NC0021407_Report_20030516

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING% COVER SHEET
NC0021407
Highlands WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Or
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
May 16, 2003
This documezzt is printed coma reuse paper - igiiore airy
content on the rem-erse side

MAY 2 1 2303
Preliminary Engineering Report
for the
Town of Highlands
Cullasaja River
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0021407
Macon County, North Carolina
WKD #20412.10.CL
January 21, 2002
Revised: December 2, 2002
Revised: May 16, 2003
Prepared for:
THE TOWN OF HIGHLANDS
Post Office Box 460
Highlands, North Carolina 28741
(704) 526 - 0504
Nlsliitt/n{g1 ,
27914 y� r� i4-
'ygE1 ©5P.., 0o,z.003
Milli„ ,t,�
Prepared by:
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
(704) 334 - 5348
(704) 334 - 0078 FAX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town of Highlands commissioned this preliminary engineering report to evaluate
future wastewater treatment needs for the Town. The Town of Highlands currently
operates a 0.5 MGD sequencing batch reactor type wastewater treatment plant under
NPDES Permit No. NC00214.7.
Wastewater flow projections were calculated based on population growth projections, as
well as wastewater treatment plant flow records. Tourism is the town's main industry,
therefore, the plant sees seasonal peaks in flow throughout the year and has exceeded the
plants permitted capacity of 0.5 MGD in the past. Projected flows will more than likely
exceed 80% of plant capacity within 5 years. If planned annexations take place plant
capacity could be exceeded in less than 5 years. Based on growth projections, an
expansion of the existing 0.5 MGD wastewater treatment plant to 1.5 MGD is
recommended.
Four alternatives for wastewater treatment and disposal were considered.
Option 1: 100%0 surface water discharge,
Option 2: spray irrigation of treatment plant effluent,
Option 3: connecting to the Towns of Franklin or Cashiers wastewater system, and
Option 4: reuse of effluent at area golf courses.
„R Based on our analysis, Option 1 - Expand Highlands WWTP and Continue Point Source
Discharge is the recommended alternative. The total net present worth of this option
including projected annual operation and maintenance expenses over a twenty-year life
cycle is $7.6 million. It is recommended the Town of Highlands proceed to apply for an
updated NPDES permit based on the expansion of the Highlands WWTP to 1.5 MGD.
1.4
Highlands 20412.10.CL

MR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
`' Section Description Page
I Introduction 1
II Existing Facilities 2
'`' III Wastewater Flow Projections 3
IV Comparison of Alternatives 11
ml
Analysis of Disposal Option 1: 11
Expand Highlands WWTP/100% Surface
' Water Discharge of Effluent
MI
Mil
Analysis of Disposal Option 2: 14
Spray Irrigation of Treatment
Plant Effluent
Analysis of Disposal Option 3: 15
Connect to Franklin or Cashiers System
Analysis of Disposal Option 4: 17
Reuse of Effluent on Golf Courses
V Summary and Recommendation 18
Appendices
A. Project Cost Analysis for Option 1
B. Project Cost Analysis for Option 2
ra+ C. Project Cost Analysis for Option 3
D. Project Cost Analysis for Option 4
E. Town of Highlands NPDES Permit
mg F. 2001 Average Influent and Effluent Record
G. Speculative Effluent Discharge Limits
. ii
Highlands 20412.10.CL

1l
furl
furl
1. INTRODUCTION
The Town of Highlands commissioned this preliminary engineering report to evaluate
future wastewater treatment needs for the town.
The Town of Highlands is situated in the Southeast portion of Macon County, as shown in
Figure 1, on the North Slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains and Tennessee Valley Divide.
The Eastern most Town limits are actually located in Jackson County. The current town
limits encompass 4,000± acres.
As is typical with most mountain communities, elevations within the Town limits vary
considerably. The residential areas of Bear Pen and VZ Top are at an approximate
elevation of 4,200 feet, while the elevation of the business district and surrounding areas is
3,800± feet. The lowest elevation occurs where the Town limits cross the Cullasaja River
below the Sequoyah Lake Dam at an elevation of approximately 3,600 feet.The majority of
land inside the Town is wooded with steep slopes. A major portion of the Cullasaja River
basin North of the city limits is National Forest and private developments. The largest of
these developments are the Highlands Falls Country Club and the Cullasaja Club.
There are four major drainage basins within the town limits of Highlands.
1. Satulah Branch and Mill Creek Basin
2. Monger Creek Basin
3. Big Creek Basin
4. The Cullasaja River Basin
Mill Creek and the Cullasaja River flow into Lake Sequoyah. Monger Creek forms Lake
Sequoyah's Southern prong, and Big Creek forms Lake Sequoyah's Northern prong.
Collectively, these basins form the upper reaches of the Cullasaja River Basin. Portions of
the Southern and Eastern Town limits are in the Chattooga River Basin. Water resources in
the Highlands area are limited in comparison to other western North Carolina
communities due the Town's location along the continental divide.
There are three major roads that serve the Town of Highlands. U.S. Highway 64 extends
from Franklin through Highlands to Cashiers. NC 106 runs from Dillard, Georgia to
Highlands, and NC 28 runs from Walhalla, South Carolina to Highlands.
Tourism is the Town's major industry. The commercial establishments that comprise the
Town's business district are directly related to serving the visitors to the Town of
Highlands. There is no heavy industry in the Highlands area.
There is a significant fluctuation in the Town's population, due to the patterns of the
seasonal residents and tourists to the area. Many of the homes within the corporate limits
of Highlands are summer homes. Highlands' population trends are the highest during the
Highlands 20412.10.CL

L:1Projects\Highlands10077440AV\CAD\PER FIGURES\Figure0l.dwg, Layout1, 05/16/2003 10:53:16 AM, dcurry
IWK
Engineers
Planners DICKSON
Surveyors
it\
—IN-
1
TOWN OF HIGHLANDS
TOWN OF HIGHLANDS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
PROPOSED 1.5 MGD EXPANSION
FIGURE NO. 1
VICINITY MAP
NTS

month of July, through the fall color season and during the Thanksgiving and Christmas
holidays.
The Town of Highlands currently operates a 0.5 MGD sequencing batch reactor type
wastewater treatment plant (NPDES Permit No. NC00214.7). The plant sees seasonal
peaks in flow throughout the year and has exceeded the plants permitted capacity of 0.5
MGD in the past. Though Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) repair work in the summer of 2000
has brought flows down considerably, peak flows will likely exceed 80% of plant capacity
within 5 years. If planned annexations take place, plant capacity could be exceeded
sooner than 5 years.
The intention of this report is to evaluate various alternatives for expanding the wastewater
treatment facilities and provide recommendations on implementing the expansion based
on these evaluations.
II. EXISTING FACILITIES
Existing Wastewater Collection System
The existing wastewater collection (Figure 2) consists of a main gravity interceptor, which
serves the areas East of Highway 64, and Satulah Street, including the business district on
Main Street; and four lateral branches. These laterals serve the areas along Fourth Street,
Upper Lake and Bear Pen Roads, Pierson Drive, and Satulah Road.
1.1
The Mill Creek pump station and sewer force main, located on Mill Creek at the old
Fes, wastewater treatment plant site and built in conjunction with the new wastewater treatment
plant, conveys all the wastewater from the existing collection system to the new treatment
plant.
The recently completed Lake Sequoyah pump station and force main will convey
wastewater along the west shore of Lake Sequoyah from NC 106 to the wastewater
treatment plant. A gravity collector, currently under construction, will convey wastewater
along NC 106 from Spring Street to the Lake Sequoyah pump station.
1.1 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The Town of Highlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (Figure 3) has a capacity of 0.5 MGD,
1=1 and was completed in 1994. The plant utilizes a sequencing batch reactor treatment
process. The wastewater treatment plant is located at the end of Arnold Road,
approximately 1.5 miles from NC 106. The effluent is discharged into the Cullasaja River
rw' immediately below the Lake Sequoyah Dam. The treatment plant operates under the
Division of Water Quality Permit NC0021407 (See Appendix E) that establishes that the
plant must meet the average monthly effluent limits presented below. See Appendix F for
influent and effluent flow records for 2001 - 2002. The treatment facility has performed
very well since the initial start-up in 1994.
2
Highlands 20412.10.CL

Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
TOWN OF HIGHLANDS
0.5 MGD SEWER
— N — TREATMENT PLANT
6" LAKE SEQUOYAH
FORCE MAIN
LAKE SEQUOYAH
PUMP STATION
WK
DICKSON
2000
12" MILL CREEK
FORCE MAIN
0
1000
2000
•
4000
6" MIRROR LAKE
PRESSURE MAIN
i
HIGHLANDS —CASHIERS
HOSITAL PUMP STATION
4" FORCE MAIN
i
LEGEND FOR
EXISTING SEWER FACILITIES
GRAVITY SEWER
FORCE MAIN SEWER
• SEWER TREATMENT PLANT
SEWER PUMP STATION
—7
TOWN OF HIGHLANDS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
PROPOSED 1.5 MGD EXPANSION
FIGURE NO. 2
EXISTING MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
SCALE: 1- - 2000'

L:1Projects\Highlands10077440AV\CADIPER FIGURES\Figure03.dwg, Layoutl, 05/16/2003 10:54:46 AM, dcurry
Mir
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
CHLORINE
CONTACT
CHLORIN
CONTACT
WK
DICKSON
EXISTING
SBR 2
_ EXISTING
BLOWERS
EXISTING
SBR 1
EXISTING
SCREEN
EXISTING PUMP
STATION
EXISTING
DIGESTOR
EXISTING POST
AERATION STEP —
WEIR
EFFLUENT—\
EXISTING
VACUUM
BED
EXISTING
VACUUM
BLDG.
INFLUENT
TOWN OF HIGHLANDS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
� ifia. PROPOSED 1.5 MGD EXPANSION
FIGURE NO. 3
CULLASAJA RIVER
EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES

NPDES Effluent Limits
Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Total Suspended Residue
Ammonia Nitrogen (April 1 — Oct. 31)
Ammonia Nitrogen (Nov. 1 — March 31)
Fecal Coliform
30 mg/I
30 mg/I
8.3 mg/I
20.0 mg/I
200/100mI
This site will allow the wastewater treatment plant to be expanded to a future capacity of
`i' 1.5 MGD. Major components of the existing wastewater treatment plant are:
1. Mechanically cleaned bar screen
2. Two 217,000 gallon, 48' diameter, sequential batch reactor tanks
3. One 81,000 gallon, 32' diameter, post equalization tank
4. Gas Chlorinators & Chlorine contact basins
5. Sulfur Dioxide De -chlorination
6. Chemical feed building
7. Cascade Aerator
8. One 78,000 gallon, 32' diameter aerobic digestor
9. Vacuum sludge dewatering bed
10.Sludge Belt Filter Press
rwl
III. WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
Planning for future wastewater treatment needs requires estimating future increases in
flows received by the treatment plant. Estimating future wastewater flows requires
predicting both growth trends and selecting a planning period which will be used to
design and size treatment facilities.
Planning Period
Selecting a planning period which is short sighted will result in higher long term capital
improvement costs and can result in a more complex facility to operate due to the higher
number of expansions which must be linked together to operate in unison. Selecting a
planning period which is too lengthy can result in equipment becoming obsolete or worn
out before its maximum capacity is reached.
For non -mechanical wastewater equipment, such as piping, tanks and structures, 40 years
is a commonly used planning period. For mechanical equipment, such as pumps, blowers,
controls, etc., a commonly assumed service life 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 maximum twenty year period. Changes in regulatory agency
requirements is another factor which can affect the service life of a treatment facility, but is
,., a difficult factor to predict in making long range projections.
Fwl
3
Highlands 20412.10.CL

The planning period for the Town of Highlands wastewater treatment plant improvements
shall extend to the year 2025. This takes into account a 20-year flow projection period
and additionally, the amount of time necessary for design, submittals, permitting and
construction of a project this size, requires our projections to extend to the year 2025.
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTION BASED ON POPULATION GROWTH
The Town of Highlands population projections have been divided into two categories for
the purpose of estimating future sewer needs. The first category is the existing populace,
'.' which includes permanent residents, seasonal residents, and transient visitors. The second
category is the additional permanent and seasonal residents, which would be added if
adjacent areas are annexed.
1I
rAmi
Category One
Permanent Residents
US Census data for the year 1990 showed the population in the corporate limits to
be 948 people. Census data for the year 1999 showed the population within the
corporate limits to be 1,112 people. This reflects an annual growth rate of
approximately 1.79°I0 growth rate per year over those nine years. Projecting a
1.79% per year growth rate from 1999 to 2001, produces an estimated permanent
population in the city limits of approximately 1,152 people. At the estimated
annual percentage growth rate of 1.79% from year 2001 to year 2025, the
projected permanent population will be approximately 1,763 persons.
Seasonal Residents
For the purpose of this study, the seasonal population and growth rate has been
determined by comparing the percentage of increase in residential water meters
read between the years 1988 and 2001. Census data shows an average density of
approximately 2.16 people per residential meter.
According to the Town of Highlands' records, there were approximately 1,762
residential water meters in 1988, and 2,510 residential meters in 1999. This
represents a 3.30°/0 estimated annual growth rate in .residential water meters.
Currently, there are approximately 2,680 water meters. With 2.16 people per
residential water meter, the 2001 seasonal and permanent residents is estimated at
approximately 5,789. Subtracting the projected 2001 permanent population of
1,152 people from the estimated total population of 5,789 yields an estimated 2001
seasonal population of approximately 4,637 people, which is 800 of the total
population.
Residential water meter installations are estimated to be increasing at an average
rate of approximately 3.30% annually. Flow data from the Town of Highlands
shows a flow trend of the average daily flows through the year 2025 to increase at
rate of approximately 3.5% per year. The permanent population is estimated to be
growing at a rate of 1.79°I° annually by census data. Using a weighted calculation,
4
Highlands 20412.10.CL

with average water plant flows growing at 3.5% per year and 20% of the
population (permanent residents) growing at 1.79% per year, the seasonal
population (80% of total population) is calculated to be growing at 3.93% per year
Transients
Transients, unlike daily visitors, are defined as people who spend more than a day
in Highlands and occupy the available motel/hotel rooms in the area. The
Highlands Chamber of Commerce estimates there are 450 hotel/motel rooms
available. Based on double occupancy, the peak transient population would be
900 people. Land zoned for hotel/motel use within Highlands is limited; the
percentage increase in this population would seem to be small in comparison and
therefore, for the purposes of this report is assumed to remain a constant.
Total Estimated Peak Population for Year 2025
The total estimated peak population as a result of normal growth, is projected from within
the current Town limits, to the year 2025 will be approximately 14,359 people (See Table
1). This projection through the year 2025 includes 1,152 permanent current residents at
1.79% growth yearly, 4637 current seasonal residents at 3.93% growth yearly and 900
transients. This method using the number of water meters as a basis for projecting
population distribution should be reliable, however, it does not include seasonal
residences on private wells.
Highlands 20412.10.CL

TABLE 1
Year
Permanent
Residents
Seasonal
Residents
Transient
Total
Population
2001
1,152
4,637
900
6,689
2002
1,173
4,819
900
6,892
2003
1,194
5,009
900
7,102
2004
1,215
5,205
900
7,320
2005
1,237
5,410
900
7,547
2006
1,259
5,623
900
7,782
2007
1,281
5,844
900
8,025
2008
1,304
6,073
900
8,278
2009
1,328
6,312
900
8,540
2010
1,351
6,560
900
8,811
2011
1,376
6,818
900
9,093
2012
1,400
7,086
900
9,386
2013
1,425
7,364
900
9,690
2014
1,451
7,654
900
10,004
2015
1,477
7,954
900
10,331
2016
1,503
8,267
900
10,670
2017
1,530
8,592
900
11,022
2018
1,558
8,930
900
11,387
2019
1,585
9,281
900
11,766
2020
1,614
9,645
900
12,159
2021
1,643
10,024
900
12,567
2022
1,672
10,418
900.
12,990
2023
1,702
10,828
900
13,430
2024
1,732
11,253
900
13,886
2025
1,763
11,696
900
14,359
Wastewater Flow @ 100 GPD per capita:
1,435,901
Highlands 20412.10.CL

Category Two
Population increases Through Annexation
For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the corporate limits of the Town of
Highlands will be expanded to include all areas under consideration for
annexation, and an 80% residential build out will occur in these areas. See Figure
4 for annexation areas.
The areas under consideration for annexation may be defined as follows:
A-1. North Area including Hicks Road, Billy Cabin Road, Zachary Road
A-2. Flat Mountain Area
A-3. Highland Falls Country Club
A-4. South of NC 106, including the Ponderosa Subdivision
A-5. North of NC 106, including Mountain Laurel and Dog Mountain
Subdivision
Below is a description of each area, including assumptions for total build -out:
A-1 North Annexation Area
The North Annexation area is West of Highway 64 to Billy Cabin and
Zachary Roads and areas surrounding Hicks Road. This area contains
approximately 360 acres. The total perimeter of this area is approximately
22,488 feet, 39°/0 being contiguous with the existing City limits. There are
approximately 144 existing residences and 79 vacant Tots in this area.
Assuming an 80% build out of this area, an additional 178 sewer services
should be planned for.
A-2 Flat Mountain Area
Flat Mountain. This area contains approximately 42 acres. The perimeter is
approximately 9,300 feet long, of which approximately 1,959 feet (21 %) is
1-0, contiguous with the existing City Limits. There are approximately 22 existing
residences and 2 vacant lots in this area. It is assumed for this purpose, the
remaining 2 vacant Tots will be developed. A total of 24 additional sewer
services should be planned for.
A-3 Highlands Falls Annexation Area
The Highland Falls Country Club area contains approximately 540 acres. The
total perimeter of this area is 38,314 feet, 37°/0 of that is contiguous with the
existing city limits. There are approximately 350 lots in this area and 320 are
currently developed. The area is sewered and served by a private package
WWTP. Full build out of this area is anticipated.
A-4 NC 106 South
This Highway 106 South, including the Ponderosa Subdivision. This area
f+ contains approximately 85 acres. The perimeter is approximately 12,513 feet
long, of which approximately 51 % is contiguous with the existing City Limits.
There are approximately 25 existing residences and 25 vacant lots in this
area. The Town currently serves this area with water and electric. Assuming
7
Highlands 20412.10.CL

FUTURE EXPANSION PROJECTS
ITEM
ITEM DESCRIPTION
S1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
S2
US 64 WEST PRESSURE SEWER
Al
NORTH ANNEXATION AREA
A2
FLAT MOUNTAIN AREA ANNEXATION AREA
A3
HIGHLANDS FALLS ANNEXATION AREA
A4
NC 106 SOUTH ANNEXATION AREA
A5
NC 106 NORTH ANNEXATION AREA
D
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
WK
DICKSON
SCALE 1' - 2000'
LEGEND FOR
PROPOSED SEWER LINES
PROPOSED SEWER LINES
• EXISTING SEWER TREATMENT PLANT
A PROPOSED SEWER PUMP STATION
TOWN OF HIGHLANDS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
PROPOSED 1.5 MGD EXPANSION
FIGURE NO. 4
FUTURE COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSIONS
BASED ON PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS

r1
an 80% build out of this area, an additional 40 sewer services should be
planned for.
A-5 NC 106 North
NC 106 North, including Mountain Laurel and Dog Mountain Subdivisions.
This area contains approximately 107 acres. The perimeter is approximately
14,596 feet long, of which 18°/0 is contiguous with the existing City Limits.
There are approximately 46 existing residences and 38 vacant lots in this
area. The Town currently serves this area with water and electric. Assuming
an 80°/0 build out of this area, an additional 68 sewer services should be
planned for.
'• These areas, if annexed in the future, would require planning for an additional 660 sewer
service connections. With an average of 2.16 people per home, this would add 1,426
people to the Town's population through annexation (See Table 2). The makeup of
permanent and seasonal residents that will occupy these homes is not known.
n
TABLE 2 ANNEXATION PROJECTIONS
Annexation Area
Sewer Services
Population (@2.16
density)
Flow (100 gpdpc)
1
178
384
38,448
2
24
52
5,184
3
350
756
75,600
4
40
86
8,640
5
68
147
14,688
Total
660
1,426
142,560
Population Projection Summary
Population projections through the year 2025, excluding any annexation, indicate a peak
population of 14,359 people. At 100 GPD per day per capita, wastewater flow is
projected to be 1.436 MGD.
Population projections through the year 2025, including normal growth and areas
currently under consideration for annexation, indicate a population of approximately
15,784. At 100 GPD per day per capita, wastewater flow is projected to be 1.58 MGD
(See Table 3).
TABLE 3 2025 PLANNING PERIOD
Population Category
Total Population (persons)
Total Flow (gpd)
One
14,359
1,435,901
Two
1,426
142,560
Total
15,785
1,578,461
�► 8
Highlands 2041 2.10.CL

As mentioned previously, this method of estimating seasonal residents by comparing
current census population data to the number of current water meters does not include
seasonal residences on private wells. It is difficult to approximate the number of these
residences, but there is a potential for additional flow from these sources
In addition to the projected flows calculated above, an out-of-town flowrate of 0.07 MGD
should be added for projected flow from the Highlands -Cashiers Hospital. This projected
flow from the Highlands -Cashiers Hospital includes 0.05 MGD current flow and an
additional 0.02 for future expansions. The addition of this flowrate brings the total
projected 2025 flowrate to 1.65 MGD.
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTION BASED ON PLANT FLOW DATA
The Town of Highlands sewer system started experiencing severe inflow and infiltration (I
& I) problems in 1999, which were corrected in June 2000. Because of the upsurge in
1.' plant influent during this period of high I & I and the lack of plant data between 1988 and
1997, it is difficult to project flow trends. Additionally, plant records show flows after the I
& I correction are generally lower than flows prior to the surge of I & I in 1999, which
makes flow projection more difficult.
Records of data from 1988 show an average daily flow for the month of July, which
historically has the highest average flow, to be 0.13 MGD. The data shows the average
flow for July of 2000 to be 0.18 MGD. This shows a growth rate of 2.75% per year for the
average daily flow for the traditional peak month. If 0.18 MGD is projected to the year
2025 at 2.75%, an average daily flow for the year 2025 is projected to be 0.36 MGD.
,, Recent peak flows for the plant show peak flows at 0.37 MGD for November 2000 and
0.35 MGD for January 2001. The average of these two readings or 0.36 MGD, projected
to the year 2025 at 2.75%, yields a peak day flow of 0.71 MGD. It should be noted that
recent data shows a more notable difference between peak and average flows during the
winter months. This is probably due to the fact that during winter months, seasonal
residents use their homes mostly at holidays, which causes a spike in flow for a few days,
but has little effect on the average monthly flow. During the summer months, seasonal
residents tend to stay for months at a time. Because of this, flow data shows less difference
between the peak and average flows.
These projected average and peak flows are based on overall growth and should only
serve as a base flow. There are other sources of existing potential flow, including current
water customers without sewer service and flow from proposed areas to be annexed.
As mentioned previously, there are approximately 2,219 water customers who have no
sewer service. With a 3.30% overall water connection growth rate, this will grow to 4,837
potential sewer customers. Assuming 50% of these connect over the next 24-year period,
and 2.16 people per household connection at 100 GPD per connection, an additional
'=' 0.52 MGD should be planned for. The annexation flows described previously will add
0.14 MGD. Together, these additional flow sources will add approximately 0.66 MGD of
9
Highlands 20412.10.CL

I1
wastewater flow to the projected base peak flow of 0.71 MGD for a projected flow of
approximately 1.37 MGD.
In addition to the projected flows calculated above, an out-of-town flowrate of .07 MGD
should be added for projected flow from the Highlands -Cashiers Hospital. This projected
flow was supplied by the Highlands -Cashiers Hospital and includes 0.05 MGD current
flow and an additional 0.02 for future expansions. The addition of these flows brings the
total projected 2025 flowrate based on plant flow data plus the hospital to 1.44 MGD.
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTION BASED ON SERVING ALL PLATTED LOTS
Presented here are the results of wastewater flow projections based upon providing sewer
service to all currently platted Tots inside the Highlands Town limits. Also included are
those lots in areas adjacent to Town, meeting the requirements for annexation. The
purpose of this effort is to identify the capacity needs of the Town's wastewater treatment
plant under these parameters as the soil types. in the Highlands service area are generally
not conducive to private on -site wastewater (septic) systems. Soil types are shallow with
bedrock encountered between 0-36 inches. Macon County Environmental Health receives
reports of failing or failed septic systems in Highlands on a monthly basis and has great
concern with this situation.
The Town of Highlands is composed of 3,101 platted Tots. Of these Tots, 2,172 are
developed. Developed in this case is defined as a tax parcel having a building value
greater than zero (i.e., having a structure on the property). This leaves 929 lots having a
building value of zero. It is important to note that the developed lots vary in size and may
include multiple dwellings. To determine the average dwelling density of each developed
f=, lot, it was assumed that all developed Tots are connected to the Town's water system.
Water customer accounts total 2,473. Dividing the water accounts by the number of
developed lots (2,172) gives 1.14 water accounts per lot. The Town's an average
population density is 2.16 people per residential water meter. Multiplying the number of
platted lots (3,101) by the number of water accounts per lot (1.14) and then by the average
population density per residential water meter yields a residential population of 7,636.
Adding the population of the proposed annexation areas, 1,426, results in a total
residential population of 9,062. The resulting wastewater flows, based on 100 gallons per
day per capita (gpdc), total 0.91 MGD. The Town has also recently started to accept flow
�-► from a private sewage system (S.B. Associates) which will add a minimum of 0.05 MGD of
wastewater flow. In addition, the Highlands -Cashiers Hospital will add 0.07 MGD for an
additional flow of 0.12 MGD brining the total flow to 1.03 MGD.
The wastewater flows identified in the previous paragraph do not include a commercial or
industrial component. Comments received from NCDENR regulatory review agencies on
past PERs regarding wastewater flow projections indicate that commercial wastewater
flows are typically projected based on 40 gpdc population and industrial wastewater flows
are typically 10% of the total combined residential and commercial flow. Therefore,
based on a population of 9,062, the commercial wastewater flow component is 0.36
MGD. This yields a total residential and commercial wastewater flow of 1.39 MGD.
10
Highlands 20412.10.CL

MI
Mal
Adding 10% of this flow or 0.14 MGD for the industrial component brings the total
wastewater flow to 1.53 MGD.
In summary, this method, like the previous two, indicates the need to provide 1.5 million
gallons per day of treatment capacity. It should be noted that this method is fairly
m conservative in that it does not account for Tots with multiple dwellings (condominiums or
apartments) or the subdivision of larger Tots into multiple lots. The addition of a significant
number of multiple family dwellings or single family dwellings will require additional
`m treatment capacity.
MI DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTION RESULTS
The wastewater flow projection for 2025 based on population growth is 1.65 MGD. The
wastewater flow projection for 2025 based on plant flow data is 1.44 MGD. The
M`' wastewater flow projection based on serving.all platted lots is 1.53 MGD. The average of
these values is 1.54 MGD. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a design flow for the given
wi
planning period to be 1.5 MGD.
IV. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
rmi
W.K. Dickson analyzed 4 options in the development of this report. These options include
,., the following:
Option 1 — Expand Highlands WWTP/100% Surface Water Discharge of Effluent
F, Option 2 — Spray Irrigation of Treatment Plant Effluent
Option 3 — Connect to Franklin or Cashiers System
Option 4 — Reuse of Effluent at Area Golf Courses
rm
These options represent the most viable solutions to meet the needs for the Town of
Highlands projected growth. On -site disposal was not included as an option for this report
1.1 due to the fact that an extremely large area would be required as a leech field and with the
high cost of land in the Highlands area this option would be cost prohibitive.
ANALYSIS OF OPTION 1 — EXPAND HIGHLANDS WWTP/100% SURFACE WATER
DISCHARGE OF EFFLUENT
".' As discussed in Section II, "Existing Facilities", the Town of Highlands existing wastewater
treatment plant was originally designed and constructed for a future expansion of 1.5
MGD. The 20-year projected flow is 1.5 MGD.
The existing NPDES permit (NC0021407) stipulates typical secondary effluent quality
limitations. Speculative effluent discharge limits for the expanded facility, issued by
'.,' NCDENR Division of Water Quality NPDES Unit (See Appendix G), also stipulate typical
secondary effluent quality limits. Table 4 provides a comparison between the current
Highlands 20412.10.CL
Wei

r=1
1
NPDES effluent limits and the speculative effluent discharge limits. However, future
effluent quality discharge limits of the expanded facility may require additional treatment.
As a conservative approach for the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the effluent
quality limitations will require a tertiary level treatment process. Tertiary treatment
includes filtration to further decrease the level of organic material discharged and
1.9 treatment processes to reduce nutrient levels due to ammonia. 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 Cullasaja River. In addition, the
plant expansion will include an ultraviolet light system to be used as the primary
disinfection mechanism. Current toxicity levels created by residual chlorine will be
alleviated due to the replacement of the existing chlorine disinfection facilities. The
existing chlorination/dechlorination system will be used as a backup to the ultraviolet light
system. For these reasons, tertiary treatment and ultraviolet disinfection are included in
the conceptual plan for the proposed wastewater treatment plant. Table 4, Design
Parameters, provides a comparison between the current NPDES effluent limits and the
speculative effluent limits.
11
1
1P
TABLE 4 DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter
Current NPDES Effluent Limits
Speculative Effluent Limits
Monthly Average Flow
(MG D)
0.5
1.5
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (mg/L)
30
30
Ammonia -Nitrogen
Summer (mg/L)
8.3
3.4
Ammonia -Nitrogen
Winter (mg/L)
20.0
6.7
Total Suspended Residue
(mg/L)
30
30
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
—
5
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
200
200
pH (SU)
—
6.0 — 9.0
Total Residual Chlorine
(ug/L)
—
22
Chronic Toxicity
—
Pass/Fail at 24.4% with
Ceriodaphnia Dubia
Another consideration in planning a wastewater plant expansion for Highlands is flood
protection. As with the existing facilities, 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
12
Highlands 20412.10.CL
r�1

FRI
1I
Perl
109
fan
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 and the
sludge belt press need to be accessible at grade and therefore earth fill would be required
in these areas.
The conceptual layout for the expanded treatment facility is shown in Figure 5 and
indicates dual train (parallel path) for the major treatment units. The conceptual plan for
the proposed treatment plant includes the following future components:
• Two 764,000 Gallon, 85' Diameter Sequencing Batch Reactor
• Retrofit two existing SBRs into Aerobic Digesters
• One 198,000 Gallon, 60' Diameter Post Equalization Tank
• Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility
• Retrofit existing Aerobic Digester with Course Air Bubble Diffussion System for
continued service as a sludge holding tank
• Retrofit existing Post Equalization Tank with Drainage Sump and Piping for continued
service
• EQ Drainage Pump Station with Piping to SBR Drainage MH
• 1.5 MGD Tertiary Filters
• Stand-by 500 KW Generator
• Yard Piping to Incorporate New SBRs, EQ Basin, and existing equipment into System
The sludge generated at the existing wastewater treatment plant is currently disposed of at
the Macon County Landfill. It is assumed that this practice would continue following the
wastewater treatment plant expansion. The plant has a new belt press, which will handle
future dewatering needs.
Appendix A presents estimated project capital costs (EPCC), estimated average annual
operation and maintenance costs over the 20-year planning period (EAO&M), and the
present worth of the average annual operation and maintenance costs (PWO&M). A
summary of the values presented in the Appendix A tables is presented below.
EPCC
$4,961,000
EAO & M
$230,923
PWO & M
$2,648,664
EPCC + PWO & M
$7,609,664
The Total Estimated Project Cost for Option 1, as presented above is $7,609,664.
13
Highlands 20412.10.CL

L:1Projects1Highlands12041210CLICADD\Figure05.dwg, 60ft scale, 05/16/2003 11:00:46 AM, dcurry
PROPOSED
PUMP
STATION
PROPOSED
FENCING
PROPOSED POST
EQUAUZA11ON
PROPOSED
ACCESS ROAD
PROPOSED FILTERS
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
PROPOSED UV
EXISTING FLOW
CONTROL —
EXISTING POST
EQUAUZATION
EXISTING
CHLORINE
CONTACT
WK
DICKSON
PROPOSED
BLOWERS
EXISTING
SO2 TANK
EXISTING CL2 EXISTING
/SO2 BUILDING BLOWER
PROPOSED
FENCING
SCALE IN FEET
60 30 0 30 60
_i*max_ Q
120
SCALE: 1 "= 60'
x-x
EXISTING
SCREEN
PROPOSED ROAD
REAUGNMENT
x
EXISTING PUMP
STATION
EXISTING SLUDG
BELT PRESS
BUILDING
EXISTING
FORCE MAIN
EXISTING
DIGESTOR\
a
EXISTING POST
AERATION STEP
WEIR
x
/+
PROPOSED
BLOWER
EFFLUENT
EXISTING
VACUUM
BED
PROPOSED
DIGESTOR
EXISTING
VACUUM
BLDG.
TOWN OF HIGHLANDS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
PROPOSED 1.5 MGD EXPANSION
FIGURE NO. 5
CULLASAJA RIVER
PROPOSED WASTEWATER FACILITIES

ANALYSIS OF OPTION 2 — SPRAY IRRIGATION OF TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
For the purpose of this report, it is assumed the spray irrigation system would be sized to
discharge 1/3 of the projected 1.5 MGD capacity. Discharging 0.5 MGD through spray
irrigation would require an additional 0.5 MGD or a total of 1.0 MGD to be discharged
into the Cullasaja River. Spray irrigation application rates have been discussed with
several soil scientists. Soils scientists such as Al Slagle and Mike Owens have estimated
typical ranges of spray application rates for western North Carolina soils to range from 0.5
inches per week to 1.75 inches per week. This range is not all inclusive, yet allows a
preliminary evaluation of spray field requirements. An application rate on the upper end of
this range of 1.5 inches per week was assumed for the purpose of this evaluation. This
'.4 assumption yields a smaller spray field area requirement than lower application rates
would yield. This provides a "better case" preliminary evaluation of spray field area
requirements and costs. A spray irrigation system would consist of the treatment plant,
irrigation pump station and distribution piping and spray nozzles.
The spray irrigation systems require a large area for the distribution of effluent. Based on
the assumptions mentioned previously, an area of approximately 110 acres would be
required, including 100 foot buffers, to discharge 0.5 MGD through spray irrigation. If the
assumed loading rate of 1.5 inches per week proved to be to high, a greater area would be
required.
Property cost in the Highlands area is very expensive and would certainly be the major
cost associated with a spray irrigation system. An area this size would not be readily
available and may require condemnation by the Town of Highlands to acquire. Due to
the rugged terrain in the area, finding a suitable site this large would also be difficult.
Another problem is the high percentage of soils in the Highlands area are of the
Edneyville, Plott and Cullasaja varieties, which generally are not suitable for absorption
fields. Figure 6 shows the location of these soils as EdC, EdD, EdE, CuD, CuE, PwE and
PwF.
,.,, Regarding spray irrigation on National Forest lands, authorities at the Nantahala National
Forest have indicated that spray irrigation on said lands is discouraged and would probably
involve litigation resistance by environmental groups.
For the purpose of this report, it is assumed a suitable area, either publicly or privately
owned, could be located within one mile of the treatment plant. Because of the relative
raq low elevation of the treatment plant, a static head of 100 feet is also assumed.
Regulations do not require any storage since spray irrigation would be used in unison with
ran stream discharging. Tertiary filtration will be required for reuse of effluent.
14
1P
Highlands 20412.10.CL

i
WK
DICKSON
SOIL TYPE MAP SYMBOL,
CULLASAJA CuD, CuE
EDNEYVILLE EdD, EdE, Edf
PLOTT PwE, PwF
EXISTING HIGHLANDS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT
SCALE IN FEET
800 400 0 400 800
SCALE: 1 "= 800'
TOWN OF HIGHLANDS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
PROPOSED 1.5 MGD EXPANSION
FIGURE NO. 6
SOILS MAP OF HIGHLANDS AREA

Estimated Project Costs
�► Appendix B presents estimated project capital costs (EPCC), estimated average annual
operation and maintenance costs over the 20-year planning period (EAO&M), and the
present worth of the average annual operation and maintenance costs (PWO&M). It is
emphasized that these costs are over and above the costs for Option 1 since the treatment
plant expansion would necessarily be a prerequisite to the "Option 2" projects. A
summary of the values presented in the Appendix B tables is presented below.
fag
rag
rag
I1
fag
EPCC
$15,458,500
EAO & M
$295,190
PWO & M
$3,385,803
EPCC + PWO & M
$18,844,303
This project will also require the expansion of the treatment plant to 1.5 MGD and entail
the cost associated with operation and maintenance of the treatment plant. Adding the
Option 1 costs to those above brings the Total Estimated Project Cost for Option 2 to
$26,453,967.
ANALYSIS OF OPTION 3 — CONNECT TO FRANKLIN OR CASHIERS SYSTEM
The Town of Franklin is located along the Little Tennessee River approximately 19 miles
northwest of the Town of_ Highlands. Under this option, consideration is given to
abandoning Highlands sewage treatment plant and connecting the Highlands collection
system to the Franklin Collection system.
There are numerous routes and methods of tying the Highlands sewage collection system
to the Franklin sewage treatment plant. The most obvious route is the Hwy 64/Cullasaja
River corridor. This route is highly impractical and costly, though, due to the 19-mile
distance between the two towns and extreme mountainous terrain. The two systems could
be connected using a combination of gravity sewers, pumping stations and force mains.
However, the most economical method of connecting these two systems would be the
construction of a new pumping station in the vicinity of the Highlands wastewater
treatment plant and the installation of a sewage force main from Highlands to Franklin
along existing road routes. It is assumed that the force main would follow existing
roadways to minimize the need for easements. The nearest segment of the Town of
Franklin sewage collection system is located approximately 14 miles from the Town of
Highlands wastewater treatment plant.
The Town of Franklin wastewater treatment facility has a capacity of 1.65 MGD and based
on available information, more than adequate treatment capacity to accept all of the Town
of Highlands current wastewater flow. However, the Town of Franklin has not shown
15
Highlands 20412.10.CL

1
interest in the regionalization of sewer facilities and their current treatment capacity would
likely need expansion in the near future. The Town of Franklin's existing sewer lines and
pump stations would likely require upgrading to carry the additional flow, which would be
very costly.
This option does not appear practical because of the distance involved in connecting the
two systems. The terrain along any route would make construction very difficult, and
regionalization of the plants would run into considerable political obstacles. The treatment
plant for the Town of Franklin would require additional capacity to handle the Town of
Highlands flow in addition to the Town of Franklin's projected flow.
Though this option does not appear practical, rough project cost estimates were performed
for pumping an average daily flow of 1.0 MGD from the WWTP to the Town of Franklin.
The primary components of the system would be approximately 74,000 feet of 18" force
main and a quadraplex lift station with the largest pumps being 125 to 150 horse power.
The project cost is estimated to exceed $8,000,000.
The Township of Cashiers is located approximately 12.7 miles northeast of the Town of
Highlands. Under this option, consideration is given to abandoning Highlands sewage
treatment plant and connecting the Highlands collection system to the Cashiers Collection
system.
The existing wastewater treatment plant and collection system for the Township of
Cashiers is owned and operated bythe Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authorit
y, g which is
the regional authority operating in Jackson County. The plant capacity is 0.1 MGD and is
currently operating at approximately 90% capacity. This plant discharges to a tributary of
the Chattooga River, which is designated by the NC Division of Water Quality as 6-Trout
and ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters) stream classifications. The plant's current
NPDES permit allows the facility to expand to 0.2 MGD capacity, while reducing the
effluent quality limits by 50% with expansion. The classification of the receiving waters
alone makes expanding the plant at this location not an option. It is unlikely that the
current discharge permit would be expanded further than the current 0.2 MGD level and
the reduction of the quality limits by 50% would require very costly upgrades to the plant.
Though this option is not practical, rough project cost estimates were performed for
pumping an average daily flow of 1.0 MGD from the WWTP to the Town of Cashiers. The
primary components of the system would be approximately 70,000 feet of 18" force main
and a quadraplex lift station with the largest pumps being 125 to 150 horse power. As
with the "Franklin" project, the project cost for pumping wastewater to the Town of
Cashiers is estimated to exceed $8,000,000.
Estimated Project Costs
Appendix C presents estimated project capital costs (EPCC), estimated average annual
operation and maintenance costs over the 20-year planning period (EAO&M), and the
16
Highlands 20412.10.CL

ran
PM
MCI
MR
WI
present worth of the average annual operation and maintenance costs (PWO&M) for
pumping 1.0 MGD to Franklin or Cashiers WWTP. A summary of the values presented in
the Appendix C tables is presented below.
EPCC
$8,899,000
EAO & M
$29,793
PWO&M
$341,727
EPCC + PWO & M
$9,240,727
ANALYSIS OF OPTION 4 — REUSE OF EFFLUENT AT AREA GOLF COURSES
Four golf courses are within a four mile radius of the Highlands wastewater treatment plant
— Highlands Country Club, Highlands Falls Country Club, Wildcat Cliffs, and Cullasaja
Club. These golf courses are represented on Figure 7.
W. K. Dickson attempted to make telephone contact with personnel at the four courses,
and was successful in making contact with two of the courses — Highland Falls and
Cullasaja Club. Gary Warren, course manager of Highland Falls stated that they already
sa, use effluent from the community's wastewater treatment plant. Highland Falls is therefore
not considered an option. Steve Zarnick of the Cullasaja Club indicated that the Cullasaja
Course has in the past considered wastewater effluent reuse, but it was determined that the
,,,, soils are not suitable. The Cullasaja course, like the Highland Falls course, is therefore not
considered an option.
fast Of the four golf courses the Highlands Country Club is closest to the WWTP at
approximately 8,000 feet. Wildcat Cliffs is about 3 miles from the WWTP. It will require
detailed hydrogeologic investigations and analyses to determine at what flowrate either of
m, the courses could be irrigated with reuse water. It is likely, however, that more than one
course will be required to be able to apply 1.0 MGD.
For the purpose of determining whether or not to pursue this option a cost estimate was
performed for pumping 1.0 MGD to Highlands Country Club. 1.0 MGD was selected with
the intent of keeping the point source discharge permit (remaining 0.5 MGD) in force.
Without another means for discharge to supplement reuse water irrigation, a large (wet
weather) holding pond would be required with a volume equal to 30 to 60 times the
average daily flow.
Estimated Project Costs
,.., Appendix D presents estimated project capital costs (EPCC), estimated average annual
operation and maintenance costs over the 20-year planning period (EAO&M), and the
pm 17
Highlands 20412.10.CL
ral

Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
DOMING TOM OF HIGHLANDS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WK SO DICK N
HIGHLANDS COUNTRY CLUB
2000
SCALE: 1' - 2000'
HIGHLANDS FALLS
COUNTRY CLUB
0 o1 ff
Oy
L 64 7
(ii
TOWN OF HIGHLANDS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
PROPOSED 1.5 MGD EXPANSION
FIGURE NO. 7
GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES

MIR
�,
present worth of the average annual operation and maintenance costs (PWO&M) for
spraying on the Highlands course. A summary of the values presented in the Appendix D
tables is presented below.
EPCC
$1,644,000
EAO & M
$17,462
PWO & M
$200,285
EPCC + PWO & M
$1,844,285
Assuming that at least one more course (further away than Highlands CC) will be required
for this option, the total estimated project cost (for using both courses) would logically
exceed twice that of Highlands CC, or $3,200,000. Further, the treatment plant would still
have to be expanded as presented under Option 1 ($7,609,664). Therefore, it is estimated
that this option would entail a total project cost exceeding $11,000,000.
The following is a list of issues the golf courses would have to address if this option is
pursued:
1. The level of need existing at the golf courses for additional irrigation water supply
2. The availability of land at the golf courses to locate a reuse water irrigation pond
equal to 2 days of average daily flow
1.1 3. The willingness of the golf courses to modify the spray heads (reduce the spray
application area) to meet State requirements relative to buffers
4. The willingness of golf courses to risk possible negative reaction of golfers to play
,=, on a course that is irrigated with reused water
5. The willingness of golf courses to add the additional element of selecting the water
supply source before spraying
p1
V. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
Historic population and wastewater flow data for the Town of. Highlands were used to
estimate wastewater flows for a planning period extending 20 years into the future. As a
�► result of these analyses, an expansion of the wastewater treatment plant from 0.5 MGD to
1.5 MGD is proposed.
1.+ In considering potential improvement plans for the treatment works, and possible means
for wastewater effluent disposal, the following options were considered:
Option 1 - Expand Highlands WWTP and Continue Point Source Discharge
Option 2 - Spray Irrigation of Tertiary Treated Effluent on Park Service Land
Option 3 — Pump Raw Wastewater to the Town of Franklin or Town of Cashiers
Option 4 — Pump Tertiary Treated Effluent to Area Golf Course(s)
18
Highlands 20412.10.CL

MCI
eft
A cost estimate summary for these four options follows:
OPTION
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED PRESENT
TOTAL ESTIMATED
TEPC plus VVVVfP
#
CAPITAL COST
WORTH OF O&M
PROJECT COST, TEPC
EXPANSION
1
$4,961,000
2 $15,458,500
3 > $8,899,000
4 > $3,200,000
$2,648,665
$3,385,803
> $341,727
> $400,000
$7,609,665 1
$18, 844, 303
> $9,240,727
> $3,600,000
(no change)
$26,453,968
see note 1
> $11,000,000
Note 1: This option will require the addition of improvements at either the Franklin or
Cashiers WWTP to accommodate Highland's flow. The cost of these improvements is not
known.
It is recommended that the Town of Highlands select the most cost effective alternative,
Option 1. The other three alternatives entail other severe hurdles as noted below:
• Option 2: Even if the Park Service would be willing to lease land for spray irrigation,
it is not likely that a suitable site of the size needed could be found within a
reasonable distance.
• Option 3: Pumping wastewater to the Town of Franklin or Town of Cashiers would
mean that either of these towns would have to accept the wastewater and
significantly expand their facilities.
• Option 4: Hydrogeologic investigations may determine that more than two golf
courses are needed to accept a total of 1.0 MGD. Further, the golf courses would
have to be sold on the idea. Numerous considerations are listed under Section VII.
It is recommended that the Town of Highlands identify and obtain a source of grant
funding and pursue the implementation of Option 1.
19
Highlands 20412.10.CL

APPENDIX A
Highlands 20412.10.CL

r�
rm)
rat
fowl
1I
HIGHLANDS WWTP EXPANSION TO 1.5 MGD
#
Description
Mater/
Equip
Cost
Install.
Cost
Elec.
HVAC
Plumb.
Subtotal
(or Lump
Sum Cost)
1
Two 85' Diameter Sequential Batch Reactor Tanks
a. Aqua -Aerobics equipment with blowers, decanter asssembly.
mixer assembly, diffussers, controls, sludge pump with
controls. and internal piping
b. Steel Tank Walls
c. Metal catwalk and stairs
d. Concrete Tank Bottom
e. Concrete Pad for blower assemblies
_ _ _ _ _ _
$542,000 - $271.000
_ _ _ _ _
_ - _ - - !`.-�
__ _
_
- -
- - -
_ ___ _
$963,000
_
$150.000
_�` �- --~
_-
S247,000
$120,000
$40,000 $160,000
- ,
$200,000
$400 $1,600!
$2,000
2
Retrofit of Existing SBR Tanks to Aerobic Digetsers
a. Miscellaneous Aqua -Aerobics equipment and piping
$10,000
3
198.000 Gaston. 60' Diameter Post Equalization Tank
a. Aqua -Aerobics equipment
b. Steel Tank Walls
c. Metal Stairs
d. Concrete Tank Bottom
•
$15,000 $7,500
$7,500• $30,000
$62,000
$5,000
$11,000 $44,000
; $55,000
4
Dual Tertiary Filters
a. AquaDisk filter equipment in stainless steel tank with controls
b. Concrete pad
c. CMU Enclosure
$377,000, $189,000
$113,400
j $679,400
$800' $3,200
$4.000
; $35,000
5
UV Disinfection Facility
a. Dual Unit UV System
b. Masonry Building
c. Building Slab
d. Retrofit Chlorination/Dechlorination Facility
; •
$135,000! $67,500
$40,500
1 $243,000
$15,000 $10,000
$3,000
$2,000! $1,000 $31,000
$1,000; $4,000
$5,000
$120,000, $60,000
$40,000
i $220.000
1
6
7
Retrofit Exisiting Aerobic Digester with Coarse Bubble System
a. Aqua -Aerobics equipment with blowers. diffussers, internal
piping, controls
I ,
$40,000 $20,000
$6,0001
! $66,000
l
.
600 KW Standby Generator
a. Generator with transfer switch, sub -base fuel tank, controls
b. Concrete pad
I
$120,000! $10,000
$36,0001
I $166,000
$400! $1,600
$2,000
8
Retrofit Existing Post Equalization Basin with Drain and Piping
$2,000; $2,000
$4,000
9
EQ Drain Simplex Lift Station and Discharge Piping
a. 2 HP Effluent Pump with Level Switches and Controls
b. 6' Diameter x 16' Deep Precast Wet Well with 2" Piping,
Stainless Steel Guide Rails, Aluminum Hatch
I
$5,000j $2,500
$2,3001 ; $9,800
1
$20,000j $10,000
1 $30,000
1
j
10
Yard Piping, Valves, & Fittings
a. Retrofit Influent Screening Facility
$100,000
$90,0001
; $190,000
I $50,000
.
11
Site Work
a. Grading
b. Seeding and mulching
c. Erosion Control
I
i $50,000
$10,000
$10,000
SUBTOTAL
Construction Contingency © Approx. 20%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$3,499,200
$699,800
$4,199,000
Site Surveys
Engineering Design
Construction Administration
Construction Observation
Legal and Administrative © Approx. 5%
$39,000
$325,000
$96,000
$92,000
$210.000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
$4,961,000

Present Worth of Given Cost Component for "Expanded Flow" Over 20-Year Planning Period
Average Annual Labor Costs
Computation: Average "expanded" Q (AEQ) over the 20 year period estimated at 1/2 of total "expanded" Q
= 0.5 x 1.0 mgd = 0.5 mgd
Average "expanded" labor costs over the 20 year period
= (AEQ / current plant capacity Q) x (current annual labor cost)
= (.5/.5) x $65916 = $65,916
Present Worth = $756,051
Average Annual Power Costs
Computation: Average "expanded" Q (AEQ) over the 20 year period estimated at 1/2 of total "expanded" Q
= 0.5 x 1.0 mgd = 0.5 mgd
r=1 Average "expanded" power cost over the 20 year period
= (AEQ / current average Q) x (current annual power cost)
= (.5/.15) x $34,000 : $113,333
Present Worth = $1,299,924
Average Annual Test Costs
Computation: Average "expanded" Q (AEQ) over the 20 year period estimated at 1/2 of total "expanded" Q
= 0.5 x 1.0 mgd = 0.5 mgd
Average "expanded" test costs over the 20 year period
= (AEQ / current average Q) x (current annual tests costs)
= (.5/.15) x $7536 = $25,120
Present Worth = $288,124
fan Average Annual Chemical Costs
Computation: Average "expanded" Q (AEQ) over the 20 year period estimated at 1/2 of total "expanded" Q
r,= 0.5 x 1.0 mgd = 0.5 mgd
Average "expanded" chemical costs over the 20 year period .
= (AEQ / current average Q) x (current annual chemical costs)
= (.5/.15) x $2046 = $6,820
Present Worth = $78,225
1.1 Average Annual Sludge Disposal Cost
Computation: Average "expanded" Q (AEQ) over the 20 year period estimated at 1/2 of total "expanded" Q
= 0.5 x 1 .0 mgd = 0.5 mgd
Average "expanded" sludge disposal cost over the 20 year period
= (AEQ / current average Q) x (current annual sludge disposal cost)
,=, = (.5/.15) x $695 = $2,317
Present Worth = $26,572

R Average Annual Regulatory Fee Costs
AR
Mal
Computation: Average "expanded" Q (AEQ) over the 20 year period estimated at 1/2 of total "expanded" Q
= 0.5 x 1.0 mgd = 0.5 mgd
Average "expanded" regulatory fee costs over the 20 year period
= (AEQ / current plant capacity Q) x (current annual regulatory fee costs)
= (.5/.5) x $750 = $750
Present Worth = $8,602
f=1 Average Annual Equipment and Structure Repair Cost
Note: The Town reported that there were no plant repair costs for the fiscal year 2000/2001.
A value of $5000 is used in the computations to insure that this cost is considered.
1.
Computation: Average "expanded" Q (AEQ) over the 20 year period estimated at 1/2 of total "expanded" Q
= 0.5 x 1.0 mgd = 0.5 mgd
Average "expanded' repair costs over the 20 year period
min
= (AEQ / current average Q) x (estimated annual chemical costs)
_ (.5/.15) x $5000 = $16,667
WI
PM
Fowl
MI
r�
CM
FM
PEI
Present Worth = $191,165
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: $2,648,665
Total Average Annual Cost $230,923

n
APPENDIX B
Highlands 20412.10.CL

1=1
t1
OPTION 2
FOR SPRAY IRRIGATION OF
ON PARK SERVICE LAND
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
0.5 MGD WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
Unit
#
Description
Quantity
Price
Cost
1
520 gpm, 20 HP, Duplex, Vertical Turbine, - LS - $35,000
Reuse Water Pump Station @ WWTP Site
Assume appox. 1/3 of Item 7 since much lower hp and less
sophisticated controls and housing
2
6" Irrigation Water DIP Force Main 4000 LF $25 $100,000
Assume same as 6" force main from Town of Highlands
Lake Sequoyah Sewer Estimate, 10/2/00. (Length a guesstimate)
3
Rock Excavation @ 40% of Force Main Length 900 CY $75 $67,500
Unit price and % from Town of Highlands Lake Sequoyah...
4
Miscellaneous 6" F.M. Gate Valves and Fittings - LS - $5,000
Guesstimate
5
AirNacuum Control Valves & Vault 2 EA $1,500 $3,000
Assume approx. same as Town of Highlands Lake Seq...
6
30-Day (2 MG) Reuse Water Irrigation Holding 15000000 Gal. $0.60 $9,000,000
Pond at Golf Course
15,000,000 gat. At $.60/gal.
7
720 gpm, 50 HP, Duplex, Irrigation Pump Station - LS - $100,000
with Masonry Building at Irrigation Pond
Assume same as Thistle (800 gpm) Pump Station estimate.
8
Irrigation Field Piping, Valves, & Fittings 38000 LF $25 $950,000
Station to Tie into Existing Irrigation System
Assume 2", 4", and 6" line will average out to 6" when
include valves and fittings
9
Irrigation Spray Heads 375 LS $60 $22,500
Assume approx.2/3 of Thistle (golf course) Heads
10
Rock Excavation @ 40% of Irrigation Line Length 3500 CY $75 $262,500
Unit price and % from Town of Highlands Lake Sequoyah...
11
Thinning/Clearing/Grubbing 90 AC $1,500 $135,000
12
Erosion Control - LS - $27,000
Approx. 6000' of silt fence at $31ft at factor of approx. 1.5
13
Hydrogeologic Field Investigations, Analyses, - LS - $60,000
and Report Preparation
Twice approx. cost (from memory) of Ed Andrews reports for
coastal projects.
SUBTOTAL
$10,767,500
Construction Contingency @ Approx. 20%
$2,153,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$12,921,000
Route Surveys
$12,500
Topographic Survey
$89,000
175 ac. Boundary Survey
$42,000
Engineering Design
$1,035,000
Construction Administration
$445,000
Construction Observation
$310,000
Legal and Administrative @ Approx. 5%
$646,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
$15,458,500
'� DMC, 1/17/02

11
Present Worth of Given Cost Component for "Spray Irrigation"
Over 20-Year Planning Period
Average Annual Labor Costs
Computation: Average of 20 man-hours per week @ $20/hr. x 52 weeks/yr
= $20,800
Present Worth = $238,574
Average Annual Power Costs
Computation: Avg. flow over 20 year period = 500,000/2 = 250,000 GPD
Avg run time per day = 250,000 ga11520 gpm = 480 min. = 8 hr.
Annual power consump. = 365 day/yr *.748 kw/hp*70 hp*8 hr/day * (1/.85 eff.)
179872 kw-hr/yr
= Annual cost @ $0.08/kw-hr = $14,390
Present Worth = $165,049
Average Annual Equipment and Structure Repair Cost
Computation: Assume average annual repair costs = $20,000
Present Worth = $229,398
Average Annual Land Lease Cost
Computation: 200 ac. @ $100/mn-ac. = $20000/mn = $240,000
Present Worth = $2,752,781
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: $3,385,803
Total Average Annual Cost $295,190
pal

ni
APPENDIX C
�j
IMP
Highlands 20412.10.CL

OPTION 3
1.0 MGD
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR PUMPING
TO FRANKLIN OR CASHIERS WWTP
Unit
#
Description
Quantity
Price
Cost
1 1736gpm, 135 HP, Duplex Pump Station - LS - $1,000,000
& Upgrading of Franklin Collection System
Assume appox. 1/3 of Item 7 since much lower hp and Tess
sophisticated controls and housing
2 18" Force Main 74000 LF $60 $4,440,000
Assume 1.5 times 6" force main from Town of Highlands
Lake Sequoyah Sewer Estimate, 10/2/00
3 Rock Excavation @ 40% of Force Main Length 26300 CY $75 $1,972,500
Unit price and % from Town of Highlands Lake Sequoyah...
SUBTOTAL
$7,412,500
Construction Contingency @ Approx. 20%
$228,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$7,641,000
Engineering Design, Survey
$460,000
Construction Administration
$34,000
Construction Observation
$382,000
Legal and Administrative @ Approx. 5%
$382,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
$8,899,000

Present Worth of Given Cost Component for Pumping Wastewater
to Franklin or Cashiers Over 20-Year Planning Period
Average Annual Labor Costs
Computation: Average of 8 man-hours per week @ $20/hr. x 52 weeks/yr
= $8,320
Present Worth = $95,430
Average Annual Power Costs
Computation: Avg. flow over 20 year period =1,500,000/2 = 750,000 GPD
Avg run time per day = 750,000 ga112600 gpm = 288 min. = 4.8 hr.
Annual power consump. = 365 daylyr *.748 kw/hp*100 hp*4.8 hr/day * (1/.60 eff.)
218416 kw-hr/yr
= Annual cost @ $0.08/kw-hr = $17,473
Present Worth = $200,417
Average Annual Equipment and Structure Repair Cost
Computation: Assume average annual repair costs = $4,000
Present Worth = $45,880
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: $341,727
Total Average Annual Cost $29,793
fan
I1

APPENDIX D
Highlands 20412.10.CL

ran
rs1
f=1
1
1
OPTION 4
1.0 MGD
GOLF COURSE
WATER
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR PUMPING
TO HIGHLANDS COUNTRY CLUB AND MODIFYING THE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO SPRAY THE RECLAIMED
Unit
#
Description
Quantity
Price
Cost
1 1250 gpm, 30 HP, Duplex, Vertical Turbine, - LS - $40,000
Reuse Water Pump Station @ WWTP Site
Assume appox. 1/3 of Item 7 since much lower hp and less
sophisticated controls and housing
2 12" Reuse Water DIP Force Main 8000 LF $40 $320,000
Assume 1.5 times 6" force main from Town of Highlands
Lake Sequoyah Sewer Estimate. 10/2/00
3 Rock Excavation @ 40% of Force Main Length 1600 CY $75 $120,000
Unit price and % from Town of Highlands Lake Sequoyah...
4 Miscellaneous 12" Butterfly Valves and Fittings - LS - $10,000
Guesstimate
5 AirNacuum Control Valves & Vault 5 EA $2,500 $12,500
Assume approx. 2 times Town of Highlands Lake Seq...
6 2-Day (2 MG) Reuse Water Irrigation Holding 10000 CY $43 $425,000
Pond at Golf Course
Assume soil @ 50% ($10) and rock @ 50% ($75)
7 1250 gpm, 90 HP, Duplex, Reuse Water - LS - $125,000
Irrigation Pump Station with Masonry Building
@ Golf Course Site
Assume 1.25 x Thistle (800 gpm) Pump Station estimate.
8 Piping & Valving from New Irrigation Pump - LS - $35,000
Station to Tie into Existing Irrigation System
Assume approx. 1/2 of Thistle Pump Station (since Thistle
connected at two remote locations).
9 Modifications to Irrigation Spray Heads to - LS - $25,000
Conform to DWQ Set -Back Requirements
Assume approx. 2/3 of Thistle Cost (since Thistle had 27 golf
holes).
10 Hydrogeologic Field Investigations, Analyses, - LS - $30,000
and Report Preparation
Approx. cost (from memory) of Ed Andrews reports for
coastal projects.
SUBTOTAL
$1,142,500
Construction Contingency @ Approx. 20%
$228,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$1,371,000
Route Surveys
$14,000
Site Surveys
$7,000
Engineering Design
$79,000
Construction Administration
$34,000
Construction Observation
$71,000
Legal and Administrative © Approx. 5%
$68,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
$1,644,000
WKD
1/15/02

Present Worth of Given Cost Component for "Spray of Reuse Water"
On Golf Course Over 20-Year Planning Period
NOTE: These costs reflect the O&M for the pump station at the WWTP and the force main from
the WWTP to the point of discharge to the irrigation pond at the golf course. It is assumed
1.1 that the golf course will operate and maintain all facilities on their property.
t,
ron
Pal
fsal
Average Annual Labor Costs
Computation: Average of 8 man-hours per week @ $20/hr. x 52 weeks/yr
= $8,320
Present Worth = $95,430
Average Annual Power Costs
Computation: Avg. flow over 20 year period =1,000,000/2 = 500,000 GPD
Avg run time per day = 500,000 ga1/1250 gpm = 400 min. = 6.67 hr.
Annual power consump. = 365 day/yr *.748 kw/hp*30 hp*6.67 hr/day * (1/.85 eff.)
64272.12 kw-hr/yr
= Annual cost @ $0.08/kw-hr = $5,142
Present Worth = $58,976
Average Annual Equipment and Structure Repair Cost
Computation: Assume average annual repair costs = $4,000
Present Worth = $45,880
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: $200,285
Total Average Annual Cost $17,462

e
7
n
Ij
APPENDIX E
Highlands 20412.10.CL

rgr
ram,
1=1
n
rmt
rm1
State of North Carolin'
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 3, 1999
Mayr,r flue:k Trr,it
Town of Highlands
P 0. tlr,x 561
Highlands. North Carolina 28741
Subject:
r)c-:sr Mayor Tr„it•
1�•
N ENR
Ntyrrm • tiktrIWARTMENT OF
ENvIRoM ARb. N1:KtRA . RESOURCES
44p,
•
• 1
issuance of NPDES Perrnit NC0021'407 .�
Highlands WWTP
Macon County
•
The. Division received your application for a wastewater discharge permit on April 17, 1997. Division personnel
reviewed and approved your application. After subsequent intervention by the-U.S. EPA and significant public
r.:r,,mrr,r•r,i, a Public }1rar ng was held on November 19, 1998. Based on the recommendations of the Hearing
Officer. we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit This permit isissued pursuant to the
re•clr,i, e•rt►c•t,l� r,l' N„r its C:;trc,lina Gencral•Statute 143.21.5..1 and the Memorandura.of.Agreement between North
:end the Ls Environmental Protection Agency dated December 6, 1983, and as subsequently amended.
T!,r• r)ivi air,,, would like to th►uik you for your patience and help during the renewal of the Highlands WWTP
F,r:errant. II was;, long prur:e43, but alerts beneficial in the education it•provided to various different interested parties.
its you kr,,,w, rl,trr.:,re several groups -and citizens (yourself included).thaLare iiery..cancerned with protecting the
w:itrr rlu.,lrty of the Culh raja River watershed. You may aleo recall that several people spoke of the need for
continuing ;:tudv, mon:tonng, and assessment of the entire watershed to ensure -that water quality in the region is
I,r r,tc:Ltr:r1. Thi: Division encr„trkgee you to continue to work with Peg Jones (Save Our Rivers) and other parties
th;,t.:ir•e it::crested in protecting C.ullasaja.River water quality. Continue d.corxuaurucation and cooperation can only
impruvr r!,c: , t:latu,r„hip between the Town of Highlands and the many other people concerned about the Cullasaja
Wivcr water':h►'tI
If :rr:v P:,rt•., me:,xurrmcnt frequencies or -sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to
you. you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days lofowing receipt of
this letter This ; cqucst must be in. the forts of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 1 SOB of the North
t'.Irr,t,r,:r (;rutvt;,I ;t.i;utes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh,
North C"., rc,f iri. r .? 7 61 1 7447. Unleas such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require
rr,r.,rl,fit.ttton or rcvo .uion and rcisstrance•of the permit. -'Fltfs-perrnittioes-not-affect the legal requirements to
obtain uther• permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of
Lind Resources, tt,r. Coastal Area Management Act or any other -federal or Local governmental permit that may be
required If you have any questions concerning this permit, pleaac contact Paul Clark at telephone number (919)
73:3• .,t}ti3. extension 580.
cc: (.'crlrr;,1 Faint:.
• A%hevill,: Regional Of!icc/Water Quality Section
Mr W:msr•vr'rt t;hrtriress. t;PA
r-, `f'[>>•.:a Unit
I•ornt (:nrr,pliance Enforcement Unit
P 0 Sox 29t35. Raleigh. North Caroline 27626-052S
An Equal Cppcnunrtr Affirmative Action Employer
tdri
-Preston Howard, Jr.. P. E.
Telephone [phone] FAX :[phone],'19
5094 recycled / 10% pesl.can3umer oace,
rrt

Permit NC0021401
ran
f,
R,
fsgv
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
(DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
•
PERMIT
tf,'. 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 standard
;And regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Town of Highlands
is hc:rr:hy :itjthorired to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Highlands WWTP
below Lake Sequoyah Dam
west of Highlands
Macon County
I It) receiving waic:rs designated as the Cullasaja River in the Little Tennessee River
B: si n
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions sett: forth in Parts t, II, III and IV hereof.
This pt rmit shall become effective April 1, 1999.
This hermit scud authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on October 31, 2002.
Signed this clay March 3, 1999.
VVN .
Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
3.
By Authority of the Environmental Management Comrni3sioin

SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Town of Highlands
is hereby authorized to:
Permit No. NC0021407
1. (ontinue to operate a 0.500 MGD dual -path wastewater treatment plant consisting or an
i 1111 ii nt sc•rei. n. dual 0.25 MGD sequencing batch reactor tanks, each with 7.5 HP floating
mixers, gravity decanters, 2.0 HP sludge wasting pumps;30_0. HP blowers with coarse bubble
type diffusers and. motorized inlet valves; a sludge digesting system: a 69,000 gallon post-
ekitialil1tiQrt basin; a_chlorinc injection tank,.dual 15,700 gallon..chlorinc contact basins, a
1.1 declhlorinatiCon tank, -an -ultrasonic flow.meter,-.a post aeration.strp•weir, and a 355 GPM dual
-wimp lift station. west of Hiehlands,.Macon County (See Part III of this permit), and
Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map to the Cullasaja River which is classified Class B-Trout waters in the Little Tennessee
R i vet. il.i: in.
ri

1
rba
Permit NC0021407
1I
STATE.OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
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
.tire! Iegulacic'irs prumulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Town of Highlands
is hereby authorized. to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Highlands WWTP
below Lake Sequoyah Dam
west of Highlands
Macon County
rrc•c•iviru waters designated as the Cullasaja River in the Little Tennessee River
E3tsin
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 March 1, 1999.
ThiN permit anti authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on October 31, 2002.
Sigrwci this cthy Fc:hruary 12, 1999.
A. Preston Howard. Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
ragl

fan
f
LatitucdN 35 '0 4'03"
Longitude 83° 13'31 "
Sub -basin 040401
B-Trout
Disc:har'7e Class 1
Receiving Stream Cul!asaia River _
Design Q V '.sco permit expires 10/31/02
QUAD LOCATION
Town of HighlanCs
NCCO2I 407
Macon County

1
I ! I 1 '
I 1
11
3-
•
•
•
J
A:1i EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ANC MONITORING HEOLIRE TENTS
C �r,r � the penceire irn r • . .
Permit No NCCu2•-407
g :.g on the effec:: a da.t~ of :he permit and lasting .,rti expire! on try o
X 1 Such dis: iarges shall te rnrted ard rron,to!ed by the Pe rrrrtee as soecr eJ t;e.o.+; E er^��t:ce s �.:t►::,r.zzc :o discharge t:c G.aIfall(Si Sc'li�) ;;�2r
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICSLIl41ffS
ecc? 207. , ;.� - _____r �,3Cri��tG6
Ei -da, . T_il 1 • ()doper 31 — 3U. C mgrT 13-i T
Gt?. �-da•- r �a ,
. 20' C (November 1- March 31) 30T.0 mg71--""'-43' g; --
Total Suspended Residue rngr 4grf
5.0 m
�NFtTFI`(Apr, - c:o er 8 3 mg/i
'WHIN (November 1- March 31) 20.0 mg/I
Fecal Colrform (geometric mean) 2001100 ml
Total Residual ChTcilihe
Temperature
Monthly
Average.
Dissolved Oxygen
pH5
total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + ( N)
Total Phosphorus
Notes:
2 Sample locations: E - Effluent. J - Influent, U - Upstream of the outf ail, but below the dam, 0 - Downstream at nearest ac
cessible site below outran..
Permitting Regdtr'enent forTridutary Sewer Collgction lines: Sewer lines
ownership, or crossing-rightp of wity, shall not be made tributary to the collection systemere ng thmore than is facine lity runless asr crossing
foorrrthh under
construction gnta
operation of the tributary ling has been issued by the Division of Water Quality. P e and
3 The monthly average effluent B005 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value
The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be Tess than 5.0 mg/I. (85 %removal)
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.
400/1007
MONITORING REQUIREMEITTS
Weekly , Daily N a imum 1 easurernen
Average I ample SainpTe` --
Frequency
' e.ekl•!Type Location'
tion'
' Continuous Kecolo.n3_ --T z —Coposr E - ET— -
Weekly
Composite E. 1
--Weekly Composite t-`- T
ee y
22 ug/I
Weekly
Weekly
TGomposrfe"" E .
Composite E
Wifikly - Grab E,
ek Grab E
ee y
Weekly Grab E_, U,D
Grab
1-
Semi-annually Composite
Semi-annually f Composite F

n
PART I
Mri
$eetion B. Schsdyja of Comigiancl
1. The permittee shall comply with Fiscal Effluent Limitations specified for discharges in accordance
with the following schedule:
Permlttee shall comply with Final Effluent Limitations by the effective date of the permit unless
specified below.
2. Pernuttee shall at all tinies provide the operation and maintenance necessary to operate the
existing facilities at optimum effidency.
n 3. No later than 14 calendar. days following a date Identified in the above schedule of compliance,
the permittee shall submit the a report of progress or, in the case of specific actions bang
required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance. In the latter case,
the notice shall include•thezause of nenmaspllance, any remedial itctions taken, and the
probability of meeting the next schedule requirements.
1
Pal
r=1
rim
Emi

pin
APPENDIX G
fl
n
Highlands 20412.10.CL

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
an Natural Resources '
Division of Water Quality'
Mictlael F. Easley, Governor
F.► Witham G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
r.
Fin
i,
mart
r=t
Mr. ' 'chard Betz
To tor
August 14, 2002
�--- Hoke -I RCS
rth Carolina 28741 Hoge , °73
Noar, CAROUNA CEPARTrsENr OF
ENvtRONMEwr ANO NATURAL. R sounees
Subject: Speculative Limits for the Town of Highlands I.
NPDES Permit NC0021407
Highlands WWTP
Macon County
Dear Mr. Betz: •
The "'own of Highlands requested speculative limits for an expanded discharge of 13 MGD to • the Cullasaja
River. The Division of Water Quality has reviewed the request and provides the following response.
The Jpecu1ative limits presented here are based
a5ed on our understanding of the proposal and of present
environmental conditions. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) cannot guarantee that it will:issue the Town .in
N permit at the expanded flow rate. Nor can we guarantee that the effluent limitations and other
requ rements included in any permit will be exactly as presented here. Final decisions on these matters will be - •
mad only after the Division•receives and evaluates a formal permit application for the Town's proposed
discharge.
Envi nmental.Assessments of New Projects
Pie be aware that the Town of Highlands will have to evaluate this project for environmental impacts before
recei ing a modified permit. Anyone proposing to construct new or expanded waste treatment facilities using
pub) c funds or public (state) lands must first prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) when wastewater flews
(1) ua1 or exceed 0.5 MCD or (2) exceed one-third of the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream. 'DWQ will not
accept a permit application for a project requiring an environmental assessment until the Division has approved
the IIA
and sent a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
If an Environmental Assessment is required, it should contain a clear justification for • the proposed facility. It
should provide an analysis of potential alternatives, including a thorough evaluation of non -discharge
elter•tatives. Nondischa ge alternatives or alternatives to expansion, such as spray irrigation, water conservantin,
inflol and infiltratiorvreduction or connection to a regional treatment and disposal system, are 'Considered to be
envi onmentally preferable to a surface water discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes.'
the (erred alternative must be the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse•
impact on the environment is required to be implemented. If the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a
1617 Maul Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Etlual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer VISIT US OWN THE INTERNET QD
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

r= 8-30-202 9 : 31 AM FROM P. 3
Flow
BODs - Monthly Average
BODs - Weekly Average
NH3-N (Summer) - Monthly Average .
NH3-N (Summer) - Weekly Average -
NH3-N (Winter) - Monthly Average
NH3-N (Winter) - Weekly Average
Total Suspended Residue - Monthly Average
Total Suspended Residue - Weekly Average
Dissolved Oxygen
. Fecal Coliform - Monthly Average
Fecal CoIiform - Weekly Average
pH
Total Residual Chlorine
Chronic Toxicity •
ram Spec}lative NPDES Limits
- .Towri of Highlands
NEVES NC0021407
rmt 1
significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment, you must then prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement. Todd Kennedy of the Water Quality Planning Branch can provide additional information regarding
the tirernents of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act. You ran contact Mr. Kennedy directly at [phone],
ext..
Spellative EffJq nt Limits •
•
The vibinter 7Q10 flow has been updated. The winter 7Q10 flow used during the previous permitting cycle was
based on and an analysis of flow records from 1971 through 1983 and included the influence of the hydroelectric
facdli y . Since the hydroelectric facility has been shutdown for sometime, the winter 7Q10 flow calculated during
the p evious permitting cycle is no longer accurate. Therefore, the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
recalculated the winter 7Q10 flow and based on preliminary results, the winter 7Q10 flow has been revised to 7.45
ds. Even though the winter 7Q10 has been updated, the flow having the greatest influence on permit limitations
conti!ues to be the summer 7Q10. The summer 7Q10 flow remains unchanged sinde the previous permitting
'cycle(confirmed by USGS).
Based on the available information, tentative limits for a proposed expansion of the discharge to 1.5 MGD to the
Cullasaja River are presented below.
Efflugnt Limits for 1.5 MCD
(MGD) 1.5
(mg/L) 30.0
(mg/L.) 45.0
(mg/L) 3.4
(mg/L) See Text
(rng/L:) 6.7
(mg/L) See Text
(mg/L) 30.0
(mg/L) 45.0
(mg/L) 5.0
(1/100 mL) 200
(x/100 mL) 400
(S.U.) 6.0 - 9.0
(ug/L) 22
Pass/Fail 0 24.4% with Ceriodaphnia DLUbia
l•w im'ts. The flow will be limited to 1.5 MGD as requested by the consultant. This limit will be applied as a
monthly average.
130 _ Th—e limits for these parameters were based on the waste assimilating capacity of the receiving stream at
low fiow conditions. Tfit!limitations presented here are based on the results of a one dimensional dissolved
oxygen model. Based on the results of this -modeling effort, secondary treatment limits will protect North
Carolina's instream dissolved oxygen standard in the Cullasaja River.

8-30-202 9:31AM FROM
P. 4
WWI
rm1
Total Residual Chlorine (TRQ.• In North Carolina, waters designated as trout waters have a TRC standard. Since
the Cutlasaja River is designated as trout water, a limit for total residual chlorine is included for protection of the
TRC tandard.
Spe lative NPDES Limits
Town of Highlands
NPE1ES NC0021407
NH3-N. Amonia was evaluated ated for both dissolved oxygen depletion and toxicity. The limits For ammonia are
based on protection of the instream toxicity and North Carolina's instream ammonia criteria. These speculative
limits currently contain only monthly average limits for ammonia The Division is currently evaluating an •
appropriate•weekly average limit for all discharges in North Carolina. The current schedule is to complete this
evaluation by September 30, 2002, At that time, the Division will begin requiring both monthly and weekly •
av ge limits for ammonia.
• Tota Sus . ded Solids. The limits for total suspended solids are standard for secondary treatment of municipal
• %ast: water.
Fecal Coliform. pH. The limits for fecal coliform bacteria and pH are derived to protect water quality in the
recet ing stream and remain the same as the existing permit. The fecal coliform limit is based on a geometric
me ...
Ch
. Chronic pass/fail toxicity testing at 24.4% with Ceriodaphnia-Dubnia will be required
in th& NPDES permit for a wasteflow of 1.5 MGD. Quarterly monitoring will be required. The Division of Water
Quality requires toxicity testing for major discharges. Since major is defined as greater than or equal to 1 MGD of
wastgflow, at the expanded flow the facility will be -considered a major discharger and a toxicity limit is required.
Toxi
e iss. lv . Ox : en. Limits for dissolved oxygen are based on protection of North Carolina's standard.
Nutrients: Total Phosphorus. Total Nitrnggn. No limits for nutrients are recommended at this time. However, if
futu * instream assessments indicate that the accumulation of nutrients are creating eutrophication problems, •
nutthnt limits may be added to the permit.
The ivision of Water Quality will perform a complete evaluation of limits•and monitoring requirements for
metals and other toxicants when we review theTown's
Town s formal permit application.
I tru this response offers sufficient guidance for the County's proposed treatment plant. If you have any
additional questions about these limits, feel free to contact Michael Myers at [phone], extension 508.
cc:
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Unit
Asheville Regional Office - Division of Water Quality •
Callie Dobson - Division of Water Quality; Planning Branch
Todd Kennedy /Division of Water Quality, Planning Branch
Central Files
NPDES Unit Files