WQ0039181_Modification_20200817

Initial Review
INITIAL REVIEW
Reviewer Thornburg, Nathaniel
Is this submittal an application? (Excluding additional information.)*
r Yes r No
Is this a complete
application?* Complete App Date
r Yes r No 08/17/2020
Project Number* WQ0039181
Applicant/Permittee Carolina Malt House, Inc
Applicant/Permittee 12969 statesville blvd cleveland nc 27013
Address
Is the owner in BIMS?
r Yes r No
Owner Type
Facility Name
County
Fee Category
Minor
Signature Authority
Organization
Carolina Malt House WWTF
Rowan
Signature Authority Title
Signature Authority Email
Document Type (if
non -application)
Email Notifications
Does this need review by the hydrogeologist?*
r Yes r No
Regional Office
CO Reviewer
Is the facility in BIMS?
r Yes r No
Fee Amount
$245

Admin Reviewer
Below list any additional email address that need notification about a new project.
Email Address
Comments to be added to email notification
Comments for Kendall
Comments for RO
Comments for Reviewer
Comments for Applicant

Submitted Form
Project Contact Information
Rease provide information on the person to be contacted by MB Staff regarding electronic subnittal, confirmation of receipt, and other issues.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Name * Mark van Wagenberg
Email Address*
[e-mail]
Project Information
Submittal Type* r New Permit Application
r Renewal
r Annual Report
r Other
Permit Type * r Wastewater Irrigation
r Other Wastewater
r Closed -Loop Recycle
r Single -Family Residence
Wastewater Irrigation
Is a paper copy of the application being submitted?
r Yes r Nor N/A
Permit Number* WQ0039181
Applicant\Permittee * Carolina Malt House, Inc.
Phone Number*
704-213-9334
Applicant/Permittee 12969 statesvi Ile blvd Cleveland nc 27013
Address*
Facility Name * Carolina Malt House WWTF
r Modification (Major or Minor)
r Additional Information
r Residual Annual Report
r High -Rate Infiltration
r Reclaimed Water
r Residuals
r Other
Please provide comments/notes on your current submittal below.

Pages 1-3: signed statement from soil scientist
Page 4: Excerpt from "Engineering and Calculations Plans"
Pages 5-10: Completed Section VII of the application form - WWIS 06-1
Pages 11-30: Soils report from original permit
From the the excerpt "page 4" this includes notes from our engineer.
We are hoping to increase our application loading rate from 15.75 inches to something closer to the max allowable
per field of 76.48 in/yr. Based on the soil recommendation and notes from engineer we hope to be able to irrigate
13,463 gallons per day, this would give us more than enough capacity for current usage and also for planned
expansion.
You will need to submit a permit modification to change the irrigation rate. The following must be provided (prefer
electronic except for check):
Application fee $245 check
Soils report from original permit with signed statement from soil scientist asserting that the site/soils have not
changes since the soils work was conducted
Complete Section VII of the application form - WWIS 06-1
Make sure to out the desired irrigation rate in the application form table. The rate cannot exceed the soil scientist
recommendation. Note that we use instantaneous irrigation rate (inches/hour) and maximum irrigation rate
(inches/year).
Either the submittal letter or application form must be signed by an authorized signature authority
Upload a single PDF file with the above to https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/NonDischarge-Branch-Submittal-Form
Please let me know if there is anything else you need. Thank you!
Please attach all information required or requested for this submittal to be review here.
Application Forrrt Engineering Rans, Specifications, Calculations, gc.)
CarolinaMaltPermitModification.pdf 6.2MB
Upload only 1 FDF docurrent. NLltiple docurrents rrust be corrbined into one FDF file.
Far new and modification permit applications, a paper copy may be required. If you have any questions
about what is required, please contactthe reviewer or Tessa Monday. If a paper application is required,
be advised, applications accepted far pre -review until both the paper and elect-c-,i_ --opies have been
received. The paper copy shall include the following:
o Application Form
o All relevant attachments (calcs, soils report, specs, etc.)
o One full-size engineering plan set
o One 11x27" engineering plan set
o One extra set of specifications
o Fee (if required)
Mailing address:
By U.S. Postal Service
----------
---- ---------r------s-----r---es--
-- - onof WateReouc
Non -Discharge Branch
------------------------------
1617 Mail service Center
- - ---- ---- -------
Raleigh, NC 276 99- 1617
Division of Water Resources
------------------------------------------
Non-Discharge Branch
------------------------------------------
Att: Nathaniel Thornburg, 9"
522 N. Salisbury St.
-------------------------------
RaleiEh. INC 276D4-1170
Floor, Office #942W
Far questions or problems ccntactTess a Monday [e-mail] or 919.707.3560.
* IW By checking this box I acknowledge that I understand the application will not be accepted
for pre -review until the paper copy (if required) and fee (if required) have been received by
the Non -Discharge Branch. I also confirm that the uploaded document is a single PDF with
all parts of the application in correct order (as specified by the application).

Signature
Submission Date 8/7/2020

SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION
Carolina Malt House
Cleveland, North Carolina
Prepared For:
Carolina Malt House
12969 Statesville Boulevard
Cleveland, NC 27013
Prepared By:
Thompson
Environmental
• •
t�'f'�TER • 't��'1STE�'ATER • �l'F,TI,.1 � [ tti
Thompnson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 541
Midland, NC 28107
July 4, 2020
Afc54A'+ ptvner

INTRODUCTION
Thompson Environmental Consulting (TEC) has been retained by the Carolina Malt House to perform
a supplemental soil and site evaluation of their property located at 12969 Statesville Boulevard,
Cleveland, NC 27013 (Rowan County Parcel Number: 265 001).
The purpose of this evaluation is to confirm that the soil and site conditions have not changed since
our October 1, 2015 report.
SITE DESCRII'TION AND INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
The study area is comprised of 18.73 acres of open fields and woods, and is currently used for a
commercial barley malting operation and spray irrigation of the wastewater generated from the
steeping process.
Soil borings were advanced with a hand -auger and soil color was determined with a MunseIl Soil
Color Chart. Observations of the landscape (slope, drainage patterns, etc.) as well as soil properties
(depth, texture, structure, soil wetness, restrictive horizons, etc.) were recorded. Each soil boring was
located in the field using a hand-held GPS unit.
SOIL EVALUATION
A supplemental field survey was conducted on July 4, 2020, by Larry Thompson, LSS. Five (5) soil
borings were advanced at various locations throughout the property and their locations noted on
Figure 1. The soil units described in our 2015 report have not changed and do not appear to be
hydraulically overloaded.
CONCLUSION
The findings presented herein represent TEC's professional opinion based upon our site evaluation
and knowledge of the current laws and regulations governing on -site wastewater systems in North
Carolina (Section .1900 of the North Carolina Administrative Code —NCAC and Title 15A
Subchapter 2T).
Soils naturally change across a landscape and contain many inclusions. As such, attempts to quantify
them are not always precise and exact. Due to this inherent variability of soils and the subjectivity
when determining limiting factors, there is no guarantee that a regulating authority will agree with the
findings of this report. Any concurrence with the findings of this report would be made by the
appropriate permitting agency at the time permit modifications are issued.
Carolina Mall House 2 July 4, 2020

Date:
ThompSoil Boring Locations July 2020 Figure
Enyison prepared For: ronmenta Carolina Malt House Scale:
Consuifi p SO 1fi0ft
Carolina Malt 12969 Statesville Boulevard 1+
House Cleveland, IVC 27013
EC Job #:
Rowan County 20-85

Carolina Malt House feels this is very conservative approach
Since he only used at most 10% more water with his steeping
method_ Based on this reasoning, a total nitrogen value of
43.88 ppm was used in waste utilization plan.
Estimated nutrient available for first crop is usually
recommended in the NCDA&CS Diagnostic waste report_ in this
case, the lab coded the sample for no reduction in nitrogen.
The nutrient application will be based on no reduction for
now. The agronomist at diagnostic lab and field
representatives for NCDA&C5 have been contacted about using
a reduction in future reports. It is expected that only
fifty percent (50%) of the total nitrogen stored in waste
storage pond is available for crop use based on test results
for animal waste.
The technical specialist, Michael Shepherd of NCDA & C5,
completed the nutrient management plan based on the maximum
nitrogen nutrient amount, the soil fertility analysis,
irrigation design and crop planned at the site. The
nitrogen crop uptake value for fescue hay on Qacolet soil. is
160 lb/acre. Consideration was given to phosphorus but due
to low phosphorus soil Index and low phosphorus measurement
in waste sample and crop intake value of 57 lb/acre of
phosphorus, nitrogen was determined to be the limiting
factor at application field.
TOTAL NUTRIENTS
DISPOSAL LOSSES AVAILABLE NUTRIENT
(Nutrient availability)
492 lbs 1.00 492 lbs
492 lb PAN N/1, 368, 214 gal or 0.36 lb N PAN per 1000 gal j^
C. Spray Irrigation Water Balance
95 0.90
See water balance computed by the NC DENR Division of
Water Quality water Budget excel program (version5)" for
sizing the irrigation field and waste pond to handle the
irrigation loading rate. S 2,0
1r961 y��c�
Summary of Water Balance Below:
Max. Allowable Irrig. - Field 1 (Soil 1) - 76.48 in/yr
Max. Allowable Irrig. - Field 2A (Soil 1),= 6.48 in/yr
Max. Allowable Irrig. - Field 2B (Soil 1) - 76.48 in/yr
l ow to Field 1 (zone 1)- 470,485 gal/yr - 1.1 acre
to Field 2A (zone 2)- 470,485 gal/yr - 1.1 acre
low
427 415 gal/yr - 1.0 acre
fie.. r ✓c. �4
Flow to Field 2B (zone 3)-
Design Irrigation - Field 1 15.75 in/yr
Design Irrigation - Field 2A - 15.75 in/yr .25
Design Irrigation - Field 2B - 15.74 in/yr 40efff �,,r ' it
- jpLarry Thompson, soil scientist, evaluation recommends a
oading rate not to exceed 1.1 in/week and 0.4 in/wenkisor
Sail 1 and soil 2, respectively. This recommen
datio
p 10 f ~ 3 Carolina Malt House, Inc.
73 Waste Plan
r14

VII. IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA —.15A NCAC 02T .0505:
1. Provide the minimum depth to the seasonal high water table within the irrigation area: >5'
NOTE — The vertical separation between the seasonal high water table and the ground surface shall be at least one foot.
2. Are there any artificial drainage or water movement structures (c.g., surface water or groundwater) within 200 feet of the
irrigation area? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, were these structures addressed in the Soil Evaluation and/or Hydrogeologic Report, and are these structures to be
maintained or modified`?
3. Soil Evaluation recommended loading rates (NOTE— This table maybe expanded for additional soil series):
Soil Series
Fields within
Soil Series
Recommended
Loading Rate
(in/hr)
Recommended
Loading Rate
(in/ r)
Annual / Seasonal
Loading
If Seasonal, list
appropriate
months
Soil I Pacolet
I, 2A, & 2B
0.1
76.48
Annual
Select
Select
Select
Select
Select
4. Are the designed loading rates less than or equal to Soil Evaluation recommended loading rates? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, how does the Applicant intend on complying with 15A NCAC 02T .0505(n)?
5. How does the Applicant propose to prohibit public access to the irrigation system? Fence around property & gate at entrance
plus "No Trespass" signs
6. Has the irrigation system been equipped with a flow meter to accurately determine the volume of effluent applied to each
field as listed in VII.8.? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no, how does the Applicant intend on complying with 15A NCAC 02T .0505(t)?
7. Provide the required cover crop information and demonstrate the effluent will be applied at or below agronomic rates:
Cover Crop
Soil Series
% Slope
Nitrogen Uptake Rate
(Ibs/ac r)
Phosphorus Uptake
Rate (lbs/ac r)
Fescue Hay
Soil 1 Pacolet
5-20
160
57
FORM: WWIS 06-16 Page 9 of 12

a. Specify where the nitrogen and phosphorus uptake rates for each cover crop were gbtained: NC Cooperative Extension
Service Nutrient Management Planning Handbook
b. Proposed nitrogen mineralization rate: NCDA&CS Dianostis Waste Report showed no coeffient of reduction in for
4 waste sample tested. System planned for 100% utilization of Nitrogen. This will likely be reduced in future expansions.
Carolina Malt is going to work with NCDA agronomist to determine a realistic value to use.
L
e. Proposed nitrogen volatilization rate: No volatization planned. Before future expansions occurs. NCDA agronomist will
be consulted to work out a realistic value for this rate in future expansion.
d, Minimum irrigation area from the Agronomist Evaluation's nitrogen balance: 139.392 W
e. Minimum irritation area from the Agronomist Evaluation's phosphorus balance: Nitrogen based planned since P index is
low in application fields and phosphorus nutrient measurement is low. See NMP Narrative. fr'
f. Minimum irrigation area from the water balance: Application area sized due to nutrient loading - Water balance shows
significant lowersquare feet area for hydraulic loading. See NMP Narrative. ft'
Fnkm. WWis Oh-lh Page 10 of 12

VII. IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA —15A NCAC 02T .0505 (continued):
8. Field Information (NOTE — This table may be expanded for additional fields):
Field
Area
(acres)
Dominant
Soil Series
Designed
Loading
Rate
(in/hr)
Designed
Loading
Rate
(in/ r)
Latitude
Longitude a
Waterbody
Stream Index
No. �'
Classification
1
1.1
Pacolet
0.1
15.75
35.73726-
-80.7136W
12-108-20-4
C
2A
1.1
Pacolet
0.1
15.75
35.738W
-80.745W
12-108-20-4
C
2B
1.0
Pacolet
0.1
15.75
35.73808°
-80.74580-
12-108-20-4
C
Total
Provide the following latitude and longitude coordinate determination information:
Datum: UnknownLevel of accuracy: Nearest second Method of measurement:
Map interpretation by extraction
For assistance determining the Waterbody stream index number and its associated classification. instructions may be
downloaded at: http://deg.ne.gov/about/divisions/water-resources�/plannin,= classification-standards/classifications
FORM: WW1.S06-16 Page 11 of 12

Spray Irrigation Design Elements
Drip Irrigation Design Elements
Nozzle wetted diameter:
108 ft
Emitter wetted area:
ft2
Nozzle wetted area:
4,486 ft'-
Distance between laterals:
ft
Nozzle capacity:
8.38 GPM
Distance between emitters:
ft
Nozzle manufacturer/model:
Senninger / 50 Series
Emitter capacity:
GPH
Elevation of highest nozzle:
765 ft
Emitter manufacturer/model:
1
Specification Section:
See Irrigation Section
(drawings)
Elevation of highest emitter:
ft
Specification Section:
VIII. SETBACKS — 15A NCAC 02T .0506:
I. Does the project comply with all setbacks found in the river basin rules (15A NCAC 02B .0200)? ® Yes or ❑ No
If no. list non -compliant setbacks:
2. Have any setback waivers been obtained in order to comply with 15A NCAC 02T .506 a and .05OfiJJb? ® Yes or ❑ No
If yes, have these waivers been written, notarized and signed by all parties involved and recorded with the County Register of
Deeds? ® Yes or ❑ No
3. Provide the minimum field observed distances (ft) for each setback parameter to the irrigation system and treatment/storage
units (NOTE — Distances greater than 500 feet may be marked N/A):
Setback Parameter
Irrigation
System
Treatment /
tnra a Unit
Any habitable residence or place of assembly under separate ownership or not to be
maintained as part of the project site
N/A
N/A
Any habitable residence or place of assembly owned by the Permittee to be maintained as
art of the project site
N/A
Any private or public water supply source
256'
190,
Surface waters (streams — intermittent and perennial. perennial waterbodies, and wetlands)
100'
Groundwater lowering ditches (where the bottom of the ditch intersects the SHWT)
N/A
Subsurface groundwater lowering drainage systems
N/A
Surface water diversions (ephemeral streams, waterways, ditches)
25'
Any well with exception of monitoring wells
256'
205'
Any property line
150'
54'
Top of slope of embankments or cuts of two feet or more in vertical height
75'
Any water line from a disposal system
N/A
Any swimming pool
N/A
Public right of way
50'
Nitrification field
NIA
Any building foundation or basement
82'
Impounded public water supplies
N/A
Public shallow groundwater supply (less than 50 feet deep)
NIA
4. Does the Applicant intend on complying with 15A NCAC 02T .0506(c) in order to have reduced irrigation setbacks to
property lines? ❑ Yes or ® No
If yes, complete the following table by providing the required concentrations as determined in the Engineering Calculations:
PC)Pk - WWrcn6,1h Page 12 of 12

2 4 t
N L_ _; Parcel Boundary
= StudyArea
A Ksat Locations
Soil Unit 1 (Pacolet)
Soil unit 2
Budding
slSo
Basin Footpnnt
Ksats 14115 Potential Jurisdictional
Feature Edge
-- Stream
Ksats 12113 ` 100-Foot Buffer
A 5.78 acres 25-Foot Buffer
Ksat 10
Gulley
® Well
..� N•�j14 �' -
2 67 acres Ksat s 'F. -''•
��J PA
Ksat 11Ksats 1;2
Al
Ksats 314��` A.
2.1 acres
' - .. ►,�a
yam:#4�jP,-#_�
�. Ksats 516AS
".91*►"1st fr
iJ
NC pneMap. NO Center for Geographic Information and Analysis NO
911 Board '
Thompson Carolina Malt House Date Janua ry 2017 Figure
Environments stele
Consulting Hydraulic Conductivity ,� 150Feet
Testing Map '
4
Job No.
Rowan County, North Carolina
Page 10 of 27

SOIL PROFILE AND BORING DESCRIPTIONS
Pave I l ol'27

SOIL EVALUATION FORM
Thompson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Post Office Box 541
Midiand, NC 28107
704.301.4881
Job: Carolina Malt House
County: Rowan
Date: Listed with profile description
b
aa
a
Structure)
Consistence/
Mottle Colors
�o�
o
C)Texture
Mineralogy
Mc7 Color
(Quantity, Sire, Contrast Color)
It
a
ti
1
A
0-3
2mGR / CL
FR / 55, SP
5YR 4/4
Btl
3-26
3mSSK / C
FI / SS, SP
5YR 4/6
Bt2
26-48
2mSBK / CL
FR / SS, SP
2.5YR 4/8
BC
48-60
1mSBK / SL
FR / SS, SP
10YR 7/6
c,2,D 2.5Y 4/8
C
60-84
OM / SL
FR / SO, PO
10YR 7/4
c,2,F 10YR 7/6, C,1,D 2.5YR 4/8
Soil Unit 1 (Pacolet) - Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapluduks
Linear slope (91A, eroded)
No SWHTto 84"
Conducted 1-3-17
2
A
0-2
2 mGR / CL
FR / SS, SP
5YR 4/4
Bt1
2-25
3mSBK / C
A / SS, SP
2.SYR 3/6
Bt2
25-36
3mS8K / C
FR / SS, SP
2.5YR 4/6
c,2.D 7.5YR 6/8
Bt3
36-55
2m5BK / CL
FR J SS, SP
7.5YR 516
f,1,P 10YR 7/2; c,2,D 2.5YR 5/6
8C
55-66
1mSBK / CL
FR / SS, SP
7.5YR 5/8
f,1,D 7.5YR 6/2; c,2,D 2.5YR 4/6
C
66-84
OM / SL
FR / SO, PO
I 7.5YR 5/4
c,2,F 7.5YR 6/6; c,2,D 7.5YR 3/1
Soil Unit 1 (Pacolet) - Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults
Linear slope (16%)
Perched WT at 55"
Conducted 1-3-17
3
A
0-3
2mGR / CL
FR / SS, SP
7.5YR 4/3
B/C
3-14
1mSBK / SCL
FI / SS, PO
7.5YR 5/4
C
14-84
OM / SL
FR / 50, PO
7.5YR 5/4
Soil Unit 2
Linear Slope (18%, eroded)
No SHWTto 84"
Conducted 1-3-17
4
A
0-2
2mGR / CL
FR / SS, SP
5YR 4/4
Bt1
2-48
3mSBK / C
Fi / SS, SP
2.5YR 4/8
Bt2
48-84
2mS8K / C
Fl / SS, SP
2.5YR 4/8
Soil Unit 1 (Pacolet)—Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults
Linear Slope (15%)
No SHWTto 84"
Conducted 1-3-17
5
A
0-2
2mGR / CL
VFR / SS, SP
5YR 4/4
B/C
2-8
1mSBK / SCL
FR / SS, SP
7.5YR 5/4
C
8-84
OM / SL
FR / SO, PO
7.5YR 5/4
Soil Unit 2
Linear Slope (15%, eroded)
No SHWTto 84"
Conducted 1-3-17
6
A
0-4
2mGR / CL
FR / SS, SP
5YR 4/4
B/C
4-14
1mSBK / SCL
FR / SS, SP
7.SYR 5/4
C
14-84
OM / SL
FR / SO, PO
VAR
Soil Unit 2
Linear Slope (10(/1., eroded)
No SHWTto 84"
Conducted 1-3-17
Page 12 of27

7
A
0-3
2mGR / CL
FR / SS, SP
5YR 4/4
Btl
3-16
3mSBK / C
FR / SS, SP
2.5YR 4/6
Bt2
16-26
2m5BK / CL
FR / SS, SP
5YR 5/6
BC
26-38
1m58K / SL
FR / SS, SP
7.5YR 6/8
c,2,P IOYR 7/3
C
38-84
OM / SL
FR / SO, PO
VAR
Soil Unit 1 (Pacolet) — Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults
Linear Slope (15V.)
No 5H V T to 84"
Conducted 1-3-17
8
A
0-3
1mSBK / CL
FR / SS, SP
5YR 4/4
Bt
3-36
3mSBK / C
FI / SS, SP
2.5YR 4/6
BC
36-58
1mSBK / CL
FR / SS, SP
7.5YR 6/8
Ei
C
S8-84
OM / L
FR / SS, SP
7.5YR 5/4
Soil Unit 1 (Pacolet)—Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults
Terrace (5%)
No SHVV7 to 84"
Conducted 1-12-17
Evaluated by: John C. Roberts
Page 13 of 27

` Thompson Environmental Consulting, Inc. SHEET 4 OF
PO Box 541
Midland, NC 28107-0541 COUNTY: 1
704-301-$81 TAX Id:
OWNER.
LOCATION:
DATE-
PROMES
r
G
f " ;
LANDSCAPE POSITION
.194Q
r�
SLOPE %
.1940
, s
HORIZON 1 DEPTH
TEXTURE
.1941 a 1)
CONSISTENCE
.1941
STRUCTURE
.1941 a (2)
CLAY MINERALOGY
A941 a (3)
HORIZON 2 DEPTH
.1943
TEXTURE
.1941 (a) (1),
CONSISTENCE
.1941
STRUCTURE
.1941 (a 2)
CLAY MINERALOGY
.1941 (a)(3)
A
HORIZON 3 DEPTH
.1943
?-,/
TEXTURE
1941 (a) 1)
CONSISTENCE
.1941
STRUCTURE
A941 (a)(2)
CLAY MINERALOGY
.1941 (a)(3)
HORIZON 4 DEPTH
.1943
TEXTURE
.1941 (a) (1
- C
CONSISTENCE
.1941
STRUCTURE
.1941 (a)(2)
CLAY MINERALOGY
.1941 (a)(3)
SOIL WETNESS
.1942
'
RESTRICTIVE HORIZON
.1944
SAPROLITE
.1943/.1956.
CLASSIFICATION
.1948
L.T.A.R- pd/ft)
1955
M
OTHER FACTORS (.1946):
SITE LTAR (gpdM2):
AVAILABLE SPACE .1945 :
SITE CLASSIFICATION (.1948):
SYSTEM TYPE:
EVALUATED BY: /C T OTHERS PRESENT:
MMENTS:
I
Page 14 of 27

Thompson Environmental Consulting, Inc_ SHEET OF
PO Box 541
Midland, NC 28107-0541 COUNTY:
704-301-4881 TAX IDI
OWNER.
LOCATION
DATE:
PROFILES
LANDSCAPE POSITION
SLOPE %
.1940
.1940
HORIZON i DEPTH
1943
TEXTURE
CONSISTENCE
STRUCTURE
.1941 a 1
.1941
.1941 (a)(2)
CLAY MINERALOGY
.1941 (a)(3)
HORIZON 2 DEPTH
.1943
TEXTURE
.1941 a (1)
CONSISTENCE
.1941
STRUCTURE
.1941 (a)(2)
CLAY MINERALOGY
.1941 (a) (3
HORIZON 3 DEPTH
.1943
&70
TEXTURE
.1941 (a)(1)
CONSISTENCE
1941
STRUCTURE
.1941 (a) (2)
,� s
CLAY MINERALOGY
1941 (a)(3
HORIZON 4 DEPTH
.1943
TEXTURE
.1941 a)(1)
CONSISTENCE
.1941
STRUCTURE
.1941 (a)(2
CLAY MINERALOGY
.1941 (a)3)
SOIL WETNESS
1942
RESTRICTIVE HORIZON
.1944
SAPROLITE
1943l.1956
�_
CLASSIFICATION
1948
L.T.A.R_ (gpd/ft)
1955
OTHER FACTORS (1946-
SITE LTAR (gpd1W):
AVAILABLE SPACE .1945
SITE CLASSIFICATION (1948):
SYSTEM TYPE:
EVALUATED BY: 7"c OTHERS PRESENT:
COMMENTS: / 1
Y� B>, , ill P �Cr+�•� 7., 7o "
i
Pace 15 of 27

Soil Evaluation Form
Sheet I of
Job:
County:, �•�
Date: r •
it oorings
I 15 1' 1
9
Zo
Z1
Landscape Position
Slope [96J
5
Horizon 1 Depth
3
-4 U
`1
4
R y
s
Texture
G L
c
sct
5�
(L
cL
Consistence
F !
rfz
F,2
(Z
F R
Structure
s
rs) S/k
_jfp56j
VjFjCm5,Ze
� e
Syr Ssk
12,16
a-S6c
Clay Mineralogy
s
5:
' "
5'6
-f -
s c
5,
Horizon 2 Depth
r
3+ 46
15C i
kc rp
64 y
Y 4
3y Frf
Texture
CL
C
C1�L
Consistence
F rS
FR
F
,�
7
F ^
Structure
Clay Mineralogy
�C
5C
SE
S�
St
SE
S�
Horizon 3 Depth
C 1
�y ?o
Texture
5: C
Consistence
F `
I'12
Structure
Clay Mineralogy
Horizon 4 Depth
Texture
Consistence
Structure
Clay Mineralogy
Horizon 5 Depth
Texture
Consistence
Structure
Clay Mineralogy
Soil Wetness
Restrictive Horizon
Saprofite
! a
? 37
>
0
Other
CLASSIFICATION
LTAR (pd/ft2)
Comments:
Evaluated by: TL e
Page 16 of 27

KsAT TEST DETAILS
Page 17 o 1' 27

• _ - _ 8
1 mfuI

d
E
H
-
VI
F
r
C
i
+H/MI

I
• V
rNM
L
L F A •x
r P
Ll
s i
E
Y
=r;=n �_ �sssaaae
�^ E 9 9 R 9 R 9 R £
t
. � a �t12i$SffiYi���6
P_
j Z V �' {�� cA aAa sV5 iZ ^ W1e9 fT

a
iri
F
z`
-
I
fJ
t] a
rWu
F
S
C

!
L
i
i
ilN iul
P
s
$
G
r.
3
v
O EpS
P= P P P
�
Q
c
�
`—
8�888a83
4
gg
&
} x
IR
arI
E
7
v
t
i
1 �
I

C
t
c�
i
x G
FF
E O
�
u
o
-
E t L
4 E
4
Y
w
G.
a
T�
r�
0
N
:J
� �
n
c o m
b
Y
e
a
G fi
f y
L9 d w

k
}
�
2
•§
�z!
�
���
�
}�
■;&k$
©-
■Base
!,!
-
l
i

SOIL FERTILITY ANALYSIS
Page 26 of 27

Page 1 of 1
Report No: 17-023-v759
Account No: 06757
Advisor: Three Oats Engineering
John Roberts
324 Blackwell St,
Suite 1200
Durham NC 27701
Waypoint
ANALYTICAL
Client: Carolina Malt House
2850 Daisy lane, Wilson, NC 27896
Main 252-206-1721 ° Fax [phone]
www.waypointanalytical.com
Farm ID:
Submitted By: John Roberts
Date Received: 0112312017
Date of Report: 01124/2017
Lab No Field 10
Sample to
Soil Class
HM%
WN
phi
Ac
P-1 K-1
S-1
Mn-1
Zn-1
Zn-Al
Cu-1
CEC
BS%
Ca%
Mg%
ESP
Na SS-1 NO3N
10730
Pac-t
MIN
0.7
0.8
5.8
1.9
17 165
17
350
90
90
75
114
83
51
24
0.3
0
10731
Sap-2
MIN
0.4
0.9
5.7
1.9
12 53
23
263
130
130
55
f4.1
86
51
33
0.5
0.1
Comment:
Test result units = CEG and Na in megjl0ocm3 NO_TN m mgldm3, WIV in glcm3 �����
North Carolina Division of Water Quality CertiVicelton "257. Analysis and fertility recommendations shown on this repW9,e 8Xo'7hed in a0corden[e kvithin NCQA quidelmes. Analysis prepared by: Wavp6ni Analytiral Carolina. Inc.

SOIL SCIENTIST EVALUATION
Carolina Malt House
Rowan County, North Carolina
Prepared For:
Aaron Goss
12969 Statesville Boulevard
Cleveland, NC 27013
Prepared By:
Thompson
Environmenta
Consulting
Post Office Box 541
Midland, NC 28107
Tel [phone]
January 31, 2017

INTRODUCTION & STUDY AREA
Thompson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (TEC) was retained to conduct a Soil Scientist
Evaluation to assess the feasibility for a wastewater surface application system for the
Carolina Malt House, a malting facility. The facility is located just west of Cleveland,
NC in Rowan County (Figure 1). This submittal was completed in accordance with state
rules 15A NCAC 02T. 0504(b) (2T Rules) for a wastewater spray system.
The study area consists of approximately 24 acres of a 68-acre tract. The majority of the
study area consists of pasture that was maintained for cattle production. The remaining
area is wooded with mature hardwoods and pine dominating the vegetation. A stream
feature and potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified and GPS located. The study
area for this evaluation consists of the area located 100-ft from the stream and potential
jurisdictional wetlands, 150-ft from the west property line, and 5041 from the right-of-
way (ROW) of US HWY 70 (Figure 2).
INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
Soil borings were made with a hand -turned auger and soil color was determined with a
Munsell Soil Color Chart. Soil profiles described the landscape (slope, drainage patterns,
etc.) as well as soil properties (depth, texture, structure, soil wetness, restrictive horizons,
etc.) to seven feet (84 inches). Additional borings were advanced to shallower depths to
identify diagnostic horizons and record pertinent soil properties. A hand-held GPS unit
with sub -meter accuracy was used to locate each soil boring as well as other site features.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (KSAT) tests were performed using a compact constant -
head permeameter (Amoozemeter). Such tests require sufficient time for the
permeameter to equilibrate. The Amoozemeter was allowed sufficient time to reach
steady state before readings were recorded.
FINDINGS
Soil Evaluation
The field survey was conducted in September 2015 and January 2017, by Larry
Thompson, LSS, John C. Roberts, LSS, and Evan Morgan, LSS-IT. Eight (8) soil profile
descriptions and 21 supplemental borings were advanced to characterize the dominating
soil properties and their locations are noted on Figure 3.
The study area is mapped as Enon (Fine, mixed, active, thermic Ultic Hapludalfs),
Pacolet (Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults) and Poindexter (Fine -loamy,
mixed, active, thermic Typic Hapludalfs) soil series by the Web Soil Survey for Rowan
County (Figure 2). Described soil profiles and supplemental borings verified the
presence of the Pacolet series (Soil Unit 1). Soil characteristics indicative of the Enon
series were not observed. As such, soil profiles and borings were used to delineate Soil
Unit 2 and the existing soil characteristics. Profiles and borings were described under
moist soil conditions. Full boring descriptions are attached. Borings 1-3, 6, and 7 are
included in the attached descriptions, however, they are located outside of the study area.
Carolina Malt House -Draft Report
Spray Irrigation System January 31, 2017

Soil Unit 1 (Pacolet soil series) occurs along ridges with slopes ranging from 5 to 20%.
Profiles 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are profile descriptions for Soil Unit 1, Surface A horizons
typically exhibited a friable, clay loam texture with moderate, medium, granular structure
ranging in depth from 2 to 4 inches. Argillic (Bt) horizons exhibited a friable or firm clay
loam or clay texture with strong to moderate, medium, subangular blocky structure
ranging in depth from 26 to greater than 84 inches. Lower BC horizons consisted of a
sandy loam or clay loam texture with weak, medium, subangular blocky structure ranging
in depth from 38 to 66 inches. C horizons typically consisted of friable, sandy loam or
loam textured saprolite with massive structure to 84 inches. Evidence of a seasonal high
water table (SHWT) was not observed in this soil unit within 84 inches of the surface.
Soil Unit 2 occurs along the hillside with slopes ranging from 6 to 15%. Profiles 3, 5,
and 6 are profile description for Soil Unit 2. Surface A horizons typically exhibited a
friable, clay loam texture with moderate, medium, granular structure ranging in depth
from 2 to 4 inches. B/C horizons exhibited a friable or firm sandy clay loam texture with
weak, medium, subangular blocky structure ranging in depth from 8 to 14 inches. C
horizons consisted of a sandy loam texture with massive structure to 84 inches. Evidence
of a seasonal high water table (SHWT) was not observed in this soil unit within 84 inches
of the surface.
Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements
Spray irrigation systems require KSAT tests be performed to substantiate the
recommended hydraulic loading rate. KSAT tests are conducted in the most hydraulically
limiting soil horizon within seven feet of the naturally occurring surface. Fifteen (15)
KSAT measurements were conducted with a constant -head permeameter (Amoozemeter)
with 9 tests in Soil Unit 1 and 6 tests in Soil Unit 2 (Figure 4). Measurements were
conducted in Bt, BC, and C horizons for Soil Unit I and B/C and C horizons in Soil Unit
2. The results of KSAT measurements are listed in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1. KSAT Test Results for Soil Unit 1 in the study area.
Helena Soil Series
KsAT #
Profile/Boring #
Depth
Horizon
ln/Hr
3
P7
32
BC
0.0456
4
P7
20
Bt
0.100
9
P4
36
Bt
0.173
10
B21
48
BC
0.0912
11
1311
57
Bt
0,119
12
P1
57
BC
0.088
13
PI
69.5
C
0.461
14
P8
70
C
9.093
15
P8
54
BC
0.388
Geomean of Bt: 0.127 in/hr Geomean of BC: 0.109 in/hr Geomean of C: 2.046
in/hr
Carolina Mail House-Dra, f3 Report
Spray Irrigation System January 31, 2017

Table 2. KSAT Test Results for Soil Unit 2 in the study area.
Soil Unit 2 Soil Series
KsAT #
Profile/Boring#
Depth
Horizon
bi/Hr
1
P6
36
C
0.1459
2
P6
10
B/C
0.0152
5
B4
9
B/C
0.1006
6
134
37
C
0.0182
7
P3
9
B/C
0.0223
8
P3
35
C
0.0365
Geomean of B/C: 0.0324
in/hr Geomean of C: 0.0459
in/hr
Generally, all KsAT test results provided consistent measurements. The measured rate for
the BC horizon (0.109 in/hr) and B/C (0.0324 in/hr) are deemed the most limiting for Soil
Unit 1 and Soil Unit 2, respectively, and should be used in calculating the water balance.
Data sheets are attached.
Drainage Coefficients
The measured KsAT rate must be modified by an appropriate drainage coefficient to
determine the hydraulic loading rate. Typical drainage coefficients for large surface
irrigation spray systems range from 0.04 to 0.10. However, sites with favorable
parameters that promote infiltration into surface horizons and percolation through
subsurface horizons, lack evidence of soil wetness conditions, and occur along favorable
landscapes can utilize drainage coefficients near the upper range.
Soil Unit 1 - The well -established duff (wooded) and fescue (pasture) and moderate
granular structure allows for quick infiltration into A horizons. The deep argillic
horizons with strong to moderate structure that typically extend below 42 inches with no
apparent soil wetness condition and long linear slopes (typically occurring between 5% to
20%) permit vertical percolation and lateral flow of wastewater from the application
fields. As such, a drainage coefficient of 0.10 is recommended for this soil unit.
Soil Unit 2 - The well -established duff (wooded) and fescue (pasture) and moderate
granular structure allows for quick infiltration into A horizons. The overall deep profile
with favorable saprolite textures that extend to greater than 84 inches with no apparent
soil wetness condition and long linear slopes (typically occurring between 6% to 15%)
permit vertical percolation and lateral flow of wastewater from the application fields. As
such, a drainage coefficient of 0.08 is recommended for this soil unit.
Recommended Loading Rates
Based upon the results of the site investigation and our professional experience, we
recommend the following loading rates:
Soil Unit 1:
• Weekly Loading Rate of 1.1 inch/week (0.00654 in/hr) .
• Instantaneous Loading Rate of 0.1 in/hr
• Maximum irrigation -event loading rate of 0.25 in/hr not to exceed 0.1 inches of
wastewater applied per hour
Carolina Malt House Draft Report
Spray Irrigation System January 31, 2017

Soil Unit 2:
• Weekly Loading Rate of 0.4 inch/week (0.00238 in/hr)
• Instantaneous Loading Rate of 0.1 in/hr
• Maximum irrigation event loading rate of 0.25 in/hr not to exceed 0.1 inches of
wastewater applied per hour
The instantaneous loading rate of 0.1 in/hr is recommended to reduce runoff of applied
wastewater. The design engineer has stated application of wastewater at this rate is not
possible due to the low flow rate. As such, a maximum instantaneous application rate of
0.25in/hr is recommended. The duration of the irrigation event should be set not to
exceed the 0.1 inches of total wastewater application in one hour. The well -established
duff and grass covers will allow for infiltration and prevent runoff from these short
irrigation events.
The above recommended loading rates should be used in engineering wastewater
application throughout the study area. The maximum allowable annual irrigation could
likely be increased based on field performance and operation practices. Applications
above those shown in the water balance can likely be made during periods of less
frequent rainfall.
Soil Fertility Results
A composite soil sample for the proposed irrigation area was sent to Waypoint Analytical
for analysis per the NCDA&CS Agronomic Division fertility analysis standard. The
results are typical for a piedmont soil and are attached.
Setbacks
Potential jurisdictional wetlands and a stream were identified within the study area and
will require 100-ft setbacks to application areas (Figure 3 & 4). Gullies and channelized
drainages were observed in the study area and will require 25-ft setbacks. The typical
setback for a property boundary is 150-ft. This setback is allocated for the west property
line. The east property boundary consists of the NCDOT ROW for US HWY 70. A
setback of 5041 is shown from the ROW
Other Site Considerations
The irrigation area should be properly managed to maintain a well -established vegetative
(grass) crop and forest stands while limiting major site manipulation. Installation and
maintenance activities should only be completed during dry soil conditions so that the
surface is not manipulated or compacted and soil structure is not damaged.
An old farm path is proposed to be included in the irrigation area located east of HWY 70
in Soil Unit 1. As such, a soil boring was advanced in the path to determine if this area is
adequate for wastewater application. Soil boring B20 was advanced to 42 inches below
the path surface. Soil properties detrimental to wastewater application were not
observed.
CONCLUSION
Carolina Malt House -Draft Report
Spray Irrigation System January 31, 2017

Two soil units were mapped within the study area based on observed soil characteristics.
A weekly loading rate of 1.1 inch/week and 0.4 inch/week is recommended for Soil Unit
1 and Soil Unit 2, respectively. An instantaneous loading rate of 0.1 inch/hr is
recommended for both soil units with a maximum application loading rate of 0.25 in/hr,
not to exceed 0.1 inches of total wastewater per hour. These application rates are
recommendations determined using in -situ Ks.ar measurements for the most limiting soil
horizon within seven feet of surface.
The findings presented herein represent TEC's professional opinion based on our Soil
Scientist Evaluation Report and knowledge of the current laws and rules governing
surface irrigation for on -site wastewater systems in North Carolina. The North Carolina
DWR :must issue the final permit. Any concurrence with the findings of this report would
be made at this time. Soils naturally change across a landscape and contain many
inclusions. As such, attempts to quantify theta are not always precise and exact. Due to
this inherent variability of soils and the subjectivity when determining limiting factors,
there is no guarantee that a regulating authority will agree with the findings of this report.
Carolina Malt House -Draft Report
Spray Irrigation System January 31, 2017

' # + A r
j'"'• ti'1ia•: (0 OpenSt',&efMap {and)
contributdrs CC -BY -SA
r
I
J'
�i
LISGS The National Map National 866r7dar*s Dataset. National
Elevation Dataset Geographir, Nam ,Information System, National
Hydrography Dataset. National Land ver Database. Nat;Qndl
Parcel Boundary 1
Structures Dataset, and National Tra(ispbrtat!nn Dataset. U S Census
Bureau - TIGER/Line. HERE Road 5�tg
Thompson
Environments
Consulting
Carolina Malt House
USGS Topo Map
Rowan County, North Carolina
Date Figure
January 2017
Scale
0 750 1.500 Feet
L I
Page 7 or27

Thompson
Environments
Consulting
Date
Carolina Malt House January 2017
Scale
USDA-NRCS Soils Map 0 1a7 5 275 Feet
Figure
2
Rowan County, North Carolina
Page 8 of 27

N Parcel Boundary
�. ._ StudyArea
Soil Borings
Soil Unit 1 (Pacolet)
t q ' Soil Unit 2
Unsuitable
Ot Soil Unit 1 (Pacolet)
sky' bi Soil Unit 2
b 13 Building
Silo
F'1 ' Basin Footprint
" Potential Jurisdictional
b2 Feature Edge
A-, �.� Stream
15 78 acres 100-Foot Buffer
2 67 acres
b12 25-Foot Buffer
//F
►I- Gulley
dcres well
S.
S . 1
.-
b7
VIA
NC QneMap• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis ej
513 Board
Thompson
Environments
Consulting
Carolina Malt House
Delineated Soil Units Map
]ate Figure
January 2017
scale
0 m, m Xee.
3
Rowan County, North Carolina
Page 9 oF27