SW3230701_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20240621

SOUTHERN
ENGINEERING
Consulting I Testing I Special Inspections
June 20, 2024
Mr. Nestor Hernandez, P.E.
Thomas & Hutton
1020 Euclid Avenue
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Re: Seasonal High Groundwater Table (SHWT) Determinations
Stewarts Grove Subdivision
Witmore Road, Wingate, North Carolina
SE&T Project No.: 24-946
Dear Mr. Hernandez,
Southern Engineering and Testing, P.C. has completed the authorized seasonal high
groundwater table evaluation for the Stewarts Grove Subdivision project located in Wingate,
North Carolina. Our services included a subsurface exploration to observe the site soils for
indicators of the seasonal high-water table, groundwater depth, and other impermeable
strata. Our scope of services was performed in accordance with a subcontract service
agreement between Thomas & Hutton Engineering Company (T&H) and Southern
Engineering and Testing, P.C.(SE&T)dated June 14, 2024. The subcontract service agreement
references SE&T proposal No.: 24-11464 dated June 13, 2024.
Field Exploration
On June 11, 2024, Nestor Hernandez, P.E. of Thomas & Hutton (T&H) provided SE&T with a
request for proposal for a Seasonal High-Water Table (SHWT) determination needed for each
of the two proposed sand filter and dry detention pond BMPs of the Stewarts Grove Subdivision
development. On June 12, 2024, we were provided with a drawing titled "Overall Staking &
Drainage Plan"(Sheet C1.0)which presents the proposed subdivision project including locations
of two proposed BMPs and requested test locations. We were also provided with drawings
titled "BMP 01 and 02 Plans and Details" (Sheets C3.18 and 3.19) that present existing
topography and proposal grading contours for each of the BMPs. The civil drawings were
prepared by Thomas & Hutton and dated June 5, 2024.
Based on our conversations with Thomas & Hutton, we understand that SHWT assessments
are needed for BMP 01 and BMP02. We understand the approximate ground surface elevation
within the area of BMP 01 ranges from about 541 feet to 549 feet and the bottom of sand filter
elevation will be 531.5 feet. For the BMP 02 area we understand the approximate ground
surface elevation ranges from about 535 feet to 541 feet and the bottom of sand filter elevation
will be 534.5 feet.
9 6120 Brookshire Blvd,Ste.A I Charlotte,NC 28216-3300
t. [phone] I [phone] i Fax:[phone] ®www.southernengineeringPC.com

Thomas&Hutton
Stewarts Grove Subdivision SHWT
Wingate, North Carolina
June 20,2024 I Project#24-946
Prior to equipment mobilization a North Carolina 811 ticket was obtained for buried utility
location. The subsurface exploration included two Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings
(946-1 and 946-2). The borings were performed at the approximate locations and advanced
to the approximate depths beneath the existing ground as requested by T&H. Our field
representative located the soil test locations using a smart phone GPS locating application
with a reported accuracy of approximately 20 to 30 feet. The test borings were advanced
with a rubber tracked TMG MC-37 geotechnical drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer.
Continuous SPT sampling was generally performed in accordance with ASTM procedures at
2-foot intervals. The approximate locations of the soil test borings are provided on the
attached "Subsurface Exploration Plan" (Figure 1).
The soil samples obtained at the two boring locations were classified in the field by the drill
crew, then transported to our laboratory for additional soil classification, including Munsell
colors and textural analysis, and were reviewed by an experienced geotechnical engineer. A
boring log was prepared for each boring. Strata descriptions presented on the attached boring
logs were based on visual-manual evaluations and include the classifications in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The attached "Key to Symbols"
illustrates the USCS legend depicted on the logs. The ground surface elevations presented on the
boring logs were interpolated from the provided topographic information and should be
considered approximate.
Groundwater levels were measured in the boreholes at the time of boring and upon completion.
The results of the readings are presented on the soil test boring logs when encountered. The
borings were backfilled upon completion using the soil cuttings for safety considerations.
Therefore, delayed groundwater level readings are not available.
Site Location and Description
The site discussed herein is comprised of two adjacent parcels which encompass a combined
area of approximately 18.2 acres located west of and adjacent to Witmore Road in Wingate,
North Carolina. The east parcel is cleared with sparse trees and formerly contained a
residence. Most of the west parcel is heavily wooded but its northern portion is cleared and
contains a pond.
Borings for seasonal high groundwater table (SHWT) analysis were performed at requested
locations within the wooded southwest portion of the site. The approximate boring locations
are presented on the attached "Subsurface Exploration Plan"(Figure 1).
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING PAGE 2 OF 4

Thomas&Hutton
Stewarts Grove Subdivision SHWT
Wingate, North Carolina
June 20,2024 I Project#24-946
Seasonal High Groundwater Determinations
The encountered soils were classified using the USDA Classification System (Textural) and
Unified Classification System (USCS) for soil. Our interpretation of the soil horizon, depth,
color (Munsell) and textural classification are presented on the attached boring log and
discussed below.
A topsoil layer about 4 to 6 inches thick was encountered at the ground surface in both test
borings. However,the topsoil thickness should be expected to vary throughout the site,with
thicker accumulations in the vicinity of drainage swales and large trees.
Based on a review of the soil map - '^(
obtained from the USDA Soil �',s
Conservation Service Soil Web Survey, 7 " 'IF " 1Bd132
the majority (57.9%) of soils within the •' t1; "
site area are mapped as Badin channery y ► �- . F
silty clay loam with 2 to 8 percent slopes rI " "' ,i BdC2'
(BdB2). Most of the remaining site area �'' 14
(41.7% of site) is mapped as Badin ;s
channery silty clay loam with 8 to 15 t
percent slopes (BdC2). The remaining 4
0.4% of the site is mapped as Chewacla —.m .
silt loam with 0 to 2 percent slopes ' 4
(ChA). BdB2 ii
The USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil
Web Survey describes the Badin _.
channery silty clay loam soils, both 2 to ,- cc
8% slopes and 8 to 15% slopes, as well BJB2 i,,-
drained and having a very low to high ChA BdC2
(0.00 — 1.98 in/hr) capacity of the most enn "
limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat).
The USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Web Survey describes the Chewacla silt loam with 0
to 2 percent slopes as being somewhat poorly drained and having a moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat). No physical
testing of hydraulic conductivity was conducted at this site and is beyond the scope of this
study. We are available to provide these services, if desired.
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING PAGE 3 OF 4

Thomas& Hutton
Stewarts Grove Subdivision SHWT
Wingate, North Carolina
June 20,2.024 I Project#24-946
Groundwater infiltration was not encountered in borings 946-1 or 946-2 at the time of
exploration. In addition, Seasonal High Ground Water Table (SHGWT) indicators were not
observed in the soils sampled at the test borings.
The soils encountered in the borings beneath the topsoil layer were classified as residual
(in-place, native soils resulting from the weathering of bedrock). The encountered residual
soils were classified as silt loam (Textural), loam (Textural), and sandy Silt (USCS ML). In
addition, partially weathered rock (PWR), defined as residual material that exhibits an
SPT N-value greater than 50 blows per 6-inches of penetration, was encountered in both of
the borings (946-1 and 946-2) at initial depths of approximately 5 and 4'h feet below the
existing ground surface, respectively. The PWR was generally recovered in the split spoon
sampler and classified as a sandy Silt(USCS ML) or loam (Textural).
The soils discussed above are generally considered to have low to moderate permeability.
Borings 946-1 and 946-2 were terminated at depths of approximately 14.8 feet and 6.3 feet,
respectively, beneath the existing ground surface.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this engineering service for your important project.
o\ liiiir!,',�
Sincerely, \\\\,�y, CARO /,,
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING AND TESTING, P.C ' OQ`;•D E S S/s.(/ '..
NC License No. C-4167;Sc Certificate of Authority 5297 ; _;'4,° 9'•7
. - SEAL
051641
"74.925- -- b j %�0 . GIN'�� °•\\,�
u6/Andrew O. Steege, P.G. Winfred E. uscomb,J ., P.E. y
Senior Geologist Vice President/Operations Manager Ii, '<�.- ,,
RI hard E innen,Jr., P.E.
President/ Principal
Enclosures
$ SOUTHERN ENGINEERING PAGE 4 OF 4

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

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

r
- i
946-1iti
41•11k
gitjz
...., "---,, , — 1, k i .
t;t
,/ ,25 ' �
/26 r.A
O. -. _. `
OS�•%•y \ 29 '
m
•� \� GROVE 9TREE
i
946-2. ' �
;�o II
1111
o«s �iis0 I� -- "
\\It 4k''\\ . t .
litir-
- w — —_———
,,a
}
Adapted from"Overall Staking&Signage Plan"(Sheet C1.0)by Thomas&Hutton,dated June 5,2024
SOUTHERN
ENGINEERING
C„,uJ,ine I T,.,,�4 I sr..aal In.rcnl„s,.
6120 Brookshire Boulevard,Ste A,Charlotte,NC 28216
[phone] I [phone] I Fax: [phone]
STEWARTS GROVE SUBDIVISION SHWT
LEGEND
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PLAN
Thomas&Hutton June 21,2024
-Approximate SPT Boring Location
Figure 1 AOS Scale as Shown Project No.:24-946

FIELD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS
NON-COHESIVE SOILS
(Silt, Sand, Gravel and Combinations)
Density Blows per Foot Particle Size Identification
Very Loose - 4 or less Boulders - > 10 inches
Loose - 4 to 10 Cobbles - 3 to 10 inches
Medium Dense - 10 to 30 Gravel - Coarse: 3/4 to 3 in
Dense - 30 to 50 Fine: 3/4 in to 4.75 mm
Very Dense - 50 or more Sand - Coarse: 4.75 to 2 mm
Medium: 2 to 425-µm
Fine: 475 to 75-µm
Silt & Clay - < 75-µm
COHESIVE SOILS
(Clay, Silt, and Combinations)
Consistency Blows per Foot Plasticity
Very Soft - 2 or less Degree PI
Soft - 2 to 4 None to Slight 0 to 4
Medium Stiff - 4 to 8 Slight 5 to 7
Stiff - 8 to 15 Medium 8 to 22
Very Stiff - 15 to 30 High 22 and over
Hard - 30 or more
Classification on records of subsurface exploration are made by visual inspection of samples.
Standard Penetration Test - A 2" O.D. (1 3/8" I.D.) sampler is driven a distance of one foot
into undisturbed soil with a 140 pound hammer free falling 30 inches. Southern Engineering
will customarily drive the spoon six inches to seat into undisturbed soil prior to performing
the test. The number of times the sampler is struck with the hammer is recorded for each six
inches of penetration on the drill log; e.g., 4-6-3. The `N' value can be calculated by adding
the last two numbers; e.g., 6+3=9. The procedure for the standard penetration test is defined
inASTM D1586-08.
Groundwater - The groundwater level is recorded during and after the drilling operations
and recorded on the drill log at the time indicated. The actual groundwater level may
fluctuate due to weather conditions, site topography, adjacent construction or changed land
use. Multiple groundwater levels exist; the groundwater level indicated on the log may be a
perched condition
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING AND TESTING,P.C.
6120-A Brookshire Boulevard,Charlotte,NC 28216
[phone] Office•[phone] Office 2 •[phone] Fax

Southern Engineering and Testing,P.C.$
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOUTHERN 6120 Brookshire Blvd,Ste A
Charlotte,NC 28216
ENGINEERING Telephone: [phone]
c„,,.,,i,i ,I Tcscf,g I special i„.pe-,,<,,,. Fax: [phone]
CLIENT Thomas&Hutton PROJECT NAME Stewarts Grove Subdivision SHWT
PROJECT NUMBER 24-946 PROJECT LOCATION Wingate,North Carolina
LITHOLOGIC SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS
(Unified Soil Classification System)
Split Spoon
ML: USCS Silt
v�\\ PWR: Partially Weathered Rock
;;:,T,. TOPSOIL: Topsoil
WELL CONSTRUCTION SYMBOLS
a
0
ai
a.'a
N
1-
0
w
0
0
a
z
z
0
rn
1-
z
w
2
0
0
0
0
IL
w
w
0
0)
0
cn
✓
v
N
za
iL ABBREVIATIONS
0
O LL -LIQUID LIMIT(%) TV -TORVANE
• PI -PLASTIC INDEX(%) PID -PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR
7 W -MOISTURE CONTENT(%) UC -UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
0
▪ DD -DRY DENSITY(PCF) ppm -PARTS PER MILLION
z NP -NON PLASTIC Water Level at Time
-200 -PERCENT PASSING NO.200 SIEVE Q Drilling,or as Shown
o PP -POCKET PENETROMETER(TSF) Water Level at End of
03 2 - Drilling,or as Shown
o Water Level After 24
} Hours,or as Shown
0

Southern Engineering and Testing,P.C. BORING NUMBER 946-1
SOUTHERN 6120 Brookshire Blvd,Ste A
Charlotte,NC 28216 PAGE 1 OF 1
ENGINEERING Telephone: [phone]
c„,,.„i,,,„11,,,,„,I s,,,,,.�11,,,,,,,,� Fax: [phone]
CLIENT Thomas&Hutton PROJECT NAME Stewarts Grove Subdivision SHWT
PROJECT NUMBER 24-946 PROJECT LOCATION Wingate,North Carolina
DATE STARTED 6/18/24 COMPLETED 6/18/24 GROUND ELEVATION 543 ft HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---None
LOGGED BY AOS CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---Dry
NOTES Rig:TMG MC-37 AFTER DRILLING ---Backfilled
Lu ,.
Er] > cow U
2
w v _i g > O p Q u. Q 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
❑ o_n 0 m0> LJ
QZ 0 oz —) 0
Lu
co
0.0
11y• 1
TOPSOIL(6 inches)
_ ," ;, .0.5 542.5
SANDY SILT,(ML)reddish yellow(5YR 6/8),moist,stiff,silt loam(RESIDUUM)
SS 92 4-7-8-15
- -
1 (15)
ML
2.5 2.5 540.5
SANDY SILT,(ML)yellow(2.5Y 6/8),moist,hard,silt loam
SS 63 4-12-20-24
- -
2 (32)
ML
5.0 3 59 7-38-50/5" 5.0 538.0
SANDY SILT,(ML)pale yellow(2.5Y 7/4),moist,very hard,silt loam(PARTIALLY WEATHERED
• - - ML // \/ ROCK)
0
_ \\ 6.0 537.0
o SANDY SILT,(ML)light yellowish brown(2.5Y 6/4),moist,very hard,silt loam
a- -
z SS 14-23-32- ML
- - 63 50
H z5 4 (55) 7.5 535.5
j X�i SANDY SILT,(ML)pale yellow(2.5Y 7/4),moist,very hard,loam(PARTIALLY WEATHERED
o- X ROCK)
o /
o
91 25-50/5"
Li,
5 i
U,
W - \
y / /
10.0
- - SS 75 40-37-
6 50/4" / /
ML
� �
12.5 X 7S 0 50
0
H
✓ \
z_
o - i
a SS �/
F- _x 8 40 27-50/4"
/ \ \\ 14.8 528.2
m Bottom of borehole at 14.8 feet.
J
Q
Ui
W
z
W
o

Southern Engineering and Testing,P.C. BORING NUMBER 946-2
SOUTHERN 6120 Brookshire Blvd,Ste A
Charlotte,NC 28216 PAGE 1 OF 1
ENGINEERING Telephone: [phone]
c„,,.„i,,,„11,,,,„,I s,,,,,.�1 I,,,,,,,,� Fax: [phone]
CLIENT Thomas&Hutton PROJECT NAME Stewarts Grove Subdivision SHWT
PROJECT NUMBER 24-946 PROJECT LOCATION Wingate,North Carolina
DATE STARTED 6/18/24 COMPLETED 6/18/24 GROUND ELEVATION 537 ft HOLE SIZE 6 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR SE&T GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD 2 1/4-in HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---None
LOGGED BY AOS CHECKED BY WEL AT END OF DRILLING ---Dry
NOTES Rig:TMG MC-37 AFTER DRILLING ---Backfilled
o' >- cP W U
=
wv _i g > O p Q u. Q O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
❑ o_n 0 ma> LJ
QZ W UZ -) a
co tt
0.0
i '--'"••`'0.3 , TOPSOIL(4 inches) - 536.7
- - SANDY SILT,(ML)pale brown(10YR 7/4),moist,very stiff,silt loam(RESIDUUM)
_ y SS 92 3-9-15-20 ML
1 (24)
_ 1.5 535.5
2.5 ( SANDY SILT,(ML)yellow(10YR 7/6),moist,very hard,silt loam
_ y SS
2 83 10-27-27-
24 ML(54)
- - 3S 90 34-50/4" 4.5 532.5
ii c� i SANDY SILT,(ML)pale yellow(2.5Y 7/4),moist,very hard,loam(PARTIALLY WEATHERED
a 5.0 \ ROCK)
m /
_ _ ML \�
o 1 SS 100 _ 50/3" \\ 6.3 530.7
4 Bottom of borehole at 6.3 feet.
z
z
6
rn
F-
z
w
2
0
0
0
0
H
w
w
a-
U,
0
0
0
o_
v
N
m
H
0
0
(0
Q
J
Z
0
F
z
z
6
J
J
W
a
F-
I
m
J
Q
Ui
W
z
W