WQ0018708_Permit Renewal_20081212

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION RECETC 7
APPLICATION REVIEW RE I UEST FO ' NOV 2 0 2008
Date: November 19, 2008
To: ❑ Landon Davidson, ARO-APS
® Art Barnhardt, FRO-APS
❑ Andrew Pitner, MRO-APS
❑ Jay Zimmerman, RRO-APS
From: Chonticha McDaniel Land Application Unit
Telephone: [phone]
Entail: [e-mail]
DENR-FAYETTEVILLE REGIOfsAt OFFICE
❑ David May, WaRO-APS
❑ -.Charlie; Stehnian, WiRO-APS
E Sherri Knight, WSRO-APS
Fax: [phone]
A. Permit Number: WQ0018708
B. Owner: Lake Creek Corporation
C. Facility/Operation: Lake Creek Corp-Baytree Lakes
❑ Proposed ® Existing ® Facility
El . Operation
D. Application:
I. Permit. Type: El Animal ® Surface Irrigation ❑ Reuse ❑ H-R Infiltration
El Recycle El I/E Lagoon ❑ GW Remediation (ND)
El UIC - (5QW) closed loop water only geothermal
For Residuals: El Land App. El D&M El Surface Disposal
El 503 El 503 Exempt ❑ Animal
2. Project Type: ❑- New— _ Major Mod. ❑ Minor Mod: El Renewal El Renewal w/ Mod:
E: Comments/Other Information: ' El I would like to accompany you on a site visit.
RO-Reviewer, please provide Latitude/Longitude information for the facility, fields, and monitoring wells
in the staff report. Thank you.
Attached, you will fmd all information submitted insupport of the above -referenced application for your
review,' comment, and/or action. Within 30 calendar days, please take the following actions:
® Return a Completed Form APSARR.
❑ Attach Well Construction Data .Sheet.
El Attach Attachment B for Certification by the LAPCU.
❑ Issue an Attachment B Certification from the RO*.
* Remember that you will be responsible for coordinating site visits, ; reviews, as well as additional
information requests with other RO-APS representatives in order to prepare a complete Attachment B for
certification. Refer to the RPP SOP for additional detail.
When you receive this request form, please write your name and dates in the spaces below, make a copy
of this sheet, and return it to the appropriate Central Office -Aquifer Protection Section contact person
listed above.
RO-APS Reviewer:
Date: /2. 08
FORM: APSARR 02/06
Page 1 of 1

'-ti'AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
Date: 12/08/08
To: Aquifer Protection Section Central Office
Central Office Reviewer: C. McDaniel
Regional Login No: ??
L GENERAL INFORMATION
County: Bladen
Permittee: Lake Creek Corporation
Project Name: Baytree Lakes
Application No.: W00018708
1. This application is (check all that apply): ❑ NOV ❑ Renewal
❑ Minor Modification ® Major Modification
® Surface Irrigation ❑ Reuse ❑ Recycle ❑ High Rate Infiltration ❑ Evaporation/Infiltration Lagoon
❑ Land Application of Residuals ❑ Attachment B included ❑ 503, regulated ❑ 503 exempt
❑ Distribution of Residuals n Surface Disposal
n Closed -loop Groundwater Remediation ❑ Other Injection Wells (includin'g in situ remediation)
Was a site visit conducted in order to prepare this report? Z Yes or n No.
a. Date of site visit: 12/04/08
b. Person contacted and contact information: Brooks Barwick (Site Manager)& Bill Stafford - ORC
c. Site visit conducted by: ' Jim Barber. and Bill Todd
d. Inspection Report Attached: ❑ Yes or ® No.
2: Is the following information entered into the BIMS record for this application correct?
Z Yes or n`No. If no, please complete the following or indicate that it is Icorr'ect on the current application.
For Treatment Facilities:
a. Location: WWTP: Off of Hwy 41, Harrells NC. Plant entrance across from office located at 33 West Bay
Ridge Road, Harrells NC 28444
Driving Directions: From Fayetteville take Hwy 53 to Elizabethtown. Turn left onto Hwy 701 toward
White Lake/Clinton. At the intersection of Hwy 701 and Hwy 41 turn right Drive approx. 4.5 miles and the
Baytree Lakes office is on the right. The entrance to the WWTP is across Hwy 41.
c., USGS Quadrangle Map name and number`: WHITE LAKE, NC (I-25-NW)
b.
d. Latitude: '34.690298741N Longitude:-78.425315115W (lagoon, see' attached map with coordinates)
e. • Regulated Activities / Type of Wastes (e.g., subdivision, food processing, municipal wastewater):
Municipal/Residential wastewater treatment plant Withsprayirrigation field
For Disposal and Injection Sites:
(If multiple sites either indicate which sites the information applies to, copy and paste a new section into the
document for each site, or attach additional pages for each site)
a. Location(s): Same as above
b. Driving Directions: Same as above
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number: Same as above
d. Latitude: Zone #1: 34.690728878N' Longitude:-78.423554571W (center of zone, see map)
e. Latitude: Zone #2: 34.690618793N Longitude:-78.423283630W .,
f. Latitude: Zone #3: 34.690501937N Longitude:-78.423018771W
g. Latitude: Zone #4: 34.690407968N Longitude:-78.422743402W
'h. Latitude: Zone #5: 34.690284756N Longitude:-78.422542576W
FORM: APSARRBaytreeLakesSIMajorModDec2008.doc
1

AQUIFER PROTECTION.SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
i. Latitude: MW-1: 34.691790509N Longitude:-78.423417316W (see map)
j. Latitude: MW-2:34.690021194N Longitude:-78.421644355W '
k. Latitude: MW-3: 34.691119634N Longitude:-78.424454851W ;•
1. Latitude: MW-5:34.689679623N Longitude:-78.425463032W
m: All coordinates provided are differientially .corrected and accurate within 2 meters. Monitoring well
locations have been entered into BIMS. Facility and field• locations have ,not been entered. Use Zone #1
coordinates for center of Facility and Zone #3 for center of spray application field.
IL NEW AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONAPPLICATIONS (this section not ineeded for renewals or minor
modifications, skip to next section)
Description Of Waste(S) And Facilities
1. Please attach completed rating sheet. Facility Classification: See attached sheet
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system?
® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A. If no, please explain: The applicant is applying for a 10,000 GPD increase in
treatment capacity, to 30,000 GPD from the currently permitted 20,000,•GPD. After reviewing the Bladen
County GIS website and speaking withiBladen County GIS staff; Baytree Lakes development currently has 142
residential homes constructed and 4 . business -structures (i.e. Baytree office, pool/bath house, community
building, etc:) Assuming a minimum flow rate for. all 146 structures of 240 gpd, the daily` flow rate to the
treatment works would. be 35,040 gpd (not including I- & I, which Baytree has had problems within the past
due to high groundwater table from December to' April and poorly constructed manholes, poor installation of
piping and non supervised taps to sewer lines by contractors).
The facility is a seasonal.use facility with probably 50% of the structures being; occupied year round: Therefore
the proposed increase to 30,000 GPD will suffice initially; but when looking at the nine month average todate
the montly average is approx. 22;000 gpd which will be approx. 73% of the' new design flow of 30,000.
3. Are the new site conditions (soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) consistent with what was reported by
the soil scientist and/or Professional Engineer? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A. If no,',please explain: Based .on the site
visit and hand augering boring performed; soils identified in the initial soils report are adequate for the volume
of treated wastewater to be applied. Soils at the facility are identified as Wagram sands by: the soil scientist
Centenary Sands. and Wakulla sand are identified by the Web Soil Survey,' but the site evaluation done by the
soil scientist during the initial permitting of the site indicates that Wagram sand is the appropriate and
predominant soil type. Centenary/Wakulla and Wagram sands are `siinilar in texture, therefore- the
recommendation of thesoil scientist performing a site specific investigation is; valid. The'difference in the soils
identified typically has to do with water table depths. In the case of the Baytree application field, the seasonal
high water tables exists at a depth greater than 4 feet.
4. Does the application (maps, plans, etc.) represent the actual site (property', lines, wells, surface drainage)? ❑
Yes ® No ❑ N/A. If no, please explain:
FORM: APSARRBaytreeLakesSIMajorModDec2008.doc 2

'AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate and/or acceptable to the Division. Z Yes ❑ No'111
N/A. If no, please explain:
6. Are the proposed application rates for new sites (hydraulic or nutrient) acceptable?
® Yes n No n N/A. If no, please explain: The water to be spray irrigated in the future should have a lower
overall nutrient concentration than the wastewater.that is currently being ,.irrigated, based upon the new
treatment infrastructure being` installed.
7 . Are the new treatment facilities or any new disposal sites located in a 100-year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No .❑ N/A. If yes, please attach a map showing areas of 100i=ye Ir floodplain and please explain
and recommend" any mitigative measures/special conditions in Part IV: See ,attached map
8. Are there any buffer conflicts. (new treatment facilities or new disposal sites)? n Yes or ®No. If yes, please
attach, a map showing conflict areas or attach any new maps you have received from the applicant to be
incorporated into the permit:
9. Is proposed and/or existing groundwater monitoring` program (number of .wells, frequency of monitoring,
monitoring parameters, etc.) adequate? Z Yes n No ❑ N/A.. Attach alp of existing monitoring well
network if applicable. Indicate the review and compliance boundaries. If N , explain and recommend any
changes to the groundwater. monitoring program:
10. For residuals, will seasonal or other restrictions be required? n Yes
with restrictions (Certification B?)
o0 N/A If yes, attach list of sites
IIL RENEWAL AND MODIFICATION APPLICATIONS (use previous section for new or major modification
systems)
Description Of Waste(S) And Facilities
1. Are there appropriately certified ORCs for the. facilities? Yes or ❑ No.
Operator in Charge: Bill Stafford' Certificate #:SI/989284 & WW-2/15904
Backup- Operator in Charge: Hugh Bledsoe Certificate #:SI/22438 & WW-4/991797 -
2. Is the design, maintenance and operation (e.g. adequate aeration, sludge wasting,, sludge storage, effluent
storage, etc) of the treatment. facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? ❑ Yes or ❑ No.
If no, please explain:
3. Are the site conditions (soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? n Yes or ❑ No. If no, please explain:
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect permit (drainageadded, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? If yes, please explain:
5. Is the residuals management plan for the facility adequate and/or acceptable to the Division?
k_
❑ Yes or n No. If no, please explain:. ..
FORM: APSARRBaytreeLakesSIMajorModDec2008.doc 3

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
6. Are the existing application rates (hydraulic or nutrient) still acceptable? ❑ Yes or ❑ No. If no, please
explain:
7. Is the existing groundwater . monitoring program (number of wells, frequency of monitoring, monitoring
parameters, etc.). adequate? n Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A. Attach map of existing monitoring well network if
applicable. Indicate the review and compliance boundaries. If No, explain and! recommend any, changes to the
groundwater monitoring program:
8. Will seasonal or other restrictions be required for added sites? n Yes n No ❑ N/A If yes, attach list of sites
• with restrictions (Certification B?)
9. Are there any buffer conflicts (treatment facilities or disposal sites)? ❑ Yes or ❑ No. If yes, please attach a
map showing conflict areas or attach any new maps you have received from the applicant to be incorporated
into the permit:.-
,
10. Is the description of the facilities, type and/or volume of waste(s) as written in the existing permit correct?
Yes or ❑ No. If no, please explain:
- i
11. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? n Yes or ❑ No ❑ N/A. If no, please explain:
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (GW, NDMR, and NDAR as applicable)? ❑ Yes or
❑ No ❑ N/A., Please summarize any findings resulting from this review:
13. Check all that apply: ❑ No compliance issues; ❑ Notice(s) of violation NVithin the last permit cycle; ❑
Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under SOC; ❑ Currently', under JOC; ❑ Currently under
moratorium. If any items checked, please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify
answer/comments (such as NOV, NOD etc):
14. Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit, (SOC, JOC, et'c.)been complied with? ❑ Yes
❑ No n Not Determined ® N/A.. If no, please explain:
15. Are there anyissues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this .permit? n
Yes or ❑ No ❑ N/A. If yes, please explain:
FORM: APSARRBaytreeLakesSlMajorModDec2008.doc 4

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
IV. INJECTION WELL PERMIT APPLICATIONS (Complete these two sections for all systems that use injection
wells, including closed -loop groundwater remediation effluent injection wells, in situ remediation injection wells, and heat
pump injection wells.)
Description Of Well(S) And Facilities — New, Renewal, And Modification
1. Type of injection system:
❑ Heating/cooling water return flow (5A7)
❑ Closed -loop heat pump system (5QM/5QW)
❑ In situ remediation (5I)
❑ Closed -loop groundwater remediation effluent injection (5L/"Non-Discharge")
❑ Other (Specify:
2. Does systemuse same well for water source and injection? ❑ Yes n No
3. Are there any potential 'pollution sources that may affect injection? ❑ Yes n, No
What is/are the pollution source(s)? What is the distance of the injection well(s) from the pollution
source(s)? ft.
4. What is the minimum distance of proposed injection wells from the property boundary? ft.
. 5. Quality of drainage at site: ❑ Good ❑ Adequate , ❑ Poor
6. Flooding potential of site: ''❑.Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High
7. For groundwater remediation systems, is the proposed and/or existing groundwater monitoring program
(number of wells, frequency of monitoring, monitoring parameters, etc.) adequatie? ❑ Yes ❑ No. Attach
map of existing monitoring well network if applicable. If No, explain and recommend any changes to the
groundwater monitoring program: ,
8. Does the map presented represent the actual site (property lines, wells, surface drainage)? ❑ Yes or n No., If
no or no map, please attacha sketch of the site. Show property boundaries, buildings, wells, potential pollution
sources, roads, approximate scale, and north arrow.
Injection Well Permit Renewal And Modification Only:
1. For heat pump systems, -are. there any abnormalities in heat pump or injectioi well operation (e.g. turbid water,
failure to assimilate injected fluid, poor heating/cooling)?
❑ Yes n No. If yes. explain:
2. For closed -loop heat pump systems, has system lost pressure or required make-up fluid_ since permit issuance
or last inspection? n Yes ❑ No. If yes, explain:
3. For renewal or modification of groundwater remediation permits (of any type), will
continued/additional/modified injections have an adverse impact on migration of the plume or management of
the contamination incident? n Yes n No. If yes, explain:
4. Drilling contractor: Name:
FORM: APSARRBaytreeLakesSIMajorModDec2008.doc

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
Address:
Certification -number:
5. Complete and attach Well Construction Data Sheet.
FORM: APSARRBaytreeL'akesSlMajorModDec2008.doc• 6

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL' STAFF REPORT
V. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Provide any additional narrative regarding your review of the application.:
2. Attach Well Construction Data Sheet - if needed information is available
3. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes
® No. If yes, please explain
briefly. Operationally the Baytree WWTP spray irrigation site appears to be good condition, with coastal
bermuda being the primary crop for nutrients with a over -seed in the fall and winter of rye. .
4. List any 'items that you would like APS Central Office to obtain through an additional information, request.
Make sure that you provide a reason for each item:
Item
Reason
5. List specific Permit conditions that you recommend to beremoved from the permit when issued. Make sure
that you provide a reason for each condition:
Condition
Reason
6. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules that you recommend to be included irr the permit when
issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each special condition:
Condition
Reason
7. Recommendation: ❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office; ❑ Hold,
pending review of draft permit by regional office; ❑ Issue upon receipt of needed additional information;. Z
Issue; ❑ Deny. If deny, please state reasons:
8. Signature of report preparer(s):
Signature of APS regional supervisor:
FORM: APSARRBaytreeLakesSIMajorModDec2008.doc
7

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
David Goodrich reviewed and issued the current permit that Baytree Lakes is operating under. The permit
format and langauge should be utilized to indicate the current flow rate of 20,000 gpd is still applicable until all
infrastructure proposed in the upgrade has been installed and certification provided by the engineer that
equipment has been installed per the design plans. Once all equipment proposed'in the modification has been
installed and certified, then the permitted flow rate of 30,000 gpd is acceptable.
FORM: APSARRBaytreeLakesSlMajorModDec2008.doc

Elease
Jertne
W IEe Oak
Bufney
y}"•5
•9'�: I _1-i'. 1'9f
51 dfeaibpro
.
's': .4tAi7ottSl}U (
Cl.as kton
Ammon
Ef
Liston ;
kaet tioolgte iviaps on y
Text the word "GI IAPS'
•
P.ao•kersburg
-41
Gard -MT!'

102310 r kidding-14m ;airs [AEI
110r r loading - luadway •1:AEt
100y,r f kuading - trE's
123Orr Ffaad Ve ;tic* Zane Nor VE
idGyr Wallow teadin3 (AO as Al ip
10Clyr Future C.ndi8in flciiding IX Fat' rei,
503yr idirtg 1:Shaded, X 1.
Baytree Lakes - Bladen
DriR M Grid
Cron St ofan.-
Riomrs and Streams
Cecilia I So' und3
efilluiAl &writ' ro... Yourct.
Al 1C: BPS:i
Litjor
tibein 14{,0
o
Bb. Ttuibri+11..lutbdicSont.
InierAaie lighvgy
—92 Fbjhw;t?
Fraqhlor,
Roild .
- - x-fib
Li RrF, Gwehrod, ri:#17t And Optn *Kt

u©a0u-tIr.0 o dtrtu wa,00 mu o ovaGupwoo au u.o %go u ©ut t&mvo 6 d71<ov( u u
FP47I5 Hc'rt7a
G srti•_ed Data
1733ft
h ide: 34.724538763881,6,Longitude:-78.37110615887668
.ddrE s Latup -. Lay rs
Add .Data.
13Ayrizec c.uy',P
'UZI • SPflAY i fed / 647704
fTfo •
•

.Realistic Yield Expectations for North Carolina Soils
The following tables are the result of extensive data gathering and review process conductE
State University,.the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the North Carolina,Departmer
Agriculture and ConsurmerServices, and the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water
Conservation. In 1999, county -based representatives of each of the above -named organiza
were asked to collect yield data and make a reasoned judgement of the yields for various c
each of the soils occurring in their county. These data were collected from 87 responses,
representing 93 ,counties. The data were then compared with available research data and
intensively reviewed by a panel of field agronomists, soil scientists and researchers familiar
the soils, crops and climatic conditions in each region. In reviewing the data, the following
assumptions were made:
1. Realistic Yield Expectations should be based on the average of the best 3 years in a 5
period which could be achieved with a high level of management (top 20% of grower:
2. For soils that may be mapped in multiple regions or in slightly different landscapes (ft
example, flood plains or stream terraces), the Realistic Yields are based on the most
prevailing conditions -for that soil rather than the most ideal site for agricultural prods.
3. For soils that are Somewhat Poorly, Poorly, or Very Poorly Drained, effective artificial
drainage MUST be in place to achieve the yields shown in the RYE tables.
4. For tobacco production in the Piedmont physiographic, irrigation was assumed to be
available, whereas no irrigation was assumed in the Coastal Plain physiographic regio
is in accordance with numerous surveys which show Tess than 15%-20% of tobacco ii
Coastal Plain is irrigated, while 70 to 80% of tobacco in the Piedmont receives some i
Citation: North Carolina Nutrient Management Workgroup. 2003. Realistic yields and nitrog
application factors for North Carolina•crops. http://nutrients.soil.ncsu.edu/yields/ North Car
State University, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, North C
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Servic
Raleigh NC.
To access the database, select a county and at least one crop. Multiple crops may be select
holding the Ctrl key when selecting crops. A report will be generated showing a summary c
currently available data for the county you selected.
Select Your County
Select Your Soil
Correct for Slope
Bladen
WaB:' Wagra n.fine sand,. 0 to`6 `•ercerit slopes
' WbB: Wagram-Urban land complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes
We: Wahee loam
WgB: Wakulla sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes
Use Representative Slope Typical of the Soil Mapunit
Use my slope 0
Submit
Reset
Realistic Yields for WaB: Wagram fine sand, 0.
6 percent slopes- in Bladen County
Crop
Nitrogen
Yield Factor
Realistic
Nitrogen
Rate
(Ibs/acre)
Estimated
Phosphorus
Removal
(Ibs P2O5/acre)

^` ^B�dey(Gra|n\ .�3 1.58 84 ZO
� ^ ^
. Bushels
'
, [orn'(Grain) 74 1.22 90 ^ 32'
Bushels
Corn (Silage) ' '0-.Tons 11.8 O O
637 0.113 71 18
Pounds `
Sorghum(Silage) ' 07�ons ` 8.3'
8
`
.1
O
Oats (Grain)
67 1.27 85 . 17
� . .
uusne/s
�
� Peanuts
�
. `
2940 ' O _ 0
Pounds
16
,Rye (Grain)
39- '232 91. _ 13
' bush |s
Small Grain (SUage)
6.4Tons 12.2 78 34
Sorghum (Grain)
34CVVT 1.94 67 ' ` ZG
Soybea.ns(Doub|e'.CrbppeU) 23 O O 18
. �
'
Bushels
5ovbeona(FuU'geasnn) . 37 O O 22
' Bushels
'
` '
SnYbeans(Doub|aCropped- 'Z 3 3.98 90 18
Monurad) BUshe|s
|
Soybeans(Full S�a�on' Z7 398 1O9 22
` ' �. |
Monured) Bushels
Tobacco (Burley)
OPounds 0.06 � 8 O
Tobacco (Flue Cured)
2548 Q,038 97 13,
Pounds
`
Trtica|e (Grain)
55 1.6 88 18
'
Bushels /|
Tropical Cbrn (Silage)
OTons 7.1 O O '
Wheat (Grain)
39 -2.32 91 20
Bushels
Bahiagrass (Hay)
4Tons 49 ' 197 ' 46�
Caucas|nn/b |dVVnr|d B|uestern 4.3Tons 49
311 ' 51 �
�.
(Hay) ^
Common Bermudagrass (Hay) 4 -Tons, 49 197 49
DoUisgrass(Hav)
4,
4.Tons � 49- 197
53,
Fescue (Hay) 1.5Tona 49 . 72 ~ 23
/
Hybrid Bernnudagnass(Hay) 5.4Tons' 49 ' 264 66'
HvbhdBernnudagnass'
nverseededwith Rescuegnass
5.5. Tons 49
269
�
�
�7S
'
Mixed Cool Season Grass ` 1.1Tons 49 53 '' ` 15
(Hay)
Orchardgross (Hay) ' 1.1Tnny 49 53 16
` Pearl Millet (Hay)
Rescuegrass (Hay)
4.9Tons 54 . 265 65
�
2Tons 49 96' 22
Sorghum Sudan (.ay) ` 4.3Tons ' 54 233 �` . b�'

,•Realistic Yield -Expectations for North Carolina Soils
The following tables are the'result of extensive data gathering and review process conducte
State University, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the North Carolina Departmer
Agriculture and ConsurmerServices, and the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water
Conservation. In 1999, county -:based representatives of each of the above -named organiza
were asked to collect.yield data and'make a reasoned judgement of the yields for various c
each of the soils occurring in their county. These data were collected from 87 responses,
representing 93 counties;. The data were then compared with available research data and
intensively reviewed by a panel of field agronomists, soil scientists and researchers familiar
the soils, crops and climatic conditions in each region. In reviewing; the data, the following
assumptions were made:
1. Realistic Yield Expectations should be based on the average of the best 3 years in a 5
period which could be achieved with a high level of management (top 20% of grower
2. For soils that may be mapped in. multiple regions or in slightly different landscapes (ft
example, flood plains or stream terraces), the Realistic Yields, are based on the most
prevailing conditions for that, soirrather than the most ideal site for agricultural prod
3. For soils -that are Somewhat Poorly, Poorly, or Very Poorly Drained, effective artificial
drainage MUST be inr place to achieve the yields shown in the RYE tables.
4: For tobacco production in the Piedmont physiographic, irrigation was -assumed to be
available, whereas no irrigation was assumed in the Coastal Plain physiographic-regio
is in accordance with numerous surveys which show less than, 15%-20% of tobacco it
Coastal Plain is irrigated, while 70 to 80% of tobacco in the Piedmont receives some i
Citation: North Carolina Nutrient Management Workgroup. 2003.. Realistic yields and nitrog
application factors for North Carolina crops. http://nutrients.soil.ncsu.edu/yields/ North Car
State University, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, North C
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Servic
Raleigh NC.
To access the database, select a county and at least one crop. Multiple crops may be select
holding the Ctrl key when selecting crops. A report will be generated showing a summary c
currently available data for the county you selected.
Select Your County
Select Your Soil
Correct for Slope
Bladen
WgB: Wakulla sand,1 to.6 percent -slopes
Wh: Wasda muck •
WmB: Wickham fine sandy- loam, 1 to 6 percentislopes.
WN: Wilbanks loam, frequently flooded
Use,Representative Slope Typical of,the Soil Mapunit
0 Use my slope 0
Submit
Reset
Realistic Yields for WgB: Wakulla sand, 1 to 6
percent slopes in Bladen County
Crop
Realistic
Nitrogen
Nitrogen Rate
Yield . Factor (Ibs/acre);
Estimated
Phosphorus
Removal
(Ibs P205/acre)

°Bahey (Grain)
^ � �
46
Bushels
74
18
Corn (Grain) 54 1.25 67 / 34
/ .
Bushels
Corn (Silage)
OTons 12 O O
~ 539 0.12 65 16
Pounds
Sorghum (Silage) OTons 8.4 .O ' 8
Oats (Grain.,)
'
� � 5g. 1. 76 � 15
� |
Bushels
�
�
' 2156 �. 0 0 12
Pounds
'
� Rye (Grain)
) �
34 I42 83 11
Bushels
BrnaUGhain'(B|age) 5.9Tnns ,12.5 74 32
Sorghum (Grain)
35CVVT Z 49 18
Soybeans U]oub|eCropped) 18 ` O 0 .
Bushels �
14
Soybeans (Full Season), ` 22, O O / 17 `
' Bushels
' [Dodb|aCropped- 18 4 . � 1 '� 14
Soybeans` /
Manured)` Bushels
Soybeans (Full Saaaon-
Manuned)
22 4 86
Bushels
17
Tobacco (Burley)
^O.Pounds 0'08 . ' O � | 01 .
' ' |
Tobacco (Flue Cured) 19.60 0.4 ' 784 | 10
'Pounds
Trbco|e (Grain)
�
48 16
1.48 71
`� `
Bushe|s
Tropical Corn (Silage) ^ 0Tons 7.20 O
VVheot(Grain)
34 2.42 . 83 �
'
Bushels
� �
17
Bahiagrass (Hay) .2.9 Tons 50 147 34
[oucas|on/O|dWorld lB|uestarn 3.1Tuns 50
157 37
147 1 36
DaUisgnass(Hoy) `
�
2.9Tons 50 147 39
,
Fescue (Hay)
OTons 50 0 O
Hybrid Bennu ogrnss/Hay\ `3.'Tons58
196 ' 48
Hybrid Genmuda ross 4.5Tons 50 225 61
oversoeded\withRascuagnass
Mixed [on|Seo nGrass
.0 Tons . SO O
O�
(]rchardgrass(Hay)
`OTnOs' �
5O 0 / U
. /
'
Pearl M.illet (Hay)
3.5Tons- 55 194 47
Rescu gra (Hay) -Z'Tons 50 98 .22
Sorghum Sudan (Hay). 3.1Tons 55 '172 � 44

-.Realistic Yield Expectations for North Carolina Soils
The following tables are the result of extensive data gathering and review process conduct(
State University, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the North Carolina Departmer
Agriculture and ConsurmerServices, and the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water
Conservation. In 1999,, county -based representatives of each of the above -named organiza
were asked to collect yield data and make a reasoned judgement of the yields for various c
each of the soils occurring in their county. These data were collected from 87 responses,
representing 93 counties. The data were then compared with available research data and
intensively reviewed by -a panel of field agronomists, soil scientists and researchers familiar
the soils, crops and climatic conditions in each region. In reviewing the data, the following
assumptions were made:
1. Realistic Yield Expectations should be based on the average of the best 3 years ina 5
period which could be achieved, with a high level of management (top 20% of grower:
2. For soils that may be mapped in multiple regions or in slightly, different landscapes (fi
example, flood plains or stream terraces), the Realistic Yields are based on the most
prevailing conditions for that soil rather than the most ideal site for agricultural prods.
3. For soils that are Somewhat Poorly, Poorly, or Very Poorly Drained, effective artificial.
drainage MUST be in place to achieve the yields shown in the RYE tables.
4. For tobacco production in the Piedmont physiographic, irrigation was assumed to be
available, whereas no irrigation was assumed in the Coastal Plain physiographic regio
is in accordance with numerous surveys which show less than 115%-20% of tobacco
Coastal Plain is irrigated, while 70 to 80% of tobacco in the Piedmont receives some i
Citation: North Carolina Nutrient Management Workgroup. 2003. Realistic yields and nitrog
application factors for North Carolina crops. http://nutrients.soil.hcsu.edu/yields/ North Car
State University, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, North (
Department of Environment and Natural .Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Servic
Raleigh NC.
To access the database, select a county and at least one crop. Multiple crops may be select
holding the Ctrl key when selecting crops. A report will be generated showing a summary
currently available data for the county you selected.
Select Your County : Bladen
Select Your Soil
Correct for Slope
Ce: Centena sand
Ch: Chewacla and Chastain soils, frequently'.flodded
Cn: Congaree silt loam, frequently flooded
Co: Coxville loam
© Use Representative Slope Typical of the Soil Mapunit
U Use my slope 0
Submit:::
Reset
Realistic Yields for Ce: Centenary sand in Blac
County
Crop
Realistic
Nitrogen '
Nitrogen Rate
Yield Factor (Ibs/acre)
Estimated
Phosphorus
Removal
(Ibs P205/acre)

C.''" �,Udey (Grain) -
471.6 ` 75 18^
Bushels
Corn (Grain) bS 1.25 81 '� 39
Bushels
Corn (Silage)
OTons 12 O , O
SOO 0.12 '60 15
P8unds '
�
Sorgburn(Si|age� � OTons 8.4 O ''/ O
' '
Oats (Grain) 60 1.3 78 .
Bushels
15
Peanuts
~
2200 . . O O 12
Pounds
Rye (Grain) ]S 2.42 85 12' '
. Bushels
Small Grain (SUoge) 6Tons 12.5 75 `, 32
Sorghum [Grain\ 30CVVT 2' 60 33
Soybeans (Double Cropped) 21 O O 17
Bushels
Soybeans (Full Season)
35
Bushels
O
0 " 2O
�
`
Soybeans (Double Cropped- 21 4 84 ' , 17'
Manurad) Bushels
Soybeans.(FullSeason -
Manured\
25 4 100 ' ./ 20,
Bushels '� |
Tobacco (Burley) OPnunds 0.08 U ' O
Tobacco (Flue Cured)
1900 O`4 760 .10
Pounds
Triticale (Grain)
'
49 1.48 73 | 16
Bushels
Tropical Corn (Silage)'
�
/
8Tohs 7.2 .O _ U
Wheat (Grain)
35 2.42 85 '' 18
//
'_she|s '
CoucmsiVn/0d VVodd B|uestern 3t6Tons 50 180 .`43
(Hay)
-
DaUisgross(Hmy)
3.4Tons 50 170 1 45 ,
Fescue -(Hay)
HybhdBmnnudagnass 5Tnns . SO
oversaedadwith Rescuegrass
(Hoy)
.225 ` 55 �
250 68
-
'Mixed Co'o|Season Grass OTons 58 O O
Orchardgrass (Hay)
OTons 50 O ' O
Pearl Millet (Hay) 4.11'ons 55 226
55
Rescuegrass (Hay)-
2Tons 50 ` ^1QO ' 23.

it;riSEW „tr,tinii;07
Pciatrntrerims,Owseitvatio-:
I.;
Contact Us Download Soils Data Archived Soil Surveys I Glossary I Preferences I Logout I Help
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soli Map
Soil Data Explorer
Shopping Cart (Free)
IAIAIAC$
i Printable Version
,
I ; Add th Shopping Cart I
0
0
Search
0
Soli Map
®
RI
KI
n
FE
i g I
+I
''LLI
4,1
A
1, ,-Scale-
146 '
Map Unit Legend
' 4 ',''' 1. ' ''' 4*', kis /I' '-- ''' " -- -; 44 4- - ' P. "e
0
. , , , , , • .tf .i:,,4 • ,,,
t, . . • t ..e 4 ,
Bladen County, North Carolina (NC017) 0
. . . „
Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in Percent of
Symbol AOI AOI
Ce Centenary sand 7.9 83.6%
WgB Wakulla sand, 1 to • 1.5 16.40/0
6 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 9.4 100.0%
-,,, 4, ,, . e , ,
: • ,..7 ,- .> ' .. 4'. ,- ,
' ' '4 . ,:'4"'l ' '4 • 4 ... 4 ." . : 4 ' , 41- ' '. '4,7,0'..t ' '
. .. ..
, 4 , It ,
, . - „., '',
- 4 % ) , , . , ,,, „
•. , t, ,,,,
, - -,1....-s..• „,,, , ., ,
. , Ti. ' L
,. .,' ' -,' - • . ..i.
,.., 7,i, IA
'
•'.. : ..,
,..
i'4•4 ' .., --
' - • _-. ,
t,,
, ....: •' .."' . , •`, *.
-----"., '
-.--,-....-----‘41L,-..,-..,_. .- .'".., '''
_
.-, ,,,-,' '71 ,
,. 1..14', „„,, , ,
, t a. 4. ...,. ..1 . -i-
.
J , - `. ,
4rii'1A0.7
, - i '," ,,0 A,411.„PL,,
o
,..
...
v
..
•'j
_., ..-.,.. .
1 .'
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
...t„.1
You have zoomed in beyond the scale at which the soil map for this area is intended
to be used. Mapping of soils is done at a particular scale. The soil surveys that
comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. The design of map units and the level ..
of detail shown in the resulting soil map are dependent on that map scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of
il the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the !
small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
FOIA 1 Accessibility Statement 1 Privacy Policy 1 Non -Discrimination Statement I Information Quality 1 USA.gov. I White House

ifs•, -:ems -:a., _ '-�.as.-.*_r-=„�:��'�n.-m> -;;z'•,-
Q0018708: Baytree Lakes Spray Irrigation facility:
Existing aeration and sludge storage infrastructure.

r .
n Q0018708: Baytree Lakes Spray Irrigation facility.
Spray Irrigation field in operation.
; .11,4"
734'
•

(Q0018708: Baytree Lakes Spray Irrigation facility.

WQ0018708: Baytree Lakes Spray irrigation facility.
• Storage lagoon. Flow meter in cmu structure.

r.