NC0021547_WWTP Pump Station EA_20101201

r�I
I( i
i
f
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND
RIVERVIEW PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN
IMPROVEMENTS
t ,
TOWN OF FRANKLIN
MACON COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
I�
A��a�fs
a� s
O 3
._1 QO !p dPr
' d T
S p
(f C C�bCbu O
© 109 0
U .& �'O W
MIKE K WARESA , PE 6'�VGImle
!!i
Y �
i
•
r McGill
E
ASSOCIATES
Engineering• Planning• Finance
55 Broad Street,Asheville,North Carolina,28801
4 Office:(828)25270575;Fax:[phone]
DECEMBER 2010
07568

TABLE OF CONTENTS (...continued)
LIST OF TABLES:
TABLE S.1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TABLE S.2: PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT y
TABLE S.3: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS.
TABLE SA: TOPOGRAPHY AND FLOODPLAIN
TABLE S.5: SOILS
TABLE S.6: PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLAND
TABLE S.7: LAND USE
TABLE S.8: FOREST RESOURCES
TABLE S.9: WETLANDS AND STREAMS
TABLE S.10: WATER RESOURCES
TABLE S.11: SHELLFISH, FISH AND THEIR NATURAL HABITAT
TABLE S.12: WILDLIFE AND NATURAL VEGETATION
TABLE S.13: PUBLIC LANDS AND SCENIC,RECREATIONAL,AND NATURAL AREAS
TABLE S.14:.AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL.VALUE
TABLE S.15: AIR QUALITY
TABLE S.16: NOISE LEVELS
TABLE S.17: INTRODUCTION OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
TABLE S.18: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE t
TABLE S.19: MITIGATIVE MEASURES
LIST OF FIGURES:
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2: PREFERRED ALTERNATE: WWTP AND RIVERVIEW PS IMPROVEMENTS
FIGURE 3: PROJECT AREA FLOOD MAP NUMBER 1
FIGURE 4: PROJECT AREA FLOOD MAP NUMBER 2
FIGURE 5: PROJECT AREA SOILS MAP
i
FIGURE 6: PROJECT AREA FARMLAND MAP -�
FIGURE 7: PROJECT AREA WETLANDS MAP
FIGURE 8: PROJECT AREA PUBLIC LANDS
LIST OF APPENDICES: i
A. FIGURES
B. 2007 BASINWIDE REPORT
McGill Associates P.A. i1 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document j
II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Description:
The project will generally consist of improvements to the ouofFrarlkln' tester
`r atrp nt Plant�(NW`T_J and replacement of the influent Riverview Pump T Stat orz;�
p �remen, to the WWTP include the construction of a 1.5 MG flow equalization basin, 1.0
MG sludge digester, headworks/grit removal assembly, electrically actuated flow control valve
vault, various yard piping, and backup electrical generator. The Riverview Pump Station
improvements include demolition of the existing pump station and construction of a new 1,725
GPM pump station with approximately 3,200 feet of 18-inch force main and related
appurtenances. Figure 1, located in Appendix A, illustrates the project area.
Proiect Need:
Due to the configuration of the Riverview Pump Station, the 30-inch sewer interceptor upstream
of this station is prone to surcharging during high flow events, and, consequently, sanitary sewer
overflows of raw sewage onto the ground have occurred. These overflows have occurred several
times resulting in notices of violation issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
As the 30-inch sewer line is located along an existing greenway, the threat to the public health is
significant. Additionally, the location of the sewer line also creates a significant threat to the
environment, specifically the Little Tennessee River. A new pump station is needed to permit
the sewer interceptor to drain and thereby provide storage during high flows. High flows have
also resulted in treatment issues at the wastewater treatment plant because the facility does not
have flow equalization. Therefore, the project also includes the addition of a flow equalization
basin. Construction of the flow equalization creates the need to construct new primary screening
and grit removal facilities upstream of the new flow equalization basin. The wastewater
treatment facility is also in dire need of a new sludge digester. The existing digester basin and
equipment are greater than 40 years old, and are currently in poor condition both structurally and
operationally. Most components of the basin have either failed or are nearing the end of their
respective service life. The existing basin also utilizes two (2) blowers, one of which was
installed in 1964, that are nearing the end of their service life. The existing basin's interior wall
has become pitted and exhibits signs of advanced concrete spalling. The exterior wall also
McGill Associates,P.A. 1 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

exhibits structural decay and has been spot repaired in many places through the years. The
overall poor structural condition of the basin poses a threat of failure which would result in
additional leakage of sewage/sludge out of the basin. The capacity of the basin is also
inadequate, causing the basin to operate at a high water level which results in a greater tendency
for splashing of sewage/sludge over the top of the wall. During the 1993 WWTP upgrade
project, the basin was fitted with a small tank elevated above the basin to receive sludge lifted
from the clarifiers. The sludge slurry from the tank then spills over the tank into the basin. Due
to the tank's location within the basin, coupled by prevailing wind directions, the sludge slurry
often splashes over the basin wall. The proposed project will improve the treatment capabilities
of the facilities by providing flow equalization during high flow events, and improved sludge
management, thereby reducing the amount of solids that enters the Little Tennessee River and
Lake Emory. The 2007 Basinwide Plan for the Little Tennessee River, on page 26, states that
the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission has determined that the population of the
Appalachian Elktoe Mussel, a federally listed endangered species, is in decline below Lake
Emory. On page 32 of the Basinwide Plan, in the Special Management Strategies for Threatened
and Endangered Species, it indicates that this strategy is important for the Little Tennessee River
basin. Therefore, by reducing the solids entering the receiving stream, this project will help
implement the goal in the Basinwide Plan to protect the federally endangered Appalachian
Elktoe mussel.
Alternatives Analysis:
An alternatives analysis was completed for the project and is fully presented in the Engineering
Report. The proposed project is intended to eliminate the regular occurrence of sanitary sewer
overflows upstream of the existing Riverview pump station and at the existing WWTP digester,
as well as to provide flow equalization capabilities at the WWTP to provide reliable wastewater
treatment during peak flow conditions. The No Action alternative is not feasible since the
leakage of raw sewage outside of prescribed collection, transmission and treatment systems is
not acceptable; without improvements to existing systems,high flow conditions will undoubtedly
cause additional raw sewage overflow at both the WWTP and upstream of the Riverview pump
station. The Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities alternative consists of optimizing the
operation of the equipment at the existing wastewater treatment plant and Riverview pump
McGill Associates,P.A. 2 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

n those that would be art of normal maintenance. The
station without making upgrades beyond p
performance of the Riverview pump station and WWTP cannot be optimized to prevent future
sewage overflows using normal maintenance procedures alone; therefore, this Alternative is
considered infeasible and is thus rejected. The Regionalization alternative consists of physically
4 interconnecting and conveying wastewater to the Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
_ i
WWTP near Dillsboro, North Carolina. The Regionalization alternative consists of of
demolishing the existing Franklin WWTP; expanding the TWSA WWTP to 5.5 MGD;
demolishing and replacing the existing Franklin Riverview pump station to alleviate collection
system overflows; and constructing three (3) intermediate pump stations and 103,000 linear feet
of 18" force main with appurtenances to convey flow from the Franklin WWTP to the TWSA
WWTP. This Alternative has been rejected due to exorbitant capital costs and significant
constructability issues. Additionally, the environmental impacts associated with construction of
the 103,000 feet of force main are far greater than that of the Preferred Alternative.
Environmental Impacts:
The proposed improvements have the potential to impact project area water resources, wetlands
and floodplains through erosion and sedimentation due to construction of the improvements.
Erosion and Sedimentation control measures and best management practices (BMPs) will be
utilized during construction to contain land disturbance, minimize erosion within the project area
� t
and prevent sediment from reaching local waterways. Project plans will outline temporary and
permanent erosion control and storm water management measures to be implemented from initial
construction through final stabilization. During pipe trenching operations, all open trenches will
be backfilled and stabilized on a daily basis; the minimum amount of soil necessary to install the
line will be excavated and all suitable soil will be returned to the trench after excavation.
Surface waters and wetlands will be protected from sidecast soil by implementation of plan
details showing required control measures and BMPs. Additionally, directional drilling
techniques will be used at the Little Tennessee River force main crossing to avoid impacting
water resources.
McGill Associates,P.A. 3 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document
i

The proposed improvements will minimize the risk for sanitary sewer overflows by replacing the
Riverview pump station with a deeper pump station that will help prevent the sanitary sewer
overflows that have occurred just upstream of the pump station. Additionally, the project will
provide flow equalization at the wastewater treatment plant to allow proper treatment during
}
high flow events, thereby improving the water quality of downstream waters. Finally, the new
sludge digester will provide additional sludge storage capacity at the treatment plant and will
eliminate the regular overflowing of sludge at the existing digester. Also, by reducing the solids
entering the receiving stream, this project will help implement the goal in the Basinwide Plan to
protect the federally endangered Appalachian Elktoe mussel.
McGill Associates,P.A. 4 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

i
t
1
1.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table S.I. Project Description for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
List the USGS topographical quadrangle(s)where the project is located.
USGS Topographical Quadrangle(s) Where Project Is Located
1. Franklin
2
3.
4.
5.
6
7.
8.
Provide a brief description of the project.
The project will generally consist of improvements to the Town of Franklin's Wastewater
Treatment Plant and replacement of the influent Riverview Pump Station. Improvements to the
° WWTP include the construction of a 1.5 MG flow equalization basin, 1.0 MG sludge digester,
headworks/grit removal assembly, electrically actuated flow control valve vault,various yard
piping, and backup electrical generator. The Riverview Pump Station improvements include
demolition of the existing pump station and construction of a new 1,725 GPM pump station with
approximately 3,200 feet of 18-inch force main and related appurtenances. Figure 1, located in
Appendix A, illustrates the project area. Figure 2, located in Appendix A, illustrates the proposed
project improvements.
McGill Associates,P.A. 5 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
Table 5.2. Purpose and Need Statement for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Summarize the Purpose and Need Statement from the ER.
Due to the configuration of the Riverview Pump Station,the 30-inch sewer interceptor upstream
of this station is prone to surcharging during high flow events, and, consequently, sanitary sewer
overflows of raw sewage onto the ground have occurred. These overflows have occurred several
times resulting in notices of violation issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
As the 30" sewer line is located along an existing greenway,the threat to the public health is
significant. Additionally,the location of the sewer line also creates a significant threat to the
environment, specifically the Little Tennessee River. A new pump station is needed to permit
the sewer interceptor to drain and thereby provide storage during high flows. High flows have
also resulted in treatment issues at the wastewater treatment plant because the facility does not
have flow equalization. Therefore,the project also includes the addition of a flow equalization
basin. Construction of the flow equalization creates the need to construct new primary screening
and grit removal facilities upstream of the new flow equalization basin. The wastewater
treatment facility is also in dire need of a new sludge digester. The existing digester basin and
equipment are greater than 40 years old, and are currently in poor condition both structurally and
operationally. Spills have regularly occurred at the existing digester due to inadequate design.
McGill Associates,P.A. 6 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Table 5.3. Alternatives Analysis for;
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Complete the following sections for each alternative discussed in the Engineering Report.
Alternative Name: I No-Action
Alternative Description
This Alternative consists of taking no action to make improvements to the Town's wastewater
collection and treatment systems.
Feasibility Capital Costs Environmental Impact
❑ Feasible ❑ Less than Preferred Alternative
X Infeasible Greater than Preferred Alternative
Rationale for Rejection
The leakage of raw sewage outside of prescribed collection,transmission and treatment systems
is not acceptable. Without improvements to existing systems, high flow conditions will
undoubtedly cause additional raw sewage overflow at both the WWTP and upstream of the
Riverview pump station. As the local population continues to grow,the existing problems will
be exacerbated and pose imminent threat to the local environment. Therefore,this Alternative is
considered infeasible and is thus rejected.
Alternative Name: I Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
Alternative Description
This alternative consists of optimizing the operation of the equipment at the existing wastewater
treatment plant and Riverview pump station without making upgrades beyond those that would
be part of normal maintenance.
Feasibility Capital Cost Environmental Impact
❑ Feasible ❑ Less than Preferred Alternative
X Infeasible X Greater than Preferred Alternative
Rationale for Rejection
The Town is currently replacing inadequate and damaged collection and conveyance structures
throughout the system to reduce Infiltration and Inflow; however,the most significant problem is
sewage overflow in two specific locations due to the existing Riverview pump station's design
and the absence of flow equalization capabilities at the treatment plant. The performance of the
Riverview pump station and WWTP cannot be optimized to prevent future sewage overflows
using normal maintenance procedures alone. Therefore,this Alternative is considered infeasible
and is thus rejected.
McGill Associates,P.A. 7 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Table S.3. Alternatives Analysis for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Alternative Name: I Regionalization
Alternative Description
This alternative consists of physically interconnecting and conveying wastewater to a regional
WWTP. The closest existing wastewater treatment systems are the Tuckaseigee Water and
Sewer Authority WWTP (TWSA, Dillsboro,NC) and the Town of Highlands WWTP. These
potential regionalization partners are located 18 miles and 20 miles,respectively, from the
Franklin WWTP. The only feasible interconnection route with the Highlands WWTP would be
along U.S. Highway 64 through the Cullasaja gorge;this interconnection poses significant
constructability problems and will not be further considered. Constructing a new regional
WWTP between Franklin and TWSA would be difficult due to topography and lack of sufficient
treated wastewater discharge options. Therefore,this Alternative consists of pumping wastewater.
from the Town of Franklin to the TWSA WWTP,which is permitted to discharge 3.5 MGD of
treated wastewater to the Tuckasegee River under NPDES Permit NC0039578. This Alternative
consists of demolishing the existing Franklin WWTP; expanding the TWSA WWTP to 5.5
MGD; demolishing and replacing the existing Franklin Riverview pump station to alleviate
collection system overflows; constructing three(3) intermediate pump stations and 103,000
linear feet of 18" force main with appurtenances to convey flow from the Franklin WWTP
(elevation=2030') along U.S. Highway 23/441 over the high point at Rocky Knob Ridge
(elevation=3200')to the TWSA WWTP (elevation=2020').
Feasibility Capital Cost Environmental Impact
X Feasible $23,258,000 ❑ Less than Preferred Alternative
❑ Infeasible 9 Greater than Preferred Alternative
Rationale for Rejection
This Alternative has been rejected due to exorbitant capital costs and significant constructability
issues. Additionally,the environmental impacts associated with construction of the 103,000 feet
of force main are far greater than that of the Preferred Alternative.
McGill Associates,P.A. 8 Town of Franklin
December 2010 VWVWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Table S.3. Alternatives Analysis for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Alternative Name: I Preferred Alternative
Alternative Description
This Alternative consists of the replacement of the existing Riverview pump station; replacement
of the existing Riverview pump station 10"force main with an 18"force main with
appurtenances; construction of a 1.5 MG flow equalization basin with diffuser system;
construction of a new headworks system to include a manual bar screen bypass, mechanical band
screen and aerated grit chamber; abandonment of an existing sludge digester; construction of a
new 1.0 MG sludge digester; and installation of a backup electrical generator for the WWTP.
Figure 2, located in Appendix A, illustrates the proposed improvements associated with this
Alternative.
Capital Cost. 1 $5,508,211
Rationale for Acceptance
This Alternative presents the lowest capital cost and 20-year present worth to remedy the current
problems associated with the existing collection system and WWTP. The improvements are
modest in scope and provide a sound technical solution to the existing operational problems.
The proposed improvements will minimize the risk for sanitary sewer overflows by replacing the
Riverview pump station with a deeper pump station that will help prevent the sanitary sewer
overflows that have occurred just upstream of the pump station. Additionally,the project will
provide flow equalization at the wastewater treatment plant to allow proper treatment during
high flow events,thereby improving the water quality of downstream waters. Finally,the new
sludge digester will provide additional sludge storage capacity at the treatment plant and will
eliminate the regular overflowing of sludge at the existing digester. Also, by reducing the solids
entering the receiving stream,this project will help implement a goal in the Basinwide Plan to
protect the federally endangered Appalachian Elktoe mussel.
McGill Associates,P.A. 9 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND FLOODPLAINS
Table SA. Topography and Floodplains for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Physiographic Province: ❑ Coastal Plain ❑ Piedmont X Mountains
Minimum Elevation in Project Area (MSL): Maximum Elevation in Project Area (MSL):
2005 feet 2080 feet
Is the project in the 100 year floodplain? (If so, show in Environmental X Yes
Features Figure.) ❑ No
Discuss other topographical features.
The Little Tennessee River is located between the Riverview Pump Station and existing WWTP.
The Riverview Pump Station improvements are located outside of 100-year floodplain. All of
the existing WWTP and proposed WWTP improvements are located outside of the 100-year
floodplain. The proposed 18" force main is to be located along Arthur Drake Road which is
located almost entirely within the 100-year floodplain but outside of floodway. Figures 3 and 4,
located in Appendix A, illustrate the 100-year floodplain within the project area.
Impacts
Describe construction impacts of project.
No temporary or permanent changes to existing topography within the 100-year floodplain will
occur as a result of the proposed project. The proposed 18"force main will be located within
Arthur Drake Road (gravel)which is entirely within the 100-year floodplain but outside of the
floodway; during force main installation,pipe trenches will be backfilled and the road repaired
on a daily basis to restore the site to pre-construction conditions. The project does have the
potential to impact the floodplain through erosion and sedimentation.
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project serves to remedy current collection system and WWTP deficiencies and
will not expand capacity or extend sewer service. No changes in topography will result due to
construction of the proposed improvements. Macon County has adopted and enforces flood
ordinances which are based on the model FEMA ordinances and restrict new construction within
the floodplain and floodway.
McGill Associates,P.A. 10 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
X Yes ❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable X Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s)
Erosion and Sedimentation control measures and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) will be utilized during construction to contain land
disturbance, minimize erosion within the project area and prevent
sediment from reaching local waterways. Project plans will outline
temporary and permanent erosion control and storm water management
measures to be implemented from initial construction through final
stabilization. During pipe trenching operations, all open trenches will
be backfilled and stabilized on a daily basis; the minimum amount of
soil necessary to install the line will be excavated and all suitable soil
will be returned to the trench after excavation.
i
McGill Associates,P.A. l 1 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.2 SOILS
Table S.5. Soils for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Describe the types of soil. Provide a soils figure in the EID.
The dominant soils within the project area are Evard-Cowee complex and Toxaway loam.
Evard-Cowee complex is poorly suited for cropland and hayland; this soil complex is erodible.
Evard-Cowee complex properties: slope= 15 to 30 percent, depth to restrictive feature=20-40"
inches to paralithic bedrock, drainage class=well drained, depth to water table=>80".
Toxaway loam occurs as depressions on floodplains and consists of 0-26" of loam over 26-80"
of stratified sandy loam to sand. Toxaway loam properties: slope=0 to 2 percent, depth to
restrictive feature=> 80", drainage class=very poorly drained, depth to water table=0-12".
Figure 5, located in Appendix A, shows the soil types found within the project area.
Is soil contamination present? ❑ Yes X No
Impacts
Will soil he moved offsite? ±E1 Yes X No Quantity (yd):
Will soil he contaminated? Yes No
Describe construction impacts ofproject.
The project will disturb less than 1 acre of soil for construction of the proposed improvements.
No soil is expected to be removed from the project site. Soils removed during Riverview pump
station excavation will be used for backfill; excess soil will be used at the WWTP improvements
site. Soils removed for force main trenching will be used as trench backfill. Soil cut for
installation of WWTP structures will be used for backfill of new headworks facilities.
Sedimentation of local waterways may occur during construction and while the improvements
are operational.
Describe SCI of the project.
Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,
the project is not expected to impact soils within the existing service area. Impacts to soil will be
limited to project area construction sites.
McGill Associates,P.A. 12 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
X Yes ❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable 9 Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s)
Erosion and Sedimentation control measures and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) will be utilized during construction to contain land
disturbance, minimize erosion within the project area and prevent
sediment from reaching local waterways. Project plans will outline
temporary and permanent erosion control and storm water management
measures to be implemented from initial construction through final
stabilization. During pipe trenching operations, all open trenches will
be backfilled and stabilized on a daily basis; the minimum amount of
soil necessary to install the line will be excavated and all suitable soil
will be returned to the trench after excavation.
I
McGill Associates,P.A. 13 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.3 PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLAND
Table 5.6. Prime and Unique Farmland for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Does the project area contain prime and X Yes If Yes, Quantity 246
unique farmlands?If yes, show on soils ❑ No (acres):
figure the soil types that are prime and
unique farmland.
Is soil contamination present? ❑ Yes X No
Impacts
Will the project have direct construction ❑ Yes If Yes, Quantity
impacts on prime and unique farmlands? No (acres):
Will SCI impact prime and ❑ 'Yes If Yes,
unique farmlands? raC No Approximate
Quantity (acres):
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed WWTP improvements site is classified as farmland of local importance but is not
currently being used as farmland. The site is located on a 15% slope and has already been
developed for the future Franklin public works facility. The adjoining properties are also used for
municipal use(WWTP and county landfill). Since the proposed project will not result in
increased development or extended sewer service, the project is not expected to impact farmland
within the existing service area. Figure 6, located in Appendix A, illustrates the prime or
important farmland within the project area.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
❑ Yes ❑ Yes
X Not Applicable X Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s)
McGill Associates,P.A. 14 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.4 LAND USE
Table S.7. Land Use for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Discuss the current land use for the project site.
The project site includes a property which is being used for the existing Riverview pump station
(proposed for replacement),the existing WWTP property and a property adjacent to the existing
WWTP which are all owned by the Town. The property adjacent to the WWTP is proposed to
include the new headworks and new flow equalization basin; this property is currently being
developed for a public works building and is surrounded by forestland.
Discuss the current land use for the project area.
Land use within the local project area can be generally characterized by large rural residential
properties, forestland,municipal use (Macon County landfill and Franklin WWTP), a public
greenway along the Little Tennessee River, and small residential development.
Discuss the zoning for the project site.
The project site does not have any current zoning designations.
Discuss the zoning for the project area.
The project area does not have any current zoning designations.
Impacts
Discuss the direct impacts to land use on the project site.
The only land use change due to the proposed project is at the Town owned property adjacent to
the existing WWTP property. This property has previously been cleared for construction of the
new Franklin public works facility and borders the Little Tennessee River, existing WWTP
property, and Macon County landfill property. The proposed improvements for this property fit
into the intended land use of the area.
Describe SCI of the project.
Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,
1 the project is not expected to impact land use within the existing service area.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
❑ Yes ❑ Yes
X Not Applicable X Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s)
McGill Associates,P.A. 15 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.5 FOREST RESOURCES
Table 5.8. Forest Resources for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Discuss the type of forest resources on the project site and in the project area
The project area is generally surrounded by Nantahala National Forest land. Most of the forest
land in the project area is new and old growth forest mixed with hardwood and deciduous trees.
The project site includes mixed new growth forest outside of the project limits of disturbance.
Discuss the types of wildlife habitat on the project site and in the project area.
Wildlife habitat in the project area(outside of Town limits) includes mountainous forestland
surrounding the Little Tennessee River with fallow fields in the valley area. Wildlife habitat on
the project site includes mixed new growth forest located outside of the project limits of
disturbance and tree line/brush located along the edges of Arthur Drake Road.
Impacts
Will forest resources ❑ Yes If Yes, Quantity
be impacted? X No (acres):
Will SCI impact forest ❑ Yes If Yes,Approximate
resources? X No Quantity(acres):
Describe SCI of the project.
Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,
the project is not expected to impact forest resources or wildlife habitat within the existing
service area.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
❑ Yes ❑ Yes
X Not Applicable X Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s)
McGill Associates,P.A. 16 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.6 WETLANDS AND STREAMS
Table S.9. Wetlands and Streams for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Are wetlands present on the project site and in Are streams present on the project site and in
the project area? the project area?
gX Yes X Yes
❑ No ❑ No
If so, discuss the type, quality,function, and relative importance of wetlands and identify any
streams.
The project area does contain freshwater emergent and freshwater forested/shrub wetland located
along the banks of the Little Tennessee River (Lake Emory). The Little Tennessee River
greenway stretches nearly 5 miles through Franklin primarily along what was formerly a railroad
track. Macon County owns and maintains the properly. Duke Energy operates Lake Emory under
a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license and is responsible for oversight of all wetlands
surrounding the lake/river, including all wetland within the proposed project area. The wetland
has become wildlife habitat,helps control flooding and provides a recreational asset to the Town.
The Little Tennessee River is located between the Riverview pump station and existing WWTP.
Two (2) low flow drainage channels are located near the Riverview pump station and proposed
WWTP site; both channels drain small watersheds to the Little Tennessee River. Figure 7,
located in Appendix A, illustrates the location of wetlands and streams in the project area.
Have delineations occurred? If so, supply the date.
❑ Yes X No
Impacts
Will wetlands be ❑ Yes If Yes, Quantity
impacted? X No (acres):
Will streams be ❑ Yes If Yes, Quantity
impacted? 9 No (linear feet):
Will SCI impact ❑ Yes If Yes,Approximate
wetlands? X No Quantity(acres):
Will SCI impact ❑ Yes If Yes, Approximate
streams? X No Quantity(linear feet):
McGill Associates,P.A. 17 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Table S.9. Wetlands and Streams for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Describe SCI of the project.
Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,
the project is not expected to impact wetlands or streams within the existing service area. All
wetlands are located on Macon County property and/or within control of Duke Energy.
Additionally,the proposed Riverview pump station improvements will improve overall wetland
health by effectively stopping the regular occurrence of sanitary sewer overflows along the 30"
main interceptor routed through the greenway.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
X Yes ❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable X Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description References)
Impacts to wetlands and streams in the project area will be lessened
through the use of appropriate mitigative measures, specifically
minimization and rectification. Soil disturbance will occur along the
entire length of the force main corridor; wetland areas are located in the
general proximity of Arthur Drake Road. The force main will be
installed under Arthur Drake Road to avoid construction within wetland
areas. Ductile iron pipe will be used for the force main to reduce the
chance of sewer leakage from force main joints.
Erosion and Sedimentation control measures and BMPs will be utilized
during construction to contain land disturbance, minimize erosion
within the project area and prevent sediment from reaching local
waterways and wetlands. Project plans will outline temporary and
permanent erosion control measures to be implemented during
construction. During pipe trenching operations, all open trenches will
be backfilled and stabilized on a daily basis; the minimum amount of
soil necessary to install the line will be excavated and all suitable soil
will be returned to the trench after excavation. Surface waters and
wetlands will be protected from sidecast soil by implementation of plan
details showing required control measures and BMPs.
McGill Associates,P.A. 18 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.7 WATER RESOURCES
Table S.10. Water Resources for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
River hasin(s)for project: Little Tennessee River
List all streams)found within the project site and project area.
Name Classification Impaired? Reason for Impairment
Little Tennessee River C ❑ Yes C No
Unnamed Tributary Not Applicable ❑ Yes No
Unnamed Tributary Not Applicable ❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Discuss groundwater quality and quantity.
There are 237 permitted public water supply systems within Macon County; the Town of
Franklin and the Town of Highlands are the largest public water suppliers and utilize surface
water resources to serve residential and commercial customers. Almost the entire remainder of
population within the County primarily utilizes groundwater for drinking water purposes. A
review of water sample tests for the greater Franklin area on file with the North Carolina State
Laboratory of Public Health(http://slph.state.nc.us/) for chemical,physical and microbiological
parameters indicates that the area generally has good overall groundwater quality. The USGS
Unsaturated Zone Characteristic Rating for North Carolina(Open File Report 01-489) indicates
that the greater Franklin area has a low rate of susceptibility of contamination. According to
well data provided by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality—Asheville Regional Office,
of the 2,400 drilled wells on record for the greater Franklin area, the average depth to the
groundwater table was approximately 71 feet from ground surface and yielded an average
recharge rate of approximately 19.4 gallons per minute.
LGU water supply(ies): Cartoogechaye River
Impacts
Discuss construction impacts related to surface water quality and groundwater quality/quantity.
The proposed project has the potential to directly impact surface water quality both during and
after construction through the introduction of sediment into local waterways. The project will
have no significant impact on ground water quality and/or quantity.
Discuss operational impacts related to surface water quality and groundwater quality/quantity.
The proposed Riverview pump station improvements will improve overall surface water and
ground water quality by effectively stopping the regular occurrence of sanitary sewer overflows
along the upstream 30"main interceptor which is routed along the Little Tennessee River.
McGill Associates,P.A. 19 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Table S.10. Water Resources for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Describe SCI of the project.
Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,
the project is not expected to negatively impact water resources within the existing service area.
The project is expected to improve overall water quality by reducing sanitary sewer overflow
occurrences at the existing WWTP and the 30" sewer interceptor located along the Little
Tennessee River upstream of the Riverview pump station.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
X Yes ❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable X Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description References)
Erosion and Sedimentation control measures and BMPs will be utilized
during construction to contain land disturbance, minimize erosion
within the project area and prevent sediment from reaching local
waterways. Project plans will outline temporary and permanent.erosion
control and storm water management measures to be implemented from
initial construction through final stabilization. During pipe trenching
operations, all open trenches will be backfilled and stabilized on a daily
:basis; the minimum amount of soil necessary to install the line will be
excavated and all suitable soil will be returned to the trench after
excavation. Surface waters and wetlands will be protected from
sidecast soil by implementation of plan details showing required
control measures and BMPs. Additionally, directional drilling
techniques will be used at the Little Tennessee River force main
crossing to avoid impacting water resources.
McGill Associates,P.A. 20 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.8 SHELLFISH,FISH AND THEIR NATURAL HABITAT
Table SAL Shellfish,Fish, and Their Habitats for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump Station
and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Are T&E species present within the project site, the project area, or downstream from the project?
9 Yes ❑ No
If Yes, list all aquatic T&E species located in the waterbodies within the project site, in the project
area, and downstream of the project site. Show approximate location(s) on the Environmental
Features Figure.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Littlewing Pearlymussel Pefias fibula Endangered
Appalachian Elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Spotfin Chub Erimonax monachus Threatened
Discuss shellfish and fish habitat.
Shellfish and fish habitat within the project area mainly consists of the Little Tennessee River,
which is the backwaters of Lake Emory, and small tributary streams. Although habitat
fragmentation due to downstream dam construction has occurred throughout the river system in
North Carolina and Tennessee, the river continues to support an incredibly rich and diverse fish and
benthic communities.
Several streams in Little Tennessee River subbasin 04-04-01 are home to Federally listed
Threatened and Endangered Species. The Little Tennessee River hosts the Appalachian Elktoe,
Littlewing Pearlymussel, and the Spotfin Chub. The Spotfm Chub is also found in 11 tributaries to
the Little Tennessee River downstream of Lake Emory including Cowee Creek. The entire Little
Tennessee River from the GA/NC state line to Fontana Lake is designated as critical habitat.
Impacts
Discuss construction impacts related to fish, shellfish, and their habitats.
Construction of the proposed project has the potential to directly impact aquatic habitat through
sedimentation entering the waterways from the project site.
Discuss operational impacts related to fish, shellfish, and their habitats.
The operational improvements are expected to improve overall aquatic habitat health by effectively
stopping regular sanitary sewer overflow occurrences at the existing WWTP and the 30" sewer
interceptor,which are both located along the Little Tennessee River.
McGill Associates,P.A. 21 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Table 5.11. Shellfish,Fish, and Their Habitats for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump Station
and Force Main Improvements
Describe SCI of the project.
Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,the
project is not expected to negatively impact shellfish,fish or their habitats within the existing
service area. The project is expected to improve overall aquatic habitat health by effectively
stopping regular sanitary sewer overflow occurrences at the existing WWTP and the 30" sewer
interceptor, which are both located along the Little Tennessee River.
Additionally, the 4500 acre Needmore Tract protects 26 miles of river-front property along the
Little Tennessee, 37 miles of tributary streams, and serves as a corridor between the Nantahala and
Cowee mountain ranges. Over half of the extraordinarily diverse section of the Little Tennessee
River between Franklin and Fontana Lake is protected by the Needmore Tract. The Needmore Tract
is managed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
The proposed project will improve the treatment capabilities of the facilities by providing flow
equalization during high flow events, and improved sludge management,thereby reducing the
amount of solids that enters the Little Tennessee River and Lake Emory. The 2007 Basinwide Plan
for the Little Tennessee River(see Appendix B), on page 26, states that the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission has determined that the population of the Appalachian Elktoe Mussel, a
federally listed endangered species, is in decline below Lake Emory. On page 32 of the Basinwide
Plan, in the Special Management Strategies for Threatened and Endangered Species, it indicates
that this strategy is important for the Little Tennessee River basin. Therefore, by reducing the
solids entering the receiving stream, this project will help implement the goal in the Basinwide Plan
to protect the federally endangered Appalachian Elktoe mussel.
McGill Associates,P.A. 22 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

li
Table S.11. Shellfish,Fish, and Their Habitats for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump Station
and Force Main Improvements
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
Yes ❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s)
Aquatic habitat disturbance will be avoided during construction of the 18"
force main by utilizing directional drilling methods. Erosion and
Sedimentation control measures and BMPs will be utilized during
construction to contain land disturbance,minimize erosion within the
project area and prevent sediment from reaching local waterways. Project
plans will outline temporary and permanent erosion control and storm
water management measures to be implemented from initial construction
through fmal stabilization. During pipe trenching operations, all open
trenches will be backfilled and stabilized on a daily basis;the minimum
amount of soil necessary to install the line will be excavated and all
suitable soil will be returned to the trench after excavation. Surface
waters and aquatic habitat will be protected from sidecast soil by
implementation of plan details showing required control measures and
BMPs. Additionally, directional drilling techniques will be used at the
Little Tennessee River force main crossing to avoid impacting water
resources.
-�i
1
l
McGill Associates,P.A. 23 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.9 WILDLIFE AND NATURAL VEGETATION
Table 5.12. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Are ME species present within the project site, or project area?
X Yes ❑ No
If Yes, list all terrestrial ME species located in the project site or project area. Show
approximate location(s) on the Environmental Features Figure.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
Red Wolf Canis rufus Endangered
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened
Discuss the wildlife and vegetation present in the project site and project area.
The predominant land use within the general project area is residential, municipal and
recreational. The general project area contains isolated mixed forest, wetlands and the Little
Tennessee River. Wildlife and vegetation present within the project area include those typical of
mountain communities in western North Carolina: deer, small game animals, birds, and native
vegetation. The project site contains no forested habitat or fallow field habitat that would
provide continuous wildlife habitat. Some natural vegetation is present along rights-of-way
edges along Arthur Drake Road and within the WWTP property. Utilization of the area by
wildlife is likely; however, wildlife utilization,with the exception of a few songbird species, was
not observed. The proposed project area could not be considered unique or significant in its
contribution to wildlife habitat.
Impacts
Discuss construction impacts related to wildlife and natural vegetation.
The project site includes an existing pump station site, a well used gravel road(Arthur Drake
Road)which the force main will be installed, an existing WWTP, and a site that has already been
cleared in which some of the proposed WWTP improvements will be constructed. All areas
have been previously disturbed and are regularly maintained. Therefore, construction of the
proposed improvements is not expected to impact local wildlife or natural vegetation.
McGill Associates,P.A. 24 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Table S.12. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Describe SCI of the project.
! Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,
the project is not expected to negatively impact wildlife and natural vegetation within the
existing service area.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
❑ Yes ❑ Yes
�C Not Applicable Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s)
i
McGill Associates,P.A. 25 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
1 Minor Environmental Information Document

4.10 PUBLIC LANDS AND SCENIC,RECREATIONAL,AND NATURAL AREAS
Table 5.13. Public Lands and Scenic,Recreational, and State Natural Areas for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Are public lands and scenic, recreational, and state natural areas found adjacent to or in the
project area?
X Yes ❑ No (then no impact)
If yes, list these areas and show on the Environmental Features Figure
Name Type Location
(e.g., S mi. NE of Project)
Little Tennessee River Greenway Recreational/Natural 100 ft SE of pump station
Impacts
If Yes, discuss construction impacts related to public lands, and scenic, recreational, and state
natural areas.
The Riverview pump station is located approximately 100 feet from the greenway northern
trailhead parking lot. During replacement of the pump station,traffic entering the parking lot
may be slowed to allow for construction equipment movements. Figure 8, located in Appendix
A, shows the location of the greenway in relation to the proposed improvements
If Yes, discuss operational impacts related to public lands, and scenic, recreational, and state
natural areas.
The greenway will be positively impacted after construction of the new Riverview pump station.
The new pump station will effectively stop the regular occurrence of sanitary sewer overflows
along the greenway.
Describe SCI of the project.
Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,
the project is not expected to negatively impact the greenway or other public lands within the
existing service area. The project is expected to improve overall greenway wetland health and
public usability by effectively stopping regular sanitary sewer overflow occurrences along the
30" sewer interceptor which is routed along the Little Tennessee River through the greenway.
McGill Associates,P.A. 26 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Table S.13. Public Lands and Scenic,Recreational, and State Natural Areas for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
X Yes ❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s)
Traffic interruptions will be minimized to the maximum extent possible
and access to the greenway parking lot will be maintained.
�i
i
l
McGill Associates,P.A. 27 Town of Franklin
December 2110 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

I
4.11 AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL VALUE
i
Table 5.14. Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value for: i
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Are areas of archaeological or historical value in the project site,project vicinity, or project
area?
❑ Yes X No (No Impact)
If yes, list these and show on the Environmental Features Figure
Name Type Location
(e.g., 5 mi. NE of Project)
Impacts
If Yes, discuss construction impacts related to areas or archaeological or historical value?
If Yes, discuss operational impacts related to areas of archaeological or historical value.
Describe SCI of the project.
Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,
the project is not expected to have significant indirect or cumulative impacts on areas of
archaeological and historical importance.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
❑ Yes ❑ Yes
K Not Applicable X Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s)
McGill Associates,P.A. 28 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.12 AIR QUALITY
Table S.15. Air Quality for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Discuss the general air quality and identify current sources of emissions from the project and
surrounding area.
The EPA(EPA Greenbook,2010)classifies Macon County as an air quality attainment area.
The existing WWTP has not received significant odor complaints despite its downtown location.
Is the area considered to be in ❑ Yes
transition? X No
Impacts
Discuss construction impacts related to air quality.
Construction of the proposed Riverview pump station and WWTP improvements will result in
direct impacts on air quality in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Construction of the
improvements will be associated with short-term localized air quality impacts such as increases
in suspended particulate matter due to dust emissions from the construction site and exhaust
emissions from diesel and/or gasoline powered equipment. Installation of the improvements is
not expected to have significant direct impacts on air quality in the area.
Will open burning occur? If Yes, describe what will be burned.
❑ Yes
X No
Discuss operational impacts related to air quality.
The additional equipment associated with the proposed improvements will slightly increase
overall WWTP utility usage and thus more fossil fuel will be used to produce electricity at the
power plant. However, the slight increase in utility usage is not expected to have significant
indirect or cumulative impacts on air quality in the area.
Describe SCI of the project.
Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,
the project is not expected to have significant indirect or cumulative impacts on air quality in the
area.
McGill Associates,P.A. 29 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

I
Table S.15. Air Quality for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI?
X Yes ❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable X Not Applicable 1
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the I
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s) I
Impacts to air quality will be lessened through the use of appropriate
mitigative measures, specifically avoidance and minimization. All
construction equipment on site will be in good, working order and free I
of mechanical problems involving exhaust and emissions; this will
minimize impacts on air quality. Equipment will be inspected to ensure
emissions standards are met or exceeded. Techniques employed to
suppress and avoid dust production may include wetting down access
roads, temporary installation of stone to cover dust, or installation of
mulch. I
I
II
a
0
McGill Associates,P.A. 30 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document a

I
4.13 NOISE LEVELS
Table 5.16. Noise Levels for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Existing Conditions
Discuss the current noise levels for the project site and project area.
Aural impacts near the project area are primarily associated with road travel. The existing
Riverview pump station is located at the intersection of Arthur Drake Road and Riverview
Street(NC Highway 28). Arthur Drake Road is a private dead-end gravel road receives limited
volumes of traffic and is considered a rural area with little noise pollution. However, NC
Highway 28 is the main route through Franklin and runs north-south following the Little
Tennessee River to Fontana Lake. This road is heavily traveled and it is expected that noise
levels fluctuate with traffic volume cycles. The existing WWTP is located in an isolated
municipal use area with minimal noise.
Does the LGU have noise ❑ Yes
ordinances in place? rdC No
If yes, describe.
Impacts
Discuss construction impacts related to noise levels. If noise levels will increase, discuss when
they will be heard and at what distance.
Construction of the proposed improvements will result in direct impacts to noise levels in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. Construction of the proposed improvements will be
associated with a short-term noise impact caused by operation of construction equipment.
Construction will be limited to daylight hours to minimize disturbance. Once construction of the
improvements is completed, no long-term noise impacts are expected from the operation of the
water line. Installation of the improvements is not expected to have significant direct impacts on
noise levels in the area.
p Discuss operational impacts related to noise levels.
Operation of the proposed blowers and generators may increase noise levels in the local area.
Describe SCI of the project.
Since the proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service,
installation of the improvements is not expected to have significant indirect or cumulative
impacts on noise levels in the area.
McGill Associates,P.A. 31 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Table S.16. Noise Levels for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump '
Station and Force Main Improvements
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts? Mitigative Measures for SCI? '
X Yes ❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable X Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the '
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s) I
Impacts to noise levels will be lessened through use of appropriate
mitigative measures, specifically minimization. In order to minimize
noise related disturbances to the local community, construction
activities will be limited to normal daytime hours (7 a.m.to 7 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday) wherever possible. In addition, large
construction equipment will be equipped with proper noise attenuation 1
devices such as mufflers and silencers to minimize construction related
ambient noise level increases. All high decibel operational equipment,
such as blowers and electrical generators,will be housed in sound '
attenuating enclosures to minimize ambient noise levels.
1
i
1
i
1
McGill Associates,P.A. 32 Town of Franklin
December 2010 VN WTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document 1

i
i
4.14 INTRODUCTION OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Table 5.17. Introduction of Toxic Substances for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump
Station and Force Main Improvements
Impacts
Discuss any toxic substances that may be introduced during project construction and operation.
Construction of the proposed improvements will not result in the introduction of toxic substances
within the project boundary. Potential introduction of toxic substances during construction may
include exhaust emissions, oil, fuel, uncured concrete, and other vehicle fluids. Following
construction, the project is not expected to release hazardous substances, but will reduce or
eliminate leakage or overflow of untreated waste water.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts?
X Yes
❑ Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description Reference(s)
Introduction of toxic substance will be lessened through the use of
appropriate mitigative measures, specifically avoidance and
minimization. Escape of these substances will be prevented by proper
vehicle maintenance and collection and disposal of fluid containers.
Contractors will be instructed to take precautions to ensure that no
uncured concrete is allowed to contact surface waters. Contractors will
follow state, local, and federal regulations regarding the management of
toxic substances.
,I
McGill Associates,P.A. 33 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
j Minor Environmental Information Document

4.15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Table S.18. Environmental Justice Analysis for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump Station and Force Main
Improvements
Existing Conditions
Provide the following information and key the Block Groups to the map in the EID.
Percent Significant
Census Percent Significant Low- Low- Low
Census Block Total Minority Minority Minority Income Income Income
County Tract Group Population Population Population Population? Population Population Population?
Macon 9703 1 1028 21 2% No 130 12.6 No
Impacts
Are there any significant environmental justice populations in the ❑ Yes jX No
project area?
If the answer is yes,then below,list the impacts to the minority and/or low-income populations below and whether the impacts are
potentially significant. If potentially significant,contact the Environmental Assessment Coordinator.
Impact Potentially Significant?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
I
McGill Associates P.A. 34 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

4.16 MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Table S.19. Mitigative Measures for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump Station and Force Main
Improvements
Mitigative
Potential Direct Mitigative Measure(s)for Direct Potential Measures
Resource Category Impact Impact SCI for SCI
Topography and Erosion and •Erosion and sedimentation control No impacts
Floodplains Sedimentation plan will be implemented
•Pre-construction contours restored
,
in floodplain
Soils Erosion and Erosion and sedimentation control No impacts
Sedimentation plan will be implemented
Prime Farmland No impacts No impacts
Land Use No impacts No Impacts
f Forest Resources No impacts No Impacts
Wetlands and Streams Erosion and Erosion and sedimentation control No impacts
Sedimentation plan will be implemented
1 Water Resources •Erosion and •Erosion and sedimentation control No impacts
JSedimentation plan will be implemented
•River crossing •Directional drilling methods used
to avoid disturbing Little
Tennessee River
Shellfish,Fish and •Erosion and •Erosion and sedimentation control No impacts
Habitat Sedimentation plan will be implemented
•River crossing •Directional drilling methods used
to avoid disturbing Little
Tennessee River
Wildlife and Natural No impacts No impacts
Vegetation
Public Lands and Interruptions to Traffic lane to be left open at all No impacts
Scenic,Recreational traffic flow at times to provide Greenway parking
and Natural Areas Greenway parking lot lot access
Areas of No impacts No impacts
Archaeological or
Historical Value
Air Quality PM and TOC Proper exhaust and emission No impacts
emissions during equipment will be installed on all
construction construction equipment
Noise Levels •Noise generated •Construction will occur during No impacts
during construction daytime of weekdays
•Noise from new •Noise attenuating enclosures will
generators and be used to suppress equipment
blower equipment noise
(operational)
McGill Associates,P.A. 35 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

Table S.19. Mitigative Measures for:
Town of Franklin—Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump Station and Force Main
Improvements
Mitigative
Potential Direct Mitigative Measure(s)for Direct Potential Measures
Resource Category Impact Impact SO for.SOIntroduction of Toxic Potential spills Contractors will follow state, local, No impacts
Substances during equipment and federal regulations regarding the
fueling and management of toxic substances.
maintenance
operations
(construction)
Environmental Justice No impacts No impacts
McGill Associates,P.A. 36 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Environmental Information Document

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

TOWN OF FRANKLIN
MACON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
OFT—,
411
,r�r+J \l„�� 'Ir �,.. ^� z�•.i-- �_�dy, C,./1' <'C`"' �Y ���`»,i n-. p( .,C/� ` ♦'�� Y ai ar *rbp.
�., ya� `',� 1j �,.� ./rj�,�' fix' 71 � - 4 ,,�I,r .,�'. !•.� i r �� ° Oil
r 5. ?/ � a �}� 1 +t` •. p _ � Ta 1,;'�j � �-' `a q S �II
/r, �1�� ' �n({ nil � /-lo ��f1 1��-'.UPI`�If. n3����-' r 1. t]:aA; �.�, � �+•
'�J �� � U• f, t` �� 1 e, .� fir. J
"$,t)41
INO
IV
r c,
I "'f''li.1{`�J., nl , '' � "-f y:+41�ir Cr � �,o�� '�` �r •`' r„,.'�� _ fx��t. � � rii"+`r
I c?:hr'.. -- ,).' K'� �]�1 .: r]r�g.7�y� , �y. r•r, ��Q'!rs'l?1a1�3•, e,,,:l; c. , ;, � ,, i. � �, � �'�"?
Yrk
—43
'�\� c. ` 7 .• kGS,, `''�. �� '�i S�,u If � 'S�` �l
I N1,
n , t
6
IV,
,
` - a `� �� a, .q •:Y' , .
/ 7,tip• Chd� � F ;

v i
FIGURE 2: f' ':ERRED ALTERNATIVE
Q7�• WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND
7`71 r- 1 `� RIVERVIEW PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
1 8 3
= ; TOWN OF FRANKLIN
`� �, ♦' � � „!!� MACON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
i ~ , FRANKLIN QUADRANGLE MAP
Q 1 I 'A C # NK� 4• # >l �- ...-r'�tl f ,,,� � .��'""�.r' �, .arkrlii`�:ni�i�i'•�� �``.�
t..
5{, E
� .,� - r � � .,• ._� a ! � .�% �. �.. 1. �- w..w� n"'"'*+.,.� �"^'.1<.� ✓�._ �.".�f �`.���� I Its. { �t ��PII�
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCT NEW 1.0 MG SLUDGE
�"lnis iu{'Ililr� �il�k ll!
DIGESTER AT EXISTING WWTP.
i all
' • 'ISM _— �1 I ♦�` f ' ,, �vj .: # -Ft,
PROPOSED .
O i REPLACE EXISTING
W
RIVERVIEW PUMP STATION
AND INSTALL 18" FORCE MAIN
14
P,-rti�.i�213:
y k ;`4.�'S� � � .,.ram, _,•f �� � �' •�.d/ 5f?�l{� I f i � � .�� � I � i ! '..
;�� �y� -.. f � � � "• 1 Ism!. _� � --..,. I�'•...
G`�s � ! 'Y.. t-•-•.. ''•'�., O� e ,� • ;�� � ...,.•^ill � f y �' \ _ ,�
I�°"•..,, ��.yd��� '},�.51�`'4x�`h.a � ���..�r�' .� '^w"- ���.�... '�� 1 'r _ I'°(",�''h �"�r„}"'•. �` �r 45��» r y� ,+�,-
13 PROPOSED
ti a y
WWTP IMPROVEMENTS SITE. ��: �R - ,
#�w 71 NEW HEADWORKS AND 1.5 MG
FLOW EQUALIZATION, BASIN.
may
I''`�_x+.i ��ratx' ��"' Yf�� ���iii I �` � � �1{J +A� I►¢ �1�,� ,�� � ,. d�
`` ^*� t f .r"®..�—.�..—'"' � J� • # tvif ���11. :r ';J�'�t a. r .r � �
;
��tiµ�a ,�•y���4��- w. ., ,�$ I-.� _ —i � / �l fir' �• �i'� , r"i " �, ..,yts'',ti � �
,��'T���SL�G��," •�wyV.{ `$-,.;,� `� ' ( ���:.I .. � * S l 'r,' f t. _i'N C� J �,��w•`yti
T 47
m
r
n6Y .T
-'' SC
n .,�ALE: 1 00'"=10
;Fra t � ' - `•j a f`
cG
,� o
ASSOCIATES �� �� � ♦ �' I M- o& r4 'I
ENGINEERING•PLANNING•FINANCE I ` r ♦Ir ♦ '-�1 of •�■y +
55 BROAD STREET ASHEVU-LE, NC PH.[phone] * , I{

FIGURE 3: PROJECT AREA FLOOD MAP NUMBER 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FIRM PANEL LOCATOR DIAGRAM m worm
LEGEND
C,7N
zot�x
...:i �. .. .::,' ,. {,-.,,.., .. �_ t'. :.,'- .., .F ..�- _, . 3 .y 4 max _ "�n�l aro.,...a meYm a•,nma
utM
'Ki I X
4.
at z
7 4 X,
FWd
DATUM INFORMATION
p olrEon
m,p.n,amN, a 1.7'=1 ll.w.
3
%
.........
L�T t �-[V&R
7
?
P ...FOA .J.
zo-N.
T,
o�
..p
PADPOSE D
4 P7.
5ciqeC AIAIA
FLOOD HAZARD DATA TABLE
Z,(9
11H llov—!
7.Y,.�;
?
PANEL658SJ
3753W
FIRM%
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
"sl�
-K
PANEL6585
'maT
nsin-6':
5 r
WL
NOTES TO USERS
CID
RI-R.
1-1 ­d I-
iFFE6TIVE DATE MAP NUMBER
meq -,-ZLft=-n MAY 4.2009 3700658500J
.7.1
DATA M
p —.1urea
Ez
www.nelloodMapS.com

FIGURE 4: PROJECT AREA FLOOD MAP NUMBER 2-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FIRM PANEL LOCATOR CIAORNM LEGEND
OINSMEL6598
S.—­T.
­0NBYTHEl%­C­CE­D
IONEX
N,
7:171--
..........
NNEA E'
x
DATUMINFORMATION J
XV, ­­d
FeANXE�
'j:
Em
2.. c "zo'Ex,
,=T=
37UM
F
11—21 l­T­:,N
Noos ev
=11 I= =11 X
"r m W4 p
­X
%
-.4dun
A,
n­
rji
I S
!,;=�d A— stO
7
Ne Xj,
y
FLOOD HAZARD DATA TABLE
37535U
c'mmlo Swl"
20N A
Z.2
7.171m
✓ rmw it
TRETExxessEE RIVER W,o 4EX. .7
2
­2 �"X ZINEX
37535D
!L. n.nw av rw Z.. ao­
Z­
v
Z..
0_
--mm
X1 I�Al V f ItI.
..e
Z..
!ME
PANEL 6695J
Z­
Sp
FIRM
.1705
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
um$
p5d'..-.a- ---a- NORTH CAROLINA
X'.:
ly PANEL 6595
mm
W&R_ IRS, 26P
NOTES TO USERS
L—FFE6nVEDATE MAPNUMBER
­0.1. 1.d.= ae: MAY 4,2DO9 3700659500J
Tt­ =—z-
1N1vw.ncfloodmaps.com

,dam � Y� � ,�� _ o� A� ���� � �v �• �a �y * .�_ ..
J
�wY, .. ; k^ .. "* � �'� y� 'c� '9cG xt.� �h_T•^�` _s�� h _ +,fi:yy PF1.�ir'a .: y,�,.+
r
.�•�' � or�`
w f
. •
�Hu9hes Ln� �- T. tea/r�* M�,��,r � ' - _ 3.k `,� ,•�_.
'40.
� K .•I E � P yn s v2T� •I. '� y " iLk;
SOW
Oily. z
IV
� b i 1«rT4".�#+"..,�+0� �' 11}[ �`� t•} •t�„ �� qa ,tc, Y i�7,c a VF,
�, r'fi'4 `•y e' 'i4,'q.,. y \+ PJf•y a ,�•- gin{q, nu-,.- �+ E.� _v -
Nj, +. .� i ` � I'd�t ��'� .pl 2 u+ � � x `. s � -j i '�� �1p ;�' 1.. 'S t t•^ �"E" iF +.
c* •• LLv+�e l `°4 yt #' r -3,.•... .i +'4 � " afP i°* O�
SoC'N �' ,F ' . . 7'F " '`'-' * f D " '
1 . .. .. ,.� .61 _
oil too
- . ...- -

Soil Map—Macon County,North Carolina
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(A01) Very Stony Spot Map Scale:1:9,020 if printed on A size(8.5"X 11")sheet.
Q Area of Interest(AOI) 1i Wet Spot The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000.
Soils A. Other Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
0 Soil Map Units measurements.
Special Line Features
Special Point Features2 Gully Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
(j. Blowout Web Soil Survey URL: hftp://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Short Steep Slope
® Borrow Pit ��' Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N NAD83
X. . Clay Spot other This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
Political Features the version date(s)listed below.
p Closed Depression Cities
Soil Survey Area: Macon County,North Carolina
X Gravel Pit water Features Survey Area Data: Version 7,Oct 24,2008
Gravelly Spot 0 oceans Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 10/2/2006
9 Landfill Streams and Canals The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
ft Lava Flow Transportation compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Rails imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting
,6 Marsh or swamp _ of map unit boundaries may be evident.
,R Mine or Quarry roo+ Interstate Highways
po Miscellaneous Water US Routes
Gam.p Perennial Water ,_ Major Roads
N
Rock Outcrop Local Roads
v ,�,..;..r
+ Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
(� Sinkhole
3) Slide or Slip
)e Sodic Spot
S, Spoil Area
a Stony Spot
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/21/2010
s Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Soil Map—Macon County,North Carolina
Map Unit Legend
Macon County,North Carolina(NC113)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
EvC Evard-Cowee complex,8 to 15 percent slopes 52.7 17.2%
EvD Evard-Cowee complex, 15 to 30 percent 119.1 38.9%
slopes
EvE Evard-Cowee complex,30 to 50 percent 36.9 12.1%
slopes
ExC Evard-Cowee-Urban land complex,8 to 15 1.0 0.3%
percent slopes
ExD Evard-Cowee-Urban land complex,15 to 30 0.7 0.2%
percent slopes
ScB Saunook loam,2 to 8 percent slopes 14.9 4.9%
ScC Saunook loam,8 to 15 percent slopes 25.0 8.2%
ToA Toxaway loam,0 to 2 percent slopes, 34.3 11.2%
frequently flooded
W Water 21.5 7.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 306.1 100.0%
I
1
i
i
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/21/2010
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

FIGURE 6 : PROJECT AREA FARMLAND MAP Farmland Classification Macon County,North Carolina
M N
t7 tV
N N
282200 282400 282600 282800 283000 283200 283400 283600 283800 284000
35"12'17" r 35"12'18"
I
S
m " • fe� '6 ro
p r- • • T,�1�A ✓� #iei O
;f 1�
M - n
,
s,
S F
O � O
n 5 �
m m
P
j a
41
M • M
41W_
35"11'36" 35"11'37'
282200 282400 282600 282800 283000 283200 283400 28360D 283800 284000
Map Scale:1:9,020 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet N
N N Meters N
m A 0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 500 1,000 2,000 3'000
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/21/2010
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3

Farmland Classification—Macon County,North Carolina
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(AOI) Q Prime farmland if US Routes Map Scale:1:9,020 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet.
0 Area of Interest(AOI) subsoiled,completely 6^
removing the root �� Major Roads The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
Soils inhibiting soil layer _ 1:12,000.
N, Local Roads
Soil Map Units 0 Prime farmland if irrigated Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
and the product of I(soil measurements.
Soil Ratings erodibility)x C(climate
I Not rime farmland factor)does not exceed 60
(] p Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
0 Prime farmland if irrigated Web Soil SurveyURL: hft //websoilsurve nres.usda. ov
All areas are prime and reclaimed of excess p' y' g
farmland salts and sodium Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N NAD83
® Prime farmland if drained Farmland of statewide This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Q Prime farmland if importance of the version date(s)listed below.
protected from flooding or 0 Farmland of local
not frequently flooded importance Soil Survey Area: Macon County,North Carolina
duringthe growing season Survey Area Data: Version 7,Oct 24,2008
9 9 0 Farmland of unique
0 Prime farmland if irrigated importance Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 10/2/2006
Not rated or not available
0 Prime farmland if drained The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
and either protected from Political Features compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
flooding or not frequently Cities imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting
flooded during the growing
season Water Features of map unit boundaries may be evident.
0 Prime farmland if irrigated F Oceans
and drained
0 Prime farmland if irrigated Streams and Canals
and either protected from
flooding or not frequently Transportation
flooded during the growing i�i-F Rails
season
Interstate Highways
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/21/2010
�� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Farmland Classification—Macon County,North Carolina
Farmland Classification
Farmland Classification—Summary by Map Unit—Macon County,North Carolina
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in A01 Percent of AOI
EvC Evard-Cowee complex,8 to 15 Farmland of statewide 52.7 17.2%
percent slopes importance
EvD Evard-Cowee complex, 15 to 30 Farmland of local importance 119.1 38.9%
percent slopes
EvE Evard-Cowee complex,30 to 50 Not prime farmland 36.9 12.1%
percent slopes
ExC Evard-Cowee-Urban land Not prime farmland 1.0 0.3%
complex,8 to 15 percent slopes
ExD Evard-Cowee-Urban land Not prime farmland 0.7 0.2%
complex,15 to 30 percent
slopes
ScB Saunook loam,2 to 8 percent All areas are prime farmland 14.9 4.9%
slopes
ScC Saunook loam,8 to 15 percent Farmland of statewide 25.0 8.2%
slopes importance
ToA Toxaway loam,0 to 2 percent Prime farmland if drained and 34.3 11.2%
slopes,frequently flooded either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during
the growing season
W Water Not prime farmland 21.5 7.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 306.1 100.0%
Description
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance,farmland of local importance,or unique farmland. It identifies
the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage,
and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands
are published in the"Federal Register,"Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Tie-break Rule: Lower
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/21/2010
aim— Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3

U.S. Fish and-Wildlife Service
National MmAlands 1hventory
i T
�r M�;'4a r�q�6 •.�'.>• F,ys. ,+'" ". y4�. qt�1," �1 d.�u ��'L'' 1 rN �y:.J a�Ct'1, o, ,n
-
+ !.♦ � �, rrk, 7yj� t� .,�4 �i��Tr`' t47t x i �sl� 4''''t r11 ;':ad" � ! ..
tr t t rti t .�,�+ - '� !�.r `�X�,rri 'l'�jt"�sr �•V •�� e 4��,�a ld. iz``X-� .l ,
■' � 4"' �t'r It ra4'7�'�t' a a4"�' S f ,`hl } 1 1 � t�p6a, - •
.1 S f`! ♦. i" }j�`.5�� P/H. `l.'S f 2 e{ # '1' �` iqf�. t ry 1
t�+;� � ,� `� u k r.t(1 r a A�'S e. t i.{ a, t.s r�.:4 t A t a v r #• ti�,�.;'S. 5,�.
'Et gttif {�a{ as a` •■: 's
t r}t a its
.l «`C�9'.Y,.'a...�. > " �wy.'t13+• 44,
a � t + - {v+a+• !i.rl7„ r is ri�h �'�+ ■ '• ■
� ' � • s,. .�, �' sh ry`�ta Ga} S,t,,t!# {{))))�. kl ? yA•?pv �S�.F' C�i� " 4{`1i
a4 T e "4 #S`''�`Qr 'S� .G� {�4w t}« v ¢ 1.a('•14 ��.xlt e � -rM G 4 �'-� �.(,,:}t t
us."4�K'C a4 ytt rP it•`�`� • ? t i k ,k.p ,~
,r{ ,.,. .An,. �S„Yr tl� Pia •„�� tiY v'p� �Y.A� t,4i e"v!`t,SIP Sl if r
�r ar.r�,t�.,�{ J � rs.lil �+ � �r aa.' i n 15,-.r'' �) �C�t�r h�"+t' <:t�) ti S• 5. r:�, bra+.
v�f rtf '�+><'�tt��e. s �" � tr �' 1 ,, �14.. � Yb,1:� ♦r fi�.. fi�y, � T t rq1 �[n`tt rq�
rt:tt F r1Crs rJ' +rt_rqq4 _ 'rty.a ti 7��a �)! -
''ti#4
.,r•ai h I � Y r .,i.t �: f ;,':l,i K SS + ,r r'x-5�4« 3,.J P ,±! P! �r'1 '� k � a���„'ti
th Y r• ar+" ti �, ks . �jt?e' s 4! � s' �..x`
n # ♦ 1 {E .ar y tr �t at h s titFk S C s qti frz °l
�+r t, tip• ll yy�� � .Y, 4
1.r.
* i.,r 'S- a 1,, j.Y• y r a1 } 'tz 4 r txv 't #.- <
+ -;, «, �, t ,, �s '� n.4sa�R�# t � rJ.r(xu� n �v�r r• �t_�a �i
n. ■ P'y r cF ,'ty�� �.. � S ,{,t, r`�'t � d t �• ° -+a�+Y � ��rt-9
+ k ',�.y a Y.A i i i� z a i, � u`jrC Yt�.'�',♦ 7•�` C 1 G tom, Tk .y t}.r � -�y c'kat�!
�g t ''� r: Z. [ 1 . \ .�ft t.. � •�f�Ltr j.. ft Y. �1 ''�,. r'' 1 f 1 T 7l� l� +�,�
,q:,• a .+e r L t a �s 4 t+�Z� t; #Ya ` .mz {/'f
.r 5� •1 R,J� \'Yv'Cw. a iva .:'..kL: iT ';„v'...f..,.. h r�.c r'•'..lr- ua1� .f Y r ««e.

FIGU' k PROJECT AREA PUBLIC LANDS
'1. /' ►' '' nTOWN OF FRANKLIN
MACON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FRANKLIN QUADRANGLE MAP
t'ff � �p � '� 1 s a�\��-C::•.••�—�^ � 1 `�„ i+ � �1r��a• (//rl J !�i •o�
f'�-J����;J''/� �� � ;., y •e a' `� �� � bYr.•o 1��1,=`� -�61.__ � � .,'h�,.�'o •y�
pm
ri
�� ' 0:? yr// ,� ii�' "�� �• f � �Jl.; S j I! i--_ I ` M1 �S�
\t°
(
/7?'�•.r r�,°'��.J� NV ftep
',tY•-yey,
ZL
'� 'V1r711A'!-•�U - --'l• r.` LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER GREENWAY
-at
�Y nI7kD
sf/9
�. , `� ° °�l•, " . � `1�„��\ ���.;ti .,�. \� -0 �'-� 1, I �
'A e-ps� RFI
•� ' .ys"'r �ry5� L;y�:S�4 4�v��_� ,` lit "
�; �� \l �/ -`!la ,�J�` o•II
-0-
Nd
IElla
m'A
TV
C6 see

i
i
i
i
i
i
APPENDIX B
� 2007 BASINWIDE REPORT

Chapter 1
Little Tennessee River Subbasin 04-04-01
Including the: Little Tennessee River,Cullasaja River,and Cartoogechaye Creek Watersheds
1.1 Subbasin Overview
. The Little Tennessee River originates in Rabun County,
Subbasin 04-04-01 at a Glance Georgia and flows north into Macon County,North
Carolina. Subbasin 04-04-01 contains approximately
Land and Water Area 35 miles of the Little Tennessee River from the state
Total area: 370 miz line to the Macon-Swain county line below Tellico
Land area: 369 miz Creek. The river upstream of Lake Emory(Porters
Water area: 1 mi2 Bend Dam)has a very gradual gradient as it flows
through a broad valley. Below the lake,the gradient
Population(County) steepens and the flow quickens as it flows through the
2000 Est.Pop.:. 22,358 people Needmore Tract towards Fontana Reservoir. Major
Pop.Density: 12 persons/mil
tributaries to the Little Tennessee River in this subbasin
Land Cover(percent) include the Cullasaja River and Cartoogechaye Creek;
Forest/Wetland: 89.1% smaller tributaries include Middle, Coweeta, Cowee,
Water: 0.3% Tessentee, Tellico, and Burningtown Creeks.
Urban: 0.9%
Cultivated Crop: 0.9% { Headwaters of many tributaries are protected within the
i Pasture/ Nantahala National Forest. Most tributaries are high
Managed Herbaceous: 8.8% ` gradient streams capable of supporting trout populations
in their upper reaches. In the lower reaches,many of
Counties Macon the watersheds are farmed or developed and the
tributaries are affected by erosion, scour, and sediment
Municipalities deposition. The Town of Franklin and a portion of the
I Franklin and Highlands Town of Highlands are the large population centers in
f [ this subbasin. Strip development is focused along US
Monitored Stream Statistics 23/441 south from Franklin towards Dillard,Rabun
Aquatic Life Gap, and Mountain City, GA. Low-density residential
Total Streams: 139.0 mi/42.1 ac development is increasing throughout the watershed.
Total Supporting: 133.2 mi Despite the development, almost 90 percent of the
Total Impaired: 3.7 mi subbasin is forested
Total Not Rated: 2.1 mi/42.1 ac
I Recreation There are 12 NPDES permitted dischargers in this
I Total Streams: 35.9 mi subbasin. The largest is the Town of Franklin WWTP,
Total Supporting: 35.9 mi which discharges 1.65 MGD into the Little Tennessee
River(Lake Emory). This facility is required to
1 monitor whole effluent toxicity. Refer to Appendix V for the listing of NPDES permit holders.
Chapter 1—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01 7

Figure 3 Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01
GB28:'; S
GF2 ae
GF3 0 i/�0 0�
ellico Cr r/ G
31
GB30
u GF8
GB34 GF15 `G 7 5�
GB3
town Cre GB37 �
►otta Cree GF22 1 Gteek
d01CiO ��8 abbot
COON Y
Cr
ee
j © ,
Legend GFs. .,4 �y-eK F1 e�
9 crave GA2" GF11 G639 �� e
Monitoring Stations �oo9e GF1 ado
a F30
Q Ambient Monitoring Station w US� a G ,_
v GB41 O�
Benthic CommunityGB43
e Fish Community ?B1 r G � Vic'7
Lake Monitoring Station
Recreation Locations F m
m GB4 .
NPDES Discharges
8 Major a
G 51
m
0 Minor j GF9 GB 41B52
Aquatic Life Use Support Rating 45 m Tes G647 -pB57 GB5 5
�®Impaired t. B49 Seh/ 4
No Data ci a Cree G~28 eC�e GL
N ow
/ GF19 ek GL2
/ Not Rated
Supporting w E
Recreation Use Support Rating �A a hti
Ov Impaired ' G C�
SCD
}
Primary Roads €
County Boundary N�10
s GF17 Planning Section
ZiF Municipality B50 Basinwide Planning Unit
O Subbasin Boundary €! 0 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 November 7, 2006
Miles

Table 3 Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01
AU Number Classification Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment Recreation Assessment
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter%Exc RE Rating Station Result Stressors Sources
♦a.,s.' .aV++..n..m,uY ru-Yv:-.eu.`sav�c.v..t+W. n+. -.. F ... � 2� _
§#I,'W R$� •E' � SSE +''. R Yn- ,:``" ^ v�Sy�,t a z{ r� ��..e��, cT u�.�., F t�'�d�',�3"r���rt', �'� _ �'x.•� :.u..
2-(1)a ' C 2.1 FW Miles I ND Habitat Degradation Impervious Surface
From North Carolina-Georgia State line to the confluence of GF17 F 2004 Habitat Degradation Agriculture
Mulberry Creek '
GB50 GF 2004 Habitat Degradation WWTPNPDES
GB50 F 2000
2-(1)b C 15.9 FW Miles S GAl NCE S GAl NCE Habitat Degradation Unknown
From the confluence of Mulberry Creek to the confluence of GB 10 G 2004
Cartoogechaye Creek
GB10 GF 1999
M�E A < <SSEE, •� a �� cluilin abac � a "� �, �- � � � �- �'�� , � ,�
• ' .�. . _ $(InV�_ .g �aters o�'Lake,Emory) '. m== .� �.� �" � r �£' - � He°�'2-(1)c C 7.3 FW Miles S GA7 NCE S GA7 NCE Total Suspended Solids WWTP NPDES
From the confluence of Cartoogechaye Cr.to a point 0.4 G1335 GF 2004
mile upstream ofN.C.Hwy.28(located 0.42 mile upstream
of mouth of Iotla Creek)
"'LIT, I:E T�,-,� .,S,EE,RI;�ER � clud�n the bac , aters�of�igntana�Lake�a,,,,orma�;= •ool�elevat�on�4Z,0$�a ��;_ , �: p-���; g _• d,;;�. „ " ���.
2-(26.5)a B 10.0 FW Miles S GA7 NCE S GA7 NCE
From to a point 0.4 mile upstream of N.C.Hwy.28(located GB35 GF 2004
0.42 mile upstream of mouth of Iotla Creek)to subbasin
01/02 border
V ;rF �w ':S:uY,
1VLdc11 �C',ee �
k. .. _ �. , ..w ?'.. ..._k?'�`;..- a„!% 6:;, ai 3;;:._.. ,.,,.�.. ASK :'" f x .":i:flf�b,M a:3"" r. v.� � w 5ti" � .ten S``y.#,•.�.'.
E
2-8 C;Tr 8.8 FW Miles S ND
From source to Little Tennessee River GF19 G 2004
GB49 E 2004
DRAFT Monday,November 20,2006 11:04:09 Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01

Table 3 Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01
AU Dumber Classification Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment Recreation Assessment
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter%Exe REC Rating Station Result Stressors Sources
Use Categories: Monitoring data type: Results: Use Support Ratings 2006:
AL-Aquatic Life GF-Fish Community Survey E-Excellent S-Supporting I-Impaired
REC-Recreation GB-Benthic Community Survey G-Good NR-Not Rated
GA-Ambient Monitoring Site GF-Good-Fair NR*-Not Rated for Recreation(screening criteria exceeded)
GL-Lake Monitoring F-Fair ND No Data Collected to make assessment
P-Poor
NI-Not Impaired
Miles/Acres m-Monitored Results
FW-Fresh Water e-Evaluated CE-Criteria Exceeded>10%and more than 10 samples
NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
ID-Insufficeint Data Available
Aquatic Life Rating Summary Recreation Rating Summary Fish Consumption Rating Summary
S m 131.1 FW Miles S m 35.9 FW Miles I e 503.1 FW Miles
NR m 2.1 FW Miles ND 472.0 FW Miles I e 53.7 FW Acres
I m 5.8 FW Miles ND 53.7 FW Acres I 4.8 FW Miles
NR m 42.1 FW Acres
ND 368.9 FW Miles
ND 11.6 FW Acres
DRA,FT Monday,November 20,2006 11:04:10 Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01

During this assessment period,benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 31 sites.
Fish community samples were collected at 14 locations, and ambient water chemistry was
monitored at three sites. None of the water quality variables analyzed as part of the ambient
chemistry program had statistically significant exceedances over the five-year monitoring period
(1999—2004)for the Little Tennessee River at Prentiss, for the Little Tennessee River at Iotla,
and for Cartoogechaye Creek near Franklin.
Most sites monitored for benthic macroinvertebrates or fish were rated Good or Excellent;no
sites were rated Poor. Two sites rated Fair, including the Little Tennessee River near the NC-GA
state line and the upper reaches of the Cullasaja River near the Town of Highlands. The Little
Tennessee River has at times experienced elevated conductivity due to permitted dischargers in
Georgia, and the instream and riparian habitats continue to suffer from poor land use and
watershed practices. The upper Cullasaja River continues to be impaired by land use practices in
the area in and around the Town of Highlands. More than half of the impaired section(4.8
miles) of the upper Cullasaja River lies upstream of the Town of Highlands. Streams that have
consistently been rated Excellent were Coweeta, Turtle Pond,Burningtown, and Tellico Creeks.
Refer to the 2005 Little Tennessee River Basinwide Assessment Report at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/Basinwide/LTN2005.pdf and Appendix IV for more information on
monitoring.
The riparian zones at many of the sites in the subbasin are narrow, sparsely vegetated with
mature trees and mowed lawns, or in pasture. Many of the streams sampled were more turbid
than expected for.mountain streams. Habitat degradation is attributable to the combination of
steep gradients, chronic erosion, and nonpoint source sedimentation. Many of the sites would
benefit from bank stabilization and stream restoration techniques.
A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 3. Table 3 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
lengths, streams monitored,monitoring data types,locations and results, along with use support
ratings for waters in the subbasin. Refer to Appendix VIII for more information about use
support methodology.
Waters in the following sections and in Table 3 are identified by an assessment unit number
(AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database,
list 303(d)Impaired waters, and is used to identify waters throughout the basin plan. The AU# is
a subset of the DWQ index number(classification identification number). A letter attached to
the end of the AU#indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No
letter indicates that the AU#and the DWQ index segment are the same. For example, index
number 11-3-(14)might be split into two assessment units 11-3-(14)a and 11-3-(14)b.
16 Chapter 1—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01

1.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
' Table 4 Summary of Use Support Ratings All surface waters in the state are assigned a
by Category in Subbasin 04-04-01 classification appropriate to the best-intended
use of that water. Waters are regularly assessed
Use Support Aquatic Recreation by DWQ to determine how well they are
Rating Life meeting their best-intended use. For aquatic
Monitored Waters Supporting 133.2 mi 35.9 mi life, an Excellent, Good, Good-Fair,Fair,or
Impaired* 3.7 mi 2.7%) 0.0 Poor bioclassification is assigned to a stream
2.1 mi 0.0 based on the biological data collected by DWQ.
Not Rated 42.1 ac 0.0 For more information about bioclassification
Total 139.0 mi 35.9 mi and use support assessment,refer to
42.1 ac Appendices IV and VIII,respectively.
Unmonitored Waters Appendix IX provides definitions of the terms
No Data 368.9 mi 472.0 mi
11.6 ac 53.7 ac used throughout this basin plan.
Total 368.9 mi 472.0 mi
11.6 ac 53.7 ac In subbasin 04-04-01,use support was assigned
Totals for the aquatic life,recreation,fish consumption
All Waters** 507.9 mi 507.9 mi and water supply categories. Waters are
53.7 ac 13.7 ac I Supporting, Impaired,Not Rated, and No Data
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored in the aquatic life and recreation categories on a
I miles/acres only.
** Total Monitored+Total Unmonitored=Total All Waters. monitored or evaluated basis. Waters are
Impaired in the fish consumption category on an evaluated basis based on fish consumption
advice issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). All waters are
Supporting in the water supply category on an evaluated basis based on reports from Division of
Environmental Health(DEH)regional water treatment plant consultants. Refer to Table 4 for a
summary of use support for waters in subbasin 04-04-01.
1.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters
The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan(2002)or are
1 newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired,the water will either
remain on the state's 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2008 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an AU#. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is
presented in Appendix VI.
1 1.3.1 Little Tennessee River [AU#2-(1)a]
2002 Recommendations
DWQ recommended further communication with GA EPD and stressed the need for BMP
installation throughout the watershed in both North Carolina and Georgia.
Current Status
DWQ sampled the fish and benthic communities at sites GF17 and GB50,respectively.
Extremely high conductivity levels (highest of any fish site in the basin) continue to show
Chapter I—Little Tennessee Suhhasin 04-04-01 17

1 .
1
impacts from point source dischargers. However,the benthic population improved from Fair in
1999 to Good-Fair in 2004. The Little Tennessee River from the state line to the confluence of
Mulberry Creek(2.1miles)remains Impaired in the Aquatic Life category because of a Fair
bioclassification at site GF17.
The Little Tennessee River watershed above sites GF17 and GB50 is approximately 56 square
miles,mostly in Georgia. There are four NPDES permitted facilities within the river's watershed
in Georgia. The largest is commonly referred to as Rabun Mills. The Little Tennessee
Watershed Association(LTWA) compared their fish community data to discharge operations at
Rabun Mills between years 1990 and 2002. Fluctuations in their data correlated well with plant
operations upstream. For example,the fish community improved from 1992 to 1993 while the
plant was not operating. The plant resumed operation under a more restrictive permit in 1994
and fish populations improved gradually through 1997. This trend reversed in the period 1998—
2002 and coincided with anecdotal and visual observations of impacts from the discharge. At
the time of publication,the plant is again idle. However,problems related to Dillard and Sky
City WWTP's, agriculture,road construction, small industries,urbanization,residential
development, and failing septic systems remain a concern. Beginning downstream of the
NC/GA state line,Little Tennessee River is Designated Critical Habitat for the Appalachia elktoe
mussel, further raising the importance of clean water in the river.
2007 Recommendations
Because the Little Tennessee is affected by both point and nonpoint sources of pollution,
reversing impairment in this reach will require corrective action on both fronts. DWQ will
continue conversations with GA EPD to find opportunities to improve NPDES discharger
performance. Protective measures should be written into the NPDES permit for any new
operation at the old Rabun Mills plant. These measures should be prepared and made available
to potential new owners before assuming operation of the plant.
Ultimately,DWQ is required to develop a TMDL for this river segment and will seek
cooperation from Georgia. Georgia will be required to implement the terms of the TMDL once
EPA approves it. Local action is also needed to address nonpoint source pollution through
installation of BMPs and riparian zone protection/restoration.
1.3.2 Upper Cullasaja River Watershed Including Cullasaja River(Ravenel Lake) [AU#
2-21-(0.5)] and Mill Creek [AU#2-21-31
The upper Cullasaja River Watershed is located in southeastern Macon County and contains
most of the Town of Highlands and surrounding lands (Figure 4). The 14.4 square mile
watershed lies on the Highlands Plateau, a high elevation area noted for exceptionally high
rainfall (80 -over 100 inches per year). The watershed was historically logged and many of the
streams dammed and/or channelized. Estimates provided by the Upper Cullasaja Watershed
Association(UCWA) indicate land use in the watershed was approximately 50 percent
residential-commercial-industrial (high level of impervious cover), and 50 percent forested as of
2004. Streams begin demonstrating negative impacts as imperviousness exceeds 10 percent of a
watershed(Chapter 6).
The watershed includes all streams draining to the Cullasaja River from its headwaters to Big
Creek. Within this watershed,the Cullasaja River from its source to Macon County SR-1545
(2.2 miles)and Mill Creek from its source to Mirror Lake(1.3 miles) are listed as Impaired on
18 Chapter 1—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01

Of the many recommendations outlined in these documents,DWQ feels the following
recommendations are the highest priority. They are listed in no particular order.
• Evaluate and implement the following at each of the impoundments in the upper Cullasaja
River watershed;minimum and/or bypass flows, sediment transport devices, and fish
passages. Doing so will allow passage of aquatic organisms and help address sediment build
up, elevated temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen levels. If the problems associated with
dams are not addressed,then the recovery potential for the Cullasaja River is limited and
other strategies listed below will have limited effect.
• Complete restoration projects at all sites identified in the Upper Cullasaja Watershed Strategy
and Action Plan. Successful completion will improve habitat conditions and stormwater
management in the watershed.
• Pesticide and nutrient management programs should be evaluated and improved to further
decrease the use of these materials and their potential to enter lakes and streams.
Homeowners and landscapers should also be educated about the responsible use of
pesticides, fertilizers, and hydroseed mix.
• Woody vegetation should be planted along cleared streams, and large woody debris and rock
clusters should be placed in the stream channel where wooded buffers are not planted. This
action will stabilize eroding streambanks,provide shade, and produce leaf packs and other
organic instream habitat.
1.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts
Based on DWQ's most recent use support methodologies,the surface waters discussed in this
section are not Impaired. However,notable water quality problems and concerns were
documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and resources should be focused
on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate water quality improvements.
DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns and work with them to conduct
further assessments and to locate sources of water quality protection funding. Additionally,
education on local water quality issues and voluntary actions are useful tools to prevent water
quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. The current status and recommendations for
addressing these waters are presented below, and each is identified by an AU#. Refer to Section
1.1 for more information about AU#. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in
Appendix VII.
1.4.1 Burningtown Creek [AU#2-381
Current Status
Burningtown Creek is the largest tributary to the Little Tennessee River downstream of Franklin.
Compared with much of the county, its watershed is largely undeveloped excepting light
residential and agricultural activities. The stream provides habitat for several sensitive species
including the spotfin chub,hellbender salamander, smoky dace, and the sicklefm redhorse.
DWQ sampled the fish and benthic communities at sites-GF3 and G1330,respectively. Both sites
received Excellent bioclassifications, but some minor impacts from sedimentation were noted.
DWQ also sampled the upstream benthic community at site GB34. The site rated Good, slightly
lower than the downstream site.
22 Chapter I—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01

The benthic community was sampled upstream at site GB37 and received a Good
bioclassification. The habitat at this site is similar to the downstream benthic site. An
agricultural ditch enters the creek just upstream of the sample location and adds to the sediment
problems observed.
Samples collected by LTWA confirm the instream habitat in Iotla Creek is some of the poorest in
the basin and much of the lower reach has been channelized. Despite these problems,LTWA
notes the spotfin chub has been collected near the confluence with the Little Tennessee River.
2007Recommendations
The nutrient and sediment impacts from agricultural activities should be reduced. These impacts
can be reduced through use of agricultural best management practices. There are a variety of
funding sources that can be used to make installation of these improvements more affordable to
farm owners. Chapter 9 describes many of these programs. The Macon County Soil and Water
t District and local NRCS staff can assist farm owners with choosing appropriate BMPs and
identifying funding.
1.4.5 Little Tennessee River and Lake Emory [AU#2-(1)b and 2-(1)c]
i
Current Status
The Little Tennessee River from the GA-NC state line to Mulberry Creek is considered Impaired
and is discussed in section 1.3.1. The Little Tennessee River from Mulberry Creek to Lake
Emory is not impaired and is discussed here. The Little Tennessee River gains volume rapidly
as it flows into North Carolina,becoming a major river. Land use in the watershed south of
Franklin is a mix of light commercial, agriculture, scattered residences and broken tracts of
forest. DWQ sampled the benthic community at GB10 and maintains ambient sampling stations
at site GA1 and GAT Habitat problems include very poor riparian vegetation, lack of pools, and
infrequent riffles. DWQ performed a seasonally and flow adjusted trend analysis on the ambient
chemistry and determined significant upward trends in both total phosphorus and water
temperature over the period 1994—2004.
The Lake Emory segment is a run-of-river impoundment created in the 1920's by construction of
Porter Bend Dam at Franklin. DWQ considered it shallow and eutrophic based on samples
collected in 1988. In 1994,DWQ Lake Assessment Unit ceased sampling this reservoir because
sediment accumulation prevented boat access. Sediment deposition had become so pronounced
that vegetation had become established on sediment bars and the upstream areas resembled a
braided stream rather than a lake. DWQ determined Lake Emory was no longer functioning as a
reservoir and TVA gave it an ecological health rating of Very Poor.
The USGS conducted an analysis of sediment loads to Lake Emory from 2000-2001. The study
compared sediment loads from the Cullasaja River, Cartoogechaye Creek, and the mainstem
Little Tennessee River. This study noted that riparian agricultural activities and increasing
urbanization in the upper portion of the watershed in the towns of Highlands and Franklin have
increased the river's sediment load. The study also notes the dam has trapped many of those
sediments,protecting the downstream habitat in the Needmore area.
Downstream of Lake Emory,water quality and habitat improves significantly. TVA has been
monitoring this reach since 1998,rating it Good or Excellent each time. This section of river is
one of the healthiest major rivers in the southeast and supports a complete biological community.
Chapter I—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01 25

In 2004,a major conservation purchase was completed in the Needmore area,protecting the
flood plain along 26 miles of the river(See section 1.5.1). While this purchase was a significant
move forward towards permanent protection for the river,recent data from NCWRC,USFWS,
and citizen observations indicate the river remains threatened by upstream pollution.
Unpublished data from NCWRC indicate the Appalachian elktoe population below Lake Emory
is in decline. Excess sediment is being deposited in the reach as development continues
upstream and outside the Needmore Tract without sufficient erosion control. Historically,many
wetland areas both in and around the Needmore tract we damaged and now need restoring.
2007 Recommendations
The heavy sediment in Lake Emory and increasing loads in the downstream reach demonstrates
the need for strong sediment and erosion control,wetland restoration, and streambank
stabilization throughout the entire watershed. Macon County has adopted a Soil Erosion&
Sedimentation Control Ordinance that helps reduce erosion problems originating from certain
new land disturbing activities. This ordinance must be vigorously enforced. Erosion from
agricultural operations can be reduced through use of agricultural best management practices.
There are a variety of funding sources that can be used to make installation of these
improvements more affordable to farm owners. Chapter 9 describes many of these programs.
The Macon County Soil and Water District and local NRCS staff can assist farm owners with
choosing appropriate BMPs and identifying funding. Wetland restoration opportunities should
be pursued as they arise.
1.4.6 Rabbit Creek [AU#2-231
Current Status
The Rabbit Creek watershed lies northeast of Franklin and drains the Holly Springs community.
DWQ evaluated the fish community at site GF22 in 2004,when it received a Good-Fair
bioclassification. The riparian zone was significantly degraded and needs restoration. The
riparian zone included manicured lawns,pastures,unstable banks, and invasive weeds. The
stream was more turbid than most streams in the subbasin.
LTWA has been sampling Rabbit Creek for many years. From 1990 to 2000,the fish
community rating steadily improved. Recovery from disturbance during golf course construction
and removal of cattle access may be responsible for the improvement. Unfortunately,LTWA
data began showing a decline in 2001 and 2002. The negative changes appear to be related to
increasing sedimentation originating from poor land use practices in Cat Creek, a tributary to
Rabbit Creek.
i
Cat Creek suffers from severe habitat degradation due to land clearing activities, channelization,
livestock access, and several small impoundments. In 2000, a half-mile reach of Cat Creek was
re-channelized and the riparian zone was cleared. This action resulted in a significant increase in
streambank erosion and sediment delivery to Rabbit Creek.
2007 Recommendations
Restoration in Cat Creek will likely improve conditions in Rabbit Creek. Restoration options
should be evaluated and if deemed feasible, a restoration plan for Cat Creek should be developed
1 and executed. In the meantime,residential landowners can use a variety of techniques to reduce
pollution caused by runoff from their property. Residents should refer to Chapter 6 and the
document"Improving Water Quality in Your Own Backyard." This pamphlet is available free
26 Chapter I—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01

i
of charge through the Division of Water Quality and online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/documentsBackyardPDF.pdf. The impacts from agricultural
operations can be reduced through use of agricultural best management practices. There are a
variety of funding sources that can be used to make installation of these improvements more
affordable to farm owners. Chapter 9 describes many of these programs. The Macon County
Soil and Water District and local NRCS staff can assist farm owners with choosing appropriate
BMPs and identifying funding.
1.4.7 Walnut Creek [AU#2-21-17]
Current Status
Walnut Creek is a tributary to the middle reaches of the Cullasaja River and is adjacent to the
Ellijay Creek watershed. It is a high gradient Southern Appalachian-type trout stream with
plunge pools and riffles. DWQ sampled the fish and benthic communities in 2004 (sites GF30
and G1343). The benthic site was sampled in response to complaints of dead fish, soapy water,
and development. There are no NPDES discharges in the watershed,but conductivity was
elevated for a mountain stream. The results from the benthic sample suggest instream habitat
appears to be declining. Increased residential development along the stream banks and
agricultural activities in the watershed are affecting the riparian and in-stream habitats by
increasing the sediment load. The stream is significantly embedded with sand at site G1343. The
fish site technically qualified as a regional reference site based on land use calculations and
despite noted sediment problems. The fish community was typical of many un-impacted trout
streams(low species diversity, a reproducing population of naturalized rainbow trout, and
mottled scuplin being the numerically dominant species).
2007 Recommendations
Residential landowners can use a variety of techniques to reduce sediment runoff from their
property. Residents should refer to Chapter 6 and the document"Improving Water Quality in
Your Own Backyard." This pamphlet is available free of charge through the Division of Water
Quality and online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/documents/BackyardPDF.pdf. The impacts
from agricultural operations can be reduced through use of agricultural best management
practices. There are a variety of funding sources that can be used to make installation of these
improvements more affordable to farm owners: Chapter 9 describes many of these programs.
The Macon County Soil and Water District and local NRCS staff can assist farm owners with
choosing appropriate BMPs and identifying funding.
1.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 04-04-01
The previous sections discussed water quality concerns for specific stream segments. The
following section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are not
specific to particular streams, lakes, or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be related to waters
near certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.
This section also discusses ideas, rules and practices in place to preserve and maintain the
pristine waters of the Little Tennessee River basin. This is particularly important because many
of the waters are designated as high quality or outstanding resource waters (HQW and ORW,
respectively). Those surface waters given an Excellent bioclassification may be eligible for
reclassification to a High Quality Water(HQW)or Outstanding Resource Water(ORW). These
streams are shown in Table 3. Special management strategies, or rules,are in place to better
Chapter 1—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01 27
3
I
' I

manage the cumulative impact of pollutant discharges, and several landowners have voluntarily
participated in land conservation, stabilization, and/or restoration projects.
1.5.1 The Land Trust for the Little Tennessee River Corridor Protection Project:
Protecting Water Quality Through Land Conservation
The LTLT is a locally-led 501(c)3 non-profit organization based in Macon County with a
mission to conserve the waters;forests, farms, and heritage of the Upper Little Tennessee and
Hiwassee River Valleys. Since 1997,the LTLT has been a driving force for water quality
protection in the Little Tennessee basin.Through a multitude of partnerships,LTLT has
channeled resources into three programs: rural land conservation, land stewardship and
restoration, and outreach and education—each of which is having direct and positive impacts on
water quality in the basin.
Principal among these,LTLT's rural land conservation program helps to protect water quality by
protecting private lands, such as headwater forest areas or bottomland floodplains,from
inappropriate development. This is accomplished by working with private landowners to place
conservation easements on their property,by accepting gifts of land, and by purchasing at-risk
properties.
Since January 2002, a strategic goal of LTLT has been the protection,through easement or
purchase, of 75 percent of the land fronting the main stem of the Little Tennessee River,between
Franklin and Fontana Reservoir. The 25 miles of free-flowing Little Tennessee River
downstream of the town of Franklin is considered by many to be the"Noah's Ark" of Blue
Ridge rivers due to its rich biological diversity,being home to half the native,freshwater fish
species in North Carolina and the greatest diversity of freshwater mussels in the State. The river
corridor also encompasses the most intact archeological landscape remaining of the 18th century
Cherokee and is a key link in a forested corridor connecting the Nantahala and Cowee Mountain
Ranges.
A keystone to this river corridor conservation project was achieved in January 2004,when the
4500-acre Needmore Tract was purchased by the State of North Carolina. The Tract
encompasses 26 miles of Little Tennessee River frontage--over half of this reach of river--along
with 37 miles of tributary streams. LTLT helped unite efforts by rural residents, local
governments, sportsmen and environmentalists to conserve this extraordinary landscape.The$19
million dollar purchase was made possible by$7.5 million from the Ecological Enhancement
Program, $6.6 million from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, $1.5 million from the
Natural Heritage Trust Fund, $2 million from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and$2 million
from private foundations and individual donations, including from LTLT and its supporters. The
Tract is now managed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
LTLT has continued to expand this work to conserve this entire river corridor,both upstream and
downstream of Franklin.By December 2006,LTLT expects to have protected 16 additional
parcels along this lower reach of the Little Tennessee River,totaling 663 acres and 5.44 miles,
bringing the total river frontage protected to 63 percent.In addition,LTLT continues to protect
key nodes along the Little Tennessee River upstream of Franklin,with 6 parcels containing over
180 acres and almost 3 miles of river frontage protected so far.
28 Chapter 1—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01

1.5.2 Management Strategies for Water Quality Protection
Municipalities and smaller outlying communities are being pressured to expand and this involves
construction and/or development in areas of pristine waters along the Little Tennessee River and
its tributaries. High Quality Water(HQW) and Outstanding Resource Water(ORW)are
supplemental classifications to the primary freshwater classification(s)placed on a waterbody.
Management strategies are associated with the supplemental HQW and ORW classifications and
are intended to protect the current use of the waterbody. Below is a brief summary of these
strategies and the administrative code under which the strategies are found. More detailed
information can be found in the document entitled Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Applicable to,Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina(NCDENR-DWQ,2004). This
document is available on-line at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/. Definitions of the
primary and supplemental classifications can be found in Chapter 5.
HQW is intended to protect waters with water quality higher than the state's water quality
standards. In the Little Tennessee River basin,waters classified as Water Supply I and II(WS-I
and WS-II), ORW, and waters designated by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission(WRC)as
native(wild)trout waters are subject to HQW rules. Streams that petitioned for WS-I or WS-II
or are considered Excellent based on biological and physical/chemical parameters may qualify
for the HQW supplemental designation.
New discharges and expansions of existing discharges may, in general,be permitted in waters
classified as HQW provided that the effluent limits are met for dissolved oxygen(DO),
ammonia/nitrogen levels (NH3-N), and the biochemical oxygen demand(BOD5). More stringent
limitations may be necessary to ensure that the cumulative effects from more than one discharge
of oxygen-consuming wastes will not cause the dissolved oxygen concentration in the receiving
water to drop more than 0.5 milligrams per liter(mg/1)below background levels. Discharges
from single-family residential structures into surface waters are prohibited. When a discharge
from an existing single-family home fails, a septic tank, dual or recirculation sand filters,
t disinfection, and step aeration should be installed(Administrative Code 15A NCAC 213 .0224)
i In addition to the above,development activities which require an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan under the NC Sedimentation Control Commission or an approved local erosion and
sedimentation control program are required to follow stormwater management rules as specified
in Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (NCDENR-DWQ, 1995). Under these rules,
stormwater management strategies must be implemented if development activities are within one
mile of and draining to waters designated as HQW. The low-density option requires a 30-foot
wide vegetative buffer between development activities and the stream. This option can be used
when the built upon area is less than 12 percent of the total land area or the proposed
development is for a single-family residential home on one acre or greater. Vegetated areas may
be used to transport stormwater in the low-density option,but it must not lead to a discrete
stormwater collection system(e.g., constructed). The high-density option is for all land
disturbing activities on greater than one acre. For high-density projects, structural stormwater
controls must be constructed(e.g.,wet detention ponds, stormwater infiltration systems,
innovative systems) and must be designed to control runoff from all surfaces affected by one
inch or more of rainfall. More stringent stormwater management measures may be required on a
case-by-case basis where it is determined additional measures are needed to protect and maintain
existing and anticipated uses of the water(Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H .1006).
M
Chapter I—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01 29
i

I
ORWs are unique and special surface waters that have some outstanding resource value(e.g.,
outstanding fish habitat and fisheries,unusually high levels of water-based recreation, special
ecological or scientific significance). No new discharge or expansions on existing discharges are
permitted. Rules related to the development activities are similar to those for HQW, and
stormwater controls for all new development activities requiring an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan under the NC Sedimentation Control Commission or an approved local erosion and
sedimentation control program are required to follow stormwater management rules as specified
in Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (NCDENR-DWQ, 1995). In addition, site-
specific stormwater management strategies may be developed to protect the resource values of
these waters.
Many of the streams in this subbasin are also classified as trout(Tr)waters, and therefore, are
protected for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. There are no watershed
development restrictions associated with the trout classification;however,the NC Division of
Land Resources (DLR),under the NC Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act(SPCA),has
requirements to protect trout streams from land disturbing activities. Under G.S. 113A-57(1),
"waters that have been classified as trout waters by the Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) shall have an undisturbed buffer zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine
visible siltation within the twenty-five percent of the buffer zone nearest the land-disturbing
activity,whichever is greater." The Sedimentation Control Commission,however, can approve
land-disturbing activities along trout waters when the.duration of the disturbance is temporary
and the extent of the disturbance is minimal. This rule applies to unnamed tributaries flowing to
the affected trout water stream. Further clarification on classifications of unnamed tributaries
can be found under Administration Code 15A NCAC 02B .0301(i)(1). For more information
regarding land-disturbing activities along designated trout streams, see the DLR website at
bgp://www.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/.
Those streams noted as having Excellent bioclassifications in Table 3 may qualify for HQW or
ORW classification. There may also be many more streams in the basin that qualify for such
designation that DWQ has not monitored. DWQ relies on citizen requests to initiate the stream
reclassification process (See Section 5.1.4)and encourages requests for reclassification to HQW
' or ORW when it is warranted. Appropriate stream classification will help to protect water
quality in the long-term.
Native Southern Appalachian Brook Trout occupy many high elevation streams in the Little
Tennessee River Basin. They are the only trout native to the southern Appalachian Mountains
and require clear, cold streams to survive. They are very sensitive to excess sediment. Efforts
to restore and expand their populations across the basin will benefit from designation as HQW or
ORW. Those streams that can support Native Appalachian Brook Trout should be identified
and evaluated for qualification as HQW or ORW.
30 Chapter I—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01

1.5.3 Septic System Concerns
Development of rural land in areas not served by sewer systems is occurring rapidly in the Little
Tennessee River basin. Hundreds of permit applications for onsite septic systems are approved
every year. Septic systems generally provide a safe and reliable method of disposing of
residential wastewater when they are sited(positioned on a lot), installed, operated, and
maintained properly. Rules and guidelines are in place in both Georgia and North Carolina to
protect human health and the environment. Water quality is protected by locating the systems at
least 50 feet away from streams and wetlands, limiting buildable lot sizes to a 3/4-acre minimum,
and installing drain fields in areas that contain suitable soil type and depth for adequate filtration;
drinking water wells are further protected by septic system setbacks.
Septic systems typically are very efficient at removing many pollutants found in wastewater
including suspended solids,metals, bacteria,phosphorus, and some viruses. However,they are
not designed to handle other pollutants that they often receive such as solvents, automotive and
lubricating oil, drain cleaners, and many other household chemicals. Additionally, some
byproducts of organic decomposition are not treated. Nitrates are one such byproduct and are the
most widespread contaminant of groundwater in the United States (Smith, et al., 2004).
One septic system generates about 30 to 40 pounds of nitrate nitrogen per year(NJDEP,2002).
Nitrates and many household chemicals are easily dissolved in water and therefore move through
the soil too rapidly to be removed. Nitrates are known to cause water quality problems and can
also be harmful to human health(Smith, et al.,2004).
Proper location, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of septic systems are critical to
the protection of water quality in a watershed. If septic systems are located in unsuitable areas,
are improperly installed, or if the systems have not been operated and/or maintained properly,
they can be significant sources of pollution. Additionally if building lots and their corresponding
septic systems are too densely developed,the natural ability of soils to receive and purify
wastewater before it reaches groundwater or adjacent surface water can be exceeded(Smith, et
al., 2004). Nutrients and some other types of pollution are often very slow to leave a lake
system. Therefore,malfunctioning septic systems can have a significant long-term impact on
water quality and ecological health (PACD, 2003).
Local governments, in coordination with local health departments, should evaluate the potential
for water quality problems associated with the number and density of septic systems being
installed throughout their jurisdiction. Long-term county-wide planning for future wastewater
treatment should be undertaken. There are water quality concerns associated with both
continued permitting of septic systems for development in outlying areas and with extending
sewer lines and expanding wastewater treatment plant discharges. Pros and cons of various
wastewater treatment options should be weighed for different parts of the county(based on soil
type, depth,proximity to existing sewer lines, etc.) and a plan developed that minimizes the risk
of water quality degradation from all methods employed.
In addition, local governments, again in coordination with local health departments, should
consider programs to periodically inform citizens about the proper operation of septic systems
and the need for routine maintenance and replacement. Owners of systems within 100 feet of
streams or lakes should be specifically targeted and encouraged to routinely check for the
Chapter I—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01 31

warning signs of improperly functioning systems and to contact the health department
immediately for assistance in getting problems corrected.
1.5.4 Floodplain Protection
The riverside land that gets periodically inundated by a river's floodwaters is called the
floodplain. Floodplains serve important purposes. They:
• temporarily store floodwaters,
• improve water quality,
• provide important habitat for river wildlife, and
• create opportunities for recreation.
Natural floodplains help reduce the heights of floods. During periods of high water,floodplains
serve as natural sponges, storing and slowly releasing floodwaters. The floodplain provides
additional "storage," reducing the velocity of the river and increasing the capacity of the river
channel to move floodwaters downstream.
When the river is cut off from its floodplain by levees and dikes, flood heights are often
increased. The construction of levees along the Lower Missouri River,for example,has
increased flood heights by as much as twelve feet. By contrast,protected floodplain wetlands
along the Charles River in Massachusetts store and slowly release floodwaters --providing as
much "storage" as a medium-sized reservoir.
Natural floodplains also help improve water quality. As water courses through the floodplain,
plants serve as natural filters,trapping sediments and capturing pollutants. Nitrogen and
phosphorous (found in fertilizers)that wash off farm fields, suburban backyards and city streets
ignite a chemical chain reaction which reduces the amount of oxygen in the water, suffocating
fish and other aquatic organisms.
Many floodplain plants will use nitrogen and phosphorous before they can reach the river,
improving water quality. Many cities have built artificial wetlands to reduce water treatment
costs. Studies of heavily polluted waters flowing through Tinicum Marsh in Pennsylvania, for
example,have shown significant reductions in phosphorous and nitrogen. The water treatment
value of Georgia's 2,300-acre Alcovy River Swamp is more than $1 million a year. Floodplains
also play an important role in the recharging of groundwater supplies (American Rivers, 2006).
County governments are strongly encouraged to adopt and implement comprehensive floodplain
protection. Doing so will help protect its aquatic resources over the long-term. Guidance on
floodplain ordinance adoption is provided by the Association of State Flood Plain Managers a
www.floods.org.
1.5.5 Special Management Strategies for Threatened and Endangered Species
Several streams in Little Tennessee River subbasin 04-04-01 are home to Federally listed
Threatened and Endangered Species. The Little Tennessee River hosts the Appalachian Elktoe,
Littlewing Pearlymussel, and the Spotfin Chub. The Spotfin Chub is also found in 11 tributaries
to the Little Tennessee River downstream of Lake Emory including Cowee Creek. Recent
studies indicate the Spotfin may also be present in Licklog Creek,pushing the total colonized
32 Chapter I—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01

tributaries to 12. The entire river from the GA/NC state line to Fontana Lake is designated as
critical habitat. Section .0100 of the Administrative Code states the following:
Certain waters provide habitat for federally-listed aquatic animal species that are listed as
threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine
Fisheries Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-
1544 and subsequent modifications. Maintenance and recovery of the water quality
conditions required to sustain and recover federally-listed threatened and endangered
aquatic animal species contributes to the support and maintenance of a balanced and
indigenous community of aquatic organisms and thereby protects the biological integrity
of the waters. The Division shall develop site-specific management strategies under the
provisions of 15A NCAC 2B .0225 or 15A NCAC 2B .0227 for those waters. These
plans shall be developed within the basinwide planning schedule with all plans completed
at the end of each watershed's first complete five year cycle following adoption of this
Rule.Nothing in this Rule shall prevent the Division from taking other actions within its
authority to maintain and restore the quality of these waters.
An interagency team from the USFWS, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC
Natural Heritage Program was asked to develop technical reports to support NCDWQ's
development of site-specific management strategies to restore water quality in the Little
Tennessee River Basin.It is intended to provide a framework for getting additional stakeholder
input prior to formulating the water quality management strategy which will be completed
through rule-making by NCDWQ (with the requisite public involvement and Environmental
Management Commission oversight).
Chapter I—Little Tennessee Subbasin 04-04-01 33

ENGINEERING REPORT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND
RIVERVIEW PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN
IMPROVEMENTS
TOWN OF FRANKLIN
MACON COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
60A
R /
o °
MIKE WARESAK, PE
i iEE�4
E
McGRI
ASSOCIATE S
Engineering• Planning• Finance
1 55 Broad Street,Asheville,North Carolina,28801
Office:[phone];Fax:[phone]
DECEMBER 2010
07568

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................1
1.0 CURRENT SITUATION............................................................................................4
1.1 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WWTP CONDITION..........4
1.2 CURRENT POPULATION..................................................................................6
1.3 CURRENT WASTEWATER FLOW.........................:.........................................7
2.0 FUTURE SITUATION................................................................................................8
2.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS.....................................................................................8
2.2 FLOW PROJECTIONS...................................................................................................9
3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED.............................................................................................10
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS.................................................................................12
4.1 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION...............................................................................12
4.2 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS..................................................................................15
4.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY...............................................................21
5.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS..........................................................................................22
i
i
McGill Associates P.A. i Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS (...continued)
LIST OF TABLES:
TABLE J.1: COLLECTION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
TABLE J.2: PUMP STATION DESCRIPTION
TABLE J.3: SANITRAY SEWER OVERFLOW DESCRIPTION
TABLE JA: HISTORICAL WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
TABLE J.5: GENERAL WWTP CONDITION
TABLE J.6: UNIT OPERATIONS/PROCESSES
TABLE J.7: CURRENT POPULATION ANALYSIS
TABLE J.8: CURRENT POPULATION ANALYSIS
TABLE J.9: DISCUSSION RELATED TO CURRENT FLOW
TABLE J.10: POPULATION PROJECTIONS
TABLE J.11: FLOW PROJECTIONS
TABLE J.12: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
TABLE J.13: OPTIMUM OPERATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES ALTERNATIVE
TABLE J.14: ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES
TABLE J.15: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
TABLE J.16: REGIONALIZATION
TABLE F.1: CAPITAL COST FOR PREFEERED ALTERNATIVE
TABLE F.2: REPLACEMENT COST LIFE CYCLE ASSUMPTIONS FOR PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
TABLE F.3.A: REPLACEMENT COSTS (YEARS 6 TO 10)FOR: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
TABLE F.3.B: REPLACEMENT COSTS (YEARS 11 TO 15)FOR: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
TABLE F.3.C: REPLACEMENT COSTS (YEARS 16 TO 20)FOR: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
TABLE FA: YEAR 20 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR: PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
TABLE F.5: CAPITAL COST FOR: REGIONALIZATION ALTERNATIVE
TABLE F.6: REPLACEMENT COST LIFE CYCLE ASSUMPTIONS FOR: REGIONALIZATION
ALTERNATIVE
TABLE F.7.A: REPLACEMENT COSTS (YEARS 11 TO 15) FOR: REGIONALIZATION
ALTERNATIVE
TABLE F.7.B: REPLACEMENT COSTS (YEARS 16 TO 20) FOR: REGIONALIZATION -
ALTERNATIVE
TABLE F.8: YEAR 20 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR: REGIONALIZATION
ALTERNATIVE
TABLE F.9: TOTAL PRESENT WORTH FOR FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
TABLE G.1: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
TABLE H.1: FINANCIAL CONDITION ANALYSIS
TABLE H.2: FUNDING DISTRIBUTION
TABLE H.3: YEAR 1 INTEREST AND REPAYMENT
TABLE HA: COST TO TREAT 5,000 GALLONS OF WASTEWATER DUE TO PROJECT
TABLE H.5: USER RATE INCREASE DUE TO PROJECT
TABLE H.6: REVENUE GENERATION CALCULATION
McGill Associates P.A. ii Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS (...continued)
LIST OF FIGURES:
FIGURE 1: EXISTING SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
FIGURE 2: SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW LOCATIONS
FIGURE 3: WWTP SCHEMATIC
FIGURE 4: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
FIGURE 5: REGIONALIZATION ALTERNATIVE
FIGURE 6: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE—WWTP SITE
LIST OF APPENDICES:
A. FIGURES
B. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW LETTERS
C. WASTEWATER FLOW RECORD DATA
D. FRANKLIN WWTP NPDES PERMIT
E. POPULATION DATA
F. WORKSHEETS
McGill Associates P.A. iii Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Description:
The project will generally consist of improvements to the Town of Franklin's Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) and replacement of the influent Riverview Pump Station.
Improvements to the WWTP include the construction of a 1.5 MG flow equalization basin, 1.0
MG sludge digester, headworks/grit removal assembly, electrically actuated flow control valve
vault, various yard piping, and backup electrical generator. The Riverview Pump Station
improvements include demolition of the existing pump station and construction of a new 1,725
GPM pump station with approximately 3,200 feet of 18-inch force main and related
appurtenances. Figure 1, located in Appendix A, illustrates the project area.
Project Need:
Due to the configuration of the Riverview Pump Station, the 30-inch sewer interceptor upstream
of this station is prone to surcharging during high flow events, and, consequently, sanitary sewer
overflows of raw sewage onto the ground have occurred. These overflows have occurred several
times resulting in notices of violation issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
As the 30-inch sewer line is located along an existing greenway, the threat to the public health is
significant. Additionally, the location of the sewer line also creates a significant threat to the
environment, specifically the Little Tennessee River. A new pump station is needed to permit
the sewer interceptor to drain and thereby provide storage during high flows. High flows have
also resulted in treatment issues at the wastewater treatment plant because the facility does not
have flow equalization. Therefore, the project also includes the addition of a flow equalization
basin. Construction of the flow equalization creates the need to construct new primary screening
and grit removal facilities upstream of the new flow equalization basin. The wastewater
treatment facility is also in dire need of a new sludge digester. The existing digester basin and
equipment are greater than 40 years old, and are currently in poor condition both structurally and
operationally. Most components of the basin have either failed or are nearing the end of their
respective service life. The existing basin also utilizes two (2) blowers, one of which was
installed in 1964, that are nearing the end of their service life. The existing basin's interior wall
has.become pitted and exhibits signs of advanced concrete spalling. The exterior wall also
McGill Associates,P.A. 1 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

exhibits structural decay and has been spot repaired in many places through the years. The
overall poor structural condition of the basin poses a threat of failure which would result in
additional leakage of sewage/sludge out of the basin. The capacity of the basin is also
inadequate, causing the basin to operate at a high water level which results in a greater tendency
for splashing of sewage/sludge over the top of the wall. During the 1993 WWTP upgrade
project, the basin was fitted with a small tank elevated above the basin to receive sludge lifted
from the clarifiers. The sludge slurry from the tank then spills over the tank into the basin. Due
to the tank's location within the basin, coupled by prevailing wind directions, the sludge slurry
often splashes over the basin wall. The proposed project will improve the treatment capabilities
of the facilities by providing flow equalization during high flow events, and improved sludge
management, thereby reducing the amount of solids that enters the Little Tennessee River and
Lake Emory. The 2007 Basinwide Plan for the Little Tennessee River, on page 26, states that
the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission has determined that the population of the
Appalachian Elktoe Mussel, a federally listed endangered species, is in decline below Lake
Emory. On page 32 of the Basinwide Plan, in the Special Management Strategies for Threatened
and Endangered Species, it indicates that this strategy is important for the Little Tennessee River
basin. Therefore, by reducing the solids entering the receiving stream, this project will help
implement the goal in the Basinwide Plan to protect the federally endangered Appalachian
Elktoe mussel.
Alternatives Analysis:
An alternatives analysis was completed for the project and is fully presented in the Engineering
Report. The proposed project is intended to eliminate the regular occurrence of sanitary sewer
overflows upstream of the existing Riverview pump station and at the existing WWTP digester,
as well as to provide flow equalization capabilities at the WWTP to provide reliable wastewater
treatment during peals flow conditions. The No Action alternative is not feasible since the
leakage of raw sewage outside of prescribed collection, transmission and treatment systems is
not acceptable; without improvements to existing systems,high flow conditions will undoubtedly
cause additional raw sewage overflow at both the WWTP and upstream of the Riverview pump
station. The Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities alternative consists of optimizing the
operation of the equipment at the existing wastewater treatment plant and Riverview pump
McGill Associates,P.A. 2 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

r
station without making upgrades beyond those that would be part of normal maintenance. The
performance of the Riverview pump station and WWTP cannot be optimized to prevent future
sewage overflows using normal maintenance procedures alone; therefore this Alternative is
g g p >
considered infeasible and-is thus rejected. The Regionalization alternative consists of physically
interconnecting and conveying wastewater to the Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority
WWTP near Dillsboro, North Carolina. The Regionalization alternative consists of of
demolishing the existing Franklin WWTP; expanding the TWSA WWTP to 5.5 MGD;
demolishing and replacing the existing Franklin Riverview pump station to alleviate collection
system overflows; and constructing three (3) intermediate pump stations and 103,000 linear feet
of 18" force main with appurtenances to convey flow from the Franklin WWTP to the TWSA
WWTP. This Alternative has been rejected due to exorbitant capital costs and significant
constructability issues. Additionally, the environmental impacts associated with construction of
the 103,000 feet of force main are far greater than that of the Preferred Alternative.
Project Funding and User Fee Increases:
The total estimated cost of construction for the proposed project is $5,508,211. The proposed
project will be funded through a grant from the North Carolina Rural Center and a loan from the
State Revolving Fund. The Town of Franklin will have to increase user fees to generate
sufficient revenue to cover costs associated with this project.
1
1
Y
A
McGill Associates,P.A. 3 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

1.0 CURRENT SITUATION
1.1 Wastewater Collection System and WWTP Condition
1.1.1 Existing Wastewater Collection System
Table J.1.Collection System Line Description for: Town of Franklin
Gravity Sewer Inch-miles
Pipe Diameter or Force Main? Length(feet) (GS Only) Material Age Condition
4" Gravity Sewer 1,152 0.87 PVC,VCP 15-40 Fair
6" Gravity Sewer 49,638 56.41 AC,DIP,PVC, 10-40 Fair
6" Force Main 46,030 DIP,PVC 12-15 Good
8" Gravity Sewer 124,991 189.38 DIP,PVC,VCP 5-40 Fair-Good
10" Gravity Sewer 2,321 4.40 PVC,VCP 10-40 Fair
10" Force Main 3,556 PVC 17 Poor
12" Gravity Sewer 2,618 5.95 PVC 10 Good
15" Gravity Sewer 3,930 11.16 PVC 12 Fair
24" Gravity Sewer 1,024 4.65 DIP 10 Good
30" Gravity Sewer 5,981 33.98 DIP 8 Good
Total Inch-miles of gravity sewer: 306.80
Table J.2. Pump Station Description for: Town of Franklin
Firm Pump Description
Pumping
Pump Station Capacity Number of Age of Pump Station
Name (gpm)a Pumps Pump(s)b Condition
Riverview 1600 2 Dry Pit 16, 16 Fair
East Franklin 500 2 Dry Pit 12, 12 Good
Belden 1 425 1 2 1 Submersible Centrifugal 23,23 Good
aFirm Pumping Capacity—The maximum pumped flow that can be achieved with the largest pump out of service.
bProvide age for each pump installed.
Table J.3. SSO Description for:Town of Franklin
Estimated
Amount Spilled
Date Location Brief Description of Cause (gal). Map Key
07/10/2007 Greenway Manhole Infiltration/Inflow Unknown 1
07/22/2007 Manhole#15-11-2 Infiltration/Inflow Unknown 2
07/26/2007 Manhole#15-11-2 Infiltration/Inflow Unknown 3
01/29/2008 Greenway Manhole 2n in 3 weeks at same spot 300 4
03/04/2008 Manhole#I5-11-2 Infiltration/Inflow > 1,000 5
12/11/2008 Manhole#15-55-2 Infiltration/Inflow Unknown 6
01/06/2009 Manhole#15-55-2 Infiltration/Inflow Unkown 7
McGill Associates,P.A. 4 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

1.1.2 Historical Wastewater Flows
Table J.4. Historical Wastewater Flow Data for: Town of Franklin
Maximum Monthly Minimum Monthly
Annual Average Average Flow Average Flow
Year Daily Flow (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
1 2007 0.819 .9080 .7479
2 2008 .818 .9855 .7037
Q 3 2009 .856 1.0638 .7229
4 2010 .817 1.1008 .7119
Q4_yr: .828 1.1045 .7216
1.1.2 Overall WWTP Condition
Table J.5. General WWTP Condition for: Town of Franklin
Provide a brief description of the WWTP condition.
The WWTP was originally constructed in 1964 at a rated capacity of 750,000 gpd and was
upgraded in 1993 to the current oxidation ditch facility with a rated capacity of 1.65 mgd. The
WWTP is a secondary type treatment facility utilizing oxidation ditch activated sludge process.
The WWTP The facility consists of primary screening, biological treatment in an oxidation
ditch, secondary settling, disinfection, and post aeration with effluent discharged to the Little
Tennessee River under NPDES Permit No. 0021547. A copy of the current NPDES permit is
located in Appendix D. The WWTP is generally in good condition except for the following
deficiencies: rotary drum screens aged and prone to freezing; sludge digester(original plant)
structure and equipment have reached the end of their respective service lives and result in
frequent sewer spillage; WWTP does not have backup power source; WWTP does not have flow
equalization capabilities to regulate high flow events; WWTP lacks grit removal capabilities.
Figure 3, located in Appendix A, illustrates the WWTP schematic.
NOVs SOCs
Does the WWTP have any NOVs? Does the WWTP have any SOCs or pending
❑ Yes SOCs?
XNo (limit violations listed below) ❑ Yes, SOC is fmalized
❑ N/A(new construction only) ❑ Yes, SOC is pending
X No
❑ N/A(new construction only)
If yes, then describe and provide backup If yes, then describe and provide backup
information in an appendix of the ER. information in an appendix of the ER.
Effluent BOD and TSS out of compliance for
the weekly limit due to heavy rain for
December 8th -12th, 2008.
Effluent TSS out of compliance for the weekly
limit due to heavy rain for January 2010.
McGill Associates,P.A. 5 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

i
Table J.6. Unit Operations/Processes for:Town of Franklin I
Complete this table for each unit operation and process in the liquid and sludge treatment trains. i
Description/Parameter Value
Rotary Influent Screen(2) 2800 gpm
Oxidation Ditch 1.65 MG,HWL= 12.0'
Secondary Clarifiers(2) 0.20 MG,50' diameter,Overflow Rate=840 gaUft x d
Return Sludge Pumps(2) 500 gpm-11500 gpm each
Waste Sludge Pump 200 gpm-700 gpm
Chlorine Contact Basin 0.06 MG,HWL= 12.48'
Step Aeration Facility 0.20 MG
Digester 0.64 MG,HWL= 15.0'
Belt Filter Press(1) 1 meter
i
1.2 Current Population
Table J.7. Current Po ulation Analysis for:Town of Franklin
Other
SDC County
County Other Populatio Other Service
SDC Population County n(2)(if LGU Number of Area
Pop. County (2)(if SDC LGU Popula applicabl Popula Service Area Popula
Years Population applicable) Population tion a tion Connections tion
Name: Name: Name: Source: Source: Source: Source:
Town of Town of
Year Macon Franklin Franklin
1 2000 29,811 3,490 3,140 6,525
2 2001 30,331 3,535 3,155 6,556
3 2002 30,851 3,581 3,210 6,671
4 2003 31,371 3,628 31271 6,797
5 2004 31,891 3,675 3,331 6,922
6 2005 32,411 3,723 3,409 7,084
7 2006 32,931 3,771 3,459 7,188
8 2007 33,451 3,820 3,539 7,354
9 2008 33,971 3,870 3,564 7,406
10 2009 34,494 3,899 3,553 7,383
Project
Implementation 2011 35,747 4,001 3,566 7,411
McGill Associates,P.A. 6 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

}
i
I
Table J.B. Current Population Analysis for: Town of Franklin
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
Population Service Area in Service Area in Service Area in Service Area in
Years County LGU County LGU:
(SDC Data) (SDC Data) (Other Data) (Other Data)
Year
1 2000 21.89% 186.97%
2 2001 21.62% 185.45%
3 2002 21.62% 186.26%
4 2003 21.67% 187.37%
5 2004 21.71% 188.36%
6 2005 21.86% 190.29%
7 2006 21.83% 190.61%
8 2007 21.99% 192.51%
1 9 2008 21.80% 191.38%
f 10 2009 21.41% 189.37%
Project
Implement. 2011 20.73% 185.22%
1.3 Current Wastewater Flow
Table J.9. Discussion Related to Current Flow for: Town of Franklin
� e
Is the average annual daily flow from Table JA used? XYes ❑ No
If No,please describe factors influencing current flow as discussed in Section 3.3.3 and provide
the revised current flow in gpd.
1
i
McGill Associates,P.A. 7 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
" Minor Engineering Report

2.0 FUTURE SITUATION
2.1 Population Proiections
Table J.10. Population Projections for:Town of Franklin
SDC SDC SDC Service Other Other Other Other
County County(2) Area County County(2) LGU Service Area
Year Population Population Population Population Po ulation Population Population _
1 2011 35,747 7,411
2 2012 36,314 7,528
3 2013 36,859 7,641
4 2014 37,404 7,754
5 2015 37,949 7,867
6 2016 38,494 7,980
7 2017 39,039 8,093
8 2018 39,584 8,206
9 2019 40,129 8,319
10 2020 40,682 8,434
11 2021 41,227 8,547
12 2022 41,772 8,660
13 2023 42,317 8,772
14 2024 42,862 8,885
15 2025 43,403 8,998
16 2026 43,948 9,111
17 2027 44,493 9,224 ,
18 2028 45,038 9,337
19 2029 45,583 9,450
20 2030 46,109 9,559
r
r
r
r
McGill Associates,P.A. 8 Town of Franklin r
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

2.2 Flow Projections
Table,I.11.Flow Projections for: Town of Franklin
SDC XPreferred Other Methodology ❑ Preferred
Future Future Future Total Future Future 'total
Current Residential Commercial Industrial Projected Residen Comme Future Project
ed
Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Hal Flo Ind low to
Flow Flow al Flow Flow
Year (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd)
1 2011 828,000 1,891 405 83,030 913,326
2 1 2012 828,000 10,119 2,168 84,029 1 924,316
3 2013 828,000 18,028 3,863 84,989 934,880
4 2014 828,000 25,936 5,558 85,949 945,443
5 2015 828,000 33,845 7,252 86,910 956,007
6 2016 828,000 41,754 8,947 87,870 966,571
7 2017 828,000 49,662 10,642 88,830 977,135
8 2018 828,000 57,571 12,337 89,791 987,698
9 2019 828,000 65,480 14,031 90,751 998,262
` 10 2020 828,000 73,504 15,751 91,726 1,008,981
(f 11 1 2021 828,000 1 81,413 17,446 92,686 1,019,544
12 2022 828,000 89,322 19,140 93,646 1,030,108
` 13 2023 828,000 97,230 20,835 94,607 1,040,672
`I 14 2024 828,000 105,139 22,530 95,567 1,051,236
15 2025 828,000 112,990 24,212 96,520 1,061,722
16 2026 828,000 120,898 25,907 97,480 1,072,285
17 2027 828,000 128,807 27,601 98,441 1,082,849
18 2028 828,000 136,716 29,296 99,401 1,093,413
19 2029 828,000 144,624 30,991 100,362 1,103,977
20 2030 828,000 152,257 32,627 101,288 1,114,172
McGill Associates,P.A. 9 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

i
3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
Due to the configuration of the Riverview Pump Station, the 30-inch sewer interceptor
upstream of this station is prone to surcharging during high flow events, and, consequently,
sanitary sewer overflows of raw sewage onto the ground have occurred. These overflows have
occurred several times resulting in notices of violation issued by the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality. As the 30" sewer line is located along an existing greenway, the threat to the
public health is significant. Additionally, the location of the sewer line also creates a significant
threat to the environment, specifically the Little Tennessee River. A new pump station is needed
to permit the sewer interceptor to drain and thereby provide storage during high flows. High
flows have also resulted in treatment issues at the wastewater treatment plant because the facility
does not have flow equalization. Therefore, the project also includes the addition of a flow
equalization basin. Construction of the flow equalization creates the need to construct new
primary screening and grit removal facilities upstream of the new flow equalization basin.
The wastewater treatment facility is also in dire need of a new sludge digester. The
existing digester basin and equipment are greater than 40 years old, and are currently in poor
condition both structurally and operationally. Most components of the basin have either failed or
are nearing the end of their respective service life. The existing basin also utilizes two (2)
blowers, one of which was installed in 1964, that are nearing the end of their service life. The
existing basin's interior wall has become pitted and exhibits signs of advanced concrete spalling.
The exterior wall also exhibits structural decay and has been spot repaired in many places
through the years. The overall poor structural condition of the basin poses a threat of failure
which would result in additional leakage of sewage/sludge out of the basin. The capacity of the
basin is also inadequate, causing the basin to operate at a high water level which results in a
greater tendency for splashing of sewage/sludge over the top of the wall. During the 1993
WWTP upgrade project, the basin was fitted with a small tank elevated above the basin to
receive sludge lifted from the clarifiers. The sludge slurry from the tank then spills over the tank
into the basin. Due to the tank's location within the basin, coupled by prevailing wind
directions, the sludge slurry often splashes over the basin wall. The proposed project will
improve the treatment capabilities of the facilities by providing flow equalization during high
flow events, and improved sludge management, thereby reducing the amount of solids that enters
McGill Associates,P.A. 10 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

the Little Tennessee River and Lake Emory. The 2007 Basinwide Plan for the Little Tennessee
River, on page 26, states that the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission has determined
that the population of the Appalachian Elktoe Mussel, a federally listed endangered species, is in
decline below Lake Emory. On page 32 of the Basinwide Plan, in the Special Management
Strategies for Threatened and Endangered Species, it indicates that this strategy is important for
the Little Tennessee River basin. Therefore, by reducing the solids entering the receiving
stream, this project will help implement the goal in the Basinwide Plan to protect the federally
endangered Appalachian Elktoe mussel.
i
McGill Associates,P.A. 11 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
4.1 Alternatives Description
Table J.12. Alternatives Description for: No Action
Description
Alternative 1 —No Action: This Alternative consists of taking no action to make improvements
to the Town's wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Alternative Feasibility: Feasible ❑ Infeasible: 9
Capital Cost: Present
TWorth:
Alternative: Accepted ❑ Rejected X
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
The leakage of raw sewage outside of prescribed collection, transmission and treatment systems
is not acceptable. Without improvements to existing systems, high flow conditions will
undoubtedly cause additional raw sewage overflow at both the WWTP and upstream of the
Riverview pump station. As the local population continues to grow,the existing problems will
be exacerbated and pose imminent threat to the local environment. Therefore,this Alternative is
considered infeasible and is thus rejected.
Table J.13. Alternatives Description for: Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
Description
Alternative 2—Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities: This alternative consists of optimizing
the operation of the equipment at the existing wastewater treatment plant and Riverview pump
station without making upgrades beyond those that would be part of normal maintenance.
Alternative Feasibility: Feasible ❑ Infeasible: X
Capital Cost: Present
Worth:
Alternative: Accepted ❑ Rejected pC
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
The Town is currently replacing inadequate and damaged collection and conveyance structures
throughout the system to reduce I/I; however,the most significant problem is sewage overflow in
two specific locations due to the existing Riverview pump station's design and the absence of
flow equalization capabilities at the treatment plant. The performance of the Riverview pump
station and WWTP cannot be optimized to prevent future sewage overflows using normal
maintenance procedures alone. Therefore, this Alternative is considered infeasible and is thus
rej ected.
McGill Associates,P.A. 12 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

ITable J.14. Alternatives Description for: Additional Alternatives
' Description
i Additional Alternatives to be Considered:
i - Land Application
- Decentralized Systems
I - Consideration of Construction Using at Least Two Treatment Technologies
- Biosolids Alternatives
Alternative Feasibility: Feasible ❑ Infeasible: ❑
Capital Cost: Not Applicable Present Not Applicable
Worth:
Alternative: Accepted ❑ Rejected X
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
This project serves to remedy deficiencies within the existing collection system and WWTP
which have resulted in sanitary sewer overflows during high flow events. These Alternatives are
not applicable since they do not address the sanitary sewer overflow problem. The problem does
not pertain to the WWTP treatment process or solids disposal,thus these Alternatives will not be
1 further considered.
' Table J.15. Alternatives Description for: Preferred Alternative
Description
Preferred Alternative: This Alternative consists of the replacement of the existing Riverview
pump station; replacement of the existing Riverview pump station force main with an 18"force
main with appurtenances; construction of a 1.5 MG flow equalization basin with diffuser system
and three (3)positive displacement blowers rated at 1100 SCFM; construction of a new
headworks system to include a manual bar screen bypass,mechanical band screen and aerated
' I grit chamber; abandonment of an existing sludge digester; construction of a new 1.0 MG sludge
digester; and installation of a backup electrical generator for the WWTP. Figures 4 and 6, located
in Appendix A, illustrate the proposed improvements.
f :
Alternative Feasibility: Feasible Infeasible: ❑
l Capital Cost: $5,508,211 Present $6,620,017
1 TWorth:
Alternative: Accepted ra4 Rejected ❑
McGill Associates,P.A. 13 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
This Alternative presents the lowest capital cost and 20-year present worth to remedy the current
problems associated with the existing collection system and WWTP. The improvements are
modest in scope and provide a sound technical solution to the existing operational problems.
The proposed improvements will minimize the risk for sanitary sewer overflows by replacing the
Riverview pump station with a deeper pump station that will help prevent the sanitary sewer
overflows that have occurred just upstream of the pump station. Additionally,the project will
provide flow equalization at the wastewater treatment plant to allow proper treatment during '
high flow events,thereby improving the water quality of downstream waters. Finally,the new
sludge digester will provide additional sludge storage capacity at the treatment plant and will
eliminate the regular overflowing of sludge at the existing digester. Also,by reducing the solids ,
entering the receiving stream,this project will help implement a goal in the Basinwide Plan to
protect the federally endangered Appalachian Elktoe mussel.
Table J.16. Alternatives Description for: Regionalization
Description
Alternative 3 —Regionalization: This alternative consists of physically interconnecting and
conveying wastewater to a regional WWTP. The closest existing wastewater treatment systems
are the Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority WWTP (TWSA,Dillsboro,NC) and the Town
of Highlands WWTP. These potential regionalization partners are located 18 miles and 20 miles,
respectively, from the Franklin WWTP. The only feasible interconnection route with the
Highlands WWTP would be along U.S. Highway 64 through the Cullasaja gorge;this
interconnection poses significant constructability problems and will not be further considered.
Constructing a new regional WWTP between Franklin and TWSA would be difficult due to
topography and lack of sufficient treated wastewater discharge options. Therefore,this
Alternative consists of pumping wastewater from the Town of Franklin to the TWSA WWTP,
which is permitted to discharge 3.5 MGD of treated wastewater to the Tuckasegee River under
NPDES Permit NC0039578. This Alternative consists of demolishing the existing Franklin
WWTP; expanding the TWSA WWTP to 5.5 MGD; demolishing and replacing the existing
Franklin Riverview pump station to alleviate collection system overflows; constructing three (3)
intermediate pump stations and 103,000 linear feet of 18"force main with appurtenances to
convey flow from the Franklin WWTP (elevation=2030') along U.S. Highway 23/441 over the
high point at Rocky Knob Ridge (elevation=3200')to the TWSA WWTP (elevation=2020').
Figure 5, located in Appendix A, shows the improvements proposed for this Alternative.
Alternative Feasibility: Feasible Infeasible: ❑
Capital $23,258,000 Present $28,935,577
Cost: Worth:
Alternative: Accepted ❑ Rejected X
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
This Alternative has been rejected due to exorbitant capital costs and significant constructability
issues.
McGill Associates,P.A. 14 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

l
4.2 Present Worth Analysis
4.2.1 Preferred Alternative
Table F.1. Capital Cost for:Preferred Alternative
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost
Mobilization $132,000 LS 1 $132,000
Demolish Existing Riverview Pump
Station $25,000 LS 1 $25,000
New Riverview Pump Station $409,355 LS 1 $409,355
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA . 2 $70,000
8"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve
Vault $12,000 EA 1 $12,000
Sump Pump $1,000 EA 2 $2,000
Backup Pumping System $80,000 LS 1 $80,000
6'Diameter Concrete Manhole $4,000 EA 4 $16,000
12-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $90 LF 226 $20,340
30-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $300 LF 70 $21,000
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 3,215 $289,350
20-inch HDPE Force Main
Directionally Drilled $400 LF 440 $176,000
Miscellaneous Pump Station Valves,
i Fittings&Accessories $144,635 LS 1 $144,635
Riverview Pump Station Electrical $100,000 LS 1 $100,000
Mechanical Band Screen with Manual
Bar Screen Bypass $339,000 LS 1 $339,000
I Pressure Transducer $1,500 EA 3 $4,500
Aerated Grit Removal System $199,000 LS 1 $199,000
Grit Removal System Blower $15,000 EA 2 $30,000
Self-Priming Grit Pump $15,000 EA 2 $30,000
1.5 MG Flow Equalization Basin $536,500 LS 1 $536,500
10"Magnetic Flowmeter and Vault $12,000 EA 1 $12,000
Flow Equalization Basin Positive
Displacement Blower $55,000 EA 2 $110,000
Equalization Basin Diffuser System $40,000 LS 1 $40,000
1.0 MG Sludge Digester $780,000 LS 1 $780,000
Sludge Digester PD Blower $50,000 EA 2 $100,000
Sludge Digester Diffuser System $35,000 LS 1 $35,000
Miscellaneous WWTP Valves,Piping
and Appurtenances $257,860 LS 1 $257,860
Modular Retaining Wall $35 SF 600 $21,000
6'Chain Link Security Fence $34 LF 950 $32,300
Gravel Road Repair $15 LF 1,700 $25,500
Asphalt Road Repair $30,200 LS 1 $30,200
Miscellaneous Stone/Concrete $65,900 LS 1 $65,900
Grading/Earthwork $35,000 LS 1 $35,000
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $18,875 LS 1 $18,875
WWTP Electrical $200,000 LS 1 $200,000
Total Construction Cost: $4,400,315
Construction Contingency: $440,000
Project Administration: $667,896
Total Capital Costs: $5,508,211
McGill Associates,P.A. 15 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

Table F.2. Replacement Cost Life Cycle Assumptions for:Preferred Alternative
Expected Replacement
Component Life Cycle Expected?t Rational for Expected Life Cycle
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump 20 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
8"Magnetic Flowmeter 15 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
Sump Pump 10 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
Backup Pumping System 30 No
6'Diameter Concrete Manhole 40 No
12-inch DIP Gravity Sewer 30 No
30-inch DIP Gravity Sewer 40 No
18-inch DIP Force Main 40 No
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally 40 No
Drilled
Miscellaneous Pump Station Valves,Fittings 25 No
&Accessories
Mechanical Band Screen with Manual Bar 30 No
Screen Bypass
Pressure Transducer 10 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
Aerated Grit Removal System 30 No
Grit Removal System Blower 20 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
Self-Priming Grit Pump 20 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
1.5 MG Flow Equalization Basin 40 No
10"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault 15 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
Flow Equalization Basin Positive 20 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
Displacement Blower
Equalization Basin Diffuser System 20 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
1.0 MG Sludge Digester 40 No
Sludge Digester Positive Displacement 20 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
Blower
Sludge Digester Diffuser System 20 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
Miscellaneous WWTP Valves,Piping and 25 No
Appurtenances
6'Chain Link Security Fence 40 No
WWTP Electrical Generator 25 No
tPeriod for replacement would be Years 1 through 20 only.
Table F.3.a. Replacement Costs(Years 6 to 10)for:Preferred Alternative
Component Unit Unit Quantity Total Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year Year 10
Cost Cost 9
Sump Pump $1000 EA 2 $2,000 $1,243
Pressure $1500 EA 3 $4,500 $2,796
Transducer
Total Replacement Cost(Years 6 to 10): $4,038
McGill Associates,P.A. 16 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

Table F.3.b. Replacement Costs(Years 11 to 15)for:Preferred Alternative
Component Unit Unit Quantity Total Year Year Year Year Year 15
Cost Cost 11 12 13 14
8"Magnetic $12,000 1 EA $12,000 $5,876
Flowmeter
10"Magnetic $12,000 1 EA $12,000 $5,876
Flowmeter
Total Replacement Cost(Years 11 to 15): $11,753
Table F.3.c. Replacement Costs(Years 16 to 20)for:Preferred Alternative
Component Unit Unit Quantity Total Year Year Year Year Year 20
Cost Cost 16 17 18 19
Dry-Pit Pump $35,000 EA 2 $70,000 $27,018
Grit System $15,000 EA 2 $30,000 $11,579
Blower
Self-Priming $15,000 EA 2 $30,000 $11,579
Grit Pump
EQ Basin PD $55,000 EA 2 $110,000 $42,457
Blower
EQ Basin $40,000 LS 1 $40,000 $15,439
Diffuser System
DigesterPD $50,000 EA 2 $100,000 $38,598
Blower
Digester $35,000 LS 1 $35,000 $13,509
Diffuser System
Total Replacement Cost(Years 16 to 20): $160,180
Total Replacement Costs: $175,971
Table FA. Year 20 Operations and Maintenance Costs
Year 20 Operations and Maintenance Costs for:Preferred Alternative
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost Year 20
Salary and Benefit Increases $20,000 LS 1 $20,000 $251,907
Utilities-Increase at Riverview Pump Station $300 LS 1 $300 $3,779
Utilities-Increase at WWTP $30,000 LS 1 $30,000 $377,861
Supplies $15,000 LS 1 $15,000 $188,930
Repairs and Maintenance $7,500 LS 1 $7,500 $94,465
Other $1,500 LS 1 $1,500 $18,893
Salary and Benefit Increases $20,000 LS 1 $20,000 $251,907
Total Cost: $74,300 $935,835
McGill Associates,P.A. 17 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

4.2.2 Regionalization Alternative
Table F.5. Capital Cost for:Regionalization Alternative
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost
Mobilization $350,000 LS 1 $350,000
Demolish and Abandon Existing
Franklin WWTP $200,000 LS 1 $200,000
Demolish and Abandon Existing
Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1 $25,000
2.0 MGD TWSA WWTP Expansion $4,250,000 LS 1 $4,250,000
New Riverview Pump Station w/
Gravity Sewer Upgrades $630,000 EA 1 $630,000
New Intermediate Pump Station $500,000 EA 3 $1,500,000
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 8 $280,000
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 103,000 $9,270,000
20-inch HDPE Force Main
Directionally Drilled $400 LF 1,400 $560,000
30"x 0.25"Steel Encasement Pipe,
Bored&Jacked $350 LF 200 $70,000
Combination Sewage Air Release Valve
and Vault $4,000 EA 50 $200,000
18-inch Plug Valve and Box $10,000 EA 70 $700,000
Miscellaneous Fittings and
Appurtenances $65,000 LS 1 $65,000
Asphalt Road Repair $30 LF 1,500 $45,000
Gravel Drive Repair $8 LF 800 $6,400
Miscellaneous Site Restoration $25,000 LS 1 $25,000
Stone Bedding as Required $5 LF 20,000 $100,000
Miscellaneous Concrete $100 CY 50 $5,000
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $75,000 LS 1 $75,000
Rock Excavation $75 CY 2,500 $187,500
Select Backfill $25 CY 2,500 $62,500
Total Construction Cost: $18,606,400
Construction Contingency: $1,860,600
Project Administration: $2,791,000
Total Capital Costs: $23,258,000
McGill Associates,P.A. 18 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

Table F.6. Replacement Cost Life Cycle Assumptions for:Regionalization Alternative
Expected Replacement
Component Life Cycle Expected?t Rational for Expected Life Cycle
2.0 MGD TWSA WWTP Expansion 30 No
New Riverview Pump Station w/Gravity 40 No
Sewer Upgrades
New Intermediate Pump Station 40 No
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump 20 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
18-inch DIP Force Main 50 No
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally 50 No
Drilled
30"x 0.25"-Steel Encasement Pipe,Bored& 50 No
Jacked
Combination Sewage Air Release Valve and 15 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
Vault
18-inch Plug Valve and Box 15 Yes Conservative End of Service Life
Miscellaneous Fittings and Appurtenances 25 No
6'Chain Link Security Fence 40 No
WWTP Electrical Generator 25 No
tPeriod for replacement would be Years 1 through 20 only.
Table F.7.a. Replacement Costs(Years 11 to 15)for:Regionalization Alternative
Component Unit Unit Quantity Total Year Year Year Year Year 15
Cost Cost 11 12 13 14
Combination
Sewage Air $4,000 EA 50 $200,000 $97,938
Release Valve
18-inch Plug $10,000 EA 70 $700,000 $342,782
Valve&Box
Total Replacement Cost(Years 11 to 15): $440,720
Table F.7.b. Replacement Costs(Years 16 to 20)for:Regionalization Alternative
Component Unit Unit Quantity Total Year Year Year Year Year 20
Cost Cost 16 17 18 19
Dry-Pit
Submersible $35,000 EA 8 $280,000 $108,073
Pump
Total Replacement Cost(Years 16 to 20): $108,073
Total Replacement Costs: $548,793
McGill Associates,P.A. 19 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

Table F.8. Year 20 Operations and Maintenance Costs
Year 20 Operations and Maintenance Costs for:Regionalization Alternative
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost Year 20
Increased Salaries and Benefits $85,000 LS 1 $85,000 $1,070,606
Increased Utilities-Pump Stations $3,200 LS 1 $3,200 $40,305
Increased Utilities-WWTP $85,000 LS 1 $85,000 $1,070,606
Supplies $50,000 LS 1 $50,000 $629,768
Contracted and Professional Services $35,000 LS 1 $35,000 $440,838
Repairs and Maintenance $100,000 LS 1 $100,000 $1,259,536
Other $35,000 LS 1 $35,000 $440,838
Total Cost: $393,200 $4,952,496
Table F.9. Total Present Worth for Feasible Alternatives for: Town of Franklin
Use the following table for the minor ER or the major ER. Note: Note: The printouts from the Present Worth
Anal workbook must be supplied in an appendix of the ER
Alternative Capital Costs Replacement Costs O&M Costs Total Present
Worth
Preferred Alternative $5,508,211 $175,971 $935,835 $6,620,017
Regionalization $23,258,000 $548,793 $4,952,496 $28,759,289
McGill Associates,P.A. 20 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

4.3 Alternatives Analysis Summary
Table G.I. Alternatives Analysis for:Town of Franklin
Alternative Costs Impact Analysis
Name Capital Present Cost Environmental
(Description Worth
Ref.) Feasibility Results Rationale
No Action XFeasible ❑Accepted No Action
❑Infeasible (Rejected would result in
continued
water quality
degradation
and SSOs
Optimum ❑Feasible ❑Greater XGreater than ❑Accepted Not possible to
Operation of XInfeasible than Preferred Rejected correct
Existing Preferred Alternative deficiencies
Facilities Alternative ❑Less than through
XLess than Preferred regular
Preferred Alternative maintenance
Alternative improvements,
resulting in
continued
water quality
degradation
and SSOs
Preferred `<Feasible $5,508,211 $6,620,017 ❑Greater ❑Greater than )<Accepted Lowest cost
Alternative ❑Infeasible than Preferred ❑Rejected and least
Preferred Alternative environmental
Alternative ❑Less than impacts to
❑Less than Preferred correct
Preferred Alternative deficiencies
Alternative
Regionalization )<Feasible $23,258,00 $28,759,28 (Greater )<Greater than ❑Accepted Rejected due
Alternative ❑Infeasible 0 9 than Preferred 4gRejected to exorbitant
Preferred Alternative costs and
Alternative ❑Less than increased
❑Less than Preferred environmental
Preferred Alternative impacts
Alternative
McGill Associates,P.A. 21 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

5.0 .FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Table H.I. Financial Condition Analysis for: Town of Franklin
O erating Ratio
Water and Sewer Revenue: $2,877,315
Water and Sewer Expenses: $1,830,037
Existing Debt: $573,912
Operating Ratio: 1.20
Utility Bills as Percent of Median Household Income
Base Charge: $5.56
1,000 Gallons included in Base Charge: 0
Volumetric Charge per 1,000 gallons: $2.00
Sewer Bill for 5,000 gallons: $15.56
Median Houshold Income: $26,961
Sewer Bill as % of Median Household Income: 0.69%
Table H.2. Funding Distribution for: Town of Franklin
Funding Interest Rate
Amount Source Funding Type (if applicable)
Main CG&L Funding $4,419,815 SRF Loan 2.22%
Funding 1 $1,000,000 Rural Center Grant 0.00%
Closing Fee: $88,396
Total Project Cost: $5,508,211
Table H.3. Year 1 Interest and Repayment for: Town of Franklin
Total Year 1 Year 1
Funding Funding Principal Interest Year 1 Total
Source Amount Payment Payment Payment
Main CG&L Funding @
Current Interest Rate SRF $4,419,815 $220,991 $98,120 $319,111
Main CG&L Funding @
Worst-Case SRF $4,419,815 $220,991 $176,793 $397,783
Rural
Funding 1 Center $1,000,000
McGill Associates,P.A. 22 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

Table H.4. Cost to Treat 5,000 Gallons of Wastewater Due to Project for:Town of Franklin
Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1
Funding Interest Annual O&M Annual Monthly Cost/5,000
Funding Source Source Rate Repayment Costs Costs Costs gal
CG&L Main
Funding Source: SRF 2.22% $319,111 $74,300 $393,411 $32,784 $5.98
CG&L Main
Funding Source
Worst-Case: SRF 4.00% $397,783 $74,300 $472,083 $39,340 $7.18
Rural
Funding Source 1: Center 0.00% 0
Closing Feet: $88,396
Total(Current Rate): $319,111 $74,300 $393,411 $32,784 $5.98
Total(Worst-Case Rate): $397,783 $74,300 $472,083 $39,340 $7.18
tClosing fee is paid separately from annual repayment.
Table H.S. User Rate Increase Due to Project for: Town of Franklin
New
New Residential
User Fee Residential Water&
Funding Increase Sewer Bill Percentage Sewer Bill Percentage
Source ($/5,000 al) ($/5,000 al) Increase ($/5,000 al) Increase
CG&L Main Funding
Source: SRF $5.98 $21.54 38.45% $41.14 17.02%
CG&L Main Funding
Source Worst-Case: SRF $7.18 $22.74 46.14% $42.34 20.42%
Rural
Funding Source 1: Center $0.00 1 $15.56 0.00% $35.16 0.00%
Total(Current Interest Rate): $5.98 $21.54 38.45% $41.14 17.02%
Total(Worst-Case Interest Rate): $7.18 $22.74 46.14% $42.34 20.42%
Table 11.6. Revenue Generation Calculation for:
Revenue Generation @ Current Revenue Generation @ 4%
Interest Rate Interest Rate
User Fee
Increase Revenue User Fee Revenue
User Fee @ Generated Revenue Increase Generated Revenue
Unit per Total Current @ Current Sufficient @ 4% @ 4% Sufficient
month Number of Interest Interest to Repay Interest Interest to Repay
(gallons) Connections Rate Rate Loan(s)? Rate Rate Loan(s)?
Residential 5,000 2,816 $5.98 $16,846.92 $7.18 $20,215.90
Commercial 5,000 750 $5.98 $4,486.93 $7.18 $5,384.21
Industrial 5,000 0 $5.98 $0.00 $7.18 $0.00
Revenue Generation: $21,334 No $25,600 No
Revenue Generation for Residential Customers
Only: $16,847 No $20,216 No
McGill Associates,P.A. 23 Town of Franklin
December 2010 WWTP and Riverview Pump Station Improvements
Minor Engineering Report

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

4 FIGURE 6:
- �
EXISTING #, PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - WWTP SITE
CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
WWTP IMPROVEMENTS AND RIVERVIEW PUMP
EXISTING g
STEP AERATION ; STATION AND FORCE MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
� �° � • TOWN OF FRANKLIN
MACON COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
EXISTING
MAINTENANCE BUILDING r`3
} (TO BE REMOVED) A`
� ' PROPOSED
EXISTING 1.0 MG SLUDGE DIGESTER AND
'
BELT PRESS BUILDING , DECANT PUMP STATION
,y EXISTING
OPERATIONS ROOM Wit' f
EXISTING .'
CLARIFIER(2 EA)
/
EXISTING A
r / SLUDGE PUMP ROOM
EXISTING ti
OXIDATION DITCH
�i EXISTING
HEADWORKS BUILDING
PROPOSED
� P y 18" DIP LOW PRESSURE FORCE
EXISTING
SLUDGE DIGESTER BASIN *.� -, MAIN FROM EQ BASIN TO
(TO BE ABANDONED) � �,,� , � OXIDATION DITCH INFLUENT
- � �:_ CHANNEL.
EXISTINGr.. r w
CONTROL BUILDING
iEXISTING
SEPTIC TRUCK RECEIVING STATION ``
4 ,
u PROPOSED \
18" DIP FORCE MAIN FROM ? '`
RIVERVIEW PUMP STATION *
PROPOSED
1.5 MG FLOW EQUALIZATION BASIN
II, ,
4.
PROPOSED
HEADWORKS SYSTEM
I � N
McG
I A S S O C I A T E S
ENGINEERING-PLANNING-FINANCE
55 BROAD STREET ASHEVILLE, NC PH.[phone] SCALE: 1 120'

APPENDIX E
POPULATION DATA

Page 1 of 14
<!--[if supportMisalignedColumns]-->
<!--[endifJ-->
Municipal Persons/Household
Values are from the 2000 Census and include
CQR Corrections
Municipal Index: abcde�hiiklmnopgrstuvwx r�z
State Included as Reference
Municipality County Persons/HH
Aberdeen Moore 2.2267
Ahoskie Hertford 2.3276
Alamance Alamance 2.0946
Albemarle Stanly 2.4241
Alliance Pamlico 2.4048
Andrews Cherokee 2.1693
Angier(P) Harnett 2.4550
Angier(P) Wake n/a
Ansonville Anson 2.6281
Apex Wake 2.7257
Arapahoe Pamlico 2.3191
Archdale (P) Guilford 2.3636
Archdale (P) Randolph 2.3848
Asheboro Randolph 2.4041
Asheville Buncombe 2.1400
Askewville Bertie 2.4000
Atkinson Pender 2.2264
Atlantic Beach Carteret 1.8239
Aulander Bertie 2.4309
Aurora Beaufort 2.2000
Autryville Sampson 2.0206
Ayden Pitt 2.3564
Return to index County Persons/HH
Badin Stanly 2.3360
Bailey Nash 2.4453
Bakersville Mitchell 2.0357
Bald Head Island Brunswick 1.9659
Banner Elk Avery 2.1493
Bath Beaufort 2.2541
Bayboro Pamlico 2.3621
Bear Grass Martin 2.0000
Beaufort Carteret 2.0742
Beech Mountain (P) Avery 1.8571
Beech Mountain (P) Watauga 2.1522
Belhaven Beaufort 2.3567
Belmont Gaston 2.4299
Belville Brunswick 2.6496
Belwood Cleveland 2.5791
Benson(P) Harnett n/a
fi1e-//P-\2007\07568\2010 SRF Report\SRF Reports -Dec 2010\Info\Persons per Househ... 12/29/2010

Page 5 of 14
Forest Hills Jackson 2.1154
Fountain Pitt 2.3480
Four Oaks Johnston 2.3277
Foxfire Moore 2.1351
�.- w Franklin Macon 2.0781
Franklinton Franklin 2.4141
Franklinville Randolph 2.8526
Fremont Wayne 2.3909
Fuquay-Varina Wake 2.4833
Return to index County Persons/HH
Gamewell Caldwell 2.4336
Garland Sampson 2.7754
Garner Wake 2.5125
Garysburg Northampton 2.5913
Gaston Northampton 2.2681
Gastonia Gaston 2.4975
Gatesville Gates 2.4017
Gibson Scotland 2.7183
Gibsonville (P) Alamance 2.7000
Gibsonville (P) Guilford 2.4409
Glen Alpine Burke 2.5721
Godwin Cumberland 2.9474
Goldsboro Wayne 2.4024
Goldston Chatham 2.4922
Graham Alamance 2.3673
Grandfather Village Avery 2.2813
Granite Falls Caldwell 2.5287
Granite Quarry Rowan 2.4971
Grantsboro Pamlico 2.5646
Greenevers Duplin 2.6667
Green Level Alamance 2.7557
Greensboro Guilford 2.3008
Greenville Pitt 2.1704
Grifton (P) Lenoir 2.5915
Grifton (P) Pitt 2.4980
Grimesland Pitt 2.5287
Grover Cleveland 2.4929
Return to index County Persons/HH
Halifax Halifax 2.2913
Hamilton Martin 2.5707
Hamlet Richmond 2.4427
Harmony Iredell 2.5534
Harrells (P) Duplin 2.2500
Harrells (P) Sampson 2.3947
Harrellsville Hertford 2.1702
Harrisburg Cabarrus 2.8483
Hassell Martin 2.1714
Havelock Craven 2.9141
Haw River Alamance 2.3043
Hayesville Clay 2.0417
file://P:\2007\07568\2010 SRF Report\SRF Reports-Dec 2010\Info\Persons per Househ... 12/29/2010

�'... r Y �T�W`a..
9 Music pal n... irna es lvb4y�fMtu�n��c pa�lis�yr
-
�Muricipality. 2000_., 2009 Amount `
April 2000 - `Julk 2009 Amount'
Fair Bluff 1,181 1,226 45 3.81
Fairmont 2,604 2,763 159 6.11
Fairview 3,017 5,241 2,224 73.72
Faison 744 781 37 4.97
Faith 695 788 93 13.38
Falcon 343 350 7 2.04
Falkland 112 119 7 6.25
Fallston 603 620 17 2.82
Farmville 4,421 4,715 294 6.65
Fayetteville 121,015 207,779 86,764 71.70
Flat Rock 2,565 3,318 753 29.36
Fletcher 4,185 6,531 2,346 56.06
Forest City 7,549 7,133 -416 -5.51
Forest Hills 330 359 29 8.79
Fountain 533 586 53 9.94
Four Oaks 1,514 1,995 481 31.77
Foxfire Village 474 582 108 22.78
Franklin 3,490 3,899 409 11.72
Franklinton 1,745 2,523 778 44.58
Franklinville 1,258 1,430 172 13.67
Fremont 1,463 1,404 -59 -4.03
Fuquay-Varina 7,898 16,961 9,063 114.75

2009 Certified County Population Estimates
Growth Net Migration
County July 2009 Estimate April 2000 Estimate Base Amount Percent Total Births,A2000-J2009 Total Deaths,A2000-J2009 Natural Growth,A2000-J2009 Amount Percent
Macon 34,494 29,811 4,663 15.7 3,205 3,756 -551 5,234 17.6
Madison 20.846 19,635 1,211 62 1.915 2,078 -163 1.374 7
Martin 23,855 25.591 .1.736 -6.8 2,832 2,957 -125 -1,611 -6.3
McDowell 44,742 42.152 2.590 6.1 4,821 4.114 707 1.883 4.5
Mecklenburg 894,290 695,454 198,836 28.6 123,877 44,348 79,529 119,307 17.2
Mitchell 15,976 15.687 289 1.8 1.517 1,871 -354 643 4.1
Montgomery 27,983 26,822 1.161 4.3 3,618 2.470 1.148 13 0
Moore 86,945 74.769 12,176 16.3 8,758 8,657 101 12.075 16.1
Nash 95,804 87,420 8,384 9.6 11.398 8,371 3,027 5,357 6.1
New Hanover 194,054 160,307 33.747 21.1 20,782 13,714 7,068 26.679 16.6
Northampton 21,018 22,086 .1,068 -4.8 2,237 2,630 -393 -675 -3.1
Onslow 179,455 160,353 29,102 19.4 31,394 7,513 23.881 5,221 3.5
Orange 132,272 118,200 14,072 11.9 12,277 6,493 5,784 8,288 7
Pamlico 12.838 12,934 -96 -0.7 1,009 1.368 -359 263 2
Pasquotank 41,845 34.897 6,948 19.9 4,828 3.379 1,449 5,499 15.8
Pender 53.095 41,082 12,013 292 4.809 3,748 1.061 10.952 26.7
Perquimans 12,980 11.368 1,612 14.2 1,175 1,386 -211 1,823 16
Person 38,272 35,599 2.673 7.5 4,282 3,621 661 2.012 5.7
Pitt 158,541 133,807 24,734 18.5 19,651 10.063 9.588 15.146 11.3
Polk 19.355 18,324 1,031 5.6 1,518 2,617 .1,099 2.130 11.6
Randolph 142.467 130,454 12,013 92 16.761 11,033 5,728 6,285 4.8
Richmond 46,847 46,561 286 0.6 5,999 4,888 8,583 842 -0.7
Robeson 131.080 123.339 7,741 6.3 19,577 10,994
Rockingham 91,878 91.928 -50 -0.1 10.165 9.717 448 -498 -0.5
Rowan 140.495 130,040 10.455 8 15.815 12.441 3,374 7.081 5.4
Rutherford 63,821 62,899 922 1.5 7,129 7,224 -95 1,017 1.6
Sampson 65,406 60,151 5,255 8.7 8,464 5,746 2,718 2,537 4.2
Scotland 36.926 35,998 928 2.6 4,673 3.455 1,218 -290 -0.8
Stanly 60,079 58,100 1,979 3.4 6,765 5,557 1.208 771 1.3
Stokes 46,792 44,716 2,076 4.6 4,436 4,016 420 1,656 3.7
Suny 73.881 71,219 2,662 3.7 8,440 7,414 1,026 1.636 2.3
Swain 13,851 12,968 883 6.8 1,681 1,596 85 798 6.2
Transylvania 31,091 29,334 1,757 6 2,636 3,353 -717 2,474 8.4
Tyrrell 4.251 4.148 103 2.5 445 393 52 51 1.2
Union 196.322 123.677 72.645 58.7 23.236 8.973 14.263 58,382 47.2
Vance 43,614 42,953 661 1.5 6,378 4,334 2,044 -1,383 -3.2
Wake 892,409 627,816 264,693 42.1 110,835 33,932 76,903 187,690 29.9
Warren 19,932 19,973 -41 -0.2 1,917 2.121 -204 163 0.8
Washington 13,000 13.721 -721 -5.3 1.611 1.471 140 -861 -6.3
Watauga 45.377 42,695 2,682 6.3 3,388 2,718 670 2,012 4.7
Wayne 116.554 113,327 3,227 2.8 16.180 9,852 6,328 -3.101 -2.7
Wilkes 67,519 65,630 1,889 2.9 7,575 6,261 1,314 575 0.9
Wilson 80,005 73,814 6.191 8.4 10,072 7,093 2,979 3,212 4.4
Yadkin 37,996 36,348 1,648 4.5 4,352 3,498 854 794 2.2
Yancey 18.551 17.774 777 4.4 1.694 1,827 .133 910 5.1
STATE 9,382,609 8,047,764 1.334.845 16.6 1,139,875 684,002 456.873 878,972 10.9

Population Overview, 2000-2030
County Jul-00 Jul-05 Jul-10 Jul-15 Jul-20 Jul-25 Jul-30
Macon 29,964 32,247 35,202 37,949 40,682 43,403 46,109
Madison 19,698 20,129 20,984 21,606 22,161 22,656 23,096
Martin 25,495 24,240 23,770 23,544 23,455 23,419 23,404
McDowell 42,248 43,066 45,087 46,374 47,690 49,008 50,325
Mecklenburg 700,784 797,429 909,180 983,627 1,058,073 1,132,520 1,206,965
Mitchell 15,723 15,865 16,058 16,382 16,715 17,047 17,378
Montgomery 26,926 27,190 28,122 28,825 29,528 30,230 30,933
Moore 75,195 80,315 88,357 95,263 101,937 108,384 114,610
Nash 87,707 90,955 97,030 103,408 109,788 116,168 122,546
New Hanover 160,842 181,574 196,102 206,336 216,570 226,807 237,042
Northampton 22,055 21,288 20,951 20,833 20,824 20,823 20,822
Onslow 149,774 161,935 181,749 198,094 214,354 230,535 246,634
Orange 116,050 122,586 133,507 141,560 148,859 155,477 161,474
Pamlico 12,935 12,965 12,846 12,869 12,897 12,919 12,947
Pasquotank 34,906 38,749 41,981 42,247 42,293 42,298 42,300
Pender 41,229 46,260 54,585 62,033 69,478 76,929 84,374
Perquimans 11,393 12,012 13,110 13,762 14,412 15,058 15,702
Person 35,745 36,995 38,576 40,018 41,326 42,517 43,598
Pitt 134,130 144,051 161,804 178,128 194,450 210,772 227,094
Polk 18,400 18,864 19,537 20,451 21,364 22,275 23,190
Randolph 131,018 136,298 144,193 151,945 158,771 164,780 170,069
Richmond 46,544 46,214 46,948 47,045 47,066 47,072 47,072
Robeson 123,356 126,670 132,111 137,211 142,311 147,414 152,517
Rockingham 91,998 91,301 92,120 92,637 92,754 92,778 92,785
Rowan 130,687 132,566 141,740 147,976 154,210 160,447 166,683
Rutherford 62,962 62,728 64,102 65,513 66,923 68,334 69,744
Sampson 60,302 63,021 65,930 68,543 71,156 73,771 76,385
Scotland 36,009 36,414 36,981 36,904 36,888 36,885 36,886
Stanly 58,256 58,538 60,512 62,039 63,082 63,796 64,281
Stokes 44,833 45,979 46,950 47,679 48,233 48,654 48,971
Surry 71,294 72,557 74,354 76,731 79,106 81,482 83,858
Swain 13,031 13,653 14,300 15,113 15,926 16,733 17,538
Transylvania 29,342 29,730 31,367 32,684 33,997 35,301 36,599
Tyrrell 4,120 4,178 4,252 4,252 4,252 4,253 4,252
Union 125,577 159,800 201,174 225,418 249,662 273,903 298,146
Vance 43,122 43,129 43,608 43,572 43,537 43,501 43,467
Wake 633,516 757,346 919,938 1,057,534 1,195,131 1,332,730 1,470,325
Warren 19,992 20,092 19,877 19,565 19,349 19,202 19,101
Washington 13,686 13,365 13,024 12,703 12,385 12,066 11,748
Watauga 42,807 43,364 45,741 47,556 49,375 51,193 53,010
Wayne 113,298 115,005 116,955 118,969 120,980 122,995 125,006
Wilkes 65,778 66,292 67,628 68,165 68,702 69,242 69,779
Wilson 73,933 76,344 80,582 84,233 87,885 91,535 95,184
Yadkin 36,512 37,172 38,134 38,681 39,092 39,395 39,623
Yancey 17,784 18,053 18,644 19,111 19,580 20,047 20,515
STATE 8,079,712 8,669,657 9,519,028 10,202,505 10,874,183 11,536,919 12,192,657

APPENDIX F
WORKSHEETS

Financial_Analysis.xls
12/29/2010
Local Government Unit Financial Condition
Enter data into the gray areas.
Local Government Unit Name Townn of�Franklm
ka, .
WW=T,P#Improvements and{Rierview
Pump Station�and ForceMain "
Project Name Improvements %kk
.. .. u
Operating Ratio
Water and Sewer Revenue $2;877�315 � �
Water and Sewer Expenses: .$1,830;037 � i � ,a
Existing Debt $573912 =ti t - k
Operating Ratio 1.20
Sewer Bills as%MHI
Base Charge $5 56f y y {
1000 Gallons included in Base Charge
Volumetric Charge per 1,000 gallons: $2l00
e <<
Sewer Bill for 5,000 gallons: $15.56
Median Houshold Income: $26,961
Sewer Bill as%of Median Household
Income: 0.69%
LGU Condition Page 1 of 1

RnondaLAnolysis.xis
12/2S/ZO1O
Loan Repayment Information
Loan Repayment Input
Enter data into the gray areas.
Interest Rate(if
FundingAmount
Main CG&L Funding
Funding 1
Funding 2
Funding 3
Funding 4
Funding 5
Closing Fee**
Total Project Cost: $5,508,211
*Worst case isvninterest rateof4%. Applies mcwxnF,snL,and ScL only[Get Gscitauon].
**If principal forgiveness is used,place the principal forgiveness portion of the loan in Funding 1.
***For CWSRF the closing fee is 2.00%of the CWSRF loan amount.and cannot be paid from CWSRF funding. n principal mn:ivnene,sis included,the closing
fee must be for the total amount of the CWSRF loan(principal forgiveness and loan at the current interest rate). For sxL/ScLloans,the closing cost iszsmo,
the loan. For ms'iti,z.s%vfmegrant.
~~~m,STAG grants,EPA charges asm administrative fee. Enter the net STAG grant(total grant am administrative fee).
Loan Repayment Output
Funding Total Funding Year 1 Principal Year 1 Interest Year 1 Total
Source Amount Payment Payment Payment
Main CG&L Funding @
Main CG&L Funding @ Worst-
Funding 1 Rural Center $1,000,000
Loan Repayment Page 1nf1

rmanciai_Hnaiysis.xis
12/29/2010
User Rate Analysis
Enter information in the gray areas.
Local Government Unit Name: Town of Franklin
Current base water charge: $12'OOi
Number of 1,000 gallons included in base
charge: 1 :t ,
Volumetric charge per 1,000 gallons:
Monthly residential water bill for 5,000
gallons: $19.60
Monthly residential sewer bill for 5,000
gallons: $15.56
Total residential water and sewer bill for 5,000 $35.16
Total ADF at project start(gpd) 913'321
L
Year 1 O&M Expenses $7$,3001
User Rate Analysis Page 1 of 2

rinancial_Hnalysis.xls
12/29/2010
Costs Due to Proposed Project
Year 1 Annual Year 1 O&M Year 1 Annual Year 1 Year 1
Funding Source Funding Source Interest Rate Repayment Costs Costs Monthly Costs Cost/5,000 gal
CG&L Main Funding Source: SRF 2.22% $319,111 $74,300 $393,411 $32,784 $5.98
CG&L Main Funding Source Worst-Case: SRF 4.00% $397,783 $74,300 $472,083 $39,340 $7.18
Funding Source 1: Rural Center 0.00%
Funding Source 2: 0 0.00%
Funding Source 3: 0 0.00%
Funding Source 4: 0 0.00%
Funding Source 5: 0 0.00%
Closing Fee:Closing feels pald separately from annual repayment. $88,396 IS
Total(Current Rate): $319,111 $74,300 $393,411 $32,784 $5.98
Total(Worst-Case Rate): $397,783 $74,300 $472,083 $39,340 $7.18
User Fee Increases Due to Loans Related to Proposed Project
New
New Residential
Residential Water&
User Fee Increase Sewer Bill Percentage Sewer Bill Percentage
Funding Source ($/5,000 gal) ($/5,000 gal) Increase ($/5,000 gal) Increase
CG&L Main Funding Source: SRF $5.98 $21.54 38.45% $41.14 17.02%
CG&L Main Funding Source Worst-Case: SRF $7.18 $22.74 46.14% $42.34 20.42%
Funding Source 1: Rural Center $0.00 $15.56 0.00% $35.16 0.00%
Funding Source 2: $0
Funding Source 3: $0
Funding Source 4: $0
Funding Source 5:1 0
Total(Current Interest Rate): $5.98 $21.54 38.45% $41.14 17.02%
Total(Worst-Case Interest Rate): $7.18 $22.74 46.14% 1 $42.34 20.42%
User Rate Analysis Page 2 of 2

Financial Analysis.xls
12/29/2010
Revenue Generation
Enter information in the gray areas
Local Government Unit Name: Town of Franklin
Project Name: WWTP Improvements and Riverview Pump Station and Force Main Improvements
Revenue Generation @ Current Interest Rate Revenue Generation @ 4%Interest Rate
User Fee Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue
User Fee Unit Total Number Increase @ Generated @ Sufficent to User Fee Generated @ Sufficient to
per month of Current Current Repay Incease @ 4% 4%Interest Repay
(gallons) Connections Interest Rate Interest Rate Loan(s)? Interest Rate Rate Loan(s)?
Residential 5,000 28;1p6; $5.98 $16,846.92 $7.18 $20,215.90
Commercial 5,000 0750' $5.98 $4,486.93 $7.18 $5,384.21
Industrial 5,000 _,, i a0' $5.98 $0.00 $7.18 $0.00.
Revenue Generation: $21,334 No $25,600 No
Revenue Generation for Residential Customers Only:1 $16,847 No $20,Z161 No
Revenue Generation Page 1 of 1

Wastes oar is
12/29/2010
Current Population Current Population
Complete the bones shown In gray.
Local Government Unit Name:Town of Franklin
Project Name:Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades and Blverview Pump Station
Population density(persons per household)from most recent Census:,._c,.:.e_y
SDCCounty Other County Percemageof Percentage of Percentageof Percentage of
Population SDCCounty Population(2)(it SDCLGU Other County Population(2)(if Other LGU Number of Service Service Area Service Area in Service Area in Service Area in Service Area In
Yeare Population applicable) Population: Population applicable) Population: Area Connections: Population: County LGU: County LGU:
Name: Name: Name: Source: Source: Source: Source: (SDC Data) IS=Data) (Other Data) (Other Data)
Year _ Mat n Y c T can of Frankl i T wn of Franklin Town of Franklin-
1 ,2000 29tB11 'f " 3p90.�' d G rlk r d.-'d- y3140- 6,525 21.89% 285.97% gDIV/01 UDIV/01
2 y3155 6556 21.62% 185A5% gDIV/01 g01V/01
3 120021 30,851 �, 3 581TM 2.7,1 6,671 21,62% 186.26% gDIV/01 gON/01
4, r 2003,q, 31;371 3628xy+ :f D, I:' _ 32711 6,797 21.67% 187.37% g01V/01 gDIV/01
5 2004 p r 31,891 .�3675 >'=ti 3 t;0" I!a "'a 3,331; 6,922 21.71% 188.36% gDIV/01 g01V/01
6 -'2005 �' 32,411 s Y 3723r �'0- V 3409' 7,084 21.86% 190.29% gDIV/01 gDIV/01
7 f 2006 32,931 a I { 3M 53771 - ;0 B y m + t 3459i 7,188 21.83% 190.61% #DIV/01 gDIV/OI
8! =20Wt, 33/151 3620 ,0 5 i J 3539� 7,344 21.99% 192.51% gDIV/01 gDIV/01
9, `20D8 Iy33,971 3870 j' 0 H -3,564i 7p06 21.80% 191.38% gDIV/01 gDIV/01
30 2009 '34;499 59i 7,383 23A3% 189.37% gDIV/01 gDIV/01
YearlofProjectImplementation: �2011 ,35.147 „35651 7,411 20.73% 185.22% 11 gDIV/01
Current Population Page 1 of 1

wastewater_i reatment.xis
12/29/2010
Future Population Projections
Complete the boxes shown in gray.
Local Government Unit Name: Town of Franklin
Project Name: Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades and Riverview Pump Station
SDC Service Other Service
SDC County SDC County(2) Area Other County Other County Other LGU Area
Year Population Population Population Population (2)Population Population Population
1 2011 35,747 0 7,411 0 0 0 0
22012 a:'r . 36114 s x .a 7.5'28 ,J .." N'' 0
3
2013' ;85 369 # y "3.7641 0
4 ;2014'o „37.404`.-...,=` 7.;7,54 t = ., . A t;r „'a
5 2015 °'i W�37t;949,'
ti m aMil a:; _ ,�1.o ta7;867 '� ��E? n _ r '�1 .°t�Y���"�� ..u.'9jwPG Q
6 "2016 38 494 <<7�'980 -
0
ur.
7 ,' 2017 :39 039 , ; ;+8 093 x; = 0
8 :';i2018�° `'a r ' ? J"39'584' r� „� a
8206, 0
9 8319 i +, i R'. Y .` s 0
10 ..... 2020_:` :40,682
g,"4.34 wx =1 0
11 1021, .',01- r 41227 1 T8 547 u:h`i,uI r
12 ir. ,, 2022. 41;7t72 t' ?:w s 8660? •' ,.. 0
13 `2023s,""r; 42317 ,. g�7:7,2 , _ - I:�"r 0
142024, pf42862 ,, r,a 8'885 0
15 �4 °3;403 ti 8;'9`98 ,"a.r: N. !„N;e��d r ;s 0
16 ., ..;2026 ;i: ,�... t<..,7..43948f9,111l it
" z - 0
17 0
18 , . , , ,g3 37 ,
0
19 '..' ::2029;i 45;583 x a `t 9;450 0
20 :.2030r :` M 461;09 0
Future Population Page 1 of 1

----- - --awat,.,datm..M.AJJ
12/29/2010
Flow Projections
Complete the area in gray.
Local Government Unit Name: Town of Franklin
Project Name: Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades and Riverview Pump Station
Current Service Area Population: 7,383
Industrial Reserve: 10%
4-Year Average Annual Daily Flow(gpd): 88 OOt`OOQ
SDC Other Methodology
Future Future Future Future Future Future
Current Flow Residential Flow Commercial Industrial Flow Total Projected Residential Commercial Industrial Flow Total Projected
Year (gpd) (gpd) Flow(gpd) (gpd) Flow(gpd) Flow(gpd) Flow(gpd) (gpd) Flow(gpd)
1 2011 828,000 1,891 405 83,030 913,326 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
2 2012 828,000 10,119 2,168 84,029 924,316 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
3 2013 828,000 18,028 3,863 84,989 934,880 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
4 2014 828,000 25,936 5,558 85,949 945,443 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
5 2015 828,000 33,845 7,252 86,910 956,007 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
6 2016 828,000 41,754 8,947 87,870 966,571 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
7 2017 828,000 49,662 10,642 88,830 977,135 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
8 2018 828,000 57,571 12,337 89,791 987,698 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
9 2019 828,000 65,480 14,031 90,751 998,262 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
10 2020 828,000 73,504 15,751 91,726 1,008,981 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
11 2021 828,000 81,413 17,446 92,686 1,019,544 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
12 2022 828,000 89,322 19,140 93,646 1,030,108 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
13 2023 828,000 97,230 20,835 94,607 1,040,672 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
14 2024 828,000 105,139 22,530 95,567 1,051,236 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444-
15 2025 828,000 112,990 24,212 96,520 1,061,722 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
16 2026 828,000 120,898 25,907 97,480 1,072,285 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
17 2027 828,000 128,807 27,601 98,441 1,082,849 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
18 2028 828,000 136,716 29,296 99,401 1,093,413 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
19 2029 828,000 144,624 30,991 100,362 1,103,977 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
20 2030 828,000 152,257 32,627 101,288 1,114,172 -516,844 -110,752 20,040 220,444
Flow Projections Page 1 of 1

- 12/29/2010
Present-Worth-Analysis-Preferred Alternative.xls
Capital Cost Analysis
Complete the gray areas of the spreadsheet. Your capital cost for this particular alternative will be found in bold below.
Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Rnien J Pump=Statron,and Fprce IVl'am; y �,,;x
Construction Contingency&Project Administration $1;107,896
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost
Mobilization M"a ,t + , {> $132;000 I, am. °, ." �.. ?r ¢' "3= $132,000
Demolish ExistinglRroerview PumpKStationrx'„e'i_ •_ +. v s'$25;000 LS x, . -ti r 3< ,.R�,s.° - x. 1' $25,000
New!Riverview_;.P..umpiStaton''„4,'!fi` ' a x ;,a l r ,',$409;355 LSr. x . . ;. n "'.Y`,1 $409,355
Dry=Pit Subiner'sible�Pump _ _ .,; $35`;000'EA „s„ ` f ;'Nt2 $70,000
8",�Magnetic;Flowmeter>arid ValveVault,.s m :.• , $12000 fA... •k. , .h ;1 $12,000
SumpiP,ump.. - !,.{ r s t:i? z 4t _, a„ $1000 $2,000
BackiipsPumpingkSyAem ri. ,',a. . $80;000 L5 '. ,,.. a,'1N $80,000
6';Diameter Co'iicretell/lanhole., $4;000 $16,000
12 ihch DIP:,Gravity S
ewerPMNII 101. ;.,T . == b•. - ',$90'LF � 4 226 $20,340
30=ihchDlP Gr'avity.Sewer >. „ �.-_::� :,: ' k.:a$300 L"Fa „„ 31
70, $21,000
18Ainch'nDIPiForce3Marn t" ..?.'<, r$90 LF„y., - ° rer- _ =3;215 $289,350
2QincFiriHDPEIFotceiMai'nDrrectionally�Dcili'eii_ �, �,,;�� - ,' ,�...<: ' s$400'LFr °440 $176,000
Miscellaneous?P,ump:Sta"tion Valves;Frttrng5"&Acce3sonest" " ' $T44;635 LS.. `"rr •. 1 $144,635
Riverview,Pump;StationElectncal .,Y ..a r $100;000LS $100,000
MecFi`an!calBandiScreenwithfManualiBaraScree'n,Bypass `= a, f; =_ f.r•$339,000:ls� 1.� ..r�.r k err $339,000
Pressure Transducer 'x = ^$1;500'EA ° a 3 $4,500
Aerated GntrR'emovaljSystem ,, < , _ �.n$199;000LS `r.,,, �a $199,000
401 ; „%5;000 EA .:'.._,4„ +':'' K, ..k2' $30,000
Seif P,rimmg GntPump , a . , '9,MV W $15;000.EA` �r 2 $30,000
1.476WGlFloviir'Equalization Basm�+ ;t ,„, ,,: j- i! a'` $536;500 LS •- =1 $536,500
10"Magnetic'F.lowmeterxandisValvelUault ;a ,r „5 _. ,,x'" ,.-$12;000 EA,z ., ,.' "y, ' -= C":1 $12,000
Flow,:Equ"alizationiBasm PosrtiveiDisplacement`Blowers° „",,.'„r,. sr , f,,_,.1$55;000'EAs ;:4 x" . „,.; ',� _.11, �"a .Z $110,000
EqualiatronBesin Drffu'se6System'3 t°u. ?,. i,. ...,, r { 'r$40;000 LSx.,�i ' h.. ,,:', $40,000
1:O,NIG SIudgeiprgester ,. ,,,.., w �",,. ', .. °r. �.T$780;000'.LSD, ,..��N „ 44 tr ��„.i�` ,fi.<:';�a.ra1 $780,000 f
SludgeRDrgester'PosrtivejDrsplace`ment?elower r.'' .•'„ w $50;000'EA�,w k,-, a .,.,r k �=.1u =3' $100,000
$35000 LSD a'" i; $era. ;;# 1 $35,000
IVliscellaneous UVWTP'Val , $257,860it $257;860 LS •'vei andQun "a n
ModulanlRetai}iing Wall=. „r�,` , � ,t.. s ,,r,r,• � „ $A54:..• " s ;, 606 $21,000
cy' '3:t. ''- #` r a3N A n•,
6U,,ChainrLinklSecunty,Fenceyr 4 ? -. , ter•. ,, :,$34 LF $32,300
K
G�evelf,RoadlReparr , . a . 17 0;_ : n $25,500
Asphalt Road3Reparr .,.,_, ,} , ._ _ � �z ,a r $30;200 LS ,,x, 5 ,,,.= a* 1; $30,200
11%lis6e116'neousi5tone°/fConcrete a a,. . u •c + "$65; b $65,900
_ D
Gtadirigr/,Ea`rtliwork" , 4 e =$ _ '. ;;K r 1r $35,000
. _, A5'000 LSa
11/Iiscellaneous Ero`sioniCo',ntrols' , _ .r$18;875`,LS �., rx a , r1' $18,875
$200,'0.00 $200,000
Total Construction Cost: $4,400,315
Contingency and Project Administration Costs: $1,107,896
Total Capital Costs: $5,508,211
Capital Costs Page 1 of 1

- — 12/29/2010 -
Present_Worth Analysis_Preferred Alternative.xls
Replacement Cost Entry
Alternative:Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump Stati
For each component,enter"Y"in the year in which replacement,if any,will occur.
Year Replacement Needed? (Insert Y i
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mobilization $132,000 LS 1
Demolish Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1 s;
New Riverview Pump Station $409,355 LS 1 h ,
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 2
8"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault $12,000 EA 1
Sump Pump $1,000 EA 2 .>
Backup Pumping System $80,000 LS 1
6'Diameter Concrete Manhole $4,000 EA 4
12-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $90 LF 226
30-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $300 LF 70
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 3,215
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 440
Miscellaneous Pump Station Valves,Fittings&Accessories $144,635 LS 1
Riverview Pump Station Electrical $100,000 LS 1
Mechanical Band Screen with Manual Bar Screen Bypass $339,000 LS 1 "a a'"
Pressure Transducer $1,500 EA 3 Y
Aerated Grit Removal System $199,000 LS 1 =
Grit Removal System Blower $15,000 EA 201
Self-Priming Grit Pump $15,000 EA 2
1.476 MG Flow Equalization Basin $536,500 IS 1
10"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault $12,000 EA 1
Flow Equalization Basin Positive Displacement Blower $55,000 EA 2
Equalization Basin Diffuser System $40,000 LS 1
1.0 MG Sludge Digester $780,000 LS 1 - `
Sludge Digester Positive Displacement Blower $50,000 EA 2
Sludge Digester Diffuser System $35,000 LS 1
Miscellaneous WWTP Valves,Piping and Appurtenances $257,860 LS 1
Modular Retaining Wall $35 SF 600 -
6'Chain Link Security Fence $34 LF 950
Gravel Road Repair $15 LF 1,700 =
Asphalt Road Repair $30,200 LS 1 `
Miscellaneous Stone/Concrete $65,900 LS 1 h-
Grading/Earthwork $35,000 LS 1
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $18,875 LS 1 -
WWTP Electrical $200,000 LS 1
Replacement Costs-Entry Page 1 of 2

12/29/2010
Present_Worth_Analysis_Preferred Alternative.xls
Alternative:Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and
For each component,enter"Y"in the year in which replacement,if any,will occur.
in year where replacement is needed.)
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20
Mobilization $132,000 LS 1
Demolish Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1
New Riverview Pump Station $409,355 LS 1
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 2 Y
8"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault $12,000 EA 1 Y Sump Pump $1,000 EA 2
Backup Pumping System $80,000 LS 1
6'Diameter Concrete Manhole $4,000 EA 4
12-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $90 LF 226
30-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $300 LF 70
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 3,215
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 440
Miscellaneous Pump Station Valves,Fittings&Accessories $144,635 LS 1
Riverview Pump Station Electrical $100,000 LS 1
Mechanical Band Screen with Manual Bar Screen Bypass $339,000 LS 1
Pressure Transducer $1,500 EA 3
Aerated Grit Removal System $199,000 LS 1 =
Grit Removal System Blower $15,000 EA 2 - Y
Self-Priming Grit Pump $15,000 EA 2
1.476 MG Flow Equalization Basin $536,500 LS 1
10"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault $12,000 EA 1 Y.
Flow Equalization Basin Positive Displacement Blower $55,000 EA 2 Y
Equalization Basin Diffuser System $40,000 LS 1 - Y ,
1.0 MG Sludge Digester $780,000 LS 1 -
Sludge Digester Positive Displacement Blower $50,000 EA 2 Y;:
Sludge Digester Diffuser System $35,000 LS 1
Miscellaneous WWTP Valves,Piping and Appurtenances $257,860 LS 1
Modular Retaining Wall $35 SF 600
6'Chain Link Security Fence $34 LF 950 _
Gravel Road Repair $15 LF 1,700
Asphalt Road Repair $30,200 LS 1 -
Miscellaneous Stone/Concrete $65,900 LS 1 - -
Grading Earthwork $35,000 LS 1
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $18,875 LS 1 -
WWTP Electrical $200,000 LS 1
Replacement Costs-Entry Page 2 of 2

11/29/zulo
Present-Worth-Analysis-Preferred Alternative.xls
Alternative:Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump Station and Fc
i=4.875%
Replacement Cost at Year X
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mobilization $132,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolish Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Riverview Pump Station $409,355 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
8"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault $12,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sump Pump $1,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Backup Pumping System $80,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6'Diameter Concrete Manhole $4,000 EA 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $90 LF 226 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
30-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $300 LF 70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 3,215 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 440 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Pump Station Valves,Fittings&Accessories $144,635 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Riverview Pump Station Electrical $100,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mechanical Band Screen with Manual Bar Screen Bypass $339,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pressure Transducer $1,500 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Aerated Grit Removal System $199,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grit Removal System Blower $15,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Self-Priming Grit Pump $15,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.476 MG Flow Equalization Basin $536,500 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
10"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault $12,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Flaw Equalization Basin Positive Displacement Blower $55,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Equalization Basin Diffuser System $40,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.0 MG Sludge Digester $780,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Digester Positive Displacement Blower $50,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Digester Diffuser System $35,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous WWTP Valves,Piping and Appurtenances $257,860 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Modular Retaining Wall $35 SF 600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6'Chain Link Security Fence $34 LF 950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Gravel Road Repair $15 LF 1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Road Repair $30,200 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Stone/Concrete $65,900 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grading/Earthwork $35,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $18,875 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTP Electrical $200,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Replacement Costs: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replacement Costs-Results Page 1 of 3

Present-Worth-Analysis-Preferred Alternative.xis
Alternative:Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements ant
i=4.875%
Replacement Costs at Year X
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Mobilization $132,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolish Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Riverview Pump Station $409,355 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
8"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault $12,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sump Pump $1,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $1,243 $0 $0 $0 $0
Backup Pumping System $80,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6'Diameter Concrete Manhole $4,000 EA 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $90 LF 226 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
30-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $300 LF 70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 3,215 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 440 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Pump Station Valves,Fittings&Accessories $144,635 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Riverview Pump Station Electrical $100,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mechanical Band Screen with Manual Bar Screen Bypass $339,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pressure Transducer $1,500 EA 3 $0 $0 $2,796 $0 $0 $0 $0
Aerated Grit Removal System $199,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grit Removal System Blower $15,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Self-Priming Grit Pump $15,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.476 MG Flow Equalization Basin $536,500 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
10"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault $12,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Flow Equalization Basin Positive Displacement Blower $55,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Equalization Basin Diffuser System $40,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.0 MG Sludge Digester $780,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Digester Positive Displacement Blower $50,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Digester Diffuser System $35,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous WWTP Valves,Piping and Appurtenances $257,860 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Modular Retaining Wall $35 SF 600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6'Chain Link Security Fence $34 LF 950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Gravel Road Repair $15 LF 1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Road Repair $30,200 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Stone/Concrete $65,900 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grading/Earthwork $35,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $18,875 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTP Electrical $200,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Replacement Costs:1 .$0 $0 $4,038 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replacement Costs-Results Page 2 of 3

-' - 12/47/1.V1D
Present-Worth-Analysis-Preferred Alternative.xls
Alternative:Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements am
i=4.875%
Replacement Costs at Year X
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 15 16 17 18 19 20
Mobilization $132,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolish Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Riverview Pump Station $409,355 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,018
8"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault $12,000 EA 1 $5,876 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sump Pump $1,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Backup Pumping System $80,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6'Diameter Concrete Manhole $4,000 EA 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $90 LF 226 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
30-inch DIP Gravity Sewer $300 LF 70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 3,215 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 440 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Pump Station Valves,Fittings&Accessories $144,635 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Riverview Pump Station Electrical $100,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Mechanical Band Screen with Manual Bar Screen Bypass $339,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pressure Transducer $1,500 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Aerated Grit Removal System $199,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grit Removal System Blower $15,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,579
Self-Priming Grit Pump $15,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,579
1.476 MG Flow Equalization Basin $536,500 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
10"Magnetic Flowmeter and Valve Vault $12,000 EA 1 $5,876 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Flow Equalization Basin Positive Displacement Blower $55,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,457
Equalization Basin Diffuser System $40,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,439
1.0 MG Sludge Digester $780,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Digester Positive Displacement Blower $50,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,598
Sludge Digester Diffuser System $35,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,509
Miscellaneous WWTP Valves,Piping and Appurtenances $257,860 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Modular Retaining Wall $35 SF 600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6'Chain Link Security Fence $34 LF 950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Gravel Road Repair $15 LF 1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Road Repair $30,200 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Stone/Concrete $65,900 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grading/Earthwork $35,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $18,875 LS 1 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTP Electrical $200,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Replacement Costs: $11,753 $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,180
Total Replacement Costs: $175,971
Replacement Costs-Results Page 3 of 3

12/L7/lulO
Present—Worth—Analysis—Preferred Alternative.xls
Year 20 Operations and Maintance Cost Analysis
Complete the areas in gray.
Alternative: Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump Station and Force Main
i= 4.875%
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost Year 20
Salary.;6ndgBeneftdlncre'ases $20 000 LSi 1- $20,000 $251,907
";I ncreaseiat�River view PumiStation„.. ' r:p, $,300 LS 1��� $300 $3,779 Utilities
Utilitie"s .Increase at$1N1NTP r%$30 000 LS, *_x ,1 f, ,E.'` $30,000 $377,861
Supplies a "$15000 L5G� .� :R Ie <1 $15,000 $188,930
Repairs'iand+NlaintenanceF' = € $7 500 LS _ , ,.1,w, $7,5001 $94,465
Other ,n $1500 LS _ ti T.i $1,5001 $18,893
Total O&M Costs(all years): $74,3001 $935,835
O&M Costs Page 1 of 1

12/29/2010
'resent—Worth Analysis_Preferred Alternative.xls
Total Present Worth
Alternative: Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Riverview Pump Station and Force Main
Replacement Costs O&M Costs Present Total Present
Capital Costs Present Worth Worth Worth
$5,508,211 $175,971 $935,835 $6,620,017
Present_Worth_Analysis_Preferred Alternative.xls Page 1 of 1

12/29/ZUIO
Present—Worth—Analysis—Regional Alternative.xis
Capital Cost Analysis
Complete the gray areas of the spreadsheet. Your capital cost for this particular alternative will be found in bold below.
Alternative:Regionaliation
x � -
Construction Contingency&Project Administration:;"": $4%51 660
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost
Mobilization", _ #p,,,,„��, ��,.,$350;000 LS �`.w � x�`',€ - �, 1 $350,000
Demolshiantl Abandon$Existmgl;Franklin1UVWT,P, r;y ;fa „,a,„rxd ,,$200000 LSD t, .kr �, ,, 1 $200,000
Dernolishlah8%b6ndonExiifiogrRivervieW,,P-Ump"'Station,J, L+S ,.,,,;aT .,,, ,, e,, 1> $25,000
2 0"IVIGO�aM/SA�WWTPiExparisiony t ti .,, =M' >. ,,, v$4,250000 LS..' ,, axr M ; ] $4,250,000
New•R1Veniiew PumptStation wl/=GraviW,Sewer.§lJpgrades .'~- 4 `$630 000 EA ' h
1' $630,000
New IntermediateiPumpStatiori s +$500000 $1,500,000
by:
:PitlSubmer`sible'�Pump _ �',., ,; ..5,.r, ,$35 000 E'A k n x> . N.8, $280,000
18"inch'DIP�F,orce.Main „`- x„' �a kP, r,'1 ,"'' $90 L a "' ` r `.103000 $9,270,000
20,ikiHDPE1�FoceMain DirectioallyGDled� ,., , 00 LFran §
30'' 0 . 4,' 2 $70,000B " , 025;,SteelEncasementPiped
Combination; ewagesAir.4ReleaselIValveiand,Vault>' ., 1$41000 $200,000
18 iricfi' UM. a " `' , x'.$10'000 EA. r :a7.0' $700 000
IVliscellaneous}F,ittingsla'ntl€Appurtenances $65,000
AsphaltlRoadSRepair °'; w , ', ' k, ,,tw•i$30 LFi'' - .., ;' .1;500, $45,000
Gr4VeIUDnVe#Repairs k,, ", °' „r , r., $8 LF " r , .a.,,,y ,f,r,T,„<9P800 $6,400
IVIiscellaneou"s'Site:Resto r'ation ' U #:w" rs $25`000 LS '' 'M u;: ` !a,. ,y '4',T $25,000
StonenBe'd'diiigtasRequred .£;$5,L'F4,?? r ,r,20;Q00 $100,000
MiscellaneousConcrete x ;, . _ z$]t00 50 $5 000
Miscellaneous;Erosion;Contr`ol _ = F`,' sss fir,ti°+i.r $75000 L5 'r F,, . 1 $75,000
Rock`Ezcavation 2'.•t, , 0 ; }"'y", , $75 CY. I,m, 500 $187,500
Select`Backfillx h i' ai $25 CY„y. ,h z A,v �rs.,32500 $62,500
Total Construction Cost: $18,606,400
Contingency and Project Administration Costs: $4,651,600
Total Capital Costs: $23,258,000
Capital Costs Page 1 of 1

—— — 121lullu10
Present—Worth—Analysis—Regional Alternative.xls
Replacement Cost Entry
Alternative: Regionalization
For each component,enter"Y"in the year in which replacement,if any,will occur.
Year Replacemer
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mobilization $350,000 LS 1 -
Demolish and Abandon Existing Franklin WWTP $200,000 LS 1 , _
Demolish and Abandon Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1
2.0 MGD TWSA WWTP Expansion $4,250,000 LS 1
New Riverview Pump Station w/Gravity Sewer Upgrades $630,000 EA
New Intermediate Pump Station $500,000 EA 3
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump -$35,000 EA 8
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 103,000 ,
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 1,400 *" _ <;-
30"x 0.25"Steel Encasement Pipe,Bored&Jacked $350 LF 200PW
Combination Sewage Air Release Valve and Vault $4,000 EA 50
18-inch Plug Valve and Box $10,000 EA 70
Miscellaneous Fittings and Appurtenances $65,000 LS 1 j r
Asphalt Road Repair $30 LF 1,500 °'7 k
Gravel Drive Repair $8 LF 800
Miscellaneous Site Restoration $25,000 LS
Stone Bedding as Required $5 LF 20,000
Miscellaneous Concrete $100 CY 50
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $75,000 LS 1 w
Rock Excavation $75 CY 2,500 n
Select Backfill $25 CY 2,500 -
Replacement Costs-Entry Page 1 of 3

12/[y/zulO
Present-Worth-Analysis-Regional Alternative.xls
Alternative: Regionalization
For each component,enter"Y"in the year in which replacement,if any,will occur.
it Needed? (Insert Y in year where replacement is needed.)
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Mobilization $350,000 LS 1 1 - ': ' J.
Demolish and Abandon Existing Franklin WWTP $200,000 LS 1
Demolish and Abandon Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1 �A.
2.0 MGD TWSA WWTP Expansion $4,250,000 LS 1
New Riverview Pump Station w/Gravity Sewer Upgrades $630,000 EA
New Intermediate Pump Station $500,000 EA 3
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 8
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 103,000
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 1,400
30"x 0.25"Steel Encasement Pipe,Bored&Jacked $350 LF 200s�+.
Combination Sewage Air Release Valve and Vault $4,000 EA 50 h ,,,,„ ;,
18-inch Plug Valve and Box $10,000 EA 70 _
Miscellaneous Fittings and Appurtenances $65,000 LS 1 s
Asphalt Road Repair $30 LF 1,500
Gravel Drive Repair $8 LF 800
Miscellaneous Site Restoration $25,000 LSjl
Stone Bedding as Required $5 LF 20,000io
Miscellaneous Concrete $100 CY 50
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $75,000 LS 1 -
Rock Excavation $75 CY 2,500 r
Select Backfill $25 CY 2,500
Replacement Costs-Entry Page 2 of 3

12/ZV/1U1O
Present—Worth—Analysis—Regional Alternative.xls
Alternative: Regionalization
For each component,enter"Y"in the year in which replacement,if any,will occur.
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 17 18 19 20
Mobilization $350,000 LS 1
Demolish and Abandon Existing Franklin WWTP $200,000 LS 1
Demolish and Abandon Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1
2.0 MGD TWSA WWTP Expansion $4,250,000 LS 1
Y -
New Riverview Pump Station w/Gravity Sewer Upgrades $630,000 EA 1
New Intermediate Pump Station $500,000 EA 3
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 8
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 103,000 ° `,,,. ;•> - d .
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 1,400
30"x 0.25"Steel Encasement Pipe,Bored&Jacked $350 LF 200
Combination Sewage Air Release Valve and Vault $4,000 EA 50
18-inch Plug Valve and Box $10,000 EA 70 # „ '. a,
Miscellaneous Fittings and Appurtenances $65,000 LS 1
Asphalt Road Repair $30 LF 1,500
Gravel Drive Repair $8 LF 800
Miscellaneous Site Restoration $25,000 IS 1 * w +, '`" " •"
Stone Bedding as Required $5 LF 20,000
Miscellaneous Concrete $100 CY 50 L
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $75,000 LS 1
Rock Excavation $75 CY 2,500 -
SelectBackfill $25 CY 2,500
Replacement Costs-Entry Page 3 of 3

�.�/L7/LV1D
Present—Worth—Analysis—Regional Alternative.xls
Alternative: Regionalization
I=4.875%
Replacement Cost at Year X
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mobilization $350,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolish and Abandon Existing Franklin WWTP $200,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolish and Abandon Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2.0 MGD TWSA WWTP Expansion $4,250,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Riverview Pump Station w/Gravity Sewer Upgrades $630,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Intermediate Pump Station $500,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 1,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
30"x 0.25"Steel Encasement Pipe,Bored&Jacked $350 LF 200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Combination Sewage Air Release Valve and Vault $4,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
18-inch Plug Valve and Box $10,000 EA 70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Fittings and Appurtenances $65,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Road Repair $30 LF 1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Gravel Drive Repair $8 LF 800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Site Restoration $25,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Stone Bedding as Required $5 LF 20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Concrete $100 CY 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $75,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Excavation $75 CY 2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Select Backfill $25 CY 21500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Replacement Costs: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replacement Costs-Results Page 1 of 3

1yc7/cui0
Present-Worth-Analysis-Regional Alternative.xls
Alternative: Regionalization
i=4.875%
Replacement Costs at Year X
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Mobilization $350,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolish and Abandon Existing Franklin WWTP $200,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolish and Abandon Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2.0 MGD TWSA WWTP Expansion $4,250,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Riverview Pump Station w/Gravity Sewer Upgrades $630,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Intermediate Pump Station $500,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 1,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
30"x 0.25"Steel Encasement Pipe,Bored&Jacked $350 LF 200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Combination Sewage Air Release Valve and Vault $4,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
18-inch Plug Valve and Box $10,000 EA 70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Fittings and Appurtenances $65,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Road Repair $30 LF 1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Gravel Drive Repair $8 LF 800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Site Restoration $25,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Stone Bedding as Required $5 LF 20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Concrete $100 CY 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $75,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Excavation $75 CY 2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Select Backfill $25 CY 2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Replacement Costs: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replacement Costs-Results Page 2 of 3

12jLy1Lu10 Present—Worth—Analysis—Regional Alternative.xls
Alternative: Regionalization
i=4.875%
Replacement Costs at Year X
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 15 16 17 18 19 20
Mobilization $350,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolish and Abandon Existing Franklin WWTP $200,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demolish and Abandon Existing Riverview Pump Station $25,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2.0 MGD TWSA WWTP Expansion $4,250,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Riverview Pump Station w/Gravity Sewer Upgrades $630,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Intermediate Pump Station $500,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Dry-Pit Submersible Pump $35,000 EA 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $108,073
18-inch DIP Force Main $90 LF 103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
20-inch HDPE Force Main Directionally Drilled $400 LF 1,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
30"x 0.25"Steel Encasement Pipe,Bored&Jacked $350 LF 200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Combination Sewage Air Release Valve and Vault $4,000 EA 50 $97,938 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
18-inch Plug Valve and Box $10,000 EA 70 $342,782 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Fittings and Appurtenances $65,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Road Repair $30 LF 1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Gravel Drive Repair $8 LF 800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Site Restoration $25,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Stone Bedding as Required $5 LF 20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Concrete $100 CY 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control $75,000 LS 1 $0 $b $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Excavation $75 CY 2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Select Backfill $25 CY 2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Replacement Costs: $440,720 $0 $0 $0 $0 $108,073
Total Replacement Costs: $548,793
Replacement Costs-Results Page 3 of 3

12i47i/U10
Present-Worth-Analysis-Regional Alternative.xls
Year 20 Operations and Maintance Cost Analysis
Complete the areas in gray.
Alternative: Regionalization
i= 4.875%
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity Total Cost Year 20
Incre`asedfSalariesandsBenefits. $85000 LS r,.>', .•.., ?,1y "._ + $85,000 $1,070,606
Increa's`eddUtilities .Pump StatiorSs` "$3200 LS.. " . ".. :14 .'„xf $3,200 $40,305
Increas'ed6Utilitiesl4 W,WTP u',r,UVmof a. +, uz ",,>,..t•cr$85,1000 LS= r:'' y :I,^;u r .' 1: . .,,Y $85,000 $1,070,606
Supplies._ `u ` �$50;000 LS=. ` 1 $50,000 $629,768
ContractedfandFProfessionallServices ..,R....,• ; , r ;R, ,?i$35"000 LSf f 1 ,; $35,0001 $440,838
Repairs and IVlainfenance' .., P a � z;.L,'r$100 000 LSa $100,000 $1,259,536
LS 1.. : $35,000 $440,838
Total O&M Costs(all years): $393,200 $4,952,496
O&M Costs Page 1 of 1

12/29/2010
asent_Worth_Analysis_Regional Alternative.xl-
Total Present Worth
Alternative: Regionalization
Replacement Costs O&M Costs Present Total Present
Capital Costs Present Worth Worth Worth
$23,258,000 $548,793 $4,952,496 $28,759,289
Present—Worth—Analysis—Regional Alternative.xis Page 1 of 1