20161204 Ver 1_Mauney Cove Conv Geotech Report June 2016_20161222

'RLEINC.
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS
June 3, 2016
Office of the County Manager
215 N. Main Street
Waynesville, NC 28786
Attention: Mr. David B. Francis
Solid Waste and Tax Administrator
Subject: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center Expansion
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
Dear Mr. Francis:
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Incorporated (BLE) is pleased to present this report of geotechnical
exploration for the above -referenced project. This report was performed in general accordance with
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering (BLE) Proposal Number P 16-0420 dated May 9, 2016. The purpose of
this exploration was to develop information about the site and subsurface soil conditions that could be
used in evaluating the feasibility of prospective construction at the site. This report details the findings of
the geotechnical exploration performed. Project information was obtained from a review of the provided
drawing (Site Grading, Storm and Erosion Control Plan C-103) prepared by Mc Gill Associates showing
the proposed expansion area and the location for six soil test borings and two hand auger boring locations.
Additional project information was obtained from a site visit performed by BLE during the course of the
geotechnical exploration.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Haywood County is considering expanding the existing the Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center
located at 30 Mauney Cove Road in Waynesville, North Carolina. The existing facility has
approximately 15,000 square feet of surface paved with asphalt and concrete along with two
entrance/exits to Mauney Cove Road. Current plans are to expand the paved area of the facility to
approximately 31,900 square feet along with the construction of an associated storm water basin.. We also
understand that construction of a retaining wall with a maximum anticipated height of 8 feet is planned to
the northwest of the facility. The type of retaining wall construction is not known yet. Based on our
review of the provided drawing, cuts and fills of between 3 and 9 feet will be required to achieve the
proposed finished grade elevation.
130 OVAL ROAD, SUITE 200 PHONE [phone]
ARDEN, NORTH CAROLINA 28803 FACSIMILE [phone]

,BLEINC
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center
FIELD EXPLORATION
June 3, 2016
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
The site was explored by performing seven (7) soil test borings and one hand auger boring at the
approximate locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan (reference Figure 1). Six soil test
borings and two hand auger borings were proposed, however, one of the proposed hand auger boring
locations was accessible by the drill rig. The soil test borings were performed using a truck -mounted drill
rig turning 2-1/4 inch I.D. hollow -stem augers. The soil test borings ranged in depth from 10 feet to 20
feet below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were obtained in accordance with ASTM D 1586 by
driving a 1-3/8 inch I.D. split -spoon sampler with a 140 -pound safety hammer.
The hand auger boring was advanced by manually twisting a sharpened steel auger into the soil. At regular
intervals, the soils were tested with a dynamic cone penetrometer to provide quantitative data about the soil
strength. The dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) is an instrument composed of a conical point driven with
blows from a 15 -pound hammer falling 20 inches. The point is driven into the soil in three increments of 1-
3/4 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive each increment is recorded. The average number
of blows of the final two increments is an index to soil strength and bearing capacity. The hand auger boring
was performed to a depth of 8 feet (hand auger refusal) below existing grade.
The boring locations were established in the field by referencing aerial maps and the provided drawing. As
such, locations and elevations reported herein should be considered approximate. The Soil Test Boring
Records, Hand Auger Boring Record and a description of our field procedures are attached.
AREA GEOLOGY
The project site is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The bedrock in this region is a
complex crystalline formation that has been faulted and contorted by past tectonic movements. The rock
has weathered to residual soils which form the mantle for the hillsides and hilltops. The typical residual
soil profile in areas not disturbed by erosion or human activities consists of clayey soils near the surface
where weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands.
The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined, and there often is a transitional zone, termed
"partially weathered rock," overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for
engineering purposes, as residual material with a standard penetration resistance of at least 100 blows per
foot (bpf). Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and the presence of less resistant rock types.
Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even
over short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and/or
zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level.
The upper soils along drainage features and in flood plain areas are typically water -deposited (alluvial)
materials that have been eroded and washed down from adjacent higher ground. These alluvial soils are
usually soft and compressible, having never been consolidated by pressures in excess of their present
overburden.
7

,ILEINC.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center
Anne 3, 2016
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
SITE CONDITIONS
Site conditions were observed by our Mr. Sam C. Interlicchia during a site reconnaissance. The existing
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center is located at 30 Mauney Cove Road in Waynesville, North
Carolina. The subject property is bordered to the east by Mauney Cove Road, to the north by commercial
development, to the south and west by residential development. The property is currently being used as a
garbage collection convenience center, which collects household waste and recyclables. The ground
cover within the existing convenience center consist of asphalt and concrete pavement. Based on our
limited observations, the convenience center is traveled mainly by automobiles and waste collection
trucks. The asphalt surface is typified by widespread moderate block and fatigue (or often called
alligator) cracking. Alligator cracking is a structural failure of the pavement due to traffic loads, a weak
or soft subbase, or poor drainage conditions. The alligator/fatigue cracking is most prevalent in the drive
areas with some noticeable rutting of the pavement. The asphalt pavement appeared to be a single layer
of surface course asphalt. Several previous pavement repair areas were observed. No information was
available about the repair areas. The concrete pavement was mainly observed under the collection
dumpsters and compactor and was not readily visible.
The proposed expansion area will be located to the southwest and northwest of the existing facility. The
ground cover within the expansion area consisted of scattered mature hardwood trees and thick
underbrush. The expansion area generally slopes to the southeast toward Mauney Cove Road. A
depression, approximately 8 to 10 feet in diameter and approximatelyl to 2 feet deep below the surrounding
grade was observed in the western portion of the expansion area. Based on conversations with Haywood
County personnel and our observations, it appears that a residential dwelling may have been previously
located in this vicinity. In addition, a well is located adjacent to the noted depression. Based on our limited
observations, the well is a hand dug well with an approximate diameter of 3 feet. The depth of the well was
not known at the time of reporting, but water was observed in the well at the time of our exploration. There
were no visible rock outcroppings or groundwater springs observed during our site visit. However, Mauney
Cove Branch traverses along the eastern side of Mauney Cove Road. In addition, a drainage ditch was
observed along the eastern side of the existing convenience center. The ditch was observed to be
approximate 12 to 16 inches in width and had water approximately 2 to 3 inches in depth in several areas.
The ground surface along the drainage ditch was noted to be soft and soggy under foot.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The surface materials consisted of an approximate 2 -inch thick organic and topsoil layer at boring
locations B-1, B-2 and B-7 and asphalt pavement at boring location B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-6. The asphalt
thickness typically ranged from 2 inches to 3 inches and appeared to consist of a single layer of surface
course asphalt. There was intact aggregate base material under the asphalt that ranged in thickness from 2
inches to 2%2 inches. Beneath the pavement section and organic and topsoil layer, the soil test borings
encountered fill soils, alluvial soils, residual soils, partially weathered rock and auger refusal material.
3

,SLEINC.
Report of Geotechnical Ecploration
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center
June 3, 2016
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
Fill soils, comprised of loose to furn silty sands were encountered in soil test borings B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5 and
B-6 to depths of between 3 and 6 feet below the existing ground surface. It is anticipated that the existing
fill soil was placed during development of the site. No compaction testing data or field records of fill
placement were available for our review at the time this report was prepared. Based on the standard
penetration resistance (blow counts, N values) that ranged from 6 to 23 blows per foot, the existing fill
generally appears to have received some compactive effort during placement. The fill soils were noted to
be damp to moist. The fill was generally free of organics and deleterious materials, but it should be noted
that the content and quality of man-made fills can vary significantly.
Stream -deposited (alluvial) soils were encountered below the surface material in soil test boring B-1. The
alluvial soil encountered was approximately 3 feet thick and consisted of wet firm silty sand with scattered
organics.
Residual soil typical of the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province was encountered below the alluvial soil
and below the previously described fill soils and from the ground surface at soil test boring B-7. The
residual soils predominantly consisted of wet loose to dense silty sands. Standard penetration resistance
(blow counts, N values) ranged from 5 to 40 blows per foot, typically becoming firmer with depth. Partially
weathered rock (residual material that is transitional between soil and rock with standard penetration
resistance of 100 blows per foot or more) was encountered underlying the residual soil in boring locations
B-2, B-3 and B-5 at depths of between 9 feet and 19 feet below the existing ground surface. The PWR
sampled as micaceous silty fine to medium sand.
Material sufficiently hard to cause refusal to the power auger drilling equipment was encountered in soil
test boring B-3 at a depth of 16 feet below ground surface. Refusal may result from boulders, lenses,
ledges or layers of relatively hard rock underlain by partially weathered rock or residual soil; refusal may
also represent the surface of relatively continuous bedrock. Core drilling procedures are required to
penetrate refusal materials and determine their character and continuity. Core drilling was beyond the
scope of this exploration.
Hand auger boring HAB-1 encountered residual soil similar to that of soil test boring B-7. The hand auger
boring was advanced to a depth of 8 feet below the existing grade before encountering refusal material.
Refusal at this location is believed to result from dense silty sand or partially weathered rock (PWR).
Groundwater was encountered in soil test borings B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-6 at depths varying from 4
feet to 16 feet below the existing ground surface shortly after drilling and when the borings were backfilled.
Soil test boring B-7 and hand auger boring HAB-1 were dry. Groundwater elevations at the site can be
expected to fluctuate several feet with seasonal and rainfall variations and with changes in the water level in
the adjacent Mauney Cove Branch. Normally, the highest groundwater levels occur in late winter and
spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall. Groundwater should be expected to be
encountered within the alluvial soil.

,1LEINC
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Manny Cove Road Convenience Center
June 3, 2016
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
The descriptions above provide a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered. The
appended test boring records contain detailed information recorded at each boring location. These
represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions based on engineering examination of the field
samples. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries
and the transition between strata may be gradual. It should be noted that the soil conditions will vaiy
between boring locations.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
General Assessment
Based on the boring data collected to date, the near surface soils generally consist of moderate
consistency fill and residual soils within the depths of interest. However, alluvial soil was encountered in
soil test boring B-1 and is anticipated to be located throughout the proposed storm water pond and new
entrance/exit. The alluvial soil was noted to be wet soft/loose and may not provide suitable support for the
planned overlying fill soil. As such, we recommend that an allowance be budgeted to undercut some of
the existing soils and infill the area with dry compacted fill soil. A heavy woven geotextile or biaxial
geogrid may also be required along with the use of crushed rock to provide a suitable subgrade. The
extent of undercutting should be determined by a BLE representative at the time of construction. Auger
refiisal was encountered in soil test boring B-3 and is indicative of difficult excavation; however, based
on our understanding of the project to date, it is not within the expected construction depths.
It is anticipated that site grading and construction can generally be accomplished using conventional
construction approaches and standard building practices. Shallow foundations appear to be a feasible
approach to support the proposed retaining wall, provided all footings bear in firm or better residual soils
or in new, well -compacted engineered fill as outlined herein. However, it is possible that these borings
may not fully represent the conditions across the entire site. Unexpected conditions, such as buried debris
or loose/soft soils and rock can be present between the boring locations and, as such, some selective
undercutting may be required at some locations. In addition, based on our observation of the depression
located within western portion of the expansion area, buried debris or organics material may be encountered
in this area. As such, we recommend that a test pit excavation be considered to further evaluate this area.
The test pit excavation could be performed prior to site grading or in conjunction with site grading
operations. It is also recommended that the existing well be abandoned in accordance with applicable
state and county regulations.
Foundations
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, the proposed retaining wall could be supported on shallow
foundations bearing in the undisturbed residual soils or in new well compacted engineered fill placed on a
suitable subgrade (constructed as recommended later in this report). Provided this is accomplished, the
foundations may be sized for a uniform allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, subject to the criteria and
site preparation recommendations in this report.
k,

MR.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center
June 3, 2016
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
The provided recommendations are contingent on a BLE representative observing that the soils
encountered in footing excavations are consistent with the conditions encountered in the borings drilled
for this exploration. If deemed not suitable for the design bearing pressure, recommendations would then
be made for any needed adjustments in foundation size or bearing elevation at specific locations.
Recommendations would most likely include that the foundation excavation be undercut below the
foundation bearing level and extended laterally beyond the foundation perimeter a distance equal to at
least one-half the depth of undercut beneath the footing bearing level. The undercut excavation then
would be backfilled with compacted engineered fill, crushed stone or lean (2,000 psi) concrete.
We recommend that the minimum width for continuous wall footings be 18 inches. The minimum width
is considered advisable to provide a margin of safety against a local or punching shear failure of the
foundation soils. Foundations should bear at least 30 inches below final exterior grade for embedment
needed to develop the recommended allowable design bearing pressure and to provide frost protection.
Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation
excavations remain open for long periods of time. Therefore, we recommend that, once each footing
excavation is extended to final grade, the footing be constructed as soon as possible thereafter to
minimize the potential for damage to the bearing soils. The foundation bearing area should be level or
benched and free of loose soil, ponded water, and debris. Foundation concrete should not be placed on
soils that have been disturbed by seepage. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or
exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom prior to placement
of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight or if rainfall becomes imminent while the
bearing soils are exposed, we recommend placement of a 2 to 4 -inch thick "mud -mat" of "lean" (2,000
psi) concrete on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel for protection against
softening.
Pavement
A site specific pavement design requires detailed information about projected traffic frequency and
intensity, acceptable service limits, life expectancy and other factors which are not currently available. It
also requires site specific laboratory testing which was not part of the scope of this exploration. However,
presented below are recommended pavement sections based on our experience on similar projects in this
region. These pavement sections have demonstrated acceptable performance with subsurface conditions
similar to this site. Assuming the site is prepared in accordance with the recommendations of this report, the
pavement sections presented below could be expected to provide adequate performance considering a 15 to
20 year service life. Based on previous experience with similar soils, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k)
equal to 100 psi/inch should be used for design of rigid pavement or slabs on properly prepared subgrades.
Empirical correlations between modulus of subgrade reaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) suggest a
corresponding CBR value of 3 to 4 could be used for flexible pavement design.
e1

,RLIGINC.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center
June 3, 2016
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
We have not been provided specific traffic loading and frequency information for a formal pavement
design. However, based on our site visits and experience with similar projects, the convenience center
appears to be frequently utilized by automobiles and waste collection trucks. Based on these traffic
assumptions, we suggest a minimum pavement section consisting of 3 inches of asphaltic concrete
underlain by 10 inches of aggregate base course as specified in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, 2012 Edition.
The asphalt surface course should conform to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Standard Specification, Section 610, for Type S-9.5 Superpave mixture. The base course material should be
Aggregate Base Course conforming to NCDOT Standard Specification, Section 520, for Type B aggregate.
The base course should be compacted to 100 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum
dry density. In addition, sufficient tests and inspections should be performed during installation to
confirm that the required thickness, density and quality requirements of the specifications are followed.
The pavement and grade slab subgrades should be prepared as recommended in this report. If the
subgrades proofroll successfully, then the suggested pavement sections can be placed. In areas where the
subgrade is found to be unstable under the proofroll, remedial activities may be necessary. Such remedial
activities may include partial undercutting and replacement, or stabilization with geosynthetics and
crushed stone, or a combination of these. Appropriate recommendations may be provided at the time of
construction by BLE, if unsatisfactory proofrolling conditions are encountered. Stabilization measures
will vary with location, and will also be dependent on the weather conditions during construction.
The performance of the pavement will be influenced by a number of factors including the actual condition
of subgrade soils at the time of pavement installation, installed thicknesses, compaction and drainage.
The subgrade should be re-evaluated by thorough proofrolling immediately prior to paving, and any
unstable areas should be repaired. This recommendation is very important to the long-term performance
of the pavement.
Retaining Wall Recommendations
The proposed site retaining wall must be capable of resisting the lateral earth pressures that will be imposed.
Based on previously developed correlation for similar soils, soil properties and earth pressures coefficients
provided in Table 1 are recommended for use.
7

11 L ENC -
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center
Table 1. Recommended Earth Pressure Coefcients
June 3, 2016
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
+ Subject to revision pending identification of fill source used for backfill
* We recommend a factor of safety of 2 be used with the passive earth pressure coefficients.
A coefficient of 0.35 could be reasonably assumed for evaluating ultimate frictional resistance to sliding
at the soil to foundation contact. We recommend the passive earth pressure be divided by a safety factor
of at least 2 to limit the amount of lateral deformation required to mobilize the passive resistance.
Exterior retaining walls which are permitted to rotate at the top may be designed to resist "active" lateral
earth pressure. Typically, a top rotation of about 1 inch per 10 feet height of wall is sufficient to develop
active pressure conditions in soils similar to those encountered at the site. Less deflection would be
required to develop active conditions if crushed stone is used as backfill.
The total unit weight of the backfill soil should be used with the above earth pressure coefficients to
calculate lateral earth pressures. Lateral pressure arising from surcharge loading, earthquake loading, and
groundwater, should be added to the above soil earth pressures to determine the total lateral pressures
which the walls must resist.
In addition, transient loads imposed on the walls by construction equipment during backfilling should be
taken into consideration during design and construction. Excessively heavy grading equipment (that
could impose temporary excessive pressures or long term excessive residual pressures against the
constructed walls) should not be allowed within about 5 feet (horizontally) of the walls.
It is recommended that a filtered gravity drainage system be incorporated behind below grade walls. The
drainage system should have sufficient capacity to prevent the buildup of excess hydrostatic head behind
the wall. The drainage system should incorporate appropriately graded sand and aggregate material or
geotextile fabric to prevent the loss of fines which could be transported into the drainage system. Drain
cleanouts should be provided.
Soil Parameters
Earth Pressure Coefficients
Backfill
Total
Friction
Ko
Ka
Level
2:1
Level
2:1
Material
Unit
Cohesion
Angle
Kp
Description
Weight
(ps f)
(degrees)
Back
Back
Backfill
Back
(pcf)
slope
slope
slope
On-site
silty sand'
120
0
28
0.53
0.77
0.36
0.63
2.77
Clean
Washed
100
0
40
0.36
0.52
0.22
0.30
---
Stone (#57)
+ Subject to revision pending identification of fill source used for backfill
* We recommend a factor of safety of 2 be used with the passive earth pressure coefficients.
A coefficient of 0.35 could be reasonably assumed for evaluating ultimate frictional resistance to sliding
at the soil to foundation contact. We recommend the passive earth pressure be divided by a safety factor
of at least 2 to limit the amount of lateral deformation required to mobilize the passive resistance.
Exterior retaining walls which are permitted to rotate at the top may be designed to resist "active" lateral
earth pressure. Typically, a top rotation of about 1 inch per 10 feet height of wall is sufficient to develop
active pressure conditions in soils similar to those encountered at the site. Less deflection would be
required to develop active conditions if crushed stone is used as backfill.
The total unit weight of the backfill soil should be used with the above earth pressure coefficients to
calculate lateral earth pressures. Lateral pressure arising from surcharge loading, earthquake loading, and
groundwater, should be added to the above soil earth pressures to determine the total lateral pressures
which the walls must resist.
In addition, transient loads imposed on the walls by construction equipment during backfilling should be
taken into consideration during design and construction. Excessively heavy grading equipment (that
could impose temporary excessive pressures or long term excessive residual pressures against the
constructed walls) should not be allowed within about 5 feet (horizontally) of the walls.
It is recommended that a filtered gravity drainage system be incorporated behind below grade walls. The
drainage system should have sufficient capacity to prevent the buildup of excess hydrostatic head behind
the wall. The drainage system should incorporate appropriately graded sand and aggregate material or
geotextile fabric to prevent the loss of fines which could be transported into the drainage system. Drain
cleanouts should be provided.

,ILEINC.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Matrney Cove Road Convenience Center
CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Excavation
June 3, 2016
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
Excavation for the proposed site will primarily require excavation of moderate consistency residual soils.
Based on the borings and our experience, this material should be excavatable using conventional
earthmoving equipment. Although we do not expect there will be extensive excavation difficulty, lenses
and boulders of hard rock and/or zones of partially weathered rock may exist between the boring locations
within the soil mantle. It should be noted these materials can vary erratically across the site in regard to
depth, consistency, and bedding.
Groundwater Control
As previously mentioned, the groundwater was present about 4 to 16 feet below the existing ground
surface. Based on our understanding of the project, the current groundwater elevation is not within the
expected construction depths. However, wet soils may be encountered during the site preparation,
particularly in areas where undercutting is required. Wet soils were commonly encountered in the borings
below depths of 4 to 7 feet and groundwater was observed in the adjacent drainage ditch. If there are
areas where saturated soils or groundwater seepage are exposed during grading, then subsurface drainage
for those areas should be provided with subsurface trench drains that are routed to a suitable outfall
outside of the pavement area or into the storm drain system as recommended by the Civil Engineer.
These gravity drains would typically consist of a small excavated trench backfilled with NCDOT 57 stone
wrapped in geotextile filter fabric with a perforated pipe contained within the stone. The contractor
should also be prepared to promptly remove surface water from the general construction area by similar
methods.
Site Preparation
Site preparation should include the removal of all -unsuitable surface materials (surface debris, vegetation,
topsoil, and root systems) and disposed of offsite. Topsoil and organic soils may be stockpiled for later
use in areas to be landscaped. All existing utilities to be abandoned should be removed and replaced with
engineered fill or plugged prior to construction. If pipes are not removed or plugged, they may serve as
conduits for subsurface erosion resulting in settlements or sinkholes. The surface should be kept smooth
and sloped to provide positive drainage and surface water runoff should be routed to ditches adjacent to the
work area.
As stated previously, alluvial soil was encountered in soil test borings B-1 and is anticipated to be located
throughout the proposed storm water basin and new entrance/exit. This alluvial soil was noted to be wet
and relatively soft/loose and is anticipated to be unstable under wheel loads and may not provide suitable
support for the overlying fill. Areas were unstable subgrade material is encountered should be stabilized
before placing overlying fill soil. We anticipate that subgrade stability can typically be achieved by
undercutting portion of the unsuitable soils (the depth of undercutting should be determined in the field
by BLE at the time of construction) and backfilled with properly compacted new fill. A heavy woven
geotextile or biaxial geogrid may also be required along with the use of crushed rock to provide a suitable
subgrade.
E

NBLKNC.
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center
June 3, 2016
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
Proofrolling
After the removal of all unsuitable surface materials and before any grading commences, we recommend
that areas to provide support for new fill soil or new paved areas be carefully inspected for soft surficial soils
and proofrolled with a 20 to 25 -ton, four -wheeled, rubber -tired roller or similar approved equipment. The
proofroller should make at least four passes over each location, with the last two passes perpendicular to the
first two. Any areas which wave, rut, or deflect excessively and continue to do so after several passes of the
proofroller should be excavated to ft -mer soils. The excavated areas should be backfilled in thin lifts with
engineered fill as recommended in this report. Proofrolling and excavating operations should be monitored
by an experienced engineering technician working under the direction of the BLE geotechnical engineer.
Proofrolling should not be performed during or immediately after periods of precipitation or when the
ground is frozen.
Engineered Fill
All fill used for raising site grade or for replacement of material that is undercut should be uniformly
compacted in thin lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D
698). The compaction requirement should be raised to 98 percent in the upper 12 inches. The soils to be
used in the engineered fill should contain no more than 3 percent organic matter by weight and should be
free of roots, limbs, other deleterious material and rocks larger than 6 -inches in diameter. In addition, the
moisture content of the compacted soil fill should be maintained within plus or minus 3 percent of the
optimum moisture content as determined fi•om the standard Proctor compaction test during placement and
compaction. This provision may require the contractor to dry soils during periods of wet weather or to
wet soils during dry periods. The fill soils should have a Plasticity Index (PI) of less than 30, and a
maximum dry density of no less than 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
The surface of compacted subgrade soils can deteriorate and lose its support capabilities when exposed to
environmental changes and construction activity. Deterioration can occur in the form of freezing,
formation of erosion gullies, extreme drying, exposure for a long period of time or rutting by construction
traffic. We recommend that subgrades that have deteriorated or softened be recompacted prior to
continuing with fill placement.
Cut and Fill Slopes
Confined temporary excavations such as for utility installation or below -grade wall construction should
conform to OSHA regulations. All 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.
For permanent slopes which are not confined, our experience suggests that excavation side slopes through
the existing soil overburden at the site should be laid back at a 2H:1 V (horizontal to vertical) slope or
flatter. Permanent fill slopes placed on a suitable foundation should be constructed at 2.5:1, or flatter. Fill
slopes should be adequately compacted. Cut and fill slope surfaces should be protected from erosion by
grassing or other means. Permanent slopes of 3:1 or flatter may be desirable for mowing.
10

ME,,,
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center
June 3, 2016
BLE Project No. J16-10695-01
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Our evaluation has been based on our understanding of the project information and data obtained in our
exploration as well as our experience on similar projects. The general subsurface conditions utilized in
our evaluation have been based on interpolation of the subsurface data between the borings. Subsurface
conditions between the borings may differ. If the project information is incorrect or the structure location
(horizontal or vertical) and/or dimensions are changed, please contact us so that our recommendations can
be reviewed. The discovery of any site or subsurface conditions during construction which deviate from
the data obtained in this exploration should be reported to us for our evaluation. The assessment of site
environmental conditions for presence of pollutants in the soil, rock and groundwater of the site was
beyond the scope of this exploration. It is possible that these widely spaced borings may not fully
represent the conditions across the entire site. Since the site was previously developed, unexpected
conditions, such as buried debris or loose/soft fill soils, can be present between the boring locations.
CLOSING
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional geotechnical services on this project. We look
forward to providing additional geotechnical and material testing services as the project progresses. If
you have any questions regarding this report please to not hesitate to call us.
Sincerelv.
Project Manager
1►[OR
lea,
William A. Mathews, P.E.
Chief Engineer
Registered, North Carolina 18375
Attachments: Boring Location Plan
Boring Records
Key to Soil Symbols and Classifications
Field Exploration Procedures
11

2,r) i L7
1
/
Proposed Wall 28nCL
B-3
7
bwowW 4
P:faune� Branch
` i -
Approximate Soil Test Boring Location
Approximate Hand Auger Boring Location
Revisions
Drawn By: SCI Date: 6/1/2016 No. Description By
Checked By: WAM Job No: J16-10695-01
Base Drawing.- Sheet C-103 Dated June 2015 prepared by McGill Associates
,1 L EINC.
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC,
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONR. ENTAL, k4D CONSTRUCTICt4 ktATERIALS CONSULTANTS
130 OVAL ROAD, SUITE 200 - AROEN, NORTH CAROLuA 28704 • [phone]
Boring Location Plan
Mauney Cove Road Convenience Center/ Expansion
Haywood County, North Carolina
Figure No.
1

13LIHINC.
SOIL BORING NO. B-1
PROJECT: Mauney Cove Road Convenience Store PROJECT NO.: J16-10695.01
BMNELL-LAMMCM
CLIENT: Haywood County START: 05/16/16 END: 05116/16
ENGNEERING, INC.
LOCATION: Waynesville, NC ELEVATION: 2584
DRILLER: METRO DRILL, INC., TB & TM LOGGED BY: S. Interlicchia
GEOTECNNICALAlDEwato1WENGL
CONBULTANT8
DRILLING METHOD: CME45, 21/4" Hollow Stem Auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: Q 4 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 CAVING>77
U)
W
ELEVATION/
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL
a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
Q BLOWSIFOOT
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
-\2 inches organics1TOPSOIL
Firm, wet, dark brown, silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with scattered
organics - (alluvium)7
:.........................
11
3
r
Loose, wet, reddish brown, slightly micaceous, silty fine to medium
............ ..
SAND (SM) - (residuum)
:..
3
2580
3
3
5
:
3
_.............._...........:.._...:..:.._
3
3
3
2575
2
3
10
-------------------- --
Firm, wet, dark— red very silty fine to medium SAND (SM)
3
2570
5
8
:f
15
Boring terminated at 15 feet. Groundwater encountered at 4 feet at time
of drilling and backfilling.
565
2565--
--20
20
_....:...._...._....:...:..._
0
i
7
n
n
n
2560
J
........
L
J
SOIL BORING NO. B-1
3 Sheet 1 of 1

MILIBINC
SOIL BORING NO. B-2
PROJECT: Mauney Cove Road Convenience Store PROJECT NO.: J16-10695-01
BUNNELL-LAMMOM
CLIENT: Haywood County START: 05/16/16 END: 05/16/16
ENGNEERINC, INC.
LOCATION: Waynesville, NC ELEVATION: 2592
GeareCHNWALANOENvRow9i LL
DRILLER: METRO DRILL, INC., TB & TM LOGGED BY: S. Interlicchia
CONBULTANTB
DRILLING METHOD: CME45, 21/4" Hollow Stem Auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 16 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 CAVING>m
0,
W
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL
TYPE
ii STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
2 BLOWS/FOOT
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
2.5 inches organics/TOPSOIL
'
Dense, damp, grayish tan, slightly micaceous, silty fine to medium
SAND (SM) with rock fragments - (fill)10
..........
30
2590
12
-
5
Firm to loose, wet, reddish black, slightly micaceous, silty fine to
medium SAND (SM) - (residuum)
5
6
5
. .
3
2585
3
15
5015
3015
Partially Weathered Rock which sampled as red black, silty fine to
medium SAND (SM)
10
:...:...:.. _....:......: :..:..:.
2580
.......:.
_..:..__.._............
Firm, wet, tannish brown, micaceous, silty fine to medium SAND (SM)
4
s
_ _.: _: ..:....:..._..._...:....
5
15
:.::•
575
2575--
:..
q
25
50%4
Partially Weathered Rock which sampled as brown, micaceous, silty fine
'
50/4
to medium SAND (SM)
20
:.,... .._....:....
Boring terminated at 20 feet. Groundwater encountered at 16 feet at
time of drilling and backfilling.
2570
SOIL BORING NO. B-2
Sheet 1 of 1

®I L IBINC.
BMNELL-LAMMCM
ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECH NICALAND ENvotopmemL
COHSULTANrs
SOIL BORING NO. B-3
PROJECT: Mauney Cove Road Convenience Store
CLIENT: Haywood County
LOCATION: Waynesville, NC
DRILLER: METRO DRILL, INC., TB & TM
DRILLING METHOD: CME45, 21/4" Hollow Stem Auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: V 7 AFTER 24 HOURS:1
PROJECT NO.: J16-10695-01
START: 05/16/16 END: 05/16/16
ELEVATION: 2586
LOGGED BY: S. Interlicchia
CAVING>
ELEVATION/
I SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL
y STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
BLOWS/FOOT
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
2.5 inches ASPHALT
2 inches crushed STONE
2585
z
Loose, damp, grayish black, slightly micaceous, fine to medium SAND
(SM) - (fill)
5
4
Loose, wet, pale red, micaceous, silty fine to medium SAND (SM) -
(residuum)
3
:....
3
...........:.... ....:...._. .:....:..
3
5
2580
2
3
5
4
5
�
10
_ :_:...:_ .......:...:.....:..c..:..
2575
38
5015
5015
Partially Weathered Rock which sampled as dark brown, wet, silty, fine
to medium SAND (SM)
2570
:...........:
Auger refusal at 16 feet. Groundwater encountered at 7 feet at time of
drilling and backfilling.
20
...: ........i....:...:. _.._...
2565
a
:.
L
n
n
0
....-:............. :.. �. ... :.. ..:. .. :.. .:..:..:.
J
u
SOIL BORING NO. B-3
Sheet 1 of 1

INC.
OIL BORING NO. B-4
PROJECT: Mauney Cove Road Convenience Store PROJECT NO.: J16-10695-01
CLIENT: Haywood County START: 05/16/16 END: 05/16/16
BUNNELL®LMMCM
EWIINEEPMG� 114C.
LOCATION: Waynesville, NC ELEVATION: 2586
GEOTECHNICALA{ DEmnRo L
DRILLER: METRO DRILL, INC., TB & TM LOGGED BY: S. Interiicchia
CONSULTAM
DRILLING METHOD: CME45, 21/4" Hollow Stem Auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 7 AFTER 24 HOURS: T CAVING>
U)
LU
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL
TYPE
STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
g BLOWS/FOOT
a
N 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
3 inches ASPHALTMR
2.5 inches crushed STONE
2585
3
Loose to very firm, dark grayish black, slightly micaceous, silty fine to
medium SAND (SM) with scattered rock fragments - (fill)
;.
4
4
9
•
11
12
2580--
Loose, wet, light grayish brown, silty fine to medium SAND (SM) -
3
(residuum)
3
3
3
3
3
10
2575
Firm to very firm, wet, pale brown, micaceous, silty fine to medium
6
SAND (SM)
>
:.
7
7
15
2570--
7
13
20
Boring terminated at 20 feet. Groundwater encountered at 7 feet at time
2565
of drilling and backfilling.
'a
U`
N
m
co
0
Uj
w
0
z
z
SOIL BORING NO. B-4
L
0
Sheet 1 of 1

INO.
SOIL BORING NG_ B-55
PROJECT: Mauney Cove Road Convenience Store PROJECT NO.: J16-10695-01
CLIENT: Haywood County START: 05/16/16 END: 05/16/16
BMNELL®LMMCM
ENGINEERING� INC.
LOCATION: Waynesville, NC ELEVATION: 2586
GEoTEBHHICALAI)E -- L
DRILLER: METRO DRILL, INC., TB & TM LOGGED BY: S. Interiicchia
COMMLTAM
DRILLING METHOD: CME45, 21/4" Hollow Stem Auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 7 AFTER 24 HOURS: T CAVING>
ELEVATION/
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL
-j STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
� BLOWS/FOOT
Q
(n 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
2.75 inches ASPHALT
2 inches crushed STONE
2585
:::;•
s
Firm, damp, tan brown, silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with scattered
rock fragments - (fill)
7
10
Loose, reddish brown, wet, slightly micaceous, silty fine to medium
SAND (SM) - (residuum)
7
3
3
5
. .
2580
3
_..:...: ...:...:....:...
3
3
3
3
•.
5
10
2575
Dense, wet, dark brown, micaceous, silty fine to medium SAND (SM)
15
23
27
15
2570--
570
_.
b
20
50/5:5
5015.5
Partially Weathered Rock which sampled as dark brown, micaceous,
silty fine to medium SAND (SM)
20
Boring terminated at 20 feet. Groundwater encountered at 7 feet at time
2565
m
of drilling and backfilling.
a
m
0
J
J
W
3
O
Z
SOIL BORING NO. B-5
Sheet 1 of 1
01

,I L MINC.
BMNELL-LAMMCM
ENGNEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICALAlDENvitO!l em
COMSULTAIM
SOIL BORING NO. B-6
PROJECT: Mauney Cove Road Convenience Store
CLIENT: Haywood County
LOCATION: Waynesville, NC
DRILLER: METRO DRILL, INC., TB & TM
DRILLING METHOD: CME45, 21/4" Hollow Stem Auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: Q 7 AFTER 24 HOURS:1
PROJECT NO.: J16-10695-01
START: 05/16/16 END: 05/16/16
ELEVATION: 2586
LOGGED BY: S. Interlicchia
CAVING>
ELEVATION/
I SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL
ii STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
BLOWS/FOOT
a
N 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
3 inches ASPHALT
2.5 inches crushed STONE
2585
Loose, damp, dark grayish brown, very silty fine to medium SAND (SM) -
5
(fill)
4
4
. .
4
3
:...:....:....:.......:..:.....:..
3
2580
Loose, wet, light grayish tan, silty fine to medium SAND (SM) -
- -
(residuum)
3
3
:.:
4
3
3
10
2575
Loose to firm, wet, dark grayish brown, slightly mifin
caceous, silty e to
3
medium SAND (SM)
3
.
"' ""
:..
4
15
2570
7
..........
11
20
Boring terminated at 20 feet. Groundwater encountered at 7 feet at time
2565
of drilling and backfilling.
- -
SOIL BORING NO. B-6
Sheet 1 of 1

,ILMINC. I SOIL BORING NO. B-7
PROJECT: Mauney Cove Road Convenience Store PROJECT NO.: J16.10695-01
BUINNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: Haywood County START: 05/16/16 END: 05/16/16
ENGBIEERING, INC. LOCATION: Waynesville, NC ELEVATION: 2594
GEOTECHNICALAmENvFamenAL DRILLER: METRO DRILL, INC., TB & TM LOGGED BY: S. Interlicchia
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME45, 21/4" Hollow Stem Auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: T CAVING>m
W
W
ELEVATION/ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL ii STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
DEPTH (FT) TYPE BLOWSIFOOT
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
2.5 inches TOPSOIL
Loose and firm, damp, red, slightly micaceous, silty fine to medium
SAND (SM) - (residuum)6
.
7
y
5
2590
5
_ :...:._ ....:... ........:...:.... :........
5
5
5
_.... _.__..:..
6
7
:....:....................._:..:..:..
Firm, damp, dark brownish red, slightly micaceous, silty fine to medium
5
2585
SAND (SM)
s
_.._...........
5
10
Boring terminated at 7 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of
drilling and backfilling.
2580
..... :... :..
15
2575-
20
.......
h
L
A
n
0
2570
J
u
SOIL BORING NO. B-7
Sheet 1 of 1

INC.
SOIL BORING- NO. HA13-1
PROJECT: Mauney Cove Road Convenience Store PROJECT NO.: J16-10695-01
EMNELLAMMOM
CLIENT: Haywood County DATE EXCAVATED: 05/16/16
ENGINEERJNG� INC.
LOCATION: Waynesville, NC ELEVATION: 2592
GEWECHHIC,ALAmoE
EXCAVATOR: METRO DRILL, INC., TB & TM LOGGED BY: S. Interlicchia
CONSULTAM
EXCAVATION METHOD: CME45, 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: T CAVING>
ELEVATION/
DESCRIPTION
DYNAMIC CONE
PE
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
BLOWS PER
13/4 INCHES
2 inches organics/TOPSOIL
TAT,,
7, -
Loose to firm, damp, reddish brown, slightly micaceous, silty fine to medium SAND (SM)
2590
2
13
14
4
13
11
6
10
2585--
25
8
25
Auger refusal at 8 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of boring or backfilling.
SOIL BORING NO. HAB-1
Sheet 1 of 1

KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONS
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Penetration Resistance*
Relative
Blows per Foot
Density
SANDS
0 to 4
Very Loose
5 to 10
Loose
11 to 20
Firm
21 to 30
Very Firm
31 to 50
Dense
over 50
Very Dense
Penetration Resistance* Consistency
Blows per Foot
SILTS and CLAYS
0 to 2
3to4
5to8
9to15
16 to 30
31 to 50
over 50
"ASTM D 1586
® Grab Sample
® Split Spoon Sample
Undislrurbed Sample
',�� Well -graded Gravel
GW
0
°
DOPoorly-graded Gravel
oono GP
Very Soft
Soft 12
Firm 15
Stiff 16
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Hard
KEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLS
Particle Size Identification
Boulder: Greater than 300 mm
Cobble: 75 to 300 mm
Gravel:
Coarse - 19 to 75 mm
Fine - 4.75 to 19 mm
Sand:
Coarse - 2 to 4.75 mm
Medium - 0.425 to 2 mm
Fine - 0.075 to 0.425 mm
Silt & Clay: Less than 0.075 mm
Number of blows in first 6 -inches
Number of blows in second 6 -inches
Number of blows in third 6 -inches
Groundwater Table at Time of Drilling
• Groundwater Table 24 Hours after Completion of Drilling
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
Low Plasticity Clay
CL
11PRI....
I/III//III
Partially Weathered Rock fl; PON
/,/,I,
High Plasticity ClayIn Silt
CH ML
Clayey Silt
MH
Sandy Silt
MLS
Sand
SW
Silty Sand
SM
Topsoil
d TOPSOIL
LIN,
"roBEDROCK
Clayey SandJr
r -
SC J 1_< V Concrete
� < A5

The borings were made by mechanically twisting a continuous flight steel auger into the soil. Soil
sampling and penetration testing were performed in accordance with ASTM D-1586. At assigned
intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4 -inch I.D., 2 -inch O.D., split -tube sampler.
The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then driven an additional
12 inches with blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows
required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches was recorded and is designated the "standard
penetration resistance." The penetration resistance, once properly evaluated, is an index to the
strength of the soil and foundation supporting capability. Representative portions of the soil
samples, thus obtained, were placed in glass jars and transported to the laboratory. In the
laboratory, the samples were examined by a geotechnical engineer and visually classified. Soil
Test Boring Records are attached showing the soil descriptions and penetration resistance.