NC0088579_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20070423

BROOKS & MEDLOCK
ENG IN EER ING. PLLC
J
STONE BRIDGE SUBDIVISION
WATAUGA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
(EAA)
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality — NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
April 23, 2007
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC
Project No.: 226507
1
17 ARLINGTON STREET • ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801 • [phone] • FAx [phone]

1.0 Introduction
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is provided as part of the application for a
new NPDES permit for the Stone Bridge Subdivision in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H.0105. The purpose of this EAA is to determine the technical and economic feasibility
of wastewater disposal options available for the development.
As part of the 1972 Clean Water Act, discharge to surface waters is considered only as a
last resort. Brooks & Medlock Engineering has evaluated all of the alternatives and has
concluded that the surface discharge permit is the only viable option for the applicant.
The applicant's circumstances are unusual in that their development was granted
allocation from a neighboring wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) serving the Hound
Ears development. This allocation was later rescinded after the developer had
committed substantial resources to the development of the subject site. More details of
these circumstances are provided in Section 3.1.
Applicant Information
Pertinent information regarding the applicant and this application is as follows.
Property Owner: Shulls Mill Properties, Inc.
61 Glens Boulevard
Banner Elk, NC 28604
[phone]
Attn: Dr. Albert Gersing
NPDES Permit Applicant: Shulls Mill Properties, Inc.
61 Glens Boulevard
Banner Elk, NC 28604
[phone]
Contact: Dr. Albert Gersing
EAA Preparers Information: Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC
17 Arlington Street
f4n�,) Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
Contact: Mark C. Brooks, P.E.

Property Information
The subject property is located in Watauga County southwest of Boone on Shulls Mills
Road (State Road 1557). The parcel, approximately 44.77 acres is identified by
Watauga County as Tax Map ID No. 1899-20-2262-000. The subject site is currently
undeveloped wooded land. Lance Creek traverses the north portion of the 44.77 acre
parcel.
The development project consists of a proposed 138 single family residential units on
the 44.77 acres. The Site Location Map provided as Figure 1 depicts the general
location of the development. Each of the homes is anticipated to be a three bedroom
house. The site layout as preliminarily approved by the Watauga County Planning
Board is provided as Figure 2. The Local Government Review Form is provided as
Attachment A. The site water service will be provided by a Community Water System as
defined in 15A NCAC 18C. The proposed wastewater receiving stream is Lance Creek.
The design flow for the project is calculated to be 49,680 gallons per day (gpd) based
upon 120 gpd/bedroom in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0.219. The requested permit
discharge allocation has been rounded up to 50,000 gpd.
PIA

2.0 Initial Discharge Determination
Brooks & Medlock Engineering has performed an initial determination regarding the
potential of the receiving stream to accommodate the proposed developments' design
wastewater flow of 50,000 gpd. Initially, the receiving stream, Lance Creek, was
researched for limiting classifications and the following determinations were made:
Lance Creek has no zero -flow restrictions per 15A NCAC 213.0206 (d)(2);
Lance Creek has is classified as a Class C Trout Stream (Subbasin WAT01, Stream
Index No. 8-8-(2), Map No. C12NW4); Lance Creek is not designated as an Impaired
Water and has no designated TMDLs; and Lance Creek has no known presence of
endangered species.
A basin plan does exist for the receiving stream watershed. The Watauga River Basin
Plan was implemented in 1997, renewed in February 2002 and is due to expire in
February 2007. The plan does not include any discharge restrictions or moratoriums,
e0411 with the exception of Impaired Waters identified.
To address potential deficiencies of the receiving stream regarding flow, BME staff
conducted an investigation by confirming a positive 7Q10 "low stream flow" for Lance
Creek with the USGS, and then by communication with Sue White of the NCDENR
Winston-Salem Regional DWQ office. These activities are discussed below.
4n February 2, 2007 BME staff contacted Mr. Curtis Weaver, PE of the USGS in
Raleigh, NC. Mr. Weaver is the principal engineer in charge of making stream flow
determinations for the Raleigh USGS office. The 7-day 10-year low flow (7Q10) is the
governing stream criteria for wastewater point source discharges for flow acceptance.
Mr. Weaver replied via e-mail that there were two existing stations nearby on Lance
Creek. Station 0347875902 is 0.3 miles below NCSR 1552 near Shulls Mill and the
7Q10 low flow for this site was determined to be 0.205 cubic feet per square mile.
Station 0347875907 is located at NCSR 1557 at Shulls Mill and the 7Q10 low flow for
this site was determined to be 0.205 cubic feet per square mile.
Mr. Weaver also indicated that the "most recent" low flow information published for this
area is in USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, "Low -flow characteristics of streams in North
3

eolll\ Carolina", completed in 1993. This report contains 3 nearby sites for which 7Q10
discharge estimates are provided. The 7Q10 low flow yield range is from about 0.22 to
00"1
about 0.28 cfsm (average 0.24 cfsm). Use of the regional 7Q10 equation provided in
this report for this area (Hydrologic Area 10) produces 7Q10 flow estimates with yields
equal to about 0.31 cfsm. At a downstream, long-term gauging station (Station
03479000, Watauga River near Sugar Grove), the most recent analysis for low -flow
characteristics indicates the 7Q10 is about 0.2 cfsm.
This information suggests that the 7Q10 flow for our site should be in the range of about
0.2 to 0.3 cfsm. Mr. Weaver suggested that we use a conservative estimate of 0.2 cfsm
for our site. The drainage area for our site is determined to be 1.35 square miles. The
proposed discharge point and the drainage area can be seen in Figure 1. This results in
a low flow of 174,506 gpd. Given the design flow for the Stone Bridge Subdivision plans
is 49,680 gpd, 28% of the 7Q10 flow, stream flow does not appear to be a prohibitive
factor.
BME recently communicated with Ms. Sue White of the NCDENR regional office in
Winston-Salem, NC concerning the proposed discharge. Ms. White was very familiar
with the site and recognized the potential for Lance Creek to support a 50,000 gpd
discharge. Ms White agreed that the Hound Ears VW TF was the only feasible site for
potential connection by the Stone Bridge development. Ms. White was also familiar with
the revocation of allocation by the Hound Ears VWNTF.
Therefore, based upon the preliminary investigation, it appears there are no flow or
water quality restrictions on Lance Creek that would immediately prohibit discharge to
surface waters of domestic wastewater with a standard level of treatment, given certain
allowances for the Trout Stream designation such as post -aeration and UV disinfection.
4

eoo 1 3.0 Technical Evaluation of Alternatives
3.1 Connection to Existing Waste Treatment Plant
The most feasible connection to an existing waste treatment plant would be to a private
system located approximately 1.28 miles from the subject site. The system is a package
plant serving Hound Ears Country Club (NPDES Permit No. NC0032123). This facility is
operated by Carolina Water Service Inc. and the permit is for 140,000 gpd. The gravity
sewer line from Hound Ears Club to the WWTF is already in place. Less than 2,000 ft of
sewer line would be necessary to connect to the existing WWTF as the Stone Bridge
Subdivision would connect to the Hound Ears gravity sewer system located on the
adjacent parcel.
However, there has been an on -going series of events where the principal
owner/developer of the subject site, Dr. Albert Gersing, has attempted to connect to the
Hound Ears WWTF, but all efforts have been stymied by legal action. An outline of
those events, as summarized by Shulls Mills Properties, Inc.'s attorney, is provided
below. w z)oD 1 .�
♦ The Hound Ears WWTF was originally permitted for 40,000 gpd was purchased from
Hound Ears Lodge and Club, Inc. in 1986 by Carolina Water Services, Inc. (CWS).
CWS increased the facility permit to 140,000 gpd in 1987.
♦ In November 1997, Dr. Gersing purchased the Fussell property which was within the
Hound Ears subdivision and subject to restrictions by the Hound Ears Club, Ltd. In
the closing documents, (Deed Book 433, Page 036) Hound Ears Club, Ltd. Agreed to
"allow sewer plant usage to be obtain through our property line to the Fussell line... ".
A surety bond of $300,000 was posted by Dr. Gersing in favor of Hound Ears for the
completion of the sewer line. Subsequent to the closing Dr. Gersing initiated
planning with engineers and architects.
♦ On July 20, 1998, the Watauga County Planning Board approves the Stone Bridge
development, with conditions, including provisions of water and sewer by CWS.
♦ On November 25, 1998, CWS issues a letter to Gersing's attorney advising that
14� CWS "is willing and able to provide water and sewer service to the development..."
and assuring Gersing of "...sufficient capacity to serve the 102 townhouses and 32
lodge rooms proposed...' .
5

♦
February 17, 1999 Gersing and CWS execute and Agreement for the provision of
water and sewer to Gersing's development on the 44.77 acres tract.
♦
July 15, 1999 Anthony Di Santi, attorney for Hound Ears Club, Ltd. Writes CWS that
his client will not authorize connection of Gersing's development to the water and
sewer system. There were several subsequent letters by Di Santi threatening a
restraining order.
♦
October 15, 1999 Ed Finley, attorney for CWS responds to Di Santi's letters advising
that CWS will take a neutral position.
♦
November 5, 1999 David Ramsey, engineer for Gersing, applies to NCDENR for the
wastewater collection system permit connecting the development to the Hound Ears
WW TF, which is approved May 2000.
♦
December 6, 1999 the NC Department of Transportation approves the
Encroachment Agreement for a gravity sewer collection system within the state right-
of-way.
♦
December 23, 1999 CWS issues a letter to Gersing that "...our plant (NPDES Permit
No. NC0058378) has more than ample capacity to meet your requirements (48,240
�!
gpd)...' and assuring Gersing that "This capacity will be held in reserve for the
duration of the Agreement".
January 20, 2000 Watauga County Planning Board approves modifications of
previous approval (July 20, 1998), conditioned on resolution between Gersing,
Hound Ears, and CWS.
♦
July 21, 2000 Ed Claughton, President of the Hound Ears Club, Ltd., writes Watauga
County Planning Board that "... Hound Ears is not willing to make any sewer
concessions to this project...".
♦
July 27, 2000 David Ramsey, engineer for Gersing, writes the County Planning
Department requesting a status report on the development's application to begin
construction.
♦ January 26, 2001 Joe Furman, County Planning Department Director, writes Gersing
that the County can not permit the project to begin construction unless there is
assurance that a permanent, enforceable and adequate sewer connection be made,
and suggesting that either (1) new agreement between the parties be drafted for
review, (2) a court order declaring Gersing's right to connect to he Hound Ears
system be issued, (3) approval by Division of water Quality for construction of a new
0

emlo\ sewage pant be obtained, or (4) approval from the Health Department for septic
systems be obtained.
Based upon recommendations by Council, Dr. Gersing and his development partners
have decided to pursue options (3) or (4) identified above. Option (4) is quickly ruled out
after a preliminary soil and engineering analysis (see Section 3.2).
Connection to other neighboring VW TFs was considered but further investigation
determined this option to not be available. The second closest access to an existing
waste treatment plant is the Yonahlossee WWTF (Discharge Permit NC0032212)
located approximately 1 mile from the subject site and is owned by Water Quality
Services. The plant discharges to Lance Creek. The plant is approximately 110 ft
higher in elevation so force mains would be required to connect to this system.
According to Mr. Morris Trammel, Jr., current owner, the 150,000 gpd Yonahlossee
WWTF does not have 50,000 gpd additional capacity and any additional capacity would
want to be retained by the Yonahlossee development. Additionally, a force main on
Shulls Mill Road (a secondary state road) would be required. The NC Department of
Transportation does not typically allow privately owned force mains in the state right-of-
way running parallel to the road for any significant length. Only perpendicular crossings
are routinely allowed. The third closest WWTF is the Hebron Colony and Grace Home
WWTF (Discharge Permit NC0032191). This facility is only permitted for 4,000 gpd.
It is the conclusion of BME that given the inability to connect to the Hound Ears WWTF
as outlined above, the connection to an existing WWTF is not possible. Even if the
Yonahlossee development was willing to provide sufficient capacity, the construction of
the force main on in the NCDOT right-of-way is impractical and not likely to be allowable.
3.2 Individual or Group Septic Systems
The proposed subdivision includes 134 lots on 44.77 acres. The average lot size is
approximately 1 /4 acre or less, and the homes are three to four bedrooms. General
guidelines by health departments suggest a minimum of 1/2 acre lots for an individual
primary septic system and repair area. However, a North Carolina Registered Soil
'A' Scientist from Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC has performed a Preliminary Soils
Evaluation for the developer to identify the potential for individual septic systems and a
7

eoo 1 community septic system. The Preliminary soils investigation report is provided as
Attachment B. The report identifies shallow soil conditions with weathered bedrock at
less than 36 inches below grade, negating the potential for conventional septic systems.
Some of the areas were classified as "Provisionally Suitable" and would allow for a
community septic system with a drip irrigation disposal system with aerobic
pretreatment. The Preliminary Assessment Report from the Soil Scientist is provided as
Attachment B. Assuming the recommended long term acceptance rate (LTAR) for a drip
disposal system of 0.15 gpd/ft2 at this site, for a three bedroom house, the required area
for a primary and repair drip system is 4800 ft2. Given the lots sizes of less than % acre,
individual drip systems are not recommended.
For a group system, the 50,000 gpd would require 15.3 acres for primary and repair
drainfield area for a drip system with a 0.15 gpd/ft2 LTAR. From the existing plan only
7.17 acres of open space is available. If all of the open space is found to have suitable
soil conditions (which has not been ascertained), to utilize the 7.17 acres of available
area, the development plans would have to be reduced to accommodate 23,400 gpd, or
eo*) only 65 units, which is less than 50% of the current plan. Reducing the development by
50% would not provide for an acceptable return on investment. Additionally, some of the
7.17 acre open space is likely to be unsuitable due to slope or soil constraints upon
further investigation. Additionally, any system over 3,000 gpd has to prove sufficient
"conveyance capacity," or lateral hydraulic conveyance. The shallow condition of the
confining layer, identified as a depth to bedrock and a shallow high groundwater table in
lower areas, make the conveyance capacity very low, which would likely further reduce
the capacity of the 7.17 acres to accommodate the necessary design flow.
Therefore, the soil conditions render a large on -site septic system as unfeasible for the
proposed project. At a minimum, and additional 8.13 acres (plus acreage for setbacks
and constructability) would have to be purchased for a community drip system permitted
under the 15A NCAC 18A .1900 regulations. The additional land purchase option is
evaluated below.
3.3 Land Application & Reuse
A full investigation of the feasibility of a land application system typically encompasses
the following evaluations.

0.
Soils Evaluation (to determine saturated hydraulic conductivity rates).
Agronomist Evaluation (to determine nutrient balance).
Hydrogeologic Evaluation (to determine water table and lateral flow).
Water Balance Evaluation (to determine storage requirements).
The irrigation rate is derived from soil saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements
and a water balance based upon regional rain and evapotranspiration and storage
provided. Based upon other regional projects, an irrigation rate of 1 inch per week
(0.089 gpd/ftz) is an assumed reasonable irrigation rate, given regional rain data and the
"poorly drained" soils identified in the Preliminary Soils Evaluation. ). If standard
setbacks for a drip irrigation system (non -reuse quality effluent) are utilized, 12.9 acres
would be required for the disposal area and an additional 17.2 acres (30.1 acres total)
would be required to accommodate setbacks. If the WWTF can provide "reuse" quality
effluent, these setbacks could be essentially eliminated by virtue of the NCAC 18A 2T
.0900 regulations, resulting in only the12.9 wetted acres required. Under this type of
approval a wet weather storage pond, typically sized for 30 days of wet weather storage
(1.5 million gallons) must be sited to comply with the 18A 2T .0900 regulations, which
would be very difficult to site on the steep site terrain. Also, an additional pond sized for
five days of storage (250,000 gallons) would have to be provided to accommodate
"upset" conditions.
Again, the basic land requirements result in this disposal option as being infeasible for
the proposed 134 lot development. At a minimum, an additional 5.73 acres would have
to be purchased for the disposal area and an additional two acres would be required for
the necessary storage ponds under the 15A NCAC 18A 2T requirements. The two acre
land purchase could be eliminated with the use of storage tanks. The additional land
purchase option is evaluated below.
Acquiring Additional Property for Disposal
Adjacent property owners on the east include Marcus and Lisa Morgan (22.0 acres,
Book of Records 441, page 090); Brenda Lynn Boozer (3.25 acres, Book of Records
760, page 170); on the south by James T. Norris (3.41 acres, Book of Records 613,
page 643); Melissa Ruble Parrish (1.2 acres, Book of Records 452, page 476); Mary
Brown Ruble (3.37 acres, Book of Records 126, Page 660); and on the west by E.
William Akins (39.39 acres, Book of Records 057, page 029); Michael and Sharon
0

eaft►
Moore (2.93 acres, Book of Records 136, Page 606); and Hound Ears Club, LTD. (Book
of Records 689, Page 322). These are the only tracts in the immediate vicinity with
enough acreage to potentially accommodate a septic or land application system. The
locations are shown on the attached "Stone Bridge Subdivision Layout" map (Figure 2).
Each of these property owners were contacted for possible land acquisition by Shulls
Mill Properties representatives. No positive response was received from any of the
neighboring land owners.
This option was thoroughly investigated it was determined there was no reasonable
potential for sufficient additional land acquisition to accommodate a land absorption
disposal option. However, a PVCA is provided in Section 4.0 assuming land was
available.
3.4 Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
As discussed in Section 2, discharge to surface waters is found to be a technically viable
option as the initial evaluation has revealed the following conditions.
♦ Lance Creek has no zero -flow restrictions per 15A NCAC 2B.0206 (d)(2).
♦ Lance Creek has a classification as a Class C Trout Stream.
♦ Lance Creek is not designated as impaired stream and has no designated
TMDLs.
♦ Lance Creek has no presence of endangered species.
♦ Lance Creek is in the Watauga River Basin Plan, but this plan does not
restrict additional point source discharge per the existing plan.
3.5 Combination of Alternatives
Neither the subsurface disposal or land application alternatives are viable for individual
single family homes due to the small lot sizes and limited green space for a common
disposal area. A combination of discharge and land application or subsurface disposal
could be effective if there were a neighboring plant (legally allowing for connection) with
at least 50,000 gpd additional capacity. However, this has proven to not be ,the case.
Therefore, the only feasible option left for the development is a discharge permit. To
reduce the number of lots that could be served by some form of land disposal system
10

eon'6\ would require almost 50% of the project density to be eliminated, making the economics
of the project infeasible and would place undue economic stress on Shulls Mills
Properties, as development plans have proceeded for almost nine years based upon
having access to a vWVTF as promised by the Hound Ears facility owners. The reneging
of the contractual obligation has left the issuance of a discharge permit is truly a "last
resort" option for the project and in accordance with the intent of the 1972 Clean Water
Act and 15A NCAC 2H.0105 requirements.
11

Iz-
e" 1 4.0 Economic Evaluation of Alternatives
The Present Value of Costs Analysis (PVCA) for each disposal option is provided as
Attachment C. The analysis looks not only at the costs for wastewater treatment
options, but also the total infrastructure and land costs for the development. The
Engineers Opinion of Cost for the development infrastructure is provided as Attachment
D. The infrastructure Opinion of Cost is utilized to demonstrate the base cost per lot and
provide for the calculation of the Return on Investment with each wastewater scenario.
The $65,000 average sales price per lot is based upon the developer's market research
in the rural east Watauga County area. A return on investment of less than 25% is
typically unacceptable for any land development company, given the risks of site
development. Any returns shown to be less than this would result in the project being
scrapped and losses would be incurred on the initial investment to date.
The cost basis for the subdivision infrastructure costs is provided as Attachment D. The
infrastructure costs are based upon a professional experience and data collected on
previous regional projects. As all of these costs would be incurred in the initial two years
of the development, they are all considered initial costs and therefore have no time value
discounting and are not included in the Present Value analysis.
As part of the analysis for each wastewater disposal option, the development costs are
added to the PVCA of the wastewater treatment option for a time weighted cost of
development. A return on investment is then calculated for this cost of development. If
the wastewater system option renders the return on investment below 25%, it is deemed
not economically feasible. The return on investment is 37.9% before any wastewater
treatment option costs are added to the total development costs.
4.1 Connection to Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
The two nearest sewer connections are the Hound Ears WWTF and the Yonahlossee
WWTP. In the instance that either Hound Ears WWTF or Yonahlossee WWTF would
allow connection to their system (which has been discussed as not currently feasible),
eoft� an economic evaluation is provided for the cost to connect Stone Bridge to each system.
12

r
(064� The cost for gravity sewer collection in the Stone Bridge Subdivision is not included in
the PVCA for each disposal option, but it is included in the general infrastructure costs
for the development as the collection and pumping system would have to be
implemented with any of the wastewater options.
The references utilized for the cost basis are as follows:
♦ The price for gravity sewer line is based upon professional experience and
data collected on previous regional projects. This data shows the average
cost for 8-inch sewer line installation is $61.5/foot. This price includes
surveying, engineering, materials and labor.
♦ The price for pump stations is based upon professional experience where
BME has engineered similar pump stations to NC state standards. The
$130,000 price includes a diesel backup power generator.
♦ The price for pressure sewer line installation ($55/ft.) is based upon regional
data from Buncombe County MSD. This price includes surveying,
engineering, materials and labor, but not road or asphalt repair. However,
Shulls Mill Road is an exceedingly narrow road with minimal road shoulder
and extension rock subgrade. The force main installation would have to be
in the road and would require re -surfacing the entire stretch of road. Given
the difficulty associated with installing the force main on Shulls Mill Road, a
line installation price of $95/ft is utilized for analysis along with a road repair
and overlay cost of $50/ft, for a total $145/ft. This is consistent with pricing
on similar recent projects engineered and supervised by BME.
♦ The costs for easements and legal fees to obtain access is unknown. This
is logistically incomprehensible which is why this scenario is deemed not
feasible. However, given that DWQ wants BME to analyze this scenario,
the costs of legal fees and easements can not be ignored as this cost will be
significant. Our cost estimate is $10,000 per individual property owner that
will be impacted based upon professional experience.
Connection to Yonahlossee WWTP
As the operation and maintenance of the VWVTF would be performed by the current
owner and are of no expense to Shulls Mill Properties, Inc., these costs are not included
in the Present Value analysis. Sewage rates would be charged directly to the Stone
Bridge homeowners. However, it is assumed that the operation and maintenance of the
091

pump stations and force main to connect to the treatment plan would be assumed by the
Stone Bridge developer or the Homeowners Association. The route for the sewer
extension analyzed is that shown on Figure 3 with approximately 5194 ft of force main
following NCSR 1557.
The results show a Return on Investment for this option to be less than 20%, which
would render it not an economically viable option. Additionally, the permitting for the
required force main would not likely be permittable by the NCDOT making this option not
regulatorally feasible. The PVCA for this option is provided in Attachment B.
Connection to Hound Ears WWTP
As the operation and maintenance of the system would be performed by Carolina Water
Services, Inc of North Carolina, there are of no O&M expense to Shulls Mill Properties,
Inc., included in the Present Value analysis. CWS would bill the homeowners in Stone
Bridge directly. No pump stations would be required to connect to this system.
The results show a Return on Investment for this option to be greater than 25%, which
would render it an economically viable option.. However, the legal issues and historical
efforts by the developer to have legal access to this WWTP have been outlined above.
The PVCA for this option is provided in Attachment B.
4.2 Individual or Group Septic Systems
Individual and community septic systems are discussed in Section 3.2. Individual septic
systems are determined to be not a technically feasible option. The only way a
community septic system is an option is with the purchase of additional neighboring
property. While no neighboring properties are available, this option is evaluated for
economic feasibility. The purchase price of $65,000 per acre is determined from local
real estate comparisons for recent large tract purchases. It is determined in Section 3.2
that an additional 8.13 acres of land is required for disposal plus additional acreage for
set -backs and constructability. Assuming property could be purchased, the Norris tract
(3.4 acres), the Ruble tract (3.4 acres), and the Boozer tract (3.25 acres) would be
provide a total of 10.0 acres. Smaller tracts are chosen for analysis as it these are
e'! determined to be the most obtainable.
14

eooll) The results of the PVCA analysis demonstrate a Return on Investment of 8.8% which
renders the project as not economically viable. As mentioned in Section 3.2, none of the
identified adjacent parcels are for sale making this disposal option not technically
feasible.
4.3 Land Application
Individual and group land application systems are determined to not be technically
feasible without additional land purchase. Section 3.3 identifies and additional 22.9
acres would be required for disposal and setbacks along with the 7.17 acres on the
subject property. Assuming property could be purchased, the Morgan tract (22 acres)
would accommodate the land requirements. It is assumed the entire tract would have to
be purchased. .
The on -site collection and pump system are again the same for any of the treatment
options and this cost is not included in the PVCA, but is considered in the return on
investment analysis. The general infrastructure costs for the collection system in the
eo*� development would have to be implemented with any of the wastewater options, with the
exception of individual septic systems, and the cost is the same with each option, except
where otherwise noted.
Treatment of the effluent is to be performed by an extended air package plant system
capable of meeting secondary treatment standards. The package plant effluent is then
distributed to a drip irrigation system located on site and on the Morgan tract. The drip
system will have to be dosed by an additional pump station and have a disc filtration and
monitoring system.
The cost references utilized for the PVCA are as follows:
♦ The price for the extended air package plant system is based upon vendor
pricing and includes, materials, installation labor and engineering.
♦ The price for the land application drip system is based upon vendor pricing
and includes materials, labor and engineering.
♦ Operation and maintenance costs are based upon professional experience,
except for electrical costs which are based upon vendor recommendations.
15

r'ob1 The results show the PVCA demonstrate a 0.63% Return on Investment, rendering this
option as economically not viable. Given no additional neighboring acreage is available,
this disposal option is rendered not technically feasible.
4.4 Reuse
The technical assessment in Section 3.3 determined an additional 5.73 acres would be
required for a reuse system and additional acreage for storage ponds. Given that no
additional acreage is available, this analysis assumes that a minimal amount of land is
purchased for disposal and storage tanks are utilized on site for the storage
requirements. The Norris tract (3.4 acres) and the Ruble tract (3.4 acres) would be
provide a total of 6.8 acres for disposal.
The reuse system is similar to the land application system, with the exception that the
treatment plant must achieve tertiary treatment limits. By achieving tertiary treatment
limits, the setbacks are greatly reduced thus reducing the amount of additional land that
must be acquired. The treatment plant effluent is to be dosed by a pump station to a
standard irrigation system with drip irrigation lines located on the additional tracts and in
common areas in the Stone Bridge Subdivision. The proposed treatment technology is a
package plant by Purestream ES, LLC. The proposed plant is a Biologically Engineered
Single Sludge Treatment (BESST) technology plant. This patented process utilizes
sludge blanket clarification. The technology is capable of attaining tertiary treatment
limits with special features. The system has a dual treatment train to allow for duplicity
in the system and provide backup treatment in an emergency situation. This also allows
for phasing in of the system by being able to utilize only half of the system while homes
are coming on line. Equalization basins are provided at the front of both treatment trains
to smooth out "slugs" of wastewater entering the system and reducing system shock.
The Economic Evaluation (Attachment B) provides for an extra equalization tank and
tertiary treatment filter to meet strict discharge limits.
The references utilized for the PVCA are as follows:
• The price for the BESST system is based upon vendor pricing and includes,
materials, labor, engineering, and backup power.
• The price for the drip irrigation system is based upon vendor price estimates
and includes materials, labor and engineering.
16

fA�
• Operation and maintenance costs are based upon professional experience,
except for electrical costs which are based upon vendor recommendations.
The results show the PVCA demonstrate that the project loses money and is not an
economically viable option. As no additional land is available for purchase, this option is
not deemed technically viable either.
4.5 Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
This alternative is identified as technically viable and is analyzed for economic feasibility.
The Present Value of Costs Analysis is provided as Attachment B.
The surface discharge system is similar to the reuse system, with the exception that the
treatment plant effluent is discharged rather than land applied. This eliminates the need
for additional pumping and the irrigation system, and additional land acquisition.
The proposed treatment technology is a package plant by Purestream ES, LLC. The
proposed plant is a Biologically Engineered Single Sludge Treatment (BESST)
technology plant. This patented process utilizes sludge blanket clarification. The
technology is capable of attaining tertiary treatment limits with special features. The
system has a dual treatment train to allow for duplicity in the system and provide backup
treatment in an emergency situation. This also allows for phasing in of the system by
being able to utilize only half of the system while homes are coming on line.
Equalization basins are provided at the front of both treatment trains to smooth out
"slugs" of wastewater entering the system and reducing system shock. A brochure for
this technology is attached. The Economic Evaluation (Attachment B) provides for an
extra equalization tank and tertiary treatment filter to meet strict discharge limits.
The references utilized for the PVCA are as follows:
♦ The price for the BESST system is based upon vendor pricing and includes,
materials, labor, engineering, and backup power.
/0"61 ♦ The price for the land application sprinkler system is based upon vendor
price estimates and includes materials, labor and engineering.
17

t
♦ Operation and maintenance costs are based upon professional experience,
except for electrical costs which are based upon vendor recommendations.
(Electrical costs for the BESST system are less than that of the extended air
system as blower and pump sizes are decreased).
The results of the PVCA demonstrate this disposal option to be economically viable with
a 32.6% Return on Investment.
4.6 Combinations of Alternatives
As all soil disposal options require the purchase of additional land, which is not available,
no combinations of alternatives are deemed technically or economically feasible.
18

ropo USAE 5.0
-_y SRE LOCATION �.�
�- -..
C,
tM,"�
�j
1 r
N 36° 9.969'
W 81' 44.093'
135 scl mi
M.'M
Data use subject to license.
YN1 n
() 2004 DeLomie Topo USAID 50.
.delurme oom MN (0.0° W) Data Zoom 12-6
Scale as shown.
Note: Extracted from Delorme TopoUSA digital geographic data.
SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1

lom\
!WDELORME
Tope USAF 5.0
/
\
ll
1
HOUNDEARS
WWTPv1
N36° 10.58T
s,em�ps\''�_�—_
" �. �_
rl— =
- ,.- -- W81°
44.745'
a•"/II ::
-
DISTANCE TO YONAHLOSSEE WWTP ('..
_"o"� v 1 ' °=,y= 5,194 feel
J
r
DISTANCE TO HOUND EARS WWTID \\, `_� a �-(\ i
1.28miles
YO AiH�¢S�S E
_N36°10.250` �.=�tI�r
W81°43.336' ",9//
PR P6S D'STONE BRIDGE WWTP,
r
_
_ -
�t _
NW 9 969
W81 44 093'
A 1
\�bl
41
)
I
1
1
Data Use subject to license. 5
© 2004 DeW me. Tops USA?J 5 0.
6 400 6l0 1200 1W0 = 2" 2600
wvre.delonne.com MN(6]°" Data Zoom 13-5
Scale as shown.
Note: Extracted from Delorme TopoUSA digital geographic data.
NEIGHBORING DISCHARGE FACILITIES MAP
FIGURE 3

StoneBridge — Shull's Mill Properties, Inc
Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
General Statute Overview: North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(6) allows input from local governments in the issuance
of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for a new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility until it has
received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on which the
proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a
zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with the
ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a permit application for any facility which a city or county has determined to be
inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide
significance and is in the best interest of the State.
Instructions to the Applicant: Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must.
■ Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
■ If either (or both) local government(s) fail(s) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDES Unit.
■ As evidence to the Commission that the local government(s) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to respond within the
15-day period.
Instructions to the Local Government: The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
tOb1 any part of the land on which the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt. The form must be signed and notarized.
Name of local government Watauga County, North Carolina
(City/County)
Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes [ X ] No [ ] If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes [ X ] No [ ]
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the ordinance? Yes [ X ]
No [ ]
Date 7 Signature
County Manager)
State of Nam * 9 .c /" d ! ^Gl , County of �u w
On this n day of a �"`i vy7 , personally appeared before me, the said_ `
name e6f 60rjt 14S . yel;10 to me known and known to me to be the p�rsson described in
and who executed the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she) executed the same and being duly sworn
by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true.
My Commission expires l .(Signature of Notary Public) <;;�FW424
Notary Public (Official Seal)
VA d rinia i s".>"f T7rssr+n» • h a in ern 7 Q onn IZ

3ME
BROOKS&MEDLOCK
ENGINEERING, PLLC
April 20, 2007
Shulls Mill Properties, Inc
61 Glen Boulevard
Banner Elk, NC 28604
Attention: Dr. Albert Gersing
Dear Dr. Gersing,
On April 19, 2007, Walker B. Ferguson of Brooks & Medlock Engineering conducted a
preliminary soils investigation on a 44.77 acre tract owned by Dr. Gersing located in Watauga
County, North Carolina. This investigation was conducted at the request of Dr. Gersing. The
purpose of the soil study was to determine if any land based wastewater options were available
for the proposed 134 lot subdivision.
Fieldwork was conducted using the following tools and methods. A 3-inch hand auger, a tile
probe, and a sharpshooter shovel were used to examine the soil.
Recommendations are based on, but not limited to, observations made and data collected on
topography, landscape position, parent material, underlying geology, and soil characteristics.
owft� Soil characteristics include, but are not limited to, depth to a seasonal high water table (SHWT),
depth to a restrictive horizon, total soil depth, soil horizonation, soil structure, soil color, clay
mineralogy, bulk density, consistence, plasticity, stone content, and percent sand, silt, clay, and
mica. They follow the guidelines set forth in the North Carolina Laws and Rules for Sewage
Treatment and Disposal Systems, laws amended effective December 19, 2001, and rules
amended effective June 1, 2006.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Dr. Gersings tract contains predominantly residual soils. Weathered bedrock was encountered in
the soil borings from 19 to 30 inches. The controlling soil texture found on the tract ranged from
a SiL to a SiCL. Due to the shallow weathered bedrock found on the site conventional septic
system designs are not an option for the 134 lots being proposed.
The depth of soil found in the borings is adequate for an aerobic subsurface drip irrigation
system. This system would be designed on a long term acceptance rate (LTAR) ranging from
0.1- 0.2gpd/sq.ft, based on the preliminary soil borings. Using a 0.15 LTAR, 4800 .sq.ft is
required for a primary and repair 3-Bedroom aerobic drip irrigation system. With lots averaging
V4 acre in size, it is recommended that an on site wastewater disposal system for each lot not be
pursued.
The proposed lot design contains 7.17 acres of common area. This area could have the potential
for a large sub -surface wastewater disposal system. However, based on the LTAR used in the
17 ARLINGTON STREET - ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801 - [phone] - FAx [phone]

r
w
L
r..•,� above calculation this area is not large enough to accommodate 134 3-Bedroom units. If a
detailed soils investigation concluded that all of the 7.17 acres was suitable and the .15 LTAR
remained consistent the area could handle 23,400 gpd. This would allow for 65 3-Bedroom units.
A detailed soils investigation must be performed on this area to conclude final suitability.
r"M
/OW-
Based on the initial site visit and preliminary soils investigation it has been determined that there
is not enough available space for the 48,240 gpd of wastewater produced from 134 lot proposed
development. Therefore, it is our recommendation this site be considered for a Non -Ground
Absorption Sewage Treatment System, discussed in section 15A NCAC 18A.1958 of the North
Carolina Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems.
Thank you for the opportunity of presenting this information to you. If we can be of fixrther
assistance, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
John B. Allison, LSS
X
' So'1 Scwlist
.
- �_' 1 ".0
Walker B. Ferguson
Soil Science Associate
Ai� X/. ze'7' L
References:
1. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health,
On -Site Wastewater Section. 1998. Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, section
.1956(6). P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC, 27611-7687.
2. North Carolina Department of Environment; Health, and -Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health,
On -Site Wastewater Section. 1996. Procedures and Information Required for Approval of Large Subsurface
Wastewater Systems. P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC, 27611-7687.
3. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management. 1996. Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2H . 0200 — Waste Not Discharged to Surface
Waters. Environmental Management Commission, Raleigh, NC.
2

STONE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT
WATAUGA COUNTY NC
Present Value Cost Analysis of Feasbile Alternatives
ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS WITHOUT SEWER TREATMENT & DISPOSAL
Subdivision Infrastructure Costs
Item Units No. Units Cost/Unit
Total Asphalt Paving (see Attachment D)
Total Grading & Erosion Control (see Attachment D)
Total Storm Drainage (see Attachment D)
Curb/gutter/flatwork (see Attachment D)
Water System (see Attachment D)
Sewer Collection System (Attachment D)
Lighting, Landscape Common Amenities
Construction Management (2%)
Engineering & Surveying (6%)
Contingency (10%)
Land Acquisition Costs
From Fussell Closing in 1997 acres
Present Value of Acquisition Cost (since 1997 @ EPA disc. rate)
Total Costs without wastwater treatment & disposal
000\ Number of lots
Cost/lot
Anticipated lot price based on market value
Return on Investment without wastwater treatment & disposal
/400�
44.77
subtotal
$12,062
Cost
$381,942
$1,053,462
$25,048
$307,902
$613,900
$841,073
$683,000
$78,126.53
$239,067.18
$422,352.02
$4,645,872
$540,000
$928,819
$5, 574, 692
138
$40,396
$65, 000
37.85%
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC P. 1 ofq 4/21/2007

eom 1
I Connection to Existing Sewer System Option - Yonahlossee
Item
Units
No. Units
Cost/Unit
Cost
Construction
Installation of Gravity Sewer Line - Offsite
feet
0
$62
$0
Installation of Force main Line
feet
5194
$145
$753,130
Installatin of Pump Stations
each
2
$130,000
$260,000
Underground Road boring
per crossing
3
$7,000
$21,000
subtotal
$1,034,130
Easements & Legal fees
per
1
$10,000
$10,000
Annual Finance Charge ("Carry") @ 6.5% of land costs
per year
$35,100.00
(during planning and construction of sewer extension)
Operation & Maintenance (Pump Stations)
Contract 0&M
$60,000.00
Electricity & Parts
$24,000.00
subtotal
$84,000
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR SEWER EXTENSION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Co + yC�(1+r)t
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
?am\ Ct = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
rW
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Total
Year
Expenditure
Cash
PV
PV
0
Original Land Acquisition & Development Costs
$5,574,692 $5,574,692
$5,574,692
1
Easements, Engineering & legal costs
$92,730
$87,585
$5,662,276
2
50% of construction + annual land carry
$552,165
$492,586
$6,1549862
3
50% of construction + annual land carry
$552,165
$465,252
$6,620,115
4
O&M
$84,000
$66,851
$696869965
5
O&M
$84,000
$63,141
$6,750,107
6
O&M
$84,000
$59,637
$698099744
7
O&M
$84,000
$56,328
$69866,072
8
O&M
$84,000
$53,202
$699199275
9
O&M
$84,000
$50,250
$6,969,525
10
O&M
$84,000
$47,462
$79016,987
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastwater treatment & disposal $7,016,987
Number of lots 134
Costllot $52,365.57
Price/lot $65, 000.00
Return on Investment 19.44%
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC p. 2 of V 4/21/2007

I
f dlbs
II Connection to Existing Sewer System Option - Hound Ears
Item
Units
No. Units
Cost/Unit
Cost
Construction
Installation of Gravity Sewer Line - Offsite
feet
2000
$61.5
$123,000
Installation of Force main Line
feet
0
$55
$0
Installatin of Pump Stations
each
0
$130,000
$0
Underground Road boring
per crossing
4
$7,000
$28,000
subtotal
$151,000
Easements & Legal fees
per
1
$10,000
$10,000
Annual Finance Charge ("Carry") (a, 6.5% of land costs
per year
$35,100.00
(during planning and construction of sewer extension)
Operation & Maintenance
By Owner. Rates charged would be charged back to homeowners
$0.00
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR SEWER EXTENSION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Co + En Ctio+ot
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
Ct = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Total
Year
Expenditure
Cash
PV
PV
0
Original Land Acquisition & Development Costs
$5,574,692 $5,574,692
$5,574,692
1
Easements & legal costs + Engineering (8% construction)
$22,080
$20,855
$5,595,546
2
50% of construction + annual land carry
$110,600
$98,666
$5,694,213
3
50% of construction + annual land carry
$110,600
$93,191
$5,787,404
4
O&M
$0
$0
$5,787,404
5
O&M
$0
$0
$50787,404
6
O&M
$0
$0
$5,787,404
7
O&M
$0
$0
$5,787,404
8
O&M
$0
$0
$5,787,404
9
O&M
$0
$0
$5,787,404
10
O&M
$0
$0
$5,787,404
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastwater treatment & disposal $5, 787,404
Number of lots 134
Cost/lot $43,189.58
Price/lot $65, 000.00
Return on Investment 33.55%
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC P. 3 of 9 4/21/2007

III Community Septic System Option
Item
Units
No. Units
Cost/Unit
Cost
Land Acquisition
Initial Purchase (Boozer Tract)
acres
3.25
$65,000
S211,250
Initial Purchase (Norris Tract)
acres
3.41
$65,000
$221,650
Initial Purchase (Ruble Tract)
acres
3.37
$65,000
$219,050
Subtotal
S651,950
Construction
50,000 gpd WWTP
per
1
$345,000
$345,000
Addl Equalization
per
2
S35,000
$70,000
5-day and 30 day storage ponds
gal
1750000
$0.20
$350,000
Addl pump station for irrigation
per
1
S100,000
$100,000
Transfer piping to irrigation fields
&
2,800
S18
S50,400
Irrigation line and heads
tin. &
166,666
S2.50
S416,665
Subtotal
S1,332,065
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Recommended operator checks
per visit
365
S75
$27,375
Laboratory
per visit
48
$100
S4,800
Pump outs
per visit
2
$400
$800
Electrical
per month
1
$5,500
$5,500
Subtotal
S38,475
5 Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
S 15,000
S15,000
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
S266,413
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR LAND APPLICATION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) a Co + I Ctl(1+r)t
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
Ct= costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Year
Expenditure
Cash
PV
0
Original Land Acquisition & Development Costs
$5,574,692
$5,574,692
0
Engineering (8% construction) & Land Acquisition
$758,515
$758,515
1
System Construction
$1,332,065
S1,258,149
2
O&M
$38,475
$34,324
3
O&M
$38,475
$32,419
4
O&M
S38,475
$30,620
5
O&M
S38,475
$28,921
6
O&M & Capital Improvements
S53,475
$37,966
7
O&M
S38,475
$25,800
8
O&M
$38,475
$24,369
9
O&M
S38,475
$23,016
10
O&M
$38,475
$21,739
11
O&M & Capital Improvements
S53,475
S28,538
12
O&M
S38,475
S19,394
13
O&M
S38,475
S18,317
14
O&M
S38,475
$17,301
15
O&M
S38,475
S16,341
16
O&M & Capital Improvements
S53,475
S21,451
17
O&M
$38,475
S14,578
18
O&M
$38,475
$13,769
19
O&M
$38,475
$13,005
20
O&M - Salvage Value
-S227,938
-$72,769
Present Value Cost
S7,940,453
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastwater treatment & disposal
Number of lots
Cost/lot
Price/lot
Return on Investment
$7.940,453
134
S59,257.12
$65,000
8 84%
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC p. 4 of If 4/21/2007

/90*1
IV Land Application Option
Item
Units
No. Units
Cost/Unit
Cost
Land Acquisition
Initial Purchase (Morgan Tract)
acres
22
$65,000
$1,430,000
Subtotal
S1,430,000
Construction
50,000 gpd WWTP
per
1
$345,000
$345,000
Addl Equalization
per
2
$35,000
$70,000
5-day and 30 day storage ponds
gal
1750000
$0.20
$350,000
Addl pump station for irrigation
per
I
$100,000
$100,000
Transfer piping to irrigation fields
ft.
2,800
$18
$50,400
Irrigation he and heads
tin. ft.
140,449
$2.50
$351,123
Subtotal
$1,266,523
Annual Operation
& Maintenance
Recommended operator checks
per visit
365
$75
$27,375
Laboratory
per visit
48
SIM
$4,800
Pump outs
per visit
2
$400
$800
Electrical
per month
1
$5,500
$5,500
Subtotal
$38,475
5 Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
$15,000
S15,000
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
$253,305
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR LAND APPLICATION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Co + E° Ctl(1+r)t
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
G = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Year
Expenditure
Cash
PV
0
Original Land Acquisition & Development Costs
$5,574,692
$5,574,692
0
Engineering (8% construction) & Land Acquisition
$1,531,322
$1,531,322
1
System Construction
$1,266,523
$1,196,243
2
O&M
$38,475
$34,324
3
O&M
$38,475
$32,419
4
O&M
$38,475
$30,620
5
O&M
$38,475
$28,921
6
O&M & Capital Improvements
$53,475
$37,966
7
O&M
$38,475
$25,800
8
O&M
$38,475
$24,369
9
O&M
$38,475
$23,016
10
O&M
$38,475
$21,739
11
O&M & Capital Improvements
$53,475
$28,538
12
O&M
$38,475
$19,394
13
O&M
$38,475
$18,317
14
O&M
$38,475
$17,301
15
O&M
$38,475
$16,341
16
O&M & Capital Improvements
$53,475
$21,451
17
O&M
$38,475
$14,578
18
O&M
$39,475
$13,769
19
O&M
$38,475
$13,005
20
0&M - Salvage Value
-$214,830
-$68,584
Present Value Cost
S8,655,539
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastwater treatment & disposal
Number of lots
Cost/lot
Price/lot
Return on Investment
S8,655,539
134
S64,593.58
$65,000
0.63%
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC p. 5 of 7 4/21/2007

V Reuse Option
Item
Units
No. Units
Cost/Unit
Cost
Land Acquisition
Initial Purchase (Norris Tract)
acres
3.41
S65,000
$221,650
Initial Purchase (Ruble Tract)
acres
3.37
$65,000
$219,050
subtotal
$440, 700
Construction
50,000 gpd WWI? w/ Nutrient Removal
per
1
$345,000
$345,000
Add l Equalization
per
2
$35,000
$70,000
5-day and 30 day storage tanks
gal
1750000
$1.15
$2,012,500
Tertiary Treatment add-ons
per
1
$28,000
$28,000
System enclosure & landscaping
per
1
$85,000
$85,000
Addl pump station for irrigation
per
1
$100,000
$100,000
Transfer piping to irrigation fields
ft.
2,800
$18
$50,400
Irrigation liae
lin. ft.
140,449
$2.50
$351,123
Subtotal
S3,042,023
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Required operator checks
per visit
365
S75
S27,375
Laboratory
per visit
48
$100
S4,800
Pump outs
per visit
2
$400
S800
Electrical
per month
I
S15,000
S15,000
Subtotal
S47,97S
5 Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
S25,000
$2S,000
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
S186,30S
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR REUSE SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Co + In Ct/(1+r)t
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
Ct = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Year
Expenditure
Cash
PV
0
Original Land Acquisition & Development Costs
S5,574,692
S5,574,692
0
Engineering & Land Acquisition
S684,062
S684,062
1
System Construction
S3,042,023
$2,873,221
2
O&M
$47,975
S42,798
3
O&M
$47,975
S40,424
4
O&M
$47,975
S38,180
5
O&M
$47,975
S36,062
6
O&M & Capital Improvements
$72,975
S51,810
7
O&M
S47,975
S32,171
8
O&M
S47,975
$30,386
9
O&M
$47,975
$28,699
10
0&M
S47,975
$27,107
11
O&M & Capital Improvements
$72,975
$38,945
12
O&M
$47,975
$24,182
13
O&M
S47,975
S22,840
14
O&M
$47,975
$21,573
15
O&M
$47,975
$20,376
16
O&M & Capital Improvements
S72,975
$29,274
17
O&M
$47,975
$18,177
18
O&M
S47,975
$17,169
19
O&M
$47,975
S16,216
20
O&M - Salvage Value
-$138,330
-S44,162
Present Value Cost
$9,624,200
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastwater treatment & disposal $9,624,200
Number of lots 134
Cost/lot $71,822.39
Pricellot S65, 000
Return on Investment I0.50%
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC p. 6 of 7 4/21/2007

VI Discharge to Surface Waters
Item
Construction
50,000 gpd PurestreamTm WWTP
Add'1 Equalization & storage tankage
Construction, including enclosure
Units No. Units Cost/Unit Cost
per 1 $345,000
per 2 $35,000
per 1 $85,000
Subtotal
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Required operator checks
per visit
365
$75
Laboratory
per visit
48
$100
Pump outs
per visit
6
$400
Electrical
per month
1
$4,500
Subtotal
5 Year Capital Improvements
Pump & line repairs
Estimate
1
$15,000
Salvage Value (20% of original cost)
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS FOR SCENARIO SEWER EXTENSION SCENARIO
Present Value (PV) = Co + En Ctl(1+r)t
where: Co = Initial Costs in present year
Ct = costs incurred in time t
t = time period after present year
n = ending year of facility life
r = current EPA discount rate
5.875%
Incremental
Year
Expenditure
Cash
PV
0
System Installation
$500,000
$500,000
1
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
2
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
3
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
4
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
5
O&M & Capital Improvements
$54,075
$54,075
6
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
7
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
8
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
9
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
10
O&M & Capital Improvements
$54,075
$54,075
11
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
12
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
13
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
14
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
15
O&M & Capital Improvements
$54,075
$54,075
16
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
17
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
18
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
19
O&M
$39,075
$39,075
20
O&M - Salvage Value
-$990,099
-$990,099
Present Value Cost
S297,326
Return on Investment Analysis
Total Development Costs with PV of wastwater treatment & disposal
Number of lots
Cost/lot
Price/lot
Return on Investment
$5,872,017
134
$43,821.02
$65, 000
32.58%
$345,000
$70,000
$85,000
$500,000
$27,375
$4,800
$2,400
$4,500
$39,075
$15, 000
$1,029,174
Brooks & Medlock Engineering, PLLC p. 7 of 7 4/21/2007

Stone Br/dge Subdiv/slon - Master/Developnent Plan Phase Op/nlon of Cost
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
EARTHWORK - GRADING
CLEARING & GRUBBING
18 ACR
$1,800.00
$32,400.00
DEMOLITION
CURB AND GUTTER
0 LF
$2.50
$0.00
ASPHALT PAVING
0 SY
$1.00
$0.00
BUILDING/BUILDING PAD
0 LS
$7,500.00
$0.00
STORM DRAINAGE PIPE/CB's
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
EXCAVATION
CUT AND FILL
393000 CY
$2.00
$786,000.00
BORROW FILL
0 CY
$6.00
$0.00
STRIP TS & PLACE ON SITE
14520 CY
$2.00
$29,040.00
FINE GRADING
43560 SY
$0.30
$13,068.00
LAKE IMPROVEMENTS
1 LS
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
STAKING/FIELD ENGINEERING
1 LS
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
SUBTOTAL GRADING
$888,508.00
I�
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
EROSION CONTROL
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
WASHED STONE
45 TN
$25.00
$1,125.00
FILTER FABRIC
111 SY
$2.00
$222.00
SILT FENCE
11715 LF
$3.00
$35,145.00
INLET PROTECTION @ C.B.
12 EA
$175.00
$2,100.00
DIVERSION DITCHES
460 LF
$3.20
$1,472.00
CHECK DAMS
469 EA
$150.00
$70,290.00
SEDIMENT TRAPS
5 EA
$6,000.00
$27,600.00
DETENTION BASINS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
MAINTENANCE
1 LS
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
GRASSING -TEMPORARY
8.00 ACR
$1,500.00
$12,000.00
SUBTOTAL EROSION CONTROL $164,954.00
TOTAL GRADING $1,053,462.00
llm1
BME Project#
226507
1

Stone Br/dge Subdlv/slon - Master/Development Plan Phase Op/nlon of Cost BME Project#
226507
I�
QTY -- UNIT PRICE/UNIT EXTENDED
------------------------------------------- --------------- - ----------
STORM DRAINAGE
PIPE
12" RCP
0 LF
$20.00
$0.00
15" RCP
302 302 LF
$22.00
$6,644.00
18" RCP
294 294 LF
$24.00
$7,056.00
24" RCP
119 119 LF
$30.00
$3,570.00
30" RCP
0 LF
$38.00
$0.00
36" RCP
0 LF
$48.00
$0.00
42" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
48" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
54" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
60" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
66" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
72" RCP
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
FES 12"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
FES 15"
3 EA
$450.00
$1,350.00
FES 18"
7 EA
$500.00
$3,500.00
FES 24"
2 EA
$600.00
$1,200.00
FES 30"
0 EA
$700.00
$0.00
FES 36"
0 EA
$750.00
$0.00
HW 12"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 15"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 18"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 24"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 30"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 36"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 42"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 48"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 54"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 60"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 66"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HW 72"
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE COLLARS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
RIP RAP
29 TN
$30.00
$883.20
WASHED STONE
29 TN
$25.00
$736.00
FILTER FABRIC
54 SY
$2.00
$108.56
SD PIPE SUBTOTAL
$25,047.76
id"1
2

Stone Bridge Subdlvlslon - Master/Development Plan Phase Op/nlon of Cost
e
CATCH BASINS
CURB INLET C.B.
0 EA
$1,500.00
$0.00
0-6'
0 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
0 EA
$150.00
$0.00
DROP INLET C.B.
0 EA
$1,350.00
$0.00
0-6'
0 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
0 EA
$150.00
$0.00
OPEN THROAT C.B.
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
0-6'
0 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
MANHOLE C.B.
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
0-6'
0 VF
OVER 6'
0 VF
$0.00
$0.00
CONCRETE SLAB
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
TIE-IN TO EXISTING C.B.
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
/901'1
SUBTOTAL SD STRUCTURES
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE
$0.00
$25,047.76
QTY UNIT PRICE/UNIT EXTENDED
CONCRETE
CURB & GUTTER
18" C & G
0 LF
$10.00
$0.00
24" C & G
23430 LF
$12.00
$281,160.00
30" C & G
0 LF
$15.00
$0.00
18" ROLLED C & G
0 LF
$9.00
$0.00
24" ROLLED C & G
0 LF
$11.00
$0.00
30" ROLLED C & G
0 LF
$14.00
$0.00
6" VERT. CONC. CURB (MEDIAN)
500 LF
$9.00
$4,500.00
STONE UNDER CURB & GUTTER
1387 TON
$16.00
$22,192.00
CONCRETE ENTRANCES
0 Sy
$30.00
$0.00
CURB CUT
0 LF
$4.00
$0.00
ASPHALT PATCHING
0 TN
$125.00
$0.00
DRIVEWAY PERMIT FROM NCDOT
1 EA
$50.00
$50.00
SIDEWALKS
0 SY
$35.00
$0.00
STONE UNDER CONCRETE
0 TON
$16.00
$0.00
TOTAL CONCRETE
$307,902.00
BME Project#
226507
3

,. Stone Bridge Subd/vision - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinion of Cost BME Project#
226507
DEPTH(IN)
QTY UNIT
PRICE/UNIT
EXTENDED
---------------------------------
ASPHALT PAVING
---------- ----
-----------
- ---------------
---------------------------------
HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT
---------- ----
0 SY
-----------
- ---------------
ABC STONE
8 0 TN
$15.00
$0.00
H-BINDER
2 0 TN
$36.00
$0.00
1-2
2 0 TN
$38.00
$0.00
SUBTOTAL HD ASPHALT
$0.00
LIGHT DUTY ASPHALT
23430 SY
ABC STONE
8 10309 TN
$16.00
$164,947.20
H-BINDER
2 2577.3 TN
$36.00
$92,782.80
1-2
2 2460 TN
$48.00
$118,087.20
SUBTOTAL LD ASPHALT
$375,817.20
ASPHALT CURB
0 LF
$0.00
$0.00
STONE PARKING (0 SY)
8 0 TN
$14.00
$0.00
MISC. STONE (0 SY)
0 0 TN
$0.00
$0.00
STRIPING - SEALER - FINISHINGS ($100.00
MINIMUM)
STRIPING
11715 LF
$0.35
$4,100.25
ARROWS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
f� STOP STRIPES/SIGNS
15 EA
$135.00
$2,025.00
12" LETTERS
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
HANDICAP SYMBOLS
0 EA
$8.00
$0.00
HANDICAP SIGNS
ON POST
0 EA
$200.00
$0.00
SIGN ON WALL
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
2 SIGNS ON 1 POST
0 EA
$0.00
$0.00
WHEEL STOPS/BUMPER BLOCKS
0 EA
$30.00
$0.00
SEALER
0 SY
$0.00
$0.00
SUBTOTAL STRIPING $6,125.25
TOTAL ASPHALT PAVING $381,942.45
lam
4

v
c . Stone Bridge Subd/vislon - Master/Development Plan Phase Opinion of Cost
o-
/40b1
/4�
QTY UNIT PRICE/UNIT EXTENDED
UTILITIES
WATER
3/4" DOMESTIC SERVICE (TAP ONLY
134 EA
$225.00
$30,150.00
1" DOMESTIC SERVICE
0 LF
$13.00
$0.00
1-1/2" DOMESTIC SERVICE
0 LF
$15.00
$0.00
3" FIRE LINE
0 LF
$14.00
$0.00
4" WATER/FIRE LINE
0 LF
$15.00
$0.00
6" WATER/FIRE LINE
1140 LF
$32.00
$36,480.00
8" WATER LINE
11715 LF
$38.00
$445,170.00
10" WATER LINE
0 LF
$26.00
$0.00
12" WATER LINE
0 LF
$35.00
$0.00
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY
39 EA
$2,000.00
$78,100.00
BLOW -OFF ASSEMBLY
0 EA
$1,500.00
$0.00
2 6" WELLS WITH STEEL CASING TO
2 LS
$12,000.00
$24,000.00
BORE & JACK
SUBTOTAL WATER
SANITARY SEWER
4" LATERAL (TAP ONLY TO R/W)
8" GRAVITY SYSTEM W/ MANHOLES
SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER
TOTAL UTILITIES
0 LF $200.00 $0.00
$613,900.00
6700 EA $18.00 $120,600.00
11715 LF $61.50 $720,472.50
$841,072.50
$1,454,972.50
BME Project#
226507
R

1
a ,Stone Bridge SubdMslon - Master/Developrnent Plan Phase Opin/on of Cost
P
LIGHTING/LANDSCAPE ALLOWANCE
AMENITIES (CLUBHOUSE, ETC.)
GATEHOUSE/GATES
FRENCH DRAINS (DRAINAGE/CLEAN-UP)
PROJECT SUBTOTAL
SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (OH
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING SERVICES
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
GRAND TOTAL
Project Cost per Square Foot
Project Cost per Acre
Project Cost per Lot
(Est. Residential SF @ 2500SF/lot.)
e"AN
em41
1 EA
$100,000.00
1 EA
$500,000.00
1 EA
$75,000.00
1 EA
$8,000.00
2%
6%
10%
335,000 SF
44.77 AC
134 LOTS
(MASTER/DEV.)
$100,000.00
$500,000.00
$75,000.00
$8,000.00
$3,906,326.71
$78,126.53
$234,379.60
$398,445.32
$4,617,278.17
$13.78
$103,133.31
$34,457.30
BME Project#
226507
C: