NC0021946_Report_20060101

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNINO COVER SHEET
NC0021946
Rosman WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
/
Reportl
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
January 1, 2006
Thies document is printed on reuse paper - ignore a.ny
content on the reverse *side

WK
community infrastructure consultants

Aa,
waft
ettl
r.
011
ePt
rot
TOWN OF ROSMAN
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
For
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Transylvania County, North Carolina
March 29, 1999
Amended: March 30, 2001
Amended: August 27, 2001
Amended: October 5, 2001
Amended: July 18, 2003
Amended: April 7, 2004
Amended: August 11, 2004
Amended: August 24, 2004
Amended: October 15, 2004
WKD #10583.10.CL
Prepared for the:
TOWN OF ROSMAN
Post Office Box 636
Rosman, North Carolina 28772
[phone]
`01111111M/ f/II
�oFEss�oti •.ELT,
4L SEAL
0274
%, ••:FN fN
lh,,, 1111 v 11111
t0 a44
Prepared by:
W. K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
[phone]
[phone] FAX

dal
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town of Rosman commissioned this preliminary engineering report to evaluate its
future wastewater treatment needs. The Town currently operates a 0.09 MGD
conventional activated sludge type wastewater treatment plant under NPDES Permit
No. 0021946.
Wastewater flow projections were calculated based on population growth projections
and wastewater treatment plant flow records. The existing facility has exceeded its
permitted capacity of 0.09 MGD on numerous occasions, resulting in past overflows.
Based on growth projections, it was determined that the Town plan for facilities based
on a flow rate of 0.25 MGD.
ai, Two options for wastewater treatment and disposal were considered. Each option
included sewer extensions to unsewered areas in Rosman as well as rehabilitation of
existing gravity sewer lines. The two options are:
Option 1: Connection to Town of Brevard:
The Town of Brevard is located approximately 10 miles away from the
os, Town of Rosman. The Town of Brevard has indicated a willingness to
accept flow from the Town of Rosman. Under this option, the Rosman
wastewater treatment plant would be abandoned and the Rosman
collection system would be connected to the Town of Brevard wastewater
treatment system.
Option 2: New Rosman WWTP w/ River & Land Disposal:
Under this option, the Town of Rosman would continue to own and
operate a wastewater treatment facility. A new facility would be
constructed, which would eliminate problems at the existing facility and
expand the capacity of the treatment works.

Based on the factors considered, Option 2 is the recommended alternative. Option 2
has a project cost estimated at $4.9 million dollars plus approximately $600,000 for a
proposed, additional collection system expansion. The total net present worth of this
option, including projected annual operation and maintenance expenses over a twenty-
year life cycle is $6,364,753. Project financing minus the $600,000 of proposed
additional collection system expansion has been obtained from several grant funding
sources, as follows:
• North Carolina Revolving Loan Program (NCRLP)
• State and Tribal Assistance Grant Program (STAG)
• Environmental Program Management Grant (EPM)
• NC Rural Center Supplemental Grant
Total
$2,911,300
$1,367,900
$350,000
$400.000
$5,030,200
It is recommended that the Town of Rosman proceed with applying for an updated
NPDES permit, based on the expansion of the treatment facility to 0.25 MGD.
ii

Town of Rosman, North Carolina
Preliminary Engineering Report
For
Wastewater System Improvements
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NUMBER
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. EXISTING FACILITIES 5
III. WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS 11
IV. NEEDS ANALYSIS & COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 16
Wastewater Collection System Needs 18
No Action Alternative 21
Analysis of Option 1, Tie to Brevard System 23
Analysis of Option 2, Improve Rosman WWTP 34
V. ESTIMATED USER CHARGES & FINANCIAL CAPABILITY 54
Current Water & Sewer Users & Charges 54
Estimated User Fees - Option 1, Tie to Brevard System 55
Estimated User Fees - Option 2, Improve Rosman WWTP 56
VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 59
VII. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION 59
iii

APPENDICES
A. Sewer Line and Rehabilitation Cost Estimates
B. Town of Rosman NPDES Permit
C. Town of Rosman January 1999 Water & Sewer Billing Report
D. PER Technical Review Comments (May 20, 2002) and Responses
E. Mandatory Sewer Line Connection Ordinance
F. Sludge Disposal Acceptance Letter from Landfill
G. Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report
H. Sludge Dewatering Costs
I. Preliminary Design Process Narrative
J. Public Participation
K. Transylvania County Health Department Letter
L. Speculative Effluent Limits
M. Equipment Supplier Design Parameters •
N. Spray Irrigation Site Lease Agreement
O. Calculations for Sewer
P. Technical Review Comments November 7, 2003
Q. Flood Analysis Report — No Rise Evaluation
R. Support From Transylvania County
S. Town of Rosman Sewer Study for Wastewater Collection System
Improvements
T. PER Technical Review Comments (July 15, 2004) and Responses
U. PER Technical Review Comments (August 13, 2004) and Responses
iv

ito
rA
iro
V. Commitment Letter from the Town of Rosman
W. Town of Rosman Wastewater Treatment Plant Replacement, Collection
System Improvements, and New Spray Irrigation Site NEPA
Environmental Assessment
X. EA (10/8/04) & PER (9/20/04)Technical Review Comments and
Responses
v

co,
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE
1 Vicinity Map' 2
2 Existing Sewer System Map 6
3 Existing WWTP Site Schematic 8
4 Option 1: Tie to Brevard System
Schematic of Rosman Area Improvements 25
5 Option 1: Tie to Brevard System
Schematic of Rosman to Brevard Improvements 26
6 Option 2: Improve Rosman WWTP
Schematic of Rosman Area Improvements 35
7 Option 2: Improve Rosman WWTP
Schematic of Proposed 0.25 MGD WWTP 41
8 Option 2: Improve Rosman WWTP
Spray Irrigation Disposal Area 47
cia
1.1
ost vi

I. INTRODUCTION
The Town of Rosman is located in Transylvania County, North Carolina along the
French Broad River. Rosman is situated near the headwaters of the French
Broad River Basin immediately downstream of the confluence of the West, North
and East French Broad River tributaries. The French Broad basin upstream of
Rosman is characterized by steep mountainous terrain. The French Broad River
in the vicinity of Rosman and downstream is a very low gradient watercourse
having wide, flat overbanks subject to frequent flooding. The major roadway that
provides access to Rosman is US 64 West from Brevard, NC and East from
Cashiers, NC. The general location of Rosman is indicated in Figure 1.
The French Broad River passes through downtown Rosman and the majority of
land within the corporate limits lies within the 100 year flood zone based on
FEMA mapping. The town corporate limits encompass an area of approximately
275 acres. The current population within the Rosman corporate limits is
estimated to be 490 persons. The Rosman area economy is based on several
small industries, small commercial establishments and minor agricultural
activities. Census Block Numbering considers Rosman 100 percent rural. The
1990 Census estimated the Rosman area unemployment rate at 9.1 percent and
the poverty rate at 17.4 percent. In comparison, 1990 Census data indicated a
state wide unemployment rate was 4.8 percent and a state wide poverty rate of
13.0 percent. Economic and employment opportunities in Rosman are very
limited. The current median household income for the Town of Rosman is
estimated to be $25,000.
The Town of Rosman owns and operates a wastewater collection and treatment
system. The waste treatment facility was first constructed in 1969 with
upgrades over the last 30 years. The treatment works is operating at over 80%
of the facility's 90,000 gallon per day maximum flow capacity as permitted by the
1

Figure 1- vicinity map
n
n
n
1!
2

i
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
-N-
ge DICKSDN
E q B P TTO E
n ineere 111 A N AVE.
Pinnn.rn ASMF ALE. N.C. 28806
i I I 1
NORTH CAROLINA
VICI\ITY MAP
TOWN OF ROSMAN
UPDATED
.3/2 /99
FIGURE NO.

NC Division of Water Quality. The treatment works is near capacity due to the
gay addition of service connections over the years and can exceed capacity from
severe inflow and infiltration problems. The plant is outdated and in need of
upgrade or replacement and expansion.
Portions of Rosman's collection system are old and plagued with inflow and
infiltration problems. These sections of gravity sewer need to be rehabilitated or
replaced to prevent inflow from surging the treatment works and to minimize the
possibility of exfiltration into the groundwater.
Awl
Several areas within the Town of Rosman do not have access to public sewer
4•+ service. The expansion of the sewer system to these areas is needed by existing
residents and could help eliminate potential septic system failures. The Rosman
area typically has shallow groundwater. Shallow depth to the water table
increases the potential for septic system failures. The construction of sewer
'ow collection mains will help eliminate the need for individual septic systems in a
portion of these potentially problematic areas.
Jag
This report evaluates immediate wastewater collection and treatment needs for
the Town of Rosman. In addition, alternatives for wastewater treatment are
analyzed and compared. The wastewater treatment altematives examined in
detail are: Option 1 - Tying to the Town of Brevard's Municipal Sewage System
and Option 2 - Improving and Expanding the Town of Rosman Wastewater
Treatment Plant. This report provides recommendations on improving the Town
of Rosman wastewater collection and treatment systems. If the recommended
improvements are not implemented, then the ability of the existing sewage
collection and treatment works to function properly will continue to diminish
(rapidly) over time and public sewer service will not be available to residents in
the project area.

The Town of Rosman retained the services of WK DICKSON to complete this
Preliminary Engineering Report. Town leaders commissioned this Report as the
initial step towards implementing improvements to: 1) eliminate failing
wastewater system components, 2) expand inadequate treatment works capacity
and 3) provide sanitary sewer service to unsewered areas within Town.
4

Olt
II. EXISTING FACILITIES
The Town of Rosman sewage system consists of a collection system and
treatment facility that serves town residents, several small commercial
establishments, two public schools and the Peter Vitalie Co. (billiard table
manufacturer). The entire existing collection system is located within the
corporate limits except for a small section on the northeast side of town.
Wastewater constituents treated by the Rosman system are domestic and
commercial in nature. No industrial process waste is treated. The Town's sewage
system is comprised of approximately 3.5 miles of 8 inch and smaller sewage
mains, two sewage pumping stations and a 90,000 gallon per day wastewater
treatment plant. The existing sewage system for the Town of Rosman is shown
schematically in Figure 2.
The condition of the existing sewage collection system varies due to the different
p.► ages and materials used. According to operating personnel, the gravity sewer
section from Depot Street that runs North along Main Street to the French Broad
River has notable inflow and infiltration (I&I) problems. In addition, the gravity
sewer section from South Main Street to the treatment plant influent pump station
has also been identified by operating personnel as having excessive I&I
problems. Both of these gravity sewer interceptors are in immediate need of
renovations or replacement. These older gravity sewer interceptors are 8 inch
vitrified clay pipe. Previous reports indicate that sections of the clay pipe are
shattered. The broken shards of clay are transported to the influent pump station
resulting in reoccurring and costly pump failures. l&I problems result in sustained
extremely high flows at the treatment plant during periods of moderate to heavy
old
rainfall. It is difficult to estimate the magnitude of I&I flow received at the
treatment plant because the effluent flow meter range is limited to 100,000
gallons per day which is exceeded during rainfall events. It is estimated by
5

Figure 2 — Existing Sewer System
r
f+
7
0
6

49'
SCALE : 1 *=600'
300 150 0 150 300
600
WK
DICKSON
Engineers 1419 PATTON AVE.
Planner's ASHEVILLE. N.C. 28805
Surverre MO 1 90203.40
0
ViS
t
ROSMAN
EXISTING SEWER \
MAINS
0
CO
41,
PUMP STATION
EXISTING
90,000 GPO
BROAD RIVER
TOWN OF ROSMAN
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
EXISTING ROSMAN SEWER SYSTEM MAP
1
[MED AT
3/25/99
FIGURE NO.
2

operators that wastewater flows during significant rainfall events exceed 200,000
gallons per day and possibly 300,000 gallons per day. I&I problems upset the
biology of the treatment process and makes consistent treatment and effluent
quality difficult, if not impossible.
The existing Town of Rosman treatment facility was initially constructed at the
present location in 1969. This original facility was an activated sludge treatment
process consisting of a brick duplex influent pumping station, a manual bar
screen and comminuter (inoperable), a single train concrete aeration basin, a
single train concrete clarifier, chlorine disinfection, a concrete sludge holding tank
0.4
and a discharge to the French Broad River. The original treatment plant is rated
,r, at 40,000 gallons per day and remains in service today. An upgrade to the
facility was designed in 1975 that expanded the treatment capacity through the
addition of a second activated sludge plant. The expansion consisted of steel
aeration basins, a steel clarifier, a steel sludge holding tank, and a flow splitter to
proportionally distribute flow between the two treatment systems. The plant
expansion is rated at 50,000 gallons per day raising the plant total capacity to
90,000 gallons per day. The treatment facility operates under NPDES permit
number NC0021946 (See App. B) which stipulates a maximum flow (monthly
Oft average) of 90,000 gallons per day and contains typical secondary level effluent
limitations. A schematic plan of the existing Rosman treatment facility is shown
�► in Figure 3.
ONER The plant has undergone several miscellaneous modifications since the 1975
expansion. The most significant change was the addition of two unlined sludge
sand drying beds. The plant's discharge to the French Broad River has
remained at the original location immediately adjacent to the treatment facility.

r
1
Figure 3 Existing WWTP
F
r
i`
r
n
8

-- J _X�x�x�x�+�+ r — SENT PUMP _ _ _ _ _
/xx
x�x EXISTING d' VCP GRAVITY -
i --
DRAINAGE CHANNEL
r SEWER INFLUENT
1 1 1
SSSSss SS SS—SS
2,7„
2m
i
L_... 1.--... t._- .-' f 1 1
INFLUENT BYPASS UNE
CHLORINE CONTACT CHAMBERS
• --SS—}SS SS _ — — _ _ � SS SSSS— _ S� SS
— —
EFFLUENT WEIR
& FLOW METER
•Z -' A i r
C1�RIFIER J ` \\ /
AERATION TANK \ AERATION TANK \\\ i` /+/
/ Y
I /`
/� ,1 / /.
SLUDGE HOLDING TANK / 4-/
/ / %// /
I / / CLARIFIER ` A
I 50.000 GPD. TREATMENT UNIT/ _/+ EFFLUENT
I /
_ �xD �x
—,rr►— -J SLUDGE HOLDING TANK / r�x�x x /
J x ./
err- - _� 1 / �x�x
f_- _ x
--"---It �x�x
— f _
x—x— — rr�'r/ ./
� xfx�x X x��
x / / /
x x �c---x=x--x—x--x—x—x--x—�x�
/ (
20 �.
0 20
40
INN NMI 11111111111111•11111111111
E 1
SCALE: 1 " s 20'
N
pWK
siP DICKSON
Engineers 1419 PATTON AVE.
Planners ASHEVILLE. N.C. 2880S
Surveyors WKD jJ 90203.40
co'c'\)%
EXISTING ROSMAN WWTP SITE SCHEMATIC
TOWN OF ROSMAN
PFT.TUTNARY FNaTNT'.F.PTTN Z RT..PnPT
U 3/ 5/d99
FIGURE NO.
3

04041
biln
The treatment facility is located on a site that is within a floodprone area and
experiences significant problems during periods of moderate to heavy rainfall.
Based on existing plans and FEMA mapping, it is estimated that the 100 year
flood elevation in the vicinity of the existing wastewater treatment plant is 3 to 4
feet above the ground surface in this area. Immediately adjacent to the north
side of the treatment facility lies a drainage channel that runs to the French
Broad River. The proximity of this channel to the treatment plant more readily
floods the treatment plant site during high river level conditions. The influent
pumping station, treatment basins and sludge holding tank all appear to be
elevated above the 100 year flood. However, the unlined sludge drying beds are
not elevated above the 100 year flood. In fact, the sludge beds are inundated
frequently during minor flood events. During moderate to high water conditions,
the sludge on the beds can easily be discharged to the French Broad River. The
sludge drying beds need to be replaced to prevent flooding and to provide a
contained or Tined sludge dewatering process.
Influent surges to the treatment plant pose another problem. The treatment
facility undergoes periods of large influent surges during peak water usage times
that surpass plant capacity even during dry periods when I&I is minimal. The
Rosman Public Schools appear to be major source of these influent flow surges.
These surges make plant operations difficult and impair effluent quality.
The influent pumping station at the treatment plant was constructed in 1969. The
station is constructed of brick. Much of the pumping station equipment is old and
has exceeded a reasonable service life. In addition, the station is equipped with
submersible pumps which are immersed directly into the wetwell. Due to the age
of this station, the pumps are not equipped with breakaway couplings or a
guiderail system. This requires the operators to enter the wetwell and disconnect
the pumps to remove them for service or replacement. Entering this type of

confined space is not advisable and is not necessary with technology available
today. The influent pumping station needs to be replaced with updated
equipment.
The clarifier on the older 40,000 gallon per day treatment system is inadequately
designed by today's standards and does not perform satisfactorily. The
inconsistent performance of this clarifier results in frequent loss of solids. This
clarifier needs to be replaced with a properly designed clarifier.
The flow splitter which is intended to proportionally split the flow between the
50,000 gallon per day and 40,000 gallon per day treatment systems does not
work. This results in overloading one of the treatment systems, particularly
during high flow conditions. The flow splitter needs to be replaced with a
properly functioning installation.
The treatment plant discharge pipe or ouffall does not empty directly into the
French Broad River. Instead, the ouffall discharges to a marshy ditch
approximately 50 .feet from the main flow of the French Broad River. This
situation causes solids to settle, accumulate and remain in this ditch over time.
All wastewater effluent contains small amounts of particulate matter. These trace
amounts of solids are typically easily assimilated by the receiving stream.
However, in this situation, trace particles accumulate over time in this ditch and
are likely scoured from the ditch during high water events resulting in a slug
loading. The ouffall pipe at the Rosman treatment facility needs to be extended
to the main river channel.
In summary, the Rosman WWTP needs to be abandoned due to equipment age,
in favor of facilities that will provide a reliable and better protected wastewater
treatment mechanism with more treatment capacity.
soi
10

III. WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
The determination of the quantity of sewage to be treated for a community is
fundamental to the design of disposal facilities. Planning for future wastewater
treatment needs requires estimating future increase in flows received by the
treatment plant. To estimate these future flows, the rate of increase must be
predicted and a planning period must be selected to design and size treatment
facilities. The rate of increase in sewage to be removed from a community
depends on the population and the per capita contribution of the sewage.
Planning Period
Selecting a planning period which is short sighted may result in higher Tong -term
capital improvement costs. Selecting a planning period which is too lengthy can
result in equipment becoming obsolete or worn out before its maximum capacity
is reached.
For wastewater collection components, such as piping, manholes and related
structures, 40 years is a commonly used planning period. For treatment works
and mechanical equipment, such as pumps, blowers, controls, etc. a commonly
assumed planning period is 20 years. This is not to say that mechanical
equipment will provide trouble free service for 20 years, rather that mechanical
equipment often becomes obsolete by advances in technology and repairs can
become costly beyond a twenty year period. Changes in regulatory agency
requirements can also affect the service life of a treatment facility, but this is a
difficult factor to predict in making long range projections.
It is recommended that the Town of Rosman's plans for expansion of their
existing wastewater treatment facility be based on a 20 year planning period and
the collection system improvements based on a 40 year period. For this report,
11

ri
Iwo
the planning period will be through the year 2021 for the plant facility and 2041
for the collection system. rim/
Wastewater Flow Projection
The accuracy of a population study relies on the accuracy of population data
available from a number of sources. The population data used for this report was
obtained from demographic information made available by the State of North
Carolina Office of State Planning. Flow volumes are calculated as follows:
• Residential Flow: 70 gpd/person (based on plant flow/population records and
10 State Standards)
• Commercial Flow: 15 gpd/person
• Industrial Flow: 10% of the total residential and commercial flow.
Existing Wastewater Flows
Flow records listed in Table 1 indicate an average daily flow into the existing
WWTP of at least 68,000 gpd between September 2000 and August of 2001.
Table 1
Wastewater Flow Records
Annual Averages from DMRs
YEAR
AVERAGE FLOW (MGD)
MAX DAILY FLOW
(MGD)
Aug 2001 - Sept 2000
0.068
0.090
Aug 2000 — Sept 1999
0.074
0.143
Aug 1999 — Sept 1998
0.043
0.197
Aug 1998 — Nov 1997*
0.061
0.094

Flow records listed in Table 2 indicate an average daily flow into the existing
WWTP of approximately 75,000 gpd between February 2003 and January 20�4.
Flow
(in MGD)
Avg
Max
Jan-04
0.069
0.073
0.076
Dec-03
0.067
0.072
0.081
Nov-03
0.071
0.078
0.099
Oct-03
0.069
0.074
0.079
Sep-03
0.067
0.075
0.084
Aug-03
0.067
0.072
0.076
Jul-03
0.068
0.072
0.088
Jun-03
0.067
0.071
0.076
May-03
0.071
0.076
0.089
Apr-03
0.062
0.076
0.086
Mar-03
0.069
0.077
0.086
Feb-03
0.076
0.081
0.087
Jan-03
0.051
0.079
0.088
Residential Additional Flows
Census popu ation figures from the' NC Office of State Planning for the Town of
Rosman indicate a population of 385 for the year 1990 and 490 for the year
2000. This is a total increase of 27.3% or 2.44% annually over 10 years. Based
on these figures, the population in the year 2020 projected from a population of
490 will be 794 people. This is 304 additional residents. In addition, residents
from a proposed 168 unit condominium complex must be added to the population
projection due to the difference in demographics anticipated for this
development. It is anticipated that the condominium complex will primarily serve
retirees, while the additional 304 residents will be comprised of residents with a
wide cross-section of ages (from birth and migration). According to 2000 Census
figures, there are 2.33 people per household in the Town of Rosman. Therefore,
2.33 times 168 units is equal to 391 additional residents.
13

The Town Mayor has also indicated that there is approximately 650 acres that
the Town plans to annex. This will result in 780 additional residential sewer
connections (650 Ac x 40% developed x 3 people/Ac). These proposed
annexation areas are either currently under development or development is
pending. The Town has previously discussed annexation of land within its service
area due the environmental concerns related to poorly suited soils for on -site
(septic) waste disposal systems and businesses with direct stream discharges to
degraded streams (See Appendix K for letter from County Health Dept.). To
date, due to the unavailability of sewer collections systems and treatment
capacity, annexing these areas was not practical. However, with the new
treatment facility, the Town will annex aggressively. These connections due to
annexation should also be considered separately and in addition to normal town
growth, as the service area of the proposed facility, which includes the
annexation areas, is far greater than the existing Town limits. Furthermore, Town
growth by annexation over the past decade has been minimal. According to
Town Staff, the majority of growth has occurred by in -fill within the current Town
limits. As a result of this project, the Town will be able to aggressively annex
areas and provide suitable wastewater treatment.
The total population from growth, annexation and development totals 1,475
(304+391+780) residents. At 70 GPD/capita, flow from 1,475 residents totals
103,250 gpd.
Commercial and Industrial Flow
Commercial flow is normally estimated at 15 GPD per capita. The additional
commercial flow based 15 GPD/capita for 1,475 people is 22,125 GPD.
Industrial flow is projected based on 10% of the existing domestic, commercial
and industrial flows. The existing domestic, commercial and industrial flow is
14

MEM
7,500 GPD. Ten percent of this flow is 7,500 GPD. Total additional flow is
132,875 GPD.
In addition, the Town of Rosman recently completed the Town of Rosman Sewer
Study for Wastewater Collection System Improvements (see Appendix S). As a
result of this study, Rosman is proposing to extend sewer along Old US Hwy. 64
to US Hwy 64. Should Rosman extend sewer to service this area, it is estimated
that an additional average daily flow of 41,805 gpd will come from the proposed
additional service area in addition to eliminating up to four (4) existing NPDES
permit holders and consolidating / eliminating up to four point source dischargers.
The total 20 year projected flow for the WWTP is 249,680 GPD (132,875 +
75,000 + 41,805), including the existing average daily flow, additional residential,
commercial and industrial flows and the proposed Town of Rosman Sewer Study
service area.
The magnitude of dry weather (customer) flows being experienced by the
wastewater treatment facility, regardless of I/1, supports the need for expanding
the treatment capacity. The projected flows to the year 2022 were considered in
conjunction with the age and condition of the existing facility. A new waste
treatment facility with a 250,000 GPD capacity is recommended for the Town of
Rosman. This capacity is fully supported by the town of Rosman and the leaders
of Transylvania County (See Appendix R).
)
.
15

IV. NEEDS ANALYSIS & COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
As discussed in preceding sections, the Town of Rosman wastewater system is
in need of improvements and upgrade. In general terms, the wastewater system
has five alternatives, which are:
1. Wastewater collection system alternatives
2. No Action Alternative
3. Optimization of the existing treatment facilities
4. Treatment Option # 1 — Connect to Town of Brevard
5. Treatment Option # 2 — New Rosman WWTP w/ river and land
disposal
6. Water Conservation Measures
7. Inflow & Infiltration
The Town of Rosman wastewater treatment facility has deficiencies as identified
in Section II, "Existing Facilities". In addition, the facility is at 80% or more of the
plant's treatment capacity. There are a number of options available for improving
and expanding the treatment capacity of Rosman's wastewater system. Several
options were considered and analyzed in developing this report. Besides the No
Action Alternative, the preliminary analyses concluded that only two improvement
/ expansion options appear practical and warrant detailed consideration. The two
wastewater treatment improvement options analyzed and discussed beyond the
No Action Alternative in this section are:
Treatment Option 1 — Connection to Town of Brevard:
The Town of Brevard is located approximately 10 miles away from
the Town of Rosman. The Town of Brevard has indicated a
willingness to accept flow from the Town of Rosman. Under this
16

mem
option, the Rosman wastewater treatment plant would be
abandoned and the Rosman collection system would be connected
to the Town of Brevard wastewater treatment system.
Treatment Option 2 — NEW Rosman VVWTP w/ river & land disposal:
Under this option, the Town of Rosman would continue to own and
operate a wastewater treatment facility. The facility will be
upgraded and the capacity expanded to eliminate existing
problems.
Wastewater treatment improvement options 1 and 2 as well as the No
Action Alternative are compared and discussed in further detail in this
section.
In addition, to the main options presented above, the impact of water
,., conservation measures and the impact of reducing I&I were evaluated.
Information regarding these options is presented below.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM NEEDS
Failing Sewer Mains:
The Town of Rosman sewage collection system has sections of gravity sewer
main which are old and failing. These gravity sewers are 8 inch vitrified clay pipe
and are a major source of infiltration. These sewer mains need to be slip Tined or
replaced. This assertion is made due to the history of surcharges at the plant
associated with rain events, the failure history of clay pipe, and confirmation
through an inflow/infiltration study conducted on a portion of the Town's collection
system. The location of these failing sewer mains are indicated as "Gravity
Rehabilitation Lines" in both Figures 4 and 6.
17

Unsewered Areas:
The Town of Rosman has several areas within Town limits which do not have
access to public sewer. Residents in these areas utilize septic systems which
are prone to failure due to poor soils (See Appendix K for County Health Dept
Letter). As a result, the sewage collection system needs to be extended to these
areas to provide sanitary sewer service to existing residents in these areas. The
locations of the needed sewer main extensions are indicated as "Gravity Lines A,
B, C & D" in both Figures 4 and 6.
The estimated costs of completing "Gravity Lines A, B, C, D & E" are presented
in Appendix A and in the analyses for both treatment Options 1 and 2 to provide
an indication of total project cost under both of these options.
Currently the Town of Rosman collection system is composed of 8" gravity sewer
and force main. As part of this preliminary engineering report, other alternatives
we investigated. These altematives included vacuum sewers and STEP sewers.
It should be noted that vacuum sewers were not considered for this project due
to the degree of difficulty associated with the operation and maintenance
required to operate them as well as due to the terrain. Vacuum sewers are more
apt to be used in areas where groundwater is high, topography is flat or rolling,
and where growth is slow. In addition, to be cost effective, studies have show
that vacuum sewers need around 75-100 customers per station (i.e. any stations
proposed as part of this project would have yielded fewer customers per station).
STEP sewers were not considered as well due to the degree of difficulty
associated with the operation and maintenance required to operate them as well
as the terrain. STEP sewers are predominately beneficial in areas where
groundwater is high, growth is slow, topography does not favor gravity collection,
and where homes are sparse.
18

.,
as o
..
in hardships upon the operator / owner) especially when to operator / owner is
already familiar with the operation and maintenance associated with a gravity /
im
force main system.
It should be noted that Rosman is a small system with a current estimated
population of 490 people. For collection systems serving 3,500 people or Tess,
the author has found that is more beneficial to serve these communities through
traditional gravity / force main systems due to the operation and maintenance
issues associated with vacuum and STEP systems (i.e. they are typically more
labor intensive than your tradition gravity / force main system which could result
As part of this PER, alternate routes for Sewer Extension "A", "B", "C" and "D"
were evaluated. An alternate route for Sewer Rehabilitation "E" was not
considered since the work associated with this portion of the project involves
rehabilitating an existing line.
,.., An alternate route for Sewer Extension "A" that was evaluated as part of this
PER included placing the proposed sewer along US Hwy. 178 / Chestnut Street
�► to tie into the existing Town gravity sewer: along Main Street. However, due to
topography, the fact that US Hwy. 178 / Chestnut Street is a major throughfare in
•• Rosman as well as represents a portion of downtown Rosman, and the potential
costs associated with laying sewer down US Hwy. 178 / Chestnut Street (i.e.
0.0 curb & gutters, streets & sidewalks, existing utilities, etc.), it was not considered
to be feasible compared to the overland route chosen for Sewer Extension "A" as
shown in Figure 4.
N. Due to topography, no alternate routes for Sewer Extension "B" were found or
evaluated. Therefore, the route for Sewer Extension "B" as shown on Figure 4 is
considered the most feasible option.

An Alternate route for Sewer Extension "C" that was evaluated included a
combination of gravity and force main along the French Broad River from the
area in and around Coats American including the Coats American pumping
station upgrade and the proposed residential gravity extension to the Calvert
Road area. However, due to increased distance which translated to increased
cost as well as the fact that their was an increased risk to the environment due to
paralleling the French Broad River, the alternate route was not considered
feasible compared to the route chosen for Sewer Extension "c" as shown in
Figure 4.
Finally, potential alternative routes were research for Sewer Extension "D". No
potential routes were found or evaluated. Therefore, the route for Sewer
Extension "D" as shown on Figure 4 is considered the most feasible option.
twat
20

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
This option is not considered to be feasible nor reliable because it will leave
Rosman with an aging wastewater collection and treatment system with
oft
increasingly frequent collection and treatment failures, especially during wet
weather, due to the continuing deterioration of the existing wastewater
infrastructure. It should be noted that the present worth or equivalent annual cost
of this altemative is. zero. Environmental factors and / or impact to the
environment could be severe since the No Action Alternative would leave
Rosman with an aging wastewater collection and treatment system with
increasingly frequent collection and treatment failures And, since no action is to
be taken, complexity is not an issue.
In addition, it should be noted that the No Action Alternative allows aquatic life
below the effluent discharge to continue to be exposed to chlorine disinfectant.
And, residents in northern Rosman dependent on private septic systems will
remain so, including many older systems that would not meet current
lab environmental health standards. New development beyond the current
wastewater service area would be severely restricted due to lack of suitable sites
.. for new septic systems. Finally, the No Action Alternative would not support
DWQ's stated goal of consolidating wastewater treatment into fewer WWTPs
A..► with advanced treatment. Therefore, the No Action Alternative was not
considered any further.
OPTIMIZATION OF EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES
Based on residential and commercial wastewater flow projections from the NC
Office of State Planning, as well as flow calculations using the Town's data, the
existing 0.09 MGD Rosman WWTP could adequately serve approximately 700

people after old lines with excessive Ill flows are repaired or replaced. Based on
2.4 percent annual growth from 1990 to 2000, Rosman's population will exceed
this by 2015 without any sewer service expansion beyond Town limits. Even with
optimization of existing facilities, the WWTP will not have sufficient capacity to
accommodate normal population growth, and is therefore not a feasible
alternative.
TREATMENT OPTION # 1 — CONNECTION TO TOWN OF BREVARD
The Town of Brevard is located along the French Broad River approximately 10
miles downstream of the Town of Rosman. Under this option, consideration is
given to abandoning Rosman's sewage treatment plant and connecting the
Rosman collection system to the Brevard Collection system. The Brevard
Wastewater Treatment Plant is approximately 20 miles from Rosman.
There are numerous routes and methods of tying the Rosman sewage collection
system to the Brevard sewage treatment plant. The French Broad River between
Rosman and Brevard flows at a very low gradient (less than 1%) which makes
the connection of Rosman to Brevard via gravity sewer impractical if not
impossible. There is very sparse development immediately adjacent to the
French Broad River between Rosman and Brevard so a gravity connection along
the River would be of limited use for future connections between Rosman and
Brevard. Most of the development between Rosman and Brevard is in close
proximity to US Highway 64. In addition, a gravity sewer main between Rosman
and Brevard would be very costly. The two systems could also be connected
using a combination of gravity sewers, pumping stations and force mains. If the
connection between the two municipalities was made with a combination of
gravity sewers and force mains, then sections having gravity sewer would make
public sewer available to areas between Rosman and Brevard. However, to
22

investigate the feasibility of this option, the most economical method of tying
Rosman's system to Brevard's system is evaluated. The most economical
method of connecting these two systems would be the construction of a new
pumping station in the vicinity of the Rosman wastewater treatment plant and the
installation of a sewage force main from Rosman to Brevard along existing road
routes. This Option of connecting Rosman's system to Brevard's system is
shown schematically in Figures 4 and 5.
It is assumed that the force main would follow existing roadways to minimize the
need for easements. Following existing roads, as shown in Figures 4 and 5, the
closest portion of the Town of Brevard sewage collection system is located
approximately 46,500 feet (8.8 miles) from the Town of Rosman wastewater
treatment plant.
Based on available information, the Town of Brevard wastewater treatment
-- facility has more than adequate treatment capacity to accept all of the Town of
Rosman's wastewater flow. However, the existing Town of Brevard Gallimore
Road and Neely Road pumping stations do not have sufficient capacity to
transport wastewater flows from the Town of Rosman. The Gallimore Road and
-- Neely Road pumping stations would require upgrading or replacement. There is
insufficient information available at this time to estimate the cost of upgrading
these pumping stations, so these costs are not included in this economic
analysis. It should be cautioned that, should this option be pursued further, these
cost estimates should be developed and added to the total project cost estimate.
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all existing Town of Brevard
gravity sewers, force mains and the wastewater treatment plant have sufficient
capacity to accept flow from the Town of Rosman.

Figure 4 — Rosman area sewer improvements
25

• • •
4.
•
•
•:.".,40*S44;,i' ....'"'" '—i•-„i,,' ... "
• Itt4r5":"1:64;".4„i,
•
-- • •
...e--,:.•4:-",4.
, ,i, .. . • - '," ;555f, 44 • •
'' : .'''..ts: ' '?" ' * -
A .: ...ii,..,::'-!f: ::;"; 'N.,.." . . =,*' .,eg..,.,,....:X • a '
.',...0.*,- - ik. • • -,.: .-... %.4.,•?: '111:' . - • • •,iza:f:".•
. „
, . ..,;>,y, •-. •44.'"'"
VVK
DICKSON
IPlanners
Enghows
kmrve yors
Pik
1419 PATTON AVE.
ASHEVILLE. N.C.
wK 0 90203. 40
'
s. • . 'Is. '5" '1*. •
.4*
,14
PROPOSED GRAVfl
SLIVER EXTENSION. ;
(SEWER pRoxer,t1)
//
WM;
THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS APPROXIMATE AND WAS
OBTAINED FROM MAPS PROVIDED BY ROSMAN. THIS MAP IS INTENDED
FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
- 4555"s. *- ;• "", -5""---...44,45-.;; , - • • • 4:444.4459' . ,
'"?s• "•• „. •(...-5•••
• •:••'•
• -
"
#P".")
--;. PROPOSED 4" FORCE Nil H.
(SEWER PROJECT C)
...$:,..:**••""*::„,_,• " •:::
PETER MAU( IAFG.:,:,e,"•"-..,:-..- --,- :i::••'. COATS AMERIC.AN satAcc un
STATION TO DE UPGRADED
i/
:•••••=iv ER Nk••• „:
"; • • - ••...... .14 ..i.:,..:•
(SEWER PROJECT C)
,.....e.,,,,,..„,,s.-....,..;:•:-.-.,,,,i..i40?-...r..4;t4,-c:,"-:-----;-•-jsily ••••• „. --m.s.,...«,.....
. t STATION TO RE ABANDONED
- ''• i .,- 4. „: -4,:..,..,..,,••••••••••,bla
•
•:,.“-,-,4„,........,„4:-.-...„"-N1/4,...,.........
1
:COSTING SURER UFT • :•,t
(SEWER PROJECT C) . ..
. ..
\Ss N.
4-4• .:-.„4,-
, -,- -•-.4.- "" ''''. • . ..„.••:. 44i,;-:.:...::::' .• nits.:: .-4.0„
.,-, .%-..
; •%: s'• •
*I"
- •
. .j4r
. ,
•• „
t
-f •
\ • ,., • -••
•
toa.
„..•••••••
.:. • .4
A . ...
..••• 1; : • - ..
$4, ......
„,..4> .4*
4
N. • .
. --- •
,PRDPOSED GRAVITY
••••: SLIVER EXTENSION
(SEWER PROJECT O. i.
t
-14:U• , • ;;;,
PROPOSED FORCE MIN
vo DREVARD (SEE F. 5
• i FOR CONTINUAT)ON)
• • „.-:"
- Coco
• .;:-4 -SERVICE • .
STATION
4. „
• :
„
• 415 It ,"'
• ."•ZN -0
. • . ,
V- -./....".
GENIE PRODUCTS ' -.....
4 ;5•'1: _7 . .1 . • s.„
. _,:-::::
t
4* .
:f6' ..., ' -•,..._ ..,:-.
44.i.
1 '4- \ 1
.,,-;•
1.
...--,
4,--.-i, •-•
.ft.
.,...:
.f • ir,"
'•.F.P?,••• • .5.
• : -------------- "4-k,i6:0's(• ",•••• •
• ''''''' • ••••:- -.5„,„‘„;;.;
'4•••Ot•••-•'*--,-•
„,•••• •
•••• - ' •
1.;;••••••4-• •.
••!•••_
-••••: ,
•
-, 4.:" ::. ▪ •*"1
44 tZ, , ..is, -2 ,:
cr / „,.:se 4%
/ 4, ..- i
"4"..-s ,'•-e3. ..' .
le
, 4., •••:- ..• -:3'
07 -f i .e.4'''''s )
1 I -I"?' s•-• -e.
i.4: .:::.
•
4 4
yke
••• '-'••••
•
.,"
TOWN OF ROSIV AN
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
OPTION #1 — TIE TO BREVAD SYSTEM
SCHEMATIC OF PROPOSED ROSMAN AREA IMPROVEMENTS
4.
UPDA TEO
I I /8/0 2
FIGURE NO.
4

Figure 5 — map to tie in to Brevard

DICKSON
1Englneere 1419 PATTON AVE.
!Planner, ASHEVILLE, N.C. 26806
I!Surroyon NKD M 90203.40
PROP _'SED FORC M
(10" MIN. SIZE) •P
NEE:
THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS APPROXIMATE AND WAS
OBTAINED FROM MAPS PROVIDED BY ROSMAN. THIS MAP IS INTENDED
FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
rs
EXISTINL TOWN 'F
'ALLIMOR - • • D PUMP
GRADE REQUIR
F BRE
ING S
D)
SCALE 1' - 4000'
TOWN OF ROSMAN
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
OPTION #1 TIE TO 3REVARD SYSTEM
SCHEMATIC OF ROSMAN TO BREVARD IMPROVFMFNT�
8000
r
UPDATED
11/8/02
FIGURE NO.
5

The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will require encroachment
agreements for force main installation along NCDOT roadways. It is unknown at
this stage of development whether the obtainment of NCDOT encroachments
along the newer sections of US Highway 64 would be possible. For the purposes
of this preliminary alternatives comparison, it is assumed that force main
encroachments could be obtained along all NCDOT roads.
Pump Station/Force Main Conceptual Planning
The following outlines preliminary calculations based on the routing shown in
Figures 4 & 5.
Few, The future 20 year average daily flow for the Town of Rosman is projected at
250,000 gallons per day or 174 gallons per minute. Applying the NC Division of
Water Quality peak flow factor of 2.5, the minimum pumping rate at the proposed
pumping station would be approximately 500 gallons per minute. It would be
desirable to design the pumping station for the projected 20 year flow and the
force main for the projected 40 year flow. However, the 40 year projected flow
yields a minimum pumping capacity of approximately 900 gallons per minute. If
the force main is sized for 40 year flows then the initial 20 year pumping rate
does not maintain sufficient scour velocities (2 feet per second). If the force main
is sized for the 20 year pumping rate and adequate scour velocities, then future
40 year pumping rates develop unreasonable friction loss in the force main. For
the purposes of this analysis only 20 year projected flows are considered. This is
noted because, should this option be implemented, the force main may require
replacement after the initial 20 year period or other alternate modifications may
be required.
NMI
Another factor which should be considered in planning a force main tie to
Brevard's system is the possibility of!, odor and, corrosion -problems. The

Mil
considerable length of force main will result is long detention times within the
force main. In fact, based on an initial average daily flow of 75,000 gallons per
day, the detention time in the force main will be approximately 2.5 days. Should
this option develop further, detailed consideration should be given to this
potential problem. For the purposes of this analysis, an allowance is made for
some type of chemical additive to control odor and corrosion problems.
Preliminary Pump Station Calculations:
Total Length of Force Main = 46,500 Feet (±)
Water surface elevation in proposed pump station = 2,165 (±)
Force Main High Point = 2,240 (±)
Static Head = 2,240 — 2,165 = 75 ft (±)
Estimated Pumping Rate (20 yr peak flow) = 500 gpm
Estimated Force Main Friction Loss in 10" Force Main (H&W, C=130) = 80
ft (±)
Estimated Total Dynamic Pump Head = 155 ft (±)
Estimate Horsepower Requirements:
Assume motor/pump efficiency = 45%
Estimated brake horsepower required = (155(1.114)(62.4))/(550(0.45))
= 44 horsepower
It is estimated that 2 each - 50 horsepower pumps would be required.
Twi
28
-ri

ISM
OMR
Estimate of Capital Costs of Implementing Option 1: Connection to Town of
Brevard
This project includes collection system extensions and rehabilitation to existing
sewer lines.
Collection System Improvements
• Sewer Extension Project "A"
• Sewer Extension Project "B"
• Sewer Extension Project "C"
• Sewer Extension Project "D"
• Sewer Rehabilitation Project "E"
• Sewer Study Extension
Total Estimate Collection System Capital Cost
Pump Station & Force Main Construction Costs
• Duplex Pumping Station w/Stand-By Power
(Estimated 2 each — 50 HP Pumps)
• 10" Force Main to Brevard 46,500 LF @ $50/LF =
• Demolish Rosman Sewer Plant
Pump Station/Force Main Construction Subtotal
Estimated Engineering, Administrative and Related Costs
Related to Brevard Pump Station & Force Main Construction
• Contingency (10%)
• Legal & Administrative
• Design Surveys
• Engineering — Design
• Engineering — Contract Administration &
Construction Observation
Subtotal
$ 221,500
$ 148,000
$ 770,500
$ 191,000
$ 221,550
$ 611,250
$2,163,800
$ 260,000
$2,325,000
$ 40,000
$2,625,000
$ 270,000
$ 30,000
$ 45,000
$ 185,000
$ 175,000
$ 705,000

Total Estimated Option 1 Capital Cost $5,493,800
Including Collection System Improvements
Present Worth Evaluation for Option 1 — Tie to Brevard
The following section estimates the 20 year present worth of Option 1 — Tie to
Brevard Sewage System:
Estimate Pump Station Power Costs
The 20 year average annual power usage will be based on the average
estimated flow over this period which is 150,000 gpd. This flow equates to an
average annual pump run time of approximately 1,825 hours. With a 44 brake
horsepower pumping requirement, this yields an annual power consumption of
approximately 59,900 KWH (4,990 KWH/month). Assuming an average power
cost of $0.08/KWH, the average annual power cost over the 20 year planning
period is $4,792/year.
Estimate Odor Control Costs for Force Main to Brevard
Due to the length of force main to Brevard, it is reasonable to expect that some
type of odor/corrosion control will be required. At this time it is assumed that
potassium permanganate will be fed at the pumping station for odor control.
Estimated average daily flow over 20 year planning period = 150,000 gpd
Assume chemical dosage = 2.0 mg/I = 16.7 Ibs/million gallons
Estimated unit chemical cost = $2.50/Ib
Therefore, estimated chemical cost/year = $ 2,285/yr
Estimate Operator Labor Costs for Pump Station/Force Main
Estimate an average of 5 days/week worked @ 5 hrs/day = 1,300 hrs/year
Estimate average cost of labor @ $20/hr
30

Therefore, estimated labor cost/year = $26,000/yr
NM
Estimate Pump Station/Force Main Annual Repair Costs
gm
Based on similar projects, average annual repair costs are estimated at
..., $1,000/yr.
wi, Estimate Town of Brevard User Fees
The cost (if any) of tap and/or impact fees which may be assessed by the
,,,,, Town of Brevard is unknown at this time. For this reason, allowances for
these costs are not included in this analysis. Should this option be
pursued further, it is recommended that Town leaders of both Rosman
and Brevard finalize the details of user, tap and/or impact fees prior to
. proceeding further.
MIN
MCI
MI
NM
Based on information provided by the Town of Rosman, the Town of
Brevard's bulk user fee which will be charged to the Town of Rosman will
be $1.75/1000 gallons of wastewater flow.
User fees are estimated at:
Estimated 20 year average flow =150,000 gallons per day
Estimated Annual Sewer Bill = ($1.75/1,000)(150,000)(365)
= $95,813/year ($7,984/month)
FM
Calculate Present Worth Cost of Option 1: Tie to Brevard Sewer System
"' Use discount rate = 6.875%
Present Worth of Capital Costs (PWC):
PWC = $5,943,800

Present Worth of Power Costs (PWP):
PWP = (P/A,6.875%,20)$4,792 = (10.7035)$4,792 = $51,291
Present Worth of Odor Control Costs (PWO):
PWO = (P/A,6.875%,20)$2,285 = (10.7035)$2,285 = $24,457
Present Worth of Labor Costs (PWL):
PWL = (P/A,6.875%,20)$26,000 = (10.7035)$26,000 = $278,291
Present Worth of Repair Costs (PWR):
PWR = (P/A,6.875%,20)$1,000 = (10.7035)$1,000 = $10,704
Present Worth of User Fees (PWU):
PWU = (P/A,6.875%,20)$95,813 = (10.7035)$95,813 = $1,025,534
Total Estimated Present Worth Cost of Option 1, Tie to Brevard System:
PW (Option 1) = PWC + PWP + PWO + PWL + PWR + PWT + PWU
PW (Option 1) = $ 7,334,077 -.
Reliability of this option is questionable due to the fact that wastewater from the
Town of Rosman would have to be conveyed almost nine miles using a minimum
of one pump station just to reach the Town of Brevard collection system. Then,
as previously stated above, the Town of Brevard's Gallimore Road and Neely
Road pumping stations would have to be upgraded to handle wastewater from
Rosman. In addition, due to limited available information, it was assumed that all
existing Town of Brevard gravity sewers, force mains, and the wastewater
treatment plant have sufficient capacity to accept flow from the Town of Brevard.
Due to these facts, reliability is considered to be poor.
r
r
32

RPIR
In addition, for the reasons stated above, Jhe complexity of this option is
considered to be great due to the number of unknowns.
Environmental factors associated with Option 1 could be significant due to fact
that almost nine miles of force main would have to be installed.
And, finally, this option is not considered to be feasible due to the fact that the
present worth cost is greater than Option 2, the Tenability is worse than Option 2,
and the complexity has the potential to be equal to Option 2.

TREAMENT OPTION # 2 — NEW ROSMAN WWTP WITH RIVER AND LAND
DISPOSAL
As discussed in Section II, "Existing Facilities", the Town of Rosman's existing
wastewater treatment plant is in urgent need of renovations and expansion. In
performing preliminary evaluations to improve the wastewater plant, due
consideration was given to renovating and expanding the existing treatment
facility. Based on these preliminary evaluations, it was concluded that renovating
and expanding the existing treatment facility was not cost effective. Instead, it is
recommended that consideration be given to constructing a new facility adjacent
to the existing plant and abandoning the existing wastewater treatment plant. The
Town of Rosman owns the land adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment
plant which should provide adequate space for expansion. The analysis of Option
2 is based on the assumption that a new treatment facility would be constructed.
The problems with inflow and infiltration must be addressed as an integral part of
this option to insure that the expanded treatment facility can operate properly. In
addition, public sewer service needs to be expanded to unsewered areas in
Town. For these reasons, proposed Gravity Sewer and Force Mains A, B, C, D &
E are included in this project, just as they were in the analysis of Option 1 — Tie
to Brevard System. The general location of these proposed gravity sewer mains
is schematically shown in Figure 6.
34

Figure 6 — Proposed sewer lines

sc:a.
Phi
MOP DICKSON
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
WK
1419 PATTON AVE
ASHEVILLE. N C
Wu0 / 90203.40
•
NOTE;
THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS APPROXIMATE ANO WAS
OBTAINED FROM MAPS PROVIDED BY ROSMAN. THIS MAP IS INTENDED
FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
..i
(SEWER PROJECT C)
•
"iT
!A<vlr.•
•
ry .'
GENIE iPRODUCTS
3 'N -i-
S
i4.\
%.
TOWN OF ROSMAN
PRE! IiMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
OPTION #2 - IMPROVE ROSMAN V1r1WTP
SCHEMATIC OF PROPOSED ROSVAN AREA IMPROVEMENTS
•
UPOATED
11/0/02
FIGURE NO.
6

This option would consist of expanding the existing wastewater treatment facility
continuing to discharge treated effluent to the French Broad River. This analysis
assumes that the existing treatment plant would be not be utilized, but would be
abandoned and demolished as a portion of the project. A new wastewater
treatment facility would be constructed having an average daily capacity of
250,000 gallons per day to accommodate the 20 year future average daily flow
as predicted in Section III, "Wastewater Flow Projections".
The existing NPDES permit (NC0021946) stipulates typical secondary effluent
quality limitations. Speculative Limits (See Appendix L) for the new facility with a
capacity expanded to 250,000 gallons per day, indicate it is likely that the effluent
quality discharge limits will remain essentially unchanged. They are:
Monthly Weekly
Average Average
TSR (mg/L) <30 <45
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml) <200 <400
BOD5 <30 <45
Total Chlorine Residual Daily Maximum 28 ug/L
As a conservative approach for the purposes .of this analysis, it is assumed that
the effluent quality limitations will require a tertiary level treatment process. Even
if not required through the modification of the NPDES permit, tertiary level
treatment will provide a higher quality effluent and better protect the waters of the
French Broad River. For these reasons, tertiary filters and ultraviolet disinfection
are included in the conceptual plan for the proposed wastewater treatment plant.
The proposed treatment system will be designed to comply with the more
stringent reclaimed water regulation T15A:02H.0219(k)(1)(B) and (C) including
the following discharge limits as well as NCAC 2H.0219-MinimumDesign
Requirements and NCAC 2H.0124- Reliability Requirements:
36

"9
oral
Monthly Daily
Average Maximum
TSS (mg/L) <5 <10
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml) <14 <25
BOD5 <10 <15
NH3 <4 <6
See Appendix M for proposed manufactures design target.
With the higher quality of discharge provided by the tertiary treatment process,
the amount of effluent discharged to the waters of the French Broad River could
be reduced by utilizing a portion of the treated effluent for spray irrigation.
Approximately 5.17% of the treated effluent will be discharged through spray
irrigation. This will be discussed later in this section.
There are numerous technologies and treatment equipment manufacturers
available for the expansion of Rosman's treatment plant. All . of these options
should be evaluated and carefully considered should this option be pursued.
Sequencing batch reactors (SBR), oxidation ditches and other technologies
should all be investigated. "Package" type treatment systems should be
considered for economic reasons. The Town's property adjacent to the existing
treatment plant is narrow and long which is not an ideal configuration for larger
package plants. During final design, the possible purchase of adjacent land
should be investigated in evaluating the possible use of package systems. One
of the simpler treatment technologies to obtain a higher degree of treatment is
the SBR process. For this reason, it is assumed at this stage of evaluation that
SBR treatment plant would be constructed. The conceptual lay -out of the
proposed new Rosman wastewater treatment plant is shown in Figure 7.
New sludge dewatering facilities will need to be provided as a part of the new
treatment plant. For the purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed that a sludge
37

1
fal
0121
belt press would be constructed as a part of the plant expansion. Sludge
generated at the existing wastewater treatment facility is currently disposed of at
the Transylvania County Landfill. It is assumed that this practice will continue
following the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant. Design of the
new wastewater facility will include lime stabilization to meet the requirements of
40 CFR Part 503 for Class B Biosolids and will allow for a land disposal option.
The Town will then be able to choose between landfill and land application
options. Should the Town begin land applying Class B Biosolids, the Pathogen
and Vector Attraction Requirements of 40 CFR Part 503 will be met as follows; 1)
Pathogen Reduction - Increase the pH of biosolids to 12 after 2 hours of contact
through lime stabilization; 2) Vector Attraction Reduction — Incorporate biosolids
into soil within 6 hours of placement; or 3) Vector Attraction Reduction — Cover
biosolids with soil or other material at the end of each operating day.
Another consideration in planning a wastewater plant expansion for Rosman is
flood protection. Existing grades in the vicinity of the existing wastewater
treatment plant are estimated to be approximately 3 to 4 feet below the 100 year
flood elevation. However, due to the mountain topography, there are no other
suitable sites for a waste treatment facility. Other considerations which eliminate
a new site from consideration are economic in nature: 1) A new treatment site
would require more infrastructure and land increasing the project cost, to transfer
all the Town flows from the primary collection point at the existing treatment
facility, to a new facility. 2) The Town owns enough property at the existing,
previously disturbed, plant site to construct the proposed treatment facility,
therefore alleviating the cost required to acquire and permit a new site. 3)
Construction of the new facility on the existing site will not cause an increase in
flooding. The construction of the new facility will be offset by removal of the
existing facility, which will be demolished and the site graded to typical grades.
In addition, the flood plain is so enormous compared to the actual construction
38

n
site area, there will be no impact as discussed in the Flood Analysis Report — No
Rise Evaluation found in Appendix Q.
The new facility will need to be protected to at least 1 foot above the 100 year
flood. Flood protection could be provided by extending tanks and related
equipment above grade or by filling the area in the vicinity of the treatment plant.
Based on this preliminary analysis, it is concluded that a combination of these
two methods will be employed to provide flood protection. Tanks could be
extended above grade and earth fill would not be required. New facilities such as
buildings need to be accessible at grade and therefore earth fill would be
required in these areas.
Peak flows received by the Rosman WWTP are significant during high water
usage periods. These peaks are largely attributed to the two public schools
connected to the Rosman sewer system. To handle these surges, a triplex
influent pump station is provided as described below and SBR's are well suited to
handle flow surges like those provided by the school.
The conceptual lay -out for the proposed treatment works shown in Figure 7
indicates dual train (parallel path) for the major treatment units. The conceptual
plan for the proposed treatment plant includes the following major components:
• Influent Screen.
• Influent Pumping Station
• Dual Train Concrete Wall Tank Sequencing Batch Reactors
• Concrete Wall Post Equalization Tank
• Dual Train Tertiary Filters
• Ultraviolet Disinfection (Chlor./Dechlor. Back-up To Be Considered)
• Concrete Wall Aerated Digester
39

Pla
•
•
•
•
•
•
Building for Sludge Conditioning & Maintenance
Sludge Belt Press
Effluent Flow Meter
Stand-by Generator
Spray Irrigation Pumping Station
Post Aeration Cascade
Treatment Process Description
Wastewater from the Town will be directed into the raw waste pump station. This
pump station will be a triplex system in which any two pumps will be capable of
handling a peak flow condition. The pumps will be operated by a level control
system. Wastewater will then pass through a rotating mechanical screw screen
(with a bar screen on standby) to remove large solids from the waste stream.
Solids will be collected in a hopper and disposed of at an acceptable landfill.
Wastewater will then flow into one of the two Sequential Batch Reactors (SBRs).
A dual valve system will be utilized to ensure wastewater is discharged into only
one reaction basin at a time. Tanks will be constructed of concrete utilizing a
common -wall system. The SBRs will discharge into a post equalization basin for
flow stabilization throughout the remainder of the facility.
Wastewater from the SBRs will then undergo tertiary treatment by a multi -disk
cloth filtering system. The use of cloth disk filters allows for a much lower
isko backwash flow, therefore reducing size and cost of facility process equipment.
Effluent from the tertiary filters will be disinfected utilizing Ultraviolet (UV) Light.
'°"� In the event of a UV system breakdown, a standby UV unit will be available.

Figure 7 — NEW PLANT CONCEPT. LAYOUT

ACCESS
ROAD
TANK DRAIN LINE
TO RAW WATER
PUMP STATION
INFLUENT
FORCE MAIN
LAB/OFFICE
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
BELT PRESS
FENCE
SLUDGE PAD
BELT PRESS
SLUDGE STORAGE
AEROBIC DIGESTER SPRAY IRRIGATION
FORCE MAIN
BELT PRESS/WASH
WATER STORAGE
BLOWER
BUILDING
sting: Gr
WASHWATER/SPRAY
IRRIGATION SPLITTER
BOX CASCADE
AERATOR
MANUAL BAR
ROTARY SCREEN
SCREEN
20
10
UV DISINFECTION
POST EQ
BASIN
TERTIARY DISK
FILTERS AND
PLATFORM
EFFUENT DISCHARGE TO
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
AND FUEL STORAGE
SCALE IN FEET
0 10 20
IMO UM
MI 1=1
I WO
Englnear,
PIangle, s
Surreyory
WK
DICKSON
1419 PATTON AVE.
ASHEVILLE. N.C.
WKD N 90203.40
• NOM
THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS APPROXIMATE AND WAS
OBTAINED FROM MAPS PROVIDED BY ROSMAN. THIS MAP IS INTENDED
FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
TOWN OF ROSMAN
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
OPTION #2 - IMPROVE ROSMAN WWTP
SCHEMATIC OF PROPOSED 0.25 MGD WWTP
UPDATED
TT/8/02
FIGURE NO.
4
7

get
Water will then be discharged into an effluent sump. A portion of the effluent will
be discharged via a separate pump into a washwater storage basin for use at the
belt press. Another pump will provide water to the spray field irrigation sites.
Any effluent not being utilized for belt press washwater or land application will be
discharged via gravity into a cascade aerator for final aeration and, henceforth,
into the French Broad River.
Sludge will be discharged separately from the SBRs into an aerobic digester
4.4
following the decant phase of the SBR process. Digested sludge will then be
discharged into a sludge holding basin before being transferred via pump to a
sio
belt press located inside an enclosed building. The belt press will dewater the
digested sludge to approximately 20 percent dry solids. The dewatered sludge
will be stored in a roll -off container and transferred to an acceptable landfill as
necessary.
Sufficient laboratory equipment will be installed to permit the operator to
;.� adequately monitor the treatment processes. See Appendix I for a detailed
process description.
Land Based Disposal
The re -use of the treated effluent would not only reduce the amount of discharge
to state waters, but would also benefit the crops being produced. Much of the
property in the vicinity of the wastewater treatment plant is used for agricultural
purposes. The re -use program could be expanded in the future as other property
�► owners become aware of the program and the benefits it provides, thus further
reducing the amount of effluent discharged to the French Broad River.
Two parcels of land (Labeled R-1 and R-2) were initially considered available to
the Town of Rosman for land disposal of effluent. Review of the topographic
map (Supplied in Appendix G) also reveals that residential areas are located in
,.R 42

Pry
all other directions of the proposed WWTP. These residential areas require
buffer zone limits which make any small amount of land between them unusable.
Mayor Johnny Rogers contacted landowners of potential usable land in the
vicinity, and was able to locate four other parcels (R-3 to R-6) available for land
application of treated wastewater. Parcels R-1 through R-6 are the only parcels
of land which are available to the Town of Rosman for land disposal of effluent.
Uses of the parcels include a small tree plantation, grazing pasture for farm
animals, and hay harvesting. All six parcels are northeast of the proposed
WWTP location. Acreage, soil characteristics, and other data on these parcels is
located in the attached Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report (Appendix G).
Of the six parcels investigated, only parcels R-4 and R-5 proved feasibly usable
for spray irrigation purposes. Previously, parcels R-1 and R-2 were considered,
however the useable area inside the buffer zones was insignificant, and only
allowed for a very small percentage of the total effluent (0.31 %) to be land
applied. Thus other parcels in the vicinity were explored. R-3 was determined to
have only a very limited area for spray application once buffer zones, tree
coverage, and soil type were considered. Parcels R-4 and R-5 were found to be
adequate for use, and consisted of only cleared pasture land.
Soil type, groundwater level, drainage, and buffer zone limits were all factors
leading to the selection of Parcels R-4 and R-5, as outlined in the Soil
Scientist/Agronomist Report, Appendix G. Parcel R-4 contains a total of 11.17
acres, 7.2 of which are usable and within the buffer zones. Parcel R-5 contains a
total of 19.6 acres, 10.4 of which are usable and located within the buffer zones.
All other land in the vicinity is privately owned and developed, or not available to
the Town of Rosman after contact with the owners. Additionally, as further
described below in this section, acquiring additional land (due to soil
43

characteristics) to land apply a more significant amount (than is currently
available to be land applied) of effluent is not feasible.
Resources required for this system would include a wastewater force main from
the wastewater treatment facility to the proposed land application fields to the
northeast. The most effective and efficient way to land apply the effluent would
be to utilize a spray irrigation system. This system would include an effluent
sump to store treated effluent for land application when possible. Land
cso
application is not feasible during certain months, and during rain events. A table
outlining discharge recommendations for each month per field is located in
Appendix G. A controller mounted above the sump would operate a series of
control valves, proportioning the treated effluent across the entire usable area of
parcels R-4 and R-5 by use of impact sprinkler heads. All spray limits and timing
,i, functions would be programmed into the controller. The header line would then
be distributed between several sprinklers mounted on above -grade stands. See
Figure 6 for the location of the spray irrigation fields and Figure 8 for the layout
for the layout of fields R-4, R-5 and the spray irrigation system.
f
INA
As previously stated, the soil investigation (Appendix G) revealed that only fields
R-4 and R-5 were readily acceptable for the land application of effluent. Soil
within the other parcels was found to be too saturated, and/or poorly drained.
Fields R-4 and R-5 combined provide a usable area of 30.77 acres. Mayor
Johnny Rogers has verified arrangements to obtain use of this land by Lease
Agreement (See Appendix N). Only approximately 17.6 acres will be used for
land application. Future acreage may be utilized within these fields as the
nominal 100 foot buffer is reduced to the State minimum of 25 feet to
accommodate expansion. A nominal 100 foot buffer, which exceeds state
minimums, was initially chosen to limit disturbed area and maintain a substantial
buffer from the French Broad River. Rosman Soil Series and Toxaway Soil

Series were identified as the soil types on the parcels. The 17.6 acres yields an
annual maximum land application loading of 4,713,283 gallons. This volume was
determined by a North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist, and reported in the Soil
Scientist/Agronomist Report (Appendix G). The total plant design discharge will
be approximately 250,000 gal/day. Discharge of all plant effluent would require
approximately 341 acres of land with similar soil characteristics. The 4,713,283
gallons per year available for spray irrigation consists of approximately 5.17% of
the proposed total yearly plant effluent at design capacity (0.25MGD).
The reuse pump system is designed to meet the spray irrigation rate at design
capacity. At plant start-up, the percentage of flow used for spray irrigation will
actually be higher due to the ratio of the volume of reuse quality effluent flow
versus the land available for spray irrigation. The actual volume applied shall not
exceed that recommended by the soil scientist recommendations. As flow to the
plant increases to 0.25 MGD over time, this percentage will decrease to
approximately 5.17%, unless additional suitable land is found. The reuse system
will be able to supply other suitable areas in the vicinity of the reuse force main
as long as the pumping conditions are reasonably similar to that of the proposed
system. However, the reuse pump can be easily modified with additional stages
to meet higher pump head and flow conditions should the opportunity arise to
serve other spray irrigation sites. Opportunities to expand the reuse system
should abound, as there are several sod farms near Rosman. The Town will
promote reuse mainly by word of mouth as this is a tight -knit community and also
through press releases as the project proceeds to completion.
Figure 2 of the Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report (Appendix G) is a USGS
Topographic Map taken from which depicts the location of all six fields available
for the land application of effluent.
45

I�q
The proposed treatment and spray irrigation system will be designed to comply
with the reclaimed water regulation T15A:02H.0219(k)(1)(B) and (C) including the
following discharge limits:
Monthly Daily
Average Maximum
TSS (mg/L) <5 <10
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml) <14 <25
BOD5 <10 <15
NH3 <4 <6
See Appendix M for proposed manufactures design target. Additional regulation
compliance includes:
> The rate of application was determined by a soil scientist and is shown in
O wl Appendix G.
> The public will be notified by the Town of Rosman of the use of the spray
irrigation at the proposed site.
> The Rosman WWTP spray irrigation system will be operated by the town's
►-� operator.
> All boundary lines will be shown on the design plans.
giak > . Plans and specifications will be developed in accordance to Rule
15A:02H.0205(d)(7).
> The reclaimed water from this project will not be used for industrial
purposes, toilet flushing, direct food chain crops, swimming pools, hot
rv) tubs, spas or raw potable water supply.
tA
INA
46

Figure 8 — Spray Field Layout
47

lis,
Planner'
Surveyor'
BUFFER ZONE BOUNDARY
FIELD R-3
(FUTURE)
FIELD R-4
WK
DICKSON
1419 PATTON ME.
ASHEVILLE. N.C. 28805
MKD $ 90203.40
PROPOSED 4" 0 HEADER LINE
STA 35+ 12.1
-FIELD R-5
EXISTING FENCE
LEGEND
CONTROL VALVE
1011 PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE
DRAIN VALVE W/ RISER STEM
TOWN OF ROSMAN
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
OPTION #2 — IMPROVE ROSMAN W.W.T.P.
RcI-Ir-AAATI(' PR(1P(1Rrn PRAY IRRIfATI(lNI n I AY(ll IT
UPDATED
11/8/02
FIGURE MO.
8

01114
ofdo
Estimate Costs of Implementing Option 2: NEW ROSMAN WWTP WITH
RIVER & LAND DISPOSAL
Estimated Construction Costs
Collection System Improvements (See Appendix A for Sewer Cost
Estimates)
• Sewer Extension Project "A" $ 221,500
• Sewer Extension Project "B" $ 148,000
• Sewer Extension Project "C" $ 770,500
• Sewer Extension Project "D" $ 191,000
• Sewer Rehabilitation Project "E" $ 221,550
• Sewer Study Extension $ 611,250
Total Estimate Collection System Capital Cost $2,163,800
PRESENT VALUE OF COSTS ANALYSIS
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DISCHARGE TO FRENCH BROAD RIVER/SPRAY FIELD
Proposed WWTP Site is by the Town of Rosman. NC. The following capitol
costs include all materials and labor associated with construction.
CAPITOL COSTS (PWC)
1. Influent Pump Station
(3) 7.5 HP Submersible Pumps $12,000
Precast concrete 10' Diam. Pump Station $10,000
Electrical, Mechanical, Piping, Controls $18,000
Total $40,000
2. Rotary & Bar Screen Stand
Rotary Screen $ 50,000
Fabricated Bar Screen $ 10,000
Platform/Stairs $ 25,000
Electrical, Mechanical, Piping $ 45,000
48

Total $130,000
3. Structural Concrete 714 cubic yards @ $3501CY $250,000
4. SBR/Digester/EQ Equipment
Equipment $258,000
Mechanical/Electrical/Piping $118,000
Total $376,000
5. Pumps and Level Controls -Storage Tanks
(2) 5 HP Vertical Turbine Pumps -Filter $ 9,000
(1) 1 HP Vertical Turbine Pump-Washwater Supply $ 2,000
(1) 5 HP Belt Press Sludge Pump $ 4,000
(1) 3 HP Vert. Turbine -Belt Press Washwater $ 3,000
(1) 5 HP Self -Priming -Final Filter Backwash $ 4,000
Total $22,000
6. Final Filter Station
Final Filter Equip $146,000
Mechanical/Electrical/Piping $ 48,000
Total $194,000
7. UV Disinfection
(2) UV Units @ 25,000 each $50,000
Mechanical/Electrical/Piping $28,000
Total $78,000
8. Blower Building
500 square feet @ $200/sf $100,000
9. Maint. Shop/Sludge Building
Belt Press (See Appendix H) $ 77,000
Mechanical/Electrical/Piping $ 33,000
830 square feet © $200/sf $166,000
Total $276,000
10. Lab/Office Building
360 square feet @ $250/sf $ 90,000
Lab Equipement $ 11,000
Total $101,000
11. Generator Station
Generator $40,000
Grading/Foundation $10,000
fazIl
f"
49

out
Mechanical/Electrical (field/homerun)
Total
12. Site Grading
30,000 square feet @ $5/sf
13. Site Paving
12,500 square feet @ $8/sf
14. Fencing wl Gates
750 feet @ $20/ft
15. Site Piping
$16,000
$66,000
$150,000
$100,000
$ 15,000
1 Lump Sum (Various Size Piping) $125,000
16. Site Electrical
1 Lump Sum $ 40,000
17. Grass Cover 5,000 square feet @ $4/sf $ 20,000
18. Misc. Site Work
"m (Mobilization/Cleanup/Demobilization)
1 Lump Sum $ 55,000
19. Sampling Manhole/Gravity Line to River/Outfall
Precast Concrete Ouffall Structure $10,000
Sampling Manhole/Handrails/Access $10,000
83 feet 12" Ductile Iron Pipe @ $60/If $ 5,000
Total $25,000
20. (1) 15 HP Vertical Turbine Pump $ 5,000
21. Force Main to Spray Field
Includes Excay./Backfill/Pipe/Mag Tape
4,600 liner feet @ 9.50/If $44,000
22. Sprinkler Stations
Assemblies (112' throw diam.)
125 Heads @ $25/each $ 3,125
125 Swing Joints @ $25/each $ 3,125
Concrete Anchoring Pads 125 @ $100/ea $12,500
Total $18,750
23. Controller $ 1,500
�.. 24. Rain Gauge Switch $ 750

25. Electrical/Mechanical $54,650
26. Distribution Piping from Header Line
8,400 Linear Feet @ $5/If $42,000
27. Control Valve Stations
Control Valve (18) @ $100/ea $ 1,800
Valve Pit (18) @ $75/ea $ 1,350
Decoder (18) @ $50/ea $ 900
Pressure Regulators (18) @ $75/ea $ 1,350
Total $ 5,400
28. Pressure/Air Relief Stations
(4) @ $500/station $ 2,000
29. Drain Valve Stations
(15) @ $500/station $ 7,500
30. Fencing
(Including Posts & barb wire around each
Head and Control Valve)
143 Fences @ $150/fence $21,450
Subtotal $2,366,000
31. Design & Construction Supervision $431,000
32. Facility Startup and O&M Manual $ 15,000
33. 10% Contingency $237,000
34. 10% Admin./Legal $237,000
Rosman WWTP Capital Cost Total $3,286,000
Total Estimated Option 2 Capital Cost $5,449,800
Including Collection System Improvements
cmg
Owl
51

NO
B. RECURRING COSTS (Over 20 Year Planning Period)
1. Power Cost (PWP) -
255,630 KWH/Year @ $0.08/KWH
2. Chemical Costs (PWCh)
3. Labor Costs (PWL)
5 days/week, 8 hrs/day = 2,080 hrs/year
2,080 hrs @ $20.00/hr
4. Sludge Disposal Costs (PWS)
Flow = 250,000 gpd
Approx. 8% solids from Belt Press
292 lbs/day dry solids
Volume Generated = 666 tons/year © $10/ton
5. DWQ Regulatory Fees (PWD)
WWTP Admin and Compliance Mon. Fee-$700
NPDES Permit Renewal Fee $250/5 years-$50/year
6. Repair Costs (PWR)
7. Testing Costs (PWT)
C. PRESENT WORTH CALCULATION
$20,500/year
$1,500/year
$41,600/year
$6,700/year
$750/year
$2,500/year
$7,200
A discount rate of 6.875 percent will be used for the present worth analysis. This
rate is widely used by engineering firms for this purpose, and represents a good
average taking into account minor periodical fluctuations. This rate was also
used for the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) submitted to the Construction
Grants and Loans Division for their review. Since the annual operating cost will
be approximately the same for every year, annuity tables can be used to
determine present worth.
PWC = -$5,499,800
PWP = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$20,500 = (10.7035)$20,500 =-$220,068
PWCh = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$1,500 = (10.7035)$1,500 =-$16,055
PWL = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$41,600 = (10.7035)$41,600 =-$445,265
PWS = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$6,700 = (10.7035)$6,700 =-$71,713
PWD = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$750 = (10.7035)$750 =-$8,028
PWR = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$2,500 = (10.7035)$2,500 =-$26,759
PWT = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$7,200 = (10.7035)$7,200 =-$77,065

Present Worth = PWC+PWP+PWCh+PWL+PWS+PWD+PWR+PWT =
$6,364,753
Reliability of this option is favorable due to the fact that wastewater from the
Town of Rosman would be treated in an automated tertiary wastewater treatment
plant by the town of Rosman. And, although the complexity of this option is
considered to be great, the fact that the Town already owns, operates, and
maintains a wastewater treatment plant helps to decrease the complexity of this
option.
In addition, environmental factors associated with Option 2 should be less
significant than Option 1 due to fact that the proposed wastewater treatment for
Rosman is tertiary in nature including filtration and UV disinfection therefore
leading to a decrease in potential stream impacts.
Finally, this option is considered to be the most feasible due to the fact that the
present worth cost is less than Option 1 (even with the proposed spray irrigation
system), the reliability appears to be better than Option 1, environmental factors
associated with Option 2 should be Tess than Option 1, and the complexity has
the potential to be equal to Option 1.
53

FOR
WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
As previously discussed, the population in the Town of Rosman in the year 2000
was 490 and the estimated number of residences was 210. The estimated
population in 2020 will be 794 and the estimated number of residences will be
approximately 340. The estimated average daily flow at the Town of Rosman
WWTP in 2000 is approximately 68,000 gpd and the estimated daily flow in 2020
will be 254,588 gpd. Assuming that the town took an aggressive approach
towards promoting water conservation measures such as low flow faucets,
toilets, and shower heads as well as promoted the benefits of conserving water
and a 10% reduction in water use was realized, this could result in an
approximate 6,800 gpd reduction in average daily flow to 61,200 gpd in the year
2000 or an approximate 25,460 gpd reduction in average daily flow to 229,128
gpd. Therefore, although water conservation is an important aspect of protecting
our natural resources, it is estimated that water conservation measures in
Rosman would have little overall effect on current and future average daily flows
due to the size of the Town of Rosman.
INFLOW & INFILTRATION
As you will note, the average daily flow to the Town of Rosman wastewater
treatment plant between September 2000 and August 2001 was 68,000 gpd and
the maximum daily flow was 90,000 gpd. However, as previously stated, the
estimated flow in 2000 should be approximately 61,985 gpd (49,000 gpd + 7,350
gpd + (0.1 x 56,350 gpd)). Therefore, on an average day, it is estimated that
there is only an average of 6,015 gpd I&I or approximately 9 % of flow. On a
maximum day, there is an estimated 28,015 gpd l&I or approximately 31 % of
flow. Assuming that I&I could be reduced by up to 50 % which is an extremely
liberal, this would result in reduction in average day I&I of 3,007 gpd for a total

average daily flow of 64,993 gpd. And, a reduction in maximum daily would
equal 14,007 gpd for a total maximum daily flow of 75,993 gpd. Therefore,
although it is import to address I&I from a treatability standpoint of the waste,
reduction of I&I and it's overall impact on total average and maximum daily flow
would be limited.
55

0111
V. Estimated User Charges & Financial Capability
Current Water & Sewer Users & Charges
The Town of Rosman currently serves approximately 253 residential water
/10 customers and 229 residential sewer customers. In addition, Rosman serves
non-residential water and sewer customers which are primarily small commercial
establishments. Other non-residential customers include two public schools,
other public buildings and one industry (Peter Vitalie). No industrial process
wastewater is received. All wastewater is domestic/commercial in nature. The
Town serves a total of approximately 28 non-residential customers. The total
number of water and sewer customers served by the Town of Rosman is
approximately 281.
010
0111
..
1101
1101
The Town of Rosman January 1999 Water and Sewer Billing Report is
representative of current usage and billing. A copy of this report is provided in
Appendix C. The following summarizes information obtained from this report:
Town of Rosman January 1999 Water & Sewer Billing Report Summary:
Total Residential Water Customers = 253
Total Residential Sewer Customers = 229
Total Non -Residential Water & Sewer Customers = 28
Total Water & Sewer Customers = 281
Average Non -Residential Water & Sewer Billing = $88.84/month
Average Residential Sewer Billing = $19.16/month
Average Residential Water Billing = $13.24/month
Average Residential Combined Water & Sewer Billing =
$32.40/month

Percent of Total Sewer Billing Residential = 75%
Percent of Total Sewer Billing Non -Residential = 25%
Estimated Water & Sewer User Fees Required for Option 1 — Tie to Brevard
System
The following preliminary estimate of user fees is based on an estimated initial
average daily sewage flow of 75,000 gallons per day. Additionally, it is assumed
that capital costs would be paid through the obtainment of a 20 year loan at 5%
annual percentage rate.
Information provided by the Town of Rosman:
Approximate Existing Debt Service on Water & Sewer Systems =
$290,000 ±
Additional Debt Service for Option 1 Capital Cost = $5,943,800
Total Town of Rosman Debt Service for Option 1 = $6,233,800
Estimated Monthly Town of Rosman Sewer Expenditures:
1. :Debt Service ($6,233,800 loan, 20yrs, 5% APR) $ 41,140
2. Town of Brevard User Fee $ 3,992
(based on 0.075 mgd average initial flow & $1.75/1,000 gallons)
3. Sewer System Maintenance & Office Personnel Cost
(Assume equivalent of 1 employee will be dedicated
to sewer related operations at average annual
cost of $38,000/each including benefits)
$ 3,167
4. New Pumping Station Average Monthly Power,
Odor Control & Repair Costs $ 378
57

5. Average Monthly Equipment, Tools & Supply Costs $ 200
6. Collection System Average Monthly Repair Costs
200
$ 49,0771mth
Using Rosman's January 1999 Water and Sewer Billing Report information, the
minimum residential user fee can be estimated at 75% of the total projected
expenditure by the Town on sewer. This yields a minimum residential monthly
billing for Option 1 — Tie to Brevard of:
Estimated Minimum Residential Sewer Bill
= 49,077(0.75)/229
= $160.73/month
Estimated Minimum Residential Water & Sewer Bill = $160.73+$13.24
0.• _ $173.97
0.4 This preliminary residential rate analysis for Option 1 — Tie to Brevard indicates
that an unreasonable rate increase would be required. Monies could not be
borrowed to complete this project. If a feasible funding alternative can be
obtained, it is recommended that a more detailed analysis be completed prior to
pal developing final modifications to Rosman's user fee schedule.
Estimated Water & Sewer User Fees Required for Option 2 — Improve Rosman
WWTP
The following preliminary estimate of user fees is based on an estimated initial
0.4 average daily sewage flow of 75,000 gallons per day. Additionally, it is assumed

that capital costs would be paid through the obtainment of a 20 year loan at 5%
annual percentage rate.
Information provided by the Town of Rosman:
Approximate Existing Debt Service on Water & Sewer Systems =
$290,000 ±
Additional Debt Service for Option 2 Capital Cost = $ 6,364,753
Total Town of Rosman Debt Service for Option 2 = $ 6,654,753
Estimated Monthly Town of Rosman Sewer Expenditures:
1. Debt Service ($6,654,753 loan, 20yrs, 5% APR)
2. New WWTP Power Costs
$ 43,918
$ 1,566
3. Sewer System Maintenance & Office Personnel Cost $ 6,333
(Assume equivalent of 2 employees will be dedicated to sewer related
operations at average annual cost. of $38,000/each including benefits)
4. New WWTP Average Monthly Repair Costs
5. New WWTP Testing/Chemical Costs & Regulatory Fees
6. Sludge Disposal -Costs (200 T/year initially)
7. Average Monthly Equipment, Tools & Supply Costs
8. Collection System Average Monthly Repair Costs
$ 167
$ 788
$ 167
$ 200
$ 200
$ 53,339/mth
59

Using the January 1999 Water and Sewer Billing Report information, the
minimum residential user fee can be estimated at 75% of the total projected
expenditure by the Town on sewer. This yields a minimum residential monthly
billing for Option 2 — Improve Rosman WWTP of:
Estimated Minimum Residential Sewer Bill = $53,339(0.75)/229
= $174.69/month
Estimated Minimum Residential Water & Sewer Bill = $174.69+$13.24
= $187.93/month
This preliminary residential rate analysis for Option 2 — Improve Rosman WWTP
indicates that an unreasonable rate increase would be required. It is
recommended that grant money be pursued for the completion of this much
..» needed projected.
Sip
Pia
Grant Funding Sources
W.K. Dickson has, on the behalf of the Town of Rosman, worked for the
procurement of various grants for the completion of this project. Grants that have
been awarded include the following:
• North Carolina Revolving Loan Program (NCRLP)
• State and Tribal Assistance Grant Program (STAG)
• Environmental Program Management Grant (EPM)
• NC Rural Center Supplemental Grant
Total
$2,911,300
$1,367,900
$ 350,000
$ 400,000
$5,030,200

VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
On Tuesday January 20, 2004, the Town of Rosman held a Special
Meeting/Public Hearing to allow for public participation/comment on the
recommended project. An advertisement was placed in the Transylvania Times
Newspaper on December 18, 2003 to allow for 30-day public notification of the
Special Meeting/Public Hearing and to advise the public when and where the
PER could be observed. At the hearing, the following items were discussed:
• Need for the project and associated problems
• The alternatives considered and the selected alternative
• Project funding
• Inter -local Agreements
• Effect of the project on user fees
There was no opposition to the recommended project. Prior to concluding the
Hearing, the Town Board passed a resolution authorizing the implementation of
the recommended project. Meeting minutes, Affidavit of Publication and a copy
of the authorizing resolution are included in Appendix J.
VII. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Need:
The Town of Rosman needs to complete improvements to their wastewater
collection and treatment system. The issues which need to be addressed through
the completion of a capital improvements project include:
• Repair of existing failing gravity interceptor sewers with severe inflow &
infiltration problems
• Extension of sewer mains to developed areas of Town where public sewer
service is not available
• Improve wastewater treatment works which is old, problematic and operating
a beyond 80% of the rated capacity of the facility
61

Improvement Options Considered:
Collection System:
The needed collection system main repairs and extension were identified and
MIR
shown in Figures 4 and 6 as sewer line segments A through E. The total cost of
constructing these sewer extensions and rehabilitation is estimated at
approximately $1,552,550.
Treatment Works:
Through projections of population growth and wastewater flows, it is predicted
that the 20 year average daily capacity for Rosman's Treatment Works needs to
be approximately 250,000 gallons per day.
In considering potential improvement plans for the treatment works, two
alternatives were found to be worth due consideration. The treatment
improvement options considered were:
cam No Action Alternative: This option was to do nothing. The. do nothing
approach is not feasible due to the fact that the existing infrastructure is aging
and increase wastewater flows are expected.
Optimization of Existing Treatment Facility: Based on residential and
commercial wastewater flow projections from the NC Office of State Planning, as
well as flow calculations using the Town's data, the existing 0.09 MGD Rosman
WWTP could adequately serve approximately 700 people after old lines with
aut excessive Ill flows are repaired or replaced. Based on 2.4 percent annual growth
from 1990 to 2000, Rosman's population will exceed this by 2015 without any
sewer service expansion beyond Town limits. Even with optimization of existing

facilities, the WWTP will not have sufficient capacity to accommodate normal
population growth, and is therefore not a feasible alternative.
Option 1 — Connection to Town of .Brevard: This option included abandoning
the Rosman wastewater treatment works, constructing a master pumping station
in the vicinity of Rosman's treatment works and constructing a 10" force main
from Rosman to the Town of Brevard's wastewater collection system. Pumping
horsepower requirements are estimated at approximately 50. Due to long
detention times in the force main, odor and corrosion are a concern.
The capital cost of implementing Option 1, including the construction of collection
system improvements (gravity lines A through E) is estimated at:
Estimated Capital Cost for Option 1: $5,943,800
Note that this cost does not include upgrades to Brevard's collection system,
which will likely increase the estimate significantly.
A 20 year: present worth analysis was performed to evaluate the economic
feasibility of Option 1. The 20 year present worth of Option 1 is estimated at:
Estimated 20 year Present Worth for Option 1: $7,344,077
Assuming the capital costs needed to implement Option 1 are borrowed at an
interest rate of 5% for a loan term of 20 years, average residential water and
sewer monthly billings would have to be raised. The minimum average
residential water and sewer bill required to retire the loan is estimated at:
Minimum Average Residential Water & Sewer Bill - Option 1: $173.97/month
63

Option 2 — New Rosman WWTP with River & Land Disposal: This option
included constructing a new and expanded wastewater treatment works adjacent
to the existing Rosman treatment works. The existing Rosman wastewater
treatment works, would be abandoned and demolished. An SBR treatment plant
with tertiary filters was considered under this option. Due consideration needs to
be given to flood protection if this option is implemented.
The capital cost of implementing Option 2, including the construction of collection
system improvements (sewer lines A through E) is estimated at:
Estimated Capital Cost for Option 2: $5,499,800
A 20 year present worth analysis was performed to evaluate the economic
feasibility of Option 2. The 20 year present worth of Option 2 is estimated at:
Estimated 20 year Present Worth for Option 2: $6,364,753
Assuming the capital costs needed to implement Option 2 are borrowed at an
interest rate of 5% for a loan term of 20 years, average residential water and
sewer monthly billings would have to be raised. The minimum average
residential water and sewer bill required to retire the loan is estimated at:
Minimum Average Residential Water & Sewer Bill - Option 1: $187.93/month
Recommendation
Based on the present worth analysis performed, Option 2 — Improvements to
Rosman's Wastewater Treatment Plant is clearly the better option in comparison
to a Brevard system tie-in. In addition, the long sewage detention times
(approximately 2.5 days at current flows) in a force main to Brevard is a major
64

concern. Tying Rosman to the Brevard system does not appear to be practical
or cost effective.
Cost Summary — 0.25 MGD Wastewater Treatment Facility (minus the
proposed, additional wastewater collection system expansion)
• Capital Cost Sewer Extensions, Sewer Rehabilitation
And WWTP $3,648,050
• Engineering Cost $1,190,500
• Total Estimated Project Cost $4,838,550
Project financing has been obtained from several grant funding sources, as
follows:
• North Carolina Revolving Loan Program (NCRLP)
• State and Tribal Assistance Grant Program (STAG)
• Environmental Program Management Grant (EPM)
• NC Rural Center Supplemental Grant
Total
$2,911,300
$1,367,900
$ 350,000
$ 400,000
$5,030,200
It is recommended that the Town of Rosman proceed with applying for an
updated NPDES permit, based on the expansion of the treatment facility to 0.25
MGD. (Please note that responses to Technical Review Comments, dated May
20, 2002 are included in Appendix D. Also Please note that responses to
Technical Review Comments, dated November 7, 2003 are included in Appendix
P).
65

APPENDIX A
SEWER LINE AND REHABILITATION COST ESTIMATES
MI
fal

Basis of Construction Cost Estimates for Gravity Sewers and Force Mains
The development of cost estimates for the project are based on preliminary
design parameters and assumptions of many factors which can only be refined
during the final design of improvements. The line length and route were
developed based on available maps, existing plans and field reconnaissance. It
should be noted that these estimated costs are based on 1999 dollars. If
commencement of the project is delayed for an extended period, then inflation
adjustments should be made to the estimated unit costs. The estimated unit
costs are based on recent construction costs for similar projects in the area.
The per linear foot price for gravity sewers and force mains includes costs for
excavation (including an allowance for rock excavation), backfill, manholes and
service lateral stub -outs. Additional costs have been included to allow for deep
'-' cuts, ties to existing utility lines and erosion control. Rock has been assumed to
be 25% of the total excavation. To better estimate rock excavation requirements,
consideration may be given to conducting core drillings at regular intervals along
the chosen route. Cost estimates have been evaluated to only include sewer
service stub -outs, not complete tie-ins to new customers. Based on information
supplied by Rosman, an extra cost allowance has been included for stone pipe
bedding due to the typically very poor pipe bedding conditions in the area. The
area is characterized by silty or clayey alluvial soils having high groundwater
tables which makes trench stabilization difficult and pipe bedding conditions very
poor.
Additional costs have been included for right of way acquisition. Many of the NC
Department of Transportation roads in the area do not have purchased right of
ways and therefore pipeline construction outside of the road beds may require
the acquisition of utility easements from individual property owners. Easement
acquisition costs include property surveys, easement plats and a minimal
allowance for land cost.
OBI

Sewage Force Main Unit Cost Estimate Assumptions and Calculations for
Option 1 — Tie to Brevard
10" force main pipe, excavation and backfill $ 28.00/LF
(assumes 30% is ductile iron & avg installation depth is 4 ft)
Air Release Valve in Manhole $ 1.67/LF
(assumes average spacing 1500 ft & $2,500/assembly)
Rock excavation $ 7.87/LF
(assumes 25% rock in 4' deep X 2.5' wide trench @ $851CY)
Additional Bedding Stone $ 1.35/LF
(assumes 0.5' deep by 2.5' wide @ $18/Ton)
Force main isolation plug valves $ 1.50/LF
(assumes 1 valve/1,000 LF @ $1,500/assembly)
Asphalt pavement replacement $ 5.08/LF
(assumes 40% of force main will require asphalt replacement
& replacement section will be 6 ft wide- 8 in. thick ABC stone
& 4 in. thick type 1-2 asphalt)
PIO
f
Erosion Control $ 2.50/LF
(includes erosion control devices, seeding, ditch restoration, etc.)
Sewer Easement $ 2.13/LF
(assumes 16 ft wide easement over 50% of project)
Total Estimated 6" Sewage Force Main Unit Cost • $ 50.10/LF
USE $50/LF AVERAGE COST FOR PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES

TOWN OF ROSMAN
SUMMARY OF GRAVITY SEWER EXTENSION
AND REHAB PROJECT TOTAL COSTS
Gravity Sewer
Extension and Rehab Total Estimated
Projects Project Costs
A $221,500
B $148,000
C $770,500
D $191,000
E $221,550
Total $1,552,550
11/1/02

fag
FEll
MEI
coR
TOWN OF ROSMAN
SEWER PROJECT A
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Description
8" Gravity Sewer
4' I.D. Concrete Manholes
Connect to Existing Manhole
Steel Encasing Pipe By open Cut
(Includes 8" DIP Sewer Pipe)
Sewer Service Stubs 7 EA
Pavement Repair 600 LF
Asphalt Pavement Overlay 600 SY
Rock Excavation (25%) 300 CY
Erosion Control Lump Sum LS
Quantity Unit
1700 LF
10 EA
1 EA
50 LF
Date: 11 /1 /02
Unit Cost
$35.00
$1,800.00
$1, 500.00
$150.00
$500.00
$25.00
$20.00
$150.00
Lump Sum
SUBTOTAL
Construction Contingency @ Approx. 10%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Route Survey
Engineering Design
Construction Administration
Construction Observation
Legal and. Administrative
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Total Cost
$59,500
$18,000
$1,500
$7,500
$3,500
$15,000
$12,000
$45,000
$3,500
$165,500
$17,000
$182,500
$3,000
$15,000
$4, 500
$7,500
$9,000
$221,500

TOWN OF ROSMAN
SEWER PROJECT B - NEW TOWN ROAD
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
MR
Description
8" Gravity Sewer •
F.4 4' I.D. Concrete Manholes
Connect to Existing Manhole
Sewer Service Stubs
pm Pavement Repair
Asphalt Pavement Overlay
Rock Excavation (25%)
Erosion Control
12011
MEI
gm
Date: 11 /1 /02
Unit Cost
$35.00
$1,800.00
$1,500.00
$500.00
$25.00
$20.00
$150.00
Lump Sum
SUBTOTAL
Construction Contingency @ Approx. 10%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Route Survey
Engineering Design
Construction Administration
Construction Observation
Legal and Administrative
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Quantity
900
5
1
15
700
800
150
Lump Sum
Unit
LF
EA
EA
EA
LF
SY
CY
LS
Total Cost
$31,500
$9,000
$1,500
$7,500
$17,500
$16,000
$22,500
$2,000
$107,500
$11,000
$118,500
$1,500
$10, 500
$5,000
$6, 500
$6,000
$148,000

f
RIM
Forl
TOWN OF ROSMAN
SEWER PROJECT C - CALVERT ROAD
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Description
8" Gravity Sewer
4' I.D. Concrete Manholes
Connect to Existing Manhole
Manhole Vents
Steel Encasing Pipe By open Cut
(Includes 8" DIP Sewer Pipe)
Sewer Service Stubs
Pump Station
4" Force Main
Pavement Repair
Asphalt Pavement Overlay
Rock Excavation
Erosion Control
Quantity Unit
6900 LF
40 EA
1 EA
3 EA
50 LF
Date: 11 /1 /02
Unit Cost
$35.00
$1, 800.00
$1,500.00
$900.00
$150.00
$500.00
$50,000.00
$14.00
$25.00
$20.00
$150.00
Lump Sum
SUBTOTAL
Construction Contingency @ Approx. 10%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Route Survey
Engineering Design
Construction Administration
Construction Observation
Legal and Administrative
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
35 EA
1 LS
4550 LF
200 LF
250
600 CY
Lump Sum LS
Total Cost
$241,500
$72,000
$1,500
$2,700
$7,500
$17,500
$50,000
$63,700
$5,000
$5,000
$90,000
$15, 000
$571,400
$57,100
$628,500
$22,000
$50,000
$8,000
$30,500
$31,500
$770,500

104
TOWN OF ROSMAN
SEWER PROJECT D
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Description Quantity Unit
8" Gravity Sewer 2300 LF
4' I.D. Concrete Manholes 15 EA
Connect to Existing Manhole 1 EA
Steel Encasing Pipe By open Cut 50 LF
(Includes 8" DIP Sewer Pipe)
Sewer Service Stubs 5 EA
Pavement Repair 100 LF
Asphalt Pavement Overlay 120 SY
Rock Excavation (25%) 80 CY
Erosion Control Lump Sum LS
Date: 11/1/02
Unit Cost
$35.00
$1,800.00
$1,500.00
$150.00
$500.00
$20.00
$25.00
$150.00
Lump Sum
SUBTOTAL
Construction Contingency @ Approx. 10%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Route Survey
Engineering Design
Construction Administration
Construction Observation
Legal and Administrative
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Total Cost
$80,500
$27,000
$1,500
$7,500
$2,500
$2,000
$3,000
$12,000
$4,000
$140,000
$14,000
$154,000
$3,500
$13,000
$4,500
$7,500
$8,500
$191,000

TOWN OF ROSMAN
SEWER PROJECT E - REHABILITATION
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Description
Point Repair
°o' Regrout Manhole
Lining 8" Pipe
Service Repair
Clean & TV
%
rat
rat
FaEl
Date: 11/1/02
Unit Cost
$1,200.00
$100.00
$40.00
$350.00
$3.00
SUBTOTAL
Construction Contingency @ Approx. 10%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering Fee
Construction Administration
Construction Observation
Administrative
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Quantity Unit
7 EA
40 VERT FT
3800 LF
25 EA
3800 LF
Total Cost
$8,400
$4,000
$152,000
$8,750
$11,400
$184,550
$14,000
$198,550
$10,000
$3,000
$5,000
$5,000
$221,550

APPENDIX B
TOWN OF ROSMAN NPDES PERMIT

Permit NC0021946
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA .
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
ao TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1. other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
ego, Town of Rosman
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Rosman WWTP
NCSR 1156
Transylvania County
to receiving waters designated as the French Broad River in the French Broad River
Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective December I, 2000.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on September 30, 2005.
ett
Signed this day October 23, 2000.
phi
(TV177612C--
it T. Stevens, Director ,!
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0021946
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The Town of Rosman is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.09 MGD wastewater treatment facility with the
following components:
• Bar screen
• Dual aeration tanks
• Dual clarifiers
• Chlorine disinfection equipment
• Flow meter
• Aerobic sludge digester with drying beds
This facility is located at the Rosman WWTP on NCSR 1156 in Transylvania
County.
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into the French Broad River, classified C-Trout waters in the French Broad
River Basin.

Latitude: 35°08' 10"
Longitude: 82°49'05"
Quad # G7NE
Stream Class: C-Trout
Subbasin: 40301
Rccciving Strcam: French Broad Rivcr
NC0021946
Town of Rosman
VW TP

Permit NC0021946
O
06.1
mot
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until December 31, 2001, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average _
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Locationl
Flow
0.09 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day (20°C)
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Suspended Residue
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Total Residual Chlorine
0.8 mg/L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Temperature (2C)
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH2
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. Upstream = at least 100 feet upstream from the outfall. Downstream = at least 300 feet downstream from
the outfall.
2. The pl-1 shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS — FINAL
During the period beginning on January 1, 2002 and lasting until expiration. the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall 002. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Locationl
Flow
0.09 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day (20°C)
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Suspended Residue
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
_
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Total Residual Chlorine
28 pglL
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Temperature (2C)
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH2
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. Upstream = at least 100 feet upstream from the outfall. Downstream = at least 300 feet downstream from
the outfall.
2. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Part II
Page 1 of 14
PART II.
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. DEFINITIONS
I. Permit Issuing Authority
The Director of the Division of Water Quality.
2. DEM or "the Division"
Means the Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
3. EMC
Used herein means the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
4. Act or "the Act"
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 USC
1251, et. seq.
5. Mass/Day Measurements
a. The "monthly average discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges sampled
and/or measured during a calendar month on which daily discharges are sampled and
measured, divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such
month. It is therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding the weights of the pollutant found
each day of the month and then dividing this sum by the number of days the tests were
reported. The limitation is identified as "Monthly Average" in Part I of the permit.
b. The "weekly average discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges sampled
and/or measured during the calendar week (Sunday - Saturday) on which daily discharges are
sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured
during such week. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding the weights of
pollutants. found each day of the week and then dividing this sum by the number of days the
tests were reported. This limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" in Part 1 of the permit.
c. The "maximum daily discharge" is the total mass (weight) of a pollutant discharged during a
calendar day. If only one sample is taken during any calendar day the weight of pollutant
calculated from it is the "maximum daily discharge." This limitation is identified as "Daily
Maximum," in Part I of the permit.
d. The "average annual discharge" is defined as the total mass of all daily discharges sampled
and/or measured during the calendar year on which daily discharges are sampled and
measured, divided by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such
year. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding the weights of pollutants found each
day of the year and then dividing this sum by the number of days the tests were reported. This
limitation is defined as "Annual Average" in Part I of the permit.

Part II
Page 2 of 14
6. Concentration Measurement
a . The "average monthly concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of the
concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar month on
which daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided by the number of daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during such month (arithmetic mean of the daily concentration
values). The daily concentration value is equal to the concentration of a composite sample or in
the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value) of all the samples
collected during that calendar day. The average monthly count for fecal coliform bacteria is
the geometric mean of the counts for samples collected during a calendar month. This
limitation is identified as "Monthly Average" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
b. The "average weekly concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of the
concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar week
(Sunday/Saturday) on which daily discharges are sampled and measured divided by the
number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such week (arithmetic mean of the
daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is equal to the concentration of a
composite sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow
value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day. The average weekly count for
fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples collected during a
calendar week. This limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" under "Other Limits" in
Part I of the permit.
c. The "maximum daily concentration" is the concentration of a pollutant discharge during a
calendar day. If only one sample is taken during any calendar day the concentration of
pollutant calculated from it is the "Maximum Daily Concentration". It is identified as "Daily
Maximum" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
d. The "average annual concentration," other than for fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of the
concentrations of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar year on
which daily discharges are sampled and measured divided by the number of daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during such year (arithmetic mean of the daily concentration
values). The daily concentration value is equal to the concentration of a composite sample or in
the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value) of all the samples
collected during that calendar day . The average yearly count for fecal coliform bacteria is the
geometric mean of the counts for samples collected during a calendar year. This limitation is
identified as "Annual Average" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit.
e. The "daily average concentration" (for dissolved oxygen) is the minimum allowable amount of
dissolved oxygen required to be available in the effluent prior to discharge averaged over a
calendar day. If only one dissolved oxygen sample is taken over a calendar day, the sample is
considered to be the "daily average concentration" for the discharge. It is identified as "daily
average" in the text of Part I.
f. The "quarterly average concentration" is 'the average of all samples taken over a calendar
quarter. It is identified as "Quarterly Average Limitation" in the text of Part I of the permit.
g. A calendar quarter is defined as one of the following distinct periods: January through March,
April through June, July through September, and October through December.

Part II
Page 3 of 14
7. Other Measurements
a. Flow, (MGD): The flow limit expressed in this permit is the 24 hours average flow, averaged
monthly. It is determined as the arithmetic mean of the total daily flows recorded during the
calendar month.
b. An "instantaneous flow measurement" is a measure of flow taken at the time of sampling, when
both the sample and flow will be representative of the total discharge.
c. A "continuous flow measurement" is a measure of discharge flow from the facility which occurs
continually without interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility. Flow shall be
monitored continually except for the infrequent times when there may be no flow or for
infrequent maintenance activities on the flow device.
8. Types of Samples
a. Composite Sample: A composite sample shall consist of:
(1) a series of grab samples collected at equal time intervals over a 24 hour period of discharge
and combined proportional to the rate of flow measured at the time of individual sample
collection, or
(2) a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24 hour period with the time
intervals between samples determined by a preset number of gallons passing the sampling
point. Flow measurement between sample intervals shall be determined by use of a flow
recorder and totalizer, and the present gallon interval between sample collection fixed at
no greater than 1/24 of the expected total daily flow at the treatment system, or
(3) a single, continuous sample collected over a 24 hour period proportional to the rate of flow.
In accordance with (1) above, the time interval between influent grab samples shall be no
greater than once per hour, and the time interval between effluent grab samples shall be no
greater than once per hour except at wastewater treatment systems having a detention time of
greater than 24 hours. In such cases, effluent grab samples may be collected at time intervals
evenly spaced over the 24 hour period which are equal in number of hours to the detention time
of the system in number of days. However, in no case may the time interval between effluent
grab samples be greater than six (6) hours nor the number of samples less than four (4) during a
24 hour sampling period.
b. Grab Sample: Grab samples are individual samples collected over a period of time not
exceeding 15 minutes; the grab sample can be taken manually. Grab samples must be
representative of the discharge or the receiving waters.
9. Calculation of Means
a Arithmetic Mean: The arithmetic mean of any set of values is the summation of the individual
values divided by the number of individual values.
b. Geometric Mean: The geometric mean of any set of values is the Nth root of the product of the
individual values where N is equal to the number of individual values. The geometric mean is
equivalent to the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the individual values.
For purposes of calculating the geometric mean, values of zero (0) shall be considered to be one
(1)
c. Weighted by Flow Value: Weighted by flow value means the summation of each concentration
times its respective flow divided by the summation of the respective flows.

Part II
Page 4 of 14
10. Calendar Day
A calendar day is defined as the period from midnight of one day until midnight of the next day.
However, for purposes of this permit, any consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably represents
the calendar day may be used for sampling.
11. Hazardous Substance
A hazardous substance means any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to Section
311 of the Clean Water Act.
12. Toxic Pollutant
A toxic pollutant is any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
SECTION B. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit
termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit renewal application.
a. The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under section
307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage sludge use or
disposal established under section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act within the time provided in
the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions or standards for sewage sludge
use or disposal, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement.
b. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates a permit condition is subject to a
civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation. Any person who negligently
violates any permit condition is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day. of
violation, or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. Any person who knowingly
violates permit conditions is subject to criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of
violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. Also,.any person who violates a
permit condition may be assessed an administrative penalty not to exceed $10,000 per violation
with the maximum amount not to exceed $125,000. [Ref: Section 309 of the Federal Act 33
U.S.C.1319 and 40 CFR 122.41 (a)]
c. Under state law, a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation
may be assessed against any person who violates or fails to act in accordance with the terms,
conditions, or requirements of a permit. [Ref: North Carolina General Statutes § 143-215.6AJ
d. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating
section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act,. or any permit condition or limitation
implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the Act.
Administrative penalties for Class I violations are not to exceed $10,000 per violation, with
the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed $25,000. Penalties for Class
II violations are not to exceed $10,000 per day for each day during which the violation
continues, with the maximum amount of any Class 11 penalty not to exceed $125,000.

Part Li
Page 5 of 14
2. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or
disposal in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting
human health or the environment.
3. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part I1, C-4) and "Power Failures" (Part 11,
C-7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3, 143-215.6 or Section 309 of
the Federal Act, 33 USC 1319. Furthermore, the permittee is responsible for consequential damages,
such as fish kills, evert though the responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily
suspended.
4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve
the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may
be subject to under NCGS 143-215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the Federal Act, 33 USG 1321.
Furthermore, the permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such as fish kills, even
though the responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
5. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property,
or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of
personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations.
6. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or offshore physical
structures or facilities or the undertaking of any work in any navigable waters.
7. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the application
of any provision of this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
•
8. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority, within a reasonable time, any
information which the Permit Issuing Authority may request to determine whether cause exists for
modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit or to determine compliance with this
permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority upon request, copies of
records required to be kept by this permit.
9. Duty to Reapply
If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of
this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit.

Part II
Page 6 of 14
10. Expiration of Permit
The permittee is not authorized to discharge after the expiration date. In order to receive
automatic authorization to discharge beyond the expiration date, the permittee shall submit such
information, forms, and fees as are required by the agency authorized to issue permits no later than
180 days prior to the expiration date. Any permittee that has not requested renewal at least 180
days prior to expiration, or any permittee that does not have a permit after the expiration and has
not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, will subject the permittee to enforcement
procedures as provided in NCGS 143-215.6 and 33 USC 1251 et. seq.
11. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed
and certified.
a . All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(I) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this Section, a
responsible corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer or vice president
of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who
performs similar policy or decision making functions for the corporation, or (b) the manager
of one or more manufacturing production or operating facilities employing more than 250
persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding 25 million (in second quarter
1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager
in accordance with corporate procedures.
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor,
respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official.
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Permit Issuing
Authority shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of
that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
(I) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the
overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant
manager, operator of a well or well field, superintendent, a position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental
matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named
individual or any individual occupying a named position.); and
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority.
c. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall
make the following certification:
"I certify, under penalty of law; that this document and all attachments were prepared under
my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the
person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering
the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties .for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."

Part II
Page 7 of 14
am
12. Permit Actions
yrni This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a request
by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition.
oat 13. Permit Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or Termination
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the permit issuing authority from reopening and
modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by
the laws, rules, and regulations contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122 and
123; Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H .0100; and North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
14. Previous Permits
MN All previous National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits issued to this facility,
whether for operation or discharge, are hereby revoked by issuance of this permit. IThe exclusive
authority to operate this facility arises under this permit. The authority to operate the facility
fak under previously issued permits bearing this number is no longer effective. ) The conditions,
requirements, terms, and provisions -of this permit authorizing discharge under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System govern discharges from this facility.
SECTION C. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
1. Certified Operator
Pursuant to Chapter 90A-44 of North Carolina General Statutes, and upon classification of the
facility by the Certification Commission, the permittee shall employ a certified wastewater
treatment plant operator in responsible charge (ORC) of the wastewater treatment facilities. Such
operator must hold a certification of the grade equivalent to or greater than the classification
assigned to the wastewater treatment facilities by the Certification Commission. The permittee
must also employ a certified back-up operator of the appropriate type and any grade to comply
with the -conditions of Title 15A, Chapter 8A .0202. The ORC of the facility must visit each Class 1
facility at least weekly and each Class II, III, and IV facility at least daily, excluding weekends
and holidays, and must properly manage and document daily operation and maintenance of the
facility and must comply with all other conditions of Title 15A, Chapter 8A .0202. Once the
facility is classified, the permittee shall submit a letter to the Certification Commission which
designates the operator in responsible charge within thirty days after the wastewater treatment
facilities are 50% complete.
Ir
2. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the perrnittee to
achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also
41) includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision
requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a
perrnittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the
permit.

Pan II
Page 8 of 14
I "►
3. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary
to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the condition of this
permit.
4. Bypassing of Treatment Facilities
a. Definitions
(1) "Bypass" means the known diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment
facility including the collection system, which is not a designed or established or operating
mode for the facility.
(2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the.
treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent
loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a
bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in
production.
b. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which- does not cause effluent limitations to be
exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These
bypasses are not subject to the provisions of Paragraphs c. and d. of this section.
c. Notice
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall
submit prior notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass; including an
evaluation of the anticipated quality and affect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as
required in Part II, E. 6. of this permit. (24 hour notice).
d. Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement action against
a permittee for bypass, unless:
(A) Bypass was unavoidable to. prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property
damage;
(B) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment
facilities, retention of untreated wastes or maintenance during normal periods of
equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should
have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass
which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance;
and
(C) The permittee submitted notices as required under Paragraph c. of this section.
(2) The Permit Issuing Authority may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its
adverse affects, if the Permit Issuing Authority determines that it will meet the three
conditions listed above in Paragraph d. (1) of this section.
01,
MEP

Imo
Part II
?age 9 of 14
5. Upsets
a. Definition.
"Upset " means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the
reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent
caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment
facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
b. Effect of an upset.
An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with such
technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph c. of this
condition are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final
administrative action subject to judicial review.
c. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset.
A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate,
through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
(2) The permittee facility was at the time being properly operated; and
(3) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Part II, E. 6. (b) (B) of this permit.
(4) The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part 11, B. 2. of this
permit.
d. Burden of proof.
In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has
the burden of proof.
6. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of
wastewaters shall be utilized/disposed of in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1 and in a manner such
as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of the State or navigable
waters of the United States. The permittee shall comply with all existing federal regulations
governing the disposal of sewage sludge. Upon promulgation of 40 CFR Part 503, any permit issued
by the Permit Issuing Authority for the utilization/disposal of sludge may be reopened and
modified, or revoked and reissued, to incorporate applicable requirements at 40 CFR Part 503. The
permittee shall comply with applicable 40 CFR Part 503 Standards for the Use and Disposal of
Sewage Sludge (when promulgated) within the time provided in the regulation, even if the permit
is not modified to incorporate the requirement. The permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing
Authority of any significant change in its sludge use or disposal practices.
7. Power Failures
The permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards as required by DEM Regulation,
Title 15A, North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H, .0124 Reliability, to prevent the
discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes during electrical power failures either by
means of alternate power sources, standby generators or retention of inadequately treated effluent.

Part II
Page 10 of 14
SECTION D. MONITORING AND RECORDS
1. Representative Sampling
Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be characteristic of the
volume and nature of the permitted discharge. Samples collected at a frequency less than daily
shall be taken on a day and time that is characteristic of the discharge over the entire period
which the sample represents. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points specified in this
permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted by any other
wastestream, body of water, or substance. Monitoring points shall not be changed without
notification to and the approval of the Permit Issuing Authority.
2. Reporting
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and
reported on a monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form (DEM No. MR 1, 1.1, 2, 3) or
alternative forms approved by the Director, DEM, postmarked no later than the 30th day
following the completed reporting period.
The first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in the case
of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge.
Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the
following address:
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
3. Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific practices
shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the volume of
monitored discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained to ensure that the
accuracy of the measurements are consistent with the accepted capability of that type of device.
Devices selected shall be capable of measuring flows with a maximum deviation of less than + 10%
from the true discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge volumes. Once -through
condenser cooling water flow which is monitored by pump logs, or pump hour meters as specified in
Part 1 of this permit and based on the manufacturer's pump curves shall not be subject to this
requirement.
4. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to the EMC regulations published
pursuant to NCGS 143-215.63 et. seq, the Water and Air Quality Reporting Acts, and to regulations
published pursuant to Section 304(g), 33 USC 1314, of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
Amended, and Regulation 40 CFR 136; or in the case of sludge use or disposal, approved under 40
CFR 136, unless otherwise specified in 40 CFR 503, unless other test procedures have been specified
in this permit.
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this permit, all test procedures must produce
minimum detection and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements and all
data generated must, be reported down to the minimum detection or lower reporting level of the
procedure. If no approved methods are determined capable of achieving minimum detection and

Part 1I
Page 11 of 14
411,4
reporting levels below permit discharge requirements, then the most sensitive (method with the
lowest possible detection and reporting level) approved method must be used.
5. Penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders
inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall,
upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for
not more than two years per violation, or by both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation
committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment is a fine of not
more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both.
6. Records Retention
Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the permittee's
sewage sludge use and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period of at least five
years (or longer as required by 40 CFR 503), the permittee shall retain records of all monitoring
information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart
recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit,
for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application.
This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time.
,,,k 7. Recording Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the permittee
shall record the following information:
Ala
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
sat
8. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the Director; or an authorized representative (including an authorized
contractor acting as a representative of the Director), upon the presentation of credentials and other
documents as may be required by law, to;
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or
conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
"N b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions
of this permit; •
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control
equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as
otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at any location.
ilia

Part II
Page 12 of 14
rig
SECTION E. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Change in Discharge
AlI discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit.
The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a level in excess
of that authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit.
2. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned physical
alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
a . The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for determining
whether a facility is a new source in 40 CFR Part 122.29 (b); or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of
pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification requirements under 40 CFR Part 122.42 (a)
(1).
c. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee's sludge use or
disposal practices, and such alternation, addition or change may justify the application of
permit conditions that are different from or absent in the existing permit, including notification
of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the permit application process or not
reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.
3. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
4. Transfers
This permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to the Director. The Director may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permittee and incorporate such other
.requirements as may be necessary under the Clean Water Act.
5. Monitoring Reports
Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this permit.
a . Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) (See Part 11. D. 2
of this permit) or forms provided by the Director for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use
or disposal practices..
b. If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by the permit, using test
procedures specified in Part II, D. 4. of this permit or in the case of sludge use or disposal,
approved under 40 CFR 503, or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring shall be
included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the DMR.
c. Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an
arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the Director in the permit.
r
rat
P+

Part II
Page 13 of 14
6. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
a . The permittee shall report to the central office or the appropriate regional office any
noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall be
provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the
permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain a
description of the noncompliance, and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact
dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is
expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence
of the noncompliance.
b. The following shall be included as information which must be reported within 24 hours under
this paragraph:
(1) Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
(2) Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
(3) Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by the
Director in the permit to be reported within 24 hours.
c. The Director may waive the written report on a case -by -case basis for reports under paragraph
b. above of this condition if the oral report has been received within 24 hours.
7. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Part II. E. 5 and 6. of
this permit at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information
listed in Part II. E. 6. of this permit.
8. Other Information
Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit
application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the
Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
9. Noncompliance Notification
The permittee shall report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate regional
office of the Division as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next working
day following the occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence'of any of the following:
a. Any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge of
significant amounts of wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as the
dumping of the contents of a sludge digester; the known passage of a slug of hazardous substance
through the facility; or any other unusual circumstances.
b. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility incapable of
adequate wastewater treatment such as mechanical or electrical failures of pumps, aerators,
compressors, etc.
c. Any failure of a pumping station, sewer line, or treatment facility resulting in a by-pass
directly to receiving waters without treatment of all or any portion of the influent to such
station or facility.

Part II
Page 14 of 14
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report in letter form within
5 days following first knowledge of the occurrence.
10. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-2I5.3(a)(2) or Section 308 of the
Federal Act, 33 USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms shall be available for
public inspection at the offices of the Division of Water Quality. As required by the Act, effluent
data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on any such
report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in NCGS 143-215.1(b)(2) or
in Section 309 of the Federal Act.
11. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any record or other .document submitted or required to be
maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or
noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation,
or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
r0+
Pogl

PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. Construction
No construction of wastewater treatment facilities or additions to add to the plant's treatment
capacity or to change the type of process utilized at the treatment plant shall be begun until Final
Plans and Specifications have been submitted to the Division of Water Quality and written approval
and Authorization to Construct has been issued.
B. Groundwater Monitoring
The permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director of the Division of Water Quality, conduct
groundwater monitoring as may be required to determine the compliance of this NPDES permitted
facility with the current groundwater standards.
C. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
The permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority as soon as it knows or has reason to believe:
a.That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or
frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not Limited in the permit, if that discharge will
exceed the highest of the following "notification levels";
(l) One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/l);
(2)Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ug/1) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred
micrograms per liter (500 ug/1) for 2.4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4.6-dinitrophenol; and
one milligram per liter (1 mg/1) for antimony;
(3) Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit
application.
b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non -routine
or infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will
exceed the highest of the following "notification levels";
(1) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/1);
(2) One milligram per liter (1 mg/1) for antimony;
(3) Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit
application.
D. Requirement to Continually Evaluate Alternatives to Wastewater Discharges
The permittee shall continually evaluate all wastewater disposal alternatives and pursue the most
environmentally sound alternative of the reasonably cost effective alternatives. If the facility is in
substantial non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES permit or governing rules,
regulations or laws, the permittee shall submit a report in such form and detail as required by the
Division evaluating these alternatives and a plan of action within sixty (60) days of notification by the
Division.

INNU
.:.•
•
i rvy �v
• ,�. � ' �w.:.r.i.:t�y�1t. ivy •,1.'.. cr -r.,
•
A. The permittee must pay the annual administering and compliance monitoring fee
within 30 (thirty.).. days after being.billed by :the Division.. Failure to pay the fee in
a.tint0y-trpner. :m :accordance witl .15A34CAC 2H..O105(b)(4) may cause this
POision:to i it a e' a on to -revoke the:permit.
•

APPENDIX C
TOWN OF ROSMAN
JANUARY 1999 WATER & SEWER BILLING REPORT

7 J 1 TT f- r ./� V� �" Y�S u .iu.+'•i�,4 Lit 7 to r , .r- J 4.-0" 1 ,
GO.KM'cre crxe/F' B c- Gc.( 57-0 MEY7 -=Z O ES, S'
: 81121j99 - Cot1M:R4. S latipUA- ER 8,2836 CALCULATION REPORT�,,ft�Z S-AL, PAGE: 1
o
8 001:1 i A2 - , '
• L �. --31, . 16 ca6.2Es. w A- i r 2 3 et AOC w 4 S.= * 32 .lk
evious Current Usage Current Previous Adjustmnt Penalties Payments UATEA SEDER GARBAGE RISC.
Reading Reading Calance 8a13nce Charges Charges Charges Charges
mai
,335 HORACE JARRETT
33226 101561 3341 24.35 1.50 6.16 0.81 1.00 11.85 0.11 13.51 1.11
.1110 HAROLD O'SHIEIOS
"4 119270 123341 3110 25.43 0.10 8.00 0.08 0.83 11.93 1.13 13.51 1.14
1314 OCYA SMITH
49769 51610 1320 38.51 0.00 8.01 6.03 8.18 11.06 15.11 13.51 1.10
• 3315 COY SHELTON
195168 200456 4298 45.25 1.19 1.30 0.88 6.66 13.23 19.52 13.51 1.11
•1120 DOROTHY SMITH
„a. 38118 39210 1161 38.58 6.00 0.10 6.08 8.16 10.16 15.11 13.50 1.11
1825 TOM PRICE
963210 912440 9230 133.55 72.66 1.13 0.06 0.16 25.58 36.81 13.51 35.11
-8131 RUTH BOWEN
588620 529331 1263 38.51 6.00 0.30 0.11 6.61 11.68 15.11 13.51 8.84
J334 RITA ANGERS
89450 91741 2290 38.51 8.10 6.01 6.68 1.61 11.11 15.01 13.58 1.11
"1 335 J.8. HOLOEH
449561 452021 2520 33.50 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.10 11.01 15.11 13.51 1.11
-0345 BILL HALL
ow 633840 635851 2110 38.50 1.41 0.06 0.00 6.03 11.61 15.11 13.56 1.61
3150 RONNIE HALL
339550 839691 41 77.00 38.51 0.00 1.61 8.11 11.10 15.11 13.51 1.11
• 8060 JIA MCGAHA
230708 292530 2336 38.59 6.00 6.00 1.01 4.11 11.01 15.11 13.51 1.11
936S JACK WHITAIRE
813450 811286 3333 43.49 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.81 12.13 11.91 13.51 1.11
1116170 DAVIO JARRETT
1364690 1881881 15190 42.33 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.11 42.98 1.1'0 6.14 1.11
-3015 SHERRY CROWE
101133310 1636131 3360 10.90 8.83. 1.01 6.10 1.01 11.91 1.11 1.08 1.11
8180 JOANN WHITMIRE
84321 87331 3013 38.57 0.11 0.10 1.00 0.01 11.03 15.14 13.51 1.11
4E10181 BETH RACKLEY
119350 121151 2401 33.58 8.11 1.16 1.01 1.11 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
-8085 MARYJ. RAINES
• 243988 245981 2011 33.50 1.01 0.11 1.10 1.11 11.16 15.11 13.51 1.11
1111 BARBARA RIGSBY
948361 955211 6941 61.54 1.93 4.00 6.01 6.01 19.66 28.41 13.53 1.11
40106 OTIS WHITAIRE
105590 135111 181 38.53 0.03 1.01 6.01 1.01 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
0-3115 HASKEL LUKER
�•i
201030 201006 0 38.50 0.10 0.11 1.13 1.11 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
-1186 MICHAEL IGILIS
16390 82921 6531 122.12 62.34 1.83 6.01 1.10 18.83 27.35 13.51 1.11
3-1115 LYNCH WHITMIRE, JR.
39121 41116 2491 38.51 6.61 3.33 8.13 6.01 11.11 15.13 13.51 1.11
-3123 JI!I!IY LANCE
1531230 1111311 76683 416.98 1.13 1.03 1.41 1.11 192.13 213.78 ' 13.51 3.11
0-0125 EUGEHE ORR
11946 15311 4433 41.03 3.30 0.03 1.13 3.11 13.53 23.11 13.51 1.11
1-8140 MIKE PRESSLEY 1.11
• 535151 539141 3291 63.53 0.11 0.93 3.93 0.11 21.11 31.11 13.51
-31:3 BRENDA OVERTON
1P .333 139381 1353 33.53 3.13 3.13 0.13 1.33 13.11 15.11 13.51 1.11

is 11127109
DATER BILLING CALCULATION REPORT
B00K:11
ravious Current Usage Current Previous Adjustant Penalties Payments UATER SEDER 6ARBA6E RISC.
Reading Reading Balance Balance Charges Charges Charges Charges
PAGE: 2
3155 EARL MASTERS
135120 133561 1343 33.51 1.11 0.10 3.00 8.33 11.10 15.01 13.51 1.11
3155 ROSMAN PRODUCE
5113 5810 110 44.51 1.10 1.01 .1.03 1.11 11.10 15.11 19.51 1.11
816a OLIVIA BAKER
193551 193688 41 38.53 5.03 0.50 0.85 1.38 11.10 15.10 13.51 1.11
•8165 OAVID IARORA
136940 137190 251 38.51 0.10 1.00 1.10 •9.01 11.11 15.01 13.51 1.11
-5170 CHARLES LANCE
373210 382741 . 4531 47.69 1.10 1.10 1.01 1.11 13.83 21.36 13.51 1.11
-1175 CHESTER LEWIS
67919 16986 9010 74.93 1.11 1.10 1.81 1.11 25.18 36.25 13.51 1.11
-1180 ROLAND WHITMIRE
54461 59161 476i 43.71 1.90 1.11 1.01 1.00 14.25 21.95 13.50 1.11
-0135 GOROGN RUTLEDGE
389138 393610 4491 41.4E 1.90 1.00 1.81 1.11 13.73 21.22 13.59 1.11
-3255 ANNIE RASTERS
136561 138870 2319 38.51 1.10 9.10 1.10 1.13 11.19 15.01 13.51 1.11
-1210 LLOYO BRYSON
734650 141580 5930 56.99 0.11 0.00 1.01 0.88 17.33 25.26 13.51 1.11
-0215 MORRIS JARRETT
262831 266230 3410 24.50 1.00 0.01 1.03 1.13 11.13 1.11 13.51 1.11
-0225- SESSIE GALLOWAY
1259520 1267141 7520 21.30 0.11 0.93 0.00 1.81 21.30 1.01 1.81 1.11
-0230 DENISE BOIEY
1281541 1286921 5380 15.95 0.91 1.09 1.85 0.30 15.95' 1.11 1.91 1.11
-0235 LOLAN EUBANXS
1138108 1015790 7190 31.10 0.01 0.11 3.01 5.00 31.11 1.18 1.11 1.11
-1248 TIM BALTEIORE
1145939 1156231 11311 11.75 9.90 1.01 . 3.00 1.11 28.25 1.91 13.55 1.11
'-1245 TERESA CURTO
218300 211961 3661 ' 25.15 0.11 0.00 1.10 0.00 11.65 0.11 13.51 1.11
1-0250 STEVE HOLLINGSUORTH
262590 265121 2430 23.58 1.01 0.11 1.11 1.10 11.11 1.11 13.51 1.11
1-1255 MARY HEATH
545151 549821 4611 48.53 0.01 1.11 1.11 1.11 14.18 21.85 13.51 1.11
1-9256 PANSY EUBANXS
171471 115551 5931 53.93 0.03 1.11 0.30 1.11 15.21 22.28 13.51 1.01
1-1261 DANNY EUBANXS
719348 724211 4311 49.73 0.03 0.01 1.11 1.11 14.68 21.55 13.51 1.11
3-0261 JOHN A. WELBORN
381198 383581 3491 41.45 0.01 1.11 0.11 1.03 11.23 15.12 13.50 1.11
1-1265 ROSA HOLDEN
691392 694143 3153 24.67 -1.71 8.11 0.03 3.11 11.88 1.11 13.51 1.11
1-1271 PHIIIIP OVEN
791351 195711 4351 46.61 0.03 1.11 1.11 1.33 13.38 19.13 13.51 1.11
3-1275 OOROTHY U. OUEN
1735145 1142181 7141 63.34 0.03 1.83 1.33 1.11 23.35 29.49 13.51 1.11
3-1276 ELIIABETH 41HITMIRE
91791 93921 1131 38.53 0.01 1.11 8.1i 1.31 11.11 15.13 13.51 1.11
1-1283 JUNIOR CHAPPELL
154711 166421 1653 38.51 1.03 1.31 1.91 1.11 11.91 15.11 13.51 1•11
1-0235 CLARENCE BRO'UN
, » » > >',, » >?i-0 :a i= ; 41 4 11 1.11 4.41 11.94 :i.Z5 1.3.54
�.da
r

: 01/N/39
aim
UATER BILLING CALCULATION REPORT
BOOK:10
e•:ious Current Usage Cu:ren: ?re:ious Adjustmat Penalties Payments DATER SEDER GARBAGE MISC.
.ding Reading Balance Balance Charges Charges Charges Charges
PAGE: 3
,3S ANNETTE BAYNARD
24551 25641 1110 33.51 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10 11.11 15.11 13.51 0.11
" 6 SHIRLEY OELCUETO 001AN
34293 387124 2830 13.50 0.01 1.11 9.00 1.60 16.01 15.11 13.51 35.11
1291 JE` NI; ER HO'WARO
a411053 375901 4351 88.71 4.13 0.10 0.61 6.11 14.53 21.48 13.50 35.10
93 AICHAEI OUEN
115913 115311 9330 15.43 0.00 1.01 1.00 6.00 25.83 31.16 13.51 0.16
99 LEWIS AYER;,
9653. 12831 3230 39.83 1.10 1.00 0.61 1.10 11.58 15.81 13.51 1.11
..31 DORIS ROGERS
1 1 0 38.51 1.02 0.11 1.00 1.00 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
111411 CARIOS PANGIE
58050 53050 0 38.51 1.54 0.11 0.01 1.08 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
1315 ERIC OVEN
'095063 999411 4350 46.51 1.10 6.00 1.50 1.00 13.38 19.73 13.51 0.11
20 L.C. HALL cJo LARDY HALL
217710 218651 940 33.50 0.10 0.11 0.00 1.10 11.11 15.01 13.51 1.11
Ain JARRETTS
37400 1492261 4861 55.66 1.03 0.01 6.61 1.00 14.65 21.51 19.51 1.11
6:30 SUSAY S ROBERT PHIIIPPON
4.197280 206521 3240 39.94 0.31 0.60 0.33 0.00 11.61 15.84 13.51 1.16
35 - UIl1IA;1 J. CATHEY, III
0 0 0 115.35 42.35 0.00 1.00 1.66 10.11 15.11 13.51 35.01
a34; U. J. CATHEY, JR.
004 0 1 0 0.03 -38.50 5.03 0.01 1.10 11.00 15.01 13.51 1.01
142 ROSM A CAR DASH
821376 855401 34630 230.69 1.10 1.90 0.06 1.00 87.58 123.61 19.50 1.11
N4444 J.C. CHAPAAN
35193 33343 2556 33.50 1.00 1.16 0.50 6.10 10.08 15.11 13.51 1.10
1355 ROSMAY CHILD CARE
4432620 989431 6315 67.36 0.01 0.10 1.01 1.16 19.52 28.34 19.51 0.11
166 ARTHUR OISNMAN
0 1 0 38.50 1.03 1.61 5.11 1.10 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
1365 ARTHUR OISHAAN
gm
0 1 0 54.50 1.11 1.10 1.00 1.00 11.11 25.11 19.51 1.11
.313 MARIE CAAERON
a 0 0 33.53 1.01 6.01 1.60 1.60 13.10 15.11 13.51 1.11
0.*375 ROSMAN BARBER SHOP
3 0 1 54.53 1.00 1.10 0.11 1.51 11.11 25.11 19.51 1.11
•3385 A.P. BELL
00131181 131411 331 38.51 '0.00 0.13 5.11 1.11 11.01 15.11 13.51 1.11
390 OIA REIO
91390 92151 760 38.51 1.00 1.10 6.01 1.11 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
4395 A TOUCH OF GLAIOUR
635670 642053 5380 53.78 1.31 1.11 1.11 1.01 15.95 23.33 19.51 1.11
-d395 BERLIS OVEN
31111 31110 0 33.51 0.03 1.91 0.06 0.61 11.11 15.01 13.51 1.11
Alli
430 POUEILS PAIN 6 800Y S,{0?
53150 53393 641 44.53 1.01 3.00 0.33 1.11 11.11 15.11 19.53 1.11
-3415 J.8. UOOORIYG
001434913 441134 512a 51.21 1.63 1.01 1.13 1.11 15.31 22.42 13.53 1.11
.113 UAL!ACE ACCALL
0.31 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
c.:»> Cl 1e :a A Al
22 3.6i

E: 0:J21199 VATER BILLING CALCULATION REPORT
BOOK:19
PAGE: 4
;evi:us Current Usage Current Previous Adjustmnt Penalties Payments WATER SEVER GARBAGE RISC.
Reading Reading
3415
156313
1123
824541
142S
1023190
B:26
133431
3433
666100
8135
511199
3448
3033570
1445
251430
300
35230
1155
234350
3461
248351
8461
166810
1455
13450
3111
913611
0415
598820
1101
332830
3435
410913
0490
346410
0495
38453
8544i
173768
8515
59233
GALIOUAYS AUTO
161329
IOUEE MCCALL
328170
WALLACE MCCAII
1121131
ROBERT PARKER
181030
BRIAN NAHONEY
663133
JOHNNY RAINES
511430
BECKYS
3863731
PAT BUNCH
261161 3631
GERAIO GAIIOWAY
33941 3710
LEWIS WAIOROP
296650 1190
MARY E. NICHOLSO
251191
BILL CRAIG
170990
MARIE MERE
74521 1010
DONAl0 LITTLETON
954351 5241
MARJORIE LITTLETON
• 509110 890
JOHN C. JONES
333651
RAY JONES
415600
TOM .MAHONEY
351581
RHONDA GUHTER
42131 3680
JARRETTS HARDWARE 6
174378 1119
A CHILD'S PLACE
61611 1310
PARTS
5510
4330
4591
3689
1931
9390
31160
2841
4191
821
4691
4110
0IL
3a1ance Balance
Charges Charges Charges Charges
56.56 9.18 1.13 0.80 9.89 15.12 22.14 19.50 1.11
46.43 0.30 0.33 0.09 0.00 13.33 19.66 13.51 1.66
43.55 0.39 3.00 1.01 8.81 11.23 21.92 13.51 1.91
42.13 0.00 0.00 8.11 8.88 11.51 11.11 13.50 1.13
33.51 9.10 0.01 0.01 9.90 11.11 15.19 13.53 0.11
16.14 -1.10 1.11 8.81 0.10 25.98 37.36 13.51 9.13
262.96 -35.0i 1.10 1.11 1.19 81.41 114.56 33.01 71.11
42.28 9.80 1.10 0.01 1.11 11.58 17.26 13.51 1.11
42.17 3.00 0.30 0.10 1.11 11.78 17.49 13.51 1.11
33.50 5.01 1.01 1.08 0.10 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
33.51 1.01 0.90 0.19 8.11 11.31 15.11 - 13.51 1.11
45.65 0.01 8.03 9.91 0.33 12.98 19.11 13.51 1.11
33.50 3.00 1.00 9.09 1.01 11.11 15.01 13.51 1.13
51.94 0.01 1.11 0.00 0.11 15.60 22.84 13.5i 1.11
38.51 1.18 1.80 1.80 0.11 11.11 15.01 13.50 0.01
38.51 1.01 1.00 1.13 0.01 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.31
13.65 1.10 0.81 0.11 1.10 14.23 21.92 13.50 1.11
45.11 1.01 0.10 1.11 1.11 12.78 18.89 13.51 1.11
42.58 1.01 0.08 1.01 8.01 11.71 17.38 13.58 1.11
41.51 1.11 0.81 0.80 1.01 11.11 15.11 19.50 1.11
44.53 1.01 9.03 6.11 3.11 11.13 15.11 19.51 1.11
" 900K TOTALS FOR 102 CUSTOMERS
44291110 468510 5556.81 145.64 0.01 0.31 1.11 1665.69 2141.54 1395.01 211.11
r
r
r
r

1:: 11/Z7111
aft
DATER BILLING CALCJLATION REPORT
80OX:29
irevious Current Usage Currant Previols Adjustant Penalties Payments WATER SEWER GARBAGE XI3C.
Reading Reading 8slance Balance Charges Charges Charges Charges
PAGE: 5
1432 ROSMAN BAPTIST TABERNACLE
0 0 0 13.50 0.13 1.13 0.33 3.00 1.11 0.11 13.51 1.16
001115 SPEEOWASH LAUNDRY
0 0 1 92.01 0.03 0.00 0.11 1.01 11.11 62.51 19.51 1.11
1-3111 ARTY NE1SC3
Ai 233550 235130 1530 38.53 0.00 1.10 3.33 1.11 11.01 15.11 13.51 1.11
1021 LA'IERNE H06SED
534:8 61111 2101 33.50 6.11 0.01 3.03 1.10 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.13
1-3325 U.S. POST OFFICE
po
748633 751211 1520 38.50 0.11 0.00 1.33 0.01 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.10
1031 TWINY GENE CLAYTON
49550 50370 1321 23.53 3.30 1.10 6.01 1.61 11.11 1.11 13.51 1.11
1140 JOE WOODRING
259338 264310 4988 51.38 0.01 0.00 0.81 1.11 14.95 21.93 13.51 1.16
-3145 TONNY WHITMAN
ri► 0 1 1 33.50 1.01 1.00 0.31 0.11 11.10 15.11 13.51 1.13
5359 JO BAKER
567190 510371 3780 43.13 0.00 1.16 1.33 1.01 11.95 17.73 13.51 1.10
43118 THEI8A PATTERSON
0 1 0 38.50 0.00 0.10 8.03 1.01 11.11 15.11 13.50 1.11
. 1075 WILLIAM OWEN
10351 12621 2271 115.35 42.35 0.10 1.63 1.11 11.11 15.11 13.51 35.11
11%131 JAMES C. J0Nt3
342310 952411 9540 221.34 138.60 0.00 5.11 1.03 26.35 37.89 13.50 35.11
0-1035 KAREN PRESSLEY
" 395920 401030 4160 45.46 8.13 0.00 0.01 1.00 12.91 19.06 13.51 1.10
.0095 OPLEE BARTON
91970 94231 2260 38.50 1.83 1.10 1.81 4.11 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
z143133 IOUISE BARTON
31331 40250 2920 38.51 0.00 1.10 6.11 1.01 11.11 15.10 13.SO 1.01
a-1195 MAUOINE 0RR
211413 214631 4220 45.32 6.11 1.10 .0.01 1.01 13.15 19.27 13.50 1.11
oui
1111 WANOA PHILLIPS
211130 221241 3541 41.14 6.13 1.10 0.11 1.11 11.3S 16.89 13.51 1.11
8 1115 WESLEY ROYAL
9990 11620 1630 33.53 0.13 1.19 1.03 1.14 11.11 15.10 13.51 1.14
•1121 TRANSYLVANIA CNTY SCHOOLS
1551403 1561211 201 10.01 6.00
"*-0125 AHOY NULL
13353 13860 1 33.50 0.11 1.31 0.00 1.18 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
3-1130 APRII STORRS
- 451171 452780 1611 33.50 0.13 6.10 1.00 6.13 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
-1135 LILA MAE STANLEY
38284i 385391 2553 38.5i 0.13 9.11 1.1i 5.10 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.41
4-1110 °JAMNIA NELSON
365911 371900 5301 51.51 0.11 0.03 0.13 3.13 15.11 22.11 13.53 1.11
,-3145 21ON BAPTIST CHURCH
342133 351120 8341 31.54 0.03 1.11 3.11 1.31 21.11 39.94 13.53 1•i1
..-1i53 PAUIS QUICK SERVICE
435330 487890 1051 4.1.53 0.03 3.03 3.13 3.33 11.11 15.10 19.51 1.11
3-1155 CITIZENS TELEPHONE CO.
'"" 113192 171420 641 33.51 1.13 0.01 3.11 1.10 11.11 :5.11 13.51 1.11
-3151 JANES RAY BEGLEY
-1111 :,,,•3 C131 c: ec 2 12 0 Al 3.21 3.44 11.43 25.41 1331 3.31
0.00 0.11 1.11 11.11 1.10 1.11 1.01

rat
;E: 01127113
'.IATE2 CEILING CALCULATION REPORT PAGE: 6
BOOK:21
'revin.;s Cur;ent Usage turret Previous Adju;tmnt Pm:Ries ties Payments WATER SEWER GARBAGE RISC.
Salantz Balance Charges Charges Charges Charges
Reading Reading
3167 JOHN W. ARNOLD, JR.
213293 911350 1961 33.54 0.00 9.83 6.01 0.10 11.96 15.10 13.53 1.11
-0163 Bill GILES
123301 125163 4750 49.65 0.01 0.02 0.03 9.11 14.41 21.16 13.51 1.11
-1175 PHIL OWEN
137261 113938 6123 31.33 0.03 0.00 1.01 1.00 11.85 1.11 13.51 6.11
-0130 TED LOWE
515110 519750 4640 43.34 0.00 6.90 1.91 6.11 14.19 21.14 13.59 1.11
0135 LLOYO PATTERSON, JR.
26529 21891 1379 6.08 -33.50 3.01 1.61 9.11 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
-6195 J.C. GALLOWAY
239926 284470 3551 41.31 0.38 0.00 1.13 1.03 11.38 16.93 13.51 1.11
-0200 LOIS K. ZEIGLER
233556 235249 1593 3E.53 1.33 1.10 6.09 1.01 11.16 15.11 13.50 1.11
-1205 ROGER PETIT
331633 349391 12266 34.06 1.03 1.93 1.18 9.19 33.15 41.41 13.51 1.11
-1210 JEFFREY MCCALL
83113 281890 1690 33.53 0.13 8.09 0.00 0.13 19.11 15.10 13.59 1.11
-1215 KATHY HOOPER
235233 337860 2639 33.50 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 11.53 15.10 13.51 0.11
-5229 ROBERT GREEN
496533 494650 4911 44.93 0.90 8.59 0.09 1.11 12.68 18.15 13.53 1.11
-0225_ ROSMAN METHODIST CHJPCH
404033 434190 191 25.02 9.30 1.03 6.00 0.01 11.91 15.01 1.10 1.11
•0139 METHODIST PARSONAGE
323613 336113 7490 75.45 6.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 21.23 31.72 13.58 11.11
-023S JAKE MATHIS
232193 235416 3220 24.95 1.00 0.90 1.01 1.00 10.55 1.01 13.51 1.01
-0240 FLOYO GALLOWAY
1324250 1326839 2589 38.50 1.16 9.03 1.61 1.61 • 11.11 15.11 13.59 1.11
-0245 KIN SHIPMAN
0 0 0 .31.12 14.22 0.96 0.00 1.01 19.11 1.11 13.51 1.11
-1250 DOUG WHITMIRE
13270 19361 1136 3E.59 1.00 0.11 1.91 1.11 10.11 15.11 13.50 1.11
-1251 HOWARO WHITMIRE
37340 39326 1481 38.50 1.11 1.10 1.18 1.01 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
-1252 LEROY OSTEEN
33210 35341 2133 33.51 6.01 0.10 1.03 1.10 11.11 15.10 13.51 1.61
-3255 AMY LENOIR
61383 61611 6220 57.32 0.1i 9.01 1.01 1.11 18.15 26.27 13.51 1.11
-1263 JENNIFER SHERIDAN
321931 324130 3200 39.71 1.11 9.01 1.01 9.11 11.59 15.1i 13.51 1.11
-1266 ANANOA EDWARDS
134263 136640 2336 33.51 0.00 0.13 6.01 1.16 13.18 15.11 13.51 1.10
-1267 JOHN R08ERT OAKLEAF
195431 198519 3170 116.33 42.35 9.13 6.01 1.11 11.43 15.61 13.51 35.11 -
-3213 DONNA RICE
979351 93312i 3333 43.19 1.01 3.01 1.01 1.01 12.09 17.91 13.5i 1.11
-1275 RO8ERT WEATHERSTO.N
89331 95341 631i 55.56 1.01 0.33 1.01 1.11 11.52 25.51 13.5i 1.11
-0233 CINOY KISER
263153 210253 7201 63.70 1.01 1.03 1.11 1.01 21.51 29.11 13.5i 1.11
-123S LEONA NCCALL
S3Si 1 513391 353i 42.23 9.30 9.93 1.31 3.33 11.58 1!.21 13.51 i.33
fool

01j27/99
WATER BALING CALCULATION REPORT
800K:28
eI pus Current 'Usage :urrent Pre:isus Adjustmnt Penalties Payments WATE1 SEWER GARBAGE MISC.
Reading Reading
Balance Balance Charges Charges Charges Charges
PAGE: 1
:91 JOSEPH RODGERS
374910 316120 1110 38.51 8.03 0.03 0.01 8.03 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
i;i293 ROBERT H. GALLOWAY
121116 122300 1130 38.50 0.30 0.30 1.03 0.33 11.10 15.00 13.51 1.11
495 EARL BECK
416520 410311 3/90 43.15 8.01 0.33 0.13 0.61 11.98 17.71 13.51 1.11
4611231 SU3A; ARNOLO
82530 92043 9163 17.26 0.00 0.13 1.00 8.00 26.1S 31.61 13.51 1.11
-3335 TRISH REYNOLDS
mmi354473 311511 7111 63.16 0.00 6.83 1.61 1.10 21.25 29.35 13.51 1.11
0:5 PE0a3 ROSAS
5637730 574253 5526 53.52 1.10 1.01 0.00 0.10 16.31 23.82 13.50 1.11
41325 JUIIE CLANTON
174368 115611 150 33.53 0.01 0.80 1.03 0.10 10.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
-d330 LINOA GALLOWAY
403590 435980 5216 51.77 0.00 8.00 1.18 0.01 15.53 22.74 13.53 1.11
141335 CLAY DANIEI GALLOWAY
453833 465620 1920 115.85 42.35 0.01 6.10 6.30 19.60 15.01 13.51 35.10
-1343 U NUEL RAAIREI-CA3TUNEOA
"4 437981 531553 3573 42.53 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.03 11.68 17.35 13.51 1.11
1345 STEPHANIE BZ OTHERTCN
139790 201421 1630 80.35 42.35 0.00 0.13 8.00 11.08 15.01 13.51 1.10
r.8345_ BEAR NUBILE HONE PARK
0 1 0 0.00 1.10 8.91 0.08 6.11 1.01 1.11 0.11 1.11
-0353 NELISSA G00LOVE
,.M 73360 81050 1.690 66.55 6.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 21.73 31.42 13.50 1.11
- 1353 LARRY CHAPAAN
553311 562353 4353 44.31 0.01 0.33 .9.18 0.11 12.63 18.68 13.53 1.11
-0355 ROSMAN AUTO SERVICE
14262698 263940 351 44.50 0.00 0.00 8.13 - 1.11 11.11 15.11 19.51 1.11
4371 ODELL PHIIIIPS
25121 28561 1941 .38.50 . 1..01 0.01 0.11 1.11 11.11 15.10 13.51 1.11
"11333 TRANSYLVANIA CNTY SCHOOLS
911303 917101 10411 69.40 0.10 5.00 1.11 1.10 28.51 41.91 1.11 1.11
-0335 TRANSYLVANIA CNTY SCHOOLS
044636538 21746161 103601 621.61 1.13 1.18 1.11 1.11 261.50 361.11 1.11 1.11
1387 TRANSYLVANIA CNTY SCHOOLS
5126283 5119638 93411 586.91 1.11 0.83 0.01 1.10 236.10 331.41 19.51 1.11
,,;,0391 CONRAO PO'WELL
0 0 8 23.50 0.01 1.81 1.81 1.11 11.11 0.11 13.51 1.11
-3335 OONALO NALLWITZ
•••s1153640 1059693 5351 31.13 0.00 1.13 1.01 1.11 17.63 1.11 13.51 1.11
0413 OOHA KING HARRINGTON
1552610 1658491 5889 30.11 0.01 8.03 1.01 1.18 11.21 1.11 13.51 1.11
-1411 TRANSYLVANIA CNTY SCHOOLS
25110 26713 1 11.01 8.31 1.03 0.33 3.11 11.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
141S GRACE STU38LEFIELO
251331 252111 193 23.5i 1.81 1.01 0.31 3.31 11.11 1.11 13.53 1.03
104111 RONNIE WA,aREN
3 1 1 23.53 1.11 1.10 0.03 1.11 11.13 1.11 13.51 1.11
-141S OARLA SLONECKER
,,,,, 139191 235111 6221 31.55 0.33 6.11 1.01 1.33 18.15 1.11 13.51 1.01
1121 CHUa PETTIT
:::.J:4 E'_',) 1 23 11.33 1.13 3.13 1.03 1.11 :1.3a 1.31 13.51 1.11

3
: 01/21139 DATER BILLING CALCULATION REPORT
800K:20
svious Current Usage Curre.t Previous Adjustnnt Penalties Payments WATER SEWER SARBAGE XISC.
:eading Reading Balance Balance Charges Charges Charges Charges
PAGE: 8 "
)126 JERRY IHYE
570360 513136 7273 63.12 0.10 0.03 8.88 8.18 21.61 29.35 13.51 1.11
)431 JCHNN'I ROGER:
66110 61560 853 33.53 0.03 8.01 0.05 1.50 11.1i 15.11 13.51 1.81
3:35 8I11 ;,ALLOWAY
1332800 1335610 3312 43.31 0.80 3.33 0.30 0.08 12.13 11.84 13.53 3.18
0335 E00IE H'JEY
0 0 1 33.S3 0.03 0.03 0.88 0.10 10.11 15.11 13.58 1.11
0440 BILLY GALLOWAY
543638 549088 5150 53.21 1.01 5.00 5.10 1.80 16.13 23.58 13.50 1.11
3145 THELMA STEWART
323953 825121 1770 3E.50 0.00 1.18 5.00 1.18 11.11 .15.15 13.50 1.81
1150 BRIAN CI031:
58880 56450 5570 53.92 5.53 0.00 0.51 1.05 16.13 23.99 13.51 1.88
0451 ROSMAN MINI WAREHOUSES
0 0 0 0.85 1.10 0.18 1.81 1.58 5.11 1.15 1.85 1.11
8452 WHITE SQUIRREL CARPET Ci.
8 8 8 0.80 0.01 8.80 8.81 5.55 1.11 8.10 1.11 1.81
-a460 SHEILA SHOCKLEY
400730 434310 4030 ;4.53 0.00 1.55 8.18 0.81 12.58 18.61 - 13.51 1.81
-1455 RAY TAYLOR
514743 535630 890 33.51 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 15.51 15.00 13.50 5.01
-1469_ GALLOWAY': GARAGE
0 0 1 33.59 0.33 0.00 0.03 1.00 11.38 15.10 13.50 1.11
-0410 GALLOWAY'S GARAGE
655340 668390 9558 41.81 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.88 11.38 16.93 19.55 1.10
-0471 KIMBERLY WARD .
443420 448420 1 38.53 0.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 11.11 15.11 13.50 1.11
-1413 DONALD SMITH
96130 96135 1 38.50 8.00 - 1.00 1.81 1.08 11.15 15.08 13.51 1..11
-0474 PATRICK GRANT
115631 187248 1568 38.51 1.01 1.11 1.11 8.01 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.10
-1175 J.B. MOORE
119983 119988 1 38.S0 0.01 0.10 0.11 1.88 11.30 15.11 -- 13.51 1.11
-1435 0.H. CHAPMAN -.
68111 68190 21 38.50 0.80 3.10 0.00 1.05 11.11 15.11- 13.50 1.11
-1438 R08ERT OWEN
1775 1113 0 38.5i 1.13 0.11 0.0i 1.11 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
1-149$ GLENN HOXIT
95420 99118 3670 47.53 .0.03 0.88 5.00 1.10 11.68 11.35 13.51 1.11
I.1508 HOW GALLOWAY
339211 312240 2973 33.51 0.03 1.33 8.01 1.18 11.16 15.11 13.50 1.11
1-1505 PETER VITALIE
230888 2883851 20775 191.62 -35.03 8.11 8.11 1.10 54.43 11.19 61.11 35.81
5-0516 DWAYNE HENOERSON 0.81
0 0 0 Lea 0.00 coo Lea 0.03 1.01 am0.3a
3-3511 TONNYS K08i1E HONE PA31
a 8 0 3.33 1.10 3.10 8.11 1.11 1.11 1.81 1.13 1.01
a-0515 DEPT. OF TRANSP9RTATIOY i.ii
3143205 3157633 9403 26.01 1.33 0.11 1.11 1.11 2$.13 1.81 1.13
5-1526 LAMA NORTON i.li
69163 12243 3181 39.53 am cal cal 1.11 13.45 15.63 13.53
a-a521 TA31YA PHILLIPS J.ia
';';;a :'i:,3a 7243 :;..:J 1.31 1.11 3.11 1.33 11.11 1i.a1 :3.51
r

0112109
WATER 311LING CALCULATION REPORT
800K:21
,evious Current Usage Current Previous Ad;ustmnt Penalties Payments WATER SEWER GARBAGE xtSC.
Reading Reading 8alan;.e Balance Charges Charges Charges Charges
PAGE: 9
523 SABRIMA TERRY
159611 153390 3330 40.13 1.11 0.13 1.11 1.11 11.95 16.33 13.51 1.11
"4530 TINA CA11P8E11
245030 215310 1121 33. O 0.00 8.01 1.83 0.99 11.18 15.11 13.51 1.11
-3532 CARROLL LANCE
,ai 51453 62581 5133 158.37 72.53 1.01 1.11 0.13 15.33 22.46 13.51 35.19
1533 RAY HCRTON
11763 15431 1720 38.53 3.10 1.13 1.10 1.01 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
-0534 ASENAT'd TOBIN
mg
48201 43631 3430 41.19 0.01 0.33 0.50 1.10 11.08 16.51 13.50 0.11
1535 BARBARA JOLLEY
3811331 391150 2373 333.S3 1.00 1.01 1.10 1.01 11.01 15.11 13.51 1.11
1e414541 JOHNNY GRAVELY
61260 63321 1550 38.53 0.00 0.01 0.11 1.11 10.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
-1545 TARRY T. POUELI
lis 374430 315331 2451 33.50 3.00 0.10 0.10 1.00 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
.1SSI GREGORY 3RON3, R.
118391 115941 6950 62.21 3.03 1.10 1.10 0.11 19.88 28.83 13.51 1.10
40555 UIl11A3 GARBER
342290 348211 5921 56.02 0.01 6.11 1.11 0.00 17.30 25.22 13.51 1.90
I653 CHRISTOPHER :KITH
251010 255311 4230 4:.33 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.10 13.18 19.31. 13.50 1.11
0565 AITON SUIIINCER
345110 341103 1910 38.51 0.33 3.03 0.00. 3.00 11.10 15.11 13.51 1.11
3-3570 COYNIESTEE HATTEN
'1"1 225561 227681 2120 21.01 -11.53 0.99 1.90 1.00 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
•0575 STACEY LUSK
121610 133401 5131 54.89 1.00 0.01 1.01 1.11 16.83 24.56 13.50 1.11
0516 CHRIS 11000UARO
146913 153320 11350 83.60 • 0.11 0.11 1.11 1.00 31.88 44.22 13.51 1.19
3-1530 KELLY O'SHIEIOS
,,,k 324231 330913 6741 , 61.94 .1.11 1.10 0:11 1.10 19.35 28.19 13.50 1.11
-1535 UAYNE TAYIOR
156710 158431 1739 33.51 1.10 1.10 0.11 1.01 11.10 15.11 13.51 1.11
0-1586 HEATHER BARTON
'~ 1.11
45331 51311 4310 46.33 1.91 0.11 0.10 OM 13.25 19.55 13.59
-0595 KATHY IMAGER
294230 293351 4093 44.99 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 12.10 18.18 13.Si 1.01
Pi-i5a1 FRANCES FRANKS
351290 363320 6031 21.68 -35.99 1.01 0.00 0.00 11.58 25.61 13.51 1.11
:9-0605 MARY HENOERSON
- 245930 250230 4300 46.31 0.03 0.01 0.00 1.09 13.25 13.55 13.51 1.11
-1511 JERRY UHITMIRE
416120 423261 6543 59.14 0.93 1.11 1.01 1.11 13.85 27.39 13.51 1.11
,I-0515 SONJA FISHER
323713 329911 6271 85.01 -7.15 0.00 0.01 1.11 18.18 26.45 13.51 35.11
.1-1521 OAVIO ST3ICKIANO
332143 341991 8851 13.63 3.33 3.01 1.11 1.13 24.63 35.11 13.53 1.d3
mili
-0625 EIMBERIY K. CRAIG
212511 215121 2913 33.53 0.03 1.13 1.11 1.03 11.11 15.11 13.53 1.11
23-3530 NARY ELMS i,11
"1" 152311 154391 2333 33.53 9.98 0.30 1.13 0.11 11.01 15.11 13.53
a-a635 SHONNA STU68IEFIEIO
111;13 111-13 101 1.1.33 42.35 0.91 1.11 1.44 1'..13 11.42 13.51 i5.31

11127/39 MITER BILLING CALCULATION REPORT
800K:23
'ravious Current Usage Currant 2revious AJjustmnt Penalties Payments WATER SEWER GARBAGE CSC.
8alaica Balance Charges Charges Charges Charges
Reading Reading
PAGE: 11
-1541 OIANE SHELTON
103748 134163 320 41.51 1.01 8.30 0.10 9.11 11.10 15.61 19.56 1.11
-164S GARY SISK
245130 251714 5523 53.63 1.33 3.13 0.81 0.83 16.33 23.32 13.56 1.10
0651 OOROTHY HILLER
3;:54a 351943 4333 45.30 0.03 0.05 1.23 3.03 13.25 19.55 13.58 6.09
-0655 JOHNNY NORRIS
722350 723221 5311 55.13 0.00 0.80 0.00 6.11 17.18 25.65 13.50 1.83
•0660 CAROL SLACK
117533 113011 490 33.53 3.81 0.83 0.33 0.10 10.66 15.81 13.56 1.11
-1665 MELISSA SNYDER
251370 261181 111 33.53 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.11 11.01 15.10 13.55 1.1)
-1619 MARILYN CALLOWAY
707010 111496 3420 31.35 -9.51 0.11 9.01 1.81 11.15 16.41 13.51 0.11
-1675 BETTY MURPHY
663293 660830 543 38.50 0.30 . 0.10 0.90 1.01 13.09 15.91 13.59 0.11
-1530 HATTIE WHITNIRE
1003530 1016370 3283 210.34 105.15 0.91 1.10 1.11 23.23 33.48 13.51 .35.11
-0635 ALFREO MORGAN
9 1 0 38.50 0.00 0.01 9.10 1.90 11.10 15.11 13.59 1.11
-0691 GRAOY ROGERS
9 1 1 33.50 8.00 8.00 1.00 1.11 10.01 15.11 13.51 1.10
-0595 SHELBY GALLOWAY
0 9 1 33.53 0.08 0.03 0.91 0.11 10.10 15.11 13.51 1.01
-0131 PENTECOSTAL LIGHTHOUSE CA
423360 424520 663 25.03 0.60 1.00 0.18 1.16 10.16 15.19 1.10 1.1/
-3115 LYYH BULLOCK
506920 514351 7430 31.53 9.00 1.01 1.10 1.01 21.08 1.11 13.51 1.10
-0120 R. G. GALLOWAY
9 0 1 33.50 0.00 0.16 9.00 1.19 11.11 15.01 13.50 1.00
-0725 CHARLES MOORE
85763 85783 23 33.53 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.11 11.13 15.11 13.59 9.11
I-3131 MICHAEL WALLACE
919611 925191 6190 92.05 0.13 3.00 1.51 0.03 17.13 25.82 13.51 35.11
1-1143 BYRON ONES
462581 467061 4433 41.33 0.01 1.11 0.11 1.01 13.11 21.18 13.51 1.11
3-3145 RONALO L. GAOOY, JR.
335161 336840 1580 33.50 9.13 0.03 1.03 1.00 13.11 15.11 13.51 1.01
3-0150 JEAN NENOE2
821473 835350 8383 13.78 0.13 1.93 1.00 1.13 23.45 33.83 13.51 0.11
1-1161 JA31ES RUTLEDGE
396143 411621 4583 41.93 1.11 1.13 0.13 1.11 13.95 21.53 13.51 0.11
3-3165 KATHY COLLINS HEAL
432911 439563 6661 61.45 1.10 3.00 0.00 0.13 19.1S 27.81 13.51 1.11
3-0111 RICKY HOLLINGSWORTH
323251 324351 4631 43.11 0.00 0.03 9.01 1.11 14.11 21.61 13.51 1.11
3-0115 MARVIN WHITMIRE
523231 521913 4670 43.53 1.34 1.01 1.11 0.1i 14.13 21.85 13.51 1.33
9-8135 THOMAS E. FILCHER, JR.
327851 331291 3431 41.33 3.33 8.38 1.13 6.3a 11.43 15.51 13.51 i.01
3-1190 FREOA DAVIS
117541 149113 2211 132.35 58.35 3.03 0.13 1.13 11.34 15.13 13.51 35.01
4-279S JEAN RE3OE2
:33123 231530 3651 12.46 1.11 1.11 1.11 3.13 11.55 11.31 13.51 J.aa

ors
1121 /59
UATER BILLIIG CALCULATION RE10RT PAGE: 11
B00K:21
Maus Currant Usage Cdrrent Pre+:ous Ad;ustmnt Penalties Payments WATER SEWER GARBAGE RISC.
...ing Reading 3alance 3alaaca Charges Charges Charges Charles
"'" KEN SCHMIDT
:713 415161 2893 33.51 1.30 1.10 8.88 1.0i 11.91 15.11 13.51 1.11
11 JUL.IUS WHITE
416310 223188 2113 33.53 4.40 3.30 3.00 1.11 11.11 15.60 13.51 8.10
WARREN REEKS
31641 94241 2633 33.50 0.03 0.03 8.31 1.33 11.11 15.00 13.51 0.11
4 BRENOA GA3C'r
i633 139411 2131 38.50 1.11 1.01 0.80 6.11 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
..1 SANORA MCCRACKEN
.59153 163530 4381 46.73 1.13 1.01 1.01 0.11 13.45 19.83 13.51 1.11
""M GINGER ARKAIISAS
3726 135530 1311 33.50 0.00 1.01 0.1i 6.11 11.11 .15.11 13.53 3.11
352 ANOREA BARTON
*44840 261690 6851 61.51 1.03 1.11 0.13 1.11 19.63 28.43 13.51 1.61
3 CHRYI TUCKER
119860 116240 6381 123.51 64.19 5.11 8.10 1.16 18.45 26.83 13.50 3.11
4 A;GELA AEOFOn3
7890 03311 1424 130.41 161.51 0.01 6.60 0.16 11.11 15.10 13.51 1.01
•..,6 OOYLE STUBBIEFIELO
131111 135361 4193 33.53 3.33 1.10 0.00 3.03 10.10 15.11 13.51 0.11
`m11 KITTY KRAUTER
2831 113111 5270 52.13 3.60 6.10 1.11 1.10 15.68 22.95 13.51 1.11
361 IORINOA HAIL
'49964 13346 2333 33.51 3.60 3.31 0.11 6.10 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
.2 MARGARET CLAYTON
3;103 104150 5950 153.23 ;3.31 3.33 0.18 1.01 11.88 28.83 13.51 35.11
463 WILLIAM G. PEARCE
)6140 102230 6193 51.05 3.01 3.00 0.88 1.13 11.13 25.82 13.51 1.01
d64 JAMES ESCHRICH
.Q9661 145291 5431 217.86 154.71 0.00 0.61 1.30 16.18 23.51 13.51 1.11 .
;S SUSAN METCALF
19675 83310 3434 -313.02 -354.11 3.03 0.00 1.00 11.13 16.51 13.51 1.11
IB66 OESORAH WORIEY
12630 102631 1 38.50 1.61 0.10 1.36 1.13 11.11 15.11 13.51 1.11
._69 JAMES M. SHOOK
16111 81411 4111 43.13 1.16 1.10 1.11 1.10 14.25 21.95 13.51 1.11 •
as71 JAMES C. SHOOK
85181 93190 1411 64.11 1.11 3.03 0.00 1.11 21.13 31.44 13.51 1.11
1311 BECKY TAPSCOTT
Ni433358 113176 4221 45.32 5.60 1.11 6.00 1.13 13.15 19.21 13.51 1.11
12 OONNA HOGSEO
92360 93131 5331 150.41 63.11 1.01 6.00 0.10 11.11 24.81 13.51 35.11
„ii13 MICHAEL MCCRACKEN
29010 31911 2933 38.51 8.10 1.10 1.60 1.11 11.11 15.01 13.51 1.11
0J 5 CHRIS REESE
�66453 63183 2331 154.35 81.35 0.31 0.01 1.13 11.11 15.11 13.51 , , 35.6j g ,
� 33 JG•-' 3 �'
' BCOK 13TAl5 FOR 135 C'JSIOMERS .� ',� } ��
95523321 336790 13425.51 655.32 1.01 1.31 3.33 2391.11 3961.29 2413.81 531.31-Ll 4�• 3 6 (
_lam~ `g,�_ -
t
" " GR„NO TOTALS " " " ' 1 /
+�'�! 129325330 1315360 15332.33 811.46 0.10 5.65 3.13 4555.13 6111.83� 3913.1i 111.11

auk
APPENDIX D
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS (MAY 20, 2002) AND RESPONSES
FOR ROSMAN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REORT

TOWN OF ROSMAN
Response to Technical Review Comments
For Rosman Preliminary Engineering Report
Project No. E-SRG-T-02-0131
May 20, 2002
,., General
1. "As noted in the PER, the treatment plant flow meter is limited to 100,000 gallons per
day (gpd) and no flow monitoring was done prior to this report. We recommend that
,., either the existing 100,000 gpd flow meter be replaced by a meter with sufficient
capacity to accurately measure flow or a program of flow monitoring be undertaken
in order to provide a basis for design flow. In the absence of some sort of flow data,
Fog it will be difficult for this office to approve this PER. A number of the following
comments will address the lack of accurate flow data with more specificity."
Per a conversation with Rob Brown of the NC Division of Water Quality on
October 31, 2002, a flow meter will be installed at the existing Rosman
WWTP for a period of at least 3 months that is capable of measuring flows
*• in excess of 100,000 gpd. Mr. Brown agreed that because the average daily
flows used in determining the projected 20-year flow were not in excess of
100,000 gpd, but only 68,000 gpd, the revised PER can be submitted.
2. "Attached is a copy of a December 21, 2001 correspondence from David A.
Goodrich, Supervisor for the NPDES Unit, which we received subsequent to the
— October 11, 2001 Rosman PER submittal. Please discuss this correspondence,
particularly, in respect to both Mr. Goodrich's comment on a re-evaluation of the
connection to Brevard alternative and the effects of the speculative limits provided."
W.K. Dickson stands by the original recommendation of Option 2
expanding the town's treatment facility to 0.25 MGD in lieu of connecting to
the Brevard system. The 20 year present worth for constructing a new 0.25
MGD facility is $5,703,503, while the 20 year present worth for connecting
the Brevard system is $6,272,827. Connecting to the Brevard system will
cost approximately $570,000 more than Option 2. Secondly, we have
shown in our calculations under Option 1 in the PER that detention times
will be approximately 2.5 days. This will cause serious odor and corrosion
problems resulting in additional maintenance costs. Finally, Option 1 will
likely require significant additional cost to design and construct upgrades
to the Brevard system, increasing the cost differential between options to
"'' over $1 million.

Pin
The proposed treatment facility will include tertiary treatment. Additionally,
the facility will utilize ultraviolet disinfection with a
chlorination/dechlorination system for backup.
3. "The report should include an updated "Executive Summary" which should, at a
minimum, provide a description of the proposed project, an estimate of project cost,
and a summary of funding sources. The project cannot be approved without this
section."
The revised PER includes an Executive Summary.
4. "Does the town of Rosman intend to make connection to the sewer system
mandatory? In order to maximize the public health and environmental benefits of
the project, it is strongly recommended that connection to the sewer system be
mandatory."
An ordinance requiring all owners of improved property located upon or
near any sewerage line to connect with said line is included as Appendix E
in this revised PER.
5. "Please note that approval of the facilities plan does not constitute approval of sole
source procurement. Plans and specifications must comply with N.C. General
Statute Chapter 133, Section 3, prior to their approval."
Final design plans and specifications will include at least three
manufacturers where performance specifications are used.
6. "The owner and consulting engineer should be advised that after approval of the
PER, there are several construction project permits, approvals, certifications, etc.
that must be obtained before the project plans and specifications can be approved
and the project is advertised for bids. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that
preliminary work to obtain the following items, if applicable, begin as soon as
possible:
a. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Permit, from the Division of Land Quality,
or a letter from them stating that no permit is required for this project.
b. 401 Water Quality Certification, Army Corps of Engineer's 404 Permit for all
stream crossings, or letters from the Army Corps of Engineers and from the
Wetlands 401 Certification Unit, stating that none is required for this project.
c. Section 10 Permit for aerial crossings of navigable waters or a letter from the
Corps stating that none is required for this project.
d. A reasonable subsurface investigation that must be made available to the
contractor. If it is not included in the specifications, the specifications must
advise where a copy of the report can be observed. Typically, CG&L
fowl

�► expects a boring about every 500 feet and at each road crossing for line
work and at all major structures like pump stations aeration basins, and
clarifiers.
0114
g-
e. NCDOT Encroachment Agreements and Railroad Encroachment
Agreements. Copies of these agreements must be provided in the
specifications, or it must be documented how all construction requirements
associated with the agreements have been incorporated in the plans.
f. All construction easements, permanent easements, and rights -of -way.
These easements and rights -of -way must be shown on the plans.
NPDES Permit. When the project involves a new discharging facility or
expansion to an existing one."
1.+ W.K. Dickson will work on behalf of the Town of Rosman in acquiring all
PER
IMMO
required permits for this project.
June 7, 1999 WK Dickson's Response to Comments
1. "(Reference Response 5). The cost of alternative dewatering methods should be
provided with the revised PER."
Appendix i contains an analysis of three dewatering methods.
2. "(Reference Response 6). The letter from the county concerning continued sludge
disposal at the landfill only documents capacity for the sludge only until 2004. An
alternative means of sludge disposal should be provided in the event the landfill is
not available. Please provide information that addresses how. sludge management
will comply with the 40 CFR 503 Regulations, including a discussion of the methods
that will be used to comply with pathogen and vector attraction reduction."
The sludge generated from the proposed Town of Rosman WWTP will be
hauled to an acceptable landfill. The existing Town of Rosman WWTP
currently hauls its sludge to a Transylvania County landfill. This landfill
therefore meets all requirements for sludge disposal. A letter from the
landfill stating that they will accept waste from the proposed WWTP is
included in Appendix G.
3. "(Reference Response 10). We note that the cost for the Start Up and 0 & M
manuals is included in the overall project cost. Please break this cost out of the line
item it is now covered by, and provide a separate line item for the manuals."
The cost for Start Up and 0 & M manuals is $15,000 as listed as item No. 33
in the revised cost analysis for Option No. 2.

4. "(Reference Response 10). The revised PER should include a cost analysis on the
viable means of sewer rehabilitation."
See Appendix A for rehabilitation cost estimates. These costs are based
on the findings of an infiltration and Inflow Study (October 2001) performed
on a small portion of the Town's system and previous experience with this
type work.
5. "(Reference Response 12). This response documents the town's Iack.of resources
to conduct an 1/1 study. As noted earlier, it will be difficult for this office to approve a
design flow lacking more information on existing and anticipated plant flow. In order
to accurately determine project design flow, an estimate of quantified extraneous
flow due to 1/! should be provided, as well as an estimate of the portion of the I/1 that
is removable through rehabilitation."
An Ill Study was performed on the primary sewer trunk main (Approx. 4000
LF) feeding the WWTP. This line runs along Main Street. The Study was
conducted in October of 2001, which is typically a dry period. Our findings
indicate that there is approximately 11,000 gpd on infiltration in this line
and greater than 18,000 gpd of inflow. The inflow was difficult to quantify
due to the size of the openings that could accept inflow. Therefore, the
inflow value could be significantly higher. Regardless, the projected
treatment capacity is based on • dry weather flows as summarized in the
Wastewater Flow Projections section of this PER.
6. "(Reference Response 15). The need for the surge tank should be justified. Any
adverse effect on performance of the system should be demonstrated. Plant influent
flow records will be a necessary part of the demonstration."
The revised conceptual layout for Option 2 — Improve Rosman WWTP
includes Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) type treatment units, which
require no surge capacity.
7. "(Reference Response 15). Could a portion of the existing plant be renovated and
used as a surge tank? Please discuss."
The revised conceptual layout for Option 2 — Improve Rosman WWTP
includes Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) type treatment units, which
require no surge capacity. The existing plant will be demolished due to the
generally poor condition of the existing tanks.
Section III
1. "(Reference Page 15). Design flow is based on a linear regression in conjunction
with the future project population. This method is used to account for increases in
commercial and industrial growth. What is the source of the population data provided
by the State of North Carolina as noted on page 12? Was the data for the town of

Rosman, or was it interpolated from Transylvania County population projections?
Based on county growth projections and Rosman's historical percentage of total
county population, we project Rosman's population in 2020 to be 550 persons"
Census population figures from the NC Office of State Planning for the
Town of Rosman indicate a population of 385 for the year 1990 and 490 for
10. the year 2000. This is a total increase of 27.3% or 2.44% annually over 10
years. Based on these figures, the population in the year 2020 projected
from a population of 490 will be 794 people.
2. "(Reference Page 15). As noted in the above comment, future industrial growth is
estimated based on a linear regression. We normally see industrial growth based on
10% of domestic and commercial flow, unless a letter of commitment is provided
from a specific industry. Commercial flow is usually projected based on 40
gpd/capita population. The 20-year design flow for Rosman should be projected,
likewise, and compared with the design flow provided in this report."
The 20-year flow projection has been revised to 259,114 gpd as shown in
Section I11 Wastewater Flow Projections in the revised PER.
3. "(Reference Page 15). A design flow of 225,000 gpd is justified; but a plant with a
capacity of 250,000 gpd is recommended as it is documented on page 15 to be a
more readily available size. Please discuss and provide other readily available
sizes."
The 20-year flow projection has been revised to 259,114 gpd as shown in
Section 111 Wastewater Flow Projections in the revised PER.
Section IV
1. "(Reference Page 32). We concur with the proposal to discharge a portion of the re-
m., use quality effluent on agricultural fields. Please provide the following on the
proposed re -use site:
a. Is the targeted site owned by the town? If not, will it be leased or acquired?
The spray irrigation site will be leased for a minimum twenty year period.
b. It is assumed that the town will hold the re -use permit. Please confirm.
The Town will acquire a re -use permit from the Division of water Quality.
c. The revised PER should demonstrate the ability of the WWTP to comply
with
15A NCAC 2H.0219(k)(1)(B)

The proposed post equalization basin is sized at 62,500 gpd,
which is 25% of the daily system design flow.
SBR units, tertiary filters and UV disinfection will be provided in
duplicate.
y Tertiary treatment will be provided in the design plans and
specifications which will meet the effluent quality as specified in
T15A:02H.0219(k)(1)(B).
Continuous on-line turbidity monitoring will be provided in the
design plans and specifications.
Effluent having turbidity levels exceeding 10 NTU will not be
discharged to the reuse distribution system.
Improperly treated effluent cannot enter the reuse distribution
system. A proposed turbidity meter will monitor effluent and if
turbidity levels exceed acceptable levels, the spray irrigation
pumps will not operate.
The Town of Rosman operator is certified for the facility
classification and is on call 24 hours/day.
The facility will designed and permitted for surface discharge of
the total treatment capacity. If the reuse system is inoperable,
the facility will discharge 100% of the treated effluent to the
French Broad River.
d. The revised PER should include the required documentation for a re -use
system as provided in 15A NCAC 2H.0219(k)(1)(C)
r- The rate of application was determined by a soil scientist and is
shown in Appendix H.
The public will be notified by the Town of Rosman of the use of
the spray irrigation at the proposed site.
y The Rosman WWTP spray irrigation system will be operated by
the town's operator.
> All boundary lines will be shown on the design plans.
Plans and specifications will be developed in accordance to
Rule 15A:02H.0205(d)(7).
The reclaimed water from this project will not be used for
industrial purposes, toilet flushing, direct food chain crops,
swimming pools, hot tubs, spas or raw potable water supply.
e. A layout of the proposed spray site should be provided. Will the system be
solid set, traveling gun, etc.?
Figure 8 has been added to show the spray irrigation system layout. The
spray irrigation system will be solid set. See revised Figure 6 for the spray
field location.

f. A breakdown of the estimated cost of the system, $235, 000 (page 39),
should be included in the revised PER.
See revised cost estimate for Option 2 in PER.
g. The current targeted site for re -use application was included in the copy of
the report that was circulated through departments, and affected
environmental reviewers and, hence, any environmental concerns raised by
it are included in our environmental review comments of March 1, 2002. If
an alternative spray site is evaluated, the revised report to include the
altemative site will require recirculation."
No alternative site has been evaluated.
2. "(Reference Page 39). Provide additional preliminary design information in the
narrative and/or appendix. This information should address each unit process and
include appropriate parameters such as capacity, detention times, overflow rates,
RAS rate, etc. Preliminary calculations for each unit should support the adequacy of
the proposed design to process the expected hydraulic and pollutant loadings and
provide the treatment required to meet NPDES permit limits, reuse effluent
requirements, and sludge disposal requirements."
See Appendix J in the revised PER.
3. "Due to the nature of the discharge in a batch reactor system (Le. batch rather than
continuous), the discharge rate could place a burden on downstream units. Please
verify that downstream units will possess sufficient capacity to handle the batch
,., flow."
The 62,849 gallon post equalization basin and 550 gal/min pumps are sized
with sufficient capacity to handle the average daily flow of 0.25 MGD.
Assuming the pumps will run at a maximum of 30 min/hour, it will take
approximately 2 hours to empty the basin, which has storage capacity for
1/4 of the 0.25 MGD plant capacity.
4. "The EPA discount rate for Present Worth Analysis that was utilized in this report
was 6.875%, which was the rate for projects beginning on or after October 1, 1998.
The current EPA discount rate for present worth analysis that applies to projects
beginning on or after October 1, 2001 is 6.125%. The present worth analysis may
use either of these discount rates for converting 0 & M costs, and salvage value to
present worth."
No modification.

Section V
1. "(Reference Pages 27 and 41). In estimating labor costs for the cost-effective
analysis, it was assumed that Option 1, connection to the Brevard system, would
require labor costs of 3 hours per day, 5 day per week, and that operation of a
250,000 gpd WWTP capable of producing reuse quality effluent would require 5
hours per day, 5 days a week. We believe that both estimates are low. Please re-
evaluate the labor necessary to effectively operate and maintain over 3.5 miles of
collection system, a WVI/TP, and a re -use system. Although it does not appear that
it will affect the overall cost-effective alternative, the cost-effective analysis should be
revised to reflect this re-evaluation."
Labor costs for Option 1 were increased from 3 hours/day to 5 hours/day,
while labor costs for Option 2 were increased to 8 hours/day.
2 "In the yearly Maintenance & Office Personnel cost estimate on page 47, a total
yearly cost of $57, 000 ($4, 750 monthly) is used to determine user fee. As noted
above, this appears to be an optimistic projection. This cost should be revised, as
well as the projected user charge, based on the above requested re-evaluation."
The yearly Maintenance & Office Personnel cost estimate has been revised
to $76,000 ($6,333) for 2 employees.
3. "The user charge fee projection is based on a flow of 75,000 gpd. Is this total flow, or
just domestic, industrial, and commercial? Note that any I/I flow is not revenue
producing and, hence, should not be included."
This is the total projected initial average daily flow with no 1/1 included.
4. "This section documents that, in the absence of any grant moneys to relieve debt
retirement, the high projected user charge makes this project cost prohibitive.
Discuss any grant money procured and revise this section to reflect total grant
money secured."
W.K. Dickson has, on the behalf of the Town of Rosman, worked for the
procurement of various grants for the completion of this project. Grants
that have been awarded. include the following:
• North Carolina revolving Loan Program (NCRLP)
• State and Tribal Assistance Grant Program (STAG)
• Environmental Program Management Grant (EPM)
• Rural Center Supplemental Grant
Total
$2,911,300
$1,367,900
$350,000
$400,000
$5,030,200
firt

APPENDIX E
MANDATORY SEWER LINE CONNECTION ORDINANCE
Rs

`I / 1 i/ 417
mm
mm
mm
mm
mg
mm
mg
mm
mm
AMR
MEI
IMMO
AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ALL OWNERS t.)E IMPI:OVED
;siloPERTY L tx1 TCD IIPON OR N'EAIC ANY SEWERAGE
LINE TO CONNECT ►vITII SAID LINE.
► OE EAS, the Board of Aldermen are authorized by Sections
160-2,10 and 160-284 of the General Statutes of North Carolina
to rc lulatc, control and manacle sewerage systems, NOW, TIIEREFORE,
'.;E IT AiDAINED by the Board of Aldermen of the Town of
Iotr.:au, north Carolina, as follows:
Section I. All owners of improved
lotcat.ecl upon or near any sewerage line are
property which is
hereby required to
connect with such sewerage line all water closets, bathtubs,
l:svr,turi.,s, sinks,or drains upon their respective properties
or premises, so that their contents a.ry be made to empty into
such scwerarle lino.
Section 2.
and effect from and after the date of its adoption.
This ordinance shall be in full force
Adopted this the 1'i day of 7R4 uZ' , 1964.
Attest:
i ,y :,
J: :f.;,..'� (O /tto
Town Clerk
ff
//If
Ma yo r Pn:o —TEA

APPENDIX F
SLUDGE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT FROM TRANSYLVANIA LANDFILL

OBI
WILLIAM SAGAA
Director
828/884-501
Cowl,
500 Howell Road
8revard, NC 28712
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
The Honorable Johnny Rogers, Mayor
Town of Rosman
Rosman, NC 28772
Officer
Woodruff Rd.
Rosman. NC
Fax 828/877•4508
Sludge disposal
Dear Mayor:
Transylvania County is currently expanding the Woodruff landfill. Thls expansion will provide the
county with constructed capacity until 2008.
Wastewater sludge is subject to a waste determination procedure to determine its acceptability at a
MSW landfill. 1 have attached a Waste Determination form for your review. This form will need to be
completed by a registered laboratory prior to the acceptance of sludge material.
The price for the disposal of sludge will be set by the Transylvania County Board of Commissioners.
Sincerely
Win Sager
Attachment
Co
ecatc%/o,. Me 4+.1 t/vrii• 60w1MatGi
Co Co Co

APPENDIX G
SOIL SCIENTIST/AGRONOMIST REPORT

SOIL SCIENTIST/AGRONOMIST REPORT
TOWN OF ROSMAN PROPOSED
SPRAY DISPOSAL SITE
ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
S&M E, INC. PROJECT NO. 1588-01-044
Prepared For:
WK Dickson Engineers
1419 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Prepared By:
S&ME, Inc.
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410
January 2002

11151
S&ME
March 18, 2002
WK Dickson
,i 1419 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
,a, Attn: Kurt Wright, P.E.
Reference: Addendum to Soil Scientist Report
p.m Town of Rosman, North Carolina — Proposed Spray Disposal Field
S&ME, Inc. Project No. 1588-01-044
Dear Mr: Wright:
Adjustments to the water balance tables for the Rosman and Transylvania Soil Series are needed
based on recent field findings of a pond located along the southern property boundary of field R-5
PER
(Figure VI). A 100-foot buffer was applied to the pond and drainage features surrounding the pond.
This new buffer reduced the useable acres in field R-5 to approximately 10.4 acres. There were no
changes to field R-4. Useable - acres for field R-4 are approximately 7.2 acres. Total useable acres
for both fields R-4 and R-5 is approximately 17.9 acres. Annual allowable irrigation for field R-5 is
estimated to be approximately 4,357,457 gallons and annual allowable irrigation for field R-4 is
estimated to be approximately 355,826 gallons. Presently it is estimated that approximately
4,713,283 gallons per year can be applied to both fields R-4 and R-5. The attached water balance
tables are corrected for the change in number of useable acres.
Respectfully,
S &ME, Inc.
Matthew H. O'Brien, L.S.S.
LA-4,v-
C. Scott Carpenter
Natural Resources Department Manager Soil Scientist In -Training
S&ME, Inc.
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410
[phone]
[phone] fax
[phone]
w-rvw.smeinc.cam

Addendum to Soil Scientist Report
Rosman, North Carolina
S&ME, Inc Project 1588-01-044
March 18, 2002
TRANSYLVANIA - A horizon 0-10 inches
Month
(1)
Potential
Evapotranspiration
inches
(2)
Drainage
inches
(3)
Total
Losses
inches
(4)
PPT
inches
(5)
Allowable
Irrigation
inches
(6).
Allowable
Irrigation
gallons
January
0.00
3.18
3.18
4.90
-1.72
-
February
0.00
3.18
3.18
5.40
-2.22
-
March
0.00
3.18
3.18
6.40
-3.22
-
April
2.01
3.18
5.19
4.70
0.49
95,799 _
May
2.68
3.18
5.86
5.90
-0.04
-
June
3.00
3.18
6.18
5.60
0.58
113,395
July
3.07
3.18
6.25
5.90
0.35
• 68,428
August
2.59
3.18
5.77
6.50
-0.73
- .
September
2.32
3.18
5.50
5.10
0.40
78,204
October
1.59
3.18
4.77
5.30
-0.53
-
November
1.45
3.18
4.63
5.40
-0.77
-
December
0.00
3.18
3.18
5.90
-2.72
-
Annual sum of allowable irrigation 355,826
Allowable annual irrigation rate in/yr 1.82
Average irrigation rate in/mo 0.46
ROSMAN - A Horizon 0-16 inches
Month
(1)
Potential
Evapotranspiration
inches
(2)
Drainage
inches
(3)
Total
Losses
inches
(4)
PPT
inches
(5)
Allowable
Irrigation
inches
(6)
Allowable
Irrigation
gallons
January
0.00
5.14
5.14
4.90
0.24
-
February
0.00
5.14
5.14
5.40
-0.26
-
March
0.00
5.14
5.14
6.40
-1.26
-
April
2.01
5.14
7.15
4.70
2.45
691,884.
May
2.68
5.14
_
7.82
5.90
1.92
542,211
June •
3.00
5.14
8.14
5.60
2.54
717,300
July .
3.07
5.14
8.21
5.90
_
2.31
652,348
August
2.59
5.14
7.73
6.50
1.23
347,354
September
2.32
5.14
7.46
5.10
2.36
666,468
October
1.59
5.14
6.73
5.30
1.43
403,834
November
1.45
5.14
6.59
5.40
1.19
336,058
December
0.00
5.14
5.14
5.90
-0.76
-
erhi uai sum of allowable irrigation
Allowable annual irrigation rate inlyr
Average irrigation rate in/mo
4,357,457
13.89
1.74

UWE
January 18, 2002
WK Dickson
1419 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Attn: Kurt Wright, P.E.
Reference: SOIL SCIENTIST/AGRONOMIST REPORT Rev.1
Town of Rosman, North Carolina — Proposed Spray Disposal Field
S&ME, Inc. Project No. 1588-01-044
01.1
Dear Mr. Wright:
S&ME, Jnc. (S&ME). has conducted a soil scientist/agronomist evaluation of approximately 66.92
acres for the purpose of spray irrigation. The sites are located directly northeast from the Town of
Rosman existing wastewater treatment facility (Appendix I, Figure 1). This evaluation was
provided for inclusion in the City's application to the North Carolina Department of Environment
(.+ and Natural Resources (NCDENR) — Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for a non -discharge permit
to operate a spray irrigation disposal system. After evaluation of the soil properties and
characteristics, conservative estimates of the soil's infiltration rate and soil's hydraulic conductivity,
the annual total allowable irrigation is approximately 5,006,573 gallons per year.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
Mathew H. O'Brien, L.S.S. C. Scott Carpenter
Natural Resource Department Manager Soil Scientist (In Training)
S&ME, Inc.
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410
[phone]
[phone] fax
[phone]
www.Smeinc.com

•
re
• 0e1
1.41
•
•
O - co
�ptN St¢EEj
(513)
•
. ,•;
✓ {6291
Q
ti
r
i
• EXISTING WWTP
LOCATION
h
e2
.
/
.8

FIELD No.
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
USEABLE
ACREAGE
4.22
4.97
7.20
11.10
0.57
TOTAL 28.06
BUrr'E.R TOTAL
ZONE ACREAGE
5.58 9.80
4.95 9.92
3.97 11,17
8.50 19.60
8.30 .8.87
31.30 59.36
LEGEND
17,/j - 100' BUFFER ZONE FOR STREAMS CLASSIFIED AS WS
- 150' BUFFER ZONE FOR PROPERTY BOUNDARY
- HOUSE
A - STRUCTURE
_ - - — - PROPERTY LINE
— - --. - DRAINAGE WAY
— - UNPAVED ROAD
• - SPRAY HEAD
i
rn
v4
LATERAL LINE (TYP)
K
GRAPHIC SCALE
150 0
300
E•�
w
W
L)
U
0
Ci
z
co
a
SCALE: 1" - 300'

LEGEND
t[..: -71 - ROSMAN
71 - PON7FR
111 - HOUSE
A - STRUCTURE
- PROPERTY LINE
- - - - - DRAINAGE WAY
- UNPAVED ROAD

7-7
•
LEGEND
- TOXAWAY (SILT LOAM)
- ROSMAN
- PONZER
- TRANSYLVANIA
- TOXAWAY SOILS
- HOUSE
- STRUCTURE
— - - — - PROPERTY LINE
- - -+- DRAINAGE WAY
- UNPAVED ROAD
i
FRENCH BROAD RIV- ER
GRAPHIC SCALE
300 150 0
CHECKED B
0
w
CC a
0
s
V)
IIIII W O
v
5,5„,_,
W
tnh-
Q ▪ '
w Z
Z W
O W
EC Z
lin 5
ZZ
W W
SCALE: 1- = 30C.
300
1

DRYING BEDS
USEABLE BUI'NmR TOTAL
FIELD No. ACREAGE ZONE ACREAGE
R-1 0.46 5.58 7.70
ter;>`0
LEGEND
100' BUFFER ZONE FOR STREAMS CLASSIFIED AS WS
- 150' BUFFER ZONE FOR PROPERTY BOUNDARY
- HOUSE
• -STRUCTURE
- - — - PROPERTY LINE
- -- - DRAINAGE WAY
_ - UNPAVED ROAD
EXISTING
FACILITY
_
GRAPHIC SCALE
200 I00 0
SCALE: 1- = 20C.
200
U
cdo
CO
0
o z
w
0 W
0 j Lu
2 C0
U LT
vt-
0 00
0,0, trl
oW
CC
4#91
z
4, W

USEABLE BUFFER TOTAL
FIELD No. ACREAGE ZONE ACREAGE
R-2 4.22 5.58 9.80
R-3 4.97 4.95 9.92
R-4 7.20 3.97 11.17
R-5 11.10 8.50 19.60
R-6 0.57 8.30 8.87
TOTAL 28.06 31.30 59.36
FRENCH BROAD RIV
ER
LEGEND
- 100' BUFFER ZONE FOR STREAMS CLASSIFIED AS WS
- 150' BUFFER ZONE FOR PROPERTY BOUNDARY
- HOUSE
- STRUCTURE
- PROPERTY LINE
- DRAINAGE WAY
— _ - UNPAVED ROAD
GRAPHIC SCALE
'700 150 0
SCALE: 1' = 300.
300
H
(CHECKED BY
FIGURE NO.
pN
0
c
w
0
0
In
W �Z
5E5,
�,W
_,
,_
w ,_
.E2.
z L.J
w
CCz
z z
w w
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2
2.0 METHODS AND DISCUSSION 2
3.0 SOIL AND FIELD DESCRIPTIONS 3
3.1 FIELD R-1 3
3.2 FIELD R-2 4
3.3 FIELD R-3 5
3.4 FIELD R-4 6
3.5 FIELD R-5 6
3.6 FIELD R-6 6
4.0 SOIL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 7
4.1 AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS AND RESERVE PHOSPHORUS 7
rag 4.2 CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC), pH
AND PERCENT BASE SATURATION (% BS) 8
4.3 BASIC CATIONS (Ca, Mg, and K) 8
5.0 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 9
5.1 FIELD R-1 10
5.2 FIELD R-2 10
5.3 FIELD R-3 11
5.4 FIELD R-4 11
5.5 FIELD R-5 11
5.6 FIELD R-6 11
6.0 BUFERS 14
6.1 FIELD R-1 14
6.2 FIELD R-2 15
6.3 FIELD R-3 15
6.4 FIELD R-4 15
6.5 FIELD R 5 16
6.6 FIELD R-6 16
7.0 AGRONOMY REPORT 16
7.1 SUGGESTED SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN 16
7.11FIELD R1 - 16
rim 7.12 FIELD R-2 17
7.13 FIELD R-3 17
7.14 FIELD R-4 18

7.15 FIELD R-5 18
7.16 FIELD R-6 18
7.2 SUGGESTED SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN 19
7.21 FIELD R-1 19
7.22 FIELD R-2 20
7.23 FIELD R 3 20
7.24 FIELD R-4 20
7.25 FIELD R-5 21
7.26 FIELD R-6 22
8.0 CONCLUSION 22
9.0 CLOSING 23
APPENDIX
Appendix I: Figures
Appendix II: Form: Spray Irrigation Discharge System - Non Permit Application• Form
Appendix III: Soil Description and Narrative
Appendix IV: Soil Analysis Report
Appendix V: Estimated Potential Evapotranspiration, Precipitation, Drainage, Water
Balance Tables, Lime Requirements
Calculations
Graphs

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
1.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION -
Mel
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the suitability of the soil properties located within
fields R1 — R-6 (Appendix I, Figure I} for spray irrigation, which the Town of Rosman, North
Carolina will incorporate in their treatment system. The proposed 66.92 acres of land is located on
"t six fields northeast of the existing treatment facility. Rosman, North Carolina is located in the
southwest region of North Carolina. The following assigned abbreviations are assigned to field
"r designations: R-1 (Field 1), R-2 (Field 2), R-3 Field_ 3), R-4 (Field 4), R-5 (Field 5), and R-6 (Field
6) are located approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the intersection of US Highway 64 and US
Highway 178. The French Broad River is located directly south of the treatment facility and is
parallel to fields R-1, R-3, R-4, R-5, and R-6 (Appendix I, Figure I - VI). Old Rosman Highway is
directly north of field R-2 and R-3 (Appendix I, Figure I - VI). The following information is
provided for the purpose of incorporation into the requirements for the non -discharge permit
tim
application form for spray irrigation disposal systems (Appendix BI - FORM: SIDS 06/94 h.).
2.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES
S&ME conducted an investigation of the soils throughout fields R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, and R-6.
The total area evaluated is approximately 66.92 acres. The soil scientist investigation was
conducted to evaluate the suitability of the soil properties with regard to a spray irrigation disposal
system permitted by the NCDENR-DWQ. Hand -auger borings were advanced across the 66.92
acres to characterize the site soils (Appendix I, Figure V and VI). Detailed soil profile descriptions
,,■, were made to a depth of seven feet below land surface to characterize the soils potential suitability
for spray irrigation (Appendix 111). The soil scientist evaluation includes a description for soil
texture, color, structure, depth, and thickness of soil horizons. The evaluation includes identifying
depth, thickness, any restrictive horizon(s) if present, depth of seasonal high water table, and an
evaluation to provide field estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity. The soils on the six fields,
where the soil borings were conducted, was described to the series level using current United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS)-Soil
Taxonomy. The soil profile descriptions represents the soil characteristics that were dominant
ri. 2

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
across the site.
Soil samples were taken on October 30, 2001 and December 10, 2001 using a 0.75" diameter
stainless steel soil probe. Areas sampled included: R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, and R-6. Each sample
was labeled by field location. Notes were recorded at each field with regard to vegetative cover and
soil conditions.
Soil samples were analyzed by A & L Eastern Agricultural Laboratories in Richmond, Virginia for
the following criteria: organic matter, available and non -available phosphorus (P) (Bray 1 & 2),
extractable potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), pH, buffer pH, cation exchange
capacity (CEC), and percent base saturation (%BS). A copy of laboratory results is included in this
report (Appendix IV).
3.0 SOIL AND FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 FIELD R 1
A Rosman and Ponzer soil series were observed in field R-1 (Appendix I, Figure V). These two
soil series are commonly found along broad flood plains and are frequently -flooded. A Rosman
series can be classified as having well drained to very poorly drained soils, which are nearly level
with a surface texture of loam or sandy loam and that has subsoil dominantly of silty clay loam. A
Ponzer series can be classified as a very poorly drained, nearly level soil on stream flood plains,
which flood frequently. A thick organic muck is on the surface and is underlain by a fine sandy
loam.
General observations seen in field R-1 were loam and clay loam underlain with sand and sandy
loam. The seasonal high water table was commonly seen around 65 to 70 inches and was
distinguished by common, medium, distinct dark brown mottles. Bedrock rock was encountered at
an approximate depth of 80 inches. Small inclusions of poorly drained, fine sandy loam underlain
3

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report
Rosman, North Carolina
S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
January 18, 2002
with silty clay loam were observed in the southern end of field R-1.
Field R-1 has a healthy stand of Bermuda/Fescue-Orchard grass with approximately 80 % ground
cover. Few broadleaf weeds were observed during the field visit. Excellent drainage was observed
throughout the majority of the field due to a drainage ditch running along the northwest field
boundary and continuing on around the southwest field boundary to the French Broad River
(Appendix III & V). A few highly saturated areas were observed in the southeast corner of field R-
PM 1 and are noted on the soils map (Appendix I, Figure III). Overall, the field appeared to be under
good management control and care.
3.2 FIELD R-2
Characteristics of the Toxaway soil series with a small inclusion of Transylvania in the southeast
comer were observed in field R-2 (Appendix I, Figure IV). The Toxaway soil series consists of very
poorly drained soils on nearly level stream flood plains and is frequently flooded. The surface is
typically high in organic matter and has a silty clay texture underlain with a dark loam. A moderate
shrink -swell potential exists with this series. The Transylvania series consist of a well to moderately
well drained soil that is on nearly level flood plains with frequent flooding. The surface is a dark
silt loam and underlain with a yellowish -brown silty clay loam.
General observations seen in field R-2 were a dark silt loam surface and dark gray silty clay subsoil
observed at approximately 14 inches below grade, underlain with a dark gray sandy clay. Few,
faint dark brown mottles were observed at approximately 35 inches below grade throughout field
R-2. One drainage ditch was seen on the northwest field boundary leading off the field to the
French Broad River. A second drainage ditch was also observed on the west field boundary leading
south to the French Broad River (Appendix I, Figure iV & VI). A seasonal high water table was
observed within approximately 14 inches of the natural soil surface. The apparent water table was
commonly seen around approximately 48 inches and at this depth the silty clay content increased.
The matrix of the subsoil became gleyed at approximately 48 inches.
4

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
Field R-2 was observed to have a poor stand of Bermuda/Fescue-Orchard grass. The field has large
stands of switchgrass and other broadleaf weeds throughout. A majority of the field appeared to be
fallow. Horses were seen roaming in the field and stable areas. Overall, the field appeared to be
under poor management care and control.
3.3 FIELD R-3
Characteristics of the Toxaway, Transylvania, and Rosman soil series were observed in field R-3
(Appendix I, Figure IV). General observations seen in field R-3 was a dark silt loam surface and
dark gray silty clay loam subsoil observed at approximately 25 inches below grade, underlain with a
dark gray 'sandy clay loam. Few, faint light gray mottles were observed at approximately 38 inches
below grade throughout field R-3. One drainage ditch was seen in the northwest part of the field
leading south to the French Broad River. A second drainage ditch was also observed in the
southwest part of the leading south to the French Broad River (Appendix I, Figure IV & VI). A
seasonal high water table was observed within approximately 38 inches of the natural soil surface.
Field R-3 was presently growing Pine Trees. The trees had a canopy closure of approximately 65%.
Large tree snags and heavy undergrowth restricted movement through the field. Excellent drainage
was observed throughout the majority of the field due to the drainage ditches running through the
field to the west and east of field R-3.
3.4 FIELD R-4
Characteristics of the Toxaway and Transylvania soil series were observed in field R-4. General
observations seen in field R-4 was dark silt loam surface and dark gray silty clay loam subsoil
observed at approximately 22 inches below grade. Few, faint light gray mottles were observed at
approximately 44 inches below grade throughout field R-4. One drainage ditch was seen in the
north and west part of the field leading north to the French Broad River. A seasonal high water table
5

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report
Rosman, North Carolina
S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
January 18, 2002
was observed within approximately 44 inches of the natural soil surface.
Field R-4 was presently growing Bermuda/Fescue-Orchard grass. The Bermuda/Fescue-Orchard
grass had approximately 70 % ground cover. Few broadleaf weeds were observed during the field
visit. Excellent drainage was observed throughout the majority of the field due to the drainage ditch
running along the border of the field to the west.
3.5 FIELD R-5
Characteristics of the Transylvania, Rosman, and Ponzer soil series were observed in field R-5.
General observations seen in field R-5 were dark brown sandy loam and dark yellowish brown
loam subsoil observed at approximately 25 inches below grade. No mottles were observed in soil
profiles through out field R-5. One drainage ditch was seen in the northwest part of the field leading
north to the French Broad River. Field R-5 was presently fallow with switchgrass, briars, and other
broadleaf weeds. The field appeared to be in poor management condition.
3.6 FIELD R 6
Characteristics of the Toxaway, Transylvania, and Rosman soil series were observed in field R-6.
General observations seen in field R-6 were very dark gray silt loam surface and dark gray silty clay
loam subsoil observed at approximately 25 inches below grade. Common, prominent gray mottles
were observed at approximately 25 inches below grade throughout field R-6. Two drainage ditches
were observed in the middle of the field leading south to the French Broad River. A seasonal high
water table was observed within approximately 25 inches of the natural soil surface.
Field R-6 was presently growing Bermuda/Fescue-Orchard grass. The Bermuda/Fescue-Orchard
grass had approximately 80 % ground cover. Few broadleaf weeds were observed during the field
visit. Excellent drainage was observed throughout the majority of the field due to the drainage
ditches running through the field to the west.
6

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc, Project # 1588-01-044
January 18, 2002
Rosman, North Carolina
4.0 SOIL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Seven representative soil samples were collected from the upper 4 - 6 inches and submitted to A&L
Eastern Agricultural Laboratory. The results for this analysis are in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1 LABORATORY ANALYSIS
FFELD
ORGANIC
PHDSPHOR1.S
BRAYP1(rp)
BRAY2 @in)
POTASSIUM
pprn
M4GNESILIYI
Wm
CALCIUM
PPm
MAR(%)
. R l
3.70
34 (Hgh)
49 (H►gh)
54 (Low)
90 (Nigh)
510 (Medium)
R-2
5.90
20 (MediuirO
41(Egh)
65 (Love
130 (wry high)
740 (M diu r0
R-3
250
27(High)
30 (Medium)
-
76 (Me'diurrO
99 (Vey High)
450 (Mediun
R-4
4.70
8 (Very low)
10 (Ver), low)
90 (Very High)
58 ( Medium)
370 (Medium)
R 5
4.65
8 (Very low)
17 (Low)
43 (Low)
51(Mediu)
320 (Medium)
R-6 -
5.00
20 (Medium)
39 (Medium)
58 (H gh)
30 (Low)
240 (Low)
FIELD
pH
SOIL
BUFFER INDEX
CDC
meq'l00g
PERCENT BASE SATURATION
POTASSIUM % MAGNESIUM % CALCIUM %
HYDROGEN %
R 1
5.80
6.85
4.20
330
17.70
60.00
19.00
R-2
5.90
6.83
6.00
2.80
18.10
61.90
17.10
R-3
6.40
6.90
3.60
5.40
23.00
62.70
8.90
R-4
5.40
6.83
3.60
6.50
13.50
51.70
2830
R-5
5.60
6.87
2.75
4.50
15.05
56.40
24.05
R-6
5.40
6.87
2.20
6.70
11.20
53.80
28.30
Very low values are considered low fertility and require a high fertility application to increase crop
yield. Values that are medium should consider a low application, but it would not be detrimental to
the crop yield. Values that are high do not require a fertility application.
4.1 AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS AND RESERVE PHOSPHORUS
Phosphorus (P) is medium to very low. Available phosphorus (liable P) is the readily available
portion of the quantity, which dissociates and replenishes quickly. Reserve phosphorus (nonliable
P) is the amount of phosphorous contained in the primary minerals and secondary minerals
(Fe/A1PO4). When the depletion of liable P occurs, nonliable P will mineralize into solution, but at
a slow rate. The depletion of liable P is occurring in fields with low to very low ratings. To
7
PIM
r
r

Fag
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
(Fe/A1PO4). When the depletion of liable P occurs, nonliable P will mineralize into solution, but at
a slow rate: The depletion of liable P is occurring in fields with low to very low ratings. To
provide balanced management of soil fertility, fertility application should be made on these fields.
4.2 CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC), pH, AND PERCENT BASE
SATURATION (% BS)
The surface soil CEC is an inherent property of soils that is unlikely to change. The low CEC can
be contributed to frequent flooding, which deposits low CEC textured soils. The ability of the soil
to, hold nutrients is low and consequently there may be a high leaching potential of nutrients and
metals through the soil profile.
The soil pH is a measure of the Hydrogen ions present in soil solutions or not held on soil particles.
Understanding the soil pH is critical to crop management and ensuring an appropriate environment
for crops to grow. The pH value should be maitained at or around 6.0 for crops and tree to ensure
1.4
maxium uptake of nutrients and heavy metals. The optimal pH should be maintained around 6.5 for
Bermuda grass. An annual application of calcium carbonate should be considered if the pH falls
below 5.5.
Fnl
The soil percent base saturation (%BS) is the percentage of the soil cation exchange sites that are
occupied by basic cations (Mg, Ca, K, and Na). The %BS is an important parameter in relation to
soil properties and plant nutrition. When considering those basic cations that are important for plant
RIM development, the %BS most often recommended is: Ca (65 - 75%); Mg (10 - 15%); and K (2 - 5%)
The average soil %BS was as follows: Ca (60.0), Mg (17.7), and K (3.3). Application of dolomitic
ram limestone is recommended to increase the pH and % BS.
4.3 BASIC CATIONS (Ca, Mg, and K)
Soil test analyses list Mg and Ca in the low to very high range. Soil samples should be collected in
the summer to evaluate the Ca status and lime requirement of the soil. Soil test analyses list K in the
8

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report • S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
low to very high range. Plants absorb potassium more than any other mineral. While the potassium
content may be large in the soil, only a small portion is available to the crop. Depending on the
amount and type of clay in the soil (more with 2:1 clay minerals), the amount of potassium,
calcium, and magnesium varies in the soil.
5.0 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
Soil borings conducted on the site have been evaluated in relation to soil texture, soil structure, and
soil consistence to provide field estimates of hydraulic conductivity. There are two common
methods of estimating the soil drainage component for spray irrigation systems (1) the EPA
Method, and (2) the Hardy and Epperson soil water balance method. The Hardy and Epperson
method is based on the soil characteristics of the surface layer, local precipitation, and local
evapotranspiration. The EPA method (1981) uses a percentage of the saturated hydraulic
conductivity of the most. restrictive horizon to estimate soil drainage. S&ME has chosen to use the
Hardy and Epperson method to estimate soil drainage for all fields.
Soil characteristics of the surface layer include the surface horizon texture, depth to a change in
horizon, and the water holding capacity of the surface layer (% Volume). These soil properties
determine the ability of the soil to drain. Proper drainage for good agricultural .practices is the
difference between available water at field capacity and available water at permanent wilting point.
Field capacity is the water content after a soil is wetted and allowed to drain. Permanent wilting
point represents the lower limit to which a plant can still extract water from the soil. To avoid fields
from reaching permanent wilting point, an irrigation period must be determined. Irrigation periods
are a function of time during application events, drainage of the field back to field capacity, and re -
aeration of the field.
Precipitation and evapotranspiration vary by region, so estimations must be made according to data
that has been gathered over a period of time by climatologists. Potential Evapotranspiration (PET)
is the water loss through transpiration from vegetation plus evaporation from the soil. PET varies
9

furl
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
by both season and region. It is lower in the winter months and higher elevations and higher in the
summer months and lower elevations. To determine the actual PET, S&ME used an ongoing
evaporation study in Cataloochee, North Carolina that was calculated by the South Carolina State
Climatology Office. This study collected data using the pan evaporation method. Evaporation from
a pan is usually greater than the actual evaporation from nearby land surfaces; thus S&ME used a
commonly accepted pan evaporation of 70% (Appendix V).
The monthly precipitation data was gathered from the Internet site www.weather.com (Appendix
V). Monthly precipitation amounts vary from year to year. This collected data is the best
average to estimate irrigation amounts. Using this data implies that no application should be
made during any months when a crop is unable to grow or PET is occurring.
5.1 FIELD R-1
No restrictive horizons were observed thought the soil profiles in field R-1. The surface soil is
approximately 15 inches below grade and is a loamy texture. Application rates should be based
upon the hydraulic conductivity of the limiting soil series located within the useable soil areas of
the field. The useable acres for field R-1 is approximately 0.46 acres. For field R-1, hydraulic
loading rates should be based on the Rosman waterbalance table listed below.
5.2 FIELD R 2
'u" A restrictive horizon was observed at approximately 14 inches below ground surface. The surface
soil is approximately 7 inches. .and has a silty loam texture. A seasonal high water table was
"' observed at 14 inches. Application rates should be based upon the hydraulic conductivity of the
limiting soil series located within the useable soil areas of the field. The useable acres for field R-2
is approximately 4.22 acres. For field R-2, hydraulic loading rates should be based on the Toxaway
water balance table listed below.
10

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
5.3 FIELD R-3
A restrictive horizon was observed at approximately 17 inches below ground surface. The surface
soil is approximately 9 inches and has a silty loam texture. A seasonal high water table was
observed at 17 inches. Application rates should be based upon the hydraulic conductivity of the
limiting soil series located within the useable soil areas of the field. The useable acres for field R-3
is approximately 4.97 acres. For field R-3, hydraulic loading rates should be based on the Toxaway
water balance table Listed below.
5.4FIELD R-4
A restrictive horizon was observed at approximately 22 inches below ground surface along the
western boundary of the field. This western boundary had an inclusion of Toxaway soil located
within field boundaries. The surface soil is approximately 10 inches and has a silty loam texture. A
seasonal high water table was observed at 22 inches. Application rates should be based upon the
hydraulic conductivity of the limiting soil series located within the useable soil areas of the field.
The useable acres for field R-4 is approximately 7.20 acres. For field R-4, hydraulic loading rates
should be based on the Transylvania water balance table listed below.
5.5 FIELD R-5
No restrictive horizon was observed thoughtthe soil profiles in field R-5. The surface soil is
approximately 16 inches below grade and is a loamy texture. Application rates should be based
upon the hydraulic conductivity of the limiting soil series located within the useable soil areas of
the field. The useable acres for field R-5 is approximately 11.1 acres. For field R-5, hydraulic
loading rates should be based on the Rosman water balance table listed below.
5.6 FIELD R-6
A restrictive horizon was observed at approximately 15 inches below ground surface. The surface
soil is approximately 7 inches and has a silty loam texture. A seasonal high water table was
11

PIM
rmf
fing
rmq
7201
Pal
r�1
r+�
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME. Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
January 18, 2002
Rosman, North Carolina
observed at 15 inches. Application rates should be based upon the hydraulic conductivity of the
limiting soil series located within -the useable soil areas of the field. The useable acres for field R-6
is approximately 0.57 acres. For field R-2, hydraulic loading rates should be based on the Toxaway
water balance table listed below.
TABLE 2 TRANSYLVANIA - A horizon 0-10 inches
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Month
Potential
Drainage
- Total
PPT
Allowable
Allowable
Evapotranspiration
Losses
Irrigation
Irrigation
inches
inches
inches
inches
inches
gallons
January
0.00
3.18
3.18
4.90
-1.72
-
February
0.00
3.18
3.18
5.40
-2.22
-
March
0.00
3.18
3.18
- 6.40
-3.22
-
April
2.01
3.18
5.19.
4.70
0.49
95,799
May
2.68
3.18
5.86
5.90
-0.04
-
June
3.00
3.18
6.18
5.60
0.58
113,395
July
3.07
3.18
6.25
5.90
0.35
68,428
. August
2.59
3.18
5.77
6.50
-0.73
-
September
2.32
3.18
5.50 .
5.10
0.40
78,204
October
1.59
3.18
4.77
5.30
-0.53
-
November
1.45
3.18
4.63
5.40
-0.77
. . -
December
. 0.00
3.18
3.18
5.90
-2.72
-
12
Annual sum of allowable irrigation 355,826
Allowable annual irrigation rate in/yr 1.82
Average irrigation rate in/mo 0.46

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report
Rosman, North Carolina
TABLE 3 ROSMAN - A horizon 0-15 inches
S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
January 18, 2002
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Month
Potential
Drainage
Total
_ PPT
Allowable
Allowable
Evapotranspiration
Losses
Irrigation
irrigation
inches
inches
inches
inches
inches
gallons
January
0.00
5.14
5.14
4.90
0.24
-
February
0.00
5.14
5.14
5.40
-0.26
-
March
0.00
5.14
5.14
6.40
-1.26
-
April
2.01
5.14
7.15
4.70
2.45
768,390
May
2.68
5.14
7.82
5.90
1.92
602,167
June
3.00
5.14
8.14
5.60
2.54
796,617
July
3.07
5.14
8.21
5.90
2.31
724,482
August
2.59 .
5.14
7.73
6.50
1.23
385,763
September
2.32
5.14
7.46
5.10
2.36
740,164
October
1.59
5.14
6.73
5.30
1.43
448,489
November
1.45
5.14
6.59
5.40
1.19
373,218
Ember
0.00
5.14
5.14
5.90
-0.76
-
Annual sum of allowable irrigation 4,839,291
Allowable annual irrigation rate in/yr 15.43
Average irrigation rate in/mo 1.93
13
r
r

fag
MEI
for
Fag
furl
Fag
rag
MEI
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report
Rosman, North Carolina
TABLE 4 TOXAWAY - A Horizon 0-7 Inches
S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
January 18, 2002
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Month
Potential
Drainage
Total
PPT
Allowable
Allowable
Evapotranspiration
Losses
Irrigation
Irrigation
inches
inches
inches
inches
inches
gallons
January
0.00
1.88
1.88
4.90
-3.02
-
February
0.00
1.88
1.88
5.40
-3.52
-
March
0.00
1.88
1.88
6.40
-4.52
-
April
2.01
1.88
3.89
4.70
-0.81
-
May
2.68
1.88
4.56
5.90
-1.34
-
June
3.00
1.88
4.88
5.60
-0.72
-
July
3.07
1.88
4.95
5.90
-0.95
-
August
2.59
1.88
4.47
6.50
-2.03
-
September
2.32
1.88
4.20
5.10
-0.90
-
October
1.59
1.88
3.47
5.30
-1.83
-
November
1.45
1.88
3.33
5.40
-2.07
-
December
_
0.00
1.88
1.88
5.90
-4.02
-
Annual sum of allowable irrigation
Allowable annual irrigation rate in/yr
Average irrigation rate in/mo
6.0 BUFFER ZONES
All buffer zones shown (Appendix I, III - IV) are in accordance with the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Administrative Code Section: 15A
NCAC 2H.0200 Waste not Discharged to Surface Waters.
6.1 FIELD R 1
Field R-1 has a total of approximately 7.70 acres, 0.45 useable acres, and 7.25 acres in buffer zones.
Approximately 2.25 acres are used to buffer the French Broad River, which is directly to the south
and west of field R-1 to comply with a 100-foot buffer on streams classified as WS for a non -
discharge surface disposal. A property buffer of approximately 3.5 acres was assigned to the north,
14

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
northeast, and east property boundaries to comply with a 150 foot buffer on all property lines for a
non -discharge surface disposal. The drainage system directly northwest of field R-1 used 1.6 acres
to comply with a 100-foot buffer for spray irrigation systems.
6.2 FIELD R-2
Field R-2 has a total of 9.8 acres, 4.22 useable acreage, and 5.58 acreage in buffer zones. A property
buffer of approximately 4.64 acres was assigned to the north, and east property boundaries to
comply with a 150 foot buffer on all property lines for a non -discharge surface disposal. The
drainage system directly northwest of field R-2 used 0.94 acres to comply with a 100-foot buffer for
spray irrigation systems.
6.3 FIELD R-3
Field R-3 has a total of 9.92 acres, 4.97 useable acreage, and 4.95 acreage in buffer zones.
Approximately 1.9 acres are used to buffer the French Broad River, which is directly to the south of
field R-2 to comply with a 100-foot buffer on streams classified as WS for a non -discharge surface
disposal. A property buffer of approximately 1.08 acres was assigned to the north property
boundary to comply with a 150-foot buffer on all property lines for a non -discharge surface
disposal. Two drainage systems, one located along the western boundary of field R-3 used 0.51 and
the second along the eastern boundary used 1.45 acres to comply with a 100-foot buffer for spray
irrigation systems.
6.4 FIELD R-4
Field R-4 has a total of 11.17 acres, 7.2 useable acreage, and 3.97 acres in buffer zones.
Approximately 1.05 acres are used to buffer the French Broad River, which is directly to the south
of field R-4 to comply with a 100-foot buffer on streams classified as WS for a non -discharge
surface disposal. A property buffer of approximately 2.42 acres was assigned to the north property
15
r
r•

raga
1I
ram
w
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
boundary to comply with a 150-foot buffer on all property lines for a non -discharge surface
disposal. The drainage systems located on the western boundary of field R-4 used 0.5 acres to
comply with a 100-foot buffer for spray irrigation systems.
6.5 FIELD R-5
Field R-5 has a total of 19.6 acres, 11.10 useable acreage, and 8.50 acreage in buffer zones.
Approximately 8.50 acres was assigned to the property boundary to comply with a 150-foot buffer
on all property lines for a non -discharge surface disposal.
6.6 FIED R-6
Field R-6 has a total of 8.87 acres, 0.57 useable acreage, and 8.30 acreage in buffer zones.
Approximately 5.67 acres was assigned to the property buffer to comply with a 150-foot buffer on
all
property lines for a non -discharge surface disposal. Two drainage systems in the middle of the
field used 2.63 acres to comply with a 100-foot buffer for spray irrigation systems.
7.0 AGRONOMY REPORT
7.1 SUGGESTED SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN
It is recommended that applications should be performed in two -half intervals of four to six hours
each, rather than one application rate for the week. Sufficient time between applications will be
necessary to allow proper drainage of the soil.
7.11 FIELD R 1
Field R-1 is suitable to forage operations or hay production. To ensure maximum uptake of
rim nutrients from the bio-solids by the grass, weed species need to be minimized and based on the soil
analysis, additional fertilizer requirements are suggested. Once bio-solid applications begin, the
selected crop will grow more rapid, because nutrients, weeds and water will not limit crop
production. This requires frequent cuttings by the site manager. Considerations are suggested that
16

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
when an application event occurs the site manager check the depth (to approximately 36 inches of
the natural soil surface) of the apparent water table in the field. This is to prevent contamination of
the groundwater.
7.12 FIELD R-2
Field R-2 is capable to support forage operations or hay production. For this field to work properly
it must be brought up to condition, which are able to accept spray irrigation treatment. During the
site visit many types of weeds were observed. These weeds have to be exterminated in order for the
field to be in working order. Horses were also observed on this field. During the application event
and 30 days after, grazing animals are not allowed back on site. To ensure maximum uptake of
nutrients from the bio-solids by the grass, weed species need to be minimized and based on the soil
analysis, additional fertilizer• requirements are suggested. Once bio-solid applications begin, the
selected crop will grow more rapid, because nutrients, weeds and water will not limit crop
production. This requires frequent cuttings by the site manager. Considerations are suggested that
when an application event occurs the site manager check the depth (to approximately 36 inches of
the natural soil surface) of the apparent water table in the field. This is to prevent contamination of
the groundwater.
7.13 FIELD R-3
Field R-3 is suitable to agro-forest operations. During the site visit large tree snags and heavy
undergrowth was observed. For spray irrigation to function properly in this field the site should be
slashed and burned to remove undergrowth. To ensure maximum uptake of nutrients from the bio-
solids by the trees, based on the soil analysis, additional fertilizer requirements are suggested. "Once
bio-solid applications begin, the selected crop will grow more rapid, because nutrients, weeds and
water will not limit crop production. This requires frequent cuttings by the site manager.
Considerations are suggested that when an application event occurs the site manager check the
depth (to approximately 36 inches of the natural soil surface) of the apparent water table in the field.
17
f
r
r

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report
Rosman, North Carolina
This is to prevent contamination of the groundwater.
7.14 FIELD R-4
S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
January 18, 2002
Field R-4 is suitable to forage operations or hay production. A fair amount of weeds seen on site
growing with the forage. To ensure maximum uptake of nutrients from the bio-solids by the grass,
weed species need to be minimized and based on the soil analysis, additional fertilizer requirements
are suggested. Cattle were seen on the field during the site visit. During the application cattle
should be removed from the field not be allowed on it for 30 days. Once bio-solid applications
begin, the selected crop will grow more rapid, because nutrients, weeds and water will not Limit
crop production. This requires frequent cuttings by the site manager. Considerations are suggested
that when an application event occurs the site manager check the depth (to approximately 36 inches
of the natural soil surface) of the apparent water table in the field. This is to prevent contamination
of the groundwater.
7.15 FIELD R-5
Field R-5 is capable to support forage operations or hay production. The field appeared to be
fallow, with large weeds present. To ensure maximum uptake of nutrients from the bio-solids by
the grass, weed species need to be minimized and based on the soil analysis, additional fertilizer
requirements are suggested. Once bio-solid applications begin, the selected crop will grow more
rapid, because nutrients, weeds and water will not limit crop production. This requires frequent
cuttings by the site manager. Considerations are suggested that when an application event occurs
the site manager check the depth (to approximately 36 inches of the natural soil surface) of the
apparent water table in the field. This is to prevent contamination of the groundwater.
7.16 FIELD R-6
Field R-6 is suitable to forage operations or hay production. To ensure maximum uptake of
18

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
nutrients from the bio-solids by the grass, weed species need to be minimized and based on the soil
analysis, additional fertilizer requirements are suggested. Once bio-solid applications begin, the
selected crop will grow more rapid, because nutrients, weeds and water will not limit crop
production. This requires frequent cuttings by the site manager. Considerations are suggested that
when an application event occurs the site manager check the depth (to approximately 36 inches of
the natural soil surface) of the apparent water table in the field. This is to prevent contamination of
the groundwater.
7.2 ADDITIONAL FERTILLZER REQUIREMENTS
Based on the soil test results in Table 1 recommendations have been made, based on crop
requirements below. Annual soil sampling is recommended to ensure that the crop demands of
nutrients are meet. Soil tests should be taken annually in the early fall to determine nutrient and
micronutrient availability. Soil testing is the most accurate way to determine the rate and grade of
fertilizer to apply. Recommended soil analyses are needed for Heavy Metals, Phosphorus,
Potassium, Sodium, pH, CEC, Percent Base Saturation, and Percent Hydrogen. The optimal pH
should be maintained at approximately 6.0 for all crops except Bermuda grass, which requires a pH
of approximately 6.5.
7.21 FIELD R-1
Field R-1 contains Bermuda/Fesucue-Orchard forage. It is estimated that the annual yield is 4
tons/acre. To maximize this estimation of yield proper fertilizer application must compliment
spray irrigation. Based on soil test results approximately 200 to 250 lbs. per acre of Nitrogen or
590 to 735 lbs. Per acre of Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO3), 10 lbs. Per acre P205 or 53 lbs. Per
acre of Superphosphate, 90 lbs. Per acre of K20 or 148 lbs. Per acre of Muriate of potash, and
0.71 tons per acre of Calcium Carbonate. Both, Ammonium Nitrate and Muriate of potash
should follow the first three cuttings. This will make nutrients available during a critical time of
growth. The Calcium Carbonate and Phosphate should be applied between December through
February in order to have the pH of the soil medium adjusted to the proper growing conditions
19

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
for the crop. BermudalFescure-Orchard requires the above nutrients to carry out plant functions
including respiration, growth, photosynthesis, and water uptake.
7.22 FIELD R-2
Field R-2 contains Bermuda/Fesucue-Orchard forage. It is estimated that the annual yield is 4
tons/acre. To maximize this estimation of yield proper fertilizer application must compliment
spray irrigation. Based on soil test results approximately 200 to 250 lbs. per acre of Nitrogen or
590 to 735 lbs. Per acre of Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO3), 30 lbs. Per acre P205 or 158 lbs. Per
acre of Superphosphate, 90 lbs. Per acre of K20 or 148 lbs. Per acre of Muriate of potash, and
0.86 tons per acre of Calcium Carbonate. Both, Ammonium Nitrate and Muriate of potash
should follow the first three cuttings. This will make nutrients available during a critical time of
growth. The Calcium Carbonate and Phosphate should be applied between December through
February in order to have the pH of the soil medium adjusted to the proper growing conditions
for the crop. Bermuda/Fescure-Orchard requires the above nutrients to carry out plant functions
including respiration, growth, photosynthesis, and water uptake.
7.23 FIELD R-3
Field R-1 contains Pine trees To maximize this estimation of yield proper fertilizer application
4411, must compliment spray irrigation. Based on soil test results approximately 70 to 80 lbs. per acre
of Nitrogen is required for Pine trees. There is no Potash, Phosphate, or Lime is required on
�► Field R-3. It is recommended that the Nitrogen should be applied as NH4NO3 (Ammonium
Nitrate) in three applications. Ammonium Nitrate should follow the first three cuttings. This
will make nitrogen available during a critical time of growth.
7.24 FIELD R-4
Field R-4 contains Bermuda!Fesucue-Orchard forage. It is estimated that the annual yield is 4
""' tons/acre. To maximize this estimation of yield proper fertilizer application must compliment
spray irrigation. Based on soil test results approximately 200 to 250 lbs. per acre of Nitrogen or
20

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
590 to 735 lbs. Per acre of Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO3), 100 lbs. Per acre P2O5 or 526 lbs. Per
acre of Superphosphate, 80 lbs. Per acre of K,O or 131 lbs. Per acre of Muriate of potash, and
0.92 tons per acre of Calcium Carbonate or 0.77 tons Per acre of Gypsum. Both, Ammonium
Nitrate and Muriate of potash should follow the first three cuttings. This will make nutrients
available during a critical time of growth. The Calcium Carbonate (or Gypsum) and Phosphate
should be applied between December through February in order to have the pH of the soil
medium adjusted to the proper growing conditions for the crop. It is recommended that Gypsum
be used as the liming material because it will supply approximately 442 lbs. Per acre of
Magnesium, which is needed by field R-4. BermudafFescure-Orchard requires the above
nutrients to carry out plant functions including respiration, growth, photosynthesis, and water
uptake.
7.25 FIELD R-5
Field R-5 contains Bermuda/Fesucue-Orchard forage. It is estimated that the annual yield is 4
tons/acre. To maximize this estimation of yield proper fertilizer application must compliment
spray irrigation. Based on soil test results approximately 200 to 250 lbs. per acre of Nitrogen or
590 to 735 lbs. Per acre of Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO3), 80 lbs. Per acre P2O5 or 421 lbs. Per
acre of Superphosphate, 100 lbs. Per acre of K2O or 164 lbs. Per acre of Muriate of potash, and
0.54 tons per acre of Calcium Carbonate or 0.45 tons Per acre of Gypsum. Both, Ammonium
Nitrate and Muriate of potash should follow the first -three cuttings. This will make nutrients
available during a critical time of growth. The Calcium Carbonate (or Gypsum) and Phosphate
should be applied between December through February in order to have the pH of the soil
medium adjusted to the proper growing conditions for the crop. It is recommended that Gypsum
be used as the liming material because it will supply approximately 260 lbs. Per acre of
Magnesium, which is needed by field R-5. BermudalFescure-Orchard requires the above
nutrients to carry out plant functions including respiration, growth, photosynthesis, and water
uptake.
21

ar►
Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
Rosman, North Carolina January 18, 2002
7.26 FIELD R-6
Field R-6 contains Bermuda/Fesucue-Orchard forage. It is estimated that the annual yield is 4
tons/acre. To maximize this estimation of yield proper fertilizer application must compliment
spray irrigation. Based on soil test results approximately 200 to 250 lbs. per acre of Nitrogen or
590 to 735 lbs. Per acre of Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO3), 30 lbs. Per acre P205 or 158 lbs. Per
acre of Superphosphate, 90 lbs. Per acre of K20 or 148 lbs. Per acre -of Muriate of potash, and
0.55 tons per acre of Calcium Carbonate or 0.46 tons per acre of Gypsum. Both, Ammonium
4,4 Nitrate and Muriate of potash should follow the first three cuttings. This will make nutrients
available during a critical time of growth. The Calcium Carbonate (or Gypsum) and Phosphate
should be applied between December through February in order to have the pH of the soil
medium adjusted to the proper growing conditions for the crop. It is recommended that Gypsum
be used as the liming material because it will supply approximately 264 lbs. Per acre of
Magnesium, which is needed by field R-6. Bermuda/Fescure-Orchard requires the above
nutrients to carry out plant functions including respiration, growth, photosynthesis, and water
uptake.
aav
eft
8.0 CONCLUSION
Approximately 66.92 acres were evaluated for the purpose of spray irrigation. All sites are
located directly northeast from the Town of Rosman existing wastewater treatment facility
(Appendix I, Figure 1). This evaluation was provided for inclusion in the City's application to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) — Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) for a non -discharge permit to operate a spray irrigation disposal system.
After evaluation of the soil properties and characteristics, conservative estimates of the soil's
infiltration rate and soil's hydraulic conductivity, the annual total allowable irrigation is
approximately 5,006,573 gallons per year. The areas to be considered for use by spray irrigation
are fields R-4 (7.20 acres) and R-5 (11.10 acres). No application should occur between
November through March because of low evapotranspiration and high precipitation.
22
wet

Soil Scientist/Agronomist Report S&ME, Inc. Project # 1588-01-044
January 18, 2002
Rosman, North Carolina
9.0 CLOSING
S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide you with this report. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free call us.
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
Mathew H. O'Brien, L.S.S.
Natural Resource Department'Manager
•iI• �
APPENDIX
C. Scott Carpenter
Soil Scientist (In Training)
Appendix I: Figures
Appendix`II: Form: Spray Inigation Discharge System - Non Permit Application Form
Appendix III: Soil Description and Narrative
Appendix IV: Soil Analysis Report
Appendix V: Estimated Potential Evapotranspiration, Precipitation, Drainage, Water
Balance Tables, Lime Requirements
Calculations
Graphs
23

APPENDIX I
FIGURES

i
CON
"1
1' 1 W '_y�dj
at
f a 3
•
Lr
n�j V
•�Y
LAX&
1
alfr
tOr+►w•
Ar
\r �
A Y ...,.
L. L
•
`\ N
n.
;FIELDS -Ft=I
LICA R-r6
4r
QR ip CORMY 14M0.1.11
SCALE:
1"=1.75 miles
CHECKED BY: MIiO
Wit
DRAWN BY: CSC
DATE:
January-02
S8�
VICINITY MAP
WK Dickson Preliminary Soil Evaluation
ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONIJENTAL SERVICES • ENCINEERINC • rESnNC JOB NO.
1588-01-044 WK DICKSON
FIGURE NO.
I

iof
M�1
h
f
.. --.
-asf ft
1 f�
3-D Typ oQuads Copyright 01999 DeLorsao Yamonth. 111E04096 Source Data: USGS 1----1 346 fi Scala: 1:12,000 Detail: 14-1 Datum: NAD27
SCALE.
.AS SHOWN
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY'
MHO
CSC
MIME
DATE. ianuarv-02 ENNRONUENTLL 3ZRVICES • E:+C�lEERtuc • TESTINW. JOB NO.
TOPOGRAPHY MAP
WK Dickson Preliminary Soil Evaluation
ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
1588-01-044 WK DICKSON
FIGURE NO.
n

APPENDIX II
FORM: SPRAY IRRIGATION DISCHARGE SYSTEM - NON PERMIT APPLICATION
FORM

Imo
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Non -Discharge Permit Application Form
(THIS FORM MAY 3E PHOTOCOPIED FOR USE AS AN ORIGINAL)
SPRAY IRRIGATION DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
A' I. GENERAL LTIFOR'y1ATION:
1. Applicant's name (please specry the name of the municipality, corporation. individual. etc.):
2. Print Owners or Signing Official's name and title (the person who is Legally responsible for the facility and its compliance):
w
3. Mailing address:
City: State: Zio:
Telephone Number. ( ) -
iQ; 4. Project Name (subdivision. facility. or establishment name - should be :.onsistent with project name on plans.
specifications. leters of flow acceptance. Operational Agreements. etc.):
5. Location of Spray lineation Facility (Street Address):
City: State: Zip:
6. Latitude: ; Longitude of Spray Irrigation Facility
7. Contact person who can answer questions about application:
Name: Telephone Ntmnba: ( )
8. Application Daze:
' ' 9. Fee Submitted S [The permit processing fee should be as specified in ISA NCAC 2H .0205(c)(5).]
10. County(ies) where project is located:
II. PERMIT INFORMATION:
1. Application No. (will be completed by Doi):
2. Specify whether project is: new; renewal': modification
For renewals. complete only sections L Ii. and applicant signature (on page 7). Submit only paces 1, 2. and 7 (original
and three copies of each). Engineer's signature not required for renewal without other modifications.
3. If this application is being submitted as a result of a renewal or modification to an existing permit. list the existing permit
,fia number and its issue date
4. Specfy whether the applic :nt is public or privy.
"al FORM: SIDS 06194 Page 1 of 3

III. INFORMATION ON WASTEWATER:
1. Nature of Wastewater. % Domestic: % % industral:
% Other waste (specify):
2. Please provide a one or two word descipticn specifying the origin of the wastewater. such as school.. subdivision, hospital
comm=c:al. industrial, apartments. tee.:
3. If wastewater is not domestic in name, what level of prenzatment has bo provided to ensure protection of the receiving
wastewater treamaent faci 1 y
r
4. Volume of wastewater gen ted by this project: gallons per day
5. Explanation of how the wastewatm. volume was determined:
• 6. Brief project description:
IV. FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SINGLE FAMILY SPRAY IRRIGATION
1. Number of bedrooms: x 120 GPD per bedroom = gallons (minimum 240 GPD design flow per home).
?. Dimensions of baffled septic tank: ft. by _ ft. ov ft.
3. Volume of baffled septic tank: gallons.
4. Check the cmtegories that apply for the sand filter: __ surface : subsurface: single: dual:
in series: _._._ in parallel; recirculating; pressure dosed.
5. a) Primary sand filter dimensions: ft by ft = square feet.
b) Sand filter surface loading rate: GPD per square foot.
6. a) Secondary sand filter dimensions (if applicable) ft by ft. = square feet.
b) Secondary sand fate: surface loading rate (if applicable) GPD per square foot.
7 Type of disinfection:
Volume of contact tanlc gallons; and detention time: minutes
3. Volume of storage provided: gallons: Storage time provided: days
NOTE: A minimum of 5 days storage must be provided in the pumpistcrage tank.
9. Volume of pump tank: gallons: number of pumps :n pump Lank
10. Capacity of pumps in pump tank: GPM
11. Specify whicn hilth water aiamis have been provided: audible and -•1sual: auto dial
r
Ott
FORM: SIDS 06 94 Page 2 of 3

aid
12. Sc?c:f'' th:cUowtng information for the :pray nozzles: psi: GPM
13. Spec:iy the ioahing rate recommendation. as determined by the soils scientist:
inches per hour inches per week: inches year
14. Specify the square footage of the weed irrigation area: square fee..
and the cover pop:
15. Specify the loading rate that will man- on the spray irrigation field:
inches per hour; inches per w=4 inches pm- year
16. The project must conform to the following butlers (and all other appiicable buffers):
aJ 400 feet between wetted area and any residence under separate ownership;
b) 150 feet between weaed area and property lines, 200 f=t in coastal areas;
c) 100 feet between wetted area and a potableweil;
d) 100 feet between wetted area and drainage ways or surface waters:
ei 50 feet between wetted area and public right -of -ways:
0 100 feet between wastewater treatment units and a potable well:
g) 50 feet between wastewater treatment units and property lines.
17. If any of the buffers specified in No. IV. 16 above are not being met, please explain how the proposed buffers will
equal or better protection of the Waters of the State with no inceased potential for nuisance conditions:
provide
18. NOTE: (f excavation into bedrock :s required for installation of the septic Lank or sand filter. the respective pit must be
lined with at least a 10 mil synthetic liner. The engineers signature and seal on this application acluiowiedges a
commitment to meet this requirement.
19. The spray irrigation field must be fenced with a minimum two strand barbed wire fencing. Briefly describe the fencing:
liar. V. FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA FOR OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY SYSTEMS
1. Provide a brief listing of the components of this treatment and disposal system. including dimensions and capacities of
tanks. pumping facilities. nozzles, high water alarms, filters, lagoons. package treatment units. disinfection facilities.
irngation system. etc.:
2. Name of closest downslope surface waters:
3. Classification or closest downslope surface waters: (as esabiished by the Environmental Management
Commission and specified on page 6 of 8 of this application).
-i. If a power failure at the pump station could impact waters classified as WS. S.A. B. or SB. describe which of the measures
are being; implemented to prevent such impact. as required in 15A NCAC 2H .3: 00:
mit
FORM: SIDS t)nioa
Page 3 of 3

Scec.r" :he to;td re, raw ..econ rnentiaucns s deteraured by the sous scientist (Ile Division •»ill considered higher loading
ratea :n ; .1r.• months fhune : - September 301 depending on the soils scientist :ecommeadauons). If only one loading
rate will be prccosed.. that :ate must be the most restr:csve leading. rate.
Dry Monts flume I - September 301 inches cer hour. inches per week '
Wet Months t October 1 - May 31) inches per Lour. inches per week
Recommended Maximum inches per year
6. For industrial wastewater. an analysis of nutrients. heavy memLs tntaLs, and synthetic organics must be provided along with
appropriate calculations showing the loading rate. based on the most limiting constituent. The chemical analysis must
include. but shall apt be limited to: Total Organic Carbon. Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Chemical Oxygen Demand.
Chlorides, Phosphorus. Ammonia, Nitrates, Phenol. Total Trihalomethanes, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Analyses. Total Halogenated Compounds, Total Colifotms, and Total Dissolved Solids.
What is the limiting non -hydraulic constituent for this waste? pounds per ace per year of
7. Specify the square footage of the wetted inigation area: square feet
n
and the cover top:
3. Specify the hydraulic loading rate that will occ'.n• on the spray irrigation field
Dry Months (June I - September 30) inches per hour: inches per week �+[
Wet Months (Octhber 1 - May 31) inches per hour. , inches per week `
Maximum .application inches per year
lbs. per age per year of:
(limiting constinient) 7
9. Is hydraulics the limiting constituent? Yes: _ No.
10. Specify the storage volume required by the water balance: - gallons: days
ll
11. Volume of storage provided: gallons and yields: days
NOTE. Minimum thirty days required at the design tlow rate. l*1
1a
17.. If any of the applicable buffers noted in Iv.16 are not being met. please explain how the proposed buffers will provide
equal or better protection of the Waters of the State with no increased potential for nuisance conditions:
13. The treatment and spray irrigation facilities must be posted and secured in some fashion to prevent unauthorized entry.
Briefly descibe the measures being taker+• 17",
14. Is the treatment facility capable of treating the wastewater to at least secondary limits prior to storage (BODS 5 30 mg/L;
TSS 5 30 msvL: NH3 5 15 mg/L.: Fecal Coliform 5 200 colonies/100 ml)? Yes No. If No, what level of
`l
treatment ,:an be achieved?
15. Are aeanne^.t facility or spray fieids located within 100-year flood plain? Yes No. If Yes„ briefly desatbe the
protective measures res being taken to protect against flooding.
la. List the Field Number of any spray telds that are located in area where the seasonal high water table is less than 3 feet
below the surface?
17. Describe t e .Jisinieccon fac:liues that are being provided if domestic wastewater 1,1
FORN( : SIDS I)4.04 Page 4 of 3

a.
b.
c.
THIS APPLICATION PACKAGE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNLESS ALL OF THE APPLICABLE ITEMS ARE
Lei C L L• D ED WITH THE SUBMITTAL
One original :and four ccoies of the completed and appropriately e. ecuted applicanon cam.
The appropriate permit processing fee. in accordance with 15A NCAC rH .0205(c)(5).
Five (5) sets of detailed plans and spec:ncations signed and sealed by a North Carolina Professional Engineer. The plans must
include a general Location trap, a topographic map, a site map which indicates where ramgs or band auger samples were taken, a
map showing the land application site, buife:s, structures. and property lines: along with all wells. surface waters (100-year flood
elevation), and surfam drainage features within 500 feet of the land application site. =aca sheet of the plans and the first page of
the specifications must be signed and sealed.
d. Five (5) copies of an Operational Ag:eemeat (original and 4 copies) must be submia d if the wastewatc treatment and disposal
facilities will be serving single family residences. condominiums. mobile homes. or mwn houses and if the subject facilities will
be owned by the individual residents. a homeowners association. or a developer.
e. Five (5) copies of all reports. evaluations. agreements, supporting calculations. etc. must be submitted as a part of the supporting
documents which are signed and sealed by the NC Professional Engineer. Although certain portions of this required submittal,
must be deve!cped by other professionals. inclusion of these materials under the signature and seal of a NC Professional Engineer
sigruries that he has reviewed this material and has judged it to be consistent with his ;reposed design.
f. Five (5) copies of the existing permit if a renewal or modification.
g-
For Single Family Systems (a through f above plus g. 1. '2. 3)
1) A letter from the local health department denying the site for any permit that the beaith department has the authority to issue.
2) A sods scientist report (signed) which describes the soil type. color, texture through :he 3 horizon. and recommended loading
rates with supporting calculations.
3) A signed and notarized Opera. non and Maintenance Agree^ient.
h . For Other Than Single Family (a through f above plus h. 1, 2, 3. 4. , 6)
1) A water balance analysis showing annual amount of wastewater that will need :o be applied and the amount of land nrr-.scary
to receive the waste .vater at the given loading rate. Storage requirements must be addressed and supporting ,micuIatioas
provided.
2) A soils scientist report (signed) which includes texture, color. and structure of soils down to a depth of seven feet depth,
thickness and type of any restrictive horizons. hydraulic conductivity in the most restrictive horizon. Cation Exchange
Capacity (CEC), depth of seasonal high water table. soil pH, and soils reap if available).
3) For systems treating industrial waste or any system with a design flow ;renter than 25.000 GPD a Hydrogeologie Report
providing the extent and lithologic character of the unconfined aquifer. transniissivity and specific yield of the unconfined
aquifer. thickness and permeability of the fast confining bed. goundwater .;uality and direction of movement. and an
evaluation of impacts of the disposal system on water levels. movement and quality.
4) An agronomist retort (signed) which states the type of vegetation that is planned for the spray fields. along with management
and hair est schedules.
) Proposal for groundwater monitoring.
6) An analysis of :lie :vaste :vale:. including heavy metals totals and synthetic organics. along with calculations :or :he most
limiting_ constituents.
FORM: Page = of 3

This form must be completed by the appropriate DEM regional office and included as a part of
the project submittal information.
INSTRUCTIONS TO NC PROFESSIONAL. ENG1?' ER:
The classification of the downslope surface waters (the staia�ce wares that any ovatow from the facility would flow toward)
in which this spray irrigation system will be construcred must be determined by the appropriate DEi regional office.
Therefore. you are required prior to submittal of the application package, to submit this form, with items
through 7 complettd, to the appropriate Division of Environmental WRegional ional Water Quality Supervisor (see page 8 of 8). At a minimum. you must include an 8.5" by II" copy of the portion of a 7.5 minute USGS Topographic Map
which shows the location of this spray irrigation system and the downslope surd waters in which they will be Located.
identify the closest downslope surface waters on the attached map copy.
Once the regional atIIce has completed the
classification, reincorporate this completed page and the topographic map into the complete
application form and submit the application package.
1. Applicant (specify name of the municipality, corporation. individual, etc.):
2. Name Sc complete address of engineering firm:
Telephone number. ( )
3. Project name:
4. Name of closest downslope surface waters:
5. County' ies) when the spray irrigation system and surface waters are located:
6. Man name and date:
7. NC Processional Engineer's Seal. Signature. and Date:
TO: REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR
Please provide me with the classification of the watershed whore these sewers will be constructed. as identified on the attached
.,se
trap seinment:
Name of surface waters'
C'.assitic: alien (as established by the Environmental Management Commission):
Proposed classification. if applicable:
' Date:
Si�,nature of regional office pasonncl:
c .kI11ttachments must be signed)
FORtii: SIDS 06/94 Page 6 of 3

04
Name and C.mpie:e Address of r.agineerng Firm:
City:
Tzlephone Number: (
State: Zip:
Professional Engineer's Certification:
L ,attest that this application for
has been reviewed by me and is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Hurdler attest that to the best of my knowledge
the proposed design has been prepared in accordance with the applicable regulations. Although certain portions of this submittal
package may have been developed by other professionals. inclusion of these materials under my signature and seal signifies that I have
reviewed this material and have judged it to be consistent with the proposed design.
air
North Carolina professional Engineer's Seal, Signauue. and Dace:
0110
Applicant's Certification:
I
attest that this application for
coo has been reviewed by me and is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that if ail required parts of this
apP
lication are not completed and that if all required supporting inforhnation and ,znmr hments are not included, this application packne
will be returned to me as incomplete.
Signature Date
THE COMPLETED APPLICATION PACKAGE, 1WCLUDING ALL SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND
MATERIALS, SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS.
NORTH C AROLINA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
PERMITS AND ENGIINEERLNG UNIT
POST OFFICE BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NORTH CA RO LINA 22 7 626-0535
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
FAX NUMBER: [phone]
FO Rt: SIDS 06;94
Page 7 of 3

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGIONAL OFFICES (111.93)
Asheville Regional WQ Supervisor
59 Wocdfin Place
Asheville. NC 28801
(704) :51-6208
Fax [phone]
Avery Macon
Buncombe Madison
Burke McDowell
Caldwell Mitchell
Cherokee Palk
Clay Rutherford
Graham Swain
Haywood Transylvania
Henderson Yancv
Jackson
Fayetteville Regional WQ Supervisor
Wachovia Building. Suite 714
Fayetteville. NC 23301
(910)-s86-1541
Fax [phone]
Anson Moore
Bladen Robeson
Cumberland Richmond
Harnett Sampson
Hoke Scotland
Montgomery
Washington Regional WQ Supervisor
Post Office Box 1507
Washington. NC 27889
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Beaufort Jones
Berrie L.eaoir
Camden Martin
Gowan Pamlico
Craven Pasquotank
Curriauck Pe:quimans
Dare Pitt
Cates Tyre1
Greene Washington
Hmtfard Wayne
Hyde
Winston-Salem Regional WQ Supervisor
3025 North Point Boulevard, Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(910) 396- 7 007
Fax [phone]
Alarm - Rockingham
Allegbany Randolph
Ashe Stokes
Caswell Sunv
Davidson Watauga
Davie Wilkes
Forsyth Yadkin
Guilford
Mooresville Regional WQ Supervisor
919 North Main Street
Mooresville. NC 28115
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Alexander Mecklenburg
Cabarrus Rowan
Catawba S.taniy
Gaston Union
Itedel Cleveland
Lincoln
Raleigh Regional WQ Supervisor
Post Office 3ox 27687
Raleigh. NC 27611
(919) 5714700
Fax [phone]
cmatham Nash
Durham Northampton
Edgecmbe Orange
Franklin Person
Granville Van=
Halifax Wake
Johnston Wain
Wilson
Wilmington Region. WQ Supervisor
127 Cardinai Drive Extension
Wilmington. NC 23405-3845
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Bnmswick
Cztmret
Columbus
Duolin
New Hanover
Onslow
Pe ader
FORM: SIDS 06,94 Page 3 of 3

APPENDIX III
SOIL DESCRIPTION & NARRATIVE

04
abo
oal
Gil
alli
C:ierr:
Projec: Nacre:
CJunr;:
L,oc :con:
Soil Series:
Apparent Water Table:
Vegeation:
Boring Terminated at
S & E. EN-C.
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
u\' 0‘.(-
TC La" CC 10 S rtwk
Tew sv k,e t
5 #. / lam •-�,.,
Roman (n) /Toxuwkay e r' %)
6ra.SS1 rorc`5
Inches
Date:
Projec: No.
State
Site•Fieid No.
Seasonal }fish Water Table:
SIope:
NC..
Cgn
1.1
Horizon.
Depth I
Matr.x
Mottles
I Texture
I Sir.:Calre
Consistence
I Boundary
I
A
o_ls» I
t c'g3(Q
—
I 1
LLcc
MSc
I C LA
i
e,_,,
\ G- (-" 1
f oy � "/(4
1 d
Iis;?L:,K
rnc-
.;._4
CA-
L 7-4 0 " 1.53k
I 1
I .bK11
---
c a
(co-"
.�..
s1
Icsa
•
mf-C
5 Lki,
,
C 3
% A - u " I
toyiNg
Q,,,livz_'/I
c
1 _
--
a s
.
R
i'a 4- "
—
-.-
—
1
1
I
i
I
,
I
I
I
I
.
1
1
I
:1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
COMMENTS: C L C� ' t C fea. e t •" 8 tt 3
{� Lc F/&/ s „ C�
DESCRIBED BY. C- 1.6- (.1) -n.
LEGEND: �e A -4-(AciAc_P
�
DATE: { 0-ZO —��

Aso Official Series Description - ROSMAN Series
Pate 1 of
Pm! LOCAT ION ROSMAN NC
Established Series
al Rev. DLN-HJB-AG
04/2001
" ROSMAN SERIES
The Rosman series consists of very deep, well drained to moderately well drained, moderately rapidly permeable
soils on flood plains in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They formed in loamy alluvium. Average annual
precipitation is about 65 inches and mean annual temperature is about 53 degrees F., near the type location. Slopes
range from 0 to 3 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Coarse -loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Fluventic Humic Dystrudepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Rosman loam —cultivated. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
w
Ap-0 to 10 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam; weak medium granular structure; very friable; few
fine flakes of mica; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary. (6 to 15 inches thick)
A-10 to 15 inches; dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam; weak fine and medium granular structure; very friable; few fine
flakes of mica; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary. (4 to 8 inches thick)
Bw 1--15 to 21 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loam; massive; very friable; common fine flakes of mica;
strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to 10 inches thick)
Bw2--21 to 35 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) fine sandy loam; few medium distinct grayish brown
(10YR 5/2) mottles; massive; very friable; common fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to
16 inches thick)
Bw3-35 to 50 inches; dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) fine sandy loam; many medium distinct grayish brown
(10YR 5/2) mottles in lower portions; massive; very friable; common fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; clear
smooth boundary. (0 to 16 inches thick)
C--50 to.60 inches; stratified sand and gravel; single grained; strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Transylvania County, North Carolina. About 3 miles east of Brevard, 1/4 mile northwest of
Pisgah Forest Post Office, in cultivated field 200 feet east of abandoned church.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 35 to 60 inches or more. The soil ranges from
''" strongly acid to neutral in the A and upper Bw or C horizons and from strongly acid to slightly acid in the lower
horizons. Content of flakes of mica ranges from few to many. The loamy horizons extend to depths of at least 40
inches. Strata of contrasting textures may occur in the C horizon below a depth of 40 inches. Gravel content is less
s'' than 15 percent by volume in the upper 40 inches and may range up to 50 percent in horizons below 40 inches.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 1 to 3. The A horizon is loam, silt
pa loam, sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, or fine sandy loam. Some pedons have an Ab horizon that has the same
color and texture range as the A horizon.
fir

Official Series Description - ROSMAN Series
Page = �r
The Bw horizon where present, has hue of 2.5Y to 5YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 3 to 8. Few to many moth P'9,
of chroma 2 or less are below a depth of 20 inches in some pedons. Texture is loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam.
very tine sandy loam, or silt loam.
The C horizon has hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 2 to 8. Mottles, if they occur, are in shade -
of red, brown, yellow, olive, or gray. Texture is variable, ranging from coarse sand to loam in the fine -earth
fraction. Strata containing 15 to 50 percent by volume gravel and cobbles are below a depth of 40 inches in some '
pedons.
COMPETING SERIES: These are the Edgewick and Nekoma series in the same family and the Barbourville,
Beulah, Codorus, Colvard, Comus, Congaree, Haywood, Reddies, Toccoa, Toxaway, and Transylvania series in
closely related families. Edgewick and Nekoma soils formed in a midhumid maritime climate with mean annual
precipitation from 70 to 80 inches. Barbourville and Transylvania soils are in a fine -loamy family. Beulah,
Codorus, Colvard, Comus, Congaree, and Toccoa soils have an ochric epipedon. In addition, Congaree and Toccoa_
soils have a mean annual temperature of more than 59 degrees F. Haywood soils have umbric epipedons more thar
20 inches thick. Toxaway soils have matrix colors of chroma 2 or less, have umbric epipedons thicker than 24
inches, and are in a fine -loamy family.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Rosman soils are on nearly level flood plains in the Southern Appalachian ¢'
Mountains. Elevation ranges from about 1200 to 2000 feet. These soils formed in alluvium which has been washes_ .
from soils formed from a variety of rocks such as granite, schist, gneiss, phyllite, slate, and metasandstone. Mean
annual temperature ranges from 46 to 57 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation ranges from about 45 to 70 '°'"
inches.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the competing Reddies, Toxawav and Transylvan:/"
series, these are Biltmore, Colvard, Dillard, Hemphill, Iotla, Staler, Kinkora series. Biltmore, Colvard, and Iotla
soils have an ochric epipedon and do not have a cambic horizon. Dillard, Hemphill, Kinkora, and Statler soils have
argillic horizons and are on low terraces. Reddies soils are on flood plains along small streams. Toxaway soils are ?"
in depressed parts of the flood plains. Transylvania soils are in the same landscape positions as Rosman soils.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well to moderately well drained; slow runoff; moderate internal drainage!"'
moderately rapid permeability. Most areas of these soils are subject to occasional to frequent hooding. A few areas ._
are protected by flood control structures and are subject to rare flooding.
USE AND VEGETATION: Most of the acreage is cleared and in cultivation. The chief crops are corn, truck
crops. hay, ornamentals, Christmas trees, and pasture grasses. In forested areas common trees are yellow -poplar,
eastern white pine, American sycamore, river birch, red maple, northern red oak, willow oak, and black walnut.
Understory plants include rhododendron, ironwood, flowering dogwood, alder, greenbrier, and switchcane.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: North Carolina, Virginia, and possibly Tennessee. This series is of moderate
extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Lexington, Kentucky
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Henderson County, North Carolina; 1974.
RE1'L&RIKS: The July, 1991 revision recognizes that a cambic horizon is not required, although many pedons of
Rosman have a cambic horizon.
Diao_nostic horizons and features recognized in -this pedon are:

Official Series Description - ROSMAN Series Page 3 of
mar
Umbric epipedon - the zone from the surface to a depth of 15 inches (Ap and A horizons)
Cambic horizon - the zone from 15 to 50 inches (Bw1, Bw2, and Bw3 horizons). This is not a required diagnostic
mis•.. horizon for the Rosman series.
MLRA=130 SIR=NC0024
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1116 U.S.A.
tfol

laa
al
osi
64
AIM
NO
Amig
a+i
C.ie^.t:
Projec: lame:
County',
Location:
Soil Series:
Apparent Water Table:
Ve em ion:
Boring Terminated at
5,sc�iLE. EC.
SOIL PROFILE. DESCRIPTIONS
To La ^ 04- R ,-r .G.
o t& Gs t� i
To ' ak,..ta1 (TO
Cj f 4S3 z r4 go to
5 5 Inches
Date:
Projec: No.
State
Site:Pie!d No.
Seasonal Hag Water Table:
Slope:
0-3o -0\
I Sn`S-C1- Oy 41
n1 C
1(.{''
Horizon
Depth ( Matr_x
Mottles I
Texture
Sc .:c^are
Consistence I Boundary I
A e
©- -" 1 to'tz31,
-- 1
s 1 1 Lc9c
i 4c-
1
a.s
A 1
1-L0 1
(cye li
r 1
s(
1 1 .,)crlc
rAcc
I
as
A (_ 1
to-t.LL" 1
toYK/9
f I
S�
1 1 sbK
Mcc
I
�Li_k
Ei- 1
rLI_36" 1
toieb
-- 1
:c. 1
a‘ic-shY
me
1 c
2. 13C—�-1o''
I
IoYR Ali
loYR 5/1 5i C I
y C5bi,
C
1
C` S
C -1 1
,9o-? '(
S
LCYR 73
— l
e_ 1
Q v 1g
<
I
c Lk..L
C4 Q 1
�a- 63 G fjoC Y
loYg� ,
Sc.IisbK
1
CJ 1
s -" I
g/ c0C 6
L cyK%
Sc. I
a icsb)
icc
I
1
I
!
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1 1
1
1
'
I
I I
1
I
i
1 1
1
1
I
1
1 1
1
1
CONMENTS:
C (6-y te^S'T`9 kl-C10-1
&r bad M' M.; cc, F/ JA! S
,‘ 65 0, nc-NC ko t i JCS
DESC:Z BED BY: C.
LEGEND: S zz .�- A-4-a.- Le
DATE: 10-�0-�

icia1 Series Description - TOXAWAY Series
Page l of
• LOCATION TOXAWAY NC+GA VA
Established Series
• Rev: rMO: AG
04/2001
TOXAWAY SERIES
The Toxaway series consists of very deep, poorly and very poorly drained soils that formed in loamy alluvial
deposits on nearly level flood plains of mountain valleys. Near the type location, mean annual temperature is 57
.ai degrees F., and mean annual precipitation is 60 inches. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy, mixed, nonacid, mesic Cumulic
Humaquepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Toxaway silt loam —cultivated field. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Al-0 to 26 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) black (10YR 2/1) silt loam; moderate medium granular structure;
friable, sticky and slightly plastic; common fine roots; few fine flakes of mica; moderately acid; gradual smooth
sim boundary.
A2--26 to 36 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loam; weak medium granular structure; friable; few fine roots;
boil common fine flakes of mica; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of the A horizon
ranges from 24 to 50 inches.)
▪ Cg1-36 to 43 inches; very. dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam; massive; very friable, slightly sticky; common fine
flakes of mica; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (5 to 15 inches thick)
W Cg2-43 to 53 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sand; few fine prominent yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) mottles;
single grained; loose; common fine flakes of mica; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (7 to 15 inches thick)
Cg3-53 to 65 inches; gray (N 6/0) sandy clay loam with lenses of sandy loam; massive; friable, slightly sticky anc
slightly plastic; common fine flakes of mica; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to 15 inches thick)
• Cg4-65 to 72 inches; gray (N 6/0) loamy sand; single grained; loose; common fine flakes of mica; moderately
acid.
"a` TYPE LOCATION: Henderson County, North Carolina;1.5 miles east of Hendersonville; S00 feet southeast of
Hendersonville -Meyer Airport; 600 feet east of Airport Road.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 24 to 50 inches. The loamy horizons are
commonly 40 to 60 inches thick over sandy subhorizons. Depth to bedrock is more than 10 feet. The soil is strong.
acid to slightly acid unless limed. Flakes of mica range from few to many. Rock fragments range from 0 to 5
took percent by volume in the A horizon and 0 to 15 percent in the Cg horizon.
Organic matter content of the A horizon is medium to high. The A horizon has hue of 10YR or is neutral, value of
or 3, and chroma of 0 to 3. The A horizon is silt loam or loam. Some pedons have an Ab horizon. The Ab horizon.
where present has the same color and texture range as the A horizon.

Official Series Description - TOXAWAY Series
Page 2 of Po,
The Cg horizon has hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, or is neutral, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 0 to 2. The C horizon is
stratified alluvial sediments of clay loam, sandy clay loam, silt loam, loam, silty clay loam, sandy loam, fine sandy
loam, often with lenses and strata of loamy sand or sand. Gravel or cobbles are in the C horizons in some pedons.
CONCPETING SERIES: There are no other known series in this family.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Toxaway soils are on nearly level flood plains of mountain valleys. Slopes range
from 0 to 3 percent. The soils formed in loamy alluvial deposits. Elevations are above 2,000 feet. Mean annual
temperature near the type location is 57 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation is about 60 inches.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Arkaqua, Biltmore, Chatuge, Colvard, Codorus,
Comus, Cullowhee, Dellwood, Dillard, Dillsboro, French, Hatboro, Hemphill, Iotla, and kinkora, Nikwasi, Reddie5
Rosman, Statler, Sylva, Transylvania, Whiteside series. All of these series except Chatuge, Hatboro, Hemphill, Imo
Kinkora, Nikwasi, and Sylva are better drained than Toxaway soils. Chatuge, Hatboro, Hemphill, and Kinkora have
an argillic horizon, and Nikwasi is in a coarse -loamy over sandy or sandy -skeletal family. Also, none have an
umbric epipedon thicker than 24 inches except Nikwasi and Transylvania soils. Arkaqua, Biltmore, Colvard,
Codorus, Comus, French, Iotia, Reddies, Rosman, and Transylvania soils are on higher parts of the flood plain or
are nearer to stream channels. Chatuge, Dillard, Dillsboro, Hatboro, Hemphill, knkora, and Statler soils are on
stream terraces nearby. Sylva and Whiteside soils are on colluvial fans and toe slopes that do not flood.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Very poorly drained and poorly drained; very slow or ponded runoff
moderate permeability. These soils are subject to common, very brief floods.
USE AND VEGETATION: Most of the Toxaway soils are cleared and drained and used for cultivated crops,
pasture, and hay. The dominant tree species are yellow -poplar, pitch pine, shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, eastern
white pine, northern red oak, sycamore, red maple, and yellow birch.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and
possibly Tennessee. The series is of small extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Lexington, Kentucky
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Transylvania County, North Carolina; 1906.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features in this pedon are:
Umbric Epipedon - The zone from the surface of the soil to a depth of 36 inches (Al and A2 horizons)
Cumulic Humaquept feature - An umbric epipedon 24 inches or more thick
Irregular decrease in organic matter content with depth
Nonacid family - reaction of 5.5 or more in the 10 to 40 inch control section (A horizon)
MLRA= 130 SIR =NC0021
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S. a.

)101
oat
*14
Sig
Rim
isa
fiat
P:ojer: Narre:
CJunci:
Locadon:
Soil Series:
Apparent Water Table:
ti egemrion:
Boring Terminated at
SOIL. PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
(A)k Dir✓�S�n
a F t4(.....A.1 6
�l Ss iveLwi 4 /L /v4-'
rine fry e " •/ti 6 v k"5
•�� a Inches
Dace:
Project No.
State
Site.'Field No.
/2//o/oi
Seasonal High Ware: Table: S 13 5.
SIoce:
0-2e/..
Horizon
Depth
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Boundari I
At I
��cs'
� - �S
jo YR 3j�
Nl4
S L
i Ail,— r
itil �
I
tjt t I7-"
/ ° Y2 -4
M/4-
SC'- I
i Vbts jk
yvk ir
�S
_ 1
„
3�'G2.L
l° Y' sit,
�Q rig 7/2
i, r,r ejy
Sc L
it Nish k
MfgI
Cs-
g C 1424)-"
Si pL
s`' `t _b/r
Fs
i i
;
I
`
'
•
I
-
i
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
i
I
I
COMMENTS: i''1.oit{e.s.
rtn . e,. 13 b9 c
7 G 2:
DESC CUBED BY:
DATE: 2/

00 LOCATION TRANSYLVANIA NC+GA SC TN
Established Series
Rev. JIv1K:AG
omi
08/2001
TRANSYLVANIA SERIES
The Transylvania series consists of very deep, well drained and moderately well drained soils that formed in loamy alluvial deposits. They are on
mei nearly level flood plains of mountain valleys in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Near the type location, mean annual air temperature is about
56 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation is about 63 inches. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Fluventic Humic Dystrudepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Transylvania silt loam --cultivated (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap--0 to 10 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam; weak medium granular structure; very friable, slightly sticky; few fine flakes of
mica; very strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (8 to 12 inches thick)
A 1--10 to 27 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam; moderate medium granular structure; very friable, slightly sticky; few fine
flakes of mica; very strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (16 to 36 inches thick)
Bw-27 to 42 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) silty clay loam; few fine distinct light Bray (I OYR 7/2) mottles at a depth of 38 inches; weak
medium subangular blocky structure; friable; sticky, slightly plastic; common fine flakes of mica: very strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary. (0
to 20 inches thick)
Bg--42 to 60 inches; light gray (10YR 7/2) silty clay loam: many medium and coarse. distinct light yellowish brown (IOYR 6/4) mottles; weak
medium subangular blocky structure; friable, sticky, slightly plastic; common fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to
20 inches thick)
wag Cg--60 to 70 inches; light olive gray (5Y 6/2) loamy fine sand; single grained; loose; common fine flakes of mica; moderately acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Transylvania County, North Carolina; 6 miles southeast of Brevard. 700 feet south of Little River and 100 feet east of
Secondary Road 1535.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 24 to more than 70 inches. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches. The soil is
very strongly acid to moderately acid unless the surface has been limed. Content of mica flakes ranges from few to many throughout.
The A horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y, or it is neutral, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 0 to 3. Texture is silt loam or loam.
The Bw horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 3 to 8. Many pedons have few or common mottles in
shades of brown. yellow or gray in the Bw horizon. Texture is silty clay loam, clay loam. silt loam, loam, or sandy 'clay loam.
The Bg horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 1 or 2. Mottles with chroma of 3 or more range from few to
many. Texture is silty clay loam, clay loam. silt loam. loam, or sandy clay loam.
The Cg horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 4 to 7. and chroma of 1 or 2. Some pedons have few to many mottles in shades of brown, yellow or
gray. Texture is variable. but is typically loamy or sandy.
COMPETING SERIES: There are no other series in this family. The Rosman series is in a closely related family. Rosman soils have an umbric
epipedon 10 to 20 inches thick and are in a coarse -loamy family.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Transylvania soils are on nearly level flood plains of mountain valleys in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Slope
ranges from 0 to 3 percent. The soils formed in loamy alluvial deposits. Mean annual air temperature is 56 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation
is about 63 inches near the type location.
••0
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the competing Rosman soils. these include the Biltmore, Cullowhee, Dillard,
Staticr, Reddies, and !'oxawav soils. Rosman is in a similar landscape position as Transylvania soils. Biltmore soils are in a sandy family and are in
a natural levee position beside the stream channel of large streams. Cullowhee and Reddies soils are along narrow flood plains ‘vhere the loamy
oat alluvium is moderately deep to gravel beds. These soils are in a coarse -loamy over sandy or sandy skeletal family. Dillard and Staler soils have
argillic horizons and are on nearby stream terraces. Toxaway soils are very poorly drained and are in depressions and backwater areas of the flood
plains.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained and moderately well drained; very slow runoff; moderate permeability. These soils are
subject to common flooding for brief periods.

USE AND VEGETATION: Most areas of these soils are cleared and used for cultivated crops or pasture. Corn, vegetables, and grass and clover
are the main crops grown. Native vegetation consists of mixed hardwoods and include red maple. river birch, American sycamore, yellow poplar,
eastern white pine. and American beech. Understory plants include greenbrier, hobblebush. rhododendron, mountain laurel, flowering dogwood,
sourwood, eastern hophombeam.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina, Georgia, and possibly Tennessee -and Virginia. The series
is of small extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Lexington, Kentucky
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Transylvania County, North Carolina; 1937.
REMARKS: The following diagnostic horizons and features are recognized in this pedon.
Umbric epipedon - the zone from the surface of the soil to a depth of 27 inches (Ap and Al horizons)
Cumulic feature - the presence of an umbric epipedon more than 20 inches thick (Ap and A 1 horizons)
Cambic horizon --the zone from 27 to 60 inches below the surface (Bw and Bg horizons)
MLRA = 130 SIR = NC0092
National Cooperative Soil Survey
• U.S.A.

Sol
Psi
ran
zoo
Sri
64.
S&ME, INC.
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
Client: l4Y, O;C.KSr
Project Name: ROS ?IAA n
County: fro sy IV
Location:
Soil Series:
Apparent Water Table:
Vegetation:
&o 4 L4nd L416 oods
Boring Terminated at 2 q Inches
Date:
Project No.
State
Site/Field No.
ID -So •oI
15-58-of-0Y�
NC_
Seasonal High Water Table: 6c4scAtbs—a K)
Slope:
Horizon
Depth
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Boundary
OL 1
0 q J'
/1:)
r"
0 fga4. (r
Le4yes� RoS$
Tw q�
C5
DLa
-cs
gala
.....
_0(4,t,'LjbkS)
Mgc
0s
Ctr-4;5
"
a.✓ Y Yl3.
r
�.'i�/•1
. ., 5b `
knnc-
T
COMMENTS: kle. o{ 5 G rt ti C. La ye
aw WI' Ltia ee r
We_
LEGEND: See 4+I-Led
DATE: l0—.30_a 1

LCCATIOU PONZER NC+AL FL GA MS SC
Established Series
PLT-EN 11
07/ 1 999
PONZER SERIES
The 1'onzer series consists of very poorly drained, organic soils in flats and depressions in the lower Coastal Plain. They formed in highly
Nis decomposed organic material underlain by loamy textured marine and fluvial sediment. The organic material was derived from herbaceous plants.
Slope range from 0 to 2 percent. Mean annual temperature is 62 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation is 53 inches.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy. mixed. dysic, thermic Terric Haplosaprists
sism
bin
TYPICA L PEDON: Ponzer muck --cultivated. (Colors are for moist soils unless otherwise stated.)
Oap--0 to 5 inches; black (N 2/0) broken face and rubbed muck; less than 1 percent fibers unrubbed and rubbed; moderate fine granular structure;
very friable; common fine roots; common very fine grains of clean sand; about 35 percent mineral content; very strongly acid; abrupt smooth
boundary.
Oa I --5 to 9 inches; black (N 2/0) broken face and rubbed muck; less than 1 percent fibers unrubbed and rubbed; moderate medium subangular
blocky structure; very friable; few fine and medium roots; common very fine grains of clean sand; about 35 percent mineral content; extremely acid:
clear smooth boundary.
0a2--9 to 20 inches; black (10YR 2/1) broken face; (N 2/0) rubbed muck; about 5 percent fibers less than 1 percent rubbed; moderate medium
subangular blocky structure; very friable; few fine and medium roots; common very fine grains of clean sand; about 30 percent mineral content;
extremely acid; clear smooth boundary.
0a3--20 to 24 inches; black (N 2/0) broken face and rubbed muck; about 5 percent fibers, less than 1 percent rubbed; moderate medium subangular
blocky structure; very friable; few tine and medium roots; about 55 percent mineral content; extremely acid; clear wavy boundary. (The combined
thickness of the Oa horizon is 16 to 48 inches)
Cg1--24 to 31 inches; dark gray (5Y 4/1) silt loam; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; very friable; few fine and medium roots; about
55 percent mineral content; very friable; few fine and medium roots; about 55 percent mineral content; extremely acid; clear irregular boundary. (4
to 10 inches thick)
Cg2--31 to 52 inches; gray (5Y 5/1) silt loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; slightly sticky, slightly .plastic; very strongly acid; clear
smooth boundary. (10 to 24 inches thick)
Cg3--52 to 61 inches; gray (5Y 5/1) silty clay; common distinct strong brown and reddish brown mottles; massive; sticky, plastic; very strongly
acid; clear smooth boundary.
Ar
2Cg4--61 to 72 inches; greenish gray (5BG 5/1) silty clay; massive; sticky, plastic; moderately acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Hyde County, North Carolina; 1 3/4 miles northeast of Ponzer, 200 feet south of intersection of Evans road and Fred Gall
road in pasture.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Thickness of the organic materials commonly is 16 to 30 inches but ranges to 51 inches. The organic
materials are ultra acid to extremely acid except where the surface has been limed. The underlying mineral horizons are extremely acid through
mildly alkaline. Logs, stumps. and fragments of wood occupy 0 to 20 percent of the organic layers. Particles of charcoal and pockets of ash are in
some pedons. Flakes of mica are few to common in the mineral horizons of some pedons.
"1 The Oal ur Oap horizons has hue of 10YR, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 0 or 2. The lower tiers have hue of 7.5YR, 10YR, or 2.5Y value of 2 or 3
and chroma of 0 or 2. Fiber content of the organic tiers is 2 to 30 percent unrubbed and less than 10 percent after rubbing. The organic layers are
typically massive under natural wet conditions. Upon drainage and cultivation a granular or blocky structure develops in all or part of the organic
layers depending upon the nature and depth of the organic material as well as duration of drainage.
Some pedons have thin mucky loam A horizons that are less than 15 inches thick underlying the Oa horizons. Color is similar to the Oa horizons.
au The Ag horizon, where present. has hue of 7.SYR to 5Y, value of 2 to 4 and chroma of 1 or 2. It is tine sandy loam, sandy loam. loam. silt loam,
sandy clay loam or clay loam.
ago
ON
The C'g horizon has hue of 7.5YR to 5G, value 014 to 7 and chroma of 1 or 2 or it is neutral. Texture is variable but it is loamy in the control
section.

Poi
COMPETING SERIES: These are the Belhaven and Scuppernong series of the same family and the Croatan series in a closely related family.
Belhaven and Scuppernong soils have greasy feeling and paste -like organic layers in hues of 5YR and 2.3YR and in addition Scuppernong soils
have mineral layers in the control section that are silty. Croatan soils have siliceous underlying mineral material.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Ponzer soils are on nearly level to level areas of the Lower Coastal Plain. The soils formed in under very poorly
drained conditions from the remains of herbaceous and related woody hydrophytic plants. Elevation near the type location is 15 feet above mean sea
level. The mean annual temperature ranges from 51 to 72 degrees F. and mean annual precipitation ranges from 46 to 58 inches. The growing season
is about 190 days.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the competing Belhaven and Scuppernong series, these are the Arapahoe, Cape
Dear, Cc nabv, Dare, Deloss. f onescue,-1vdeland, Pamlico, Pettig •w Portsmouth, Pungo, Roper, Smithton, Wasda, and Weeksville series.
Arapahoe. Cape Fear, Deloss, Fortescue, Hydeland, Portsmouth, and Weeksville soils are mineral soils with umbric epipedons. Conaby, Pettigrew,
Roper. and Wasda soils are mineral soils with histic epipedons. Dare and Pungo soils have more than 51 inches of organic materials over mineral
horizons. Pamlico soils have sandy mineral horizons within the control section. Smithton soils are mineral soils and lack a histic epipedon.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Very poorly drained; very slow runoff. Permeability is slow. In drained areas it is moderate in plowed
layers; the underlying mineral layers are moderately slow. Except in drained and developed areas, Ponzer soils are saturated near the surface for 8 to
12 months each year and ponded from November to May in most years.
USE AND VEGETATION: Native vegetation commonly consists of plant communities of scattered pond pine or loblolly pine with a dense
understory of reeds, switchcane; giantcane, and scattered gallberry, huckleberry, southern bayberry, and green brier. Another common plant
community consists of sweetgum. red maple, redbay, and sweetbay with a few baldcypress, and water tupelo and understory of southern bayberry
and greenbrier. Another common plant community consists of red maple, redbay, and sweetbay with a few baldcypress, and water tupelo and
understory of southern bayberry and greenbrier. Cultivated areas are pastured or cropped to corn, soybeans, small grain, and some vegetables.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Lower Coastal Plain of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The series
is moderately extensive.
NMLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Florence and Sumter Counties. South Carolina; 1969.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Histic epipedon-the zone from the surface to a depth of 24 inches. (the Oap, Oal, 0a2, and 0a3 horizons)
Terric feature -absence of histic materials below a depth o124 inches.
ADDITIONAL DATA: Dolman. J. D. and S. W. Boul, A Study of Organic Soils in the Tidewater Region of North Carolina (Site 2), North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin No. 181, December, 1967. Also, Dolman, J. D. and S. W. Boul, Organic Soils on the
Lower Coastal Plain or North Carolina, Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 32. No. 2, pp. 414-18. 1968.
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
SOI-5 Depth -pH- O.M. Salin Permeab Shnk-Swll
NC0077 0-24 2.0- 4.4 20-80 0- 0 0.06- 2.0 LOW
NC0077 24-52 3.5- 7.8 .5-15 0- 0 0.2- 2.0 LOW
NC0077 52-72 - - - -
SOI-5 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
NC0077 PONZER 0- 2 60- 65 190-270 46- 58 5- 25
SOI-5 F1oodL FloodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
NC0077 NONE COMMON 0-1.0 APPARENT NOV-MAY 60-60
SOI-5 Depth Texture 3-Inch No-10 Clay% -CEC-
NC0077 0-24 MUCK 0- 0 - 0- 0 20- 80
NC0077 24-52 L SCL SIL 0- 0 100-100 5-25 1- 20
NC0077 52-72 VAR - - - -
SOI-5 Depth -pH- 0.M. Salin Permeab Shnk-Swll
NC0077 0-24 2.0- 4.4 20-80 0- 0 0.06- 2.0 LOW
NC0077 24-52 3.5- 7.8 .5-15 0- 0 0.2- 2.0 LOW
NC0077 52-72 - - - -
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.

la.
S&ME, INC.
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS
(LEGEND)
Mottles — example: (fl t)
(1) Abundance
Few - (mottles <2% of surface) - f
Common (mottles 2 — 20% of surface) - c
Many (mottles >20% of surface) -
(2) Size
Fine - (<5 mm.) - 1
Medium (5-15 mm.) 2
Coarse' (>15 mm.) - 3
(3) Contrast
Faint (Hue and aroma of matrix and mottles closely related)
Distinct (Matrix and Mottles vary 1-2 hues and several units in
Chroma and value)
Prominent - (Matrix and Mottles vary several units in hue, value and chromal
Texture — example: sci
Sand s Loam - 1
Fine Sand fs Silt - si
Very Fine Sand vfs Silt Loam sil
ag Loamy Sand Is Clay Loam cl
Loamy Fine Sand Ifs Silty Clay Loam sicl
Sandy Loam sl Sandy Clay Loam scl
ON Fine Sandy Loam - fsl Silty Clay sic
Very Fine Sandy Loam vfsl Clay - c

Pq
Structure — example: scl
(1) Grade:
Structureless (No observable aggregation or no orderly arrangement
of natural lines of weakness) 0
Weak (Poorly formed indistinct peds, barely observable in place) - 1
Moderate (Well -formed distinct peds, moderately durable and evident,
but not distinct in undisturbed soil) 2
Strong (Durable peds that are quite evident in undisplaced soil,
adhere weakly to one another, withstand displacement
and become separated when soil is disturbed) - 3
(2) Size:
Very Fine vf. Coarse c
Fine f Very Coarse - vc
Medium m
(3) Form or Type:
Platy p1 Granular gr
Prismatic pr Crumb cr
Columnar cpr Single Grain sg
Blocky - bk Massive m
Angular Blocky abk Subangular Blocky sbk
Consistence — example: mfr
(1) Moist Soil:
Loose ml Firm mf
Very Friable mvfr Very Firm mvf
Friable - mfr Extremely Firm mef
Boundary — Example: gw
(1) Distinctness:
Abrupt (< 1") a Gradual (2 1/2" — 5") -
Clear (1" — 2 ;'2") c Diffuse (> 5") d
(2) Topography of Boundary
Smooth (nearly a plane) s
Wavy (pockets with width > depth) w
Irregular (pockets with depth > width) I
Broken (discontinuous) b
fool
Pay
rat

APPENDIX IV
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
Report Number:
200 1-R311.042
Account # 46201
Send To:
A&L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
S&ME (JOB #1588-01-044)
SCOTT CARPENTER
3718 OLD BATTLEGROUND RD
GREENSBORO, NC 27410-2314
Date of Report: 11/13/2001
Page: 1
7621 Whitepine Road • Richmond, Virginia 23237 • [phone]
Fax No. [phone]
Grower: PO#11163 TOWN OF ROSMAN Samples Submitted By:
SCOTT CARPENTER
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
_—�
Organic Matter
Phosphorus .
Potassium
Magnesium
Calcium
Sodium
pH
Acidity
C.E.C.
Sample
Number
Lab
Number
%ENR
IbslA
Bray P1
ppm Rale
Bray P2
ppm Rate
K
ppm Rale
Mg
ppm Rale
Ca
ppm Rate
Na
ppm Rat.
Soil
pH
Buffer
Index
H
meg1l00g
megllQOy
4.2
6.0
1
2
20900
20901
3.7 118 H
5.9 140 VH
34 H
20 M
49 H
41 M
54 L
65 L
90 H
130 VH
510 M
; 740 M
5.8
5.9
6.85
6.83
0.8
1.0
Percent Base Saturation
Nitrate
Sulfur
Zinc
Manganese
Iron
Copper
Boron
Soluble
Chloride
Molyb-
denuin Mo
Mn
Fe
Cu
B
Salts
CI '
Sample
Number
-
K
%
Mg
%
Ca
%
Na
%
H
%
NO3-N
ppm Rate
SO4-S
_ppm halt:
Zn
- ppm Rate
-ppm Ifni.
ppm_Rate
pun
ppm Rah
ppm Ratc
ppm Rale
_ppm -Rate
_Rale
1
2
3.3
2.8
17.7
18.1
60.0
61.9
19.0
17.1
V dues on this report represent the plant available nutrients in the soil.
E cplanation of symbols: Values are expressed as % (percent), ppm (parts per million), er lbs/A (pounds per acre).
Paling after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium), H (High), Vli (Very liigh).
E r1R - Eslintaled Nitrogen Release. C.E.C. • Cation Exchange Capacity.
1 o convert to IbslA, multiply the results in ppm by 2.
Ibis report oppbus to Ute sumplu(s) tested Samplus mu retained a
maximum or Ibuly days allni leslinp Soil Analysis prupui ud by
A & L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
by:
C. Norman Jones

Report Number:
200 I -R31 1-042
Account # 46201
A&L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
7621 Whitepine Road • Richmond, Virginia 23237 • [phone]
Fax No. [phone]
Send To: S&ME (JOB #1588-01-044)
SCOTT CARPENTER
3718 OLD BATTLEGROUND RD
GREENSBORO, NC 27410-2314
Date: 11/13/2001
Pape:
1
Grower: PO#11163 TOWN OF ROSMAN
SOIL FERTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS (Ibs/A)
Samples Submitted By:
SCOTT CARPENTER
Your
Sample
Number
Crop
Yield
Amendments
N
Nitro-
gen
P205
Phos-
phate
K20
Potash
Mg
Mag-
nesium
S
Sulfur
Zn
Zinc
Mn
Manga-
nese
Fe
Iron
Cu
Copper
B
Boron
Mo
Molyb-
denuln
Lime
Tons/A
Gypsum
Tons/A
Elemental
sulfur
Ibs/A
1
2
LAWN BERMUDA GRASS
LAWN BERMUDA GRASS
0030
0030
25
30
4-5
4-5
2.5
3.5
5.5
5.5
-0-
-0-
Remarks:
ON BERMUDA GRASS APPLY THE ABOVE NITROGEN RECOMMENDATION AS FOLLOWS: 1-2# OF ACTUAL NITROGEN PER MONTH FROM APRIL THROUGH AUGUST. FOR K20
RECOMMENDATIONS OF 2.5 OR HIGHER APPLY IN AT LEAST 2 SEPARATE APPLICATIONS OF NO MORE THAN 2.5 LBS OF K20 PER 1000 SQ FT. PER APPLICATION.
"11 e recommendations are based on research data and experience, but NO GUARANTEE
or WARRANT expressed or implied, concerning crop performance is made."
eiu :pans and laws as la the escbsnro and confidential use of am clouts, aid may not be iepoduced In *bole a in p i. not may any seleence be made to Om
ran tie nesuas. a Me company n any ad. mewl. news uase. a olba pubic announcements withal obtaining ow pia veinal aiCnairalion Coptngtnt 1977
AR EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
by:

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1' I 1 i I 1 1 I I
I
REPORT NUMBER
A&L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
7621 Whitepine Road • Richmond, Virginia 23237 • [phone]
Fax No. [phone]
EMAIL -
SAMPLES
SEND SUBMITTED
S&ME (JOB # 1588-01 -044) PO# 1 1 1 89 W K DICKSON
TO: GROWER: BY:
ATTN: CECIL LINK
3718 OLD BATTLEGROUND RD
GREENSBORO NC 27410-2314
r1A rE OF REPORT 1 2 7 1 4 7 2 n 0 1 PAGE
1
ACCT # 45809
CECIL LINK
DATE RECEIVED 12/12/2001
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT • DATE OF ANALYSIS 1 2 / 13/ 2001
SAMPLE
NUMBER
LAB
NUMBER
ORGANIC MATTER
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
MAGNESIUM
CALCIUM
SODIUM
H ACIDITY
C.E.C.
ENR
lbs./A
BRAY P1 BRAY P2 K MG CA NA
ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE
SOIL
PH
BUFFER H
INDEX mewt00g
!• I
2-1
4-1
1
105i)1
10502
10503
10504
10505
5.0 140V
4.7 139V
4.1 127V
5.2 140V
2.5 95H
i 20 M
-1 8 VL
-1 6 VL
-1 9 1.
27 H
39 M
10 VL
14 L
19 L
30 M
58 H
90 VH
32 L
53 M
76 H
30 L
58 M
67 H
34 M
99 VH
..40 M
370 M
440 M
200 L
450 M
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.3
6.4
6.87 U . c,
6.83
6.87
6.87
6.90
1 0
0.6
0.6
0.3
'nay 100g
..6
SAMPLE
NUMBER
K
PERCENT BASE SATURATION
Mg
Ca
Na
Ii
NITRATE
NOS N
ppm HATE
SULFUR
SO;-S
ppm 11AIL:
ZINC
ZN
Nun BAIL•
MANGANESE
MN
ppm I IA I L-
IRON
FE
ppm IiAI L
COPPER
CU
'ppm IIAI L•
BORON
B
pp!!! HATE
SOLUBLE
SALTS
iii.J ,,i BAIL.
CHLORIDE
•
C1.
I,Iuu I IA I I .
6.7
6.5
2.4
6.6
5.4
23.0
53.8
51.7
64.2
48.6
62.7
28.3
28.3
17.1
31.0
8.9
J -- 1
Vc.Ilues on :his report represent the plant available nutrients in the soil.
E xplanatio, t of syrnbols: Values are expressed as % (percent), ppm (parts per million), or lbs/A (pounds per acre).
!luting Ig alter each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium), H (High), VH (Very High).
1:1\18 -- Estimated Nitrogen Release. C.E.C. - Cation Exchange Capacity.
-f o convert to lbs/A, multiply the results in ppm by 2.
MOL..YB-
DENIIM MU
ppm I IA 11
TIlta IapOII lio3 10 the YJIItpW(.. .
s J><Iintl111 q y OJys WWI lo$tin9 S An.ily.i$ pit-I1.i1..1 I ,
by
AGRICULTU AL LABORATORIES, INC.

1 0 411 1 It 1I.tl t1. l-i•
1! I .1 1 (J E,
SEND
TO:
A & L EASTERN AGRICULTURAL LABORATORIES, INC.
7621 Whitepine Road • Richmond, Virginia 23237 • [phone]
""Fax No. [phone]
S&ME (JOB 01588-01-044)
ATTN: CECIL LINK
3718 OLD BATTLEGROUND RD
GREENSBORO NC 27410-2314
.11: 1.2/17/2001 PAGE 1
111JrvIbEFi
GROWER:
SAMPLES
SUBMITTED
PO1111189 W I( DICKSON BY: CECIL LINK
SOIL FERTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS (lbs./A)
CHOP
PINES
FESCUE..HAY
FESCUE..HAY
FESCUE..HAY
1
1
1
1
CHRISTMAS TREES 1
YIELD
04 T
04 T
04 T
ACCT R 45809
AMENDMENTS N P O Kin
LIME GiPSUM EtEUEI.IIA!
ii.4.1S!A 1rhIS% :i111I'UI1
LUSA
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
GLN
50
50
50
*tt
f 10S
NHAIL
75
100
100
35
65
POT
140
130
170
170
140
Mg
MAG•
IIESILIM
40
20
10
35
0
S
SUI FUR
Zrt
ZINC
Mn
MANGA•
NIESE
Fe
IRON
Cu
CUF'FEll
bl)It:ih
Mo
001 It
11L 1 iI 1f.1
tt ?- ��P��PPLYLY ( 50- 15- 65) PER ACRE AFTER EVERY CUTTING.
r ApI.ji( 50- 20- 75) PER ACRE AFTER EVERY CUTTING.
11 4-1 APPLY ( 50- 15- 75) PER ACRE AFTER EVERY CUTTING.
N 2-1 & 3-1 & 4-1 APPLY DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE TO SUPPLY MAGNESIUM, HOWEVER MAGNESIUM MAY HE SUPPLIED
AS MAGNESIUM OXIDE OR K-MAG IF DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE IS NOT APPLIED.
Ilt1 A-1 MAGNESIUM MAY BE SUPPLIED AS MAGNESIUM OXIDE OR K-MAG.
APPLY 1/2 GZ. ACTUAL N PER 'FREE ONE MONTH AFTER PLANTING. FOR TRANSPLANTS INCORPORATE 1/211 ACTUAL N PER
.0 :.►U.FT. PRIOR TO PLANTING OR 1/2R ACTUAL N PER 400 SO.FT. TWO WEEKS AFTER PLANTING.
WFRHSER FIRS AFTER SECOND YEAR APPLY 1 OZ. ACTUAL N PER TREE: 2-ellE �1�r�,�a 16411.IT" Br�6o iIliIS;INC.
W PINE C11RISTMAS TREES APPLY 1/2 TO 1 OZ. ACTUAL N PER TREE 2-4 WEEKS PRIOR TO BUD BREAK DEPENDJ:NG U11 PRE:V
Illy YEARS' GROWTH.
1111: ,,x,, mo.dutio:Ib are based on research data and experience, but NO GUARANTEE or WARRANTY
:�111us:1:t1 Ili Itt iIIrd, concerning crop peiloruiance is nmade.11
C. NORMAN JONES
1 n.1 ,..1d.11. .,1♦111,11':1'....I. 1•4 II.:1:.1. 1., .II. •,1. 11.....IMI...11..*.1 •: 1.I 1..11 4I1..1,1:- ..IA 114.E 111.1 M. 1. 1.11.(1.M.•.,I MI MI,411, W 11/ I1..11 Iw.1 l...,1.; /•:I. •IIYn... 1n: 11.. r. I•' L. I..•
• 1 ii 1 l

APPENDIX V
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
ESTIMATED PRECIPITATION
DRAINAGE
WATER BALANCE TABLES
CALCULATIONS
LIME REQUIRMENTS
GRAPHS

ANNUAL PRECIPITATION FOR ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
MONTH
MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (in..)
JANUARY
. 4.9
FEBRUARY
5.4
MARCH
6.4
APRIL
4.7
MAY
5.9
JUNE
5.6
. JULY .
5.9
AUGUST
6.5
SEPTEMBER
5.1 -
OCTOBER
5.3
NOVEMBER
5.4
DECEMBER
5.9
ANNUAL TOTAL
67.00

?"1
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
FOR ROSMAN, NORTH CAROLINA
MONTH ::
.. PAN.:::;"
70 :% FQtR.:PET
:.: . PET (in.)
JANUARY
0
0.7
0.00
FEBRUARY
0
0.7
0.00
MARCH
0
0.7
0.00
APRIL
2.87
0.7
2.01
MAY
3.83
0.7
.2.68
JUNE
4.29
0.7
3.00
JULY
4.39
0.7
3.07
AUGUST
3.7
0.7
2.59
SEPTEMBER °
3.31
0.7
2.32
OCTOBER
2.27
0.7
1.59
NOVEMBER
2.07
0.7
1.45
DECEMBER
0
0.7
0.00
ANNUAL TOTAL POTENTIAL EVAPORTRANSPIRATI
18.71
fsri
ro%

DRAINAGE
PIER
.: SOIL
SERIES
;:: A HORIZON:...
TEXTURE
..
DEPTH (Inches) _
WATER: HOLDLNG:
.CAPACITY (%.: Volume
.IRRIGATION
PERIOD (Days).
TRANSYLVANIA
Silt Loam
10
18
1
ROSMAN
Loam
16
15
1
TOXAWAY
Silt Loam
7
17
1
SOIL`:
SE ES .:
DRAINAGE : :
. PERIOD (Days);
; RE -AERATION
PERIOD(Days)
.: LRRIGATION
:. CYCLE (Days)
:. =: MONTHLY
DRAINAGE (Inches)
TRANSYLVANIA
7
9
17
3.18
ROSMAN
7
6
14
5.14
TOXAWAY
9
9
19
1.88

WATER BALANCE TABLES
TRANSYLVANIA - A horizon 0-10 inches
Month
CO
Potential
Evapotranspiration
inches
(2)
Drainage
inches
(3)
Total
Losses
inches
(4)
- PPT
inches
(5)
Allowable
Irrigation
inches
(6)
Allowable
Irrigation
gallons
January.
0.00
- 3.18
3.18
4.90
-1.72
-
February
0.00
3.18
3.18
5.40
-2.22
-
March
0.00
3.18
3.18
6.40
-3.22
-
April
- 2.01
3.18
5.19
4.70
0.49
95,799
May
2.68
3.18
5.86
5.90
-0.04
-
June
3.00
3.18
6.18
5.60
0.58
113,395
July
3.07
3.18
6.25
5.90.
0.35
68,428
August
2.59
3.18
5.77
6.50
-0.73
-
September
2.32
3.18
5.50
5.10
0.40
78,204
October
1.59
3.18
4.77
5.30
-0.53
-
November
1.45
3.18
4.63
5.40
-0.77
-
December
0.00
3.18
3.18
5.90
-2.72
-
Annual sum of allowable irrigation
Allowable annual irrigation rate in/yr
Average irrigation rate in/mo
ROSMAN - A Horizon 0-16 inches
355,826 •
1.82
0.46
Month
•
(1)
Potential
Evapotranspiration
inches
(2)
Drainage
inches
(3)
Total
Losses
inches
(4)
PPT
inches
(5)
Allowable
Irrigation
inches
(6)
Allowable
Irrigation
gallons
January
0.00
5.14
5.14
4.90
0.24
-
February
0.00
5.14
5.14
5.40
-0.26
-
March
0.00
5.14
5.14
6.40
-1.26
-
April
2.01
5.14
7.15
4.70
2.45
768,390
May
2.68
5.14
7.82
5.90
1.92
602,167
June
3.00
5.14
8.14
5.60
2.54
-
796,617
724,482
385,763
July
3.07
5.14
8.21
5.90
2.31
August
2.59
5.14
7.73
6.50
1.23
September
. 2.32
5.14
7.46
5.10
2.36
740,164
October '
1.59
5.14
6.73
5.30
1.43
448,489
November
1.45
5.14
6.59
5.40
1.19
373,218
December
0.00
5.14
5.14
5.90
_
-0.76 j
-
Annual sum of allowable irrigation
Allowable annual irrigation rate in/yr
Average irrigation rate in/mo
4,839,290
15.43
1.93
cmi
P"A

0011
,., TOXAWAY - A Horizon 0-7 inches
Month
(1)
Potential
Evapotranspiration
inches
(2)
Drainage
inches
(3)
Total
Losses
inches
(4)
PPT
inches
(5)
Allowable
Irrigation
inches
(6)
Allowable
Irrigation
gallons +
January
0.00
1.88
1.88
4.90
- -3.02
-
February
0.00
1.88
1.88
5.40
-3.52
-
March
0.00
1.88
1.88
6.40
-4.52
-
April
2.01
1.88
3.89 '
4.70
-0.81
-
May
2.68
1.88
4.56
5.90
-1.34
-
June
3.00
1.88
4.88
5.60
-0.72
-
July
3.07
1.88
4.95
5.90
-0.95
-
August
2.59
1.88
4.47
6.50
-2.03
-
September
2.32
1.88
4.20
5.10
-0.90
-
October
1.59
1.88
3.47
5.30
-1.83
-
November
1.45
1.88
3.33
5.40
-2.07
-
December
0.00
1.88
1.88
5.90
-4.02
-
Annual sum of allowable irrigation
Allowable annual irrigation rate in/yr
Average irrigation rate inlmo
0.00
0.00

l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
l
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
r�1 6.00
•
v J
U
5.00 -
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00 -
RAINFALL VERUSES TOTAL LOSES
TRANSYLVANIA SOIL SERIES
•
1
♦
/
/
•
�`
MONTHS
6
o°
0
4
Cv
NO
cw
`O6
— — — TOTAL LOSSES (Drainage + Evapotranspiration)
PRECIPITATION

10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
to
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
RAINFALL VERUSES TOTAL LOSES
ROSMAN SOIL SERIES
r rdm,
~ ti
-•
•
•
•
MONTHS
G'0 G'0
p oa
— — — TOTAL LOSSES (Drainage + Evapotranspiration)
PRECIPITATION
— ] -1 -1--1 -1 1 1 1 --- 1 - J --_1 1 -1 -1 1 1

1 1 1 ➢ l l ➢ l l* l: 1 I- l 1 l l 1.
10.00
9.00 •
13.00
7.00
6.00
5.00 -
4.00 -
3.00
2.00 •
1.00 •
0.00 -
RAINFALL VERUSES TOTAL LOSES
TOXAWAY SOIL SERIES
i
i
i•
i
Nt
db
MONTHS
ke,
O� G
— — — TOTAL LOSSES (Drainage + Evapotranspiration)
PRECIPITATION

LIME REQUIREMENT
pH
Target
pH
Buffer
Index
Acidity (H} meq/100g)
CEC
(meq/100g)
Lime
Requirement (Tons/Acre)
Field R-1
5.80
6.50
6.85
0.80
4.20
0.70
Field R-2
5.90
6.50
6.83
1.00
6.00
0.86
Field R-3
6.40
6.00
6.90
0.30
3.60
-
Field R-4
5.40
6.50
6.83
1.00
3.60
0.92
Field R-5
5.60
6.50
6.87
0.60
2.75
0.54 _
Field R-6
5.40
6.50
6.87
0.60
2.20
0.55
F
7

NMI
POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ESTIMATION
PET = PAN EVAPORATION X 70%
IRRIGATION PERIOD
IP = Irrigation Period + Drainage Period to Field Capacity + Re -aeration Period
MONTHLY DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE = ((% WATER CAPACITY/100) X INCHES IN SOIL SURFACE)
TOTAL LOSS
(IRRIGATION CYCLE DAYS/30)
0.1 TOTAL LOSS = PET + DRAINAGE
ALLOWABLE IRRIGATION
ALLOWABLE IRRIGATION (IN.) = PRECIPITATION - TOTAL LOSS
IRRIGATION AMOUNT
GALLONS = INCHES OF EFFLUENT PER MONTH X # ACRES X 27,154
LIMING RATE
LIMING RATE = ACIDITY X ((TARGET PH - CURRENT PH)/ ( 6.6 - CURRENT PH)
ian
FERTILIZER RATE
NITROGEN = LBS. PER ACRE / 34% OF NITROGEN IN AMMONIUM NITRATE
PHOSPHORUS = LBS. PER ACRE / 19% OF PHOSPHORUS IN SUPERPHOSPHATE
POTASSIUM = LBS. PER ACRE / 61% OF POTASSIUM IN MURIATE OF POTASH

Attachment A
Buffer Map
And
Spray Head Layout
Prepared by:
S&ME, Inc.

S&ME
January 25, 2001
WK Dickson
501 Commerce Drive, NE
Columbia, South Carolina 29223
Attn: Bob Wilroy
Re: BUFFER MAP/PRELIMINARY SPRAY HEAD LAYOUT
Town of Rosman, North Carolina — Proposed Spray Disposal Field
S&ME, Inc. Project No. 1588-01-044
Dear Mr. Wright,
S&ME, Inc. is pleased to present to you with a preliminary spray head layout for the Town of
Rosman, NC proposed spray disposal field. The spray irrigation fields in consideration are R-4
and R-5 (Figure I). Designated zones have been applied to these two fields to allow for
integrated operations. Zone 1 is located in field R-4 and consists of laterals 1-3, zone 2 is located
in field R-4 and consists of laterals 4-6. Field R-5 consists of zone 3 and zone 4. Zone 3 is
located in the southern half of the field and zone 4 is located in the northern half of the field.
A water main is designed to be piped along the French Broad River from the proposed treatment
plant east to the fields. Laterals will come off the main line at intervals of approximately 100
feet in zone 1 & 2. At this placement field R-4 will contain 6 laterals. Each spray head should
be placed at a distance of approximately 90 feet from each other. The total diameter of each
spray area is estimated to be approximately 150 feet. Field R-4 will contain approximately 32
spray heads. At this configuration approximately 95% of field R-4 will be under coverage for
spray irrigation and will not hinder farm equipment from performing daily operations.
Laterals will come off the main line at intervals of approximately 90 feet in Zone 3. At this
placement zone 3 will contain 5 laterals. Each spray head should be placed at a distance of
S&ME, Inc.
3718 Old Battleground Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27410
[phone]
[phone] fax
[phone]
www.srneinc.com

approximately 100 feet from each other. The total diameter of each spray area is estimated to be
150 feet. Zone 3 will contain approximately 25 spray heads. At this configuration approximately
90% of zone 3 will be under coverage for spray irrigation and will not hinder farm equipment
from performing daily operations.
The main line will run north along the French Broad River in the buffer zone of field R-5. At
approximately 580 feet from the main line located in zone 3, the second main line will run west
through field R-5 to the boundary. Approximately 5 laterals will come off the second main line
at intervals of approximately 80 feet in Zone 4. The total diameter of each spray area is estimated
to be 130 feet. Each spray head should be placed at a distance of approximately 80 feet from
each other. Zone 4 will contain approximately 34 spray heads. At this configuration
approximately 90% of zone 4 will be under coverage for spray irrigation and will not hinder farm
equipment from performing daily operations.
The total number of spray heads for zones 1 - 4 is 91. Spray heads were placed at intervals to
ensure good coverage for application. Zone 4 has a different layout to account for curvature
within the field. It is recommended that a nozzle size of greater than 1/4" x 5/32" in diameter be
used. This will produce application rates of greater than 18 gallons per minute. If you have any
questions about this layout please call S&ME. We have enjoyed working with on this project.
Respectfully
S&ME, Inc.
•
-y,,/";
Matthew H. O'Brien, L.S.S
Natural Resources Department Manager
C. Scott Carpenter
Soil Scientist

APPENDIX C
TAX MAP FOR PROPOSED WWTP SITE

_
1••••
_
_

APPENDIX H
SLUDGE DEWATERING COSTS

cdh
1-01
tlibt
met
azt
efrol
TA
amto
011
esel
SLUDGE DEWATERING COSTS
Three methods of sludge dewatering were evaluated for use at the proposed
Rosman WWTP. These three methods include the use of a mechanical sludge
belt press, a manual filter press, and a multiple vacuum bed system.
MECHANICAL SLUDGE BELT PRESS
The belt press system will be comprised of a skid -mounted 1.0 meter dewatering
unit, with an associated sludge feed system and polymer feed system. Initial
capital cost with this system equals approximately $77,000. Since this system is
mostly automated, it would require minimal manpower (PWL) to operate, which
should only include the moving of the roll -off bin to the loading area. Enough
storage capacity exists in the Sludge Storage Basin to operate the belt press
once a week. Other annual operating costs include electrical power(PWE),
polymer(PWP), and routine maintenance(PWM). Annual power cost of
approximately $5,000 a year is relatively high due to a mechanically operated
unit. Polymer will cost approximately $1,500 a year, and maintenance will cost
approximately $5,000 a year.
A discount rate of 6.875 percent will be used for the present worth analysis. This
rate is widely used by engineering firms for this purpose, and represents a good
average taking into account minor periodical fluctuations. This rate was also
used for the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) submitted to the Division of
Water Quality for their review. Since the annual operating cost will be
approximately the same for every year, annuity tables can be used to determine
present worth. The 20-year present worth value is calculated below for the
purposes of this analysis.
PWC = -$77,000
PWE = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$5,000 = (10.7035)$8,000 =-$53,518
PWP = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$1,500 = (10.7035)$1,500 =-$16,055
PWM = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$5,000 = (10.7035)$5,000 =-$53,518
PWL = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$0 = (10.7035)$0 = -$0
Present Worth = PWC+PWP+PWCh+PWL+PWS+PWD+PWR+PWT = $200,091

len
SLUDGE FILTER PRESS
A manual sludge filter press is another option for sludge dewatering for the
proposed Rosman WWTP. This system would consist of a fixed manually
operated pressing unit, a polymer feed system, and a sludge feed system. The
capital investment for this type of system in Rosman's sludge production range is
approximately $85,000. Significant annual operating costs associated with this
type of system include operating manpower, polymer costs, power costs, and
maintenance costs. Annual Labor costs (PWL) with this type of system are high,
because it requires one man to continuously operate the system during hours of
operation. This would require one man approximately one and a half days a
week (12 hours) to operate. At $10 and hour and 52 weeks a year, this equates
annually to $6,250. Annual power cost (PWE) will only be approximately $1,500
a year. Annual Polymer costs will be approximately $1,500 a year. Annual
maintenance costs will be approximately $2,500 a year. Below is the present
worth analysis for this type of system:
PWC = -$85,000
PWE = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$1,500 = (10.7035)$1,500 =-$16,055
PWP = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$1,500 = (10.7035)$1,500 =-$16,055
PWM = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$2,500 = (10.7035)$2,500 =-$26,759
PWL = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$6,250 = (10.7035)$6,250 =-$66,897
Present Worth = PWC+PWP+PWCh+PWL+PWS+PWD+PWR+PWT = $210,766
VACUUM BED SYSTEM
A vacuum bed sludge drying system is another sludge dewatering option for the
Town of Rosman. This system would be comprised of multiple concrete slab
basins w/ separation curbs, a vacuum/drain piping system to pull water from the
sludge, a polymer feed system, and a sludge feed system. Two vacuum pumps
are also required to provide the necessary vacuum. The capital cost for this type
of system is approximately $95,000. Annual power demand (PWE) is significant
at $8,000 in order to operate the vacuum pumps. Annual polymer usage (PWP)
is approximately the same as the other dewatering options at $1,500 a year.
Annual maintenance (PWM) will be approximately $1,500 a year. Annual labor
(PWL) is a significant cost with this type of dewatering system, due to manually
loading and unloading sludge from the bays. It will require one man
approximately 16 hours a week. At $10/hr at 52 weeks a year, this equals
approximately $10,000 annually. A disadvantage to the vacuum bed system is
that dewatering can not occur unless dry weather is encountered. Below is the
present worth analysis for the vacuum bed system:

p.rr
entS
N.
fait
1417
PWC = -$95,000
PWE = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$8,000 = (10.7035)$8,000 =-$85,628
PWP = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$1,500 = (10.7035)$1,500 =-$16,055
PWM = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$1,500 = (10.7035)$1,500 =-$16,055
PWL = (P/A, 6.875%, 20)$10,000 = (10.7035)$10,000 =-$107,035
Present Worth = PWC+PWP+PWCh+PWL+PWS+PWD+PWR+PWT = $319,773
The cost associated with disposing of the sludge at a landfill will be
approximately the same amount for all sludge dewatering alternatives. Since a
sample of the dewatered sludge won't be available, a precise cost for disposal is
not available.
As present worth values indicate, the belt press system is the most economical
method for dewatering Rosman's sludge.

APPENDIX I
PRELIMINARY.DESIGN PROCESS NARRATIVE

awl
PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROCESS NARRATIVE
SECTION A INFLUENT PUMP STATION
A triplex pump station is being used to utilize a lead/lag pump for efficiency and
effectiveness during peak flow conditions, while maintaining a 3rd standby pump
in the event a pump fails or malfunctions.
The pump station receives raw wastewater from the Town's entire collection
system, and is 10 ft in diameter to accommodate the installation of all three
pumps, as well as to provide adequate storage capacity and detention time
between starts. There is 2.5 feet of elevation between lead pump off and on.
V= flr2h = (3.14)(25)(2.5) = 196 cf = 1,466 gallons
At a design flow of 0.25 mgd (250,000 gpd), this equates to 174 gpm. There is,
therefore, 8.4 minutes between start/stop. Since the lead pump alternates
between the three, each pump will start every 25.2 minutes. The lead pump
operates at an average of 390 gpm between high and low water levels. The lead
and lag pumps together operate at an average of 620 gpm.
ota
SECTION B PERLIMINARY SOLIDS REMOVAL
swa
Raw wastewater is pumped to an Influent Rotary Screen. This is a mechanical
rotating screw screen which can be bypassed to a Manual Bar Screen in the
event the Mechanical Screen is out of operation for maintenance, malfunctions or
fails. In the event of a failure of the Mechanical Screen, the waste will
automatically overflow to the Manual Bar Screen.
Both screens have 0.25 inch screen openings and are capable of screening at
the peak flow of 0.75 mgd.
® SECTION C SEQUENCIAL BATCH REACTORS (SBRs)
Effluent from either of the screens discharges into one of two SBR Basins. Both
basins have inside operating dimensions of 36.5' x 36.625' x 18', or 24,063 cf.
This equals 180,000 gallons each. This does not include the 2 ft of freeboard
depth.
Influent waste characteristics to the SBR are approximately 250 mg/I BOD5, 250
mg/I TSS, 40 mg/I TKN, and 10 mg/I of TP.
we

Pit
One cycle will include the following phases: fill, mix fill, react, settle, decant, and
sludge waste. One complete cycle will take 4.8 hours. This will provide for 5
cycles per day.
An F/M ratio of 0.064 lb BOD5 / Ib MLSS-day was utilized in the design. The
Hydraulic detention time equals 18 days. The decant flow rate will be 1172 gpm,
which is an average from high to low water levels.
The estimated net sludge yield will be 0.833 Ibs of WAS / Ib BOD5. The
estimated dry solids produced will be 434.2 Ibs WAS / day.
1.25 Ibs of 02 will be required per Ib, of BOD5. 4.6 Ibs of 02 will be required per
Ib of TKN. Thus a total of 1035 Ibs/day will be required for a designed treatment
effluent of 10 mg/I of BOD5, 10 mg/I of TSS, and 1 mg/I of NH3N. This will
require 581 SCFM of air per basin. Two 20 HP blowers and a third standby
blower will be required to supply this volume of air.
In the First Stage, during the fill cycle, the wastewater is being added to the basin
under quiescent conditions. The total wastewater in the basin approaches
anoxic conditions as any remaining dissolved oxygen is rapidly consumes. The
incoming wastewater generally will settle to the bottom of the basin and mix with
the existing sludge. The anoxic conditions will permit the denitrification of any
nitrified nitrogen. The sludge should already be at a state of high nitrification
from the third step of the treatment process. The denitrification process releases
nitrogen gas to liquid in the gas form. During this stage the Mixed Liquor Volatile
Suspended Solids (MLVSS) content will approach 5,000 mg/I
In the Second Stage, during the react fill cycle, the wastewater continues to enter
the treatment basin while a non -aerating mixer provides complete mixing for the
contents of the basin under anoxic conditions. As the nitrogen gas is insoluble in
the water, the mixing permits the nitrogen gas to escape into the atmosphere.
This reduces the nitrogen nutrient content of the wastewater. While this is
proceeding, there is a release of the phosphorus from the sludge back into the
wastewater. Sufficient anoxia time must be allowed for the nitrification to be
complete.
In the Third Stage, the influent wastewater is stopped and diverted to another
treatment basin. Also, in this stage while the mixer continues to operate, air
containing oxygen is added to the basin, and aerobic conditions are established.
In this Third Stage, the organics present are converted in to smaller forms of
organics and a large amount of the organics are converted into carbon dioxide
and water. The carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere. This reduces the
overall organic content of the wastewater. Most of the other organics are
assimilated into the floc that has formed and become part of the biological mass
in the floc. The nitrogen present which is generally in the organic nitrogen form is

converted into nitrates by the addition of oxygen to the nitrogen atom. This
process is referred to as the nitrification stage. All of the nitrogen present must
be converted to nitrates before the denitrification stage can occur in stage two.
Sufficient time must be allowed in the aeration stage for the reduction of the
various carbon compounds and the nitrogen to nitrates. In this third stage the
phosphorus is again collected in the biological floc and removed from the
wastewater. During this third stage the Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids
(MLVSS) content will be between 2,500 and 3,000 mg/I
In the Fourth Stage, there is no influent water entering the treatment basin; the
mixer is not working; there is no oxygen (air) being added to the basin, and the
necessary settling benefits from using the total surface area and volume of the
basin as a settling chamber under quiescent conditions can be obtained. This
produces a very good clarification of the solids present and a very low BOD and
suspended solids in the supernatant that forms on top of the settled sludge in the
basin. Sufficient time must be allowed to provide a good separation of the sludge
and the supernatant.
In the Fifth Stage, a special decanter opens and permits the removal of the top
most supernatant from the treatment basin. This removal is generally done at a
fairly high rate to minimize the time for decanting. During the last part of the
decanting cycle, a sludge pump is operated for a short period of time. This
removes a portion of the settled sludge to a treatment basin for further treatment.
Excess phosphorus is removed in this sludge being transferred to the sludge
treatment basin. The amount of time for the sludge pump operations is
controlled by the time required to remove sufficient sludge to maintain the
desired Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids in the treatment basin. This
aspect is vital to maintaining the high degree of BOD and nutrient removal in the
SBR.
Once the Fifth Stage is complete, the raw wastewater is again discharged to the
treatment basin and Stage One starts over again. With proper operations, while
one treatment basin is going though Stages One and Two, the second treatment
basin is going though Stages Three, Four and Five. Therefore, one treatment
basin is always available for receiving raw wastewater. By maintaining the
proper level of suspended solids in each treatment basin and proper time of
operation of each stage, very high levels of BOD and nitrogen and phosphorus
nutrients removal can be obtained.
Separate sludge treatment is required in another phase of the plant operations
and is discussed separately.

SECTION D POST EQUALIZATION
Wastewater is decanted upon the completion of a cycle from the SBR to the EQ
Basin. This basin has inside dimensions of 41' x 19' x 13' (operating depth).
This equals 10,127 cf or 75,750 gallons. This volume is equal to 30.3% of the
daily design flow. The decanter will open for approximately 64 minutes to
discharge 75,000 gallons. The post equalization is needed to reduce the high
rate of discharge (521 gpm) to an acceptable rate of discharge (425 gpm) to the
receiving stream.
SECTION E FINAL FILTER
Wastewater will be pumped from the Equalization Basin to the Final Filter, which
will be a rotating membrane disk filter. This unit will only be operated during
months in which the proposed wastewater reuse spray field is operated. Water
quality from the EQ Basin is adequate for disinfection and discharge into the
French Broad River, when land application of the WWTP effluent can not be
utilized.
During a peak flow condition, one square foot of filter surface area is needed for
every 6 gpm. Therefore, 87 sf of filter area is required. Thus one filter unit with 2
membrane disks is proposed which will provide a total surface area of 108 sf.
Effluent wastewater quality from the Final Filter will be 5 mg/I of TSS, and 5 mg/I
of BOD5. Effluent wastewater quality from the SBR treatment plant without the
Final Filter will be less or equal to State permit limitations on BOD5, TSS,
Nitrogen, and Phosphorus.
SECTION F UV UNITS
Wastewater will flow from the Final Filter (or by it in bypass mode) to one of two
UV Disinfection Units. One unit will be capable of meeting the disinfection
requirement of 14 fecal coliform/100 ml for wastewater reuse land application,
and for discharge into the River. The second UV Unit is for standby purposes.
SECTION G EFFLUENT DISTRIBUTION
If the Reuse Spray Field is not being utilized, wastewater will be bypassed to the
river discharge side of the splitter box. If the Reuse Spray Field is being utilized,
wastewater will flow through the adjustable splitter box. Wastewater
Poi

tiQ
air
Sad
Ida
,Rt
Ike
proportioned for discharge into the river will pass through a 60 degree V-Notch
Weir for flow measurement by an Indicator/Transmitter/Recorder. Wastewater
proportioned for the Spray Field will be measured by a Magnetic Meter prior to
being pumped to the spray field. The I/T/R associated with the Magnetic Meter
will work with the Spray Field Programmer to control programmed daily land
application flow. Five percent of annual WWTP effluent can be land applied by
the spray field.
Whether wastewater is bypassed to the river discharge side of the splitter box, or
is proportioned to the river discharge during spray field operation, it will then flow
down a Cascade Aerator and through a sample manhole before being
discharged via a headwall with a Rip -Rap apron to the French Broad River.
All flows discharged directly to the French Broad River will meet the discharge
requirements of the NPDES Permit.
SECTION H AEROBIC SLUDGE DIGESTER
5,206 gpd of sludge at 1 % solids will be discharged to the aerobic digester from
the SBRs. This equates to 434.2 Ibs of dry solids/day. The operating
dimensions of the digester are: 36.75' x 19.625' x 10'. This equals 7,212 cf or
53,950 gallons.
The solids retention time will be 21.3 days. Two Ibs of 02 per lb of VSS
destroyed will be needed for digestion. Total 02 required will be 255 Ibs/day.
Estimated dry solids to be removed will be 307 Ibs/day, which is 1839 gallons of
total solids to be removed. 333 SCFM is required for mixing/conditioning. Two
15 HP blowers will be required to supply air to the'digester. Sludge will be at 5%
solids following digestion.
A floating weir assembly will be installed in the digester which will operate on a
timer.
SECTION I SLUDGE STORAGE BASIN
As sludge is transferred to the aerobic digester, part of the sludge in the digester
must be removed. This sludge will pass over the weir and will be discharged into
the sludge storage basin. This basin, as in the digester, will be aerated by fixed
coarse bubble diffusers. Operating dimensions of this basin are 12' x 21' x 10'.
This equals 2,520 cf or 18,850 gallons. This basin is sized to hold sufficient
sludge to operate the sludge belt press once a week.

SECTION J BELT PRESS
A pump located in the belt press building will draw sludge as needed from the
storage basin to supply a 1.0 meter skid -mounted belt press. This belt press is
designed to produce a cake of approximately 35% dry solids.
The dewatered filter cake will then be dropped into a small hopper which will be
dumped into a roll -off bin. The roll -off bin will then be periodically removed by
trucks and hauled to a nearby acceptable landfill for disposal. Approval from the
landfill has been granted.
SECTION K MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEM COMPONTENTS
All plant basins are equipped with an overflow weir capable of handling the peak
flow. These weirs drain process water by gravity back to the Influent Pump
Station.
A Belt Press Washwater Storage Basin is also required to supply treated
wastewater to the Belt Press during its wash cycle. The operating dimensions of
this basin are: 12.625' x 13.625' x 8'. This equals 1,376 cf or 10,300 gallons.
This basin was sized according to manufacturer's recommendations.
The Wastewater Reuse Spray Field is controlled by a programmable timer. The
timer is also equipped with a rain gauge, which will terminate land application of
effluent in the event of a significant rain. There is a computer controller which
automatically adjusts the allowable flow to the different spray fields. This
controller automatically adjusts the required distribution to allow for rainfall, for
monthly maximum hydraulic Toads, and for periods of time when no flow is
allowed on a particular zone.

APPENDIX J
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
't
'i!

TOWN OF ROSMAN
RESOLUTION 1-2004
RECEIVED
t FEB 0 2 2004 1
v A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE X R DICKSON CO,
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW E�
0.25 MGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY,
"'l COLLECTION SEWERS, PUMPING STATIONS AND APPURTENANCES
AND
REHABILITATE COLLECTION SEWERS
WHEREAS, The Town of Rosman has need for and intends to construct
and rehabilitate a publicly -owned treatment works including wastewater
collection; and
WHEREAS, The Town of Rosman has made available to the public a
copy of the Preliminary Engineering Report and Environmental Assessment
pertaining to the proposed wastewater treatment facilities, wastewater collection
systems and wastewater collection system rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, The Town of Rosman has held a Public Hearing to obtain
axe
Public Comment on the proposed wastewater treatment facilities, wastewater
collection systems and wastewater collection system rehabilitation,
r•�
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF
ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF ROSMAN THAT:
The Town of Rosman, having received no public opposition to the proposed
wastewater treatment facilities, wastewater collection systems and wastewater
collection system rehabilitation, will proceed with the construction of a new
0.25 MGD Wastewater Treatment Facility, collection sewers, pumping stations
and appurtenances and rehabilitate collection sewers.
Adopted and Approved this the 20th day of January , 2004.
Attest:
(AA0,,t,
Angela . Woodson
Town Clerk
y H. Roger
ayor
�1

PEN
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2004
6:00 O'CLOCK PM
Mayor Rogers called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Those present were: Mayor Johnny Rogers; Aldermen: Carlos Pangle, Michael
Owen, John Raines and Eric Owen; Clerk Angela Woodson; and Michael
Osborne, Project Engineer with WK Dickson, Engineering.
Mayor Rogers informed those present this was a Special Meeting/Public Hearing
being held for discussion on the construction of the Proposed .25 MGD
Wastewater Treatment Plant and Collection Sewers into Un-sewered areas. At
this time Mayor Rogers turned the meeting over to Mr. Osborne.
Mr. Osborne informed those present that the meeting was being conducted as a
fulfillment of a requirement by Construction, Grants and Loans to pass a
Resolution agreeing to implement the selected alternative which is; the
construction of the .25 MGD plant.
Mr. Osborne stated that several alternatives had been discussed, and presented to
the Board, those being:
1.
To install lines and lift stations, and hook onto the City of
Brevard and have all the wastewater from the Town be
treated by Brevard. This alternative was deemed not
feasible due to the distance between the two towns, the cost
of the line/lift station construction, and the fees that would
be charged by Brevard for treatment.
2. To construct a new .25 MGD wastewater treatment facility
for the Town.
On a motion by Alderman Michael Owen, seconded by Alderman John Raines, it
was the unanimous decision of the Board to pass a Resolution implementing the
selected alternative of constructing the new .25 MGD wastewater treatment plant.
With no further business before the Board, on a motion by Alderman Michael
Owen the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
i �61,00Q,VZ L
Angel H. Woodson, Clerk
rim

AGENDA
TOWN OF ROSMAN
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
PUBLIC HEARING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2004
6:00 O'CLOCK PM
A. Ca11 to Order: Mayor Rogers
B. Discussion on Construction of the Proposed .25 MGD Wastewater Treatment
466 Plant and Collection Sewers into Un-sewered Areas
C. Adjournment
at
tft
a*
alit
gap
ika

Page BA -Thee Transylvanla Times; Brevard, N.C., Thursday, , December 18, 2003
NOTICE OF -PUBLIC
HEARING FOR THE
PROPOSED' WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
'PROJECT
• The .Public 'will take .notice
thg. the . Board :of,_A:lderman-. of
tn, Town of Rosman will con-
duct a.Publc Hearing admitting
all of -the'Board..of Alderman_ of •
:'the 'Town -. of Rbsrnan on the
• .29h :.day of January,:2004 :at
.00 15to 'at the Rosman Town
• Hall concerning, the following: •
The Town of .Rosrnanowns
and. operates.a 0 09 million
gallon pir-s day (MGD)
.Wastewater Treatment Plant
discharging :treated effluent
into the French Broad River.
The. Town proposes to ex-
:
pand.its treatment capability'
•by constructinga new 0.25:
MGD plant at the location of
the.,..existing 0.09: MGD
plant. 'the'.:project°also in-
cludes 'construction of col-
lection sewersinto unsew-
, erect areas. The Preliminary
Engineering Report and the
Environmental Assessment
are. available for review. at
Town Hall. The .project will
be funded . from both State
and Federal Grants. The to-
tal project. cost is estimated
to be $5, million dollars.
The Project. Engineer and the
Environmental Scientist will be
present to discuss issues per-
taining to the proposed •project.
The Public . is. invited "sand en-:
couraged to .attend this public
hearing. -
This the .9th day of Decem-
ber, 2003. Angela H. Woodson
Town Clerk
T /181:1tc.

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
CUPPING
RECEIVE
FEB 19 2004 I
-K- PICKO` `"' f4 idE.OF1_V
r` --HEARING FOR THE
PROPOSED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT .
PROJECT
The Public will take notice
that -tthe Board Hof Alderman :of
ihe:Town o'f Rost an iwll= con.:
duct a Public fearing admitting
the Tpwn- o`Rostnaxt on ' the.
2pth day of January '2004-at
6 00.p:in.:at the Rosman Town
Hall.concerning the following:
The Town:`:of Rosm'an owns
and operates •a:0;A9 mill�ton
gallon per `'day . (MGD)
WastewaterTreatment Plant
discharging treated effluent
into. the French Broad River.
The Town. proposes to ex-
pand its treatment capability
by constructing a new 0.25'
MGD plant at the location of
the' existing 0.09, MGD
plant. The:,pi•oject also in
.eludes construction of col-
lection sewers into unsew-
ered areas. The Preliminary
:Engineering Report, and the
Environmental Assessment*
are available -for -review at
Town Hall. The project will
be funded from both State
{•� tnd -federai,Gnants %Ehe-to--
• tal -project 'costis: estimated
to' be $5:million dollars.
The Project Engineer and the
Environmental Scientist will be
present to discuss issues per-
taining to the -.proposed project.
The Public 'is invited and en-
couraged to attend this public
hearing:
This 'the 9th day of Decem-
ber, 2003.
`Angela H. Woodson
Town .Clerk
T 12/.l 8l l tc
F LEGAL ADVERTISING
TACHED HERE
NORTH CAROLINA
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly commissioned, qualified, and
authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
appeared David Phillips, who being first duly sworn,
deposes and says: that he is Advertising Manager
(Owner, partner, publisher, or other officer or
employee authorized to make this affidavit) of The
Transylvania Times, published, issued, and entered
as second class mail in the Town of Brevard in said
County and State; that he is authorized to make this
affidavit and sworn statement; that the notice or
other legal advertisement, a true copy of which is
attached hereto, was published in The Transylvania
Times on the following dates:
December 18, 2003
and that the said newspaper in which such notice,
paper, document, or legal advertisement was
published was, at the time of each and every such
publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
requirements and qualifications of Section I-597 of
the General Statutes of North Carolina and was
qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section
I-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
This
i‘
Sworn to ,ra
day of,
day of
k. �, ✓-Y , 2004.
(Signature of person making affidavit)
1)_1.
subscribed before me, this__
My Commission expires:
A-- • �; , 2004.
Notary Public
ce

APPENDIX K
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT LETTER

refry 1. P;erce. M.P.H.
Health O'rector
MIN
Odd
,rM
PIN
Transylvania County HealLh DeparLment
April ?A 2001
Mr. Dean Haney
14191'atton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28806
Dear Mr. Haney:
John R. Folger, Jr., M.D.
Chnkclan
RE: City of Rosman Grant Application
i am providing a letter of support for the City of Rosman sewer grant application. My understanding is
the grant funds are to he used to upgrade the Rosman Sewer Plant, sewer lines, and to provide sewer
to all residents within the city limits. Additionally, 1 understand that there funds will also provide sewer
to areas in the immediate proximity of the town that have or have had septic problems.
According to town records, there arc several homes within Roman that are. connected to septic
systems. The homes renuainin.g on septic systems, in all likelihood. arc older homes. As septie
systems age, there is an increased likelihood that a failure will occur. 1 would certainly support
connecting these hulztes to a central sewer system to eliminate any future septic problems.
The expansion of sewer lines beyond the town limits, especially the old Rosman Highway, will provide
at least two benefits. Firstly, it will provide a method of correcting future septic problems for those
homes and businesses currently on septic systems. This office has issued at least two septic repair
permits. on or around the old Rosman Highway in recent years. A sewer line would provide a more
permanent solution to sewerage needs wince the soil conditions in this area tend to be poorly suited for
on -site sewage disposal.
Secondly. development in Rosman and the immediate vicinity is limited due to the soil conditions as
previously mentioned. This is particularly evident on the old Rosman Highway. Much of this arca has
been denied septic permits (or has been severely limited) for on -site wastewater disposal. Due u) the
unsuitability of the area. at least three businesses have sought discharge permits from the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) for construction or expansion. The streams that would receive this wastewater
(Weaver's Creek and Morgan Mill Creek) have been identified by DWQ as degraded and ate
currently under asessment. Providing a sewer line to this area will allot: houses and/or businesses to
be constructed on this corridor and also remove the need to discharge addi,lonal cor',t:amir,:uits into
these streams.
Community Services Building • 8rcvard. Novi: Carolina 28712 • Phone (s28) 98•i•3135 • FAX [phone]C

Mr. Dean Haney
Page 2
I strongly support this grant application for the Town of Rosman and believe that it will benefit the town
and residents now and in the future. If 1 can be of any further assistance, please contact me at 884-
313 9 Monday through Friday.
Sin
L.1,• ton Long,
En ironmcntal Health Supervisor
LL/dd
ti
P'!
EOO'd dEO:VO t0/e2/1,0

APPENDIX L
SPECULATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITS

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment + �����
anri N?:l!ral Resniirceq i •
e COrn wkaul
Division of Water Quality '
Micheal F Easley, Governor
William G. Ross: Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
December 21, 2001
The Honorable.iohnny Rogers
Town of Rosman
P.O. Box 636
Rosman, North Carolina 23772
SPE. LIMIT
NCDENR
Subject: Speculative Limits for Rosman WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC002 1946
Transylvania County
Dear Mayor Rogers:
This letter is in response to the request for speculative effluent limits submitted by WK
Dickson for the expansion of the Rosman WWTP. The expansion flow of 0.25 was targeted for
the existing discharge point in the French Broad River. The staff of the NPDES Unit of the Point
Source Branch has reviewed this request and will provide speculative effluent limits. However,
additional information has been reviewed in Rosman's October 2001 preliminary engineering
report and environmental assessment. The Division of Water Quality recommends that Rosman
more closely evaluate the option of connection to the Brevard WAIT?. The regionalization of
Wastewater treatment facilities remains a primary goal of DWQ and it would appear that the
connection to the Brevard WWTP is a viable option for this facility.
This segment of the French Broad River where Rosman currently discharges has a stream
classification of W=S-II1 Trout. The best usage of these waters is as a source of water supply for
drinking. culinary, or food processing. The trout designation dictates that these are waters that
have conditions, which shall sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout
on a year-round basis. The discharge point has an estimated drainage area of 67.9 square miles, a —
with an average flow of 240 cfs, a summer 7Q10 of 55.5 cis and a winter 7Q10 of 63.4 cfs.
There are no other dischargers near this site.
Based on available information, the tentative effluent limits for oxygen -consuming
constituents of the Rosman WWTP discharge at the expansion floe; of 0.25 MGD are included
on the anached effluent sheet. Upon formal permit application far the expansion flow, if there is
an industrial :.astewater constituency, an evaluation of limits and ionitori g requirements for
metals and other toxicants will be addressed at that time.
The Division of Water Quality is requiring chlorine limits fer afi ne.w or expanding
discha:_"-; p.oposine, the use r,f chlorine fnr di7:ir1`c•!or.. The process of
Ncr;'t mod'= -. _-E'39.!5.1
:.r E a �cc., rr.i A.Yr.�a! ,e -,no E7101:.r3 iri=
144 - wS
13 Tr-
HQv.1
yaye
?000 Fr
U-pstream
+lF�

08:51 828-884-4159 TOWN OF ROSMAN
HAUL 04
osman WWTP Speculative Limits
age 2
The Division of Water Quality is requiring chlorine limits for all new or expanding
dischargers proposing the use of chlorine for disinfection. The process of
chlorination/dechlorination or an altematc form of disinfection, such as ultraviolet radiation,
should allow the facility to comply this requirement.
It should also be noted that upon permit renewal or the expansion of the wastewater
treatment plant, the facility would have to begin influent monitoring of BOD5 and Total
suspended residue. In addition, the monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended
Residue concentrations shall not exceed J 5% of the respective influent value, therefore there
must be at least an 85% removal rate (per the secondary treatment requirement per 40 CFR Part
133).
Final NPDES effluent limitations will be determined after a permit application has bccn
submitted to the Division. If there are any additional questions concerning this matter, please
feel free to contact Jackie Nowell of my staff at [phone] ext. 512.
Respectfully,
David A. Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
Attachrrr.cnt
cc: Forrest Westall/Asheville Regional Office
Bobby Blowc, Construction Grants
Milt Rhodes/Planning Branch
Central Files
NPDES Permit File
01.
01.1

Rosman \VWTP Speculative Limas
Page 3
A. SPECULATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS - ROSM.AN WWTP
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location'
Flow
0.25 MGD ,
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2
30.0 mg!(.
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent. Effluent
2,
Total Suspended Residue9�
30.0m
45.0m g/l.
Weekly
Composite
Influent, Effluent
NH3 as N
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
2001100 mi
400 / 100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
pH3
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 pg/L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
-
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually_
Composite
Effluent
Temperature, ¢C
Weekly .
• Grab
' .
Effluent
Notes:
1. Influent. Effluent. Upstream - at least 100 feet upstream of outfall. Downstream - at least 300 feet
downstream of outfall
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall net=cceed
15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Monitoring requirement and limit applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace

APPENDIX M
EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER DESIGN PARAMETERS
P
p•

Train Technologies Inc.
UV3000 PROPOSAL
November 4, 2002
EW2 ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
221 Belltel Dr.
Prosperity, SC 29127
USA
Attention: Larry Greene
Reference: Rosman, NC
Quote No: CD81349t3
In response to your request, we are pleased to provide the following Trojan System UV3000T" proposal for the
Rosman project. Since Trojan introduced the open channel approach to disinfection in 1982, many
municipalities have selected ultraviolet as the preferred method pathogen destruction at their facilities.
The Trojan System UV3000TM utilizes low pressure low intensity lamp technology. All of Trojan's UV systems
are modular in design, with each design customized in response to the effluent criteria. The lamps are oriented
,--, in a horizontal configuration parallel to the flow.
Please review carefully our design criteria for peak flow rate, total suspended solids, disinfection limit, and UV
transmittance to ensure that the criteria used match actual project parameters. When detailed project design
commences, please contact our office for a review of all design parameters, including dimensions and equipment
requirements. In addition, Trojan is able to provide analytical services to quantify effluent quality and confirm
design criteria.
Trojan's price for the attached design is $36,000 (in US$). This quoted price includes the equipment as
described, freight to site and start-up by qualified personnel. This quote excludes any taxes that may be
applicable. The above information is to be used for budget estimates and is valid for 90 days from this day.
Please do not hesitate to call us if you have any questions or would like additional information. Thank you for the
opportunity to quote the Trojan System UV3000 on this project.
With best regards,
Trojan Technologies Inc.
Simon Wills
Municipal Designer
Encl.
15912A

Rosman, NC
CDB1349B
UV3000 Proposal
Page 2
10/31/2002
DESIGN CRITERIA
Current Peak Design Flow: 0.75 US_MGD
Future Peak Design Flow: 0.75 US_MGD
UV Transmission: 65%, minimum
Total Suspended Solids: 5 mg/I (30 Day Average; grab samples)
,.. Max Average Particle Size: 30 microns
Disinfection Limit: 14 fecal coliform per 100 ml, based on a 30 day Geometric Mean, 25 fc max of
consecutive daily grab samples
OM
DESIGN SUMMARY
Based on the above design criteria, the Trojan System UV3000TM proposed consists of:
Number of Channels: ;1
Total Number of Banks: 2
Number of Modules per Bank: 4
Number of Lamps per Module: 6
Total Number of Lamps: 48
Number of Power Distribution Centers: 2
Number of System Control Centers: 1
Number of Level Controllers: 4
Type of Level Controller: Fixed Weir
Cleaning System: Cleaning Rack
EFFLUENT CHANNEL DIMENSIONS
L=
D =
Minimum length required for flow equalization:
Channel width based on number of UV modules:
Maximum depth required for UV Modules access:
26 ft
12 in
42 in
Dimensions are given for reference only. Consult Trojan Technologies for overall system detailed. dimensions.
ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS
1. The UV System Control Center requires an electrical service of one (1) 120 Volts, 1 phase, 2 wire (plus
ground), 5 Amps.
2. Each Power Distribution Center requires an electrical service of one (1) 120 Volts, 1 phase, 2 wires (plus
ground), 2.3 kVA.
NOTES
�•, 1. UV Disinfection Equipment specification is available upon request.
2. If there are site -specific hydraulic constrains that must be applied, please consult the manufacturer's representative
to ensure compatibility with the proposed system.
3. Standard spare parts and safety equipment are included with this proposal.
- 4. The weighted controller (automatic level controller) is not designed to handle periods of no flow.
5. Electrical disconnects required as per local state code are not included in this proposal. -
6. Trojan Technologies Inc. warrantees all components of the system (excluding UV Tamps) against faulty
workmanship and materials fora period of 12 months from date of start-up or 18 months after shipment, which ever
ar occurs first.
Copyright © 2001 by Trojan Technologies Inc., London, Ontario. Canada. All rights reserved. No part of this quotation may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission of Trojan Technologies Inc.

Rosman, NC
CDB1349B
UV3000 Proposal
Page 3
10/31/2002
rim
OPERATING COSTS FOR TROJAN SYSTEM UV3000
Design Criteria
Average Flow:
Yearly Usage:
UV Transmission:
Power Requirements
Total Power Draw:
Average Power Draw:
Annual Operating Hours:
Cost per kW Hour:
Annual Power Cost:
0.38 US_MGD
8760 hours
65%, minimum
4.2kW
2.1 kW
8760 hours
$0.040
$ 736
Replacement Lam) Costs
Number of lamps replaced per year. 18
Price per lamp: $35
Annual Lamp Replacement Cost: $ 613
Total Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs are: $1,349
NOTES
1. O&M costs are based on system flow -pacing using a 4-20 mA signal from a flow meter (supplied by others).
2. Ali costing has been based on the system operating at the average flow conditions.
3. All power requirements are based solely on the UV lamps.
Copynght o 2001 by Trojan Technologies Inc., London. Ontario, Canada. All rights reserved. No part of this quotation may be reproduced.
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission of Trojan Technologies Inc.
Inn

Asa
1�1
p1�
PIM
amp
• The enclosed information is based on preliminary data which we have received from you. There may be factors
unknown to us which would alter the enclosed recommendation. These recommendations are based on
models and assumptions widely used in the industry. While we attempt to keep these current, Aqua -Aerobic
Systems, Inc. assumes no responsibility for their validity or any risks associated with their use. Also, because
,.. of the various factors stated above, Aqua -Aerobic Systems, Inc. assumes no responsibility for any liability
resulting from any use made by you of the enclosed recommendations.
PROCESS DESIGN REPORT __-----
f
—re:5
\1
Rosman \\
Design#:14314�� .
Option: Preliminary Design(0.250,MGD)SS Filter O I •
Designed by Tom Koeppen on Th1rsday, October 04, 20I
•
C.
Copyright 1999, Aqua -Aerobic Systems, Inc., Rockford, IL

Design Notes
Rosman / Design*: 14314
Filtration
- The anticipated effluent quality is based upon filterable influent solids.
- Aqua -Aerobic Systems recommends covering filters in areas of the country where bright sunlight is expected;to cause excessive
algae growth.
Equipment
- Tankage is included in the budgetary pricing.
Pricing
- Budget pricing includes freight, Installation supervision and start-up services.
- Budget pricing is based upon wetted metallic components consisting of 304SS.
IMP
As
aw
AMA
Friday, October 05, 2001
Page 1 of 1

Aqua -aerobic Systems, Inc.
Equipment Summary (sorted by basin)
Project: Rosman
Option: Prellminary Design (0.250 MGD) SS Filter Only
Designed by Torn Soeppen on Thursday, October 04, 2001
Design# 14314
- 2" wire reinforced flexible hose.
- Stainless steel hose damps.
1 External Piping Assembly(Ies) consisting of:
- Polypropylene quick coupler dust covers.
- Polypropylene quick couplers.
- 2" wire reinforced flexible hose.
- 2" bronze 3 way ball valve(s).
- 0 to 30 inches mercury vacuum gauge(s).
- Backflush hose assembly.
- 0 to 15 psi pressure gauge(s).
1 Backwash Pump installation(s) consisting of:
- Backwash and sludge pump(s).
- Backwash pump throttling gate valve(s).
AquaDisk Instumentation
1 Pressure Transducer Assembly(les) consisting of-.
- Level sensing pressure transducer(s).
AquaDisk Valves
1 Influent Vaive(s) consisting of:
- 8" manual butterfly valve(s).
1 Set(s) of Backwash Vaive(s) consisting of:
- 2" full port, three piece, bronze body ball valve(s) with single phase electric actuator(s).
be manufactured by Nibco, Milwaukee, or equal.
1 Sludge Vaive(s) consisting of:
- 2" full port, three piece, bronze body ball valve(s) with single phase electric actuator(s).
be manufactured by Nibco, Milwaukee, or equal.
AquaDisk Controls w/Starters
1 Controls Package(s) will be provided as follows:
- NEMA 4X fiberglass endosure(s).
- Horner Electric operator interface(s).
- Horner Electric cable(s).
- Processor DL240.
- Starter 18 AMP 3-Pole.
- Analog input card(s).
Valve 1 actuator combination shall
Valve \ actuator combination shall
PRELIMINARY PRICE SUMMARY
AquaDisk Filter(s): $146,210
Total: $146,210
Aqua -Aerobic Systems, Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10f5101 2:42:33 PM Page 2 of 2

Awl
014
OMNI
AquaD1SK Tertiary Filtration - Design Summary
Project: Rosman
Option: Preliminary Design (0.250 MGO) SS Filter Only
Designed by Tom Koeppel! on Thursday, Octobor 04, 2001
DESIGN INFLUENT CONDITIONS
Pre -Filter Treatment: SBR
Avg. Design Flow = 0.25 MG/day
Max. Design Flow = 015 MG/day
=173.6gpm
= 520.8 gpm
= (945 mA3/day)
= (2835 m"3/day)
Ir,
Design# 14314
Effluent
DESIGN PARAMETERS Influent mg/I Required <= mg/i Anticipated <= mg/I
Avg. Total Suspended Solids: TSSa 10 TSSa 5 TSSa 5
Max. Total Suspended Solids: TSSm 15 — -- 1 — —
Bio!Chem Oxygen Demand: lBOD5 _.s + 10 — —
AauaDISK FILTER SIZING CRITERIA
Filter Type:
Vertically Mounted Cloth Media Disks featuring automatically operated vacuum backwash and high pressure spray cleaning. Tank
shall include a hopper -bottom and solids removal manifold system.
Average Flow Conditions:
Average Hydraulic Loading = 4 gpm per square foot of filter area at Avg. Flow.
_ (0.25 Us per square meter of filter area at Avg. Flow.)
Filter Area Required = Avg. Design Flow (gpm) Avg. Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft"2) = 43.4 fi1"2 = (4.03 mA2)
Maximum Flow Conditions:
Maximum Hydraulic Loading = 6 gpm per square foot of filter area at Max. Flow.
= (0.38 Us per square meter of filter area at Max. Flow.)
Filter Area Required = Max. Design Flow (gpm) / Max. Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft"2) = 86.8 ft"2 = (8.06 m"2)
Solids Loadincz:
pa Solids Loading Rate
Filter Area Required
= 1.9 Ibs TSS per square foot of filter area per day.
= (9.28 kg TSS per square meter of filter area per day.)
= (lbs TSS/day) / Solids Loading Rate (lbs TSS/ft"2/day) :. 32.9 ftA2 = (3.06 m^2)
▪ AquaDISK FILTER RECOMMENDATION
Qty Of Filter Units Recommended = 1
Number Of Disks Per Unit = 2
Total Number Of Disks Recommended = 2
Total Filter Area Provided = 107.6 ft"2 = (10 mA2)
„_ Filter Model Recommended
1264
MIN
= AquaDisk Package Model 54: 2 Disk Unit
Aqua -Aerobic Systems, Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10/5/01 8:14:57 AM
Page 1 of 1

Aqua -Aerobic Systems, Inc.
Equipment Summary (sorted by basin)
Project: Rosman
Option: Preliminary Design (0.250 MGD) SS Filter Only
Designed by Tom Koeppen on Thursday, October 04, 2001
Filters
Design# 14314
AquaDisk Tanks/Basins
1 Aquadisk model # ADFP-54x2E-PC package filter stainless steel tank(s) consisting of:
- 2 disk tank(s) will be stainless steel, estimated dry weight is 8,400 lbs., and estimated operating weight is 37,300 lbs..
The tank finish will be:
— Interior. commercial sandblast (SSPC-SP6), painted with Devthane 379 Aliphatic Urethane Enamel (color "clear") 1 coats 2-
3 mils DFT on the top 2 foot only.
Exterior, comercial sandblast (SSPC-SP6), painted with Devthane 379 Aliphatic Urethane Enamel (color "clear") 1 coats 2-3
mils OFT over the entire exterior.
- Effluent seal plate weldment.
- Tank drain vaive(s).
AquaDisk Centertulle Assemblies
1 Centertube Assembly(ies) consisting of:
- Centertube.
• Centertube carver assembly.
- Centertube position maintainer.
- Centertube end support bearing kit(s).
- Effluent centertube lip seal.
- Centertube drive sprocket(s).
- 5/8" diameter 304 stainless steel media support rods.
- Neoprene media sealing gaskets.
- Pile cloth media and non -corrosive support frame assemblies.
AquaDisk Drive Assemblies
1 Drive System Assembly(ies) consisting of:
- Gear reducer and drive motor.
- Drive spocket(s).
- Drive chain(s) with pins.
- Waming label(s).
- Chain guard. O'�
AquaDisk Backwash/Sludge Assemblies tic
1 Backwash Support Assembly(ies) consisting of: 4) no°r=otr
- Backwash support weldment(s)..1‘j, ; ' r-'� ��`�.
1 Backwash System Assembly(ies) consistingof: 1111,- , '� }.
- Backwash collection nozzle. ��'✓~. L.
- PVC backwash collection manifold(s).
- PVC threaded union(s).
- PVC threaded coupling(s).
- Sludge manifold(s).
- Cam & Groove quick coupling(s) for hose to manifold.
- Combination nipple(s) for hose to pipe connection(s).
- Spring weldment(s) hold the backwash nozzle against the cloth.
- 304 stainless steel backwash nozzle middle spring weldments.
-1 1/2" wire reinforced flexible hose.
Aqua -Aerobic Systems, Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10/5101 2:42:33 PM Page 1 of 2

•
0114
Aqua -Aerobic Systems, Inc.
6306 North Alpine Road • P.O. Box 2026 / Rockford, IL 61130' Ph#:615/654.2501 • Fx#:815/654-2508
roject Fax
Correspondence ID#: AAF•14443
Attention: Bob Wilroy cOlt October 22, 2---
Company Wk Dickson And Co. Fx#: 803/786-4263.
From: Thomas Sichz, P.E. Ph#: 803/786-426T
Project: Rosman Total Pages (including thls one): X 1 C
Confidentiality Notice: This page, and any accornpanying pages, may contain information which is confidential or privileged and is intended for the sole use of the recipient
named above. If you ate not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, is prohibited.
Reference: Revised Desing
no" Bob,
Based on our phone conversation last week and the most recent site plan 1 received, please find attached the revised
design summary information. I believe this design best fits your site layout and requirements for basfn dimensions. As
`am requested we removed the post-eq aeration, changed the retrievable diffusers to fixed in the SBR and changed the
aerators to fixed diffusion in the digester. Please note that per your request we did include a standby blower for the
digester.
ank
If you plan to move forward with plans and specifications using the AquaSBR system, please call me to discuss the P&S
questionnajre I sent to you last meg. Thank you for your continued interest in a wastewater trea men system rom
Aqua -Aerobic Systems. Inc. We look forward to the completion of a successful project with you.
I trust this meets your immediate needs and if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thim Sincerely,
Thomas Sichz, P.E.
Project Applications Engineer
CC: File
44P-1" tt-r-ledf-c4P.; Jo'kt_ °A W1-:1 7-61-"-t
, CPJG4 �"�� r rY -

poi
PEI
NMI
ROI
PROCESS DESIGN REPORT
El?
EA
Rosman
Design#: 14435
Option: SBR Only (0.250 MGD ADF / 0.750 MGD MDF)
Designed by Thomas Sichz, P.E. on Wednesday, October 17, 2001
The enclosed information is based on preliminary data which we have received from you. There may be factors
unknown to us which would alter the enclosed recommendation. These recommendations are based on
models and assumptions widely used in the Industry. While we attempt to keep these current, Aqua -Aerobic
Systems, Inc. assumes no responsibility for their validity or any risks•associated with their Use. Also, because
of the various factors stated above, Aqua -Aerobic Systems, inc. assumes no responsibility for any liability
resulting from any use made by you of the enclosed recommendations.
,., Copyright 1999, Aqua -Aerobic Systems, Inc., Rockford, IL

Rim
Design Notes
re-SBR
- Neutralization is recommended/required ahead of the SBR if the pH is expected to fats outside of 6.5-8.5 for significant durations.
- Coarse Bar Screening preceeds the SBR.
SBR
- The Maximum flow, as shown on the design, has been assumed as a hydraulic maximum and does not represent an additional
organic load.
Aeration
- The aeration system has been designed to provide 1.25 Ibs 02I1b B005 and 4.6 Ibs 02/1b TKN at the design average loading
conditions.
Process/Site
- An elevation of 3000 ft has been given.
- The anticipated effluent NH3-N requirement is predicated upon an influent waste temperature of 10C or greater. While lower
▪ temperatures may be acceptable for a short-term duration, Nitrification below 10C can be unpredictable, requiring special operator
- As no information was available on influent quality the following concentrations were assumed; BOD5 250mg/I. TSS 250mg/1, TKN
▪ 40mgfl, Total P 10mg/I. If an upward variance from these concentrations is expected the system may require redesign.
- Sufficient alkalinity is required for nitrification, as approximately 7.1 mg alkalinity (as CaCO3) is required for every mg of NH3-N
nitrified. If the raw water alkalinity cannot support this consumption, while maintaining a residual concentration of 50 mg/I,
supplemental alkalinity shall be provided (by others).
Post-SBR
mei
attention.
- Effluent flow equalization and tertiary filtration will follow the AquaSBR process.
1
- Ultraviolet disinfection follows the AquaSBR process.
- Post Aeration (cascade aerator) follows the AquaSBR process.
Sludge Holding
IBM
- A supernatant return device is recommended in the digester. Floating weir provided by Aqua.
▪ Equipment .
- The basin dimensions reported on the design have been assumed based upon the required volumes and assumed basin
geometry. Actual basin geometry may be circular, square, rectangular or sloped with construction materials including concrete, steel
• or earthen. -
- Rectangular or sloped basin construction with length to width ratios greater than 1.5:1 may require alteration's in the equipment
recommendation.
- Tankage is not included in the budgetary pricing and shall be provided by others.
- Influent is assumed to enter the reactor above the waterline, Located appropriately to avoid proximity to the decanter. splashing or
direct discharge in the immediate vicinity of other equipment.
Aqua -Aerobic Systems, Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10122101 1:50:38 PM Page 2 of 9
Rosman ! DesigMl: 14435 / Option: SSR Only (0.250 MGD ADF / 0.750 MGD MOF) / Designed by Thomas Slchz, P.E. on Wednesday. October 17. 2001

hydraulic capacity shall be made in the headworks to uate
• 1f the Influent is to be located submerged below the waterline, adequate
prevent backflow from one reactor to the other during transition of influent.
- Gravity decant has been assumed based upon the centerline of the decant discharge from the basin at 1.0 ft below the low water
level.
Pricing
- Budget pricing includes freight. installation supervision and start-up services.
- Budget pricing is based upon Aqua Aerobic Systems standard materials of construction and electrical components.
Aqua-Aeroblc Systems. Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10122/01 1:50:38 PM Page 3 of 9
Rosman l Dcsignp: 14435 / Option: SBR Only (0.250 MGO AOF / 0.750 MGO MOF) 1 Designed by Thomas Sichz. P.E. on Wednesday. October 17. 2001

AquaSBR - Sequencing Batch Reactor - Design Summary
DESIGN INFLUENT CONDITIONS
Avg. Design Flow = 0.25 MG/Day = 945 CM/Day
Max. Design Flow = 0.75 MG/Day = 2835 CM/Day
Effluent
Influent mgll Required <= mgll Anticipated <= mg/l
pm DESIGN PARAMETERS 10
BiolChem Oxygen Demand: BOD5 250 BOD5 10 BOD5
10
Total Suspended Solids: TSS 250 TSS 5 TSS r
,_ Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen: TKN 40 - --
Ammonia Nitrogen: - NH3-N 4 NH3-N 1
Phosphorus: Total P 10 -
"" SITE CONDITIONS _ Maximum Minimum _ Design Elevation (MSL)
Ambient Air Temperatures: - 85 F -29.4 C 30 F -1.1 C 85 F 29.4 C
3000 FT
Influent Waste Temperatures: 68 F 20 C 50 F 10 C 68 F 20 C
914.4 M
SBR BASIN DESIGN VALUES Water Depth Basin VOI.!Basin
No./Basin Geometry: = 2 Square Basin(s)
Min = 10.7 FT = (3.25 M) Min = 0.109 MG = (413.9 CM)
Freeboard: = 2 FT = (0.6 M) Avg = 13.1 FT = (4 M) Avg = 0.134 MG = (508.5 CM)
a.. Length of Basin: = 37 FT = (11.3M) Max = 18 FT = (5.49 M) Max = 0.184 MG = (697.8 CM)
Width of Basin: = 37 FT = (11.3M)
Food/Mass (F/M) Ratio:
`a0 MLSS Concentration:
Hydraulic Retention Time:
Solids Retention Time:
Est. Net Sludge Yield:
Est. Dry Solids Produced: = 434.2 lbs. WAS/Day = (197 KG/Day)
Est. Solids Flow Rate:- = 100 GPM (5206.2 GAUDay)
= (19.7 CMlDay)
Decant Flow Rate @ MDF: = 1172 GPM (as avg. from NO to low water level)
= (4.4 CMM)
(0.3 M)
Number Of Cycles: = 5 per Day/Basin
Cycle Duration: = 4.8 Hours/Cycle
= 0.064 lbs. BOD5/1b. MLSS-Day
= 4500 mg/1© Min. Water Depth
= 1.075 Days @ Avg. Water Depth
= 18 Days
= 0.833 lbs. WAS/Ib. BOD5
LWL to CenterLine Discharge: = 1 FT
FM Lbs. 02/1b. BOD5 = 1.25
Lbs. 02/Ib. TKN = 4.6
Actual Oxygen Required: = 1035 tbs./Day
SCFM/Basin: = 581
Max. Discharge Pressure: = 8.4 PSIG
Avg. Power Required: = 443.5 KW-Hours/Day
111114
Owl
= (469.6 KG/Day)
= (16.5 CMM)
= (57.7 KPA)
Page 4 of O
Aqua -Aerobic Systems. Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10122/01 1:50:39 PM
Rosman 1 Deslgn#:144351 Option: SBR Only (0.250 MGD AOF 10.750 MGD MDF) 1 Designed by Thomas Slchz. P.E. on Wednesday, October 17.2001

Post -Equalization - Design Summary
pOST-SBR EQUALIZATION DESIGN PARAMETERS
Avg. Design Flow (ADF)
Max. Design Flow (MDF)
Decant Flow Rate From SBR (Qd):
Decant Duration (Td):
Number Decants/Day:
Time Between Start Of Decants:
= 0.25 MG/Day
= 0.75 MG/Day
= 1172 GPM
= 64 Minutes
= 10
= 144 Minutes
= 945 CM/Day
= 2835 CM/Day
= (4.4 CMM)
POST-SBR EQUALIZATION VOLUME DETERMINATION
The volume required for equalization/storage shall be provided between the high and the low water levels of the basin(s). This
Storage Volume (Vs) has been determined by the following:
-- Vs = [(Qd -(MDF x 694.4)] x Td = 41675 GAL = (5571.5 CuFt) = (157.8 CM)
The volumes determined in this summary reflect the minimum volumes necessary to achieve the desired result& based upon the
input provided to Aqua. if other hydraulic conditions exist that are not mentioned in this design summary or associated design
notes, additional volume may be warranted.
•
Based upon liquid level inputs from each SBR reactor prior to decant, the rate of discharge from the Post-SBR Equalization basin
shall be pre -determined to establish the proper number of pumps to be operated (or the correct valve position In the case of gravity
flow). Level indication in the Post-SBR Equalization basin(s) shall override equipment operation.
POST-SBR EQUALIZATION BASIN DESIGN VALUES or.;0 -
No./Basin Geometry: =1 Square Basin(s) �i�,r.►4-94°14 ,
Length of Basin: = 26.4 FT = (8 M) q �a
Width of Basin: = 26.4 FT = (8 M) �d"
Min. Water Depth:
Max. Water Depth:
= 1.5 FT
= 9.5 FT
= (0.5 M)
= (2.9 M)
Min. Basin Vol/Basin: ,
= 7814 GAL = (29.582 CM)
Max. Basin Vol/Basin: = 49488.7 GAL : = (187.351 CM)
POST-SBR EQUALIZATION EQUIPMENT CRITERIA
Max. Flow Rate Required/Basin: = 520.83 GPM = (1.972 CMM)
Avg. Power Required: = 19.6 KW-Hours/Day
• Aqua -Aerobic Systems. Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10/22/01 1:50:40 PM Page 5 of 9
Rosman / Designft: 14435 / Option: SBR Only (0.250 MGO ADF / 0.750 MGO MOF) / Designed by Thomas Sichz, P.E. on Wednesday. October 17, 2001

Aerobic Digester - Design Summary
AEROBIC DIGESTER DESIGN PARAMETERS
Sludge Flowrate to the Digester = 5206.2 GAUDay = (19.7 CM/Day)
am inlet Sludge Concentration = 1.00%
Solids Loading to the Digester = 434.2 lbs./Day = (197 KG/Day)
Inlet Volatile Solids Fraction = 73.00%
AEROBIC DIGESTER BASIN DESIGN VALUES
NoiBasln Geometry: = 1 Rectangular Basin(s)
Length Of Basin: = 37 FT = (11.3 M)
Width of Basin: = 20 FT = (6.1 M)
1
Min. Water Depth: = 7 FT = (2.1 M) Min. Basin Vol/Basin: = 38746.4 GAL = (146.683 CM)
Max. Water Depth: = 10 FT = (3 M) Max. Basin Vol/Basin: = 55352 GAL = (209.548 CM)
AEROBIC DIGESTER PROCESS DESIGN PARAMETERS
run•
Retention Time = 21.3 Days
Digester Design Temperature = 20 C
Volatile Solids Destruction = 40.00%
„I Digester Solids Concentration = 2.00%
Oxygen Supplied For Digestion = 2 lbs. 02 per Ib. VSS Destroyed
Oxygen Distribution Per Basin = 100.00%
pm Actual Oxygen Required = 255 lbs./Day = (115.7 KG/Day)
Volatile Percentage After Digestion = 62.00%
Estimated Dry Solids To Be Removed = 306.7 lbs./Day = (139.1 KG/Day)
Volume of Solids To Be Removed = 1838.9 GAUDay = (7 CM/Day)
Estimated Supernatant Volume =16605.6 GAUBasin = (62.9 CM/Basin)
Assumed Supernatant Duration = 180 Minutes
` IMMI
Calculated Supernatant Flow = 92.3 GPM = (5.8 USEC)
1. The Volatile Solids Destruction listed above shall be used for determination of the oxygen demand during summer conditions.
It should be noted that the actual VSS destruction will be dependant upon digester inlet condition. temperature, and operating
pim conditions.
2. The Digester Solids Concentration is reflected as an average concentration. assuming the operations include frequent settling
and supernating practices.
g" AEROBIC DIGESTER EQUIPMENT CRITERIA
Mixing Energy With Diffusers (Coarse): = 45 SCFM/1000 CF
SCFM Required To Mix: = 333 SCFM/Basin = (9.4 CMM/Basin)
SW
Max. Discharge Pressure: = 4.9 PSIG = (33.8 KPA)
Max. Flow Rate Required/Basin: = 100 GPM = (0.379 CMM)
Avg. Power Required: = 158.2 KW-Hours/Day
Rom
a•�
Page 6 of 9
Aqua -Aerobic Systems, Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10/22101 1:50:40 PM
Rosman ! Deslgni$: 14435 ! Option: SBR Only (0.250 MGD ADF ! 0.750 MGD MOF) ! Designed by Thomas Slchz. P.E. on Wednesday. October 17. 2001

rml
Equipment Summary
AquaSBR
Influent Valves
2 Influent valve(s) will be provided as follows:
- 8 inch electrically operated Plug Valve(s).
Mixers
2 AquaDDM Direct Drive Mixer(s) will be provided as follows:
- 5 HP Aqua -Aerobic Systems Endura Series Model FSS DDM Mixer(s).
Mixer Mooring
2 Mixer Pivotal Mooring Assembly(ies) consisting of:
- 304 stainless steel pivotal mooring arm(s).
- #12 AWG-four conductor electrical service cable(s).
. - Electrical cable strain relief grip(s), 2 eye, wire mesh.
- Galvanized steel dewatering support posts.
Decanters
2 Decanter Assembly(ies) consisting of:
•
- 6x4 Aqua -Aerobics decanter(s) with fiberglass float. 304 stainless steel weir, galvanized restrained mooring frame, and
painted steel power section with #16-8 conductor power cable.
- 8 inch diameter decant hose assembly..
- 4" Schedule 40 galvanized restrained mooring post(s) with base plate.
- 8 inch electrically operated butterfly valve(s) with actuator.
Transfer PumpsNalves
2 Submersible pump assembly(les) consisting of the following items:
-1.7 HP Submersible Pump(s) with painted cast iron pump housing, discharge elbow, and multi -conductor electrical cable.
- 2.5 inch manual plug valve(s).
- 2.5 inch Nibco check valve(s).
- Galvanized steel slide rail assembly(les).
Fixed Coarse Bubble Diffusers
1 Aqua-Aerobic's Fixed Coarse Bubble Diffuser System(s) consisting of the following components:
- 304 stainless steel adhesive anchors.
- Schedule 40 galvanized steel riser pipe(s).
- Schedule 80 PVC manifold piping.
- PVC.diffuser(s).
positive Displacement Blowers
3 Positive Displacement Blower Package(s), with each package consisting of:
- Sutorbilt 5M Positive Displacement Blower Package with common base, V-belt drive, enclosed drive guard, pressure
gauge, pressure relief valve, and vibration pads.
- Discharge silencer, check valve, manual butterfly isolation valve, and flexible discharge connector.
- Inlet filter and inlet silencer.
y' - 20 HP motor with slide base.
- 304 stainless steel anchors.
Air Valves
2 Air Control valve(s) will be provided as follows:
- 6 inch electrically operated butterfly valve(s) with actuator.
Aqua -Aerobic Systems. Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10/22101 1:50:41 PM Page 7 of 8
Rosman 1 Design#: 14435 / Option: SOR Only (0.250 MGD ADF / 0.750 MGO MDF) / Designed by Thomas Slchz. P.E. on Wednesday. October 17, 2001

Level Sensor Assemblies
2 Pressure Transducer Assembly(ies) each consisting of:
- Keller PSI Model 700 stainless steel submersible pressure transducer(s).
- Pressure transducer mounting assembly(ies).
2 Level sensor assembly(ies) will be provided as follows:
- Float Switch(es).
asw • Float switch mounting bracket(s).
- 318" 304 stainless steel adhesive anchors.
AquaSBR: Post -Equalization
a>�
Transfer Pumps/Valves
2 Submersible pump assembly(ies) consisting of the following items:
- 3 HP Submersible Pump(s) with painted cast iron pump housing, discharge elbow, and multi -conductor electrical cable.
- Manual plug valve(s). ---
- 3 inch Nibco check valve(s).
'im' - Galvanized steel slide rail assembly(ies).
Level Sensor Assemblies
1 Pressure Transducer Assembly(ies) each consisting of:
- Keller PSI Model 700 stainless steel submersible pressure transducer(s).
- Pressure transducer mounting assembly(ies).
1 Level sensor assembly(ies) will be provided as follows:
met
- Float Switch(es).
- Float switch mounting bracket(s).
- 3/8" 304 stainless steel adhesive anchors.
AquaSBR: Aerobic Digester
Supernatant Withdrawal
1 Floating Weir Assembly(ies) consisting of:
- 8x7 Aqua -Aerobics floating weir(s) with fiberglass float, 304 stainless steel weir, galvanized restrained mooring frame, and
"" painted steel base plate.
- 8 inch diameter Schedule 80 PVC rigid discharge pipe.
- 4" Schedule 40 galvanized restrained mooring post(s) with base plate.
- 8 inch electrically operated butterfly valve(s) with actuator.
Transfer PumpsNalves
1 Submersible pump assembly(ies) consisting of the following items:
with painted cast iron pump housing, discharge elbow, and multi -conductor electrical cable.
-1.7 HP Submersible Pump(s)
- 2.5 inch manual plug valve(s).
- 2.5 inch Nibco check valve(s).
- Galvanized steel slide rail assembly(ies).
fig
Ant
Fixed Coarse Bubble Diffusers
1 Aqua-Aerobic's Fixed Coarse Bubble Diffuser System(s) consisting of the following components:
- 304 stainless steel adhesive anchors.
- Schedule 40 galvanized steel riser pipe(s).
- Schedule 80 PVC manifold piping.
- PVC diffuser(s).
Pape s of 9
Aqua -Aerobic Systems. Inc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10122101 1:50:41 PM
Rosman 1 DesignU: 144351 Option: SOR Only (0.250 MGO ADF / 0.750 MGD MOF) 1 Designed by Thomas Sichs. P.E. on Wednesday, October 17, 2001

Positive Displacement Blowers
2 Positive Displacement Blower Package(s), with each package consisting of:
- Sut
orbilt 4L Positive Displacement Blower Package with common base, V-belt drive, enclosed drive guard, pressure
gauge, pressure relief valve, and vibration pads.
- Discharge silencer, check valve, manual butterfly isolation valve, and flexible discharge connector.
- Inlet filter and inlet silencer.
- 15 HP motor with slide base.
- 304 stainless steel anchors.
Level Sensor Assemblies
1 Pressure Transducer Assembly(ies) each consisting. of:
- Keller PSI Model 700 stainless steel submersible pressure transducer(s).
- Pressure transducer mounting assembly(ies).
1 Level sensor assembly(ies) will be provided as follows:
- FloatSWitch(es).
- Float_switch mounting bracket(s).
- 3/8" 304 stainless steel adhesive anchors.
Controls,
Controls wolStarters
1 The following Controls will be provided as follows:
• NEMA 12 panel enclosure suitable for indoor installation and constructed of painted steel.
- Koyo DirectLogic DL440 integral programmable controller.
- EXOR UniOP display.
- Remote access modem kit(s).
- Modem to PLC cable(s).
PIR
fmt
PRELIMINARY PRICE SUMMARY
SBR Basin(s): $196,048
Post -Equalization Basin(s): $13,513
Aerobic Digester/Sludge Holding Basin(s): $47,898
Total: $257,459 �l
Page 9or9
Aqua -Aerobic Systems, lnc. CONFIDENTIAL Printed On: 10/22/01 1:50:42 PM
Rosman l Designtl: 144351 Option: SBR Only (0.250 MGD ADF 10.750 MGD MOF) / Designed by Thomas Slchz, P.E. on Wednesday; October 17.2001

APPENDIX N
SPRAY IRRIGATION SITE LEASE AGREEMENT

POP
')\f) ,�.
NORTH CAROLINA
CC)UNTY OF TR.ANSYLV/ANiA
mit
This Lease/Easement made this the 12 day of May , 7nobetween
Thomas L. Hooper and wife Katy .Hooper, individually and as Trustees ot'the Thomas L.
I-Iooper and .Katy T I. Flooper Living Trust dated August 28, 1998, hereinafter referred to
,.� as Lessors/Grantors and the Town of Rosman, a North Carolina. Municipal Corporation,
hereinafter referred to as Lessees/Grantees.
R E C E D
FEB 0 2 2004
1
WC:_DICKSON CO.
Mal
LEASE/EASEMENT
WITNESSETI-l:
That the Lessors/Grantors hereby demise, lease and let to the Town of Rosiiian, a
.North Carolina Municipal Corporation, its heirs and assigns, that tract of land situated in
Cathey's Creek Township, Transylvania County, North Carolina and more particularly
described as follows:
ran
Being 22 acres, more or less, of that property described in Deed Book 436 Page
652 in the office of the Register of Deeds of Transylvania County. See attached Exhibit
fa'' "A" incorporated herein by reference.
ism
To have and to hold the said tract of land, and the privileges and appurtenances
thereunto appertaining, to the said Lessees/Grantees, its heirs and assigns, for the term
from the 121r' day of May, 2003 to the 12t day of May, 2023 subject to the extension
clauses contained herein.
The consideration for this lease is the extension, at no expense to
Lessors/Grantors of water and sewer services by the Town of Rosman to each of the
thirty trailer spaces located on that tract of land known as _Hooper's Trailer Park which
said extension of water and sewer services shall be accomplished as soon as reasonably
practical. Following the installation of water and sewer lines to each of said trailer spaces
and the hookup of the trailers located on said spaces to said lines, each trailer owner will
be obligated to pay the standard charges levied by the Town of Rosman for the use of
such facilities. The extension of services to the land, designated above, will be in
conjunction with the annexation of the property known as Hooper's Trailer Park into the
Town of Rosman by a petition for satellite annexation of said property by the Lessors.

000201 (.1(i1 i),,..}i.
The purpose of the Lease is to provide a spray field to apply treated wastewater
effluent from the sewage treatment Plant of the Town of Rosman. The wastewater
applied will be treated to levels required by the State of North Carolina for land
application. This treated wastewater will be sprayed primarily from the month of April
through November.
This Lease/Easement includes the right, privilege, and easement to construct,
install, repair, and maintain the spray irrigation equipment, including a force main from
the Rosman treatment facility, together with a grid network of piping, valves, sprinkler
heads etc., throughout the.property herein leased. The piping will be buried two (2) to
three (3) feet below ground surface; visible above ground will be the sprinkler heads and
surge relief valve assemblies. Barbed wire fencing will be provided to the property to
protect each item of exposed equipment. All the equipment property, lines, etc. installed
by the Lessees/Grantees shall remain the sole and separate property of the
Lessee/Grantees.
This Lease/Easement also includes the right, privilege and easement,. during the
time of the Lease, for the Town of Rosman to enter and remain on any property owned by
the Grantors necessary for access to the property herein leased. This right of access
includes the right, privilege and easement of ingress and egress of vehicles of all types,
including Construction equipment of all types, and includes the right, privilege, and
easement to install, construct, maintain, and repair all necessary equipment, water lines,
and other apparatus necessary for the conveyance of effluent to the spray irrigation field
herein leased.
The Grantees agree that in constructing and repairing said lines, equipment and
facilities for the spray irrigation field that they will make level the surface of ground
above any said lines and interfere with, as little as reasonably possible, any plants, fences,
or other improvements upon the land ofthe•Lessors.
The Lessors do hereby covenant and agree with the Lessee that, subject to the
terms and conditions herein above set forth, the .Lessees shall have and enjoy said
premises, during the term herein provided for, free from the adverse claims of any and all
persons whomsoever.
It is understood and agreed that the Lessees/Grantors shall have the exclusive
right to extend the term of this Lease/Easement for an additional period of years
beginning on the day of , , provided the Lessee notifies
in writing the said Lessor, their heirs and assigns, of its intention to extend the same for
additional term(s) of' years provided, further, that during any additional terms, the
Town shall continue to provide the Water and/or Sewer services to "Hooper Trailer Park"
as herein described, said notice to be given at least days prior to the day of
This Lease/Easement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties
hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns.
THE TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Lessors and Lessees have hereunto set their
hands and seals, and the parties of the second part has caused this Lease to be executed in

000201
its corporate name by its mayor and attested by the Town Clerk and sealed with
the Town Seal, all in duplicate.
This the 1-4J day of /Nraa ILY , ( CO3
.'I i &AL) \ \ - L (SEAL)
Lessors: Thomas L. Hoop -r, Individually I` jty - . Hooper, lndividua ly and as
and as Trustees of the Thomas L. Hooper — rustees of the Thomas L. Hooper and Katy
and Katy H. Hooper Living Trust dated H.. Hooper Living Trust dated August 28,
August 28, 1998. 1998.
Corporate Seal
NORTH CAROL.INA, . Transylvania County
I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that Thomas L. Hooper
Individually and as Trustee(s) of the Thomas L Hooper and Katy H. Hooper Living Trust
dated August 28, 1998, and wife Katy H. Hooper, Individually and as Trustee(s) of the
Thomas L. Hooper and Katy H. Ilooper Living Trust dated August 28, 1998, personally
appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution dale foregoing
ins rument. Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this L M day of
d ttry) (1)0 3.• . f1►f1%1
•(3n0A0J 6.l)/9
. •
_
.... •
, Y4.
jto. 9onhpires:
,f.gNA C
rG'`,,•.
Notary Public

000201
STATE OF NORTH CARO.LINA
COUNTY OF TRANSYLVANIA
1, l CA t I Cr 1c C' • M rKdoV.l , a Notary Public of the State and County
aforesaid, do hereby certify the Angela Woodson personally appeared before me, and
after being duly sworn, says that she is the Clerk to the Board of Aldermen of the Town
of Rosman and knows the common seal of said Town; that she is acquainted with Johnny
H. Rogers, who is Mayor of the Town of Rosman; that she saw the said Mayor sign the
foregoing instrument and say the common seal of the Town of Rosman affixed to said
instrument by said Mayor; and that she signed her name in attestation of the execution of
said instrument in the presence of said Mayor of the Town of Rosman as the act and deed
of said Town.
colk
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the f 0_ day of /\.. ,, i r 1(^ r' t , c2ce, ? .
otary Public
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, COUN' Y OIL TR.ANSYL IIA } A ►
L~ 1 r
Notary) ties) Public is/are cell ied o he correct This instrument was presented for registration and ,.
recorded 'n this office in ok
l------., Page
1.1 i ���
is -
�_. ___ day of .------- ---- ��..�._._.__-.__--------�.�_4�--, at ��.3.Q_.o clock -
The foregoing certificate . sof } aT. t-e
13y: ._... _....
Deputy Register of Deeds

Exhibit "A"
oft
ont
rallt
rot
ctal
tsi

APPENDIX 0
CALCULATIONS FOR SEWER

Pk
WK
DICKSON
Wxo
NO. 10583.10.CL
pm
r�rx nn����,�n (r ~J ��� nn�r ]~ �
' . _~..~°~....~ .~~..'~.~.- ~
Drainage ^� 1�03|���ni| }
�-T--r --r- ---r--r--r--
| |
�--f--f--�-+-->--^-'--,-,-|--+--+--�-`--�-f��--4--
'Solution'...
�
[-
��.bv�
^ . . .
� !
__+_+=�=.��,�=�, __+ __
} * i =
�- "�--T^���w-u> __
. ._. . `. . . . . . . . .
! l ! �on1nl�r�|a]d
�
� om me | � | / / / |� /'
!�gpd��� �o
' | : '
�-�--^- --+~�v~~°~-w��-^+�~r�^~�«*~=
� !
__
|�-L~||, ! | � i | | | | | � |
_��,��_���- _��_�_��_�_���_�
� |. /.� � / /.� � / /
^ ' ��^'°~"'~'
^r .' � .' / �~
-�-�--�-�--|--�-�-�--1�---�'-r----1
~~uc�..�.-/ u ���/--�
~'~^'~~~^''~ ~ -~~~'^'
JOB
NAME
Rosman Sewer Improvements
The Town of Rosman
RWH
DATE 2/04
_
' �-'+--� -�-�-�-�--�-+--�-�--+-/--�-�--�--�-!-�--+�-�---�-^--�-f-�'�
| i i {
.�rpbhsn� . \ � / | / . | � } i | | � | . � .
| | w\ |� sno&w l�ow�ai�a cu|aUoms�o� ���v| sewer Un� s/�esc��evver/esfensimm*. | |
�--`--'--^--7�--�-T-��-��--�-/--�-1--��f--' �=�+=�==�=f=`+--+-�--+-^-+-'-�
' � '
'Give .
//,5peoP|o/sqrn|/
. . . . . . . . .
�
/ '
�_-
_�l
. . �^ ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
mr'a.-�~A-^` m -/6nm 7o +~ � no. s� ../
__l
{C^���B.9Ogc�=�J]»s»'rni
77J�. �nU� l.48 ��*|lO
� . .
-+'°"""+.^��^+�
. . . . . . . .
�*x48� :*��
. . . . . .
� | | / \
a]-����x�oo�c«
\ | '
' | .
>'-r-r---- » 1--�----^--�'-�-�
m°+� i �o� i |
»«F/-'u/��^Y"°l �v//k��u",- -�-7-
! |
'
-r-+-+-�
. .
. .
/
--
| | ! | | | | |
-�-'��-�-+-�--�-�--_''4
. . ' . . / .
. .
__�_-L''1__L___L_-L-�
'' -'' ' ' '- - '^
' ' ' '- '- '
|
/
�--f--�-�--|-- --�--�-�
. . . . . .
�
} i '�|�rn ^ Ar6a[: ! ,
�- ��-r-Z-=""�»��'. i
i�L--L L
-.--..-.
�� �m��1~O0��ni�"�]n'�-Zj75(> | |
. / / / . . ./ ' ' . ~ . . ., r ` ' ~, '
ai6
F/�f `
'J
T'-�- - T | l |
bndustNal�=� a] �+ �mnz �'kDL / � f | | ! � | !
1�0` .
* 1 ��d
m�6 � l +|1,Q85
! -+ tw ' m� =i7 ="- . ��u��»� � � -+-
~
|
' - --r-�
° /
�—r���—rrr�'��

ADICKSON
WK
WKD
NO. 10583.10.CL
Engineers • Planners • Surveyors
InndseayeAnehisetts
JOB
NAME
CLIENT
Rosman Sewer Improvements
The Town of Rosman
Drainage Area B:
Residential:
77.5 rsons/s mi * Q94 sq mi * 10b gpd/person -� 7,285 gpd
Commercial:;
77.5.prsons/sq mi * 0.94 sq mi *;40 d/person;= 2,914'I
Industr�lal
COMPUTED
BY
CHECKED
BY
JMO
RWH
Industrjial i= {Resident al + Commercial) *.10
{7,285 gpd + 2 914 .gpd * ,10 1 01gpd ,
Total S' wer Flow Rate = 7,285 gpd 2,914 J1,919 _ 1
Drain a Area A: � = i
Residential: `
500 people/sq ml * 0.01 sq mi* 1.00 gpd/person = 45,500 gpd
m Comercial
5 00 eo p l e/sq m i O. 1 sc rn i 40 gpd/person =
Industrial: I _
Industrial ;— (Resident al ;+ Commerdial) *.10
445,590.bpd + 18,200 g)pd) .._ i10 = ,. 70 gpd _.
Total Sewer Flow Rate 745,500 gpd + 11§1200. gpd +_ .6.� 3 70 =._. 70,070 _gpid_...I_._.__._'.........
er flow rate of
SHEET
NO. 2.- OF 4
DATE
2/04
DATE Z10 "7
The inflow 'rate into the prop ,line extension is the'•total se
•Thus: -The total inflow rate is: 47,978+ 17,663 + 11.,935 + 11,218 =
Or 62 gpm
E. D. C, and B

WK
NI DICKSON
Engineers • Planners • Surveyors
Landscape Architects
JOB NAME go n'v-*1 eetkarti % COMPUTED BY `jtu4b
CLIENT TOW 'V\_ Q �c rr cz
W aS-kevJt: - low . Y" -{C c & deb,
I.I._.` �... 'c``_wf O c 8 '; .... w'Pr �� rrmmrisrr rl.. 5 /o..a
I
CHECKED BY 1144.5 14
WKD NO. 1DSS^'b./O.64—
SHEET NO. 3 OF
DATE
1.-/0-Dy
DATE —.C341
lam ti4.11 resi /4- t n t►e s ►e-1.__
10.4d : .s 5/i U
-
v
• j
L_ ; ! . Al s a Pp4 K. .1_ 5�- .,.... ',Qi
P Z
i!
1 s j_9_` 1'^ --' 4e.vJe.V _ is irr‘1i�_ '� :r.3 _
2
rep,
i
3y9
t

WK
DICKSONWir
Engineers • Planners • Survcyon
Landscape Architects
WKD NO. /0 3, /0-a-
SHEET NO. y OF
JOB NAME SEY1 imero.ren.er+f3 COMPUTED BY DATE 2-40-0y
CLIENT jow P
✓;+ ..i...rr Q:, ..
pe5►
IQt ;.
76- oo o 9 a
P
r %-
CHECKED BY 2-t o
' p,(� 0. .Ppe- :_a-e--m4,•1 Slop, C:.
7: 7 fit. f 1 %Z,� 2 0, q , -
1. t'
O. o*i-
0oze
— z.
(o%S�IS.tC Z� (z t3 '� s� (/18p. ;
2.
F,o ; .. 1-111- are c ...`
Pam, kr Flow SZ 1 Q,r r.._ r
.q (.L&3/000zi.!�L -Z I3.`
0.'6 !` i t i . i ' ,...
I 4. r .
t �
1 .
1
t t
Z. l3-tcps
0,7
O. (WTs
O.0O.fq)
7-- _11A 0 (X 2.)7" b 40 z-
12 59
750
DATE
s2.1.3. p
•
fan

APPENDIX P
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS
November 7, 2003

TOWN OF ROSMAN
Technical Review Comments
For Rosman Preliminary Engineering Report
Project No. E-SRG-T-02-0131
November 7, 2003
General
1. On page 1 of the Executive Summary the existing WWTP is listed as a 0.90 mgd plant. This
appears to be a typographical errorand should be revised.
See Executive Summary - typographical errors have been revised.
2. A portion of this project is to be funded by a State Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) from federal
funds. Therefore, please provide a section in the PER that addresses public participation. One
public hearing, with 30-day notification, is required.
a) A copy of the Preliminary Engineering Report should be available for review by the public
at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. The hearing should identify the problem,
discuss the selected alternative, identify the size of the projected loan, discuss any
associated inter -local agreements, and identify the effect this project will have on the
monthly sewer bill for a typical residential user.
Refer to Section IV Public Participation
b) Place an advertisement for the hearing in the local newspaper that identifies the time and
location of the public hearing, advises when and where a copy of the Preliminary
Engineering Report can be observed, provides a brief description of the proposed project,
advises how much funding is required, and identifies the source of funding.
Refer to Appendix J
c) Provide a transcript or detailed summary of the hearing, an affidavit of publication of the
hearing notice, and a copy of the resolution from the governmental unit agreeing to
implement the selected alternative. The Public Hearing must be held and this information
must be provided before the draft FNSI can be sent to EPA.
Refer to Appendix J
3. Again, since federal funding is included in this project, all real property associated with the
project must be acquired in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property
Assistance Act of 1970.
The project scope has been revised to exclude the purchase of property.
Page 1 of 1

4. The Table of Contents should be revised to reflect any changes in the report. For example, The
Table lists the 'Analysis of Option 2, Improve Rosman WWTP' as being on page 25 and it is
actually on page 27.
This Section has been revised.
Section II
1. (Reference Page 9) On page 9 it is documented that the WWTP is located in a flood prone area
and falls within the 100 year flood area, therefore compliance with Executive Order 11988-
Floodplain Management must be demonstrated. The objective of this Executive Order is"...
avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development whenever there is a practicable
alternative ...." The following should be provided in the revised 201 Facilities Plan:
See Section IV Page 31
a) A facilities plan must first demonstrate that steps have been taken to avoid
construction/modification of the floodplain. The project has to demonstrate that there are
no reasonable sites outside the floodplain that can be utilized to locate the proposed
facilities.
Other sites were considered. However, it quickly became apparent that there were no other
suitable sites outside of the floodplain for the following reasons:
Rosman is located in the mountains and the topography severely limited the number of
suitable sites, mainly to the floodplain.
The Town owns the property where the current WWTP is located. There is enough land on
the existing site to construct the new WWTP. To purchase more land would add to the
project cost. In addition, the current WWTP property has already been disturbed by
previous construction activities. Choosing a different site would result in additional
disturbed area.
The Town's collection system flows back to the current WWTP site. Adding additional
equipment to send flow to a new site and additional discharge infrastructure (piping, etc.) to
send effluent to the river would further increase project costs. •
The area of disturbance for the new WWTP will be offset by the demolition of the old
WWTP. Also, the construction area and footprint of the new WWTP is so miniscule
compared to the size of the flood plain, that there will be no perceivable floodplain impacts.
b) if there are sites outside the floodplain that will accommodate the proposed facilities and it
is still the desire of the applicant to construct in the floodplain, it must be demonstrated that
locating the project outside the floodplain will place a financial burden on the users.
Moving the proposed WWTP site will cause project costs to exceed available funding, as
described above, resulting in an increase in user costs. Any increase in user costs in this area
with high unemployment will place a financial burden on the users.
c) If the applicant wants to construct the proposed facilities in the floodplain, the facilities
plan must demonstrate that construction will have no adverse impact on increasing flood
levels in the floodplain.
See a) above and Appendix Q for the Flood Analysis Report — No Rise Evaluation.
Page 2 of 2

o
las
Two
Section III
1. (Reference Page 12) Additional future flow is projected due to a proposed condominium
complex in northeast Rosman and an existing mobile home park. The population from th
condominiums and the mobile home would already be included in the accelerated 2.5%
growth rate justified on page 13. Therefore flow attributed to these areas should not be
included in the flow projections.
Refer to Section III Wastewater Flow Projections
2. (Reference Page 13) Additional future flow is also projected from areas to be annexed into the
Rosman sewer system. Although these areas are listed as being outside the town's existing
service area, a town's growth normally would be expected to expand its service area. Therefore
the growth attributed to this item would also already be included in the growth rate justified for
the town. Please provide discussion outlining any special circumstances that would justify
inclusion of this flow as additional to the flow justified due to the accelerated growth rate.
Special circumstances would include a Capital Improvement Plan or other planning document.
Refer to Section III Wastewater Flow Projections
3. (Reference Page 13) Flow projections should be based on 70 GPD per capita for domestic flow
and 15 GPD per capita for commercial flow. This section should be revised to reflect these
daily flow amounts.
Refer to Section III Wastewater Flow Projections
4. The cost of providing capacity for those flows not justified in the comments above will not be
eligible for grant or loan funding. A reserve -capacity -cost -ratio (RCCR) will be established, if
necessary, and used to determine our level of participation. In order to facilitate the generation
of this ratio, the following should be provided:
Justification for a design flow of 0.25 MGD is provided in Section III Wastewater Flow
Projections
a) Demonstrate that the facility is capable of operating properly at both 0.250 millions of
gallon per day (mgd) and the revised flow reflective of the revisions requested by these
comments.
b) Provide a detailed cost estimate for the design capacity reflected by the revisions requested
above. This cost should be compared to the cost of the design capacity at 0.250 mgd.
These cost estimates will be used to develop a RCCR factor that is applied to the total
project cost to determine the total eligible cost.
c) Section V should be revised, as appropriate, to indicate how the project costs will be
funded, and the economic impact on users.
5. (Reference Page 9) It is documented on this page that the Rosman Public Schools are
responsible for influent flow surges at the plant. Have any measures been undertaken to abate
these surges?
See Section IV page 33
Page 3 of 3

Section IV
1. (Reference Page 16) In discussing the 'Failing Sewer Mains', this page notes that certain
sections are believed to be major sources of infiltration. What is the basis of this belief,
overflows, surcharges, etc.?
See Section IV page 16
2. (Reference Page 16) It is recommended that sewers be extended into unsewered areas. Is
documentation of problems in the unsewered areas (failing septic tanks, public health
problems, etc.) available? If so please provide, or in the alternative, provide discussion as to
the problems in theses areas.
See Appendix K
3. (Reference Page 16) Are the unsewered areas in comment 2 within the town limits?
The majority of sewer extensions are within Town Limits. A small portion is outside town limits
so as to reach a recent annexation. See Section IV page 16
4. (Reference Page 27) The report should list the reuse effluent limits that will be required and
document that the plant will be capable of meeting these limits.
See Section IV pages 29-30 and Appendix M
5. It is our understanding that the reuse flow will be diverted to a 'sump pump' and then sprayed
on the application fields. Confirm that adequate capacity will exist at the 'sump pump' station
to provide for irrigation both at beginning flow and during average driest months.
See Section IV page 38
6. (Reference Pages 34 & 35, Figure 8) The reuse application buffers utilized appear to be greater
than those required by NCAC 2H.0219(k)(1)(c)(i)(III)-(V) (attached). Please discuss this.
See Section IV page 37
7. (Reference Page 36) initial reuse flow is estimated as 4,713,283 gallons per year, or about
• 13,000 gallons per day. Page 34 speaks of a future expansion of the reuse system. The
following should be addressed:
a. Will the reuse system as designed be capable of providing increased flow should additional
reuse sites become available?
See Section IV page 38
b. Discuss the feasibility of expanding the reuse program in the future. Include a discussion of
any potential sites (farms, etc.) nearby. Also, discuss the town's plan for promoting reuse.
See Section IV page 38
Page 4 of 4

IOW
8. The report should list the NPDES effluent limits that will be required and document that the
plant will be capable of meeting these limits.
See Section IV page 30
9. The addition of effluent turbidity monitoring is discussed in the reuse narrative; however, the
cost of this monitoring is not noted in the project costs estimates on pages 39-42. If the cost of
the monitoring is included in another line item, please identify that item. if not, the cost
,so estimate should be revised to include turbidity monitoring.
See Section IV page 43. This is included in Item 25. Electrical/Mechanical
paA
10. The revised report should address how sludge management will comply with 40 CFR 503
Regulations including a discussion of the methods that will be used to comply with pathogen
and vector attraction reduction.
See Section IV page 31
oga 11. Please confirm that the proposed project design will comply with NCAC 2H.0219 -Minimum
Design Requirements, and NCAC 2H.0124 - Reliability Requirements. (A copy of .0219
&.0124 is attached for reference).
See Section IV page 29-30
,ii4 12. Provide the engineering calculations/support for the sewer line layout and line size selections
and confirm the capacity of a designed gravity sewer line to carry a peak daily flow of 2.5*ADF
at 1/2 full at the minimum available slope.
See Appendix 0
Section V
1. (Reference Page 40) In Items 6 and 7 on this page, is the cost for the structures to house the
final filter station and UV disinfection units included in the cost estimates provided?
See Section IV page 42. Cost is included included in Items 3, 4, 6 & 7.
2. (Reference Page 48) Total grant sources available as documented on this page are $4,629,200.
The estimated capital cost of the selected alternative is $4,838,550 (page 42). Estimated grant
funding and capital cost should be updated, or the source of funding for the remaining
$209,350 capital cost should be identified.
See Section V page 50 - These figures have been revised.
.. Section VI (Changed to Section VII)
1. The revised report should include a 'Project Cost and Summary Table' for the selected project
scope that includes:
a) Capital cost of sewer rehabilitation, sewer extensions and the WWTP.
b) Engineering costs.
Page 5 of 5

c) Land acquisition costs.
d) Total estimated project cost.
See Section VII Page 54
Appendix F
1. (Reference Appendix F) The Letter of Acceptance from the Transylvania County landfill
documents adequate capacity only until 2008. This report covers a 20-year planning period;
hence, a disposal site for the full length of the planning period must be identified, or a plan to
dispose discussed.
See Section IV page 30-31
Figures
1. (Reference Figure 1) From the flow projection in this figure, the population in Rosman is
estimated at around 580 in the year 2000. On page 13 of the report, the estimated flow in
2000 is documented as 490. One of these should be revised to eliminate this discrepancy.
This figure has been removed from the report.
Page 6 of 6

APPENDIX Q
FLOOD ANALYSIS REPORT - NO RISE EVALUATION.

tom
Enginters
Phi finer,:
Sltworn.;
MIS
K
oicKstar4
February 18, 2002
Mr. Chuck Gardner
Transylvania Inspections Department
203 East Morgan Street
Brevard, North Carolina 28712
Re: Flood Analysis Report — No Rise Evaluation
Proposed Town of Rosman Wastewater Treatment Facility
Transylvania, North Carolina
WKD #10583.40.AV
Dear Mr. Gardner:
We have completed the 100-year flood analysis, modeling existing and proposed conditions
at the location of the proposed Town of Rosman Wastewater Treatment Facility in
Transylvania County. I have included a drawing entitled "Flood Study Work Map", showing
the location of the project site, existing site conditions and the proposed plant. This drawing
also shows FEMA and W.K. Dickson x-section locations. Also included with this submittal
are copies of the output files for the existing and proposed conditions models, an
Engineering "No -Impact" Certification, a Summary of No -Rise Certification and a Flood
Analysis Comparison spreadsheet. The following paragraphs summarize our analysis:
Project Description
The project consists of the design of a 0.25 MGD wastewater treatment facility for the Town
of Rosman. This facility will replace the town's existing 0.09 MGD plant, shown on the
attached drawing.
Purpose
The purpose of completing this flood evaluation was to determine if construction of the
proposed treatment facility within the floodway, would result in an increase in the base flood
law level along this reach of the French Broad River.
sift
Methodology
A workmap was constructed using field surveyed 1 foot contours of the site and river
channel, as well as 4 foot contours provided by Watershed Concepts from the latest Flood
Insurance Study dated March 2, 1998. FEMA x-section "EL" is shown north or upstream of
the site on the attached drawing, as well as 4 x-sections generated by W.K.Dickson for the
purposes of this study. Two x-sections were cut through the area of the proposed facility,
According to Article IV: Flood Damage control of the Transylvania Code, no encroachments
are permitted within the limits of the floodway unless it can be demonstrated through
hydraulic analyses that the proposed encroachment does not result in an increase in the
flood level during a base flood event.
t'illi! 1.A Rdit ld1. N(;
:,i:•i!i(J;.':' NC \t:i.'•n.:tl:l;C11 Ni.
Hr v,,, l tR. t :•' :itti 'iii l
Mgr

showing the approximate limits of the tanks, building and fill. Cross section "EL" is located
just upstream and x-section 176983 is located just downstream of the limits of pro
posed changes.
Utilizing HEC-2 flood modeling software, a model was run which matched the original model
performed for FEMA on March 2, 1998 by Watershed Concepts. A second "baseline" model
was run with the additional W.K. Dickson x-sections showing the flood elevations at each x-
section using existing ground data. This second model show a higher flood elevation at x-
section "EL". This is a result of taking the existing FEMA model and adding additional data,
which in this case are W.K. Dickson surveyed x-sections. A third model was run modeling
the proposed facility with any site grading required. This model was then compared with the
baseline model. There was no rise in the flood elevation between the baseline model and
the proposed model. The results of all three models are compared in the attached chart
"Flood Analysis Comparison".
Results and Recommendations
Based on the results of the aforementioned HEC-2 analyses, it was found that the
construction of the proposed Town of Rosman Wastewater Treatment Facility will not result
in an increase in the Base Flood (100 year flood) levels.
In order to achieve the "no -rise" conditions indicated by the HEC-2 model, the construction
of the proposed treatment facility shall be in accordance with the following conditions.
1. The attached drawing shows the proposed grading plan for construction of the facility.
This plan also includes an area of cut just north of the facility, as shown on the attached
drawing. This area of cut is less than 1 foot in depth, but is required to obtain the "no -
rise" certification.
2. The lowest, enclosed habitable floor of each building at the facility should be at least one
(1) vertical foot above the base flood elevation. The base flood elevation at station
177170, with the proposed conditions, is 2183.43. To meet the required flood protection
requirements, the lowest building floor elevation at the facility is 2184.5. All treatment
tanks at the facility have top of wall elevations of at least 2185.0 for flood protection.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
Jody Lowe, E.I.
-attachments

Summary of No Rise Certification for the Proposed Town of Rosman
Wastewater Treatment Plant
The following information summarizes the data used to revise the HEC-2 analysis
prepared to support the contention that improvements made at the proposed Town of
Rosman Wastewater Treatment Plant will cause no impact to 100-year flood elevations
(for the natural and encroached conditions) and 100-year floodway widths along the
French Broad River:
• Cross sections were added into the existing and proposed conditions HEC-2
model at either limit of the proposed improvements.
• Cross sections were generated at the site, along the French Broad River, using a
composite topographic workmap. This workmap utilized 4 foot topographic
mapping used in the most recent Transylvania County Flood Insurance Study
performed by Watershed Concepts, dated March 2, 1998, as well as 1 foot
surveyed site topography prepared by W.K. Dickson & Company for this project.
• Proposed cross sections are based on the proposed plans for the Town of Rosman
Wastewater Treatment Plant, prepared by W.K. Dickson & Company.
The following information summarizes the findings on the hydraulic analysis prepared to
support the contention that improvements made at this residence will cause no impact to
100-year flood elevations along the French Broad River:
• No increases occur to 100-year flood elevations for either the natural or
encroached conditions.
• No increases occur to 100-year floodway width.

Engineering2'No-Impact" Certification
This is to certify that I am a duly qualified engineer licensed to practice in the State
of North Carolina. It is to further certify that the attached technical data supports the
fact that proposed fill associated with the proposed Town of Rosman Wastewater
Treatment Plant will not impact the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations
and floodway widths on the French Broad River at published sections in the Flood
Insurance Study for Transylvania County, dated March 2, 1998 and will not impact
the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations, and floodway widths at
unpublished cross -sections in the vicinity of the proposed improvements.
[Date] 4-1143z
SEAL:
Ogt
OM
FEMA, MT
5/96
tag
ti
44.11;1
(Signature)
[Title] Okra P,6$Ou OECIALIfi
(Add res
Wityotc.tsag
5540 cireZQt€) i SOW 115
F-At lC4l !4C ti4OG

EXISTING CONDITIONS - SUMMARY PRINTOUT
Input File: FRENEX3.1H2
Date: 2/18/02
SECNO CWSEL EG
oat176304.000 2181.38 2182.54
* 176304.000 2181.45 2182.68
* 176947.000 2183.16 2183.43
* 176947.000 2183.30 2183.59
176983.000 2183.20 2183.47
176983.000 2183.34 2183.62
177170.000 2183.44 2183.59
177170.000 2183.60 2183.75
177195.000 2183.45 2183.60
177195.000 2183.61 2183.76
177258.000 2183.45 2183.66
177258.000 2183.60 2183.81
177316.000 2183.53 2183.70
177316.000 2183.68 2183.86
* 178097.000 2183.77 2184.77
* 178097.000 2183.79 2185.00
178909.000 2185.35 2186.78
178909.000 2185.56 2187.09
179392.000 2186.29 2188.69
179392.000 2186.58 2188.83
* 179393.000 2186.04 2188.94
* 179393.000 2186.36 2189.06
179431.000 2187.53 2189.57
179431.000 2187.63 2189.62
HV TOPWID
1.15 1750.20
1.24 1470.00
.28 1534.60
.29 1280.00
.27 1535.72
.28 1280.00
.15 1107.42
.14 1060.00
.15 1107.73
.14 1060.00
.21 1101.52
.21 990.00
.17 1103.13
.17 970.00
1.00 705.72
1.20 520.00
1.43 939.25
1.53 390.00
2.40 126.49
2.25 130.95
2.90 123.03
2.69 127.82
2.04 151.40
1.99 152.64

PROPOSED CONDITIONS - SUMMARY PRINTOUT
Input File: FRENPROP.IH2
Date: 2/18/02
SECNO CWSEL EG HV
* 176304.000 2181.38 2182.54
* 176304.000 2181.45 2182.68
* 176947.000 2183.16 2183.43
* 176947.000 2183.30 2183.59
176983.000 2183.20 2183.47
176983.000 2183.32 2183.63
177170.000 2183.43 2183.58
* 177170.000 2183.60 2183.75
177195.000 2183.40 2183.62
177195.000 2183.58 2183.78
177258.000 2183.45 2133.66
177258.000 2183.61 2183.82
177316.000 2183.53 2183.70
177316.000 2183.69 2183.86
* 178097.000 2183.77 2184.77
* 178097.000 2183.80 2185.00
178909.000 2185.35 2186.78
178909.000 2185.56 2187.09
179392.000 2186.29 2188.69
179392.000 2186.58 2188.83
* 179393.000 2186.04 2188.94
* 179393.000 2186.36 2189.06
179431.000 2187.53 2189.57
179431.000 2187.63 2189.62
TOPWID
1.15 1750.20
1.24 1470.00
.28 1534.60
.29 1280.00
.26 1535.88
.30 1280.00
.15 1065.08
.15 1021.18
.21 1064.04
.20 1020.67
.21 1101.51
.21 990.00
.17 1103.15
.17 970.00
1.00 705.72
1.20 520.00
1.43 939.33
1.52 390.00
2.40 126.49
2.25 130.95
2.90 123.01
2.69 127.82
2.04 151.42
1.99 152.65

1 1 i 1 1 1 I 1 1
Prepared by: Jody Lowe
Date: 2-18-02
FEMA
Rosman WWTP
Flood Analysis Comparison
Existing Proposed
Input Files. Frenchb.INF FRENEX3.IH2 FRENPROP.IH2
FEMA XS FEMA
XS STATION WSEL
Baseline
Proposed
WSEL
Existing Proposed
Change in Floodway Floodway
WSEL Width Width
Existing
WSEL
EK
EL
EM
176304
176947,
176983
177170 "..
177195-
12
78
177316
178097
178909
179392
179393
179431
21814
N/A _ -
N/A
N/A
N/A
N
2183.3
2183.6
2185.3
2186.3
2186.0
2187.5
2181.38
21'.83.16
2183 20
2183 44
21345
8345
2183.53
2183.77
2185.35
2186.29
2186.04
2187.53
':
2181.38
'2183.16
2183 20
2183 4
28340
283 4
2183.53
2183.77
2185.35
2186.29
2186.04
2187.53
'.
0.00
`;0 00
q 00
0,
00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1750
:.1535
1636
- 0
10
1102.
1103
706
939
126
123
151
.. ,.
! '
1750
1535'
1536
1065
064:
1102 .
1103
706
939
126
123
151
•
. -'
"
WK Dickson X-Sections

APPENDIX R
SUPPORT FROM TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
A,
MI
WO

02/19/2004 15:35 FAX [phone]
TRANSYLVAN I A COUNTY
gaol
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Ray Miller, Chairman
Jeff Duvall, Vice Chairman
Marla Gilley
Rob Davenport
,,.,, W. David Guice
828-884-3107
OR
18 6%
Transylvania County
February 19, 2004
Mr. K. Lawrence Horton, III, PE
Supervisor, Facilities Evaluation Unit
NCDENR — Construction Grants and Loans Section
2728 Capitol Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Town of Rosman Wastewater Improvements
Project No. E-SRG-T-02-0131
Dear Mr. Horton:
COUNTY MANAGER
Arthur C. Wilson, Jr.
828-884-3100
FAX [phone]
28 East Main Street
Srevard, NC 28712
RECEIVED
FEB 262004
W.K. DICKSON CO.
The Transylvania County Board of Commissioners fully supports the wastewater
improvements being undertaken by the Town of Rosman. Like the rest of Westem North
Carolina, the Town of Rosman is experiencing residential and commercial growth. Our economic
development department has identified two potential industrial sites in the Rosman area that,
when developed, will require water and wastewater service. Now is the time to make sure
sufficient capacity will be available for economic growth.
It is our understanding that the proposed .25 MGO wastewater facility will have sufficient
capacity for development of these two sites and allow for residential growth for the next ten to
twenty years. The Mayor and Aldermen have worked hard to secure grants for this new facility,
and it is not likely that the Town of Rosman will ever again have this opportunity to make these
much -needed and sweeping improvements to their wastewater facilities. For the residents of
Rosman and the surrounding environment, this project needs to be completed without delay.
Sincerely,
Jeff Duvall, Vice Chairman
Board of Commissioners
kc
cc: Members, Board of Commissioners
County Manager
Mayor of Rosman
Flie
"An Equal Opportunity Employer"

APPENDIX S
TOWN OF ROSMAN SEWER STUDY FOR WASTEWATER
COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

IMO
Ina
TOWN OF ROSMAN
SEWER STUDY
For
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
ANK Transylvania County, North Carolina
August 2004
WKD #40134.00.CL
am Prepared for the:
Oil
Nig
MI
PIM
Gni
OM
NO
WI
TOWN OF ROSMAN
Post Office Box 636
Rosman, North Carolina 28772
[phone]
Prepared by:
W. K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
[phone]
[phone] FAX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
p+• The Town of Rosman is located in Transylvania County, North Carolina, situated along the
French Broad River. Nestled in the mountains of western North Carolina, the Town is
home to approximately 500 residents and hosts many seasonal visitors and tourists.
pa
FAN
The Town of Rosman provides water and sewer service to residential, commercial and light
industrial customers. Over the past 2 years, businesses have closed resulting in the Toss of
approximately 1500 jobs. The Town has identified several existing businesses located near
town that wish to expand their operations. However, these businesses are unable to
expand due to limitations of their septic treatment discharge systems and permits. There are
also several existing or proposed businesses that have requested Town sewer service in lieu
of existing or proposed individual NPDES permits. In addition, residents with septic
systems are in need of permanent sewerage solutions as the soils in this area are poorly
suited for on -site sewage disposal. This Sewer Study has identify cost-effective and efficient
ways to provide sewer service to surrounding areas in support of those businesses and
residents on whom the Town's economic viability depends.
This Sewer Study was completed in coordination with the Town's 20-Year Capital
Improvement Plan to provide sewer to unsewered areas surrounding Rosman. The Town
adopted the Transylvania Comprehensive Land Use Plan on April 4, 2001, as well as passed
a Town of Rosman Watershed Protection Ordinance, based on the Transylvania Watershed
Protection Ordinance.

rill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NUMBER
SEWER STUDY
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM 2
III. FUTURE COLLECTION SYSTEM 2
IV. PROPOSED COLLECTION SYSTEM 2
V. WASTEWATER FLOW PROTECTIONS 4
VI. COST 4
VII. FUNDING 5
VIII. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION 9
tom
MR
PM
ran
Pon
ii
MR

A. Sewer Line Cost Estimates
B. Calculations for Sewer
C. Figures
1. Vicinity Map
,r;,, 2. Existing Sewer System
3. Future Sewer System
4. Proposed Sewer System
D. Funding Options
APPENDICES
iii

I. INTRODUCTION
The Town of Rosman is located in Transylvania County, North Carolina along the French
Broad River. Rosman is situated near the headwaters of the French Broad River Basin
immediately downstream of the confluence of the West, North and East French Broad River
tributaries. The French Broad basin upstream of Rosman is characterized by steep
mountainous terrain. The French Broad River in the vicinity of Rosman and downstream is a
very low gradient watercourse having wide, flat overbanks subject to frequent flooding. The
major roadway that provides access to Rosman is US 64 West from Brevard, NC and East
from Cashiers, NC. The general location of Rosman is indicated in Figure 1 of Appendix C.
The French Broad River passes through downtown Rosman and the majority of land within
the corporate. limits lies within the 100 year flood zone based on FEMA mapping. The
town corporate limits encompass an area of approximately 275 acres. The current
population within the Rosman corporate limits is estimated to be 500 persons. The Rosman
area economy is based on several small industries, small commercial establishments and
minor agricultural activities. Census Block Numbering considers Rosman 100 percent rural.
The Town of Rosman owns and operates a wastewater collection and treatment system. The
waste treatment facility was first constructed in 1969 with several upgrades over the last 30
years. The treatment works is operating at over 80°/0 of the facility's 90,000 gallon per day
maximum flow capacity as permitted by the NC Division of Water Quality. The treatment
works is near capacity due to the addition of service connections over the years and can
exceed capacity from severe inflow and infiltration problems. Because the plant is outdated
and is in need of replacement and expansion, a new 0.25 MGD treatment facility has been
designed and is currently under state review for construction. Additional sewer lines and
force mains have been designed and are to be constructed along with the new 0.25 MGD
treatment facility.
Portions of Rosman's collection system are old and plagued with inflow and infiltration
problems. These sections of gravity sewer have been slated to be rehabilitated or replaced
to prevent inflow from surging the treatment works and to minimize the possibility of
exfiltration into the groundwater.
Several areas within the Town of Rosman do not have access to public sewer service. The
expansion of the sewer system to these areas is needed by existing residents and could help
ama eliminate potential septic system failures. The Rosman area typically has shallow
groundwater. Shallow depth to the water table increases the potential for septic system
failures. The construction of sewer collection mains will help eliminate the need for
individual septic systems in a portion of these potentially problematic areas.
The Town of Rosman has been particularly hard-hit by the economic down turn and Toss of
1500 jobs. The Town has identified the needed sewer infrastructure to support growth of
existing and new businesses. However, these businesses are unable to expand due to
limitations of their septic treatment discharge systems and permit. There are also proposed
businesses that have requested Town sewer service as the County has declined on -site

treatment permits. In addition, residents with septic systems are in need of permanent
sewerage solutions as the soils in this area are poorly suited for on -site sewage disposal.
Further, some of these businesses maintain an on -site treatment system consisting of a septic
system with chemical treatment before discharge to a stream. Serving these residents will
provide better environmental and economic solutions to wastewater treatment and disposal.
Connecting these businesses to the Town's wastewater collection and treatment system will
have the added benefit of higher (tertiary) treatment levels as well as the needed capacity
for business expansion.
This report evaluates immediate wastewater collection needs for the Town of Rosman and
identifies cost-effective and efficient ways to provide sewer service to surrounding areas in
support of those businesses and residents on whom the Town's economic viability depends.
II. EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM
The Town of Rosman sewage system consists of a collection system and treatment facility
that serves town residents, several small commercial establishments, three public schools
and Peter Vitalie Co. (billiard table manufacturer). The entire existing collection system is
located within the corporate limits except for a small section on the northeast side of town.
Wastewater constituents treated by the Rosman system are domestic and commercial in
nature. No industrial process waste is treated. The Town's sewage system is comprised of
approximately 3.5 miles of 8 inch and smaller sewage mains, two sewage pumping stations
and a 90,000 gallon per day wastewater treatment plant. The existing sewage system for the
Town of Rosman is shown schematically in Figure 2 of Appendix C.
III. FUTURE COLLECTION SYSTEM
A series of gravity sewer lines and force mains have been designed and are to be
constructed along with the new 0.25 MGD treatment facility. For the purposed of this
report these improvements are referred to as the future collection system.
The improvements consisted of 10,052 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer, 236 LF of 10-inch gravity
sewer, 6,471 LF of 6-inch force main, and two 180 GPM pumping stations. The future
sewage collection system for the town of Rosman is shown schematically in Figure 3 of
Appendix C.
These improvements were designed to serve residential customers in the vicinity of Calvert
Road and industrial, commercial and residential customers along Old US Hwy 64. The
future collection system was designed for a capacity to accommodate any additional
services in the proposed Rosman service area.
IV. PROPOSED COLLECTION SYSTEM
pig
Providing industrial, commercial and residential residents in the vicinity of Old US Hwy. 64
east of Rosman with sewer service has inspired an opportunity to greatly increase the
town's employment rate, to eliminate existing septic systems that are failing and in need of rim

replacement and to eliminate up to four proposed or existing individual NPDES permits.
These existing or proposed permit holders include the following:
Facility
Permitted Capacity Permit #
Conoco Convenience Store
D & D Catfish Resort
Morgan Mills Resort, Inc.
NCDOT Rosman Maint. Facility
10,000 gpd
35,000 gpd
10,000 gpd
28,000 gpd
NC0085031
NC0086223
NC0081001
NC0085979
Receiving Stream
Morgan Mill Creek
Morgan Mill Creek
French Broad River
In addition, the old Coats American Inc plant in Rosman has a current NPDES permit for the
oft discharge of waste from their facility for up to 15,000 gpd.
NMI
PIM
The daily wastewater flow is projected at 41,805 gpd (See attached calculations) not
including the D & D Catfish Resort. The ability to serve the surrounding areas was
determined from the location of existing residents and the future sewer facilities previously
described.
Due to the existing topography, the proposed sewer line routing was limited to the
shoulders of Old US Hwy 64 and other roads in the area. All other options were
economically prohibitive, therefore they were not further evaluated just one option was
evaluated for the proposed collection system improvements. The proposed sewer system
will connect to the future sewer manhole located on Old US Hwy. 64 at an intermediate
high point near the intersection of Calvert Road. This intersection defines the starting limits
of the proposed service area. The ending limits of the service area coincide with properties
across US Hwy 64. The proposed sewer collection system that was evaluated consisted of
7,060 LF of 8-inch gravity sewer line, 1,750 LF of 3-inch force main, and a 73 gpm capacity
duplex grinder pumping station. The capacity of the 73 gpm pumping station was derived
from the projected daily wastewater flow of 41,805 gpd multiplied by a peaking factor of
2.5, equaling 104,512 gpd or 73 gpm. The pumping station was located at a central low
point along Old US Highway 64 at the intersection of Weaver Creek. From the pumping
station a series of 8-inch gravity sewer lines extended to the extremities of the service area.
For clarification the 8-inch gravity sewer lines were broken into three segments, named
Lines A, B, and C. Starting at the pumping station, Line -A extended southward along Old
US Highway 64 approximately 1,260 LF towards the Town of Rosman ending at Calvert
Road. This sewer extension will serve several residential homes and a convenience store
located near Calvert Road. Line-B, also starting at the pumping station, extended northward
approximately 4,220 LF along Old US Highway 64 towards the intersection of US Hwy 64.
Then crossing the main highway to serve Miller's Catfish Farm. A short reach of gravity
sewer was also extended into a mobile home development serving 13 units. With the
addition of sewer service the mobile home development will be able to double in size.
IaaR Lastly, Line-C beginning at the intersection of Castle Road and Old US Highway 64
extended eastward approximately 1,580 LF toward the intersection of US Hwy 64. Then
crossing the main highway to serve Double D's RV Campground and Resort. The proposed
sewer extensions will serve a numerous amount of existing residential and commercial

properties. It is anticipated by town officials that the addition of sewer service to these
properties will promote the growth of residential and commercial populations in the area.
V. WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
The determination of the quantity of sewage to be collected for a community is fundamental
to the design of collection systems. The rate of sewage to be collected from a community
depends on the population and the per capita contribution of the sewage. The following
will display the contribution of wastewater produced by the anticipated customers.
Wastewater Flow Projection
The accuracy of a population study relies on the accuracy of population data available from
a number of sources. The population data used for this report was obtained from
demographic information made available by the State of North Carolina Office of State
Planning and numerous field visits to the service area. During the field visits the number of
residential homes were logged and recorded along with the number of commercial and
Industrial properties. During this time several business owners and developers explained
their plans for growth if sewer services were provided. With this information, flow volume
calculations were based on the wastewater flow rates recommended in section 1 5A NCAC
02h .0219 of the North Carolina Minimum Design Standards for Sanitary Sewer Systems. A
list of the properties inventoried and their wastewater flow contributions are shown in detail
in Appendix B.
VI. COST
The development of cost estimates for the project was based on preliminary design
parameters and assumptions of many factors that can only be refined during the final design
of improvements. The line length and route were developed based on available maps,
existing plans and field reconnaissance. It should be noted that these estimated costs are
based on 2004 dollars. If commencement of the project is delayed for an extended period,
then inflation adjustments should be made to the estimated unit costs. The estimated unit
costs are based on recent construction costs for similar projects in the area.
The per linear foot price for gravity sewers and force mains includes costs for excavation
(including an allowance for rock excavation), backfill, manholes and service lateral stub -
outs. Additional costs have been included to allow for deep cuts, ties to existing utility lines
and erosion control. Rock has been assumed to be 25% of the total excavation. To better
estimate rock excavation requirements, consideration may be given to conducting core
drillings at regular intervals along the chosen route. Cost estimates have been evaluated to
only include sewer service stub -outs, not complete tie-ins to new customers. Based on
information supplied by Rosman, an extra cost allowance has been included for stone pipe
bedding due to the typically very poor pipe bedding conditions in the area. The area is
characterized by silty or clayey alluvial soils having high groundwater tables which makes
trench stabilization difficult and pipe bedding conditions very poor.
4

Additional costs have been included for right of way acquisition. Many of the NC
Department of Transportation roads in the area do not have purchased right of ways and
therefore pipeline construction outside of the road beds may require the acquisition of
utility easements from individual property owners. Easement acquisition costs include
property surveys, easement plats and a minimal allowance for land cost. A more detailed
cost breakdown can be found in Appendix A.
Construction $ 500,050
aws
Engineering
Easement Maps $ 10,875
A, Survey $ 13,200
Design & Construction Administration $ 34,000
Construction Observation $ 20,175
Legal & Administrative $ 7,500
RAN Agent $ 10,500
Easement Cost $ 15,000
Total Project Cost $ 611,250
VII. FUNDING
As part of the sewer study for the Town of Rosman's wasterwater collection system
improvements, funding research has been provided. Below please find a list of the funding
opportunities research and • then discussion on applicable opportunities. Attached in
Appendix D, Funding Options, please find a detailed discussion regarding all identified
funding opportunities researched.
Funding opportunities researched included the following
Community Development Block Grant -- Economic Developme nt Program
0.0 North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, Inc. (Rural Center)
Supplemental Grant
North Carolina Department of Commerce — Division of Community
Assistance
Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
North Carolina Revolving Loan and Grant Program
Market -Rate Loans
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) Grant
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utility Service (RUS) Water
and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities Grants
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utility Service (RUS) Water
and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants
United States Department of Commerce through the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) Grants for Public Works and Economic Development
Facilities
HUD Entitlement Grants
Funding through the Sale of Bonds
Congressional Earmark
Commercial Lender Loan
• User Fees
• User Impact & Connection Fees
• Frontage Fees
Of the options investigated, grants from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, a State &
Tribal Assistance Grant, and a North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, Inc.
Supplement Grant or a combination thereof appear to be the most promising. Further
discussion of these options is presented below along with recommendations.
Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)
Created in 1996, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund makes grants to local
governments, state agencies and conservation non -profits to help finance projects
that specifically address water pollution problems. CWMTF accepts grant
applications during two cycles each year. The cycles close on June 1" and
December 1st.
Grant monies from CWMTF may be used for any of the following purposes:
a) Acquire land for riparian buffers for environmental protection of surface
waters or urban drinking water supplies, or for establishing a network of
greenways for environmental, educational or recreational uses.
b) Acquire easements in order to protect surface waters or urban drinking water
supplies.
c) Coordinate with other public programs involved with lands adjoining water
bodies to gain the most public benefit while protecting and improving water
quality.
d) Restore degraded lands for their ability to protect water quality.
e) Repair failing waste treatment systems: if (i) an application to the Clean
water Revolving Loan and Grant Fund has been submitted and denied in the
latest review cycle; (ii) repair is for a reasonable remedy to an existing waste
treatment problem; and (iii) the repair is not for the purpose of expanding
the system to accommodate future anticipated growth of a community.
Priority shall be given to economically distressed units of local government.
6

N MI
f) Repair/eliminate failing septic tank systems, to eliminate illegal drainage
connections, and to expand waste treatment systems if the system is being
expanded as a remedy to eliminate failing septic tank systems or illegal
drainage connections. Priority shall be given to economically distressed
units of local government.
g) improve stormwater controls and management
h) Facilitate planning that targets reductions in surface water pollution.
Applications typically must include the following:
- an application form
- a narrative proposal
a line item budget
Answers to supplemental questions dealing with wastewater projects
a map
a list of the applicant's governing board
Tax-exempt status
An environmental impact assessment or impact statement (if no such document
has been prepared, CWMTF will determine whether it is required)
Other grant applications - A list of all other grant applications for the proposed
project
• Requests to fund infrastructure repair or construction must include a copy of
previous application to, and letter of approval or denial from, the NC Clean
Water Revolving Loan and Grant Fund
- Documentation regarding the status of any state or federal permits required for
the project
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Each year in the Appropriations Bill, Congress identifies a number of "special needs"
projects by name and dollar amount for funding as grants from EPA. The authority
to award these special appropriation grants has been delegated to EPA's ten
Regional Offices. These projects are often referred to as SPAPs (Special
Appropriation Projects) or STAGs (State and Tribal Assistance Grants), which is the
actual name of the grants in the appropriations bill. Through an agreement with
EPA Region 4, the North Carolina Construction Grants and Loans Section has been
delegated the authority to administer these grants in North Carolina.
The STAG grants are generally limited to 55% of the eligible project cost. For
wastewater related projects, monies such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) may be used as matching funds. These grants are governed by federal
grant requirements which in many cases differ somewhat from state requirements.
The North Carolina Construction Grants and Loans Section fully administers
wastewater related grants on behalf of EPA; however, they are only involved in
drinking water related projects during the construction phase. EPA Region 4
currently administers drinking water projects.

EDA encourages only those investment proposals that will significantly benefit areas
experiencing or threatened with substantial economic distress. Distress may exist in
a variety of forms, including, but not limited to: High levels of unemployment, low
income levels, large concentrations of low-income families, significant declines in
per capita income, substantial loss of population because of the lack of employment
opportunities, large numbers (or high rates) of business failures, sudden major
layoffs or plant closures, military base closures, natural or other major disasters,
depletion of natural resources, and/or reduced tax bases.
North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, Inc. (Rural Center)
The Supplemental Grants Program as administered by the North Carolina Rural
Development Center, Inc. enables units of local government and qualified non-
profit corporations to improve local water and sewer systems. Projects are
supposed to address public health, environmental, and/or economic development
critical needs. The maximum grant amount from this program is $400,000. Rural
Center funds must be used to match other project funds.
The Town of Rosman is eligible for Rural Center funds because Transylvania County
is a tier II County. Counties in tier I, II, or III are considered distressed and are
eligible for business incentive programs offered through the North Carolina
Department of Commerce. The Rural Center uses the Department of Commerce's
tier system to determine eligibility for a number of its programs.
Local governments and non-profit organizations located in rural counties are eligible
to apply for Supplemental Funds. Priority is given to projects from economically
distressed counties of the state as determined each year by the N.C. Department of
Commerce. There are two application deadlines per year. Applications must be
received by 5:00 p.m. on the last business day of March or September. Funding
announcements are generally in August or February.
As previously mentioned, the Town of Rosman is eligible for a Supplemental Grant
from the Rural Center. However, to be eligible for a Rural Center Supplemental
Grant, the Town of Rosman must have matching project funds and have all existing
grants administered by the Rural Center closed.
In some cases, it is judged necessary to provide water and wastewater infrastructure in order
to stimulate growth in certain areas as well as address deficiencies with existing residential
and commercial wells and septic treatment discharge systems. This is particularly true of
the industrial sector and sometimes the commercial sector where the availability of
wastewater service is often a primary concern in the location of an industry. While
conditions may be more favorable for residential septic tanks and private wells in many
areas, the provision of larger, more complex systems as needed to serve industries and
commercial entities can be expensive and problematic, if feasible at all. In order to justify

the expense of infrastructure improvements and expansions, the Town of Rosman must
satisfy that these expenditures will return benefits to the Town which makes the
expenditures worthwhile. There are many methods of paying for the costs of infrastructure
i mprovements.
At this time, it is recommended that in order for the Town of Rosman to fund the proposed
sewer project, they pursue a State & Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) in conjunction with a
Rural Center (RC) Supplemental Grant or a grant from the Clean Water Management Trust
Fund (please note the Town will first have to be denied a grant or loan from the NC Clean
Water Revolving Loan and Grant Fund) in conjunction with a Rural Center Supplemental
Grant.
VI I I. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
There are several areas within the Town of Rosman do not have access to public sewer
service. The expansion of the sewer system to these areas is needed by existing residents
and could help eliminate potential septic system failures. The Rosman area typically has
shallow groundwater. Shallow depth to the water table increases the potential for septic
system failures. The construction of sewer collection mains will help eliminate the need for
individual septic systems in a portion of these potentially problematic areas and eliminate
up to four proposed or existing NPDES permit holders. Connecting the unserved customers
to the Town's wastewater collection and treatment system will have the added benefit of
higher (tertiary) treatment levels as well as the needed capacity for business expansion.
The town is in the process of expanding its existing wastewater treatment facility to meet
future needs. The town is also in the process of expanding its wastewater collection system
to serve commercial and residential residents east of town along Old US Highway 64. A
schematic drawing of this future expansion However, there are more resident of the Town
of Rosman that need sewer service. To assist these residents along the main road through
town, an expansion to the wastewater collection system is needed.
The proposed sewer collection system that was evaluated consisted of 7,060 LF of 8-inch
gravity sewer line, 1,750 LF of 3-inch force main, and a 73 gpm capacity duplex grinder
pumping station. The pumping station was located at a central low point along Old US
Highway 64 at the intersection of Weaver Creek. From the pumping station a series of 8-
inch gravity sewer lines extended to the extremities of the service area along Old US
Highway 64 and Castle Road. The total cost of implementing the sewer improvements is
estimated at $611,250.
At this time, it is recommended that in order for the Town of Rosman to fund the proposed
sewer project, they pursue a State & Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) in conjunction with a
Rural Center (RC) Supplemental Grant or a grant from the Clean Water Management Trust
Fund in conjunction with a Rural Center Supplemental Grant.
9

APPENDIX A
SEWER LINE COST ESTIMATES
r •
` f

Town of Rosman Sewer Study
a:. Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
WKD# 40134.00.CL
August 18, 2004
figr
dr.
MP
PiCr
Alm
wa
Line A
8" Gravity Sewer 1,260 LF $32.50 $40,950
Manholes 6 EA $2,500 $15,000
Stubtotal $55,950
Line B
8" Gravity Sewer 4,220 LF $32.50 $137,150
Road Crossing 80 LF $120 $9,600
Manholes 17 EA $2,500 $42 500
Stubtotal $189,250
Line C
8" Gravity Sewer 1,580 LF $32.50 $51,350
Road Crossing 50 LF $120 $6,000
Manholes 7 EA $2,500 $17.500
Stubtotal $74,850
Force Main and Pump Station
3" Force Main 1,750 LF $18.00 $31,500
Road Crossing 30 LF $100 $3,000
Duplex Grinder Pump Station 1 EA $100,000 $100.000
Stubtotal $134,500
Contingency 10% $45,500
Total Construction Cost $500,050
COST SUMMARY:
CONSTRUCTION
SEWER 500,050
ENGINEERING EASEMENT MAPS $10,875
SURVEY $13,200
DESIGN & CONSTR ADMIN $34,000
CONSTR OBSERVATION $20,125
LEGAL & ADMINISTRATIVE (1.5%) $7,500
R/W AGENT ($700/parcel) $10,500
EASEMENT COST $15.000
$111,200
rata
PROJECT COST: $611,250

APPENDIX B
CALCULATIONS FOR SEWER

Town of Rosman Sewer Study
Wastewater Flow justification
WKD# 40134.00.CL
August 18, 2004
ftl
1. Whites Trailer Park
2. Miller Wire
3. Genie Products
4. Our Country Store
5. Morgan Mill Trout Farm
6. Morgan Mill Trout Farm Restaurant (proposed)
7. Double D Catfish Resort
rat
8. Galloway Grading
9. Petits Paint & Autobody
10. Petits Paint & Autobody (Proposed)
11. Conoco
12. Conoco Shops
Igo 13. Hardins Greenhouse
14. Hendersons Greenhouse
15. Hendersons Greenhouse Garden Center
03 16. Cherryfield Storage
17. Animals of Eden
18. Coats American
19. Existing & Proposed Residential
20. Proposed Fast Food
21. Church
pi. 22. DOT Facility
oet
farm,
cif
IAN
26 units 240 gpd 6240 gpd
7 employees 25 gpd 175 gpd
20 employees 25 gpd 500 gpd
6 water closets 250 g/unit 1500 gpd
5 employees 25 gpd 125 gpd
60 seats 40 g/seat 2400 gpd
7 employees 25 gpd 175 gpd
42 RV sites 120 g/site 5040 gpd
12 tent sites 100 g/site 1200 gpd
19 cabins 240 gpd 4560 gpd
10 employees 25 gpd 250 gpd
8 employees 25 gpd 200 gpd
8 employees 25 gpd 200 gpd
11 employees 25 gpd 275 gpd
2000 sq. ft. 120 gpd/1000 sq. ft. 240 gpd
4 employees 25 gpd 100 gpd
6 employees 25 gpd 150 gpd
6 employees 25 gpd 150 gpd
1 employees 25 gpd 25 gpd
8 employees 25 gpd 200 gpd
0 gpd
20 units 240 gpd 4800 gpd
25 units 360 gpd 9000 gpd
60 seats 40 g/seat 2400 gpd
300 seats 3 g/seat 900 gpd
40 employees 25 gpd 1000 gpd
41805 gpd

fikm
oda
Town of Rosman Sewer Study
Force Main Calculation
WKD# 40134.00.CL
August 18, 2004
HAZEN-WILLIAMS FORMULA:
DESIGN FLOW (GPM)
C-FACTOR
LINE SIZE (IN)
VELOCITY (fps)
V2/2G
HEAD LOSS / 1,000 FT
LENGTH OF LINE
TOTAL FRICTION LOSS
TDH
73
120
3
3.31
0.051
19.75
1750
34.56
89
STATIC HEAD=
TDH=
PUMP EFF.=
BHP=
COST/KWH =
OPER-TIME/HR =
POWER COST=
MAX MIN
54 54
89 89
80% 80%
2 2
$0.08
15 MIN
$11 /YR

APPENDIX C
FIGURES

1
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
SCALE : 1-=600'
300 150 0 150 300
600
=II ONO
IM MIN
OD CKSON
ca1.1..,b n., soavob . oarlattento
e1e COl1No40( ORNE
CWAUJRF. NC 26203
(704) 334-53.48
TOWN OF ROSMAN
NORTH CAROLINA
Alit- Ids„orAib„...imdtpxotott„,,,,A
�, � ,#
wrikommestaidir
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
VW/
ROSMAN
TOWN OF ROSMAN
SANITARY SEWER STUDY
VICINITY MAP
UPDATED
PROD -DATE
FIGURE NO.
1

‘..NoriS
.0. EXISTING PUMP STATION
9
SCALE : 1=600'
300 150 0 150 300
600
MIMI NM-1111=MIIMMM
ROSMAN
EXISTING
MAINS
co
SEWER r----- -77 -
,
\
1
\
\
110 \ \ 1
i "*' '...'4571"'\
I I m
I ig
. • .
EXISTING PUMP STATION
..*"."'•-•..
**.\
N..
'RENeri
BROAD RIVER
EXISTING
90,000 GPD
W.W.T.P.
DWKDICKSON
coranclity killisstructurs ocrailtatts
616 COLONNADE DIME
CHARLOTTE. NC 28203
(704) 334-530
1
TOWN OF ROSMAN
SANITARY SEWER STUDY
EXISTING ROSMAN SEWER SYSTEM MAP
)--1 1—f - 1t1 1-- --
T r- 1
1
UPDATED
PROJ—DATE

I
1•
I1
It
ROSMAN
FUTURE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
SCALE : 1 "=1000•
1000 500 0 500 1000
2000
FUTURE GRAVITY SEWER
-i-
'PUTURE 6" FORCE MAIN
0\9
-/Y
//FUTURE PUMP STATION #2
(<'.
FUTURE PUMP S ATION #1
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
•
•
FUTURE SPRAY IRRIGATION FIELD
DwK DICKSON
-h
616 COLONNADE DAM
CNAALDTIt. NC 23206
[phone]
TOWN OF ROSMAN
SANITARY SEWER STUDY
FUTURE ROSMAN SEWER SYSTEM MAP
UPDATED
Pita -DATE
FIGURE NO.
3

\
PROP. 4" FORCEMAIN
1741' LF
FU TU EF SIV ER SYSTEM
A'
LINE B
% PROP. 8" GRAVITY SEWER
4208 LF /
LINE C.
tk PROP. 8'7 GRAVITY SEWER
1568' L•
/
i
it
/1
LINE A
PROP. 8" GRAV
1257 LF
SEWER
1
1 \ i
TRAN YJIVANIA COUNTY
-N-
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
SCALE : 1 "=1 OQ0'
00 5� t 0 600 woo00 woo
r
D CKSON
m„1..ia► bevelnobas 0a1.1,t0116
010 COLDNNADE DRIVE
CHARLOTTE. NC 26206
[phone]
TOWN OF ROSMAN
SANITARY SEWER STUDY
PROPOSED ROSMAN SEWER SYSTEM MAP
UPDATED
PROD -DATE
FIGURE NO.

APPENDIX D
FUNDING OPTIONS

1. Funding Options
1.1. Community Development Block Grant — Economic Development Program
The Community Development Block Grant — Economic Development (CDBG-ED)
program as part of the North Carolina Department of Commerce, Commerce
Finance Center has been administered by the State of North Carolina since 1982.
The funds may be accessed by a local government applicant (municipal or county,
excluding entitlement cities or designated urban counties). Proposed projects must
involve a specific business that will create new jobs (or sometimes retain existing
jobs). Assisted project activities must benefit persons (60% or more) who were
previously (most recent 12 months) in a low or moderate family income (LMI)
status, based on income levels published for the State of North Carolina annually by
the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Economic Development Category projects may involve assistance for public
facilities needed to serve the target business, or loans to a private business to fund
items such as machinery and equipment, property acquisition, or construction.
Public facility projects may be provide grants of up to 75°k of the proposed facility
costs, with a 25% cash match to be paid by the local government applicant. Loan
projects are assisted in conjunction with a participating bank, which will provide
50% or more of the funds needed by the project company. Eligible local
governments may apply for economic development assistance to the NC
Department of Commerce, Commerce Finance Center throughout the year.
In order for the Town of Rosman to apply for a CDBG-ED grant for the proposed
sewer project, documentation must be provided that new jobs will be created.
1.2. North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center, Inc. (Rural Center)
The Supplemental Grants Program as administered by the North Carolina Rural
Development Center, Inc. enables units of local government and qualified non-
profit corporations to improve local 'water and sewer systems. Projects are
supposed to address public health, environmental, and/or economic development
critical needs. The maximum grant amount from this program is $400,000. Rural
Center funds must be used to match other project funds.
The Town of Rosman is eligible for Rural Center funds because Transylvania
County is a tier II County. Counties in tier I, II, or III are considered distressed and
are eligible for business incentive programs offered through the North Carolina
Department of Commerce. The Rural Center uses the Department of Commerce's
tier system to determine eligibility for a number of its programs.
Local governments and non-profit organizations located in rural counties are
eligible to apply for Supplemental Funds. Priority is given to projects from
economically distressed counties of the state as determined each year by the N.C.
Department of Commerce. There are two application deadlines per year.
Applications must be received by 5:00 p.m. on the last business day of March or
September. Funding announcements are generally in August or February.

As previously mentioned, the Town of Rosman is eligible for a Supplemental Grant
from the Rural Center. However, to be eligible for a Rural Center Supplemental
Grant, the Town of Rosman must have matching project funds and have all existing
grants administered by the Rural Center closed.
1.3. North Carolina Department of Commerce — Division of Community
Assistance
The North Carolina Department of Commerce Division of Community Assistance
Community Development Block Grant Program for Infrastructure is yet another
avenue in which proposed projects can. be funded. The purpose of the
Infrastructure (IF) category is to improve the quality of life in a residential area
(target area project) or in a local government's jurisdiction (area -wide jurisdictional
project) by using CDBG funds to eliminate severe water and wastewater (sewer)
problems with health and environmental consequences. Activities include the
installation of new public water or sewer lines, the replacement of public water or
sewer lines or appurtenances where the condition threatens public health or the
environment, improvements to water or sewer treatment plants that have specific
problems such as being under moratoriums or special orders of consent. The
maximum grant is $750,000 for the basic infrastructure program. Currently, funds
for the infrastructure category have been depleted for 2004 calendar year. In
addition, funds for the 2004 calendar year were only open first to 21" Century
Communities and then to 2003 rollover applicants. It has yet to be determined if
new applicants will be accepted for the infrastructure category in 2005.
1.4. Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)
Created in 1996, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund makes grants to local
governments, state agencies and conservation non -profits to help finance projects
that specifically address water pollution problems. CWMTF accepts-. grant
applications during two cycles each year. The cycles close on June. 151 and
December 1"
Grant monies from CWMTF may be used for any of the following purposes:
a) Acquire land for riparian buffers for environmental protection of surface
waters or urban drinking water supplies, or for establishing a network of
greenways for environmental, educational or recreational uses.
b) Acquire easements in order to protect surface waters or urban drinking
water supplies.
c) Coordinate with other public programs involved with lands adjoining water
bodies to gain the most public benefit while protecting and improving water
quality.
d) Restore degraded lands for their ability to protect water quality.
e) Repair failing waste treatment systems: if (i) an application to the Clean
water Revolving Loan and Grant Fund has been submitted and denied in the
latest review cycle; (ii) repair is for a reasonable remedy to an existing waste
treatment problem; and (iii) the repair is not for the purpose of expanding
the system to accommodate future anticipated growth of a community.
Priority shall be given to economically distressed units of local government.

f) Repair/eliminate failing septic tank systems, to eliminate illegal drainage
connections, and to expand waste treatment systems if the system is being
expanded as a remedy to eliminate failing septic tank systems or illegal
drainage connections. Priority shall be given to economically distressed
units of local government.
g) Improve stormwater controls and management
h) Facilitate planning that targets reductions in surface water pollution.
Applications typically must include the following:
- an application form
a narrative proposal
a line item budget
Answers to supplemental questions dealing with wastewater projects
a map
a list of the applicant's governing board
Tax-exempt status
An environmental impact assessment or impact statement (if no such document
has been prepared, CWMTF will determine whether it is required)
Other grant applications - A list of all other grant applications for the proposed
project
• Requests to fund infrastructure repair or construction must include a copy of
previous application to, and letter of approval or denial from, the NC Clean
Water Revolving Loan and Grant Fund
Documentation regarding the status of any state or federal permits required for
the project
1.5. Clean Water State Revolving Fund
The North Carolina Construction Grants and Loans section currently issues loans
under the auspices of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program.
The 1987 amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act replaced the original
construction grants program with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program.
Under the CWSRF, Congress provides states with grant funds to establish revolving
loan programs to assist in the funding of wastewater treatment facilities and projects
associated with estuary and nonpoint source programs. The states are required to
provide 20% matching funds. In North Carolina, these funds are made available to
units of local government at one-half (%) of the market rate for a period of up to
twenty (20) years. The actual term of the loan is determined by the State Treasurer's
Office. Funds are limited to $7,500,000 per applicant for any one project per fiscal
year's allocation, although funding from more than one fiscal year is often available.
In order to receive funding, projects must be included on the North Carolina
Construction Grants and Loans Priority Funding List. In order for applicants to have
their projects included on the state's Priority Funding List, a written request to North
Carolina Construction Grants and Loans section must be made which includes a
general project description, estimated project cost, and schedule on or before
March 31st of each year. Applicants who are operating under a Special Order of
Consent (SOC), or on Moratorium are generally placed on the priority list by one of
NCDENR's regional offices. Projects are rated based upon the severity of the water
quality problem and included on the list accordingly. While the number of priority

points is important, an applicant's willingness and ability to proceed also plays a
major part in the selection of projects chosen for funding.
1.6. North Carolina Revolving Loan and Grant Program
In 1987, the North Carolina General Assembly created the North Carolina
Revolving Loan and Grant Program to provide state financing for the construction of
water supply and wastewater facilities. Funding for this program is dependent upon
legislative appropriations and is not available at all times.
As with the CWSRF program, eligible applicants are limited to units of local
government who may apply for funding from anyof three available funds:
Low Interest Revolving Loans at one-half ('/) of the market rate for
wastewater collection and treatment facilities for up to a maximum of
twenty (20) years. (Maximum Loan Amount: $8,000,000).
Low Interest Emergency Revolving Loans for certified water quality or public
health emergencies associated with existing facilities.
High -Unit Cost Grants for up to $3,000,000 per applicant over three fiscal
years to make projects more affordable by keeping user fees at a reasonable
level. To determine eligibility for high -unit cost grants, the monthly water
and sewer rates for the local government unit in question should be
compared to the average residential water and sewer bill available of the.
You may average up to one year of consecutive monthly averages.
Should the Town of Rosman choose to consider the CWSRF, they are eligible to
apply for a Low Interest Revolving Loan.
1.7. Market -Rate Loans
From time to time (usually as a result of the passage of a State Bond Referendum),
market -rate loan funds are also available to units of local government for
wastewater facilities. Currently, there is no cap on the amount of loan funds that a
local government can borrow. Both the term and the interest rates are established
by the State Treasurer's Office and are based on the State's debt repayment plan
and market conditions at the time of sale.
Should the Town of Rosman choose to consider it, they are eligible to apply for a
Market Rate Loans.
1.8. State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Each year in the Appropriations Bill, Congress identifies a number of "special
needs" projects by name and dollar amount for funding as grants from EPA. The
authority to award these special appropriation grants has been delegated to EPA's
ten Regional Offices. These projects are often referred to as SPAPs (Special
Appropriation Projects) or STAGs (State and Tribal Assistance Grants), which is the
actual name of the grants in the appropriations bill. Through an agreement with
EPA Region 4, the North Carolina Construction Grants and Loans Section has been
delegated the authority to administer these grants in North Carolina.
ral
Pow

aim
w.,
414
oat
ask
114
oak
d,
The STAG grants are generally limited to 55% of the eligible project cost. For
wastewater related projects, monies such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) may be used as matching funds. These grants are governed by federal
grant requirements which in many cases differ somewhat from state requirements.
The North Carolina Construction Grants and Loans Section fully administers
wastewater related grants on behalf of EPA; however, they are only involved in
drinking water related projects during the construction phase. EPA Region 4
currently administers drinking water projects.
EDA encourages only those investment proposals that will significantly benefit areas
experiencing or threatened with substantial economic distress. Distress may exist in
a variety of forms, including, but not limited to: High levels of unemployment, low
income levels, large concentrations of low-income families, significant declines in
per capita income, substantial Toss of population because of the lack of employment
opportunities, large numbers (or high rates) of business failures, sudden major
layoffs or plant closures, military base closures, natural or other major disasters,
depletion of natural resources, and/or reduced tax bases.
Upon initial review, it appears that the Town of Rosman is eligible to apply for a
State and Tribal Assistance Grant.
1.9. Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) Grant
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a partnership between the federal
government and the governors of 13 states (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland,
Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia). The commission was established by
federal law (the Appalachian Regional Development Act) to supplement state and
local government efforts to enhance the economic development potential of the
Appalachian region. The law establishes the 410 counties eligible for assistance,
and the Congress annually appropriates funds to help carry out development
strategies adopted for each state and for the 13-state region. Unlike other federal
grant programs, the states and the federal government jointly share. in making all
funding and policy decisions. The 13 state governments also support half the costs
for administering the program in Washington and provide the staff to manage the
program within each state.
Projects are selected by the state and are submitted against the state's allotment of
the funds appropriated for the Appalachian Commission. Selections are based on
consistency with the authority granted by the federal law, conformity with the
state's investment strategy, and eligibility under the policies adopted by the -ARC
(the ARC Code and ARC project guidelines). Project decisions are made based on
preapplications which set out the scope, rationale, and proposed financing for the
projects. Once selected, the state notifies the ARC of its intention to submit the
project (adds the project to the state's approved investment program/strategy
statement), and the project sponsor is invited to submit an application. The state
program manager conducts the review at the state level and, with the Governor's
final approval, transmits the application. to the Appalachian Commission's office in
Washington, D. C. The small (50-person) commission staff reviews the material to

ensure it meets legal and policy requirements, and the grant is approved. The
entire process may take as little as 60 days to complete, but normally requires rag
several months. (The additional time generally is needed to clarify information,
secure necessary financial commitments, and to complete reviews by participating
agencies.) pm,
North Carolina typically has $2.5 - $3.0 million available each year for projects.
Funds become available in October as soon as the appropriation for the
Appalachian Commission is passed and signed by the President. North Carolina
attempts to maintain an open submission period for proposals (rather than setting a
specific deadline for all applications).
The Appalachian program was established to supplement assistance from other
federal grant programs (to help defray costs the region could not finance) and to test
concepts especially suited for this portion of the nation. North Carolina usually
spends about half its allotted funds aiding water and sewer improvements which
will create or retain jobs (supplementing other federal grant programs) and the other
half assisting demonstration projects.
Appalachian Regional Commission funds are awarded to projects that address five
goals identified by ARC in its strategic plan and that demonstrate measurable
results. The goal areas are education, physical infrastructure, leadership
development and civic capacity, business development and entrepreneurship, and
health care. ARC focuses its resources on distressed counties and distressed areas
within the 13-state Appalachian Region.
ARC expects grantees to contribute matching resources to projects, to the extent
they are able to do so, and to seek additional non -ARC funding assistance in a
diligent manner. ARC has specific requirements for matching funds. The level of
ARC funds requested in Transylvania County may not exceed 50 percent (50%) of
the total project cost.
ARC grants are administered either by the ARC or by a federal agency selected by
the grantee. The Commission administers most grants where the funds are for
technical assistance, program operating costs, or equipment purchase, with no
construction costs involved. ARC enters into a grant agreement with the applicant
that generally extends for a twelve-month period.
No projects involving significant construction, except housing projects, are
administered directly by the ARC. A federal agency receives the ARC grant and
makes payments to the grantee in conformance with the federal agency's program
requirements. In many cases, the federal agency also provides matching grants or
loans for the ARC project. For the Town of Rosman, the Land -of -Sky Regional
Council acts as the federal agency for the administration of ARC grants.
ARC provides funds for basic infrastructure services, including water and sewer
facilities, that enhance economic development opportunities or address serious
health issues for residential customers. Projects that are deemed "ready to go" will
be accorded a higher priority. To meet this requirement, the applicant should have
all other funding for the project committed. ARC assistance is the "source of last
PIN

resort." As such, ARC funds can be used only where there is no other source of
funding and/or where the Commission money will make a project feasible.
Upon initial review, it appears that the Town of Rosman is eligible to apply for an
ARC Grant.
1.10. Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities
Since the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act was passed in 1926, the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through the Rural Utility Service
(RUS) has provided grants, direct loans, and guaranteed / insured loans in an effort
to provide basic human amenities, alleviate health hazards and promote the orderly
growth of the rural areas of the nation by meeting the need for new and improved
rural water and waste disposal facilities.
Funds from this program may be used for the installation, repair, improvement, or
expansion of a rural water facilities including distribution lines, well pumping
facilities, etc. as well as the installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of a
rural waste disposal facility including the collection and treatment of sanitary,
storm, and solid wastes. No maximum loan amount has been established. The
maximum term on all loans is 40 years. However, a repayment period may not
exceed any statutory limitation or an organization's borrowing authority nor the
useful life of the improvement or facility to be financed. There are currently three
interest rates for direct loans: A 4.5 percent rate when the loan is required to meet
health or sanitary standards and the median household income of the service area is
below the higher of the poverty line or 80 percent of the statewide,
nonmetropolitan median household income; the intermediate rate, halfway
between 4.5 percent and market rate, if the median household income of the
service area is not more than 100 percent of the nonmetropolitan median
household income of the State; and market rate for those applicants that do not
'r'4 qualify for 4.5 percent or intermediate rate. The interest rate on guaranteed loans is
negotiable between the applicant and the lender.
Nra Municipalities, counties, and other political subdivisions of.a State, such as districts
and authorities, associations, cooperatives, corporations operated on a not -for -profit
basis, Indian tribes on Federal and State reservations and other Federally recognized
Indian tribes are eligible for RUS grants and loans. Proposed facilities are to
primarily serve rural residents and rural businesses. The service area shall not
include any area in any city or town having a population in excess of 10,000
inhabitants according to the latest decennial census of the United States. The
applicant must: (1) Be unable to finance the proposed project from its own
resources or through commercial credit at reasonable rates and terms; and (2) have
the legal authority necessary for constructing, operating, and maintaining the
proposed facility or service, and for obtaining, giving security for, and repaying the
proposed loan. Grants are made only when necessary to reduce the average annual
benefited user charges to a reasonable level.
If Rosman can demonstrate that they have been unable to finance their proposed
project from its own resources or through commercial credit at reasonable rates and
terms and has the legal authority necessary for constructing, operating, and

maintaining the proposed facility or service, and for obtaining, giving security for,
and repaying the proposed loan, the Town of Rosman is eligible to apply for a
Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities loan from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through the Rural Utility Service (RUS).
1.11. Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants
Since the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act was passed in 1926, the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through the Rural Utility Service
(RUS) has provided grants and direct loans in an effort to provide water and waste
disposal facilities and services to low income rural communities whose residents
face significant health risks.
Funds may be used for 100 percent of costs to construct, enlarge, extend, or
otherwise improve a community water or wastewater system as well as extend
service lines and connect individual residences to a community water or
wastewater system. Applicants may issue grants directly to individuals to extend
their water service line, connect their plumbing to wastewater collection system,
pay reasonable charges and fees for connecting to the water and wastewater
systems, install plumbing and related fixtures, and construction of bathrooms in
dwellings.
Local level governments, federally recognized Indian tribes, U.S. Territories and
possessions, and nonprofit associations can receive assistance under this program.
The projects funded under this program must primarily provide water and/or waste
disposal services to residents of a county where the per capita income of the
residents is not more than 70 percent of the most recent national average per capita
income, as determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and unemployment
rate of the residents is not less than 125 percent of the most recent national average
unemployment rate, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Also the
residents must face significant health risks due to not having access to affordable
community water and/or waste disposal systems.
The Town of Rosman is not eligible for a Water & Waste Disposal loan or grant.
1.12. Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities
Since the Public Works and Economic Development Act was passed in 1965, the
United States Department of Commerce through the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) has provided grants to promote long-term economic
development and assist in the construction of public works infrastructure and
economic development facilities needed to support the creation or retention of
high -skill, high wage private -sector jobs in areas experiencing substantial economic
distress.
Investments may be made in facilities such as water and sewer system
improvements, industrial access roads, industrial and business parks, port facilities,
railroad sidings, distance learning facilities, skill -training facilities, eco-industrial
facilities, and telecommunications infrastructure improvements needed for business
retention and expansion. Eligible activities include the acquisition, rehabilitation,

design and engineering, or improvement of public land or publicly -owned and
operated development facilities, including machinery and equipment. Projects may
also include infrastructure for broadband deployment and other types of
telecommunications -enabling projects as well other technology infrastructure.
Eligible projects must fulfill a pressing need of the area and must: 1) improve the
opportunities for the successful establishment or expansion of industrial or
commercial plants or facilities; 2) assist in the creation of additional long-term
employment opportunities; or 3) benefit the unemployed/underemployed residents
'a' of an area or members of low-income families. In addition, all proposed
investments must be consistent with the currently approved Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategy for the area in which the project will be located,
and the applicant must have the required local share of funds committed and
available. Also, the project must be capable of being started and completed in a
timely manner.
States, cities, counties, an institution of higher education or a consortium of
institutions of higher education, and other political subdivisions, Indian tribes, and
private or public nonprofit organizations or associations acting in cooperation with
officials of a Political Subdivision of a State or Indian Tribe are eligible. Individuals,
companies, corporations, and associations organized for profit are not eligible.
Private firms and unemployed and underemployed persons and/or members of low-
income families are the primary beneficiaries of EDA's investments.
Applications must describe the type of facility proposed, estimated costs, purpose of
proposed project, permanent private sector job impact (estimated payrolls,
estimated private investment), estimated time for construction implementation and
om completion, and assurances that the project will satisfy EDA's statutory
requirements. Most important, documentation must demonstrate how the project
will satisfy a pressing need of the area and have a positive impact on the economic
development of the community.
In order for the Town of Rosman to apply for a Public Works and Economic
Aft Development Facilities grant for the proposed sewer project, documentation must
be provided that new jobs will be created, must demonstrate how the project will
satisfy a pressing need of the area and have a positive impact on the economic
114 development of the community.
1.13. Entitlement Grants
1.4
Since the Housing and Community Development was passed in 1974, the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development through Community
Planning and Development has provided grants in an effort to develop viable urban
communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and
by expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income.
Recipients may undertake a wide range of activities directed toward neighborhood
revitalization, economic development, and the provision of improved community
°"' facilities and services. Entitlement communities develop their own programs and

funding priorities as long as programs/activities conform to the statutory standards
and program regulations. Some of the specific activities that can be carried out with
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds include acquisition of real
property, relocation and demolition, rehabilitation of residential and nonresidential
structures, provision of public facilities and improvements, such as water and sewer
facilities, streets, and neighborhood centers. In addition, CDBG funds may be used
to pay for public services within certain limits. Recipients may contract with other
local agencies or nonprofit organizations to carry out part or all of their programs.
Community- based development organizations may carry out neighborhood
revitalization, community economic development or energy conservation projects
to further achieve the national objectives of the CDBG program. Recipients may
provide assistance to microenterprises or other for- profit entities when the recipient
determines that the provision of such assistance is appropriate to carry out an
economic development project. All eligible activities must either benefit low- and
moderate -income persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight,
or meet other community development needs having a particular urgency.
Cities in metropolitan areas with populations over 50,000 and qualified urban
counties of at least 200,000 people (excluding the population in entitlement cities
located within the boundaries of such counties) are eligible to receive CDBG
entitlement grants.
The principal beneficiaries of CDBG funds are low- and moderate -income persons
(generally defined as a member of a family having an income equal to or Tess than
the Section 8 low income limit established by HUD). The grantee must certify that
at least 70 percent of the grant funds received during a 1, 2, or 3-year period, that it
designates, are expended for activities that will principally benefit low- and.
moderate -income persons.
The Town of Rosman is not eligible to receive an entitlement grant.
1.14. Funding through the Sale of Bonds
The funding of infrastructure improvements through the sale of bonds is common,
particularly with municipalities who have limited access to other funding sources.
This type of financing is contingent upon approval of a bond referendum and
approval of the municipality for indebtedness by the Local Government
Commission as is RECD funding. Financing is available at current market rates
which are generally in excess of other funding sources mentioned herein.
As these descriptions suggest, different proposed projects might be eligible for
funding from different sources. A Preliminary Engineering Report or a report such
as this Sewer Study generally required for any outside funding. The size or cost of
the project can also heavily influence the funding source. The detailed planning
and costs associated with the detailed planning necessary to receive an SRF loan
may be more burdensome than can be tolerated on a smaller section of the overall
project but may easily be offset by low interest rates for a larger portion of the
project.

In addition, other funding opportunities exist. Some come and go dependent on
various factors while some grants are only made available from time to time.
Specific short-lived opportunities typically are given to those who have completed
planning and design for fundable projects. Where a decision has been made to
implement a project, it is often wise to perform the planning and design ahead of
time in order to take advantage of any funding sources which may arise.
1.15. Congressional Earmark
Another option to the Town of Rosman is to pursue a congressional earmark for a
portion of the funds through North Carolina's congressional delegation. It should
be noted that in fiscal year 2004, Congress grant 510 such earmarks totaling $325
million. For instance, eight South Carolina water and sewer providers received
earmarks ranging from $175,000 to $1,400,000. Finally, earmarks require a 45%
match. Therefore, a Rural Center Supplemental Grant or an ARC Grant can serve as
a match.
1.16. Commercial Lender Loan
Under normal circumstances, the cost of building and operating a water and
wastewater system is borne by the users of the service. Established systems often
use revenues from their existing customer base to continually expand their
infrastructures into areas where the user fees will eventually pay the cost of system
expansion. In the case of the Town of Rosman, where little infrastructure exists, to
support a project like the extension of sewer by user fees, projected revenues must
equal the debt service on the borrowed capital cost as well as the operation and
maintenance cost incurred by the proposed extensions if financial solvency is to be
maintained. While this is often possible with water systems, the provision of
wastewater service is more difficult to finance.
Wastewater col lectioh . and treatment is considerably more expensive than the
provision and distribution of potable water. Assuming an equal number of
customers on both a water and wastewater system, wastewater bills must normally
be higher to cover the costs of the infrastructure as well as operation and
maintenance.
�., In some cases, it is judged necessary to provide water and wastewater infrastructure
in order to stimulate growth in certain areas. This is particularly true of the
industrial sector and sometimes the commercial sector where the availability of
wastewater service is often a primary concern in the location of an industry. While
conditions may be more favorable for residential septic tanks and private wells in
many areas, the provision of larger, more complex systems as needed to serve
industries and commercial entities can be expensive and problematic, if feasible at
all. In order to justify the expense of infrastructure improvements and expansions,
the Town of Rosman must satisfy that these expenditures will return benefits to the
Town which makes the expenditures worthwhile. There are many methods of
464
paying for the costs of infrastructure improvements. The following is a discussion of
several methods beyond grants and loans of recovering the costs of infrastructure
improvements.

wif
1.16.1. User Fees
The collection of direct user fees is the most common method of financing
the cost of providing water and sewer service. All of a portion of existing
user fees, a potential rate increase, and/or user fees generated from new
customers could be used to help fund the proposed sewer extension.
1.16.2. User Impact & Connection Fees
In areas where rapid growth is occurring, it is customary for established
water and wastewater systems to charge impact fees to new users. These
impact fees are used to offset the cost of the infrastructure needed to provide
and distribute water and collect and dispose of wastewater. These fees can
be set at any reasonable rate: For new residential homes, these fees are
typically offset by the elimination of the need to provide a well and septic
system. For existing residential citizens, there is often little or no incentive
to hook up to a system which generally results in a higher cost / monthly bill
to the residents.
Connection fees are also standard practice. These fees cover the actual cost
of hooking the water and wastewater system to individual residences and/or
buildings. These costs are generally tied directly to the actual cost of the
physical hook up.
The recovery of cost to provide water and wastewater systems would be a
simple matter in areas of moderate building density if mandatory hook up
were required. This, however, can be an unpopular approach. This might
be true in Transylvania County and the Town of Rosman. However, where
evidence provided by NCDENR, the Division of Environmental Health, and
Transylvania County suggests that individual wells and septic tanks offer a
high degree of unsatisfactory performance, this may be possible. In general
the feasibility of a system depends on an estimate of the amount of existing
citizens that will chose to use the new system as well as the potential for
commercial and industrial growth. Should the Town of Rosman decide to
extend sewer service, it is recommended that the Town conduct surveys of
existing property owners to determine a reasonable expectation for system
hook up.
1.16.3. Frontage Fees
Because of the high cost of providing infrastructure needed for water
treatment, water distribution, wastewater collection, and wastewater
treatment, the collection of frontage fees is another method of recouping
project costs. This often entails direct charges to landowners that are
directly impacted by water distribution lines and wastewater collection
lines. These are generally charged per foot. As an example, a residential
landowner would be charged a frontage fee based on the width of the
residential lot if a sewer line or water line were constructed there. A
frontage fee of $20 per lineal foot is considered an acceptable rate.

a.
OBI
1111114
0114
Therefore, a property owner with a 100' wide lot would be assessed $2,000
for a sewer line and/or water line crossing their property.
There is little question that access to sanitary sewer and potable water has a
positive effect on the value of a property. Undeveloped land, in particular,
becomes increasingly developable as wastewater service becomes available.
In spite of this fact, many landowners, especially farmers or owners with no
development plans, would consider a frontage charge an unjustifiable
expense in their case. To avoid this dilemma, the frontage fees could be
deferred until any portion of the land was sold. This would protect existing
landowners from what could be a substantial financial burden. On the
other hand, the percentage of deferred frontage fees would impact project
cost recovery.
Wastewater collection and treatment is considerably more expensive than
the provision and distribution of potable water. Assuming an equal number
of customers on both a.water and wastewater system, wastewater bills must
normally be higher to cover the costs of the infrastructure as well as
operation and maintenance.

APPENDIX T
PER TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS (JULY 15, 2004)
AND RESPONSES

TOWN OF ROSMAN
Technical Review Comments
For the Rosman Preliminary Engineering Report
Project No. E-SRG-T 02-0131
July 15, 2004
1. Comment: "Project Alternatives — The information in the alternative analysis in the
PER and the Environmental Assessment (EA) do not match. After analysis has been
revised in both documents, please coordinate with the project engineer to ensure that
these presentations are congruent."
Response: The project alternatives / alternatives analysis in the EA and the PER now
match. In addition, revisions to the alternatives and other alternatives as discussed
below have been included.
2. Comment: "Project Alternatives — For each treatment and collection alternative that is
analyzed, please include discussion of the following criteria: 1) present worth or
equivalent annual cost; 2) reliability; 3) complexity; 4) environmental factors; and 5)
feasibi I ity."
Response: As requested, for each treatment and collection alternative that is
analyzed, discussion of the following criteria is included in the EA & PER: 1) present
worth or equivalent annual cost; 2) reliability; 3) complexity; 4) environmental
factors; and 5) feasibility.
3. Comment: "Project Alternatives — While the collection system needs of Rosman 'are
based on need for sewer service, and are the same regardless of where the wastewater
is treated and disposed,' an analysis for the proposed collection system is necessary.
Please include a discussion . on the various collection system types that could be
utilized, such as gravity sewer, force mains, a vacuum sewer system, etc."
Response: As requested, enclosed in the EA & PER please find an analysis of the
proposed collection system under the Rosman Wastewater Collection System Needs
sections of the respective reports which includes a discussion of the various collection
system types that could be utilized, such as gravity sewer, force mains, a vacuum
sewer system, etc.
4. Comment: "Project Alternatives — Address why the installation of onsite systems
would not suffice."
Response: As requested, enclosed in the EA & PER please find discussion of why the
installation of onsite collection systems will not suffice. in addition, please find
additional discussion regarding onsite systems from the Transylvania County Health
Department in Appendix K of the PER.
5. Comment: "Project Alternatives — Addres s alternate routes for the sewer system."

Response: As requested, enclosed in the PER please find discussion of alternate routes
for the proposed sewer system improvements.
6. Comment: "Optimum Utilization of Existing Facility — Please include in the discussion
of this project alternative the impact of water conservation measures could have on
reducing the flow to the plant, allowing for a more optimal use of the existing facilities."
Response: As requested, enclosed in the PER please find discussion of the impact
water conservation measures could have on reducing flow to the plant.
7. Comment: "Optimum Utilization of Existing Facility — Please provide more
information as to what amount of flow could be reduced by repairing existing sewer
lines to reduce inflow and infiltration, allow for a more optimal use of the existing
treatment facilities."
Response: As requested, enclosed in the PER please find discussion regarding the
amount of flow that could be reduced by repairing existing sewer lines to reduce
inflow and infiltration.
8. Comment: "Optimum Utilization of Existing Facility — There is no discussion of new
construction alternatives. Please add to the narrative to include why onsite alternatives,
such as STEP systems, are not preferred and why Option 2 (New Rosman WWTP with
River and Land Disposal) is the only feasible treatment and disposal construction
alternative."
Response: As requested, enclosed in the PER please find discussion of new
construction alternatives and why they are not preferred.
9. Comment: "Optimum Utilization of Existing Facility —The costs presented for Option 1
and Option 2 are not the same prices that are presented in the PER. Please amend the
document accordingly."
Response: The costs presented for Option # 1 and Option # 2 have been modified in
the EA to reflect the same prices presented in the PER.
10. Comment: "Existing Environment and Project Impacts — In the discussion of impacts
and mitigative action for the proposed project, reference is made to information
contained in Section 5.0 Summary of Mitigation and certain laws are cited. Please
address the secondary impacts of future growth and development afforded by the
proposed project more directly in each section of the report. Also, please specifically
identify the mitigative measures that will be taken in each section so that an exact
account for the proposed mitigation is provided."
Response: The secondary impacts of future growth and development afforded by the
proposed project are now directly discussed in the relevant sections of the EA. Also,
mitigative measures that will be taken have been identified in each section so that an
exact account for the proposed mitigation is provided.
Pori

gas
VW
001
001
11. Comment: "Geography and Land Use — Please state the physiographic province in
which Rosman is located."
Response: As requested, the physiographic province where Rosman is located is the
Blue Ridge physiographic province.
12. Comment: "Soils and Important Farmlands — Please provide narrative detailing the soil
types at the spray field site and along the sewer line routes, as is done for the soil types
at the WWTP site."
Response: A narrative has been provided in the EA detailing the soil types at the spray
field site and the sewer line routes.
13. Comment: "Water Resources — Please confirm that the proposed project is in
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, PL 93-523, as amended. A copy of this
Act can be accessed at: http:l/www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/."
Response: The proposed project is in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act,
PL 93-523, as amended.
14. Comment: "Water Resources — Please confirm that the proposed project is in
compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, PL 85-624, as amended. A copy of
this Act can be viewed at: http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wsract.html."
Response: The proposed project is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
PL 85-624, as amended.
15. Comment: "Existing Environment — Surface Waters and Usage Classifications: Please
address whether there are any local public health problems due to poor surface water
quality caused by the existing Rosman WWTP."
Response: No known public health problems exist due to poor surface water quality
caused by the Rosman WWTP.
16. Comment: "Existing Environment — Groundwater Resources: The EA provides
information on the groundwater quality in the area and states that 'No data on
groundwater recharge rates are available.' Please provide more information on the
local groundwater hydrology.
Response: As requested, the EA has been revised to include more information on the
local groundwater hydrology.
IMO 17. Comment: "Socio-Economics & Environmental Justice — Existing Environment: Please
include Census maps that show the distribution of minority populations within Rosman.
Response: As requested, census maps that show the distribution of minority
populations within Rosman have been provided as part of the EA.

18. Comment: "Other Items — Please address whether all necessary permits, such as the
NPDES Permit, have been issued for the proposed project."
Response: Currently, an NCDOT Encroachment Permit, a NC Sediment & Erosion
Control Permit, and a USACE NW12 Permit have been issued for the project. The
proposed NPDES permit has not been issued for the project. Until the PER for the
project is approved, the NPDES permit application cannot be filed nor can an NPDES
permit be issued.
19. Comment: "Other Items — Please provide the current NPDES permit for the Rosman
WWTP."
Response: The Town's current NPDES permit is attached in Appendix B of the PER.
20. Comment: "Other Items — Please amend figures la and 1 b so that there are not
overriding labels between the pages such that the label for a portion of the figure is
located on the same page as that item. Also, please provide color maps so that they can
be more legible when reproduced."
Response: Figures 1a & 1b have been amended in the EA and the maps have been
reproduced in color so that they can be more legible when reproduced.
21. Comment: From NC Wildlife Resources Commission — "We remain concerned about
secondary and cumulative effects of this project on fish and wildlife habitats. However,
of greater consequence would be incremental filling of the 100-year floodplain of the
French Broad River over time, which may increase as a consequence of extending
sewer service east of Rosman where a substantial proportion of the land area occurs in
the broad floodplain of the river. Development is rapidly encroaching up the . French
Broad River watershed from urbanizing areas to the east and north. Therefore, avoiding
base flood elevation and corresponding channel instability and aquatic habitat
degradation in the French Broad River is particularly important not only locally, but to
the entire watershed as well. Similarly important are measures to control storm water
pollution from increased development expected in this region.
We recommended previously that enforceable measures are needed to address the
concerns above; however, in our opinion, there remains little locally, enforced
measures that will effectively do that. We are encouraged by and commend the
proposal to implement a stream bank buffer zone requirement of 100 feet on the French
Broad River and 50 feet on other streams depicted on soil survey maps. This ordinance
would only apply to areas beyond the current town limits where utility service is
provided, but it also would require forested buffer reestablishment where land -use
changes. We feel that this buffer prescription should help off -set adverse effects of
future development of fish and wildlife habitats. However, to be fully effective in
developing watersheds, vegetated buffers of 100 feet are needed on all perennial
streams and buffer protection should apply to all streams; not just those depicted on soil
survey or other maps.
Response: These concerns have been addressed in the NEPA Environmental
Assessment for the Town of Rosman Wastewater Treatment Plant Replacement,

psis
Collection System Improvements, and New Spray Irrigation Site dated August 30,
2004.
ION
22. Comment: From the US Department of the Interior — Fish and Wildlife Service — "As
stated in our earlier letters, we believe the proposed project will result in a higher
quality effluent and improved downstream water quality. However, we also stated in
those letters that unless direct impacts to streams, wetlands, and riparian areas are
minimized and secondary and cumulative impacts are addressed, any gain in water
quality could be easily negated. Both the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and we commented on the impacts of floodplain development
and the fact that Rosman's current floodplain ordinance does not provide sufficient
protection and, as the NCWRC stated, does not appear to meet the requirement of
Executive Order 11988. Further, the Environmental Assessment states that the Town of
Rosman has '...no local stormwater detention or treatment requirements.... ' We have
several comments regarding the responses to these problems presented in the
Environmental Assessment. First, the statement that 'The ordinance [Rosman's current
floodplain development ordinance] complies with FEMA's flood insurance program...'
is not relevant to our concerns. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
p, concerned with protecting property and lives, not the functions and environmental
benefits of the floodplain. Second, the Environmental Assessment states that 'Because
of the steep topography beyond the floodplain, a ban on further development. would
place a severe economic burden on the Town and is unlikely to garner public support.'
The 'steep topography beyond the floodplain' is precisely why the Town of Rosman
should be concerned with floodplain development and the management of storm water.
The frequent and heavy rains in the Rosman area can result in voluminous and, due to
topography, high -velocity runoff. While we are very pleased to see that the Town of
Rosman is moving toward implementing a stream buffer ordinance (though we believe
wider buffers are needed) and acknowledge that this will benefit local aquatic
environments, the quantity and poor quality of the runoff in this high rainfall area will
continue to increase locally if development goes unchecked and storm water is not
managed. Again, we strongly recommend that the Town of Rosman adopt ordinances
that protect wide forested riparian corridors (minimum buffers of 50 feet on all
intermittent streams and 100 feet on all perennial streams) and the 100-year floodplain.
We also remind you that adequately treating storm water in development areas is
essential to the protection of water quality and aquatic habitat in developing
landscapes. Finally, the Environmental Assessment states that construction of the new
WWTP will require 1,833 cubic yards of fill in the floodplain and that this floodplain
alteration will be '... mitigated in part by the removal of the old WWTP structures and
restoration of the natural floodplain grade.' The amount of this mitigation needs to be
oft quantified (the cubic yards of flood capacity restored), and there should be additional
mitigation for any decrease in total floodplain capacity.
Response: These concerns have been addressed in the NEPA Environmental
Assessment for the Town of Rosman Wastewater Treatment Plant
Replacement, Collection System Improvements, and New Spray Irrigation Site
dated August 30, 2004. In addition, it is currently estimated that by removing
the old WWTP structures and restoring the natural floodplain grade at the old
WWTP site, at a minimum, 605 cubic yards of floodplain mitigation will occur.

23. Comment: North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources — Asheville
Regional Office — Division of Environmental Health — Public Water Supply — 'Please
note that the Town of Rosman utilizes wells for their potable water. The Rules
Governing Public Water Systems require that the approved wells be 500 feet from a
septage disposal site. I am not sure as to the exact location of the spray irrigation site in
reference to the Town of Rosman's wells but several of the approved wells are in the
general area."
Response: Please note that all of the Town's wells are greater than 500 ft. from the
proposed spray irrigation site.
Poi
Pmq

APPENDIX U
PER TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS (AUGUST 13, 2004)
AND RESPONSES

OS
RIM
PIK
TOWN OF ROSMAN
Technical Review Comments
For the Rosman Preliminary Engineering Report
Project No. E-SRG-T-02-0131
August 13, 2004
General
1. Comment: "Verify that the scope of the proposed project in the Preliminary
Engineering Report is in agreement with the description provided in the Environmental
Assessment. The schematic provided in Figures 4 and 6 should also be in agreement.
Note that the scope as provided in Appendix A "Sewer Line and Rehabilitation Cost
Estimates" seem to include 11,8000 linear feet of 8-ich gravity line and the description
in the Environmental Assessment includes 12,600 linear feet of 8-inch gravity Tine."
Response: The scope of the proposed project in the Preliminary Engineering Report is
in agreement with the description provided in the Environmental Assessment. The
schematics provided in Figures 4 are also in agreement except for those portions
which are specifically relevant to Option # 1 or Option # 2. The scope as provided in
Appendix A 'Sewer Line and Rehabilitation Cost Estimates' is correct. Therefore, the
description in the Environmental Assessment has been revised to 11,800 linear feet of
8-inch gravity line.
2. Comment: "Were any members of the general public in attendance at the January 30,
2004 Public Hearing?"
Response: Please note that the Public Hearing occurred on January 20, 2004 not
January 30, 2004. In addition, it should be noted that no members of the general
public chose to attend the January 20, 2004 Public Hearing. •
Section III
1. Comment: "The Flow projection for for domestic flow is based on 100 GPD per capita. It
should be based on 70 GPD per capita for domestic flow. Unless a per capita flow of 100
GPD can be justified, our participation will be limited to that portion of the projected flow
associated with 70 GPD per capita."
Response: Please note, the PER and EA have been revised to reflect 70 GPD per capita. In
addition, as a result of the recently completed Town of Rosman Sewer Study for
Wastewater Collection System Improvements as now attached in Appendix S of the PER,
41,805 gpd of additional daily average flow has been added to Wastewater Flow
Projections portion of the report resulting in a total 254,718 gpd. Therefore, W.K.
Dickson and Co., Inc. still recommends that the plant be designed with a capacity of
0.250 mgd.
2. Comment: "The cost of providing capacity for those flows not justified in the comments
above will not be eligible for grant or loan funding. A reserve -capacity -cost -ratio (RCCR)

P"1
will be established, if necessary, and used to determine our level of participation. In order
to facilitate the generation of this ratio, the following should be provided:"
a. Comment: "Demonstrate that the facility is capable of operating properly at both
0.250 millions of gallon per day (mgd) and the revised flow of the revisions
requested by these comments."
Response: Not applicable.
b. Comment: "Provide a detailed cost estimate for the design capacity reflected by the
revisions requested above. This cost should be compared to the cost of the design
capacity at 0.250 mgd. These cost estimates will be used to develop a RCCR factor
that is applied to the total project cost to determine the total eligible cost."
Response: Not applicable.
Section V
1. Comment: "Please provide a projected user charge following completion of this project."
Response: Currently, the Town of Rosman does not have a formal projected user charge
for the completion of the project. However, the Town of Rosman understands that
operation and maintenance costs will potentially increase with the expansion of the their
wastewater collection system and treatment plant and therefore reserve the right to raise
rates as necessary to maintain financial solvency.

APPENDIX V
COMMITMENT LETTER FROM THE TOWN OF ROSMAN

10/14/2004 08:47 828-884-4159
TOWN OF ROSMAN PAGE 01
A..
POI
OEM
Imil
SON
October 14, 2oo4
TOWN OF ROSMAN
POST OFFICE BOX 636
ROSMAN, NC 28772
828-884-6859
Mr. Rob Brown, PE
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
Construction Grants & Loans Section
2728 Capital Boulevard
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Re: Town of Rosman
PER for Wastewater System Improvements
WKD #io583.1o.CL
Dear Mr. Brown:
Please accept this letter from the Town of Rosman as their commitment to extend sewer
to the areas detailed by the Preliminary Engineering Report dated August 24, 2004 and
as shown in Appendix S — the Town of Rosman Sewer Study for Wastewater Collection
System Improvements as soon as economically feasible.
Please don't hesitate to contact rue at [phone] or our consulting engineer, Mr.
Brian L. Tripp, PE, at [phone] if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF ROSMAN
John
Ma
gers
Cc: Brian L. Tripp, PE, W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.

APPENDIX W
TOWN OF ROSMAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REPLACEMENT,
COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, AND NEW SPRAY IRRIGATION SITE
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

APPEINDIX X
EA (10/8/04) & PER (9/20/04)TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS AND
RESPONSES

font
POI
TOWN OF ROSMAN
Environmental Review Comments dated October 8, 2004 and
Technical Review Comments dated September 20, 2004 Response
Wastewater Treatment Plant Replacement, Collection System
Improvements, and New Spray Irrigation Site
Project No. STAG, E-SRG-T-02-0131
A. Unresolved Issues
October 15, 2004
1. The information in the alternative analysis in the PER and the Environmental
Assessment does not match. The PER does not contain an analysis of the alternatives
�•. of "Optimization of Existing Treatment Facilities" as is in the EA.
OMR
Par
N
The PER has been revised to include an alternative titled "Optimization of Existing
Treatment Facilities".
2. The costs presented in the PER and the EA do not agree. Page 8 of the EA indicates
the present worth cost of the preferred alternative as approximately $4.8 million.
However, page 53 of the PER indicates the present worth cost of the preferred
alternative as approximately $5.7 million. Please clarify.
Please note, page 8 of the EA of the EA has been revised to show the present
worth cost of the preferred alternative as approximately $6,364,753. The present
worth cost in the PER has been revised as required under the technical review
comments portion of this response.
B. General
1. The EA does not present a definite scope in regards to stream and wetland crossing
methods that will be used in the proposed project. Below are some examples:
a. Page 6 of the EA states that "The deteriorating clay [sewer lines] downtown will be
repaired using trenchless technology wherever possible." Please be more specific
on the amount of trenching that will be done in the proposed project so that an
accurate accounting of the environmental impact of the project is presented. Also,
provide predicted dimensions of the trenching.
No trenching shall be conducted as part of the trenchless repairs. However, it
is estimated that up to seven (7) point repairs shall be necessary. Point
repairs shall be approximately 5' x 10'. Therefore, no more than 350 s.f. shall
be disturbed during the trenchless repairs.
b. The discussions of the land use impacts of the proposed project on page 10 describe
the areas to be disturbed by the installation and rehabilitation of the sewer lines.
Please provide an estimate of the dimensions of the trenches that will be excavated
as a part of the project.

Trenching shall be conducted as a portion of the project (Section A, B, C & D
as well as addition sewer as a result of the "Sewer Study for Wastewater
Collection System Improvements for the Town of Rosman" — see Appendix S.
It is estimated that trenches shall be no more than 4' in width. Therefore, with
an estimated total length of sewer line for all portions of the project of 29,760
LF(i.e. Section A — 1,700, Section B - 900, Section C — 11,450 LF, Section D —
2,300 LF, Spray Field Force Main — 4,600 LF, & Sewer Study — 8,810 LF) and
width of 4', the total disturbed area should not be greater than 119,040 s.f.
c. When discussing the impacts to soils on page 13, please include information on the
estimated dimensions of the trenches that will be excavated as a part of this project
so that a detailed accounting of the soil disturbance of the proposed project is given.
As previously discussed, trenching shall be conducted as a portion of the
project (Section A, B, C & D as well as addition sewer as a result of the "Sewer
Study for Wastewater Collection System improvements for the Town of
Rosman" — see Appendix S. It is estimated that trenches shall be no more
than 4' in width. Therefore, with an estimated total length of sewer line for all
portions of the project of 29,760 LF(i.e. Section A — 1,700, Section B - 900,
Section C—11,450 LF, Section D — 2,300 LF, Spray Field Force Main — 4,600 LF,
& Sewer Study — 8,810 LF) and width of 4', the total disturbed area should not
be greater than 119,040 s.f.
d. Page 17 of the EA states that wetland and stream "Crossings may be constructed by
trenching or directional drilling; the project engineers have not yet determined for
each crossing which method will be most feasible." It is necessary to know the
crossing methods at each location so that the full negative environmental impact of
the project is known and so that appropriate mitigative measures are in place to
lessen this impact.
Due to the geology of the region & the potential presence of rock, W.K.
Dickson is assuming that all crossings shall be constructed by trenching.
e. When discussing the proposed project's impacts on fish and wildlife habitat,
uncertainty on the crossing methods to be used is expressed. Again, it is necessary
to know the crossing methods at each location so that the full negative environmental
impact of the project is known and so that appropriate mitigative measures are in
place to lessen this impact.
As previously mentioned, W.K. Dickson is assuming that all crossings shall be
constructed by trenching. Currently, W.K. Dickson has estimated that the
project includes a total of 125 LF of wetland and stream crossings and that the
disturbed width shall be no greater than 4'. Therefore, the total wetland and
stream area that should be impacted by constructed should be no greater than
500 s.f.
2. On pages 3 and 4 of the EA, it is stated that the project will involve the "replacement or
rehabilitation" of sewer line in the downtown area of Rosman. Please clarify whether this
"or" represents a statement of uncertainty of the scope of the project or if "or" represents
a situation where both replacement and rehabilitation will take place. The discussion of
the "Wastewater Collection System Alternatives" on pages 6 and 7, indicates some parts
r*
twig

ram
01111
non
pan
of the project (A, B, C, and D) will involve the placement of pipe and another part (E) will
involve rehabilitation of an existing line.
Section E of the project will involve the rehabilitation of sewer line in the
downtown area of Rosman. Sections A, B, C, & D will involve the construction of
new sewer line in and around Rosman.
3. Pages 3 and 4 of the EA contain the statement that "another existing pump station along
SR 1388 will be abandoned when its effluent force main is replaced by gravity sewer."
Please clarify whether this is referring to a portion of the scope of the current project or if
this refers to a future project whose scope is considered under the currently proposed
project.
The abandonment of the existing pump station along SR 1388 is a portion of the
scope of the current project.
4. The Discussion of Need for the project (pages 4 and 5) should include a discussion of
why the reuse portion of the project is needed.
As requested, the following comment has been inserted into the Discussion of
Need:
"The land application facilities are recommended by DWQ to reduce impacts to
water quality and aquatic life, especially during droughts."
5. It will be necessary for CG&L to view the Census maps, Figures 1 a and lb, as well as
other_ figures, which where not contained in the September 7, 2004, electronic
submission of the PER and EA, to determine their adequacy.
Hard copies of figures la and lb have been forwarded to CG&L for review.
�► 6. Please coordinate with Pease Associates to ensure that the NPDES. Permit is contained
in Appendix B of the PER.
A hardcopy of the Town's current NPDES permit is contained in Appendix B of the
PER.
7. For final submission, please unite the PER and EA documents under one cover.
For final submission, the EA shall be included as Appendix W of the PER.
rim C. PER Comment — Page 16 contains a listing of the alternatives presented in the PER
instead of the "three basic needs" of the wastewater system. Please correct this.
Page 16 of the PER has been revised as requested
D. Agency Review — Comments have not been received from USFWS or NCWRC. These
agencies have been contacted and their response has been requested. When CG&L
receives these comments, they will be immediately be forwarded.
Upon our receipt of any additional review comments from USFWS or NCWRC, we
shall respond as soon as possible.

rigi
Technical Review Comments:
1. Please forward a copy of Appendix S — the Town of Rosman Sewer Study for
Wastewater Collection System Improvements. Be sure to include a map that accents
the difference between the area to be served by the proposed Old US 64 line and the
650 acres to be annexed in the future.
A copy of Appendix S — the Town of Rosman Sewer Study for Wastewater r.+
Collection System Improvements has been forwarded for your review along with
all required maps.
2. Please provide a commitment letter from the Town of Rosman stating their willingness to
extend sewer to areas as proposed in Appendix S.
A commitment letter from the Town of Rosman has been included as part of the
PER in Appendix V.
3. Since the cost of extending sewers as detailed in Appendix S will be associated with the
project, they should be included in the cost effective analysis as well as the user charge.
Since the cost of extending sewers as detailed in Appendix S have been
associated with the project, they have been included in the cost effective analysis
as well as the user charge analysis.
4. Please note that on Page 14 of the PER, the future industrial should be 10 % of existing
residential/commercial/industrial.
Page 14 of the PER has been revised as requested.
r•