NC0078158_Wasteload Allocation_19901015

D RAFT R EO U ESTNPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCO078158
PERMnTEE NAME: Billy R. Satterfield / Olde Beau Golf Club
Facility Status: Proposed
Permit Status: New
Major Minor �1
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: O.OZO MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100* %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
* See engr. prop. - grease traps to be installed on kitchen drains
** design capacity doubled in 12/5/89 modification.
STREAM INDEX: 10-9-10-2
RECEIVING STREAM: an unnamed tributary to Laurel Branch
Class: C-Trout
Sub -Basin: 05-07-03
Reference USGS Quad: B15NW, Roaring Gap (please attach)
County: Alleghany
Regional Office: Winston-Salem Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 00/00/00 Treatment Plant Class: Probable II
Classification changes within three miles:
No class change until dam at Sparta Lake (C) - ca. 5-10 miles.
Requested b}
Prepared by:
Reviewed by
Dom: 11/14/89
Date:
Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
:PKQ,
ILk-It set
1 54go
Dta15 s 2
Wage Area (mi ) 0.13 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): O. aU
7Q10 (cfs).5rJq Winter 7Q10 (cfs) C). t 30Q2 (cfs) O. (3
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters ILTE, • 0., AM
Upstream Y
Downstream_
Yh(xo+i,) of
J e Pf.
e0J-
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
_30
�3Q
NH3-N (mg/1)
T
6.9
D.O. (mg/1)
—
TSS (mg/1)
130
F. Col. (/100 nil)
�0Q0
'D
pH (SU)
q�
�tlorine(o fl)
ag
a8
O11 (i w nn
So (�om"w
3a �IDnrna(x�
e erOvw-Te
ewtu
o�'r-ece i
5-f t^eavtl Shu.l(
vt
-F � i nc.re
� e Sias
K5Mond oottidi,l;
de
I " case
u5
Comments:

4031
CUh?� I
O
rt � D ,a, m� — / h / .mil - � '� \� •�n I t \
F}7;\lch1ecr
\ hhII
L�
288
473
ring rGa
0I i 29]7 300 —�
970 000
FEET
4027
00, sUl 's02 1420000 FEET
Dye Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey
FQ6� Control by USGS and USC&GS
L'��u�h Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial photographs
taken 1966. Field checked 1971
Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum
10,000-foot grid based on North Carolina coordinate system
1000 meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks,
150
M!1
JIGN
III
3
ti�Mas
1•MIL
J
LI
boo _ —
C J�•.Doughtor.
57'36^TH'JRMOND 2.3 MI.
ELK,N 12 M1.
1
1000 0
�t�FC
Q

Z.tl�b de/ yA zeis l _ -, Gge6"
l V / � I / �• 't'"
La
/ \ \ ` \
.. C,
/\ 2733�\_
4032
I
Y � N 291 \0 I Cannel ChllI ,Cem \ 1
r
2688
it
28,0
4031
Nltnr
vA 3 />
nAo � li T
e.
/
rUl
54
2857 4030
25'
"2752`
' —��� ��—. , .•, ;I a r, n
EII15 Camc,Allty
\\ er,•___ _ I ` -. _...
yl lam, 1
Galt 'Cod\se
N-- N4028
1'
,t
..,
\ / r

* YYII ,. .r ".- - �,�. � I� ��K•�`w'i%1 v i.•��Tt 1C�r ��x".r.
t r� arz•»' L r'1+x
c _
. - - : � r J u.r-rrr�~ .r �� � � iyt',>��e...r�.: PsZ3 . �aEr K -iY ��,• .. � —
xJ v�+.s S,-i�.�yi c ,r a. i4 l't+a a .i�+"r�4x yj"+! sr � ��yv ��ri � rT y•
f �'1 H t �' ]��*! v .;•J syr Y,r 5.,{l .N: a
`STATE OF NOR
}� TH;CARaLINA�'�
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH; AND; NATURAL RES4 ROES =,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTS -yam "
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
• is ~r
.� =s
• iIw
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.11}
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated.and adopted b the North Carolina. Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Contro Act, as amended,
Billy R. Satterfield
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Olde Beau Golf Club
US Highway 21
Northwest of Roaring Gap
Alleghany County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Laurel Branch in the New River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31,1995
Signed this day
George T. Everett, Director
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

W
Iv'.e�J
Permit No. NC0078158
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Billy R. Satterfield
is hereby authorized to:
1. Enter into a contract for construction of a wastewater treatment facility, and
2. Make an outlet into an unnamed tributary to Laurel Branch, and
3. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Environmental
Management, construct and operate a 0.020 MGD wastewater treatment facility located at
Olde Beau Golf Club, US Highway 21, Northwest of Roaring Gap, Alleghany County
(See Part III of this Permit), and
4. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into an
unnamed tributary to Laurel Branch which is classified class C-Trout waters in the New
River Basin.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NCO078158
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001, Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD, 5 day, 200C
Total Suspended Residue
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen"
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Conductivity
Oil and Grease
Discharge Limitations
Monthly Ava.
0.020 MC-0
30.0 mg/I
30.0 mg/1
3.0 mg/I
200.0 /100 ml
30.0 mg/I
Monitoring
Requirements
Measurement
Sample
'Sample
Daily Max
Frequency
hype
Location
Continuous
Recorder
I or E
45.0 mg/I
2/Month
Grab
E
45.0 mg/I
2/Month
Grab
E
2/Month
Grab
E
Weekly
Grab
E, U, D
400.0 /100 ml
2/Month
Grab
E, U, D
28.0 ug/I
Daily
Grab
E
Weekly
Grab
E, U, D
Weekly
Grab
U, D
60.0 mg/I
2/Month
Grab
E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream at mouth of the unnamed tributary
** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mgQ.
*** The temperature of the effluent shall be such as to not cause an increase in the temperature of the receiving stream of more than 0.5°C and
in no case cause the ambient water temperature to exceed 20°C.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored 2/month at the E, U, D by grab
sample.
vP
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

fit
w ?k
t •�
A. O. EFFLUENT LI[ IITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1-March 31) Permit No. NC007.8158
J � t r' % t •.
1k
a, During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: 5,, �, ..•_
F
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements t ���J•�
Measurement SamRfe *Sample
re uency
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Maxax g� IY�4
Flow 0.020 h= Continuous Recorder
f'd ' BOD, 5 day, . 20°C
sn ;>�5, Total Suspended Residue
NH3 as N
> Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
i r ;
;¢y t Total Residual Chlorine
L _ Temperature
{ Conductivity
Oil and Grease
30.0 mg/l 45.0 mg/l
MO mg/l 45.0 mg/I
6.9 mg/I
200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml
28.0 ug/I
30.0 mg/l 60.0 mg/i
- 2/Month
2/Month
2/Month
Weekly
2/Month
Daily
Weekly
- Weekly
2/Month
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream , D - Downstream at mouth of the unnamed tributary
Grab
Grab
Grab
; E trl, r r
: E "r4:
Grab
E, U, :.D
Grab
Er':9.
Grab
E
Grab
g
E, U,;.mi
Grab
U,
Grab
E .
t4
*** The temperature of the effluent shall be such as to not cause an increase in the temperature of the receiving stream of more than 0.5°04ndr
in no case cause the ambient water temperature to exceed 20°C.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored 2/month at the E, U, .D..bygraib`�
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
ldl '
M.
.- * .R '' tilt t''•S!}' Lsrt �;
- ' - ., t 1 !'r�r'{ft t .,.t, r r - .., r' f A ��F.G'¢•x rt��;i
'•1' I
.1, t�sh14
y i r �r`+ • raj,, %t
tta-r.e
` ..- .. a I t� t•�`'�:''r � "II,,i', GZ ii.+t P,�.,c`°.L•,�`*! j su r r- i� l..
- , ... _ . _ - _.. - .4_: . v'z•_.:�� 2ri. 3:lia _�rilli..'t%>.'�. c�1se�.{7tls.._i.:+s#7.�s'ti

t
i
F
r
October 3, 1989
James M. Joh-nston, Jr.
Environmental Chemist II
NC DNRCD
Water Quality Section
8025 North Point Blvd., Suite 100
Winston Salem, NC 27106
Dear Mr. Johnston;
Enclosed are two prints of the proposed discharge permit
information for Olde Beau Golf Course.
It is proposed to outfall from the Clubhouse Area to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant 800 feet to the west along the
secondary entrance leading from U.S*. Hwy. 21 to the Clubhouse
between the 9th. and 10th. Fairways. The plant is to be con-
cealed in a wooded area to the north of the road. From the
Plant Site the treated effluent will be pumped by Force (lain
to the west along the before cited road to a flowing stream,
an unnamed tributary of Laurel Branch, on the southside of
the road 400 feet east of U.S. ##21. At this point the effluent
will be aerated by some means to increase the oxygen content
to.a satisfactory level and discharged to the unnamed tributary.
Th:i,�; tributary flows under the secondary entrance road and along
th -Northeast side of U.S. 21, joining with another -tributary,
cCossing U.S'. 21'and.flowing to its' confluence with Laurel
Branch a short distance later.
Laurel Branch is a Class "C" Trout Strearn requiring dual
train treatment, standby power and declorination.
This
29, 1989.
you wish.
is 'rny understanding of our findings of September
I erijoyed the meeting; please, make any c�nin:ents
Yours very truly,
Charles H. Davis, Jr., P.B.
NC 2903
R- - _., - -
NOV 0
PERMITS- P.
E
O C i 7989
r'RMITr & EIRIG- Pq rj,,jC
Copy of letter describing proposals and findings of on -site
meeting with James M. Johnston, Jr., Margaret Plemmons and Charles
H. Davis, Jr. present, on September 12, 1989. lifter receipt of
letter by James -Johnston, in telephone conversation, Margaret
Plemmons said that N.P.D.E.S. application :should be submitted for
review;'this letter accurately describes the proposals resulting
from the initial on -site meeting and fyr er ac ion w 11 be based
.D.E.S. submittal and review. C iFf� �� .
on N P C ar es H. Ds, Jr., Y.E.
�o�f 3a�-a62 I
- .-. f . :..., . - ...:�

I
ENGINEERING PROPOSAL
FOR
OLDE BEAU GOLF CLUB
NPDES PERMIT
ROARING GAP, NC
RED E IV ED
NOV U 9 1989
PERMITS & ENGINEERING
1. Flow Description i
The flow will originate from the Golf Club's Clubhouse.
The clubhouse will have approximately 300 seats with 10
showers and bathrooms.
Daily flow: 300 seats x 40 gal/seat = 12,000 GPD
10 showers x 250 gal/shower = 2500 GPD
10 bathrooms x 250 gal/bathroom = 2500 GPD
TOTAL 17,000 GPD
The flow will be all domestic and grease traps will be
installed at the kitchen outlet. The NPDES application
is 20,000 GPD.
2. Treatment Options
Two types of treatment were studied for the discharge.
The first option was a traditional septic tank with
absorption fields. The area calculated for the septic
field (with an application rate of 0.4 gpd/ft2) and
repair area is approximately 3 acres. The system would
require several septic tanks and dosing pumps. This size
of system and land required is not feasible for this site.
There is also a reasonable estimate that impervious strata
is located between 1 foot and 5 foot from the ground
surface. Boring logs from the Golf Club's water tank
indicate that bedrock in the area of the clubhouse is fairly
close to the natural grade. This could possibly lead to
the absorption fields being unapprovable.
The second option was an extended aeration sewage treatment
plant. The plant would be economically feasible and would
not require a tremendous amount of land. The effluent would
meet all N.C. DEHNR requirements. The High Meadows Motel
and Restaurant, located approximately 1000 feet upstream
from the proposed discharge point, has its own treatment
"plant and has been operating successfully for over 15 years.
The proposed treatment plant would require less maintenance
and less problems over the long term than.the septic system.

Page 2.
'r Engineering Proposal
Olde Beau Golf Club
November 11 1989
3. Proposed Treatment Narrative
The sewage treatment plant will be a dual -train extended
aeration system with two (2) 10,000 GPD package plants.
The system will be composed of a flow splitter box and bar
screen at the influent, aeration chamber, clarifier chamber,
chlorination chamber, and dechlorination tank. The
mechanical equipment will consist of aeration blowers,
chlorination and dechlorination mixing drums, and various
piping. The effluent will be pumped to the discharge point
with a duplex pump station. A%gas generator will be used
for a power outage. Detailed plans and.specifications will
be submitted with the Authorization to Construct application.
A schematic of the treatment plant is enclosed.
4. Location Map
A general location map of the treatment system is enclosed.
5. Site Location Map
A scaled site location map of the treatment system is enclosed.
6. Discharge Study
A special discharge study is not proposed at this time.
7. Environmental Statement
Mr. Billy Satterfield, the owner, has constructed several
developments in the past 30 years. Mr. Satterfield has never
applied for a NPDES Permit, but he will ensure that all
NC DEHNR regulations are met for the effluent limits. There
have been erosion control problems at the project this year,
but they have been brought under control. The monthly rain-
fall in Alleghany County has almost doubled for the months
the project has been under construction. This would under-
standably create more problems for the project. It is proposed
that the 'latest inspection reports on the project be obtained
from the NC DEHNR Winston-Salem Regional Office by your office,
if they are required. (I am not the site engineer; Mr. Eugene
Dysart, P.E. is.)
The' f inancial• qualifications of Mr. Satterfield, from the
attached Financial Statement, appear to be excellent. It is
proposed that' i.f *more' i,iforniati.oi1 is needed for the financial
qualifications, the NC DEHNR should contact the owner.at the
Vhone number on the NPDES application.
I
Char :�� tii•�, ., P.E.
NC Z903'Q
SEAL
. 29a3
'9 •.. NG I N

/ y a
jr-err t4� ..114.!:•: • ' •;. •/ .:�; .. ,��.•.. '.
r•00 (� .r :. ? \ �,"•', ' . it : J . ; - i • li.
�/ rig• A � , fir. � ' r • •, , .
• .. tom^ y,�'� t�•;:.� ,.r .,� v .' = .�; � ! •t t. •�,, s i
r. .: ;. •r: , :' 1.
3,: 1. may. �+,}•. 1 /:� tK;ter, f ., •, ,+ t� .. -: '., .� : r' "' • .J. t . �'., ; : • '.'
i�f�,�a;C^I�!•tYj •��,7�:rI�,•,�• •. L•; ��• '' '! 'a• :• t:�'''/.•Lt.'` '1,;.:'{ ` ''t l:
y 4N rr�I`�� It-,���,f.�: . •!: ..♦ ,.`r «`,� , �' � ;` ., .'1..', a. !-t.�s •�'+'. % J ':1.:
)i•iJ•Aty^Ia �t�(. !�'d :.�lJ � •.... � 'r�r)• +�� yY r•. :.L•: r �-7' •.. ,�•G' ',� •• '••'.
•.�:t �r� -a.� fY+%t :,.►�Z,,�,` �'. [•:t, { .p' %' 'r :I; :�..�- ':wA+'•' •'C I. .•J •;� r••� '• • •!- '•�.
46.
Its.. i! •:P,t % t .\ ,t �•' :•.• r a - t` ^ �� •t ' i.. •.� t ; w t•• • -'Il r •• i ;, f t•, } f'
t.•f\/'• 'St �,}•�w.A�t,I,��•.�:i ,.1''+�jyy�••� '.:'ft -'•� I' •• �)` '/ ,t�:J •,1;,:a•ry •:\1• �r�,,.r:�•' ,��''�!• � :•.t' y�-
�Jr:,v �• . 1 �' � � �f� I• � �r.j �(•T: t 7.'. v . i r 3 • ••j - .: w :'i i !� '�•� n: �� v• ,� ' ' : � � �' . •.
• ► • I l ' / ., � • -[• •f •' •' is "' I �• ,,, .\' �tl � . . , • , _,
.- •', 1`ti�• •, • ��'• T l:' 1 �i}�•.. i.� r\'.• ., • f /•fir l,. , r
.. w.�' J �, ' • : !i .i .' • . F L 3,• • K• �: a ` .1 I; vt .�.t.. t^ '+ �,,f, -!`t ' +•7 ••. �.: �,•r •• f'•S .` • • lti•I«!i�'a''�' ' :, ,
GLADE. -VALLEY t•� ..;,. ;:�t•r' �� '�:',,.:.. 't••t !� :•• ; .; '�, ::• .:
U . S . G.S.
QUADRANGLEr:i.: �`• �,.::a; ,; . , !.•.. _ /:.
•'�,1.'i~; ;:. :at(�' r�dt '^Yl�:•�. �•�,.. . 1• ° ; �, •f.1•i •I,`; ,,•.+.. , r,,, rt•h'y•.N•. �, ,, .t••'� • .. .:
{� 3
i14r tt11.
.•,MI[ t ,5•t� •' -•J' i . � : f , :'s:•; a.,. : �� • • :_•• ti �a
r. G�%,A�'►Y'a' , ` 't:^• ;t ROARING GAP ;;'. ,::..,:,•'• ,� •: _ a ;;�, •:,,.r' .: ; :. f.f.
U . S.G.S. QUADRANGLE,J'• 1.,.. i. ,, . .�. :, .�
r, , �,�. .,' f ,�- '- �, f ,r.. t. •,1 : ! / I•J �.i• .�. ,"�..,... .•.. .r •: �f ��•'•. t'•"•. i:. 't •i �'i
ti t•. t t • w;� I r •. t A. 3q .. ' . 1 , 1 7 .1' • 111 •''' - • , - :.
t�'•y'j� ♦\\t\\ ,f f, '•�. ! '•�,r '. f •'•• y,.r .`••'.f� Jig• `�'' •'a•,•., :'/•:`�'.',-.; ,
♦:•"� • \• :��I I)1 ,�1:� Via'' ; •L:..', .:^^^i. 'f..•�, ...j ',�• •••'-„�-a..•,:•••:l a:. '1':'7'i:.
+. • '<<� S• i � .: •' • • : •! ;.... : tom,..
-DISCHARGE POINT „
,; U GOLF CO
OLDBEAU COURSE
,.�:•
W/ AERATOR NORTH C OLINA .'
...',,tom,•::-• Jr 4 ' '7• . :'� J.��• .. ROARING GAP NO AR •J' rti;i
it tip ? .I y •� .,� �.,,. � , ,; (• .�.: • • .. '
/`• • f ; ' :,:'' •.:� >:. >•: • ; SCALE 1=5001
•••f 1, •,y{• Hf!:,i. •�1•i: .J ••, 'K.� •+f•�j � � i'•., . I, Y.. I...�s i I^:�t•. a: '/{' 1 •'t • J ,)f •,+•• '? I., •,i• •, +•['•' `'~.
• Jay' tS't v' '•'• - •X -co /:• ''•r / • • 't �. r , j • • j, .r. 1' • •/:•'1.'r' • t _ •• ! •...I^'a. I '.[
'7f} yam,., "�•:.Jr( j I,5 '%' ,` ••r ••�' ',,1,; •,,• .ti I.tI �'. •.. .7:' -•'- .. •.�'•'i •'•.
\n, t/.' S,'t�. �'• •�l f•L ( ) 'r� ''•„••, ` r tl •�•/..�� : •• '•!ti'',: '7J• '/ '.I,�„..f�l ,!, •''•r'
�7 T . •t !. - ( 'fr''''n •tS ,� ,v.'�,��',.. .0%to �,' . �•. 'r:!y '. •i. •'•',•' ••ri. ,•L•• •/., r:
- '. .. ., fr-.' .: •T, ,,.• •: :r It •:' 7� / i.- ':',• ••- �. :1 iI :
n c h
'`' }=.41i LL�i .'ice - lY� J, i;i' f ../ � �' ..,i••' ).. .t..
\: jv T' fI aT r

V
Xz "J7
r
54"
c
``�=t��!`.�\'!'`�.ri+� :` { ��' ,'r-?�r:•>r�": :.e. *a',:� 'f'.;.'.• •,•f�•'11.'^: � �j''\:! �i:a� •�' i��'%F'.'.!/'\!• r!' '� -
I -A!)\ -
A, op
N
o
IV
J
kN
CLUBI HOUSE `; �'_;,`'s `; ,% `.. r.''�=`/j� j?, �'�� �) ;� \ 11. ,
)A NN d
LA
` �...:- 3 ,, i 1�.�: '� ��.. �' �'� ,•\ .ter.•-- S
K
A UK
Lv
WASTE WATER
A NZ
TREATMENT PLANT .k
W/ EFFLUENT PUMP
)
Mi A
:7.0�4j
? 114/ •i 4 0I
N). Vv .41.3•11N. .,;A
V
z
er
N
�`,
L
, -1611�11
Ao-
Y7
fA
FORCE
EFFLUENT
"7
AIN t�7
mrl
1A
1 136
'Y
R
-Y
R 11.E
Iv,
A
NOV 0 1989
s "A
RE*u
(zc.
I
PERMITS& 01
oc
17 1989
GA
A -
1/. 1:7' .1
V 6
x
A, tJA OLDS BEAU GOLF COURSE
�• rj14 111
DISCHAKUL
,,ROARING GAP, NORTH CAROLINA
W/ AERATOR
Yr
SCALE 1"=5001

Request No. :5490
Permit Number
Facility Name
Type of Waste
Status
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
Subbasin
County
Regional Office
Requestor
Date of Request
Quad
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
NCO078158
BILLY SATTERFIELD/OLDE BEAU GOLF CLUB
DOMESTIC
P/N
UT LAUREL BRANCH
C-TROUT
050703
ALLEGHANY
Drainage Area
WINSTON-SALEM
Average Flow
JULE SHANKLIN
Summer 7Q10
11/14/89
Winter 7Q10
B15NW
30Q2
Wasteflow
(mgd):
5-Day BOD
(mg/1):
Ammonia Nitrogen
(mg/1):
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1):
TSS
(mg/1):
Fecal Coliform (#/100m1):
pH
(SU):
Chlorine
(ug/1):
Upstream (Y/N): Y
Downstream (Y/N): Y
EFFLUENT LIMITS
Summer. Winter
0.02 0.02
30 30
3 6.9
5
30 30
200 200
6-9 6-9
28 28
a
`L.0 e0^1 eA-1
-----------------
rsr
FIVEO
N.:. i,_,,t. NRCO
SEP 2 6 1990
Winston-Salem
Regional Office
(sq mi)
: 0.13
(cfs)
: 0.26
(cfs)
: 0.078
(cfs)
: 0.1
(cfs)
--------------------
: 0.13
J6, f
i
,
�,�zjr5 �2 O;I�G,�e4.se
i
MONITORING -----------
Location: ABOVE THE DISCHARGE POINT
Location: BELOW THE DISCHARGE AT THE MOUTH OF THE UT
---------------------------------- COMMENTS ------- ---------------------------
RECOMMEND INSTREAM MONITORING FOR TEMPERATURE, FECAL COLIFORM, D.O.,
CONDUCTIVITY, AND PH.
TEMPERATURE LIMIT:
THE TEMPERATURE OF THE RECEIVING STREAM SHALL NOT BE INCREASED BY MORE
THAN 0.5 DEGREES CELSIUS ABOVE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS AND IN NO CASE
EXCEED 20 DEGREES CELSIUS.
�eCo{ry'IrY1P,�ld ii.P�t�-UrOl�f C�S,n-�c�'�n d- F�-ow fo�„�pSiTE' S,g.����,r,�
Recommended by
Reviewed by:
Tech. Support Supervisor
Regional Supervisor
Permits & Engineering
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY
Date
Date
Date 9 ZS- 90
Date

b a
ATTACHMENT
It is recommended that USGS do a
new flow evaluation of the stream since
the characteristics of the receiving
stream have been changed through con-
struction and changes to the amount of
stormwater runoff.

DFS3650I
SESSION READY FOR INPUTGKEX88/MP
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALYSIS REPORT
PAGE 1
PERMIT--NC0078158
PIPE--001 REPORT PERIOD:
9405-9504
LOC ---
E
FACILITY--O.
B. G.
P. COMPANY
DESIGN FLOW--
.0200
CLASS--
, LOCATION --ROARING
GAP
REGION/COUNTY--04 ALLEGHANY
.
50050
00310
00530
00610
31616
50060
00300
00010
MONTH
Q/MGD
BOD
RES/TSS
NH3-N
FEC COLI
CHLORINE
DO
TEMP
LIMIT F
.0200 F
20.00
F 30.0
F 3.00
F 200.0
NOL
NOL
94/05
.0024
8.87
9.0
LESSTHAN
32.0
13.000
7.60
14.00
94/06
.0019
17.70
22.0
.79
46.0
6.60
21.00
94/07
.0026
4.16
LESSTHAN
LESSTHAN
LESSTHAN
6.20
22.00
94/08
.0032
5.30
12.0
LESSTHAN
LESSTHAN
5.40
21.00
94/09
.0022
2.52
6.5
LESSTHAN
27.0
7.60
17.00
94/10
.0067
5.40
6.5
LESSTHAN
LESSTHAN
.000
7.10
12.00
LIMIT F
.0200 F
30.00
F 30.0
F 6.90
F 200.0
NOL
NOL
94/11
.0039
12.80
18.0
2.30
4.4
.000
8.50
12.00
94/12
.0037
1.22
14.0
LESSTHAN
LESSTHAN
.000
10.90
4.00
LIMIT F
.0200 F
30.00
F 30.0
F 6.90
F 200.0
F
5.00
NOL
95/01
95/02
LIMIT F
.0200 F
30.00
F 30.0
F 6.90
F 200.0
NOL
NOL
95/03
.0014
3.58
10.5
LESSTHAN
LESSTHAN
.000
11.60
7.00
LIMIT F
.0200 F
20.00
F 30-.0
F 3.00
F 200.0
NOL
NOL
95/04
.0023
5.12
40.5FLESSTHAN
2.1
.000
10.10
11.00
AVERAGE
.0030
6.66
15.4
1.54
22.3
2.166
8.16
14.10
MAXIMUM
.0067
17.70
40.5
2.30
46.0
13.000
11.60
22.00
MINIMUM
.0014
1.22
LESSTHAN
LESSTHAN
LESSTHAN
.000
5.40
4.00
UNIT
MGD
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
#/100ML
UG/L
MG/L
DEG.0

i M
•J
GKEX88/MP 06/28/95
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 2
PERMIT--NC0078158 PIPE--001 REPORT PERIOD: 9405-9504 LOC --- E
FACILITY--O. B. G. P. COMPANY DESIGN FLOW-- .0200 CLASS--
. LOCATION --ROARING GAP REGION/COUNTY--04 ALLEGHANY
00400 00556
MONTH PH OIL-GRSE
LIMIT 9.0 6.0 F 30.000
94/05 6.9-6.8 LESSTHAN
94/06 7.1-6.0 6.700
94/07 6.9-6.6 3.300
94/08 6.2-6.2 4.700
94/09 6.9-6.9 LESSTHAN
94/10 7.0-6.7 LESSTHAN
LIMIT 9.0 6.0 F 30.000
94/11 6.9-6.9 LESSTHAN
94/12 6.8-6.7 LESSTHAN
LIMIT 9.0 6.0 F 30.000
95/01
95/02
LIMIT 9.0 6.0 F 30.000
95/03 6.1-6.1 LESSTHAN
LIMIT 9.0 6.0 F 30.000
95/04 6.4-6.0 LESSTHAN
AVERAGE 4.900
MAXIMUM 7.100 6.700
MINIMUM 6.000 3.300
UNIT SU MG/L

G rl U9, gr7.9 ,90eAd
&4- CJ, 13
v
r D• aV V
�16 — U, tP&MI[PLA
�Zoe 0,./ - /CM/
U.
n. LON 16-5 #�. Ifs 291. 9 0619
DA W U*
o"

REQUEST NO: 8007 SITE NO: 1 DATE: 9/21/90
g SOURCE: NRCD ACTION: NEW STREAMFLOW CONDITION:
STATION NUMBER: 0316289780 TYPE STATION: 20
STATION NAME: LAUREL B NR ROARING GAP, NC
LOCATION: AT US 21 AND 0.4 MI NW OF ROARING GAP, NC
LATITUDE:362428 LONGITUDE:805933
QUADRANGLE NUMBER: B15NW
COUNTY CODE: 005 STATE CODE: 37 DISTRICT CODE: 37
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 05050001 NRCD BASIN CODE: 050703
AVERAGE FLOW: 3.2
7010 MIN FLOW:1.0
(SUMMER)
30Q2 MIN FLOW:1.5
7Q10 MIN FLOW:1.2
(WINTER)
702 MIN FLOW:1.4
DRAINAGE AREA:1.6
RANGE:
cfs to
cfs
Percent [B]
RANGE:
cfs to
cfs
Percent [B]
RANGE:
cfs to
cfs
Percent [B]
RANGE:
cfs to
cfs
Percent [B]
RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B]
NOTES:
[A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site. The range
indicates approximate interval in which the actual value may lie
[B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at nearby streams.
[C] Because of the probable degree of inaccuracy of the estimate only
a range is given.
[D] Approximately.
Streamflow Condition Codes [R] Regulated [N] Natural
REMARKS:
REQUESTOR--STOCKTON
Data Index -- Entered by:
Fee charged: 0

g/ig% 96
�j rvpoSKl Olu t o (-Tolc mode
onon o3
.0 -1'21_,%
Xl l)= I • `1 I :A&
��(5•[��—c���'—.y��/o= l�.[�U �P�eya-�v�..e �-uy � v
`7Sha u Loo- (,2Qyy�u�9c�s c�
_T1rxv (a•Ia -A7 -,1(� /o -�.�5 (��ro 41,k
�-
YL0 U°C -

yylnd .In�yfi
, one �-
0.3Gi , Q5
YWA g4 PDCA = d,Uq
90
n, o o.5
v
W.:7 /j ::7 U. � 9 0 v Co. cl
T(.0-31 t - 1) (1-�) — I)j .631
o�A '
31 = 5 q ,l oYCO o
a ( );dlQ.� ��;
1ii

CqO
elty d
di st SI.J �
Sao .
�, 3
C9 Ad
6 1,
��Luo
SlaP C C C4�u 1 atio n S
,Rqt t) 0 -k
6L4 1, -PPM
1000(60A C+5 C&VJDuv 2'lCOS
oY '7
C
0
d
v
7J

DATE '
REQUEST No.
USGS Flow Data Request
Requested by: Oetsuynll -
SITE No. 1 County River Basin MeuO
NRCD Sub Basin �-07"03 Map No. or Name 2 isNw. Rn w ao GaP
Station No. Secondary or Primary Road No. 1 2 i
Stream Name It7
Data Requested Drainage Area , Average Flow ✓ 30 Q 2
Winter 7 Q 10 Summer 7 Q 10
SITE 0. 2 County River Basin
NRCD Sub Basin
Station No
Stream Name
Data Requested
Winter 7Q 10
F
v
Map No. or Name
Secondary or Primary Road No
Drainage Area
Summer 7 Q 10
Average Flow— 30 Q 2 —
SITE No. 3 County River Basin
a
NRCD Sub Basin Map No. or Name
0
Station No. Secondary or Primary Road _
Stream Name
m
Data Requested Drainage Area Average Flow 30 Q 2
Y
Winter 7 Q 10 Summer 7 Q 10
a,
L
3
N
O

0031
6CP �i YI>J t
!� \
it /I \\ - \•� M
I xJ055 >RAI v
�l
— r4
4030 I, ' A- 25'—%! -` I.
� \ 1^JEEP"' I �I
1 r
q1 p i�WT
ntwChmh
Fish
Hatchery.\ :'Iz9as ����
ya �:
6
17473:
in•>-I<d Gol 82
Course - \
�929 tl
—Roaring Gap
zan
d9/9970000
r f
FEET30
2972 •ll �� "�J ,1
11
„r,..
Como
5
4027 _ l ail - ' i'r'C" \ _ 31 ��
r t
[
e I
� p � Lookoutt TQ Tqwer
Na65H 792kk—
n/5e
BM A,
;wrstz
2a1.�nobl
1s ALZi

REQUEST NO: n9006
SITE NO: 1 DATE: 2/12/90
SOURCE: NRCD ACTION: NEW STREAMFLOW CONDITION:
STATION NUMBER: 0316289787 TYPE STATION: 20
STATION NAME: LAUREL B TRIB AB US 21 AT ROARING GAP, NC
LOCATION: 0.05 MI AB US 21 AND 0.9 MI NW OF ROARING GAP, NC
LATITUDE: 362444 LONGITUDE: 805953
QUADRANGLE NUMBER: B15NW
COUNTY CODE: 005 STATE CODE: 37 DISTRICT CODE: 37
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 05050001 NRCD BASIN CODE: 050703
DRAINAGE AREA: 0.13
AVERAGE FLOW: 0.26 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B]
7Q10 MIN FLOW: 0.078 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B]
( SUMMER)
30Q2 MIN FLOW: 0.13 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B]
7Q10 MIN FLOW: 0.10 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B]
(WINTER)
7Q2 MIN FLOW: 0.11 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B]
NOTES:
pup
[A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site. The range waLu o/
indicates approximate interval in which the actual value may lie
[B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at nearby streams. II, a/w,
6L� � ryL&A14 yyxkC t f 0c) 4 it)Lj J)aAL i d " Cad Sc�e
[C] Because of the probable degree of inaccuracy of the estimate only
a range is given.
[D] Approximately.
Streamflow Condition Codes [R] Regulated [N] Natural
REMARKS:
REQUESTOR--JOHNSON
Data Index -- Entered by: 3AF
Fee charged: 0.00

SUMMER
MODEL RUN WITH 30 MG/L BOD5 AN
3 MG/L NH3N FOR AMMONIA TOX
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
•Discharger : BILLY SATTERFIELD/OLDE BEAU GOLF CLUB
Receiving Stream : UT LAUREL BRANCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 8.52 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.42 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.07 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1)
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
---------------------- ----
Segment 1 6.95 0.00 1
Reach 1 45.00
13.50
5.00
0.02000
Reach 2 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : BILLY SATTERFIELD/OLDE BEASubbasin 050703
-Receiving Stream : UT LAUREL BRANCH Stream Class: C-TROUT
• Summer 7Q10 : 0.07.8 Winter 7Q10 : 0.1
Design Temperature: 23.
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY I
DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mil
fps I
ft Idesignl
@204
Idesignl
@204 Idesignl
Segment 1
I I
1 0.171
I
70.001
I
0.068 1
I I
0.36 10.36 1
0.31
I I
1 9.18 I
I I
8.601 0.63 1
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Segment 1
I I
1 1.001
I
70.001
I
0.351 1
I I
0.57 1 0.66 1
0.57
I I
147.14 1
I I
44.161 0.63 I
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 I
I Flow
I CBOD I
NBOD 1
D.O. I
I cfs
I mg/l
I mg/l I
mg/l I
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
1 0.031
1 45.000
113.500 I
5.000
Headwatersl 0.078
I 2.000
1 1.000 1
7.720
Tributary
I 0.000
1 2.000'1
1.000 1
7.720
* Runoff
1 0.280
1 2.000
1 1.000 1
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
1 0.000
I 0.000
I 0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
I 1.430
1 2.000
1 1.000 1
7.720
* Runoff
I 0.200
1 2.000
I 1.000 1
7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

• -
SUMMER
MODEL RUN WITH 30 MG/L BODS AN
3 MG/L
NH3N FOR AMMONIA TOX
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I
. 1
1
0.00
6.95
14.23
4.56
0.11
• 1
1
0.01
7.03
13.88
4.44
0.11
1
1
0.02
7.10
13.54
4.33
0.11
1
1
0.03
7.17
13.23
4.23
0.12
1
1
0.04
7.23
12.92
4.13
0.12
1
1
0.05
7.28
12.63
4.04
0.12
1
1
0.06
7.33
12.36
3.95
0.13
1
1
0.07
7.38
12.09
3.86
0.13
1
1
0.08
7.43
11.84
3.78
0.13
1
1
0.09
7.47
11.60
3.70
0.13
1
1
0.10
7.50
11.36
3.62
0.14
1
1
0.11
7.54
11.14
3.55
0.14
1
1
0.12
7.57
10.93
3.48
0.14
1
1
0.13
7.60
10.72
3.41
0.15
1
1
0.14
7.63
10.52
3.35
0.15
1
1
0.15
7.66
10.33
3.29
0.15
1
1
0.16
7.68
10.14
3.23
0.15
1
1
0.17
7.71
9.97
3.17
0.16
1
2
0.17
7.72
2.79
1.21
1.59
1
2
0.27
8.17
2.74
1.20
1.61
1
2
0.37
8.37
2.70
1.18
1.63
1
2
0.47
8.45
2.67
1.17
1.65
1
2
0.57
8.49
2.63
1.15
1.67
1
2
0.67
8.51
2.59
1.14
1.69
1
2
0.77
8.52
2.55
1.12
1.71
1
2
0.87
8.52
2.52
1.11
1.73
1
2
0.97
8.52
2.48
1.10
1.75
1
2
1.07
8.52
2.45
1.08
1.77
1
2
1.17
8.52
2.42
1.07
1.79
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I

SUMMER
MODEL RUN WITH 30 MG/L BOD5 AN
3 MG/L NH3N , NO DO
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
-Discharger : BILLY SATTERFIELD/OLDE BEAU GOLF CLUB
Receiving Stream : UT LAUREL BRANCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 8.52 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.42 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.07 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
----------------------
Segment 1 5.52 0.00 1
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
13.50
0.00
0.02000
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
-Do + C.,+ Loj,

WINTER
ODEL RUN WITH 30 MG/L BOD5 AN
MG/L NH3N , NO DO
MODEL RESULTS b."I
•Discharger : BILLY SATTERFIELD/OLDE BEAU GOLF CLUB
Receiving Stream : UT LAUREL BRANCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 10.73 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.44 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.36 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1)
---------------------- ----
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
Segment 1 7.40 0.00 1
Reach 1 45.00
31.05
0.00
0.02000
Reach 2 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : BILLY SATTERFIELD/OLDE BEASubbasin 050703
.Receiving Stream UT LAUREL BRANCH Stream Class: C-TROUT
-Summer 7Q10 0.078 Winter 7Q10 : 0.1
Design Temperature: 12.
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mil
fps
I ft Idesignl
@2034
Idesignl
@2014 Idesignl
Segment 1
I I
1 0.171
I
70.001
0.068
I I I
1 0.40 10.21 1
0.30
I I
17.22 1
I I
8.601 0.27 1
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1-
I
I I I
I I
I I
Segment 1
I
1 1.001
70.001
0.402
1 0.58 1 0.43 1
0.62
142.01 1
50.001 0.27 1
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
I
Flow
1 CBOD I
NBOD I
D.O. I
I
cfs
I mg/1 I
mg/l I
mg/l I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1
0.031
1 45.000 1
31.050 I
0.000
Headwatersl
0.100
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
9.700
Tributary I
0.000
I 2.000
1 1.000 I
9.700
* Runoff I
0.350
I 2.000 I
1.000 1
9.700
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I
Tributary I 1.710 I
* Runoff I 0.250 I
0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
2.000 I 1.000 I 9.700
2.000 I 1.000 1 9.700
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

i r
- -
WINTER
MODEL RUN WITH 30 MG/L BOD5 AN
�A MG/L
NH3N , NO DO
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi
I D.O. I
CBOD
I NBOD I
Flow I
- 1
1
0.00
7.40
12.18
8.11
0.13
• 1
1
0.01
7.63
11.89
7.91
0.13
1
1
0.02
7.84
11.62
7.71
0.14
1
1
0.03
8.03
11.36
7.53
0.14
1
1
0.04
8.20
11.11
7.35
0.15
1
1
0.05
8.36
10.87
7.19
0.15
1
1
0.06
8.50
10.65
7.03
0.15
1
1
0.07
8.64
10.44
6.87
0.16
1
1
0.08
8.76
10.23
6.73
0.16
1
1
0.09
8.87
10.03
6.59
0.16
1
1
0.10
8.97
9.85
6.46
0.17
1
1
0.11
9.07
9.67
6.33
0.17
1
1
0.12
9.16
9.49
6.21
0.17
1
1
0.13
9.24
9.33
6.09
0.18
1
1
0.14
9.31
9.17
5.97
0.18
1
1
0.15
9.38
9.01
5.86
0.18
1
1
0.16
9.44
8.87
5.76
0.19
1
1
0.17
9.50
8.72
5.66
0.19
1
2
0.17
9.68
2.67
1.47
1.90
1
2
0.27
1'0.18
2.65
1.45
1.93
1
2
0.37
10.44
2.62
1.44
1.95
1
2
0.47
10.58
2.60
1.43
1.98
1
2
0.57
10.65
2.57
1.42
2.00
1
2
0.67
10.69
2.55
1.41
2.03
1
2
0.77
10.71
2.53
1.40
2.05
1
2
0.87
10.72
2.50
1.39
2.08
1
2
0.97
10.73
2.48
1.38
2.10
1
2
1.07
10.73
2.46
1.37
2.13
1
2
1.17
10.73
2.44
1.36
2.15
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi
I D.O. I
CBOD
I NBOD I
Flow I

waiL
75J
(a j
AJC
q-3-->br
S
I 7 3;1 zv9s_
"D o
D&
W- q)i
73 -SOO
2CA
-jr
��
c

i
s a urn o� r a c" 't s
.,i �-G.��e -�O.r .su��TJ,i-tG .CB ,9.�- ,�,+-�t.y _- � V-,n t .�•,.,,�.
Af
J
afiwapp[y��li
+-
i
0
v

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 8, 1990
To: Don Safrit
From: Carla Sanderson
Through: Trevor Clements �1 L
Subject: Chronology of Old Beau Golf Course Proposed NDPES Permit
Per your request for a chronological list of Technical Support Activities for
the Old Beau project, I offer the following information:
Technical Support received a WLA request on November 11, 1989 for the proposed
discharge of 100% domestic wasteflow (0.04 MGD) into an unnamed tributary to
Laurel Branch. Laurel Branch (classified C-TR) is part of the New River Basin
and located in Alleghany County. The following list provides the events after
review of the WLA request:
1. WLA Review
Information from USGS was obtained to determine if the receiving stream:
had positive flow. USGS estimates predicted the 7Q10 flow equal to 0.09
cfs. The staff report submitted from the region relayed new information
regarding the topography and current conditions of the stream. The
region reported that the site had been so damaged by sedimentation that
it is now a dry ditch. This made USGS information invalid since the
estimates are based on the pre -developed drainage areas at the proposed
discharge location and flow data from nearby streams. Also as part of
the review, the modeler looked at the engineering proposal and noted
that adequate information concerning alternatives to discharge was not
submitted with the application.
2. Permit Request was recommended for denial by Technical Support (February
2, 1990) based on inadequacies in the engineering report. Only two
options were reviewed (spray irrigation was not reviewed). In addition
to an incomplete engineering report, information was provided (by the
Office of General Council) to WQ concerning the applicant's past com-
pliance history with land quality and erosions control permits. (summary
of compliance history is provided in the attached draft memo to Jane
Murray -never sent)
3. Instead of denying the permit, per the Division's right to consider the
history of this applicant (15 NCAC 2H.0105 (c) (7)), Technical Support
was directed to hold the WLA until the Judge's decision was made con-
cerning violation of the Sediment Pollution Control Act. (see attached
April 5, 1990 draft letter to Jane Murray - never sent).
4. On April 5, 1990 a letter was sent to Jane Murray (attached) regarding
information on the proposed permit. The letter indicated a very incom-
plete engineering report had been submitted which needed to be improved
and that additional clarification of several technical concerns was

required before a WLA analysis could be completed. These concerns
included: the low flow estimate (7Q10) equal to zero, the proposed dis-
charge location above a small pond with potential problems such as
eutrophication or deoxygenation, and finally that the proposed discharge
may not be able to meet the temperature standards required for desig-
nated trout streams. The environmental compliance background check
(mentioned above) was not made a major issue at this time.
5. April 11,1990 letter sent to Billy Satterfield (attached) from Steve
Tedder stating DEM concerns (i.e. stream flow, temperature, & pond) and
the information required (i.e. response to concerns and an engineering
report) before the WLA would be evaluated for further review of the
NPDES permit.
6. May 23, 1990 meeting with Steve Mauney, Dale Overcash, and Carla
Sanderson from DEM and Charles Davis and Patrick Warren from Charles H.
Davis Jr. Engineering and Planning Consultants. The meeting was brought
together specifically for DEM and the consultants to discuss the engi-
neering proposal to be resubmitted and apply to the discharge. The
engineers brought their reply to the April 11, 1990 letter with the
alternatives to discharge evaluations (attached letter to Steve Tedder
dated May 22, 1990). Below I have summarized our review of their
response:
a. The information provided did not provide any technical support for
demonstrating positive stream flow at the proposed outfall. Fur-
thermore, they admitted that streamflow in the area is affected by
development. We recommend taking up their suggestion of obtaining
real flow data through standard Division procedures for field
studies for estimating 7Q10 flow statistics.
b. Information was provided to suggest that temperature might not be a
problem.
c. Clarification was made that no pond exists between the proposed
site and Laurel Branch.
The engineers also requested a decrease in proposed wasteflow from 0.04
MGD to 0.02 MGD because an original plan to include a hotel was no
longer being considered. The meeting focused primarily on the alterna-
tives to discharge and sub -surface being the most feasible alternative.
(Spray irrigation was not further discussed in length.) A consensus was
reached that the engineer should pursue sub -surface disposal if the land
available was appropriate.
7. Permits and Engineering staff submitted a letter to Mr. Satterfield
(dated June 20, 1990) stating our intention to deny the NPDES permit due
to the sub -surface disposal alternative and give Mr. Satterfield a
period of 60 days to respond (attached).
8. On August 2nd, information was sent to Technical Support in regard to
the July 31 meeting with Mr. Satterfield and Secretary Coby. The pack-
age did not contain any indication of plans for sub -surface disposal,
but a request for an additional proposed discharge location to be evalu-
ated as well as the original location. Technical Support has addressed
the location to the UT to Laurel Branch with the fact that there is no
flow in the stream (as stated above). The new location for discharge is
located below the man-made lakes on Laurel Branch (this location is
upstream of the original location on the UT). The original stream

course has been altered below the Lakes (again, USGS information will
not apply). No information has been provided concerning release flow
from the lakes and therefore assumptions cannot be made to base a low
flow estimate. The Lake water is used to spray irrigate the golf
course, therefore during low flows one would expect the stream to be
completely dry.
Given the concern regarding frozen ground for spray irrigation systems,
it appears that a seasonal spray system might be the most appropriate.
During summer months (peak golf course use period) the wastewater could
be sprayed on the course in place of their freshwater irrigation. Dur-
ing the winter when Laurel Branch was flowing and golf course irrigation
was not necessary, wastewater could be discharged directly with minimal
impact to the receiving water. Technical Support recommends that this
option be pursued in preparing an adequate engineering report.

8/1/90
MEMORANDUM:
TO: TrevorMSRO/Don
FROM: Jule Shanklin
SUBJECT: Olde Beau Golf Club AKA Billy Satterfield (NC0078158)
Attached is applicant's response to various solicited and unsolicited
questions regarding the subject project submitted yesterday in Mr.
Satterfield's meeting with Secretary Coby. Note Preston's memo on top of
the pile.
Note the newly proposed discharge point, labeled "2" on the USGS excerpt.
A detail plat supplied by Chuck Davis is attached to assist in
interpretation of the marks on the quad excerpt.
Attachment

MEMO DATE: JUL '311990
7�3J - 1
—PERI.iT(S & EaGIREFERNG
TO:o �L� �E.�E12 SUBJECT: 2145i441 { �
Cl) EI/lJu1d7jr=' VVLI4 A �2s�oSEEC Q/- �T. — U%. ?o
L.41WS-e- Z44.✓C,4 aT
A7-r- 41;ol � "e.
Cam% mct. c.� Q�YiEv✓ ,FQ� %Z�.cI47� ✓�S ,o/cla c YS.S ��5c%�'J7Tiez'7 �l' �
T�i�n y T �Ll rs
C3i TL�2 To �TTE�CGiEcp �CpPr T� 6R,4�5[) 77;,07-
6it�s
oUL e s T l /f 7A417 Y01G6
27 6 <�
I
CHARLES H. DAVIS, JR. A Legend IS BornENGINEERING AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS J\
STAFF TO THE ATLANTIC PLAN CORPORATION.
GOVERNMENT FACILITY LESSORS. VVV
PATRICKWARR j7f, ': BILLY R. SATTERFIELD
TECHNICAL ENO, RL.
y
BOX 1691 HICKORY. NORTH CARCLINA 28603 ' rr
7F 9191363-3333
04-327-,62i
® �161n,/-NI 11 Box 32
G o e F c t u a Roaring Gap, NC 28668
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
1
John F. Phillips, P.E. ?arr
219 E. Chatham Street zei9 .
Cary. N.C. 27511 Telephone[phone] Z t7o K I' �—
1998
[See Reverse For Services] (`� \ -n � ----' '
------�:� I
A

_ •i2674
40331.
I V �,F.l R4
j u g 11990
32
2806
a � 'C • 7 _ gfz�P' •1 ;, / -
- �i i !j "?r;•�¢��--=`� i�. `, � , 1 " 1, �:, \\�' i.
IL
+� � � •fir J,�- .:,\� ;/1 L'•` .• �� � ,l''��t r � \�,� -,. �;f � ',, .
`y l �/.� � ter• �` \�1 ` �\ 11a I • `, + � 't ' / t'
\1 it ' �y�`�x� '�•` , 1,1,.
o.
L '�l' �" of ? Jt l� +.
A � Q�/•`7` ��ljtt !•, �;---.�\� jl + 1•.1'� /% ':
• l `, !�, ' �'` ] 1 � t,4t1t F +{ 11t �,'\ �"_-mil e� '--_ , i'� / •:• �/ �! i.:r J, .\
%�
4030
rp— 25A
\may \ sp n 1 '�-. •: < �, T
C o � •,, - - _.� , i `' � ' / mil i'��'�`.__'\ • � • �
t
lop—
Q �Q ntiorh Ch
1
W � , ,c ttA •,t� '� � � t EF
If
2800 ^2 29 i5h� :ft• �\ j ! 2985 r ) C
a H a tqlw,/
r :+ /• 2 2
GoW Course
• !�' 1 • 0
:.daPing Gap 2877 '\�• 1 ► ,t ` - - -
cc� T •. j +178' j 2998,,

®LBW
G O L F C L C B
let"' 51
JUL ", 1990
""°:ACEMENT
July 27, 1990
George T. Everett, PHD, Director
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: NPDE8,POrMit Application
No. NCO078158
01de Beau Golf Club
Al]agbany County
Dear Dr. Everett:
Box 32
Roaring Gap, NC 28668
9191363-3333
In our letter to you dated July 26, 1990, through an
oversight, we failed to include a copy of the February Sr 1989
Consent Judgment, a copy of the September 51 1989 Court Order, a
copy of the June 29, 1990 Court Order and a copy of the June 29,
1.990 Court Order.
I enclose a copy of each of these documents as well as a copy
of our letter to you dated July 26, 1990.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter..
Sincerely yours,
OLDE BA.AIJ, LT
Bill 5dtterfi ld
President

ouja 11—W
LOU
July 26, 1990
George T. Evorett, PHD, Director
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: 14PDES Permit Application
No. NC0078158
Olde Beau Golf Club
Allealtanv County
Dear Dr, Everett:
Box 32
Rom-ing GAp, h(' 29608
919.;3(;3-3333
In response to your letter of June 20, 1990 to our Engineer.,
Mr. Charles H. Davis, Jr., P. E., the following additional infor-
mation is submitted with reference to the above NPDES Permit
Application.
1. Olde Beau, Ltd. is a North Carolina oorporation that has
entered into a Joint ventur.o Agreement with Olds Beau Investment
Company, a North Carolina general partnership. Olde Beau, Ltd. has
and will transfer all of its interest- in and to the entire real
estate of the development to the Joint Venture.
2. Olde Beau, Ltd. has one director., Billy R. Satterfield,
who is Chairman of the Board and president of the corporatiol-i.
Olds Beau Investment Company has as its general partners, A.
William Packer, managing partner, Advance, North Carolina; Dr. Reed
Laskin, eye surgeon, Charlotte, North Carolina; and Curtis Kenning-
ton, Charlotte busineL;sman, Charlotte. North Carolina.
3. (a) Olde Beau, Ltd., P. o. Box 32, Roaring Gap, North
Carolina 28668, telephone: [phone]; contact person: Billy
R. Satterfield,
A Legend Is Born ...

i,27 /"?0 I I : I I $ 1 919 363 3335 OLDE BEAU-
,
(.?��iC: J�: L.ii i..Y ��•�:It:.i� l�L�...�•(: f :j. I t't 1 i" 1
�•Cil.'C:>> In�i, ��[c� U`,� , t.(:� E'jt�fl:�?l� : � %()4 j ri(':': -.. � � I :i � l':l�I1tdC!. ��F.r'�;t�l'► : :
w i�\r J'i�< ��(a4�������i•I �. i,l�..' L•Il �•.• j
r'? 1t.IIt-tr t::iLvcis: ha1.d a111
t.1. C)1.11e1 ''! �:1i �Il:`•� .`.' ,
. No LIL1l.�:..; : �; .l:I t (.)-• O;ri)' (RUC ;i 1.)e iu:i G:: :J�.1-�� *- : t• (1�_'. ty.
T ::.Ub)""'i tV.C'.;i 01' w 1 t.)id 'a,,F1': .
P3t�t'. npN� 1c:dtS�i' .
"► . '�'l;c f o11 ok�.i j•ICj �:lc:c:c�.;l� nt:_i F1re t.1,ached aF; a-
c i
of
( Li C'ons, e n t :ludcjnien L of the Super i or Court. of A .1 l egha n-V
CaLnty i 1-1 the1 Oa -Se., of C)J-dO Fic':axi, Ltd. V. Stato of Nor. tl-:
Carolina and the Department of nvironment, Health and
Natural dna t.hc:: of North Carolina e.t.. al.
v. 01.de Beau, i.,td. , $A GVS 1.46 and RA C.VS .1.49, dateci
Pel-Di: uary
( b) (.Upy of Order ::)f .ho Court in t:ho above- C1apt•ior) c;d Case
dated September, 5, 198cj;
(C) of Urdr. r of the J.rl tl1c., above--c.%%pt.son(:ci case
dated t7une 29, i r)90; and
ropy oi' OrdCt:.' of thc.! Cr(:)u!-t. in the above--c-apt:;nncd '-:asoz
dated June 29, 3.9001
TI-ie app iicant :•tll,�li11 l.r, i.I a t. t:1G Juc�c ycic�Ilt 111d t:ilc: C7i C C�l"t4 GC1'Itrii."
'111. of thc! ::actual. inEormwtion requested.
in additiurl, the cApplivant int-ends to transfer all owne-i-ship
aNnd opc-reltion re'sprns thi lity of thn sowage treatment, tact l i ty
applied for herein to a ut i 1 i.ty company, and shal.). transfer the
said N1'DES permit to the said utility upon approval of the Depart-
r^ent . The applicant has never hzid any intention of operating
Sf.wage, treat'zuent plant, trie permit. for which is applied for her( -:in.
sincerely yours,
GhDL BEAU, LTD.

,7u1y 26, J-99
rage T111 ee
NORTH CAROL INA
ALL)-,'CHANY COUNTY
PH,ll, ': rf..r.• (-)(.
,}
' �.... ---�
R. Sattcrf c�lcl
f'resicie»t_
OY,f)F, BEAU 1NVESTMEM-1- COMPANY
A. William Packo
Monag i ng Partner
A F F I D A V I T
f
131 1 1Y H. Satterfield and A. w i 1 Liam Packerbeing f i r:,t
duly swox, t� I hereby depose and say:
That all or the information in this let'.tc I• i
true and correct to tlj(:: be&t of t:hcj r knowledge and belief.
This t11e �) . clay of i71ily, 1 '.90 i
R T LT►Y R . i3AT ERFI LLD '
A. W11X AM PACKER
SWOW4 TO AND SUBSCRIBEV
to bofere me this the
day of July, 1990, �-
tary 4ub 9 c .-
My Commission Expires
.r
`� < l C , '7

10111911
JUL 27 1990
'101MRIA VMS JECi1Gi1
01A�BF
4j
G o r r C L C U
Box 32
Roaring Gap, NC 28668
919/363-3333
July 26 1990
�
0
•Y� 1 �f^ l7. 9r
George T. Everett, PHD, Director
Division of Environmental Management �T}CJr��/1i•
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: NPDES'Permit Application
No. NC0078158
Olde Beau Golf Club
Alleghany County
Dear Dr. Everett:
In response to your letter of June 20, 1990 to our Engineer,
Mr. Charles H. Davis, Jr., p. E., the following additional infor-
mation is submitted with reference to the above NPDES Permit
Application.
1. Olde Beau, Ltd. is a North Carolina corporation that has
entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Olde Beau Investment
Company, a North Carolina general partnership. Olde Beau, Ltd. has
and will transfer all of its interest in and to the entire real
estate of the development to the Joint Venture.
2. olde Beau, Ltd. has one director, Billy R. Satterfield,
who is Chairman of the Board and president of the corporation.
Olde Beau Investment Company has as its general partners, A.
William Packer, managing partner, Advance, North Carolina; Dr. Reed
Gaskin, eye surgeon, Charlotte, North Carolina; and Curtis Kenning-
ton, Charlotte businessman, Charlotte, North Carolina.
3. (a) Olde Beau, Ltd., P. 0. Box 32, Roaring Gap, North
Carolina 28668, telephone: [phone]; contact person: Billy
R. Satterfield.
nLegeno.isruin...

o
1 11
George T . Everett, :31.1D, 11) rec zor
July 26, 1990
Page Two
Olde Beau .:nvestmenz Company, P. 0. Box 1263, Gastonia, Norte.
Carolina, 28052, telephone: [phone]; contact person: A.
William Packer, Managing Partner.
(b) Neither entity has ever held any air, water,
hazardous waste or other such permits.
(c) No appl icaLion for any such permits were ever denied
or submitted or withdrawn.
4. Not applicable.
5. The following documents are attached as a full explana-
tion of the requirements of paragraph 5:
(a) Consent Judgment of the Superior Court of Alleghany
County in the case of Olde Beau, Ltd. v. State: of North
Carolina and the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources and the State of North Carolina et. a l .
v. Olde Beau, Ltd., 88 CVS 148 and 88 CVS 149, dated
February 8, 1989;
(b) Copy of Order of the Court in the above -captioned case
dated September 5, 1989;
(c) Copy of Order of the Court in the above -captioned case
dated June 29, 1990; and
(d) Copy of Order of the Court in the above --captioned case
- dated June 29, 1990.
The applicant submits that the Judgment and the Orders contain
all of the essential factual information requested.
In addition, the applicant intends to transfer all ownership
and operation responsibility of the sewage treatment facility
applied for herein to a utility company, and shall transfer the
said NPDES permit to the said utility upon approval of the Depart-
ment. The applicant has never had any intention of operating a
sewage treatment plant, the permit for which is applied for herein.
Sincerely yours,
OLDS BEAU, LTD.

George T. Everett,
July 26, 1990
Page Three
NORTH CAROLINA
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
PHD, Director
n
By: f
Billy R. Satterfield
President
OLDE BEAU INVESTMENT COMPANY
By:
A. il],,kam Packer
Marra ng Partner
A F F I D A 'V I T
Billy R. Satterfield and A. William Packer, being first
duly sworn, hereby depose and say:
That all of the information provided in this letter is
true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.
This the a day of July, 1990.
BILLY R. PSATTERFIMD
K_.'WIT.RTAM PACKER
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
to before me this the �T
day of July, 1990.
tary Pub is
My Commission Expires:
Vtb - 2 \ ,C�C� L7

CHARLES H. DAVIS, JR.
ENGINEERING AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
STAFF TO THE ATLANTIC PLAN CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT FACILITY LESSORS.
BOX 169, HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA 28603
z04-32z-262i
1
July 12, 1990
G,r�cs�:"Everett, Ph. J. , Director
State ---of -North Carolina
DEHNR
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: NPDES Permit Application
NC 0078158
Olde Beau Golf Club
Alleghany County
Dear Mr. Everett;
CHARLES H. DAVIS, JR., P.E.
PRESIDENT
J U L.
In response to your letter of June 20, 1990 on the referenced
project, the following comments are submitted for review:
1. Attached is a copy of the site evaluation report from
Appalachian District Health Department and the Soil
Report from a registered Soil Scientist. Both reports
state that the proposed ground -absorption system is not
feasible at the study area of. the project. The ADHD
report also states the stream discharge system would be
"the only logical and environmentally sound method of
waste disposal" for the project. - We are presently
testing more areas for sub -surface disposal, but do not
feel a large area or several small areas will be found to
be suitable.
The cost effectiveness of the ground absorption system
will be reduced as a result of marginal and limited areas
in which to install the system. This will come about as
a result of field configuration and increased pumping, as
well as a probable need for additional equipment and
construction materials, the likely need for a T&G Block
Panel System for reduced field area, and more
sophisticated grease removal equipment for the kitchen.
The initial cost estimates were calculated before the
soil report indicated poor soil conditions. The revised
dolt estimate is as follows:
20,000 gallon liquid volume septic tank $ 30, 000. 00
20, 000 .g•allon pump tank 30, 000. 00
Effluent pumps 5,000.00
11,100 L. Ft. - trench w/T&G Panel • @$10. 00/Ft. ill, 000. 00
(0.6 GPD/S8 Ft application -rate)
Misc. Flow Boxes 5,000.00
Grease Removal Equipment G..000.00
Engineering 12, 000. 00
------------
TOTAL $199, 000. 00

•
The "further evidence" described in your letter
pertaining to the Alleghany County permit issued for the
Club House is considered temporary by the ADHD, and is so
stipulated in the permit, until the DEM issues a NPDES
Permit. A copy of the permit is attached.
2. The questionnaire concerning previous environmental
compliance will be submitted to your office by Mr.
Satterfield. I was not the site engineer and was not
involved in the erosion control plan.
In conclusion, I still feel that the wastewater discharge into the
stream is the most environmentally safe -alternative and even with,
operating costs would be the most cost effective. There is one
overriding consideration in this whole matter; the inconsistent
soil conditions make the failure of extensive (large) septic fields
a reasonable certainty (this applies to repair areas also), then
what do we do?
If you have any questions or further information is needed, please
call me at ( 704 ) 327--2621.
`,��{IlttOft!!!Ot •
Sin`.c'�R
ES810' % '4 .
r;es. ,avif;, :Jr. , P. E.
r
Nd 2503 E803
fo
'�,p� �elNE�;� •

APPALACHIAN DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ALLEGHANY - ASHE - WATAUGA COUNTIES
Please Reply To R t. 5. B o x 199
Boone, NC 28607
HEADQUARTERS OTHER OFFICES
Boone, N.C. Jcfferson, N.C.
Sparta, N.C.
Carl D. Tuttle, M.P.H.
• Director Gene Wilson
Chairman Board of Health
May 23, 1990
Ms. Margaret Foster
Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
8025 North Point'Boulevard, Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
RE:. Olde Beau Golf Club
Alleghany County
Dear Margaret:
The -enclosed permit -was issued by our office on
November 20, 1989: As you can see, this is a
restricted permit with many conditions.
• I will keep you advised of further developments.
Sincerely,
arl D. settle, M.P.H.
Director
mj
Enclosure

APPALACHIA,N DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ALLEGHANY-ASHE- WATAUGA' COUNTIES
r
Plo"e Reply To _,a n n r, _n __R
HEADQUARTERS
Boone, N.C.
Carl D. Tuttle. M.P.H. November 21, 1989
,pireCor
CONDITIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PERMIT #03662
For Developer/Owner
.ter a „x Lo W
JUL
OTHER OFFICES
Jefferson, N.C.
Sparta, N.C.
James A. Grecne
Chairman Board offfca!!h .
. 1
1. Estimated 'flow rate is•500 gallons per day.:
2. Persons served; 8 employees at 25 gallons per person per day. Approxi-
mately `
�g P p P Y P.P .
mately 100 patrons (golfers) at 3,gallons per person per day.
3. No food service•operations connected to this system. }
4. Only bathroom facilities - do not connect showers at this time.
5. Recommend using "Low Flush" bathroom fixtures.
6. Occupancy Permit from building inspector cannot be granted for any
additional part of clubhouse until Department of Environmental
Management's permit for a discharge system is received..
7. Violations of the conditions of this permit.will result in revocation
of permit and legal action.
For Building"Inspector
1. Improvement permit-#.03662 is for Olde Beau Clubhouse.
2. ,Septic tank system is designed to serve only the lower level of
clubhouse.
3. No occupancy permit can be granted for upper..,levels.of.clubhouse
until Department of Environmental Management permit is received
and•NPDSS system is installed.
4. No food service operarions•are to be conducted in lower level util-
izing this sewage disposal system.
5. Violations of the conditions of this permit will result in legal
action.

�. � : •�' i is '? • �•t " � •�; � .�
FEE
OWNER . �►�i/
LOCATION
APPALACHIAN DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT psiIr �Q 0U'16fi2
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION
Boone 264-4995 Jefferson 246-9449 Sparta 372-8813
IMPROVEMENTS PERMIT - CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
JUL :i
0 COUNTY W. "
PHONE
SUBDIVISION NA1� �/f c" ft ' LOT NO. SECTION NO.
THIS SYSTEAV.DESIGNED FOR:
RESIDENTIAL N0. Olp UNITS
NO. OF BEDROOMS
BUSINESS
OTHER
APPROVED SM PLAN
ESTIMATED DAILY FLOW RATE JOO GAL.IDAY
SPECIAL FIXTURES
BASEMENT: NO (} YES (L), Fixtures in Basement (r.)
.
REPAIR AREA REQUIRED: YES NO ( }
WATER SUPPLY: • WELL (c.-}' SPRING
PRIVATE (} PUBLIC
FWWA ( } FHA (} VA.
TYPE SYSTEM INSTALLED ,/ I
'
}'31
1 1
Site C1 assifica tion: (} Suitable
�L
i�.:: _� - •--- :. ��
_ .!_• - ...
1
Provisionally Sui table {L j�
.,\ ;
3p.il GroupTextureDepth
Sl ope Restrictive Horizons (In.)
"-�
Soil Drainage/aroundw ter �_
• •�,
t►' ' 'W " '
I~
Soil. Per meability• 5
V
Ipplication Rate Sept c Ta7X Sze i99OGal.
grainfield Size
Note: System must be .installed as shown
{sq. t.}, Tr nc��
except by prior approval.
Stone Der Ch c f
.
�therr
Installed by:
/S,PECIAL .INST
n
e
I certify that I have reviewed and agree to the provisions of this permit .and any changes will
be made only with prior Health Department approval. Note: Grading or excavating could change
site suitability.
I certify that- the information on this application is true and correct and'will not be altered
without prior F3-ea th Department. Approval.
Owner/Agent Date
Improvements Permit by Date
NCJLC: Improvements Permit valid for 36 months from date of issde.
r �
if Cormolotion b_,,

CHAR.IES H. DAV15.jFts v
C"- Im' I.T. c
ON", AND C(M'SULTANTS
5TAFF'1*0 THE ATLA1'T1'1\C—' Pj.Afq COR-POPAI'10h, GOVER."It,11-N-i FAC111 Y LESS01j,
CHARDS H.Di:v::..
July 33, 1990
Edward L. Powell, Attorney
Finger,
Parker, Avram
P.O. Box 11633
Winston-Salem, NC 2711G
FAX TO: 919-759-0965 JUL 3 11990
A T T E N,%'r C.) N ; Edward L. Po . well PERMITS FINGINEFRINP
FROM; J. Patrick Warren
Atlantic Plan Corp.
P. 0, Box IG91
Hickory, NC 28603
FAX: [phone]
REFERENCE: 01dO Beau GOlf Club NPDES
COVER SHEET PLUS SHEETS

'CLJARLE� l i. DAvi-% JR
FN&NU-.R1NC'; AND n
STArr• To Tifl: AI'tAITFI .: PI AN CORPoPA, l-'11`�.
Zo4•�2t-zG2+ J Gt�hti.F511 �r:'!i`,. ,;u , i (:.
PRF.�Ii)l:ti'
,duly 12, 1990
George verett, Ph. D. , Director -
of North C
DEHNR arolina
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611--7687
Re: NPDES Permit Application
NC 0078158
Old& Beau Golf Club
Alleghany County
Dear Mr. Everett;
In response to your letter of June 20, 1990 on the referenced
project, the following comments are submitted for review:
i. Attached is a Copy of the site evaluation report from
Appalachian District Health Department and the Soil
Report from a registered Soil. Scientist. Both reports
state that the proposed ground absorption system is not
feasible at the study area of the project. The ADHD
report also states the stream discharge system would be
"the only logical, and environmentally sound method of
waste disposal" for the project. - We are presently
testing more areas for sub -surface disposal, but do not
feel a large area or several small areas will be found to
be suitable.
The coat effectiveness of the ground absorption system
will be reduced as a result of marginal and limited areas
in which to install the system. This will come about as
a result of field configuration and increased pumping, as
well as a probable need for additional equipment and
construction materials, the likely need for a T&G Block
Panel System for reduced field area, and more
sophisticated grease removal equipment, for the kitchQn.
The initial Cost eatimateu were Calculated before the
soil report indicated poor soil conditions. The revived
coat estimate is as follows; -
20, 000 gallon liquid volume septic Lank $ 30, 000. 00
20, 000 gallon pump tank 30, 000. 00
Effluent -pumps. 5r000.00
11, 100 L. Ft. trench w/T&G Panel @: 10. 00/Ft. 1111, 000. 00
(0. C GPD/S9 Ft- application rate)
Misc. Flow Boxes 5,000.00
Grea3e Removal Equipment 60,000.00
Engineering 12# 000. 00
- Y Y ---------
TOTAL $199, 000. f00

The "further evidence" described in your letter
pertaining to the Alleghany County permit issued f or the
Club House is considered temporary by the ADHD, and is so
stipulated in the permit, until the DrM issues a MPDES
Permit. A copy of the permit is attached.
2. The questionnaire concerning previous environmental
Compliance will be submitted to your office by Mr.
Satterfield. I was not the site engineer and was not
involved in the erosion control plan.
In conclusion, I still feed, that the wastewater d� scharge into the
stream is the most environmentally safe alternative and even with
operating costs would be the most cost effective. There is one
overriding consideration in this whole matter; the inconsistent
soil conditions make the failure of extensive (large) septic fields
a reasonable certainty (this applies to repair areas also), then
what do we do?
If you have any questions or further information is needed, p1Q$ee
call me at ( 704 ) 327 - 262.E .
��{Illflltl����
Sino
•
Char tes Eavi,
Nd 2 3 9906 r
"s: a •••
•,'pip '•..01Nx..• �.,
r

APPALA►(HIAN DLSMCr HE 4LLTH DEPART ENr
ALLEGHANY - ASHE - WATAUGA COUNTIES
Please RepIr To R t. 5. B O X 199
Boone, NC 28607
HFADQUARTERS
Boaae, N.C.
Carl D. TUI-de. M. P. H.
Director
May 23, 1990
Ms. Margaret Foster
D t f E
OTHER OFFICES
ldfcrwn, H.C.
Sparta. N.C.
Gorse W: wa
( ha&man Board of Health
ep ar went o nvironment, Health
and Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard, Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
RE: 01de Beau Golf Club
Alleghany County
Dear Margaret:
The enclosed permit was issued by our office on
November 20, 1989. As you can see, this is a
restricted permit with many conditions.
i will keep you advised of further developments.
Sincerely,
Y
larl D. Tuttle, M.P.H.
Director
mj
Enclosure

APPALACHIAN DISTRICT IIEM,111I UEP"TME' "
ALI.EGIIAN Y- ASHE - WATAUOA CYOUNTIES
Ploaee Reply To _.SpAX!'a,__X1...C_. ._
HEADQUARTERS OTHER OFFIUS
Boone, N.C. Jefforem. N.C.
Cali D. Nttlo. M.P.II. spans, N.C.
Diredor November 21, 1989
lames A. Orccnc
Chairman Dtmrd of Ilealth
CONI)I'1 ws FOR 11QRUVE.MGNT PERMU #03662
For Developer/Owner
I. Estimated flow rate is 500 gallons Per day.
2. Persons served; 8 employees at 25 gallons per. person per day. Approxi-
mately 100 patrons (golfers) at: 3 gallons per person per day.
3. No food service•operations connected to thi.ra system.
4. Only bathroom facilities - do not connect showers at this time,
5. Recommend using "Low Flush" bathroom fixtures.
6• Occupancy Permit from building, inspector cannot be granted for any
additional. part of clubhouse vritil Department of Envirojiment al.
Management's permit for a discharge. system is received.
7. Violations of the conditions of this permit: will. result in revocation
of permit; and legal action.
For Building ltispec LoI'
1. Improvement: percrit # 03662 is for Ol,de Beau Clubhouse.
2. Septic tank system is designed to serve only the lower Level of
clubhouse.
3. No occupancy permit can be granted for upper levels of clubhouse
until. -Department of Environmental Management: permit is received.
and NPDSS system is installed.
4. No food service operations are to be conducted in lower level util-
izing this sewage disposal system.
5. Violat:ionza or the conditions of thin permit will result in legal
Action.

V �
O
APPALACHIAN DI8TRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Pajtxzr �'� Q�•��2
ENVIRONMENTAL. HEALTH SECTION
Boone 264-4995 Jefferson 248-9449 Sparta 372-'8813
IMPROVEMENTS PERMIT - CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
f
)CATION
PRONN
)BDIVISION NAMR :' IlD!' NO, SBCTYON NO.
415 SYST&N DSSIGNSD FOR r
:SIDENTIA b
), OF BEDRdOMe
)S I'NESS ,,,/'
CHER
NO. 0? UNXTS
STIMATED PAILY FLOW IZA PS p GAL.IMY
PECIAL FXXTURES
4SENENT j NO ( ) YES (4). ?fixtures in Basement (r.;
SPAIFt ARSE! i«%OVIf2EF�i ifiV (�/r NV ( )
ATSR SUPPLY: WELL (q** SPRING ( 1
PRZVATS ( ) PUBLIC 6,4
TWA ( ) FNA ( ) VA ( )
YPS SYSTEM .fNSTALXD,.�.1�f':..ti ....11!y
i to Classitica Lion: () Suitable
Provisionally suitable k;k""
�i 1 Group Text ure oeptli C�
lope (%) Horizons (In.)
2i l Dra Ina gefGro and w tor-
2il Permeability.
PPli-ca tlon Rate Sept7_cT&jWSze 100Gal.
raibfleld Size (ago t. ), Bed
Stone be th ,Sc
them - - - --- -
)Hmi ff S)PECrAL ±NSTPCTroN15«
APPROV8D SXTX PLAN
l
rCn. h! •r '7 �r 1
14, tit
L • h
Rote r System must be J'Am tall ed as shown
except by prior Approval.
I certify that I have reviewed and agree to the proviaione of this permit and any changes will
be made only with prior Ilealth Department approval. Notes Grading or excavating could change site suitability. '
I corti fy that the information on this application is true and correct And will not be altered
without prior I .tlz Department- Approval.
Owne3r/Agent\ Date
Impr0V*eir,entU pe:mi.!. by Dato_
Note: Improvements Permit valid for. 36 months fro- date of issde— w

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Ex Rel LACY H. THORNBURG,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, and
WILLLIAM W. COBEY, JR.,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND
NATURAL RESOURCES,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
OLDE BEAU, LIMITED, INC.,
Defendant
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO. 88 CVS 149
ORDER
This matter coming on to be heard and being heard pursuant to
a Motion in the Cause filed by defendant herein on October 12,
1989, and pursuant to a Special Commission of the undersigned for
the;trial of Civil cases in the county of Guilford, High Point
Division, to begin on March 5, 1990, and to continue until the
business is disposed of;
And the Court, based on the Court's consideration of the
evidence presented by the parties, the Court's examination of the
entire record herein, and the Court's consideration of the
applicable law and the arguments of counsel, finds the facts as
follows:
1. That this action was initiated by Complaint filed on
December 12, 1988, which was thereafter served on defendant, which
filed Answer on January 11, 1989;
2. That in paragraph 1 of said Complaint, it is alleged that
"the plaintiff is the sovereign- state of North Carolina," and, that
defendant in its Answer admitted that allegation;
3. That the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources [hereinafter DEHNR], formerly
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, is also
a named party plaintiff herein, and that in plaintiffs' Complaint,
in paragraph 1, it is alleged that DEHNR is an agency of the State
established pursuant to N.C.G.S. §14B-274 et. sea., which
allegation defendant admitted in its Answer [this Court notes the
correct statutory -citation is actually N.C.G.S. §143B-275 et.
i s'?�i�;
5UL 3C 1990

4. That the plaintiffs' Complaint alleged certain instances
of off -site erosion and sedimentation from defendant's property,
as well as damage and potential damages to water courses of the
State, including the Mitchell River and the Laurel Branch;
5. That plaintiffs' Complaint alleged, in paragraph 16, that
the Mitchell River had been classified by the Environmental
Management Commission of the NRCD [DEHNR] as an Outstanding Water
Resource" pursuant to N.C.G.S. §143-214.1 and 15 NCAC 2H .0216;
6. That plaintiffs, Complaint sought injunctive relief as
well as punitive and remedial orders of the Court;
7. That on February 8, 1989, the parties herein entered into
a Consent Judgment (hereinafter Judgment], which is incorporated
herein by reference without being fully set out, and which
provided, inter aalia, that it was "the intent of the parties" that
the Judgment "completely resolves all past differences," that the
plaintiffs' actions against the defendant for "violations of laws,
rules and regulations by the defendant "for actions taken place
prior to the date" of the Judgment were withdrawn and dismissed
and, that "no civil penalties will be assessed under the terms of
any statute, rule, or regulation for any alleged violations
occurring on or before the date" of the Judgment; and which further
provided as follows:
(11) That "it is further agreed and so ordered that the
State through the office of the Attorney General shall request
all other State agencies having any complaint concerning this
Judgment or any future actions of any of the parties to
address their alleged grievances first to counsel for the
State, and that such matters shall be attempted to be resolved
in the manner provided in paragraph 12";
(12) That "it is agreed and so ordered that it is the
intent of the parties that this Consent Judgment completely
resolves all past differences among the parties; it is the
further intent of all parties to cooperate fully in the future
to insure complete cooperation with each other; However, that
in the event that future disagreements should arise over any
alleged violation of this agreement, that it is agreed that
counsel fob- the alleged aggrieved party shall immediately
contact the counsel for the opposing party and attempts be
made to resolve by negotiation any disagreement; that in the
event the counsels are unable to resolve any such disagreement
either party shall retain the right to file a Motion in the
Cause in these cases for any alleged future violations of this
agreement or the applicable law";
8. That on August 8, 1989, plaintiffs, pursuant to paragraph
12 of the Judgment, filed with the Court a "Motion in the Cause,"
alleging violations by defendant of certain provisions of the
-2-

Judgment and of State environmental law, including inter alia:
a. The failure to prevent off -site sedimentation
(paragraph 5 of plaintiffs' Motion) ;
b. The failure properly to maintain sediment basins
with the result that "water -carrying sediment was passing through
the ineffective sediment control measures and was carried directly
into water courses carrying the sediment off -site" (paragraph 6(a)
of plaintiffs' Motion) ;
C. That "a significant amount of sedimentation had been
carried to Sam's Branch, and other tributaries on the project
flowing to the Mitchell River, and that an inspection of Sam's
Branch and the Mitchell River noted a significant amount of
sediment in the stream bed as well as sediment being carried
downstream" (paragraph 6(d) of plaintiffs' Motion);
d. That "an inspection of the site on July 10, 1989
revealed that the site was still in violation" of the Act and the
Judgment (paragraph 9 of plaintiffs' Motion);
e. That inspections of July 21 and July 25, 1989, noted
"failure" to make correction to violations of the Judgment and the
Act previously noted, and that "sedimentation is leaving the site
and entering Sam's Branch, a tributary of the Mitchell River, and
Laurel Branch; and, further, that "the Mitchell River is classified
as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) by the NCRD [ DEHNR ] and both
the Mitchell River and Laurel Branch are classified as trout
streams" and that "both the Mitchell River and Laurel Branch have
suffered extensive damage due to the sedimentation" (paragraph 12
of plaintiffs' Motion) ;
f. That an inspection of July 24, 1989, of defendant's
site "by authorized personnel of the Water Quality Section of the
NRCD [DEHNR] "revealed that vast amounts of sediment were being
transported from the drainage pipe of a dam located on the subject
property into the Laurel Branch: that NRDC [DEHNR] "learned that
this` sedimentation was caused by the opening of a drainage valve
which -drained water and sediment which had been trapped by the dam
through the drain and . directly _ into the Laurel Branch," and that
the NRCD [DEHNR]" estimaEes that thousands of cubic feet of
sediment entered the stream in a two day period" (paragraph 13 of
plaintiffs' Motion) ; and, finally,
g. That "Olde Beau's failure to take the necessary
erosion control measures required by NRCD "[DEHNR] and "its failure
to prevent new violations" have "caused tremendous damage to both
the Mitchell River and Laurel Branch," that "this damage may be so
severe as to have long term effects on the flora and fauna
supported by the streams," and that "the sedimentation of the
streams has clearly diminished the recreational and aesthetic value
-3-

of both streams," and that "such diminution may be long-term in
effect" (paragraph 14 of plaintiffs' Motion);
9. That in the aforesaid Motion, plaintiffs sought that
defendant be held in contempt and fined, and that the Court order
remedial measures as well as award damages;
10. That plaintiffs' Motion came on to be heard pursuant to
a Special Commission of the undersigned for the trial of civil
cases in the county of Yadkin to begin on August 21, 1989, and to
continue until the business is disposed of;
11. That at said hearing, plaintiffs introduced evidence in
support of their contentions, including, but not limited to,
testimony by Mr. Abner Braddy of the Water Quality Section of the
Division of Environmental Management [hereinafter DEM] of DEHNR
regarding, inter alia, water turbidity samples taken from the
Laurel Branch on July 24, 1989, and from Mr. Dave Lenant of the DEM
regarding studies conducted in August, 1988, and August, 1989, by
the Water Quality Section of DEM regarding the impact of
sedimentation on the biological integrity of the Mitchell River
and Laurel Branch, a copy of said study being received into
evidence at the hearing over objection of defendant; that, in
addition, evidence was presented of a study by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission in August, 1988, and August, 1989,
regarding fish count in the trout population of the Laurel Branch
and Mitchell River, a copy of which study was also received into
evidence at said hearing;
12. That on September 5, 1989, this court entered an Order
[hereinafter Order] based upon the evidence received at the
aforesaid hearing on plaintiffs' Motion, which Order is
incorporated herein by reference without being fully set out and
which included, inter alia, the following Findings of Fact:
a. That on at least seventeen occasions during the
period from March 10, 1989, to August 14, 1989, representatives of
DEHNR visited the site of defendant's development for purposes of
making inspections to determine the -compliance of defendant with
the Judgment, the 'Act, and applicable Administrative 'Rules,
(paragraph 15);
b. That Mr. Douglas Miller [Regional Supervisor of
DEHNR], in late December, 1988, and in late March, 1989, walked
the course of the Mitchell River from its headwaters to past the
point of the Mitchell River's confluence with its tributary, Sam 's
Branch (paragraph 18);
C. That Mr. Miller testified that he observed, both in
late December, 1988, and in late March, 1989, silt -type sediment
in the Mitchell River at a point past its juncture with Sam's
Branch, that Sam's Branch originates on.the site of defendant's
-4 -

development, and that there is no other source of sediment into
Sam'..s Branch except from the property of the defendant (paragraph
19);
d. That Mr. Miller testified that he could not express
an opinion as to whether the amount of sediment he observed in the
Mitchell River in late March, 1989, was in any way different from
what he had observed in late December, 1988 (paragraph 20);
e. That Mr. Ward (David Ward, Assistant Regional
Engineer of DEHNR) on June 27, 19891 inspected the area of the
Mitchell River located on private propertynear defendant's site,
and that, in the course of that inspection, he also inspected
defendant's site (paragraph 23);
f. That Mr. ward testified that he observed silt -like
sedimentation in the Mitchell River on June 27, 1989, and on June
30, 1989, at a point of said river past its confluence with Sam's
Branch, which sedimentation, in his opinion, was caused by
accelerated erosion as opposed to natural erosion, and that, in
his:bpinion, sediment he observed being retained in sedimentation
control measures on the site of defendant's development was of the
same type that he observed at the point in question in the Mitchell
River, but that Mr. Ward gave no opinion in his testimony as to
when said sediment he observed in the Mitchell River had been
deposited therein (paragraph 25);
g. That Mr. Ward prepared and furnished to defendant
on June 30, 1989, a Sedimentation Inspection Report reflecting
(his] inspection of defendant's property and the Mitchell River
site, which report stated that the 'river is still turbid from
rains on June 24-25, 1989,' and contained no other statements
regarding the Mitchell River (paragraph 27);
h. That Mr. Miller, in his testimony, acknowledged that
neither the Sedimentation Inspection Report of June 30, 1989 nor
any other Sedimentation Inspection Report prepared by agents of
DEHNR contained any indication of off -site sedimentation from
defendant's property into the Mitchell River (paragraph 29);
r
That no credible evidence was introduced herein,
whether in the form of simple comparative measurements, soil core
sample comparisons, or otherwise, of any off -site sedimentation
into the Mitchell River from the defendant's property after
February 6, 1989 (paragraph 30);
j. That the plaintiffs, and in particular DEHNR have
presented no credible explanation or justification for the failures
set out in paragraphs 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 above, and
that such failures are both inexplicable and inexcusable (paragraph
58) ;
-5-

k. That Mr. Dave Lenat, an Environmental Biologist
employed by the Division of Environmental Management..., testified
that, in his opinion, there is no faster way of restoring streams
exposed to sediment pollution than the natural process of the
stream's flushing out of the sediment, and that, if the Mitchell
River is not further exposed to additional sedimentation from
accelerated erosion, any decrease in the abundance and taxa
richness of invertebrate life in the River which he found from
comparative studies in August/September, 1988, and August, 1989,
could be remedied and the River recover in approximately one year,
and that the decrease in trout population indicated in studies done
by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in August,
1988; and August, 1989, could be recovered in up to five years
(paragraph 32);
1. That off -site sedimentation from the defendant's
development site into the Laurel Branch occurred on March 10, March
29, May 9, May 31, June 15, July 21, July 25, and August 14,
1989 ... (paragraph 44);
M. That defendant failed, on or about July 25, 1989,
to take such reasonable measures, including, but not limited to
removal of the drainage valve wheel or placing a chain lock on the
wheel, as would have prevented unauthorized opening of the drainage
valve [ of a dam located on defendant's site in an area adjacent to
the Laurel Branch] (paragraphs 43 and 45);
n. That the Laurel Branch, a tributary of the Little
River, is classified by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission as a designated Public Mountain Trout Water, a stocked
trout stream, and is a valuable public resource (paragraph 49);
o. That, according to -the testimony of Mr. Dave Lenat,
the Laurel Branch is, at this time, experiencing 'severe stress'
as a result of sediment pollution, that his studies of the Laurel
Branch in August/September, 1988, and August, 1989, indicated a
significant decrease in the abundance and taxa richness of
invertebrate life in the Branch, that studies done by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in August, 1988, and August,
1989, - indicated a 100% decrease in the wild trout population on the
Branch, meaning total elimination of that species... (paragraph
50) ;
P. That substantial off -site sedimentation from the
defendant's development site into the Laurel Branch has occurred
since February 6, 1989, and that said sedimentation has had a
significant effect on the abundance and taxa richness of
invertebrate life in the Branch as well as on the wild trout
Population, and that the Laurel Branch has been damaged as a result
of said sedimentation (paragraph 51);
q. That the provisions of the Judgment for negotiation

and subsequent Motion in the Cause as set out in paragraph 12 of
the Judgment should not be construed as a bar to the plaintiffs
seeking remedies under N.C.G.S. S113A-64(a) or NCAC 15(4)(C), but
that the negotiations contemplated and provided for in said
Judgment should be concluded prior to the plaintiffs seeking such
remedy; and further, that, to facilitate such negotiations, copies
of all Sedimentation Inspection Reports, Notices of Violation, and
othet such documents should be mailed by agents of plaintiffs to
counsel for defendant contemporaneously with the delivery to or
service upon defendant of such document (paragraph 52);
13. That the Order assessed certain monetary penalties
against defendant,* directed full compliance with the orders of the
Court herein as well as the applicable law and administrative
rules, and further directed defendant to submit to the Court a plan
"to correct damage caused by off -site sedimentation in areas of the
Laurel Branch adjacent to the defendant's development site," which
plan was ordered to "be implemented by defendant at its own costs";
14. That the Order further directed "that the provisions of
the Judgment as set out in paragraph 12 shall not be construed as
a bar to the plaintiffs seeking remedies under N.C.G.S. S113A-64 (a)
or NCAC 15 (4) (C) , but that the negotiations referred to in said
Judgment shall be concluded prior to the plaintiffs seeking such
remedy," and further, "that agents of plaintiffs shall mail to
counsel for defendant copies of all Sedimentation Inspection
Reports, Notices of Violation, and other such documents
contemporaneously with the delivery to or service upon defendant
of such document";
15. That N.C.G.S. S143B-279.2 provides that included among
the duties of DEHNR is "to provide for the protection of the
environment," and "to provide for the management of the State's
natural resources";
16. That N.C.G.S. §143B-282 provides for the creation of "the
Environmental Management Commission [hereinafter EMC] of the
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources" [DEHNR],
and N.C.G.S. §Envi282(4) provides that all rules and regulation
adopted by -the commission shall be enforced" by DEHNR;
17. That N.C.G.S. S143B -279.3 (a) (15) , by amendment effective
July..1? 1989, provides that all functions, powers, duties, and
obligations" of the EMC are "transferred to and vested in DEHNR by
a 'Type I' transfer as defined in N.C.G.S. S143A-6" ;
18. That N.C.G.S. § 14 3A-6 (a) provides that when any agency
is transferred by a Type I transfer to a principal department, "all
its prescribed powers, duties, and functions, including but not
limited to rule making, regulation, licensing, and promulgation of
rules, rates, regulations, and standards, and the rendering of
findings, orders, and adjudications are transferred to the head of
-7-

the principal department into which the agency, or part thereof,
has been transferred",
19. That N.C.G.S. §143B-281.1, a part of Session Laws 1989,
c. 727, s 229 which included the amendment to N.C.G.S. §143B-
279.3(15) noted in paragraph 17 above, specifically provided that
"the Wildlife Resources Commission shall exercise all its
prescribed statutory powers independently of the Secretary of
Environment, Health,and Natural Resources and, other provisions
of this Chapter notwithstanding, shall be subject to the direction
and supervision of the Secretary only with respect to the
management functions of coordinating and reporting"; and further,
that neither said Session Laws, nor any other statute, effective
at the date of the hearing herein, provide such independence and
exclusion for the EMC;
20. That N.C.G.S. §143B-14(b) provides that "except as
otherwise provided in the Executive Organizational Act of 1973, in
G.S. 120-30.28 or in G.S. 150B-11(3), the powers, duties, and
functions of a commission (including but not limited to rule
making, regulation, licensing, and promulgation of rules, rates,
regulations, and standards, and the rendering of findings, orders,
and adjudications) shall not be subject to the approval, review,
or control of the head of the department or of the Governor";
21. That N.C.G.S. §143B-279.3(a)(15), set out in Paragraph
17. above, is a 1989 amendment to the Executive Organization Act
of 1973;
22. That the Water Quality Section of DEM of DEHNR is re-
sponsible for investigations into alleged violations of, and the
enforcement of the Water Pollution Control Act appearing at Article
21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes;
23. That NCAC 15A 21 .0001-.0011 provides "the procedures and
standards governing the assessment" of civil penalties by EMC for,
i- alia, "water violations as prescribed in G.S. 143-215.6(a)"
and "well construction violations as prescribed in G.S. 87-94";
24. That N.C.G.S. §87-94(b) provides that "no penalty shall
be assessed until the person alleged to be in violation has been:
1. Notified of the violation in accordance with the
Notice provision'set-out in G.S. 87-91(a)"...;
25. That N.C.G.S. §87-91(a) provides that whenever EMC "has
reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of this
Article, or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto," the
EMC or DEHNR "shall give written notice to the person or persons
alleged to be in violation. Such notice shall identify the
provision of this Article, or regulation issued hereunder, alleged

to be violated and the facts _alleged to constitute such violation
[emphasis added];
26. That neither the provisions of N.C.G.S. §143-215.1(a),
N.C.G.S. §143-215.3 (a) (1) (4) , nor N.C.G.S. §143-215.6, nor any rule
or regulation adopted thereunder, provides for any such notice of
alleged violation and, in particular, for notice of the facts
alleged to constitute such violation, nor contains any prohibition
against assessment of penalties without prior notification of facts
alleged to constitute such violation;
27. That on September 1, 1989, the DEM of DEHNR prepared a
"Notice of Violation and Recommendation of Enforcement Action"
(hereinafter "Notice"] over the signature of Mr. Larry Coble,
Regional Supervisor of DEM, which "Notice" was introduced at this
hearing as plaintiffs' exhibit 18 without objection, and is
incorporated herein by reference without being fully set out, and
which Notice was not served 'on defendant until on or about
September 21, 1989, when defendant received a copy thereof by
direct mail;
28. That plaintiffs' exhibit 17, introduced at this hearing
without objection, a DEM memorandum, indicates, by the language "a
notice was not prepared to advise Mr. Billy Satterfield of
impending enforcement but it can be after further legal review... , "
that the delay between the preparation of and service of
plaintiffs' exhibit 18 on defendant was intentional and purposeful
on the part of the DEM of DEHNR;
29. That no credible evidence was introduced at this hearing
to show that plaintiffs' exhibit 18 was mailed to counsel for
defendant, or that the negotiations provided for in paragraphs 11
and 12 of the Judgment and in paragraph 9 of the order were carried
on or attempted to be carried.on by the plaintiffs prior to the
actions set out herein in paragraphs 31 et. sect.;
30. That nothing in the contents of plaintiffs' exhibit 18
provides defendant with notice of any facts alleged to constitute
violations of the statutory section, administrative code section,
or reference to "other regulations and laws" cited therein; and
further, that the statutory section cited in said exhibit, N.C.G.S.
S143-215.1 comprises nearly seven pages in the statutes and deals
with, inter alia, permit requirements for sewer systems, waste
treatment facilities and disposal of sludge, as well as for making
"any outlet into the waters of the State"; and further, that the
administrative code section alleged to be violated, Title 15 NCAC
S.0200 is incomplete because it -contains no subchapter indication,
and that subchapters 2B (surface monitoring standards), 2C (well
construction standards) , 2D (air pollution control requirement) ,
2E (capacity use area water withdrawal) , 2F (construction grounds) ,
2H (procedures for permits: approvals), 2I (hearings), 2K (dam
safety), 2L (ground water classifications and standards), and 2M

(North Carolina water pollution control revolving fund), all
contain a Section .0200;
31. That on October 2, 1989, an "Enforcement Conference"
(hereinafter "Conference"] was conducted under the supervision of
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, [hereinafter Wilms], then the director of DEMO
32. That at said "Conference,," . Wilms in his capacity as
Director of M, signeda document entitled Findings and Decision
and Assessment
of (sic.],(hereinafter Assessment"] which document
was introduced at this hearing, without objection, as defendant's
exhibit 12, the contents of which are incorporated herein by
reference without being fully set out;
33. That upon receipt of the aforesaid "Assessment,"
defendant filed herein, on October 12, 1989, a Motion seeking that
plaintiffs be held in contempt, injunctive relief, sanctions and
attorneys fees, and such other relief as the Court deemed just and
proper, which Motion was scheduled. for hearing at the Special
Session of this Court referred to above;
34. That prior to this Court hearing any matters herein at
the aforesaid Special Session, the Court inquired of counsel for
plaintiffs and defendant if they consented and agreed "that this
Court has jurisdiction over all pending matters and agreed to waive
any further notice or order regarding jurisdiction and propriety
of this Court hearing all pending matters," and that counsel for
plaintiffs and the defendant each responded that they did so agree;
35. That neither defendant, nor any agent thereof, nor its
counsel, were notified of the "Conference" referred to in paragraph
31 above, were not afforded an opportunity to attend and thus did
not attend, and were not afforded an opportunity to be heard at
said "Conference" and thus were not heard;
36. That Wilms testified at this hearing, and the Court
specifically finds, as follows:
a. That Wilms first considered- the matters addressed
in the "Assessment" on October 2, 1989, when defendant's exhibit
12 was presented to him by staff counsel of the Office of Legal
Affairs of DEHNR.at the "Conference" held on said date;
b. That Wilms had no conversation with anyone regarding
treceiving is or possible contents of defendant's exhibit 12 prior
said exhibit at the ��Conference" on said date;
C. That Wilms did not see or review the Enforcement
Report referred to in plaintiffs' exhibit 18 and prepared by DEM,
nor any other supporting documentation, prior to his signing of,
or during his consideration of, defendant's exhibit 12 at the
"Conference" on October 2, 1989;
-10-

M
d. That Wilms made no changes or amendments in the
document presented to him and which he signed on October 2, 1989,
as the "Assessment";
e. That the only "evidence" or information Wilms
possessed in signing the "Assessment" was the information contained
therein;
f. That Wilms based his decision on whether or not to
assess any penalty against defendant and the amount thereof, if
any, solely on the contents of defendants' exhibit 12;
g. That Wilms recalled no comment at the "Conference"
being made by DEM Winston-Salem Regional Supervisor, Larry D.
Coble, DEM Water Quality Section Chief, Mr. Tetter, and DEM Deputy
Director, Charles Wakild, the only other persons present, in
addition to staff counsel, at the "Conference";
37. That Wilms testified at this hearing, and the Court
finds, that in the "Assessment," he considered the sediment
referred to therein to be "waste" as defined in N.C.G.S. §143-
213(18)(c), that is, "all other substances...which may be
discharged into or placed in such proximity to the water that
drainage therefrom may reach the water";
38. That the term "sediment" is not contained in the
protections and prohibitions of Article 21, Part I, of Chapter 143
of the North Carolina General Statutes, nor is the word "waste"
contained anywhere in the "Assessment";
39. That Wilms, in the "Assessment," makes conclusions of law
at paragraph II.C., that defendant violated N.C.G.S. §143-
215.1(a)(1) "in the manner and to the extent set out in paragraphs
I.L.' and M above"; at paragraph II.E., that defendant "violated
N.CG.S. §143-215.1(a)(6) in the manner and to the extent set out
in paragraphs I.L., M. , and Net above" • at paragraph hat
defendant violated 15 NCAC 2B . 0211(b) "in he manner Iand totheextent set out in paragraphs I.G., M., O., P., Q., R., and T.
above"; and at paragraph II.J.,.'that defendant violated 15 NCAC 2B
.0216 and 15 NCAC 2B ' . 0211(f ) "in the manner and to the extent set
out in paragraphs I.G., P., and Q. above";
40. That paragraph I.G. of the "Assessment," as well as
paragraphs I.F., H.,-I., J., P., and Q., refer to matters and
events which. transpired on or before February 8, 1989, the date of
the Judgment;
41. That paragraphs I.L., M., N., O., P., Q., R., and T. of
the "Assessment," as well as paragraphs I.K., and S., all refer to
matters raised by the plaintiffs at the August 21, 1989 hearing
and to matters which were actually litigated and determined at said
hearing;
-11-

42. That only the "findings" set forth in paragraphs I.D.
and W. of the "Assessment" refer to matters not dealt with by this
Court in the Judgment and the order, the "Assessment" at paragraphs
I.U. being unclear, since paragraph I.U. refers to the "turbidity
levels" found in paragraph I.N., which paragraph contains no
reference to turbidity levels, which references are found only in
paragraphs I.G., and O. of the "Assessment";
43. That N.C.G.S. §143-215.6(3) provides that "in determining
the amount of the penalty the Commission [EMC] shall consider the
degree and extent of harm caused by the violation and the cost of
rectifying the damage," and that NCAC 15A 02J .0006 provides that
"in determining the amount of the assessment, the Commission
[EMC] ... shall consider the following standards and shall cite those
deemed applicable:
(1) Gravity of the violation and the degree and extent of
harm, including but not limited to the following:
(a) For a water violation:
violated, (i) Effluent standard (s) or water quality standard(s)
(ii) Type of other violation,
Duration,
' (iv) Cause,
(v) Effect on receiving waters, public health, and fish
or wildlife,
(vi) Effectiveness of preventive or responsive measures
taken by violator;
(2) Cost of rectifying any damage;
(3) The violator's previous record in complying or not
complying with the 'law and implementing regulations of the
Commission";
44. That at no place in the "Assessment" is any "finding"
indicating the cost of repairing any environmental damage set out
therein, but that paragraph III of the "Assessment" recites that
Wilms, in determining the amount of penalty, considered "the cost
of rectifying the damage";
submit. to thetCin the
a order, this Courtdirected defendant to
plan for correcting damage caused by off -
site sedimentation into areas of the Laurel Branch adjacent to
defendant's development site, which plan was to be filed with this
-12-

Court at a later time partly because neither defendant nor
plaintiffs were able to advise the Court at that time of any
estimated cost of repair of such damage; and that further, on
November 22, 1989, upon receipt of defendant's "Plan" presented to
the .Court, the plaintiffs requested ten to fourteen additional days
to 'prepare its response, "including the preparation of any
alternative plan should the State determine such is appropriate";
and further, that the plaintiffs, in their "Response" to
defendant's "Plan" filed on December 5, 1989, characterize
defendant's "Plan" as "doing nothing," and argue that a
"comprehensive, realistic and detailed plan" is required "in order
to effectively address the damage done to the Laurel Branch," but
provide no such plan or estimated cost, all of which foregoing
suggests that information regarding "the cost of rectifying the
damage" was not available to plaintiffs even at that date, some two
months after the "Assessment"; and further, that even the evidence
of such cost presented at this hearing was in the form of
estimates, although said estimates seem to have been reasonably
calculated;
46. That it was intended by this Court, at the time of entry
of its Order, that the sum expended by defendant pursuant to
paragraph seven of said Order be a full and complete penalty to,
and;'reparation by, defendant to the State for damage it caused to
the ,-Laurel Branch, as determined under any applicable environmental
statute of this State or any administrative regulation adopted
thereunder, by off -site sedimentation or sediment discharge into
said Branch from defendant's development site occurring on or
before the date of said Order; and further, that this Court's Order
setting such amount to be expended by defendant, filed prior to
this Order, expressly so provides;
47. That the "Assessment" imposes a penalty of $10, 000.00 for
an alleged violation by defendant of N.C.G.S. S143-215.1(a)(1) and
N. C. G. S. S143-215.1(a) (6) by its failure to have required permits,
but that nowhere in the "Assessment" is a "finding" that defendant
did not have the required permits, but only a "conclusion" that
defendant was required to have the permits;
48. That the actual total of the penalties imposed by Wilms
in the "Assessment" is $36,357:45, as opposed to the $41,357.45
total appearing therein;
49. That Wilms, in entering the "Assessment," acted on the
advice of counsel;
The Court further finds as a fact and concludes as a matter
of law as follows:
50. That pursuant to the parties' stipulation set forth in
paragraph 34 above, the provisions of the Judgment and of the
Order, as well as the inherent power and authority of this Court,
-13-

separately and independently as well as collectively, as well as
pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2, 31 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
20, 21, 22, 27 31, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 46, above, separately and
independently of each of the foregoing as well as collectively
therewith, this Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of all
matters dealt with herein;
51. That pursuant to the stipulation of the parties set forth
in paragraph 34 above, plaintiffs have waived any contention that
defendant be required to pursue remedies pursuant to Article 4,
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes or otherwise
prior to seeking relief from this Court with reference to matters
set forth in defendant's Motion;
52. That the parties herein and those involved in the Wilms
"Assessment" are one and the same, action being taken in the Wilms
"Assessment" against defendant by agents of DEHNR and the State,
as more particularly set out in paragraphs 1, 21 31 11, 12, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 200, 21, 221, 27, 31, 32, 36g., 39, 40, 41, and 42,
above;
53. That all matters dealt with in the "Assessment" were
actually litigated and determined, or could or should have been,
in the exercise of reasonable diligence by the plaintiffs at the
hearing of this Court which resulted in the Judgment, and at the
August 21, 1989 hearing of this Court which resulted in the Order;
and further, that the Wilms "findings" dealt with matters in
evidence before this -Court at the August 21, 1989 hearing and,
indeed, reflect and contain findings of this Court in its September
5, 1989, Order; all as more particularly set out in paragraphs 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 33, 39, 40, 41 and 42 above;
54. By virtue of the foregoing paragraphs 52 and 53,
plaintiffs are estopped from attempting to enforce or seeking
defendant's compliance with the "Assessment";
"55. That no emergency existed requiring State action on or
before October 2, 1989 to prevent environmental damage with
reference to the matters dealt with in the "Assessment," because
all matters dealt with therein were already subject to directives
of this Court as set out in the.'Judgment and more particularly in
the order;
56. That Wilms', imposition of a $10,000.00 penalty against
defendant for "causing the impairment of the best usage for the
Sam's Branch and upper Mitchell River" was based on acts of
defendant occurring before February 6, 1989, and is in violation
of the Judgment, that Wilms had no authority or jurisdiction to
impose said penalty, and said penalty is, therefore, null and
void, and the plaintiffs are estopped from attempting to enforce
or seeking defendant's compliance with said penalty;
-14-

57. That plaintiffs, as parties to this action and to the
"Assessment" acted, in the securing and imposition of said
"Assessment," in violation of the Judgment and the Order of this
Court, as set forth in Paragraphs 7, 14 and 29 above, that Wilms
had no authority or jurisdiction to enter said "Assessment", and
said "Assessment" is, therefore, null and void, and plaintiffs are
estopped from attempting to enforce or seeking defendant's com-
pliance with said "Assessment;"
58. That, except as stated in his "findings," Wilms, who by
his own testimony considered only the contents of defendant's
exhibit 12 in determining whether to assess any penalty against
defendant and the amount, if any, thereof, failed to consider the
standards set forth in NCAC 15A 02J .0006 and failed to comply with
N.C.G.S. §143-215.6(3) in determining the amount of penalties
imposed against defendant; and further, that Wilms statement in
Paragraph III of the "Assessment" that he considered the "cost of
rectifying the damage" is not supported by any finding of fact in
his "Assessment" reciting any estimate of said cost, and is not
credible in light of other circumstances set forth above; all as
more particularly set forth in Paragraphs 36, 43 and 44 above;
59. That, under N.C.G.S. Chapter 143, Article 21, Part 1, as
applied to the facts of this case and the evidence presented to
the Court as more particularly set out in Paragraphs 32, 36, and
37 above, sediment does not constitute "waste" as defined in
N.C.G.S. §143-213 (18) (c) ;
60. That defendant, prior to and by virtue of the entry and
signing of the "Assessment" on October 2, 1989, and as more
particularly set out above in Paragraphs 7, 14, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 3 3 , 35 and 36 above, has totally and completely been denied
procedural due process with reference to said "Assessment" in
violation of the laws and Constitution of this State and the United
States, and that, therefore, said "Assessment" is null and void,
and the plaintiffs are estoppel from attempting to enforce or
seeking defendant's compliance with said "Assessment;"
61. That defendant, at the time of the "Assessment" on
October 2-, 1989, was a "person" similarly situated to "persons"
alleged to be in violation of N.C.G.S. S87-83 et. sea. , promulgated
to safeguard and protect -"'the ground water resources of this
State," and the disparity between the provisions of N.C.G.S. §87-
91(a) and N.C.G.S. S87-94(b), requiring notification to alleged
violators and notification of the facts alleged to constitute
violation, and the provisions of N.C.G.S. §143-215.1(a), N.C.G.S.
§143-215.3 (a) (1) (4) , and N.C.G.S. §143-215.6, which fail to provide
for notice to the alleged violators and, in particular, notice of
the facts alleged to constitute violation, and under which statutes
the "Assessment" was entered, lacks a rational basis and is ar-
bitrary; and further, that defendant, in the entry and signing of
the "Assessment" was denied equal protection of the laws as
-15-

guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of this State and the
United States, and as more particularly set out in Paragraphs 23,
24, 25 and 26 above; and further, therefore, that the entry of the
Assessment" against defendant pursuant to the aforesaid statutes
is null and void and plaintiffs are estopped from attempting to
enforce or seeking defendant's compliance with said "Assessment";
62. That Wilms, in the entry of the "Assessment," acted on
the advice of counsel, did not act in willful violation of the
Judgment and the Order, and is not in contempt of this Court;
63. That it was intended by this Court, at the time of entry
of its Order, that the sum expended by defendant pursuant to
paragraph seven of said Order be a full and complete penalty to,
and reparation by, defendant to the State for damage it caused to
the Laurel Branch, as determined under any applicable environmental
statute of this State or any administrative regulation adopted
thereunder, by off -site sedimentation or sediment discharge into
said. Branch from defendant's development site occurring on or
before the date of said Order; and further, that this Court's Order
setting such amount to be expended by defendant, filed prior to
this Order, expressly so provides;
64. That the foregoing paragraphs 50, 51, 52 and 53 and 54
together, 56, 57,.58, 59, 60, 61, 62, and 63, each separately and
independently, as well as collectively, constitute a proper and
sufficient basis upon which this Court may enter its Order herein;
BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the said "Assessments' is wholly and totally null and
void and of no legal force or effect whatsoever, and the plaintiffs
are estopped from, and are hereby prohibited from, attempting to
enforce,or seeking defendant's compliance with)the said "Assess-
ment" in any manner whatsoever;
,2. That the portion of Paragraph III of the "Assessment",
imposing "a $10, 000.00 penalty against defendant for violation of
NCAC 2B .0216, is wholly and totally null and void and of no legal
force or effect whatsoever, and the plaintiffs are estopped from,
and are hereby'prohibited from, attempting to enforce,,or seeking
defendant's compliance with said paragraph of the "Assessment" in
any manner whatsoever;
3. That Wilms, in entering the "Assessment", is not in
contempt of this Court;
4. That the other relief prayed for in defendant's Motion
is denied; and
-16-

5. That each party shall bear its own costs.
� �1
This the ji r day of June, 1999,
NORABLE JOSEPH R. JOHN, SR.
PRESIDING
-17-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Ex Rel LACY H. THORNBURG,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, and
WILLLIAM W. COBEY, JR.,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND
NATURAL RESOURCES,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
OLDE BEAU, LIMITED, INC.,
Defendant.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
88 CVS 149
This matter coming on to be heard and being heard pursuant to
the Order of this Court entered herein on September 5, 1989, and
pursuant to a Special Commission of the undersigned for the trial
of civil cases -in the county of Guilford, High Point Division, to
begin on March 5, 1990, and to continue until the business is
disposed. of, and pursuant to the consent of the parties given in
open court as evidenced in the record herein;
And the Court, based on the Court's consideration of the
evidence presented by the plaintiffs and the defendant as well as
the entire record herein, finds the facts as follows:
1. On September 5, 1989, this Court entered an Order which
provided, inter alia, at Paragraph 7, "that defendant shall submit
to the Court on or before 5:00 P.M. on Friday, November 17, 1989,
a plan setting out in detail such reasonable measures as defendant
proposes to undertake, subject to the rights of private property
owners, in order to correct damage caused by off -site sedimentation
into areas of the Laurel Branch ,adjacent to defendant's development
site, said plan to include, but not be limited to, proposed methods
of long-term removal• of said sediment from the Laurel Branch, if
such removal is determined to be practical and not to cause further
significant damage to said stream, and a replenishing in the Laurel
Branch of trout, macro invertebrates and other biota, which plan
shall be implemented by defendant at its own cost in a timely
manner upon said plan's approval, in whole or in part, by the
Court";
2. That on or about November 17, 1989, defendant timely
filed with this Court a document entitled "Defendant's Plan
Pursu nt to September 5, 1989 Court Order" [hereinafter "Defend-
:_�.�A t�s which document appears of record herein and is

Page 2
88 CVS 149
incorporated by reference without being fully set out;
3. That on November 22, 1989, plaintiffs, through counsel,
requested a ten to fourteen day period within which to make a
response to "Defendant's Plan," "including the presentation of any
alternative plans should the State determine such is appropriate,"
which request was allowed by the Court pursuant to oral directive
communicated to counsel for plaintiffs and defendant;
4. That on December 5, 1989, plaintiffs filed with this
Court a document entitled "Plaintiff's Response to Paper Writing
Entitled 'Defendant's Plan Pursuant to September 5, 1989 Court
order"' (hereinafter "Plaintiff's Response"), which document
appears of record herein and is incorporated by reference without
being fully -set out;
5. That on or about December 20, 1989, defendant filed with
this Court a copy of a letter, with attachments, to defendant's
counsel from Robert J. Goldstein, an Environmental Consultant,
which letter contained numerous comments regarding "Plaintiff's
Response," and which document appears of record herein and is
incorporated by reference without being fully set out;
6. That, thereafter, the Court advised counsel for
plaintiffs and defendant that It appeared necessary to have a
hearing regarding what measures the Court might require defendant
to take, pursuant to the Court's September 5, 1989, Order, to cor-
rect damage to the Laurel Branch, and counsel for the plaintiffs
and the defendant concurred;
7.. That, at said hearing, the Court heard, as witness for
the defendant, Dr. Robert J. Goldstein, who was received as an
expert in biology and environmental mitigation plans, and as
witnesses for the plaintiffs, Joseph H. Mickey, Jr., Fishery
Biologist with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
who was received as an expert in trout stream restoration, and Mr.
James W. Gracie, who was ''received as an expert in trout stream
restoration, and received into evidence as exhibits numerous
publications and articles dealing with the general topic of stream
improvement, including defendant's exhibits 2 , 34, 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ,
and 9, and plaintiffs' exhibits 1, 21 31 41 51 6, and 7, all of
which the Court has considered in their entirety;
8. That the "affected area" of the Laurel Branch, that is,
the area of said stream damaged as set out in this Court's
September 5, 1989, Order, is as reflected on attachment "C" to
"Plaintiff's Response";

Page 3
88 CVS 149
9. That measures to repair said damage to the Laurel Branch
include stabilization of the watershed of the Branch, measures to
remove sediment deposits, in -stream improvement measures, and
vegetation planting;
10. That, as long as defendant complies with the previous
Orders of this Court and the applicable law, the Laurel Branch
watershed is stabilized from sources of overland flow on
defendant's property that might carry silt and other materials into
said Branch;
11. That the plaintiffs' evidence showed, and the Court
finds, that removal of sediment deposits in the "affected area" of
the Laurel Branch by means of suction dredging could be accom-
plished at a cost of not more than $10,000.00;
.12. That the plaintiffs' evidence showed, and the Court
finds, that approximately three "flow constrictors", three "wing
deflectors",, four "bank cover wing deflectors", and three "rip -rap
areas" would be required, after sediment deposit removal from the
Laurel Branch, to improve stream flow in the Branch, to provide in -
stream or bank -type trout habitats, and to improve stream bank
stabilization and provide for the attachment of vegetation;
13. That the defendant's evidence showed, and the Court
finds, that the approximate per -structure cost for the aforesaid
constrictors and deflectors would be $1,270.67, or a total not in
excess of $12,706.70 for the ten structures; that a sixteen ton
truckload of "rip -rap" would be required at each of the three rip -
rap areas at a cost of $240.00 per truckload, plus labor, for a
total not in excess of $1,000.00 for the "rip -rap areas";
14. That the plaintiffs' evidence showed, and the Court
finds, that the sum of $3,000.00 would adequately provide for the
purchase and planting of vegetation at or near sites on the Laurel
Branch at the "affected area" to provide for stream bank
stabilization and to protect the Laurel Branch from insolation;
15. That*the plaintiffs' evidence showed, and the Court
finds, that the sum , of $770.00 per year, for a period of three
years, or a total of $2,310.00, is adequate for trout stocking in
the Laurel Branch;
16. That, notwithstanding the contents of Paragraph 10 above,
evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendant showed that a nec-
essary precondition to the effectiveness of the Laurel Branch
restoration is removal of sediment in the lower lake on the
defendant's property (the westernmost lake on the defendant's

Page 4
88 CVS 149
property contiguous to U.S. Highway 21 and left of the main
entrance to defendant's project), said lake during the time of
construction on defendant's development site having been intended
both by the plaintiffs and defendant as a collection area for
sediment run-off; and further, that construction in the area of
drainage to said lake is virtually complete; and further, that said
lake needs to be cleaned with all sediment removed; and further,
that a sum not in excess of $10, 000.00 should be expended to remove
sediment from said lake at the time of the stream restoration
provided for herein;
17. That evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendant showed
the necessity for State involvement in and supervision of any
restoration project to be conducted in the Laurel Branch;
18. That it was intended by this Court at the time of the
entry of its September 5, 1989, Order referred to herein, that the
sum expended by defendant pursuant to paragraph seven of said Order
be a full and complete penalty to, and reparation by, defendant to
the State for damages caused to the Laurel Branch by off -site
sedimentation into said Branch or discharge of sediment into said
Branch from defendant's development site occurring on or before the
date of said Order, as such damage might be determined under any
applicable environmental statute of this State or any administra-
tive regulation adopted thereunder;
19. That it is intended by this Court that payment by
defendant of the sum of $10,000.00 for the removal of sediment in
the said lower lake is for the purposes of removal of sediment
deposited therein prior to the date of this order, and that pay-
ment of the said sum along with the other sums herein provided
constitutes a full and complete payment to the State with reference
to "said sediment or the removal thereof under any applicable
environmental statute of this State or any administrative regula-
tion adopted thereunder;
BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE COURT FURTHER
FINDS AS A FACT AND CONCLUDES AS A MATTER OF LAW AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the sum of $39,016.70 will adequately provide the
estimated cost of correcting damage by off -site sedimentation or
deposit of sediment adjacent to said site, that is, the "affected
area";
2. That the interests of justice and of effective en-
vironmental restoration will best be served by stream restoration
activity in the Laurel Branch being contracted by, and conducted
under the supervision of, agents of the plaintiffs;

Page 5
88 CVS 149
3. That upon payment by defendant of the sum provided, and
in the manner provided, in this Order, defendant shall have paid
a full and complete penalty, and shall have made full and complete
reparation, to the State for damage caused to the Laurel Branch by
off -site sedimentation or sediment discharged from defendant's
development site into areas of the Laurel Branch adjacent to said
site, which damage may have occurred on or before the date of the
Order of September 5, 1989, and as such damage might be determined
under any applicable environmental statute of this State or any
administrative regulation adopted thereunder, and defendant's
liability to the State for any such damage should be terminated
upon its compliance with this Order;
4. That upon payment by defendant of the sum of $10,000.00
pursuant to paragraph 16 above in the manner provided for in this
Order, defendant shall have paid a full and complete sum for
sediment removal from the said lower lake for sediment deposited
in the said lower lake as of the date of this Order, and that, upon
such payment, defendant shall have no liability for such sediment
in the said lower lake and shall have no liability for sediment
removal from the said lower lake for any sediment deposited therein
prior to the date of this Order under any applicable environmental
statute of this State or any administrative regulation adopted
thereunder;
BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That within five days of the date of this Order, defend-
ant shall pay into the office of the Clerk of Superior Court of
Alleghany County the sum of $39,016.70, said sum to be dispersed
by the Alleghany County Clerk of Superior Court to the Secretary
of DEHNR, or his designate, to be utilized by DEHNR as hereinafter
provided;
2. That the plaintiffs, and in particular DEHNR, as. soon as
practicable upon receipt of the,,foregoing sum, shall contract for,
conduct, supervise, and complete stream and trout restoration in
the "affected area" of the Laurel Branch and removal of sediment
in the said lower lake in a manner and by means best suited to
correct most effectively damage caused by off -site sedimentation
and sediment deposit into said area of the Laurel Branch, said
restoration project to be completed as soon as practicable, but,
with the exception of trout stocking, no later than six months from
the .date of this Order;
3. That the Secretary of DEHNR shall cause to be filed with
this Court 90 days from the date of this Order, and every 90 days
thereafter, a full, detailed and complete accounting of how the sum
received by the Secretary pursuant to this Order has been expended

Page 6
88 CVS 149
to achieve the purpose of this Order, said accounting requirement
to terminate upon certification of completion of the project by the
Secretary to this Court and the Court's independent determination
that said project has been completed;
4. That in addition to the requirements set forth in
Paragraph 3 immediately above, the Secretary of DEHNR shall cause
to be filed with the Office of the North Carolina State Auditor a
copy of this Order, copies of all bid specifications that may be
required hereunder, copies of contracts entered into by the State
pursuant to the Order, detailed receipts of all funds received,
detailed expenditures of all funds expended, and any and all other
reports as may be requested by the State Auditor; further, should
all of the sum provided for herein not be expended by the plain-
tiffs for the purposes of this Order, such remaining sum shall be
redeposited by the Secretary of DEHNR with the Clerk of Superior
Court of Alleghany County for determination by the Court as to the
disposition of the said sum;
5. That upon defendant's compliance with Paragraph 1 above,
such compliance shall -constitute a full and complete penalty to,
and reparation by, defendant to the State for damage caused to the
Laurel Branch by off -site sedimentation and sediment discharge from
defendant's development site into areas of the Laurel Branch
adjacent to said site occurring on or before'September 51 1989, as
such damage might be determined under any applicable environmental
statute of this State or any administrative regulation adopted
thereunder, and, upon defendant's compliance with Paragraph 1 of
this Order, defendant's liability to the State for any such damage
occurring on or before September 5, 1989 shall be terminated;
6. That upon defendant's compliance with Paragraph 1 above,
such -compliance shall constitute a full and complete payment by
defendant for sediment removal, from the lower lake referred to
herein, and, upon such compliance, defendant shall have no
liability for sediment in the said lower lake as of the date of
this Order under any applicable environmental statute of this State
or any administrative regulation adopted thereunder, and defendant
shall have no liability for sediment removal from the said lower
lake for sediment deposited in the said lake prior to the date of
this Order under any applicable environmental statute of this State
or any administrative regulation adopted thereunder;
7. That the parties may, by their mutual consent and Order
of the Court, amend any provision of this Order herein;

Page 7
88 CVS 149
B. That eacZ party shall bear its own costs.
7
This the day of June, 1990.

June 111 1990
Charles H. Davis, Jr',
Atlantic Plan Corp.
P.O. Box 1691
Hickory, NC 28503
Re: Soils Evaluation for Proposed Drainfield for Olde Beau
Clubhouse, Roaring Gap, NC
Dear Mr. Davis;
Two tranaects of soil pits (19)0 laid out on a lee, x lee, grid
basis, were evaluated for purposes of determining the Boil
suitability for a drainfield from the golf course olubhouse. The
9aoil pits dug with a backhoe were 3' wide and 2-5' deep, The soil
characteristics of existing pits which had been previously
evaluated by the Health Department, were re-evaluated. These pits
are designated as "existing". A eeri.ea of new pits were dug on June
41 1990 and the soil characteristics evaluated. The findings of
the soil evaluations are summarized below:
Pit__100 --existing
3-4' soil thickness
Clay loam subsoil
good subsoil drainage
0.4 gpd loading rate
Fit 200 - existing
3.5' soil t.hickneBB
Silty clay loam subsoil
good eubaoil drainage
0.4 gpd loading
Elt 300 - existing
3' soil thickness
more rock fragments
well weathered saproli.te
0.4 gpd loading
Pit 400 - existing
Rock and eaprolite at surface
Not suitable
0 gpd loading
Pit 500 - existing
4' soil thickness
clay loam eubsoi.l
good subsoil drainage
r

0.4 gpd loading
Pit 600 - exiat;in
3' Boil thickness
Silty clay loam subsoil
0.4 gpd loading
PVt 700 - existing
30" soil thickness
silty clay loam subsoil
good subsoil drainage
0,4 gpd loading
thin Boil/eaprolite transition
P t 750 -_new
2' to eaprolite
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
TRANSCCT d
Pit 100 B - new
2' to eaprolite
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
Pi-t- 200 B - new
2' to seprolite
unsuitable ,
0 gpd loading
Elt 300 B - new
3' soil thickness
slay loam subsoil
0.4 gpd_ loading
Pit,.„350 C - new
2' to eaprolite
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
Pit 400 B - new
3' Moil thickness
clay loam subsoil
high concentration of rock fragments
good subeoil drainage

0.4 gpd loading
P t 00 8 - existin
4' soil thickness
clay loam subaoil
good subsoil drainage
0.4 gpd loading
Pit UP B - existing
Shallow to rock
Unsuitable
0 gpd loading
PP& 700 8 new
3' soil thickness
clay loam texture
well weathered saprolite at 5'
0.4 gpd loading
Pit 0 B new
2' to rock
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
Pit.__900 B "_ new
2'. to rock
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
1000 8 - new
3' soil thickness
well weathered saprolite
silty clay loam subsoil
0.4 gpd loading
Conclusions
Moderately sloping topograsphy and good internal soil drainage are
not restrictions on the use of this site for a drainfield.
Exceseive soil variability and thin soil (<24") are restrictive to
the use of this site for a drainfield. Soils with adequate
thickness were located in an unpredictable pattern with very thin
soils across the entire drainfi.eld area with a general tendency
toward thinner soils lower in the proposed area. The soils
weathered from micaceous gneiss tend to be thicker than the soils
weathered from the miltstone, The net result of the complicated
moil thickness pattern is the likelihood that a drainfield trench

Of 100, in length could have soils with both suitable and
unsuitable thickness in the same trench. Betsed on theses findings,
it does not appear this is sufficient area of suitably thick soil
to handle the proposed flow for an operational drainfield plug
equal repair area.
Respectfully submitted,
67� rt�
Glen Simpson
Certified Profeeeional Soil Scientist, #051.

ALL-P-01IANV • ASNL • WA'1AUGA COUNTIES
Please Rcpty Tom„ Rr - -55 - liox 1 9 9
Boone, NC 26607
t II13A t)QIJA R1'1%R�i
119anr, N,C,
Carl P. Tutdc, M.P.tt,
Direrfor June 12, 1990
Me. Margaret P. Foster, 1ko8jc,n,1a Mrtitr+G�•c
Dapa►rtineilt of Environment, Health and
Hattiral. 1wsourct&s
8025 North Point 13c,ultvciit], Suite 100
Wills t'Un--Salepl, North Carolina 27106-3203
Dear Ms. Foster:
0111 r:R Ai.f. lfm
.teUV9011, N.C.
Snarls, N.f_'.
Oone Wilson
Cholraigq Boob! (; ji(•j)1!h
Rot Oldo Bs(,U Devr. J oppjt'I1t
Mr. Billy Stet t erf i e) c1
The Appnl.achian Di.st-ric t H(,Ojt it Depart:tz oat has performed prel iuuj il(II y
evaluations for an o)t—oi t c sewage diopov al System for Olde Beilu O)ubhaukt"
Our ovaluat i onu were based on a design daily flow of 18, UUp brtl ] ()ItS (slid
A 10119 t orm atcept.cuncG rate of 0.4 allutls
indicate.n � per dey, , These figures wool tt
d-raitifIeld size of 45,000 square feet, utilizing t.itt•i�C (3)
foot wide t r(STIVIlen placed can i1ille (9) foot centers with each t r ei-, It ott<•
hundred (100) feet long would nsult its a system of 135,000 squitj•o, foot ,
or M6 acres. This ragviremellt; i.a based on ideal conditions of unifornl
slope, topography anti adequat-(• Sollfa throughout. There also Would be a
requirement of equivalent npare made aysailtjl,lct for repairs.
The roaaed t-opogt'aphy Wilielt 0110r4leterized the study area hns- canned
PXA1101110 with L'8ign, installat.ic)n and operation of on• -sits= ground
abRo t'j)(ian iWWL1 Q ditlpvual 6yetenta. Although it is p0oap))e t-0 Locate
dicaposal systems_ on lots with slopes as great Aa 25Z, when such jac111
Al" Itcave vltAllow soi_ld as these do, the resulting rayrt epj 111tty f»i.j A11d
cAuse seepage of effluent 3t the top of the slopes. We fe(,] w(. n)utjt
Also consider the amount of nit•1'aLe bul l.dup in grot,ticl-wAt p] that a cyst hill
t"D OftO 0ould eauae. Therefore, the soil structure, depth to gt•t�ttttcl
water, and long term acceptalic.e rates must he opt. i.lral., ltt this t ren, not
all, these factors are suitable for a system 3 racrr--a i.t) t31?.r,
1.11 dol-P ntittilt9 tho O e1 all
site Quit©b"Ity
for systc"nts in
excess of 3oOOO
gollono per. day a 11ti11imuni
or two (2) feet of
suital,]e soil
must; be maiti•-
t:tti.ntatA P 1>t't wt'(*11 tlt<• ground
,,ti(<<)Ypj iol1 f S r.l r)
1 I•k>rjc:l1 hot t out
1111d the

4 • V
Ms, Margaret. F. Foster
Page 2
high water table, rock., or re:4t ri.ctiv-e. hori l(�ti, Aloo, "NeId@ 0111411 be
located so ghat: trancheo can bt, inst,01(id level .and paritl lel t o t-ht� 1i I ►srrs?
ground eont•cmr"; and "f iald cotif iguralJon must. not regal t in m) exct�:r:ivc•
amount of offluent being dish l.buted till aItd (lews, a C0111111011 RlNVIF�.
Conuiderin� LhI-- t opogralflhy of this ar(lA and the amount of of f 1m-AIt- to he
di pposed of , the preceeding requiremet)t e will: 1) al.mc.,ttt double a the
Rtiioulit of spat( required, and 2) Aaturale with efflmeiit virtually ev(•ry
al.ope in n 3-6 acre aroa. Drainage provisions for such ft masslvc syist ('11i
tllay► also alter the naCural. flow of surface ,and gy-our,dwat(-7-F to diffr,-r nt
river haai.Bil. Water normally f l.owit)& to tile Mi r.ollell. River baaft could
be divor.t:ed away from n drainfleld in tliat; area -ar,d dirti•ct ed toward 010
NOW River bani.n or vice verma.
Also of Rt; eat: concern is the lack of hosttc�gojious soils rind volt dept-b-9
tlirpughdut thr. arell. Since water and offluent luent: move-Q both hm-1 vmnt ally
and vertically throuj;l1 the sof l R, we muot: ensure that' the s«f 1 tt downsl rpr
of the cyotem are capable of accepting the flow aml will not b0c:ome. ovor-
loaded • As deagribed In the soila evslmi t ion, Boil dept h f; rm►ged f roso
2 feet to 4 feet, soil. texturoq ranged from sapro3 i t e to ail.t y clay ] oam,
Soil. depths varied up and down the al ope 2 feet to !j feet with very thill
aoils toward the lower areas.
Bane-d on the of orement-i oned requirement s and ec*%ti&:i deri ng the clnurmi t y
of the aystem, they apace required to Item l such a system find the cowpi r-hl t y
of design, installation and operat i(ni, we do not feel that a grnuncl
absorption sewage SiorOga]. system ii% the preferred method of waste M oponal
for 01de Beau. We would conoider an NI'I)E} wastewater treaOutnt plRnt-
the only logical had environmentally sound method of waste dispotol. for
01.de beau Clubhotme.
CDT: of
eel hurry 1)• Coble
Rick Rowe
► Hilly Sattorfleld
Don memillall
r
S3.ncraay,
.101111 M, Tilt 5uparvi

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey;1Jr., Secretary
June 20, 1990
Mr. Charles H. Davis, Jr., PE
Engineering and Planning Consultants
Box 1691
Hickory, NC 28603
George T. Everett, Ph. D.
Director
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
Number NCO078158
Olde Beau Golf Club
Allegheny County
Dear Mr. Davis:
This is in response to the matters discussed in the May 23rd meeting at this office with
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) permits staff, regional staff, and technical
support staff.
DEM Regulation 15 NCAC 2H .0105 (c) (2) requires that the staff "...assure that the
most environmentally sound alternative was selected from the reasonably cost effective
alternatives." After reviewing the cost estimates on ground absorption, spray irrigation, and
wastewater discharge into a stream, it appeared that a discharge into a stream is the best
economic option. However, operating costs were not taken into account. When including
operating costs, subsurface disposal is undeniably the best option from a cost effectiveness
standpoint as well as the most environmentally sound alternative. It was determined in the
meeting that there are extensive areas of land that have not been developed at the site. The
driving range, the areas north of the proposed clubhouse, and the undeveloped lots surrounding
the fairways could be utilized for the subsurface system. Further evidence of the feasibility of
this form of_ disposal is the recently granted county permit for a portion of the flow from the
clubhouse. It is the DEM's position that a treatment system that disposes of its wastewater in a
method other than discharging into the surface waters is the preferable method of treatment and
disposal for the subject project.
After further discussions among staff members and a second evaluation of the permit
application, it has been determined that additional information is needed to insure that the
requirements of 15 NCAC 2H .0105 (c) (7) and North Carolina General Statute 143.215.1
(b) (1 a) are met. After consultation with our Office of General Counsel, it has been determined
that the attached questionnaire regarding substantial previous compliance must be completed
and submitted to the DEM, for review. Unless you are able to provide (1) additional information
to justify your request for a discharge permit and (2) evidence of substantial compliance with
environmental regulations, it is the intention of this Division to proceed to public notice with
intent to deny your application for a NPDES Permit. This information must be submitted by
July 31, 1990, to avoid return of the project or initiation of denial proceedings.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.C.P.:. 7, R::: :,.' :. ^,�, ::,. �,;;11-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

+. .e
a
Mr. Davis
Page Two
Your review of this letter and a response to the above comments is requested. If you
have any questions, please contact Mr. Dale Overcash [phone].
Sincerely,
George V verett
cc: Mr. Larry Coble
WrisaDaleufter-eash
Mr. Billy Satterfield

a
IILAi)QUART'BRS
Boone, N.C.
Carl D. Tuttic, M.P.11,
Director
i�t,. 15i'14J 1�: a 1 919 363 3335 uLGE BEAU LTG'. r'. i.
A PAI ACHIAN DISTRICT H xH nEPARYMENT
ALLEGI iANY - ASHL - WATAUGA COUNTIES
Please RCAY To Rt • 5 — Box 199
Boone, NC 28607
June 12, 1990
Ms. Margaret P. Faster, Regional Manager
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard, Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106-3203
Dear Ms, Foster:
01*1 leR 01TICES
Jefferson, N.C.
Sparta, N.C.
Ocne Wilson
Chairman Board of Hiralth
Re: Olde Beau Development
Mr.. Billy Satterfield
The Appalachian District Health Department has performed preliminary
evaluations for an on -site sewage disposal system for 01de Beau Clubhouse,
Our evaluations were based on a design daily flow of. 18,000 gallons and
A long term acceptance rate of 0,4 gallons per day. These figures would
indicate a drainfield size of 45,000 square feet, utilizing three (3)
foot wide trenches placed on nine (9) foot centers with each trench one
hundred (100) feet long would result in a system of 135,000 square feet,
or 3.06 acres. This requirement is based on ideal, conditions of uniform
al.ope, topography and adequate soils throughout. There also would be a
requirement of equivalent space made available for repairs.
The rugged topography which characterized the study area has caused past
problems with design, installation and operation of on --site ground
absorption sewage disposal systems. Although it is possible to locate.
disposal systems on lots with slopes as great;. as 257, when such 3ocations
altao havo shallow soils as these do, the resulting system may fail. and
cause seepage of effluent at the top of the slopes, We feel we must
also consider the amount of ni, rate buildup in ground -water that a system
this size could cause, Therefore, the soil structure, depth to ground-
water, and long term acceptance rates must be optimal, In this area, not
all. these factors are.sui.table for a system 3 acres in size,
In determining the overall site sttit.ability for systems in excess of 3,000
gallons per day a minimum of two (2) feet of suitable soil must be maitz--
tainable between the ground absorption field trench bottom and the seasonally

_ 1Jh / j j/ JrJ. 1 Z J Q. l . 1 . G _ _ _ QL.' L GL- el Q L i . . r . ...•�
.e
M
Ms. Margaret P. Poster
Page 2
high water table, rock, or restrictive Horizon. Also, "fields shall be
located so that trenches can be installed level and parallel to the natural
ground contour"; and "field configuration must not result in an excessive
amount of effluent being distributed up and down a common slope".
Considering -the topography of this area and the amount of effluent to be
disposed of, the preceeding requirements will: 1) almost double the
amount of space required, and 2) saturate with effluent virtually every
elope in a 3-6 acre area. Drainage provisions for such a massive system
may also alter the natural flow of surface and groundwaters to different
river basisn. Water normally flowing to the Mitchell River basin could
be diverted away from a drainfield in that area and directed toward the
New River basin or vice versa. •
Also of great concern is the lack of homogenous soils and soil depths
throughout the area. Since water and effluent moves bath horizontally
and vertically through the soils, we must ensure that the soils downsl.ope
of the system are capable of accepting the flow and will not become over-
loaded. As described in the soils evaluation, soil depths ranged from
2 feet to 4 feet, soil textures ranged from saprol.ite to silty clay loam.
Soil depths varied up and down the slope 2 feet to 4 feet with very thin
soils toward the lower areas.
Based on the aforementioned requirements and considering the enormity
of the system, the space required to insall such a system and the complexity
of design, installation and operation, we do not feel that a ground
.absorption sewage sisposal system is the preferred method of waste disposal
for Olde Beau. We would consider an NPDES wastewater treatment plant
the only logical and environmentally sound method of waste disposal, for
Olde Beau Clubhouse.
CDT; of
cc: Larry I). Goble
Rick Rowe
✓ Bilj.y Satterfield
Dan McMillan
Sine rely,
Carl. D. Tui le, firector
-cam
9,70111eIKIM4! ey, EN SuP Brv�r

e
JUL :i i
June 11, 1990
Charles H. Davis, Jr.
Atlantic Plan Corp.
P.O. Box 1691
Hickory, KC 28603
Re: Soils Evaluation for Proposed Drainfield for Olde Beau
Clubhouse, Roaring Gap, KC
Dear Mr. Davis;
Two transects of soil pits (19), laid out on a 100' x 100' grid
basis, were evaluated for purposes of determining the soil
suitability for a drainf field from the golf course clubhouse. The
soil pits dug with a backhoe were 3' wide and 2-5' deep. The soil
characteristics of existing pits which had been previously
evaluated by the Health Department, were re-evaluated. These pits
are designated as "existing". A series of new pits were dug on June
4, 1990 and the soil characteristics evaluated. The findings of
the soil evaluations are summarized below:
Pit 100 - existing
3-4' soil thickness
clay loam subsoil
good subsoil drainage
0.4 gpd loading rate
Pit 200 - existing
3.5' soil thickness
silty clay loam subsoil
good subsoil drainage
0.4 gpd loading
Pit 300 - existing
3' soil thickness
more rock fragments
well weathered saprolite
0.4 gpd loading
Pit 400 - existin
Rock and saprolite at surface
Not suitable
0 gpd loading
Pit 500 - existina
4' soil thickness
clay loam subsoil
good subsoil drainage

c
0.4 gpd loading
Pit 600 - existin
3' soil thickness
silty clay loam subsoil
0.4 gpd loading
Pit 700 - existinq
30" soil thickness
silty clay loam subsoil
good subsoil drainage
0.4 gpd loading
thin soil/saprolite transition
Pit 750 - hew
2' to saprolite
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
TRANSECT B
Pit 100 B - new
2' to saprolite
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
Pit 200 B - new
2' to saprolite
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
Pit 300 B - new
3' soil thickness
clay loam subsoil
0.4 gpd loading
Pit 350 C - new
2' to saprolite
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
Pit 400 B - new
3' soil thickness
clay loam subsoil
high concentration of rock fragments
good subsoil drainage

0.4 gpd loading
Pit 500 B - existin
4' soil thickness
clay loam subsoil
good subsoil drainage
0.4 gpd loading
Pit 600 B - existing
Shallow to rock
Unsuitable
0 gpd loading
Pit 700 B - new
3' soil thickness
clay loam texture
well weathered saprolite at 5'
0.4 gpd loading
Pit 800 B - new
2' to rock
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
Pit 900 B - new
2' to rock
unsuitable
0 gpd loading
Pit 1000 B - new
3' soil thickness
well weathered saprolite
silty clay loam subsoil
0.4 gpd loading
Conclusions
Moderately sloping topography and good internal soil drainage are
not restrictions , on the use of this site for a drainfield.
Excessive soil variability and thin soil (<24") are restrictive to
the use of this site for a drainf ield. Soils with adequate
thickness were located in an unpredictable pattern with very thin
soils across the entire drainfield area with a general tendency
toward thinner soils lower in the proposed area. The soils
weathered from micaceous gneiss tend to be thicker than the soils
weathered from the siltstone. The net result of the complicated
soil thickness pattern is the likelihood that a drainfield trench

* . s e
of 100' in length could have soils with both suitable and
unsuitable thickness in the same trench. Based on these findings,
it does not appear this is sufficient area of suitably thick soil
to handle the proposed flow for an operational drainf field plus
equal repair area.
Respectfully submitted,
6K—Lz� -
Glen Simpsonn
Certified Professional Soil Scientist, #051

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 24, 1990
To: File
From: Carla Sanderson
Subject: Old Beau Golf Club
Request for NPDES Permit
Alleghany County
On May 23, 1990, the engineers from Charles H. Davis, Jr. Engineering and Plan-
ning Consultants met with staff of Technical Support and Permits & Engineering.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the letter sent to Mr. Satterfield
(April 11, 1990) in particular the engineering report requested. Attached is
the summary of the alternatives to discharge for wastewater disposal. During
the meeting, verification was made on the total wasteflow request for the dis-
charge. The proposed amount of wasteflow has been reduced from 0.04 MGD to 0.02
MGD. This reduction is due to plans previously made for a hotel which are now
eliminated.
The wastewater disposal alternatives explored in this report were comparable in
cost efficiency. The alternative which seems most functional for this area is
sub -surface disposal (see attached report). The engineers as well as DEM staff
concur with the proposed plan to go with sub -surface disposal.
Permits and Engineering staff are submitting a letter to Mr. Satterfield stating
our intention to deny the NPDES permit due to the sub -surface disposal alterna-
tive. We will give Mr. Satterfield a period of 60 days to respond.

STArf o
cot
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor .
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
April 11, 1990
Mr. Billy -Satterfield
P.O. Box 32
Roaring Gap, N.C. 28668
Subject: Olde Beau Golf Club
Request for NPDES permit
Dear Mr. Satterfield,
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has completed a preliminary eval-
uation of your NPDES permit application for discharge into Laurel Branch in
Alleghany County. At this time we offer the following concerns related to your
discharge:
1. The proposed location of the discharge is into a stream segment that is
expected to experience 7Q10 (lowest flow for 7 days in ten years) flows
down to zero.
2. The proposed receiving stream is classified as C-Trout which North
Carolina water quality regulations (15 NCAC 2B.0211 (b)(3)(J) that the
temperature of your discharge not cause the instream temperature to
differ from background by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius nor exceed 20
degrees Celsius at any time. It is unlikely that the proposed facility
can meet this restriction.
3. A pond is located approximately 100 feet downstream of the proposed
discharge location. Effluent dominated streams entering ponds typically
cause water quality related problems, such as eutrophication (i.e. excess
algal growth), or deoxygenation.
Given the above listed concerns and per North Carolina Administrative Code
2H .0105(c), you are hereby required to complete an engineering report
demonstrating that your request for surface water discharge is the most
environmentally sound wastewater disposal alternative (see attached). Included
in the report should be a thorough evaluation of alternatives to discharge such
PoButlon Pm%wmdon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Frn .31 (inrznrh inity Afihrmatfvp Artinn FmnlnvPr

Mr. Satterfield
-page two -
as spray irrigation on the surrounding land or the adjacent golf course
(including combination with seasonal wet weather discharge only) and subsurface
disposal. Your review of the discharge alternatives should address where pos-
sible, the Division's concerns stated above. Further action on your NPDES per-
mit will be suspended pending the receipt and review of a complete engineering
report.
If you have any questions or concerns concerning this matter, please contact Mr.
Trevor Clements or Mr. Don Safrit of my staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
Steve Tedder
Water Quality Section Chief
SWT/`
Attachment
cc: Trevor Clements
Don Safrit
Charles H. Davis, Jr., P.E.

I
CHARLES H. DAViS, JR.
ENGINEERING AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
STAFF TO THE ATLANTIC PLAN CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT FACILITY LESSORS.
BOX i6gi HICKORY. NORTH CAROLINA 28603
z04-32z-2621
May 22, 1990
Steve Tedder.
Water Quality Section Chief
NC DEHNR
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Subject: Reply to Olde Beau Golf Club
Request for NPDES Permit
Preliminary Evaluation Concerns
Dear Mr. Tedder;
Concerns:
CHARLES H. DAMS, JR.. P.E.
PRESIDENT
(1) The proposed location is into a stream segment that is
expected to experience 7 010 (lowest flow for 7 day in ten years)
flows down to zero.
Answer:
According to information reported by phone from the review
engineer, Jule 'Shanklin, the flow as reported by U. S. G. S. is 7 B10
- 0.08 CFS; 30 02 - 0.13 CFS; and Average Flow 0.26 CFS. An onsite
inspection will reveal that the flow is most probably greater than
that reported, which could be the result of the present development
of the site.
Concerns:
(2) The proposed receiving stream is classified as C-Trout which
North Carolina water quality regulations (15 NCAC 2B.0211 (b) (3)
(J) that the temperature of, your discharge not cause the instream
temperature to differ from background by more than 0.5 degrees
Celsius nor exceed 20 degrees Celsius at any time. It is unlikely
that the proposed facility can meet this restriction.
Answer:
The proposed wastewater treatment plant is in a shaded glade at
elevation 2950 + feet 800 feet from the point of waste origination;
the discharge line which is a force main extends a distance of 4370
feet from the plant to the point of discharge.
Based on the fact that the discharge is domestic waste only, in an
amount not to exceed 20, 000 g. p. d. ( a reduction in the amount of
discharge from 40,000 g. p. d. to 20,000 g. p. d. is requested) ; the
distance from. point of origin to the plant is 800 feet passing
through soil with an ambient temperature of 58 degrees; will be
retained and aerated in a waste treatment plant in a shaded glade

at 2950 + feet elevation for a period, of at least l to 2 days,
depending on flow, and will then *be conveyed to the point of
discharge a distance of 4370 feet through the ground at an ambient
temperature of 58 degrees, it is not expected that the discharge
will raise the temperature of the receiving stream.
Concerns:
(3) A pond is located approximately 100 feet downstream of the
proposed discharge location. Effluent dominated streams entering
ponds typically cause water quality related problems, such as
eutrophication (i.e. excess algal growth), or deoxygenation.
Answer:
There is a pond 1156 feet plus or minus downstream from the
proposed discharge point; however, this stream does not feed this
pond; infact the pond appears to be fed by storm water or surface
water with no stream involved. Immediately below this pond the
receiving stream joins with Laurel Branch, a much larger stream.
Alternatives:
Nitrification Field
A traditional septic tank with nitrification field was originally
perceived as an alternative to stream discharge. The local County
Health Department Sanitarian informed me that a preliminary value
of 0.4 GPD/sq. ft. would be a good application rate for estimating
the drain field area. Using 200000 GPD as average daily flow, the
0.4 GPD/sq.ft. application rate would require two separate fields
of approximately 1.7 acre with an additional equal repair area.
This would require approximately 6.8 acre of open area. The land
required would probably increase due to the steep cross -slope of
the land. Presently, the only open area that is- available for the
nitrification field is the driving range (it has not been fully
graded or grassed) . The driving range has approximately 4 acres of
open area, but is questionable due to rock outcroppings and rock
close to the surface (from the water tank soil borings).
Preliminary installed cost• estimates of the septic tank and
nitrification field are;
20j,000 gal. liquid volume septic tank $ 30, 000. 00
20, 000 gal. pump tank 30, 000. 00
Pumps 5,000.00
16, 660 L. Ft. trench @ $5. 00/ft. 83, 300. 00
Misc. flow boxes 5, 000. 00
TOTAL $153, 300. 00
A yearly maintenance estimate is $1000.00.

Spray Irrigation
The alternative of spray irrigation was never seriously considered
due to frozen ground in winter, limited buffer area, and the steep
cross slope of the golf course. Upon checking with your department
it was found that there is no such systems in the Winston Salem
Office area; the Asheville office did say that they had two (2)
systems, I believe, in the Southern Mountain area. The Olde Beau
Golf Club Course is on top of the Blue Ridge in the Northern
mountains, from the standpoint of temperature and extreme
topography which could flow the discharge off of the fairway to the
adjacent property, spray irrigation of the effluent would be more
than risky. It is possible to discharge on frozen ground in winter•
or discharge to the stream in the winter. This is one negative
aspect that could feasibly be accomplished. The limit-ed buffer
area is definitely a problem combined with the minimal flat areas
(ie. 5% to 15% ) on the site. The majority of the golf fairways are
on very steep slopes (ie. 25% to 35%) which will not accept spray
irrigation. The 100 foot min. buffer area is also questionable
with the irrigation system already in -place. The spray heads could
feasibly be relocated if necessary, but it is not recommended.
Using preliminary values of 0.5 in/week to '0.75 in/week,
application rate land area requirement of approximately 11.5 acre
to 7. 7 acre of - flat area would be needed. If all of the moderate
slope areas could be utilized, there would theoretically be
adequate land area for spray irrigation. The problem is 1) re-
working the existing irrigation, 2) multiple pump stations, and 3)
erosion potential from relocating the existing irrigation system.
The Golf Course has been successfully grassed and sodded, we do not
desire to dig it up again.
Another problem is storage for the treated effluent. The effluent
ponds would be located on drainageways of the headwaters of the
Mitchell River. The ponds would be constructed with liners, but
the possibility of failure exists. A dam failure could lead to a
mild contamination of the Mitchell River.
Preliminary installed cost estimates of the spray irrigation system
area:
20,000 GPD Treatment Plant --Dual Train - $ 60, 000. 00
Holding Ponds - 2 25, 000. 00
Pump Stations - 4 40, 000. 00
Change Irrigation System 20,000.00
Monitoring Wells - 10 10, 000. 00
TOTAL $155, 000. 00
A yearly maintenance estimate is $3000.00.
Conclusion
The proposed NPDES Discharge Permit is the most feasible wastewater

. r
y R
treatment option. Useable land area for, either of the alternatives
is questionable. The proposed discharge is for the Clubhouse only.
The original-40,000 GPD will be reduced to 20,000 GPD to go below
50% of the 7a10 flow of 52,000 GPD, which was unknown at the time
of submission of the NPDES.
Preliminary installed cost for the stream discharge option:
20,000 gal. Treatment Plant - Dual Train $60, 000. 00
Effluent Pump Station 10, 000. 00
3 In. Force Main 20, 000. 00
8 In. Outfall 15, 000. 00
Generator (Standby) 100,000_00
TOTAL $115, 000. 00
The yearly maintenance is estimated at $2000.00.
When completed the plant will be operated to the specif icatibns of
the NPDES Permit by an experienced private firm, separate from the
Olde Beau Golf Club Organization, organized and licensed to provide
such services in North Carolina; and all requirements shall be met.
Please, give approval to an N. P. D. E. S. Permit for 20, 000 GPD
discharge at the requested point of discharge.
Yours v y tru ,
Charles H. Davis, Jr., . E.
NC 2903
lot

•� Ow A" ,•I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
April 5, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jane Murray, Administrative As stant
Secretary Cobey' s Office
FROM: Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Sectio
SUBJECT: Billy Satterfield/Olde Beau Golf Course
Request for NPDES Permit
George T. Everett, PKD.
Director
The following is offered regarding your information on the proposed subject
NPDES permit:
Mr. Satterfield has applied to the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
for an NPDES permit for a 100% domestic wastewater discharge to an unnamed trib-
utary to Laurel Branch (a class C-trout stream in Alleghany County). As part of
the application for requesting a discharge permit, the applicant must submit an
engineering proposal (per Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2)) which
summarizes all waste treatment disposal options and demonstrate that "the most
environmentally sound alternative was selected from the reasonably cost effec-
tive options". The engineering proposal for this facility was incomplete. Only
one option for an alternative to discharge was addressed in the proposal. Addi-
tional options which should be evaluated include spray irrigation, subsurface
disposal, and spray irrigation on the adjacent golf course (seasonally, if not
applicable year-round).
In addition to the above, Technical Support is concerned with the proposed dis-
charge location. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7Q10 (lowest flow
predicted to occur for 7 days within ten years) flow estimate at this location
is 0.08 cfs. This estimate is based on the pre -developed drainage area at the
proposed discharge site and flow data from gaging stations on nearby streams.
However, these stream flow estimates do not consider changes in the land struc-
ture or alterations in stream flow which occurred during development of the Old
Beau project. The regional engineers who visited the proposed discharge site
reported that the site has been so damaged by sedimentation that it is now a
dry ditch. Furthermore, the proposed discharge location is above a small pond
(approximately 100 feet), and with an effluent dominated stream entering the
pond, problems such as eutrophication, or deoxygenation are predicted to occur.
Finally, the proposed discharge may not be able to meet the temperature stan-
dards required for designated trout streams.
Poltnfion Pr+ewndon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Fnt ial nnr%nrh inity AffiffnAtivP Action Fmnlover

Satterfield
Page - 2 -
These issues must be resolved before a final permitting decision can be made.
Please contact me at 3-5083 if you have any further questions concerning this
matter.
JTC/W
cc: George Everett
Trevor Clements
Don Safrit
Larry Coble
Central Files

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
TO: Carla Sanderson
FROM: Robin Michael(
March 14, 1990
RE: Olde Beau, Ltd. V. NRCD. DEM, WQ 89-59
Alleghany County
John C. Hunter
General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Edwin L. Gavin 11
Robin N. Michael
David G. Heeter
Elizabeth E. Rouse
James C. Holloway
John P. Barkley
Robert R. Gelblum
J. Peter Rascoe, III
Attached please find a copy of the documents I possess
regarding Olde Beau's compliance record. As the attached
documents indicate, on February 8, 1989, a Superior Court Judge
upon Motion for Injunctive Relief by the Department, caused the
parties to enter into a Consent Order. Said Order mandated,
inter alia, that Olde Beau comply with the provisions of a new
e*Osion control plan (Exhibit A. paragraph 1.) Pursuant to a
Motion in the Cause, filed by the Department on August 8, 1989, a
hearing was held in Superior Court on Olde Beau's alleged
violations of the aforementioned February 8, 1989 Consent
Order. On September 5, 1989 the Court and found Olde Beau to
have been in contempt of said Order in the manner and to the
extent set at therein (Exhibit B, p. 12). On October 2, 1989 the
Director of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) levied
a civil penalty assessment against Olde Beau in the amount of
$36,357.45 for violations of G.S. 143 Article 21. (Exhibit C).
Essentially it was assessed for violating the turbidity standard,
for discharging without a permit into Laurel Branch and for
impairing the best usage of Sam's Branch and the Laurel Branch.
I have also enclosed a copy of G.S. 143-215.1(b)(la) which
gives DEM the statutory authority to deny a water quality permit
to an applicant who has not substantially complied with laws for
the protection of the environment (Exhibit D). I have also
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

attached a copy of the Department guidelines which the Department
recently drafted and which are to be used in conjunction with
this statute (Exhibit E).
If you have any questions regarding the materials which I
have provided to you, please contact me at your earliest
convenience.
RM/ sd
Enclosure
1

LXHIBIT Al
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY Of ALLEGiIANY
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
88 CVS 148 and 88 CVS 149
OLDR BI;A119 LTD. )
Plaintiff. )
Vs. (88 CVS 148) )
STATE OF NORTH CAROLI NA , DEPART? TENT )
OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CWMUN1TY )
DEVELOPMENT, )
Defendant. }
AND )
)
STATE OF NORTH CAR.01, i NA , ex ry i )
LACY 11. THORNBURG, At.t.orney )
General, and S. THOMAS RHODES, )
Secretary, DEPAR•ITIENT OF NATURAL )
RESOURCES AND COi MUi:1TY Di;VELOPHENT, )
Plaintiffs )
Vs. (88 CVS 149) )
OLDE Bi;AU, LTD., INC., }
Defendant. )
}
CONSENT ! DGMENT*
This cause coming on before the undersigned Judge, specially
assigned for special term of Allegheny County Superior Court, and the
parties wishing to resolve all matters presently in controversy
between them hereby enter into the following:
That hereinafter wherever the word "State" appears, it shall
mean, "State of Ilorth Carolina, ex rel Lacy il. Thornburg, Attorney
General. and S. niomas iniodcs, Secretary, Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development", and wherever the words, "Olde
Beau", appears, it shall mean, "Olde Beau, Ltd.".
That the above -captioned cases are Lwo cases now pending in
the Superior Court of Alleghany County; that the cases involve many of
the same or si mi l nr i sst»s, and it is ngreed by the parties that the
cases be and are hereby consolidated for judgiaent.
l•Ihereas, 01de Benu contends that It Is, and always has been
a_ its Intention to build a golf course and residential. development in
Al.leghnny (:rn,nt.y nud In dti wi t hiii l.lin re(jW r(,monts of existing lnw;
Olde Beau further contends that it is not currently in violation of
i

any existing law, regulation, or rule and has fully cooperated in all
manners with the State toward that end.
Whereas the State has no intention to impede any development
conducted so long as it is conducted within the requirements of
existing law, including the Olde Beau project which is the subject of
this Judgment.
Therefore in accordance to agreements made by the parties it
is hereby ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
1. That the previous erosion control plan submitted by Olde
Beau on December 6, 1938 and disapproved of by the State on Decenber
19, 1988 is hereby approved subject to certain minor modifications to which
Olde Beau willingly agrees, and a summary of the plan and
modifications is attached hereto as Exhibit A and the same is
Incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this
Judgment.
2. That the letter of the State to Olde Beau dated December
9, 1988 entitled, "Notice of Violations of the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act" assessing civil penalties and ordering Olde Beau to stop
any new lane: disturbing activities is hereby ordered null and void and
of no legal effect, and this Judgment shall operate as an approval of
the plan as stated herein; that the parties agree, and it is so
ordered that Olde Beau's petition for Administrative Hearing on the
issues set out therein is no longer necessary as all facts and
controversies in those matters are covered by this Judgment; and
specifically it is agreed and so ordered that no civil penalties will
be assessed under the terms of any statute, rule, or regulation for
any alleged violations occuring on or before the date of this
Judgment; it is further agreed and so ordered that Olde Beau's
petition for Administrative Hearing concerning the State's letter of
December 19, 1988 to Olde Beau entitled, "Letter of Disapproval" is
hereby declared null and void, and no Administrative Hearing shall be
necessary as the matters therein are covered by this Judgment.
3. It is further agreed and so ordered that upon the
compliance with the provisions herein set out concerning the erosion
control plan, that Olde Beau shall be allowed to continue its project
to completion.
4. It is further agreed and so ordered that all
parties' actions for injunctive relief against the other are
denied for any actions of any party taking place on or before the
date of this Judgment.
S. It is further agreed and so ordered that Olde Beau's
action for monetary dariaces against the State for actions taking place
prior to the date of this Judgment in consideration of the other
agreements detailed herein are hereby withdrawn and dismissed.
It is further agreed and so ordered that the State's actions for
public nuisance and violations of laws, rules and reoulati ons
ngn i nst of de meat, rot. air i. i ons, t ak3 nb place prior to the date of
this Jud ment in consideration of the other agreemments detailed

. ,9
herein are hereby withdrawn and dismissed.
6. It is further agreed and so ordered that it is
understood by all parties that any determination concerning compliance
with any deadline set forth in this Order or in any plans required by
this Order, shall take into consideration weather conditions and such
other circumstances outside the control of the parties.
7. It is further agreed and so ordered that O1de Beau shall
furnish to the State a detailed engineering plan Incorporating in
engineering terms those agreements contained in Exhibit A which
incorporates Olde Eeau's December 6, 1988 plan with modifications
contained therein that Olde Beau shall submit such plan to the State
no later than February 15, 1989.
8. It is agreed and so ordered that by no later than April
1, 1989 Olde Beau shall submit to State a plan which addresses a
schedule for long-term stabilizations and completion for entire
project; such measures are already agreed upon by the parties; those
measures are set forth in Exhibit A.
9. It is further agreed and so ordered that subject to
paragraph 6 above that no later than Harch 3, 1989, Olde Beau shall
have fully implemented all sedimentation controls set forth herein.
10. It is further agreed and so ordered that all parties
shall bear their own costs and attorneys fees in each of their
respective actions.
11. It is further agreed and so ordered that the State
throuh the Office of the Attorney General shall request all other
state agencies having any complaint concerning this Judgment or any
future actions of any of the parties to address their alleged
grievances first to counsel for the State, and that such matters shall
be attempted to be resolved in the inanner provided in paragraph 12.
In no event shall any state agency herein or its employees address
such concerns to the media prior to complying with the provisions of
this Judgment, it being the intent that the proper state agency for
enforcement should be the party to resolve the matter in accordance
with law.
12. That it is agreed and so ordered that it is the intent
of the parties that this Consent ,Judgment completely resolves all past
differences among the parties; it is the further intent of all parties
to cooperate fully in the future to insure complete cooperation with
each other;Ciowever, in the event that future disagreements should
arise over any alleged violations of this anreenent, that it is agreed
that counsel for the alleged aggrieved party shall immediately contact
the counsel for the opposing party and attempts be made to resolve by
negotiation any disagreement; that in the event the counsels are
unable to resolve any such disr.Sreem nt ei t4her party shall retain the
right to file a motion in the cause in these cases for any alleged
future violations of this agreement or the applicable law; that for
the purposes of any such hearing if such hearing is neces) r it is
y•

agreed by and between the parties that any such motions shall be heard
by the undersigned Judge and may be heard out of County and out of
district:
Q
This the D day of February 1989.
CONSEIITED TO BY:
1
Lacy !; Thor .bur ; ;iarre.l.l Powell,
Attorney General
J. Oark
Assist n0iot orney General
Attorneys for State
N.C. Department of
Natural ;resources and
Community Development
Charles Gardner
Chief, Land Quality Section
o g Hi ller
Chief, Regional Engineer
Wo
4avJd:lard
Regional Engineer
4Edward L. Powell
Attorneys for Olde Beau, Ltd.
Olde Beau, Ltd.
Lilly at er ield
President

' . • , L'At1.l t� 1 l �
STATE Or NORTH CAROLIN
ALLEGRANY COUNTY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
tx hel LACY H. THOANBURG, ATTORNEY
GENERAL and Sf THOMAS RHObES, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND
NATURAL RESOURCES,
vSs
OLDE BEAU LIMITED# INC.,
Plai.nti.f fs,
Defendant.
IN THE GEIPRAL COURT OF JUST1Ct
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE # 88 CvS 149
qSj- q - V1
ov r—
r
�
-v
-
ORDER �.
r
co
c7
od
i-�
This matter coming on to be heard and being heard pursuant. to the
provi.slons of the Consent Judgment entered herein on February 8, 1989,
and pursuant to a .Special Commission of the undersigned for the trial of
Civil cases i.n the county of Yadkin to begin on August: 21, 1989, and
to continue until the busi.ness is disposed of, and pursuant to a "Hot: i on
in the Cause" filed by plaintiffs herein on August B. 1989;
And the Court, based on the Cout t' s consideration of the ev Wehc-2
presented by the Plai.ntIffs and the Defendant as well as the Courts
exami.nati.on of the entire record herein, finds the facts as fol lotus t
1. On February 8, 1989, a Consent Judgment (hereinafter uudgmentj
was entered into between the parties herein, the terms and conditions of
which are i ncorporat.eo herein by reference without being fully set: out-
2. Th;�t-, inter alia, said Judgment provided that. it was the
"intent of the parties" that the Judgment: "completely resolves all past:
differences," and that. the Plaintiffs' ac:: i ons aqa i nst the Defendant: for
"violations of laws, rules and regulations" by the Defendant " for
actions taken place prior to the date" of the Judgment: were withdrawn
and di.smi.ssed# and that either party retained the right to file a
notion in the Cause for any alleged future violations of the Judgment:
or of the applicable law, which motion, pursuant. to the agreement of
the par. ti.es and the judgment, was to be heard by the undersigned t
M
0

3. That, since the date of said Judgment, the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development. has been reconstituted and that
the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources [hereihaftet
DEHNRI is the ptoper successor Plaintiff thereto;
4. That, during the presentation of the evidence herein, the
following persons were present: the Court, the court reporter, Mildred
Jones, the -Honorable Harold J. Long, Yadkin County Clerk of Superior court#
the Honorable Jack Henderson, Shetiff of Yadkin County, Assistant Attotheyt.
General J. Mark Payne, Phil Telfer, and Judy Bullock, attorneys for
Defendant Harrell Powell, Jr., Edward L. Powell, and Gary Whittaker# 9hd :
Mr. Charles Gardner, Mr. Doug Miller, Mr. David Ward, Mr. Abner braddy# and
Ns. Margaret Plemmons of the North Carolina Department of Environment#
Health and Natural Resources; that Mr. Billy Satterfield, Presi.deht of
of Defendant, was present for substantial portions of evidence presentation
each day, as well as reporters for the Winston-Salem Journal and the Elkin`
Tribune; that Assistant Attorney General Melissa L. Trippe and Mt. Joe
Mickey of the North Carolina Wild Life Resources Commission were pr.esaht
at the opening of court on Tuesday and remained for a brief period of
time that day; that a representative of the Sierra Club was present for
a portion of the evidence on one day, and two interested citizens, one a
Mr. Ralph Williams, from Surry County, were present for some portions of
the evidence on at least two days; except as noted above, all witnesses
whose testimony appears of record were present only for a short period
before and after the time at which their testimony was presented;
5: That the above listing is included herein so that the record will
reflect as accurately as possible those persons who may legitimately
purport to have some knowledge of the evidence presented at this heari.hg#
rather than on allegations in some other forum, and upon which the Court
was required to base its decisions;
6. That, on July 13, 1989, Assistant Attorney General J. Mark Payne
,,Wrote a letter to Defendant's counsel, Mr. Ed Powell, which letter was
A ntroduced into evidence as State's Exhibit 14 and which is incorporated
h,erein by reference without being fully set out;
t

71 that Mr. Payne's letter 4dvised Mr. Powell of the Plaintiffs'
Contention that the Defendant was in violation of the Judgment in cettAift
allure to rovide a plan for long-term stabilitati6fi •.0.
re6pects, including 1)f p
of the site in question under Paragraph 8 of the Judgment, 2)fAllure, uridli :i:;
the agreed upon Erosion Control Plan submitted by the Defendant and ApprbVfdi.._
by the DEHNR, and incorporated into the Judgment in Paragraph 11 to
maintain sediment basins on the site, 3) failure, under the Erosion Cohttdl '
Plan, to build and maintain diversions on exposed graded areas and on
certain fairways, and 4) violations of the North Carolina Sedimentation
and Pollution Control Act of 1973 (hereinafter Act) and Administrative
Rules adopted thereunder, including not placing temporary ground covet
within thirty days of completion of any grading phase, and off -site
sedimentation;
8. That, on July 19, 1989, couhsel for Defendant, J. Harrell POWe11P
responded by letter to the Assistant Attorney General's letter, and in
general denied all allegations, which letter of Defendant's counsel Was
introduced into evidence as Defendant's Exhibit 13 and which is incorporated*
herein by reference without being fully set out;
9. That, on July 31, 1989, Assistant Attorney General Payne declined
by letter to meet at the development site with Defendant's counsel, but
proposed a pre -hearing Conference with the undersigned as an alternative,
which letter was introduced into evidence as Defendant's Exhibit 14 and
which is incorporated herein by reference without being fully set outt
10. That the exchange of correspondence between Assistant Attorney
General Payne and counsel for the Defendant constituted an unsuccessful
attempt by the parties to resolve by negotiation disagreements between
them regarding alleged violations of the Judgment in the manner set out th
Paragraph 12 of said Judgment;
11. That, on August Be 1989, the Plaintiffs filed herein a "Motion •.
in the Cause," alleging violations of the Judgment by the Defendant r
essentially as set out in Assistant Attorney General Payne's letter of
July 13, 1989, the contents of which Motion are incorporated herein by
Oreference without being fully set out;
.12. That, prior to the formal presentation of evidence herein, the
3

development site in question
:ties
at the Court should view the de is made by couhsQl -
:ties agreed that that any statemen
1 as pertinent adjacent areas,
1 sites would be considered by
we visit to said
others during the Court'a and not as eviaenCe, but
of opening statement
e
Court only in the way all things and conditions seen
at th
e Court could consider as evidenceentl referred to in the foi~"
the Court at that time which were subgequ Y
►idence presented;
• 't to the sites referred to above►
That following the Courtis visit August 151 19891
13• was begun on Tuesdayr
ormal presentation of evidence full
the evidence► the Court had
t during the presentation of well as the
14. Tha . Ve all witnesses who testified as determine
portuni.tY to see and observe ortuni.ty to .
P and further had full opp
of said witnesses, ...Z estimony of each witness who
lemeanor give to the t
what weight and credibility to
testified;
casions during the period from
5. That, on at least seventeen oc entativesof DEHNR visited the
repres
l 1989,
March 10, 1, to August 19' i.nspectiohs to
i►1a 989tnent for purposes of making
site of Defendant's
develop a ment, the Act, and
lianc'e of Defendant with the Juug
the comp
hed
ng
determI-ne reSeht_
a pl i cable Administrative Rules; said inspections # rep
P
t on sixteen occasions following s of said Departmentft
lb. Tha ► •
furnished to agents of Defendant a cop s were introduced
atives of UEHNR fu ns eCtion Report," which report
't �3, the contents of which are
of f ici.al "Sedimentation 1 P Late, s Exhibit
into evidence collectively as S out being fully Set out;
incorp
orated herein by reference with
of 7ouglas Millers Regional
7, That, according to the testimony the aforesaid
1 i es of
cop
of DERNR thereinafter Mr. Mi lleY , ected property
Super-v i sot ven to owners of i nsp
inspection Reports are 9� taken and so as
Sedimentation insp t to be .
'.ndi ca}.es corrective ac ..ion needs
if the inspection � uir.ed action;
t� advise owners to fake that req
ember, 1988, and in late March► 1989
`= 18. That Mr. Miller,
in late Dec ast the
of tie
wa � iced the course t
Mitchell River. from its headwaters 0 Sams Br$nch
point of the Mitchell River's confluence with its tributary►
Q

in his opinion, was caused by accelerated erosion as opposed to Natural
erosion, and that, in his opinion, sediment he observed being retained
in sedimentation Control measures on the site of Defendant's developtnettt '
was of the $ame tyke that he observed at the point in questibti in the
Mitchell River,but that Mr. Ward gave no opinion in his testimony as to Whpn
said sediment he observed in the Mitchell River had been deposited theraihi
26. That Mr. Ward inspected Defendant's property again on June 30, 1989,
along with Mr. Charles Gardner, Chief of the Land Quality Section of DEHHAI
and Mrs. Margaret Plemmons, also of the DEHNR, and that Mr. Ward, Mr, Gardner,
Mrs.Plemmons, and two private individuals also observed on that date the
area of the Mitchell River above its confluence with Sams Branch that Mr.
Ward had inspected on June 27, 1989, and that Mr. Ward's observations of
both sites on June 30, 1989, were much the same as those he made on June 27t
19891 � • ...* f..
27. That Mr. Ward prepared and furnished to Defendant on June 30# 1989,
a Sedimentation Inspection Report reflecting the inspection of befendant'A
property and the Mitchell River site, which report shied that the "RiVet
is still
turbid from rains on June 24-25, 1989," annlol o}_her statement
regarding the Mitchell River;
v
28. That the mention of the Mitchell River described in the preceed i.tig
paragraph is the only mention of said River. in Sedi nmentat i.on Inspect i oh
Reports prepared by the Plaintiffs and furnished to the Defendant betweeh
the period from February 6, 1989 up to and including August 14, 1989#
29. That Mr. Miller, in his testimony, acknowledged that neither the
Sedimentation Inspection Report of June 30, 1989, nor any other Sedimentatioh
Inspection Report prepared by agents of t. oe DEHNR contained any indication
of off -site sedimentation from Defendant's property into the Mitchell Riven
30. That no credible evidence was introduced herein, whether in the
form of simple comparative measurements, soil comparisons, soil core sample
compari sons, or otherwise, of any off -site sedimental ion into the Mitchell
"River from the Defendant's property after February o, 1989;
I 31. That the terms of the Judgment bar, under the principle of ryes,
iudicata.the Plaintiffs from seeking any relief from this Court for actiotl9

of the Defendant prior to February 6, 1989t
f
32& That Mr. Dave Lenat, an Environmental Biologist employed by th@
Division of Environmental Management of the North Carolina wildlife:.
Resources Commission, testified that, in his opinion, there is no fagtet
wayof restoring streams exposed to sediment pollution than the hatural
_
process of the stream's flushing out of the sediment, and that, if the
Mitchell -River is not further exposed to additional sedimentation from
accelerated erosion, any decrease in the abundance and taxa richness df
invertebrate life in the River which he found from comparative studies in
August/September, 1988, and August, 1989, could be remedied and the Rivei
recover in approximately one year, and that the decrease in trout populatiOn
indicated in studies done by the North Carolina wildlife Resources COtnmift§16n
in August-, 1988, and August, 1989, could be recovered in up to five yeetAl
�«,t..
13. That Mr. Miller testified, and the Court finds that the sedimehtdO
Lion control measures now in place on Defendant's property aretafid will
continue to be effective in terms of keeping sediment on said ptbpertyi
f Act:, ANC �i'
as required by North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15, Sub -Chapter
4B thereinafter NCAC 15 4B].0007(3) and .0008, as long as said measuret
are properly maintained, as required by NCAC 15 4B .0013, in the absence
of a fen -year ,stor.m, defined as 4.8 inches of rainfall over a 24 hour
period;
34. That, as of the date of this hearing, Defendant has not fur.hi.shed
to DEHNR a plan, including a schedule, for long-term stabilization of
Defendant's site and for completion of the entire project, as required by
Paragraph 8 of the Judgment, and that the Sedimentation Report f urni shed
by agents of: DEMIR to Defendant on July 10, 1989, notified Defendant. of
its failure to furnish said report;
35. That, as of the date of this hearing, the sediment, control bass h
referred to in Paragraph IV (A) of Exhibit. A to the Judgment has not been
constructed by Defendant as required by said Judgment, and that Sedimentati.6h
,.Inspection Reports furnished by agents of DEHNR to Defendant on March 29�
1989, April 24, 1989, and May 9, 1989, notified Defendant of its fallur.e
to construct said basin;
35.a. That the failuresof Defendant to furnish to DEHNR a long-term
gtabi.li.zation plan and to construct the sediment control basin r.efeCrpd to in
paragraph IVA of Exhibit A to the Judgment as set out in Patagrgphs 34 & is
`above were not attributable to rain or weather. conditionst

i
•
364 That Sedimentation Inspection Reports furnished by agents of DPHNR
to Defendant on March 10, May 9, May 31, June 15, June 261 June 30, July IN
July 21, July 25, July 31, August 2, August 8, August 10, and August 14, 1909,
notified Defendant of its failure to maintain properly sediment control
measures, such as pits, dams, and basins, on Defendant's development site,
including failure to dip or clean, resultant overtopping, failure to teMOV@
sediment after dipping or cleaning from areas adjacent to dams, basins,
or pits to areas safe and appropriate for dispersal, vegetation, and stdbil6
i2Ation, and failure to re-establish, when necessary, the original capaCity
of dams, basins, or pits;
37. That Mr. Ward testified that on August 8, 1989, an employee of `
Defendant stated to Mr. Ward that "he could not use valuable time, with
such pretty weather, to dip out silt ponds" apt that, for reasohb he Was
unable to Articulate in his testimony, Mr. Ward did not report said-stAteMptft
to Defendant`s President, Mr. Satterfield, nor did Mr. Ward include said
statement in his Sedimentation Inspection Report furnished to Defendant
on said date;
38. That, according to rainfall records introduced into evidence
by Defendant, no rainfall occurred on March 10, May 31, June 26, June 30,
July 10, July 21, July 25. August 2, August 8, or August 10,.1989, and
that any failure of Defendant to maintain properly sediment control
measures on Defendant's development site on those dates was not attributable
to rain or weather conditions;
39. That Defendant's failure to maintain properly sediment control
measures on Defendants development site as set. forth above was in violatioh
of NCAC 15 4B .0005 (b) and 4B . 00] 3 , as we] 1 as Paragraph 1 of the Judgmenl t
40. That Sedimentation Inspection Reports furnished by agents of
DEHNR to Defendant on May 9, May 31, June 15, July 21, and July 25, 19891
refer to Defendant's failure to maihtain diversions previously built of
to Defendants failure to build diversions in certain areas, including
graded areas, fairways, and access roads;
11 41, That Sedimentation Inspection Reports furnished by agents -of
bEHNR to Defendant,on June 30, July 10, July 31, and August 10, 1989, refer

to befendants failure to provide all graded areas with appropriate groun4
cover within thirty working days after the completion of a grading phase=
42. That Sedimentation Inspection Reports furnished by agents of MNA
to Defendant oh March 10, March 29, May 9, May 31, June 151 July 21# July _291
and August 14, 1989, notified Defendant of its failure to prevent off -site
sedimentation from Defendant's development site into various areas of the
Laurel Branch adjacent to said site;
43, 'That Defendant contends that the deposit of large quantities bf
sediment into the Laurel Branch from the site of Defendant's development
on July 25, 1989, was caused by the intentional act of vandals not assoCiAt@d .
with Defendant in opening a drainage valve of a dam located on Defendant's
site in an area adjacent to the Laurel Branch; and that the Plaintiff#
contend that said deposit on July 25, 1989, was caused by the negligent
or intentional act of agents of DefendApts:
kit=.
44. That off -site sedimentation from the Defendants developMeht-
site into the Laurel Branch occurred on March 10, March 29, May 9, May Ali
June 15, July 21► July 25, and August 14, 1989, and on Bach date occurred •.
at a time when said site was under the exclusive control and in the
exclusive possession of Defendant;
45. That Defendant fai..led,on or about July 25, 1989, to take such
reasonable measures, including, but. not limited to, removal of the drainA§@
valve wheel or placing a chain lock on the wheel, as would have prevented
unauthorized opening of the drainage valve referred to in Paragraph 43
above ;
46. That Defendant's failure to retain sediment generated by "land -
disturbing activity," as defined in N.C.G.S. 113A-52 (6) , conducted by
Defendant on its development site within the boundaries of said site was
in violation of N.C.G.S. 113A-57(3)► NCAC 15 4a .0005(b), .0007(3),
.0013 and .0015;
47. That off -site sedimentation from Defendant's development site
\ into t:he Laurel Branch on March 10, March 29, May 31, and June 15, 1989, wag.
caused. in substantial part by Defendant's violation of N.C.G.S 113A-57431,
" NCAC 15 4B .0005 (b) o .0007 (3) , and .0015;
.48. That off -site sedimentation from Defendant's development site WO
the Laurel •Branch ion May 9, July 21, July 25, and August 14,.1989P Wag

caused 1h substantial part by Defendant's violation of NCAC 15 48 .00131
49. That the Laurel Branch, a tributary of the Little River, is
clarified by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commissioh as Designated
Public Mountain Trout Water, a stocked trout stream, and is a valuable
public resource=
50. That, according to yfestimony of Mr: Dave Lenat# the Laurel $tancht
is, at the time of this hearing, experiencing "severe stress" as a result
of sediment pollution, that his studies of the Laurel Branch in August/
September, 1988, and August, 1989, indicated a significant decrease in the
abundance and taxa richness of invertebrate life in the Branch# that studi@a
done by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in August, 1988#
and August, 1989, indicated a 100% decrease in the wild trout population
of the Branch# meaning total eliminatigl.v of tthat species, and that theta i9
"some question whether the Laurel Branch can ever recover to a reproducing
trout stream"t
4 ,! rra L
51. That off -site sedimentation from the Defendant's
development site into the Laurel Branch has occurred since February 6, 19891
and that said sedimentation has had .a effect on the abundance
and taxa richness of invertebrate life in the Branch as well as on the
wild trout population, and that the Laurel Branch has been damaged as a
result of said sedimentation;
52. That the provisions of the Judgment: for negoti.ation and subsequent
Motion in this Cause as set out in Paragraph 12 of the Judgment should not
be construed as a bar to the Plaintiffs seeking remedies under. N.C.G.S. 113AA
64 (a) or NCAC 15 (4) (C) , but that the negoti.ati.ons contemplated and provided
for in said ,judgment should be concluded prior to 1 he Pl.. i nt: i f f ' s sec h i hg
such remedy; and further, that, to facilitate such negoi i at. i on, copies of
all Sedimentation Inspection Reports, Notices of Violation, and other such
documents should be mailed by agents of Plaintiffs to counsel for Defendant
contemporaneously with the delivery to or set vi ce upon Uefendani: of such
document.;
53. Ti;at the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the Judgment should not
be construed as requiring any individual or agency covered thereby. to
violate the Public Records Act of Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General
9

statutest
54, That the neteesity for planning Superior Court Jud9d d6bi§hfbhP
well in Advance of those aasignemntsr and the further difficulty in alttsting
those assignments once made, as well as other valid considerations, tender
impractical and unworkable the provisions of paragraph 12 of the JudgMaht
providing that the undersigned retain continuing jurisdiction of this Matter..
and that those provisions should be deleted from the Judgment=
And the Court further finds as a fact and concludes as a matter of
law as follows
55. That no legal justification or excuse for Defendant's violatiotl9
of the Judgment as set but in Paragraphs�34 and 35 above hat been showbi that.
Laid violations were willful, and that each Violation is# in and of itgelfp
a sufficient basis upon which this Court might determine that the befehdatlt _is
in -Contempt of this Court, and that the Defendant is in Contempt of this
Court as a consequence of each said violation;
56. That no legal justification or excuse for Defendant's failure tv
maintain properly erosion and sedimentation control measures on Defendant'§
development site as set out in Paragraphs36 and 39 above has been shown#
that each such failure was willful, and that each such failure in and of
as well as qqmrbasi�s uo n�whieh ihis ourt�t determaine that the
itself is,/a sufficient P
Defendant is in Contempt of this Court, and that the Defendant is in ConteMtA
of this Court as a consequence of each such failure;
56 a. (See reverse)
57. That. Defendant has failed to take all reasonable measures to
protect all public and private property from damage caused by "land -disturbing
activities" conducted by Defendant on Defendant's development site, and '
that Defendant has failed to i.nstal l and maintain erosion control devices
and practices as are sufficient to retain sediment generated by the "land
disturbing activity" conducted by Defendant at its development site within
ON
t. h e bou nd a r i es of s a i d -s i t. e ; a x] t'rNt each such fai ltvr ai Fbrdi 10, 1989,Ajkdy 25, 1989 and the
ctnulat:ive eifc�cl: of sLch fai haY cry �brch 29, M--y 9, My 31, itre 15, J3ily 21,a�d atr�t�t ld, 1989, is in acid o� .
't lr,axi,st rate art.,irppnn the ota�r tt , a suffici basis ��xa� t Bch the airt might M e the frxegPi tJ
:cet » �rst.�cr,, as ue i.� a SIM17icr�zt: Pe d pc to t �a�re1 b�axli• ave resented no
58. That the Plaintiffs, and in part�.cular DEHAR, h p
credible explanation or justification for the failures set out in Paragraph '
20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, and 30 above, and that such failures are both

56a. That Defendant has had at all times since February 6, 1989, the :y
capability of complying with the provisions of the Judgment deemed
violated in Paragraphs 34 and 35 above and of properly maintaining
the ettsion and sedimenta#ton control devices deemed not so hlaihtaifted ` ��.•: `
in Paragraphs 36 and 39 above. '"
IM

inexplicable and inexcusable. `
BASED ON
THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, IT
YS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That Defendant Olde Beau, Ltd., Inc., is in Contempt of thig Court*
as set out in paragraphs 55 a6itself/
2. That Defendant may purge of the foregoing Contempt by
complying with the followings
a. Paying into the office of the Clerk of Superior Court 6f 1989ghgny
AuAiit
County on or before 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, September , t
to Of the Act, a penalty of $2,000.00 for its failure to furnish to DEHNR a Defendlan#
including a schedule, for long-term stabilization
project
development site and for completion
b. Paying into the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court of Alle1989ghany
p►ht
y g on Wednesday, September ,
County on or before Ss00 P.M.
Ed the Act, a penalty of $2,000.00 for its failure to construct the of
fhthe
control basin referred to in Paragraph IV B of Exhibit
'Judgment= . ,0 Of tc
. Paying into the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court of A989ghaftY
c y g September 6, 1 ,
County on or before 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, P 0pb.00, ftyr
to the Act, a penalty of $100.00 per day, in a total ucontrolt of lmegsures on
its failure to maintain properly sediment31, Jufie 26, June 30#
Defendant's development site on a2chAU0uta8, and August 10, 1g�g!
July 10,.July 21, July 25, August9s
d. Furnishing to an agent of DEHNR for its approval on or before
54.00*P.M. on Friday, September 15, 1989, a completed plan, of
including a projected schedule, for worknowand prior
Defendant's development site ll
to completion of
the entire project; defendant shall.30 days in
advance of any new "land -disturbing activities" not covered by
l
the existing Erosion Control Plan, submit a new Erosion
Plan to DEHNR for approval;
e. Completing construction on or before 5:00 P.M. on referred to
September 15, 1989, of the sediment control
in Paragraph 9 B of Exhibit A of the Judgment;

L�
3. Upon the failure of Defendant to comply with one or more bf the
provisions of Paragraphs 2(a)-2(e) above, Defendant shall automatically
be'assessed an additional t500.00 penattyper provision for each day of such
hon-compliance up to a total maximum of $2,500.00 per day should befendznt
not be in compliance with all five provisions of paragraphs 2 (a) -2 (e) ,ihaMi-tidi t4
such other and further penalty as to the Court may seem just and appropriate
upon proper notice and hearing=
4. That Defendant hereafter shall comply in full with all provisions
of this order, the Judgment, the Erosion Control Plan submitted by Defendant
and approved by DEHNR, the Act, and NCAC 15(4)(A)(B);
5. That Defendant, in order to ensure its compliance with Paragraph
A above, shall assign one qualified in&AiduAa to the sole and exclusive
responsibility for properly maintaining all sediment control ineasutes on
Defendant's development site, and shall allocate to said individual all
necessary equipment and manpower to maintain properly said sediment cohttOl
measures in compliance with this order, the Judgment, the Erosion Control
Plan, the Act, and NCAC 15 (4) (A) (a) including, but not limited to!
a) dipping or cleaning all pits, basins, and dams a minimum
of once weekly;
b) removing accumulated sediment from all pits, basins, and dams
after same have reached one-half capacity;
c) dispersing or removing sediment taken from pits, basins, or
dams to such areas as are safe and appropriate for dispersal,
vegetation and stabilization of said sediment, and to areas
where said sediment does not flow back into a pit, dam or
basin or off of vefendant's development- site; 6a4
d) installing such r,jersures as are reasonably necessary to insure
that drainage valves on sediment control measures located on
Defendant's development site shall not be opened by unauthoti.ted
individuals, the measures to include, but- not be limited to,
e i !- her removal of drainage valve wheels or pl ac i.ng a chain
leek. on drainage valve wheels;Nv
e) j4:4 i ::{-ai ni n►g a daily log of all said mai nt en..nce activity for review and
inspection by the DMtRt
6. That, upon the Court's determination, after proper Notice and Hearing, of the
Defendant's willful f ali lure to comply with any of . the prov i.s i ons of .

f
•
Paragraph 5 above, that Defendant shall be subject to a penalty of $500.00
per day for each such violation, in addition to such other and further
penalties as to the Court may seem just and appropriate)
7. That defendant shall submit to the Court on or before 500 PiNs
on Friday, November 17, 1989, a plan setting out in detail such
reasonable measures as Defendant proposes to undertake,subject to the
rights of private property owners, in order to correct damage caused
by off -site sedimentation into areas of the Laurel Branch adjAceht Ed
Defendant's development site, said -plan to include, but not be limited
to, proposed methods of long-term removal of said sediment from the Laurel
Branch,.if such removal is determined to be practical and not to cause
further significant damage to said stream, and of replenishing in the
Laurel Branch of trout, macroinvertebrates, and other biota, which plan
shall be implemented by Defendant at its own cost in a timely manner upon
said plan's approval, in whole or in part, by the Court;
8. That, upon the Court's determination, after proper notice and heakint
of Defendant's willful failure to comply with the foregoing paragraphs 4
and 7, that Defendant be punished as to the Court may seem jKJ t and apptdn
priate for Defendant's Contempt of -the Court;
+ • 641
9. That the provisions of the Judgment as set out in Paragraph 12 _
shall not be construed as a bar to the Plaintiff's seeing remedies under
N.C.G.S. 113A-64(a) or NCAC 15 (4) (C), but that the negotiations refetted
to in said Judgment shall be concluded prior to the Plaintiff's seeking
ouch remedy; and further, that agents of Plaintiff shall mail to courigel
for Defendant copies of all Sedimentation Inspection Reports, Notices of
Violation, and other such documents contemporaneously with the delivery
to or service upon Defendant of such document;
10. That the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the Judgment shall not be
construed as requiring any individual or agency covered thereby to violate
the Public Records Act of Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Sta tutas
11. That except as provided in Paragraph 7 above, that the provisions
of Paragraph 12 of the Judgment providing that the undersigned retain
continuing jurisdiction of this matter, and case 88 CVS 148, are deleted
from the Judgment;
12. That each party shall bear its own costs;
13. That the parties may, by their mutual consent and Order of the
Court, amend any provision herein;
'Y

14, That the Department of Environinent, Health and Natural Resources
Is substituted as a party Plaintiff for the Department of Natural Resourceb
and CdMmunity Development.
Oeo-
This the S day of September, 1989.
• ♦ 10 L&

"EXHIBIT &
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALLEGHANY
IN THE MATTER OF:
OLDE BEAU, LTD.
FOR VIOLATIONS OF:
G.S. 143-215.1(a)(1) and
15 NCAC• 2B .0211(b) (3) ;
15 NCAC 28 .0211(b) (3) (k)
15 NCAC 2B .0216
(6) ;
AND
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FILE NO. WQ 89-59
FINDINGS AND DECISION
AND ASSESSMENT OF
Acting pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes (G.S.)
143-215.6 and North Carolina Environmental Management i tr tive ssion
(Commission) Rule Title 15 North Carolina Ad
ode
(NCAC) 2J .000, I, R. Paul Wilms, Director of the Division of
Environmental Management, make the following:
I. FINDINGS _E FA :
A. Olde beau, Ltd. is a domestic corporation, duly
organized and doing business in the State of North Carolina
(Corporation). The Corporation owns and is developing a
residential subdivision and golf course adjacent to U.S.
Highway 21 in Allegliany County, North Carolina (site) : The
site area being developed included portions around Laurel
Branch (classified as Class "C-Trout", waters of the State)
and the upper Mitchell River (classified as Class "B-Trout",
"Outstanding Resource Waters" of the State).
B. The site consists of a total of 865 acres, of which
approximately 185 acres has been affected by the
Corporation's land -disturbing activities.
C. The site sits astride the Eastern Continental Divide,
near Roaring Gap, in Alleghany County. Runoff from the
southern face of the mountain -ridge, upon which a portion
of the site is situated, becomes tributary to Laurel Branch.
Runoff from the northern face of the ridge, upon which a
portion of the site is situated, becomes tributary to
Mitchell River at various watercourses including one known
as Sam's Branch.
D. The best usages of Laurel Branch, a Class "C-Trout"
stream, include fishing , secondary recreation and
agriculture. The conditions related to this best usage
require that the waters will be suitable for fishing and
fish and wildlife propagation.
4

-2-
E. The best usages of the Mitchell River, a Class
"B-Trout" stream, an outstanding Resources Water of the
State provide, inter alia, that the waters contain
outstanding fish habitat and fisheries.
F. On August 15, 1988 officials from the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and community Development's
(NRCD's) Division of Environmental Management (staff)
inspected the site, in response to complaints lodged by
downstream property owners. This inspection revealed that
Laurel Branch had been adversely impacted with sediment
which had originated on the site.
G. On November 170 1988, again in response t thatizen
complaints, staff inspected the site and observed
the
Corporation had constructed two (2) dams for he stated
sediment
purpose of impounding runoff from the site into
basins (basins). The bottom drains of each dam were open,
and the dams were not impounding any appreciable amount
River
water. The waters of Laurel Branch and
of appeared highly turbid due to off -site sedimentation.
Sampling was conducted by staff which revealed
the pertinent results:
sample
i,ocation
jurb d t
I.
Laurel Branch, at its
exit from beneath Highway 21
90
2.
Laurel Branch, upstream of
lower dam to basin
55
3.
Laurel Branch at S.R. 1105
140
bridge
• 4.
Laurel Branch, upstream of
site
1'9
5.
Mitchell River, immediately
downstream of Dam
1,100
6.
Mitchell River, immediately
upstream of its confluence
with Sam's Branch
30
7.
Sam's Branch, immediately
upstream of confluence with
Mitchell River
220
e.
Mitchell River, immediately
downstream of its confluence
with Sam's Branch
l00
H. By letter dated November 238 1988 the Secretaryt for action
NRCD requested the Attorney General to initiate a
against the Corporation, for creation of a public nuisance,
to effect the cessation and remediation of off-site
sedimentation. This request was made to provide pro
on
from sedimentation damage.
A

-3-
I. By letter dart December 9, 1988 NRCD's Division of
Land Resources ( S) mailed the Corporation a Notice of
violation (Noti e) or therein stated violations of the
Sedimentation P tion Control Act (Act). Said Notice
cited the Corporation for its failure to, inter alia, retain
measures sufficient to prevent sediment from eroding into
Laurel Branch.
J. On February Be 1989 a Consent Judgement (Judgment) was
entered into wherein the Corporation was required to
implement certain erosion control measures. These measures
included the Maintenance of said sediment basins.
K. On the dates of June 30, 1989 and July 10, 1989 LQS V
officials conducted inspections of the site which rev the
that the site was not in compliance with the Acte o
provisions of the Judgment, in that virtually
all sediment
basins were full and no longer functioning to
retain
sediment. It was apparent that water carrying se
was
passing through the ineffective sediment basins and was
being carried offsite.
L. In response to citizen complaints, that the drainage
valve to the dam for the lower sediment basin had been staff conducted pen
an
over the weekend of July 22-23, 1989,
inspection of the site on July 24, 1989.
M. Staff's July 24, 1989 inspection of the site revealed
e eared
that vast amounts of sediment were being trap p
the drainageway of the basin's dams into Laurel Branch
Staff learned that this sediment was being conveyed qh
an outlet created by the opening of a drainage valve which
caused' the drainage of highly turbid water into Lahich
Branch over the two day period of July 23-24, 1989.
N . On July 24 , 1989 staff spoke with an official wjade
for the
Corporation who admitted that a consciofa decision lower basin.
to open the drainage valve into the dam
O. During the course of its July 24, 1989 inspection staff
collected turbidity samples from the Laurel Branch area.
Sampling conducted by staff yielded the following pertinent
results:
Sample Location
1. Laurel Branch, Upstream 1.5
2. Laurel Branch, approximately
25.0 feet downstream of lower dam 300
3. Approximately 35 feet downstream
of point Laurel Branch leaves
site 660
4. Bridge over Brush Creek 95
Li

- 4 --
p. By memorandum dated August 18, 1989 the wildlife
Resources Commission (Commission), conveyed the results of
their year long study (study) of the trout population in the
Laurel Branch and the Mitchell River watersheds. Said study
the commission
began on or about August 15, 19ee when
conducted a fish count of the fish population, to cdmpile
baseline data for later comparative purposes. In August,
1989 the Commission revisited the area and conducted a
follow-up fish count in the subject area. A comparison of
the data collected in 1988, to that in 1989, revealed that
the trout population in Laurel Branch had been eliminated as
a result of increased off -site sedimentation generated from
the site. The Commission concluded that there had been a
substantive decline in the trout populations in the affected
streams which was attributed to the elimination or reduction
of successful reproduction and reduction in the early ing
of
capacity of the stream to support trout as a r
off -site sedimentation from the site.
Q. By Memorandum dated August 21, 1989 the Biological
Monitoring Group of the water Quality Section (Group)
conveyed the results of their year long y of the
of increased sedimentation on the stream biota of Laurel
Branch and the Upper Mitchell River. The methodology
employed in this study included, inte al a, sampling of the
populations in each of the two affected watersheds. In
August, 1988, the Group collected data on the subject
ect
populations. This data were used to establish a b
condition, against which, data collected from This comparison
same
watersheds in Auguste, 1989 an the Upper compared. eMitchell River had
revealed that Laurel Creek pp
suffered. dramatic declines in both the richness and
abundance of subject biota.
R. On August 8, 1989 the State of North Carolinafiled
1e the
"Motion in the Cause in Superior Court
Corporation's violation of the Judgment.
/10 on September 5, 1989 Superior Court Judge Oder which R.
set
John ruled upon said Motion and issued a
out the following pertinent findings as facts:
45. That Defendant (Corporation) failed, on or
about July 25, 1989, to take such reasonable
measures, including, but not limited to, removal
of the drainage valve wheel or placing a ch i lock
on the wheel, as would have prevented an
unauthorized opening of the drainage valve.
51. That substantial off -site sedimentation from
the Defendant's development site int19gLaurel
Branch has occurred since February 61 ,
i and
that said sedimentation has had a significant
effect on the abundance and toxa richness of
i

-5-
invertebrate life in the branch as well as on the
trout population, and that Laurel Branch has been
damaged as a result of said sedimentation.
T. Pursuant to its September 5, 1989 Order Superior Court
Judge Joseph John also concluded the following, as a matter
of law:
57. That Defendant (Corporation) has failed to
take all reasonable measures to protect all public
and private property from damage caused by
"land -disturbing activities" conducted by
Defendant on Defendant's development site, and
that Defendant has failed to install and maintain
erosion control devices and practices as are
sufficient to retain sediment generated by the
"land -disturbing activity conducted by Defendant
at its development site ... and that each such
failure ... [is) a significant cause of damage to
the Laurel Branch;
U. None of the turbidity levels in exceedanc ueft10 NTU in
natural
the chart at paragraph I.N. above occurred d
conditions..
V. The Corporation was mailed a Notice of violation
(Notice), for its noncompliance with the Statefs water
quality laws and their regulations, which was received on
September 20, 1989.
W. Staff costs and expenses associated with detecting the
violations, defining their nature and extent and bringing
the enforcement action totalled $10,357.45.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
II. _CONCLUSION Qf :
A. Olde Beau, Ltd. is a "person" within the meaning of
G.S. 143-215.6 pursuant to G.S. 143-212(4).
,-B. Olde Beau, Ltd. is required to have a permit
waters pursuant
!; to G.S. 143-215.1(a) for making an outlet into
the State.
C. Olde Beau, Ltd. violated G.S. 143-215.1(a) (1) on
-' i� one (1) occasion in the manner and to the extent set out in
paragraphs I. L. and M. above by snaking an outlet into the
waters of the State when it discharged -hi4MY�urbid water
info Laurel Branch.
D. Olde Beau, Ltd. is required to have a permit, pursuant
�.. to G.S. 14 3-215. 1(a) (6 ) to -," d.ischarge waste into the waters
of the State.

-6-
E. Olde Beau violated G.S. 143-215.1(a)(6) in the manner
and to the extent set out in paragraphs I. L., M., and R.,
above when it caused or allowed the unpermitted discharge of
highly turbid water into Laurel Branch in contravention of
the applicable water quality standards.
F. The water quality standards for best usage, applicable
to Class "C" katers, are set at in 15 NCAC 2B .0211(b).
G. Olde Beau, Ltd. violated 15 NCAC 2B .0211(b) by causing
the impairment of the best usage for the Laurel Branch,
classified as Class "C" waters of the State in the manner
and.to the extent set out in Paragraphs I.G., M., O., P.,
Q., R., and T. above.
N. As reflected in I. N., Olde Beau, Ltd. violated 15 NCAC
28 .0211(b) (3) (K)'s turbidity water quality standard of 10
NTU for the subject Class "C-Trout" waters of Laurel Branch,
on the date of July 24, 1989.
I. The water quality standards for best usage applicable
to Outstanding Resource Waters are set out in 15 NCAC 2B
.0216.
J. Olde Beau, Ltd. violated 15 NCAC 2B .0216 and 15 NCAC
28 .0211(f) by causing the impairment of the best usage for
the Sam's Branch and the upper Mitchell River, classified as
Class "B" Outstanding Resource Waters of the State in the
manner and to the extent set out in Paragraphs I.G., P. and
Q. above.
K. 15 NCAC 2B .0211(b) is duly adopted regulation of the
Commission implementing the provisions of G.S. 143, Article
21.
L. General Statute 143-215.3(a)(9) provides that the
reasonable costs of any investigation, inspection or
monitoring survey may be assessed against a person who
violates any regulations, standards, or limitations adopted
by the Environmental Management Commission or violates any
terms or conditions of any permit issued pursuant to G.S.
143-215.1, or special order or other document issued
pursuant to G.S. 143-215.2.
M. The Director, Division of Environmental Management,
pursuant to Rule 15 NCAC 2J .0003, has the authority to
assess civil penalties.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, I hake the following:
w

-7-
III. DECISION:
06, in
Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6 and 15 NCAC 2J.00 caused b account
determining the amount of the penalty, of I have taken d considered tharmthe Findings of Fact andConclusionsthe violation, end the cost
he
degree and extent of harm Y
of rectifying the damage.
Accordingly, Olde Beau, Ltd. shall be, and hereby iA,
assessed a civil penalty of:
$ 10.400 �4 for each of one (1) violation of G.S.
143-215.1(a) (1) for making an outlet to
the waters of the State without a
permit and of G.S. 143-215.1(8)(6) by
the unpermitted discharge of waste into
the waters of Laurel Branch on , y
24*
1989.
$ 0 0 f ,r one (1) violation of 15 NCAC
2.0211(b) by impairing the beat
usage
of Laurel Branch which of theaState.
as
Class "C-Trout" waters o
$ 1.00O,O
$ 10 000.40_
S000-OR
$ 3 7.45
S �
for one (1) violation of 15 NCAC 2B .0211(b)(3)(k) by causing the
exceedance of the turbidity ater
Laurel
quality standard of 10. NTU f
or Branch on July 24, 1989.
for one (1) violation of 15 NCAC 28
2B .0216 by impairing the best usage Of
Sam's Branch and the upper Mitchell
River, which is classified as an
Outstanding Resource paters of the
State.
TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is 6
percent of the maximum penalty
authorized by G.S. 143-215.6(a)(1)
Investigation costs
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
q&
I

IV • TBANSMIML:
The Office of General Counsel is directed to transmit these
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision to Olde Beau,
Ltd. in accordance with Rule 15 NCAC 2J .0007.
of
(Date) R. Paul Wilms, Director
• Division of Environmental Management
D-#98
L

E)OjXkbi f- b
°C. § 143-216
§ 143-215.1 ART. 21. WATER AND AIR RESOURCES § 143-215.1
production of harvestable freshwater, estuarine, or marine
ater ollutiO
P
plants or animals.
In the event that both effluent standards or limitations and clas-
No shall
sifications and water quality standards are applicable to any point
and to the waters to which they discharge, the
person
ie following acti;
source or sources
stringent among the standards established by the Commis -
)lied for and s
therefor and sh
more
sion shall be applicable and controlling.
with the above, no such permit shall .be granted for
are prescribed.4
In connection
the disposal of waste in waters classified as sources of public water
of
he State;
supply where the Department of Human Resources, after review
and specifications for the proposed disposal facility, de ter -
wor:ter-
the plans
mines and advises the Commission that such disposal is sufficiently
mines intake works of a public water
method of
or methof o
close to the intake works or proposed
as to have an adverse effect on the public health.
works, d P
supply
In any case where the Commission denies a permit, it shall state
for denial and shall also state the Com-
d through any o
in writing the reason such
estimate of the changes in the applicant's proposed activi-
or dis osal s ste
P Y
missions
t1e9 or plans which will be required in order that the applicant may
ny violation of
ished for any po'�
obtain a permit.
(b) Commission's Power as to Permits. — The Commission shall
:he condition of
on la permits so as to prevent, soar as reasonably possible,
ng any of the s
act
considering relevant standards under State and federal laws, any
in of the waters of the State from any
►rged through
significant increase pollution
new or enlarged sources.
Idexceed the effl
hed for
The Commission shall have the power:
such conditions attached as the
any poiri
,he condition of the .
(1) To grant a permit with
Commission believes necessary to achieve the purposes of
_
he standards appli- ;
this Article;
(la) To require that an applicant satisfy the Commission that
it indirectly, to be `
the applicant, or any parent or subsidiary corporation if
Ked with the waters
quality standards
the applicant is a corporation:
Is finali qualified to carry out the activity for
Is or in violation of _
established for any
a. illy
which the permit is required under subsection (a); and
complied with the effluent standards
tion of any permit,
iment issued or en- ,,;
b. Has substantially
and limitations and waste management treatment
applicable to any activity in which the appli-
e provisions of this ,;
practices
cant has previously engaged, and has been in substan-
tial compliance with other federal and state laws, reg-
pretreatment is re �
ulations, and rules for the protection of the environ-
be discharged, di%'%
.ent facility to any
ment;
(2) Repealed by Session Laws 1975, c. 583, s. 4.
less than 60 days'
Mange the construe- ,
(3) To modify or revoke any permit upon not
use the quantity or `
arged from or pro-
written notice to any person affected.
No permit shall be denied and no condition shall be attached to
on and installatio
the permit, except when the Commission finds such denial or such
the purposes of this Article.
nt works, pretreat
conditions necessary to effectuate
(cj Applications for Permits and Renewals _for. Facilities 1)is-
rr the alteration oi•
.
charging to the Surface Waters. —
(1) ATf applications for permits and for renewal of existing per
cations
peration of a treat
in -place sewage
mits for outlets and point sources and for treatment works
discharging to the surface waters of
sit at another local
and disposal systems
the State shall be in writing, and the Commission may
he Resource Con-
f the
prescribe the form of such applications. All applications
promulgated
shall be filed with the Commission at least 180 days in
date it is desired to commence the
into a defined man -I,
advance of the on which
discharge of wastes or the date on which an existing per-
he maintenance or
235

t: c r
Attachment 2
FACTORS TO CONSIDER ON EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE HISTORY
A. A permit may be denied to an applicant if it fails to
satisfy the Commission, or its delegee, as follows: that
the applicant itself, any predecessor or parent entity, any
officer, director, partner or other principal of the
applicant; any stockholder or other entity holding a
controlling interest in the applicant; or any subsidiary or
other entity in which the applicant has an interest, has
not substantially complied with federal and state laws,
regulations and rules for the protection of the environment
and with applicable sound waste management practices. In
making a determination of substantial compliance the
Commission, or its delegee, may consider factors such as,
but not limited to, the following:
(1) In regards to a previous violation; the cause of
the violation, the type of damage from the violation,
the extent of the damage, the frequency of the
violation, its duration and any other factors
determined to be appropriate. The weight to be given
these factors may be determined by the descending
order, such that the most important factor is listed
first, for each of the five categories below:
a) The cause of the violation:
1. Fraud or deceipt;
2. Intentional or knowingly
3. Gross negligence or careless or wanton
disregard;
4. Negligence;
5. Poor operation and maintenance;
6. Factors beyond the control of the operator,
b) Types of actual, or potential, damage from the
violation:
1. Public health;
2. Damage to wildlife;
3. Environmental damage;
4. Permit or standard violations with minor
impacts;
5. Reporting or technical violations with
essentially no impact,
c) Extent of the actual, or potential damage, fror.,
the violation:
1. Severe damage;
2. Moderate damage;
3. Minor damage;
4. No damage,

(2)
d) Frequency of the violation:
1. Frequently repeated, violation;
2. occasional violation;
3. Infrequent violation,
e) Duration of the violation:
1. Extended period elapsed before violation
identified, reported and or rectified;
2. Moderate period elapsed before violation
identified reported and rectified;
3. Short period elapsed before violation
identified, reported and rectified.
The Commission, or its delegee, may also consider the
historical pattern of compliance, as reflected by, but
not limited to the following:
a) the existence, or the absence, of a pattern of
recent improvements in performance history;
b) whether the pattern has improved, or worsened,
under the existing management;
c) the absence, or existence, of repeat violations of
the same type (s) .
(3) In addition to the aforementioned factors the
Commission, or its delegee, may consider the
applicant's record of adherence to sound waste
management practices as indicated by, but not limited
to, the following:
a) Environmental discharges and emissions:
1. Type and effectiveness of discharge and
emission control technology employed;
2. Level and timeliness of adherances to
discharge, emission and environmental
standards (historical and current);
b)' Monitoring of discharges and emissions
1. Type and timeliness of installing monitoring
equipment and systems;
2. Calibration and maintenance of monitoring
equipment and systems;
c) Waste minimization:
1. Application of waste minimization technology;
2. Trends in waste treated •on -site and shipped
off -site for treatment or disposal;

d)
Personnel training:
1. Qualification standards;
2. ongoing training programs and policies,
e)
Operating and emergency procedures:
1. Record -keeping procedures regarding waste
streams;
2. Accidents;
3. Spills, unplanned discharges and releases;
4.
Demonstration of effectiveness.
(4) For
definitions
purposes of this evaluation the followin
shall apply: g
a)
"violation" - any deviation from, or failure to,
comply with federal
and state laws, regulations
and rules for the protection of the
environment,
as my be evidenceed by, but not limited to,
notices
of violation or of noncompliance,
inspection reports consent agreements, relevant
judical or administrative orders.
b)
"person" - a natural person, business entity,
government, or political subdivision, agency or
instrumentality of a
government.
c)
"parent" - An affilliate controlling a specified
person directly, or indirectly through one or more
intermediaries.
d)
"subsidiary" - an affilliate controlled by a
specified person directly, or indirectly through
one or more intermediaries.
e)
"control" - the possession, direct or indirect, of
the
power to direct or cause the direction of
management and policies of a person whether
through the ownership of stock interests, by
contract, or otherwise.
5-v146

Attachment 3
I. INFORMATION TO BE REQUESTED FROM A POTENTIAL OPERATOR IN
ORDER TO EVALUATE COMPLIANCE HISTORY FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS,
OR AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION OR ITS DELAGEE.
1. Applicant shall provide a description of its legal type
of business (e.g.,corporation, partnership, sole
proprietorship, other).
2. Applicant shall provide an organizational chart which
identifiesthe applicant itself, any predecessor or
parent entity, any officer, director, partner or other
principal of the applicant; any stockholder or other
entity holding a controlling interest in the applicant;
or any subsidiary or other entity in which the
applicant has an interest. In addition, the applicant
should identify the degree of legal and, or, managerial
control which any of the aforementioned persons may
have over the others.
3. Applicant shall provide, for each person listed in
paragraphs numbered 1. and 2. above, the following:
a. Complete mailing address, phone number and
compliance contact person.
b. Copies of all existing, or previously held, air,
water, hazardous waste, and, or, interim status
documents, permits, licenses or other such
approval documents (including but not limited to
compliance schedules and operational protocols).
C. State whether an application for a permit was ever
denied or submitted and then withdrawn prior to
issuance and, if so, state the reason therefore.
4. For each permit, license or approval document listed in
paragraph numbered 3. above provide the following:
a:' A summary of the compliance history associated
with that document.
b. Copies of all administrative and, or, compliance,
orders, and, or judgements relating to the
following: 1) revocation, or suspension,
modification, or denial of any permit, license or
other approval document, 2) violation of any
federal, state or local statute, rule or
regulation for the protection of the environment.

MPM
In regard to the documents requested through items
1. and 2, above submit any documentation of the
applicant's responses to said orders and, or,
judgments.
C. Copies of all documents assessing fines, civil
penalties, criminal penalties or other penalties
along with a complete paper documentation through
resolution of the dispute to current status.
d. Copies of all notices of violations citizen
complaints, inspection reports and other documents
indicating any and all failures to comply with
federal and state laws,
regulations, rules and
guidelines relating tosound waste management
practice. Provide documentation of the
applicant's responseto, and final resolution of,
any of the aforementioned.
e. For each violation listed in b. c. and d. above
provide a description of the cause, the potential,
and, or, the actual, environmental or public
health damage. In addition provide the
applicant's response, the period which elapsed
before the violation was identified, reported and
corrected, also state the costs which were
incurred to correcting the violation and
rectifying the damage.
f. List and discuss in detail any instance where any
of the aforementioned businesses failed to meet
all testing and reporting requirements.
5. For each business listed in paragraph numbered 2.
above, provide the following:
a. A summary of the environmental compliance history
associated with that business not otherwise
described in paragraph numbered 4. above,
b. List and give the results of any environmental
audits (internal or contractor assisted).
C. Copies of all administrative or judicial orders or
judgements relating to violations of any state or
federalenvironmental standards laws, rules, or
regulations for the protection of the environment
and, or, sound waste management practices not
described in paragraph numbered 4. above.
6. The applicant must submit an affidavit attesting to the
truth and completeness of the facts asserted in its
responses to paragraphs numbered 1., 2., 3., 4a. and e.
and 5.a. above. The applicant must also submit a

7.
D-#103
-3-
statement of his understanding that there is a
continuing duty to update his application in regard to
the aforedescribed materials requested until a decision
is made to issue or deny the permit.
For the purposes of these guidelines the following
definitions apply:
a. "violation" - a failure to comply with federal and
state laws, regulations and rules. for the
protection of the environment as they may be
evidenced by, but not limited to, notices of
violation or noncompliance, inspection reports,
consent agreements, and, or, judicial or
administrative orders.
b. "person" - a natural person, company, government,
or political subdivision, agency or
instrumentality of a government.
C. "control" - the possession, direct or indirect, of
the power to direct or cause the direction of the
management and policies of a person whether
through the ownership of stock interest, by
contract, or otherwise.

CC: Tech. Services (Marcia Toler-McCullen)
Permits and Engineering
County Health Dept.
Central Files
WSRO
Date December 14, 1989
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County Alleghany
NPDES Permit No. NCO078158
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address:
Olde Beau Golf Club
P. o. Box 32 2 1 1989
Roaring Gap, NC 28668
2. Date of Investigation: 11-29-89
3. Report Prepared by: Jim Johnston
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number:
Billy Satterfield [phone]
5. Directions to Site.:
Take Hwy 21 N. from Elkin to Roaring Gap. Olde Beau
Golf Club is located on the right side of Hwy 21 across
from High Meadows Inn and Restaurant.
6.
7
M.
C
Discharge Point - Latitude: 360 24' 43"
Longitude: 800 58' 51"
Attach a USGS Map Extract and indicated treatment plant
site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No. B-15NW or USGS Quad Name Roaring Gap, NC
Size (land available for expansion and upgrading):
Approximately 2 acres
Topography (relationship to flood plain included):
Mountainous — well above flood plain
Location of nearest dwelling:
Unknown - No homesites at present location
approximately 100 yards below the Club House

• 10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: UT to
Laurel Branch
a. Classification: C-Trout
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 05 07 03
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: Fishing, Swimming, Agriculture
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. Type of wastewater: 100% Domestic
Industrial
a. Volume of Wastewater: .040 MGD
b. Types and quantities of industrial wastewater:
N/A
c. Prevalent toxic constituents in wastewater:
N/A
d. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only) N/A
in development approved
should be required not needed
2. Production rates (industrial discharges only) in
pounds: N/A
a. highest month in the last 12 months
b. highest year in last 5 years
3. Description of industrial process (for industries only)
and applicable CFR Part and Subpart: N/A
4. Type of treatment (specify whether proposed or
existing):
Proposed - Package Plant - extended aeration dual
20,000 gpd Package Plants - flow splitter box, bar
screen, aeration chamber, chlorine basin,
dechlorination tank.
5. Sludge handling and disposal scheme:
Septic Tank Hauler
6. Treatment plant classification:
7. SIC Code(s) 7999
Wastewater Code(s) 04 02

• PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction
Grants Funds (municipals only)?
2.
Special monitoring
requests: Oil and
Grease
3.
Additional effluent
limits requests:
Oil and Grease
4. Other:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that a hard look be taken at this
request in light of environmental problems that have been
and are still being encountered by this Division from Mr.
Satterfield. Once the project is completed who will be
responsible for the WWTP? There is a possibility that this
project can be put underground but due to the loss of
revenue of land that could be sold it has been rejected by
the developer. The UT has been severely impacted by
sediment run-off. \Olde Beau development owns 2 lakes
directly below the outfall from Roaring Gap Lake which makes
up the headwaters of Laurel Branch. Because the two lakes
on Olde Beau property are too small to fall under the Dam
Safety Act, that law can not mandate that the owner meet
minimum flow release. The second of the two lakes is to be
used for irrigation of the golf course and the draw -down
could conceivably exceed the inflow to the lake.
Insufficient downstream dilution could result.
If a permit should be issued, it should contain a
condition requiring at least minimum flow with a flow
measuring device at the dam that could be read on site. The
requested .040 MGD plant may cause temperatures to increase
above the .5 degrees C in the designated trout waters.
It is recommended that this Permit be denied.
/ IJ�
41
• �" k`� `gyp �� LI 6,,8ignature WF—eport preparer
0� �
� � c
�s Waterkouality Supervisor

trey W
to Location;
Dale:
ag Method;
-10—
Laurel Branch (NEW 1-1-2-4)
At SR 11o5 bridge
)uly 17. 1981
Electrofishing
Physical and Chemical Data
Cover;
Length:
Lens
291 It
14 It
,e Width:
;e Flow:
a cfs
boulder, rubble, gravel,
a Type:
sand ffle; hea` Y—
moderste—ri
ad Sand:
pool
low
ent:
Elevation:
Water Temperature -
PH i
µ. 0. Alkalinity:
Total Hardness:
bank vegetation, debriS—
good
2,720 It
61. F
7.5
L 12.9 PPm
17.1 PPm
Plumbers of Flsh Species
Checklist
and
Bluehead chub:
(31
(1)
(71
Creek chub
(3)
)k trout (18)
wn trout (1)
Sculpin
Blacknose dace
(101
(101
nbow trout (7)
Rosyside dace
(4)
lbreast Sunfish (3)
Fantail darter
regill (1)
gsucker (7)
cite sucker
Standing Crop
of Fishes
YOY/A
lbs/A
No./A
188
We of Fish
10.59
_
243
5.52
✓✓ild trout 22
41.36
Stocked trout 540
Nonlroul
Density
Numbers and D
Flah
Food Organisms
—
(181
Diptera
(10)
(2o)
Coleoptera
EphemeroPtera (181
Plecoptern (34)
Trichoptera
0.3 ml
Average Volume/ft2
5o
Average Number/ft2
Classification:
A
Recommended
General
Recommended Regu Cation:
Remarks
lh, and is managed under the General
th
etc. i.n the
over its entire lens o ulation of competing
Laurel Branch is nonga a land DPMTHThe aiream receives spite high
farmlan .
put -and Stocking. resent deep erate.
regulations for p uletlon of wild ntio05r and fishing PCesaure is mod
_A a �nodooP ,

II
+ •.` , r r , 111
SU31 •, —/_�� '= - . ' is `/' ; ; (' ! r �, / , l'. - \ \i 1 1�`•1 I I '
� ��.��� �.:�.�--:�./ �� 28�-•-1 f \�`�.`, '` �`�}� {1f�� 1/f .•` /,� � : 1 ,\ 1 `' ' � � �� \�277
�--'��� �' .i'_' .�: �— '1, 1.- 1 •, �\�`� l rt b" /� '' --.� `- \'1� �. ,_ r 1 , � ` l'�� �r ; t ll l{{, /
41
30
.000
ILVICol
NX
Eel
• � / f, � tom- / �'. ,��I` f � 1 ,,, -- '_ �\ )� `�.�-../ , �I, {
`�/+ �'fi: I _��\ �:�� ' !�(�i � �j `TRAI, ...�� �` � Iti _ `,!%1 ••'I! •iI'�,I J/1I
ntioch Ch ` li
_. `.
- 2 Fish
Hatchery 49e5
Golf)'; C0urs4. - --ate= 1 �__ i' �• (.-l?:. f� �' / , t
N�
1 • ORoaririg Gap-
P877 ' = — •
970000
FEET -- ��'
2998
3000 i �" iq�1
'-• _=, _ •.��' � "' ram• j �+ I • 4r. l: = .:.. =,
`---ram. :� • .�• � C,•• � `�\.,� .• //� v� \`•'. \
N i - am i
+yan
027
�`;:,• I e �I �• ,L r^�•-L.-.-�11- .(•r'�: i! 4' % - �, .:�. � �--- - ,tip
�•--/ ttl� \ � �. .,^�f�' \• - `. Ali � ' '• \ _ _ '� Certl ,ll .` \`
1 , 8M 171 r` 1
•' .u! `/ ' ;11 ;fly / I •` - ')' ,•,'... - XI '` • 1 � $
'�� S^ �\\• ,o b i` ''\��. •''L i / ••� A � 1 i ' •• `. `ter' \ • :i ` •1� J
4026
666
OU
36022'30" \�--�;
81 °00' S01 =—_f_ " •.Doug%(
502 1 42000 0 F'EtT 503 57'30,'f -rlf;t
Q�`v Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological St( -e
Control by USGS and USC&GS �
Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial PI.;;zraphs MN
taken 1966. Field checked 1971 J ;cN
Polyconic pro,ection. 1927 North Americyn datum
in .. _

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCO078158
PERNUTTEE NAME: Billy R. Satterfield / Olde Beau Golf Club
Facility Status: Proposed
Permit Status: New
Major
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity:
Minor `)
0.020 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow):
100* %
1
Comments:
* See eng_r. prop. - grease traps to be installed on kitchen drains
s
STREAM INDEX: 10-9-10-2
RECEIVING STREAM: an unnamed tributary to Laurel Branch
Class: C-Trout
Sub -Basin: 05-07-03
Reference USGS Quad: B 15NW, Roaring Gap (please attach)
County: Alleghany
Regional Office: Winston-Salem Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 00/00/00 Treatment Plant Class: Probable II
Classification changes within three miles:
No class change until dam at Sparta Lake (C) - ca. 5-10 miles.
Requested by: Jule Shanklin Date: 11/14/89
Prepared by: Date:
Reviewed by: Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
SMP
tt t785
5�90
Drainage Area (mil ) Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfs) Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
Upstream Location
Downstream Location
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
F. Col. (/100 nil)
pH (SU)
Comments:

-V
4031
Q
4030
25'
DISCHARGE"
.
POINT
itwl, h
"2c
Go[ a.rsel:(
970000
FEET
4027 z-
7
s
2 5 K b�
1026 -
36'22'30"
811001 501
LIM
"-4-hf—
s02 1 420000 1 L ET 1 503 57'30" THUPMON
ELKIN

C
Request No.: 5490
------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Facility Name:
Billy Satterfield/Olde Beau Golf Club
NPDES No.:
NC0078158
Type of Waste:
Domestic
Status:
Proposed/New
Receiving Stream:
UT to Laurel Branch
Classification:
C-Trout
Subbasin:
50703
Drainage
area:
0.130
sq mi
County:
Alleghany
Summer
7Q10:
0.08
cfs
Regional Office:
Winston-Salem
Winter
7Q10:
0.10
cfs
Requestor:
Jule Shanklin
Average
flow:
0.26
cfs
Date of Request:
11/14/89
30Q2:
0.13
cfs
Quad:
B15NW
COMMENTS
Deny permit based on inadequacies in the engineering report.
Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2) requires that the engineering
report summarize all waste treatment and disposal options and demonstrate
that the most environmentally sound of the cost effective options has been
selected. Only two options were reviewed; why was spray irrigation to the
golf course not an option? Section (c)(7) requires a financial statement
and must demonstrate the applicant's previous compliance with federal and
state laws, regulations, and rules for protection of the environment.
The engineering report states that there have been erosion problems with
the project but does not mention the applicant's violations of NC land
quality regulations. The applicant has been repeatedly out of compliance
and has been fined. He is still out of compliance with land quality and
has been fined for water quality violations.
The engineering report does not adequately map out the location
of the discharge. The map does not correspond to the USGS topographical
map. In addition, the site is reported to be so damaged by sedimentation
that it is now a dry ditch. Based on this, we cannot have any faith in the
the estimated flows listed above.
Finally, the stream has been classified as C-Trout. Additional limits
including temperature, DO, and, turbidity must be met. The applicant has
already violated the turbidity limit. Trout Unlimited has estimated that
it will take 15 years for the site to recover by natural means.
Recommended by: Date: 2 % %o
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment Sup: d, Date: g U
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
Date:
Date:

Request No.: 5490
------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Status:
Receiving Stream:
Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Quad:
Wasteflow (mgd):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal coliform 0/100ml):
pH (su):
Chlorine (mg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
Total Phosphorous (mg/1):
Total Nitrogen (mg/1):
Billy Satterfield/Olde Beau Golf Club
NC0078158
Domestic
Proposed/New
UT to Laurel Branch
C-Trout
50703
Drainage area:
0.130 sq mi
Alleghany
Summer 7Q10:
0.08 cfs
Winston-Salem
Winter 7Q10:
0.10 cfs
Jule Shanklin
Average flow:
0.26 cfs
11/14/89
30Q2:
0.13 cfs
B15NW
MENDED EFFLUENT
LIMITS --------------------------
PROPOSED
summer
winter
0.040
0.040
6
12
1
1.8
6
6
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
0.028
0.028
30
60(0ctlMIN,)
30
60�1�u�ViUN4�
0.23
0.23
2.26
2.26
---------------- MONITORING ------------------------------------
Upstream (Y/N): Y Location:50 ft upstream of effluent
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location:.l mi below outfall,
before confluence w/Laurel Branch
----------------------------- COMMENTS --------------------------------
Permit at above limits.
Monitor instream for Temperature, DO, Conductivity, and Fecal Coliform.
Recommend dechlorination to .028 mg/1.
---=-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended by: �,7.,, Date:
yu
Reviewed by //��
Instream Assessment Sup: O-W-c AaAlx s 9_- Date:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
Date:
Date:

ll)Z44 cet�
- � ^•C ..2r«�;nR��i-q /�pd/l! �u,..�{S,t '.>/�, �z{. GC 7G1� 7�k.[/ r+243/t
. - �2�.,/fvi,:,tG�-yc./,..�._oY�ic�/_ D�/h�/ �C �`�% GGt[ la sL - G/�eCLc...o oy� l!s'�se-•�Gicw
,S ,1/C'AA aK, o1os Cc) C 7)
-_- 114 oLLeQ '0o N'� .-.2�ec�;s ,it /J ILL/ G'N/�f� 4g�,,(/ Lyi(ar
° m�OS . ,l/,✓uT� die �. �yic.e.�s..---f- u.�

9ii
xWb Posed
U7 4—
- "To
'�(/olde Beau GoF� LLL,h
AIU-eT- a -
R ill 30Q,'.•13 cf:
Aa y,SB<h
1
7 a c
--- —--
zs97st7
- ---
- -
-—
DA
----
%AIUyc,S
S
A llo
-(A-
-
lnjoed(
so .d---a'5HTTER ._eti_ Ll3�ft o��
J ,o,�sz8ol Iwo x s
1k. y`_— c - hoed TPA
rnl
,oJCr.s-S )t.c�8 t)

SUMMER
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
BILLY R. SATTERFIELD/OLDE BEAU
GOLF CLUB
Receiving Stream :
UT TO LAUREL BRANCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 6.83
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.00
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 0.62
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
Segment 1
------
6.10
----------------
0.05 2
----
----
Reach 1
9.00
4.50
6.00
0.04250
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
:
BILLY R.
SATTERFIELD/OLDE
BEAU GOLF CLUBSubbasin :
050703
Receiving Stream :
UT TO LAUREL'BRANCH
Stream
Class:
C-TROU
Summer 7Q10
:
0.078
Winter
7Q10
: 0.15
Design Temperature:
23.0
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI
Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mil
fps
I ft Idesignl
@20%
Idesignl
@20% Idesignl
Segment 1
I I
1 0.021
I
80.001
0.166
I I
1 0.24 1
I
0.70 1
0.61
I I
125.52 1
I
23.911
I
0.63 1
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
Segment 1
I I
1 0.061
I
0.501
0.001
I I
15.00 1
I
0.23 1
0.20
I I
10.43 1
I
0.401
I
0.38 1
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
Segment 1
I I
1 0.021
I
80.001
0.173
I I
10.27 1
I
0.67 1
0.59
I I
126.53 124.861
I
I
0.63 1
Reach 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
I
Flow I
I
cfs I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1
0.066 I
Headwatersl
0.078 1
Tributary I
0.000 I
* Runoff I
0.480 I
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I
Tributary 1 0.000 I
* Runoff I 0.480 I
Segment 1 Reach 3
CBOD I
NBOD I
D.O. I
mg/1 I
mg/1 I
mg/l I
9.000 1
4.500 I
6.000
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.720
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.720
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.720
0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
2.000 I 1.000 I 7.720
2.000 I 1.000 I 7.720
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.720
* Runoff I 0.480 I 2.000 1 1.000 ( 7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
I Seg # I
Reach # I
Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD (
Flow I
1
1
0.00
6.93
5.21
2.60
0.14
1
1
0.00
6.96
5.18
2.59
0.14
1
1
0.00
7.00
5.16
2.58
0.15
1
1
0.01
7.03
5.13
2.57
0.15
1
1
0.01
7.06
5.11
2.56
0.15
1
1
0.01
7.08
5.09
2.54
0.15
1
1
0.01
7.11
5.07
2.53
0.15
1
1
0.01
7.14
5.04
2.52
0.15
1
1
0.02
7.17
5.02
2.51
0.15
1
1
0.02
7.19
5.00
2.50
0.15
1
1
0.02
7.22
4.98
2.49
0.15
1
2
0.02
7.22
4.98
2.49
0.15
1
2
0.03
6.76
4.53
2.14
0.16
1
2
0.03
6.45
4.12
1.85
0.16
1
2
0.04
6.25
3.75
1.60
0.16
1
2
0.04
6.15
3.42
1.38
0.16
1
2
0.05
6.10
3.12
1.20
0.17
1
2
0.06
6.11
2.85
1.04
0.17
1
2
0.06
6.16
2.61
0.90
0.17
1
2
0.07
6.23
2.39
0.79
0.18
1
2
0.07
6.32
2.19
0.69
0.18
1
2
0.08
6.42
2.01
0.60
0.18
1
3
0.08
6.42
2.01
0.60
0.18
1
3
0.08
6.46
2.01
0.61
0.18
1
3
0.08
6.51
2.01
0.61
0.18
1
3
0.09
6.55
2.01
0.61
0.19
1
3
0.09
6.59
2.01
0.61
0.19
1
3
0.09
6.63
2.01
0.61
0.19
1
3
0.09
6.67
2.01
0.61
0.19
1
3
0.09
6.71
2.00
0.62
0.19
1
3
0.10
6.75
2.00
0.62
0.19
1
3
0.10
6.79
2.00
0.62
0.19
1
3
0.10
6.83
2.00
0.62
0.19
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I

e2. .•.� -
� a ��7 ` �

WINTER
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
BILLY R. SATTERFIELD/OLDE BEAU
GOLF CLUB
Receiving Stream :
UT TO LAUREL BRANCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 8.10
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 4.57
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.94
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
Segment 1
------
7.46
----------------
0.06 2
----
Reach 1
18.00
8.10
6.00
0.04250
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : BILLY R. SATTERFIELD/OLDE BEAU GOLF CLUBSubbasin : 050703
Receiving Stream : UT TO LAUREL BRANCH Stream Class: C-TROU
Summer 7Q10 : 0.078 Winter 7Q10 : 0.15
Design Temperature: 12.0
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mil
fps
I ft
Idesignl
@20;1
Idesignl
@20% Idesignl
Segment
1
I I
1 0.021
I
80.001
0.166
I
1 0.24
I I
1 0.42 1
0.61
I I
120.09 123.911
I I
0.27 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
I I
I I
Segment
1
I I
1 0.061
I
0.501
0.001
I
1 5.00
I I
1 0.14 1
0.20
I I
1 0.34 I
I I
0.401 0.16 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Segment
1
I I
1 0.021
I
80.001
0.173
I
10.27
I I
1 0.41 1
0.59
I I
120.89 1
I I
24.861 0.27 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
I
I 1
1 1
1 1
1
Flow
I CBOD
1
cfs
I mg/1
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1
0.066
1 18.000
Headwatersl
0.078
1 2.000
Tributary 1
0.000
I 2.000
* Runoff 1
0.480
I 2.000
I NBOD I D.O.
I mg/1 I mg/l I
1 8.100 I
6.000
1.000 I
9.700
I 1.000 1
9.700
I 1.000 1
9.700
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I
Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 I
* Runoff I 0.480 1 2.000 1
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000 ( 0.000 I
Tributary 1 0.000 I 2.000 I
* Runoff 1 0.480 1 2.000 I
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
0.000 1 0.000
1.000 1 9.700
1.000 I 9.700
0.000 1 0.000
1.000 I 9.700
1.000 I 9.700

WINTER
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I
1
1
0.00
8.01
9.33
4.25
0.14
1
1
0.00
8.05
9.27
4.23
0.14
1
1
0.00
8.10
9.22
4.21
0.15
1
1
0.01
8.15
9.17
4.18
0.15
1
1
0.01
8.19
9.12
4.16
0.15
1
1
0.01
8.24
9.08
4.14
0.15
1
1
0.01
8.28
9.03
4.12
0.15
1
1
0.01
8.32
8.98
4.10
0.15
1
1
0.02
8.36
8.93
4.08
0.15
1
1
0.02
8.40
8.89
4.06
0.15
1
1
0.02
8.44
8.84
4.04
0.15
1
2
0.02
8.44
8.84
4.04
0.15
1
2
0.03
8.11
8.28
3.75
0.16
1
2
0.03
7.86
7.76
3.49
0.16
1
2
0.04
7.69
7.28
3.25
0.16
1
2
0.04
7.57
6.83
3.02
0.16
1
2
0.05
7.50
6.42
2.82
0.17
1
2
0.06
7.46
6.03
2.62
0.17
1
2
0.06
7.46
5.67
2.45
0.17
1
2
0.07
7.49
5.33
2.28
0.18
1
2
0.07
7.53
5.01
2.13
0.18
1
2
0.08
7.59
4.72
1.99
0.18
1
3
0.08
7.59
4.72
1.99
0.18
1
3
0.08
7.65
4.71
1.99
0.18
1
3
0.08
7.70
4.69
1.98
0.18
1
3
0.09
7.76
4.67
1.98
0.19
1
3
0.09
7.81
4.66
1.97
0.19
1
3
0.09
7.86
4.64
1.97
0.19
1
3
0.09
7.91
4.63
1.96
0.19
1
3
0.09
7.96
4.61
1.96
0.19
1
3
0.10
8.01
4.60
1.95
0.19
1
3
0.10
8.06
4.59
1.94
0.19
1
3
0.10
8.10
4.57
1.94
0.19
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I

■
I
•
i
i
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
OLDE BEAU WATER TANK
ROARING GAP, NORTH CAROLINA

ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.
ENGINEERS • GEOLOGISTS • HYDROLOGISTS
P.O. Box 11846, Winston-Salem, NC 27106 [phone]
August 17, 1989
Billy Saterfield
Post Office Box 32
Roaring Gap, North Carolina 28668
Attention: Mr. Billy Saterfield
Re: ' Subsurface Exploration
Olde Beau Water Tank
Roaring Gap, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Saterfield:
As per your request, Engineering Tectonics, P.A. has completed the subsurface exploration
for the proposed Olde Beau Water Tank to be located off State Road 21 in Roaring Gap,
North Carolina. The results of the soil borings, along with a Boring Location Diagram, are
enclosed with this report.
The purpose of this report is to describe the soil and groundwater conditions which were
encountered in the test borings, to analyze and evaluate the subsurface data obtained, and
to submit recommendations regarding design and construction for the proposed structure.
A brief description of the field phase of this investigation, general subsurface conditions
encountered, and design recommendations are presented herein.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Description of Subsurface Exploration
The soil test borings were drilled at the site of the proposed water tank as indicated on the
Boring' Location Diagram. As requested, three (3) soil test borings were drilled to maxi-
mum depths ranging between 28 feet and 39 feet below the existing grade. The borings
were located in the field by our personnel using the existing survey as points of reference.

Olde Beau Water Tank
Roaring Gap, North Carolina `
August 17, 1989
Page 2
The soil borings were drilled with a truck mounted Mobile. B-47 drilling rig. A description
of the methods and procedures used to perform soil sampling and classification are
presented below.
it Sampling/Classification
A six inch hollow stem auger was used to. advance the borehole. Representative soil
samples were obtained by means of the split -barrel sampling procedure in general accor-
dance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In this procedure, a 2 inch OD, 1 3/8 inch ID,
split -barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18" by means of a 140 pound ham-
mer falling 30 inches. The Standard Penetration Resistance Value is the number of blows
per foot of penetration for the final 12 inches of driving. This value can be used to provide
a qualitative indication of the in -place relative density of cohesionless soils. This indication
is qualitative since many factors can significantly affect the Standard Penetration Resis-
tance Value and prevent direct correlation between drill crews, drill rigs, drilling proce-
dures, and hammer -rod -spoon assemblies.
A field log of the soils encountered in the borings was prepared by the drill crew. All soil
samples obtained from the drilling operations were sealed immediately in the field and
brought to our laboratory for further examination and testing.
An experienced geologist classified each soil sample on the basis of texture and plasticity in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The group symbols for each soil
type are indicated in the parentheses foilowing the soil descriptions on the boring logs. A
brief explanation of the .Unified Soil Classification System is included with this report. A
soils engineer grouped the various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs.
The stratification lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring
logs and profiles are approximate; in -situ, the contact between material types may be tran-
sitional.
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.

Olde Beau Water Tank
Roaring Gap, North Carolina
August 17, 1989
Page 3
The soil samples will be retained in our laboratory for a period of sixty (60) days after the
date of this report, after which they will be discarded unless instructions as to their disposi-
tion are received.
SITE AND SOIL CONDITIONS
Site Conditions
The proposed Olde Beau Water Tank will be a portion of the on going construction at the
site of the Olde Beau Golf Course in Roaring Gap, North Carolina. The project is roughly
three-quarters of a mile northeast of State Highway 21. The water tank will be sited on top
of a mountain in an area which was heavily wooded prior to current excavation. Site
topographic information is not available at this date.
Location of Borings
The locations of borings relative to the proposed water tank are as shown on the attached
Boring Location Diagram (Figure 1).
Soil Conditions
The borings generally encountered residual soils/saprolite and highly weathered rock.
Based on our explorations, typical soil profiles are described below. For soil descriptions at
a particular boring location, the respective test boring logs should be reviewed. Logs of the
exploratory borings are appended to this report.
Residual soils/saprolite were encountered immediately beneath the surface and extend to
the full depth of each boring. The residual soils/saprolite have been weathered inplace
from +the parent bedrock. The disturbed split -spoon samples of these materials may be
generally classified as.firmto very hard; tan, brown, and red; silts or sandy silts which are
often micaceous with highly weathered rock fragments in areas (ML). Blow counts within
the residual soils/saprolite ranged from 18 blows/ft to 50 blows per 5 inches.
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.

Olde Beau Water Tank
Roaring Gap, North Carolina
August 17, 1989
Page 4
With increasing depths, the relic texture of the parent rock becomes more evident. -and the
residual soils become more layered and sandy. Materials having a blow count of 100
blows/ft or more may be generally defined as partially weathered rock. Generally,
materials having a blow count of 100 blows/ft can be ripped using a D-8 with a single tooth
ripper. Refusal to our drilling equipment typically indicates material that cannot be
removed without blasting. Auger refusal was encountered in all three borings ar depths
ranging between 28 ft and 39 ft.
WATER TABLE CONDITIONS
Water level observations were made after completion of drilling operations. In power
augering operations, water is not introduced into the boreholes during drilling.
Groundwater elevations can often be ascertained by observing water seepage into the
boreholes after drilling and the moisture content of recovered samples. The water level ob-
servations are noted on the respective boring logs.
At the time of drilling, measurable water was not encountered in any of our borings. It
should be noted, that dependent on the permeability of the in -place soils, it* could take
several days for the groundwater level to stabilize within the borehole. Fluctuations in the
location of the long term water table may occur seasonally and are also dependent upon
variations in precipitation, evaporation, and surface runoff. For excavations to depths less
than the depth of our borings, groundwater is not expected to influence construction at this
site.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposed Construction
The proposed construction will consist of a 100,000 gallon water tank approximately 30 ft in
plan diameter. The proposed tank will be constructed of steel similar to a stand pipe
design. The water tank will be supported on a concrete -mat or ring footing with a total load
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.

Olde Beau Water Tank
Roaring Gap, North Carolina
August 17, 1989
Page 5
of approximately 1000 kips. The finish. floor elevation of the water tank also has not been
determined at this date, however it is anticipated that the finish elevation will be located at
or slightly above the existing grade.
Summary of Maicor Foundation Considerations
Within the depth of our explorations, foundation conditions at the site generally consist of
firm to stiff residual soils/saprolite. The residual soils/saprolite which were encountered
appear suitable for support of the proposed water tank. Blow counts within the existing
foundation soils were relatively high, averaging over 20 blows/ft for the full depth of our
explorations across the site.
At the time of drilling, the groundwater table was not encountered in any of the borings
and is not expected to influence construction at the site.
Foundation Recommendations
Based on the conditions encountered, we recommend that the proposed water tank be sup-
ported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing within the existing residual
soils/saprolite. As a'result of the relatively high blow counts at the boring locations, we sug-
gest that the spread footings be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 4000 psf,
subject to field inspection and verification as detailed below.
The suitability of near -surface soils in foundation areas between borings should be verified
by visual inspection and proofrolling, as discussed in detail below. In addition, we suggest
that the opened footing excavations be examined for uniformity of soil properties and
tested utilizing a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) to verify design pressures. The in-
spection is intended to locate any unexpected soft spots which may require undercutting
and backfilling with crushed stone to provide uniform bearing. This inspection should be
performed before any reinforcing -steel or concrete is placed.
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.
A

Olde Beau Water Tank
Roaring Gap, North Carolina
August 1.7, 1989
Page 6
For ease of construction and to avoid a local shear or "punching " failure of spread footing
foundations, minimum footing widths of 24 inches should be used. In order to provide ade-
quate frost cover protection, we recommend that all exterior footings be located a mini-
mum of 24 inches below the final exterior ground elevation.
The prepared foundation bearing soils should not be left exposed during inclement
weather. Saturation and subsequent disturbance of these soils can result in a loss of
strength and bearing capacity, leading to increased settlement.
Proofrollin�
The tank site should be proofrolled using a loaded tandem axle dump truck. The proofroll-
ing should be performed in order to aid in locating any soft areas within the subsurface.
Proofrolling of the exposed surface should consist of four (4) complete passes of the area,
with two (2) of the passes in a direction perpendicular to the preceding passes. All
proofrolling should be observed by an experienced soils engineer. Any areas which pump
or rut should be undercut to firm soil and replaced with engineered fill.
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS
This report has been prepared for the purpose of evaluating the.existing subsurface condi-
tions and determining design criteria for the proposed Water Tank at Olde Beau Golf
Course in Roaring Gap, North Carolina. Tile information and recommendations reported
herein are presented to assist in the design of this project. In the event there are any sig-
nificant changes in the size, design, or location of the project water tanks, changes in the
planned construction from the concepts previously outlined, or changes of! the design
parameters stated in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this
report shall not be considered valid unless these changes have been reviewed and our con-
clusions and recommendations reaffirmed or appropriately modified, in writing.
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.
I

Olde Beau Water Tank
Roaring Gap, North Carolina
August 17, 1989
Page 7
There is a possibility that variations in soil conditions will be encountered during construc-
tion. In order to permit correlation between the preliminary data and the actual soil condi-
tions encountered during construction and to ensure conformance with plans and specifica-
tions as originally contemplated, it is recommended that this firm be retained to perform
full time on -site construction review during the foundation phase of this project.
If there are any questions with regards to the information and recommendations contained
in this report, or if we may be of further service to you in any way, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Very truly yours,
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.
u �• 105.
John M. Riley, P.E.
President
Steve E. Mason, P.G.
Senior Geologist
JMR/SEM/jg
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.

Fm _
General Qualifications
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A. --

General Qualifications
This report has been prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this propety and to as-
sist the architect and/or engineer in the design of this project. The scope is limited to
the specific project and location de.5cribed herein, and our description of the project
represents our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil and foundation
characteristics. In the event that any changes in the design or location of the building(s)
as outlined in this report are planned, we should be informed so the changes can be
reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified or approved in writing by the soil
and foundation engineer.
It is recommended that all construction operations dealing with earthwork and foun-
dations be inspected by an experienced soil engineer to assure that the design require-
ments are fulfilled in the actual construction. if you wish, we would welcome the
opportunity to provide these inspection services for you during construction. In addi-
tion, we would welcome the opportunity to review the plans and specifications when
they have been prepared so that we may have the opportunity of commenting on the
effect of soil conditions on the design and specifications.
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data ob-
tained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the location dia-
gram and from any other information discussed in this report. This report does not
reflect any variations which may occur between these borings. In the performance of
subsurface investigations, specific information is obtained at specific locations at specif-
ic times. However, it is a well-known fact that variations in soil and rock conditions exist
on most sites between boring locations and also such situations as groundwater lev-
els vary from time to time. The nature and extent of variations may not become evident
until the course of construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary
for a re-evaluation- of the recommendations of this report after performing on -site
observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of any
variations.
Because of the possibility of these unanticipated subsurface conditions occurring, we
recommend that a "changed condition" clause be provided in the contract both with
the general contractor and in contracts with sub -contractors involved in foundation and
earthwork construction. It is felt that the inclusion of this clause will permit contractors
to give lower prices because they will not need to provide as much in contingencies as
they normally would if equitable adjustment of changed conditions will minimize con-
flicts and litigation with the attendant delays and costs. Furthermore, by the immedi-
ate recognition and adjustment in contract price at the time the changed conditions are
encountered, the immense problem of trying to recreate facts when litigation develops
later is eliminated. A mediation/arbitration procedure is recommended in the event the
owner, contractor and professionals do not agree on the changed conditions at the
moment they are disclosed. If you wish, we would be pleased to furnish additional
information pertaining to this procedure.

General Notes
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.

GENERAL NOTES
mom DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SS =
Split Spoon —1 318" L.D., 2" O.D.,
OS
= Osterberg Sampler
Unless otherwise noted
HS
= Hollow Stem Auger
ST =
Shelby Tube
WS
= Wash Sample
PA =
Power Auger
FT
= Fish Tail
DB =
Diamond Bit — NX, BX, AX
RB
= Rock Bit
AS =
Auger Sample
BS
= Bulk Sample
JS =
Jar Sample
PM
= Pressuremeter Test, In -Situ
VS =
Vane Shear
GS
= Giddings Sampler
Standard
"N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split spoon
sampler, except where otherwise noted.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:
WL = Water Level WCI = Wet Cave In
WS = While Sampling DCI = Dry Cave In
WD = While Drilling BCR = Before Casing Removal
AB = After Boring ACR = After Casing Removal
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. In pervi-
ous soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable groundwater levels. In impervious soils, the accurate
determination of ground water elevations may not be possible, even after several days of observations; additional
evidence of ground water elevations must be sought.
GRADATION DESCRIPTION & TERMINOLOGY:
Coarse Grained or Granular soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are
described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained
on a #200 sieve; they are described as: clays or clayey silts if they are cohesive and silts if they are non -cohesive.
In addition to gradation, granular soils are defined on the basis of their relative in -place density and fine grained
soils on the basis of their strength or consistency and their plasticity.
Major
Descriptive Term .
Component
Of Components Also
Percent Of
Of Sample
Size Range
Present in Sample
Dry Weight
Boulders
Over 8 in. (200 mm)
Trace
1-9
Cobbles
8 inches to 3 inches
Little
10 -19
(200 mm to 75 mm)
Gravel
3 inches to #4 sieve
Some
20 - 34
(75 mm to 4.76 m.m)
Sand
#4 to #200 sieve
And
35 - 50
(4.76 mm to 0.074 mm)
Silt
Passing #200 sieve
(0.074 mm to 0.005 mm)
Clay
Smaller than 0.005 mm
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS:
Unconfined Compressive
Strength, Qu, tsf
Consistency
< 0.25
Very Soft
0.25 - 0.49
Soft
0.30 - 0.99
Medium (Firm)
1.00 - 1.99
Stiff
2.00 - 3.99
Very Stiff
4.00 - 8.00
Hard
> 8.00
Very Hard
RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS:
N — blows per ft. Relative Density
0-3
Very Loose
4-9
Loose
10 - 29
Medium Dense
30 - 49
Dense
50 - 80
Very Dense
30 +
Extremely Dense

Unified Soil Classification System
i
If
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.

Unified Soil Classification System
Group
Major Divisions
Symbols
Typical Alamos
\1 Laboratory Classification Criteria
_
v
d N
o
N
N c GW
> �--
c
Well -graded gravels, gravel sand mix- I
c, E
Z
D {D 1
Cu a 6e greater than 4; Cc = 3o between 1 and 3
N
`O o
cures, little or n0 fines N
O10 O10 X 060
u
•y,
c� c
_
N
a.
m GP
10 f0
Poorly graded gravels, gravel•sand mix•
N
N N
ace,
v
tures, little or no fines c
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
or
.'
N u
.n r O
2
7
Cr
y a,
..
c c d
o C7 ...
0
o t•t
N
> 0 y. M"
? a
E GM
« ,o N
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures N s u
9 to N e,
Attorberg limits below "A"
Above "A" line with P.I.
N c « a,
—'°
_d c_ u
;
° ¢
dz aU�
line or P.I. less than 4
between 4 and 7 are border•
°
O
'^ =�
'A0 v
line cases requiring use of
.o Q, —
� Z c GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mix- c « S ?
Atterberg limits below "A"
dual symbols
y
acures
�, t7 m
line with P.I. greater than 7
CA
.. =
Q
E Em
E
o
SW
N - .
Obo (D�ol2
C = — realer than 6; between I and 3
u g
c «:
U �o
X
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little d .°
>
fines M
E
c o
or no
Dlo Oto X Duo
C
.N
N
C o SP
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, C
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
little or no fines e
C >
U
C
N
J
N o
•� ro
tt
N O
d O _
° �"
u
O C O
o Z
N q p C
to
m A
N� d
c ° SM
d b 0`
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures C m'0 - n
0/
Aiterberg limits above "A"
Limits plotting in hatched
C y
u
r, ti
a a N u
e N �-
ain
line or P.I. less than 4
zone with P.I. between 4
«
Cl
i �= SC
'C
CL
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures c c ,� o.
and 7 are borderline cases
Attorborg limits above "A"
d E
a A
°
N
E �' " m �-
tine with P.I. greater than 7
requiring use of dual sym•
t
„a
v)
d Nd`o0
.. a
bots
Qa
—
d a - J
' O C N
Inorganic silts and very fine sands.
Ul) ML
rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands,
N A
a «
or clayey silts with slight plasticity
Plasticity Chart
>
"N
60-
N
u v
Inorganic clays of low to medium
O
c CL
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
N
`N° E
silty clays, lean clays
Z
N OL
SO
Organic silts and organic silty clays of
c
low plasticity
N «
X 40
N
"'
c E
-'-` 30
a
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatoms-
N
�„'�
N C MH
ceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic
y
C 'v
y
u A
silts
` 0
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat
LL
E
v 6/ CH
c �
a
clays
.0
'E
! 0
in - OH
Organic clays of medium to high
«
ti
p{asiicity, organic silts
e►
..
O
c
-J
0
NN�vNI
IN
rN
■
Im
0!
M
up:, A
01001
1
.1
u liquid limit
'A
o, •o Pt Peat and other highly. organic soils
= 0 N

Boring Location Diagram
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.

87A
B?
\TOp
LEGEND
OLDE BEAU
---- X ----- FENCE
o
N
GOLF' COURSE
BORING LO CATION
�o
Zr
E
WATER TOWER
of
N
``
O
BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM
W N
Z2
av
La •
W .w
r
89-337
8-17-89
O
'
c
DRAWN BY-- JH
APPROVED BY:
V
Z %
APPROXIMATE SCALE I" = 20'
NOTE: INFROMATION TAKEN FROM A SKETCH OF THE
JOB SITE AND IS NOT AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY BY
FIGURE I
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P.A.

Boring -Logs
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, RA.

,Shoot- 1 Of 1
OWNER
Bill Satterfield
BORING NUMBER
B-1
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Olde Beau Golf Course
SITE LOCATION
JOB. NO
39-337-A
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
;°N5'�� s
Roaring Gap, Va.
2 , 4 5
=
'
PLASTIC WATER LIOUIO
LIMIT % CONTENTS % LIMIT 0/0
'
a
�'a.
�(----------® ----- -------------Q
Z
o o
DESCRIPTIO14 OF MATERIAL
10 20 30 ,a so
DEPTH w
IN FEET cL
w
cL
a C
N
Q
N
® STANDARD
PENETRATION BLOWS;Fr•
SURFACE ELEVATION
10 20 30 40 so
SANDY SILT, w/trace mica, tan, stiff
(ML)
24
2.5
1
ss
4.0
'
7
5
5.0
2
ss
6.0
.
7'S
3
ss
9.0
10
10.0
SANDY SILT, w/little gravel, tan,
4
ss
11.5
firm (ML)
19
Auger Refusal at 12.0`
15
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE SOLNORY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES: IN-STU. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL l
BORING STARTED $-3-89 (BORING COMPLETED 8-3-89
WATER T BLE DATA — DE?TH SELCW SURFACE
�ry
RIG g-47 7FO-11EMANDCB
I APP'D BY STC
AUGER 6 �� HST
0 a HRS.t
a HRS.
I
50
FNr,TN, '7_ - RING TECTONICS, P. Ae

'Shoot _ 1 of 1
OWNER
Bill* Satterfield
BORING NUMBER
B-2
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Olde Beau Golf.Course
SITE LOCATION
JOB. NO
"0-337-A
UNCONFI2NED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
;°NS`�`'
Roaring Gap, Va.
2 , t 5
=
a
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
UMIT •A CONTENTS % LIMIT %
O
W
O_
0. �
x--------•-----• ® -•---
z
W
t}--
LU I-
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
�•••.•-
10 20 30 50
DEPTH
IN FEET
a-
W
Lu
a x
cL
d
CO
<
C'0
A
PENETRATION BLOWSIFT.
SURFACE ELEVATION
10 20 00 40 50
SILT, w/little sand, brown, tan,
17
2.5
firm (ML)
1
ss
4.0
20
5
5.0
2
.
ss
6.0
50
3
MICACEOUS SILT, W/l.ittle sand, brown
ss
9.0
black, hard (ML)
10
SILT, w/little sand and mica, brown,
5
4
ss
10.0
tan, v/hard NO
11.5
15
15.0
5
ss
16.5
SILT, w/little mica, w/trace gravel,
tan, stiff (ML)
20
6
ss
20.0
29 er
Boring Terminated at 21 .5'
25
THE STRATIFICAT10N LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDRY LINES BETINEEN SOIL TYPES: IN•STU. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
WATER T BLE DATA —DEPTH BELOW SURFACE
BORING STARTED 8-3-89 I t30AING COMPLETED 8-3-89 I
® o HRS.
RIG B-47
FOREMAN DCB APP'D 8Y STC
AUGER 6"HSM I
HRS.
I
- C r.--,R�G T'rCTONICS, P. A.

Shoot 1 ar—
VOWNERBi11 Satterfie1d BORING NUMBERS-3
'ECT NAME ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Olde Beau Golf. Course
. NO. UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIvhsinrnuIn
JOB
SITE LOCATION ' $9-337-A TO"SIFT•22 S
Roaring Gap, Va.
PLASTIC WATER LIOUID
OMIT '/. CONTENTS 'h LIMIT 7. .
LU= X----..... ®----- � »...-a
LL I -
Z o DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 10 20 50
DEPTH w w w
IN FEET a cc
Q STANDARD
N Cn PENETRATION BLOWSIFT.
SURFACE. ELEVATION 10 20 30 <o 50
MICACEOUS SILT, w/little sand, black,
2'5 tan, v/hard (ML)
1 ss
4.0
5 5.0
2 ss 6.0
3 ss 7.5
9.0
10 10.0
4 ss 11.5
SANDY SILT, w/little mica, tan,
v/stiff (ML)
15 5 ss 15.0
16.5
Auger Refusal at 18.5 `
20
36
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDRY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES: IN-STU. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL � y
WATER T BLE DATA —DEPTH BELOW SURFACE BORING STARTED 8-5-89 BORING COMPLETED 8-5-89
Dry 0 0 HRS. APP'D BY STC AUGER I,
R5. RIG $-47 FOREMAN OCB I 6 HSa I
� H I
ENGli�-:LNG T E CTONICS. P.. --

ic
Shoot- of 1
BORING NUMBER
OWNER
Bill
Satterfield
B=4
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
PROJECT
NAME
01de
Beau Golf Course
UNCONfINEO COA4PRESSIVE STRENGTH
SITE LOCATION
JOB. NO
" 0-337-A
;ON5J�22 s 4 5
Roaring
Gap, Va.
,
'
PLASTIC WATER uoUID
UMIT y, CONTENTS % LIMIT '/.
', r
.y"•M""""""""N�
I�
®
i
0-
a.
o
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
�0 40 50
DEPTH
U1
W
w M
IN FEET
CL
n-'-
<
N
_
® STANDARD
PENETRATION BLOWSIFT•
SURFACE ELEVATION
10 20 30 AO 5o
1 - ttl a brown tan
22
SANDY SILT, w/
2.5 firm (ML) .
1 ss 4.0
5 5.0 SANDY SILT, w/l i'ttle mica, brown, tan
2 ss 6.0 stiff (ML)
7.5
3 ss
9.0
10 10.0
4 ss 11.5
15_�j 5 ss 15.0
16.5
Auger Refusal at 18.51
11
16\L
1
5
I 1 I
THE STRATIFICATION ONES REPRESENT THE wPPRCXIMATE 90UNDRY LINES SErNEEN SOIL TYPES: IN-STU- THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
BORING COMPLETED
WATER ; BLE DATA —DEPTH BELOW SURFACE BORING STARTED 8-3_89 I 8-3-89
Dry 0 0 HRS. RIG 8-47 FOREMAN DCB I APP•D BY STC AUGER 611HSr`+
l � HRS.
RING fiFICOTomcs. P. A
:m

thoot 1 Of 1
OV'1NER
Bill Satterfield
BRING NUMBER
B-5
PROJECT NAME ARCHITECT- ENGINEER
Olde Beau Golf.Course
COMPRESSIVE STAENGT
SITE LOCATION JOB.NO UNCANFZ STRENGTH
"8§-337-A ;°"�'�' 5
Roaring Gap, Va. . 2 S 4
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
UMIT 'A CONTENTS '/. LIMIT
W
0-
=
�"
Z
wo
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
to 20 30 40 50
DEPTH
IN FEET
c
w
w
a..
<
LL
Q
® STANDARD
N
PENETRATION SLOWS/Fr.
SURFACE ELEVATION
10 20 30 40 50
MICACEOUS SILT, w/trace sand, tan,
1
firm (ML)
2.5
1
ss
4.0
5
SILT, .w/l i ttl a sand, tan, stiff (ML)
15
5.0
2
ss
6.0
7.5
12
3
ss
9.0
10
i0.0
16
4
ss
11.5
15
15.0
29
5
ss
16.5
52
20
20.0
6
ss
5
Boring Terminated at 21.5'
25 �]
THE STFtATI>=1C.>T10N LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNORY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES: IN-STU. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL �l
_ -- _ __-- I onalmr. rflupl FTFD

shoot 1 of '.2
OWNER
Bill Satterfield
BORING NUMBER
B-6
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
Olde Beau Golf Course
SITE LOCATION
Roaring Gap, Va.
JOB. NO.
"89-337-A
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
TONS'FT• Z 3 4 b
,
PLASTIC WAi ER LIQUID
W
UMIT % CONTENTS % LIMIT •/.
Oa
a
X---------- ----- ®--------------Q
W
17III
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
10 20 30 40 50
DEPTH
IN FEET
0-
Ui
CL
a
is
N
® STANDARD
PENETRATION 13LOWSIFT.
SURFACE ELEVATION
10 20 30 40 W
MICACEOUS SILT, w/little sand, w/tracB
40
2.5
gravel, red, hard (ML)
1
ss
4.0
5
5.0
2
ss
6.0
3
ss
7.5
48
9.0
10
10.0
4
ss
11.5
15
15
2
5
ss
00
16.5
SANDY SILT, w/little sand and mica,
brown, red, v/hard (ML)
'
20
20.0
6
ss
21.5
.
SANDY SILT, w/little mica, tan, v/har
(ML}
25 --
7
25 •0
46
.ss
26.5
30
8
ss
30.0
31.5
THE STRATIFICATION ONES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNORY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES: IN-STU. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL I
WATER -,,.c\8L= DATA — DEPTH BELOW SURFACE
BORING STARTED
_Rq
I BORING COMPLEII ED 8-4-89 I
_T
UUTT''
0 0 HRS.
RIG 3-47
FOREMAN DCS I APP'D BY STC
AUGER 6 „HS�M I
fa HRS.
I
50
5
50
5
0
70
rV r _T , r-'PTNr-"T T 7'r TONICS. P. A.

. I
1
OWNER
Bill Satterfield
PROJECT NAME
Olde Beau Golf Course
SITE LOCATION
Roaring Gap, Va.
wCL
=
2
w0
DEPTH
.Uj
w
w o
IN FEET
EL
cL
n. �
I 35 1 9 jss 136.5
1 40
Shoot 2 of 2
BORING NUMBER
B-6
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
JOB. yO-. UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
89337-A TONS`•
1 2 94 S
PLASTIC WATER LIQUID
UMIT % CONTENTS % LIMIT %
X------------ -- ®------------ ---Q
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
to 20 30 40 so
® STANDARD
PENETRATION SLOWS/Fr.
SURFACE ELEVATION 10 so 30 xo so
I50
Auger Refusal 39.0'
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNORY UNES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES: IN-STU. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL
WATER TAB�E DATA —DEPTH BELOW SURFACE BORING STARTED 8-4-89 BORING COMPLETED 8-4-89
Y 0 0 HRS.
HRS. RIG B=47 FOREMAN DCB APP'D BY STC AUGER 6 1' HSA
�
ENGINEERING TECTONICS, P. A.

Sho©I 1 Di 1
OWNER Bill Satterfield
BORING NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT- ENGINEER
01de Beau Golf*Course
SITE LOCATION
NO.
'89-337-A
UNCONFINED C014PRESSIVE STRENGTH
70B.
Roaring Gap, Va.
ONyFT.22
.
, 4 3
PLAS71C WATER LIQUID
w
=
LIMIT 0/6 CONTENTS % OMIT
aCL
�
)(-•--_____......._
o
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
DEPTH w
w
w
10 :0 00 40 30
'IN FEET cL
a
LL
STANDARD
PENETRATION BLOWS/Fr.
SURFACE ELEVATION
10 20 30 40 so
SANDY SILT, w/trace mica, red, firm
(ML)
18
2.5
.
1
ss
4.0
26
5
2
ss
5.0
6.0
3
ss
9.0
SILT, w/little sand and mica, red,
29
v/hard (ML)
10
10.0
40
4
ss
11.5
SILT, w/little sand and.mica, red,
tan, --.hard (ML)
-15
5
ss
1 5.0
616.5
35
20
20.0
6
ss
21.5
SILT, w/little sand and mica, brown,
tan, hard (ML)
I
5
25 --
25 0
7
ss
26.5
45
Auger Refusal at 28.01
30
0
THE STRATIFICAT1CH UNES AEPAESENT THE APQRCXIMATE SCUNDRY UNES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES: IN•S'TU. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRACUAL ! I
iTER 8L= DATA — DEPTH BELOW SURFACE-'
SCRING STARTED 8-4-89 I BORING CCMPL ED 8-4-89
Dr�
'� 2" 0 HRS.
RIG 3-47 FOREMAN OC3 APP'D SY S T C AUGER 6„VS.�
� HRS.
1�1
I

Shoot O( .2
OWNER
Bill Satterfield
PROJ ECT NAM E
01de
Beau Golf Course
SITE LOCATION
Roaring
Gap, Va.
z
w
T
CL
w
DE
DEPTH
_j
_5
w o
IN FEET
a-
cL �
co
BORING NUMBER
B-8
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
JOB. N.).UNCONF2 ED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
• " 89-337-A TONs1FT. Z S < 5
PusnC WATER uaUlo
UMIT 'h CONTENTS 'h UMIT
.. x-------- ®--------------a
rION OF MATERIAL 10 20 30 40 :A
•
® STANOARO
PENETRATION BLOWS/Fr.
SURFACE ELEVATION 10 20 30 40 so
SANDY SILT, w/little mica, red, tan,
I v/sti ff (MI ) 20
ss 2.5
4.0
5 5.0
2 ss 6.0
3 ss 7'5 39
9.0
10 SILT, w/little sand and mica, tan,
10.0 v/hard (.ML)
4 ss 11.5
72
170t
15.15.0
ss 16.5
f •
69.
20 6 ss 20.0
21.5
55
25 — 25 ; 0
7 ss 26.5
70
30 --
8 ss 30.0
31.5
THE STRAT:FICAnCH ONES FtEPRESE:4T THE APPgCXIMATE SCUNORY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYP_5: rr�-STU. THE TRI►NS1nCN MAY BE GRADUAL
rATcA ZLE �Aii� -- CE?TH BELLOW SURFACc' 3CRiNG STAATcO 8-4-89 I BCRING CCMPLETEID 8-4-89
�r/ 2?OHRS.
H. RIG 3-�}7 FOREMAN DC3 � APP'D SY STC TAUGEA 6nMr+

Shot r_ of L
OWNER Bill Satterfield
BORING NUMBER
6-8 •
PROJECT NAME
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
01de Beau Golf Course
SITE LOCATION
JOB . O.
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
7°"�'�•
Roaring Gap, Va.
8�-337-A
2 s 4 5
PLASTIC WATER LIOUID
LU
=
LIMIT 1/6CONTENTS % LIMIT %
p
CL
a 0
X---------- ----- ®------ Q
Z
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
10 20 90 40 50
DEPTH
w
w
1N FEET
IL
m
0. ¢
U.
N
0 STANDARD
PENETRATION BLOWSIFT.
SURFACE ELEVATION
10 20 30 40 50
35
35.0
9
ss
36.5
Auger Refusal at 38.0'
40
THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDRY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN•STU. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL I
WATER TAE; E DATA —DEPTH BELOW SURFACE
BORING STARTED 8-4-89
BORING COMPLETED 8-4-89
ry UU 0 0 HRS.
RIG
B-47
FOREMAN JAPPID
DCB
BY STC
AUGER 6"HSA
� HRS.
1
ENGUiEEMNG TECTONICS, P. A.
50
5