SW1240603_Soils/Geotechnical Report_20240830

&
[wiz
Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Asheville Regional Airport
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
• • •1rE1111FI�
4
7=-: .l. k .b i LIT.I14.7.i T.le •b l•1■\-��.1��
A • - • ► • • • • _ IA

1111,
II _
September 22, 2021
Pond &Company
3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500
Peachtree Corners, Georgia 30092
Attention: Mr. David Woods, AIA
Reference: Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
NC PE Firm License No. F-0176
Dear Mr.Woods:
S&ME, Inc. is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Exploration Report for the Proposed Air Traffic Control Tower
(ATCT) and Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilities at the Asheville Regional Airport in Fletcher,
North Carolina.The exploration was made in accordance with our proposal No 15-2000390 (dated November 25,
2020) and incorporated as part of a subconsultant agreement (Pond Form 200b) for Pond Project Number
1210250 dated May 17, 2021. It was performed to help evaluate subsurface conditions at the site pertinent to site
development and building support. The report presents a brief confirmation of our understanding of the project,
the exploration results, and our geotechnical conclusions and opinions regarding the above considerations.
S&ME appreciates this opportunity to work on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions or need
any additional information regarding this report.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
4o-1,pk—AA /1/((4,44-
Christopher Mentch, PE Matthew H. McCurdy
Associate Project Manager Principal Engineer
a°!t ;o Matt McCurdy
.o.fFsaio•,s% Sep 22 2021 8:52 PM
4 SEA:�ti`lt.
�t 'vim
Docu' T
S&ME, Inc.144 Buck Shoals Road,Suite C-3 I Arden, NC 28704 I p 828.687.9080 I www.smeinc.com

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Information 1
2.0 Exploration and Testing 1
2.1 Geophysical Services 3
2.2 Laboratory Testing 3
3.0 Site and Subsurface Conditions 4
3.1 Site Conditions 4
3.2 Area Geology 4
3.3 Subsurface Conditions 4
3.3.1 TRACON Borings 5
3.3.1.1 Surface Materials 5
3.3.1.2 Existing Fill 5
3.3.1.3 Residuum 5
3.3.2 ATCT Borings 5
3.3.2.1 Surface Materials 6
3.3.2.2 Existing Fill 6
3.3.2.3 Residuum 6
3.3.2.4 Partially Weathered Rock 7
3.3.2.5 Refusal Materials 7
3.3.3 Subsurface Water 7
3.3.4 Laboratory Testing 7
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 7
4.1 General Discussion 7
4.1.1 ATCT 8
4.1.2 TRACON 8
4.2 Conventional Foundations with Ground Improvement/Rigid Inclusions (ATCT) 8
4.3 Auger Cast Piles (ATCT) 9
4.4 Drilled Shafts with Rock Sockets(ATCT) 9
September 22, 2021 ii

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON iiir
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
IW:vmill
4.4.1 Lateral Capacity 10
4.4.2 Settlement 11
4.4.3 Drilled Shaft Construction 11
4.5 Shallow Foundations (TRACON) 13
4.5.1 Bearing Pressure 13
4.5.2 Minimum Dimensions and Embedment Depth 13
4.5.3 Foundation Excavation Evaluations 13
4.6 Seismic Site Class 13
4.7 Liquefaction Potential 14
4.8 Floor Slabs 14
4.9 Below Grade Retaining Walls 14
5.0 General Earthwork Recommendations 15
5.1 Site Preparation and Undercutting 15
5.1.1 Underground Utility Lines 15
5.1.2 Proofrolling 15
5.1.3 Wet Weather Management 16
5.2 Fill Placement and Compaction 16
5.2.1 In-Place Density Testing 16
5.2.2 Use of On Site Soils as Structural Fill 16
5.2.2.1 Remarks on Potential Plastic Soil 17
5.2.3 Use of Off-Site Borrow Materials as Fill 17
5.2.4 Subgrade Protection During Construction 17
5.3 Excavation 17
5.4 Excavated Slopes and Fill Embankments 18
5.5 Subgrade Repair and Improvement Methods 18
6.0 Limitations of Report 18
6.1 Geophysical Survey Limitations 19
September 22, 2021 iii

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
List of Tables
Table 1-1-Preliminary ATCT Loads 1
Table 2-1-Boring Depths 2
Table 3-1-ATCT Subsurface Materials 6
Table 4-3-Allowable Drilled Shaft Design Resistance Values 10
Table 4-2-LPile Input 11
Appendices
Appendix I-Boring Location and Site Survey
Appendix II-Boring Logs
Appendix III-Generalized Subsurface Profiles
Appendix IV-Lab Testing Results
Appendix V-Shear Wave Velocity Testing Data
Appendix VI-Important Information
September 22, 2021 iv

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
1.0 Project Information
Our understanding of the project is based on the following:
Email transmittals from Mr. David Woods, AIA with Pond &Company (Pond) to Mr. Matt McCurdy, PE
with S&ME on November 16 and 18, 2020;
A PDF file Subsurface Exploration Scope of Services, FAA-Asheville ATCT and Tracon and an aerial photo
outlining the proposed work area;
A PDF of the requested boring locations provided by Mr.Justin Smith, AIA with Pond;
Preliminary structural loads for the ATCT provided by Mr. William Haynes, P.E. with Pond; and
Site visits during our work.
We understand Pond is providing design services at the Asheville Regional Airport in Fletcher, North Carolina. The
proposed project consists of a 100-foot tall air traffic control tower(ATCT) with a precast concrete shaft and
structural steel top, a one-story terminal radar approach control (TRACON) building to support the air traffic
control tower, asphalt paved parking and roads and infrastructure including a storm water system that will be
approximately 4 to 8 feet deep. Preliminary structural loads for the ATCT are planned to be as indicated in the
table below:
Table 1-1 — Preliminary ATCT Loads
Load Type Direction (if applicable) Load
Dead Load Gravity 4685 kips
Live Load Gravity 1160 kips
Wind Load Shear 150 kips
at Base Moment 8,800 kip-ft
Seismic Shear 300 kips
Load at Base Moment 23,000 kip-ft
ATCT structure footprint dimensions, proposed elevations, or settlement tolerance criteria have not been provided
at this time. Additionally, structural data, footprint dimensions, and elevations have not been provided for the
TRACON building; however, we assume that the building will be a relatively lightly loaded steel-framed structure
with maximum column loads of less than 125 kips. Since the area has been pre-graded relatively flat and level, we
anticipate cuts and fills less than 5 feet to achieve final design grades.
We were informed by Pond that our originally proposed borings for the roadways, pavement recommendations,
and hydraulic conductivity testing were not required for the project at this time.
2.0 Exploration and Testing
The original field exploration was performed from July 29, 2021 to August 3, 2021 and consisted of 6 soil test
borings (labelled ATCT-1 to ATCT-3 and TRACON-1 to TRACON-3) to depths indicated in the table below:
September 22, 2021 1

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 s
Table 2-1 — Boring Depths
Boring ID Planned Refusal Rock Coring Termination
Depth (ft)1 Depth (ft)1 Length(ft) Depth (ft)1
ATCT-1 AR 62.4 12.2 74.6
ATCT-2 AR 40.5 19.0 59.5
ATCT-3 AR 56.3 n/a 56.3
TRACON-1 20 n/a n/a 20
TRACON-2 20 n/a n/a 20
TRACON-3 20 n/a n/a 20
'Referenced from ground surface.
AR= auger refusal
Boring locations were provided by Pond &Company and locations were laid out and checked for underground
utilities by Vaughn & Melton. Boring ATCT-1 was offset about 5 feet from its planned location to avoid conflict
with a monitoring well in the proposed location. Once completed, Vaughn & Melton surveyed the boring
locations, and the locations are shown in Appendix 1.
The borings were drilled with an ATV-carrier mounted CME 750 drill rig using hollow-stem auger techniques for
the TRACON borings and mud-rotary and/or NQ-size rock coring techniques for the ATCT borings. Split-spoon
samples and Standard Penetration Resistance values (SPT N-values) were obtained at selected intervals in general
accordance with ASTM D-1586. Additionally, bulk samples were collected from the top 5 feet of each borehole,
and 5 undisturbed (Shelby tube) samples were attempted. In each attempt, the Shelby tube sampler was damaged
or would not advance (due to the soils being too stiff/dense or the presence of rock pieces) and the attempts
were generally unsuccessful; however, about 16 inches of soil was recovered in boring ATCT-2 from 3 to 5 feet
before the sampler was damaged. After drilling, the hollow stem auger borings were checked for subsurface water
levels (mud rotary involves adding a water and bentonite clay slurry to the boreholes and water levels measured at
the time of boring are typically elevated from their natural state).Water level measurements were also attempted
after a period of at least 24 hours following drilling, at which point they were backfilled with soil cuttings.
Mechanical hole closure devices were placed in the top of each bore hole to help reduce settlement.
During drilling, a Geotechnical Engineer visually examined each sample to estimate the distribution of grain-sizes,
plasticity, organic content, amount of foreign debris, moisture condition, color, presence of lenses and seams, and
apparent geological origin. Soil classification was in general accordance with the guidelines of the Unified Soil
Classification System (ASTM D-2488). Rock cores were examined in the field and measured for the length
recovered and rock quality designation (RQD).The results of the Engineer's classifications as well as the
penetration test results are presented on the individual Boring Logs in Appendix II. Similar soils were grouped into
strata on the logs. The strata contact lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types;the actual
transition between soil types in the field may be gradual in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
September 22, 2021 2

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
2.1 Geophysical Services
On September 2, 2021, we completed a surface wave seismic survey to determine the Seismic Site Class at the site
(SW-1; Figure 04). The Seismic Site Class is based on the average shear wave velocity (Vs) to a depth of 100 feet
(Vs100) and analysis of surface waves (Rayleigh waves) can be used to determine shear wave velocities.
Surface waves generated from either an active or passive energy source (e.g., sledgehammer striking a metal plate
or background noise, respectively) are recorded at the ground surface along a spread of low-frequency sensors
(i.e., geophones).Active sources typically provide relatively higher frequencies (i.e., better resolution at shallower
depths) while passive sources generally provide relatively lower frequencies (e.g., greater depth at lower
resolution). Seismic measurements are transformed from time domain into frequency domain from which the
phase characteristics of the surface waves can be calculated. A dispersion curve (i.e., phase velocity curve vs
frequency) is developed and then transformed into a one-dimensional (1 D) shear wave velocity profile through an
inversion and iterative process in which Vs100 is calculated.
We used a combination of the active Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) and passive
Microtremor Array Measurements (MAM) methods.
The MASW survey was conducted using a Geometrics seismograph equipped with twenty-four(24)4.5 Hz
vertical geophones at set spacings of 5 feet along a linear array and a 16-lb sledgehammer as the energy
source.
The MAM survey was conducted using a Geometrics seismograph equipped with eleven (11)4.5 Hz vertical
geophones at a set spacing of 30 feet along a non-linear"L-shaped" array and background noise was used as
the energy source.
Data analysis was conducted using the Geogiga Technology Corp. Seismic Prom' software (SURFACE PLUS
module).
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Select soil samples were subjected to the following testing:
Moisture content (ASTM D2216)
Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318)
Grain size distribution (ASTM D1140)
Modified Proctor(ASTM D1557)
California Bearing Ratio (ASTM D1883)
Direct shear(ASTM D3080)
pH (ASTM D4972
Resistivity (ASTM G57)
The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard testing procedures. The laboratory testing
results are presented in Appendix IV.
September 22, 2021 3

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
3.0 Site and Subsurface Conditions
3.1 Site Conditions
The project site is a relatively level grassy area adjacent to an existing gravel road located west of the Asheville
Regional Airport runway. Boring TRACON-1 was located outside (west of) the airport security fence and the
remaining borings were within the security fence. Stormwater structures are present, and a stormwater pipe
appears to cross between borings TRACON-2 and TRACON-3. Aerial imagery shows a previous stormwater basin
in this area that was backfilled and tested by S&ME during the runway redevelopment project.
Our exploration was performed during warm, dry weather, and the surface area appeared to be stable under our
equipment.
3.2 Area Geology
The project site is in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of North Carolina, an area underlain by ancient
igneous and metamorphic rocks. Geologic mapping by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates the underlying
bedrock consists primarily of metagraywacke, interlayered with muscovite-biotite gneiss, mica schist, and rare
graphitic schist.
The soils encountered in this area are the residual product of in-place physical and chemical weathering of the
rock presently underlying the site. In areas not altered by erosion or disturbed by the activities of man, the typical
residual soil profile typically consists of clayey soils near the surface, where soil weathering is more advanced,
underlain by sandy silts and silty sands with varying amounts of mica. The boundary between soil and rock is not
sharply defined. This transitional zone, termed "partially weathered rock," is normally found overlying parent
bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard
penetration resistance values of at least 50 blows per 6 inches. Weathering is facilitated by fractures,joints, and
the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock(as well as hard
rock) is quite irregular and erratic, even over relatively 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.
Fill soils are placed by man in conjunction with activities such as construction grading, farming, or waste disposal.
Fill can be comprised of a variety of soil types and can also contain debris from building demolition, organics,
topsoil, trash, etc. The engineering properties of fill depend primarily on its composition, density, and moisture
content.
3.3 Subsurface Conditions
The following descriptions of subsurface conditions is relatively brief and general. For more detailed information
the individual boring logs in Appendix II should be consulted.Additionally, generalized subsurface profiles are
depicted in Appendix III.
September 22, 2021 4

Geotechnical Exploration Report &
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 111:=Fir
3.3.1 TRACON Borings
3.3.1.1 Surface Materials
Each of the TRACON borings initially encountered a layer of organic laden topsoil that was about 2 inches thick.
Topsoil thickness will vary in unexplored areas of the site and could be thicker or thinner between or outside of
boring areas.
3.3.1.2 Existing Fill
Beneath the surface materials, existing fill was encountered in boring TRACON-3 to a depth of approximately 6
feet below grade.The existing fill was described as a silty sand (USCS group symbol SM).The existing fill exhibited
standard penetration resistance values (N-values) of 14 and 6 blows per foot (bpf), indicating a medium dense to
loose consistency. We anticipate that this existing fill was backfill for the existing stormwater pipe trench placed
during the backfilling during the runway redevelopment project which was tested by S&ME.
3.3.1.3 Residuum
Beneath the existing fill in boring TRACON-3 and beneath the surface materials in the remaining TRACON borings,
residual soils (residuum) were encountered.The residuum was generally described as sandy silt (ML), silty sand
(SM) or silty sand with gravel (SM).The residuum exhibited N-values ranging from 9 to 17 in the silty materials
and 8 to 73 in the sandy materials indicating consistencies of stiff to very stiff and loose to very dense respectively.
One sample from 18.5 to 20 in boring TRACON-2 was described as wet.The TRACON borings were terminated at
their planned depths of 20 feet in the residuum.
3.3.2 ATCT Borings
The subsurface profile beneath the ATCT borings generally encountered surface materials (and fill soils in boring
ATCT-3) before penetrating multiple layers of interbedded residual soils, partially weathered rock (PWR), and rock.
The table below summarizes the depths that each subsurface material was encountered (again, generalized
subsurface profiles are included in Appendix Ill):
September 22, 2021 5

Geotechnical Exploration Report &
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
Table 3-1 —ATCT Subsurface Materials
ATCT-1 ATCT-2 ATCT-3
Material Type Depth Depth Depth
Encountered (ft)' Encountered (ft)' Encountered (ft)'
Topsoil 2 inches 2 inches 1 inch
Fill n/a n/a 0—3
Residuum 0.2— 12 0.2—23 7—32
18-37 38-43
42-47
52- 57
Partially Weathered 12— 18 23—40.5 3 —7
Rock 37—42 42.5—49.5 32—38
47- 52 43 - 56.3
57—62.4
Rock 62.4—74.6 40.5—42.5 n/a2
49.5—59.5
'Referenced from ground surface.
'Rock coring not performed
3.3.2.1 Surface Materials
Each of the ATCT borings initially encountered a layer of organic laden topsoil that was about 1 to 2 inches thick.
Topsoil thickness will vary in unexplored areas of the site and could be thicker or thinner between or outside of
boring areas.
3.3.2.2 Existing Fill
Existing fill was described as a silty sand (USCS group symbol SM). The existing fill exhibited a standard
penetration resistance value (N-value) of 100 blows per foot (bpf), indicating a very dense consistency. Because of
the high N-value for fill material, it appears the sampler encountered a rock piece in the fill and the N-value was
amplified. We anticipate that this existing fill was backfill for the existing stormwater pipe trench or regrading of
the area for drainage during the runway redevelopment project and was tested by S&ME during placement.
3.3.2.3 Residuum
The residuum generally consisted of sandy silt (ML) and silty sand (SM), and well-graded sand with silt (SW-SM).
The residuum exhibited N-values ranging from 36 to 85 in the silty materials and 16 to 55 in the sandy materials
indicating consistencies of very stiff to very hard and medium dense to very dense, respectively.
September 22, 2021 6

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
3.3.2.4 Partially Weathered Rock
Partially weathered rock(PWR) was encountered in each of the ATCT borings and was layered in the residual soils.
In boring ATCT-2, the PWR was also layered in more competent rock. The PWR was sampled as very hard or very
dense sandy silt (ML), silty sand (SM), and silty gravel (GM).
3.3.2.5 Refusal Materials
The refusal materials (rock) were extracted via NQ-size rock coring methods in borings ATCT-1 and ATCT-2.The
rock generally consisted of Biotite Gneiss with field strength estimates ranging from soft to hard. Weathering and
fracturing varied greatly in the recovered samples, as did rock quality. Recovery ranged from 50%to 100% and
rock quality designation (RQD)varied from 12%to 91%. It should be noted that one run of rock coring in boring
ATCT-2 from 42.5 to 49.5 encountered partially weathered rock beneath a thin lens of rock.This partially
weathered rock (or very soft rock) exhibited poorer recovery and RQD values (12% and 0%, respectively).
3.3.3 Subsurface Water
Subsurface Water was encountered in each of the ATCT borings at depths ranging from 15 feet to 23.5 feet below
the ground surface after a stabilization period of 24 to 84 hours.Additionally, water was encountered in boring
TRACON-2 at a depth of 17 feet at the completion of drilling and the boring had caved at 16 feet after a 8 hour
stabilization period. It should be noted that subsurface water levels will fluctuate during the year (due to such
things as seasonal variations, precipitation, and construction activity in the area), and future levels will vary.
3.3.4 Laboratory Testing
Split spoon, bulk samples, and Shelby tube samples were selected by an S&ME engineer and sent to an S&ME
laboratory to complete natural moisture, plasticity index, grain size, modified Proctor, direct shear, and CBR
testing.A summary table of the laboratory testing results, and the individual lab testing reports are included in the
Appendix.
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
4.1 General Discussion
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on assumptions presented in Section 1.0, our
understanding of the proposed project and assumed/preliminary structural loads, findings of the soil test borings,
geotechnical engineering evaluations of encountered subsurface conditions, and experience with similar projects.
If the above-described project assumptions require revision after this report, or subsurface conditions
encountered during construction are different from those reported, S&ME should be notified and these
recommendations must be re-evaluated to make the appropriate revisions. In addition, as the design progresses
or requirements change, we would be pleased to expand or provide additional recommendations as needed.
September 22, 2021 7

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
1W=Fir
4.1.1 ATCT
Based on the anticipated heavy loads, overturning moments, subsurface conditions, and anticipated settlement
tolerance criteria, several support options can be considered for structure support. These include:
Conventional shallow foundations or a single mat foundation with ground improvements (i.e., rigid
inclusions); or
Deep foundations.
Compacted aggregate piers (CAPs) are often used as a ground improvement method for moderately high loads,
but due the higher loads for the ATCT and relatively deep soil profile, we expect CAPs are not structurally
sufficient. Rigid inclusions provide a higher capacity than CAPs. The ground improvement technique will be
governed by the settlement tolerance, net allowable bearing pressure after ground improvements and resulting
footing/mat size. Deep foundation options could include augered-in-place and cast piles (ACPs) and drilled shafts.
We anticipate that the layered soil /PWR/rock profile will cause difficulty when trying to extend auger cast piles
through PWR and thin rock layers. This is also true for the ground improvement. Therefore, we expect drilled
shafts are the optimal foundation type for the loads and subsurface conditions. Ground improvements and ACP
are briefly discussed in the following sections. Drilled shafts are discussed in more detail.
4.1.2 TRACON
Based on the anticipated light loads (maximum column loads of 125 kips), the TRACON building can be supported
on shallow foundations. The existing fill can likely remain in place provided it is evaluated and approved during
the construction process; however, there may be some remediation required in isolated areas.The existing
stormwater utilities (and any other existing utility lines) should be re-routed so they are at least 10 feet outside of
the building footprint.
4.2 Conventional Foundations with Ground Improvement/Rigid Inclusions (ATCT)
As previously discussed, a ground improvement method such as rigid inclusions (Rls) could be considered to
support the ATCT structure using conventional shallow foundations or a single mat foundation. (The TRACON
building can be supported conventionally without ground improvements after proper site preparation as
discussed in Section 5.1. Foundation recommendations for the TRACON building are presented in Section 4.5).
Ground improvement techniques are proprietary design/build systems and are not structural foundation
elements. In most cases, ground improvements allow for an increase the design bearing capacity; however,
because they are not structural elements, they do not provide additional resistance to uplift forces. Based on our
previous experience, ground improvement will typically allow bearing pressures of 4 to 6 ksf to be used.
Corresponding footing or mat size will dictate the ground improvement method.
Rls are a ground improvement technique that transfers loads through weaker strata to a firm underlying stratum,
using high modulus grout columns. The RI method involves advancing a bottom-feed mandrel with a top-
mounted vibrator or with displacement augers through weak strata to underlying firm stratum. Granular bearing
soils are densified by displacement. The mandrel/auger stem is filled with high strength grout as the
casing/tooling is withdrawn while maintaining a positive grout head.The RI process is a displacement technique
September 22, 2021 8

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
tft=rm.mr
which generates minimal spoil material (the installation equipment displaces the soils at the target location and
the hole created is filled with high strength grout as the installation pipe/tooling is withdrawn).
At this site, Rls would most likely consist of about 18- to 24-inch diameter elements extended to the upper surface
of PWR or rock. Because of shallow PWR layers, some predrilling could be required to allow the RI to extend to the
final bearing depths. Rls are not structural elements, they are not in direct contact with the foundation/slab.
Instead, a load transfer platform placed between the top of the Rls and the bottom of the foundation/slab is
typically required. A typical load transfer platform consists of layers of well compacted crushed stone (NCDOT No.
57, Aggregate Base Course, or similar) placed between the top of the Rls and bottom of foundation/slab elevation
throughout the entirety of the treatment footprint. The load transfer platform thickness can vary, but is typically 1
to 3 feet thick.
We expect the shallow, layered PWR and rock on this site will likely make installing Rls to their planned depth
difficult for this site. If these elements are considered further, consultation with a highly skilled specialty contractor
with RI experience should occur. We can provide additional recommendations for ground improvement if they
are being considered for the project.
4.3 Auger Cast Piles (ATCT)
Auger cast piles (ACPs) are installed by a procedure which consists of first drilling a hole into the ground using
hollow stem augers to the required pile tip elevation. After the design tip elevation is attained, grout is injected or
pumped under pressure into the ground through the hollow stem auger. The grouting application is continued
while the auger is slowly withdrawn.This creates a column of concrete with a rough surface directly in contact with
the surrounding soil.ACPs are placed beneath columns and walls, and structurally tied to the structure with pile
caps. In some cases, ACPs are also used with grade beams to support the ground floor slab; however, after proper
site preparation (Section 5.1 and 5.2), the building grade slab for the ATCT can be grade supported.
ACPs will develop axial capacity from a combination of skin friction along the length of the pile and end bearing at
the tip in PWR or on bedrock. Based on the planned loads, we anticipate the piles would need to extend through
the shallow layers PWR and extend to the top of competent rock.This would likely be difficult and will require
diligent work by the contractor, and perhaps special tools, to extend ACPs to their required depth because of the
PWR layering encountered in the borings. A strong rotary turntable would be required, as well as sharp reinforced
cutting bits. Slow augering should be expected to occur within PWR, and the contractor should be prepared to
spend extra time advancing the piles by grinding into these materials.This extra difficulty in drilling may make
ACPs not practical for this project.
We can provide additional information, installation specifications and load test requirements for auger cast piles if
requested once the project is further advanced and the actual foundation support method has been determined.
4.4 Drilled Shafts with Rock Sockets (ATCT)
Drilled shafts have a much higher single element capacity, especially when rock sockets are used, with typically a
single shaft under each column.They can also be drilled through PWR layers using rock tools. Drilled shafts will
develop axial capacity from a combination of skin friction along the length of the shaft and end bearing at the tip.
Additionally, installation equipment for drilled shafts are more capable of penetrating through dense soils, PWR,
September 22, 2021 9

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
and rock. Based on this, we anticipate these will be the most suitable foundation option for the proposed ATCT.
The skin friction values shown in Table 4-3 would be appropriate for the design of the drilled shafts and are based
on the SPT data and our experience. If rock sockets are needed, they should be sized based on the actual shaft
diameter and maximum working loads, and typically require a minimum penetration of 1.5 times the shaft
diameter into competent rock (RQD = 60% or greater) and a diameter approximately 6 in. less than the upper
shaft diameter.We used the methodology outlined in AASHTO LRFD Section 10.8.3.5.4 and information prepared
by Dan Brown &Associates ("Load Testing of Drilled Shaft Foundation in Piedmont Rock", dated January 2012) to
calculate unit end and/or skin resistance for PWR/rock. The following allowable capacities are available for drilled
shaft design:
Table 4-1 —Allowable Drilled Shaft Design Resistance Values
Material Type Allowable End Allowable Skin Frictions
Bearings Compression •nsionz
Fill N/A 0.5 ksf 0.25 ksf
Residuum 4 ksf 1 ksf 0.7 ksf
PWR 15 ksf 33 ksf 2 ksf
Competent Bedrock 50 ksf4 55 ksf 3.5 ksf
Notes: 'Design values include a Factor of Safety(SF)of at least 2.
2Some of the skin friction values for uplift are approximately 75 percent of the compression
value due to the Poisson effect(reference O'Neill and Reese 1999).
'The unit skin friction value for PWR was based on a research publication by Dan Brown&
Associates("Load Testing of Drilled Shaft Foundation in Piedmont Rock",dated January 2012)
and published work by Mayne and Harris(1993)and O'Neill(1996).
'Assumes penetration into competent rock(rock socket)at least 1.5x element diameter. Competent rock is
defined as rock with REC of 80%and RQD of 25%or greater.Rock coring at each shaft location may be required
to determine.
'Allowable skin friction based on AASHTO LRFD methodology presented in Section 10.8.3.5.4.
We recommend that the upper 5 feet of shaft skin friction be ignored in design due to possible disturbance
during shaft construction. However, skin friction should be determined cumulatively for depths below the existing
upper 5 feet with no minimum penetration requirement. Based on the project information and our experience, a
minimum shaft diameter of 36-in. is recommended, with the minimum rock socket diameter being 6 inches less
than the upper portion of the shaft. The uplift capacity for drilled shafts can be determined using the weight of
concrete in the piles and the skin friction values along the sides of the piles.The buoyant unit weight of concrete
should be used below the groundwater levels.
4.4.1 Lateral Capacity
Once the final design loads are finalized and actual support method finalized, we will be happy to provide lateral
analyses, including shear, deflection and moment versus depth curves for specific loading conditions using the
following design values.These values are based on the soil test boring data and our experience with these type
materials.
September 22, 2021 10

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
Table 4-2— LPile Input
Friction Unit Uniaxial
LPile Soil Cohesion Compressive Kl
Material Type Angle Weight
Type (psf) (deg.) (pcf) Strength,qu (pci)
(psi)
Fill Sand -- 28 1102 -- 25
Residuum Silt 200 34 1202 -- 90
PWR Silt 1000 40 1302 -- 225
Bedrock3 Weak -- -- 1402 4,0004 --
Rock
Notes: 1. K refers to modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction used in LPile computer code and assumes"slow cyclic"loading as
described by LPILE user manual.
2. Buoyant unit weights should be assumed below the subsurface water level.
3. Assumes penetration into rock of at least 1.5x element diameter.
4. Assumes concrete strength,which should be lower than the rock.
4.4.2 Settlement
Based on the boring data and assuming shafts bear in PWR or on/in bedrock, S&ME estimates the maximum
drilled shaft settlement will be on the order of/4-in. S&ME expects that much of this will occur during initial
loading application.
4.4.3 Drilled Shaft Construction
Based on our experience, we expect that a drill rig having the capacity of a Hughes Williams LLDH or equivalent
can excavate to near the refusal level of our borings.The fill and residual soils can be penetrated by an earth
auger. However, an auger with tungsten hardened carbide teeth (rock auger) will be required to penetrate PWR. A
core barrel and/or down hole hammer is anticipated to advance the shaft below the refusal depth of the borings.
Refusal with a rock auger is generally defined as material that cannot be excavated any faster than 6 inches of
penetration in 15 minutes of maximum down pressure. However, some variation in the definition may be required
in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer.The drilled shaft contractor should be experienced in this geographic
area and with erratic rock conditions.Also, it will be very important that the contractor be experienced in handling
groundwater and sealing the casing bottom. And finally, it should be recognized that the contractor will be
required to drill through some softer and poorer quality rock and PWR to achieve adequate end bearing.
Drilled shafts can be constructed using a "dry" method or a "wet" (slurry-displacement) method. The drilling
contractor should review the site and all test boring records and make their own determination as to what drilling
methods will be necessary. The procedures used should follow the guidelines for drilled shaft construction
provided by ACI (American Concrete Institute) and/or ADSC—The International Association of Foundation Drilling.
September 22, 2021 11

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
tft=ro.mr
We would also be happy to perform borings and testing to characterize and evaluate subsurface conditions at
additional locations upon request.
The following are general procedures recommended in constructing the drilled shafts assuming the "dry" method
will be used.
Drilling equipment should have cutting teeth to result in a hole with little or no soil smeared or caked on
the sides; a spiral like corrugated side should be produced. The shaft diameters should be at least equal
to the design diameter for the full depth.
The drilled shafts should be drilled to satisfy a plumbness tolerance of 1.5 to 2 percent of the length and
an eccentricity tolerance of 2 to 3 in. from plan location.
Subsurface water was encountered between depths of approximately 15 and 23.5 ft. below the ground
surface during the exploration, but could be encountered higher or lower during drilled shaft installation.
Subsurface water should be removed by pumping, leaving no more than 2 in. in the bottom of the shaft
excavation prior to concrete placement. If pumping cannot remove the water accumulating, then tremie
methods could be required to place the concrete.
A removable steel casing should be installed in the shafts to the bottom of each hole to prevent caving of
the excavation sides due to soil relaxation. Loose soils in the bottom of the shafts should be removed.
The drilled shaft excavations should be evaluated by a Geotechnical Engineer to confirm suitable end
bearing conditions and to check the proper diameter and bottom cleanliness. The shafts should be
evaluated immediately prior to and during concreting operations.
The drilled shafts should be concreted as soon as practical after excavation to reduce the deterioration of
the supporting soils due to soil caving and any subsurface water intrusion.
The slump of the concrete is very important for the development of side shear resistance. We
recommend a concrete mix having a slump of 6 to 8 in. be used with the minimum compressive strength
specified by the structural engineer. A mix design incorporating super plasticizer may be needed to
obtain this slump.
The concrete may be allowed to fall freely through the open area in the reinforcing steel cage provided it
is not allowed to strike the rebar or the casing prior to reaching the bottom of the shaft excavations.
The protective steel casing should be extracted as concrete is placed. However, a head of concrete should
be maintained above the bottom of the casing to prevent soil and water intrusion into the concrete below
the casing.
Due to the inherent variability in the subsurface materials, a Geotechnical Engineer should compare the design
parameters to the actual materials and conditions encountered during construction. Some modification to the
design values previously presented could be required in the field.
September 22, 2021 12

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
4.5 Shallow Foundations (TRACON)
4.5.1 Bearing Pressure
Spread footings for the TRACON building should bear in residual soil or well-compacted structural fill. If any low-
consistency existing fill is detected during site preparation as described in Section 5.1, it should be undercut and
replaced. All footing excavations must also be evaluated and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. A net
maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf is available for use in design of the TRACON foundations.
(The bearing pressure in this section is not applicable for the ATCT.)
4.5.2 Minimum Dimensions and Embedment Depth
Continuous wall footings should be at least 24 in. wide and column footings should be at least 36 in.wide. This
recommendation is to help prevent localized or"punching" shear failure which can occur with very narrow
footings. Foundations should bear at least 24 in. below finished exterior grades to provide adequate embedment
against frost penetration.
4.5.3 Foundation Excavation Evaluations
The Geotechnical Engineer or his representative must observe the foundation bearing conditions at individual
footing excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. This evaluation should include the
performance of shallow hand auger borings with dynamic cone penetrometer testing.
Exposure to the environment will cause the bearing soils to rapidly deteriorate. If surface water runoff collects in
any excavation, it should be removed promptly by pumping to help prevent softening of foundation supporting
soils.To further reduce the potential for deterioration of bearing soils, we recommend that foundation excavation,
evaluation, and placement of concrete be conducted on the same day, if practical. If an excavation is to remain
open overnight, or if rain is imminent, the footing subgrade should be lowered and a 3- to 4-inch thick mud mat
of lean (2,000 psi) concrete placed in the bottom of the excavation to protect the bearing soils.This will help limit
the potential for additional excavation of wet, softened soils which often results in footings exposed to inclement
weather.
4.6 Seismic Site Class
The following summarizes the results of the geophysical services performed for seismic site class determination:
Surface wave measurements were obtained to a depth of approximately 102 feet.
Based on Sections 20 and Equation 20.4.1 of ASCE 7-16, the calculated weighted average Vs100 value is 1,985
feet per second (ft/s).
Based on these results, potential structures built within the survey area can be designed using a Seismic Site
Class C.
A shear wave velocity profile and the testing location plan are located in Appendix V.
September 22, 2021 13

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
4.7 Liquefaction Potential
There are no active earthquake fault zones within close proximity to the general area and thus the site vicinity is
not known to be subject to concerns of any major geologic hazards such as significant ground shaking,
liquefaction, seismically induced slope failures, etc.
4.8 Floor Slabs
Slab-on-grade for these types of structures are typically separated from the subgrade soils by a 4- to 6-inch thick
layer of aggregate base course (ABC stone) as specified in the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. This layer will help reduce construction downtime during wet
weather conditions (if placed soon after building pad preparation) and will provide a good leveling course. We
expect a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 150 pci to be available for design over the compacted ABC stone.
A vapor barrier should be considered beneath the grade slabs to help prevent slab dampness due to the upward
migration of soil moisture. The need for a vapor barrier will also be dependent upon the floor covering design for
each building and local building codes.
4.9 Cast-In-Place Concrete Retaining Walls and Lateral Earth Pressures
We anticipate some below grade retaining walls may be needed for the proposed building. We assume these will
be Cast-In-Place (CIP) concrete walls. CIP walls must be capable of resisting lateral earth pressures imposed on
them, which will be partially dependent upon the method of construction. Assuming the walls are relatively rigid
and structurally braced against rotation (such as a basement wall), they should be designed for a condition
approaching the "at-rest" lateral pressure. However, in the event the walls are free to deflect (about 1/2 to 1 inch
for a 10-foot high wall) during backfilling, as for any exterior walls that are not restrained or rigidly braced, the
"active" pressure conditions will be applicable for design. The following lateral earth pressure parameters are
recommended for design, based on our experience, and assuming a level backfill and a frictionless wall.
Table 6-3 — Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters
Lateral Earth Pressure Condition Coefficient Equivalent Fluid
Pressure (yEq)
At-Rest Condition (Ko) = 0.53 61 psf/ft
Active Condition (KA) = 0.36 41 psf/ft
Passive Condition (Kp) = 2.8 n/a
Unit Weight of Soil (Moist) 115 pcf
Friction Factor for Foundations
and Bearing Soils 0.35
The recommended lateral earth pressure parameters do not consider the development of hydrostatic pressure
from such things as rainwater runoff or leaking utilities behind the wall. As such, positive wall drainage must be
provided for all earth retaining structures. These drainage systems can be constructed of open-graded washed
September 22, 2021 14

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
stone isolated from the soil backfill with a geosynthetic filter fabric and drained by perforated pipe or weepholes.
Alternatively, several wall drainage products are produced specifically for this application. Lateral earth pressures
arising from surcharge loading or slopes above the wall should be added to the above earth pressures to
determine the total lateral pressure.
The soil backfill placed behind retaining walls and for fill placed in the passive zone should be placed and
compacted in accordance with our previous site grading recommendations. We caution that operating
compaction equipment directly behind the retaining structures can create lateral earth pressures far in excess of
those recommended for design. Therefore, bracing of the walls will be needed during backfilling operations.
5.0 General Earthwork Recommendations
5.1 Site Preparation and Undercutting
The site preparation measures discussed in this report should extend at least 10 feet outside of the buildings and
5 feet outside of pavement limits, where practical.
Site preparation should include removing utilities or structures from the building footprints. Excavations required
to remove existing foundations, utility lines,etc.should be backfilled with well-compacted fill as described in
Section 5.2 of this report. Our experience indicates that demolition activities, especially when performed during wet
weather, can deteriorate the underlying subgrade significantly more than during normal construction,which typically
requires some undercutting and/or stabilization.Additional site preparation should include removal of surface
vegetation, organic-laden topsoil, stumps, roots, asphalt, concrete curbing, crushed stone, existing fill from
beneath structural areas and any unstable surface soils. Since we expect the existing fill was testing by S&ME in
the past, it can remain in place provided it is assessed to be satisfactorily stable under proofrolling (Section 5.1.2).
5.1.1 Underground Utility Lines
As previously discussed, underground utilities are present within the planned construction area. Our experience
indicates the backfill soils for existing utility lines are often poorly compacted. Subsequently, utility lines that are
to be relocated should be removed, and the trenches cleaned and backfilled with well compacted structural fill as
discussed in Section 5.2. Trench backfill soils over utility lines that are to remain in place should be tested
individually to determine their suitability. Again, stormwater utilities should be moved at least 10 feet outside of
the building footprints.
5.1.2 Proofrolling
After stripping, the exposed subgrades should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer to confirm that suitable
materials are present to support the proposed construction.To aid the Engineer during this evaluation, the
exposed subgrade should be proofrolled with a heavily loaded tandem-axle dump truck or similar rubber-tired
equipment. Proofrolling helps reveal the presence of unstable or otherwise unsuitable surface materials.Any areas
that rut or deflect excessively under proofrolling should be undercut or stabilized in place, as recommended by
the Geotechnical Engineer. Backhoe-excavated test pits or hand auger borings may be needed to evaluate
questionable conditions, particularly the existing fill.
September 22, 2021 15

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
1W=Fir
5.1.3 Wet Weather Management
The grading activities and demolition for this development will result in areas of soil subgrade being exposed for
extended periods with little to no topographic relief to drain surface water runoff. It is important the grading
contractor protect the exposed soils from becoming saturated during inclement weather. Positive site drainage
must be maintained during all operations, including the initial stripping of the site, and should include collecting
roof drain discharge. Failure to provide positive site drainage typically results in extensive and costly repairs to the
exposed subgrade, as well as construction delays.
During wet weather, special measures will be necessary for this site.These could include the following:
Excavated ditches or berms to help reduce rainwater runoff from flowing on to the construction area.
Rainwater should not be allowed to pond.
The exposed ground surface should be sealed at the end of each work day(if inclement weather is
expected) to help reduce rainwater seepage into the soil.
Additional undercutting of unstable soil will be needed during wet weather.
If the subgrade cannot be stabilized for pavement support, a layer of crushed stone, geogrid, and a
geotextile fabric could be considered.
5.2 Fill Placement and Compaction
Undercut areas and/or areas requiring fill, should be raised to their design subgrade elevation with materials with
the following minimum requirements:
1 Fill should be free of deleterious materials and rock fragments greater than 4 in. in diameter;
2 Uniformly spread in 6- to 8-in.thick loose lifts;
3 Compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by a laboratory
modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D-1557); and
The moisture content should be controlled at plus to minus 3 percent of optimum.
5.2.1 In-Place Density Testing
A qualified Materials Technician working under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer should observe fill
placement.The Technician should perform a sufficient number of in-place field density tests during mass grading
and backfilling of utility trenches to confirm that the recommended compaction criterion has been achieved. Field
check plugs should be performed to determine appropriate modified Proctor comparisons.
5.2.2 Use of On Site Soils as Structural Fill
The majority of the sampled residual soils appear generally adaptable for use as well-compacted structural fill.
Existing fill soils appear suitable for use as structural fill, but should be carefully evaluated by the Geotechnical
Engineer or his representative prior to reuse.
The exploration indicates the in-situ moisture content of the sampled fill and residual soils was generally within
about 5 percent of optimum for compaction at the time the exploration was performed. However, the moisture
September 22, 2021 16

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
content of site soils will fluctuate with prevailing weather conditions prior to and during site grading. If the soils
are stockpiled, they should be protected from precipitation. As with any earthwork project, moisture adjustment
(wetting or drying) could be required to achieve the recommended degree of compaction.The contractor should
be prepared for this.
5.2.2.1 Remarks on Potential Plastic Soil
The majority of the samples obtained in the exploration were classified as SM or ML (low plasticity silty sand and
sandy silt) based on the Unified Soil Classification System. These materials are only non-to moderately-plastic
and should not pose any construction issues related to shrinkage or swelling. It is unusual for soils in Western
North Carolina to be susceptible to shrink-swell.
5.2.3 Use of Off-Site Borrow Materials as Fill
Imported fill used for site grading should consist of a clean material (free of organics and debris), have a
maximum particle size no greater than 4 inches, be of low to moderately low plasticity soil (Liquid Limit less than
50, Plasticity Index less than 25), with a modified Proctor maximum dry density of at least 110 pcf. The borrow
material should be evaluated by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to use.
5.2.4 Subgrade Protection During Construction
Mass grading activities typically result in subgrade soils being exposed for extended periods. It is very important
the grading contractor protect the exposed soils, including existing fill soils and new fills, from becoming
saturated during inclement weather. Positive site drainage must be maintained during all grading operations,
including the initial stripping of the site. Failure to provide positive site drainage typically results in extensive and
costly repairs to the exposed subgrades, as well as construction delays.
5.3 Excavation
Based on the boring data and understanding of site development, we anticipate excavations during mass grading
and utility installation will mainly extend through moderately low to moderate consistency fill, moderate to dense
residual soils, and partially weathered rock(PWR). These materials can typically be excavated with routine
earthmoving equipment (i.e., bulldozer, tracked excavator, front-end loader, etc.). However, the PWR will require
more diligent efforts to removed and can sometimes require chipping with a backhoe-mounted ram. Although
auger refusal was not encountered within 40 feet in our borings, there is evidence of layers PWR and possible rock
lenses at the site. Rock in a boulder, partially weathered, and massive form varies erratically in depth and location
in this geologic area.Accordingly, these materials can always be encountered at shallower depths between the
boring locations and difficult excavation could be encountered.
Excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including OSHA
(29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for site safety. This
information is provided only as a service and under no circumstances should we be assumed to be responsible for
construction site safety.
September 22, 2021 17

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
5.4 Excavated Slopes and Fill Embankments
We anticipate new slopes of up to about 5 feet in height may be required for development of this site. These
relatively low height cut slopes in the existing soils and well-compacted fill embankments should generally be
stable at inclinations no steeper than 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical). However, to help reduce erosion, maintenance
and repair, and allow more convenient access for landscaping equipment, we advise these inclinations be no
steeper than 2.5H:1V to 3H:1V. All fill placed in embankments should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
modified Proctor maximum dry density.
Because of the type soils expected to be encountered in the excavated slopes and used for the fill embankments,
erosion of the near surface soils tends to be a maintenance issue over time. Therefore, we advise the face of
slopes and embankments be protected by establishing vegetation with the use of permanent erosion control mats
as soon as practical after grading. North American Green has several products (such as EroNet Turf
Reinforcement Mat P300 or P550) that can help reduce the amount of erosion.
We recommend the building be setback at least the height of the slope with a minimum of 10 feet from the crests
of all slopes. If practical, we recommend new or existing utility lines be located away from the slopes or near their
crests. Leaking utility lines and poorly-compacted trench backfills can lead to slope issues including failure.
5.5 Subgrade Repair and Improvement Methods
The exposed subgrade soil can deteriorate when exposed to construction activity and environmental changes
such as freezing, erosion, softening from ponded rainwater, and rutting from construction traffic.We recommend
the exposed subgrade surfaces that have deteriorated be properly repaired by scarifying and recompacting
immediately prior to construction. If this has to be performed during wet weather conditions, it would be
worthwhile to consider undercutting the deteriorated soil and replacing it with crushed stone.
6.0 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.
September 22, 2021 18

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
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.
6.1 Geophysical Survey Limitations
Regardless of the thoroughness of a geophysical survey, there is always a possibility that actual conditions may
not match the interpretations. The results should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
methods used and the method's limitations and data coverage. Accordingly, the possibility exists that not all
features at a project site will be located due to either subsurface soil conditions or the occurrence of features
outside the lateral limits and below the depth of penetration of the methods used. The geophysical methods
used for this survey also have inherent limitations. Site activity (e.g., heavy vehicle traffic, etc.) can cause
noise/interference in the data sets. Depth restrictions are also associated with the MASW/MAM methods and
associated energy source.
September 22, 2021 19

Appendices

Appendix I - Boring Location Plan and Site Survey

IIF
cli illI
III Ilr
+-- rr .-- — — m J f I r —�r r r ►-- /® r _ +�rr^rr—+ l f'n r ! "`m r
-t-SA �_ / A iO. ' ��i' TSA /��' I.
• TSA / TSA
/ 1111111111k0
. ' .• -/ / 1 O/
TOF9 / ., TOFA/.0 . - TOFA / e/ TQ'1•'e /
AO
/r' / /'0.. PR
RO PO SEO /% /' / /I /'' ..
r/ / // SURVEY LIMIT- /.• /0, / //' 1 .+/ .0
/ // /0 A=6.64 ACR ' // 'j // ' o './ //'
// .r0. ter' // �� '' ~ . . .
- . . _ �a �./'''' ."'I / t rrr''/ //'r'
r Q
■ rrr rr / — — — f — /ram z
le
I.
LASS' _ �� / - ' --- -...-IIIIIIII".111."aikpr III
f a I-a H Z
i ��...
. ce
` ,ie •�, RELOr_AIE� r O Q
1 . — .-- . /� PERIMETER FENCE I I� I— U
FAA
ACCESS GATE
. IMEW/144t
V a
6 \,�+ I IY
li TRACON 3 ��:<�.� '/ z0
I / �1 01 fir, a z I�
J1LL o =
�� If ATCT 3 r o �J^�
i ATCT 1 TRACON 2 o rvo-":-FFc f�/i J
36
J
• 0 w.2A
ATCT 2P03319LE 3T0RMWATERI �*13'
—�TRACON 1 „— I MEAsuls _ A �"�Oa, ,,:,.., :i
MIR
in
j r�r- r/ / / /////// // // //j/ r�/r irr r_1_�-_-r -+ter //'//r+r_ -. //i_r�r `_+ I / / / % / / / /
/ - ..+r//// %/ /�////�///%�/j.%//irr r..-�__-- ++-+% + /ri + / •/%// 1•+^ __' +�` O. / j // /
r -r/ // / ///// // //// // / r+..-r .......11 . �'�. lrr+' -� / r•- / . i / r ^ter+ / / / / / / / / / / / / \ -: .
'/.
rr - // // // ///// //i// / / it i .--. . +- fr-_ r+ it^/ . /+� ` ---+,^ +\ + +`4 / / / / / / / r / / /
.-' - ter.i .� / / ///e j/// s. / //ter^ r r- 40. //' i///i.r r+.- + .\+ ++y / / / r.. . . / // i;
ram' `�//. // //I/////� / /// // - -�ter- - r r.+ . ..\\. . •��y.r+� / / / / / / r r/ / J/ \
- --... - ' /// I./ //// /j // /// i//// /r+ — +r --'-i /ii - ti. ��\\++ —��/i�r //r/ /i. /�r -/r/ �/ \ \\ :�
a, . / // I // // / // // // r +�.�� i rr+ �^ i
_-r^�^^y+\\ \. //'ram./// r / \ \ -
r .� 1 rr /•/ ... /// // ///� //////// // / /or rr r=--� --- �+ _— / ///— •►_____ \rr� — +. .`\N..` =+may-- / r r i '+ — . •/_-- './ /.��////////�/�.,/ ///////. /// /'/rir^— — + 1r�r ^ /// ] .0.-.- / Y- �_?/ J ���\� �.� i• /iri it j i//► +-r/. / r +sl \ + /. .- / +_� SCALE:
irr.,--- . / / I . / / // -� + I+.- �+ /' -. .a +�—� . .. // // /// /� / / // r• . �_— _• / .� / / . / i+ i __�-- • 5:� �r / / / / __ AS SHOWN
�. �. — -- +/�.// / ///� /�/I// �/ / / / / / / /— r / . // / / /// . _ ,if` /i— Y++irr L \ / / + �� `
DATE:
September 2021
PROJECT NUMBER
204294
FIGURE NO.
REFERENCE:
Geotechnical Boring Location Diagram prepared by Pond&Company and dated 7/8/2021 01
Alli - Approximate Boring Location /

P.B. PG.
LEGEND ` Gill,
1r/ E.9
EXISTING IRON PIN DROP INLET � ¢g„e•a
TOP: 2131.03' 0`' Ra'
Q IRON PIN SET 4,,, p,n.®r
5/8"REBAR W/CAP
0 POINT NOT SET INV.: 2122.67' /,� \ 1
e SEWER MANHOLE \ _'' � 5
UTILITY POLE .
•O SEWER STUB .,' �� c.
f �o``
• WATER METER
N4 WATER VALVE \ 1 n yo,` ,,,`'
Z4 FIRE HYDRANT HENDERSON m ,,,,,.,,,,../
COUNTYHENDERSON
WATER
A WATER BLOW OFF HYDRANT
® WATER MANHOLE WITH OG A"se�(! i
AIR RELEASE VALVE
\ COUNTY r\
R.O.W. RIGHT OF WAY C'TF 2
✓ 1
C.M.P. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE L
C.P.P. CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE VICINITY MAP
MAGNS MAG-NAIL SET
SQ.FT.t SQUARE FEET ` NOT TO SCALE Y
ID CATCH BASIN •
GAS VALVE 1 I
®E/B ELECTRICAL BOX
SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE
TIE LINE ONLY
ADJOINER PROPERTY LINE
NCDOT RIGHT OF WAY
XX FENCE O
-FOC - FIBER OPTIC LINE \ L
-GAS GAS LINE (n K
OHE - OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
-UGE - UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINE Z w
SS SEWER LINE \ 0
DROP INLET
W WATER LINE 5
TOP: 2125.28' LLI
INV.: 2113.65' M1�° M1M1R M1�3a M1'I°h '"
GREATER ASHEVILLE REGIONAL \-, } '�
AIRPORT AUTHORITY A I M16 3 �/ hM1 2",,
DEED BOOK 1584 PAGE 350 v I I M1'' q ON
DROP INLET PIN # 9643-41-6572 3M1 M1 M1,16 0:n' gM1TgO M1M1NN yM1Tho`(1,1' ryyo ,�i" //� - + h M1hy9 I
TOP: 2130.87' "0 M1U9 y1 eo T ti569 .-' /" -F �\Y' \ ry M166o ry ap yy1
INV.: 2122.67' h hp ph 5 J' :::
'S0' 3p361' '+ / o} / \ I / "rp
INV.: 2122.85' "a M10 e ry 7a q0 q "OB y 0 y 'YL J{ M1 } } 0 y2 p }'S 6'0\ / '1 h 3M1 0 0�6Z
M1 ,5,h }O ry31 y3'L' y}'L�" y3' + -1" 'Y '�"-__�O 6 hM1 1 /1'4"0ryM1O;M1 y / SPIL' 7 'Y'M1 /'� T 11 1 \��fl ,6'6M16b ,6. 4, S�6 as 3a3 y}qq }3R0 3}60 l3}hM1 ..r.' ;,a } + 'Y 'r/ 'Y3" M1O ;M1' 06y"50' y 3 M1 1M1 M1 / + '1- 1"1. 'Y / p 'Y
,h }"qh gg}a. .5a. yy 70 + 'y }M15M1 8 -5• y,a e0 l� y� 13 '1 1" � 1" /' - - :"..:".
/ry�6"� C2 M1hROJ =��')- h
36 �+ T 1' T T 'Y }'1 `1' 'M13 T + "Y// 'Y 113g / -_--- ��---_- / �•� --\ M1� �M1S' M1M1h`1" 3ry 'Y _ _ \- �/ // /-\ / 'Y /// ----__ g 9 -----,-- _ -- - �\ -J3- GRAVEL _ �- - IMO
�n��n&MeIIon
GRAVEL _1- __-- 3M1 OSIGN DROP INLET ------- 1' �' / / / /r �� �'a6� / GRAVELDROP INLET ___ -- _ ---$3"-RCP_= 1 � \ j //GRAVEL 5 /' - FIRM LICENSE#F- 088
_ TOP: 2129.34'_ -l- M / Sya 6 11b / .yTOP: 2135.20' - ----- ae� -- x INV.: 2122.20' o T,� JyM1M10� M1M1 O" gh' 636 h°- a^tiM1 M16� M1 - 39M1}' M13°/ M1M1s1318-F PATTON AVENUE
INV.: 2125.53' -- -.yn.'P--�5 _^ / / -sr �5 �� .�16M1' 1M1' �7.6' M1' / ti M1apa es / 16'J- -Yy _+ - +� + y M13 M1 / +/ - Asheville,NC
Eft C+0`- s J� 'Pq GRAVEL INV.: 212213' / _} M1 M19� 6p 1 i' / �'�'Y66 \ 6 M1 yM1°" y 16' 1' �^ / / "-ra2125 $, �+ //( / 3 828-253-2796
ry36_ �M1 / / / .. aM1�4 -� / r 80 3M1 'Y -sY'� y M1 5--5'� o I 0'� 'IM1 03' 3 ,' 9 -{'��-\- 'L /6 a M1M1 6 1"' M1}B a}9 M1' 3 / 1 M1' '�'� Charlotte,NC
--l5`�- 365 / - .. y. 0`ry a / e61.9' �» 9. T'� M1 e 1. M1h� M1" y `''. M1� M1 Oy -p ,3 3 6 1 1 .M1 M1 M1 1 /7. y/ 'Y/i / y M10639 6 2\ /__yyL� _ Sr___- . yy BORE4/TRACON-3 '"r $"^ T - �e M1 }M1 }M1/ -Y y 1" "� "V 1°'�r � o-pp \ " 704-837-78 5
pti p0 /' / S'14-5' i j0. 'Y3M1 I e}a M19"' M1e' 1' e0 - / i / - G \ I /,56 '' 1 �1 'IB ,3 / '10 l 9 M1. y h9 3' 'e} \ '16 M1ea_ /_ I .�� 130.06 / q .,¢ =F - DROP INLET 3 5°- 1 M1p/a}' M1` �M1ry M13 T- / M12 M1 Gray,TN
/ /_ <+� + L 55 Ty / .�. '' 0 M1e' s e 1 5 ti/..a." M1a. M1 M "-CP / \ 2 X� 423-467-840_$ 9 12 ♦ 5.4„RCP' _ 9 1 1, �' 2 y 2EF\ 1 /ih /^_ I ti}ao 33>2\\mod \\ }R�.sy33 ,M1 609 y' y 6. , h'OM1V. ,T s TOP: 2115.23'' y/ y// y - 1' M1 \ \ \ + hJy �< I y y \ r -_ / eT + 212s.n �� "��Y22 y'INV.: 2115.23' 'Y / he y \ \ 2M1' Knoxville,TN
/ \I.1- Bp\ \ 3 hM1 3 / "S OB 00 0 M13 2" p� 4 R h 39 6" `6. '1., M1M1 'I M1. , \ p \ 0/T y y� y M1 36 M1 M1 / q \ �, ee h M1h ,ya M1}' M1}��/y M1M1/i 1' m2 "� \ ,,,,,, - 865-54G-5800
CP-1053 Jr \GR� \ }a 3} h ,�yr� '{� .4 r,3 ,1'''h/ 'LAe 1.g�• 10. +/ .53 ey0 ;�h0\-yy6 ��1 6 M1 <\ + / + M1 p3 'M1 M1� / \\ + 1M1g0N 631621.1850 \ 1/ ; �\ \h' "o �"plt�" '., .• 3,5M1IM1 �" � M1��e \,yi>" e `= � zM1-1„A?^nM1a. '�" M1Sa "� -�- S �p \' ,;e r h-� }M1M1 }M1'�0 k\ // \ \\ M1y.�X� O Spartanburg,SC
y. \ y pq ,e \ zs`- --FF - e \ e p0 .0 -M13\ M1. / \ y M1864-574-4775
E 944727.0760 ��_. \ha - ,}6. 132.99 6 -Y13' RACON-2 ,0 0� M10"9�}M1 - �_ a M1O hM1 /"9 06 IR ;ly\y,ry' \�,,''' y" M13� y `1- -,M1�' M1Oa pa h Jq yo\ / \ \\ '1" yM1M1b2135.92 \ - �e\y \ 0 3 2t3a.tt n' 3 4- 2130.24 M1 ' o 1 TM1a .--c1-1--�,2. 2 Ao M1 .K -Y -1�� "�1'\ 1'\ s1''s -- e F _h } �- 1� M1 M1 y M1 \ ,I/ \\\ M1 0 Middlesboro,KY
`App}-�.�:\ - M13- �'Y . ,3M1 30.59 -2130.49 a �'19 'L9 10` 5M19 M1- 'Y_'Y�-=l��" - - -- `\ 2120VB 0 �,,069, �0 \rye \\\\\ 1b
-- y `1" - _- k .\ y GOG-248-6000
-�" ' l 2T q5� 35M1 -}:� 336 a}09 }ph .y0. ,M1'- .\__$ _ ______ �3 M1M1 •5y8 M161} M1h M10M1\ n1 3\0 0 �}B a , ` ry \\\\ ` a6 www.v.aughnmelton.com
�q9 - �q .�O 'f •Z,,_'''„
14 ' - ry-y +Y .q '}" \'v:3",� - - - ON�P 6 1' M1 M1 53 M1 \ M1 'L !,, 0'- & ' \\\\\ M1 PYr�9
�- a 4' n _ �k y 5 y 7. - a. y M16 ,9`� ti 1 Co ht 20I O
T �Y 6v - \ FEN �N� J �.9� L -Y -1- -Y 1' 1' \ / \ .�' 1 / \ -Y
}ar l'- _ -M1°-- -."6-,''
�a L3�szt • TOTS LL -'4_
o>.a__�O' -_-_ - ,1,, - }O 7, 213a`�}p __ 'I-- - -- - 0 \„ 3,, \ y 4 / � \ All Rights Reserved
1-- -Y-9 _-y� $y�ap�+-0ry\ - -® =BORE6/TRACON- ,N $,}"18_\SL -3B;- 0M1 3}»- °�'h6+ M1T +-h 'Sa_y�p' h} 'L "y0 O.M1k58 �M19 p0M1g4@_'LOa '�M1 M1�-yM1M1\\M1'M16h� \M1al/ M1Y� J18.) `y'� +e^ /*- p CP-1052 g
Re �,- - �'';_\t .p + ' �'Y 60- } - �1` - 'Y\\ I `- K\ t'-'-- DRAWN: BS
0 M1 y --1,---` 3• C 9 - } } - -�- - / N 630635.1640
- z/as :"-I- 'r `3h' }h. `}h6'� 5p- --. �"--- _ \'-- =___=-- M1M1 \a + �h E 944989.6320
"6 _ �{- ��- 3}' 36;i'`-_ - _ _----- ��_-- =-_--- _,9-�4° 'i 1,9'l� 1 �. -^ s CHECKED:KS
yy-- Mary aG- - .- - _ '�_ - _#M1_--_ �7., - -- --9 -'r6.- ti *na 36 \ e 2124.36
'L_TO'-W01LN _ -__ � 7a.b= p6- -i-`!35� - - __`-_ ------_�- --_--213-- 9. ^-- 9 -�
�.p _ ` _ _ -.}--- _ - --5=- "- /, ) /5 `" JOB NO: 32I I0-45
__ _ ,11 __-- � a -- - -----�� DROP INLET +zt1s.08 { /4
_-1155�,, 1�' - t.- -y4�-=----- T" • 21 as s0 2t 2.6 ztaas2 TOP: 2120.22' DROP INLET SCALE: "=50'
SLR--sue-_#-- - -5- - �_ -�
r-2-=---
_ - F' -�, �- --_ l _ INV.: 2112.86' MAG NAIL TOP: 2113.15' DATE: AUG.202
ZL""-�q.0=-1 _ ' Is ]�.�-I I da'-T ��/ 1 �"2t4a.e0 1/2"REBAR INV.: 2112.41' \ INV.: 2103.29'
- - \� 21ae.36� \ -Y T+ a.ei aa.E2 INV.: 2108.56' FILENAME:
--- -- �- ,, � `a13s 2146.23 21as.90 21a5.9a INV.: 2104.37' \
`72Fbf -�1-- -lszze 2159.2 \ NEWTOWERTOPO.dwg
2164.59 samzlsro- STORM MANHOLE "
TOP: 2118.36'
INV.: 2113.81' \ 1
•
I \
I
I GF LINAMAR LLC
DEED BOOK 1658 PAGE 97
PIN # 9643-41-2191
NOTES:
I. AREAS SHOWNRMI ARE SUBJECT TOA E EASEMENTSTD. OF RECORD. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR:
2. AREA DETERMINED BY COORDINATE METHOD.
3. AREAS INCLUDE ANY AND ALL PORTIONS OF PROPERTY UNDER
RIGHTS WAY AND OR EASEMENTS EITHER ACQUIRED OR CLAIMED. GREATER ASHEVILLE
4. ALLLL CORNERS AREEAS NOTED.
5. RECORD REFERENCES: AS SHOWN
6. PARCELREGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
7. RAWW I.D. NUMBERS: AS SHOWN ERROR OF CLOSURE FOR FIELD TRAVERSE WAS 1:10,000.
8. THE DISTANCES ON THIS MAP ARE ADJUSTED HORIZONTAL GROUND ` II ,,
MEASUREMENTS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. GRAD"oar �\O��N SS00e/'o,
9. PROPERTY IS ZONED I. CITIES. "4°83r"AZ°", .,.oFE ,\©q BEING THE PROPERTY
10. THE CURRENT OWNER OF RECORD IS GREATER ASHEVILLE ) � DESCRIBED IN: DEED BOOK 1584 PAGE 350
AIRPORT AUTHORITY AS PER D.B. 1584 PG. 350. _ -
11. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE X AS PER FEMA FIRM = tp,,,„�<' cPANEL 9643 (MAP NUMBER 3700964300K) DATED 1/6/2010. �
12. DATES OF FIELD SURVEY WORK BETWEEN 8/2/2021 AND 8/4/2021. ',�4gRkAPPR;\ '�` PIN # 9643-41-6572
13. DATUM DESCRIPTION: THE LOCALIZED COORDINATE SYSTEM DEVELOPED GRAPHIC SCALE ""I"'i MILLS RIVER TOWNSHIP
FOR THIS PROJECT IS BASED ON THE NAD 1983(NA2011) STATE PLANE
COORDINATES FOR THE MONUMENT "1003" WITH A NORTHING OF 50 0 zs 50 100 200 8/27/2021
632401.106 US FT AND AN EASTING OF 946804.943 US FT. THE AVERAGE = IJ HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
COMBINED GRID FACTOR USED ON THIS PROJECT (GROUND TO GRID) IS
0.999779858. ALL LINEAR DISTANCES ARE LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL ( IN FEET) SHEET 1 OF 2
DISTANCES. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 1988 (GEOID18 CONUS).

Appendix II - Boring Logs

TEST BORING LOG LEGEND
FINE AND COARSE GRAINED SOIL INFORMATION
COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS PARTICLE SIZE
(SANDS AND GRAVELS) (CLAYS AND SILTS)
N Relative Density N Consistency Boulders Greater than 300 mm(12")
0-4 Very Loose 0-2 Very Soft Cobbles 75 mm-300 mm(3-12")
5-10 Loose 3-4 Soft Gravel 4.75 mm-75 mm(3/16-3")
11-30 Medium Dense 5-8 Firm Coarse Sand 2 mm-4.74 mm
31-50 Dense 9-15 Stiff Medium Sand .425 mm-2 mm
Over 50 Very Dense 16-30 Very Stiff Fine Sand 0.075 mm-0.425 mm
Over 30 Hard Silts and Clays Less than 0.075 mm
The STANDARD PENETRATION TEST as defined by ASTM D 1586 is a method to obtain a disturbed soil sample for examination
and testing and to obtain relative density and consistency information.A standard 1.4-inch I.D./2.0-inch O.D.split barrel sampler
is driven three 6-inch increments with a 140 lb.hammer falling 30 inches.The hammer can either be of a trip,free-fall design,or
actuated by a rope and cathead.The blow counts required to drive the sampler the final two 6-inch increments are added together
and designated the N-value defined in the above tables.
ROCK PROPERTIES
RQD ROCK HARDNESS
Percent RQD Quality Very Hard Rock can be broken by heavy hammer blows.
0-25 Very Poor Hard Rock cannot be broken by thumb pressure,but can be broken by moderate
hammer blows.
25-50 Poor
Moderately Hard Small pieces can be broken off along sharp edges by considerable thumb
50-75 Fair pressure;can be broken with light hammer blows.
75-90 Good Soft Rock is coherent but breaks very easily with thumb pressure at sharp edges
90-100 Excellent and crumbles with firm hand pressure.
Very Soft Rock disintegrates or easily compresses when touched;can be hard to very
hard soil.
KEY
SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS
IUndisturbed
Sample N Standard Penetration,BPF
Sum of 4"and Longer
xi Standard Penetration RQD= Rock Pieces Recovered NMC Natural Moisture Content,%
Test Sample (Rock Quality x100
Designation) Length of Core Run LL Liquid Limit,
n Rock Core PL Plastic Limit,%
Sample
PI Plasticity Index,%
Length of Rock PPV Pocket Penetrometer Value,TSF
Core Diameter(I.D.) Inches REC= Core Recovered
(Recovery) x100 Qu Unconfined Compressive Strength,TSF
BQ 1-7/16 Length of Core Run
Yd Dry Unit Weight,PCF
NQ 1-7/8
F Fines Content
HQ 2-1/2
III =

PROJECT: AVL Air Traffic Control Tower BORING LOG:ATCT-1
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 Sheet 1 of 2
DATE DRILLED: 07/30/2021 ELEVATION: 2134.0 ft NOTES: Offset approximately 5 ft south due to
existing monitoring well in planned
DRILL RIG: CME 750 DATUM: NAVD88 location. Undisturbed sample
DRILLER: S&ME, Inc. BORING DEPTH: 74.6 ft attempted from 28 ft to 30 ft in offset
boring,sample yielded no recovery.
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer CLOSURE: Cuttings and Mechanical Hole Plug
DRILLING METHOD: Mud rotary LOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch LATITUDE: 35.433253 LONGITUDE: -82.54353
SAMPLING METHOD: SS, CORE PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM-NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
NOTES m C z
1 .2 £ = SAMPLE NO. BLOW COUNT 0
a v a A%Fines at
W w o ; (RECOVERY) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DATA )
a" (SPT N-value0 NMC w
G ui H PL---LL w
20 40 60 80
L I I I I I
0
\TOPSOIL,2 inches /
X SS-1 SILTY SAND(SM),medium dense to dense, •
4-13-17
brown olive,medium to fine N=30
_ 15-17-18 -
_ Ili X SS-2 N=35 • -
5-- E
SANDY SILT(ML),hard to very stiff,brown 2129-
18-19-25 -
SS-3 tan,fine N-44 •
cc
14-18-18
SS-4 N=36 •
10- II .
2124=- PWR SILTY SAND(SM),very dense,gray,fine -
SS-5 to medium 20-50/1" • -
o P N=100
15- " 7. 2119-
SI
v
- U
- SILTY SAND(SM),dense to medium dense, 17-13-18
20- SS-6 tan,fine N=31 • 2114-
10-21-26 FA -
SS-7 N=47 •
25- 2109-
- E -
VI r
- w 6-8-11
cc
'
SS-8 N=19 •
30- 2104-
_ 19-19-24 -
SS-9 N=43 •
35- ' 2099-
PWR SILTY SAND(SM),very dense,gray,fine -
_ SS 10 15-40-50/1" • -
- v °1
N=100
40- v F.o 2094-
_ _
_ ( -
ii]-• -
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT) -
DURING ADVANCE 4 giik &
END OF DRILLING St -
AFTER DRILLING = 08/02/2021 21.2 84 hours I I I
AFTER DRILLING = ds
Vertical Accuracy:Land Survey,Horizontal Accuracy:Land Survey
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit,PL=Plastic Limit,NMC=Natural Moisture Content,PPV=Pocket Penetrometer(tsf),PTV=Pocket Torvane(tsf),HC=Hole Cave

PROJECT: AVL Air Traffic Control Tower BORING LOG:ATCT-1
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 Sheet 2 of 2
DATE DRILLED: 07/30/2021 ELEVATION: 2134.0 ft NOTES: Offset approximately 5 ft south due to
existing monitoring well in planned
DRILL RIG: CME 750 DATUM: NAVD88 location. Undisturbed sample
DRILLER: S&ME, Inc. BORING DEPTH: 74.6 ft attempted from 28 ft to 30 ft in offset
boring,sample yielded no recovery.
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer CLOSURE: Cuttings and Mechanical Hole Plug
DRILLING METHOD: Mud rotary LOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch LATITUDE: 35.433253 LONGITUDE: -82.54353
SAMPLING METHOD: SS, CORE PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM-NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
NOTES m C z
x .-. o £ = BLOW COUNT 0
F SAMPLE NO.
a v a A%Finesat
W w E. (RECOVERY) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DATA
'� (SPT N-value) O PMC:LL Le
c u, H
20 40 60 80
L I I I I I
SILTY SAND(SM),dense,tan gray,fine -
17-15-22 -
E X SS-11 N.37 •
45— -'0 2089—
7
— a,
Z] SS-12 PWR SANDY SILT(ML),very hard,tan white 50/5" • _
o Y gray,fine to coarse N=100
50— '' E 2084-
v o
a+ w
— c
SANDY SILT(ML),very hard,brown tan gray, -
- E fine 28-41-44 -
X SS-13 N=85 •
-
55— '7, 2079—
a, -
cc
PWR SANDY SILT(ML),very hard,gray tan, -
- t '° SS-14 fine to medium 50/2" • -
5 v N=100
60— E E 2074—
_ y o _
c
. m —
.,;
—Auger refusal ; SS-15 50/0" •Biotite Gneiss:hard,gray white,excellent to 5 100
—at 62.4 feet RC-1 good quality,45 degree joints —
- REC-100%
65—= - 'y RQD-91% 2069-
•
' RC —
_ REC-92% -
=, ( RQD-76% _
70— `�„e;;_ Biotite Gneiss:moderately hard,gray white 2064=
�/ tan,moderate quality,45-60 degrees joints
/! ; RC-3
72 REC-100%
jY RQD-46% —
i :-i.
75_ Borehole terminated at 74.6 feet / 2059_
80— 2054—
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT) —
DURING ADVANCE Q giik &
END OF DRILLING St —
AFTER DRILLING = 08/02/2021 21.2 84 hours III _
AFTER DRILLING = Ilik
Vertical Accuracy:Land Survey,Horizontal Accuracy:Land Survey
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit,PL=Plastic Limit,NMC=Natural Moisture Content,PPV=Pocket Penetrometer(tsf),PTV=Pocket Torvane(tsf),HC=Hole Cave

..... Geotechnical Exploration Report
Asheville Regional Airport-ATCT&TRACON
I I Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
Rock Core Photo Log
Boring No.: ATCT-1 Date: 7/30/2021 Driller: S&ME,Inc. Equipment: CME-750
Core Size: NQ Start Depth:62.4 ft. End Depth: 74.6 ft. Total Run: 12.2 ft.
i ' LO
4, )
ai
S
ATCT-1 Continued
Iii
5; .tip �
l '.k".
September 2021 Page 1 of 2

PROJECT: AVL Air Traffic Control Tower BORING LOG:ATCT-2
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 Sheet 1 of 2
DATE DRILLED: 08/02/2021 ELEVATION: 2136.6 ft NOTES: Undisturbed samples attempted from 3 ft.to
5ft,23.5 ft at 25.5 ft,and 28 ft to 30ft;however
DRILL RIG: CM E 750 DATUM: NAVD88 attempts were unsuccessful. Approximately 16
inches of material was recovered from 3 ft.to
DRILLER: S&ME, Inc. BORING DEPTH: 59.5 ft 5ft.before the sampler was damaged. The
other attempts yielded no recovery.
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer CLOSURE: Cuttings and Mechanical Hole Plug
DRILLING METHOD: Mud rotary LOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch LATITUDE: 35.433285 LONGITUDE: -82.54363
SAMPLING METHOD: SS, CORE PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM-NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
NOTES m C z
H F £ = SAMPLE NO. BLOW COUNT 0
a v a A%Fines
W w o ; (RECOVERY) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DATA )
a" (SPT N-value0 NMC w
G W H PL---LL w
20 40 60 80
L I I I I I
0 —
\TOPSOIL,2 inches / —
SS-1 SILTY SAND(SM),medium dense to dense, 5-9-11 •
tan brown gray,fine to coarse N=20
9-9-7_
.' SS-2 N=16 •• 2132—
5— —
6-10-18
SS-3 N=28 • —
11-13-14
SS-4 N=27 • 2127—
10- E
3
— -o
— 7
— v
cc
12-15-21
SS-5 N=36 • 2122-
15— —
— SILTY SAND(SM),very dense,gray tan,fine 20-29-26
FASS-6 to medium,trace rock pieces,trace mica N=55 •• 2117-
20—
i PWR SANDY SILT(ML),very hard,brown —
27-50/4"
25— a SS-7 tan,fine to coarse,trace mica N=100 • 2112-
— m -
18-41-50/4" —
30— " SS-8 N=100 • 2107_
o —
ni -
-
o• I
— o PWR SILTY SAND(SM),very dense,gray tan, —
— E •'•// SS-9 fine 22-50/2" • —
a` N=100 2102—
35= —
S5-10 PWR SANDY SILT(ML),very hard,brown 50/4" • —
tan,fine,trace mica N=100 2097—
40-
- 1 SS-11 �Biotite Gneiss:hard,gray white,competent, 50/0" •
—Auger refusal _ I fair quality,45 degree joints N=100 —
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME D(Fr)H REMARKS —
DURING ADVANCE 4 giii &
END OF DRILLING St —
AFTER DRILLING = 08/03/2021 23.5 24 hours III _
AFTER DRILLING = Iiii
Vertical Accuracy:Land Survey,Horizontal Accuracy:Land Survey
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit,PL=Plastic Limit,NMC=Natural Moisture Content,PPV=Pocket Penetrometer(tsf),PTV=Pocket Torvane(tsf),HC=Hole Cave

PROJECT: AVL Air Traffic Control Tower BORING LOG:ATCT-2
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 Sheet 2 of 2
DATE DRILLED: 08/02/2021 ELEVATION: 2136.6 ft NOTES: Undisturbed samples attempted from 3 ft.to
5ft,23.5 ft at 25.5 ft,and 28 ft to 30ft;however
DRILL RIG: CM E 750 DATUM: NAVD88 attempts were unsuccessful. Approximately 16
inches of material was recovered from 3 ft.to
DRILLER: S&ME, Inc. BORING DEPTH: 59.5 ft 5ft.before the sampler was damaged. The
other attempts yielded no recovery.
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer CLOSURE: Cuttings and Mechanical Hole Plug
DRILLING METHOD: Mud rotary LOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch LATITUDE: 35.433285 LONGITUDE: -82.54363
SAMPLING METHOD: SS, CORE PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM-NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
NOTES C z
F £ = SAMPLE NO. BLOW COUNT 0
• v a A%Fines
W• w o ; (RECOVERY) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DATA )
a" (SPT N-value 0 NMC W
G W H PL---LL
20 40 60 80
L I I I I I
—at 40.5 feet 5`i RC-1 Biotite Gneiss:hard,gray white,competent, —
v REC-50% \fair quality,45 degree joints
g . RQD-32% PWR SILTY SAND(SM),tan brown,fine, 2092—
45- $ trace mica,some soft rock -
D
RC-2 —
_ v
£ REC-12% -
- " —
RQD-0%
50 ' Biotite Gneiss:soft,tan gray,continuous, 2087—
�� poor quality,severe weathering,
1/�r RC 3 approximately 75 degree joints —
REC-92% —
RQD-12%
2082
55— ��, ' Biotite Gneiss:soft to hard,tan gray white, —
fairly continuous,poor quality,severe to
' RC-4 slight weathering
a- REC-86%
jRQD-28% 2077—
60— \Borehole terminated at 59.5 feet / —
65— 2072—
70— 2067-
-
75— 2062-
80— 2057-
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT)
DURING ADVANCE 4 &
END OF DRILLING St —
AFTER DRILLING = 08/03/2021 23.5 24 hours III
AFTER DRILLING
Vertical Accuracy:Land Survey,Horizontal Accuracy:Land Survey
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit,PL=Plastic Limit,NMC=Natural Moisture Content,PPV=Pocket Penetrometer(tsf),PTV=Pocket Torvane(tsf),HC=Hole Cave

Geotechnical Exploration Report
Asheville Regional Airport-ATCT&TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294
Rock Core Photo Log
Boring No.: ATCT-2 Date: 8/2/2021 Driller: S&ME,Inc. Equipment: CME-750
Core Size: NQ Start Depth:40.5 ft. End Depth: 59.5 ft. Total Run: 19.0 ft.
0 •,.;i'' 4 gip . . ..
•
z
-.y.-*. -.r's_r -
cc
lia 1-,`:-,, : ; • e
44
.. _
ATCT-2 Continued " i
f
1
( .fI,E
_..
September 2021 Page 2 of 2

PROJECT: AVL Air Traffic Control Tower BORING LOG:ATCT-3
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 Sheet 1 of 2
DATE DRILLED: 07/29/2021 ELEVATION: 2133.0 ft NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750 DATUM: NAVD88
DRILLER: S&ME, Inc. BORING DEPTH: 56.3 ft
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer CLOSURE: Cuttings and Mechanical Hole Plug
DRILLING METHOD: Mud rotary LOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch LATITUDE: 35.433227 LONGITUDE: -82.54346
SAMPLING METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM-NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
NOTES m c z
i .2 £ = SAMPLE NO. BLOW COUNT 0
i- v a 0%Fines
0 1 w o ; (RECOVERY) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (SPT DATA ) at
G — a" N-value NMC u,
G W H PL---LL u,
20 40 60 80
I I I I I I
0
TOPSOIL,1 inch / —
- LL FA SS-1SILTY SAND(SM),very dense,tan brown
N=100 9-49-50/5" • —
gray,fine to medium
PWR SILTY SAND(SM),very dense,gray, 20-24-50/5" —
I "I SS-2 fine,with rock pieces,moist N=100 •
5_ E E 2128=
t i9u 0 SS-3 50/5" • _
N=100 —
W SS-4 SILTY SAND(SM),dense to very dense,gray, 17 12-20 • —
fine,moist,rock pieces in SS-5 N=32 -
10— 2123—
13-27-25 —
SS-5 N=52 •
15— i " 2118—
— E SANDY SILT(ML),very hard,tan white gray, 18-26-37 —
1 SS-6 fine,micaceous N=63 •
20— 2113—
= a)
—
HC —
12-23-29" —
SS-7 N=52 •
25— 2108-
- SILTY SAND(SM),dense,tan brown gray, —
fine to coarse,some rock pieces —
. 13-17-19 —
SS-8 N=36 •
30— 2103-
- PWR SILTY SAND(SM),very dense,gray tan, -
-
Y 11 SS 9 fine to coarse 25-50/3" • —
E E N=100
35_ 2098_
`m o
v —
l7 _
SANDY
40— E SS 10 micaceous (ML),hard,tan brown,fine, 9-14-18 • 2093
�'
—
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT) —
DURING ADVANCE 4 giik &
END OF DRILLING St —
AFTER DRILLING = 07/30/2021 20.2 24 hours III _
IIIIIIIII mir
MI
AFTER DRILLING = 08/02/2021 15.0 84 hours
Vertical Accuracy:Land Survey,Horizontal Accuracy:Land Survey
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit,PL=Plastic Limit,NMC=Natural Moisture Content,PPV=Pocket Penetrometer(tsf),PTV=Pocket Torvane(tsf),HC=Hole Cave

PROJECT: AVL Air Traffic Control Tower BORING LOG:ATCT-3
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 Sheet 2 of 2
DATE DRILLED: 07/29/2021 ELEVATION: 2133.0 ft NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750 DATUM: NAVD88
DRILLER: S&ME, Inc. BORING DEPTH: 56.3 ft
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer CLOSURE: Cuttings and Mechanical Hole Plug
DRILLING METHOD: Mud rotary LOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch LATITUDE: 35.433227 LONGITUDE: -82.54346
SAMPLING METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM-NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
NOTES c z
F £ = SAMPLE NO. BLOW COUNT 0
v a A%Fines
W w o ; (RECOVERY) 0MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DATA )
• a" (SPT N-value NMC W
W H PL---LL
20 40 60 80
L I I I I I
2' _ SANDY SILT(ML),hard,tan brown,fine,
\micaceous / 11-22-50/1" _
5S-11 PWR SANDY SILT(ML),very hard,tan brown N=100 •
45= gray,fine to coarse,trace rock pieces 2088-
— m
— Y
— E —
SS-12 50/1" •
N=100
50— v 2083-
- Co —
-o -
- E
—
— ` `:� SS-13 PWR SILTY GRAVEL(GM),very dense, 50/0" • —
brown gray,fine to coarse,very moist N=100
55 2078
-Auger refusal \Borehole terminated at 56.3 feet
at 56.3 feet
60— 2073—
65— 2068—
70— r 2063—
75— 2058—
80— 2053—
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT)
DURING ADVANCE Q &
END OF DRILLING St
AFTER DRILLING = 07/30/2021 20.2 24 hours
IIIIIIIIIIIII�
AFTER DRILLING = 08/02/2021 15.0 84 hours
Vertical Accuracy:Land Survey,Horizontal Accuracy:Land Survey
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit,PL=Plastic Limit,NMC=Natural Moisture Content,PPV=Pocket Penetrometer(tsf),PTV=Pocket Torvane(tsf),HC=Hole Cave

PROJECT: AVL Air Traffic Control Tower BORING LOG:TRACON-1
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 Sheet 1 of 1
DATE DRILLED: 08/03/2021 ELEVATION: 2134.6 ft NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750 DATUM: NAVD88
DRILLER: S&ME, Inc. BORING DEPTH: 20.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer CLOSURE: Cuttings and Mechanical Hole Plug
DRILLING METHOD: 3-1/4" HSA LOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch LATITUDE: 35.433081 LONGITUDE: -82.54360
SAMPLING METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM-NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
NOTES C z
.2 £ = SAMPLE NO. BLOW COUNT 0
• v a A%Fines
• w o ; (RECOVERY) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DATA )
a" (SPT N-value 0 NMC W
G W H PL---LL
20 40 60 80
I I I I
0
\TOPSOIL,2 inches
\SILTY SAND(SM),red tan,fine / 5-8-8 •
SS-1 SILTY SAND(SM),medium dense to dense, N=16 —
white brown gray,fine 7-8-8
SS-2 N=16 • 2130—
5—
1 17 N=3 -
SS-3 N= 1 • —
_ 9-9-8
3 SS-4 N=17 • 2125—
10— �wv _
— v _
— SILTY SAND(SM),loose,tan yellow gray,fine —
3-4-6
SS-5 N=10 •
15— HC 2120=
3-3-5
55-6 N=8 • 2115-
20 Borehole terminated at 20.0 feet
25— 2110_
30— 2105-
35— 2100-
40— 2095—
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT)
DURING ADVANCE 4 08/03/2021 not encountered &
END OF DRILLING —Er
AFTER DRILLING = 08/03/2021 Hole caved at 15.4 ft at 8 hours III
AFTER DRILLING
Vertical Accuracy:Land Survey,Horizontal Accuracy:Land Survey
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit,PL=Plastic Limit,NMC=Natural Moisture Content,PPV=Pocket Penetrometer(tsf),PTV=Pocket Torvane(tsf),HC=Hole Cave

PROJECT: AVL Air Traffic Control Tower BORING LOG:TRACON-2
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 Sheet 1 of 1
DATE DRILLED: 08/03/2021 ELEVATION: 2130.2 ft NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750 DATUM: NAVD88
DRILLER: S&ME, Inc. BORING DEPTH: 20.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer CLOSURE: Cuttings and Mechanical Hole Plug
DRILLING METHOD: 3-1/4" HSA LOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch LATITUDE: 35.432940 LONGITUDE: -82.54336
SAMPLING METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM-NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
NOTES C z
.2 £ = SAMPLE NO. BLOW COUNT 0
v a A%Fines
w o ; (RECOVERY) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DATA
• a" (SPT N-value) 0 NMC W
a, LaH PL---LL
20 40 60 80
I I I
0
\TOPSOIL,2 inches
SS-1 SANDY SILT(ML),stiff,red tan,fine 4-4-5 •
N=9 SANDY SILT(ML),very stiff,gray tan yellow, 5-8-9
ISS-2 fine N=17 • 2126-
5— —
SS-3 SANDY SILT(ML),very stiff,red tan,fine 5-9-8
•
N=17
SILTY SAND(SM),medium dense,brown tan 7-12-12
I SS-4 gray,fine to medium N=24 • 2121—
10— 'o -
cc
7-12-10
SS-5 N=22 • 2116_
15—
HC
— SZ
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL(SM),very dense, _
— brown gray tan,wet 16-31-42
// SS-6 N=73 • — 2111=
20 \Borehole terminated at 20.0 feet
2106-
25— -
2101—
30— -
2096—
35— -
2091—
40— -
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT)
DURING ADVANCE Q 08/03/2021 17.0
END OF DRILLING —Er
AFTER DRILLING = 08/04/2021 Hole caved at 16 ft at 8 hours III
AFTER DRILLING
Vertical Accuracy:Land Survey,Horizontal Accuracy:Land Survey
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit,PL=Plastic Limit,NMC=Natural Moisture Content,PPV=Pocket Penetrometer(tsf),PTV=Pocket Torvane(tsf),HC=Hole Cave

PROJECT: AVL Air Traffic Control Tower BORING LOG:TRACON-3
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 204294 Sheet 1 of 1
DATE DRILLED: 08/03/2021 ELEVATION: 2130.1 ft NOTES:
DRILL RIG: CME 750 DATUM: NAVD88
DRILLER: S&ME, Inc. BORING DEPTH: 20.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer CLOSURE: Cuttings and Mechanical Hole Plug
DRILLING METHOD: 3-1/4" HSA LOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch LATITUDE: 35.432825 LONGITUDE: -82.54311
SAMPLING METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM-NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
NOTES C z
.2 £ = SAMPLE NO. BLOW COUNT 0
v a A%Fines
w o ; (RECOVERY) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DATA )
• a" (SPT N-value 0 NMC W
W w H PL---LL
20 40 60 80
I I I I
0
\TOPSOIL,2 inches /I —
SS-1 SILTY SAND(SM),medium dense,red 4-5-9 •
brown,fine,some crushed stone pieces N=14 —
SILTY SAND(SM),loose,tan yellow gray,fine 4-3-3 -
ISS-2 to coarse N=6 2126—
5— —
SS-3 SILTY SAND(SM),medium dense,tan 4-9-12 •
yellow,fine N=21
4-9
12
N=21
SS-4 N=21 • 2121—
10— —
— SILTY SAND(SM),very dense to dense,tan —
gray yellow,fine to coarse,rock pieces in 24-24-36 2116—" SS-5 sample SS-6 N=60 •
15— HC —
FA
18-26-24
// SS-6 N=50 • 2111—
20 \Borehole terminated at 20.0 feet /
2106-
25— —
2101—
30— —
2096—
35— —
2091—
40—
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT)
DURING ADVANCE 4 08/03/2021 not encountered &
END OF DRILLING —Er
AFTER DRILLING = 08/03/2021 Hole Caved at 15.5 ft at 8 hours III
AFTER DRILLING
Vertical Accuracy:Land Survey,Horizontal Accuracy:Land Survey
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit,PL=Plastic Limit,NMC=Natural Moisture Content,PPV=Pocket Penetrometer(tsf),PTV=Pocket Torvane(tsf),HC=Hole Cave

41 ,
I I dillI
Field Testing Procedures
Soil Test Borings
All borings and sampling were conducted in accordance with ASTM D-1586 test method. Initially, the borings
were advanced by either mechanically augering or wash boring through the overburden soils. When necessary,
a heavy drilling fluid is used below the water table to stabilize the sides and bottom of the borehole. At regular
intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D., split-barrel or split-spoon
sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and then driven an additional
foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the
sampler the final foot is designated as the "Standard Penetration Resistance" or N-value. The penetration
resistance, when properly evaluated, can be correlated to consistency, relative density, strength and
compressibility of the sampled soils.
Water Level Readings
Water level readings are normally taken in conjunction with borings and are recorded on the Boring Logs
following termtion of drilling (designated by1—
ir - ) and at a period of 24 hours following termination of drilling
(designated by - ).These readings indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water table at the time of
our field exploration. The groundwater table may be dependent upon the amount of precipitation at the site
during a particular period of time. Fluctuations in the water table should also be expected with variations in
surface run-off, evaporation, construction activity and other factors.
Occasionally the boreholes sides will cave, preventing the water level readings from being obtained or trapping
drilling water above the cave-in zone. In these instances, the hole cave-in depth (designated by HC) is measured
and recorded on the Boring Logs.Water level readings taken during the field operations do not provide
information on the long-term fluctuations of the water table.When this information is required, piezometers are
installed to prevent the boreholes from caving.
Rock Coring
Diamond-bit core drilling procedures were used to determine the character and continuity of the refusal materials.
The core drilling procedures were carried out in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-2113. Initially,
casing was set through the overburden soils to prevent the borehole from collapsing. Rock core samples of the
materials penetrated were protected and retained in a swivel-mounted inner tube of the cored barrel. Upon
completion of the drill run, the core barrel was brought to the surface and samples removed and placed in
standard boxes. The samples were returned to the laboratory for classification by a Geologist and/or Geotechnical
Engineer. During the classification, the "recovery" and "Rock Quality Designation" of the recovered cores were
determined.
The "recovery" is the ratio of the sample length obtained to the length drilled, expressed as a percent.The "Rock
Quality Designation" (RQD) is the percent of the recovered rock samples in lengths of four or more inches,
compared to the total length of the core run. The percent recovery and RQD are related to rock soundness and
continuity. Generalized rock descriptions, percent recovery, and RQD values are shown on the appropriate Soil
Boring Records.

Appendix III — Generalized Subsurface Profiles

z 0
a a
o 3
2135 _ Approximate Existing 2135
Deposition Ground Surface
Environment 2134 2134
Legend 2133 2133
16 N to
2132 - c a y 2132
Alluvium: n @ \ 0 CC
,
I I 21311-16
Z W < g v 2131
F Z CC F W
Fill: 2130 -- a 2130
C011uvium: I. 2129 2129
9 ri
2126 31 _ _ 14 2128
Residuum: ■ 2127 - ®___ 2127
PWR: n 2126 - X 17 - 6 2126
I Iv
■ 2125 - / 2125
Rock:
2124 2124
2123 X17 Residuum 21 2123
2122 - 2122
Residuum
2121 1X-
-24 E
21 2121
2120 10 2120
2119 2119
218 Approximate 218
2117 Water Level 2117
2116 X
-22- 60 2116
llI
E
X
2115 ` $ 2115
2114 2114
Legend 2113 2113
Key 2112 2112
Topsoil 2111 X
93 r50
21112110 2110
SM
2109 2109
ML 2108 - 2108
2107 - 2107
2105.002106 - 2106
4 DURING SCALE: Not to scale FIGURE NO
The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only and is not warranted.Separations between ADVANCE TRACON Section
different strata may be gradual and likely vary considerably from those shown.Profiles between nearby END OF = aSr DATE: Sep 10 2021
borings have been estimated using reasonable engineering care and judgement.The actual subsurface DRILLING III =_ AVL Air Traffic Control Tower 4
conditions will vary between boring locations. i AFTER DRILLING Fletcher, North Carolina NUMBER 204294

N 3 z Approximate Existing
F Ground Surface a c
W S' M � a
2137 Q Z--� \I n}-� 7--OC 2137
Deposition 21352136
F Q Z S Q �_ w 22135
Environment 2133I , Z r` 2134
2133
Legend 2121321 -ab Fill ►S.. 213i
2130 i 28 35---- Residuum --- g��� 213099
2128 —
—
Alluvium: 7 2127 — 27 Z-4a s" = 2127
2126 Residuum 2126
2125 g3£ --- L 50/ 2125
2124 ---- -- ---. .
Fill: 2123 __ ___ 5" 4
2122 — Approximate II`-36 ---- 2123
PWR __32 2122
n 2121 Water Level Aso/ 2120
Colluvium: I I IS
2118 — C.-55 L' 52 2118
2116 .I --� 2117
►�31
Residuum: 2114 �-63 2114
2112 — Z-St; 2112
PWR: 2110 4" ►47 , 2110
2109 Residuum g 52 2108
2107 — gso/ 2107
Rock: 2106 4 2106
2105 r 19- 2105
2104 -- -36 I 2104
2103 550/ 2103
2102 2102
— -2101 - ---Y' 2101
_
2100 �PW R I G:43 �Sof 200909
2099 •
2098 sr50/
•
---- 2098
2097
2096 - - 4" : 3 2096
�� \ K{sOf 2095
20954 ` r 32 2094
2094
2093 =tF- -='Rock 1„ 2093
2092
2091 -� 2091
2089 ---J.ZI.0 ��. 4174 1137---
Residuum g5of 2080
RC=2
20889
--- 1" 2087
2086 _ _50F - ___ 2085
2086
2085 —
208a ... , '' s" PWR =_ —5II7 2084
Legend 2083 RC=3 Residuum -_ _ i" 2062
2081 2081
Key2080 — 6128 11 2080
2079
2078 - -J� - -RC=4------------------- - .---0" 2078
" Topsoil iws AR so! qA 2076
2075 — Rock 56.3 2074
2074
— 4t13
.; 2073 ---- 2073
1 SW-SM 207z ft 2071
2072
2071
2070 100z91
2069 — --RC--I Rock 2069
SM 2067 AI safes 2067�I2066 2066
2065 ---RG-2- 2065
ML 064
2063 — r,i ii 2063
2062 I --- 6 2062
2060 ii I `•3 2060
:- o Gneiss 2059 — AR 2059
r - 2058 2058
� .
2057 2057
2056 62A 1 2056
•.:'"; ft GM 2055 2055
? 2054 — 2054
-'4-. 2053 — 2053
2052 2052
2051 2051
2000 2050 2050
2049 2049
DURING FIGURE NO
The depicted stratigraphy is shown for illustrative purposes only and is not warranted.Separations between 4 ADVANCE ATCT Section SCALE: Not to scale
.11 ICI
different strata may be gradual and likely vary considerably from those shown.Profiles between nearby END OF
Sr DATE: Sep 22 2021
borings have been estimated using reasonable engineering care and judgement.The actual subsurface DRILLING III __ AVL Air Traffic Control Tower 3
conditions will vary between boring locations. = AFTER DRILLING Fletcher, North Carolina PROJECT: 204294

Appendix IV - Lab Testing Results

illP
4 &
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA
III illlir
p- Asheville Regional Airport-Proposed ATCT&TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project No.204294
Finer Atterberg Limits Modified Proctor Test Shear Strength CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO(CBR)TEST Corrisivity
Natural Results RESULTS(corrected)
Sample Than
Sample USCS Moisture
Boring Depth #200 Maximum Dry Optimum Effective Effective CBR Value
Type Classification Content Average Test Compaction Compaction Resistivity
(feet) Sieve LL PL PI
(%) Density Moisture Cohesion Friction Angle Swell(%) pH
(%) (pcf) Content(%) (psf) (degrees) Density(pcf) Method Moisture(%) 0.1" 0.2" (%) (a-cm)
I
ATCT-1 1-5 BK SM 27.6 27 26 1 9.6 119.6 12.4 - - - - 12.4 0.6 18.4 24.7 99.5 - -
1-5 BK SM - - - - 8.3 117.9 13.0 - - - - 13.0 0.9 9.6 12.9 99.6 5.7 113,000
ATCT-2 -
3-4.5 UD SW-SM 9.1 NP NP NP - - - 1,770 37.1 109.7 DS - - - - - - -
I 1-5 BK SM 27.5 - - - 5.5 125.9 10.4 - - - - 10.3 0.5 34.5 46.3 99.9 6.2 28,000
ATCT-3
38.5-40 SS SM - NP NP NP 17.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
TRACON-1 1-5 BK SM - - - - 15.5 121.4 12.5 - - - - 12.5 0.7 46.6 61.1 99.7 6.0 108,000
1-5 BK SM - - - - 16.1 121.1 12.7 - - - - 12.4 2.6 15.3 18.3 99.3 - -
TRACON-2
1-2.5 SS SM 38.6 34 28 6 17.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRACON-3 1-5 BK SM - - - - 14.1 124.6 11.1 - - - - 11.0 3.7 8.7 11.9 100.1 6.2 15,000
SS- Split Spoon LL- Liquid Limit PI- Plasticity Index DS- Direct Shear
UD- Undisturbed(Shelby TL PL- Plastic Limit NP- Non-plastic TX U- Triaxial,Undrained
BK- Bulk

Form No:TR-D2216-T265-2 LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF = &
Revision No. 1 WATER CONTENT
Revision Date:08/16/17 I ' I -iir
ASTM D 2276 H AASHTO T 265 ❑
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s): 8/19 - 8/20/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Sampled by: S&ME, Inc. Sample Date(s): 7/29 - 8/3/21
Sampling Method: Bulk&Split-spoon
Balance ID. 7536 Calibration Date: 1/29/21
Method: A (0%o) ❑ B (o.1%)
Oven ID. 7621 Calibration Date: 7/31/21
Sample Sample Tare Wt.+ Tare Wt. + Water Percent
Boring No. Tare# Tare Weight
No. Depth Wet Wt Dry Wt Weight Moisture
ft. grams grams grams grams %
ATCT-1 Bulk 1 - 5' 302 0.00 396.38 361.76 34.62 9.6%
ATCT-2 Bulk 1 - 5' 333 0.00 402.39 371.45 30.94 8.3%
ATCT-3 Bulk 1 - 5' 338 0.00 193.81 183.67 10.14 5.5%
TRACON-1 Bulk 1 - 5' 354 0.00 418.01 361.88 56.13 15.5%
TRACON-2 Bulk 1 - 5' 389 0.00 414.94 357.26 57.68 16.1%
TRACON-3 Bulk 1 - 5' 394 0.00 407.95 357.51 50.44 14.1%
TRACON-2 SS-1 1 - 2.5' 82 0.00 148.55 126.41 22.14 17.5%
ATCT-3 SS-10 38.5 -40' 395 0.00 85.39 72.54 12.85 17.7%
Notes/Deviations/References
ASTM D 2216:Laboratory Determination of Water(Moisture)Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
Matt Jacobs NICET Lab Level III / 118202 9/7/21
Technician Name Certification Type/No. Date
i-si-t--Volv-/L--
Brian Vaughan, P.E. .Z5> Group Leader 9/7/21
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 Moisture Contents(ATCT&TRACON)
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-126-pH/R-1
Revision No. 1 Aimmir
Revision Date: 09/26/17 I I
pH / Resistivity
ASTM 4972/ASTM G 57
Project #: 204294
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT & TRACON
Report Date: 9/10/21
BORING RESISTIVITY
NUMBER DEPTH pH (C]-cm)
ATCT-2 1 - 5' 5.7 113,000
ATCT-3 1 - 5' 6.2 28,000
TRACON-1 1 - 5' 6.0 108,000
TRACON-3 1 - 5' 6.2 15,000
Matt Jacobs NICET Lab Level III / 118202 9/10/21
Technician Name Certification Type/No. Date
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader Z5A --Y
Technical Responsibility Position Signature

Form No.TR-D698-2 MOISTURE - DENSITY REPORT = &
Revision No.: 1
Revision Date:07/25/17 I I
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT &TRACON Test Date: 8/19/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-1 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 7/30/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown olive, medium to fine, micaceous
Maximum Dry Density 119.6 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 12.4%
ASTM D 1557 - - Method C
Soil Properties
Moisture-Density Relations of Soil and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures 1 Natural
125.0 — Moisture 9.6%
\ Content
\ Specific
\ 100%Saturation 2.650
\ Gravity of Soil
\ Curve Liquid Limit 27
120.0 \ I Plastic Limit 26
\ Plastic Index 1
\ % Passing
a \\ 3/4" 100.0%
115.0 - \ 3/8" 99.0%
v, \ #4 96.6%
o \\ #10 91.9%
#40 72.2%
Q` \ #60 57.2%
#100 42.7%
110.0 - 2.65 #200 27.6%
\
\ Oversize Fraction
\
\ Bulk Gravity
105.0 i i i \ d %Moisture
2.0 7.0 12.0 17.0 22.0 % Oversize
Moisture Content (%) I MDD
Opt. MC _
Moisture-Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction ❑x Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) 0
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve 0 3/4 inch Sieve ❑x
Mechanical Rammer 0 Manual Rammer ❑x Moist Preparation 0 Dry Preparation ❑x
References/Comments/Deviations:
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 ATCT-1 (1-5')Mod.Proctor
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No:TR-D422-WH-1Ga SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SOILS &
Revision No. 1
Revision Date:8/10/17 I
ASTM D 422
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s): 8/19 - 8/23/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-1 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 7/30/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown olive, medium to fine, micaceous
1.5" 1"3/4"1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100% • • • ♦ • • ♦ f • •
90% •
80%
0
70%
c
60%
cC
c 50%
ai
V
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0% • — .• • • •
100.00 10.00 Millimeters I 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
Maximum Particle Size 12.50 mm Coarse Sand 4.7% Fine Sand 44.6%
Gravel 3.4% Medium Sand 19.7% Silt&Clay 27.6%
Liquid Limit 27 Plastic Limit 26 Plastic Index 1
Specific Gravity 2.650 Moisture Content 9.6%
Coarse Sand 4.7% Medium Sand 19.7% Fine Sand 44.6%
Description of Sand &Gravel Particles: Rounded ❑ Angular ❑x
Hard & Durable ❑x Soft ❑ Weathered & Friable 0
Notes/Deviations/References:
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 ATCT-1 (1-5)Grain
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D4318-T89-90 LIQUID LIMIT,PLASTIC LIMIT, '
Revision No. 1 & PLASTIC INDEX �
Revision Date:7/26/17 I I
ASTM D 4318 ❑x AASHTO T 89 ❑ AASHTO T 90 ❑
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date: 9/3/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-1 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 7/30/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown olive, medium to fine, micaceous
Type and Specification S&ME ID# Cal Date: Type and Specification S&ME ID# Cal Date:
Balance (0.01 g) 7537 1/29/2021 Grooving tool 14185 9/28/2020
LL Apparatus 13859 9/28/2020
Oven 7313 7/30/2021
Pan# Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Tare#: P-1 P-2 P-3 1 2
A Tare Weight 16.32 ' 15.21 ' 16.52 12.11 12.16
B Wet Soil Weight + A 40.36 39.98 39.31 19.47 19.22
C Dry Soil Weight +A 35.40 ' 34.74 34.34 17.94 17.75
D Water Weight(B-C) 4.96 5.24 4.97 1.53 1.47
E Dry Soil Weight(C-A) 19.08 19.53 17.82 5.83 5.59
F %Moisture(D/E)*100 26.0% 26.8% 27.9% 26.2% 26.3%
N #OF DROPS 32 22 15 Moisture Contents determined by
LL LL = F* FACTOR ASTM D 2216
Ave. Average 26.3%
c 37.0 - One Point Liquid Limit
N Factor N Factor
20 0.974 I 26 1.005
• 21 0.979 27 1.009
'' 32.0
22 0.985 28 1.014
0 23 0.99 29 1.018
•
27.0 • 24 0.995 30 1.022
1•
25 1 1.000 1
NP, Non Plastic ❑
•
22.0 Liquid Limit 27
Plastic Limit 26
•
I Plastic Index 1
17.0 __me- I I I I I Group Symbol SM
l0 15 20 25 30 35 40 #of Drops I 100 Multipoint Method ❑
One-point Method ❑
Wet Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation ❑ Air Dried ❑ %Passing the#200 Sieve: 27.6%
Notes/Deviations/References:
ASTM D 4318:Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit,&Plastic Index of Soils
Matt Jacobs 9/7/21 Brian Vaughan, P.E. 9/7/21
Technician Name Date Technical Responsibility 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 ATCT-1 (1-5)PI
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D1883-T193-3 CBR (CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO) ,i .
&
Revision No.2 OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOIL
Revision Date:08/11/17 I I _
gini
ASTM D 1883
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s): 8/23 - 8/27/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-1 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 7/30/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown olive, medium to fine, micaceous
ASTM D 1557 Method C Maximum Dry Density: 119.6 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 12.4%
Compaction Test performed on grading complying with CBR spec. %Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0%
Uncorrected CBR Values Corrected CBR Values
CBR at 0.1 in. 12.7 CBR at 0.2 in. 20.8 CBR at 0.1 in. 18.4 CBR at 0.2 in. 24.7
700.0 -
600.0 -
500.0 - -
Corrected Value at.2"II
a
.. 400.0 -
Ln
a
Y
'n 300.0
Corrected Value at.1"II
200.0 -
100.0 -
0.0 ♦ i• • • • • • ♦ • ♦ • • •
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Strain(inches)I
CBR Sample Preparation:
The entire gradation was used and compacted in a 6"CBR mold in accordance with ASTM D 1883,Section 6.1.1
Before Soaking
Compactive Effort(Blows per Layer) 56 After Soaking
Initial Dry Density(PCF) 119.0 Final Dry Density(PCF) 118.3
Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen 12.4% Moisture Content(top 1"after soaking) 15.5%
Percent Compaction 99.5% Percent Swell 0.6%
Soak Time: 96 hrs. Surcharge Weight 10.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 51.0
Liquid Limit 27 Plastic Index 1 Apparent Relative Density 2.650
Notes/Deviations/References: Liquid Limit:ASTM D 4318, Classification:ASTM D 2487
Brian Vaughan, P.E. � V.04/1-"--- Group Leader 9/7/21
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 ATCT-1 (1-5)CBR
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D698-2 MOISTURE - DENSITY REPORT = &
Revision No.: 1
Revision Date:07/25/17 I I
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT &TRACON Test Date: 8/19/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-2 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/3/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown olive, micaceous
Maximum Dry Density 117.9 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 13.0%
ASTM D 1557 - - Method C
Soil Properties
Moisture-Density Relations of Soil and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures 1 Natural
123.0 — Moisture 8.3%
\ Content
\ Specific
\ 100%Saturation Gravity of Soil 2.650
\ Curve Liquid Limit -
118.0 . \ Plastic Limit -
\ Plastic Index -
\ % Passing
a \ 3/4" 100.0%
\ 3/8" -
113.0 - \ #4
a -
0i \ #10 -
_ _ \ #40 -
p \\ #60 -
108.0 - 2.65 #700 -
\ #200 -
\ Oversize Fraction
\ Bulk Gravity
103.0 i i %Moisture
3.0 8.0 13.0 18.0 23.0 % Oversize
Moisture Content (%) I MDD
Opt. MC _
Moisture-Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction ❑x Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) 0
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve 0 3/4 inch Sieve ❑x
Mechanical Rammer 0 Manual Rammer ❑x Moist Preparation 0 Dry Preparation ❑x
References/Comments/Deviations:
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 ATCT-2(1-5')Mod.Proctor
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D1883-T193-3 CBR (CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO) &
Revision No.2 OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOIL _
Revision Date:08/11/17 I I I
111.
ASTM D 1883
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s): 8/23 - 8/27/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-2 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/3/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown olive, micaceous
ASTM D 1557 Method C Maximum Dry Density: 117.9 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 13.0%
Compaction Test performed on grading complying with CBR spec. %Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0%
Uncorrected CBR Values Corrected CBR Values
CBR at 0.1 in. 6.7 CBR at 0.2 in. 11.0 CBR at 0.1 in. 9.6 CBR at 0.2 in. 12.9
400.0
350.0 _
300.0 -
250.0 -
a Corrected Value at.2"I
N 200.0
V7
150.0
Corrected Value at.1"I
100.0
50.0 -
0.0 ♦0 • • • • • ♦ • • • • •
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Strain(inches)I
CBR Sample Preparation:
The entire gradation was used and compacted in a 6"CBR mold in accordance with ASTM D 1883,Section 6.1.1
Before Soaking
Compactive Effort(Blows per Layer) 56 After Soaking
Initial Dry Density(PCF) 117.4 Final Dry Density(PCF) 116.4
Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen 13.0% Moisture Content(top 1"after soaking) 16.9%
Percent Compaction 99.6% Percent Swell 0.9%
Soak Time: 96 hrs. Surcharge Weight 10.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 51.0
Liquid Limit N/A Plastic Index N/A Apparent Relative Density 2.650
Notes/Deviations/References:
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 ATCT-2(1-5)CBR
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No:TR-D422-WH-1Ga SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SOILS &
Revision No. 1
Revision Date:8/10/17 I
ASTM D 422
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s): 9/1 - 9/3/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-2 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/2/21
Location: UD Type: UD Depth: 3 -4.5'
Sample Description: WELL-GRADED SAND WITH SILT(SW-SM) - gray brown,fine to medium with coarse, micaceous
1.5" 1"3/4"1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100% • • • • • • • • • •— • •
90% •
80%
0
70% •
c
60%
cC
c 50%
ai
V
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0% ♦ is • .• • • •�
100.00 10.00 Millimeters I 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
Maximum Particle Size 9.50 mm Coarse Sand 15.4% Fine Sand 27.2%
Gravel 7.2% Medium Sand 41.2% Silt&Clay 9.1%
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit NP Plastic Index NP
Specific Gravity 2.650 Cc = 1.2 Cu = 13.4 Moisture Content N/A
Coarse Sand 15.4% Medium Sand 41.2% Fine Sand 27.2%
Description of Sand &Gravel Particles: Rounded ❑ Angular ❑x
Hard & Durable ❑x Soft ❑ Weathered & Friable E
Notes/Deviations/References:
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 ATCT-2(3-4.52 Grain
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D4318-T89-90 LIQUID LIMIT,PLASTIC LIMIT, '
Revision No. 1 & PLASTIC INDEX �
Revision Date:7/26/17 I I
ASTM D 4318 ❑x AASHTO T 89 ❑ AASHTO T 90 ❑
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date: 9/2/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-2 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/2/21
Location: UD Type: UD Depth: 3 -4.5'
Sample Description: WELL-GRADED SAND WITH SILT(SW-SM) - gray brown,fine to medium with coarse, micaceous
Type and Specification S&ME ID# Cal Date: Type and Specification S&ME ID# Cal Date:
Balance (0.01 g) 7537 1/29/2021 Grooving tool 14185 9/28/2020
LL Apparatus 13859 9/28/2020
Oven 7313 7/30/2021
Pan# Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Tare#:
A Tare Weight
B Wet Soil Weight + A
C Dry Soil Weight +A
D Water Weight(B-C)
E Dry Soil Weight(C-A)
F %Moisture(D/E)*100
N #OF DROPS Moisture Contents determined by
LL LL = F* FACTOR ASTM D 2216
Ave. Average
One Point Liquid Limit
N Factor N Factor
20 0.974 26 1.005
21 0.979 27 1.009
'' 35.0
22 0.985 28 1.014
0 23 0.99 29 1.018
•
30.0
• r 24 0.995 30 1.022
. 25 1.000
NP, Non-Plastic ❑x
•
25.0 Liquid Limit ---
Plastic Limit NP
•
I 1 I Plastic Index NP
20.0 �_ I I I I I Group Symbol SW-SM
l0 15 20 25 30 35 40 #of Drops I 100 Multipoint Method ❑
One-point Method ❑
Wet Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation ❑ Air Dried ❑ %Passing the#200 Sieve: 9.1%
Notes/Deviations/References:
ASTM D 4318:Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit,&Plastic Index of Soils
Matt Jacobs 9/7/21 Brian Vaughan, P.E. 9/7/21
Technician Name Date Technical Responsibility 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 ATCT-2(3-4.5)PI
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

S&ME,Inc.
11 alb._Direct Shear Test(ASTM D 3080)
1
N 42.7 _Peak: Phi=37.1 C= 12.3 psi
39.1
35.6 = •
32.0
v 28.5 :
tl " 24.9 _
Ca
21.3
i 17.8 = • Peak(s)
eti 14.2
cu
• 4 10.7 `
O., ci' 7.1
3.6 ` tPeak Tangent
0.0 -
o a 0, 00 N N so 0n vi en
O N vi 06 4 r O vi ,0 01
--, N N N N
g
p? Normal Load(psi)
Ca
0.0948 - Specimen
Initial A B C -
0 Moisture(°/a) 5.55 4.52 4.44
0
✓ ° 0.0616 Density(pcf) 119.42 100.25 109.55
4 Void Ratio 0.385 0.650 0.510
Saturation(%) 38.15 18.42 23.06
CZ 0.0284 Diameter(in) 2.500 2.500 2.500
Height(in) 1.000 1.000 1.000
-0.0049
-0.012 5.018 10.047 15.077
Final A B C
-° _--
Moisture(%) 15.53 21.79 19.41
Density(pcf) 120.65 101.90 110.27
33.9 Void Ratio 0.371 0.623 0.500 _
Saturation(%) 100.00 96.15 100.00 _
Diameter(in) 2.500 2.500 2.500
3 22.6 Height(in) 0.996 0.986 0.972
;, Normal Stress(psi) 6.9 13.9 27.8
1. -
1 Peak Stress(psi) 33.9 24.0 33.9
L -
R
v) 11.2 Strain(%) 8.009 15.077 15.077
Rate(in/min) 0.00529 0.00549 0.00564
0.1
0.000 0.126 0.251 0.377
N Project Date
a, Horizontal Deformation(in) Date 9/2/21
0
Q Project: Asheville Regional Airport-Proposed ATCT&TRACON
...............................
Location: UD
Project Number: 204294
Boring Number ATCT-2
Sample Number: 147
p Depth: 3-4.5'
cl Sample Type: Undisturbed
y
Description: WELL-GRADED SAND WITH SILT(SW-SM)-gray brown,fine to medium with coarse,micaceous
'clTest Type: Direct Shear
Remarks: 9.1%passing#200,Non-plastic, 1st point was extemely hard
b
F-, 0q
ATCT-2 UD (3-4.5 ft.) Direct Shear.HSD

Form No.TR-D698-2 MOISTURE - DENSITY REPORT = &
Revision No.: 1
Revision Date:07/25/17 I I
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT &TRACON Test Date: 8/20/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-3 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 7/29/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - light gray brown, medium to fine with little gravel
Maximum Dry Density 125.9 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 10.4%
ASTM D 1557 - - Method C
Soil Properties
Moisture-Density Relations of Soil and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures 1 Natural
131.0 — Moisture 5.5%
\ Content
\ Specific
\ 100%Saturation ' Gravity of Soil 2.650
\ Curve Liquid Limit
126.0 -- —771'\ Plastic Limit -
Plastic Index% Passing
a \ 3/4" 99.0%
3/8" 92.3%
121.0 - \ #4 87.7%
0 \ #10 82.0%
\ #40 66.9%
` \
Q \ #60 55.5%
116.0 -
\ #100 42.1%
\ #200 27.5%
\
\ Oversize Fraction
\
\ I Bulk Gravity
111.0 i i \ + %Moisture
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 % Oversize
Moisture Content (%) I MDD
Opt. MC _
Moisture-Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction ❑x Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) 0
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve 0 3/4 inch Sieve ❑x
Mechanical Rammer 0 Manual Rammer ❑x Moist Preparation 0 Dry Preparation ❑x
References/Comments/Deviations:
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 ATCT-3 (1-5)Mod.Proctor
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No:TR-D422-WH-1Ga SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SOILS &
Revision No. 1
Revision Date:8/10/17 I
lik
ASTM D 422
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s): 8/19 - 8/23/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-3 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 7/29/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - light gray brown, medium to fine with little gravel
1.5" 1"3/4"1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 \
100% • • • • ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ • •
90% •-
80%
0
70%
an
c
.ill 60%
ca
a
c 50%
ai
V
L
a 40%
I
\so
30%
20%
10%
0% 1- 4— • — .• • • •
100.00 10.00 Millimeters I 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
Maximum Particle Size 19.00 mm Coarse Sand 5.7% Fine Sand 39.4%
Gravel 12.3% Medium Sand 15.1% Silt&Clay 27.5%
Liquid Limit - Plastic Limit - Plastic Index -
Specific Gravity 2.650 Moisture Content 5.5%
Coarse Sand 5.7% Medium Sand 15.1% Fine Sand 39.4%
Description of Sand &Gravel Particles: Rounded ❑ Angular ❑x
Hard & Durable ❑x Soft ❑ Weathered & Friable 0
Notes/Deviations/References:
�� �Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 ATCT-3(1-5)Grain
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D1883-T193-3 CBR (CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO) ....,
Revision No.2 OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOIL
Revision Date:08/11/17 I I
ASTM D 1883
S&ME, Inc. - Greenville 48 Brookfield Oaks Dr., Suite F Greenville, SC 29607
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s) 8/26 - 8/30/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-3 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 7/29/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - light gray brown, medium to fine with little gravel
ASTM D 1557 Method C Maximum Dry Density: 125.9 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 10.4%
Compaction Test performed on grading complying with CBR spec. %Retained on the 3/4"sieve: 1.0%
Uncorrected CBR Values Corrected CBR Values
CBR at 0.1 in. 17.8 CBR at 0.2 in. 34.6 CBR at 0.1 in. 34.5 CBR at 0.2 in. 46.3
/
1400.0
1200.0 -
1000.0 -
'7 800.0 - [Corrected Value at.2"I
o.
o
600.0 -
N
[Corrected Value at.1"I
400.0
200.0 1
i
0.0 ro • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ ♦
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Strain(inches)I
CBR Sample Preparation:
The replacement method was used and compacted in a 6"CBR mold in accordance with ASTM D1883,Section 6.1.1
Before Soaking
Compactive Effort(Blows per Layer) 56 After Soaking
Initial Dry Density(PCF) 125.8 Final Dry Density(PCF) 125.2
Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen 10.3% Moisture Content(top 1"after soaking) 12.0%
Percent Compaction 99.9% Percent Swell 0.5%
Soak Time: 96 hrs. Surcharge Weight 10.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 50.9
Liquid Limit N/A Plastic Index N/A Apparent Relative Density 2.650
Notes/Deviations/References:
Brian Vaughan, P.E. ��� Group Leader 9/7/21
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 ATCT-3(1-5)CBR
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D4318-T89-90 LIQUID LIMIT,PLASTIC LIMIT, '
Revision No. 1 & PLASTIC INDEX �
Revision Date:7/26/17 I I
ASTM D 4318 ❑x AASHTO T 89 ❑ AASHTO T 90 ❑
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date: 9/3/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: ATCT-3 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 7/29/21
Location: SS-10 Type: Split-spoon Depth: 38.5 -40'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown olive, micaceous
Type and Specification S&ME ID# Cal Date: Type and Specification S&ME ID# Cal Date:
Balance (0.01 g) 7537 1/29/2021 Grooving tool 14185 9/28/2020
LL Apparatus 13859 9/28/2020
Oven 7313 7/30/2021
Pan# Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Tare#:
A Tare Weight
B Wet Soil Weight + A
C Dry Soil Weight +A
D Water Weight(B-C)
E Dry Soil Weight(C-A)
F %Moisture(D/E)*100
N #OF DROPS Moisture Contents determined by
LL LL = F* FACTOR ASTM D 2216
Ave. Average
One Point Liquid Limit
N Factor N Factor
20 0.974 26 1.005
• 21 0.979 27 1.009
35.0
•
22 0.985 28 1.014
0 23 0.99 29 1.018
•
30.0
• r 24 0.995 30 1.022
. 25 1.000
NP, Non-Plastic ❑x
•
25.0 Liquid Limit ---
Plastic Limit NP
•
I 1 I Plastic Index NP
20.o I �� I I I I I Group Symbol SM
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 #of Drops I 100 Multipoint Method ❑
One-point Method ❑
Wet Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation ❑ Air Dried ❑ %Passing the#200 Sieve: N/A
Notes/Deviations/References:
ASTM D 4318:Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit,&Plastic Index of Soils
Matt Jacobs 9/7/21 Brian Vaughan, P.E. 9/7/21
Technician Name Date Technical Responsibility 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 ATCT-3(38.5-40)PI
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D698-2 MOISTURE - DENSITY REPORT = &
Revision No.: 1
Revision Date:07/25/17 I I
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT &TRACON Test Date: 8/20/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: TRACON-1 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/3/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown gray
Maximum Dry Density 121.4 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 12.5%
ASTM D 1557 - - Method C
Soil Properties
Moisture-Density Relations of Soil and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures 1 Natural
126.0 — Moisture 15.5%
\ Content
\ Specific
\ 100%Saturation ' 2.700
\ Gravity of Soil
Curve Liquid Limit -
121.0 \ Plastic Limit -
/740
\ Plastic Index -
\ % Passing
v \ 3/4" 100.0%
a \ 3/8" -
N 116.0 \\ #4
o \\ I
#70
L \ #40
Q \ #60
111.0 - 2,70 #700 -
\ #200 -
\ Oversize Fraction
\ Bulk Gravity
106.0 i i i %Moisture
3.0 8.0 13.0 18.0 23.0 % Oversize
Moisture Content (%) I MDD
Opt. MC _
Moisture-Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction ❑x Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) 0
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve 0 3/4 inch Sieve ❑x
Mechanical Rammer 0 Manual Rammer ❑x Moist Preparation 0 Dry Preparation ❑x
References/Comments/Deviations:
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 TRACON-1 (1-5)Mod.Proctor
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D1883-T193-3 CBR (CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO) ,i .
&
Revision No.2 OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOIL
Revision Date:08/11/17 I I _
gini
ASTM D 1883
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s): 8/26 - 8/30/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: TRACON-1 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/3/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown gray
ASTM D 1557 Method C Maximum Dry Density: 121.4 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 12.5%
Compaction Test performed on grading complying with CBR spec. %Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0%
Uncorrected CBR Values Corrected CBR Values
CBR at 0.1 in. 31.9 CBR at 0.2 in. 53.8 CBR at 0.1 in. 46.6 CBR at 0.2 in. 61.1
1600.0
1400.0 .
1200.0
Corrected Value at.2"1
1000.0
a
N 800.0 .
a
Ln
600.0 - Corrected Value at.1"1 .
400.0 - .
200.0
0.0 ' ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • ♦
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Strain(inches)I
CBR Sample Preparation:
The entire gradation was used and compacted in a 6"CBR mold in accordance with ASTM D 1883,Section 6.1.1
Before Soaking
Compactive Effort(Blows per Layer) 56 After Soaking
Initial Dry Density(PCF) 121.1 Final Dry Density(PCF) 120.2
Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen 12.5% Moisture Content(top 1"after soaking) 14.2%
Percent Compaction 99.7% Percent Swell 0.7%
Soak Time: 96 hrs. Surcharge Weight 10.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 50.9
Liquid Limit N/A Plastic Index N/A Apparent Relative Density 2.700
Notes/Deviations/References:
Brian Vaughan, P.E. ��� Group Leader 9/7/21
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 TRACON-1 (1-5)CBR
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D698-2 MOISTURE - DENSITY REPORT = &
Revision No.: 1
Revision Date:07/25/17 I I
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT &TRACON Test Date: 8/23/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: TRACON-2 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/3/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - light brown red
Maximum Dry Density 121.1 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 12.7%
ASTM D 1557 - - Method C
Soil Properties
Moisture-Density Relations of Soil and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures 1 Natural
126.0 — Moisture 16.1%
` I 1
\ Content
\ 100%Saturation Specific
\ Curve 1 2.700
\ Gravity of Soil
Liquid Limit -
121.0 \ Plastic Limit -
1 \ Plastic Index -
j \\ % Passing
a 1 3/4" 100.0%
116.0 \\ 3/8"
v, \ #4 -
o \\ #10
L \ #40 -
p \ #60 -
111.0 - 2,70 #700
\ #200
\ Oversize Fraction
\ Bulk Gravity
106.0 i i i %Moisture
3.0 8.0 13.0 18.0 23.0 % Oversize
Moisture Content (%) I MDD
Opt. MC _
Moisture-Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction ❑x Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) 0
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve 0 3/4 inch Sieve ❑x
Mechanical Rammer 0 Manual Rammer ❑x Moist Preparation 0 Dry Preparation ❑x
References/Comments/Deviations:
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 TRACON-2(1-5)Mod.Proctor
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D1883-T193-3 CBR (CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO) ,i .
&
Revision No.2 OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOIL
Revision Date:08/11/17 I I _
111.
ASTM D 1883
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s): 8/26 - 8/30/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: TRACON-2 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/3/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - light brown red
ASTM D 1557 Method C Maximum Dry Density: 121.1 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 12.7%
Compaction Test performed on grading complying with CBR spec. %Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0%
Uncorrected CBR Values Corrected CBR Values
CBR at 0.1 in. 6.7 CBR at 0.2 in. 14.5 CBR at 0.1 in. 15.3 CBR at 0.2 in. 18.3
450.0
400.0 -
350.0 - Corrected Value at.2"1
300.0
a 250.0
Lil
114, 200.0
l Corrected Value at.1"
150.0
100.0
50.0 -
I
I
0.0 •' ♦ • ♦ ♦ • • • • • •
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Strain(inches)I
CBR Sample Preparation:
The entire gradation was used and compacted in a 6"CBR mold in accordance with ASTM D 1883,Section 6.1.1
Before Soaking
Compactive Effort(Blows per Layer) 56 After Soaking
Initial Dry Density(PCF) 120.3 Final Dry Density(PCF) 117.2
Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen 12.4% Moisture Content(top 1"after soaking) 21.7%
Percent Compaction 99.3% Percent Swell 2.6%
Soak Time: 96 hrs. Surcharge Weight 10.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 51.0
Liquid Limit N/A Plastic Index N/A Apparent Relative Density 2.700
Notes/Deviations/References:
Brian Vaughan, P.E. ��� Group Leader 9/7/21
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 TRACON-2(1-5)CBR
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No:TR-D422-WH-1Ga SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SOILS &
Revision No. 1
Revision Date:8/10/17 I
ASTM D 422
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s): 8/19 - 8/25/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: TRACON-2 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/3/21
Location: SS-1 Type: Split-spoon Depth: 1 - 2.5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - light brown red, medium to fine
1.5" 1"3/4"1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100% • • • • • • • • • •— • •
90% •
80%
0
70% •
60%
cC
'd 50%
ai
V
a 40%
30%
20% •
10%
0% ♦ • • — .• • • •
100.00 10.00 Millimeters I 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
Maximum Particle Size 9.50 mm Coarse Sand 6.0% Fine Sand 38.9%
Gravel 2.5% Medium Sand 14.0% Silt&Clay 38.6%
Liquid Limit 34 Plastic Limit 28 Plastic Index 6
Specific Gravity 2.650 Moisture Content 17.5%
Coarse Sand 6.0% Medium Sand 14.0% Fine Sand 38.9%
Description of Sand &Gravel Particles: Rounded ❑ Angular ❑x
Hard & Durable ❑x Soft ❑ Weathered & Friable 0
Notes/Deviations/References:
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 TRACON-2(1-2.5)Grain
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D4318-T89-90 LIQUID LIMIT,PLASTIC LIMIT, '
Revision No. 1 & PLASTIC INDEX �
Revision Date:7/26/17 I I
ASTM D 4318 ❑x AASHTO T 89 ❑ AASHTO T 90 ❑
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date: 9/3/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: TRACON-2 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/3/21
Location: SS-1 Type: Split-spoon Depth: 1 - 2.5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - light brown red, medium to fine
Type and Specification S&ME ID# Cal Date: Type and Specification S&ME ID# Cal Date:
Balance (0.01 g) 7537 1/29/2021 Grooving tool 14185 9/28/2020
LL Apparatus 13859 9/28/2020
Oven 7313 7/30/2021
Pan# Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Tare#: Q-1 Q-2 Q-3 3 4
A Tare Weight 16.65 16.59 15.73 n 11.60 12.26
B Wet Soil Weight + A 38.50 35.01 36.47 19.68 19.97
C Dry Soil Weight +A 33.29 30.36 30.91 17.89 18.27
D Water Weight(B-C) 5.21 4.65 5.56 1.79 1.70
E Dry Soil Weight(C-A) 16.64 13.77 15.18 6.29 6.01
F %Moisture(D/E)*100 31.3% 33.8% 36.6% 28.5% 28.3%
N #OF DROPS 33 26 17 Moisture Contents determined by
LL LL = F* FACTOR ASTM D 2216
Ave. Average 28.4%
c 44.0 - One Point Liquid Limit
N Factor N Factor
20 0.974 I 26 1.005
• 21 0.979 27 1.009
39.0
22 0.985 28 1.014
0 23 0.99 29 1.018
•
•
1 24 0.995 30 1.022
34.0
25 1 1.000 1
NP, Non Plastic ❑
•
29.0 Liquid Limit 34
Plastic Limit 28
•
I Plastic Index 6
24.0 __me- I I I I I Group Symbol SM
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 #of Drops I 100 Multipoint Method ❑
One-point Method ❑
Wet Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation ❑ Air Dried ❑ %Passing the#200 Sieve: 38.6%
Notes/Deviations/References:
ASTM D 4318:Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit,&Plastic Index of Soils
Matt Jacobs 9/7/21 Brian Vaughan, P.E. 9/7/21
Technician Name Date Technical Responsibility 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 TRACON-2(1-2.5)PI
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D698-2 MOISTURE - DENSITY REPORT = &
Revision No.: 1
Revision Date:07/25/17 I I
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT &TRACON Test Date: 8/23/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: TRACON-3 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/3/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown red
Maximum Dry Density 124.6 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 11.1%
ASTM D 1557 - - Method C
Soil Properties
Moisture-Density Relations of Soil and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures 1 Natural
130.0 Moisture 14.1%
\ Content
\ Specific
\ 2.700
100%Saturation ' Gravity of Soil
\ Curve Liquid Limit -
125.0 \ Plastic Limit -
- � \ Plastic Index -
\\ % Passing
v \ 3/4" 100.0%
a \ 3/8„ -
v,
120.0 - - \\ #4
o \\ #10 -
\ #40
0 \ #60 -
115.0 - 2.70 #700 -
#200
\ Oversize Fraction
\ I Bulk Gravity
110.0 i i i \ + %Moisture
1.0 6.0 11.0 16.0 21.0 % Oversize
Moisture Content (%) I MDD
Opt. MC _
Moisture-Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction ❑x Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718) 0
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve 0 3/4 inch Sieve ❑x
Mechanical Rammer 0 Manual Rammer ❑x Moist Preparation 0 Dry Preparation ❑x
References/Comments/Deviations:
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D 1557: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 9/7/21
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 TRACON-3 (1-5')Mod.Proctor
Raleigh,NC 27616 Page 1 of 1

Form No.TR-D1883-T193-3 CBR (CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO) &
Revision No.2 OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOIL
Revision Date:08/11/17 I I _
gini
ASTM D 1883
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project#: 204294 Report Date: 9/7/21
Project Name: Asheville Regional Airport - Proposed ATCT&TRACON Test Date(s): 8/27 - 8/31/21
Client Name: Pond &Company
Client Address: 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Peachtree, Georgia 30092
Boring #: TRACON-3 Log #: 147 Sample Date: 8/3/21
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown red
ASTM D 1557 Method C Maximum Dry Density: 124.6 PCF Optimum Moisture Content: 11.1%
Compaction Test performed on grading complying with CBR spec. %Retained on the 3/4" sieve: 0.0%
Uncorrected CBR Values Corrected CBR Values
CBR at 0.1 in. 3.4 CBR at 0.2 in. 7.5 CBR at 0.1 in. 8.7 CBR at 0.2 in. 11.9
360.0
320.0 - -
280.0 - - -
240.0 •
Corrected Value at.2"I
a 200.0 - - -
Ln
le 160.0 -
u7
120.0 - Corrected Value at.1"I
80.0 - - - - -
40.0
•
0.0 • ' ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • •
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Strain(inches)I
CBR Sample Preparation:
The entire gradation was used and compacted in a 6"CBR mold in accordance with ASTM D 1883,Section 6.1.1
Before Soaking
Compactive Effort(Blows per Layer) 56 After Soaking
Initial Dry Density(PCF) 124.7 Final Dry Density(PCF) 120.3
Moisture Content of the Compacted Specimen 11.0% Moisture Content(top 1"after soaking) 19.4%
Percent Compaction 100.1% Percent Swell 3.7%
Soak Time: 96 hrs. Surcharge Weight 10.0 Surcharge Wt. per sq. Ft. 50.9
Liquid Limit N/A Plastic Index N/A Apparent Relative Density 2.700
Notes/Deviations/References:
Brian Vaughan, P.E. ��� Group Leader 9/7/21
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 TRACON-3(1-5)CBR
Raleigh,NC.27616 Page 1 of 1

Appendix V — Shear Wave Velocity Testing Data

Shear Wave Velocity Profile SW-1
Asheville Regional Airport— Proposed ATCT and TRACON
Fletcher, North Carolina
S&ME Project: 204294
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (ft/sec)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
10
20
30
40
50
r
t
0 60 —
70
80 —
90 —
Vs100 = 1,985 ft/sec
100 -
110 —

ilI
I \ &
III
S �'a , ,. 4 , , __; -_ , � III =
't-% ..!.,1.. \ . . '
• i' '4-0),,. ,. t tt -, •. •, . :.
t. _ f: �1-v l'=1-Regional Ai.0 a
•fie" r r" �' - \ _.i_ ;i
. lisli ' ',,,A„. .. \k, •
hill'i .
• . 1 ' \..%
!. \ 10111"11‘411111 It
cc
• !- Q
• 1.
Y' ..f1, , ' 1c‘1.1.11:11
,i.\\ .,. ‹: H
,,,\ ,si.., ,„, c: 41.1A-2,4401 1 .
1 ��' .J Y V -1 �' 1 �' Y �'l 1 I H I
. 4*1 11L:...,' 1 ,,t,
• r ,
•
+ , t f \ , \ N + Z
•
41441 :'.11;i:
\\t Q
LLI
1.
v'. r •,\47\•.I
.i,,.
+, - .r ` '"`11'" ti.�- - y l .. )i ."''`d�F.p r.t, ` .. \ h ` '= ll 7 I
4:•',,•
?.,
, y 4. s W Q
�a _, ., , . , 1, i f • ' �S•s Cn
7 "..44,:r
.,. ,..,
•
, \1 . ...4\ 1 • J ••
lig t511;41411-'Om . .. -*,..40411110410 . _1 IL
•
4 ',,�. ` r d SCALE:
1 ;A' '4* I�r►•, AS SHOWN
c � ti • ••IJ,fir..^ DATE:
Google Earth 1 • Oft •
di September 2021
- - PROJECT NUMBER
204294
FIGURE NO.
04

Appendix VI - Important Information

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