NC0088854_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20090520

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER 'SHEET
Permit:
NC0088854
NPDES
Pine Lakes — Well #2 WTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA) ,
Return
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
May 20, 2009
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore and
content on time reemerge side

1
Proposed Wastewater Discharge
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Pine Lakes Subdivision Well No. 2
Mt. Airy, N.C.
Surry County
Applicant : Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
4163 Sinclair Street
Denver, N.C. 28037
P h : 704-489-9404 'i 1 ° - 63 - of &
Contact: Dere Kimbrough s--„4 5rv,o.,4
Facility
Prepared by:
Pine Lakes Subdivision Well # 2
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Mt. Airy, N.C. 27030
Ph: 704-489-9404
Contact: Dare Kimbrough
J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124
Ph: 704-788-4455
Date: May 20, 2009

2
Section 1:
Section 2:
Section 3:
Section 4:
Section 5:
Section 6:
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Table of Contents
General
1.01 Introduction*
1.02 Scope.
Background Information
2.01 Project Area*
2.02 Site Characteristics*
2.03 Receiving Stream Characteristics
Existing Utilities
3.01 Public Facilities*
3.02 Private Facilities*
Alternatives For Service
4.
01: • On site surface and/or subsurface disposal
4.02: Wastewater Reuse-
4.03: Surface Water Discharge
4.04: Combination of Alternatives
Summary and Conclusions*
Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
A
B
E
G
H
IJ
Cost Analysis of Alternatives
USGS Location Map and Aerial Photo
Possible Route for Connection to POTW
Possible Location for Subsurface Land Disposal
Possible Location for Surface Land Disposal
SCS Soil Maps and Soil Descriptions
Summary of Analysis of Well Water Constituents
Process Flow Schematic
Residuals Management Plan
Local Government Review
Page
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
,4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7

3
Section 1: General
1.01 Introduction:
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. (Aqua NC) currently owns and operates an existing well
water system serving Pine Lakes Subdivision (Pine Lakes), located southeast of
Mt. Airy, N.C. in Surry County. Well #2 of the water system is being equipped with
an assembly of four (4) green sand filters for the treatment of groundwater prior to
distribution to the Pine Lakes community. These filters will be backwashed, using
potable water, approximately once every two (2) days. This backwash is a
relatively small volume of approximately 2,000 gallons. The discharge will leave
the well house via a 4" plastic pipe, and will be released into an intermittent stream
that is an unnamed tributary to Stewarts Creek in the Yadkin River basin.
The well is existing but must have filters installed before the well can be put into
service. Whereas there will be a discharge of low volumes of filter backwash, Aqua
NC is required to obtain an NPDES permit for the operation of the proposed filters
and backwash discharge.
The Pine Lakes water system currentlyhas 56 customers and upon
y p activation of
Well No. 2 the system may serve a total maximum of 73 connections. Well # 2 is
approved for 16 gpm. No expansion of the capacity of this well is planned and the
system is sufficient to serve the subdivision. No expansion of the subdivision or
service area is planned. Therefore, there is no potential for any substantial
population increase to affect the existing rate of water use or backwash discharge
flow (2000 gallons/two days.)
The review of this source and the consideration of altematives is being made with
inclusion of consideration of the guidance contained in "Permitting Strategy for
Greensand Filtration Water Treatment Plants - January 2004")
1.02 Scope:
The scope of this project is limited to the investigation and evaluation of
alternatives for treating and/or disposing of the green sand filter backwash from
Well # 2 at Pine Lakes Subdivision. This includes consideration of the feasibility of
discharging the backwash to surface waters and options for eliminating the
existing discharge.
Section 2: Background Information
2.01 Project Area:
The existing service area is limited to Pine Lakes Subdivision. All homes are single
family residences. There are no commercial or industrial customers. All
wastewater is typical backwash from green sand filters.

4
The proposed discharge coordinates are: Longitude: -80 deg. 40 min. 55 sec. W
Latitude: 36 deg. 30 min. 25 sec. N
2.02 Site Characteristics:
The subdivision is located in a rural portion of Surry county, outside any municipal
limits and remote from public water and/or sewer. The nearest existing sewer is
approximately 3.1 miles (16,250 feet) away.
'The general area has soil characteristics which are limited to the possibility of on
p tY
site treatment and disposal.
Terrain is generally rolling but has been graded level at the existing well site.
2.03 Receiving Stream Characteristics:
The receiving stream is intermittent in nature and is an unnamed tributary to
Stewarts Creek, which is class WS-IV waters. The receiving stream is obviously a
zero flow stream (7Q10 and 30Q2 = 0) but since the wastewater discharge is not
oxygen consuming, discharge into the zero flow stream should be allowable under
state procedures.
This receiving stream has no known outstanding features or characteristics that
should preclude the continuation of the existing discharge. There are no known
endangered or threatened species and these are not threatened or impaired
waters.
Section 3: Existing Utilities
3.01 Public Facilities:
The nearest existing public sewer is located approximately 3.1 miles southeast of
the existing well near the junction of Highway 89 and North Franklin Road in the
Toast community. The distance that would be required for sewer force mains to be
installed would be approximately 16,250 ft. This would be the route that appears to
be the most practical from an engineering perspective to take advantage of
following existing highway right of way and have minimal impact to adjacent
property owners.
The City of Mt. Airy, Public Works Department provides sewer services in this
area. Mr. Mitch Williams, P.E., City Engineer, was consulted and has advised that
there are no established plans for extension of sewer service any closer to The
Pine Lakes Subdivision within the next ten years or beyond.
3.02 Private Facilities:
There are no known existing private sewer utilities within any reasonable proximity
of The Pine Lakes Subdivision that would be available for consideration as a

5
Section 4:
possible alternative. A review of available records did not reveal that there are any
private sewer facilities within a three mile radius.
There is an existing NPDES permitted discharge facility, North Surry High School
which is located approximately 0.8 mile from Pine Lakes. However, this facility is
for the service of the high school only and is not a practical alternative for service.
Alternatives for Service
4.01: On site surface and/or subsurface disposal:
Subsurface Disposal:
Appendix E contains portions of soil survey reports that provide insight as to the
suitability of the soils for subsurface disposal. As described in the report, these
soils are mainly Bradock-Colvard-Fairview soils with characteristics that are
somewhat limited to very limiting with respect to the potential for subsurface
disposal. In addition to researching the information available from NRCS soils
maps, the engineer consulted with Mr. Johnny E. Easter, RS, Surry County
Environmental Health Director concerning the possibilities of subsurface disposal.
Mr. Easter suggested that, for purposes of evaluating this based on the limited
information available, an application rate of 0.25 gpd/SF would be a reasonable
assumption. Of course, before a final design and/or approval could be given, an
actual on site soils evaluation would be required. For the purposes of evaluating
this as a possible option, a design application rate of 0.25 gpd/SF will be used.
Subsurface disposal requires buffers and land for the drainfields as well as equal
areas of suitable soil, be available and maintained as potential repair/replacement
areas.
Aqua North Carolina only owns a 1.15 acre lot around the well. Whereas the well
must have a 100 foot buffer to any disposal site, this would necessitate that Aqua
North Carolina acquire additional property to allow for the possible subsurface
disposal site, repair/reserve area and buffers. .
Given the limitations described in the attached soil survey and discussed above, it
is doubtful that this is a viable option. A full and extensive soils investigation of
potential sites would be necessary to confirm if useable areas are available. In
keeping with the state guidance for alternatives evaluation, the cost effectiveness
of this alternative is further evaluated to determine if a detailed soils analysis is
appropriate. The costs associated with this option are estimated in Appendix A.
This option would require that the discharge be conveyed to an acquired site
having sufficient area for subsurface disposal and a suitable reserve area of equal
size, and that these areas include adequate buffers from property lines, homes,
wells, etc.

6
Surface Irrigation:
Disposal by irrigation requires storage capacity for periods of inclement weather
when application is not allowable. Therefore consideration of this as a possible
alternative must also include the provision of storage of the backwash waters
during periods of inclement weather.
The soil surveys for this area have determined this to have very limited potential
for on site surface disposal. Consideration of this alternative is based on an
assumed allowable application rate of 0.20 inches per week which is based on a
typical range of 0.15 to 0.25 inches per week for this geographic area and the soil
conditions generally described in the soils survey. Storage requirements for this
area are typically in the range of 45 to 90 days. For purposes of this assessment,
a storage requirement of 60 days will be assumed.
Considering the relatively benign nature of the proposed discharge, it is not
expected that any additional treatment would be required for surface application.
Although the additional cost of conveyance and the additional costs for on site
disposal should readily be recognized as a significant cost increase as compared
to the alternative of surface water discharge, an estimate of the costs for this
alternative is included in Appendix A for comparison.
The evaluation is based on a very conservative assumption that the nearest
available lands that could be reasonably used would actually be available. A
comparison of the costs were made first, using the best (lowest cost) reasonable
assumptions. It would obviously be necessary to perform a more detailed site
investigation and ascertain if the property owner would consider allowing these
lands to be acquired for this purpose.
4.02: Wastewater Reuse
Options for reuse of wastewater for this area are essentially nil. Reuse is usually
associated with non -potable uses such as irrigation. This becomes potentially
more viable if there is a need or outlet for reuse such as irrigation of a golf course.
The volume of this discharge is very low and would have little attraction as a
source for recycle purposes. This area does not have a golf course, nor are there
any other viable options for reuse associated with the subdivision or in the
surrounding area.
4.03: Surface Water Discharge
This is the proposed method of wastewater disposal. There is no anticipated need
to add any new facilities for additional treatment.

7
An estimate of the costs for the continuation of this alternative is included in
Appendix A for comparison.
4.04: Combination of Alternatives
Alternatives to discharge that may be technologically feasible, such as connection
to the nearest public sewer, subsurface disposal and/or surface irrigation, could
not be employed in conjunction with the current method of disposal (surface water
discharge) and yield any reduction in total capital or operating expenditures. The
evaluation of alternatives shows that these alternatives are clearly not viable due
to the overwhelming magnitude of associated cost.
Combining one of these alternatives while continuing the periodic discharge, yields
no reduction in the cost for non -discharge alternatives and merely increases the
overall costs. There would be no reduction in capital costs for any of these
alternatives and the operating costs for combining surface discharge with either of
the other alternatives would be greater than for any single alternative that might be
selected.
In short, whereas the conclusion that surface discharge is the only viable option
due to the overwhelming differential in capital and operating costs, any addition of
an additional alternative would merely make the cost differential worse.
Section 5: Summary and Conclusions:
As can be seen from a comparison of the net present value of the various
alternatives, there is a wide difference between the cost estimate of the option of
continuing discharge and options to eliminate the discharge.
Compared to the cost of the next most cost effective and reliable alternative
(subsurface disposal) the estimated Net Present Value is approximately 1,107 %
greater. This represents a difference of $ 3,500 NPV per customer.
In Tight of the financial impracticality, it is not necessary to further pursue whether
connection is politically acceptable to the POTW or whether land based disposal
options are workable.
By far, the most practical and cost effective and reasonably practical alternative is
the proposed discharge of the relatively benign filter backwash waters to surface
waters.
Section 6: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities:
Based on the findings of this evaluation, it has been concluded that the most
economical and practical alternative is to discharge to surface waters.

f
Appendix A
Cost Analysis of Alternatives
Note: Cost estimates based on, National Construction Estimator, Means Building Construction
Cost Data, consultation with contractors and the engineers experience.

9
1. Surface Water Discharge at 2,000 GPD Flow Rate:
Considering that no additional treatment is expected as a consequence of any
forthcoming permit, there are no estimated additional capital costs.
The only anticipated increase in operation and maintenance costs are those associated
with the collection, analysis and reporting of effluent discharge samples as required by an
NPDES permit.
Capital Cost:
Total Capital Cost = $ 0.00
Operation & Maintenance Cost
(Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875% interest):
Annual Cost
Operation & Maintenance
($ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr)
Total. Annual Cost = $ 1,200
PV Annual Cost = $ 13,905
Total Net Present Value = $ 13,905
$ 1,200

10
2. Connection to POTW Sewer System at Junction of NC Highway 89 and North
Franklin Road :
Install new lift station to collect discharge and convey by force main along existing
highway right of way to the junction with existing municipal sewer.
Distance = approx. 16,250 LF
Beginelev. = approx. 1180.0
Highest elev. = approx. 1270.0
Lift station Avg. flow = 2,000 gpd = 1.4 gpm
Peak flow = 2.5 x 1.4 gpm = 3.5 gpm
Pump Design
Use 1" Sch. 40 PVC, approx. 16,250LF
FH © 3.5 gpm = 0.92 ft/100 ft = 62.6 ft.
SH = 90 ft (approx.)
Use TDH = 170 ft.
Use dual effluent pumps (rated at 170 ft. TDH at 3.5 gpm) OSI P101012 or approved
equal
Capital Cost:
Item: Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
1" force main sewer 16,250 LF $ 8 $ 130,000
Air release 8 Ea. $ 2,500 $ 20,000
Pump Station 1 Ea $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Manholes 1 Ea $ 1,800 $ 1,800
Tap Fee 1 Ea. $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Wastewater Capacity Use Fee 1 Ea. $ 4,000 $ 4,000
Road Crossings 6 Ea $ 5,000 $ 30,000
Creek Crossings 3 Ea $ 5,000 $ 15,000
Metering Station 1 Ea. $ 30,000 $ 30,000
Tie to exist. MH 1 Ea $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Erosion control LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000
Surveying 5 days $ 1,500 $ 7,500
Easement/Right of Way 400 LF $ 10 $ 4,000
Clearing (approx. 0.8 acre) 0.8 acre $ 6,500 $ 5,200
Electrical LS $ 7,500 $ 7,500
Legal LS $ 7,000 $ 7,000

11
Sub -total $ 346,000
Engineering 15 % 51,900
Construction Inspection 5 % 17 ,300
Total Capital Cost = $ 415,200
Operation & Maintenance Cost:
Local government sewer fee = $ 3.44/1000 Gallons
Annual sewer charges = $ 3.44/1000 Gal x 2,000 gpd x 183 day/yr
= $ 1,259
Annual electrical charges = $ 185/mo. X 12 mo/yr = $ 2,220
Annual sample analysis charges = $ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr = $ 1,200
Annual repair and maintenance = $ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr = $ 1,200
Total annual costs = $ 5,879
(Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875% interest)
Present Value Annual Cost
Total Net Present Value
_ $ 68,121
$ 483,321

12
3. Land Based Disposal:
3A. Subsurface Disposal:
Based on the soil survey information and the engineers field observations, the soils in this
area appear to be limited to severely limited as a medium for subsurface disposal. In the
event that it was found to be apparently a cost effective alternative, an in depth site
specific soil investigation would need to be done to confirm that the soils could in fact be
used. However, for the purpose of comparing the potential alternatives within the scope
of this) evaluation, it will be assumed that a typical low design loading rate would be
workable. Therefore, it will be assumed that a loading rate of 0.25 gpd/sq. ft. is
acceptable.
Therefore, based on the design flow, the area required for subsurface disposal is:
2,000 gpd / 0.25 gpd/sq. ft.= 8,000 SF
Whereas it is required to maintain an equal size area as a reserve for future repair, the
required area is 16,000 SF. Appendix D contains a map, which delineates the area that
might be available for subsurface disposal.
Assuming a roughly rectangular field (160 ft x 100 ft. for the initial drain field plus repair
and In order to maintain the required buffers to property lines, etc.), the minimum
estimated land required is 52,000 SF or 1.2 acres.
Capital Cost:
Item:
4" sewer drain in 3' trenches
Site Clearing
Land
1"FM
Pump Station
Surveying
Soils Investigation
Quantity: Unit Cost:
2,667 LF
.5 acre
0.5 acres
150 LF
1 Ea
2 days
1 day
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LS
Erosion control LS
Electrical LS
LegalLS
Engineering 15 %
Construction Inspection 5 %
$ 12
$ 6,500
$ 15,000
$ 8
$ 20,000
$ 1,500
$ 1,500
$ 2,000
$ 5,000
$ 3,000
$ 2,500
Sub -total
Cost:
$ 32,004
$ 3,250
$ 7,500
$ 1,200
$ 20,000
$ 3,000
$ 1,500
$ 2,000
$ 5,000
$ 3,000
$ 2,500
$ 80,954
12,143
4,048

13
Total Capital Cost
Operation & Maintenance Cost (Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875 % interest):
$ 97,145
Annual Cost
O & M of drain field,
Pump station and force main = $ 2,500/yr $ 2,500
Annual electrical charges = $ 200/month X 12 mo/yr = $ 2,400
Total Annual Cost = $ 4,900
PV Annual Cost = $ 56,778
Total Net Present Value = $ 153,923

14
3B. Surface Irrigation:
Surface irrigation preliminary design is based on an assumed allowable application rate
of 0.20 gpd/sq. ft. and a required storage basin for 60 days design flow. Based on the
design flow of 2,000 gpd, this results in an estimated disposal area of 10,000 SF.
Allowing a recommended 50% repair area, the required total area is 15,000 SF.
Assuming a roughly rectangular field (300 ft x 500 ft. for the initial spray field plus repair
and ins order to maintain the required 150 foot buffer to property lines), the minimum
estimated land required is 178,506 SF or approximately 4.1 acres.
Capital Cost:
Item:
Quantity:
Unit Cost: Cost:
120,000 gal. storage basin (1) $ 21,647
Surface irrigation system 10,000 SF $ 0.35 $ 3,500
Monitoring wells 4 ea $ 4,000 $ 16,000
Land 4.1 acres $ 15,000 $ 61,500
Fencing 2,000 LF $ 6.00 $ 12,000
Site Clearing .5 acre $ 6,500 $ 3,250
2" FM 1,400 LF $ 8.50 $ 11,900
Manholes 1 Ea $ 1,600 $ 1,600
Pump Station 1 Ea $ 45,000 $ 45,000
Surveying 4 days $ 1,500 $ 6,000
Soils Investigation 3 days $ 1,500 $ 4,500
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LS $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Erosion control LS $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Electrical LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Legal LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Sub -total = $ 207,897
Engineering 15 % 31,184
Construction Inspection 5 % 10,395
Total Capital Cost
(1) Storage:
Excavation 694 cu. Yds. @ $ 6.00/yd = $ 4,164
Compaction and Lining 4,995 SF @ $ 3.50/SF = $ 17,483
Sub -total = $ 21,647
$ 249,476

15
Operation & Maintenance Cost
(Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875 % interest):
Annual Cost
O & M of spray field,
Pump station and force main = $ 3,500/yr $ 3,500
Annual electrical charges = $ 200/month X 12 mo/yr = $ 2,400
Annual sample analysis charges = $100/mo. X 12 mo/yr = $ 1,200
Total Annual Cost = $ 7,100
PV Annual Cost = $ 82,269
Total Net Present Value = $ 331,745

16
Appendix B
USGS Location Map and Aerial Photo

r
• IP
i (-"I 1).- •
Exist. Well
Proposed Discharge
Longitude: -80 deg. 40 min. 55 sec. W
Latitude: 36 deg. 30 min. 25 sec. N
s
North
Pine Lakes Subdivision - Well # 2
USGS Location Map
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 May 20, 2009
Mt. Airy, N.C. Scale: 1: 8,000

North
Pine Lakes Subdivision - Well # 2
Aerial Photo
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 May 20, 2009
Mt. Airy, N.C. Scale: 1" = 1 10'

17
Appendix C
Possible Route for Connection to POTW

Prop. Force Main
North
Pine Lakes Subdivision - Well # 2
Possible Route for Connection to POTW
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 May 20, 2009
Mt. Airy, N.C. Scale: l" = 2,000'

18
Appendix D
Possible Location for Subsurface Land Disposal

Pine Lakes Subdivision - Well # 2
Possible Location for Subsurface Disposal
Prop. Subsurface Disposal
(Some Property must be acquired)
North
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 May 20, 2009
Mt. Airy, N.C. Scale: I" = 110'

19
Appendix E
Possible Location for Surface Land Disposal

f
•
Ljr
YfBiK'! .yn.
North
Pine Lakes Subdivision - Well # 2
Possible Location for Surface Irrigation Disposal
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 May 20, 2009
Mt. Airy, N.C. Scale: 1" _ 300'

20
Appendix F
SCS Soil Maps and Soil Descriptions

USDA United States
Department of
ism Agriculture
4 ARCS
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
Surry County,
North Carolina
May 20, 2009

Soil Map
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.

b
to
,09.08
.6 AV V .09
b
n
0ZS • OE9
0ZS0909
0EV0V0V
OttV OSZ• .6
OVEOVOV
OSZOVOV
09I.V09 0L0'POP
091090V
0L00909
b
b
n
53
..9E OP .09
Map Scale' 1.4.190 i1 printed on A size (8.5" x 11") she
TO
do
LL o
0
0
O
-63V.09
N
O
O
O
O
N
0

Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of interest (AOI)
l f Area of Interest (AO1)
Soils
' i Soil Map Units
Special Point Features
Blowout
® Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
x Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
® Landfill
A Lava Flow
411. Marsh or swamp
le Mine or Quarry
p Miscellaneous Water
p Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
+ Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
• Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
% Sodic Spot
SI Spoil Area
Q Stony Spot
al Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
A. Other
Special Lane Features
Gully
tE Short Steep Slope
M Other
Political Features
• Cities
Water Features
Oceans
Streams and Canals
Transportation
ritirt
. Rails
- Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
MAP INFORMATION
Map Scale: 1:4,190 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.
The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http:Nwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N NAD83
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Surry County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Apr 20, 2009
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 6/20/2006
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.

•
•
BbB
BbD
CsA
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Braddock fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Braddock fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Colvard and Suches soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
DrB
Dillard fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, rarely
flooded
FeB2
FeC2
Fairview sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Fairview sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
FeD2
Fairview sandy clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
FsE
Fairview -Stott Knob complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes
FuC2
Fairview -Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
W
Water
WoE
Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, 25 to 45
percent slopes, stony
Totals for Area of Interest
7.9
10.6
10.9
8.2%
11.4%
0.0 0.0%
2.4 2.5%
14.3 15.0%
17.3 18.1%
29.3 30.6%
0.0 0.0%
95.6 1 00.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
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.
Almap 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
10

•
Custom Soil Resource Report
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
closes 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, 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
pattem 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 pattem 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.

Custom Soil Resource Report
Surry County, North Carolina
BbB—Braddock fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 190 days
Map Unit Composition
Braddock and similar soils: 99 percent
Description of Braddock
Setting
Landform: Fans on mountain valleys, stream terraces on mountain valleys
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Old colluvium and/or old alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam
9 to 56 inches: Clay
56 to 80 inches: Clay loam
BbD—Braddock fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 190 days
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Composition
Braddock and similar soils: 97 percent
Description of Braddock
Setting
Landform: Fans on mountain valleys, stream terraces on mountain valleys
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Old colluvium and/or old alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonimigated): 4e
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam
9 to 56 inches: Clay
56 to 80 inches: Clay loam
CsA--Colvard and Suches soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally
flooded
Map Unit Setting
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: 120 to 170 days
Map Unit Composition
Colvard and similar soils: 49 percent
Suches and similar soils: 39 percent
Description of Colvard
Setting
Landform: Natural levees on flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
13

Custom Soil Resource Report
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Sandy and loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic
rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 48 to 72 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (noninigated): 2w
Typical profile
0 to 10 inches: Fine sandy loam
90 to 50 inches: Fine sandy loam
50 to 80 inches: Gravelly loamy fine sand
Description of Suches
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Sandy and loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic
rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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 30 to 48 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: High (about 10.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2w
Typical profile
0 to 12 inches: Loam
12 to 54 inches: Clay loam
54 to 80 inches: Loam
14

Custom Soil Resource Report
DrB—Dillard fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, rarely flooded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 190 days
Map Unit Composition
Dillard and similar soils: 75 percent
Description of Dillard
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Alluvium and/or colluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic
rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to
0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 24 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2w
Typical profile
0 to 10 inches: Fine sandy loam
10 to 30 inches: Sandy clay loam
30 to 48 inches: Clay
48 to 80 inches: Clay loam
FeB2—Fairview sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
15

Custom Soil Resource Report
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Map Unit Composition
Fairview, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 83 percent
Description of Fairview, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Sandy clay loam
9 to 24 inches: Clay
24 to 29 inches: Sandy clay loam
29 to 80 inches: Loam
FeC2—Fairview sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Map Unit Composition
Fairview, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 78 percent
Description of Fairview, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
16

Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Sandy clay loam
9 to 24 inches: Clay
24 to 29 inches: Sandy clay loam
29 to 80 inches: Loam
FeD2—Fairview sandy clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Map Unit Composition
Fairview, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 72 percent
Description of Fairview, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hilislopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
17

Custom Soil Resource Report
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 4e
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Sandy clay loam
9 to 24 inches: Clay
24 to 29 inches: Sandy clay loam
29 to 80 inches: Loam
FsE—Fairview-Stott Knob complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Map Unit Composition
Fairview and similar soils: 60 percent
Stott knob and similar soils: 28 percent
Description of Fairview
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e
18

Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam
9 to 24 inches: Clay
24 to 29 inches: Sandy clay loam
29 to 80 inches: Loam
Description of Stott Knob
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock; 40 to 80 inches to
lithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/
hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Low (about 4.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e
Typical profile
0 to 3 inches: Fine sandy loam
3 to 7 inches: Fine sandy loam
7 to 24 inches: Sandy clay loam
24 to 30 inches: Fine sandy loam
30 to 47 inches: Weathered bedrock
47 to 80 inches: Unweathered bedrock
FuC2—Fairview-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 190 days
Map Unit Composition
Fairview, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 54 percent
19

Custom Soil Resource Report
Urban land: 31 percent
Description of Fairview, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landfonn position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Sandy clay loam
9 to 24 inches: Clay
24 to 29 inches: Sandy clay loam
29 to 80 inches: Loam
Description of Urban Land
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Impervious layers over human transported material
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 8
W—Water
Map Unit Composition
Water. 100 percent

Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Water
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 8w
WoE—Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes,
stony
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 700 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 190 days
Map Unit Composition
Woolwine, stony, and similar soils: 47 percent
Fairview, stony, and similar soils: 24 percent
Westfield, stony, and similar soils: 10 percent
Description of Woolwine, Stony
Setting
Landform: Hilislopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 0.1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock; 40 to 80 inches to
Iithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to low (0.00 to
0.01 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Low (about 3.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e
Typical profile
0 to 4 inches: Gravelly loam
4 to 30 inches: Gravelly clay
30 to 80 inches: Weathered bedrock
21

f
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Fairview, Stony
Setting
Landform: Hillsiopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 0.1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
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: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e
Typical profile
0 to 5 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam
5 to 20 inches: Clay
20 to 25 inches: Sandy clay loam
25 to 80 inches: Loam
Description of Westfield, Stony
Setting
Landform: Hillsiopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 0.1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to low (0.00 to
0.01 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Low (about 5.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e
22

Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam
9 to 35 inches: Clay
35 to 48 inches: Gravelly loam
48 to 80 inches: Weathered bedrock
23

Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Reports
The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports
(tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each
unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties
and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections.
The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and
qualities. A description of each report (table) is included.
Sanitary Facilities
This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations
related to sanitary facilities. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and
components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Sanitary
facilities interpretations are tools designed to guide the user in site selection for the
safe disposal of sewage and solid waste. Example interpretations include septic tank
absorption fields, sewage lagoons, and sanitary landfills.
Sewage Disposal (Pine Lakes Sewage)
This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect septic tank
absorption fields and sewage lagoons. The ratings are both verbal and numerical.
Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil
features that affect these uses. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are
very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance
can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are
moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or
minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate
maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more
features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot
be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation
procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings
are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use
(1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
24

Custom Soil Resource Report
Septic tank absorption fields are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed
into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part of the soil
between depths of 24 and 72 inches or between a depth of 24 inches and a restrictive
layer is evaluated. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption
of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and public health.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to
bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect absorption of the effluent. Stones and
boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence
interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral
seepage and surfacing of the effluent in downslope areas.
Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of
less than 4 feet below the distribution lines. In these soils the absorption field may not
adequately filter the effluent, particularly when the system is new. As a result, the
ground water may become contaminated.
Sewage lagoons are shallow ponds constructed to hold sewage while aerobic bacteria
decompose the solid and liquid wastes. Lagoons should have a nearly level floor
surrounded by cut slopes or embankments of compacted soil. Nearly impervious soil
material for the lagoon floor and sides is required to minimize seepage and
contamination of ground water. Considered in the ratings are slope, saturated
hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a
cemented pan, flooding, large stones, and content of organic matter.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is a critical property affecting the suitability for
sewage lagoons. Most porous soils eventually become sealed when they are used as
sites for sewage lagoons. Until sealing occurs, however, the hazard of pollution is
severe. Soils that have a Ksat rate of more than 14 micrometers per second are too
porous for the proper functioning of sewage lagoons. In these soils, seepage of the
effluent can result in contamination of the ground water. Ground -water contamination
is also a hazard if fractured bedrock is within a depth of 40 inches, if the water table
is high enough to raise the level of sewage in the lagoon, or if floodwater overtops the
lagoon.
A high content of organic matter is detrimental to proper functioning of the lagoon
because it inhibits aerobic activity. Slope, bedrock, and cemented pans can cause
construction problems, and large stones can hinder compaction of the lagoon floor. If
the lagoon is to be uniformly deep throughout, the slope must be gentle enough and
the soil material must be thick enough over bedrock or a cemented pan to make land
smoothing practical.
Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use
alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The
information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally
apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet.
Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the
mapped areas of a specific soil.
The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite
investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the
design and construction of engineering works.
Govemment ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose
specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table.
Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection,
and in design.
25

Custom Soil Resource Report
Report —Sewage Disposal (Pine Lakes Sewage)
[Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to
confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range
from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table
shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional
limitations]
Sewage Disposal— Surry County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct. of
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
map unit
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
BbB—Braddock fine sandy
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
—
---
0.98
Braddock
99
—
Somewhat limited
Somewhat limited
Slow water movement
0.50
Seepage
BbD—Braddock fine sandy
loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Slope
0.32
Braddock
97
Very limited
Very limited
Too steep
1.00
Slope
1.00
0.98
Slow water movement
0.50
Seepage
CsA—Colvard and Suches
soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
Very limited
Colvard
49
Very limited
Flooding
1.00
1.00
Flooding
Seepage
1.00
1.00
Seepage, bottom layer
Suches
39
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1.00
Flooding
1.00
Depth to saturated zone
1.00
Depth to saturated zone
1.00
Seepage, bottom layer
1.00
Seepage
1.00
DrB—Dillard fine sandy loam, 2
to 8 percent slopes, rarely
flooded
75
Slow water movement
0.50
} _
1.00
0.50
0.40
0.08
Very limited
Depth to saturated zone
Slow water movement
1.00
1.00
0.40
Very limited
Dillard
Depth to saturated zone —
Seepage
Flooding
Slope
Flooding
26

Custom Soil Resource Report
Sewage Disposal- Surry County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct. of
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
map unit
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
FeB2-Fairview sandy clay
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
1.00
0.50
_ __ - _ ________
Very limited
Fairview, moderately eroded
83
Very limited
Seepage, bottom layer
Seepage
Slope
1.00
Slow water movement
0.32
FeC2-Fairview sandy clay
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Fairview, moderately eroded
78
Very limited
Very limited
Seepage, bottom layer
1.00
Slope
1.00
Slow water movement
0.50
Seepage
1.00
Slope
0.37
FeD2-Fairview sandy day
loam, 15 to 25 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
i-
72
Very limited
Too steep
1.00
1.00
Very limited
Slope
------
Seepage
.. _
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Fairview, moderately eroded
--- -
Seepage, bottom layer
Slow water movement
0.50
FsE-Fairview-Stott Knob
complex, 25 to 45 percent
slopes
Fairview
60
Very limited
Too steep
Seepage, bottom layer
1.00
1.00
0.50
Very limited
Slope
Seepage
Slow water movement
Stott knob
28
Very limited
Very limited
Too steep
1.00
Depth to soft bedrock
1.00
Depth to bedrock
1.00
Slope
1.00
Seepage, bottom layer
1.00
Seepage
1.00
Slow water movement
0.50
Depth to hard bedrock
0.71
FuC2-Fairview-Urban land
complex, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
54
Very limited
Seepage, bottom layer
Slope
Slow water movement
1.00
0.63
0.50
Very limited
Slope
Seepage
Not rated
1.00
1.00
Fairview, moderately eroded
31
Not rated
27

Custom Soil Resource Report
Sewage Disposal— Surry County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct. of
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
map unit
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
i
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
W—Water
—
Not rated
Water
100
Not rated
WoE—Woolwine-Fairview-
Westfeld complex, 25 to 45
percent slopes, stony
1.00
1.00
0.50
Very limited
Depth to soft bedrock
Woolwine, stony
47
Very limited
Too steep
1.00
Depth to bedrock
Slope
Seepage
1.00
0.50
Slow water movement
Fairview, stony
24
Very limited
Very limited
Too steep
1.00
Slope
1.00
Seepage, bottom layer
1.00
Seepage
1.00
Slow water movement
0.50
Westfield, stony
10
Very limited
1.00
1.00
0.86
0.50
Very limited
Slope
Seepage
Depth to soft bedrock
1.00
Too steep
Seepage, bottom layer
— 1.00
Depth to bedrock
0.61
Slow water movement
28

Soil Information for Urban Uses
Soil Reports
The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports
(tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each
unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties
and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections.
The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and
gialities. A description of each report (table) is included.
Waste Management
This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations
related to waste management. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and
components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Waste
management interpretations are tools designed to guide the user in evaluating soils
for use of organic wastes and wastewater as productive resources. Example
interpretations include land application of manure, food processing waste, and
municipal sewage sludge, and disposal of wastewater by irrigation or overland flow
process.
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Rapid Infiltration
and Slow Rate Treatment (Pine Lakes Sewage
Infiltration)
Soil properties are important considerations in areas where soils are used as sites for
the treatment and disposal of organic waste and wastewater. Selection of soils with
properties that favor waste management can help to prevent environmental damage.
This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations affecting the treatment of
wastewater, including municipal and food -processing wastewater and effluent from
lagoons or storage ponds. Municipal wastewater is the waste stream from a
municipality. It contains domestic waste and may contain industrial waste. It may have
received primary or secondary treatment. It is rarely untreated sewage. Food -
processing wastewater results from the preparation of fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese,
and meats for public consumption. In places it is high in content of sodium and chloride.
In the context of this table, the effluent in lagoons and storage ponds is from facilities
used to treat or store food -processing wastewater or domestic or animal waste.
29

4•
Custom Soil Resource Report
Domestic and food -processing wastewater is very dilute, and the effluent from the
facilities that treat or store it commonly is very !ow in content of carbonaceous and
nitrogenous material; the content of nitrogen commonly ranges from 10 to 30
milligrams per liter. The wastewater from animal waste treatment lagoons or storage
ponds, however, has much higher concentrations of these materials, mainly because
the manure has not been diluted as much as the domestic waste. The content of
nitrogen in this wastewater generally ranges from 50 to 2,000 milligrams per liter.
When wastewater is applied, checks should be made to ensure that nitrogen, heavy
metals, and salts are not added in excessive amounts.
The ratings in the table are for waste management systems that not only dispose of
and treat wastewater but also are beneficial to crops. The ratings are both verbal and
numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all
of the soil features that affect agricultural waste management. Not limited indicates
that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good
performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates
that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The
limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation.
Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates
that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The
limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special
design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high
maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings in the tables indicate the severity of individual limitations. The
ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate
gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact
on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
Rapid infiltration of wastewater is a process in which wastewater applied in a level
basin at a rate of 4 to 120 inches per week percolates through the soil. The wastewater
may eventually reach the ground water. The application rate commonly exceeds the
rate needed for irrigation of cropland. Vegetation is not a necessary part of the
treatment; hence, the basins may or may not be vegetated. The thickness of the soil
material needed for proper treatment of the wastewater is more than 72 inches. As a
result, geologic and hydrologic investigation is needed to ensure proper design and
performance and to determine the risk of ground -water pollution.
The ratings in the table are based on the soil properties that affect the risk of pollution
and the design, construction, and performance of the system. Depth to a water table,
ponding, flooding, and depth to bedrock or a cemented pan affect the risk of pollution
and the design and construction of the system. Slope, stones, and cobbles also affect
design and construction. Ksat and reaction affect performance. Permanently frozen
soils are unsuitable for waste treatment.
Slow rate treatment of wastewater is a process in which wastewater is applied to land
at a rate normally between 0.5 inch and 4.0 inches per week. The application rate
commonly exceeds the rate needed for irrigation of cropland. The applied wastewater
is treated as it moves through the soil. Much of the treated water may percolate to the
ground water, and some enters the atmosphere through evapotranspiration. The
applied water generally is not allowed to run off the surface. Waterlogging is prevented
gither through control of the application rate or through the use of tile drains, or both.
The ratings in the table are based on the soil properties that affect absorption, plant
growth, microbial activity, erodibility, and the application of waste. The properties that
affect absorption include the sodium adsorption ratio, depth to a water table, ponding,
available water capacity, Ksat, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, reaction, the
30

Custom Soil Resource Report
cation -exchange capacity, and slope. Reaction, the sodium adsorption ratio, salinity,
and bulk density affect plant growth and microbial activity. The wind erodibility group,
the soil erosion factor K, and slope are considered in estimating the likelihood of wind
erosion or water erosion. Stones, cobbles, a water table, ponding, and flooding can
hinder the application of waste. Permanently frozen soils are unsuitable for waste
treatment.
Report —Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Rapid Infiltration
and Slow Rate Treatment (Pine Lakes Sewage Infiltration)
[Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to
confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range
from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table
shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional
limitations]
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Rapid Infiltration and Slow Rate Treatment— Surry County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct. of
map unit
Rapid infiltration of wastewater
Slow rate treatment of wastewater
Rating class and limiting Value
features
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
BbD—Braddock fine sandy
loam. 15 to 25 percent slopes
1.00
1.00
Very limited
Too steep for surface
application
Too steep for sprinkler irrigation
Too acid
Somewhat limited
Too acid
1.00
1.00
0.99
_
0.99
0.08
—_
—__ 0.60
0.21
Braddock
97
Very limited
Slope
Slow water movement
BbB—Braddock fine
Very limited
sandy
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Braddock
99
Slow water movement
1.00
Too steep for surface
application
CsA—Colvard and Suches
soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
Colvard
49
Somewhat limited
Somewhat limited
Flooding
Too acid
Somewhat limited
Flooding
0.60
0.32
Suches
39
Slow water movement
Very limited
Depth to saturated zone
1.00
Depth to saturated zone
0.86
Slow water movement
1.00
Flooding
0.60
Flooding
0.60
Too acid
0.42
31

Custom Soil Resource Report
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Rapid Infiltration and Slow Rate Treatment—Surry County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct. of
map unit
Rapid Infiltration of wastewater Slow rate treatment of wastewater
Rating class and limiting
features
Value Rating class and limiting
features
Value
DrB—Dillard fine sandy loam, 2
to 8 percent slopes, rarely
flooded
Dillard
75 Very limited
Slow water movement
Depth to saturated zone
Too acid
FeD2—Fairview sandy clay
loam, 15 to 25 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Somewhat limited
1.00 Depth to saturated zone
1.00 Too acid
0.14 Slow water movement
Fairview, moderately eroded
72 Very limited
Slope
Slow water movement
FeB2—Fairview sandy clay
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Fairview, moderately eroded
Very limited
1.00 Too steep for surface
application
1.00 Too steep for sprinkler irrigation
Low adsorption
Too acid
83 Very limited Somewhat limited
Slow water movement 1.00 Low adsorption
FeC2—Fairview sandy clay
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Fairview, moderately eroded
78 Very limited
Slope
Slow water movement
Too acid
Too steep for surface
application
0.99
0.21
0.15
1.00
1.00
0.45
0.21
Very limited
1.00 Too steep for surface
application
1.00 Too steep for sprinkler irrigation
Low adsorption
Too acid
0.45
0.21
0.08
1.00
0.94
0.45
0.21
32

Custom Soil Resource Report
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Rapid Infiltration and Slow Rate Treatment— Surry County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct. of
map unit
Rapid Infiltration of wastewater
Slow rate treatment of wastewater
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
FsE—Fairview-Stott Knob
complex, 25 to 45 percent
slopes
1.00
1.00
Very limited
Too steep for surface
application
Too steep for sprinkler irrigation
1.00
1.00
Fairview
60
Very limited
Slope
Slow water movement
Low adsorption
Too acid
0.27
0.21
Stott knob
28
Very limited
Very limited
Slope
1.00
Too steep for surface
application
1.00
Depth to bedrock
1.00
Too steep for sprinkler irrigation
1.00
Slow water movement
1.00
Depth to bedrock
1.00
i
Too acid
0.03
Too acid
1.00
Low adsorption
0.03
FuC2—Fairview-Urban land
complex, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Fairview, moderately eroded
54
Very limited
Slope
1.00
1.00
Very limited
Too steep for surface
application
1.00
Slow water movement
Too steep for sprinkler irrigation
1.00
Low adsorption
0.45
0.21
Too acid
Urban land.
31
Not rated
Not rated
W—Water
Not rated
Water
100
Not rated
33

Custom Soil Resource Report
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Rapid Infiltration and Slow Rate Treatment— Surry County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct. of
Rapid infiltration of wastewater
Slow rate treatment of wastewater
map unit
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
WoE—Woolwine-Fairview-
Westfield complex, 25 to 45
percent slopes, stony
Woolwine, stony
47
Very limited
Very limited
_ __
Slope
1.00
Too steep for surface
application
1.00
Depth to bedrock
1.00
Too steep for sprinkler irrigation
1.00
Slow water movement
1.00
Depth to bedrock
1.00
Too acid
1.00
Low adsorption
0.38
Fairview, stony
24
Very limited
Very limited
Slope
1.00
Too steep for surface
application
1.00
Slow water movement
1.00
Too steep for sprinkler irrigation
1.00
Low adsorption
0.46
Too acid
0.21
Westfield, stony
10
Very limited
Very limited
—
Slope
Depth to bedrock
Slow water movement
1.00
1.00
1.00
Too steep for surface
application
Too steep for sprinkler irrigation
Depth to bedrock
Low adsorption
Too acid
1.00
1.00
0.61
0.38
0.21
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and
Overland Flow (Pine Lakes Sewage Infiltration)
Soil properties are important considerations in areas where soils are used as sites for
the treatment and disposal of organic waste and wastewater. Selection of soils with
properties that favor waste management can help to prevent environmental damage.
This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations affecting the treatment of
wastewater, including municipal and food -processing wastewater and effluent from
lagoons or storage ponds. Municipal wastewater is the waste stream from a
municipality. It contains domestic waste and may contain industrial waste. It may have
received primary or secondary treatment. It is rarely untreated sewage. Food -
processing wastewater results from the preparation of fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese,
and meats for public consumption. In places it is high in content of sodium and chloride.
In the context of this table, the effluent in lagoons and storage ponds is from facilities
used to treat or store food -processing wastewater or domestic or animal waste.
Domestic and food -processing wastewater is very dilute, and the effluent from the
facilities that treat or store it commonly is very low in content of carbonaceous and
nitrogenous material; the content of nitrogen commonly ranges from 10 to 30
34

Custom Soil Resource Report
milligrams per liter. The wastewater from animal waste treatment lagoons or storage
ponds, however, has much higher concentrations of these materials, mainly because
the manure has not been diluted as much as the domestic waste. The content of
nitrogen in this wastewater generally ranges from 50 to 2,000 milligrams per liter.
When wastewater is applied, checks should be made to ensure that nitrogen, heavy
metals, and salts are not added in excessive amounts.
IJ
The ratings in the table are for waste management systems that not only dispose of
and treat wastewater but also are beneficial to crops. The ratings are both verbal and
numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all
of the soil features that affect agricultural waste management. Not limited indicates
that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good
performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates
that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The
limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation.
Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates
that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The
limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special
design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high
maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings in the tables indicate the severity of individual limitations. The
ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate
gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact
on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
Disposal of wastewater by irrigation not only disposes of municipal wastewater and
wastewater from food -processing plants, lagoons, and storage ponds but also can
improve crop production by increasing the amount of water available to crops. The
ratings in the table are based on the soil properties that affect the design, construction,
management, and performance of the irrigation system. The properties that affect
design and management include the sodium adsorption ratio, depth to a water table,
ponding, available water capacity, Ksat, slope, and flooding. The properties that affect
construction include stones, cobbles, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to
a water table, and ponding. The properties that affect performance include depth to
bedrock or a cemented pan, bulk density, the sodium adsorption ratio, salinity,
reaction, and the cation -exchange capacity, which is used to estimate the capacity of
a soil to adsorb heavy metals. Permanently frozen soils are not suitable for disposal
of wastewater by irrigation.
Overland flow of wastewater is a process in which wastewater is applied to the upper
reaches of sloped land and allowed to flow across vegetated surfaces, sometimes
called terraces, to runoff -collection ditches. The length of the run generally is 150 to
300 feet. The application rate ranges from 2.5 to 16.0 inches per week. It commonly
exceeds the rate needed for irrigation of cropland. The wastewater leaves solids and
nutrients on the vegetated surfaces as it flows downslope in a thin film. Most of the
water reaches the collection ditch, some is lost through evapotranspiration, and a
small amount may percolate to the ground water.
The ratings in the table are based on the soil properties that affect absorption, plant
growth, microbial activity, and the design and construction of the system. Reaction
and the cation -exchange capacity affect absorption. Reaction, salinity, and the sodium
adsorption ratio affect plant growth and microbial activity. Slope, saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, depth to bedrock or a
cemented pan, stones, and cobbles affect design and construction. Permanently
frozen soils are unsuitable for waste treatment.
35

Custom Soil Resource Report
Report —Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and
Overland Flow (Pine Lakes Sewage Infiltration)
[Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to
confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range
from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table
shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional
limitations]
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and Overland Flow- Surry County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct. of
Disposal of wastewater by Irrigation
Overland flow of wastewater
map unit
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
BbD—Braddock fine sandy
loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Braddock
97
^1—
Very limited
Too steep for surface
application
1.00
Seepage
----
1.00
-- - -- --- --
-
Too acid
0.99
BbB—Braddock fine sandy
—_
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Braddock
99
Very limited
Seepage
1.00
Too acid
0.99
CsA—Colvard and Suches
soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
_
Colvard
49
Very limited
Flooding
1.00
Seepage
1.00
Too acid
0.21
Suches
39
Very limited
Flooding
1.00
Seepage
1.00
Depth to saturated zone
0.86
Too add
0.42-
DrB—Dillard fine sandy loam, 2
to 8 percent slopes, rarely
flooded
Dillard
75
Very limited
—
Seepage
1.00
Depth to saturated zone
0.99
Flooding
0.40
Too acid
0.21
36

Custom Soil Resource Report
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and Overland
Flow- Surry County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct. of
Disposal of wastewater by irrigation
Overland flow of wastewater
map unit
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
FeD2—Fairview sandy clay
loam, 15 to 25 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Very limited
Fairview, moderately eroded
72
Too steep for surface
application
1.00
Seepage
1.00
Low adsorption
0.45
Too add
_
Very limited
0.21
FeB2—Fairview sandy day
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Fairview, moderately eroded
83
Seepage
1.00
Low adsorption
0.45
Too add
0.21
FeC2—Fairview sandy clay
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Fairview, moderately eroded
78
Very limited
Seepage
1.00
Too steep for surface
application
Low adsorption — - ---
Too add
Very limited
Seepage
Too steep for surface
application
—
+Low
0.94
' -
0.45
0.21
—
1.00
1.00
0.27
0.21
FsE—Fairview-Stott Knob
complex, 25 to 45 percent
slopes
Fairview
60
—
adsorption
28
Too acid
Very limited
Sto7kri�o�r °`
Seepage
1.00
Too steep for surface
application
1.00
Depth to bedrock
1.00
Too acid
1.00
Low adsorption
0.03
37

Custom Soil Resource Report
Agriculture! Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and Overland Flow— Surry County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct. of
Disposal of wastewater by irrigation
Overland flow of wastewater
map unit
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
FuC2—Fairview-Urban land
complex, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Fairview, moderately eroded
54
Very limited
Seepage
1.00
Too steep for surface
application
1.00
Low adsorption
0.45
Too acid
0.21
Urban land
W—Water
Water
31,
Not rated
100
Not rated
WoE—Woolwine-Fairview-
Westfield complex, 25 to 45
percent slopes, stony
Woolwine, stony
47
Very limited
. - -- -.. —
--- - -
Too steep for surface
- application
1.00
r —
Seepage
1.00
Depth to bedrock
1.00
Too acid
1.00
Low adsorption
0.38
24
Very limited
• Fa6view, stony
Too steep for surface
application
1.00.
Seepage
1.00
Low adsorption
0.46
10
Too acid
Very limited
Too steep for surface
application
0.21
1.00
Westfield, stony
—
Seepage
1.00
—
Depth to bedrock
0.61
Low adsorption
0.38
Too acid
0.21
38

21
Appendix G
Summary of Analysis of Well Water Constituents

RESEARCIi &ANALYTICAL
LAbORATORIES, INC.
Analytical/Process Consultations
L'1BORATORY ID#: 3 7 7 0 1
:?TER SYSTEM ID#: -
(:AIM OF SYSTEM:
• Pine
Lakes 2
TYPE OF SAMPLE: E = Entry
COLLECTED ON: DATE: 1 2/ 1 1/ 9 1
LOCATION WHERE COLLECTED:
COLLECTED BY:
1/20/92
CORROSIVITY ANALYSIS
New Well
(MM/DD/YY)
COUNTY:
TIME:
ern RRt. ►t
Wayne Davis
I•IAIL RESULTS TO:
Town & Country Builders
660 Lebanon
Mt. Airy, NC 27030
'TELEPHONE # ( 919 ) 786-2115
CONTAM
CODE NAME
**** ****************
1910
1919
1925
1927
1930
1996
LANGELIER INDEX
Ca HARDNESS, mg/1
pH, units
ALKALINITY, mg/1
TDS, mg/1
TEMPERATURE, C
METHOD
CODE
***
138
141
135
142
139
130
SAMPLE UNSATISFACTORY ( )
DATE ANALYSES BEGUN: 1 2/ 1 1 /9 1
Ca•I ENTS :
RESULTS
*****.***
-2 .608
1 4 3 5
- -6.7
3 a-_
- 61.
1 6.
M (HH:MM XM)
LOCATION/SOURCE CODE:
TYPE OF SUPPLY:
( ) COMMUNITY
( ) NTNC
( ) NON -Cc lMUNITY
( ) PRIVATE
WATER SOURCE (S) :
( ) GROUND
( ) SURFACE
( ) PURCHASED
TREATMENT:
NONE
CHLORINATED
FLUORIDATED
FILTERED
ALUM
LIME
SODA ASH
CAUSTIC
WATER SOFTENER
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE
PHOSPHATE, IRON CONTROL
PHOSPHATE, MANG. CONTROL
PHOSPHATE, CORR. CONTROL
OTHER
RESAMPLE REQUESTED ( )
DATE ANALYSES COMPUTE:D: 1 2/ 3 0/ 9 1
CERTIFIED BY:
P. 0. Box 473 • 106 Short Str oet • Kr rnersviOp. N'x th C'.aro6na 27264 • 919/996-2841

REsiich 8t ANAIyTICAE
LABORATORIES, INC.
Analytical/Process Consultations
NEW WELL INORGANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
LABORATORY ID#:, 3 7 7 0 1
:TER SYSTEM ID#:
NAME OF SYSTEM:
TYPE OF SAMPLE:
COUNTY:
Pine Lakes 2
1/20/92
T*M.11
DWtT. �t3
= Source
COLLECTED ON: DATE: L 2_ / L L 4 1 + (MM/DD/rf )
LOCATION WHERE COLLDC,'rED:
COLLECTED BY: Wayne Davis
t•MAIL RESULTS T0:
Town & Coµntry Builders
660 Lebanon
Mt. Airy, NC 27030
TIME:
New Well
MEMO
M (HH:MM XM)
-.
SOURCE CODE:
TYPE OF SUPPLY:
COMMUNITY
NTNC
NON -COMMUNITY
PRIVATE
WATER SOURCE:
TELEPHONE # ( 919 )786-2115 ( X ) GROUND
CONTAM ' METHOD ALLOW.
CODE NAME CODE RESULTS LIMITS
**** ******************** ***** ********** ******
0100 TURBIDITY, ntu 0 0 1 _ 9.2 0 N/A
1005 ARSENIC, mg/1 T. 2 _5 <0. 0 1 0 0.050
1010 BARIUM, mg/1 1 _0 _1 0• 0 8 6 1.000
1015 CADMIUM, mg/1 T _0 _1 <o. 0 0 2 0 0.010
1016 CALCIUM, mg/1 i 0 1 5.7 5 _ N/A
1017 CHLORIDE,_
mg/1 1 2 7 1.4 N/A
1020 CHROMIUM, mg/1 1 0 1 <o. 0 4 0 0.050
1022 COPPER, mg/1 L .1) _1 <0. 0 2 0 1.000
1025 FLUORIDE, mg/1 1 0 7 <0. 1 0_ 4.000
1028 IRON; mg/1 0 1 0.7 1 0.300
1030 LEAD, mg/1 1 2 5 'b.o 0 7 5 0.050
1031 MANGESIUM, mg/1 1 0 i • 1.2 3 N/A
1032 ANESE, mg/1 L' — -8. <0.0 2 0 0.050
1035 f1EI CURY, mg/1 i 3 <o • o 0 0 2 0.002
1040 NITRATE, mg/1 Lk _9 0.5 0 _ 10.00
1045 SELENIUM, mg/1' v 1 2 5 <Q. 0 0 5 0.010
1050 SILVER, mg/1 1 0 i <o•0 1 0 0.050
1052 SODIUM, mg/1 L Q 4.7 2 _ N/A
1068 ACIDITY, mg/1 1 5 7 _ 1 6.0 N/A
1095 ZINC, mg/1 I. 0• i 0.5 3 2 5.000
1905 COLOR,,units 1 2 9 - — 2.5 15.00
1915 TOTAL HARDNESS, 'mg/1 1 4 1 2 0.0 N/A
1925 pH, units 1 3 3 6.7 _ G 6.5
1927 iLKALINITY, mg/1 1 4 2 _ 3 0. N/A
SAMPLE UNSATISFACTORY ( ) RESAMPLE REQUEbr1D ( )
DATE ANALYSES B EGUN : i 2/ 1 1 / 9 1 DATE ANALYSES COMPLETED: 1 2/ 3, 0/ ...9....1
P. O. Box 473 • 106 Short Street • KerigaRgli PranCeitra27284 • 919/996-2841; 1 %%(
r•rv*AV/r.'c:. ria writ T. AtWAT.YCTC

<1
22
Appendix H
Process Flow Schematic

ct
Four (4) Potassium
Permanganate
Feed Tanks
(One each to each
green sand filter)
To Pine Lakes Subdivision Water System
Four (4) Green Sand
Filters
(In parallel)
Chlorine & Caustic
Addition
Well Water
cJ
Backwash
Discharge to
unnamed tributary
to UT to Stewarts
Creek
Pine
Proposed
Lakes Subdivision - Well # 2
Well System - Process Flow Diagram
Mt. Airy, NC Scale: NTS
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 May 20, 2009
1

c4
Appendix
Residuals Management Plan

Residuals Management Plan
Prepared by: J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Residuas Management Plan:
The proposed surface water discharge will have no impact on residuals management. There are no
wastewatet treatment facilities.
The nature of a operation (backwashing of green sand filters) is such that only minor amounts of solids
(less than 30 mg/1) are released with the discharge.
There is no generation of any grits, sludges or residuals for removal or disposal.
This project does not increase or alter the amounts of sludge produced or impact the current methods of
disposition.

25
Appendix J
Local Government Review

A copy of the permit application and the local government review form has been mailed by
certified mail to the County Manager. A copy of the response will be forwarded immediately
upon recc ipt.