NC0063720_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20101221

J A ulred JN
Chernikov, Sergei
From: Thurman Horne [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:02 PM
To: Chernikov, Sergei
Cc: Michael A. Melton; David G. Schlobohm; Sprimont, Leigh A.
Subject: EAA for Forest Ridge subdivision NCO063720
Attachments: ANCForestRidgeWWTPRevisedEAAAppendixA121510.doc
Mr. Chemikov,
In response to your message requesting revisions to the subject EAA, I have attached a revised Appendix A from the EAA
which embodies the revisions to the cost estimate for the alternatives. Along with these revisions, I will address the
comments made in your message.
1) 1 have further detailed and itemized the projected costs in the revised Appendix A. However, please be aware that
upon reviewing the estimated costs for continuing operation and maintenance, using actual historical cost data
accumulated by Aqua North Carolina, Inc. for similar WWTP's in North Carolina, the estimated annual costs for the
alternative of continuing discharge have decreased from my original estimate.
2) 1 can not remove the estimated cost for removal of the existing WWTP, contents and components. If this discharge
were to be eliminated, the existing WWTP could not be simply left as is, nor could it simply be emptied and left as is. This
would leave an unacceptable risk to public health and safety. If operations of the WWTP were to be ceased, it would
be unacceptable to all concerned to leave a structure to deteriorate from neglect, and to pose a potential concern to the
health and safety of the general public. Leaving the tanks, etc. open and full would invite the proliferation of mosquitos,
odors, etc. Removing the contents and leaving the open tanks would be a disregard for the possibility of tragic injury to
any persons (e.g. children, juveniles, etc.) entering the site, regardless of whether such entry was lawful or invited.
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. is responsible for this WWTP regardless of whether it continues operation or if operations were
to cease. The cost of properly abandoning these facilities can not be ignored in doing any objective comparison of the
costs associated with the various alternatives, regardless of whether the proper and safe closure of the facilities is
required by NC DWQ.
3) 1 have inspected and reviewed the facilities and I am not aware of any major deficiencies. Overall, the facilities
appear to be sound and show no signs of needing any major improvements. The facility has a history of compliance with
the permit requirements. Based on my inspection, I have made a list of items that I consider to be minor repairs and
improvements (handrails for safety) which I have included in the revised cost estimate.:Otherwise, the facilities appear to
be in good operating condition and not showing any imminent need for major improvements.
The revisions to the estimated costs are included in the attached revised Appendix A. Even with the inclusion of the
additional costs for the minor repairs/improvements I have added, the decrease in the estimated annual operating costs
result in an overall decrease in the projected Present Worth evaluation of the alternative for continued discharge, Hence,
the conclusions and recommendation of the originally submitted EAA remain that continued operation and discharge from
the existing WTTP is the viable alternative.
I hope that this information is sufficient, but if you should need anything else, please advise.
Sincerely,
J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
----- Original Message --
From: Sprimont, Leigh A.
To: Thurman Horne

Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 12:49 PM
Subject: FW: EAA for Forest Ridge subdivision NCO063720
Hi Thurman. Can you please remind me where we stand on this request? Thanks!
Leigh Sprimont
Area Manager - Western Region Operations
AQUA North Carolina, Inc.
4163 Sinclair St., Denver, NC 28037
Office: 704.489.9404, X57232
Cell: 704.530.0503
[e-mail]
www.aguanorthcarolina.com
From: Chernikov, Sergei [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:05 AM
To: Sprimont, Leigh A.
Subject: FW: EAA for Forest Ridge subdivision NCO063720
Dear Mr. Primont,
We have reviewed the EAA for Forest Ridge subdivision that was submitted to DWQ on April 12, 2010 and found several
deficiencies that have to be addressed. I sent the e-mail to Thurman Horne (please see below) on April 26, 2010
requesting additional information. I have not received a response from Mr. Horne to this date. I would greatly
appreciate if you could contact him and convey him the message from DWQ regarding correction that have to be made
to the EAA.
Thank you!
Sergei
From: Chernikov, Sergei
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:23 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: Belnick, Tom
Subject: EAA for Forest Ridge subdivision NCO063720
Thurman,
I have reviewed the EAA you have submitted and have a few suggestions that have to be completed before EAA is
approved:
1) Please submit itemized budget for Alternative #1(continued surface water discharge).
2) Please remove the cost of dismantling the WWTP structures for Alternative # 2 (connection to the POTW) . We
require only removal of the sludge, which is included in the budget.
3)1 have reviewed the latest inspection report and pictures of the facility. Based on this information, it is clear that
major improvements are needed. Therefore, you need to include the cost of improvements/repairs in the budget for
Alternative #1(continued surface water discharge).
Thank you!

Appendix A
Cost Analysis of Alternatives
Revised 12/15/10
Note: Cost estimates based on, National Construction Estimator, Means Building Construction
Cost Data, consultation with contractors and the engineers experience.

1. Continued Surface Water Discharge at Existing 33,000 GPD Flow Rate:
(Using Existing WWTP) - Revised 12/15/10
The facilities have been inspected and reviewed to determine what improvements appear
to be needed. The existing facilities are in reasonably good condition and there are no
anticipated needs for any substantial repairs or improvements, other than the relatively
minor repairs listed below.
Capital Cost:
Item: Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
Clean and recoat walls L.S. 10,000 $ 10,000
of existing sludge holding
tanks.
Replace flow splitter box L.S. 29500 29500
Extend handrails around 150 L.F. 20 3,000
entire perimeter of WWTP's
(Note: After extending handrail, most of the
existing grating will no longer be required.
Unneeded sections can be removed. Retain
only those sections in sound condition
(i.e. not rusted or weak).)
Repair hatch hinges on L.S. 200 200
influent pump station
and clean/paint control
panel support
Replace doors on blower 2 250 500
building
Paint blower building L.S. 500 500
Replace chemical 1 400 400
(chlorine and dechlorine
tablet) storage shed
with a Rubbermaid or
similar storage shed
Note: There are no engineering costs associated with the above activities.
Total Capital Cost = $ 179100

Operation & Maintenance Cost
(Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875% interest):
Operation & Maintenance (WWTP and sewer system);
Based on actual operation and maintenance costs for similar systems in North Carolina
as compiled by Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
O & M costs per connection per year:
1.
Labor (operators, assistants, etc.)
$ 108.00
2.
Chemicals (chlorine, dechlorine, etc.)
30.00
3.
Laboratory costs
19.00
4.
Outside labor (sludge removal, repairs, etc.)
23.00
5.
Electrical utilities
63.00
6.
General overhead (billing, administration, etc.)
30.00
7.
Communications
7.00
9.
Transportation
19.00
Total = $ 299.00
Annual O & M cost = $ 299/connection x 57 connections = $ 17,043/year
PV Annual Cost = $197,482
Total Net Present Value = $ 214,582

2. Connection to nearest available POTW Sewer System at 33,000 GPD Flow Rate:
Install new gravity sewer outfall to convey wastewater from the influent sewer to the
junction with existing municipal sewer. Aqua North Carolina would pay sewer use fees
and new connection surcharges to the City/County Utilities Division. Aqua North Carolina
would be responsible for all costs associated with constructing the sewer connection and
for continuing to operate and maintain the existing sewer system in the Forest Ridge
Subdivision.
Distance = approx. 225 LF
Capital Cost:
Item: Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
12" gravity sewer 225 LF $ 120 $ 27,000
Rock excavation 20 CY $ 100 $ 21000
Manholes 3 Ea $ 4,000 $ 12,000
Connect influent from LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Exist. lift station to new
Gravity outfall, plug
Exist. outfall
Abandon, dismantle and remove LS $ 25,000 $ 257000
Exist. WWTP and influent lift
Station, fill and grade
Pump WWTP contents into sewer LS $ 4,000 $ 4,000
Dispose sludge off site LS $ 21000 $ 21000
Erosion control LS $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Surveying 1 day $ 1,500 $ 1,500
Local Government
Plan Review Fee LS $ 500 $ 500
Legal LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Sub -total $ 92,000
Engineering Design 10 % 9,200

C
Engineering Construction 5 %
Progress Inspection Services
4,600
Total Capital Cost = $ 1059800
Local Government surcharge for new connections:
*$ 21 /two months/connection for 13 years
Surcharge = $ 21 x 57 connections x 6 x 13 years = $ 93,366
Operation & Maintenance Cost:
Local government fees:
* Volume charge = $ 4.29/100 CF of water use by Forest Ridge community
Based on water use records for 12/07/06 — 06/20/07, total water use = 325,116 CF for 195 days
Therefore, average daily water use = 1,667.3 CF/day
Projected average annual water use = 608,550 CF/yr.
Estimated Annual sewer use charges = $ 4.29/CCF x 6085.5 CCF/yr = $ 26,107/yr
Annual operation, repair and maintenance of Forest Ridge sewer system:
Estimated cost = $ 4,500/yr/mile sewer x 1 mile (approx. length of sewer) = $ 4,500/yr
Total annual costs = $ 30,607/yr
(Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875% interest)
Present Value Annual Cost = $ 3549651
Total Net Present Value = $ 553,817
* See Appendix G "City/County Utilities Service Fees and Water Use Records"

M
3. Land Based Disposal:
3A. Subsurface Disposal at 33,000 GPD Flow Rate:
Based on the soil survey information and the engineer's field observations, the soils in
this area appear to be severely limited as a medium for subsurface disposal. In the event
that it was found to be apparently a cost effective alternative, an in depth site specific soil
investigation would need to be done to confirm that the soils could in fact be used.
However, for the purpose of comparing the potential alternatives within the scope of this
evaluation, it will be assumed that a typical low design loading rate would be workable.
Therefore, it will be assumed that a loading rate of 0.20 gpd/sq. ft. is acceptable.
Therefore, based on the design flow, the area required for subsurface disposal is:
33,000 gpd / 0.20 gpd/sq. ft. = 165,000 SF
Whereas -it is required to maintain an equal size area as a reserve for future repair, the
total required area is 330,000 SF. Assuming a roughly rectangular field (500 ft x 660 ft.
for the initial drain field plus repair and in order to maintain the required buffers to
property lines, etc.), the minimum estimated land required is 600,000 SF or 13.8 acres.
Forest Ridge is a moderately dense developed community. As a consequence of this,
there are no areas available for consideration that are currently owned by Aqua North
Carolina or within the existing subdivision. Hence, any consideration for subsurface
disposal must be based on the possibility of acquiring areas of sufficient size off site.
Capital Cost:
Item:
Quantity: Unit Cost:
Cost:
4" sewer drain in 3' trenches
55,000 LF
$ 18
$
990,000
Site Clearing
14 acre
$ 6,500
$
91,000
Land
13.8 acres
$ 35,000
$
483,000
Septic Tanks
50 Ea.
21500
$
125,000
3" FM
1,500 LF
$ 20
$
30,000
Pump Station
1 Ea
$ 60,000
$
60,000
Surveying
3 days
$ 1,500
$
4,500
Soils Investigation
2 day
$ 1,500
$
39000
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LS
$ 3,000
$
3,000
Erosion control
LS
$ 10,000
$
10,000
Electrical
LS
$ 12,000
$
12,000
Legal
LS
$ 10,000
$
10,000
Sub -total
$
1,821,500
Engineering 10 % 182,150

C.
Engineering Construction 5 %
Progress Inspection Services
Total Capital Cost
91,075
_ $ 29094,725
Operation & Maintenance Cost (Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875 % interest):
Annual Cost
O & M of drain field,
Contract operations services = $ 1,500/mo. _ $ 18,000/yr
Annual electrical charges = $ 180/month X 12 mo/yr = $ 2,160/yr
Annual septage pumping = $ 1,000/yr
PV Annual Cost = $ 245086
Total Net Present Value = $ 29339,911
Total Annual Cost = $ 21,160

313. Surface Irrigation at 33,000 GPD Flow Rate:
Surface irrigation preliminary design is based on an assumed allowable application rate
of 0.75 is
per week and a required storage basin for 60 days design flow. Based on the
design flow of 33,000 gpd, this results in an estimated disposal area of 11.3 acres.
Allowing a recommended 50% repair area, the required total area is 17 acres. Assuming
a roughly rectangular field (800 ft x 925 ft. for the initial spray field plus repair and in order
to maintain the required 150 foot buffer to property lines), the minimum estimated land
required is approximately 31 acres.
Surface irrigation requires prior treatment to reduce raw wastewater constituents to levels
acceptable for surface application. Therefore, the operating costs estimated in Alternative
1. for continuing to operate the existing wastewater treatment facilities are included in the
estimate of the costs for surface application.
Capital Cost:
Item:
Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
1,980,000 gal. storage basin
(1)
$
383,080
Surface irrigation system
492,228 SF
$ 0.35
$
172,280
Monitoring wells
6 ea
$ 4,000
$
24,000
Land
31 acres
$ 35,000
$
1,085,000
Fencing
4,500 LF
$ 6.00
$
27,000
3" FM
1,500 LF
$ 20
$
309000
Manholes
2 Ea
$ 4,000
$
8,000
Pump Station
1 Ea
$ 60,000
$
60,000
Surveying
2 days
$ 1,500
$
31000
Soils Investigation
2 days
$ 1,500
$
3,000
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LS
$ 3,000
$
3,000
Erosion control
LS
$ 10,000
$
10,000
Easement/Right of Way
2,000 LF
$ 10
$
209000
Clearing (approx. 25 acre)
25 acre
$ 6,500
$
162,500
Electrical
LS
$ 10,000
$
10,000
Legal
LS
$10,000
$
10,000
Engineering
Engineering Construction
Progress Inspection Services
Sub -total $ 2,010,860
10%
5%
Total Capital Cost
201,086
100,543
$ 2,3121489

C
(1) Storage:
Excavation 12,280 cu. Yds. @ $ 6.00/yd = $ 73,680
Compaction and Lining 88,400 SF @ $ 3.50/SF = $ 309,400
Sub -total = $ 383,080
Operation & Maintenance Cost
(Present Value, 20 year life, 8% interest):
Annual Cost
O & M of spray field,
Contract operations services = $ 1,750/mo. _ $ 21,000/yr
Annual electrical charges = $ 500/month = $ 6,000/yr
Operation & Maintenance (WWTP and sewer system) = $ 23,940/yr
($35/mo./connect. X 57 connect. X 12 mo/yr)
Total Annual Cost = $ 50,940
PV Annual Cost = $ 5909255
Total Net Present Value = $ 2,902,744

Phernikov, Sergei
From: Chernikov, Sergei
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:05 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: FW: EAA for Forest Ridge subdivision NC0063720
Dear Mr. Primont,
We have reviewed the EAA for Forest Ridge subdivision that was submitted to DWQ on April 12, 2010 and found several
deficiencies that have to be addressed. 1 sent the e-mail to Thurman Horne (please see below) on April 26, 2010
requesting additional information. I have not received a response from Mr. Horne to this date. 1 would greatly
appreciate if you could contact him and convey him the message from DWQ regarding correction that have to be made
to the EAA.
Thank you!
Sergei
From: Chernikov, Sergei
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:23 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: Belnick, Tom
Subject: EAA for Forest Ridge subdivision NC0063720
Thurman,
I have reviewed the EAA you have submitted and have a few suggestions that have to be completed before EAA is
approved:
1) Please submit itemized budget for Alternative #1(continued surface water discharge).
2) Please remove the cost of dismantling the WWTP structures for Alternative # 2 (connection to the POTW) . We
require only removal of the sludge, which is included in the budget.
3)1 have reviewed the latest inspection report and pictures of the facility. Based on this information, it is clear that
major improvements are needed. Therefore, you need to include the cost of improvements/repairs in the budget for
Alternative #1(continued surface water discharge).
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
NPDES-West
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606

E-mail correspondence to and from this address maybe subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

Chernikov, Sergei
From: Chernikov, Sergei
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 8:58 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: FW: EAA for Forest Ridge subdivision NCOO63720
Thurman,
Please let me know if you received the e-mail that I sent you on April 26, 2010 (please see below).
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
Complex Permitting Unit
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Chernikov, Sergei
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:23 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: Belnick, Tom
Subject: EAA for Forest Ridge subdivision NC0063720
Thurman,
I have reviewed the EAA you have submitted and have a few suggestions that have to be completed before EAA is
approved:
1) Please submit itemized budget for Alternative #1(continued surface water discharge).
2).Please remove the cost of dismantling the WWTP structures for Alternative # 2 (connection to the POTW) . We
require only removal of the sludge, which is included in the budget.
3)1 have reviewed the latest inspection report and pictures of the facility. Based on this information, it is clear that
major improvements are needed. Therefore, you need to include the cost of improvements/repairs in the budget for
Alternative #1(continued surface water discharge).
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer 11

NPDES-West
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
Fia

Mr. Mike Mickey
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown St
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Dr. Sergei Chernikov
NC DENR/DWQ/NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
March 31, 2010
Gentlemen, as requested in your letter dated March 8, 2010 and as required by our current NPDES
permit, enclosed please find an Engineering Alternatives Analysis for Aqua NC's Forest Ridge WWTP.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me at 704-489-9404,
X57232 or 704-530-0503 (cell) or by e-mail: [e-mail]
Sincerel
Leigh S mont
Area Manager —Western Region Operations
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. r P V
4163 Sinclair St"= -
Denver, NC 28037
APR 12010

1
Existing Wastewater Discharge
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Forest Ridge Subdivision Wastewater treatment Facilities
Clemmons, N.C.
Forsyth County
Applicant Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
202 MacKenan Court
Cary, N.C. 27611
Ph: 919-663-9404
Contact: Scott Smart
Facility Forrest Ridge Subdivision WWTP
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Clemmons, N.C.
Prepared by: J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124
Ph: 704-788-4455
Date: March 26, 2010

on Existing Wastewater Discharge
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
APR 12010
FM
DENR-WATER QUALrry
Im Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
fm Forest Ridge Subdivision Wastewater treatment Facilities
Clemmons, N.C.
Forsyth County
Im
Im
FM
M
fm
Applicant Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
202 MacKenan Court
Cary, N.C. 27611
Ph: 919-663-9404
Contact: Scott Smart
Facility Forrest Ridge Subdivision WWTP
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Clemmons, N.C.
Prepared by: J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124
Ph: 704-788-4455
Date: March 26, 2010
1
Ow

0r
Table of Contents
Page
■m Section 1: General................................................................................3
1.01 Introduction: .................................................................... 3
m, 1.02 Scope:..... .......................................3
.... ...........................
Section 2: Background Information........................................................3
2.01 Project Area: ................................................................... 3
2.02 Site Characteristics: .......................................................... 3
2.03 Receiving Stream Characteristics........................................4
Section 3: Existing Utilities....................................................................4
Im
3.01 Public Facilities: ............................................................... 4
3.02 Private Facilities: .............................................................. 4
IM
Section 4: Alternatives For Service.........................................................4
ME 4.01: On site surface and/or subsurface disposal........... ......5
4.02: Wastewater Reuse: ........................................................ 6
4.03: Surface Water Discharge................................................6
rM" 4.04: Combination of Alternatives.............................................6
M
Section 5: Summary and Conclusions: ................................................... 7
Section 6: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities: .............................. 7
MM
Appendix
A
Cost Analysis of Alternatives
Appendix
B
USGS Location Map and Aerial Photo
`� Appendix
C
Possible Route for Connection to POTW
Appendix
D
Possible Location for Subsurface Land Disposal
Appendix
E
Possible Location for Surface Land Disposal
em
Appendix
F
SCS Soil Maps and Soil Descriptions
Appendix
G
City/County Utilities Service Fees and Water Use Records
fm

MR
3
me •
Section 1: General
'" 1.01 Introduction:
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. (Aqua NC) currently owns and operates an existing
waste water treatment plant (WWTP) serving Forest Ridge Subdivision, located
southeast of Clemmons, N.C. in Forsyth County. The community homes are
served by an existing package waste water treatment plant. The existing
wastewater treatment plant is a dual path 33,000 gpd package type, extended
aeration process facility which has an influent lift station, aeration basins,
secondary clarification, aerobic sludge holding, effluent chlorine contact basin
(tablet feeder), effluent dechlorination basin (tablet feeder) and effluent flow
meter/recorder. The treated effluent is discharged into the Blanket Creek, Class
WS-IV waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin.
The existing waste water treatment plant has a good overall compliance history
with NC DWQ regulations. Pursuant to the terms of the existing NPDES permit,
Aqua NC has commissioned this investigation to consider alternatives to the
existing method of wastewater treatment and to evaluate the possibility of using an
alternative means of wastewater treatment to serve the community.
M
FM
am
so
am
up
1.02 Scope:
The scope of this project is limited to the investigation and evaluation of
alternatives for treating and/or disposing of the wastewaters from the Forrest
Ridge community. This includes consideration of the feasibility of continuing the
existing discharge and options for eliminating the existing discharge.
Section 2: Background Information
2.01 Project Area:
The service area is limited to the existing Forest Ridge community. All homes are
single family residences. All wastewater is domestic strength.
The existing discharge coordinates are: Longitude: -80 deg. 23 min. 40 sec. W
Latitude: 36 deg. 03 min. 37 sec. N
2.02 Site Characteristics:
The subdivision is located in an urban portion of Forsyth County that is
experiencing significant growth and development.
The general area has soil characteristics which are limited the possibility of on site
treatment and disposal. Hence, the development was built with a centralized

am
4
M
sewer collection system for treatment and discharge in accordance with the
NPDES permit.
Terrain is generally rolling but has been graded level at the wastewater treatment
plant site.
2.03 Receiving Stream Characteristics:
The receiving stream is Blanket Creek, Class WS-IV waters in the Yadkin -Pee
Dee River basin. The receiving stream appears to have good flow and slope
which creates desirable turbulence and aeration.
This receiving stream has no known outstanding features or characteristics that
should preclude the continuation of the existing discharge. There are no known
endangered or threatened species and these are not identified as impaired waters.
I=" Section 3: Existing Utilities
am
3.01 Public Facilities:
The nearest existing public sewer is located just east of the existing WWTP where
the City of Winston Salem has extended sewer lines and placed a pump station at
a location that is approximately 75 feet from the existing WWTP. Connection to the
pump station could be made by extending a sewer line from the existing influent
sewer, and connecting to the existing sewer at the City pump station. The distance
that would be required for gravity sewers to be installed would be approximately
225 ft. (See Appendix C.)
3.02 Private Facilities:
There are no known existing private sewer utilities within any reasonable proximity
of Forest Ridge that would be available for consideration as a possible alternative.
A review of available information revealed that there are no such private facilities
that would be a reasonable, viable, potential alternative within a search radius of
over two miles around the WWTP.
There are several existing private, single family discharge units located near the
existing WWTP and within the two mile search radius, but, due to their inherent
limitations of size, these are not a practical alternative for consideration.
Section 4: Alternatives for Wastewater Service
4.01: On site surface and/or subsurface disposal:
Subsurface Disposal:

sw
5
Appendix E contains portions of soil survey reports that provide insight as to the
suitability of the soils for subsurface disposal. As described in the report, these
soils are mainly Siloam, Clifford, Fairview and Casville soils with characteristics
that are very limited with respect to the potential for subsurface disposal. For the
purposes of evaluating subsurface disposal as a potential alternative, an
application rate of 0.20 gpd/SF will be used as a reasonable assumption for a
possible loading rate for these type soils. Of course, before a final design and/or
approval could be given, an actual on site soils evaluation would be required.
Subsurface disposal requires buffers and land for the drainfields as well as equal
areas of suitable soil, be available and maintained as potential repair/replacement
areas. Forest Ridge is a moderately dense developed community. There are no
,,.► practical, useable areas within the property that could be considered for
subsurface disposal.
Given the limitations described in the attached soil survey and discussed above, it
is doubtful that this is a viable option. A full and extensive soils investigation of
potential sites would be necessary to confirm if useable areas are available. In
A* keeping with the state guidance for alternatives evaluation, the cost effectiveness
of this alternative is further evaluated to determine if a detailed soils analysis is
appropriate. The costs associated with this option are estimated in Appendix A.
This option would require that the discharge be conveyed to an acquired site
having sufficient area for subsurface disposal and a suitable reserve area of equal
size, and that these areas include adequate buffers from property lines, homes,
wells, etc.
MW Surface Irrigation:
Disposal by surface irrigation requires storage capacity for periods of inclement
weather when application is not allowable. Therefore, consideration of this as a
possible alternative must also include the provision of storage of the treated waste
waters during periods of inclement weather.
As noted earlier, the soils surveys for this area have determined this to be severely
limited potential for on site subsurface disposal. Likewise, the soil surveys for this
area have determined this to be very limited for surface irrigation. Consideration of
this alternative is based on an assumed allowable application rate of 0.75 inches
per week which is based on a typical range of 0.5 to 1.0 inches per week for this
geographic area and the soil conditions generally described in the soils survey.
Storage requirements for this area are typically in the range of 45 to 90 days. For
purposes of this assessment, a storage requirement of 60 days will be assumed.
MR

6
Due to the size of areas needed for surface irrigation and to maintain the required
buffers, the only possible alternative for on site disposal, either by subsurface or
surface application, would require the acquisition of off site properties for disposal.
The degree of treatment required for surface application would be virtually the
same as required for treatment and discharge. Although the additional cost of
conveyance and the additional costs for on site disposal should readily be
recognized as a significant cost increase as compared to the alternative of
e" improving/replacing the existing WWTP, an estimate of the costs for this
alternative is included in Appendix A for comparison.
The evaluation is based on a very conservative assumption that the nearest
available lands that could be reasonably used would actually be available. A
comparison of the costs were made first, using the best (lowest cost) reasonable
assumptions. It would obviously be necessary to perform a more detailed site
investigation and ascertain if the property owner would consider allowing these
lands to be acquired for this purpose.
4.02: Wastewater Reuse
Options for reuse of wastewater for this area are essentially nil. Reuse is usually
associated with non -potable uses such as irrigation. This becomes potentially
more viable if there is a need or outlet for reuse such as irrigation of a golf course.
This area does not have a golf course within a reasonable proximity, nor are there
FM any other viable options for reuse associated with the subdivision or in the
surrounding area.
M 4.03: Surface Water Discharge
This is the current method of wastewater treatment/disposal. There are no plans
No to upgrade or possibly expand the capacity of the existing facilities. The existing
wastewater treatment facilities are considered to be in overall good condition and
there are no significant compliance issues or other reasons to anticipate the need
FM for any substantial modifications within the foreseeable future.
An estimate of the costs for the continuation of this alternative is included in
so Appendix A for comparison.
4.04: Combination of Alternatives
am
Alternatives to discharge that may be technologically feasible, such as connection
to the nearest public sewer, subsurface disposal and/or surface irrigation, could
`w not be employed in conjunction with the current method of disposal (surface water
discharge) and yield any reduction in capital expenditures. The evaluation of

am
7
astl '
alternatives shows that these alternatives are clearly not viable due to the
overwhelming magnitude of associated cost.
Combining one of these alternatives while continuing the existing discharge, yields
modest reduction in the cost for non -discharge alternatives alone but merely
increases the overall costs. There would be no overall reduction in capital costs
and the operating costs for combining surface discharge with either of the other
alternatives would be greater than for any single alternative that might be selected.
In short, whereas the conclusion that continued surface discharge is the viable
option due to the substantial differential in capital and operating costs, any addition
of an additional alternative would merely make the cost differential worse.
OM Section 6: Summary and Conclusions
FM As can be seen from a comparison of the net present value of the various
alternatives, there is a wide difference between the cost estimate of the option of
continuing discharge and options to eliminate the existing discharge.
With respect to considering the possibility of continuing to operate the existing
wastewater treatment facility, compared to the cost of the next most cost effective
and reliable alternative (connection to City sewer) the estimated Net Present Value
is approximately 200 % greater. This represents a difference of $ 276,418.
In light of the financial impracticality, it is not necessary to further pursue whether
connection is politically acceptable to the POTW, or whether land based disposal
or reuse options are workable.
By far, the most practical and cost effective alternative is the continued use of the
existing wastewater treatment facilities and the continued discharge to surface
waters.
The conclusion of this evaluation process is that Forest Ridge will continue to
•- operate the existing wastewater treatment facilities and to discharge into surface
waters.
Section 6: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Based on the findings of this evaluation, it has been concluded that the most
economical and practical alternative is to continue discharge to surface waters.
There are no modifications or improvements required in association with
am continuing to operate the existing wastewater treatment facilities.
am

Appendix A
Cost Analysis of Alternatives
Note: Cost estimates based on, National Construction Estimator, Means Building Construction
Cost Data, consultation with contractors and the engineers experience.
FM
FM
fm
FM
am
FM
..
8
OW

V
ran `
1. Continued Surface Water Discharge at Existing 33,000 GPD Flow Rate:
(Using Existing WWTP)
As noted previously, the existing facilities are in reasonably good condition and there are
no anticipated needs for any substantial repairs or improvements. Therefore, there are no
projected capital expenditures for this alternative.
Operation & Maintenance Cost
(Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875% interest):
Operation & Maintenance system) -
p (WWTP and sewers stem $ 23,940
($35/mo./connect. X 57 connect. X 12 mo/yr)
PV Annual Cost - $ 277,399 U'
Total Net Present Value = $ 277,399
"��-rvwcv Mmµ- /G e-wM1Yr �NY -r�'I
me
FM
fm

sr
FAIR '
MR
FJM
F,
W
Em
EM
fm
FM
10
2. Connection to nearest available POTW Sewer System at 33,000 GPD Flow Rate:
Install new gravity sewer outfall to convey wastewater from the influent sewer to the
junction with existing municipal sewer. Aqua North Carolina would pay sewer use fees
and new connection surcharges to the City/County Utilities Division. Aqua North Carolina
would be responsible for all costs associated with constructing the sewer connection and
for continuing to operate and maintain the existing sewer system in the Forest Ridge
Subdivision.
Distance = approx. 225 LF
Capital Cost:
Item: Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
12" gravity sewer 225 LF $ 120 $ 27,000
Rock excavation 20 CY $ 100 $ 2,000
Manholes 3 Ea $ 41000 $ 12,000
Connect influent from LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Exist. lift station to new
Gravity outfall, plug
Exist. outfall
Abandon, dismantle and remove LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Exist. WWfP and influent lift
Station, fill and grade
Pump WWTP contents into sewer LS $ 4,000 $ 4,000
Dispose sludge off site LS $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Erosion control LS $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Surveying 1 day $ 1,500 $ 1,500
Local Government
Plan Review Fee LS $ 500 $ 500
Legal LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Sub -total $ 92,000
Engineering Design 10 % 9,200

fm
11
pq •
Engineering Construction 5 % 49600
Progress Inspection Services
Total Capital Cost = $ 1059800
Local Government surcharge for new connections:
an 121/two months/connection for 13 years
MM Surcharge = $ 21 x 57 connections x 6 x 13 years = $ 93,366
MM Operation & Maintenance Cost:
Local government fees:
raw
* Volume charge = $ 4.29/100 CF of water use by Forest Ridge community
FM Based on water use records for 12/07/06 — 06/20/07, total water use = 325,116 CF for 195 days
Therefore, average daily water use = 1,667.3 CF/day
Projected average annual water use = 608,550 CF/yr.
Estimated Annual sewer use charges = $ 4.29/CCF x 6085.5 CCF/yr = $ 26,107/yr
Annual operation, repair and maintenance of Forest Ridge sewer system:
Estimated cost = $ 4,500/yr/mile sewer x 1 mile (approx. length of sewer) _ $ 4,500/yr
Total annual costs = $ 30,607/yr
(Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875% interest)
MR
Present Value Annual Cost = $ 354,651
im Total Net Present Value = $ 653,817
* See Appendix G "City/County Utilities Service Fees and Water Use Records"
so
Im
MM

12
Na
3. Land Based Disposal:
3A. Subsurface Disposal at 33,000 GPD Flow Rate:
Based on the soil survey information and the engineer's field observations, the soils in
this area appear to be severely limited as a medium for subsurface disposal. In the event
that it was found to be apparently a cost effective alternative, an in depth site specific soil
investigation would need to be done to confirm that the soils could in fact be used.
However, for the purpose of comparing the potential alternatives within the scope of this
evaluation, it will be assumed that a typical low design loading rate would be workable.
FM Therefore, it will be assumed that a loading rate of 0.20 gpd/sq. ft. is acceptable.
Therefore, based on the design flow, the area required for subsurface disposal is:
Ma 33,000 gpd / 0.20 gpd/sq. ft. = 165,000 SF
Whereas it is rfm equired to maintain an equal size area as a reserve for future repair, the
total required area is 330,000 SF. Assuming a roughly rectangular field (500 ft x 660 ft.
for the initial drain field plus repair and in order to maintain the required buffers to
no property lines, etc.), the minimum estimated land required is 600,000 SF or 13.8 acres.
Forest Ridge is a moderately dense developed community. As a consequence of this,
,M there are no areas available for consideration that are currently owned by Aqua North
Carolina or within the existing subdivision. Hence, any consideration for subsurface
disposal must be based on the possibility of acquiring areas of sufficient size off site.
Capital Cost:
M"
Item:
Quanti Unit Cost:
Cost:
4" sewer drain in 3' trenches
559000 LF
$ 18
$
990,000
Site Clearing
14 acre
$ 69500
$
91,000
Land
13.8 acres
$ 35,000
$
483,000
Septic Tanks
50 Ea.
2,500
$
125,000
3" FM
11500 LF
$ 20
$
30,000
Pump Station
1 Ea
$ 60,000
$
60,000
Surveying
3 days
$ 1,500
$
4,500
Soils Investigation
2 day
$ 11500
$
31000
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LS
$ 31000
$
3,000
Erosion control
LS
$ 10,000
$
10,000
Electrical
LS
$ 12,000
$
12,000
Legal
LS
$ 10,000
$
109000
Sub -total
$
118219500
Engineering
10 %
182,150
am

13
EM
NM
am
M4
FAR
am
F"
go
ME
am
MR
FJOR
Im
ON
Engineering Construction 5 % 91,075
Progress Inspection Services
Total Capital Cost = $ 29094,726
Operation & Maintenance Cost (Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875 % interest):
Annual Cost
0 & M of drain field,
Contract operations services = $ 1,500/mo. _ $ 18,000/yr
Annual electrical charges = $ 180/month X 12 mo/yr = $ 2,160/yr
Annual septage pumping = $ 1,000/yr
PV Annual Cost = $ 245,186
Total Net Present Value = $ 29339,911
Total Annual Cost = $ 21,160

0"
14
MR •
313. Surface Irrigation at 33,000 GPD Flow Rate:
Surface irrigation preliminary design is based on an assumed allowable application rate
of 0.75 " per week and a required storage basin for 60 days design flow. Based on the
design flow of 33,000 gpd, this results in an estimated disposal area of 11.3 acres.
Allowing a recommended 50% repair area, the required total area is 17 acres. Assuming
a roughly rectangular field (800 ft x 925 ft. for the initial spray field plus repair and in order
to maintain the required 150 foot buffer to property lines), the minimum estimated land
'J' required is approximately 31 acres.
M
Surface irrigation requires prior treatment to reduce raw wastewater constituents to levels
acceptable for surface application. Therefore, the operating costs estimated in Alternative
1. for continuing to operate the existing wastewater treatment facilities are included in the
estimate of the costs for surface application.
Capital Cost:
Item:
Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
F' 1,980,000 gal. storage basin
(1)
$
383,080
Surface irrigation system
492,228 SF
$ 0.35
$
172,280
PER Monitoring wells
6 ea
$ 41000
$
24,000
Land
31 acres
$ 35,000
$
1,085,000
Fencing
41500 LF
$ 6.00
$
27,000
3" FM
1,500 LF
$ 20
$
30,000
Manholes
2 Ea
$ 4,000
$
8,000
Pump Station
1 Ea
$ 60,000
$
60,000
Surveying
2 days
$ 11500
$
31000
Soils Investigation
2 days
$ 1,500
$
31000
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LS
$ 3,000
$
3,000
Erosion control
LS
$ 10,000
$
10,000
Easement/Right of Way
2,000 LF
$ 10
$
20,000
Clearing (approx. 25 acre)
25 acre
$ 61500
$
1629500
Electrical
LS
$ 10,000
$
10,000
Legal
LS
$ 10,000
$
10,000
Im
MO
MR
Engineering
Engineering Construction
Progress Inspection Services
Sub -total $ 2,010,860
10%
5%
Total Capital Cost
201,086
100,543
$ 2,3129489
MR

15
ern
(1) Storage:
Excavation 12,280 cu. Yds. @ $ 6.00/yd = $ 73,680
Compaction and Lining 88,400 SF @ $ 3.50/SF = $ 309,400
Sub -total = $ 383,080
Im Operation & Maintenance Cost
(Present Value, 20 year life, 8% interest):
fW Annual Cost
MR O & M of spray field,
Contract operations services = $ 1,750/mo. _ $ 21, 000/yr
Annual electrical charges = $ 500/month = $ 6,000/yr
Operation & Maintenance (WWTP and sewer system) _ $ 23,940/yr
($35/mo./connect. X 57 connect. X 12 mo/yr)
Total Annual Cost = $ 50,940
PV Annual Cost = $ 6909255
Total Net Present Value = $ 2,902,744
M"
so
am
MM
Im
MR
ON

16
Appendix B
USGS Map and Aerial Photo

Existing Discharge:
Longitude: -80 deg. 23 min. 40 sec. W
J.1 . j Latitude: 36 deg. 03 min. 37 sec. N
Exist.WWTP 1���_ tF'� /.. •" �:
71
Forest Ridge Subdivision - WWTP Horizon Engineerinq & Consulting, Inc.
USGS Topographical Map 2510 Walker Road
Forsyth County, N.C. Scale: I:I 1,990 Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 March 17, 2010

Forest Ridge Subdivision - W WTP
Aerial Photo
W
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 March 17, 2010
Forsyth County, N.C. Scale: I" = 170'

17
Appendix C
Possible Route for Connection to POTW

go
■11
ON
am
4w
M
so
t=
[L�
MR
so
OR
SSMH- I
BOLT —DOWN, TELL TBM #1
VENTED LID / INVIN 7739.43 PAINT SPOT — TOP OF WET WELL
FA&EMENTELEV. = 749.96
-------------- ' DIA.
SEWER SS WET WELL — — — -- — — -- — .— — — — EX 20' PERM. EAgeLE:k
SS S SS — 2" SAN. SEWER
- — — — — — — — — — — — 6'x5' SS SS
— .� `. — .— VALVE — .— —
— — -
94'26' VAU —. — —
CUT &
PLUG
FLOW
EXISTING
PACKAGE WWTP
TO BE ABANDONED
HYD.
4' DIAI
WET WEr
, I
1 �
i
PROP. 20'
,
PERMANENT
'
EASEMENT10
CUT &
on
PLUG
6*
SSMH
3
,
SOLI
SEALED'
'
LID
BACKFLOW
PREVENTER
WATER
METER
13
---- S� ` --
6o
i t
EX-SSMH
i
(RETAIN)
WATER-
-- � ti
n,-, . CUT & —/ - - - - -
85�4 H YD.
' I ----------- 4_p_VC DU7FA��
--------------- ------
1
I
h� PLUG
1
I
(ICI !
I
i SSMH-2
I SOLID, SEALED
I LID
BACKFLOW
I j PREVENTER
1 60' R/W
40' I � WATER
t METER
—�'S ___ EX. SSMH
__ a--
-------___------------�--- -----
AUGUST DRIVE
MAIN _ _.- _ .— _jy ___--__--------------- —
FM FM W
6" FORCE MAIN
----- - --------_-- - - 0-
an.
Note: This plan is an excerpt from an original plan
prepared by ARCADIS, Inc. dated 6/26/2006
il
Forest Ridge Subdivision - W WTP
Possible Route for Connection to POTW
Forsyth County, N.C. Scale: I " = 50'
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 March 17, 2010

j
18
Appendix D
Possible Location for Subsurface Land Disposal

Forest Ridge Subdivision - W WTP
Possible Location for Subsurface Disposal
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 March 17, 2010
Forsyth County, N.C. Scale: 1— 304'

19
Appendix E
Possible Location for Surface Land Disposal

Prop. Surface
T Disposal A
E
Forest Ridge Subdivision - W WTP
Possible Location for Surface Disposal
Forsyth County, N.C. Scale: V'= 622'
l'.
Exist. WWTP
Horizon Engineering & Consulting Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 March 17, 2010

ram+
r I
s
20
Is
i
Appendix F
SCS Soil Maps and Soil Descriptions

USDA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
o
FRCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Forsyth County,
North Carolina
ANC - Forest Ridge WWTP
March 17, 2010

a�
Am
fm
Ow Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
an
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
,m
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
f,
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http://soils.usda.gov/sgio and certain
conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact
your local USDA Service Center (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?
agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://soils.usda.gov/contact/
state officeso.
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
'
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil
Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation,,genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
IR

ON
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
so contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call [phone]
(voice) or [phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
P"
fm
6.
3

On
MR `
am
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
HowSoil Surveys Are Made.................................................................................5
SoilMap..................................................................................................................7
SoilMap................................................................................................................8
Legend..................................................................................................................9
............................................................
Map Unit Legend ........................... .........10
MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................10
Forsyth County, North Carolina......................................................................12
CaC—Casville sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes....................................12
CIB—Clifford sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes.........................................12
CIC—Clifford sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes.......................................13
CoA—Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded.................14
Om
FaD—Fairview fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes ...........................15
FcC2—Fairview clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded .....
16
Gu—Gullied land.........................................................................................17
RaC—Rasalo fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes...............................17
RaD—Rasalo fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes .............................18
SmC—Siloam sandy loam, 4 to 10 percent slopes.....................................19
SmD—Siloam sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes...................................19
SmF—Siloam sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes ................... .......20
Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................22
SoilReports........................................................................................................22
SanitaryFacilities............................................................................................22
Sewage Disposal (ANC Forrest Ridge VWVTP).........................................22
WasteManagement........................................................................................26
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and Overland Flow
(ANC - Forrest Ridge WWTP)...............................................................26
References............................................................................................................31
OEM
MM
MWO
MR
MR
MR

MO
FM
an
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
MR
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classificatioh used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
OW

M
Custom Soil Resource Report
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confine data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
Once the model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
locations. soil -landscape
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
�+
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area. they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
no

a�n
_ Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
fm map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
MM
FM
am
MR
MR
41
7

1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 I 1
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
5538W 553900 554000 5541M 5U200 SSC300
55 w
5545M 5545W 554I00
g
553500
36'3'S3' 8
•
M317W
'1�
35' 3' 28'
Naps e:15.3008 pmlee w A size(8.5' z „'(slieeL
N Melm
A a 200 30D
Feel
0 250 500 1.000 1.500
W3'2T

Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOQ
Very Stony Spot
Area of Interest (AOI)
,� Wet Spot
Po
Soils
i Other
Soil Map Units
Special Line Features
Special
Point Features
r Gully
L
V
Blowout
Short Steep Slope
®
Borrow Pit
Other
X
Clay Spot
Political Features
Closed Depression
4) Cities
x
Gravel Pit
Water Features
,.
Gravelly Spot
iL Oceans
®
Landfill
Streams and Canals
A
Lava Flow
Transportation
Rails
Marsh or swamp
Interstate Highways
�.
Mine or Quarry
r . US Routes
p
Miscellaneous Water
Major Roads
�
Perennial Water
h Local Roads
Rock Outcrop
+
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
=
Severely Eroded Spot
0
Sinkhole
3)
Slide or Slip
0
Sodic Spot
9
Spoil Area
Q
Stony Spot
MAP INFORMATION
Map Scale: 1:5.300 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11') sheet.
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,840.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://viebsolisurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N NAD83
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Forsyth County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Jun 19, 2009
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 6/18/2006
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.

No
am •
W
MM
PAM
ow
f"
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Forsyth County, North Carolina (NC087)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres In A01
Percent of A01
CaC
Casviile sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Clifford sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Clifford sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
0.0
8.1
14.7
0.0%
5.8%
— 10.6%
CIB
CIC
CoA
FaD
FcC2
Gu
Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently
flooded
Fairview fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent
slopes
Fairview clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Guilled land
Rasalo fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Rasalo fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
18.8
19.7
3.8
6.1
6.1
11.4
13.4%
14.1°%
2.7°%
4.4%
4.4%
8.2%
RaC
RaD
SmC —
Siloam sandy loam, 4 to 10 percent slopes
20.2
14.5°%
SmD
Siloam sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
18.9
13.5%
SmF
Siloam sandy loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
—
_ 12.0
139.8
_ - 8.6%
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
ME Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
o, 10

am
Custom Soil Resource Report
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
.., observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficierif information for the development of resource plans. If
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
MW An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
no Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
an Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
�. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
an

Om
am 4
Custom Soil Resource Report
OW Forsyth County, North Carolina
CaC—Casville sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
OM
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
OW Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period. 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition ,
no Casville and similar soils: 85 percent
Description of Casville
"R Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
No Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
MR
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
'M Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
Typical profile
0 to 6 inches: Sandy loam
6 to 36 inches: Clay
36 to 50 inches: Sandy loam
50 to 80 inches: Clay loam
no
CIB—Clifford sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
M. Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period. 160 to 190 days
an
WO 12

0" •
Custom Soil Resource Report
MW Map Unit Composition
Clifford and similar soils: 90 percent
Description of Clifford
Setting
Landforrn: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 6 percent
MR Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
,W (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
00 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.2 inches)
Interpretive groups -
Land capability (nonirrigated): 2e
Typical profile
0 to 6 inches: Sandy loam
6 to 15 inches: Sandy clay loam
en 15 to 40 inches: Clay
40 to 52 inches: Clay loam
52 to 80 inches: Sandy loam
EM
am
CIC—Clifford sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period. 160 to 190 days
Map Unit Composition
MR Clifford and similar soils: 90 percent
Description of Clifford
Setting
Landform: l nterfl uves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
�., 13

Custom Soil Resource Report
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
No
Typical profile
0 to 6 inches: Sandy loam
6 to 15 inches: Sandy clay loam
Im 15 to 40 inches: Clay
40 to 52 inches: Clay loam
52 to 80 inches: Sandy loam
PM
FEB CoA—Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period. 160 to 190 days
Map Unit Composition
OW Codorus and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Description of Codorus
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material. Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Properties and qualities
no Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 6 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
WX 14

dw
Custom Soil Resource Report
.4
Available water capacity: High (about 10.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 4w
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches: Loam
8 to 18 inches: Silty clay loam
18 to 30 inches: Loam
30 to 38 inches: Silt loam
38 to 50 inches: Silt loam
50 to 80 inches: Silt loam
Minor Components
Hatboro, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Linear
rm
FaD—Fairview fine sandy loam,10 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period. 200 to 240 days
MMap Unit Composition
Fairview and similar soils: 85 percent
MM Description of Fairview
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
R, Landform position (two-dimensional): Backs
lope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
-� (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
` Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
® Frequency of ponding: None
15

e�
Custom Soil Resource Report
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonimgated): 3e
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches: Sandy loam
8 to 27 inches: Clay
27 to 35 inches: Sandy clay loam
35 to 80 inches: Sandy loam
FcC2—Fairview clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period. 160 to 200 days
em Map Unit Composition
Fairview, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 78 percent
Description of Fairview, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
�+ Parent material: Saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
Om
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Sandy clay loam
9 to 24 inches: Clay
am 24 to 29 inches: Clay loam
29 to 80 inches: Loam
fm
16

Custom Soil Resource Report
Gu—Gullied land
Map Unit Composition
Gullied land: 100 percent
Description of Gullied Land
MW Setting
Parent material: Residuum weathered from mica schist and/or other micaceous
metamorphic rock
FMR Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonimigated): 8e
MR
RaC—Rasalo fine sandy loam, S to 10 percent slopes
fm
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Im Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Map Unit Composition
Rasalo and similar soils: 85 percent
Description of Rasalo
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
FM Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
am Parent material. Saprolite derived from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or
gneiss
Properties and qualities
Me Slope: 6 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
` Available water capacity. Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
im
17

M
Custom Soil Resource Report
.., Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam
9 to 23 inches: Clay
23 to 36 inches: Clay loam
36 to 80 inches: Fine sandy loam
RaD—Rasalo fine sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
�+
Map Unit Composition
Rasalo and similar soils: 75 percent
Description of Rasalo
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or
gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 10 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity. Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 3e
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam
9 to 23 inches: Clay
23 to 36 inches: Clay loam
36 to 80 inches: Fine sandy loam
M
�, 18

Custom Soil Resource Report
SmC—Siloam sandy loam, 4 to 10 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Map Unit Composition
Siloam and similar soils: 85 percent
Description of Siloam
Setting
f+ Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
go Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase andfor
gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 4 to 10 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding. None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (noninigated): 4e
MIR Typical profile
0 to 7 inches: Sandy loam
7 to 15 inches: Sandy clay loam
15 to 80 inches: Weathered bedrock
MR
SmD—Siloam sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
MR Map Ynit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mm Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
MR 19

an
no •
Custom Soil Resource Report
Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Map Unit Composition
Siloam and similar soils: 90 percent
.. Description of Siloam
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
" Landfonn position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landfor n position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
FM Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or
gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 10 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
"OR Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
FM Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding. None
Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.3 inches) ,
rm Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e
Typical profile
0 to 7 inches: Sandy loam
7 to 15 inches: Sandy clay loam
15 to 80 inches: Weathered bedrock
Im
Im
SmF—Siloam sandy loam,16 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 200 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 59 degrees F
A. Frost -free period: 160 to 200 days
Map Unit Composition
Siloam and similar soils: 90 percent
Description of Siloam
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes on ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
20

FAM
FAR
fm
F"
MR
Ow
Custom Soil Resource Report
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Saprolite derived from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or
gneiss
Properties and qualities
Slope: 10 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of poriding: None
Available water capacity. Very low (about 2.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e
Typical profile
0 to 7 inches: Sandy loam
7 to 15 inches: Sandy clay loam
15 to 80 inches: Weathered bedrock
21

mom
MR
No Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Reports
The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports
(tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each
unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties
and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections.
The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and
qualities. A description of each report (table) is included.
Sanitary Facilities
This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations
related to sanitary facilities. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and
components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Sanitary
facilities interpretations are tools designed to guide the user in site selection for the
safe disposal of sewage and solid waste. Example interpretations include septic tank
absorption fields, sewage lagoons, and sanitary landfills.
FM
Sewage Disposal (ANC - Forrest Ridge WWTP)
IM
This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect septic tank
absorption fields and sewage lagoons. The ratings are both verbal and numerical.
Be Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil
features that affect these uses. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are
very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance
can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are
IM moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or
minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate
maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more
,W features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot
be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation
procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings
are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use
(1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
,�, 22

a�
Custom Soil Resource Report
Septic tank absorption fields are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed
into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part of the soil
between depths of 24 and 72 inches or between a depth of 24 inches and a restrictive
layer is evaluated. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption
of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and public health.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to
bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect absorption of the effluent. Stones and
boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence
interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral
seepage and surfacing of the effluent in downslope areas.
Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of
less than 4 feet below the distribution lines. In these soils the absorption field may not
adequately filter the effluent, particularly when the system is new. As a result, the
ground water may become contaminated.
fm Sewage lagoons are shallow ponds constructed to hold sewage while aerobic bacteria
decompose the solid and liquid wastes. Lagoons should have a nearly level floor
surrounded by cut slopes or embankments of compacted soil. Nearly impervious soil
material for the lagoon floor and sides is required to minimize seepage and
°� contamination of ground water. Considered in the ratings are slope, saturated
hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a
cemented pan, flooding, large stones, and content of organic matter.
`m Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is a critical property affecting the suitability for
sewage lagoons. Most porous soils eventually become sealed when they are used as
sites for sewage lagoons. Until sealing occurs, however, the hazard of pollution is
severe. Soils that have a Ksat rate of more than 14 micrometers per second are too
porous for the proper functioning of sewage lagoons. In these soils, seepage of the
effluent can result in contamination of the ground water. Groundwater contamination
is also a hazard if fractured bedrock is within a depth of 40 inches, if the water table
is high enough to raise the level of sewage in the lagoon, or if floodwater overtops the
lagoon.
A high content of organic matter is detrimental to proper functioning of the lagoon
because it inhibits aerobic activity. Slope, bedrock, and cemented pans cart cause
construction problems, and large stones can hinder compaction of the lagoon floor. If
the lagoon is to be uniformly deep throughout, the slope must be gentle enough and
the soil material must be thick enough over bedrock or a cemented pan to make land
smoothing practical.
Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use
FM alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The
information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally
apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet.
a, Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the
mapped areas of a specific soil.
The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite
investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the
design and construction of engineering works.
Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose
specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table.
Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection,
and in design.
M
�. 23

=a w
rW
M
on
Custom Soil Resource Report
Report —Sewage Disposal (ANC - Forrest Ridge WWTP)
[Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to
confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range
from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table
shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional
limitations]
Sewage Disposal- Forsyth County, North Carolina
Map symboland soil name
Pct. of
map unit
S@ptic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Kit
CaC--Casville sandy loam, 6 to
10 percent slopes
85
Very limited
Slow water movement
Slope
1.00
0.01
- - ---
0.50
0.50
0.01
- ---
Very limited
Slope
Seepage
_..—. -- -------- --
Somewhat limited
Seepage
Slope
Very limited
Slope
Seepage
Very limited
Casville
1.00
0.92
CIB--Clifford sandy loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
V--�--
90
90
Somewhat limited
Slow water movement
Somewhat limited
Slow water movement
Slope
Very limited-------- ---
Flooding
Depth to saturated zone
Seepage, bottom layer
Slow water movement
Somewhat limited
Slope
Slow water movement
Clifford
0.50
0.32
CIC—Clifford sandy loam, 6 to
10 percent slopes
Clifford
1.00
0.50
CoA--Codorus loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, frequently
flooded
- -- - 85
Codorus �
-
85
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.63
0.50
Flooding
1.00
Depth to saturated zone
Seepage
-- T
Very limited
Slope
Seepage
1.00
1.00
Fat}-Falrview fine sandy
loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
Fairview
1.00
0.50
61
24

Custom Soil Resource Report
Sewage Dlsposal- Forsyth County, North Carolina
1 OP,sytnbol Bred soil name
Pct of
map unit
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
vid(1e.,
FcC2-Fairview Gay loam, 6 to
10 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Fairview, moderately eroded
78
Very limited
Seepage, bottom layer
Slow water movement
Slope
Not rated
Very limited
Slow water movement
1.00
0.50
0.01
Very limited
Slope
Seepage
Not rated
1.00
1.00
100
Gu--Gullied land
Guilied land
RaC-Rasalo fine sandy loam,
6 to 10 percent slopes
85
Rasalo
Very limited
1.00
Slope
1.00
75
85
Slope
Very limited
Slow water movement
Slope
Very limited
Depth to bedrock
Slope
0.01
1.00
0.84
Seepage
0.32
RaD-Rasalo fine sandy loam.
10 to 15 percent slopes
Rasalo
Very limited
Slope
1.00
Seepage
0.32
SmC-Siloam sandy loam, 4 to
10 percent slopes
1.00
0.01
Very limited
Depth to soft bedrock
Slope
Seepage
Siloam
1.00
1.00
0.18
SmD-Siloam sandy loam, 10
to 15 percent slopes
Siloam
90
Very limited T
Very limited
Depth to bedrock
Slope
Very limited - Y^
1.00
0.84
Depth to soft bedrock
Slope
Seepage
1.00
1.00
0.18
SmF-Siloam sandy loam, Is
to 45 percent slopes
Siloam
90
Very limited
- -
Depth to bedrock
Too steep
- -- - -
1.00
1.00
Depth to soft bedrock
Slope
Seepage
1.00
- —
-� --- - --- - --
1.00
0.18
25

+.n
we • Custom Soil Resource Report
ON
Waste Management
This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations
related to waste management. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and
components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Waste
management interpretations are tools designed to guide the user in evaluating soils
for use of organic wastes and wastewater as productive resources. Example
interpretations include land application of manure, food processing waste, and
municipal sewage sludge, and disposal of wastewater by irrigation or overland flow
process.
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and
Overland Flow (ANC - Forrest Ridge WWTP)
Soil properties are important considerations in areas where soils are used as sites for
the treatment and disposal of organic waste and wastewater. Selection of soils with
properties that favor waste management can help to prevent environmental damage.
This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations affecting the treatment of
wastewater, including municipal and food -processing wastewater and effluent from
lagoons or storage ponds. Municipal wastewater is the waste stream from a
municipality. It contains domestic waste and may contain industrial waste. It may have
received primary or secondary treatment. It is rarely untreated sewage. Food -
processing wastewater results from the preparation of fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese,
and meats for public consumption. In places it is high in content of sodium and chloride.
In the context of this table, the effluent in lagoons and storage ponds is from facilities
used to treat or store food -processing wastewater or domestic or animal waste.
Domestic and food -processing wastewater is very dilute, and the effluent from the
facilities that treat or store it commonly is very low in content of carbonaceous and
nitrogenous material; the content of nitrogen commonly ranges from 10 to 30
milligrams per liter. The wastewater from animal waste treatment lagoons or storage
ponds, however, has much higher concentrations of these materials, mainly because
the manure has not been diluted as much as the domestic waste. The content of
nitrogen in this wastewater generally ranges from 50 to 2,000 milligrams per liter.
When wastewater is applied, checks should be made to ensure that nitrogen, heavy
metals, and salts are not added in excessive amounts.
The ratings in the table are for waste management systems that not only dispose of
and treat wastewater but also are beneficial to crops. The ratings are both verbal and
am numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all
of the soil features that affect agricultural waste management. Not limited indicates
that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good
performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates
that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The
limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation.
Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates
that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The
limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special
design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high
maintenance can be expected.
fm 26

Custom Soil Resource Report
Numerical ratings in the tables indicate the severity of individual limitations. The
ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate
gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact
on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
Disposal of wastewater by irrigation not only disposes of municipal wastewater and
wastewater from food -processing plants, lagoons, and storage ponds but also can
improve crop production by increasing the amount of water available to crops. The
ratings in the table are based on the soil properties that affect the design, construction,
® management, and performance of the irrigation system. The properties that affect
design and management include the sodium adsorption ratio, depth to a water table,
ponding, available water capacity, Ksat, slope, and flooding. The properties that affect
construction include stones, cobbles, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to
a water table, and ponding. The properties that affect performance include depth to
bedrock or a cemented pan, bulk density, the sodium adsorption ratio, salinity,
reaction, and the cation -exchange capacity, which is used to estimate the capacity of
a soil to adsorb heavy metals. Permanently frozen soils are not suitable for disposal
of wastewater by irrigation.
Overland flow of wastewater is a process in which wastewater is applied to the upper
® reaches of sloped land and allowed to flow across vegetated surfaces, sometimes
called terraces, to runoff -collection ditches. The length of the run generally is 150 to
300 feet. The application rate ranges from 2.5 to 16.0 inches per week. It commonly
exceeds the rate needed for irrigation of cropland. The wastewater leaves solids and
nutrients on the vegetated surfaces as it flows downslope in a thin film. Most of the
water reaches the collection ditch, some is lost through evapotranspiration, and a
small amount may percolate to the ground water.
The ratings in the table are based on the soil properties that affect absorption, plant
growth, microbial activity, and the design and construction of the system. Reaction
and the cation -exchange capacity affect absorption. Reaction, salinity, and the sodium
�' adsorption ratio affect plant growth and microbial activity. Slope, saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, depth to bedrock or a
cemented pan, stones, and cobbles affect design and construction. Permanently
F—M-, frozen soils are unsuitable for waste treatment.
Report —Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and
me Overland Flow (ANC - Forrest Ridge WWTP)
FM
am
no
[Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to
confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range
from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table
shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional
limitations]
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and Overland Flow— Forsyth County, North Carolina
Wip:symbol alid+sdtl'name
Pct. of
map unit
Disposal of wastewater by Irrigation
Overland flow of wastewater
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Gu—Gullied land
Not rated
Gullied land
100
Not rated
27

IM
FAR
em
M9
MM
me
am
MW
no
w..
Custom Soil Resource Report
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and Overland Flow- Forsyth County, North Carolina
Mapaymbol and soil name
Pct. of
map unit
Disposal of wastewater by Irrigation
Overland flow of wastewater
Rating class and limiting
features
Value
Rating class and limiting
features
Value_
CIB--Clifford sandy loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
80
80
85
85
Very limited
Too acid
Low adsorption
Too steep for surface
application
Very limited
Too steep for surface
application
Too acid
Low adsorption
Too steep for sprinkler _
application -
Very limited
Depth to saturated zone -
Flooding
Too acid
Very limited
Slow water movement
Too steep for surface
application
Too steep for sprinkler
application
Too acid
Very limited
Too steep for surface
application
Slow water movement
1.00
0.47
0.08
1.00
1.00
0.47
0.10
- 1.00
1.00
0.01
1.00
- 1.00
0.10
0.03
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.03
Very limited
Seepage
Too acid - -- - --
Low adsorption - -
Very limited
Seepage
Clifford
_-_-
- - '--- -
CIC--Clifford sandy loam, 6 to
10 percent slopes
1.00
1.00
0.47
Clifford
1.00
Too acid
Low adsorption -
Too steep for surface -
application
Very limited
Flooding + - - `
Depth to saturated zone
Seepage
Too acid --
- - ---
1.00
0.47
0.22
CoA-Codorus loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, frequently
flooded
Codorus _
-+- -
1.00
1.00
�- -
1.00
RaC--Rasalo fine sandy loam,
6 to 10 percent slopes
Rasalo
0.01
Very limited
Seepage
Too steep for surface
application
Too acid
Very limited `--
Seepage _
Too steep for surface _
application
Too acid
1.00
0.22
0.03
RaD-Rasalo fine sandy loam,
10 to 15 percent slopes
_
Rasalo
75
1.00
1.00
Too steep for sprinkler
application
Too acid
0.03
28

Me
FM
M
MM
MM
rim
FM
Custom Soil Resource Report
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and Overland Flow- Forsyth County, North Carolina
Mawsymbol and,soll name
PcL of
Disposal of wastewater by irrigation
Overland flow of wastewater
map unit
Rating class and limiting
Value
Rating class and limiting
Value
features
features
FaD-Fairview fine sandy
loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
85
Very limited
Very limited
Fairview
Too steep for surface
1.00
Seepage -
1.00
application
Too steep for sprinkler
0.78
Too steep for surface
1.00
application
application
Too acid
Low adsorption
0.77
0.21
Too acid
Low adsorption _
0.77
0.21
FcC2-Fairview clay loam, 6 to
10 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
78
Very limited
Too steep for surface
1.00
Very limited
Seepage A -
Fairview, moderately eroded
1.00
application
Low adsorption
0.48
0.48
Low adsorption
Too acid
0.21
Too steep for surface
0.22
Too steep for sprinkler
0.10
application
Too acid _
0.21
application
CaC-Casville sandy loam, 6 to
10 percent slopes
85
Very limited
Very limited
_ - -
Casville
1.00
Slow water movement
1.00
Seepage
Too steep for surface
1.00
Too acid - --
0.99
application
Too acid
0.99
Too steep for surface
0.22
application
Too steep for sprinkler
0.10
J
application
SmC-Siloam sandy loam, 4 to
10 percent slopes
85
1.00
Very limited
Seepage
Siloam
Very limited
Droughty
1.00
1.00
Depth to bedrock
Too steep for surface
1.00
Depth to bedrock
Too acid
1.00
0.77
application
Too acid
0.77
Too steep for surface
0.22
application
Slow water movement
0.22
29

Custom Soil Resource Report
Agricultural Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation and Overland Flow- Forsyth County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name
Pct of
Disposal of wastewater by irrigation
Overland flow of wastewater
map unit
Rating class and limiting
Value
Rating class and limiting
Value
features
features
SmD—Siloam sandy loam, 10
to 15 percent slopes
Siloam
90
Very limited
;
Very limited
1.00
Droughty
i 1.00
Seepage
Too steep for surface
I 1.00
Depth to bedrock
1.00
application
Depth to bedrock
1.00
Too steep for surface
1.00
Too steep for sprinkler
0.90
application
0.77
Too acid
application
Too acid
0.77
SmF—Siloam sandy loam, 15
to 45 percent slopes
Very limited - ---------
Droughty
Too steep for surface
�.- --
•Very limited _---._----
Seepage
Depth to bedrock
Siloam
80
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
application
1.00
Depth to bedrock
1.00
Too steep for surface
application
0.77
Too steep for sprinkler
1.00
Too acid
application
Too acid
0.77
30

M References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
F' Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
fm Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
FM National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://soils.usda.gov/
Soil Survey Staff.1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://soils.usda.gov/
FOR Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/
an Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://soils.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
�. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.giti.nres.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://soils.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
a. http://soils.usda.gov/
so 31

OM
�. Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210.
.
..
32

Appendix G
City/County Utilities Service Fees and Water Use Records
fan
fm
fm
MR
fm
fm
am
w.
,
21
mm

Thurman Horne
Page 1 of 3
From: "Thurman Home" <thurman home@earth link. net>
To: "Thurman Home" <thurmanhome@earth link. net>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:37 AM
Subject: Fw: Potential connection of Forest Ridge Subdivision
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Seeba
To: Thurman Home
Cc: David Saunders
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Potential connection of Forest Ridge Subdivision
See my comments in red below:
Nicholas J. Seeba
®" Utilities Services Coordinator
City/County Utilities Division
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ow
>>> On 3/24/2010 at 9:04 AM, "Thurman Horne" <thurmanhorne0earthlink.net> wrote:
I Mr. Seeba,
Thank you very much for the information below. This answers many of my questions but there are a
few points for which I would appreciate some clarification.
In the first bullet item of your message, you mention that there would be a $ 21 bi-monthly surcharge
per service for 13 years. Is this $ 21, twice per month for each of the current 57 individual
connections in the subdivision or is this just for the one sewer connection Aqua NC would be
making ? This $21 charge will be once every two months for each of the 57 individual connections
in the subdivision.
In reviewing the list of rates and fees posted on your web site, in Part 6, 3. (b) there is a table of fees
listed as "Capacity Fee for Sewer outside the Service Area (Section 129)" For example, the table
indicates a fee of $12,000 for a 12" connection. I am not familiar with what you consider to be
outside the service area. Would this fee be charged to Aqua, NC if the connection is made ? In
Section 129 of our Sewerage System policy book, we list any connection made outside of Forsyth
County. Aqua will not be expected to pay this $12,000 for their connection.
Again, I appreciate the information and assistance you have provided and look forward your reply.
Regards,
Thurman Home
Original Message
From: Nick Seeba
To: thurmanhome
Cc: David Saunders; Ron Har rove
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 20101:56 PM
Subject: Re: Potential connection of Forest Ridge Subdivision
Mr. Horne:
According to the April 3, 2006 letter to Mr. Cobb w/ Aqua the following statements are known, the
rates have been updated to present rates:
• Current Rate for August Drive Pump Station area customers is $4.29/100 cubic feet after
last October's 9% increase in sewer rates + a $21 bi-monthly surcharge per service for a
13 year period beginning at the initiation of service.
3/26/2010

Page 2 of 3
MER
an
fm
om
• Charges will be based on meter reads taken from the water meters at the individual service locations and charged
to Aqua as an aggregate.
• Aqua will afford the cost of design and construction for piping the existing private system into the public system.
All plans will be required to be approved by Utilities plan review staff.
• No capital charges or special privilege charges will be assessed against any of Aqua's existing customers for sewer
service, so long as Aqua owns and maintains the infrastructure used to convey the waste stream from it's
customers to the public system.
• No flow monitoring station is necessary if each sewer customer has a public water meter for our staff to read. If a
Aqua customer's residence does not have public water service, public water service must be installed and all
capital charges must be collected for that service. Figure $2,500 for each service.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Nick
Nicholas J. Seeba
Utilities Services Coordinator
City/County Utilities Division
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
>>> On 3/18/2010 at 4:57 PM, "thurmanhorne" <thurmanhorne@earthlink. net> wrote:
Mr. Saunders,
I am trying to evaluate the potential costs for eliminating the existing wastewater treatment plant now operated by
Aqua North Carolina, which serves the Forest Ridge Subdivision near West Forsyth High School. I am aware that a
pump station and sewer mains have been constructed immediately adjacent to the site.
I am assembling a list of the estimated construction costs plus the estimated operating costs.
In reviewing the files, I found a letter from you dated April 3, 2006, wherein you indicated the sewer charges would be
$ 3.416/CCF, and based on actual meter readings for Forest Ridge subdivision. My first question is, has this rate
increased and if so, what is that rate now?
Is there a single meter that this useage is measured at, or is this some sumary of individual meters in the subdivision?
What other fees or costs might we expect if the connection is made? I am particularly interested to know if there
would be a connection fee or any type of capacity use charge (sometimes referred to as an impact fee) and of course,
what these charges would be.
Based on the correspondence I have reviewed in the files, it appears that there will not be a requirement to install and
operate a flow metering station prior to the connection to the City sewer. Is that correct?
These are my main questions and as you can see, I am trying to take into consideration all the long term costs (such
as the sewer use charges) and the short term capital costs (tap fees, capacity use fees, etc.) so that, hopefully we can
get a more complete picture of what the total financial considerations are.
I would appreciate your help with these questions. I left a message at your office today and I hope that you will call
me. I believe it would facilitate things if you could call me to discuss matters directly. I hope that you will call me at
your earliest opportunity. My office phone is 704-788-4455 but please feel free to call me on my mobile phone (704-
467-2691) if you should happen to call when I am out of the office. I will be traveling tomorrow (Friday), leaving the
office at about 9 AM, but I will still be available to talk with you if you can call.
61
I appreciate your assistance with this and look forward to talking with you.
Sincerely,
J. Thurman Home, P.E.
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
3/26/2010

c
HEATER EAST WATER PURCHASES
PURCHASED WATER W0100 & 710500
2006.2007
MY OF WINSTON S,ALEM - 2223230
�
Au usl Or Pu
mp unsp Station • Forest Ridge (07.33) - Barter - 6888
PRESENT PREVIOUS
DATE METER METER
Cublo FT
TOTAL
am READING SEWING
U= Base QhR=
BILL
01/02W 39,410 0
39.410
S
1.387.03
2/22/2007 116,816 39,410
76406
S
2,690.20
4/18/07 189,921 115,816
74105
S
2.609.24
6120/07 326,116 189,921
135,196
S
4,760.22 ✓
325.116
(325,116)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
S
11,447.35
r�
i
I
Fm_w
F"
SAW
m
Fm-q
k
era

.r
2007-Sep-12 12:02 PM City of Vinston Sale 3367278448 2/3
' Winston -Belem • Forsyth County
U11tyudIRMW
r •Saws
r • Solid Wash plsposai
UtElitl�slldminiats�tion • Eo. Box 2$11 a TIr4M- JMu NC 27102 • 78 5K72%8418 • hX 334OV-S432
April 3, 2006
Mr. Larry Cobb
Sanford Holshoum, LLP•
One Exchange Plaza
' 219 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 1000
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Cobb:
r� i •
i Pursuant to our recent conversations, the City/County Utility Co1nmission (CCUC)
hereby agrees to provide bulls rate service to Aqua of NC (Aqua) to serve the Forest
Ridge Subdivision. Aqua shall pay the rate of $3AI 61CCF. Based -on actual meter
readings for the Forest Ridge Subdivision &e average consumption is 1700 of bi monthly.
We would propose to bill Aqua based on the aggregate meter readings for the sewer
customers in the subdivision. Based on the information at hand, the average sewer bill
would be $29.03 per month On an annualized basis that would be $203,210.
At its own expense, Aqua shall design and construct the pipe necessary to convey the
wastewater from A ua s current collection Stern to a
9 sy point designated by die'CCUC in
its collection system. Aqua shall remain exclusively liable to maintain the collection
system tbroughout the Forest Ridge Subdivision up to the point that it connects with the
CCUC's collection system.
I In consideration for $2,900.00, to be paid by tlxe CCUC to Aqua upon execution of all
effective hstruments, Aqua shall convey to the City of Winston-Salem, a 50' x 50' area of
land, located on Tax Lot 102 of Block 4404D, on which the CCUC shall construct and
operate a wastewater pump stition, Aqua shall also convey to the City a 30' permanent
access and utility easement and a 15' temporary construction easement. The precise
s location of these property interests is reflected in the drawings dated January 4, 2005,
titled "Drawing for Fee Simple & Easement Acquisitions on Lot 102, Tax Block 4404D
+ for August Drive Pump Station" and propared by Allied Design, Inc., which are attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, The instruments conveying these.
instruroWs are also enclosed
. t
a.

OM
2007-Sep-12 12:03 PM City of Winston Sale 3367278448
3/3
1Vlr. Lary Cobb
April 3, 2006
Page Two
Please indicate your understanding and acceptama of these twms by returning to me this
letter having been signed below by the duly authorized Aqua representative. Thank you
for your prompt and professional assist
S
D/Zbo
MR
David K. Saunders, P. E.
City/County U h 'es Director
ACCEPTANCE:
AQUANORTFI
INC.

$Nkomo —W
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Coleen H. Sullins, Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
March 8, 2010
CERTIFIED MAIL ITEM 7009 1680 0002 2464 6418 - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Thomas Roberts
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
202 MacKenan Court
Cary, N.C. 27511
SUBJECT: Notice of Violation
NPDES Permit NCO063720
Forest Ridge WWTP
Forsyth County
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Your current permit was issued on January 16, 2009. Your permit contains the following
requirement:
A. (2) ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (EAA) REQUIREMENT
No later than 90 days following the effective date of this permit, the perm.ittee shall submit a
detailed analysis of all available means to dispose of this facility's wastewater, including connection
to any existing or future Wastewater Interceptor lines. This EAA shall be prepared in compliance
with the Divisions guidance document for EAA's.
If no'EAA is submitted, the Division may reopen and modify this permit to increase monitoring
frequencies or change effluent limits as necessary to protect the receiving stream.
The deadline for submission of the EAA was May 29, 2009. To date the Division has not received
the EAA. This failure to submit required information is a violation of your permit.
If you do not submit the required EAA by April 2, 2010, the Division will assess civil
penalties against you. The Division will also likely re -open your permit as specified in
the text above.
Submit the completed EAA to:
Mr. Mike Mickey
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
336-771-5000
mike. mickey@ncdenn goy
Dr. Sergei Chernikov
.NC DENR / DWQ / NP•DES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617
919-807-6393
[e-mail]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Intemet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper
On
e Carolina
tura!!r�

The Division's guidance document for EAAs is attached. If you have questions regarding
preparation of the EAA, contact Mr. Mickey or Dr. Chernikov.
cc: Central Files
Winston-Salem Regional Office / Mike Mickey
NPDES file
■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired.
IN Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front If space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
THOMAS ROBERTS
AQUA NORTH CAROLINA INC
202 MACKENAN COURT
CARY NC 27511
signature
❑ Agent
Is delivery address different from kern 19 ❑ Ye:
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. ,,,SKKKervice Type
Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
14. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ yes
Dellwry? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number
(nansferrrom service label) 700 9 1680 0002 2464 6 418
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-WI540

,Guerra, Bob
From: Mickey, Mike
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:01 AM
To: Guerra, Bob
Subject: RE: EAA for NC0063720?
Please send the NOV. Thanks, Mike.
Mike Mickey
[e-mail]
NC Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Guerra, Bob [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 6:01 AM
To: Mickey, Mike
Cc: Weaver, Charles
Subject: FW: EAA for NC0063720?
I left a message last Thursday for Mr. Roberts at aqua north Carolina to discuss why we have not received an EAA. With
your approval I would like to send a PC NOV if I do not hear from him by weds. If not let me know what you want CO to
do.
I visited this site and there is no practical reason why they should not connect to the interceptor which is 200 feet from
the facility. I also heard from Winston Salem staff, prior to the inspection, that there may be some WQ impacts
downstream of the facility in a small water body just south of august drive.
I will wait for your input
Thanks
From: Weaver, Charles
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 8:35 AM
To: Nowell, Jackie; Mckay, James; Berry, Ron; Vinzani, Gil; Rust, Karen; Corporon, Joe; Scardina, Maureen; Manuel,
Vanessa; Templeton, Mike; Belnick, Tom; Chernikov, Sergei; Grzyb, Julie; Sledge, Bob; Guerra, Bob; Poupart, Jeff
Cc: Mickey, Mike
Subject: FW: EAA for NC0063720?
This permit file was taken from the file room ; no one left an out card.
If you have it:
1. Let me know
2. Check the file for the EAA— let Mike Mickey know if it is or isn't there.

,Thanks,
CHW
From: Mickey, Mike
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 8:26 AM
To: Weaver, Charles
Subject: EAA for NC0063720?
Charles — Condition A.(2) of the above permit reissued March 1, 2009 required the submittal of an Engineering
Alternatives Analysis no later than 90 days after the effective date (or by June 1.2009). Any record of Aqua NC
submitting this EAA for the Forest Ridge WWTP? Thanks, Mike.
Mike Mickey
Mike.MickeyONCDENR.eov
NC Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2