NC0087122_Permit Issuance_20020129

/�-' 2-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
��lk
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 29, 2002
Mr. Donald R. Cooper, Chairman of the Board
CooperRiis, Inc.
P.O. Box 416
Mill Spring, North Carolina 28756
Subject:
Dear Mr. Cooper:
NPDES Permit Issuance
Cooper Riis WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO087122
Polk County
Attached to this letter is the final NPDES permit for CooperRiis, Incorporated, NPDES Permit
No. NC0087122. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994.
There was a typographical error in the draft permit. The fecal coliform limit of 400 #/ 100 ml
has been changed from a weekly average to a daily maximum. If any parts, measurement frequencies,
or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This
request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative Hearings, Mail Service Center 6714.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and
binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division of
Water Quality. The Division of Water Quality may require modification or revocation and reissuance of
the permit.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit.
If you have any questions regarding the final NPDES permit, please contact Susan Wilson at
(919) 733 - 5083, extension 510.
Sincerely,
O❑Tiginal Signed By
GP��r�iii0re, Ph.D.
cc: Central Files
Asheville Regional Office/Water Quality Section
NPDES Unit
John Coxey. P.E. 53 Fox Chase Road West, Asheville, NC 28804
Point Source Compliance and Enforcement Unit
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617 -TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
VISIT US ON THE WEB AT http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

Permit No. NCO087122
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Water Quality Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
CooperRiis, Incorporated
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
CooperRiis Wastewater Treatment Plant
Off Highway 109
North of Mill Spring
Polk County
to receiving waters designated as Canal Creek in the Broad River Basin
in accordance with the discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective March 1, 2002.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 2003.
Signed this day January 29, 2002.
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
NPDES No. NCO087122

SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
CooperRiis, Inc.
CooperRiis Wastewater Treatmwnt Plant
1. After receiving an Authorization to Construct permit for a treatment plant not to exceed
0.011 MGD wastewater flow, construct and operate the CooperRiis Wastewater
Treatment Plant, located off Highway 108, north of NO Spring, Polk County, and
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into Canal Creek which is classified C waters in the Broad River Basin.
NPDES No. NCO087122

31
I -ice
v
$C ,
.
Discharge Point
e
1 a
NC0087122 1 -
�3�
Canal Creek r—
\Vl •�
ee,� s
�/u\ �L� - t[38
�9 137!
� i l/ j �
{-.
fexti2;
wa*'.
MN -. Tanyk'
\
J
i
-
Latitude:
Longitude:
W18'25- Sub -Basin: 03-08-02
82009' 33"
Facility
Location --1140
E
Quad #:
F10SW, Mill Spring
—
Stream Class:
C
Receiving Stream: Canal Creek, Broad River Basin
Permitted Flow:0.011 MGD
Cooper Riis, Inc.
North
Cooper Riis WWTP
NC0087122

A. (I.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
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:
LIMITS .
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location
Flow
0.011
MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 200C
30 mgA
45 m 1
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30 m I
45 mgA
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
NH3 as N (April 1— Oct. 31)
13 mgll
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
NH3 as N (Nov.1— Mar. 31)
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
H1
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean
200/100
ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine2
28 ug/I
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature °C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
i The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
2 ' Residual chlorine shall be monitored/limited if chlorine is used as a disinfectant or elsewhere in the
treatment process.
There shall be no discharge offloating Ioating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
NPDES No. NCO087122

Re: cooper riis - %4MP, ' �7.�{}rv' Co;�1 1-7 6�l U c� c S
�Lr-v3 M.�=-tEStf��-tit�L;
Subject: Re: cooper riis
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:59:45 -0400
From: Wanda Frazier <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
To: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Hi!
Thanks for doing this!
They've been very anxious to get the A to t.
The only thing I saw that I question, was the requirement for
continuous flow recording.
Since they will only be 11,000 gpd, I would say that the flow
wouldn't have to be continuously recorded with a flow meter.
I wonder if John specified this on the plans and if he knows
what the requirements are.
Thanks!
Wanda
Susan Wilson wrote:
> Wanda,
> just faxed you the fact sheet and draft for cooper riis. i've attached
> an a -copy here as well. i did discover an error with NH3-N - it should
> be specified for summer months (corrected with this e-copy). thanks.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: 0087122.cooper riis.doc
> 0087122. cooper riis. doc Type: Winword File (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
> Download Status: Not downloaded with message
> Name: 87122 fact sheet.Cooper
Riis. doc
> 87122 fact sheet.Cooper Riis.doc Type: Winword File
(application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
> Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Wanda Frazier - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
59 Woodf in Place
Asheville, NC 28801
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 of 2 10/26/01 8:32 AM

PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH. NC 276994617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO
ISSUE A NPDES WASTEWATER
PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff re-
view and application of NC General
Statute 143.21, Public law 92-500
and other lawful standards and regu-
lations, the North Carolina Environ-
mental ManagementCommission pro-
poses to issue a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater discharge per-
mittothe person(s) listed beloweffec-
Live 45 days from the publish date of
this notice.
Written comments regarding the
proposed permit will be accepted un-
til 30 days after the publish date of
this notice. All comments received
prior to that date are considered in
thefinal determinations regardingthe
proposed permit. The Director of the
INC Division of Water Quality may de-
cide to hold a public meeting for the
proposed permit should the Division
receive a significant degree of public
interest.
Copies of the draft permit and
other supporting information on file
used to determine conditions present
in the draft permit are available upon
request and payment of the costs of
reproduction. Mail comments and/or
requests for information to the NC
Division of Water Quality atthe above
address or call Ms. Christie Jackson
at [phone]. extension 538.
Please include the NPDES permit num-
ber(attached) in any communication.
Interested persons may also visit the
Division of Water Quality at 512 N.
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC27604-
1148 between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. to review information
on file.
NPDES Permit Number
NCO087122, Cooper Riis. Inc., P.O.
Box 416, Mill Spring, NC 28756 has
applied for a new permit for a facility
located in Polk County discharging
treated domestic wastewater into
Canal Creek in the Broad River Basin.
Currentlyammonia, residual chlorine,
and fecal coliform are water quality
limited. This discharge may affect fu-
ture allocations in this portion of the
receiving stream.
adv.11/2
NORTH CAROLINA — POLK COUNTY.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County
and State, duly commissioned, qualified, and authorized by
law to administer oaths, personally appeared __Lik t2?.P��
_._�4L!N d------ who being first duly sworn, deposes
and says: thatShe is of THETRYON DAILY BULLETIN, engaged in the pu lication of
a newspaper known as THE TRYON DAILY BULLETIN,
published, issued, and entered as second class mail in the
Town of Tryon, in said County and State; that he is au-
thorized to make this affidavit and sworn statement; that
the notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of
which is attached hereto. was published in THE TRYON
DAILY BULLETIN on the following dates:
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper,
document, or legal advertisement was published was, at the
time of each and every such publication, a newspaper meet-
ing all of the requirements and qualifications of Section
1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a
qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597
of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
LL __ '' arm/
day of----Ot�2iy-L /---, a--------
�%%Vjrjb._ (Signature of person making affidavit)
and subscribed before me,
(Notary Public)
My Commission expires: I1 .__.a�5_

CooperRiis
Subject: CooperRiis
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:14:28 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Susan- thank you for the email. Mill Spring is not an incorporated town, and has no form of government. It is
essentially a community that lies a few miles east of Columbus, so there were no official comments on the project.
1 of 1 10/23/01 1:32 PM

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section/ NPDES Unit
FAX: [phone]
10/22/01
i FAX TO: Wanda Frazier I FAX NUMBER: ARO
Rib
FROM: Susan A. Wilson
PHONE: [phone], ext.
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: 6
Wanda,
Here's the fact sheet/draft for Cooper Riis. Could you please look over and comment? I'm trying to make an Oct.
31 cutoff date for this. If you could OK or comment prior to then, it would be much appreciated.
Susan

DENR/DWQ
Cooper Riis WWTP, NPDES No. NCOO87122
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Cooper Riis WWTP/ Cooper Riis, Inc.
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 416 Mill Spring, NC 28756
Facility Address:
Off Highway 108, north of Mill Spring
Permitted Flow
0.011 MGD
Type of Waste:
100% Domestic
Facility/Permit Status:
New
County:
Polk
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Canal Creek
Regional Office:
ARO
Stream Classification:
C
SI: 9-29-46-1-1
USGS Topo Quad:
F10SW
MillS ringQuad 40
303(d) Listed?:
NO
Permit Writer:
S. Wilson
Subbasin:
030802
Date:
October 22, 200
Drainage Area (m12):
1.16
• �-
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.27
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.43
Average Flow (cfs):
1.73
IWC (%):
8.4
Primary SIC Code:
4952
SUMMARY
The Cooper Riis project is a short term healing farm facility. The facilities will have several
dormitories for housing patients. There will also be an administrative building and
kitchen/dining hall. Other existing buildings will be renovated for recreational activities. The
healing farm community will allow some acreage for growing crops for human and animal
consumption.
The wastewater flow for the Cooper Riis project is estimated at - 11,00 gpd (ref. p. 3 of
Engineering Proposal). The project is to be constructed in a single phase (permit will reflect
permitted flow of 0.011 MGD). The wastewater flow will be domestic in nature.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis:
After further requests for additional information on the alternatives to discharge, the
consultant provided documentation October 10, 2001 supporting the request for a discharge
permit.
Connection to a POTW is cost prohibitive at this time (in comparison to the discharge option).
The Town of Columbus sewer line is appx. 4.5 miles from the project site: pump station/force
mains will have to be run - the Town does not have plans to extend sewer to the Mill Spring
area.
Conventional septic tank/nitrification fields were a close option. However, DEH requires 9'
minimum spacing between 3' trenches and there are newly drilled water supply wells in some
of the most suitable soils areas. This would increase potential land area that would be needed
to serve as the nitrification fields. Another complication is that some land has already been
cleared for dormitories. This may have been an option if it had been investigated well prior to
development of the property.
Both spray and drip systems, in addition to cost and land requirements, necessitate that the
areas be restricted from access. As explained to the Division, the point of the "healing" farm
community is to provide access to the natural setting. Even if cost were not considered, this
would not be the most favorable option to the owners.
NPDES discharge was deemed the most environmentally sound, economically feasible option.
Cooper Riis W W'I'P
NPDFS Proposal
Page 1

9/ 12/01- Bill Reid and I met with the consultant (John Coxey) and the owner, Don Cooper.
We discussed our concerns about the alternatives analysis. We also discussed the implications
of getting involved in operating a WWTP. They discussed their aversion to restricting access on
the property (which would be problematic with a spray or drip system). They also stated that
land had been cleared and dormitories were already partially in construction; water wells had
also been drilled. The owner needed to move forward with the project due to application for
funding and IRS requirements.
TOXICITY TESTING:
This is a 100% domestic proposal, with no toxic effects predicted and no toxicity testing is
recommended.
INSTREAM MONITORING:
The instream waste concentration for a permitted flow of 0.011 MGD into 0.27 cfs creek is - 6%
- therefore, no instream monitoring is recommended. Additionally, the model did not indicate
that permitted limits were water quality limited (other than NH3-N due to ammonia toxicity, not
WQ modeling).
PROPOSED LIN=:
A Level B model was performed for this discharge and yielded secondary limits
(30/30) - with an ammonia limit (see draft permit).
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: Public Notice by November 7, 2001 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: by the end of Dec. 2001 (est.)
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Susan Wilson at [phone] ext. 510.
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
NAME: DATE:
Cooper Riis WWTP
NPDES Proposal
Page 2

f
SOC priority:
yes X no
TO: NPDES UNIT
FAX: [phone]
ATTN: SUSAN WILSON
FROM: WANDA P. FRAZIER
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
DATE: MAY 18, 2001
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility name: CooperRiis
County: Polk
Permit number: NC0087122
Name: Donald Cooper
Address: PO Box 416, Mill spring, NC 28756
2. Date of Inspection: May 9, 2001 la
L D R
c LS-
3. Inspector/Report Prepared By: Wanda FrazilL-rjj ;').ii
4. Persons Contacted: Lance Flournoy
Director of Farm Opera ioz<s I
e
and Maintenance rne �` ��u;;;YJ
PURR,
828-894-5557
John Coxey
Consulting Engineering, P.A.
828-645-4046
5. Directions to Site: Hwy 108 North, Mill Spring, NC
(just north of the intersection of Hwy 9 and Hwy 108)
6. Discharge Point(s) (list all):
Latitude: 35' 18' 28" Longitude: 82' 09' 31"
See attached USGS map extract, indicating the facility site
and discharge point(s) on the map using -- USGS Quad No.: F
10 SW -- USGS Quad Name: Mill Spring, NC.
7. Is the site size and expansion area consistent with
application?
x Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): The site
consists of 73 acres of gently rolling to steep terrain.

nlor oN 3o ! j L-( sT
9. Location of nearest dwelling: 1200 feet 51 ; 1 " Z1-4/ - I -1
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Canal Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin: Broad River Basin
Subbasin No.:
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: fishing and boating, fish
propagation, wildlife uses
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. What is the volume of wastewater to be permitted in
MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity)? 0.008 to 0.012
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the
Wastewater Treatment facility? none - not constructed
C. What is the actual treatment capacity of the current
facility (current design capacity)? none - not
constructed
d. What is/are the date(s) and construction activities
allowed by previous Authorizations to Construct issued
in the previous two years? n/a
e. Provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities. none
f. Provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities.
Package WWTP with dual train consisting of: flow
equalization chamber with duplex pumps, extended
aeration chambers (11,040 gallon total), duplex blower
system for aeration, dual clarification units with
airlift sludge return, sludge holding tanks,
disinfection and standby power generator.
ARO has discussed the advantages of installing a grease
trap, septic tank, surface sand filter with chlorina-
tion and dechlorination vs. a package plant.
The consulting engineer and site representative seem to
be pursuing the latter option.
g. What are the possible toxic impacts to surface waters?
none known
h. Is there a pretreatment program (POTWs only)? n/a

in development
should be required
approved
x not needed
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, specify: no
Permit Number: n/a
Residuals Contractor: n/a
Telephone Number: n/a
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
c . Landfill: n/a
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify): n/a
3. Treatment plant classification: If package plant, class II.
If septic tank, surface sand filter, then class I.
4. SIC Codes(s): 100o domestic waste
Primary:
Secondary:
Main Treatment Unit Code:
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility (municipals only) being constructed with
Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies involved?
no - project is a non-profit organization
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests: for septic tank sand -filter system, would like to
see a maximum required visit of twice a week for chlorine
and weekly for all other parameters
3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates: none
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation:
Has the facility evaluated all of the non -discharge options
available? yes
Reaional oersoective for each option evaluated:
Spray Irrigation: Unsuitable soils are present over more
than 500 of the site and only moderately suitable soils
exist in the areas of existing and proposed
development. No additional adjacent land can be
acquired.

Connection to Regional Sewer System: too far - 4.5 miles;
too costly - $1,500,000
Subsurface: limited areas within the project site and
unsuitable soils
Other disposal options: none
5. Other Special Items: none
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ARO has discussed the advantages of installing a grease trap,
septic tank, surface sand filter with chlorination and
dechlorination vs. a package plant. The consulting engineer and
site representative seem to be pursuing the first option.
ARO recommends the issuance of the NPDES permit, regardless of
which of these options is chosen.
Signature of Report Preparer
ater Quality Regional Supervisor
Date 61

MODEL INPUTS FOR LEVEL B ANALYSIS
GENERAL INFORMATION
FacilityName:
NPDES No.: L0
Type of Waste: 'Doi,.
Facility Status: 2mPp ;
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification: C
Subbasin: p o 02
County: t-L
Regional Office:
Topo Quad:
FLOW INFORMATION
USGS#
StJ
Date of Flow Estimates:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0, V7
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.43
Average Flow (cfs):
2 of-,
30Q2 (cfs):
o.(006
IWC at Point of Discharge (%):
u % o•
M4
Cummulative IWC M:
MODEL INPUT INFORMATION
LENGTH OF REACH (miles)
INCREMENTAL LENGTH (miles)
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
FLOW (MGD)
0,0(l M
CBOD (mg/1)
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS A55uµc r '
h 9
7Q10 (cfs/mi2)
QA (cfs/mil)
CBOD (mg/1)
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
TRIBUTARY CHARACTERISTICS
7Q10 (cfs)
QA (cfs)
CBOD (mg/1)
NBOD (mg/D
D.O. (mg/1)
SLOPE (fpm)
Z9
2
Name of facility

NCoo971Zz
qkrf='3.2c,,
r.�
CAnlA L
pow a,9 �i�
CITTLE Wl((Te 0)
a
C,V;)Cfi- zt t 5
pp' � fl,0(I MyD
�l�lt'y � GZZ'1 cd s
79 (0 N, - , 434 d
30q2 • 0.6 Ws
pha1.Ito ALZ
QaM - 3,2 JS
79105 1- of I5-; MO q
-7KWW'�.
;iag2 %
Cacf--1I-
io'?a1.
u,T 303 � uszc�
,Ja o7dot Di541, at!
"C" CLR%stPlELy
NA10, U545
SY4:,
lzo AJ SL�Ps Z� NAM
WIN
13 b a SO. s
(�gOD 50
r3.nuMq'`I PF
No
W�JTIE .. ®.PF
NOL, A NA -,Al

NC0087122
Facility: Cooper Riis Facility WWTP
Discharge to: Canal Creek, C
Stream class and index #: 9-29-46-1-1
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
0.27
7Q10 (CFS)
0.27
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.011
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.011
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.01705
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.01705
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
0.22
IWC (%)
5.94
IWC (%)
5.94
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
286.21
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
13.35
ACu,TE _
minimum = 2
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
0.43
Fecal Limit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.011
Ratio of 15.8 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.01705
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
0.22
IWC (%)
3.81
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
41.65
minimum = 4

SUMMER
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
COOPER RIIS
Receiving Stream :
CANAL CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 8.06
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.02
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.04
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
7.00
0.00 1
Reach 1
45.00
58.50
0.00
0.01100
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
ors = 30 VZIL

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : COOPER RIIS Subbasin 030802
Receiving Stream : CANAL CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10 : 0.27 Winter 7Q10 : 0.43
Design Temperature: 25.0
LENGTH
SLOPE
VELOCITY
DEPTH
Kd
Kd
Ka
Ka
KN
mile
------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------
ft/mi
fps
I ft
design I
@200
I design
@200
I design
Segment 1 0.90
29.00
0.100
0.44
0.38
0.30
5.82
5.22
0.73
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 1 1.60
29.00
0.144
1 0.60
1 0.38 1
0.30
1 8.36 1
7.50
0.73
Reach 2
t
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cf s
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.017
45.000
58.500
0.000
Headwaters 0.270
2.000
1.000
7.440
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.440
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.440
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.500
2.000
1.000
7.440
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.440
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

` SUMMER
Seg
#
( Reach
#
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
7.00
4.55
4.42
0.29
1
1
0.09
7.11
4.46
4.24
0.29
1
1
0.18
7.21
4.37
4.07
0.29
1
1
0.27
7.28
4.28
3.91
0.29
1
1
0.36
7.34
4.19
3.76
0.29
1
1
0.45
7.39
4.11
3.61
0.29
1
1
0.54
7.44
4.02
3.46
0.29
1
1
0.63
7.47
3.94
3.33
0.29
1
1
0.72
7.51
3.86
3.20
0.29
1
1
0.81
7.54
3.78
3.07
0.29
1
1
0.90
7.57
3.70
2.95
0.29
1
2
0.90
7.49
2.62
1.71
0.79
1
2
1.06
7.71
2.55
1.63
0.79
1
2
1.22
7.84
2.49
1.55
0.79
1
2
1.38
7.91
2.42
1.47
0.79
1
2
1.54
7.96
2.36
1.40
0.79
1
2
1.70
7.99
2.30
1.33
0.79
1
2
1.86
8.01
2.24
1.27
0.79
1
2
2.02
8.03
2.19
1.21
0.79
1
2
2.18
8.04
2.13
1.15
0.79
1
2
2.34
8.05
2.08
1.09
0.79
1
2
2.50
8.06
2.02
1.04
0.79
Seg
#
Reach
##
Seg Mi
D.O. (
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
7.00
4.55
4.42
0.29
1
1
0.09
7.11
4.46
4.24
0.29
1
1
0.18
7.21
4.37
4.07
0.29
1
1
0.27
7.28
4.28
3.91
0.29
1
1
0.36
7.34
4.19
3.76
0.29
1
1
0.45
7.39
4.11
3.61
0.29
1
1
0.54
7.44
4.02
3.46
0.29
1
1
0.63
7.47
3.94
3.33
0.29
1
1
0.72
7.51
3.86
3.20
0.29
1
1
0.81
7.54
3.78
3.07
0.29
1
1
0.90
7.57
3.70
2.95
0.29
1
2
0.90
7.49
2.62
1.71
0.79
1
2
1.06
7.71
2.55
1.63
0.79
1
2
1.22
7.84
2.49
1.55
0.79
1
2
1.38
7.91
2.42
1.47
0.79
1
2
1.54
7.96
2.36
1.40
0.79
1
2
1.70
7.99
2.30
1.33
0.79
1
2
1.86
8.01
2.24
1.27
0.79
1
2
2.02
8.03
2.19
1.21
0.79
1
2
2.18
8.04
2.13
1.15
0.79
1
2
2.34
8.05
2.08
1.09
0.79
1
2
2.50
8.06
2.02
1.04
0.79
Seg
#
Reach
#
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
7.00
4.55
4.42
0.29
1
1
0.09
7.11
4.46
4.24
0.29
1
1
0.18
7.21
4.37
4.07
0.29
1
1
0.27
7.28
4.28
3.91
0.29
1
1
0.36
7.34
4.19
3.76
0.29
1
1
0.45
7.39
4.11
3.61
0.29
1
1
0.54
7.44
4.02
3.46
0.29
1
1
0.63
7.47
3.94
3.33
0.29
1
1
0.72
7.51
3.86
3.20
0.29
1
1
0.81
7.54
3.78
3.07
0.29

WINTER
CooP*C V24 1 s
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
COOPER RIIS
Receiving Stream :
CANAL CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 10.18
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.17
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.72
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
------
8.93
----------------
0.00 1
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01100
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
go�>s . 7;
045
O

`
*** MODEL
SUMMARY
DATA ***
C
Discharger :
COOPER
RIIS
Subbasin
030802
Receiving Stream :
CANAL
CREEK
Stream
Class:
C
Summer 7Q10 :
0.27
Winter
7Q10
0.43
Design Temperature:
14.0
LENGTH
SLOPE
VELOCITY
DEPTH
Kd
Kd
Ka
Ka
KN
mile
------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------
ft/mi
fps
I ft
design I
@200 I
design
@200
I design
Segment 1
0.90
29.00
0.120
0.50
0.23
0.30
5.49
6.25
0.32
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
1 1.60
29.00
0.203
1 0.64
1 0.26 1
0.34 1
9.29 1
10.59
0.32
Reach 2
Flow
cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 0.017
Headwaters 0.430
Tributary 0.000
* Runoff 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 0.000
Tributary 0.800
* Runoff 0.000
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
mg/1
I mg/1
mg/1
45.000
90.000
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.280
2.000
1.000
9.280
2.000
1.000
9.280
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
1.000 I
9.280
2.000
1.000
9.280
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

1 ^
`
WINTER
Seg #
Reach #
( Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
8.93
3.64
4.39
0.45
1
1
0.09
9.14
3.60
4.33
0.45
1
1
0.18
9.32
3.56
4.27
0.45
1
1
0.27
9.45
3.53
4.21
0.45
1
1
0.36
9.56
3.49
4.15
0.45
1
1
0.45
9.64
3.45
4.09
0.45
1
1
0.54
9.70
3.42
4.03
0.45
1
1
0.63
9.76
3.38
3.97
0.45
1
1
0.72
9.80
3.34
3.91
0.45
1
1
0.81
9.83
3.31
3.86
0.45
1
1
0.90
9.86
3.27
3.80
0.45
1
2
0.90
9.49
2.46
2.00
1.25
1
2
1.06
9.74
2.43
1.97
1.25
1
2
1.22
9.90
2.40
1.94
1.25
1
2
1.38
10.00
2.37
1.92
1.25
1
2
1.54
10.06
2.34
1.89
1.25
1
2
1.70
10.11
2.31
1.86
1.25
1
2
1.86
10.13
2.28
1.83
1.25
1
2
2.02
10.15
2.25
1.80
1.25
1
2
2.18
10.17
2.23
1.78
1.25
1
2
2.34
10.17
2.20
1.75
1.25
1
2
2.50
10.18
2.17
1.72
1.25
Seg #
Reach #
I Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD I
NBOD
Flow

MO
1112,
610;&-A [ 5
Mo a(o&fri
�Sf/rl.✓af3r..� �W✓�`
—CarKm,�c.�r�y �u/90fLi rr v'v�
i j<15rr�J5 wt-7v--5
4 'PD
I
%lie JD s l a7" �vi�T�/ems Diu 7-
"A)I-TIM P-ark US (oAJD 7oAJ+C-
Of -
Amy r0� 004VIdf
0- 6,,L I, l ,, 0 /3 I f/ 7�- 416M 1
I

C tip7(�!L 2, (5
h�;aYI� F,.,,, <<
�II,�V7R�i �i/ /:cvt/M Gy✓ � F,/L /u�� / LL �e-55 obi/ors
—%W I!� 6j,J15 69 �W/i�T�L
5i��F : its•
4-r MfAi . (� 55.41, \
CZo wrL- UvC on/—S( I
�-- Adi> F.n u 6 s
do ACAr:; {QXtc
r 2 ,as,
1G - Zy /2c'sf b
�6 izesr?,).
3 etc-(Lt r esi c%� i4as A)5
4 s,N4`E F�LL-TiA� sro-r
0/JE CBvPL&
1Co2. pw
—i�c- FLvw ez

ri
MFAM� K
0
;2, 1\
o(�
C-uI
--PO�L.� 4Zo scc Y
-
-7-77---
�3
--- NjFQ L,- -�
l� �t�lLfS I� MAviso� `PA-r 0014'f 3E DLl/C��ro'
ll,000 — � cao soo
lRd

6p*z, A(s
r 771i,vQ5 ?3 rgvsca-sue
174-V WV2 PosyQi[
s60776��SF� sus
t�tta'� �lf �s ��lSr cyL� 02 j �� Ex�O 4PD
�5� GWljgoL Ag u I )kfu /4✓ f Ot» L C*A/p

. !r
i 1
�f'yf l ri 1
`i
502 94f&yrfST tA! � 1A6V/(rt&.)
III
ll
ill
l.fi✓L�-�----- (��/ n� 74��C./ CA
.� Piety ZXe/ Gov C dTtd IS AA.1 flrGEk
iS,pL.CNC.�
� (�'soN D��•
!
r �• 27
!! . 63
l z 4013
,N
fl
Yt
-
i [6 000,w
0.O00037 (aee�
f
1 I
Zd dG2c 5
,i.

a poi
(. (6
I,ol
--?QIOw =_.D• Z9Z_114AF
--
- - - - / --- -- z9to L-- - - - — -
1Qlos ' l(o • -2.21 ).3(o CIS--
y
CoNsc-kJAm Vr:
_-_ COW s -"_ 1 I W_d�; 09-Ic -C.P V-
WQ&C>LAWC) At
^ru0 37ris3
--As,,j,4 c6,j,-nal- s W - 5 • PAc--t-jr_ r Lc
' - - --_- -_ -... �4.II DMZ •�ZM��
I2 �N2
PA b, lo4 rr Z _ 14. 11jt
z � '
S2$O Z :f z
/eigr.s �.44.2•IS• 3,2o�ks
Z 7QI0*= 155�2�; O,S
0

k
m
Aj
o

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
.0306 BROAD RIVER BASIN
2B .0300
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No.
Canal Creek
From source to Little
C
09/01/74
9-29-46-1-1
Whiteoak Creek
South Branch
From source to Little
C
09/01/74
9-29-46-1-2
Whiteoak Creek
Machine Creek
From source to Whiteoak
C
09/01/74
9-29-46-2
Creek
Mill Creek
From source to Whiteoak
C
09/01/74
9-29-46-3
Creek
Green Creek
From source to Whiteoak
C
09/01/74
9-29-46-4
Creek
Lyles Lake
Entire lake and connecting
C
03/01/63
9-30
stream to Broad River
Jarretts Creek (Hester
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9-31
Creek)
Hensons Creek
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9-32
Dills Creek
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9-33
Hayes Lake
Entire lake and connecting
C
03/01/63
9-34
stream to Broad River
Richardson Creek
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9-35
McKinney Creek (McKenny
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9-36
Creek)
Arrowood Branch
From North Carolina -South
C
03/01/63
9-36-1
Carolina State Line to
McKinney Creek
Floyds Creek
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9-37
Long Branch
From source to Floyds Creek
C
03/01/63
9-37-1
Bracketts Creek
From source to Floyda Creek
C
09/01/74
9-37-2
Big Horse Creek
From North Carolina -South
C
08/03/92
9-38
Carolina State Line to
Broad River
Geodes Creek
From source to Broad River
C
08/03/92
9-39
Cane Creek
From source to Broad River
C
08/03/92
9-40
Second Broad River
From source to a point 0.4
WS-V
08/01/98
9-41-(0.5)
mile downstream of
Rutherford County SR 1504
Wilson Branch
From source to Second Broad
WS-V
08/03/92
9-41-1
River
Hicks Branch
From source to Second Broad
WS-V
08/03/92
9-41-2
River
Rock Creek
From source to Second Broad
WS-V
08/03/92
9-41-3
River
Beaverdam Branch
From source to Second Broad
WS-V
08/03/92
9-41-4
River
Camp Branch
From source to Second Broad
WS-V
08/03/92
9-41-5
River

NC DENR- DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY 2B .0300
.0306 BROAD RIVER BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
Camp Creek
From source to Green River
C
Tr
07/01/73
9-29-32
Unnamed Tributary 4 1
From source to Camp Creek
C
09/01/74
9-29-32-1
at Saluda
Green River, including
From Cove Creek to Broad
C
03/01/63
9-29-(33)
Lake Adger below
River
elevation 913)
Cove Creek
From source to Green River
C
Tr
09/01/74
9-29-34
Unnamed Tributary 4 2
From source to Cove Creek
C
09/01/74
9-29-34-1
at Saluda
Rixhaven Creek (Warrior
From source to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-34-2
Mountain Lake)
Casey Branch (Palmetto
From source to Dam at
B
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-34-3-(1)
Lake)
Palmetto Area Boy Scout
Camp Bathing Lake
Casey Branch
From Dam at Palmetto Area
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-34-3-(2)
Boy Scout Camp Bathing Lake
to Cove Creek
Gadd Creek
From source to Green River
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-35
Little Cove Creek
From source to Green River
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-36
Laurel Branch
From source to Green River
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-37
Rash Creek
From source to Lake Adger,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-38
Green R.
Brights Creek
From source to Rash Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-38-1
Harm Creek
From source to Brights Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-38-1-1
Panther Creek
From source to Lake Adger,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-39
Green R.
Rotten Creek
From source to Lake Adger,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-40
Green R.
Ostin Creek (Grease
From source to Lake Adger,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-41
Creek)
Green R.
Silver Creek
From source to Lake Adger,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-29-42
Green R.
Britten Creek
From source to Green River
C
03/01/63
9-29-43
Walnut Creek
From source to Green River
C
03/01/63
9-29-44
Wheat Creek
From source to Green River
C
03/01/63
9-29-45
Unnamed Tributary at
From source to Dam at
B
03/01/63
9-29-45-1-(1)
Bethlehem Center Summer
Bethlehem Center Sumner
Camp
Camp Bathing Lake
Unnamed Tributary at
From Dam at Bethlehem
C
03/01/63
9-29-45-1-(2)
Bethlehem Center Summer
Center Sumner Camp Bathing
Camp
Lake to Wheat Creek
Whiteoak Creek
From source to Green River
C
09/01/74
9-29-46
Little Whiteoak
From source to Whiteoak
C
09/01/74
9-29-46-1
Creek
Creek
R

Cooper Riis/ FYI
Subject: Cooper Riis/ FYI
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:33:58 -0400
From: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
To: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>, Wanda Frazier <[e-mail]>
FYI folks (just in case you get phone calls on this one) - spoke with
John Coxy last week and told him we needed a more thorough alternatives
analysis, esp. with regard to land application. Told him, in a nice way
I hope, that the soils report was inadequate and he needed to secure a
licensed soil scientist to perform the analysis and provide the
write-up. Told him we have had problems in the past and need this
addressed more thoroughly. However, one of the problems he brought up
is that some of the best land is where the crops will go for the
"healing farm community" and they've already begun putting up the
buildings on other parts. Here's another example of folks moving
forward prior to resolving all issues and I'm not sure how we go about
addressing that. He indicated he'd move on getting the alt. analysis
revised ASAP.
1 of 1 9/6/01 11:56 AM

CooperRiis discharge coordinates
t
It Subject: CooperRiis discharge coordinates
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:08:46 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Susan- lat. 35-18-27, long. 82-09-29. Also, the topo sheet (USGS) does say
Canal Creek. Call me if any Questions 828-645-4046. Thanks.
FIn5w
�IL� �4ctl�2aTE
15 18 7-7
g2 Oq 1(
1 6M�
1 of 1 7/3/01 9:17 AM

CIVIL/ ENVIRONMENTAL / WATER / WASTEWATER
JOHN T, COXEY
CONSULTING ENGINEERING, P.A.
October 5.2001
Ms. Susan Wilson
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: CooperRiis, Polk County
Project No: 20026
Dear Ms. Wilson:
c�
v
O
O
i
v - i
0
0
CD
J
C-
Attached please find two (2) copies of the revised Engineering Proposal and
NPDES Permit Application for the above referenced project.
The report has been revised to include analysis of additional on -site disposal
options to be considered for disposal of 11,000 gallons per day of domestic wastewater
from the project.
We request that you expedite review of this report as we discussed in our meeting
with you in Raleigh on September 12, 2001.
Please contact me as soon as possible after you have completed your review.
Sincerely,
John T. Coxey Co ltmg Engineering, P. A.
ohn T. Coxey, P. E.
JTC/pc
Enclosure
cc: Don Cooper w/encl
JOHN T. COXEY, P.E.
PRESIDENT
53 FOX CHASE RD. WEST
ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28804
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]

M
_ Engineering Proposal and
NSPDES Permit Application
_ for
CooperRiis
Polk County, North Carolina
Owner: CooperRiis, Inc. a o
P. O. Box 416 I o 0
Mil] Spring, North Carolina 28756 c�
Telephone: [phone] o
Prepared: John T. Coxey
Consulting Engineering, P. A.
53 Fox Chase Road West °Q,.( .. Cq .,,
+- O; FESS .�
Asheville, North Carolina 28804 �''.
- E
Telephone: [phone] = 7293
Fax: [phone] sCvQyHCINEER`F
CO
Project No: 20026
January, 2001
Revised October, 2001

INTRODUCTION
The proposed CooperRiis project is a short-term care healing farm facility for
RM
administering to the needs of patients with differing physical disabilities.
FM
The facilities will consist of several dormitories for housing patients. Individual
FM
rooms are available which include a bed and bathroom facilities.
sm
An administrative building and kitchen and dining hall facilities will be
constructed by modifications to an existing home on the property.
rm
Additional existing buildings on the property will be renovated for conducting
WM
recreational activities with patients.
9"
The property is located in Polk County, east of the Mill Spring community and is
accessed directly from Highway 108. The property consists of one tract of 73 acres of
gently rolling to steep terrain. There is a four (4) acre lake on the site suitable for
recreation and fishing. The lake will also be used for pumping water to a fire sprinkler
ow
system in the buildings. Approximately eleven (11) acres of the property are used for
am growing corn and other crops for human and animal consumption.
The Owner of the project currently owns an additional 6.49 acre tract across
Highway 108. This tract is not contiguous to the 73 acre site.
-1-
am
sm

4
am •
no
MM
ON
No
MR
MM
no
MM
Canal Creek flows adjacent to the property and is the northernmost boundary of
the site. Canal Creek is classified as Class "C" as verified by the DENR Asheville
Regional Office. Canal Creek empties to White Oak Creek, which flows to the Green
River.
-2-

MR
11
FW •
vim+
PROJECT WASTEWATER FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
Wastewater from the project would be 100% domestic in nature with an expected
BOD of approximately 200 mg/l and TSS of 200 mg/l.
Flow would come from the dormitories, administration building, kitchen and
dining facilities and from toilets in the smaller existing buildings used for recreational
activities.
® Flow projections are as follows:
1. Dormitories — 54 bedrooms @ 120gpd = 62480 gpd
2. Dining HalMtchen — 86 seats @ 40gpd = 31440 gpd
3. 1-2 bedroom apartment @ 360 gpd = 360 gpd
4. Existing House @ 360 gpd = 360 gpd
e" 5. Two (2) bathrooms in recreational area @
200 gpd = 400 gpd
PM
Total Flow 11,040 gpd v
The project will be constructed in one (1) phase; therefore the total wastewater
amount shown will be realized upon completion of construction.
.., -3-

0
r�
SOIL SURVEY AND SOIL SCIENTIST'S REPORT
A comprehensive soil survey was obtained from the US Department of
Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service in Polk County entitled Soil
Survey of Polk Comm North Carolina, 1998. This survey describes the soil
properties of the County and provides maps showing classification of soils.
om
A portion of the map that includes the location of the CooperRiis project is
included in this report. There are five (5) soil classifications found on the project
site:
CeB2 — Cecil sandy clay loam
® DoB — Dogue — Roanoke
GrE — Grover or Loam
MaC2 — Madison sandy clay loam, 8 —15% slopes
MaD2 — Madison sandy clay loam, 15 — 25% slopes
Each soil description and suitability for numberous parameters are included in this
report. Only two (2) soil types (CeB2, MaC2) are considered moderately suitable
for septic tank and underground drain field. systems and concerns are noted
regarding the restricted permeability of these soils as well as a recommendation
that the absorption fields be increased above normal size.
-4-

M
11
� •
The remaining soil types (DoB, GrE, MaD2) are classified poorly suited, with
restricted permeability, with DoB prone to wetness. In addition the majority of
the acreage classified DoB is presently and will continue to be used for growing
food chain crops. This area borders Canal Creek/White Oak Creek, which is the
northern border of the property.
,M In the locations where the moderately suitable soils are present on the 73 acre site,
building construction will take place and the sites for drilling potable water supply
FM
well(s) and construction of a storage tank has been approved. A map delineating
MR these areas is included in this report.
am
A soil scientist's report is included in the report and describes the soils in further
detail including acceptance rates for various subsurface and surface disposal
options.
-5-

WASTE TREATMENT DISPOSAL OPTIONS
A. CONNECTION TO EXISTING TREATMENT WORKS
The closest existing Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW) is the Town
of Columbus's sewage disposal facility on White Oak Creek. This facility is
approximately 4 V2 miles from the project site (see map).
F, To transport wastewater to this facility from the CooperRiis project would
entail construction of a series of sewage pumping stations, force mains and
gravity sewers and manholes. The cost of this project would be entirely
prohibitive as shown in the accompanying cost estimate and analysis.
This project would be of little or no benefit to other users, as the area is very
-� sparsely populated and could not generate an adequate number of users for
sharing the cost of the project.
There are no other public or privately owned treatment alternatives available,
and there are no plans within the next five (5) years for extending the present
sewerage system to include the CooperRiis project.
am
A cost analysis and map for this option is found following this page.
am
me

em
Project Cost Estimate
Connection to Town of Columbus Treatment Facility
8" Gravity Sewer 9,500 if @ $30.00
2 '/2" and 4" PVC Force Main 12,3001f @ $15.00
Manholes 40 @ $1,500
Pump Station and Standby Power 4 .@ $60,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Administration and Easements
Engineering Fees
Contingencies (10%)
Total Project Cost
Annual O & M Costs
Operation and Maintenance
Equipment and Supplies
Power (30kw x 6 hrs avg. x 365 days x $0.09/kwh)
Total Annual O & M Costs
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
Present Worth of Annual Costs
(20 years, 8%)
Present Worth Factor = 9.818
Present Worth of Annual Costs
$26,000 x 9.818
Present Worth of Project Cost
Total Present Worth
-7-
$285,000
$184,500
$ 60,000
$240.000
$7691500
20,000
61,500
77.000
$9282000
$ 15,000
$ 5,000
$ 6,000
$ 26,000
$255,268
$928,000
$15,183,268 ��'
MR

C• � � 1z ,,.� " %�-:-y ; >>� ��� ') C�.UNECT/O.0 To To�U.V of
o ! r 1� , COL U11�WS a1W17P
7 �(
I
J x N
� -� (� � (v� • n 1 Ilan
000 As
• � _� � - �� '-^- � I ", � 113E ai �-J r
� S > K. J
\ ° * water, / a�
p�.TanA / '. • f
IF
IZO
29
Bm-
:•, ° � --..._� �• � _o . I � � the _ s
° � � 1526 � • .
� �� / �� °x -� ClrB y � • � U
i
.� 11
e �1 O� ®♦'s 1 1 �
t i i� l/Cl 1�. spy .••
.n
• B H s . 1331 I- � e �. ( .
• ,r 1•'i 0�e �.
fuN!!NNfn•• '93 , 10' 9N 395

eM
ro" 0
B. NPDES DISCHARGE
This option would consist of constructing a package type wastewater treatment
facility designed for an average daily flow of 11,000 gallons per day, and
discharge to Canal Creek, which flows adjacent to the project site. Canal Creek is
classified as Class C waters.
All wastewater would flow to the plant by gravity collection lines within the
�+ CooperRiis project. The plant would be constructed on the project site, therefore
no easements or additional property would have to be acquired.
�a
The proposed wastewater treatment plant would be dual train -consisting of the
following components:
Flow equalization chamber with duplex equalization pumps.
Extended aeration chambers (11,040 gallon total).
Duplex blower system for aeration.
Dual clarification units with airlift sludge return.
Sludge holding tanks.
Disinfection.
Standby power generator.

go
AV •
Depending on effluent limits, the plant could be supplied with an anoxic chamber
IM
and mixer for nitrogen limits and a tertiary filter system with mud well chamber,
AN backwash chamber and duplex pumps.
Other modifications could be made as necessary to meet the discharge limits of an
�, NPDES Permit.
A cost analysis, map and diagram follows this page.
eft,
MMI
FW-I
0
PM

an
no,
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
PACKAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND DISCHARGE
This project would consist of constructing gravity collection lines within the
project site and building a package wastewater treatment plant on site. The
costs include process equipment for meeting tertiary limits.
The Costs are as follows:
6"and 8" gravity lines 3,000 if @ $15.00
$ 452000
Manholes & Cleanouts 12 ea. @ $1,000.00
$ 122000
Wastewater Treatment Plant
$10011000
Standby Power Generator
$ 1530000
Electrical
$ 15,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost
$187,000
Administration
$ 51000
Engineering Fees
$ 152000
Contingencies (10%)
18,700
Total Project Cost
$2252700
Annual O & M Costs
Equipment & Supplies
$ 500
Utility (Power)(10KWx18 hrs avg.x 360
x$0.09Ikwh)
$ 52800
Operator Fees
$ 12,000
Laboratory Costs
$ 3,000
Total Annual O & M Costs
$ 21,300
oaf
no
MR
1W
00

m
me 4
Present Worth Analysis
Present Worth of Annual Costs
(20 years, 8%)
Present Worth Factor = 9.818
Present Worth of Annual Costs
,,.$21,300 x 9.818
Present Worth of Project Cost
Total Present Worth
we
mz
Ow
Ow
-11-
No
$2092125
$225,700
G%L
$434,825

\' 7 `-1 � R / -�`�r! :1 l l V1 t / (r.J ♦! \� 11 . 1 \ - �+ �_ J --\.aT I � �r �-/_ 1 •- / / \ 1! ! \ " ! / /• ,,:�'
(ids .� ---•,-,-�- .� -- - .-1 s_ �`ti `
�: cf ,L �:- ,�` �j-7 � O `i �•.� 1319 ! �=' � / � n � � o
t • ♦'-�r a • / J O �. % 1 �� 1318 S-� - O i 1 �! a\G
1319 . ♦ ' iir� : 069
` 1322LOOOO-
\J
POP
1323
Al A
1063
39
912
L.
t \\`�:=`� .r ,�,�. i '� �• _J tt / �� \ • • • : �� t ••• m� ��4`'T • • �'J J �i10�!11 • �� 1�.
1138 a ; .� r tl
:r�7 .� � � � � i"' � � : � �.'.._ 1 t n •• • � �/ 1... ---'_...-... 'F. -- ate.
MY
;�•' "/, ��r 1 ��: / �. i , t :--,- ��+ i---.� tt �` '—�-_, \ _.----ems.+'- ��^•�-� �• �� `.• • . �.- - � � O
/C1,70• . SO • • • • �' ` 1 .f f i,-
.93
o. r� , r -' ': �- - -� -__< / J t V •p Watef 1pg • • �• ` / �i • `` �_J� i ` �' v
anx
,i'!% j ) /� _ � _ - ' ' - �f.�. �� � /lil ; � �t .__ / � �--�r �l'JLO i �/ �� �! •—\ti•\��, '� it
Su I
y;•`� -1 � , • \ ��� 1
az
r a• r w%�
1 i �• .• 1.11 :1 • i / Jr ' ~ • a�• �• \ . .. . _ . _ ..__._..,_ / _ ,!'±i���h/i�!�C�. .. _�!v.
JJJ ••
` • • '` 1U1 • . i r.0111 • 1 • t •: t �� :` �_ �p��_��•��- • i •1 • �._ .�._. �"L.�l % // ' 'i1 �%/f7_' �.

sT9yoay
,�owE.e
.-------�_�:._.J�--
am

A" 4
C. Subsurface and Surface Disposal Options
,y The following additional waste disposal options are examined and analyzed
on pages following:
Conventional Subsurface Nitrification Lines
Low Pressure Pipe System (LPP)
Spray Irrigation
Subsurface Drip Irrigation
Reuse
lot
Oft
NQ
=1
a"
AM
W"
-12-
OW

s•n
CONVENTIONAL NITRIFICATION LINES
11 000 d =
LTAR 0.25GPD/ft2
o L 5� � �-Pt�►�,� , �
gp use (average}
L
11,000 mA = 44,000ft2
0.25
44,000ft2=14,667 LF of trench
3ft trend width
Each trench 100' long =147 trenches__..
Use 20 trenches per field ,= 7.35 fields.,..!
20 trenches x 190' x 9' = 0.41 acres x 7.35 fields =
3.01 acres
43,560.-ft2lacre
20' between fields x 7 x 100 =
0.32 acres
43,560 f1t2lacre
Additional acreage for manifolds
Septic tanks, distribution boxes
Grease trap =
0.30 acres
Total Acreage
3.63 acres
+
Due to slopes encountered at suitable soil locations, use 1.40 factor for layout
insufficiencies and multiple sites�-
3.63 acres x 1.40 = 5.08 acres
+ 100% repair area on (3.01 ac + 0.32 ac) x 1.4 = 4.66
0�
4.66 acre + 5.08 acre = 9.74 acres required
-13-
a.

2
000 '
The acreage required for the nitrification line option is 9.74 acres, which includes
a 100% repair area. The total area available is 6.31 acres on the main 73-acre site
and 3.93 acres on the 6.49-acre site across Highway 108 for a total of 10.24 acres.
The 6.49-acre site is not contiguous to the main site. Minimum horizontal
separation distances from property lines, buildings, and public water supply wells
00 and irrigation wells are shown on the attached maps for subsurface systems.
Required distances are in accordance with 15A NCAC 18A .1900, 15A NCAC 2
am
H .0200, and NCDENR On -Site Wastewater Management Guidance Manual.
f" Horizontal distance from buildings (100') is recommended by the Asheville
r__I
Regional Office.
Seven (7) separate fields with 20 lines 100 feet long 9' on center are required and
one (1) field with seven (7) lines is required for a total of 147 lines. The fields
would need to be located on both the 73-acre site and 6.49-acre site with a portion
a' of the 100% repair area on both sites. Because the 6.49-acre site is not contiguous
with the main part of the property, additional pumping and tankage facilities
wo
would be required to provide fields at this site.
This option would effectively require the use of all remaining areas of the
CooperRiis property, leaving no additional areas available for future expansion of
FAA
facilities, additional potable water supply, or additional area for growing crops.
x"
-14-
a"
.r

'A
` Additionally, future plans at CooperRiis call for the addition of a 20-unit
employee -housing complex, which would generate an additional 5000 gpd of
wastewater flow. This additional flow could not be treated by nitrification lines
since there is no additional area available for new lines. In addition, the site
across Highway 108 is an area planned for either growing an orchard or to be
placed on the market and sold, however, since this separate tract is owned by
CooperRiis, it is presented here for discussion. The value of this 6.49-acre tract is
,., estimated to be $30,000. There is no other property owned by CooperRiis.
oft
A cost analysis for this option is shown on the following pages and maps of the
M• two sites are found at the back of the report.
am
MO
go
no
-15-
OW
da

Protect Cost Estimate
Conventional Nitrification Lines and Collection System with 6.5 acre site)
AM 6" and 8" gravity collection lines 150OLF @ $15.00
$ 22,500
Manholes 6 @ $1,000.00
61000
12,500 gallon septic tank
151000
7,500 gallon pump tank
800
1,500 gallon grease trap
42500
Influent pump station (pump to septic tank)
351000
., Force Main from Influent P.S. to Septic tank 50OLF @ $12. 00
62000
141Y667 LF subsurface line @ $5.00
73,335
2nd pump station to 6.5 acres
405P000
Force Main from 2nd P.S. to 6.5 acres 2500 L.F. @ $17.50
4310750
includes road crossing
<
7,500 gallon pump tank on 6.5 acre site
82000
�► Dosing Pumps (Seven Fields)
207000
7 pressure manifolds for flow distribution 2100 L.F. @ $6.00
121600
7 automatic distribution valves @ $1500.00
102500
Site preparation (erosion control, seeding, etc.)
10,000
20KW standby generator
252000
Electrical and Controls
30,000
Total Construction
$3705185
Contingencies (10%) 37,000 ?
Soil Scientist Fee 181500
Engineering & Surveying 332200
Administration 5,000
Total Project Cost $463,885
O.
Ow
-16-
am

M
1" 0
004
Annual O &c M Costs
Annual Pumping of Septic Tank
Operator Fees
Equipment and Supplies
Power (20kw x 6 hours avg. x 360 x $0.09 kwh
Total Annual Costs
Present Worth of Annual Costs
(20 years, 8%) = 9.818
Present Worth of Annual Costs
19,140x9.818=
Present Worth of Project Cost =
Present Worth of separate 6.49 Acre site
Total Present Worth
-17-
$ 750 12,000 --�
2,500
3,890
$ 19,140
$1875915
$463,885
$ 30,000
$681,800

LOW PRESSURE PIPE (LPP) SYSTEM
11,000 gpd use LTAR = 0.15gpd/ft2 (LTAR for LPP system approximately '/Z of LTAR 2— Cap C
.M
for nitrification lines) % Lie—
11,OOOand = 73,333ft 2 of trench area .
0.15
Trenches 18" wide, 5' on centers
73,333 ft2 = 482888 ft of trench
1.5' width
.a
48,888 ft = 698 trenches
70' max length
.p
Area Required = 698 x 5' wide x 70' long
=244,444 ft2
■- =5.61 acres
5.61 x 1.20 for layout inefficiencies = 6.73 acres
6.73 acres x 2 (repair area) =13.46 acres
Does not include area for septic tank, pre-treatment, dosing tanks, laterals and manifolds.
Installation on slopes greater than 10% requires special design procedures
Usable acreage of 13.46 acres is not available even with the 6.49 acre site across
Highway 108. A total of only 10.24 acres is available with the combined sites. For this
reason, a cost analysis for a LPP system is not presented.
no
MM
am
-18-
am

SURFACE SPRAY IRRIGATION
The acreage required for spray irrigation has been determined by the soil scientist
to be 17.5. This acreage is not available at the CooperRiis site as shown by the
attached maps of the required horizontal clearances for the main 73-acre site and
the 6.49-acre site. The acreage was computed utilizing a 75-day facultative
lagoon being constructed for thirty (30) day treatment volume and forty-five (45)
day storage for days when spraying cannot be accomplished due to weather
conditions.
Spray irrigation, regardless of the land requirements stated, is entirely inconsistent
with the purpose of the CooperRiis project. Patients at CooperRiis will engage in
daily exercise by walking various portions of the grounds, walking to craft
making, greenhouse and gardening locations, and even horseback riding. These
activities will take place in all locations of the site including any areas that would
be suitable for spray irrigation.
..
For the above reasons, a cost analysis is not provided for the spray irrigation
OM
option.
aq
am
IM
MR
-19-
am

OM •
SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION
This is considered an innovative system by NCDENR and requires special application
and permitting procedures. Because standard designs for these type systems have not
been established, the approval of a specific system is done on a case -by -case basis.
Innovative systems are not described in detail in the Laws and Rules for Sewage
Treatment and Disposal Systems and there are no specific guidelines for these type
systems.
There are however, specific innovative systems already approved by the State of North
OM Carolina. One such subsurface drip irrigation system is the "Pere -Rite" system by
Wastewater Systems, Inc. of Lilburn, Georgia.
OM The following analysis is based on this system.
The "Perc-Rite" subsurface drip irrigation system consists of a septic tank, re -circulating
am sand filter, dosing tanks and pumps, drip equipment and lines
11,000gpd=110,000 sf drip area required ;
No 0.10 gpd/f12 (recommended by "Perc-Rite" personnel)
Utilize 10 separate drip zones
no
I I0,000S = 11000s§�zone
10
no
11.000sf = 55001f drip line per zone
2' o.c. drip lines
MR
10 zones totaling 110,000 sf 2.52 acres required for drip line area
No Because of site inefficiencies encountered with locating 10 separate zones on the
CooperRiis project use a 1.40 factor for actual acreage required.
"' 1.40 x 2.52 acre = 3.53 acres
0 00% Repair Area) 3.53 acres x 2 = 7.06 acres required
This acreage is available at the CooperRiis project if both the 73-acre site and the 6.49-
acre site are utilized, however the following cost analysis shows that this system is
extremely cost prohibitive compared to other options. Additionally this system is
designed to be constructed at one (1) central location.
-20-
00
am

rm" •
Proiect Cost Estimate
Perc-Rite Subsurface Drip Irrigation at one location only.
..
Use $38.0O/gallon for system equipment described above (confirmed with "Drip -Rite"
personnel)
$38.00/gal x 11,000 gal/day
$4185000
6" and 8" gravity collection lines 15001f @ $15.00
2211500
Manholes 6 @ $1000.00
6,000
,..,
Influent Pump Station — pump to septic tank
35,000
10 kw Standby Generator
152000
Electrical and Controls
252000
Erosion Control, seeding incl.
2,500
Total Construction Cost
$52451000
.r
Contingencies
522400
Soil Scientist Fees
155,000 ?
•R
Engineering
202000
Administration
2,500
Total Project Cost
$6135,900
Annual O & M Costs
Operator Fees
$ 122000 0 �
Power (10kw x 6 hrs avg. x 360 days x $0.09/kwh)
11,950
Equipment and Supplies
22500
Annual Pumping of Septic Tank
750
Total Annual O & M Costs
$ 17,200
00
-21-
No
am

Present Worth ,Analysis
mm
Present Worth of Annual Costs
(20 years, 8%)
wo
Present Worth Factor = 9.818
�.. Present Worth of Annual Costs
17,200 x 9.81=
Present Worth of Project Cost
Present Worth of separate 6.49 acre site
Total Present Worth
OR
-22-
$1682870
$6131900
$ 30,000
$812,770
am

REUSE
OW -Reuse of treated wastewater effluent on this project could only be an option when
am
used in conjunction with a biological treatment system approved under an NPDES
permit. State requirements regarding reuse stipulate that effluent be tertiary
quality. It is not evident at this time that tertiary limits will be set for discharge of
11,000 gallons of treated effluent on this project.
The project site has very limited areas where reclaimed water could be land
applied. In addition, reuse of treated effluent, and subsequent land application is
inconsistent with the purpose of the CooperRiis project for the same reason as the
spray irrigation option presented earlier.
In consideration of the above information, a cost analysis is not provided for
wastewater reuse.
no
OW
0"
M
-23-
am

No 0
COMPARISON OF PRESENT WORTH
A tabulation of the present worth of the described wastewater disposal options for
CooperRiis is as follows:
me
Present Worth
No Connections to Town of Columbus $1)1831Y268
Innovative Subsurface Drip Irrigation System $ 8122770
Conventional Nitrification Lines w additional/6-5 acre/site $ 681,800
Onsite Wastewater Plant and NPDES Discharge $ 4342825
CONCLUSION
The above comparison clearly shows the onsite wastewater plant as the most
RM
economically favorable option, if not the most environmentally sound option.
Canal Creek is designated as Class C by the State of North Carolina. Because of
this classification, it might be expected that secondary effluent limits would be
issued for a wastewater treatment plant discharge. However, it is the intent of
CooperRiis to provide a treatment system capable of meeting more stringent
limits if required by NCDENR. Certainly there are technologies available today
to produce a treatment system whose effluent is of greater quality than that of the
receiving stream. This fact needs to be explained to the public if objections arise
during the NPDES permitting process, and the public must be aware that
CooperRiis is committed to protecting the environment as they are, by agreeing to
a` more stringent limits if required by NCDENR.
-24-

9
an
An obvious comparison can be made between the discharge from a
technologically advanced wastewater treatment system with that of subsurface or
surface disposal options where the potential for groundwater or surface water
contamination is possible. There is a lake down gradient from one area suitable
for nitrification lines and there are wells drilled throughout the CooperRiis site.
A subsurface nitrification line system would effectively curtail any further
development at CooperRiis because all of the remaining lands on the 73-acre site
and the site across Highway 108 would be required for lines and repair area.
Additionally, future planning for the CooperRiis project calls for the 6.49 acres
-• across Highway 108 to be utilized as an orchard or to be put on the market and
sold.
-, Economically, the nitrification line system is approximately $250,000 costlier
when present worth is compared with the cost analysis and present worth of the
package wastewater treatment plant option.
v.
Spray irrigation and wastewater reuse are not options due to both insufficient
acreage and their inconsistency with the intent of the CooperRiis project.
.o
IM Innovative subsurface drip irrigation is economically prohibitive as it is almost
-25-

PW
no
OM
No
am
double the cost of the most economically favorable option, and it would require
the use of the 6.49 acre tract. Connection to the Town of Columbus is almost
three times the cost of constructing an on -site wastewater treatment plant and
discharge to Canal Creek.
-26-

�1
APPENDIX A
II
II
II
19

am
Site Evaluation.
PW
CooperRiis Property
Location: approely 1/2 mile NE of Mill Springs -Polk County North
Carolina on highway #108.
This property consists of 72 acres of relatively flat bottomland soil and
gently rolling to steep upland soils located on the north side of hwy. #108
and 6.49 acres on the south side of hwy #109. Expansion of the existing
house and immediate construction of 3 dormitories are planned.
Additional construction of 20 residential housing units for pa rnanent
employees is planned. The current projected wastewater flow is 11000
gallons Per day.
Planned housing, service ficilities, roads and parking facilities will
require approximately 15 acres of the property.
Four soil classes are located on the property. They are:
Cecil- Clayey. Kaolmitic, thermic Typic ii:anhapluduls
Dogue- Clayey, mixed, thermic Aquic Haphidults
Grover- Fine -loamy, micaceous, thermic Typic Haphuduhs
Madison- Clayey, kaolinitic, thennic Typic HaphEdults
The Cecil soil designated in section A of the `MASTER SITE PLAIN"
contains approximately 4 acres of moderately suited soil properties for
septic tank field absorption sites. However, this soil perks slowly with a
permeability of 0.6-.0.8 in/hr and a long term acceptance rate of
— 0.2 gallons per day (gpd) per if* See site evaluation sheets # 1 &2 for
Profile descriptions
The Madison soil is the primary soil type located on the property. It is
designated in sections B. C, & E on the ` MASTER SITE PLAN" contains
11, 3.7 and 5.3 acres respectively of which most of section C containing
3.7 acres will be utilized for flaw expansion, the remaining 16.3 acres of
these sections have soil properties moderately suitable for septic
absorption fields but this soil also perks slowly with a perbility of 0.8-
1.0 hybr. and a long term acceptance rate of 0.3gpd! Slopes in section
B range from 10-12% in the north end to 20-30% in the south end of this
field. There are three wells located in this section and a lake on the west
side. The slopes in section E range from 8-15%

hio r
The Dogue soil located in section D on the " MASTER SITE PLAN"
contains approximately 22 acres and is unsuitable for septic tank
absorption fields due to wetness and very slow drainage as indicated by
mottling throughout the profile. The permeability rate is 0.2 in/hr. and the
long-term acceptance rate of 0.1 a4 .
The Grover sod accounts for only a small acreage in section F is
unsuitable for septic drainfield due to having a 40-Wlo slope.
A second property consisting of 6.49 acres and separated from the
"�' main property by hwy# 108 and designated as location G on the attached
map -was evaluated at a later date. The soil on this property was a Cecil
clay with nearly level to moderate slopes of 8 15% and emits no
evidence of mottling on any of the six locations sampled. Sample 1B had
no distinct A horizon probably due to erosion in the recent past. Soil
sample 6B showed signs of sod deposition. This entire tract has a
�+ permeability of 0.8-1.0 in/hr, and a tong term acceptance rate of
0.3 gpd/fl .
MW There are 7 wells, a 4-acre lake, to be used for r+ reational purposes,
and a small pond, to be used as a water source for greenhouses grown food
crops, currently located on the main property which may impact the
location of the septic tank and associated drain fields.
With an anticipated flow rate of 11000 gallons per day the soils with
a long term acceptance rate of 0.3 gpd/ft would require 36667 if of
"ification trench bottom and the soils with a long term acceptance rate
of 0.2 gpd/fl would require 55000 ft of trench bottom
For spray irrigation assuming effluent contains 100mg N/liter
=0.8345 # N/1000ga1. Then I Ix0.8345 =9.180 N/I 1000gpd.
Assuming a crop requirement of 150# N/Afyr. Then
150# N : 9.18#N(11000gpd) =16.3 days /acre / year. With 285 days of nrigation/yr.
Then 285+16.3 =17.5 acres to accommodate the anticipated wastewater flow.
James E Shelton, P
Lich Soil Scientist
NC License # 1204
PO Box 913
Hendersonville, NC 28793-0913
b�

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CoouerRiis
Date: 9-18-01
Field#: 1B
Predominate Soil Series: Cecil
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 0_ 8%
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color Mottles Color
0-1811 c s_s_bkk
1OR3/4 none
18_ 36" c s=bk
1OR4/3 none
36_ 42" c s_
1OR4/4 n_
42_ C ssbk
10R3/6
Legend:
_
s=sand
sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand
sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam
g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam
wsbk weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam
msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay
ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: native grasses & weeds
Comments:
Awk
Mq
am

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 9-18-01
am
Field#: 2B
Predominate Soil Series: Cecil
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
N.._
M,
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 0-5°
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color Mottles Color
0-1219 cl msbk
1OR3/3 none
12_' 18" cl msbk
1OR3/4 n_
18"= 6" c ssbk
10R3/6 n_
3636_ C ss�bk
1OR4/4 none
Legend:
s-sand
sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand
sicl-silty clay loam
a..
sl-sandy loam
g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam
wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam
msbk-medium subangular.blocky
c-clay
ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: native grasses & weeds
Comments:
ow
me
4"

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 9-18-01
am
Field#: 3B
No
Predominate Soil Series: Cecil
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 0_ 8%
Field Analvsis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color Mottles Color
0-6" cl wsbk
1OR3/3 none
F
6` c msbk_
1OR3/4 none
30"-40" c ssbk
1OR3/6 none
40"-48" c ssbk
10R4/4
Legend:
s-sand
sil-silt loam
+•.
is -loamy sand
sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam
g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam
wsbk weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam
wsbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay
ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: native grasses & weeds
Comments:
X"
we
so

ow
a
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRus
Date: 9-18-01
aw
Field#: 4B
Predominate Soil Series: Cecil
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
N..e
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 5_ 10%
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color Mottles Color
0-12" cl msbk
10R3/4 none
1212_ c msbk
10R3/6 n_
20"-40" c ssbk
1OR4/4 none
4040_ scl wsbk
1OR4/4
Legend:
s-sand
sil-silt loam
..
is -loamy sand
sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam
g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam
wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam
msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay
ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: native grasses & weeds
Comments:
an
FM
am

am
Mi
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRus
Date: 9` 18=01
Field#: 5B
Predominate Soil Series: Cecil
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
"
Slope: 8_ 15%�
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color Mottles Color
0-8" cl wsbk
1OR3/4 none
8"-2011 c msbk
1OR3/6 none
20"-4011 c ssbk
1OR4/3 none
40"-48" c wsbk
1OR4/4
Legend:
s-sand
sil-silt loam
—•
is -loamy sand
sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam
g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam
wsbk-weak subangular blocky
�►
cl-clay loam
msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay
ssbk strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: native grasses & weeds
Comments:
PO, - -
oft
A.
no
me

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 9-18-01
Im
Field#: 6B
Predominate Soil Series: Cecil
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 00.._.
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color Mottles Color
0-12" c wsbk
1OR3/6 none
1224" c, 1 wsbk
10R3/2 none_
24"-36" c msbk
1OR3/4 none
36"-40" c ssbk
1OR4/3 none
�.
40"-48" c ssbk
IOR3/6 none
o.
Legend:
4
s-sand
sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand
sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam
g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam
wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam
msbk-medium subangular blocky
"~
c-clay
ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: native grasses & weeds
Comments: Lowest area in field shows signs of deposition -Probably erosion
from area where sample 1B was taken which did not have any topsoil.
ow

SR-1 321
TRACT TWO
X
6'.49 ACRES
................ ......................
tpg��* SR 322
on
me
00
am
6 mo
ow

r
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRus
Date: 7/24/01
Field#: 1
Predominate Soil Series: Cecil
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 0_ 8%
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0.88" scl msbk
7.5YR4/6
none
8'f -24" cl msbk
2.5YR4/8
none
24-6" c msbk
5YR4/6
none
3611_-4411 c msbk
2.5YR4/6
few -yellow
Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
.� sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: meadow
Comments:
an
..

rm
9
No
+m
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 7/24/O1
Field#: 2
Predominate Soil Series: Cecil
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
,
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 0-8%
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-12" scl wsbk
2.5YR4/4
none
12_ cl wsbk
2.5YR4/8
none
18"-36" cl wsbk
5YR4/6
none
36_ scl_ 9
7.5YR4/6
none
am Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
.n sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
v.
Type of Crop: meadow
Comments:
No
am
Am

e■n
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis Date: 7/_
Field#: 3
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table: None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 12-15%
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure Matrix Color Mottles Color
0-8" scl wsbk 1OR4/8 none
811-1911 scl wsbk 1OR4/6 none
19"-36" cl msbk 1OR4/6 none
36"-44" sl 7.5YR5/8 none
Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: meadow
Comments:
am
am

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis
Field#: 4
Predominate Soil Series:
Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 12-15%
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture
Structure
Matrix Color
0.8" sicl
wsbk
1O114/4
8"-1611 si_
wsbk
5YR4/4
16"-24" cl
ssbk
2.5R4/6
24"-36" c
ssbk
5YR4/6
A.,
36"-44" cl
msbk
5YR4/6
OR
Date: 7/24/01,
Mottles Color
none
none
none
none
very few yellow
Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: meadow
Comments: mottling occurs in distinct zones approximately 1/2" irregular
shapes. —2.5Y6/6.
Mw

a�
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRus Date: 7/24_
Field#: 5
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:.. N_
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 12-15%
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure Matrix Color Mottles Color
00-811 scl wsbk 5YR4/6 none ,
8ff-1611 scl wsbk 5YR4/4 none
1611-24" scl wsbk 7.5YR4/6 none
24f f -36f f c ssbk 7.5YR4/4 none
Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: meadow
Comments:
a"
am
an

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 7/_
Field#: 6
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
N_
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 1_
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-8" cl ssbk
1OR4/4
none
M0
86_' c_ s_
10R4/6
none
16"-32" cl ssbk
1OR4/8
none
32"-40" cl ssbk
2.5YR4/8
none
Im
am
on
am
No
am
Legend:
s-sand
Is -loamy sand
sl-sandy loam
scl-sandy clay loam
cl-clay loam
c-clay
Type of Crop: meadow
Comments:
sil-silt loam
sicl-silty clay loam
g-granular
wsbk-weak subangular blocky
msbk medium subangular blocky
ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Am

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis Date: 7/24/01
Field#: 7
low Predominate Soil Series: Madison
am Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table: None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 66-
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure Matrix Color Mottles Color
0-6" cl msbk 2.5YR4/6 none
., 611- cl ssbk 2.5YR4/4 none
12"-24" cl ssbk 2.5YR4/8 none
24' 40" cl ssbk 2.5YR4/6 none
Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: meadow
Comments:
FM

Ow
a"
we
MR
MR
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooverRiis Date: 7/-
Field#: 8
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table: None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 8-10%
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure Matrix Color Mottles Color
00.8'- A _9 5YR4/3 none
811-18" scl wsbk 5YR4/4 none
18"-30" cl msbk 5YR4/6 none
30"-40" cl msbk 5YR4/4 few yellow- red*
Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Ls -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: meadow
Comments: *- Localized yellow -red discrete zones (5YR4/6)
Mw

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooaerRiis
Date: 7/24/01
Field#: 9
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 12%
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-6" sicl wsbk
5YR4/3
none
6'�12" scl wsbk
5YR4/4
n_
12"-24" scl msbk
5YR4/6
none
24"-36" sl wsbk
10YR4/6
none
MR
fm
n1
Legend:
s-sand
Is -loamy sand
sl-sandy loam
scl-sandy clay loam
cl-clay loam
c-clay
Type of Crop: meadow
Comments:
sil-silt loam
sicl-silty clay loam
g-granular
wsbk-weak subangular blocky
msbk-medium subangular blocky
ssbk-strong subangular blocky
am

am
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CoouerRiis
Date: 7/_
Field#: 10
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
N_
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 18%
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-6" is wsbk
1OR4/2
none
V- 2" scl wsbk
5YR4/4
none
12"-18" cl msbk
1OR4/6
none
18"-30" c ssbk
1OR4/6
none
30"40" is wsbk
1OR4/8
none
Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: woodland
Comments:
an
om

n.►
� L
r
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 8_/1/0_1
•
Field#: 11
"
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
N_
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 12-18%
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-8" cl wsbk
1OR4/6
none
6"-1211 c wsbk
5YR4/6
n_
12"-18" c ssbk
10R3/6
none
18"-24" c ssbk
1OR4/6
none
24"-40" c ssbk
1OR4/8
none
�+ Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Ls -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: woodland
Comments:
ow

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CoouerRiis
Date: 8/_
Field#: 12
Predominate Soil Series: Grover
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
MR
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
W.
Slope: 40-60%
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth - Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-6" scl wsbk
7.5YR4/4
none
61112" sicl msbk
7.5YR4/6
none
12"-18" scl msbk
5YR4/6
none
18"-24" scl wsbk
7.5YR4/6
none
24"-36" is g
5YR4/6
none
Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: woodland
Comments: gravely throught profile
oft

r-de,
mm
P-M
rw
am
IM
Pq
M
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooverRiis
Date: 8/1/01
Field#: 13
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 10-12%
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-6" cl wsbk
5YR3/4
none
6"-12" cl msbk
1OR3/4
none
12' 18" cl msbk
1OR4/4
none
18"-24" c ssbk
1OR3/6
none
24"-36" c ssbk
1OR4/4
none
Legend:
s-sand
Is -loamy sand
sl-sandy loam
scl-sandy clay loam
cl-clay loam
c-clay
Type of Crop: grass
Comments:
sil-silt loam
sicl-silty clay loam
g-granular
wsbk-weak subangular blocky
msbk-medium subangular blocky
ssbk-strong subangular blocky

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 7/24/01
FM
Field#: 14
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
N_
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 68%
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color Mottles Color
0-6" cl wsbk
5YR4/3 none
on
6- cl msbk
5YR5/6 n_
12"-18" cl msbk
5YR3/4 none
18"-24" c ssbk
5YR4/4 none
RM
24"-36" c ssbk
1OR3/4 none
�►
Legend:
s-sand
sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand
sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam
g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam
wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam
msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay
ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: recently cut small gain
Comments:
fm

SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 8_ /1/01
Field#: 15
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 12-15%
Field Analysis
of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-6" cl msbk
1OR4/3
none
6_ 1Z" c ssbk
2.5YR4/6
Fe/Mn concretions
12"-18" cl msbk
2.5YR3/6
none
18"-24" c ssbk
1OR4/4
none
24"-40" c ssbk
1OR4/4
none
Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
"Ot sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: recently cut small grain
Comments: FE/Mn Concretions throught the profile
om
0"

MR
r
an
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 8/_
Field#: 16
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 8-12%
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-6" cl msbk
IOR4/6
none
6__ 1211 c, 1 msbk
2.5YR3/6
none
12"-18" c ssbk
5YR4/6
brownish yellow (10YR6/6)
18"-24" scl msbk
2.5YR4/6
"
a.► 24"40" scl msbk
2.5YR4/8
"
�+ Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
am sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk-medium subangular blocky
we c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: recently cut small grain
Comments: FE/Mn Concretions throuQht the profile -Brownish Yellowing
FM
Mw

FM
ow
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
No
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 8/1/01
Field#: 17
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
None_
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 20-30%
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-6" cl wsbk
2.5YR4/3
none
611-12" c. l msbk
2.5YR4/4
none
12_ c ssbk
1OR4/6
Fe/Mn Concretions(
18"-30" cl ssbk
1OR4/8
"
,., 30"40" scl g
1OR4/8
saprolite
.0 Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk-strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: recently cut small
Comments: FE/Mn Concretions- fine mica flakes throught profile.
4w

OR
a
no
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
Operator: CooperRus
Date: 8/1/01
Field#: 18
Predominate Soil Series: Madison
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
N_
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 20-30%
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-6" cl wsbk
5YR3/4
none
,,.611-1211 cl msbk
5YR4/4
none
12"-18" cl msbk
2.5YR4/4
none
18"-30" cl ssbk
2.5YR4/8
none
.0 30"-40" scl msbk
1OR4/8
none
Legend:
s-sand sil-silt loam
Is -loamy sand sicl-silty clay loam
sl-sandy loam g-granular
scl-sandy clay loam wsbk-weak subangular blocky
cl-clay loam msbk-medium subangular blocky
c-clay ssbk strong subangular blocky
Type of Crop: recently cut small grain
0"
Comments: FE/Mn Concretions- fine mica flakes throught profile.
ma
M
am

ow
w*
SITE EVALUATION SHEET
ON
Operator: CooperRiis
Date: 8� /1/01
Field#: 19
Predominate Soil Series: Dogue
Evidence of Seasonal High Water Table:
N_
Depth, Type of Restrictive Zone: None
Slope: 00`
Field Analysis of Soils
Depth Texture Structure
Matrix Color
Mottles Color
0-6" sl wsbk
10YR5/2
none
611-1211 c_ msbk
10YR5/2
brownish aray(2.5Y6/2)
12"-18" c msbk
10YR5/1
"
18"-30" c msbk
10YR6/1
"
.., 30"-40" c ssbk
5YR5/1
gray
Legend:
am
M"
I
s-sand
Is -loamy sand
sl-sandy loam
scl-sandy clay loam
cl-clay loam
c-clay
Type of Crop: soybeans
Comments:
sil-silt loam
sicl-silty clay loam
g-granular
wsbk-weak subangular blocky
msbk-medium subangular blocky
ssbk strong subangular blocky
MR

7

,QER 8
2 MILES
I NS

low
Polk County, North Carolina
Om a
- Planting seedlings during wet, cool periods helps to
improve survival rates.
Urban Development
Dwellings
Suitability: Unsuited
Management concerns:
- The flooding is a severe limitation affecting dwellings. A
site should be selected on better suited soils.
Septic tank absorption fields
Suitability: Unsuited
Management concerns:
- The flooding and poor filtering capacity are severe
limitations affecting septic tank absorption fields. A site
should be selected on better suited soils.
Local roads and streets
Suitability. Unsuited
Management concerns:
- The flooding is a severe limitation affecting roads and
streets. A site should be selected on better suited soils.
Interpretive Groups
Land capability classification: I Vw
Woodland ordination symbol. 8S, based on yellow -poplar
as the indicator species
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
sl pes, eroded
Setting
Landscape: Piedmont uplands
Landform: Broad ridges
me Shape of areas: Irregular
Size of areas: 5 to 3,000 acres
Composition
Cecil soil and similar inclusions: 90 percent
Dissimilar inclusions: 10 percent
Typical Profile
Surface layer:
0 to 6 inches —strong brown sandy clay loam
Subsoil.
6 to 25 inches —red clay
25 to 42 inches —red clay
42 to 58 inches —red clay that has yellowish red mottles
58 to 65 inches —yellowish red clay loam that has strong
brown mottles
25
Soil Properties and Qualities
Depth class: Very deep
Drainage class: Well drained
Permeability. Moderate
Available water capacity: Moderate
Depth to high water table: Greater than 6 feet
Flooding: None
Shrink -swell potential: Low
Extent of erosion: Moderate
Slope class: Gently sloping
Rock fragments: Less than 0.01 percent surface coverage
Reaction: Strongly acid or very strongly acid in unlimed
areas; ranging to slightly acid in the upper part of the
profile in limed areas
Depth to bedrock: Greater than 60 inches
Inclusions
Dissimilar inclusions:
- Bethlehem soils that have soft, weathered bedrock at a
depth of less than 40 inches and are in convex, gravelly
areas
Similar inclusions:
• Cecil soils that have a surface layer of slightly eroded
sandy loam
- Soils that are similar to the Cecil soil but have a thinner
subsoil
- Soils that are similar to the Cecil soil but have a browner
subsoil
Use and Management
Major Uses: Cropland, pasture and hayland, woodland,
orchards, and urban development
Agricultural Development
Cropland
Suitability: Well suited
Potential productivity: Moderately high
Management concerns: Erodibility, tilth, and fertility
Management measures and considerations:
- Resource management systems that include
conservation tillage, crop residue management,
striperopping, and sod -based rotations help to reduce the
hazard of erosion, control surface runoff, and maximize
water infiltration.
- Incorporating crop residue into the soil or leaving
residue on the soil surface helps to minimize clodding and
crusting and maximize water infiltration.
- Tilling only during dry periods helps to prevent clodding
and crusting and increase water infiltration.
- Applying lime and fertilizer according to
recommendations based on soil tests increases the

26
availability of plant nutrients and helps to maximize
productivity.
�. Pasture and hayland
Suitability: Well suited
Potential productivity: Moderately high
�. Management concerns: Erodibility
Management measures and considerations:
• Planting adapted species helps to ensure the production
of high -quality forage and reduce the hazard of erosion.
'�' • A rotational grazing system and a well -planned clipping
and harvesting schedule help to keep the pasture in good
condition and increase productivity.
Woodland
Suitability: Well suited
Management concerns: Equipment use and seedling
survival
Management measures and considerations:
• Unsurfaced roads may be impassible during wet periods
�► because of the high content of clay.
• Logging only during dry periods helps to prevent rutting
and damage to tree roots as a result of compaction.
• Replanting may be needed because of seedling
mortality.
• Planting seedlings during wet, cool periods helps to
improve survival rates.
Urban Development
•• Dwellings
Suitability: Well suited
Management concerns:
• There are no significant limitations affecting dwellings.
Management measures and considerations:
• Vegetating cleared and graded areas as soon as
possible or constructing silt fences helps to maintain soil
stability and keep sediments onsite.
Septic tank absorption fields
am Suitability: Moderately suited
Management concerns: Restricted permeability
Management measures and considerations:
• Increasing the size of the absorption field helps to
improve the performance of the septic tank.
• Installing the distribution lines of septic systems during
dry periods helps to prevent smearing and sealing of
trench walls.
Local roads and streets
Suitability: Moderately suited
Management concerns: Low strength
Soil Survey
Management measures and considerations:
• Providing sand and gravel and compacting roadbeds
improve soil strength.
Interpretive Groups
Land capability classification: IIle
Woodland ordination symbol. 7C, based on loblolly pine
as the indicator species
ChA—Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
Setting
Landscape: Piedmont valleys
Landform: Flood plains
Shape of areas: Long and narrow
Size of areas: 4 to 100 acres
Composition
Chewacla soil and similar inclusions: 85 percent
Dissimilar inclusions:15 percent
Typical Profile
Surface layer:
0 to 7 inches —dark brown loam
Subsoil:
7 to 16 inches —brown loam that has light brown iron
concentrations
16 to 21 inches —dark brown loam that has dark gray iron
depletions
Underlying material:
21 to 48 inches -moray silty clay loam that has yellowish
brown iron concentrations
48 to 65 inches —gray silty clay loam that has dark
reddish brown iron concentrations
Soil Properties and Qualities
Depth class: Very deep
Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Permeability. Moderate
Available water capacity: High
Depth to high water table: 0.5 foot to 1.5 feet
Flooding: Occasional for brief periods
Shrink -swell potential. Low
Extent of erosion: Slight
Slope class: Nearly level
Rock fragments: Less than 0.01 percent surface coverage
Reaction: Slightly acid to very strongly acid within a depth
of 40 inches; slightly alkaline to very strongly acid
below a depth of 40 inches
Depth to bedrock: Greater than 60 inches

one
30
s
PM
Cropland
MR
two
Agricultural Development
Suitability: Well suited
Potential productivity: High
Management concerns: Erodibility, wetness, and limited
size of areas
Management measures and considerations:
- Terraces and diversions, striperopping, contour farming,
no -till farming, and crop residue management reduce the
hazard of erosion, control runoff, and increase the
infiltration of rainfall.
- Installing an artificial drainage system helps to reduce
the wetness limitation and improves productivity.
- Managing areas of this map unit for crop production is
difficult because of the small size of the areas.
Pasture and hayland
Suitability: Well suited
Potential productivity: Very high
Management concerns: Wetness and limited size of areas
Management measures and considerations:
- Preventing overgrazing or preventing grazing when the
soil is too wet helps to prevent compaction, decreased
productivity, and a rough soil surface.
- Managing areas of this map unit for the production of
pasture and hay crops is difficult because of the small
size of the areas.
Woodland
Suitability: Well suited
Management concerns:
- There are no significant limitations affecting woodland
management.
Management measures and considerations:
- Planting the appropriate species, as recommended by a
forester, helps to maximize productivity and ensure
planting success.
Urban Development
am
Dwellings
Suitability: Poorly suited
mw Management concerns: Wetness and flooding
Management measures and considerations:
- Building structures on the highest part of the landscape
and installing an artificial drainage system help to prevent
'm damage caused by the wetness and flooding.
- Installing a subsurface drainage system helps to lower
the high water table.
No
Septic tank absorption fields
Suitability. Poorly suited
Soil Survey
Management concerns: Restricted permeability and
wetness
Management measures and considerations:
- Additions of suitable fill material can raise the filter field
a sufficient distance above the high water table and thus
help to improve the performance of the septic system.
- Onsite waste disposal systems may require special
design.
- The local Health Department should be contacted for
guidance in developing sanitary facilities.
Local roads and streets
Suitability. Moderately suited
Management concerns: Low strength and wetness
Management measures and considerations:
- Providing sand and gravel and compacting roadbeds
improve soil strength.
- Constructing roads on raised areas of well -compacted
fill material helps to overcome the wetness limitation.
Interpretive Groups
Land capability classification: Ilw
Woodland ordination symbol: 12A, based on eastern
white pine as the indicator species
�tcent
Dogue-Roanoke complex, 0 to 6
slopes, rarely flooded
Setting
Landscape: Piedmont valleys
Landform: Stream terraces
Component location: Dogue--convex, gently sloping
areas; Roanoke —concave, nearly level areas
Shape of areas: Irregular or long and narrow
Size of areas: 5 to 45 acres
Composition
Dogue soil and similar inclusions: 75 percent
Roanoke soil and similar inclusions: 10 percent
Dissimilar inclusions: 15 percent
Typical Profile
Dogue
Surface layer.
0 to 6 inches —dark grayish brown sandy loam
Subsoil:
6 to 17 inches —dark yellowish brown clay
17 to 23 inches —yellowish brown clay that has yellowish
red iron concentrations and pale brown iron
depletions
23 to 31 inches—yellowishbrown clay that has light

Polk County, North Carolina
brownish gray iron depletions and dark reddish brown
iron concentrations
31 to 41 inches —light gray clay that has strong brown and
brownish yellow iron concentrations
41 to 58 inches —gray sandy clay that has light yellowish
brown iron concentrations
Underlying material:
58 to 62 inches —gray sandy clay loam
Roanoke
Surface layer:
0 to 5 inches —very dark gray loam
oft Subsoil:
5 to 9 inches —dark gray clay loam
9 to 21 inches —gray clay that has strong brown iron
concentrations
am 21 to 41 inches —gray clay
Underlying material:
41 to 50 inches —very dark gray loam
am 50 to 65 inches —gray silty clay loam
no
No
Im
Pft
no
N,
.00
a.
Soil Properties and Qualities
Depth class: Very deep
Drainage class: Dogue—moderately well drained;
Roanoke —poorly drained
Permeability: Dogue—moderately slow; Roanoke low
Available water capacity: High
High water table: Dogue—at a depth of 1.5 to 3.0 feet;
Roanoke —within a depth of 1.0 foot
Flooding: Rare
Shrink -swell potential: Moderate
Extent of erosion: Slight
Slope class: Dogue—nearly level or gently sloping;
Roanoke —nearly level
Rock fragments: Less than 0.01 percent surface coverage
Reaction: Strongly acid to extremely acid in unlimed
areas; ranging to slightly acid in the upper part of the
profile in limed areas
Depth to bedrock: Greater than 60 inches
Inclusions
Dissimilar inclusions:
• The occasionally flooded, loamy Chewacla soils in
areas near the stream channel
- The frequently flooded, loamy Wehadkee soils in
depressions near the stream channel
• The well drained Masada and Skyuka soils in the higher
areas
Similar inclusions:
Soils that are similar to the Dogue and Roanoke soils
but have less clay in the subsoil
• -Soils that are similar to the Dogue and Roanoke soils
and that overlie older deposits of alluvium and organic
materials
• Soils that are similar to the Dogue and Roanoke soils
and have saprolite within a depth of 40 inches
Use and Management
Major Uses: Woodland, cropland, and pasture and
hayland
Agricultural Development
Cropland
31
Suitability. Dogue—well suited; Roanoke —moderately
suited
Potential productivity: Dogue—high; Roanoke —moderate
Management concerns: Dogue erodibility, wetness, and
limited size of areas; Roanoke —excessive wetness
and limited size of areas
Management measures and considerations:
Terraces and diversions, striperopping, contour farming,
no -till farming, and crop residue management reduce the
hazard of erosion, control runoff, and increase the
infiltration of rainfall:
• Installing an artificial drainage system in areas of the
Dogue soil helps to reduce the wetness limitation and
improves productivity.
- Federal and State regulations protecting wetlands may
restrict the use of drainage systems and other alterations
in areas of this map unit.
• Managing areas of this map unit for crop production is
difficult because of the small size of the areas.
Pasture and hayland
Suitability: Dogue—well suited; Roanoke —moderately
suited
Potential productivity: Dogue—high; Roanoke —
moderately high
Management concerns: Dogue—wetness and limited size
of areas; Roanoke —excessive wetness and limited
size of areas
Management measures and considerations:
- Planting wetness -tolerant species in undrained areas
helps to improve productivity.
• Preventing overgrazing or preventing grazing when the
soils are too wet helps to prevent compaction, decreased
productivity, and a rough soil surface.
- Fencing livestock away from creeks and streams helps
to prevent the caving of streambanks, sedimentation, and
contamination from animal waste.
• Managing areas of this map unit for the production of
pasture and hay crops is difficult because of the small
size of the areas.
- Federal and State regulations protecting wetlands may
am

n
32
o
No restrict the use of drainage systems and other alterations
in areas of this map unit.
Woodland
Suitability: Dogue—well suited; Roanoke —moderately
suited
Management concerns: Dogue—equipment use;
Roanoke equipment use, seedling survival, and
competition from undesirable plants
Management measures and considerations:
- Restricting the use of standard wheeled and tracked
equipment to dry periods helps to prevent the rutting and
compaction that can occur when the soils are saturated.
- Planting trees that are tolerant of wetness helps to
increase seedling survival rates.
- Site preparation practices, such as chopping, prescribed
burning, and applications of herbicide, help to reduce
competition from unwanted plants.
- Federal and State regulations protecting wetlands may
restrict the use of drainage systems and other alterations
in areas of this map unit.
Urban Development
Dwellings
Suitability: Poorly suited
Management concerns: Dogue—wetness, flooding, and
shrink -swell potential; Roanoke —excessive wetness
and flooding
Management measures and considerations:
- Building structures on the highest part of the landscape
and installing an artificial drainage system help to preven"t'-
damage caused by the wetness and flooding.
- Reinforcing foundations or backfilling with coarse
textured material helps to strengthen buildings and
prevents damage caused by shrinking and swelling.
"" Septic tank absorption fields
Suitability: Poorly suited
Management concerns: Restricted permeability and
wetness
Management measures and considerations:
- Additions of suitable fill material can raise the filter field
�+ a sufficient distance above the high water table and thus
help to improve the performance of the septic system.
- Onsite waste disposal systems may require special
design.
- The local Health Department should be contacted for
guidance in developing sanitary facilities.
Local roads and streets
Suitability. Poorly suited
Soil Survey
Management concerns: Dogue—low strength; Roanoke —
low strength and wetness
Management measures and considerations:
- Providing sand and gravel and compacting roadbeds
improve soil strength.
• Constructing roads on raised areas of well -compacted
fill material helps to overcome the wetness limitation.
Interpretive Groups
Land capability classification: Dogue—Ile; Roanoke—IVw
Woodland ordination symbol: Based on yellow -poplar as
the indicator species, 7A in areas of the Dogue soil
and 7W in areas of the Roanoke soil
EdF—Edneyville-Chestnut complex, 50 to 95
percent slopes, stony
Setting
Landscape: Mountain uplands
Landform: Stony hill slopes
Component location: �dneyville—concave, less sloping
areas; Chestnut —convex, more sloping areas
Shape of areas: Irregular
Size of areas: 50 to 950 acres
Composition
Edneyville soil and similar inclusions: 55 percent
Chestnut soil and similar inclusions: 30 percent
Dissimilar inclusions: 15 percent
Typical Profile
Edneyville
Surface layer.
0 to 3 inches —dark brown sandy loam
Subsoil.-
3 to 14 inches —yellowish brown sandy loam
14 to 31 inches —yellowish brown sandy loam
Underlying material:
31 to 65 inches—saprolite consisting of loamy sand in
shades of brown, yellow, or white
Chestnut
Surface layer.
0 to 3 inches —dark brown sandy loam
Subsoil.
3 to 20 inches —yellowish brown sandy loam
Underlying material.,
20 to 25 inches—saprolite consisting of light yellowish
brown sandy loam
no

am
Polk County, North Carolina
on "
"" Interpretive Groups
Land capability classification: Vlle
Woodland ordination symbol: Based on shortleaf pine as
the indicator species. 8R in areas of the Fannin soil
and 7R in areas of the Cowee soil
GrE Grover loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Setting
Landscape: Piedmont uplands
Landform: Hill slopes
Shape of areas: Irregular
Size of areas: 15 to 600 acres
Composition
Grover soil and similar inclusions: 90 percent
Dissimilar inclusions: 10 percent
am Typical Profile
Surface layer:
0 to 6 inches —brown loam
Ow
Subsoil:
6 to 20 inches —yellowish red loam
20 to 25 inches —yellowish red loam
am
No
No
0"
Underlying material:
25 to 35 inches—saprolite consisting of strong brown
sandy loam that has very dark brown streaks and a
high content of mica
35 to 65 inches—saprolite consisting of multicolored
sandy loam that has a high content of mica
Soil Properties and Qualities
Depth class: Very deep
Drainage class: Well drained
Permeability: Moderate
Available water capacity: Moderate
Depth to high water table: Greater than 6 feet
Flooding: None
Shrink -swell potential: Low
Extent of erosion: Slight
Slope class: Steep
Rock fragments: Less than 0.01 percent surface coverage
Reaction: Moderately acid to very strongly acid
Depth to bedrock: Greater than 60 inches
Inclusions
Dissimilar inclusions:
am • Randomly scattered small areas of rock outcrops
• Ashlar soils that have hard bedrock at a depth of less
than 40 inches and occur near small areas of rock
,m outcrops
43
Similar inclusions:
- Soils that are similar to the Grover soil but have a lower
content of mica
• Soils that are similar to the Grover soil but have more
clay in the subsoil
Use and Management
Major Uses: Woodland
Agricultural Development
Cropland
Suitability: Unsuited
Management concerns:
• The slope is a severe limitation affecting crop
production. A site should be selected on better suited
soils.
Pasture and hayland
Suitability for pasture: Poorly suited
Suitability for hayland. Unsuited
Potential productivity. Low
Management concerns: Erodibility and equipment use
Management measures and considerations:
• Special equipment or planning may be needed to safely
harvest or maintain forage.
- Applying lime, fertilizer, seed, and herbicides by hand
helps to increase productivity in the steeper areas.
Woodland
Suitability: Moderately suited
Management concerns: Equipment use and erodibility
Management measures and considerations:
• Constructing roads, fire lanes, and skid trails on the
contour helps to overcome the slope.
- Installing broad -based dips, water bars, and culverts
helps to stabilize logging roads, skid trails, and landings.
- Reseeding all disturbed areas with adapted grasses and
legumes helps to prevent erosion.
• Establishing a buffer zone of trees and shrubs in areas
adjacent to streams helps to reduce siltation and provides
shade for the water surface.
Urban Development
Dwellings
Suitability: Poorly suited
Management concerns: Slope and a very severe hazard
of erosion
Management measures and considerations:
• Sites should be selected in areas where slopes are
least restrictive to construction and equipment use.
• Special building designs or high excavation costs may
be required.

an
44
• Special methods may be needed to control erosion in
bare areas following construction.
Septic tank absorption fields
Suitability: Poorly suited
Management concerns: Slope
Management measures and considerations:
• The local Health Department should be contacted for
guidance in developing sanitary facilities.
Local roads and streets
Suitability: Poorly suited
Management concerns: Slope and a very severe hazard
of erosion
Management measures and considerations:
• Constructing roads on the contour and providing
adequate water -control structures, such as culverts, help
to maintain road stability.
• Special methods may be needed to control erosion in
bare areas following construction.
Interpretive Groups
Land capability classification: Vile
Woodland ordination symbol: 8R, based on loblolly pine
as the indicator species
Im HaC—Hayesville fine sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes
Setting
Landscape: Mountain uplands
Landform: Broad ridges
Shape of areas: Irregular
Size of areas: 6 to 75 acres
M Composition
Hayesville soil and similar inclusions: 90 percent
Dissimilar inclusions: 10 percent
Typical Profile
Surface layer.
,^ 0 to 7 inches —yellowish brown fine sandy loam
Subsoil:
7 to 10 inches —yellowish red clay loam
10 to 21 inches —red clay
21 to 38 inches —yellowish red clay loam
Underlying material:
nw38 to 56 inches—saprolite consisting of yellowish red
loam that has pockets of clay loam
56 to 65 inches—saprolite consisting of fine sandy loam in
shades of yellow, red, or brown
Soil Survey
Soil Properties and Qualities
Depth class: Very deep
Drainage class: Well drained
Permeability: Moderate
Available water capacity: Moderate
Depth to high water table: Greater than 6 feet
Flooding: None
Shrink -swell potential. Low
Extent of erosion: Slight
Slope class: Strongly sloping
Rock fragments: Less than 0.01 percent surface coverage
Reaction: Moderately acid to extremely acid in unlimed
areas; ranging to slightly acid in the upper part of the
profile in limed areas
Depth to bedrock: Greater than 60 inches
Inclusions
Dissimilar inclusions:
• Cowee soils that have soft, weathered bedrock at a
depth of less than 40 inches and occur in landform
positions similar to those of the Hayesville soil
Similar inclusions:
• Soils that -are similar to the Hayesville soil but have a
higher content of mica
• Soils that are similar to the Hayesville soil but have a
browner subsoil
• Soils that are similar to the Hayesville soil but have a
loamy subsoil
Use and Management
Major Uses: Woodland, urban development, orchards,
and pasture and hayland
Agricultural Development
Cropland
Suitability: Moderately suited
Potential productivity: Moderately high
Management concerns: Erodibility and fertility
Management measures and considerations:
• Resource management systems that include
conservation tillage, crop residue management,
striperopping, and sod -based rotations help to reduce the
hazard of Erosion, control runoff, and maximize water
infiltration.
• Applying lime and fertilizer according to
recommendations based on soil tests increases the
availability of plant nutrients and helps to maximize
productivity.
Pasture and hayland
Suitability for pasture: Well suited
Suitability for hayland. Moderately suited

me
an
PM
Im
WO
no
•
Polk County, North Carolina
conservation tillage, crop residue management,
striperopping, and sod -based rotations help to reduce the
hazard of erosion, control surface runoff, and maximize
water infiltration.
• Incorporating crop residue into the soil or leaving
residue on the soil surface helps to minimize clodding and
crusting and maximize water infiltration.
• Tilling only during dry periods helps to prevent clodding
and crusting and increase water infiltration.
• Applying lime and fertilizer according to
recommendations based on soil tests increases the
availability of plant nutrients and helps to maximize
productivity.
Pasture and hayland
Suitability for pasture: Well suited
jitability for hayland. Moderately suited
Potential productivity: Moderately high
Management concerns: Erodibility and equipment use
Management measures and considerations:
• Planting adapted species helps to ensure the production
of high -quality forage and reduce the hazard of erosion.
• Preparing seedbeds on the contour or across the slope
helps to reduce the hazard of erosion and increase
germination.
• The slope may limit equipment use in the steeper areas
during the harvest of hay crops.
• Fencing livestock away from creeks and streams helps
to prevent the caving of streambanks, sedimentation, and
contamination from animal waste.
Woodland
Suitability: Well suited
no Management concerns: Equipment use and seedling
survival
Management measures and considerations:
• Unsurfaced roads may be impassible during wet periods
because of the high content of clay.
• Logging only during dry periods helps to prevent rutting
and damage to tree roots as a result of compaction.
• Replanting may be needed because of seedling
mortality.
• Planting seedlings during wet, cool periods helps to
improve survival rates.
Urban Development
Dwellings
Suitability. Moderately suited
Management concerns: Slope
Management measures and considerations:
• Designing structures so that they conform to the natural
slope helps to improve soil performance.
49
• Grading or land shaping can divert upslope surface
water away from foundations.
• Vegetating cleared and graded areas as soon as
possible or constructing silt fences helps to maintain soil
stability and keep sediments onsite.
Septic tank absorption fields
Suitability: Moderately suited
Management concerns: Restricted permeability and slope
Management measures and considerations:
• Increasing the size of the absorption field helps to
improve the performance of the septic tank.
• Installing the distribution lines of septic systems during
dry periods helps to prevent smearing and sealing of
trench walls.
• Installing distribution, lines on the contour helps to
improve performance of septic tank absorption fields.
Local roads and streets
Suitability: Moderately suited
Management concerns: Low strength and slope
Management measures and considerations:
• Providing sand and gravel and compacting roadbeds
improve soil strength.
• Constructing roads on the contour and providing
adequate water -control structures, such as culverts, help
to maintain road stability.
• Vegetating cut and fill slopes as soon. as possible after
construction helps to stabilize the soil and prevents
excessive erosion.
Interpretive Groups
Land capability classification: IVe
woodland ordination symbol: 7C, based on loblolly pine
as the indicator species
Mac Madison sandy clay loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, eroded
Setting
Landscape: Piedmont uplands
Landform: Ridges and hill slopes
Shape of areas: Irregular
Size of areas: 10 to 300 acres
Composition
Madison soil and similar inclusions: 85 percent
Dissimilar inclusions: 15 percent
Typical Profile
Surface layer:
0 to 6 inches —brown sandy clay loam

MR
50
Subsoil:
6 to 21 inches —red clay
21 to 26 inches —red clay loam
.� 26 to 37 inches —red clay loam
0
am
P.
OR
Underlying material:
37 to 65 inches—saprolite consisting of coarse sandy
loam in shades of red, yellow, or brown that has a
high content of mica
Soil Properties and Qualities
Depth class: Very deep
Drainage class: Well drained
Permeability: Moderate
Available water capacity: Moderate
Depth to high water table: Greater than 6 feet
Flooding: None
Shrink -swell potential: Low -
Extent of erosion: Moderate
Slope class: Strongly sloping
Rock fragments: Less than 0.01 percent surface coverage
Reaction: Moderately acid to very strongly acid in unlimed
areas; ranging to slightly acid in the upper part of the
profile in limed areas
Depth to bedrock: Greater than 60 inches
Inclusions
Dissimilar inclusions:
• Bethlehem soils that have soft, weathered bedrock at a
depth of less than 40 inches and occur in landform
positions similar to those of the Madison soil
Similar inclusions:
- Madison soils that have a surface layer of slightly
eroded sandy loam or loam
- Soils that are similar to the Madison soil but have a
lower content of mica
- Soils that are similar to the Madison soil but have a
thicker subsoil
Use and Management
No Major Uses: Woodland, dwellings, and pasture and
hayland
Agricultural Development
Cropland
Suitability: Moderately suited
Potential productivity: Moderate
Management concerns: Erodibility, tilth, and fertility
Management measures and considerations:
- Resource management systems that include
conservation tillage, crop residue management,
striperopping, and sod -based rotations help to reduce the
Soil Survey
hazard of erosion, control surface runoff, and maximize
water infiltration.
- Incorporating crop residue into the soil or leaving
residue on the soil surface helps to minimize clodding and
crusting and maximize water infiltration.
- Tilling only during dry periods helps to prevent clodding
and crusting and increase water infiltration.
• Applying lime and fertilizer according to
recommendations based on soil tests increases the
availability of plant nutrients and helps to maximize
productivity.
Pasture and hayland
Suitability for pasture: Well suited
Suitability for hayland: Moderately suited
Potential productivity: Moderately high
Management concerns: Erodibility and equipment use
Management measures and considerations:
• Planting adapted species helps to ensure the production
of high -quality forage and reduce the hazard of erosion.
• Preparing seedbeds on the contour or across the slope
helps to reduce the hazard of erosion and increase
germination.
- The slope may limit equipment use in the steeper areas
during the harvest of hay crops.
- Fencing livestock away from creeks and streams helps
to prevent the caving of streambanks, sedimentation, and
contamination from animal waste.
Woodland
Suitability: Well suited
Management concerns: Equipment use and seedling
survival
Management measures and considerations:
- Unsurfaced roads may be impassible during wet periods
because of the high content of clay.
- - Logging only during dry periods helps to prevent rutting
and damage to tree roots as a result of compaction.
• Replanting may be needed because of seedling
mortality.
• Planting seedlings during wet, cool periods helps to
improve survival rates.
Urban Development
Dwellings
Suitability: Moderately suited
Management concerns: Slope and a very severe hazard
of erosion for the underlying material
Management measures and considerations:
- Designing structures so that they conform to the natural
slope helps to improve soil performance.
- Grading or land shaping can divert upslope surface
water away from foundations.

F=R
Polk County, North Carolina
""" • Vegetating cleared and graded areas as soon as
possible or constructing silt fences helps to maintain soil
stability and keep sediments onsite.
• Special methods may be needed to control erosion in
bare areas following construction.
No
00
No
MW
Nq
M"
No
am
Septic tank absorption fields
Suitability: Moderately suited
Management concerns: Restricted permeability and slope
Management measures and considerations:
• Increasing the size of the absorption field helps to
improve the performance of the septic tank.
• Installing the distribution lines of septic systems during
dry periods helps to prevent smearing and sealing of
trench walls.
• Installing distribution lines on the contour helps to
improve performance of septic tank absorption fields.
Local roads and streets
Suitability: Moderately suited
Management concerns: Low strength, slope, and a very
severe hazard of erosion for the underlying material
Management measures and considerations: _
• Providing sand and gravel and compacting roadbeds
improve soil strength.
• Constructing roads on the contour and providing
adequate water -control structures, such as culverts, help
to maintain road stability.
• Vegetating cut and fill slopes as soon as possible after
construction helps to stabilize the soil and prevents
excessive erosion.
• Special methods may be needed to control erosion in
bare areas following construction.
Interpretive Groups
Land capability classification: I Ve
Woodland ordination symbol: 7C, based on loblolly pine
"" as the indicator species
MR
MaD2 Madison sandy clay loam, 15 to 25
pe cent slopes, eroded
Setting
Landscape: Piedmont uplands
Landform: Ridges and hill slopes
ow Shape of areas: Irregular
Size of areas: 10 to 600 acres
Composition
ow
Madison soil and similar inclusions: 85 percent
Dissimilar inclusions: 15 percent
51
Typical Profile
Surface layer:
0 to 6 inches —brown sandy clay loam
Subsoil:
6 to 21 inches —red clay
21 to 26 inches —red clay loam
26 to 37 inches —red clay loam
Underlying material.
37 to 65 inches—saprolite consisting of coarse sandy
loam in shades of red, yellow, or brown that has a
high content of mica
Soll Properties and Qualities
Depth class: Very deep
Drainage class: Well drained
Permeability: Moderate
Available water capacity. Moderate
Depth to high water table: Greater than 6 feet
Flooding: None
Shrink -swell potential: Low
Extent of erosion: Moderate
Slope class: Moderately steep
Rock fragments: Less than 0.01 percent surface coverage
Reaction: Moderately acid to very strongly acid in unlimed
areas; ranging to slightly acid in the upper part of the
profile in limed areas
Depth, to bedrock: Greater than 60 inches
Inclusions
Dissimilar inclusions:
• Bethlehem soils that have soft, weathered bedrock at a
depth of less than 40 inches and occur in landform
positions similar to those of the Madison soil
Similar inclusions:
• Soils that are similar to the Madison soil but have a
lower content of mica
• Soils that are similar to the Madison soil but have less
clay in the subsoil
Use and Management
Major Uses: Woodland and pasture
Agricultural Development
Cropland
Suitability. Poorly suited
Potential productivity: Low
Management concerns: Erodibility, equipment use, tilth,
and fertility
Management measures and considerations:
• It is difficult to successfully control erosion and maintain
OR

am
52
No
ow fertility through resource management systems in areas
of this soil.
• Special equipment or planning may be needed to safely
ow plant and harvest crops.
MM
Om
Pasture and hayland
Suitability for pasture: Moderately suited
Suitability for hayland: Poorly suited
Potential productivity: Moderate
Management concerns: Erodibility and equipment use
Management measures and considerations:
• Planting adapted species helps to ensure the production
of high -quality forage and reduce the hazard of erosion.
• Special care is needed in renovating pastures and
establishing seedbeds to prevent further erosion.
- Special equipment or planning may be needed to safely
harvest or maintain forage.
- Fencing livestock away from creeks and streams helps
to prevent the caving of streambanks, sedimentation, and
contamination from animal waste.
wo Woodland
Suitability: Moderately suited
Management concerns: Equipment use, erodibility, and
seedling survival
Management measures and considerations:
- Unsurfaced roads may be impassible during wet periods
because of the high content of clay.
- Logging only during dry periods helps to prevent rutting
and damage to tree roots as a result of compaction.
• Installing broad -based dips, water bars, and culverts
helps to stabilize logging roads, skid trails, and landings.
• Reseeding all disturbed areas with adapted grasses and
legumes helps to prevent erosion.
• Replanting may be needed because of seedling
mortality.
• Planting seedlings during wet, cool periods helps to
,., improve survival rates.
• Establishing a buffer zone of trees and shrubs in areas
adjacent to streams helps to reduce siltation and provides
shade for the water surface.
Urban Development
I Dwellings
Suitability: Poorly suited
Management concerns: Slope and a very severe hazard
of erosion for the underlying material
Management measures and considerations:
- Sites should be selected in areas where slopes are
••least restrictive to construction and equipment use.
• Designing structures so that they conform to the natural
slope helps to improve soil performance.
Vegetating cleared and graded areas as soon as
Soil Survey
possible or constructing silt fences helps to maintain soil
stability and keep sediments onsite.
• Special methods may be needed to control erosion in
bare areas following construction.
Septic tank absorption fields
Suitability: Poorly suited
Management concerns: Restricted permeability and slope
Management measures and considerations:
- Onsite waste disposal systems may require special
design.
- The local Health Department should be contacted for
guidance in developing sanitary facilities.
Local roads and streets
Suitability: Poorly suited
Management concerns: Low strength, slope, and a very
severe hazard of erosion for the underlying material
Management measures and considerations:
- Providing sand and gravel and compacting roadbeds
improve soil strength.
• Constructing roads on the contour and providing
adequate water -control structures, such as culverts, help
to maintain road stability.
• Vegetating cut and fill slopes as soon as possible after
construction helps to stabilize the soil and prevents
excessive erosion.
• Special methods may be needed to control erosion in
bare areas following construction. .
Interpretive Groups
Land capability classification: Vle
Woodland ordination symbol. 7R, based on loblolly pine
as the indicator species
MsB—Masada sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes
Setting
Landscape: Piedmont valleys
Landform: Stream terraces
Shape of areas: Irregular
Size of areas: 6 to 40 acres
Composition
Masada soil and similar inclusions: 95 percent
Dissimilar inclusions: 5 percent
Typical Profile
Surface layer:
0 to 9 inches —brown sandy loam
Subsoil:
9 to 18 inches —strong brown sandy clay loam

no
i
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM D
To be filed only by dischargers of 100% domestic wastewater (< 1 MGD flow)
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
North Carolina NPDES Permit Number I NC00
(if known)
Please print or type
I. Mailing address of applicant/ permittee:
Facility Name CooperRiis
Owner Name CooperRiis
Street Address Highway 108, P. O. Box 416
City Mill Spring
State North Carolina
ZIP Code 28756
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail Address N/A
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Name (If different from above) Same
Facility Contact Person Donald R. Cooper
Street Address or State Road Highway 108, P. O. Box 416
City / Zip CodeMill Spring
County Polk
Telephone Number (828-) 894-5557
4
3. Reason for application:
Expansion/Modification * Existing Unpermitted Discharge
Pon Renewal New Facility X
* Please provide a description of the expansion/modification:
N/A
4. Description of the existing treatment facilities (list all installed components with
capacities):
PER
N/A
Page 1 of 2 Version W9

►"
MR
on
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM D
To be filed only by dischargers of 100% domestic wastewater (< 1 MGD flow)
5. Description of wastewater (check all that apply):
j= of Facility Generating Wastewater
Industrial Number of Employees
Commercial Number of Employees
Residential Number of Homes
School Number of Students/Staff'
Other X
Describe the source(s) of wastewater (example: subdivision, mobile home park, etc.):
Dormitories, Dining Facilities
6. Number of separate wastewater discharge pipes jwastewater outfalls):
One
7. If the facility has multiple discharge outfalls, record the sources) of wastewater for each
outfall:
N/A
S. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact location of each outfall):
Canal Creek / White Oak 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.
Donald R. Cooper
Printed Name of Person Signing
e16'.0-OW4; -eloe 494W
Title
J..S- A C
Signature of Applicant
V0 0t
Date Signed
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6(b)(2) provides that Any person who knowingly makes any false statement representation, or
®' certification in any application, record, report, 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 gully of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $10,000, or by
imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides a punishment by a fine of not more than $10,(M or
imprisonment not mare than 5 years, or both for a similar offense.)
�" Page 2 of 2 Version 09

n
n�
n
n
n
n
17
�9 APPENDIX
7

me
PM
DR(
January 17, 2001
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: CooperRiis
Project No. 20026
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is to state that there is no available adjacent land to the CooperRiis
project site for the purpose of providing a land based sewage disposal system.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Cooper
to Rod? Rock Road, Mack flOUR a«, n. C 26111

January 17, 2001
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: CooperRiis
Project No. 20026
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter serves to certify that I am financially qualified and able to fund
construction of a wastewater treatment facility at CooperRiis for the treatment
of 11,000 gallons per day of donestic sewage.
Sincerely,
A
Donald R. Cooper
400 Rod? Rock Road, 61adc kolo, k G 20111

Re: nitrification systems
Subject: Re: nitrification systems
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:08:48 -0400
From: Joe Pearce <Joe. Pearce@ncmail, net>
Organization: NC DENR DEH OSWW
To: Susan Wilson <susan.a.wilson@ncmail,net>
Susan,
• trench widths and separations for conventional systems are 9' on center three foot
wide.
• Repair area for 100% replacement.
• LPP typically 1 /2 the LTAR but areal loading rate not trench bottom.
• By the way our intern training class (taught three times per year) is now open to the
public, $100 for a 2.5 week course that will teach the answers to all these questions
and also teach soil morphology with hand texturing.
• Families doing fine. Onyx died a few weeks ago. Have a new black dog - named
Pepper,
• You must stop by sometime and meet the rugrat,
• Why don't you go work for Cecil M., I'm sure that would be life fulfilling : )
• Who's your new director?
• Anything new on your side, and by the way I wish someone would have told me
about Bill Mills before I ran into him,
• How's the Vessel Discharge Program: )
Joe Pearce
Susan Wilson wrote:
hope all is well with you and your family. what the heck are you up to?
while you're thinking about what you've been doing for the past several
months....! have a question (of course!),
excuse my ignorance on this, but do you guys require 9 ft. minimum
spacing for nitrification fields. 3' trench width, then 3' from trench
widths? not like 3 ft. center to center? do you required a 1.4 safety
factor (is that common practice).
also, for LPP systems - is it traditional to use 1 /2 of LTAR for LPP
systems? do you know?
can't say I've been up to much of anything. mostly trying to save some
money, so i haven't taken any elaborate vacations this year, work is
OK, but ! do need to figure out what I'd like to do otherwise - just not
sure what that would be! can't somebody just pay me to keep up with my
hobbies????
1 of 2 10116/O1 4:22 PM

CIVIL/ ENVIRONMENTAL / WATER / WASTEWATER
JOHN T. COXEY
CONSULTING ENGINEERING, P.A.
March 2, 2001
Mr. Charles IL Weaver, Jr.
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: CooperRiis, Polk County
Engineering Proposal
and NPDES Application
Project No. 20026
Dear Mr. Weaver:
The Local Government Review form for the referenced project has recently been
returned to me. I have enclosed this form to be included as part of the application sent to
you on February 9, 2001. Please incorporate this into your review.
cc: Don Cooper
JOHN T. COXEY, P.E.
PRESIDENT
53 FOX CHASE RD. WEST
ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28804
Sincerely,
John T. Coxey Consulting Engineering, P. A.
;JO?,T. Coxey, P. E.
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]

Local Government Review Requirements
for the Issuance of New Non -Municipal Domestic Wastewater Discharge Permits
General Statute Overview
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(G) allows input from local governments in the issuance of NPDES Permits for non -
municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) may not act
on an application for a new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facilit) until it has received a written statement from
each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on which the proposed facilit' and its
appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a zoning or subdivision
ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with the ordinance. The
EMC shall not approve a permit application for anv facility which a city or county has determined to be inconsistent with zoning
or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide significance and is in the best
interest of the State.
Instructions to the Applicant
Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant shall request that both the
nearby city and county government complete this form.
The applicant must:
♦ Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the
city and the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
• If either (or both) local government(s) fail(s) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the
certified mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the
application to the NPDES Unit.
♦ As evidence to the Commission that the local government(s) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall
submit a copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to
respond .within the 15-day period.
Instructions to the Local Government.
The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the
proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this form to the applicant
within 15 days of receipt. The form must be signed and notarized.
Name of local government
(City/County)
Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances
are to be located? Yes j_-J No [ j If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes [iJ No [ 1
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the
ordinance? Yes [,-' No [ I —yyy
Date t� — �n ' O) Signature N�rt ;J
(City Manager/County Manager)
State of �� l al-' J Y —, County of�U <_ /
On this (n 74' day of S1Jpersonally appeared before me, the said
name to me known and known to me to be the person
described in and who execlited the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she)
executed the same and being duly sworn by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document
are true.
My Commission expires 3 - ai)U 5 .(Signature of Notary Public"I_�J_9
Notary Public (Official Seal).

CIVIL/ ENVIRONMENTAL / WATER / WASTEWATER
JOHN T. COXEY
CONSULTING ENGINEERING, P.A.
February 9, 2001
Mr, Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: CooperRiis, Polk County
Engineering Proposal
and NPDES Application
Project No. 20026
Dear Mr. Weaver:
Please find enclosed for your review the following documents:
1. Three (3) copies of the Enginee"g Proposal and NPDES Application.
2. Check in the amount of $715.00 as Permit Application Fee.
The local government has not responded within the fifteen (15) days stipulated in
the Local Government Review Requirements, therefore we are enclosing a copy of the
Certified Mail card showing receipt on January 24, 2001. This letter is notarized below
as per requirement.
JOHN T. COXEY, P.E.
PRESIDENT
53 FOX CHASE RD. WEST
ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28804
V1 ' o E .,
F�:3 13 20
J
Po ILITY
rors
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]

Page Two
Mr. Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
Please notify my office after review of this information.
Sincerely,
John T. Coxey Consulting Engineering, P. A.
r \
John T. Coxey, P
JTC/pc
Enclosure
cc: Don Cooper
Barney Wo©datd
STATE OF NORTH CAROLIINA
COUNTY OF BUNCbMBE
I, a Notary Public of the State and County iforesaid, certify
that j 4 o sc►nally appeared before me this day and acknowledged
the execution of the oregohig instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this�day of a `N
2001.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: U A/o 17& 1/ Q ✓
N

8 Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
III Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
M Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to
p
A. Received by IP17� P CCtead!' � B. Date of Delivery I
Q. Signature Agent
0 Address�
D. :a delwery�lad�item 1? 0 Yes
f YES, ef 0 No
AN 2 4 2001
3. Servi iltill 0 Exp! ss a
a[ 0 Express all
ss
0 R gls S r re: �N � E) R R pt f.
R pt for Merchandise
0 1: sure! d Ui;joaD
LD
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) E] yes
2. Article Number (Copy from service label)
2ooa A6L*2a� dw-!rA36 2&-3,4-
PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-10-1789
AS
q'b
LIT Few, R.�,,.Pt i0e
rU (Endo'Sarnew, Ru,td)
O Resirl.Wa D.W.,) F.e
M Er,dorwntRqpu-,edi
MM Total Postage & Fees $ 5q ON
_n
R i I ame.lease CIf) (10 09C.y'Wpleed by made)
rsir ;.N... .BoNM I -5ag
Mot s ... : it 4 ... .. ... — ----- I .. .................. ------------------------
/t'/ef. 0297o2

CooperAiis
May 8, Z001 A Healing Farm
Community
Mr. Charles Weaver
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Discharge Application
CooperRiis
Polk county, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Weaver:
VII-59I1
Epp$%/Z2-
I am Chairman of the Board of CooperRiis, AHealing Farm Community, which is a
501(c)(3) nonprofit Corporation which plans to build a residential environment for persons
suffering from a brain disorder or mental illness. I enclose a brochure and business plan which
hopefully will help you understand our mission more fully. This project is unique to western
North Carolina and represents a positive, private response to the concerns expressed in the recent
study released by the North Carolina Office of the State Auditor about the lack of proper
resources in our communities to deal with mental illness.
On February 9, 2001, our engineer, John T. Coxey consulting Engineering, P.A., submitted a
discharge permit application and Engineering Report on our project for review by your office. As
of this date we are unaware of any action having been taken on this application.
The architectural work has been completed and we are ready to begin construction (three 9,000
sq. ft. buildings) but as you can imagine we hesitate breaking ground without your discharge
permit in place. Also, due to certain IRS regulations which require us to verify that we remain a
"publicly supported organization," it is imperative that we move quickly so we can open and
begin collecting fees needed to meet this test before their deadlines.
We are respectfully requesting that your office conduct your review as expeditiously as possible
and inform us as to the decisions made regarding the project as soon as possible so that we may
proceed accordingly.
If we can be of further assistance or if additional information is required, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Cooper
Chairman or the Board, CooperRiis
dull Spring, North Carolina
Aladinq Addrre.a 400 Rnaritrq Rork Road, Blank Aloaatain, NC 28711 • (828) 625J589 Tax: [phone]
www. Cooperriii.arq

Cooperivis
Healing Farm
Community
The Vision:
CooperRiis will be "A Healing Farm Community," that is, a specialized
residential therapeutic and rehabilitative center for people with mental
Aft illness or brain disorders.
.nk The mission of CooperRiis is to enable its residents to lead fulfilling
lives despite their mental illness or other emotional difficulties.
CooperRiis is being organized with the philosophy that everyone
^ has something of value to add to his or her own rehabilitation
^ and that productive work in a healthy, supportive community
^
can provide an opportunity for healing and growth.
The model upon which CooperRiis will be built has been successfully
^
developed, tested and expanded over the past 80 years at facilities in the Northeast and Midwest.
,^ A "healing farm community" gets its name from the special living environment that is created
when both staff and residents live and work together as a functioning community.
^ The overall goal is to help mentally ill individuals achieve and maintain their highest possible
level of independent living as accomplished through a structured "holistic" environment that
^ integrates four components:
^ • a nurturing intentional community setting
,^ • an integrated work, recreation and arts therapy program
^ • an emphasis on nutrition and exercise
• a psycho -educational program
Residents of CooperRiis will normally be diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizo -affective
^ disorder, mood disorders and/or personality disorders or similar condition.
.\
Aft The Program:
^ CooperRiis will provide its residents with the opportunity to learn the practical lessons of work-
ing with both peers and supervisors in an actual work setting, doing projects critically necessary
^
to the success of the community as a whole. Through these activities, improved self-esteem
becomes possible, reinforced by:
^
1. work preparation training 4. diet discipline
^ 2. psycho -educational instruction 5. exercise habits
^ 3. social skills development 6. treatment compliance
^
^

The development of work habits and social skills are encouraged and facilitated by a process
where residents and staff live, work and play together on a virtual twenty-four hour basis.
Meals are taken in a family -style setting; after -dinner social activities, movies and recreation
are jointly attended and outings help residents deal with socialization on a practical basis.
The work program consists of a variety of activities:
�°► 1. Organic farming and gardening 4. Craft production
2. Food service and kitchen operations 5. Grounds maintenance and housekeeping
elms 3. Office administration 6. Computer skills
/AI, CooperRiis has taken a bold step in expanding the overall dimension of the "healing farm
community" as a rehabilitation process, by appointing a licensed psychiatrist as its initial
�► Executive Director. Additionally, separately funded outcome studies will be conducted as an
ongoing effort to relate long-term results with activities. These new dimensions, not matched
in comparable settings, will make CooperRiis a very special place with new potential.
�► w w w
The need for facilities to serve the special requirements of the mentally ill has never been more
acute. Between 1955 and 1994, the number of patients cared for in public psychiatric facilities in
the U.S. dropped 86%, fiom an annual level of 500,000 in 1955 to 72,000 in 1994. This dramatic
change has been attributed to two trends:
AMN 1. De -institutionalization: The introduction of psychotropic medications during
AWN the past half century has led to an almost complete reversal in the policies and practices
that influence the treatment of mental illness. This use of medication as the major
treatment of choice has altered the role that supervised and supportive institutions play
in working with people with brain disorders.
2. Managed Care. In the last decade, providers of insurance plans have drastically
40" reduced the utilization of hospitalization and related services in order to reduce
short-term costs.
These reductions in supervised care have not been adequately matched by increases in
alternatives. While there has been some development of group homes and supervised apartment
programs, the capacities of such service fall far short of matching the lost inpatient beds, or
the need for them. CooperRiis, with its community -based healing approach, will directly address
this important need in a way that will reach over 100 residents each year, while providing a
modern model for others to follow.
w
elms
/IM, CooperRiis will serve most directly the needs of over 50 million residents in the Southeastern
elv*� United States where no facility of this kind exists. According to the National Association for
Mental Illness (NAMI), 2% of the general population suffers from brain disorders, including
41IN 10% who have a severity level necessitating such special care. This means that over 100,000
AM, individuals will be direct candidates for the CooperRiis services.
ii

The resident population for CooperRiis will generally come either directly from a psychiatric
hospital or as a referral from physicians, psychologists, family members or governmental
agencies. It is expected that the average stay at CooperRiis will be approximately six months
when hopefully the resident can graduate to a less structured but still supervised apartment
setting which initially will be in Asheville.
Environment:
CooperRiis is located on an 80-acre farm near Columbus, NC, about 45 miles southeast of
Asheville. The property currently has a large home that will be converted into the administrative
and dining center, two smaller homes, two barns and maintenance buildings.
New construction, which will consist of three residential buildings, is scheduled to begin early in
2001. These buildings will include 27,000 square feet and will provide the major source of on -site
residential housing for 36 clients and approximately half of the 40 staff and families.
Through its Graduate Program, CooperRiis will also own and operate a series of housing and
apartment living options in surrounding cities such as Asheville, NC, for residents who have
completed the residential program. Each of the graduate living options will have full-time live-in
supervisory and counselor personnel who can provide the level of care necessary for each resident.
The management team will consist of highly qualified professionals led by an Executive Director
who is a licensed psychiatrist and who has been in private practice in North Carolina for twelve
years. The Director of Development and Marketing is a former college professor in graduate
business studies. The Director of Farm Operations and Maintenance is a professional farmer
�►, who most recently managed his own company that provided a' wide range of consulting and
?SIN management services to the farming community. Ultimately, staff will also include a psychiatric
nurse, social worker, food service and housekeeping managers, admissions director, and a craft,
exercise and recreation supervisor. Independent consulting psychiatrists will be available on a
private pay basis. Support staff will consist of approximately 30 individuals, on both a paid and
volunteer basis. The ratio of staff to residents will exceed 1 to 1.
CooperRiis will operate as a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable corporation. The start-up funding
will require $6,500,000, of which $1,300,000 has been raised. These funds have been used to
purchase the 80-acre site upon which CooperRiis will be built. A portion of the original capital
will be set aside for the beginnings of an endowment and/or scholarship fund.
The annual budget of $1.5 million will be met through the collection of fees from residents
and their families, grants from private and public foundations, and charitable gifts from capital,
scholarship and annual fund campaigns.
iii

Fees for the services provided at CooperRiis will be structured on a need -based scale from $0 to
^ $175 per day per person. The specific daily charge for each individual will be determined based
on the resident's ability to pay and the availability of scholarship funds. It is expected that 50%
^ of residents will receive some form of scholarship, which will be funded in part from $250,000
^ raised annually for this purpose. The ultimate goal is to have an endowment of sufficient size to
,^ allow admitting residents on a completely need -blind basis.
People with a brain disorders, like those with physical disabilities, want and deserve a chance to
live without the daily reminders that they are "different." By the rebuilding of self-esteem and
the practical training to live more independently, those with brain disorders can become more
independent, contributing members of the larger community.
CooperRiis hopes to give them the tools to do just that!
ZL'

S.
CooPerRiis
Healing Farm
Community
CooperRiis is being established as a Residential Rehabilitation Facility for the thousands of
�'► persons with brain disorders or mental illness living across North Carolina and the Southeast.
The clients served by CooperRiis will usually have recently completed in patient hospital care and
will be referred to CooperRiis because of ongoing difficulty in living and working independently.
�1 Section
, One:
-' The Vision
Several years ago the founders of CooperRiis set into motion the establishment of a
residential community that will serve the living and rehabilitation needs of those people
who suffer from various forms of mental illness and emotional conditions.
The Idea Was To...
...provide persons with persistent brain disorders/mental illnesses a farm -based therapeutic
community to encourage long-term resolution and rehabilitation, and offer a viable option for
Aim, the families of the mentally ill who are desperately seeking help and relief from the stress
"AN associated with having a family member who suffers from a brain disorder.
AIN, The expectation of the economic validity and sustainability of CooperRiis is based on the success
and experience of three comparable facilities located in Massachusetts, Vermont and Michigan.
The Southeast offers nothing that compares with the nature and scope of these facilities.
The overall goal of CooperRiis is to enable mentally ill individuals to achieve and maintain
their highest possible level of independent living and to dramatically improve their prospects
for sustained and meaningful work. CooperRiis will accomplish its goal through a structured
�+ "holistic" environment that combines four integrated components:
A", • a nurturing, intentional community setting that is believed to be far more conducive to
healing than the more institutionalized patient -staff structure
• an integrated work, recreation and arts therapy program that promotes
overall lifestyle enhancement
• an emphasis on nutrition and exercise which studies show can significantly
add to the healing process
�, • a psycho -educational program that addresses directly those issues associated
with living successfully with their particular disorder
CooperRiis will serve up to 36 residents at any given time, with a total of approximately
100 residents served annually. The average length of stay will be approximately six months.
14,
I
A

ink
The opening and development of the facility is planned in three phases:
Ak Phase One will accommodate 12 residents: Jan. -June 2002
"' Phase Two will accommodate 24 residents: July -Dec. 2002
"' Phase Three will accommodate 36 residents: Beginning Jan. 2003
Aft
CooperRiis, Inc. is a non-profit corporation and is intended to operate exclusively for charitable
purposes as described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The financial
sustainability of CooperRiis is based on a realistic combination of three sources of revenue:
• fees paid by residents (need -based sliding scale)
• grants from private and public foundations
• charitable gifts from capital and annual fund campaigns
The Mission
To become a premiere nonrestrictive residential community
�+ for people suffering from mental illness or brain disorders.
The community structure inherent in the CooperRiis model will provide a nurturing environment
for those seeking a place where they can learn to live and work independently, and to progress
Oak toward improved self-esteem and functionality. The ongoing task will be to maintain an
Aft environment where people who are mentally and emotionally in need can, along with the staff
and their families, live and work together in an atmosphere of trust, respect, and enjoyment
Ink The overall purpose of CooperRiis is to enable its residents to lead fulfilling lives despite their
mental illness or other emotional difficulties. While CooperRiis is being built by following
proven models, it is will achieve its Mission while adding three new dimensions:
• A psychiatrist will be the Executive Director of CooperRiis, bringing an innovative,
modern approach to the rehabilitative and counseling process.
• Clients will be taught about the importance of diet, nutrition and exercise to their
overall well-being.
Outcome studies geared to monitoring and measuring the long-term impact of
CooperRiis programs will be separately funded and developed.
2

'a'' The Need
As the 21st century begins, both the United States as a whole and North Carolina in particular
face substantially diminished resources for persons with mental illnesses in need of 24-hour care.
Two important events have contributed to this trend:
1. De -institutionalization: Beginning in the 1950s, the development of psychotropic
medications which permit many persons with serious illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar
disorder, to be largely free of psychotic symptoms led to a wholesale de -institutionalization of
consumers who had been served in (primarily public) psychiatric hospitals.
• In one generation, from 1955 (the year Thorazine began to be widely used) to 1994,
the population served in all U.S. public (state and local) psychiatric institutions
dropped from over 500,000 to about 72,000.
42S • In North Carolina the decline was comparable: from 9,960 at the end of 1955
to 2,203 at the end of 1994.
• This trend continues. For North Carolina's psychiatric hospitals, the average daily
census has declined fiom 2,123 in the 1993-94 fiscal year to 1,855 in 1998-99.
Oaks 2. Managed Care. A second trend, begun in the 1990s, has thus far affected the private
sector rather than the public. Providers of private health insurance plans have begun to impose
a number of managed care techniques to limit utilization of psychiatric and other medical
services so as to reduce costs. These include requirements that hospital stays be pre -approved
by managed care company staff who are often instructed to authorize only brief stays.
• Prior to the managed care era, inpatient psychiatric services in private hospitals —
�'' although relatively small in comparison to public hospitals — grew steadily from 1970 to
1990. For the United States as a whole, the number rose from 36,689 to 98,350 total
beds, or a per -capita increase from 18.4 beds per 100,000 population to 40.3.
�, • As more and more insurance plans began to adopt managed care techniques, however,
both the number and the rate began to drop: in 1994 the total bed count for the United
States had declined to 95,347, or 36.8 per 100,000 population.
flak
,� • In North Carolina, on a per -capita basis, the total number of beds available in private
psychiatric facilities and general hospitals with psychiatric units has declined 18%,
from 36.3 per 100,000 in 1990 to 29.8 in 2000. In Buncombe County (the county
�+ including the city of Asheville which is the closest relatively large city to CooperRiis),
the number of beds decreased in absolute terms from 219 to 49 over this same period.
4&' These reductions in the nation's store of inpatient psychiatric services have not been adequately
4ft` matched by increases in alternatives. The Federal Community Mental Health Act of 1963 led to
osb, the development of public community mental health centers, which in turn have sponsored the
Aft� development of some group homes and supervised apartment programs. But no authority has
claimed that the capacities of such community -based residential service equals the lost inpatient
IM' beds, or the need for them. A recent study by the Office of the State Auditor in North Carolina
011M, confirms this.
A•,

AWN The Executive Di ector of the North Carolina chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally
,�•, Ill (NAMI-North arolina) states that he has never found a private insurance company or
managed care firm which would pay for residential services outside of a JCAHO-accredited
hospital. The ironic result is that even for a family with financial capacity who is willing to pay
for residential services for its family member with mental illness, there are few providers in the
marketplace and none in the Southeast.
This is the niche that CooperRiis will target, along with the potential of serving people funded
with scholarship funds.
Ask
,N, Resident Population Served
AMIN
CooperRiis will house a maximum of 36 residents.
ANN The residents will be persons who have had their lives
disrupted or for the most part been recently hospitalized'
for their condition. Each resident must demonstrate that he or she
is prepared to seek rehabilitation and must complete successfully an initial two
A' week trial period. Residents are expected to come from three referral sources
Amos including, as a rough estimate, 60% from hospitals, 25% from independent
41ft, psychiatrists and other physicians and 15% directly from families.
ANN
Residents usually will have needed psychiatric hospitalization, will have persistent
Aft, mental illness and will:
• be diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizo -affective disorder, mood disorders,
and/or personality disorders or similar condition,
Owl • at times may have had secondary problems with alcohol and illegal drug abuse,
ffts
• be medication or treatment compliant,
• decide voluntarily to become residents,
• not be suicidal or harmful toward others (as determined by medical records
and interviews) and
AMIN • be at least 18 years of age.
Five:fININ
Section
Program Description: Therapeutic, Living, and Work Programs
The philosophy underlying the program at CooperRiis is founded
on two fundamental beliefs:
• that everyone has something of value to add to his or her own rehabilitation and to
the community in which he or she lives and
• that productive work, psycho -educational support, healthy living and a supportive
community can be combined to provide an opportunity for healing and growth.
� 4

'MN CooperRiis will prepare residents to develop normal social relations through its nature as a
Avb� 4 "regular place to live" rather than as an institution. The focus of life will not be on illness but
AIN rather on the tasks of living together and making the entire community work in harmony with
each other, with the farm and with nature. Regardless of a resident's diagnosis and history of
struggle, each resident will participate in something larger than himself or herself.
Every aspect of the program will focus on enabling residents to achieve and maintain their
highest levels of functioning and independence. The six -component program (described in the
following paragraphs) provides structure, work and social opportunities, which will enable
residents to re-engage in life's normal activities.
A core number of staff (approximately 50%) and their families will live full-time at CooperRiis
to form a community on the farm and to lend the skills necessary to provide significant
rehabilitative opportunities for its residents. Staff roles include social work, residential
support, recreationpsycho-therapeutic su ort ardenin food service health and exercise
pp � support, gardening,
activities, arts, and even child care for the children of staff members.
AMIN
From both the rehabilitative and therapeutic perspective, CooperRiis is considered to be a
"healing farm" community. A "healing farm" is a place where its residents can approach work,
AMN personal relationships and self -care as manageable challenges rather than set-ups for failure.
ANN As residents assimilate into the community, they gain inner strength and skills necessary to
41I► take greater responsibility for their own well-being.
"Will" Working, living, celebration and play come to add crucial dimensions to the therapeutic benefits
^� when they evolve out of the natural flow of living and working activities. Counseling, 12-step
programs and. medication education are integrated as much as possible into the fabric of
AMI► community life. It is the aim of a "healing farm community" to make it generally difficult to
distinguish between staff and residents. A key element to quality and successful rehabilitation
is to make as few distinctions as possible.
1. Work:
The work program focuses on developing the interrelated perspectives of coping, self-esteem,
pre -employment preparation and social skills that are vital to entering into the workplace. The
�+ work program consists of each resident being assigned to a four to eight member work -team made
up of staff, volunteers and clients, supervised by a full-time CooperRiis staff leader. The work is
not "make work" but is critical to the well-being of the community. It may, as an example, be in
5

,M the food service area where the work -team performs the meal preparation for the entire
community of 70 to 100 people. Through work, residents will also be woven into the operations
^ of farming and animals, cleaning, maintenance, recreation, the arts program and office activities.
^
.� Each resident is expected to:
^ • get to his or her job on time,
ld., • complete specific tasks,
^ • work effectively with other residents and
• maintain acceptable hygiene standards
^
^, The staff members who lead each team will receive ongoing
training in how to work with people who suffer from mental
illness. Clients will do what they can to contribute but in all
^ cases they will feel the pride of what was accomplished by
all. The work program is designed so residents have the
.� opportunity to rotate through different programs.
The work programs include:
^
^
/M%
Organic farming and gardening: The farming
operation will specialize in growing a wide assortment of organic food and edible flowers.
The goal is to be capable of providing much of the food for the entire community and to
market to surrounding areas. The organic farming unit will also provide an excellent
^ vehicle for interaction with neighboring residents and communities
^ Animal care: The care of horses and other farm animals will be an integrated part of
both the farming and therapy components. Animal and farming activities have long been
recognized for their therapeutic value.
Food service: Preparing meals for up to 100 people will allow for extensive work
experience that is satisfying and which will provide vocational training opportunities in
^ cooking, baking, food combining and nutrition.
^ Office administration: Residents will be able to work in a variety of office and
,^ administrative activities that will include a focus on the development of computer skills.
^ Arts and Crafts: In keeping with the strong influence of crafts in Western North Carolina,
^ it is anticipated that signature products will be produced for sale to the public.
^ 2. Physco-education therapy:
While living at CooperRiis, the residents will attend counseling groups that are specific to their
diagnosis or directed at problems they are experiencing. Examples are relapse prevention groups
^ for residents who have schizophrenia, psycho -educational groups for those with bipolar disorder,
^ cognitive/behavioral groups for those who have experienced depression and coping skills training
.� groups for those with personality disorders. The social worker will provide liaison with family
,^ members and will have family sessions as indicated. There will also be a multi -family group on a
monthly basis for families that are able to attend.
^
6

Awk
3. Medical services:
^ There is 24-hour access to emergency medical and psychiatric care at four area hospitals.
.� A full-time psychiatric nurse (RN) will be on staff.
4. Arts and recreation:
The arts/craft and recreation programs will engage
residents in a variety of activities that will encourage
their developmental progress and nurture their creative
capabilities, by providing them with valuable education
and everyday living experiences.
The arts and recreation activities exemplify the "holistic"
approach at CooperRiis and its importance is illustrated by
the senior staff position dedicated to this effort. Since the
Asheville area is known nationally for its fine arts and
crafts, a wide variety of local artists are available to conduct
workshops and classes in such areas as ceramics, painting,
weaving and pottery. It is also intended that people in the
surrounding area be invited to join classes adding important
social and community integration elements.
Activities such as movies, trips, outdoor projects, dances
and all other scheduled recreation will also be organized
as part of this component.
5. Health and Nutrition:
y Along with following the body of evidence that demonstrates that work has a positive therapeutic
^
effect, the CooperRiis program is also structured around the increasing amount of literature
that supports the use of a vegetarian diet and exercise as an integral part of a patient's overall
Ak well-being. The work program will grow much of the vegetables for the community and these
gardening activities will focus on organically grown produce to support a vegetarian menu.
Meat and other non -vegetarian foods will be provided as options. Additionally, residents will
participate in a daily stretching, walking and exercise routine (including weight training) when
^ they are willing and capable.
^
6. Residential living:
Care has been taken to make the activities of daily living as much like a home environment as
,.% possible. Residents will live in three newly constructed facilities with each housing 12 residents,
^ four single full-time staff advisors and one couple with his/her family. (Approximately half of
the staff will reside 24 hours a day at CooperRiis.) Each residential building will be designed
^ with large common areas for social living and group activities. Meals will be taken as a
A% community in a large dining room located in the main house building. Each resident will have
y a private room and bath.
^ The "typical" day begins with stretching, light exercise or a morning walk, followed by
^ breakfast. The residents then join their respective work groups to complete the morning
... work portion of the day. After lunch, individual or core group meetings with respective
k advisors are the norm. The afternoon part of the work program will then resume until
around 4 p.m. Evenings and weekends are usually spent with arts, crafts and recreational

,. activities. Special times will be scheduled for community meetings, group psycho -
Oft education therapy sessions and private meetings with staff reviewing progress, or
simply for rest.
The residence program will incorporate two very special components that are designed to add
to the continuum of care and growth that most other programs for mental illnesses do not
provide ... a Respite Program and a Graduate Program:
Respite Program This is a special program to give former residents a place to return
,.� after they leave the regular CooperRiis program. Six additional beds at CooperRiis will be
set aside for former residents to return for short stays. This will allow them to return to a
safe and familiar setting and take part in the activities and shared living experiences that
they had come to know during their stay at CooperRiis.
Graduate Program: CooperRiis is committed to meet the needs of residents as they
transition from the regular residential program into a more independent living and working
setting. By the start of Phase Three in 2003, CooperRiis will either own or lease rental
apartments (initially in Asheville and hopefully expanding to other surrounding cities.)
.�
These apartments will offer single living accommodations for residents as they prepare
for and begin a life of independent living and working. Unlike CooperRiis where a staff
to client ratio of more than 1 to 1 is needed, these apartments will have one full-time
residence supervisor living at each such property for about every ten residents, for a much
.�,
more economical staff to client ratio of 1 to 10.
/\
10%
E:3

..
Section Six:
,4 Environment
CooperRiis is located on 80 beautifully cared for rolling acres in the
A► mountains of Western North Carolina. The site is forty-five miles southeast of
Asheville, a metropolitan area of approximately 150,000 population.
^ Current facilities: All existing facilities will be renovated for alternative uses prior to the
�► CooperRiis opening in January 2002.
Ask
• The most significant structure is a main house consisting of 5,300 square feet of space.
^ This building will be renovated, converted and expanded to 9,000 square feet for
low
administrative offices, group meeting areas, dining
.�
hall and commercial kitchen.
• Two additional houses on the property
will be remodeled as full-time family staff housing.
^
• One of the two existing barns will be converted
for recreation and crafts/arts programs. The
other will be upgraded and prepared for animal care.
• The existing storage/maintenance buildings will be
upgraded into more efficient maintenance, equipment
Ak
and tractor storage space.
.lk
• The existing tennis court and lake will be upgraded
,^
for recreational use and for swimming, boating and
fish production.
^
.. Future facilities: New construction is planned to start in early 2001.
^
• Three residential housing units will be constructed. Each will consist of approximately
^ 9,000 square feet of living, meeting and common space. The twelve individual client
^ quarters in each unit will include furnished private rooms with a full private bath.
^ Four staff in each unit will have accommodations similar to the clients while one staff
member and his/her family will have a two -bedroom apartment with a private kitchen
and living area. Two additional bedrooms in each building will be used for the
^ Respite Program.
^
,,� • Several greenhouses and cold frames are scheduled to be constructed to allow for
the year round production of vegetables.
Aft • Plans are currently underway to either lease or purchase a small apartment building
,^ in the Asheville area to house the Graduate Program. It is expected that there will be
^
eight to twelve individual apartments where residents can transition from the
CooperRiis residential program into a more independent living and working environment.
^
.►
9
^

,A� Section Seven:
Organizational Structure, Management, and Staffing
Don Cooper, Chairman, and Lisbeth Riis Cooper, Vice Chairperson, will head the Board of
Directors. Mr. Cooper, an actuary, and his wife Lisbeth, a former internship counselor and
instructor, have been active with numerous philanthropic activities. They have a daughter
who suffers with Borderline Personality Disorder. The Board will include up to 20 members
representing the mental health and psychiatric community, the business and financial
community and residents of the Southeast.
'TRO► A management team is being assembled to provide the creative and dedicated administrative
,ft, leadership that will be required.
Executive Director
Aor,, The Executive Director will be responsible for supervision of program development, personnel
and the budgetary process. He/she will implement policy decisions made by the Board and will
'`` liaison with the board. Program development will involve the selection of therapeutic and recre-
ational activities and the development of work programs. The Executive Director will facilitate
the development of a contract with a consulting psychiatrist. He/she will supervise the 8 other
senior staff members and through them, 25 support staff and 5 (full-time equivalent) volunteers.
ealls Dr. Stephen Buie, M.D. has agreed to be the first Executive Director. Steve is a founder
of The Pisgah Institute for Psychotherapy and Education where he maintains a private
Alft� practice with an inpatient caseload at Park Ridge Hospital, while serving as medical
1101� director of the Women's Program. Formerly, he was Medical Director at Highland
,IMN Hospital in Asheville. Steve is a member of several professional organizations and
ANN has numerous published papers.
'A' Director of Development and Marketing
eMN The Director of Development and Marketing will design and implement the fund-raising plan
elms for capital campaigns and annual fund-raising for scholarship and budget support. This will
include an annual fund-raising drive, individual fund-raising events, contacting foundations,
soliciting grants and working with individual philanthropists. This position will also be
responsible for the development and implementation of a client marketing plan. Marketing will
target professional groups, hospitals, individual clinicians and consumer groups.
Professor Ronald Basini has agreed to be our first Director of Development and
Marketing. Ron is a retired tenured professor of marketing and strategic planning at
Queens College in Charlotte, NC. He is also the former CEO of several medical
information management companies.
Director of Admissions
The Director of Admissions will screen all applicants for their clinical appropriateness for
participating in this program. He/she will respond to referrals by obtaining past medical records,
contacting treating clinicians (both past and present) and working with families to clarify their
�►, supporting role (both emotionally and financially). He/she will arrange for visits by prospective
residents and their families. The Director of Admissions will recommend to the Executive
Director which prospective residents should receive a scholarship supported discounted daily rate.
10

,^ Director of Farm Operations and Maintenance
.. The Director of Farm Operations and Maintenance
will oversee the gardening, greenhouse, aqua -
culture and animal husbandry activities. He/She
A^
will also supervise the ongoing maintenance of the
interior and exterior of all buildings on the property
and grounds. He/She will also provide for mainte-
nance of machinery and tools and will perform
repairs within the capability of the staff. He/She
will arrange for repairs that require off -site work.
He/She will develop an overall land -use plan and
will present that plan to the Board on an annual basis.
Implementation of the plan will proceed
with the Board's approval under this director's supervision. He/She will supervise the staff and
"^ residents assigned to farm operations and will provide for a safe working environment that is
.� conducive to the mission of CooperRiis. The Director of Farm Operations and Maintenance will
supervise 12 staff and up to 15 clients.
�► Lance Flournoy has agreed to be our first Director of Farm Operations and Maintenance.
Lance has had a wide range of practical experience with farming, pasture management,
hay production, farm waste management and animal care, including the management of a
boarding stable with 52 horses. He has been foreman of a home construction company and
'+ has experience with the operation of heavy grading equipment. Most recently, he has
owned and managed an independent farm servicing company.
Director of Housekeeping
The Director of Housekeeping will be responsible for maintaining a clean living environment.
While each resident will be responsible for keeping their own room in order, support will be
^ needed to be sure bathrooms and private spaces are maintained properly. Also, common areas
.ft will need regular attention so they remain healthy at all times. Laundry services will be
^ provided for regular bedding and towel changes. Services will also include supervision of
residents washing, drying and ironing of their personal clothing. This director will supervise
staff that provides housekeeping services to all buildings on the property with the exception
As of the greenhouses and barns, which will be the responsibility of the farm staff. The Director
% of Housekeeping will supervise 5 staff and up to 5 clients.
Director of Therapeutic Activities
�► The Director of Therapeutic Activities will develop the programs that involve arts and crafts
that might include but not be limited to ceramics, fiber arts, woodworking, sewing, jewelry and
.� paper making. He/she will arrange for local artisans to provide teaching and supervision on a
contractual basis. This director will also develop a recreation schedule including evening
activities and outings (hiking, rafting, camping, etc.). He/she will be responsible for hiring staff
with a variety of skills and talents that can provide a range of opportunities in these areas for
A% the residents. The Director of Therapeutic Activities will supervise 5 staff and up to 5 clients.
^ Director of Food Services
The Director of Food Services will be a chef who can supervise the preparation of food for the
^ community. The meals will be primarily vegetarian with meat options. He/she will supervise
^ staff and residents in food selection and preparation and will provide opportunities for residents
.� to learn the skills involved in various aspects of food preparation. This director will work with
^ the Director of Farm Operations and Maintenance to maximize the use of food produced on -site.
The Director of Food Services will supervise 8 staff and up to 10 clients.
..
0-A
11

..
Social Worker
.► The Social Worker will serve as a liaison between the residents'
,•t families, the residents themselves and the CooperRiis program.
He/she will assist in setting individual goals and developing
Aw� treatment plans for the residents both during and after their
^% stays at CooperRiis. He/she will also lead psycho -educational
.� groups directed toward relapse prevention; improving cognitive
skills; acquiring better emotion regulation; and improving
interpersonal and distress tolerance skills. The social worker
'k will work closely with the outside psychiatrists who are treating
clients on a private pay basis.
Psychiatric Nurse
The Psychiatric Nurse will assist residents in taking medications as prescribed. He/she will
lead a medication education group and will also lead psycho -educational groups. The nurse will
Oft provide first aid as indicated and will recommend when a resident should be referred for more
advanced medical care. The psychiatric nurse will also support the work of outside psychiatrists.
The thirty support staff and volunteers, referred to above, will be hired and trained to
fulfill various functions at CooperRiis, reporting to the above listed senior staff positions.
Background checks and interviews will be an important part of this hiring process.
.^Section
Financial Plan and Projections
Ink Pro -Forma Statements. Methods and Assumptions
CooperRiis will be developed to follow many of the practices proven to be successful by three
similar communities: Spring Lake Ranch in Vermont, Gould Farm in Massachusetts and Rose
Hill in Michigan. Visits and contacts with individuals involved with these facilities have allowed
Aft the accumulation of detailed information, much of which is financial in nature.
For this reason the following budget for CooperRiis is presented with confidence that the
A% assumptions are reasonable. While some assumptions are tailored to the specifics of Western
Ink North Carolina, many business assumptions track closely those of these three similar
organizations. The following differences, however, should be noted:
1. CooperRiis will focus on serving the greater Southeast region of the United States
., where no facilities of this type exist. This is similar to Rose Hill which serves the Midwest but
different from Gould and Spring Lake which serve the more competitive Northeast, where
several such organizations exist. For this reason it is expected that the CooperRiis market will
experience the relatively high demand experienced by Rose Hill.
2. CooperRiis will serve clients with similar disorders using the same programming that
has a focus on work teams, farm atmosphere and animal care. However, a greater emphasis will
be placed on lifestyle improvement using regular supervised exercise and a more vegetarian diet.
12
,%

AMk
3. From the very outset, CooperRiis will be conducting a major capital campaign followed
with annual fund-raising to support operations as well as to provide for scholarship funds. Fund-
raising activities will differ from the other organizations which in general (except for Rose Hill)
have only recently emerged. The hope would be that an Endowment can be raised to make
.� admissions totally need -blind within five years.
4. While we anticipate the demand in North Carolina to be large, we are planning a
marketing campaign to educate hospitals, doctors, psychologists and regional mental health
� organizations throughout the Southeast, about our plans and services.
Financial Earnings Presentation
(See Exhibit 1 - Pro -Forma Operating Statement)
A% A ten-year financial projection is given which begins after opening on 1/l/02. Between now and
1/l/02, a major portion of the construction will be completed, agricultural fields and gardens will
be prepared, staff will be hired and trained, and various marketing and fund-raising activities
will be undertaken. The financial aspects of these start-up activities are shown in the "Start-up
Aft Period" column of the projections. No inflation assumption was used in the projections as it is
expected that revenues can be increased in accordance with any inflationary effects on expenses.
.►
,f, Start -Up Period:
"'k During the start-up period, $6,500,000 will be raised, of which $1,300,000 has been committed at
,^ this time. These funds will be used to purchase the 80-acre site and existing buildings located in
Polk County, NC, build residential buildings for all clients and about half of the expected staff, do
required maintenance on existing buildings, purchase equipment, furniture and vehicles and fund
'" the expected start-up deficits. It is anticipated that some monies will be left to also fund a begin -
Aft ning endowment and/or scholarship fund. See Exhibit 2 for details of this initial capital plan.
.Ok
Ten -Year Projection (Beginning 1/1/02):
Revenues:
The plan anticipates an initial daily -average
service fee of $130 with 90% utilization of beds
available. This includes Social Security funding
of $17 per day, which will be available from most
clients. Most funding will come from clients'
families paying from their own resources but it is
expected that contributed scholarship money of
15% of total fee income will be needed each year
to achieve this result. Average fees are projected
to grow 5% per year (after the first two years) for a total of 3 years to $150 at which time they
will be held level. This pattern anticipates that the value of marketing and getting established
will provide some delayed benefits. The initial average service fee of $130 will result from using a
sliding fee schedule, based on the financial capacity of each client's family, beginning with $175
per day. No government funding is anticipated beyond those specifically mentioned.
A% The 18 client assumption during the first year is a mix of 12 during the first six months and
AM* 24 during the second six months. The ultimate capacity of 36 clients is similar to all three
Oak compared organizations where this number represents scale and desired "community" dynamics.
.� Craft -related products for sale will be produced in keeping with the craft heritage of Western
North Carolina and following the traditions of the other organizations (such as sales of maple
", 13

AN
syrup in Massachusetts and Vermont). This will be a minor source of revenue, as the therapeutic
nature of such activities is the more important purpose.
Medicare payments for conducting psychiatric group sessions are projected at $20 per session
per client per week, in accordance with current rules. It is expected that all clients will attend
these sessions weekly.
Investment earnings are conservatively projected to be zero even though it is projected that cash
balances will accumulate. The reason for this is that as cash flow becomes predictable, it is
hoped that excess cash can be used to make admissions more and more "need -blind," using
scholarships to fill the gaps.
Expenses:
Salary and benefit costs for paid staff make up over 65% of the expected total expenses. Staff
will be comprised of an Executive Director, 8 senior staff, 25 junior support staff and at least 5
volunteers (on a full-time equivalent basis). The projection assumes the salary structure detailed
in Exhibit 3 with a benefit and tax cost of 35% of salary. Approximately half of the staff will be
living without charge at CooperRiis and all the staff will be provided meals. The ratio of total
staff to clients, which exceeds 1 to 1, is similar to the other organizations.
Many volunteers will be utilized during the start-up period (at no expense to CooperRiis) to pre-
AWD' pare the community programs, raise money and market the planned services. Additionally, some
� of the identified future staff will be working during this period on a part-time paid basis and pro-
vision for these costs are included.
�► Utility costs are estimated based on comparisons to the other organizations, adjusted for the fact
that the less severe winters in NC will be offset in part by the need for summer air conditioning.
Food costs are projected under the assumption that much will be grown at CooperRiis and meat
will be de-emphasized. While food costs at Gould Farm and Spring Lake Ranch are as much as
15% lower, we assumed that our costs would average $5.00 per day per person for an average of
75 people per day when at capacity.
Insurance costs are based on quotes currently in hand and on levels experienced by the other
organizations.
Psychiatric services, to the extent they are used by clients with outside sources, will be billed
directly to the clients.
Taxes in lieu o:D represents payments to Mill Spring or Polk County (where CooperRiis is
located) of the annual moneys that will be lost from their property tax base as a result of the
nonprofit exemption. This is done in the spirit of community service and a desire to contribute
to their many needs.
Programming materials refer to the supplies, equipment and expenses which will be needed
for recreation, crafts, outings and all other non -work -related activities. These activities will be
scheduled to provide, to the extent client energy levels will allow, a fulfilling recreational element
to the CooperRiis experience.
Maintenance materials refer to the normal costs of keeping old and new buildings and equipment
working and attractive. Costs were estimated with reference to the other organizations, adjusted
downward for the fact that many buildings will be relatively new over the projection period.
Start-up maintenance for the existing buildings is provided for in the Capital Budget.
14
Oft,

Office materials will cover internal operations and will support strong communication and
relations with clients' families and referral sources. (See Marketing and Development for
provision for the cost of materials associated with those activities.)
Telephone costs were conservatively projected, recognizing that we intend to provide broad
Internet access for clients and staff, and to have good fax, phone and cellular coverage.
Gasoline costs anticipate the servicing of a truck, two vans and a tractor. Providing transporta-
tion for clients (who will not have personal cars) for town visits and meetings will be done on a
eMN scheduled basis.
eNI' Household supplies were drawn from the experience of the other organizations.
ANN Outside accounting and legal fees are built on the assumption that staff will do billing, keep
accounting records and prepare financial statements and management reports. Outside
�►, resources will be needed for audit and federal and state fillings. Special legal and accounting
needs will be obtained on a consulting basis.
Travel/Dues/Meetings/Fees anticipate that CooperRiis will be a part of the mental health services
community and that staff will benefit from attendance at conferences and other educational
opportunities in this field. (See Marketing and Development for the variable expenses associated
with those activities.)
Marketing and Development variable costs anticipate an aggressive effort from the very
beginning to inform hospitals, doctors, psychiatrists and services, that support families of the
mentally ill, about our program and value. We also will be working to raise initial capital and
build sources of informed annual giving for operational and scholarship needs. Both foundations
and individuals will be solicited to become a part of the CooperRiis support group. Budgeted costs
anticipate travel, development of illustrative printed items and videos, display materials for
booths at conventions and some broad -based mailing activities.
14^ Uncollectible revenue cost projections anticipate that we can manage this item to the
?ahk approximate 1.5% of billings experienced by the other organizations.
Interest expense is zero since no debt requirements are anticipated.
.Other items are intended to provide a hedge to the financial plan and are set at 5% of expenses.
NET CASH FLOW for each year is before depreciation.
Depreciation is on a straight line basis using 40 years for new buildings, 20 years for old
buildings and improvements, 10 years for furnishings, 3 years for major equipment with no
depreciation used for land, roads and walkways. Repairs or minor purchases such as saddles,
�animals and miscellaneous items are written off at time of purchase. See Exhibit 4 for
Schedule of Depreciation.
AN, Financial Balance Sheet (See Exhibit 1A - Pro -Forma Balance Sheet)
'm' Accounts Receivable is projected at 7.5% of Service Fees, which is the long time average from
/SON one of the other communities.
Current Liabilities are projected at 2.3% of 'Ibtal Expenses which is the long time average from
one of the other communities.
15

Exhibit 1 - Pro -Forma Operating Statemelnt
12/12/00
REVENUE
Service Fees - Public and Private Sources
Service Fees - Scholarship Contributions
Total Service Fees*
Sale of Products
Medicare Payments for Group Sessions
Investment Earnings on Cash Assets
Total Revenue
EXPENSES
Salaries
Benefits and taxes
Utilities
Food
Insurance
Psychiatric counseling
Taxes (In lieu of)
Programming materials
Maintenance materials
Office materials
Telephone
Gasoline
Household supplies
Outside accounting and legal fees
Travel/Dues/Meetings/Fees
Marketing and development variable costs
Uncollectable revenues
Interest expense
Other items
Total Expenses
NET CASH FLOW
Depreciation and Write-offs
GAIN (LOSS) TO SURPLUS FOR YEAR
Start - up Phase One Phase Two
Period 18 Clients 36 Clients
May'00 - 1/1/02
1/1/03
111/04
1/1/05
1/1/06
1/1/07
1/1/08
1/1/09
1/1/10
1/1/11
12/31101 1213/02
1?J /0
/3
12/31105
/a2�
12/31/07
12/31/08
12/31/09
12/31/10
12/31/11
653,387
1,306,773
1,372,112
1.440,717
1.512,753
1,512,753
1,512,753
1,512,753
1,512,753
1,512,753
115,304
230,607
242.137
254,244
266,956
266,956
266,956
266.956
266.956
266,956
768,690
1,537,380
1,614,249
1,694,961
1.779,710
1,779,710
1,779,710
1,779,710
1,779,710
1,779,710
3
5
10
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16,840
33,700
33,700
33,700
33,700
33,700
33,700
33,700
33,700
33,700
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
785,533 1,571,085 1,647,959 1.728,676 1.813,425 1,813,425 1,813,425 1,813,425 1,813,425 1,813,425
118.250
664,000
760.000
760,000
760,000
760.000
760,000
760,000
760,000
760,000
760,000
41,388
232,400
266.000
266,000
266.000
266,000
266,000
266,000
266,000
266,000
266,000
8,333
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
5,000
89,425
136.875
136.875
136,875
136,875
136,875
136,875
136,875
136,875
136,875
10,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
20,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
0
10,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
2,000
12,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
5,000
13,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
5,000
7,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
3,000
15,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
5,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
60,000
60,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
0
9,801
19,602
20,582
21,611
22,691
22,691
22,691
22,691
22,691
22,691
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,899
62,61
72,6244
72,673
72,724
72,778
7.2,778
72,778
7.2.7T8
72,778
72,778
291,869
1,315,257
1,525,100
1,526,130
1.527,210
1.528,345
1,528,345
1,528,345
1,528.345
1,528,345
1,528.345
(291,869)
(529,724)
45,985
121,829
201,466
285,080
285,080
285,080
285,080
285,080
285,080
265,000
153,483
153,483
153,483
115,150
115.150
115,150
115,150
115,150
115,150
115,150
(556,869)
(683,207)
(107.499)
(31,654)
86,316
169,930
169,930
169.930
169.930
169,930
169,930
" Average Daily Fee:
$130
$130
$136
$143
$150
$150
$150
$150
$150
$150

f.
Exhibit 1A - Pro -Forma Balance Sheet
12/12/00
12/31 /01
12/31 /02
12/31 /03
2/1 31 /04
12/31 /05
12/31 /06
12/31 /07
21 /31 /08
1 3 09
12/31 /10
1 31 1
Cash and Investments
842,131
285,OO6
278,165
394,253
589,691
868,441
1,153-521
1,438,600
1,723,680
2,008,760
2,293,840
Accounts Receivable
571652
115,304
121,069
127,122
133,478
133,478
133,478
133,478
133,478
133,478
Fixed Assets
5,101, 000
5,101, 000
5,101, 000
5,101, 000
5,101, 000
5,101, 000
5,101, 000
5,101, 000
5,101, 000
5,101, 000
5,101, 000
Less: Accumulated Depreciation
(153,483)
(306,967)
575,600)
69( 0,750)
80( 5,900)
(921,050)
(1,036,2001(1,151
3501
(1,266,500)
Net Fixed Assets
5,101, 000
4,947,517
4,794,033
4,640,550
4,525,400
4,410,250
4,295,100
4,179, 950
4,064,800
3,949,650
3,834,500
TOTAL ASSETS
5,943,131
5,290,174
5,187, 502
5,155, 872
5, 242, 213
5,412,169
5,582,099
5,752,029
5,921,959
6,091,888
6,261,818
Current Liabilities
30,251
35,077
35,101
35,126
35,152
35,152
35,152
35,152
35,152
35,152
Long -Term Debt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
Total Liabilities
0
30,251
35,077
35,101
35,126
35,152
35,152
35,152
35,152
35,152
36,152
Total Equity
5,943,131
5,259,923
5,152, 424
5,120, 771
5,207,087
5,377,017
5,546,947
5,716,877
5,886,807
6,056,737
6,226,666
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
5,943,131
5,290,174
5,187,502
5,155,872
5,242,213
5,412,169
5,582,099
5,752,029
5,921,959
6,091,888
6,261,818
Beginning Equity 0 5,943,131 5,259,923 5,152,424 5,120,771 5,207,087 5,377,017 5,546,947 5,716,877 5,886,807 6,056,737
Gain(Loss) to surplus * (556,869) (683,207) (107,499) (31,654) 86,316 169,930 169,930 169.930 169,930 169,930 169,930
Capital Contributions received 6,500,000
Ending Equity 5,943,131 5,259,923 5,152, 424 5,120, 771 5,207,087 5,377,017 5,546,947 5,716,877 5,886,807 6,056,737 6,226, 666
* See Exhibit 1 - Pro -Forma Operating Statement

Exhibit 2 - Capital Plan
(ooas)
Est. Cost
#1 Initial purchase of props
$1,2oa
#2 Build three buildinas. each to house 12 clients. 4 sinale staff. 1 staff couple and 2 visitors
Total Sq. Ft.
Space
Approx. Dim, Each
Sq. Ft. ea.
Number
Per Building
Client bedroom
10x16
160
12
1.920
Client closet
3x6
18
12
216
Client bath
5x8
N
12
40
218
2,616
Single staff bedroom
1206
192
4
768
Single staff closet
3x6
18
4
72
Single staff bath
7x10
Z¢
4
289
280
1,120
Staff couple master bedroom
10x14
140
1
140
Staff couple 2nd bedroom
10x12
120
1
120
Staff couple sitting room
1406
224
1
224
Staff couple baths
7x10
70
2
140
Staff couple kitchenette
10x9
90
1
90
Closets/storage/common areas
various
186
1
186
674
900
Guest/visitor bedroom
12x15
180
2
360
Guest/visitor bath
7x10
70
2
140
Guest/visitor closet
3x5
15
2
30
265
530
Common areas
18x35
630
2
1260
Storage/utllities
12x14
168
2
336
Laundry
10x10
100
1
100
Hallways, entrance, misc.
various
1,000
various
1,000
Total per building (total cost based on
$1301 Sq. Ft.)
7,862 $1,022
times 3 bldgs.
x3 x3
23,586 $3,066
#3 Fix main house
Convert garage to commercial kitchen/raise roof $175
Re -shingle roof $15
Build addition for larger dining $75
Interier build -out for offices and common bathrooms UN
$365
#4 Fix wooden bam
Fix roof, insulate, build-up floors (to be craft center) $100
#5 Misc. other items
Tractor w mower / 2 vans / truck
$100
Computers and software
$15
Furniture
$150
Three greenhouses
$45
Fix water problems in two small houses
$50
Animals/saddles/equip./misc.
$100
Covered walkways/parking/site prep.
$100
Septic sewage systems
$635
#6 Cost of initial cash losses
See Pro -Forma Operating Statement
$821
#7 Contribution to Endowment and Scholhip Fund
$313
Total Initial Capital Budget
12/12/W

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ➢ ) ➢ ➢ ➢ ) ➢ ➢ ) ) ) ) ➢ ➢ ) ➢ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ➢ ) )
Exhibit 3 - CooperRiis Staff Salary Expense
12/12/00
.__ 51art Up
Period
Annualized
May '00- 1
2/31101
Staff Person
Salary
Number
Basis
Budget
Executive Director
75,000
1
Vol.+3 Mos
18,750
Dir. of Admissions
40,000
1
2 Months
6,667
Dir. of Development and Marketing
30,000
1
Pt. Time
40,000
Dir. of Farm Operations and Maintenence
35,000
1
Pt. Time'
10,000
Dir. of Food Services
30,000
1
2 Months
5,000
Dir. of Therapeutic Activities
25,000
1
1 month
2,083
Dir. of Housekeeping
25,000
1
1 month
2,083
Psychiatric Nurse
40,000
1
1 month
3,333
Social Worker
35,000
1
1 month
2,917
Support staff Group One
20,000
7
7 for 1 mo.
11,667
Support staff Group Two
15,000
18
12 for 1 mo.
15,000
Volunteer Staff "stipends"
3,000
5 FTE
3 for 1 mo.
750
Total Budget
118,250
Phase One -18
Clients #
1 /1 /02 -12/31 /02
Bmia
Budget
Full Time
75,000
Full Time
40,000
Full Time
30,000
Full Time
35,000
Full Time
30,000
Full Time
25,000
Full Time
25,000
Full Time
40,000
Full Time
35,000
7 FT
140,000
12 FT
180,000
3 FTE
9,000
664,000
Phase One -18
tents
1/1103 and Later
Basis
Budget
Full Time
75,000
Full Time
40,000
Full Time
30,000
Full Time
35,000
Full Time
30,000
Full Time
25,000
Full Time
25,000
Full Time
40,000
Full Time
35,000
7 FT
140,000
18 FT
270,000
Start date 1/1/01 but most costs covered by specific project (see Capital Plan)
# 12 Clients for 6 months then 24 for 6 months
5 FTE 15,000
760,000

FLB 13
DENR - WATER 01"1
"IT WJRCE [t':'.'
_ Engineering Proposal and
NSPDES Permit Application
for
CooperRiis
Polk County, North Ca:. � ,(c-
su�la`'
Owner: CooperRiis, Inc.
P. O. Box 416
_ Mill Spring, North Carolina 28756
Telephone: [phone]
N OJy'
Prepared: John T. Coxey =,.•'�q, o� • r ..
Consulting Engineering, P. A.
53 Fox Chase Road West t
Asheville, North Carolina 28804 7293
Telephone: [phone] ........
Fax: [phone]
Project No: 20026
January, 2001

INTRODUCTION
The proposed CooperRiis project is a short-term care healing farm facility for
MR
administering to the needs of patients with differing physical disabilities.
OW
The facilities will consist of several dormitories for housing patients. Individual
rooms are available which include a bed and bathroom facilities.
0,
An administrative building and kitchen and dining hall facilities will be
constructed by modifications to an existing home on the property.
am
Additional existing buildings on the property will be renovated for conducting
OM
recreational activities with patients.
am
The property is located in Polk County, east of the Mill Spring community and is
accessed directly from Highway 148. The property consists of 73 acres of gently rolling
to steep terrain. There is a four (4) acre lake on the site suitable for recreation and
fishing. The lake will also be used for pumping water to a fire sprinkler system in the
buildings. Approximately eleven (11) acres of the property are used for growing corn
and other crops for human and animal consumption.
M
MR
-I-
M"
an

Canal Creek flows adjacent to the property and is the northernmost boundary of
the site. Canal Creek is classified as Class C as verified by the DENR Asheville
P" Regional Office. Canal Creek empties to White Oak Creek, which flows to the Green
River.
M"
OR
00
OR
Am
F-i
MR
OR
RM
M•
a"
MM
M

am
PROJECT WASTEWATER FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
Wastewater from the project would be 100% domestic in nature with an expected
BOD of approximately 200 mg/1 and TSS of 200 mg/l.
Flow would come from the dormitories, administration building, kitchen and
dining facilities and from toilets in the smaller existing buildings used for recreational
activities.
Flow projections are as follows:
ML
1. Dormitories — 54 bedrooms @ 120gpd = 67480 gpd
2. Dining HalMtchen — 86 seats @ 40gpd = 32440 gpd
3. 1-2 bedroom apartment @ 360 gpd = 360 gpd
4. Existing House @ 360 gpd = 360 gpd
5. Two (2) bathrooms in recreational area @
200 gpd = 400 gpd
Total Flow 11,040 gpd
The project will be constructed in one (1) phase; therefore the total wastewater
amount shown will be realized upon completion of construction.
-3-

WASTE TREATMENT DISPOSAL OPTIONS
A. Connection to Existing Treatment Works
The closest existing Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW) is the Town
of Columbus's sewage disposal facility on White Oak Creek. This facility is
approximately 4 V2 miles from the project site (see map).
To transport wastewater to this facility from the CooperRiis project would
entail construction of a series of sewage pumping stations, force mains and
gravity sewers and manholes. The cost of this project would be entirely
prohibitive as shown in the accompanying cost estimate and analysis.
This project would be of little or no benefit to other users, as the area is very
�••► sparsely populated and could not generate an adequate number of users for
sharing the cost of the project.
There are no other public or privately owned treatment alternatives available,
and there are no plans within the next five (5) years for extending the present
sewerage system to include the CooperRiis project.
ON
M
-4-
am
MR
wo

Am
B. SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Although the project site consists of 73 acres, very little of this land is suitable for
underground disposal such as septic tank/drain field systems or low-pressure pipe
systems (LPP).
A comprehensive soil survey was obtained from the US Department of
Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service in Polk County entitled Soil
Survey of Polk County, North Carolina, 1998. This survey describes the soil
MR properties of the County and provides maps showing classification of soils.
OW
A portion of the map that includes the location of the CooperRiis project is
�► included in this report. There are five (5) soil classifications found on the project
site:
Am
am CeB2 — Cecil sandy clay loam
DoB — Dogue — Roanoke
GrE — Grover or Loam
MaC2 — Madison sandy clay loam, 8 —15% slopes
MaD2 — Madison sandy clay loam, 15 — 25% slopes
am Each soil description and suitability for numerous parameters are included in this
am report. Only two (2) soil types (CeB2, MaC2) are considered moderately suitable
-5-
ON

a"
for septic tank and underground drain field systems and concerns are noted
regarding the restricted permeability of these soils as well as a recommendation
that the absorption fields be increased above normal size.
The remaining soil types (DoB, GrE, MaD2) are classified poorly suited, with
restricted permeability, with DoB prone to wetness. In addition the majority of
the acreage classified DoB is presently and will continue to be used for growing
food chain crops. This area borders Canal Creek/White Oak Creek, which is the
northern border of the property.
a.
PM In the locations where the moderately suitable soils are present, building
construction will take place and the site for drilling potable water supply well(s)
am
and construction of a storage tank has been approved. A map delineating these
ow areas is included in this report.
Am
Because of the existing building structures, future construction of the dormitories
for the project, and approved potable well(s) and tank location, there is inadequate
land area for construction of subsurface waste disposal. Additionally no
additional adjacent land can be acquired.
0M
a,
52
am
a%

P"
OR
C. SURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Spray irrigation and drip irrigation are not viable options for the reasons presented
under the subsurface disposal evaluation above. Unsuitable soils are present over
more than 50% of the site and only moderately suitable soils exist in the areas of
existing and proposed development.
am
OM
am
OR
P"
-7-
No
..

aim
on
OR
OR
as
OM
MR
AM
Am
MR
January 17, 2001
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: CooperRiis
Project No. 20026
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is to state that there is no available adjacent land to the CooperRiis
project site for the purpose of providing a land based sewage disposal system.
Sincerely,
e•Q.� A
Donald R. Cooper
00 Rod? Rock Road, Bld Hoaotk H. C 26111

D. REUSE
OM Reuse of treated wastewater effluent on this project could only be an option when
used in conjunction with a biological treatment system approved under an NPDES
permit. State requirements regarding reuse stipulate that effluent be tertiary
quality. It is not evident at this time that tertiary limits will be set for discharge of
,.., 11.000 gallons of treated effluent on this project.
The project site has very limited areas where reclaimed water could be land
applied. In addition, and since it is beyond the scope of this report to determine a
rate of application, the rate may be such that it would be economically unsound to
require the owner to provide the additional treatment components and distribution
Oft equipment necessary for reuse.
No
go
OR
OM
No
-8-
am
OM

E. NPDES DISCHARGE
OM
This option would consist of constructing a package type wastewater treatment
a, facility designed for an average daily flow of 11,000 gallons per day, and
discharge to Canal Creek, which flows adjacent to the project site. Canal Creek is
a,
classified as Class C waters.
OM
All wastewater would flow to the plant by gravity collection lines within the
CooperRiis project. The plant would be constructed on the project site, therefore
no easements or additional property would have to be acquired.
The proposed wastewater treatment plant would be dual train consisting of the
�► following components:
OM
Flow equalization chamber with duplex equalization pumps.
Extended aeration chambers (11,040 gallon total).
Duplex blower system for aeration.
Dual clarification units with airlift sludge return.
Sludge holding tanks.
Disinfection.
Ma
Standby power generator.
0
OW
Am

PM
Depending on effluent limits, the plant could be supplied with an anoxic chamber
and mixer for nitrogen limits and a tertiary filter system with mud well chamber,
backwash chamber and duplex pumps.
M
Other modifications could be made as necessary to meet the discharge limits of an
go NPDES Permit.
M
M"
S"
ow
am
0.
am
Mw
0"
-10-
a"
AM

on
am
w
COST ESTIMATES
Two wastewater treatment options will be examined as to cost and present worth
analysis -connection to existing Town of Columbus treatment system and construction of
an on -site treatment facility and discharge through NPDES permit.
Estimated costs for subsurface and surface systems are not included because as
described in this report these options do not appear feasible because of the limited areas
within the project site and unsuitable soil conditions within the site.
A. Connection to Town of Columbus Treatment System
As stated earlier, this project would consist of constructing a series of gravity
lines and pumping stations and force mains to transport wastewater from the
project site to the Town of Columbus treatment plant. This is a distance of
am approximately 4 V2 miles. A map is provided showing this option.
OM
-11-

PM
Costs are as follows:
am
UNIT
TOTAL
ITEM OUANTITIY UNITS COST
COST
Am
8" Gravity Sewer 91P500
L.F. $40.00
$38010000
2 V2" and 4" PVC Force Main 12,300
L.F. $15.00
$1842500
PM
Manholes 40
Ea. $11)750
$ 7010000
fft
Pump Station and Standby
Power 4
Ea. $60*000
$240,000
OR
Total Estimated Construction Cost
$874,500
fm
Administration and Easements
2030000
Engineering Fees
952,000
Contingencies (10%)
87,450
Total Project Cost
$130767950
Annual Costs
Operation and Maintenance
$ 151000
Equipment and Supplies
$ 51>000
A.
Utility (Power)
$ 20,000
Total Annual Cost
$ 40,000
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
Present Worth of Annual Costs
(20 years, 8%)
Present Worth Factor = 9.818
Present Worth of Annual Costs
$40,000 x 9.818
$3921)720
Present Worth of Project Cost
$1,076.950
Total Present Worth
$11,469,670
-12-
E

4"
B. Construction of Package Wastewater Treatment Plant
ow
This project would consist of constructing gravity collection lines within the
project site and building a package wastewater treatment plant on site. The
costs include process equipment for meeting tertiary limits.
The Costs are as follows:
UNIT
TOTAL
ITEM QUANTITY UNITS
COST
COST
6" AND 8" Gravity
Lines 32000
L.F.
$30.00
$ 902000
Manholes & Cleanouts 12
Ea.
$800.00
$ 92600
..,
Wastewater Treatment
Plant 1
Ea.
$1252000
••,
Standby Power 1
L.S.
$ 252000
Electrical 1
L.S.
$ 15,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost
$2641000
Administration
$ 57000
Engineering Fees
$ 35,000
Contingencies (10%)
$ 26,460
�^
Total Project Cost
$33111060
Annual Costs
Operation & Maintenance
$ 102000
Equipment & Supplies
$ 51000
Utility (Power)
$ 152000
Operator Fees
$ 20X0
Laboratory Costs
$ 7,500
0"
om

am
Total Annual Cost
Ow Present Worth Analysis
Present Worth of Annual Costs
(20 years, 8%)
Present Worth Factor = 9.818
Present Worth of Annual Costs
$57,500 x 9.818
Present Worth of Project Cost
Total Present Worth
0"
Om
Om
Am
mm
M+
am
m,
-14-
No
$564,535
$331,060
$895,595
$ 57,500

r"
COMPARISON OF PRESENT WORTH
a. Present Worth
Connections to Town of Columbus $ l A69,670
MIM
Onsite Waste Treatment System
And NPDES Discharge $ 8952595
The -above comparison shows the onsite treatment facilities as the most
favorable option.
MR
em
Mp
M+
fAM
MA
-15-
MM

to
I
C)
YE
r\
oC
0
7
j
F-\
Opp
19
- A
Im
9
lAll!a5 13n,
Sout
rkin
s,Tank 526
4"
Cut
It
1526
170
r t, 529
0
o
A
v
AL
1-k
q cis is)
4-
195
ILA193 10' 194

am
pq
am
fm
•
�iC�LG1�it,T
L%'i9
1 0 r.1441
G'Gf10P/l, C/C471-Pik
,S1 apele5
holeollow
�/o Sc0f c�
sT9Nosy
/�OkJE�P
/,dFLGfENT

2 MILES
IRS

0"
M
Am
a,
OR
am
January 17, 2001
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: CooperRiis
Project No. 20026
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter serves to certify that I am financially qualified and able to fund
construction of a wastewater treatment facility at CooperRiis for the treatment
of 11,000 gallons per day of donestic sewage.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Cooper
00 Roda? R06 had, Mal MOURNO, H. C 26111