SW4110702_HISTORICAL FILE_20130903

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW;`t��/i
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
HISTORICAL FILE
DOC DATE
YYYYMMDD

Taylor -Smith, Aana
From: Parker, Gerald C
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:12 PM
To: Taylor -Smith, Aana
Subject: RE: NC Zoo Inspections 8-29
Attachments: P9020046.JPG
Hi Aana,
Pleasure having you down for a few hours. Kindly find attached a photo taken today of the storm water inlet protection we
installed an Friday. I was not here that day so I didn't get a picture to send earlier. Please pass along to Sue and tell her I
said nice having her down as well. If there is anything I can do to make things better, please let me know. Also, please
let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Thanks,
Gerry Parker, PE
North Carolina Zoological Park
Facilities - Planning and Construction
4401 Zoo Parkway
Asheboro, North Carolina 27205
Phone: [phone]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties unless the content is exempt by statue or other regulation.
From: Taylor -Smith, Aana
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:35 AM
To: Parker, Gerald C
Subject: NC Zoo Inspections 8-29
Hi Gerry,
It was great to meet with you last week at the zoo! Sue and I have been bragging about it all weekend, of course. I have
spoken with Mike Randall and he said that if you wish to rescind the two State Stormwater permits, you may request to
have them rescinded. I just sent your inspection reports, which have the instructions on how to do that if you so choose.
That way you won't be responsible for keeping records or having inspections, etc. for the State Stormwater permits.
You'll still have to do the records, monitoring, etc. for the construction permit until Chuck Kirchner officially closes it out.
Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions. Thanks very much!
Take care,
Aana Taylor -Smith
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
NC DEN Winston-Salem Regional Office
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]

®EMIR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Gerry Parker, P.E.
North Carolina Zoological Park
4401 Zoo Parkway
Asheboro, North Carolina, 27205
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Director
March 17, 2012
Subject: Approved Revision
Stormwater Permit No. SW4110702
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion
Relocation of BioCell # l to the Africa Bus Parking Lot
Dear Mr. Parker:
RECEIVED
N.C.De2t. of ENR
MAR- 2012
Natural Resour es Winston-Salem
Regional Office
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Stormwater Permitting Unit received a request for a plan revision for Stormwater Management Permit
Number SW4110702 on February 9, 2012. The revision includes the relocation of BioCell #1 to the Africa
Bus Parking Lot and does not change the total allowable amount of BUA on the site. It has been determined
that a formal permit modification is not required for the revisions. We are forwarding you an approved copy of
the revised plan for your files.
Please be aware that all terms and conditions of the permit issued on July 18, 2011 remain in full force and
effect. Please also understand that the approval of this revision to the approved plans for the subject State
Stormwater Permit is done on a case -by -case basis. Any other changes to this project must be submitted to and
approved through the Division of Water Quality prior to construction. The issuance of this plan revision does
not preclude the permittee from complying with all other applicable statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances
which may have jurisdiction over the proposed activity, and obtaining a permit or approval prior to
construction.
If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Mike Randall
at [phone]; or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
l
for Charles Wakild, P.E.
enclosures — approved revised plan
cc: Winston-Salem Regional Office
SPU file
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N, Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-977-623-6748
Internet: vNw..r.waterquality.org
o e
NhCarolina
aAma!!u
J
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

Taylor -Smith, Aana
From: Randall, Mike
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:03 AM
To: Taylor -Smith, Aana
Subject: Re: NC Zoo Polar Bear Expansion Project SW4110702
Sure
Sent from my iPhone
Mike
On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:01 AM, "Taylor -Smith, Aana" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Thanks! Should they send the request letter to the Wetlands and Stormwater Branch, 1617 MSC?
Aana Taylor -Smith
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-moil correspondence to andfrom this address may be subject to the !North Carolina Public Records taw and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: Randall, Mike
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:46 AM
To: Taylor -Smith, Aana
Subject: RE: NC Zoo Polar Bear Expansion Project SW4110702
They can request to have the permit rescinded.
From: Taylor -Smith, Aana
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:15 AM
To: Randall, Mike
Subject: RE: NC Zoo Polar Bear Expansion Project SW4110702
Mike,
Thanks for that info. Does that mean the Zoo should apply to have that permit and SW4100801 (African
Plains Barns — LD) rescinded? I'm not sure how the process works when a county is un-tipped. Are their
permits still in effect? Do they still require maintenance by the permittee and inspection by the RO?
Thanks! Hope you had a great Labor Day weekend!
Aana Taylor -Smith
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office

a`' w
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Low and may
be disclosed to third parties.
From: Randall, Mike
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:12 PM
To: Taylor -Smith, Aana
Subject: RE: NC Zoo Polar Bear Expansion Project SW4110702
HB492 un-tipped Randolph County — eliminating the need to apply for a state post -construction
stormwater permit.
From: Taylor -Smith, Aana
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:39 PM
To: Randall, Mike
Subject: NC Zoo Polar Bear Expansion Project SW4110702
Hi Mike,
Sue White and I did a State Stormwater inspection over at the NC Zoo's polar bear expansion site. Gerry
Parker, the engineer, indicated that you had told them they didn't need to have any biocells because of
the nature of the site. Sue and i just picked up the State SW files and we weren't familiar with any of the
sites yet, so I was wondering if you could send me any more information on that. The most recent
communication we have on file is an approved revision to the plans for relocating the biocells to the
Africa parking lot. Does that site still qualify as a HD State SW project?
Thanks!
Aana Taylor -Smith
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Low and may
be disclosed to third parties.

i
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
CIVIL/SITE WORK
NC ZOO
POLAR BEAR EXHIBIT EXPANSION/RENOVATION
ASHEBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
JuLY 201 1
�(N C ,
AL -
022625 -
�EN ,�. M�
fffflllllilYYYY� ��')
CLH design, p.a.
ReL,�cncyFwl; 400ReSencyForest Diive, Suile 120
Crty, North Carolina 2751E
Phone: [phone] kix: (919) 319- 7516

CJUIJ' j��
Q fl
DATE
8-Jun-11
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NO
NC Zoo Polar Bear Exhibit
09-111
-y
LOCATION
BY
Randolph County, NC
IKAL
jRuno.ff Calculations
I're-Development:
Rational Method
Site Area =
6.78 ac Tc =
5.00 min
Qal
= 15.21) cl's
Wt. CN =
65.7
Qa2
= 18.65 cts
Site Soils:
100% Georgeville (Type B)
Qa 10
= 23.34 cl:t
11=
4.61 in/hr
12=
5.65 in/hr
110=
7.07 in/hr
Wooded Area:
2.10 ac
CN= 51
C= 0.20
Impervious Area:
2.27 ac
CN= 98
C= 0.95
Lawn Area:
2.41 ac
CN= 48
C= 0.30
Weighted C:
0.49
Weighted CN:
65.7
Post -Development:
Rational Method
Site Area =
6.79 ac Tc =
5.00 min
Qa1
= 16.96 cl's
Wt. CN -
70.8
Qa2
= 20.81 O's
Site Soils:
10011/,, Gcorgeville (Type B)
Qa10
= 26.04 efs
11=
4.61 in/hr
12=
5.65 in/hr
I10=
7.07 in/hr
Wooded Area:
1.40 ac
CN= 51
C= 0,20
Impervious Area:
2.75 ac
CN= 98
C= 0.95
Lawn Area:
2.63 ac
CN= 53
C= 0.30
Weighted C:
0.54
Weighted CN:
70.8
[pre/post Developmept.,Compprislon.
Percent o1 Rlml)11 Increase =
IQpost-Qprel/Qpre
2-yr =
11.58 '%,
10-yr =
11.58 %v
25-yr =
11.58 %
Increase is > Pre -development. therefore post -development run-off shall he reduced to pre -development rates.

PROJECT NAME
NC Zoo Polar Bear
LOCATION
Asheboro. NC
DATE
5/31 /11
PROJECT NO
09-111
BY
ZRP
Drainage Area, (DA) =
0.41 ac Includes
Impervious Area c=0.95
0.22 ac 0.05 Ac Future imp.
Pervious Area c= 0.30
0.19 ac
Cc =
0.65
% Impervious =
54 %
Temporary Water Quality Pool
Design Storm Rainfall
1.00 in (Typically 1-in)
Runoff Coeff. (Rv = 0.05 + 0.009 (% Imperv.)) =
0.53 ac/ac
Required Volume (design rainfall)(Rv)(DA) =
793 cf
Bio-Retention Design
Depth of Storage= 12 in
Surface Area Req.= 793 sf
Surface Area Provided= 810 sf
Underdrain Design
Soil Mix Hyd. Conductivity, K =
2.0 in/hr =
Surface Area, A =
810 sf
Flow through Soil Mix, (K x A)
0,038 cfs
Safety Factor =
10
Design Flow, Q =
0.375 cfs
Req'd Underdrain Pipe Diameter, D
5.51 in
D= 16((Qxn)/S0.5)-v5
S = Underdrain Slope = 0-5%
n = 0.011 (smooth PVC)
Number of Pipes Required in Underdrain (per Tbr
5-1, NCDENR BMP Manual)
If D is <
# 4" Pipes
If D is <
# 6" Pipes
5.13
2
7.84
2
5.95
3
9.11
3
6.66
4
10.13
4
7.22
5
7.75
6
8.20
7
Underdrains Provided
Diameter = 4 in
Quantity = 2
4.63E-05 fps
sA1319100011caIcsW9-1S1-PondSize-Bioretention.xls printed: &9f2011 10:11 AM Page 1 of 1

PROJECT NAME
NC Zoo Polar Bear Exhibit
LOCATION
Asheboro, NC
Drainage Area, (DA) _
Impervious Area c= 0.95
Pervious Area c= 0.30
Cc =
% Impervious =
Temporary Water Quality Pool
Design Storm Rainfall
Runoff Coeff. (Rv = 0.05 + 0.009 (% Imperv.)) _
Required Volume (design rainfall)(Rv)(DA) _
DATE
5/31 /11
PROJECT NO
09-111
BY
ZRP
1.26 ac
0.46 ac
0.80 ac
0.54
37 %
1.00 in
0.38 ac/ac
1,732 cf
Bio-Retention Design
Depth of Storage=
12 in
Surface Area Req.=
1,732 sf
Surface Area Provided=
1,770 sf
Peak Flow (1-yr, 24 hr) Post Deg.
Underdrain Design
Soil Mix Hyd. Conductivity, K =
2.0 in/hr =
Surface Area, A =
1770 sf
Flow through Soil Mix, (K x A)
0.082 cfs
Safety Factor =
10
Design Flow, Q =
0.820 cfs
Req'd Underdrain Pipe Diameter, D =
7.39 in
D= 16((0xn)/Sos)�s
S = Underdrain Slope = 0.5%
n = 0.011 (smooth PVC)
Number of Pipes Required in Underdrain (per Tbi 5-1, NCDENR BMP Manual)
If D is <
# 4" Pipes
If D is <
# 6" Pipes
5.13
2
7.84
2
5.95
3
9.11
3
6.66
4
10.13
4
7.22
5
7.75
6
8.20
7
Underdrains Provided
Diameter = 6 in
Quantity = 2
Includes
0.13 Ac Future Imp.
(Typically 1-in)
4.63E-05 fps
sA1319100011talcs\09-111-PondSize-Bioratention.xls prised, WT2011 10:11 AM Page 1 of 1

CLH design, p.a.
hc,,�ertcy Prtt , 400 Kc: ;cticy Forest Dtivc, .Smite 120
Crty, North Crrolitur 2751E
Photre: (919) 3I9-(i71G Tarr. [phone]
fttmil:clhdesigti lcllydesiStipa.couz
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 8-Jul-11
To:
Mike Randle
Company:
NCDENR DWQ
Address:
1617 Mail Service Center
City, State Zip:
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone:
Fax:
Method: UPS Ground
Subject: NC Zoo Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion/Renovation CLH Project Number: 09-111-prmt
®
®
Prints
Reports
❑ Originals
❑ Copy of Letter
❑ Specifications ® Applications
❑ Submittals ® Other: check
We are sending you the following items:
No. of Copies Date
Description
•
2
7-8-11
Sets of Plans
•
1
7-8-11
Signed and Sealed Design Calculations
•
2
7-8-11
Stormwater Management Permit Application
•
2
7-8-11
Signed O&M with associated Supplemental Form (2 BMPs)
•
1
7-8-11
Review Fee $505
•
1
7-8-11
Narrative and USGS Map
•
1
7-8-11
Copy of the Soils Report
•
1
7-8-11
Property Deed
Additional Remarks:
Mr. Randle,
Please find the enclosed submittal for a stormwater review for the proposed NC Zoo Polar Bear Project. I trust
this information is sufficient for your review and approval.
Please call if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Zak Pierce
Signed /
Za fierce
cc: File

North Carolina Zoo
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion/Renovation
ASHEBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
STORMWATER NARRATIVE
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA ZOO
Prepared by:
CLH Design P.A.
400 Regency Forest Drive, Suite 120
Cary, North Carolina 27518
July 2011
CLH PROJECT # 09-111

I. General Information
a. NC Zoo — Polar Bear Expansion/Renovation
b. 4401 Zoo Parkway, Asheboro, NC 27205
c. Tract Area: 879.5 Acres
d. Disturbed Area: 2 Acres
e. Wetland Area: 1,075 Square Feet (.02 Acres)
l . Wetlands have been delineated and approved by USACE.
2. The proposed wetland impacts associated with this project will be
permitted through USACE and DWQ.
f. Ownership: North Carolina Zoological Authority
g. The proposed project includes the expansion of the polar bear exhibit, renovations
of the existing buildings and addition of new holding areas and interpretive
buildings at the North Carolina Zoo. The proposed exhibit and buildings will be
placed on the east side of the existing holding building and exhibit. In addition to
the proposed buildings and exhibit, new walkways, a plaza, seat walls, utilities,
irrigation and landscaping will be constructed as part of this project.
. A State General permit for Impacts to Isolated Wetlands and Isolated
Waters (DWQ #01-0999) was received in August 2007. This permit
was for installing a constructed Stormwater wetland adjacent to the
`North America Lake' nearby the polar bear (Rocky Coast) exhibit.
2. Tax Parcel ID No: 7678368428
h. Pre-1988 BUA: Unknown
This project will be done in one phase. The proposed bioretention areas will be
installed towards the end of the project, once the site is stabilized. Approved
erosion control devices will be implemented throughout construction to ensure
proper sedimentation control.
The proposed wastewater system associated with these improvements will
connect to an existing sanitary sewer pump station located in the existing utility
yard. Water supply for the project will be tapped off of the existing waterline that
is on -site.
k. No historic sites on property. Project is being funded with public monies.
1. In discussion with the owner, they have no known non-compliance issues with
DENR Agencies.
2. Stormwater Information
a. The project site is located in the Yadkin River Basin. The receiving stream
classification is C (Aquatic Life, Secondary Recreation, Fresh Water), Index
Number 17-22-5
b. Stormwater design is for State Stormwater, Low Density and Commercial Site.
Our analysis area for this project is a pocket of high density.
c. The proposed project is demolishing 15,350 sf of existing impervious and adding
37,220 sf of new impervious, for a net total of 21,870 sf new impervious.
Impervious total calculated from site survey is 96,350 sf or 4.13 acres of the
project analysis area, which makes the proposed total project area impervious
surface 53.5%.

d. Two (2) bioretention areas are proposed for this project. The overflow will be
diverted to the existing `North America Lake' which currently handles the zoo's
stormwater.
e. The bioretention areas will treat an area equivalent to the proposed impervious
surface.
f. The existing lake has a 30' NPDES buffer. Impacts to this buffer are being
permitted under the 401/404 permits.
g. n/a
h. There will be no off -site runoff that will drain into the proposed bioretention
areas.
i. No road construction across other property is necessary to access this project.
j. n/a
k. The DOT is not requiring the construction of a turn lane or road widening
associated with this project.

� I.� a 1� L� _- e� ,a ♦ l
79_ �� � 5I � \ � r . n�� •�G=�'
�
'
0
I
a
antherf
1�1� , ,, �_ � � .:_ V
rzooL 4I l Pam•,: s
33
CPA � POLAR REM YATIODY,flBIT
ATE JUL Y 2011
tO)ECT NO. 09-111
FIGSQUAD WP
HENCE: USGS TWOORAPNIC MAP: ASHEBORO, 1994,
J, 0
Ty
r�
Q SCALE 1" = 2000'
CLH DESIGN, P.A
Regency Park
400 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 120
Cary, North Carolina 27516
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

4 42
r
` ✓ 1 ■ i
ter•„• • .
© SCALE 1" = 5280'
NC ZOO - POLAR BEAR Del W
WANSOMMENOVATM
DATE• JULY 2011
PROD NO: 09-111
MNDOCPH COUNTY SOILS MAP
REFERENCE: Randolph County Soho survey.
CLH DESIGN, P.A
Regency Park
400 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 120
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
POLAR BEAR EXHIBIT
NORTH CAROLINA ZOOLOGICAL PARK
Asheboro, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
Prepared for:
HH Architecture, PA
515-A Saint Mary's Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Prepared by:
S&ME, Inc.
3713 Old Battleground Avenue
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410
March 2, 2010

•
March 2, 2010
HH Architecture, PA
515-A Saint Mary's Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Attention: Ms. Kristen Hess, AIA
Reference: REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Polar Bear Exhibit
North Carolina Zoological Park
Asheboro, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
Dear Ms. Hess:
S&ME, Inc. has completed a subsurface exploration for the proposed Polar Bear Exhibit
expansion project at the North Carolina Zoological Park in Asheboro, North Carolina.
The exploration was performed in general accordance with S&ME Proposal Nos. 1581-
09-PO53 (dated March 20, 2009) and 1581-09-PO53A (dated January 6, 2010), The
purpose of this exploration was to explore general subsurface conditions within the
proposed expansion area and evaluate those conditions with regard to site grading,
foundation and slab support, 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.
Subsurface Conditions
♦ Eleven borings were conducted to explore subsurface conditions in the proposes!
Polar Hear Exhibit expansion areas.
♦ Man -placed fill soil was encountered underlying the surf cial materials in nine
borings to approximate depths of l to 8 feet. The fill material typically consisted of
clayey silt with sporadic clay and had Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values ranging
from 2 to 19 blows per foot (bpf), indicating variable compaction of the fill.
♦ Alluvial soils were encountered underlying the man -placed fill soils in three borings
to depths of 12 to 14 feet. The alluvial soils typically consisted of wet, clayey sands
with gravel and had SPT values ranging from 7 to 30 bpf.
5&ME, MG. 13718 010 Battleground Road I Greensboro, NG 27410 1 p 336.288.7160 ( 336.288.8980 / www.smeinc.com

Report of Subsurface Exploration SAME No. 15B1-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
Residual soils resulting from the in -place weathering of underlying bedrock were
encountered underlying the surticial materials, fill and/or alluvial soils. Residual
soils encountered typically consisted ofclaycy slits, silty sands, and clayey sands with
SPT values typically ranging from i 1 to 27 bpi" and Dynamic Cone Penetration
(DCP) values ranging from 3 to 20+ blows per increment (bpi).
Partially weathered rock was encountered in four.borings at approximate depths
ranging from 6 to 14.5 feet (approximate elevations from 718 to 732 feet) and
extending to auger refusal. Auger refusal materials were encountered in all borings
and offset borings at approximate depths ranging from 2.5 to 16.5 feet (approximate
elevations from 716 to 735 feet). Two borings refused in fill materials at depths of 3
and 4.75 feet.
Groundwater was encountered in five borings at depths ranging from approximately
0.5 to 7.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered
in the remaining borings to the depths explored.
Recommendations
Existing till soils encountered in the borings to typical depths of 3 to 6 feet appear to
have been placed without control and minimal compaction. Existing fill soils and
sporadic low consistency alluvial and residual soils are not suitable for
predictable direct support of the proposed structures on shallow spread
foundations. To provide suitable shallow foundation support bearing conditions, it is
recommended these soils be undercut within and 15 feet beyond structure footprints
and replaced with compacted structural fill.
The Saltwater Mixing Building boring indicates unsuitable existing fill and low
consistency alluvial soils to an approximate depth of 1 I feet below planned final
grade. An alternative to undercut and replacement of unsuitable soils is the
installation of Compacted Aggregate Piers (CAPS) to provide suitable shallow
foundation support conditions.
♦ After remedial measures are implemented, the subsurface conditions will be suitable
for support of the proposed structures on shallow spread foundations designed for a
maximum allowable soil contact pressure of up to 3,000 psf for foundations bearing
on evaluated and approved residual or alluvial soils and/or compacted structural fill
and up to 5,000 psf for Compacted Aggregate Pier improved soils.
♦ Based on the subsurface conditions encountered by the borings, auger refusal materials
were typically encountered below anticipated planned grades indicating that excavations
can likely be performed by conventional eart.hmoving equipment without ripping or
blasting. Rock outcrops were observed at the grouted surface. In some borings, auger
refusal materials were encountered at different depths than in the offset borings
indicating boulders are likely present. 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.

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME No. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
♦ Shallow groundwater conditions were encountered by the borings. It is expected that
the groundwater was `'perched" above relatively low permeability clayey soils.
Groundwater may enter excavations made for undercutting or foundation and utility
construction. Temporary construction groundwater control consisting of trenching
and pumping from strategically located sumps should be planned.
Closing
We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project. If you
have questions about this report, please call.
«trtrrr��
Respectfully submitted \�H CAR0��ii,
10 ES31p.!y'%
S&ME, Inc.
_ : 4 SEAL r
031745
1 fGINS
MeN�'���\\
Kasey McWhorter, P.E. Matt Moler, P.E.
Senior Engineer Engineering Department Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION...................................................................1
2 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES............................................................................2
2.1
Field........................................................................................
1)
2.2
Laboratory............................................................................................................2
3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY...........................................................................................3
4 SITE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................3
4.1
Surface Conditions...............................................................................................3
4.2
Fill........................................................................................................................3
4.3
Alluvial Soils.......................................................................................................4
4.4
Residuum....................................................................................
...........4
4.5
Partially Weathered Rock....................................................................................4
4.6
Auger Refusal Materials......................................................................................4
4.7
Groundwater........................................................................................................4
5 EVALUATION...........................................................................................................5
6 SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .........................6
6.1
Remedial Subgrade Improvement Measures.......................................................6
6.1.1 Undercut / Replacement of Unsuitable Soils.......................................6
6.1.2 Compacted Aggregate Pier Ground Improvement Option
..................6
6.2
Shallow Foundation Design Considerations........................................................7
6.3
Settlement Potential.............................................................................................8
6.4
Floor Slabs ..........................................................................................................8
6.5
Seismic Design Parameters..................................................................................8
6.6
Below -Grade Walls.............................................................................................8
7 SITE
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................9
7.1
Previously Graded Sites.......................................................................................9
7.2
Clearing; Grubbing, Stripping, and Demolition..................................................9
7.3
Site Preparation..................................................................................................10
7.4
Subdrain...............................................................
...10
7.5
Excavations........................................................................................................10
7.6
Fill Material.......................................................................................................1
1
7.7
Structural Fill Placement and Compaction........................................................1
1
7.8
Potential Subgrade Deterioration and Repair....................................................12
7.9
Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes ......................... ......12
8 LIMITATION OF REPORT...................................................................................I2
Appendix
Figure 1 - Boring Location Plan
Figure 2 - Generalized Subsurface Profile
Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols
Boring Logs (13-1 through B-12, Omit B-2)

Report of Subsurface Exploration S8ME Project No, 1561-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
1 PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION
Project information has been developed from the following sources of information:
Telephone conversations between Kristen Hess with HH Architecture, PA and
Kasey McWhorter with S&ME on March 17, 2009 and December 23, 2009,
E-mails to Kasey McWhorter from Kristen Hess on March 17 and 19, 2009 which
included a photograph of the site and a Concept Plan of the proposed Polar Bear
Exhibit Expansion by ursa International dated March 2008, and
An e-mail from Geoffrey Barton with HH Architecture on December 23, 2009
which included a revised site plan (dated December 11, 2009) with requested
boring locations.
The proposed Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion project at the North Carolina Zoological
Park in Asheboro, North Carolina includes a Special Polar Bear Holding building and a
Viewing structure which will include an Interpretive Center and ice Cave. A Saltwater
Mixing building will be constructed southwest of the existing Polar Bear building. The
expansion also includes a mechanical building, shallow water feature, climber structure,
and a containment barrier fence. The Polar Bear Exhibit expansion will be located
southeast of the existing Polar Bear Exhibit and south of the existing Arctic Fox Exhibit.
The Holding, Saltwater Mixing, Mechanical, and Ice Cave buildings are expected to be
cast -in -place concrete structures with slab -on -grade floors. The proposed Saltwater
Mixing building is expected to contain relatively heavy machinery and water tanks.
Specific structural infonnation and a final grading plan were not provided. Based on our
experience with similar construction, it is assumed that maximum column and wail loads
for the proposed structures will be on the order of 100 kips and 3 kips per linear foot,
respectively. The following finished floor elevations (FFE) were provided for the various
structures:
• Saltwater Mixing Building, FFE = 732 feet
• Holding Building, FFE W 736 feet
• Ice Cave Building, FFE = 735 feet
• Interpretive Viewing Structure, FFE — 737 feet
To reach final grades in the proposed structure areas, cut depths and new fill heights of
up to 5 feet are anticipated.
The western portion ofthe site is developed with an asphalt paved driveway, gravel
walkway paths, and mowed grassed areas. Two bee habitats arc located in the proposed
Saltwater Mixing building area. The remainder of the site is wooded and contains a
stream. Rock outcrops were observed across the site.

Report of Subsurface Exploration SWE Project No. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
2 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
2.1 Field
Twelve soil test borings were originally proposed across the proposed expansion area.
One boring in the proposed Saltwater Mixing building area was omitted by NC
Zoological Park personnel to minimize the amount of disturbance to the bee habitat,
Because of soft ground conditions near the existing stream, the drill rig was unable to
access four boring locations (B-6, B-9, B-10, and B-11). Hand auger borings with
Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) Testing were performed at these locations. The
approximate boring locations are indicated on the Boring Location Plan (Figure I in the
Appendix).
Borings were located in the field by S&ME and NC Zoological Park personnel by
estimating distances and referencing existing site features. NC Zoological Park personnel
retained a private utility locator to field mark an underground PVC water line at the site.
The boring surface elevations were estimated by interpolating between topographic
contours shown on the provided drawing and should be considered approximate.
Seven borings were conducted using a four-wheel drive, truck -mounted Diedrich D-50
drill rig with an autohammcr. Hollow stem, continuous flight augers were used to
advance the borings to the auger refusal depths ranging from 4.75 to 16.5 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 general accordance with ASTM D 1586 to
provide an index for estimating strength parameters and relative consistency of
subsurface soils. If soil test borings encountered auger refusal at a depth of less than 10
feet, an offset boring was perforned to determine if the auger refusal conditions were
continuous or isolated. The hand auger borings encountered hand auger refusal at dcptlis
ranging from approximately 3 to 4.5 feet.
Groundwater measurements were attempted after drilling was completed in each of the
test borings. For safely, the borcholes 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 engineer 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 or Hand Auger Logs included in the Appendix. Similar sails
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.

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
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 fine 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 tensed
"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.
Rivers, streams and creeks all develop flood plains, which are low-lying, flat landforms
adjacent to the stream. The flood plain is covered in alluvial soils; which are deposited
by the stream during a flood. Alluvial soils tend to be poorly consolidated, well sorted, at
or near moisture saturation and are highly compressible due to their high water content.
Fine-grained alluvial soils also frequently have a high organic content.
4 SITE CONDITIONS
4.1 Surface Conditions
The western portion of the site is developed with an asphalt paved driveway, gravel
walkway paths and mowed grassed areas. Two bee habitats are located in the proposed
Saltwater Mixing building area. The remainder of the site is wooded and contains a
stream. Based on the provided topographic information, ground surface elevations across
the site range from approximately 728 feet near the stream to approximately 750 feet at
the southern and eastern site boundaries. Some rock outcrops were observed within the
wooded portion of the site. Surficial materials encountered by most borings included
approximately 2 to G inches of organic -laden topsoil or 2 to 3 inches of gravel.
4.2 Fill
Man -placed fill soil was encountered underlying the surficial materials in nine borings to
approximate depths of 1 to 8 feet. The fill material typically consisted of clayey silt with
sporadic clay and had Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values ranging from 2 to 19 blows
per foot (bpo, indicating variable compaction of the fill. Moisture content within the fill
soil was judged to be well above the optimum moisture content for compaction.

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
4.3 Alluvial Soils
Alluvial soils were encountered underlying the man -placed till soils in three borings. The
alluvial soils extended to typical depths of 12 to 14 feet and typically consisted of wet,
clayey sands with gravel and had SPT values ranging; from 7 to 30 bpf. Moisture content
within the alluvial soil was judged to be well above the optimum moisture content for
compaction.
4.4 Residuum
Residual soils resulting from the in -place weathering of underlying; bedrock were
encountered underlying the surficial materials, fill and/or alluvial soils. Residual soils
encountered typically consisted of clayey silts, silty sands, and clayey sands with SPT
values typically ranging from I I to 27 bpf and Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCI') values
ranging from 3 to 20+ blows per increment (bpi). Based on visual examination, moisture
contents within the residual soils were judged to range from within to well above; the
optimum moisture content for compaction.
4.5 Partially Weathered Rock
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
encountered in four borings at approximate depths ranging from 6 to 14.5 feet
(approximate elevations from 718 to 732 feet) and extending to auger refusal. The PWR
had SPT blow counts ranging from 50/5" to 50/2".
4.6 Auger Refusal Materials
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 encountered in all
borings and offset borings at approximate depths ranging from 2.5 to 16.5 feet
(approximate elevations from 716 to 735 feet). Borings B-4 and B-12 refused in till
material at depths of approximately 4.75 and 3 feet, respectively.
4.7 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in boring B-7 at a depth of approximately 7.5 feet below
the existing ground surface, 24 hours or more after drilling completion. Groundwater
was encountered in the four hand auger borings at approximate depths ranging from 0.5
to 2.5 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining
borings to the depths explored. For safety, the open boreholes were backfilled after
drilling was completed prohibiting subsequent groundwater level readings. The
groundwater level typically fluctuates during the year due to seasonal and climatic
changes, It is expected that the shallow groundwater levels encountered in the borings
are representative of groundwater being `perched" above relatively low permeable clayey
soils.

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
5 EVALUATION
Existing fill soils encountered in the borings to typical depths of") to 6 feet appear to
have been placed without control and minimal compaction. Existing fill soils and
sporadic low consistency alluvial and residual soils are not suitable for predictable
direct support of the proposed structures on shallow spread foundations. TO provide
suitable shallow foundation support bearing conditions, it is recommended these soils be
undercut within and 15 feet beyond structure footprints and replaced with compacted
structural fill. This will typically require excavations of 3 to 6 feet below existing grades.
The Saltwater Mixing Building boring indicates unsuitable existing fill and low
consistency alluvial soils to an approximate depth of I I feet below planned final grade.
An alternative to undercut and replacement of unsuitable soils is the installation of
Compacted Aggregate Piers (CAPS) to provide suitable shallow foundation support
conditions.
After remedial measures are implemented, the subsurface conditions will be suitable for
support of the proposed structures on shallow spread foundations designed for a
maximum allowable soil contact pressure. of up to 3,000 psf for foundations bearing on
evaluated and approved residual or alluvial soils and/or compacted structural fill and up
to 5,000 psf for Compacted Aggregate Pier improved soils. Quality assurance testing
during construction will be extremely important to identify existing fill and low
consistency residual and alluvial soils that will require removal and to confirm suitable
bearing soils are not overexcavated.
Based on die subsurface conditions encountered by the borings, auger refusal materials were
typically encountered below anticipated planned grades indicating that excavations can
likely be performed by conventional earthmoving equipment without ripping or blasting.
Rock outcrops were observed at the ground surface. In some borings, auger refusal
materials were encountered at different depths than in the offset borings indicating boulders
are likely present. 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.
Shallow groundwater conditions were encountered by the borings. It is expected that the
groundwater was "perched" above relatively low permeability clayey soils. Groundwater
may enter excavations made for undercutting or foundation and utility construction.
Temporary construction groundwater control consisting of trenching and pumping from
strategically located sumps should be planned.
The on -site soil types are typically suitable for reuse as structural fill provided their
moisture content can be controlled and specified compaction criteria is met. Near surface
soils will likely require moisture conditioning (drying) depending upon weather
conditions at the time of construction.

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
6 SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Remedial Subgrade Improvement Measures
6.1.1 Undercut/ Replacement of Unsuitable Soils
Undercut and replacement of the existing fill soils and low consistency alluvial and
residual soils and replacement with compacted structural fill is recommended to provide
suitable support of shallow foundations. Undercut will require removal of existing fill
and unsuitable alluvial and residual soils within and 15 feet beyond the structure
footprints. Actual horizontal and vertical limits of mass undercut would be determined in
the field at the time of excavation. The following outlines our recommendations for this
procedure:
Determine the undercut limits so as to include the structure, attached
appurtenances (canopies, porches, loading docks, etc.), and the 15-fect buffer
zone indicated above.
Have the undercut limits field surveyed and staked with sufficient offset
stakes to allow for undercut excavation back slopes.
Excavate existing fill soils within the undercut limits to suitable residual or
alluvial soils. The Geotechnical Engineer or his representative should observe
removal of existing fill soils and unsuitable, soft residual and alluvial soils
within the undercut limits.
4. If necessary, install strategically located sump pumps to remove water
entering excavations.
5. Beginning in the topographically lowest area of undercut, blade the surface,
remove wet surface soils, and immediately place and compact a lift of
structural till.
6. Any temporary ramps used to access the undercut bottom must either be
initially constructed with structural fill placed and compacted in accordance
with this report or must be removed and replaced with structural fill prior to
building construction.
7. Place structural fill in accordance with the recommendations in this report as
required to achieve grade. Fill placement and compaction should he
monitored and tested by the project Geotechnical Engineer, or his
representative.
Following completion of the undercutting and replacement of the uncontrolled till and
low consistency alluvial and residual soils as recommended above, the structures may be
supported on shallow spread footings designed for an allowable net bearing pressure of
up to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
6.1.2 Compacted Aggregate Pier Ground Improvement Option
The existing man -placed fill and low consistency alluvial materials encountered in the
Saltwater Mixing Building boring (B-1) to a depth of approximately I I feet below
planned final grade are not suitable for predictable direct support of the proposed
structures on conventional shallow spread foundations. As an alternative to undercut and

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
replacement of unsuitable soils, Compacted Aggregate Piers (CAPs) may be used to
improve spread foundation bearing conditions and control settlement to the limits
established by the Structural Engineer. Shallow spread foundations bearing on
compacted -aggregate pier improved soil may be designed for an allowable net bearing
pressure of up to 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Compacted Aggregate Pier
elements should be extended through the fiil and alluvial soils to moderate to high
consistency residual soils (approximate elevation of 720 feet based on boring 13-1).
The CAPs would be located within the footprint of the conventional spread foundations
for the building's walls, columns, machinery, and water tanks. The piers would be
constructed from the slab subgrade elevation prior to foundation excavation. The CAP
support elements are constructed by first drilling a hole and compacting a bottom bulb of
clean, open -graded stone in the bottom of the pier. The CAP shaft is built on top of the
bottom bulb of clean stone using well -graded highway base course stone compacted in
12-inch lifts. For shaft portions that may exist within water, clean open -graded aggregate
may be used. Compaction of the bottom bulb and shaft lifts is accomplished by using
impact ramming action of a beveled tamper head driven by a modified hydraulic hammer
or by a vibrating probe. Significant lateral pressure is built up in the matrix soil due to
compaction resulting in lateral confinement of the CAP elements. The CAPs are stiffer
than the surrounding soil and support a disproportionate share of the foundation load
while reducing foundation settlement.
A CAP foundation designer/installer designs and installs the CAP elements for the
project. The CAPs would be designed to support the proposed structures within specified
structural design tolerances (i.e., settlement, sliding resistance, uplift capacity, etc.). The
Structural Engineer should provide a Spread Foundation Plan to the CAP contractor, with
spread foundations sized either for a 5,000 psf foundation bearing pressure or the
minimum foundation dimensions recommended in this report (Section 6.2). The
Foundation Plait should show horizontal or vertical uplift loads that the CAP designer
must consider in the foundation design. Note that excavations may not be made within a
1.1 projection from the top of CAPs. Excavations for utilities should either be located
outside of this area, or the utility installed prior to construction of CAPs. Existing buried
utilities within and 10 feet beyond the proposed structure footprints should be removed
and/or relocated.
The CAP installer's internal Quality Control program should include monitoring drill
depths, CAP element lengths, average lift thickness, installation procedures, aggregate
quality and densification of lifts. These items should be documented for each CAP
element installed to provide a complete installation report. The Geotechnical Engineer,
or his representative, should review the CAP design and execution of the installer's
Quality Control System during CAP construction.
6.2 Shallow Foundation Design Considerations
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. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
The bottom of non -CAP supported 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 adequate
bearing materials. Alternatively, foundation overexcavations could be backfilled with
compacted soil, flowable fill or crushed stone (#57) up to design bearing level.
The CAP designer should be consulted for recommended bearing level material
evaluation recommendations. Compacted Aggregate Pier -improved soils should not be
undercut without the approval of the CAP designer. If a foundation evaluation identifies
a condition where an individual foundation is underlain by highly variable conditions
(such as rock and soil), overexcavation of some materials and replacement with soil or
stone may be recommended to provide uniform foundation bearing conditions.
6.3 Settlement Potential
Based on the anticipated magnitude of structural toads, general stratigraphy in the
structure areas, and past experience with similar soils, total and differential settlements
are estimated to be on the order of 1 inch and'/z inch, respectively. The majority of
settlement will likely occur during construction.
6.4 Floor Slabs
The slabs -on -grade can be adequately supported on evaluated and approved residual or
alluvial 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 ifvapor penetration is an unacceptable condition. The }trade slab
should be jointed around columns and along footing supported walls so that the slab and
foundations can settle differentially without damage.
6.5 Seismic Design Parameters
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and experience with the area geology,
we recommend Site Class C for use in seismic design at this site in accordance with the
2009 North Carolina State Building Code (2006 International Building Code with North
Carolina Amendments).
6.6 Below -Grade Walls
Below -grade walls must be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures that will be
imposed on them. Free-standing retaining walls for which movement is acceptable may
be designed to resist "active" lateral earth pressure. 'typically, a top rotation of about (-
inch per 10 feet height of wall is sufficient to develop active pressure conditions. Below -
grade walls that are constrained and prevented from rotating at the top, such as basement
or pit walls, should be designed for the at -rest earth pressure coefficient (l a).

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
On -site soils that may be used as backfill behind below -grade walls will likely consist of
clayey silts. The following lateral earth pressures may be used for design of below -trade
/ retaining walls based on the on -site clayey silts:
Table 1. Use of Clayey Silts (ML) as Wall Backfill
EARTH PRESSURE
EARTH PRESSURE
SOIL UNIT
EQUIVALENT
COEFIC[ENT
COEFFICIENT
WEIGHTrLUIll
PRESSURE
(PCF)
(PCF)
At -Rest
0.56
115
64
Active
0,39
115
45
Passive
2.56
115
294
It is recommended that below -grade / retaining walls either be designed to resist transient
hydrostatic pressure or drainage behind the wall be provided. Drainage may be provided
by placing a manufactured wall drainage product or a 12-inch thick layer of free -draining
gravel directly behind the wall. There should be filter fabric to prevent backfill soils
from migrating into the drainage materials. A perimeter foundation drain at the bottom
of the wall is recommended to collect and discharge any drainage that may be collected
in the wall drainage system.
Operating compaction equipment directly behind walls can create lateral earth pressures
far in excess of those recommended for design. Therefore,`smaller compaction
equipment should be used in close proximity to walls and/or the walls may need to be
braced during backfilling operations.
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 constriction.
7.1 Previously Graded Sites
Past experience with previously graded sites 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, Stripping, and Demolition
All vegetation must be cleared, roots grubbed, and the topsoil stripped from the proposed
structure areas, extending a minimum of 10 feet beyond the outside edges of the structure
footprints. The topsoil/disturbed soil stripping depth may be increased if stripping is
performed during wet field conditions. Existing concrete and asphalt materials must be
demolished and removed from the construction area. Our experience indicates that backfill
associated with existing utilities is often uncompacted. It is recommended that existing

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
utility lines be relocated outside of the structure areas. Cavities created from the removal of
underground objects should be backfilled with compacted structural fill.
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). Where there is sufficient space to
allow it, this evaluation should include proofrolling with a loaded dump truck or similar
pneumatic tire vehicle (minimum loaded weight of 20 tons) to identify unstable soils
requiring surface remediation.
When deemed appropriate, the prootrolling procedure should consist of tNvo 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
Geotechnical Engineer, considering the depth below finished grade and proposed
construction at the specific location, should be repaired. Repair may consist ol'undercut
and replacement with compacted structural fill or scarifying, moisture conditioning, and
recompacting.
Existing man -placed fill and low consistency alluvial and residual soils encountered
near the ground surface are expected to be unstable during a proofroll evaluation
and will likely require remediation. If construction occurs during a period of wet
weather, undercutting and replacement of wet soils near the surface will likely be
required to prepare the subgrade for foundation and slab construction.
Undercutting of water -softened soils is also expected to be required in the low
portion of the site prior to any fill placement or construction within or near the
existing stream.
7.4 Subdrain
A subdrain is recommended in the existing drainage feature prior to filling. The subdrain
should extend the entire length of the area filled. The subdrain should consist of an
excavated trench tilled with washed, crushed store (NCDOT No. 57 or 67) wrapped in
non -woven geotextile filter fabric. The subdrain should be at least 2 feet wide and 2 feet
deep and provide positive drainage and discharge into other low-lying areas of the site.
The location of the subdrain should be determined in the field by the Geotechnical
Engineer during construction.
7.5 Excavations
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered by the borings, auger refusal materials were
encountered below anticipated planned grades indicating that excavations can likely be
performed by conventional earthmoving equipment without ripping or blasting. Rock
outcrops were observed at the ground surface. In some borings, auger refusal materials
were encountered at different depths than in the offset borings indicating boulders are likely
present. If boulders, partially weathered rock, or rock are encountered, heavy
construction equipment with rock excavating bullet -teeth or a hoe ram can likely perform
10

Report of Subsurface Exploration S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion -- Asheboro, North Carolina March 2, 2010
the required excavations. '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.
Shallow groundwater conditions were encountered by the borings. It is expected that the
groundwater was "perched" above relatively low permeability clayey soils. Groundwater
may enter excavations made for undercutting or foundation and utility construction.
Temporary construction groundwater control consisting of trenching and pumping from
strategically located sumps should be planned.
Construction excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and
federal regulations, including OSHA (29CHR.Part 1926) excavation safety standards.
The Contractor is solely responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as
a service and under no circumstances should S&ME be assumed to be responsible for
construction site safety. Each excavation should be observed and classified by an OSHA -
competent person.
7.6 Fill Material
Fill soil used in site grading should be free of organics and debris, and have low plasticity
(plasticity index less than 25). Samples of the proposed fill soils should be tested for
moisture content and moisture -density relationship (standard Proctor) to establish their
compaction properties.
On -site materials, except topsoil, should be suitable for reuse as structural fill provided
the moisture content is properly controlled during placement and compaction. Depending
on prevailing weather conditions, moisture manipulation of on -site materials will likely
be required prior to their use as structural fill.
If partially weathered rock or boulders are excavated and planned to be used as structural
fill, the particle size of fill materials must be controlled. Partially weathered rock should
break down to gravel, sand, and silt sized particles upon compaction and should provide
suitable material for structural till. Rock materials greater than 3 inches in diameter
should not be placed in the structure areas. When placing rock materials in deep till
areas, soil must he used to fill any voids. In no case should boulders or rock pieces be
stacked on top of each other, which could create void spaces and lead to raveling of the
soil fill.
7.7 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction
Structural fill should be placed beneath and a minimum of 10 feet horizontally beyond
the expansion area. Structural till 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 evaluate whether compaction is
achieved. One -point Proctor verification tests should also be performed on the fill at a
frequency determined by the project Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate the laboratory
Proctor data.
111

Report of Subsurface Exploration
Polar Bear Exhibit Expansion — Asheboro, North Carolina
7.8 Potential Subgrade Deterioration and Repair
S&ME Project No. 1581-09-146
March 2, 2010
Potential subgrade soils consist of clayey silts, clays, and clayey sands that are highly to
moderately susceptible to weather related deterioration. The exposed subgrade soils 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 expansion area that have deteriorated should be property 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.
7.9 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes
General slope considerations and recommendations are provided. Permanent cut and fill
slopes should have side slopes of at least 2(H): I(V) or flatter for long term stability and
erosion control. If mowing of slopes is to be conducted, slopes of 3(H): I (V) or flatter
will be required. Localized zones of perched groundwater may be present within the near
surface soils following periods of rainfall. If seepage is observed along permanent cut
slopes, flattening of the slope angle, installation of a toe drain, or other measures may be
required to improve long-term stability.
In areas where new fill will be placed adjacent to existing slopes, the existing slopes
should be benched in order to key new fill into existing soils. The frequency of vertical
spacing of the benches will be a function of the inclination of the existing slope and the
depth of fill; however, the maximum vertical spacing of benches should not exceed about
4 feet. Material cut from the benches can be reused as fill material in the lower bench
provided it is suitable material.
Based on our experience, compaction equipment often has difficulty compacting soils
along the faces of fill slopes. As such, fill. slopes should be slightly overbuilt and then cut
back to the design geometry, leaving the slope face compacted to the required degree.
The soils at the site will be susceptible to erosion from rainwater runoff, particularly
when used as fill. Rainwater should be diverted away from the crest of slopes. Slope
surfaces should be vegetated as soon as practical after grading.
a 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 ofthc
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.
12

\ -^ ` �jU y S�"e� �l'Y':�1---�p__I G,�-- ;-.a`: .,'': ' \r•'� � l .. - - - `� 1 w•-'', tT
/\
'+
:Sr..,,
SZi t / ti. • II, a a P I �
? _.. �. �I% _ \ L \ �, � _� . _ ;,-xnL ' _ • � ra l ,4 K.:r � y-- ` ro r•, lY'
I -, -1/y1 i `.�''� Vim__-!►' .. �� ylr y Ilr
' ' - Iq i-\+? ? I+ - i"�i•' �e :�` 4 IE- 2+I' ! /i `� Y'- ;.i � ,r B-1 0 \y{y lY{ it` i�1(
11'IL/ lt�t
-: -s::.�-�-t.,._T I .T __ _ �:: r�-H -;,e�y • ., r '/o'/ �' �I � 1 � ` ` b. I ti1U `y\ \" Y1yr�
_ � _ =a-- W „:a '3/ .. ! r r[[f + r `%y%..H•kn,' r• 1 III t Yi , �'
]E / ill.♦ I,'' Y9e.r«.nam:'
.3 ~• f�i r� /'':✓' ' /� •wir
Pel,.bu i ,_-_-�-'-o tro ;\ tlti- ,7'rl,PrY i '•B-1�-� ,��er.l.i l�/�.
^��i-n'' °^, *�;a,r.o:._,me• 4:`�Iri`.I � I .— �/ / e"a / / r'�
BA 1• / 4a./ !_ X`e ���i.,/i �� �°il �°'%/ a°' :( ,
n„�„I � • � ,„,,, .�'i>;3`Si" +..,��{I �� 4 .li�y - ' �,# , /�.� � // � � / //w'';;i;.,/// / / ��l'st',r / �� f �/�„;�1
T 8 i
71 r �B-2 (OMITTEt .,.
D) �_
/ .f
_ -�-------�-
4•_.-` �_ ..tr e„rr i1 'J it ,•.rn /I �\%}} rY-' -v '.. ta. �q�-, � / 1,..,w�T/ '}
e"-,dd- _-��---� •� 1 Ir ('�- / /ll iP-,}.F.PI..E.
- _ `.I� 1 J f + �' , i •1+�.. � // a .�.
KEY
- APPROXIMATE SOIL TEST BORING LOCATION
- APPROXIMATE HAND AUGER BORING LOCATION
RelaEm m nis dmmng v,89 pPomw b, HH &mmemm and adaalea by SWE. Iw
p=��c.; Pc7 O \t Spt\gq\p9-..b - P¢rk k[Aa E,wS: ErP.r:ypx\PHa a.s E.nei, a.p
am
GRAPHIC SCALE
b A 0 b
Z � �
�m
Q�
Z p u
g<z
Q w w
_ E
r w
di__ >
0 <
Zcr
(n d
M _I
OU
EL 0
O
O
O N
r
z � O
W
2

74(
73t
73E
734
732
730
72$
z
F
726
724
722
72D
718
716
.............................................................. WATER
SALTWATER NDLDING ICECAVE VERTICAL WATER SYSTEM PIPING YARD INTERPRVnVE B-tt VIIxtuRt
L-JXI NG BULDING STRUCTURE PLANTERS IWATER FEATURE AREA VIEVNNG STRUCTURE n (B-12)
BULDING B-3 (B-3 8 &4) (B.$) (NEAR MECK MAB1TAT AREA (BA (B-g, 540, 6 B-11) B-12
(B-1) N BUILDING) (8-7) N
--_----------------------------------- ... -....................... ---_ __._...-
B-9
n FFE-737 fed
&5 N 88 N 17
..........................._. FFE-738 ted-.-.-..--_.-.
3 20+
FFE=735feet AR* AR
20+
....-___- ........ ____.....................-.-............ .._............. ....-.-._...- - ....-..--...-............ .--------------------------- .._._._.......................... --............ ......._._.............. .......................
It n
Br7 N 20. 0-10 n
FFE-131 fed
.- _-.-...-...- ........................ ......... ..-......-.....-------------------------------. ............... ............. --.- ---------- ._...- .-.-....___...-_..._.___.............. ..... _-•......-...-....... ..._.................. .____................
10 7 27
12 5015 10 20- 6
- AR -- ........ ..................- - - -- ............. -...........................
............ -
5W2 H
20 -15... -- 20«
30 25 p«
z �R AR
......................... ................ ..--.
is
18 24
....3................. ...............--------- ............................... ......... .......... .............. ..--_.................-.-------------- ............................................................................ .---------------- _--------------------------- _----------------------
----------
: 67
N� 7 AR bw AR "
_. _..-....._ _................................................... Aft- --�-_ --...--.--------.-------.-----.-.-.-P'�"'...-...-_-...-.--.--------*------- .----------------------------- .....-..--..__._.....-.............-......------ _ -.-- - -.-................. ......................... ..-----------------------
565
AR
.............- ........... ---------------------- ............ ........ .......... -....--------------- ............................... ......................................---------..-.-.-.......
FilN
Clayey Ste
Tap 1
gayey S.4
Suty Srd
S..ay SRI
Pydpy Wmfwed Rac*
sit
AIkrAY Safi
AR 'eWa rc*gel
FFE-%vhdmardw on
AR:= urns auger relyeal
H RR - h v auger mt"
}iC = Nate use .
Ct y
N SLrdwd Pere"bW TW,.," mvalue(bWa WImj
n = Dyrta * Cane Panes - —ig— w" (W— per iriLTeR1
N-bm l n m p .w. -
TM depeded eeaepraphV 4 Vo fW CLSM a p,Ipc , My. Th. e[tlrel FOeudera aandlt—wA very Net— pprirg locap
740
738
736
734
T32
730
728
r28
I24
r22
r2U
'18
�1s

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS I
SOIL TYPES
(Shown in Graphic Log)
..:::f
"1
Mad
0OI
010do
I1I
�101
WA
I�
Aggregate Base
Coarse
Asphalt
Concrete
Topsoil
Gravel
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
CONSISTENCY
BLOWSIFOOT
Very Soft
0 to 2
Soft
3 to 4
Firm
5 to 8
Staff
9 to 15
Very Stiff
16 to 30
Hard
31 to 50
Very Hard
Over 50
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
Sand RELATIVE DENSITY
Very Loose
Silt Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Clay Very Dense
Organic
Silty Sand
Clayey Sand
Sandy Silt
Clayey Silt
Sandy Clay
Silty Clay
Partially Weathered
Rock (PWR)
Cored Rock
Fill
WATER LEVELS
(Shown in Water Level Column)
SZ = Water Level At Termination of Boring
t = Water Level Taken After 24 Hours
= Loss of Drilling Water
IiC = Hole Cave
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
BLOWS/FOOT
0to4
5 to 10
11 to 30
31 to 50
Over 50
SAMPLER TYPES
(Shown in Samples Column)
Shelby Tube
® Split Spoon
I Rock Core
❑ No Recovery
TERMS
Standard - The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling
Penetration 30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon
Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1588.
REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core
Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core
Run Times 100%.
RQD - Total Length of Sound Rock Segments
Recovered that are Longer Than or Equal to 4"
(mechanical breaks excluded) Divided by the
Total Length of the Core Run Times 100%.
S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PROJECT: Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
BORING LOG B-1
1581-09-146
NOTES: Standard Penetration Test performed
DATE DRILLED: 211al10
ELEVATION: 733.0
using an autohammer.
DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA
BORING DEPTH: 16.5
LOGGED BY: K. McWhorter
WATER LEVEL; Dry @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
U
J
w
0 in
a
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
W
Q,
a cs
o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
�
¢ g
J
a
(blows^
J
>
w m
o
w
m
¢
N
z
w m
z
10 20 30 [i0 8D
Dr anic Laden Topsoil - 6"
Fill: Stiff Orange Brown and Gray Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
(Dry) (ML)
1
12
2
2
5
Fill: Very Soft to Soft Orange Brown and Gray Fine Sandy
728.0
Clayey SILT (Wet) (ML)
3
3
Alluvium: Loose Gray Silt Clayey Fine SAND with Trace
Y Y Y Y
10
HC
723.0
4
7
—
Roots and some small to medium gravel (Moist) (SC)
Residuum: Medium Dense Tan Orange Brown Silty SAND
(Wet) (SM)
5
50/
Partially Weathered Rock: sampled as Tan Orange Brown
15
718.0
5
Silty SAND (Dry)
AR
Auger Refusal at 16.5 Feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG 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 • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SEFMCES

PROJECT: Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
BORING LOG B-3
1581-09-146
NOTES: Standard Penetration Test performed
DATE DRILLED: 11211110
ELEVATION: 738.0
using an autohammer.
DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA
BORING DEPTH: 10.0
LOGGED BY: K. McWhorter
WATER LEVEL: Dry @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo
DRILL RIG: Diedrich 0-50
U
J
�
p
w w
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
uw
=
F "`
m c7
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
F- g
a>-
(blowslft)
Q
W
o
w
a
w
a o
z
>
z
U
w 'J
10 20 30 1 .6.0.8.01
vtiff
RedBrown and Light Gray Fine Sandy
UG,avelr-3-
LT (Dry) (ML)
1
13
ff Dark Gray Fine Sandy Clayey SILT with
2
11
$(Dry)
(ML)
733.0
501
VAuger
hered Rack: sampled as Very Dense White
3
5
ay Silty Fine SAND (Dry)
50!
AR
4
2
l at 9 Feet
10
728. D
NOTES:
1. THISL G IS ONLYA PORTION OF A REPORT FOR THE
NAMED PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER
WITH THAT REPORT.
Y. 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 ? of 1
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PROJECT: Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
BORING LOG B-4
1581-09-146
NOTES: Standard Penetration Test performed
DATE DRILLED: 2118/10
ELEVATION: 733.0
using an autohammer. Boring attempted at
three other locations with similar shallow auger
DRILLING METHOD: 2 114" HSA
BORING DEPTH: 4.8
refusal depth.
LOGGED BY: K. McWhorter
WATER LEVEL: Dry @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
U
>
z0 �3
w w
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
LLJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
�
a
i
(blowsf)
jw
o
a-¢
uj v
10 20 30 fi0 80
Fill: Stiff Orange Brown and Gray Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
with Trace Rock Fragments (Damp) (ML)
14
1
10
Fill: Gray Fine Sandy Clayey SILT with Trace Organics
(Damp) (ML)
AR
Auger Refusal at 4.75 Feet
NOTES;
T`TRrMG 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 1
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PROJECT: Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
BORING LOG B-5
1581-09-146
NOTES: Standard Penetration Test performed
DATE DRILLED: 2J18110
ELEVATION: 736.0
using an autohammer.
DRILLING METHOD: 2 114" HSA
BORING DEPTH: 14.3
LOGGED BY: K. McWhorter
WATER LEVEL; Dry@TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
U
>
O
w w
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
m
a- o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1
a
(biowslft}
W
Q
HI>
a
- @
Z
I 2
w
10 24 30 .6.018.01
Gravel - 2"
Fill: Firm Red Broom Clayey SILT with Trace Roots
{Damp) (ML)
1
6
Possible Fill: Stiff White and Light Gray Fine Sandy SILT
14
5
(Damp) (ML)
731.4
2
Possible Alluvium: Medium Dense Gray Silty Clayey Fine
34
SAND with Trace Organics (Damp) (SC)
3
4
18
10
726.0
Possible Alluvium: Medium Dense Gray Silty Clayey Fine
SAND with Some Small to Medium Size Quartz and
Trace Clay Zones (Moist) (SC)
AR
5
501
Partially Weathered Rock: sampled as Very Dense an
3
Silty Fine SAND with Some Small to Medium Size Rock
Fra ments Dam SM
Auger Refusal at 14.25 Feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG 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; Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
HAND AUGER LOG B-6
1581-09-146
NOTES: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests
DATE [TRILLED: 2123I10
ELEVATION: 733.0
performed.
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
BORING DEPTH: 3.8
LOGGED BY: J. Presley
WATER LEVEL: 1.8 Feet @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Presley
DRILL RIG: Hand Auger
U
�
0 =,
w m
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST DATA
w
� -
W
z C�
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
�
CL
a
(blowsAncrement)
❑
U
W
Q
6
w
a
Z
10 20 30 60 AD
XXI
pr anic Laden Topsoil -1"
1
Fill: Gray Orange Red Clayey SILT with Trace Roots (Wet)
732.0
1
0-1
7
ML
2
Tx
731.0
2
20+
Residuum: Firm to Very Stiff Gray Tan Slightly Sandy
Clayey SILT with Trace Roots (Moist) (MIL)3
HA
730.0
3
20+
Very Stiff Gray Tan Slightly Sandy Slightly Clayey SILT
with Rock Fragments Moist to Wet) ML
Auger Refusal at 3.75 Feet
1. PENETRATION (n-VALUE) IS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF BLOWS PER 1.75
INCH INCREMENT OF A 15 LB HAMMER FALLING 20 INCHES REQUIRED TO
DRIVE A 1.5 INCH DIAMETER CONE TIP.
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INCREMENT = 1.75 INCHES
Depths are designated for comparison
purposes only. Elevations have not been
surveyed. Depth measurements are shown
to illustrate the general arrangements of
the soil types encountered at the boring
locations. Do not use depth measurements
for determination of distances or quanities.
Page 1 of 9

PROJECT: Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
BORING LOG B-7
1531-09-146
NOTES: Standard Penetration Test performed
DATE DRILLED: 1128110
ELEVATION: 732.0
using an aulohammer. Offset boring (10 tt
toward B-B) encountered auger refusal at 10.5
DRILLING METHOD: 2 114" HSA
BORING DEPTH: 9.0
feet.
LOGGED BY: K. McWhorter
WATER LEVEL: 7.5 Feet After 24 Hrs.
DRILLER:.). Wingo
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
U
J
�
p
w ui
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
LU
2
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
F 2i
n. a
(blowsltt)
w o
t
w
v
a
z
C7
4
�
w v
UJ Z
10 20 30 1 60
80
Or anic Laden To sail - 2"
t
15
Residuum: Stiff Light Gray and Light Brown Fine Sandy
Clayey SILT with Trace Roots (Wet in upper 18 inches)
(ML)
2
15
g
727.0
Very Dense Red Brown Light Gray Clayey Fine SAND
1
3
1
67
(Dry) (SC)1
-
4
501
Partially Weathered Rack: sampled as Very Dense Light
AR
2
Grav and Red Brown Clayey SAND Moist
Auger Refusal at 9 Feet
AR
a
a
n
L7
Ll
f
N
m
z
w
co
m
Ly
5
a
4
a
m
0
O
a
z
z
d
a
m
NOTES:
Page
?
of 9
1`THtS 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.
S&ME
3. STRATIFICATION
AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT
EXACT.
ENGINEERING'-
SERVING
4. WATER LEVEL
IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
VARY.

PROJECT: Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
BORING LOG B-8
1581-09-146
NOTES: Standard Penetration Test performed
DATE DRILLED: 1/28110
ELEVATION: 736.0
using an autohammer. Offset boring (moved
10 feet to the east) encountered auger refusal
DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA
BORING DEPTH: 13.0
at a depth of 2.5 feet.
LOGGED BY: K. McWhorter
WATER LEVEL: Dry @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
v
>
0
of w
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
uu
d �ry
O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
�
¢ g
a s
(blows/ft)
w
❑�
w
a
� m
a
cnz
7
z
w V
10 20 30 60 80
Or anic Laden Topsoil - 6"
Fill. Soft Tan Fine Sandy CLAY with Trace Rock
17
Fragments and Trace Roots - Soft (CL)
AR
1
Residuum: Medium Dense Tan and Light Gray Silty Fine
SAND (Dry) (SM)
2
27
5
731.0
Very Stiff Orange Brown Tan Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
(Dry) (ML)
3
25
HC
4
24
10
726.0
Medium Dense Tan Silty Fine SAND (Damp) (SM)
AR
Auger Refusal at 13 Feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG 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 1
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PROJECT: Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
HAND ANGER LOG B-9
1581-09-146
NOTES: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests
DATE DRILLED: 2123110
ELEVATION: 737.0
performed
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
BORING DEPTH: 4.0
LOGGED BY: J. Presley
WATER LEVEL: 1 Foot @ TOD
DRILLER: J. Presley DRILL RIG: Hand Auger
J
v � Q w
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST DATA w
=
C7 - g a. a
a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(biowsAncrement)
� X Q
d 0 Q W N Z
C
10 20 30 60 $0
Or arric Laden To soil -1"
Fill: oft ed Brown Clayey SILT with race Roots (Wet)
1
736.0
1.
3
ML
2
735.0
2
20+
Residuum: Soft Gray an Slig tly Sandy Clayey SILT with
Trace Roots Moist to Wet ML
3
734.0
3
20+
Very Stiff an Gray Slightly Sandy Slightly Clayey SILT
4
with Rock Fragments Moist ML
HAP
733 0
20+
Auger Refusal at 4 Feet
4
1. PENETRATION (n-VALUE) IS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF BLOWS PER 1.75
INCH INCREMENT OF A 15 LB HAMMER FALLING 20 INCHES REQUIRED TO
DRIVE A 1.5 INCH DIAMETER CONE TIP.
*S&ME
ENGINEERING - TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INCREMENT = 1.75 INCHES
Depths are designated for comparison
purposes only. Elevations have not been
surveyed. Depth measurements are shown
to illustrate the general arrangements of
the soil types encountered at the boring
locations. Do not use depth measurements
for determination of distances or quanities.
Page 1 of

PROJECT: Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
HAND AUGER LOG B-10
1581-09-146
NOTES: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests
DATE DRILLED: 2118110
ELEVATION: 732.0
performed.
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
BORING DEPTH: 4.5
pry(5� TOB. Water @ .5' on
LOGGED BY: J. Presley
WATER LEVEL: 212312010.
DRILLER: J. Presley
DRILL RIG: Hand Auger
v
>
p
u1 ut
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST DATA
w
=
F ^
_
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
-j
0. a
(blowslincrement)
❑
w
w m
aw
0 Za
�
10 20 3Q BO BO
Or anic Laden Topsoil - 1'
Alluvium: Gray Tan Slightly Clayey SILT with Trace Roots
1
731.0
1
6
Moist ML
2
730.0
2
20+
Residuum: Firm to Very Stiff Gray Yellow Brown Clayey
SILT with Trace Roots Moist ML
3
729.0
3
20+
Very Stiff Gray Slightly Sandy SILT with Clay seams (Dry)
4
(ML)
HAF
728.0
4 5
40
20+
Auger Refusal at 4.5 Feet
1. PENETRATION (n-VALUE) IS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF BLOWS PER 1.75 INCREMENT = 1.75 INCHES
INCH INCREMENT OF A 15 LB HAMMER FALLING 20 INCHES REQUIRED TO
DRIVE A 1.5 INCH DIAMETER CONE TIP.
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Depths are designated for comparison
purposes only. Elevations have not been
surveyed. Depth measurements are shown
to illustrate the general arrangements of
the soil types encountered at the boring
locations. Do not use depth measurements
for determination of distances or quaniiies.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
HAND AUGER LOG B-11
1581-09446
NOTES: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests
DATE DRILLED: 2118I10
ELEVATION: 739.0
performed. Auger refusal @ 1.5 Feet Boring was
offset 5 Feet Offset refusal was @ 3.4 Feet.
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
BORING DEPTH: 3.4
LOGGED BY: J. Presley
WATER LEVEL: Dry @ TOB
DRILLER: J. Presley
DRILL RIG: Hand Auger
U
J
7
pZ
w w
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST DATA
of
F
_ Q
o
MATER{AL DESCRIPTION
�
Q. a
a
(blowstincrement)
>
oa
C7
J m
Z
w
10 20 30 fi0 80
Dr anic Laden To sail - 1"
1
738.0
1
7
Fill: Red Clayey SILT with Trace Roots Moist ML
2
737.0
17
Residuum: Firm Gray Tan Slightly Clayey SILT with Trace
Roots Moist to Wet) ML
2
Very Stiff Gray Slightly Sandy Slight y Clayey SILT Dry to
3
Hq
736.0
3
1
20+
Moist ML
Auger Refusal at 3.4 Feet
1. PENETRATION (n-VALUE) IS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF BLOWS PER 1.75
INCH INCREMENT OF A 15 LB HAMMER FALLING 20 INCHES REQUIRED TO
DRIVE A 1.5 INCH DIAMETER CONE TIP.
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INCREMENT = 1.75INCHES
Depths are designated for comparison
purposes only. Elevations have not been
surveyed. Depth measurements are shown
to illustrate the general arrangements of
the soil types encountered at the boring
locations. Do not use depth measurements
for determination of distances or quanities.
Page 9 of 9

PROJECT: Polar Bear Exhibit
Asheboro, NC
HAND AUGER LOG B-12
1581-09-146
NOTES: Standard Penetration Test performed
DATE DRILLED: 1129110
ELEVATION: 738.0
using an autohammer. Offset boring (moved 6
feet to the north) encountered auger refusal at a
depth of 3 feet.
DRILLING METHOD: 2114" HSA
BORING DEPTH: 3.0
LOGGED BY: K McWhorter
WATER LEVEL: Dry a@TOB
DRILLER: J. Wingo
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50
U
>
p :
w w
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST DATA
w
m
x
a o
o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
�
��
a s
(blowslincrement)
�
uai m
O
w
N
m
w m
a
0 z
c
�
w v
10 20 30 SO 80
Or anic Laden Topsoil - 4"
1
737.0
0
19
Possible Fill: Very Stiff Orange Brown and light Gray Fine
2
Sandy Clayey SILT (Damp) (Mi-)
736.0
31
�615
735.0
Auger Refusal at 3 Feet
1. PENETRATION (n-VALUE) 1S THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF BLOWS PER 1.75
INCH INCREMENT OF A 15 L8 HAMMER FALLING 20 INCHES REQUIRED TO
DRIVE A 1.5 INCH DIAMETER CONE TIP.
*S&ME
ENGINEERING • TESTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INCREMENT = 1.75 INCHES
Depths are designated for comparison
purposes only. Elevations have not been
surveyed. Depth measurements are shown
to illustrate the general arrangements of
the soil types encountered at the boring
locations. Do not use depth measurements
for determination of distances or quanities.
Page 1 of 1

MXOOLNONATV REGISTER Or DEEDS TM iok+nVn.,wofoY wnwn.ane+aM.n trlra o..n.wAod.V, aCciMUW MNa ONs dA cro ne mud cR oT
7s� i.T'pfc `' 4v�r4
���-{'� WURT'iCAIitlLTNp !
n or ?4Ls flAdIWUll C&ily ' ' 7_r
iR
?, THIS :lCI{GE+'Q:i1T mde <rtyi ::nC"_rdc! i.nta Ekt i:; i. h_ -S zany of f.•,; rsii+b rr, l`.+'7 :,
vv
`l ," fig�,anci•'ligt'ne[!n the ;Jc,r'h Cnrnl LnX ::re�L,fcTLl lu:Lhoi ity (ium:in-s'[vr cn.l i;;l ,;11�
Authority') s public enttt:;+tveJ by bttc Lzi;L_aai�ar� uP :::nr ,;Lai•: of ifor[.it +
Cf6 l:r!a, and Lhe hurtth ?;tlrDl;mx 'lcole;ti, ,A :;ai.^_ty, Im., (hcr:^itw: t,•r •:1.LaJ .
+ '%hre'SGuiety) _n rOI'uJrnt iOn or,�u:ire:i,u:,i,x ti r: la,r_: a i'X• E�Lst al' Vn rl.i :
.
' Carolina with princlole L"al i
i I
THAT WHEREAS. the Authority ar.1 MiG `Z0Ci0;..'i o:.n land in
Shlp, Randolph l:Waty, flortr:::naylira, elxlud=sl i ;hi, tic haU! 4SCi.ar sto. :n ba
la` p12% bLly TIVO- led _a shy uN'; ui 6IQ Raz'is i•'r Or f'vod:: of fiu?•.Tal,"h
1-1k"
to exolluge certain Land sr. ;:rain+u'tai ��a:•r C-+,i:
01, !IRMA, tn^ exact ]rJcript'CL' ^.ii tft' 11217:' Lo ;N'. �-c!11r;!�:11 '.a!LN]L !Tr:'.'
}oa X:iaercnired, but th•: ;nrSLa:. [.WO iesii� •i.j i•rc3ri io ca`mit envh otli:r by
flthis a;neement to the Ghl-Lyal. Lon of n :_ru; ^-h _h e [ r.; a: 6u a:,a ti cY aor
thet the :v,Oca [:r❑r, L•ip+,lOn oi' ::c+ ura,: s
,i,;: fffj,zg ms>ri uLkm at is 1>ti.ct• d,s i.:j iati. e:,h ur:l, ;L:r,,'r+.n;:Lne:.tnl.t Le ^n4 Ll:.{y
.II
4included within tn- tourrlsrz;; oi' t.h:: vnri.cc" _^resn.: arva.; involvc•k n.; hr,n:in-
`Isiixr deacrL6ni,
Ij PJI7F, THi;HF.rOR�, Fur and iz: --on-4ociLz,; . oi' t.ha pras.ir,:.. -.+nc: ; lK• n�i'.::q:.
Ilpranf' cs hcreinafcr, ::ontaLacJ. th'�.[• purU+ 'lo r,.,a1tY ;r>- .:s n:1ths:
•IlOthe'r n•:, Col1•]:,r,:
_ 1.III A. Ph-. Authority n_rc,?: :,o :orrvc. :o CYA' tr..,:•',., of p:t�:c1J
Jl of laid nhich ::hall br: Pati L.:ly _reLci.„,j :r i.+h:n t• :,rv1 ci L::
,i ...
hrr:ltt by t!'u: .^.isove cf•]:; i:,n �i i�urrirl n,��.: n tea" cr 'f: un :aiJ ;+L.,t �.
"ol-.l.o'.•r,;: C:i lv:n c.-5, :; x I :.5. Ci'n:i,: + r. .t�,:i: i11.
�JJJJICin;Ic G-`i{:}. Ciro..... C-7. dL'JAs G-9. i n l.. ++--,. .i rr 1. . • I • ',+_•1,
jlirnle-H'3, Cfxtae 1_y: CSre.L- 1-cjL}, >:i1i,.:l ._?1 Ci :c .I_ .
f cycle 16{1), Cirtl.e .1-6(Z}. .i r-le •-'I, Ci ml, J-:i. Ci tvl•: X-t•, ::f ralo V. .
a �ircle-
K 1, Circle K-8, Ciml,T L. CLTTaa L-7(1
azvi 'Crn�l, L) ((, vr, L•:�:,)
,.R. -n•-.For .and in aolr;idcl-al; i.nn of tIW: >Ll;rcrrXnrf, „I 1.117 lblh;nnri. F,y Ln y
p u051 Cfll't.iiR 1Gra[1 aO hcmirvdvcv! ::t:tt2d ❑nd an N-11 :ormijur:it'c n :,lv rvo l'o, Lh,�
-
RTX A
L[ i
L j J

HANp ?H GP TY HtGW1 H O KEDSIh kA—1 r�cad x h h, n b.en .nr�tl4 dk-Wy— h. a ,W A IMPA"a D— arfr..
i th, AiitlioAty lama:; Lip-Aludod viOiilI us j ty yr�!e:7 4o cony"Y t�
lwzvivufLCv dav-rilbeJ wL i,c) eKc-eed iji Lhe vmporLy copiv,'YQA LO
th, by wm kiLW6 Ly pirw,ill. W 01,17" Land:: La h
to Ltb: ',Y Lllr. "rk; �":iy :,hall be 1 naRldp, I -j LJli !! tW
h'MTd;Lri-'z 01' kl"CAM;, /,fi7 u, :kl-'; L40' il-lll:t` ;I-W;t :-V Lill: VX::A -'r
Trai-L rt:_LIVACd in PLA lvo,* L',, ;:,4 C'5qnty
L A of ,8 :--:w-- ::nu Tz--!-, 11 Q L'
Lib ;.qr" 'n -;)7n by !-I'; ;.o Pl-,!. r:,:v 6Ilr1o121l
V-3, civl
of 1-.1,J a--,6 rutb k,; :1 fzali%", pi Cu,.,L. E,vAi to Lhs MN7r
0, 'L weir, .'k.oi by r,J.l ports:.: Lh:,t I.Ilo ].;uiJ:
r.:c:-,`I,I- for
f!' qflj, Hw
:1. AT.1 "n'-1, i v;: Trl „nn Lr,l
I L I
Lvl; v
L
Dr .. 11 Lu
Oy c4n,irby OlOiC ;uwo -nuxa
iv duplla:,l,o C,-L:!Lnal;w:01,
duly
CAJUANA rU3U-,;Ic,kl. .^.uj , IyKk rt
e4l
NOTtli VLL
L

IIANOaLPI I 00l1NTY RLOr97E9 OF oEEU3 the III bnlnq•,hich hu not NemwnhN MaIw/. "I W tW wm IM I IjwelfMMenl.lra
.,'F x x -. :;i II - x..i�T . J c � � t .I .. ',. a: i v, 9 i {h• �t z it Sy�i�t�� i
A.
' Yx
f" ye, rrll�fi;
II NOVI! i;AI[JLL'IA.
I , cay Or Ln:CrlJc`[', L9%"?, L><.`faOnRl]y cams bFf0r,3 lic'^.
11 I? .. , n Pk,l,:ray °ablic, �c'=%nex:�„ i-'. !.Yi'7°�_, who, being,';
'.�, ;;�• ttsy Lla,I :v.= is Vr-sldCCt of the ticzth Iarollna Zaologiisl'{.��,•
Sr if :1r;C! thgr i,h(` 'J';nl III'i•i,T.[:;1 SU :Ilr- f4SL•�pi11L i.itSLMllnellt Yirl.
`f I:
snr,i oC ::o;:i ecrLor`�•tion: and .nat aazd aritlug ',vna zigneC end j.
yy `r-Ued by hPI, it. ❑_h•,1. Of :7nic lorporatlon qy ira staho:Lty dtiLy given Ind
(Pi,>.0rlenL) _u:krla:rl erl[rcd tho snLd.' .
a
%j wri6Lre! .,, lo-± f!r: _•L .aLl ...,!d o'; ....iv tUr(h!I':r.i all,
brill :rr:.a ❑GGw-La-L .'o,='.r 2hi.:: rflc r9 rl:. loy oC Nember,' I973f .
(SEAL}
J
s! dy,(:,71m�•_:f.;:al: 1.:-I�in_.<: PlUtaxy fuhhr'c
any �C ::c:!mber, 1`i: Jr use�onally e:,Ina 6eCore me,
�;, - n N.yrai: ':'uoli_ '✓>'`• 1 t, r.?[L77`�)' J .;+_f.;_r, who, he ing by. -•
'i :A.t!Y +'o!'`I, d•?!. tq(.L =•: .=,lPrc;1.0ol't Of 6he North (:asvlIna?oalogiCa.l
! `',r.: ia4y. Lcc.- .yTAl Lh.,+ :.1.'! s�n.1 ;.:'i i:r_•d io I,I;; Ibte ai(�; hlztawxtnt in
.: ritil y; is L... :aC�ort:I:e ,b;il ci' tt irl earls^[+.Inn by it,: 'Uthority day given: •'
,+ r,p;� .,,.;I. •,r.,' ,.:-,);LL, - -.i (Pr..�,idrn,il acknoviodged the acid.
'et•iti=5l9 F.:.) ;A. W s6rpor�ttoo. -
- . .
Dn2,ry Iny h,Ur:i u:l rnl;ar;.Lu co:7.i. 60," :hs /-$ ti AIL/ of ibcembar, 19/3.1.,.
•�r•~Jr. �I /�r�...C-tom (SLk:. �},.._ 19{
,N610It C'S1(IIIANA - R.anblplr L4n4)IV
71n
f .r tn. I.. Irr "" .r[ 1 .I.o u. u= ,ent.d fn rppixl r.I[im :nnl 'J.1 s,ulGcu o'[rouk �r
I':.K•'aI(S/ 'llu. � � 1 ISL�i/f't.! i-Itf��. ...-_ . I'1II
e�A•ni�• Sfhaw- Ilr�6islcJr I)1'e�dv r.1;
.- .. � -. II.. r ._.. .. } ... �-. . ...... L• .E ar.�.,.� .Y.'_d�. s� r�....- v.lyfi �''iiKne[r