SW1210802_Design Calculations_20211124

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Stormwater Management Plan (High Density) — Supporting Documentation
TOWN OF MILLS RIVER
HENDERSON CO"TY,�NOP
JqH CAROLINA
\`S�lil lilt/
oe a
<o
S SEAL 8
_ o o _
a
041349 a
;U° F woe
11/Zc,/20 z
PREPARED BY:
WGLA Engineering, PLLC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
724 5T11 Avenue West
Hendersonville, NC 28739
P-1342
November 2021

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Narrative and Project Description:
Site Location: The site is located on Highway 280 in Mills River, North Carolina. The
construction entrance to this site is located approximately 3,7001f north of the
intersection of Highway 280 and Haywood Road (Hwy 191).
Project Description: The parent parcel to be developed is currently 21.00 +/- acres. The
subject parcel will be subdivided to a 3.31 acre parcel under separate ownership from the
parent tract. This 3.31 acres is the project area in which all of the high -density
calculations are based on. The remaining 17.69 acres +/- will remain vacant except that a
portion of this acreage will have a shared roadway constructed that will serve the subject
parcel and possible future parcels (undetermined at this time). This portion of roadway is
submitted under separate permit as low -density stormwater project under Henderson
County ownership.
Site Description: During the construction phase, one gravel construction entrance will be
installed along Highway 280. Silt fencing with reinforced stabilized outlets will be
installed along the perimeter of the project area to capture runoff. Runoff from the
disturbed area will primarily flow from north to south into the proposed sediment basin
with baffles placed in the low-lying area of the property. No stream or wetland impacts
are proposed for this rough grading project. A portion of this project is located inside the
Mills River Water Supply Watershed (WS-III).
After the site is stabilized, a bio-retention cell will be constructed along the southern
boundary of the property. Boring information for this area has been collected and the
proposed bio-cell underdrains will be approximately 2 ft above the seasonal high water
table.
The site currently has no impervious area therefor the basin will be sized to accommodate
all of the proposed impervious area of this site. 30 inches of soil media will be provided
in the basin, and the basin will be planted with Sod. The basin will also be constructed
with rip rap outlet protection at each inlet to the bioretention cell to reduce inlet velocity
and to collect any trash or sediment from the impervious area. The basin will then
discharge to a proposed armored (rip -rap lined) swale which will discharge into the
existing adjacent stream.

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Table of Contents
Stormwater Management Permit Application Form
NOAA Rainfall Data
Soil Report
Current Property Deed
USGS Site Location Map
Water Quality Volume Calculation
Water Quality Drawdown Calculation
Stormwater Pipe Calculations
Rip Rap Outlet Protection Calculations
Swale Calculations
Boring Information / Water -Table Depth
Supplement-EZ Form
O&M Agreement
Stream and Wetland Delineation
Recorded Subdivision Plat

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Stormwater Management Permit Application Form

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
NOAA Rainfall Data

4/29/2021
Precipitation Frequency Data Server
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3,
Location name: Mills River, North Carolina, USA* A, F"
Latitude: 35.3908°, Longitude:-82.5618°
Elevation: 2084.97 ft** source: ESRI Maps%10m
** source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
G.M. Bonnin, D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M.Yekta, and D. Riley
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps & aerials
PDS-based point precipitation
uration 'j 1
5-min (0.333-0.411) (0.397-0.488) (0.475-05
10-min 0.591 0.704 0.844
(0.533-0.656) (0.636-0.781) (0.761-0.937)
0.738
15-min 0.666-0 820 (0.799-0 982) 1 (0.962--1.19)
30-min 1.01 1.22 IF 1.52
(0.913-1.12) (1.10-1.36) 1 (1.37-1.68)
60-min 1.26 1.53 1.94
(1.14-1.40) 1 (1.39-1.70) 1 (1.75-2.16)
2-hr 1.48 1.80 2.27
(1.34-1.64) (1.62-1.99) (2.04-2.51)
3-hr 1.60 1.92 2.41
(1.44-1.78) (1.73-2.14) (2.17-2.68)
6-hr 2.03 2.42 2.98
(1.85-2.23) 11 (2.21-2.66) (2.72-3.28)
12-hr 2.55 3.04 3.73
(2.34-2.78) 1 (2.79-3.32) (3.42-4.08)
24-hr 3.04 3.65 4.48
(2.82-3.29) 1 (3.38-3.95) 4.15-4.85)
2-day 3.62 4.32 5.26
(3.38-3.89) 1 (4.02-4.65) (4.89-5.65)
3-day 3.86 4.60 5.55
(3.61-4.14) (4.30-4.93) (5.18-5.95)
4-day 4.11 4.89 5.85
(3.84-4.38) 4.57-5.22) (5.47-6.24)
7-day 4.80 5.69 6.82
(4.50-5.13) 1 (5.34-6.10) (6.39-7.30)
10-day 5 5.50 6.50 7.71
( .19-5.83) (6.13-6.91)
20-day (7.074.88) 1 (8.32 9727) 1 (9.65- 0.8)
30-day 9.151 F 10.7 12.3
(8.69-9.63) (10.2-11.3) (11.7-12.9)
45-day 11.6 13.6 15.3
(11.1-12.2) (13.0-14.3) (14.6-16.1)
60-day 6.3
(13.13- 4.7) (15.b--17.1) (17.8 9.1)
PF tabular
uency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1
Average recurrence interval (years)
10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
0.593
0.679
0.745
0.811
0.877
0.962
1.03
(0.533-0.657)
(0.606-0.751)
(0.661-0.823)
(0.716-0.898)
(0.769-0.974)
(0.834-1.08)
(0.885-1.16)
0.949
1.08
1.19
1.29
1.39
1.52
1.62
(0.853-1.05)
(0.966-1.20)
1 (1.05-1.31)
1 (1.22-1.54)
(1.32-1.70)
(1.39-1.83)
1.20
1.37
1.50
1.63
1.75
1.92
2.04
1.08-1.33
1.22-1.52)
1 (1.33-1.66)
1 (1.54-1.95)
(1.66-2.14)
(1.75-2.29)
1.74
2.03
2.26
2.49
2.73
3.05
3.30
(1.56-1.93)
(1.81-2.25)
1 (2.01-2.50)
1 (2.20-2.76)
1 (2.39-3.03)
(2.64-3.41)
(2.83-3.71)
2.26
2.71
3.07
F 3.83
4.37
4.82
(2.04-2.51)
1 (2.41-2.99)
1 (2.72-3.39)
(3.03-3.81)
(3.36-4.25)
( 3.79-4.89)
(4.13-5.42)
2.65
3.17
3.60
4.05
4.53
5.20
5.75
(2.37-2.92)
1 (2.82-3.51)
1 (3.18-3.99)
1 (3.56-4.49)
1 (3.94-5.03)
(4.47-5.81)
(4.89-6.46)
2.81
3.39
3.88
4.39
4.96
5.76
6.44
(2.52-3.12)
(3.01-3.76)
(3.42-4.31
(3.84-4.88
(4.29-5.52)
(4.91-6.47)
( 5.42-7.26)
3.47
4.16
4.76
5.41
6.11
7.14
8.01
(3.14-3.81)
1 (3.75-4.58)
(4.25-5.23)
(4.78-5.95)
(5.34-6.74)
(6.13-7.92)
(6.79-8.94)
4.29
5.06
5.69
6.35
7.03
7.99
8.75
(3.92-4.68)
1 (4.61-5.53)
(5.16-6.22)
(5.72-6.95)
(6.29-7.73)
(7.07-8.85)
(7.67-9.76)
5.14
6.06
F 8.37
9.48
10.4
(4.76-5.56)
1 (5.59-6.55)
(6.25-7.35)
(6.92-8.16)
(7.60-9.03)
(8.54-10.2)
(9.25-11.2
6.00
7.03
7.86
F 9.59
10.8IF
11.8
(5.58-6.45)
1 (6.51-7.55)
(7.25-8.43)
(8.01-9.36)
(8.77-10.3)
(9.81-11.7)
(10.6-12.7)
6.31
7.33
8.15
8.98
9.83
11.0
11.9
(5.88-6.75)
1 (6.81-7.85)
1 (7.55-8.72)
1 (8.29-9.63)
1 (9.03-10.6)
10.0-11.8)
(10.8-12.9)
6.61
7.64
8.44
9.26
10.1
11.2
12.1
(6.18-7.06)
1 (7.11-8.15)
1 (7.84-9.01)
1 (8.56-9.89)
1 (9.28-10.8)
(10.2-12.0)
(11.0-13.0)
9.90 10.9
11.9
13.3
14.3
7.72
8.93
(7.22-8.25)
(8.32-9.55)
(9.20-10.6) 1 (10.1-11.6)
1 (11.0-12.7)
(12.1-14.2)
(13.0-15.4)
8.66
9.96
11.0 12.0
13.1
15.6 4.5
1
(8.17-9.20)
(9.36-10.6)
(10.3-11.7) 1 (11.2-12.8)
1 (12.2-13.9)
(13.4-15.5)
(14.3-16.7)
11.3
12.7
13.8
14.8
15.8
17.1
18.1
(10.7-11.9)
(12.0-13.4)
(13.0-14.6)
1 (14.0-15.7)
14.9-16.8)
(16.0-18.2)
(16.9-19.3)
13.4
14.9
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.2
20.0
(12.7-14.1)
1 (14.1-15.7)
(15.1-16.8)
1 (16.1-17.9)
1 (16.9-19.0)
(18.0-20.3)
(18.8-21.2)
16.6
18.1
19.2
20.1
21.0
22.1
22.8
(15.8-17.4)
1 (17.2-19.0)
(18.2-20.1)
1 (19.1-21.2)
1 (19.9-22.1)
(20.9-23.2)
(21.5-24.0)
19.5
21.2
22.3
23.3
24.2
25.3
26.0
(18.6-20.5)
1 (21.2-23.4)
1 (22.2-24.5)
1 (23.0-25.5)
(23.9-26.6)
(24.6-27.4)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers In parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for
a given duration and average recurrence Interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are
not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PIMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=35.3908&Ion=-82.5680&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 114

4/29/2021 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3,
Location name: Mills River, North Carolina, USA*
Latitude: 35.3908°, Longitude:-82.568°
Elevation: 2084.97 ft** a
* source: ESRI Maps Nd
"source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
G.M. Bonnin, D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M.Yekta, and D. Riley
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps & aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches/hour)1
Average recurrence interval (years)
Duration ����������
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 4.44 5.28 6.32 7.12 8.15 8.94 9.73 10.5 11.5 12.4
(4.00-4.93) 11 (4.76-5.86) 1 (5.70-7.02) (6.40-7.88) (7.27-9.01) 1 (7.93-9.88) (8.59-10.8) 1 (9.23-11.7) 1 (10.0-12.9) 1 (10.6-13.9)
10 min 3.55 4.22 5.06 ) ( 5.69 6.49 ) ( 7.12 7.73 8.34 9.13 9.74 )
(3.20-3.94) (3.82-4.69) (4.57-5.62 5.12-6.30) (5.80-7.18 6.31-7.87) (6.83-8.56) (7.31-9.26) (7.91-10.2) (8.36-11.0
15-min 2.95 3.54 4.27 4.80 5.49 6.01 - 7.01 7.66 8.16
1
7 RR_R 7A1 / i 7n_R QR1 !4 RF_,I 7d1 /d 'A7_F Ai 1 !d Qn_a n71 IS Rd1 IN 7F_7 971 !R 1.ri_7 7A1 (fi 64-1.r,Rl n nn-s 7)
2.02
2.44
3.03
3.48
4.06
4.52
4.99
5.46
6.10
6.60
30-mm
(1.83-2.25)
(2.21-2.71)
(2.73-3.37)
1 (3.13-3.85)
1 (3.63-4.50)
1 (4.01-5.00)
1 (4.41-5.53)
1 (4.79-6.06)
1 (5.28-6.82)
1 (5.66-7.42)
1.26
1.53
1.94
2.26
2.71
3.07
3.44
3.83
4.37
4.82
60-min
(1.14-1.40)
11 (1.39-1.70)
1 (1.75-2.16)
1 (2.04-2.51)
1 (2.41-2.99)
1 (2.72-3.39)
1 (3.03-3.81)
1 (3.36-4.25)
1 (3.79-4.89)
1 (4.13-5.42)
11
2-hr 0.741 I(0.668-0 822)I (0.8112-0 996)II (1.02 1425) I (1. 9-31?46) II (1.415.76) II (1.59-81099) I (1. 80325) II (1.97 2752) II (2.24 2090) (2. 5 3823)
3-hr
6-hr
0.531
(0.480-0.592)
0.339
(0.310-0.373)
0.211
0.640 0.802
(0.577-0.712) (0.722-0.891)
0.404 0.498
(0.369-0.444) (0.454-0.547)
0.252 0.310
0.935
(0.838-1.04)
0.579
(0.525-0.636)1(0.626-0.764)
0.356
1.13
1 (1.00-1.25)
0.695
0.420
1.29
1 (1.14-1.43)
0.795
(0.710-0.873)
0.473
1.46 1.65
1 (1.28-1.63) 1 (1.43-1.84)
0.903 1.02
(0.798-0.994) (0.891-1.13)
0.527 0.584
1.92
1.64-2.15
1.19
1 (1.02-1.32)
0.663 IF0.727
2.14
(1.80-2.42)
1.34
1 (1.13-1.49)
12-hr
(0.194-0.231)
(0.232-0.276) (0.284-0.338)
(0.326-0.389)
(0.382-0.459)
(0.429-0.516)
(0.475-0.577) (0.522-0.642)
(0.586-0.734)
(0.636-0.810)
0.127
0.152 0.187
0.214
0.253
0.284
0.316 0.349
0.395
0.432
24-hr
(0.118-0.137)11(0.141-0.165)1(0.173-0.202)
(0.198-0.232)
(0.233-0.273)
(0.260-0.306)
0.288-0.340) (0.317-0.376)
(0.356-0.427)
(0.386-0.468)
0.075
0.090 0.109
0.125
0.146
0.164
0.181 0.200
0.225
0.245
2-day
(0.070-0.081)
(0.084-0.097) (0.102-0.118)
(0.116-0.134)
(0.136-0.157)
(0.151-0.176)
(0.167-0.195) (0.183-0.215)
(0.204-0.243)
(0.221-0.265)
0.054
0.064 0.077
0.088
0.102
0.113
0.125 0.137
0.153
0.166
3-day
(0.050-0.057 )
( 0.060-0.068) (0.072-0.083)
(0.082-0.094 )
( 0.095-0.109)
(0.105-0.121)
(0.115-0.134) (0.125-0.147)
(0.139-0.164)
(0.150-0.179)
0.043
0.051 0.061
0.069
0.080
0.088
0.096 0.105
0.116
0.126
4-day
( 0 040-0.046)
(0.048-0.054) (0.057-0.065)
(0.064-0.074)
(0.074-0.085)
(0.082-0.094)
(0.089-0.103) (0.097-0.112)
(0.107-0.125
(0.114-0.135 )
0.029
0.034 0.041
0.046
0.053
0.059
0.065 0.071
0.079
0.085
7-day
(0.027-0.031)
(0.032-0.036) (0.038-0.043)
(0.043-0.049)
(0.050-0.057)
(0.055-0.063)
(0.060-0.069) (0.065-0.076)
(0.072-0.085)
(0.078-0.092)
0.023
0.027 0.032
0.036
0.042
0.046
0.050 0.054
0.060
0.065
10-day
(0.022-0 024)
(0.026-0.029) (0.030-0.034)
(0.034-0.038)
(0.039-0.044)
(0.043-0.049)
(0.047-0.053) (0.051-0.058)
(0.056-0.064)
(0.060-0.070)
0.016
0.018 0.021
0.023
0.026
0.029
0.031 0.033
0.036
0.038
20-day
(0.015-0.016)
(0.017-0.019) 0.020-0.022
(0.022-0.025)
(0.025-0.028)
(0.027-0.030)
(0.029-0.033) 1(0.031-0.035)
(0.033-0.038)
(0.035.0.040)
0.013
0.015 0.017
0.019
0.021
0.022
0.024 0.025
0.027
0.028
30-day
(0.012-0.013)
(0.014-0.016) (0.016-0.018)
(0.018-0.020)
(0.020-0.022)
(0.021-0.023)
(0.022-0.025) (0.024-0.026)
(0.025-0.028)
(0.026-0.029)
0.011
6.013 0.014
0.015
0.017
0.018
0.019 0.019
0.020
0.021
45-day
(0.010-0.011)
(0.012-0.013) (0.014-0.015)
(0.015-0.016)
(0.016-0.018)
(0.017-0.019)
(0.018-0.020) (0.018-0.020)
(0.019-0.022)
(0.020-0.022)
0.010
0.011 0.013
0.014
0.015
0.015
0.016 0.017
0.018
0.018
60-day
(0.009-0 010)]1(0.011-0.012)
(0.012-0.013)
(0.013-0.014)
1(0.014-0.015)
(0.015-0.016)
(0.015-0.017) (0.016-0.018)
(0.017-0.018)
(0.017-0.019)
t Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a
given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not
checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=35.3908&Ion=-82.5680&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 1/4

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Soil Report

USDA United States
Department of
Agriculture
MRCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Henderson County,
North Carolina
Pardee Partners ASC
March 10, 2021

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call [phone] (voice) or [phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3

Preface.................................................................................................................... 2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8
SoilMap................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11
MapUnit Descriptions.........................................................................................11
Henderson County, North Carolina.................................................................13
Co—Codorus loam(arkaqua)..................................................................... 13
Ro—Rosman loam......................................................................................14
To—Toxaway silt loam.................................................................................15
4

How Soil Surveys Are iffilade
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil

Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

• . •
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
0

35° 23' 48' N
1
93
F
93
3
i
357510
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
357SO 357630 3
312131N - `"��- " ' "
357510 357550 357590 357630
3
Map Scale: 1:1,660 if printed on A porhait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Meters
N
N 0 20 40 80 120
et
/V
0 50 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer c=dinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WG58
9
357670 357710
3
Rm'
M
Ir 35° 23' 48' N
1 �
Fq 93 _
35' 23 37' N
357750
3
M
m

CD
IC- �fra
fn
N
I D
♦fir
.'.
®
�q
t0
a
m
C', ° I- 11
LI o
0
m m
m o
m
o
v
o o m
m
�
D
°
a 7c
0 0
CD<
(D
N
(D
5 <
o s T �__
m o
m m a
m
°
o
o D
o
m
.o
v
f:
- �
o -0
-
c
O
a
m o
o
0
i
'° -°
C L
•D
y
(D
N
ti
n
a
a
v
o.
_
° :30
CD�
o
D
a
;
N
o
-p
r
m
T
ab
3
D °•
°
c
N
o
�
cn v> O
<
°
N cn
(D
D1
w N
o a7 (�/�
w=
N
m N s
D) (D �
° o
=
N
N m o
g
<
cn D
° °
°_ N 2
5
<
o m
N
N (O
d N
co
�
T
N
w c
V
O
N
N (9
N
N 0
cn
(n (n
O
0
v D
Er N
o a
3
(A o� 3�
-'• 0 3 0
NO
O-
7" cn
<
C (D p� 5-0
N
O i
N N
0 '=+• (D C d
O
3
O (D
co W 7-
3
o °o
O N
O 'O
`< C
D
O p_
N O '"•• --+.i
(D A N O O
7 0 (OD
N- 0
-
C (D
N N
N N n a
O C
(D
7
�
c O
O-
a m
Na o
(D
0 c
m N
N
0 c
°^
0 c m 3
N a
(D CO
c
3 Z
(D
0N
co 3
N �.
0.
c
'O ,m O: o
p N
O_ N
c N (D n 0
N U
:3
�
O N. Q o
CD
mm o
n
m °'
-, N
v �'
v_m
�•m ni s�
N
m <
`�
3
c3 (Da
(0
m
v
=
O�
vm
0 U
N o Dm a
C Z
elm
3 N
�' o
3
3
0 n 3
c�-0m
�'
g
o
m
< (D
m�
- n>
:3 (n cn
o� ID
r c
0 3
00) ty
sv
<
0
o
n
o0
�g
n
cl
av
m
o
nQ�o
0
3
0
_
�mcr
N m
N
O p
U°
o0a0ic
0) W •n�
E N
(D
3O N•Q
a
N
(D
�' w� 3
0
N
o�
0 3
�3 ��
m 0
<-
�
m
(D
'fl
0 CL co
o
�(D
0
c
m 3
w
m 0 0
v(=nr3
<
a
<
0
D 0
cn
D7
N
�
> c
C
N (� �.
N
3
(D 0 v 0
�Ory
N
cr UDi
m0,u,
a
m
0
�p
00 snv
m n
3
� o•m
N
DO
<(�o
a
oo
a
�nmNa
o���
D
in 3 S
v
Now
Z
o-�
m
(
0 0 3
W
0
—I
00
0 o N
<
mo
cm(D(D CrD
vo.
00�
m(D
Z3
(D
m
0
CL
c(D3mg
0
3OP0
T-N
3(CQ
O
�
OD
;
-0 n (D
3co-
3
m
OC=n,�
p
a
d
n
"O
(D0(n n
N
p• �
I
O
(nN
n
N O (D
0 N n
(D
(D o N
N N
(p
m
N
3 O
a = N
N
V
N

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Co
Codorus loam (arkaqua)
8.7
83.9%
Ro
Rosman loam
0.9
9.2%
To
Toxaway silt loam
0.7
6.9%',
Totals for Area of Interest
10.31
100.0%
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
Henderson County, North Carolina
Co—Codorus loam (arkaqua)
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: Icl8
Elevation: 1,200 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 45 to 70 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost -free period: 116 to 170 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Arkaqua, frequently flooded, and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Arkaqua, Frequently Flooded
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 9 inches: loam
Bw - 9 to 30 inches: clay loam
Bg - 30 to 46 inches: sandy clay loam
Cg - 46 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 44 to 72 inches to strongly contrasting textural
stratification
Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 18 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: OccasionalNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Toxaway, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
13

Custom Soil Resource Report
Down -slope shape: Linear, concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Ro—Rosman loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lc20
Elevation: 1,200 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 45 to 70 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost -free period: 116 to 170 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently
flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Rosman, frequently flooded, and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Rosman, Frequently Flooded
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 16 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw - 16 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 42 to 60 inches
Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
14

Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Hemphill, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions on stream terraces
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
To—Toxaway silt loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: Ic26
Elevation: 1,850 to 2,050 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 45 to 70 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost -free period: 116 to 170 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Toxaway, frequently flooded, and similar soils: 95 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Toxaway, Frequently Flooded
Setting
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave, linear
Across -slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 26 inches: loam
Cg - 26 to 80 inches: stratified sandy clay loam to sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Very poorly drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
15

Custom Soil Resource Report
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Minor Components
Toxaway, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear, concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
16

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Current Property Deed

TVr V ,
Doc Stamps $3,500.00
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HENDERSON
This document presented and filed:
12/18/2015 01:32:22 PM
WILLIAM LEE KING, Henderson COUNTY, NC
Transfer Tax: $3,500.00
Prepared by: Matthew Mullinax
Deed Prep'n Only
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED, made and entered into this 18th day of December, 2015, by and between JAMES CALVIN
MOORE, a single man, GARY EARL MOORE and wife, SHARON MOORE; DENNIS EDWIN MOORE and wife,
LISA MOORE, a one-half (Y2) undivided interest, and BEULAH S. MOORE, a single woman, and BEULAH S.
MOORE, Collector of the Estate of Thomas W. Moore, Sr., a one-half (%) undivided interest, (herein collectively
referred to as the "party of the first part" and having a mailing address of 649 South Mills River Road; Mills River, NC
28759) and HENDERSON COUNTY, one of the counties of the State of North Carolina, (the "party of the second part"
and having a mailing address of 800 North Justice Street; Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791);
WITNESSETH:
The said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and Other Valuable
Consideration to them in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
has bargained and sold, and by these presents does bargain, sell, and convey in fee simple unto said party of the second
part, its heirs and assigns, a certain tract or parcel of land lying and being in Mills River Township, Henderson County,
North Carolina, more particularly described as follows:
BEING all of that 21.00 acres tract depicted on plat entitled Plat of Survey for Calvin Moore and Tom
Moore, and dated December 17, 2015, of record at Plat Slide 9999 in the office of the Register of
Deeds for Henderson County, North Carolina, reference to which plat is hereby made for a more
particular description.
ALSO BEING all of that real property described in deed of record in Deed Book 450, at page 529 in
the office of the Register of Deeds for Henderson County, North Carolina.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid tract or parcel of land, together with all privileges and appurtenances
thereunto belonging, to the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns in fee simple forever.
And said party of the first pail does covenant that they are seized of said lands in fee simple and have the right
to convey the same in fee simple, that title to same is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that they
will warrant and defend the title herein conveyed against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. This conveyance
and these warranties are made subject to the right-of-way of Highway 280/191, to those easements as described in those
instruments recorded in Deed Book 734, Page 347 and Deed Book 734, Page 333, Henderson County Registry, to the
utility easements of record and to 2015 Henderson County and Mills River ad valorem property taxes.

Book 1644
Page 609
The real property conveyed herein does not includes the primary residence of any part.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said party of the first part has hereunto set their respective hands and seals the
day and year first above written.
,�—y.i 1�t 1(SEAL)
TAMES 1L.N MOORE
5 1x (SEAL)
GARY EAR MOORE
_1A) n KQ, `)M cJtl St (SEAL)
SHARON MOORE
l / / M' A CiLiA.CJ"�'(SEAL)
DENNIS EDWIN OMOORE
c\ 'CI L9t. t 1 t (SEAL)
LISA MOORE
(SEAL)
BEULAH S. MOORE
�L, D c' �dZbt92eJ (SEAL)
BEULAH S. MOORE, Collector
Estate of Thomas W. Moore, Sr.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY Of HENDERSON
I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that JAMES CALVIN MOORE, a single man,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the voluntary execution of the foregoing instrument for the
purpose stated therein. Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this 1 "' day of December, 20I5.
dal L,&
Notary Public
My commission expires:
HEIDI BEAM
Notary Public
Henderson County
State of North Carolina

Book 1644
Page 610
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HENDERSON
1, a Notary Public ofthe County and State aforesaid, certify that GARY EARL MOORE and wife, SHARON
MOORE, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the voluntary execution ofthe foregoing instrument
for the purpose stated therein. Witness my hand and official stamp
por seal, this
"I88"{� day of December, 2015.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
HEIDI BEAM
Notary Public
Henderson County
State of North Carolina
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HENDERSON
I, a Notary Public ofthe County and State aforesaid, certify that DENNIS EDWIN MOORE and wife, LISA
MOORE, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the voluntary execution ofthe foregoing instrument
for the purpose stated therein. Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this 18' day of December, 2015.
. t 1dc &-t'yj
Notary Public
My commission expires: If at` j7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 11m:1
COUNTY OF HENDERSON
I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that BEULAH S. MOORE, a single woman,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the voluntary execution of the foregoing instrument for the
purpose stated therein. Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this 18is l8"� December, 2015.
\ l t,LP �Gfl
Notary Public
My commission expires: //—aV,_ /7
HEIDI BEAM
Notary Public
Henderson County
State of North Carolina

Hook 1644
Page 611
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HENDERSON
1, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that BEULAH S. MOORE, Collector of the Estate
of Thomas W. Moore, SR., personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the voluntary execution of the
foregoing instrument for the purpose stated therein. Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this 18' day of
December, 2015. A
My commission expires: 11-V-17
Notary Public
HEIDI BEAM
Notary Public
Henderson County
E
ate of North Carolina

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
USGS Site Location Map

USGS
U.S. DEUS. GEOLOGIICAL SURVEYINTERIOR
ENT OF THE
't `US ToP
5
AND
SKV NORM AROLIINA QUADRANGLE
.GrpRxaY
> O
].5-AUNIITE SERIES
1Ryyp 'S2�`E
51 55 55
57 SG 59
FA 61
�L 90
62 0 5L5DA
LI BLL F RIIILF -
CAAkSY.\l
I I xtn )!
I?
I
N LLTF RIDGE
27
27
1 \
\ 111 vn e-"�-- • —� mvin eu
rlsmu n -1 / C )
2E < 1 .\rl I £.
1
`�J
ASHEN' 1L11. 24
is
z
21
i
2
li
22
22
zo
19
19
1 ,
SITE
o, Ili`
j
17
i) \IILIS RI\IR. \ I ��. _ - _ - I -•� ) i / .
wl�
D,
1lIM 51 51 55 56 52 55 59 N) 11 62 Nl^`E 9]SJ
�ER1U �l.Saa9'U
haMreae UnRea XNer GaalatlrL 5'rrY HALE 1:26 ODD roNC
® iam.l�ln a rzV �y •/ fermi ^Wrn � W�� v_
m^n wua ouxMw�\w•w .tea a+•v.VYw �1v^x.rw, 0.= Q- Wr
___—____ _ _ _ I rtn eDx+.•rwr. OR�r.
v—•ew Nm nu^x v^1M x^+�r � aax�v�uaxv V>a< •eruct.rrta< unv� >rnl'iew.>xlr r a.v.,.< 4a�n v�i.n�o�wwrrvmv
e.+aln___uMe •.nrc n w rn Z14:!—
SKYLAND, NC
2019

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Water Quality Volume Calculation

WATER QUALITY VOLUME CALCULATION
WGLA Engineering, PLLC
Project:
Date:
Location:
Pardee Partners ASC
11/18/2021
Mills River
Determine Runoff Volume (NCDENR BMP 3.3.1)
Rv=0.05+0.9xIA
Drainage Area =
Impervious Area =
Impervious Fraction (IA) _
Rv =
1.96 (acres)
1.59 (acres)
0.811
0.780
V = 3630 x RD x Rv x A (Volume to be controlled)
Rp = runoff depth
Required Volume V =
Provided Volume V =
1 (inches)
5,550 cf
6,184 cf
wgla.com

DRAINAGE AREA
TO BMP: 1.96 AC±
PROPOSED DDREIM WAM
(SEE UUM SER= KOM FOR
PROPOSED FIRE UM
(SEE 1.1171M E MM PLAN FOR L
m
PROPOSED am
I
III \\\I
1�
PPE
r
r
LEOQD
l
■ PROPOSED STCRIMM STRUCTURE
r
PROPOSED SRORIMITR PPE
- -
r
1
— PROPOSED SLOTTED UtDERDRAIN
WGLA ENGINEERING, PLLC
PROPOSED ORAVRY SEWER SERMCE
724 Sih AVENUE WEST
r
` HENDERSONVILLE,NC 28739
r
Ci3
PROPOSED DRAWN SEWER WENSION (BY OTHERS)
`, [phone]
r
— — — — — — — — — — PROPOSED DOIESII)O WAM SERWDE
WGLA.COM
NC LICENSE P-1342
■
— — —
— PROPOSED FIRE WAm SERVm
■
■
4/
PROPOSED WA7011NE DRENSION MY O HUM
r
r
r
/Pa9EDP107� MMOLEANOILIIT/
WaLIND
IS
4
■
■
r
■
r
440 is al stall,,
PROPOSED GRAWN
mot (3EE U7mLI7Y S W)
PLAN FOR DETALS)
PROPOSED �' OOFI101RRS (TYP) •
E7SS1■q 7 OOEEmm (77P)-J
mroom 4
DETALWIALE (ME
OR ONERSK s)
r1l,
11
I I
I I
i
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I.
I
• I
GRAPHIC SCALE
10 b p
c")
A NEW FACILITY
FOR
PARDEE
PARTNERS
ASC
(T.B.D.) BOYLSTON HWY
MILLS RIVER, NC
28759
■ CASSE7TY ■
J. CLINTON CASSETTY
ARCHITECT
CASSE77Y
100 Country Club Dr., Suite 206
Hendersonville, TN 37075
[phone]
w .casseltyarch.com
ORIG. ISSUE DATE:
11-18-2021
DHSR PROJECT#
AS-440
PROJECT NUMBER
2120
STMMWATER
DRAINAGE EXHIBIT
C-402

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Water Quality Drawdown Calculation

Water Quality Drawdown Calculation
WGLA Engineering, PLLC
Project Name: Pardee Partners ASC
Project No.: 21108
Date: 5/25/2021
Location: Town of Mills River NC
Wq Volume = 6,184 ft3
Q = Cd A 42gho [NCDENR BMP 3.5.2]
Q = ft3/sec 6,184 ft3 x 1 hr = 0.036 cfs
48 hrs 3,600 sec
Cd = 0.6
g = 32.2 ft/seC2
ho = 0.8333 ft
A = 0.0081 ft2 x 144 in = 1.17 in
Caluclate Orifice Radius:
A =U r2
r = 0.61 in, therefore Q = 1.22 in
Select Orifice Discharge 0 = 1.125 in
Check Discharge Time for Selected Orifice
Discharge Flow = Q = Cd A 42gho
0.030 cfs
Discharge time = t = Wq Volume
Discharge Flow
56.64 hrs

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Stormwater Pipe Calculations

Project: Pardee Mills River
wgla #: 21108
Date: 8/9/2021
Location: Town of Mills River
Design Storm:
25
1 =
8.15
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3
Tc (min) =
5.00
Minimum Pipe Dia = 15
Grass c =
0.30
Impervious c =
0.90
Wooded c =
0.20
Drainage Grass Misc Imp Wooded Weighted Top/Throa Inv In Inv Out
Structure # Area (ac.) Area (ac.) Area (ac.) Area (ac.) c Q (cfs) t Elev Elev Elev Type
1
0.31
0.14
0.17
0.00
2
014
0.06
0.08
0.00
3
0.38
0.02
0.36
0.00
4
0.17
0.02
0.15
0.00
5
0.27
0.12
0.15
0.00
6
0.35
0.09'
0.26
0.00
7
0.35
0.00
0.35
0.00
8
0.19
0.06
0.13
0.00
9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.63
1.59
2083.00
2080.00
2080.00
CB
0.64
0.73
2083.61
2079.64
2079.64
CB
0.87
2.69
2084.00
2079.04
2079.04
CB
0.83
1.15
2084.42
2077.92
2077.92
CB
0.63
1.39
2083.39
2077.14
2077.14
CB
0.75
2.13
2083.59
2079.59
2079.59
CB
0.90
2.57
2085.23
2078.48
2078.48
JMH
0.71
1.10
2083.39
2077.10
2077.10
CB
0.00
0.00
2077.00
2077.00
2077.00
PIPE
0.00
0.00
2076,50
2072.35
2072.35
OCS
0.00
0.00
2072.23
2072.23,
2072.23
PIPE

Information in this chart must be entered from upstream inlet to
downstream inlet with the outlet for a respective pipe system being the last
downstream structure listed. Failure to list pipe branches in this order may
cause an error in some calculations due to the nature of the Excel funtions
Review the actual pipe diameters
shown to ensure that downstream
branches have not been calculated to
be smaller than upstream branches
0
(n
E U7 N
W o
1Z) cn to o W
LL
J
0
Throat Elev Inv Elev
(Upstream (Upstream
Inlet Inlet)
Inv Elev
(Dnstream
Inlet
Inlet Depth
(Upstream
Inlet
Slope
(%)
Material
Manning's
n
Branch
Q cfs)
Total Q
cfs
Dia.
Theo.
(in)
Q
E c.,
Qpipe i Vpipe
cfs) fps
A
1 to 1 2
72
2083.00
2083.61
2084.00
2084.42 I
2080.00
2079.64
2079.04
2077.92
1 2079.64
3.00
0.50%
0.50%
HDPE _
HDPE
0.011-1
0.011
1.59
0.73
2.69
1.15 1
1_.39
2.13
2.57
1.10
0.00
1.59
2.32
5.01
6.16
7.56
2.13
4.69
13.35
0.00 1
9.5
11.0
14.6
15.8
17.1
9.3
12.0
21.1
0.0
15
15
15
18
18
15
15
24
24
5.41
5.42
5.40
8.82
8.80
7.66
8.55
18.94
19.00
4.41
4.42
4.40
4.99
4.98
6.24
6.97
6.03
6.05
2 to 3 119.683
2079.04
2077.92
2077.14
3.97 -
C3B
to 4 224.835
4 to 5 155.317
5 to 8 9
6 to 7 110.9911
7 to 8 190.3
8 to 9 19.03
10 to 11 j 24.088
4.96
6.50
6:509 HDPE
0.50% HDPE
_
0.011 1
D
0.011
E
F
G
H
1
_
2083.39 2077.14
2083.59 2079.59
2077.10
2078.48
_
6.25
4.00
0.50%
1.00%
HDPE
HDPE
0.011
0.019
2085.23 2078.48
2076.10
6.75
1 1.25%
HDPE
0.011
2083.39 2077.10
1 2076.50 L 2072.35
2077.00
2072.23
6.30
4.15
0.50%
0.50%
RCP
RCP
0.011
0.011

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Rip Rap Outlet Protection Calculations

RipRap Outlet Protection Design
Objective: Design a RipRap Splash Pad
Project Name: Pardee ASC-Site
Project No. 21100
Date: 11/18/2021
Location: Town of Mills River, Henderson County
Solutions: Determine the Min. RipRap Splash Pad Dimensions and Min. RipRap
Stone Size when Tailwater < 0.5 Do. Use Figure 8.06a (DEHNR 1993).
Terminology: Q = Designed Discharge (cfs)
Do = Outlet Pipe Diameter (in)
La = Minimum Length of Apron (ft)
d50 = Median Stone Size (in)
Outlet No.
Q
Do
d50
La
(cfs)
(in)
(in)
(ft)
9
13.35
24
9
10
References: (NCDENR, 1988: NCDENR, 2006)

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Swale Calculations

SWALE NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:
LOCATION:
DESIGN STORM RETURN YR:
APPROACH:
INPUT DATA:
Drainage Area, Bare Soil (Ac)
Drainage Area, Grass (Ac)
Drainage Area, Woods (Ac)
Drainage Area, Impervious (Ac)
"C" Value Bare Soil
"C" Value Grass
"C" Value Woods
"C" Value for Paved
Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)
Ditch Slope (Decimal)
Bottom Width (ft)
Ditch Side Slone (x:l)
SOLUTION:
Try Type
Allowable Shear Stress
d guess (ft)
n (no units)
A (sqf)
P (ft)
R=A/P
Q=1.49/n(AR^2/3)(S^ 1 /2)
Velocitv = O/A
Permanent Swale Design
I
Pardee Partners ASC
21108
5/25/2021
Town of Mills River
10
Use Trial & Error to set the flow depth, d, until Q = Q 10
0
0
0
0
0.4 (NCDENR Table 8.03b)
0.3 (NCDENR Table 8.03b)
0.2 (NCDENR Table 8.03b)
0.9 (NCDENR Table 8.03b)
0.00 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3
0.005 DESIGN STORM:
5 Q 10 = CIA = 9.688
3 (see hydraflow)
Rip Rap (d50=
3
0.069 CHECK VELOCITY
8.000 V = 1.2
11.325 OK
0.706 CHECK SHEAR STRESS
9.7 T= yds = 0.3
1.21 OK
Allow.
n Values for Depth Ranges:
Manning n
Shear
Allow.
Lining Type
0 - 0.5 ft
0.5 - 2.0 ft
> 2 ft
Stress
Velocity
Bare Soil (No Temp Liner)
0.020
0.020
0.020
N/A
2.5 fps
NAG S 75 (Straw with Net)
0.055
0.038
0.021
1.55
5 fps
NAG S 150 (Straw with Net)
0.055
0.038
0.021
1.75
6 fps
NAG SC150 (Straw/Coconut)
0.050
0.034
0.018
2.00
8 fps
NAG C 125 (Coconut with Net)
0.022
0.018
0.014
2.25
10 fps
NAG P300 / Propex 450
0.034
0.027
0.200
8.00
16 fps
Rip Rap (d50= 9")
0.104
0.069
0.035
3.00
4.5 fps
Rip Rap (60=12")
---
0.078
0.040
4.00
5 fps
Smooth Concrete
0.015
0.013
0.013
12.50
40 fps
Sod or Established Grass
0.033
0.030
0.030
N/A
4.5 fps
- - - FINAL DESIGN
Side Slope 3 :1
_
'1I , �Ill�i I o 1111111��lll= D 1.5
_- __ __ d 1
LINER-1 I II I _ _ III -I' B 5
- III III II
Liner Rip Rap (d50= 9")
B
(Form Ver. 2019)

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Boring Information / Water -Table Depth

PREPARED FOR:
WNC Specialties, LLC
c/o Cassetty Architects
100 Country Club Drive, Suite 206
Hendersonville, Tennessee 37075
PREPARED BY:
S&ME, Inc.
44 Buck Shoals Road, Suite C-3
Arden, North Carolina 28704
May 24, 2021

May 24, 2021
WNC Specialties, LLC
c/o Cassetty Architects
100 Country Club Drive, Suite 206
Hendersonville, Tennessee 37075
Attention: Ms. Johnna Reed
Reference: Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
NC PE Firm License No. F-0176
Dear Ms. Reed:
S&ME is pleased to submit this Supplemental Subsurface Exploration report for the referenced project. The
exploration was made in accordance with our Proposal No. 212903, dated March 18, 2021 and authorized by Ms.
Johnna Reed on April 14, 2021. This report presents a brief confirmation of our understanding of the project, the
exploration results, and our geotechnical conclusions and recommendations regarding site grading and building
and pavement support.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with WNC Specialties and Cassetty Architects by providing the
geotechnical engineering services for this project. Please contact us should any questions arise regarding the
information in this report or when further services are needed.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
Christopher Mentch, P.E.
Associate Project Manager
\\06w11C pi uiii,,//,
SEAL =
049942
�P�s . FNGINE�
TOPNE
Christopher Mentch
May 24 2021 4:44 PM
r
Matthew McCurdy, P.E.
Principal 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 Subsurface Exploration AWAW
Pardee Partners ASC �®
Mills River, North Carolina ,
S&ME Project No. 212903
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Information...........................................................................................................1
2.0 Exploration.........................................................................................................................1
3.0 Site Conditions..................................................................................................................2
3.1
Surface Features..............................................................................................................................2
3.2
Area Geology.................................................................................................................................. 2
3.3
Subsurface Conditions...................................................................................................................3
3.3.1
Sup face Material................................................................................................................................3
3.3.2
Alluvial Soils.....................................................................................................................................4
3.3.2.1
Auger Refusal in Alluvium...........................................................................................................4
3.3.3
Residual Soils....................................................................................................................................4
3.3.4
Partially Weathered Rock..................................................................................................................4
3.3.4.1
Auger Refusal in Residual Material.............................................................................................5
3.3.5
Subsut face Watei...............................................................................................................................5
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................................5
4.1 General Discussion.........................................................................................................................5
4.2 Remedial Foundation Options.....................................................................................................6
4.2.1 Option 1— Deep Foundations........................................................................................................... 6
4.2.2 Option 2 — Ground Improvement..................................................................................................... 6
4.2.3 Option 3 —Partial Undercutting and Replacernent..........................................................................7
4.3 Floor Slab and Pavement Support............................................................................................... 8
5.0 Grading Recommendations............................................................................................8
5.1 Site Preparation...............................................................................................................................8
5.1.1 Stripping...........................................................................................................................................8
5.1.2 Underground Utility Lines...............................................................................................................8
5.1.3 Previously Cultivated Soils...................................................................................................
5.1.4 Alluvial Soils and UndercuttinglStabilization.................................................................................9
5.1.4.1 Building Areas................................................................................................................................ 9
May 24, 2021 ii

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
5.1.5 Dewatering...................................................................................................
5.1.6 Proofrolling..................................................................................................
5.2 Excavation..................................................................................................
5.3 Fill Placement and Compaction...............................................................
5.3.1 Use of Excavated Soils as Fill.......................................................................
5.3.2 Use of Off -Site Borrow Materials as Fill ......................................................
5.3.3 Wet Weather Grading..................................................................................
5.4 Fill -Induced Settlement............................................................................
5.5 Excavated Slopes and Fill Embankments ..............................................
..................................... 9
..........I........................10
...................................10
...................................10
...................................11
......I............................11
...................................11
...................................11
...................................12
6.0 Building Foundation Support Recommendations...................................................12
6.1 Deep Foundation Systems...........................................................................................................12
6.2 Ground Improvement Method...................................................................................................13
6.2.1 Shallow Spread Foundations with Ground Improvement..............................................................14
6.3 Floor Slab Support........................................................................................................................14
6.4 Seismic Conditions.......................................................................................................................14
7.0 Cast -In -Place Concrete Retaining Wall Design Parameters...................................15
8.0 Limitations of Report.....................................................................................................15
List of Tables
Table3-1— Subsurface Water Data........................................................................................................... 5
Table 7-1: Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients.....................................................................................15
Appendices
Appendix I — Boring Location Plan
Appendix II — Supplemental Boring Logs
Appendix III — Select 2016 Boring Logs
Appendix IV — Important Information
May 24, 2021

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration °
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
1.0 Project Information
Our understanding of the project is based on the following:
Our previous work for this project site including the preparation of a Subsurface Exploration Report
(S&ME Project Number 1441-16-013, dated April 25, 2016);
A phone call from Mr. Jarrod Finger, P.E. with Wise Engineers to Mr. Matt McCurdy, P.E. with S&ME on
January 15, 2021 to discuss the new building location;
An email from Mr. Jared DeRidder, P.E. with WGLA Engineering, PLLC to Mr. McCurdy on March 3, 2020
which included an Area Map (sheet C-100) dated March 1, 2021 with the new building location and our
previous boring locations;
A conference call with the project team and Mr. McCurdy on March 4, 2021 to discuss project details;
An email from Mr. Blake Roberts with Cassetty Architects and a Request for Proposal dated March 11,
2021. Enclosed in this email was the Area Map marked up with 5 suggested boring locations;
A series of emails and phone calls between Mr. Zach Scarboro, P.E. (with GeoStructures at the time — now
with Keller) and Mr. McCurdy on March 16, 2021 to clarify planned boring depths and a phone call on
May 21, 2021 to discuss the subsurface conditions encountered.
Based on the above, we understand that an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) is planned for a site located on
Boylston Highway in Mills River, North Carolina. The proposed building location has been shifted southeast from
the previously proposed location during our original geotechnical exploration at the site. We understand the
proposed building will be a steel -framed one-story structure. We assume there will be concrete floor slabs, some
load bearing masonry walls, and exterior brick veneer. Based on our conversation with Mr. Finger, we anticipate
that maximum column and wall loads will be on the order of 125 kips and 2.7 kips per linear foot, respectively. The
expected floor live loads for the building will likely be on the order of 150 to 200 psf.
We understand that site grades are planned to be raised, with the proposed finish floor elevation being
approximately 2 to 3 feet above the existing grade. Additionally, based on the previous subsurface information
obtained, we understand that the design team has considered the most likely foundation system will consist of
spread footings supported by ground improvement with compacted aggregate piers.
2.0 Exploration
The field exploration included a site reconnaissance by a Geotechnical Professional and the performance of five (5)
supplemental soil test borings (SB-1 through SB-5) in the proposed new building area. The boring locations were
established in the field by our personnel using a handheld GPS unit and a georeferenced aerial. The borings were
assigned to depths of 20 feet except for SB-5, which was assigned to a depth of 35 feet. Each boring encountered
early auger refusal, and five offset borings were drilled from SB-5 to SB-3 (with a larger rig) at a later date with the
deepest boring meeting refusal at a depth of 18.5 feet.
The borings were performed with a track -mounted Diedrich D-25 drill rig for the initial attempt and a truck -
mounted CME-75 drill rig for the second attempt (both equipped with an automatic hammer), using hollow -stem
auger techniques to advance the hole. Split -spoon samples and Standard Penetration Resistance (N) values were
generally obtained at 2.5-foot intervals in the upper 10 feet, and then at 5-foot intervals thereafter. After
May 24, 2021

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
e_
completion of drilling, water levels were measured at each boring location. Some borings were left open to
measure subsurface water depths at least 24 hours later. Once final water levels were measured, the boreholes
were backfilled with soil cuttings.
After completion of the field work, the split -spoon samples were transported to our laboratory where a
Geotechnical Professional visually and manually classified the soils in general accordance with the guidelines of
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The results of the classifications as well as the field testing results are
presented on the individual Boring Logs in the Appendix. Similar soils were grouped into strata on the logs. The
strata contact lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types; the actual transition between soil types
in the field could be gradual in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
The Appendix contains a Boring Location Plan (Figure 1) showing the approximate boring locations, a Legend to
Soil Classification and Symbols, select 2016 Boring Logs (near the new development location), the Supplemental
Boring Logs, and the Field Testing Procedures. Coordinates were recorded with our handheld GPS unit and
ground surface elevations shown on the Boring Logs were interpolated from the topographic data on the
provided Conceptual Site Plan; each should be considered approximate.
3.0 Site Conditions
3.1 Surface Features
Based on our previous work at this site, site visits, and on our review of the historical aerial photographs available
through Google Earth, the site appears to have been historically used for agricultural purposes. The site is also in
the apparent geologic floodplain of Mills River, the French Broad River, and their tributaries. A creek with flowing
water crosses the site through the southwest portion of the parcel. Another creek is located near the north border
of the parcel. Mills River is located about 500 feet south of the site and the French Broad River is about 2 miles
east of the site. The parcel is currently undeveloped and the majority of the site is covered with overgrown grass,
some underbrush, and small to medium trees along the stream banks. The site is generally level, with 3 to 4 feet of
topographic relief.
Our first drilling attempt for this supplemental exploration was made during cool, dry weather- and much of the
exposed ground appeared generally stable under the tracked drill rig; however, the second drilling attempt was
delayed multiple times due to unfavorable site conditions after wet weather. It appeared that the larger truck -
mounted drill rig would get stuck in wet site conditions due to very soft soils. In fact, the driller informed us that
he had difficulty getting the truck rig out of the site after completion of the offset borings.
3.2 Area Geology
The site is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of North Carolina (very near the contact of the Inner
Belt of the Piedmont Province) as shown in the following figure. This region is an area underlain by ancient
igneous and metamorphic rocks. Geologic mapping by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates the project area is
typically underlain by bedrock consisting of gneiss and mica schist.
May 24, 2021

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
APPROXIMATE
SITE LOCATION
Murphy Kinga Mtn.
Beft
Belt
Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina
,0® 1
The soils encountered in this area are the residual product of in -place physical and chemical weathering of the
rock presently underlying the site. In areas not altered by erosion or disturbed by the activities of man, the typical
residual soil profile typically consists of clayey soils near the surface, where soil weathering is more advanced,
underlain by sandy silts and silty sands with varying amounts of mica. The boundary between soil and rock is not
sharply defined. This transitional zone, termed "partially weathered rock," is normally found overlying parent
bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard
penetration resistance values of at least 50 blows per 6 inches. Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and
the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock (as well as hard
rock) is quite irregular and erratic, even over relatively short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find
lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above the
general bedrock level.
Alluvial soils (alluviurn) consist of soil sediments which have been eroded, deposited, and reshaped by flowing
water in some form. Alluvial soils are typically found in geologic floodplains, near rivers and streams, and often in
"draws". Alluvium typically has a very low consistency and is usually unconsolidated. The alluvial soils typically
consist of a variety of materials, including fine particles of silt and clay and larger particles of sand, gravel, cobbles,
and boulders along with organic matter.
3.3 Subsurface Conditions
The following description of subsurface conditions is relatively brief and general. Borings near the new
construction area from our 2016 report (B-12, and B-15 to B-17) are discussed as well as the new supplemental
borings SB-1 to SB-5. For more detailed information, the individual Borings Logs contained in the Appendix
should be consulted.
3.3.1 Sur face Material
The borings initially penetrated a 2.5- to 7-inch thick layer of organic laden topsoil. Please note that topsoil
thicknesses will vary throughout the site and could be thicker in unexplored areas. This is particularly true of soils
previously used for agriculture.
May 24, 2021

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903 W&M
3.3.2 Alluvial Soils
Below the topsoil, the borings encountered alluvial soils to depths of up to 18.5 feet below the existing ground
surface. The sampled alluvial soils consisted of lean clay (USCS Group Symbol CL), sandy silt (MIL), silty sand (SM),
silty sand with gravel (SM), silty gravel with sand (GM), and poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM). The standard
penetration resistance values (N-values) recorded in the alluvial soils ranged from 2 blows per foot (bpf) to 50
blows for 0 inches of penetration (50/0" on the log), indicating a very low to very high consistency. Please note
most of these higher blow counts were likely amplified by the presence of rock fragments, gravel, cobbles, and/or
boulders (often referred to as "riverjack"). As expected, these soils were predominantly moist to wet. Generally,
the alluvium was described as more fine-grained soils near the surface with the materials transitioning to more
coarse -grained sands and gravels (and riverjack) with depth.
Previous borings B-16 and B-17 were terminated at their planned depths of 5 feet in the alluvium.
3.3.2.1 Auger Refusal in Alluvium
Refusal to auger advancement was encountered in the alluvium in borings SB-1 through SB-5 at a depth of 11 to
12 feet below the existing ground surface with the Diedrich D-25 drill rig. This also occurred in three offset borings
made with the larger CME-75 rig at 11 feet. Refusal is a designation applied to any material having a resistance in
excess of the penetrating capacity of the drilling equipment. We anticipate the refusal encountered in these
borings is due to cobbles and boulders (riverjack) in the alluvium and not due to bedrock; however, core drilling
procedures are required to determine the characteristics and continuity of the materials below the level of refusal.
Also, the bedrock may not be much deeper than the river jack in some areas.
3.3.3 Residual Soils
Beneath the alluvial soils, residual soils (residuum) of the type common to the Mills River area were encountered in
previous borings B-12 and B-15 and in two of the recent offset borings (near B-3 and B-5). The top of the residual
material ranged from about 12 to 18.5 feet below the surface.
The residuum consists of sandy silt (ML), silty sand (SM), and silty gravel with sand (GM). The N-values recorded in
the residual silts ranged from 15 bpf to 50 blows per 1 inch of penetration, indicating a moderate to very high
consistency. Most of the residual material was defined as partially weathered rock (described below). Boring B-12
was terminated at its planned depth of 20 feet in the residuum.
3.3.4 Partially Weathered Rock
Partially weathered rock (PWR) was encountered in previous boring B-15 and offsets for SB-3 and SB-5 at depths
of 12 to 15 feet. The sampled PWR consisted of very dense silty sand (SM) and silty gravel with sand (GM) with N-
values ranging from 50 blows for 1 to 5.5 inches of penetration. PWR is defined as residual soils that are a
transitional material between very hard soil and rock which has an N-value of at least 50 blows per 6 inches.
Boulders and rock lenses are typically found in PWR.
May 24, 2021

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
3.3.4.1 Auger Refusal in Residual Material
Refusal to auger advancement was encountered in the PWR in borings B-15 and offsets of SB-3 and SB-5 at
depths of 29, 13.9, and 18.5 feet, respectively, below the existing ground surface. Refusal can result from PWR,
boulders, rock seams, or the upper surface of sound continuous rock. Core drilling procedures are required to
determine the characteristics and continuity of the materials below the level of refusal. Based on the results and
descriptions by the driller, we expect these refusals are near the top of competent rock.
3.3.5 Stcbsur face Water
Subsurface water depth data is included in the tale below:
Table 3-1— Subsurface Water Data
Boring No.
B-12 (from 2016)
Depth to Water at End of
Drilling
11 feet
Depth to Water after at
least 24 Hours
6 feet
13-15 (from 2016)
10 feet
5 feet
SB-1
8 feet
N/A - Backfilled
SB-2
10 feet
5.4 feet
SB-3
8 feet
5.7 feet
SB-4
9 feet
N/A - Backfilled
SB-5
8 feet
5.3 feet
Subsurface water was not encountered in previous borings B-16 or B-17 which were only drilled to 5 feet below
the surface. It should be noted that subsurface water levels will fluctuate during the year, due to such things as
seasonal variations, precipitation, creek and river levels, and construction activity in the area.
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on information and assumptions concerning
structural loads, existing grades and final site grades, our understanding of the proposed project, findings of the
initial and supplemental 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 alluvial soils, subsurface water, fill
materials, and PWR and bedrock levels.
4.1 General Discussion
The borings from the 2016 exploration and the 2021 supplemental exploration indicate the majority of the site is
in the apparent geologic floodplain of the creeks on and adjacent to the site and likely Mills River and the French
Broad River and generally contains alluvium (soils and rocky materials deposited over time by water and during
historic flooding). The subsurface water levels were generally quite shallow (near 5 feet below the surface).
May 24, 2021

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
Because of the depositional nature of the alluvial materials, the soils on this site will tend to settle excessively and
non -uniformly under new loads. Therefore, we would expect a high risk of settlement -related issues for structures
built without remedial site work or special foundations.
The main geotechnical challenge is selecting the optimum foundation type or remedial work plan to adequately
support the buildings and pavements. This will ultimately be a decision based on the Owner's budget and
tolerance for risk. Because of the unpredictable nature of alluvial soils, constructing buildings and pavements at
this site will carry some degree of risk that the Owner must be aware of and willing to accept. In the following
sections, we have described several options that could be considered to help reduce the risks, but each option
also carries cost implications that will need to be determined to decide if they are acceptable.
4.2 Remedial Foundation Options
Our opinion is the alluvial materials could cause excessive settlement for proposed structures if remedial work or
special foundations are not used. There are a number of possible remedies for this. The most positive method for
support of the new buildings would require undercutting all of the alluvial material in the building areas and
replacing it with well compacted materials. However, due to the extensive volume of alluvial material and
relatively shallow water table, removal of all of the alluvium is not practical from an economical or constructability
standpoint. Our experience indicates other, more economical options are often used to provide suitable support.
Some risk is still inherent in these remediation methods; however, these risks can be lessened by close evaluation
by representatives of the geotechnical engineer during construction. Several of the options are briefly discussed
below.
4.2.1 Option 1 — Deep Foundations
With the exception of complete removal and replacement of the alluvial soils, the option with the least risk would
be special, deep foundations installed through the alluvial soils so that the loads are transferred to competent
materials. Helical piers are often an economical deep foundation approach for typical lightly -loaded buildings;
however, the rocky parts of the alluvial materials would likely inhibit installation of helical piers. It appears driven
H-piles, auger -cast piles, or micropiles would likely be more efficient to penetrating the rocky alluvial materials;
however, the cost of these foundation types are probably too high to be economically feasible for a relatively
lightly loaded single -story building.
4.2.2 Option 2 — Ground Improvement
There are also ground improvement methods such as compacted aggregate piers (CAP) or controlled modulus
columns (CIVIC), also referred to as rigid inclusions. CAPS consist of crushed stone compacted into pre -drilled
excavations (on the order of 24 to 30 inches in diameter) in soils that will stay open. In soils that tend to cave or
collapse, as would be expected on this site, the stone columns can be installed by a mandrel pushed into the soil
and a bottom feed vibrator. Rigid inclusions are basically an augered excavation that is backfilled with concrete
and overlain with a load transfer pad constructed with crushed stone. Both systems are not structural foundation
elements, but a method to modify the low -consistency soils into a stiffer composite soil matrix.
We anticipate these would be installed to a depth that is predicted to satisfactorily support the building with
tolerable settlements. A possible depth of installation would be about 15 to 20 feet or refusal of the equipment
May 24, 2021

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
but would be based on the actual design (by others). Some difficulty in installation will still likely be encountered
due to rocky materials. The designer may consider refusal in the rocky alluvial layer to be satisfactory in some
cases, but this will need to be discussed with the specialty contractor. Ground improvement is typically installed by
a design -build specialty contractor who provides a warranty of their work.
After ground improvements are installed, the building would be supported with conventional foundations and
usually an increased bearing pressure. Ground improvement can also be used to provide support for grade slabs
or stabilization prior to fill placement if installed on a grid under the slab area, but this carries a higher cost.
Alternatively, some undercutting of the alluvial soils and/or stabilization with crushed stone (as approved by the
specialty contractor) could be utilized to initiate fill placement and support the grade slab.
4.2.3 Option 3 — Partial Undercutting and Replacement
As mentioned previously, the undercutting approach with the least amount of risk would be to completely
undercut all of the alluvium and replace it as new, well -controlled, structural fill. However, this is assumed to be
too expensive, difficult to construct, and time consuming to be feasible.
If some risk of long term settlement can be accepted, another approach is to undercut a portion of the alluvial
material and replace it in a controlled, well -compacted manner. In our 2016 report, we suggested 5 to 8 feet of
new, well -compacted fill be placed under the two-story structure. Since the newly -proposed building is just one-
story, we suggest at least 5 to 6 feet of new fill be placed under the building with this approach. Based on the
planned grades (raising existing grade by 2 to 3 feet), this would require undercutting below current grades by
about 3 to 4 feet. Undercutting would extend very close to, and may encounter, the groundwater table. This would
cause difficulty in executing the site remediation properly and will likely require dewatering of the over -
excavations and crushed stone backfilling the first few feet of the excavation. Installing some underdrains (French
drains) across the site to lower the subsurface water level as much as possible might be required. After
undercutting, the bottoms of the excavations are expected to be soft, wet, and unstable, and will need to be
stabilized with geotextile fabric and crushed stone as described below.
The undercut areas should extend to 15 feet laterally beyond building lines. The bottom of unstable excavations
will need to be stabilized with a layer of heavy geotechnical fabric and a 2-foot thick layer of crushed stone. The
fabric should consist of Mirafi HP 570 and the crushed stone should consist of railroad ballast or a surge stone
with particle sizes ranging from 6 inches to fines. The top part of the stone layer should be capped with about 4
inches of ABC stone or a layer of non -woven filter fabric to prevent soil fill from raveling (eroding) into the larger
crushed stone layer. Then, the area should be raised to grade with well -compacted structural fill soil.
After this work, the buildings and floor slabs could be supported with conventional shallow spread footings.
Because of the soft alluvial soils remaining below the undercut depth with this approach, there is a small risk of
future soil settlement, which could require some repair and maintenance. This risk must be understood and
accepted by the Owner. However, in our experience in the Western North Carolina region, other lightly -loaded
buildings have performed satisfactorily with similar stabilization methods.
May 24, 2021

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration '
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
4.3 Floor Slab and Pavement Support
If deep foundations or ground improvement are selected as the remedial approach for support of the structure,
the slab can also be supported with these elements. However, this will increase the cost of the special foundation
measures. Based on our experience with similar conditions, and as an approach to reduce costs, when 5 to 6 feet
of new fill is placed, lightly -loaded floor slabs can usually be supported on the new fill with a relatively low risk of
slab subsidence and cracking.
The low consistency alluvial soils below the proposed pavement areas will also present some level of risk, although
somewhat lower, following proper site preparation. The pavement areas should be proofrolled with a loaded
dump truck, and the existing soils can remain in place if sufficiently stable. Some undercutting of alluvial soils in
pavement areas and/or stabilization with crushed stone and fabric should be anticipated. This will be very
dependent on the weather and time of year that grading occurs. In cool and wet weather, the remedial measures
required will be much more extensive than in hot and dry weather.
5.0 Grading Recommendations
5.1 Site Preparation
5.1.1 Stripping
Site preparation should begin with the removal of all unsuitable surface materials. This would include the removal
of surface vegetation, organic laden topsoil, trees, and large root systems. Stripping should extend at least 10 feet
outside the building limits and 5 feet outside pavement limits, where practical.
5.1.2 Underground Utility Lines
Underground utility lines should be re-routed from under the proposed building area. Our experience indicates
the backfill soils for existing utility lines are generally poorly compacted. Therefore, trench backfill soils over utility
lines that are to remain in place (such as under pavements) should be tested to determine their suitability.
Subsequently, utility lines that are to be relocated should be removed, and the trenches cleaned and backfilled
with well compacted structural fill as discussed in Section 5.3 of this report.
5.1.3 Previously Cultivated Soils
Although not sampled in the borings, based on the historic use of the site as agricultural farmland, we expect
some previously cultivated soils will be present onsite. The depth of the cultivated soils is highly dependent upon
the crop and the machinery/plowing techniques used. Typically, soils disturbed by cultivation are 1 to 1.5 feet
thick, but is not uncommon for these type soils to extend as deep as 3 feet or more. These soils can contain root
fibers and other organic materials, but usually the organic content is relatively low. Based on our review of aerial
photographs and our site visit, we expect cultivated soils to be present across most of the site. Due to the
sampling intervals in the borings, it is possible some of the materials shown as topsoil and alluvial soils on the
Boring Logs are actually cultivated soils.
May 24, 2021

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
=0
111=
Cultivated soils can sometimes be left in place, provided they are assessed to be stable by the proofrolling
methods discussed in Section 5.1.6 and do not contain too high an organic content. However, these soils are
usually unstable when wet and tend to hold water. If the cultivated soils are wet at the time of construction, they
may need to be stripped similarly to topsoil.
5.1.4 Alluvial Soils and Undercutting/Stabilization
As previously stated, alluvial soils were encountered in the borings to depths of up to 18.5 feet below the existing
ground surface, and are not suitable for foundation support without remedial work or special foundation systems.
5.1.4.1 Building Areas
If deep foundations or ground improvement are selected as the remedial approach in the building areas, and the
slabs are to be soil -supported, the alluvial soil will likely require some remedial work to initiate fill placement. We
recommend that the building slab be placed such that it is supported by at least 3 feet of new, well compacted
structural fill. The alluvial soil will need to be stable enough to support the earthmoving and compaction
equipment so that the specified degree of compaction can be achieved. The soil exposed after stripping should be
evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to fill placement. If the subgrade is soft, as expected, it should be
scarified and dried as much as practical and compacted. If the subgrade is still too soft to begin grading, 1 to 2
feet of soil could be undercut (if more stable with depth) and/or a layer of crushed stone and (possibly geogrid or
stabilization fabric) could be placed. The stabilization layer would need to be discussed with the specialty
contractor to determine what material would not inhibit installation of the deep foundations or ground
improvement elements. Large size crushed stone such as surge stone or small rip -rap, and some geotextiles,
could cause difficulty.
5.1.5 Dezuatering
We expect that dewatering could be required during undercutting and installation of utilities, depending on the
depth of the excavations. Subsurface water should be lowered at least 3 feet below the deepest excavations and
maintained continuously until the areas are backfilled to several feet above the water levels.
Depending on the actual groundwater level and selected final grades, we expect a series of pumped sumps will be
needed to effectively lower the groundwater in the undercut excavations and during installation of deeper utility
lines. French drains consisting of a perforated drainage pipe, surrounded by washed crushed stone and wrapped
with geotextile fabric in an excavated ditch could also be needed; however, it does not appear the site topography
will allow for much, if any, gravity drainage. In utility trenches that encounter groundwater, about 6 to 12 inches of
No. 57 crushed stone bedding is normally required, and the trenches may also need to be backfilled up to the
groundwater line with No. 57 stone.
It is our opinion that good design and construction practice requires a somewhat conservative approach when
controlling groundwater. Also, groundwater control measures should be included in the construction costs. If field
conditions during grading indicate the groundwater is lower than expected, the groundwater measures can be
significantly reduced.
May 24, 2021

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration '
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
5.1.6 Proofrolling
Following stripping, and depending on the remedial approach selected for the building areas, the exposed
subgrades in building areas should be thoroughly proofrolled with a heavily loaded tandem -axle dump truck or
similar rubber -tired equipment under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. The proofrolling will help
reveal the presence of unstable or otherwise unsuitable surface materials. Areas that are unstable should be
undercut or stabilized in place as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Areas that are obviously too soft to
support equipment should not be proofrolled, and can be evaluated by probing with a small -diameter steel rod,
hand auger borings and dynamic cone penetrometer tests, or backhoe-excavated test pits.
5.2 Excavation
The boring data indicates excavations for mass grading, utilities, and foundations will primarily extend through
low to moderate consistency alluvial soils. Also, some residual soils and partially weathered rock may be
encountered below about 12 feet in some areas. These materials can be excavated by routine earthmoving
equipment, such as a bulldozer, moderately heavy front-end loader, or tracked excavator. Local excavation for
foundations and shallow utility trenches can be accomplished by a heavy backhoe or tracked excavator. Sorne of
the cobbles and boulders in the alluvial zone could require more diligent excavation effort by the contractor.
We expect the alluvial cobbles and boulders as well as the PWR and massive rock encountered in the borings to
be below expected excavation levels during mass grading but could be encountered in utility trench excavations.
Also, please keep in mind rock in a weathered, boulder, and massive form varies very erratically in depth and
location in this geologic region. Accordingly, such materials could be encountered at shallow depths between or
near the boring locations, and could require blasting or removal by the use of pneumatic tools. We expect most
auger refusals were due to cobble/boulders near the bottom of the alluvial layer, but it is possible bedrock was
encountered in some areas.
All excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including
OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. We expect the soft and wet alluvial soils will be
unstable during excavations and will require being benched or sloped flatter than typical. The contractor is solely
responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a service and under no circumstances should
S&ME be assumed to be responsible for construction site safety.
5.3 Fill Placement and Compaction
After excavation and necessary undercutting, areas requiring fill placement should be raised to their design
subgrade configuration with soil free of deleterious materials, and rock pieces should generally be less than 4
inches in diameter. The fill should be uniformly spread in 6- to 8-inch thick loose lifts and be compacted to at least
95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by laboratory standard Proctor compaction tests
(ASTM D-698). This percentage should be increased to 98 percent within 2 feet of the building floor slab and
proposed pavement areas. The moisture content should be controlled at plus to minus 3 percent of optimum.
Fill placement should be observed by a qualified Materials Technician working under the general direction of the
Geotechnical Engineer. In addition to this visual evaluation, the Technician should perform a sufficient number- of
May 24, 2021 10

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
in -place field density tests to confirm the required degree of compaction is attained. Periodic field "check plugs"
should be performed to help determine the correct Proctor data to use.
5.3.1 Use of Excavated Soils as Fill
We expect the majority of the excavated soils will be cultivated and alluvial soils. These soils should be evaluated
as they are excavated by a Geotechnical Engineer to determine which parts, if any, are suitable for reuse as
structural fill. The majority of the samples also appeared above (to well above) optimum for compaction. We
expect the majority of the excavated soils will require significant drying prior to reuse as fill. Additionally, the
plastic soils near the surface can be challenging to dry, particularly if construction work is performed during wet
weather. Drying these soils will require diligent effort by the contractor and may not be practical in a reasonable
time frame. Also, some segregation of organic matter and/or very wet soils could be required from otherwise
reusable soil. Cobbles and boulders larger than about 6 inches to 1 foot in diameter will need to be removed so
the lift thicknesses can remain thin. There may be too many of these oversize particles mixed with the soil in some
zones to be practical for separation and reuse. Unsuitable soils will most likely need to wasted offsite or placed in
non-structural "green" areas. If any suitable soils are stockpiled for later reuse, they should be protected from
precipitation as much as practical.
5.3.2 Use of Off -Site Borrow Materials as Fill
We anticipate the majority of fill will be imported from off site. Imported fill used for site grading should consist of
a "clean" (free of organics and debris), low plasticity soil (Liquid Limit less than 50, Plasticity Index less than 25),
and be evaluated by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to hauling to the site. This evaluation should include
observation of the borrow source and performance of laboratory testing that could include standard Proctor
compaction, in -situ moisture content, grain size, Atterberg limits, or other appropriate tests.
5.3.3 Wet Weather Grading
During wet weather, special measures will be necessary for this site. These will include the following:
Excavated ditches to help reduce rainwater runoff from flowing on to the construction area.
Rainwater should not be allowed to pond.
The exposed ground surface should be sealed at the end of each work day (if inclement weather is
expected) to help reduce rainwater seepage into the soil.
The Contractor should have equipment, such as disk harrows, to help dry wet soil. Some spreading of the
soil and aerating will likely be needed.
Additional undercutting of unstable soil will be needed during wet weather.
If the subgrades cannot be stabilized for building and pavement area support, a thicker layer of crushed
stone could be necessary.
5.4 Fill -Induced Settlement
Based on the subsurface conditions, the approximate 2 to 6 feet of new fill (depending on the remedial approach
taken) will cause consolidation (settlement) of the existing soils. The majority of the fill -induced settlement will
likely occur soon after fill placement, but a portion could continue for a period of time (probably several weeks). It
May 24, 2021 11

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration A7
Pardee Partners ASC s
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
is our opinion good design and construction practice requires this settlement be monitored and approved prior to
construction of the foundations or ground improvement. This is typically measured by surveying several
monitoring points, which can consist of reinforcing steel bars driven into the ground after the fill is complete.
5.5 Excavated Slopes and Fill Embankments
We do not anticipate any large cut or fill embankments for this site; however, if relatively shallow (less than 10 feet
tall) cut or fill embankments are required, the following could be applicable. Our experience is fill embankments of
this height should be stable if properly constructed at an inclination no steeper than 2H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical).
The embankment foundation subgrades will also need to be properly prepared. Flatter slope inclinations of about
3H:1V will typically reduce erosion, maintenance and repair, and allow landscaping equipment to more easily
operate. If any cut slopes are made in the alluvial soils, they should be no steeper than 3H:1V because of the low -
consistency alluvial materials.
Fill placed in embankments should be compacted to a similar requirement recommended in Section 5.3 (95
percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density). Because it is difficult to compact soils near the
embankment face, we suggest constructing the embankments outside their design limits and then cutting them
back, leaving the exposed face well compacted.
We advise the face of slopes and embankments be protected by establishing vegetation with the use of erosion
control blankets or turf mats as soon as practical after grading. Also, rainwater runoff should be diverted away
from the crest of slopes. In general, utilities should be routed away from fill embankments. Any utilities that must
be located near the face or the crests of the fill slopes should be designed with extra precautions to ensure they
do not leak or rupture. All utility line backfill should be compacted to project specifications. It is very important
all factors associated with slopes be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications.
6.0 Building Foundation Support Recommendations
6.1 Deep Foundation Systems
As discussed, a deep foundation system would be a positive approach for building support. The deep foundation
system will transfer the loads to competent materials (very dense soils, partially weathered rock, or bedrock) below
the alluvium. A deep foundation system would provide the lowest risk of settlement, but also most likely the
highest cost, and may be cost -prohibitive for the project.
With the subsurface conditions at this site and planned loads, we expect driven H-piles or micropiles are the more
suitable deep foundation types. (Other pile types could be feasibly used for support and we can provide
additional recommendations if the contractor proposes an alternate pile type.) Rocky materials such as cobbles
and possible boulders would be encountered during installation, but these foundation types should be able to
penetrate the material at most locations. If obstructions are encountered, H-piles can be fitted with steel points to
help drivability. More difficult obstructions typically require removal with a backhoe and offset piles could be
needed in some locations.
May 24, 2021 12

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration '�'
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
We would be pleased to expand or provide additional recommendations for deep foundations as the design
process continues.
6.2 Ground Improvement Method
As previously discussed, ground improvement methods can be also be used to support the foundations. A
solution that is often used and relatively economical would be to use Compacted Aggregate Piers (CAP) or
Controlled Modulus Columns (CMC), also referred to as rigid inclusions. Both of these systems help reduce
settlement (into a tolerable range) by modifying the unsuitable soils into a stiffer composite soil matrix. These
systems could be installed in a grid pattern over the entire building footprint prior to earthwork or after earthwork
is complete, or they can be installed just directly under the wall and column footings prior to foundation
construction.
CAP's are generally constructed by augering 24- to 36-inch diameter holes on a grid pattern below the base of the
footings and/or the slab and backfilling the holes with thin lifts of compacted aggregate. Compaction densifies
the aggregate and increases lateral stress in the surrounding soil matrix. Building foundations can typically be
constructed to bear directly on the CAP's. On this site, due to the shallow water and soft soils, we expect the holes
would tend to cave in or collapse if excavated without casing. Another installation method involves placing the
crushed stone through a down -hole mandrel rather than creating an open hole. Also, fewer spoils are generated
with this method.
CMC's are generally constructed by vibrating a hollow pipe with a closed end or drilling a specialty auger- through
unsuitable soils and into underlying suitable material. The pipe or auger displaces the unsuitable soils during this
process. Therefore, unlike installation of traditional CAP's, there are little excavated soils to dispose of. The bottom
of the pipe is then opened, the pipe is filled with concrete or grout, and the pipe is slowly extracted from the hole
as more concrete/grout is added. For the auger system, concrete/grout is pumped under low pressure through
the auger as the auger is extracted from the hole. A load transfer mat is typically constructed between the
building foundations and the CMC's. This mat generally consists of a layer of crushed stone (NCDOT Aggregate
Base Course) with possibly a layer of geotextile reinforcement.
The installation of the ground improvement must be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or their
representative to confirm design depths and diameters are met and that the required installation procedures are
being followed. A modulus test (load test) would be performed by in the field by the specialty contractor (with
observation by the Geotechnical Engineer) to confirm the element stiffness modulus at the maximum theoretical
CAP/CMP stress. Loading of the test element should be conducted up to approximately 150 percent of the
maximum theoretical stress to which the elements will be subjected. At 100 percent of the maximum theoretical
element stress, settlement of the footing supported by the element should not exceed one inch.
As previously mentioned, these systems are designed and installed by specialty contractors. These specialty
contractors can recommend the most practical method based on the subsurface conditions and structural
information. Some field modifications to the designed system could be required depending on the actual
subsurface conditions encountered. We could provide a list of contractors specializing in ground improvement
methods if requested.
May 24, 2021 13

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration s
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
6.2.1 Shallow Spread Foundations with Ground Improvement
Typically, a design bearing pressure of approximately 4,000 psf or more would be available, but this will need to
be determined by the actual design/build firm. Even with the increased bearing pressure, we recommend wall
footings have a minimum width of 18 inches and column footings have a minimum width of 24 inches. We also
recommend a minimum footing embedment of 2 feet.
Individual foundation excavations require observation prior to concrete placement. Exposure to the environment
will cause the soils surrounding the piers to rapidly deteriorate. If surface water runoff collects in any excavation, it
should be removed promptly by pumping to help prevent softening of foundation supporting soils. To further
reduce the potential for deterioration of bearing soils, we recommend that foundation excavation, evaluation, and
placement of concrete be conducted on the same day, if practical. If an excavation is to remain open overnight, or
if rain is imminent, the footing subgrade should be lowered and a 3- to 4-inch thick mud mat of lean (2,000 psi)
concrete placed in the bottom of the excavation to protect the bearing soils. This will help limit the potential for
additional excavation of wet, softened soils which often results in footings exposed to inclement weather.
6.3 Floor Slab Support
The concrete ground floor slabs may be soil supported, provided the recommendations discussed in this report
are followed. We recommend a 6-inch thick layer of crushed stone be used to separate the floor slabs from the
subgrade soils. This layer will help provide uniform support for the floor- slabs. The crushed stone should consist
of Aggregate Base Course (NCDOT Standard Specifications) compacted to at least 100 percent of its standard
Proctor maximum dry density. Based on the boring data and laboratory testing, a modulus of subgrade reaction
(k) of 115 pci should be available for design of floor slabs on a properly prepared subgrade.
Based on the subsurface water level, a plastic vapor retarder separating the slab from the subgrade materials
should be considered. The actual requirement for the vapor retarder will also be based on the usage and design of
the floor slab and its covering, as well as the local building code.
6.4 Seismic Conditions
Using the boring data, our experience, and the N-value rnethod outlined in the North Carolina Building Code, it is
our interpretation this site has a seismic Site Class of D. 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.
If desired, the site class could be evaluated further by shear wave velocity testing. Shear wave velocity testing is
typically considered a more refined approach than the N-value method and often provides slightly higher results.
However, there is no guarantee that shear wave velocity testing would necessarily result in an improvement to the
site class.
May 24, 2021 14

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
7.0 Cast -In -Place Concrete Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Retaining walls, such as the loading dock wall of the building, 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 (such
as loading dock walls), they should be designed for a condition approaching the "at -rest" lateral pressure.
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 and a frictionless wall.
Table 7-1: Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients
Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient
At -Rest Coefficient (K.)
Value
0.53
Active Coefficient (KA)
0.36
Passive Coefficient (Kp)
2.8
Unit Weight Of Soil (Moist)
115 pcf
Friction Factor For Foundations and Bearing Soils
0.35
The recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients do not consider the development of hydrostatic pressure
from such things as rainwater runoff or leaking utilities behind the earth retaining wall structures. As such,
positive wall drainage must be provided for all earth retaining structures. These 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. Lateral earth pressures arising from surcharge loading or slopes above the wall
should be added to the above earth pressures to determine the total lateral pressure.
The soil backfill placed behind retaining walls and for fill placed in the passive zone should be placed and
compacted in accordance with Section 5.3. 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.
8.0 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
May 24, 2021 15

Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
notified of the changes so that we can modify our recommendations based on this additional information if
necessary.
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on limited data from a field exploration program. Subsurface
conditions can vary widely between explored areas. Some variations may not become evident until construction.
If conditions are encountered which appear different than those described in our report, we should be notified.
This report should not be construed to represent subsurface conditions for the entire site.
Unless specifically noted otherwise, our field exploration program did not include an assessment of regulatory
compliance, environmental conditions or pollutants or presence of any biological materials (mold, fungi, bacteria).
If there is a concern about these items, other studies should be performed. S&ME can provide a proposal and
perform these services if requested.
S&ME should be retained to review the final plans and specifications to confirm that earthwork, foundation, and
other recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. The recommendations in this report are
contingent on S&ME's review of final plans and specifications followed by our observation and monitoring of
earthwork and foundation construction activities.
May 24, 2021 16

Appendices

Appendix I - Boring Location Plan

Appendix II - Supplemental Boring Logs

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

PROJECT: Pardee Partners ASC
BORING LOG: SB-1
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
Sheet 1 of 1
DATE DRILLED: 04/27/2021
ELEVATION: 2078 ft
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-25 Track
DATUM: NAVD88
DRILLER: Total Depth Drilling
BORING DEPTH: 12.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer
CLOSURE: Soil Cuttings
NORTHING: 3918050.0 EASTING: 357635.0
DRILLING METHOD: 3-1/4" HSA
ILOGGED BY. Christopher Mentch
SAMPLING
METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM -NAD83/UTMzone 17N
x y
F- y
a
°w
o
NOTES
c w
'F c
0 w
0.
SAMPLE NO.
(RECOVERY)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BLOW COUNT
DATA
(SPT N-value)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
A % Fines
O NMC
H PL --- LL
20 40 60 80
O
w
2078
0
°
"TOPSOIL, 4 inches
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), very soft, tan and
gray, fine to coarse grained, very moist to
wet, trace roots in SS-1
SS-1
1-1-1
N— 2
1-1-1
SS-2
N= 2
5
2073
E
>
a
SS-3
3-3-8
N= 11
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), medium
dense, fine to coarse grained, wet, N-
values likely amplified by gravel
SS-4
5- 4
N== 34
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), dense to
very dense, fine and coarse grained, wet,
No recovery in SS-5, N-values likely
10
amplified by gravel
2068
Auger refusal at
12.0 feet
50/3"
N= 100
Borehole terminated at 12.0 feet
15
2063
20
2058
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT)
DURING ADVANCE YZ
END OF DRILLING SE 04/27/2021 8.0
AFTER DRILLING =
AFTER DRILLING
Vertical Accuracy: Estimated from client provided topo map, Horizontal Accuracy: Handheld GPS
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit, PL = Plastic Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf)

PROJECT: Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
BORING LOG: S13-2
Sheet 1 of 1
DATE DRILLED: 04/27/2021
ELEVATION: 2078 ft
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-25 Track
DATUM: NAVD88
DRILLER: Total Depth Drilling
BORING DEPTH: 12.0 ft
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer
CLOSURE: Soil Cuttings
NORTHING: 3918055.0 EASTING: 357652.0
DRILLING METHOD: 3-1/4" HSA
ILOGGED BY- Christopher Mentch
SAMPLING
METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD83 /UTM zone 17N
F- °
w
'-'
NOTES
v
F
.o o`
•�
o w
a
Q
W
SAMPLE NO.
RECOVERY
( )
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BLOW COUNT
DATA
(SPT N-value)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
A%Fines
NMC
H PL --- LL
20 40 60 80
o
~
j
J
w
2078 —
0
5
10
15
20
Auger refusal at
12.0 feet
E
a
a r< >dr.
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
TOPSOIL, 3 inches
2-2-3
N= 5
1-2-2
N= 4
0-0-2
N= 2
10-50/4"
N=100
2073
2068
2063
2058
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), firm to very soft,
tan and brown, fine to medium grained,
moist to very moist
SILTYSAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), very
dense, gray and tan, very moist, trace
mica, N-values likely amplified by gravel,
cobbles, and boulders
Borehole terminated at 12.0 feet
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT)
DURING ADVANCE 4
END OF DRILLING �Z 04/27/2021 10.0 J
AFTER DRILLING = 05/18/2021 5.4
AFTER DRILLING
Vertical Accuracy: Estimated from client provided topo map, Horizontal Accuracy: Handheld GPS
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit, PL = Plastic Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf)

PROJECT: Pardee Partners ASC
BORING LOG: S13-3
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
Sheet 1 of 1
DATE DRILLED: 04/27/2021
ELEVATION: 2078 ft
NOTES: Auger refusal initially encountered at
12 feet. Two offset borings were made
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-25 and CME-75
DATUM: NAVD88
with bigger rig. One boring extended
beyond cobbles from 12 to 13.9 feet.
DRILLER: Total Depth Drilling
BORING DEPTH: 13.9 ft
Combined results shown here.
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer
CLOSURE: Soil Cuttings
NORTHING: 3918011.0 EASTING: 357653.0
DRILLING METHOD: 3-1/4" HSA
ILOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch
SAMPLING
METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD83/uTM zone 17N
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
v W
w
.-
NOTES
m c
c m
0 c
a
o
>
u
a
C
u
SAMPLE NO.
(RECOVERY)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BLOW COUNT
DATA
SPT N-value)
A %Fines
O NMC
F-i PL --- LL
20 40 60 80
Z
O
4
J
w
2078
0
a< .,
TOPSOIL, 4 inches
LEAN CLAY (CL), firm, tan and brown, fine
grained, very moist to wet
SS-1
N=8
8
•
3-2-3
SS-2
N- 5
•
5
2073
E
3
a
SS-3
2-1-2
N= 3
SILTY SAND (SM), very loose, black and
brown, fine to medium grained, very
moist, trace roots
SS-4
16-15-18
N= 33
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), dense,
gray tan and black, fine to coarse grained,
wet, N-values likely amplified by gravel,
•
10
cobbles, and boulders
2068
E
PWR SILTY SAND ISM), medium dense,
p
gray, fine to coarse grained
Auger refusal at
38-50/3"
N= 100
Borehole terminated at 13.9 feet
15
13.9 feet
2063
20
2058
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT) L
DURING ADVANCE 4
END OF DRILLING st 04/27/2021 8.0
AFTER DRILLING = 05/18/2021 5.7
AFTER DRILLING St
Vertical Accuracy: Estimated from client provided topo map, Horizontal Accuracy: Handheld GPS
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit, PL = Plastic Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf)

PROJECT: Pardee Partners ASC
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
BORING LOG: SB-4
Sheet 1 of 1
DATE DRILLED: 04/27/2021
ELEVATION: 2078 ft
NOTES:
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-25 Track
DATUM: NAVD88
DRILLER: Total Depth Drilling
BORING DEPTH: 12.0 ft
HAMMERTYPE: Automatic hammer
CLOSURE: Soil Cuttings
NORTHING: 3918013.0 FASTING: 357622.0
DRILLING METHOD: 3-1/4" HSA
LOGGED BY: Christopher Mentch
SAMPLING
METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD83/UTM zone 17N
i
w w
o"
NOTES
m c
r w
0 E
'o °
•-
o w
az.
¢
W
SAMPLE NO.
RECOVERY
( )
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BLOW COUNT
DATA
(SPT N-value)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
A% Fines
0 NMC
H PL --- LL
20 40 60 80
z
b
F
J
w
2078
0
5
10
15
20
Auger refusal at
12.0 feet
E
a
_
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
TOPSOIL, 4 inches
1-2-2
N= 4
0-0-2
N= Z
0-1-1
N= 2
0-0-28
N= 28
50/0"
N= 100
2073
2068
2063
2058
LEAN CLAY (CL), soft to very soft, brown
gray and black, fine to coarse grained, very
moist to wet, trace mica, trace topsoil,
trace roots in SS-1
SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), medium
dense to very dense, tan and brown,
coarse grained, N-values likely amplified
by gravel, cobbles, and boulders
Borehole terminated at 12.0 feet
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH REMARKS
(FT)
DURING ADVANCE Q
END OF DRILLING st 04/27/2021 9.0
AFTER DRILLING 3E
AFTER DRILLING I=
Vertical Accuracy: Estimated from client provided topo map, Horizontal Accuracy: Handheld GPS
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit, PL = Plastic Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf)

PROJECT: Pardee Partners ASC
BORING LOG: SB-5
Mills River, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 212903
Sheet 1 of 1
DATE DRILLED: 04/27/2021
ELEVATION: 2078 ft
NOTES: Auger refusal initially encountered at
depth of 11 feet. Three offset borings
DRILL RIG: Diedrich D-25 and CME-75
DATUM: NAVD88
were made with bigger rig. One boring
extended beyond cobbles from 15 to 18.5feet.
DRILLER: Total Depth Drilling
BORING DEPTH: 18.5 ft
Combined results shown here.
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic hammer
CLOSURE: Soil Cuttings
I NORTHING: 3918034.0 EASTING: 357642.0
DRILLING METHOD: 3-1/4" HSA
LOGGED BY. Christopher Mentch
SAMPLING METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD83/UTM zone 17N
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA
w
F,
NOTES
c w
c°°_
'o o
u
d
¢�
SAMPLE NO.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BLOW COUNT
DATA
%Fines
O
o
�
(RECOVERY)
(SPT N-value)
O NMC
I --I PL --- LL
w
20 40 60 80
2078
0
aio..on,.
TOPSOIL, 3 inches
LEAN CLAY (CL), very soft to soft, tan and
brown, fine to medium grained, moist to
= N2
N= 2
SS-1
wet
1-1-1
N= 2
SS-2
5
2073
0-1-2
N= 3
SS-3
E
a
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), dense to
very dense, gray and tan, fine and coarse
425
SS-4
grained, wet, trace mica
N= 42
10
2068
SS-5
50/0"
N= 100
15
2063
PWR SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GM), very
dense, fine to coarse grained, N-Values
E
likely amplified by gravel, cobbles, and
v
boulders
cc
50"
Borehole terminated at 18.5 feet
Auger refusal at
N= 11100
18.5 feet
20
2058
GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH
REMARKS
DURING ADVANCE Q
END OF DRILLING SE 04/27/2021 8.0
AFTER DRILLING = 05/18/2021 5.3
E5a>�
AFTER DRILLING = I
Vertical Accuracy: Estimated from client provided topo map, Horizontal Accuracy: Handheld GPS
GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED.
LL=Liquid Limit, PL = Plastic Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf)

Appendix III — Select 2016 Boring Logs

LEGEND TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS I
SOIL TYPES (USCS CLASSIFICATION)
(Shown in Graphic Log)
Fill
Asphalt
Concrete
Topsoil
Gravel (GW, GM, GP)
Sand (SW, SP)
Silt (ML)
Clay (CL, CH)
Organic (OL, OH)
Silty Sand (SM)
Clayey Sand (SC)
Sandy Silt (ML)
Clayey Silt (MH)
Sandy Clay (CL, CH)
Silty Clay (CL, CH)
Partially Weathered
Rock
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
CONSISTENCY
BLOWS/FOOT
Very Soft
0 to 2
Soft
3 to 4
Firm
5 to 8
Stiff
9 to 15
Very Stiff
16 to 30
Hard
31 to 50
Very Hard
Over 50
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
RELATIVE DENSITY
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
STD. PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
BLOWS/FOOT
0to4
5 to 10
11 to 30
31 to 50
Over 50
SAMPLER TYPES CONSTITUENT MODIFIERS
(Shown in Samples Column) Trace: <5%
Few: 5 to <15%
Shelby Tube Little: 15 to <30%
Some: 30 to <50%
® Split Spoon Mostly: 50 to 100%
T Rock Core
❑ No Recovery
TERMS
Standard - The Number of Blows of 140 lb. Hammer Falling
Penetration 30 in. Required to Drive 1.4 in. I.D. Split Spoon
Resistance Sampler 1 Foot. As Specified in ASTM D-1586.
REC - Total Length of Rock Recovered in the Core
Barrel Divided by the Total Length of the Core
Run Times 100%.
Cored Rock 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%.
WATER LEVELS
(Shown in Water Level Column)
SZ = Water Level At Time of Boring
1 = Water Level Taken After 24 Hours
= Loss of Drilling Water
HC = Hole Cave
TOB - Time of Boring
N.E. - Not Encountered
= IN

PROJECT: Pardee Hospital Medical Building - Ph. I Devi.
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG B-12
S&ME Project No. 1441-16-013
NOTES: N values of samples 4 and 5 likely
CLIENT: WGLA Engineering, PLLC
ELEVATION: 2076.0 ft
amplified by rocky materials
DATE DRILLED: 4/6/16 - 416/16
BORING DEPTH: 20.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Acker Soil SentrV
WATER LEVEL: 6 ft. at 24 hrs.,11 ft. at TOB
DRILLER: Metro Drill Inc.
CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
I LOGGED BY: A. Bhui an
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4" H.S.A.
�
w
z
w
O Q-
BLOW COUNT CORE
DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf •
a
O
a o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
>
O
z
a w
�
FINES%�
w
Q
o
of
F
PL NM
z
(
Q
J
W
Q
`fl
LLL
2 v
cq
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 1,0 90
TOPSOIL - 2.5 inches
ALLUVIUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - very soft,
1
1
1
1
2
dark brown, fine, trace roots, trace organics,
moist
2
1
1
1
2
5
2071.0
1
ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM) - loose, brown
3
3
3
4
gray, medium to fine, trace roots
4
12
17
24
41
ALLUVIUM: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH
10
SILT (SP-SM) - dense, brown gray, coarse to
2066.0
fine, with rock pieces, wet
S7
5
13
19
29
nn
15
2061.0-
6
5
7
8
15
SANDY SILT (ML) - stiff, white
20aRESIDUUM:
N brown, coarse to fine, trace rock fragments, wet
2056.0
- -
Boring terminated at 20 feet
I
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. BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORZ)ANCE 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: Pardee Hospital Medical Building - Ph. I Devl.
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG B-15
S&ME Project No. 1441-16-013
NOTES: N value of sample 3 likely amplified by
CLIENT: WGI A Enqineerinq, PLLC
ELEVATION: 2078.0 ft
rocky materials
DATE DRILLED: 415116 - 4/5/16
BORING DEPTH: 29.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Acker Soil SentrV
WATER LEVEL: 5 ft. at 24 hrs.,10 ft. at TOB
DRILLER: Metro Drill Inc.
CAVE-IN DEPTH: N/A
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: A. Bhui an
SAMPLING METHOD: No Recovery, Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/<" H.S.A.
-J
>z
w
0°
BLOW COUNT
/ CORE DATA
SPT N Value (bpf) 0
w
U
Q o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
�
a -J=LU
0
FINES%♦
w
Q
o
H
W
_
PL NM LPL
Q
w
Q
-2
e e e
z
U)
N
10 0 30 40 50 60 7,0 80 90
TOPSOIL - 3 inches
ALLUVIUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - soft to firm,
1
2
2
2
4
dark brown gray, fine, trace roots, trace
organics, very moist
1
2
2
3
3
6
5
2073.0
3
11
19
23
42
ALLUVIUM: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH
SILT (SP-SM) - dense to medium dense,
brown gray, coarse to fine, trace to little rock
fragments, moist
18
12
9
V
4
21
10
2068.0-
5
10
19
015.5
RESIDUUM/PARTIALLY WEATHERED
15
ROCK: SILTY SAND (SM) -very dense,
2063.0
brown gray, medium to fine, trace rock
fragments, sample 8 was moist
6
50/5"
»
50/5"
20
2058.0
7 0
5011"
»
50/1"
25
2053.0
8
50/1"
>
50/1"
Refusal at 29 feet
Boring terminated at 29 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. BORING
SAMPLING
WITH ASONETT-15RATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCO6.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT: Pardee Hospital Medical Building - Ph. I Devi.
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG B-16
S&ME Project No. 1441-16-013
NOTES:
CLIENT: WGLA Engineering, PLLC
ELEVATION: 2077.0 ft
DATE DRILLED: 4/5/16 - 4l5/16
BORING DEPTH: 5.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Acker Soil SentrV
WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB
DRILLER: Metro Drill Inc.
CAVE-IN DEPTH: 3'
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: A. Bhui an
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4" H.S.A.
W
z
O wo
BLOW COUNT
l CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf •
W°
U
=
a o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
>
w
O
z Q
a w�
w
�_
FINES
w
a
v
w
_-
C�
Q
W
Q
A
2 Nam
z
N
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TOPSOIL - 7 inches
ALLUVIUM: SANDY SILT (ML) - very soft,
1
1
1
1
2
brown gray, fine, trace roots, trace organics,
HC
very moist
2
1
1
1
-
2
5
2072.0
Boring terminated at 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. BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORbANCE 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
11 MR T
MAP

PROJECT: Pardee Hospital Medical Building - Ph. I Devi.
Mills River, North Carolina
BORING LOG B-17
S&ME Project No. 1441-16-013
NOTES:
CLIENT: WGLA Engineering, PLLC
ELEVATION: 2077.0 ft
DATE DRILLED: 4/6/16 - 4l6/16
BORING DEPTH: 5.0 ft
DRILL RIG: Acker Soil Sentry
WATER LEVEL: Not Encountered at TOB
DRILLER: Metro Drill Inc.
CAVE-IN DEPTH: 3'
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic
LOGGED BY: A. Bhui an
SAMPLING METHOD: Split spoon
DRILLING METHOD: 21/4" H.S.A.
z0
w
Oz a-
BLOW COUNT
/ CORE DATA
SPT N-Value (bpf) •
w
U
Q o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
j
w>
a w
FINES%�
w
o
J
PL NM LPL
O
F
Q
w
U) a
0
2 8
z
V1
N M
10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 00
TOPSOIL - 3 inches
ALLUVIUM: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH
1
4
6
6
12
SILT (SP-SM) - medium dense, gray bdto
HC
medium to fine, moist
ALLUVIUM: POORLY GRADED SAN
2
3
3
4
7
5
SILT (SP-SM) - loose, gray brown, co2072.0
fine, trace rock fragments, very moist
Boring terminated at 5 feet
I
i
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
f
)
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. BORING SAMPLING AND PENETRATION TEST DATA IN GENERAL
ACCORbANCE WITH ASTM D-1586.
3. STRATIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT.
4. WATER LEVEL IS AT TIME OF EXPLORATION AND WILL VARY.
•
IV
Page 1 of 1

Appendix IV - Important Information

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 :W ) and at a period of 24 hours following termination of drilling
(designated by 1). 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.

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-Environ mental Issues
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to
perform a geo-environmental 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

included in the main set of plans with bearings and distances (Section VI, 8i).
Subdivision plat showing the requested bearings and distances are now included. A note
has been added to sheet C-100 referencing the recorded plat.
Please provide a cross -sectional view/typical section of the proposed roadway, sidewalk,
and adjoining vegetated area in the main set of plans (Section VI, 81).
No roadway is proposed for this part of the project. Roadway cross section will be
provided with the roadway portion of this project. Concrete curb and gutter is around the
perimeter of the entire parking lot.
9. Please delineate the wetlands in the main set of plans or provide a note in the main set of
plans stating that no wetlands exist on -site. NOTE: There is no legend or labels on the
plans to indicate that the wetlands are in fact wetlands. Please also provide the name and
qualification of the individual that made this determination in the main set of plans
(Section VI, 8m).
Note #9 has been added to sheet C-400 stating that no wetlands are located on -site. The
delineation was made by Clearwater Environmental.
10. Please clearly delineate the drainage area to the proposed SCM in the main set of plans
(Section VI, 8o).
Sheet C-402 "Stormwater Drainage Exhibit" has been added to the plan set identifying
the drainage area to the proposed SCM.
11. There appears to be insufficient SHWT data for the proposed bioretention cell
(Bioretention Cell MDC 1). The boring that is located within the footprint of the SCM
(B-17) bottoms out at elevation 2072.0 ft and the bottom of the bioretention cell is shown
as 2073.5 ft (only 1.5 ft of vertical separation). The next closest boring, SB-3, shows a
SHWT elevation of 2072.3 ft (only 1.2 ft of vertical separation). Please provide a soil
boring located within the footprint of the proposed bioretention cell that shows that the
elevation of the SHWT is at least 2 feet below the bottom of the excavated bottom of the
bioretention cell.
A test pit was dug at the proposed SCM on 11-18-2021. On 11-19-2021 (24 hours later)
the water level in the test pit was 2070.75' which is 2.75' below the bottom of the
bioretention cell. Water elevation was based off of level rod shots using a surveyed
benchmark nail in the middle of the proposed basin. (see pictures below)

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Stream and Wetland Delineation

Mills River Tract (+/- 20 AG)
Jurisdictional wetlands and waters identified on this map have been loc
within sub -meter accuracy utilizing a Trimble mapping grade GI,
Positioning System (GPS) and the subsequent differential correction of
data. GPS points may demonstrate unoorrectable errors due to lopogra
vegetative cover, and/or multipath signal error.
Note: The illustrated wetland and stream locations are approximate. R
areas have been flagged In the field; however, they have not h
surveyed. Although ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC
confident in our assessment, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is
only agency that can make final decisions regarding jurisdictional wet
and waters of the US delineations. Therefore, all preliminary determinat
are subject to change until written verification is obtained. CEC stro
recommends that written verification be obtained from the Corps pric
closing on the property, beginning any site work, or making any 1,
reliance on this determination.
This map was prepared by CEC using the best information available to (
at the time of production. This map is for informational purposes only
should not be used to determine precise boundaries, roadways, prop
boundary lines, nor legal descriptions. This map shall not be construe
be an official survey of any data depicted.
Source Data: Topo is from Henderson County
Potentially Jurisdictional Water
Wetland (AC)
Streams (LF)
W 1
0.03
S 1
207
W2
0.06
S2
1,475
W3
0.02
W4
0.02
Total
0.13
Total
1 1,682
Legend
Data Form
Stream
Culvert
Linear Wetland
Wetland
Contours
L_______ 1 Project Boundary
Drawn by: KAY 11.13.15; CEC Project#
839
CLearWater Stream & Wetland
Henderson County, Delineation Map
North Carolina 32 Clayton Street Delineated November 13, 2015
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Figure 5

Pardee Partners ASC
Town of Mills River
Henderson County, North Carolina
Recorded Subdivision Plat

¢MSign Envplppo ID: 16CE896E-A41"CC4-BEF61A24C0FFEC3A
-N,C.G.5.0 '
11
N-G214381'
IF4G7
COMBINE FACTOR- 0.99977522
N.A.D. 83/86
I fig. w
i Rai i
s
I
1
gUAm01L COMPANY .)
IFD.B. 915, PG, 233
K �v
APPARENT
POSSESSION OVERV4 P �\
0.11 A
O.I I ACRE
'd AWMNUM
11\ EM Q'f'V, w 57554110.f �
FOUND
1 � � lE9.09' �
JNE BEARNG DISTANCE'
LI 58G°3702'E 731G'
L2 58G°3702'E 2489E 1
13 58G°370PE 73.10E
-4 150TI530-MI 25.00E
CURVE IRA1115 ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING DELTA ANGLE
CI 125:�220G' 22.03 5BI 3344°E IO°0634"
C2 '100.00'89.49' 86.53E SG032'32"E 51°I628"
C3 ". 100.00E I90.2S 157.22E SG045'40"E I51°AZ'44"
4VEI R B Zr T^AT I AV "NE AR_I T^ ONO. R510 i FRO'ERIY
0 AT JW .h r 5 BDV ON-R_`ti AT OM1 JUZISD LnOn O. TnETCM
OF VI 5RIVER AS5-CM AND D5CRBE hFZCh ANDAT (WE)
ER_M- UN JERSTAND EAT
XA\51C\ 01r55JBJV5ICN WRE51JT IN TTt UR..RA7NG Of ROAD
h FRATRJCTUP,J 75 AND APDTI NA RIG 0 WAv DEJ AT104AN'-r
OTTER
r RA B EZ AOUIR-M-W5 A5 RE0UIR-'Da 'J� T,-5JBDV
R.. A ohs CHART RI 3OF TIE TO^0 MS RVFR ZC4h CODE.
A RC CEDROAD NTF15505JVI O\W MEET-EMM1MUM
-0 PM RENT50UTNED NCFAFTtZ153-CRTETECr51,51-51CN
APPROVED,
9/SO/2021���'
DATE OWI:ER15)
ii
1-STING.
N5RY NSA-, III LA°
o,
,S J ST.FLC J;!
= ED.,' OF 'AVEM5,
CM° = CDRRIG4TU M'TA'. ^�
OOPXVwFO
= cALUAT'D1LNMARC)'DM
Q-'PD'EZTYCCFNEP, HOUND IA9 NOTJI
O =51 Y'P-' 4 WTI•1.R DONE :J. CA'
It'm'o_
= 1W'RV4VE
�( -TER" ,
-SMTAP'S:MI,vMrO_
LAND^nDR^JN)GAS
- -=LAID°.RGRDJNDTE'n.ONE
1•NL:
=A'01ER A0".itT" NES11N--I
--=AJIDN:R Jrv!„N'. NOTSURV^'-M
-� -- B'J:'JING 5'9MDK.T`
-.. -= zrrroe.tvnr D u_ rµvl
13
IR 5UMMEYOU(DOOR
ADVERTISING LEASE
113. 712, PU 533
STATE Or NDRTh CARO'JM
LOUNT" OF rENDER9CN
1. Patricia ERO'nENJER50N
LOUNt", CENT'Y T:-AT T15 MA' CR''AT TO W- Cn TM 5 LERTIF:CAT:ON 5
AFFIXED MEEr5 A'_'_ STATUTOR' REDWREMENT5 FOR R-'COUNG.
airiaa Swuf-iWw noun 10/6/2021
LVtTDBr"°d z-- DATE
MI A MAlCEKS ODIS ONA VNSTRATCR, FORt TOWN OF MIS
( RVRCERT:' TMAT TF15'AT PEA\ TAS BEEN REV fro AND A ROVED A -A
MINOR COMMItUlk 5U53IWSION IN ACCORDANCE VAT I TIt TM OF V.11-5
RIVER SUBDIVISION DUNA','.
9/10/2021
so31DlYP5tiNtMIS, RATOR DATE
/j II
1/4' KEBAR FOUND
CMUNE AT 10.00' „�-
S
\ 574°08E'O'f J4S o. JAMES I. HAMMOND
' \ - D.B. 1174, PG. 198 ' S'
\ '`\ 5j6'S752.f �
520SJ
/ n� 7•f /
/ ••� E4.69,
l/ \v�<62Tfj I
i
17.G9 ACRES
REMAINDER OF
PIN: 9G31485240
G44 PG
IL 999
LATSLUDING 9
*\q
INCLUDING
PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT
APPARENT AREA OF
RAV
P055E5510N OVFKw
LAND APPARENT AREA OF DEED GAP
�NEwSD"AT,
v
11. •.\ J
�e
IT
PERMANENT
1 v N ° Il DRAJNAGE EASEMENT -
�7S 4'v, 11 0.5. 734, PG. 333 �.•-T_
S7
DO,
ON=
T2• RE13AR
( FOUND ONLINE
I �
i
THE FRANKUN FAMILYT?U5T
D B. 845. PG, 029
TR I, TK. 2 AND TK.3
NOTE5
'A, AP A5 LA CL.ATED B" COOPJ'.NAT OMaJTATIDN
MET^OD
• --Is suz\ WAs zTAD x^r our a N rT oP
ABYRACl TIT, AND MATTERSTT SOIJO at
K - ERKEP TO AN ATTOP\ -AT AW
-55UP\ W B PBJ OA' P„n'S-0`-WA15.
EASEM'.NT5, REE`RVAT ON5, ANJ RftTRCTID15 WRTTtN
AND JVn7TT. RECORDED AND \K-100RDED.
ADJO'M1 M1 KO'FM, OWNER, \ ORVATION AKEN TAM
T..- -END R50A COUNTY G151V'8 T
NO UNP ROUND JTJ IT15 WIRE I CARD
„A 1-UG 32 9 9 51U7 ',S M,.
EASE) ONGRAIA. D75MUTIOM1 A'ORTION OPTn.'
UBIELT IKOIEP -S INA'l1APPM 5'EC:A-`DO)
^A24R0 AREA P TMf NATIOAA ODD IKEAKV,LE
PRCGRAM„DDJ IN'SVRM'LE RATE MAP 370D9.3I PQJ,
IT, EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOB.ER 2, EMS,
' ANY RIVEP5, 5TREAV5, CUffQ, PONDS,'AC5.
W7ANJ5, ETC.-tOCATN ON M5 R,DPERTr. 5-OVA OR
NOT 5MOVA HEREON. MAY BE 5UB-- TTO BUFER AREAS.
IT 15'It O. RAILV'.D".R5 P5rON51BI.-TO hIlt T-E
AREAS JESIGN'ATED Br'ERSCh'GY=RN51 AJT-OPT Y
1. PRCa,R AUTIORRIE5,T0 MAC SUCH DP5 W1N'ATCN'.
' A: D15TANCE5 5nOIN HEREON AR-' -ORZON'T A GROUND
J15TANCE5 UN', 55 OT1tRW15E NOTED.
'TIE PRATE ZDQ5 INDICATED ON T5 INA'.'AT MAY
NO ME P OUTMEM5o TN ODT'OK
AL E'TAN IN TO TFE STATE ROAD `STEM.
'SUBIECT'RDI'M IS ADJACENT, TO'AND IN A FARM'AND
'RSEVATION 051R'7.
'A PORT ON O. Tn SSL&TELL tD .n^'JESWTM1EDWER
M'.5 RI WS 111 BWATRS 7 J VE'.O'VENT
?STP, CTIDN5 VA411.r,
CUKREM1T RECORD OWNER INFORMATION:
1¢NDEP5ON COUNTY
.iPAN1Es \\ m 6K 2021 PG 13693 - 13693 (1) DOC# 964502
ni om
�.7z- // � This Document eRecorded: 10/06/2021 10:42:40 AM
3.31 ACRES Fee: $21.00
q IN:PORTION OF Henderson County, North Carolina
DB G44, PAGE GOB
ArsuDE9999 William Lee King, Register of Deeds
l�
EX15TI°NG BENT
2 1/2'AKL E
3.40E IL17 OF LINE
I
.1 g AT 909.73E
\� N 8G°3003- W 293.29E TOTAL
30 STREAM BUFFER
FROM EACH
SIDE OF CREEK
D N o
iIII FOUND 2 I/2 PXJE FOUND
\� __ V9a°2CJdW 1213.50 (DCJ
I,T OF WAY
V \
G ^ -
D B.R'32 1 101
APPARENT \\ I \
DEEOGAP eN M1G'M.,
ACRE 30 R:,.rt 01 0.089 ACftAT
\ DB 32, B,
b'
1
cw' vatm N 77°3 I4
n
n
---- -rvfR., 014 W 415 ge -` I MOUNTAIN BEAN nOLDIN'G5, INC.
1/Z'REBAR r0UN0 N77`480/N- .ii. FOUND BENT
P.O.3150, PG, G41
41 /.94
°2516'W
I\^�I/2'NEW,, FOUND
MOUNTA'N BEAN HOLDINGS. INC.+�
D.B. 3150, PG. G41 w /)
SDDE 8932 o I�
f i(
I, JAREO R ONNBEY, N.C. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, CERTIFYTttATT1I5 PLAT WA5 DRAWN UNDER MY 5UPERVI510N FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE
UNDER MYSU?E VL51ON DESCRIPTION RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 1 G44, PAGE GOB); THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY INDICATED
(PROPERTY
BY DASHED UNE5 AS DRAWN FROM INFORMATION FOUND INDEED BOOKS AS SHOWN; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS CALCULATED 15 1; 10,000 OR GREATER;
_
THATTHI5 FLAT WA5 PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30 AS AMENDED.
-�yL-4782
t -
I ALSO HEREBY CERTIFI'ThATfi155VRVEY IS OFTtfE FOLLOWNG CATEGORY AS DESCRIBED IN G.5. 47-30(p(I I):
(a) ThAT THE 5URVEYCRFATG5 A 5UBDIV1510N OF LV40 WITMIN THE AREA OF A COUNTY OR MUNICIPKMTHAT HAS AN ORDINANCE THAT
i,CO Ri1G
'1
REGULATES PARCELS OF LAND.
WRNE55MY51GNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, AND 5EALT115 8TH DAYOF SEPTEMBER ,A.D.,2021
LICENSE NO. F'-1 169
22 FLEMIN. STREET
""^°e y,
EKSONVILLE, NC 28739
-^ submt tted electrons cal ly bIl nbp5 lane surveys ng'
(�� ,a, en pltanee with North rolina Yaxutes governs g ecprdable documents
JNE: (828)-595-9GG8
S L-4752 and the term, of the submttter agreement with the Henderson county Register of Deedd.
FAINLAN DSU RVEYOR.CONA
N,;, PROFP551ONAL LAND SURVEYOR LICENSE Y
50UNDARY C MINOR 5UBDIV1510N SURVEY FOR
PARDEE PARTNERS A5C
RErERENCE5
IN: 9G31-6'8-8240
EYED BOOK I G44 PAGE G05
hT 5'Jv 9999
TOTAL AREA R95 SURVEY = 21.00 ACRES
MIS R/ERTOWNSrP, 1ENDEK30N COUNTY, NZ.
DATE 9.8.2021
ORAVA' 5
1': J, O4VNB- CcctV CF'�EP; EJW
JOBA21030G
800' 50' IGO'
SCALE T' = 80'