McDowell Co. - Marion East Court St. Sewer Rehabilitation

r�
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Acting Director Secretary
July 1, 2013
Mr. Robert Boyette, City Manager
City of Marion
194 North Main Street
Marion, North Carolina 28752
SUBJECT: Acknowledgement
City of Marion
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation Preliminary
Engineering Report and Envirommental Information
Document for the City of Marion
Project No.: CS370406-03
Dear Mr. Boyette:
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the subject East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
Preliminary Engineering Report and Environmental Information Document for the City of
Marion on July 1, 2013. The Facilities Evaluation Unit has initiated the project review, and we
will notify you and your engineer upon completion of our review.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
;�V
William H. (Bill) Bland, Jr., P.E., Review Engineer
Facilities Evaluation Unit
whb
cc: McGill Associates, P.A. — David Honeycutt, P.E.
-_DWQ_Asheville'Regional `Office
Mark Hubbard, P.E.
William H. Bland, Jr., P.E.,
FEU/SRF
Infrastructure Finance Section
1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633
Location: 8"h Floor Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterouality.oro
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
039JO Ieuo! a I afi!nagsv
U0PMS U04021wd INN& a34mslama
CIO? r- 1nr
03AGOMI
None
rthCarohna
Naturally

FMA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Acting.Director . Secretary
July 1, 2013
I t�1:7:�►`I Il llu I
TO: Chuck C_ranfod� Surface Water Protection Supervisor
Laridori�-Davidsoi"-; Aquifer Protection Supervisor
DWQ Asheville Regional Office
FROM: William H. (Bill) Bland, Jr., P.E.
Review Engineer `-
Facilities Evaluation Unit
Infrastructure Finance Section
SUBJECT: City of Marion
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation Preliminary Engineering Report and
Environmental Information Document for the City of Marion
Project No.: CS370406703
One copy of the subject East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation Preliminary Engineering Report
and Environmental Information Document for the City of Marion is attached for the Asheville
Regional Office's technical review and comment. The Regional Office's technical input
concerning this project,based on the Region's knowledge of the City of Marion's collection
system/wastewater facilities, will be greatly appreciated. Please keep this copy of the report for .
your files and return your comments to this office by July 15, 2013. If comments regarding the
Subject engineering report have not been received by this date, the Facilities Evaluation Unit will
conclude that no comments are forthcoming, from the regional office.
Thank you for your continued cooperation and responsiveness. If you have any questions, please
contact me at [phone] at your earliest convenience.
whb: dr
Attachment
cc: Jennifer Haynie, FEU Supervisor
FEU/SRF
Infrastructure Finance Section
1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633
Location: 8t" Floor Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwateraualb.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally

A�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder
Governor Acting Director
July 1, 2013
TO: _ Chuck -Cranford; Surface Water Protection Super
Landon Davidson, Aquifer Protection Supervisor
DWQ Asheville.Regional Office
FROM: William H. (Bill) Bland, Jr., P.E. ^
Review Engineer 40
Facilities Evaluation Unit
Infrastructure Finance Section
John E., Skvarla,,111
UOUMS UOR= d J48tr$ =JMS/0MQ
cme —inr
®DA13031:1
SUBJECT: City of Marion
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation Preliminary Engineering Report and
Environmental Information Document for the City of Marion
Project No.: CS370406-03
One copy of the subject East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation Preliminary Engineering Report
and Environmental Information Document for the City of Marion is attached for the Asheville
Regional Office's technical review and comment. The Regional Office's technical input
concerning this project, based on the Region's knowledge of the City of Marion's collection
system/wastewater facilities, will be greatly appreciated. Please keep this copy of the report for
your files and return your comments to this office by July 15, 2013. If comments regarding the
subject engineering report have not been received by this date, the Facilities Evaluation Unit will
conclude that no comments are forthcoming from the regional office.
Thank you for your continued cooperation and responsiveness. If you have any questions, please
contact me at [phone] at your earliest convenience.
whb: dr
Attachment
cc: Jennifer Haynie, FEU Supervisor
FEU/SRF
Infrastructure Finance Section
1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633
Location: 8th Floor Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterauality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
Nne
orthCarolina
;Vaturaliff

DECEIVED
JUL - 3 2013
DWQ/Surface Water Protection Section
Ashes ills. t': Mona( Office
ENGINEERING REPORT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT
EAST COURT STREET SEWER REHABILITATION
CITY OF MARION
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
��-Aq � ESS�RO
DAVID L. HONEYCUTT, P.E. E34Jj9 -
�7'L,,�c.rol?.8l(3
E
McGill
ASSOCIATE S
Engineering • Planning • Finance
Post Office Box 2259
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Firm License No. C-0459
PROJECT NO. 13.00342
JUNE 2013

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation ii Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

UPFRONT INFORMATION
OWNER
City of Marion, North Carolina
194 North Main Street
Marion, North Carolina 28752
Contact: Bob Boyette, City Manager
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
PROJECT TITLE
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion, North Carolina
NCDENR Project Number: CS370406-03
OWNER'S CONSULTANT
McGill Associates, P.A.
Post Office Box 2259
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Contact: David L. Honeycutt, PE
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
LEAD AGENCY
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Infrastructure Finance Section
8th Floor Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Jennifer Haynie
Phone: [phone]
Email: jennifer.haynienncdenr.gov
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation iii Minor ER/EID
City .of Marion June 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ I I
SECTION2 CURRENT SITUATION...............................................................................................................17
2.1 COLLECTION SYSTEM CONDITION.: ............................................................................................................ 20
2.2 CURRENT POPULATION........................................................................................................................................
23
2.3 CURRENT WASTEWATER FLOW...........................................................................................................................
24
SECTION3 FUTURE SITUATION...................................................................................................................25
3.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS.........................................................................................................................25
3.2 FLOW PROJECTIONS....................................................................................................................................26
3.3 FUTURE SITUATION DOWNSTREAM.............................................................................................................27
SECTION4 PURPOSE AND NEED..................................................................................................................29
5.1 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................
31
5.2 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................38
5.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY.........................................................................................................
59
5.4 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................
60
SECTION 6 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION.........................................................................................61
SECTION7 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................
92
SECTION8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION...........................................................................................................
97
I
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation iv Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

List of Tables
Table 1.1 Project Impact on User Rates..................................................................................................................13
Table 2.1.1. SSO Description and Special Orders.................................................................................................20
Table 2.1.2. Unsewered Areas and Failing Septic System Description................................................................22
Table 2.1.3. General WWTP Condition.................................................................................................................22
Table 2.2.1. Current Population Analysis Method 2 - Large Service Area.........................................................23
Table 2.3.1: Current Flow Analysis........................................................................................................................24
Table 3.4.1: Future Population Analysis................................................................................................................25
Table 3.4.2: Future Peak Flow Analysis .................................................................................................................26
- Table 3.4.3: Downstream Capacity Analysis..........................................................................................................27
Table4.1 Need and Purpose....................................................................................................................................29
Table 5.1.1. Alternatives Description Table...........................................................................................................31
Table 5.1.2. Alternatives, Description Table...........................................................................................................32
Table 5.1.3. Alternatives Description Table...........................................................................................................35
Table 5.1.4. Alternatives Description......................................................................................................................36
Table 5.1.5. Alternatives Description......................................................................................................................36
Table5.2.1 Capital Costs.........................................................................................................................................38
Table 5.2.2 Replacement Cost Life Cycle Assumptions Table..............................................................................38
Table5.2.3 Replacement Costs................................................................................................................................39
Table5.2.4 Replacement Costs.................................................................................................................................39
Table5.2.5 Replacement Costs................................................................................................................................40
Table5.2.6 Replacement Costs......................................................................................................:.........................40
Table 5.2.7 Present Value of Operation and Maintenance Costs.........................................................................41
Table 5.2.8 Present Value of Operation and Maintenance Costs.........................................................................41
Table 5.2.9 Present Value of Intermittent Operation and Maintenance Costs...................................................41
Table 5.2.10 Present Value of Intermittent Operation and Maintenance Costs.................................................42
Table5.2.11 Capital Costs.......................................................................................................................................43
Table5.2.13 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................43
Table5.2.14 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................44
Table5.2.15 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................44
Table5.2.16 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................45
Table 5.2.17 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs.....................................................................46
-' Table 5.2.18 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs.....................................................................46
Table 5.2.19 Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs................................................46
Table 5.2.20 Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs................................................47
Table5.2.21 Capital Costs.......................................................................................................................................48
Table5.2.23 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................48
Table5.2.24 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................49
Table5.2.25 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................49
Table5.2.26 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................50
Table 5.2.27 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs.....................................................................51
Table 5.2.28 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs.....................................................................51
Table 5.2.29 Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs................................................51
Table 5.2.30 Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs................................................52
Table5.2.31 Capital Costs.......................................................................................................................................
53
Table5.2.33 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................53
Table5.2.34 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................54
Table5.2.35 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................54
Table5.2.36 Replacement Costs..............................................................................................................................55
Table 5.2.37 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs
56
Table 5.2.38 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs.....................................................................56
- Table 5.2.39 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs.....................................................................56
Table 5.2.40 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs.....................................................................57
-- Table 5.2.2 Replacement Cost Life Cycle Assumptions Table..............................................................................58
Table 5.2.62 Total Present Worth for Feasible Alternatives................:...............................................................58
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation V Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

r-
Table 5.3.1. Alternatives Analysis Summary
59
Table5.4.1. Project Description..............................................................................................................................60
JI
Table 6.1.1. Topography and Floodplains..............................................................................................................62
Table6.2.1 Soils........................................................................................................................................................
64
Table 6.3.1 Prime and Unique Farmland...............................................................................................................
67
Table6.4.1. Land Use...............................................................................................................................................68
Table6.5.1. Forest Resources..................................................................................................................................70
Table6.6.1 Wetlands and Streams..........................................................................................................................71
Table 6.6.2. Stream/Wetland Crossings..................................................................................................................73
Table 6.7.1. Water Resources
75
Table 6.8.1 Shellfish, Fish, and Their Habitats......................................................................................................77
Table 6.9.1. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation.........................................................................................................79
Table 6.10.1. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas.................................................80
Table 6.11.1. Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value...................................................................................
82
Table6.12.1. Air Quality..........................................................................................................................................83
Table6.13.1. Noise Levels........................................................................................................................................
85
Table 6.14.1 Introduction of Toxic Substances......................................................................................................87
Table 6.15.1. Environmental Justice Analysis........................................................................................................88
Table6.16.1. Mitigative Measures..........................................................................................................................90
Table 7.1. Local Government Unit Financial Condition.......................................................................................92
Table 7.2. Funding Distribution ..............................................................................................................................
93
Table 7.3 Year 1 Interest and Repayment...............................................................................................................93
Table 7.4 Cost Per 5,000 gallons to Finance Project...............................................................................................94
Table 7.5 User Rates Needed to Finance Project....................................................................................................95
Table 7.6 Impact to Bills Due to Project..................................................................................................................96
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation Vi Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

List of Figures
Figure 1.1:
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1,2:
Project Location Map
Figure 2.1:
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2.2:
Project Location Map
Figure 2.1.2:
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Map
Figure 3,3:
Downstream Sewer Analysis
Figure 5.1:
Alignment No. 1 and No. 2
Figure 6.2:
Soils Map
Figure 6.6:
Wetlands and Streams Map
Figure 6,15:
Minority Population Map
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation Vii Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013
14
15
17
19
21
28
34
66
74
89

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A SUPPORTING CITY INFORMATION
• WWTP NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS (COMPACT DISK
• SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW REPORT
• WWTP DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS (COMPACT DISK
APPENDIX B SUPPORTING ENGINEERING INFORMATION
• 2010 UNITED STATES CENSUS DATA
• STATE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
• FLOW ESTIMATE CALCULATIONS
• SEWER LINE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
• SOILS INFORMATION
• STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS
• WATER RESOURCES INFORMATION
• CITY ZONING MAP
• CITY ZONING ORDINANCE (COMPACT DISK
• CITY NOISE ORDINANCE (COMPACT DISK)
• CITY FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (COMPACT DISK
APPENDIX D SUPPORTING CITY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
• UTILITY RATE TABLE
• WATER & SEWER USAGE SUMMARY
i
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation viii Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BMP
Best Management Practice
DENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DI
Ductile Iron
DMR
Daily Monitoring Report
EID
Environmental Information Document
ER
Engineering Report
ETJ
Extra Territorial Jurisdiction
gpd
Gallons per Day
gpm
Gallons per Minute
I/I
Infiltration and Inflow
' MGD
Million Gallons per Day .
NCDOT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M
Operations and Maintenance
PVC
Polyvinyl Chloride
RoW
Right of Way
- SSES
Sewer System Evaluation Survey
SSO
Sanitary Sewer Overflow
VCP
Vitrified Clay Pipe
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation ix Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation x Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proiect Description
The proposed project is the replacement of an existing 6" and 8" gravity sewer with a new 12"
gravity sewer. The existing line inside the City of Marion's collection system serves the
northeast side of the City of Marion and is over 70 years old. The proposed project consists of
the installation of 3,950 linear feet of 12" gravity sewer and 30 new 4 foot diameter manholes.
Proiect Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the capacity of the existing sewer line to
alleviate surcharging and odor issues and prevent future overflows and sewer backups. The
proposed line will be sized to serve the existing development in the area and growth that may
occur in the project area. The existing sewer is very old and does not meet current minimum
design criteria for gravity sewers. The sewer line currently experiences surcharging, odors and
sewer backups have occurred in the area causing wastewater to enter homes and businesses.
Alternatives Analysis
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
1. No Action Alternative
2. Alternative 1 — Alignment #1 (DI Pipe) (Preferred Alternative
3. Alternative 2 — Alignment #1 (PVC Pipe)
4. Alternative 3 — Alignment #2 (DI Pipe)
5. Alternative 4 — Alignment #2 (PVC Pipe)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
1. No Action Alternative
This alternative consists taking no action to improve the East Court Street Sewer line.
The existing sewer has reached the end of its useful life at 70 years old and is subject to
surcharging and potentially future overflows as it is undersized for current flows. Taking
no action will result in the continuation of the existing problems with this portion of the
collection system. Due to the age of the pipe it is also possible if no action is taken that
the pipeline will further deteriorate to the point of catastrophic failure causing more
significant impacts to the project area.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 11 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

2. Preferred Alternative 1— Alignment #1 (DI Pipe)
This alternative consists of replacing the existing 8-inch gravity sewer with 12-inch Class
350 Ductile Iron (DI) gravity sewer in approximately the same alignment. Project will
include 3,950 LF of gravity sewer including approximately 1,650 LF within the NCDOT
right of way and a bore and jack under a railroad owned and operated by Norfolk
Southern. The proposed sewer will be installed outside the existing sewer alignment but
within the existing utility easement and/or NCDOT R/W. The intent is to allow the
existing sewer to remain in service while constructing the new sewer close enough to
allow existing services to be reconnected easily.
3. Alternative 2 — Alignment #1 (PVC Pipe)
This alternative is identical to the preferred alternative with the exception of utilizing
PVC pipe (SDR-35) instead of ductile iron where feasible. DI pipe will be required to be
used for bore and jacks and if separation requirements for existing potable water lines or
other utilities cannot be met otherwise. PVC pipe installation will be required to use
Class 1 embedment material from 6" below the pipe invert to the pipe spring line. The
advantages of PVC include a smoother pipe wall and better chemical resistance compared
to DI. The disadvantages of PVC are a more difficult installation and higher potential for
structural damage to the pipe from poor installation techniques or excessive loading.
4. Alternative 3 — Alignment #2 (DI Pipe)
This alternative consists of replacing the East Court Street Sewer similar to Alternative 1.
In this alternative the proposed DIP sewer will be installed within the alignment of the
existing sewer line. Use of the existing alignment will reduce the piping required to
reconnect services and reduce the anticipated rock excavation quantities. The existing
line will need to be taken out of service during installation of the new sewer which will
require additional bypass pumping. In addition, costs for demolition of manholes and the
existing sewer line are higher for this alternative for complete removal of these structures.
5. Alternative 4 — Alignment #2 (PVC Pipe)
In this alternative the proposed PVC sewer will be installed within the alignment of the
existing sewer line. Use of the existing alignment will reduce the piping required to
reconnect services and reduce the anticipated rock excavation quantities. The existing
line will need to be taken out of service during installation of the new sewer which will
require additional bypass pumping. In addition, costs for demolition of manholes and the
existing sewer line are higher for this alternative for complete removal of these structures.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 12 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Environmental Summary
The proposed project was evaluated for direct, secondary and cumulative environmental impacts.
Overall direct impacts are expected to be minimal and primarily of a temporary nature during
construction. The proposed line replaces an existing line serving existing development and is
anticipated to have very little secondary and cumulative impacts. The primary mitigative
measures implemented are erosion and sedimentation control best management practices which
will be implemented during construction. The City of Marion has an existing Zoning Ordinance
and adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 2012 which direct development in an
environmentally conscious method. The project is expected to have a positive environmental
impact by reducing odors in the area, reducing the potential for sewer overflows, and reducing
infiltration and inflow into the sewer system.
Project Funding
The construction cost for the proposed project is estimated at $912,350 and the total capital cost
including closing fees is $1,275,561. The project funding will be a 2.0% low interest loan under
the State Revolving Fund program. The project is not expected to significantly affect user fees.
Table 1.1 below illustrates the potential impact on user rates. Actual future use rates may vary
from the rates indicated below due to loan interest rates and other changes to the overall budget.
Table 1.1 Project Impact on User Rates
Current Rates
Future Rates
Base
Charge'
Charge per
1000gallons_
Base
Charge
Charge per
1000 gallons
Inside City Limits
Inside City Limits.
Residential Water
$12.06
$2.13
$12.90
$2.13
Residential Sewer
$12.06
$2.13
$12.90
1 $2.13
Outside City Limits
Outside City Limits
Residential Water
$30.13
$5.34
1 $30.97
$5.34
Residential Sewer
$30.13
$5.34
$30.97
$5.34
.Note': base Charge includes zero (0) gallons of water usage
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 13 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 14 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 16 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

SECTION 2 CURRENT SITUATION
East.Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City
,of Marion

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 18 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

2.1 COLLECTION SYSTEM CONDITION
2.1.2 General Overflow History
Table 2.1.1. SSO Description and Special Orders
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Provide the SSOs that have occurred in accordance with Section 4.3.1.2 of the guidance.
Figure number for SSO map:
Figure 2.1.2
Appendix Number for SSO Reports and Special Orders:
A
Estimated
Amount Spilled
Date
Location
Brief Description of Cause
(gal).
Map Key
4/3/2013
Highland Drive
Blockage in Line
1,800-2,700
1
Roots/Debris
Provide information related to special orders in accordance with Section 4.3.1.2.
Does the LGU have a SOC, pending SOC, or other special order?
❑ Yes, SOC is in place.
❑ Yes, SOC is pending.
® No
If Yes, provide the information discussed in Section 4.3.1.2.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 20 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

2.1.3 Unsewered Areas
Table 2.1.2. Unsewered Areas and Failing Septic System Description
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Provide information related to unsewered areas and septic systems in accordance with Section
4.4.3.1.3 of the guidance.
Figure Number for Unsewered Areas map:
I No unsewered areas in sewershed
Are there any failing septic systems within the unsewered areas? ❑ Yes ® No
If Yes, Appendix Reference for failing septic systems letter:
Discuss any unsewered areas and failing septic systems.
2.1.4 WWTP Condition
Table 2.1.3. General WWTP Condition
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Provide a brief description of the WWTP condition.
The Corpening Creek WWTP received several updates in 2010 including new headworks, pump
station, new aeration system, a new digester, and other sludge handling improvements. The
WWTP consists of a mechanical screen with manual bypass, vortex grit removal, influent pump
station, dual primary clarifiers, dual aeration basins, dual secondary clarifiers, dual tertiary
filters, and dual chlorine contact chambers. The sludge process includes gravity thickeners and a
transfer pump station to a digester. Sludge is disposed of by liquid land application.
Provide the average daily flows for the past four years and the current flow.
DMR Appendix Reference:
A
Year
ADF (MGD)
Year
ADF (MGD)
2010
0.914
2011
0.890
2012
0.847
2013
0.893
Current Flow (MGD):
0.886
Current Capacity (MGD):
3.0
Percentage of Capacity Currently Utilized:
29.5
Provide information related to any NOVs the WWTP may have received or any special orders
that may be in place.
NOVs
Special Orders
Does the WWTP have any NOW
Does the WWTP have any Special Orders or
® Yes
pending SOCs?
❑ No
❑ Yes, Special Order is finalized
❑ N/A (new construction only)
❑ Yes, Special Order is pending
® No
❑ N/A (new construction only)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 22 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 2.1.3. General WWTP Condition
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
If yes, then describe and provide supporting
information in an appendix of the ER/EID.
If yes, then describe and provide supporting
information in an appendix of the ER/EID.
Appendix Reference:
I A
Appendix Reference:
2.2 CURRENT POPULATION
Table 2.2.1. Current Population Analysis Method 2 - Large Service Area
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete the areas shown in gray. Links are to U.S. Census Bureau websites
for use with this table.
U.S. Census Place or County:
Marion, North
Carolina
Appendix Reference for U.S. Census Information:
B
Total Census 2010 Population:
7,838
Persons per Square Mile in LGU:
1,454.70
LGU Land Area (miles):
WWTP Service Area (miles2):
7.03
% of LGU in WWTP Service Area:
130.43%
% of WWTP Service Area in Sewershed Service
Area:
1890%
Current Population in Sewershed Service Area:
1,933
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 23 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

2.3 CURRENT WASTEWATER FLOW
Table 2.3.1: Current Flow Analvsis
Table2.3.1. Current Flow Analysis
_
East Court Sire et Sewe r Re habilitation — --
-------------- City of Marion------ ----
Complete the cells in gray. Some cells have pulldown menus. Please use if present.
Current Flow Determination Methodology:
Method 2 - Large Service Area
Current Flow Appendix Reference:
B
Metered Flow
Current Average Daily Flowvia Meter
—�
Current Average Daily Flow at
—_ _WWTP
Pereentage of Flow to WWTP
fromSevvershed
(gpd)
(gpd)
Residential Flow as Percentage ofMctered Flow in Sewershed:
Commercial Flow as Percentage of Metered Flow in Sewershed:
Pump Runtime
Drawdown Rate (gpm):
Pump Runtime (hrs/day):
Peaking Factor:
Current Peaked Flow(gpd):
Method 1 - Limited Service Area
Bedroom Number
Total Bedrooms
3
— --- ---
4
Total Bedrooms in Place/County:
Total Dwelling Units:
Total Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit:
Dwelling Units in Service Area:
Flow per bedroom (gpd/bedroom):
Peaking Factor:
Total Estimated Service Area Peaked Flow ():
Method 2 - Large Service Area
UI Estimation Methodology:
WWTP Only
WWTP ADF (gpd):
883,000
WWTP Min ADF (gpd) (ifa licable):
555,500
Percent ofLGU in WWTP Service Area:
130.43%
Percent ofSewershed Service Area in WWTP Service Area :
18.90%
WaterADF
WW ADF
Residential:
712,151
640,936
Commercial
0
Industrial:
0
Flow Commihnents:
0
Infiltration(InIlow:1
327,500
Peaking Factor:
2.50
Total Estimated Peaked Current Flow(gpd):
596,814
Provide a justification for the peakingfactor used above (applies to all methods but Metered Flow).
Area consists of both residential and commercial customers. Residential flows typically peak in the morning and
evenings and commercial flows typically peak during business hours. Based on this combination of service area
although the population is relatively small the peaking factor is expected to by 2.5.
°If the WWTP service area is the entire Sewershed service area, then enter 100%.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 24
City of Marion
I
I
Minor ER/EID
June 2013

SECTION 3 FUTURE SITUATION
3.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Table 3.4.1: Future Population Analysis
- Table 3.4.1. Future Population Analysis
East Court Street ScttierRehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete the cells in gray. Note that some cells may contain pulldown menu. If so, please use pulldown in nits to select data.
Current Population Methodology.
Method 2 - Large Service Area
- SDC Data Appendix Reference:
B .; -
Current LGU Population:
7,838
( 1 County Name:
McDowell -
Current Sewershed Service Area Population:
1,933
( County Po ulation (2010):l
44,996
Percentage ofLGU Population in County.
17.42%
Percentage ofService Area in LGU:l
24.65%
State Data Center
Alternate Data Source:
Year
County Population
LGU Population
Sewershed Service
Area Population
County Population
LGU Population
Sewershed Service
Area Population
1
2013
45,359
7,901
1,948
0
2
2014
45,402
7,909
1,950
0
3
2015
45,435
7,914
1,951
0
4
2016
45,464
7,920
1,952
0
5
2017
45,487
7,924
1,953
0
6
2018
45,507
7,927
1,954
0
7
2019
45,521
7,929
1,955
.:
0
8
2020
45,531
7,931
1,955
0
9
2021
45,542
7,933
1,956
0
10
2022
45,550
7,935
1,956
0
ill
2023
45,556
7,936
1,956
0
12
2024
45,561
7,936
1,956
0
13
2025
45;564
7,937
1,957
0
14
2026
45,568
7,938
1,957
0
15
2027:
45,570
7,938
1,957
0
16
2028
45,573
7,939
1,957
0
17
2029
45,574
7,939
1,957
0
18
2030
45,5751
7,939
1,957
0
191
2031
45,5771
7,939
1,957
0
201
2032
45,577
7,939
1,957
•:
0
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 25 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

3.2 FLOW PROJECTIONS
Table 3.4.2: Future Peak Flow Analvsis
Table 3.4.2. Future Peak Flow Analysis__
East Court Street SemerROmbilitation
--__--- City of Marion � ---
Ctarent Flow Estimation Method:
Method 2 - Large Service Area
Alternative Flow Projections Used m Alternatives Analysis?
No
_
Current Flow for 2010 (gpd):l
596,8141 Peaking Factor.1
2.50
Appendix Reference:
-
SDC Data
I
Alternative Papal tion Data Source:10
Year
Residential Flaw
Commercial Flow
Industrial Flow
Total Flow
Residential now
Commercial Flaw
Industrial flow
Total Flow
( d)
d
d)
d
1
2013
2,606
558
149,995
749,973
2
2014
2,929
628
150,093
750,463
3
2015
3,177
681
150,168
750,840
4
2016
3,395
727
150,234
751,170
5
2017
3,567
7641
150,287
751,433
6
2018
3,718
797
150,332
751,661
7
2019
3,823
819
150,364
751,821
8
2020
3,898
835
150,387
751,935
9
2021
3,981
853
150,412
752,060
10
2022
4,041
866
150,430
752,151
11
2023
4,086
876
150,444
752,220
12
2024
4,123
884
150,455
752,277
131
2025
4,146
888
150,462
752,311
14
2026
4,176
895
150,471
752,357
15
2027
4,191
898
150,476
752,379
16
2028
4,214
903
150,483
752,414
17
2029
4,221
905
150,485
752,425
18
2030
4,229
906
150,487
752,436
19
2031
4,244
909
150,492
752,459
20
2032
4,244
9091
150,4921
752,459
Provide a justification for the peakingfactor used forfuture peak flows.
Service area is not expected to experience significant growth or a change from the current ma of residential and commercial development
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 26 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

3.3 FUTURE SITUATION DOWNSTREAM
Table 3.4.3: Downstream Capacity Analysis
Table 4.4.3. Downstream Capacity Analysis
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
— -- ----- City of Marion _�..._._._�_..Complete
the boxes shown in gray. Where indicated, use pulldown menus to enter data.
Current Flow Methodology Used:1 Method 2 - Large Service Area Flow Projection Methodology Preferred: ; SDC
Collection Svsten:
Percent WWTP Service Area in Downstream Pie Sewershed Service Area:1 100.00% 1 WWTP Current Capacity (gpd): 3,006,600
Current Year
Year 1
Year 5
Year 10
Year 15
Year 20
2013
2013
2017
2022
2027
2032
Peak Flow from Project (gpd):l
596,814 1
749,973
751,433
752,151
752,379
752,459
Downstream Collection System
Downstream Sewershed
Name:
A
B
C
Capacity of Pipe(s) in downstream sewershed (allons):
1,617,000
4,135,000
6,494,000
Diameter inches):
15
24
30
Peaking Factor:
2.50
Peak Flow from Downstream Flows (gpd)
Current Year
Year
Year5
Year10
Year 15
Year20
2013
2013
2017
2022
2027
2032
A
198,281
198,281
198,840
199,116
199,203
199,234.
B
1,248,436
1,248,436 '
1,251,959
1,253,692
1,254,243
1,254,436.
C
644,390
644,390
645,283
645,283
645,566
645,665
0
0
Total Peak Flow Through Downstream Pipe (gpd)
Current Year
Year 1
Year5
Year 10
Year 15
Year 20
2013
2013
2017
2022
2027
2032
A
795,095
948,254
950,273
951,267
951,582
951,693
B
2,043,531
2,196,690
2,202,232
2,204,959
2,205,825
2206,129
C
2,687,921
2,841,080
2,847,515
2,850,242
2,851,391
2,851,794
0
0
Will the downstreamm pipe be able to take on both projectflory and otiv rom downstream seiversheds?
Current Year
Year 1
Year5
Year 10
Year 15
Year 20
2013
2013
2017
2022
2027
2032
A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
B
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
C
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
0
WWTP Capacity Analysis
ADF from Downstream Floes (gpd)
Current Year
Year 1
Year5
Year 10
Year 15
Year 20
2013
2013
2017
2022
2027
2032
ADF from Project (gpd):
238,726
299,989
300,573
300,861
300,952
300,984
ADF from Downstream Interceptor only
(gpd):
1,075,169
1,136,432
1,139,006
1,140,097
1,140,557
1,140,718
WWTP ADF without Project: ):
1,075,169
1,136,432
1,139,006
1,140,097
1,140,557
1,140,718
WWTP ADF with Project ):
1,313,894
1,436,421
1,439,579
1,440,957
1,441,508
1,441,701
% WWTP Capacity Utilized (without
project):
35.84%
37.88%
37.97%
38.00%
38.02%
38.02%
% WWTP Capacity Utilized (with
Project):
43.80%
47.88%
47.99%
48.03%
48.05%
48.06%
Should planning begin fora WWTP
expansion regardless ofproject
implementation?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Should construction begin for a W1VTP
expansion regardless ofproject
implementation?
No
No
No
No
No
No
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 27 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

SECTION 4 PURPOSE AND NEED
Table 4.1 Need and
Table 4.1 Need and Purpose
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Provide the purpose in need statement in accordance with the requirements in Section 2.2.3 of
the guidance.
The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the capacity of the existing sewer line to
alleviate surcharging and odor issues and prevent future overflows and sewer backups. The
proposed line will be sized to serve the existing development in the area and any growth that
may occur during • the project life. The existing sewer is very old and does not meet current
minimum design criteria for gravity sewers. The sewer line currently experiences surcharging,
odors and sewer backups have occurred in the area causing wastewater to enter homes and
businesses.
East.Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 29 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 30 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5.1
ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
1.
No Action Alternative
2.
Alternative 1 — Alignment No. 1 12"
DIP (Preferred Alternative)
3.
Alternative 2 — Alignment No. 1 12"
PVC
4.
Alternative 3 — Alignment No. 2 12"
DIP
5.
Alternative 4 — Alignment No. 2 12"
PVC
Table 5.1.1. Alternatives Description Table
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
No -Action Alternative
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 4.6.1.1 through
4.6.1.6 of the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference:
I Not Applicable
Description
This alternative consists taking no action to improve the East Court Street Sewer line. The
existing sewer has reached the end of its useful life at 70 years old and is subject to surcharging
and potentially future overflows as it is undersized for current flows. Taking no action will result
in the continuation of the existing problems with this portion of the collection system.
Is Figure Included? ❑ Yes ® No
If Yes, Figure #:
Alternative Feasibility: ❑ Feasible ® Infeasible
Capital Cost: Not Applicable
Present Worth: Not Applicable
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that
of the Preferred Alternative.
The no action alternative will result in a continuation of the current situation and increased
failures as the existing sewer line deteriorates. This is likely to result in overflows and
contamination of the nearby unnamed tributary to Youngs Fork (Corpening Creek). The current
situation has also resulted in backups to nearby businesses. Taking no action would prevent
impacts resulting from construction of other alternatives.
Environmental Impact Analysis
® Greater than Preferred Alternative
❑ Less than Preferred Alternative
❑ Same as Preferred Alternative
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 31 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013-

Table 5.1.1. Alternatives Description Table
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: ❑ Accepted ® Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above -referenced alternative.
Taking no action will result in the continuation of the existing problems including issues with
surcharging and overflows resulting in potential environmental impacts to local waterways
Table 5.1.2. Alternatives Description Table
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alternative 1-Alignment No. 1, 12" DIP (Preferred Alternative)
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 4.6 L I through
4.6.1.6 of the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference:
Applicable
Description
This alternative consists of replacing the existing 8-inch gravity sewer with 12-inch gravity
sewer in approximately the same alignment. Project will include 3,950 LF of gravity sewer
including approximately 1,650 LF within the NCDOT right of way and a bore and jack under a
railroad owned and operated by Norfolk Southern. The proposed sewer will be installed outside
the existing sewer alignment but within the existing utility easement and/or NCDOT R/W. The
intent is to allow the existing sewer to remain in service while constructing the new sewer close
enough to allow existing services to be reconnected easily. From upstream to downstream the
project begins on Oak Street at the tie in point for the Clinchfield Pump Station which has a
capacity of 200 gpm. The proposed sewer then follows Oak Street to East Court Street (US 70).
The existing sewer is located under the west bound travel lane and the proposed sewer is
proposed to remain under the existing pavement. The sewer will then traverse between two
businesses to cross the railroad and across a storage/parking area for a concrete facility to State
St. The sewer parallels an unnamed tributary to Youngs Fork in a grassed area for approximately
500 ft and then though a wooded area for 350 ft prior to connecting to the existing 15-inch
interceptor on Spring Street.
Is Figure Included? ® Yes ❑ No
If Yes, Figure #: 5.1
Alternative Feasibility: ® Feasible ❑ Infeasible
Capital Cost: $1,250,550
Present Worth: $1,300,326
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that
of the Preferred Alternative.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 32 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.1.2. Alternatives Description Table
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
The primary environmental impacts from this alternative are related to the construction of the
new sewer line. Construction activities will have temporary impact on noise, and traffic. Some
minor clearing will be necessary in the wooded area to construct the new sewer. Erosion and
sedimentation during construction is a concern and will be mitigated through the use of an
erosion control plan implementing best management practices. Secondary and Cumulative
impacts are expected to be minimal since the line replaces an existing sewer and is intended to
serve primarily existing development in the sewershed.
Environmental Impact Analysis
❑ Greater than Preferred Alternative
❑ Less than Preferred Alternative
® Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: ® Accepted ❑ Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above -referenced alternative.
This alternative is the most cost effective to meet the project need. Alignment No. 1 allows the project to
be constructed with minimal bypass pumping and the use of DI pipe minimizes the potential for structural
concerns and allows the installation process to be completed more quickly than PVC.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 33 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

1
Table 5.1.3. Alternatives Description Table
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alternative 2-Alignment No. 1,12" PVC
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 4.6 L I through
4.6.1.6 of the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference:
Applicable
Description
This alternative is identical to the preferred alternative with the exception of utilizing PVC pipe
(SDR-35) instead of ductile iron where feasible. DI pipe will be required to be used for bore and
jacks and if separation requirements for existing potable water lines or other utilities cannot be
met otherwise. PVC pipe installation will be required to use Class 1 embedment material from 6"
below the pipe invert to the pipe spring line. The advantages of PVC include a smoother pipe
wall and better chemical resistance compared to DI. The disadvantages of PVC are a more
difficult installation and higher potential for structural damage to the pipe from poor installation
techniques or excessive loading.
Is Figure Included? ® Yes ❑ No
If Yes, Figure #: 5.1
Alternative Feasibility: ® Feasible ❑ Infeasible
Capital Cost: $1,308,235
Present Worth: $1,358,011
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that
of the Preferred Alternative.
Environmental impacts from this alternative are the same as the preferred alternative with the
exception of any impacts associated with the additional installation requirements or any damage
to the pipe requiring repairs.
Environmental Impact Analysis
❑ Greater than Preferred Alternative
❑ Less than Preferred Alternative
® Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: ❑ Accepted ® Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above -referenced alternative.
This alternative is rejected because the project includes a large portion of sewer under existing
roads inside the NCDOT right of way. The pipe material requires additional installation
requirements and less reliable results in these conditions. The estimated cost for installation of
PVC and class 1 embedment inside the NCDOT R/W is higher than the estimated cost for
Alternative No. 1 for a DIP sewer.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 35
City of Marion
Minor ER/EID
June 2013

Table 5.1.4. Alternatives Description
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alternative 3-Alignment No. 2, 12" DIP
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 4.6.1.1 through
4.6.1.6 of the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference:
I Not Applicable
Description
This alternative consists of replacing the East Court Street Sewer similar to Alternative 1. In this
alternative the proposed DIP sewer will be installed within the alignment of the existing sewer
line. Use of the existing alignment will reduce the piping required to reconnect services and
reduce the anticipated rock excavation quantities. The existing line will need to be taken out of
service during installation of the new sewer which will require additional bypass pumping. In
addition, costs for demolition of manholes and the existing sewer line are higher for this
alternative for complete removal of these structures.
Is Figure Included? ® Yes ❑ No
If Yes, Figure #: 5.1
Alternative Feasibility: ® Feasible ❑ Infeasible
Capital Cost: $1,269,750
Present Worth: $1,363,511
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that
of the Preferred Alternative.
Environmental impacts from this alternative are the similar to the preferred alternative with the
exception of bypass pumping. The bypass pumping operation will result in increased exhaust
emissions and noise during construction compared to the preferred alternative.
Environmental Impact Analysis
® Greater than Preferred Alternative
❑ Less than Preferred Alternative
❑ Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: ❑ Accepted ® Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above -referenced alternative.
This alternative has been rejected because it does not provide the most cost effective means of
addressing the project need. Although this alternative does utilize the existing trench alignment
and should reduce excavation cost, the additional costs of demolition and bypass pumping
exceed the potential benefit from this alternative. The alternative also will require greater
construction time and has a higher potential for sewerage overflows in the event of a failure of
the bypass pumping system.
Table 5.1.5. Alternatives Description
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 36 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alternative 4-Alignment No. 2, 12" PVC
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 4.6 L I through
4.6.1.6 of the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference:
I Not Applicable
Description
In this alternative the proposed PVC sewer will be installed within the alignment of the existing
sewer line. Use of the existing alignment will reduce the piping required to reconnect services
and reduce the anticipated rock excavation quantities. The existing line will need to be taken out
of service during installation of the new sewer which will require additional bypass pumping. In
addition, costs for demolition of manholes and the existing sewer line are higher for this
alternative for complete removal of these structures.
Is Figure Included? ® Yes ❑ No
If Yes, Figure #: 5.1
Alternative Feasibility: ® Feasible ❑ Infeasible
Capital Cost: $1,313,735
Present Worth: $1,363,511
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that
of the Preferred Alternative.
Environmental impacts of this alternative are similar to the other alternatives considered. The use
of Alignment No. 2 will require additional bypass pumping resulting in an increase in exhaust
emissions and noise during project construction from Alignment No. 1.
Environmental Impact Analysis
® Greater than Preferred Alternative
❑ Less than Preferred Alternative
❑ Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: ❑ Accepted ® Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above -referenced alternative.
This alternative has been rejected because it does not provide the most cost effective means of
addressing the project need. Although this alternative does utilize the existing trench alignment
and should reduce excavation cost the additional costs of demolition and bypass pumping exceed
the potential benefit from this alternative. The alternative also will require greater construction
time and has a higher potential for sewerage overflows in the event of a failure of the bypass
pumping system. The use of PVC will also require additional care in construction compared to
DI and has a greater potential for failure due to structural loading.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 37 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

5.2 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
Table 5.2.1 Capital Costs
Table 5.2.1. Capital Costs
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
- -
Complete the areas shown in gray below. Where shown, use pulldown menu to select options. The spreadsheet will c
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch DIP (Preferred Altemati
Project Administration ($):
$246,900
_
Component
Mobilization
Unit Costa
$26,600
Unit
LS
Quantity
1
Total Cost
$26,600
_
_-
12" DIP Gravity SanitarySewer Outside NCDOT RAV
$50
LF.
2,300
$115,000
-
I
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
$65
LF
1,650
$107,250
--�
- _
4' Dia,Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$75,000
Abandon/Demolish Existing Manholes
$1,500
EA
25
$37,500
-_
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
1
$2,500
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$30,000
- - _
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$600
$200
LF
LF
135
85
$81,000
$17,000
--
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$10,000
LS
1
$10,000
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$12,500-
-_
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$148,500
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY -
2;600
$13,000
_
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2600
$39,000
_
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$15,000
-
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
750
$75,000
- --
--
Select Backfiff
320
CY
2,000
$40,000
Washed Stone
$30
LF
2,000
$60,000
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$7,500
_
aUnit costs are in today's dollars, not future dollars.
_ _ Total_ Construction Cost:
Construction Contingency Cost:
Project Administration Cost:
- - Total Capital Cost:
$912,350
$91,300
$246,900
$1,250,550
- -
Table 5.2.2 Replacement Cost Life Cycle Assumptions Table
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Expected
Replacement
Component
Life Cycle
Expected?fi
Rational for Expected Life Cycle
Sewer Line
50
No
Typical Expected Service Life
Sewer Manhole
50
No
Typical Expected Service Life
Steel Encasement
50
No
Typical Expected Service Life
Pipe
'Period for replacement would be Years 1 through 20 only.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 38 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.3 Replacement Costs
Table 5.2.3. Replacement Costs (Years I to 5)
-0—
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
...............
.. City Marion__..-___._.
nment No. 1, 12-inch DIP
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:12.07%
I
I EPA Discount Rate: 4.875 %
Present
Value ofReplacement Costs in Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
1
2
3
1 4
5
Mobilization.
$26,600
LS
I
$o
Lo
S
$0
so
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT RAV
$50
LF
2,300
$o
—
$0
$o
$o
$o
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT RfW
$65
LF
1,650
$o
$o
$0
$0
$o
4'Dia. Manholes
Abandon/Demofish Existing Manholes
$2,500
$1,5001FA
EA
30
25
$o
$0
$o
$o
so
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
11
$0
$o
$0
$o
$o
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$0
so
$o
Sol
so
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
Sol
so
$0
$0
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$200
LF
85
$0
so
$0
so
$0
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$ 10,000
LS
1
$0
$0
so
$0
$o
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$0
$0
$0
$o
so
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$0
$o
$0
$0
so
Municipal ave ntRepair
$25
SY
600
$0
$o
Sol
$o
so
I
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
750
$0
$o
so
$o
so
Select Backlill
$20
CY
2,000
$0
$0
SO
0
$0
Washed Stone
$30
LF
2,000
$o
$0
$0
$0
$5
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
------- - - - - -
- - - -- - - - - - - ------ -------- ---- ------------- - J!�!.jl Present Value of Replacement Costs (Years I to 5):
- --------- --
$o
$o
$0
$o
so
Table 5.2.4 _Replacement Costs
Table 5.2.4. Repincementiq_o�sffearj 6 to 10)___
East Court Street Sever Rehabilitation
I of-rua------------ -
rion
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch DIP (Preferred Alternative)
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:12.07%
I
1 EPA Discount Rate:14.875% I
Present Value ofReplacement Costs in Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quanti
6
7
8
1 9
10
Mobilization
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT R(W
$26,600
$50
LS
IX
1
2,300
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
$o
so
$0
$o
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
$65
LF
1,650
$o
$o
$0
$0
$0
4'Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
i
----- ----
Abandon/Demoflsh Exdsttng Manholes
$1,500
EA
25
$o
$0
$o
$o
so
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
11
$0
$0
$o
so,
—so
Reconnect Exdsting Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
so
Sol
$0
$o
$5
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
$o
$0
so
$0
FT Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$200
LF
85
$o
$o
$0
so
$0,
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$10,000
LS
I
$o
so
so
$o
so
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$0
$o
$o
$o
$o
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$o
$0
$0
$o
$o
NCDOT Pavement Wing
$5
SY
2,600
TO
—$o
$0
$o
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,6001
$0
$o
$0
$ol
$0
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$0
$01
$o
$o
$o--
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
—
750
$o
$ol
$o
so
$o
i
Select BackfiU
$20
CY
2.000
$o
$0
$o
$o
SO
Washed Stone
S30
LF
2,000
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs (Years 6 to 10):
j - - - - -
$o
$o
$0
$0
$o
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 39 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.5 Replacement Costs
Replacement Costs (Years 11 to 15)
--
_Ta_ble_5.2.5.
—
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion --
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch DIP (Preferred Alternative)
_
I
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index
12.07%
i
I EPA Discount Rate:14.875% I
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year.
j
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
15
Mob7iiration
$26,600
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
So
_
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT RIW
$50
LF
2,300
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
'
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT RA1V
$65
LF
1,650
$0
SO
$0
$0
50
4' Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO
Abandon/Demofish Ddsting Manholes
$1,500
EA
25
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
—� {
_
Connection to &dstmg MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0---I
Reconnect asting Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
_
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cm with 12" DIP
$200
LF
85
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$10,000
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
_
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$o
$0
$0
$o
$0
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
_
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
50
_
_NCDOT
Pavement Overlay
S15SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO____
:—.-
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
660
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
.......y
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
_
Select Backfill
$20
CY
2,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Washed Stone
$30
LF
2,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
i
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs (Years 11 to 15)_
$o
So
So
50
l
$o
,
Table 5.2.6 Replacement Costs
j
L
Table 5.2.6. Replacement Costs (Years 16 t0 20)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation _
__._ Ci of Manon
._. - --—____..— -- _ �.___.._.�__ tY—___------
Alignment----_-_—____._—
No. 1, 12-inch DIP (Preferred Alternative)
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:12.07%
i
I EPA Discount Rate:14.875 % 1 i I
Present Value of Re lacement Costs in Year.-
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quanti
16
17
18
19 1
20
_
Mob Ovation
$26,600
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
J
_
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT RAV
$50
LF
2,300
$0
50
$0
$0
$0
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
$65
LF
1,650
$0
$0
$0
SO
SO
_
_
4' Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO
Abandon/DemofishExistingManholes
$1,500
EA
25
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$0
$0
SO
$0
SO
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
$0
SO
$0
SO
_ ~
t---------
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12"DIP
P P
$200
LF
85
$0
50
$0
$0
$0
__
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$10,000
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90LF
1,650
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
NCDOT Pavement Mrlfing
$5
SY
2,600
$0
SO
$0
SO
$0
'—�
I-------.
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
—I
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rock Excavaton
$100
CY
750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SelectBackfill
$20
CY
2,000
$0
$0
$0
SO
Washed Stone
$30
LF
2,000
$0
$0
SO
$o
$0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
_T !
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs (Years 16 to 20)_
-
SO
$0
$o
$o
$0-----
_
r
__ Totare 1 Psent Value of Replacement Costs (Life of Project)_
SO
---
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 40 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.7 Present Value of Operation and Maintenance Costs
-
- Table 5.2.7. Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)
East Court Street Smer Rehabilitation
---
-
City of Marion
-
_
`-
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch DIP referred Alternative
Complete the cells shown in gray below.
Current Inflation Rate Based on Manic' al Cost Index i2.76% EPA Discount Rate:! 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component
Unit Cost Unit
Quantity
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
AnnualIns ectionofSewerLine,.
$5010H
30
$1,470
$1,440 $1,411
$1,383
$1,355
$1,327
$1,301
$1,274
$1,249
$1,224
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses (Years 1-10):
$1,470
$1,440 $1,411
$1,383
1.QIA
$1,327
$1,301
$1,274
$1.249
$1,224
Table 5.2.8 Present Value of Operation and Maintenance Costs
Table 5.2.8. Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch DIP (Preferred Alternative)
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:12.76% i
i
i i I i ) i i EPA Discount Rater 4.875%
j
y
i
i
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component Unit Cost Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Annual Inspection ofSewerLine r $50 MH
r 30
$1,199
$1,175
$1,151
$1,128
$1,105
$1,083
$1,061
$1,039
$1,019
$998
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses (Years 11-20):
$1,199
$1,175
$1,1511
$1,128
$1,1051
$1,083
$1,061
$1,039
$1,019
$998
jTotal Present Value of Annual O&M Costs (Life of Project):
$24,390
_
I
Table 5.2.9 Present Value of Intermittent Operation and Maintenance
Costs
Table 5.2.9. Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)
East Court Street SemyrReba bilitation
- -
-- - -- -- - -- - --- City of Marion
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch DIP referred Alternative)
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:12.76% i i i i i i i i i i EPA Discount Rate:14.875%'
- Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 1 7 8 1 9 10
Sewer Line Cleaning
$4
LF
3,950
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,982
$0
$0
$0
$0
-,
i
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Maintenace Costs (Years 1-10):
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13.982
$0
$0
$0
$0
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 41 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Tahla S 7. 1 n PrPePnt Valne of Tntermittent nneration and Maintenance Costs
Table 5.2.10. Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
I
Alignment No. 1,12-inch DIP (Preferred Alternative)
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index
j2.76%
I i I
I I I i EPA Discount Rate:14.875%
_
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit Qua nti
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sewer Line Cleaning
$4
LF 3,950
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,405
$0
$0
$0
$0
I
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Maintenace Costs (Years 11-20):
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11.405
$0
$0
$o
s0
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Maintenance Costs (Life of Project):
$25,387
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
-- -- - City of -Marion
42
Minor ER/EID
June 2013
r

Table 5.2.11 Capital Costs
r-T-'
Table 5.2.11. Capital Costs
--
-
�- -
East Court Street Se erRehabilitation
- - -- City of Marion -- -- - --- -
Complete the areas shown in gray below. Where shown, use pulldomn menus to select options. The spreadsheet will calculate the capital costs.
T
Alternative:
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch PVC
E
Project Administration $):
$253,500
j
Component
p
°
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
Total Cost
--
Mobrlirdtion ':
$26,600
LS' .
. 1
$26,600
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT R/W
$50
LF
2,300
$115,000
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
. $75
LF
1,650
$123,750
4' Dia: Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$75,000
-_
--
Abandon/Demolish Existing Manholes
$1,500
EA
25
$37,500
-
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert _
$2,500
EA
1
$2,500
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$30,000
Y--
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12 DIP
$600
LF
135
$81,000
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cud witli 12" DIP
$200
LF -
85
$17,000
-
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$10,000
LS
1
$10,000
_ -
_
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$12,500
_
NCDQT Pavement Repair
p
$90
LF -
1,6501
$148,500
NCDOT Pavement Mtlling
$5
SY
2,600
$13,000
-v
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$39,000
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$15,000
_ -
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
750
$75,000
f-
Select Backfill
$20
CY
2,000
$40,000
I-- _
Washed Stone
$30
LF
3,000
$90,000
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$7,500
j'Unit
i------------------------------------.....
costs are in today's dollars, not future dollars.
------------1----------
Total Construction Cost:
$958,850
S95,885
----------
_-..__
---.......
-- -----
Construction Contingency Cost:
Project Administration Cost:
$253,500
j Total Capital Cost:
S1,308,235
Table 5.2.13 Replacement Costs
5.2.13_Replacement Costs (Years 1 to 5) -- `
;
East Court Street Sewer RehabOitation
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch PVC
I
-
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:l2.07%
1
1 EPA Discount Rate:14.875 % I!
Component
Quanti
Present Value of Re lacement Costs in Year.
Unit Cost
Unit
1
2
3
4
5
MobRmflon
$26,600
LS
1
$0
$0
so
$0
so
_-_
12" PVC Gravity San'SanitM Sewer Outside NCDOT R/W
$50
LF
2,300
$0
so
so
$0
SO
i
12"PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
$75
LF
1,650
$0
so
so
s0
so
---''
---
4' Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
SO
$0
SO
Abandon/DemolishEAsting Manholes
$1,500
EA
25
$0
$0
$0
$0
s0
-
_
F
Connection to Eidstmg MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
1
$0
s0
$0
$0
SO
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
s0
$o
Sol
so
s0
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
s0
$0
$0
$0
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$200
LF
85
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
- - .i
_ _-Bypass
Pumping during Construction
$10,000
LS
I
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
--
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
l-_
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$0
$0
$0
$0
s0
i
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-_�
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$0
$01
$0
$0
SO
Mtu&i al Pavement Repair
IP p
s25
SY
600
- $0
$0
$0
s0
$0
-- -'
RockExcavation
$100
CY
750
$0
$0
so
so
$o
-
__
SelectBaVill
$20
CY
2,000
$0
$0
$0
so
s0
Washed Stone
$30
LF
3,000
$0
so
$0
so
$0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
s0
$0
s0
s0
Present Value of Replacement Costs (Years 1 to 5L
_ _
SO
so
$o
SO
so
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 43 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.14 Renlacement Costs
Table 5.2.14. Re lacement Costs (Years 6 to 10)
p
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch PVC
LCurrent
Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:12.07%
I
j EPA Discount Rate:14.875% I I
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year.
Component
unit cost
unit
Quantity
6
7
8
9
10
Mobilization
526,600
LS
1
$0
$0
$o
$o
$o
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT RAV
$50
LF
2,300
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
12"PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOTRIW
$75
LF
1,650
$0
$0
$o
$o
$o
L
4' Din. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$o
$0
$o
o
$
Abandon/Demolish Existing Manholes
$1,500
EA
25
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Connection to DdsfingMH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
1
$0
$o
$0
$ol
$o
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$ol
$o
$0
$o
$o
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked %viai 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
$o
$0
$0
$o
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$200
LF
85
$o
$o
$o
so
$o
---
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$10,000
LS
1
$0
$0
$o
$0
so
— -------
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
S25
TN
500
$o
$o
$0
$o
$0
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
i4—CDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$0
$ol
$0
$0
$0
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$o
$0
$0
$01
$0
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o,
L
Excavation
$100
CY
750
$o
$o
$o
$o
$0
_Rock
Select Backtill
$20
CY
2,000
$0
$0
$o
$o
$o
Washed Stone
$30
LF
3,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,5001LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
I
Total Present Value of Costs (Years l
_ _
±joq�.
Sol
$o
$o
$o
$O
Table 5.2.15 ReDlacement Costs
Table 5.2.15. Replacement Costs Oears 11 to
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
L----------
Alignment No. 11 12-inch PVC
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:
2.07%
1
1 EPA Discount Rate:4.875%
1I
inponent
Unit Cost
Present Value ofReplacement Costs in Year.
Unit
Quantity
11
12--
13
14
15
Mobilization
$26,600
LS
I
$o
$o
$o
$o
$01
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOTRAV
$50
LF
2,300
$o
$o
$o
$o
$0
i
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
$75
LF
1,650
$o
$0
$0
$0
$O
4'Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
Abandon/Demolish Existing Manholes
$1,500
FA
25
$0
$o
$0
$0
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
RA
11
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$o
$ol
$o
$o
$o
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$o
LO
$o
$o
$o
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$200
IX
85
$0
$o
$0
$o
$01
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$10,000
LS
I
$o
$0
$o
—$O
$o
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$o
$0
$o
$o
$o
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
Ix
1,650
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
.. ... ....... ...
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
1 2,600
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0----
i
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$0
$
$0
$o
$0
`_______MunicipalPavcmcntlkopair
$25
SY
600
$ol
$o
$o
$0
TO
Rock Excavation
$loo
CY
750
$o
$0
$o
$o
$o
Select Backfill
$20
CY
2,000
$0
$o
$0
$0
Washed Stone
$30
LF
3,000
$o
$0
$0
$0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
$0
$o
$o
$o
-__Total Present Value of Replacement Costs (Years
—7
11 to IS):
$o
$o
$o
so
$o
-----------
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 44 Minor ER/ElD
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.16 Replacement Costs
I
�___-
___ Table 5.2.16. Replacement Costs (Years 16 to 20)_
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion__T__T_r.-_ __
Ali nment No. 1, 12-inch PVC
j
j-_—
Current Inflation Rate based on Construdon Cost Indcx:12.07
%
(
I EPA Discoum Rate:14.875 % II
i
Present Value of Re lacement Costs in Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
16
17
18
19
20
Mobilimtion
$26,600
LS
1
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
y
12" PVC vity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT R/W
$50
LF
2,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
I
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
$75
LF
1,650
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
4' Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
--- ...
Abandon/DemofishDdstingManholes
$1,500EA
25
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0'
_
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
11
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L_____
Reconnect Fadstmg Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$0
$0
$01
$0
$0
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
_
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$200
LF
85
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$10,000
LS
1
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
—1
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$0
$o
$0
$0
So
j
NCDOT Pavement Repair
NCDOT Pavement Mug
S90
$5
LF
SY
1,650
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
$0
$o
SO
$0
_
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,6001
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
{ _
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L
Rock Excavation
$100CY
750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0_—__—j
1
SelectBackfill
$20
CY
2,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
I
Washed Stone
$30
LF
3,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
---- —1
�
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
j
Total Present Value of Replacment Costs (Years 16 to 20)_ $o $o $0 $0
, _ Total Present Value of Re lacement Costs de of Pro'ect :
-_..__ _..._ ___. ...r-- _ .... _ _-_____._.. .. _._. _. _ _P._ , ....__ __._..� J_--)_
_-------
-
$o
$o
------!
L —_
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 45 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Tahlo G 1 17 Pracant ValnP of Onerntinnc and Maintenance Costs
Table 5.2.17. Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)
_
J
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch PVC
Complete the cells shown in gray below.
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:12.76%
{
E , EPA Discount Rater 4.875%
E
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit Quanti
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
_--
Annual Inspection ofSewerLine.
$50
MH• 30
$1,470
$1,440
$1,411
$1,383
$1,355
$1,327
$1,301
$1,274
$1,249
$1,224
C Total Present Value of Ycarly O&M Expenses Years 1-10 :
$1,470
$1,440
$1,411
$1,383
$1,355
$1327
$1,301
IN 7,741
$1,249
$1,774
gr uj.. C 1 14 ID no-* Vahia of (lnaratinne anll IVlaintennnee.. ( Wrzft
Table 5.2.18. Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alignment No. 1, 12-inch PVC
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index !2.76%
E
E !
i E t E E I EPA Discount Rated 4.875%
E
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
-----------
Component Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
AnnualInspection ofSewerLine r 50MH
30
$1,199
$1,175
$1,151
$1,128
$1,105
$1,083
$1,061
$1,039
$1,019
$998
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses Years 11-20):
$1,199
$1,175
$1,151
$1,128
$1.105
$1,083
$1,061
$1,039
$1,019
$998
I
!Total Present Value of Annual O&M Costs Life of Pro ect
��
$24,390
1
9r U1.. C 1 1 a poi AIalnn of TntPrmittPnt ( )nPrntinnc and IVlaintennnce t,osts
Table 5.2.19. Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)
East Court Street Sewer Rebabilitation
City of Marion
Alignment No. 1,12-inch PVC
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index 2.76% { i i i ( i !EPA Discount Rate; 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Sewer Line Cleaning
$4
LF
3,950
$0$0
200
$0
$0
$13,982
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Present Value of Intermittent Options & Maintenace Costs (Years 1-10)_$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,982
$0
$0
$0
$0
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 46 Minor ER/EID
------City of,Marion__ __ June 2013

Table 5.2.20 . Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs
Table 5.2.20. Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
!
City of Marion
Alignment No. 1,12-inch PVC
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:12.76%
f{EPA
Discount Rate:{4.875%
j
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 17
1 18
19
20
Sewer Line Cleaning
$4LF
3,950
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,405
$0
$0
$0
$01
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Maintenace Costs (Years 11-20):
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,405
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Maintenance Costs (Life of Project):
$25,387
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 47 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.21 Capital Costs
•:
__ _ _Table 5.2.21. Capital Costs -- - ------,--------`-------_-----
-_--
Court Street SetverRehabiGtation
City of Marion
_
Complete the areas shown in gray below. fk7iere shown, use pzdldoivn menus io select options. The spreadsheet will calculate the capital costs.
Alternative:
Alignment No. 2, 12-inch DIP
_
i
Project Administration ($):
$246,900
1
_
___
Component
Unit Cost°
Unit
Quantity
Total Cost
-
Mobilization
$26,600
LS'
1
$26,600
_
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT RAV
$50
LF
2;300
$115,000
t----
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
$65
LF
1,650
$107,250
4' Dia! Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$75,000
_
Abandon/Demolish Existing Matilioles
12,000
EA
25
$50,000
- -
-
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
1
$2,500
i
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$30,000
_-
--­Reconnect
__
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with IT' DIP
$600
LF
135
$81,000
-
j
24"Steel Encasement Pipe, -Open Cid wid112" DIP -
'-'$200
LF
85
$17,000
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$25,000
LS
1
$25,000
j
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$12,500
--
' ---
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$148,500
---
_
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,6001
$13,000
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY -
2,600
$39,000
_ -
-
Municipal Pavement Repair.
$25
SY
600
$15,000
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
650
$65,000
SelectBackfill
$20
CY
2,000
$40,000
Washed Stone
$30
LF
2,000
$60,000
_
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$7,500
__
r _
- -
I--------
l'Unit costs are in today's dollars, not future dollars.
---_._., -- -- -- - - - -- ------------ --
---------- ------
- - Total Construction Cost:
- -- ---
Contingency Cost:
_mjectAdministratienCost:
P- - - - -- - -
Total Capital Cost_
-
$929,850
- --
T
i
$93,000
$246,900
$1,269,750
i
Table 5.2.23 Replacement Costs
--- --- ------- -----
Table 5.2.23. Replacement Costs (Years 1 to 5)
Court Street SewerRehabilitation �__-__-_`-_-_-,.--_
-----
L�-
--�-----_East
---------------------------City of Marion ------- -------------
Alignment No. 2, 12-inch DIP
---
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:12.07
% I
EPA Discount Rate:14.875
r-._.._-__._.._...._...
'
----- aaent-----------------------...._.........._..._.....ost--
Cam onent
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year.
I
- -
Unit Cost
-------
Uni[
-- -
Quanti
1
2
3
4
5
__------.
_
--
Mobilization
12"DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT R/W
$26,600
$50
LS
LF
1
2,300
$0
$0
$0
50
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
__--
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT RAV
$65
LF
1,650
$0
$0
50
$0
$0
_____
4' Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
AbandorJDemolshExistingManholes
$2,000
EA
25
$0
$0
$0
50_-
r
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reconnect Epsting Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$200
LF
85
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-Bypass
Pumping during Construction
$25,000
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0__-__
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$0
$0
$0
S5
50
f
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$0
$0
$0
50
$0
-- J
- _
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
50
$0
`----
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
50
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$0
50
$0
$0
$0
_
^_-
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
650
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
'
Select Backflll
$20
CY
2,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
s0
-
Washed Stone
$30
LF
2,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Present Value of Replacement Costs (Years 1 to $)_
$0
SO
SO
SO
SO
_.
-- (
- --
------ - ---
-- _---
-
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 48 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.24 Replacement Costs
F— F —T --F----F--
Table 5.2.24. Replacement Costs (Years 6 to 10)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
------------- City ofkl� .- ... . . .. ......... ............
Alignment No. 2, 12-inch DIP
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:t2.07%
I
I EPA Discount Rate:14.875% I
Pre sent Value of'Replacement Costs in Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
6
7
8
9
10
Mobilization
$26,600
LS
I
$o
$o
$0
$0
$ol
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOTRfW
$50
LF
2,300
so
so
so
so
so
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT RfW
$65
LF
1,650
$o
$0
$0
$o
$5
4'Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$o
$0
$0
$0
so
Abandort/Demofish F-Asting Manholes
$2,000
EA
25
$o
$0
$0
$0
so
Connection to Fadsting MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
I
s0.
$o
$o
$0
$0
Reconnect F�dsting Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$0
$o
$0
$o
$o
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
$o
$o
so
$o
FSteel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$200
LF
85
$0
so
so
Sol
so
L
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$25,000
LS
1
$0
$0
so
$0
so
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$0
$0
$o
$o
$o
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$0
$0
so
$0
so
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
so
so
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
S15
SY
2,6001
$0
$ol
$o
so
$o
Municipal Pavement Repair
S25
SY
600
$0
so
so
$0
$5
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
650
$0
$o
so
so
$01
Select Backfiil
$20
CY
2,000
$0
so
$01
$0
$o
Washed Stone
$30
LF
2,000
$o
so
$21
$o
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
I
TO
$0
So
$0
d,!,00
Total Present Value ofReplacement Costs is io)-.,
$0
so
$ol
so
Table 5.2.25 Replacement Costs
- - ------ ---- - - -
Table 5.2.25._Repjacement Costs _(Ycars 'jI
East Court Sewer Rehabilitation
City ofAja Aon ------------
Alignment No. 2,12-inch DIP
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:12.07%
EPA Discount Rate:14.875% 1 1 1
Present Value of'Replacement Costs in Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
11
12
13
14
15
Mobilization
$26,600
LS
1
$0
so
so
so
Sol
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT R/W
$50
LF
2,300
A25
so
$0
so
$o
so
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT RIW
$65
LF
1,650
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
. . . ..........
4'Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
so
$o
$0
so
1
Abandon/Demolish 11-cisting Manholes
$2,000
EA
$0
$o
$0
$o
$0
Connection to Fidsting MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
1
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
751
so
$0
so
so
so
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
so
so
so
so
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
5200
LF
85
$0
so
so
$o
$o
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$25,000
LS
1
$0
so
so
so
so
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$0
$0
so
$0
so
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$0
$o
$o
So—so
L
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$0
$0
so
$o
—so
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$0
so
$01
$0
$-0
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$01
so
so
$0
so
i
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
650
$o
so
so
$0
$o
Select Backfill
520
CY
2,000
$0
$0
so
$o
$0
Washed Stone
$30
LF
2,000
$0
so
$0
$0
so
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
I $7,500ILS
1
$0
so
$0
$o
$0
-Total Present Value of'Replacement Cost�s earjllto]S�.,
(Y
so
$o
$o
$0
$o
---- — -----
I
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 49 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.26 Replacement Costs
5.2.26. Replacement Costs (Years 16 to 20)
EnstCourt treetSeiverRehabilit.ition
City ofMarion ..... ..... . - - ------ - - ........... ...
Alignment No. 2112-inch DIP
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost IndeKl
2.07%
1
1 EPA Discount Rate:14.875% I
Present Value ofReplacement Costs in Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
16
17
is
19
20
i
Mobilization
$26,600
LS
1
$0
so
$0
$0
$o
12"DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT RAV
12" DIP Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT RIW
$50
$65
LF
LF
2,300
1,650
$0
$o
$o
$o
$o
$0
$0
LO
$o
$o,___
4'Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
Abandon/Demofish Existing Manholes
Connection to Usting MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,000
$2,500
FA
FA
25
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
$o
$0
$0
$0
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$0
$ol
$o
$o
$0
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12"DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
$o
$o
$o
$0
__
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12"DIP
$200
LF
85
$0
$0
$o
$0
$o
i
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$25,000
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$o
To
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$o
$o
$0
$0
$o
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5
1
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$01
$o
$o
$01
$o
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
650
$0
$o
$o
$0
$0
Select Backfill
$20
CY
2,000
$0
$o
$0
so
$0
Washed Stone
$30
LF
2,000
$0
$o
$0
$o
$o
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
$o
$0
$o
$o
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs (Years l6tu_20j.
$
$0
$o
$o
$o
Present Value ol`Replacement.Costs jGfe
.. ....... . .........
$o
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 50 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.27 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs
Table 5.2.27. Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10
East Court Street Sei er Rehabilitation
—-------------- - - -
City of Marion
Alignment No. 2, 12-inch DIP
—J
Complete the cells shown in gray below.
—_
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:12.76% I I
! I ! EPA Discount Rater 4.875%
—�
I
Present Value ofO&M Costs for Year.
—�
Component Unit Cost Unit Quanti
1
2
3
4
5
G
7
8
9
10
Annual Inspection 'ofSewerLine $50 MH' ;;30
$1,470
$1,440
$1,411
$1,383
$1,3551
$1,3271
$1,3011
$1,2741
$1,24911
$1,224
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses Years 1.10):
$1,470
$1,440
$1,411
S1,3831
$1,355
$19327
$1,3011
$1,2741
$1,2491
$1,224
Table 5.2.28 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs
,T_—�—
Table 5.2.28. Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alignment No. 2, 12-inch DIP
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:I2.76%
i
i EPA Discount Rater 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
—7
Component
Unit Cost Unit I Quantity
11
12
1 13
1 14
1 15
1 16
17
18
19
20
Annual Inspection of Sewer Line
r $50 MH 30
$1,199
$1,175
$1,1511
$1,1281
$1,105
$1,083
$1,061
$1,039
$1,019
$998
j
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses (Years 11-20):
$1,199
$11751
$1,1511
$1,1281
$1,1051
$1,083
$1,061
$1,039
$1,019
$998
ITotal Present Value of Annual O&M Costs (Life of Project):
$24,390
_
Table 5.2.29 Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs
Table 5.2.29. Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years ]-10)
j
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
—�
-- --
---------------- City of Marion
Alignment No. 2,12-inch DIP --
—
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:12.76%
I
I
i (
j ( I (
j EPA Discount Rate:I4.875%
—�
_
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
—j
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
_
Quantity
1
2
3
4
1 5
1 6
7
1 8
9
10
—
Sewer Line Cleaning
$4
LF
3,950
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,982
$0
$0
$0
$0
—
---
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Maintenace Costs Years 1-10�:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,982
$0
$0
$0
$0
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 51 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.30 Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs
T
Table 5.2.30. Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
Past Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alignment No. 2, 12-inch DIP
Cwrent Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Inde�2.76%
1
EPA Discount Rate:4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component
_
Unit Cost Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
—�
Sewer Line Cleaning
$4 LF
3,950
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,405
$0
$0
$0
$0
i
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Maintenace Costs (Years I1-20):
$0
$01
Sol
$0
$0
$11,405
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Maintenance Costs (Life of Project):
$25,387
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 52 Minor ER/EID
-- - _ ---_Cit--ofMarion --- - -- - - -- - -- - - - -- - _ June 2013

Table 5.2.31 Capital Costs
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
_
Complete the areas shown in gray below. Where shown, use pulldown menus to select options. The spreadsheet will calculate the capital costs.
_
Alternative:
Alignment No. 2, 12-inch PVC
Project Administration ($):
$253,500
-
Component
Unit Cost°
Unit
Quantity
Total Cost
_
_
Mobilization
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside 'NCDOT R/W
$26,600
$50LF
LS
1
2,300
$26,600
$115,000�
--{
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
$75
LF
1,650
$123,750
4' Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$75,000
I
Abandon/Demolish Existing Manholes
$1,500
EA
25
$37,500
-
---
Connection to Existing ME and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
;'1
$2,500
_
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
3400
EA
75
$30,000
_
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$81,000
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Curt with 12" DIP
" ": $200
LF
85
$17,000
_
Bypass Pmnpirlg during Construction
$25,000
LS
1
$25,000
_
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$12,500
-
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$148,500
_NCDOT
Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$13,000
�
NCDOT-Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$39,000
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$15,000
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
650
$65,000
i --
SelecfBackfiil
$20
CY
2,000
$40,000
^ -
_
Washed Stone
$30
LF
3,000
$90,000
_ J
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$7,500
--
- ---
i
---_
1 Unit costs are in today's dollars, not future dollars.
- - - ------._... -- -- , ------
- --- - ---
------- - -- --
Total Construction Cosh
------------------ ----- -
j Constrnction Contingency Cost:
j Project Administration Cost:
$963,850
- - -
- -
-
$96,385
$253,500
-�
-
- ---
Total Ca ttal Cost:
$1,313,735
- -j
Table 5.2.33 Replacement Costs
Table 5.2.33_ Replacement Costs (Years 1 toy -� __- ------,--
_
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
-_
_ _---_
Marion
-------- - -_-_ - Alignment No. 2, 12-inch PVC-_----� --
---~
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index12.07%
I
j EPA Discomrt Rater 4.875 % 1 i I
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year,
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
1
2
3
4
5
Mobilization
$26,600
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
juW
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer OutsideNCDOTR/W
$50LF
2,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0�
�^
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
$75
LF
1,650
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
i
I
----
4' Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
__
AbandontDemolishUstingManholes
$1,500EA
25
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
----
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
FA
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
s0
- -=
Reconnect EAstmg Sewer Service
$400
FA
75
$0
Sol
$0
$0
S0
_
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
f-'-
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cm with 12" DIP
$200
LF
85
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
. -...
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$25,000
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$0
$0
$0
so-so---
.._._...
_
NCDOT Pavement Repair
S90
LF
I,650
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
F
NCDOT Pavement MMing$5SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0��
-
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
--'- 1
j--
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$0
$0
$0
$0
_
Rock Excavation
$IOOCY
650
$0
$0
$0
$0
Select Backlif
$20
CY
2,000
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
Washed Stone
$30
LF
3,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
C_
M isceUaneous Erosion Control 1 $7,500 LS 1 1
Total Present Value of Re lacement Costs ears 1 to 5 :
$0
SO
$0
$o
$0
SO
$0
$o
$0
SO
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 53 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5-2.34 Renlacement Costs
Table 6.2.34. RglaSement Costs (years 6 to 10)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
...... . .. . . - -------- ------ - - — -------------------------
Alignment No. 2,12-inch PVC
-------- -- i
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:12.07%
i
I EPA Discount Rate:14.875% I
Present Value ofReplacement Costs in Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
6
7
8
9
10
Mobilization
$26,600
IS
1
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
1
12"PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT RAV
$50
LF
2,300
$0
$o
$0
$o
$o
i
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT RIW
$75
LF
1,650
$0
so
$o
$o
so
4'Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
Abandon/Demolish Edsting Manholes
$1,500
EA
25
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
EA
1 1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
S400
EA
75
$0
Sol
$o
$0
$6—
1
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$0
$0
$0
so
$o
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$200
LF
85
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$25,000
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
IN
500
$0
$0
$0
$o
$6
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$o
$0
$o
$o
$o
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$o
$0
$o
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$o
$o
$o
TO
so
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
----$O
$0
$o
$01
$0
. ..... ...
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
650
$0
$0
$0
$ol
$0
Select Backfill
$20
CY
2,000
LO
$0
$0
Sol
$0
Washed Stone
$30
LF
3,000
$0
$o
$0
$o
$o
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
$0
$o
21
$o
Total Present Value ofReplacement Costs (Years 6 to 10):l
$o
$o
$o
0
$o
Table 5.2.35 ReDlacement Costs
T-
Tibl5.2.LS. Rcplacemer!t.C�Osts(Years ll tom
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
Cityof Marion
Ali-,nment No. 2, 12-inch PVC
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:12.07%
I
I EPA Discount Rate:14.875% I
Present Value ofReplacement Costs in Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
15
Mobilization
$26,600
LS
1
$0
$0
so
$0
so
12"PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer OutsideNCDOTRAV
$50
LF
2,300
$0
so
so
$o
$0
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOT R/W
$75
LF
1,650
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
4'Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
Abandon/Demolish Existing Manholes
$1,500
EA
25
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Connection to E)dsting MH and RebtAd Invert
$2,500
EA
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reconnect Existing Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$0
$o
$01
$o
$01
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
$600
LF
135
$01
$o
$o
so
so
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12 DIP
$200
LF
85
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
i
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$25,000
LS
1
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
CABC (ShoLdders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
$o
$o
$o
$0
$0
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$0
$o
$0
$o
$0
NCDOT Pavement Miffing
$5
SY
2,600
$o
$0
$0
$0
$o
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$o
$0
$0
Sol
$o
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
6001
$0
$01
$o
$o
$o
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
6501
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
Select BackfiH
$20
CY
2,000
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
Washed Stone
$30
LF
3,0021
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
IS
1
$0
$0
$o
$0
$o
1
I :Total Present I!ie of Replacement Costs (Years_
$o
$o
$0
$o
$o
----------
- - ------------
- —
-
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 54 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.36 Replacement Costs
Table 5.2.36. Replacement Costs (Years 16 to 20)
_
East Court Street Seaver Rehabilitation
i---------
--------,___...._...--------------------_--- City of Marion
Ali nment No.2, 12-inch PVC
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:12.07%
i
1 EPA Discount Rate:14.875 % I
Present Value of Re lacement Costs in Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
16 17 18 19 20
i----- _
Mobilizetion
$26,600
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
_
�_— —
12" PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Outside NCDOT RIW
$50
LF
2,300
$0
so
$0
$0
s0
12"PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer Inside NCDOTR/W
$75
LF
1,650
$0
$0
$0
$0
s0
4' Dia. Manholes
$2,500
EA
30
$0
$0
$0
s0
$o
AbandorJDemofishDdstingManholes
$1,500
EA
25
$0
s0
s0
$0
so
{
Connection to Existing MH and Rebuild Invert
$2,500
FA
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
L-----
Reconnect Ddsting Sewer Service
$400
EA
75
$0
$o
so
$0
so
_
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Bored and Jacked with 12" DIP
24" Steel Encasement Pipe, Open Cut with 12" DIP
$600
$200
LF
LF
135
85
$0
$0
s0
so
s0
s0
$01
$0
s0
so
i _
Bypass Pumping during Construction
$25,000
LS
1
$0
so
s0
so
s0
_
CABC (Shoulders and Drives)
$25
TN
500
so
s0
s0
$0
s0
NCDOT Pavement Repair
$90
LF
1,650
$0
s0
$0
$0
$0
NCDOT Pavement Milling
$5
SY
2,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0j
NCDOT Pavement Overlay
$15
SY
2,600
$0
$01
s0
$0
$0
Municipal Pavement Repair
$25
SY
600
$0
so
$0
$0
s0
Rock Excavation
$100
CY
650
$0
$0
$0
Sol
$0
Select Backf3tl
$20
CY
2,000
$o
so
so
$0
so
I
Washed Stone
$30
LF
3,000
$o
so
s0
s0
so
Miscellaneous Erosion Control
$7,500
LS
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
L Total Present Value of Replacement Costs (Years 16 to 20): so so so so
! Total P_res_ent Value of Re lacement Costs fe of Pre'ect
so
so
!
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 55 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

TahlP G 7 17 Present Valve of Oneratinns and Maintenance Costs
Table 5.2.37. Present Value of OPer.!tion_s and Maintenance Costs cars Ll1) - ^
V _
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
__-
_
Ali nurent No. 2, 12-inch PVC
Complete the cells shown in gray below.
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:12.76% !
i I EPA Discount Rater 4.875%
_
_
! j
Present Value ofO&M Costs for Year.
Component Unit Cost I Unit I Quantity
1
2
3
1 4
1 5
1 6
7
8
9
1 10
Annual Inspection ofSewer-Line' $50MII 30
$1,470
$1,440
$1,4111
$1,383
$1,3551
$1,327
$1,301
$1,274
$1,249
$1,224�-
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expcnses (Years 1-10):
$1,470
$1,440
$1,411
$19383
$1,3551
$1,327
$1,301
$1,274
$1.2491
$1,224
,
Tohln 41 ZR PrPepnt VahiP of 0m-.ratinnc and Maintenance Costs
Table 5.2.38. Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs ears 11-20)
---!
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion _
Alignment No. 2,12-inch PVC
j
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index;2.76%
i I i i ; EPA Discount Rater 4.875%
I +
l
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component Unit Cost Unit
Quantity
11
12
13 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Annual Inspection ofSewer Line $50MH
30
$1,199
$1,175
$1,151 $1,128
$1,105
$1,083
$1,061
$1,039
$1,019
$998�
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses (Years 11-20):
$1,199
$1,175
$1,151 $1,128
$1,105
$1,083
$1,OG]
$1,039
$1,019
$998
!
!Total Present Value of Annual O&M Costs (Life of Project):
$24,390
_',
Tahln S 2 IQ PrPCPnt Vah,e of nneratinnc and Maintenance Costs
--�
Table 5.2.39. Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)
i
East Court Street Scirer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
1
Alignment No. 2,12-inch PVC
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:12.76%
(
! ! i 'EPA Discount Rate:14.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
1
2
3
4
5 6
7
8
9
10
Sewer Line Cleaning
$4
LF
3,950
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0 $13,982
$0
$0
$0
$0
j
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Mmntenace Costs '1-10 .
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $13,982
$0
$0
$0
$0
_
j(Years
-
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 56 Minor ER/EID
_____ -_City of Marion_ __ June 2013

Table 5.2.40 Present Value of Onerations and Maintenance Costs
—
Table 5.2.40. Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alignment No. 2,12-inch PVC
{
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:12.76%
I
EPA Discount Rate:14.875%
--�
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component
Unit Cost
Unit
Quantity
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
�
Sewer Line Cleaning
$4
LF
3,950
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,405
$0
$0
$0
$0
—�
I
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Maintenace Costs (Years 11-20):
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,405
$0
$0
$0
$0
_
I
I j
I Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations & Maintenance Costs (Life of Project):
$25,387
v
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 57 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 5.2.2 Replacement Cost Life Cycle Assumptions Table
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Expected
Replacement
Component
Life Cycle
Expected?f
Rational for Expected Life Cycle
Sewer Line
50
No
Typical Expected Service Life
Sewer Manhole
50
No
I Typical Expected Service Life
Steel Encasement
50
No
Typical Expected Service Life
Pipe
'Period for replacement would be Years 1 through 20 only.
Table 5.2.62 Total Present Worth for Feasible Alternatives
Table5.2.62. Total Present Worth -for Feasible Alternatives
East Court Street Server Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Capital Costs
Replacement
Costs Present
Worth
O&M Costs Present Worth
Total Present
Worth
Annual
Intermittent
Total
AligranentNo. 1,12-inchDIP (Preferred Alterrative)
$1,250,550
$0
$24,390
$25,387
$49,776
$1,300,326
AhgrunentNo. 1, 12-inchPVC
$1,308,235
$0
$24,390
$25,387
$49,776
$1,358,011
Alignment No. 2,12-inch DIP
$1,269,7501
$0
$24,390
$25,387
$49,776
$1,319,526
Alignment No. 2,12-inchPVC
$1,313,735
$0
$24,390
$25,387
$49,776
$1,363,511
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 58 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

5.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Table 5.3.1. Alternatives Analysis Summary
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Alternative Name
Preferred
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 1
No -Action
Alignment No. 1
Alignment No. 2
Alignment No. 2
Alignment No. 1
12" PVC
12" DIP
12" PVC
12" DIP
Capital Cost
N/A
$1,308,235
$1,269,750
$1,313,735
$1,250,550
Present Worth
N/A
$1,358,011
$1,319,526
$1,363,511
$1,300,326
Feasibility
❑ Feasible
❑ Feasible
❑ Feasible
❑ Feasible
❑ Feasible
❑ Feasible
® Infeasible
❑ Infeasible
❑ Infeasible
❑ Infeasible
❑ Infeasible
❑ Infeasible
Capital Costs
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
❑ Greater than
® Greater than
® Greater than
® Greater than
❑ Greater than
❑ Greater than
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
I
Present Worth
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
°
d
❑ Greater than
® Greater than
❑ Greater than
® Greater than
❑ Greater than
❑ Greater than
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
a
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
�
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Environmental
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
❑ Less than
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
® Greater than
❑ Greater than
® Greater than
® Greater than
❑ Greater than
❑ Greater than
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
❑ Same as
® Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
❑ Same as
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Preferred
Rationale for
Does not address
Higher Capital
Higher Capital
Higher Capital
Most cost effective
Rejection/Acceptance
project need.
Costs and Present
Costs and Present
Costs and Present
option to address
Greater
Worth. Less
Worth. Longer
Worth. Longer
project need.
environmental
reliable material.
Construction time.
Construction time.
impacts
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 59 Minor ER/Ell)
City of Marion June 2013

5.4 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 5.4.1 Project Description
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Project Vicinity Map:
I Figure 2.1
1 Project Location Map:
I Figure 2.2
Complete the cell below in accordance with Section 2.2.6 of the guidance.
This alternative consists of replacing the existing 8-inch gravity sewer with 12-inch gravity
sewer in approximately the same alignment. Project will include 3,950 LF of gravity sewer
including approximately 1,650 LF within the NCDOT right of way and a bore and jack under a
railroad owned and operated by Norfolk Southern. The proposed sewer will be installed outside
the existing sewer alignment but within the existing utility easement and/or NCDOT R/W. The
intent is to allow the existing sewer to remain in construction during construction while
constructing the new sewer close enough to allow existing services to be reconnected easily.
From upstream to downstream the project begins on Oak Street at the tie in point for the
Clinchfield Pump Station which has a capacity of 200 gpm. The proposed sewer then follows
Oak Street to East Court Street (US 70). The existing sewer is located under the west bound
travel lane and the proposed sewer is proposed to remain under the existing pavement. The sewer
will then traverse between two businesses to cross the railroad and across a storage/parking area
for a concrete facility to State St. The sewer parallels an unnamed tributary to Youngs Fork in a
grassed area for approximately 500 ft and then though a wooded area for 350 ft prior to
connecting to the existing 15-inch interceptor on Spring Street.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 60 Minor ER/Ell)
City of Marion June 2013

SECTION 6 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following areas of concern were evaluated in the EID:
• Topography and floodplains
• Soils
• Prime and unique farmland
• Land use
• Forest resources
• Wetlands and streams
• Water resources
• Shellfish, fish, and their habitats
• Wildlife and natural vegetation
• Public lands and scenic, recreational, and state natural areas
• Areas of archaeological or historical value
• Air quality
• Noise levels
• Introduction of toxic substances
• Environmental justice analysis
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 61 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.1.1. Topography and Floodplains
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.2.
Floodplain Figure Reference Number (if applicable):
n/a
Floodplain Information Appendix Reference (if applicable):
n/a
Existing Conditions
Physiographic Province:
❑ Coastal Plain ❑ Piedmont ® Mountains
Minimum Elevation in Project Area (MSL):
Maximum Elevation in Project Area (MSL):
1470
1340
Is the project in the 100 year floodplain? (If so, show in Environmental
Features Figure.)
❑ Yes
® No
Is the project in the 100 year floodway? (If so, show in Environmental
Features Figure.)
❑ Yes
® No
Discuss other topographical and geological features.
The City of Marion is located on a ridge between the Catawba River, Muddy Creek and Youngs
Fork. The sewershed served by the East Court Street sewer line falls along that ridge with some
flow being pumped from the Catawba River drainage back to the Youngs Fork drainage. There
are no mapped floodplains or floodways in the project vicinity.
Impacts
Describe construction impacts of project on topography.
Project site topography will be temporarily impacted during installation of the sewer line. Final
grade will be restored to existing grade and result in no permanent impacts to topography.
Describe impacts ofproject on the 100 year floodplain and floodway if "Yes" is checked above.
Project is outside of the 100 year floodplain and floodway.
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project will have minimal secondary and cumulative impacts. The proposed sewer
line replaces and existing line and is intended to primarily serve development in an area of the
City of Marion that is already developed.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts?
Mitigative Measures for SCI?
® Yes
❑ Not Applicable
® Yes
❑ Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
ER/EID.
Mitigative Measure Description
References)
Erosion and Sedimentation control measures and BMPs will be utilized
Appendix C
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 62 Minor LKILI"
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.1.1. Topography and Floodplains
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
of Marion
during construction to contain land disturbance, minimize erosion
within the project site 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. The contractor will be
responsible for rectifying any project site erosion that may occur due to
inadequate site stabilization during the one year warranty period
following demobilization. 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. The project
site will be returned to pre -construction topographical conditions.
The City of Marion has a flood hazard ordinance and zoning ordinance
in place to manage development and mitigate any potential impacts to
floodplain areas.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 63
City of Marion
Minor ER/EID
June 2013

Table 6.2.1 Soils
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.3.
Soils Figure Reference Number:
6.2
Soils Information Appendix Reference (if applicable):
C
Existing Conditions
Describe the types of soil. Provide a soils figure in the EID.
Soils primarily consist of Evard-Cowee and Hayesville-Evard Complex with a small portion of
Iotla Sandy Loam in the low lying areas. 83.7 percent of the soils in the mapped area are
considered urban land due to the level of existing development in the project area. There is no
known contaminated soil within the project site.
Is soil contamination present?
❑ Yes ® No
Does soil type present any constraints to the project?
❑ Yes ® No
If yes to either of the above, explain:
Impacts
Will soil be moved offsite?
❑ Yes ® No
Quantity (yd3):
Will soil be contaminated?
❑ Yes ® No
Describe construction impacts of project.
The proposed project will disturb approximately 0.5 acres of soil for construction of the
proposed improvements. No soil is expected to be removed from the project site. Soils removed
for sewer line and bore pit trenching will be used as trench backfill.
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project will have minimal secondary and cumulative impacts. The proposed sewer
line replaces and existing line and is intended to primarily serve development in an area of the
City of Marion that is already developed.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts?
Mitigative Measures for SCI?
® Yes
❑ Not Applicable
❑ Yes
® Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
ER/EID.
Mitigative Measure Description
Reference(s)
Erosion and Sedimentation control measures and BMPs will be utilized
during construction to contain land disturbance, minimize erosion
within the project site and prevent sediment from reaching local
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 64 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.2.1 Soils
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
of Marion
waterways. Project plans will outline temporary and permanent erosion
control and storm water management measures to be implemented from
initial construction through final stabilization. The contractor will be
responsible for rectifying any project site erosion that may occur due to
inadequate site stabilization during the one year warranty period
following demobilization. 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. .
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 65
City of Marion
Minor ER/EID
June 2013

Figure 6.2: Soils Map
35° 41' 35'
35' 40 3W
o Map Scale: 1:8,3701 printed on A s6 (k: ' x 11') sheet
A
N Meters
0 50 100 - 200 300 ' m
Feet
0 300 600'. 1,200 1;800'
USDA Natural Resources. Web Soil Survey 6/27/2013
Conservation.Service National Cooperative Soil. Survey Page. 03
W 41'W
35° 40' 38'
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 66 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.3.1 Prime and Unique Farmland
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.4.
Prime and Unique Farmland Information Appendix Reference (if applicable):
I C
Existing Conditions & Impacts
1) Does the project area contain prime and unique
® Yes
If Yes,
12.2
(P&U) farmlands? If yes, show on soils figure
❑ No
Quantity
the soil types that are prime and unique
(acres):
farmland. (If "No " skip the rest of the table.)
2) Will P&Ufarmland be directly impacted by the
® Yes
If Yes,
0.1
project? (If "No " skip questions 3-4.)
❑ No
Quantity
(acres):
3) What is the total acreage ofP&Ufarmland in
Acres
unknown
the county?
Impacted:
4) What is the percentage ofP&Ufarmland in the
Percentage
<0.1%
county that will be impacted? (Divide answer to
Impacted:
Question 2 by answer to Question 3)
Will SCI impact prime and unique farmlands?
❑ Yes
If Yes,
® No
Quantity
(acres):
Describe SCI of the project.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction
Mitigative Measures for SCI?
Impacts?
® Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable
® Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
ER/EID.
Mitigative Measure Description
References)
Iotla Sandy Loam is classified as prime farmland if
drained. The Iotla Sandy Loam area is not currently
farmed and does not appear to have been farmed
recently.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 67
City of Marion
Minor ER/EID
June 2013

Table 6.4.1. Land Use
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.5.
Land Use Figure Reference Number (if applicable):
Not Applicable
Land Use Information Appendix Reference (if applicable):
C
Existing Conditions
Discuss the current land use for the project site.
The Oak Street area is an established residential neighborhood and development along East
Court Street (US 70) is primarily commercial, with several small businesses, and a church
located along the sewer route. The sewer is located under the roadway in the Oak Street and East
Court Street Areas. The sewer line be bored and jacked under a Norfolk Southern railroad and
then traverses the storage/parking area of a concrete manufacturer. The furthest downstream
section of the project is a grassed area below the McDowell County Rescue Squad and
Ambulance Service and then through a wooded area prior to connection to the existing sewer.
Discuss the current land use for the project area.
Land use in the planning area is a mix of commercial and residential. East Court Street is a
primary commercial corridor in the area and some businesses are also located along Spring
Street, and a large warehouse located between Branch Street and Church Street. Other streets in
the area are primarily established residential areas.
Discuss the zoning for the project site.
Zoning on Oak Street is R-2. Zoning on East Court Street (US 70) is C-2. The concrete
manufacturing facility south of the railroad is zoned M-1. The McDowell County Rescue Squad
and Ambulance Property is zoned C-2. The property on Spring Street where the project ends is
zoned R-2.
Discuss the zoning for the project area.
The majority of the properties in the project area are zoned R-2 with the exception of properties
along East Court Street Zoned C-2 and some areas zoned M-1 primarily used for warehouse
facilities currently.
Impacts
Discuss the direct impacts to land use on the project site.
The proposed project will replace existing sewer within the existing easement and will not have
significant effect on land use on the project site.
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project will have minimal secondary and cumulative impacts. The proposed sewer
line replaces and existing line and is intended to primarily serve development in an area of the
City of Marion that is already developed.
Mitigative Measures
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 68 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.4.1. Land Use
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
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)
The City utilizes a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning
Appendix C
Ordinance to guide future development in a logical and
Comprehensive Land
environmentally sound manner. Any development within the service
Use Plan and Zoning
area must be approved by the City planning department. Through this
Ordinance
process, the City will have authority to mitigate any impacts that may
differ from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation ' 69
City of Marion
Minor ER/EID
June 2013

Table 6.5.1. Forest Resources
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.6.
Forest Resources Information Appendix Reference (if applicable):
Not Applicable
Existing Conditions
Discuss the type offorest resources on the project site and in the project area
There are minimal forest resources on the project site and in the project area. These resources are
limited to small pockets of wooded areas within the urban area of Marion. One such pocket will
be traversed by the proposed project between State Street and Spring Street on property owned
by McDowell County currently used for an emergency services facility.
Discuss the types of wildlife habitat on the project site and in the project area.
Wildlife habitat in the project area consists of small pockets of forest land and residential
backyard settings.
Impacts
Will forest resources
® Yes
If Yes, Quantity
<0.05 acres
be impacted?
❑ No
(acres):
Will SCI impact forest
® Yes
If Yes, Approximate
Unknown
resources?
❑ No
Quantity (acres):
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service and is
not expected to impact forest resources or wildlife habitat within the existing service area. Future
development and redevelopment may have some impact on existing forest resources.
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)
The proposed sewer will follow the existing sewer easement to
minimize impacts to the forest area. Removal of large trees will be
avoided if possible.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 70 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

CI
Table 6.6.1 Wetlands and Streams
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.7 of the guidance.
Wetlands and Streams Figure Reference Number:
6.6
Wetlands and Streams Information Appendix Reference (if applicable):
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?
❑ Yes
® Yes
® No
❑ No
If so, discuss the type, quality, function, and relative importance of wetlands and identify any
streams.
There are no known wetlands on the project site or in the project area. Streams in the project site
are unnamed tributaries to Youngs Fork (Corpening Creek), a Class C water. Streams are urban
streams and pass through several culverts in the project area.
Have delineations occurred?
If so, supply the date.
❑ Yes ® No
Impacts
Will wetlands be
❑ Yes
If Yes, Quantity
impacted?
® No
(acres):
Will streams be
❑ Yes
If Yes, Quantity
impacted?
® No
(linear feet):
Will SCI impact
❑ Yes
If Yes, Approximate
wetlands?
® No
Quantity (acres):
Will SCI impact
❑ Yes
If Yes, Approximate
streams?
® No
Quantity (linear feet):
Describe Direct Impacts of the project (construction and operational impacts). If there will be
any stream/wetland crossings, complete Table S.9.a in addition to the description.
There are no planned direct impacts to streams for the project. The project will cross an unnamed
tributary to Youngs Fork adjacent to the railroad. The proposed sewer will be installed by a
single bore and jack under the railroad and stream. Crossing is labeled on Figure 6.6 as #l.
Streams could potentially be impacted by erosion and sedimentation from the project site. The
proposed project will improve an existing sewer line which has suffered from surcharging and is
not performing at its design level. The new sewer will reduce the potential for overflows from
the sewer system in the project area which could directly impact the streams.
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project will have minimal secondary and cumulative impacts. The proposed sewer
line replaces and existing line and is intended to primarily serve development in an area of the
City of Marion that is already developed.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 71
City of Marion
Minor ER/EID
June 2013

Table 6.6.1 Wetlands and Streams
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
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)
Potential direct impacts to the streams are mitigated by practicing best
management practices for erosion control and utilizing a bore and jack
to cross the stream to prevent disturbance of the stream bed.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 72 Minor ERMID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.6.2. Stream/Wetland Crossings
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Wetland Crossings (add rows as needed; include all crossings even if impact is zero acres.)
Stream and Wetlands Crossing Figure Reference Number:
Figure 6.6
Stream and Wetlands Crossing Information Appendix Reference (if
applicable):
Not Applicable
# Keyed to Map
Diameter & Type of Sewer
Installation Method
Acres Impacted
N/A
Total Wetland Impacts (acres):
0
Stream Crossings (add rows as needed; include all crossings even if impact is zero feet.)
# Keyed to Map
Diameter & Type of Sewer
Installation Method
Linear Feet
Impacted
1
12" DIP in Encasement
Bore and Jack
0
Total Stream Impacts (feet):
0
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 73
City of Marion
Minor ER/EID
June 2013

Table 6.7.1. Water Resources
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.8.
Water Resources Appendix Information Appendix Reference (if
Not Applicable
applicable):
Existing Conditions
River basin(s) for project:
Catawba
List all streams) found within the project site and greater project area.
Name
Classification
Impaired?
Reason for Impairment
UT to Youngs Fork
C
® Yes ❑ No
Poor Bioclassification
UT to Youngs Fork
C
® Yes ❑ No
Poor Bioclassification
UT to Catawba River
C
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Discuss groundwater quality and quantity.
There are no major named aquifers in the project area. Geology in the project area consists of
Biotite gneiss and schist, Inner Piedmont, Chauga Belt, Smith River Allochthon, and Sauratown
Mountain; Inequigranular, locally abundant potassic feldspar and garnet; interlayered and
gradational with calc-silicate rock, sillimanite-mica schist, and amphibolite. The project area is
served by the City of Marion Public Water Supply System and very few wells are present in the
area.
Discuss surface water quality.
The project area lies along a ridge and there are very few surface waters of any size in the area.
The north side of the sewershed drains toward the Catawba River. The south side of the
sewershed drains toward Youngs Fork (Corpening Creek). Youngs Fork is impaired due to poor
water quality resulting from the heavily urban area that it drains from and point source
discharges. The proposed project is expected to improve water quality by preventing overflows
from the sewer and reducing infiltration and inflow into the sewer.
LGU water supply(ies):
City of Marion utilizes 3 raw water intakes located on Clear
Creek, Mackey Creek, and Buck Creek.
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. The project will not increase the amount of
impervious surface area.
Discuss operational impacts related to surface water quality and groundwater quality/quantity.
This project is important to preventing negative impacts to local water quality by correcting I/I issues
within the sewer collection system and increasing capacity to help prevent future sanitary sewer
overflows.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 75
City of Marion
Minor ER/EID
June 2013

Table 6.7.1. Water Resources
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project is not expected to have any significant secondary and cumulative effects on
water resources.
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)
The proposed project will be required to follow an Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan will implement BMPs to contain land disturbance, minimize
erosion within the project site and prevent sediment from reaching local
waterways. 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. No construction
equipment will be allowed within the waterways. Sewer pipe and
manholes will be leak tested prior to being placed into service to ensure
water -tightness. The Contractor will be responsible for rectifying any
project site erosion that may occur due to inadequate site stabilization
during the one year warranty period following demobilization.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 76 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.8.1 Shellfish, Fish, and Their Habitats
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.9.
Shellfish, Fish, and Their Habitats Information Appendix Reference (if
applicable):
Not Applicable
Existing Conditions
Are T&E species present within the project site, the project area, or downstream from the
project?
❑ 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.
Aquatic T&E Species Figure Reference Number
(if applicable):
Not Applicable
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Approximate
Location
(e.g., S mi. NE of
Project).
Discuss shellfish and fish habitat. (Not just T&E species.)
Streams in the project area are relatively small with limited watersheds and aquatic life.
Impacts
Discuss any impacts to threatened and endangered species.
Not Applicable
Discuss construction impacts related to fish, shellfish, and their habitats.
Aquatic habitat impacts will be limited to potential sedimentation from trenching operations
Discuss operational impacts related to fish, shellfish, and their habitats.
Fish, shellfish and habitats will not be impacted during operation of the sewer lines. The
proposed sewer lines will reduce the potential for overflows which could impact fish and their
habitats.
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project is not expected to have any significant secondary and cumulative effects
on Shellfish, Fish or their habitats.
Mitigative Measures
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 77 Minor ER/Ell)
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.8.1 Shellfish, Fish, and Their Habitats
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Mitigative Measures for Construction
Mitigative Measures for SCI?
Impacts?
® 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)
The proposed project will be required to follow an
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. The Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Plan will implement BMPs to
contain land disturbance, minimize erosion within the
project site and prevent sediment from reaching local
waterways. 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. No construction equipment will be
allowed within the waterways. Sewer pipe and manholes
will be leak tested prior to being placed into service to
ensure water -tightness. The Contractor will be
responsible for rectifying any project site erosion that
may occur due to inadequate site stabilization during the
one year warranty period following demobilization.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 78 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.961. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.10.
Wildlife and Natural Vegetation Information Appendix Reference (if
applicable)
Not Applicable
Existing Conditions
Are T&E species present within the project site, or project area?
❑ Yes ® No
If Yes, list all terrestrial T&E species located in the project site or project area. Show
approximate location(s) on the Environmental Features Figure.
Terrestrial T&E Species Figure Reference Number (if applicable):
Not Applicable
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Approximate
Location
(e.g., 5 mi. NE
of Project)
Discuss the wildlife and vegetation present in the project site and project area. (Not just ME
species.)
Wildlife and vegetation in the project area is typical of residential areas with a mix of
hardwoods and softwoods: The commercial corridor along East Court Street has little
vegetation. Primarily wildlife found the area is small animals such as squires rabbits and
various birds.
Impacts
Discuss any impacts to threatened and endangered species.
Not applicable.
Discuss construction impacts related to wildlife and natural vegetation.
Construction of the proposed project will not have any significant effect on wildlife and natural
vegetation. Less than 0.1 , acres will be cleared in a small wooded area for construction of the
sewer line.
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service and is
not expected to impact wildlife and natural vegetation within the existing service area.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction
Impacts?
Mitigative Measures for SCI?
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 79 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.9.1. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
❑ Yes
® Not Applicable
❑ Yes
® Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in
the EID.
Mitigative Measure Description
Reference(s)
Table 6.10.1. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.11.
Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Area
Figure Reference Number (if applicable):
Not Applicable
Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Area
Information Appendix Reference (if applicable):
Not Applicable
Existing Conditions
Are public lands and scenic, recreational, and state natural areas found adjacent to or in the
project area?
❑ 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)
Impacts
If Yes, discuss construction impacts related to public lands, and scenic, recreational, and state
natural areas.
If Yes, discuss operational impacts related to public lands, and scenic, recreational, and state
natural areas.
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project will not result in increased development or extended sewer service and is
not expected to impact public lands in the area.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 80 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.10.1. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts?
-Mitigative Measures for SCI?
❑ Yes
® Not -Applicable
❑ Yes
® Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description
Reference(s)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 81 Minor ER/Ell)
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.11.1. Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.1.12.
Archaeological or Historical Area Figure Reference Number (if
applicable):
Not Applicable
Archaeological or Historical Area Information Appendix Reference
(if applicable):
Not Applicable
Existing Conditions
Are areas of archaeological or historical value in the project site, project vicinity, or project
area?
❑ Yes ® No (No Impact)
If yes, list these and show on the Environmental Features Figure
Name
Type
Location
(e.g., S 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.
There are no areas archaeological or historical in the project area and secondary and cumulative
impacts of the project are not anticipated to affect any of these areas.
Mitigative Measures
Mitigative Measures for Construction Impacts?
Mitigative Measures for SCI?
❑ Yes
® Not Applicable
❑ Yes
® Not Applicable
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description
Reference(s)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 82 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.12.1. Air Quality
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete the table in accordance with Section 12.2.13.
Air Quality Information Appendix Reference (if applicable):
Not Applicable
Existing Conditions
Discuss the general air quality and identify current sources of emissions from the project and
surrounding area. Note whether odors have been a problem.
Air quality in the project area is good. There are no non -attainment areas in McDowell County
for air quality standards. Odors have been an issue in the sewershed at the point where a pump
station discharges to the upstream end of the proposed project. The manhole in this area
surcharges at times when the pump station is running and the proposed project is expected to
reduce or eliminate the odor issues.
Impacts
Discuss construction impacts related to air quality.
Construction of the proposed sewer line 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
® No
Discuss operational impacts related to air quality.
The gravity sewer will not have any impacts to air quality in operation. The reduced surcharging
in the upstream sewer is anticipated to reduce odor emissions.
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project will have minimal secondary and cumulative impacts. The proposed sewer
line replaces and existing line and is intended to primarily serve development in an area of the
City of Marion that is already developed.
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)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 83 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.12.1. Air Quality
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Direct 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 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.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 84 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.13.1. Noise Levels
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.14.
Noise Level Information Appendix Reference (if applicable):
Existing Conditions
Discuss the current noise levels for the project site and project area.
Noise levels are typical of the development types in the project area. Transportation is the
primary generator of noise including traffic on East Court Street and railway traffic.
Does the LGU have noise
® Yes
ordinances in place?
❑ No
If yes, describe.
Ordinance prohibits unreasonably loud, disturbing and
unnecessary noise in the City. Any noise of such character,
intensity, and. duration as to be detrimental to the life or
health of the citizens is prohibited.
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.
Discuss operational impacts related to noise levels.
The project will have no impacts to normal noise levels once the sewer line is placed in service
and construction equipment has demobilized.
Describe SCI of the project.
The proposed project will have minimal secondary and cumulative impacts. The proposed sewer
line replaces and existing line and is intended to primarily serve development in an area of the
City of Marion that is already developed.
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)
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 85 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.13.1. Noise Levels
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Direct 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
wherever possible. In addition, large construction equipment will be
equipped with proper noise attenuation devices such as mufflers and
silencers to minimize construction related ambient noise level
increases. All high decibel operational equipment, such as bypass
pumps, will be housed in sound attenuating enclosures to minimize
ambient noise levels.
Cumulative impacts will be mitigated by enforcement of. the City's
noise ordinance.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 86 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.14.1 Introduction of Toxic Substances
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Introduction to Toxic Substances Appendix Reference (if applicable):
Not applicable
Impacts
Discuss any toxic substances that maybe introduced during project construction and operation
in accordance with Section 12.2.13.
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?
® Yes
❑ Not Applicable .
Describe the mitigative measures below and supply references to the appropriate appendix in the
EID.
Mitigative Measure Description
References)
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.
~� East Court Street Sewer. Rehabilitation 87 Minor ER/EID
J City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.15.1. Environmental Justice Analysis
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table in accordance with Section 12.2.16.
Was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice
Geographic Assessment Tool used?
If No, then complete the Existing Conditions cells below.
® Yes
❑ No
Environmental Justice Figure Reference Number(s):
Figure 6.15
Environmental Justice Information Appendix Reference (if applicable):
Not Applicable
Existing Conditions
Provide the following information and key the Block Groups to the map in the EID. Include figures.
Count
y
Cens
us
Tract
Cens
us
Block
Grou
p
Total
Populati
on
Minority
Populati
on
Percent
Minority
Populati
on
Significan
t Minority
Populatio
n?
Low-
Income
Populati
on
Percent
Low-
Income
Populati
on
Significan
t Low
Income
Populatio
n?
Impacts
Are there any potentially significant environmental justice
populations in the project area?
❑ Yes
® No
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. Ifpotentially significant, contact the Environmental Assessment
Coordinator.
Impact
Potentially Significant?
❑ Yes ❑
No
❑ Yes ❑
No
❑ Yes ❑
No
❑ Yes ❑
No
❑ Yes ❑
No
❑ Yes ❑
No
❑ Yes ❑
No
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 88 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Figure 6.15: Minority Population Map
tas.t. Court street lSewer k. .h6:biIlitaItionF1City
by Blo6kgroup
.,Poru*y
�10 - 20
�40
4
A
t-i
es
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 89 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.16.1. Mitigative Measures
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table for all resource categories in accordance with Section 12.2.17. If there was no impact in a
particular resource category, then state, "No Impact."
Mitigative
Potential Direct
Measure(s) for
Mitigative
Resource Category
Impact
Direct Impact
Potential SCI
Measures for SCI
Topography &
Temporary
Project site will be
Some additional
Flood Hazard
Floodplains
topography impact
returned to pre-
residential and
Ordinance and
during construction
construction
commercial
Zoning Ordinance
topography.
growth.
Soils
Erosion and
E&S measures,
Some additional
Flood Hazard
Sedimentation
BMPs maintained
residential and
Ordinance and
until final
commercial
Zoning Ordinance
stabilization.
growth.
Excavated trench to
be stabilized daily.
Prime & Unique
<0.1 acres prime
N/A
Farmland
farmland if drained
disturbed during
construction.
Land Use
No Impact
Some additional
Comprehensive
residential and
Land Use Plan and
commercial
Zoning Ordinance
growth.
Forest Resources
<0.1 acres forest
Construction in
Some additional
Comprehensive
resources disturbed
existing sewer
residential and
Land Use Plan and
easement
commercial
Zoning Ordinance
growth.
Wetlands and Streams
Erosion and
Erosion and
Some additional
Comprehensive
Sedimentation
sedimentation
residential and
Land Use Plan and
control measures,
commercial
Zoning Ordinance
BMPs maintained
growth.
until final
stabilization.
Excavated trench to
be stabilized daily.
Water Resources
Erosion and
Erosion and
Some additional
Comprehensive
Sedimentation
sedimentation
residential and
Land Use Plan and
control measures,
commercial
Zoning Ordinance
BMPs maintained
growth.
until final
stabilization.
Excavated trench to
be stabilized daily.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 90 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 6.16.1. Mitigative Measures
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion
Complete this table for all resource categories in accordance with Section 12.2.17. If there was no impact in a
particular resource category, then state, `No Impact. "
Mitigative
Potential Direct
Measure(s) for
Mitigative
Resource Category
Impact
Direct Impact
Potential SCI
Measures for SCI
Shellfish, Fish, and
Erosion and
Erosion and
Some additional
Comprehensive
their Habitats
Sedimentation
sedimentation
residential and
Land Use Plan and
control measures,
commercial
Zoning brdinance
BMPs maintained
growth.
until final
stabilization.
Excavated trench to
be stabilized daily.
No equipment to
operate in streams.
Wildlife and Natural
No Impact
No Impact
Vegetation
Public Land and
No Impact
No Impact
Scenic, Recreational,
and State Natural Areas
Areas of
No Impact
No Impact
Archaeological or
Historical Value
Air Quality
Dust and exhaust
Equipment fitted
No Impact
emissions from
with emission
equipment during
reducing devices.
construction
Dust to be
suppressed with
water.
Noise Levels
Operation of
Limit to daytime
Cumulative
City noise
construction
working hours.
residential growth
ordinance.
equipment
Equipment fitted
may increase local
with noise
noise levels.
attenuation devices.
Toxic Substances
Construction
Preventative
No Impact
equipment exhaust
maintenance.
emissions.
Proper collection
Accidental release
and disposal of
of oil, fuel, vehicle
materials. Concrete
fluids and uncured
no to contact
concrete.
surface waters.
Environmental Justice
No Impact
No Impact
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 91 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

SECTION 7 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Table 7.1. Local Government Unit Financial Condition
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
0
Provide revenues generated from the most recent complete fiscal year (e.g., FY2010-2011). Water and
sewer expenses should not include depreciation. Existing debt should be debt paid in the previous fiscal
year only.
Operating Ratio
Water and Sewer Revenue:
$3,253,126
Water and Sewer Expenses:
$2,562,506
Existing Debt:
$298,558
Operating Ratio.
1.14
Utility Bill as Percent of Median Household Income
Use the pulldown menu to select the type of rate structure used for water and sewer. If using a rate i
structure other than uniform, then there is no need to complete the base charge (charge and volume) or
volumetric charge.
Sewer Rate Structure
Water Rate Structure
Rate Structure:
Uniform
Uniform
Base Charge:
$12.06
$12.06
Thousands of Gallons in Base Charge:
0
0
Volumetric Charge per 1,000 gallons:
$2.13
$2.13
Monthly Bill for 5,000 gallons:
$22.71
$22.71
Combined Monthly Water and Sewer Bill for
5,000 gallons:
$45.42
Median Houshold Income:
$31,436
Monthly Median Household Income for LGU:
$2,620
Bill as % of Median Household Income:
0.87%
1 0.87%
Overall Bill as % of Median Household Income:
1.73%
Additional Information if needed (see Section 2.2.7.1, Step I of the guidance).
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 92 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 7.2. Funding Distribution
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
r
City of Marion
0
Enter data into the gray areas. Where applicable, use the pulldown menus as shown by the arrows.
Repayment
Funding
Interest Rate
Period (if
Funding Sourcea
Amount
Tye
if applicable)
applicable)
Main IFS
Fundingb:
CWSRF ".:.
$1,250550
Loan
2.000%
20
Funding 1:
Funding 2:
Funding 3:
Funding 4:
Funding 5:
If Other,
Closing Fee:
$25,011
list:
Total Funded Amount (minus
applicable closing fee):
$1,250,550
Total Project Cost (with
closing fee):
$1,275,561
aFor STAG grants, EPA charges a 3% administrative fee. Enter the net STAG grant (total grant - 3% administrative fee).
bIf principal forgiveness is used, place the principal forgiveness portion of the loan in Funding 1.
Table 7.3 Year 1 Interest and Repayment
Table_7.3. Year IInterest and Repayment
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation _
of Marion w
0
Funding Source
Total Funding
Amount
Year 1 Principal
Payment
Year 1 Interest
Payment-
Current Interest
Rate
Year 1 Interest
Payment - Worst
Case Interest
Rate
Year 1 Total
Payment-
Current Interest
Rate
Year 1 Total
Payment -
Worst Case
Interest Rate
Main IFS Funding:
CWSRF
$1,250,550
$62,528
$25,011
$50,022
$87,539
$112,550
Funding 1:
Funding 2:
Funding 3:
Funding 4:
Funding 5:
!°Worst case is an interest rate of4%. Applies to CWSRF, SRL, and SEL only. Total Payment @Current Interest Rate:
$87,539
_ —� Total Payment @ Worst -Case Interest Rate:
$112,550
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 93 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 7.4 Cost Per 5,000 gallons to Finance Project
Table 7.4. Cost per5,000 Gallons to Finance Project
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation —
—J —
City of Marion
Select Customer Type for Financing Project`
ANcragc Water
Usage Per
Month (gallons)
Number of
Connections
Total Monthly
Water Usage by
Customer Type
(gallons)
?
j
Total Monthly Water Usage for Customer Base (gallons):
�• Residential / Commercial
7,015
3,087
21,655,305
?
�
A
f
# of5000 Gallon Units to Finance Project:
Commercial
Year 1 0&M Fxpenses Due to Project:
Industrial
i
?
ni nding Source
Year 1 Annual
Repyment
Year 1 Annual
O&MCosts
Total Year 1
Annual Costs @
Current Interest
Rate
Year 1 Annual
Cost@ Worst
Case Interest
Rate
Year 1
Monthly Costs
@ Current
Interest Rate
Year 1 Monthly
Costs @ Worst
Case Interest
Rate
Monthly Cost/
5,000 Gallons
Due to Project
@ Current
Interest Rate
(All Users )
Monthly
Cost/5,000
Gallons Due to
Project@ Worst-
Case Interest
Rate (All Users)
Monthly Cost/5,000
Gallons Due to
Project @ Current
Interest Rate
(Residential Users
Only)
IFS Main Funding Source:
CW SRF
$87,539
$0
$87,539
$112,550
$7,295
$9,379
$1.68
S2.17
$1.68
Funding Source 1:
Funding Source 2:
Funding Source 3:
Funding Source 4:
Funding Source 5:
Total Year 1 Annual Cost @ Current Interest Rate:
$87,539
Total Year 1 Annual Cost @ Worst -Case Interest Rate
$112,550
Total Year 1 Monthly Cost @ Current Interest Rate:
$7,295
Total Year 1 Monthly Cost@ Worst -Case Interest Rate:
$9,379
Total Monthly Cost to Treat 5,000 Gallons @ Current Interest Rate:
$1.68
Total Monthly Cost to Treat 5,000 Gallons @ Worst -Case Interest Rate (All Users):
$2.17
Total Monthly Cost to Treat s,000Gallons @ Current Interest Rate (Residential Users Only):
$1.68
Total Monthly Cost to Treat 5,000 Gallons @ Worst -Case Interest Rate (Residential Users Only):
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 94 Minor ER/Ell)
City of Marion June 2013

Table 7.5 User Rates Needed to Finance Project
Table 7.5. User Rates Needed to Finance Project
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
_
City of Marion
Current Sewer Bill ($15,000 gallons):
$22.71
Current Water Bill ($15,000 gallons):
$22.71
Funding Source
User Rate Increase
Due to Project @
Current Interest
Rate (All Users)
User Rate Increase
Due to Project @
Worst -Case Interest
Rate (All Users)
User Rate Increase
Due to Project @
Current Rate
(Residential Users
Only)
User Rate Increase
Due to Project @
Worst -Case
Interest Rate
(Residential Users
Only)
Main IFS Funding Source:
CWSRF
$1.68
$2.17
$1.68
$2.17
Funding Source 1:
Funding Source 2:
Funding Source 3:
Funding Source 4:
Funding Source 5:
Total User Rate Increase Due to IFS Loan(s) ($15,000 gal.):
$1.68
$2.17
$1.68
$2.17
Total Increase Due to All Loans(s) ($15,000 gal.):
$1.68
$2.17
$1.68
$2.17
New Sewer Bill Due to IFS Loan(s) ($15,000 gal.):
$24.39
$24.88
$24.39
$24.88
New Sewer Bill Due to All Loan(s) ($15,000 gal.):
$24.39
$24.88
$24.39
$24.88
Percent Change in Sewer Bill Due to IFS Loan(s):
7.42%
9.54%
7.42%
9.54%
Percent Change in Sewer Bill Due to All Loan(s):
7.42%
9.54%
7.42%
9.54%
New Sewer & Water Bills Due to IFS Loan(s) ($15,000 gal.):
$47.10
$47.59
$47.10
$47.59
New Water & Sewer Bills Due to All Loan(s) ($15,000 gal.):
$47.10
$47.59
$47.10
$47.59
Percent Change in Sewer& Water Bills Due to IFS Loan(s):
3.71%
3.71%
3.71%
3.71%
Percent Change in Sewer & Water Bills Due to All Loan(s):
3.71%
4.77%
3.71%1
4.77%
°Change in User Fee to finance IFS Loan.
bChange in User Fee to finance ALL funding sources.
r^
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 95 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

Table 7.6 Impact to Bills Due to Project
Table 7.6. Impact to Bills Due to Project
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation
City of Marion ^�
0
Sewer Bill as % Monthly MHI: 0.87% Water Bill as % Monthly MHI: 0.87%
Current Sewer Bill ($/5,000 gal.): 22.71 Current Water Bill ($/5,000 gal.): $22.71
Current Sewer & Water Bill ($/5,000 gal.): 45.42 Sewer & Water Bill as % Monthly MHI: 1.73%
Monthly MIR for LGU: $2,620
New
New %MHI Due to Project
Potentially Significant Impact?
New
New %MR[ Due to
Potentially Significant
New
New %MHI Due to Project
Potentially Significant Impact?
New %MHI Due to
Potentially Significant
Sewer BillDueto ISewerBillDueto
IFS Loans
Loans
$24.39
$24.39
0.93%
0.93%
No
No
$24.88
$24.88
0.95%
0.95%
No
No
$24.39
$24.39
0.93%
0.93%
No
No
$24.88
$24.88
0.95%
0.95%
No
No
Water & Sewer Bills Water & Sewer Bills
Due to IFS Loans Due to All Loans
$47.10
$47.10
1.80%
1.80%
No
No
$47.59
$47.59
1.82%
1.82%
No
No
$47.10
$47.10
1.80%
1.80%
No
No
$47.59
$47.59
1.82%
1.82%
No
No
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 96 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

SECTION S PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
For projects under the minor construction criteria, the Infrastructure Finance Section will prepare
a Determination of Minor Construction Activity, send a copy to the LGU, and post a copy on the
Infrastructure Finance Section website. The LGU will retain a copy of the Determination of
Minor Construction Activity on file and may be viewed by the public upon request.
East Court Street Sewer Rehabilitation 97 Minor ER/EID
City of Marion June 2013

APPENDIX A SUPPORTING CITY INFORMATION
WWTP NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS (CMlPACT DISK

APPENDIX A SUPPORTING CITY FM ORATION
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW REPORT

NODE R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Pat McCrory Charles Wakild, P. E. John E, Skvarla, Ill
Governor Director Secretary
May 20, 2013
J. Robert Boyette
City of Marion '
PO Drawer 700
Marion, NC 28752
Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
NOV-2013-DV-0110
Permit No. WQCS00075
City of Marion
Marion Collection System
` McDowell County
Dear Mr. Boyette:
A review has been conducted of Marion Collection System's self -reported Sanitary Sewer Overflows
(SSO's) 5-Day Report submitted by Brant Sikes with the City of Marion. This review has shown the
subject facility to be in violation of the requirements found in Collection System Permit WQCS00075
... ,11.._ f1 e 1 A'2 71 t 1 f.'X(t) Tho violatinn A iaA nnnnrrPrl is znrnrnnn7nr1 hP.lnw_
Area
Violation Date
Description
Violation Type
CSO/SSO (Sewer Overflow)
04/03/2013
Sanitary Sewer Overflow
Discharge
Manhole at end of Highland Dr.
1,800-2,700 Gallons
Without Valid
Permit
DWQ Incident # 201300664
UT to Forsythe Crk
Remedial actions should be taken to correct this problem. The Division of Water Quality may pursue
enforcement action for this and any additional violations of State Iaw.
You should address the causes of noncompliance and all actions taken to prevent the recurrence of similar
situations. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Linda Wiggs at 828-296-
4500.
- Sincerely,
Chuck Cranford, Regional Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section
Asheville Regional Office
Cc: DWQ ARO Files
DWQ Central Files
PERCS Unit
S:TSWPWcDowe111Col1ecdon SystemsWarion, City onCollection System\NOV-2013-DWOI 10-SSO.doc
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION—ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Location: 2090 U.S. Highway 70, Swannanoa, NC 28776 Nok iiC3ro ina
Phone: (828) 296A500TFAX: 828 299-7043 Internet: www.ncwaKu
aterouality.org ` `
t,�/J,/
i

LXPPFNDIX A SUPPORTING CITY INFORMATION
WWTP DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS (COMPACT DISK

- APPENDix B SUPPORTING ENGINEERING INFORMATION
2010 UNITED STATES CENSUS DATA

i Community Facts 2 Table Viewer
DP03 SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
BACK TO COU M UNITY FACTS
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that
produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and tow ns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.
Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey w ebsite in:the Data and
Documentation section.
Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey w ebsite in the
Methodology section.
1
137
of
137
Subject
Marion city, North Carolina
Estimate
Margin of I-
Error
Percent
Percent Margin o f
Error
B*-LOYMENTSTATUS --- _
Population 16 years and over
6,293
_ . +/-212
6,293 1
(X)
In labor force
3,559.
+/-341
56.7%
+/-5.4
Civilian labor force
3,562
+/-341
56.6%
+/-5.4
Employed
3,203
+1-339
50.9 %
+1-5.2
Unemployed
359
+1-143
5.7%
+1-2.3
Armed Forces -
7
+/-13
0.1 %
+1-0.2
-Not in labor force
2,724
_ +1-365
43.3 %
+/-5.4
Civilian labor force
3,562
+1-341-
3.562
(X)
Percent Unemployed
(X)
(X)
10.1 %
+/-3.9
Females 16 years and over
3,102
+/-207
3,102
(X)
In labor force -
1,745
+/-204
56.3%
+1-6.1.
Civilian labor force .
1,745
_ +/-204
56.3%
+/-6.1
Employed
1,569
+1-208
50.6%,
+/-5.8
-
Ov n chldren under 6 years
789
+/-146
789
_ (X)
All parents in family in labor force
716
+1-143
90.7 %
+/-7.4
Ow n children 6 to 17 years
1,018
_ +/-195
1,016
(X)
All parents in family in labor force
819
+/-204
80.5 %
+/-10.4
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over
3,072
+/-348
3,072
(X)
Car, truck, or van - drove alone
2,232
+/-3141
72.7%
+/-5.7
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled
599
+/-169
19.5%
+/-5.5
Public transportation (excluding taxicab)
0
+1-98
0.0 %
Walked
116
+/-81
3.8 %
+1-2.5
Other means
42
+/-55
1.4%
+/-1.8
Worked at home - --
83
+1-54
2.7%
+/-1.7
Mean travel time to w ork (minutes)
20.1
+/-2.3
(X)
(X)
OCCUPATION
_ __
Civilian employed population 16 years and over
3,203
+/-339
3,203
(X)
_ _
Management, business, science, and arts occupations
925
+/-228
28.9 %
+/-5.9
Service occupations
818
+1-193
25.5%
+/-5.4
Sales and office occupations
342
+/-132
10.7 %
+/-4.1
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations
395
+/-142
12.3 %
+/-4.5
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations.
723
+/-162
22.6%
+/-4.2
INDUSTRY
Civlian employed_population 16 years and over
3,203
+/-339
3,203
(X)
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
69
+/-69
' 2.8%
+1-2.2
Construction
231
+/-106
7.2%
+/-3.3
Manufacturing --- -
705
+1-185
22.0%
+1-5.2
Wholesale trade
21
+/-28
0.7 %
+/-0.9
Retail trade
294
+1-125
8.9 %
+/-3.8
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
104
+/-89
3.2%
+/-2.7
information
19
+/-21
0.6%
+/-0.7
Fnance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing
110
+/-75
3.4%
+1-2.3
Professional, scientific, and management,; and administrative and w aste management services
248
+/-93
7.7%
+/-2.7
Educational services, and health care and social assistance
796
+/-217
24.9%
+1-6.1
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services
317
+/-119
9.9%
+1-3.7
Other services, except public administration
147
+1-90
1 4.6%
+/-2.7
Public administration
132
+/-86
4.1%
+1-2.6

�- Cvilian employed population 16 years and over
Private w ace and salary w orkers
Government w orkers
ed in own not incorporated business w orkers
Selt-e to P
{ _ Y ---
I Unpaid family workers � 1
3 203
2,3901
609
204
0
+1-339
+%-326
+/_104
+/-98
3,203T
74.6% I
(X)
6.4 %
+/-3.2
0.0% 1
_
_
INCONEAND BENEI'VS (IN 2011 WFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
Total households 1
- - -- -' - -- --- -.... --
Less than $10,000
$10,000to$14,999 .-..-.
$15,000 to $24,999 -
- $25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999 - --- _- .... .-- .- _.
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99.999
j $100,000 to $149,999 -- _ ---- - -- - - T
I $150,000 to $199,999 - - - - --- - - - t
$200,000 or more -
�� -
..dian household income dollars
Mean household income (dollars) -
2,859 I
43 4
-
379
583
+/-239 I
+/-157
+/-133T,.
- +I-149
2,859 I
W I
15.2%
13.3%
_
1
+/�,5
- 20.4%
276
+005r
9.7%
+1-3.5 I
- 3391
347
+1-1311
+/-114
+/_BO
11.9%
+1-4.3
+/-3.9
- +/-2.8
- +/-1.4
- --- (X)
12.1 %
- 179 r
6.3 %
44-+/
46
26,675
j
43,144 I
40
+/-39,
--T
+1-8,238PQI
-+/-41805 I
1.5 / r
1.6 /
(X)I----
(X) I
- - -- -_ -_-
Withearninos+/-218
Wan earnings (dollars) I
With Social Security
Mean Social Security income (dollars) �-
With retirement income f
68.5%
- +/ 6.4
(X)
46,759
1,167
13.373 1
463
+/-221
+1-1,033
+1-120 I
+/-4,944
-+/-70
40 8 %
(X) I
16.2%
- (X)
5.3 %
- (X)
2.4 %
(X)
--- -
+/-4.0
-- -- +/-2.3
(X)
+/-1.6
Haan retirement income dollars
With Supplemental Security Income ------------'-----
13.161
152 I-
-- --u-- .�
Mean Supplemental Security hcome (dollars)
6.259
+/_1,147
+/ 46
+1-1.294
+/-131]
With cash public assistance income
Mean cash public assistance income (dollars) - - --__ --
With Food StampISNAP benefits in the past 12 months -- -_ - - - -
68
1,634
5771,634
/ r1,
20.2 %
+1-4.6
_ - -
Families -
Less than $10,000
$10,ODO to $14,999
$15,0DO to $24,999
- $25,000 to $34,999 - --- ------
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
1,669I
_ _ 186
--,.,- .- B6
196
196
284
_- +/-177
+/-90
_ --... +1-60
+1-75
- - +1-104
+/-97
17669
------- (X)-
11.1 % {
5.2%
I 11.7%
-_ 11.7%
17.0%
9.7 %
+/-5.2
----- ----- +/-3.5
I -- +/-4.5
+/-5.9
+/-5.6'
+14.1
$75,ODO to $99,999
162
I
+/-68
$100,000 to $149,999 --- ----
$150.000 to $199,999 ------ - ------
$200,000 or more
Median family income (dollars)
Nban family income (dollars)
-- -------------------------------- --- --
Per capita income (dollars) ---- -- ----- ---
Nonfamily households -
Median nonfamily income (dollars) -_--- -
Mean nonfamily income (dollars)
-------------- -- ---- ---------- --' -- _-- ._....... - - '- - -- _...._
Median earnings for workers (dollars)
Median earnings for male full-time, year-round w orkers (dollars) -
Median earnings for female full-time, year-round workers (dollars)
- ------ ----- -- - - - - -- -- - -- - --
155
44
39
38,828
54,122
-171�
1,190
15,773
26 4416
...--- ...
20,724
41,397
27,304
---04
+/-781
- - - +1-40
+/-38
+/-7,881
+I-7,053
--
--+f-1,822
- +/-232
+/-3,259
+/-5,340
+1-4,287
+/-6,666
+/-2,517
--
9.3 %
I 2.6
2.3 %
I (X)
(X)
I +/-2.3
(X)
{ (X)
I (X)
-1,190
(X)
(X)
- -
(X)
(X)
-- (X)
---- (X)
(--X)11
(X)
(X)
-_...
(X)
(X)
- -- - - -
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
Civilian noninstitutional'¢ed population
M
(X)
I (X)
I (X)
With health insurance coverage -
With private health insurance
_ (X)
{ (X)
_
_ (X)
(X)
I (X)
I (X)
1 (X)
I (X)
With public coverage -_-�
(X)
(X)
I (X)
I (X)
No health insurance coverage
Civilian noninstitutional¢ed population under 18 years
No health insurance coverage
---- ---------..---------------------------------- -
I (X)
(X)
r-- (X)
I __ (X)
(X)
i (X)
- --------
I _ (X)
(X)
I (X)
(X)
-----
I (X)
----- - - - (X)
Civilian noninstitutional¢ed population 18 to 64 years - _
hlabor force: - - - - ---- -
Employed:
With health insurance coverage
With private health insurance
With public coverage _
No health insurance coverage
�- Unemployed: ---
I With health insurance coverage
With private health insurance
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
_ (X)
(X)
_ (X)
I (X)
_ (X)
(X)
_ --�(X)
(X)
t (X)
--- - (X)
(X)
- -- (X)
I (X)
-- (X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
I (X)
(X)
I (X)
I (X)
I (X)
(X)
I (X)
(X)
-- (X)
(X)
- -- (X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
I (X)
_ _ --
With oublic coverage
1 (X)

fXl I fXl I lh) I '
No health insurance coverage
- -----
- Not in labor force:(X)
With health insurance coverage
f With prvate health insurance
With public coverage
No health insurance coverage
(X) _
(X) I --
(X) --
(X) I
-
(
- (X) — .)
(X) (X) - - --
(X) (X)
(X) (X)
-- (X) (X) I .
---- - (X)
(X).
(X)
(X)
W THE PAST 12 MONTHS IS BELOW THE POV ERTY
I
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILbS AND PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME
-
-
LEVEL _ _--- ---
--- —' ---
(X) -
(X) 23.1 %
Allfarrlies
(X) 39.3%
_ _ _ _
_.+/-11.9
With relatechildren under d childder 18 years - -
(X)Ma
(X) 45.9%
_
With related children under 5 years only
(X)
_
(X)
rred couple fan M.s
(X)
(X) 25.D %
—
+/-13.1
With related children. under 18 years
(X)
(X) X 10.2%
+1-19.8.
With related children under 5 years only
-
Families w ith f emale householder, no husband present
(X)
-
(X) 667 %
+1-16.9
With related children under 16 years _ —
- --
-
(X)
-
(X) 75.0%
—
With related children under 5 years only
(X)
(X) 28.4% --
— +/-6.9
All people ople --y—
(X)
(X) 49.7 A
+/-13.6
Under 18 years -
(X)
(X) 49.700
+/-13.6
Related children under "18 years
(X)
(X) 53.39
+1-19.6
Related children under 5 years
(X)
(X) 47.8 %
+/-14.9
Related children 5 to 17 years
_-
18 years and over
---i - —
— -- -
(X)
_ (X) 21.9%
+/-6.3
18 to 64 years
65years and over .
(X)
(X) 29.6%
_
People in families
Unrelated individuals 15 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-ZU11 American L. rrlunuy ?ulv=y
Explanation of Symbols:
An.- entry b the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too f ew sample observations were. available to compute a standard error and thus the
margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.
An'- entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians
cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the low est interval or upper interval of an open ended distribution.
An -' follow'vig a median estimate means the median falls in the low est interval of an open-ended distribution.
An'+' follow ing a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.
An "" or column indicates that the median falls in the low est interval or upper interval of an operi-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.
entry in the margin of err
An`*`'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
AWN entry in the estimate and margin of. error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.
An'(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainly for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of e
margin of error. The value show n here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the nterval
defined by the estimate minus the. margin of error and the est mate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to
sampling variability, the ACS estiates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampfng variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsart +ling error is
not represented in these tables:
There w ere changes in the edit betw een 2009 and 2010 regarding Supplemental Security Income (SSD and Social Security. The changes in the edit loosened restrictions on
disability requirements for receipt of SSI resulting in an increase in the total number of SSI recipients in the American Community Survey. The changes also loosened restrictions
on possible reported monthly amounts in Social Security income resulting in higher Social Securiy aggregate amounts. These results more closely match administrative counts
compiled by the Social Security Adrdnistration.
Workers include members of the Armed, Forces and civilians who were at w ork last w eek
Industry codes are 4-digit codes and are based on the North American Industry Classification System 2007. The Industry categories adhere to the guidelines issued in Clarification
Memorandum No. 2, "NAILS Alternate Aggregation Structure for Use By U.S. Statistical Agencies;' issued by the Office of Management and Budget
Census occupation codes are 4-digt codes and are based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). The Census occupation codes for 2010 and.later years are based
on the 2010 revision of the SOC. To allow for the creation of 2007-2011 and 2009-2011 tables, occupation data in the multiyear files (2007-2011 and 2009-2011) w ere recoded to
2011 Census occupation codes. We recommend using caution w hen comparing data coded using 2011 Census occupation codes w Ain data coded using Census occupation
ensus occupation code changes, please visit our webste athttp:/lww.w..census.govlhhestwwwt-oindexf.
codes prior to 2010. For more information on the C
While the 2007-2011 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the December 2009 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and .
mitropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities show n in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to
differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.
Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas
have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau ( American FaclFnder
0

:1�5. rC.F:.]!ill,ElE °r C°!�111iE(CF. H°I(iC 5I°g� Ftmu: Vs SU,,pc!k- A 10 Z "rAD, Het:
.. Search
n �US1ei8S9 .f-8i�i!rcpli'y' L-r�i2 E'i cS2CCC i1 - _',rtS F'UOr o
Pee pl1
State &County QuickFacts
McDowell County; North Carolina
McDowell
North
People QuickFacts
County Carolina
Population, 2012 estimate
44,998
9,752,073
Population, 201D (April 1) estimates base
44,996
9,535,471
Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012
Z
2.3%
Population, 2010
44,996 .
9,535,483
Persons under 5 years, percent, 2011
5.6%
6.5%
Persons under 18 years, percent, 2011.
21.4%
23.7%
Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2011
17.0%
13.2%
Female persons, percent, 2011
50.1%
51.3%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
White persons, percent, 2011 (a)
93.1%
72.1%
Black persons, percent, 2011 (a)
4.2%
22.0%
- American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2011
(a) ..
0.7%
1.5%
Asian persons, percent, 2011 (a)
0.9%
2.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons, percent,
2011 (a)
0.1 %
0.1 %
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2011
1.1%
1.9%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin, percent, 2011 (b)
5.5%
8.6%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2011
88.5%
65.0%
Living in same house 1 year & over, percent,. 2007-2011
---------------------
89.5%
83.9%
Foreign bom persons, percent, 2007-2011
3.4%
7.4%
Language other than English spoken at home, percent age
5+,2007-2011
5.2%
10.66/.
High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+,
2D07-2011
78.9%
84.1%
Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+,
2007-2011
.13.9%
26.5%
Veterans, 2007-2011
3,707
743,377
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2007-
2011
22.3
23.4
- - -- - -------------------------------------------`
Housing units, 2011
-----------
20,934
4,362,740
Homeownership rate, 2007-2011
. 71.3%
67.8%
Housing units in multi -unit structures, percent, 2007-2011
7.1%
17.0%
Median value of owner -occupied housing units, 2007-2011
$100,700
$152,700
Households, 2007-2011
17,483
3,664,119
- Persons per household, 2007-2011
2.50
2.50
Per capita money Income in the past 12 months (2011
dollars), 2007-2011
$19,377
$25,256
Median household income, 2007-2011
$35,230
$46,291
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007-2011
18.5%
16.1%
McDowell
North
Business QuickFacts
County
Carolina
Private nonfarm establishments, 2011
732
215,1131
Private nonfarm employment, 2011
12,021
3,284,5921
Private nonfarm employment, percent change, 2010-2011
-0:3%
1.5%1
Nonempioyer establishments, 2010
2,626
640,686 .
-'To- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tal number of firms, 2007
3,517
798,791
Black -owned firms, percent, 2007
S
10.5%
American Indian- and Alaska Native -owned firms, percent,
2007
F
1.0%
Asian -owned firms, percent, 2007
1.4%
2.5;%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander -owned firms,
percent, 2007
F
0.1%
Hispanic -owned firms, percent, 2007
F
2.7%
Women -owned firms, percent, 2007
17.8%
28.2%

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers shipments, 2007-($1000)
1,332,457 205,867,299
Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000)
78,152 88,795,885
Retail sales, 2007 ($1000)
482,389 114,578,173
Retail sales per capita, 2007
$11,066 $12,641
Accommodation and food services sales, 2007 ($1000)
41,953 16,126,939
Building permits, 2012
98 48,692
McDowell North
Geography QuickFacts
County Carolina
Land area in square miles, 2010
440.61 48,617.91
Persons per square mile, 2010
102.1 196.1
FIPS Code
111 37
- Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area
None
1: Includes data not distributed by county.
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.
D. Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information
F: Few er than 25 firms
FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data
NA: Not available
S: Suppressed: does not meet publication standards
X: Not applicable
Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure show n
Source U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived
from Population Estimates, American Community Survey,
Census of Population and Housing, Stale and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonerrployer Statistics,
Econonic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits
Last Revised: Thursday, 06-Jun-201312:12:22 EDT

,APPENDIX B SUPPORTING ENGINEERING INFORMATION
STATE POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Annual County Population
Totals, 2010-2019
Estimates
Projections
County
Jul-10
Jul-11
Jul-'12
Jul-13
Jul-14
Jul-15
Jul-15
Jul-17
Jul-18
Jul-19
Ala ma nce
151,469
152,019
153,029
154,151
155.272
156,395
157,517
158,639
159,759
160,880
Alexander
37,243
37,515
37,389
37,209
37,046
36,699
36,765
36,647
36,537
36,436
Aileghany
11,148
11,063
10,971
10,874
10,780
10,687
1 D,593
10,499
10,404
10,310
Anson
26,875
25,813
26,626
26,635
26,640
26645
26.653
26,658
26,666
26,670
Ashe
27,257
27,413
27.361
27,468
27454
27,534
27,540
27,606
27,625
27,678
Avery
17,750
17,967
17,764
17,842
17,724
17.763
17,674
17,688
17,620
17,618
Beaufod
47,765
47,795
47,901
48,010
48,119
48,226
48,333
48,443
48,550
45,658
Bertie
21,200
20,978
20,665
20,450
20,433
20,410
20,415
20,286
20.155
19,985
Bladen
35,171
35,164
35,200
35,22e
35,251
35.279
35,306
35,331
35,358
35,386
Bruns,:Ack
108,064
110312
112,597
114.682
117;166
119451
121,737
124,022
126,307
128,593
Buncombe
238,886
243,707
245,535
248,578
251,621
254,666
257,708
260,751
263,795
266.837
Burke
90,776
90,689
89,977
89,604
89,227
88,889
68,582
83,307
88.058
87.834
Cabanus
176,519
180,794
163,565
186,531
iB9.499
192.468
195,435
198,404
201,372
204,341
Caldwell
82,947
82,897
62,605
82,352
82,110
81,881
81,677
B1,4B6
61,315
61,162
Camden
9,983
10,065
9,922
9,602
9,702
9.618
9,546
9,488
9,439
9,398
Carteret
66,713
67.595
66,362
69.138
62,917
70.695
71,477
72,255
73,033
73,812
Caswell
23,665
23,907
23,492
23,582
23,453
23472
23,412
23,406
23374
23,354
Catawba
154,260
154,713
155,494
156,287
157,078
157.872
158,663 '
159,455
160,247
161,041
Chatham
63,751
65,639
66,545
67,857
69,170
70484
71,796
73,107
74,421
75,733
Cherokee
27,438
.27,541
27.030
26,907
26,781
26,658
26,550
26,444
26,348
26,255
Chowan
14,757
14,796
14,743
14,761
14.723
14,731
14.702
14.703
14,679
14,674
Clay
10,568
10,690
10,520
10,559
10,500
10,539
10,505
10,505
10,512
10,481
Cleveland
98,030
98,210
97,702
97,280
96,909
96,578
96,284
96.023
95,79'1
95,564
Colurnbus
57,919
58,007
57,862
57,846
57.785
57,747
57,696
57,654
57,604
57,560
Craven
104,138
104,616
105,179
105,373
105,5E9
105,766
105,962
106,157
105.353
106.550
Cumberland
327445
330,293
330,754
334,126
337,415
340.703
344.000
347.290.
350,562
353,874
Curriluck
23,647
24,007
23.757
23,550
23,355
23,179
23,017
22,869
22,740
22,620
Dare
34,007
34,291
34,8'10
35,330
35,852
36,374
36,895
37,415
37,935
38.455
Davidson
162.675
163,580
163,410
164,232
164,900
165,520
166, 337
166,995
167,630
16,8,438
Davie
41,310
41,385
41,412
.41,453
41,495
41,534
41,577
41,616
41,657
41,698
Dup!in
58;664
59,478
60,059
60,760
61,396
62,068
62,723
63,385
64,043
64,703
Durham
271,297
276,060
282,511
289,042
296,297
303,060
310,347
317,156
324,424 '
331,260
Edgecombe
56,604
56,090
56,085
55,840
55.871
55,732
55,69B
55.599
55.541
55,456
Forsyth
351,381
353,985
357,767
361,710
365,546
369.288
372,929
376,474
379,930
383.289
Franklin
60.813
61,603
61,540
62,346
62,025
63.504
64,017
64.548
65.083
65.625
Gaston
206.139
207,274
208,582
.209,652
210.742
211,858
212,977
214,093
215,214
216,334
Gates
12,166
12,173
11,830
1.1.569
11,371
11,219
'11,103
11,014
10,946
10,897
Graham
6,669
8,917
8,850
8,994
9,071
9,149
9,228
9,3D4
9,384
9,461
Granville
57,577
56,964
56,748
56,645
56,S36
57,6ig
57,098
57,168
57,235
57,296
Greene
21,225
21.559
21,363
21,296
21,260.
21,244
21,235
21,230
21.227
21,228
Guilford
489,677
494,676
502,190
509,388
516,589
523.788
530,991
538,190
545,391
552,592
Halifax
54,559
54,454
54,237
54,054
53,693
53.721
53,550
53,379
53,205
53,034
Harnett
115,757
118,458
121,264
124,118
126,979
129,836
132,691
135,550
138,407
141,264
Haywood
53,969
59,497
59,291
59,765
60.125
60,485
60,843
61,203
61,564
61,922
Henderson
103.951
108.061
108,183
106,630
109,056
10946E
109,863
110,242
110,605
110,955
Hertford
24,734
24,597
24451
24,586
24.451
24,197
24,161
24,157
23,932
23,835
Hoke
47.579
49,152
50.036
50,951
51.871
52.895
54,033
55.291
56.629
58,014
Hyde
5,787 '
5,839
5,742
5,769
5,79i
5,613
5,637
5,860
5,882
5,904
I red ell
159,766
161,175
163,043
164.,863
166,731
168.576
170,423
172,272
174,118
175.955
Jackson
40,335
40,605
40.766
41,111
41,434
41.756
42,07E
42,404
42,725
43,050
Johnston
169.632
172,634
174,839
177,043
179,248
181,450
183,655
165.859
188,064
190,268
Jones
10,081
10,550
10.615
10,635
10.659
10681
10,704
10,728
'. 10,752
10,773
Lee
57,859
58,143
59,111
59,857
60,630
61,401
62,t75
62,948
63,722
64.494
Lenoir
59,405
59,346
59,401
59,401
59,402
59401
59,401
59,403
59,403
59.403
Lincoln
78,406
78877
79,267,
79630
79,995
60358
60,722
81,087
81.451
81,614
Macon
33.928
34,225
33,985
34.164
34,196
34,295
34.455
34,626
34,603
34,977
Madison
20,773
21,145
21,192
21,472
21453
21610
21,752
21.780
21,976
22,026
Martin
24,463
24,155
24020
23.870
23,717
23,566
23,414
23.262
23,110
22,959
McDowell
45,059
45,264
45,258
45359
45492
45,435
45,464
45,487
45,507
45,521
Mecklenburg
923,390
940,056
963,165
985,516
1008,206
1,029.90D
1,051,592
1.073.280
1094,974
1.116,665
Mitchell
15,540
15,451
15,396
15,365
15326
15,290
15,262
15,232
15,2D8
15.187
tviontgomery,
27,943
28,060
27,914
28.059
26,238
28,481
26,730
233,972
29,194
29,369
Moore
88,526
89344
90,707
91,879
93,025
94,129
95,188
26,206
97,183
98,122
Mash
95,920
95,826
95,533
94.722
94,342
93,986
93,729
93,545
93,427
93,364
Nev., Hanover
203,299
206,286
209,964
213,785
217,606
221.429
225,248
229,069
232,892
236,711
Northampton
22,022
21,942
21,514
21,348
21,030
20,692
'20643
20,442
20.198
19,989
onslow
166,869
186,402
191,030
194,201
1913,554
202,027
208,226
209,779
213,931
217.509
orange
134,302
135.249
136,575
140,723
142,724
144,960
147,013
149,193
- 151,286
153,448
Pamlico
13,095
13,318
13,190
13320
13,357
13.394
13.430
13,468
1,1504
13.542
Pasquotank
40,644
40,319
39,941
39,740
39,607
39,519
39,458
39,418
3%394
39,374
Pender
52,384
53,466
54390
55,313
56,196
57054
57,865
58,690
59,470
60,225
Pere uimans
13,462
13,551
13;660
13,771
. 13,878
13,988
14,096
14,204
14,314
14.424
Person
39,442
39,609
391197
39.309
39.320
39,434
39,445
39,555
39.570
39,681
Pitt
166,737
169,803
172,618
174,50'1
17a,442
178.386
.160,329
182,271
184,213
185,160

Polk
20,441
20,542
20,262
.''20,077..
19,907
19.752
19;606
19,473
19,356
19,243
Randolph
141,874
142,555
.142,594
142,646,.
142698,',
,142;750
142,BD
;142,852
142902
142,954
Richmond
. 46,635
46,471.9
46 258
.` 46,253
'46,239 '
.' 46,226,
46,213 .
46,201
46 186 .
46,173.
R6beson- . - '.
134,422
1,34,216;',
134433
:_.134 553 -_
1344,672',
:134,792
134;91'1 -
',135,031
135150
135,270
,.
Rockingham
'93,597
93,379
92 873 -'-"
92 494-
92.118 -
91,798
91,524
91,290 .
91 16.p:
.. 00,922
Rowan..
138,378'.
138;305' ".
138,242'
• .138 251
138.2-59 :,.
', 138,269
136;277
-` 138;268.
138,254
-138,303
Rutherford
67,163
68,243
'--67,932�
.68,892
69,375
69.858-
70;341
70.824
- ;71309'.
71,793.
'Sampson
63;439
63,644
64 151
°64 673-
65,196
: - 65,7N
66,247
66,770
67 295 ..:
67,816 -
: Scotland
36,098
:: 36,283'•
, ' 36,366
36 192
... 36,099
35,962
35,848
35,721
35,604
- 35,480
Stanly
60,533
60,745
60,477
66403
60,270
60,153
60;051.
59,962
59862.
59,613
Stokes
471350.
' 47480
47,068
46,859 ..
46 580:
._ 46,322
46,085
45,866
45 665' ,
' 45481
_
Surry-
73,682;
73,437
- : 73718
73,898
74;074"
74,253
74;429
74,609
74787
` 74,964
Swain
13,997
° 14,236
14 4°4
. .14,652
14 812, ;.
'14;970
15;126
15;266
15 444
:. 15,602
Transylvania._
33,063
33,246
33,022
32,971
32,87Z
32813
32,755
32,706
32,668,
32;636'
Tyrrell
4,396
41358
' .. 4 174
.4 157
, . 4 13°:
4,111
4 689
= 4,065
4 043
4,021.
Union-
202,163'
207 872
;. 210,410 :
212 945
215;480
2181,01.6..
2201555
223 091.
. 225,627
Vance
45,358
_;205,345-,
45,463
45,530
`. 45 565'
.45 601
45,633
45,668
45.703
,45 739
45 715.
1Nake. _
906,908,
923,677
'. 945 603
966,424
. 987,572
' 1 008,721
1 029;868
1,051,0 i8
1;072 166 ..
1,093 31,4
;'.
Warieh;.
20;939
_.
- 20,925
- 20674
.'20,668
' . 20,564"
20.472
20;386
20;310
20,237
20,170
lNashinglon,
13;174.'
13,039
. .12,821
12,914
12,850
.. 12,787
12,725
12,664
12;602
12,538
Watauga
51;009
52,141'
52 517
_:. "52 953:.-
53,612
' •54;270
54;929
_ . 55,5Br
56 246
56;906
Wayne :.
1&845
=123,580
` 124 915
. 126;287=
127,153..
128,020
128,886
129;754
130 679..
131 486,
Wlke's
69,233.
69,791.
`. .69 r55
_;70,076'
,. -70 395`.-'
70 714
71'031
, 71,351
71 669
71 987
Wkgn:
81,301
81,383.
:81 796
:82,433
83 100.:;
.• 83.769
84434
85,101
85 769
86,437 .
Yadkin . ':'..
38;401
38;402
, . 38 247
38,160.
38 039.-
' 97,927
.37;825
37,732
37 644
'.. , 37;566 .
Yancey ' i .
17,787
is, 058..
17 874
' . 17 677.
17,880
.• 17,882
17 883
17;885
.17 887 :
17,8891
STATE _
9,574,477
9,666;Ofi8,9,765;229,;9,873,948,9,980919
10,087;832
101$6,150
10,303.7.7
10,412292,10,520,204
Return to Top
Last updated 18APR2013
i
i i
i

Projected Annual County
Population Totals, 2020-2029
County
Jul-20
Jul-21
Jul-22
Jul-23
Jul-24
Jul-25
Jul-26
Jul-27
Jul-28
Jut-29 -
Alamance
162,D04
163,126
164,246
165,370
166,492
167,614
i68,737
169,857
170,979
172,103
Alexander
36,351
36,271
36,193
35,134
36,074
36,022
35.973
35,931
35,EP2
35,856
Alleghany
10,216
10,121
10,029
9,935
9,641
P,747
.9,654
9,559
9,466
9,371
Anson
26,677
26.684
26,691
26,697
26,702
26,70B
26,714
26,722
2E5,727
26,734
Ashe
27,707
27,753
27,784
27,82a
27,863
27,906
' 27,942
27,980
28,020
28,060
Avery
17,562
17,550
17,503
17,483
17,441
17,419
17.382 .
17,356
17,320
17,290
Beaufort
48,765
48,873
46,982
49,089
49,198
49,305
49.414
49,520
49,630
49,735
Berne
19,905
19,825
19,787
19,687
19,590
19,457
19,363
19,266
19.199
19.104
Bladen
35,412
35,439
35,465
35,491
35,518
25,544
35,572
35,600
35.626
35,652
Brunswick;
130,879
133,161
135,447
137,733
140,017
142,30=
144,587
14G,873
149,155
151,442
Buncombe
269.881
272,923
275,967
279,008
282,054
285,096
288,140
291.181
294,225
297,268
Burke
67,632
87,445
87,282
87,136
87,000
65,879
86,770
86,672
86.582
86,502
Cabarrus
207,310
210,277
213,248
216,215
219,164
222,15C
225,119
228,086
231,055
234.024
Caldwell
81,021
80,892
8D,776.
80,672
80,577
80,489
80,412
80,339
80,272
80,215
Camden
9,362
9.335
9,310
9,200
9,273
9,25E
9,247
9,236
9,229
9,222
Carteret
74,592
75,371
76,148
76,928
77,708
78,4S8
.79,266
80,045
80,824
81,603
Caswell
23,341
23,331
23,316
23,305
23,299
23,290
23,281
23,276
23,271
23,264
Catawba
161,833
162,623
163,414
164,207
164,999
165;791.
166,561
157,377
165.167
166,960
Chatham
77.045
76,358
79,669
60 m
82,296
83,607
34,921
86,233
87,545
88,858
Cherokee
26.168
26,089
26,014
25,942
25,877
25,816
25757
25,700
25,652
25,602
Chowan
14,657
14.648
14,630
14.620
14,605
14,595
14;581
14,569
14.555
14,542
Clay
10,506
10,472
10,482
10,473
10,459
10,468
10,443
10,454
10,437
10,435
Cleveland
95,401
95,242
95,09B
94,969
94,656
94,755
94,666
94,568
94,518
94,456
Columbus
57,514
57,4G8
57,421
57,378
57,331
57:285
57,2361
57.191
57,146
57,100
Craven
106,745
106,942
107,137
107,332
107,529
107,725
107,921
108,118
108,313
108,510
Cumberland
357,166
360,4F8
363,749
-,67,0-,0
370,331
573,624
376.918
380,209
333,499
366,7k
Currituck
22,514
22,419
22,329
22,247
22,175
22,111
22,051
22,000
21,951
21,908
Dare
38,977
39,498
40.019
40,540
41,058
41,580
42.102
42,622
43,145
43,666
Davidson
169,090
169,740
170,541
171,187
1-11,650
172,63'3
173,285
173,957
174,739
175,383
Davie
41,740
41,779
41,821
41,864
41,902
41,9455
41,985
42,026
42,067
42,107
Duplin
G5,365
66,023
66,682
67,342
68,001
68,661
69,321
69,980
70,642
71,300
Durflam
338,505
345,365
352,588
359.468
365,674
373,568
360.755
387.658
394,842
401,770
Edqecornbe
55,388
55,312
55,239
55.164
55,089
55,01E
.54,944
54,869
54.795
54,720
Forsyth
386,56E
3a9,752
392,859
395,893
398,828
401,6P5
-404,467
407.207.
409,855
412,4''14
Franklin
66.160
66,697
67,232
67.768
68,304
68,841
69,377
69,912
70,449
70,984
Gaston
217,452
218.570
219,689
220,807
221.927
223,04E
224,163
225,280
226,309
227,518
Gates
10,857
10.827
10,804
10,7a5
10,772
10,762
10,754
10,749
10,744
10,742
Graham
9,539
9.616
9,694
9,772
9,250,
9,925
10,004
10,DB2
10,161
10,238
Granville
57,353
57.406
57,455
57,501
57,543
57,583
57,617
57,652
57.681
57,713
Greene
21,226
21,225
21,226
21,225
21.226
21,226
21,225
21,226
21.226
21,227
Guilford
559,792
566:992
574,194
551.394
588,593
595,7e4
602,994
510,195
617,394
624,595
Halifax
52861.
52,688
52,517
52,345
52,173
52,001
51,E29
51,657
51,484
51,312
Harnett
t44,121
146.960
149.V5
152,693
155,550
158403
161,263
.IS4,122
166,950
169,837
Haywood
62,281
62.640
62,999
63,359
63,719
64,077
64.437
64,797
65,157
65,517
Henderson
111,291
11.1,613
111,926
112,223
112,507
112,7a4
113,047
113,303
113,547
113,780
Hertford
23,799
22,713
23,561
23,465
23,397
23,286
23,162
23,077
22,985
22,872
Hoke
59,406
60,774
62,108
63,406
64,672
65,921
67.159
68,403
69,657
70,922
Hyde
5,925
5,950
5,973
5.P95
6,018
6,012
6,064
6,085
6 109
6,132
Iredell
177,812
179,659
181,505
183,354
185,192
187,047
1E6,893
190,741
192,5889
194,435
Jackson
43,371
43,696
44,019
44,340
44,664
44,93E
45,309
45,635
45.956
45,280
Jnhnston
192,471
194,674
195,879.
.. 199,0E2
201,28E
203,490
.'205,695
207,697
210,102
212,307
Jones
10,795
10,319
10,843
10,866
10,887
10,9t0
10,922
10,957
10,980
11,002
Lea
65,265
66,038
66,812
67,564
63,355
69,127
69,901
70,674
71,446
72,218
Lenoir
59,401
59,402
59,401
59,402
59.402
59,401..
59,403
59,403
59,402
59,40.2
Lincoln
82,176
82,543
82,906
83,269
83,634
83,993 "
84,362
E4,727
85,090
85,455
Macon
35 152
35,32E
35,500
35,674
35,648
35,023
36,197
36,368
36 541
35,717
Madison
22,149
22.283
22,346
22,497
22,583
22,694
22 &20
22,904
23,034
23,133
Martin
22 808
22,655
22,504
22 352
22,201
22,050
21,898
21,746
21 595
21,444
McDovrell
45,531
45,542
45,550
45,556
45,561
45.554
45,563
45,570
45,573
45.574
Mecklenburg
1,13.5,356
1,160.047
1,181,741
1,203,430
1,225.122
1.246,c13-
1,268,546
1,290J96
1,311,887
1,333,579
Mitchell
15,156
15,150
15,133
t5,119
15,109
15,095
15,083
15,075
15,057
15.059
IAon,gomery
29,553
29,718
29,861
30,002
30,143
30,286
30,436
30,589-
30,745
30905
Moore
99,024
99.887
100,719
101,519
102,284
103.021
103,729
t04,408
105,059
105;685
Nash
93,352
93,3E2
93,450
93,551
93,681
93.836
94,016
94,210
94,427
94,654
New Hanover
240,533
244.355
248,177
251,993
255,619
259,G39
263 452
267.282
271,105
274,926
Northampton
19,756
19,542
19,313
19,095
18;B67
15,649
18,421
18.204
17,977
17,754
onslow
221,652
225,236
229.374
232.950
237,098
240,65"-.
244 818
248,407'
252.542
256,132
Orange
155.55E
157.698
159,819
151,957
164,081.
165,215
166,343
170,474
172,603
174.733
Pamlico
13,578
13,615
.13.654
13,690
13,729
13,766
13,801
13,837
13,875
13,913
Pasquolank
39,364
39,354
39,349
39,346
39,344
39,340
39,341
39 341
39,338
39,339
Pendar
60,958
61,663
62,356
63,021
63,663
64,294
64,901,
65,487
66,057
66,609
Perouimans
14,532
14,642
14,752
14,860
14 467
15,076
15,165
15,295',
15,405
15.514
Person
39,691
39 805
39.817
39,930
39,941
40,055
40,057
40,180
40,121
40,303
Pill
188.092
190.04.5
191.9a7
193,930
195,674
197,816
199,760
201,701
203,645
205,588_
Polk
19,141
19.0i,9
18,961
18,885
18,814
18,748
18.685
18,630
18,580
18.534
R2ndo!ph
143,00S
14,3.056
143,106
143,158
143207
143261
143,309
f43,360
143413
143,462

Richmond
46,159
46,146
46,132 -_
46;119
46,104
135,866
46,094
46,079
136,104
45,066
136,222
46,051
.'136,341,
46,038
136,460
Robeson
135,38E
90,777
135,6691
90,651
135,628
90,548:
135,744
90,45B
90;380. '
_135;983
90,315
90,261
90,215
90,172
90,138
Rockingham.' .,
Rowan
190 713
190,651
,
138,331 .,
138,341'
136 349 ,..'
138,358
138,369
75,176
., t38 377
T5662
138,384:
76,146'
138,392
76,627.
Rutherford,
72,276
'
72,760.
68,866
73;245
69;393.
73,726'
69,916 .
74,212.
70,441.
74,693
70,905
71,489
- 72013
72,538
73;062
Sampson
Scotland
68,343
35,357
35,236
35,114
34,991
.34,869
34,748
34,626
59,517
34 503
59,492
34;381
59;471
34,261'
59;456
Stanly'
59,752'-
45,313
'59,699
59,652
45,011,
59,619
59,576
44,759
.59,544
44,649
?14,546
44;452 :.:
44,363'
76,744
Slokes.
75,144
•45,155
75,321.'
- 75,497
.44,881.
75,676
75,853'.:
76,033
:76;209
76,387 `.
16.8.68.,
76,565.
17,026'
76,744
17 185,
Surty,
'Swain ': "' :
15,761
15,920 „
16,077;'
33,955
16,237
32,598
16,395
32,607
16,553
32;622
16;710
32,644
:. ,32 674
< 32709 .
32.746
Transylvania
',Tyrrell "
32,614
$,998250,994
?3 9076 .
. , . 3;933
3,91:0 -
3,890
3,868
: 3 646
3,826
248,467
3 803
250 994
.
'Union
228,165
230,701
233,238 '
235,775
236,31.1
45,951
240,845
45,984
243;385
46,019
245 923
46054
46,088
46,124.
Vance
45,809
1,114,464
45,843
1,135,613
45,879
1,156,760
45,914
1,177,910
1,199,057
.1,220,207
t 241,354
`1,262,502
-1,283,651:
19,Z91
1,304,801
19,764
Wake
Warren
20,112
20,057
20;010. ,
: 19,962
19,922 ,
1.2,228
19,885
12,165
19,849
12,102
19,817
: .12,040
11 978
11,915
1Nashington
12,476
57;5fi4
12,414
58,223
12,352
58,a83.
12,288
59',540
60.199•,
60,858
61,516.'
62 174
� ,62,834
63,493
140 152
Watauga.:
:...
132,354
133;2]9.-
134-086
134,952
..135,819 .
73,582
136,687
93;899
37.,553,.
1.
74,210
138 419
74 537
139,286
74,857
75,174
,Wayne:
Wilkes.'
72,305
87,104
72;625
' 67;713
72 943
88437.
: 73,263
89,107
89,775
90,439
9,1,1D7
91 776.-
92,442.
.
93,911
VJlson'
Yadkin
37,493
37,426
.37,364, ;
; 37,307,
37,254
17,898
_ 37,207
17,897
37,162 ,
17,900
. 37,121
17,903
37,084
;:.. 1,
37.051
17 905.
Yancey. -
17,859
10,629,051
17,893
10,737,094
17,893..
10,835,943
, 17,895
70,953,951
11;1)62,628
11,170;657
11;27s,234:
11.387;152 ,1:1'495,884
11,603,710.
;STATE
Last updated 1 BAPR2013

Projected annual County
Population Totals, 2020-2029
County
Alamance
Alexander
Alleghany
Anson
Ashe
Avery
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Buncombe
Burke
Cabarrus
Caldwell
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Catawba
Chatham
Cherokee
Chowan
Clay
Cleveland
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare -
Davidson
Davie
Dupiin
Durham
Edgecombe
Forsyth
.Franklin
Gaston
Gates
Graham
Granville
Greene
Guilford
'Halifax
Harnett
Haywood
Henderson
Hertford
Jul-20
Jul-21
JLII-22
Jul-23
Jul-24
162,004
163,126
164,246
165,370
166,492
36,351
36,271
36,198
36,134
36,074
10,216
10,121
10,029
9,935
9,841
26,677
26,684
26,691
26,697
26,702
27,707
27,753
27,784
27.828 _
27,863
17,562
17,550
17,503
17,483,
17,441
48,765
48,873
48,982
49,080
49,198
19,905
19,825
19,787
19,687
19,590
35,412
35,439
35,466
35,491
35,518
130,879
133,161
135,447
137:733
140,017
269,881
272,923
275,967
279,008
282,054
87,632
87,448
87,282
87,136
87,000
207,310
210.277
213,248
216,215
219,184
81,021
80,892
80,776
80,672
80.577
9,362
9,335
9,310
9,290
9,273
74,592
75,371
76,148
76,928
77,708
23,341
23,331
23,316
23,306-
23,299
161,833
162,623
163,414
164,20.7
164.999
77,045
78,358.
79,669
80,983
82,296
26,168
26,089
26,014
25,942
25,877
14,657
14,648
14,630
14,620
14,606
10,506
10,472
10,482
1.0,473
10,459
95,401
95,242
95,008
94,969
94,856.
57,514
57,468
57,421
57,378.
57,331
106,745
106,942
107,137
'107,332
107,529
357,166
360,458
363,749
367,040
370,331
22,514
22,419
22,329
22,247
22,175
38,977
39,498
40,019
40,540-
41,058
169,090
169,740
170.541
171,187
17.1,850
41,740
41,779.
41,821
41,864
41,902
65,365
66,023
ee,682
67.,342
68,001
338,505
345,365
3512,588
359,468
366,674
5088
55,312
55,239.
55,164
55,089
386,568
389,752.
392,859
395,883
398,828
66,160
66,697
67,232
67,768
68,304
217,452
2'18:570
219,689
220,807
221,927
10,857
10,827
'1Q,804
10,785
10,772
9,539
9,616
9,694
9,772
9,850
57,353
57,406
57,456.
57,501
57,543
21,226
21,225
21,226
21,225
21,226
559,792
566,992
574,194
581,394
588,593
52.,861
52,688
52,517.
52,345
52,173
144,121
146,980
149;835
- 152,693
155,550
62,281
62,640
62,999
63,359
63,719
111,291
111,613
111,926 -
112,223
112,507
23,799
23,713
23,551
23,465
23,397

Hoke
59,406
60,774
62,108
63,406
64,672
Hyde
5,928
5,950
5,973
5,996
.6,018
Iredell
177,612
179,659
181,505
183,354
185,199
Jackson
43.371
43,696
44,019
44,340
44,664
Johnston
192,471
194,674
196,879
199,082
201,286
Jones
10,795
10,819
10,843
10,866
10,887
65,265
66,038
66,812
67,584
681-355
Lee
Lenoir
59,401
59,402
59,401
.59,402
59,402
Lincoln
82,176
82,543
82,906
83,269
83,634
Macon
35,152
35,326
35,500
35,674
35,848
Madison
22,149
22,808
22,283
22,655
22,346
22,504
22,497
22,352
22,583
22,201
Martin
McDowell
45,531
45,542
45,550.
45,556
.45.,561
Mecklenburg
1,138, 356
1,160,047
1,181,741
1,203,430
1,225,122
Mitchell
15,166
15,150
15,133
15,119
15,109
Montgomery
29,563
29,718
29,861
30,002.
30,143
Moore
99,024
99,887
100,719
101,519
102,284
Nash
93,352
93,382
93;450
93,551
93,681
New Hanover
240,538
244,356
248,177
251,998
255,819
Northampton
19,756
19,542
19,313
19,095
18,867
Onslow
221,652
225,236
229,374
232,960
237,098
Orange
155,555
157,698
159,819
161,957
164,081
Pamlico
13,578
'13,6.15
13,654
13,690
13,729
Pasquotank
39,364
39,354
39,349
39,346.
39,344
Pender
60,958
61,668
62,356
63,021
63,668
Perquimans
14,532
39;691
14,642
39,805
-14, 7 52
39,817
14,860
39,930.
14,967
39,941
Person itt
P
188,099
190,045
'191,987
193,930
195,874
Pitt
Polk
19,141
19,049
18,961
18,885
18,814
ph
143,005
143,056
143,106
143,158
143,207
Richmond
46,159
46,146
46,132
46,119
46,104
Robeson
135,388
135,509
135,628
135,744.
135,866
Rockingham
90,777.
138,313
90,651
138,322
90,548
138,33-1
90,458
138,341
90,380
138,349
Rowan
Rutherford
72,276
72,760
13,245
73,726
74,212
Sampson
68,343
68;866
69,393
69,916
70,441
Scotland
35,357
35,236
35,114
34,991
34,869
Stanly
59,752
59699
59,652-
59,61 i
59,576
Stokes
45,313
45,155
45,011
44,881
44,759
Stole
75,144
75,321
75,497
75,676
75,853
Swain
15,761
15,920
16;077
16;237
16,395
Transylvania
32,614
321600
32.597,
32,598
32,607
Tyrrell
3,998
3,976
3,955
3,933
3,910
Union
Union
228,165
230,701
233;238
235;775
238,311
45,809
45,843
45,879
45,914.
45,951
Wake
1,1 14,464
1,135,613
.1,156,760
1177,910
1,199,057
Warren
20,112
20,057
20,010
19,962
19,922
Washington12,476
12,414
i2,352
12,288
12,228
Watauga
57,564
58,223
58,883
59,540
60,199
Wayne
132,354
133,2-19
134,086
. 134,952
135,819
Wilkes
72,305
72,625
72,943
73,263
73,582
Wilson
87,104
87,773
887437
89,107
89,775

Yadkin 37,493 37,426 37,364 37,307 37,254
Yancey 17,889 17,893 17,893 17,895 .17,898
10,845,943 10,953,95.1 1 T,062,628
STATE 10,629,051 10,737,094
Last updated 18APR2013

Jul-25
Jul-26
Jul-27
Jul-28
Jul-29
167,614
168,737
169,857
170,979
172,103
36,022
35,973
35,931
35,892
35,856
9,747
9,654
9,559
9,466
9,371
26,708
26,714
26,722
26,727
26,734
27,906
27,942
27,980
28,020
28,060
17,419
17,382
17,356
17,320
17,290
49,305
49,414
49,520
49,630
40,735
19,457
19,363
19,266
19,19.9
19,104
35,544
35,572
35,600
35,626
35,652
:142,304
144,587
146,873
149,156
151,442
285,096
288,140
291,181
294,225
297,268
86,879 .
86,770
86,672
86,582
86,502
222,150
225,119
228,088
231,055
234,024
80,489.
80,412
80,339
80,272
80,215
9,258
9,247
9,236
9,229
9,222
78;488
79,268
80,045
80,824
81,603
23,290.
23,281
23,278
23,271
23,264
165,791,
166,581
167,377
168,167
168,960
83,60.7
84,921
86,233
87,545
88-858
25,816 .
25,757
25,700
25,652
251-602
14,595
14,58.1
14,569
14,555
14,542
10,468
10,443
10,454
10,437
10,435
94,755.
94,666
94,588
94,51.8
94,456
57,285
57,23.8
57,191
57,146
57,100
107,725.
107,921
108,118
108,313
108,510
373,624
376,918
380,209
383.499
386,792
22,111
22,051
22,000
21,951
21,908
41,580
42,102
42,622
43,145
43,666
172,639
173,285
173,957
174,739
175,383
41,945
41,985
42,026
42,067
42,107
68,661
69,32 i
69,980
70,642
71,300
373,568
380,758
387,668
394,842
401,770
55,015.
54,944
54,869
5 4, 79 5
54,720
401,695
404,487
407,207
409,855
412,434
68,841
'69,377
69,912
70,449
70,984
223,045.
-224,163
225,280
226,399
.227,518
10,762
10,754
10,749
10,744
10,742
9,925
10,004
10,082
10,161
10,238
57,583,
57;617
57,652
57,681
57,713
21,226
21,225
21,226
21,226
21,227
595,794
602,994
610,195
617,394
624,595
521001_ .
51,829
51,657
51,484
51,312
158,408-.
- . 161,263
.164,122
166,980.
169,837
64,077
64,437
64,797
65,157
65,517
112,784
113,047
113,303
113,547
113,780
23,286
23,162
23,077
.22,985
.22,872

65,921 ..
67;159
68,403 .
69,657
.70,922
6;042':
6,064
6,08.
-6,109
6J32
-187047 ..-.
188,893 -
190741-192,589-
194;435
`44;988 ._
45;309
45.,...
45;95.
46,280
203,490
205,695
207;807
210,102
10;910 -
932
10;957 -
980
.1.1 002
69,127 .!
`69;901
70,674
71,446
7 2 21.8
59,401
S9;403
59,4'03
59,402
59,402
- 83;998..
84;362
85,090
85;455
36,023 ; .
-36,19.7
36;368 , :
36;641
36,717
22'820
22,904.. ;.
23,034
23:133
-- 22,050.,
:.
- 21,898.
21.,746
21_,595
21;444
45,568
45;570
45,573
45,5/4
1;24.6,813' .:1,268;506
1,290,196
1;311,887 1,333;579
15,095
15,083
15,075
15,067
15,059
30 286
30,436
30;589
30,745
30,905
10.3,021
103;729 ""
104;408
106,059
105,685
93,836: ;...:794;016
:
.,. 94.210
94,427
94;654
259,639 ::
263462
267, 8
271,105
274,926.
.18,649 _
18,421 ::
: 18;204
17,977
17754
240,684
244,818
248;407 -
`.252,542.
256,132
166,215
168,343
170;474
172;603
174,733
13,766
13;801 :.
1.3837_ :.
13.;875 .
13,913
39,340: _
`39,3.41
39,341-:
39,338 :,
39;339.:
64,294
64,901
65;487
66 057
66,609
15,076
15,185,. ..
15;295 .,
' 15,405
-
15,51:4
40,055 ;:
40,067
40,180
40;191
40;:303
1'97,816.
199 760.
201;701
203;645 ,.:
205;588
1:8,748 :
1.8,685 .,:
18;630
18,580
18;534.
143,261
>143,309 .:
143,360
143;413
143,462
46094 '
46;079
46;066.:"
46,051
46,038
..
,135,983:
136,;.104,
136,222
136.,341
136,460.
.
90,315::
90,261
90,215
90.;1 �2
` 90,1.38
138,358_>
1.38,369:
138,377
1.38;384
138,392:
74,693
75,1.76 '
75,662
76 ,146
76,627
70,965 '
71 489,;,
72;013
;. 72;538" "
:" 73,062
34 748 ,,
34,626 .:
34503 :
34,361
34,261.
59,544
59 517,;,
'59,492
.': 59,471
59,450 .
44;649
44,546..:=
; 44,452
... 44,863
44,285:
76,033.:
76,209 :`,
76;387:.
76,565
76;744:
16;553.
..16;710::.:.
.16;868
17,026
1.7,155
32,622
32,644`
32 674 ..:
32,709
.: 32;748
3,868 :°
3 846 ;
3;826
3,803
:..
240,845.:
243,385 .::.
245,923
24%457. -
; : 250;9 -
45 984`
46,019..;
46 054-
.; 46;088
46,124'
1,2201207.
1,241 354 1
1.262 502
°' .1,283;651
1,304;801,.
19 885'_
19,849. `
- ; 19,817
1.9;791
19,764!
12;165"
12,102
12 040
:' 11978
11,915
60,858 .
61,516
62 174
82,834
63;493
1:36,687
137 553
138 419
:.. 139;286I
40;152
73;89.9.
74;219
74 537
: 74857
75174
90,439.
91,107.;
9:1,77G
92,442

0 4 L'£09' G 6
�99'96V 4 b
Z9 �'L8£' 6
b£Z'6LZ' 6 4
L99'OL 6' 6 6
906'L6
906'L6
£06'L6
006'L1.
L68'L4
b90'L£
1,80'L£
6Z6'/_E
Z9b'L£
LOZ'L£

Projected Annual County
Population Totals, 2030-2033
County
Alamance
Alexander
Alleghany
Anson
Ashe
Avery
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Buncombe
Burke
Cabarrus
Caldwell
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Catawba
Chatham
Cherokee
Chowan
Clay
Cleveland
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Davidson
Davie
Duplin
Durham
Edoecombe
Forsyth
Franklin
Gaston
Gates
Graham
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Haywood
Henderson
Hertford
Jul-30 Jul-31 Jul-32 Jul-33
173,225 174,346 175,468 176,589
35,825 35,797 35,772 35,746
9,278 9,182 9,088 8,994
26,739 26,747 26,754 26,758
28,096 28,136 28,173 28,212
17,25 5 . 17,226 17,194 17,164
49.847 49,953 50,062 50,169
19,019 18,906 18,810 18,706
35,678 35.706 35,731 35,758
153,727 156,012 158,297 160,581
300,312 303,357 306,397 309,439
86,431 86,366 86,306 86,252
236,992. 239,961 242,930 245,898
80,162 80,112 80,069 80,028
9,216 9,212 9,207 9,204
82,383 83,159 83,940 84,719
23,262 23,257 23,255 23,252
169,751 170.543 171,335 172,128
90,170 91,483 92,795 94,108
25,560 25,517 25,478 25,441
14,531 14,517 14,504 14,492
10,434 10,418 10,423 10,407
94,399 94,351 94,307 94,270
57,053 57,009 56,962 56,916
108,704 108,902 109,096 109,292
390,083 393,373 396,666 399,959
21,868 21,831 21,798 21;771
44,186 44,706• 45,227 45,747
176.064 176,839 177,4 81 178,175
42,148 42,190 42,229 42,271
71,962 72,621 73,279 73,939
408:930 415.869 423,018 429,967
.54,646 54,573 54,497 54,424
414,946 417,391 419,773 422,092
71.522 72,057 72,594 73,129
228,637 229,755 230,875 231,992
10,738 10,735 10,735 10,733
10,316 10,395 10,471 1.0,549
57,739 57,763 57,786 57,806
21,226 21,227 21,226 21,226
631,796 639,000 646,198 .653,399
51,'i 40 50,970 50,796 50,625
172,695 175,552 178,408 181.268
65,876 66,234 66,595 66,954
i 14.006 114,222 114,427 114,628
22,767 22,678 22,577 22,468

Hoke
72,197
73,479
74,765
76,052
Hyde
6,154
6,178
6,202
6,223
Iredell
196,282
198,129
199,977
201,824
Jackson
46,603
46,924
47,250
47,573
Johnston
214,511
216,715
218,918
221,123
Jones
11,024
11,046
11,068
11,093
Lee
72,991
73,765
74,536
75,309
Lenoir
59,401
59,401
59,403
59,402
Lincoln
85,818
86,180
86,547
86,911
36,89.1
37,066
37,240
37,412
.Macon
Madison
23,239
23,359
23,457
23,574
Martin
21,289
21,138
20,988
20,835
McDowell
45,575
45,577
45,577
45,578
Mecklenburg
1,355,271
1,376.962
1,398,653
1,420,344
Mitchell
15.051
15,043
15,040
15,036
Montgomery
31,065
31,228
31,389
31,548
Moore
106,286
106,865 .
107,420
107,954
Nash
94,897
95,148
95,412
95,684
New Hanover
278,747
282,567
286,389
'290,209
Northampton
17,531
17,307
17,085
16,863
Onslow
260,26G
263,854.
267,990
271,579
Orange
176,859
178,991
181,121
183,253
Pamlico
13,951
13,988
14,024
14,062
Pasquotanl<
39,338
39.339
39.339
39,338
Pender
67,142
67,662
68,165
68,651
Perquimans
15,622
15,730
15,840
15,948
Person
40,315
40,429
40,439
40,552
Pitt
207,532
209,473
2.11,416
213,360
Polk
18,488
18,450
18,413
18,380
Randolph
•143,515
143,565
143,616
143,667
Richmond
46,025
46,013
46,000
45,985
Robeson
136,581
136,700
136,818
-136,939
Rockingham
90,109
90,084
90,063
90,043
Rowan
138,404
138,413
138,420
138,430
Rutherford
77,113
77,596
78,079
78,563
Sampson
73,586
74,110
74,636
75,161
Scotland
34,138
34,015
33.893
33,771
Stanly
59,434
59,421
59.407
59,397
Stokes
44,211
44,143
44,081
44,026
Surry
76,921
77,099
77,277
77,455
Swain
17,344
17,500
17,659
178,17
TransylVania
32,795
32,849
32,906
32,969
Tyrrell
3,783
3,761
3,741
3,721
Union
253,530
256,067
258,603
261,140
Vance
46,160
46,195
_ 46.230
46.265
Wake
1,325,950
1,347,099
-1,368.245
1,389,393
Warren
19,740
19,719
19,697
19,680
Washington
11,855
11,789
11,729
- 11,665
Watauga
64,150
64,810
65,468
66,126
Wayne
141,019
141,888
142,752-.
143,610
Wilkes
75,493
75,812
76,131
76,449
Wilson
93,777
- 94,445
95,113
95,779
Yadkin
37,018
36,989
36,963
36,937
Yancey
17,907
17,908
17,910
17,913
STATE
11,712,234
11,820,139
11,928, 509
12,036,225
Last updated 18APR2013

APPENDIX B SUPPORTING ENGINEERING INFORMATION
SEVER LINE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS

Sewer Line Capacity Calculations
n
0.013
s %
0.22
D(inches)
12
V (ft/s)
2.127711
0.15
15
2.03870!
0.08
24
2.03673'
0.061
301
2.04671
Pipe Half Full
Pipe Full
Q ft"3/s Q(
pd)
Q(9pm
Q(9pd) Q
pm
0.835552
540,031
375.0
11080,062
750.0
i 1.250934
808,500
561.5
1,616,999
1,122.9
3.19929
2,067,755
1,435.9
4,135,511
2,871.9
3 5.0235531
3,246,807
2,254.7
6,493,614
4,509.5

APPENDIX $ SUPPORTING ]ENGINEERING INFORMATION
FLOW ESTIMATE CALCULATIONS

City of Marion
a„ruro Glow Pminr+ nnwnctraam C--Pr PF = 25
Sewershed Area
% of WWiP Sewershed
WW ADF
1/1
Current ADF
1095 Industrial
Reserve
2013 ADF
2013 PDF
30" Interceptor Sewershed (Same as WWTP)
7.03
100.0
640936.0
327,500
968,436
64,094
1,032,530
2,581,324
30" Interceptor Sewershed (Additional Flow)
1.75
24.9%
159,550
81,526
241,076
15,955
257,031
642,577
24" Interceptor Additional Flow
3.4
48.4%
309,983
158,393
468,376
30,998
499,374
1,248,436
15" Interceptor Additional Flow
0.54
7.7%
49,233
25,156
74,389
4,923
79,312
198,281
2017 ADF
2017 PDF
2022 ADF
2022 PDF
2027 ADF
2027 PDF
2032 ADF
2032 PDF
30" Interceptor Sewershed (Same as WWiP)
1,D35,443
2,588,608
1,036,877
2,592,194
1,037,333
2,593,332
1,037,492
2,593,730
30" Interceptor Sewershed (Additional Flow)
257,756
644,390
258,113
645,283
258,226
645,566
258,266
645,665
24" Interceptor Additional Flow
. 500,783
1,251,959
501,477
1,253,692
501,697
1,254,243
501,774
1,254,436
15" Interceptor Additional Flow
79,536
198,840
79,646
199,116
79,681
199,203
79,694
199,234

APPENDIX C SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
SOILS INFORMATION

Soil Map —McDowell County, North Carolina
35' 41' 35"
35' 40' 38'
35° 41' 35"
Map Scale: 1:8,370 'rf printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.
b Meters
m n 0 50 100 200 300 Feet
0 300 600 1,200 1,800
35' 40' 38"
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/27/2013
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
0
Soil Map Units
Special
Point Features
Blowout
®
Borrow Pit
X
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
x
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
R.
Mine or Quarry
p
Miscellaneous Water
QQ
Perennial Water
v .
Rock Outcrop
+
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
0
Sinkhole
?yy
Slide or Slip
�I
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Soil Map —McDowell County, North Carolina
,IZ Very Stony Spot
Ir Wet Spot
w Other
Special Line Features
Gully
Short Steep Slope
.. Other
Political Features
Cities
Water Features
1 Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
N Local Roads
MAP INFORMATION
Map Scale: 1:8,370 if printed on A size (8.5" X 11") sheet.
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N NAD83
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area. McDowell County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 13, Jul 26, 2012
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/112006; 811/2006;
7/31 /2006
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a'result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/27/2013
'� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Map Unit Legend
McDowell County,: North Carolina (NC111)
Ma Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Map Unit Symbol p
EwE Evard-Cowee complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes
4.2 1.1
HeD Hayesville-Evard complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes
44.2 12.0%
HrD Hayesville-Evard-Urban land complex, 15 to 25
80.4 21.8%
percent slopes
HuC 160.3 43.4%
Hayesville-Urban land complex, 6 to 15 percent
slopes
IoA lotla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally.
12.2 3.3%
flooded
U A Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Page 3 of 3

Farmland Classification —McDowell County, North Carolina
Farmland Classification
McDowell County Prime and Unique Farmland
Farmland Classification —Summary by Map Unit —McDowell County, North Carolina (NC111)
Rating
g
Acres in AOI Percent
of AO1
Map unit
Map unit name
symbol
AcF
Ashe-Cleveland-Rock outcrop Not prime farmland
4,495.7
1.6%
complex, 60 to 95 percent slopes
BmA
Biltmore loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 Prime farmland if irrigated
1,531.6
0.5%
percent slopes, occasionally
flooded
Braddock clay loam, 2 to 6 percent All areas are prime farmland
1,801.3
0.6%
BrB2
slopes, eroded
BrC2
Braddock clay loam, 6 to 15 Farmland of statewide
1,993.4
0.7%
percent slopes, eroded importance
BrD2
Braddock clay loam, 15 to 25 Farmland of local importance
228.8
0.1
percent slopes, eroded
CaD
Chestnut-Ashe complex, 10 to 25 Not prime farmland
1,698.5
0.6%
percent slopes, stony
44,522.4
15.6%
CaF
Chestnut-Ashe complex, 25 to 80 Not prime farmland
percent slopes, stony
0.5%
CoA
Colvard loam, 0 to 2 percent All areas are prime farmland
1,561.2
slopes, occasionally flooded .
CrF
Craggey-Rock outcrop complex, Not prime farmland
239.9
0.1
40 to 90 percent slopes
CuE
Cullasaja-Tusquitee complex, 10 Not prime farmland
2,466.6
0.9%
to 45 percent slopes
0.5%
DdB
Dillard loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes, All areas are prime farmland
1,469.9
rarely flooded
445.0
0.2%
DuD
Ditney-Unicoi complex, 10 to 25 Not prime farmland
percent slopes, very stony
DuF
Ditney-Unicoi complex, 25 to 80 Not prime farmland .
4,090.4
1.4%
percent slopes, very stony
DxF
Ditney-Unicoi-Rock outcrop Not prime farmland
1,324.7
0.5%
complex, 60 to 95 percent slopes
EcD
Edneyville-Chestnut complex, 10 Farmland of local importance
1,660.3
0.6%
to 25 percent slopes, stony
EcF
Edneyville-Chestnut complex, 25 Not prime farmland
22,159.E
7.8%
to 80 percent slopes, stony
EsB
Elsinboro loam, 1 to 4 percent All areas are prime farmland
1,368.8
0.5%
slopes, rarely flooded
EvD
Evard loam, 10 to 25 percent Farmland of local importance
10,792.4
3.8%
EwE
slopes
Evard-Cowee complex, 25 to 60 Not prime farmland
74,559.5
percent slopes
2,758.5
1.0%
GrD
Greenlee very cobbly loam, 6 to 25 Not prime farmland
percent slopes, very bouldery
HaC
Hayesville loam, 6 to 15 percent Farmland of statewide
3,968.E
1.4%
slopes importance
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
6/30/2013
Page 1 of 3

Farmland Classification —McDowell County, North Carolina
McDowell County Prime and Unique Farmland
Farmland Classjfication—Summary by Map Unit —McDowell County, North Carolina (NC111)
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
HcC2
Hayesville clay loam, 6 to 15
Farmland of statewide
23,719.4
8.3%
percent slopes, eroded
importance
HeD
Hayesville-Evard complex, 15 to
Farmland of local importance
. 28,687.8
10.1%
25 percent slopes
HrD
Hayesville-Evard-Urban land
Not prime farmland
1,004.6
0.4%
complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes
HuC
Hayesville-Urban land complex, 6
Not prime farmland
2,135.4
0.7%
to 15 percent slopes
IoA
lotla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
Prime farmland if drained
9,136.9
3.2%
slopes, occasionally flooded
JlJD
Junaluska-Brasstown complex, 6
Farmland oflocal importance
1,774.8
0.6%
to 25 percent slopes
JbE
Junaluska-Brasstown complex, 25
Not prime farmland
5,471.3
1.9%
to 60 percent slopes
LnC
Lonon-Northcove complex, 6 to 15
Farmland of local importance
2,590.8
0.9%
percent slopes
MaD
Maymead fine sandy loam,10 to 25
Farmland of local importance
438.1
0.2%
percent slopes, stony
MgD
Maymead-Greenlee-Ostin
Not prime farmland
782.7
0.3%
complex, 3 to 25 percent slopes,
very stony .
NoE
Northcove very cobbly sandy loam,
Not prime farmland
2,316.2
0.8%
10 to 45 percent slopes, very
stony
PoD
Porters loam, 6 to 25 percent
Not prime farmland
528.6
0.2%
slopes, stony
PoF
Porters loam, 25 to 80 percent
Not prime farmland
1,706.9
0.6%
slopes, stony
PtB
Ostin cobbly loamy sand, 1 to 5
Not prime farmland
2,935.3
1.0%
percent slopes, frequently
flooded
PxA
Ostin-lotla complex, 0 to 3 percent
Not prime farmland
477.2
0.2%
slopes, mounded, frequently
flooded
RaD
Rabun loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes
Not prime farmland
226.6
0.1 %
RaE
Rabun loam, 25 to 50 percent
Not prime farmland
425.3
0.1 %
slopes
RoA
Rosman loam, 0 to 3 percent
All areas are prime farmland
3,840.0
1.3%
slopes, occasionally flooded
SoD
Soco-Ditney complex, 6 to 25
Not prime farmland _
663.3
0.2%
percent slopes, stony
SoF
Soco-Ditney complex, 25 to 80
Not prime farmland
1,074.6
0.4%
percent slopes, stony
TaC
Tate loam, 6 to 16 percent slopes
Farmland of statewide
2,161.9
0.8%
importance
TaD
Tate -loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Farmland of local importance
2,559.0
0.9%
Uf
Udifluvents, sandy, frequently
Not prime farmland
1,133.8
0.4%
flooded
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/30/2013
� .. Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3

Farmland Classification —McDowell County, North Carolina
McDowell County Prime and Unique Farmland
Classification— Summary by Map Unit — McDowell County, North Carolina (NCI11)
Farmland
Ratin 9
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Map unit Map unit name
symbol
413.8
0.1%
Uo Udorthents, loamy
Not prime farmland
Urban land
Not prime farmland
483.2
0.2%
Ur
Not prime farmland
3,069.4
1.1%
W Water
284,893.8
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
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
c r9nr9M4
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey

APPENDIX C SUPPORTING E+ NVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS

Name
Catawba River Basin
Index Number Classification Class Date
-- —
—�
[s-pecial Designation
Description
CATAWBA RIVER (including backwaters of Rhodhiss
-
11-(31.5)
WS-1V;Tr
05/01/07
Lake below elevation 995)
From a point 0.6 mile upstream of Muddy Creek to a point 1.2 mile upstream of Canoe Creek
Muddy Creek
11-32-(0.5)
C
04/01/99
From source to a point 0.5 mile upstream of mouth
North Muddy Creek
11-32-1
C
04/01/99
From source to Muddy Creek
Hicks Branch
11-32-1-1
C
09/01/74
From source to North Muddy Creek
Goose Creek (Glade Creek)
11-32-1-2
C
09/01/74
From source to North Muddy Creek __ _
----------
-- -- ---- - ------
West Fork Goose Creek
11-32-1-2-0.5
C
09/01/74
From source to Goose Creek
Stanfords Creek (Camp Branch)
11-32-1-2-1
C
09/01/74
—
[From source to Goose Creek
Huntsville Creek
11-32-1-2-1-1
C
09/01/74
From source to Stanfords Creek
Bobs Creek
11-32-1-3
C
09/01/74
From source to North Muddy Creek
Youngs Fork (Coperning Creek)
11-32-1-4
C .
09/01/74
From source to North Muddy Creek
Jacktown Creek
11-32-1-4-1
C
09/01/74
From source to Youngs Fork
Bledsoe Branch
11-32-1-5
C
09/01/74
From source to North Muddy Creek
Huckleberry Branch
11-32-1-6
C
09/01/74
From source to North Muddy Creek
White Branch
11-32-1-7
C
09/01/74
From source to North Muddy Creek
Caleb Branch
11-32-1-8
C
09/01/74
From source to North Muddy Creek
Big Camp Creek
11-32-1-9
C
09/01/74
From source to North Muddy Creek
Page 14 of 61
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 Based on Classifications as of 20120209

Catawba River Basin
Index Number
Classification
Class Date
Name
-----
----
-�
Special Designation -
Fpescription
11-7-5-2
C;Tr,HQW
08/01/98
Boardpen Branch
From source to Paris Branch
11-7-5-3
C;Tr,HQW
08/01/98
Barn Branch
From source to Paris Branch
11-7-6
C;Tr,HQW
08/01/98
Prichard Creek
From source to Mill Creek
11-7-7
C;Tr,HQW
08/01/98
Long Branch
From source to Mill Creek
11-7-8
C;Tr, H QW
08/01/98
Brushy Branch
--1
From source to Mill Creek
11-7-(8.5)
C;Tr
03/01/62
Mill Creek
From Swannanoa Creek to Catawba R._____
Swannanoa Creek
11-7-9
C;Tr
03/01/62
From source to Mill Creek
— — — _ —
___—_— -- ---
--
--
_
11-7-10-(1)
C;HQW
08/03/92
Jarrett Creek
From source to Old Fort Water Supply Intake
Lost Cove Creek
11-7-10-2
C;HQW
08/03/92
From source to Jarrett Creek
11-7-10-(3)
C
03/01/62
Jarrett Creek — _ _
From old Fort Water Supply Intake to Mill Creek
Unnamed Tributary at Camp Grier Lake [Camp Grier
11-7-10-4-(1)
B;Tr
07/01/73
Lake (Lake Refuge)]
From source to Camp Grier Lake Dam
Unnamed Tributary at Camp Grier Lake
11-7-10-4- (2)
C;Tr
07/01/73.
From Camp Grier Dam to Jarrett Creek
CATAWBA RIVER (including backwaters of Lake James
11-(8)
C
03/01/62
below elevation 1200)
From Dam at Old Fort Finishing Plant Water Supply Intake to North Fork Catawba River
Burgen Creek (Butch Branch)
11-9
C
09/01/74
From source to Catawba River
11-10
C;Tr
08/03/92
- Curtis Creek
--�
From source to Catawba River
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 Based on Classifications as of 20120208
Page 2 of 61

APPENDIX C SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL INI+ORMATION.
WATER RESOURCES INFORMATION

A49
SILVER CREEK - CATAWBA RIVER (0305010106�
Restoration Opportunities
North Muddy Creek (030501010601)
Youngs Fork (Corpening Creek) fAU: 11-32-1-4a Et bl:
Corpening Creek begins in the City of Marion and flows southeast
to its confluence with Muddy Creek. Over half of the creek
runs through the city which can drain highly polluted urban
stormwater runoff into the creek. The stormwater, in addition
to point source pollution, has led to the creeks biological
impairment represented by the Fair and Poor biological ratings received continuously
since it was first sampled in 1985. This degradation emphasized the need for a watershed
study (Collaborative Assessment for Watersheds and Streams Project on Corpening Creek)
funded b EPA which was completed in 2004. Results suggested the primary stressors of
Y
impairment were toxic impacts, sedimentation and nutrient enrichment from both point and nonpoint sources. The
majority of non -point source impacts were originating from urban stormwater runoff and point source impacts were
originating from the Corpening Creek WWTR
Since 1985, two benthic sites have been monitored on the lower segment of Corpening Creek [AU: 11-32-1-4b] (from
Marion WWTP to North Muddy Creek). The benthic site above the WWTP (CB17) was monitored during the 2007 cycle and
received the first Poor rating. Biologist noted that the drought may have -had a small influence on this rating but the lack
of certain benthic species for the first time suggest worsening water quality. One absent species (Heptageniid Mayfly) in
the 2007 sample has been shown to be sensitive to metal toxicity. Urban stormwater runoff is suspected to be the main
cause of the absence of this species.
Downstream of the US-221 bridge is the City of Marion's Corpening Creek WWTP (NC0031879). This facility has been noted
as a cause of impairment since 1990. It has had numerous compliance issues, enforcement actions and civil penalties for
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended sediment (TSS), cyanide (Cn), and total residual chlorine (TRC) limit
violations prior to requesting and receiving a Special Order by Consent (SOC) on March 7, 2007. This SOC granted relaxed
limits for BOD5 and TSS and allowed the facility time to evaluate and address any problems that may be contributing to
the noncompliance with permitted limits. Sewer and WWTP improvements were the target areas chosen by the City to
regain compliance with the NPDES Permit discharge limits. SOC Amendment #1 was granted on October 20, 2009 which
extended the compliance schedule for one year and granted relaxed limits for Cn and TRC.
As a positive result of utilizing this SOC for Corpening Creek, the City of Marion will be diverting influent from the
Catawba River WWTP (NC0071200) which is also owned and operated by the City of Marion, to the Corpening Creek WWTR
The City of Marion requested a Rescission of NPDES Permit NCO071200 in May 2010. The City spent 6.6 million dollars to
complete upgrades to the Corpening Creek facility that will bring it back into compliance and allow for the closure of the
Catawba River facility. This will assist the NPDES program in achieving the goal of eliminating point source dischargers
when feasible.
Due to the magnitude of both' point and non -point source pollutants, this subwatershed has been chosen as part of DWQ's
Use Restoration Watershed Program. This program coordinates partnership efforts to study, plan and restore degraded
waterbodies on a subwatershed scale. This watershed was also the subject of a 319 grant funded effort to develop a
Stormwater Action Plan, coordinated by Equinox Environmental and Carolina Land Et Lakes RCEtD as well as some local
governments which was completed in July of 2008. This group has identified stormwater runoff .as one of the main
stressors and is working with DWQ and local governments to target areas and installing stormwater BMPs. A nine element
watershed restoration plan will also be completed for this project and linked to the Catawba River Basin page on the
DWQ-BPU website once it is available.
Youngs Fork (Corpening Creek) is a tributary to North Muddy Creek. The entire Muddy Creek watershed has been the
subject of a large watershed restoration effort through the Muddy Creek Restoration Partnership, which includes the
McDowell County SWCD, Equinox Environmental, Trout Unlimited, Duke Energy, the Foothills Conservancy, and Carolina
Land Et Lakes RCEtD, as well as some local governments. The Partnership has implemented or are implementing more
than 23 miles of stream enhancement and restoration
o_
O
to
0
rn
O
U
1.25

A50
z
n
7
n
m
D
K
rr i
03
uz
r
�D
Iz
in
�Jw
Lt(D
'ID
a
t rat
i y
On
c
4Cr
W
c
n
�O
w
O
cn
�o
`o
�o
EEP has been working with Equinox Environmental to identify high -priority stream restoration opportunities in the Muddy
Creek watershed. As of January 2009, the EEP had 11 projects either in the ground or in development within the Muddy
Creek watershed. Additional information about the Muddy Creek Restoration Partnership's work can be found on the
EEP Fact Sheet or for more detailed information and definition of a nine element plan, see the URW website or the DWQ
Guidance for Preparing Watershed Plans.
Canoe Creek (030501010605)
Canoe Creek [AU: 11-33-(2)1:
Canoe Creek is located in the 12-digit subwatershed directly northeast of Lake James. The
creek has historically received Good -Fair benthic community ratings since 1992. However
in 2007, it was part of an Overlap Sampling Study' conducted by DWQ-ESS and received
a Fair benthic rating. The Fair rating is believed to be caused by drought conditions in
2007; however, further study is needed to verify drought as the source of the biological
impairment. The subwatershed is a mixture of forest lands as well as agricultural land use
which could be contributing to the lower ratings through nutrient and sediment enriched
stormwater runoff. DWQ will conduct additional sampling during the next planning cycle to evaluate possible sources.
Hunting Creek -Catawba River (030501010605)
Hunting Creek [AU: 11-36-(0.7)1:
Hunting Creek was not biologically sampled during this cycle; however, fish community
samples were taken in 2002 and 2003 which resulted in Fair ratings for both years.
These ratings are the reflection of urban stormwater runoff impacts from the City of
Morganton. The town has implemented the Phase II Stormwater requirements to assist in
the protection and restoration of the creek. In February of 2006, an industrial explosion
caused a fish kill of over 1 i000 fish; however, this is not the reason for the impairment.
DWQwill monitor this segment during the next sampling cycle to help further understand
the source of impairment. For more information on the City of Morganton's Stormwater
Programs, visit the City's website. For more information about the fish kill, see above.
Carolina Land Et Lakes RCEtD received 319 grant funding to perform a watershed assessment and develop a watershed plan
for the Hunting Creek watershed. A stakeholder effort has been formed by the RCEtD and includes Burke and McDowell
Counties, Equinox Environmental and EEP. The group is planning to develop a Watershed Management Plan similar to the
one developed for Corpening Creek. EEP has been working with Equinox Environmental to identify high -priority stream
restoration and preservation opportunities in the Hunting Creek watershed.
In 2009, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requested that DWQ complete a 5-in-30 study (five fecal coliform
bacteria samples taken in 30 days) to determine whether water quality standards are being met for FCB. Five FCB samples
were collected at six locations along Hunting Creek and its tributaries between September 3, 2009 and September 29,
2009. All six sites had geometric means greater than the water quality standard of 200 cfu/100 mt. Hunting Creek at
Bethel Road had the highest geometric mean (2024 cfu/100 ml) followed by Hunting Creek at Causby Quarry Road (1054
cfu/100 ml). It appears that the elevated FCB in the Hunting Creek subwatershed may have a variety of sources which
could include agriculture, wildlife, failing or improper use of septic systems and failures in the city sewer system. The
results of this study will be used during the restoration planning process. DWQ, EEP and local natural resource agencies
are currently working on a strategy for locating the specific sources of excess FCB levels. For more information about
the FCB study, see the 5-in-30 Study Memo. For more information about this Use Restoration Targeted Watershed, see
the URW website.
Since the study was completed outside of the current data window, the study results will be reflected on the 2012
Impaired Waters List. The six segments that will become Impaired from this study include Hunting Creek [11-36-(0.3),
(0.7), Et (3)], Fiddlers Run [11-36-1-1], East Prong Hunting. Creek [11-36-1], and Pee Dee Branch [11-36-2].
1 Overlap Sampling Results for Benthos in 2007 (B-20080124). Requests for a copy of this and other special studies must submitted to ESS via
phone [phone]) or e-mail ([e-mail]).
1.26

APPENDIX C SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
CITY ZONING MAP

APPENDIX C SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
CITY ZONING ORDINANCE (COMPACT DISK

APPENDIX C SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
CITY NOISE ORDINANCE (COMPACT DISK)

APPENDIX C SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
CITY FLOOD HAZARD ORDINANCE (COMPACT DISK

APPENDIX D SUPPORTING CITY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
UTILITY RATE TABLE

.City of Marion
Fee and Rate Schedule - Effective July 1, 2012
I. Water and Sewer Rates
Inside City
outside City
Water Rates:
$2.13 per 1,000 gallons plus
$5.34 per 1,000 gallons plus
$12.06 Service Charge per
$30.13 Service Charge.per
month
month .
Minimum rate for 2,000 gallons
$13.41
$33.54
or less
Master Meter Rate
$2.13 per 1,000 gallons plus
$5.34 per 1,000 gallons plus
$9.62 Service Charge per unit
$24.05 Service Charge per unit
per month
per month
Master Meter Minimum Rate for
$10.96
$27.39 .;
2,000 gallons or less per unit per
month
Sewer Rates:
$2.13 per 1,000 gallons plus
$5.34 per 1,000 gallons plus
$12.06 Service Charge per
$30.13, Service Charge per
month
month
Minimum rate for 2,000 gallons
$13.41
$33.54
or less
Master Meter Rate
$2.13 per 1,000 gallons plus
$5.34 per 1,000. gallons plus
$9.62 Service Charge per unit
-$24.05 Service Charge per unit
per month
per month
Master Meter Minimum Rate for
$10.96
$27.39
2,000 gallons or less per unit per
month
Metered Sewer Rates for Private
$3.08 per 1,000 gallons plus
$7.70 per 1,000 gallons plus
Wells
$12.06 Service Charge per unit
$30.13 Service Charge per unit
per month
per month
Important Notices:
All sewer charges are based on water meter readings; unless a sewer metering device approved by the
City has been installed.
When more than one unit is served by a master meter, such as.a mobile home park, shopping center or
apartment complex, the monthly minimum charge is $10.96 for water and $10.96 for sewer in the City
and $27.39 for water and $27.39 for sewer outside the City, whether said units are occupied or not.
A residence using a private well, with no water meter, shall pay a flat rate of $33.54 per month per
residential unit for sewer service, if located outside the City. If the residence using a private well, with
no water meter, is located inside the City, a flat rate of $13.41 per month per residential unit shall be
charged for sewer service.
2

City of Marion
Fee and Rate Schedule - Effective July 1, 2012
Customers with approved irrigation taps shall not be charged for sewer service as long as said irrigation
system is not connected in any part to the City sewer system.
Water Service Connection Fees (Tap Fees) and Cost Recovery Charges (CRC):
Inside
City
Outside City 77
Water Meter
Size .
Tap Fee
CRC Charge
Tap Fee
CRC Charge
3/"
540
j
$ 540
$ 1,350
$ 1,350
1"
630
1,620
1,575
4,050
1 %"
1,620
3,240
3,150
8,100
2"
1,440
6,480
3,600
16,200_
3"
3,060
12,960
7,650
32,400
4"
3,690
22,500
9,225
56,250
6"
5,940
54,000
14,850
135,000
g"
8,100
67,500
20,250
168,750
10"
10,800
90,000
27,000
225,000
12"
14,400
112,500
36,000
281,250
The charge listed for a 3/" domestic water service includes the cost of a back -flow preventer required by
the City.
The charges listed above shall apply to taps purchased for irrigation purposes.
The charge to add a Y," back -flow preventer to an existing domestic service is as follows:
Inside City Outside City
$10 $25
Charges for Connections for Fire Protection/Sprinkler Lines in Residential and/or Commercial
Developments:
Size Service
Inside City
Outside City
2"
$ 1,100
$ 2,750
3"
2,800
7,000.
4"
3,200
8.000
6" -
4,400
11,000
g"
6,000
15,000
10"
8,200
20,500
12"
11,600
29,000
All connections to the City water system shall be equipped with. a proper check -valve and/or back -flow
preventer approved by the City Public Works Director prior to installation. It shall be the responsibility
3

City of Marion
Fee and Rate Schedule - Effective July 1, 2012
of the owner to have the approved check -valve or back -flow preventer installed. In addition, the owner
of all properties connected to the City water system and using water for other than domestic services
shall submit a letter to the City water department on or before the first day of July each -year certifying
that the check -valve and/or back -flow preventer has been checked and is operating properly.
Sewer Service Connection Fees (Tap Fees) and Cost Recovery Charges (CRC):
Inside
City
Outside City
Water Meter
Size
Tap Fee
CRC Charge
Tap Fee
CRC Charge
3/"
$ 1,080
$ 360
$ 2,700
$ 900
1"
1,170
1,080
2,925
- 2,700
1%'
1,260
2,160
3,150
5,400
2"
1,350
3,600
3,375
9,000
3"
1,440
7,200
3,600
18,000
4"
1,530
10,800
3,825
27,000
6"
1,620
22,500
4,050
56,250
8"
1,710
36,090
4,275
90,225
10"
1,800
51,840
4,500
129,600
12"
1,890
69,840
4,725
174,600
Inside City
Outside City
Relocate
Water/Sewer
Connection (Owners
At Cost
Cost Plus 10%
Request)
Increase Meter Size
Difference in Tap Fee and
Difference in Tap Fee and
Cost Recovery Charges for
Cost Recovery Charges for
Water/Sewer
Water/Sewer
Deposit and/or Prepayment for New Accounts:
Residential Accounts
Inside City
Outside City
Water Deposit
$30
$60
Sewer Deposit
$30
$60
In cases where an existing residential water and/or sewer -customer has been a water and/or sewer
customer of the City for a period of no less than five consecutive years and has made no late payments
in the previous twelve months moves to another location on the City's water and sewer system, the
following procedure shall apply:
Any increase in the deposit required to be paid to bring the customer's deposit up to the current level
listed above may be paid in three equal installments, to be added to the customer's first three water
4

City of Marion
Fee and Rate Schedule - Effective July 1, 2012
and/or sewer bills in the new location. If the customer fails to make any of the required payments,
their service may be cut off pursuant to City policy.
In cases where an existing institutional water and/or sewer customer with. multiple (more than one)
existing meters or services has been a water and/or sewer customers of the City for a period of no less
than 20 consecutive years, and has made no late payments in the previous twelve months installs or
acquires an additional meter or service, no additional deposits shall, be charged for said additional meter
or service, beyond what the customer has already paid to the City.
Commercial Industrial and Master Meter Accounts:
The water and/or sewer deposit for commercial, industrial and master meter accounts shall be an
amount equal to the average monthly charge for water and/or sewer service, but not less than the
residential deposits. The initial deposits for commercial, industrial and master meter accounts shall be
as follows:
Inside City
Outside
City.
Water
Sewer
Water
Sewer
Fast Food/Pizza Restaurants
$ 100
$ 100
$ 200
$ 200
Other Restaurants w/seating
150
150
300
300
Grocery Stores
150
150
300
300
Apartment Complexes w/
Master Meter
150
150
300
.. 300
Car Washes
150
150
300
300
Laundries
200
200
400
400
Nursing/Family Care Homes
200
200
400
400
Industry-50 or more employees
500
500
1,000
1,000
Industry -less than 50 employees
200
200
400
400
Other Master Meter Accounts
100
100
200
200
General Business
50
50
100
100
The City Manager shall determine the appropriate deposit for any commercial, industrial or master
meter customer no listed in the preceding schedule. At the end of six months of service, the City will
determine the average use by averaging the three highest months. The customer will be billed for any
additional amount for the proper deposit. If the amount is not received in thirty days, the utility bill will
be increased each month for twelve consecutive months until the proper deposit has been received. If
the average monthly deposit is lower than the amount the City has received from the initial deposit, the
City will credit the water account of the customer for the amount of the difference in the initial deposit
and the average monthly bill.
5

City of Marion
Fee and Rate Schedule - Effective July 1, 2012
Other Miscellaneous Charges:
Inside City
Outside City
First Late Penalty
$5
$5
Second Late Penalty:
1- 3 Occurrences
$15
$15
4 or More Occurrences
$25
$25
Reconnect Service:
After Disconnection for
non-payment
$25
$25
Seasonal Resident
$15
$37.50
Temporary Service (seven
$15 plus
$37.50 plus
days or less)
actual water
actual water
usage
usage
Transfer Existing Account to
$15 plus
$15 plus
New Address
deposit
deposit
upgrade if
upgrade if
inadequate
inadequate
Meter Tampering:
1st Offense
$100
$100
2nd Offense
$200
$200
3`d and Subsequent Offenses
$300
$300
Returned Check or Bank Draft
$25 or 10%
$25 or 10% of
of Check,
Check,
Whichever is
Whichever is
Greater
Greater
Customer's Request to Check
Water Meter for Accuracy:
W & 1" Meters
$25
$25
Larger Meters
At Cost
At Cost
Determination of Flow and
Service Capabilities
At Cost
At Cost
Water Testing: Bacterial.Only
$50
$50
II. Business Privilege License
Please contact City Hall for rates for your particular business.
59

APPENDix D SUPPORTING CITY FINANCIAL, INFORMATION
WATER & SEWER USAGE SUMMARY

City of Marlon sewer (ASiomers-water
usage Dui
a Ina y
1ui-12
Aug-12
Sep-12
Oct-12
Nov-12
Dec-12
Jan-13
Feb-13
Mar-13
Service
201: Sewer Inside
# Customers
3005
19785290
22176360
E21246200
20260280
19801408
19090163
18486130
19883680
19858980205:SewerOutside
36
1659000
1976120190
1759083
1902840
1809570
2169700
1176610
1410810
211:Sewerinfree
12
58530
65010
58480
68080
52280
49790
48170
57870
51900
221: Fixed Sewer Inside
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
225: Fixed Sewer Outside
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
230:$2.13 Sewer
2
114060
126260
113360
84090
98340
91730
84530
80870
77200
231: Sewer Per Council
1
21700
23120
1380D
11900
6500
7490
4730
9220
3520
245: Metered Sewer Out
1
59240
42240
64530
62480
76810
40850
37330
34410
40350
250: Fixed Sewer Inside
4
9560
12170
10060
7670
11190
6270
14250
7430
4210
Total Gallons Per Month
3087
21707380
24421280
23056620
22253583
21949368
21095863
20844840
21250090
21446970
700238
787783
/t)n0,+j
717858
731646
680512
672414
758932
691838
ADF

Citv of Marion Sewer Customers -Water Usage Sui
Service
# Customers
Apr-13
May-13
Jun-13
201: Sewer Inside
3005
17303930
21264820
17959600
205: Sewer Outside
36
1464990
1723110
1560740
211:Sewer lnfree
12
46400
54300
46480
221: Fixed Sewer Inside
13
0
0
0
225: Fixed Sewer Outside
13
0
0
0
230:$2.13 Sewer
2
754701
96000
74530
231: Sewer Per Council
1
1580
7280
7920
245: Metered Sewer Out
1
33550
49980
34060
250: Fixed Sewer Inside
4
10170
8800
6020
Average
Total Gallons Per Month
3087
18936090
23204290
19689350
21654644
ADF
631203
748525
656312
712151
Average Water User Per Month Per Customer
7015