SWA000212_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20230706 (2)

i
I
Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071
PREPARED FOR:
Commercial Reality Advisors, LLC
751 West Fourth Street, Suite 310
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
PREPARED BY:
S&ME, Inc.
8646 West Market Street, Suite 105
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409
February 12, 2021

r
r
P I illr
February 12, 2021
Commercial Reality Advisors, LLC
751 West Fourth Street, Suite 310
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
Attention: Mr.Jack Reece
Reference: Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071
NC PE Firm License No. F-0176
Dear Mr. Reece:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed subsurface exploration services for the planned hotel project in Banner Elk,
North Carolina. The exploration was performed in general accordance with S&ME Proposal 15-2000296 Revised
dated December 14, 2020 and authorized on December 16, 2020. The purpose of the services was to explore
general subsurface conditions within the proposed development area and evaluate those conditions with regard
to site grading, foundation design, and construction.
S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services for this project. If you have
questions or need additional information regarding this report, please call us at [phone].
Sincerely,
4 4,(
O /i
S&ME, Inc. ==Ov "if.SS/.!,i,
.4 SEAL 9r•
30037
1/4- W;``P.-f N s'
Stephen W. Lacz, P.E. Parker Gunnell
Project Manager/Geotechnical Group Leader Geotechnical Staff Professional
Registration No. 030037
SL/PG/wj
S&ME, Inc.18646 West Market Street,Suite 105 I Greensboro, NC 27409 I p 336.288.7180 I www.smeinc.com

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071 r`__
Table of Contents
1.0 Project and Site Information 1
2.0 Exploration Procedures 1
2.1 Field 1
2.2 Laboratory 2
3.0 Regional Geology 2
4.0 Site Conditions 3
4.1 Surface Conditions 3
4.2 Existing Fill 4
4.3 Residuum 4
4.4 Partially Weathered Rock 4
4.5 Auger Refusal Material 5
4.6 Groundwater 5
5.0 Evaluation 5
6.0 Foundation Design Recommendations 6
6.1 Foundation Support 6
6.1.1 Compacted Aggregate Pier Ground Improvement 6
6.1.2 CAP Design Recommendations 7
6.1.3 Quality Control and Quality Assurance 7
6.1.4 Other Considerations 8
6.2 Floor Slab 8
6.3 Seismic Considerations 9
6.3.1 General 9
6.3.2 Seismic Site Class 9
6.3.3 Ground Motion Parameters 9
6.4 Lateral Earth Pressures 9
7.0 Site Earthwork Recommendations 10
February 12, 2021

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071
7.1 Previously Graded Sites 10
7.2 Site Preparation 10
7.3 Excavation 11
7.4 Fill Material 11
7.5 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction 12
7.6 Cut and Fill Slopes 12
7.7 Potential Subgrade Deterioration and Repair 12
8.0 General Pavement Thickness Recommendations 12
9.0 Limitations of Report 13
Insert: Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report
Appendices
Appendix I-Figures
Appendix II-Boring Information
Appendix III-Laboratory Information
February 12, 2021 ii

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071 I I
1.0 Project and Site Information
Project information was based on the following:
An e-mail from Jack Reece with Commercial Realty Advisors, LLC (CRA) to Brandon Whitaker with S&ME
on August 26, 2020. The e-mail correspondence included the two Proposed Site Plan attachments drawn
by R IV Architecture dated March 25, 2020.
• A telephone call between Jack Reece and Stephen Lacz with S&ME on August 27, 2020.
• Review of Google Earth aerial imagery and Avery County GIS web map information.
• Review of previous S&ME borings in the Sugar Mountain area.
• A site visit by Stephen Lacz on August 29, 2020.
• An e-mail from Jack Reece to Stephen Lacz with S&ME on December 14, 2020. The e-mail included an
attached Geotechnical Boring Location Map drawn by Blue Ridge Engineering PLLC dated December 11,
2020.
We understand that CRA is planning to construct a four-story hotel southeast of the intersection of NC Highway
105 and Tynecastle Highway in Banner Elk, North Carolina (Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Plan in Appendix I). The hotel is
planned to contain 115 rooms and will likely be located on the northern portion of the site. The remaining
portions of the site will consist of paved parking areas for vehicles.
At this time, detailed structural loading or grading information have not been provided. Based on the provided
information,structural support will consist of wood framed construction with a concrete slab on grade. We anticipate
structural loads for the hotel will be relatively light (column loads less than 150 kips, wall loads less than 5 kips per
foot, and floor loads less than 150 pounds per square foot). Traffic conditions will be limited to automobiles and
occasional light to heavy trucks.
Based on site observations, the north half of the property is generally flat and grassed. The southern half of the
property slopes up towards a wooded ridge and property owned by The Nature Conservancy. Past clearing and
excavation is apparent. Minimal grading is anticipated in the planned building area (cuts and fills of 3 feet or less),
but cuts of up to 10 feet are anticipated along the existing slope to reach design grades. A building finished floor
elevation has not yet been determined, but we would anticipate a finished floor elevation of approximately 4,037
feet.
2.0 Exploration Procedures
2.1 Field
Ten test borings were conducted at the approximate locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2 in
Appendix I) within the planned building footprints and planned paved areas. The borings were located in the field
using existing site features as reference.
The borings were conducted using a CME 45 track-mounted drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer. Hollow
stem, continuous flight augers were used to advance the borings to termination depths of 3 to 32.5 feet below
existing grade. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the borings at 2.5-foot intervals in the top 10
February 12, 2021 1

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina s
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071 I
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.
Groundwater measurements were attempted after drilling was completed in each of the test borings. Five borings
were left open to attempt to obtain 24-hour water level measurements. After completion of water level
measurements, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings and a commercial hole closure device placed
near the ground surface.
2.2 Laboratory
Once the samples were received in our laboratory, a geotechnical staff professional visually examined each sample
to estimate the distribution of grain sizes, plasticity, organic content, moisture condition, color, presence of lenses
and seams, and apparent geological origin. The results of the classifications as well as the field test results can be
observed on the Boring Logs in Appendix II. The soils were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS). Similar soils were grouped into strata on the logs. The strata contact lines represent approximate
boundaries between the soil types; the actual transition between the soil types in the field may be gradual in both
the horizontal and vertical directions.
Grain size analysis (ASTM D 422 without hydrometer) and natural moisture content tests (ASTM D 2216) were
performed on selected samples. Results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix III.
3.0 Regional Geology
The Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985) indicates the site is in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The
bedrock in this region is a complex crystalline formation that has been faulted and contorted by past tectonic
movements. The rock has weathered to residual soils which form the mantle for hillsides and hilltops. The typical
residual soil profile in areas not disturbed by erosion or the activities of man consists of clayey silts and silty sands.
Soils typically become less clayey and more sandy with depth. There may be also be colluvial (old land-slide)
material on slopes.
More specifically, the site is in the Grandfather Mountain Formation of the Western Blue Ridge terrane. This is one
of the most geologically complicated areas of the state and is likely composed of several geologic terranes.
Generally, the Western Blue Ridge includes rocks that have always been associated with ancient North America
(known as Laurentia by geologists). This mountainous region is composed of a group of over one billion-year-old
gneisses and the younger sedimentary rocks that were deposited on top of them. This complex mixture of
igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rock has repeatedly been squeezed, fractured, faulted, and folded. The
formation generally contains metasiltstone and locally contains thin bedded iron-bearing dolomitic marble;
interlayered with phyllite, metagraywacke, and meta-arkose.
The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone termed "partially weathered
rock" is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined for engineering
purposes as residual material that can be penetrated by the drilling rig augers and has standard penetration test
blow counts in excess of 50 blows for six inches or less of sampler penetration. Weathering is facilitated by
fractures,joints, and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of the partially
February 12, 2021 2

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services �._
Banner Elk Hotel III
Banner Elk, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071
weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Also, it is not
unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well
above the general bedrock level.
4.0 Site Conditions
The generalized subsurface conditions within the building and parking areas are described below. A Generalized
Subsurface Profile (Figure 3) is included in Appendix Ito graphically summarize subsurface conditions
encountered in the borings. Ground surface elevations shown on the boring logs and Generalized Subsurface
Profile were interpolated from provided topographic information and should be considered approximate. For
more detailed descriptions and stratifications at a particular boring location, the Boring Logs in Appendix II should
be consulted.
4.1 Surface Conditions
The proposed building area is currently a previously graded, grassed area with landscape areas containing single
trees on the northeast and northwest boundaries, buried utilities along the northwest boundary, and small piles of
boulders along the bottom of the slope on the southwest border.
All of the borings, B-1 through B-10, experienced a layer of topsoil ranging from 1 to 3 inches in thickness.
Occasion rock outcroppings were observed in the flat area with larger boulders near and within the slope.
Representative photos of general site conditions
are shown below.
nOflVE L PNOPEflT1E5
:au -ems - r y .- 8284339125 ,.,�•
��yM ice- ,SL. •
•oYG•' -r �`` y rj* c •q,••+ ,vj 1 _
�'4 ..� if�/J y •• +E 'art � � •�'"" �y t� 4� -��
View looking west along slope View looking southeast at slope
February 12, 2021 3

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071 I I
•
•
Rilirrr
'�v 1, vim/ , ■' ._,� __ - -
i . J.'7 "• 'n - V ...^?
' • . 4 ot* .
View looking across flat area towards Lowes Foods View near toe of slope, note boulders in foreground
4.2 Existing Fill
Existing man-placed fill soils were encountered underlying the topsoil in borings B-3, B-4, and B-8 to depths of 2,
1.5, and 2.3 feet, respectively. The fill material generally consisted of silty gravel and sandy silts (USCS
classifications of GP and ML). Standard Penetration Test (SPT)values in the fill ranged from 9 to 18 blows per foot
(bpf). In general, fill soils with consistent SPT values of 8 bpf or higher typically indicate adequate compaction was
achieved.
4.3 Residuum
Residual soils resulting from the in-place weathering of underlying bedrock were encountered underlying the fill
soils or topsoil in all of the borings except B-3 (which refused in existing fill soils). Residual soils encountered in
the borings typically consisted of sandy silts with some silty sands (USCS classifications of ML and SM). SPT values
were fairly erratic with depth. In general, SPT values ranged from 6 to 13 bpf in most borings, but included higher
and lower values sporadically. Several SPT values of 2 or 3 bpf were encountered in borings B-8, B-9, and B-10
within the planned building area.
Grain size analysis testing of three near surface residual soil samples in B-5, B-7, and B-10 indicated 19 to 60
percent silts/clays, 36 to 50 percent sands, and 4 to 36 percent gravels. Moisture contents of soil tested ranged
from 14.9 percent to 43.1 percent and appear to be within or above cornpactable levels.
4.4 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 below residual soils in borings B-2, B-5, B-7, and B-9 at
approximate depths of 5.5, 14.5, 6, and 31.5 feet below the existing ground surface, respectively. A 1-foot thick
February 12, 2021 4

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services R-
._
Banner Elk Hotel I
Banner Elk, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071
lens of partially weathered rock was encountered at a depth of approximately 4 feet in boring B-4. The top of
partially weathered rock corresponds to approximate elevations ranging of 4,034 to 4,004.5 feet.
4.5 Auger Refusal Material
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 material was encountered in borings B-3 and B-9 at depths of 3 and 32.5 feet, respectively. An offset
boring was performed in boring B-3 and encountered refusal at a similar depth of 3.5 feet. This refusal in boring
B-3 corresponds to an approximate elevation of 4,034 feet and in boring B-9 at 4,003.5 feet.
4.6 Groundwater
Groundwater measurements were attempted in all borings at the time of drilling and were attempted after
approximately 24 hours in borings B-1, B-2, B-7, B-8, and B-10. Water level measurements at the time of drilling
in all the borings ranged from 1.0 to 25 feet below the ground surface (excluding B-4 which was observed to be
dry). Water level measurements after approximately 24 hours yielded values ranging from 1.5 to 13.8 feet below
ground surface. See the table below for water level measurements at the boring locations.
Table 4-1 - Groundwater Level Information
Boring Water Level at Time Water Level at 24 hr(ft)
of Boring(ft)
B-1 7.9 Dry to 7.7 cave depth
B-2 4.5 1.5
B-3 1.0 -
B-4 Dry -
B-5 7.8 -
B-6 12.5 -
B-7 - 4.2
B-8 9.8 11.0
B-9 25.0 -
B-10 12.0 13.8
5.0 Evaluation
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings and our understanding of the planned site
development, the site is generally adaptable for the proposed development.
Near-surface existing fill soils that were generally compacted were encountered sporadically across the site.
Underlying the surficial conditions and near-surface fills soils, low to moderate consistency residual soils were
February 12, 2021 5

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina I I
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071
generally encountered to depths of approximately 6 to 16 feet below existing grade in the north portion of the
site (near borings B-8, B-9, and B-10). Due to the variability in consistency of the residual site soils, our analysis
indicates total settlement of hotel spread foundations (assuming maximum building loads of up to 150 kips for
column loads) will be on the order of 1-1/2 inches and differential settlement on the order of 3/4 inch. We
anticipate these settlements are beyond acceptable limits for the hotel structure. We therefore suggest ground
improvement of spread foundation bearing conditions with compacted aggregate piers to reduce settlement to
tolerable magnitudes. More specific information regarding compacted aggregate piers and shallow spread
foundations are provided later in this report. The structural engineer should confirm the loading assumptions
above so that we may confirm our settlement estimates.
The borings indicate construction excavations can typically be performed using conventional earthmoving
equipment without the need for ripping or blasting. Some ripping and/or hoe ram use will likely be required in
portions of the site to excavate near surface partially weathered rock, rock, or boulder fill materials. In this
geology, it is possible to encounter occasional, isolated, boulders or ledges of rock that may be difficult to
excavate. Groundwater generally appears to be at least 5 feet below the ground surface. In some areas of the
site, groundwater was encountered at shallower depths, but this water is believed to be perched water on higher
consistency subgrade materials. If groundwater is encountered during construction, it can likely be handled with
gravity ditches or pumping from strategically located sumps.
6.0 Foundation Design Recommendations
6.1 Foundation Support
Assuming the settlement values discussed above are excessive, columns and walls for the hotel building may be
supported on shallow spread foundations bearing on compacted aggregate pier improved soils. The foundations
may be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 5,000 psf after ground improvement. A specialty foundation
contractor should be engaged to design and install the compacted aggregate piers (CAP). This allowable bearing
pressure may be increased by 1/3 for transient wind or earthquake loading.
Total settlements of spread foundations bearing on compacted aggregate pier improved soils should be limited
to less than 1 inch (total). Differential settlement within the building footprints should be limited to 1/2 inch.
Settlement will occur as the loads are applied and are expected to be substantially complete soon after
construction.
6.1.1 Compacted Aggregate Pier Ground Improvement
Compacted Aggregate Piers are a ground improvement technique to reduce settlement of conventionally
constructed, grade supported spread foundations. The individual columns of compacted crushed stone, referred
to as CAP elements, are stiffer than the surrounding matrix soil and deflect less under a given load. Since they
deflect less, they behave as a hard spot and "attract" a disproportionate amount of the applied load, resulting in
decreased settlement of individual foundations.
The CAP support elements are constructed by drilling a hole to create a cavity; removing a volume of material;
and then compacting a bottom bulb of stone. A shaft composed of dense-graded base course stone is built on
February 12, 2021 6

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071 I
top of the bottom bulb in lifts (12 inches compacted thickness). Densification of the bottom bulb and shaft lifts is
typically accomplished using either a modified hydraulic impact ram or a vibratory probe. Other construction
methods may also be employed.
The Structural Engineer typically designs a conventional spread foundation system based on a bearing pressure.
The Ground Improvement Contractor is typically provided drawings by the Structural Engineer identifying
foundations along with the vertical, horizontal, and uplift loads to be resisted. The location, depth, and diameter
of CAP support elements are determined by the Ground Improvement Contractor to support the structural loads
while limiting settlements to a project specified performance criteria. CAPs reduce settlement of the soils
penetrated by the CAPs due to the concentrated foundation load above them. CAPs do not decrease settlement
of materials beneath individual CAP elements due to area loads associated with the construction. Cages may be
included in CAP support elements to resist up-lift loads.
CAP elements are constructed from a grade above the foundation bearing level and top of the CAP. The CAP
elements are exposed in the foundation excavation at the foundation bearing level. Foundations are constructed
in contact with the top of CAP elements.
6.1.2 CAP Design Recommendations
CAPs rely on stresses induced in the foundation supporting soils during compaction of the base and shaft to
reduce settlement. The CAP spread foundation bearing pressure that can be developed is dependent on the
consistency of the soils in which they are constructed. More stable materials provide more confinement during
CAP construction and allow use of higher CAP spread foundation bearing pressures.
Since individual CAP elements only reduce settlement within the length of the individual CAP element, the CAP
design must consider settlement contributions from the lower zone beneath the bottom of individual CAP
elements. They must also consider the overlapping stress bulbs of multiple CAPS beneath an individual
foundation and other surface loads applied after CAP construction. The specific length of the individual CAP
elements will be designed by the Ground Improvement Contractor.
Compacted Aggregate Pier ground improvement is commonly bid on a design-build performance basis using
settlement as a performance criterion. We suggest the hotel foundations be designed to limit total and
differential settlements to 1 inch and 0.5 inches, respectively.
6.1.3 Quality Control and Quality Assurance
The Ground Improvement Contractor should perform one or more Modulus Load Tests to confirm design
modulus assumptions. The load test provides a measure of the stiffness of the compacted aggregate pier
elements assumed during design to calculate Upper Zone settlement. The Modulus Load Tests should be
performed in the areas of the site considered to be representative of the most critical soil condition.
The Ground Improvement Contractor's internal Quality Control program should include monitoring drill depths,
compacted aggregate pier element lengths, average lift thickness, installation procedures, aggregate quality,
densification of lifts, and organic content of drill cuttings. These items should be documented for each
compacted aggregate pier element installed to provide a complete installation record.
February 12, 2021 7

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071 I I
For quality assurance, the ground improvement contractor should submit the compacted aggregate pier design to
the Geotechnical Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer's representative should periodically observe performance
of compacted aggregate pier construction for conformance with the ground improvement plan.
The Ground Improvement Contractor is not typically on site after performance of ground improvement. The
Geotechnical Engineer's representative should periodically observe the site for any construction excavations
excessively close to CAP elements (5-feet or within a 1:1 projection from the CAP improved foundation bearing
soils). The Geotechnical Engineer's representative should also observe excavation and exposure of CAPs in
foundation excavations and preparation of the foundation bearing surface.
Foundation bearing surfaces composed of site silt and sand soils are somewhat prone to deterioration when
exposed at the foundation bearing surface. Foundation bearing subgrades that will be exposed for more than 8-
hours or will be subjected to extensive foot traffic should be protected by a 4-inch thick concrete mud mat.
6.1.4 Other Considerations
CAPs rely on stresses induced in the supporting soils during compaction of the base and shaft to reduce
settlement. Excavations in close proximity to constructed CAP elements will relieve these stresses.
Excavations are not recommended within 5 feet or a 1:1 projection from the top of constructed CAP
elements. Utility excavations should either be located outside of this area, or the utility installed prior to
construction of compacted aggregate piers.
CAP settlements are evaluated as an Upper Zone (CAP element plus one diameter below) and a Lower
Zone (below the Upper Zone to incompressible material). There is no CAP improvement of the Lower
Zone. Settlement contributions of Lower Zone soils due to global loads (i.e. fill to increase grade,
retaining wall backfill, etc.) are not reduced by CAPs and should be considered in the Ground
Improvement Contractor's design.
6.2 Floor Slab
Following the site preparation measures described in Section 7.0, the building floor slabs can be adequately
supported on evaluated and approved (proofrolled) existing site soils or new compacted structural fill placed and
compacted in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Floor slabs should be independent of the
walls, columns, or slab utility penetrations. We recommend a vapor retarder be included in the design of the slabs
if vapor penetration is an unacceptable condition.
The subgrade modulus (k) value is used to design floor slabs for point loading. The site soils are moderate
consistency sandy silt and silty sand soils with a subgrade modulus of approximately 100 pci. The subgrade
modulus may be increased by placing a layer of compacted crushed aggregate base course (CABC) stone beneath
the slab. The following increases in subgrade modulus may be achieved with varying thicknesses of stone
beneath the slab.
February 12, 2021 8

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services �._
Banner Elk Hotel I
Banner Elk, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071
Table 6-1 - Subgrade Modulus
Thickness of Compacted Slab Design Subgrade
CABC (in) Modulus(pci)
0 100
4 115
6 130
PCA—Slab Thickness Design for Industrial Concrete Floors on Grade
Because of the ease with which site soils may be disturbed during construction, we recommend a 4-inch minimum
thickness of compacted crushed aggregate base course (CABC) stone beneath the slabs
6.3 Seismic Considerations
6.3.1 General
There are no known, mapped faults in the area of the site. The historic earthquake event which influences the
design seismicity of the site the most is the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquake with a magnitude of
approximately 7.3.
6.3.2 Seismic Site Class
Subsurface conditions are relatively uniform across the proposed building areas. Based on the subsurface
conditions encountered, we recommend Site Class C for use in seismic design at this site in accordance with the
2018 North Carolina Building Code.
6.3.3 Ground Motion Parameters
We recommend that the project be designed using the ground motion parameters given in the following table:
Table 6-2 - Ground Motion Parameters
Seismic Design Category
Method Site Class SDS SD1
Risk Category II-III Risk Category IV
2018 NCBC C 0.217g 0.113g B C
This information should be confirmed by the Structural Engineer.
6.4 Lateral Earth Pressures
Below-grade walls (such as loading dock walls) must be capable of resisting 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 1-inch per 10 feet height of wall is sufficient to
February 12, 2021 9

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services s
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071
develop active pressure conditions. Below grade walls that are constrained and prevented from rotating at the
top, such as pit walls, basement walls, etc., should be designed for the at-rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko).
Considering use of low plasticity soils (SM and ML soils) placed and compacted to 95 percent of their maximum
dry density as determined by a standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698), we recommend the following design earth
parameters:
Table 6-3 — Lateral Earth Pressures
Earth Pressure Earth Pressure Soil Unit Weight
Parameter Coefficient (pcf)
Active (KA) 0.36 115
At-Rest (Ko) 0.53 115
Ultimate Passive (Kp) 2.77 115
We recommend an ultimate friction coefficient between wall foundations and bearing soils of 0.35. We
recommend below grade walls either be designed to resist transient hydrostatic pressure or drainage be provided
behind the wall. Drainage may consist of a manufactured wall drainage product that would filter drainage from
backfill soils. A perimeter foundation drain at the bottom of the wall is recommended to collect drainage. The
drain should discharge to a reliable gravity outlet.
7.0 Site Earthwork Recommendations
The following paragraphs present our recommendations for site preparation and grading. When reviewing these
recommendations, please note that deteriorated subgrades due to adverse weather can develop during
construction. Such conditions, if encountered, can best be handled by engineering evaluations made in the field
during construction.
7.1 Previously Graded Sites
Our experience with previously graded sites indicates unexpected conditions often exist between soil test boring
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 Site Preparation
In the proposed building and new pavement areas, the topsoil and surficial boulders should be removed.
Subgrades should be evaluated by proofrolling after excavations are made to achieve final subgrade elevations
and in areas to receive new fill. Subgrades should be proofrolled by the project Geotechnical Engineer (or his/her
representative) with a loaded dump truck or similar pneumatic tire vehicle (minimum loaded weight of 20 tons) to
identify unstable soils requiring remediation.
February 12, 2021 10

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071 11; I
If possible, the proofrolling procedure should consist of two complete passes of the equipment over the
subgrade. 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 should consist of undercutting to stable soils and replacement with compacted structural fill.
Existing underground utilities should be relocated outside of the proposed building area. Excavations made to
remove existing utilities should be backfilled with compacted structural fill.
7.3 Excavation
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered by the borings and our understanding of planned site
excavations, the majority of excavations across the building and parking areas are anticipated to be performed
using conventional earthmoving equipment without the need for ripping or blasting. Some ripping and/or hoe
ram use will likely be required in portions of the site to excavate near surface partially weathered rock, rock, or
boulder fill materials. In this geology, it is possible to encounter occasional, isolated, boulders or ledges of rock
that may be difficult to excavate. Excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with OSHA (29 CFR Part
1926) excavation trench safety standards.
Groundwater generally appears to be at least 5 feet below the existing ground surface. Considering the
anticipated building finished floor elevation of 4,037 feet, groundwater in the building area appears to be at least
3 feet or greater below this elevation. In some areas of the site, groundwater was encountered at shallower
depths, but this water is believed to be perched water on higher consistency subgrade materials. If groundwater
is encountered during construction, it can likely be handled with gravity ditches or pumping from strategically
located sumps.
7.4 Fill Material
The majority of the existing site soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they meet the
recommendations below. Criteria for soil used as structural fill in site grading should include:
No deleterious materials.
USCS classification of GW, SW, SM, SC, ML, CL or some combination of these.
Plastic soils (CH or MH) may not be used as structural fill.
A standard Proctor maximum dry density of at least 90 pcf.
Maximum particle size of 3 inches in any dimension.
Samples of the proposed fill soils should be tested for moisture content and moisture-density relationship
(standard Proctor) to establish their compaction properties. Moisture adjustment may be needed to achieve a
compactable soil moisture content. The extent of soil moisture adjustments will be affected by the source of fill
material and weather conditions prior to and during grading. Drying may be accomplished by spreading and
discing to maximize exposure to sun and wind during favorable weather conditions. Favorable weather conditions
are typical of the late Spring, Summer, and early Fall.
February 12, 2021 11

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071 J1; I
7.5 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction
New structural fill should be placed beneath and a minimum of 5 feet horizontally beyond the building and
parking area footprints. Structural fill should be placed in 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 the
specified compaction is achieved. One-point Proctor tests should also be performed on the fill at a frequency
determined by the project Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate whether the laboratory Proctor data is appropriate.
7.6 Cut and Fill Slopes
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be no steeper than 2(H):1(V) and should be properly seeded and mulched to
minimize erosion. For maintenance purposes, the permanent slopes may need to be flatter to allow access to
mowing equipment. Temporary slopes in confined or open excavations should perform satisfactorily at
inclinations of 1(H):1(V). All confined excavations, such as trenches and footing excavations, should conform to
applicable OSHA regulations.
The crests of all slopes should be maintained at least five (5) feet horizontally from any pavement limits.
Foundation setbacks should meet the criteria outlined in chapter 18 of the North Carolina Building Code. Surface
runoff should be diverted away from the slope faces. Slopes taller than 30 feet should incorporate appropriately
sized ditches parallel to the crest at selected intervals to reduce the velocity and erosion potential of surface
waters.
7.7 Potential Subgrade Deterioration and Repair
Potential subgrade soils consist of silts and sands that are moderately susceptible to weather related deterioration.
The exposed subgrade soil of both cut and fill areas can deteriorate when exposed to construction activities and
environmental changes. Subgrade soil deterioration can occur from exposure to rainwater, rutting from
construction traffic, freezing, and erosion. Exposed subgrades in the pavement and building areas that have
deteriorated should be properly repaired by scarifying, moisture conditioning, and recompacting, or by
undercutting and replacement immediately prior to construction. Drying may be accomplished by spreading and
discing to maximize exposure to sun and wind during favorable drying weather.
8.0 General Pavement Thickness Recommendations
S&ME was not provided traffic frequency or vehicle weight information and thus a detailed pavement design was
not conducted. However, for parking areas that receive only car traffic, we generally recommend a minimum
pavement section consisting of 2-inches of Type S-9.5B surface mixture underlain by 6-inches of aggregate base
course stone. In the main access drives and truck (dumpster) routes, we generally recommend a minimum of 4-
inches of asphalt (2.5 inches of I-19C underlying 1.5 inches of S-9.5B) underlain by a minimum of 8-inches of
aggregate base course. These thicknesses are based on our experience and assume that a compacted, stable
subgrade was developed at the time of construction. The asphalt pavement should not be deficient by more than
1/4 inch in any area.
February 12, 2021 12

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071 I
Materials and workmanship should meet the North Carolina Department of Transportation's Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures, latest edition. The aggregate base course should consist of Crushed
Aggregate Base Course (Refer to NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, Section 520). This
base course should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the
modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D1557). To confirm that the base course has been uniformly compacted,
in-place field density tests should be performed by a qualified Materials Technician and the area should be
methodically proofrolled under his evaluation.
The condition of the subgrade is critical for the performance of the pavement. The soil subgrade should be
proofrolled immediately prior to placement of base course stone. The stone subgrade should be proofrolled
immediately prior to placement of asphalt. Unstable areas identified should be repaired. Sufficient testing and
evaluation should be performed during pavement installation to confirm that the required thickness, density, and
quality requirements of the specifications are followed.
The pavement subgrade should be sloped to allow rainwater to properly drain away. Areas adjacent to
pavements (embankments, landscape islands, ditching, etc.) which can drain water should be designed so that
water does not seep below or surface drain onto pavements. Adequate drainage is very important for the long-
term performance of the pavement.
9.0 Limitations 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 are based
upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other
representation or warranty either express or implied, is made.
We relied on project information given to us to develop our conclusions and recommendations. If project
information described in this report is not accurate, or if it changes during project development, we should be
notified of the changes so that we can modify our recommendations based on this additional information if
necessary.
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on limited data from a field exploration program. Subsurface
conditions can vary widely between explored areas. Some variations may not become evident until construction.
If conditions are encountered which appear different than those described in our report, we should be notified.
This report should not be construed to represent subsurface conditions for the entire site.
Unless specifically noted otherwise, our field exploration program did not include an assessment of regulatory
compliance, environmental conditions or pollutants or presence of any biological materials (mold, fungi, bacteria).
If there is a concern about these items, other studies should be performed. S&ME can provide a proposal and
perform these services if requested.
S&ME should be retained to review the final plans and specifications to confirm that earthwork, foundation, and
other recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. The recommendations in this report are
contingent on S&ME's review of final plans and specifications followed by our observation and monitoring of
earthwork and foundation construction activities.
February 12, 2021 13

Report of Subsurface Exploration Services
Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071 J1; I
A document prepared by S&ME and titled Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report
follows this page. This document discusses how geotechnical recommendations are developed based on
professional opinions of site subsurface conditions, limited exploration information, and experience. Variations in
subsurface conditions can be a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, and claims. This document is
provided to assist you in understanding and managing the risk of these variations.
February 12, 2021 14

ii :
Important Information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Variations in subsurface conditions can be a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns and claims.
The following information is provided to assist you in understanding and managing the risk of these variations.
Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Services Are Performed for Specific Projects
Opinions Because the scope of each geotechnical
Geotechnical engineers cannot specify material exploration is unique, each geotechnical report is
properties as other design engineers do. unique. Subsurface conditions are explored and
Geotechnical material properties have a far broader recommendations are made for a specific project.
range on a given site than any manufactured Subsurface information and recommendations may
construction material, and some geotechnical not be adequate for other uses. Changes in a
material properties may change over time because proposed structure location, foundation loads,
of exposure to air and water, or human activity. grades, schedule, etc. may require additional
geotechnical exploration, analyses, and
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions at consultation. The geotechnical engineer should be
the time of exploration and only at the points where consulted to determine if additional services are
subsurface tests are performed or samples required in response to changes in proposed
obtained. Geotechnical engineers review field and construction, location, loads, grades, schedule, etc.
laboratory data and then apply their judgment to
render professional opinions about site subsurface Geo-Environmental Issues
conditions. Their recommendations rely upon these The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to
professional opinions. Variations in the vertical and perform a geo-environmental study differ
lateral extent of subsurface materials may be significantly from those used for a geotechnical
encountered during construction that significantly exploration. Indications of environmental
impact construction schedules, methods and contamination may be encountered incidental to
material volumes.While higher levels of subsurface performance of a geotechnical exploration but go
exploration can mitigate the risk of encountering unrecognized. Determination of the presence, type
unanticipated subsurface conditions, no level of or extent of environmental contamination is beyond
subsurface exploration can eliminate this risk. the scope of a geotechnical exploration.
Scope of Geotechnical Services Geotechnical Recommendations Are Not
Professional geotechnical engineering judgment is Final
required to develop a geotechnical exploration
scope to obtain information necessary to support Recommendations are developed based on the
design and construction. A number of unique geotechnical engineer's understanding of the
project factors are considered in developing the proposed construction and professional opinion of
scope of geotechnical services, such as the site subsurface conditions. Observations and tests
exploration objective; the location, type, size and must be performed during construction to confirm
weight of the proposed structure; proposed site subsurface conditions exposed by construction
grades and improvements; the construction excavations are consistent with those assumed in
schedule and sequence; and the site geology. development of recommendations. It is advisable to
retain the geotechnical engineer that performed the
Geotechnical engineers apply their experience with exploration and developed the geotechnical
construction methods, subsurface conditions and recommendations to conduct tests and
exploration methods to develop the exploration observations during construction. This may reduce
scope. The scope of each exploration is unique the risk that variations in subsurface conditions will
based on available project and site information. not be addressed as recommended in the
Incomplete project information or constraints on the geotechnical report.
scope of exploration increases the risk of variations
in subsurface conditions not being identified and
addressed in the geotechnical report.
Portion obtained with permission from"Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report",ASFE, 2004
©S&ME, Inc. 2010

Appendices

Appendix I - Figures

C.- QC . \
/ retire / •
GfouSe� 'Cranberrykno// �10RT1�
r-----/7----- /
lynelocn-Df
1 00
•
r •
sf'efern-Or\ 0 c NIy�®'
raRberrY C� �e,z, . \ ,G'
/ • II / rr 41'0'1.by Lak'A}f ,
0cd t lik .•; /1fr , •i
s S
•
y�y o
I ------------"VI 10.
a
..
._ Banner Elk•
Fos
y Site
\\ T&4 Seven Devils
<—) : Sugar
ufandiather
• ./' Mountain Qf'
to
o 'it
a Slate Park '`
d�J�
l_nville
REFERENCE:Google Earth Pro and Maps
SCALE: FIGURE NO.
—_ © SITE VICINITY PLAN AS SHOWN
DATE: 1
III = Banner Elk Hotel February 2021 1
Banner Elk, North Carolina PROJECT NUMBER
1558-20-071

r ____ c.40,,,,e, -.. ,.
-•
• .-i \�
t " J
,, . .
, fird...- ,
/ �, , • Lowe's Foods
34111ks . 11, .,
/dilikyr te, AA":. PA �iORTia
1
. ,i 4,144 Ilk _.,.. •%,,, .. iiip, :,40, ,....,._,
,‘ . ellyi
ir..
�� 4' / \
..
, [ // �� O �40 L. "A � r%�
of
-i \ ' , 1 0;•• - '.,?,e4 ,k
i ftigkiN
— N,_. / Ole . ',. \ .e0 4, '49.* ,1::>. v''... ,,,410,-- N., .
. . Ali
f� - ; mil. /`�� f \ \ "// •6 jp , __.___ ,, ..111/11011:,, ,, .,,, ./ ...v.,',. . \ /
/
/?V
/ , 7 . 0.\,\,\,_ _ _ ..
,� l�)�
f ,>i /, k\� .t\ ., \\\�\�.c 1 ` — --- -- - - -
REFERENCE:Blue Ridge Engineering,Geotechnical Boring Location Map date 12/11/2020 - Approximate Boring Location
SCALE: FIGURE NO.
BORING LOCATION PLAN None
DATE: 2
III IiII
= Banner Elk Hotel February 2021
Banner Elk, North Carolina PROJECT NUMBER
1558 20 071

Parking Area Building Area
I I I
4,045 — — 4,045
B-1
N B-2 B-5 B-6
4,040 — B-4 13-7 B-8 — 4,040
16 i N B-3 N N N N N B-9
29 V ►�,' N a i i . 23 8 N B-10
4,035 — �. � .`1 — 4,035
4 HC..i��I �I�� 18 74 9 _.N
30 I 13 AR @ 3 9 HC ui
50/4" 27 11 Z 64 3 3 11
34 HC 50/6" BT @ 3' 70 30 20 HC 50/5.5" 8 4 10 — 4,030
4,030 — 8T as 10` 0/5" •
a BT @ 8.9' 32 21 12 50/5" i 10 9 6
in
BT@10' BT@9.9' 3
4,025 — 50/5" 11 • 2 — 4,025
21 V
0 13 1
Q 4,020 — HC• 50/4" HC 8 _..3 — 4,020
w HC 38
J
W 27
4,015 — 50/3" 13 • HC.. ••• ••31 — 4,015
BT@24.75' BT@25' 51
BT @ 25' a 25
4,010 — —••40 — 4,010
BT @ 25'
HC 15
4,005 — — 4,005
rill
50/0"
AR@32.5'
4,000 — BT @ 32.5' — 4,000
a Water Level at Termination of Boring
Topsoil ® ML,Low Plasticity Silt �`t Partially Weathered Rock 1 Water Level After 24-hours
SM,Silty Sand Fill HC Hole Cave AR @ 32.5'Auger Refusal(depth)
BT @ 32.5' Boring Terminated(depth)
N=Standard Penetration Test resistance value(blows per foot). The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual subsurface conditions will vary between boring locations. Elevations are approximate.
iiir
JOB NO: 1558-20-071 iiii & Diagram: Generalized Subsurface Profile
Figure
— Project: Banner Elk Hotel
DATE: 2/6/21 Location: Banner Elk,North Carolina 3

Appendix II - Boring Information

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS
SOIL TYPES CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
(Shown in Graphic Log)
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
%%% CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT
����I Fill
:.:.:A Very Soft 0 to 2
Soft 3 to 4■
Asphalt Firm 5 to 8
Stiff 9 to 15
o ° Concrete Very Stiff 16 to 30
4 : Hard 31 to 50
Very Hard Over 50
Topsoil
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
° o. Gravel
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
Sand RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT
Very Loose 0 to 4
Silt Loose 5 to 10
Medium Dense 11 to 30
Dense 31 to 50
Clay Very Dense Over 50
Organic SAMPLER TYPES
Silty Sand (Shown in Samples Column)
I Split Spoon
Clayey Sand
y y m Rock Core
Sandy Silt 0 No Recovery
Shelby Tube
Clayey Silt
Sandy Clay TERMS
d/A Silty Clay Standard - The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling
/./I Penetration 30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon
LAPartially Weathered Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1586.
Rock REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core
/ / Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core
/// Cored Rock 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
WATER LEVELS Total Length of the Core Run Times 100%.
(Shown in Water Level Column)
V = Water Level At Termination of Boring &
1 = Water Level Taken After 24 Hours
= Loss of Drilling Water
HC = Hole Cave II -

PROJECT: Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina BORING LOG B-1
S&ME Project No.1558-20-071
DATE DRILLED: 1/7/21 ELEVATION: 4041.0 ft NOTES: Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings
and a commercial hole closure device placed
near the ground surface.
DRILL RIG: CME-45 BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DRILLER: NT WATER LEVEL: 7.9 ft @ TOB
HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb Autohammer LOGGED BY: M.Stephenson
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4"H.S.A. _
w w BLOW COUNT
= U O
w
0
z /CORE DATA STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
U o (blows/ft)
0- a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a - w
w - < w - rL = /REMARKS >
(9 J io U Z
w CO N M 10 20 30 6080
_ \ TOPSOIL /2 inches
SS-1 / 4 7 9 - 16
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT(ML)
\ very stiff, orange tan,with clay nodules,fine to / _
medium, moist SS 2 / 1 1 3 a
• 5— SLIGHTLY SANDY SILT(ML) 4036.0—
a soft,tan,fine, moist
O SANDY SILT(ML) -SS-3 1 7 21 9 - 30
• _ very stiff, orange tan,fine, moist,with gray fine -
_ \ to coarse sandy silt and fine to coarse gravel
a layer from 6.5 ft to 8.5 ft / SS-4 / 15 13 21 34
10 SANDY SILT(ML) 4031.0—
hard,tan gray,fine, moist, with coarse gravel
pieces
Z Boring terminated at 10 ft
z
>
J
W
J
0
Ui
W
2
0
0
U
r
0
N
N
N
0
Z
W
0
Z
U
1
H
0
0
Z
0
z
0
0
J
0
Z
0
m
W
2
05
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED Page 1 of 1
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.
I I

PROJECT: Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina BORING LOG B-2
S&ME Project No.1558-20-071
DATE DRILLED: 1/7/21 ELEVATION: 4039.0 ft NOTES: Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings
and a commercial hole closure device placed
DRILL RIG: CME-45 BORING DEPTH: 8.9 ft near the ground surface. Boring moved 20 ft
North of staked location due to surface water.
DRILLER: NT WATER LEVEL: 1.5 ft @ 24 hrs,4.5 ft @ TOB
HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb Autohammer LOGGED BY: M.Stephenson
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4"H.S.A. _
w w BLOW COUNT
= U O
w
0
z /CORE DATA STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
Luc" o (blows/ft)
0- a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a J
w < w w — rL = /REMARKS >
(9 J io U Z
w <
<
coCO N , M 10 20 30 6080
_7 TOPSOIL
3 inches 1 SS-1 11 12 17 - 29
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT(ML)
very stiff to stiff, tan,fine, moist
5— 4034.0—SS-2 4 5 8 13
N 11 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY - I�
SS-3 I� 19 50/6" 50/6"
SILT
gray tan,fine to medium, moist HC _
N SS-4 48 50/5" 050/5"
Boring terminated at 8.9 ft
J
W
H
0
S
J
W
W
Z
Z
0]
>
J
W
J
0
Ui
W
2
0
0
0
r
0
N
N
N
0
Z
W
0
Z
Q
0
1
H
0
0
Z
0
z
0
0
J
0
Z
0
0]
W
2
05
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED Page 1 of 1
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. i
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.
I I

PROJECT: Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina BORING LOG B-3
S&ME Project No.1558-20-071
DATE DRILLED: 1/6/21 ELEVATION: 4037.0 ft NOTES: Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings
and a commercial hole closure device placed
DRILL RIG: CME-45 BORING DEPTH: 3.0 ft near the ground surface. Boring offset 8 ft
north. AR at 3.5 ft on possible boulder in fill.
DRILLER: NT WATER LEVEL: 1 ft @ TOB
HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb Autohammer LOGGED BY: M.Stephenson
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4"H.S.A. _
w w BLOW COUNT
= U w Oz /CORE DATA STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
_a o (blows/ft)a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a J w
w < w w - rL = /REMARKS >
(9 J io U Z
w CO N , M 10 20 30 6080
r TOPSOIL
c` 1 inch / HO / 5 3 6
•C FILL: SILTY GRAVEL(GM) -SS-1 • - 9
brown,with fine to coarse sand, saturated `
Boring terminated at 3 ft due to auger refusal
N
N
[7
ui
2
N
[7
J
W
H
0
S
J
W
W
Z
Z
0]
J
W
J
0
Ui
W
2
2
0
U
r
0
N
N
N
CD
Z
W
Z
Q
0
Z_
H
0
z
Z
0
z
CD
0
J
CD
Z
Q
0]
W
2
05
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED Page 1 of 1
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. i
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.
I I

PROJECT: Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina BORING LOG B-4
S&ME Project No.1558-20-071
DATE DRILLED: 1/6/21 ELEVATION: 4038.0 ft NOTES: Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings
and a commercial hole closure device placed
near the ground surface.
DRILL RIG: CME-45 BORING DEPTH: 10.0 ft
DRILLER: NT WATER LEVEL: Dry to 6 ft @ TOB
HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb Autohammer LOGGED BY: M.Stephenson
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4"H.S.A.
w w BLOW COUNT
= Z O } (CORE DATA
— w O z STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
= 0 w ~ z (blows/ft)
CI- a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION rr Q c
o - w w -- 2 w /REMARKS >
Q Q . ' m Z
w — " , 10 20 30 6080
TOPSOIL
3 inches
-SS-1 4 5 13 - 18
FILL: SANDY SILT(ML) _
very stiff,tan,fine to medium, moist,with
'Ly111 occassional fine to coarse gravel pieces -SS-2 / 26 43 50/4" 50/4^
5 RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT(ML) 4033.0—
a - very stiff to very hard, light tan gray,fine, moist HC
~ SS 3 / 22 33 37 70
0 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY
SILT
c light tan gray,fine, moist
10 SANDY SILT(ML) 4028.0—SS-4 114 18 14 32
hard to very hard, brown gray,fine, moist
0
Y Boring terminated at 10 ft
J
W
K
W
Z
Z
0]
>
0
J
W
J
U
Ui
W
2
0
0
U
r
0
N
N
N
0
Z
Q
W
0
Z
Q
U
1
H
0
0
Z
0
z
0
U
J
0
Z
Q
Cll
W
2
otS
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED Page 1 of 1
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.
II /111
_

PROJECT: Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina BORING LOG B-5
S&ME Project No.1558-20-071
DATE DRILLED: 1/12/21 ELEVATION: 4039.0 ft NOTES: Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings
and a commercial hole closure device placed
near the ground surface.
DRILL RIG: CME-45 BORING DEPTH: 24.8 ft
DRILLER: NT WATER LEVEL: 7.8 ft @ TOB
HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb Autohammer LOGGED BY: M.Stephenson
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4"H.S.A. _
w w BLOW COUNT
= o w /CORE DATA STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
_ w c) o (blows/ft) D
0- a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a - J R w r, J
o -- ( w w -- rL /REMARKS >
(9 I- J i U o Z
w CO - ,;, , 10 20 30 6080
TOPSOIL / _ _
3 inches
-SS-1 9 13 10 - 23
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND(SM)
medium dense, orange tan, with rock
fragments,fine to coarse, moist SS 2 / 7 12 15 27
N 5 4034.0-
_ _
N
o SANDY SILT(ML) -SS-3 / 8 15 15 30
0 very stiff, orange tan gray,fine, moist V
ui
2 -
o_ SS-4 8 11 10 21
u,
10 4029.0-
1-
oI
-
Y _ -
J
W
L
z
z
z
m SS-5 10 21 50/5" 50/5"
�� -
Q 15 PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY 4024.0-
Q SILT -
x gray brown,fine to medium, moist,with soil _ _
a i seams and layers
0
Ui
Lii
2 HC SS-6 43 50/4" .50/4"
0 20 4019.0- -
o 1
0
N
o 1 --
N0 1 '(��
I(I
z .1
\11 15 22 50/3"
Q SS-7 .50/3"
w
z Boring terminated at 24.75 ft
Q
0
z
1-
/
0
z
0
z
0
0
J
0
z
0
0
0]
W
2
05
u)
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED Page 1 of 1
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. i
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.
II Illf
_

PROJECT: Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina BORING LOG B-6
S&ME Project No.1558-20-071
DATE DRILLED: 1/12/21 ELEVATION: 4039.0 ft NOTES: Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings
and a commercial hole closure device placed
near the ground surface.
DRILL RIG: CME-45 BORING DEPTH: 25.0 ft
DRILLER: NT WATER LEVEL: 12.5 ft @ TOB
HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb Autohammer LOGGED BY: M.Stephenson
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4"H.S.A. _
w w BLOW COUNT
= 0 w /CORE DATA STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
_ w cuo o (blows/ft) D
a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a - J R w r, J
o -- ( w w -- rL /REMARKS >
(9 I- J i U o Z
7 TOPSOIL /
w CO - ,;, M 10 20 30 6080
_ _
3 inches
- -SS-1 3 3 5 - 8
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT(ML)
firm to very stiff,tan,with rock fragments, fine to
medium, moist -
SS-2 3 4 7 \I), 11
5— 4034.0-
N
CO
0▪ - -SS-3 1 4 7 13 - 20
w
.o
o_ SS-4 1 2 5 7 12
10— 4029.0-
u,
1-
o - -
I
_ V - -
W
K - -
W
z
z _ _ -
m / 4 6 5
SS-5 11
O 15— 4024.0-
K
J _ -
a
W
K
J -
a
0 - -
Ui
o HC SS 6 / 5 4 4 L 8
O 20— 4019.0-117
O
0
N
-
N
N
O - {
z
z
w 25 4014.0-SS 7 3 4 9 13
z Boring terminated at 25 ft
0
z
1-
/
0
z
0
z
0
0
J
0
z
0
0
0]
W
2
05
u)
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED Page 1 of 1
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. i
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.
II Illf
_

PROJECT: Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina BORING LOG B-7
S&ME Project No.1558-20-071
DATE DRILLED: 1/7/21 ELEVATION: 4038.0 ft NOTES: Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings
and a commercial hole closure device placed
near the ground surface.
DRILL RIG: CME-45 BORING DEPTH: 9.9 ft
DRILLER: NT WATER LEVEL: 4.2 ft on 1/11/21
HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb Autohammer LOGGED BY: M.Stephenson
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4"H.S.A.
w w BLOW COUNT
= U w ZO Oz } (CORE DATA STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
= 0 - i w ~ z 0 (blows/ft)
a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION rr Q c
o - w w -- 2 w /REMARKS >
Q Q . ' m Z
w Li) M 10 20 30 6080
TOPSOIL _
3 inches SS-1 118 26 48- _ 74
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND(SM)
• very dense,tan,fine, moist,with gravel
SS-2 182737
64
4033.0—
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY SS-3 �So/5.5' o/s.s'
0 SILT HC
2 tan,fine to medium, moistcn
-
cn
SS-4 24 42 50/5" 050/5"
0
oBoring terminated at 9.9 ft
J
W
K
W
Z
Z
0]
>
0
J
W
J
U
Ui
W
2
0
0
U
r
0
N
N
N
Z
Q
W
0
Z
Q
U
1
H
0
0
Z
0
z
0
0
J
0
Z
0
co
W
2
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED Page 1 of 1
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL O
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
11111

PROJECT: Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina BORING LOG B-8
S&ME Project No.1558-20-071
DATE DRILLED: 1/4/21 ELEVATION: 4038.0 ft NOTES: Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings
and a commercial hole closure device placed
near the ground surface.
DRILL RIG: CME-45 BORING DEPTH: 25.0 ft
DRILLER: NT WATER LEVEL: 11 ft on 1/13/21,9.8 ft @ TOB
HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb Autohammer LOGGED BY: M.Stephenson
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4"H.S.A. _
w w BLOW COUNT
—= o w ZO ,,CORE DATA STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
U o (blows/ft)
a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a w w c�
o - w w - 2 rL = /REMARKS >
(.9 J U U Z
w CO N , M 10 20 30 6080
.% TOPSOIL _
%i 3 inches 4 4 5
•�♦ FILL: SANDY SILT(ML) SS-1 - s
\ stiff,tan,fine, moist
RESIDUUM: SLIGHTLY SANDY SILT(ML) SS-2 1 1 2 3
N 5— soft,tan,fine,wet 4033.0—
SLIGHTLY SANDY SILT(ML) SS 3 / 2 3 5 $
w firm to very stiff, brownish gray,with rock
• - fragments,fine, moist -
d 3 5 5
10— - 4028.0—SS 4 •
10
0▪ - -
/ 4 6 15
Y _ _
J
W
W
z
Z _ _
SS-5 21
O 15— 4023.0—
a
J -
Q
SANDY SILT(ML) _
a hard to very hard, orange brown gray,with rock
w fragments,fine to coarse, moist -
o SS-6 1 12 18 20 38
O 20— Ho 4018.0—
O - -
N
N
N
Z
25 4013.0—SS 7 115 21 30 •
51
Q Boring terminated at 25 ft
0
Z
I
0
0
z
0
z
0
0
J
0
z
0
0]
W
2
05
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED Page 1 of 1
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. i
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.
I I

PROJECT: Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina BORING LOG B-9
S&ME Project No.1558-20-071
DATE DRILLED: 1/13/21 ELEVATION: 4036.0 ft NOTES: Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings
and a commercial hole closure device placed
near the ground surface.
DRILL RIG: CME-45 BORING DEPTH: 32.5 ft
DRILLER: NT WATER LEVEL: 25 ft @ TOB
HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb Autohammer LOGGED BY: M.Stephenson
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4"H.S.A. _
w w BLOW COUNT
= 0 w /CORE DATA STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
^ _ w c) o (blows/ft) D
LT_ z a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a e_ J R w �, J
o -- ( w w -- rL /REMARKS >
(9 i- J i U o Z
w co _ ,., M 10 20 30 6080
_ TOPSOIL2inches 3 2 1/ _
- -SS-1 - 3
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT(ML)
soft to stiff, orange tan light gray,fine to
medium, moist to saturated - -
SS-2 1 2 2 4
5— 4031.0-
N
O - -SS-3 1 2 3 6 - 9
w
o_ SS-4 1 1 1 2 3
10— 4026.0-
u,
1-
o - -
I
- _
J
W
Li,• -
z
z _ _
m / 4 6 7
SS-5 13
O 15— 4021.0-
a
J -
a
W
K
J
a
o - -
Ui
o SANDY SILT(ML) SS 6 / 4 9 18 27
O 20— stiff to very stiff, orange tan light gray,fine to 4016.0-
medium, moist _
0
N
• -
N
N
- - {
0
z
a 25— 4011.0-SS 7 113 10 15 25
0
z
a - - -
0
z_ - -
1-
0
0
z
, 30— HC 4006.0-
O SS 8 110 7 8 / 15
J
- -
z �
o• ;II� \ PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK -SS-9 50/0" INNir_
W \ No sample recovery /
05
50/0"
05
Boring terminated at 32.5 ft due to auger refusal
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED Page 1 of 1
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. i
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.
II Illf
_

PROJECT: Banner Elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina BORING LOG B-1 0
S&ME Project No.1558-20-071
DATE DRILLED: 1/4/21 ELEVATION: 4035.0 ft NOTES: Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings
and a commercial hole closure device placed
near the ground surface.
DRILL RIG: CME-45 BORING DEPTH: 25.0 ft
DRILLER: NT WATER LEVEL: 13.8 ft @ 24 hrs,12 ft @ TOB
HAMMER TYPE: 140-lb Autohammer LOGGED BY: M.Stephenson
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4"H.S.A. _
w w BLOW COUNT
= U Z
w O Oz /CORE DATA STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA w
_ U .0 (blows/ft)
a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a w w c5
o - w w 2 rL = /REMARKS >
(.9 U U Z
w CO N , M 10 20 30 6080
T2OPSOILinches
-SS-1 3 4 7 • - 11
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT(ML)
stiff to firm, orange tan, fine, moist
SS-2 1 3 3 7 10
5— 4030.0—
N
-SS-3 1 4 3 3 - 6
w
N _ SANDY SILT(ML) _
a very soft to soft, orange tan,fine,wet SS-4 0 1 1 2
10— 4025.0—
/ 1 2
F-
O - -
W
W
z
SS-5 3
o 15— 4020.0—
J -
Q
SANDY SILT(ML) _
a very hard, gray brown,fine, moist
U -
Ui
2 I 8 13 18
• 20— HC 4015.0—SS-6 • 31 L
O - -
N
N
N
0
z I25 4010.0—SS 7 9 17 23 40
Q Boring terminated at 25 ft
0
Z
I
0
0
z
0
z
0
0
J
z
0
0]
W
2
05
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED Page 1 of 1
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT. i
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.
I I

Appendix III - Laboratory Information

Ili III
IIII
III IIII
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA
Banner elk Hotel
Banner Elk, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1558-20-071
Natural Grain Size Analysis
Boring Sample Depth Sample USCS Moisture
(feet) Type Classification Content
( ) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt and Clay
(%)
B-1 1 -2.5 SS ML* 35.6 -- -- --
B-4 1 -2.5 SS ML* 36.6 -- -- --
B-5 1 -2.5 SS SM 26.4 36 45 19
B-7 3.5-5 SS SM 14.9 12 50 38
B-8 3.5-5 SS ML* 35.7 -- -- --
B-9 3.5-5 SS ML* 42.0 -- -- --
B-10 1 -2.5 SS ML 43.1 4 36 60
*- Visual/manual classification
SS- Split Spoon

Form No:TR-D2216-T265-1 LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF _°
Revision No. 1 WATER CONTENT
Revision Date:08/16/17 I I
ASTM D 2216 ❑ AASHTO T 265 ❑
S&ME, Inc. Greensboro: 8646 West Market Street, Suite 105, Greensboro, NC 27409
Project#: 1558-20-071 Ph 110 Report Date: 1-29-21
Project Name: Banner Elk Hotel Test Date(s): 1-18-21
Client Name:
Client Address:
Sample by: M Stephenson Sample Date(s):
Sampling Method: NA Drill Rig : NA
Balance ID. 5544 Calibration Date: 2-10-20
Method: A (1%) ❑ B (0.1%) LI Oven ID. 5470 Calibration Date: 12 2 20
Boring Sample Sample Tare# Tare Weight Tare Wt.+ Tare Wt. + Water Percent N
No. No. Depth Wet Wt Dry Wt Weight Moisture °
t
ft.or m. grams grams grams grams % e
B-1 1 1.0'-2.5' A43 8.03 107.68 81.54 26.14 35.6%
B-4 1 1.0'-2.5' A17 8.35 105.71 79.63 26.08 36.6%
B-8 2 3.5'-5.0' A21 10.10 105.99 80.78 25.21 35.7%
B-9 2 3.5'-5.0' A23 8.00 119.56 86.57 32.99 42.0%
B-5 1 1.0'-2.5' 17 120.34 424.86 361.29 63.57 26.4%
B-7 1 1.0'-2.5' 5 128.19 389.61 355.73 33.88 14.9%
B-10 1 1.0'-2.5' 3 120.41 354.10 283.71 70.39 43.1%
Notes/Deviations/References Delete one of the references under Procedure.
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
Jimmy Thomasson NICET 119392
Technician Name Signature Certification Type/No. Date
Steve Lacz, PE Group Leader
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
S&ME,Inc. -Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road Nat.Moist. 1-18-21
Raleigh,NC. 27616 Page 1 of-4

Form No TR-D6913-GR-01 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SOIL IMMIk &
Revision No. 1
Revision Date:9/5/17 IMEW
I MEW
IIMMEM
Single sieve set ASTM D6913
S&ME,Inc.Greensboro:8646 West Market Street,Suite 105,Greensboro,NC 27409
Project#: 1558-20-071 Ph 110 Record Date: 1/29/2021
Project Name: Banner Elk Hotel Lab Report#:
Client Name: Date Received: 1/15/2021
Received By: J.Thomasson Sampled by: M Stephenson Date Sampled:
Location: B-5
Log/Sample Id. 1 Type: Ziplock Bag Elev/Depth: 1.0'-2.5'
Sample Description: Orange Tan Silty SAND w/gravel
3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200
100% - • • • • - - - - - -
90%
80% •
I I
70%
C
60%
4 50%
I I
P• 40%
30%
20%
10%
0% • • • •
100.00 10.00 Millimeters 1.00 0.10 0.01
Cobbles < 300 mm(12")and > 75 mm(3") Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm
Gravel < 75 mm and >4.75 mm(#4) Silt < 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
Coarse Sand <4.75 mm and >2.00 mm(#10) Clay < 0.005 mm
Medium Sand < 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm(#40) Colloids < 0.001 mm
Method: A Procedure for obtaining Specimen: Moist Dispersion Process: ultrasonic apparatus
Maximum Particle Size 3/4" Coarse Sand 17% Fine Sand 10%
Gravel 36% Medium Sand 19% Silt&Clay 19%
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index
Maximum Dry Density Bulk Gravity(C127) %Absorption
Optimum Moisture Natural Moisture CBR
Notes/Deviations/References:
Steve Lacz, PE Group Leader
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced,except in full,without the written approval of S&ME,Inc.
S&ME,Inc.-Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-5#1 Gr.Sz.
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No TR-D6913-GR-01 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SOIL IMMIk &
Revision No. 1
Revision Date:9/5/17 IMEW
I MEW
IIMMEM
Single sieve set ASTM D6913
S&ME,Inc.Greensboro:8646 West Market Street,Suite 105,Greensboro,NC 27409
Project#: 1558-20-071 Ph 110 Record Date: 1/29/2021
Project Name: Banner Elk Hotel Lab Report#:
Client Name: Date Received: 1/15/2021
Received By: J.Thomasson Sampled by: M Stephenson Date Sampled:
Location: B-7
Log/Sample Id. 1 Type: Ziplock Bag Elev/Depth: 1.0'-2.5'
Sample Description: Tan Silty SAND w/gravel
3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200
100% - • • • • - -
90%
80% •
WO 70%
c`a 60%
v 50%
P• 40% `•
30%
20%
10%
0% • • • •
100.00 10.00 Millimeters 1.00 0.10 0.01
Cobbles < 300 mm(12")and > 75 mm(3") Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm
Gravel < 75 mm and >4.75 mm(#4) Silt < 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
Coarse Sand <4.75 mm and >2.00 mm(#10) Clay < 0.005 mm
Medium Sand < 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm(#40) Colloids < 0.001 mm
Method: A Procedure for obtaining Specimen: Moist Dispersion Process: ultrasonic apparatus
Maximum Particle Size 3/4" Coarse Sand 12% Fine Sand 14%
Gravel 12% Medium Sand 24% Silt&Clay 38%
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index
Maximum Dry Density Bulk Gravity(C127) %Absorption
Optimum Moisture Natural Moisture CBR
Notes/Deviations/References:
Steve Lacz, PE Group Leader
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced,except in full,without the written approval of S&ME,Inc.
S&ME,Inc.-Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-7#1 Gr.Sz.
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

II
Form No TR-D6913-GR-01 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SOIL IMMIk &
IilI
Revision No. 1
Revision Date:9/5/17 IMEW
I MEW
IIMMEM
Single sieve set ASTM D6913
S&ME,Inc.Greensboro:8646 West Market Street,Suite 105,Greensboro,NC 27409
Project#: 1558-20-071 Ph 110 Record Date: 1/29/2021
Project Name: Banner Elk Hotel Lab Report#:
Client Name: Date Received: 1/15/2021
Received By: J.Thomasson Sampled by: M Stephenson Date Sampled:
Location: B-10
Log/Sample Id. 1 Type: Ziplock Bag Elev/Depth: 1.0'-2.5'
Sample Description: Orange Tan Sandy SILT
3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200
100% - • • • • - - - - - -
90%
80% •
C
o 60% ♦
a,
e"
v 50%
s. I
a, 40%
30%
20%
10%
0% • • • •
100.00 10.00 Millimeters II 1.00 0.10 0.01
Cobbles < 300 mm(12")and > 75 mm(3") Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm
Gravel < 75 mm and >4.75 mm(#4) Silt < 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
Coarse Sand <4.75 mm and >2.00 mm(#10) Clay < 0.005 mm
Medium Sand < 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm(#40) Colloids < 0.001 mm
Method: A Procedure for obtaining Specimen: Moist Dispersion Process: ultrasonic apparatus
Maximum Particle Size 3/4" Coarse Sand 5% Fine Sand 16%
Gravel 4% Medium Sand 15% Silt&Clay 60%
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index
Maximum Dry Density Bulk Gravity(C127) %Absorption
Optimum Moisture Natural Moisture CBR
Notes/Deviations/References:
Steve Lacz, PE Group Leader
Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced,except in full,without the written approval of S&ME,Inc.
S&ME,Inc.-Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road B-10#1 Gr.Sz.
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1