NC0088170_Engineering Alternative Analysis_20060213

o�rit?p
r NCDENR
—1
Y
Mr. Danny Bingham, President
Laurel Mountain Builders, LP
616 Hartzog Ford Road
West Jefferson, North Carolina 28694
Dear Mr. Bingham:
/vccDgSl70
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
February 13, 2006
Subject: Engineering Alternative Analysis (EAA)
Whispering Streams
Ashe County
The Division of Water Quality (Division) has reviewed your Engineering Alternative Analysis (EAA) for
Whispering Streams. The Division concurs with the conclusions and recommendations of the EAA. The
EAA you have submitted is sufficient to meet the Alternative Analysis requirements for a new discharge.
In order to obtain an individual NPDES permit you will need to submit permit application (short form C)
in triplicate. After your application is received, the Division will proceed to modeling of the discharge.
After the model is completed and effluent limits are calculated, the new draft permit will be publicly
noticed in a regional newspaper. The entire modeling and permitting process may take between 60 and
120 days. If the draft permit causes significant protests from local citizens, governmental organizations,
and/or environmental groups a public hearing may be scheduled and issuance of the final permit may be
further delayed. In some cases the Division may deny the request for a new permit based on the public
hearing results.
If you have any questions about the NPDES permit process, contact me at the address or telephone
number listed below.
cc: NPDES File
Asheville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection
M. Robin Austin
Anderson & Associates
406 Gallimore Dairy Road, Greensboro, NC 27410
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Sergei Cherniko{r, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
NPDES-WEST
Phone: [phone], extension 594
Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

ANDERSON
eeAND
ASSOCIATES, INC Professional Design Services
January 19, 2005
NC Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attention: Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
NPDES-WEST
[phone] ext 594
Re: Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
Whispering Streams
Ashe County
Return # 2231
Dear Mr. Chernikov:
In response to your letter dated November 4, 2005, please find attached a revised
submittal containing the following items:
1. Complete evaluation of discharge alternatives including subsurface system, spray
irrigation, drip irrigation, and wastewater reuse. We have examined the feasibility
of purchasing the required land for using it for these alternatives. We have
provided a cost analysis for these alternatives. We have followed the EAA
guidance and provided all listed requirements. We have thoroughly evaluated
each discharge alternative and provided appropriate documents and itemized
budgets to substantiate our statements.
2. Three copies of the request, including the attachments.
If you have questions or require additional information, please contact me at 336-931-
0910.
Sincerely,
M
M. Robin Austin, P.E.
cc: Danny Bingham, President/Laurel Mountain Builders, LP L"
"-. `\ 2 3 2006
An Employee -Owned Company
406 Gallimore Dairy Road, Greensboro, NC 27409 [phone] [phone] fax www.andassoc.com
Blacksburg, Fredericksburg, & Middletown, Virginia • Greensboro, North Carolina • Tri-Cities, Tennessee

JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives 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 Project 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 of 20
U:\24\24166\24/66ENG\Pernuts\EAA Resuhmital.doc I/19/2006

JN 24166.00
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
1
Mountain
1
4.4
Figure 1. Location Map (Source: Topozone 2005)
Anderson & Associates, Inc.
U:\24124166\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006
111-»- h
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 of 20
U:\24\24166\24I66ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006

JN 24166.00 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:
7010 flow estimate = between 0.3 and 0.45 cfs
3002 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 & Associates, lnc. Page 4 (?I' 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Pertnits\EAA Resubmital. doc 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 & Associates. Inc. Page 5 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Perrnits\EAA Resnbncital.doc I/19/2006

JN 24166.00 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 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resnhnritaldoc I/19/2006

—:D._;R 3
GI/H/SPER/NG STREAVS
A LAUREL 4L/DUNTA/N BCi/LDER_> DE VELOPii9ENT
Township, Pine Swamp
Scale, 1' = 50'
Ashe County, N.C.
Date, 21 APR 05
Map prepared by: Thomas Herman Company, PLLC
Professional Land Surveyor
P.O. Box 519
131 West Moln Street
JeF Person, N.C. 28640
(336> 846 - 3352
Job * 041209-CP
L
v
I\ARY
NOT FOR SALES, CONVEYANCES, DR RECORDATION
50
0
50
\\:\;:s
,l
�/
100
GRAPHIC SCALE - FEET
150

JN 24166.00 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. Page 7 of 20
U:\24\24166\24I66ENG\Pernrits\f:AA Resubmitaldoc I/19/2006

JN 24166.00 L• n s; ineering 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\24166ENGWermits\EAA ResubmitaLdoc 1/19/2006

JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
1-
0
z
}
F--
z
D
0
0
u
J_
z
J
0
cr
0
c
0
z
r
z
0
0
LJ
cn
0
L_
z
0
J
lJ
z
0
a_
0
Q
z
F--
0
1-
d
W
CAROLINA
Whispering Streams. Ashy County
•
o.ct
Figure 3. Soils Identified for Septic Tank Absorption Fields (Source: NCSS online)
Anderson & Associates, Inc.
U:\24\24166\24166ENGU'ermits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006
9
O o
Page 9 of 20

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 $2400 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 = $239,050.00
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 = $3,000.00/year
Utility costs (power, water, etc.) = $1,642.50/year
Easement maintenance = S2,000/year
Anderson & Associates, Inc. Page 10 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Pennits\EAA Resubnutal.doc 1/19/2006

JN 24166.00
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Intermediate Litt Station
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)L0-1]/[0.07(1+0.07)20]
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 I 1 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\,Permits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006

JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Q
D
1--
Q 8
Q
Z_
J
0
CC 8
Q 8
U
• Q
Z
O Li
Z0
Z U
O F-
U Cr
w 0 8
<
cc z
O 0
- U
Z U)
1w
Q
� J
F- Q .K
Q Z
w0
u) Q
Q U
� = 8
O
• O
Zz
uJ
• Z
w O8
� 0
w
U
O
d
w
O
J
Whl!
ooOB1a
oxiLo►
000►
oast La
ooetta
oaf Lot
oa op
8
8
2
8
8
8
1
Figure 5. Soils Identified for Slow Rate Treatment (Source: NCSS online)
Anderson & Associates, Inc.
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006
Page 12 of 20
O

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 $19,751. Soil testing and survey lend an additional $57.000 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 = $71,751.00
Equipment costs = $871,050.00
Labor costs = S215,000.00
Installation costs = $154,250.00
Design costs = $102,530.00
Recurring Costs
O&M costs (includes harvesting costs) = $5,000.00/year
Laboratory costs = $3,900.00/year
Permit fees for land application = $525.00/year
Operator and support staff costs = $6,000.00/year
Residual disposal costs = $1,600.00/year
Utility costs (power, water, etc.) = $5,475.00/year
Easement maintenance = $2,000.00/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)`0]
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"Permits\EAA ResubmitaLdoc 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 $1,499,581 for capital cots and $31.775 for
recurring costs. PV (20 years) is calculated at $1,836,205.
*OD a
Whispering Stites ins
—�
&'1 ift 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\24I66\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006

JN 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 $5.000
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 = $59,100.00
Installation costs = S 26.556.00
Design costs = $20,629.00
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)
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) = $331,783+ $19.685.00 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. Inc. Page 15 of 20
U:\24\24166\24166ENG\Pennits\EAA ResubncitaLdoc 1/19/2006

JN 24166.00
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Advanced greywater treatment
Planter bed
To Groundwater
Over-
flow
Greywater sources
Pump- Sand -filter
pit
Figure 7. Proposed Re -Use System
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.
Septic
tank
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 $7500 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\24166\24166ENG\Permits\EAA Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006

JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives 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 = $25/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 (ISAMT") Sequencing
Batch Reactor (SBR) system and the Purestream Biologically Engineered
Single Sludge Treatment (BESSTT") 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, Mc. Page 17 of 20
U.•\24\24166\24166ENG\Permits'EAA ResubmitaLdoc 1/19/2006

JN 24166.00 Engineering Alternatives Anahsis
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 18 of 20
U:\24\24I66\24I66ENG\.Permits\EAA ResuhmitaLdoc 1/19/2006

JN 24 / 66.00
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Figure 8. Schematic Layout (BESSTTM System)
Influent
4
Anoxic Zone
Effluent
Sludge Blanket
Clarifier
RAS Nitrified MLSS
Anoxic (Denitrified) MLSS
Aeration
Zone
r
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— 11/[0.07(1+0.07)20]
PV = $508.538.63
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 Resubmital.doc 1/19/2006

AMU - SI1V3S 011-1,ffilD
091 001
09
0
09
NOIIVadD33d dO 'S33NVA3ANO0 'S31VS d0J ION
inpAv7 7VrIld33N00
S 3DaVH3SIG 33VJanS
•
d3-602114 It clor 2= - 9t8 (9CC)
049E12 01.1 •uosJiwar
;al-4S uloY1 isa/1 ICI
61S xoe 'O'd
JOAanJOIS PU01 louoissajoJd
311d 'Auociao3 uouaaH sowoui .A4 paaodaJd givii
SO ZierV 12 .14.09
,OS
3•N •A;uno3 atisv
cikaosts suid ,dp.isumoi
. 1 N3111010
734_70 S830 7//29 N/ k 7 N/2011' 7_7Y/7 V 7 G"
SA / 1798 I S , 9 Nkl_70571//11
6 381101.3
or-

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)2°- 1]/[0.07(1+0.07)21
Present
Capital Costs
Present
Recurring
Cost
Present Value
(20 years)
Land Application - Drip Irrigation
$1,499,581
$31,775
$1,836,205
Land Application - Septic Tank
S1.660,783
S9,843
$1,765.055
Land Application - Spray Irrigation
$1,414,581
S24,500
S1,674,134
Water Re -Use (Gray Water for
Irrigation)
S334,877
S19.710
$553,685
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\Pernuts\EAA Resabmital.doc 1/19/2006

Dote.
Attachrnent A. Local Government Review Form
Gens.�J iar�= Chnary c'w, North Carolina General Statute 143-215 1 (c)(6) *Haws copies from meal governments us dit issuance
of lulpDES Peiuuti foe nors.rouetcrfsal domestic .rastcworer treatment facilities. Specifically, the Eovirontndlnl Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on to application for it now eon municipal dnmosnc waits —water discharge facility Lanni it has.
roectved a written sutement from each ury and county government htrvwg j+uudtc ion over any pan of die leads oo which tisa
peopoord fecibry and it' a ppttttersanGet ate to bs located. The •.admen ecarernent .ball document whether the city at county has a
accuse or rubdnnuon ordinance to effect and (if such an orduuncc is in effect) whether the propound facility u consistent with the
orrinuscs. The EMC: ,hail not approve a permit application for am facility µfuels• rr city of tensity hat that/ tone* tob
itux,masta.stt with zoning or subdavuson ordinances unless the r.pprovol of ouch application is deteamincd to have statewide
ririi6t: ndt and is in the burr tnrercel of the -Si -Sic
bbasst.�.rt`sgA era the ATni:..�_*._ Pnot it' sula(3sining. . ap>phcaaoai fiY a t'NlPC.PS Peanut fora proposed k�.'p;ty t5c appIi
cam
shall request dist both the nearby pry and county 6ovtrn ncnt complete this cute The applicant ottue
iuhutai a. copy of the peanit application. (synth a wnttm rutlucu for chic Fenn t0 ba compacted) to t clerk of the elf and
tlsc country by ceuvbed oui), rmun receipt tcqucsted.
If vises. (or laotlt) local go t u meat(i) ful(s) so real the cnatpietrtl form, as- evidenced by 414 poctana.ri oo etc c. t il
/nail card(s), .rtt.`un 15 days after rrcuvsng and signing for floc critifxd mti, the Applicita! may ►vkbmrt the apt -Amnon to
the i IIMES Unit.
As r-ndcnce to tftc Ccnii w awn tiler the local government(o) frskd to reipon.d wttitto 15 days, the applicant AO iohmks
cony of -lie c-_xr5ad reed card along i:nth r nottorrel ter+.er baron ,taut the (sett govvxn.nent(.) (-tiled an respond •vrtkirs the
IS day pc/sod
F_ pallid? '3�ltlff L,r l crenttnir• rnt- The nearby city anrl.,ror C[nu.ry-rean-stsc.t cvi deli rtay rain of Itsa iTVitt :+v:ta - t
any !sift of the Lind as vh :h thr proposed factity or rrs app,..rtenancex apt o be ?ocy=_sd is gtciz d to cennpl.:t4 =nd to are eve
iOral to the aI>plhc,nt cmdun 15 days of rucagc The form (atut br +µtoed sod notta-r:A_
n u-V1,9c.-•s¢+=,.treu.m-_v:u.eva...ezar.Ma ^JtAw.-Scr.*-x.oY-.pu"r sr.rwrza„ T,.a....+.a..axs.s.>az-aaLsr T _ :a»
lYi'Mi t1:5 t: t Ice,/ %o.rer^.t'rierit /t 3 /iC� - il /f t
t ',LentJ,•Cotto.tp)
Does et-.e lily/air arf have juriad.icrion over soy part of the land Gas which tho proposed facility and in sppn/t-nn -ei etc to be
z:+x:i .Yes PI No I i If no, plclu sign chit form_ hove it ratan+cfl, . to s:^ t. 'u .. _ -- —
Does dz: city/cro uuy .'Lire in effects renx'tg or subdivision crriiptnce? Yes 21 No [ j
If tberr is a tciwrg or rubdi.virion nrdiosncc in effect is the ply./ lot iic proposed fac ttry consatr.•v_ ordinatutt? Yet L,;.1
tie(stcn
+
sate of County of
oC:.alvG� l�(aszar�y.
h e•C ftakR'.M�
On this�L} ay of _ 1'a c�0
5 1-t ___� ?=rsonrlly appeared b-.Sore rue. the crJd
name 1 iLLL1%�, Tc (La�A il. f �—_ me known and known to me to be the person dsmb+sl.is
RAJ vt.o executed the fougoirtg document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or executed he sane and bang duly rakers
by roe, /nude Grath that the statements in the lampoon doc-uanvit tic true.
�dc corntmiauc.a (sspranue of svigw
• KOTA
fi4
�„OUlr
'rvlA Guidance Documenu Vern(i rt- October 14, 2004
Y
Nctuy Publk (df6..-cal Sw I

Appendix A

r•S r" ';.i ettl,• •tiI v* 4J1
Page 1 of 2
Wei.8injiharn
From: "John C Weavef <l us¢s.pov>
To: "Martina Bingham" cmtnhing skybe.t.corri>
Cc: John C Waver" <jcweavcruags.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, Marti 02, 2005 3:21 PM
&ubiret Low -flow charsicteristica for unnamed stream in southeastem Ashe County
Mr. Bingham,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for tin
unnamed stream (tributary to West Fork) in southeastern Ashe County, the
following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the District office does not indicate
any previous determination of low -flow characteristics for the stream shown
on your fax location map. And in the abeeoce of site -specific discharge
data that would allow for a low -flow analyses, estimates of low -flow
discharges arc determined by assessing the yields (expressed as flow per
square mile drainage area) at nearby USGS sites to a.s es* 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 at the nearby sites range from about 0.7 to 0.8 cfsm. A
chock 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 cfsrrt. and the 30Q2 yield estimated from the regional relations is 0.69
cfsm. These yields art a little lower relative to those suggested by the
neartry USGS sites.
A 'quick-n-dirty" delineation of the drainage area upstream of your point
of intereSt indicates the drainage area to be a little more than I signal.
Applying the range of yields listed above to this drainage arra would
suggest the 7Q10 flow estimate is between 0.3 and 0.45 cubic feet per
second (cfs), and the 30Q2 flow estimate is between 0.7 and 0.8 cfs.
l lope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
***********s***4***********•*0*VP**4a•*************«a*********t90ss6/ti•
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
U.S. Geological Survey
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
3/2/2005

CiaatltU tit si;r
150 Government Cucle, Suite 24100
M rffrrs 11 u ,
rortro1iiui
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.
Sirncerel
•
Zachariah S. Edwardson
Director of planning, Ashe County

I ^9-sl :;4r4f 1.11!rdI
APPAILACHIAN DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
nITT UCT OPPICE- 126 room t .o.t Conoco.,, 8ownt, NC 23647
Tdcpbowc t2t.264-4995 fi 121.264.4997 Solc} Mb
Public Health: and itnpspvt� yoe�, asurrh 1 �4orr r(fe Dwell j Tapia,
1T
C�.kaw ticvi
Date
Re: Application for Improvement Permit for La�rsl 6,,i�,'�
Property site oz PTA t r,72? - —
Health Department file No: 5-74474_
Deur
Thefe County Health Department, Environmental Health DMsion
on V 2dtkr evsluetecj the above-refere-I-4* t
piatltcito plan that accornpaniod your improvement permit aiig According
ding to the
a )&a`i t e iiafs to st,;r1e-a.iiet' application. According to your
7 I.W gallons per day. The evaluation was done in accordance lwith the sgn wamr i w of
rules governing wra^..t+)wetef aystei'»s in- North C•arolin2E General Statute 13 -333 and
related statutes and Title 15A, Subchapter 18A, el the North Carol;n Administrat ee
Coda, Rule .19(0 and r laced rules.
Based on the -criteria- t-c,, st irrTitie-15A; Subchapter 18A, of the North Caroline
Administrative Code, Rules .19d0 through .1 E48, the evaluation indketed that the site r3
UNSUITABLE for a ground absorption sewage system. Therefore, your request for an
improv anent permit is DENIED. A copy of the sits evaluation is enclosed. The stte l
unsurtab a based on the following:
Unsuitable soil topography and/or landscape position (Rule .1940)
Unsuitable soil characteristics (structure or Gay mineralogy) (Rule .1941)
Unsuitable soil wetness condition (Rule .1942)
Unsuitable soil depth (Rule .1943)
'Presence of restrictive horizon (Rule .1944)
X. Insufficient space for septic system and rem area (Ruts .1945).
Unsuitable for meeting required setbacks (Rule .1950)
Qth4x (Rule .1G46}
These severe soil or site limitation could cause premature system failure, leading
to the discharge of untreated sewage on the ground surface, in surface waters, directly
into ground water or Inside your structure.
IUS1Nt37 OpflCC
PO i4. 3g
hlIZGNAtet Oa 1tZALTH U 7T
111 Pinata. Soj
ASN[CO. }17.0
II23 l*, C..•,i ` L
rcj 'of

F:4rr; {+t,Fds.r
The site evaluation included ccnsideration of possible site modifications, and
modeled, innovative or alternative systems. However, the Health Department teats
determined that none of the above options will overcome the severe conditions on this
site. A possible option might be a system designed to dispose -of aewnge- a another -
area of suitable soil or off -situ to additional property.
For the reasons set out above, the property is currently claesifted UNSUITABLE,
and an improvement permit shall not be issued for this site in accordance with Rule
1948(c).
However, the site Gaaaified as UNSUITABLE may be classified as
PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE if written documentation is crovided 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 rectassifed as PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE.
You have a right to an informal roview of this decision. You may request an
informal review by the sot! scientist of environmental health supervisor at the local neat*
department. You may ale° request an informal review by the N. C. 0,2r-1rt m nt of
Environment and Natural Resources regional soil specialist. A. request for informed,
review must be tmidc in writing to ihe local health department.
Yeti also helve e right to a formai app*ai of this decision. To pursue a format
eppoal, you must s`iC a petition Tor c,entested case hearing ,Ni`frr the Office of
lAelmiriietrative hmrings, t /14 Mail Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714. To get a copy of a
petition form, you may write the Ofli`re cf a;rntniat»tiv+e Haar}ngs of calf the -office -et
[phone]. The petition for a'conteated case hearing must be filed in accordance
with the pr ovisiee o!?siori i Ce oiina Geeeraf St nutes i3[)A•24 and 1 =23 aed—ait
otersr epoiicable provisions of Chapter 150B. NC General Status 130A-335(g) provide
met yc r hearing In tee c1`iue y where your property r$.toc.a.ted
P,ea a nate: if y v wish to pursue a format sp oat, ytst,i-freestfi -rthe-petition
form with the Office of Administrative Hearings WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF
THIS LETTER. Meeting the 30 day deadline is critical to your right to a formal app t\
Beginning a formal 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 file`
a format appeal.
If you file a petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, you are required by law (NC General Statue 1508-23) 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, 1601 ViailServieR Center, Raleigh. NC 2769e-1601. Do NOT send the copy
of the petition to your local health department_ Sanding a copy of your petition to the
terra{ health department will NOT satisfy the legal requirement in NC General Statute
15508-23 that you send a copy to the Office of General Counsel, NCDENR.

t'1;, <l� tJ`: O0:,:1:4,t1 131'5
You may calf or write the local health department if you need any Additional
Information or aaslstancg.
Enclosure: Copy Site Evaluation
Copy of Rule .1948

• ; a 1. .+: - • I .• , - ... _• � 11,4 _ V ..t_tl..�_ �t3 : mid d-1
1..-1V1? - F.atVlRON.1-fEt•7A1. 11F <Liff _ T1.5A: l,-t _ 1901)
,1443 SITE CLASSIFICATION
(a) Sites classified as SUITABLE may be utilized for a ground absorption stwtgo treatment sited disposal system
crrnsixtenl with these Rules. A suitable classification generally indicates suit and site eoslditlnns favorable for the
operation- of a round absoirptart srxety trrauncra-assd disposstYsyzteur Oriente sflght limitations that are readily
overcome by p o cr design and installation.
(b) Sites clacailied-ad- PROVISIONALLY- SUITABLE may be utilized tot a ground absorption sewage trtatmerg
and disposal system consistent with these Rules but have rlaaicrase liatuatioas. Sites classified Provisionally Suitable
require some- modifications and earoArt pbmanin;, d".i= , urd !semitatkhr braes rttjra ilk absorpt;ce =tva
treatment and disposal system to hmetion satisfactorily.
(c3 Sites.c ABLE leave severe-}; ae4emlor tiserialtaibtictz-Y ui -ova properly Ruction ng
ground absorption sewage ew ne u and disposal system. An improvesrscrx permit than not be Issued for a gilt %which
Is cpasriMd u. UbiiUtIAaLE HowGrr;., where.a.aitcis 4iNSt /TAB1E; stalest to-rcxfl tRQYt 10N->ij;Ljr
SUITABLE if a special investigation indicates that s modified or alternative system can be Installed in accerelance with
Rules .1954or , t953 of this Section: -
(d) A site classified as UNStJTABLE rruy h used fors ground absorption sewage trcattneed nut" till »sI system
specifically iclenriftccf itr Ru -s . t955..1-456; or . I931 of this Section or a system approved under Rule . I9b9 if wait e t
do.urucr uion. including engineering, hydrogeologic, geologic or soil studies, indicates to the local health dcpsict oer+t
that the proposecl- sysren- can be expected to function satisfactorily. Such sites shall be reclassified as
PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE if the vocal health aspattment dettrmines that fist substantiating data Itvdkil-e Wu:
(t 1 3 ura&rd absc>: ersrt scm c:: t•7C t)?}t=l nl !tat LPTe effluent will be r�:n-n:t_ :s tart-In;eetic..ttr, torn
toxic, znd non•baz rdo ;
(2) the eff uirm will- nee- contaminate Groundwater or- sustxe-amiss: sod-
(3) the effluent will not it exposed on the ground surface or be discharged to Surface waters where it could
cow. In cornier ;Y:t'a people, ?t3intaltt nr ve+:20r3,
The State :hall review the stab-stmt./sting data if reuuested by the local health department.
History Note: Authority G.S. 1344-335(e));
Ziff. July 1, I4.2;
Amended LT. rep ti1 1, 1993; limitary 1, 1990.

@3Y�NQPi�YfG�YJ�
r 'rl lf9 : ;.i 11PIr ill I1 d434•1 FIi•: 111. : i.ih-N -3159
:? 15 r>i:?r'fY•! 1'1
North Carolina
Clepartincnt of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Eusky, Governor
William G. Rosa Jr., Secretary
Linda Sewell, Division Director
Bill Jeter Section Chief
Mr. James Stewart
Appalachian Health District, Ashe County
PO Box 208
Jefferson, NC 28640
Mr. Stewart
Nrw
NCDENR
The Danny Bingham site is UNSUITABLE for a ground absorption waatcwuzcr treatment
and disposal system under current laws aad.ruIes 15NCAC 18A .190LL Na wastawatet
(septic tank) system can be permitted on this site at this time.
Thss report lists the findings, conclusions and recommendations for the property. Lf you
have any questions or if I can be of assistance; contact meat (8-24)397-5152, fxt# (g28}
397-5152, 1r-nwil at ice.lvnnO,ncnmil.net or 6768 George Nildebnan School Read,
Hickory, NC 28602.
Sincerely,
jot 'Lynn
Regional Soil Specialist

>... fi.'r- il'-•'3 i'l,l.,. _`! .ItM11(i`.. 1,143: ' P P:14
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: 3/18/2005
()TILERS PRESENT: N/A
SITE INFORMATION
AREA/USE: 7. I0-acres
TOPOGRAPHY: 2 to 10 percent slope
LANDSCAPE POSITION: linear & foot slopes and f]oodplain
S► I E LLMITATION S: streams, 2 existingsystcros> barn fill_ L1;cttt areas
SOIL INFORMATION
TEXTURE: surf.:cc: Ioaro
s:;hsarfac;; clsy loath
STRUCTURE: blocky
CLAY MINERALOUY: slightly expansive clay
CEPT11 :o :stir or inch',i; saproli!ti12 to 37 incl:s
VIE MESS: chromas of two or toss at <12-to 27 inches, water was noted at 15 to 27
inches
RESTRICTIVE }IORJZONS: none
AVAILABLE SPACE: done
CONCLUSIONS
This site Is unsuitable for the installation ofa conventional wastewater system (septic
tank) Rule .1955 due to:
1. Soil Wetness
Colors of cluo:na 2 or less
2. Rule .I943 Insufficient Soil Depth
Soil Depths Jess than 36-inches
3. Rule .1945 Insufficient Available Space
Not enough arca for the initial wastewater system and a repair.
The site is Unsuitable under Rule .1956 Modifications to Septic Systems:
1. Shallow conventIo*taLsys1ein,NQ_
2. Large Diameter Pipe system -NO

,11
3. Prefabricated Porous Block Panel 5yatcm-NO-
4, Drainage will not be sufficient to reclassify the site to Provisionally Suitable.
5. Saprolite will not ehsage the-site-to-Provisionali 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 .1469 Experimental and Innovative Systems,
Components, or Devices:
1. Chamber system -NO
2. Houch Drainage system•Nfl
3. Subsurface Drip system -NO
4. Sand Filter Pretreatment system -NO
5. Peal. Filter Qretreatmernt system -No
RECOMMENDATIONS
The owner has the following options that might allow the property to be used as desired:
I. The applicant may purchase Pro -visionally Suitable- property- trr place tise•-Wastcwalfz
system on.
2. The applicant may obtain an casement on a Provisionally Suitable property to place
the wo_ste ester system on.
3. The applicant can contact the Division of Water Quality in Winston Salem (336)
? 714600 to pursue a surfaze d i srharge_

Appendix B

Whispering Streams
Ashe County, North Carolina
JN 24166
Drain Field Cost Analysis
CAPITAL COSTS
Item
AE Anderson & Associates, Inc.
406 Gailimore Dairy Road
Greensboro, NC 27407
www.andassoc.com
Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price
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
>Iateral 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
20
20
220
1
2
1
2
1
5,500
9,900
220
45
45
90
9,900
9,900
8
1
1
3.34
EA
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
EA
EA
EA
L.F.
L.F.
EA
LS
LS
Ac
Lump
Lump
yr
yr
day
$1,100.00
$3,618.00
$6.50
$10.00
$132,500.00
$10,000.00
$132,500.00
$10,000.00
$35.00
$0.50
$6.50
$15.00
$10.00
$10.00
$4.00
$6.00
$400.00
$2,500.00
$42,000.00
$2,400.00
10%
20%
$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
$94,570.50
$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
457.200
Clo
USDA \alur i R«nnrrr.
,^?! 1 uu.rr i loll Net 'ire
457600
458000
456400
458800
4 ;751 44100 458400 458800
cmisommin Meters
0 150 300 600
459200
459200
459600
459600
460000
460000
460400
460400
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
3,000 4,000
460800
480800
12/5/2005
Page I of 4
0

Septic Tank Absorption Fields Rating
Tables - Septic Tank Absorption Fields
Summary by Map Unit - Ashe County, North Carolina
Soil Survey
Area Map Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name
Rating
Total Acres Percent of AOI
in AOl
CaF Chandler loam. 25 to 65
percent slopes
CfD
EsF
EvE
EvF
To
TsD
W
WaE
WaF
Clifton loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes
Evard stony loam, 25 to ' tmited
60 percent slopes
Evard loam, 15 to 25 Very limited
percent slopes
Evard loam, 25 to 45 Very limited
percent slopes
Toxaway loam Very limited
Tusquitee loam, 8 to 15 Very limited
percent slopes
Water Not rated
Watauga loam, 15 to 25 Very limited
percent slopes
Watauga loam, 25 to 45 Very limited
percent slopes
Very limited
Summary by Map Unit - Wilkes County, North Carolina
Soil Survey
Area Map Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name
Rating
9.4 0.5
3.1 2.1
370.5 18.3
527.6 26.0
618.0 30.5
113.7 5.6
148.0 7.3
1.6 0.1
26.3 1.3
83.3 4.1
Total Acres Percent of AOl
in AOI
CeF
ChE
EsD
EsE
Chestnut-Ashe complex,
25 to 90 percent slopes,
very stony
Chestnut-Edneyville
complex, 25 to 60 percent
slopes, stony
Evard-Cowee complex, 8
to 25 percent slopes, stony
Evard-Cowee complex, 25
to 60 percent slopes, stony
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
35.8
34.5
13.4
2.1
USA Natural Hr,uurre,
fnmenatinn Crnire
Web Soil Survey 1.0 12/5/2005
National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4

ANDERSON
9AND
AA
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
- c l
boo
6/1(_)r_ a _A A
r- r
iJ - y
le(
I ' J J It, vVFl r�
Ii
:„ f
(o' (Y\ 'NJ ,

ANDERSON
eeAND
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
22.E
C2.
LAr- .„rJ- v1�
/ 2.
/2
'jO3I

SPRAY IRRIGATION COSTS
CAPITAL COSTS
Qty
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
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
$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 $5,000.00
$325.00 $3,900.00
$525.00
$500.00
$1,600.00
$15.00
$2,000.00
$525.00
$6,000.00
$1,600.00
$5,475.00
$2,000.00
$24,500.00

Appendix C

0
g
n
0
SLOW RATE PROCESS TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER RATING FOR ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; WATAUGA
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
454, 00
4541800
USDA Natural Riwource'
railljall Commotion Service
4551700
455700
456.600
4fifif UO
Whispering Streams - Soils Info (Slow Rate Treatment)
457500 4581400
1
4571500
. •
459300
458400 454300
0 400 800
Meters
1,600
460200
460200
461: 00
461100
462000
462000
0 1,0002.000
Feet
4,000 6.000 8,000
462900
462900
12/16/2005
Page 1 of 5
0

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 AOI
Area Map in AOI
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-percentslopes, 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 slopes
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 ..\alunl Recoartea
( mr.cm iiun Senin•
Web Soil Survey 1.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
12/16/2005
Page 4 of 5

A
AAAND
ASSOCIATESNDERSON
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES
406 GALLIMORE DAIRY RD. GREENSBORO, NC 27409
[phone] FAX [phone]
JOB
SHEET NO OF
CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
�w f12cT' t ;:
V A ti-i{[, !� .-Glen i'L i ,...�
42C:i't% 4 �f j t h ter L'tJ
GS - kyd+ iC
( ir
,--
f
c rye?
: p ,
115

ANDERSON
AND
ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES
406 GALLIMORE DAIRY RD. GREENSBORO, NC 27409
[phone] FAX [phone]
JOB
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
row
r
1,. !_' _ :'
l
rr.
1).
IJ- „'
fi,G7
I ;II?'
a -'< X 17'17
tT
2 1 1?

vilkes Page 1 of 1
Wilkes County Home 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 1Oft
(Visible when zoomed in.)
Lake
Soils
Townships
Watersheds
Zoning
l Refresh Map i
A
•
• MV
Scale (approx.)
1174 ft

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

PET
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Jan Feb Mar Apr
0.344068 1.099837 2.5353123 5.470588
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 (Ibs/ac-yr)
Nitrogen Input fr Rain (Ibs/ac-yr)
Total N Input (Ibs/ac-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
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
9.953749 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 b/c 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 moslyr 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