SW1080103_Emails_20080502

Mav 2nd, 2008
Subject: May 2nd. 2008
Froni: Jennifer .tones <Jennifer..lones a ncnuiil.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:45:29 -0400
To: Weston Boles <WBoles a nickimcreed.com>
CC: "Jennifer-lones a ncmail.net" <Jennifer..lones a ncmait.net>
Hi Weston,
Per our phone conversation today McEimmon Creed may have until May 2nd, 2008 to
submit the final revisions of your plans.
Thank you,
Jennifer Jones
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDGNR I DWQ I Storinwater Permitting [)nit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone] ext. 591
Far:: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web site: httq://h2o.enr.state.nc. s/su/stor;nwater.htrnl
1 01,1 4/25/2008 4:46 PM

4. ENGINEERS
MCKIM&CREED
SURVEYORS
March 25, 200$
PLAIJNERS
Jennifer Jones
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Water Quality Permit
Hillandale Elementary School
Stormwater Project No. SW1080103
Dear Mrs. ]ones:
Mckim & Creed will need a 1 week extends on the Water Quality Permit Submittal.
The current due date for the project is March 26, 2008. The extend date will be Apirl
2, 2008.
Sincerely,
Weston Roles El
Engineering Intern
6020 Tower Point Drive
CherWtr.. NC 2H227
104.841.2568
Fax 70.I,841.256'
www mckimerood.curn

-p gC1CM CREED P-YERS
rv,� sURV�YdRS
March 18, 200$
PLANNERS
Jennifer Jones
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Water Quality Permit
Hillandale Elementary School
Stormwater Project No. SW1080103
Dear Mrs, Jones:
Mckirn & Creed will need a 1 week extends on the Water Quality Permit Submittal.
The current due date for the project is March 19, 2008, The extend date will be March
26, 2008.
Sincerely,
Weston Boles El
Engineering Intern
RE
r
8027 Tcwef P001 Dr;vo
Chaflo,tr. MC 2a227
704.£�,,2598
Fax 704.611,2507
www, iaGkimcro0:l.aom

Re: t?, t - tension
i ,
Subject: Re: time extension
From Jennifer ,tones <Jennifer.lones a ncmail.net>
Date: Wed. 19 Mar 2008 08:30:24 -0400
To: Weston Boles <WBoles a mckimcreed.coni>
CC: "[e-mail]" <Jenniler..lones u ncmail.net>
Hi Weston -
That's great - thank vou.
if you could do one more Ching for me - in the final drawings you are submitting if
you could please change "Swallow WaLer Plants" to "Shallow water Plants" as we talked
about. We have to sign off and approve the drawings including plantings and 1 don't
want any discrepancies Lo come up if someone takes a look aL Lhese plans later.
Thank you!
Jennifer Jones
Weston Boles wrote:
Jennifer,
Here is the Letter. Let me know if you have any questions.
Weston Boles
MCHiM&CREED
ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
704.841.2588 704.841.2567 fax
-----Original Message -----
From: Jennifer Jones[mailLo:Jenni`[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, March 18,
2006 3:44 PM
To: Weston Boles
Subject: Re: time extension
Hi Weston,
Can you please write a letter stating this to me, on your letterhead,
with your signature. You can fax iL or email {and then *nail it to me as
a follow up}.
Thank you,
Jennifer Jones
Weston Boles wrote:
IJennifer,
1 of 3 3/19/2008 8:43 AM

Re: tinie extension
Attach is a copy of the letter that you sent me
this time until March 26, 2008.
Thanks for the help
Weston Boles EI
MCKIM&CREED
ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
704.841.2588
704.841.2567 fax
If you can, please extend
-----Original Message -----
From: Jennifer Jones[mailto:Jennifer. [e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:29 AM
To: Weston Boles
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: time extension
Hi Weston,
I got your voicemail. Sorry to get back to you so late - I was out sick
yesterday. If you could please email (and follow up original by mail)
or fax me a letter stating the date by which you expect to submit the permit
that would be fine.
My fax number and mail address are below:
Fax: [phone]
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Thank you,
Jennifer Jones
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center', Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone] ext. 591
Fax: [phone]
Email.: 'ennifer.'[e-mail]
Website: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/stormwater.html
of') 3/19/2008 8:43 AM

Re: ti11; extension
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Tf
you have received this e-mail in error please notify the system manager. Please
note chat any views or opinions presented in
this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessar.iiy represent
those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any
attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for
any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone] ext. 591
Far:: [phone]
Email: jennifer.joneOncinaiI.Det
Website: htt}�:!,h2o.enr.state.nc.us!su/stormwater.html.
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in
error please notify the, system manager. Please note that any
views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
company. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and
any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company
accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this e-mail.
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWG} I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleiah, NC 27601
Phone: [phone] ext. 591
Fax: [phone]
Emai i s j_enn.3 [e-mail]
Website: hLtp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ a/stormwaier.html
3 of 3 3/19/2008 8:43 AM

A TE94G
4 ~C
March 4th, 2008
Mr. Brian Day
McKim & Creed
8020 Tower Point Drive
Charlotte, NC 28227
Michael P. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Nalural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: grid Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW1080103
Hillandale Elementary School
Henderson County
Dear Mr. Day.
Having reviewed your second submittal in more detail, the following information is needed to continue the
stormwater review. Please address the following points: t-
1. Please make sure drawings, calculations, and the wet detention basin supplement form are consistent
and based on final calculations.
a. Please change measurements in orifice size and elevations in the detailed drawings of drawing
C7.2 to reflect new measurements.
b. Average pool depth needs to be consistent across calculations and submittals. /
c. Required surface area is incorrect based on your calculated average depth-4
2. You may find the SA/DA ratio based on interpolating the permanent pool depth and % imperviousness
to get a more precise answer, or you may use the closest more conservative number.
3. Please calculate the design drawdown rate based on your average calculated depth, required surface
area, new temporary pool elevation, and new driving head H,,. Make sure these elevations are i
consistent on drawings, supplements and calculations.
4. Please include in your calculations the ar. --f of days for drawdown✓
5. Design rainfall'depth is = 1", not the 1 yt
6. Please fill out the storage volume for Nc
7. Please include the elevation for the bern
8. Please submit new drawings for all calc
Please submit 2 copies. Drawings that
rent.
)xc, l 4m^ —
hanged.
N, e hCarohna
AWArally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Cent(
Internet: www.ncwateroualitv.org Location: 512 N. Salis6
An Equal OpportuniYAffirmativeAction Employer=bv7o'neuycrvw-1-.. --
Customer Service
1-877-623-674S

Mr. Brian Day-
S*W 108C 103 — Hillandale Elementary School
March 41h, 2008
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested
information should be received by this Office prior to Wednesday, March 19th, 2008, or the application will be
returned as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the
application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time extension to the
Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you
expect to submit the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed
application to issue the permit.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. Any original documents that need to be
revised have been sent to the engineer or agent. All original documents must be returned or new originals must be
provided (no copies).
The requested information should be submitted to:
Jennifer Jones
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] ext. 591.
Sincerely,
d Vo J?L'�
Jennife M. Jones
Environmental Engineer
Stormwater Permitting Unit
cc: Asheville Regional Office, Roger Edwards
DWQ Central Files
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
Henderson County Schools, Bo Caldwell

04t,A`
�OF WA rFRQ Michael F. Fy, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Y �L Colccn !i- Sullins Director
I } _ �rD vision of Water Quality
LIAR UU
March 41h, 2008 ------ -� —
VJATFR CJL�P„ Tl5�� : �•
Mr. Brian Day
McKim & Creed
8020 Tower Point Drive
Charlotte, NC 28227
Subject: 2nd Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW1080103
Hillandale Elementary School
Henderson County
Dear Mr. Day:
Having reviewed your second submittal in more detail, the following information is needed to continue the
stormwater review. Please address the following points:
1. Please make sure drawings, calculations, and the wet detention basin supplement form are consistent
and based on final calculations.
a. Please change measurements in orifice size and elevations in the detailed drawings of drawing
CT2 to reflect new measurements.
b. Average pool depth needs to be consistent across calculations and submittals.
c. Required surface area is incorrect based on your calculated average depth.
2. You may find the SA/DA ratio based on interpolating the permanent pool depth and % imperviousness
to get a more precise answer, or you may use the closest more conservative number.
3. Please calculate the design drawdown rate based on your average calculated depth, required surface
area, new temporary pool elevation, and new driving head Ho. Make sure these elevations are
consistent on drawings, supplements and calculations.
4. Please include in your calculations the amount of days for drawdown.
5. Design rainfall depth is = I", not the 1 year, 24 hour storm.
6. Please fill out the storage volume for Non -SR waters in the Wet Detention Basin Supplement.
7. Please include the elevation for the berm cutout on the water quality pond berm elevations.
8. Please submit new drawings for all calculations, elevations and specifications that have changed.
Please submit 2 copies. Drawings that have not changed are not required to be submitted.
N 7ghCaro1ina
,113atutx &
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www,ncwa1cmuali(v.oF.R Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone].623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Acton Employer — 501% RecycWho% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Brian Day
SSW 1080103 — Hillandale Elementary School
March 4`s, 2008
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested
information should be received by this Office prior to Wednesday, March 191h, 2008, or the application will be
returned as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the
application fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time extension to the
Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you
expect to submit the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed
application to issue the permit.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. Any original documents that need to be
revised have been sent to the engineer or agent. All original documents must be returned or new originals must be
provided (no copies).
The requested information should be submitted to:
Jennifer Jones
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] ext. 591.
Sincerely,
dv' `-' 4v
Jennife M. Jones
Environmental Engineer
Stormwater Permitting Unit
cc: Asheville Regional Office, Roger Edwards
DWQ Central Files
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
Henderson County Schools, Bo Caldwell

Re: Hillandole Elementary School
Subject: Re: Hillandale Elementary School
From: Jennifer Jones <Jenniter.Jones a nemaiLnet>
Date. Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:37:36 -0500
To: Weston Boles <WBoles it mckimcreed.com>
Ha Weston,
That looks fine. The only things you should check to be sure are if there are any
local ordinances that require a minimum width that is needed walk along the top for
pond maintenance, and just make sure there is at least 1' freeboard between the
temporary pool (max) and the emergency spillway where you have it there. If you can
also think about the maintenance schedule for the sediment control - I don't think
the rip rap will trap much of it - it mainly serves to dissipate flow. I am just
wondering if it drops a lot there will it become too deep for the grass to grow
through it and how will you maintain it to keep the original contours. You may have
to replant grass if you remove the sediment so you may want to make a note of this in
your notes section. Please check with someone at your firm and let me know what you
have decided in your cover letter when you send the reqested items back.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Thank you,
Jennifer Jones
Weston Boles wrote:
Jennifer,
Here is the revised berm and pond. Let me know how it works.
Thanks for the help
Weston Boles El
M*^C *KIM/&/CREED
ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
B020 Tower Point Drive
Charlotte, NC 28227
704.841.2588
704.841.2567 fax
http://www.mckimcreed.com <}ittp://www.mckimcreed.com/>
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in
error please notify the system manager. Please note that any
views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
company. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and
any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company
accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this e-mail.
1 of 2/14/2008 12:37 PM

Re: Hillandale Elementary School f
C
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: (919),733-5083 ext. 591
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
website: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/stormwater.html
2 of 2 2/14/2008 12:37 PM

RlP RAP
APRON f rrr,
�.
Iglu iS DE r4IL/ gfC7.1
ORLZ
� WA rSPf��
—CON DL DU7tOUWy
FT ,' r
iSEE DE 7At eU'E �,.%✓ r ,�I ,,�'
E
_2
2
3�
4
3

� i . e •. . F # Iti niiid�I
Moss,
ii:ii ii s
,
A WINER
i�{ / `. a 1 idi daef a,61a+Fie. + . . 1, 1 Aeidla9d.
II �� /j✓ i 'Nmrre µ4
�I� . ,� i �� i r �� iI �T 4Mi �kt] ii�(iii➢] i �f E �I i 7iii�iil9 T i i
' '- "v`
°F��
j
I _• ICI' III! �_ --� 17�, R � •JY ' \ � � : iii _ ,°' „I„ ,' i i I °I x :ri.c,� I ����
tl i f I I I�'1 �-w.a \`. �_ - k. • \ i LS: iif: ` 'nC":: 6 a i c : . L f A�a
i' ji]lkR�i '..IIITI}I ,It, � SrppIWFt f1jB �7'i'i-III .,�' • �. � \\ _ _ 1,k a •F,ir: I ainixFl:, hi.:i.:I ;` i!I ::�+hniI x fI I iIIF.:f:I 1sie S!'r
1 1:iIxale:inix,4�
L i"e::ii'6ii r
U - ! I 1 I
a _ s
I � P �_�ilr Y .!t•�� �''' \ . � it 1
at8:. I � � l��' Ill '- — I•, IIT= I.
yd
I 4 S t C'1C5i - 7'iJ 'I I +� ♦ � -
"...
= I � I O n,� e fl 1 _�e �� p k Q I \=\�' ... r9 \ �r` \�\ � � �i .i s• ,
^R4 j } 1yi�3 F m II 4 i7 tip
° nIi p py- (1`yq
Eg
i csT I _ __ •� ..
_ di ~� '-1 ` `14 tines ° � e � �+j '� a�,C�` � .3 - i' 1�`J•yI// /i-, - /
.n W s'n\ �vx+ `1 r�ia. \V• �`--� '.Iv yv �Y 'uciiv°v.
1 I E `
`<.c. 710
I I o.• ' tee. `� ;flCO��°y� 5.� sc: '�i 1r 1 —
—
I
�/� ', ,` ! 1, Ia � I � 6 3 !e '�i—�- — -� — _-- i � §� .�;• I .yptp i �9 ,:,1 1 �fay
en.a4
(-} HILLANDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOSELEYARCHITECTS
GRADING& DRAINAGE PLAN A PROP I11 a O N At CORPORATION
HENDERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS II.�"o.M ca.�.a,. �u •a•o. oaau+ n+cwa vnrt .xs. c..,�a�rt. x :a
HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA

sX► �(Mc--et
y 0�0� Vd A rFi. $9QG Michael Fley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r!3 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Q -r Coleen 11, Sullins Director
t -----Division of -Water Quality
February 6, 2008
� it I
Mr. Bo Caldwell � FEB 1 3
Henderson County Schools
414 Fourth Avenue West
Hendersonville, NC 28739-4261 I_ F i
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SW1080I03
Hillandale Elementary School
Henderson County
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
The Division of Water Quality Central Office received a Stormwater Management Permit Application for the
subject project on January 28, 2009. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the application
is not complete. The following information is needed to continue the stormwater review, please address the
following points:
There are two worksheets in form SW-401. Both first pages of forms SWU-401 (Wet Detention Basm
Supplement and the Level Spreader Buffer Supplement) are missing. Please fill out all sections
electronically and resubmit. Forms can be downloaded from:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/bmp forms.htm. I have attached sample forms in this letter,
2. The Application Form SWU-101 indicated this project was for a general permit (Page, 2 of 4, duestio-n
3). A High Density Permit covers projects with a BUA greater than 24%.
3. Please add a note to your plans indicating sediment will be removed from sediment basin after site:
erosion control is completed, prior to its use as a wet detention basin. All sediment deposited during
construction must be removed, erosion features must be repaired, and the vegetated shelf must be
restored before operation as a stormwater BMP begins.
4. Outfalls 19 and 1 are approximately 100 feet from the forebay of the wet pond. With high flows and/or
sediment buildup, water may divert around the forebay or entire wet pond. Please revise this design So
the outfalls discharge directly to the forebay.
5. Our design requirements state that the vegetated shelf shall not be steeper than 1 C:1. Please refer to
figure 10-2a in Chapter 10 (Wet Detention Basin) of our BMP manual (this is available at
http://h2o,enr.state.nc.us/su/bmp forms.htm). In your design plans your vegetalcd shelf (Littoral Shelf)
is 5:1. Please correct this in your plans and resubmit.
6. On pond cross-section drawing on page C7.2 you show permanent pool levels submerging the r_ntire
vegetated shelf. Our BMP manual states, "A minimum 10-foot wide vegetated shelf shall be installed
around the perimeter. The inside edge of the shelf shall be 6" below the penwmcnt pool elevation; the
outside edge of the shelf shall be 6" above the permanent pool elevation."
One
r') lhCaMIMI
,�1�71,•It'i:ily
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone (9 Lrt 733-50S3 Customer Service
Internet: www.newaterquality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]-K7-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmalive Action Employer- 50% Recycled110% Post Ccneurnu Payer

f It
i

Mr. Bo Caldwell
.,SW 1080103 — Hillandale Elementary School
February 6, 2008
Please revise the cross section of the pond on page C7.2. You show a forebay berm with a 3:1 slope on
either side before the pool that is not consistent with your finished elevations.
8. In the calculation booklet and on form SWU-101 part III:
a. In your calculations, the average pool depth is listed as 2.5586. We require average pool depth
of 3 feet in our design requirements. Please revise and resubmit.
b. Total site area, total drainage area, project BUA and impervious area on form SWU-101 and
calculation booklet are inconsistent (i.e. 537581 W vs. 12.68 acres, and 55% impervious acres
vs. 40% impervious). Please revisit these calculations and revise.
c. Please revise runoff values of 1" rainfall based on the above revisions.
d. Please provide further details in the calculations on orifice sizing of wet pond.
e. Change in head (h) _(next available outlet elevation— permanent pool elevation) / 3. Plcasc
review your calculations.
f. A minimum of V of sediment storage is required in the bottom of the basin. This is as
additional 1' that must be excavated below the bottom elevation of the pond. The l' sediment
accumulation depth is not included in the average depth calculation. Please revise the plans
and supplement to show this additional sediment storage.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested
information should be received by this Office prior to Friday, March 7`h, 2008, or the application will be returned
as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application
fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time extension to the
Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you
expect to submit the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed
application to issue the permit.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. Any original documents that need to be
revised have been sent to the engineer or agent. All original documents must be returned or new originais must be
provided (no copies).
The requested information should be submitted to:
Jennifer Jones
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617

Mr. Bo Caldwell
SW ]080103 — Hillandale Elementary School
February 5, 2008
If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] ext. 591.
Sincerely,
Jennife Jones
Environmental Engineer
Stormwater Permitting Unit
cc: Asheville Regional Office, -Roger Edwards
DWQ Central Files
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files

Michael F. Easley, Governor
�' •, �OF W A rFq
J
February 6, 2008
Mr. Bo Caldwell
Henderson County Schools
414 Fourth Avenue West
Hendersonville, NC 28739-4261
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Stormwater Project No. SWI080103
Hillandale Elementary School
Henderson County
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
The Division of Water Quality Central Office received a Stormwater Management Permit Application for the
subject project on January 28, 2008. A preliminary review of that information has determined that the application
is not complete. The following information is needed to continue the stormwater review, please address the
following points:
There are two worksheets in form SW-401. Both first pages of forms SWU-401 (Wet Detention Basin
Supplement and the Level Spreader Buffer Supplement) are missing. Please fill out all sections
electronically and resubmit. Forms can be downloaded from:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc,us/su/bmp_forms.htm. I have attached sample forms in this letter.
2. The Application Form SWU-101 indicated this project was for a general permit (Page 2 of 4, question
3). A High Density Permit covers projects with a BUA greater than 24%.
3. Please add a note to your plans indicating sediment will be removed from sediment basin after site
erosion control is completed, prior to its use as a wet detention basin. All sediment deposited during
construction must be removed, erosion features must be repaired, and the vegetated shelf must be
restored before operation as a stormwater BMP begins.
4. Outfalls 19 and l are approximately 100 feet from the forebay of the wet pond. With high flows and/or
sediment buildup, water may divert around the forebay or entire wet pond. Please revise this design so
the outfalls discharge directly to the forebay.
5. Our design requirements state that the vegetated shelf shall not be steeper than 10:1. Please refer to
figure i 0-2a in Chapter 10 (Wet Detention Basin) of our BMP manual (this is available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/bmp_forms.htm). In your design plans your vegetated shelf (Littoral Shelf)
is 5:1. Please correct this in your plans and resubmit.
6. On pond cross-section drawing on page C7.2 you show permanent pool levels submerging the entire
vegetated shelf. Our BMP manual states, "A minimum 10-foot wide vegetated shelf shall be installed
around the perimeter. The inside edge of the shelf shall be 6" below the permanent pool elevation; the
outside edge of the shelf shall be 6" above the permanent pool elevation."
One
NPrthC:.rolir1U
i arth Curolista t�ivisiun of Waicr duality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 1617 Phone [phone])$3 Customer Servicc
TmL.rret: /54',V r;CWatcr uality.or, Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equil Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer —50% Recycied110% Post Consumer Paper

:Mr. Bo Caldwell
SW 1080103 — Hillandale Elementary School
February 6, 2009
7. Please revise the cross section of the pond on page C7.2. You show a forebay berm with a 3:1 slope on
either side before the pool that is not consistent with your finished elevations.
8. In the calculation booklet and on form SWU-101 part III:
a. In your calculations, the average pool depth is listed as 2.5586. We require average pool depth
of 3 feet in our design requirements. Please revise and resubmit.
b. Total site area, total drainage area, project BUA and impervious area on form SWU-101 and
calculation booklet are inconsistent (i.e. 537581 ft2 vs. 12.68 acres, and 55% impervious acres
vs. 40% impervious). Please revisit these calculations and revise.
c. Please revise runoff values of 1" rainfall based on the above revisions.
d. Please provide further details in the calculations on orifice sizing of wet pond.
c. Change in head (h) _ (next available outlet elevation — permanent pool elevation) / 3. Please
review your calculations.
f. A minimum of 1' of sediment storage is required in the bottom of the basin. This is an
additional 1' that must be excavated below the bottom elevation of the pond. The I' sediment
accumulation depth is not included in the average depth calculation. Please revise the plans
and supplement to show this additional sediment storage.
Please note that this request for additional information is in response to a preliminary review. The requested
information should be received by this Office prior to Friday, March 7`h, 2008, or the application will be returned
as incomplete. The return of a project will necessitate resubmittal of all required items, including the application
fee.
If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time extension to the
Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date by which you
expect to submit the required information. The Division is allowed 90 days from the receipt of a completed
application to issue the permit.
Please reference the State assigned project number on all correspondence. Any original documents that need to be
revised have been sent to the engineer or agent. All original documents must be returned or new originals must be
provided (no copies).
The requested information should be submitted to:
Jennifer Jones
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617

-Mr. Bo Caldwell
SW 1080103 — I-lillandale Elementary School
February 6, 2008
If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] ext. 591.
Sincerely,
Jennife . Jones
Environmental Engineer
Stormwater Permitting Unit
cc: Asheville Regional Office, Roger Edwards
DWQ Central Files
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files

State Stormwater Inspection Report
General
Project Name: i
Permit No; SW
Expiration Date:
Contact Person:
Phone Number:
Inspection "Type:
Inspection Date: q
Time In: ig �0
Time Out:
Current Weather: N -�- 5 °
Recent Rain (Date)?
Rain — in
7 10 a-�
Location
Facility Address 1 Location:
City: Zip: County: Lat: 0"N Long: - 0 1 "W
Permit Information PW 5-0 cr-
Rule Subject to (circle one): 1988 Coastal Rule 1995 Coastal Rule 2008 Coastal Rule Session Law 2006-246
Goose Creek High Quality Waters Outstanding Resource Waters
Density (circle one): High HD) Low (LD)
Store ater Best Management Practices (BM Ps) (insert number of each).
✓, Wet Ponds Infiltration Basins Infiltration Trenches
Dry Ponds Bioretention Permeable Pavement
Cistern Level Spreader/Filter Strip Other (specify):
File Review
LD Swales Stormwater Wetlands
Sand filters (circle one) Open Closed
Yes No NIA N1E
1. is the permit active?
2. Signed Engineer's Certification on file?
3. Signed O eration and Maintenance agreement on file?
4. Recorded Deed Restrictions on file?
Site Visit- Built Unan Area fBUA1 Yec Nn NIA NIF
5. BUA is constructed and consistent with the permit requirements?
6. BUA (aspermitted) is graded such that the runoff drains to the system? high density one
7. Drainage area is consistent withpermit? (i.e. no un ermitted drainage to the SW BMPs
8. Drainage area is stabilized? to reduce risk of sedimentation to the SW BMPs
Site Visit: Stormwater BMPs
Yes No N/A NIE
9. Stormwater BMPs are located er the approvedplans'?
10. Stormwater BMPs have dimensions (e . length, width, area) matching the approvedplans?
11. Stormwater BMPs are constructed per the approvedplans?
Site Visit: Operation and Maintenance
Yes No NIA NIE
12. Access points to the site are clear and well maintained?
13. Trash has been removed as needed?
14. Excessive landscape debris (grass clippings, leaves, etc) is controlled?
15. Stormwater BMPs bein operated and maintained as per the perrnit requirements?
16. Jnspection and Maintenance records are available for inspection? (high density only, 1995 — present only)
Site Visit: Other Permit Conditions Yes No NIA NIE
17. Is the site compliant with other conditions of thepermit?
Site Visit: Other Water QualitX Issues Yes No NIA NIE
18. Is the site compliant wiff other water quality issues as noted during the inspection?
State Stormwater Inspection Repots, Version 3.0 Page 1 of 2

State Stormwater Inspection Report
N. p os-�ac- W'"A
Ins ection Pictures (some of the pictures taken during the site visit)
�►�, Pam,
Compliance Status ❑ Compliant 0 Non -Compliant
Letter Sent (circle one); Yes No Letter type: CEI NOV NOVRa=
Date Sent:
Inspector Name and Signature:
7CY
ti
COO
nJ 1
s?
G 4' Ova
e, 1.6kD( i � �oN
rlvbL&�5
Reference Number:
State Stormwater Inspection Report, Version 3.0
�),��,,p R,&.nw,v
� P1�7,.a1r.1 OUTL
Othe
L
Na
Date:
S 4oq t_p Aa
1 �uL...IcS,/�gtonJ
Nb0c,l)ib
'� r�sEcT�
RARff P
,C� c
Q,Lxl Page 2 of 2
�,y tssu�

G(JVI VVV S&(? MA uJ
. =7 70 `f yyi--a sF-TV
Ago N,,, ) W S
Ift(7vi
m Gat.( Gu (
onJ aw d a�it�t.tr ww,S� .
S G �f - o � c
wux- 5o of
s�u c S c rµ 52� hrmd
i &261jn1 u 6-�,t, �`'OYt 11A S i'��_IAJt+
F WOO VON
_ cull S w4
food
fOC)
-�7e - 17r6z7
�-

'This development is a school and is not subject to deed restrictions.
AUJ
VV
V�� 7
CAAAf '
VY0, .
V

1
1 31 December 2007
t Mr. Chad Heatherly via Hand Delivery
Henderson County Public Schools
414 Fourth Avenue West
Hendersonville, NC 28739-4261
Subject: Soils Investigation and Assessment of Soil Hydraulic Properties
Affecting Proposed Stormwater Infiltration and Retention Facilities
' Hillandaie Elementary School
East Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina
1
I
Dear Mr. Heatherly:
This letter report presents the results of a soils investigation of soil hydraulic properties relevant
to proposed stormwater infiltration and retention facilities, to serve a proposed new elementary
school. Soil interpretations relevant to design and permitting of.the proposed facilities are also
provided.
The proposed new elementary school is proposed to be located at the site of the present
Hillandale Elementary School (HES), at Blue Ridge Road and Preston Lane, in East Flat Rock,
Henderson County. This work was performed by David L. Hargett, Ph.D_, CPSS, CPSC,
CGWP, a Licensed Soil Scientist (NC LSS # 1139), through his firm Hargett Resources, Inc.
(HRI)•
1
Backzround
0
I
HRI was retained by Henderson County Public Schools (HCPS), to provide technical assistance
with respect to soil conditions that could affect the viability of proposed stormwater infiltration
facilities (bioswales or the like) and stormwater retention facilities at the HES site. Accordingly
this investigation focused on three specific areas of the site identified by McKim & Creed of
Charlotte, NC, the design engineering firm for the proposed new school. A particular issue of
interest with respect to the stormwater facilities is the suitability of site soils for the proposed
stormwater facilities as considered by LEED design standards. The objective of this consultation
was to assess limiting soil hydrologic conditions and advise HCPS on site and soil conditions as
they may affect design, placement, construction, and performance of the proposed stormwater
features.
p. I of 6
Hargett Resources, Inc.; 408 Deepwood Drive, Greer, SC 29651
Phone [phone] dhargeu 2Ca�gmad com
1

Henderson Courtly Public Schools., Soils Live.rogation—Hillandale Elementary School, 31 December 2007, p. 2 of6
Note that the primary intent of this investigation was to assess the suitability of soil conditions
for the proposed stormwater facilities. The scope of this effort did not include design
calculations, layout, or specifications. Interpretations of soil conditions are offered in this report
with regard to general soil suitabilities, but specific input to the design of facilities is not within
the scope of the present study, and HRI does not accept any responsibility for facility design_
General Site Conditions
This tract is located within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The rocks of this area of the
Mountains region are generally comprised of felsic metamorphic and igneous materials
(dominantly mica schist, gneiss, granite gneiss, mica gneiss, granodiorite and granite) (Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Henderson County, North Carolina, 1980 and
2007).
HCPS, through its design engineer, McKim & Creed, identified three areas on the HES property
for evaluation. These areas are identified in Figure 1. All areas examined were cleared and
managed in turfgrass. Areas 1 and 2, closer to Blue Ridge Road, were determined to represent a
relatively undisturbed topography and an intact natural soil profile subject to little disturbance
other than historic logging and agricultural activities. The area closer to the existing HES
compound, and just north of the existing basketball court, appear to have been subjected to
grading at the time of construction of the present school complex, and thus the soils are likely a
mix of fill and natural materials.
The dominant soil series mapped on these upland landscape positions in this area of Henderson
County is the Hayesville series and associated series and mapping units (NRCS Sail Survey of
1 Henderson County, Web Soil Survey, 2007), as shown in Figure 2. Another series mapped in a
portion of the site (Area 3) is the Tate series. The soil profiles for these series are similar, but the
Hayesville series has somewhat higher clay content in the subsoil zone, and is typically more
reddish in color throughout most of the profile.
Soils in the Hayesville and Tate series are very deep, well -drained, and have moderate
permeability. These soils formed in material weathered from metamorphosed rocks,
predominantly schists and gneisses. These soils typically have sandy loam or loam surface
1 horizons, grading to subsoils of clay loam to clay texture, with reddish or yellowish brown
coloration. The subsoils grade to disintegrated saprolite, or weathered schists and gneisses, with
depth. Bedrock generally exists at depths greater than six feet, or more. Supplemental
information on the Hayesville and Tate soils is appended to Figure 2 for reference.
1
Investigative Procedures
M conducted its field investigations and soil characterization activities at the RES site on 11
and 12 December 2007. The scope of this investigation involved examination of backhoe
excavated test pits, hand borings, bedrock probes, and determination of saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Ksat) for selected representative soil strata. Test pits were installed and inspected
Hargett Resources, Inc., 408 Deepwood Drive, Greer, SC 29651
Phone [phone] dhargett52@.-mail. coin
1

IHenderson County Public Schools., Soils brvestigation—Hillandale Elemenkuy School, 31 December2007, p. 3 of6
on the first day, and Ksat tests were conducted on the second day. Test Pits were installed by
King Excavating of Hendersonville. Weather conditions on 11 December were unseasonably
warm, 65' F and clear. Conditions on 12 December were not as warm, — 60' F, and mostly
overcast.
I Area 1: This northernmost area of the site, roughly 150 ft from Blue Ridge Road, per Figure 1,
is an area projected to have a potential stormwater infiltration (bioswale or equivalent) feature.
Soils underlying this feature should ideally have moderately permeable subsoils and substratum
to enable soil treatment and gradual infiltration of stormwater temporarily detained in the swale.
Two test pits (TP # I and #2) were installed on either side of the "X" location (per Fig. 1), to
assess the range of soil conditions across this area. Test Pit # 1 was located approximately 195 ft
S84°W of a power pole adjacent to Blue Ridge Road. Test Pit 2 was located approximately 70 ft
west of TP #1, with the two test pits roughly equidistant from the target test location. A
hydraulic conductivity test was subsequently conducted in the center of this area as shown on
1 Figure 1. Photographs of all test pits and the locations of various investigation activities are
provided in Figure 3 (A-H).
' Area 2: Area 2 is located approximately 150 ft southwest of Area 1, as shown in Figure 1. This
area is projected to have a potential stormwater retention pond. Soils underlying this feature
should ideally have low permeability, or the potential to be compacted to provide low
permeability conditions. Two test pits (TP #3 and #4) were installed on either side of the "X"
location in this area, to assess the range of soil conditions across this area. Test Pit #3 was
located approximately 315 ft S68°W of the referenced power pole. TP 44 was located .
approximately 70 ft N48°W of TP #3. A hydraulic conductivity test was subsequently conducted
in the center of this area as shown in Figure 1.
Area 3: This southeastmost area of the site is shown in Figure 1 near the existing HES school,
near a portable classroom, and adjacent to the outdoor basketball court. Because this area was
being actively used for classes and play, no test pits were installed in this area. Hand borings
were installed and inspected on 12 December, while hydraulic conductivity tests were being run.
Hand boring #5 was installed 55 ft N50°E of the NW corner of the basketball court. Hand boring
#6 was installed 40 ft N4°E of the NE corner of the court. A hydraulic conductivity test was
conducted adjacent to HB #5.
1 Results of Soils Investization
Soil conditions in Areas 1 and 2 were relatively consistent. A detailed soil profile description for a
representative test pit (TP #3) is provided as Table 1. Summaries of soil conditions observed in all test
pits are provided in Table 2. Photographs of all test pits are provided in Figure 3 (A F). The soils
observed generally fit into the range of characteristics typical of the Hayesville and Tate soil series.
The soils observed in TPs #1- #4 generally evidenced surface horizons of sandy loam to loam,
grading to strongly expressed subsoils of clay loam texture. in the context of the Unified Soil
Classification System, these entire profiles typically are silty sands (SM) with some subsoil layers
tending to clayey sands (SC). The subsoil horizons were typically firm at depths of roughly 15 to 30
Hargett Resources, Inc., 408 Deepwood Drive, Greer, SC 29651
Phone[phone] dhargeitj2Ca grnail.coin

IHenderson County Public Schools., Soils Investigation— Hillandale Elementary School, 31 December 2007, p. 4 of 6
' inches below grade. The subsoil zone typically graded to a clay loam in the &C horizon, and
transitioned to sandy loam saprolite at 42-54 inches depth. Test pits were generally terminated at 66-
84 inches below grade.
The profiles were generally yellowish brown to brown throughout, with few reddish yellow mottles
reflecting saprolite characteristics below 42 inches in some test pits. Conditions in the C horizon of
Test Pit 43 expressed color conditions potentially indicative of seasonal wetness below 60 inches.
As reported in the geotechnical investigation for the proposed school building construction area,
groundwater (perched or otherwise) was observed in most hollow -stem borings as shallow as 9-18 ft
below grade (Bunnell-Lammons Engineering Ina, Report of Geotechnical Exploration, Hillandale
' Elementary School, on behalf of HCPS, 22 September 2006). These borings were generally located
upgradient and east of the Areas 1 and 2 discussed in this report.
I All soil profiles in Areas 1 and 2 otherwise expressed well drained conditions, and no indications of
seasonal wetness in the natural soil profile (upper 48 inches) in any of the test pits. At all locations in
these areas the subsoil textures indicated a moderate clay content, and well expressed soil structure,
such that moderate permeabilities would be expected.
In Area 3, near the existing HES compound, test pits were deemed inappropriate because of a nearby
water line, and the area being actively used for classes and play. Hand borings were installed and
profile descriptions are summarized in Table 2. These profiles indicated some degree of disturbance
and possible filling, probably associated with the site grading of the HES grounds at the time the
existing school was constructed. Otherwise the soil profiles are of similar sandy loam s and sandy clay
loam textures (Unified silty sands and clayey sands (SM-SC)) as observed in Areas 1 and 2.
Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Properties
k
I
1
A key objective of this investigation was to determine saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) values
for representative soil horizons that could affect the placement and design of the proposed stormwater
infiltration and retention facilities. Ksat was measured by using a modified constant head
permeameter adapted to measurement of conductivity in specific strata in a borehole. The method and
device employed here is similar to the "Guelph Permeametet" method of Reynolds et al. (W.D.
Reynolds, D.E. Elricl; and B.E. Clothier, 1985. The constant head well permeameter. Soil
Science. 139:172-180). Hydraulic conductivity was solved using the method of Glover (A.
Amoozegar, 1989. Comparison of the Glover solution with the simultaneous -equations
approach for measuring hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:1362--1367).
In addition, one undisturbed "pedestal" (cylindrical mass) of substratum soils was evaluated in
the laboratory for Ksat according to a method modified from the "Crust Test" of Bouma et al. (J.
Bouma, C. Belmans, L. W. Dekker and W.J.M. Jeurissen 1983. Assessing the suitability of soils
with macropores for subsurface liquid waste disposal. J. Environ. Qual. 12: 305-311). In this
case the undisturbed "pedestal", roughly 4 in. diameter by 8 in. length, was carefully carved from
the desired substratum depth, and coated with hydraulic cement for transport to the laboratory.
Hargett Resources, Inc., 408 Deepwood Drive, Greer, SC 29651
Phone [phone] dharger[52 i(r1g nai1.coen
a

1 Henderson County Public Schools., Soils Investigation —Hallandale ElementarySchool, 31 December 2007, p. S of6
The sample was subsequently prepared in the lab for Ksat measurement using a constant head
arrangement, per the method of 13ouma.
eThe results of the Ksat tests at the HES site are presented in Table 3. The three field tests
performed at the various locations and strata selected for assessment produced consistent values,
ranging from approximately 2.34 to 9.9 cm/day. This range of Ksat values is equivalent in lay
terms to approximately 6 to 27 inches per week.
The laboratory Ksat measurement produced a somewhat higher value, 18.2 cm/day. It is the
opinion of the author that all of these values are good and representative values for Ksat for the
soils evaluated and consistent with expected values based on observations of soil morphological
features in the test pits at the site.
Note that with the equipment available and given considerations of safety and practicality for the
given scope of work, testing of zones deeper than approximately 52 inches was not practicable.
Regardless, it is the author's opinion based on observations of soil morphology from the test pits
excavated to depths as great as 84 inches, that the zone between 4-8 ft depth would have Ksat
values consistent with the lower range measured for the shallower depths. It is important to
recognize that due to the inherent variability of soil physical properties, soil morphology, the
potential presence of macropores, root channels and other features, soil Ksat values can vary
dramatically within similar soil materials and in depth -specific strata even over a distance of a
few feet.
1 Interpretations with Respect to Stormwater Infiltration and Retention Facilities
1 For the soils observed in this investigation profile permeability characteristics are expected to be
sufficient for the function of bioswales where the objective is to detain and gradually infiltrate
moderate quantities of runoff from nearby impervious surfaces. However, the substratum Ksat
values do pose some limitation to the amount and rate of infiltration achievable. This limitation
may be overcome to some extent by incorporating a vertically oriented subsurface infiltration
trench containing a porous medium (mineral or other). This modification may significantly
enhance the hydraulic capacity and performance of a bioswale intended to infiltrate runoff.
For purposes of constructing retention / detention ponds capable of holding stormwater for
treatment and gradual release, the site substratum soils are expected to be well adapted. The
construction of the pond lining and sideslopes would benefit from some degree of compaction by
appropriate heavy equipment to generally reduce permeabilities further and render infiltration
conditions more consistent across the entirety of the pond. The degree and type of compaction is
not suggested here, as design specifications are not within this consultant's scope.
In Area 3, where a bioswale feature is contemplated, it is important to recognize that soil
conditions may be somewhat more variable due to previous site grading and filling activities and
the installation of subsurface infrastructure across portions of this area. These conditions may be
overcome by modification of the soils and use of a vertical infiltration medium as suggested
above.
Hargett Resources, Inc., 408 Deepwood Drive, Greer, SC 29651
Phone [phone] [e-mail]
1

IHenderson County Public Schools, Soils Investigation— Hillandale Elementary School, 31 December 2007, p. 6 of 6
1 Summary
This report presents the methods and results of a limited scope of investigation, site
characterization, and measurement of soil hydraulic properties performed at the HES. This
assessment is intended to support proposed design concepts for management of stormwater for
1 the proposed new school facilities. Based on the results of this limited investigation, soil
conditions do appear to be generally compatible with the concept of using bioswales and
retention ponds in the natural soils. The ultimate performance of these features will depend on
the specifics of designs, hydraulic loading, and proposed capacity. The functionality and
performance of these features may potentially be enhanced by making some modifications to the
designs, and to the soils.
()ualifications to this Resort
1 This letter report is qualified in that the stormwater management features proposed for the HES
site have not yet been finalized. Further, the purpose of this investigation was to assess the
general suitability of site soils for the stormwater concepts proposed, and not to provide specific
design data. These caveats notwithstanding, the work presented in this report provides a useful
foundation for decision making with regard to the proposed stormwater facilities dependent upon
natural soil properties.
I would be pleased to respond to any questions regarding the findings presented in this report or
1 to provide ongoing technical assistance with this project.
I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this project and look forward to continued
collaboration with your project team as needed.
Sincerely yours,
1 Hj
I
Irm
Inc.
David L. Hargett, Pl I�J . Aionri G
Principal and Senior Consultant
Certified Professional Soil Scientist / Soil Classifier (ARCPACS #
Certified Ground Water Professional (AGWSE 9 366)
Licensed Soil Scientist (NC LSS #1139)
Attachments. Figures
Tables
1 cc: Brian Dey, McKim & Creed (w/ Attachments, via Regular Mail)
Hargett Resources, Inc., 408 Deepwood Drive, Greer, SC 29651
Phone [phone] dhargett52 dyinail.coln

® M ® ® ® ® iM ® M ® ® ® ® ® M ® M M
I
i
Area 1�
Area 2=
1 _....
F fiF`
TO #2 ♦ .�
P 13 _ :I �_ �~i Not to Scale
Legend
x Proposed Test Location�_� i
♦ Tt Pit -I, -Hand Boring Location
•
Ksaocation
Area`.3
H.
Figure 1: Hillandale Elementary School,
Approximate Locations of Test Pits
and Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
it
I
I,

N N21Er:
A 2 100 220 402 E09
Feet
3 SS[• 304 t 3Co VC0
LIDA MM,.w R...,,.s Web Soil Survey 2.0 12rFr2007
Cge...tiion Sevinie Nab'anal Cooperative Soil Survey Pape 1 of 3
Figure 2: Hillandale Elementary School, Blue Ridge Road, East Flat Rock, North
Carolina: USDA Soils Map,'from Henderson County Soil Survey

Soil Map —Henderson County, North Carolina
(Hallandale ES, Blue Ridge Rd, East Flat Rock)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Very Stony Spot
Original soil survey map sheets were prepared at publication scale.
Area of Interest (AOI)
Viewing scale and printing scale, however, may vary from the
t
wet Spot
original. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for proper
Sons
Other
map measurements.
Soil Map Units
.j
Speclat Lino Features
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Special
Paint Features
Gully
Web Soil Survey URL: http:ilwebsoilsurvey.nics.usda.gov
.N
Blowout
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N
Short Steep Slope
®
Borrow Pit
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
Other
the version date(s) listed below.
X
clay spot
Political Features
Soil Survey Area: Henderson County, Notch Carolina
•
Closed Depression
Munlclpatitles
Survey Area Data: Version 6, Jan 19, 2007
Gravel Pit
p
Cities
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 311511998
Gravelly Spot
Urban Areas
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
Landoll
water Features
compiled and dlgifized probably differs from the background
i
Oceans
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
Lava Flow
of map unit boundaries may be evident,
Marsh
Streams and Canals
AZ
Mine or Quarry
Transportation
+-0-r
Ralls
[i
Miscellaneous Water
Roads
0
Perennial Water
Interstate Highways
v
Rock Outcrop
US Routes
+
Saline Spot
State Highways
Sandy Spot
N
Local Roads
Severely Eroded Spot
Other Roads
Q
Sinkhole
i,
Slide or Slip
p
Sodlc Spat
Spoil Area
Q
Stony Spot
11SD.1 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 12/5/2007
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

1
i
1
1
1
1
1
e
0
0
0
Soil Map —Henderson County, North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Hillandale ES, Blue Ridge Rd, East Flat Rock
Henderson County, North Carolina (NCO89)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
BaB
Bradson gravelly loam, 2 to 7
0.5
0.2%
percent slopes
Co
Codorus loam (Arkaqua)
4.8
2.3%
EdC
Edneyville (Edneytown) fine
6.6
3.2%
sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent
slopes
EdE
Edneyville (Edneytown) fine
13.0
6.3%
sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent
slopes
HyB
Hayosville loam, 2 to 7 percent
86.2
41.9%
slopes
HyC
Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 percent
75.0
36.5%
slopes
Hy€
Hayesville loam, 15 to 25
1.9
0.9%
percent slopes
TeB
Tate fine sandy loam, 2 to 7
7.9
3.8%
percent slopes
TeC
Tate fine sandy loam, 7 to 15
9.3
4.5%
percent slopes
W
Water
0.3
0.2%
Totals for Area of Interest (AOi) I 205.4 100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 121512007
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

If5cial Series Description - HAYESVILLE Series http:llwww2.ftw.nres.usda.gov/osd/dat/H/HAYESVILLE.htn-d
LOCATION SAYESVILLE NC+GA SC TN VA
Established Series
Rev. RM-AG-DHK
04/2001
HAYE5VILLE SERIES
The Hayesville series consists of very deep, well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges
and side slopes of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They most commonly formed in residuum
weathered from igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks such as granite, granodiorite, mica gneiss
and schist; but in some places formed from thickly -bedded metagraywacke and metasandstone. On
steeper slopes the upper part of some pedons may have some colluvial influence. Mean annual air
temperature is 55 degrees F., and average annual precipitation is about 56 inches near the type location.
Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine, kaolinitic, mesic Typic Kanhapludults
TYPICAL PEDON: Hayesville loam --wooded. (Colors are for moist conditions unless otherwise
stated.)
A1- 0 to 1 inch; brown (10YR 413) loam; moderate fine and medium granular structure; very friable;
many fine and medium roots; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (1 to 5 inches thick)
A2--1 to 5 inches; brown (10YR 513) loam; weak medium granular structure; very friable; many fine
and medium roots; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (0 to 7 inches thick)
BA--5 to 9 inches; yellowish red (5YR 518) clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure;
friable; common medium and fine roots; few fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary.
(0 to 6 inches thick)
BtI--9 to 26 inches; red (2.5YR 416) clay; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure;
friable to firm; common distinct clay films on faces of peds; few to common soft fragments of rock; few
fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary.
Bt2--26 to 38 inches; red (2.5YR 516) clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
few faint clay films on faces of peds; common coarse fragments of rock; soft and hard; few partially
weathered feldspar and dark minerals; few flakes of mica; strongly acid; gradual irregular boundary.
(Combined thickness of the Bt horizon is 11 to 45 inches)
BC--38 to 48 inches; yellowish red (5YR 516) and red (2.5YR 4/6) sandy clay loam; massive; friable;
many grayish and whitish streaks of soft gneiss; gray and white colors increase in abundance with
depth; common flakes of mica; few hard fragments of gneiss; strongly acid. (6 to 29 inches thick)
C--48 to 60 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 518) saprolite that is fine sandy loam; massive (rock
structure); very friable; common fine flakes of mica; strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Clay County, North Carolina; 2.5 miles southeast of Hayesville, on Swain Road
in road cut on north side of road.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness is 30 to 60 inches. Depth to bedrock is greater
than 60 inches and ranges to more than 10 feet. Content of rock fragments ranges from 0 to 40 percent
I1 of 3 2007.12.30 4:13 PM
0

10fficial Series Description - HAYESVILLE Series http:l/www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/daUTURAYESVILLF-.html
by volume in the A and E horizons and 0 to 15 percent in the B and C horizons. Rock fragments are
commonly pebbles, cobbles, or stones, but may include channers or flagstones. Reaction is extremely
acid to moderately acid unless limed. Limed soils are typically slightly acid to neutral in the upper part.
Flakes of mica range from none to common in the A and B horizons above a depth of 40 inches, and
from none to many in the B and C horizons below 40 inches.
1 2of3
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 5YR to 10YR, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 2 to 6. Where the value
is less than 3, it is less than 7 inches thick. The A horizon is loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, or very
fine sandy loam in the fine -earth fraction, or eroded pedons are sandy clay loam or clay loam.
The E horizon; where present, has hue of 7.5YR or 10YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 3 to 8. It is
loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, or very fine sandy loam in the fine -earth fraction.
The BA horizon, where present, has hue of 2.5YR to 10YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8.
Texture is loam, clay loam, or sandy clay loam.
The Bt horizon has hue of IOR to 5YR, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 6 or 8. Mottles, if they occur, are
in shades of red, yellow, or brown. Texture is clay or clay loam.
The BC or CB horizon, where present, has hue of IOR to 75YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 6 or 8.
Mottles, if they occur, are in shades of red, yellow, or brown. Texture is sandy clay loam, clay loam, or
loam.
The C horizon is saprolite that is sandy clay loam, loam, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam. It is variable in
color.
COMPETING SERIES: This is the only other known series in this family. Bradson, Brevard,
Braddock, Clifton, Evard, Fannin, and Nantahala (tentative) soils are in closely related families. Bradson
and Braddock soils have water worn coarse fragments. In addition, the Braddock soils have mixed
mineralogy. Brevard, Evard, and Fannin soils have less than 35 percent clay in the control section.
Nantahala (tentative) and Clifton soils have mixed mineralogy.
Note: Competing series have not been updated since most of these will also require reclassification
using the 7th Edition of Keys to Soil Taxonomy (1996).
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: The Hayesville soils are on gently sloping to very steep ridges and side
slopes in the intermountain plateaus, low rolling hills, and valleys of the southern Appalachian
Mountains. Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent. Elevation ranges from 1400 to 4000 feet. The soils most
commonly formed in residuum from igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks such as granite,
granodiorite, mica gneiss and schist; but in some places formed from thickly -bedded metagraywacke
and metasandstone. There may be some colluvial influence on steep slopes. Mean annual air temperature
is ranges from 46 to 57 degrees F., and average annual precipitation ranges from about 40 to 60 inches.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the similar Braddock, Clifton, Evard,
and Fannin soils these include the Brevard, Cullasaia, Saunook, Tate, Tuckaseizee, and Tusouitee soils.
All except Braddock and Clifton soils have less than 35 percent clay in the control section. Braddock
soils are on high terraces. Clifton, Evard, and Fannin soils are on ridges and side slopes. Brevard,
Cullasaia, Saunook, Tate, Tuckasegee, and Tusquitee soils are on colluvial fans and toe slopes.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained; moderate permeability in the subsoil and
moderately rapid permeability in the underlying material; medium internal drainage. Runoff class low on
gentle slopes, medium on strong and moderately steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff is
much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance.
USE AND VEGETATION: About one-half of the acres of this soil is in cultivation. Common trees in
2007.12.30 4:13 PM
1

Ffficial Series Description - HAYESVILLE Series http:llwww2.ftw.nres.usda.gov/osd/dauHd-IAYESVILLE.html
0 wooded areas are yellow- poplar, eastern white pine, northern red oak, pitch pine, shortleaf pine and
Virginia pine. The understory includes flowering dogwood, rhododendron, mountain laurel and
sourwood. Cleared areas are used for cultivated crops such as corn, small grain, pasture, hayland, burley
tobacco, vegetable crops and Christmas trees.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Mountain areas of North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Tennessee. The series is of large extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Lexington, Kentucky
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Clay County, North Carolina; 1935.
REMARKS: The classification of the Hayesville series was changed in April 1989 to clayey, kaolinitic,
mesic Typic Kanhapludults. This is change is based on lab data from South Carolina, North Carolina,
1 and Virginia that indicates presence of a kandic horizon. The May 1995 revision added thickly -bedded
metagraywacke and metasandstone as allowable parent materials for Hayesville soils. Laboratory data
from North Carolina State University provided support for Hayesville soils being formed from these
materials in Cherokee County, NC.
The 12197 revision changes the particle size class from clayey to fine per the 7th Edition -of Keys to Soil
Taxonomy (1996).
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon: The zone from 0 to 5 inches (A1 and A2 horizons).
Kandic horizon: The zone from 5 to 48 inches (BA, Bt, and BC horizons).
Argillic horizon: The zone from 5 to 48 inches (BA, Bt, and BC horizons).
MLRA: 130 SIR(s): NC0013, NCO151 (STONY)
1
1 3 of 3
ADDITIONAL DATA: A Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 157, April 1971, "Soils of the
Hayesville, Cecil, and Pacolet series in the Southern Appalachian and Piedmont Regions of the United
States." Characterization data is available from the National Soil Survey Laboratory, Lincoln, NE; pedon
numbers S60-NC-043-001 and -002; S60-NC-089-002; S78-NC-021-001; S88-NC-1 15-00 1;
S91-NC-021-001, -001A, and'-012.
Revised: 9195-RM-AG; 1198-DHK
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
2007.12.30 4:13 PM

Ffficial Series Description - TATE Series
httpalwww2.ftw.rLrcs.usda,gov/osd/dat/T/TATE.html
1 LOCATION TATE NC+TN VA
Established Series
RM-AG; Rev. MKC
03/2004
TATE SERIES
O The Tate series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on benches, fans, and
toe slopes in coves in the Blue Ridge (MLRA 130). They formed in colluvium weathered from felsic to
mafic high-grade metamorphic rocks. Mean annual temperature is 52 degrees F., and mean annual
precipitation about 52 inches near the type location. Slope ranges from 2 to 50 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludults
TYPICAL PEDON: Tate loam, in pasture. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap--O to 7 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 412) loam; moderate fine granular structure; very friable;
many fine roots; few fine pores, few root channels; contains some material from the BA horizon;
moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (5 to 11 inches thick)
BA--7 to 12 inches; brown (10YR 413) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
common fine roots; common fine pores; common root channels; moderately acid; clear smooth
boundary. (0 to 14 inches thick)
Bt--12 to 32 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable; few fine roots; few fine pores; few faint clay films on faces of peds and in pores; few
fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (15 to 40 inches thick)
BC--32 to 46 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable; few faint clay films on faces of peds; many pebbles; common fine flakes of mica;
strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (3 to 20 inches thick)
C-46 to 72 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 618) and light yellowish brown (10YR 614) fine sandy
loam; massive; friable; common quartz pebbles in upper part; strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Allegheny County, North Carolina; 2 112 miles west of Roaring Gap, i mile west
of Highway 18, in pasture 50 yards west of field road.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Thickness of the solum ranges from 24 to more than 60 inches.
Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. Content of rock fragments is less than 35 percent by volume
in the A and Bt horizons, and less than 60 percent in the BC and C horizons. The soil is very strongly
acid to slightly acid unless limed. Content of mica flakes is few or common.
' The A or Ap horizon has hue of 10YR, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 2 through 4. After mixing to a
depth of 7 inches, value is 4 or more. The A horizon is loam, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam in the fine
earth fraction.
The E horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR, value of 4 or 6, and chroma of 3 to 6. Texture is
similar to the A horizon.
The BA or BE horizon, where present, has hue of 7.5YR or 10YR, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 3 to
1 of 3 2007,12.30 4:12 PM
1

ficial Series Description - TATE Series http://www2.ftw.nres.usda.gov/osd/dat/Tr[ATE.html
Q6. It is loam, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or clay loam in the fine earth fraction.
The Bt horizon has hue of 7.5YR or 10YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8. It is clay loam, sandy
clay loam, or loam in the fine earth fraction. The upper 20 inches of the argillic horizon contain less than
30 percent silt.
The BC horizon, where present, is similar in color to the Bt horizon and is fine sandy loam, loam, clay
1 loam, sandy loam, or sandy clay loam in the fine earth fraction. It commonly contains moderate amounts
of weathered feldspar and pebbles and cobbles of quartz and granite.
The C horizon, where present, is colluvial material that is loamy or sandy in the fine -earth fraction and is
variable in color. Sandy textures are restricted to depths below 40 inches.
COMPETING SERIES: Excluding CEC activity class, there are 54 competing series. Those found
within MLRA 130 include the Brasstown, Cades, Edneytown, Junaluska, Lonon, Piaeonroost, and
Sauratown series. Brasstown and Pigeonroost soils have paralithic contact at depths of 40 to 60 inches.
Cades soils formed in alluvium weathered from low grade metamorphic rocks and contain fragments of
those rocks. Edneytown soils formed in residuum and have C horizons of saprolite. Junaluska soils
have paralithic contact at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Lonon soils formed in colluvium weathered from
low grade metamorphic rocks and contain fragments of those rocks. Sauratown soils have lithic contact
at depths of 40 to 60 inches.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Tate soils are on colluvial fans, foot slopes, and benches in coves in the
Blue Ridge (MI -.RA 130). Slopes are commonly 5 to 15 percent but range from 2 to 50 percent.
Elevation ranges from 1400 to 4000 feet. The soil formed in colluvium weathered from felsic to mafic
high-grade metamorphic rocks such as granite, mica gneiss, hornblende gneiss, and schist. Mean annual
temperature is 52 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation about 52 inches near the type location.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the competing Edneytown,
Pigeonroost, and Sauratown series, these are Ashe, Brevard, Chandler, Chestnut, Cowee, Edne�ille_,
Evard, Fannin, Greenlee, Tusquitee, and Wa_ tauaa series. Ashe, Chandler, Chestnut, Cowee, Edneyville,
Edneytown, Evard, Fannin, and' Watauga soils are on ridges and side slopes, formed in residuum, and
have C horizons of saprolite. Brevard, Greenlee, and Tusquitee soils formed in colluvial material on
fans, benches, and foot slopes in coves. Brevard soils have redder Bt horizons. Greenlee soils are in a
loamy -skeletal particle -size class. Tusquitee soils have darker colored A horizons that have more organic
matter.. In addition, Greenlee and Tusquitee soils have a cambic horizon.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained; saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately
high or high, permeability is moderate in the subsoil and moderately rapid permeability in the underlying
material. Index surface runoff is negligible to medium. These soils receive surface and subsurface water
from surrounding uplands, and seeps and springs are possible.
USE AND VEGETATION: About half is cleared and used for growing corn, small grain, tobacco,
truck crops, and pasture. Common trees in forested areas are scarlet oak, white oak, yellow -poplar,
eastern white pine, shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, and northern red oak. Understory plants include
mountain -laurel, rhododendron, blueberry, greenbrier, flowering dogwood, black locust, honeysuckle,
sourwood, and flame azalea.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: The Blue Ride RA 130 of North Carolina Virginia,
g {�-- ) g ,
eastern Tennessee, and possibly Georgia and South Carolina. The series has large extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Lexington, Kentucky
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Transylvania County, North Carolina; 1940.
1 2 of 3 2007.12.30 4:12 PM

Ucial Series Description - TATE Series
http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osdldat/T/TATE.htmi
REMARKS: The 12197 revision places this soil in a fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic
Hapludults family per the 7th Edition of Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Family placement is based on similar
soils such as Edneytown, Edneyville and Greenlee. Sample pedon S91-NC-171-004 classifies as
fine -loamy, siliceous, subactive, mesic Typic Hapludults, which influenced placement in the semiactive
class. This pedon was nearly placed in a parasesquic mineralogy class due to x-ray diffraction data, but
since these methods are more qualitative rather than quantitative, mineralogy class placement based on
grain count data. Classification of this series may change when more mineralogy data are available.
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon: 0 to 7 inches (Ap and BA horizons)
Argillic horizon: 7 to 46 inches (Bt, and BC horizons).
1 ADDITIONAL DATA:
MLRA: 130 SIR(s): NC0025, NCO258 (GRAVELLY)
Revised: 11I90-RM,CD,AG; 1198-DHK; 2104-MKC
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
H
1
I
I
1
I
1-1
1 3of3
2007.1230 4J2 PM

Y5
71,
m
0

Figure 3C: Test Pit # 3
Figure 3D: Test Pit #4
Hiilandale Elementary School, East Flat Rock, NC: Soils Investigation

!!l` 1+. rs• ,'r'' �, �� '� -✓ '4 `r; �y •� l�i:rh:
�d `+(��; �!'l '�-'; �} jr�.�• . �:'� •�',+ Y �y'�I.. �j ' S� J � �. n1 k �-Ij.•i i'I��i-r. '
«-,�'�gt`.'7�111 l�.ti '.� _ ♦ •�, f!'. � ,' ,. 1. ,fi w�f. �i ,A
art �.r� l.�JQy9 �� k �S 4,� 4� '!r,+.�_i•� �♦1 �'� ` f.�_ ' �
- �SJ•:�� '� a'ik fii. ;� �'� r. t-Jr .y7- ��� ! �_.
l " •FY a
IT7f r r 1 k r(
.a.'1:7 - .•+�..
f (
S:�j •k:'ys k,. a yf��,._K�� .��Ir��'r ��'S'1+ f •`�'�� • � ,�� �- • . {,
�€ ftt. Y a. . '1 �IIi,R'{�(:Ijj frf��,,��••yy,,t;'~ S+,y� F ? �.'sr.r{' 1i.1}Y • {i � ! r�
J9\,�:�_'!i?�Jse���=�w.[1'1lf1'ati.- �!SaY+���.•�,:Y1 ;� Lt��.irt..+�� S," ��:r� v: _
Figure 3E:
Test Boring
# 5
Figure 317: Test
Boring # 6
Hillandale
ElementarySchool
East Flat Rock NC: Soils
Investigation�
� M ® � ® ® ® ® r M � M ® M ® M ® ® M

Figure 3G: Locations of
r' Test Pits # 17 2, 3, & 4, and
Ksat Measurements # 1 & 2
OV
r Ksat # 1
Ksr TP#2 at#2
TP # 1
TF3
� T•-t�� S'�4r� � N it err, .0 J'- ,�
..F ryl � � S�.r'1'.i.=1��+f�n - -ti�i s`^•tx_y ��_ `` i �. c: - i�
Figure 3H: Locations of_� .c
Hand Borings # 5 & 6, and
r
Ksat Measurement # 3
Hiilandale Elementary
School, East Fiat Rock, NC: - 5
Soils InvestigationHRI
M M M M ® M M M M M M ® ® M M

SITE.' HILLANDALE ELEM SCHOOL.
LOCATION.- Blue Ridge Rd, East Flat Rock
COUNTY,- Henderson, NC
PURPOSE. Stonnwater Infiltration/Retentlon Systems
Table i
Typical Soil Profile Description and Interpretations
PRORLE., Test Pit # 03 - (Typical of Site Soils)
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION.- --2200 ft msl
DESCRIBED BY., D.L. Hargett, PhD, LSS
INTERPRETED BY. D.L Hargett, PhD, LSS
OTHERS PRESENT.• NA
DATE: 11-Dec-07
PHOTO ft: Appended
SOIL SERIES: Hayesville (fine, koolinit3c, mesic
Typlc Kanhopludults)
DEPTH (in)
SOIL TEXTURE
SOIL TEXTURE (Unified)
STRUCTURE / CONSISTENCY
SOIL COLOR
SOIL COLOR
ESTIMATED
PERCOLATION TEST
REMARKS
(USDA)
(PRIMARY)
(SECONDARY)
HYDRAULIC
(min/in) ACTUAL or
CONDUCTIVITY
ESTIMATED
0-8
loam
silty sand (SM)
weak fine to medium granular structure;
(10YR4/3) dark
none
50-250
not estimated
Topsoil zone.
very friable; many fine roots I
brown
8-15
sandy loam
silty sand (SM)
weak medium subangular blocky
(10YR5/6)
none
20-100
not estimated
structure; friable; common fine 1i, medium
yellowish brown
15 28
sandy loam to clay
silty sand to clayey sand
moderate medium subangular blocky
(7.SYR5/6)
none
2-20
ESTIMATED 30-60
Transition Into argillic, increasing
loam
(SM-SC)
structure; hrm; few fine & medium roots,
strong brown
min/in
clay content,
28 40
clay loam
clayey sand (SM-SC)
moderate medium subangular blocky
(7.5YR6/4) light
none
2-20
ESTIMATED —60+
Weaky expressed argillic horizon,
structure; very firm; few hne roots;
brown
min/in
very hrm.
40 52
crushes to sandy
silty sand (SM)
weak medium subangular blocky
(7.5YR6/4) light
(7.5YR6/2) brownish
2.20
ESTIMATED —60
Transition out of argillic horizon.
loam
structure, trending to massive; firm but
brown
gray
min/in
Still firm but no indications of
crushes readily; common mica flakes
seasonal wetness.
52-84+
crushes to heavy
silty sand (SM)
massive weathered saprolite structure;
(10YR6/3) light
(2,5YR6/1) gray &
2-20
ESTIMATED —60
C-horizon variegated, w/ few
sandy loam
firm but crushes with effort; few gneiss
yellowish -brown
(2.5Y3/1) dark gray
mrh/in
relict rock fragments, few iron
fragments; no indurated rock structure
medium distinct
stains and lower clay content
evident In test pit bottom at 841; no
saprolite coloration
than above.
refusal w/ bedrock probe to 144"
Comment 1: No saturation and no indication of seasonal saturation throughout entire profile to >84 in.
Comment 2: No refusal due to residual bedrock. No resistant rock structure in C horizons. Test pit terminated at 84 In.
Comment 3: Range of characteristics of soils is representative of Hayesville and related series, as manifested locally.
P. 1 of 1
® ® ® 0 M ® ® ® ® ® M M ® ® ® ® M

Table 2
Soils Investigation —Test Pit Descriptions
Hillandale Elementary School -- Henderson County Public Schools
Proposed Stormwater infiltration 1 Retention Facilities
Investigation Date: 11-12 December 2007 By: D.L. Hargett, Ph.D., LSS
Test Pit
Depth Zone (in)
Texture (USDA)
Texture (Unified)
Primary
Color
Comments
1
0-5
fine sandy loam
silty sand SM
10YR4/3
High and low chroma mottles
below 38 in. Bedrock probe to
84 in. — possible refusal.
5-10
fine sandy loam
silty sand SM
7.5YR5/6
10-27
sandy loam
silty sand SM
7.5YR5/6
27-38
sandy loam to clay
loam
silty sand to clayey
sand SM-SC
7.5YR5/6
38-66
sandy loam
silty sand SM
7.5YR5/6
2
0-6
fine sand loam
silty sand SM
10YR3/4
Saprolite with variegated
colors below 44 in. Bedrock
probe to 78 in. — possible
refusal.
6-15
gravelly sandy loam
silty sand SM
7.5YR4/4
15-25
sandy loam to clay
loam
silty sand to clayey
sand (SM-SC)
7.5YR5/8
25-35
gravelly sandy loam
silty sand SM
7.5YR5/6
35-44
fine sandy loam
sil sand SM
7.5YR5/6
44-72
crushes to sandy
loam
silty sand (SM)
10YR7/4
3
0-8
loam
silty sand SM
10YR4/3
Saprolite with variegated
colors below 40 in. Heavily
mottled below 52 in. and
gleyed below 60 in. — potential
seasonal saturation. No
refusal to bedrock probe to
120 in.
8-15
sandy loam
sil sand SM
10YR516
15-28
sandy loam to clay
loam
silty sand to clayey
sand (SM-SC)
7.5YR5/6
28-40
sandy loam to clay
loam
silty sand to clayey
sand (SM-SC)
7.5YR614
40-52
sand loam
silty sand SM
7.5YR6/4
52-84
sandy loam to clay
loam
silty sand to clayey
sand SM-SC
10YR6/3
p.1 of 2

Table 2 (continued)
Soils Investigation — Test Pit Descriptions
Hiilandale Elementary School
Proposed Stormwater Infiltration 1 Retention Facilities
Test Pit
Depth Zone (in)
Texture (USDA)
Texture (Unified)
Primary
Color
Comments
4
0-6
loam
silty sand SM
10YR4/3
Saprolite with variegated
colors below 66 in. High mica
content below 66 in. Bedrock
probe to 126 in. — possible
refusal.
6-14
sandy loam
silty sand SM
10YR5/6
14-22
sandy loam to clay
loam
silty sand to clayey
sand (SM-SC)
7.5YR5/6
22-32
clay loam
clayey sand (SPI
7.5YR6/4
32-66
clay loam to sandy
loam
silty sand to clayey
sand SM-SC
7.5YR613
66-88
sandy loam I
silty sand SM
10YR5/1-2
Hand
Boring
Depth Zone (in)
Texture (USDA)
Texture (Unified)
Primary
Color
Comments
5
0-6
fine sand loam
silty sand SM
10YR4/4
Potential mixed / disturbed fill
above 40 in. Saprolite below
40 in. Area likely influenced by
grading from previous
construction.
6-15
sandy loam
silty sand (SM)
10YR7/4 &
10YR712
15-40
sandy loam to clay
loam
silty sand to clayey
sand SM-SC
10YR711
40-54
coarse sandy loam
silty sand SM
10YR716
54-72
coarse sandy loam
silty sand SM
10YR7/1-2
6
0-6
fine sandy loam
sil sand SM
10YR4/4
Potential mixed / disturbed fill
above 72 in. Potential
Saprolite below 40 in.
Potential mixed original
surface below 36 in. Area
likely influenced by grading
from previous construction.
6-26
sandy loam to clay
loam
silty sand to clayey
sand SM-SC
10YR5/6
26-36
sandy loam to clay
loam
silty sand to clayey
sand (SM-SC)
10YR6/2
36-46
sandy clay loam
silty sand to clayey
sand (SM-SC)
10YR211
46-60 1
fine sandy loam
silty sand SM
5Y513
60-72
fine sandy loam
silty sand SM
5GY5110GY
p.2 of 2

I
Table 3
Summary of Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Properties
Hillandale Elementary School
Henderson County Public Schools
Test #
Area 1
Zone
Soil Texture
Hydraulic
Comments
Application
Tested
Conductivity
Depth
Ksat
USDA
Unified
(cmlhr)
(cm/day)
(inches
below
grade)
1
Bioswale
32-42
sandy
silty
0.412
9.89
Ksat values
loam
sand
may be low
(SM)
reflecting less
permeable
substratum
2
Retention
42-52
sandy
silty
0.097
2.34
Substratum
Pond
clay
sand to
saprolite
loam
clayey
material,
sand
dense and
SM-SC
massive
3
Bioswale
24-34
sandy
silty
0.197
4.73
Area appears
clay
sand to
to possibly be
loam
clayey
fill soil from
sand
previous
construction
SM-SC
4
Retention
40-48
sandy
silty
0.757
18.17
Laboratory
(Lab)
Pond
clay
sand to
Undisturbed
(from
loam
clayey
Pedestal of
Soil
TP
sand
#3)
(SM-SC
Note: Tests 1-3 were performed using a modified constant -head permeameter
and the Glover solution for calculation of hydraulic conductivity. Test 4 was
performed on an undisturbed pedestal of soil removed from test pit #3, coated
with hydraulic cement, and transported to the lab for determination of hydraulic
conductivity using a constant -head set-up.
p.1 of 1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I

0
re 'i Y
v �M�IQM&c'REED
Hlllandale Elementary School
MC # 4099-0006
CALCULATIONS FOR:
Erosion Control
Water Quality
DATE: 12/17/07
REV. 04/25/08
8020 TOWER POINT DRIVE. CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28277
TEL [phone] FAX [phone] www.mckimcreed.com rzv a

rte Description
We new Hillandale Elementary School is located on the south side of Blue Ridge Road (SR 1812) beside the current location of the
existing Hillandale Elementary School. The project will disturbed approximately 1 1.60 acres. The existing conditions for the new school
ite is primarily a grassed field. The development will consist of an elementary school, associated parking, and storm drainage facilities.
ydrology
he new Water Quality Basin was design to handling the total drainage for the new school site. The new Water Quality basin will be
Gated on the west side of the proposed site long the east side of the existing creek.
ummary
The NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual was used to design the new water quality basin. The wet detention basin meets all design
ritiera outline in the NCDENR Stormwater BMP Manual. (See the Water Quality Basin Calculations.)
�DRA INA GE A REA S:
(see attached drainage area map)
4i
Ft
I
1�
e
1
A
1
Basin JPredeveloped Drainage Area = 12.68 acres 0.019813 s . miles
IlPostdeweloped Drainage Area= 12.68 acres 1 0.019613 s . miles
Page 1 of 1

Hillandale Elementary School
V
�M
PROJECT NO. 4099.0006
BY: w b
aDATE:
12/17/07
T.M.: wgb
REVISED:
P.M.: bjd
SEDIMENT BASIN CALCULATIONS
0
0
RISER TYPE BASIN DESIGN FOR SEDIMENT BASIN #1
DRAINAGE AREAS/REQ'D STORAGE
DESIGN CRITERIA
Total drainage area TDA 12.68 ac
Pro osed sediment depth 2 ft
Disturbed area DA 11.60 ac
Bottom elevation of basin 2176 msl
Re wired sediment stars a 1800xTDA 22824 cf
Depth of flow over spillway 1 ft
BASIN CONFIGURATION
Bottom elevation
2176 msl
Sediment Storage elevation
2178 msl
Spillway crest
2178 msl
Top of Berm
2180 msl
ESTIMATED BASIN SIZE RECTANGULAR
Length(ft) Width(ft)
Bottom 148 72
To 164 88
BASIN EFFICIENCY
Sediment storage provided. 44598 OKAY
Sediment storage required: 22824 cf
1 Surface area/Flow comparison: 23553 OKAY 11
PLANNED BASIN SIZE
REFER TO EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Elev. Area SF Cumulative Volume CF
2176
21060
0
2177
22291
21676
2178
23553
44598
2179
24842
68795
2180
26150
94296
x
x
######
x
x
######
x
x
######
x
x
######
x
x
######
x
x
######
x
x
######
SPILLWAY DESIGN
DESIGN FLOW Q=CIA
RISER/EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DESIGN
Bare soil coefficient 'C' = 0.6
Com osite 'C'= 0.4
Riser pipe diameter 42 in
Depth of flow 1 ft
Flow through riser. 38 cfs OKAY
Area A' = 12.7 ac
10 yr. storm rainfall intensity, T = 7.03 in/hr
,Computed flow from site, 'Q' = 36 cfs
OUTLET PIPE DESIGN
Outlet pipe diameter
30 in
Flow through outlet pipe 43 cfs
(Note: Flow determined using outlet control and pipe
OUTLET PIPE IS OKAY
80% full)
Pipe slope (ft/ft)
0.05 ft/ft
Pipe length(ft)
56 ft
Outlet pipe invert in
2176
Outlet pipe invert out
2173.2
Length of exposed outlet pipe
CONCRETE ANCHOR SIZE
5 ft Safety factor
1.2
Buoyancy =
2732 lbs
Anchor width
5
ft
Required Volume of Anchor =
Actual Volume of Anchor=
18.8 cf
25 cf
Anchor Length
Anchor Thickness
5
lift
ft
OKAY
'
PERFORATION S
1
Required Area of Holes = (As*(2*h)^.5)/(T*Cd*20428)
= 0.3843254 sf
Proposed hole dia= 1.5 in
# of holes re uired= 31
As = Surface Area of Basin =
23553 sf
h = Maximum head of water =
2 ft
T= Time to discharge Water =
10 hrs
Cd = 0.6
SURFACE AREA/FLOW COMPARISON:
'
Formula:
A=0.01*0
1
7.0310 year storm
A:
Minimum Surface Area (acres) measured
at the crest of the principal spillway
design :
36 CFS
A Re uired :
15660 sf of surface area at sed stor elev
e
Q:
Peak inflow rate of 10 year
storm in cfs
A Provided
23553 OKAY
a
Page 1 of 1

i an a e emen
ary
choo
w b
v Mc�� CREM
PROJECT NO.: 4099-0006
BY:
DATE: 12117107
T.M.:
w b
REVISED: 04125108
P.M.:
bid
WATER QUALITY BASIN CALCULATIONS
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
To meet the Water Quality requirements, the procedure outlined in the "Stormwater Best
Management Practices" published by NCDENR will be used. This guide gives the
required pond surface area and storage volume to meet an 85% pollutant removal
efficiency. Also, the pond must detain the first 1 " of rainfall and release this volume
over a period of 2 to 5 days. Calculations for these requirements are as follows:
Surface area requirements
Drainage area to pond (Da)= 12.34 Ac
Post -development impervious percentage = 55%
Average pool depth = 3 ft
Designed permanent pool elevation = 2176
From table 1.1 in the BMP guidelines the required Surface Area to Drainage Area
Ratio (SA/DA) for a permanent pool depth of 3 feet = 2.4
Required surface area = SA/DA 1100 x Drainage area=
Surface area of pond as designed at permanent pool elevation =
1 " rainfall requirements
Using the runoff volume calculations in the "Simple Method"
Rv = 0.05 -+ .009 (1)
Rv= 0.545 in/in
Volume = (Design rainfall) (Rv) (Drainage Area)
Volume = 1" rainfall x Rv in/in x 1/12 in/ft x Da =
This volume must be released over a period of 2-5 days
0.30 Ac
0.30 Ac
0.56044 ac-ft
or 24413 ft^3
% PERMANENT POOL DEPTH
Impervious 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
0.59
0.49
0.43
0.35
0.31
0.29
0.26
20
0.97
0.79
0.7
0.59
0.51
0.46
0.44
30
1.34
1.08
0.97
0.83
0.7
0.64
0.62
40
1.73
1.43
1.25
1.05
0.9
0.82
0.77
50
2.06
1.73
1.5
1.3
1.09
1
0.92
60
2.4
2.03
1.71
1.51
1.29
1.18
1.1
70
2.88
2.4
2.07
1.79
1.54
1.35
1.26
72
2.98
2.48
2.13
1.85
1.6
1.4
1.35
2.78
2.38
2.1
1.86
1.6
1.42
LL3.1
2.94
2.52
2.22
1.99
1.72
1.55
1 2.66
2.34
2.11
i .83
1.67

® ® ® ® M M ® ® ® ® O
As designed pond areas:
Storage Volumes
Cumulative
Elevation
Area(ac)
Volume(ac-ft)
2176
0.30
0.00
2176.5
0.35
0.16
2177
0.37
0.34
2178
0.40
0.73
2179
0.44
1.15
2180
0.50
1.62
Interpolation to find elevation at which required storage volume is reached
Storage Storage
Elev volume area
2176 0.00 0.30
Elev 0.56 0.39
2177 0.34 0.37
Elev= 2177.64
Storage elevation = 1.64 feet above permanent pool elevation
Determination of Orifice size for 2-5 day drawdown
Q = Cd*A' 2'g"Ho
Assumed orifice 2.50"
A = Area of orifice A = .0341 ft^2
Cd = Coefficient of discharge Cd = 0.6
g = Acceleration of gravity g = 32.2 fUs^2
Ho = Driving Head Ho = 0.55 Ho=H/3
Q=0.122cfs
Orifice Size = 2.50"
Assumed Q to be 0.14 cfs
The 0 flowing through the orifice must be lower than 0.14 cfs
Permanent Pond Storage Volume
Elevation
(r"S')
Area
(SO
Area
(ac)
volume
(cu-ft)
Volume
(ac-ft)
2170
I 3270
10.0751
I 0
0.0000
2171
4209
0.0965
3726
0.0855
2172
I 5299
10.1216
I 8465
I 0.1943
2173
I 6533
0.1500
I 14364
I 0.3298
2174
I 7913
10.1817
121569
10.4952
2175
9442
0.2168
30226
0.6939
2175.5
I 10262
10.2356
I 35146
I 0.8058
2176
113137
10.3016
40975
10.9407
2176.5
I 15277
10.3507
I 48065
I 1.1034
2177
16043
0.3683 j
55886
1.2830
2178
17627 10.4047 172698
11.6689
2179
19282 10.4427 j 91128 I
2.0920
2180 I
21879 10.5023 1111674 I
2.5637
I
I
I
Average Pool Depth = 3.1191

Mear 2Rour ggm )Mme gggatWfor ffiRrerg%etARpMgd p'WcohNons=
Q= P-.2S ^2
(Pf.8S)
S= 1000 -10
CN
P= rainfall(in) - 1 year 24 hour storm
CNpre= SCS curve number
Qpre= computed runoff
CNpost= SCS curve number
Qpost= computed runoff
Qdif= Depth of increased runoff
DA= Drainage area
As designed pond areas:
Storage Volumes
Cumulative
Elevation Area(ac)
Volume(ac-ft)
2176
0.3
0.00
3.3 in
2176.5
0.35
0.16
81
2177
0.37
0.34
1.55 in
2178
0.4
0.73
91
2179
0.44
1.15
2.35 in
2180
0.5
1.62
0.80 in
0
0
0.00
12.34 ac
V= 1 year runoff volume (DAxQ) 36022 ft^3
0.83 ac-ft
Interpolation to find elevation at which required storage volume is reached
Storage Storage
Elev volume area
2176 0.00 0.30
Elev 0.83 0.47
2177 0.34 0.37
Elev= 2178.42
Storage elevation = 2.42 feet above permanent pool elevation
Water quality pond draw down time in days (days)
Required Volume(ft^3) / Q Through Orifice (cfs)= 210418.00 s
Time of Drawdown (s)/ 1 Day in seconds (s/days) 2.44 days
Level Spreader Length
Draw Down rate x 13ft= 13ft
Minimal 13 ft
CONCLUSION: WATER QUALITY REOUIREMENTS ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN 1 YEAR 24 HOUR
AND WILL GOVERN BASIN DESIGN PARAMETERS

1
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
Hillandale Elementary School •
PROJECT NO. 4099-0006 BY: wgb `v,
DATE: 12-/17l07 T.M.: wgb
REVISED: 04125108 P.M.: bjd RIPRAP APRON DESIGN
25
20
4-4
15
yo 1.0
5
0 5 10 15
Do in feet
20 25
TO PREVENT SCOUR HOLE
RIPRAP
CLASS
ZONE
APRON MATERIAL
STONE DIAMETER
LENGTH OF APRON
DEPTH
1
Stone Filling (Fine)
6"
4 x (pipe diameter)
10"
1
2
Stone Filling (Light)
6"
6 x (pipe diameter)
12"
1
3
Stone Filling (Medium)
13"
8 x (pipe diameter)
18"
11
4
Stone Filling (Heavy)
23"
8 x (pipe diameter)
30"
11
5
Stone Filling (Heavy)
23'
10 x (pipe diameter)
30"
11
6
Stone Filling (Heavy)
23'
12 x (pipe diameter)
30"
B
7
Special Study Required (Energy Dissipators, Stilling Basins, or Larger Size Stone
Apron width = pipe diameter t U.4-(apron length) vet= 10.590 (dram)"2/3"(slope)"1/2]!n
EES #
DIA
(ft)
SLOPE
("t)
n
V
(ft/s)
ZONE
RIP RAP
CLASS
LENGTH
(ft)
WIDTH
(ft)
DEPTH
(in)
1
3
2.67
0.013
14.00
3
II
24
13
18
19
3
0.05
0.013
5.00
2
1
18
11
12
Flumes
1.5
0.05
0.013
13.30
2
1
10
6
12
Flume2
1.5
0.05
0.013
13.30
2
1
10
6
12
XXX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
######
XX
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
XXX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
######
XX
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
XXX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
######
XX
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
XXX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
######
XX
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
XXX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
######
XX
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
XXX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
######
XX
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
XXX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
######
XX
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
XXX
XX
XXXX
IXXXX
1######
XX
#VALUE!
I #VALUE!
Source: "Bank and Channel Lining Procedures", New York Department of Transportation,
Division of Design and Construction, 1971.
Page 1 of 1

M ® M M ® ® M M M M ® ® ® M M
VIMICK &CREED
TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL COMPUTATI©N SHEET
_
PROJECT:
I Hillandale Elementary School 01/18/08
ILOCATION:
I Henderson County, North Carolina
m
O
O a
C
a1
W
LL
C-!�
C r
z
Ul y
z QCL
G
l v
O
C Y
J
p
O
O.
�_
L
U
61 p
ONl O
CL O
t
R
V
O
7
.�
O
r
N
3
d
p j
N
N
U
Q
U
cc
m
LL
p
Ac
Co
Ri
L
d
b
e
n
Of
Od
5
T
TDD# 1
I 2.78
0.50
5.30
352.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
2
0.065
I 6.83
7.37
1.05
2.35
0.0221
1.44
Straw with Net
✓
TDD# 2
I 4.81
0.50
5.30
399.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
2
0.025
18.92
12.75
0.79
5.39
0.0251
1.24
Straw with Nei
✓
TDD# 3
I 0.50
0.50
5.30
F60.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
2
0.065
5.94
1.33
0.41 ,
1.09
0.0167
I NA
Temporary Seeding
✓
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
1
!
!
I
I
ILI

GroSS�� 5wole
Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel - 1
i>M' adE^;�'�•F��'d-:�i� `. �i'�+��...T�..AR"34 F �""'•�L � � R� t_
Friction Method
Manning Formula
Solve For
Normal Depth
F*'F;F-�t:•yccny�.y,'i9i��,i^'- r-o..-va
5hpidt{Dat3,
{
a.e- t. : } .6?Y s!S�rS a y?, .:r• , .,;.•.!!,,,'".iAA'{h�i�
{ 4 3
4
Roughness Coefficient
0.024
Channel Slope
0,02000 Rift
Left Side Slope
5.00 tuft (H:V)
Right Side Slope
5.00 ft/ft (H:V)
Bottom Width
8.00 ft
Discharge
2.58 ftlis
�Resu91-
it
Normal Depth
0.14 ft
Flow Area
1.18 ftz
Wetted Perimeter
9.38 ft
Top Width
9.35 ft
Critical Depth
0.14 ft
Critical Slope
0.01653 ft/ft
'
Velocity
2.19 ftls
Velocity Head
0.07 ft
Specific Energy
0.21 ft
Froude Number
1.09
Flow Type
Supercritical
y-y
1 t ° Y" 5 3 '�:F3 4?;i en. i i ti. t w�°C;Z SAa'.; �f3* kv
G. Input Data d � " x y x � gyt
, v
�, 5 si •} �.7
[downstream Depth
0.00 ft
Length
Number Of Steps
0.00 ft
0
Datap,a�
° ?x ; . R a ,
Upstream Depth
0.00 ft
Profile Description
Profile Headloss
0.00 ft
Downstream Velocity
Infinity fUs
Upstream Velocity
Infinity ft/s
Normal Depth
0.14 ft
Critical Depth
0.14 ft
Channel Slope
0,02000 ftlft
Critical Slope
0.01653 fUft
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowMaster [08.01.066.00]
4/2512008 11:11:51 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA [phone] Page 1 of 1