens
Contact name Becky L. Ward, P.E.
Phone number 919-870-0526
Date November 23, 2008
Drainage area number Bioretention Cell C- Drainage Area D
II. DESIGN INFORMATION
Site Characteristics
Drainage area 7,598 ft2
Impervious area 6,285 ft2
Percent impervious 82.7% %
Design rainfall depth 1.2 inch
Peak Flow Calculations
Is pre/post control of the 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow required? N (Y or N)
1-yr, 24-hr runoff depth 2.79 in
1-yr, 24-hr intensity 0.12 in/hr
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 0.004 Osec
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr peak flow 0.017 Osec
Pre/Post 1-yr, 24-hr peak control 0.013 ft3/sec
Storage Volume: Non-SA Waters
• Minimum volume required 544.5 ft3
Volume provided 545.0 ft3 OK
Storage Volume: SA Waters
1.5" runoff volume f?
Pre-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft,
Post-development 1-yr, 24-hr runoff ft3
Minimum volume required 0 ft3
Volume provided ft3
Cell Dimensions
Ponding depth of water 11 inches OK
Ponding depth of water 0.92 ft
Surface area of the top of the bioretention cell 595.0 fe OK
Length: 78 It OK
Width: 24 ft OK
-or- Radius ft
Media and Soils Summary
Drawdown time, ponded volume 7.6 hr OK
Drawdown time, to 24 inches below surface 7.4 hr OK
Drawdown time, total: 15 hr
In-situ soil:
Soil permeability .06-0.2 in/hr OK
Planfing media soft:
Soil permeability 1.00 in/hr OK
Soil composition
% Sand (by weight) 85% OK
% Fines (by weight) 12% OK
% Organic (by weight) 3% OK
Total: 100%
•
Phosphorus Index (P-Index) of media 30 (unities) OK
Form SW401-Bmretention-Rev.5 Parts I and 11. Design Summary, Page 1 of 2
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
•
•
•
Basin Elevations
Temporary pool elevation
Type of bioretention cell (answer 'r to only one of the two following
questions):
Is this a grassed cell?
Is this a cell with trees/shrubs?
Planting elevation (top of the mulch or grass sod layer)
Depth of mulch
Bottom of the planting media soil
Planting media depth
Depth of washed sand below planting media soil
Are underdrains being installed?
Planting Plan
F 9
the bottom of the cell to account for underdrains 1 ft v
Bottom of the cell required ?(o 758.83 fmsl Clt!,(n? .s ?i ?V' 3 =7 ??
SHWT elevation 760 fmsl
Distance from bottom to SHWT , -1.17 It Insufficient distance to SHWT.
768.42 fmsl Insufficient temporary pool elevation.
(Y or N)
y (Y or N) OK media depth
767.5 fmsl
3 inches OK
763.83 fmsl
3.67 ft
4 inches
y (Y or N)
How many clean out pipes are being installed? 4 OK
What factor of safety is used for sizing the underdrains? (See 10 OK
BMP Manual Section 12.3.6)
Additional distance between the bottom of the lantin media and
Number of tree species 2
Number of shrub species 2
Number of herbaceous groundcover species 7 OK
Additional Information
Does volume in excess of the design volume bypass the
y
(Y or N)
OK
bioretention cell?
Does volume in excess of the design volume flow evenly distributed y (Y or N) OK
through a vegetated filter?
What is the length of the vegetated filter? 88 ft
Does the design use a level spreader to evenly distribute flow? n (Y or N) Show how flow is evenly distributed.
Is the BMP located at least 30 feet from surface waters (50 feet if y (Y or N) OK
SA waters)?
Is the BMP located at least 100 feet from water supply wells? y (Y or N) OK
Are the vegetated side slopes equal to or less than 3:1? y (Y or N) OK
Is the BMP located in a proposed drainage easement with access to
n
(Y or N)
Insufficient ROW location.
a public Right of Way (ROW)?
Inlet velocity (from treatment system) 0.004 f lsec OK
Is the area surrounding the cell likely to undergo development in the n (Y or N) OK
future?
Are the slopes draining to the bioretention cell greater than 20%? n (Y or N) OK
Is the drainage area permanently stabilized? y (Y or N) OK
Pretreatment Used
(Indicate Type Used with an "X" in the shaded cell)
Gravel and grass
(81inches gravel followed by 3-5 ft of grass) x
Grassed swale OK
Forebay
Other
Form SW401-B*retsntion-Rev.5
Parts I and fl. Design Summary, Page 2 of 2

• tl? l = 11 596 ,?+ ar O . I`14 IBC.
0,,TA C°. = wood., O . ao
a: Tjm?.?-r 0. IQ In
ppre = C?•OUyZ ?,?s
Z
G rand = 13 i 3 .`.1'2 X , ac
"C: = a. 8 a
p
C ?, = 0.011 as
a

FIB- J4 artll\ CA wcjLLw -
4c) mot. t.."u. =-tOQ1
3qu,roo c,% d-rive. S\4 3??f (jj& 3 te) Td 6k c ?Ut 15 =55'

?73 t f?.+C711? = C?.OI 1 ?3?scC. ? i?_ z
V = ?e ?l ? = . OG I9
co cc.
y- s
?-16-o ca/ .
P? = Lz ?5° Z = o.i?y
I? d ?:I Gam, C . i7 L@
c?
P, 0,0q +1P
Pal at"4-tt4q; 1/3 5
s Pv M+ = o, 9 5
A5
's o4j, ti auto C ?o C)
3
`76 5, 5 c??tw 7,?-7 ylf Z zC?a V?u- rna. w ©e 5 ac- E n
aq
E at 3 IQ I;%
4veLml- xl 54 1,5 au? a
3
i
OL40 7'L' 11
Ciet,- `? (??, 5 - i a?? a.l?-c,-Uc. o`n<,.<,?.Y,?l

•
66t rN v a raw dal.rl ,'Gb4 .
LO-W -
AL
! = 5q v??4 as straw
tag
a
G1 = 0.019 $ = O" d-& C?s ad raw ctavn
•

f
i
5 44, eo 3
TI-S ¦ Vr-x +
ro44,(,+ as
Tr -s - ai,'aZa Sot ? "7,4hows
F
4 r ? ? ??#?."a,45
Vs-a = 53a,8 4J3
?? ? 4v Yr?rc. ?.v 5 3 a, S ,?,.} 3
Ts-a v 5 _a ``-Q
= 53a,`a.? =,aa
.a = `?. au?rs
TS
Tcj?*k Tj = 7, L + -7, 4 = 15 our
?Qm n I n? 5 G??a?t?nJ
.375
tip = ??, 0.Qocfs x.ai5
?ao5)? 5
lU ? ?'J = ?l , S ?l i ;, e4,o

Appendix C - Bioretention Cell Plan Sheets
0
0
0 6£L£L'Ad SS:TZ:Zi 800Z/bT/8'6Mp'9NLLSIX3\So:)\suapieg Aemaleg\s f&a pe:)olny\:D
3 c sulloaBg WON `oaogsuaaa!D
U?,,,„obw O
SU8p.IL ZX ?
WIN
s , ,
° , Z
v, s g a = Acme eg oaogsueei oy g o
0 za--9 C •w g 99
a.
-ff. 0 1 !IneaB aogsuaaa? > a :r w>o g V
?o<
a
o?
=$Q
i m 5
?Ov
4
?N
i
III ? ? ? ?
Weto-V
MoNusma
0
0
5
p?p$
WQ
9
q
i°$? t
I !I
O
b y la ,j 'O
c as ?tf ss
Al -j R
$ .p; $ G ; w v S°.?nzQ g^ Rwi9 eD Pi +S (¢J M?'p °`..J
u orb
p as pp app p ?G1 ? p O N v? '? E•i q
RAI
JAI 2
F? ?3 A w FY; a4?U a?? o01 a?MVzwv?ia`o
L
9 6£L£C,Wd SS:Z£:Z 8002/T/0T '6Mp'39VNIVb(]\S4:)\Suapjeg AemaTeg\s ao pe:)oTnb\::)
•
Appendix D - Bioretention Cell Planting Plan
0
40
•
Appendix E - Soils Information and Subsurface
Exploration Report
0
• ,.9b .bb .6L
a
a
m
fu)
U)
O
U
is ..9 &G a6L

N
Cl M
?
l+
l M
4ef
3 -
a
a
Vale
V-10
? •. ? fk ? -y?? ?, ?
7V `N
10 ?
;Vor
D
3a fi
4, AW As
?h b f'
k
+0,
'OPP
M 1?e'" uu" r
m
N W

U f?]
('7 tD
„Lb .bb a6L
li O
o °
0
yN N V
N
?(I
Q
N
a
S
[7 O
N ?.Oj O
d
N
U
a
0 0
Z Q
..L ,96 a6L
Map Unit Description
• Guilford County, North Carolina
EuB Enon-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes
Setting
Landscape: Uplands
Elevation: 200 to 1400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Enon and similar soils: 50 percent
Urban land: 30 percent
Description of Enon
Composition
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum weathered from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase and/or
residuum weathered from gneiss
E
Properties and Qualities
Slope: 2 to 10 percent
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate maximum: 0 percent
Gypsum maximum: 0 percent
Available water capacity: High (about 9.4 inches)
Interpretive Groups
Land capability (non irrigated): 3e
Typical Profile
0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam
8 to 11 inches: clay loam
11 to 33 inches: clay
33 to 80 inches: loam
Description of Urban land
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Properties and Qualities
Slope: 2 to 10 percent
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Very low (about 0.0 inches)
Interpretive Groups
Land capability (non irrigated): 8s
Typical Profile
0 to 6 inches: variable
•
Moderately low or moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
USDA Natural Resources Tabular Data Version: 8
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 01/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
Map Unit Description
• Guilford County, North Carolina
MhB2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
Setting
Landscape: Uplands
Elevation: 200 to 1400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Composition
Mecklenburg, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 90 percent
Description of Mecklenburg, moderately eroded
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or gneiss
Properties and Qualities
Slope: 2 to 6 percent
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat)
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate maximum: 0 percent
Gypsum maximum: 0 percent
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.8 inches)
E Interpretive Groups
Land capability (non irrigated): 2e
Typical Profile
0 to 6 inches: sandy clay loam
6 to 34 inches: clay
34 to 40 inches: clay loam
40 to 80 inches: loam
C
Moderately low or moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
USDA Natural Resources
--- Tabular Data Version: 8
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 01/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
Map Unit Description
• Guilford County, North Carolina
MhC2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded
Setting
Landscape: Uplands
Elevation: 200 to 1400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Composition
Mecklenburg, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 85 percent
Description of Mecklenburg, moderately eroded
Setting
Landform: Hilislopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or gneiss
Properties and Qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate maximum: 0 percent
Gypsum maximum: 0 percent
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.8 inches)
•
•
Interpretive Groups
Land capability (non irrigated): 3e
Typical Profile
0 to 6 inches: sandy clay loam
6 to 34 inches: clay
34 to 40 inches: clay loam
40 to 80 inches: loam
Moderately low or moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
USDA Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 8
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 01/19/2007
Page 1 of 1
Custom Soil Resource Report
•
Map Unit Legend
Guilford County, North Carolina (NC081)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
CUB Coronaca-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent
slopes 3.2 12.0%
EnB Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 9.4 35.4%
EnC Enon fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 6.0 22.6%
EuB Enon-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes 2.1 7.8%
MhB2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes, eroded 2.4 9.0%
MhC2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent
slopes, eroded 3.5 13.1%
Totals for Area of Interest 26.5 100.0%
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.
9

U
0
USDA United States
Department of
Agriculture
k MRCS
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
Guilford County,
North Carolina

•
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
• Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil
Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call [phone]
(voice) or [phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
17-?
•
Contents
Preface ....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made ................................................................... ...............4
Soil Map ................................................................................................... ...............6
Soil Map ................................................................................................. ...............7
Legend ................................................................................................... ...............8
Map Unit Legend .................................................................................... ..............9
Map Unit Descriptions ............................................................................ ..............9
Guilford County, North Carolina Version date.- 1/19/2007 7:27:32 AM ............ 12
Ch-Chewacla sandy loam ............................................................. ............12
CrB-Coronaca clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes ........................... ............13
CrC-Coronaca clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes ......................... ............13
CuB-Coronaca-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes ........ ............14
EnB-Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes ........................ ............15
EnC-Enon fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes ...................... ............16
EnD-Enon fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes .................... ............17
EoC2-Enon clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded ................. ............18
EuB-Enon-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes ...........................18
MhB2-Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded....... 19
MhC2-Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded ..... 20
Pt-Pits .......................................................................................................21
W-Water ....................................................................................................22
Wh-Wehadkee silt loam ............................................................................22
WkC-Wilkes sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes ......................................23
WkD-Wilkes sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes ....................................24
WkE-Wilkes sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes ....................................25
References ............................................................................................................26
•
is
v
•
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
• The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of howthey were formed. Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
• soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
4
M
Custom Soil Resource Report
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that •
they could confirm data and assemble additional data rased on experience and
research.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
•
r1
U

•
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
r:
•
6
?r
r-
O
a
N
U
? >2
0 (9
C/)
O
O
U)
O
U)
U
006166E 006066E 009066£ 00£066£ 000066£ 0OZ626C
sjy q? `ae lop,
s . a' •
Vol
w•. r
010
? a a
T? f? .?.q6'?l",• est' yt ?;a .. fff? 3 v 0.A,2
r
?r`''?? ?
-10
?R 1rt?I? ? ? ? ?!
v Z;
Ile
00,
-. 4T
44 0-
V lC
+. p'`. +? ter` ? ??'rs '°Mi?i "` 1 ,. j?` t?Ml
11
oll-
# fn "". '
OOZl66C 006066C 009066E 00£Oti6E 000066E 0OZ696C
/ 11
u
:o
:a
N
•
v
LL
°o
O
°o
N
0
O
0
0
O
N O
uo?
O O
zQ

J
1

•
Q
U
0a
o
m ?
0
E
Q
U)
U
C
m a) O LA
a
o ?
45

N a) n
fa a?
N
C L
?
O
. >
° p
? Q 7
N j
E ? ) O
C
U O a) Z (6 °

O
N
c 2
C ?' N ? ? f9 - U a)

Z a m
> C
m c
a a?
U c

O o o E
N L O
,
E m e rn rn a? ° N
E V
rp .. a) Q) Q)
N Z 2'
Z 00
L O L :3
V E N
Q m> a) CO Q ?O N L Q N
aaio U.N
O Z zm L
a 3Nm?
LL N ° al(nc?- ?c O Q'a

N
Y 0) CL
m
?-2 o. 0

N 3 (0 o E Tm
(L)
Z
n
a?i a ro a
i N a o c a a) ° E
m a
N a)
c L ?
co n
-o -0 O 'N
= N
a? O N (a
E
R a)
a
Q N C C
E ° Z
f6 J a) y
N y _ > 3
N N
N
IS a) C .?
CL> N Zaf N N O .y O N
(U
Z E
a) N
rn m
m e m
E -0-0
T
N N N N fa 7 U) N? Q M l6 o o
L 'p d N
O U N N ? a) L) C T N a c N .«-•
-0 C:
N LAa O O O C O N Z Q C
O T
c c c E
? U -0 4. a`)
> (p N p 'd a) m
m
a)a
N m mI °
O O O N
L O - Z
O 7 a)
N m E m E
L O

d

N
d

U)
V1

N

la
U

U N

r i

LM 1a
VJ

C m

N cm
m _
y?
N L N
° o
d
V1
R U)
Q
N N v m m o
?a r] _ o Q'

L LL J. p d N
L W la m m N d' W N m
N
O y 7 L
c U` N d
O = .r
U :5 N ° _ C
O N O O v V1 U L_
D U) J O
(L a m
r

v

A 0

L'
d
\
W d = m `•
r n a 3 r
W
J

Q o v a
¢
N

a3
c

t a

a

m m

` (n

N N

n v

.-.
O d
¢°

A °
o 3
m
a °
..
2 > N O
3 v
o O
L ? O
o o W 'a o m o
m U) > w d v a
O
ri

D v v 4) w L
.r ° w
w
E
-
ul a) -o
Q (!) `
- O
'
co cn N O
U U N m
(:?
? c >
C T
J ° C C > "O O C
'

a, p
a (. J a R
(q U) N (0 V) U) U) N
16

a
m
° ® ?
a ..
a

..

;

t } 3i

i > III 4 ?A (H ?7
a
¢ (q

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Guilford County, North Carolina (NC081)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Ch i Chewacla sandy loam 15.3 1.9%1
CrB Coronaca clay loam, 2 to 6 40.2 5.0%
- } percent slopes L
CrC Coronaca clay loam, 6 to 10 12.2
percent slopes

CuB
Coronaca-Urban land complex, - -
31.4 -
3.9%1
2 to 10 percent slopes
EnB Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 67.1 8.3%
percent slopes
EnC Enon fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 9111 11.2 /°
percent slopes
EnD Enon fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 9.5 1.2%,
percent slopes
EoC2 Enon clay loam, 6 to 10 percent 19.4 2.4%
slopes, eroded

EuB
Enon Urban land complex, 2 to 48
.5
.0
10 percent slopes
MhB2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2 f 39.7 4.9%
to 6 percent slopes, eroded
MhC2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 14.3 1.8%
to 10 percent slopes, eroded
Pt Pits 34.8 4.3%
W Water 11.1 1.49/6
Wh Wehadkee silt loam 194.8 24.0%
WkC Wilkes sandy loam, 6 to 10 89.9 11.1%
I percent slopes
WkD Wilkes sandy loam, 10 to 15 17.0 2.1 %

- - - slopes
WkE Wilkes sandy loam, 15 to 45 -- - 74.4 - --- - - - 9.2%11
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest (AOI)
Map Unit Descriptions
810.71 100.0%
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
r1
U
•
r ?
L-.I
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
• 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.
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
10

Custom Soil Resource Report
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and •
relative prvpviiiuiii of the soils of IlliJl'.elldlleUUS areas are SUrneWlla[ 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.
•
•
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
• Guilford County, North Carolina Version date:1/19/2007
7:27:32 AM
Ch-Chewacla sandy loam
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period. 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Chewacla and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Description of Chewacla
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
• Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
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 6 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Available watercapacity: High (about 11.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 4w
Typical profile
0 to 4 inches: Loam
4 to 26 inches: Silty clay loam
26 to 38 inches: Loam
38 to 60 inches: Clay loam
60 to 80 inches: Loam
Minor Components
Wehadkee, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear

12
Custom Soil Resource Report
CrB-Coronaca clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes •
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period. 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Coronaca and similar soils: 90 percent
Description of Coronaca
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum
weathered from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase
and/or residuum weathered from gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained •
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately
high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
Typical profile
0 to 11 inches: Clay loam
11 to 71 inches: Clay
71 to 80 inches: Clay loam
80 to 95 inches: Silty clay loam
CrC-Coronaca clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Coronaca and similar soils: 85 percent •
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
• Description of Coronaca
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum
weathered from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase
and/or residuum weathered from gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately
high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
Typical profile
• 0 to 11 inches: Clay loam
11 to 71 inches: Clay
71 to 80 inches: Clay loam
80 to 95 inches: Silty clay loam
CuB-Coronaca-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Coronaca and similar soils: 50 percent
Urban land: 30 percent
Description of Coronaca
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum
• weathered from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase
and/or residuum weathered from gneiss
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
Properties and qualities •
Slope: 2 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately
high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated). 3e
Typical profile
0 to 11 inches: Clay loam
11 to 71 inches: Clay
71 to 80 inches: Clay loam
80 to 95 inches: Silty day loam
Description of Urban Land
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 8s
Typical profile
0 to 6 inches: Variable
EnB-Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period. 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Enon and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components. 2 percent
Description of Enon
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
•
•
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
•
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or gabbro and/
or diabase and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. High (about 9.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches: Fine sandy loam
8 to 11 inches: Clay loam
11 to 33 inches: Clay
33 to 80 inches: Loam
•
Minor Components
Picture, undrained
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
EnC-Enon fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Enon and similar soils: 85 percent
Description of Enon
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material. Residuum weathered from diorite and/or gabbro and/
or diabase and/or gneiss
r?
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
16

Custom Soil Resource Report
Drainage class: Well drained •
„ y
CaN Y /a yet of the muza limitiny /ay_ er to iransmii wafer (resat': ivoderatei
low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: High (about 9.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches: Fine sandy loam
8 to 11 inches: Clay loam
11 to 33 inches: Clay
33 to 80 inches: Loam
EnD-Enon fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Enon and similar soils: 75 percent •
Description of Enon
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum
weathered from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase
and/or residuum weathered from gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 10 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: High (about 9.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 4e
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches: Fine sandy loam
8 to 11 inches: Clay loam
17
Custom Soil Resource Report
• 9 9 to 3O3 inches: Clay
33 to 80 inches: Loam
EoC2-Enon clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period. 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Enon, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 85 percent
Description of Enon, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum
weathered from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase
and/or residuum weathered from gneiss
Properties and qualities
• Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: High (about 9.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 4e
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches: Clay loam
8 to 33 inches: Clay
33 to 80 inches: Loam
EuB-Enon-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
• Map Unit Composition
Enon and similar soils: 50 percent
18
?r
Custom Soil Resource Report
Urban land: 30 percent
Description of Enon
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material. Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum
weathered from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase
and/or residuum weathered from gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. High (about 9.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches: Fine sandy loam
8 to 11 inches: Clay loam
11 to 33 inches: Clay
33 to 80 inches: Loam
Description of Urban Land
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 8s
Typical profile
0 to 6 inches. Variable
W132-Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes,
eroded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period. 200 to 240 days
•
•
•
19
r
Custom Soil Resource Report
• map Unit 'Composition
Mecklenburg, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 90 percent
Description of Mecklenburg, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or gabbro and/
or diabase and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature. More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
• Typical profile
0 to 6 inches: Sandy clay loam
6 to 34 inches: Clay
34 to 40 inches: Clay loam
40 to 80 inches: Loam
MhU-Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes,
eroded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Mecklenburg, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 85 percent
Description of Mecklenburg, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
. Across-slope shape: Convex
20
?Y
Custom Soil Resource Report
R
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or gabbro and/ •
or diabase and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
Typical profile
0 to 6 inches: Sandy clay loam
6 to 34 inches: Clay
34 to 40 inches. Clay loam
40 to 80 inches. Loam
Pt-Pits
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 20 to 330 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches •
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Pits, quarry: 95 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Description of Pits, Quarry
Setting
Parent material: Granite and gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 200 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to lithic bedrock
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to
low (0.00 to 0.01 in/hr)
Available water capacity: Very low (about 0.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 8s
Typical profile
0 to 0 inches: Unweathered bedrock
Minor Components
Udorthents
Percent of map unit: 5 percent •
Down-slope shape: Convex
21
v
r
Custom Soil Resource Report
Across-slope shape: Convex
W-Water
Map Unit Composition
Water: 100 percent
Description of Water
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 8w
Typical profile
0 to 80 inches: Water
Wh-Wehadkee silt loam
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Wehadkee, undrained, and similar soils: 85 percent
Wehadkee, drained, and similar soils: 10 percent
is Description of Wehadkee, Undrained
Setting
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class. Poorly drained
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 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: High (about 9.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 6w
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches: Loam
8 to 43 inches: Sandy clay loam
43 to 80 inches: Sandy loam
•
22

Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of rrc1141un88, uiained •
Setting
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Poorly drained
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 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: High (about 9.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 4w
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches: Loam
8 to 43 inches: Sandy day loam
43 to 80 inches: Sandy loam
WkC-Wilkes sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes •
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Wilkes and similar soils: 85 percent
Description of Wilkes
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum
weathered from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase
and/or residuum weathered from gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock •
Drainage class: Well drained
23
tr
Custom Soil Resource Report
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to
moderately high (0.00 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 4e
Typical profile
0 to 7 inches: Loam
7 to 18 inches: Clay
18 to 80 inches. Weathered bedrock
WkD-Wilkes sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period. 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Wilkes and similar soils. 85 percent
Description of Wilkes
• Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum
weathered from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase
and/or residuum weathered from gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to
moderately high (0.00 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e
Typical profile
0 to 7 inches: Loam
• 7 to 15 inches: Clay
15 to 45 inches: Weathered bedrock
45 to 80 inches: Unweathered bedrock
24
f,
Custom Soil Resource Report
VWkE-Wilkes sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
W1Ikes and similar soils: 90 percent
Description of Wilkes
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape. Convex
Parent material. Residuum weathered from diorite and/or residuum
weathered from gabbro and/or residuum weathered from diabase
and/or residuum weathered from gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock •
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to
moderately high (0.00 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Very low (about 2.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 7e
Typical profile
0 to 7 inches. Loam
7 to 15 inches: Clay
15 to 45 inches: Weathered bedrock
45 to 80 inches: Unweathered bedrock
•
25
_4'

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://soils.usda.gov/
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://soils.usda.gov/
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://soils.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.giti.nres.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://soils.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://soils.usda.gov/
26
f4-
Custom Soil Resource Report

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land •
capability ciassificahori. U.S. Department of Agricuiture Handbook 210.
•
.7
27

•
Greensboro, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1581-08-115
Prepared for:
City of Greensboro
Facilities Management Division
10014 Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27405
•
Prepared by:
S&ME, Inc.
3718 Old Battleground Avenue
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410
August 26, 2008
n
LJ
S&ME
• Celebrating 35 Years
1973.2008
August 26, 2008
City of Greensboro
Facilities Management Division
10014" Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27405
Attention: Mr. Reggie Lee
Reference: Report of Subsurface Exploration
Gateway Gardens Development
Greensboro, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1581-08-115
Dear Mr. Lee:
S&ME, Inc. has completed a subsurface exploration for the proposed Gateway Gardens
development at. 2800 East Lee Street in Greensboro, North Carolina. The exploration
• was performed in general accordance with S&ME Proposal 1581-08-P147, dated July 7,
2008. The purpose of this exploration was to explore general subsurface conditions
within the proposed sewer line, Welcome Center building, fountain, and sediment trap
areas and evaluate those conditions with regard to site grading, foundation design,
excavation conditions and construction. This report presents our findings together with
our conclusions and recommendations.
For your convenience, a summary outline is provided below. This brief summary should
not be used for design or construction purposes without reviewing the more detailed
information and recommendations presented in the body of this report.
Site Conditions
? Fifteen (15) soil test borings were conducted across the proposed sewer line,
Welcome Center building, fountain, and sediment trap areas. The site is generally
wooded with previously graded areas adjacent to existing roadways.
? Man-placed fill soil was encountered at the surface or underlying the surficial
materials in borings A-1 through A4, A-6, and A-7 to approximate depths ranging
from 3 to 12 feet. The fill material consisted of high plasticity clayey silts and sandy
silts and had Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values ranging from 2 to 31 blows per
foot (bpf), indicating the fill was placed in an uncontrolled manner. Fill samples
encountered in boring A-1 contained a significant amount of organic materials
to a depth of 12 feet.
•
SWE, INC. / 3718 Old Battleground Road / Greensboro, NO 27410 / p 336.288.7160 f 336.288.8980 / www.smoinc.com
it ..
Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
? Residual soils resulting from the in-place weathering of underlying bedrock were •
encountered underlying surficial materials or fill soils. Residual soils encountered in
the borings typically consisted of sandy silts, clayey sands, and silty sands with
sporadic lenses of high plasticity clayey silt and silty clay (USCS classifications of
MH and CH) encountered near the surface or directly below the fill/residual interface
and extending to depths ranging from about 3 to 12 feet. Standard Penetration Test
values in the residual soils typically ranged from 4 to 20 bpf, with higher values
encountered sporadically.
? Partially weathered rock, auger refusal materials, and groundwater were not
encountered in the borings to the depths explored.
Recommendations
? The proposed Welcome Center building and fountain can be supported on shallow
footings designed for an allowable foundation contact pressure of up to 2,500 pounds
per square foot (psf) bearing on evaluated and approved existing soils and/or new
compacted structural fill.
? High plasticity silty clays and clayey silts were encountered near the surface in all but
one of the borings. Highly plastic clayey silts and silty clays (USCS classifications of
MH and CH) have the potential to shrink and swell with moisture changes. In
general, these soils may be left in place if they are located at a sufficient depth that
soil moisture contents do not change appreciably. Suitable depths to mitigate soil •
moisture content changes are commonly considered to be 3 feet below final exterior
grade in buildings and 2 feet below the soil subgrade in pavements. Based upon
anticipated final grades, undercutting of high plasticity silts and clays will be
required across much of the Welcome Center area and possibly in associated
pavement subgrades. The amount of required undercutting and replacement of high
plasticity soils can be reduced by placing fill (raising grades) in the proposed
Welcome Center building area. If high plasticity soils remain in undercut areas,
washed stone that would provide an avenue for water is not recommended as backfill
material.
? The majority of the near-surface site soils are silty clays and clayey silts which are
highly susceptible to weather related deterioration and are typically present at
moisture contents well above compactable levels. High plasticity soils may be used in
fill areas outside of structural footprints and pavement areas or in landscape and
garden areas.
? Boring A-1 encountered fill material with organic material to a depth of 12 feet,
which is below the planned sewer line pipe invert depth. These organic materials
must be removed below the planned pipe invert elevation and should not be used
as structural fill. Overexcavations must be backfilled with compacted structural
fill or washed stone.
0
1
Report of Subsurface Exploration SWE Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
• ? Based on.the subsurface conditions encountered by the borings and our understanding
of the proposed construction, difficult excavation conditions are not. anticipated at this
site. Groundwater is not expected to significantly impact construction.
C A R O? 11
Respectfully submitted, ??i?
S&ME, Inc. w : a SEAL. ter-; f
' 030944 _
Brian J. Kane, E.I. Matt Moler, P.E.
Staff Professional Engineering Department Manager
SRB/KTM
n
L-J
r1
LJ

TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
1. PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................................1
2. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ...........................................................................1
2.1 Field ...................................................................................................................: 1
2.2 Laboratory ...........................................................................................................2
3. REGIONAL GEOLOGY .......................................................................................... 2
4. SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 2
4.1 Surface Conditions .............................................................................................. 2
4.2 Fill ....................................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Residuum ............................................................................................................ 3
4.4 Partially Weathered Rock and Auger Refusal Materials .................................... 3
4.5 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 3
5. EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 4
6.. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 4
6.1 Foundation Support ............................................................................................. 4
6.2 Settlement Potential ............................................................................................ 5
6.3 Floor Slab ............................................................................................................ 5
6.4 Seismic Design Parameters ................................................................................. 5
6.5 Lateral Earth Pressures ....................................................................................... 5
7. SITE EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 6 •
7.1 Peviously Graded Sites ....................................................................................... 6
7.2 Clearing, Grubbing and Stripping ....................................................................... 6
7.3 Site Preparation ................................................................................................... 7
7.4 Excavation ...........................................................................................................7
7.5 Fill Material ........................................................................................................ 7
7.6 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction ......................................................... 8
7.7 Potential Subgrade Deterioration and Repair ..................................................... 8
8. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 8
9. L] IITATIONS OF REPORT .................................................................................. 9
APPENDIX
Boring Location Plan (Figures 1 and 2)
Generalized Subsurface Profile (Figures 3 and 4)
Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols
Boring Logs, A-1 through A-11 and B-1 through B-4
•
e
Report of Subsurface Exploration SWE Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
• 1 PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION
Project information has been provided by e-mails and telephone discussions with Becky
Ward with Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. between June 30, 2008 and July 2, 2008,
review of provided drawings (Sheet CD 1.10 dated May 13, 2008, Sheet SD 1.30 dated
October 19, 2007, and CD1.20 dated May 13, 2008 by Cline Design and a Sanitary
Sewer Plan and Profile drawing dated June 1, 2007), a telephone discussion between
Reggie Lee with the City of Greensboro and Matt Moler with S&ME on July 7, 2008,
review of an aerial photograph of the site by Mapquest, and a visit to the site.
The City of Greensboro plans to construct the Gateway Gardens development at 2800
East Lee Street in Greensboro, North Carolina. The development consists of a Welcome
Center, paved walking trails, fountains, a pond, and parking areas. The Welcome Center
will consist of two separate one-story structures connected with a breezeway. Loads for
the Welcome Center are not known at this time, but based on experience with similar
structures, structural loads are anticipated to be relatively light to moderate (maximum
column and wall loads of 75 kips and 3 kips per linear foot or less, respectively).
Existing topographic and planned grading information indicates that less than 5 feet of
cut and up to approximately 10 feet of fill will be required to achieve planned grades
across the site. Minimal (less than 1 foot) of grade change is expected in the Welcome
Center building.
A new sanitary sewer line with an approximate linear length of 1,225 feet is also planned
• as part of the proposed development. The line will extend from an existing manhole in
Barber Park (located south of the planned Gateway Gardens development), extend
beneath E. Florida Street, and continue northward to the Welcome Center facility. The
sanitary sewer line will consist of 8-inch ductile iron pipe and will be installed below
grade using the open trench method. Cuts of up to approximately 20 feet will be required
along portions of the alignment to achieve the planned pipe grades. The pipe will be
installed across E. Florida Street using the bore and jack method. The Gateway Gardens
site is currently wooded.
2 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
2.1 Field
Fifteen (15) soil test borings were conducted across the proposed sewer line, Welcome
Center building, fountain, and sediment trap areas. The approximate locations of the soil
test borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plans (Figures 1 and 2 in the
Appendix). Borings were located in the field by S&ME personnel by using Global
Positioning Satellite (GPS) equipment. The. boring surface elevations were determined
by interpolating between topographic contours shown on site plan provided by Cline
Design and should be considered approximate. The borings were conducted using a four
wheel drive truck-mounted Diedrich D-50 drill rig with an autohammer. Hollow stem,
continuous flight augers were used to advance the borings to termination depths, which
ranged from 10 to 25 feet. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the
• borings at 2.5-foot intervals in the top 10 feet, then at 5-foot intervals thereafter, in
4 • j t
Report of Subsurface Exploration SWE Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
general accordance with ASTM D 1586 to provide an index for estimating strength •
parameters and relative consistency of subsurface soils.
Groundwater measurements were attempted after drilling was completed in each of the
test borings. For safety, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings before
demobilizing the drill rig from the site.
2.2 Laboratory
Once the samples were received in our laboratory, a geotechnical staff professional
visually examined each sample to estimate the distribution of grain sizes, plasticity,
organic content, moisture condition, color, presence of lenses and seams, and apparent
geological origin. The results of the classifications as well as the field test results are
presented on the individual Boring Logs included in the Appendix. Similar soils were
grouped into strata on the logs. The strata contact. lines represent approximate boundaries.
between the soil types; the actual transition between the soil types in the field may be
gradual in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
3 REGIONAL. GEOLOGY
The Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985) indicates that the site is in the Piedmont
Physiographic Province. The soils in the vicinity of the subject site have formed as a
mantle of soil that has weathered in-place from the parent bedrock. These soils have
variable thicknesses and are referred to as residuum or residual soils. The residuum is
typically fuze grained and has a higher clay content near the surface because of advanced •
weathering. The soils generally become less clayey and more sandy with depth because
of less advanced weathering.
The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone termed
"partially weathered rock" is normally found overlying the parent bedrock: Partially
weathered rock is defined for engineering purposes as residual material that can be
penetrated by the drilling rig augers and has standard penetration test blow counts in
excess of 50 blows for six inches or less of sampler penetration. Weathering is facilitated
by fractures, joints and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the
profile of the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even
over short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard
rock and zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above the general
bedrock level.
4 SITE CONDITIONS
4.1 Surface Conditions
The site is primarily wooded, except for previously graded portions of the planned sewer
line near East Florida Street and Dan's Road. Surficial materials encountered by the
borings included approximately 1 to 2 inches of organic laden topsoil.
n
U

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
• 4.2 Fill
Man-placed fill soil was encountered at the surface or underlying the surficial materials
in borings A-1 through A-4, A-6, and A-7 to approximate depths ranging from 3 to 12
feet. The fill material consisted of high plasticity clayey silts and sandy silts and had
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values ranging from 2 to 31 blows per foot (bpf),
indicating the fill was placed in an uncontrolled manner. Some fill samples encountered
trace roots and rock fragments. Fill samples encountered in boring A-1 contained
significant organic materials to a depth of 12 feet. Moisture content within the fill soil
was judged to range from below to well above the optimum moisture content for
compaction.
4.3 Residuum
Residual soils resulting from the in-place weathering of underlying bedrock were
encountered underlying surficial materials or fill soils. Residual soils encountered in the
borings typically consisted of sandy silts, clayey sands, and silty sands with sporadic
lenses of high plasticity clayey silt and silty clay (USCS classifications of MH and CH)
encountered near the surface or directly below the fill/residual interface and extending to
depths ranging from about 3 to 12 feet. Standard Penetration Test values in the residual
soils typically ranged from 4 to 20 bpf, with higher values encountered sporadically.
Based on visual examination, moisture contents within the residual soils were judged to
range from below to well above the optimum moisture content for compaction.
4.4 Partially Weathered Rock and Auger Refusal Materials
Partially weathered rock (PWR) is defined for engineering purposes as residual material
that can be penetrated with drill rig augers and has standard penetration resistance values
in excess of 50 blows for 6 inches of penetration. Partially weathered rock was not
encountered in the borings to the depths explored.
Auger refusal is defined as material that could not be penetrated by the drill equipment
used on the project. Auger refusal material may consist of obstructions, boulders, rock
ledges, lenses or the top of parent rock. Auger refusal materials were not encountered in
the borings to the depths explored.
4.5 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered by the borings to the depths explored at the time of
drilling. For safety, the open boreholes were backfilled after drilling was completed
prohibiting subsequent groundwater level readings. The groundwater level will likely
fluctuate during the year due to seasonal and climatic changes. Because of the low
permeability silts and clays near the surface, there is a potential for ponded water at the
surface after rainfall.
0

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
5 EVALUATION
The proposed Welcome Center building and fountain can be supported on shallow
footings designed for an allowable foundation contact pressure of up to 2,500 pounds per
square foot (psf) bearing on evaluated and approved existing soils and/or new compacted
structural fill.
High plasticity silty clays and clayey silts were encountered near the surface in all but
one of the borings. Highly plastic clayey silts and silty clays (USCS classifications of
MH and CH) have the potential to shrink and swell with moisture changes. In general,
these soils may be left in place if they are located at a sufficient depth that soil moisture
contents do not change appreciably. Suitable depths to mitigate soil moisture content
changes are commonly considered to be 3 feet below final exterior grade in buildings and
2 feet below the soil subgrade in pavements. Based upon anticipated final grades,
undercutting of high plasticity silts and clays will be required across much of the
Welcome Center area and possibly in associated pavement subgrades. The amount
of required undercutting and replacement of high plasticity soils can be reduced by
placing fill (raising grades) in the proposed Welcome Center building area. If high
plasticity soils remain in undercut areas, washed stone that would provide an avenue for
water is not recommended as backfill material.

The majority of the near-surface site soils are silty clays and clayey silts which are highly
susceptible to weather related deterioration and are typically present at moisture contents
well above compactable levels. High plasticity soils may be used in fill areas outside of
structural footprints and pavement areas or in landscape and garden areas.
Boring A-1 encountered fill material with organic material to a depth of 12 feet, which is
below the planned sewer line pipe invert depth. These organic materials must be
removed below the planned pipe invert elevation and should not be used as
structural fill. Overexcavations must be backfilled with compacted structural fill or
washed stone.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered by the borings and our understanding of
the proposed construction, difficult excavation conditions are not anticipated at this site.
Groundwater is not expected to significantly impact construction.
6 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 f=oundation Support
The proposed Welcome Center building and fountain can be supported on shallow
footings designed for an allowable foundation contact pressure of up to 2,500 pounds per
square foot (psf), bearing on evaluated and approved existing soils and/or new compacted
structural fill. Wall and column footings should have minimum dimensions of at least 18
and 24 inches, respectively. Foundations should bear a minimum of 18 inches below
finished grade for frost protection and protective embedment.

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
• The bottom of all footing excavations should be evaluated by the project Geotechnical
Engineer or a senior soil technician working under the direction of the Geotechnical
Engineer using a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) to gauge the consistency of subgrade
soils. Soils that appear unstable or exhibit DCP blowcounts less than required to achieve the
design bearing pressure should be lowered to higher strength bearing soils or undercut and
replaced with compacted soil or crushed stone up to design bearing level. Soils classified as
high plasticity in foundation areas must be located 3 feet or more below finished
exterior grades. Undercutting and replacement may be required to achieve this
separation.
6.2 Settlement Potential
Based on the anticipated magnitude of structural loads of the Welcome Center building
and fountain areas, general stratigraphy in the area, and past experience with similar soils,
total and differential settlements are estimated to be less than 1 inch and 1/2 inch,
respectively.
6.3 Slabs-On Grade
The slabs-on-grade can be adequately supported on evaluated and approved existing soils
and/or new compacted structural fill placed and compacted in accordance with the
recommendations in this report. We recommend a vapor barrier be included in the design
of the slab if vapor penetration is an unacceptable condition. The grade slab should be
jointed around columns and along footing supported walls so that the slab and
foundations can settle differentially without damage. In the slab area, high plasticity
• soils must be located at least 3 feet below finished exterior grades.
6.4 Seismic Design Parameters
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and experience with the area geology,
we recommend Site Class D for use in seismic design at this site in accordance with the
2006 North Carolina State Building Code (2003 International Building Code with North
Carolina Amendments).
6.5 Lateral Earth Pressures
Certain structures on the site may contain permanent below grade walls. Additionally,
temporary construction excavation shoring will probably be required for construction of
the proposed sewer line. The pressure on below grade walls is a function of the relative
movement between the wall and the surrounding soils. Any below grade walls that are
rigid and restrained against rotation should be designed for an "at-rest" condition. Walls
which may rotate on the order of one inch per 10 feet of wall height may be designed for
the "active" lateral earth pressure. Vertical faces of walls or foundations which will resist
lateral force by moving into soils may be designed for the "passive" earth pressure. Earth
pressure coefficients for on-site sandy silt and silty sand residual soils or compacted fill
composed of these materials (with a minimum assumed friction angle of 25 degrees) are
as follows!
0
! t1 1
Report of Subsurface Exploration SWE Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
Type of Earth
Pressure Earth Pressure
Coefficients
At-rest 0.58
Active 0.40
Passive 2.46
These earth pressure coefficients assume a relatively level backfill surface behind the
walls. For sloping backfill in which the slope height is equal to or less than the wall
height, and the toe of slope is more than half the wall height from the wall, the sloping
backfill will not impose additional lateral loads on the wall. For other conditions,
revisions to the earth pressure coefficient will be required. A moist unit weight of 120
pounds per cubic foot or a submerged unit weight of 57 pcf would be applicable for use
with the on-site soils. A sliding coefficient of 0.25 is recommended for evaluating sliding
resistance. The wall design should consider any additional stresses due to construction or
nearby structures. Full. size, self-propelled compaction equipment should not be used
within 5 feet of the fountain walls. Trench compaction equipment should be used in close
proximity to walls.
•
Permanent below grade walls should either be designed to resist hydrostatic pressure, or
drainage provisions should be incorporated into the wall design to prevent development of
hydrostatic pressures against the wall. Drainage provisions may consist of a vertical layer of
free draining gravel material or an engineered-drainage product behind the wall discharging .
to a suitable gravity outlet.
7 SITE EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
The following paragraphs present our recommendations for site preparation and grading.
When reviewing these recommendations, please note that deteriorated subgrades due to
adverse weather can develop during construction. Such conditions, if encountered, can
best be handled by engineering evaluations made in the field. during construction.
7.1 Previously Graded Areas
Within the proposed sewer line location, there are areas adjacent to existing roads which
have been previously graded. Past experience with previously graded areas indicates
unexpected conditions often exist between soil test locations. These may include active
or abandoned utility lines, areas of low consistency fill, buried debris, and others. Such
conditions, if encountered, can be handled by engineering evaluations at the time of
construction.
7.2 Clearing, Grubbing and Stripping
Prior to initiating the earthwork, all vegetation must be cleared, roots grubbed, and the
topsoil stripped from the proposed building and pavement areas, extending a minimum of 10
feet beyond the outside edges of the Welcome Center building and fountain footprints, areas
of planned fill, and footprints of additional site structures. 0
Report of Subsurface Exploration SWE Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
7.3 Site Preparation .
After the stripping has been completed and prior to placing new fill, or following
excavation to final grade in cut areas, the exposed subgrade should be evaluated by the
project Geotechnical Engineer (or his representative) by proofrolling with a loaded dump
truck or similar pneumatic tire vehicle (minimum loaded weight of 20 tons) to identify
unstable soils requiring surface remediation.
The proofrolling procedure should consist of two complete passes of the equipment over
the subgrade, with the second pass perpendicular to the first. Areas of the subgrade that
rut or deflect excessively in the opinion of the project Geotechnicai Engineer, considering
the depth below finished grade and proposed construction at the specific location, should
be repaired. Repair may consist of undercut and replacement or scarifying, moisture
conditioning, and recompacting. At this site, the near-surface soils contain high
plasticity silts and clays which are extremely moisture sensitive and difficult to work
with. Subgrade repair will likely be required, particularly after rainfall events. As
previously recommended, high plasticity soils must be at least 3 feet below finished
exterior grades in slab and foundation areas and at least 2 feet below final grade in
pavement areas.
7.4 Excavation
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered by the borings, excavations may. be
performed by conventional earthmoving equipment without ripping or blasting. In this
geology, it is possible to encounter occasional, isolated boulders, pinnacles, or ledges of
rock at varied depths that may require enlargement of the excavation, ripping, or blasting
to remove.
All excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal
regulations, including OSHA excavation trench safety standards. The contractor is solely
responsible for site safety and under no circumstances should S&ME be assumed to be
responsible for construction site safety. Near surface soils likely to be encountered in
construction excavations are OSHA Type C soils.
7.5 Fill Material
Fill soil used in site grading should be free of organics and debris, and have low plasticity
(plasticity index less than 25). Highly plastic surficial silts and clays (USCS
classifications of MH and CH) have restricted use as fill and may be used in areas more
than 3 feet below final exterior grade in the building area and more than 2 feet below
final soil subgrade in pavement areas. Samples of the proposed fill soils should be tested
for moisture content and moisture-density relationship (standard Proctor) to establish their
compaction properties.
Moisture adjustment will likely be needed to achieve a compactable soil moisture content.
The extent of soil moisture adjustments will be affected by the weather conditions prior to
and during grading. Drying may be accomplished by spreading and discing to maximize
exposure to sun and wind during favorable weather conditions. Favorable weather
conditions are typical of the late Spring, Summer, and early Fall. The on-site sandy silts
Report of Subsurface Exploration SWE Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
are typically suitable for reuse as structural fill provided their moisture content can be
adjusted to a compactable range. The high plasticity silts and clays are extremely
moisture sensitive and difficult to work with.
7.6 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction
Structural fill should be placed beneath and a minimum of 10 feet horizontally beyond all
buildings and pavements. Structural fill should be placed in loose layers not exceeding 8
inches in thickness, and each layer should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of
its maximum dry density as determined by a standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698). Field
density tests should be performed on the structural fill to confirm compaction is achieved.
One-point Proctor tests should also be performed on the fill at a frequency determined by
the project Geotechnical Engineer to confirm the laboratory Proctor data.
7.7, Potential Subgrade Deterioration and Repair
Potential subgrade soils consist of high plasticity soils that are significantly susceptible to
weather related deterioration and sandy silts that are moderately susceptible to weather
related deterioration. The exposed subgrade soil of both cut and fill areas can deteriorate
when exposed to construction activities and environmental changes. Subgrade soil
deterioration can occur from exposure to rainwater, rutting from construction traffic,
freezing, and erosion. Exposed subgrades in the pavement and building areas that have
deteriorated should be properly repaired by scarifying, moisture conditioning, and
recompacting, or by undercutting and replacement immediately prior to construction.
Drying may be accomplished by spreading and discing to maximize exposure to sun and
wind during favorable drying weather.
8 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
S&ME was not provided traffic frequency or vehicle weight information and thus a
detailed pavement design was not conducted. However, for parking areas that receive
only car traffic, we generally recommend a minimum pavement section consisting of 2
inches of Type S-9.5B surface mixture underlain by 6 inches of aggregate base course
stone. In the main access drives and truck (dumpster) routes, we generally recommend a
minimum of 4 inches of asphalt (2.5 inches of I-19B underlying 1.5 inches of S-9.5B)
underlain by 8 inches of aggregate base course. These thicknesses are based on our
experience and assume that a compacted, stable subgrade was developed at the time of
construction. The asphalt pavement should not be deficient by more than 1/4 inch in any
area.
All materials and workmanship should meet the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, latest edition. The
aggregate base course should consist of Crushed Aggregate Base Course (Refer to
NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, Section 520). This base
course should be compacted to at least 100 percent of the maximum dry density, as
determined by the modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 1557). To confirm that the
base course has been uniformly compacted, in-place field density tests should be
performed by a qualified Materials Technician and the area should be methodically
proofrolled under his evaluation. 0
8

Report of Subsurface Exploration SWE Project No. 1581-08-115
Gateway Gardens Development - Greensboro, North Carolina August 26, 2008
• The condition of the subgrade is critical for the performance of the pavement. The soil
subgrade should be proofrolled immediately prior to placement of base course stone. The
stone subgrade should be proofrolled immediately prior to placement of asphalt. Any
unstable areas identified should be repaired. Sufficient testing and evaluation should be
performed during pavement installation to confirm that the required thickness, density and
quality requirements of the specifications are followed. Also, the pavement subgrade should
be sloped to allow rainwater to properly drain away. Areas adjacent to pavements
(embankments, landscape islands, ditching, etc.) which can drain water should be designed
so that water does not seep below pavements. Adequate drainage is very important for the
long-term performance of the pavement.
9 LIMITATION OF REPORT
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practice for specific application to this project. The conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report were based on the applicable standards of the
engineering profession at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, express
or implied, is made.
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, upon the
data obtained from the subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations
between the borings may not become evident until construction. If variations appear
evident, then it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. This
• report excludes any environmental considerations and recommendations.
n
U
i
•
r
s
U
a= e
K
? Y
a
0
tF
R
8
g
2
F $
Z d
FW- S
~ a?
IL

mn Yg21 M NMV'dGl NMOHS SY
vNnoavO HlaoN'oaoasN33ao
SN30aVEJ ),VNalVJ 3wvs*
NYId NOIlbOOl JNRIOS
a
0
•
r1
LJ

s
s
e
x
Ili

•
.I
i.
i
? 3 app
a ? 3 S ?Yi 3
_ c
a°
O m
?' S h
U m
2i 7! V
Ji p'p
•
{? n ? r n n n
hs?t u) MOLLVA319

o
00 .n o u? o In
to o
LO u? o

i
? i O t tf> dt i

I N

CO LL

i
LL
h
II
: Eo
12
j i

i i
¦

Z C-i
N

O
N N

I -C 0)

i
LA LL
i
i CN
LL C
r
i G
I
I E
O

i
i
V.

di
h v ui i

L m

E
Li N
V):
NLL
L

?

I

rl-
u'
vi

O n

o
l c
A
O

9 ?
Q
m
?
^
i 1

t
m
w 1j

{ f

x?
Oho r h f0 m N V
h t- t- h 1? h h
(-ISW 3981) NOLLVA313
q*
a
a
U
O
c
0
O
IL c
c0i o
r cc
c U
Y
a ' m
0
= 7 C O ?
N N Z ao
'R 9
8 N U ca
LO
d N Q) z
c o
0
p (?0 C
CL
c V
7 ?
O
? 0 O
Z
w
0
m $
a
O
w
t V- M 10.
W zu
? Zu
'a
m ?
w
LLJ
0
cis
ww
VI
?E
0
1
W rn
? c
m
U (p z cc
N
= iq ? O
N m
o CC)
am
roa }
m
c Q o m
Wr W
z fn U

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS
SOIL TYPES CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS •
(Shown in Graphic Log)
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
Aggregate Base CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT
Coarse Very Soft 0 to 2

Asphalt Soft 3 to 4
Firm 5 to 8.
Stiff 9 to 15

a? Concrete Very Stiff 16 to 30
Hard 31 to 50
Very Hard Over 50
Topsoil
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
°::?• Gravel
°
STD. PENETRATION

Sand RESISTANCE
RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT
Very Loose 0 to 4
® Silt Loose 5 to 10
Medium Dense 11 to 30
®
Cla Dense 31 to 50
Dense Over 50
Ver
y y
® Organic SAMPLER TYPES
(Shown in Samples Column)
Silty Sand Shelby Tube •
Clayey Sand ® Split Spoon
Sandy Silt I Rock Core

® Clayey Silt ? No Recovery
Sandy Clay TERMS
® Silty Clay Standard - The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling
Penetration 30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon
® Partially Weathered Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1588.
Rock (PWR) REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core
Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core
Cored Rock Run Times 100%.
Fill RQD - Total Length of Sound Rock Segments
"
Recovered that are Longer Than or Equal to 4
(mechanical breaks excluded) Divided by the
WATER LEVELS Total Length of the Core.Run Times 100%.
(Shown in Water Level Column)
SZ = Water Level At Termination of Boring
X = Water Level Taken After 24 Hours le 0 ME
= Loss of Drilling Water •
its = Hole Cave
N?G??
ENVIRONMENN©rAL SEICES

48
,
f
a
C
a
h
C
C
i

C
2
C
U
PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG A-1
1581-08-115

DATE DRILLED: 8111108
ELEVATION: 762.0 NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
using an autohammer. Grass.

DRILLING METHOD: 2114- HSA BORING DEPTH: 15.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dryto 15 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-60

=
U J
?
uJ
p
w w
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w

W
-- X

o. o

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -j
Cn
>
J CL
CL

(blows/ft)

>
p Q W uQ1 p
Z
10 20 30 16.0.8.0.
Z
O anic Laden Topsoil - 2"
Fill: Very Stiff Tan Brown Clayey Fine Sandy SILT with
Trace Roots (Dry) (ML) 1 21

5
Fill: Ver
Soft to Firm Black Brown Fine S
d
Cl
757
0 2 2
y
an
y
ayey .
SILT with Trace Roots, Rock Fragments, Organics and
Organic Odor (Wet) (ML)
3 6
Fill: Soft Black Tan Brown Fine Sandy Clayey SILT with 4 3
10 Tr
R
t
k F
R
t
O
i 752
0
ace
oo
ragmen
s,
oc
s,
rgan
cs and Slight .
Organic Odor (Wet) (MH)
Residuum: Stiff Orange Tan Fine Sandy Silty CLAY (Wet)
(CH)

15
HC
5 g
747.0
Boring Terminated at 15 Feet
NOTES:
T-TF WMG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
• 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1588.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&FAE
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG A-2
1681.08-116
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8/11108 ELEVATION: 768.0 using an autohammer. Grass.
DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA BORING DEPTH: 25.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dry to 10 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
v W O
N w a STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
=
ui ° o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a ¢ a 0 (blows/ft) Q
Ur Q .L to z Z
W 10 20 30 .6018.0.
Or anic Laden Topsoil - 2"
Fill: Very Stiff Brown Red Fine Sandy Clayey SILT with
Trace Roots and Rock Fragments (Dry) (MH) 1 18
Fill: Hard Tan Yellow Orange Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy
SILT (Dry) (ML) 2 31
5 763.0
3 26
Residuum: Very Stiff to Stiff Tan Red Purple Fine Sandy
Silty CLAY (Dry) (CH) 4 15

10 758.0
HC
5
15 753.0
Firm Red Orange Clayey Fine Sandy SILT (Moist to Wet)
(ML)
6 7
20 748,0-
7
5
25 743.0
Boring Terminated at 25 Feet
a
e
a
C
a
c
c
u
M
c
a
NOTES:
T. TFfIMG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 1 of 1
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1
Y
•
•
e
a
c
c
u
a
c
c
z
E
C
PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG A-3
1581-08-115
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8111/08 ELEVATION: 771.0 using an autohammer. Grass.

DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA BORING DEPTH: 25.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dryto 15 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-60
_ W z a a Lw STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
.r
w ° o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (blows/ft) Q
LU
° v 0 Q z z
3 w 10 20 30 60 80
T tNOrganic Laden Topsoil - 2"
Fill: Hard Tan Red Fine Sandy SILT (Dry) (ML) 1
1 0 31
Possible Fill: Very Stiff Tan Red Gray Slightly Clayey Fine
5 Sandy SILT (Moist) (ML) 766
0 2 23
.
3 13
Residuum: Medium Dense Purple Tan Gray Silty Clayey
Fine SAND (Dry) (SC)
4 11
10- - 761
0-
.

15
HC
756
0 5 g
.
Firm Red Orange Clayey Fine Sandy SILT (Moist) (ML)
20
751
0- 6 7
.
.
2 5 7 7
746.0
Boring Terminated at 25 Feet
NOTES:
G IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
• 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 9 of 9
-*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENi'AL SERVICES
PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro,. North Carolina BORING LOG A-4
1681-08-116
NOTES: Standard. Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8M1108 ELEVATION: 771.0 using an autohammer. Grass.
DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA BORING DEPTH: 26.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dry to 14 feet Q TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-60
J
U z w w STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA j
_
w a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION W co
z a
a (blowsltt)
W WZ z
Q 10 20 30 .60.8.0.
Or anic Laden Topsoil - 2"
Fill: Stiff Red Brown Pink Fine Sandy Clayey SILT with
Trace Roots (Dry) (MH) 1 15
2 12

6 Residuum: Stiff Orange Tan Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy 766'0
SILT (Dry) (ML)
3 11
4 9
10- - 761.0
HC
5 1
15 Stiff Pink Tan Fine Sandy SILT (Dry) (ML) 756.0-
6 13
20- ' 751.0
Stiff Red Tan Slightly Sandy Clayey SILT (Wet) (ML)
7 9
25 746.0
Boring Terminated at 25 Feet
NOTES:
T77IOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT,
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 9 of 9
*S&M1
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1 ?
r
•
a
s
e
a
C
C
U
C
C
C
a
C
a
PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG A-5
1581-08-115
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8113108 ELEVATION: 770.0 using an autohammer. Wooded Area.
DRILLING METHOD: 21W' HSA BORING DEPTH: 20.0
LOGGED BY: S. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dry to 14 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
J
0 O w STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
_ .,
W o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w -j
> J
a
¢ o (blows/ft)
° v
0 Q W Y) z z
10 20 30 6080
Or anic Laden Topsoil - 3"
1 15
Residuum: Stiff Orange Pink Tan Clayey Fine Sandy SILT
(Dry) (ML)
2 12
5- 765
0-
. .
3 10
4 11
10 - 760
0
.
Stiff Pink Tan Fine Sandy SILT (Dry) (ML)
HC
5 11
15 755
0
.

20 6 11
750.0
Boring Terminated at 20 Feet
NOTES:
T: 7RMMG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
• 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 1 of 1
I
*.S&ME
ENGINEERING - TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1
PROJECT: Gateway Gardens '
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG A-6
1681-08-115
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8/11108 ELEVATION: 763.0 using an autohammer. Wooded Area adjacent
to Florida Street.
DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA BORING DEPTH: 15.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dryto 10 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-60

v p
: W W STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w ? Q (btows/ft)
W
°
O Q -1 w U) z z
10 20 30 .60.8.01
Or anic Laden Topsoil - 2"
Possible Fill: Stiff Tan Red Brown Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
with Trace Roots (Dry) (MH) 1 10
Residuum: Stiff Red Brown Fine Sandy Silty CLAY (Dry)

(CH) 2 13
5 758.0-
3 13
Stiff Brown Tan Clayey Fine Sandy SILT (Dry) (ML)
l
l
HC 4 fi 12
10- - 753.0
Stiff Tan Brown Yellow Fine Sandy SILT (Dry) (ML)
5

15 748.0
Boring Terminated at 15 Feet
NOTES:
T.-TRCi7G IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page I of 9
Sam
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
s
r ?+
r
is
•
a
s
c
C
C
Q
U
a
C
C
C
2
C
PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG A-7
1581-08-115
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8112108 ELEVATION: 763.0 using an autohammer. Wooded Area adjacent
to Florida Street.
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4" HSA BORING DEPTH: 15.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dry to 9 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
U w p :Z w STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
_
a
W o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
¢
7 d J
a
(blows/ft)
a
(? W
Q W '2 ( Z Z
'S 10 20 30 .6.0.8.0 .
Possible Fill: Stiff Red Tan Slightly Sandy Clayey SILT
with Trace Roots (Dry) (MH) 1 15
2 13
5 758
0
Residuum: Stiff Tan Red Fine Sandy Clayey SILT (Dry) .
(MH)
3 13
HC
4 14
10 753
0
.
Stiff Tan Orange Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT (Dry)
(ML)

15 S 15
748.0
Boring Terminated at 15 Feet
NOTES: .
T.-TRT MG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
• 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 9 of I
ro"
E
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG A$
1581-08-116
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8112108 ELEVATION: 762.0 using an autohammer. Wooded Area.

DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dry to 7 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wino DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
v > ZO a W W STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w

F- N

W .?
° 0

J
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION W

w Q)
¢ 2

d
-j CL

(blowsift)

Q
>
o 0 Q J A
v Z 2
3 w 10 20 30 6080
O anic Laden Topsoil - 3"
Residuum: Stiff Red Brown Fine Sandy Clayey SILT (Dry)
(MH) 1 10
2 20
5 7
7
0
.
5
Very Stiff Tan Gray Brown Clayey Fine Sandy SILT (Dry)
(ML) HC 3 16
4 18
10 7
2
.0
5
Boring Terminated at 10 Feet
a
a
c
a
f
c
c
U
a
C
Z
Q
C
a
NOTES:
i-7RTLbG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4.. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 1 of 9
*Samil
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

?J
a
s
c
a
c
c
u
a
u
C
C
a
z_
x
d
PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG A-9
1581-08-115 ,
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8112108 ELEVATION: 760.0 using an autohammer. Wooded Area.

DRILLING METHOD: 21/4" HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL:. Dry to 7 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-60
_ c? z
Cq w w
4 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
F
o w = U'
M
o

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION J

w I-

a
m J
CL

Q
O

(blows/ft) M

Q
>
c? ¢ ? ?z z
w
3 10 20 30 .610.8.0
-,, Or anic Laden Topsoil - 3"
7 Possible Residuum: Firm Brown Gray Fine Sandy SILT
with Trace Roots (Dry) (ML) 1 8
2 16
5 755
0
Residuum: Very Stiff Tan Brown Fine Sandy SILT (Dry) .
(ML)
HC 3 27

Stiff Tan Brown Clayey Fine Sandy SILT (Moist) (ML)
10 4 14
750.0
Boring Terminated at 10 Feet
NOTES:
1. 7R MG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 1 of 1
,*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG A-10
1581-08-115
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8112(08 ELEVATION: 766.0 using an autohammer. Wooded Area.
DRILLING METHOD: 2114" NSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dry to 7 feet TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50

v J
p
J a
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
=
a. w o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w Q (blowsfft)
?
Q w v U) z z
10 20 30 60 80
T O anic Laden Topsoil - 3"
Residuum: Stiff Orange Pink Fine Sandy SILT (Dry) (ML) 1 14
2 13
5 761.0
Medium Dense White Tan Silty Fine SAND (Dry) (SM)
HC 3 13

Stiff Tan Yellow Fine Sandy SILT (Moist) (ML)
4 9
10 756.0
Boring Terminated at 10 Feet
c
cc
c
u
a
v
C
c
c
a
NOTES:
T.-MG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 1 of 1
Sam
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

c
r
c
0
l'
c
C
2
a
c
4
•
PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG A-11
1681-08-115
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8112108 ELEVATION: 770.0 using an autohammer. Wooded Area.

DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL. Dry to 7 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50

U J
>
p:
W w
s
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
m
W w a O
o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
W I
.: a (blows/ft)
a U ¢ w N z z
10 20 30 60 80
Or anic Laden Topsail - 3"
Residuum: Stiff Tan Brown Fine Sandy Clayey SILT (Dry)
(MH) 1 9
2 9
5 765
0
.
Stiff Tan Yellow Fine Sandy SILT (Dry) (ML) HC
3
10
-

10 4 11
760.0
Boring Terminated at 10 Feet
NOTES:
1. THIS L G IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 9 of 9
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PROJECT:
Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG B-1
1581-08-115
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8112108 ELEVATION: 770.0 using an autohammer. Wooded Area.

DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA BORING DEPTH: 16.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dryto 10 feet TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
z a w STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
_ .,
w 3:
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
W
W J a
Q
(blows/ft) Lu
4
O Q w v z z
10 20 30 60 6Q
ic Laden Topsoil - 3"
F
uum: Stiff Red Orange Slightly Sandy Clayey SILT
Trace Roots (Moist) (MH) 1 10
2 9
5-
- 765.0
Stiff to Firm Red Orange Clayey Fine Sandy SILT (Moist) 3 8
(ML)

10-
-
HC
760
0 4 7
.
Firm Tan Yellow Fine Sandy SILT (Moist) (ML)
5
1 7
5 55.0
Boring Terminated at 15 Feet
a
C
a
f
C
C
u
a
C
c
L
z
E
C
NOTES:
T.-7R =G IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 1 of 1
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMEM'AL SERVICES
M?
4
4 ' Soft to Firm Tan Orange Fine Sandy SILT (Moist) (ML)
w
` ROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG B-2
1581-08-116
DATE DRILLED: 8/12/08 ELEVATION: 770
0 NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
. using an autohammer. Wooded Area.
' DRILLING METHOD: 21/4" HSA BORING DEPTH: 20.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dry to 13 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50

F Y
= J
ZO N
J a
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
W
CL 0
v a. o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION x a- 2 (blows/ft)
" ¢ 0 ><
10 20 30 60 80
Or anic Laden Topsoil - 3"
Residuum: Stiff Red Orange Slightly Sandy Clayey SILT
with Trace Roots (Dry) (MH) 1
13
5- -
Stiff to Firm Orange Tan Clayey Fine Sandy SILT (Moist)
785.0 2 9
(ML)
3 7
10- 1 4 4
hl:
15 ..' 755.0 5 5
? Boring Terminated at 20 Feet 750.0 1b 7
??
J

?iw1' ?La?V-}.? TbG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
• 2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 1 of 9
S&ME
ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVIC S
A ,
PROJECT: Gateway Gardens
Greensboro, North Carolina BORING LOG B-3
1581-08-115
NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests performed
DATE DRILLED: 8112108 ELEVATION: 757.0 using an autohammer. Grass.
DRILLING METHOD: 2 114" HSA BORING DEPTH: 10.0
LOGGED BY: B. Kane WATER LEVEL: Dry to 7 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-60

v J
>
p 3
W W
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
a. 0-
o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w (blows/ft)
ED CO
(? J
W Z Z
3 10 20 30 60 80
0 anic Laden Topsoil - 2"
1 24
Residuum: Medium Dense Brown Tan Slightly Clayey Silty
Fine SAND (Moist) (SM)
2 20
5 752.0
Dense Tan Brown Silty Fine SAND (Dry) (SM) HC 3 39

Medium Dense Brown Tan Silty Fine to Coarse SAND with
Rock Fragments (Dry) (SM) 4 22

10 747.0
Boring Terminated at 10 Feet
a
E
a
H
L
LL
u
C
C
C
z
LL
NOTES:
T- H? IS CbG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
Page 1 of 1
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENt'AL SERVICES
i PROJECT:
Gateway Gardens
-W Greensboro, North Carolina
1581-08-115 BORING LOG B-4
DATE DRILLED: 8112108

ELEVATION: 75
1.0 NOTES: Standard Penetration Tests perform

usin
d
DRILLING METHOD: 2 914" HSA g an autohammar. Wooded Area. e
• BORING DEPT
H: 10.0
LOGGED BY: 13. Kane
WATER LEVEL: Dry to 7 feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wing-
DRILL RIG: Diedrich 0-50
H x
W ° MATERIAL DESCRIPTIO - CO a a STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
a
0 N le
j 4
Q ?
(blows/ft)
J
W
Y
z

n
Or anic Lade T W - z
n o 8011- 3
Residuum: Stiff Tan Brown Clayey Fine Sandy SILT (Dry)
(ML)
1
5
Stiff White Tan Brown Silty Fine SAND (Dry) (SM)
1
•
Boring Terminated at 10 Feet
NOTES:
T TFffCbG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
2- BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN
GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1588.
• 3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT. .
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
VARY.
2
3
10
14
15
741.0- 4 ?U 1 11111111 14
Page 1 of 1
*S&ME
EI ARONMENTAL SERVICES
xR
1 x ?'
•
•
0
C
Appendix F - Permeable Pavers Information
r?
u
.7
0

!a 1
Sl'
i 1
z ? '` >
174
r:
•

n?
cd
a (d
00 a
O

O © Cd
F_q Qom?
pq
4?
O
,Q U ?
a) 0
ND
rX UZ
00 /
t-q O rj)
Q ?
N
~IN
r-+ ? Cti

O O
C ? (ll
D pq ?
m O) O
N cy) U
i

M ?
Q

CIQ 'c
Q

00
cd

Cif
O
'd
Cif
Ul
O
d-'
Cl)
43
_
C? O
it U)
Qy
cli
(1)
0 E°
00
a?
rd
cd ro
Cd
N O A
U)
•
Appendix O - Operation and Maintenance Agreement
0
0
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
Drainage Area Number:
• Bioretention Operation and Maintenance Agreement
I will keep a maintenance record on this BMP. This maintenance record will be kept in a
log in a known set location. Any deficient BMP elements noted in the inspection will be
corrected, repaired or replaced immediately. These deficiencies can affect the integrity
of structures, safety of the public, and the removal efficiency of the BMP.
Important operation and maintenance procedures:
- Immediately after the bioretention cell is established, the plants will be watered
twice weekly if needed until the plants become established (commonly six
weeks).
- Snow, mulch or any other material will NEVER be piled on the surface of the
bioretention cell.
- Heavy equipment will NEVER be driven over the bioretention cell.
- Special care will be taken to prevent sediment from entering the bioretention cell.
- Once a year, a soil test of the soil media will be conducted.
After the bioretention cell is established, I will inspect it once a month and within 24
hours after every storm event greater than 1.0 inches (or 1.5 inches if in a Coastal
County). Records of operation and maintenance will be kept in a known set location
and will be available upon request.
• Inspection activities shall be performed as follows. Any problems that are found shall
be repaired immediately.
BMP element: Potential problems: How I will remediate the problem:
The entire BMP Trash/ debris is resent. Remove the trash/ debris.
The perimeter of the Areas of bare soil and/or Regrade the soil if necessary to
bioretention cell erosive gullies have formed. remove the gully, and then plant a
ground cover and water until it is
established. Provide lime and a
one-time fertilizer application.
The inlet device: pipe, The pipe is clogged (if Unclog the pipe. Dispose of the
stone verge or swale applicable). sediment off-site.
The pipe is cracked or Replace the pipe.
otherwise damaged (if
applicable).
Erosion is occurring in the Regrade the swale if necessary to
swale (if applicable). smooth it over and provide erosion
control devices such as reinforced
turf matting or riprap to avoid
future problems with erosion.
Stone verge is clogged or Remove sediment and clogged
covered in sediment (if stone and replace with clean stone.
a licable .
•
Form SW401-Bioretention O&M-Rev.3 Page 1 of 4

•
•
BMP element: Potential problems: How I will remediate the problem:
The pretreatment area Flow is bypassing Regrade if necessary to route all
pretreatment area and/or flow to the pretreatment area.
gullies have formed. Restabilize the area after grading.
Sediment has accumulated to Search for the source of the
a depth greater than three sediment and remedy the problem if
inches. possible. Remove the sediment and
restabilize the pretreatment area.
Erosion has occurred. Provide additional erosion
protection such as reinforced turf
matting or riprap if needed to
prevent future erosion problems.
Weeds are present. Remove the weeds, preferably by
hand.
The bioretention cell: Best professional practices Prune according to best professional
vegetation show that pruning is needed practices.
to maintain optimal plant
health.
Plants are dead, diseased or Determine the source of the
dying. problem: soils, hydrology, disease,
etc. Remedy the problem and
replace plants. Provide a one-time
fertilizer application to establish the
ground cover if a soil test indicates
it is necessary.
Tree stakes/wires are present Remove tree stake/wires (which
six months after planting. can kill the tree if not removed).
The bioretention cell: Mulch is breaking down or Spot mulch if there are only random
soils and mulch has floated away. void areas. Replace whole mulch
layer if necessary. Remove the
remaining much and replace with
triple shredded hard wood mulch at
a maximum depth of three inches.
Soils and/or mulch are Determine the extent of the clogging
clogged with sediment. - remove and replace either just the
top layers or the entire media as
needed. Dispose of the spoil in an
appropriate off-site location. Use
triple shredded hard wood mulch at
a maximum depth of three inches.
Search for the source of the
sediment and remedy the problem if
possible.
An annual soil test shows that Dolomitic lime shall be applied as
pH has dropped or heavy recommended per the soil test and
metals have accumulated in toxic soils shall be removed,
the soil media. disposed of properly and replaced
with new lantin media.
Form SW401-Bioretention O&M-Rev.3
Page 2 of 4
•

•
BMP element: Potential problems: How I will remediate the problem:
The underdrain system Clogging has occurred. Wash out the underdrain system.
if applicable)
The drop inlet Clogging has occurred. Clean out the drop inlet. Dispose of
the sediment off-site.
The drop inlet is damaged Repair or replace the drop inlet.
The receiving water Erosion or other signs of Contact the NC Division of Water
damage have occurred at the Quality 401 Oversight Unit at 919-
outlet. 733-1786.
Form SW401-Bioretention O&M-Rev.3
Page 3 of 4
•
•
r-1
?J
Permit Number:
(to be provided by DWQ)
• I acknowledge and agree by my signature below that I am responsible for the
performance of the maintenance procedures listed above. I agree to notify DWQ of any
problems with the system or prior to any changes to the system or responsible party.
Project name:Greensboro Gateway Gardens
BMP drainage area number:Parking lot median bioretention cells Basin A- drainage area
1-0.307 Ac., Basin B - drainage area 2- 0.302 Ac Basin C - drainage area 3- 0.174 Ac
Print name: L' K f, %? IN t ( c)
Title: A Q ICS N .Z a3

•
? J
Address: /ON Y t= ac_szIv'?? ??r71
I S
Phone: ( 3 3 to 3 77',? - 3'S
Signature: /K.-
Date: A 9
Note: The legally responsible party should not be a homeowners association unless more than 50% of
the lots have been sold and a resident of the subdivision has been named the president.
.?'Glt?•, ?• ?I
I, MQ lG1j '(?,Y51111 , a Notary Public for the State of
NbA COW0 ?n a , County of G
1 Y U1 do hereby certify that
*7 a
Chris W i `w personally appeared before me this
day of 5 , 2,00 8 , and acknowledge the due execution of the
forgoing bioretention maintenance requirements. Witness my hand and official seal,
O\ %IIIIJI////
N 't
4?.:pTARyQ
a) Comm. E? fires ' Z
?C • ?J_
0•. PUBIUG
SEAL
is My commission expires 11 2-7 - Zabd
Form SW401-Bioretention I&M-Rev. 2
Page 4 of 4
LJ

•
Appendix H - Designers Assurance
0
0
c?
November 25, 2008
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
Engineering Solutions for Civil Design,
Stormwater Management, and Stream/Wetland Restoration
Reference: Greensboro Gateway Gardens Bioretention Cells A, B, and C within the
proposed parking lot.
To whom it may concern:
The designer Becky Ward with Ward Consulting Engineers will provide construction review of
the bioretention cells for the project. The system will be reviewed to ensure that the constructed
• cell meets the design specifications upon initial operation once the project is complete and the
drainage area is stabilized.
Sincerely,
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
feez-1Becky L. Ward, P.E.
•
8,;86 Six Forks Road Suite tot, Raleigh NC 27615-5088 Phone: q10-870-0526
Pax: gtq-87o-5359