NC0086304_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_19980313

Newton, North Carolina 28658 • 704-464-8333
MAR 1 1011'i
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
To STATC- orm M • C. D E N TE, Subject NPDE S 4 %N C 008%304•
IED• T3ox 29 35 EAS i CATAWEA M C)CE IooL
2ALG1 LtH , C 7_71,26-0$ CATAW A Ce
Attn: To M as L" ic,l< Date 3 / 3 19
E Los- is Co ©F L.a—iC�¢ om C Aw
ou t 7 2T T o
n A-F�-F> L i co—t 1J e W
Signed
Lcw3 ¢� r1a J cza'e Cl im;aWm
7,94-464 -gab

CATAWBA COUNTY
Public Health Department
Environmental Health Division
PO Box 389 a 100-A South West Boulevard a Newton, North Carolina 28658
[phone] FAX [phone]
February 3, 1998
Mr. Ernest Williams
Catawba County Schools
PO Box 1000
Newton, NC 28658
Dear Mr. Williams:
I have received correspondence from Mr. Tony Jacobs, Soil Scientist as to the possibilities of acquiring
a subsurface wastewater system at the new East Catawba Middle School site. I evaluated much of the
soil with Mr. Jacobs and agree with his findings and recommendations. There was too much variability
on the site due to drainage mottles at variable depths on the lower or rear area of the site thus making it
unsuitable for a subsurface system.
The conclusion of all parties involved was to have a combination of two alternative systems which are
spray irregation and a discharge permit (NPDES) to Balls Creek. The spray irrigation system cannot
be operated during excessive rainfall periods (> 1/2" per week) thus making the operator switch to the
discharge system as a backup.
My recommendation is to permit the discharge system only. Between excessive rainfalls and hard
freezes the spray irrigation system would be too cumbersome and complicated to operate, not to
mention keeping up with how much rain had fallen that week. The school is also not in operation
during the dryest time of the year. For these and other factors I feel the discharge (NPDES) permit is
the only alternative.
If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please contact me at 704-465-8268 any Monday
through Friday between 8 am and 9 am.
Sincerely,
Russell B. Williams, R.S.
Environmental Health Specialist
M.
pe Frank Cockinos
Tony Jacobs
IZ
ee
"Keeping the Spirit Alive Since 1842!" rld l

- NP4ES� cod
tirf'. oOF3�� � y
_ PRELIMINARY ENGE'�EERING REPORT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EAST CATAWB A MIDDLE SCHOOL
I
_ Prepared for:
Ernest Williams, Jr.
East Catawba Middle School
Post Office Box 1000
Newton, North Carolina 28658

NORTH CAROLINA DEPART OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT/ WATER QUALITY SECTION
r
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM����yQ
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE - SHORT FORM D
TO BE FILED ONLY BY DISCHARGES OF 100% DOMESTIC WASTE (< 1 MGD FLOW}. 7
North Carolina NPDES Peranit No. N I C 0 10. Q
(if known)
�+ Please print or type
1. Mailing address of applicant:
Facility Name East Catawba Middle School
FOR Owner Name Catawba County Schools
Street Address Po Box 1000
City Newton
►� State NC
ZIP Code 28658
Telephone No. (704 ) 464-8333
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Name (If different from above) East Catawba Middle School
Facility Contact Person Ernest Williams, Jr.
�► Street Address or State Road SR 1821
cT �.
Ci}`1 Cat , awba
County = Catawba
`m . Telephone No
P ( 704 )464-8333
3. This NPDES Permit Application applies to which of the following:
Expansion/Modification * Existing Unpermitted Discharge
Renewal New Facility
* Please provide a description of the expansion/modification:
N/A
4. Please provide a description of the existing treatment facilities,:
N/A
Page 1 of 2
Version 1/95'

5. Please indicate the source of wastewater from the description of facilities listed (check where
applicable):
Type of Facility Generating Wastewater .
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
School x
Other
Number of Employees
Number of Employee-1
Number of Homes
Number of Students/Staff 650
• Please describe source of wastewater (example: subdivision, mobile home park, etc.):
6. Number of separate wastewater discharge pipes/wastewater outfalls (if applicable):
1
7. If separate discharge pipes, describe the sourcv(s) of wastz.. ater f o- each p:pc:
N/A
S. Name of receiving water or waters: (Please provide a map showing'the exact location of discharge)
Balls Creek
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and
that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and
accurate.
Ernest Williams, Jr.
Printed Name of Person Signing
Construction Coordinator
Tate
RECEIVED
1998
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6(b)(2) provides that: Any "hNft V1ugly makes any
false statement representation, or certification in any application, record, repo' ,)plan, or other
document files or required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental
Management Commission implementing that Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly
renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained
under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that
Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $10,000, or by imprisonment
not to exceed six months, or by both. (I8 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides a punishment by a fine of not more
than $10,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both for a similar offense.)
Page 2 of 2 Version 1/95

FER
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
EAST CATAWBA MIDDLE SCHOOL
CATAWBA COUNTY SCHOOLS
R' CATAWBA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
M
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. FACILITY
Catawba County Schools proposes to discharge treated effluent Balls Creek in
Catawba County. (See USGS Map A.)
Please review the following Preliminary Engineering Report for comments or
approval to construct a wastewater treatment plant to serve the East Catawba Middle
F, School.
Facility Name: East Catawba Middle School
County: Catawba, NC
Professional Engineer: Dewberry & Davis
Chad H. Huggins, P.E.
Professional Engineers License No.: 15818
Address: 600 Lexington Ave., Charlotte NC 28203
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY (WWTP)
Pq A wastewater treatment facility will be designed and built to service a proposed
school. Dual inline septic tanks, a dosing tank with dual siphons (pumps will be
substituted as terrain demands), a sand filter, disinfection with ultra violet light and
fish ladder aeration will be utilized. (See Sketch B, Flow Diagram.)
1
Faq
Sm

Zo
aig I &" I I cn
v
ca
Lsmt
go
0 Vs ca ca
zoo
let
line
fte,
Ile
43 IN
V
06 0
17
L/
4L
ti0 AI —
I ..--
.
all % 0
CA
3 ill
6,010
0% O.A.
0 0 oweaced Lv
be"
x 2A31"
CM. NnWALG W
. . . ........
?
U.S.GoSo
CATAWBA Me Malabar
QUADRANGLE C-70%

FLOW DIAGRAM 101
MIDDLE
SCHOOL
650
STUDENTS
rmRMR
�
Q
KITCHEN
gQ
p
©WASTE
GREASE TRAP
BY SCHOOL
DUAL SEPTIC
TANKS
'
DESIGNER
0
a
0
�+
DOSING TANKS
WITH
00 DUAL SIPHONS
OR PUMPS
A o
z
U
w
d
d C
�
V U
.
U
DUAL SAND FILTER BEDS
hA
ULTRA —VIOLET LIGHT DISSINFECTION
U
PLAN
NOT TO SCALE Dulsmod By &A.
AERATION (FISH LADDER) Cbwksd ft CH•H•
2,,3/M
BALLS CREEK NOT TO SCALE
Rm
Q 2/24/98 ADD KITCHEN & SANITARY WASTE LINES C.L.B.
"l' "`� NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY Di
cml

BALLS CREEK
RAY MACKIE
MICHAEL PURKEY
'TP
EA
DEWARD E. CLARK SR.
JDEWARD
E.
CLARK
SR.
JBEN
M.
ELMORE
JR.
W.S.BALLARD CO
Z JEFFREY M.
m PASTELAK EBENEZER LUTHERAN
Z CHURCH
0
PROPOSED
BASEBALL
FIELD
Wes
C
u
7i
S
7
maO� C.H.N.
OaV
P/1J/97
9 �
NOaT TO SCALE
/1\ 2/24/98 MOVE PROPERTY LINE C.L.B.
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY
C7001

am
QM
MR
3. PROJECT SERVED
The proposed school will serve 650 students. The school is scheduled to be ready
for student operations in March of 1999.
4. PHASING
F, The WWTP should be designed and constructed in one phase with an estimated
discharge flow of 7,800 gallons per day. The cafeteria and gymnasium without
showers would yield a flow of 12 gallons per day per student based upon current
MR design standards. Records kept by a similar middle school in Catawba County
indicate a peak -flow to 7.08 gallons per student. Catawba County Schools has
received a flow reduction of 7 gpd per student for the proposed East Catawba Middle
` n School (See Appendix for Approval Letter.) The proposed facilities will be
designed for a flow for 650 students at 7 gpd per student for a minimum flow of
4,600 gpd.
Pm
F,
B. EVALUATION
CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM
Sm The City of Newton and Catawba County were approached for municipal sewer
services. The nearest sewer line is over five miles away, and at least one pumping
station would be required to reach it. Neither entity has any planning or financing
Fm underway to extend sewer lines to the project area in the next five years. See letters
and map attached to the Appendix of this report.
'M Because of the extreme distance from any existing system, municipal sewer service
is not available at a reasonable cost at this time.
2. SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
Before Catawba County Schools purchased the site, a preliminary review was
conducted by Toney C. Jacobs & Associates, Consulting Soil Scientists, to determine
whether an onsite ground absorption system could be accommodated. This initial
r, investigation identified some soils on the site as provisionally suitable.
Subsequent soils evaluation indicates the existence of drainage mottles in the profile
�, and saprolite with HWR. These unfavorable conditions, along with space
limitations, make the site unsuitable for subsurface on -site wastewater disposal.
FM
MR
2
rM

MR
i
MM
The specific hydraulic conductivity measurements (ksat) had an average reading of
1.6 inches per day for the available drain field location. This number is very low.
The preferred ksat is 10 to 15 inches per day.
FM
An offsite parcel was also examined for its potential as a waste receiver site.
Analysis of the offsite parcel was included with the proposed site area. Thus, the
FMI conclusions reached for the onsite evaluation apply to the potential waste receiver
site.
Fa, Subsurface, on -site disposal is not recommended by the Soil Scientist for this site.
f" 3. SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Spray irrigation to treat wastewater from the proposed school was evaluated as a
possible option. To use this type system, waste must be treated to the "reuse water"
MI standards. The soil report indicates that space restrictions and low ksats are
limitations to using spray irrigation for this site. During wet periods, the site would
not be able to utilize all the water. Discharges would be required to dispose of the
,V, excess during wet periods. These discharges would have to be permitted and
monitored through the NPDES process. Thus, two separate treatment systems would
have to be constructed and maintained on the site.
Close proximity of the spray field to the middle school athletic fields is thought to
be a nuisance hazard. The Engineer does not recommend spray irrigation for this
site.
FM 4. . - SURFACE DISCHARGE
(a) Feasibility
The ideal treatment method for wastewater from the proposed schools is
underground discharge. Unfortunately, as described in section 2, subsurface
disposal is not possible for this site. Catawba County Schools reluctantly
accepts surface discharge as the method of treatment.
W
3
MR
M9

Pan
ran
MR
MR
MR
The school site is located on a tributary of Balls Creek near its confluence
with Balls Creek. A proposed discharge point to Balls Creek was selected
about 3,000-feet west of County Road 1003. Because the discharge point is
approximately 600 feet west of the school's rear property line, a third party
agreement for easement will be required.
Preliminary review by the Division of Water Quality, using desktop modeling
analysis methods, indicates the following limits for the East Catawba Middle
School Discharge
Parameter Limits Monthly Avg Units
BOD5 30.0 mg/l
TSS 30.0 mg/l
pH 6.0-9.0 SU
Fecal coliform 200 mg/l
Residual chlorine 28 q/gl
The drainage basin area is approximately 3.48 square miles. The estimated
summer 7q 10 stream flow is 0.60 cubic feet per second (cfs).
The speculative limits results letter is attached in the Appendix of this report.
The proposed facility will be designed for construction at the western portion
of the property with discharge to Balls Creek. The WWTP facilities will
include the following units.
1. Grease trap. (Designed and constructed as a school building
function.)
2. Dual, inline septic tanks with initial tank designed for 100%
of the flow. The second tank will have a capacity of
approximately 50 to 67%.
3. Dosing tank with dual siphons (Should grades not allow
gravity flow from the tank, dual pumps would be used.)
4. Dual -bay sand filter beds
4
11

-
5. Ultra -violet light for disinfection
6. Stepped aeration "fish ladder
See Prelminary Site Plan "C" for the layout of
the school and treatment
facility.
ran
The Engineer recommends surface discharge of treated wastewater from the
East Catawba Middle School to Balls Creek.
rw
(b) Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Using estimating prices being quoted by contractors in this area, a
preliminary probable cost estimate is indicated below. The grease trap is part
of the school building cost and is thus not included.
Mobilization
$ 10,000
Grading and Erosion Control
121,000
Primary Septic Tank
203,000
Secondary Septic Tank
109000
Dosing Tank and Dosing Siphons
203,000
RM
Sand Filter Beds
352000
Ultraviolet Light W/Equalization Basin
259000
Electrical
5,000
M"
Piping, Manholes, Appurtenances
1 %000
Fence
52000
Miscellaneous, Rock Excavation,
Access Road
52000
Contingency
16.000
MR
Probable Construction Cost Estimate
$173,000
Probable Project Cost Estimate
Construction
$1732000
Administration and Legal Fees
72000
Engineering, Surveying, Technical Fees
252000
Interest During Construction
12.000
Total Probable Project Cost
$2179000
MR
5
W"
ram

(c) Annual Maintenance and Operating Expenses
Grease Trap
$15800
Septic Tank
15000
Dosing Tank
200
Sand Filter Beds
71,000
Ultraviolet Light Disinfection
500
Annual Estimated O&M Cost
$11,500
After considering all alternatives, the recommended system for wastewater disposal for this site is
surface discharge.
Respectfully submitted,
DEWBERRY & DAVIS
14*
10
SEAL
tae�e
Chad H. Huggins, P.E. 2, 13 •. If
may,• NCC
xx
h. HUG
2

APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Page
Flow Reduction Approval Letter A-1
Letter from Catawba County Utilities A-2
Letter from City of Newton A-3
Soils Report by Toney C. Jacobs, CPSS A-4-12
DEHNR Report, January 20, 1998 A-13-14
,M Letter from Catawba County Schools A-15-16
FM
MLI
RR
MR
Mq
fa,
RM
SM

p, FEB-19-98 THU 16:31
CATAWBA COUNTY MGR , FAX NO, 7044658392 P.01/01
FM
Rm
F&,
M
rM
F=,
r--i
f=1
W1
M,
Sm
r,
Fm
fm
CATAWBA COUNTY
P.O. Box 389.100-A South West Boulevard 9 Newton. North Carolina 28658-0389 -, Telephone [phone]
http-//Www.co.catawba.no.tis FAX [phone]
February 6, 1999
Mr. Birk Ayer
Dewberry & Davis/Frank C. Cockinos & Associates
600 Lexington Avcnuc
Charlotte. NC; 23203
Subject: East Catawba Middle School NPDES Permit Information
Dear Mr. Ayer:
The closest existing sower to the proposed East Catawba Middle School is the terminus of one of
Newton's lines located at the Abernathy Retirement Center on Highway 16. The distance to that
point is approximately 7 miles, mostly upgrade.
A PER has been commissioned with respect to providing sewer to East Catawba Middle School, as
well us uthrr schuuls ui the area. The Catawba County Board of Commissioners has not made a
decision regarding the recommendations of the PER and the County has no firm plans to have sewer
available in the above rcfcrcnccd area within the next five years.
I hope this information is helpful to you in securing the NPDES permit for East Catawba Middle
School. if you need any other information, please do not hesitate to call me at 704/465-8260.
Sincerely,
CAT44WBA COUNTY
,17
4,011,
Barry B. wards, P.E..
Director of Utilities and Engineering
crt
"Keeping the Spirit Alive Since 1842!"
�J
F'rinseo on
RecyVW reper
A-2
I.

State of North Carolina '
Department of Environment
e and Natural Resources
i� Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard Jr. P.E.. Director
LL1.9WA
� E N R
December 19, 1997
Mr. Ernest Williams, Jr.
Catawba County Schools
Maintenanci Department
Post Office Box 1000Fm Rk
Newton, North Carolina 28658 V
G
RE:. Catawba County Schools
Proposed East Catawba Middle School.
Request for Adjusted Daily Wastewater Flow
Catawba County
Dear Mr. Williams:
On November 19, 1997, the Division of Water Quality received a flow reduction request
from Chad H. Huggins, P.E. of Dewberry & Davis on behalf of Catawba County Schools. You
requested a flow reduction of 7 GPD per student for the proposed East Catawba Middle School.
The Division received water uses records for Jacobs Ford Middle School that is similar to
the proposed East Catawba Middle School. After reviewing the data submitted the Division is
approving the requested 7 GPD per student flow reduction.
This consideration applies to any applicable future Catawba County School projects for
,4, East Catawba Middle School submitted to this Division. Regardless of the adjusted design daily
wastewater flow rate, at no -time shall the wastewater flows exceed the future effluent limits that
will be outlined in the Water Quality permit. A Water Quality permit must be obtained before the
proposed spray irrigation system is constructed and placed into operation.
IfY y , M, y ques tionn C'' c^'rimy^ts •Asa:d�rb •1,:...ri.�.rA. p�o.,�P c....►a,.� ��iatt tx�i...- �
os have L.ea• V••J V• •e •• •V • • •V»Jr v... V« .. .. •..w•.w
at (919) 733-508!:extension,509.
MR Sincere
1 7
.01
�[ A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
FOR ' &GhadEr uggi-nsv3-E.
Pw
.)Ali S
DEWBERRY & DAVIS
CHAIRLOTYE, iq. C.
OR P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper
A-1

JAN-30-se 1S=34 FROM: CITY OF NEWTON ID* 704 46S 7464 PACE 1
�•a
i
ws�
9
t'1 tY
P.U. Box 550 • Newtv�t. NG 2865E - (704} 460 • fax (704) 4(i;)-14r)4
tinattt.7ltF tt►:1k1'lti=
PULILIC WORKS AND UTV'f IES DE VARTMCNT
OR
January 30, 1998
M
Mr. Birk Ayer, P.E.
fm Dewberry dt Davis/Frank C. Cockinoa & Associates
600 Lexington Avenue
Cimlotto, North Carolina
M' Fax: [phone]
RE: Sewer Availability to East Catawba Middle School Site
Birk:
l reviewed the map you sent me locating the site of the proposal East Catawba Middle School. Based on the
location indicated on the map, it appears that the nearest sewer line is more than five miles away. l have not
date a detailed investigation, but it appears that it will be necessary for the sewer to be pumped at least one
time rrom the site. The existing sewer is a 12 inch line.
if you require additional information, please feel free to contact.
Very Truly Yours,
Fm Jay C. Stowe, P.E.
City Engineer/D'uwtor of Public Works and Utilities
,_, cc: Barry Edwards, P.E., Catawba County
MR
MR
ran
11
Rt
A-3

W
v
SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION
OF AN ON -SITE WASTE DISPOSAL AR EA
FOR A SUBSURFACE SEPTIC SYSTEM
FOR
EAST CATAWBA COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
1=1 CATAWBA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
rm
Sm
J4'' v ^, b
S,
FEB 5 1998
`a' DEWBERRY u DAVIS
CHARLOTTE, N. C.
rw
Fm
by
Toney C. Jacobs & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Soil Scientists
168 Broadbill Drive
Mooresville, N. C. 28115
ofc [phone]
fax [phone]
e-mail [e-mail]
November 14, 1997
Slightly revised - February 3, 1998
Submitted to: 0kfr.Frank Cockinos, P. E.
Cockinos & Associates, hic.
600 Lexington Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28203
Mr. Russell Williams
Environmental' Health Program Coordinator
Catawba County Health Department
P.O. Box 389
Newton, NC 28658
Mr. Earnest Williams
Catawba County Schools
P.O.Box 1000
MR Newton, NC 28658
,.----
-w-w•OF CEAT ��•
♦ ,aa �,1
♦ lv � csors Ewa• . a
YOHEY C..lACOa5 ; Z;
CSRTirim pno ESSIONAL
a1 % SOIL SCIENTIST
A
0 EX
..
gO1L SC
C. JAc�B
Owl. f 4 S
is
---%
1063
Paul G. Penninger
/_ "O�
300n"ey C . obs, CPSS
A-4

MR
FM
Site and soil evaluation of an On -Site Waste Disposal Area
A„ For a Subsurface Septic System for East Catawba County Middle School
Introduction
This evaluation was made to advise the wastewater engineer and school system
administrators of the soil resources and feasibility of an on -site ground absorption septic
RW
system, site specific loading rate for such a system, and soil or site specifics to consider in
system design. A portion of this work was done prior to purchase to determine whether
the site would accommodate an on -site ground absorption system and how this would
affect the site FM plan. One off -site parcel north of the boys' soccer field was also examined
for its potential as a waste receiver site. This report addresses soil and site criteria for
Sw permitting through NCDENR-DEH (T 15A. 18A .1900) which includes the Catawba
County Health Department (CCHD). Preliminary plans are for a population of 650
rw students and 65 staff members, with a design flow of approximately 7150 gpd. Mr.
Earnest Williams is presently gathering water flow records from a similar school in
MR Catawba County. From preliminary numbers, the engineer is assuming 10 gpd per student
and staff for the design flow. Field work for this investigation was conducted in four
FM phases 1) May 6, 1996 preliminary evaluation of complete site, 2) May 9, 1996 evaluation
of adjoining property for its value for subsurface, 3) July 27, 1997 site meeting with Joe
W Lynn, DEH regional specialist to consider alternatives, and 4) August 15, 1997 saprolite
rim
evaluation per DEH request. On all those subsurface investigations there was
representation by CCHD, usually attended by Russell Williams.
The recommendation for a ground absorption system is based on a combination of
factors, including, but not limited to 1) topography and landscape positions, 2) soil
characteristics, 3) wetness conditions, 4) soil depth, 5) soil restrictive horizons, and 6)
available space. Generally, some of these conditions which may limit site or system use
can be compensated for by modifying the system design; however, some factors cannot be
remediated. It is with this philosophy that this report is prepared.
Sw This report is a supplement to an engineering design by Cockinos & Associates, P.A.
Details required of that design have been omitted from this work. Portions of conclusions
FM or design recommendations have been modified to reflect unified efforts of soil scientist •
FM

2
Im
and engineer. Establishment of final design flow is deferred to the engineer, but this
evaluation was made assuming 7150 gpd design flow.
ma
Site
rZa The proposed school site is located across the road and in front of Bandy's High
School, approximately %2 mile (Fig 1). The area around the school is mainly agricultural
MR and rural residential (Fig. 2 and Plate 1-1). Plate 1-1 is the entire site from Shiloh Church
Rd. to the rear of the property. There is also one church near the road frontage beside of
S, the property. The proposed disposal field is located on the west end of the site. (Fig. 3)
Immediately across the property line from the proposed on -site disposal area is a large
P" broiler poultry production area. Associated with the poultry houses are two water supply
wells. The rooflines of the poultry houses can be seen on Plate 1-1 & 1-2. Overall
topography of the proposed disposal area is a broad lineal slope. Plate 1-3 illustrates
much of the system area. Slope was measured in the field by clinometer and later
correlated with the site specific 2' interval topo map. Slopes were generally between 5
and 10%. The field has many old agricultural terraces which can and should be removed
as the site plan is developed. (Plate 2-1) There is a stream near the south property line
which affects usable area. Proper setbacks must be maintained from the proposed
disposal fields. The entire disposal field is currently in Fescue grass which has been
recently harvested. During some periods of work for this report hay bales were present in
the field. (Plates 1-1 & 1-3) The soils map (1968 aerial photo) shows the majority of area
Fm as open pastureland or grass. (Fig. 4) Fertility and crop vigor were evident when on the
return visit in July '97. The pits opened in May '96 were difficult to locate because of the
,a, growth of the forage crop. (all Plates)
There are no major draws on the site other than the one near the south property line
F+ which would affect the disposal fields. There has been some discussion about the location
of the athletic field and the cut/fill that will be required for the construction. The re-
S+ positioning of the boys' soccer field to allow use of some specific areas has been
discussed with Mr. Earnest Williams. Also, the setbacks from the athletic field are not
completely established. No old homes or wells were observed in the proposed drainfields.
MV

OR
3
MR
Any wells on adjacent properties (four were observed during this work) should be located
by the engineer. Water will be supplied to the school by a public utility.
Soils
The site was mapped (Fig. 4) y USDA-SCS as Madison gravelly sandy loam d —
10% and to a very minor extent 10 — 25% slopes, both eroded. (Brewer, 1975) Most of
the soil within 1000'of the site is mapped as Madison Series. Madison soils formed from
acidic rock such as mica gneiss and mica schist. Madison soils are well drained, red or
reddish yellow, have a moderately deep solum (usually 24-40") and have low to moderate
RM shrink -swell potential. There were abundant mica flake and mica books in most profiles.
(Plate 2-2) Appendix 1 has technical information for Madison Series from the Soil
M Survey.
The site specific soil evaluation placed 25 backhoe pits on the site. The pits were
FE,
field located by line of site triangulation and topo and are shown in Figure 3. As possible
they were numbered in the field, but the haying operation destroyed most flags. Russell
�+
Williams with the CCHD observed pit spacing and described these pits on the dates that
fieldwork was carried out. One time Russell Williams was not available, Joe Lynn was
'N'
present to represent DEH. The site -specific investigation showed the soils are similar to
those mapped by SCS. As Figure 3 shows, only 7 of the 25 pits are in the proposed septic
`m
area. The school building, parking, and athletic fields use most of the site.
Approximately 2.5 acres were reserved for septic in the site plan. In this area pits 3, 4,
and 2P are unsuitable for conventional systems due to depth to hard saprolite or less than
'
2 chroma drainage mottles in the lower landscape positions. Over the entire site, pits 3, 4,
72 82 109 142 159 17, 20, P2, P3, and P5 were described as being unsuitable for
conventional septic system. Many of these pits were also unsuitable for low pressure pipe
MR
(LPP) septic systems.
The soils were very dry and hard to dig during each of the evaluations. Water was
added to soil while field descriptions were made to get accurate colors, textures, and
Riq
consistencies. Soil colors indicated well -drained, highly oxidized soils in the upland
positions. All low chroma mottles are noted in soil profile descriptions. Drainage mottles
R,
of two chroma or less were described in the lower landscape and it is expected that some •
RZI

4
free water would be infiltrating into pits if the weather was not unusually dry. Moderate
areas of hard but weathered rock which would interfere with system performance or
installation were encountered in some pits. Restrictive horizons were described which
would significantly limit vertical water movement.
Twelve site specific hydraulic conductivity measurements (Ksats) were made during
the evaluations using Compact Constant -Head Permeameters, similar to that described by
Amoozegar (1989). Results are shown in Table 1.
'.TABLE
(Stuntnrt� �ofaSatturafed .-d`auiicoiictictiv't`]r�Me'`s` •em�nts7,�
"!
1�} �.t.
MA
q�i.�tt z,.aa.7 �"w1.,.,,,j.'j8 y.4+�i h •, .'�' '�,;rf,;, .. �,.,.�t h.,., �, e}", ,i:j a r., t.c`r
��,��� M
�
3��d r} �y
�. i>_a u.,` ., %
UPS
PIT DEPTH (INCHES) HORIZON KSAT (in/day)
1
14-24
Bt
2.4
72 — 82
C
3.9
2
70 — 82
C
14.8
3
12 — 24
Bt
0.24
P1
14 — 31
B
1.3
43 — 52
B
2.4
74 — 85
C
30.2
117 —127
C
43.4
P4
52 — 61
C
3.6
74 — 85
C
30.2
102 —110
C
100.0
117 —127
C
43.4
I.

MR
5
W
The average Ksat in the B horizon was 1.6"/day which is very low. Average Ksat at
the deeper depths was 33.6 in/d. However there is a wide variation in saprolite that
tended to increase with depth as shown by measurements.
► 4 Five composite soil samples were collected and submitted to the NCDA lab for
analysis of cation exchange capacity (CEC) and pH values. The reduced number of
R" samples was because of questionable soil conditions and need. Average CEC was 12.0
meg/100 cm3 in the A horizon, 8.7 meg/1003 in the B horizon and 14.4 meg/1003 in the C
FOR horizon. Average pH ranged from 6.2 to 6.5 through the soil profile. The values are high
and consistent with the good stands of grass observed and the frequent cuttings. Because
ram of the adjoining chicken houses it is likely that poultry waste may have been applied to
SM
the field; however, there was no evidence or artifacts to indicate this. The soil consistency
indicated a low shrink/swell potential and was further verified by the CEC of the subsoil.
MR The CEC values are higher than usual for the same soil, but this is because of the high
fertility status. The NCDA soil test sheet is included in the Appendix 3. The
concentration of primary nutrients (NPK) from the proposed school should not exceed
soil capabilities. Some N will be used by plants on the field and in buffers. Phosphorous
M, will be tied up in the clay fraction of the soil and K should be below soil test limits.
General Discussion
►=I The initial investigation identified some soils as provisionally suitable (PS) for a
ground absorption septic system on the front of the property near Shiloh Church Rd. and
RM at the rear of the property in the upper landscape positions. The site plan designated all of
the front area and about %z of the rear area for athletic fields.
Some of the rear area designated as sewer drainfields on the site plan (Fig. 3) is
unsuitable for septic because of drainage mottles in the profile and saprolite with HWR.
'" . Two meetings were held with Joe Lynn of DEH and it was concluded that the site could
not be permitted for a subsurface septic system by the rules as they are written or by the
IM special .1948(d) provision. Our last day of fieldwork was to test and verify this. There is
too much unsuitable saprolite and space limitations to allow such a reclassification for
RM
septic. After a great deal of review, this was the concurrence of CCHD, DEH, and TC
Jacobs & Assoc. Other possible options for the site include surface spray or drip disposal
RM
rM

6
or a NPDES discharge. The primary limitations for spray or drip will be available space
due to site plan restrictions and setbacks. Also the low Ksats will give a low overall
drainage value to the site water balance.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance with this project. If questions arise
about this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.

u e.^� �tacvrl s► »1
• �, , BEM t
•
w�, ras • � ��, � �� ?SOS CelaubaN.F
eta '
'A , to 'y PO
172 A • . �• �.'.9 8,
1 B Rt rA r•r� ' A
AWB�•» � 1�,�.��1i` .�C� �1 yam.
2861
matIND
y •` r �� �� : ~ :' �/ ��i
Inn, f
14
51
;RUMS1EAD "� a
%VO. 2 w+aet[ St ( sue$ >x 1 w
• � / IJti7 a�a i atatRa.t� F•,� i G �w
• •• `e ' l?t11AW0A LAND PAR ?st As — �rpustx.s�,po� ; Calawti�t ). 2 9e30
• Q, /" ♦ Ra�� j A '�B21... tr101 i 1829 p CI
r '1f 4 ♦ CR �+� lJx ` Ito 41D4 28 = V Itz OR I. 11 CH
1
172 �� RO 1ui fit' P l8?2 1825 t /
1831
Y-s DES. ,� Ctaremonln.F.D.2 eRloG IVERSIDE)
CATAWB FIR DIET.
10.P D 12 1Catawba R.F.D. 1 /
i
.° ...r! / ■ e°Jt176 CF.D.1
i
UR
RAY �+
EST$
CI\ / � o►�N ` un
_! p 18 1 hr 7 `cafawba
OB 3t � � f9 �y �• � Fire.
>+o � ~ ~ `',' `,'� �� /1g��tt`r�•. `\ i / '
\ � t _
a—'i a rasik F 5 In to URRAY'
MILL \ 1e31
A do
1822
Gi 76 e cctu 1 a e 3 I Ctarem of R.F.D. 2 : `�N23
110xt St. D 10,18
t 1820 ppri�s qo lt�
1809, tN�Rgt s
RD.
, ] 1023
�1•
e iu S fall r t cr�R+Gfl
18J
.; ' »1e21
^ • i r823 c
r r•' r • ... ! �`' IONNSIrIt z �^ � /
z p 1686 rig+ 813 er7 ytpi `�, j•� �'
18t0 let? 8003 . ` are`' Qo t t0 Mir
i Nn , �. • ' Catawba n.F.M , dyer fel /
r
kv
At: J813 Claremont n.F.D.2 B i I sIsrJI `S B+1�` /=
lots
••
•...` 5 rusor's ANDY * '• tawbaR.F.D. ,w ��•.
....•..•..fOKN 111 iT ( VfO RI •
lOq Oateamm n.F.Dr 2 1818 .
•
7
0-�
y M • i ' ! 1 /- SharillsFprl ••••
BANDYS FIRE ' 1ST. n.F.°t
.nR.F.b.2 �••` (ST . #
I. se! 1003 i �' 4 �� r Q� /� Iq 8a.
C D' Ci.. r D, ��\ C
CA
1814 04 oms
30
� 4a �' • � `�sy� •�. use ����� E DA. �°` �,
Area Locator Toney C Jacobs & Associates, Inc. Figure 1
168 Broadbill Dr.
Mooresville, NC 28115

a I�
n -
a �
b
� u
a
n
•z 1009
� I
USGS Topo
Toney C Jacobs & Associates, Inc.
168 Broadbill Dr.
Mooresville, NC 28115
Figure 2

r N .
apt
toll
LU
V OF
,
I 1 •
r
'_.Woo ` � r - / rrPoo ago ,r
0001,
00
Tor rplrf l r+l r , '' ! •o fa C4
fMoil' —U
Ooo
PIT
ja
F'1 - , , CfF• I I , \ f .. I pQ y
- � � V� 00 C r- r � -"�- - -/ - • f I..ram •i�
�• z '/'=-. Y . _ MIDDLE Hoo­I, y ...
/ ' �; o
,� 1/ • , ` � w _ _ �+. � , 1 - "'_y' - I : J j 8LY rIMS'+•� � 1. i � ._, � i, , . r ( • (j
:/ 7 1..: I .::.., 1 LOD2y lj t . ♦I `I•
JI
. � = y�1't� err ' - s►"f r/ � \ ,1 � O � � ,�` �
� •_ _
r

Mp,C2 McF.2 CATAWBA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SHEET NUMBER 35
1 375 OUO 1(A.1 ! �
�— .rl:r �' • �� t''''°' ~MSC2� MgB2 • • �' , • ''�i . .ys� ,,' CnC2` . �B? , CmO�� r h �(�•' {t
Cm� ♦,t� /� ..•♦, itij 1 (iW � �� '.,' � � : { t� •, A t , Y ,;.• ;? •I{'� Ly .Ct`1
r,•♦�„N�, r.7♦ ,Crt�i182 M.Q JI 'a• t ,, • ' 1:, • :, :';• :'r'• A Cm82 iy� .,�i i,s ,•
�Y+ i ��; ` ,, 7'S '. T�' , �!t �.�� • M C2 • , ., f+ w.f� Cimvs Z r , '- .,Jya -r •..
• ,•,� A� !,i • •'a- .� I, 4!' 1 �•S;: 1, � S� r . • , M C2 •r.a : v '.� ('��' !•c'., w : 4a
•'' 1 ` P''�" ♦ % r •.:{ i? MgE2 . ,,• . +; j ! Mgt . y'�+
.! \ , r y#p• Mg62 • •fl- •'!, +� 1.•..Yw ?.
' •fl�X'
��,• •g :a Mg 2`, r MSC o CnC2 HsB2 •�.. k=V �ii•`�
ll• / .;� S�� Y � ... 'tt // MgC2 � • ;
X,'+• d, 3j • • . �' ` i E nezer r , , ' HwC2 raft °•
r r ` hurch
CmBZ
q �_`� _ - • ' .. �y r: 3 .�, ' Cm62 ' �I`'''' t. a Cm82 :h.. , ; •w-
i �� �` • ,ay,lw +;. '. �j ' a ....M �/ r ^•.• Mg82 • ,:1 i HSC2 �•! : CRC2
E2 •• C2 v:CnC2 •, �! :, •e, m
�� N •t �� : Cw f• 'F� B• Hw62AsO ' S16
C+c
lW.• 6i MgE2'. • • �, :C�fi� '.�� "`�; CmD2':r',.�.
In
• .:i} ,' MgE2 : �' • • ; �`' I1sC2
O
~, , �,
� CmC2 CmC2 1� ''• ��° �;,,.; r Q�?:, •�,�i.�1t�• CaC2 :�1: Hs�2� ! tV CnE3 r.
MR
4+ a:
�?�.�-s:•�� MgC2 'sti s�.''�,t�"_ ?'• -r • r, MgC2: gE2= a .G. 4..
mgd2 MCI,
• • 1 •�. },':+j ' `�, 1�4:r • • • \ Bandy • • ,; k� tt.4 �°j 'SPe •
CimB?� 1 �'''. •�.'';': '+t fl4lt ! � �hv.��• �% ' `' �• ' �. ° 1 '. SChOOI Mg82 M1+' •� :!' .• •�' -
CnE
CmC2 " Mg ��F?+ g Y. % • C
��c... Mg82•�
C 8• ,.
rl
�61"*�';'ti �`,. ..�•jr'��;. , .•, ,� •Cm82.
OmB2• �, V, }' 4• . 1!y "'►,� Mg82 - � �.• },�� ,•.- • • a
tC2 J� • , ,';I� M�02. -f gC2 •Jt:r'� . , ��a •
`�+�r °�� •; �� R MgC2 HsC2 je t
,. ,a • `. . •� ` Mg82'•�, •
"i = t, .dot'«'' • ' MgC2 " " • l HwC2 .CmC2 `'•'_. •
CnE3 •.
M Cm82 ! • t .+ ,. • CmC2
MgB2 Mg82 f? 11sD2,'' ,.0
�. •.0 . • .
MgCz Ns
• •
• CmB • JCm02
C,m02 l;: MgE2 ti \ - CmB2
MgC2 ��� •
CmC2 AsR . ,�":. • `� HsD2 Nsc ` .
USDA Soil Map Toney C Jacobs & Associates, Inc. Figure 4
168 Broadbill Dr.
Mooresville, NC 28115

APPENDIX
4. Soil information
2. Soil profile descriptions
3. NCDA Soil Test results

14
sole; svltvBY
Al
FM
P"
1W
fUR
Im
W
fm
MR
W
Fm
P"
M"
W
FM
Madison Series
The Madison series consists of well -drained, gently
sloping to moderately steel) soils oil uplands. These soils
formed in residumn from acidic rock, including mica -
schist and mica -gneiss.
In a representative profile the surface layer is yellow-
ish -brown gravelly sanely loam about 6 inclics thick. The
subsoil is about 20 inches thick. It is dominantly red,
friable clay in the itI)per hart and ,yellowish -red friable
sandy clay loam in the lower part.The substratum, to a
depth of about 66 inclies, is yellowisli-red sandy loam
inottled with red.
Unless limed, Mndison soils are strongly acid through-
out. Natural fertility and content of organic matter are
low. Permeability is moderate, and available water ca-
pacity is nledi11111. The root zone is moderately deep.
Depth to the sensorial high water table is more than 10
feet. The shrink -swell potential is moderate.
lltadisorl soils are fairly important for -farming. About
half the nereage is pastured or cultivated, and the rest is
chiefly wooded. Slope. is the Blain limitation.
Representative profile of Madison gravelly sandy loam,
2 to 6 percent, slopes, eroded, in a wooded area 51/4 miles
southeast of Newton oil State ITigliway 16, orle-eighth
inile south on County Road 1810, 21/8 miles southeast oil
County Road 1858, 2 miles west on County Road 1874
and 500 feet north of road:
Ap-0 to a incites, yellowish -brown (10YR 6/4) gravelly
sandy lonin ; moderate, medium and coarse, granular
structure; very friable; many small and medium
roots; fern fine mica ilnkes; common quartz and
schist fragments, about 1 Inch in size, make up about
20 percent of volume; strongly acid; clear, smooth
boundary.
DI-0 to 9 Inches, strong -brown (1.GYR li/G) sandy clay lonln;
weak, medium, subangular blocky structure; friable;
many small and medium roots; common medium
mica flakes; quartz mul sehifit frngiuentg mnke alp
about 20 Percent of volume; strongly acid; clear,
wavy boundary.
I12t-9 to 30 incites, reel (2.5YR 4/8) clay; moderate, fine,
suhnugulnr blocky structure; friable, sticky, slightly
pinstle; few smnit and medium roots; patchy clay
films oil peel faces; many tine mica finites; common
quartz and sclitst fragments; strongly acid; gradual,
smooth boundary.
D3-30 to 85 Inches, yellowish -red (GYIt 6/8) sandy clay
loam; weak, fine and medium, subangular blocky
structure; friable; many fine mica finkes; many
quartz and reddish -brown schist fragments; strongly
acid; gradual, smooth boundary.
C-35 to 00 Inches, yellowish -red (GYR 5/8) sandy lonnt;
common, medium, distinct, reel (`l.GYIt 5/8) mottles;
ninssive : friable; wenthered quartz and mica -schist
mixed with sandy loam; strongly acid.
The sohtnt ranges from 24 to 40 Incheq In thickness. Depth
to bedrock is more than 3 feet. The'A horizon ranges front 4
to 8 Inches in thicknem and from yellowish brown to reddish
brown in color. The D horizon ranges from 20 to 82 Inches In
thickness and is red, friable to firm clay, clay loam, or sanely
clay loans. The DI horizon, if present, ranges from strong -
brown sanely clay lonm to clay lonua. The B3 horizon, If pres-
ent, Is dominantly yellowish -red clay lonni. Mica flakes range
from common to many lit the Il horizon and give it a slick,
greasy feel. The C horizon is dominantly yellowisli-red, red-
dish -yellow, and red, wentherecl, highly inlenceous schist or
gneiss that contains pockets and sennns of yellowlsh-red sandy
loam.
Madison gravelly sanely loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes,
eroded (MgB2j.—This soil has the profile described as.
representative of the series. It is a well -drained soil on
fairly narrow ridges on uplands. Arens range from 2 to
20 acres in size. Gravel content ranges from 15 to 30
percent., by volirille, throughout: t.11e profile.
Included with this soil in mapping are some areas of
similar, but nongravelly soils; some of soils that are
slightly eroded; and some areas of Pacolet and Cecil
soi Is.
Unless linmed, this Madison soil is strongly acid
throughout. It is fairly easy to keep in good tilth and
can be. worked throughout it wide. range of moisture con-
tent. In the more eroded areas, a crust forms after
lleavy rain arnl clods form if the surface, layer is worked
when too wet. Infiltration is moderate, and runoff is
medium. Crops respond well to applications of lime and
fertilizer.
This soil is well suited to most locally grown crops.
It is used chiefly for small grain and soybeans. Most of
the acreage is cultivated or pastured, and the rest is
chiefly wooded. '1.erosion is hazard of erosiois ioderate in
cultivated areas. Control of runoff' itnd erosion is needed.
Capability knit Th -1; woodland group 3o7.
Madison gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes,
eroded (MgC21.—'rliis is it well -drained soil on the upper
slopes of uplands, ill fairly short., narrow bands 3 to
2r aeres ill sire. The surfaca lityer is yellowish-brow"to reddish -brown gravelly sandy login 5 to 8 inches thick.
The subsoil is reel to yellowish -red, friable to firm clay
to clay loam 24 to 30 inches thick. Gravel content ranges
from 15 to 30 percent by volrnne tliroughotit the profile.
Included with this soil in inapl)ing are soilie wrens of
similar, but nongravelly soils; alld some areas of Pacolet
alid Cecil soils.
Unless liiiled, this Madison soil is strongly acid
throughout. Tt is fairly easy to keep in good tilth and
can be.: worked throughout it wide range of moisture
content. Tit the more eroded areas, it crust forms after
heavy rain, gala clods form if the surfnee layer is worlceci
when wet. Tnfiltrotion is moderate, and rurtofl' is rapid.
Crops respond well to applications of little and fertilizer.
'Phis soil is fairly well suited to most locally grown
crops. It is tised chiefly for small grain and soybeans.
About pal f the acreage is pi soured or cultivated, and
the rest: is chiefly wooded. The hazard of erosion is Severe
in rlrll.ivated iu-ens. Control of erosion and runoff' is
needed. Citpabilit;y unit ITTe4; woodland group 3o7.
Madison gravelly sandy loani,10 to 25 percent slopes,
eroded (MgE2).—'this is it well -drained soil oil th, loiter
slopes bordering drainageways in the, uplands. Tt occurs
as fairly short., narrow bands from3 to 20 acres in size.
'.Cite surface litpti. is ,yellowish -brown to reddish -brown
gravelly san(ly loam 4 to 7 inches thick. 7.'he Subsoil is
red to ,yellowish -red, friable to firm clay to clay loam
24 to 2R inches i.hick. Gravel content ranges from " to
30 percelit., by vollinrle.
Ilu,luded -%;ith this soil in mapping are solne areas of
Pacolet and Cecil soils (ilul a few are.ns of thinner, Illore
wenl ly developed soils.
Unless linte(1, this Afadisoll soil is strongly acid
t:hrougltout. I'nfilt 1•a.t.ion is moderate, and 1-1111ofl' is rapid.
Crops respon(1 fairly well to a.pplrcatioils of lime and
fertilizer.
fop

36
SOIL SURVEY
TABLE 6.-E''stiin ait8 of soil
jThe sti mbol > means more than;
Soil aeries and map symbol$
Depth
to bed-
rock
Depth to
seasonal
high
water
Depth
from
surface
(typical
Classification
USDA texture
Unified
AASHO
table
profile)
Altavista clayey variant: Af..............
red
>5
Fat
12
lie
0-6
6-55
Fine sandy loam --------
Clay Isom to clay .......
SAi
C14 MH
A-4, A-2
A-6, A-7
33-100
Gravelly coarse sand.____
SP
A-1
Appling: ASS. AsC2. As E2..............
>3
>7
0-8
8-47
Sandy loam .............
Clay, sandy clay loam-..
SM-SC. SC
MH. CH
A-2, A-4
A-6, A-7
47-90
Sandy loam -------------
SM, MH
A-2, A-7
Buncombe: On-------------------------
>10
12
0-10
10-55
Loamy sand ------------
Sand-------------------
SM
SM. SP-SM
A-2
A-2
53-0
Sandy loam .............
SM
A-2
Cecil: CmB2, CmC2. CmD2. CnB2. CnC2.
>3
>10
0-10
10-50
Sandy loam .............
a&%.. ela. loam .........
SM
MH
A-4
A-7
CnE3.
30-75
Sande loam ............
SAi, ML
A-5
Chewed&: Cw..........................
>4
11
0-10
10-64
Loam ------------------
Loam, clay loam --------
AIL, SM
AIL, CL
A-4, A-2
A-4, A-6
Congaree: Cy--------------------------
>10
13
0-10
Loam ..................
ML, SM
ML
A-4, A-2
A-4, A-6
30-31
31-70
Silt loam ..............
Silty clay, loam, clay
ML
A-6
loam.
Enon: En6----------------------------
>4
>10
0-7
741
Fine sandy loam........
Clay-------------------
SM
MH, CH
A-2
A-7
31-29
Clay loam ..............
CL
A-6
Gullied land: Gu.
No valid estimates can be made.
Hiwass": HsB2. HsC2. HsD2. Hs£,
>3
>3
0-6
6-56
Loam ..................
My, clay loam.........
AIL SAI
ASH, ML-CL
A-4, A-2
A-6, A-7
HwB2. HwC2.
56-108
Loam------------------
ML, Ski
A-4, A-3
Leveled dlsgty land: Le.
No valid estimates can be made.
Madison: MgB2. MgC2. MgE2...........
>3
>10
0-6
6-35
Gravelly sandy loam .....
Clay, sandy clay loam_.--
SM
MH
A-4, A-2
A-7
35-66
Sandy loam-------------
SM
A-2, A-4
Pacolet: PsF, PCB. PcC. PeE----------
>5
>3
0-6
6-33
Gravelly fine sandy loam.
Clay loam, sandy, clsv
SM
MH
A-2, A-4
A-6
35-60
loam.
Sandy loam .............
SM
A-2, A-4
> 60
Rock.
Webadkee: Wd.........................
>4
3 0
O-S
6-40
Fine sandy loam ........
Sandy c&y loam, loam ---
SDI. NIL
CL. SC
A-4
A-6, A-2
40-50
Sandy loam-------------
SM
A-4, A-2
Wilkes: WkE...........................
2-4
>10
0-5
5-16
Loam ..................
Clay imam ..............
ML
AIH, CL
A-4
A-6. A-4
15-42
Sandy loam .............
SM
A-2, A-4
>42
Reek.
Worsham: Wo..........................
>5
go
0-9
9-60
Fine Randy loam ........
Sandy clay, sandy clay
SNi, ML
CL, CH
A-4
A-7
loam.
1
' Subject to flooding.
CATAWBA COUNTT, NORTH CAROLIKA 3;
properties significant in engineering
the ,symbol < mcanR less sham
Percentage les• than 3 inches passing sieve- -
Permeability
Avsilable
water
Reaction
Shriek -swell
potential
No.4
No.10
No.40
No.200
capacity
lha�►
laa4e yer +leer
0-6.3
y �
0. I3
pX
3 6-B 3
Lour.
98-100
96-100
90-98
95-100
70-85
90-95
15-40
51-90
2
0. 63-2. 0
11-O.
0. 12-Q 14
5. 6-6.0
Moderate.
98-100
40-60
25-40
0-4
>& 3
0. 0". 06
& 6-6. 0
Low.
95-100
80-98
52-70
13-40
>6. 3
0. 11-0. 13
4. 3-& 5
Low.
95-100
85-100
70-95
52-80
0. 63-2. 0
0. 12-0. 14
4. 5-& 3
Moderate.
98-100
80-99
68-90
25-60
0. 63-2. 0
0. 12-M 14
4. 5-& 5
Low.
98-100
OS-100
90-95
13-35
>6. 3
0. 06-M 08
& 6-6. 3
Low.
95-100
95-100
W93
5-13
>6. 3
0. OS-O. 07
& 6-& 0 1
Low.
95-100
90-98
60-70
13-35
>6. 3
0. II_& 13
& 6-& 0
Low.
98-100
95-100
70-80
35-45
>& 3
O. 12-M 14
4. 5-& 5
Low. .
98-100
99-100
90-95
60-90
0. 63-M 0
0. 13-& 13
& 1-& 5
Moderate.
98-100
96-100
75-85
36-60
0. 63-2. 0
0. 13-0.13
& 1-& 5
Moderate.
98-100
95-100
W95
25-55
0.63-2. 0
0. 13-0. 13
& 1-6. 0
Low.
95-100
93-100
75-95
31-i5
0. 63-2. 0
0.17-& 19
& 1-6. 0
Low.
98-100
95-100
70-80
30-60
0. 63-10
0. 13-M 15
& 1-& 0
� Low. '
95-100
95-100
90-100
70-90
0.63-Z 0
0. 14-M 36
& 1-& 0
Low.
98-100
95-100
90-100
70-90
0. 63-2. 0
& 12-0. 13
& 1- 5. 0
j Moderate to low.
98-100 '
98-100
73-83
13-35
2. 0-& 3
0.11-0. 13
& 6-& 5
1 Low.
98-100
98-100
90-100
70-90
<& 20
0.13-0.15
& 6-& 5
High.
98-100
98-100
90-100
55-63
<0. 20
0. 13-0. 15
& 6-6. 5
Moderate.
98-100
9E-100
80-95
25-60
10-6. 3
& 13-0. 15
S. 6-& 0
Low.
98-100
98-100
85-100
51-90
0.63-1 0
0.12-0.14
& 6-& 0
Moderate.
85-100
1.5-100
60-85
40-60
0. 63-2. 0
0. 12-0. 14
& 6-& 0
Moderate to low.
85-100
80-95
35-85
15-10
>6. 3
0. 104 12
& 1-& 5
Low.
98-100
85-100
80-90
55-85
0. 63-2. 0
0. 12-0. 14
& 1-& 5
Moderate.
95-100
W90
56-70
30-49
0.63-1 0
0. 10-E 12
& 1-& 5
. Low. ,00
85-100
R.i-100
40-60
15-40
>& 3
0. 11-0.13
A 1-& 5
Low.
95-100
96-100
60-80
51-80
0.63-2.0
0. 12-0.14
& 1-& 5
Moderate.
80-100
80-100
60-70
30-40
0. 63-Z 0
0. 11-M 13
& 1-5.a
Low.
96-100
98-100
70-85
40-55
2 0-& 3
& 14-0.16
&G_& 0
Low.
98-100
9F-100
W95
20-53
a 63-2. 0
0.16-0.20
& 6-6. 0
law.
95-100
98-100
40-60
15-40
2. O-L 3
0. 14-O. 16
& 6-6. 0
Low.
98-ICO
96-100
70-83
60-73
2. 0-6. 3
0. 13-0. 13
& 6-7. 3
Low.
98-I(0
99-100
00-100
65-90
0.2-0. G3
O. 14-0. 16
& 6-7. 3
High.
98-100
98-100
00-70
35-40
O. 63-2. 0
0. 09-0. 11
& 1-& 3
Low.
99-100
09-100
90-100
40-SS
0. 63-2. 0
0. I2-0. 14
L .%-& 5
law.
1
96-10D
9G-100
90-100
70-W
0.20-0. 63
0. 15-0.17
4. 5-5. 5
Moderate.

tit ,
TCJ CONSULTING
SITE / S®IL• EVA1 AUATION A 2
Vale
-JOB: tr�Jl �y 1�'• . '�i �I n� l PHONE: DATE:
LOCATION: PIN: COUNTY: PROPETY SIZE:,.
a� PROPOSED FACILITY: WATER SUPPLY: On -Site Welt Community Public EVALUATION: Auger Boring ­_Pit V Cut
WEATHER: (�.r /,� ANTECEDENT MOIST'URE:h'.•� SURFACE WATER: _,_,,,_,
FM
FXR
MR
M"
rR
ram
rw
w
ram
w
rat
raw
FACTORS
PROFILE
-PROFTLP_
PROFILE ;.;
PROFILE .-
LANDSCAPE MMTloN.,r
'�
HORIZON I DEmI
-- I
/,� •�
- 1
U Cl
Tea+efs
rr• .1
f
itNeWA
r.
�
t• �, I.S / 2 •
i
-
/
J1
J!.
HOMO" Der•rH It
Tefefe
J -'' c tr
Mato"
AIA
tom,.
-a,
Catrrretef� r.,
�•Ji, +
y•
At%��,
Barnr�r
rI.-. A I
� •` } � . � .
I IOR:7_ON ill DErM
cass . tiafn.e.
,
Teeuty
Cenebeenee
LAC.&�,J' r
tiaeMefr
�• .. '�
.... .. �.
HORIZON IV DEMI s (t•s
•� I {J
- �.�
came . ►~area : v •
Testae
ataetee
.j.,
4� ss! i
in;tl
i
eautdeelr
70eltsiETftP.0
AM
•.—.. .-.
�
RETMICTIVF HORIZON
1AfR(►llr}
k+ t
`"1 '
�(r�t. '}•11j1
LT"
� f
CLAMFICAVON
%
!-
LEGEND
IAN CAM.P!=QN
R - Ridge J/.V /.. r f IJ•%
S - stwulder
L - Linear slo{r
N - Nose slob C
N - Mead :rote
Cc - COncm s!fve
ow - canvea sk.pe
T - Terrace
P - Flood Plains
TEMR
s - sand
is - bsnry sand
d - sandy loses
1 • loam
sl-s•�t
ail - sift barn
Sid - silly clap loam
d - clrr krm
sd - sash clap loarn
sc - am.1 clay
sic - silly clay
c • clay
�ul�Isrc�l�
Ns . Don -dicky
Ss - slightly sticky
S - Sticky
Vs - very sticky
Np - non-plastle
Sp • sligMty phstic
P - plastic
Vp - very plastic
MOIST
wit - very friable
tr - triabl
fi - Term
vt - very fate
efs - eatremtly arm
STRUM F-
s
sg -angle gn..n
M - olassfVC
Cr - cpjMb
sr - granular
sab - sdlsngolsr b"
ib - angular bk,-ky
, `I - Pfrly
pr - p►ismalk:

1
TCJ CONSULTING
SITE / SOIL -,EVALUATION f �'
DATE.
JOB. PHONE:
PIN. COUNTY: PROPERTY SIM-' ..
LOCATION:
WATER SUPPLY: On•Site Wc11••„•, Community_ Public_, EVALUATION: Auger Boring-— Pit_ Cut
`PROPOSED FACILITY'—'_
WE.ATHM- _ ANTECEDENT MOISTURE:____,__ SURFACE WATER:

axes
TCJ CONSULTING
SITE t SOIL EVALUATION
NEW 3
. JOB: PHONE: DATE:
LOCATION: PIN: COUNTY: PROPERTY SIZE:_„__
PROPOSED FACILITY: WATER SUPPLY: On -Site Well Community Public EVALUATION: Auger Boring_ Pit_ Cut
WEATHER: ANTECEDENT MOISTURE:SURFACE WATER:
MR
FAMRS
PROFILE C
PROFILE ('J
PROFILE
PROTII.E a_._.
I.AND2Wp /OSITION.ts
1� ,,
5
HORIZON I DET'TTI12
,r1 •••`tom
} �I`� '
lam
Color - Minya
/�Q c ��
pal i� r
' ' /fAt_r •
r�rr.
f�
/ J . i �.�if .�j
Tcaaare
'
I
rwl
Cerrawenc+
l� '
.
LA
r
.f0% 1,%
M.
Full
ewne.gr
.rFo
p A
0 t J11
+
e.
HORIZON Dorm If
S .- l�•
t � �
% ' � _ � ',
�� '�
r'
Color - t�% 0
f. /�
► • r .. r-ir 1. .1 . � i ,
Tgaviv
s
Math
s� _ 1
�1 '
coadsw
;.� .. 7�r'�
sAz: Y l
tv
IiOR:ZON IIIDEPTii
t .
•�A!L�/
�/
.r J (
i• v .
coaor.M~s
t IIJ
s...t� k�i'>
Team
'e
Matta
lit( 1
1.01/11
car�i4w/t
r ,�►
v
.
HORIZON W DEMI
. t
'
Isssl
Calar. sssn.a
terns
"Old"
M
cod.aeK+.
r�l
�
lOIL�RTNF3'd
•
RESMICTME I4ORIZON
UPROUTE
FOR!
LTAR
MCSIIIGTION
;i� � .)
� �. • �� �
, 7 t1
�l i . r
FOR
LEGEND
4ti l c,.
LASMAMMSMON
R - Ridge Tit/h2e.
S - Shoulder
L - Uttar slope
S - Mr. stain
N - Nose slope
11- Head slope
Cc - Concave slope
LN - Convex slope
T - Tessa
P -Flood Plain
a - sane
is - losary sand
sl - sandy loam
I - Wok
ti - silt
sit - sit loam,
sld - Wry clap loam
d - clap loam
ad -sandy clay loaf
sc - sandy day
sic - silly clay
c - car
Ns - nm4tickr
Sa - Slightly sticky
S - sticky
Vs - very sticky
up - nao-ptastle
Sp - fthty plastic
P - plastic
Vp - *ry plastic
M41S2
vir -very triable
fr - friable
fi - firm
wri -very firm
en - eatreasey am
68 - die grain
tm - Massive
er • cMMb
IF - gramaalar {
tab - subanguar bkL-,'
ah - angular Mock),
Pl - Pat'
Pr - pdma+k

rsI .
TCJ CONSULTING
SITE tt SOIL EVALUATION
JOB: PHONE: DATE:
LOCATION: PIN: COUNTY: PROPERTY SIZE:_
PROPOSED FACILITY: WATER SUPPLY: On -Site Well Community Public EVALUATION: Auger Boring_ Pit Cut
WEATHER: ANTECEDENT MOISTURE: SURFACE WATER:
/.
FACPORS
PROFILE
PROFILE
PROFILE C"
PROFIL!4 ^
ureoscuero�
,. r
1;+i ,:1
�,L
G 4
+.
' 1�1 1
,/ �ron.w
HORIZON I DER"
) '" i
�} - �{'
•''�
color . Lbw,ef
t
♦ !�
I I
I
Traun
S�N�111R
III
C1�
'
f
• -awy
HORIZON Da"" ll
�+ f � � -
� � � �
�(�
�,/ � � i/
•
6fm
Caler. Mrwrtf
1
tr
resin
• i,
'� ♦ • . �•J�.
Mash.
i
I "
s►.wrr�Al
A ! J
Canrlan,rt
. ► . �.
HORIZON IllD2rrH
{!� ,.',
Tnmw
tom,.r' r
(- I 1 ! !� I l
•
I•idtlt.
r
i
Caw,i,ea,a
1.( Ah
'
_ w
r t.
HORIZON IV bEr"I
cdw • Mrrwf
Tram
Mdtln
=u,r.,,.
SOIL WE7w.js
REMIcrM HORIZON
WROLIM
LTAR
CLAWHCAMON .
rr
f
r�

ow
TCJ CONSULTING
SITE / SOIL EVALUATION
"M , PHONE: __ DATE:
PIN: COUNTY: PROPERTY SIZE:
LOCATION:
JROPOSF.D FACILITY: WATER SUPPLY: On -Site Well— Community Public EVALUATION: Auger Boring„_, Pit Cut
NEATHER: ANTECEDENT MOIST URM_,_ — SURFACE WATER:
- ^ !

'1'C♦1 WNSUL TING
SITE / ,SOIL EVALUATION
�1-
JOB: PAW /W.4w?
va Pi IONis: DKI'i✓: ��%�' �% 7
LOCATION: PIN: _ COUNTY: PROPERTY S17A;:
PROPOSED FACIIATY: WAT'EIt SUPPLY: On -Site Wcll__ Community_ Public_ E?VALUA170N: Auger !luring___ Pit_ Cut
WGATI IER: ANILCEUEN'1' MOISTURE:: SURFACE WATER:
I=
fm
I29
tw
w
r-W
fm
Ir
W
I'=
In
P
fm
N
W
FACPORS
PROFIt.F_P1
PR0F11.1:•_
-T/
PROFILE_
PROFILE r
1ANDSCAPE KMnaN.%
fIOAtT.ON 1 DER1I
P
Cakv • 161~1
7!lwee
^
SerecWfe
?.y! i• 'Id i
Imo►
•
•
COYMefrf
f
Bwedee7
110RIZON DEPTH It
.� 3 t
�' ZS
.�•C (a
cam • ►/unwe
as
-.•
Teem
Cexuhunt
i T"� ��
i
T •'-
f• l !.
Bwnlefr
;IOA:?ON111DEPI11
L.44A 0
black!
/' �j .►
� •1 j,jr
I /�
SINCIYR
Condretnce
In fi. ,
i
e
HORIZON IV DEPIII
Cub • M.owl
Teewee
bldtk! •
�lfLee111e -
l orrkelnae
I 1'MYneery
SOtL �IfEiNP.Ri
'
RESTRICTIVE II011170N_-
I
SA�ROtlfE '
LTAR
CIAISifICwTION
�•

"Cl CONSULTING
SITE / SOIL EVALUATION
J)13: PHONE: DNIM:
1.00 A'iIUN: PIN:__.. _._ COUNTY: PROPERTY SIZI".*
PROPOSED CACI1.1'I'Y: WA'I'I?It Sl1PPLY: On -Site Wcll__ (',Ommunity_ Public EVALUATION: Auger Boring__- Pit_ (:ut
�" wll IRR: ANIECLDCNI' MOISTURE:- SURFACE WATER: _

Sample No. Last Crop
Mo
Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N P105 KO
Mg Cu
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
26 Pine,M
1st Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,E
4.2T
50-70 140-160 60-80
$ $
$
$
12
-
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,M
0
120-200 140-160 100-120
$ $
$
$
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC
BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1 Mn-AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1
NO&N AH-N Na
MIN 0.0 l.16 5.2
13.0
4.5 4.9 0 17
9.0
4.0
13 17 17 8
8
16
195
0.1
Field
,
liedLime
:-Recommendatioas4M Z,!,Y` .."�f' s •fr'•�L✓' .[,Nc'.y...Z •:,c. _
.. > R.•ww re:x:.%.v.:s+ .M - e> .. '" �3. .» a.. s'$_.'�.,+^' ' :M"f.. .s. ,B:L ^-w. '�Wi.�
rn.t''x��sJA`tc`. L.".KX•`w`n''•i,'z��`me" ._.o..- [.r., '` .xa,
`[".. ..x....
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo
Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N M5 AO
Mg Cu
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
27 Pine,M J
� e4l
1st Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,E
0
50-70 50-70 0
0 0
0
0
12
12
,• ; d
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,M
0
120-200 30-50 0-20
0 0
0
0
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC
BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1 Mn-AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zn-1
Zn-AI
Cu-I
S-I
SS-1
NO3-N IN Na
MIN 0.56 0.92 12.6
98.0
0.3 6.5 41 81
69.0
26.0
Ill 76 76 213
213
86
66
0.1
• • �. W .... ->
Field Informationp ::,
• i.. . •
iced Lune
'Ce-• +Nt ryyv�n t'Si-- ...w:.v .dytq..f'.. hxe.:, ,..5,",$JP Jam. �;@ "K M .b 'G. iY ; r}.lyb d �k•'T >.+�
`[ : .+-)`.... $. .:. .y ..:. .wY.... .. y.ta:. �F;C" -• ,T.g,.yi i:.. a [ns'-•r-�i+:+�3"x+wx4
�Recommendat;ons �.
Sample No. Last Crop
Ho
Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N PJ05 AO
Mg Cu
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
28 Pine,M
1st Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,E
0
50-70 90-110 0-20
0 0
0
0
12
E,el N.
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,M
0
120-200 90-110 40-60
0 0
0
0
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC
BS%
Ac pH P-I K I
Ca%
Mg,1v
Mn-1 Mn-AI (1)Mn-A.1(2) Zn-1
Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1
NO&N AU-N Na
MIN 0.46 1.17 10.3
98.0
0.2 6.8 18 43
69.0
28.0
109 70 70 130
130
69
57
0.1
,..., so.•-: �- •„ .. .. ..
• ; �. y4a,`e , ,t
-Field,InforMEW06n �:
ro,x. •
Yv-
•__ -• .
.t..yt'y
&ed-Lime
•-•': .�.[., .+.aCY�r.. •'..� ,¢y,-.. .#-�� ..x'
R`';�,Y s 'G2cls ''�'.`'� ; S° r%L. .
.Recommendation ,,y .. K �
<C'ae" 5. (•
...a✓
' i
�q
�. wµ
Samp a No. Last Crop
Mo
Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N W5 KO
Mg Cu
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
29, Pine,M
1 st Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,E
0
50-70 0-20 0
0 0
0
0
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rimM
0
120-200 0 30-50
0 0
0
0
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC
BS%
Ac pH P-I K I
Ca%
Mg %
Mn-I Mn-AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zn-1
Zn-AI
Cu-I
S-1
SS -I
NO3-N AH-N Na
MIN 0.66 1.00 11.5
94.0
0.7 6.7 79 50
65.0
27.0
59 42 42 413
413
257
61
0.1
Sample No. Last Crop
o
Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N h05 M
Mg Cu
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
30 Pine,M
1st Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,E
.7T
50-70 100-120 50-70
0 0
0
0
12
ice e, A
2nd Crop: Fes/OG,/Tim.M
0
120-200 100-120 90-110
0 0
0
0
12
Test Results /
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC
BSaro
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg %
Mn-I Mn-AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zn-1
Zn-AI
Cu-I
S-1
SS-1
NCB-N AH-N
Na
MIN • 0,36 1.05 7.2
88.0
0.9 6.2 •14 22
60.0
26.0
58 44 44 128
128
108
49
0.1
Field • ,a,x ...
ormation . ; �. �._,...,.-., .
Ued Lune
.:....-.w.c - - ... - .:: � i ..Y� r,- W.�... :Y• X� �. ';ti hx. "a::awr moo:. .t u <"' t ..a3x . t,.-:..'y,' ::i f�,. Z:�ir3 -
.Recommendations �
.c:h ::.,
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo
Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N M- 5 kO
Mg Cu
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
31 Pine,M
�E
1st Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,E
.5T
50-70 0 0
0 • 0
0
0
12
• M (%
2nd Cron: Fes/OG/Tim.M
0
120-200 0 2040
0 0
0
0
12
(�,)
Test Results
Soil Class HX% W/V CEC
BS%
Ac pH P-I K-I
Ca%
Mg,06
Mn-I Mn-AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zn-1
Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1
Na-N AH-N
Na
MIN ' . 0.74 0.63 14.4
94.0
0.9 6.4 218 61
65.0
27.0
51 40 40 745
745
343
74
0.1
- -- - I �1 �1
'1 -F -C _ 1
-E
--1
--1 - f --•-t .-.-E
_- F
--f

m
w
A
m
ON
�,
•�V,1
{1 7�4
PLATE a
�_7

fm
State of North Cal .na
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
t`ICA- Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
d
u
Mr. Stephen Hilton
Assistant Superintendent
Catawba County Schools
Post Office Box 1000
Newton, North Carolina 28658
Dear Mr. Hilton:
D E N R
January 20, 1998
. f Al•! :.>•�. ;nog
DEIr'>>DEM�'t'
Subject: Speculative Discharge Limits
East Catawba Middle S.chool
Catawba County -
fm I am writing in response to the request made by Mr. Chad Huggins, P.E. of Frank
C. Cockinos & Associates, Inc for spdculative limits for the subject wastewater discharge.
We are hereby supplying limits that would currently be assigned to the facility if the
rm capacity were 0.0065 million gallons per day (MGD) discharging to Balls Creek in
Catawba County.
„W The proposed discharge location on Balls Creek has a drainage area of
approximately 3.48 square miles. An estimated summer 7Q10 flow of 0.60 cubic feet per
second was derived for this location based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
methodology for determining low flows. Balls Creek is within the Catawba River Basin
'�' and flows northeast until it discharges to Lake Norman. Applicable limits for the East
Catawba Middle School discharge may be assigned as follows:
_ Parameter
Units
Limits (Monthly avg.)
BOD5
mg/1
30.0t
TSS -
mg/1
30.0
pH
SU
6.0 — 9.0 .
Fecal coliform
A 00ml
200
Residual chlorine
µg/l
28
Under current DWQ procedure, dechlorination and chlorine limits are now
required for all new or expanding discharges proposing the use of chlorine for
disinfection. The level of residual chlorine in your effluent necessary to ensure against
acute toxicity is given above. The process of chlorination/dechlorination or an alternate
form of disinfection, such as ultraviolet radiation, should allow the facility to comply
with fecal coliform limits without the use of chlorine.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
fm An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper . A-13

D E N R
The limits given herein are speculative and are not binding unless they are part of
I' an issued NPDES permit. Response to a speculative request does not guarantee that the
Division will issue an NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater. In accordance
with the North Carolina General Statutes, -the practicable waste treatment and disposal
fm alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment must be implemented.
Nondischarge alternatives, such as spray irrigation or connection to a regional treatment
and disposal system, are considered to be environmentally preferable to a discharge.
MIR Therefore, prior to submittal of an NPDES application, a detailed alternatives analysis
must be prepared to assure that the environmentally sound alternative was selected from
the reasonable cost effective options. A guidance document to assist you or your
consultant in preparing an engineering alternatives analysis is enclosed. All information
`� pertaining to this request has been sent to our Central Files for storage. If it becomes
necessary to request an NPDES permit, please submit a complete application package
including the appropriate fees.
If you have any questions, please contact Michelle Woolfolk at [phone],
extension 505.
Sincerely, •
74% ql;��
�'' �r ' David A. Goodrich
" Supervisor, NPDES Unit
cc: Central Files
NPDES Unit
Mooresville Regional Office — Water Quality Section
Chad Huggins, P.E., Frank C. Cockinos & Associates, Inc..
600 Lexington Avenue
r!:a:lotte, North Ca:elina 282031
mm
MR
M"
9W
MW

P.O. Box 1000 • Newton, North Carolina 28658.704-464-8333
January 30, 1998
MR
Dewberry & Davis
600 Lexington Avenue
MR Charlotte, NC 28203
�► Subject: Sewer System
East Catawba Middle School
Catawba County Schools
Dear Mr. Cockinos:
MR I have received the correspondence from Mr. Tony Jacobs and wanted to
reiterate that the possibilities of a sub -surface waste treatment facility
R" at the new East Catawba Middle School site seem small at best. Granted,
this type of system would be our preference. We acknowledge that due to
rw several items beyond our control, this type of system is not feasible.
The soil conditions are not favorable, additional land acquisition is not
IUR possible due to encrouchment of housing, the cost (even if land were
available) is prohibitive, and the unacceptable condition of the spray
system with the close proximity of the playgrounds and home sites are all
factors which seem to guide us toward an above -ground treatment
facility.
MR
FM
am
A-15

e � c
top
MR
raq
FIR
ran
Fm
rol
MR
ran
FOR
MR
rml
ran
We need to expedite the solution to our problem as soon as possible. We
want to start construction in the near future. Shown below is our
proposed construction schedule:
1-31-98
Complete NPDES Application
5-18-98
Approval of NPDES Application
7- 1-98
Complete Engineering Design
7-10-98
Approval by School Board
9-1 1-98
State Review and Approval
9-16-98
Advertise for Bids
10-13-98
Open Bids
10-2 6-9 8
Approval of Bids by School Board
10-27-98
Notice of Award
11- 2-9 8
Notice to Proceed
1 1-16-98
Contractor Starts Construction
3-16-99
Contractor Completed (winter time construction)
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Ernest Williams, Jr.
Construction Coordinator
CC: Atilla Orkan
Russell Williams
Glenn Barger
Mike Parker
11