NC0087963_Additional Information Received_20040423

NPDES DOCUMENT :;CANNING COVER SHEET
NC0087963
Buckeye Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Addi(tioniInforrnationZved
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
April 23, 2004
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content an the re-rere +side

Mir
.w
U. APR L!i!_
3
H
l DF" p 5tr ,- SOURCE
RCI
ATLANTIC PLAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION
ENGINEERING NOW AND FOR 111E FE"11 RE.
Date: David A. Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permit Application
Buckeye Creek Project (Proposed)
Return # 2205
Watauga County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
APR 2 3 2004
On Attachment 9, Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist and P.E., from the USGS Office, calculated a
30Q2 of 0.06 cfs for an unnamed tributary which ajoins Thunderhole Creek. Buddy Cox from
John. S. Cox and Associates, Inc. has a system for sale that meets the standards of 15A NCAC
02B.0206 (d)(1).
We have provided the following information:
* Present value costs on all alternatives.
* The soil report did state that there were areas where a land application for pre-treatment
and drip irrigation might be used. The only area that could be used for is the front area
(3.75 acres) leading into the property. This land is normally used for landscaping, a sign
and an entrance. Even with this Attachment 5, 6 and 8 show the alternatives of subsurface
drip irrigation, spray and reuse are very expensive alternatives.
* Several properties nearby have septic tanks, but could not support an additional 50,000 g/day.
There is a letter from the owner (Attachment 3), which states that he knows of no other
septic system, which would support this system. James Reid, NCDENR Regional Office
in Asheville, states in attachment 4, that he knows of no other treatment plant that is
reasonably close to this project.
PO Box 1691 [phone] [phone] Fax
Hickory, NC 28603 [e-mail]

PEI
There are several other attachments also included:
* Attachment 14, Local Government Review Requirements.
* Attachment 15, Tax Office information showing land use.
* Attachment 16, A statement from Chuck H. Davis Jr., P.E., telling why the drip
and spray system will not work in this area.
* Attachment 17, Letter from Appalachian District Health Department, Lawrence
G. Caviness, Environmental Health Supervisor, who states: "It is my opinion
that subsurface application would not be practical for this site.
* This project is now two (2) phased. There are 86 units in phase one (1) and 52
units in phase two (2). All 138 units will generate wastewater for the proposed
treatment system.
*
Attachment 18, lists the people contacted for prices of equipment, labor and
cost per linear foot.
* Attachment 19, Flow Schedule for unnamed tributary.
* Attachment 20, Portion of "Basin wide Assessment Report, Catawba River Basin"
2003.
0:4(/ r J
Richard J. Franklin, P.E.
President

(ATLANTIC PLAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Buckeye Creek
— Watauga County
Hwy 221 (Project Location)
Owner: Franklin Reed Williams, II
9803 River Road, Richmond, VA 23233
Phone: [phone]
Preparer: Atlantic Plan Engineering Corp.
P.O. Box 1691, Hickory, NC 28603
-
LNG INURING NOW AND Wit TM. 11'11 Iu:
B. The project is a townhouse development with approximately 138 BD units.
This would generate approximately 49,680 GPD (138 x 360 GPD). The
collection system is a proposed low-pressure sewer lines to a treatment plant.
C. There are no existing facilities to be utilized in the new project.
D. The original submittal was for three (3) phases of construction. It is now programmed for two
(2) phases. 86 units in the first phase and 52 units in the second phase. All units will tie into
the sewage treatment plant.
II. Evaluation of Disposal Alternatives
A. Connection into an existing sewer collection system (Public or Private)
Public Sewer System: See attachment 1, letter from the acting Engineer, Marion
Rothrock, P.E., for the Town of Blowing Rock.
Attachment 2(A) and 2(B) — See figures to run the gravity lines or pressure lines back to
Blowing Rock's sewer system. Please note: These do not include blasting through rock
to lay this pipe.
PO Box 1691 [phone] [phone] Fax
Hickory, NC 28603 [e-mail]

IMR
Wink
NEM
•
2. Private Sewer System: The private sewer systems close have septic tanks and do
not have a capacity for an extra 50,000 gallons per day. The owner wrote a letter
stating that he did not know of any other private sewer systems in the area
(attachment 3). James Reid, from the NCDENR Regional Office in Asheville
also stated that he knew of no other treatment plants down river (attachment 4).
B. Land -Based Disposal
Attachment 5 & 6 show the cost for the demand spray systems. The extra land that
is needed for these systems at a cost
property -attachment 7).
C. Wastewater Reuse
$257,500/acre jsee appraisal of land near this
7
PcCd
syrequire 8.5 acres. Only 3.75 acres are available. At a cost of
$257,000 per acre this alternative is not feasible (see attachment 8).
D. Surface Water Discharge
The US Geological Survey (USGS), Mr. Curtis Weaver, was consulted to obtain
receiving -stream flow information. The 7Q10 flow was 0.02 cfs. (see attachment 9).
According to 15A NCAC 02B .0206 Flow Design Criteria For Effluent Limitations
(d) (1) "In cases where the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream is estimated to be zero,
water quality based effluent limitations will be assigned as follows: Where the 30Q2
flow is estimated to be greater than zero, effluent limitations for new or expanded
discharges of oxygen consuming waster will be set at BO135 = 5 mg/1 (see attachment 3
10). The sewage treatment plant quote by Buddy Cox (attachment 11) meets this
criteria. Present worth and project cost determined by John T. Coxey, P.E.
(attachment 12).
E. Disposal Combinations
Except for 3.75 acres, which is the area just as you come into the subdivision,
there are only scattered areas available to use for drip, spray and reuse (see
attachment 13 showing extreme slopes on the property). This frontal property
is usually not used for a septic field, and the piping to these other available
areas would make these systems unmanageable.

Table for EAA
Alternatives
Initial Cost
Annual Costs
PW
(1) Public Sewer
System — Gravity
1,986,268.43
0
(Paid by Blowing
Rock)
1,986,268.43
(2) Public Sewer
System — Forced
Main
4,322,666.68
0
(Paid by Blowing
Rock)
4,322,666.68
(3) Connection to
a Privately
Owned Treatment
Works
Not Available
N/A
Not Available
(4) Individual
Subsurface
System
Land needed for
this is not
available
Cost 1,380,000
(Not Counting
Land)
0
1,380,000
(5) Community
Subsurface
System
Land Not
Available
Cost 1,380,000
0
1,380,000
Drip Irrigation
Surface
823,246.50
Biofilters
Replaced 588,000
1,906,400.50
Drip Irrigation
Subsurface
823,246.50
588,000
1,906,400.50
Spray Irrigation
10,328,267.50
Biofiiters
Replaced 588,000
11,411,421.50
Reuse
390,130
32,100
3,330,974.50
Surface water
discharge with
NPDES Permit
390,130
32,100
730,069.10

NMI
Rothrock Engineering, PLLC
Telephone * 828/757-9834 Fax * 828/758-0275
E-mail * [e-mail]
4779 Kirby Mtn. Rd. * Lenoir, NC 28645
July 3, 2003
Richard Franklin, P.E.
.. Atlantic Plan
P. O. Box 1691
Hickory, NC 28603
Re: Sewer Service
Town of Blowing Rock
Dear Mr. Franklin:
Marion 9 o1hrock, 93.8.
N.C. 3476 Ky.7950
S.C. 5817 Tenn.10,651
Fla. 30195 Penn. 016014
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Civi! - :Uec•h. - Elec.
Suh-Division - II'a►cr - Sewer
Grading - Erosion Control
The Town of Blowing Rock has no plans and does not expect to extend it's town limits and
accompanying utilities including water and sewer, to the west along US 221 beyond the Blue
Ridge Parkway Lands. The present Town Limits on the west side of Blowing Rock are already
to Parkway Lands.
_ The cost of providing service to any areas west of Blowing Rock along US 221 would be cost
prohibitive.
MNI
I trust the above answers your question concerning the possibility of water and sewer service to
your project from the Town of Blowing Rock.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Rothrock En: veering, PL
P. Mari
Presid: nt
Rothrock, P.
Cc: Scott Hildebran, Town Manager
Attachment 1

PIR
MR
To Blowing Rock By Road
MI 3 miles X 5,280 =15,840 feet
mile
15,840 feet X #271ft. = $427,680
for 12" Sewer pipe
For manhole every 300 feet 15,840 = 52.8 = 53 manholes
300
53 manholes X $1800/manhole = $95,400
3 Lift stations at $28,000/lift station
$28,000 X 3 = $84,000
Total to run to Blowing Rock to Public System
$427,680 + $95,400 + $84,000 = $607,080
Attachment 2(A)

01114
.
Plant to Blowing Rock over mountains 3,000 feet, but the route goes over
four (4) mountain slopes.
mg
Pipe: 24,000 ft. x $27/per ft. = $648,000
'a' 4 lift stations x 28,000 = $112,000
Manholes = 24,000 = 80 manholes
mi 300
80 manholes x $1,800 = $144,000
wal
Total = $904,000
1W
Sul
rug
mg
FIR
mg
num
tug
MR
Attachment 2(B)

F. Reed Williams, II
9803 River Road
Richmond, Va. 23233
Monday, July 7, 2003 3:50 PM EDT
Mr. Richard Rankin, P. E
Atlantic Plan Engineering Corp.
P. O. Box 1691
Hickory, N. C. 28603
Dear Mr. Franklin:
This is in regards to my approx. 65 ac. piece of property along Hwy. 221 in Watauga
County. I have owned the property for many years. I believe Fpurtha it in 1972 1 am
not aware of any sewer plants near my property or any located down stream from it
Sincerely, t 1
Attachment 3

NMI
MIER
NMI
min
MMI
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
WATER QUALITY SECTION
July 18, 2003
Mr. Richard J. Franklin, President
Atlantic Plan Engineering Corporation
Post Office Box 1691
Hickory, North Carolina 28603-1691
Facsimile Transmission
(1 page, 828-327-0931)
Dear Mr. Franklin:
AA1
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: Williams Project
Watauga County
This letter is provided in response to the inquiry dated July 14,
2003. Staff of the Asheville Regional Office are unaware of any
discharge -type (or any other type) wastewater treatment system in
Caldwell County that is reasonably close to the proposed project.
Please contact me if additional comments are required.
xc: (w/attachments via LISPS)
59 Woodfin Place, Asheville North Carolina 28801
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Sincerely,
James R. Reid
Environmental Engineer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper
Attachment 4

II I MI
OMNI
NOR
al Nil
ATLANTIC PLAN ENGINEERING CORP.
ENGINEERING & PLANNING CONSULTANTS
828-327-2621
P.O. Box 1691
Hickory, NC 28603-1691 E-MAIL: atlplan@conninc com
FAX: [phone]
Date: July 14, 2003
To: Jim Reid
NCDENR
Interchange Building
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Dear Mr. Reid:
Sue White, from the Winston Salem NCDENR office, asked me to submit a map in the
Caldwell County area (downstream from a Watauga County project location) to see if
there might be any sanitary sewer systems that you might know.
The owners of the project property, Reid and Gay Williams, do not know of any package
sewage treatment plants downstream.
Attached is a map of their property and what is located downstream.
Please check to see if you know of any package sewage plants in this area.
Thank you,
Richard J. Fran P.E.
President

.
.-1i
Trout-
k • "Y
1 _ : k
Li
•
2
+,.
11
t,1:r' c..a tilt t
-
•
Julian Pricy
lake.Dam•
r
,4'1.
+`
.�
Hert
Oa.
:rig
Od 0fwHa
I Cme take
Tommie.
aOaln P4lroad �134win
_ ' e•hr_e
- - Lake
_
N•�7
f, t :.
u
i `>\., U
RocY 6-
�t-fat.
r t`
! -t .�7fryr
am. -+Y..
t
.
-.s:rv/ Kay';'�±ci!"'"
�MdnT Hrrprxs
lake
`y
1.�1_
' i721r
' \\ice
'-�"�
CO.
Ca4Four u:` •
--`-•...--,--'' Gap
1rl
�*a�
•
&to
i
Pay/BLa 11G
(
atit'r..,,SITE
ParkWATAUGA
:
�Y-
fh
lx:.-st
aiiir
CALDWEiLL
ES'
CO.
•,ey
Bawl
•tcai ��Eitk
,//i
\)•
Pa;lnr
t
•
I
,
'F?r,-k' iKnou
t
}
- $bb»
Pic,ut Il1i::a•
--1:30° 5'
..
Satd i �
c.gi
:h7nrr Weir n•
. .
'
.. -
. L'p{on.
Irtle HceKy Knan
it.s k'f'
I
.
•
•
^NO3
_
t,
• •
y,n,�..vmb
.
;,..,,,..t
Globe 64..ont.a,,.
•
..
-N•n SIS• ••
Rdie
Srrt Rr-k
1L
:,—,4
..C•;&-,-
. -
3-D ToprQzuds Copyright (9.1999 Delnzwe Yarmouth. ME 04096
1.909 ti Sea1r_ 1 :56,C O Death 12-0 Datum WCS84

Reed Williams
Analysis for subsurface drip irrigation system:
Townhouses arranged in four (4) units per building, with 3 bedrooms per unit.
'— Each building would generate 1,440 GPD.
Volume of septic tank = (1.17)(1,440 GPD) + 500 = 2,185 gallons, use a 3,000 gallon
septic tank with an effluent filter at discharge.
"— Also, a total of four (4) "Ecoflo" biofilters will be required at each building for
pretreatment of effluent before discharging to drip system.
Calculate a system for each building.
A storage/pump tank for each building will be required to have a storage capacity of 2/3
of septic tank. (3,000 gallons)(2/3) = 2,000 gallons, use 2,000 gallon tank for
storage/pump. If collecting the effluent for a central storage/pump tank it would need to
have a 50,000 gallon capacity.
For the drip system field, assume an application rate of 0.4 GPD/sqft.
A minimum of 3,600 sqft would be required at that application rate.
1,440 GPD / 0.4 GPD/sqft = 3,600 sqft -
With a standard spacing and separation of the lines and emitters of 2', the total length of
lines needed would be 1,800 1ft.
The minimum area required for the drip field and repair area will be (3,600 sqft)(2)
7,200 sqft or 0.17 acres for each building. There are-34 buildings, so the total minimum
area for the drip system and repair area would 75.77acres.
A um for each field would be required to have`a capacity of 20 GPM to reach the
pump
design flow for the field lines.
Stroupe Septic Tank Systems $1,800
Septic Tank $1,800
Installed $2,400
138 Units x 2400 = $331,200
1,800 lft. x $7/ft. = $12,600
Using the front entrance area 1.16 acres + 1.59 acres = 3.75 acres
Area needed 5.70 — 3.75 = 1.95 acres needed
1.95 acres 0245,870 = $479,446.50
Total = $823,246.50 r
-14,5°b)%44
f(
Attachment 5

Analysis for surface application drip/spray irrigation system:
Townhouses arranged in four (4) units per building, with 3 bedrooms per unit.
Each building would generate 1,440 GPD.
Volume of septic tank = (1.17)(1,440 GPD) + 500 = 2,185 gallons, use a 3,000 gallon
septic tank with an effluent filter at discharge.
Also, a total of four (4) "Ecoflo" biofilters will be required at each building for
pretreatment of effluent before discharging to drip system.
Fon Calculate a system for each building.
A storage/pump tank for each building will be required to have a storage capacity of 2/3
of septic tank. (3,000 gallons)(2/3) = 2,000 gallons, use 2,000 gallon tank for
storage/pump. If collecting the effluent for a central storage/pump tank it would need to
have a 50,000 gallon capacity.
For the surface application system field, assume an application rate of 0.05 GPD/sqft.
A minimum of 28,800 sqft would be required at that application rate.
1,440 GPD / 0.05 GPD/sqft = 28,800 sqft
Since the application area would be in the woods use drip system.
For drip system with a standard spacing and separation of the lines and emitters of 2', the
total length of lines needed would be 14,4001ft.
The minimum area required for a surface drip field and repair area will be
(28,800 sqft)(2) = 57,600 sqft or 1.32 acres for each building.
There are 34 buildings, so the total minimum area for the drip system and repair area
F.1 would be 44.88 acres.
A pump would be required to have a capacity of 20 GPM to reach the design flow for the
field lines.
2,000 Gallon tank $2,400 x 138 = $331,200
12 - "Ecoflo" biofilters
Lines total $14,400 lf. x $7/ft. = $100,800
(44 acres — 3.75) = 40.25 acres
$9,896,267.50
Total = $9,896,267.50 + $100,800 + $331,200 = $10,328,267.50

JacJ A. tfu
920 North Bridge Street
era)
FIR Elkin, North Carolina 2862I
Fan
Pmg
August 30, 2002
Mr. F. Reed Williams, II
Mr. Gaylord Williams
9803 River Road
Richmond, Virginia 27078
Re: Appraisal of 2.095 Acre Tract on Knob Road
F. Reed Williams Property
Dear Mr. F. Reed Williams, II and Mr. Gaylord Williams:
In accordance with your request, 1 have made an appraisal of the above subject property. I am submitting
you two copies of the apprisal report with all the ��g to
and in theP� data that Y have compiled in the search of the market
inspection of the subject property.
The value as defined in this appraisal report is FIVE HUNDRED FIFTEEN
NO/100 DOLLARS($515,000.001. THOUSAND AND
This value resents my estimate of the market value of the subject pro
14, 2002. The effective date of the narrative a P Pem' as it existed on August
PP�� report is August 14, 2402.
The method of valuation, together with the date and the assumptions upon which these estimates of value are
based, is detailed in the attached report.
Appraisals and
Real Estate
336435-2256
Fax336.83S-8985
gal
Very
yY
ack A. Underdown
State Certified G
Certificate No. A6
JAU:bw
a
Attachment 7

Photograph Views
L

Analysis for water reuse with surface application drip/spray irrigation system:
Townhouses arranged in four (4) units per building, with 3 bedrooms per unit.
Each building would generate 1,440 GPD.
Volume of septic tank = (1.17)(1,440 GPD) + 500 = 2,185 gallons, use a 3,000 gallon
septic tank with an effluent filter at discharge.
Also, a total of four (4) "Ecoflo" biofilters will be required at each building for
pretreatment of effluent before discharging to aeration tank.
Calculate a system for each building.
An aeration tank will be required with a capacity of 360 gallons.
A five (5) day side -stream detention would be required with a capacity of 7,200 gallons.
A storage/pump tank for each building will be required to have a storage capacity of 2/3
of septic tank. (3,000 gallons)(2/3) = 2,000 gallons, use 2,000 gallon tank for
storage/pump. If collecting the effluent for a central storage/pump tank it would need to
have a 50,000 gallon capacity.
Since the application area would be in the woods use a drip system.
For the surface application system field, assume an application rate of 0.27 GPD/sqft.
A minimum of 5,333 sqft would be required at that application rate.
1,440 GPD / 0.27 GPD/sqft = 5,333 sqft
For drip system with a standard spacing and separation of the lines and emitters of 2', the
total length of lines needed would be 2,667 lft.
The minimum area required for a surface drip field and repair area will be
(5,333 sqft)(2) = 10,666 sqft or 0.25 acres for each building.
There are 34 buildings, so the total minimum area for the drip system and repair area
would be 8.5 acres.
A pump would be required to have a capacity of 20 GPM to reach the design flow for the
field lines.
2000 Gallon tank
138 x $2,400/tank = $331,200
12- "Ecoflo" Biofilters 1
Lines 2,667 lft. x $7/1ft. _ $18,669
8.5 acres — 3.75 = 4.75 acres
4.75 acres
s = $1,167,882.50
Total = $1,167,882.50 + $18,669 + $331,200 = $1,517,751.50
Attachment 8

Pagel of
1.' Atlantic Plan Engineering Corp
pal From: John C Weaver <jcweaverrusgs.gov>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: John C Weaver Icrfaaves Jsgs.gov '
Sent: Friday. February 14, 2003 g:36 AM
Attach: t hundencoleoreek.ppt
Subject: A.kemate location #2...Thundencole Creek low -flow discharge estimates
Pal
Mr. Charles Davis,
rim Mr. Richard Franklin
Follow-up to your question concerning the location on Thimderhole Creek
"I" headwaters where the 7Q10 low -flow estimate would be 0.05 cfs, attached is
another Powerpoint file that contains a slide showing the second alternate
location where the flow estimate would be of this magnitude. It
corresponds to the intersection of the stream and the longitude line
corresponding to 81d 42. ni 30s identified at the top of the Globe quad map.
�•, Meaz red by a slraight line distwee, it is equivalent to about 1,900 feet
between the initial location and alternate location #2.
rJ+ Mope this information helps.
RIM
If you have any further questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Thank you.
Curtis weaver
4rt♦4►+itq.w...4.4..444.+ter.•."4,14{4r4,4-.4.4. r.......w.r♦ ►�r*****+ 144 * ++�r'"'** n n *** ** �* w
mil J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
US. Geological Survey
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: [phone] /f Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- jcw►eavertgisgs.gov
regi
Internet address -- htip:f/nc.water.usgs.gov/
*****�►**,''ti *****,************ * *** *********** ►�i•#*:i►•r44.4.**#*=****:k********
I mil
(See attached file: thunderholecreek.ppt)
pug
Attachment 9

Thunderhole Creek delineations for
low -flow discharge estimates
'ARK
•
•
•
f} r I,
r 'R• Ili
ffey a
0
•.,(aay NI )urttain
*fin••,,
rf • 1i t
a_•
Initial location delineated: 0.05 mi2
7Q10 = 0.05 mi2 x 0.2925 cfsm = 0.01 cfs
30Q2 = 0.05 mi2 x 0.7149 cfsm = 0.04 cfs
;'- \fl
Alternate location #2 delineated: 0.17 mi2
7Q10 = 0.17 mi2 x 0.2925 cfsm = 0.05 cfs
30Q2 = 0.17 mi2 x 0.7149 cfsm = 0.12 cfs
Alternate location #1 delineated: 0.08 mi2,
7Q10 = 0.08 mi2 x 0.2925 cfsm = 0.02 cfs
30Q2 = 0.08 mi2 x 0.7149 cfsm = 0.06 cfs

(3) Toxic substance standards to protect human health will be:
,I, (A) The 7Q10 flow for standards to protect human health through the consumption of water, fish and
shellfish from noncarcinogens;
(B) The mean annual flow to protect human health from carcinogens through the consumption of water,
fish and shellfish unless site specific fish contamination concerns necessitate the use of an
alternative design flow;
(4) Aesthetic quality will be protected using the minimum average flow for a period of 30 consecutive days that
has an average recurrence of once in two years (30Q2 flow).
. _ (b) In cases where the stream flow is regulated, a minimum daily low flow may be used as a substitute for the 7Q10 flow
except in cases where there are acute toxicity concerns for aquatic life. In the cases where there are acute toxicity concerns,
an alternative low flow such as the instantaneous minimum release may be used on a case -by -case basis.
(c) Flow design criteria are used to develop water quality based effluent limitations and for the design of wastewater treatment
facilities. Deviations from a specific water quality standard resulting from discharges which are affirmatively demonstrated
to be in compliance with water quality based effluent limitations for that standard will not be a violation pursuant to G.S.
143-215.6 when the actual flow is significantly less than the design flow.
(d) In cases where the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream is estimated to be zero, water quality based effluent limitations will
be assigned as follows:
(1) Where the 30Q2 flow is estimated to be greater than zero, effluent limitations for new or expanded
(additional) discharges of oxygen consuming waste will be set at BOD5= 5 mg/I, NH3-N = 2 mg/1 and DO
= 6 mg/I, unless it is determined that these limitations will not protect water quality standards. Requirements
for existing discharges will be determined on a case -by -case basis by the Director. More stringent limits
will be applied in cases where violations of water quality standards are predicted to occur for a new or
expanded discharge with the limits set pursuant to this Rule, or where existing limits are determined to be
inadequate to protect water quality standards.
(2) If the 30Q2 and 7Q10 flows are both estimated to be zero, no new or expanded (additional) discharge of
oxygen consuming waste will be allowed. Requirements for existing discharges to streams where the 30Q2
and 7Q10 flows are both estimated to be zero will be determined on a case -by -case basis.
(3) Other water quality standards will be protected by requiring the discharge to meet the standards unless the
alternative limitations are determined by the Director to protect the classified water uses.
(e) Receiving water flow statistics will be estimated through consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey. Estimates for any
given location may be based on actual flow data, modeling analyses, or other methods determined to be appropriate by the
Commission or its designee.
N MI
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1);
• Ef. February 1, 1976;
Amended Ell: February 1, 1993; October 1, 1989; August 1, 1985; January 1, 1985.
—. 15A NCAC 02B .0207MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE DEGREE OF TREATMENT
History Note:
Authority G.S. 143-214.1;
Efj. February 1, 1976;
Repealed Eff. September 9, 1979.
Attachment 10
15A NCAC 02B .0208 STANDARDS FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND TEMPERATURE
(a) Toxic Substances. The concentration of toxic substances, either alone or in combination with other wastes, in surface
waters shall not render waters injurious to aquatic Life or wildlife, recreational activities, public health, or impair the waters
for any designated uses. Specific standards for toxic substances to protect freshwater and tidal saltwater uses are listed in
_ Rules .0211 and .0220 of this Section, respectively. Procedures for interpreting the narrative standard for toxic substances
and numerical standards applicable to all waters are as follows:
MIR
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Eff April 1, 2003 Page 18

FAX MEMO
DATE: 3/23/04
COMPANY: Atlantic Plan Engineering
TO: Richard Franklin
FAX NO: 828-327-0931 RE: Buckeye Creek Project Budget Pricing
Dualized 50,000 GPD BESST System
FROM: Buddy Cox
JOHN S. COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.
PO BOX 856 / 418 JOHNSON STREET
PICKENS, SC 29671 PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
TOTAL PAGES SENT INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 6
This fax is to confirm budget pricing for a dualized 50,000 GPD BESST system by
Purestream to treat domestic wastewater and is based on the following design data:
Q = 50,000 GPD Limit
TSS = 240 mg/1 10 mg/1
BOD5 = 240 mg/1 5 mg/1
Free ammonia = 40 mg/I Ammonia-N = 2.0 mg/1
Phosphorus = 8 mg/1 D.O. = 6.0 mg/1
The following pages is a summary of tankage, equipment, and pricing for this
system. Base pricing does not include chlorination/dechlorination tank and
associated disinfection equipment. Pricing for a UV disinfection unit will be sent to
you by separate memo. Base pricing does include a surge tank section, anoxic tank
section, sludge holding section, dualized aeration and clarifier sections, post
air/flow measurement section, and microscreen unit. Pricing for adder items are
_ listed at the end of the base proposal listing. Due to the fluctuations in steel prices,
you may want to add a % increase in the overall budget price if you feel that a
purchase will not happen within the next 3-4 months. Overall size of the system is
12' W x 12' H x 71' L shipped as a two tank unit.
MOW
Attachment 11

WI
PM
PIM
Due to the climate at the site, we would recommend the use of foam board
insulation under the grating covering the plant. This is shown as an adder price in
. the proposal. Another alternate is to house the main plant tankage in an insulated
pole building. This would resolve any problems with cold temperatures, noise
,� levels, and aesthetics in the area. If you decide not to enclose the main plant
tankage, you may want to house the blower units in a small building for noise
reductions. The microscreen drum filter and UV disinfection unit should be housed
in some type of building due to the cold winter temperatures.
Iml
MN
Isall
MEI
rmil
rArl
Foil
Please review and give me a call to discuss.
Regards,
_b,,Jib,/

We are pleased to present for your consideration One(1) Purestream/BESST system,
Model PES-50 prefabricated dualized sewage treatment plant capable of treating
50,000 GPD of wastewater as characterized on the first page. The treatment plant
shall be as manufactured by Purestream, Florence, KY and shall consist of all
necessary steel tanks, weirs, baffles, internal piping and the following items:
1 Submerged Bar Screen.
1 Surge tank section with total volume of 10,132 gallons. Includes surge
pumps, slide rail assembly, dual 1.5 HP blower units, flow control box, and
controls.
1 Anoxic tank section with a total volume of 11,412 gallons. Within this tank
there shall be two(2) airlift sludge pumps and two(2) submersible mixers.
2 Aeration tank sections with a total volume of 22,554 gallons. Within each
tank section there shall be an air header, diffuser drops and fine bubble
diffusers.
fun
2 Main blower/motor units for plant with TEFC motors, 7.5 HP, 230 volts, 3
Phase, 60 Hertz, with steel baseplate mounting stand; steel locking
weatherproof housings; inlet filter/silencer; discharge silencer; flexible
connector and pressure relief valve.
1 Prewired control panel with starters, breakers and controls in NEMA 3R steel
enclosure.
2 Clarifier tank units, integral to the Anoxic and Aeration tank sections, with a
total volume of 8,471 gallons. Within each clarifier tank there shall be a
baffled effluent trough with adjustable weir plates.
. 1 , Sludge storage section, integral to the treatment plant, with a volume of
11,543 gallons.

1 Post air/flow measurement tank section with V-notch weir plate and
ultrasonic flowmeter.
1 Lot of dual path flow valves/piping.
1 Lot Galvanized steel safety grating to cover service walkways only.
1 Microscreen filter, Model 5-BMF5-0 complete with controls.
1 Factory blast in accordance with SSPC 10 and two coats of TNEMEC Series
69 high solids epoxy for a total dry film thickness of 8 to 10 mils DFT
interior and 6 to 8 mils exterior.
1 Oakton series DO 300 dissolved oxygen meter for operational DO testing.
The following items are not covered by this quotation and shall be provided by
others. Please note that this list is not all inclusive, and only the items specifically
listed within this proposal are included in this offering.
Excavating
Removing tank from truck
Electric to control panel
Finish grading and seeding
External piping
Backfilling
Water to fill tanks
Crane to set tank on pad
Hook up of pre -wired components
Field installation and assembly
Sewage lines
Fencing
Concrete
Anchor bolts and turnbuckles
The BESST plant tankage shall be shipped to the jobsite in two(2) pieces. The
heaviest piece shall weigh approximately 47,000 pounds.
Total Net Price, freight included $237,609
(Price does not include any local, state or federal taxes)

Option A. Full grating across plant with foam board insulation under the grating.
Adder price $18,228
Option B. 45-degree stairway for access to top of plant if plant is installed
above -grade. Adder price $4,100
Option C Full perimeter handrails around top of plant if plant is installed
above -grade and full grating is used across plant. Adder
price $10,496
rag
Submittal drawings and data available in four(4) weeks after receipt of order.
vir Shipment time 12 - 14 weeks after receipt of order, approved submittal and release.
Due to the fluctuations in steel prices, the price quoted shall be firm only up through
April 20, 2004. After this date, price will be reviewed and adjusted (if needed) on
accordance with the increasing cost of steel prices.

—iLfl�pJ ThV& 1+1-vu9v'
6" DIA. PIPE STUB INLET W/
12° INVERTED GROUT RING
I'-4" FROM TOP OF TANK TO INVERT
FULL/SERVICE
GRATING
ALRABSIN—
MIXED LIQUOR
UNDERFLOW PIPE .
MIXER
I
AR LIFT SUBMERGE) SUPERNATE
SKIMMER BAR SCREEN UNE
"C"0"
CLARIBEB ANOXIC all
• r • 4 "
.111
ADJUSTABLE WEIR AIR LIFTS
W/ CLARIFIER BAFFLE
Ner
— 5 UAW Sutrio4
Vol.vmf= iu 4At.
Past kii2.1FLot4 1411/10.4 utoviuwir
irmIt sour' os
Ilttvnie" I 1041 trit,
SKIMMER
AIR UFT
'a"
CLARIFIER
411111E111W -
It J‘ •`''t
•
10
6° DIA, PIPE
STUB OUTLET
A
PoST Ala/ Floct)
witivnu twit owl' 5 mu
"A' /r041 14-0:11"
AERATION-1
ADJUSTABLE WEIR
W/ CLARIFIER BAFFLE
MIXED LIQUOR
UNOERFLOW P
5 LAP- 44 5trcnu".1
MODEL
NUMBER
DESIGN FLOW
G.P.O.
f:Vt5o b 1
REVISIONS
IPE
-1---1' 0"
•
FOUNDATION k0 THICKNESS
TO BE DETERMINED BY PROJECT
ENGINEER BASED ON LOCAL
At. Put, Rtnitt SOIL CONDITIONS
ANOXIC TANK
VOLUME GALLON
CLARIFIER
vOLUME GALLON
AERATION TANK
VOLUME GALLON
OD
.E1)112- r.
JOB NO: ''/2.3 /6
JOB NAME:
evocirie CAI:Mc PLALltr
LOCATION:
DRAWN BY,
ALA
DATE'
10/17 2000
g4Giti I
2.21 54.
SECTION "B-B"
INTERNAL
STRUCTURAL
REINFORCEMENT
"F" •
SECTION "A -A"
SLUDGE HOLDING
VOLUME GALLON
1 II" 1 'LH 1lc
WY'
DC CRIPTION
SCALE'
NONE
PONEMEAtill
54-3
MAGNESIUM
AI IODES
Puvralit
CliLieRSE-60NiACT
VOLUME GALLON
L"
q.CIFL
!VO[ PA.&
USBF DOUBLE CLARIFIER
TREATS 26,000 TO 50,000 GALLONS
A I st;ApiZ!`... USBF— 4

a
-� Ecofluid LLc
GRE
Idea/ inexpensive way to upgrad
tertiary wastewater treatment
to meet increased stringent
effluent requirements

6TECHNOLOOY
BMF Microscreen Drum Filters are designed for the tertiary stage
filtration process and especially for the removal of non -soluble par-
ticles in community and industrial wastewater treatment plants.
The BMF Filters are open, gravitational filter sets based on the drum
filter principle. The filters are constructed so that they can be built
into an underground concrete channel or attached to a stainless steel
tank for aboveground installation.
Microscreen Drum Filters are manufactured using stainless steel for
the larger parts and shafts, and the highest quality plastic for the
smaller parts. The simple, rugged construction eliminates deposits
left below the water surface and guarantees safe, low -maintenance
service. The automatic two-way rinse filter also ensures simple, trou-
ble -free operation.
- No part of the Microscreen Filter needs lubrication, and maintenance
is limited to periodic replacement of the used filter cloth. The life
span of the filter cloth depends on the condition of the water being
filtered and the content of the solid materials it contains.
Aplastic switchboard cabinet (NEMA4 X rated) is included in every
filter. The switchboard is completely equipped for the automatic
operation of the filter.
THE PROCESS Water containing solid particles flow
— through the inlet pipe into the interior part of the filter drum.
Impurities are caught on the inner side of the filter cloth and the fil-
tered water flows out through the cloth. The entire filter remains off
during this initial process. As the filter cloth slowly becomes clogged
by the increasing amount of filtered waste, its resistance to the flow
increases. The water level inside the filter drum increases according-
ly. When the preset level is reached, the level probe located at the
forefront of the filter automatically activates the rotating drum and
simultaneously the rinsing pump which pumps the filtered water into
the jet rinse system. The residue accumulated on the inner side of the
filter cloth is removed by the directed stream of water from the jets
and then washed into the waste trough located in the inner drum. The
residue is then washed into the silt sump where it is washed out by
the silt pump which is automatically controlled by the level probe
located on the wall of the silt sump. This pump may not be needed
when the gravi-
tational flow
alone is suffi-
cient to rinse
out the silt.
INN
The rinsed cloth
is relocated at
the bottom of
the filter by the
revolving of the
drum rotation.
The surface
level difference
is diminished
and the probe
automatically
switches off the
drum rotation,
as well as the
pump. The
rotating drum
and the pump
remain off until reactivated, at which point the entire
cycle is repeated. The average activated operation and rest cycles of
the filter are dependent on the amount of impurities flowing into the
filter, the properties they contain and the condition of the filter cloth.
Since the flow of the untreated water remains uninterrupted through-
out the entire filtration process, and the flow of the rinse water is
taken directly from the filter set, no additional rinse water trays or
tankage is needed. This significantly reduces initial investment costs.
The automatic activation and deactivation of the filter reduces the
amount of electricity needed for filter operation. It also increases the
average quality of the water filtered, increases the density of the out -
flowing sludge and prolongs the life span of the entire system.
TECHNICAL PARAA1ETERS The filter capacity is
determined by the basic parameter of the effective working surface
of the filter cloth. The second and third parameters are the size of the
openings in the filter cloth and the area of their freely functioning
surface. These parameters are chosen to produce the required quali-
ty of the filtered water. The composition of the solid particles also
has a significant effect on the capacity of the filter. This depends on
1.) their shape; (flat particles block the openings more easily than
round), 2.) their density; (solid particles are filtered better than non -
solid mucus), and 3.) the average amount of large and small particles
in the entire volume of inflowing wastewater.
When a certain amount of dense particles larger than the filter cloth
openings is reached, a thin silt layer is formed on the filter cloth. This
silt layer acts as a secondary filter and is able to catch particles which
are much smaller than the actual openings in the filter cloth.
Therefore, it is advantageous to select a filter with a larger filter sur-
face so the "rest" period between cycles is as long as possible. This
secondary filter layer is then washed into the waste trough when the
filter cloth is rinsed.
When using the Microscreen Drum Filter as the tertiary treatment
process in domestic and industrial plants, a filter cloth with an open-
ing diameter of 0.04mm is usually suitable. For more contaminated
water or to meet specific requirements, optimal opening diameters
and other parameters can be determined by prior experience in sim-
ilar conditions or by administering filter tests,

J
J
•
1.1
OPERATIONIn locating the Miscroscreen Drum
Filter it is necessary to consider that the flow of water
into the filter should whirl as little as possible so that
solid particles are not broken up. For this reason a grav-
ity flow is recommended rather than a filter feed pump.
A flow control box should be used to create a gravity
flow into the filter in lieu of direct pumping.
The Microscreen Filter should be set in a horizontal
position with a maximum divergence of 3mm.
The filtered water outlet from the filter must be kept
obstacle -free at all times. The water level behind the fil-
ter must not be allowed to rise to a level which would
cause back -flow into the filter. The
unchecked flow of
rr�
t.
•.
r
s-`'l
water back into the filter will cause the water level
inside the filter to rise and the filter will cease to func-
tion.
If either the filter capacity is exceeded or the filter stops
functioning, water will pass through unfiltered. Building
a bypass line is not necessary although it may be advan-
tageous to be able to cut off the water flow in order to
change the filter cloth. Filter models installed in con-
crete shafts may be lifted out and then returned to the
sewer without interrupting the sewer water flow.
OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF THE
BMF MICROSCREEN DRUM FILTER
Inexpensive WWTP upgrade to meet more stringent
effluent requirements
Completely self contained - no need for additional controls,
tankage, pumps, or outside water supply
Lower capital and operational costs than any other filter
300 series stainless steel construction means less
maintenance and no corrosion

STAINLESS STEEL TANK
INSTALLATION
MODEL WIDTH LENGTH
(INCHES) (INCHES)
5 BMF 5-0 29
5 BMF 10-0 29
HEIGHT
(INCHES)
WEIGHT MAX.POWER
(LBS) INPUT (HP)
FLOW RANGE MAXIMUM
(GPD) FLOW
(GPM/GPD)
46 35.5 243 2.4 0-120K 132/190K
66 35.5 353 2.4 120K-300K 264/380K
10 BMF 10-0 55.5 67
10 BMF 20-0 55.5 106
CONCRETE CHANNEL
(Concrete provided by others)
61.50 926 3.4 300K-700K 625/900K
61.50 1323 3.4 700K-1.3MGD 1250/1.8 MGD
INSTALLATION
CHANNEL FILTER
MODEL WIDTH LENGTH
(INCHES) (INCHES)
5 BMF 5 25.6
5 BMF 10 25.6
CHANNEL
DEPTH
(INCHES)
WEIGHT MAX.POWER
(LBS) INPUT (HP)
FLOW RANGE MAXIMUM
(GPD) FLOW
(GPM/GPD)
49.2 30.7 148 2.4 0-200K 173/250K
73.6 30.7 210 2.4 200K-500K 396/570K
10 BMF 10 51.2
71.7
10 BMF 20 51.2 116.1
55.1
55.1
Purestream
'v Ecofluid «�
In the USA
Purestream / Ecofluid L.L.C.
10584 Dixie Highway
Walton, KY 41094
Ph. [phone]
Fax [phone]
e-mail [e-mail]
926 3.4 500K-1MGD 792/1.14MGD
1081 3.4 1MGD/2MGD 1597/2.3MGD
John S. Cox and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 856, 418 Johnson St. • Pickens, SC 29671
[phone] • FAX [phone]

FAX MEMO
DATE: March 23, 2004
mai COMPANY: Atlantic Plan Engineering
ATTN: Richard Franklin
Fan
nog
ran
son
fan
pan
moo
G■1
FAX NO: 828-327-0931
FROM: Buddy Cox
JOHN S. COX & ASSOCIATES, INC.
PO BOX 856 / 418 JOHNSON STREET
PICKENS, SC 29671 PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
TOTAL PAGES SENT INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 4
Enclosed you will find the pricing and specifications for the UV disinfection
equipment for the Buckeye Creek project. Sizing is based upon the design
requirements as required by the State. Please give me a call at 864-878-2045 if you
have any questions.
Regards,
Gad,

aim
TrulanTschnobjes lac.
uv3ONT° PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT PROPOSAL
In response to your request, we we pleased to provide the following Package Treatment Plant (UV3000TMPTP)
proposal. Since Trojan introduced the open channel approach to disinfection in 1982, mangy pathogenfor
lities and
privatelcommemiai beatrnent p users have s ultraviolet as the preferred
destruction at their fames.
NI of Trojan's UV systems are modular in design, with each design customized in respons
e to the effluent
criteria. This proposal is based on the use of Trojan Technologies Inc. UY3000TMPTP.
Proiect Name:
Troian quott No:
Troian Model:
Total Units Included:
Design Criteria:
Buckeye Creek Development, NC
PSS1326
UV3100K-PTP
1
Current Peak Design Flow:
UV Transmission:
Total Suspended Solids:
Max Average Particle Size:
Disinfection Limit:
125,000 US Gpd
65%, minimum
30 mgil (monthly average; grab samples)
30 microns
200 fecal conform per 100 rnl, based on a 30 day
Geometric Mean of consecutive daily grab samples
Flew: refer inquires to Tinian Manufacturees Representative: Larry __ Greene ENVIRONMENTAL. INC.
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
This proposal has been respectfully submitted by,
Trojan Technologies Inc.
Simon Wills
Municipal Designer
3020 Gore Road, London, Ontario Canada N5V 4T7 • Tel: [phone] • Fax [phone] • www. .core

Buckeye Creek Development, NC UV3000111PTP Proposal Page 2
3/18/2004
PSS1326
ULTRAVIOLET MQDUI.ES
Each module will consist of 2 UV lamps with their corresponding electronic ballast in an aluminium enclosure
mounted on a stainless steel type 316 frame. The electrical wires connecting the lamps and ballasts will be
enclosed in the stainless steel frame and not exposed to the effluent
"°" Each UV module wip be provided with a standard 120 Volt plug and weatherproof cable for connection to a
receptacle. The cable will be no longer than 10 feet. A total of 2 UV modules (4 UV lamps) will be supplied.
Lamp status will be displayed on top of each UV module by watertight LED indicator lights.
110' Modules will be appro dmately 68 in long, 14 in high and 2.8 in wide, weighing approximately 30 lbs. Materials
of construction w lII be stainless steel type 316, anodized aluminum, quartz 214, and teflon.
EFFLUENT CHANNEL
Each unit will be provided with one (1) stainless steel type 304. 14 gauge effluent channel complete with UV
module support rack and downstream serpentine weir.
Each stainless steel effluent channel will have the following inside dimensions:
Length = 96 in
Width = 6 in
not Height = 15 in
MONITORING SYSTEM
A submersible UV sensor will continuously sense the UV intensity produced in each bank of UV Tamp modules.
UV intensity in mW/cm2 wry be Indicated on a 3 character display. Elapsed time in hours will be indeed on 5
character display. Both displays will utilize 7 segment LEDs and will be vile through the panel door. The
Monitoring System will be enclosed in a Type 4X wall mounted panel.
Note: Contractor to supply a separate 120 Volt, single phase, S0 Hz, 5 amps, power supply for each
monitoring system.
rim
POWER DISTRIBUTION RECEPTACLES [PDRZ
Duplex ground fault interrupter receptacles to be provided. PDRs to provide power to each UV module and be
,.., mounted in individual painted cast aluminium junction boxes complete with a rain shield.
Note: Contractor to supply appropriate 120 Volt, single phase, 6©1iz circuit to power the PDRs which
have a total current draw of apprc uirnately 1Q amps. Contractor to be responsible for distributing
F.I+ the power from the main 120 Volt feed to the individual PDRs. Responscty to be all encompassing
and in accordance with the focal electrical codes.
TRANSITION CONNECTIONS
Transition boxes for flanged pipe attachment will be provided. The material used for these parts will be stainless
steel type 304, 14 gauge, and be manufactured per dimensions indicated in accompanying diagrams. The
following wits be supplied:
rem Intet Transition Box 1
Outlet Transition Box 1
FIR
MAINTENANCE RACK
A maintenance rack of type 304 stainless steel will be provided. The rack is designed to facilitate the servicing
of the UV modules.
Copyright .2003 by Trojan Technologies htc. London, On eda Carleda. Aft rights reserved No part of this quotation maybe reproduoed,
elm stored in a retrieval system, or &unsmitted in any forte or by any means without written permission of Trojan Technologies Inc.

Buckeye Creek Development, NC UN3000711PTP Proposal Page 3
PSS1326 311812004
SPARE PARTS,
Four (4) UV Lamps
Four (4) Quartz Sleeves
Four (4) Lamp Holder Seals
OPERATORS KIT
1 pair of rubber gloves
1 face shieldmin
1 UV warning label
1 US gallon (4L) cleaning solution
START-UP AND COMMISSIONING
By: Trojan [ j Local Trojan Rep [ x ] Not Included [ x
1. Trojan Technologies Inc. warrants all components of the system (excluding UV lamps) against faulty
workmanship and materials for a period of 12 months from date of start-up or 18 months after shipment.
which ever comes first
2. UV Lamps are warranted for 12,000 flours, non pro -rated.
met SEXLING PRICE: S 12200 US
min
TERMS & CONDITIONS:
1. Submittals within 4 weeks after receipt of purchase order.
2. Equipment delivery within 5-8 weeks from receipt of purchase order and engineer's approval (where
applicable).
3. Seling price does not include taxes, which may be applicable.
4. Payment Terms: 90% due on delivery, 10% due after system start-up. Net 30-days.
5. F.O.B Factory Freight paid to jobsite.
Copyright d 2003 by Titian Technologies Inc.. Landon. Ontario, Canada. AN rights reserved No pot of this quotation maybe reproduced,
steed in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any roan or by any means wdhore written permission of Trojan Technologies Inc.

CIVIL / ENVIRONMENTAL / WATER / WASTEWATER
'u' . JOHN T. COXEY
CONSULTING ENGINEERING, P.A.
illIP
Project Cost Estimate and Present Worth
Buckeye Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
I. Project Cost Estimate
1. 50,000 GPD Plant with microscreen
fir drum filter including insulation and grating $194,500.00
2. 10,000 Gallon Equalization Basin, Pumps,
W+ and Blowers $ 38,800.00
3. Sitework, Piping, Fencing $ 12,500.00
or
4. UV Disinfection System $ 15,000.00
fill 5. Standby Generator and AT Switch $ 15,000.00
6. Flow Meter $ 3,500.00
paq
7. Electrical $ 12,000.00
fir 8. Contractor Installation, Overhead & Profit $ 37,000.00
Total Construction $328,300.00
mil
Contingencies (10%) $ 32,830.00
Administration $ 5,000.00
Engineering Fees $ 24,000.00
full
Total Project Cost $390,130.00
rim
Attachment 12
FIN JOHN T. COXEY. P.E.
PRESIDENT
53 FOX CHASE RD. WEST PHONE [phone]
fm ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28804 FAX [phone]

H. Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs
1. Operator Fees $ 12,000.00
2. Laboratory Fees $ 3,500.00
3. Equipment & Supplies
Treatment Plant $ 2,500.00
UV System $ 3,000.00
4. Power Consumption
2 — 5 HP Blowers
2-2HPMixers
1-1 HP Microscreen
1— 2 HP Surge Tank Blower
2 — 2 HP Surge Tank Pumps
21 HP Total 21 KWx18Hrs Avg x
365 Days x $0.75/kwH = $10,350.00
1— UV System 120 V $ 750.00
Total Annual 0 & M Costs $32,100.00

n
III. Present Worth
(20 years, 7%) =10.59 Present Worth Factor
Present Worth of Project Cost $390,130.00
Present Worth of Annual Costs
$32,100.00 x 10.59 $339,939.00
Total Present Worth $730,069.00

Buckeye Creek
ss' , Williams, Reed
Local Government Review Requirements
for the Issuance of New Non -Municipal Domestic Wastewater Discharge Permits
Gcncr21$tatute Overview
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(6) allows input foam local governments in the issuance of NPDES Permits for non -
municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically. the Environmental Management Commissioo (EMC) may not act
on ao applie iw n fora new non•nnunicipal domestic wastewater discharge facility until it has received a written statement trom
each sty and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on which the proposed facility and its
appurtenances arc to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county ir2c 2 zoning or subdivision
ordinance in effect and (f such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with thc ordinance. 'Chc
EMC shall not approve a pcurut application for any facility which a cityor county has determined to be inconsistent with zoning
or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide significance and is in the lest
interest of the Sure.
instructions to thUipplkant
Prior to submining an application fora NPDES Permit for a proposed facility. the applicant shall request that tiodulle
complete this form.
The applicant must:
• Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the cictk of the
sty and the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
• If either (or both) local government(s) fan(s) to m'd the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the
certified moil card(e), within 15 days after receiving and aigodng for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the
application to the NPDES Unit,
• As evidence to the Ceatunission that the local gover unent(e) fluled to respond within 1S days, the applicant shall
submit a copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to
respond within the IS..day period.
Instructions to the Local Govexnt w
The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the
proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this form to the applicant
within 15 days of receipt. The form must be aimed and notarized.
Name of local government v (K-0.'O�G
( Xtg/County)
Does thc Oa/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which thc proposed facility and its appurtenances
arc to be Located? Yes fp4 No [ ) If no, please sigp this forma, have it notarized, and return it to thc applicant.
Does the Q411/county have in effect a zoning oc subdivision ordinance? Yes pQ No [
imp
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the
ordinance? Yes p4 No [ ]
— Datc 10 Lo 1 \ G 3
Signature
ceitm Manages/County Manager)
State of N n c i'h aro 1 t n c\ , County of A] 0.±U
On this
dopy of C) c±o' -r ?co personally appeared before me, the said
name -R 06esk `Z . N € 15 O it 13 c-. co me known and known to me to be -the person
described in and who executed the foregoing document and be (or she) acknowledged that he (ter she)
PIMp executed the same and being duly sworn by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document
are true.
My Commission expires U J n D .(Signature of Notary Public)
Notary Alit (Official Scat)
Attachment 14

MEI
Print
Parcel ID#:
Book/Page:
Date Recorded:
Current Owner:
Tax Owner Name:
Acreage:
Neighborhood
Description:
Land Value:
Land Use:
Township:
Tax Code:
Si^ it-h :56
There was 1 record matching your query
1897-84-2146-000
164*667
0000-00-00
WILLIAMS, FRANKLIN REED II
9803 RIVER RD
RICHMOND, VA 232335717
WILLIAMS, FRANKLIN REED It
9803 RIVER RD
RICHMOND, VA 232335717
64.2800 ACRES
HWY 221 SOUTH/CALDWELL LINE
$308,300
RESIDENTIAL VACANT
BLOWING ROCK
General County
Blowing Rock Fire
Jump to: Select Department
2000 Watauga County. NC
Attachment 15

am
poi
Pal
NM
FASI
PIM
Atlantic Plan Engineering Corporation
828-327-2621
P.O. Box 1691
Hickory, NC 28603-1691
FAX: [phone]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
Date: July 3, 2003
RE: A report on Drip and Spray Sewer Systems in the high mountains of
im North Carolina.
., To Whom It May Concern:
This report is based on 50 years of experience in Engineering in the North
.. Carolina Mountains.
With the percolation rates in the types of soils found generally in the
...; Mountains of North Carolina — regular septic systems perform very well and
are predominantly used.
Drip and Spray Sewer Systems when the use of the soil is limited are another
matter. Air temperature in the mountains rules out the use of these systems
for year around sewer service in the high mountains above the Blue Ridge
and western slope escarpments.
There are usable where occupancy is limited to the summer months or where
the development is over the south ridge of the Blue Ridge escarpment or over
fa' the ridges on the western Tennessee side of the mountains. Examples of our
experience that bear this out are the "new" Cold Creek School where we
.., found that the approved system not only cost more but would require a winter
time pond where sewage could be stored for the winter months when the
system would not perform. We proposed a regular pump septic system for
'..' the school and it performs well at far less cost. Another example is a high
mountain drip system that we prepared for one lot on Seven Devils that
performs because of the controlled occupancy of one owner/user. This can
be done for a single owner with controlled flows.
MA
MI
Attachment 16

This engineer understands that Heavenly Mountain has a drip or spray system
that performs well. It is over the ridge on the south side of the Blue Ridge in
an area that has very different, milder temperature conditions. In fact, this
engineer has wondered why land developments in this area are attractive as
mountain developments. Powder Horn Mountain gets real warm during part
of the year.
The Reed Williams property off of U.S. 221, South West of Blowing Rock,
is on the top of the Blue Ridge and extends only a short way down to the
Southern or Eastern escarpments. Not far enough to upgrade the air
temperature to any great degree. For this reason this engineer would not
recommend a drip of spray system for this location since by its location near
to Blowing Rock it can expect year around uncontrolled occupancy. Due to
consistency of the soil, it will not percolate adequately. See the Connie
Adams soil report. This engineer can only recommend a discharge system
into a stream that flows away from the mountains into the John's River
drainage area. This will not pollute high mountain trout streams or water
sources.
Certified By:
0"1 4 CAPio ,Aft
Chars . Da,®,r., I .E
NC 24-03-03

MIMI
°m irk,
' c,y APPALACHIAN DISTRICT HEAL:1'H DEPARTMENT
I :710(7 (.gT!C:1 )=(• I'ry,l.0 P,,n:x. �!< 560-
#241
lr!,rlrl.r 8'F-215-I'll. rt• : _ _:611-•t9'•' Publicffealrht Prrltecling and irrlprovingyt+ur Fie-rdrh thrnfrStluun
June 26, 2003
Mr. Richard Franklin, P.E
Atlantic Plan Engineering Corporation
P.O. Box 1691
Hickory, NC 28603
RE: Reed William's Property, Linville Rd., Watauga County, N.C.
216 three bedroom unit (67.73 acres)
Dear Mr. Franklin: / 7 III 6g CeD
After reviewing the soil report and site plan from Connie Adams (Licensed Soil Scientist)
and considering the size of this project (77,760 gallons per day) several facials make this
tract and project a concern as far a subsurface sewage disposal.
Approximately50% of the tract of land is more that 65% slope which is unsuitable for
subsurface sewage disposal.. The remainder of the tract is designated for streets, parking
and building location with minimal available space for septic systems. The available
space has areas of shallow soil and slopes that would require pretreatment and subsurface
drip irrigation for approval.
It is my opinion that subsurface application would not be practical Fnrthis site. t%
WI can be of any further service, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Lawrence G. Caviness
Environmental I-Iealth Supervisor
LGC:ct
L•VJ�L>J JI.FIC L
ILA 'O
33i.-37:-i$13
L. • 31 :r\rl • 1. ' Wall.' 11 t )I.I I.
Haiti 'r,Ci,.t. lint,
i in" • i-.if 1 •
';lt. l O. Iit.tLtr: rtr.Yr
L.o. LJc
7 in- �anA•17ti
;1,--.? ,1-5i1oi rv.
i•\1. ;.!t I...11.1.1i1)rii
12,. L,: u.•..n:.
H...,,.. r : .NAr
Attachment 17

Reference People/Companies
1). Buddy Cox, John S. Cox & Associates, Inc., Pickens, SC [phone]
Provides costs for a 50,000 gpd sewage treatment plant & UV disinfections
equipment.
2). Randy Carpenter, installs septic systems, N. Wilkesboro, NC [phone]
Provided the cost per linear foot for sewage pipe and the cost to run a line
to Blowing Rock.
3). Mr. McSwain, Gold Coast, Eastern NC [phone]
Provided the cost of biofilters and how long they last.
4). Mrs. Gary Stroupe, Stroupe's Septic Tank Service, Morganton, NC
[phone]
Provided the cost for a 2,000 gallon tank
5). John T. Coxey, P.E., John T. Coxey Consulting Engineering, PA, Asheville, NC
[phone]
Provided the estimate and PW for the sewage treatment plant.
6). Patrick Beaver Memorial Library [phone]
Provide the tables for finding the PW values.
7). Assumption -The gravity flow back, to Boone would have approximately
40% rock to through. Going through rock increases the price by 5X.
8). Assumption — The forces main would go over 4 mountains. We anticipate at
least 70% rock and the price in this area to increase by 5X.

Flow Schedule
The unnamed tributary that we propose to use runs into Thunderhole Creek,
which runs into the Johns River and later into the Catawba River.
Attachment 19

Q.aQ.TtJ. V.
gAsl,Jw(D£ 454-E*Ai .s'T R r.f•A---
cbri:,‘“34. l-(-4F . BtaSW
retention time. Drought conditions increased
retention times and blooms of nuisance algae
(especially blue -greens that caused taste and odor
problems) were recorded in 2001 and 2002..
Nutrient reductions may help to alleviate these
problems.
Lake Hickory has improved from eutrophic in the
1980's to mesotrophic. High productivity was
indicated in August 2002, but no visible algal
blooms were observed. Lookout Shoals Lake is a
small run -of -the -river lake with a retention time of
only nine days, and a trophic state that fluctuates
from oligotrophic to eutrophic depending on the
nutrient loading and flow conditions. A nuisance
aquatic plant, Myriophyllum aquaticum, infested
the upper ends of Hickory and Lookout Shoals.
Lookout Shoals was drawn down in the fall of
2002 in an attempt to control the spread of this
plant.
Lake Norman, which is the largest reservoir in
North Carolina, has been monitored by Duke
Energy since the 1970's and DWQ has sampled
the reservoir since 1981. This reservoir has
' consistently been evaluated as oligotrophic with
low nutrient values and low algal production.
Hydrilla, another nuisance aquatic plant, was
found in Lake Norman. This macrophyte is
invasive, can decrease fish habitat, and can
impact recreational activities such as swimming
and boating. It also has the potential of clogging
intakes of water treatment plants. In an effort to
manage its growth, Duke Energy treated the
infestation with an herbicide.
Mountain Island Lake is a small reservoir just
downstream of Lake Norman. In 2002 it was
classified as oligotrophic and received the lowest
^- trophic scores since 1981. These improved
conditions might have been due to decreased
runoff as a result of the drought. Hydrilla is
_ established here also, and grass carp were
stocked in 2000 and 2002 to help manage its
growth.
Lake Wylie is the most downstream reservoir in
the Chain of Lakes. Its immediate watershed is
rapidly being converted from traditional agricultural
to more urban land uses. This reservoir was
eutrophic in 2001 and 2002. However, as a resul
of the City of Gastonia decommissioning its
Catawba Creek WWTP and redirecting this
... effluent to the improved Long Creek WWTP, the
Crowders Creek arm has shown an overall
decrease in total phosphorus and total nitrogen.
Despite these improvements, there are still
sufficient nutrients entering the reservoir to keep it
classified as eutrophic.
Newton City Lake was oligotrophic in 2002 and
nutrient concentrations were generally low.
Bessemer City Lake, a small water supply
reservoir for Bessemer City, was also oligotrophic
in 2002.
Upper Catawba River Basin (Subbasins 30 and
31)
The headwater reaches of the Catawba River lie
near the Eastern Continental Divide, west of the
Town of Old Fort. The river flows generally
eastward with the largest tributaries (Curtis, Buck,
and Lower Creeks and the North Fork Catawba,
Linville, and Johns Rivers) flowing south from their
mountainous headwaters. Many headwater
tributaries are designated as HOW and Wilson
Creek has been designated ORW. Several
smaller tributaries such as Crooked and Muddy
Creeks flow north to the Catawba River from less
mountainous and more agricultural catchments.
This is a physiographically diverse area including
the High Mountains, Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills,
Northern Inner Piedmont, and Southern Crystalline
Ridges and Mountain ecoregions. Much of this
land is contained within the Pisgah National Forest
and, therefore, protected from many land
disturbing activities. The cities of Marion,
Morganton, Lenoir, Drexel, and Granite Falls are
found in this upper area.
Overall, water quality is high in this area, except
around urban areas. The drought appeared to be
the major stressor that affected benthic
communities. An Excellent benthos
bioclassification was retained at Armstrong Creek
and the Linville River below the gorge, before it
flows into Lake James. Curtis, Mackey, and
Crooked Creeks had Excellent fish ratings and
Good benthos ratings. Mackey Creek, below a
metal plating discharge whose permit was
rescinded in June 2001, was the major success
story. Poor benthos and fish ratings were found
prior to removal of the discharge.
Streams that originate in the Pisgah National
Forest had Good or Excellent water quality ratings
based on either fish or macroinvertebrate data
(Figure 3). These streams included the Johns
River, Upper, Mulberry, and Wilson Creeks, Gragg
Prong, and Warrior Fork. Even though there is
some recreational use and development in the
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
13
Attachment 20

-
MEN
MEI
Figure 3. Fish community and benthic macroinvertebrate assessment sites rated Good or
Excellent in the Catawba River basin, 2002. Stars = fish sites and circles = benthic
macroinvertebrate sites.
upper sections of these creeks, there has been no
— substantial impairment of water quality. Extensive
valleys used for the cultivation of omamental
shrubs and trees present potential threats to water
quality. Wilson Creek supports an unusually large
number of rare macroinvertebrate species.
Most of the Catawba River sites were given Good
benthos ratings, but the low flows produced prolific
growths of the rooted aquatic plant, Elodea
canadensis, in some areas. Other streams with
1.101
Good biological ratings were Buck, Little Buck, and
Canoe Creeks. North Muddy and South Muddy
Creeks, which drain urban areas or have
wastewater treatment plant discharges, had better
fish communities (Good), than benthos (Good -
Fair). Cattle access to Paddy Creek seemed to be
the cause of the Good -Fair fish rating in this small
stream draining the Pisgah National Forest. A fish
community sample from Irish Creek (a tributary of
Warrior Fork) showed severe habitat problems and
was rated Fair.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
14

The North Fork Catawba River just below the
Baxter Healthcare Corporation discharge declined
from Excellent to Good between 1997 and 2002
— and there was a dramatic decline from Good to
Fair further downstream, where the river was
wider with slower flow. The drought conditions
— provided minimal dilution and a conductivity value
of 576 pmhos/cm was observed in August 2002.
Where watersheds have become more developed
— around Morganton, Lenoir and Valdese, the
bioclassifications were lower (Good -Fair or Fair)
(Figure 4). The physical characteristics of these
streams have also changed. Lower, Silver,
Hunting, and McGalliard Creeks had lower
gradients and were much sandier than streams in
the northern part of the subbasin. McGalliard
Creek declined in bioclassification between 1997
and 2002 based on biological data. An intensive
survey of the Lower Creek catchment in 2002
documented problems for many streams around
Lenoir.
Figure 4. Fish community and benthic macroinvertebrate assessment sites rated Fair or
Poor in the Catawba River basin, 2002. Stars = fish sites and circles = benthic
macroinvertebrate sites.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
15

OMR
There are eight ambient water chemistry stations
in this area. The headwater sites had the lowest
median values for conductivity, total suspended
solids, and turbidity of all the subbasins. Nutrient
values were also low. Wilson Creek had many pH
measurements less than 6.0 s.u., with one reading
less than 5.0 s.u.. This pattern had not been
observed at this site since the early 1990's and
suggested that similar low pH values may be
occurring in other high elevation streams that drain
forested catchments. Such areas have low
buffering capacity and are most susceptible to acid
precipitation. The site on Lower Creek reflected
the influence of various point and nonpoint source
problems near Lenoir: high turbidity, high fecal
coliform bacteria, and elevated conductivity.
Middle) Catawba River Basin (Subbasins 32 and
33This subbasin is located in the Northern Inner
Piedmont and Southern Outer Piedmont
ecoregions with the extreme northwestern
headwaters of several streams in the Eastern Blue
Ridge Foothills ecoregion. The southeastern
portion of this subbasin (east of the Lower Little
River and south of the Catawba River) is flatter
than the northern section. Highly erodible soils
and moderate gradients contribute large amounts
of sediment in the Little River watershed.
However, a majority of the middle watershed
remains forested.
Recent biological data produced Good or Good -
Fair ratings for several streams: Lower Little River
and Duck, Elk Shoal, McLin, and Gunpowder
Creeks. However, a Fair macroinvertebrate rating
was recorded for a section of the Middle Little
River and for Muddy Fork. Muddy Fork showed
signs of organic loading from nearby animal
operations. Fish data also produced a Fair rating
for a section of the Lower Little River. The benthic
Fair rating for the Middle Little River seemed to be
due to low flow in 2002 and did not represent a
significant water quality problem. This finding was
reinforced by the Excellent fish community rating
given to the river. The cause of the Fair rating
(fish data) for the headwaters of the Lower Little
River (above the Town of Taylorsville WWTP) was
unknown, although a sand -dipping operation was
1.1 noted just above the sampling reach.
Further south, the largest watershed is Dutchmans
Creek, formed by the confluence of Leepers and
Killian Creeks. Dutchmans Creek flows into the
Catawba River just downstream of Mountain
Island Lake. Streams in the lower area are often
sandy, low gradient streams. Based on past
benthic macroinvertebrate data, Dutchmans and
Killian Creeks have been rated Excellent or Good,
and McDowell Creek was rated Good -Fair. In
2002, however, based on benthic
macroinvertebrate data Dutchmans Creek
declined to Good -Fair and Killian and McDowell
Creeks declined to Fair. Similar trends were
observed for the fish community at McDowell
Creek, which declined from Fair in 1997 to Poor in
2002 and in Killian Creek, which declined from
Good in 1997 to Good -Fair in 2002. The lower
benthic macroinvertebrate and fish ratings were
likely the result of the prolonged drought in Killian
Creek while the lower ratings in McDowell Creek
were likely the result of the expanding urbanization
from the Charlotte metropolitan area.
South Fork Catawba River Watershed
(Subbasins 35 and 36)
There are three ecoregions in this watershed: the
Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills (including the South
Mountains), the Northern Inner Piedmont, and the
Southern Outer Piedmont. The South Fork
Catawba River has its origin at the confluence of
Henry and Jacob Forks. Other major tributaries
include Clark, Indian, and Long Creeks. Land use
is primarily forested but there is also a large
percentage of pasture.
Prior to 2002, Excellent ratings were typically
found in Jacob Fork, Good ratings in Henry Fork
and Howards Creek, and Good -Fair at Indian and
Clark Creeks. In 2002 benthic macroinvertebrate
data showed that every site, except for Henry
Fork, declined in bioclassification. Henry Fork
may have maintained its Good rating during the
drought because of its large watershed size. The
fish community at Indian Creek, which drains
Cherryville, was rated Fair in 1997 and 2002. In
contrast, Beaverdam Creek, which also drains
Cherryville, had a Good fish community rating, as
did Pott Creek, a large tributary of the Catawba
River north of Lincolnton. Long Creek in 2002 had
a Good -Fair rating.
Charlotte Metropolitan Area (Subbasins 34, 37,
and 38)
Three distinctly different ecoregions are found in
the area surrounding Charlotte. The Southern
Outer Piedmont ecoregion contains the Sugar
Creek watershed, a portion of Lake Wylie, and
much of the City of Charlotte metropolitan area.
This is the most heavily urbanized region in the
state. There are currently over 50 NPDES
permitted dischargers in the Sugar Creek
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
16

watershed. The largest one is the
CharlottelMecklenburg Utilities District's WWTPs
which discharge to Irwin Creek (30 MGD),
McAlpine Creek (48 MGD), and Little Sugar Creek
(20 MGD).
The Catawba and Crowders Creeks watersheds
flow through the Kings Mountain and Southem
Outer Piedmont ecoregions. Urban areas include
Bessemer City, the South Gastonia, and a portion
of Gastonia, south of the Interstate 85 corridor.
The third ecoregion is the Carolina Slate Belt. It
contains Sixmile and Twelvemile Creeks,
tributaries to the Catawba River in South Carolina.
These streams have very low flows during the
summer and may stop flowing during drought
periods, which naturally limits the diversity of the •
stream fauna. No benthic macroinvertebrate
samples have been collected from this subbasin
since 1992.
Based upon biological data, urban streams such
as McAlpine, Sugar, and Little Sugar Creeks are
degraded with Poor or Fair bioclassifications.
These low ratings were due to urban drainages,
large WWTP discharges, and poor habitat.
Declines in 2002 were attributed to the drought
rather than further declines in water quality.
Crowders Creek is another degraded stream in the
Gastonia area. Though some discharge changes
have occurred in the watershed, only slight
improvement in the fish and benthos have been
found, and Fair bioclassifications were typical in
2002. The fish community in Twelvemile Creek
declined from Good in 1997 to Good -Fair in 2002,
while Sixmile Creek maintained its Fair rating in
2002.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
17

MON
w
Catawba River at SR 1221, McDowell County.
The 2002 benthos bioclassification was Good -Fair,
a decline from the Good ratings found since 1990,
but similar to what was found all during the 1980s.
In 2002, the EPT S declined to 27 from 35 in 1997
with few intolerant taxa and only one stonefly
found. The largest decrease in taxa was within
the mayflies. The BI increased from 4.46 to 5.38.
Chironomids were particularly abundant,
especially Crictopus bicinctus, which is a toxic
indicator species.
Since there are no dischargers between the SR
1234 site and this site, the cause for the decline in
water quality is unclear. One possibility is that the
slower current at this site allowed the oxygen
consuming effects of upstream dischargers to be
more evident even though conductivity was lower
MEI at this site than at the SR 1234 site (94 vs. 153
pmhos/cm). Higher water temperatures may also
have played a role; temperatures increased from
20°C at the most upstream Catawba River site to
25°C at this site in August.
Curtis Creek, SR 1227
_ Curtis Creek is a small stream, six meters wide
with a drainage area of 12 square miles. There is
good macroinvertebrate habitat and swift current.
The watershed above this site lies entirely within
the Pisgah National Forest and the Mt. Mitchell
Wildlife Management Area. The Town of Old
Fort's WWTP discharges to the stream but the
discharge is much further down in the watershed.
..
Curtis Creek at SR 1227, McDowell County.
Curtis Creek received a Good bioclassification
during in 1992, 1997, and 2002. The benthos
community was characterized by low productivity
and many intolerant taxa.
Curtis Creek, US 70
Curtis Creek was sampled for the first time for fish
community assessment in 2002. In northwest
McDowell County, the stream is a tributary to the
upper Catawba River and portions of its watershed
are within the Pisgah National Forest. There are
no NPDES facilities within the watershed and the
conductivity was very low (18 pmhos/cm). The
stream is classified as Class C Tr and is a
Hatchery Supported Trout Waters. At this
crossing, the instream, riparian, and watershed
characteristics qualified the site as a new regional
reference site.
Upstream view of Curtis Creek at US 70, McDowell
County.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
31

CATAWBA RIVER SUBBASIN 31
Description
This subbasin is located in the Northern Inner
Piedmont ecoregion with only the highest,
_ northwestern reaches in the Southern Crystalline
Ridges and Mountain ecoregion (Griffith et al
2002). The Catawba River flows generally
eastward with major tributaries such as Warrior
— Fork, Lower Creek, and the Johns River flowing
south (Figure 16). Many headwater tributaries are
designated as HQW and Wilson Creek has been
designated ORW. Portions of this subbasin are
within the Pisgah National Forest and
approximately 85 percent of the subbasin is
forested (Table 8). This is the second greatest
percentage of any of the subbasins.
0 4 Miles
■
0 Macroliue rtebrate Stanoia
Fti Comm iillyAssesameitStatloia
El Lake Statloi a
AmbleitiioiHorbg Statlois
a Wiole Etrlle itToxlcl>,r Testlkg Facilities
eccelle it
Good
Good-F at
Fa t
Poor
Not Rated
Figure 16.
Sampling sites in Subbasin 31 in the Catawba River basin.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
43

Table 8. Land use in Subbasin 31. Based upon
CGIA coverage 1993 -1995, total area =
581 square miles (NCDENR 1999).
Land use Percent
Water
Cultivated crop
Pasture
Urban
Forest
1
1
10
3
85
The Johns River catchment also contains some
high quality areas, but this area has widespread
agricultural land use, especially cultivation of
ornamental shrubs and trees. The cities of
Morganton, Lenoir, Drexel, and Granite Falls are
found in this subbasin. Urban development and
runoff from Lenoir and Morganton have impacted
several tributaries to the Catawba River in the
southeastern potion of the subbasin.
Overview of Water Quality
There are three ambient monitoring sites in this
subbasin: Lower Creek near Morganton, Wilson
"" Creek near Gragg (a high elevation, headwater
site), and Lake Rhodhiss. None of these sites
represents typical water quality for this subbasin.
Wilson Creek had many pH measurements less
than 6.0 s.u. (18 percent) with one reading less
than 5.0 s.u.. This pattern had not been observed
at this site since the early 1990's and it suggested
— that similar low pH values may be occurring in
other high elevation streams that drain forested
catchments. Such areas have low buffering
capacity and are most susceptible to acid
precipitation.
The site on Lower Creek reflected the influence of
-. various point and nonpoint source problems near
the City of Lenoir: high turbidity (22 percent of the
values greater than 50 NTU); high fecal coliforms
(geometric mean = 253 colonies/100 ml); and
elevated conductivity (median = 93 pmhos/cm).
Samples from the site on Lake Rhodhiss often
IMO
IMO
N MI
N MI
Table 9.
reflected algal bloom problems with elevated
dissolved oxygen concentrations and pH values.
The Catawba River near the City of Morganton
was rated Good -Fair in 1997 and 2002 (Table 9).
Some intolerant organisms were abundant at this
site, but daily variations in flow, due to power
generation at the upstream Lake James dam,
affected the quality of the instream habitats. There
seemed to be a decline in water quality between
the Glen Alpine site (in Subbasin 30) and this site.
Many of the streams that originate in the Pisgah
National Forest had Good or Excellent water
quality ratings based on biological data. These
streams included Johns River, Upper, Mulberry,
and Wilson Creeks, Gragg Prong, and Warrior
Fork (Table 9). Even though there is some
recreational use and development in the upper
sections of these creeks, there has been no
substantial impairment of water quality. Wilson
Creek supports an unusually large number of rare
invertebrate species (Appendix 9).
Waterbodies monitored in Subbasin 31 in the Catawba River basin for basinwide
assessment, 1997 - 2002.
Map #' Waterbodr County
B-1 Burke
B-2 Burke
B-3 Burke
B-4 Caldwell
B-5 Burke
B 6 Caldwell
B-7 Burke
B-8 Burke
B-9 Burke
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
L-1
Catawba R
Silver Cr
Warrior Fk
Johns R
Johns R
Wilson Cr
Lower Cr
Smoky Cr
McGalliard Cr
Silver Cr
Irish Cr
Hunting Cr
Lower Cr2
Smoky Cr2
McGalliard Cr2
Burke
Burke
Burke
Burke
Burke
Burke
Lake Rhodhiss Burke, Caldwell
Location
NC 181
SR 1149/SR 1127
SR 1440
SR 1356
SR 1438
SR 1335/SR 1328
SR 1501
SR 1515
SR 1538
SR 1149
SR 1439
SR 1512 —
SR 1501 Good -Fair
SR 1515
SR 1538 Good
1997 2002
Good -Fair
Good -Fair
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Fair
Good
Good -Fair
Good -Fair
Good -Fair
Good
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Fair
Good -Fair
Fair
Excellent
Fair
Fair
Good -Fair
Excellent
Fair
B = benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring sites; F = fish community monitoring sites; L = lake assessment sites.
2Data are available prior to 1997, refer to Appendices 7 and 11.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
44

The middle portion of this catchment has
extensive areas used for the cultivation of
ornamental shrubs and trees. While streams in
— this area usually still have good water quality,
several sites have recently (2002) shown a decline
from an Excellent to a Good bioclassification
—, based on macroinvertebrate data: Warrior Fork
and the lower section of the Johns River. It is not
known if drought conditions contributed to this
decline. A fish community sample from Irish
-- Creek (a tributary of Warrior Fork) showed severe
habitat problems and was rated Fair.
Where watersheds have become more developed
Mall
around the cities of Morganton, Lenoir and
Valdese, the stream bioclassifications were lower
(Good -Fair or Fair). The physical characteristics
of these streams has also changed. Lower, Silver,
Hunting, and McGalliard Creeks had lower
gradients and were much sandier than streams in
the northern part of the subbasin. McGalliard
—
Creek showed a decline in bioclassification
between 1997 and 2002, based on fish and
macroinvertebrates. An intensive survey of the
._ Lower Creek catchment in 2002 documented
problems for many streams around Lenoir.
Rhodhiss Lake has been sampled by DWQ since
—' 1981. This lake is usually eutrophic although it
was evaluated as mesotrophic in 1989 and 1997.
Although there were high nutrient concentrations,
algal blooms were often limited by the reservoir's
short retention time. Drought conditions increased
retention times and blooms of nuisance algae
(especially blue -greens) were recorded in 2001
and 2002. Frequent blooms and percent dissolved
oxygen saturation values greater than the water
quality standard indicated the reservoir was
impaired in its support of aquatic life. The
presence of algae which create taste and odor
problems in treated drinking water made it
necessary for water treatment plants to use
activated charcoal to make the water drinkable.
Nutrient reductions may help to alleviate these
problems.
Five facilities in this subbasin monitor effluent
toxicity. The two largest municipal dischargers
(Lenoir's WWTP, 6 MGD and Morganton's WWTP,
8 MGD) have experienced occasional failures over
the last 10 years. Lenoir's facility failed about 25
percent of its self -monitoring toxicity tests between
1992 and 1999, but has passed all tests since
2000. Morganton's facility still tends to have about
one failure per year, with the last documented
problems in January 2002, April 2001, and
January 2001.
River and Stream Assessment
Upper and Mulberry Creeks were not sampled for
fish community assessment in 2002. Data had
been collected as recently as 1999 and the
—
communities have consistently been rated
Excellent (Appendix 11). Upper Creek at SR
1439, Burke County, is within a reach designated
as a Significant Natural Heritage Area (Oakley
2002).
Catawba River, NC 181
- This portion of the Catawba River near Morganton
was about 40 meters wide with a very sandy
substrate. There was one area, however, of
boulder and rubble downstream of the bridge.
Flow in this part of the river is regulated by
hydroelectric power generation at Lake James and
flow may rise sharply during the day. During
.� benthic sampling in 2002, there was no water in
bank areas during the night and early moming, so
this area was unsuitable for macroinvertebrates.
Similar conditions were observed in 1997.
MEN
Riffle area in the Catawba River at NC 181, Burke
County.
This site is only about seven miles downstream of
site near Glen Alpine (SR 1147, Subbasin 30), but
there were several important differences in habitat
and water quality between these two locations.
The Morganton site was sandier and it was also
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
45

imiloN
located downstream of the City of Morganton's
WWTP (8 MGD). This facility is generally well run,
but it had failed quarterly self -monitoring toxicity
tests in January 2002, April 2001, and January
2001.
— This site received a Good -Fair bioclassification in
2002 and 1997, although a Good rating had been
assigned in 1992. Higher water levels in 1992
produced more bank -associated taxa (Triaenodes,
Oecetis, and Hexagenia), so this decline was most
likely related to flow alteration, rather than to any
change in water quality. Low flow conditions,
however, might affect water quality by providing
NMI
less dilution for upstream dischargers.
Although taxa richness was low (46 in 2002),
several intolerant taxa were abundant, including
Lepidostoma, Brachycentrus numerosus, and
Pteronarcys. Large numbers of a grazing snail,
Elimia, may have acted to reduce the abundance
NNW
of chironomid species.
MINI
MEI
Comparison with the Glen Alpine site suggested a
decline in water quality between these two
locations in 2002, with a decline in the abundance
of Acroneuria abnormis, Serratella serratoides,
Micrasema wataga, and Glossosoma.
Silver Creek, SR 1127
In 2002 the site on Silver Creek was moved
upstream from SR 1149 to SR 1127 due to lack of
flow at the downstream site. Collections from both
sites have consistently yielded a Good -Fair
bioclassification in three samples since 1992.
The new site was very similar to Canoe Creek
(Subbasin 30). This portion of Silver Creek had a
mean width of six meters, sandy substrate, and
MN
infrequent riffles. Leaf packs were the most
important habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates,
producing six stonefly taxa. Some small -stream
species were recorded including Eccoptura
xanthenes and Diplectrona modesta.
MIMI
Ilan
IMM
OEM
Silver Creek at SR 1127, Burke County.
Silver Creek, SR 1149
Silver Creek was sampled for the first time for fish
community assessment in 2002. Draining
southwestern Burke County, the watershed is
bordered by Interstate 40 to the north and the
South Mountains to the south. There are no
NPDES facilities in the watershed above the
sampling site. The stream is a tributary to the
Catawba River near the City of Morganton.
Although this stream lacked cobble riffles, the
woody debris in the current provided favorable
habitat for three species of darters. The
community was dominated by the greenhead
shiner and was rated Excellent.
Upstream view of Silver Creek at SR 1149, Burke
County.
Warrior Fork, SR 1440
Warrior Creek is a large stream (14 meters wide)
with a sand -gravel substrate. Some rubble-
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
46

NEM
MEI
boulder substrate, however, was found near the
bridge. This site is located in an area used to grow
ornamental plants (nursery plants). Adjacent
fields had a poor riparian buffer and the presence
of dead plants suggested that herbicides had been
used near the stream.
Rocky riffle area at the bridge in Warrior Fork at SR
1440, Burke County.
More typical sand -gravel riffle in Warrior Fork at SR
1440, Burke County.
The stream declined from Excellent in 1997 to
Good in 2002; EPT S declined from 41 to 34.
Many of the expected caddisfly taxa were reduced
or absent in 2002, including Brachycentrus
numerosus, Micrasema wataga, Psychomyia
nomada, and Lepidostoma. Both Hydropsychidae
and Baetidae were sparse in 2002, although
Plecoptera were both abundant (three taxa) and
diverse (six taxa).
Irish Creek, SR 1439
Irish Creek was sampled for the first time for fish
community assessment in 2002. Draining central
Burke County, Irish and Upper Creeks join to form
Warrior Fork, a tributary to the Catawba River
north of the City of Morganton. The valleys in this
area of Burke County are used extensively for
nursery tree propagation. Consequently, the
streams' instream and riparian habitats suffer. At
this locale, Irish Creek was deeply incised with
easily erodible vertical banks and sandy substrate;
the habitat score was 38 (Appendices 2 and 3).
Downstream view of Irish Creek at SR 1439, Burke
County.
The fish community was rated Fair (NCIBI = 38).
Although diverse, few fish were collected for a
stream of its size in its ecoregion. Typical of many
streams with habitats and water quality like Irish
Creek, there was only species of darter present,
the bluehead chub was dominant, and the
percentage of diseased fish was high. The
greenhead shiner was also absent; only one other
stream in the upper Catawba River basin did not
have this species (Lower Creek).
Hunting Creek, SR 1512
Hunting Creek was sampled for the first time for
fish community assessment in 2002. This urban
stream drains the southern and southeastern
areas of the City of Morganton in central Burke
County. There are no NPDES facilities in the
watershed above the site near the stream's mouth.
The stream is a tributary to the Catawba River just
above Lake Rhodhiss.
At this locale, Hunting Creek has easily erodible
vertical banks and a sandy substrate with no true
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
47

MEM
NMI
WWI
rock riffles; the habitat score was 44 (Appendices
2 and 3).
Downstream view of clear water with a shallow,
shifting sandy substrate at Hunting Creek at SR
1512, Burke County.
Similar to Irish Creek which also had poor
instream habitats, the fish community was rated
Fair (NCIBI = 38). There was an absence of
intolerant species and piscivores, a low diversity
and abundance of sunfish, and the percentage of
.., diseased fish was high. The bluehead chub was
the dominant species.
Johns River, SR 1356
The headwaters of the Johns River was similar to
the Warrior Fork site in size (15 meters wide) and
substrate (sand/gravel). As at Warrior Fork, some
high quality rubble -boulder riffles were found
within the sample reach. The surrounding area
was largely residential, although nursery
operations were present in this catchment. There
was no evidence of excessive periphyton growths
in contrast to the Johns River at SR 1438,
although small patches of Potamogeton
diversifolius occurred along the bank.
Johns River at SR 1536, Caldwell County.
This site has been consistently rated Excellent in
three summer collections since 1992. Four -
sample EPT S has ranged from 42 to 49. The low -
flow conditions in 2002 affected the habitat
(greater silt deposition) and the composition of the
fauna. Slow water taxa became more abundant,
especially Neureclipsis and Stenacron pallidum.
Many intolerant taxa were common or abundant at
this site. Unusual records included Nixe sp. (new
species or very restricted distribution),
Rhithrogena, Ceraclea mentiea, and
Helicopsyche.
Johns River, SR 1438
This downstream site on the Johns River was
added at the request of the DWQ's Planning
Branch to examine the possible effects of local
land use and increased sedimentation in a low -
gradient portion of the river. This site was slightly
larger (22 meters wide) than the upstream site at
SR 1536, but retained the same types of habitats -
- large areas of sand and gravel with some high -
quality rubble riffles. The distance between the
two sites is about 15 miles.
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
48

Riffle in the background on the Johns River at SR
1438, Burke County.
The Johns River at SR 1438 is located in an area
with more agricultural land use particularly
cultivation of nursery plants than the SR 1536 site.
Runoff from these areas has resulted in
enrichment in the lower river with abundant growth
of filamentous algae (Spirogyra) and aquatic
.. macrophytes (Potamogeton diversifolius).
IMP
MEI
Spirogyra growing atop the substrate in the Johns
River at SR 1438, Burke County.
This site was rated Excellent in 1983 and 1989,
but Good in 2002. This pattern was similar to that
observed at another watershed (Warrior Fork)
used extensively for nursery plant cultivation.
Wilson Creek, off SR 1358
This new basinwide monitoring site was added as
a reference site for the sites on the Johns River
.. and Warrior Fork. A new site on Wilson Creek (off
SR 1358 below Mortimer) was selected in 2002,
because the upstream site at SR 1358 was too
small to compare to the Johns River sites. The
new site is comparable to the Wilson Creek site at
SR 1335 sampled in 1997. Two portions of Wilson
Creek are in the Pisgah National Forest
(headwater areas and the Wilson Creek Gorge),
but this new segment was located in an area of
private land above the gorge that has been
developed for residential and recreational uses.
Here the stream was 15 meters wide with very
clear water and good rubble -boulder substrate.
Specific conductance was 22 pmhos/cm.
Potamogeton growth was abundant in areas of
highest current speed and Nostoc was abundant in
areas of slower current, especially on bedrock
substrate. High numbers of a grazing snail
(Leptoxis) kept periphyton growths at a very low
level of abundance.
Wilson Creek off SR 1328, Caldwell County.
High EPT S (45) and a very low BI (3.3) confirmed
extremely high water quality at this site. Many
intolerant taxa were abundant including Drunella
allegheniensis, Lepidostoma, Micrasema wataga,
M. rickeri, M. bennetti, Helicopsyche, and
Ceraclea ancylus. Other unusual taxa included
Setodes, Mystacides, Brachycercus, Acroneuria
lycorias, and Paragnetina ichusa. Some of the
taxa recorded at this site were extremely rare, with
some new species or new state records for North
Carolina (Appendix 9).
Lower Creek, SR 1501
The watershed of Lower Creek includes the City of
Lenoir and drains primarily the southwest portion
of Caldwell County into the upper reaches of Lake
Rhodhiss. Sampled near the lower part of its
watershed in an agricultural valley, this was the
largest watershed monitored for fish community
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
49

assessments in 2002 (89.5 square miles).
Potential impacts to this site include urban and
agricultural nonpoint source runoff, the Lenoir's
WWTP discharge (4.1 MGD), and a variety of
smaller dischargers.
The 2002 fish community site was relocated about
200 yards above the 1997 site because of the
existence of sand dipping operations above and
below the bridge. A slightly wider riparian zone
"" providing more shade to the stream was present
further away from the bridge at the 2002 site.
Livestock did not seem to have access to the
stream in 2002 as they had in 1997. But, as in
1997, the water had a greenish, turbid cast to it.
nowi
Lack of a riparian zone towards the bridge at Lower
Creek at SR 1501, Burke County.
a—. The fish community was rated Good -Fair in 2002
and 1997 (NCIBI = 42 and 44, respectively). More
species, total fish, species of suckers, and
piscivores were collected in 2002 than in 1997. In
—
1997, only 49 fish were collected (the fewest fish
of any site monitored that year) contrasted to 211
collected in 2002. However, these "gains' were
offset by an absence of intolerant species, fewer
insectivores, and a higher percentage of diseased
fish in 2002 than in 1997. In 1997, two species
(redbreast sunfish and bluegill sunfish) dominated
the community; this contrasted to five species
(tessellated darter, bluehead chub, redbreast
sunfish, bluegill sunfish, and yellow perch) which
,, constituted 73 percent of all the fish collected in
2002.
This site has been sampled for benthic
— macroinvertebrates six times since 1984, with a
bioclassification of Fair for all invertebrate
collections. The 2002 sample had the lowest EPT
NMI
S, but this may have been influenced by the
September collection and drought conditions.
Specific conductance in 2002 (161 pmhos/cm)
was over twice that observed in 1997 (60
pmhos/cm), suggesting greater influence of point
source dischargers in 2002.
Although EPT S was lowest in 2002, there have
been no significant changes in Total S, EPT N, or
BI since 1992. Water quality appears to be
relatively stable at this site over the last 10 years.
Smoky Creek, SR 1515
Smoky Creek was sampled for the first time for
fish community assessment in 2002. This small
stream (7.6 square mile drainage) is a tributary to
Lake Rhodhiss and is classified as WS-IV C.
There are no NPDES facilities within its
watershed. At this crossing, the instream, riparian,
and watershed characteristics qualified the site as
a new regional reference site. One large
sloughing bank near the upper end of the sampling
reach may be contributing some of the orange clay
turbidity and sediment observed at the site. This
bank sloughing appeared natural and may have
been caused by high flows.
Upstream view of Smoky Creek at SR 1515, Burke
County.
The fish community was rated Excellent (NCIBI =
58).
By the time benthic macroinvertebrates samples
were collected in 2002, the steam was small (five
meters wide) and may have experienced
extremely low flow during the drought. Many flow -
dependent taxa (Philopotamidae, Hydropsychidae,
and Baetidae) were reduced in abundance in 2002
relative to prior collections. This stream had
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
50

MOM
extensive silt deposits in 2002, but there remained
one good riffle area about 30 meters upstream of
the bridge. Extensive periphyton growths were
noted in 2002, often growing over the silt deposits.
Based upon benthic macroinvertebrates, the
^, stream declined from Good in 1992 and 1997 to
Good -Fair in 2002. Taxa that were lost were often
cool -water mountain taxa (Epeorus, and
Symphitopsyche sparna) which suggested warmer
temperatures under low -flow conditions. Some
moderately intolerant species (Acroneuria)
remained abundant in all years, again indicating a
drought -associated change in water quality.
McGalliard Creek, SR 1538
The watershed of McGalliard Creek drains an area
dissected by Interstate 40, US 64/70, and includes
the Town of Valdese. The stream is also a
tributary to Lake Rhodhiss. Although there are no
NPDES facilities within its watershed, the
conductivity was elevated (107 pmhos/cm) due to
urban run-off.
Upstream view of McGalliard Creek at SR 1538,
Burke County.
The stream has been sampled for fish in every
basin cycle — 1993, 1997, and 2002 (Figure 17).
The ratings have varied from Fair to Good; in 2002
the community was rated Fair.
60
52 48
40
o 44 38
36
m
3 28
z
20
12 ,
1993 1997 2002
Year
Figure 17. NCIBI scores from McGalliard Creek at
SR 1538, Burke County, 1993 — 2002.
Contrasting 2002 to 1997 results, real declines
were noted in the number of species (from 10 to
9), number of fish (from 165 to 143), and
percentage of species with multiple age classes
(from 60 to 44 percent); increases were noted in
the percentage of tolerant fish (from 15 to 57
percent). This percentage of tolerant fish was
greater in this stream than at any other site in the
basin in 2002 (Appendix 12). This was because
the redbreast sunfish increased in dominance from
15 percent of all the fish collected in 1997 to 55
percent in 2002. The greenhead shiner decreased
from 31 percent in 1997 to 1.4 percent in 2002.
No species of darters or intolerant species have
ever been collected from McGalliard Creek.
McGalliard Creek and Smoky Creek are identical
in terms of drainage area size and elevation.
However, the land use, habitats, fish communities,
and ratings were very different (Table 10 and
Appendix 12).
Table 10. Comparisons of Smoky and McGalliard
Creeks, Burke County, 2002.
Waterbody
Variable Smoky Cr McGalliard Cr
Land use
Habitat score
No. species
No. fish
No. darters
No. suckers
No. intolerant species
% tolerants
NCIBI score
NCIBI rating
Rural
71
16
277
2
2
1
8
58
Excellent
Suburban, urban
55
9
143
0
1
0
57
40
Fair
In 1963, when the NCWRC sampled McGalliard
Creek, it was heavily polluted and creosote was
observed floating atop the water (Louder 1964).
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
51

OMNI
IMO
Only one fish, a creek chub, was collected and the
stream was considered too polluted for fish
reproduction. Although 10 additional species were
collected in 1997 and 2002, there are two main
obstacles preventing natural recolonization of the
stream from downstream sources — Lake
Rhodhiss and McGalliard Creek Falls. The falls is
approximately 40 ft high (Figure 18). These two
barriers essentially isolate the stream from any
possible recolonization. Even though the stream
was stocked in June 2001 and 2002 with 1,200
rainbow trout just above the falls for a fishing
tournament
(www.ci.valdese.nc.us/mcqalliard falls.htm), this
species probably did not survive for any extended
length of time in the stream. The NCIBI ratings
may never be greater than 50 (Good) if the stream
is not colonized by two species of darter, an
additional species of sucker, and at least one
intolerant species.
Figure 18. McGalliard Creek Falls at SR 1538,
Burke County. Copyrighted
photograph courtesy of the Town of
Valdese.
By the time benthic macroinvertebrates samples
were collected, this small stream may have
experienced low -flow problems during the 2002
drought. The stream had poor habitat with very
limited riffle area. The substrate was over 90
percent sand and silt. During benthic sampling
conductivity was high at 144pmhos/cm, almost
double the value recorded in 1992.
The invertebrate fauna was very sparse with only
four abundant taxa and included some very
tolerant taxa (Baetis flavistriga and Hydropsyche
bettenr). The rating declined from Good -Fair in
1992 and 1997 to Fair in 2002.
SPECIAL STUDIES
Lower Creek TMDL Development
Fifteen sites were sampled for benthic
macroinvertebrates in the Lower Creek watershed
during September 2002. Samples from Lower
Creek produced a Poor rating for the most
upstream site and Fair ratings for three
downstream sites. Many of the tributary streams
were too small to rate, but paired sites often
showed "Not Impaired" headwater sites with a
substantial decline in water quality downstream of
urban areas. Although many streams had poor
habitat, comparisons with other streams in this
area suggested there were also significant water
quality problems (Biological Assessment Unit
Memorandum 20030319).
Fish Community Reference Streams
In 1998 and 1999, Gragg Prong Creek at SR
1367, Caldwell County, was evaluated as a
regional fish community reference site. The fish
community was rated Excellent (NCIBI = 56)
(Biological Assessment Unit Memorandum
20000922). The stream will again become a
basinwide monitoring site in 2007.
Fish Community Temporal Variability
The fish community in Upper Creek at SR 1439
and in Mulberry Creek at NC 90, Burke County,
were sampled in April, June, and October 1999 to
determine the temporal variability of the NCIBI
during NC DWQ's traditional monitoring period.
The communities were rated Excellent during each
month (NCIBI range 54 - 60) despite a prolonged
summer drought. It was determined that
seasonality was not an important factor to consider
when using the NCIBI to assess the fish
community of a stream (Biological Assessment
Unit Memorandum 20000922).
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Assessment Report - Catawba River Basin - June 2003
52

. Table for EAA
Alternatives
Initial Cost
Annual Costs
PW
(1) Public Sewer
System — Gravity
1,986,268.43
0
(Paid by Blowing
Rock)
1,986,268.43
(2) Public Sewer
System — Forced
Main
4,322,666.68
0
(Paid by Blowing
Rock)
4,322,666.68
(3) Connection to
a Privately
Owned Treatment
Works
Not Available
N/A
Not Available
(4) Individual
Subsurface
System
Land needed for
this is not
available
Cost 1,380,000
(Not Counting
Land)
0
1,380,000
(5) Community
Subsurface
System
Land Not
Available
Cost 1,380,000
0
1,380,000
Drip Irrigation
Surface
823,246.50
Biofilters
Replaced 588,000
1,906,400.50
Drip Irrigation
Subsurface
823,246.50
588,000
1,906,400.50
Spray Irrigation
10,328,267.50
Biofilters
Replaced 588,000
11,411,421.50
Reuse
390,130
32,100
3,330,974.50
Surface water
discharge with
NPDES Permit
390,130
32,100
! 730,069.10
il,

Present Value Cost For Public Sewer System -Gravity Flow
raq
PW = PW+ PW2 (20 years, 7%)
flal PW = $607,080 + $607,080 (.2584)
PW = $763,949.47
pim
Assuming 40% of the way is rock.
p.m $763,949.47 x .4 = $305,579.79
PWi = $763,949.47 - $305,579.79 = $458,369.68
`"' Going thru rock increases the price 5X.
PW = $458,369.68 + 5 ($305,579.79)
1.1
PW = $1,986,268.43

Present Worth of Forced Sewage Main to Blowing Rock
PW = PWi + PW2 (20 years, 7%)
PW = $904,000 + $904,000 (.2584)
PW = $904,000 + $233,593.60
PW = $1,137,593.60
Going over the mountains to get to Blowing Rock, about 70% of
the way would be through rock. The cost of going through rock
increases the price by 5X.
PW = 30% ($1,137,593.60) + 5 (70%) ($1,137,593.60)
PW = $341,278.08 + $3,981,388.60
PW = $4,322,666.68

C
y Drip System— Present Worth
R., Since the Biofilters need changing when they fill up, the time frame would be every
five (5) years.
PW=PWI+PW2(5 years, 7%)
+ PW3 (10 years, 7%)
+ PW4(15 years, 7%)
+ PWs (20 years, 7%)
PW = $823,246.50 +
Eac ' . ' , _ - . rocesses 480 gallons/day
Style STB650, $5,600/ea.
50,000 gallons/day =104.16 - 105 Filters
480 gallons/day
105 filters x $5,600 = $588,000
PW = $823,246.50 + $588,000 (.7130)
+ $588,000 (.5083)
+ $588,000 (.3624)
+ $588,000 (.2584)
PW = $823,246.50 + $419,244.00 + $298,880.00
+ $213,091.00 + $151,939.00
PW = $1,906,400.50
.

Spray System— Present Worth
PW = PWi + PW2 (Same as Drip System)
PW = $10,328,267.50 + $1,083,154.00
PW = $11,411,421.50

Water Reuse — Present Worth
PW = PWi + PW2 (Same as Drip System) + PW3 (Same as Treatment Plant)
PW= $1,517,751.50 + $1,083,154.00 + $730,069.00
PW = $2,600,905.50 + $730,0069.00 = $3,330,974.50

PIM
fag
Fon
Paq
Mit
CIVIL / ENVIRONMENTAL / WATER / WASTEWATER
JOHN T. COXEY
CONSULTING ENGINEERING. P.A.
Project Cost Estimate and Present Worth
Buckeye Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
I. Project Cost Estimate
1. 50,000 GPD Plant with microscreen
drum filter including insulation and grating $194,500.00
2. 10,000 Gallon Equalization Basin, Pumps,
and Blowers $ 38,800.00
3. Sitework, Piping, Fencing $ 12,500.00
4. UV Disinfection System $ 15,000.00
5. Standby Generator and AT Switch $ 15,000.00
6. Flow Meter $ 3,500.00
7. Electrical $ 12,000.00
8. Contractor Installation, Overhead & Profit $ 37,000.00
Total Construction $328,300.00
Contingencies (10%) $ 32,830.00
Administration $ 5,000.00
Engineering Fees $ 24,000.00
Total Project Cost $390,130.00
JOHN T. COXEY, P.E.
PRESIDENT
53 FOX CHASE RD. WEST
�+ ASHEVILLE. N.C. 28804
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]

II. Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs
FM
1. Operator Fees $ 12,000.00
f.^ 2. Laboratory Fees $ 3,500.00
3. Equipment & Supplies
Treatment Plant $ 2,500.00
'.' UV System $ 3,000.00
4. Power Consumption
mg
2 — 5 HP Blowers
F'+ 2-2HPMixers
1-1 HP Microscreen
1— 2 HP Surge Tank Blower
'x1 2 — 2 HP Surge Tank Pumps
21 HP Total 21 KWx18Hrs Avg x
rim 365 Days x $0.75/kwH = $10,350.00
1— UV System 120 V $ 750.00
mil
Total Annual 0 & M Costs $32,100.00

III. Present Worth
(20 years, 7%) = 10.59 Present Worth Factor
Present Worth of Project Cost $390,130.00
Present Worth of Annual Costs
$32,100.00 x 10.59 $339,939.00
Total Present Worth $730,069.00

41(00 ;7(63
4ori/ 2eq
REED WILLIAMS
BUCKEYE CREEK PROJECT
RETURN # 2205
APPENDIX B
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
REQUIREMENT

Summary of Soil Data and Wastewater Application Rates
Site: Buckeye Creek Development, Blowing Rock, North Carolina
Prepared for Reed Williams
By Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC
Summary of Soil Data: In 2001 an initial investigation of the soils on this site was carried out
by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC, and was followed up by an intensive investigation of two
areas on the site: the field along US 221 ("Priority 1 Area" on attachment 1) and an area along
the private road that runs along the west boundary of the property ("Priority 2 area" on
attachment 1). In 2003 additional pits were looked at on the northeast part of the property. See
Attachment 1: Backhoe Pit Location Map, Attachment 2: Auger Borings Location Map (2001
investigation), and Attachment 3: Non -detailed Descriptions Location Map (2003
investigation). For brief soil descriptions see attachments 4 and 5. Soil depths from the
intensive investigation of 2001 are summarized on the map on Attachment 1. Detailed
descriptions are also available if needed.
Based on these studies, there are two general soil areas -that can be identified on the
property. The soils on the summit landscape and shoulder landscape positions have slopes
ranging from 2-20%. Depth to bedrock or other restrictive horizon ranges fro„i 11" to more than
60". Depth to bedrock is highly variable, even within one pit. Depth to bedrock is generally
greater than 12". There are a few rock outcrops in this area. Surface textures are loamy; with
clay loam and loam subsoils. Saprolite, where present, has loam or sandy loam textures. Long-
term acceptance rate (LTAR) for subsurface systems ranged from 0.4-0.6 gallons per day/
square foot (GPD/sf) of trench bottom, with 0.4 GPD/sf clearly the overall LTAR for this area.
The other general soil area is the side slope area. Slopes in this area range from 25-70%
or more. Depth to bedrock ranges from 6 to more than 60" in the upper part of the "Priority 2
Area", with depths ranging from 9 to 50" in the other parts of this soil area. Depth to bedrock
generally ranges from 18-30", with deeper soils found in concave slopes. There were only
occasional pits that were shallower than 12". Some rock outcroppings were noted on nose
slopes, but were not a prominent feature on most of the landscape. Surface textures were loam
underlain with loam, sandy clay loam, and clay loam subsoil. Where present, saprolite textures
range from loam to sandy loam. LTAR for septic systems ranges from 0.4 to 0.7 GPD/sf.
Application Rates and Land Required for Wastewater Disposal Options: There are several
possible options for on -site wastewater discharge. The most obvious option is some type of
conventional subsurface (septic system) disposal. This disposal method was discussed in detail
in "Soil Suitability for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Report" by Foothills Soil Consulting, dated
August 26, 2001. There is clearly inadequate area for this type of ewater system for the
proposed development of 138 three -bedroom condominium units.
A second option would be a pretreatment and drip subsurface system. On slopes greater
than 25% a minimum of 18" of suitable soil would be needed. A significant portion of both the
side slope area and summit/shoulder area soils would be suitable for this type of system. Based
on the soil textures observed, a likely LTAR for the summit and shoulder soil areas would be
0.15 to 0.2 GPD/sf of drainfield area, and for the sideslope soil areas the LTAR would be 0.2 to
0.3 GPD/sf. Based on a design daily flow (DDF) of 49,680 gallons per day (GPD), and a
reasonable figure of 0.25 GPD/sf for a drainfield on the sideslope, about 198,720 square feet of

subsurface drip drainfield would be needed, about 4.5 acres, with an equal area reserved for
repair. The more conservative figure of 0.2 GPD/sf would require about 248,400 square feet or
about 6 acres, and the most conservative LTAR of 0.15 would require about 331,200 square feet,
about 8 acres. This area does not include space for manifolds or effluent distribution lines, or
space between zones. It would have to be installed in areas with 65% slope or less —preferably
on slopes no more than 30-40%. This type of system is difficult to manage for wastewater
systems of this size, and surface application may be a better option from a technical and
management point of view.
A third option is surface application. For this type of system a minimum soil depth of
12" is required. Most areas of the property that were evaluated would meet this standard. Based
on the soil textures, soil depths and slopes described above, an application rate of 0.05 GPD/sf of
application area is a likely application rate. At this application rate, 993,609ksquare feet or 23
acres of application area would be needed. Because this application area would be in the woods,
a likely distribution system would be surface drip. A 30-60 day storage pond would be needed.
No slope limits are listed in the regulations. However, if the application area has a very steep
slope a lower application rate would be needed. Setbacks for surface application of wastewater
using drip irrigation are as follows: 100 feet from houses, 50 feet from property lines, 100 feet
from wells or other water supply source, 100 feet from most surface waters. Setbacks for spray
irrigation are 400' from houses, 150' from property lines, and 100 feet from wells or surface
waters.
A fourth non -discharge option is water reuse. Based on a water budget prepared using
general values for the soils on this property, about 160 inches of tertiary treated "recycled" water
could be applied per year on this site. This corresponds to an application rate of 0.27 GPD/sf of
application area. Based on a design daily flow of 49,680 GPD, 4.2 acres would be needed for the
application area. Again, the likely application area would be in the woods, requiring surface drip
irrigation. Setbacks for water reuse for surface drip application are 25 feet from non -SA surface
waters, 100 feet from SA surface waters, and 100 feet from a potable well. There is no setback
from either property boundaries or houses listed in the regulations.
The application rates listed above are based on general soil characteristics, and are solely
for use in this alternatives analysis. Actual design of any of these systems would need to be
based on site specific data collected in a proposed wastewater application area.

D-
.77
0
a-
Attachment 1: Backhoe Pit Location Map (priority 1 and priority 2 areas)
Prepared for Reed Williams
by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC
Site: Buckeye Creek Development, Watauga County, North Carolina
Base Map by Atlantic Plan Engineering Corp.
/ 6 I
IP 41
CO,
. \ ‘,...., ..„,...
sc 1 ,. •„.
1
.,_
, T.
. _ . —fi
o #
Q. 0'
2) . / - 4-11 ."i-j1"- .-- -
il I ..._
4P VI - — ''
---. —r—Lr—
t t
a-15 • kal:-
is; . 5
o,- `
,.......::,. „......\ L: aa.--t „,0 31./
14 al" --_
-------„, ,--, 1% 'ss" , — ---, --X6
.•
/' ,,- _._ axt N * kr
' ....--..._ •••,..‹.........:, 25 ,., a
31,%
— ----_,
1
4;,I- ---_,,ie - .---.. /
ra4,
All
"Priority 1 Area"
Approximate scale: 1"---100'
Pit locations are approximate
. ;
to sot- ta
18
11.'3/ '
' it ,1,5 •
" 36
1
*p.(13i
"Priority 3 Area"
_
•
g
r •
F'si 7
(-4
• \ 17-
)
1
2.
- - -
• 115
"Priority 2 Area"
xi•.•09,V3(3 It"
/;
113
• '<
106 7.11.).1
'1* 421, rry
PPA • Vr.52;1;'• .72-1 :1-4
-.1e;4313. si
\SP" '-‘01r
117.
V
•era- c;;3:1Z".^. 71440.11:. 36"
tn. -A- 6.
\ - rot—
. ,
v.,
46.10 -
\e-
k •
lc)
vp,
c3°
<kv
,ktol
Ocs.
'43
r
in,
cntfl
Loa.
z
on Az
0
a)

11
Attachment 2: Auger Borings Location Map (2001 investigation)
Prepared for Reed Williams
by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC
Site: Buckeye Creek Development, Watauga County, North Carolina
Base Map by Atlantic Plan Engineering Corp.
,-a
t
r
"Priority 1 Area"
,3
0 •%
Approximate scale: 1"=100'
Pit locations are approximate
jib
maccio .
1 \ �
-- , ._,... ; ,4.-:-t• , __.,,_:.:._r_:._,..r:__k_,..,._,..,,..
,....,,,.I.....„,,,r„:„.i,,,.....L.„..,,,_11:„:„.___,__F_r.,,,;.17::::_i_7_,..t_ti_t_÷„f:ii.,,,::72:71_77.i:rzii_,:_rir;i4..,._
,•......;_.,,.:_,:_i__,. l•-...__...- . 1,:i--4 27_17; ....-i_.44..` . it-1-'1,
'�14.=i�" ..
-s -
"Priority 3 Area"
i, ..,t'
ID
P3-7
•5
.f 3-5
P3-11 P3-3 ' •
o •
kot GO
Dori _Ast.l cpti 10 Pow
0
L�o� oo
Sage otd 0
iff
•- /kor
to
z
c
U
Zji
ON czi
z
..r.`,r--,__

Attachment 3: Non -detailed Descriptions Location Map (2003 investigation)
Prepared for Reed Williams
by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC
Site: Buckeye Creek Development, Watauga County, North Carolina
Base Map by Atlantic Plan Engineering Corp.
a.n'
f+.
•
=--fit• is
Pn!ntwi', rcu
r,;orvi --._
J J • • �",
•
j a _/," • _ �Ilam` . L:
a• am a$'`-.- r1.
r.'-^'e` �' 1 rf .ran v.r, r \ • 1(C
%
r . ' Tom,` _f- --V�---- o f \ ir. •
N.
,)i
. ! -_
4;., .� t7
`fir • e•. om
' C
1._
Luru;s now ur formerly al
Ron Armstrong Pudic Armstrong
liecord Boob 421 at page 58U
.ter y)) /
1 r/7'Or --r-i. 1 /
jI ! i i, % i; 1 / 1
() !. )i/ i- ( 7 /
iiiii
a t/ ; .ft
: '
/IliJiIf
I I iri..111 • I i c. I i
l_`�I �S 7 r�E,AnR)tyG
•
i
`'_t L e I
``i '' i ff
ti�1,� '...--1N. .
`1._ _ '`tip IV
•, _.
r-
t_o:lris now to, :rter!:-
ch_Irn Fi. noes •'l M4rcur. t t.AM. inr+
i '.COld 0001• .1 .1! pc.):
.•
i
VICINITY ;vif
•lT„
i.i]ad:: :1:a':r 1.1: :=,rrnoriy of
.chard Finti « Margaret K. Flan
Rer.r:rri . c) ; 1 fi• ;'It pane 087
r +irve,e::r
Londs now or rorrnrr!v of
,Altw?tal Reully Saes Corp,
Record ao i1- 223 a? pone
if Imo.
.r ..� _ .- .r •.= ..'^.` 1.8b•]r it �!
- 1r • • 1 t •- rf r' i
. i L•Q11ri5 :riiW 61 !rq
• f/1 at o1;ui r:eott;;
_r$

•
Attachment 4: Non -detailed descriptions of Auger Borings (2001 investigation)
Prepared for Reed Williams by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC
Site: Buckeye Creek Development
Page l of 2
Pit# Lnd. pos./ Bt texture/ Bt Saprolite Limiting conditions— LTAR
slope % %clay struct. depth/text.. depth and type (cony)
Priority 1 Area
_1 SU/7% L/25% lmsbk, fr 45"/SL SWC @ 30" .4
2 SU/5% CLl35% lmsbk, fr Cr/R. at 28"
3 HS/depression L/20%
4 HS/4% 1J25% lmsbk, fr
5 LS/9 CL/30% lmsbk, fr
6 LS/9 CL/30% lmsbk, fr
.4
Cr? 20-30"
.6
stopped @ 30"—R? .6
R? @33" .4
stopped @ 28" .4
Priority 2 Area
P2-1 CV/35% L/25% stopped@25" .6
P2-2 CV/40% CL/30% stopped @30" .4
P2-3 LS/55% CL/30% 1 msbk,fr 33-55+/L >55"
.4
P2-4 LS/60% L/25% lmsbk, fr 35-40"/L Cr/R@40" .6
abbreviations:
Landscape position
SU summit
SH—shoulder
LS—linear sideslope
CC —concave sideslope
CV —convex sideslope
NS—nose slope
FS—footslope
TS—toeslope
FP —flood plain
DW—drainage way
HS—head slope
Textures
C—clay
CL--clay loam
L—loam
SL—sandy loam
LS—loamy sand
S—sand
Limiting conditions
SWC—soil wetness conditions
EXP--expansive clay minerology
R—Hard bedrock
Cr—Soft bedrock
FSap—unsuitable saprolite
Structures
gr—granular
sbk—subangular blocky
abk—angular blocky
pr prismatic sg—single grain
pl—platy
ma —massive

• Attachment 4: Non -detailed descriptions of Auger Borings (2001 investigation)
Prepared for Reed Williams by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC
Site: Buckeye Creek Development
Page 2 of 2
Pitt/ Lnd. pos./ Bt texture/ Bt Saprolite Limiting conditions— LTAR
slope % %clay struct. depth/text. depth and type (cony)
Priority 2 Area, coned.
P2-5 CV/60% L/25% stopped @ 30" .6
P2-6 CV/35% L/20% stopped@25" .6
P2-7 LS/55% CL/30% 30-40"/L Cr?@40" .4
P2-8 CV/30% CL/30% 30-40"/VFSL >50" .4
Priority 3 Area
P3-1 CV/40% many rock outcrops
P3-2 LS/40% CL/30% 25-38"/L Cr? @38" .4
P3-3 LS/15% very gravelly 25-38"/L Cr? @20" .4
P3-4 CV/30% L/20% Cr?@20" .6
P3-5 LS/40%
P3-6 LS/45%
P3-7 LS/50% L/25% stopped @24" .6
P3-8 LS/60%
7 35% CL/30% stopped@28" .4
8 55% CL stopped @ 36" .4
9 45% CL stopped @24" .4
,�, _10 42% SL stopped @ 40" .4

PEI
Attachment 5: Non Detailed Descriptions (2003 investigation)
Prepared for Reed Williams by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC
Site: Buckeye Creek (US 221 near Blowing Rock)
Pit# Lnd. pos./ Bt texture/ Bt Saprolite Limiting conditions— LTAR
slope % %clay struct depth/text depth and type (cony)
_1 LS/45% Cr @18-20" US
2 LS/50% Cr @ 27-30" US_
_3 LS/50% Cr @ 22", 30", 39" US_
4 LS/50% Cr/R @ 20-32" US_
5 CC/45% (colluvium) >50% coarse frag. @34", 37" .4
6 CC/50% water in bottom of pit >50% coarse frag. @ 40" .4
7 CC >50% coarse frag. @40-45" .4
_8 CC/50% US_
9 CC/50% >50% coarse frag. @ 2T' .4
_10 CC/50% CL >50% coarse frag. @ 50" .4
abbreviations:
Landscape position Textures Limiting conditions
1'' SU summit C—clay SWC—soil wetness conditions
SH—shoulder CL—clay loam EXP—expansive clay minerology
LS—linear sideslope L—loam R—Hard bedrock
CC —concave sideslope SL—sandy loam Cr—Soft bedrock
CV —convex sideslope LS—loamy sand FSap—unsuitable saprolite
NS—nose slope S—sand
FS—footslope
TS toeslope Structures
FP —flood plain gr granular pr prismatic sg—single grain
DW—drainage way sbk subangular blocky pl—platy
HS—head slope abk—angular blocky ma —massive

Poll
WI
WI
Mil
rmil
SOIL SUITABILITY FOR ONSITE WASTEWATER
• TREATMENT REPORT
1.1
prepared for
PM • Reed Williams
US 221 Site near Rocky Meadows
Blowing Rock, NC
1.' August 26, 2001
by
,,., Foothills Soil Consulting
4827 Berkley Street
Morganton, NC 28655
F, [phone]

Soil Suitability for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Report
prepared for Reed Williams
US 221 Site, near Blowing Rock, NC
MOM
The site is a 67.73 acre piece of undeveloped land located about four miles west of
Blowing Rock. Various properties adjoining the site have been developed as single family
— housing and as condominiums. Reed Williams, the owner of the site, is hoping to put in an
extensive condominium development on the property. This soil investigation was to determine
the suitability of the soils on this property to treat the waste onsite for such development.
^— Much of the land is extremely steep (65% or more slopes), and has no possibility of being
used for any kind of septic system drainfield. Other areas of woodland are less steep, with 25%
to 65% slopes and have some potential for use. At the front of the property on US 221 there is a
large 2-3 acre field with slopes ranging from 2% to 15%. This investigation focused on three
areas. The "priority one" area is located in the field, "priority two" is located on Knob Road
immediately southeast of the existing condominiums, and priority three was the steep slopes
below the proposed condominiums off221. (see attached map)
The proposed condominiums would have four three -bedroom units per building.
Therefore, the design daily sewage flow for one building would be 1440 gallons per day. This
qualifies as a "small" septic system under current regulations, although there are some
restrictions on systems with over 1000 gallon per day (GPD) flows.
There are a variety of septic system designs that can be considered in deciding whether a
given area is suitable for a septic system drainfield. This decision is partly technical, depending
on what soils are present on the site, and partly economic. The soils observed so far suggest
several likely systems. The most reasonably priced system, about $2000 per three bedroom unit,
would be a gravity -fed conventional system or large diameter pipe (LDP) system. The minimum
soil depth needed for this type of system varies with the slope_ In the "priority 1" area, the
minimum soil depth needed would be 24 to 27 inches. Where the slope is 45%, as it generally is
in the "priority 2" and "priority 3" areas, a minimum soil depth of 42" is needed. Where there
are limited areas of soils with sufficient depth, gravity -fed pipe can be combined with
.� pretreatment to allow a smaller drainfield, with a total cost of about $10,000 per three bedroom
unit. Current regulations would allow a 25% reduction in drainfield area for systems with over
1000 gallon per day flows. If a rule change requested by the manufacturer is allowed, a 50%
reduction may be possible. Soil depths of 18 to 24" inches require a more expensive system
(about $15,000 to 20,000/ three bedroom unit) using drip and pretreatment, while soil depths of
only 12 to 18 inches will require a still more expensive system ($20,000 to $25,000/three
bedroom unit) because more drip line will be required.
The "priority one" area was investigated with auger borings and backhoe pits spaced on
50 foot centers. (see attached descriptions) The backhoe pits indicated that the bedrock in this
area is extremely variable. It consists of interbedded metamorphosed siltstone and sandstone,
with varied but generally steep dips (layers are steeply tilted). Since the layers have variable
resistance to weathering, in one pit the bedrock could come to within 16 inches of the surface in
one corner and be more than 50 inches from the surface in another corner. Because bedrock
1

PEP
frequently comes up to within 20 inches of the surface, it is going to be difficult to locate the
1440 GPD systems necessary for 4 unit condominium buildings in this area.
The controlling soil texture in the priority 1 area was clay loam with a clay percentage of
40%. Based on this I would recommend a long term acceptance rate (LTAR) of .4 GPD/ square
foot of trench bottom, which would require 3600 square feet of trench bottom for a 1440 GPD
system. Assuming the installation of a large diameter pipe system with 2.5 foot wide trenches,
1440 linear feet of trench would be needed, taking up about 11,520 square feet for the initial
system. An equal area would be needed for a repair system. Of the area investigated here I
estimate there is potentially space for between 1770 and 2040 linear feet of LDP trenches, a little
more than what would be needed for the initial system for one building. It may be possible to
g MA put in one building using gravity fed LDP for the initial system and set aside a repair area with
12 inches or more soil that is suitable for a pretreatment and drip system. It may also be possible
to put in two buildings by using pretreatment in combination with the large diameter pipe to
decrease the size of the drainfield of the initial system. One concern is that most of this suitable
soil is located in a headslope position, a part of the landscape where water concentrates, making
it less preferable for drainfields. In addition, because of the variability of the depth to bedrock I
cannot be sure that all of this area will be suitable until the trenches are dug and an investigation
in the trench bottoms carried out. The remaining area of the field below the existing
condominiums may offer additional space for septic system drainfields and is worth additional
investigation. Holes 8-9 and 17-23 (see map) all had deep enough soils for a gravity -fed
drainfield, a trend which may continue across that slope.
The priority two area has slopes ranging from 30% to over 50%, and for that reason soil
depths of 31 to 42 inches are required to allow a gravity fed system with no pretreatment. The
soil investigation included both auger borings and backhoe pits on 50 foot centers in areas with
potential for use as a drainfield. The soils in this area were similar to those in the priority one
area, with steeply tilted interbedded bedrock. In the upper part of the slope most pits were at
least 30 inches to bedrock . Again, the recommended LTAR is 0.4, so that 1440 feet of trench
would be needed for the initial system for one building, with an equal area needed for repair. I
' estimate that the area with sufficient soil for a large diameter pipe will allow about 500 to 750
feet of trench, about 35% to 50% of what is needed for the initial system for one building.
The final area was the priority 3 area located downhill from the proposed condominium
units located off US 221. The slopes in this area are very steep, ranging from 25% to over 65%.
For the proposed use virtually all of the soils with slopes less than 65% would have to be used
for drainfields. Preliminary borings with an auger indicated significant amounts of bedrock
within 20-35 inches. Given the number of bedrock outcroppings, the landscape position and the
results of the auger observations, the soils in this area can be expected to range from less than
20" to about 40", with a few spots slightly deeper. A gravity fed system with no pretreatment on
these slopes would require a minimum of 42-45 inches of soil. In this area it will be difficult to
find enough soils of that depth for 2-3 bedroom septic systems (240-360 GPD). There is almost
no chance that large enough expanses could be found for 1440 gallon per day systems.
Therefore, no further investigation was carried out at this time. There is a good chance that
there would be large areas with 18" of soil that would support a pretreatment and drip system.
If it is decided that such a system would be economic for this development, then a more detailed
investigation of the soils would be warranted.

•
•
3eq..
"Priority Area" ,
105„ • 114
3-b"
n3
02::. :b"
ttr-
- • "
Attachment 1
Backhoe Pit Location Map
Prepared for Reed Williams by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC
Site: US 221 near Rocky Meadows
L
6.
cy
•
t.
40, • iv
?cif
7
IQ
D
.417
\ \ ' '---------------___,L___:-_- -----------------2-411*' 4461!
- -I,
_________------1-' ----- ----- ---G iv---=-LD_Tl-_, 3s
a- • -- --
-2-•-•,.------?=-------____s,,-----
1 -?
..... la.:1 — - It. I 6. - --
I ° tO 10-- --tia
-, .a..644.3„aer,-,- ._2.0 *S-,\I,
117.
15. 3*, - ._ ja
„).. ul 5
184*
S" ,..--- - — --2-3--th"-
•-:----›-.1.',,-..'
ai -.. • .-•,,.....0
at., 4 I \ -- qw
-.
--"-•-... Amy-, A Oft \ - 7 /'`
'0 31
-el — ' 1/4 t •--\
"Priority 1 Area" ."-. ..ae-'.-e-,zn* ` -AI-- i
----..„. ....., '••••:-3".. ......344c:34, 55s.
?iv
Approximate scale: 1"=100'
Pit locations are approximate
Q
"Priority 3 Area"
_ • - • • --
-
-•-
• • - -
•
•-•
••• /
1.4
°
el 0-
t?- 334
ti;3) 71.11:
•
x!n• )"1"
\,.... . 0-1 7.:74"; - -
,---' iwa Li!
.-c,
...- 5o• m 0 _,..s-,...0
.
Cf::- C -
.21 -- 9
ke ,,n_ -
r- 61"
-IN .1.7.0 ,>-..
,
.„-4.5-f e, 1:3\`- • 1c3
1 .--'''' 7:5 --' oc, cke.
‘...
.. 21
.'".„--- ...401/4,,,,--
1:•....11. „.---- ,----p--cy--, e--
---.:- -
-- ---- 11
"`er4r5-
- -- — -1,
oc
ok"
OW?
If) cr.
(Das
z
1/7
c
0
-.‘432:t 045 106 .;.2.11. IC>
-•••
C4I
0.
t
1—
z

4/
Attachment 2
Auger Borings Location Map
Prepared for Reed Williams by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC
Site: US 221 near Rocky Meadows
° 0
0
o 00
"Priority 1 Area"
. 3
Kr• . • .41
Approximate scale: 1"=100'
Pit locations are approximate
.5
-7--, • 7,4-1—,' ' 1' 4--!-- '' ''-' 7-i
1. , ' ''' "`""--"..-.-',..!-- `."-`7:1-,-'"'"..---•"--.'4'.4-1, .4'1:
..riv. rj i•*-7T :," 7 '-1"- :- . ..-, --- - . 1.-''''-.1- ii z
_.__4.
, .....4 ... _,
:1-,--:-..... :-.:_...1„7,---1-2,.,__!..„;:- -i-,-;-- ---:--•-i- A , 14-i,--i-4- -LI :
, 7-'- t- '..-.'r---•: '-= 4- 4- :- '-'-i- -;1.--Ir‘ --1~.-H-
_.,1,;..,-,---•:- - .- ',.-;4---4.--!--1----- .,7-.1-c-.--'-'---
- • -i--.......,....,1 .. -
......-- .....i 4-... -; -t ----1..,-,--.. --..4..-i i 7 -!---,•"---f-i-t- ,,,- -..--.. Tr
.,-- ' -- 4 -""1" 1-2.-,±i'..i---i.-H.• ';'''I'..] i 1-,-...--i--.'-7±i-T -'' I 14---!T-:11-, 1.---;!Li f_i ,
.4.:.'..1:.1.14....: ' ,..1.4.,L•174,..; ::4::: ,,,..-4,* 1.,:-: 1 . . i...t ::,',1 1.1:1,1: ' '
, • • " '.i - ''''''' I 4.' •••-• •.' —i-r : — .. : • ,- i -:,-. : 4-1-7: e-F---'I ,-.-t. -r-fr-!--., . ` ----;-• -...-.i-i-,4;,-:-ri--,.4"-!-!--.:H---1-,-T ; . ,.. l'.-1-';' "4-r ',.
'..--r2t.-'i- ''''.-;':i:.--171-"r!
, ...;
1--r. -,---, r---_-.F.:_r,-
1-_:.-;---i--1-1 .4 i-7.4--T---4-
._ • ___.f_ •:„
Tt7k--:71._,-4-7-1..--,..-_, .--:_1,-,:-...,„,. j , 4,-t-i4LL-: ' _I• :'1:1„I.L- 4.tr'_;:.-..,-....'
4_
.i._+±gt, .-1-r4_14._,...._ •:,-- ,,,—,--
,
+14±-,
7r; --r.--;'4"1" ;-"T--
,-i. I-
-t---f -IA-
-.
.— • -.-:i_..-1-:-7-7-1-i.!--4.-1_--L-7---7-1-:-_-1±.';:k--1—__,_.----?.-1-- --'-'t--.!--__:•-_,E", .4_,---f----.'_2_,.- ,--1-,+:-..._f_',, :. -- • . ,_...„,__71:4.1.4,i-T.:.;_..:.-..t.i.i.,-_?..._LE.,,;_i_14,_
"Priority 3
_,-,....4.t.......H,..
--,_.-7-4,-4--(-7
---,-
-__.:1S.17_i_i_u.1::_j_=
,.--.__1*.r..:,,,,-
_ , •
. . , •
----
. P3-7
-
• G
P3-5
:e31
• .
- •
• •
• "•-•'•-•-•••••-,-,-••••-•••'-',-,-
"co
r-
0. ...▪ .Sr
5 .3 251:5
0‘ • cp• _ _ _
\pcs, \\.1 sova.
o
014 (3` s cipcc
_.eo 10 dc-
vooi
c z
to a'
Co vs
•: • •
• 4 '1'
•
'1•-•
•
• r
1-1't'tt7r-1
.114
•
F4 III;
Oa%
•So

IMO
Attachment 4: Soil descriptions of Auger Borings
Prepared for Reed Williams by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC
Site: US 221 near Rocky Meadows
Page 2 of 2
Pit# Lnd. pos./ Bt texture/ Bt Saprolite Limiting conditions— LTAR
slope % %clay struct depth/text, depth and type (cony)
Priority 2 Area, cont'd.
P2-5 CV/60% L/25% stopped @ 30" .6
P2-6 CV/35% L/20% stopped@25" .6
P2-7 LS/55% CL/30% 30-40"/L Cr?@40" .4
P2-8 CV/30% CL/30% 30-40"/VFSL >50" .4
Priority 3 Area
P3-1 CV/40% many rock outcrops
P3-2 LS/40% CL/30% 25-38"/L Cr? @38" .4
P3-3 LS/15% very gravelly 25-38"/L Cr? @20" .4
1.9
P3-4 CV/30% L/20% Cr?@20" .6
r.' P3-5 LS/40%
P3-6 LS/45%
P3-7 LS/50% L/25% stopped @24" .6
P3-8 LS/60%
7 35% CL/30% stopped@28" .4
8 55% CL stopped @ 36" .4
R► 9 45% CL stopped @24" .4
_10 42% SL stopped @ 40" .4

PIM
•
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 1 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 1
Slope 8%
Lndscpe Pos.
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC Profile Classification Unsuitable
Soil Depth/Saprolite 12"_ Profile LTAR (Cony.) NA
Restrictive Horizon 12"_ Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Clay Mineralogy _sl. exp_
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
A
Bt
R
12"
*R too shallow for most systems —no description made.
Fe1 Pit # 2
Slope 5%
Lndscpe Pos._SU
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >64"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 25"_
Restrictive Horizon 25"_
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.)_ 4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Grade
Grade
AP
0-8"
10YR 3/2
L
2
f
Gr
&sbk
fr
Bt
8-25"
10YR 4/4
CL
2
m
sbk
Fr, sp, ss
30%
Cl
25-33"
10YR 4/4
70% gr
L
ma
Fr, sO, p0
0
20 /o
33-54"
MCS
10-20% cb
SL
ma
fr
15%
Cr
54-64+"
Ftiuhilla Cnil ('nnct.ltina Q..9A f1

•
FIER
PIM
rail
•
(ttachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 2 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 3
Slope 5%
Lndscpe Pos_LS
Parent Mat. res.
Depth to SWC >60"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 23"_
Restrictive Horizon 28"_
Clay Mineralogy _sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 28-40"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-11"
10YR 3/2
L
2
m
sbk
fi.
Bt
11-23"
1OYR 5/4
L/CL
2
m
sbk
Fr,sO, p0
28%
C
23-28"
MCS
L
ma
Fr, sO, p0
20%
Cr
28-60"
Pit # 4
Slope_12%
rim Lndscpe Pos. LS
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >60"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 18"_
Restrictive Horizon 22"
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Conn.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 22-54"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-9"
1 OYR 3/2
L
2
f
Gr
Fr, sO, p0
Bt
9-18"
1OYR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sp, ss
30%
C
18-38"
2.5YR 5/4
L
ma
Fr, sO, p0
20%
Cr
38-60"
Rei thtllc Cni) ('rn+anitina 0..7f111

MEI
Fairl
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 3 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 5
Slope 15%
Lndscpe Pos. LS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >72"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 28"_
Restrictive Horizon_38"_
Clay Mineralogy:sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Kin. Soil Depth Needed 27"
Cr Depth range 38-52"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &Clay
Wet
Consistence
%
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-10"
10YR 3/2
L
2
f
Gr, sbk
fi.
Bt
10-28"
IOYR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
C
28-41"
MCS 2.SY5/3,
2.5Y 3/3
L
ma
Fr, s0, p0
I5%
Cr
41-64"
Pit # 6
Slope 20%
son Lndscpe Pos._LS
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >65"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 16"_
Restrictive Horizon 16"__
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Mn. Soil Depth Needed 28 -
Cr/R Depth range 16-40"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-8"
1 OYR 2/2
L
2
m
sbk
fr
Bt
8-19"
1OYR 5/6
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
BC
19-34"
2.5Y5/4
L
1
c
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
C/Cr
34-55"
MCS
Layers of Cr
L
ma
Var.
20%
R
55-60+"
Frvithillk Cni1 i'nnvultinn 0.7f1111

ran
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 4 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit# 7
Slope 15%
Lndscpe Pos._SH
Parent Mat.Res.
Depth to SWC >55"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 26""
Restrictive Horizon 26"
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 27"
Cr Depth range 26-50"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-6"
I OYR 2/2
L
2
f
gr
fr
Bt
6-24"
IOYR 4/4
CL
2
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
300A,
BC
24-33"
2.5Y4/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
25%
Cr
33-55"
fi
Pit # 8
Slope 10%
r�ra Lndscpe Pos._CC
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >60"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 23'
Restrictive Horizon 42' -
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.)_ 4
Miin. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-7"
I OYR 3/2
L
2
m
sbk
fr
Bt
7-23"
I OYR 4/6
CL
I
m
sbk
. Fr, ss, sp
30%
C
23-42"
MCS
SL
ma
Fr, s0, p0
Cr
42-60"
Fi
Frv►Il+illc Cnii realcullina Q_711111

ran
RNA
Fart
•
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 5 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 9
Slope 5%
Lndscpe Pos._LS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >60"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 2T'
Restrictive Horizon 2T'_
Clay 11(neralogy:__sL exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) ) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 27->60"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Clay
%Consistence
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-6"
10YR 3/2
L
2
f
Sbk
fr
Bt
6-20"
10YR 4/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
25%
BC
20-2T'
2.5Y4/4
10YR416
L
l
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
20%
Cr/C
27-60"
Soft bedrock
layers
W/MCS of
ma
Fiand fr
Pit # 10
Slope 5%
Lndscpe Pos. LS
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >65"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 34"_
Restrictive Horizon 55"
Clay Mineralogy:_ sL exp
Profile Classification Suitable
Profile LTAR (Com.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-11"
10YR 3/2
L
2
f
sbk
fr
Bt
11-23"
10YR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
BC
23-34"
2.5Y5/4
L
1
c
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
25%
C
34-55"
MCS
SL
ma
Fr, s0, p0
15%
Cr
55-65+"
revolving, Gil f'nnci,ltinn O_7ff

Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
•a Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 6 of 29
PIA
CAR
ria
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 11
Slope 8%
Lndscpe Pos._ irr.
Parent Mat. Res_
Depth to SWC >60"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 20"_
Restrictive Horizon 20"
Clay Mineralogy_ sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) ) .4
Mn. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 20-43"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist&
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-8"
10YR 3/1
L
2
f
sbk
fr
Bt
8-20"
10YR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
CrB
20-32"
80% gravel,
20% 10YR4/4
soil
ma
Cr
32-60"
Fractured
phyllite
Pit # 12
Slope 5%
Lndscpe Pos._LS
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >52"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 13"_
Restrictive Horizon 13"_
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Conv.)_.6
Mm. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 13-30"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-9"
I OYR 3/2
L
2
m
sbk
fr
Bt
9-1 T'
2.5Y5/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
BC
17-29"
- 2.5Y5/4
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
R
29-52"
Pnnthilly Coll ('nncidtinn 0.711A1

IMP
ROI
Fmel
Fan
Parent Mat. Res
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 7 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 13
Slope_0%down, 10%up
Lndscpe Pos. HS
Parent Mat _Res.
Depth to SWC >72"
Soil Depth/Saprolite_36"_
Restrictive Horizon 36"
Clay Mineralogy _sl. exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Conv.) .35
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 36->72"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
c
/o
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-8"
10YR 3/1
L.
2
f
gr
fr
Bt
8-16
1OYR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
BC
16-37"
10YR4/3
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
20%
C/Cr
37-72"
Gray and
brown MCS
With layers of
Cr
SL & L
ma
Fr & fi
Pit # 14
PEI
Slope_2%
Lndscpe Pos. HS
Depth to SWC >69"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 55"_
Restrictive Horizon 55"___
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp_
Profile Classification Suitable
Profile LTAR (Conn.) .35
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 55->69"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-13"
1 OYR 3/2
L
2
f
gr
fr
Bt
13-35"
10YR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
35%
B/Cr
35-55"
10YR 4/3
40% p yllite
gr
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
Cr
55-69"
fi
Fetnthillc Cnil !'ro+assltinn Q.7SYU

NMI
Mal
PEI
Fog
110,4
4
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
• Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 8 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 15
Slope 5%
Lndscpe Pos. HS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >56"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 27 _
Restrictive Horizon 27"_
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Mn. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-8"
1 OYR 3/2
L
2
m
sbk
fi.
Bt
8-27"
10YR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
35%
Cr
27-56
Fractured
phyllite
Pit # 16
Slope_4%
r+� Lndscpe Pos_HS
Pal
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >72"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 22"_
Restrictive Horizon 22"
Clay Mineralogy _sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 22-65"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-7"
10YR 3/2
L
2
m
sbk
fi-
25%
Bt
7-22"
l OYR 5/4
30% phyllite
gr
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr , ss, sp
o
30 /o
CrB
22-38"
10YR 5/4
80% p yllite
gr
L
_ 1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
Cr
38-72"
P,.,.,a;nc S,.;s r.e,c..1:;.,,. oanni

Fowl
Poll
rani
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 9 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 17
Slope 4%
Lndscpe Pos.HS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >57"
Soil Deptb/Saprolite 33"_
Restrictive Horizon 33"
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Miin. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-9"
10YR 3/2
L
2
m
sbk
fr
Bt
9-21"
10YR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
B/Cr
21-33"
2.5Y 5/4
40% gr
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
Cr
33-5T'
Pit # 18
Slope 5%
rst Lndscpe Pos. HS
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >66"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 60
Restrictive Horizon 36"
Clay Mineralogy _sl. exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed_24"
Cr Depth range 36-60"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
A
0-6"
10YR 3/2
SiL
2
f
gr
fr
20%
Ap
6-10"
10YR 4/2
Sii,
2
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
Bt
10-28"
10YR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk -
Fr, ss, sp
30%
BC
28-60"
2.5Y5/4
25% gr
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
18" thick vein of Cr comes up to 36" from surface.
F,vNhale c,.;i rnne,.hin., 0.111111

11..
Pr
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 10 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit# 19
Slope 7%
°m Lndscpe Pos. HS
Parent Mat. Res.
PEN
MI
MR
P.
MI
falri
Depth to SWC >69"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 35"_
Restrictive Horizon 25"_
Clay Mineralogy:__sl. exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .35
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
R/Cr Depth range 25->69"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-7"
10YR 3/2
L
2
f
gr
fr
25%
Btl
7-11"
1OYR 4/4
CL
2
f
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
Bt2
11-23"
1OYR 5/4
CL
2
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
35%
BC
23-35
2.5Y 5/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
C
35-69"
MCS 2.SY7/2,
2.5Y4/3
SL
ma
Fr, s0, p0
Pit # 20
Slope_8%
r.•1 Lndscpe Pos._HS
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >52"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 30"_
Restrictive Horizon 32"_
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Ivfin. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range _5" vein Cr @ 32"_
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-10"
1OYR 3/2
L
2
f
gr
fi.
20%
Bt
10-21"
1OYR 5/4
CL
2
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
BC
21-30"
1OYR 5/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
C
30-52"
MCS
W/ 2.SY4/2
colors
LS to L
ma
Fr, sO, p0
R
Qa 52"
Frwithille Coil rfinemUi"a Q0.9M1

REI
NMI
OMNI
Fngl
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 11 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 21
Slope 15%
Lndscpe Pos. LS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >75"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 23"_
Restrictive Horizon_30"
Clay Mineralogy:_sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 2T'
Cr Depth range 30->75"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-8"
10YR 3/2
L
2
f
sbk
R%
Bt
8-16"
10YR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
BC
16-23
2.5Y 5/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
C/Cr
23-75"
MCS
SL & L
ma
Fr, s0, p0
Pit # 22
Slope_10%
'=1 Lndscpe Pos. FS
Parent Mat. Res
PER
ran
fml
FIER
Depth to SWC >65"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 29"_
Restrictive Horizon 29"_
Clay Mineralogy _sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.)_ 4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 29-> 65"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-13"
10YR 3/2
L
1
m
sbk
fr
20%
Bt 1
13-2T'
10YR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, s, p
40%
Bt2
27-36" •
10YR 5/4
35% gr
SCL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
C
36-65"
MCS—gray
SL
ma
Fr, sO, p0
and brown
i:i+nthiile S 1 r'nntvvltinn 0-WV) 1

ank
aligh
ran
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 12 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 23
Slope 7%
Lndscpe Pos.._FS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >54"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 26"_
Restrictive Horizon 26"_
Clay Mineralogy:_sl. exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 26-29"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
°
/°
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-9"
.
Btl
9-15"
10YR 5/4
10% gr
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, s, p
40%
Bt2
15-27"
10YR 5/4
30%'
2.5Y5/3 25
L
1
m
sbk25%
Fr, sO, p0
Cr
27-54
Pit # 24
Slope_8%
"" Lndscpe Pos _FS
Parent Mat. Res
RIR
WR
Depth to SWC
Soil Depth/Saprolite 9"
Restrictive Horizon 9" *_
Clay Mineralogy _sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) NA
bkn. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 9-13"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Sure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Grade
Grade
*Too shallow for any system —no soil description made.
F.,..>>ale Seta r w,anh..w. o_7nni

Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
PIM
far
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 13 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 25
Slope 5%
Lndscpe Pos.FS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >55"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 21"
Restrictive Horizon 21"
Clay Mineralogy:_sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Kin. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 2I 23"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-10"
10YR 3/2 _
L
1
m
sbk
fi-
Btl
10-17"
IOYR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
Bt2
17-23"
10YR 5/4
35% gr
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
Cr
23-55
Fractured
phyllite
Pit # 26
Slope 5%
Lndscpe Pos. HS
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >61"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 27"
Restrictive Horizon_18'
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Conn.) ..35
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 22-52"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
°
/O
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-10"
IOYR 3/2
L
1
m
sbk
fi-
Btl
10-18"
10YR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
Bt2
18-27"
10YR 5/4
60% gr
L -
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
C/Cr
27-61"
MCS-brown
and gray
WI veins of
phyllite Cr
L
Pried hale Reba rnnm.l,:, ., Q._?nnl

mar
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 14 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 27
Slope 2%
Lndscpe Pos. HS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >62"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 44 _
Restrictive Horizon >62"_
Clay Mineralogy: sL exp_
Profile Classification Suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .35
Mm. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class
Type
Al
0-6"
10YR 3/2
SL
1
f
gr
fr
A2
6-20"
10YR 3/2
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
Bt
20-32"
10YR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
BC
32-44"
10YR 6/4
L
1 •
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
C
44-62
MCS
VFSL
ma
Fr, sO, p0
Pit # 28
Slope 2%
Lndscpe Pos. HS
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >67"
Soil Deptb/Saprolite 38"_
Restrictive Horizon 38"__
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
R/Cr Depth range 38-67"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-12"
10YR 3/2
L
1
m
sbk
fr
20%
Btl
12-27"
IOYR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
35%
Bt2
27-53"
2.5Y 6/4
.
L
1
m
• sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
C
53-67"
MCS 2.5Y6/3
&2.5Y 6/1
(no water in
pit)
VFSL
ma
Fr, sO, p0
Chroma lcolor in C horizon most likely lithochromic—may indicate some wetness in this pit.
Petesthillio Ana r.b.n,It ,," oann i

Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
F+ Prepared for. Reed Williams
Fug
n•l
PER
Oaf
Page 15 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 29
Slope 2%
Lndscpe Pos _SU
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >36"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 11"
Restrictive Horizon 11"_
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp_
Profile CIassification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
R Depth range 11-1T'
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-6"
10YR 3/2
L
2
f
Sbk
S-
20%
Btl
6-11"
10YR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
Bt2
11-16"
10YR 5/4
L
2
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
R
16->36"
.
Pit # 30
Slope 7%
Lndscpe Pos._SH/SU
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >62"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 26 =
Restrictive Horizon 31"
Clay Mineralogy._ sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 31-62"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-7"
10YR 3/2
L
2
f
gr
fr
25%
Bt
7-15"
10YR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
BC
15-26"
2.5Y6/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0 •
25%
C
26-62 „
MCS 5Y8/1,
2.5Y6/4*
Varied: L
to SL
ma
fr, sO, p0
2 inch vein of Cr angles across pit at 16 and 21 inches
fan *Chroma 1 color probably lithochromic.
Penrsthille Anil r`rn+cveltina Q-9f1f1I

IMP
Pasi
fag
PIM
FOR
FaI
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 16 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 31
Slope 10%
Lndscpe Pos. LS
Parent Mat _Res.
Depth to SWC >60"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 18"
Restrictive Horizon_18"_
Clay Mineralogy: sL exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.)_ 4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range >60"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture _
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Clay
%Consistence
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-7"
10YR 3/2
L
2
f
gr
fr
25%
Bt
7-18"
1OYR 5/4
SCL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
C
18-60"MCS
Varied:
SL, L, CL
ma
10-
30%
Pit # 32
fun Slope_12%
Lndscpe Pos. LS_
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >66"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 31"(21?)
Restrictive Horizon_31"(21?)
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp
Profile Classification Prov. Suitable (Unsuitable?)
Profile LTAR (Cony.)_ 4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range _one side of pit has R or boulder c@21"•
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-6"
10YR 3/2
L
2
f
sbk
fi-
25%
Bt
6-16"
1OYR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%/a
BC
16-24"
2.5Y6/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
Cr
- 24-26"
phyllite
Fi
26-42"
2.5Y4/4
2/oSNL1)CS
0B/C
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, , sO, p0
o
25/o
C
42-66"
MCS
SL
ma
Fr, sO, p0
FnnIM'llc Real r nncnitinn 4 711f11

ran
PIM
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 17 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 33
Slope 5%
Lndscpe Pos _CV
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >63"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 12"
Restrictive Horizon 12"_
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Km. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 12 32"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class
Type
Ap
0-8"
1 OYR 3/2
L
2
• f
gr
fr
20%
Bt
8-12"
10YR 4/4
.CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
35%
Cr
12-23"
R
23-63"
Note: Saprolite in this pit is Loam with less than 20% clay
Pit # 34
Pig Slope 10%
Lndscpe Pos_LS
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >64"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 19' :_.•
Restrictive Horizon 19"
Clay Mineralogy:_ _sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .5
Min. Soil Depth Needed 24"
Cr Depth range 19->64"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ap
0-7"
Bt
7-16"
10YR 5/4
SCL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
BC
16-23"
1OYR 6/4
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
C/Cr
23-64"
MCS
With layers of
Cr
SL
ma
fr. And fi
Fnnth;lla Cn;l t^nna)slt;nsr Q 1IN)1

Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
r..
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 18 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit #101
Slope 45%
Lndscpe Pos.__CV
Parent Mat _Res.
Depth to SWC >60"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 32"
Restrictive Horizon 46'_
Clay Mineralogy _sL exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable .
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .5
Min. Soil Depth Needed 38"
Cr Depth range 46-49"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
o
/o
Grade
Class
Type
A
0-7"
10YR 2/2
L
2
f
gr
Fr, sO, p0
Btl
9-17"
10YR 3/3
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
Bt2
17-32"
10YR 4/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
C
32-49"
MCS
L
ma
Fr, sO, p0
10%
Cr
49-60"+
vfi
Pit # 102
r;l
Slope 35%
Lndscpe Pos _CV
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >62"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 51 "_
Restrictive Horizon 51"
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp_
Profile Classification Suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 36"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
A
0-8"
10YR 2/2 .
L
2
f
gr
fr
10%
Btl
8-16"
10YR 5/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
28%
Bt2
16-30"
10YR 5/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
BC
30-51"
10YR 5/4
40% grveins
f SL
L
1
m
sbko
Fr, sO, p0
25/o
Cr
51-62"
Printhilie Ana f`n„cnit;nn o_ nni

full
PEI
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 19 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 103
Slope 40%
Lndscpe Pos. CV
Parent Mat _Res.
Depth to SWC >33/48"? *_
Soil Depth/Saprolite 48"
Restrictive Horizon 48'
Clay Mineralogy _sl. exp
Profile Classification _Provisionally suitable_
Profile LTAR (Cony.)_ 5
Min. Soil Depth Needed 3T'
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class
Type
A .
0-7"
1OYR 2/2
L
2
f
gr
Fr, sO, p0
Btl
7-13"
1OYR 4/3
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
Bt2
13-33"
1OYR 5/4.
SCL
1
m
sbk
Fr, s0, PO
20%
BC
33-48"
10YR 5/4 and
2.5Y 5/3
2.5Y 6/2 —
<2%
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
15%
Cr
48-56"+
*Chrome 2 colors in BC horizon are probably lithochromic.
Pit # 104
Slope 50%
Lndscpe Pos ;CV
'_' Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >72"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 28' _
Restrictive Horizon 28"
Clay Mineralogy:_ _sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .5
116n. Soil Depth Needed 39"
Cr Depth range 28-48"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
A
0-T'
1OYR 2/2
L
2
f
gr
fr
Btl
7-16"
1OYR 3/3
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
Bt2
16-32"
1OYR 4/3
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
Cr
32-72"

Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
poi Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 20 of 29
RIM
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 105
Slope 45%
Lndscpe Pos._CV
Parent Mat _Res.
Depth to SWC >72"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 30"
Restrictive Horizon 30'
Clay Mineralogy _sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Conv.) .5
Min. Soil Depth Needed 38"
Cr Depth range 30-35"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
ct
51ure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class
Type
A
Bt
1OYR 5/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
Cr/R
30-60"+
Note: Bees nest in pit.
Pit # 106
ram
Slope 40%
Lndscpe Pos _CV
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >64"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 33"_
Restrictive Horizon 33"
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.)_ 4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 37"
Cr Depth range 33-44"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
WetClay
Mot &Grade
Consistence
/O
Grade
Grade
A
0-8"
1 OYR 2/2
L
2
f
V'
Fr, sO, p0
15%
Bt 1
8-20"
10YR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
Bt2
20-35"
1 OYR 4/3
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
Cr
35-64"
Fnnthillc Cnil rnnanitinn Q_1f)fl1

rim
r�q
Lndscpe Pos. CV
Parent Mat. Res.
Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 21 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 107 Depth to SWC >54"
Slope 40% Soil Depth/Saprolite 32"
Restrictive Horizon 32"_
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .5
Min. Soil Depth Needed 37"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
.
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Ste'cture
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
A
0-6"
1OYR 2/2
. L
2
f
&
Fr, sO, p0
Btl
6-17"
1OYR 5/4
SCL
1
f
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
Bt2
17-27"
1 OYR 4/4
SCL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
BC
27-32"
1OYR 6/3
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
10%
Cr
32-54"+
Pit # • 108
Slope 30%
Lndscpe Pos.__CV
rat Parent Mat. Res
MIR
wor
Fog
Depth to SWC >69"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 44
Restrictive Horizon 69"
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Corn.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 35"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
A
0-7"
l OYR 2/2
L
2
f
gr
Fr, sO, p0
Btl
7-25"
1OYR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
Bt2
25-44"
2.5Y 5/4
Gray colors
around gravel
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
t,
25/o
C
44-69"
MCS—
10YR6/2, 7/2*
2.5Y 5/6
L
ma
Fr, sO, p0
20%
Cr
(Q69"
*Gray colors in C and Bt2 horizons are clearly lithochromic.
Pnantisilly Anil f nncnitina 4 7M1

, -Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 22 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit #_109
Slope 30%
Lndscpe Pos. CV
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >76"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 40"
Restrictive Horizon 33"
Clay Mineralogy:_sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 35"
B/Cr Depth range 33-40+"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
,yet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class
Type
A
0-9"
10YR 2/2
L
2
f
gr
Fr, s0, p0
Bt
9-40"
10YR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
B/Cr
40-51"
10YR 4/4
60% gr
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
C
51-76"
Mand
SL
ma
brown
Pit # 110
Slope 35%
Lndscpe Pos _CV
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >72"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 35 -
Restrictive Horizon 36"
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp_
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Conv.)_ 5
Min. Soil Depth Needed_36"
Cr/C Depth range 36-45"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist
Wet&
Consistence
%%
Grade
Grade
Grade
A .
0-10"
10YR 2/2
L
1
f
gr
Fr, s0, p0
Bt 1
10-1 r
10YR 3/3
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
25%
Bt2
17-35"
10YR 5/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
20%
C/Cr
35-72"
YR
MC 5�3
SL
ma
Fr, s0, p0
One upper corner of pit has fill to 32"
Fnnthille Snit rftr a»1tinn Q711131

. Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 23 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit #111
Slope 30%
Lndscpe Pos _CV
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >84"
Soil DepthlSaprolite 33"
Restrictive Horizon >84"_
Clay Mineralogy_sl. exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .6
Min. Soil Depth Needed 35"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
.
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class
Type
A
0-11"
10YR 2/2
L
2
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
Bt1
11-21"
1OYR 5/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
BC
21-33"
10YR5/4,
2.5Y5/4,
2.5Y6/3
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
C
33-84
MCS-gray and
brown
SL
ma
Fr, sO, p0
*Gray colors in C horizon are lithochromic.
Pit # 112
n*r
Parent Mat. Res
Pol
non
RIR
Slope 33%
Lndscpe Pos _CV
Depth to SWC >58"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 29"__
Restrictive Horizon 32"
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Min. Soil Depth Needed 35"
Cr Depth range 15-40"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
A
0-9"
1OYR 2/2
L
2
f
gr
fr•
Bt
9-29"
1OYR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, sp
30%
C
29-34"
Gray saprolite
L
ma
Fr, sO, p0
10%
R
34-58"
fractured
*Chroma 2 colors in C horizon are probably lithochromic.
t:,wt„fq rnr.aattina oannt

v
, Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 24 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 113
Slope 30%
919I Lndscpe Pos. NS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >67"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 21"
Restrictive Horizon 21"_
Clay Mmeralogy:sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.)_ 6
Min. Soil Depth Needed 35"
R/Cr Depth range 21-38"
Horizon
Depth
•
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &'
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class
Type
A
0-5"
10YR 2/2
L
2
f
gr
Fr, s0, p0
•
Bwl
5-11"
10YR 4/3
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
15%
Bw2
11-27"
10YR 5/4
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
Cr/C
27-67"
Cr w/ veins of
2.5Y 5/3 sap.
L
ma
20%
Pit # 114
Slope 35%
Lndscpe Pos_NS
Parent Mat _Res
Depth to SWC >50"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 15"
Restrictive Horizon 15"
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Conv.) .6
Min. Soil Depth Needed 36"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
yet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Grade
Grade -
A
0-7"
10YR 2/2
•
L
2
f
gr
fr
Bw
7-15"
2.5Y 4/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
15%
Cr/C
15-50"
MCS
Seams of
SL and L
ma
reinthille Sn 1 (nnm,ltirin Q.?ftl11

NMI
ems
Inn
foul
Fir
Foll
awl
9
,.Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 25 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 115
Slope 40% •
Lndscpe Pos. NS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >50"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 9"_*_
Restrictive Horizon 9"_
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Conv.) N/A
Mn. Soil Depth Needed 3T'
R Depth range 9"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
R
9-50"
Fractured
bedrock
*No description made--R too shallow for any system
Pit # 116
Slope 45%
Lndscpe Pos._SH
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >76"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 32 __
Restrictive Horizon >76"_
Clay Mineralogy:_ st. exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .6
Mn. Soil Depth Needed 38"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Grade
Grade
A
0-T'
10YR 3/2
L
2 •
f
gr
Bt
7-32"
2.5Y 5/3
L
I
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
C
32-76"
MCS
SL
ma
Fr, sO, p0
10%
Fnnthilk C..;1 rnnaulti.%n Q_1(1111

Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prtpared for: Reed Williams
Page 26 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit #117
Slope 45%
Lndscpe Pos._SH
Parent Mat._Res.
Depth to SWC >75"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 41"
Restrictive Horizon 41 "�
Clay Mineralogy: sl. exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable_
Profile LTAR (Con.) ) .6
Mui. Soil Depth Needed 38"
Cr Depth range 41->75"
Horizon
Depth
.
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
�O
Grade
Class
Type
A
0-7"
10YR 2/2
L
2
f
8r
Fr, sO, p0
Bt
7-36"
10YR 4/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
Z5%
BC
36-48"
2.5Y 6/4
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
Cr
48-75"
Pit # 118
Slope 40%
Lndscpe Pos _LL
f"+ Parent Mat. Res
POI
furl
flarl
Depth to SWC >60"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 29"_
Restrictive Horizon 29"
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Con.) .6
Min. Soil Depth Needed 37"
Cr Depth range 29->60"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
MWet&
Consistence
y
C%
Grade
Grade
Grade
A
0-8"
l OYR 2/2
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
Bt
8-21"
10YR 5/4
SCL
2
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
BC
21-33"
2.5Y 5/4
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
10%
C
33-41"
Whit �y--
SL
ma
Fr, sO, p0
Cr
41-60"
*Gray colors in C horizon are clearly lithochromic.
Fe nth,1I c.a1 retnaviltivirr a�nf I

d
`Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
wit Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 27 of 29
PPII
NMI
IMP
FOP
rya
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 119
Slope 35%
Lndscpe Pos. LL
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >72"
Soil Depthf/Saprolite 33"
Restrictive Horizon 33"
Clay Mineralogy:___sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .4
Kin. Soil Depth Needed 36"
Cr Depth range 33-38"
Horizon
Depth
.
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
A
0-8"
10YR 2/2
L
2
m
sbk
Fr, s0, p0
Bt
8-20"
10YR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss, p0
30%
BC
20-33"
2.5Y 5/3
10YR 4/6
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
Cr
33-72"
Pit # 120
Slope 25%
Lndscpe Pos. LL
fan Parent Mat Res
Rol
FOP
Mot
Depth to SWC >67"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 38"_
Restrictive Horizon >67"__
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Conv.) .5
Min. Soil Depth Needed 29"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
MWet&
Consistence
C� y
Grade
Grade
Grade
A
0-10"
10YR 2/2
L
2
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
Bt1
10-26"
10YR 4/4
SCL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
Bt2
26-38"
2.5Y 4/4
20% gr
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
C
38-67"
SY 8/1
SL
ma
Fr, sO, p0
10%
Cr
@67"
*Gray color in C horizon is clearly lithochromic.
Fmthilla s, i ('nnaniti.+sr 0_71V11

4
‘:`Attachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
® -
P Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 28 of 29
MEI
NMI
r�l
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit # 121
Slope 25%
Lndscpe Pos._CV
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >76"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 33"
Restrictive Horizon 76„
Clay Mineralogy _sl. exp
Profile Classification Provisionally suitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.)__ 4
Mm. Soil Depth Needed 29"
Cr Depth range
Horizon ,
De th
p
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Class '
Type
+10-0"
fill
A
0-8"
10YR 2/2
L
2
f
&
Fr, s0, p0
Bt
8-25"
10YR 4/4
CL
1
m
sbk
Fr, ss. sp
30%
BC
25-33"
1OYR 6/4
L
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
C
33-76„
MCS-gray and
brown
SL &
VFSL
ma
Fr, sO, p0
Pit # 122
Slope 25%
Lndscpe Pos _SH
'_' Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >62"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 6"__
Restrictive Horizon 6"_*_
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) N/A
Wm. Soil Depth Needed 29"_
Cr Depth range 6-49"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Grade
Grade
*No description made —unsuitable for any system.
Rnnthillc Cnil rnrsmrltinn 4_7lf11

ran
FM PI
rMR
• illttachment 5: Detailed Soil Descriptions
Prepared for: Reed Williams
Page 29 of 29
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
Pit #_123
Slope 50%
Lndscpe Pos. LS
Parent Mat. Res.
Depth to SWC >83"
Soil DepthlSaprolite 15"
Restrictive Horizon 15"_
Clay Mineralogy:_sl. exp
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Cony.) .5
Min. Soil Depth Needed 39"
Cr Depth range
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Moist &
Wet
Consistence
Clay
%
Grade
Class
Type
A
0-8"
10YR 2/2
L
2
f
gr
Fr, s0, p0
.
Bt
8-15"
10YR 5/4
SCL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
25%
C/Cr
15-83"
MCS—gray
Seams of Cr—
1-2 ft thick
Var—SL,
SiL, L
ma
Fr, sO, p0
and brown
Pit # 124
Slope 45%
Lndscpe Pos_LS
Parent Mat. Res
Depth to SWC >63"
Soil Depth/Saprolite 16"_
Restrictive Horizon 16"
Clay Mineralogy:_ sl. exp_
Profile Classification Unsuitable
Profile LTAR (Conv.)_ 5
Mn. Soil Depth Needed 38"
Cr Depth range ___16-31"
Horizon
Depth
Main Colors
Mottles
Texture
Structure
MWi et
Consistence
Clay
Grade
Grade
Grade
A
0-10"
10YR 2/2
L
2 .
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
Bt
10-18"
2.5Y 5/4
SCL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
20%
BC
18-23"
2.5Y 6/3
SL
1
m
sbk
Fr, sO, p0
C/Cr
23-63"
MCS—gray
SL
ma
and brown.*
*Gray colors in C horizon are clearly lithochromic.
Frv►thilla Coil (nnanitinr► Q 7M 1

moo
:"Attachment 6: Key to Abbreviations used in Soil Descriptions
Client: Reed Williams
Site: US 221 near Blowing Rock
txml
Landscape position
SU summit FS—footslope
SH shoulder TS—toeslope
LS--linear sideslope FP flood plain
CC —concave sideslope DW—drainage way
CV —convex sideslope HS—head slope
NS—nose slope Dep—depression
Parent Material
Res. —residuum
Coll.—colluvium All. —alluvium
Texture •
ran
C--clay L—loam SiC—silty clay
SC —sandy clay SL—sandy loam SiCL—silty clay loam
CL—clay loam LS—loamy sand SiL--silt loam
SCL-sandy clay loam S—sand
Sand sizes: VFS—very fine sand, FS—fme sand, S—medium sand, CoS—Coarse sand
rarl
Coarse Fragments
gr gravel cb—cobbles st stones
Structure
grade: 1—weak 2—moderate 3—strong
size: f fine m—medium c—coarse
type: gr granular pr prismatic
sbk subangular blocky pl—platy
abk—angular blocky ma —massive
sg single grain
Moist and Wet Consistence
fr--friable sO—non-sticky p0non-plastic
fi—firm s—moderately sticky p—moderately plastic
vfi—very firm vs —very sticky vp—very plastic
exfi—extremely firm exs—extremely sticky exp—extremely plastic
Limiting conditions
SWC—soil wetness conditions
Exp—expansive clay minerology
R—hard bedrock
Cr—soft bedrock
Colors are from Munsell Soil Color Charts. MCS = multi -colored saprolite
Criteria for structure and for moist and wet consistence is based on USDA standards.
SBRF= Stopped by rock fragments