WQ0004972_More Information (Requested)_20230718

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
July 18, 2023
GEORGE GUDGEON — SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
MHC TT, L.P.
2 NORTH RIVERSIDE PLAZA — SUITE 800
CHICAGO, ILLMIS 60606
Subject: Application No. WQ0004972
Additional Information Request
Forest Lake Preserve WWTP
Wastewater Irrigation System
Davie County
Dear Mr. Gudgeon:
Division of Water Resources' Central and Regional staff has reviewed the application package
received on April 28, 2023. However, additional information is required before the review may be
completed. Please address the items on the attached pages no later than the close of business on August
17, 2023.
Please be aware that you are responsible for meeting all requirements set forth in North Carolina
rules and regulations. Any oversights that occurred in the review of the subject application package are
still the Applicant's responsibility. In addition, any omissions made in responding to the outstanding items
in Sections A through L, or failure to provide the additional information on or before the above -requested
date may result in your application being returned as incomplete pursuant to 15A NCAC 02T .0107(e)(2).
Please reference the subject application number when providing the requested information. All
revised and/or additional documentation shall be signed, sealed, and dated (where needed), with an
electronic response submitted to my attention at: httl)s:Hedocs.deci.nc.2ov/Forms/NonDischarl;e-Branch-
Submittal-Form-Ver2.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at [phone] or
[e-mail]. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
45A5610464524E7...
Zachary J. Mega, Engineer II
Division of Water Resources
cc: Winston-Salem Regional Office, Water Quality Regional Operations Section (Electronic Copy)
Corey W. M. King, PE — Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Electronic Copy)
Laserfiche File (Electronic Copy)
�D_E Q`J/ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NORTH CAROLINA
DepaMlent of Environmental Duality 919.707.9000

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 2 of 15
A. Cover Letter:
A cover letter was not included in the submitted application package. Please include a cover letter
that summarizes what existing structures will remain, what existing structures will be abandoned
and how they will be abandoned, what structures are proposed, and the treatment capacity and
disposal capacity of the proposed system in GPD. This will aid in the continued review of the
project.
B. Application Fee:
1. No comment.
C. Application (Form: WWIS 06-16):
1. Overall —
a. Our records currently show the designated ORC and the Back-up ORC do not have their WW-
2 certifications applied to this facility, which has a WW-2 classification in addition to the SI
classification. Please submit an Operator Designation Form via email to the Water Pollution
Control System Operators Certification Commission (WPCSOCC) and include a copy of this
completed form in your response to me to have this information updated in our records. [ 15A
NCAC 02T .01171
b. The collection system was recently expanded from what is listed in the existing permit facility
description. Please consult with the Permittee to verify the current number of grinder pump
stations and linear feet of collection piping.
2. Item III.3. — Mr. G. Christopher Murray did not provide the Hydrogeologic Report. Please revise
this section with Mr. Eric G. Lappala's information.
3. Item IV.3. — Both "Yes" and "No" were selected for this item. Please clarify this selection.
4. Item IV.7. —
a. The item concerning flow reductions was left blank. Please provide an answer to this
application item.
b. Please recalculate the wastewater daily design flow per the existing permit facility description,
coordination with the Permittee, and 15A NCAC 02T .0114. Caitlin Caudle of the Winston-
Salem Regional Office (WSRO) listed 283 campsites, 18 cabins, two swimming pools, multiple
bathhouses, multiple laundry facilities, and an office building.
5. Item IV.8. — "No" was selected for this item, however, the 100-year floodplain boundary is near
the proposed and existing irrigation sites. Please confirm that any portion of the irrigation sites are
not located within the 100-year floodplain. If they are, please complete this application item.
6. Item IV.9. — "No" was selected for this item but documentation was provided for threatened or
endangered aquatic species. Please clarify this selection.
7. Item V.3. — Both "Yes" and "No" were selected for this item. Please clarify this selection.

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 3 of 15
8. Item VA — "No" was selected for this item. Please explain how the proposed design will comply
with 15A NCAC 02T .0505(k).
9. Item V.11. — The treatment unit volumes do not match the Engineering Plans. Please verify and
revise.
10. Item V.1 I.c. —
a. The existing permit facility description lists the existing storage pond as 408,000 gallons.
Please verify and revise.
b. How was the 525-minute detention time for chlorine disinfection calculated? Please add this
to the Engineering Calculations.
c. How will the WWTP effluent have enough chlorine contact time between the clearwell and the
storage pond pipe outlet? Will there not be significant dilution when the effluent enters the
storage pond? How will variations in the storage pond water level affect the chlorine
disinfection efficacy?
d. Where will WWTP effluent samples be taken to prove that the chlorine disinfection system is
effective and the irrigated effluent is meeting the fecal coliform limits of 200 colonies/100 mL?
f 15A NCAC 02T .0505(b)(1)]
e. What will the irrigation schedule be if the proposed chlorine contact time within the storage
pond is 525 minutes?
11. Item V.11.e. —
a. Please depict and label the chemical CIP, priming (air purge), anoxic mixing, and anti-
foam/alkalinity feed pumps on the Engineering Plans.
b. The number of transfer and FAS pumps is listed as one, however, there is one transfer pump
and two FAS pumps shown on the Engineering Plans. Please verify and revise.
c. The flow capacity for the transfer pump in the record drawings of the Cloacina O&M Manual
is listed as 45 GPM. Please verify and revise.
d. Please add the chlorine feed pump to this table. Please also depict and label it on the
Engineering Plans.
12. Item V.1 Lf. —
a. What is the sixth unit being served by the HIBlow blowers? There are only five treatment units
listed in the Cloacina O&M Manual. Please verify and revise.
b. The Cloacina O&M Manual record drawings list four different types of blowers with different
capacities. Please verify and revise.

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 4 of 15
13. Item V.1 l.h. —
a. Please depict and label the influent and effluent flow measuring devices on the Engineering
Plans.
b. The Cloacina O&M Manual includes a WAS flow measuring device and a turbidimeter within
the instrumentation equipment. Will these be included in this specific package plant? If so,
please depict and label them on the Engineering Plans and add them to this application item.
14. Item V11.2. — "No" was selected for this item, however, Caitlin Caudle of the WSRO noted
multiple ditches located within and adjacent to the proposed irrigation sites that are not shown on
the Engineering Plans or addressed in the Soil Evaluation and Hydrogeologic Report (see the
attached figure). Please depict and label these ditches on the Engineering Plans. Please also discuss
these ditches in the Soil Evaluation and Hydrogeologic Report and complete this application item.
15. Item VII.3. — The recommended loading rates listed do not match the Soil Evaluation and the
number of fields is incorrect. The Soil Evaluation only discusses one soil series for the project
area. Please revise the Soil Evaluation to discuss both soil series present and revise this table.
16. Item VII.5. — Caitlin Caudle of the WSRO noted there are existing golf cart trails near the proposed
irrigation sites and recommends more robust protection than a standard two -strand fence with gated
access.
17. Item VII.6. — Please depict and label the irrigation system flow meter on the Engineering Plans.
18. Item VII.7. —
a. The proposed cover crop for the irrigation sites is not evergreen trees per the Agronomist
Evaluation and the average slope will be much higher than 0.5%. The listed soil series does
not apply to this site. Please verify and revise this table.
b. Please correct the proposed nitrogen mineralization rate.
c. How were the minimum irrigation areas calculated based on the nitrogen and phosphorus
balances? These calculations were not discussed in the Agronomist Evaluation and appear to
be too small considering the proposed WWTP daily design flow. Please verify and revise.
d. How were the minimum irrigation areas calculated based on the Water Balance? These
calculations were not discussed in the Hydrogeologic Report or included in the Engineering
Calculations and appear to be too small considering the proposed WWTP daily design flow.
Please verify and revise.
19. Item VII.8. —
a. The listed irrigation site names and acreages do not match the Engineering Plans. Please verify
and revise.
b. The listed design hourly loading rate does not match the Engineering Plans. Please verify and
revise.
c. The listed design annual loading rate is incorrect and too low. It should be based on the daily
design flow calculated in Item IV.7. (subtracting out the existing disposal capacity and area as
shown on Sheet C-6 of the Engineering Plans) and not divided between the total number of
proposed irrigation sites. Please verify and revise.

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 5 of 15
20. Item VIII.3. —
a. The individual campsites on the property are considered on -site places of assembly. Please
verify that the proposed irrigation sites are a minimum of 200' from the cleared treeline of the
individual campsites per 15A NCAC 02T .0506(a). There appear to be newly constructed
campsites located to the west of the WWTP not accounted for in the design.
b. Caitlin Caudle of the WSRO noted an unmarked well located at the southwestern toe slope of
the storage pond (see the attached figure). Please determine if this well is still active (and its
current use) or has been previously abandoned by the Permittee. If it is still active, please
verify that it is a minimum of 100' from any treatment or storage unit (permitted freeboard
elevation for the storage pond) and depict/label the well on the Engineering Plans and Site Map.
21. Item VIIIA — "Yes" was selected for this item, however, the listed effluent concentrations do not
match the Engineering Calculations and the values for fecal coliforms and turbidity are missing.
The listed effluent concentrations also do not meet the requirements outlined in 15A NCAC 02U
.0301. Based on the proposed site layout, this facility would not benefit from reduced irrigation
setbacks to property lines as standard setbacks are already met. Please either revise the listed
effluent concentrations or clear this section and select "No" for this application item.
D. Property Ownership Documentation:
1. No comment.
E. Soil Evaluation:
1. Overall —
a. Section VII of Form: WWIS 06-16 and the Engineering Plans specify two predominant soil
series (PcB2 and PcC2) based on the range of slopes present at the project site (3-20%). Please
revise the Soil Evaluation to provide recommendations for the two different soil series. Annual
and hourly hydraulic loading rates (HLR) will be reduced because of the higher slopes.
b. The Soil Evaluation was completed more than one year before the submittal of this application
package. Please provide a statement from the soil scientist indicating that the site has not
changed since the original investigation.
c. There are areas of the proposed irrigation sites where spray radii are outside of the Suitable
Soil Boundary (SSB) established in the Soil Evaluation (see the attached figure). Please either
revise the proposed spray head layout to be within the SSB or have the soil scientist provide a
statement that confirms these areas outside the established SSB are composed of the same soil
series analyzed in the Soil Evaluation.

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 6 of 15
2. Patrick L. Mitchell, LSS, the Regional Soil Scientist for the Central Region of the Division of Soil
and Water Conservation provided the following recommendations about the Soil Evaluation. He
and Caitlin Caudle of the WSRO conducted a soil investigation of the facility on May 30, 2023.
Seven soil borings were collected using a hand auger within the areas of the proposed irrigation
sites (see the attached figure) and compared to those provided by Piedmont Environmental
Associates, P.A. (PEA).
a. The slopes in the areas of soil borings #5 and #6 were roughly 20%, as indicated in PEA soil
borings #15 and #17. In addition, the depth of the sandy loam topsoil above the clayey subsoils
was found to be approximately five inches thick. Given the slope and thickness of the topsoil,
it is recommended that the hourly HLR in this area be reduced. An hourly HLR of 0.20 to 0.25
in/hr may be more appropriate.
b. The sandy loam topsoil layer observed in the area of soil boring #7 was found to be less than
one inch thick before transitioning into clayey subsoils. It is recommended that the hourly
HLR in this area be reduced as well. An hourly HLR of 0.20 in/hr may be more appropriate.
c. The proposed annual HLR of 36.82 in/yr using a maximum drainage coefficient of 10%
proposed by PEA is acceptable for most areas. However, due to the slopes present in the area
of soil borings #5 and #6, it is recommended that the annual HLR be reduced in this area. The
annual HLR could be decreased by > 20% (i.e., reduce the annual HLR to approximately 30
in/yr or less) to account for the increased slopes.
3. Hydraulic Conductivity Analysis —
a. This section recommends "a maximum dosing rate of 0.3 inches per dose" and a "minimum
two-hour "soak period" between irrigation events. What is considered a "dose" in this
scenario? How does this differ from the recommended hourly HLR?
b. Some of the KsaT measurements provided were not at a steady state before the test was
concluded and consecutive KsAT measurements were not always used to calculate the average
result for the soil horizon at each site. Please provide the field worksheets used to calculate the
recommended KsAT for the Water Balance and an explanation for these discrepancies.
F. Agronomist Evaluation:
1. Section I — This section mentions "over approximately 14 [acres] of newly dedicated spray field.",
which is incorrect based on the Engineering Plans. Please revise.
2. Section II — This section mentions "one major soil series", which should be two based on the
Engineering Plans. Please revise.
3. Section III — This section states "Soils were not analyzed for nitrogen due to the dynamic nature of
soil N." Please obtain updated soil fertility results that provide a nitrogen loading recommendation.
4. Section IV — The effluent TN concentration used is incorrect. The Engineering Calculations show
a proposed effluent TN concentration of 10 mg/L. Please verify and revise.

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 7 of 15
5. Section V —
a. Please provide the calculations used to obtain the estimated annual nitrogen loading rate of
36.7 lb N/ac/yr.
b. Where was the RYE of 80 lb N/ac/yr mentioned in Section V obtained? Tree crops are not
available on the NCSU website(https://realisticyields.ces.ncsu.edu/l.
6. Section VI — Please provide the calculations used to obtain the estimated annual phosphorous
loading rate of 8.3 lb P205/ac/yr.
7. Section VII — This section mentions "reclaimed wastewater". Please revise to "wastewater".
G. Wdroaeoloeic Report:
1. Overall —
a. There is no discussion of the 100-year floodplain in this report. Given the proximity of the
100-year floodplain to the irrigation sites, please discuss this in the report and how it will affect
site conditions.
b. Due to the historic use of the project site for wastewater irrigation, a contaminant transport
analysis is necessary to assess the existing groundwater conditions. Please conduct a
contaminant transport analysis and summarize the results in the report.
c. MW-4 is currently located in the middle of a proposed irrigation site. This well must be
permanently abandoned before the operation of the modified facilities. This was not discussed
in the report. Please discuss the permanent abandonment of MW-4.
d. The report does not discuss the new downgradient monitoring well that will need to replace
MW-4. Additionally, it is recommended that a second new monitoring well be installed on the
western edge of the proposed irrigation sites. Please provide a figure showing the proposed
locations of all new monitoring wells and discuss this in the report.
2. The "Introduction" section on Page 4 mentions "the areas evaluated for the additional sprayfields
areas comprise approximately 14 acres" which is incorrect based on the Engineering Plans. Please
revise.
3. The "Approach" section on Page 5 states that three borings were installed in areas identified for
new irrigation sites. However, there is no mention of these borings anywhere else in the report.
Were these borings completed? If so, please provide a figure showing the location of these borings,
construction records, and any other relevant data.
4. The topographic map provided on Page 6 is not legible enough to show information for the
immediate project site. Please provide a larger, more legible topographic map that shows the
project site in detail.
In multiple locations (Pages 7 and 12), it states that the project site is located within the Carolina
Slate Belt, which is not correct. The project site is located within the Charlotte and Milton Belts.
On Page 12, it states that the hydraulic conductivity of Unit 2 was assigned an initial value of 0.01
ft/day based on literature values for fractured granite and rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt. Please
revise the report and model to use the correct geology for the project site and comment on any
changes to the model results.

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 8 of 15
6. Our records for well construction data on the four existing monitoring wells located at the facility
are insufficient. Page 10 states that data collected from MW-1 was not included in the geometric
mean for hydraulic conductivity because it may be partially screened into the fractured bedrock.
The media where the existing monitoring wells are located should be verified to determine if the
calculated hydraulic conductivity is appropriate for the project site. Please provide well
construction records for the four existing monitoring wells and revise the report and model as
necessary.
7. Page 10 states that the calculated geometric mean for hydraulic conductivity of the surficial unit is
2.63 ft/day. However, on Page 12 it states that 3 ft/day was used in the model. Please justify using
3 ft/day instead of the calculated value of 2.63 ft/day, which is more conservative.
Page 10 states that boring logs were used to determine subsurface conditions. There were no boring
logs included in the report. Please provide all boring logs for the project site.
9. Mounding Analysis (Page 20) —
a. Please explain why the existing irrigation site has no irrigation capacity for April.
b. Please justify the use of a variable drainage coefficient for the existing irrigation site while
keeping the proposed irrigation sites constant or change the model to use a single drainage
coefficient for all irrigation sites.
c. Please revise the acreages for the existing and proposed irrigation sites to match the
Engineering Plans.
d. The existing permit lists the annual hydraulic loading rate for the existing irrigation site as 46.8
in/yr. Why is it listed as 26.17 in/yr for the mounding analysis?
e. This section states that the red areas in Figures 11 through 22 indicate where the modeled depth
to groundwater is one foot or less, however, the figure captions state two feet or less in depth.
Please verify and revise.
10. Conclusion (Page 33) -
a. The beginning of this section mentions existing water supply well information. There are no
existing water supply wells at this facility. Please revise.
b. This section states that "the simulated groundwater flow patterns are consistent with the
conceptual model". Groundwater flow patterns are not discussed in the report. Please clarify
this statement and include a discussion of groundwater flow patterns.
c. The groundwater model does not account for seasonal peak flows, which historically have
occurred at this facility and can continue for several days. Recommend adding peak flow
analysis to the groundwater modeling and discussing this in the report.
H. Water Balance:
1. Please revise the acreages for the existing and proposed irrigation sites to match the Engineering
Plans.
2. The existing permit lists the annual hydraulic loading rate for the existing irrigation site as 46.8
in/yr. Why is it listed as 26.17 in/yr for the Water Balance?

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 9 of 15
3. Please explain why the existing irrigation site has no irrigation for April.
4. The Water Balance assumes the initial water level in the storage pond is zero. This is an incorrect
assumption because the storage pond will never be empty due to the minimum liquid level required
to protect the submerged pumps. Please coordinate with the Permittee and revise the Water Balance
to start with a realistic operating water level in the storage pond.
I. Engineering Plans:
1. Overall —
a. Are the existing force mains traffic bearing? The new unpaved access road is proposed over
them. If not, please revise the plans as necessary (i.e., pipe sleeves, etc.) and add the required
details and specifications.
b. Please provide more clarification on the plans for the abandonment of the existing treatment
train (i.e., what will be removed from the site, what will be abandoned in place, etc.)
2. Sheet C-2 — Some of the call -outs for the existing force mains point to blank space. Please revise.
3. Sheet C-3 — Please show the proposed unpaved access road.
4. Sheet C-4 —
a. The elevations shown for the FFE/TOW of the proposed WWTP and sludge holding tank do
not match Sheet C-5. Please verify and revise.
b. Please show the proposed unpaved access road.
5. Sheet C-5 —
a. The top of the sludge holding tank is labeled as "WS EL. 749.50". Should this be the top of
the tank instead?
b. The peak water -surface elevation for the clearwell chamber is listed as 749.58', which is only
0.20' below the specified TOW. Please verify and revise.
c. Please revise the pipe linework above the chlorine dosing tank.
d. Please provide elevations for the storage pond discharge and irrigation pump station.
e. The tank volumes listed on the process flow diagram do not match those specified in Form:
WWIS 06-16. See Comment C.9.
f. The hydraulic profile labels the influent screen as "Fine Screens" and the process flow diagram
as "Micro Screen". Please verify and revise to be consistent.
g. Should the influent static screen on the repurposed equalization tank be included in the process
flow diagram?

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 10 of 15
6. Sheet C-6 —
a. The calculated irrigation rate of 20,333 GPD for the existing irrigation site in the bottom left
of the sheet does not match the label on the plan view. This calculation should also use the
average daily flow (ADF) for the treatment facility, not the peak flow. The designed hourly
hydraulic loading rate is one decimal place off as well. Please verify and revise.
b. Please label the proposed location of air release valves for each irrigation site.
c. Please verify the overlapping irrigation area between Fields A and B is not double -counted.
d. Please delineate and label the 100-year floodplain boundary. See Comment C.5.
e. Please delineate and label the on -site ditches. See Comment C.14.
f. Please show the missing major and minor contour lines on the majority of the sheet. See
Comment L.9.
g. See Comments L.5. and L.8.
7. Sheet C-7 —
a. Will the existing fence be impacted during the construction of the three new effluent mains and
retrofit of the existing effluent main?
b. Should a pressure relief valve be specified for the first effluent main? This effluent main runs
to the proposed irrigation site with the highest spray head elevation.
c. Please label the location of the precipitation/soil moisture sensor and backflow preventers.
8. Sheet C-10 —
a. Please provide details for backflow preventers and proposed irrigation site fencing.
b. Please label the brick supports on Detail 4 to be consistent with the other details.
c. Is Detail 8 for the "Typical Air/Vacuum Release" the same as the pressure relief valves shown
for the effluent mains on Sheet C-7?
9. Sheet M-2 —
a. There is a note about a canopy structure on this sheet, which was not mentioned anywhere else
in the Engineering Plans. Please clarify this note.
b. Are all seven blowers specified under Item V.1 Lf. on Form: WWIS 06-16 contained in the two
housings shown in Section 1?

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 11 of 15
10. Sheet M-3 —
a. Please label the air diffusers shown in Section 1.
b. Please add the "Existing Tank to be Abandoned in Place" note shown in Section 3 to Sheet C-
3. It is not mentioned anywhere else in the Engineering Plans.
c. What is the pipe shown intersecting the steel wall in Section 3?
11. Sheet M-4 —
a. Please dimension the total height of the sludge holding tank in Detail 3.
b. Detail 3 labels the sludge holding tank as 2,000 gallons and the call -out specifies 5,000 gallons.
Sheet C-5 and the Residuals Management Plan specify 6,000 gallons. Please verify and revise.
12. Sheets M-5 & M-6 — Some of these details were not called out on the previous sheets. Were they
used?
J. Specifications:
1. Overall —
a. Please provide equipment specifications/product cut sheets for the equalization pumps,
chlorine disinfection system, sludge transfer pump, sludge holding tank, and Or-Tec LO-
FLOW screen (i.e., any proposed equipment/treatment unit/storage unit outside of the package
plant). Please also provide a chemical data sheet for the liquid chlorine that will be used in the
proposed disinfection system.
b. Please provide equipment specifications/product cut sheets for the irrigation system
components (spray heads, irrigation pumps, etc.)
2. Under the heading "1.02 Related Sections" in Sections 02315 and 02320 there is a reference to
Section 02240, Dewatering, which was not included in the Specifications. Please either remove
this reference or add this section.
Section 11300, Wastewater Treatment Plant Supplemental Equipment -
a. Please add specifications for the external sludge holding tank with air diffusers.
b. Please expand the description of "chlorine tank" under the heading "1.01 Scope of Work" to
include the components of the proposed chlorine disinfection system.
c. Under the heading "2.01.13. Flow Equalization Pumps and Flow Control Box" there is a
reference to a flow splitter box. The only flow splitter box shown in the Engineering Plans is
labeled to be demolished after construction is complete. Please add this flow splitter box to the
Engineering Plans.
d. Under the heading "2.03 Chlorination" it states "the pond shall have a minimum capacity of
2,010 gallons total". How was this determined? The listed information about the chlorine feed
pump differs from what is listed in Section 11500, Liquid Chlorine Feed Equipment. Please
either verify and revise this information or remove it from this section.

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 12 of 15
e. Under the heading "2.04 Sludge Transfer Pump" the listed information about the sludge
transfer pump differs from what is listed in Section 11500, Liquid Chlorine Feed Equipment.
Please either verify and revise this information or remove it from this section.
4. Section 11500, Liquid Chlorine Feed Equipment — Under the heading "1.02 Related Sections"
every section that is referenced except for Division 16 — Electrical is not included in the
Specifications. Please either remove these references or add the specified sections.
5. Section 11503, Dry Pit Pumps —
a. The listed flow capacity and total dynamic head (TDH) do not match what is specified in Item
V.1 Le. on Form: WWIS 06-16. Please verify and revise.
b. Under the heading "2.06 Source Quality Control" there is a reference to Section 16150, which
is not included in the Specifications. Please either remove this reference or add this section.
6. Section 15050, Pipe Systems — General (Piping Schedule) —
a. The pipe material listed for the plant effluent and process air piping does not match the
Engineering Plans. They are shown as PVC and PVC/DI respectively. Please verify and revise.
b. The influent force main is included in the Piping Schedule, however, it is listed as existing on
the Engineering Plans. Is this the piping from the repurposed equalization tank to the head of
the package plant? If so, this is shown as DI on the Engineering Plans. Please verify and
revise.
K. Engineering Calculations:
Overall — No calculations were provided for the irrigation site design (i.e., designed hourly and
annual hydraulic loading rates, irrigation pump sizing, etc.) and the specified auxiliary power
source per Instruction K on Form: WWIS 06-16. Pump sizing and friction/total dynamic head
(TDH) should also be calculated for the proposed pumps outside of the package plant (equalization
pumps, sludge transfer pumps, and irrigation pumps). Please provide the specified calculations.
2. Treatment/Sizing Calculations —
a. What is the design flow to be permitted for this package plant expansion? There are multiple
flows mentioned in the calculations but none of them correspond with the 49,000 GPD
specified in Item IV.7. of Form: WWIS 06-16.
b. The "Project Altitude" within the aeration calculations should be roughly 740 instead. Please
revise.
c. Is a temperature range of 15°C (59°F) to 25°C (77 17) realistic for an open atmosphere tank in
North Carolina (specifically in the summer months)?
d. Is the repurposed aeration tank factored into these calculations as additional capacity? The
calculated volume of the aeration chamber does not meet the required volume specified above.
e. Please show the sizing calculations for the other treatment units of the package plant.
£ Please show the pollutant removal efficiencies for all treatment units and the calculation to
reach the listed effluent concentrations.

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 13 of 15
3. Blower Calculations —
a. The elevation for the inlet flow to the aeration blowers should be roughly 740' instead. Please
revise.
b. Please verify the specified exceedances shown in red on each blower calculation spreadsheet
will not cause operational issues.
c. Please provide blower calculations for the transfer chamber, equalization tank, repurposed
aeration tank, sludge chamber, and sludge tank.
L. Site Man:
1. Please sign, seal, and date the Site Map per Instruction L on Form: WWIS 06-16. f 15A NCAC
02T .0504(d)]
2. Please delineate and label the compliance and review boundaries for the irrigation sites per 15A
NCAC 02L .0107 and 02L .0108.
3. Please delineate and label the on -site ditches. Please also verify and show they meet the 25' setback
per 15A NCAC 02T .0506(a). See Comment C.14.
4. Please label the name and acreage of the irrigation sites.
5. Please extend the 150' property setback hatched polygon past the existing irrigation site. Please
also revise the irrigation spray area boundary (and spray head layout, if applicable) so it does not
intersect the 150' property setback hatched polygon.
6. Please update the habitable residency/place of assembly boundary to include the newly constructed
campsites to the west of the WWTP. See Comment C.20.a.
7. Please delineate and label the 100-year floodplain boundary. See Comment C.5.
8. Please depict and label the proposed and existing fencing around the irrigation sites.
9. Please clip the two different contour sources shown so they do not overlap.
M. Power Reliabilitv Plan:
1. Please provide a Power Reliability Plan per Instruction M on Form: WWIS 06-16.
N. Operation & Maintenance Plan:
1. The pages within the submitted O&M Plan are blank. Please resubmit the complete O&M Plan.

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 14 of 15
O. Residuals Management Plan:
1. Please revise the rule reference in Section Ito either 15A NCAC 02T .0504(i) or 15A NCAC 02T
.0508.
2. Section II discusses an Or-Tec auger that will collect trash and sediment. Is this the same as the
Or-Tec LO-FLO screen reference in the Engineering Plans? Please revise for consistency.
3. Should the static bar screen located at the head of the existing treatment train be discussed in
Section II?
4. The sludge management plan described only leaves an excess of roughly 20 gallons when the
sludge chamber of the package plant has its high-water elevation adjusted to 9'. Will this be
realistically manageable for an operator?
P. Additional Documentation:
➢ Existing Permit:
1. No comment.
➢ Floodway Regulation Compliance:
1. Please provide Floodway Regulation Compliance per Instruction P on Form: WWIS 06-16
given the proximity of the 100-year floodplain to the irrigation sites.
➢ Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species Documentation:
1. See Comment C.6.
Q. Recommendations (Response not required):
1. Sheet G-3 — Recommend adding the acronyms FAS, REC, SOC, and TOW that were used
throughout the Engineering Plans to the standard abbreviations list.
2. Sheet C-1 — Recommend cleaning up the leader lines. The majority of them stray from the label
target.
3. Sheet C-8 — Recommend rotating some of the Davie County details that have mostly horizontal
text.
4. Sheet C-10 —
a. There is a typo in the word "Rotor" in Details 1 and 2.
b. The note numbers and text for Detail 3 are misaligned.
c. The labels for Details 5 and 6 overlap.
5. Sheets M-1 & M-3 — Recommend changing the section label "5 (M-3)" to "2 (M-3)" for clarity.

Mr. George Gudgeon
July 18, 2023
Page 15 of 15
6. Sheet M-2 — Sections 1 and 2 should have their label changed to "M-2" to match the current sheet
number.
7. Sheet M-3 — Sections 1, 2, and 3 should have their label changed to "M-3" to match the current
sheet number.
8. Sheet E-5 — There is a typo in Ms. Amy Howard's name next to her signature in the title block.
9. Specifications Sections 11503 and 15110 —The main heading label numbers stray from the heading.

U
C
0
Q
a
6
E
0
_
a
Y
0
0
.3
0
0
Q
a
;_
0
E
0
a
E
Y
a
c
0
a
a
0
a
a
c
0
N
N
0 0
3
o °
J
w
C-0-s
o
� 0
a
2
o .E
Q a
U
o
ry
m
a
oco
L� 3
L
(- U
,+ 3
CD
U
LLJ U
�a
U
N o
N
0
m�
Q)C)
O
o
W
Q
ry
cn a
o �
w o
O
O
U
m C
� o
U�
O
J
0
0
u
U
m
m
00
� � � \\�\ \ \ \ > > 1 \ �-
1 -` ���\�\\\\ �\ \\I I 1 > r t 1\
'� vvv vvv 1 1 1 l \ I � U \ v ° z�!'/ v '�•� ° a,-o 0
o
PROPERTY LINE EXTENT WITHIN 500
FEET OF ALL TREATMENT, STORAGE ( \ \\ 7 \ 1 L L \ \ 1
AND IRRIGATION SITES'
o
o $ �J
°
�
l 11 I I 111 I/// / �/�� ��`'/� (�\ \ 11\ 1\\\ \\Zl\I \ i ✓ J \\� �\ \�\ \\ \\\ \\ \ \ \ c \\ \��t>� < �np\o vL.
��\�1 f /( Z/(r I /\ /\/ �� / �/- N \f �,^\ 1 � \� 11 �`\> 1 \IIII \ ✓J ///\////� '' / -` J ---- � \\1���\\\���\\\\\\\�lr�\� 1 � \ 1\\ \\ � 1 _ Q �--� al � \ � � � -� ,-�\ � °)
I/II III lI
Jl\ I I I 670 \ w 1 1 < 1 t \ 1 o \
;1� ✓,—����r>>(l/li( Ilia/�f ///� � �/ � \ 1 � f 1 h 11\\�;-J/ j/!.� / ,-~��\��\\�\\\\\\\ \ -- "'
1 / 770
-I� l\\r 1t l\��C((/III (/ ((� i �`-- -. ,\1 \ I �\( (I (I`\ i�i � ii -� \�\\ �1\� \ ����� 1(� \\\�1-�� \ \� � --\ c _ l o -,o t (\ � a S°r ✓ �s� \ \ a o
lr/�5(r//� ��r(} / /\ ( I\ )ICI 1( III I1(\ /� /� JJ/j i�;^�\ \\��1�\\\\\�\�))1(������~\\�l�\\\\\\\\� \\ \ :� / ° S `1 1 < \ ✓ \(,°ao )
�
/I(I-
///�
/
// �l\/j////��ff/\// jj%� r�✓ , J�` \\ �}I I1�^�0(/ }111I(f�r �!(\ �Jf/ r l J 1 I\ ) �1 \11111\ 11�-\\ \\ \ ��\\\\\�\�\ �\\ /- `\�� S /llhr ���_ Jo -- \\\
U\
, PROPOSED IRRIGATION HEAD _-
I SPRAY AREA TO BE REMOVED06
IIII f ll / /( I ( I / I 1 / \ 1 L \ 1 ) rA C / //� /�� i / � < //� /( ) i 1 I \ \ \ V A\ TYP. OF 3) 'q4,> � t
/ //J/(( f ///� ) / / (( J /('�i 1111 1 \\\ I I) 1 \I�\ I�\ \ �\ P�B2 ( ( EXISTING MONITORING WELLMW-3 0 w S \ \
✓r —=— SS ° \
1� (//�� � / /ii/I ) ( l(( I �lNl I fA�\l (�1\vv\ P�c2
1\) \1((vII \ \ \
,
'N r / i/t/ram / j r/i// �i J/ \ LV !
I /�ii / ��/ /�/ r / /// //lv�ll J I I 1 I 1 I r o A A v I v (� _ °a v- J ( �//
1 /r \ v \\
�110(-
�?�
SOIL TYPE SEPARATION (TYP.) /% ( \ ( I \ \ Z
IjI I/ v) t� �v v� v vvv v vvv ���w ��� o rev �1l /// /� // /< s I/ I v v _ - s
// / (/% / \ ( % ) V VA\ d� EXISTING IRRIGATION HEAD
710 SPRAY AREA TYP. ? a
If
-710�� > ( 1 \ >) v vti a
I\1 � � A / J
1U-
FOOT SETBACK
IA( I v v1 \ / - A 6 1
PER NCDEO\A\ \\ \ 1 I I / ( \ \ ) A I / I I g5 Jo ' \ \ l
s
/PcB2�v `�
��O
\vAvV v v v
-
Z \ 1 1 I (11 A \ \ }
\V�\wI��\ -
V ✓ � � ) ( SOIL TYPE SEPARATION (TYP.)
_ \ ) J c o \1\ c A 7\��\ \ \ �, I ll l l I \1 1� J ) \ \ V A 1I A ° 1 )
\VvVA ��I
o
PROPOSED IRRIGATION TOTAL
( � V\ \1A / ( I f I I/ /� 1 �� \I V / I \ \ v V ) \ V ✓ g0 V\ SPRAY AREA (TYP.) '-
�� /
� �� \� � / ll I J) ( I (I � A )/ J•1� o\ \ 1 \ V 1 1 1 l 1 ,) % �A °''1A\ V� V A \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 � v � l� - .:, v�
---�� ItI /// / I / 1 ///� > I I 1 l I ( 11 �� \ � � \ � a I \ I 1 \ I I 1 ( I } � v / I •\��� -� v 1 \ V � I 1 � \\ vv \ �� � ��-,�_ _
o � �
/
S l 1 / I ( PCB
1 / II (1
I/�c2 ,
O) Ill/ J BRA
l !11} 11t(
�-
\ IIII 11 IVA \ � ---� l �i !�\l I (ll( lff( Illll) IIII(• } �I l I I 1 (( //1 I ( ( � ,�� - �� � � v 1\v11 I ,A.\� \\ \\ v \ o \ -t � ���' �� -,,-. \ VA\ �\I A\\ 1 ��\� L,°
EXISTING \ \ \1A I 1 IIV A 111 ( \ A
r
A a J hn �� \ l
I \ I ; \\\� \ \\ \n
oN sr(RA E MONITORING
1 1
WELL Mw-a
III
1
eA
,J ) ll/ I l l / 11
/Ill / I / / ) 1 \ , �/s ( ( > (( I
\ \ \ 1 I I ( I � 1 1 r,� � -- � vvv vim- z ) Jll1 / �• I/ l l 1 1 �
/ s-
oSr
EXISTING MONITORING WELL MW 1
EXISTING FOREST LAKE
`;1 LINED EFFLUENTSTO GE PO
/�./III •Ill �lll � �I �
/ I l II I I
"\
<
)� ,�
�-\ \/�/�- P�c2 � �/9/,� �-�J// /�i• � Ill l 1 �°�
�� EXISTING FOREST LAKE WWTP �/ / \ > — ✓ / // i % i / v ) A
// � �
\ \\\ \ \ J ��
PROPERTY LINE EXTENT WITHIN 500 \ � -� _— — -� _ � / � � � � / � �j ) ) J / � PROPOSED FOREST LAKE WWTP
/ `\ \
I (1 (' FEET OF ALL TREATMENT, STORAGE
S 1 ) AND IRRIGATION SITES \\ 1 \\ \ ✓ / / i r / /r \ I I 1 i� M J / ( // J/ I /// % / / /%) / — i / / /
.EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
✓ / _ SPRAYFIELD ZONE — J
\1 �\ ^ J' //II 1 / \ J J 11 / I ll l \ \ \ j/ MONITORING WEL L MW-2 ////( �� j EXTENT (TYP.) o / 1 J
� S I \VI\ \\V��/(� ��� �\\ VAA \ `mil � I j I
�
�-
> / %'�(-�—
\\A
o ''� - �--
oca n/ inr �� ��v� ���1 ( C �'�-� � --, J �' � sg5.
r\ \\ \\ \\\� �\ \\ \ �� \�\ �\\ \ \\\ \L <\ _�• � J \// i rl � \�1 ���\\\yam\� /i \-6 `"--�__—_=—��III �--- - -r _
7-
HABITABLE
RESIDENCY WITHIN 500 '_ �
/ /
FEET OF ALL TREATMENT, STORAGE=-7O
AND IRRIGATION SITES
HABITABLE RESIDENCY WITHIN 500
FEET OF ALL TREATMENT, STORAGE
AND IRRIGATION SITES \
-',-
�(1111111I
�A
•0-
-
1111111A�I
IIII1111 ✓ � `\\� �il� `� I.,I � � (� I � \/ I ll � ,� -_ /f o �-� -, f\. /� �\'` /\ �1/�,-- f�I/ I/ //l� lei \ ,,, 1 �\ \ L ` \ \ III �� - ��_'-
0 100% PERMITTING PLANS - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
o No. REVISIONS
KHA PROJECT
FOREST149701046 LAKE WWTP REPLACEMENT
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
KDATE
i ey))) o r n
11 /17/202
AND SPRAY FIELD EXPANSION
COREY KING, P.E.
© 2022 KIMLEY—HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
SCALE AS SHOWN
PREPARED FOR
200 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 200, CHARLOTTE, NC 28202
DESIGNED BY SNR
EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.
NC LICENSE NUMBER
11/17/2022 CAB PHONE: [phone]
DRAWN BY CAB
048981
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
DATE BY
CHECKED BY CK
DAVIE NC
DATE: - - --
Ck ra
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 50 100 200
PERMIT APPLICATION SITE
MAP FIGURE
SHEET NUMBER
FIG
1

a
0
NO
Eta
00
.�
�, ao 4. _