NC0088170_Permit Issuance_20060711

NPDES DOCIMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0088170
Toxaway Falls WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
ermit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Technical Correction
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
July 11, 2006
This doctu m eat is printed on muse paper - ig Wore ziy
content on the reverse wide

NCDENR
Danny Bingham
Laurel Mountain Builders, LP
616 Hartzog Ford Rd.
West Jefferson, NC 28694
Dear Mr. Bingham:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
July 11, 2006
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0088170
Whispering Springs WWTP
Ashe County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for the subject permit. Accordingly, we are
forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. 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 (or as subsequently amended).
This final permit includes no major changes from the draft permit sent to you on May 10, 2006.
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 (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division 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 or permits required by the Division of Land
Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be
required. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Sergei Chernikov at telephone number
[phone], extension 594.
Sincerely,
C �o
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Central Files
NPDES Permit File
Winston-Salem Regional Office / Surface Water Protection
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission/Attn: Ron Linville, 1721 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699
Robin Austin, P.E.
Anderson & Associates, Inc.
406 Gallimore Dairy Rd.
Greensboro, NC 27409
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
DENR Customer Service Center: 1 800 623-7748

Permit NC0088170
d
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 provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Laurel Mountain Builders, LP
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Whispering Springs WWTP
1576 Pine Swamp Road
Fleetwood
Ashe County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to West Fork Pine Swamp
Creek in the New River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective August 1, 2006.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31, 2011.
Signed this day July 11, 2006.
J
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0088170
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit
conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Laurel Mountain Builders, LP is hereby authorized to:
1. Operate an existing 0.008 MGD package plant located on Pine Swamp Road at
Whispering Springs WWTP in Ashe County.
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct permit from the Division, construct
wastewater treatment facilities not to exceed 0.008 MGD design flow.
3. After submitting an Engineer's Certification, discharge from said treatment works
at the location specified on the attached map into an unnamed tributary to West
Fork Pine Swamp Creek, a class C+ water in the New River Basin.

Latitude: 36°16' 12"
Longitude: 81°27'21"
Receiving Stream: UT
Pine Swamp Creek
Stream Class: C+
Subbasin: 050701
West Fork
Whispering Springs
WWTP
NC00881 70
Ashe County
North

Peimnit NC0088170
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning upon completion of the construction of WWTP and lasting
until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETER
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly Average
Daily Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location
Flow
0.008 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day (20°C)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1 — October 31)
2.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1 — March 31)
4.0 mg/L
20.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorin&
28 pg/L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen2
Daily average > 5.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH3
> 6.0 and < 9.0 standard units
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. Limit and monitoring applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.

imap://[e-mail]:143/.._
Subject: Whispering Streams WWTP Draft NPDES Permit
From: "Austin, Robin" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:21:51 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: "Danny & Martina Bingham" <[e-mail]>
Sergei:
With regard to Draft NPDES Permit NC0088170 issued May 10, 2006, we submit the following comments:
1. Please revise the supplement to Permit Cover Sheet. Item #3 indicates the unnamed tributary to West
Fork Pine Swamp Creek is a class C-Tr water in the New River Basin. Our project is located in Ashe
County, in Subbasin 1 of the New River Basin - which is a class C+ water.
2. Please revise the facility map to indicate a stream classification of C+ and subbasin of 05-07-01. See
attached map with site shown.
Also, the correct name of the project is Whispering Streams.
Please call if questions.
Thank you,
Robin
Robin Austin, P.E.
Anderson & Associates, Inc.
406 Gallimore Dairy Road
Greensboro, NC 27409
[phone]
austinr(a andassoc. com
1 of 1 5/24/2006 1:29 PM

05-10-2006 11:27am From-
T-865 P 002/003 F-500
a
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGF.MEENT COMMISSION/
NPDES UNIT
1617EMAIL SERVICE1CENTER
NO11F1C TION OF INTENT TO ISSUE
A NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff review and application of
NC General Statutes 143.21 Public law 92-500 and other
lawful standards and regulations, theNorth
Car 1ito s
En-
vironmental Management Corn p. p .
a National Pollutant . Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater discharge permit topublish r ep n(s)
listed below effective 45 days from
this notice.
Written comments regarding the proposed permit wilt be
accepted until 30 days after the publish date of this no-
tice. All comments received priorto that date are consid-
ered in the final determinations regarding the proposed
permit,. The Director of the NC Division of Water Quality
may decide 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 in n the
tion on file used to determine conditions present
draft permit are available upon request and payment of
the costs of reproduction. Mail comments and/or re-
quests for information to the NC �Divisionof Water B ualil-
(9t the above address o Frances Cand ?fall
19 733-5083, extension 363 or Ms. ch.
919 73-5083, extension 520 at the Point Source Bran
lease include the NPDES permit number (attached) in
any communication. Interested persons may also visit
the Division of Witter Quality at 512 N. Salisbury. Street,
Ra
leigh, h NC 27604.-1148 betweenthe hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. to nwiew information on file. The Laurel Mountiun Builders, LP (616 Hartzog Ford
o NRoad,
PDES
Weft Jefferson,NC 28694) has applied for
permit NC0088176 for the Whispenng aSpnngsoWWTP in
Ashe County. This permitted facility discharges treated
wastewater to thq unnamed tributary to West Fork Pine
Swamp Creek in the New River Basin. Currently BODI to-
tal suspended soll.ds, ammonia nitrogenand total residu-
al chlorine are water quality limited. This discharge may
affect future allocations in this portion of the New River
asn
Aquaa�of North Carolina (Nc0065684) has applied for re-
newal of its permit discharging to Goose Creek within the
Yadkin - Pee Dee River Basin. The parameters BOD5, am-
monia, fecal conform, and Total Residual Chlorine are
water -quality limited. This discharge may affect future
wasteload allocations to the receiving stream.
WSJ: May 13, 2066

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0088170
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Laurel Mountain Builders, LP/ Whispering Springs WWTP
Applicant Address:
616 Hertzog Ford Rd., West Jefferson, North Carolina 28694
Facility Address:
1576 Pine Swamp Road, Fleetwood, North Carolina
Permitted Flow:
0.008 MGD
Type of Waste:
100% Domestic.
Other Permit(s):
N/A
Facility / Permit Status:
Class III / New
County:
Ashe County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
UT West Fork
Pine Swamp Creek
Regional Office:
Winston-Salem
Stream Classification: C-Tr+
USGS Topo Quad:
Glendale Springs
303(d) Listed? No
Subbasin: 05-07-02
Permit Writer:
Date:
Sergei Chernikov
April 24, 2006
Drainage Area (mi2): 1.16 mi2
Summer 7Q10 (cfs) : 0.52
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 0.81
30Q2 (cfs) : 0.98
Average Flow (cfs): 2.32
IWC (%): 2.30%
adadier
Lat. 36° 16' 12" N Long. 81° 27' 21" W
BACKGROUND:
Whispering Springs WWTP is a Class III, 100% domestic wastewater treatment system that
treats waste from a small development that consists of 20-unit condominiums. The EEA for this
facility has been approved on February 13, 2006 and Model B was completed on April 5, 2006.
Effluent limitations are based on the results of modeling.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: May 10 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: June 19 (est.)
NPDES CONTACT:
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Sergei Chernikov at [phone] ext. 594.
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS:
WSRO did not object to the location of the WWTP in the flood plain. However, they did not
recommend the package plant that was proposed by the permittee. This issue should be resolved during
the ATC review.
- COMMENTS WERE RECEIWED FROM NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION ON JUNE 20, 2006.
RESPONSE WAS E-MAILED TO RON LINVILLE OF NC WRC ON JULY 10 (SEE ATTACHED).
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC 033111 Renewal
Page 1

about:blank
Ron,
We have received you comments regarding the above referenced project. Below are our responses:
1) Proposed project will employ UV disinfection.
2) We have calculated ammonia limit for the proposed facility based on the results of the water quality
model. Even if you consider the highest monthly average limit for ammonia (20 mg/L) and account for
dilution (IWC=2.3% only), the resulting ammonia instream concentration is approximately 0.5 mg/L.
This concentration is in line with the level that you are recommending. In addition, the treatment system
that will be used at the site is designed to produce effluent with ammonia concentration of 2.0 mg/L.
Therefore, this effluent should not be harmful to freshwater mussels.
3) Proposed system already has standby units for all major equipment, including UV disinfection and
power supply.
4) The standard language for all NPDES permits already requires evaluation of discharge alternatives
and the use of most environmentally sound alternative. However, we can not force the permittee to
connect to POTW, unless there is a pattern of severe non-compliance.
5) Our jurisdiction is limited and we can not regulate imperviousness on site.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments.
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.
phone: [phone] ext. 594
fax: [phone]
1 of 1 7/10/2006 2:51 PM

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carolyn Bryant, NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 15, 2006
SUBJECT: Proposed New NPDES Permit, NPDES Permit No. NC0088170, Ashe County
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
application for impacts to fish and wildlife. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), North Carolina
General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.), and the North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC
10I.0102.
Laurel Mountain Builders, LP has applied for a new permit to discharge wastewater into an unnamed
tributary of West Fork Pine Swamp Creek in the New River basin. Sensitive species that occur in the
South Fork New basin include the Kanawha minnow, Phenacobius teretulus (NCSC, FSC); Kanawha
darter, Etheostoma kanawhae (NCSR); Seep mudalia, Leptoxis dilatata, (NCT); green floater, Lasmigona
subviridis (NCE, FSC); tonguetied minnow, Exoglossum laurae (NCSR); sharpnose darter, Percina
oxyrhynchus (NCSC); spike, Elliptio dilatata (NCSC); and a crayfish on the NC Watch List, New River
crayfish, Cambarus chasmodactylus. Excessive amounts of chlorine are deadly to mussels. Minimal
amounts of chlorine can be harmful to juvenile aquatic species.
Kevin Hining, NCWRC Fish biologist visited the site on June 14, 2006. Based on his assessment of the
area, the area appears to be much impacted from land disturbing activities with substantial erosion and
sediment contributions into West Fork Pine Swamp. An historical southern Brook trout stream runs
through the site although impoundments may have modified trout habitats. The tributary on the site is an
unnamed tributary of West Fork Pine Swamp that supports significant wild (reproducing) populations of
southern strain (native) Brook trout. Downstream habitats support wild Brown and Rainbow trout. Due
to the presence of native strain Brook trout and wild trout, the NCWRC does not support stocking of these
waters, including the ponds. The developer and property owners should be made aware that any fish
stocking requires a permit from this agency. West Fork Pine Swamp is Hatchery Supported waters that
this agency stocks; however, NCWRC stocked waters are further downstream and intermixing of strains
should not occur from these activities.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Laurel Mountain Builders NPDES -Page 2 - June 15, 2006
We appreciate the efforts of the Division of Water Quality to improve water quality. The implementation
of effluent limit reductions and monitoring requirements to renewal permits and disallowing new or
expanding wastewater discharges should go along way in protecting this important resource. Biologists
are concerned about chlorinated effluents. Chlorine is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms and forms
secondary compounds that are also detrimental to aquatic life. De -chlorination chemicals are also very
suspect. Additionally, freshwater mussels are among the most sensitive aquatic organisms tested for
impacts from ammonia, and ammonia may be a significant limiting factor for unionids (Augspurger et al.
2003). Recent research by Augspurger et al. (2003) found that ammonia concentrations which may be
protective of freshwater mussels range from 0.3 to 1.0 mg/L total ammonia as N at pH 8.
We recommend that the following conditions be incorporated into the permit to reduce impacts to fish and
wildlife resources and in particular to juvenile fish and rare species.
1. Chlorine and any de -chlorination systems should be replaced by ultraviolet light or ozone
systems. Utilization of these techniques would provide an additional benefit of removing a
hazardous material from the workplace. Emergency use of chlorine should not be allowed.
2. We recommend a reevaluation of any ammonia limits based on the research discussed above and
readjusting the limits. Please contact Tom Augspurger with Ole U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at
[phone] for additional information. (z i o
3. Stand-by power is recommended if not already provided.
4. If a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and sewer collection system becomes available,
connection should occur to the POTW without undue delay.
Site development should not exceed ten (10) percent imperviousness unless stormwater management
maintains pre -development hydrographic characteristics. Please visit our NCWRC website:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07 WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7c3_impacts.pdf for additional information about
secondary and cumulative impacts.
Please share these concerns with the developer. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input during the
planning stages for this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (336) 769-
9453. j*Jt f1 R:p— G� €yu'l'1'did-d L�
Citation:
Augspurger, T., A. E. Keller, M. C. Black, W. G. Cope, and F. J. Dwyer (2003) Water quality guidance
for protection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from ammonia exposure.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22:2569-2575.
E-copy: Mark Cantrell, USFWS-Asheville
Angie Rogers, Sarah McRae, NCNHP
Tom Augspurger, USFWS-Raleigh

40
•

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, Director
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Sergei Chernikov
Teresa Rodriguez
April 5, 2006
Whispering Springs
MEMORANDUM
17A
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
I completed the modeling for the proposed discharge from the Whispering Springs development into an
unnamed tributary to West Fork Pine Swamp Creek. The creek is classified as C Tr +. According to the
classification the applicable limits are BOD 5 mg/L, NH3N of 2 mg/L and DO of 6 mg/L. The level B
model results indicate that the DO in the creek does not fall below 5 mg/L. The proposed limits will protect
water quality. The data used for the model and a summary of the results are included.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES
(fax) 919 733-0719

' LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION
•
is oIrli f
4.,
Facility Name
M
Whispering Springs
Topo Quad
Glendale Springs
NPDES No.
NC0088170
USGS sta. #
USGS paper 2403
Type of wastewater
Domestic
Date of flow estimate
3/5/2005
Facility status
New
Drainage Area (mi`)
1.16
Receiving stream
UT West Fork Pine Swamp Creek
Summer7Q10 (cfs)
0.52
Stream class
C Tr +
Winter7Q10 (cfs)
0.81
Subbasin
05-07-02
Average flow (cfs)
2.32
County
Ashe
30Q2 (cfs)
0.98
Regional Office
Winston Salem
IWC at discharge (%)
2.30%
...... -. 5...,.,..�_��._ - ...... M'-�.. .... :. .. _ .............. a. .....,_.-.. .... .... .. _ -a ^c=
..... ..... t ..........., ....emu
_ _ --.•r
Segment/Reach
w
1
2 '
3
Length of reach (mi)
0.019
2.25
Incremental length
0.0019
0.225
0
0
Waste characteristics
WWTP name
Flow (MGD)
0.008
BOD
5
BOD Multiplier
1.5
CBOD
7.5
0_
0
0
NH3N
2
NH3N multiplier
4.5
NBOD
9
0
0
0
DO (mg/I)
6
Background DO (mg/L)
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
0.204
0.204
QA (cfs/mi)
0.906
0.906
CBOD (mg/I)
NBOD (mg/1)
DO (mg/I)
Tributary characteristics
Tributary name
ut
wf pine swamp
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
0.98
w7Q10
1.52
QA (cfs/mi)
4.36
CBOD (mg/I)
NBOD (mg/1)
DO (mg/I)
Slope
76
57
Model results:
End DO
End CBOD
End NBOD
DO minimum
8.35 mg/L
1.62 mg/L
0.81 mg/L
7.68 mg/L at milepoint 0

TR 11I510(0
bP= a, ISm:2<` -
30pz = 1.C(s
slQ JO = 0,61g ci-s
w'7Qto: 1, SZ ark
44i O O N fl
RictOn a>as rnA
Wspt-6ni nb- NC00$$ IT0
IQ .002 MGb
OT OQoi-arc P. ye
"bi4"- 1,tto mi'Z
Q00 = a. 3a c•4s
SQQ 2 = 0,4e cf
S CE 10 = 0..S...C4-5
L Qt0
cf

' l)S G S S-hutuayt_
6(;N ;)—
s Hoc) (og'gL.5
6
6?,4.1/ " a, 9/
3oQa = a.
a9I
Qiv = a,/
0.2.97

NPDES APPLICATION FOR PERMIT RENEWAL - FORM D
For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <0.1 MGD
Mail the complete application to:
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NPDES Permit INCOO 1-7-0
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the boxes, click your mouse on top of the box. Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name
Facility Name
Mailing Address
City
State / Zip Code
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail Address
Laurel Mountain Builders, LP/ Danny Es Martina Bingham
Whispering Springs
616 Hartzog Ford Road
West Jefferson
North Carolina
(336-877-3159)
(336-877-3159)
[e-mail]
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same address as above El
Street Address or State Road 1576 Pine Swamp Road
City
State / Zip Code
County
Fleetwood
North Carolina, 28626
Ashe County
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, public organization or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not
referring to the Operator in Responsible Charge or ORC)
Name
Mailing Address
City
State / Zip Code
Telephone Number
Fax Number
To be determined (New Facility)
( )
( )
1 of 4 Form-D 1/06

NPDES APPLICATION FOR PERMIT RENEWAL - FORM D
For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <0.1 MGD
4. Description of wastewater:
Facility Generating Wastewater(check all that apply
Industrial 0 Number of Employees
Commercial 0 Number of Employees
Residential ® Number of Homes
School 0 Number of Students/Staff
Other 0 Explain:
20
Describe the source(s) of wastewater (example: subdivision, mobile home park, shopping centers,
restaurants, etc.):
Population served: Approx. 60 bedrooms
5. Type of collection system
® Separate (sanitary sewer only) ❑ Combined (storm sewer and sanitary sewer)
6. Outfall Information:
Number of separate discharge points 1
Outfall Identification number(s) 001
Is the outfall equipped with a diffuser? 0 Yes
® No
7. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact location of each outfall):
Pine Swamp Creek ( Pine Swamp) - Map included with EAA report dated 10/3/2005
8. Frequency of Discharge: ® Continuous ❑ Intermittent
If intermittent:
Days per week discharge occurs: Duration:
9. Describe the treatment system
List all installed components, including capacity, provide design removal for BOD, TSS, nitrogen and
phosphorus. If the space provided is not sufficient, attach the description of the treatment system in a
separate sheet of paper.
Packaged Purestream BESST system (anoxic zone, surge tank, dual aeration zone, dual
clarifier) with tertiary treament (microscreen drum filter, UV disinfection, and
flowmeter).
8,000 gpd capacity
Design removal limits: GODS = 5 mg/1, TSS = 20 mg/1, NH3-N = 2 mg/1, and DO = 6
mg/ 1.
2 of 4 Form-D 1/06

NPDES APPLICATION FOR PERMIT RENEWAL - FORM D
For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <0.1 MGD
10. Flow Information:
Treatment Plant Design flow 0.008 MGD
Annual Average daily flow MGD (for the previous 3 years)
Maximum daily flow MGD (for the previous 3 years)
11. Is this facility located on Indian country?
❑ Yes ®No
12. Effluent Data
Provide data for the parameters listed. Fecal Coliform, Temperature and pH shall be grab samples, for all other
parameters 24-hour composite sampling shall be used. Effluent testing data must be based on at least three samples
and must be no more than four and one half years old.
Parameter
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Units of
Measurement
Number of
Samples
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5)
Fecal Coliform
Total Suspended Solids
Temperature (Summer)
Temperature (Winter)
•
pH
13. List all permits, construction approvals and/or applications:
Type
Hazardous Waste (RCRA)
UIC (SDWA)
NPDES
PSD (CAA)
Non -attainment program (CAA)
Permit Number
14. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
Type
NESHAPS (CAA)
Ocean Dumping (MPRSA)
Dredge or fill (Section 404 or CWA)
Special Order of Consent (SOC)
Other
Permit Number
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.
M. Robin Austin, P.E. PM, Anderson & Associates, Inc
Printed name of Person Signing Title
3 of 4
Form-D 1/06

NPDES APPLICATION FOR PERMIT RENEWAL - FORM D
For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <0.1 MGD
.2006
Signature of Applicant ' ate
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6 (b)(2) states: 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 knowly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method
required to be operated or maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management
Commission implementing that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed
$25,000, 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 $25,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both, for a similar
offense.)
4 of 4 Form-D 1 /06

JN 24166.00 Engineering Altornatives Analysis
Engineering Alternative Analysis
Prepared for Whispering Streams
Ashe County, NC
JN 24166
1.0 Introduction
An Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is required with any NPDES application for a
new wastewater treatment plant discharge, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2).
This EAA provides complete justification for a direct discharge to surface water alternative,
and demonstrates that direct discharge is the most environmentally sound alternative
selected from all reasonably cost-effective options per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2).
2.0 Proposed Proiect Description
The project site known as Whispering Streams is located in southeast Ashe County along
the West Fork of Pine Swamp Creek, as shown in Figure 1. The site consists of two parcels,
one 8.109 acres and one 1.00 acre, and is bounded to the east, south and southwest by NC
SR 1169, Pine Swamp Road. Figure 2 shows the parcel outlines and available aerial
imagery for the site.
Parcels:
15279-071
15279-086
Latitude: 36° 16' 11.75" N
Longitude: 81° 27' 20.65" W
Planned development for the site consists of ten (10) duplex condominiums. It is expected
that these homes will be used as second homes rather than permanent year-round homes.
Applicant:
Laurel Mountain Builders, LP
616 Hartzog Ford Rd.
West Jefferson, NC 28694
[phone] (voice & fax)
[phone] cell
Contacts: Danny & Martina Bingham
Facility:
Whispering Streams
1576 Pine Swamp Rd
Fleetwood, NC 28626
[phone] (voice & fax)
[phone] cell
Contacts: Danny & Martina Bingham
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 o/' 20
U.•\24\24166\24166ENGV'ermits\EAA Resabmital.doc 1/19/2006

. JN 24166.00
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
'� f r i I } ti'
\ l
1 •
CI.
LkL ,* \ .J
Figure 1. Location Map (Source: Topozone 2005)
Anderson & Associates, Inc.
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006
PROJECT SITE
Page 2 of 20

JN 24166.00
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Figure 2. Parcel Map (Source: Ashe County GIS)
EAA Preparer:
Anderson & Associates, Inc.
406 Gallimore Dairy Rd.
Greensboro, NC 27409
[phone]
[phone] fax
Contacts: Jim Billups, P.E.
Robin Austin, P.E.
3.0 Determination Whether Proposed Discharge Will Be Allowed
3.1 Zero Flow Restrictions
Zero flow stream restrictions [15A NCAC 2B.0206(d)(2)] apply to oxygen -consuming
waste in zero -flow streams. The stream of interest known as Pine Swamp Creek (Pine
Swamp) is not a zero -flow stream.
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 n/.20
U:\24\24166L4/66ENG\Permits\EAA Resuhmital.doc 1/19/2006

' ,IN 24/66.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
According to Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no
previous determination of low -flow characteristics was made for the unnamed stream
(tributary to West Fork) in southeastern Ashe County. Therefore, estimates of low -flow
discharges were determined by Mr. Weaver by assessing the yields at nearby USGS
sites to assess a range of possible values applicable to the point of interest.
Per Mr. Weaver, using low -flow information provided in USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403
"Low -flow characteristics of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993), the
7Q10 low -flow yields at selected nearby USGS sites range from about 0.41 to 0.43 cubic
feet per second per square mile drainage area (cfsm). And the 30Q2 low -flow yields at
the nearby sites range from about 0.7 to 0.8 cfsm. Per Mr. Weaver, a check of the
regional relations also provided in Water -Supply Paper 2403 indicates that estimated
7Q10 yield for this area of Ashe County is about 0.31 cfsm, and the 30Q2 yield
estimated from the regional relations is 0.69 cfsm. Mr. Weaver applied the range of
yields listed above to this drainage area and suggested the following flow estimates:
7Q10 flow estimate = between 0.3 and 0.45 cfs
30Q2 flow estimate = between 0.7 and 0.8 cfs
A copy of Mr. Weaver's email dated March 2, 2005 is included in Appendix A.
3.2 Stream Classification
According to the NCDENR DWQ website, Pine Swamp Creek (Pine Swamp) in the New
River Basin (Stream Index Number 10-1-24) is classified as a Class C+ stream. Class C
freshwaters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including
propagation and survival, and wildlife. In the New River Basin, "+" identifies waters that
are subject to a special management strategy specified in 15NCAC 2B .0225 the
Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) rule, in order to protect downstream waters
designated as ORWs.
ORWs are a special subset of High Quality Waters (HQWs) with unique and special
circumstances as described in Rule 15NCAC 2B .0255. Per this rule, all new NPDES
wastewater discharges (except single family residences) shall be required to
provide the treatment described below:
(a) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BOD5= 5
mg/I, NH3-N = 2 mg/I and DO = 6 mg/I.
(b) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) shall be
limited to effluent concentrations of 10 mg/I for trout waters and primary nursery
areas (PNA), and to 20 mg/I for all other High Quality Waters.
(c) Disinfection: Alternative methods to chlorination shall be required for
discharges to trout streams, except that single family residences may use
chlorination if other options are not economically feasible. Domestic discharges
are prohibited to SA waters.
Anderson & Assoeiates, Inc. Page 4 of 20
U:\24\24166\24I66ENGV'er„ ,its\EAA Resubntital.doe 1/19/2006

JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
(d) Emergency Requirements: Failsafe treatment designs shall be employed,
including stand-by power capability for entire treatment works, dual train design
for all treatment components, or equivalent failsafe treatment designs.
(e) Volume: The total volume of treated wastewater for all discharges combined
shall not exceed 50 percent of the total instream flow under 7Q10 conditions.
(f) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is projected to be a concern,
appropriate effluent limitations shall be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or both
Per 15NCAC 2B .0225, in the South Fork New and New Rivers ORW Area, new or
expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges located upstream of the designated
ORW shall comply with the following:
(a) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BOD = 5
mg/1, and NH3-N = 2 mg/1;
(b) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) shall be
limited to effluent concentrations of 10 mg/1 for trout waters and to 20 mg/1 for all
other waters.
Failsafe treatment designs shall be employed, including stand-by power capability for
entire treatment works, dual train design for all treatment components, or equivalent
failsafe treatment designs.
3.3 Basinwide Water Quality Plan
The information in this section is taken directly from the Draft Basinwide Plan dated July
2005:
Pine Swamp Creek [AU# 10-1-24]
Current Status
Pine Swamp Creek, from source to the South Fork New River (5.5 miles), is Supporting
due to a Good bioclassification at site KB4. Pine Swamp Creek drains 10.8 square
miles. Cattle pasture and Fraser Fir Christmas tree farms dominate upstream land use.
Observations at the time of sampling showed mildly embedded substrate and poor
riparian areas. Bank erosion was the worst of any other streams in the subbasin.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor Pine Swamp Creek and document any changes in water
quality. It is recommended that local agencies work to install appropriate BMPs and
implement conservation plans on land in agriculture production. In addition, DWQ will
assist agency personnel to locate sources of water quality protection funding for BMPs
and community education related to agricultural nonpoint source runoff and the
importance of riparian zones.
Water Quality Initiatives
During this assessment period. several agricultural BMPs were installed, developed, or
Anderson c4 Associates, Inc. Page 5 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Per,nits\EAA Resubnutal.doc• 1/19/2006

JN24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
constructed along Pine Swamp Creek. Funds totaling $15,068 were provided by the
NCACSP and were administered by the New River SWCD.
3.4 Impaired waters and TMDLs
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of
waters not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. Pine
Swamp Creek is not on the 303(d) list, and therefore, TMDLs were not developed
for the stream.
3.5 Endangered Species
Included in the Draft Basinwide Plan dated July 2005 is information concerning Natural
Resources. According to the Basinwide plan, it is possible that aquatic habitats
associated with the South Fork New River and perhaps the Southern Appalachian bogs
are present at the site.
Per the Basinwide Plan, the South Fork New River Aquatic Habitat is considered
significant for its cluster of sixteen rare species, including three (3) fish species endemic
to the New River basin (the Sharpnose darter, the Kanawha minnow, and the Kanawha
darter). The South Fork New River is also the state's only known location for the
Gammon's riffle beetle. The South Fork of the New River also contains important
populations of Virginia spiracea (Spiraea virginiana), a federally listed plant that grows
along the riverbanks. A number of other rare and uncommon aquatic species are found
in North Carolina only in the New River drainage.
Southern Appalachian bogs are naturally rare since the flat, bottomland locations where
they occur make up a very small portion of the mountain landscape. According to the
Basinwide plan, bogs are highly susceptible to human alterations, such as draining,
filling, conversion to pasture or impoundment.
Surface discharge meeting the low effluent levels required for the site should not affect
any endangered species that are present. Additionally, no alterations to the riverbanks
are proposed, and best management practices will be followed in strict accordance,
during installation of the surface discharge system.
4.0 Proposed Action Verification
The proposed construction of a wastewater treatment system is consistent with
local zoning and/or subdivision ordinances. The Local Government Review Form
is attached.
5.0 Population and Flow Projections
Figure 3 shows the preliminary site plan for the proposed development. There is
no expected change in population since the site will be developed as one phase
with no planned expansion.
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 6 oj20
U:\24\24166\24/66EN6\Per,nits\EAA Resrrbmital.doe 1/19/2006

�SR,f 1169
N Rood
P1ne SwoinP
/drn show
_ ` .JYR�yv Wll
� t 0
0
",A1 lfti
—2, • /J??
NOT FOR SALES, CONVEYANCES, ❑R RECORDATION
Ashe County, N,C
a
a
r
0
0
0
a
Scolel 1" = 50'
Map prepared by,
a
Job # 041209-CP

IN 24/66.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Approximately 60 bedrooms are estimated for the 20-unit condominiums. Non-
--Municipal flow projection is estimated at 120 gallons per day per bedroom, in
accordance with the Appalachian District Health Department. Therefore, a design
_wastewater flow of 7,200 gallons per day is estimated for the project site upon
development completion.
6.0 Evaluation of Technically Feasible Alternatives
6.1 Alternative A. Connection to an Existing Wastewater Treatment System
No sanitary sewer is located within five (5) miles of the proposed project site and
Ashe County is not aware of any plans to extend water and/or sewer to the area.
A copy of a letter received from Ashe County regarding sewer system availability
is included in Appendix A.
6.2 Alternative B. Land Application
Land application disposal alternatives include individual/community onsite
subsurface systems, drip irrigation, and spray irrigation.
Mr. James Stewart, Environmental Health Specialist with the Appalachian District
Health Department evaluated the project site on March 18, 2005 and concluded
that the site is unsuitable for a ground absorption system (see copy of report in
Appendix A). Mr. Stewart concluded that the site is unsuitable based on the
following:
• Unsuitable soil topography and/or landscape position
• Unsuitable soil characteristics (structure or clay mineralogy)
• Unsuitable soil wetness condition (Rule .1942)
• Unsuitable soil depth (Rule .1943)
• Presence of restrictive horizon (Rule .1944)
• Insufficient space for septic system and repair area (Rule .1945)
A subsequent letter from Mr. Joe Lynn, Soils Specialist with NCDENR, indicated
that the Danny Bingham site is unsuitable for a ground adsorption wastewater
treatment and disposal system under current laws and rules 15NCAC 18A.1900.
Mr. Lynn's letter (included in Appendix A) provided the following conclusions and
recommendations:
The site is unsuitable due to:
• Soil wetness (colors of chrome 2 or less)
• Rule .1943 insufficient soil depth (soil depths less than 36 inches)
• Rule .1945 Insufficient available space (not enough are for the initial
wastewater system and a repair)
The site is unsuitable under Rule .1956 Modifications to Septic Systems:
1. Shallow conventional systems - NO
2. Large Diameter Pipe system - NO
3. Prefabricated Porous Black Panel system - NO
Anderson & Associates. Inc. Pate 7 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resabmital.doc 1/19/2006

' JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
4. Drainage will not be sufficient to reclassify the site to Provisionally
Suitable.
5. Saprolite will not change the site to Provisionally Suitable.
The site is unsuitable under Rule .1957 Alternative Sewage Systems:
1. Low Pressure Pipe system - NO
2. Fill system - NO
3. Aerobic Treatment system - NO
The site is unsuitable under Rule .1969 Experimental and Innovative
Systems. Components, and Devices:
1. Chamber system - NO
2. Houch Drainage system - NO
3. Subsurface Drip system - NO
4. Sand Filter Pretreatment system - NO
5. Peat Filter Pretreatment system - NO
Recommendations
The owner has the following options that might allow the property to be used
as desired:
1. The applicant may purchase Provisionally Suitable property to place the
wastewater system on.
2. The applicant may obtain an easement on a Provisionally Suitable
property to place the wastewater system on.
3. The applicant can contact the Division of Water Quality in Winston Salem
(336)7714600 to pursue a surface discharge.
All of the above restrictions with regard to provision of a conventional or modified
on -site wastewater system correlate to precluding the use of Land Application of
Wastewater. However, at the request of the State, we have estimated the loading
rates and calculations of total land areas needed for land application treatment,
and determined the costs associated with these alternatives.
6.2.1 Subsurface System
Review of the surrounding soils using the online National Cooperative
Soil Survey (NCSS) to determine suitability for a subsurface system
concluded that the nearest parcel is located approximately 1.04 miles to
the southwest. See Figure 3. Clifton Series (CfD) soils are given a rating
of "somewhat limited" for septic tank absorption fields. Clifton series soils
vary from sandy clay loam in the top 10 inches, to red clay from 10 to 38
inches deep, to red clay loam from 38 to 45 inches deep, and fine sandy
loam from 45 to 65 inches deep. Generally considered a clay loam, the
estimated soil percolation rate is 30 - 45 min/in and hydraulic conductivity
is 0.5 - 0.75 in/hr. The design hydraulic loading rate used for this soil
classification was 0.6 gal/sf-day. Total area required is 175 sf/100 gpd, or
12,600 sf. Area of equal size must be available for future repair or
replacement of the system. Therefore, drain field dimensions were
calculated to be approximately 213 ft x 213 ft.
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 8 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006

A Reuubmital dnc 1/19/2006
k0
Figure 3. Soils Identified for Septic Tank Absorption Fields (Source: NCSS online)
ti
SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS RATING FORASHE COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA: WILKES COUNTY. NORTH
CAROLINA
456, 00
4100
45200
J S!iii.',
Whispering Streams. Ashe County
J59�500 451:.0)
4611120
461. OD
46703
rE . fp
CfE
CfE
elf
TsD
u_
3 EsF
E
W
EvF
WaE i
e
EvE
weE WaE
TsD
EsF
TsD
EsF tl;
GAS
Whispering
EvE '•' Streams
TsD
�aF WaF
/e=i111 1. WaF
At. /
TsD
ChD
CeF ChE CnE
EsD
rTF
CeF
VIILC-
ChD
lcC
EsD
45,00
gia N.led Rewreei
fsaenyllne Smite
45'i00
0 250 500
Meters
1.000
4556
J5.�J1
460000
f
Feet
0 5001.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
40300
46 ie
Ii1 2/2IJ1},
Paec 1 of 3
00.99117Z Alf
Engineering Alternatives Analysis.

• JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
The parcel containing this soil type is located at an elevation 640 feet
higher than the Whispering Streams site: therefore, significant pumping is
required to convey the wastewater to the site where the septic drain fields
would be installed. Additionally, water hammer is a concern. We have
allowed for two lift stations, one at the base and one halfway to the top.
Each lift station will contain two 15-hp pumps and 5,500 linear feet of 3-
inch diameter ductile iron force main will convey the pumped wastewater
to the drain field.
On site at Whispering Streams, septic tanks - 900 gallons in capacity -
are needed at each of the 20 condominium units to provide 24-hour
retention time prior to conveyance. Grinder pumps at each unit and a
network of 3-inch diameter PVC pipelines on the property will be used to
collect the site's wastewater and pump it to a central lift station on the
property.
Approximately 2.08 acres is required for the drain field including space for
a repair/replacement field, and 1.26 acres is required for a 10-foot wide
easement over the 3-inch diameter force main from the Whispering
Streams site to this parcel. A total land area of 3.34 acres will need to be
purchased. The 98-acre parcel containing the desired soil type for the
drain field has a tax assessed value of S237,000. Therefore, we assumed
a S2400 per acre land acquisition cost.
A description of the septic tank absorption field design is as follows:
Twenty 900-gallon septic tanks, one located at each of the 20 units, with
grinder pumps to convey the wastewater through a new network of 3-inch
PVC pipelines to a central lift station located at the southwest corner of
the Whispering Streams project site. From the lift station, the wastewater
will be pumped by two 15-hp pumps through a new 3-inch DIP force main
along the south side of Pine Swamp Road to Parcel 15279-037, then
south to a halfway point between the road and the drain field site where a
second lift station with dual 15-hp pumps will be constructed to pump the
remainder of the way to the drain field. The drain field will be installed in
the existing cleared area on the parcel. See Figure 4 for the proposed
layout.
A cost analysis of this treatment alternative is provided below.
Capital Costs
Land acquisition costs = $55,716.00
Equipment costs = $945,705.00
Labor costs = S239,050.00
Installation costs = $136,600.00
Design costs = S283,711.50
Recurring Costs
O&M costs (with replacement costs) = $3,200.00/year
Residual disposal costs = S3,000.00/year
Utility costs (power. water, etc.) = 81,642.50/year
Easement maintenance = 52,000/year
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 10 420
U:124124166124166ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmital.dor 1/19/2006

' JN 24166.0(1
Engineering AlternativesAnalysis
l.
1 Intermediate Lift Station
1
oposed Drain Field
13ftx213ft
0 0.1 0.2 t i
Figure 4. Proposed Layout for Subsurface System
Present Value Costs (20 years) are calculated as follows:
PV = capital costs + recurring costs x [(1 +0.07)20-1 ]/[0.07(1 +0.07)'0]
PV = $1,660,783 + ($9,843 x 10.594)
PV = $1,765,055
Calculations to support the above information are included in Appendix B.
6.2.2 Spray Irrigation
A review of surrounding soils was conducted using the NCSS to determine the
location of sites suitable for spray irrigation treatment. The nearest parcel was
2.2 miles from the Whispering Streams project site to the southeast in Wilkes
County. This parcel contains RzA, Rosman-Reddies, soils which are rated as
"somewhat limited" for slow rate treatment, as opposed to the other soil types
surrounding the site which are rated as "very limited." See Figure 5.
To determine the wetted field area needed for spray irrigation of the wastewater
from the Whispering Streams site, rainfall data and hours of daylight were used
to calculate an annual heat index, which was then used to estimate a design
percolation rate based on an average saturated permeability of the soil. A
nitrogen balance was used to evaluate the wastewater loadings under pine forest
cover crop. Operational storage, wet weather and emergency storage, and water
balance storage were considered based on a 5-day operational scheme and an
initial design wastewater loading of 2.5 inches per week. Therefore. it is
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 11 of 20
U:\24\24/66\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmitaldoc• 1/19/2006

ifillifBM=MHMMIMMTMOIMIla
SLOW RATE PROCESS TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER RATING FOR ASHE COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA: WATAUGA
COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA: WILKES COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
45.5i0)
I ti
Whispering Streams. Ashe County
4 5,v) 499.49) 459.2W
FnD
WaE
WaD WaF
WaD
TsD
- ,...
' 7 c 1,-,
WaE EvF WaF EvF WaF" CfD D
-
--'71411r- ".
\WC. WaE CfD CfD CfE WaE
—
CIE EvF
TsD
TsD EvF WE WaE
CIE CfD
EvF W EvE cfp TsD bk,a,c•
EvE
WoF
WaE
EvE
EvETsDM4P
u. TsD EvE
w
TsD AN
•c. m
0 2r't
0
W W EvE *
To ENE
EvE TsD TsD
EvF EvE
CfD t-sJ- EvE
To
WaE
f, WaE CfD
WaE WaE
\Nal:
WaE V*1E
CaF
To TsD
WaD WaC
ErD
EvF
EsD
ChE
ErD
EsD
EsD
Q. ChE EsD
EvE TsD
CfD TsD EsD TaD
ChE C,
CfD OD ChD
EsD (5.A.• EsD
ETC
, EsD VIM...7. Ta D EsD -... •
ChE
ChD ..-Cc) ChE
OsB EaD
Es D EsE TaD EsD
ChE TaD TaD ..r
• ,..
41.. EsE GTO
0 EsD
EsD k ETD
ChD
PwD ChD
..z)
EsD R2A ' Ere r;le
BrD2GrD
ChE GD
, •J• ,
IrD2 Ea1:1 EsD cliiiik
r
oto. WaD
ChE
ChD
TcC
ChE
TsD
WaF
WaE \v
WaD;
• s.
414
,1/4•A
COF
ChE
EsE EsE
TaD TcC.
EsD EsE
EsD
EsD "
TaD
EsE
EsD
TaD
•
•
USDA Natural gitstitit cr.
( Scri it t•
• I !
4 016 ,5ri
0 400 800
Meters
1,600
45-712) TA-.0 46214x,
Feet
0 1.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000
2/20)t,
Pap: 1 o f 5
rEOPIIMM

' JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
estimated that a 36,363 sf area is needed for spray irrigation treatment of the
wastewater.
Costs were prepared based on the assumption that this parcel of land containing
the RzA soils is available for purchase on a per acre basis. Assuming a 10-foot
wide easement along the force main and 2-acres of area purchased for spray
irrigation field and harvesting area, approximately 4.67 acres is required at a cost
of approximately S19,751. Soil testing and survey lend an additional S57.000 to
the cost to acquire the land.
Equipment required to construct a spray irrigation system includes a packaged
WWTP with UV disinfection at the plant and along the piping network to the spray
field. Storage at the plant, a lift station with pumps, and 2.2 miles of 3-inch
diameter ductile iron force main is required to convey the treated wastewater to
the wetted field. The elevation difference is 600 feet over a 4,500-foot distance:
therefore. a significant pump configuration is required. Splitter pipes, valves, and
laterals with sprayers are needed for the irrigation field. See Figure 6 for
proposed layout.
A cost analysis of this treatment alternative is provided below.
Capital Costs
Land acquisition costs = S71,751.00
Equipment costs = $871,050.00
Labor costs = S215,000.00
Installation costs = S154,250.00
Design costs = S102,530.00
Recurring Costs
O&M costs (includes harvesting costs) = S5,000.00/year
Laboratory costs = $3,900.00/year
Permit fees for land application = $525.00/year
Operator and support staff costs = S6,000.00/year
Residual disposal costs = $1,600.00/year
Utility costs (power, water, etc.) = S5,475.00/year
Easement maintenance = S2,000.00/year
Present Value Costs (20 years) are calculated as follows:
PV = capital costs + recurring costs x [(1+0.07)20-1]/[0.07(1+0.07)2 ']
PV = $1,414,581+ $24,500.00 x 10.594
PV = $1,674.134
Calculations to support the information above is included in Appendix B.
6.2.3. Drip Irrigation
This treatment alternative is very similar to the spray irrigation method, and
therefore, the parcel identified for treatment based on soil type is the same. The
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 13 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Perntits\EAA Resahmital.doc• 1/19/2006

JN 24166.00
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
main difference is the additional requirement for a sand filter. and the drip
emitters in lieu of the sprayers. Therefore, the overall costs would be greater than
for spray irrigation. It is assumed that an approximate cost for this treatment
alternative is on the order of S1,499,581 for capital costs and S31,775 for
recurring costs. PV (20 years) is calculated at S1,836,205.
Whisperii i St> ms --
%VVVJ Ry•iftt. Station
•
Figure 6. Overlay of Wilkes Co GIS with Ashe Co GIS
6.3 Alternative C. Wastewater Reuse
Wastewater from lavatories, bathtubs, and showers was considered for reuse at
the site. One reuse option evaluated was using gray water to flush toilets.
However. most gray water cannot stand without being filtered or aerated, or
anaerobic bacteria will turn it foul within a day or two. This is a particular concern
since it is unknown whether the proposed Whispering Streams condominium
units will be used seasonally or year-round. In order to combat this potential
problem, we propose an aerobic tank (septic tank with aerator) at each unit,
followed by a sand filter then a pump chamber to pump the gray water to the
toilets. Wastewater from lavatories, bath tubs and showers usually contains
bacteria, hair, hot water, odor, oil and grease, oxygen demand. soaps,
suspended solids and turbidity. A filter prior to the septic tank may be required to
remove hair and other large particles. Since approximately 48 gpd/bedroom is
estimated for toilet use and approximately 36 gpd/bedroom is estimated for
bathroom use (other than toilet), potable water will need to be added to make up
the difference. Sand filter maintenance is obviously a concern, since it will be the
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 14 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG"Perncits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006

.IN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
responsibility of the homeowner to clean and replace as required for continuous
operation of the reuse system. Estimated reduction of wastewater required for
treatment by a surface -discharge wastewater treatment plant is 30 percent.
However, the treatment system sizing will need to be based on the estimated
7200 gpd should the condominiums be used seasonally, and/or these reuse
systems fail. Therefore, it may reduce the amount of potable water required, but
the volume of wastewater remains the same. We estimate an additional S5,000
per household to install such a system. This cost is additional to the cost
associated with the wastewater treatment for the entire project site. Therefore.
costs are prohibitively high for an individual household to purchase and operate a
reuse system.
Cost Analysis (includes WWTP plus Re -Use System)
Capital Costs
Land acquisition costs = N/A
Equipment costs = $225.498.00 (incl standby generator & transfer switch
plus reuse system)
Labor costs = S59,100.00
Installation costs = S 26,556.00
Design costs = S20,629.00
Recurring Costs
O&M costs (with replacement costs) = 53,250.00/year
Laboratory costs assuming a weekly monitoring regime = $325.00/month
Operator and support staff costs = $500.00/month
Residual disposal costs = S400/trip x 4 trips/year = $1,600.00/year
Septic tank disposal costs = $250/year (required every 3 — 5 years)
Sand Filter clean -out and sand replacement = $150/year (5 — 7 yrs)
Connection fees and subsequent user fees = $75.00/month
Permit and compliance fees = S715.00/year
Utility costs (power, water, etc.) = S8.00/day
PV (20 years) = S331,783+ S19,685.00 x 10.594
PV (20 years) = $540,326
Another reuse option evaluated was reuse for irrigation. Homeowners would be
required to limit use of harsh detergents and bleach when washing clothes, and
washing of diapers would be prohibited but not enforceable. Additionally, anti-
bacterial soaps would not be allowed.
The proposed reuse system consists of a septic tank. sand filter and pump pit
that pumps to an aboveground soil -box planter. Treated water from these
planters drains to groundwater. Soils at the site consist of Toxoway loam, which
are very poorly drained soils. It is likely that drainage from the planter bed will
runoff to the creek downhill from their locations. See Figure-7.-
Anderson & Associates, Ine. Page 15 of 20
U:124124166\24166ENG\Pernrits\EAA Resulnnind.doc I/I9/2006

JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Advanced greywater treatment
Planter bed
1 1 I
To Groundwater
Over- <
flow
2,212.111
Greywater sources
Pump -
pit
Figure 7. Proposed Re -Use System
Sand -filter
Septic
tank
The soil box consists of a bottom layer of polyethylene "actifill" or pea gravel to
provide effective drainage. A layer of plastic mosquito -netting on top of the actifill
prevents the next layer of coarse sand from falling through. On top of the coarse
sand is a layer of ordinary concrete -mix sand, while the top two feet consist of
humus -rich top soil.
Approximately 66 gpd/bedroom can be reused, assuming 30% from bath, 15%
from laundry, and 10% from kitchen. Therefore, approximately 198 gpd can be
reused by each unit.
Minimum trench area needed is approximately 83 sf using a loading rate of 2.4
gal/sf/day.
Specify five 17-ft long x 1 ft wide trenches.
Flooding dose: 85 sf x 1-inch desired water depth = 53 gallons per dosing
Not known for this development is whether the units will be used as vacation
homes. Assuming full occupancy, a total of 3,960 gpd can be reused at the site,
reducing the required volume to be treated at the site's WWTP from 7,200 gpd to
3,240 gpd. However, the growing season for the Appalachian Mountains is
approximately 150 days, and therefore, the WWTP would still need to be sized
for the full 7200 gpd for the other 215 days of the year.
Additional costs for reuse for those 150 days per year is estimated at S7500 in
equipment costs per household. Again, costs are prohibitively high for an
individual household to purchase and operate such a system.
Cost Analysis (includes WWTP plus Re -Use System for Irrigation)
Capital Costs
Land acquisition costs = N/A
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 16 of 20
U:\.24\24166124/66ENG\Perntits\L•AA Resnbmital.doc 1/19/2006

• JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatii'es Analysis
Equipment costs = $227,998.00 (incl standby generator & transfer switch
plus reuse system)
Labor costs = $62,000.00
Installation costs = $ 32,250.00
Design costs = $22,629.00
Recurring Costs
O&M costs (with replacement costs) _ $3,250.00/year
Laboratory costs assuming a weekly monitoring regime = $325.00/month
Operator and support staff costs = $500.00/month
Residual disposal costs = $400/trip x 4 trips/year = $1,600.00/year
Septic tank disposal costs = $250/year (required every 3 — 5 years)
Sand Filter clean -out and sand replacement = $150/year (5 — 7 yrs)
Sand -box planter cleanout/maintenance = S25/yr (every 10 yrs)
Connection fees and subsequent user fees = $75.00/month
Permit and compliance fees = $715.00/year
Utility costs (power, water, etc.) = $8.00/day
PV (20 years) = $344,877+ $19,710.00 x 10.594
PV (20 years) = $553,685
6.4 Alternative D. Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
6.4.1 Zero Flow Restrictions
See Section 3.1 of this Engineering Alternatives Analysis.
6.4.2 Available Treatment Systems Evaluated
Several systems were evaluated for use at the project site. Due to the
effluent limitation requirements, the list of systems was easily narrowed
down. Effluent limitations shall be as follows: BOD5= 5 mg/I, NH3-N = 2
mg/I and DO = 6 mg/I. And discharges of total suspended solids (TSS)
shall be limited to effluent concentrations of 20 mg/I.
The two systems fully evaluated for use at the project site were the
Fluidyne Corporation Integrated Surge -Anoxic Mix (ISAMTM) Sequencing
Batch Reactor (SBR) system and the Purestream Biologically Engineered
Single Sludge Treatment (BESSTTM) system.
Without tertiary treatment, the ISAMTM packaged WWTP will meet a 10
mg/I BOD5 and TSS, and a 2mg/I NH3-N. Tertiary treatment is required to
meet the additional limits.
Without tertiary treatment, the Purestream BESSTTM process is capable
of removal of BOD5 to less than 5 mg/I, TSS removal to less than 10 mg/I,
and total nitrogen removal to less than 1.0 mg/I. However, a microscreen
drum filter is required to obtain a process warranty from Purestream for a
BOD5 effluent limit of 5.0 mg/I.
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 17 of 20
U:\24\24166L4166ENG\Permits\EAA Resld)ntital.doc 1/19/2006

DI 24/66.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
6.4.3 Description of Proposed WWT Facilities
Based on the achievable lower limits of the Purestream system,
conversations with a system operator located near the project site area,
and visits by the owner to two existing systems installed, the Purestream
BESSTTM system was chosen for the proposed facility.
A comparable site (approximately 15,000 gpd domestic) using the same
system proposed here is located at Smoketree Lodge in Watauga
County. Their effluent limitations appear to be the same as those required
for this project site. Available effluent information indicates that for the
Year 2004, the average monthly BOD5 level was 3.7 mg/I, NH3-N level
was 0.76 mg/I, and TSS level was 5 mg/I.
The BESSTTM system consists of a steel package plant that utilizes an
anoxic zone, aerobic zone, and an upflow sludge blanket clarifier. The
raw wastewater enters the anoxic zone first where it is mixed with nitrified
return activated sludge from the sludge blanket clarifier. Submersible
mechanical mixers are located in the anoxic compartment to facilitate
homogeneous mixing, and increase the denitrification efficiency. Then,
the mixed liquor flows in a plug flow manner to the aeration zone where
fine bubble diffusers provide the oxygen required for nitrification and
BOD5 reduction. After aeration, the mixed liquor enters the bottom of the
separation compartment where solids and treated effluent are separated
by a velocity gradient sludge blanket clarifier. The operation of the
velocity gradient sludge blanket clarifier is self-regulating. As flow enters
the bottom of the clarifier, a velocity gradient is created in such a way that
the bottom two to three feet of solids are kept in a completely mixed state
which eliminates the need for the operator to scrape the clarifier (i.e.,
solids will not bulk). While the solids rise, their velocity decreases creating
a sludge based, fluidized bed filter, which removes fine and colloid
particles from the treated effluent. Trapping these particles increases the
weight of the solids, causing them to drop to the bottom of the clarifier,
where they are returned to the anoxic zone by an airlift or mechanical
pump. The normal design recycle/sludge withdrawal rate is a minimum of
four (4) times the average daily flow. This high sludge withdrawal rate
from the clarifier bottom creates a downward velocity gradient within the
clarifier that significantly improves the hydraulic efficiency of the clarifier
compared to a conventional clarifier. Figure 8 shows the schematic
diagram of the major components of the selected system.
Product information on the BESST system is included in Appendix C.
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page IS of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENGV'ernnits\EAA Resnbmita/.doc• 1/19/2006

• ,1N 24166.00
Engineering Alternalires Analysis
Figure 8. Schematic Layout (BESSTTM System)
Influent
1
Anoxic Zone
Effluent
Sludge Blanket
Clarifier
RAS Nitrified MLSS
Anoxic (Denitrified) MLSS
Aeration
Zone
i
6.4.4 Availability of Required Land
The 1-acre parcel is planned for the location of the proposed wastewater
treatment system. Figure 9 shows the site plan where the treatment
facility and outfall lines would be located. No additional land or easement
agreements with adjacent property owners are needed.
6.4.5 Cost Analysis
Capital Costs
Land acquisition costs = N/A
Equipment costs = $220,498.00 (incl standby generator & transfer switch)
Labor costs = $57,100.00
Installation costs = $ 24,556.00
Design costs = $18,129.00
Recurring Costs
O&M costs (with replacement costs) = $3,000.00/year
Laboratory costs assuming a weekly monitoring regime = $325.00/month
Operator and support staff costs = $500.00/month
Residual disposal costs = $400/trip x 4 trips/year = $1,600.00/year
Connection fees and subsequent user fees = $75.00/month
Permit and compliance fees = $715.00/year
Utility costs (power, water, etc.) = $7.00/day
Present Value Cost (20 years)
PV = $320,283.00 + $17,770.00 x [(1+0.07)20 — 1 ]/[0.07(1+0.07)20]
PV = S508,538.63
6.4.6 Reliability Requirements
The proposed system provides reliability with standby unit (one running,
one spare) of all main equipment, and dual aeration zones and clarifier.
The UV disinfection unit is oversized, having two banks of ultraviolet lights
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 19 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmitaldoc 1/19/2006

•
1169
M
,.50`arrP
. ^• ..,^••,
L I
13 •;5 ,
UJF
CD
#
z
.(/) CD
Po.tr 2: APR 05

' JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
in the same stainless steel trough. Dual standby power supply will be
provided as a diesel -powered generator with automatic transfer switch.
6.5 Alternative E. Combination of Alternatives
Since only surface discharge of treated wastewater can be considered for development
of this site as proposed, no combination of alternatives was evaluated.
7.0 Economic Feasibility of Alternatives
Capital and recurring costs were evaluated for the surface discharge alternative and are
summarized in the Present Value of Cost Analysis (PVCA) table below.
Assumptions: r = 7%
PV = Capital Cost + Recurring Cost x [(1+0.07)20 — 1 ]/[0.07(1+0.07)20]
Present
Capital Costs
Present I
Recurring
Cost
Present Value
(20 years)
Land Application — Drip Irrigation
$1,499,581
$31,775
S1,836,205
Land Application — Septic Tank
$1,660,783
$9,843
$1,765,055
Land Application — Spray Irrigation
$1,414,581
$24,500
$1,674,134
Water Re -Use (Gray Water for
I rrigation)
$334,877
S19,710
S553,685 i
Water Re -Use (Gray Water for
Black Water)
$331,783
$19,685
$540,326
Surface Discharge Alternative
$320,283.00
$17,770.00
$508,538.63
The most cost effective alternative is surface discharge using a Purestream BESST
packaged wastewater treatment system. Required effluent limits have been met at other
sites using this alternative; therefore, the Owner is confident that these same
requirements can be met for this project. Additionally, homeowner participation for
successful implementation is not required, and the proposed alternative is not dependent
on condominium occupancy or area growing season. Minimal impact is expected from
surface discharge from the site proposed for development as duplex condominiums.
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 20 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006

Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
GrawScatta3L._Str t; North Cataol,no General Statute 143-:.15 1 (c)(6) allows input hems local governments in the ibaittinm
of NPDES Tenn& toz aou.aiwucipal dom,eadc vrasaautauer ercatn cat facilities. Specifically, the Eovirotunt]ncal Maaagewcat
Corn:niotuon (EMC) may not ace on an application for now non -municipal dnunostic wasoews,tct discharge &alley until it hat.
received a written statement from etch city and county govveenrswnt luvuog ins: tdttoam over nay part of the leads oo which the
pcopoi.td fac hty and lot appurtenances ice to be located. The winters statement shall document whether the dty or county boo at
rowing or subdivtuort ordinance us effect and Wench an ordusancc is in effect) whether the proposed facility is cotzriatent with die'
ot4m,nce. The EMC shalt not epptnve a permit application for nor hasty which a city of county' hat de n• tab
inconsonant with zoning or subdsvisson ordinances unless the npprowl of such application is dete iced to have statewide
significance and at in the best iarrrest of theStsac
Poo*. to sulanumngan apphcattran Er{ a NPDES. Peanut for a prcpaatad jot sty. the applieanl
shsl) request that both the narby city and county government complete this Coon The opplicurt enu.sc
tr Submit a copy of the permit applicaara (with a wafts nacineu fat this Fenn to ba comp ctrd) to (Meads of the- tiny e d
the county by combed mail, return rect pt requested.
ff of ter: (or both) local Cm /seta (i) fail(o) w roa:I the cozzpiettti: Erica, ta. eiridezcs,d-due poet s on. the camtuie,d
mail card(i), .within 15 days after recervutg and siting for the cciu .cd cart!, the applicant may submit the ap;.diruion to
the NP'DES Unit.
• As evidence to the Connimutason dot the local government(:) holed t0 rispond wttfttn 15 days. the appltczar situ! stsbeiit
con. of a -a :-srniad sand card along with a notwased ;attic: trsuissEr ?bat tna local! governrnast(s) 1z.ded oo respo:sd rsiebsa the
15 day ?mood.
Iz_tr£it c.`33L_iguhr, I n � �'t�yer�nt~sfnr The oesrzby city and t or cows i `eetz sates :r i,ic a rltay �au�r vc hK jwitarmma era et
any fij r of the 1 3d oa cvliidi else proposed "'salty or as aplrr..ctr.nnnce� arc to be !cc d is :^_gt.%I d to a-tnpl.:t: Arid :erdri eth
form to tits , 'olicl.-tt withrn 15 di.ys of rote t The farm rntut be iigntd rod notaoz i3.
{1W �1`m'9(i^T$�CJLiTL•tCY4. . a a� QL� �iS�•Ti'a�mlfS'�SX S�.r.C*.'CX :�.7J.T.Y.SG'FJ.St�.,.'�i3'L-: ��SL �LS}
N,E'_i tit kcal ov-o.rtiminut Tr3 ?IL-W 4,4 y
( ;City/ Cat:tar9)
Does
p[r.,apteYcity/couary have jurisdiction vas any past oftheland on which tho pmpoted facility and ire sprit/ armor, are to be
' 7•�'^� a ( \ 140 ` Uri*, * sign.this have 9 e ! I 1 4 G t
1 7 form. v= it rtcc.�..eci. ,..d _et�s:x cc .o site �*,�i:c�t_
Dora ti:s city/county :Live in effect a zor...r►g or suhdiv ion oddW►rite1 Yet t
if itrrr is a retung or tubdivizion nrdiounce in effect, is the plan for tine propirsoct ftv.A.oy consilrent with this orduortt& Vet IA
Not
Dae�c �1 L'l-2-5
Sra= of
1 1 C- - Country of
4.8 kA.._
On this ,�, li• day of „Jac) C�
t- 5 , personally appeared before rtt.e, site said
ntune_„„[k, L-a_S._ c4 0t.„1:4a me krauts and known to me to be the person d cdb'4
and 'rho executed the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged dist he for if -.a) executed the same and bcssig duty rumen
by Tele. trade oath that the rrateznents in the foragot,sg document MC true.
'(StplaSr.re ai )
o.- ,-,01 :Joruy pPublic(Official Ss.
KAA ttndantae Docurltenu Ver sort.• Oef4. er 14, 200-4
Y.

Appendix A

1' L� ll tift�l of ,A - f i c
150 Government Click, Suite 2400
�rf ers1ii,
(Nor' lair Uliila
28640
8 August, 2005
OFFICE OF PLANNING &
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Re: Query for Whispering Springs request for documented information
regarding availability of sewer system availability.
To whom it may concern:
There is no sewer system located within five miles of the proposed
location of Whispering Springs Subdivision, A planned Unit development
that has been proposed and received preliminary approval from the Ashe
County Planning board on April 21, 2005. The Ashe County Planning
Department is not aware of any plans to extend water and/or sewer to the
area.
S.ncerely,
•
/1
Zachariah S. Edwardson
Director of planning, Ashe County

: Orr' IJ 111.1 t} :t•t
S►,• • - i 1 `•fit
.4 t :''1 .'tt ;'sJ: P1
t..... ire'• •�a+r
APPALACi•HIAN DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
DITTPICT OPPICF. 126 to" Conncau. Saw. NC 2107
Tdcpheic 121-264.449i t21.244.4,97
Deed Suirx1,111 • •
r
Public Healrk Protecting and improving your health throughput IQ'& Ovirmsm Usti eIHmkk
Date
Re: Application for Improvement Permit for
-�
property sitei,+ .� Z—"rt��ev3� 00,
Health Department file No: p
Dear
Th�e�e County Health Department, Environmental Health Division
°n 3// .2" , �_ evaluated the above.
plgtlsites plan that accompanied your improvementt�t'ti' aka- designated on the
arY� 'iE3rr, th'o-site-Is. to-s�.e-& permit application. According to your
-1 _gallonsday. "fir ware design wastewater flow of
per The evaluation was done in accordance with the laws and
rules governing wa-ztewatet systems irrNorth Carolina- General Statute 1301A-333 and'
related statutes and Title i 5A, Subchapter 18A, of the North Caroling= Adrninistratiyc
Coda. Rure . i900' and f‘i:ated rules.
Based on- the -criteria -set -out {out irrTitle-15 - Subchapter 1 SA, of the North Carolina
Adminisiratiye Cede, Rules .1940 through .1948, the evaluation indicated that the site is
UNSUITABLE for a ground absorptiorrsewage system. Therefore, your request fci at1
Improvement permit is DENIED. A copy of the site evaluation is enclosed. The stie is
unsuitable based on the following:
Unsuitable soil topography and/or landscape position (Rule .1940
Unsuitable soil characteristic (structure or claymineral }
Unsuitable soil wetness condition (Rule .1942)
QSY) (Buie .1941)
Unsuitable soil depth (Rule .1943)
Presence of restrictive horizon (Bute .1944)
_Insufficient space for septic systiim and remit area(Ruia .1.945)
Unsuitable for meeting required setbacks (Rule .1950)
Other (Rule..1 a461
These severe soil or site limitation coukt cause premature
to the discharge of untreated sewage on the ground surface, In surface waters, diret1y into ground water or Inside your structure,
sUvt[33 OFF7CL
PO sea AU t3HMi( Oa HEALTH DEPT. s... !?7 Med,surnieu rimed,
&nit co. It?.irk parr
DapitIxlkittan
WK17U CA CO HEALTH nipr
I2f hctq C.s'e Con

eilladmcalcaSEMMA
i•r•r;r•, :r.wr,rrr r,i,t};.r
l i _ ; "+ r1,3 .+- : t.1 .-Y X l- : 251t'1 131.1
The site evaluation included consideration of possible site modifications, and
modified. innovative or alternative aystems. However, than Fieaith Depaetniont hes-
determined that none of the above options will overcome the severe conditions on this
site. A possible option might >;., a system designed to d)spoee-of sewage- to another -
area of suitable soil or off -situ to additional proirty.
For the reasons eat out above, the property is currently classified UNSUITABLE,
and an Improvement permit shall not be issued for this site in accordance with Ruts
1943(c).
However, the site classaled as UNSUITABLE may be classified as
PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE if written documentation is r rovided that meats the
requirements of Rule .1948(d). A copy of this rule is enclosed. You may hire a
consultant to assist you if you wish to try to develop a plan under which your site could -
be reclassirt.d as PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE.
You have a right to an informal review of this decision. You may request an
informal review by the Soil scientist of environmental health supervisor at the local heft,
department. You may also request an Informal review by the N. C. Deo-zrtmes-it of
Environment and Natural Resources regional soil specialist. A request for informal,
revievit must bal rn. do (m wdtin;Q to the kxal health department.
Yc{., el30 have 9 right to a formal appeal of this d Gsion. To pursue a 'formal
sppral, you mu.t lle t„,ir.irrm ,'ar o carte#tad case hearing .
c. with- the- Orsca of
Akimirustrati'ae h.:arings, 6/11 Mail Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714. To pet a copy of a
petition form, you may write the Office of A,tmin'ratrati a t- frings- of call-the-offtco- 4
[phone]. The petition for a'contesied case h4erirg must be filed in accordonce
the provision of North C ivoiir?a Geiser of Statutes 13'0A•24 -anrJ 1 50ir-23 art
::t`sr •jpoiicabie provisions of Chapter 150B. NC Gencrat Statue,. 130A-335(g) provides
that yo c hearing ouk tJ h 4d in :ha COunw L4wa your property i3.)ocated.
Pease note:: if you wish to pursue a foam !appeal, ytru'm rstfi tire-pe{iron-.
form with the Office of Administrative Fla rings WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF
TFtIS LETTER. Meeting the 30 day deadline is critical to your right to a format appe-
Beginning a forma! appeal within 30 days will not interfere with any informal review that -
you might request. Do not wait for the outcome of any informal review if you wish to fY
a formal appeal.
If you ftte a petition for a contested cake hearing_ with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, you are requirod by law (NC General Statue 108-23) to send a copy of your
petition to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Send
the copy to: Office of General Counsel, NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, 16411 MaiLServicz Center, Raleigh. NC 27699-1601. Do NOT send the copy
of the petition to your local health department. Sending a copy of your petition to the
local health department will NOT satisfy the legal requirement in NC General Statute
1508-23 that you sand a copy to this Office of General Counsel, NGDENR.
•

',RUM .r.14 f iY :1! ICI till I F�ti: �iJ. : 3'..Ei-H -3159
ri.iy. 213 .:'0115 : 26441 P15
You may call or write the local health department if you need any additional
information or assistance.
Sink- ely,
/ronmentai Health Speciafiat
Enclosure: Copy Site Evaluation
Copy of Rule .1948

: Lit It u:+I it4•t
fA\ !a). : _ '' -tt
�t) _ 1..41, 0-3 : 2_I 4i P 1 F,
ENR - ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL if! T 1 SA: 1U...1900
.194E SITE CLASSIFICATION
(a) Sites classified as SUITABLE may be utilized fora growl absorption sewage treatment and disposal system
coruisrent with these Rules. A suitable classificatloa generally indicates soil and site conditions favorable for the
opesation. of a round-absorptten sewage tzearsnesr-»d-ttispata}-rystera-orlra7re'stiglit ['unitarians that 2 r reedy
overcome by !roper design and installation.
(b) Sitcscieaaificd-arf-P1ierVB GNAl.LYSUrTABLE may be wll ed (or a ground absorption towage treat a$at
and disposal system consistent with these Rules but have moderate liausations. Sites classified Provisionally Suitable
require settee modifications AM- caro€etl• plo ing. dettigrr. and in:staitatiorrizrorderfora growvi absoption swage
treatment and disposal system to function satisfactorily.
(c) -Ske c have sevens-} tat--for-tl e-is lstion - -era properly ffswti�g
ground absorption sewage Greamew and disposal system. Aa teai
Is clatsi. us. U�bLjULTAljL provcrttctx permit shall t be issued �r a site which
�. �itt:� UNSUITABLE;- it marlso Taelassificd- PROMIONALLY,
SUITABLE if a special investigation indicates that s modified or alternative system can be IncsaU� cd in $ With
Rules .t95�£rar.t933 of this Stet;
(d) A site classified as UNSUITABLE troy b+- used for ground absorption sewage treatment tud tilnirsal system
specifically idenrificd in- Ruses . t955-; 195k or .1937 of this Section or a system approved under Rule .1969 it twilled
documentation. including cnginzeting, hydrogcologic, geologic or soil statues, indicates to the kcal 1r..alth department
that the proposes system can be expected to function satisfactorily. Such sites .hall be rxlauitkd as
PttOV1S1ONAL1.Y SUITABLE i( the local health department determines that the substanti .Hoeg data Iodica that:
(t 1 a ;►es+.nr aba ci- ; s e at( the cfflucrr will le ;iSog - , t?oo-Infectious. non-
toxic. and non -hazardous:
(2). the effluent- as- staface. test-Mei—
(3) the effluent will not to exposed on the ground surface or be discharged to surface waters where it could
come In colttsct peopk. aairZi ilr.'r ve:tone.
The State .hall review the subsuritlaticg data if requested by the local health department.
History Note: authority G.S. 1304-33S(e);
Eff. July 1. 19 -2;
%mended Ejj. ,+,aril 1. 1993; January 1. 1990.

ChrtalTURSASUCV
�•� tr s :1.% l rrrr 13114 it {s4•1
F 1-:: 1.1). . i iti-H ; �- 31 S9
r.1.j. 'rl ;?4X15 :?All P1
•
North Carolina
Department of Environment- and -Natural Rcsource -
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Linda Sewell, Division Director
Bill Jeter Section Chief
Mr_ Janie, Stewart
Appalachian Health District, Ashe County
PO Box 208
Jefferson, NC 28640
Mr. Stewart
The Danny Bingham site is UNSUITABLE for a ground absorption wastewater treatment
and disposal system under current laws and_rules 1SNCAC 18A..19Q0`N iastawataz
(septic tank) system can be permitted on this site at this time.
This report Lists the findings, conclusions and recommendations for the property. If you
have any questions or if I can be of essistr ne oontaet meat (8n8)-347-5152, fax# (828).
397-5152, E-mail at ioe.lynnkr• ncmail.net, or 6768 George Hildebrart School Road,
Hickory, NC 28602.
Sincerely,
c Lyn:
Regional Soil Specialist

-ij•i 84's' 13Jtu;,t+41 F•L' tU. h• !i.'J .i1`:'3
f1Jif. 2i-Xjti 014:.1(I i r:>i
INTRODUCTION
COUNTY: Ashe
OWNER/APPLICANT: Danny Bingham -
LOCATION: Pine Swamp Road
TYPE OF FACILITY: apartments
DESIGN UNIT: 7,920 gpd
WATER SUPPLY:. on -site well
EVALUATED BY: Joe Lynn assisted by James Stewart using pits
DATE OF EVALUATION: 3l18l2005
OTHERS PRESENT: N/A
SITE tNFORMATION\_
AREA/USE: 910-acres
TOPOGRAPHY: 2 to 10 percent slope
LANDSCAPE POSITION: linear & foot slopes and floodplain
SITE LIMITATIONS: streams, 2 existing.systo s., ban% fill. &camas
SOIL INFORMATION
TEXTURE: surface: learn fill"
s:;hs,v fV ;; vh y loam
STRUCTURE: blocky
CLAY MMINE,KALOCiY: slightly expansive clay
DEPTH to _ ck or p runt mate ill - 1nche3; saprolitel2 to 37 inch s
WETNESS: chrornas of two or lcs.; at <12-to 27 inches, water was noted at 15 to 2i
inthes
RESTRICTIVE IIOR1ZONS: ncu:c
AVAILABLE SPACE: nonc
CQNCL'USIONS
This site Is unsuitable for the installation ora conventional wastewater system (septic
tank) Rule .1955 due to:
1. Soil Wetness
Colors of c1ixoi a 2 or less
2. Rule .1943 Insufficient Soil Depth
Soil Depths- lessthan-36-inches
3. Rule .1945 Insufficient Available Space
Not enough area for the initial wastewater system and a repair.
The site is Unsuitable under Rule .1956 Modifications to SeptJc Systems:
I. Shallow conventlonaLsystemsNO_
2. Large Diameter Pipe system -NO

I t•u. too . 4'+3•2U1-v l I)1')
3. PrefilbriCated Porous Block Panel system-NO-
4. Drainage will not be sufficient to reclassifS' the site to Provisionally Suitable.
5. Sapro[ to will not change the -site -to -Provisionally -Suitable:
The site is Unsuitable under Rule .1957 AIternative Sewage Systems:
1. Low Pressure Pipe system -NO
2. Fill system -NO
3. Aerobic Treatment system -NO
The site is Unsuitable under Rule .1969 Experimental and Innovative Systems,
Components, or Devices:
1. Chamber system -NO
2. Houch Drainage system•NO
3. Subsurface Drip system -NO
4. Sand Filter Pretreatment system -NO
S. Peat Filter Pretreatment system -No
RECOMMENDATIONS
The owner has the following options that might allow the property to be used as desired:
I. The applicant may purchase PrvvisianallySuitable-property-to- place the -wastewater.
system on.
2. The applicant may obtain an casement on a Provisionally Sbitabie property to plate
the wastewater system on.
3. The applicant can contact the Division of Water Quality in Winston Salem (336)
7714600 to pursut. asurfacs discharge..

Appencflx B

Whispering Streams
Ashe County, North Carolina
JN 24166
Drain Field Cost Analysis
CAPITAL COSTS
Item
Septic Tank 900 gallon
Myers WG50H-5HP Single Phase 230V Pump
3" PVC pipe
3" Tee
Lift Station #1
>2-15HP pumps 10`dia x 15' deep
>controls
Lift Station #2
>2-15HP pumps 10'dia x 15' deep
>controls
3" DIP force main
Drain Field Construction
>Geotextile fabric 12" wide
>3" PVC spreader pipe
>Gate valve
>lateral turn -ups
>Clean outs
>1.5" PVC pipe laterals, perforated
>4" PVC casing Pipes for laterals, perforated
Equipment Costs
Soil testing
Wetlands delineation
Survey
Property Purchase
Land Acquisition Costs
Labor Costs
Installation Costs
Engineering
Contingency
Design Costs
RECURRING COSTS
O&M Costs
Residual disposal costs
Utility costs
Pk Anderson & Associates, Inc.
406 Gallimore Dairy Road
Greensboro, NC 27407
www.andassoc.com
Quantity Unit Unit Price
20 EA $1,100.00
20 EA $3,618.00
220 LF $6.50
1 EA $10.00
2 EA $132,500.00
1 EA $10,000.00
2 EA $132,500.00
1 EA $10,000.00
5,500 L.F. $35.00
9,900 L.F. $0.50
220 L.F. $6.50
45 EA $15.00
45 EA $10.00
90 EA $10.00
9,900 L.F. $4.00
9,900 L.F. $6.00
8 EA $400.00
1 LS $2,500.00
1 LS $42,000.00
3.34 Ac $2,400.00
Lump
Lump
yr
yr
day
Total Price
$22,000.00
$72,360.00
$1,430.00
$10.00
$265,000.00
$10,000.00
$265,000.00
$10,000.00
$192,500.00
$4,950.00
$1,430.00
$675.00
$450.00
$900.00
$39,600.00
$59,400.00
$945,705.00
$3,200.00
$2,500.00
$42,000.00
$8,016.00
$55,716.00
$239,050.00
$136,600.00
10% $94,570.50
20% $189,141.00
$283,711.50
Annual Costs
$3,200.00 $3,200.00
$3,000.00 $3,000.00
$4.50 $1,642.50

SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS RATING FOR ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; WILKES COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA
Meters
0 150 300 600
USDA Natural Resources
Wird
conservation Seri ice
Feet
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
12/5/2005
Page I of 4

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating
Tables - Septic Tank Absorption Fields
Summary by Map Unit - Ashe County, North Carolina
Soil Survey Map Unit Name
Area Map Unit
Symbol
Rating
Total Acres
in AOI
Percent of AOl
CaF Chandler loam, 25 to 65 Very limited 9.4 0.5
percent slopes �1
CfD Clifton loam, 8 to 15 Somewhat limited 3.1 2.1
percent slopes
EsF Evard stony loam, 25 to ' united 370.5 18.3
60 percent slopes
EvE Evard loam, 15 to 25 Very limited 527.6 26.0
percent slopes
EvF Evard loam, 25 to 45 Very limited 618.0 30.5
percent slopes
To Toxaway loam Very limited 113.7 5.6
TsD Tusquitee loam, 8 to 15 Very limited 148.0 7.3
percent slopes
W Water Not rated I.6 0.1
WaE Watauga loam, 15 to 25 Very limited 26.3 1.3
percent slopes
WaF Watauga loam, 25 to 45 Very limited 83.3 4.1
percent slopes
Summary by Map Unit - Wilkes County, North Carolina
Soil Survey Map Unit Name Rating Total Acres Percent of AOI
Area Map Unit in AOI
Symbol
CeF Chestnut-Ashe complex, Very limited . 35.8 1.8
25 to 90 percent slopes,
very stony
ChE Chestnut-Edneyville Very limited 34.5 1.7
complex, 25 to 60 percent
slopes, stony
EsD Evard-Cowee complex, 8 Very limited 13.4 0.7
to 25 percent slopes, stony
EsE Evard-Cowee complex, 25 Very limited 2.1 0.1
to 60 percent slopes, stony
USDA Natural N,yuurces Web Soil Survey 1.0 12/5/2005
Cnnsenatinn Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4

•
eA`
ANDERSON
AND
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
7349-F WEST FRIENDLY AVENUE GREENSBORO, NC 27410
[phone] FAX [phone]
JOB
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
.t G C-;(r- y? L..... ,�1.. �.
,,
r
)l) t _ X:
C12
,sir
36,"
! '2 f ? ,
r
r%Y
ij l✓ I V Pi (t- Fc Y ).1-e-
IA2 I)
r
ti✓I °T1cl{'
C.}_ ✓rI-,
•

ANDERSON
IAAND
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
7349-F WEST FRIENDLY AVENUE GREENSBORO, NC 27410
[phone] FAX [phone]
JOB
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
•it (5.'
..(N :1 00.1 p. l -,-fJ
¢57 5 �'=
2I2..
/ _I
•
•
/2/ qo 3
ram,/ 1=7 • ,,. i - t 2, S i
L A %. `; .,', <IJ- y f 6 4 3 CD
1

SPRAY IRRIGATION COSTS
CAPITAL COSTS
Primary & secondary treatment
(WWTP)
UV disinfection
Storage
3-inch DIP force main
Lift Station w/ pump to convey ww
up 600' over 4500 If
Equipment costs
Soil testing
Survey
Property Purchase
Easement Purchase
Land costs
Labor costs
Installation costs
Design costs
RECURRING COSTS
O&M costs
Laboratory costs
Permit fees for land applic
Operator and support staff costs
Residual disposal costs
Utility costs
Easement maintenance
Qty Unit
1 LS
3 EA
1 LS
11500 LF
1 LS
10 EA
1 LS
2 AC
2.67 AC
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
yr
mo
yr
mo
yr
day
yr
Unit Price Total Price
$150,000.00
$12,850.00
$5,000.00
$35.00
$275,000.00
$650.00
$52,000.00
$4,229.36
$4,229.36
$215,000.00
$154,250.00
$102,530.00
$5,000.00
$325.00
$525.00
$500.00
$1,600.00
$15.00
$2,000.00
$150,000.00
$38,550.00
$5,000.00
$402,500.00
$275,000.00
$871,050.00
$6,500.00
$52,000.00
• $8,458.72
$11,292.39
$71,751.11
$215,000.00
$154,250.00
$102,530.00
$1,414,581.11
Annual Costs
$5,000.00
$3,900.00
$525.00
$6,000.00
$1,600.00
$5,475.00
$2,000.00
$24,500.00

SLOW RATE PROCESS TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER RATING FOR ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; WATAUGA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
454800
455200
456600
Whispering Streams - Soils Info (Slow Rate Treatment)
4575 00 456400
459.300
460200
461100
462000
'1V,Ja
VV E !NSF INaE`
EvF T VVaE. WaD. • ' err
�- `T TsD Q F 6
ti.w . L VJ;�F EvF WaE lc:raE HO a '
EVE TsD EvE
CD Ca.•
TsD EvE Wa►
LL
_8
�S . T () Ell) 'A. ' 7, , o
• . t TsD 0 D\.
EVE TsD CyF e
n. t�4 .6- `e
462900
0
e)—
a
8_
0
0_
W:1F TsD WaF Ts cm
,_vF
EvF WaF CfD
CfF-
CfD VV
EvF
EvE
TsD
CID
.CfD CfE
WaE
EvE.
�fr `,fir
EvE
i Fn7 ;EvE
WaE FSE.
TaD. Tce,.°
nriD ',,,In GfD EsD
Wa -Io CAE
�ii'�F DIE Es4 EsD "' :,
o • VS
a cfD ChE EsD 'Tab.
SWF't " EsD 11—,,
EsE
ChD
ErC ChE T2D TaD,
sD , - EsD
hE- EsD
EsD .c.
TcC . fit` 'TaD
{� Es O
EsE TaD.OSE
EsD
TTO D Tap
EvE
454800
USDA Natural Resources
71—
fonsenntian Seri Ice
455700
456600
457500
10
E F
CfD
is_1
C'n
^JD
458400
CI-1D rE�
ChE
0 400 800
Meters
1,600
Cht?
TsD
E,f E
EvE
C:hD
Chi)
C,D
ESE.
BrD2
ChE. FSE Grp
459300
TsD
E,4D
ErD,
EsO
EsD
C-rD EsD \ �.- ErD;
ER TAD
E_C.
E D. rr? f`zA E D2:EsD
C„III%.. EsD ErD^
460200
461100
46 000
Feet
0 1,0002,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
462900
12/16/2005
Page 1 of 5
8
a
8

Whispering Streams - Soils Info (Slow Rate
Slow Rate Process Treatment of Wastewater Rating Treatment)
Summary by Map Unit - Wilkes County, North Carolina
Soil Survey Map Unit Name Rating Total Acres Percent of AOl
Area Map in AOl
Unit Symbol
ChE Chestnut-Edneyville complex, Very limited 870.3 8.8
25 to 60 percent slopes, stony
CwA Cullowhee fine sandy loam, 0 Very limited 9.0 0.1
to 3 percent slopes, frequently
flooded
ErC Evard gravelly sandy loam, 6 Very limited 64.9 0.7
to 15 percent slopes
ErD Evard gravelly sandy loam, Very limited 75.6 0.8
15 to 25 percent slopes
EsD Evard-Cowee complex, 8 to Very limited 352.4 3.6
25 percent slopes, stony
EsE Evard-Cowee complex, 25 to Very limited 654.3 6.6
60 percent slopes, stony
GrD Greenlee-Ostin complex, 3 to Very limited 161.4 1.6
40 percent slopes, very stony
OsB Ostin very cobbly loamy Very limited 18.4 0.2
sand, 1 to 5 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
PwD Porters loam, 15 to 25 percent Very limited 91.6 0.9
slopes, stony
RzA Rosman-Reddies complex, 0 Somewhat limited 20.9 0.2
to 3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
TaD Tate fine sandy loam, 8 to 25 Very limited 142.5 1.4
percent siopes
TcC Tate-Cullowhee complex, 0 to Very limited 83.4 0.8
25 percent slopes
W Water Not rated 0.6 0.0
WaC Watauga loam, 8 to 15 Very limited 7.1 0.1
percent slopes
WaD Watauga loam, 15 to 25 Very limited 52.6 0.5
percent slopes
USDA Natural Resources
(nnscnation Smice
Web Soil Survey 1.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/16/2005
Page 4 of 5

8 ANNDDERSON
• &AI AASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES
406 GALLIMORE DAIRY RD. GREENSBORO, NC 27409
[phone] FAX [phone]
--rrc-' t--j_
vi
Gsf.inyefra
M-4t Y,vLn,u
JOB
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
1n/E- k T714A I

•
ANDERSON
A
ND
AASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES
406 GALLIMORE DAIRY RD. GREENSBORO, NC 27409
[phone] FAX [phone]
JOB
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY - DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE

vilkes Page 1 of l
Wilkes County Horne Page I Data Layers I Background Layers I Search for a property I Search using a Street Name I
County Border
Control Monuments
City Limits
ETJ
Map Grid
Property Lines (Color)
(Visible when zoomed in.)
Street Centerlines
_ ; Contours 10ft
(Visible when zoomed in.)
Lake
VI Soils
Townships
Watersheds
Zoning
Refresh Map
3D
EsE
T
r 1
B D '
1 JrD
EsD
~ LJ
ErD
Cer_;1
•
000•o
E
0
•
Eri
EsD
Er!
/al
Scale (approx.)
1174 ft

SPRAY IRRIGATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN
precipitation in inches
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 4.53 1.75 7.42 3.4 3.99 3.74 3.96 2.33 4.71 3.72 2.78 2.31
1981 1.06 3.42 2.95 1.44 4.93 4.03 5.56 6.53 2.78 2.8 1.06 5.11
1982 5.45 5.76 2.7 3.81 3.7 6.26 5.25 3.47 3.34 4.04 3.21 4.81
1983 3.16 6.18 7.27 5.17 3.66 4.07 2.3 2.73 3.49 3.74 4.49 6.79
1984 3.3 5.76 5.52 4.44 6.59 3.06 8.73 3.62 4.36 1.77 2.1 1.84
Average 3.5 4.574 5.172 3.652 4.574 4.232 5.16 3.736 3.736 3.214 2.728 4.172
temperatures in F
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 41.1 36.9 46.8 59 66.7 72.5 78.4 78.2 73.7 57.4 47.9 41.3
1981 34.1 42.5 46.2 61.9 64.1 77.3 77.7 73.7 68 57 49.4 38.5
1982 35.1 44.9 51.1 55.8 69.1 72.8 77.1 74.7 68.3 58.6 52.2 47.8
1983 38.5 41.1 50.5 54.2 65.2 72 78.2 78.2 70.1 60.1 50.2 39.8
1984 36.9 45.6 47.6 • 55.7 65.4 74.7 75.1 75.8 67.4 65.8 47.8 49.8
Average 37.14 42.2 48.44 57.32 66.1 73.86 77.3 76.12 69.5 59.78 49.5 43.44
Converted 2.855556 5.666667 9.1333333 14.06667 18.94444 23.25556 25.16667 24.51111 20.83333 15.43333 9.722222 6.355556
daylight hrs (in units of 12 hrs)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
30 deg lat 0.866667 0.930556 0.9958333 1.073611 1.197222 1.172222 1.161111 1.105556 1.031944 0.955556 0.888889 0.852778
40 deg lat 0.801389 0.891667 0.9902778 1.102778 1.280556 1.25 1.234722 1.15 1.043056 0.930556 0.834722 0.777778
36 deg lat 0.8275 0.907222 0.9925 1.091111 1.247222 1.218889 1.205278 1.132222 1.038611 0.940556 0.856389 0.807778
heat index (lower case I)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.428228 1.208641 2.4897296 4.787633 7.513927 10.24899 11.55073 11.09826 8.676812 5.509186 2.736758 1.437917
(annual heat index) = 67.686813
A, Power term derived from annual heat index = 1.561426
Ksat of most limiting soil layer (RzA, Reddies) is 42 -141 micrometers/sec at 29" - 60" depth
Ksat = 28 micrometers/sec 0.001102 in/sec 3.968496 in/hr

PET
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Jan Feb Mar Apr May
0.344068 1.099837 2.5353123 5.470588 9.953749
Evap (cm) Evap (in) Perc (in)
5.450368
2.411811
1.171402
0.344068
1.099837
2.535312
5.470588
9.953749
13.39812
14.98726
13.51041
9.614941
2.14581
0.94953
0.461181
0.13546
0.433006
0.998152
2.15377
3.918791
5.274841
5.900485
5.31905
3.785402
Nitrogen Balance (Pine Forest)
ADF (mgd)
Design WW Loading (in/wk)
ADF Wetted Area (in/wk)
Nitrogen Input fr WW (Ibslac-yr)
Nitrogen Input fr Rain (Ibslac-yr)
Total N Input (Ibslac-yr)
Ammonia Volatiliz @ 5% of Applie
Denitrification, 25% of Total N apr
Net Plant Uptake & Storage (Ibs/a
Nitrogen Leached by Perc (Ibs/ac-
Precipitation (in/yr)
WW Applied (in/yr)
Potential Evapotransp (in/yr)
Percolate (in/yr)
Estimated Perc Total N (mg/I)
295.2561
285.73171
295.2561
295.2561
266.68293
295.2561
285.73171
295.2561
285.73171
295.2561
295.2561
285.73171
0.0072
1.25
1.4849516
295.19507
5
300.19507
11.069815
2.7674538
75
211.35781
53
65
35
83
11.229975
Jun Jul Aug Sep
Oct Nov Dec
13.39812 14.98726 13.51041 9.614941 5.450368 2.411811 1.171402
Precip Precip D (allowed)
in in/mo in/wk
3.5 11.16 2.520001
4.574 10.8 2.520003
5.172 11.16 2.520001
3.652 11.16 2.520001
4.574 10.08 2.52
4.232 11.16 2.520001
5.16 10.8 2.520003
3.736 11.16 2.520001
3.736 10.8 2.520003
3.214 11.16 2.520001
2.728 11.16 2.520001
4.172 10.8 2.520003
0.0072
1.5
1.23746
354.2341
5
359.2341
13.28378
3.320945
75
267.6294
53
78
35
96
12.29422
0.0072
1.75
1.06068
413.2731
5
418.2731
15.49774
3.874435
75
323.9009
53
91
35
109
13.10462
0.0072
2
0.928095
472.3121
5
477.3121
17.7117
4.427926
75
380.1725
53
104
35
122
13.7423
0.0072
2.25
0.824973
531.3511
5
536.3511
19.92567
4.981417
75
436.444
53
117
35
135
14.25717
0.0072
2.5
0.742476
590.3901
5
595.3901
22.13963
5.534908
75
492.7156
53
130
35
148
14.68159

Operating Scheme:
Average initial design ww loading will be 2.5 in/wk. Actual should be somewhat less than 2.5 in/wk during
normal oper blc the add'I acreage needed for treating the operational storage, water balance storage and
wet weather/emerg storage will be used to treat the normal daily flows.
Max allowable instantaneous applic rate is 3.96 in/hr
The cover crop will be pine forest.
Normal oper will be 5 days/wk. The flow from the other 2 days will be stored. Therefore, the ww applied
each day is [(7 days/wk)/(5days/wk)] x .0072 MGD = 0.01008 MGD
Storage Volume Requirements:
a. Operational Storage (assume irrig 5 days/wk)
2 days x .0072 MGD = 0.0144 Mgal
Assume harvesting of pine trees will not occur during wet weather months. Therefore, no
additional storage is needed for forests out of service due to harvesting since the wet
weather storage volume will be available.
b. Wet Weather and Emergency Storage
(the greater of 12 days of flow or the results of eqn 3.9.2)
Max allowable hydraulic ww loading in critical water balance months is 11.16 in/month.
Eqn 3.9.2 (2.5 in/wk x 365 days/yr)/(12 mos/yr x 11.16 in/mo) = 6.8 days
Use 12 day min storage requirement. 12 days x .0072 MGD = 0.0864 Mgal
c. Water Balance Storage
Water balance storage is a function of hydraulic loading rate, which is a fcn of total wetted area.
Must determine wetted field area first....
Wetted Field Determination:
Area req`d for spray site is the total of 4 separate components
A (wetted) = A(ADF) + A(OP) + A(WW/E) + A(WBS)
A(ADF) = 0.736583 acres
A(WW/E) = 0.098211 acres
A(OP) = 0 acres
WLR = 2.223529 in/wk
Water Balance Storage
D (pot) D(allowed) WBS Sum WBS
Oct 9.847059 11.16 0 0
Nov 9.529412 10.8 0 0
Dec 9.847059 11.16 0 0

Jan 9.847059 11.16 0 0
Feb 8.894118 10.08 0 0
Mar 9.847059 11.16 0 0
Apr 9.529412 10.8 0 0
May 9.847059 11.16 0 0
Jun 9.529412 10.8 0 0
Jul 9.847059 11.16 0 0
Aug 9.847059 11.16 0 0
Sept 9.529412 10.8 0 0
Neg values indicated WBS is required for this month.
Pos values mean that no WBS is required for this month.
Table indicates that a total WBS of 0 inches over the wetted area of 0.83 acres.
A(WBS) = 0 ac
Total Area Needed for Land Application is:
0.834794 acres
36363.64 sf
Spraying 10,080 gallons each day for 5 days/wk, the wetted field area will be divided into
7,273 sf sections. For normal flows each field will be loaded at a rate of:
2.22353 in/wk
The average ww irrig period will be: 0.561497 hr/day
The max ww irrig period will be: 0.631313 hr/day

Appendix C

'.it. ;'f, r3::->1'.•1
r J. J 4' ..105 OH: 22f ixa
Page 1 of 2
harn
From: "John C Weave' <jeweaverausge.gov>
To: 'Martina Bingham' <mtnb &cybeetcon
Cc: "John C Woaver" <'
Sent: Wednesday, March 02,2005 3::2 PM
Subject Low -flow characeeris5ca for unnamed stream in southeastern Ashe County
Mr. Bingham,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for au
unnamed stream (tributary to West Fork) in southeastern Ashe County, the
following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files hcrc at the District office does not indicate
any previous determination of tow -flow characteristics for the stream shown
on your fax location map. And in the abaenee of site -specific discharge
data that would allow for a low -flow analyses, estimates of low -flow
discharges are determined by assessing the yields (expressed as flow per
square trine drainage arca) at nearby USGS sites to a_s a* a range of
possible values applicable to your point of interest.
Using low -flow information provided in USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403
"Low -flow characteristics of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason,
1993), the 7Q10 low -flow yields at selected nearby USGS sites range from
about 0.41 to 0.43 cfs per sqmi drainage area (cfsm). Similarly, the 30Q2
low -flow yields it the nearbysites range from about 0.7 to 0.8 cfsm. A
check of the regional relations also provided in Water -Supply Paper 2403
iodicatc that estimated 7Q10 yield for this plea of Ashe County is about
0.31 cfsm. and the 30Q2 yield estimated from the regional relations is 0.64
cfszn. These yieIds are a Iittle lower relative to those suggested by the
nearby USGS sites.
A "quick-n-dirty" delineation of the drairuge area upstream of your point
of interest indicates the drainage arca to be a lithe more than 1 sgmi.
Applying the range of yields listed above to this drainage area would
suggest the 7Q10 flow estimate is between. 03 and 0.45 cubic feet per
aecond (cfs), and the 30Q2 flow estimate is between 0.7 and O. cfs.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
990*9voeeaocmea*aaeasovo$s*a*aa¢ae4eaooaosoasseoa4aaeeo9.ae*oev9ssaeet►s
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
U.S. Geological Survey
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
3r2/2005