NC0021946_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20011201

NPDES DOCIMENT :SCANNING► COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0021946
Rosman WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
December 1, 2001
Thies document is printed on reuse paper - ignore arty
content on the resrerise side

TOWN OF ROSMAN WWTP
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (EAA)
For
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION
Transylvania County, North Carolina
December 1, 2001
WKD #10583
Prepared for the:
TOWN OF ROSMAN
Post Office Box 636
Rosman, North Carolina 28772
[phone]
Prepared by:
WK DICKSON
501 Commerce Drive
Columbia, South Carolina 29223
[phone]
[phone] FAX
l-

Town Of Rosman, North Carolina
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
For
Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NUMBER
I._ GENERAL INFORMATION 1
fo, A. Basic Identification of Project 1
B. Wastewater Disposal Needs 1
1. Planning Period 1
2. Population Study 2
3. Flow Projections 3
PEI
C. Existing Facilities 4
D. Construction 5
II. EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 5
A. Connection to Sewer Collection System 5
1. Existing Sewerage System 5
fait 2. Planned Sewerage System 6
B. Land Based Disposal 6
1. Land Availability 6
2. Land Sufficiency 7
C. Wastewater Reuse 7
D. Surface Water Discharge 8
1.1 1. USGS Data 8
2. Tertiary Filtration 8
3. Process Description 8
1.' 4. Land Availability 9
5. Present Value Costs Analysis 9
fiR
E. Disposal Combinations 10
Engineering Alternatives Analysis li Town of Rosman, NC

POI
Pot
IV. APPENDICES
A. Present Value of Costs
far
B. Soil Analysis Report
C. Tax Map for Proposed WWTP Site
rpm
0.1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION
1 Town of Rosman Projected Population Chart
2 Wastewater Flow Projection Chart
+-� 3 Rosman Force Main Connection to Hwy 64
4 Rosman Wastewater Connection to Brevard
/.►
5 Land Application of Effluent Map
6 Schematic Diagram of Proposed WWTP
7 Site Plan
Po' LIST OF TABLES
PR, TABLE DESCRIPTION Page
,s°, 1 Wastewater Flow ;Records 3
°"`' Engineering Alternatives Analysis III Town of Rosman, NC

I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. BASIC IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is being performed for a proposed
wastewater treatment plant for the Town of Rosman, located in Transylvania County,
North Carolina. The postage address for the facility is P.O. Box 636, Rosman, NC
28772. The acting telephone number for the proposed facility is [phone]. This
EAA was prepared by:
Robert D. Wilroy, PE.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
501 Commerce Drive, NE
Columbia, SC 29223
[phone]
B. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL NEEDS
Grant monies have been awarded to the Town of Rosman by the USEPA and the State
of North Carolina for the rehabilitation of its sewer lines, construction of two new sewer
lines within the Town of Rosman, and for the construction of a new wastewater
treatment plant.
The determination of the quantity of sewage to be treated for a community is
fundamental to the design of disposal facilities. Planning for future wastewater
treatment needs requires estimating future increase in flows received by the treatment
plant. To estimate these future flows, the rate of increase must be predicted and a
planning period must be selected to design and size treatment facilities. The rate of
increase in sewage to be removed from a community depends on the population and
-' the per capita contribution of the sewage.
1. Planning Period
Selecting a planning period which is short sighted may result in higher Tong -term capital
improvement costs. Selecting a planning period which is too lengthy can result in
equipment becoming obsolete or worn out before its maximum capacity is reached.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis 1 Town of Rosman, NC

For wastewater collection components, such as piping, manholes and related
structures, 40 years is a commonly used planning period. For treatment works and
mechanical equipment, such as pumps, blowers, controls, etc. a commonly assumed
planning period is 20 years. This is not to say that mechanical equipment will provide
trouble free service for 20 years, rather that mechanical equipment often becomes
obsolete by advances in technology and repairs can become costly beyond a twenty
year period. Changes in regulatory agency requirements can also affect the service life
of a treatment facility, but this is a difficult factor to predict in making long range
projections.
It is recommended that the Town of Rosman's plans for expansion of their existing
wastewater treatment facility be based on a 20 year planning period and the collection
system improvements based on a 40 year period. For this report, the planning period
will be through the year 2021 for the plant facility and 2041 for the collection system.
2. Population Study
The accuracy of a population study relies on the accuracy of population data available
from a number of sources. The population data used for this report was obtained from
demographic information furnished by the State of North Carolina available to the year
2019. The population projection from the year 2021 to the year 2041 was generated by
the use of a mathematical least squares regression analysis. A Town of Rosman
Projected Population Growth Chart (Figure 1) was created in 1999, and shows the
projected growth for the Town of Rosman to the year 2039. Since the plotted trend is
approximately a straight line, the projected population through the year 2041 can easily
be extrapolated (approximately 750). The regression analysis resulted in a change in
slope for the projection curve between the years 2019 to 2020 as depicted on the graph.
The numbers generated by using the foregoing analysis generally shows a smooth
curve for the projected population growth. Typically, actual population curves can
fluctuate widely. Therefore, future populations should not be expected to coincide with
growth estimates. Additionally, the accuracy of an estimate decreases as the time
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
2 Town of Rosman, NC

period increases. A deviation from a projected population estimate is more likely to
occur with smaller communities than large cities and differences of 20% do not
particularly indicate a general diverging trend from population projections. The Town of
Rosman population growth projection information will be used with utility flow data to
determine future flow projections.
3. Flow Projections
Effluent flow data recorded for the Town of Rosman Wastewater Treatment Facility was
obtained and evaluated. The flows recorded prior to October 1998 are not indicative of
the effluent flows experienced due to the discovery of a inaccurate flow meter.
Additionally, a new flow recorder has been installed with a display range maximum of
100,000 gallons per day. The sewage flows received by the treatment facility
periodically exceed the 100,000 gallon per day range, and are not appropriately
considered in the plant records. The record data provided, despite the above noted
inaccuracies, is summarized in Town of Rosman Summary of Wastewater Flow
Records:
Table 1
Wastewater Flow Records
Annual Averages from DMRs
YEAR
AVERAGE FLOW (MGD)
MAX DAILY FLOW (MGD)
Aug. 2001 — Sep. 2000
0.068
0.090
Aug. 2000 — Sep. 1999
0.074
0.143
Aug. 1999 — Sep. 1998
0.043
0.197
Aug. 1998 — Nov. 1997*
0.061
0.094
No flow records were kept prior to November of 1997
The Average Daily Flows obtained from this table were used with an appropriate
correction factor in conjunction with the population growth rate to project future average
daily flows through the year 2039. This projection is shown graphically in the
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
3 Town of Rosman, NC

Wastewater Flow Projection chart (Figure 2). Since the plotted trend is approximately a
^ straight line, the projected wastewater flow volume can easily be extrapolated through
the year 2041 (approximately 0.375 mgd). The growth analysis curve on the graph
indicates a flow projection based on current per capita consumer rates with a future
projected population. The regression analysis curve on the graph gives future flow
projections based on increases in flow as determined by linear regression in conjunction
with the future project population. The regression analysis curve for future flow
projections is preferred to accommodate possible increased commercial and industrial
sewage flows, and due to the inaccuracy of flow data used for the growth analysis
curve.
The magnitude of dry weather flows being experienced by the wastewater treatment
facility, regardless of Ill, supports the need for expanding the treatment capacity. The
projected flows to the year 2021 were considered in conjunction with the age and
condition of the existing facility. A new waste treatment facility with a 250,000 gpd
capacity is proposed for the Town of Rosman. The increase in plant capacity from the
225,000 gallons per day, as shown on the graph, to the recommended 250,000 gallons
per day is because 250,000 gallons per day is a more readily available size for standard
equipment. For the purposes of this report, we will therefore quantify the wastewater
treatment plant discharge as 250,000 gallons per day. Since the proposed work
incorporates only a new wastewater treatment plant, two new gravity sewer lines, and
sewer line rehabilitation, there is little that can be done to incorporate flow -reducing
equipment in the Town's wastewater system. However, fliers have been sent to all of
the Town's citizens and businesses encouraging the use of waste -minimizing
appliances.
C. EXISTING FACILITIES
No existing facilities or equipment will be used in association with the proposed
wastewater treatment plant. All existing equipment is past life expectancy, and is in
need of replacement.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
4 Town of Rosman, NC

ramen
MIMA
Existing sewer lines will be utilized to direct wastewater to the new proposed
wastewater treatment facility. Several sections of sewer system have been identified by
Town officials as having severe Infiltration/Inflow (1/1) problems. Grant monies have
been awarded to the Town of Rosman to conduct an I/1 study to specifically locate
problem areas in the sewer lines, and rehabilitate them by conventional dig and replace
construction, or a trenchless method.
Additionally, two new gravity sewer lines will be constructed to connect residential
properties currently utilizing septic tanks.
D. CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed wastewater treatment plant will not be conducted in
phases. After the entire facility is constructed, the existing treatment facility will be
abandoned. Sanitary wastewater from the entire Town will be discharged into the new
treatment facility.
II. EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
A. CONNECTION TO A SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
1. Existing Sewerage System
The Town of Brevard, NC contains the nearest municipal wastewater system to
Rosman. Brevard is approximately ten (10) miles east of Rosman. The nearest
connection point into the Town of Brevard's wastewater system is approximately 46,500
feet (8.81 miles) from Rosman. Figure 3 depicts Rosman and the necessary force main
to Highway 64 on a USGS Topographic Map. Figure 4 depicts the entire force main
from Rosman to the nearest connection point in Brevard that would be necessary in
utilizing Brevard's wastewater treatment system.
Therefore, due to the extensive distance from Rosman to Brevard, a force main
transporting wastewater to an existing sewerage system would not be feasible.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis 5 Town of Rosman, NC

2. Planned Sewerage System
The Town of Rosman is in a rural area, and the nearest town is Brevard, which is
approximately 10 miles to the east. Additionally, its sanitary sewer system is the only
�- sewer system in the vicinity. There are no towns near Rosman, and therefore no
potential for any planned separate sewerage system(s).
There is no Utilities Director for Transylvania County, therefore the closest Utilities
Director, Mr. Donald Byers for the Town of Brevard, was contacted on November 21,
2001, for confirmation purposes. Mr. Byers confirmed that there were no planned
sewerage sytems in the area of Rosman to the extent of his knowledge.
B. LAND BASED DISPOSAL
1. Land Availability
Two parcels of land are available to the Town of Rosman for land disposal of effluent.
An approximately 3.4 acre parcel, and an approximate 8.0 acre parcel. These are the
only parcels of land which are available to the Town of Rosman for land disposal of
effluent. The 3.4 acre parcel is currently used as a hay field and tree plantation, and is.
approximately 1700 feet to the northeast of the proposed WWTP location. The 8.0 acre
parcel is currently vacant and grown over with weeds, and is adjacent to the northeast
of the proposed WWTP Iocation.. AU other land in the vicinity is plivatel.y_.owned and
MMITI
developed, or not available to the Town. of Rosman.....A. dditionally, as further described
below in this section, acquiring additional land (due to soil characteristics) to land apply
a more sigificant amount (than is currently available to be land applied) of effluent is not
feasible.
Resources required for this system would include a wastewater force main from the
wastewater treatment facility to the proposed land application field adjacent to the
northeast. The most effective and efficient way to land apply the effluent would be to
utilize a spray irrigation system. This system would include an effluent sump to store
water during low -flow periods for land application when necessary. It would also include
a pump with a valve pit (plug valve/check valve combination). The header line would
Engineering Alternatives Analysis 6 Town of Rosman, NC

then be distributed between several sprinklers mounted on above -grade stands. A map
depicting the location and layout of the 8.0 acre parcel, the proposed WWTP site, and
the connecting water main is attached as Figure 5.
The soil investigation (Appendix B) revealed that only the 8.0 acre parcel was
acceptable tor the land application of effluent. Soil on the 3.4 acre parcel was found to
be too saturated, and poorly drained. However, due to buffer zone regulations around
the 8.0 acre parcel, only approximately 2.7 acres can actually be used for land
application. Rosman Soil Series and Toxaway Soil Series were identified as the soil
types on the parcels. The 2.7 acres yields an annual maximum land application loading
of 285,931 gallons. The total plant design discharge will be approximately 250,000
gal/day. Discharge of all plant effluent would require approximately 862 acres of land
with similar soil classification. The 285,931 gallons per year available for spray
irrigation consists of approximately 0.31% of the total proposed plant effluent.
2. Land Sufficiency S" if
twit.
Since the soil loading rate for water application is approximately 105,894
gallons/acre/year, it would require approximately 862 acres to dispose of all effluent.
Only 2.7 acres are available for spray irrigation, and therefore 99.69% of the effluent
would have to be discharged by an alternative method. It is, therefore, proposed that a
combination of disposal methods be utilized in order to utilize the area's effluent land
application potential. This is described in further detail in Section E.
C. WASTEWATER REUSE
Rosman is a secluded small rural town. There are no industries which could use the
treated effluent, and there are no other applicable means available in the vicinity of the
Town to reuse effluent.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
7 Town of Rosman, NC

D. SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
1. USGS Data
The French Broad River runs through downtown Rosman. Data on the French Broad
River was supplied to WK Dickson by Mr. Curtis Weaver with the United States
Geological Survey (USGS). The French Broad River has a 7Q10 flow of 55 cfs, and a
30Q2 flow of 95 cfs. Therefore, this River is an acceptable recipient of effluent from the
proposed treatment facility.
2. Tertiary Filtration
°- The proposed wastewater treatment facility will include tertiary treatment utilizing cloth
disk filters. Effluent water quality is calculated to be 10 ppm of BOD, 10 ppm of TSS,
and 2 ppm of Nitrogen. Influent and effluent samples will be collected weekly at the
proposed WWTP.
MEI
3. Process Description
Wastewater from the Town of Rosman will be directed into the Raw Waste Pump
Station. This pump station will be a triplex system in which any two pumps will be
capable of handling a peak flow condition. The pumps will be operated by a level
control system. Wastewater will then pass through a rotating mechanical screw screen
(with a bar screen on standby) to remove large solids from the waste stream. Solids will
be collected in a hopper and disposed of at an acceptable landfill.
Wastewater will then travel into one of two Sequential Batch Reactors (SBRs). A dual
valve system will be utilized to ensure wastewater is discharged into only one reaction
basin at a time. Tanks will be constructed of concrete utilizing a commonwall system.
The SBRs will discharge into a post equalization basin for flow stabilization throughout
the remainder of the facility.
Wastewater from the SBRs will then undergo tertiary treatment by a multi -disk cloth
filtering system. The use of cloth disk filters allows for a much lower backwash flow,
therefore reducing size and cost of facility process equipment. Effluent from the tertiary
^— Engineering Alternatives Analysis 8 Town of Rosman, NC

filters will be disinfected utilizing Ultraviolet (UV) Light. In the event of a UV system
breakdown, a standby UV unit will be available.
Water will then be discharged into an effluent sump. A portion of the effluent will be
discharged via a separate pump into a washwater storage basin for use at the belt
— r press. Another separate pump will provide water to the spray field irrigation sites. Any
MEN
effluent not being utiiizea Tor pelt press wastewater or land application will be discharged
via gravity into a cascade aerator for final aeration and, henceforth, into the French
Broad River.
Sludge will be discharged separately from the SBRs into an aerobic digester following
the decant phase of the SBR process. Digested sludge will then be discharged .into a
sludge holding basin before being transferred via pump to a belt press located inside an
enclosed building. The belt press will dewater the digested sludge to approximately 20
percent dry solids. The dewatered sludge will be stored in a roll -off container and
transferred to an acceptable landfill as necessary.
Sufficient laboratory equipment will be installed to permit the operator to adequately
monitor the treatment processes.
Figures 6 and 7 show a schematic diagram of the major components of the proposed
wastewater treatment plant, and a site plan, respectively.
4. Land Availability
The Tax Map documenting ownership by the Town of Rosman for the proposed
treatment facility site is attached as Appendix C.
5. Present Value of Costs Analysis
A Present Value of Costs Analysis for this method of discharge is attached in Appendix
A.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis 9 Town of Rosman, NC

E. DISPOSAL COMBINATIONS
As described in section II.B.1, 0.31% of the total plant effluent can be applied to the
available spray irrigation site adjacent to the northeast of the proposed WWTP. The
remaining effluent would be discharged into the French Broad River. A Present Worth
"nalyis for this disposal combination is provided in Appendix
ppendix A.
w, - 7? s 6�
Z5 °/, %
J
a` �, 3
3. y .2+� -Ave / /71 J, .,r /,s#—u.,,..
J f'L Irk -2,7 cAL./ A4 ►-�`7/.�� IWL /" ! e... e_ L(�1G,
I. C,11 6o Z �,�iYG�,7 v,.rj
,6,Avol ,W,M uM /m,d. 7. , / J .
29S �3 / t y 0, 3/ % 1 / /7—e/
Zsa Mcooar 16.5 � = 9 / Zs/ 0-41pir coily-
, 003/
$ o i c LO/;-!�/N G ft= lV,c c11i
Maw
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
10 Town of Rosman, NC

APPENDIX A
Present Value of Cost

PRESENT VALUE OF COSTS ANALYSIS
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DISCHARGE TO FRENCH BROAD RIVER
Proposed WWTP Site is by the Town of Rosman, NC. The following capitol
costs include all materials and labor associated with construction:
A. CAPITOL COSTS (PWC)
1. Influent Pump Station $40,000
2. Rotary & Bar Screen Stand $130,000
3. Structural Concrete $250,000
4. SBR/Digester/EQ Equipment $376,000
5. Pumps and Level Controls -Storage Tanks $22,000
6. Final Filter $181,000
7. UV Disinfection $65,000
8. Blower Building $100,000
9. Maint. Shop/Sludge Building $276,000
10. Lab/Office Building $101,000
11. Generator $66,000
12. Site Grading $150,000
13. Site Paving $100,000
14. Fencing w/ Gates $15,000
15. Site Piping $125,000
16. Site Electrical $40,000
17. Grass Cover $20,000
18. Misc. Site Work $55,000 '
19. Gravity Line to River & Outfall $25,000
Subtotal $2,137,000
14. Design & Construction Supervision $431,000
15. Facility Startup and O&M Manual $15,000
16. 10% Cont. $214,000
17. 10% Admin./Legal $214,000
Grand Total $3,011,000
B. RECURRING COSTS .(Over 20 Year Planning Period)
1. Power Cost (PWP)
242,537 KWH/Year @ $0.08/KWH $19,400/year

2. Chemical Costs (PWCh)
3. Labor Costs (PWL)
5 days/week, 5 hrs/day = 1,300 hrs/year
1,300 hrs @ $20.00/hr
4. Sludge Disposal Costs (PWS)
Flow = 250,000 gpd
Approx. 8% solids from Belt Press
292 Ibs/day dry solids
Volume Generated = 666 tons/year @ $10/ton
5. DWQ Regulatory Fees (PWD)
WWTP Admin and Compliance Mon. Fee-$700
NPDES Permit Renewal Fee $250/5 years-$50/year
6. Repair Costs (PWR)
7. Testing Costs (PWT)
C. PRESENT WORTH CALCULATION
$1,500/year
$26,000/year
$6,700/year
$750/year
$2,000/year
$7,200/year
A discount rate of 6.875 will be used. Since the annual operating cost will be
approximately the same for every year, annuity tables can be used to determine
present worth.
PWC = -$3,011,000
PWP = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$19,400 = (10.7035)$19,400 =-$207,680
PWCh = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$1,500 = (10.7035)$1,500 =-$16,055
PWL = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$26,000 = (10.7035)$26,000 =-$278,288
PWS = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$6,700 = (10.7035)$6,700 =-$71,713
PWD = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$750 = (10.7035)$750 =-$8,028
PWR = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$2,000 = (10.7035)$2,000 =-$21,407
PWT = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$7,200 = (10.7035)$7,200 =-$77,065
Present Worth =
PWC+PWP+PWCh+PWL+PWS+PWD+PWR+PWT = $3,691,236

PRESENT VALUE OF COSTS ANALYSIS
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DISCHARGE TO FRENCH BROAD RIVER/SPRAY FIELD
Proposed WWTP Site is by the Town of Rosman, NC. The following capitol
costs include all materials and labor associated with construction:
A. CAPITOL COSTS (PWC)
1. Influent Pump Station
2. Rotary & Bar Screen Stand
3. Structural Concrei;e
4. SBR/Digester/EQ Equipment
5. Pumps and Level Controls -Sump & Storage Tanks
6. Final Filter
7. UV Disinfection
8. Blower Building
9. Maint. Shop/Sludge Building
10. Lab/Office Building
11. Generator
12. Site Grading
13. Site Paving
14. Fencing w/ Gates
15. Site Piping
16. Site Electrical
17. Grass Cover
18. Misc. Site Work
19. Gravity Line to River & Outfall
20. Force Main to Spray Field
21. Sprinkler Assemblies (60' throw diam.)
22. Spray Field Supply Pump
23. Spray Field Storage Lagoon
24. Sprinkler Pump
Subtotal
14. Design & Construction Supervision
15. Facility Startup and O&M Manual
16. 10% Cont.
17. 10% Admin./Legal
Grand Total
$40,000
$130,000
$278,000
$376,000
$47,000
$181,000
$65,000
$100,000
$276,000
$101,000
$66,000
$150,000
$100,000
$15,000
$125,000
$40,000
$20,000
$55,000
$25,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$5,000
$2,000
t,11JJ
$2,209,000
$431,000
$15,000
$221,000
$221,000
$3,097,000
(k7J
J0
11OJJ�

B. RECURRING COSTS (Over 20 Year Planning Period)
4 1,1 JJ
1. Power Cost (PWP)
255,630 KWH/Year @ $0.08/KWH $20,500/year
2. Chemical Costs (PWCh) $1,500/year
3. Labor Costs (PWL)
5 days/week, 5 hrs/day = 1,300 hrs/year
1,300 hrs @ $20.00/hr $26,000/year
4. Sludge Disposal Costs (PWS)
Flow = 250,000 gpd
Approx. 8% solids from Belt Press
292 Ibs/day dry solids
Volume Generated = 666 tons/year @ $10/ton $6,700/year
5. DWQ Regulatory Fees (PWD)
WWTP Admin and Compliance Mon. Fee-$700
NPDES Permit Renewal Fee $250/5 years-$50/year $750/year (4:$-")6. Repair Costs (PWR) $2,500/year
7. Testing Costs $7,200
C. PRESENT WORTH CALCULATION
A discount rate of 6.875 will be used. Since the annual operating cost will be
approximately the same for every year, annuity tables can be used to determine
present worth.
PWC = -$3,097,000
PWP = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$20,500 = (10.7035)$20,500 =-$220,068
— PWCh = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$1,500 = (10.7035)$1,500 =-$16,055
PWL = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$26,000 = (10.7035)$26,000 =-$278,288
PWS = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$6,700 = (10.7035)$6,700 =-$71,713
PWD = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$750 = (10.7035)$750 =-$8,028
PWR = (P/A, 6.875%, .20)$2,500 = (10.7035)$2,500 =-$26,759
PWT = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$7,200 = (10.7035)$7,200 =-$77,065
Present Worth =
PWC+PWP+PWCh+PWL+PWS+PWD+PWR+PWT = $3,794,976

APPENDIX B
Soil Analysis Report

0 1
SOIL SCIENTIST/AGRONOMIST REPORT
TOWN OF ROSMAN PROPOSED SPRAY DISPOSAL SITE
ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
S&ME, INC. PROJECT NO. 1588-01-044
Prepared For:
WK Dickson Engineers
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
Prepared By:
S&ME, Inc.
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410
November 2001

S&ME
November 20, 2001
WIC Dickson
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
Attn: Taylor Maxwell
Reference: SOIL SCIENTIST/AGRONOMIST REPORT
Town of Rosman, North Carolina — Proposed Spray Disposal Field
S&ME, Inc. Project No. 1588-01-044
Dear Mr. Maxwell:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has conducted a soil scientist/agronomist evaluation of approximately 11.5-
acres for the purpose of spray irrigation. The sites are located directly northeast from the Town of
Rosman existing wastewater treatment facility (Appendix I). This evaluation was provided for
inclusion in the City's application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) — Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for a non -discharge permit to operate a
spray irrigation disposal system. After evaluation of the soil properties and characteristics,
conservative estimates of the soil's infiltration rate and soil's hydraulic conductivity, theannual
allowable irrigation is 3.9 inches or 285,931 gallons per year.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
Mathew H. O'Brien, L.S.S.
Natural Resource Department Manager
S&ME, Inc.
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410
[phone]
[phone] fax
[phone]
C 07,to
C. Scott Carpenter
Soil Scientist (In Training)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2
2.0 METHODS AND DISCUSSION 3
3.0 SOIL AND FIELD DESCRIPTIONS 4
4.0 SOIL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 6
4.1 AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS AND RESERVE PHOSPHORUS 6
4.2 CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC), pH
AND PERCENT BASE SATURATION (% BS) 6
4.3 BASIC CATIONS (Ca, Mg, and K) 7
5.0 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 8
5.1 FIELD R 1 8
5.2 FIELD R-2 8
6.0 RAINFALL AND PET ESTIMATION 11
7.0 BUFERS 13
8.0 AGRONOMY REPORT 14
8.1 SUGGESTED SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN 14
8.2 ADDITIONAL FERTILLZER REQUIREMENTS 14
9.0 CONCLUSION 15
APPENDIX
Appendix I: Figures
Appendix II: Form: Spray Irrigation Discharge System - Non Permit Application Form
Appendix III: Soil Description and Narrative
Appendix IV: Soil Analysis Report
Appendix V: Estimated Potential Evapotranspiration and Estimated Precipitation

PEI
PEI
Foil
PIM
PER
pig
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the suitability of soils for spray irrigation, which
the Town of Rosman, North Carolina will incorporate in their treatment system. The proposed 11.5
acres of land is located to the northeast of the existing treatment facility. Rosman, North Carolina is
located in the southwest region of North Carolina. The coordinates for the existing facility are N
35° 08' W 82° 49'. The site is located at the intersection of US Highway 64 and US Highway 178,
approximately 0.82 miles northwest of the city. Field 1 (R-1) is directly north of the City's present
facility and field 2 (R-2) is approximately 2600 feet to the northeast of the facility. The French
Broad River is located directly south of the treatment facility. The City of Rosman is located
approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the treatment facility. A house with two structures is located
approximately 200 feet northwest of field R-1 (Appendix I). Two houses are located approximately
315 feet northwest of field R-2 (Appendix I). Old Rosman Highway is directly north of field R-2.
The following information is provided for the•purpose of incorporation into the requirements for the
non -discharge permit application form for spray irrigation disposal systems (Appendix III - FORM:
SIDS 06/94 h.).

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town Of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
2.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES
S&ME conducted an investigation of the soils throughout field R-1 and R-2. The total area
evaluated is approximately 11.5 acres. The soil scientist investigation was conducted to evaluate
the suitability of the soils with regard to a spray irrigation disposal system permitted by the
NCDENR-DWQ. Hand -auger borings were advanced across the 11.5 acres to characterize the site
soils (Appendix I, Figure 3 & 4). Detailed soil profile descriptions were made to a depth of seven
feet below land surface to characterize the soils potential suitability for spray irrigation (Appendix
III). The soil scientist evaluation includes a description for soil texture, color, structure, depth, and
thickness of soil horizons. The evaluation includes identifying depth, thickness, any restrictive
horizon(s) if present, depth of seasonal high water table, and an evaluation to provide field
estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity. The soils on the two fields, where the soil borings
were conducted, was described to the series level using current United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS)-Soil Taxonomy.
The soil profile descriptions represents the soil characteristics that were dominant across the site.
Soil samples were taken on October 30, 2001 using a 0.75" diameter stainless steel soil probe.
Areas sampled included: R-1 and R-2. Samples R-1 and R-2 were taken in accordance with prior
sampling schemes. Notes were recorded at each field with regard to vegetative cover and soil
conditions. Soil samples were taken in accordance with a map of both field R-1 and R-2 spray
fields (Appendix I, Figure 4). Each sample was labeled by field location.
Soil samples were analyzed by A & L Eastern Agricultural Laboratories in Richmond, Virginia for
the following criteria: organic matter, plant available phosphorus (P), extractable potassium (K),
magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), pH, buffer pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and percent base
saturation (%BS). A copy of laboratory results is included in this report (Appendix IV).

NMI
MIN
0111
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
3.0 SOIL AND FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
Soil series have been identified and verified in the field by hand -auger borings advanced across the
proposed 11.5 acres. Two series of soils, Toxaway and Rosman were identified. A Rosman-
Toxaway association was observed in field R-1 (Appendix I, Figure 3 & 4). This combination of
two soil series is commonly found along broad flood plains and is frequently flooded. This
association can be classified as having well drained to very poorly drained soils, which are nearly
level and are underlain by loam and sandy loam or that has subsoil dominantly of silty clay loam.
Other minor soil series that might make up this association could be one of the following: Augusta
and Delanco soils on stream terraces, Ponzer and Suncock soils on flood plains, or Brevard on toe
slopes. During the site reconnaissance, only the characteristics of the Rosman soil series was
observed in field R-1, with some minor inclusions of -characteristics of the Toxaway soil series.
General observations seen in field R-1 were loam and clay loam underlain with sand and sandy
loam. The seasonal high water table was commonly seen around 65 to 70 inches and was
distinguished by common, medium, distinct dark brown mottles. Bedrock rock was encountered at
an approximate depth of 80 inches. Small inclusions of poorly drained, fine sandy loam underlain
with silty clay loam were observed in the southern end of field R-1.
ism
Field R-1 has a healthy stand of rye grass with approximately 80 % ground cover. Few broadleaf
weeds were observed during the field visit. Excellent drainage was observed throughout the
majority of the field due to a drainage ditch running along the northwest field boundary and
continuing on around the southwest field boundary to the French Broad River. A few highly
saturated areas were observed in the southeast corner of field R-1 and are noted on the soils map
(Appendix I, Figure 3 & 4). Horses were seen roaming in the northeast portion of field R-1.
Overall, the field appeared to be under good management control and care.

OKI
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
Only characteristics of the Toxaway soil series were observed in field R-2. This soil series consists
of very poorly drained soils on nearly level stream flood plains and is frequently flooded. The
surface is typically high in organic matter and has a silty clay texture underlain with a dark loam.
This series typically has a moderate shrink -swell potential with a deep root zone.
POM
General observations seen in field R-2 were dark silt loam surface and dark gray silty clay subsoil
observed at approximately 14 inches below grade, underlain with a dark gray sandy clay. Few,
faint dark brown mottles were observed at approximately 35 inches below grade throughout field
R-2. One drainage ditch was seen on the northwest field boundary leading off the field to the
French Broad River. A second drainage ditch was also observed on the west field boundary leading
f"'+ south to the French Broad River. A seasonal high water table was observed within approximately
14 inches of the natural soil surface. The apparent water table was commonly seen around
owl approximately 48 inches and at this depth the silty clay content increased. The matrix of the subsoil
became gleyed at approximately 48 inches.
Field R-2 was observed to have a poor stand of rye grass. The field has large stands of switchgrass
and other broadleaf weeds throughout. A majority of the field appeared to be fallow. Horses were
seen roaming in the field and stable areas. Overall, the field appeared to be under poor
PIM
management care and control.
opt

11714
Mgt
ani
r+l
PER
ran
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
4.0 SOIL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Two representative soil samples were collected from the upper 4 — 6 inches of both the 8 acre and
3.5 acre site and submitted to A&L Eastern Agricultural Laboratory. The results for this analysis
are in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1 LABORATORY ANALYSIS
ORGANIC
PHOSPHORUS
BRAY P1 (ppm) BRAY 2 (ppm)
POTASSIUM
ppm
MANESIUM
ppm
CALCIUM
ppm
FIELD
MATTER (%)
R 1
3.7
34
49
54
90
510
R-2
5.9
20
41•
65
130
740
FIELD
pH
SOIL
CEC •
meq/100g
PERCENT BASE SATURATION .
POTASSIUM % MAGNESIUM CALCIUM % HYDROGEN%
OFFER INDE
R-1
5.8
6.85
4-.2 '
3.3
17.7
60
19
R-2
5.9
6.83
6
2.8
18.1
61.9
17.1
4.1 AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS AND RESERVE PHOSPHORUS
The soil average available phosphorus (P) was 34 parts per million (ppm) or 68 pounds per acre
(lbs./acre) while the average reserve P was 49 ppm or 98 lbs./acre. According to the soil test
results, P levels were low to medium.
eibb 4.2 CATION EXCHANGE •CAPACITY (CEC), pH, AND PERCENT BASE
SATURATION (% BS)
The surface soil CEC averaged 5.1 milliequivalents per 100 gram of soil (meq/100g) and is an
inherent property of soils that is unlikely to change. The low CEC can be contributed to frequent
'"" flooding, which deposits low CEC textured soils. The ability of the soil to hold nutrients is low and
consequently there may be a high leaching potential of nutrients and metals through the soil profile.
POW
6

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
The soil pH averaged 5.8 standard units. This pH value is slightly below average for uptake of
nutrients and heavy metals on annual ryegrass and Coastal Bermudagrass. The optimal pH should
be maintained around 6.5. An annual application of calcium carbonate should be considered if the
pH falls below 5.5. Annual soil sampling is recommended to ensure crop demand of nutrients are
meet.
The soil percent base saturation (%BS) is the percentage of the soil cation exchange sites that are
occupied by basic cations (Mg, Ca, K, and Na). The %BS is an important parameter in relation to
soil properties and plant nutrition. When considering those basic cations that are important for plant
development, the %BS most often recommended is: Ca (65 - 75%); Mg (10 - 15%); and K (2 - 5%)
The average soil %BS was as follows: Ca (60.0), Mg (17.7), and K (3.3). Application of dolomitic
limestone is recommended to increase the pH and % BS.
4.3 BASIC CATIONS (Ca, Mg, and K)
The Ca and Mg available for plant uptake averaged 625 ppm (1250 lbs./acre) and 110 ppm (220
lbs./acre) respectively. Soil test analyses list Mg in the high to very high range and Ca in the
medium range. Soil samples should be collected in the summer to evaluate the Ca status and lime
requirement of the soil.
The available K averaged 60 ppm (120.0 lbs./acre). Soil test analyses list K in the low range. Based
on soil test results, K additions are needed for the future uptake by plants. Potash is recommended
to increase K to suitable levels. It is recommended that approximately 240 lbs. per acre of potash
be applied as spilt applications after each cutting (if three cuttings are possible, then potash
applications should be divided into thirds).

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
Wet 5.0 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
Soil borings conducted on the site have been evaluated in relation to soil texture, soil structure, and
oft
soil consistence to provide field estimates of hydraulic conductivity. There are two common
methods of estimating the soil drainage component for spray irrigation systems (1) the EPA
Method, and (2) the Carlisle and Philips Method. The EPA method (1981) uses a percentage of the
saturated hydraulic conductivity of the most restrictive lorizon to estimate soil drainage. The
ram
Carlile and Phillips (1976) method is based on the characteristics of the surface layer or the root,
zone. S&ME has chosen to use the Carlisle and Phillips method to estimate soil drainage for field
0.1
R-1.
5.1 FIELD R 1
Field R-1 does not have any soil characteristics that are restrictive. For field R-1, irrigation rates
are based on drainage from the surface soil. The surface soil is approximately 15 inches below
grade and is a loamy texture.
fag
Drainage from the soil is the difference between field capacity and permanent wilting point. Field
capacity is the water content after a soil is wetted and allowed to drain. Permanent wilting point
represents the lower limit to which a plant can still extract water from the soil. For a loamy soil, the
drainage is two inches of water per foot of soil. Field R-1 has a surface soil depth of approximately
1.25 feet with drainage approximately 2.5 inches.
5.2 FIELD R-2
le' S&ME has chosen to use the WaterMod2 (Greenhat Software) is a field infiltration/runoff
simulator to estimate soil drainage for field R-2. Field R-2 has a restrictive clayey horizon located
approximately at 14 inches below the natural soil surface. This horizon has slow permeability and
�► 8

Nig
Pout
PEN
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
the irrigation rate must be adjusted to accommodate. This silty clay horizon has a permeability of
approximately 0.1 inches per hour according to Soil & Water Conservation Engineering (1999).
S&ME modeled two approaches to determine how much water would runoff field R-2. Using the
estimated data in Table 2, the surface and subsurface runoff was calculated.
The first approach modeled a large amount of water, (25 rnm) applied to the soil. This amount of
water produced no surface runoff, but with an estimated average monthly application of 25 mm, or
93,000 gallons, will move approximately 95% of the water horizontally off site. This horizontal
movement would not allow the water to be absorbed into the soil for treatment.
The second approach modeled a relatively small amount of water, 5 mm, or 18,700 gallons being
applied to the soil. At this rate, no runoff would occur on the surface and an estimated 20% will
move horizontally through the subsurface. Moderate treatment would be provided using this
application rate
TABLE 2 ESTIMATED FIELD DATA
—155 an
SOIL DEPTH
HYDRAULIC IIVITY(Ksat) OFAHORIZcN
19.2 anPFRDAY
HYDRAULIC ODNUETIVITY (Ksat) OF B HORIZON
0.6 cmPERDAY
EVAPORATEN DEPTHOFS IL
• 5 an
FIELDCAPACITY
35%
GROUND COVER
80%
DIMMED PREFERENTIAL
33 nmPERWEFK
RWT EEM
PREQPTTA'IICN
24 nmPERDAYCCCURING CNJULY 15
MAXPOTENTIAL EVCN
0 cmPERDAY
This low volume of water approach does not show runoff occurring on the surface, it also does not
include water that is moving horizontally across the restrictive horizon. Based on the seasonal high
Wel

rot
7.7
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
water table observed across R-2 and a loading rate of less than 5 mm per month, field R-2 should
not be considered as a spray irrigation field.
10

+�1
POW
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
6.0 RAINFALL AND PET ESTIMATION
/al The amount of effluent that could be irrigated is a function of how well the soil drains, local
monthly precipitation and the potential evapotranspiration from the field. Precipitation and
PIO evapotranspiration vary by region, so estimations must be made according to data that has been
gathered over a period of time by climatologists.
Potential Evapotranspiration (PET) is the water loss through transpiration from vegetation plus
evaporation from the soil. PET varies by both season and region. It is lower in the winter
months in the mountains and higher in the summer months in the coastal plain. To determine the
actual PET, S&ME used an ongoing evaporation study ir: Catalcochee, North Carolina that was
calculated by the South Carolina State Climatology Office. This study collected data using the
pan evaporation method. Evaporation from a pan is usually greater than the actual evaporation
from nearby land surfaces; thus S&ME used a commonly accepted pan evaporation of 70%.
`' (Appendix V)
fon
faIBI
PIO
PRI
To calculate the allowable irrigation we must subtract the total losses, which include
evapotranspiration and drainage, from the average monthly precipitation. The monthly
precipitation data was gathered from the Internet site www.weather.com (Appendix V). The only
months were rainfall does not exceed PET are April, May, June, July, and September. Using this
data implies that no application should be made during any other months.
PER
A•, 11

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
Amml
Allowable monthly irrigation data was calculated using the mass balance approach on a monthly
basis, with potential evapotranspiration and precipitation values. Data for Toxaway-Rosman
A., Association are listed below in Table 3, and application rates should be based upon these results.
It is recommended that applications should be performed in two -half intervals of four to six hours
�*�► each, rather than one application rate for the week. Sufficient time between applications will be
necessary to allow proper drainage of the soil.
PAM
TABLE 3 HARDY AND EPPERSON SOIL WATER BALANCE PER ACRE
Month
(1)
Potential
Evapotranspiration
(inches)
(2)
Drainage
(inches)
(3)
Total
Losses
(inches)
(4)
PPT
(inches)
(5)
Allowable
Irrigation
(inches)
(6)
Allowable
Irrigation
(gallons)
January
0.00
2.50
2.50 1
4.90
-2.40
February
0.00
2.50
2.50
5.40
-2.90
-
March
0.00
2.50
2.50
6.40
-3.90
-
April
3.23
2.50
5.73
4.70
1.03
75,515.27
May
3.89
2.50
6.39
5.90
0.49
35,924.74
June
4.16
2.50
6.66
5.60
1.06
77,714.75
July
4.22
2.50
6.72
5.90
0.82
60,118.96
August
3.87
2.50
6.37
6.50
-0.13
September
3.10
2.50
5.60
5.10
0.50
36,657.90
October
2.15
2.50
4.65
5.30
-0.65
-
November
1.98
2.50
4.48
5.40
-0.92
-
December
0.00
2.50
2.50
5.90
-3.40
-
Annual sum of allowable inigatio 285,931.62

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
fon
7.0 BUFFER AREAS
tem All buffer areas shown on Appendix I, Figure 4 are in accordance with the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Administrative Code Section: 15A
e•► NCAC 2H.0200 Waste not Discharged to Surface Waters.. According to Section .0219, Minimum
Design Requirements, buffers applied to field R-1 include a 100-foot buffer for the drainage ditch
bordering the field to the east, a 400-foot buffer for the house located approximately 250 feet to the
northwest of the field, and a 200-foot buffer for the French Broad River directly southeast of field
R-1. Total acreage for the buffers is approximately 5.3 acres and the total remaining area for the
spray field is approximately 2.7 acres. All inclusions for the Toxaway soils in field R-1 fall
within the 200-foot French Broad River buffer.
Buffers applied to field R-2 include a 100-foot buffer for the drainage ditches bordering the field to
the north and east and a 400-foot buffer for the houses located approximately 300 feet northwest of
R-2. The total area for the buffers is approximately 3.06 acres with a total remaining acreage for the
spray field of approximately 0.44 acres.

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
8.0 AGRONOMY REPORT
0.1
8.1 SUGGESTED SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN
0.0
Field R-1 is suitable to forage operations or hay production. Bermuda Grass and Fescue, as well as
other types of forage, are documented to be able to uptake approximately 250 pounds of
FIR
Nitrogen/acre/year. To ensure maximum uptake of nutrients from the bio-solids by the grass, weed
species need to be minimized and based on the soil analysis, additional fertilizer requirements are
0.►
suggested. Once biosolid applications begin, the selected crop will grow more rapid, because
nutrients, weeds and water will not limit crop production. This requires frequent cuttings by the
site manager. Considerations are suggested that when an application event occurs the site manager
check the depth (to approximately 36 inches of the natural foil surface) of the apparent water table
in the field. This is to prevent contamination of the groundwater.
fan
8.2 ADDITIONAL FERTILLZER REQUIREMENTS
Annual soil sampling is recommended to ensure that the crop demands of nutrients are meet. Soil
tests should be taken annually in the early fall to determine nutrient and micronutrient availability.
Fo+ Soil testing is the most accurate way to determine the rate and grade of fertilizer to apply.
Recommended soil analyses are needed for Heavy Metals, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, pH,
CEC, Percent Base Saturation, and Percent Hydrogen. The optimal pH should be maintained at
approximately 6.5. An annual application of Calcium Carbonate should be considered if the pH
falls below 5.5. An application of dolomitic limestone is recommended to increase the pH and %
BS. It is recommended that approximately 240 pounds per acre of potash be applied as spilt
applications after each cutting (if three cuttings are possible then potash applications should be
divided into thirds).

furl
PEI
full
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
Town of Rosman, North Carolina November 20 , 2001
9.0 CONCLUSION
Approximately 2.7 acres of the original 11.5 acres were found to be suitable for seasonal use as a
spray irrigation disposal field. This area is shown in Appendix I, Figure 4. This soil is well drained
with slopes of 0 - 1 percent. The yearly allowable spray irrigation rate is 3.9 inches per acre. This
will allow the City of Rosman to apply an annual total of approximately 285,931 gallons of
effluent.

fat
114
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report
Town of Rosman, North Carolina
CLOSING
S&ME Project No. 1588-01-044
November 20 , 2001
S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide you with this report. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free call us.
Sincerely,
�., S&ME, Inc.
Mathew H. O'Brien, L.S.S.
Natural Resource Department Manager
C. Scott Carpenter
Soil Scientist (In Training)
Senior Review provided by Brad McLester, P. E., Branch Manager
Attachments:
• Appendix I:
Appendix II:
Appendix III:
Appendix IV:
Appendix V:
Figures
FORM: Spray Irrigation Discharge System - Non -Discharge Permit
Application Form
Soil Description & Narrative
Soil Analysis Report
Estimated Potential Evapotranspiration
Estimated Precipitation
16

171,
APPENDIX I
FIGURES

col
E�1
SCALE:
1 Tzrtti/r, � (Nthop (`trek
E+;�7UrrEwr •
f L'E[t!J
j o f1 t r t1 ii 1
its:- r �. ..... r
t 1.� i3{� r - nitrta,Fttrk3 ,`trtl��>ji�
7f tJ�f�t.4 , r- r� ':' � E3,�E�:itttt Cit rlt'e " l�1tt�lht3:tf'..��.r•�NArt,.
� )%j
.`.! ..n!.r. r`. !yf '
I, )}..ti. . rt
. f , r j{j 1f
1"=4600'
CHECKED BY: CGL
DRAWN BY:
CSC
DATE:
11-20-01
UNE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • ENGINEERING • TESTING
TOWN OF ROSMAN-PROPOSED SPRAY APPLICATION FIELDS
VICINITY MAP
ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
JOB NO.
1588-01-044 WK DICKSON
FIGURE NO.
1

t�1
Pot
?)\
1
L./ ■
1',, 1s • ��.._ a i
V. •
\\, ♦ ' 4 �w
v \ ' *`
s , t ‘.10 it
A Co
•
vj L.y '• • \r
{•J.
•
1 \ ▪ •A ( f t
r-" • s
Il • 8 amply` �, �� y s {
To 1
•
0' -
4'
�d>�I[• /� t� r:".�= ( �, (/ ram`
tir''L/"
„,, ���,�-- ` ,, I) z1°� .-..' -‘
t
• ( 0. ;_ , y .— r-"`... it i ; . s' -
3-DTopaQuads Copyright co 1999 DeLorme Yarmouth, 61E04096 Source Data: USGS �1346 ft Scale: 1 • 12,800 Detail:140 Datum: NAD27
SCALE:
AS SHOWN
CHECKED BY: CGL
DRAWN BY:
CSC
DATE:
11-20-01
S&ME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • ENGINEERING • TESTING
TOWN OF ROSMAN-PROPOSED SPRAY APPLICATION FIELDS
TOPOGRAPHY MAP/APPROXIMATE SOIL BOUNDARIES
ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
JOB NO.
1588-01-044 WK DICKSON
FIGURE NO.
2

SCALE:
1"=400'
CHECKED BY: CGL
DRAWN BY:
CSC
DATE:
11-20-01
S&ME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • ENGINEERING • TESTING
TOWN OF ROSMAN-PROPOSED SPRAY APPLICATION FIELDS
NRCS SOIL SURVEY
ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
JOB NO.
1588-01-044 WK DICKSON
FIGURE NO.
3

RIR
♦ -Main
Stree
To osman
French Broad River
SCALE:
1"=200'
CHECKED BY: CGL
DRAWN BY:
CSC
DATE:
11-20-01
S&ME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • ENGINEERING • TESTING
TOWN OF ROSMAN-PROPOSED SPRAY APPLICATION FIELDS
CONFIRMED SOIL BOUNDARIES
ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
JOB NO.
1588-01-044 WK DICKSON
FIGURE NO.
4

- inin
Stree
French Broad River
* PLEASE NOTE: Buffer areas depicted above reflect assumption that adjacent property owner is not the same
Legend
SCALE:
1"=200'
CHECKED BY: CGL
DRAWN BY: CSC
DATE:
11-20-01
SBME
• Dwelling
A Structure (Barn)
cfp Pond
Well
/////// Buffer Area
W Wet Area
/Wv\ Wooded Area
—•---� Drainageway
Access Road
--- Property Line
x-x-x Fence
® Hand Auger Boring
TOWN OF ROSMAN-PROPOSED SPRAY APPLICATION FIELD
BUFFER MAP
ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
JOB NO. 1588=01-044 WK DICKSON
5
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • ENGINEERING • TESTING

pal
APPENDIX II
SPRAY IRRIGATION DISPOSAL SYSTEM
NON -DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM

004
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Non -Discharge Permit Application Form
(THIS FORM MAY BE PHOTOCOPIED FOR USE AS AN ORIGINAL)
SPRAY IRRIGATION DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
I. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Applicant's name (please specify the name of the municipality, corporation, individual, etc.):
2. Print Owners or Signing Official's name and title (the person who is Legally responsible for the facility and its compliance):
3. Mailing address:
City:
State: Zip:
Telephone Number. (_ )
Aga 4. Project Name (subdivision, facility, or establishment name - should be consistent with project name on plans,
specifications, letters of flow acceptance, Operational Agreements, etc.):
Imo
5. Location of Spray Irrigation Facility (Street Address):
A•' City: State: Zip:
6. Latitude: ; Longitude of Spray Irrigation Facility
7. Contact person who can answer questions about application:
Name: Telephone Number. ( )
8. Application Date:
9. Fee Submitted: $ [The permit processing fee should be as specified in 15A NCAC 2H .0205(c)(5).]
10. County(ies) where project is located:
II. PERMIT INFORMATION:
1. Application No. (will be completed by DEM):
2. Specify whether project is: new; renewal'; modification
* For renewals, complete only sections I, II, and applicant signature (on page 7). Submit only pages 1, 2, and 7 (original
and three copies of each). Engineer's signature not required for renewal without other modifications.
3. If this application is being submitted as a result of a renewal or modification to an existing permit, list the existing permit
number and its issue date
00
100
,•n
110
4. Specify whether the applicant is
public or private.
FORM: SIDS 06/94 Page 1 of 8

fal► III. INFORMATION ON WASTEWATER:
I. Nature of Wastewater. % Domestic; % Commercial; % Industrial;
A•► % Other waste (specify):
pa
2. Please provide a one or two word description specifying the origin of the wastewater, such as school, subdivision, hospital,
commercial, industrial, apartments, etc.:
3. If wastewater is not domestic in nature, what level of pretreatment has been provided to ensure protection of the receiving
wastewater treatment facility:
4. Volume of wastewater generated by this project gallons per day
5. Explanation of how the wastewater volume was determined:
6. Brief project description:
IV. FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SINGLE FAMILY SPRAY IRRIGATION
1. Number of bedrooms: x 120 GPD per bedroom = gallons (minimum 240 GPD design flow per home).
2. Dimensions of baffled septic tank: ft by ft. by ft.
mil 3. Volume of baffled septic tank: gallons.
4. Check the categories that apply for the sand filter: surface; subsurface; single; dual;
AM in series; in parallel; recirculating; pressure dosed.
5. a) Primary sand filter dimensions: ft by ft = square feet.
b) Sand filter surface loading rate: GPD per square foot.
MR
6. a) Secondary sand filter dimensions (if applicable) ft. by ft. = square feet.
b) Secondary sand filter surface loading rate (if applicable) GPD per square foot.
7. Type of disinfection:
Volume of contact tank: gallons; and detention time: minutes
'O" 8. Volume of storage provided: gallons; Storage time provided: days
NOTE: A minimum of 5 days storage must be provided in the pump/storage tank.
9. Volume of pump tank: gallons; number of pumps in pump tank
10. Capacity of pumps in pump tank: GPM
11. Specify which high water alarms have been provided: audible and visual; auto dial
FORM: SIDS 06/94 Page 2 of 8

+�+ 12. Specify the following information for the spray nozzles: psi; GPM
13. Specify the loading rate recommendation, as determined by the soils scientist:
full inches per hour, inches per week; inches per year
14. Specify the square footage of the wetted 'irrigation area: square feet,
and the cover crop:
15. Specify the loading rate that will occur on the spray irrigation field:
inches per hour, inches per week; inches per year
16. The project must conform to the following buffers (and all other applicable buffers):
a) 400 feet between wetted area and any residence under separate ownership;
b) 150 feet between wetted area and property lines, 200 feet in coastal areas;
c) 100 feet between wetted area and a potable well;
d) 100 feet between wetted area and drainage ways or surface waters;
e) 50 feet between wetted area and public right -of -ways;
f) 100 feet between wastewater treatment units and a potable well;
g) 50 feet between wastewater treatment units and property lines.
17. If any of the buffers specified in No. IV. 16 above are not being met, please explain how the proposed buffers will provide
equal or better protection of the Waters of the State with no increased potential for nuisance conditions:
18. NOTE: If excavation into bedrock is required for installation of the septic tank or sand filter, the respective pit must be
lined with at least a 10 mil synthetic liner. The engineer's signature and seal on this application acknowledges a
commitment to meet this requirement.
19. The spray irrigation field must be fenced with a minimum two strand barbed wire fencing. Briefly describe the fencing:
V. FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA FOR OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY SYSTEMS
1. Provide a brief listing of the components of this treatment and disposal system, including dimensions and capacities of
tanks, pumping facilities, nozzles, high water alarms, filters, lagoons, package treatment units, disinfection facilities,
irrigation system, etc.:
2. Name of closest downslope surface waters:
3. Classification of closest downslope surface waters:
Commission and specified on page 6 of 8 of this application).
4. If a power failure at the pump station could impact waters classified as WS, SA, B, or SB, describe which of the measures
are being implemented to prevent such impact, as required in 15A NCAC 2H .0200:
(as established by the Environmental Management
FORM: SIDS 06/94 Page 3 of 8

,..� 5. Specify the loading rate recommendations as determined by the soils scientist (The Division will considered higher loading
rates in the dry months (June 1 - September 301 depending on the soils scientist recommendations). If only one loading
rate will be proposed. that rate must be the most restrictive loading rate.
,mr1 Dry Months (June 1- September 30) inches per hour; inches per week
Wet Months (October 1- May 31) inches per hour, inches per week
Recommended Maximum inches per year
fug
6. For industrial wastewater, an analysis of nutrients, heavy metals totals, and synthetic organics must be provided along with
appropriate calculations showing the loading rate, based on the most limiting constituent. The chemical analysis must
Am, include, but chill not be limited to: Total Organic Carbon, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand,
Chlorides, Phosphorus, Ammonia, Nitrates, Phenol, Total Trihalomethanes, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Analyses, Total Halogenated Compounds, Total Coliforms, and Total Dissolved Solids.
fun What is the limiting non -hydraulic constituent for this waste? pounds per acre per year of
7. Specify the square footage of the wetted irrigation area square feet,
and the cover crop:
8. Specify the hydraulic loading rate that will occur on the spray irrigation field:
ram►
Dry Months (June 1- September 30)
Wet Months (October 1- May 31)
inches per hour, inches per week
inches per hour, inches per week
Maximum Application inches per year
lbs. per acre per year of: (limiting constituent)
9. Is hydraulics the limiting constituent? Yes; No.
10. Specify the storage volume required by the water balance: gallons; days
11. Volume of storage provided gallons and yields: days
NOTE: Minimum thirty days required at the design flow rate.
12. If any of the applicable buffers noted in TV.16 are not being met, please explain how the proposed buffers will provide
equal or better protection of the Waters of the State with no increased potential for nuisance conditions:
13. The treatment and spray irrigation facilities must be posted and secured in some fashion to prevent unauthorized entry.
Briefly describe the measures being taken:
14. Is the treatment facility capable of treating the wastewater to at least secondary limits prior to storage (BOD5 S 30 mg/L;
TSS S 30 mg/L; NH3 515 mg/L; Fecal Coliform S 200 colonies/100 ml)? Yes No. If No, what level of
treatment can be achieved?
15. Are treatment facility or spray fields located within 100-year flood plain? Yes No. If Yes, briefly describe the
protective measures being taken to protect against flooding.
16. List the Field Number of any spray fields that are located in area where the seasonal high water table is less than 3 feet
below the surface?
17. Describe the disinfection facilities that are being provided if domestic wastewater:
FORM: SIDS 06/94 Page 4 of 8

Rim
THIS APPLICATION PACKAGE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNLESS ALL OF THE APPLICABLE ITEMS ARE
INCLUDED WITH THE SUBMITTAL
a. One original and four copies of the completed and appropriately executed application form.
b. The aypwpiiate permit processing fee, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0205(c)(5).
c. Five (5) sets of detailed plans and specifications signed and sealed by a North Carolina Professional Engineer. The plans must
include a general location map, a topographic map, a site map which indicates where borings or hand auger samples were taken, a
map showing the land application site, buffers, structures, and property lines; along with all wells, surface waters (100-year flood
fun
elevation), and surface drainage features within 500 feet of the land application site. Each sheet of the plans and the first page of
the specifications must be signed and sealed.
d. Five (5) copies of an Operational Agreement (original and 4 copies) must be submitted if the wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities will be serving single family residences, condominiums, mobile. homes, or town houses and if the subject facilities will
be owned by the individual residents, a homeowners association, or a developer.
e. Five (5) copies of all reports, evaluations, agreements, supporting calculations, etc. must be submitted as a part of the supporting
documents which are signed and sealed by the NC Professional Engineer. Although certain portions of this required submittal
must be developed by other professionals. inclusion of these materials under the signature and seal of a NC Professional Engineer
signifies that he has reviewed this material and has judged it to be consistent with his proposed design.
f. Five (5) copies of the existing permit if a renewal or modification.
g . For Single Family Systems (a through f above plus g. 1, '2, 3)
1) A letter from the local health deparanent denying the site for any permit that the health department has the authority to issue.
f•► 2) A soils scientist report (signed) which describes the soil type, color, texture through the B horizon, and recommended loading
rates with supporting calculations.
3) A signed and notarized Operation and Maintenance Agreement.
fun h. For Other Than Single Family (a through f above plus h. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
1) A water balance analysis showing annual amount of wastewater that will need to be applied and the amount of land necessary
to receive the wastewater at the given loading rate. Storage requirements must be addressed and supporting calculations
AEI
provided.
2) A soils scientist report (signed) which includes texture, color, and structure of soils down to a depth of seven feet, depth,
+�+ thickness and type of any restrictive horizons, hydraulic conductivity in the most restrictive horizon, Cation Exchange
Capacity (CEC), depth of seasonal high water table, soil pH, and soils map (if available).
3) For systems treating industrial waste or any system with a design flow greater than 25,000 GPD a Hydrogeologic Report
providing the extent and lithologic character of the unconfined aquifer, transmissivity and specific yield of the unconfined
aquifer, thickness and permeability of the first confining bed, groundwater quality and direction of movement, and an
evaluation of impacts of the disposal system on water levels, movement and quality.
rmq
4) An agronomist report (signed) which states the type of vegetation that is planned for the spray fields, along with management
and harvest schedules.
5) Proposal for groundwater monitoring.
6) An analysis of the wastewater, including heavy metals totals and synthetic organics, along with calculations for the most
limiting constituents.
�„, FORM: SIDS 06/94 Page 5 of 8

Oil
PEI
This form must be completed by the appropriate DEM regional office and included as a part of
the project submittal information.
INSTRUCTIONS TO NC PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER:
The classification of the downslope surface waters (the surface waters that any overflow from the facility would flow toward)
f•► in which this spray irrigation system will be constructed must be determined by the appropriate DEM regional office.
Therefore, you are required, prior to submittal of the application package, to submit this form, with items 1
through 7 completed, to the appropriate Division of Environmental Management Regional Water Quality Supervisor (see
page 8 of 8). At a minimum, you must include an 8.5" by 11" copy of the portion of a 7.5 minute USGS Topographic Map
r'"' which shows the location of this spray irrigation system and the downslope surface waters in which they will be located.
Identify the closest downslope surface waters on the attached map copy. Once the regional office has completed the
classification, reincorporate this completed page and the topographic map into the complete
o► application form and submit the application package.
1. Applicant (specify name of the municipality, corporation, individual, etc.):
ALI
2. Name & complete address of engineering firm:
Telephone number. ( )
3. Project name:
4. Name of closest downslope surface waters:
5. County(ies) where the spray irrigation system and surface waters are located:
6. Map name and date:
7. NC Professional Engineer's Seal, Signature, and Date:
TO: REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR
Please provide me with the classification of the watershed where these sewers will be constructed, as identified on the attached
map segment:
aim Name of surface waters:
Classification (as established by the Environmental Management Commission):
Proposed classification, if applicable:
Signature of regional office personnel: Date:
(All attachments must be signed)
FORM: SIDS 06/94 Page 6 of 8

Name and Complete Address of Engineering Firm:
City: State: Zip:
Telephone Number: ( )
Professional Engineer's Certification:
rw 1 , attest that this application for
has been reviewed by me and is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. i further attest that to the best of my knowledge
MIR the proposed design has been prepared in accordance with the applicable regulations. Although certain portions of this submittal
package may have been developed by other professionals, inclusion of these materials under my signature and seal signifies that I have
reviewed this material and have judged it to be consistent with the proposed design.
rim North Carolina Professional Engineer's Seal, Signature, and Date:
rim
Applicant's Certification:
'"' , attest that this application for
I,
has been reviewed by me and is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that if all required parts of this
fun
application are not completed and that if all required supporting information and attachments are not included, this application package
will be returned to me as incomplete.
+�+ Signature Date
THE COMPLETED APPLICATION PACKAGE, INCLUDING ALL SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND
MATERIALS, SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
•
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
POST OFFICE BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
FAX NUMBER: [phone]
miq
FORM: SIDS 06/94 Page 7 of 8

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGIONAL OFFICES (11/93)
Asheville Regional WQ Supervisor
59 Woodfin Place
fW Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Viol
0,01
MIA
PIM
Avery Macon
Buncombe Madison
Bursae McDowell
Caldwell Mitchell
Cherokee Polk
Clay Rutherford
Graham Swain
Haywood Transylvania
Henderson Yancy
Jackson
Fayetteville Regional WQ Supervisor
Wachovia Building, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Anson Moore
Bladen Robeson
Cumberland Richmond
Harnett Sampson
Hoke Scotland
Montgomery
Washington Regional WQ Supervisor
Post Office Box 1507
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Beaufort Jones
Berrie Lenoir
Camden Martin
Chowan Pamlico
Craven Pasquotank
Currituck Perquimans
Dare Pitt
Gates Tyrell
Greene Washington
Hertford Wayne
Hyde
Winston-Salem Regional WQ Supervisor
8025 North Point Boulevard, Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Alamance Rockingham
Alleghany Randolph
Ashe Stokes
Caswell . Surry
Davidson Watauga
Davie Wilkes
Forsyth Yadkin
Guilford
Mooresville Regional WQ Supervisor
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Alexander Mecklenburg
Cabamis Rowan
Catawba S tanly
Gaston Union
Iredell Cleveland
Lincoln
Raleigh Regional WQ Supervisor
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Chatham
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Granville
Halifax
Johnston
Lee
Nash
Northampton
Orange
Person
Vance
Wake
Warren
Wilson
Wilmington Region. WQ Supervisor
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Brunswick
Carteret
Columbus
Duplin
New Hanover
Onslow
Pender
FORM: SIDS 06/94
Page 8 of 8

APPENDIX III
SOIL DESCRIPTION & NARRATIVE

S34y11,ENC.
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
a+ Client: U \A 0' - J n Date:
Project Name: 'TOva" Oc KO S,Mo„k Project No.
County: ic6AS 1�eletState
r� Location: Min Si % 0 kj.. ,,1cv, a Site!Field No.
Soil Series: Rosman (gin) Iroxaw. a. ere%
Apparent Water Table: (, s' I i Seasonal High Water Table:
Vegetation:
Boring Terminated at i a Inches
„assl Foray e
Slope:
i{D-30-c
I'1M-ot-oq
fJL
Horizon
Depth
Matrix
Mottles 1
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Boundary
A
0 _, J "
, of g3(ca
—
( 1
icy
MF
c_ LLA
ig:Ja
1 G- ` 4 )1
Loy etc{
—
C. I
.ic40K
m c.
e_ LI
CA-
4740"
15W3ly
Si
labK
elicc
La
—
C a
(00- tt "
1:s7R e
— .
s l
oe,s3 _
c-c
C
‘ t- uP
LoY4 /g
Qeviifivaii
c
—
--
a S
ga4-„
COMMENTS: C lay i,ccease B La;
M�Ca !1'.l'es ;A IOW -
Ism
DESCRIBED BY: C- 671..t
LEGEND:
ee A A-1--acked
DATE: l —r)l

Official Series Description - ROSMAN Series Page 1 of .:
LOCATION ROSMAN NC
Established Series
Rev. DLN-HJB-AG
04/2001
ROSMAN SERIES
The Rosman series consists of very deep, well drained to moderately well drained, moderately rapidly permeable
soils on flood plains in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They formed in loamy alluvium. Average annual
precipitation is about 65 inches and mean annual temperature is about 53 degrees F., near the type location. Slopes
range from 0 to 3 percent.
ram►
TYPICAL PEDON: Rosman loam —cultivated. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Coarse -loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Fluventic Humic Dystrudepts
RIR Ap--O to 10 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam; weak medium granular structure; very friable; few
fine flakes of mica; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary. (6 to 15 inches thick)
A-10 to 15 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam; weak fine and medium granular structure; very friable; few fine
flakes of mica; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary. (4 to 8 inches thick)
'n' Bw1--15 to 21 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loam; massive; very friable; common fine flakes of mica;
strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to 10 inches thick)
`al Bw2-21 to 35 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) fine sandy loam; few medium distinct grayish brown
(10YR 5/2) mottles; massive; very friable; common fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to
16 inches thick)
Bw3-35 to 50 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) fine sandy loam; many medium distinct grayish brown
(IOYR 5/2) mottles in lower portions; massive; very friable; common fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; clear
smooth boundary. (0 to 16 inches thick)
C--50 to 60 inches; stratified sand and gravel; single grained; strongly acid.
mit
TYPE LOCATION: Transylvania County, North Carolina. About 3 miles east of Brevard, 1/4 mile northwest of
Pisgah Forest Post Office, in cultivated field 200 feet east of abandoned church.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 35 to 60 inches or more. The soil ranges from
strongly acid to neutral in the A and upper Bw or C horizons and from strongly acid to slightly acid in the lower
horizons. Content of flakes of mica ranges from few to many. The loamy horizons extend to depths of at least 40
inches. Strata of contrasting textures may occur in the C horizon below a depth of 40 inches. Gravel content is less
than 15 percent by volume in the upper 40 inches and may range up to 50 percent in horizons below 40 inches.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 1 to 3. The A horizon is loam, silt
loam, sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, or fine sandy loam. Some pedons have an Ab horizon that has the same
'�' color and texture range as the A horizon.

Official Series Description - ROSMAN Series Page 2 of
AIM
The Bw horizon where present, has hue of 2.5Y to 5YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 3 to 8. Few to many mottles
of chroma 2 or less are below a depth of 20 inches in some pedons. Texture is loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam,
very fine sandy loam, or silt loam.
The C horizon has hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 2 to 8. Mottles, if they occur, are in shades
of red, brown, yellow, olive, or gray. Texture is variable, ranging from coarse sand to loam in the fine -earth
fraction. Strata containing 15 to 50 percent by volume gravel and cobbles are below a depth of 40 inches in some
pedons.
COMPETING SERIES: These are the Edgewick and Nekoma series in the same family and the Barbourville,
Beulah, Codorus, Colvard, Comus, Congaree, Haywood, Reddies. Toccoa, Toxaway, and Transylvania series in
closely related families. Edgewick and Nekoma soils formed in a midhumid maritime climate with mean annual
precipitation from 70 to 80 inches. Barbourville and Transylvania soils are in a fine -loamy family. Beulah,
Codorus, Colvard, Comus, Congaree, and Toccoa soils have an ochric epipedon. In addition, Congaree and Toccoa
soils have a mean annual temperature of more than 59 degrees F. Haywood soils have umbric epipedons more than
20 inches thick. Toxaway soils have matrix colors of chroma 2 or less, have umbric epipedons thicker than 24
inches, and are in a fine -loamy family.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Rosman soils are on nearly level flood plains in the Southern Appalachian
"' Mountains. Elevation ranges from about 1200 to 2000 feet. These soils formed in alluvium which has been washed
from soils formed from a variety of rocks such as granite, schist, gneiss, phyllite, slate, and metasandstone. Mean
annual temperature ranges from 46 to 57 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation ranges from about 45 to 70
fa' inches.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the competing Reddies, Toxaway and 'Transylvanir
series, these are Biltmore, Colvard, Dillard, Hemphill, Iotla, Staler, Kinkora series. Biltmore, Colvard, and Iotla
soils have an ochric epipedon and do not have a cambic horizon. Dillard, Hemphill, Kinkora, and Statler soils have
argillic horizons and are on low terraces. Reddies soils are on flood plains along small streams. Toxaway soils are
in depressed parts of the flood plains. Transylvania soils are in the same landscape positions as Rosman soils.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well to moderately well drained; slow runoff; moderate internal drainage;
moderately rapid permeability. Most areas of these soils are subject to occasional to frequent flooding. A few areas
are protected by flood control structures and are subject to rare flooding.
111 USE AND VEGETATION: Most of the acreage is cleared and in cultivation. The chief crops are corn, truck
crops, hay, ornamentals, Christmas trees, and pasture grasses. In forested areas common trees are yellow -poplar,
eastern white pine, American sycamore, river birch, red maple, northern red oak, willow oak, and black walnut.
Prn Understory plants include rhododendron, ironwood, flowering dogwood, alder, greenbrier, and switchcane.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: North Carolina, Virginia, and possibly Tennessee. This series is of moderate
extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Lexington, Kentucky
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Henderson County, North Carolina;.1974.
REMARKS: The July, 1991 revision recognizes that a cambic horizon is not required, although many pedons of
Rosman have a cambic horizon.
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:

Official Series Description - ROSMAN Series Page 3 of
,a, Umbric epipedon - the zone from the surface to a depth of 15 inches (Ap and A horizons)
Cambic horizon - the zone from 15 to 50 inches (Bw1, Bw2, and Bw3 horizons). This is not a required diagnostic
— horizon for the Rosman series.
fart
MLRA=130 SIR NC0024
National Cooperative Soil Survey
0„,,, U.S.A.
Pat
MI
Min

FAA
n•a Client:
Project Name:
County:
Location:
Soil Series:
Apparent Water Table:
Vegetation:
Boring Terminated at
Aut
SktiN E, LYC.
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
L L 4 Ot'ci4scr
u n R OS ryta n
i(an5 loan; a
O tc Kcn feta g. (-1 i k 1 c.�
To 'ate Cm
GfassIP4lbo.0
sr Inches
Date:
Project No.
State
Site'Field No.
Seasonal High Water Table:
Slope:
lO-3o-o1
rvC
Horizon
Depth
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Boundary
A p
0_ "
t©k(z 3[ 1
`_
s I
\-
A
1.0" I
[o (s
—
s (
i y-
'rric c-
as
A f 6
to-t-i"
COYe (ci
Se_
1 ensbK
rACc
tLA-I(
6;0_
t ii-35"
(o'f Rill
—
61 t.
Qvc-5b
-c
C
eb a
?-_LIo'1
to'(R t i
Lioy. 541
51 C
0 v fsbK
i t-
s
C.
9o_cl e
toYe 573
--- _
e
D v bK
C--
C
C-5 g
1' S` 1
Gf foG 1 I
.ioYiz
s c
OrAsb K
rnC c
C
C 3
s S r"
Li t to e
iioyicVgi
Sc
akic5171‘.
(C-(
.ens , T y 1,.� C10_y LEGEND: $ eA--14-a_civej
COMMENTS: C tL
o k i otk-0 ' rmy_
65 a Ack C rio r i nS
'�' DESCRIBED BY: C �►(_I
DATE: Lo'3 0- 0

Official Series Description - TOXAWAY Series
0.4
Page 1 of
PEI
LOCATION TOXAWAY NC+GA VA
Established Series
Rev. JMO:AG
04/2001
mr4 TOXAWAY SERIES
The Toxaway series consists of very deep, poorly and very poorly drained soils that formed in loamy alluvial
deposits on nearly level flood plains of mountain valleys. Near the type location, mean annual temperature is 57
degrees F., and mean annual precipitation is 60 inches. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy, mixed, nonacid, mesic Cumulic
Humaquepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Toxaway silt loam —cultivated field. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
▪ A1-0 to 26 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) black (10YR 2/1) silt loam; moderate medium granular structure;
friable, sticky and slightly plastic; common fine roots; few fine flakes of mica; moderately acid; gradual smooth
boundary.
A2-26 to 36 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loam; weak medium granular structure; friable; few fine roots;
common fine flakes of mica; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of the A horizon
ranges from 24 to 50 inches.)
Cg1-36 to 43 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; massive; very friable, slightly sticky; common fine
flakes of mica; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (5 to 15 inches thick)
Cg2--43 to 53 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sand; few fine prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) mottles;
single grained; loose; common fine flakes of mica; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (7 to 15 inches thick)
Cg3-53 to 65 inches; gray (N 6/0) sandy clay loam with lenses of sandy loam; massive; friable, slightly sticky and
slightly plastic; common fine flakes of mica; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to 15 inches thick)
Cg4-65 to 72 inches; gray (N 6/0) loamy sand; single grained; loose; common fine flakes of mica; moderately
▪ acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Henderson County, North Carolina; 1.5 miles east of Hendersonville; 800 feet southeast of
0.4 Hendersonville -Meyer Airport; 600 feet east of Airport Road.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 24 to 50 inches. The loamy horizons are
'°"° commonly 40 to 60 inches thick over sandy subhorizons. Depth to bedrock is more than 10 feet. The soil is strongly
acid to slightly acid unless limed. Flakes of mica range from few to many. Rock fragments range from 0 to 5
percent by volume in the A horizon and 0 to 15 percent in the Cg horizon.
Organic matter content of the A horizon is medium to high. The A horizon has hue of 10YR or is neutral, value of 2
or 3, and chroma of 0 to 3. The A horizon is silt loam or loam. Some pedons have an Ab horizon. The Ab horizon,
▪ where present has the same color and texture range as the A horizon.

Official Series Description - TOXAWAY Series
Page 2of:
The Cg horizon has hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, or is neutral, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 0 to 2. The C horizon is
stratified alluvial sediments of clay loam, sandy clay loam, silt loam, loam, silty clay loam, sandy loam, fine sandy
loam, often with lenses and strata of loamy sand or sand. Gravel or cobbles are in the C horizons in some pedons.
0.0
COMPETING SERIES: There are no other known series in this family.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Toxaway soils are on nearly level flood plains of mountain valleys. Slopes range
from 0 to 3 percent. The soils formed in loamy alluvial deposits. Elevations are above 2,000 feet. Mean annual
temperature near the type location is 57 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation is about 60 inches.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Arkaqua, Biltmore, Chatuge, Colvard, Codorus,
Comus, Cullowhee, Dellwood, Dillard, Dillsboro, French, Hatboro, Hemphill, Iotla, and kinkora, Nikwasi, Reddies
Rosman, Statler, Sylva, Transylvania, Whiteside series. All of these series except Chatuge, Hatboro, Hemphill,
Put Kinkora, Nikwasi, and Sylva are better drained than Toxaway soils. Chatuge, Hatboro, Hemphill, and Kinkora have
an argillic horizon, and Nikwasi is in a coarse -loamy over sandy or sandy -skeletal family. Also, none have an
umbric epipedon thicker than 24 inches except Nikwasi and Transylvania soils. Arkaqua, Biltmore, Colvard,
Codorus, Comus, French, Iotla, Reddies, Rosman, and Transylvania soils are on higher parts of the flood plain or
are nearer to stream channels. Chatuge, Dillard, Dillsboro, Hatboro, Hemphill, knkora, and Statler soils are on
stream terraces nearby. Sylva and Whiteside soils are on colluvial fans and toe slopes that do not flood.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Very poorly drained and poorly drained; very slow or ponded runoff;
moderate permeability. These soils are subject to common, very brief floods.
USE AND VEGETATION: Most of the Toxaway soils are cleared and drained and used for cultivated crops,
pasture, and hay. The dominant tree species are yellow -poplar, pitch pine, shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, eastern
white pine, northern red oak, sycamore, red maple, and yellow birch.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and
''IA possibly Tennessee. The series is of small extent.
0.1
oft
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Lexington, Kentucky
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Transylvania County, North Carolina; 1906.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features in this pedon are:
Umbric Epipedon - The zone from the surface of the soil to a depth of 36 inches (Al and A2 horizons)
Cumulic Humaquept feature - An umbric epipedon 24 inches or more thick
Irregular decrease in organic matter content with depth
Nonacid family - reaction of 5.5 or more in the 10 to 40 inch control section (A horizon)
MLRA = 130 SIR = NC0021
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.

pit
S&ME, INC.
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
(LEGEND)
pet
Mottles — example: (flf)
(1) Abundance
Few (mottles <2% of surface) f
Common (mottles 2 — 20% of surface) - c
Many (mottles >20% of surface) - m
,., (2) Size
Fine (<5 mm.) - 1
wit Medium (5-15 mm.) - 2
Coarse' (>15 mm.) - 3
fiat (3) Contrast
Faint (Hue and Chroma of matrix and mottles closely related)
tow Distinct (Matrix and Mottles vary 1-2 hues and several units in
Chroma and value)
Prominent - (Matrix and Mottles vary several units in hue, value and chroma)
Texture — example: scl
Sand s Loam 1
iift Fine Sand fs Silt si
Very Fine Sand vfs Silt Loam sil
Loamy Sand is Clay Loam cl
00 Loamy Fine Sand lfs Silty Clay Loam sicl
Sandy Loam sl Sandy Clay Loam scl
Fine Sandy Loam fsl Silty Clay sic
0' Very Fine Sandy Loam vfsl Clay c

fart
Pat
a4
ROI
fig
AIM
PEI
Structure — example: scl
(1) Grade:
Structureless (No observable aggregation or no o-derly arrangement
of natural lines of weakness) 0
Weak
(Poorly formed indistinct peds, barely observable in place) - 1
Moderate (Well -formed distinct peds, moderately durable and evident,
but not distinct in undisturbed soil) - 2
Strong (Durable peds that are quite evident in undisplaced soil,
adhere weakly to one another, withstand displacement
and become separated when soil is disturbed)
(2) Size:
Very Fine - of Coarse c
Fine f Very Coarse - vc
Medium m
(3) Form or Type:
Platy PI Granular gr
Prismatic pr Crumb cr
Columnar - cpr Single Grain sg
Blocky bk Massive m
Angular Blocky abk Subangular Blocky sbk
Consistence — example: mfr
(1) Moist Soil:
Loose ml Firm mf
Very Friable - mvfr Very Firm mvf
Friable - mfr Extremely Firm mef
Boundary — Example: gw
(1) Distinctness:
Abrupt (< 1") a Gradual (2 '/2" — 5") - g
Clear (1" — 2 %z") c Diffuse (> 5") d
(2) Topography of Boundary
Smooth (nearly a plane) s
Wavy (pockets with width > depth) w
Irregular (pockets with depth > width) I
Broken (discontinuous) b
3

APPENDIX IV
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Report Number:
2001-R311-042
Account # 46201
Send To:
A&L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
S&ME (JOB #1588-01-044)
SCOTT CARPENTER
3718 OLD BATTLEGROUND RD
GREENSBORO, NC 27410-2314
Date of Report: 11/13/2001
Page: 1
7621 Whitepine Road • Richmond, Virginia 23237 • [phone]
Fax No. [phone]
Grower: PO#11163 TOWN OF ROSMAN Samples Submitted By:
SCOTT CARPENTER
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
Sample
Number
Lab
Number
Organic Matter
Phosphorus
Potassium
Magnesium
Calcium
Sodium
pH
Acidity
C.E.C.
% ENR
lbs/A
Bray P1
ppm Rate
Bray P2
ppm Rate
K
ppm Rate
Mg
ppm Rate
Ca
ppm Rate
Na
ppm Rate
Soil
pH
Buffer
Index
H
meq/10og
meq/100g
1
2
20900
20901
3.7 118 H
5.9 140 VH
34 H
20 M
49 H
41 M
54 L
65 L
90 H
130 VH
510 M
740 M
5.8
5.9
6.85
6.83
0.8
1.0
4.2
6.0
Sample
Number
Percent Base Saturation
Nitrate
Sulfur
Zinc
Manganese
Iron
Copper
Boron
Soluble
Salts
Chloride
Motyb-
denum Mc
ppm Rate
%
%
%
%
%
ppm Rate
ppm Rate
ppm Rate
ppm Rate
ppm Rate
ppm Rate
ppm Rate
ppm Rate
ppm Rate,
1
2
3.3
2.8
17.7
18.1
60.0
61.9
19.0
17.1
Values on this report represent the plant availab e nutrients in the soil.
Explanation of symbols: Values are expressed as % (percent), ppm (parts per million), or lbs/A (pounds per acre).
Rating after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium), H (High). VH (Very High).
ENR - Estimated Nitrogen Release. C.E.C. - Cation Exchange Capacity.
To convert to lbs/A, multiply the results in ppm by 2.
This report applies to the sample(s) tested. Samples are retained a
maximum of thirty days after testing. Soil Analysis prepared by:
A 8 L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
by:
C. Norman Jones

1
Report Number:
2001-R311-042
Account # 46201
A&L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
7621 Whitepine Road • Richmond, Virginia 23237 • [phone]
Fax No. [phone]
Send To: S&ME (JOB #1588-01-044)
SCOTT CARPENTER
3718 OLD BATTLEGROUND RD
GREENSBORO, NC 27410-2314
Date: 11/13/2001
Paae: 1
Grower: PO#11163 TOWN OF ROSMAN Samples Submitted By:
SCOTT CARPENTER
SOIL FERTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS (lbs/A)
Your
Sample
Number
Crop
-
Yield
Amendments
N
Nitro-
gen
P205
Phos-
phate
K20
Potash
Mg
Mag-
nesium
S
Sulfur
Zn
Zinc
Mn
Manga-
nese
Fe
Iron
Cu
Copper
B
Boron
Mo
Molyb-
denum
Ume
Tons/A
Gypsum
Tons/A
Elemental
Sulfur
IbslA
1
2
LAWN BERMUDA GRASS
LAWN BERMUDA GRASS
0030
0030
25
30
4-5
4-5
2.5
3.5
5.5
5.5
-0-
-0-
Remarks:
ON BERMUDA GRASS APPLY THE ABOVE NITROGEN RECOMMENDATION AS FOLLOWS: 1-2# OF ACTUAL NITROGEN PER MONTH FROM APRIL THROUGH AUGUST. FOR K20
RECOMMENDATIONS OF 2.5 OR HIGHER APPLY IN AT LEAST 2 SEPARATE APPLICATIONS OF NO MORE THAN 2.5 LBS OF K20 PER 1000 SQ FT. PER APPLICATION.
"The recommendations are based on research data and experience, but NO GUARANTEE
or WARRANTY expressed or implied, concerning crop performance is made."
Oa reports end letters aro for the exclusive and confidential use of our clients, and may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor may any reference be made to the
work, the results, or the company in any advertising, news release, or other pubic announcements without obtaining our prior written authorization. Copyright 1977.
A&L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
by:
C. Norman Jones

APPENDIX V
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
ESTIMATED PRECIPITATION

MIR
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
FOR ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
MONTH
PAN
70 % :FOR PET.:
; PET (in.)
JANUARY
0
0.7
0.00
FEBRUARY
0
0.7
0.00
MARCH
0
0.7
0.00
APRIL
3.23
0.7
2.26
i
MAY
3.89
0.7
2.72
JUNE
4.16
0.7
2.91
JULY
4.22
0.7
2.95
AUGUST
3.87
0.7
2.71
SEPTEMBER
3.1
0.7
2.17
OCTOBER
2.15
0.7
1.51
NOVEMBER
1.98
0.7
1.39
DECEMBER
0
0.7
0.00
ANNUAL TOTAL POTENTIAL EVAPORTRANSPIRATION
18.62

r■� ANNUAL PRECIPITATION FOR ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
full
r=1
MONTH'
MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (in.)
JANUARY
4.9
FEBRUARY
5.4
MARCH
6.4
APRIL
4.7
MAY
5.9
JUNE
5.6
JULY
5.9
AUGUST
6.5
SEPTEMBER
5.1
OCTOBER
5.3
NOVEMBER
5.4
DECEMBER
5.9
ANNUAL TOTAL
67.00

APPENDIX C
Tax Map for Proposed WWTP Site
4

2 ���
Ps•
rs
t•
Y.t
t�"55o°
.aa�pD1/\
\ \ \L
\ \
•
\\ \ \\ rJ' . A \
\ \, \\ __3.'_ \ Y
YY
_Y' _.f3' \
CO
M
c)
r •_
Q • CO
O r—
T

fl
r1.1H
fir
FIGURES

1 1 1
tl r�: r:`I iJ t1 Zr. f 11 f.71 j''•
<< ! P1Qj C 0pUfaiJQfl J<;:
FIGURE 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.A
'�, 'n,
r'4v-. y,. F t ¢'R *' R S:. ,..,- w f. G. F'sF" "i- . ; ,.
0.4 -
0
M
Note; This tura IrdL-desAnnual Average Daly
CtS
Flows, Hovuwer, montHy low; would be effected
to Include above and belowtheoe average'
Annual Average D
� N
i I I
I
•r
1997
2002
2007
2012
Regression
2017
Year
Analysis
2022
2027
2032
2037
—
0-0. Population Growth Analysis
FIGURE 2

--�i. : 'r l -.ter"'--�. r�V. ? 1 tint.;��...-f �, .f ,`,',/it: . }• -. .'f'� ,;{ ',4 ._ 'r •y am•, r .. •_ ram ��..�l
ram•.+' z �!'`_\�� �� •- 4'�, fti # '"'1 t €�i-- Y,
1 ..,t r. •,�`+. .v' �� :�r^� •f.� "N f �� 'f'� wJJ /�►},� %. :; a �"� '.1... � . '�.._,. {� Ez t�3
..PROPOSEDkGRAVITY 4SEWER
w REHABILITATION' OR REPLACEMENT
f (GRAVITY' LINE r A)
s , s
FR. OPOSEDIGRAV.ITY ?:
• SEWER' REHABILITATION.
• OR REPLACEMENTS'
(GRAVITY'S LINE"H)
JR"'r-._
tom
s• j• r in-y.N s �. -�
F. •S� a
4f
INK
DICKSON
Engineers 1419 PATTON AVE.
Planners ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28806
Surveyors
4WD # 90203.40
.2
4'.
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN";
TO BREVARD,r;R'
64-c
_ . t•r
s.
•
PROPOSED GRAVITY1 SEWER ` ; `'' Z
EXTENSION (GRAVITY LINE C) ; `.~ `)
PROPOSED` GRAVITY SEWER.
F. EXTENSION (GRAt_ CI7INF..DL::
PROPOSED GRAVITY =. SEWER �"
.EXTENSIONI{GRAVITY LINE''.E)
PETERL VITAIJE MFG. '••7'
` FREN�
•
PROPOSED PUMPING STATION. �'' CIF -0
, 41;
ABANDONEDTOWN'OF:1
ROSMAN I WWT - .
NOTE:
THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS APPROXIMATE AND WAS
OBTAINED FROM MAPS PROVIDED BY ROSMAN. THIS MAP IS INTENDED
FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
s•
s+� \.,„ .,w CONOCO
+ 'SERVICE
STATION
;.
+met
'•
r �
Jr;
j i1 GOO
PROPOSED FORCE" MAIN
rTO]BREVARD (SEE4FIG.�
FOR I CONTINUATION:' �—
1000. - •
NMI — ® CBE
TOWN OF ROSMAN
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
FORCE MAIN CONNECTION TO HWY. 64
SCALE: 1 = 1000'
UPDATED
3/25/99
FIGURE NO.
3

{ 51
WK
DICKSON
Engineers 1419 PATTON AVE.
Planners ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28806
Surveyors W10 R 90203.40
r {-
1
PROPOSED FORCE MIN FROM ROSMAN TO
(10" MIN. SIZE) APrROXIMATE TOUT LEN
J
PROPOSED PUMP STATION TO -REP
TOWN OF ROSMAN WO/TP
rx-�
NOTE.
THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS APPROXIMATE AND WAS
OBTAINED FROM MAPS PROVIDED BY ROSMAN. THIS MAP IS INTENDED
FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
y
S� CONNECTIONTOWN -.. TO --
4 L/ OF BRE-44RD SYSTEM
EXI II~1G TOWN OF BREVARD
SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM.
TYPICAL
EXISTING- TOWN ;`OF BREVARD J
GAWMORE-ROAD PUMPING- STATIQI
(UPGRADE REQUIRED) - 1
EXISTING TOWN OF BRE RD
NEELY ROAD PUMPING S TION
(UPGRADE REQUIRED)
BREVARD
EXISTING TOWN OF
BREVARD -WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
--v
r
i
•
TOWN OF ROSMAN
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
ROSMAN WASTEWATER CONNECTION TO BREVARD
[UPDATED
3/25/99
FIGURE NO.
4
1

IBUIENIT PUMP STATION
PR1MMY SCREEN
w/ BAR SCREEN STANDBY
r
IJ
.DUAL SBR
POST EO,UAUZA1ION
CL01H DISIC FLIERS
ULTRAVIOLET DIS1
;/ STANDBY WO
FLOW SPUIIER PUI P SUMP
W/ SO DEG. V-NOTCH MEP
BELT PRESS WASH NIITER0.
TO SPRAY FIELD
TO FRENC FI BROAD RIVER
J
CASCADE AERATOR
REV. NO.
DESCR#P710N
DATE
REVISIONS
(DRAMMNG SCALE
NA
PROJECT DATE
12-01
PROJECT NUMBER
10583
FILE NAME
F1GURE6
a DICK
KSDN
Engineers • Planners • Surveyors
Landscape Architects
501 COMMERCE DRIVE NE
COLUMBIA. SC 29223
[phone]
Asheville, NC
Atlanta. GA
Baca Raton, FL
Charlotte, NC
Columbia, SC
Hickory, NC
Raleigh, NC
Wilmington, NC
ROSMAN WWTP
TOWN OF ROSMAN
COMPONENT SCHEMATIC
ROSMAN, NC
r
6
7
J

cV4
'1
•
EXISTING TOWN OF ROSMAN
MUNICIPAL WELL
m
/
\ /
N
•
�..
•
•
REV, NO.
DESCRIPTION
DATE
REVISIONS
i
�':":"...
S
PROJECT MANAGER
DRAWN BY
JL
APPROVED BY
FILE NAME
_ qm
SPRINKLER HEADS WITH
60 FT DIA. SPRAY RANGE,
TYPICAL (20 TOTAL)
PROPOSED 4" DIA.
SPRAY IRRIGATION
FORCE MAIN FROM
WWTP TO FIELD
•
DRAWING SCALE
1'=60'
PROJECT DATE
DEC 2001
PROJECT NUMBER
10583
PL
❑T DATE
PROPOSED 4" DIA.
DISTRIBUTION LINES,
TYPICAL
PROPOSED TOWN OF ROSMAN 0.25 MGD
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
—
�/ ass/— _ „� `'.
N
DICKSONIF
Engineers • Planners • Surveyors
Landscape architects
1419 PATTON AVENUE
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
[phone]
Asheville, NC Columbia, SC
Atlanta, GA Hickory, NC
Boca Raton, FL Raleigh, NC
Charlotte, NC Wilmington, NC
RELEASED FOR
APPROVALS
BIDDING
CONSTRUCTION
RECORD DWG.
DATE
0
PROPOSED
AY
RRIGATIONFI. LD
EXISTING TOWN OF ROSMAN 0.09 MGD
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
77"-
•
APPROXIMATE BUFFER
SETBACK LIMITS
7- ./t•
•
•
77, • •
000"
•
.,�� FRENGN
'PROPOSED 0,25 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY\
& COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATION
FOR THE
TOWN OF ROSMAN
N. TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
•
4&•
1
SPRAY IRRIGATION SITE LAYOUT
AREA MAP
J

NO
DESCRIPTION
DATE
REVISIONS
ciLT-L
\E
PROJECT MANAGER
RDW
DRAWING SCALE
1"=50'
NIP DICKSON
Engineers • Planners • Surveyors
Landscape Architects
501 COMMERCE DRIVE NE
COLUMBIA, SC 29223
[phone]
RELEASED FOR
DATE `
APPROVALS
DRAWN BY
TM
PROJECT DATE
12-01
BIDDING
APPROVED BY
RDW
PROJECT NUMBER
10583
Asheville, NC
Atlanta, GA
Charlotte, NC
Columbia, SC
Hickory, NC
Raleigh, NC
Wilmington, NC
CONSTRUCTION
FILE NAME
`FIGURE7.DWG
PLOT DATE
RECORD DWG.
i
SITE PLAN
FOR THE
TOWN OF ROSMAN WWTP
ROSMAN, NC
ID WWT
\JG WWT