SW1190704_COH French Broad River - Compiled Submission Docs_8/12/2019

Table of Contents
1 Application
1.1 Stormwater Management Permit Application Form
1.2 Property Deed
2 Narrative
2.1 Stormwater Management Narrative
3 Attachment A
3.1 USGS Quadrangle Map
3.2 USGS Topographical Map
4 Attachment B
4.1 Drainage Areas and Calculations
4.2 Delineated Drainage Area Drawings
4.3 New Built Upon Area Drawings
5 Attachment C
5.1 NRCS Soils Map
5.2 Geotechnical Report
6 Drawings, Printed Separately, Not in Binder
BLACK & VEATCH

1 - PERMIT APPLICATION DOCUMENTS
• Stormwater Management Permit Application Form
• Property Deed
13 BLACK&VEATCH

DEMLR USE ONLY
Date Received
Fee Paid
Permit Number
Applicable Rules: ❑ Coastal SW - 1995 ❑ Coastal SW - 2008 ❑ Ph 11- Post Construction
(select all that apply) ❑ Non -Coastal SW- HQW/ORW Waters ❑ Universal Stormwater Management Plan
❑ Other WQ M mt Plan:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
This form may be photocopied for use as an original
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name - should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
French Broad River Intake and Pumning Station
2. Location of Project (street address):
880 Hooper Lane
City:Mills River County:Henderson Zip:28795
3. Directions to project (from nearest major intersection):
Traveling northwest on 191 (Haywood Rd) turn right onto Hooper Lane.
Travel +/-4,300 ft north on Hooper Lane, turn right onto access road.
Travel 4,000 feet east on access road, site is located at the end of the access road on the bank of the French
Broad River
4. Latitude:35° 23' 25" N Longitude:82° 31' 52" W of the main entrance to the project.
II. PERMIT INFORMATION:
1. a. Specify whether project is (check one): ®New ❑Modification ❑ Renewal w/ Modificationt
tRenewals with modifications also requires SWU-102 - Renewal Application Form
b.If this application is being submitted as the result of a modification to an existing permit, list the existing
permit number , its issue date (if known) , and the status of
construction: ❑Not Started ❑Partially Completed* ❑ Completed* *provide a designer's certification
2. Specify the type of project (check one):
®Low Density ❑High Density ❑Drains to an Offsite Stormwater System ❑Other
If this application is being submitted as the result of a previously returned application or a letter from
DEMLR requesting a state stormwater management permit application, list the stormwater project number,
if assigned, and the previous name of the project, if different than currently
proposed,
4. a. Additional Project Requirements (check applicable blanks; information on required state permits can be
obtained by contacting the Customer Service Center at 1-877-623-6748):
❑CAMA Major ®Sedimentation/Erosion Control: 1.9 ac of Disturbed Area
❑NPDES Industrial Stormwater Z404/401 Permit: Proposed Impacts
b.If any of these permits have already been acquired please provide the Project Name, Project/Permit Number,
issue date and the type of each permit:
Is the project located within 5 miles of a public airport? ®No ❑Yes
If yes, see S.L. 2012-200, Part VI: http://12ortal.ncdenr.org/web/lr/rules-and-regulations
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 1 of 6

III. CONTACT INFORMATION
1. a. Print Applicant / Signing Official's name and title (specifically the developer, property owner, lessee,
designated government official, individual, etc. who owns the project):
Applicant/Organization:Ci1y of Hendersonville
Signing Official & Title:Brent Detwiler, City Engineer
b. Contact information for person listed in item 1a above:
Street Address:305 Williams Street
City:Hendersonville State:NC Zip:28792
Mailing Address (if applicablc):305 Williams Street
City:Hendersonville
State:NC
Phone: (828 ) 697-3060 Fax: ( )
Email:[e-mail]
Zip:28792
Please check the appropriate box. The applicant listed above is:
® The property owner (Skip to Contact Information, item 3a)
❑ Lessee* (Attach a copy of the lease agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below)
❑ Purchaser* (Attach a copy of the pending sales agreement and complete Contact Information, item 2a and
2b below)
❑ Developer* (Complete Contact Information, item 2a and 2b below.)
2. a. Print Property Owner's name and title below, if you are the lessee, purchaser or developer. (This is the
person who owns the property that the project is located on):
Property Owner/Organization:
Signing Official & Title:
b. Contact information for person listed in item 2a above:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip:
Mailing Address (if applicable):
City:
Phone: ( )
Email:
State:
Fax: ( )
Zip:
3. a. (Optional) Print the name and title of another contact such as the project's construction supervisor or other
person who can answer questions about the project:
Other Contact Person/ Organization: 1. Ryan y - Black & Veatch
Signing Official & Title:1. Ryan Shy, PE - Engineering Manager
b. Contact information for person listed in item 3a above:
Mailing Address:10715 David Taylor Drive, Suite 240
City:Charlotte State:NC Zip:28262
Phone: [phone] Fax: ( 1
Email:sh3�[e-mail]
4. Local jurisdiction for building permits: Henderson County
Point of Contact:Cre s�yda Phone #: (828 ) 697-4830
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 2 of 6

IV. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. In the space provided below, briefly summarize how the stormwater runoff will be treated.
Project consists of the construction of a new raw water intake structure and pumping station, and associated
site navement. Runoff from imnervious areas will be treated via overland sheet flow.
2. a. If claiming vested rights, identify the supporting documents provided and the date they were approved:
❑ Approval of a Site Specific Development Plan or PUD Approval Date:
❑ Valid Building Permit Issued Date:
❑ Other: Date:
b.If claiming vested rights, identify the regulation(s) the project has been designed in accordance with:
❑ Coastal SW - 1995 ❑ Ph II - Post Construction
Stormwater runoff from this project drains to the French Broad
Total Property Area: 2.163
River basin.
acres 5. Total Coastal Wetlands Area: 0 acres
6. Total Surface Water Area: 0.12 acres
7. Total Property Area (4) - Total Coastal Wetlands Area (5) - Total Surface Water Area (6) = Total Project
Area':2.043 acres
+ Total project area shall be calculated to exclude the following: the normal pool of impounded structures, the area
between the banks of streams and rivers, the area below the Normal High Water (NHM line or Mean High Water
(MHVv) line, and coastal wetlands landward from the NHW (or MHM line. The resultant project area is used to
calculate overall percent built upon area (B UA). Non -coastal wetlands landward of the NHW (or MHW) line may
be included in the total project area.
8. Project percent of impervious area: (Total Impervious Area / Total Project Area) X 100 = 14.9
9. How many drainage areas does the project have?1 (For high density, count 1 for each proposed engineered
stormwater BMP. For low density and other projects, use 1 for the whole property area)
10. Complete the following information for each drainage area identified in Project Information item 9. If there
are more than four drainage areas in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each area
provided in the same format as below.
Basin Information
Drainage Area 1
Drainage Area _
Drainage Area _
Drainage Area _
Receiving Stream Name
French Broad
River
Stream Class
B
Stream Index Number
6-(54.75)
Total Drainage Area (sf)
88,984
On -site Drainage Area (sf)
88,984
Off -site Drainage Area (sf)
0
Proposed Impervious Area** (sf)
13,286
Impervious Area** (total)
14.9%
Impervious- Surface Area
Drainage Area _
Drainage Area _
Drainage Area _
Drainage Area _
On -site Buildings/Lots (sf)
3,769
On -site Streets (sf)
9,517
On -site Parking (sf)
On -site Sidewalks (sf)
Other on -site (sf)
Future (sf)
Off -site (sf)
Existing BUA*** (sf)
Total (sf):
13,286
* Stream Class and Index Number can be determined at: http2.aortal.ncdenr.or /wg eb/wq&s/csu/classifications
Impervious area is defined as the built upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, roads, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 3 of 6

'Report only that amount of existing B UA that will remain after development. Do not report any existing B UA that
is to be removed and which will be replaced by new B UA.
11. How was the off -site impervious area listed above determined? Provide documentation. N/A
Protects in Union County: Contact DEMLR Central Office staff to check if the project is located within a Threatened &
Endangered Species watershed that maybe subject to more stringent stormwater requirements as per I5A NCAC 02B .0600.
V. SUPPLEMENT AND O&M FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement and operation and maintenance (O&M) forms
must be submitted for each BMP specified for this project. The latest versions of the forms can be downloaded
from htto:/ /nortal.ncdenr.orv/web/wo/ws/su/bmo-manual.
VI. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Only complete application packages will be accepted and reviewed by the Division of Energy, Mineral and
Land Resources (DEMLR). A complete package includes all of the items listed below. A detailed application
instruction sheet and BMP checklists are available from
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms does. The complete application package should be
submitted to the appropriate DEMLR Office. (The appropriate office may be found by locating project on the
interactive online map at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/maps.)
Please indicate that the following required information have been provided by initialing in the space provided
for each item. All original documents MUST be signed and initialed in blue ink. Download the latest versions
for each submitted application package from http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/statesw/forms does.
Initials
1. Original and one copy of the Stormwater Management Permit Application Form.
2. Original and one copy of the signed and notarized Deed Restrictions & Protective Covenants
Form. (if required as per Part VII below)
3. Original of the applicable Supplement Form(s) (sealed, signed and dated) and O&M
agreement(s) for each BMP.
4. Permit application processing fee of $505 payable to NCDENR. (For an Express review, refer to
http://www.envhelp.org/pages/onestopexpress.html for information on the Express program
and the associated fees. Contact the appropriate regional office Express Permit Coordinator for
additional information and to schedule the required application meeting.)
5. A detailed narrative (one to two pages) describing the stormwater treatment/managementfor
the project. This is required in addition to the brief summary provided in the Project
Information, item 1.
6. A USGS map identifying the site location. If the receiving stream is reported as class SA or the
receiving stream drains to class SA waters within 1/2 mile of the site boundary, include the 1/2
mile radius on the map.
7. Sealed, signed and dated calculations (one copy).
8. Two sets of plans folded to 8.5" x 14" (sealed, signed, & dated), including:
a. Development/Project name.
b. Engineer and firm.
c. Location map with named streets and NCSR numbers.
d. Legend.
e. North arrow.
f. Scale.
g. Revision number and dates.
h. Identify all surface waters on the plans by delineating the normal pool elevation of
impounded structures, the banks of streams and rivers, the MHW or NHW line of tidal
waters, and any coastal wetlands landward of the MHW or NHW lines.
• Delineate the vegetated buffer landward from the normal pool elevation of impounded
structures, the banks of streams or rivers, and the MHW (or NHW) of tidal waters.
i. Dimensioned property/project boundary with bearings & distances.
j. Site Layout with all BUA identified and dimensioned.
k. Existing contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor elevations.
1. Details of roads, drainage features, collection systems, and stormwater control measures.
m. Wetlands delineated, or a note on the plans that none exist. (Must be delineated by a
qualified person. Provide documentation of qualifications and identify the person who
made the determination on the plans.
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 4 of 6

n. Existing drainage (including off -site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff calculations.
o. Drainage areas delineated (included in the main set of plans, not as a separate document).
p. Vegetated buffers (where required).
9. Copy of any applicable soils report with the associated SHWT elevations (Please identify _
elevations in addition to depths) as well as a map of the boring locations with the existing
elevations and boring logs. Include an 8.5"x11" copy of the NRCS County Soils map with the
project area clearly delineated. For projects with infiltration BMPs, the report should also
include the soil type, expected infiltration rate, and the method of determining the infiltration rate.
(Infiltration Devices submitted to WiRO: Schedule a site visit for DEMLR to verify the SHWT prior
to submittal, [phone].)
10. A copy of the most current property deed. Deed book: 1548 Page No: 24-25
11. For corporations and limited liability corporations (LLC): Provide documentation from the NC _
Secretary of State or other official documentation, which supports the titles and positions held
by the persons listed in Contact Information, item 1a, 2a, and/or 3a per 15A NCAC 2H.1003(e).
The corporation or LLC must be listed as an active corporation in good standing with the NC
Secretary of State, otherwise the application will be returned.
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/Corporations/CSearch.aspx
\AI=93a1192C4M1C4 [as 0[6]0Ly:\U97WNell 111411 W MIGIG]T/HIV:\01ri
For all subdivisions, outparcels, and future development, the appropriate property restrictions and protective
covenants are required to be recorded prior to the sale of any lot. If lot sizes vary significantly or the proposed
BUA allocations vary, a table listing each lot number, lot size, and the allowable built -upon area must be provided
as an attachment to the completed and notarized deed restriction form. The appropriate deed restrictions and
protective covenants forms can be downloaded from http://12ortal.ncdenr.org/web/lr/state-stormwater-
forms docs. Download the latest versions for each submittal.
In the instances where the applicant is different than the property owner, it is the responsibility of the property
owner to sign the deed restrictions and protective covenants form while the applicant is responsible for ensuring
that the deed restrictions are recorded.
By the notarized signature(s) below, the permit holder(s) certify that the recorded property restrictions and
protective covenants for this project, if required, shall include all the items required in the permit and listed
on the forms available on the website, that the covenants will be binding on all parties and persons claiming
under them, that they will run with the land, that the required covenants cannot be changed or deleted
without concurrence from the NC DEMLR, and that they will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
M I I Wale] QCYf1 N F:\Q118IU IEe] I;iu /:r I to] QI:\U Rl:1tey 10 to] I;iVA:r I Eel
Applicant: Complete this section if you wish to designate authority to another individual and/or firm (such as a
consulting engineer and/or firm) so that they may provide information on your behalf for this project (such as
addressing requests for additional information).
Consulting Engineer Joseph Ryan y
Consulting Firm: Black & Veatch
Mailing Address:10715 David Taylor Drive, Suite 240
City:Charlotte
Phone: (704 ) 510-8420
Email:[e-mail]
State:NC
Fax: ( )
Zip:28262
IX. PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION (if Contact Information, item 2 has been filled out, complete this
section)
I, (print or type name of person listed in Contact Information, item 2a) , certify that I
own the property identified in this permit application, and thus give permission to (print or type name of person
listed in Contact Information, item 1a) with (print or type name of organization listed in
Contact Information, item 1a) to develop the project as currently proposed. A copy of
the lease agreement or pending property sales contract has been provided with the submittal, which indicates the
party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system.
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 5 of 6

As the legal property owner I acknowledge, understand, and agree by my signature below, that if my designated
agent (entity listed in Contact Information, item 1) dissolves their company and/or cancels or defaults on their
lease agreement, or pending sale, responsibility for compliance with the DEMLR Stormwater permit reverts back
to me, the property owner. As the property owner, it is my responsibility to notify DEMLR immediately and
submit a completed Name/Ownership Change Form within 30 days; otherwise I will be operating a stormwater
treatment facility without a valid permit. I understand that the operation of a stormwater treatment facility
without a valid permit is a violation of NC General Statue 143-215.1 and may result in appropriate enforcement
action including the assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day, pursuant to NCGS 143-215.6.
Signature: Date:
I, , a Notary Public for the State of , County of
do hereby certify that
before me this _ day of
personally appeared
, and acknowledge the due execution of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal,
SEAL
My commission expires
X. APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION
I, (print or hjpe name of person listed in Contact Information, item 1a) -I("O-V\k IrPJ"-
certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and
that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans, that the required deed restrictions
and protective covenants will be recorded, and that the proposed project complies with the requirements of the
applicable stormwater rules under 15A NCAA2H .10(9q and any other applicable state stormwater requirements.
Date: Ga6� lal
I, &Mj 1��� /� I , a Notary Public for the State of AIMM JR OLi;tOCounty of
SbR{{I , do hereby certify that �Eit1 TT' ,t�/LGe, personally appeared
before me this /0 ay of Q\ UL)6� %:DQ 9 , and acknowled e due exe n of the application for
a stormwater permit. Witness my hand and official seal,
I C)
NOTAR),
PUBLIC
F
SEAL
My commission expires V% C% 0- /
1/
Form SWU-101 Version Oct. 31, 2013 Page 6 of 6

G
n
C)
N
LO
N
00
C)
00 m
,1- 7—
C) C)
m N
O�
C:) 03
0=
O
N L_
LO
00-0 U
7
O
N o Z
00
(D 0=
(� 0= O
(1) C)E C) 0=
�� O
M U V--cn
i
C )
N Cn (D C:� a) a)
OO�_U-2
LEGEND:
O CALCULATED POINT
Q EXISTING IRON REBAR (EIR)
#5 NEW IRON REBAR W/ ID CAP (NIR)
. W.C.L.S. TRAVERSE STATION
SURVEYED BOUNDARY LI
LINE TO BE ABANDONED
ADJOINER'S DEED LINE (I',
EDGE OF CREEK / RIVER
C/L STORM DITCH
TIE LINE ONLY
EASEMENT LINE
PATTEN SEED COMP/
DB 948 PG 293
PS 4807
PIN 9641-56-4040
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
WATER AUTHORITY
REMAINDER OF
DB 874 PG 39
PS 1960
PIN 9641-53-9942
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
WATER AUTHORITY
REMAINDER OF
DB 874 PG 39
PS 1960
PIN 9641-53-9942
NIR
WES COLE LAND SURVEYING, PA
549 ELK PARK DRIVE, SUITE 707•ASHEVILLE, INC 28804
OFFICE: 828.251.7025 • WWW.WESCOLESURVEYING.COM
INC FIRM #C-3106 • SC COA #4052
SERVING NC •SC •TN
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
WATER AUTHORITY
REMAINDER OF
DB 874 PG 39
PS 1960 /
PIN 9641-53-9942
/. I., _'-.
SITE
FRENCH
BROAD
RIVER
VICINITY MAP
(N.T.S.)
0
I N
I—
O�
zZ
z
oM
�00
(5 0
OQ
zz
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS USED TO PERFORM THE SURVEY
1 . CLASS OF SURVEY: CLASS A (HORIZONTAL)
2. POSITIONAL ACCURACY: 0.01' (H) & 0.03' (V) @ 95% CONFIDENCE
3. TYPE OF GPS FIELD PROCEDURE: RTK (VRS)
4. DATES OF SURVEY: 02-02-2017
5. DATUM/EPOCH: NAD 83 (NSRS 2011) EPOCH 2O10.00 (H) & NAVD 88 (V)
6. PUBLISHED/FIXED-CONTROL USED: VRS NETWORK
7. GEOID MODEL: GEOID 12B
8. COMBINED GRID FACTOR(S): 0.99977750
9. UNITS: US SURVEY FOOT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HENDERSON
Tina Ball , REVIEW OFFICER
OF HENDERSON COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP OR PLAT TO
WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED MEETS ALL STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING.
T'ua Ball m,m®.
REVItlEW PI'C' ER
06/06/2019
DATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HENDERSON
`t„uriirrnu,,
.%''o�'...;o CARo<i,�'.,
o.O 'sS/0 9
o SEAL o
000
'=
e � L-4561 �
O �o ) SUF '0000
�oo
,0000�0"� Go %
WESLS
'nnrnrnna
I, JOHN WESLEY COLE, CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY
SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION
(DEED DESCRIPTION RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 1548 PAGE 24 & DEED
BOOK 874 PAGE 39); THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED ARE
CLEARLY INDICATED AS DRAWN FROM INFORMATION FOUND IN DEED
BOOK N/A, PAGE N/A; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS CALCULATED IS
1 :10,000+; THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S.
47-30 AS AMENDED. MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER
AND SEAL ON THIS DATE _06/06/2019
1 ALSO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY IS OF THE FOLLOWING
CATEGORIES AS DESCRIBED IN G.S. 47-30(fl(11)(d): THAT THE SURVEY IS
OF ANOTHER CATEGORY, SUCH AS THE RECOMBINATION OF EXISTING
PARCELS, A COURT -ORDERED SURVEY, OR OTHER EXEMPTION OR
EXCEPTION TO THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION.
Jdhfi we's6q CO&
JOHN WESLEY COLE, P.L.S. L-4561
RECOMBINATION SURVEY OF THE PROPERTIES OF:
CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE &
CITY OF ASHEVILLE WATER AUTHORITY
CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
FRENCH BROAD RIVER INTAKE SITE
MILLS RIVER TOWNSHIP, HENDERSON COUNTY, NC
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2017 REVISIONS
NAD... NORTH AMERICAN DATUM MAY BE SUBJECT TO BUFFER AREAS. IT IS THE OWNER/DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE THE AREAS DESIGNATED BY PROJECT NO.: 17-006 NO.
NAVD... NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM PROFESSIONALS AUTHORIZED BY THE PROPER AUTHORITIES TO MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS.
NSRS... NATIONAL SPATIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM 10. NOTED LINE TO BE ABANDONED AS TRACT LINE UPON RECOMBINATION, BUT TO REMAIN AS A RIPARIAN BUFFER LINE PER FIELD WORK: ADW 1
PS 8267. DRAWN BY: JWC/RJC
0' 20' 40' 60' 2
SCALE: 1 " = 20' 3
PIN:9641-75-8764
DATE I DESC.
I-.Yj
1/24/18 1 LOCATED WETLANDS FLAGS IRJC
11/2/18 1 ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY
6/3/19 1 RECOMBINATION
DocVerify ID: 1F9FD42F-7699-48D4-A4CE-522179B2A306 ,IIIliff-INF1I III
www.docverify.com - - - .
Page 1 of 1 1522179B2A306 '

2 - STORMWATER NARRATIVE
13 BLACK&VEATCH

FRENCH BROAD RIVER INTAKE AND
PUMPING STATION PROJECT
City of henaersonvilie
B&V PROJECT NO. 195560
STORMWATER CONTROL NARRATIVE
13 BLACK&VEATCH

STORMWATER CONTROL NARRATIVE FRENCH BROAD RIVER INTAKE AND PUMPING STATION PROJECT
Project Description
The Project being submitted for review is the French Broad River Intake and Pumping Station Project,
which includes construction of a new river water intake structure on the bank of the French Broad River,
100 LF of 54" diameter gravity transmission main, 15 MGD Pumping Station connecting to existing 30"
raw water transmission main, and associated sitework and stabilization improvements associated with
the new structures. These improvements will not increase the permitted treatment capacity of the
existing plant.
Site Description
The site is located at 880 Hooper Lane, Mills River, NC. The site is on the west bank of the French Broad
River, approximately 1,000 feet north of the confluence of the Mills River. The elevation of the site
ranges from approximately 2050 to 2053 and is located in the French Broad River basin.
The site property is approximately 2.16 acres in area, and the construction limits for this project
encompass approximately 0.8-acres on site as well as approximately 4,000 linear feet of disturbance
along the access road for installation of a new 4" diameter potable water service. These improvements
are shown on Sheets C-01-001 to C-01-003. The property is owned by City of Hendersonville, and all
construction is confined within the property and/or within the existing 30' wide easement for the
existing 30" transmission main or access road easement.
The site topography within the construction limits includes mild to moderately sloped terrain that drains
mostly west to east. Most drainage flows towards the drainage ditch which traverses the property
discharges into the French Broad River. The majority of the developed portion of the site is vegetated
and lightly wooded. Certain portions of the existing wooded areas will require clearing to accommodate
the proposed construction activities.
The amount of disturbed area within the construction limits, including the potable water pipeline
installation, associated with this project is approximately 1.9-acres. Temporary erosion and sediment
control measures will be required during construction. These measures primarily consist of diversion
ditches/berms, silt fence, inlet protection, and other means as described herein and indicated on the
plans.
Stormwater Management
The proposed project will add 0.30 acres of new Built Upon Area ("BUA"), which equates to
approximately 13.8% of the total site area. Of this, approximately 0.09 acres is comprised of new
structures, and the remainder is concrete pavement. All runoff from the disturbed area and new BUA
areas flows via overland flow to either the existing drainage ditch traversing the property or to the
French Broad River to the east. This project will utilize overland runoff over landscaped areas as the
primary runoff management approach.
BLACK & VEATCH I References

3 - ATTACHMENT A
MAPS
• USGS Quadrangle Map
• USGS Topographical Map
13 BLACK&VEATCH

U.S. DEPARTMENTU S. GEOLOGICAL INTERIOR
GIICAL SURVEY
science for a changing world
82°37'30"
3929000m
g
392
392
27'30
392
25'
392
392
392
392
392
ff
62000
FEE'
ff
ff
391
35°22'30"
82°37'30"
Produced by the United States Geological Survey
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and
1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 17S
10 000-foot ticks: North Carolina Coordinate System of 1983
This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may be
generalized for this map scale. Private lands within government
reservations may not be shown. Obtain permission before
entering private lands.
Imagery .............................................NAIP, October 2014
Roads ................................ U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 - 2016
Roads within US Forest Service Lands.............FSTopo Data
with limited Forest Service updates, 2012 - 2016
Names...............................................................GNIS, 2016
Hydrography ....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2014
Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2008
Boundaries ............ Multiple sources; see metadata file 1972 - 2016
Wetlands ......... FWS National Wetlands Inventory 1977 - 2014
N.
6" 31 "
116 MILS 14
0" 54"
16 MILS
UTM GRID AND 2016 MAGNETIC NORTH
DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
U.S. National Grid
100,000-m Square ID
LV
Grid Zone Designation
nS
The National Map
USTopo FUs
35' 32'30"
35'
SCALE 1:24 000
1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2
1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000
1 0.5 0 1
MILES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
This map was produced to conform with the
National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.
A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.19
32'30"
NORTH
• CAROLIN
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
1 Enka
1 2 3 2 Asheville
3 Oteen
4 5 4 Dunsmore Mountain
5 Fruitland
6 Pisgah Forest
6 7 8 7 Horse Shoe
8 Hendersonville
ADJOINING QUADRANGLES
SKYLAND QUADRANGLE
NORTH CAROLINA
7.5-MINUTE SERIES
82°30'
35°30'
29
i0 000
-ET
27
26
27'30"
24
23
22
21
25'
'20
'19
'18
'17
' 16000m N
35°22'30"
82*30'
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Expressway o Local Connector
v 0
V
N
Secondary Hwy _ Local Road
m
Ramp 4WD
N
O �
• Interstate Route US Route O State Route
Y
M
FS Passenger
FS Primary Route 0
FS High
N
X
Route
Clearance Route
— to
O
Check with local Forest Service unit
co to
for current travel conditions and restrictions.
D
v
m O
r U-
SKYLAN D, NC
a
z
2016
z z

The National Map Advanced Viewer
,T f .I •','I f F I . k r ? I ! r I —� f 'y 14i+''�x ..
f
�
Liu
TVJIL
� � � ' � � 'i 1 J _ �'•�I �' 'Y � '� �. � ��' Iry
�-x � � f �}�} —`I., -�' I -- x - � �-$�� �1 -�� ''S �Y� �� I I.� �s ' I �_ tom. �„- � �'� r-+%'• �� I..
PROJECT SITE
�+III
.k�i '� -• i� rev-_ }1--- � -- � '� f _fl
S�
--- _ Y !
5/31/2019 5:07:21 PM
Normal Intermediate Contours
Normal Index Contours
1:18,056
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 mi
0 0.28 0.55 1.1 km
USGS The National Map: 3D Elevation Program. Data Refreshed
April, 2019., USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset,
3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System,
National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database,
USGS
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data;

4 - ATTACHMENT B
DRAINAGE AREAS AND CALCULATIONS
• Drainage Areas and Calculations
• Delineated Drainage Areas
13 BLACK&VEATCH

Client Name: CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE Prepared By: Z. COLLINS
BLACK&VEATCH Project Name: FRENCH BROAD RIVER INTAKE AND PUMPINC Date:
Project No.: 195560.0000 Rev No. 0 Verified By:
Calculation Title: STORMWATER DRAINAGE AREAS AND CALCULATIONS Date:
Calculation No./File No.: 4/34.0500 Page: of
TITLE: STORMWATER DRAINAGE AREAS AND CALCULATIONS
PURPOSE: TO DESCRIBE THE DRAINAGE AREAS AND SHOW PERMIT APPLICATION CALCULATIONS
11111141:1114:105
C0IN114IFT;
I-I�.�. 111211410 61
REVISED, SUPERSEDED, AND VOIDCALCULATIONS MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED, INITIALED, AND DATED BY THE RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL.

Basin Information
DA 1
Receiving Stream Name
French Broad River
Stream Class
B
Stream Index Number
6-(54.75)
Total Drainage Area (sf)
94,220
Total Surface Wetlands Area (sf)
5,236
Net On -site Drainage Area (sf)
88,984
Off -site Drainage Area (sf)
-
Proposed Impervious Area (sf)
13,286
Impervious Area (total)
14.10%
Impervious Surface Area
DA 1
On -site Buildings/Structures (sf)
3,769
On -site Pavement/Sidewalk (sf)
9,517
Other on -site (sf)
-
Off -site (sf)
-
Existing BUA (sf)
-
Total (sf):
13,286

DELINEATED DRAINAGE AREA DRAWINGS (1 OF 2
a
O
O
0
v
0
N
m
N
M
O
a
0
cu
U
L
N
E
cu
L
0
�I
ci
w
J
ti
ZE
Q
M
T
O
T
rn
T
O
N
Lo
y 2p5O.2'
I SILT FENCE SF FRENCH BROAD
(TYP) C-99-503 RIVER PUMPING STATION
(SEE DWG S-20-101) A
CONCRETE C
BIO -STABILIZATION / / LF RING IP
+2 e5 . PAVEMENT C - 99 - 501
MATTING (NOTE 6)
(TYP)
• • . . . . • • / NLET PROTECTION C - 99 - 503
2051.00 141 -911 TEMPORARY SOIL
e
- LE AREA
T I OCKP / ... ....
CE CONSTRUCTION I d 5 ° d +2,o4.7 /'.'.'. .`�/
ENTRANCE _ _
(NOTE 12) 2051,50 - S 34'S2
/ \ 25"F
° e' ct tA•. {� INV.'. 2°47.8' .
.: N I- 11 /
I
615 775.22 _ f ...... ` /
NOTE 2 \ - � ` .
... ---- 8
N N
�.
201.
'-- . E 947799.34 I I � GRAVEL j �/
f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. / EW: 2, 042.7'
}2 OSn rd ° G � 2Q ..I I /�
Imo° d SO ••'t' .�
- - �.___..................... 5 a 2a° N 615752.47 :.... SUBMERSIBLE I i .....� ;� -2° �� .....
E 94 7759. 77 ::� PUMP VAULT , �. �..'.'.' ' /�OD PILES \ !4' +BOT z 040.1'
1 _--__-__-___-__ +
o e_ . -� Q� / �1 2� 15 CMP
sa WATERuraE -
- _ _ -z - 1 2051.90 _:: 11 FBR -1 N 2045.E
EASENIENT PER -2055- e - GRAVEL •\ ��� / �� '
Q r .
P5 82D7 - - - L J ` �Q� a -y SIGN WITH REFLECTIVE
1�) ':R/.'1:-:.....'.-:...1. ....'.'.'.'... .�Q �L .� \ ^ / . . . . . . . 11
BERM = - 2fr5°-8- 2° ..i.. Q� ;/o .. �J 2� / / . . : : 542'26'2, LETTERS WARNING WATER
--2 fir._ -. L _ _ .. . . / RIPARIAN BUFFER ............... u
�� � 75 �'d.- n•.._...� D5 _-. J- - � �'73�15 .INTAKE STRUCTURE AHEAD
` °� _ PER AREA PER PS 8267 /
- -LINE PER�PSp --'.'.•-..- 2 � ...........................
�. .g�5 .TOP s DIP�r�aa� ND: s.as3.o' / ....... .
--� ........ . .. S 84S228 DAM -
_ o
REEK
�2D45� -. .�J `.: -` ` ♦ �NfI PIPE T/ .+BCIT: 2.039.1
�,nrET# N_ 1 •• •vim TnP PIPE.2 / �° .......................................
.. . . . . . ..►.�. =.�. 2044_ .�� _ •1`?++.--.��- °c�♦ DRAINAGE �//�
-WA_ _ - _ - _ _ - CREEK ................ .
-•` �� -�. . . . . . . . . :. � . _� \ . . . . . . . . .+tsar: z,o. . .
WET ': WET « - � � \\\
ER •EK--._ .Q4': --�•.... \ �� zoG2•..................+eOT:z,03e.a'................................
_ ..,.5.;', .�•. •�� • 5t. �,.as \ N 84'52'2,i' W . .
. .......................
\ -.....................................................................
=2045 . \ 38.92' (� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+.BOT: z 0�az'
s'�^LAL� +z0s 1.7' zpse.r �J ..•�..:.�•.• ... ".'.:.::. :--. f-s,.oe .��. -` __
\ NET T20eD-•:Wr�J.,;! .. _ �.raW .r-� ... '.. .+B071.40.3'. .
__-.:.0 80 Ac �.. 2D4 - - Er,/2 42b'
DRAINAGE CREEK /1 1�5, 2 d �,.vaa':5�sc; . 4 �- \\331T 2P4z.7'............. ................................................../
+205.2 - \ N 615718.67 \ �.. W
- s,.o H
+
eoT: z . . .
\ LIMITS OF ....:::.:{_:. tsa�t. ':. ... 8`.: _5 :::::::::: ' :: :: �:' - E 94 7844.52 og; +.............................................................................
CONSTRUCTIONd :: [�: 20425 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............................//
_ LIMITS OF )a3 ..� �;4z +BDT 20 00 ..... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. 9
:::2 42.
j
• .•..F:• .•.. :•:.• .•:.• .• .• .• .• .•. •.. .• .• .• .• .• :. r .ROT: 2.039.2 /
CS�%� 5� .�.� LAP 2,aaa.s' t.
+205K.7' ARCH CULVERT CONSTRUCTION / ,h��\F, +B072038.5
r :::C-01-301::........:::::: ':::...G-01-301: ............................................................................. a
........... /
_:.�••••= ...................................................................
+2 Se.3' B CONCRETE 0.y' CPC . . . . . . +eaT: z,03ss'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
- - PAVEMENT 4 ° :: :::: ?::::.. :: ;/I'
/- °g0 ...................................................................+R0T: 2, 038.7.............//C 99 501R _ 2053 ...................................................................... ........... aJ ,,,, 2: 2.7.................................................................... //
v (TYP) - 2 /R� eOT:20305 .EW.204L5 E\N:/042. �/
. d -�. :... �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /y z.0a3.4� }eoT: 2�a4,.,'� j
a _ - ° d •:��g: / .SAND RAR. ./ + // . .
2052. 25 1 1 -' / ... .. . � *EWr20. ...
d2 Q 1 / .......................................................... +2 432
° ••d ................................. ...... .
+20D0.4' m
I - /3�•- .}eoT 2 0.i3 0 .+BOT- 2 e3E 5 EN/: 2042.5 /
SILT FENCE a �r
I 205��. oR2 JJE
e. ° _d .�-° -....................................................................
e
+ � C 99 503 (TYP) ,d �s=5�:a; - ,� s �,�
,I:R' N 615627.37 ° �;.:: �o ....... FBR-.2............................ �%/
2 2. / ............................................ v. /
E::::::::: .° E 947782. 77 °... / ................................... .. ........ ��..............................................,��
05 50 I ........ +eaT 20357 ................
.. ............RIP . RAP..... ge e T o33 5 .. �. ...... ..... ............... .
T2: -...ARMORING.-.-C-99-502 Q.
/ P ..
r o ... +g�7 2�4,.,....... .
e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j%
1 2038.00.. �.. eT2o3o /
i > / I : •'•:::::.::.:.:• !'Geo:
-..&Wi2 042.E'BURIED PILE CAP ..
K4,,......................+r1TYP 2 PLCS �
WP
Lu
.....
N / t.....: FRENCH BROAD
02052. 50 :2
...........
=
PIPE PILE RIVER INTAKEw
........................................... . .,. . .& '.
,
z^ SHEET PILE WALL (SEE DWG S-10- 101) ........
IR�j O N 1
3" OAK . . . 1. . . . . . .
zz N SYSTEM (SEE ....�........ ... $.
SHEET C - 99 - 500)NIAP. ,, N 615586.52 .
052.7' E 947775.20
+20 .�'2053.00 ....2038 00.............................+.ga.T.2..39.5......................... +
z .......................................
............................................
.. .
/ 2n53.5' / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . }B. . . . . . . . . . .
/ \
+eoT:
LAY RIP -RAP AGAINST'-''--
e5K.3' TOE OF EXIST BANK ........................ �./:/04,.7
+ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /,� i/
TYP ......................
1 + zos/ s' 'ao �cla MA)�) '`��� P��� ... ..
/
ear: z0a0s' +
13 VAN / EW:2,042.&
/ , 5' SYC.
+2152.5'
205¢2' I 13' D.T.
+
I /
9o.00 /
+ 2os0s' N 84"52'23" 13.93' /
/ NEW LINE THISI SURVEY®^1 PT /
1 ,B
20" D.T. /
30D.T.
11b /
I I 1 1 1 .I
mmmI
1
NnTF.q
1. SOIL BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN WERE
OBTAINED BY S&ME.
2.CONTRACTOR TO STABILIZE ACCESS ROAD
WITH GRAVEL AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN
FREE OF RUTS, RIDGES AND PONDING
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION FROM PUMPING
STATION SITE TO HOOPER LANE.
3.ONLY PERMANENT SHEET PILE LOCATIONS
HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON SITE PLAN.
ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY SHEET PILE MAY
BE REQUIRED FOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
4.EXISTING TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION
LOCATED ON THE RIVER BANKS UPSTREAM
AND DOWNSTREAM OF SHEET PILE WALLS
SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED. RIVER BANK
EROSION SHALL BE RESTORED AND THE
STABILITY OF THE BANK RESTORED VIA
ADDITIONAL RIP -RAP PLACEMENT BY THE
CONTRACTOR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
ENGINEER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE
OWNER.
5.TREE PROTECTION BARRIER FENCE SHALL
BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING
PER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SPECIFICATION. EXISTING TREES OUTSIDE
THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT
BE DISTURBED.
6. BIO -STABILIZATION MATTING SHALL BE
AMERICAN GREEN SC250 OR EQUAL, WITH
ABILITY TO WITHSTAND MIN. SCOUR
VELOCITIES OF 6 FT/SECOND AND/OR
SCOUR SHEAR STRESS OF 2 LB/SF.
7. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PERFORMED BY WES
COLE LAND SURVEYING, PA, 549 ELK PARK
DRIVE, SUITE 707, ASHEVILLE, NC 28804
ON 21612017 WITH SUPPLEMENTARY
UPDATES ON 111212018.
8.ALL COORDINATES BASED ON NAD 83 (NSRS
2011) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON
NAVD 88.
9.BY GRAPHICAL LOCATION, PROPERTY IS
SHOWN AS LYING WITHIN FLOOD ZONE AE
(FLOODWAY), AN AREA DETERMINED TO BE
INSIDE THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOPLAIN
PER FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 3700964100J.
10. ALL TREES, STUMPS AND BRUSH SHALL
BE REMOVED INSIDE THE LIMITS OF
CONSTRUCTION AS SHOWN.
11. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE EQUIPMENT
STAGING WITH OWNER. CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR
STAGING AREA.
12. CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE AS REQUIRED THROUGHOUT
CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT MIGRATION OF
SEDIMENT FROM CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES.
SITE DATA TABLE
CRITERIA
VALUE
OWNER ADDRESS
CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
145 FIFTH AVE E
HENDERSONVILLE NC, 28792
PIN
9641758764
PROPERTY ADDRESS
880 HOOPER LANE
MILLS RIVER NC, 28759
PROPERTY ZONE
R2R
PROPERTY AREA
2.163 A
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
1,346SF
BDLG. FLOOR AREA
2,294SF
FRONT YARD SETBACI<
58'-9"
SIDE YARD SETBACK
14'-9"
REAR YARD SETBACK
109'-1"
91
w
LL
0
0
0
U
w
z
Q
z
0
ti
co
ti
w
0
o P •(y
co
�� �/ •• L 1,.J•• /L N a
�: �� MC7"••:��
p
Q vo Q 00 z :
- o
• •
co co
N co
1unn1►
C
_
CL
V
c o
Q
U�N�
C1 w N
W
LL 3 N
G 6 •s
6
>_ o
•L L
fC
L U
a� �2w
V
a
R
=) o
z
JM
a)>
L)
�'•E � 2
W
U, L
m r-
ti V
>
0
I
0
H cc
Ll!
Z
cn Q)
J
77z
O
'W
zO
O
CL W
C/)
W
O~
cc
Wm
u
CL
= 0
W
LL
z: Q
H Z
OCC�
Q
o
z
L�
M
M
W
W
LIL
DESIGNED: ZLC
DETAILED: WMT
CHECKED: JRS
APPROVED: JMO
DATE: MAY 2019
0 112 1
IF THIS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1" THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO FULL SCALE
PROJECT NO.
195560
C-01-001
SHEET
10 OF 105

(DELINEATED DRAINAGE AREA DRAWINGS (2 OF 2)1
4e
W
J
ti
U-
ZE
Q
M
O
0)
0
N
L0
W W
SEE ENLARGED DETAIL,
THIS SHEET
1
I
I
I
I
a ENLARGED PLAN
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF EXISTING 24" WATER
MAIN IN HOOPER LANE
2" TAP FROM EXISTING MAIN
(BY CITY OF ASHEVILLE)
2" GATE VALVE
(BY CITY OF ASHEVILLE)
2" METER IN WATER -TIGHT VAULT
(BY CITY OF ASHEVILLE)
BACKFLOW PREVENTEI
IN WATER -TIGHT VA(
(BY CONTRACTOR)
4"x2" REDUCER
DA 2
1.10Ac
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF EXIST
30' WIDE EASEMENT
1�4
• i _
FRENCH BROAD RIVER INTAKE
PUMPING STATION SITE
(C-01-001)
F
NOTES:
1. NEW POTABLE WATER SERVICE SHALL BE LOCATED
WITHIN THE EXISTING 30' WIDE PERMANENT WATER
LINE AND ACCESS EASEMENT. PIPE TO BE INSTALLED
WITH MINIMUM 3 FT COVER. SPOILS FROM TRENCH
EXCAVATION SHALL BE MOUNTED ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF
TRENCH TO PROHIBIT STORMWATER RUNOFF ACROSS
TRENCH.
2. TAP TO EXISTING WATER MAIN SHALL BE PERFORMED BY
THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE.
3.INSTALLATION OF POTABLE WATER PIPING SHALL MEET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RULES GOVERNING PUBLIC
WATER SYSTEMS, NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE, TITLE 15A, SUBCHAPTER 18C, SECTION .0906.
q
�Q•C� Q 00 �•�=
W 00 -, : 0
y -. 0 0 �`:: Q�c
ao ••`d ...••o5w
_
CL
u
o
Q
IE
U�NCNO
to � N
W
(� f� •- 00
C Q 7 N
O"� c
d
O
N L
u
Q
2
= J �_. Z
J
s1
m
+v+ (0 0
m r
r U
0
I
0 T
I�
V
M�
W
•�
0
0uj
v J
J
� Z
cc
ti J
�::b C/)
ZD LLl
Ey
CL Z
rO^^
vJ CcZ
06W
Q ~
W
J ti
CL
W mQ.
UtiL�LI
= Q
W Q
LL Z Q
ti uj
LL
m
Q
Q
00
cr. Ci-
v ~
_
U
Z
W
OC
LL
11 II I 11 411
. . . . .
11
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DESIGNED: ZLC
DETAILED: WMT
CHECKED: JRS
APPROVED: JMO
DATE: MAY 2019
0 112 1
IF THIS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1" THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO FULL SCALE
PROJECT NO.
195560
C-01-003
SHEET
12 OF 105

NEW BUILT UPON AREA DELINEATION DRAWING
co
ca
U
L
N
E
0
oo�
ooO
O)OJ
� q �
CE '
- 9
NEW B.U.A.
(0.30 Ac) � I
N
a e.
d
2Q51.°50
d. e
NOTE 2-
8 20;54.:5% ;
- - - +2.050_
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'mod
_ .�_---= 5 -�
2052
30WAILRLINE �n _
EASEMLNI PER
PS 8207
..°
.�'.- .. -:.........-_- --_.P-F6__0 _"E►AVNJ. -E_-�_�_�_- BERM
°INF,P CREEK
y 00044N20J� .'.�_-�_2_0q-4`_- _-51.o_1- - •�- �
14"DT. W551....
)45
e
y.I
lu
••L-
SILT FENCE
(TYP)
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
(NOTE 12)
SF
-99-503
N_��
CONCRETE
PAVEMENT
(TYP)
2051.00
FRENCH BROAD
RIVER PUMPING STATION
(SEE DWG S-20-101) A
BIO-STABILIZATION
C-99-501 MATTING (NOTE 6) �........ LF RING
/ ........ / NLET PROTECTION
141-9 TEMPORARY SOIL
_ STOCKPILE AREA INE
8 �Q .. I .. .2053'
........ ...........
....... ....
..............
/
...�.... ..... 2050. INV.'. 2047.8' 7
N 615775.22��
I - _ -- \ I GRAVEL
E 947799
.34
:.•:.•: .'.............. / . . . . ` / / /. EW: 2 042.7'
N 615 752.4 7 SUBMERSIBLE I /i.
......:.:. PUMP VAULT I , ... / ... I i I +EOT 2,040 F
E 947759. 77 ............. .... �¢ ../ soDP1LEs +20544, e cMP
i � . . . .�JF��: 2os / 2°52" INv 2041,6 .
..............
.............
2051.90
..........��.++.••}}...nn..��.1 FBR - 1 N : 3 r
GRAVEL .\ . W
- • J � \- '•�P � • � � � \ -2p53 SIGN WITH REFLECTIVE
d. ....:r.am".."..:.
PNI I10 ^ / LETTERS "WARNING WATER ARs18
.. INTAKE STRUCTURE AHEAD"
::- --� . . . . PER AREA PER PS 8267 ' ' '
1 2py2 TOP Fi' DIPC: GROUND: 2.053.005 '//
d -2p Ohm. TOP 6 D1PCl BEND: 2.055.9� E 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. - ' e .... ... .. .. .. .. .. \ /"' '�' �tiD PIPE �/ �•:... .•:: V, �. \ +E()T: 2.039.1'. .
... . ...... ....
TDP PIPE. 2
O
.. ................ ..... .. _ _ 5
....5 .a,.:.-. ... ,.���......�: •-::r:•:... = 2(.: � 05 DRAINAGE .� /O /.......................................................... .
.............................................................
CREEK
\� � .+E)T: 2.03E.1'.
ET #
.WAso- -- .:':S•.•_ Roa.:3.l :�'�40.01':''�:'!:o.�.: " • r.. �2052' 3
............. .
.. . . .. . . .. . . .. . ....+EOT2094. .
� .ae 042�7'....................... ............................... .
+ 053. 1' �
A
�
DRAINAGE CREEK /
+2os1 2'
LIMITS OF
CONSTRUCTION
+2050.7' ARCH CULVERT I -
B
2050.8' CONCRETE
C-99-501 PAVEMENT
(TYP) /
2052.25 /
+2050A
I
I
c
+ 2050.8'
I
+
I
I
F
I
+2051.5'
3 � p
W � N
N
1
+2050 b'
2050.2'
+
2050.E
+
S►-�l SILT FENCE
N-- � 3 (TYP)
I
/
/
1
/
+2051.3'
204
vdET 38.92' T
+EOT: 2.040.3'. .
•:. ' 2 Ew: z 94z.P,•
s,.oz ° •::A3A :":.�5:�.'.:=`�=�:JEr.fie ..... ... .... ° � A � ��� 3 �.....................................................
..................
3. . 2...
T
v
- W /
N 615718.67 �EOT:2038.7'
6 '-•ti:.V. Moen, s).a A 1:..I nD:ols........................................................................... .
nrE #
:::: zoasr�. . �: •..$R: •:rJ:•................ ::::r ::::. - E 94 7844.52 09..................................................................... /h
..... .......... ::................................ ... -� W: 2.042.5' N0 /
2 I
rF ` 0 1 J11 .. ...........
`..':,ter .::::... .::.j.a:dsis•:::: '. � 1� 1'I . .+.EOT: 2.040.(Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......... ........ ..... LIMITS OF ..................................................... /
••••••••••• �$ 't'142.7 EW: 2,042.Fi'
• • • • • • �•• • :::::. `- 1 - 5 +EDT: 2,039.2'
CONSTRUCTIONJ� �w4 2.949.0 +EDT 203E 5 ...........................
d e:.::C-01-301::::::..:::::::::::::::::C: 01-301:' �// ��OV41' N /
s„ :. / /tiw................................................................................
I ti P� / .20
° •........... :.::.••'..............:.• r- \ �O .+EOT: 2.038.8'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:::::Z052::::: ::::::::::::::::::::� .� ,� , ' - - �/....... ........................................................ ............//
-e' ° .: _ZpSo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +EOT: 2,038.7 . . . . . . . . .
...........
- 2053......................................................................... /
..................
•.•t z,rriri:�// w: 2.o4z.7•. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . ................................. ........... .// j
............... .............
............... ...............
2Off 3 ;,fit ,/................................ //. //
- .SEW-2042.Fi' EW.2042.Fi'
.. :�Zitir(-... •N.V..•:.: d d .:•.�.. .: \ /� 2° . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.•.•.�::: .. 2�✓//�]J'���/ .SAND EAR. +2//043.4, +EOT: 2.041.
F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *EW 2042.4' . .Ae"
.. I 3 - . . . . . . . . . . . EOT: 2 038.0 .. ........E. . . . ..Fi *........................ ......+EOT 2038.5................./
S�..............................................................................�/EIW'+
.... /�
e : 2042.Fi205
'
I:;:;::::.. a N 615627.37° °P��.......
........................................../�
I:•::•::•::•::•:..e E 947782. 77° e / / . \:....... ........................ (\�
I•.:•.:•.:•.:•.: d - G / EOT: 039.:i . . . Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+EOT 2 E38.7' ............. �/
�. RIP -'RAP.... 8�..............................................
ly
T Z03. ARMORING.. - -.......
.......................................
..
/ �h ..........................�
0s1C}�3: Id C 99 502
N (/V
I :::.:.::::::: . ...... ................................ /� O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +EOT: 2.041.1" . . . . . . /
F..:.:.:.:. .: .. ::.:... ° EDT.2,038.9........................ . . . y�� . . . ......................................
:.:.:.:::.:..:.:.::.:.:.:..,:.. + 1..2038........................61�
Y }EOT20390 j
................................. ............................
I:. • : / E6% 2 042 Fi'
' ... .... .......... ii
.' •.I.•..•.•: \ ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . +EOT: 2.040.2........................
F.: .:.:.:.:..:.::.:.:...>.....r ,Y.... �...................................................
:..�.:.,-:::.:::. �'...................... g .............................WE
:...1:.:1.:.1.. ... ... ...... - .. +BOT: 2.042.4'. ...
2052. 50--I :.: .. :5 :.: ©. FRENCH BROAD ........... . ........
/I :::.:::.:::. + . �. R
PIPE PILE & +E)T2949.1
I VER INTAKE
.
SHEET PILE WALL
SYSTEM (SEE
SHEET C-99-500) "�P 1>
+2051.E' 2053.00 /
,/A\ /
9" v
2053.5' /
13' SYC �� •/
36" MAP 0 I �
113 SYC. `
0/ �" 4
/ 1 12" MAP®
15 DT
4
It
90.00'
13.93,
+ 2052.5'
I � // ,••/
. / /
/ NEW I_INF_THIS SIP. VF_ Y^�T.
............./
II /p2E5s.\/
18 MAP.
D.T. J /9
20" D T. 30" D T. /
4 /
12
0
2052.50
I
I
BURIED PILE CAP
(TYP 2 PLCS)
I I / I 1 •I
I
NOTES:
1. SOIL BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN WERE
OBTAINED BY S&ME.
2. CONTRACTOR TO STABILIZE ACCESS ROAD
WITH GRAVEL AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN
FREE OF RUTS, RIDGES AND PONDING
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION FROM PUMPING
STATION SITE TO HOOPER LANE.
3.ONLY PERMANENT SHEET PILE LOCATIONS
HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON SITE PLAN.
ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY SHEET PILE MAY
BE REQUIRED FOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
4.EXISTING TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION
LOCATED ON THE RIVER BANKS UPSTREAM
AND DOWNSTREAM OF SHEET PILE WALLS
SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED. RIVER BANK
EROSION SHALL BE RESTORED AND THE
STABILITY OF THE BANK RESTORED VIA
ADDITIONAL RIP -RAP PLACEMENT BY THE
CONTRACTOR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
ENGINEER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE
OWNER.
5.TREE PROTECTION BARRIER FENCE SHALL
BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING
PER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SPECIFICATION. EXISTING TREES OUTSIDE
THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT
BE DISTURBED.
6. BIO -STABILIZATION MATTING SHALL BE
AMERICAN GREEN SC250 OR EQUAL, WITH
ABILITY TO WITHSTAND MIN. SCOUR
VELOCITIES OF 6 FT/SECOND AND/OR
SCOUR SHEAR STRESS OF 2 LB/SF.
7. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PERFORMED BY WES
COLE LAND SURVEYING, PA, 549 ELK PARK
DRIVE, SUITE 707, ASHEVILLE, NC 28804
ON 21612017 WITH SUPPLEMENTARY
UPDATES ON 111212018.
8.ALL COORDINATES BASED ON NAD 83 (NSRS
2011) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON
NAVD 88.
9.BY GRAPHICAL LOCATION, PROPERTY IS
SHOWN AS LYING WITHIN FLOOD ZONE AE
(FLOODWAY), AN AREA DETERMINED TO BE
INSIDE THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOPLAIN
PER FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 3700964100J.
10. ALL TREES, STUMPS AND BRUSH SHALL
BE REMOVED INSIDE THE LIMITS OF
CONSTRUCTION AS SHOWN.
11. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE EQUIPMENT
STAGING WITH OWNER. CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR
STAGING AREA.
12. CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE AS REQUIRED THROUGHOUT
CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT MIGRATION OF
SEDIMENT FROM CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES.
SITE DATA TABLE
CRITERIA
VALUE
OWNER ADDRESS
CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
145 FIFTH AVE E
HENDERSONVILLE NC, 28792
PIN
9641758764
PROPERTY ADDRESS
880 HOOPER LANE
MILLS RIVER NC, 28759
PROPERTY ZONE
R2R
PROPERTY AREA
2.163Ac
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
1,346 SF
BDLG. FLOOR AREA
2,294 SF
FRONT YARD SETBACK
58'-9"
SIDE YARD SETBACK
14'-9"
REAR YARD SETBACK
109'-1"
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
I
0
U
R
0
j
♦♦♦,� �'••••••••••••• •S Imo,,,
L V
♦ I
• Y
♦ I
H
v V) � Cti
ON SO
C
_
CL
u
o
Q
I0
v�N'N
NO
N
W
O 7
O LL ca
� c
6
Z L O
L U
U;
Q
= J z
L0(o
m r U
I
T
06
V
c�
m
zJ
O O
�cc
Llj
z
U
v�
J�
c� z
O
'W
zO
Z3 cc
O
CL Lu
�j
-V oa
W
H
QCL
J�C3
cc
W
mCL
UtiQ
CL
= 0
W
LLzQ
�z
OCR
U-jcc
Q
o
zW
MccM
�
z�
1 _
UL(/)
DESIGNED: ZLC
DETAILED: WMT
CHECKED: JRS
APPROVED: JMO
DATE: MAY 2019
0 1/2 1
IF THIS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1" THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO FULL SCALE
PROJECT NO.
195560
C-01-001
SHEET
10 OF 105

5 - ATTACHMENT C
SOILS REPORTS
• NRCS Soils Map
• Geotechnical Report and Boring Log
13 BLACK&VEATCH

m
35o 23' 27" N
R
0
n
93
M
93
0
n
0
93
35o 23' 20" N
360760 360790 360820 360850 360880 360910 360940
m
Map Scale: 1:1,420 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Meters
N 0 20 40 80 120
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator Conermordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
Drainage Class —Henderson County, North Carolina
360790 360820 360850 360880 360910 360940 360970
361000 361030
360970 361000 361030
a
m
361060
35o 23' 27" N
R
93
R
M
93
0
m
N
35o 23' 20" N
361060
a
5/31/2019
Pagel of 3

Drainage Class —Henderson County, North Carolina
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating
Polygons
-
Excessively drained
0
Somewhat excessively
drained
0
Well drained
0
Moderately well drained
0
Somewhat poorly drained
0
Poorly drained
0
Very poorly drained
0
Subaqueous
0
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating
Lines
~
Excessively drained
~
Somewhat excessively
drained
r 0
Well drained
Moderately well drained
Somewhat poorly drained
Poorly drained
Very poorly drained
Subaqueous
r r
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating
Points
MAP INFORMATION
Excessively drained
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.
0
Somewhat excessively
drained
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
ri
Well drained
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
Moderately well drained
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
❑
Somewhat poorly drained
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
0
Poorly drained
scale.
Very poorly drained
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Subaqueous
measurements.
0
Not rated or not available
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Water Features
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
�-�
Streams and Canals
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Transportation
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
}�{
Rails
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Interstate Highways
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
__-e
US Routes
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Major Roads
of the version date(s) listed below.
Local Roads
Soil Survey Area: Henderson County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 10, 2018
Background
Aerial Photography
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2015—Nov
28, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/31/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Drainage Class —Henderson County, North Carolina
Drainage Class
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Ro
Rosman loam
Well drained
3.5
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
3.5
100.0%
Description
"Drainage class (natural)" refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods
under conditions similar to those under which the soil formed. Alterations of the
water regime by human activities, either through drainage or irrigation, are not a
consideration unless they have significantly changed the morphology of the soil.
Seven classes of natural soil drainage are recognized -excessively drained,
somewhat excessively drained, well drained, moderately well drained, somewhat
poorly drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained. These classes are
defined in the "Soil Survey Manual."
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Higher
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/31/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

PREPARED FOR:
Black & Veatch
10715 David Taylor Drive, Suite 240
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
PREPARED BY:
S&ME, Inc.
44 Buck Shoals Road, Suite C-3
Arden, North Carolina 28704
February 22, 2019

February 22, 2019
Black & Veatch
10715 David Taylor Drive, Suite 240
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Attention: Mr. Mike Osborne, P.E.
Reference: Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
NC PE Firm License No. F-0176
Dear Mr. Osborne:
S&ME, Inc. is pleased to submit this Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report for the referenced project.
The supplemental exploration was performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. 14-1800299, dated
May 23, 2018 and authorized by Mr. J. Ryan Shy, P.E. on October 17, 2018. This additional work supplements the
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration (Draft Progress Report) dated March 12, 2018. The purpose of the
preliminary and supplemental explorations was to evaluate general subsurface conditions at the proposed intake
site with respect to earthwork impacts, rock and subsurface water levels, and construction and design
considerations. This report presents a brief description of our understanding of the project, the preliminary and
supplemental exploration results, and our geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. This Supplemental
Geotechnical Exploration Report supersedes our Preliminary Report dated March 12, 2018.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our service to Black & Veatch on this project. If you have any questions
regarding the information in this report or we may be of further service, please contact us.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
1 r
Matthew H. McCurdy, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Al r
SEAL Matt McCurdy
Feb 22 2019 3:29 PM
Michael Revis, P.E.
Senior Engineer
S&ME, Inc. 144 Buck Shoals Road, Suite C-3 I Arden, NC 28704 1 p 828.687.9080 1 www.smeinc.com

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
a
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina 111
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019 E
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Information...........................................................................................................1
2.0 Exploration and Testing...................................................................................................2
2.1 Field Explorations...........................................................................................................................2
2.2 In -Situ Resistivity...........................................................................................................................2
2.3 Laboratory Testing.........................................................................................................................3
3.0 Site
and Subsurface Conditions.....................................................................................3
3.1
Site Conditions................................................................................................................................3
3.2
Area Geology..................................................................................................................................5
3.3
Subsurface Conditions...................................................................................................................6
3.3.1
Ground Cover....................................................................................................................................6
3.3.2
Existing Fill....................................................................................................................................... 6
3.3.3
Alluvium...........................................................................................................................................6
3.3.4
Residuum..........................................................................................................................................7
3.3.5
Partially Weathered Rock (PWR).....................................................................................................7
3.3.6
Auger Refiesal Materials...................................................................................................................7
3.3.7
Subsurface Water..............................................................................................................................7
3.4
Field (In -Situ) Resistivity Test Results.........................................................................................8
3.5
Laboratory Test Results.................................................................................................................8
3.5.1
Moisture — Density Comparisons..................................................................................................... 8
3.5.2
Soil Index Testing............................................................................................................................. 8
3.5.3
Soil Corrosivity Testing....................................................................................................................9
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................................9
4.1 General Discussion.........................................................................................................................9
4.2 Excavation Considerations..........................................................................................................10
4.2.1 Dense Soil, Partially Weathered Rock, and Rock............................................................................10
4.2.2 Subsurface Water............................................................................................................................10
4.2.3 General............................................................................................................................................11
February 22, 2019

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
a
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina I I I
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
4.3 Earthwork Recommendations....................................................................................................11
4.3.1
Site Preparation, Existing Fill, Subgrade Evaluation, and Stabilization.......................................11
4.3.2
Fill Placement and Compaction......................................................................................................11
4.3.3
In -Place Density Testing................................................................................................................12
4.4
Stabilization of New Construction.............................................................................................12
4.4.1
Bridge Arch Culvert........................................................................................................................12
4.4.2
Pavement Areas...............................................................................................................................12
4.5
Lateral Earth Pressures................................................................................................................13
4.6
Foundation Recommendations...................................................................................................14
4.6.1
Shallow Foundation Recommendations..........................................................................................14
4.6.2
Intake Structure Support................................................................................................................15
4.7
Seismic Site Classification...........................................................................................................16
5.0 Limitations of Report.....................................................................................................16
Appendices
Appendix I -
Boring Location Plan (Figure 1)
Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols
Boring Logs
Appendix II -
Rock Core Photographs
Appendix III -
Laboratory Test Reports — Soil
Appendix IV -
Laboratory Test Reports — Corrosivity
Appendix V -
Resistivity Test Location Plan (Figure 2)
Soil Resistivity Data Sheet
Appendix VI -
Field Testing Procedures
Important Information about Your Geotechnical Report
February 22, 2019

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
a
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina 111
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019 E
1.0 Project Information
Our understanding of the project is based on the following:
Emails from Mr. Mike Osborne and Mr. Keith Howard with Black & Veatch to Mr. Matt McCurdy with
S&ME on May 3, 4, and 8, 2017 (during the proposal phase);
Requested work scope dated May 1, 2017 and emailed on May 4, 2017, which included the following:
Attachment A - Scope of Geotechnical Services;
Attachment B — Requirements for Soil Corrosivity Tests;
Attachment C — Scope of Natural Resources Services;
Figure 1— Boring Location Plan for French Broad River site;
Figure 2 — Aerial Image with Approximate Survey Limits for Mills River site;
Brief site reconnaissances by Mr. McCurdy on May 8, 2017 and by Mr. Tim Cleary with S&ME on May 10,
2017 (during the proposal phase) and several site visits during the exploration;
A site meeting with Mr. Osborne and Mr. Ryan Shy, P.E. with Black & Veatch and Mr. McCurdy on
November 30, 2017;
Review of the following Black & Veatch civil plan sheets (undated but provided via email per dates below):
Sheet C-03 A, civil site plan option (provided February 1, 2018);
Sheet C-07 B, pump station sections (provided February 5, 2018);
Sheet C-03 B, civil site plan option (provided February 28, 2018 and included requested boring
locations on the French Broad River); and
Telephone calls and emails between Messrs. Osborne, Shy, Zachary Taylor (with Black & Veatch) and
McCurdy.
We understand the City of Hendersonville is planning to construct a new intake structure and pump station along
the French Broad River. The new raw water intake will have an initial firm pumping capacity of 12 million gallons
per day (MGD) with expansion to 21 MGD with minimal modifications. The new pump station will discharge into
an existing 30-inch diameter raw water line that extends to the water treatment plant (WTP).
The depths of installation for the water intake and pump station are preliminary at this time, but based on Sheet
C-07 B, the bottom of the pump station will be about Elevation 2031 feet and the ground surface will be about
2051 feet. Other equipment will be housed inside the structure above the ground surface and the roof will house
HVAC equipment.
The preliminary site plan indicates a gabion basket system may be used to stabilize the west river bank in the area
of construction. New pavement areas will be constructed and the access road to the intake structure will require a
bridge culvert where a drainage creek will be crossed. Site cover will include asphalt pavement, stabilized gravel
pavement, and bio-stabilized matting.
February 22, 2019

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019 E
2.0 Exploration and Testing
2.1 Field Explorations
The field explorations included visual site reconnaissances and boring layouts by our staff professionals, and
performance of six soil test borings (borings labeled FBR-1 through FBR-6) advanced to depths ranging from 30 to
70 feet below the surface.
The location of FBR-1 was identified in the field by Mr. Shy and Mr. Osborne during the site visit with Mr. McCurdy
on November 17, 2017. The other borings were selectedjointly by S&ME and Black & Veatch and identified in the
field with a portable GPS unit. The boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1) in Appendix
I. (The site plan was modified after drilling and Figure 1 is based on a revised site plan dated January 2019.)
Because precise survey techniques were not used, the indicated locations should be considered approximate. In
addition to Figure 1, Boring Logs presenting the subsurface information obtained and a description of the boring
procedures are included in Appendix I. The ground surface elevations shown on the boring logs were
interpolated from the provided topographic site plan and are approximate. Water surface elevations for borings
FBR-2 and FBR-3 performed in the French Broad River were interpolated from the spot elevations of the river
bottom shown on the civil drawings and are also very approximate.
Prior to drilling, the areas were checked for the presence of underground utility lines. We contacted NC811 (One
Call) to obtain locate tickets and have public utilities made aware of our intent to drill. We also coordinated utility
locating by Vaughn & Melton Consulting Engineers, who used ground -penetrating radar to mark the existing
underground lines at FBR-1 and FBR-4.
The borings were made with track-, ATV-, and barge -mounted drill rigs and advanced using hollow stem auger,
casing advancer, and mud rotary techniques. Boring FBR-1 was drilled with a track -mounted Diedrich D-50 rig on
December 6 and 7, 2017. Borings FRB-2 and FBR-3 were drilled with a barge -mounted Diedrich D-25 rig on
October 23 and 24, 2018. Borings FBR-4 through FBR-6 were drilled with an ATV -mounted CME 550X rig on
October 30 through November 2, 2018. Split -spoon samples and standard penetration resistance (N) values were
obtained at selected intervals using automatic hammers. The boring samples were logged in the field by our staff
engineer or geologist. One bulk sample and three relatively undisturbed Shelby tube samples were obtained.
After auger refusal was encountered in boring FBR-1, core drilling procedures were used to extend the boring
about 15 feet below the auger refusal level. A temporary piezometer was installed at boring FBR-1 so that
subsurface water levels could be monitored for an extended period. This was abandoned on November 2, 2018.
2.2 In -Situ Resistivity
A field (in -situ) resistivity survey was performed by our staff professional on the west side of the French Broad
River following the Wenner Four -Pin Method. The readings were taken along a line with "a" spacings of 2.5, 5, 10,
15, 20, 25, and 30 feet. The field resistivity testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM G57. The
approximate location of the survey is shown on Figure 2, along with the resistivity test data, in Appendix V.
February 22, 2019

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
a
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina 111
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019 E
2.3 Laboratory Testing
The samples obtained during the exploration were transported to our laboratory where they were visually and
manually classified by a geotechnical engineer. The visual and manual classification was estimated based on the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and our experience with similar soil conditions. The rock cores were
classified by a geotechnical engineer and the recovery (REC) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) were
determined.
S&ME laboratory technicians performed quantitative ASTM-standardized laboratory testing on select bulk and
split -spoon samples. The following laboratory tests (and number of each) were performed or will be performed:
Natural moisture content (7);
Grain size analysis with No. 200 sieve wash (3);
Atterberg limits (2); and
Standard Proctor compaction (1).
Additionally, samples from borings FBR-1, FBR-2, FBR-3, and FBR-6 were subjected to a series of corrosivity tests.
These samples were shipped to subcontracted laboratories (Microbac and Corrpro) and subjected to the following
tests:
Soil resistivity;
pH;
Chloride content;
Sulfide content;
Redox potential; and
Sulfate content.
The laboratory data sheets for the above referenced tests are included in Appendix III (soil) and IV (corrosivity),
and the results are discussed briefly in Section 3.5. Some of the lab reports from Microbac and Corrpro contain
tests on samples from the Mills River water intake project (MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3), so the French Broad River
tests are highlighted on the appended reports.
3.0 Site and Subsurface Conditions
3.1 Site Conditions
The proposed site is located east of Hooper Lane, on the west bank of the French Broad River in Mills River, North
Carolina. The site is near a sod farm (Super -Sod) which is located directly adjacent to the west and north sides. A
gravel trail extends east from Hooper Lane to the site and the river. A drainage creek, which flows into the river, is
just south of the trail and the proposed site of the pump station structure. The river bank is about 8 feet tall and
partly wooded and vegetated. An existing 30-inch diameter raw water distribution pipe is located at the west end
of the proposed construction area and extends west along the gravel trail. This existing line extends to the water
February 22, 2019

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
treatment plant (WTP). Also, underground irrigation lines associated with the farm are near the river at the
proposed site. Two site photographs are included below.
February 22, 2019 4

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
=0
Based on the provided site survey, ground surface elevations vary from about 2050 to 2055 feet on the west side
of the French Broad River, and the drainage creek flowing into the river has a bottom elevation ranging from
about 2044 to 2042 feet. The land along the river in this area was flooded multiple times during 2018. We note
that the rainfall totals over 2018 were much higher than the annual average.
3.2 Area Geology
The project site is in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of North Carolina, very near the contact with the Inner
Piedmont, an area underlain by ancient igneous and metamorphic rocks.
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
February 22, 2019

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
=0
Mills River, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
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.
Typically, the upper soils along streams, creeks, rivers, drainage features, and in geologic floodplain areas are
water -deposited materials (termed alluvium) that have been eroded and washed down from higher ground.
These alluvial soils are usually wet, soft and compressible, having never been consolidated by pressures in excess
of their present overburden. Alluvial materials can vary from silts and clays to sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders,
and can contain organic debris.
3.3 Subsurface Conditions
A general description of subsurface conditions is provided below. For more detailed information the Boring Logs
in Appendix I should be reviewed.
3.3.1 Ground Cover
Borings FBR-2 and FBR-3 were drilled over the water in the French Broad River. About 5 to 5.5 feet of water was in
the river above the river bottom at the time of drilling.
The other borings were drilled on land. No topsoil is shown on the logs. We note some topsoil was removed
during clearing of vegetation at borings FBR-5 and FBR-6. Also, the alluvial materials near the surface typically
contained some organics and is similar to topsoil.
3.3.2 Existing Fill
Boring FBR-4 initially penetrated existing fill material to 3 feet below the surface. The fill was generally described
as black, brown, and white sandy silt (USCS Group Symbol ML) with asphalt pieces. The fill exhibited a standard
penetration resistance value (N-value) of 10 blows per foot (bpf), which indicated a stiff consistency. It appears
the fill is associated with the access road and regrading of the road over time.
3.3.3 Alluvium
Below the fill in boring FBR-4 and from the ground surface in the remaining borings, alluvium (water -deposited
soil and rocks) was encountered to depths ranging from 8 to 18 feet below the surface. The alluvium was
generally described as brown and gray silty sand (USCS Group Symbol SM), poorly graded sand (SP), and gravel
with sand (GW). The bottom layer of alluvium in boring FBR-1 was classified as sandy silt (ML). The alluvial
materials were described as moist to wet, or well above their estimated standard Proctor optimum moisture
contents. The upper parts of some of the alluvium were often mixed with topsoil, or organic soil, with some roots.
Varying amounts of rock pieces were encountered in the alluvium. Standard Penetration Test N-values ranged
from weight of hammer (WOH, meaning only the weight of the drilling rods and hammer penetrated the 18 inch
February 22, 2019

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
=0
sampling depth) to 32 bpf in the alluvium. The N-values obtained indicated a very loose to dense relative density
in the sandy soils and gravel, and a very stiff consistency in the silty soils. However, it is likely that the N-values for
the some of the soils were amplified by the rocky materials.
3.3.4 Residuum
Residual soils were encountered below the alluvium and were generally described as brown, orange and gray
sandy silt (ML) and silty sand (SM). We note the residuum in boring FBR-4 was encountered below a layer of
partially weathered rock as described below. Standard Penetration Test N-values ranged from 10 to 77 bpf in the
residuum, indicating a very stiff to very hard consistency in the silty soils and a loose to very dense relative density
in the sandy soils. Boring FBR-5 was terminated in residual soil at 30 feet below the surface.
3.3.5 Partially Weathered Rock (PWR)
Partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered in all of the borings, except boring FBR-5, at depths ranging from
8 to 27 feet below the ground surface. PWR is defined as a transitional material between very hard soil and rock
which has a Standard Penetration Test N-value of at least 50 blows per 6 inches. The PWR was generally
described as brown, gray, and white, very dense silty sand (SM) and very hard sandy silt (ML). The PWR was
layered in residual soils in borings FBR-2, -3, -4, and -6. Borings FBR-2, -3, -4, and -6 were terminated in PWR at
their planned termination depths of 40 to 70 feet.
3.3.6 Auger Refusal Materials
Auger refusal was encountered at 51.1 feet below the surface in boring FBR-1. Samples of the refusal material
were obtained by rock coring procedures. Based on the approximately 15-foot long core, the refusal material
generally consisted of biotite gneiss.
The core recovery (REC) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values are shown on the boring log. The recovery is
a measure of the length of rock sample recovered relative to the total length of sample cored, expressed as a
percentage. In some cases, this percentage is an indication of the relative continuity of the rock. The relative
quality of bedrock is termed the RQD which is a measure of the amount of rock recovered, considering only intact
segments of core 4 inches or longer, relative to the total length of sample cored. Higher values generally indicate
less weathering and fracturing, and higher quality rock. The recovery (REC) values of the rock cores were 56 to 75
percent. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values were 6 to 24 percent. The recovery and RQD values indicate
the rock is moderately weathered, severely fractured, and likely contains softer zones of PWR or soil.
3.3.7 Subsurface Water
Subsurface water was encountered in borings FBR-1, -4, -5, and -6 at depths of 5 to 8 feet below the ground
surface on the day of drilling. The piezometer that was installed adjacent to FBR-1 was also checked for the
subsurface water level over time. The water levels were recorded at the following depths:
February 22, 2019

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
=0
Bo
FBR-1
Date
12/7/2017
Depth
8.0
FBR-1
1/5/2018
5.5
FBR-1
2/2/2018
5.9
FBR-1
3/5/2018
5.5
FBR-1
4/9/2018
5.9
FBR-1
5/4/2018
5.9
FBR-1
10/31/2018
5.7
Subsurface water elevations should be expected to fluctuate due to seasonal variations in rainfall, the level of the
French Broad River and its tributaries, construction activity, and other factors, and will be encountered at different
depths in the future.
3.4 Field (In -Situ) Resistivity Test Results
Soil resistivity was tested in the field using the Wenner Four -Electrode Method at multiple "a" spacings ranging
from 2.5 to 30 feet. The survey was performed on the edge of the gravel trail, as shown on Figure 2 in Appendix
V. Apparent in -situ resistivity varied from 26,164 to 35,487 ohm -centimeters. The data sheet for the resistivity
testing is provided in Appendix V.
3.5 Laboratory Test Results
A general description of the laboratory test results is provided below. For more detailed information, the
individual test reports in Appendices III and IV should be reviewed. Because the soils were generally non -
cohesive, the tests (consolidation, unconfined compression, unit weight, swell, etc.) proposed for "cohesive" soils
were not performed.
3.5.1 Moisture — Density Comparisons
A standard Proctor compaction test was performed on a bulk sample from FBR-3, indicating a maximum dry
density of 96.5 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and an optimum moisture of 23.3 percent. The natural (in -situ)
moisture content of the bulk sample was 51.3 percent. A total of six other laboratory moisture tests were
performed on samples obtained during the exploration and indicated in -situ moisture contents of 19.2 and 35.4
percent. The lower moisture content was taken from a sample at 28.5 to 35 feet below the surface. These tests
indicate that the majority of the site soils that may be encountered during site work would require significant
drying to achieve compaction.
3.5.2 Soil Index Testing
Three grain size distribution tests were performed along with two Atterberg limits tests. The grain size tests
indicated about 42 to 49 percent fines (silt and clay). Based on the test results, these samples classified as silty
sand (USCS Group Symbol SM).
February 22, 2019

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
=0
The Atterberg limits tests indicated liquid limit of 34 and 36, and plasticity indexes of 4 and 5. Therefore, the
samples were classified as silty sand (SM), and are considered to have a very low plasticity.
3.5.3 Soil Corrosivity Testing
Five samples were transported to subcontracted laboratories (Microbac and Corrpro) and tested for a number of
corrosivity properties which are briefly described below:
Laboratory Resistivity — Samples had laboratory resistivity values of 18,400 to 85,440 ohm -centimeters;
pH — Samples were measured for pH with results of 4.61 to 6.21;
Chlorides — Samples were tested for presence of water soluble chloride content and indicated a chloride
content of less than 30 parts per million (ppm);
Sulfides — Samples were tested for presence of sulfides and did not appear to have sulfide present;
Redox Potentials — Samples were tested for redox and indicated 222 to 416 millivolts; and
Sulfates — Samples were measured to have sulfate contents of 2.9 to 16.4 mg/kg by Microbac. Corrpro
reported sulfate contents of less than 50 to 130 parts per million in samples from FBR-2, -3, and -6.
The test reports from Microbac and Corrpro are provided in Appendix IV. As previously stated, some of the lab
reports from Microbac and Corrpro contain tests on samples from the Mills River water intake project (MR-1, MR-
2, and MR-3), so the French Broad River tests are highlighted on the appended reports.
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on information and assumptions concerning
existing and expected final site grades, our understanding of the proposed project, findings of the subsurface
explorations, geotechnical engineering evaluations of encountered subsurface conditions, and experience with
similar projects. When reviewing this information, please keep in mind subsurface conditions vary erratically in
this geologic area, particularly with respect to existing fill, alluvium, partially weathered rock, bedrock, and
subsurface water levels.
4.1 General Discussion
The results of the explorations indicate the following geotechnical issues will most likely be necessary/considered
for construction of the new intake structure and pump station:
Constructing and dewatering a cofferdam around the work area in the river;
Dewatering and excavation bracing for the pump station construction;
Potential unstable excavation sidewalls requiring sloping back to less steep inclinations or shoring;
Installation of piping below the subsurface water table (dewatering and stabilization);
Foundation conditioning/stabilization under the bridge culvert and stabilization under the new
pavements; and
The on -site alluvial soils will not be suitable for reuse as compacted backfill.
February 22, 2019

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
=0
Based on the borings, the site contains alluvial materials along the river bank to about 18 feet below the surface,
and to about 3 feet beneath the river bottom. Blue Ridge residual soils and PWR were encountered below the
alluvium. Auger refusal was encountered in only FBR-3 at about 51 feet below the surface, which is deeper than
the planned excavation depths for the intake structure and piping. The boring data indicates excavations can
likely be made with a large, tracked excavator using pneumatic tools. However, PWR was encountered as shallow
as 8 feet below the river bottom in FBR-2 and as shallow as 18 feet below the ground surface in boring FBR-4. In
the area of FBR-4, the excavation for the pump station will be near the contact between alluvium and PWR, so
some excavation of PWR may be required and will require more diligent effort by the contractor. It is important to
realize that rock and PWR levels can vary in this geologic region and excavation difficulty in PWR is common.
Also, PWR can be difficult to excavate in confined areas and light blasting is sometimes required.
4.2 Excavation Considerations
4.2.1 Dense Soil, Partially Weathered Rock, and Rock
As discussed in the section above, excavation difficulty due to rock is not anticipated based on data from the
borings and the 10- to 20-foot planned excavation depths. PWR was encountered at 8 feet in boring FBR-2 and at
18 feet in FBR-4, so it is more likely that some PWR could be encountered in deeper excavations. The PWR can
cause greater difficulty, requiring heavier equipment, greater effort, and in some cases blasting or the use of
pneumatic tools (such as a backhoe-mounted hammer) will be required to excavate. PWR is often more difficult
to remove in confined excavations such as trenches.
Please note that in this geologic region rock elevations and locations can vary erratically over short horizontal
distances. It is always possible that rock or dense soils can be encountered in areas intermediate of the borings or
in unexplored areas and require excavation by blasting or the use of pneumatic tools.
4.2.2 Subsurface Water
Subsurface water will be encountered during construction of the intake structure and pump station and culvert
stabilization, and most likely will be encountered during piping excavations. The existing ground surface, and
especially any excavations within about 3 feet of the water table, will probably be wet and unstable. There are a
number of methods available. We advise letting the contractor select the dewatering method based on the final
grades and construction implications, with the stipulation that the subsurface water level be maintained at least 2
feet below excavation bottoms.
Water encountered in utility trenches can typically be controlled by pumping from sump pits. In wet trenches, the
trench bottoms will typically need to be stabilized with 6 to 12 inches of NCDOT No. 57 crushed stone bedding.
The No. 57 stone may need to be placed as trench backfill up to the water level. The open -graded crushed stone
should be separated from surrounding soils by wrapping it in a non -woven filter fabric to reduce migration of soil
into the open -graded crushed stone. The fabric should overlap the crushed stone layer at the top a minimum of
12 inches.
February 22, 2019 10

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019 E
4.2.3 General
Excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including OSHA
(29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. Also, excavating below the subsurface water level will
cause the slopes to be unstable at steep inclinations. 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.
4.3 Earthwork Recommendations
4.3.1 Site Preparation, Existing Fill, Subgrade Evaluation, and Stabilization
To prepare the site for construction, in areas to receive fill or new construction (such as the new pavement areas),
all surface vegetation, topsoil, roots and any other unsuitable surface materials should be stripped to at least 5
feet beyond the construction limits.
After stripping, the exposed subgrades should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical engineer.
During this evaluation, where practical, the exposed subgrade should be methodically proofrolled with a tandem -
axle dump truck or similar piece of rubber -tired equipment loaded at the engineer's discretion. Areas that deflect
excessively during proofrolling should be undercut or stabilized in place as recommended by the geotechnical
engineer. The evaluation by the geotechnical engineer or his representative could also include random probings
with a 1/2-inch diameter steel T-handle probe rod, observation of backhoe-excavated test pits, and/or hand auger
borings coupled with portable dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests. Based on the low consistency/strength of
the alluvial soils, some undercutting/stabilization as described in Section 4.4 below should be expected and
budgeted.
Proofrolling will not be practical inside the excavations for the intake structure and pump station. In these and
other inaccessible areas, the subgrades should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer by probing and auger
borings.
4.3.2 Fill Placement and Compaction
The majority of the alluvial soils sampled during this exploration appear to be unsuitable for reuse as structural
fill/backfill, primarily due to elevated organic and moisture contents. The alluvial soils could also contain
potentially large rock pieces, cobbles, and boulders. For these reasons, we expect all excavated materials will
require being hauled off -site or wasted in non-structural areas.
We expect the contractor will need to import essentially all of the fill and trench backfill soils. Any soils proposed
for fill should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer prior to hauling to the site. The imported fill soils should
have a maximum dry density of at least 100 pcf and a plasticity index (PI) of less than 20. Suitable soils include
sands, silty sands, low -plasticity clays, and gravels (USCS Group Symbols SP, SW, SM, CL, GW, and GP).
For this project, we recommend all fill/backfill should be spread in thin (6- to 8-inch thick) loose lifts and uniformly
compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by the standard Proctor
compaction test (ASTM D-698). The moisture content of the soil should be maintained between +/- 3 percent of
February 22, 2019 11

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
=0
the standard Proctor optimum moisture content. All structural fill should be free of organic matter and other
deleterious materials and have maximum particle size of 4 inches or less.
4.3.3 In -Place Density Testing
A qualified materials technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer should observe fill and
trench backfill placement. The technician should perform a sufficient number of in -place field density tests during
grading and backfilling of utility trenches to assess whether the recommended compaction criteria have been
achieved. Field check plugs should be performed to determine appropriate standard Proctor comparisons.
4.4 Stabilization of New Construction
Based on the provided preliminary drawings, in addition to the intake structure and pump station, a new bridge
arch culvert could be placed for the new road to cross the drainage creek, and new pavements and access drives
will be constructed. There will also be some river bank/slope stabilization constructed, but the type of
stabilization device is not known at this time (gabion baskets, sheet piles, king piles, secant wall, etc.). We expect
some undercutting and stabilization will be required for support of the new structures and pavements. The
following comments on anticipated stabilization are general. However, the extent of undercutting/stabilization
should be determined after locations and elevations are more defined. Our experience is that field evaluations by
our representatives at the time of construction, and discussions with the grading contractor, will usually help
determine the most practical and cost-effective remedial approach.
4.4.1 Bridge Arch Culvert
For the bridge culvert, stabilization will involve undercutting at least 3 feet below the foundation (and 3 feet
laterally beyond the foundation), placing a layer of biaxial geogrid (such as Tensar BX-1200), followed by crushed
stone. The entire undercut and backfill should be wrapped with a non -woven geotextile, with a minimum 12-inch
overlap at the top.
Based on the boring data and assuming the areas beneath the culvert foundations are undercut as previously
discussed, net allowable bearing pressures on the order of 1,000 psf would be available for preliminary design. If
higher bearing pressures are required, then additional remedial measures would be needed. However, the need
for and extent of undercutting/stabilization/remedial measures should be determined after locations and
elevations are more defined and based on site conditions at the time of construction. Keep in mind that
undercut/stabilization depths and measures will be greatly influences by water levels. So, dewatering measures
should be designed and implemented early on in the construction process.
4.4.2 Pavement Areas
The alluvial soils can generally remain in place below pavement areas, provided they are stable during
proofrolling. However, we expect most, if not all, of the subgrades will be unstable during proofrolling and some
undercutting and/or stabilization of these soils will be required. Stabilization will likely require placement of a
geotextile stabilization fabric or geogrid and/or up to about 2 feet of crushed stone. If recommended, the fabric
should consist of Mirafi HP 570 and the crushed stone should consist of railroad ballast or a surge stone with
February 22, 2019 12

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
=0
particle sizes ranging from 6 inches to fines. The need and extent of stabilization/undercutting in pavement areas
will need to be based on evaluation in the field at the time of construction. In favorable weather (hot and dry) the
need for remedial measures may be reduced somewhat.
4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures
The intake structure and pump station will be be constructed with cast -in -place concrete. The following are our
recommended parameters for use in design of concrete walls and substructures. Cast -in -place (CIP) concrete
retaining walls must be capable of resisting lateral earth pressures that will be imposed on them. Lateral earth
pressures to be resisted by the walls will be partially dependent upon the method of construction. Assuming the
walls are relatively rigid and structurally braced against rotation, design for a condition approaching the "at -rest"
lateral pressure should be assumed. However, in the event the walls are free to deflect (about 112 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, a frictionless wall and no hydrostatic pressure.
Table 4-1- Retaining Structure Design Parameters (Drained Strength)
At -Rest Condition
Active Condition
Moist
Equivalent
Equivalent
Passive
Unit
Friction
Soil Strata
Coefficient
Fluid
Coefficient
Fluid
Coefficient
Weight
Factor
(Ko)
Pressure
(Pcf)
(Kn)
Pressure
(Pcf)
(KP)
(701
(Pcf)
=====MM
Fill
StructuralNew
Fill/Backfill'
StoneNo. 57
®®
Backfill
'Fat/Lean Clay (CH/CL) and Elastic Silt/Silt (MH/ML) materials should not be used as wall structural backfill. Suitable backfill
material consists of sands (SM, SP, Sw, SC) and gravel.
For short term conditions, cohesive ML soils may not drain sufficiently for fully drained conditions to govern shear
strength. So, we suggest analyzing earth pressures using an undrained shear strength (Su) value of 600 psf, with
zero angle of internal friction (�u). Long term, the ML soils will drain and strength will be controlled by effective
February 22, 2019 13

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
=0
stresses. Drained parameters presented in Table 4-1 are applicable for short and long term conditions for SM
soils.
Based on our conversations with Black & Veatch, substructure wall drainage is optional. However, the above -
recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients/parameters do not consider the development of hydrostatic
pressure behind the earth retaining wall structures. As such, if positive wall drainage is not provided for earth
retaining structures, full hydrostatic pressure should be added to the earth pressures. Wall drainage systems can
be constructed of open -graded washed stone isolated from the soil backfill with a geosynthetic filter fabric and
drained by perforated pipe or weepholes. As an alternative, several wall drainage products are produced
specifically for this application. We suggest using a water elevation of at least elevation 2046 feet for preliminary
design purposes based on the water levels measured in the piezometer (as shallow as 5.5 feet below the existing
ground surface). In addition to the water and soil pressures, lateral earth pressures arising from surcharge loading
should be added to the above pressures to determine the total lateral pressure. Also, if the backfill will be sloping
upward, the coefficients (Ko and KA) will be significantly increased.
The soil backfill placed behind retaining walls and for fill placed in the passive zone should be placed and
compacted in accordance with Section 4.3.2. However, as stated in the note below Table 4.1, sands and gravels
are recommended for wall backfills; clays and silts should not be used. 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. The
backfill zone should be wide enough to facilitate compaction of soil backfill with compaction equipment. This will
be difficult for deep excavations. For this reason, it may be more practical for at least the lower parts of the
backfill to consist of No. 57 crushed stone. The minimum backfill zone behind retaining walls should include 3-
foot laterally at the bottom of wall and increasing to the surface at an inclination of approximately 60 degrees.
4.6 Foundation Recommendations
4.6.1 Shallow Foundation Recommendations
We understand the pump station will be supported on footings or a mat/slab about 20 feet below the surface.
There may be isolated footings for the stairs or other appurtenances that will be constructed only a few feet below
the existing ground surface.
Following site preparation as described above, the pump station structure may be supported by conventional
shallow spread footings bearing in residual soils, partially weathered rock, or new, compacted crushed stone after
being evaluated and approved by the geotechnical engineer. If any alluvium remains after excavating the pump
station to planned subgrade elevation, it should be undercut to residual soil/PWR and replaced with No. 57
crushed stone densified in up to one foot lifts (non -woven filter fabric should be used to separate surrounding
soils from the crushed stone). We recommend a net maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf be used in
design of the pump station foundations. Other foundations constructed nearer the existing ground surface (in the
alluvial soils) should be designed with a reduced bearing pressure of 1,000 psf. These bearing pressures can be
increased by a third for transient seismic conditions. Based on our experience and the boring data, we estimate
maximum total structural settlement to be up to 1 inch. Maximum differential settlement between foundations is
estimated to be about 1/2 inch.
February 22, 2019 14

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina III
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
Continuous wall footings should be at least 18 inches wide and column footings should be at least 24 inches 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 inches below finished exterior grades to provide adequate
embedment against frost penetration.
The geotechnical engineer or his representative must observe the foundation bearing conditions at the 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. Undercutting some of the footings could
be required to penetrate lower -consistency soils, or if they have softened due to exposure to the elements, utility
installation, etc. We expect this for the stairs or any other lightly loaded footings that are constructed near the
existing ground surface. This undercutting should extend to a depth at least equal to the width of the footing.
Any undercut areas should be backfilled with compacted No. 57 crushed stone separated from the soils by a non-
woven filter fabric. Some crushed stone and filter fabric will also likely be needed to protect the foundation
subgrades for the pump station, due to subsurface water, between the time of excavation and concrete
placement.
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, consideration could be given to lowering the footing subgrade
and placing a 3- to 4-inch mud mat of lean (2,000 psi) concrete in the bottom of the excavation, or lowering and
placing about 12 inches of crushed stone, 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.
The pump station mat foundation can be supported on residual soils, partially weathered rock, or new, compacted
crushed stone after being evaluated and approved by the geotechnical engineer. We recommend using a
minimum 6-inch thick layer of crushed stone (No. 57) over a non -woven filter fabric to separate the floor slab
from the subgrade soils. A thicker layer of crushed stone may be required in at least parts of the pump station
areas, if not entirely, due to water -softened residual soils (resulting from the subsurface water). In this case, a
geotechnical engineer should evaluate the subgrade. We expect a maximum of 2 feet of crushed stone should be
satisfactory to stabilize a soft and wet subgrade. Also, if alluvium is encountered at the bottom of the excavation,
it should be undercut and replaced as described in the section above.
We expect a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 25 pci to be available for design of the mat over the compacted
stone.
4.6.2 Intake Structure Support
We understand a pile foundation may be needed for the intake structure. In our opinion, drilled micropiles
appear to be one of the more feasible foundation options based on the subsurface conditions encountered.
Micropiles would be constructed by drilling a relatively small diameter steel casing through the residual soils and
into partially weathered rock (PWR) and/or bedrock (although rock was not encountered at the boring termination
depth of FRB-6). Reinforcing steel in the form of an all -thread bar is typically placed full depth and high -strength
cement grout is then pumped through the casing using a tremie. The casing is typically removed through the
February 22, 2019 15

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
bond zone and left in place above the bond zone with the reinforcing bar extending the full depth. The micropiles
are typically 5 to 9 inches in diameter, and develop compressive and uplift load capacity through skin friction in
the bond zone within PWR and rock. There are other foundation types that could be suggested by a potential
contractor, but in our opinion micropiles appear to be a suitable approach.
For preliminary design purposes, we recommend using an ultimate skin friction of 5 ksf for PWR. This value
assumes the portion of the micropile in the PWR is uncased. Typically, end bearing does not contribute a
significant amount to the capacity of the micropiles and is normally neglected.
Micropiles should be designed in accordance with the 2018 North Carolina Building Code (2015 IBC with North
Carolina Amendments). A load test should be performed to determine the load carrying ability of the micropiles.
The finished micropile should be load tested in accordance with ASTM D 1143 (compressive), with a test load
equal to 2 times the service level design load. A minimum safety factor of 2 should be used for uplift conditions
and for downward loads with a successful load test. Group Uplift (NC Code 1810.3.3.1.6) should also be checked
to determine if it controls design. A micropile thickness reduction of 1/16 inch is typically assumed for each pile
due to potential corrosion. S&ME would be happy to perform the analysis and/or design for micropiles if
requested.
4.7 Seismic Site Classification
Based on the 2018 North Carolina Building Code, which includes the 2015 International Building Code with
amendments, it is our interpretation this site is a Seismic Site Class D.
The seismic design values SS and Si, were obtained from the USGS website based on the latitude and longitude of
the site, the 2010 ASCE 7 Seismic Hazard Maps, and using Site Class D for the pump station. The results of the
seismic analyses for the pump station are given in the table below.
D I 0.297g I 0.107g I 0.464g I 0.255g I 0.309g I 0.170g
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. This is based on the boring data and our experience with
geologic conditions in this area.
5.0 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
February 22, 2019 16

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Intake and Pump Station
=0
Mills River, North Carolina 111
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019 E
notified of the changes so that we can modify our recommendations based on this additional information if
necessary.
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on limited data from a field exploration program. Subsurface
conditions can vary widely between explored areas. Some variations may not become evident until construction.
If conditions are encountered which appear different than those described in our report, we should be notified.
This report should not be construed to represent subsurface conditions for the entire site.
Unless specifically noted otherwise, our field exploration program did not include an assessment of regulatory
compliance, environmental conditions or pollutants or presence of any biological materials (mold, fungi, bacteria).
If there is a concern about these items, other studies should be performed. S&ME can provide a proposal and
perform these services if requested.
S&ME should be retained to review the final plans and specifications to confirm that earthwork, foundation, and
other recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. The recommendations in this report are
contingent on S&ME's review of final plans and specifications followed by observation and monitoring of
earthwork and foundation construction activities by a qualified geotechnical engineer.
February 22, 2019 17

Appendices

Appendix I - Boring Location Plan,
Legend to Soil Classification and Symbols,
Boring Logs

Drawin Path: :\1441\17\019 Mills River French Broad Intake\fbr_BLP.mxd plotted by DHomans 02-22-2019
STABILIZED C FRENCH BROAD
GRAVEL 0-99-501 RIVER PUMPING STATION
{TYP} `� {SEE Ori1G 5-20-101)
ASPHALT C
PAVEldENT C-99-501
6I0-STARILIZATION x
2051.15
MATTING x-xX-xxx - r
t/ -
27J51 '52 BR-4
F-
a1/BMERSIBLE -
N 6}5752-47 PIMP VAULT
E 947759. 77 - ..
2052 OxxQ:,./'/
205'1.65' �... l FEB
ads '
_ BERM _
z95t.6G '
N 615718 6 _ -
._ lIRfiINAGE " a F 947844 52 ...
CREEK FB R 5 j
- — - -sc z
- ` ARCH CULVERT C-Oi 301 �C 07 30f �j � '�1 DRAINAGE CREEK
FBR-6 5a
STABILIZED _� .`
205325
0-99 501 GRAVEL (TYP) „.\Y .-2053.00
N-11.1 052. 95
N 6r5627.37 '�� P
2052,15 = E 947792.77 2U53 SU ,� FBR-2
i I 2053.50 '`� _rt RIP -PAP X
� i+ -' 2053. 5U . w.? AIi1dOR jNG C-0i-5U1
w "r
2052.
SHEET PILING - -�� 4 �p-
(TYPJ �. FRENCH BROAD FBR-3
✓ab53.do — RIVER INTAKE
(SEE DWG S-10-107)
r N 815585.24
E 947773.67
0 60 .120
(FEET)
REFERENCE: 2015 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
AERIAL OBTAINED FROM NC ONEMAP. SITE PLAN FROM "CITY OF HENDERSON FRENCH BROAD RIVERINAKE AND PS AND MILLS RIVERINTAKE
RELOCATION", BY BLACK & VEATCH, SHEET C-01-001, DATED JANUARY, 2019. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL APPROXIMATE SOIL TEST BORING LOCATION
FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
SCALE: FIGURE NO.
BORING LOCATION PLAN 1 ° - 60
DATE:
III = 2-22-19 1
FRENCH BROAD RIVER INTAKE PROJECT NUMBER
MILLS RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA 1441-17-019

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS
SOIL TYPES (USCS CLASSIFICATION)
(Shown in Graphic Log)
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
CONSISTENCY
Fill
Very Soft
Soft
Asphalt Firm
Stiff
Concrete Very Stiff
Hard
Very Hard
Topsoil
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
BLOWS/FOOT
0to2
3to4
5to8
9 to 15
16 to 30
31 to 50
Over 50
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
Gravel (GW, GM, GP)
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
Sand (SW, SP)
RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT
Very Loose 0 to 4
Silt (ML)
Loose 5 to 10
Medium Dense 11 to 30
Dense 31 to 50
Clay (CL, CH)
Very Dense Over 50
Organic (OL, OH)
SAMPLER TYPES CONSTITUENT MODIFIERS
(Shown in Samples Column) Trace: <5%0
Silty Sand (SM)
Few: 5 to <15 /o
Shelby Tube
Little: 15 to <30%
Clayey Sand (SC)
❑ Split Spoon Some: 30 to <50%
Mostly: 50 to 100 /o
Sandy Silt (ML)
m Rock Core
❑ No Recovery
Clayey Silt (MH)
TERMS
Sandy Clay (CL, CH)
Standard - The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling
Penetration 30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon
Silty Clay (CL, CH)
Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1586.
Partially Weathered
REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core
Rock
Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core
Run Times 100%.
Cored Rock
WATER LEVELS
(Shown in Water Level Column)
�Z = Water Level At Termination of Boring
1 = Water Level Taken After 24 Hours
= Loss of Drilling Water
HC = Hole Cave
RQD - Total Length of Sound Rock Segments
Recovered that are Longer Than or Equal to 4"
(mechanical breaks excluded) Divided by the
Total Length of the Core Run Times 100%.
TOB - Termination of Boring
N.E. - Not Encountered
III

PROJECT: French Broad River and Mills River Intakes
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG FBR-1
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
CLIENT: Black & Veatch International Co.
ELEVATION: 2051.0 ft
NOTES: From offset boring, Shelby tube samples
attempted from 2 to 4 feet, 8 to 10 feet, and 14 to
DATE DRILLED: 12/6117 - 12/7/17
BORING DEPTH: 65.6 ft
16 feet. Bulk sample obtained from 2 to 4 feet.
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50 Track
WATER LEVEL: 5.5' 3/5/18, 8'@ 18 hrs
Piezometer installed.
DRILLER: S&ME -J. Millwood
CAVE-IN DEPTH: WA
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: C. Mentch
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 3'/4" H.S.A Rock Coring
>Z
w
p}
BLOW COUNT
/ CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf •
=
w
U
a- o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
>
a- -
�
FINES %A
w
Q
0
(
2
PL NM LL
Z
W
w
(n
(n
N M
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - very loose,
brown gray, fine, mixed with topsoil, some roots,
1
1
1
some rock pieces, moist to wet
1
2
- Sample 3 - no recovery
2
1
WOH
WO
WOH
sampler clogged by rock
5
i
2046.0
3
WOH
WOH
1
1
4
WOH
1
1
2
10-
0
2041.0
ALLUVIUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - very stiff,
gray, coarse to fine, some clay, some rock
pieces, very moist
- N-value likely amplified
5
5
6
12
18
15
2036.0
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - very stiff to
hard, brown orange gray, fine to medium
6
10
14
19
33
20
2031.0
7
11
11
9
20
25
2026.0
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY
SAND (SM) - very dense, brown orange gray,
fine to medium, trace rock pieces
12
14
50/5
»
8
50/5"
30
2021.0
9
38
50/3"
»
50/3"
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG /S ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
z BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA /N GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 2
111=

PROJECT: French Broad River and Mills River Intakes
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG FBR-1
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
CLIENT: Black & Veatch International Co.
ELEVATION: 2051.0 ft
NOTES: From offset boring, Shelby tube samples
attempted from 2 to 4 feet, 8 to 10 feet, and 14 to
DATE DRILLED: 12/6117 - 12/7/17
BORING DEPTH: 65.6 ft
16 feet. Bulk sample obtained from 2 to 4 feet.
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-50 Track
WATER LEVEL: 5.5' 3/5/18, 8'@ 18 hrs
Piezometer installed.
DRILLER: S&ME -J. Millwood
CAVE-IN DEPTH: WA
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: C. Mentch
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 3'/4" H.S.A Rock Coring
>Z
w
p}
BLOW COUNT
/ CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf •
=
w
U
a- o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
>
a- -
�
FINES %A
w
Q
0
(
2
PL NM LL
Z
W
w
(n
(n
N M
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY
SAND (SM) - very dense, brown orange gray,
fine to medium, trace rock pieces (continued)
10
50/3"
»
50/3"
40
2011.0
11
50/3"
»
50/3"
45
2006.0
12
50/2"
»
50/2"
50
2001.0
BEDROCK: BIOTITE GNEISS - moderately
hard, gray tan, moderately weathered, severely
fractured (mostly 1 to 3 inches apart), 45 to 60
13
56%
7%
degree fractures and bedding planes, with some
55
soil -stained joints
1996.0
13
68%
6%
60
1991.0
14
75%
24%
65
1986.0
Refusal at 51.1 feet
Boring terminated at 65.6 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG /S ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
z BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA /N GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 2 of 2
111=

PROJECT: French Broad River and Mills River Intakes
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG FBR-2
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
CLIENT: Black & Veatch International Co.
ELEVATION: 2044.5 ft
NOTES: Drilled with barge in French Broad River.
Elevations shown are based on spot elevations
DATE DRILLED: 10/23/18 - 10/24/18
BORING DEPTH: 70.5 ft
shown on civil drawings and should be considered
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-25
WATER LEVEL: surface
very approximate
DRILLER: Mid Atlantic Drilling
CAVE-IN DEPTH: NIA
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD:
Mud Rotary
U
w
z0
w
O }
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpi •
=
w
Q O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ ^
0
w ~
w
z w o
LU
FINES % �
w
�
Q
w
o
Q
w
a
Q
a
PL NM LL
z
U)
N M
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
French Broad River
5
2039.5
�'.
ALLUVIUM: GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW) -
brown gray, fine to coarse, with rounded gravel
1
46
pieces, very moist
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - medium
9
4
5
10
dense to loose, gray, medium to coarse, some
2034.5
2
29
rock pieces, some clay, very moist
3
5
3
7
0
12
50/9'
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY
15
SILT (ML) - very hard, tan brown, fine to
2029.5
4
50/5"
medium, very moist
5
17
28
5
45
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - dense,
brown, fine to coarse, with clay, very moist
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY
6
8
50/5"
»
50/5"
20
SAND (SM) - very dense, brown, fine to
2024.5
coarse, with clay, very moist
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - very stiff, tan
brown, fine to medium
25
2019.5
7
9
3
4
27
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SAND
WITH GRAVEL (SW-SM) - very dense, white
8
50/4"
»
0/4°
30
gray, fine to coarse, with clay, with rock pieces,
2014.5
very moist
9 z
50/3'
>>
0/3"
35
2009.5
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY
SILT (ML) - very hard, brown
35
50/2"
»
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. A ORIN S SAMPLING
A M I NG NDM PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 2
� s
�111=

PROJECT: French Broad River and Mills River Intakes
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG FBR-2
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
CLIENT: Black & Veatch International Co.
ELEVATION: 2044.5 ft
NOTES: Drilled with barge in French Broad River.
Elevations shown are based on spot elevations
DATE DRILLED: 10/23/18 - 10/24/18
BORING DEPTH: 70.5 ft
shown on civil drawings and should be considered
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-25
WATER LEVEL: surface
very approximate
DRILLER: Mid Atlantic Drilling
CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD:
Mud Rotary
w
O }
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpi •
= ^=
w
U
C�
Q 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
J
~ 0
w
w ~
w
z w o
FINES % A
w
Q
w
o
_*
Q
a
Q
PL NM LL
z
w
U) Q
a a
U)
cq M
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY
SAND (SM) - very dense, brown, fine to
coarse, some rock pieces
11
50/5"
> >1
060/5"
45
1999.5
50
1994.5
12
11
35
50/2"
>>
50/2"
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - very dense,
tan dark -brown, fine to coarse
55
1989.5
13
9
27
45
72
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY
SILT (ML) - very hard, tan brown, fine to
25
504'
»
60
medium
1984.5
14
soi4°
65
1979.5
15
40
40
50/1"
> >1
050/1"
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY
SAND (SM) - very dense, tan brown, fine to
16
50/2
»
0/2°
70
coarse, with clay, some rock pieces, very moist
1974.5
Boring terminated at 70.5 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. A ORIN S SAMPLING
A M I NG NDM PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 2 of 2
� s
111=

PROJECT: French Broad River and Mills River Intakes
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG FBR-3
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
CLIENT: Black & Veatch International Co.
ELEVATION: 2044.5 ft
NOTES: Drilled with barge in French Broad River.
Elevations shown are based on spot elevations
DATE DRILLED: 10/23/18 - 10/23/18
BORING DEPTH: 75.0 ft
shown on civil drawings and should be considered
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-25
WATER LEVEL: surface
very approximate
DRILLER: Mid Atlantic Drilling
CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD:
Mud Rotary
z0
w
O }
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpi •
=
w
U
Q O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
~ ^
0
w ~
w
z w o
LU
FINES % �
w
�
Q
w
o
Q
a
Q
a
PL NM LL
z
w
U)
N M
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
French Broad River
5
2039.5
�'.
ALLUVIUM: GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW) -
medium dense, brown tan, fine to coarse, wet
1
3
6
6
2
ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL
7
9
14
10
E.
(SP-SM) - medium dense to dense, gray, fine
2034.5
2
23
to coarse, with gravel and clay, wet
3
6
15
21
35
E.
4
5
19
24
43
15
2029.5
RESIDUUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - dense to
5
5
11
9
20
very dense, brown tan, fine to medium, very
moist
6
8
18
29
47
20
2024.5
7
12
19
33
52
25
2019.5
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY
SAND (SM) - very dense, brown gray tan, fine
50
50/2'
to coarse
8
'
so/z°
30
2014.5
- Samples 8 and 9 were moist
9
29
50/5"
50/5"
35
2009.5
10
30
50/4"
5014"
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. A ORIN S SAMPLING
A M I NG NDM PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 2
� s
�111=

PROJECT: French Broad River and Mills River Intakes
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG FBR-3
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
CLIENT: Black & Veatch International Co.
ELEVATION: 2044.5 ft
NOTES: Drilled with barge in French Broad River.
Elevations shown are based on spot elevations
DATE DRILLED: 10/23/18-10/23/18
BORING DEPTH: 75.0 ft
shown on civil drawings and should be considered
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-25
WATER LEVEL: surface
very approximate
DRILLER: Mid Atlantic Drilling
CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: P. Patton
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD:
Mud Rotary
z0
w
O }
BLOW COUNT
CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpi •
= ^
w
U
0- C�
Q 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
J
~
w
w ~
z w o
FINES % A
w
Q
W
o
.§
Q
ii
Q 2
PL NM LL
Z
w
U) Q
U)
1:1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY
SAND (SM) - very dense, brown gray tan, fine
to coarse
- Samples 8 and 9 were moist (continued)
11
15
28
50/9,
>>
05o/s
45
1999.5
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - hard, tan
brown, with clay, some sand, moist
12
4
16
16
32
50
1994.5
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY
SAND (SM) - very dense, brown, fine to
13
50/1"
»
0/1"
coarse, some rock pieces, trace clay
55
1989.5
14
50/1"
»
0/1"
60
1984.5
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY
SILT (ML) - very hard, brown, fine to coarse,
with clay, very moist
15
50/5"
>>
0/s"
65
1979.5
16
50/3"
>>
50/3"
70
1974.5
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY
SAND (SM) - very dense, tan brown, fine to
medium
17
50/2'
»
0/2°
75
1969.5
Boring terminated at 75 feet
NOTES:
1. TWIS LOG IS ONLY A PORTION OF A REPORT PREPARED FOR T14E NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGET14ER WIT14 TWAT REPORT.
2. BORING SAMPLING IA3DM PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCOR3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 2 of 2
� s
111=

a
a
c�
U)
c�
0
c�
z
0
m
m
J
c�
0
Q
co
m
Ir
PROJECT: French Broad River and Mills River Intakes
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG FBR-4
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
CLIENT: Black & Veatch International Co.
ELEVATION: 2050.0 ft
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED: 10/30/18-10/31/18
BORING DEPTH: 40.0 ft
DRILL RIG: CME 550X
WATER LEVEL: 6' @TOB
DRILLER: S&ME Herd/Bunch
CAVE-IN DEPTH: 4'
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: C. Mentch
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary
U
w
>
z0
w
O }
BLONCO AT
/ CORE DATA
SPT f�Value (bpf) •
W w
Q o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
a
FlNEs°�°
w
Q
o
PL Ivvl LL
Z
Q
-J
w
< Q
U)
0 o
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
FILL: SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, black brown
white, fine, with asphalt pieces
1
6
6
4
10
3
1
1
ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - very loose,
He
2 2
2
5
brown black, medium to fine, wet
1045.0
ACH
- no recovery of Sample 2
3
1
1
2
10
.0
4
3
8
8
23
ALLUVIUM: POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -
15
dense, tan, coarse, wet
.0
5
31
- sampler clogged by rock, minimal recovery
31
5'
»
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY
20
SILT (ML) - very hard, red tan gray, fine to
0
6
so/s
medium
25
5.0
7
411
>>
50/4"
SANDY SILT (ML) - very hard, gray tan
orange, fine to medium
13
34
43
30
.0
8
77
6"
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SILTY
9 E
»
0/6°
35
SAND (ML) - very dense, gray brown tan
15.0
orange, fine to coarse
30
29
5"
10
»
0/5'
40
010.0
Boring terminated at 40 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG /S ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA /N GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: French Broad River and Mills River Intakes
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG FBR-5
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
CLIENT: Black & Veatch International Co.
ELEVATION: 2050.0 ft
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED: 10/31/18-10/31/18
BORING DEPTH: 30.0 ft
DRILL RIG: CME 550X
WATER LEVEL: 5' @TOB
DRILLER: S&ME Herd/Bunch
CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: C. Mentch
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary
U
w
>
z0
w
O }
BLONCCUNT
/CORE DATA
SPT f�Value (bpf) •
W w
Q o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
a
FlNEs°�°
w
Q
o
PL fWl LL
Z
Q
-J
w
< Q
U)
to to
to
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - very loose,
brown, fine to medium, with topsoil, moist to wet
2
2
2
1
4
1
2
1
5
-J.
045.0
3
wOH
1
4
1
10
040.0
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - hard, gray
white tan, fine to coarse
5
10
19
29
48
15
0
7
20
29
20
030.0
6
49
SANDY SILT (ML) - very hard, brown tan
orange, coarse to fine
7
16
33
43
76
25
025.0
SANDY SILT (ML) - very stiff, tan brown,
coarse to fine, moist
g
15
13
15
28
30
0
Boring terminated at 30 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG IS ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1 -

PROJECT: French Broad River and Mills River Intakes
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG FBR-6
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
CLIENT: Black & Veatch International Co.
ELEVATION: 2053.0 ft
NOTES:
DATE DRILLED: 11/1/18 - 11/2/18
BORING DEPTH: 65.0 ft
DRILL RIG: CME 550X
WATER LEVEL: 5' @TOB
DRILLER: S&ME Herd/Bunch
CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: C. Mentch
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary
U
w
>
z0
w
O }
BLO✓VCO AT
/ CORE DATA
SPT f�Value (bpf) •
W w
Q o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
a
FlNEs°�°
w
Q
o
O
PL Ivvl LL
Z
Q
-J
w
< Q
U)
0 o
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - very loose,
brown, fine, mixed with topsoil, trace roots, very
1
1
2
1
3
moist to wet
1
ACH
1
2
1
5
U48.0
3
WOH
1
4
1
10
.0
8
16
16
ALLUVIUM: POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -
15
dense, gray tan, coarse to fine, wet
1038.0
5
32
16
13
8
RESIDUUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - very stiff,
20
gray tan, fine to coarse, very moist
.0
6
21
37
4"
>
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY
25
SILT (ML) - very hard, tan brown gray, fine
1028.0
so/a"
30
30
8
31
5"50/5"
12
23
25
SANDY SILT (ML) - hard, tan, brown gray,
35
fine, trace clay
08.0
9
as
9
14
25
40
13.0
10
39
11
1"
>>
50/1"
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG /S ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA /N GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 2

a
a
c�
c�
0
c�
z
0
o
m
m
J
c�
0
Q
co
m
Ir
PROJECT: French Broad River and Mills River Intakes
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG FBR-6
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
NOTES:
CLIENT: Black & Veatch International Co.
ELEVATION: 2053.0 ft
DATE DRILLED: 11/1/18 - 11/2/18
BORING DEPTH: 65.0 ft
DRILL RIG: CME 550X
WATER LEVEL: 5' @TOB
DRILLER: S&ME Herd/Bunch
CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: C. Mentch
SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary
U
w
>
z0
w
O }
BLONCO AT
/ CORE DATA
SPT f�Value (bpf) •
W w
Q o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
a
FlNEs°�°
w
Q
o
PL Ivvl LL
Z
Q
-J
w
< Q
0 o
U)
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK: SANDY
SILT (ML) - very hard, tan brown gray, fine
- sample 11 was mainly rock pieces
36
2"
50
(continued)
003.0
12
"
50/2"
55
998.0
13
41
2"
»
50/2"
60
993.0
14
3"
>>
50/3"
65
9880
15
5"
>>
50/5"
Boring terminated at 65 feet
NOTES:
1. THIS LOG /S ONLYA PORTION OFA REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NAMED
PROJECT AND MUST ONLY BE USED TOGETHER WITH THAT REPORT.
2. BORING, SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA /N GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 2 of 2

Appendix II — Rock Core Photographs

Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration Report
French Broad River Water Intake
S&ME Project No. 1441-17-019
N
Lf 1
r-I
N
r-I
` "
V
i
U
3
L
., • ��"r'�Y'_ r�-fie- _
O
k
O
t
Location /
Boring FBR-1 Rock Core
1
Orientation
Remarks
Left side of box
0
N
Ln
.--I
- �
now-
N
rl
V
y
U
L
o
Location /
Boring FBR-1 Rock Core
Orientation
2
Remarks
Right side of box

Appendix III — Laboratory Test Reports — Soil

Form No: TR-D422-WH-1Ga SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SOILS
Revision No. 1
Revision Date: 8/10/17 111 E
ASTM D 422
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project #: 1441-17-019 Report Date: 1/8/18
Project Name: Mills River and French Broad River Intakes Test Date(s): 1/3 - 1/5/18
Client Name: Black and Veatch International Company
Client Address: 10715 David Taylor Drive, Suite 240 Charlotte, North Carolina
Boring #: FBR-1 Log #: 205 Sample Date: 12/6/17
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 10,
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown gray, fine, some roots, topsoil, and rock pieces
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
Gravel
Liquid Limit
Specific Gravity
25.00 mm
13.2%
36
2.650
Coarse Sand 3.5%
Medium Sand 4.0%
Plastic Limit 31
Fine Sand
Silt & Clay
Plastic Index
Moisture Content
31.5%
47.8%
5
51.3%
Coarse Sand
3.5%
Medium Sand 4.0%
Fine Sand
31.5%
Description of Sand & Gravel Particles:
Hard & Durable 0
Rounded
Soft ❑
❑ Angular 0
Weathered & Friable ❑
Notes / Deviations / References:
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 1/8/18
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 FBR-3 (1-10) Grain.xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of]

Form No. TR-D4318-T89-90 LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT,
Revision No. 1 & PLASTIC INDEX
Revision Date: 7/26/17
ASTM D 4318 ❑x AASHTO T 89 ❑ AASHTO T 90 ❑
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project #: 1441-17-019 Report Date: 1/8/18
Project Name: Mills River and French Broad River Intakes Test Date: 1/5/18
Client Name: Black and Veatch International Company
Client Address: 10715 David Taylor Drive, Suite 240 Charlotte, North Carolina
Boring #: FBR-1 Log #: 205 Sample Date: 12/6/17
Location: Bulk Type: Bulk Depth: 1 - 10,
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown gray, fine, some roots, topsoil, and rock pieces
Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date: Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date:
Balance (0.01 g) 7537 1/30/2017 Grooving tool 14185 9/12/2017
LL Apparatus 13859 9/12/2017
Oven 7313 7/28/2017
Pan #
Tare #:
Liquid
Limit
Plastic Limit
P-1
P-2
P-3
1
2
A
Tare Weight
16.37
15.26
16.53
12.11
12.16
B
Wet Soil Weight + A
37.73
34.68
36.81
19.80
19.57
C
Dry Soil Weight + A
32.20
29.48
31.17
17.97
17.82
p
Water Weight (B-C)
5.53
5.20
5.64
1.83
1.75
E
Dry Soil Weight (C-A)
15.83
14.22
14.64
5.86
5.66
F
% Moisture (D/E)*100
34.9%
36.6%
38.5%
31.2%
30.9%
N
# OF DROPS
30
23
15
Moisture Contents determined by
ASTM D 2216
LL
LL = F * FACTOR
Ave.
Average
31.1%
46.0
41.0
c
v
;v 36.0
3
r
o6
2 31.0
NO
26.0 J
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
I
100
One Point
Liquid Limit
N
Factor
N
Factor
20
0.974
26
1.005
21
0.979
27
1.009
22
0.985
28
1.014
23
0.99
29
1.018
24
0.995
30
1,022
25
1.000
NP, Non -Plastic El
Liquid Limit 36
Plastic Limit 31
Plastic Index 5
Group Symbol SM
# of
Drops
Multipoint Method ❑�
rN__ __:_1 KA..+L....4 n
Wet Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation ❑ Air Dried ❑J % Passing #200 Sieve: 47.8%
Notes / Deviations / References:
ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of Soils
Matt Jacobs 1/8/18 Brian Vaughan, P.E. 1/8/18
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 FBR-3 (1-10) PI.xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Form No. TR-D698-2 MOISTURE - DENSITY REPORT "
Revision No.: 1
Revision Date: 07/25/17 r
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project #:
1441-17-019
Report Date:
1/8/18
Project Name:
Mills River and French Broad River Intakes
Test Date:
1/4/18
Client Name:
Client Address:
Black and Veatch International Company
10715 David Taylor Drive, Suite 240 Charlotte, North Carolina
Boring #:
FBR-1 Log #: 205
Sample Date:
12/6/17
Location:
Bulk Type: Bulk
Depth:
1 - 10,
Sample Description:
SILTY SAND (SM) - brown gray, fine, some roots, topsoil,
and rock pieces
Maximum Dry Density 96.5 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 23.3%
ASTM D 698 - - Method A
MMM
�..
..
% Passing
Oversize Fraction
Bulk Gravity 2.650
•. Oversize
-
-
•.
.. •.
..
Moisture -Density Curve Displayed: Fine Fraction ❑ Corrected for Oversize Fraction (ASTM D 4718)
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: #4 Sieve ❑x 3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑
Mechanical Rammer ❑ Manual Rammer ❑x Moist Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation ❑x
References / Comments / Deviations:
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
ASTM D 698: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort
Brian Vaughan, P.E. -Z5 Group Leader 1/8/18
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 FBR-3 (1-10) Proctor.xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page 1 of I

Form No: TR-D422-WH-1Ga SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SOILS
Revision No. 1
Revision Date: 8/10/17 111 E
ASTM D 422
S&ME, Inc. - Spartanburg: 301 Zima Park Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301
Project #: 1441-17-019 Report Date: 1/8/18
Project Name: Mills River and French Broad River Intakes Test Date(s): 1/3 - 1/5/18
Client Name: Black and Veatch International Company
Client Address: 10715 David Taylor Drive, Suite 240 Charlotte, North Carolina
Boring #: FBR-1 Log #: 205 Sample Date: 12/6/17
Location: samples 8 & 9 Type: Split -spoon Depth: 28.5 - 35'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown orange gray, fine to medium
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
Gravel
Liquid Limit
Specific Gravity
4.75 mm
0.8%
N/A
2.650
Coarse Sand 6.4%
Medium Sand 20.7%
Plastic Limit N/A
Fine Sand
Silt & Clay
Plastic Index
Moisture Content
23.5%
48.6%
N/A
19.2%
Coarse Sand
6.4%
Medium Sand 20.7%
Fine Sand
23.5%
Description of Sand & Gravel Particles:
Hard & Durable 0
Rounded
Soft ❑
❑ Angular 0
Weathered & Friable ❑
Notes / Deviations / References:
Brian Vaughan, P.E. Group Leader 1/8/18
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 FBR-3 (28.5-35) Grain.xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of]

Form No. TR-D4318-T89-90 LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT,
Revision No.1 & PLASTIC INDEX
Revision Date: 7/26/17
ASTM D 4318 ❑x AASHTO T 89 ❑ AASHTO T 90 ❑
S&ME, Inc. - Greenville 48 Brookfield Oaks Dr., Suite F Greenville, SC 29607
Project #: 1441-17-019 (Phase 04) Report Date: 11/20/18
Project Name: French Broad River Intake Test Date: 11/19/18
Client Name: Black & Veatch
Client Address: 10715 David Taylor Drive, Suite 240 Charlotte, NC
Boring #: FBR-6 Log #: 117g Sample Date: 11/01/18
Sample #: SS-2 Type: Split -spoon Depth: 3.5 - 5'
Sample Description: SILTY SAND (SM) - brown, fine, mixed with topsoil, trace roots
Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date: Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date:
Balance (0.01 g) 13942 9/11/2018 Grooving tool 23119 10/15/2018
LL Apparatus 23158 2/1/2018
Oven 13978 10/7/2018
Pan #
Tare #:
Liquid
Limit
Plastic Limit
6
7
8
9
10
A
Tare Weight
27.80
26.31
27.31
26.84
26.76
B
Wet Soil Weight + A
44.23
42.14
43.54
33.31
33.67
C
Dry Soil Weight + A
40.20
38.09
39.20
31.83
32.10
p
Water Weight (B-C)
4.03
4.05
4.34
1.48
1.57
E
Dry Soil Weight (C-A)
12.40
11.78
11.89
4.99
5.34
F
% Moisture (D/E)*100
32.5%
34.4%
36.5%
29.7%
29.4%
N
# OF DROPS
35
24
15
Moisture Contents determined by
ASTM D 2216
LL
LL = F * FACTOR
Ave.
Average
29.6%
44.0
39.0
c
34.0
0 29.0
24.0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
loo
One Point
Liquid Limit
N
Factor
N
Factor
20
0.974
26
1.005
21
0.979
27
1.009
22
0.985
28
1.014
23
0.99
29
1.018
24
0.995
30
1.022
25
1.000
NP, Non -Plastic ❑
Liquid Limit 34
Plastic Limit 30
Plastic Index 4
Group Symbol SM
# of
Drops
Multipoint Method 0
.,� -. hA-+L,-,4 r7
Wet Preparation Dry Preparation Ld Air Dried A % Passing the #200 Sieve: 42.4%
Notes / Deviations / References:
ASTM D 4318: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, & Plastic Index of Soils
Benjamin J. Kovaleski 11/20/18 �'`"a i`" 11/20/18
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 FBR-6 (3.5-5) PI.xlsx
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page I of I

Form No: TR-D2216-T265-1 LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF
Revision No.1 WATER CONTENT i •
Revision Date: 08/16/17 III E
ASTM D 2216 0 AASHTO T 265 ❑
S&ME, Inc. - Asheville: 44 Buck Shoals Road, Unit C3, Arden, NC 28704
Project #: 1441-19-019 Report Date: 1/4/2018
Project Name: Mills River and French Broad River Intakes Test Date(s): 12/20/2017 - 1/3/2018
Client Name: Black and Veatch International Company Amended Report
Client Address: 10715 David Taylor Dr., Suite 240, Charlotte, NC 28262 Original Report 12/12/06
Sample by: Drillers Sample Date(s): Varies
Sampling Method: Varies Drill Rig:
Method: A (i%) El B (o.i%) ❑ Balance ID. 12345 Calibration Date: 10/22/07
Oven ID. 12345 Calibration Date: 10/22/07
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Sample
Depth
Tare #
Tare Weight
Tare Wt.+
Wet Wt
Tare Wt. +
Dry Wt
Water
Weight
Percent
Moisture
N
°
t
ft.
grams
grams
grams
grams
%
e
MR-1
Corrosivity
18'-25'
AA
9.50
370.39
263.40
106.99
42.1%
MR-2
Corrosivity
8.5'-16.5'
Suzy
9.37
323.69
234.30
89.39
39.7%
MR-3
Corrosivity
15'-20'
BB
9.44
344.40
279.10
65.30
24.2%
FBR-1
Corrosivity
23'-24'
CC
9.40
354.36
264.60
89.76
35.2%
Notes / Deviations / Reterences Delete one of the references under Procedure.
Include Notes 1 through 5 as applicable
Also, Indicate the temperature of drying if different than 110°C+5
AASHTO T 265: Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soils
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
Technician Name Signature Certification Type /No. Date
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 TR-D2216.xlsm
Raleigh, NC. 27616 Page 1 of 2

Form No: TR-D1140-3 LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF WATER
Revision No.1 CONTENT & MATERIAL FINER THAN THE #200
Revision Date: 8/2/17 SIEVE
ASTM D 2216 - D 1140
S&ME, Inc. - Greenville 48 Brookfield Oaks Dr., Suite F Greenville, SC 29607
Project #: 1441-17-019 (Phase 04)
Report Date: 11/20/18
Project Name: French Broad River Intake Test Date(s): 11/16 - 11/20/18
Client Name: Black & Veatch
Client Address: 10715 David Taylor Drive, Suite 240 Charlotte, NC
Sample Dates: Various
Sampling Method: Split -spoon
Method: A ❑ B 0 Soaked 0 Soak Time 16 hrs.
Sample Identification
Tare Weight
Tare Wt.+
Wet Wt
Tare Wt. +
Dry Wt
Tare Wt. +
Dry Wt. after
Wash
Water Wt.
Percent
Moisture
% Passing
#200
Boring #, Sample #, Depth
grams
grams
grams
grams
grams
%
%
FBR-6, SS-2, 3.5-5'
0.00
70.62
47.62
27.44
23.00
48.3%
42.4%
FBR-6, 11-16.5'
0.00
103.04
76.08
---
26.96
35.4%
---
FBR-3, 10-11.5'
0.00
104.03
80.18
---
23.85
29.7%
---
FBR-2, 13.5-15'
0.00
105.44
85.01
---
20.43
24.0%
--i -
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Balance ID.: 13942 Calibration Date: 9111118 #200 Sieve: 23239 Calibration Date: 2119118
Notes/Deviations/References: ASTM D1140: Amount of Material in Soil Finer Than the No. 200 (75-um) ) Sieve
Method B uses a deflocculating agent such as Sodium Hexameta phosphate while soaking the specimen for at least 2 hours.
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
Benjamin Kovaleski NICET Lab Level III/117226 11/20/18
Technician Name Signature Certification Type/No. Date
Brian Vaughan, P.E. —�— Group Leader 11/20/18
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 Content & Wash #200 (FBR).xlsm
Raliegh, NC. 27616 Page I of]

Appendix IV — Laboratory Test Reports — Corrosivity

January 8, 2018
corrpro °
An Aeoron- Company
S&ME Inc.
44 Buck Shoals Road, Suite C-3
Arden, NC 28704
Attention: Christopher Mentch
[e-mail]
Subject: Soil Corrosivity Analysis — Mills River and French Broad River Intakes
Dear Chris,
Tabulated below are laboratory corrosion test results for the four soil samples provided. The data for the
samples indicate low soil corrosivity provided that they are representative of the soil that would be in
contact with buried metallic structures.
Sample ID.
Soil
Resistivity
(ohm -cm)
Moisture
Content
pH
Chlorides
Sulfides
(Y/N)
Redox
(mv)
FBR-1 (23' — 24')
18,400
Saturated
5.6
Neg (<30 ppm)
N
416
MR-1 (18' — 25')
23,200
Saturated
5.9
Neg (<30 ppm)
N
362
MR-2 (8.5' — 16.5')
29,200
Saturated
5.7
Neg (<30 ppm)
N
412
MR-3 (15' — 20')
21,600
Saturated
5.7
1 Neg (<30 ppm)
N
414
Soil Resistivity of each sample was tested in accordance with ASTM G187 which is an equivalently
accurate approach to measuring soil resistivity as compared to ASTM G57 which is the soil equivalent to
the water resistivity testing standard ASTM D1125. Soil sample preparation was performed
approximately at 5PM with testing completed at 6PM on the same day, January 81h 2018.
Soil pH of each sample was tested in accordance with ASTM G51 which is an equivalent standard to
ASTM D4972, but directed toward soil pH in the determination of soil corrosivity. Soil sample
preparation was performed approximately at 6PM with testing completed at 630PM on the same day,
January 8th 2018. The pH probe was calibrated using calibrated solutions of pHs 4, 7, and 10.
Redox (also known as ORP) and pH were measured as soon as the sealed samples were open; every care
was done to ensure the smallest amount of exposure to ambient laboratory air as possible. The electrode
was calibrated using buffer solutions of pH 4 and pH 7. Testing was performed via adapting the
procedure documented in ASTM D 1498 (a standard developed for measuring redox of water).
Sulfides were tested in a qualitative manner using sodium azide. Laboratory personnel monitored the
solution containing the soil sample and sodium azide for a strong effervescence as compared to the typical
CORRPRO COMPANIES, INC.
2069 A Lake Industrial Court • Conyers, GA 30013 • [phone] office • [phone] cell
www.corrpro.com

bubbling witnessed when the soil samples are suspended in a liquid allowing trapped gases to be released.
An "N" indicates that the evolution of gases was not apparent.
Water soluble chloride content was measured utilizing laboratory grade test strips with a minimum
sensitivity of 31 parts per million, which is well below the threshold for chloride being a contributing
factor to corrosion related failures of buried metallic structures in soil.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist in this project. Please contact me at [phone] or via email
at julian.jameskcorrpro.com should you have any questions or need additional input on this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
CORRPRO COMPANIES, INC.
Julian James, Engineer II
CORRPRO COMPANIES, INC.
2069 A Lake Industrial Court • Conyers, GA 30013 • [phone] office • [phone] cell
www.corrpro.com

LABORATORY ELECTROLYTE ANALYSIS
CLIENT`. S&ME ENGINEER: Bob Wallace
PROJECT: Mills River and French Road River Intakes TECHNICIAN: Zamshed Ahammad
OFFICE: Atlanta DATE RECEIVED: 11/14/18
JOB #:...... DATE OUT: December 6, 2018
As -received I Saturated
SAMPLE
TYPE
NT = not tested ND = not detected " calculated from as -received resistivity

�VMICROBAC°
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
David Loftis
S & ME, Arden
44 Buck Shoals Rd. Suite C-3
Arden, NC 28704
Workorder: 1722154 Project: 1441-17-019
Date Reported:
Date Received:
Cust #:
Po#:
1 /8/2018
12/22/2017
Analyte Result Units Dil Qualifier RL Analyst Analyzed Method
MR-1 Sampled: 12/19/2017 00:00
1722154-01 (Solid)
Wet Chemistry
Analyzed By: Microbac Knoxville Division
Sulfate 2.66 mg/kg 1 2.42 CWC 01/05/201817:50 SW8469056A
MR-2 Sampled: 12/19/2017 00:00
1722154-02 (Solid)
Wet Chemistry
Analyzed By: Microbac Knoxville Division
Sulfate ND mg/kg 1 2.45 CWC 01/05/201818:02 SW8469056A
MR-3 Sampled: 12/19/2017 00:00
1722154-03 (Solid)
Wet Chemistry
Analyzed By: Microbac Knoxville Division
sulfate— — _ — — — ND _ mg/kg _ 1 _ _ 2.35 _CWC_ 01/05/201818:14 _SW8469056A
FBR-1 Sampled: 12/19/2017 00:00
1722154-04 (Solid)
Wet Chemistry
Analyzed By: Microbac Knoxville Division
Sulfate 2.90 mg/kg 1 2.44 CWC 01/05/201818:26 SW8469056A
The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition
that it is not to be reproduced wholly or in part for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.
Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
505 East Broadway Avenue Maryville, TN 37804-5744 1 865-977-1200 p 1 865-984-8616 f I www.microbac.com
2109 West Market Street Johnson City, TN 37064 1423.926.6385 p 1423.926.6997 f I www.microbac.com
2631 Grandview Avenue Nashville, TN 37211 1615.242.1480 p 1612.242.5522 f I www.microbac.com
2511 Riverside Drive, Suite C-1 , Chattanooga, TN 37406 1615.207.9919 p I www.microbac.com
Page 1 of 2

�VMICROBAC°
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
David Loftis
S & ME, Arden
44 Buck Shoals Rd. Suite C-3
Arden, NC 28704
Workorder: 1722154 Project: 1441-17-019
Notes
and Definitions
DET
Analyte DETECTED
ND
Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit
NR
Not Reported
dry
Sample results reported on a dry weight basis
RPD
Relative Percent Difference
Microbac Laboratories, Inc. - Knoxville
/_"' Z" �L�
Jason Russell For Brian Richard, Project Manager
Date Reported:
Date Received:
Cust #:
PO#:
Thank you for your business. For any feedback, please contact Joe Sloan, [e-mail]. You may also contact J Trevor Boyce, President
at [e-mail].
As regulatory limits change frequently, Microbac advises the recipient of this report to confirm such limits with the appropriate Federal, state, or local
authorities before acting in reliance on the regulatory limits provided.
1 /8/2018
12/22/2017
Microbac Laboratories, Inc. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of any facsimile or e-mail transmittal. The information in this communication is intended
for the exclusive use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distributing, or the taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately.
The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represent only the sample(s) analyzed and is rendered upon condition
that it is not to be reproduced wholly or in part for advertising or other purposes without approval from the laboratory.
Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
505 East Broadway Avenue Maryville, TN 37804-5744 1 865-977-1200 p 1 865-984-8616 f I www.microbac.com
2109 West Market Street Johnson City, TN 37064 1423.926.6385 p 1423.926.6997 f I www.microbac.com
2631 Grandview Avenue Nashville, TN 37211 1615.242.1480 p 1612.242.5522 f I www.microbac.com
2511 Riverside Drive, Suite C-1 , Chattanooga, TN 37406 1615.207.9919 p I www.microbac.com
Page 2 of 2

�MICROBAC`
Microbac Laboratories, Inc., Maryville
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
1814164
S&ME, Arden Project Name: Mills River and French Broad River
Pat Patton Project / PO Number: 1441-17-019
44 Buck Shoals Rd. Suite C-3 Received: 11/16/2018
Arden, NC 28704 Reported: 11/28/2018
Analytical Testing Parameters
Client Sample ID: FBR-2
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 1814164-01 Collection Date: 11/15/2018
Wet Chemistry Result RL Units Note Prepared Analyzed Analyst
Method: EPA 300.0, Rv. 2.1
Sulfate as SO4 <4.99 4.99 mg/kg 11/21/18 1451 AEP
Client Sample ID: FBR-3
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 1814164-02 Collection Date: 11/15/2018
Wet Chemistry
Result
RL
Units
Note Prepared Analyzed
Analyst
Method: EPA 300.0, Rv. 2.1
Sulfate as SO4
<5.00
5.00
mg/kg
11/21/18 1511
AEP
Client Sample ID: FBR-6
Sample Matrix: Soil
Lab Sample ID: 1814164-03
Collection Date: 11/15/2018
Wet Chemistry
Result
RL
Units
Note Prepared Analyzed
Analyst
Method: EPA 300.0, Rv. 2.1
Sulfate as SO4
16.4
4.98
mg/kg
11/21/18 1524
AEP
Definitions
RL: Reporting Limit
Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
505 East Broadway Avenue I Maryville, TN 37804-5744 1 865-977-1200 p I www.microbac.com

*MICROBAC°
Microbac Laboratories, Inc., Maryville
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
1814164
Report Comments
The data and information on this, and other accompanying documents, represents
only the sample(s) analyzed. This report is incomplete unless all pages indicated
in the footnote are present and an authorized signature is included.
Reviewed and Approved By:
i
Jason Russell
Project Manager
[e-mail]
11 /28/2018 13:24
Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
505 East Broadway Avenue I Maryville, TN 37804-5744 1 865-977-1200 p I www.microbac.com

Appendix V — Resistivity Test Location Plan
Soil Resistivity Data Sheet

----------------
77
w - —_---
AEE
----- --- -- —\
—-�— ---- _( r�
=IA�e
i°L0oo°:A�
Q
0�00
Or
�J
LEGEND
— — — APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FIELD RESISTIVITY SURVEY
Reference: "BOUNDARYAND TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY OF. CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE, MILLS RIVER TOWNSHIP, HENDERSON COUNTY, NC",
by Wes Cole Land Surveying, PA, dated February 16, 2017.
O
RESISTIVITY TEST LOCATION PLAN
I I I FRENCH BROAD RIVER INTAKE
MILLS RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
0 60 120
GRAPHIC SCALE JN FEET)
SCALE: FIGURE NO.
AS SHOWN
DATE: /1
2/22/2018 L
PROJECT NUMBER

Project:
Project Location:
Date: 1/3/2018
Soil Resistivity Data Sheet
Wenner Four -Electrode Method
New French Broad River Intake
Mills River, North Carolina
Weather & Temperature: Cold, -32 Degrees Partly Cloudy
Soil Conditions: Dry, tannish brown silt, trace micas
Project #: 1441-17-019 Phase 02
Station #: ER-2 (French Broad Site)
Time: 12:45 PM - 1:30 PM
Performed By (Name of Tester) Tyler Wenner
Additional Notes: AGI SuperSting R8 Calibration Date: 05/09/2017
I �
V
A M N B
a a a
p=2n•a•R
Ground Surface
Station
"a" Spacing
(feet)
"a" Spacing
(centimeters)
Electrode
Depth
(Inches)
Resistance (�)
P
Apparent
Resistivity
(Q.cm)
P
Apparent
Resistivity
(aft)
Injected
Current
(mA)
Comments
2.5
76.20
4
70.66
33830.58
1109.93
10.45
5
152.40
4
37.06
35487.16
1164.28
10.89
10
304.80
4
16.59
31771.83
1042.38
128.90
15
457.20
6
10.59
30421.67
998.09
112.40
20
609.60
6
7.45
28516.13
935.57
86.99
25
762.00
6
5.80
27764.44
910.91
112.20
30
914.40
12
4.55
26164.36
858.41
88.24

Appendix VI -
Field Testing Procedures and
Important Information about Your Geotechnical Report

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 termination of drilling (designated by 7 ) and at a period of 24 hours following termination of drilling
(designated by T ). 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 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. This designation is generally applied to samples of NWX size (2-1/8
inch diameter) or larger and to samples described as moderately hard or harder. The percent recovery and RQD
are related to rock soundness and continuity. Generalized rock descriptions, percent recovery, RQD values, and bit
size used are shown on the appropriate Boring Logs.

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