NC0088749_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20080218

/vzopl�s9�f
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
NPDES DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR THE
PROPOSED LISSARA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FORSYfH COUNTY, NC
Prepared for:
Lissa ra Partners, LLC
2631 Reynolda Road
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
February 2008
�`�1; `cARo�-
..does..
moo:: o�ESSIp;�•..y9.,.
r • r r
IWO
wo
10130
�'�� •dodo GIN
•dodo•••
F PVA\
Prepared by:
Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
219 E. Chatham Street
Cary, NC 27511

No
pm
TABLE OF CONTENTS
o' Engineering Alternatives Analysis
A.
General
EAA-1 to EAA-2
B.
Summary of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
EAA-2 to EAA-5
PM
Options Considered
C.
Narrative Description of the Proposed Treatment Works
EAA-6 to EAA-8
Im D.
General Location Map
EAA-8
E.
Scale Site Plan
EAA-8
F.
Special Studies or Modeling Where DWQ Cannot Determine
EAA-8
the Impacts of the Discharge
G.
Financial Qualifications/Substantial Previous Compliance
EAA-8
Statement
H.
Other Possible Combinations of Alternatives
EAA-8
I.
Potential Acquisition of Additional Land
EAA-8 to EAA-9
1.
Conclusion
EAA-9
Appendix A — Economic Evaluation of Alternatives
PW
Alternative No. 1— Connection to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Page 1
W Alternative No. 2 — Connection to Privately Owned Treatment Works Page 1
Alternative No. 3 — Individual Subsurface Systems Pages 2 to 10
Alternative No. 4 — Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Pages 11 to 21
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through
Conventional Nitrification Lines in a Community
System
Alternative No. 5 — Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Pages 22 to 34
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Drip
Irrigation Lines (Surface Applied)
Alternative No. 6 — Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Pages 35 to 45
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Spray
Irrigation System
Alternative No. 7 — Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Pages 46 to 54
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Surface
Discharge to Yadkin River
PM
Alternative No. 8 - Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Pages 55 to 66
Treatment Plant, With Re -Use Quality Effluent
Disposal Through Drip Irrigation Lines
(Surface Applied)
Im

am
.MM
ADaendix B — Re -Examination of Alternatives With the Assumption that Additional
Land is Available
Summary of Present Worths of Revised Alternatives Pages 1 to 2
Alternative No. 3 — Individual Subsurface Systems Pages 3 to 6
Alternative No. 4 — Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Pages 7 to 12
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through
Conventional Nitrification Lines in a Community
System
Alternative No. 5 — Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Pages 13 to 18
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Drip
Irrigation Lines (Surface Applied)
Alternative No. 6 — Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Pages 19 to 24
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Spray
Irrigation System
Alternative No.-8 - Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Pages 25 to 30
Treatment Plant, With Re -Use Quality Effluent
Disposal Through Drip Irrigation Lines
(Surface Applied)
Appendix C — Infrastructure Cost Basis Pages 1 to 3
�+ Appendix D — Preliminary Soils Report Prepared by Soil & Pages 1 to 5
Environmental Consultants, P.A.
Appendix E — Letter Regarding the Estimated Market Value
of the Lissara Lots
OR Appendix F — Letter from Winston-Salem • Fomvth County — City/
County Utilities Regarding the Capacity of the Town of
Lewisville to Provide Wastewater Service to Lissara
Ow
Appendix G - Executed NPDES Application — Form D, with USGS
P" Mapping Indicating Location of Requested Discharge
Appendix H — Preliminary Water Balances for Alternatives No. 5, 6, and 8
Appendix I — Correspondence Regarding USGS Streamflow Estimates
For the Proposed Discharge Point in the Yadkin River
am

an Appendix 3 — Executed Attachment A. Local Government Form, per
EAA Guidance Document
^' Appendix K — Sensitivity Analysis to Examine the Effect of Various
Interest Rates on the Relative Rankine of the Alternatives
MR
I"
P"
PM
m"
PM
mm
FM
w
Im
P"
PM
ow
p"
p"
PM

PM
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT
AN NPDES DISCHARGE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED LISSARA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
A. GENERAL:
1. Introduction
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis (E.A.A.) is submitted in support of an application for a
NPDES permit. The proposed permitted flow is 0.108 MGD. This proposal has been prepared
in accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1.105(c)(1) through (7) and the Division of Water Quality's
(DWQ) "Guidance for the Evaluation of wastewater Disposal Alternatives" (ver. June 251
2005).
The proposed permit is for a domestic wastewater treatment plant to serve 225 lots in a new
subdivision, identified as Lissara, on approximately 246.3 acres of land. As detailed in
Appendix A, the wastewater flows have been estimated in accordance with 15 NCAC 21-1.0219.
The wastewater will be domestic in nature.
M" 2. Project Identification Information
,M
Facility Name: Lissara WWTP
County: Forsyth
Engineering Alternative Analysis preparer:
John F. Phillips, P.E. [phone]
Diehl & Phillips, P.A. [phone] (fax)
EAA preparer's address and telephone number:
IM Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
219 E. Chatham St.
Cary, NC 27511
im
3. Project Description
1W The proposed treatment plant will serve the Lissara subdivision. The proposed plant will serve
224 lots, or 107,520 gpd. The projected wastewater flow from these lots is:
"" 224 lots assumed with four bedroom houses: 224 @ 480 gpd = 107,520 gpd
A permit flow of 107,52000 gpd is required for this number of lots. This value will be rounded
upward to 108,000 gpd (0.108 mgd), and used for the treatment plant/surface discharge
alternative in this EEA.
Ow
EAA-1
MR

The locations of the proposed Lissara Subdivision and the potential service area of the Lissara
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) are indicated on Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map and Figure
No. 2 Proposed Service Areas.
4. Existina Facilities
There are no existing facilities.
0" 5. Phasing
0"
P"
fW
M"
P"
PM
The proposed Lissara Wastewater Treatment Plant will be constructed in one phase, with a
wastewater treatment capacity of 0.108 mgd.
B. SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS CONSIDERED
The results of this study clearly indicate that a new wastewater treatment plant discharging
into the Yadkin River is the most economically feasible of all the environmentally feasible
options. The various waste treatment and disposal alternatives considered and investigated
include:
1. Connection to a publicly owned treatment plant and wastewater collection system.
2. Connection to a privately owned treatment plant and wastewater collection system.
3. Individual subsurface systems on each lot
4. Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant, with Disposal through
Conventional Nitrification Lines
5. Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant, with Disposal through
Drip Irrigation Lines (Surface Applied)
6. Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant, with Disposal through
Spray Irrigation System
7. Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant, with Disposal through
Surface Discharge to the Yadkin River
8. Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant, With Re -Use Quality
Effluent Disposal Through Drip Irrigation Lines (Surface Applied)
EAA-2

\\ f
-- elf � rl \:/J \.���%- r 1 / \"" � � ■
. ".!"=l i 'ram � -\-� _^` \ 1 �� •�..'1 1 //-- \\ \\`__ �, '-'.i
A, p
—VI 1.� ' — — �� =_— .r l._,.W-.....:»�....''^"`••+' ",..� .�•,• {I 1 i / \) II 1 \ 1 / / ,,+'� [ ?�
` — /__ —_ �' �\ 1 f , 1 11,' I ! j �\ �` �, J 11/If 1 _ 11 I/ �! \\ ,/ / / / ,r �r J .�fY•'^J 1
I 1 II I , / ,\ \ I I `\ \ \ `•1 , \ \�, , 1 / ,—/ I 1 / i / // i ,
\ , �t\`l�C-'1 I11 \,11�i,! /� \1 �rl ,� ,1 ♦, \ �/ r / i /„ j/ /'
/ —�— `J / �_ —' / I r t 1 t ! / ',�': �'/' �'-•"'w�/' i i ' I,,� \ (_ / /� \\ �.l } `I \I i `;\ `\'\\\ l \ _ "�} ' • '.� t
,---
/!\
Q, r I __, r 1� r=��.� I \ .) I \ , I r, 1 / 1 1/.' i 1 �,,•_� _/ � r -,/ I Imr(. ,,` - X i _ \'�- ��` \ \ \
Er
1 �/ --'`' �1 1 \ �, /j•�` � ' % l \ \ � \ I / 1 I - t \ \ —, , � ..�_— 1 — \ 1 I !i {/I I 7 l r' v, � \\ v. \ \ _�$
��
; 1/1 =� —_-__-_-%'
i Rsp
LL
i/ - �2 ,1 1 i:i� :J_,_ ` '-.f`"•�., �' \ %i/ /(fd l i ` �`� i1 t
JJ ✓ I \\ 1 /1 �. ram. r , / j \ f,_ \— /, /� __—\� L Yf _ \\ \ , \ y '.
� ��iC/ —��/ /^, % j �/1 i 1 j I /� �—���`�•�' ���� j —�\�'� 1 -1 1 1�.. I /% ,—�\�\ `\! rr ' --� � �\ `\�'/�_�� `� \�'\ \� � Jr \ ,/'� \ ` \ � �I � \ 1 � � � /' J ' r/' � '1-��r �. \`,
xf
—�' / /•' _� I I' I •— : / _�`V 11� •// , � _ I / , I r /' \
—..I !\ 1 1 f l _ f✓�/' _ / ____ , % _� I j i650\i;IVY, \/ r
I77
_-'
—IN
NN
-\ ' r \ \ � /�11,); \��r,, ' \,,; � _ �• ..
SR 1175 \, _°��J ' I 1 1 __ - �•
I fi r
TREVOR L /~; , I I _ `,\
\ / r I 1 /. \� /
PRIVATE )/f,�
FIGURE No. 2
GRAPHIC SCALE.:
r
'�
600 0 300
600 1200
2400
PROPOSED SERVICE AREA
IN FEET
1 inch = 600 ft.

0"
For all alternatives, the water supply will be through an extension of public water systems
(Winston-Salem • Forsyth Co. — City/County Utility System).
All of the alternatives are environmentally feasible options that are routinely permitted in North
Carolina although a central sub -surface system of the size described herein would be unusual
in the Piedmont area of North Carolina. The ranking of the alternatives, in terms of
environmental feasibility, will vary on a case -by -case basis. For example, it is generally agreed
that connection to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) would be the most desirable. A
discharge to surface waters is not as environmentally desirable as a connection to a POTW,
but a new discharge remains an environmentally feasible option if the receiving stream has
sufficient assimilative capacity to accept the projected waste load. If the present worth values
of the two alternatives in this example were equal, the POTW connection should be selected,
according to 15A NCAC 2H.105(c)(2). However, if the connection to the POTW is not
reasonably cost effective when compared to the cost of the new surface discharge, then the
POTW connection alternative must be discarded from further consideration. 15A NCAC
2H.105(c)(2) states the selected alternative must be the most environmentally sound
alternative as selected from THE REASONABLY COST EFFECTIVE options. (Emphasis added.)
PM
The present worth values of the eight alternatives are:
Ow
M,
RM
M
MR
PM
MR
Alt.
Description
Present Worth
Number
1
Connection to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
N/A
2
Connection to Privately Owned Treatment Plant
N/A
3
Individual Sub -surface Systems
$13,103,534
4
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant,
$14,095,607
with Disposal through Conventional Nitrification Lines
5
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant,
$12,840,603
with Disposal through Drip Irrigation Lines (Surface Applied)
6
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant,
$13,305,554
with Disposal through Spray Irrigation System
Wastewater Collection System & Wastewater Treatment
7
Plant, with Disposal through Surface Discharge to Yadkin
$8,038,626
River
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant,
8
With Re -Use Quality Effluent Disposal Through Drip Irrigation
$12,483,793
Lines (Surface Applied)
Appendix A includes a detailed explanation of each alternative, its capital cost and
operation/maintenance (0&M) costs, and its present worth.
EAA-5
FM

P"
I, C. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TREATMENT WORKS:
PM 1. Design Flows: Proposed Plant: 0.108 MGD = 75 gallons per minute
Peaking Factor: 2.5
W1 Peak Flow = 2.5 x 0.108 mgd = 0.270 mgd = 188 gpm
2. Pretreatment:
Manually cleaned bar rack
MR
3. Treatment Plant:
Volumes:
Flow Equalization 32,400 (30% of design flow)
Aeration Zone 108,000 gallons (24 hrs, hydraulic detention, divided
equally into two trains in each phase plant)
Sludge Holding 32,400 gallons in plant (30% of daily plant capacity —
divided equally into two trains in each plant)
Pumps:
Flow Equalization duplex submersible pumps with flow control box
Return Sludge air-lift pumps with a combined capacity of 112 gpm
for the plant (150% of design flow). Flow rate can be
varied by throttling the air supply.
Aeration:
The aeration plant will have its own blower system. The estimated air
distribution will be as follows:
MM
Aeration Zone Volume: 108,000 gallons
Air required for mixing (exceeds process requirements).
30 SCFM/1,000 Cu Ft x 108,000 gal./7.48 gal. x 1 Cu Ft = 433 SUM
required to mix aeration zone plus 70 SUM allowance for air-lifts, post
aeration, etc.
503 SUM air required from blowers.
OR Three positive displacement blowers to be provided, each rated for 510
SCFM at 4.5 psi pressure
The sludge holding and flow equalization basins are aerated by positive
displacement blowers, which are capable of operating with the varying
pressures created due to the liquid level fluctuations.
MR
EAA-6
MR

OR
�, Sludge Holding Volume: 32,400 gallons total
16,200 Gal/Plant
PM Air required: Sludge Holding — 30 SCFM/1000 Cu. Ft.
30 SCFM/1,000 Cu Ft x 32,400 gal (sludge vol.)/7.48 gal. x 1 Cu Ft =
130 SUM
Three positive displacement blowers to be provided for sludge -holding,
�' each rated for 65 SUM (two in use, one standby)
MR Flow Equalization Volume: 32,400 gallons total
Air required: Flow Equalization —1.5 CF/1,000 gal to prevent septic
MR conditions
32,400 (Flow Eql. Vol.) gal x 1.5 Cu Ft/1,000 gal = 49 SUM
rM Two positive displacement blowers to be provide for flow equalization,
each rated for 50 SUM
4. Clarifiers: Four @ 101Nx10'L Each
Surface Overflow Rate at AN - 270 gallons/day/SF
Hydraulic detention time — 6.0 hours
r'�' Scum removed to flow equalization basin
Weir loading rate —1,350 gallons/LF/Day
ran
5. Tertiary Filter: Filter area: Four cells @ 18.75 SF Ea. = 75 SF Total
Filtration rate —1.0 gpm/SF at AN
Backwash return to the flow equalization basin
Backwash rate— up to 20 gpm/SF, w/air scour by dedicated blower
Media - 6" anthracite - 1.1-1.2 mm effective size, UC = 1.5
�+ 15" filter sand - .45 — .50 mm effective size, UC = 1.6
12" gravel - various graduations, with upper 3 inches having an
effective size of .80 —1.20 mm, UC = 1.7
^� 6. Post Aeration Unit:
Provide 30 minutes for plant at AN
7. U.V. Disinfection Unit:
Rated for a peak flow of 270,000 gpd, and have the redundancy required by DWQ's
latest policies for U.V. disinfection.
8. Effluent Flow Measurement:
fm 450 V-notch weir with flow recorder/totalizer
MR
EAA-7
MR

PM
'M 9. Chemical Feed System:
3,000 gallons storage for 25% NaOH (ph adjustment)
'm 10. Sludge Holdin_ :
Volume — 32,400 gallons
fm Storage capacity at estimated sludge production — 38 days
Decant by air-lift, supernatant returned to flow equalization
F" D. GENERAL LOCATION MAP: See Figures 1 and 2.
MR
E. SCALE SITE PLAN:
A site plan for each alternative is included in the appendix.
ran F. SPECIAL STUDIES OR MODELING WHERE DWQ CANNOT DETERMINE IMPACTS OF
DISCHARGE:
FM Not required at this time.
G. FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS/ SUBSTANTIAL PREVIOUS COMPLIANCE
fm STATEMENT:
PM Applicant partnership was created for the purpose of developing real property for residential
purposes. If the requested permit is issued, the partnership would transfer the ownership of
the wastewater facility and NPDES permit to a licensed utility company operating under the
rml regulations of the North Carolina Utilities Commission. The utility company will be required to
be in sound financial condition and in good standing with the Utilities Commission.
RM . H. OTHER POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives No. 1 through No. 6, No. 8, and all of the variations included in Appendix B
"' address the wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives for the subject property, as
required by the DWQ Guidance for the Evaluation of Wastewater Disposal Alternatives.
M I. POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND:
The potential acquisition of land to provide additional treatment capacity for the land based
disposal systems (Alternatives No. 3 through No. 6, and No. 8) was considered as a part of
this E.A.A. Prior to contacting any adjacent property owners about the possibility of purchasing
portions of their land, economic analyses were performed to determine the effect of additional
land for each alternative.
MR These economic analyses used the infrastructure costs in Alternative No. 7, the treatment
plant alternative (serving 224 lots), and then scaled -up the land -based wastewater disposal
system in each of the alternatives as required to serve 224 lots. The present worth of the
am
EAA-8
OW

FM
FM infrastructure, scaled -up wastewater disposal system, and increased annual 0&M costs was
determined for each alternative and compared to the present worth of Alternative No. 7. In
each case the present worth of the scaled -up land based treatment alternative exceeded the
I present worth of Alternative No. 7, without including any cost for the additional land
acquisition or piping to convey the treated wastewater to the disposal site(s). Based on the
results of these analyses, it is apparent that acquisition of additional lands would not change
the present worth ranking of Alternative No. 7; therefore, no adjacent landowners were
contacted regarding the possible sale of their property.
The economic analyses that examine the scaled -up alternatives and additional land
acquisitions are presented in Appendix B.
1. CONCLUSION:
FM As demonstrated in the information included in this E.A.A. and the Appendices, the selection of
the Alternative with the treated wastewater discharge to surface waters, Alternative No. 7,
was made only after extensive consideration of all the other Alternatives. Of the
environmentally sound Alternatives, a treatment plant discharging treated wastewater to the
Yadkin River is the only reasonably cost effective Alternative when compared to all of the land
based disposal systems. On behalf of the applicant, we request approval of a discharge permit
into the Yadkin River at the indicated location, for a total permitted flow of 0.108 MGD of
treated wastewater.
FM
PM
FM
MR
MM
P"
MR
IM

APPENDIX A
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

PM
MR ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
CONNECTION TO PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
The proposed Lissara development is outside of the extra -territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the
Town of Lewisville, but is within a five -mile radius of the Town of Lewisville wastewater
collection system. The Town of Lewisville is provided wastewater capacity by the Winston-
Salem/Forsyth County Utility Commission. A request for sewer service was presented to the
Commission by the Lissara developer in April 2006, since the proposed development is not
located within the Town's ETJ. The request for service was denied by the Commission, and the
developer was notified of this decision by letter dated April 26, 2006 (see Appendix F for a
copy of the letter).
With no connection to a publicly owned treatment works possible, Alternative No. 1 is dropped
�+ from further consideration.
"M ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
CONNECTION TO A PRIVATELY OWNED TREATMENT PLANT
IM
MR
W
M"
M"
MR
M"
am
There are not, to the best of the preparer's knowledge, any privately owned treatment plants
within a five mile radius that have sufficient capacity to accept a 108,000 gpd flow from the
proposed Lissara development. Therefore, any consideration of this option would require an
increase in the NPDES permit capacity for an existing facility in the same river basin as the
proposed Lissara project. The same considerations would be addressed in the Engineering
Alternatives Analysis for the expansion of another facility as are considered in this E.A.A. For
these reasons, connection to a privately owned wastewater treatment plant in not considered
a viable Alternative for this E.A.A.
Appendix A
Page 1

No
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
INDIVIDUAL SUB -SURFACE SYSTEMS
This Alternative considers the installation of individual septic systems for each single-family lot,
rather than reliance on a new wastewater treatment plant for sewer service. The economic
benefits of this Alternative include the elimination of the costs of a wastewater collection
system and a wastewater treatment plant. The principal economic disadvantage is the
individual septic systems require larger lots than those served by a wastewater collection
system, thus the number of lots developed will be less under this Alternative.
MR The lots must be configured to contain at least 20,000 square feet of soils suitable for a septic
system and a 100% repair area, plus an additional 10,000 square feet for the house,
driveway, setback areas. The preliminary lot layout for Alternative No. 3 utilizes lots with
MR 30,000 SF (minimum) total areas. In some cases, where the lot did not have sufficient suitable
soil areas to support a wastewater system and repair area, a remote lot in suitable soils was
created for the required disposal/repair area. Using the lot yield from the detailed preliminary
subdivision plan, the total number of lots developed under this Alternative will be 83 lots.
The suitable subsurface soils were mapped for this project, and the map and description can
be found in the Soil & Environmental Consultants report in Appendix D. Figure 3-A presents
the location of the soils determined to be suitable for subsurface disposal. The preliminary lot
arrangement is illustrated in Figure 3-13.
It will be assumed that the majority of the single family wastewater systems will consist of a
1,200 gallon septic tank followed by gravity distribution boxes and conventional nitrification
trenches (3 feet wide by 2 feet deep) with a 4" corrugated pipe installed in a 12 inch deep
layer of washed stone. The soils report by S&EC indicated the mapped soils would provide an
�+ LTAR (Long Term Acceptance Rate) of 0.30 gallons per day per square foot of trench bottom,
for conventional nitrification trench systems. For a four -bedroom home and an LTAR of .30
gpd/sf of trench bottom, approximately 533 LF of nitrification trench is required for each
�+ single-family home. The typical installed cost for a conventional system of this size is
approximately $3,000 to $3,500. Some of the lots would most likely require pump systems
due to the topography of the lots, and some might require low-pressure pipe (LPP) systems or
subsurface drip irrigation systems due to topography, shallow soils, soil wetness, or other
reasons. These pump -to -conventional systems and the LPP/drip systems would have costs
ranging from $4,500 to $5,500, or higher in some cases. The proposed plan includes sixteen
lots with remote or "satellite" lots for wastewater disposal. The cost of these p systems will vary
depending on the distance of the separation from the main lot.
For the purposes of this EAA, Table 3-A indicates the types and numbers of wastewater
systems assumed for the 83 lots under this Alternative.
No
Appendix A
�, Page 2

k/NS
NE,
HAUSER
SR 1175
TREVOR
PRIVATE
LEGEND
Areas contain soils with 24 inches or
more of useable material and have potential 1
for conventional, modified conventional, 1
ultra —shallow conventional, or LPP 1
type septic systems. \
MARGINAL LANDSCAPE POSITION
Area contains soils with 24 inches or more UNS
of useable material, in a marginal landscape
position. See S&EC Report.
I <�
UNS UNSUITABLE
NE NOT EVALUATED
f E
r
UNS
UNS �-``1---
UNS
UNS UNS UNS
UNS UNS
11UNS /---
1 /
NE UNS/
GRAPHIC SCALE
600 0 300 600 1200
I I•
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 600 ft.
UNS
�l
t
FIGURE No. 3-A
SOILS SUITABLE FOR
SUBSURFACE SYSTEMS

COLOR SHADING KEY
_ LAKE, STREAM OR OPEN WATER
50' BUFFER ON STREAMS
mo
HAUSER RD
SR 1175
TREVOR
PRIVATE
r
0
1
9
pPO
O�
rR,nPxrr. sr,ai,F cjor`� FIGURE No. 3-B
INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANKS
( Tip T-TT-T )
1 ;,,c'h Goo ft

FM
faq
FOR
P"
W
TABLE 3-A
Type of Single Lot Wastewater System
Number
Installed
Cost
Total
Costs
Lots served with conventional gravity systems
33
$3 250
$107,250
Lots served with pump to conventional gravity systems
20
4 500
90 000
Lots served with Low Pressure Pie systems
13
$5 500
$71 500
Lots served with remote sub -lots — pump to conventional
gravity systems
13
$6,500
$84,500
Lots served with remote sub -lots — Low Pressure Pipe
stems
4
$7,500
$30,000
Totals
83
$383,250
Other Costs/Savings
�► Under this Alternative there would be less infrastructure construction required than under the
surface discharge Alternative because there would be fewer lots developed, and because there
would not be a wastewater collection system. The infrastructure unit cost developed in
Appendix C is $344 per linear foot of street constructed. This cost includes all land clearing,
grading, erosion control, storm drainage, water mains, valves, fire hydrants, paving, curb &
gutter, turn lane construction on existing road, engineering, and surveying. Alternative No. 3
has 12,152 LF of street. The only items not included in the unit cost factor are the water
services for the lots. This cost varies depending upon the number of lots developed, and is
therefore calculated for each Alternative.
MR
MR
The infrastructure costs for Alternative No. 3 are:
$344/LF of street x 12,152 LF of streets $4,1801,288
Water services: 83 x $700 each 58 100
Total Infrastructure Cost $4,238,388
RM Lost opportunity cost due to developing 83 lots in lieu of the 224 lots possible under the
treatment plant/surface discharge Alternative:
IM Alternative No. 7, the treatment plant with surface water discharge, has the following
number and types of lots:
32 Waterfront lots, sale price of: $137,500 each
70 Garden home lots, sale price of: $ 65,000 each
44 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.), sale price of: $ 85,000 each
78 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.), sale price of: $100,000 each
«� 224 Total number of lots
am
Appendix A
Page 5

PM
FMM
Alternative No. 3 has the following number and types of lots:
18 Waterfront lots
0 Garden home lots
0 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.)
65 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.)
83 Total number of lots
The lost opportunity cost for the lots not included in Alternative No. 3 is:
14 Waterfront lots at: $137,500 each = $11,925,000
70 Garden home lots at: $ 65,000 each = $4,550,000
44 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.) $ 85,000 each = $3,740,000
13 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.) $100,000 each = $1,300,000
PM 141 Total number of lots lost, with a combined value of: $11,515,000
For this economic analysis, it is assumed the annual lot sales for Alternative No. 3 will be 32
lots per year, for years 0 and 1, and 19 lots for year 2. The lot sales for Alternative No. 7 are
assumed to be 32 per year for years 0 through 6, meaning Alternative No. 3 creates 13 lost
opportunity lots in year 2, and 32 lost opportunity lots in each year 3 through 6, for a total of
141 lost opportunity lots.
1W Operation and Maintenance Costs
The annual power costs are estimated as follows:
Annual power cost for a single family septic system (LPP or pump to conventional
nitrification lines) with effluent pump:
�+ Design pump rate: 480 GPD, pumped at 30 gpm = 16 minutes per day run time
TDH: Will vary with location and separation distance of the pump and the disposal field.
Assume 1 BHP required when operating.
P" Brake horsepower required: 1.0 BHP
KW input to motor: 0.87 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Operating time: 16 minutes = 0.27 hours/day
MR Power consumption per day: 0.87 KW x 0.27 hours per day= 0.235 kWH per day
Power consumption per year: = 85.8 kWH per year
MR Power costs per year ($.10/kWH) = $8.58 per house times 50 houses assumed to have
pumped systems, or $429 per year
pq
MR
Appendix A
Page 6

0"
OR
F=,
MR
PW
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps and motors, and calculate the annual equipment charge
based on a Sinking Fund Factor (A/F, 7%, 15 years) of 0.0398. This factor times an
effluent pump costs of $650 and 50 lots, yields an annual replacement charge of
$1,294. The annual cost of routine maintenance and repairs is estimated to be 5% of
equipment cost.
Replacement costs at 0.0398 times $ 650 times 50 lots = $ 1,294
Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 32,500 = 1,62
Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge = $ 21919
Solids Removal and Disposal:
Septic tanks are assumed to require pumping once every five years at a cost of $200 per
pump -out. It is assumed the lots will be developed over a three-year period.
The solids removal/disposal costs for this Alternative are summarized as follows:
` n Pump out of residential septic system:
28 tanks x $200 $ 5,600 in years 5, 10, 15, etc.
MR 28 tanks x $200 $ 5,600 in years 6, 11, 16, etc.
27 tanks x $200 $ 5,400 in years 7, 12, 17, etc.
P., Summary of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 3:
Annual power costs $ 429
Equipment repair / replacement 2,919
Sub Total Annual O&M Costs $ 3,348
In addition to the sub -total listed above, there is a Solids Removal and Disposal cost
that will be included in the economic analysis to reflect cleaning of the tanks once every
five years.
Present Worth Analysis
PW
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 83 lots and
their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-2.
The cost of the 141 lost opportunity lots will be applied at a rate of 13 lots in year 2, and 32
lots in years 3-6. The calculated annual power costs are dependent on the number of pump
FW systems in place, and will be prorated for the first three years as the development is built out.
No
MR
Appendix A
Page 7

fXf
MR Year 0 Costs
Wastewater System Construction (32/83 of $383,250) $ 147,759
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/83 of $4,238,388) $ 1,634,077
f� (No O&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
Total Year 0 Cost $ 1,781,836
f#1
Year 1 Costs
Wastewater System Construction (32/83 of $383,250) $ 147,759
MRWastewater
Costs for 32 Lots (32/83 of $4,238,388) $ 1,634,077
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 165
Equipment repair / replacement t 2 919
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 1: 3 084
Total Year 1 Costs $1,784,920
M, Year 2 Costs
Wastewater System Construction (19/83 of $383,250) $ 87,732
Infrastructure Costs for 19 Lots (19/83 of $4,238,388) $ 970,233
Lost opportunity costs of 13 lots (13/141 of $11,515,000) $1,061,667
Annual 0&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 331
Equipment repair / replacement $2,919
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 2: 3,250
Total Year 2 Costs $2,122,882
F" Year 3 Costs
Lost opportunity costs of 32 lots (32/141 of $11,515,000) $2,613,333
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs $ 429
Equipment repair / replacement 2 917
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 3: 3,348
Total Year 3 Costs $2,616,681
I"
f"
Year 4 Costs
Identical to Year 3: $2,616,681
Year 5 (and Year 6) Costs
Identical to Year 4, with the addition of
solids removal/disposal costs $5,600: $2,622,281
Appendix A
Page 8

Pon
Years 7, 12, 17, 22, and 27 Costs
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs
$ 429
Equipment repair / replacement
$2,919
Total Annual O&M Costs:
$3,348
Solids Removal/Disposal Costs:
5 400
Total Costs for Years 7, 12, 17, 22, & 27:
$8,748
Years 8-9, 13-144 18-19, 23-24, 28 and 29 Costs
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs
$ 429
Equipment repair / replacement
$2,919
Total Annual O&M Costs:
$3,348
Total Costs for Years 8-9, 13-14, 18-19, 23-24, 28 and 29:
$3,348
Mq
Years 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 Costs
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs
$ 429
MR
Equipment repair / replacement
$2,919
Total Annual O&M Costs:
$3,348
Solids Removal/Disposal Costs:
5 600
Total Costs for Years 10, 15, 20, 25, & 30:
$8,948
Years 11, 16, 21, and 26 Costs
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs
$ 429
Equipment repair / replacement
$2,919
Total Annual O&M Costs:
$3,348
Solids Removal/Disposal Costs:
5 600
Total Costs for Years 11, 16, 21, & 26:
$8,948
ram
MR
FM
IM
fm
The present worth for Alternative No. 3 is presented in Table 3-13 below.
Appendix A
Page 9

FOR
PSI
FOR
FM
MIR
FER
F"
,"
MR
F"
F,
m"
fwR
P"
pq
Fm
Table 3-13
Present Worth of Alternative No. 3
Year
Total Annual Cost
PIF, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$1,781,836
1.0000
$19781,836
1
$1,784,920
0.9346
$1,668,150
2
$2,122, 882
0.8734
$1, 854, 207
3
$2,616,681
0.8163
$2,135,991
4
$29616,681
0.7629
$1,9969253
5
$2,622,281
0.7130
$19869,650
6
$2,622,281
0.6663
$197479337
7
$89748
0.6227
$5,448
8
$3,348
0.5820
$1, 949
9
$3,348
0.5439
$19821
10
$89948
0.5083
$4, 549
11
$8,948
0.4751
$4,251
12
$8,748
0.4440
$3,884
13
$3,348
0.4150
$1,389
14
$3,348
0.3878
$1,298
15
$89948
0.3624
$3,243
16
$8,948
0.3387
$3,031
17
$8,748
0.3166
$2,769
18
$3,348
0.2959
$991
19
$3,348
0.2765
$926
20
$8,948
0.2584
$2,312
21
$89948
0.2415
$2,161
22
$89748
0.2257
$1, 975
23
$3,348
0.2109
$706
24
$39348
0.1971
$660
25
$89948
0.1842
$1,649
26
$8,948
0.1722
$1, 541
27
$8,748
0.1609
$1,408
28
$3,348
0.1504
$504
29
$3,348
0.1406
$471
30
$8,948
0.1314
$19175
Present Worth of Alternative No. 3
$13,1039534
Appendix A
Page 10

FOR
M ALTERNATIVE NO.4
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,
WITH DISPOSAL THROUGH CONVENTIONAL NITRIFICATION LINES IN A
COMMUNITY SYSTEM
This Alternative utilizes a central treatment system consisting of a package treatment plant to
achieve secondary treatment and disinfection. The individual lots can be smaller than 30,000
square feet and are not required to contain any suitable soils because there will be no septic
systems on the lots created under this Alternative. All wastewater will be collected by a
pressure sewer system (each house will have an individual grinder pump system) and
Mn delivered to the proposed Lissara Wastewater Treatment Plant. The treated effluent from the
plant will be pumped from an effluent holding tank into the nitrification fields proposed in
several different areas of the subdivision. Flow will be directed to each of the ten nitrification
MM fields by solenoid valves and an irrigation -style valve control system.
rM The treatment system proposed for this Alternative is an extended aeration style package
plant, which will be located within the Lissara subdivision. The areas of soils suitable for use
for subsurface disposal of effluent were identified and mapped by Soil & Environmental
Consultants, P.A. A copy of their report is included in Appendix D The Long Term Acceptance
Rates (LTAR) for the soils identified as suitable for subsurface disposal using conventional
nitrification trenches is estimated to be 0.30 gallons per day per square foot of trench bottom.
An illustration of this Alternative is presented in Figure No. 4.
MR This Alternative was developed on the concept of maximizing the number of lots developed
while leaving sufficient suitable soils areas for the nitrification lines and the required 100%
repair areas. The estimated wastewater flow for this Alternative is 59,520 gal/day, based on
`M 124 four bedroom houses @ 480 gal/day.
Alternative No. 4 uses 38.26 acres of the 74.67 acres of usable soils for nitrification fields and
repair areas. The difference in areas, 36.41 acres, is used for lots, associated street rights -of -
way, and required setbacks from property line, streams, and lakes. Some of this acreage used
for the lots must be taken from the usable soils, due to the location of the soils relative to the
site access locations and other site features. The remaining site acreage, mainly unsuitable
soils, is not used as the maximum number of lots possible with the available soils has been
created. Capacity is calculated as follows:
(Area in acres) x (43,560 sf per ac.) / (2 for the nitrification field and repair areas / (1.4 for
fam the layout inefficiencies) / (9 ft. trench spacing) x (3 ft. trench width) x LTAR
= Capacity in gal/day
'R For this alternative: (38.26 acres x 43,560 sf/acre)/2 (repair)/1.4 (layout ineff.)/(9 feet trench
spacing) x 3 feet trench width x 0.30 gpd/sf (LTAR)
IM = 59,520 gal/day
P"
Appendix A
Page 11

COLOR SHADING KEY
LAKE, STREAM OR OPEN WATER
50' BUFFER ON STREAMS
0
HAUSER
SR 1175
TREVOR
PRIVATE
WWTP
GRAPHIC SCALE
(IN FT -FT )
1 iiicli = 600 a.
FIGURE No. 4
G� WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WITH
DISPOSAL THROUGH CONVENTIONAL
NITRIFICATION LINES IN A COMMUNITY
SYSTEM

P"
P" The components of this system and their estimated installed cost are as follows:
One 59,520 GPD extended aeration package plant
IM with ultraviolet disinfection system,
installed (no tertiary filters)
$
176,351
Excavation and construction of concrete base slab
$
42,685
One 30 kW standby generator and
automatic transfer switch, installed
$
24,800
66,134 LF of nitrification trenches at $7.00/1-17
$
462,938
Duplex effluent pumps and control panel, including automatic valve
sequencer to rotate nitrification fields being dosed
$
38,000
Ten pressure manifolds for flow distribution at $4,000/each
$
40,000
Ten solenoid zone valve stations at $750 each
$
71500
50,490 LF of 3" PVC supply lines from manifolds
to nitrification lines at $2.00/1-F (common trench)
$
100,980
10,150 LF of 6" PVC force main from effluent pumps
to pressure manifolds at $14.00/1-F
$
142,100
One automatic dialer, installed
$
31000
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping, seeding, etc.
(20.1 acres at $5,000/ac.)
$
100,500
'M Electrical Construction
$ 90,935
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,229,789
Soil Scientist Fees (5%) $ 61,489
Engineering Fees (7%) $ 86,085
rM
Total Estimated Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Costs $ 1,377,364
W Other Costs/Savings
MR
Under this Alternative there would be less infrastructure construction required than under the
surface discharge Alternative No. 7 because there would be fewer lots developed. The
infrastructure unit cost factor developed in Appendix C is $344 per linear foot of street
constructed. This - cost includes all land clearing, grading, erosion control, storm drainage,
water mains, valves, fire hydrants, paving, curb & gutter, turn lane construction on existing
road, engineering, and surveying. Alternative No. 4 has 14,893 LF of street. The only items not
included in the unit cost factor are the individual grinder pump station for each lot, the water
service for each lot, and the pressure sewer mains. These costs vary depending upon the
number of lots developed, and are therefore calculated separately for each Alternative.
The infrastructure costs for Alternative No. 4 are:
$344/1-17 of street x 14,893 LF of streets $5,123,192
Water services: 124 x $700 each $86,800
Grinder pump station on each lot, installed: 124 at $5,500 each $682,000
Appendix A
Page 13

R"
Pressure Sewer:
61800 LF of 2 inch at $6.50/LF $44,200
71650 LF of 3 inch at $9.75/LF $74,588
200 LF of 4 inch at $13.00/LF 2 600
Total Infrastructure Cost $6,0131380
Lost opportunity cost due to developing 124 lots in lieu of the 224 lots possible under the
treatment plant/surface discharge Alternative:
Alternative No. 7, the treatment plant with surface water discharge has the following
number and types of lots:
32 Waterfront lots, sale price of: $137,500 each
70 Garden home lots, sale price of: $ 65,000 each
44 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.), sale price of: $ 85,000 each
78 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.), sale price of: $100,000 each
224 Total number of lots
Alternative No. 4 has the following number and types of lots:
29 Waterfront lots
37 Garden home lots
18 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.)
40 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.)
124 Total number of lots
The lost opportunity lot cost for Alternative No. 4 is:
3 Waterfront lots at: $137,500 each = $412,500
33 Garden home lots at: $ 65,000 each = $2,145,000
26 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.) $ 85,000 each = $2,210,000
38 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.) $100,000 each = $3,800,000
100 Total number of lots lost, with a combined value of: $8,567,500
For this economic analysis, it is assumed the annual lot sales for Alternative No. 4 will be 32
lots per year, for years 0, 1, 2, and 28 lots for year 3. The lot sales for Alternative No. 7, the
treatment plant with a discharge to surface waters, will be assumed to be 32 per year for
years 0 through 6, thereby creating four lost opportunity lots in year 3, and 32 lost opportunity
lots in each year 4 through 6.
Appendix A
Page 14

MW
FM GQeration and Maintenance Costs
The annual power costs are estimated as follows:
Annual power cost for a single family grinder pump station:
Design pump rate:
480 GPD x 2.5 peaking factor x 1 day/1440 minutes
< 1 GPM, use 11 GPM due to nominal capacity of grinder pump
TDH: Will vary due to location of station and number of pumps in operation in
system. Assume 1 BHP required when operating.
Brake horsepower required: 1.0 BHP
KW input to motor: 0.87 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Operating time: 480 gpd/11 gpm = 43.6 minutes = 0.73 hours/day
Power consumption per day: 0.87 KW x 0.73 hours per day= 0.635 kWH per day
Power consumption per year: = 233 kWH per year
Power costs per year ($.10/kWH) _ $23.30 per house, or $2,889 for 124 houses
Flow equalization pumps:
Design pump rate: 55 GPM
TDH: Static head varies: maximum is 12 feet plus friction losses of 2 feet = 14
feet
Due to recycle of excess flow, pump will run an average of 18 hours per day
Brake horsepower required: 0.32 BHP (60% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 0.28 kW (85% motor efficiency)
fan Power consumption per year: 0.28 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 1,840 kWH per year
fm Power costs per year = $184
Flow Equalization Blower:
Design flow rate: 27 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 1.1 BHP
KW input to motor: 1.0 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Equalization blower to be cycled on and off by time clock; normal run time to be
18 hours a day or less.
Power consumption per year: 1.0 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 6,570 kWH per year
I" Power costs per year = $657
Sludge Blower
Design flow rate: 72 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 2:3--BHP
KW input to motor: 2.0 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Appendix A
Page 15

I"
�+ Sludge blower to be cycled on and off by time clock; normal run time to be 18
hours a day or less.
Power consumption per year: 2.0 kW x 18 hours per day x 365 days per year =
13,140 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $1,314
Main Plant Blower:
Design flow rate: 280 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 7.1 BHP
kW input to motor: 6.2 kW (85% motor efficiency)
�+ Main plant blower typically cycled by time clock; this analysis will assume worst
case, i.e. 100% operation.
Power consumption per year: 6.2 KW x 24 hours per day x 365 days per year =
54,312 kWH per year
I"
f"
M"
W
M
go
OW
Power costs per year = $5,431
Ultra -violet Disinfection System:
Power consumption = 0.54 kW
Power consumption per year = 4,730 kWH
Power costs per year = $473
Duplex effluent pumps:
59,520 gal per day/240 gal per min = 248 min pumping per day
= 4.13 hours per day
TDH estimated at 80 feet (varies depending on zone being dosed)
Brake horsepower required: 8.1 BHP (60% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 7.1 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per day: 7.1 KW x 4.1 hours per day = 29.1 kWH per day
Power consumption per year = 10,625 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $1,062
Summary of annual power costs:
Grinder Pumps — all lots
$2,889
Flow equalization pumps
$ 184
Flow equalization blower
$ 657
Sludge blower
$ 1,314
Main. plant blowers
$ 5,431
Ultra -violet disinfection
$ 473
Duplex Effluent Pumps
1062
Total Annual Power Costs
$12,010
Appendix A
Page 16

FER
P"
Z2
Lab Analyses:
For the purposes of this report, the following tests and testing frequencies will be used:
Test
Cost
Frequency
Annual Cost
BOD-5
$22
Weekly
$ 1,144
NH3-N
17
Weekly
884
TSS
$13
Weekly
$ 676
Fecal Coliform
18
Weekly
936
Total N
$32
Quarterly
$ 128
Total P
16
Quarterly
$64
Conductivity
$12
Weekly
780
Annual Testing Costs
1 $ 4 612
Annual solids (sludge) disposal cost:
Sludge production rate for extended aeration is estimated to be 2,000 Ibs of dry solids
per million gallons treated. Sludge digestion/holding tank will allow thickening to 3%
solids concentration.
2,000 Ibs/M.G. x 0.059 MG/Day x 365 Days/Year
= 43,070 Ibs, dry solids per year
= 172,349 gallons/year at 3% solids
Contract disposal to application site, including stabilization, at $.10 per gallon =
$17,235
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an annual replacement
charge of $5,015. This is based on a Sinking Fund Factor (A/F, 7%, 15 years) of
0.0398, times the equipment cost of $126,000. The annual cost of routine maintenance
and repairs is estimated to be 5% of equipment cost.
Replacement costs at 0.0398 times $ 126,000 = $ 5,015
Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 126,000 = 6.300
~' Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge $ 11,315
ON
WO
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52 hours per year run time for exercise and power outages, for the 30 kW
standby power generator. Fuel consumption is 180 cubic feet per hour of propane
(equal to approximately 5 gallons of LP).
52 hours x 5.0 gal./hr LP at $2.47 per gal. _ $ 642
Total = $ 642
Appendix A
Page 17

PR
Contract Operations:
Cost to hire a licensed wastewater treatment plant operator/company to operate the
plant and file all required reports.
Annual Fee: $45,000
Summary of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 4:
Annual power costs
Annual testing cost
Sludge disposal
Equipment repair / replacement
Fuel Costs
Licensed contract operations cost
Total Annual 0&M Costs
M Present Worth Analysis
$ 12,010
$ 4,612
$ 17,235
$ 11,315
$ 642
45,000
$ 90,814
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 124 lots
and their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-3.
The cost of the 100 lost opportunity lots will be applied at a rate of 4 lots in year 3, and 32 lots
in each year 4-6. The wastewater treatment and disposal system will be constructed in year
0. Portions of the calculated annual power costs and the sludge disposal costs are flow
proportional, and will be prorated for the first four years of operation, until the development is
built out.
Year 0 Costs
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Construction $ 1,377,364
"M Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/124 of $6,013,380) $ 1,551,840
(No O&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
f"
Total Year 0 Cost
MR Year 1 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/124 of $6,013,380)
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 9,079
Annual testing cost $ 4 612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 4,448
Equipment repair/replacement $ 11,315
Fuel Costs $ 642
Licensed contract operations cost 45 000
FM
Appendix A
Page 18
$ 2,9291204
$ 1,5511840

PM
IM Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 1:
Total Year 1 Costs
Year 2 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/124 of $6,013,380)
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 10,098
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 8,895
Equipment repair/replacement $ 11,315
Fuel Costs $ 642
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 2:
Total Year 2 Costs
Year 3 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 28 Lots (28/124 of $6,013,380)
Lost opportunity costs of 4 lots (4/100 of $8,567,500)
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 11,118
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 13,342
Equipment repair / replacement $ 11,315
Fuel Costs $ 642
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
FMM
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 3:
0"
Total Year 3 Costs
Year 4, 5, and 6 Costs
�+ Lost opportunity costs of 32 lots (32/100 of $8,567,500)
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs $ 12,010
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal $ 17,235
Equipment repair / replacement $ 11,315
Fuel Costs
$ 642
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs
Total Year 4, 5, and 6 Costs — (Each year)
Appendix A
Page 19
75 096
$1,626,936
$ 1,551,840
80 562
$1,632,402
$1,357,860
$ 342,700
86 029
$1,786,589
$2,741,600
90,814
$2,832,414

P"
Year 7 through year 30 Costs (24 years)
Total Annual O&M Costs
OR Total Year 7 through year 30 Costs — (Each Year)
The present worth for Alternative No. 4 is presented in Table 4-A below.
fm
f"
P"
P"
MR
m
PM
W
F"
P"
F"
F"
aw
m"
Appendix A
Page 20
$ 90,814
$ 90,814

P"
A"
MR
Pq
pq
P-
PM
Ow
m"
an
PSI
"M
mm
an
No
Table 4-A
Present Worth of Alternative No. 4
Year
Total Annual Cost
P/F, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$2,929,204
1.0000
$2,929,204
1
$1,626,936
0.9346
$1,520,501
2
$1,632,402
0.8734
$1,425, 803
3
$1,786,589
0.8163
$1,458,389
4
$2,8329414
0.7629
$2,160,835
5
$21832,414
0.7130
$2, 019,472
6
$2, 832,414
0.6663
$1, 887, 357
7
$90,814
0.6227
$56,554
8
$90,814
0.5820
$52,855
9
$90,814
0.5439
$49,397
10
$90,814
0.5083
$469165
11
$909814
0.4751
$43,145
12
$90,814
0.4440
$40, 323
13
$90,814
0.4150
$37,685
14
$90,814
0.3878
$35,219
15
$90,814
0.3624
$32,915
16
$909814
0.3387
$30,762
17
$90,814
0.3166
$28,749
18
$909814
0.2959
$26,869
19
$90,814
0.2765
$25,111
20
$90,814
0.2584
$23,468
21
$90,814
0.2415
$21,933
22
$90,814
0.2257
$20,498
23
$90,814
0.2109
$19,157
24
$90,814
0.1971
$179904
25
$909814
0.1842
$169732
26
$90,814
0.1722
$15,638
27
$909814
0.1609
$14,615
28
$90,814
0.1504
$13,659
29
$90,814
0.1406
$12,765
30
$90,814
0.1314
$11%930
Present Worth of Alternative No. 4
$14,095,607
Appendix A
Page 21

P"
I, ALTERNATIVE NO. 5
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,
Ow WITH DISPOSAL THROUGH DRIP IRRIGATION LINES (SURFACE APPLIED)
M, In this scenario, the collected wastewater is treated and disinfected in a package treatment
plant, stored in a lagoon, and then applied on the land surface. Drip irrigation tubing with
constant output emitters system is used to evenly distribute the treated wastewater on the
MR application areas. This system allows a slightly higher lot count than conventional spray due
to the improved layout efficiency and decreased setbacks from property lines. As with a
conventional spray irrigation system, the wastewater cannot be applied when there is a
chance of runoff, such as when the ground is saturated by rainfall. To address this problem a
storage lagoon is required to provide the storage volume required to meet the demands of a
wetter than average winter. For this Alternative, the stored wastewater must be filtered prior
to being pumped into the drip tubing, as the drip irrigation emitters are much smaller than
those found in conventional sprinkler nozzles. A filtering system mounted on an equipment
skid is typically provided as a part of the drip irrigation equipment package.
MR
The Soil Scientist's report in Appendix D identified the soils that are suitable for surface
application of treated wastewater. The location of these soils and their soil series are
illustrated on Figure 5-A. The area of each soil unit proposed for irrigation and the
recommended application rates are presented in Table No. 5-A. Based on this information and
the available area of each soil unit, a total of 168 lots can be developed under this Alternative
with sufficient area left for drip irrigation of the treated effluent. See Figure 5-B for the
preliminary subdivision plan for this Alternative.
The estimated flow for this Alternative is 80,640 gallons per day, using the same flow factors
as used in the previous Alternatives:
168 houses @ 480 gpd average = 80,640 gpd
P" Total Wastewater Capacity of indicated soil = 80,762 gal/day
",
FM
MM
The design flow for this Alternative is 80,640 gpd. The drip irrigation area utilizes 52.27 acres,
based on a layout inefficiency factor of 1.1. The layout inefficiency is due to topography,
shape of suitable soil areas and setback requirements.
Appendix A
Page 22

LEGEND
HAUSER
SR 1175
TREVOR
PRIVATE
pED UNIT: l^iL\^iIL-PACVLL T -I IIWASSLE
ORANGE UNIT: WILKES-WYNOTT
GREEN UNIT: IREDELL
PINK UNIT: CONGAREE
BLUE UNIT: ALTAVISTA
rol
GRAPHIC SCALE
600 0 300 600 1200
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 600 ft.
ti
fiWE
'G
°P� FIGURE No. 5-A
SOILS SUITABLE FOR
SURFACE APPLICATION

COLOR SHADING KEY
LAKE, STREAM OR OPEN WATER
50' BUFFER ON STREAMS
was
�vo7�
00
0
1W i
HAUSER
SR 1175
I
TREVOR
PRIVATE
0
ka c�Ov �av�v vac
►�i�►. ti1� 1rl�y e.r irY.r�
pq
WET WEATHER
STORAGE
WWTP
GRAPHIC SCALE
600 0 300 600 1200
( IN FEET }
1 inch = 600 ft.
0
0P� FIGURE No. 5-B
„� WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WITH
DISPOSAL THROUGH DRIP IRRRIGATION
LINES (SURFACE APPLIED)

aq
on
M"
PM
F"
MR
M"
F"
MR
M
MR
TABLE NO. S-A
CAPACITY OF SOILS USED FOR SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Soil Unit
Area, in Acres
LTAR, in in/yr
Capacity, in GPD
Cecil-Pacolet- Hiwassee
34.65
25
58,590
Wilkes-Wynott
4.92
15
41992
Congaree
9.62
20
13,014
Altavista
3.08
20
41166
Total
52.27
80,762
Alternative No. 5 uses 52.27 acres of the 167.87 acres of usable soils for drip irrigation fields
(capacity of 80,762 gpd). A total of 115.60 acres will be used for lots, streets, setbacks, a
recreational lake, and the wastewater treatment plant and effluent storage pond area. Some
of this acreage used for the lots must be taken from the usable soils, due to the location of the
soils relative to the site access locations. The remaining 52.27 acres are used for effluent
irrigation to create the maximum number of lots possible. Capacity is calculated as follows:
(Areas, in acres) x (43,560 sf per ac.) / (1.1 (layout inefficiency)) x (LTAR) / (12 in. per foot)
/ (365 days per year) x (7.48 gallons per CF)
= Capacity in gal/day
The wastewater system components for this Alternative include:
One 80,640 GPD extended aeration package plant with
ultraviolet disinfection system, and effluent pump
station (no filters), installed $
Excavation and construction of concrete
base slab $
One 60 kW standby generator and
automatic transfer switch, installed $
One lined lagoon (71 days storage, per DWQ Water Balance spreadsheet)
with bottom dimensions of 156 Ft x 312 Ft, 3:1 side slopes,
12 foot maximum water level, two feet of freeboard, one foot
minimum below required storage volume:
21,425 CY cut to fill at $3.50/CY $
99,792 SF of 30 mil HDPE liner
at $1.55/SF installed $
Drip irrigation system including 1,034,946 LF
dripper line, 44 zone valves, 11 return flush
valves, supply & return piping, irrigation pump
system, pump house, computer controller,
320,110
57,832
37,086
•
154,678
control wiring, electrical, etc. $ 1,772,840
Appendix A
Page 25

Electrical Construction $ 168,200
11600 LF of six ft. chain link fence for lagoon and
treatment plant area at $12.00/1-F $ 19,200
11,200 LF of barbed wire fencing for application
area at $3.50/LF $ 39,200
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
seeding, etc. (5.3 acres at $5,000/ac.) $ 26,500
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost $ 2,670,634
Soil Scientist Fees (5%) $ 133,532
Engineering Fees (7%) $ 186,944
Total Estimated Project Cost $ 2,991,110
MR Other Costs/Savings
Under this Alternative there is less infrastructure construction required than under the surface
MR discharge Alternative because there are fewer lots developed. The infrastructure unit cost
developed in Appendix C is $344 per linear foot of street constructed. This cost includes all
land clearing, grading, erosion control, storm drainage, water mains, valves, fire hydrants,
paving, curb & gutter, turn lane construction on existing road, engineering, and surveying.
Alternative No. 5 has 12,515 LF of street. The only items not included in this unit cost factor
are the individual grinder pump station for each lot, the water service for each lot, and the
pressure sewer mains. These costs vary depending upon the number of lots developed, and
are therefore calculated separately for each Alternative.
The infrastructure costs for Alternative No. 5 are:
$344/LF of street x 12,515 LF of streets $4,305,160
Water services: 168 x $700 each $117 600
Grinder pump station on each lot, installed: 168 at $5,500 each $924,000
Pressure Sewer:
4,800 LF of 2 inch at $6.50/LF $31,200
7,100 LF of 3 inch at $9.75/1-F $69,225
500 LF of 4 inch at $13.00/LF 6 500
MR Total Infrastructure Cost
$5,453,685
IM The lost opportunity cost due to developing 168 lots in lieu of the 224 lots possible under the
treatment plant/surface discharge Alternative is calculated as follows:
FM Alternative No. 7, the treatment plant with surface water discharge has the following
number and types of lots:
MR
Appendix A
No Page 26

P"
32 Waterfront lots, sale price of: $137,500 each
70 Garden home lots, sale price of: $ 65,000 each
44 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.), sale price of: $ 85,000 each
78 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.), sale price of: $100,000 each
"M 224 Total number of lots
R" Alternative No. 5 has the following number and types of lots:
32 Waterfront lots
FM 70 Garden home lots
44 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.)
22 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.)
MR
168 Total number of lots
FM The lost opportunity cost for Alternative No. 5 is:
56 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.) $100,000 each = $5,600,000
I,
For this economic analysis, it is assumed the annual lot sales for Alternative No. 5 will be 32
Im lots per year, for years 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 8 lots for year 5. The lot sales for Alternative No.
7, the treatment plant with a discharge to surface waters, is assumed to be 32 per year for
years 0 through 6, thereby creating 24 lost opportunity lots in year 5, and 32 lost lots in year 6
,M for Alternative No. 5.
ram
MR
No
MR
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The annual power costs are estimated as follows:
Annual power cost for a single family grinder pump station:
Design pump rate:
480 GPD x 2.5 peaking factor x 1 day/1440 minutes
< 1 GPM, use 11 GPM due to nominal capacity of grinder pump
TDH: Will vary due to location of station and number of pumps in operation in
system. Assume 1 BHP required when operating.
Brake horsepower required: 1.0 BHP
KW input to motor: 0.87 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Operating time: 480 gpd/11 gpm = 43.6 minutes = 0.73 hours/day
Power consumption per day: 0.87 KW x 0.73 hours per day= 0.635 kWH per day
Power consumption per year: = 233 kWH per year
Power costs per year ($.10/kWH) _ $23.30 per house, or $3,914 for 168 houses
Appendix A
Page 27

Om
�., Flow Equalization pumps:
Design pump rate: 75 GPM
TDH: Static head varies:_ maximum is 12 feet plus friction losses of 2 feet = 14
feet
Due to recycle of excess flow, pump will run an average of 18 hours per day
Brake horsepower required: 0.44 BHP (60% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 0.39 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per year: 0.39 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 2,562 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $256
WR
Flow Equalization Blower:
Design flow rate: 36 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 1.52 BHP
KW input to motor: 1.33 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Equalization blower to be cycled on and off by time clock; normal run time to be
18 hours a day or less.
Power consumption per year: 1.33 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 81738 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $874
RM Sludge Blower
Design flow rate: 98 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 3.2 BHP
KW input to motor: 2.8 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Sludge blower to be cycled on and off by time clock; normal run time to be 18
hours a day or less.
Power consumption per year: 2.8 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 181,396 kWH per year
OUR
Power costs per year = $1,840
Mol Main Plant Blower:
Design flow rate: 380 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 9.6 BHP
fm kW input to motor: 8.4 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Main plant blower typically cycled by time clock; this analysis will assume worst
case, i.e. 100% operation.
Power consumption per year: 8.4 KW x 24 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 73,584 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $7,358
IM
Appendix A
Page 28

P"
�+ Ultra -violet Disinfection System:
Power consumption = 0.74 kW
Power consumption per year = 61482 kWH
°'' Power costs per year = $648
Drip irrigation pumps:
fm
80,640 gal per day x 365 days/200 irrigation days = 147,168 gallons per
irrigation day. Pump rate is 116 gpm per zone, or with two zones irrigated
F,
at one time (232 gpm combined rate). Pump TDH is assumed to be 40
feet for static and friction losses to each zone, plus 81 feet (35 psi) at the
inlet end of the drip tubing, or 121 feet for TDH.
147,168 gallons per irrigation day/232 gal per min. = 634 min. pumping per
irrigation day, or 10.57 hours per irrigation day. Allow an additional 0.43
hours per day for zone flushing requirements
Brake horsepower required: 10.1 BHP (70% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 8.86 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per irrigation day:
8.86 KW x 11.0 hours per day = 97.5 kWH per irrigation day
Power consumption per year = 97.5 kWH per irrigation day x 200 irrigation days
per year = 19,500 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $1,950
Summary of annual power costs:
Grinder Pumps — all lots $3,914
Flow equalization pumps $ 256
Flow equalization blower $ 874
Sludge blower $ 1,840
Main plant blowers $ 7,358
Ultra -violet disinfection $ 648
Duplex Effluent Pumps i 950
Total Annual Power Costs $16,840
P,
W4
Lab Analyses:
For the purposes of this report, the following tests and testing frequencies will be used:
Test
Cost
Frequency
Annual Cost
BQD-5
$22
Weekly
1,144
NH3-N
$17
Weekl
884
TSS
13
Weekly
676
Fecal Coliform
$18
Weekly
936
Total N
$32
Quarterly
$128
Total P
$16
Quarterly
$ 64
Conductivity
$12
Weekly
$ 780
Annual Testing Costs
$ 4,612
Appendix A
Page 29

FEM
MR
Annual solids (sludge) disposal cost:
Sludge production rate for extended aeration is estimated to be 2,000 Ibs of dry solids
per million gallons treated. Sludge digestion/holding tank will allow thickening to 3%
solids concentration.
row
2,000 Ibs/M.G. x 0.081 MG/Day x 365 Days/Year
IW = 59,130 Ibs dry solids per year
= 236,615 gallons/year at 3% solids
MR
Contract disposal to application site, including stabilization, at $.10 per gallon
= $23,662
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an annual replacement
charge of $6,639. This is based on a Sinking Fund Factor (A/F., 7%, 15 years) of
0.0398, times the equipment cost of $166,800. The annual cost of routine maintenance
and repairs is estimated to be 5% of equipment cost.
Replacement costs at 0.0398 times $ 166,800 = $ 6,639
Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 166,800 = 8,340
Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge = $ 14,979
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52 hours per year run time for exercise and power outages, for the 60 kW
standby power generator. Fuel consumption is 335 cubic feet per hour of propane
(equal to approximately 9.3 gallons of LP).
52 hours x 9.3 gal./hr LP at $2.47 per gal. = $ 1,194
Total = $ 1,194
rml Contract Operations:
Cost to hire a licensed wastewater treatment plant operator/company to operate the
plant and file all required reports (assumes drip irrigation areas have low maintenance
tree crop cover).
W,
Annual Fee:
Summary of annual O&M costs:
pq Annual power costs
Annual testing costs
Sludge disposal
MR Equipment repair/replacement
I"
Appendix A
Page 30
$ 45,000
$ 16,840
$ 4,612
$ 23,662
$ 14,979

MR
IM
Fuel costs
Contract operations
Total Annual O&M costs
$ 1,194
45,000
$106,287
Present Worth Analysis
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 168 lots
and their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-5.
The cost of the 56 lost opportunity lots will be applied at a rate of 24 lots in year 5, and 32 lots
in year 6. The wastewater treatment and disposal system will be constructed in year 0.
Portions of the calculated annual power costs and the sludge disposal costs are flow
proportional, and will be prorated for the first five years of operation, until the development is
built out.
IM
Year 0 Costs
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Construction $2,991,110
PMInfrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/168 of $5,453,685) $1,038,797
(No O&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
Total Year 0 Cost $4,029,907
RM
Year 1 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/168 of $5,453,685) $1,038,797
FM Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 11,886
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 4,507
Equipment repair/replacement $ 14,979
Fuel Costs $ 11194
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 1: $ 82,178
Total Year 1 Costs $1,120,975
Year 2 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/168 of $5,453,685) $1,038,797
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 13,052
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 9,014
Equipment repair/replacement $ 14,979
Fuel Costs $ 11194
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 2: 87,851
Total Year 2 Costs $1,126,648
Appendix A
Am Page 31

P"
MR
Year 3 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/168 of $5,453,685) $1,0381797
OEM
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 14,218
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 13,521
Equipment repair / replacement $ 14,979
Fuel Costs $ 1,194
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 3: $93,524
Total Year 3 Costs $I f132,321
Year 4 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/168 of $5,453,685)
$1,038,797
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 15,384
Annual testing cost
$ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 18,028
Equipment repair / replacement
$ 14,979
Fuel Costs
$ 11194
Licensed contract operations cost
$45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs
$ 99,197
Total Year 4 Costs
$1,137,994
Year 5 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 8 Lots (8/168 of $5,453,685)
$ . 259,699
Lost opportunity costs of 24 lots (24/56 of $5,600,000)
$21400,000
F+ Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs
$ 16,550
Annual testing costs
$ 41612
Sludge disposal
$ 22,535
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 14,979
Fuel costs
$ 11194
Contract operations
$45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 104,870
Total Year 5 Costs $2,764,569
Appendix A
Page 32

Ma
Year 6 Costs
Lost opportunity costs of 32 lots (32/56 of $5,600,000)
$3,200,000
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs
$ 16,840
Annual testing costs
$ 41612
Sludge disposal
$ 23,662
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 14,979
Fuel costs
$ 11194
Contract operations
45 000
Total Annual O&M Costs
$ 106,287
Total Year 6 Costs
$3,306,287
Year 7 through year 30 Costs (24 years)
Total Annual O&M Costs
$ 106,287
Total Year 7 through year 30 Costs, (Each Year)
$ 106,287
The present worth for Alternative No. 5 is presented in Table 5-13 below.
I"
P"
MR
W
OR
f"
r"
me
MW
oft
Appendix A
Page 33

am
FM
PER
MR
00
ON
PM
P"
0"
I"
P"
P"
mm
mw
F"
Pq
am
Table 5-B
Present Worth of Alternative No. 5
Year
Total Annual Cost
RF, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$4, 029, 907
1.0000
$4, 029, 907
1
$1,120, 975
0.9346
$19047, 640
2
$19126,648
0.8734
$984,058
3
$19132,321
0.8163
$924,311
4
$1,137, 994
0.7629
$868,170
5
$2,7649569
0.7130
$1,971,099
6
$3,306,287
0.6663
$29203,119
7
$106,287
0.6227
$66,190
8
$106,287
0.5820
$61,860
9
$106,287
0.5439
$57,813
10
$106,287
0.5083
$54, 031
11
$106,287
0.4751
$50,496
12
$106,287
0.4440
$47,193
13
$106,287
0.4150
$44,105
14
$106,287
0.3878
$41,220
15
$106,287
0.3624
$389523
16
$106,287
0.3387
$36,003
17
$106,287
0.3166
$33,648
18
$106,287
0.2959
$31,446
19
$106,287
0.2765
$29, 389
20
$106,287
0.2584
$27,467
21
$106,287
0.2415
$25,670
22
$106,287
0.2257
$23,990
23
$106,287
0.2109
$22,421
24
$1061287
0.1971
$20, 954
25
$1069287
0.1842
$19,583
26
$106,287
0.1722
$18, 302
27
$106,287
0.1609
$17,105
28
$106,287
0.1504
$15, 986
29
$106,287
0.1406
$14,940
30
$1069287
0.1314
$13, 963
Present Worth of Alternative No. 5
$12,8409603
Appendix A
Page 34

am
ALTERNATIVE NO. 6
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,
WITH DISPOSAL THROUGH SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
�► This Alternative utilizes a central treatment system consisting of a wastewater treatment plant
to achieve secondary treatment and disinfection. The disinfected wastewater is then surface
applied through solid set sprinkler heads to be further treated by the soils. The wastewater
cannot be applied when there is a chance of runoff, such as when the ground is saturated by
rainfall. To address this problem a storage lagoon is required to provide the storage volume
required to meet the demands of a wetter than average winter. The system operator will
generally operate the irrigation system in accordance with the calculated water balance to
insure the system's storage needs do not exceed the lagoon volume.
ON The recommended application rates and tract capacities for the mapped soil units used for
irrigation are presented in Table No. 6-A. Based on this information and the available area of
each soil unit, a total of 144 lots can be developed under this Alternative.
The wastewater flows for this Alternative are:
144 houses @ 480 gpd = 69,120 gal/day
Total Wastewater Capacity of indicated soils = 69,211 gal/day
The design flow for this Alternative is 69,120 gpd. The spray irrigation area utilizes 47.65
acres, based on a layout inefficiency factor of 1.2. The layout inefficiency is due to
�^ topography, shape of suitable soil areas and setback requirements (see Figure No. 6 for the
preliminary subdivision plan for this Alternative).
M
MR
M
aM
am
MR
TABLE NO.6-A
CAPACITY OF SOILS USED FOR SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Soil Unit
Area, in Acres
LTAR, in in/yr
Capacity, in GPD
Cecil-Pacolet- Hiwassee
35.80
25
55,491
Wilkes-Wynott
3.14
15
21920
Congaree
6.56
20
8,134
Altavista
2.15
20
21666
Total
47.65
69,211
Appendix A
Page 35

HAUSER
SR 1175
TREVOR
PRIVATE
COLOR SHADING KEY
LAKE, STREAM OR OPEN WATER
50' BUFFER ON STREAMS
JIM
WET WEATHER
STORAGE
lum
W. RAAA��
M1r�WWTp
low
—i ©G GC► GG�C,—GpAq—
■ ��'� .`rr!7!�� �lC�a►i1w>�1r�frr�irlrl�iri��ir�:rita�ll%i:i�
GRAPHIC SCALE
600 0 300 600 1200
I
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 600 ft.
0
FIGURE No. 6
2400 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WITH
DISPOSAL THROUGH SPRAY IRRRIGATION
LINES (SURFACE APPLIED)

OR
a"
on
No
F"
im
OR
0"
"a
ow
ow
Alternative No. 6 uses 47.65 acres of the 167.87 acres of usable soils for spray irrigation fields
(capacity of 69,211 gpd). A total of 120.22 acres will be used for lots, associated streets, a
recreational lake, and the wastewater treatment plant and effluent storage pond area. Some
of this acreage used for the lots must be taken from the usable soils, due to the location of the
soils relative to the site access locations. The remaining 47.65 acres are used for effluent
irrigation to create the maximum number of lots possible. Capacity is calculated as follows:
(Areas, in acres) x (43,560 sf per ac.) / (1.2 (layout inefficiency)) x (LTAR) / (12 in. per year)
/ (365 days per year) x (7.48 gallons per CF)
= Capacity in gal/day
The wastewater system components for this Alternative include:
One 69,120 GPD extended aeration package plant with
ultraviolet disinfection system, installed (no filters)
$
274,380
Excavation and construction of concrete base slab
$
49,570
One 45 KW standby generator and automatic transfer switch, installed
$
30,849
One lined lagoon (60 days storage, per DWQ Water Balance spreadsheet)
with bottom dimensions of 125 Ft x 250 Ft, 3:1 side slopes,
12 foot maximum water level, two feet of freeboard, one foot
min. below required storage volume:
15,785 CY cut to fill at $4.00/CY
$
63,140
73,300 SF of 40 mil HDPE liner
at $1.85/SF installed
$
135,605
Spray irrigation system including:
24 zones with 49 heads per zone (100' grid spacing):
24 x 49 - 1" risers w/nozzles and
support pipe at $100/each
$
117,600
24 x (700 LF of 1" PVC pipe per zone)
at $3.00/1-17
$
50,400
24 x (700 LF of 1 1/2" PVC per zone)
at $3.60/LF
$
60,480
24 x (700 LF of 2" PVC per zone)
at $4.80/LF
$
80,640
24 x (50 LF of 3" PVC per zone)
at $7.00/LF
$
8,400
24 x (50 LF of 4" PVC per zone)
at $9.50/1-17
$
11,400
24x (200 LF of 6" PVC per zone)
at $14.00/1-17
$
67,200
5,600 LF of 6" force main from irrigation pump station to the
24 zones at $14.00/LF
$
78,400
24 solenoid zone valve stations at $1,300 each
$
31,200
Irrigation pump station with duplex 500
' gpm pumps and zone controllers
$
269,733
Appendix A
Page 37

ow
1,600 chain link fence at $12.00/1.F
(lagoon and plant area) $ 19,200
16,500 LF barbed wire fence at $3.50/1-F
me (spray field area) $ 57,750
One automatic dialer $ 31000
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping, seeding, etc.
no (16.6 acres at $5,000/ac.) $ 83,000
Electrical $ 119,000
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost $1,610,947
Soil Scientist Fees (5%) $ 80,547
Engineering Fees (7%) $ 112,766
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,804,260
Other Costs/Savings
�+ Under this Alternative there would be less infrastructure construction required than under the
surface discharge Alternative because there would be fewer lots developed. The infrastructure
unit cost developed in Appendix C is $344 per linear foot of street constructed. This cost
includes all land clearing, grading, erosion control, storm drainage, water mains, valves, fire
hydrants, paving, curb & gutter, turn lane construction on existing road, engineering, and
surveying. Alternative No. 6 has 12,515 LF of street. The only items not included in the unit
cost factor are the individual grinder pump station for each lot, the water service for each lot,
and the pressure sewer mains. These costs vary depending upon the number of lots
developed, and are therefore calculated separately for each Alternative.
The infrastructure costs for Alternative No. 6 are:
$344/LF of street x 12,515 LF of streets $4,3051,160
Water services: 144 x $700 each $100,800
Grinder pump station on each lot, installed: 144 at $5,500 each $792,000
Pressure Sewer:
41100 LF of 2 inch at $6.50/LF $26,650
41200 LF of 3 inch at $9.75/LF $40,950
11800 LF of 4 inch at $13.00/LF 23 400
Total Infrastructure Cost $5,288,960
The lost opportunity cost due to developing 144 lots in lieu of the 224 lots possible under the
treatment plant/surface discharge Alternative is calculated as follows:
Alternative No. 7, the treatment plant with surface water discharge has the following
number and types of lots:
Appendix A
Page 38

MR
MR
32 Waterfront lots, sale price of: $137,500 each
70 Garden home lots, sale price of: $ 65,000 each
44 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.), sale price of: $ 85,000 each
78 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.), sale price of: $100,000 each
224 Total number of lots
Alternative No. 6 has the following number and types of lots:
32 Waterfront lots
70 Garden home lots
42 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.)
144 Total number of lots
The lost opportunity cost for Alternative No. 6 is:
�* 2 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.), $ 85,000 each = $ 170,000
78 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.) $100,000 each = $ 7,800,000
�+ 80 Total number of lots lost, with a combined value of: $ 7,970,000
For this economic analysis, it is assumed the annual lot sales for Alternative No. 5 will be 32
lots per year, for years 0, 1, 21 3, and 16 lots for year 4. The lot sales for Alternative No. 7, the
treatment plant with a discharge to surface waters, is assumed to be 32 per year for years 0
through 6, thereby creating 16 lost opportunity lots in year 4, and 32 lost lots in each year 5
and 6 for Alternative No. 6.
am Operation and Maintenance Costs
The annual power costs are estimated as follows:
Annual power cost for a single family grinder pump station:
Design pump rate:
+� 480 GPD x 2.5 peaking factor x 1 day/1440 minutes
< i GPM, use 11 GPM due to nominal capacity of grinder pump
TDH: Will vary due to location of station and number of pumps in operation in
system. Assume 1 BHP required when operating.
Brake horsepower required: 1.0 BHP
KW input to motor: 0.87 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Operating time: 480 gpd/11 gpm = 43.6 minutes = 0.73 hours/day
Power consumption per day: 0.87 KW x 0.73 hours per day= 0.635 kWH .per day
Power consumption per year: = 233 kWH per year
ON
I"
Power costs per year ($.10/kWH) _ $23.30 per house, or $3,355 for 144 houses
Appendix A
Page 39

P"
Flow Equalization pumps:
Design pump rate: 64 GPM
TDH: Static head varies: maximum is 12 feet plus friction losses of 2 feet = 14
N.
feet
Due to recycle of excess flow, pump will run an average of 18 hours per day
Brake horsepower required: 0.38 BHP (60% efficiency)
ON
KW input to motor: 0.32 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per year: 0.32 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 2,102 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $210
Flow Equalization Blower:
Design flow rate: 31 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 1.3 BHP
KW input to motor: 1.1 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Equalization blower to be cycled on and off by time clock; normal run time to be
18 hours a day or less.
Power consumption per year: 1.1 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 7,227 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $723
Sludge Blower
Design flow rate: 84 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 2.7 BHP
KW input to motor: 2.3 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Sludge blower to be cycled on and off by time clock; normal run time to be 18
hours a day or less.
Power consumption per year: 2.3 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 15,111 kWH per year
p,
Power costs per year = $1,511
W
Main Plant Blower:
Design flow rate: 325 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 8.2 BHP
kW input to motor: 7.2 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Main plant blower typically cycled by time clock; this analysis will assume worst
case, i.e. 100% operation.
Power consumption per year: 7.2 KW x 24 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 63,072 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $6,307
Appendix A
Page 40

F"
am Ultra -violet Disinfection System:
Power consumption = 0.63 kW
Power consumption per year = 51519 kWH
"" Power costs per year = $552
Duplex irrigation pumps:
69,120 gal per day x 365 days/200 irrigation days = 126,144 gallons per
irrigation day. Pump rate is 10 gpm per sprinkler head, or 490 gpm per
zone. Pump TDH is assumed to be 40 feet for static and friction losses to
each zone, plus 127 feet (55 psi) at the sprinkler nozzles, or 167 feet for
TDH.
126,144 gallons per irrigation day/490 gal per min. = 257 min. pumping per
irrigation day, or 4.28 hours per irrigation day
Brake horsepower required: 29.52 BHP (70% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 25.91 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per irrigation day:
25.91 KW x 4.28 hours per day = 110.9 kWH per irrigation day
Power consumption per year = 110.9 kWH per irrigation day x 200 irrigation
days per year = 22,180 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $2,218
Summary of annual power costs:
Grinder Pumps — all lots
$3,355
Flow equalization pumps
$ 210
Flow equalization blower
$ 723
Sludge blower
$ 1,511
Main plant blowers
$ 6,307
Ultra -violet disinfection
$ 552
Duplex Effluent Pumps
2 218
Total Annual Power Costs
$14,876
0"
am
No
am
am
Lab Analyses:
For the purposes of this report, the following tests and testing frequencies will be used:
Test
Cost
Frequency
Annual Cost
BOD-5
22
Weekly
$ 1 144
NH3-N
17
Weekly
884
TSS
13
Weekly
$ 676
Fecal Coliform
18
Weekly
936
Total N
32
Quarterly
$ 128
Total P
16
Quarterly
$64
Conductivity
12
Weekly
$ 780
Annual Testing Costs
$ 4,612
Appendix A
Page 41

P"
PM Annual solids (sludge) disposal cost:
Sludge production rate for extended aeration is estimated to be 2,000 Ibs of dry solids
per million gallons treated. Sludge digestion/holding tank will allow thickening to 3%
an solids concentration.
2,000 Ibs/M.G. x 0.069 MG/Day x 365 Days/Year
= 50,370 Ibs dry solids per year
= 201,561 gallons/year at 3% solids
Contract disposal to application site, including stabilization, at $.10 per gallon =
$20,156
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an annual replacement
charge of $5,691. This is based on a Sinking Fund Factor (A/F, 7%, 15 years) of
0.0398, times the equipment cost of $143,000. The annual cost of routine maintenance
and repairs is estimated to be 5% of equipment cost.
Replacement costs at 0.0398 times $ 143,000 = $ 51691
Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 143,000 = 7,150
Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge = $ 12,841
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52 hours per year run time for exercise and power outages, for the 45 kw
standby power generator. Fuel consumption is 252 cubic feet per hour of propane
(equal to approximately 7 gallons of LP).
,M 52- hours x 7.0 gal./hr LP at $2.47 per gal.
Total
Contract Operations:
Cost to hire a licensed wastewater treatment plant operator/company to operate the
plant and file all required reports (assumes spray irrigation areas have low maintenance
tree crop cover, or hay fields mowed at no charge in exchange for hay removal).
Annual Fee: $45,000
Summary of annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 6:
Annual power costs $ 14,876
Annual testing costs $ 41612
Sludge disposal $ 20,156
Equipment repair/replacement $ 12,841
Fuel costs $ 899
Contract operations 45 000
Total Annual O&M costs $ 98,384
Appendix A
Page 42

P"
am
POR
P"
Present Worth Analysis
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 144 lots
and their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-4.
The cost of the 80 lost opportunity lots will be applied at a rate of 16 lots in year 4, and 32 lots
in years 5-6. The wastewater treatment and disposal system will be constructed in year 0.
Portions of the calculated annual power costs and the sludge disposal costs are flow
proportional, and will be prorated for the first four years of operation, until the development is
built out.
Year 0 Costs
�., Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Construction $1,8041260
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/144 of $5,288,960) 1 32 175 4
(No 0&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
Total Year 0 Cost $2,979,584
Year 1 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/144 of $5,288,960)
$1,175,324
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 10,541
Annual testing cost
$ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 4,479
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 12,841
Fuel Costs
$ 899
Licensed contract operations cost
$45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 1:
$ 78,372
Total Year 1 Costs
$1,253,696
Year 2 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/144 of $5,288,960)
$1,175,324
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 11,780
MR
Annual testing cost
$ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 8,958
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 12,841
Fuel Costs
$ 899
Licensed contract operations cost
$45,000
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 2:
84,090
Total Year 2 Costs
$1,259,414
IM
No
Appendix A
Page 43

MI
Year 3 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/144 of $5,288,960) $1,175,324
Annual 0&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 13,018
Annual testing cost
$ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 13,437
Equipment repair / replacement
$ 12,841
Fuel Costs
$ 899
Licensed contract operations cost
$45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 3:
$89,807
Total Year 3 Costs
$1,265,131
Year 4 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 16 Lots (16/144 of $5,288,960)
$ 587,662
Lost opportunity costs of 16 lots (16/80 of $7,970,000)
$1,594,000
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 14,257
Annual testing cost
$ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 17,916
Equipment repair / replacement
$ 12,841
Fuel Costs
$ 899
Licensed contract operations cost
$45,000
•+ Total Annual O&M Costs
$ 95,525
Total Year 4 Costs
$2,277,187
Year 5 and 6 Costs
Lost opportunity costs of 32 lots (32/80 of $7,970,000)
$3,188,000
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs
$ 14,876
Annual testing costs
$ 41612
Sludge disposal
$ 20,156
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 12,841
Fuel costs
$ 899
Contract operations
$45,000
�., Total Annual O&M Costs $ 98,384
Total Year 5 and 6 Costs $3,286,384
Year 7 through year 30 Costs (24 years)
Total Annual 0&M Costs $ 98,304
Appendix A
am Page 44

P"
mm Total Year 7 through year 30 Costs.- (Each Year) $ 98,304
P"
P"
am
MR
m"
R"
FW
MR
m"
MR
P,
No
No
The present worth for Alternative No. 6 is presented in Table 6-13 below.
Table 6-B
Present Worth of Alternative No. 6
Year
Total Annual Cost
P1F, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$2,9791584
1.0000
$2,979,584
1
$1,2539696
0.9346
$1,1719679
2
$1,259,414
0.8734
$1,100,021
3
$1,265,131
0.8163
$1, 032,724
4
$2,277,187
0.7629
$1,737,255
5
$3,2869384
0.7130
$2,343,146
6
$3,286,384
0.6663
$2,189,856
7
$98,304
0.6227
$619219
8
$98,304
0.5820
$57,214
9
$98,304
0.5439
$53,471
10
$98,304
0.5083
$49,973
11
$98,304
0.4751
$469704
12
$98,304
0.4440
$43,648
13
$98,304
0.4150
$40,793
14
$98,304
0.3878
$38,124
15
$98,304
0.3624
$35,630
16
$98,304
0.3387
$33,299
17
$98,304
0.3166
$31,121
18
$98,304
0.2959
$29,085
19
$98,304
0.2765
$27,182
20
$98,304
0.2584
$25,404
21
$989304
0.2415
$23,742
22
$98,304
0.2257
$229189
23
$98,304
0.2109
$20,737
24
$98,304
0.1971
$19,380
25
$98,304
0.1842
$18,112
26
$98,304
0.1722
$16,928
27
$98,304
0.1609
$159820
28
$989304
0.1504
$14,785
29
$98,304
0.1406
$139818
30
$98,304
0.1314
$12,914
Present Worth of Alternative No. 6
$1393059654
Appendix A
Page 45

F"
M" ALTERNATIVE NO. 7
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,
WITH DISPOSAL THROUGH SURFACE DISCHARGE TO THE YADKIN RIVER
Alternative No. 7 utilizes an extended aeration wastewater treatment plant to treat the
wastewater to a level that is suitable for discharge to surface waters. This system does not
rely on land area for treatment or disposal, thus its area requirements are minimal when
�+ compared to the on -site disposal alternatives. Because this option does not require extensive
amounts of land, it allows the development of the maximum number of lots permitted by
zoning, or 224 lots. See Figure No. 7 for preliminary subdivision plant. A detailed description
of the treatment facilities is presented in Section C. of this Engineering Alternatives Analysis.
P"
The estimated flow for this Alternative is:
224 Houses at 480 gal. per day = 107,520 gpd
This Alternative is illustrated in Figure 7.
The wastewater treatment system components for this
Alternative
and their estimated
installed costs are as follows:
One 107,520 GPD wastewater treatment plant with
tertiary filters and ultraviolet disinfection system,
installed
$
543,000
rim Excavation and construction of base slabs
$
96,390
One 75 KW standby generator and automatic
transfer switch, installed
$
38,300
480 LF of chain line fence at $12.00/LF
$
51760
Discharge pipe to river (1,400 LF at $25/LF)
$
35,000
One automatic dialer
$
3,000
Electrical construction
$
55,287
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
5,000
seeding, etc. (1.0 acre at $5,000/ac.)
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
$
781,737
�., Soil Scientist Fees
$
0
Engineering Fees (7%)
$ 54,722
�+ Total Estimated Project Cost
$
836,459
Other Costs/Savings
The infrastructure unit cost developed in Appendix C is $344 per linear foot of street
constructed. This cost includes all land clearing, grading, erosion control, storm drainage,
water mains, valves, fire hydrants, paving, curb & gutter, turn lane construction on existing
road, engineering, and surveying. Alternative No. 7 has 15,351 LF of street. The only items not
Appendix A
MR Page 46

Wq
included in the unit cost factor are the individual grinder pump station for each lot, the water
service for each lot, and the pressure sewer mains. These costs vary depending upon the
number of lots developed, and are therefore calculated separately for each Alternative.
The infrastructure costs for Alternative No. 7 are:
$344/1-F of street x 15,351 LF of streets $5,280,744
Water services: 224 x $700 each $1561,800
Grinder pump station on each lot, installed: 224 at $5,500 each $1,2321000
Pressure Sewer:
5,100 LF of 2 inch at $6.50/1-17 $33,150
5,600 LF of 3 inch at $9.75/LF $54,600
4,600 LF of 4 inch at $13.00/1.F $59,800
Total Infrastructure Cost $6,817094
OR Operation and Maintenance Costs
The annual power costs are estimated as follows:
fW
Annual power cost for a single family grinder pump station:
Design pump rate:
MR 480 GPD x 2.5 peaking factor x 1 day/1440 minutes
< 1 GPM, use 11 GPM due to nominal capacity of grinder pump
TDH: Will vary due to location of station and number of pumps in operation in
FM system. Assume 1 BHP required when operating.
Brake horsepower required: 1.0 BHP
M, KW input to motor: 0.87 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Operating time: 480 gpd/11 gpm = 43.6 minutes = 0.73 hours/day
Power consumption per day: 0.87 KW x 0.73 hours per day= 0.635 kWH per day
MR Power consumption per year: = 233 kWH per year
Power costs per year ($.10/kWH) _ $23.30 per house, or $5,219 for 224 houses
Flow equalization pumps:
Design pump rate: 100 GPM
'^ TDH: Static head varies: maximum is 12 feet plus friction losses of 2 feet = 14
feet
Due to recycle of excess flow, pump will run an average of 18 hours per day
Brake horsepower required: 0.59 BHP (60% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 0.52 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per year: 0.52 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 3,416 kWH per year
,.� Power costs per year = $342
Appendix A
,m Page 47

— —Fk
� � " %, %m kllq�!Egom
HAUSER
SR 1175
TREVOR
PRIVATE
9
5
IN
r GRAPHIC SCALE
600 0 300 600 1200
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 600 ft.
EFFLUENT PIPE
TO RIVER —�
N 'FIGURE No. 7
=w^ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WITH DISCHARGE TO YADKIN RIVER

f"
"Pi Flow Equalization Blower:
Design flow rate: 48 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 2.0 BHP
KW input to motor: 1.76 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Equalization blower to be cycled on and off by time clock; normal run time to be
18 hours a day or less.
Power consumption per year: 1.76 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 11,563 kWH per year
M Power costs per year = $1,156
,,, Sludge Blower
Design flow rate: 131 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 4.2 BHP
., KW input to motor: 3.7 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Sludge blower to be cycled on and off by time clock; normal run time to be 18
hours a day or less.
Power consumption per year: 3.7 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 24,309 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $2,431
Main Plant Blower:
Design flow rate: 510 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 12.7 BHP
kW input to motor: 11.1 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Main plant blower typically cycled by time clock; this analysis will assume worst
case, i.e. 100% operation.
Power consumption per year: 11.1 KW x 24 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 97,236 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $9,724
Ultra -violet Disinfection System:
Power consumption = 0.98 kW
Power consumption per year = 8,584 kWH
Power costs per year = $858
Filter backwash pumps:
Design flow rate: 4 cells @ 18.75 S.F. each. Backwash at 20 gpm/sf, 375 gpm
TDH: 25 feet
Brake horsepower required: 3.9 BHP (60% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 3.4 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Assume 10 minutes per day per cell, four cells total.
Pump run time is .67 hours per day.
Power consumption per year: 3.4 kW x .67 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 831 kWH per year
�+ Power costs per year = $83
Appendix A
Page 49

FM
Mudwell pumps:
Design flow rate: 60 gpm
TDH: 16 feet
Brake horsepower required: 0.40 BHP (60% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 0.35 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Returns water used in filter backwashes (375 gpm x 10 minutes x 4 cells) _
15,000 gallons per day
Pump run time is 15,000 gallons/60 gpm = 250 minutes = 4.17 hours/day
Power consumption per year: 0.35 kW x 4.17 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 533 kWH per year
YAM Power costs per year = $53
Summary of annual power costs:
Grinder Pumps — all lots
$5,219
Flow equalization pumps
$ 342
Flow equalization blower
$ 1,156
Sludge blower
$ 2,431
Main plant blowers
$ 9,724
Ultra -violet disinfection
$ 858
Filter Backwash Pumps
$ 83
Mudwell Pumps
53
M
MT
R,
P"
Total Annual Power Costs $19,866
Lab Analyses:
For the purposes of this report, the following tests and testing frequencies will be used:
Test
Cost
Frequency
Annual Cost
BOD-5
$22
3/Week
$3,432
NH3-N
17
3/Week
$ 2 652
TSS
$13
3/Week
2 028
Fecal Coliform
$18
3/Week
$2,808
Total N
$32
Weekly
$ 1 664
Total P
$16
Weekly
832
Conductivity
$12
Weekly
$ 624
Annual Testing Costs
$14,040
Annual solids (sludge) disposal cost:
Sludge production rate for extended aeration is 2,000 Ibs of dry solids per million
gallons treated. Sludge digestion/holding tank will allow thickening to 3% solids
concentration.
Appendix A
Page 50

MR
2,000 Ibs/M.G. x 0.108 MG/Day x 365 Days/Year
= 78,840 Ibs dry solids per year
= 315,486 gallons/year at 3% solids
Contract disposal to application site, including stabilization, at $.10 per gallon =
$31,549
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an annual replacement
charge of $5,910. This is based on a Sinking Fund Factor (A/F, 7%, 15 years) of
0.0398, times the equipment cost of $148,500. The annual cost of routine maintenance
and repairs is estimated to be 5% of equipment cost.
Replacement costs at 0.0398 times $ 148,500 = $ 5,910
Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 148,500 = 7,425
Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge = $ 13,335
Fuel Costs:
Based on 52 hours per year run time for exercise and power outages, for the 75 kW
standby power generator. Fuel consumption is 420 cubic feet per hour of propane
(equal to approximately 11.7 gallons of LP).
52 hours x 11.7 gal./hr LPG at $2.47 per gal. _ $ 1,503
Total = $ 1,503
Contract operations by licensed operator: $ 55,000
Summary of annual O&M costs:
Annual power costs $ 19,866
Annual testing costs $ 14,040
Sludge disposal $ 31,549
Equipment repair/replacement $ 13,335
Fuel costs $ 11503
Contract operations 55 000
Total Annual O&M costs $135,293
Present Worth Analysis
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 224 lots
and their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-6.
The wastewater treatment system will be constructed in year 0. Portions of the calculated
annual power costs and the sludge disposal costs are flow proportional, and will be prorated
for the first seven years of operation, until the development is built out.
Appendix A
Page 51

PM
Year 0 Costs
Wastewater Treatment System Construction $ 836,459
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) 973,871
(No 0&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
Total Year 0 Cost $1,810,330
Year 1 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual 0&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 15,393
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 4,507
Equipment repair/replacement $ 13,335
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 1: 103,778
Total Year 1 Costs $1,077,649
Year 2 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 16,138
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 9,014
Equipment repair/replacement $13,335
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 2: $ 109,030
Total Year 2 Costs $1,082,901
.► Year 3 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 9731,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 16,884
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 13,521
Equipment repair/replacement $ 13,335
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 3: $ 114,283
Total Year 3 Costs $1,088,153
Appendix A
Page 52

PI
Year 4 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 17,629
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 18,028
Equipment repair/replacement $ 13,335
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
MR Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 4: 119,535
Total Year 4 Costs $1,093,406
Year 5 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 18,375
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 22,535
Equipment repair/replacement $ 13,335
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 5: 124 788
Total Year 5 Costs $1,098,659
Year 6 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 19,120
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
'" Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 27,042
Equipment repair/replacement $13,335
Fuel Costs $ 11503
MR Licensed contract operations cost 55 000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 6: 130,040
Total Year 6 Costs $1,103,911
Year 7 through year 30 Costs (24 years)
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 135,293
F
Appendix A
Page 53

P*1
F" Total Year 7 through year 30 Costs - (Each Year) $ 135,293
P4
P"
0"
F"
last
PSI
P"
PR
m"
Pq
P"
P"
The present worth for Alternative No. 7 is presented in Table 7-A below.
Table 7-A
Present Worth of Alternative No. 7
Year
Total Annual Cost
P/F, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$1,810,330
1.0000
$1,810,330
1
$1,077,649
0.9346
$10007,149
2
$1,082,901
0.8734
$945,848
3
$1, 088,153
0.8163
$888,257
4
$110939406
0.7629
$834,154
5
$1,098,659
0.7130
$783,329
6
$19103,911
0.6663
$735,583
7
$135,293
0.6227
$84, 254
8
$135,293
0.5820
$78,742
9
$135,293
0.5439
$73,590
10
$135,293
0.5083
$68,776
11
$135,293
0.4751
$64,277
12
$135,293
0.4440
$60,072
13
$135,293
0.4150
$56,142
14
$135,293
0.3878
$52,469
15
$135,293
0.3624
$49, 036
16
$135,293
0.3387
$45, 828
17
$1359293
0.3166
$42,830
18
$135,293
0.2959
$40,028
19
$135,293
0.2765
$37,410
20
$135,293
0.2584
$34,962
21
$1359293
0.2415
$32,675
22
$135,293
0.2257
$30,537
23
$135,293
0.2109
$28,540
24
$135,293
0.1971
$26,673
25
$1351293
0.1842
$24, 928
26
$135,293
0.1722
$230297
27
$135,293
0.1609
$21,773
28
$135,293
0.1504
$20, 348
29
$135,293
0.1406
$19,017
30
$135,293
0.1314
$17,773
Present Worth of Alternative No. 7
$8,0389626
Appendix A
Page 54

PER
ALTERNATIVE NO.8
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT Pram LANT,
WITH RE -USE QUALITY EFFLUENT DISPOSAL THROUGH DRIP IRRIGATION
LINES (SURFACE APPLIEDI
This Alternative is similar to Alternative No. 5, except that the wastewater is treated to re -use
quality, as defined by 15 NCAC 02T.0906. The treated effluent is stored in a lagoon, and then
applied on the land surface through a drip irrigation system. One of the benefits of treating to
re -use quality is the effluent may be applied up to the property line, with no setback required.
However, the re -use rules require that the wastewater be treated to more stringent limits, that
the treatment system have a more thorough disinfection system than utilized under Alternative
No. 5, have an effluent turbidimeter, and have a lined "upset pond" with five days of storage.
By elimination of the setbacks, additional land is made available for application of wastewater,
which translates into more lots that can be served. However, the additional lots that can be
served will be located on land that was previously designated as drip irrigation areas under
Alternative No. 5. Therefore, the additional irrigation areas recovered from the Alternative No.
5 setback zones are. used to (1) replace the irrigation areas taken by the additional lots
created, and (2) to provide irrigation areas sufficient to serve the additional lots.
The additional number of lots created under this alternative is 15, making the total number of
lots 183. The estimated flow for this Alternative is 89,280 gallons per day, using the same flow
factors as used in the previous Alternatives:
F"
FM
MR
P"
183 houses @ 480 gpd average = 87,840 gpd
Total Wastewater Capacity of indicated soil = 88,075 gal/day
The drip irrigation area for this alternative is the 52.27 acres utilized under Alternative No. 5,
plus 12.11 acres from the setback zones in Alternative No. 5, less the 6.38 acres of drip
irrigation area utilized for the additional lots created. The total area under drip irrigation under.
this alternative is 58.00 acres. As in Alternative No. 5, the layout inefficiency factor of 1.1 is
utilized due to topography, shape of suitable soil areas and setback requirements that reduce
the efficiency of the tubing layout. The area of each soil unit proposed for irrigation and the
recommended application rates are presented in Table No. 8-A.
TABLE NO.8-A
CAPACITY OF SOILS USED FOR SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Soil Unit
Area, in Acres
LTAR, in in/yr
Capacity, in GPD
Cecil-Pacolet- Hiwassee
34.98
25
59,148
Wilkes-Wynott
6.53
15
61622
Congaree
11.92
20
16,120
Altavista
4.57
20
61185
Total
58.00
88,075
Appendix A
Page 55

COLOR SHADING KEY
LAKE, STREAM OR OPEN WATER
50' BUFFER ON STREAMS
G I7��11►_ 0 1
0
HAUSER RD
SR 1175
TREVOR LAP
PRIVATE
_--- WET WEATHER
STORAGE
1 WWTr
5 DAY POND
1!�'1r1�R�
L]iu.Z C+ r!!C n
0 ■ Cyy}sw+���•�iL.r�►�ur/lrl�ar�'.rr�`'.lv�r©.r
+� � it .•r �`^�^^'r'�r+!�r��►�s.r-
�� Vyyy �r�rirt�lir� 2
PRO
low F.
rwrw
GRAPHIC SCALZ
IN FEET
600
FIGURE No. 8-
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND
o WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, WITH RE —USE
QUALITY EFFLUENT DISPOSAL THROUGH DRIP
IRRIGATION LINES (SURFACE APPLIED)

M"
�+ Alternative No. 8 uses 58.00 acres of the 167.87 acres of usable soils for drip irrigation fields
(capacity of 88,075 gpd). A total of 109.87 acres will be used for lots, associated streets, a
recreational lake, and the wastewater treatment plant and effluent storage pond area. Some
of this acreage used for the lots must be taken from the usable soils, due to the location of the
soils relative to the site access locations. The remaining 58.00 acres are used for effluent
irrigation to create the maximum number of lots possible. Capacity is calculated as follows:
(Areas, in acres) x (43,560 sf per ac.) / (1.1(layout inefficiency)) x (LTAR) / (12 in. per foot)
/ (365 days per year) x (7.48 gallons per CF)
M"
P"
ow
MR
MR
M"
P"
F"
P"
ON
= Capacity in gal/day
The wastewater system components for this Alternative include:
One 87,840 GPD extended aeration package plant with
ultraviolet disinfection system, tertiery filters and
effluent pump station, installed
Excavation and construction of concrete
base slab
One 60 kW standby generator and
automatic transfer switch, installed
One lined lagoon (71 days storage, per DWQ Water Balance spreadsheet)
with bottom dimensions of 163 Ft x 326 Ft, 3:1 side slopes,
12 foot maximum water level, two feet of freeboard, one foot
minimum below required storage volume:
23,338 CY cut to fill at $3.50/CY
One lined lagoon (5 days storage, per DWQ rules), with bottom
dimensions of 18 Ft x 36 Ft, 3:1 side slopes,
12 foot maximum water level, two feet of freeboard, one foot
minimum below required storage volume:
1,838 CY cut to fill at $3.50/CY
121,555 SF of 30 mil HDPE liner
at $1.55/SF installed (for both storage lagoons)
Drip irrigation system including 1,127,352 LF
dripper line, 48 zone valves, 12 return flush
valves, supply & return piping, irrigation pump
system, pump house, computer controller,
control wiring, electrical, etc.
Electrical Construction
1,750 LF of six ft. chain link fence for lagoon and
treatment plant area at $12.00/1-F
12,200 LF of barbed wire fencing for application
area at $3.50/LF
Erosion control, clearing, landscaping,
seeding, etc. (5.77 acres at $5,000/ac.)
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Cost
Appendix A
Page 57
$ 443,611
$ 78,373
$ 37,086
$ 81,683
$ 6,433
$ 188,410
$ 1,931,129
$ 175,700
$ 21,000
$ 42,700
$ 28,850
$ 3,034,975

am
Soil Scientist Fees (5%) $ 151,749
Engineering Fees (7%) $ 212.448
Total Estimated Project Cost $ 3,399,172
Other Costs/Savings
Under this Alternative there is less infrastructure construction required than under the surface
discharge Alternative because there are fewer lots developed. The infrastructure unit cost
developed in Appendix C is $344 per linear foot of street constructed. This cost includes all
land clearing, grading, erosion control, storm drainage, water mains, valves, fire hydrants,
paving, curb & gutter, , turn lane construction on existing road, engineering, and surveying.
Alternative No. 8 has 12,515 LF of street. The only items not included in this unit cost factor
are the individual grinder pump station for each lot, the water service for each lot, and the
pressure sewer mains. These costs vary depending upon the number of lots developed, and
are therefore calculated separately for each Alternative.
The infrastructure costs for Alternative No. 8 are:
$344/1-F of street x 12,515 LF of streets
IN" Water services: 183 x $700 each
Grinder pump station on each lot, installed: 183 at $5,500 each
Pressure Sewer:
41800 LF of 2 inch at $6.50/1.17
7,100 LF of 3 inch at $9.75/LF
500 LF of 4 inch at $13.00/1-17
MR Total Infrastructure Cost
$4,305,160
$128,100
$1,006,500
$31,200
$69,225
6 500
$5,546,685
The lost opportunity cost due to developing 183 lots in lieu of the 224 lots possible under the
a� treatment plant/surface discharge Alternative is calculated as follows:
Alternative No. 7, the treatment plant with surface water discharge has the following
number and types of lots:
32 Waterfront lots, sale price of: $137,500 each
70 Garden home lots, sale price of: $ 65,000 each
44 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.), sale price of: $ 85,000 each
78 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.), sale price of: $100,000 each
224 Total number of lots
P"
IM
Appendix A
Page 58

r" Alternative No. 8 has the following number and types of lots:
32
Waterfront lots
70
Garden home lots
44
Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.58 ac.)
37
Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.)
183
Total number of lots
,R The lost opportunity cost for Alternative No. 8 is:
41 Non -waterfront lots (ave. 0.67 ac.) $100,000 each = $4,1001000
For this economic analysis, it is assumed the annual lot sales for Alternative No. 8 will be 32
lots per year, for years 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 23 lots for year 5. The lot sales for Alternative
No. 7, the treatment plant with a discharge to surface waters, is assumed to be 32 per year
for years 0 through 6, thereby creating 9 lost opportunity lots in year 5, and 32 lost lots in
year 6 for Alternative No. 8.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
MR The annual power costs are estimated as follows:
Annual power cost for a single family grinder pump station:
Design pump rate:
480 GPD x 2.5 peaking factor x 1 day/1440 minutes
�., < 1 GPM, use 11 GPM due to nominal capacity of grinder pump
TDH: Will vary due to location of station and number of pumps in operation in
system. Assume 1 BHP required when operating.
Brake horsepower required: 1.0 BHP
KW input to motor: 0.87 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Operating time: 480 gpd/11 gpm = 43.6 minutes = 0.73 hours/day
Power consumption per day: 0.87 KW x 0.73 hours per day= 0.635 kWH per day
Power consumption per year: = 233 kWH per year
IM Power costs per year ($.10/kWH) _ $23.30 per house, or $4,264 for 183 houses
Im Flow Equalization pumps:
Design pump rate: 82 GPM
TDH: Static head varies: maximum is 12 feet plus friction losses of 2 feet = 14
MR feet
Due to recycle of excess flow, pump will run an average of 18 hours per day
Brake horsepower required: 0.48 BHP (60% efficiency)
MR KW input to motor: 0.42 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per year: 0.42 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 2,759 kWH per year
MR Power costs per year = $276
Appendix A
No Page 59

ON
Flow Equalization Blower:
Design flow rate: 39 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 1.66 BHP
KW input to motor: 1.46 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Equalization blower to be cycled on and off by time clock; normal run time to be
18 hours a day or less.
Power consumption per year: 1.46 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 91592 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $959
Sludge Blower
Design flow rate: 107 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
►� Blower horsepower: 3.49 BHP
KW input to motor: 3.06 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Sludge blower to be cycled on and off by time clock; normal run time to be 18
�* hours a day or less.
Power consumption per year: 3.06 kW x 18 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 20,104 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $2,010
Im
OR
Main Plant Blower:
Design flow rate: 414 CFM at 4.5 PSIG
Blower horsepower: 10.5 BHP
kW input to motor: 9.2 kW (85% motor efficiency)
Main plant blower typically cycled by time clock; this analysis will assume worst
case, i.e. 100% operation.
Power consumption per year: 9.2 KW x 24 hours per day
x 365 days per year = 80,592 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $8,059
Ultra -violet Disinfection System:
Power consumption = 0.81 kW
Power consumption per year = 7,096 kWH
Power costs per year = $710
Drip irrigation pumps:
87,840 gal per day x 365 days/200 irrigation days = 160,308 gallons per
irrigation day. Pump rate is 116 gpm per zone, or with two zones irrigated
at one time (232 gpm combined rate). Pump TDH is assumed to be 40
feet for static and friction losses to each zone, plus 81 feet (35 psi) at the
inlet end of the drip tubing, or 121 feet for TDH.
Appendix A
Page 60

R"
no 160,308 gallons per irrigation day/232 gal per min. = 691 min. pumping per
irrigation day, or 11.52 hours per irrigation day. Allow an additional 0.48
hours per day for zone flushing requirements
rw Brake horsepower required: 10.1 BHP (70% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 8.86 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per irrigation day:
FW 8.86 KW x 12.0 hours per day = 106.3 kWH per irrigation day
Power consumption per year = 106.3 kWH per irrigation day x 200 irrigation
IM days per year = 21,260 kWH per year
Power costs per year = $2,160
Summary of annual power costs:
Grinder Pumps — all lots
$4,264
Flow equalization pumps
$ 276
Flow equalization blower
$ 959
Sludge blower
$ 2,010
Main plant blowers
$ 8,059
Ultra -violet disinfection
$ 710
Duplex Effluent Pumps
2 160
Total Annual Power Costs
$18,438
T"
MR
MR
MR
No
Lab Analyses:
For the purposes of this report, the following tests and testing frequencies will be used:
Test
Cost
Frequency
Annual Cost
BOD-5
22
3/Week
$ 3 432
NH3-N
17
3/Week
$ 2 652
TSS
$13
3/Week
$ 2 028
Fecal Coliform
18
3/Week
$ 2 808
Total N
$32
Weekly
$ 1664
Total P
$16
Weekly
$ 832
Conductivity
12
Weekly
$ 624
Annual Testing Costs
T $ 14 040
Annual solids (sludge) disposal cost:
Sludge production rate for extended aeration is estimated to be 2,000 Ibs of dry solids
per million gallons treated. Sludge digestion/holding tank will allow thickening to 3%
solids concentration.
2,000 Ibs/M.G. x 0.088 MG/Day x 365 Days/Year
= 64,240 lbs dry solids per year
= 257,063 gallons/year at 3% solids
Appendix A
Page 61

Pq
MW Contract disposal to application site, including stabilization, at $.10 per gallon
_ $25,706
IM Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an annual replacement
charge of $7,315. This is based on a Sinking Fund Factor (A/F, 7%, 15 years) of
rM 0.0398, times the equipment cost of $166,800. The annual cost of routine maintenance
and repairs is estimated to be 5% of equipment cost.
Replacement costs at 0.0398 times $ 183,800 = $ 71315
Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 183,800 = 9 190
Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge = $ 16,505
MR Fuel Costs:
Based on 52 hours per year run time for exercise and power outages, for the 60 kW
standby power generator. Fuel consumption is 335 cubic feet per hour of propane
Wn (equal to approximately 9.3 gallons of LP).
F"
52 hours x 9.3 gal./hr LP at $2.47 per gal. _ $ 1,194
Total = $ 1,194
Contract Operations:
Cost to hire a licensed wastewater treatment plant operator/company to operate the
plant and file all required reports (assumes drip irrigation areas have low maintenance
tree crop cover).
Annual Fee:
$ 55,000
Summary of annual O&M costs:
�+ Annual power costs
$ 18,438
Annual testing costs
$ 14,040
Sludge disposal
$ 25,706
FM Equipment repair/replacement
$ 16,505
Fuel costs
$ 11194
Contract operations
55,000
MR
Total Annual O&M costs
$130,883
F" Present Worth Analysis
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 183 lots
and their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-5.
The cost of the 41 lost opportunity lots will be applied at a rate of 9 lots in year 5, and 32 lots
in year 6. The wastewater treatment and disposal system will be constructed in year 0.
Appendix A
,q Page 62

MM
Portions of the calculated annual power costs and the sludge disposal costs are flow
proportional, and will be prorated for the first five years of operation, until the development is
built out.
FM
Year 0 Costs
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Construction $3,399,172
FM Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/183 of $5,546,685) 969.9i2
(No 0&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
PM Total Year 0 Cost $4,029,907
Year 1 Costs
am Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/183 of $5,546,685) $ 969,912
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 13,137
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 4,495
Equipment repair/replacement $ 16,505
Fuel Costs $ 1,194
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 1:
$ 104,371
Total Year 1 Costs
$1,074,283
Year 2 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/183 of $5,546,685)
$ 969,912
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 14,260
Annual testing cost
$ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 8,990
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 16,505
Fuel Costs
$ 11194
Licensed contract operations cost
55 0.00
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 2:
109,989
Total Year 2 Costs $1,079,901
Year 3 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/183 of $5,546,685) $ 969,912
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 15,384
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 13,485
Equipment repair / replacement $ 16,505
Fuel Costs $ 11194
Appendix A
,� Page 63

IM
Licensed contract operations cost
55 000
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 3:
MR
Total Year 3 Costs
'
Year 4 Costs
-
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/183 of $5,546,685)
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 16,507
Annual testing cost
$ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 17,980
Equipment repair / replacement
$ 16,505
Fuel Costs
$ 11194
Licensed contract operations cost
$55,000
FM
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 4:
Total Year 4 Costs
Year 5 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 23 Lots (23/183 of $5,546,685)
Lost opportunity costs of 9 lots (9/41 of $4,100,000)
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 17,631
Annual testing costs
$ 14,040
Sludge disposal
$ 22,475
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 16,505
Fuel costs
$ 1,194
Contract operations
$55,000
Total Annual O&M Costs
fm Total Year 5 Costs
Year 6 Costs
M' Lost opportunity costs of 32 lots (32/41 of $4,100,000)
Annual O&M Costs:
IM Annual power costs
$ 18,438
Annual testing costs
$ 14,040
Sludge disposal
$ 25,706
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 16,505
Fuel costs
$ 11194
Contract operations
$55,000
Appendix A
,W Page 64
115 608
$1,085,520
$ 969,912
$ 121,226
$1,091,138
$ 697,124
$ 900,000
$ 126,845
$1,723,969
$3,200,000

pq
MR Total Annual O&M Costs $ 130,883
Total Year 6 Costs $31330,883
MR
Year 7 through year 30 Costs (24 years)
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 130,883
MR
Total Year 7 through year 30 Costs_ (Each Year) $ 130,883
The present worth for Alternative No. 8 is presented in Table 8-B below.
FOR
MR
Appendix A
Page 65

PSI
Pm
P"
FM
(PE+
MR
MR
FM
M
Fmi
PM
P"
Pq
IMR
FER
mm
Table 8-A
Present Worth of Alternative No. 8
Year
Total Annual Cost
PIF, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$4,369,084
1.0000
$4,369,084
1
$19074,283
0.9346
$1,004,003
2
$1,079,901
0.8734
$9439227
3
$1,085,520
0.8163
$886,108
4
$1,091,138
0.7629
$832,424
5
$1,723,969
0.7130
$1,229,166
6
$3,330,883
0.6663
$2,219,508
7
$130,883
0.6227
$81,507
8
$130,883
0.5820
$76,175
9
$130,883
0.5439
$71,192
10
$130,883
0.5083
$66, 534
11
$1309883
0.4751
$62,182
12
$130,883
0.4440
$58,114
13
$130,883
0.4150
$54,312
14
$130,883
0.3878
$50,759
15
$130,883
0.3624
$47,438
16
$1309883
0.3387
$44,335
17
$130,883
0.3166
$419434
18
$130,883
0.2959
$38,724
19
$130,883
0.2765
$36,190
20
$130,883
0.2584
$33,823
21
$130,883
0.2415
$31,610
22
$130,883
0.2257
$29, 542
23
$130,883
0.2109
$279609
24
$130,883
0.1971
$25, 803
25
$130,883
0.1842
$24,115
26
$130,883
0.1722
$22,537
27
$130,883
0.1609
$21,063
28
$130,883
0.1504
$199685
29
$130,883
0.1406
$181397
30
$130,883
0.1314
$17,194
Present Worth of Alternative No. 8
$12,483,793
Appendix A
Page 66

PM
p"
F"
Pam!
MR
Mt
PSI
MR
APPENDIX B
PM
p" RE-EXAMINATION OF ALTERNATIVES WITH THE
ASSUMPTION THAT ADDITIONAL LAND IS AVAILABLE
fmm
Pm
pm
ow
MR

P" Summary of Present Worths of Revised Alternatives:
go The land -based treatment and disposal Alternatives No. 3 through No. 6, and No. 8, do not
allow as many lots to be developed as Alternative No. 7, which utilizes a wastewater treatment
plant and discharge to surface waters. This is because the land based treatment systems use
MR some of the developable land for the wastewater disposal systems, unlike the treatment plant
alternative discharge. Consequently, the land -based alternatives must include the lost
opportunity cost of the undeveloped lots. In this Appendix B Alternatives No. 3 through No. 6,
am and No. 8, are re-examined to determine the economic effects of additional land being
available for the treatment systems. Additional land is assumed available to allow development
of the maximum 224 lots on the original Lissara tract for each of these alternatives. This
assumption will eliminate the lost opportunity costs for each of the land -based alternatives.
Each re-examined alternative includes the increased infrastructure costs associated with the
development of 224 lots, the increased treatment and disposal system costs for the scaled -up
facilities to serve 224 lots, and the increased O&M costs for the larger systems.
0" The present worth values of the re-evaluated five alternatives are:
FM
f"
I"
F,
Ow
I"
FM
F"
Alt.
Present
Minimum
Number
Description
Worth
Additional
Land Req d
3-R
Individual Sub -surface Systems
$10,459,104
418 acres
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
4-R
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through
$9,440,999
158 acres
Conventional Nitrification Lines
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
5-R
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Drip
$10,993,339
71.6 acres
Irrigation Lines (Surface Applied)
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
6-R
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Spray
$9,802,982
87.5 acres
Irrigation System
Alternative No. 7 is included below for reference.
Wastewater Collection System &
7
Wastewater Treatment Plant, with Disposal
$8,038,626
through Surface Discharge to Yadkin River
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
8-R
Treatment Plant With Re -Use Quality Effluent
$10,772,670
64.1 acres
Disposal Through Drip Irrigation Lines (Surface
Applied)
Appendix B
Page 1

Iry
MR The estimated minimum additional land areas included in the Table above represent property
that the Lissara developers would have to acquire to develop 224 lots using one of the land -
based wastewater disposal systems evaluated in the EAA. The above summary of the Present
Worths of the revised Alternatives indicates that the PW of Alternative No. 4 (revised) is
closest to the PW of Alternative No. 7 (discharge to the Yadkin River), but it is still 17_%,
greater than the Present Worth of Alternative No. 7. It should be noted that neither
the cost of the required additional land or the cost of pumping and piping the
treated wastewater to off -site areas have been included in the PW calculations for
any of the alternatives.
0"
no
am
M
WR
No
Ow
fm
Flo
With the economic analyses indicating the re-evaluated Alternatives (without land costs and
pumping/piping costs included) are not cost effective when compared to the present worth of
Alternative No. 7, it is readily apparent that the re-evaluated Alternatives will not be cost
effective even if the additional land and pumping/piping costs were $0. Based on this
evaluation, no further investigation of the availability of off -site properties is warranted.
Appendix B
Page 2

No
MR ALTERNATIVE NO.3 (Re-examined with additional land assumed available)
INDIVIDUAL SUB -SURFACE SYSTEMS
Under this re-examined alternative 224 lots will be developed with individual septic systems.
The amount of infrastructure constructed in the original Alternative No. 3 served a total of 83
lots on 246 acres. The infrastructure cost was $4,238,388 for the original Alternative, plus
$383,250 for the 83 septic systems
Assuming similar streets, waterlines, storm drainage, and soils on adjacent properties, the
projected infrastructure cost for 224 lots is:
$4,238,388 x 224 lots/83 lots = $111,438,541
PW The total costs of the individual septic systems for 83 lots was estimated to be $383,250,
which projects to the following costs for 224 lots:
am $383,250 x 224 lots/83 lots = $1,034,313
Alternative No. 3 estimated the 246-acre Lissara tract could support the development of 83
lots with individual septic tanks. Assuming the surrounding properties have similar topography
and soils, it is estimated that as much as 418 additional acres would be required to develop
141 lots, and create a total of 224 lots.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
MR In the interest of brevity, the calculations presented below are a summary of the detailed
calculations presented under Alternative 3 in Appendix A, modified as appropriate to represent
224 lots rather than the original 83 lots.
00
The annual power costs are estimated as follows:
Power costs per year ($.10/kWH) = $8.58 per house times 135 houses assumed to
have pumped systems, or $1,158 per year
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Replacement costs at 0.0398 x $ 650 x 135 lots = $ 31492
Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 87,750 = 4,388
No Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge = $ 71880
No
A.
OW
Solids Removal and Disposal:
Septic tanks are assumed to require pumping once every five years at a cost of $200
per pump -out. It is assumed the lots will be developed over a seven-year period.
Appendix B
Page 3

am The solids removal/disposal costs for this Alternative are summarized as follows:
Pump out of residential septic systems:
FM 32 tanks x $200
$ 6,400 in year 5
32 tanks x $200
$ 6,400 in year 6
32 tanks x $200
$ 6,400 in years 7, 12, 17, etc.
FM
32 tanks x $200
$ 6,400 in years 8, 13, 18, etc.
32 tanks x $200
$ 6,400 in years 9, 14, 19, etc.
RM 64 tanks x $200
$ 12,800 in years 10, 15, 20, etc.
64 tanks x $200
$ 12,800 in years 11, 16, 21, etc.
Summary of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 3 (revised):
Annual power costs $ 1,158
Equipment repair / replacement 7,880
Sub Total Annual O&M Costs $ 31348
am In addition to the sub -total listed above, there is a Solids Removal and Disposal cost that will
be included in the economic analysis to reflect cleaning of the tanks once every five years.
A' Present Worth Analysis
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 224 lots
and their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-6.
The calculated annual power costs are dependent on the number of pump systems in place,
and will be prorated for the first seven years as the development is built out.
Year 0 Costs
go Wastewater System Construction (32/224 of $1,034,313) $ 147,759
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $11,438,541) $ 1,634,077
(No O&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
on Total Year 0 Cost $ 11781,836
Year 1 Costs
Wastewater System Construction (32/224 of $1,034,313) $ 147,759
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $11,438,541) $ 1,634,077
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 165
Equipment repair / replacement . $ 7,880
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 1: 8,045
Total Year 1 Costs $1,789,881
MO Year 2 Costs
Wastewater System Construction (32/224 of $1,034,313) $ 147,759
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $11,438,541) $ 1,634,077
we Annual O&M Costs:
Appendix B
Page 4

No
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 331
Equipment repair / replacement $ 7,880
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 2: 8,211
Total Year 2 Costs $1,790,047
Year 3 Costs
Total Year 3 Costs $1,790,211
IM Year 4 Costs
Total Year 3 Costs $1,790,376
am Year 5 Costs
Wastewater System Construction (32/224 of $1,034,313) $ 147,759
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $11,438,541) $ 1,634,077
"" Annual O&M Costs:
Solids Removal Cost: $ 6,400
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 825
Equipment repair / replacement 7 880
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 5: 15,105
Total Year 5 Costs $1,796,941
Year 6 Costs
Wastewater System Construction (32/224 of $1,034,313) $ 147,759
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $11,438,541) $ 11634,077
Annual O&M Costs:
O, Solids Removal Cost: $ 6,400
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 991
Equipment repair / replacement 7,880
FM Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 6: 15,271
Total Year 6 Costs $1,797,107
am Years 7-9 Costs (and for Years 12-14,17-19, 22-24, and 27-291
Annual O&M Costs:
Solids Removal Cost: $ 6,400
I' Annual power costs (prorated) $ 1,158
Equipment repair /. replacement 7,880
PAR
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Years 7, 8, and 9: $ 15,438
OM
Years 10 and 11 Costs (and for Years 15-16, 20-21, 25-26, and 30)
Annual 0&M Costs:
Solids Removal Cost: $ 12,800
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 1,158
Equipment repair / replacement 7,880
Total Annual O&M Costs for Years 10 and 11: $ 21,838
Appendix B
Page 5

Om
"° The present worth for Alternative No. 3 (revised) is presented in Table 3-R below.
P"
MR
P"
W
am
MR
0"
O.
f"
MR
Im
Im
ma
"a
am
Table 3-R
Present Worth of Alternative No. 3 (revised)
Year
Total Annual Cost
PIF, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$1,781,836
1.0000
$1,781,836
1
$1,789,881
0.9346
$1,672,786
2
$19790, 047
0.8734
$19563 9496
3
$1,790,211
0.8163
$1,461,345
4
$1,790,376
0.7629
$1,365,869
5
$1,796,941
0.7130
$19281,194
6
$1,797,107
0.6663
$1,197,488
7
$15,438
0.6227
$9,614
8
$159438
0.5820
$8,985
9
$15,438
0.5439
$89397
10
$21,838
0.5083
$11,101
11
$21,838
0.4751
$10,375
12
$15,438
0.4440
$6,855
13
$15,438
0.4150
$6,406
14
$15,438
0.3878
$5,987
15
$21,838
0.3624
$7, 915
16
$21,838
0.3387
$7, 397
17
$15,438
0.3166
$4,887
18
$15,438
0.2959
$4,568
19
$15,438
0.2765
$4,269
20
$219838
0.2584
$5,643
21
$21,838
0.2415
$5,274
22
$15,438
0.2257
$3,485
23
$151438
0.2109
$3,257
24
$15,438
0.1971
$3,044
25
$21,838
0.1842
$49024
26
$21,838
0.1722
$3,760
27
$15,438
0.1609
$2,484
28
$15,438
0.1504
$27322
29
$15,438
0.1406
$2,170
30
$21,838
0.1314
$2, 869
Present Worth of Alternative No. 3 (revised)
$10,4599104
Appendix B
Page 6

ram+
am ALTERNATIVE NO.4 (Re-examined with additional land assumed available)
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT, WITH DISPOSAL THROUGH CONVENTIONAL NITRIFICATION
LINES IN A COMMUNITY SYSTEM
Under this re-examined alternative 224 lots will be developed with a central treatment system
consisting of a package treatment plant to achieve secondary treatment and disinfection. The
individual lots can be smaller than 30,000 square feet and are not required to contain any
suitable soils because there will be no septic systems on the lots created under this
Alternative. All wastewater will be collected by a pressure sewer system (each house will have
an individual grinder pump system) and delivered to the proposed Lissara Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The treated effluent from the plant will be pumped from an effluent holding
�., tank into the nitrification fields proposed in areas outside of the subdivision. Flow will be
directed to each of the 18 nitrification fields by solenoid valves and an irrigation -style valve
control system.
The estimated wastewater flow for this Alternative is 107,520 gal/day, based on 224 four
bedroom houses @ 480 gal/day.
The original Alternative No. 4 used 38.26 acres of suitable soils for nitrification fields and
repair areas. For the revised Alternative No. 4, the estimated total amount of suitable soils
required is 69.1 acres. When the 224 lots and associated infrastructure are positioned on the
Lissara tract, there is approximately 21.5 acres of suitable soils outside of the areas proposed
to be developed, and within the Lissara boundaries. These soil areas decrease the amount of
required off -site suitable soils to 47.6 acres. The original Lissara tract had approximately 30%
of its total area classified as suitable, so it is assumed that approximately 158 acres (47.6
acres/30%) of offsite property similar to the Lissara tract would be required to support the
development of 224 lots within Lissara.
(Area in acres) x (43,560 sf per ac.) / (2 for the nitrification field and repair areas / (1.4 for
the layout inefficiencies) / (9 ft. trench spacing) x (3 ft. trench width) x LTAR
= Capacity in gal/day
For this alternative: (69.11 acres x 43,560 sf/acre)/2 (repair)/1.4 (layout ineff.)/(9 feet trench
spacing) x 3 feet trench width x 0.30 gpd/sf (LTAR)
= 107,520 gal/day
Im The wastewater treatment and disposal system costs, as scaled up from Alternative No. 4, are:
Total Estimated Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Costs $ 2,488,141
The infrastructure costs for Alternative No. 4(revised) are:
a. $344/LF of street x 15,351 LF of streets $5,280,744
Appendix B
Page 7

R"
OR
water services: 224 x $700 each
$156,800
Grinder pump station on each lot, installed: 224 at
$5,500 each
$1,232,000
Pressure Sewer:
5,100 LF of 2 inch at $6.50/1-F
$33,150
5,600 LF of 3 inch at $9.75/LF
$54,600
4,600 LF of 4 inch at $13.00/1-F
$59,800
Total Infrastructure Cost
$6,817,094
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The annual power costs are estimated as (refer to Appendix A for detailed calculations):
Annual power cost for grinder pump stations:
Power costs per year ($.10/kwH) _ $23.30
per house, or $5,219 for 224 houses
Flow equalization pumps:
Power costs per year = $342
Flow Equalization Blower:
Power costs per year = $1,156
Sludge Blower
Power costs per year = $2,431
Main Plant Blower:
Power costs per year = $9,724
Ultra -violet Disinfection System:
Power costs per year = $858
Duplex effluent pumps:
Power costs per year = $1,920
Summary of annual power costs:
Grinder Pumps — all lots
$5,219
Flow equalization pumps
$ 342
Flow equalization blower
$ 1,156
Sludge blower
$ 2,431
Main plant blowers
$ 9,724
Ultra -violet disinfection
$ 858
Duplex Effluent Pumps
1920
�.
Total Annual Power Costs
$21,650
Appendix B
�,
Page 8

P"
No
Lab Analyses:
For the purposes of this report, the annual testing cost is estimated to be $4,612.
•w Annual solids (sludge) disposal cost:
Contract disposal to application site, including stabilization, at $.10 per gallon =
$31,549
ow
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15-year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an annual replacement
charge of $6,607. This is based on a Sinking Fund Factor (A/F, 7%, 15 years) of
0.0398, times the equipment cost of $166,000. The annual cost of routine maintenance
and repairs is estimated to be 5% of equipment cost.
Replacement costs at 0.0398 times $ 1661,000 = $ 61607
Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 166,000 = 8,300
Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge = $ 14,907
MR Fuel Costs:
Total annual fuel costs = $ 11503
F"
Contract Operations:
Cost to hire a licensed wastewater treatment plant operator/company to operate the
MW plant and file all required reports.
Im
Annual Fee: $45,000
Summary of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 4(revised):
Annual power costs $ 21,650
Annual testing cost $ 41612
Sludge disposal $ 31,549
Equipment repair / replacement $ 14,907
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost 45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 119,221
o' Present Worth Analysis
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 224 lots
and their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-6.
The wastewater treatment system will be constructed in year 0. Portions of the calculated
annual power costs and the sludge disposal costs are flow proportional, and will be prorated
for the first seven years of operation, until the development is built out.
Appendix B
Page 9

ao
Year 0 Costs
Wastewater Treatment System Construction $2,488,141
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) 973,871
(No O&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
Total Year 0 Cost $3,462,012
Year 1 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 15,531
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 4,507
Equipment repair/replacement $ 14,907
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 1: 86,060
a" Total Year 1 Costs $1,059,931
IM Year 2 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
a, Annual power costs (prorated) $ 16,551
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 9,014
PM Equipment repair/replacement $ 14,907
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
am Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 2: 91,587
Total Year 2 Costs $11,065,458
Year 3 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 17,571
Annual testing cost $ 41612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 13,521
Equipment repair/replacement $14,907
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 3: 97 114
P
Total Year 3 Costs $1,070,984
am
an
Appendix B
Page 10

PI
OW Year 4 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 18,590
Annual testing cost $ 41612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $18,028
Equipment repair/replacement $ 14,907
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 4: 102,640
am Total Year 4 Costs $1,076,511
Year 5 Costs
No Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual 0&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 19,610
"m Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 22,535
Equipment repair/replacement $ 14,907
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 5: 108,167
Total Year 5 Costs $1,018,871
Mn
Year 6 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
OR Annual 0&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 20,630
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 27,042
Equipment repair/replacement $ 14,907
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost 45 000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 6: 113 694
Total Year 6 Costs $1r087,565
No Year 7 through year 30 Costs (24 years)
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 119,221
no Total Year 7 through year 30 Costs — (Each Year) $ 119,221
See Table 4-R for present worth of Alternative No. 4 (revised).
am
Appendix 6
No Page 11

0"
am
PM
ON
0"
am
we
am
m"
OR
Fwq
go
FM
MR
MR
a.
Im
go
Table 4 - R
Present Worth of Alternative No. 4 (revised)
Year
Total Annual Cost
PIF, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$3,462,012
1.0000
$3,462,012
1
$19059,931
0.9346
$990,590
2
$19065,458
0.8734
$930,612
3
$1,070,984
0.8163
$874,242
4
$1,076,511
0.7629
$821,265
5
$1, 018, 871
0.7130
$726,441
6
$190879565
0.6663
$724,690
7
$119,221
0.6227
$74, 245
8
$119,221
0.5820
$69,388
9
$119,221
0.5439
$64,848
10
$119,221
0.5083
$60,606
11
$119,221
0.4751
$56,641
12
$119,221
0.4440
$52,936
13
$119,221
0.4150
$49,472
14
$119,221
0.3878
$46,236
15
$119,221
0.3624
$43,211
16
$119,221
0.3387
$40, 384
17
$119,221
0.3166
$37,742
18
$119,221
0.2959
$35,273
19
$119,221
0.2765
$32,966
20
$119,221
0.2584
$30,809
21
$119,221
0.2415
$28,793
22
$1199221
0.2257
$26,910
23
$119,221
0.2109
$25,149
24
$119,221
0.1971
$23,504
25
$119,221
0.1842
$21,966
26
$119,221
0.1722
$209529
27
$119,221
0.1609
$19,186
28
$119,221
0.1504
$17,931
29
$1199221
0.1406
$16,758
30
$119,221
0.1314
$15,662
Present Worth of Alternative No. 4 (revised)
$9,440,999
Appendix B
Page 12

PM
am Alternative No. 5 (revised)
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,
WITH DISPOSAL THROUGH DRIP IRRIGATION LINES (SURFACE APPLIED)
•� Under this re-examined alternative 224 lots will be developed with a central treatment system
consisting of a. package treatment plant to achieve secondary treatment and disinfection. All
wastewater will be collected by a pressure sewer system (each house will have an individual
grinder pump system) and delivered to the proposed Lissara Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The treated effluent from the plant will be pumped from an effluent holding pond into the drip
irrigation fields proposed in areas outside of the subdivision.
The estimated wastewater flow for this Alternative is 107,520 gal/day, based on 224 four
bedroom houses @ 480 gal/day.
The drip irrigation area under the original Alternative No. 5 utilized 52.27 acres, based on a
Ow layout inefficiency factor of 1.1. The layout inefficiency is due to topography, shape of
suitable soil areas and setback requirements. For the Alternative No. 5 (revised),
approximately 69.59 acres of land similar to the Lissara tract will be required for the drip
FM irrigation area. When the 224 lots and associated infrastructure are positioned on the Lissara
tract, there is approximately 20.9 acres of suitable surface irrigation soils outside of the areas
proposed to be developed, and within the Lissara boundaries. These soil areas decrease the
amount of required off site suitable soils to 48.7 acres. The original Lissara tract had
approximately 68% of its total area classified as suitable for surface irrigation, so it is assumed
that approximately 71.6 acres (48.7 acres/68%) of offsite property similar to the Lissara tract
would be required to support the development of 224 lots within Lissara.
The estimated cost of the wastewater system treatment and disposal components for this
No Alternative is $3,988,147.
The infrastructure costs for Alternative No. 5 (revised) are:
MR
$344/LF of street x 15,351 LF of streets $5,280f744
IM Water services: 224 x $700 each $156,800
Grinder pump station on each lot, installed: 224 at $5,500 each $1,232,000
an
am
Pressure Sewer:
5,100 LF of 2 inch at $6.50/LF $33,150
5,600 LF of 3 inch at $9.75/1-F $54,600
4,600 LF of 4 inch at $13.00/1-17 59 800
Total Infrastructure Cost $6,817,094
For this economic analysis, it is assumed the annual lot sales for Alternative No. 5 (revised)
will be 32 lots per year, for years 0 through 6.
Appendix B
Page 13

0"
OW
go
no
FM
FM
am
OR
P"
M"
FNq
ON
am
Nq
Im
Op
go
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The annual power costs are estimated as (refer to Appendix A for detailed calculations):
Annual power cost for grinder pump stations:
Power costs per year ($.10/kWH) _ $23.30 per house, or $5,219 for 224 houses
Flow equalization pumps:
Power costs per year = $342
Flow Equalization Blower:
Power costs per year = $1,156
Sludge Blower
Power costs per year = $2,431
Main Plant Blower:
Power costs per year = $9,724
Ultra -violet Disinfection System:
Power costs per year = $858
Drip irrigation pumps:
107,520 gal per day x 365 days/200 irrigation days = 196,224 gallons per
irrigation day. Pump rate is 116 gpm per zone, or with two zones irrigated
at one time (232 gpm combined rate). Pump TDH is assumed to be 40
feet for static and friction losses to each zone, plus 81 feet (35 psi) at the
inlet end of the drip tubing, or 121 feet for TDH.
196,224 gallons per irrigation day/232 gal per min. = 846 min. pumping per
irrigation day, or 14.1 hours per irrigation day. Allow an additional 0.9
hours per day for zone flushing requirements
Brake horsepower required: 10.1 BHP (70% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 8.86 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per irrigation day:
8.86 KW x 15.0 hours per day = 132.9 kWh per irrigation day
Power consumption per year = 132.9 kWh per irrigation day x 200 irrigation days
per year = 26,580 kWh per year
Power costs per year = $2,658
Summary of annual power costs:
Grinder Pumps — all lots
Flow equalization pumps
Flow equalization blower
Sludge blower
Appendix B
Page 14
$5,219
$ 342
$ 1,156
$ 2,431

MR
Main plant blowers $ 9,724
Ultra -violet disinfection $ 858
Duplex Effluent Pumps 2 658
Total Annual Power Costs $22,388
Lab Analyses:
For the purposes of this report, the annual testing cost is estimated to be $4,612.
Annual solids (sludge) disposal cost:
Contract disposal to application site, including stabilization, at $.10 per gallon =
$31,549
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
FM Assume 15-year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an annual replacement
charge of $6,607. This is based on a Sinking Fund Factor (A/F., 7%, 15 years) of
0.0398, times the equipment cost of $166,000. The annual cost of routine maintenance
am and repairs is estimated to be 5% of equipment cost.
Replacement costs at 0.0398 times $ 166,000 = $ 61607
PW Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 166,000 = t 8.300
Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge = $ 14,907
Fuel Costs:
Total annual fuel costs = $ 1,503
Contract Operations:
a„ Cost to hire a licensed wastewater treatment plant operator/company to operate the
plant and file all required reports.
MR Annual Fee: $45,000
Summary of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 4(revised):
Annual power costs $ 22,388
Annual testing cost $ 41612
Sludge disposal $ 31,549
Equipment repair / replacement $ 14,907
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost 45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 119,959
ON
Present Worth Analysis
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 224 lots
Appendix B
Page 15

INq
OM and their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-6.
The wastewater treatment system will be constructed in year 0. Portions of the calculatedr
annual power costs and the sludge disposal costs are flow proportional, and will be prorated
Ow for the first seven years of operation, until the development is built out.
am Year 0 Costs
Wastewater Treatment System Construction $3,988,147
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) 973,871
ON (No 0&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
Total Year 0 Cost $4,962,018
MR Year 1 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
MR Annual power costs (prorated) $ 15,636
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 4,507
'" Equipment repair/replacement $ 14,907
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Ow Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 1: 86,165
Total Year 1 Costs
$11060,036
Year 2 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094)
$ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 16,761
Annual testing cost
$ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 9,014
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 14,907
Fuel Costs
$ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost
$45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 2:
91,797
Total Year 2 Costs
$1,065,668
Year 3 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094)
$ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 17,886
Annual testing cost
$ 41612
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 13,521
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 14,907
Fuel Costs
$ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost
$45,000
Appendix B
Page 16

am Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 3: 97,430
Total Year 3 Costs $1,071,300
MR
Year 4 Costs
MR Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $19,011 _
IM Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 18,028
Equipment repair/replacement $14,907
M+ Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 4: 103,061
FM
Total Year 4 Costs $1,076,932
Year 5 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094)
$ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 20,136
Annual testing cost
$ 4,612
,R
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 22,535
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 14,907
Fuel Costs
$ 11503
MM
Licensed contract operations cost
45 000
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 5:
108,693
IM
Total Year 5 Costs
$1,082,564
Year 6 Costs
FM
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094)
$ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 21,261
Annual testing cost
$ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 27,042
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 14,907
Fuel Costs
$ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost
45 000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 6:
114 325
Total Year 6 Costs
$1,088,196
Year 7 through year 30 Costs (24 years
Total Annual 0&M Costs $ 119,959
Appendix B
Page 17

FMR
m Total Year 7 through year 30 Costs - (Each Year) $ 119,959
M•,
FM
Fm
MR
m"
m
MR
MR
mm
MR
pq
FM
OR
mmi
See Table 5-R for present worth of Alternative No. 5 (revised).
Tables -R
Present Worth of Alternative No. 5 (revised)
Year
Total Annual Cost
P/F, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$49962, 018
1.0000
$4, 962, 018
1
$190609036
0.9346
$990,688
2
$1 t065,668
0.8734
$930,796
3
$1,071,300
0.8163
$874,500
4
$1,076,932
0.7629
$821,586
5
$1, 082, 564
0.7130
$771, 853
6
$1, 088,196
0.6663
$725,111
7
$119,959
0.6227
$749704
8
$119,959
0.5820
$69,817
9
$119,959
0.5439
$65,250
10
$119,959
0.5083
$60,981
11
$119,959
0.4751
$56,992
12
$119,959
0.4440
$539263
13
$119,959
0.4150
$49,779
14
$119,959
0.3878
$46,522
15
$119,959
0.3624
$43,479
16
$119,959
0.3387
$40,634
17
$1199959
0.3166
$379976
18
$119,959
0.2959
$35,492
19
$119,959
0.2765
$33,170
20
$1199959
0.2584
$31,000
21
$119,959
0.2415
$28, 972
22
$119,959
0.2257
$27, 076
23
$119,959
0.2109
$25,305
24
$119, 959
0.1971
$23,650
25
$119,959
0.1842
$22,102
26
$119,959
0.1722
$20,656
27
$1199959
0.1609
$19, 305
28
$119,959
0.1504
$18,042
29
$119,959
0.1406
$16, 862
30
$119,959
0.1314
$15,759
Present worth of Alternative No. 5 (revised)
$10,993,339
Appendix B
Page 18

No
F" ALTERNATIVE NO.6 (Re-examined with additional land assumed available)
MR WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,
WITH DISPOSAL THROUGH SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
�-+ Under this re-examined alternative 224 lots will be developed with a central treatment system
consisting of a package treatment plant to achieve secondary treatment and disinfection. All
wastewater will be collected by a pressure sewer system (each house will have an individual
grinder pump system) and delivered to the proposed Lissara Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The treated effluent from the plant will be pumped from an effluent holding pond into the
spray irrigation fields proposed in areas outside of the subdivision.
The estimated wastewater flow for this Alternative is 107,520 gal/day, based on 224 four
bedroom houses @ 480 gal/day.
The spray irrigation area under Alternative No. 6 utilized 47.65 acres, based on a layout
RM inefficiency factor of 1.2, to dispose of an average daily wastewater flow of 69,120 gpd. The
layout inefficiency is due to topography, shape of suitable soil areas and setback requirements.
For the revised Alternative No. 5, approximately 74.12 acres of land similar to the Lissara tract
FX" will be required for the spray irrigation areas. When the 224 lots and associated infrastructure
are positioned on the Lissara tract, there is approximately 14.7 acres of suitable surface
irrigation soils outside of the areas proposed to be developed, and within the Lissara
MR boundaries. These soil areas decrease the amount of required off -site suitable soils to 59.4
acres. The original Lissara tract had approximately 68% of its total area classified as suitable
for surface irrigation, so it is assumed that approximately 87.5 acres (59.4 acres/68%) of
MR offsite property similar to the Lissara tract would be required to support the development of
224 lots within Lissara.
The estimated cost of the wastewater system treatment and disposal components for this
Alternative is $2,806,627.
M The infrastructure costs for Alternative No. 6 (revised) are:
$344/1-17 of street x 15,351 LF of streets $5,280,744
Water services: 224 x $700 each $156,800
Grinder pump station on each lot, installed: 224 at $5,500 each $1,232,000
Pressure Sewer:
5,100 LF of 2 inch at $6.50/LF $33,150
51,600 LF of 3 inch at $9.75/LF $54,600
41600 LF of 4 inch at $13.00/1-F $59,800
"o Total Infrastructure Cost $6,817,094
FM For this economic analysis, it is assumed the annual lot sales for Alternative No. 6 (revised)
will be 32 lots per year, for years 0 through 6.
Appendix B
MR Page 19

OW
PW
me
ON
am
OR
am
am
MR
OW
M"
PW
0"
go
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The annual power costs are estimated as (refer to Appendix A for detailed calculations):
Annual power cost for grinder pump stations:
Power costs per year ($.10/kWH) _ $23.30 per house, or $5,219 for 224 houses
Flow equalization pumps:
Power costs per year = $342
Flow Equalization Blower:
Power costs per year = $1,156
Sludge Blower
Power costs per year = $2,431
Main Plant Blower:
Power costs per year = $9,724
Ultra -violet Disinfection System:
Power costs per year = $858
Duplex irrigation pumps:
107,520 gal per day x 365 days/200 irrigation days = 196,224 gallons per
irrigation day. Pump rate is 10 gpm per sprinkler head, or 490 gpm per
zone. Pump TDH is assumed to be 40 feet for static and friction losses to
each zone, plus 127 feet (55 psi) at the sprinkler nozzles, or 167 feet for
TDH.
196,224 gallons per irrigation day/490 gal per min. = 400 min. pumping per
irrigation day, or 6.67 hours per irrigation day
Brake horsepower required: 29.52 BHP (70% efficiency)
KW input to motor: 25.91 KW (85% motor efficiency)
Power consumption per irrigation day:
25.91 KW x 6.67 hours per day = 172.7 kWh per irrigation day
Power consumption per year = 172.7 kWh per irrigation day x 200 irrigation days
per year = 34,540 kWh per year
Power costs per year =
Summary of annual power costs:
Grinder Pumps — all lots
Flow equalization pumps
Flow equalization blower
Sludge blower
Main plant blowers
$3,454
Appendix B
Page 20
$5,219
$ 342
$ 1,156
$ 2,431
$ 9,724

FM
Ultra -violet disinfection $ 858
Duplex Effluent Pumps 3 454
Total Annual Power Costs $23,184
MR Lab Analyses:
For the purposes of this report, the annual testing cost is estimated to be $4,612.
an Annual solids (sludge) disposal cost:
Contract disposal to application site, including stabilization, at $.10 per gallon =
$31,549
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15 year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an annual replacement
charge of $6,010. This is based on a Sinking Fund Factor (A/F, 7%, 15 years) of
0.0398, times the equipment cost of $166,000. The annual cost of routine maintenance
and repairs is estimated to be 5% of equipment cost.
Replacement costs at 0.0398 times $ 151,000 = $ 61010
Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 151,000 = 7,550
Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge = $ 13,560
Fuel Costs:
Total annual fuel costs = $ 1,503
Contract Operations:
Cost to hire a licensed wastewater treatment plant operator/company to operate the
«� plant and file all required reports.
Annual Fee: $45,000
Summary of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 4(revised):
�..► Annual power costs $ 23,184
Annual testing cost $ 41612
Sludge disposal $ 31,549
Equipment repair / replacement $ 13,560
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost 45 000
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 119,408
Present Worth Analysis
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 224 lots
and their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-6.
Appendix B
on Page 21

ON
MR The wastewater treatment system will be constructed in year 0. Portions of the calculated
annual power costs and the sludge disposal costs are flow proportional,
and will be prorated
for the first seven years of operation, until the development is built out.
Year 0 Costs
Wastewater Treatment System Construction
$2,806,627
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094)
973 871
(No O&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
Total Year 0 Cost
$3,780,498
Year 1 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094)
$ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 15,750
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 4,507
Equipment repair/replacement $ 13,560
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 1:
84,932
Total Year 1 Costs $1,058,803
Year 2 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 16,989
Annual testing cost $ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 9,014
Equipment repair/replacement $ 13,560
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost 45 000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 2: 90 678
IM Total Year 2 Costs $1,064,549
Year 3 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 18,228
Annual testing cost $ 41612
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 13,521
Equipment repair/replacement $ 13,560
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 3: 96,424
Appendix B
Page 22

W"
MR
Total Year 3 Costs $1,070,295
Year 4 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual 0&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 19,467
Annual testing cost $ 41612
�► Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 18,028
Equipment repair/replacement $ 13,560
Fuel Costs $ 1,503
Licensed contract operations cost $45,000
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 4: 102170
Total Year 4 Costs $1,076,041
Year 5 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094)
$ 973,871
Annual 0&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 20,706
Annual testing cost
$ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 22,535
Equipment repair/replacement
$ 13,560
Fuel Costs
$ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost
$45,000
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 5:
107,916
Total Year 5 Costs
$1,081,787
Year 6 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094)
$ 973,871
Annual 0&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated)
$ 21,945
Annual testing cost
$ 4,612
Sludge disposal (prorated)
$ 27,042
Equipment repair/replacement
$13,560
Fuel Costs
$ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost
$45,000
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 6:
113,662
Total Year 6 Costs
$1,087,533
Oft Year 7 through year 30 Costs (24 years)
Total Annual 0&M Costs $ 119,408
Total Year 7 through year 30 .Costs — (Each Year) $ 119,408
Appendix B
Page 23

PR
.e
F]
ON
flm
No
00
am
we
OR
PM
OR
am
See Table 6-R for present worth of Alternative No. 6 (revised):
Table 6 - R
Present Worth of Alternative No. 6 (revised)
Year
Total Annual Cost
PIF, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$39780,498
1.0000
$397809498
1
$1,058,803
0.9346
$989,536
2
$11064, 549
0.8734
$929, 818
3
$19070,295
0.8163
$873,680
4
$1, 076, 041
0.7629
$8209907
5
$1,081,787
0.7130
$771,299
6
$1,087,533
0.6663
$724,669
7
$119,408
0.6227
$74, 361
8
$119,408
0.5820
$69,497
9
$119,408
0.5439
$64,950
10
$119,408
0.5083
$60,701
11
$119,408
0.4751
$56,730
12
$119,408
0.4440
$53,019
13
$119,408
0.4150
$499550
14
$119,408
0.3878
$46,308
15
$119,408
0.3624
$43,279
16
$1199408
0.3387
$40,448
17
$119,408
0.3166
$37,802
18
$119,408
0.2959
$35,329
19
$119,408
0.2765
$33,017
20
$119,408
0.2584
$30,857
21
$119,408
0.2415
$28,839
22
$119,408
0.2257
$26,952
23
$119,408
0.2109
$25,189
24
$119,408
0.1971
$23,541
25
$119,408
0.1842
$22,001
26
$119,408
0.1722
$20,562
27
$119,408
0.1609
$19,216
28
$119,408
0.1504
$17, 959
29
$119,408
0.1406
$16,784
30
$119,408
0.1314
$15,686
Present Worth of Alternative No. 6 (revised)
$99802,982
Appendix B
Page 24

OM ALTERNATIVE NO. 8 (Re-examined with additional land assumed available)
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT,
WITH RE -USE QUALITY EFFLUENT DISPOSAL THROUGH DRIP IRRIGATION
LINES (SURFACE APPLIED)
Under this re-examined alternative 224 lots will be developed with a central treatment system
consisting of a package treatment plant to achieve secondary treatment and disinfection. All
wastewater will be collected by a pressure sewer system (each house will have an individual
grinder pump system) and delivered to the proposed Lissara Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The wastewater will be treated to re -use quality water, and the effluent from the plant will be
pumped from an effluent holding pond into the drip irrigation fields proposed in areas outside
of the subdivision.
The estimated wastewater flow for this Alternative is 107,520 gal/day, based on 224 four
bedroom houses @ 480 gal/day.
The drip irrigation area under Alternative No. 8 utilized 58.00 acres, based on a layout
inefficiency factor of 1.1, to dispose of an average daily flow of 88,075 gpd. The layout
,.� inefficiency is due to topography, shape of suitable soil areas and setback requirements. For
the revised Alternative No. 8, approximately 70.8 acres of land similar to the Lissara tract will
be required for the drip irrigation area. When the 224 lots and associated infrastructure are
positioned on the Lissara tract, there is approximately 27.1 acres of suitable surface irrigation
soils outside of the areas proposed to be developed, and within the Lissara boundaries. These
soil areas decrease the amount of required off site suitable soils to 43.6 acres. The original
Lissara tract had approximately 68% of its total area classified as suitable for surface
irrigation, so it is assumed that approximately 64.1 acres (43.6 acres/68%) of offsite property
similar to the Lissara tract would be required to support the development of 224 lots within
Lissara.
am The estimated cost of the wastewater system treatment and disposal components for this
Alternative is $4,160,735.
we The infrastructure costs for Alternative No. 8 (revised) are:
$344/1-17 of street x 15,351 LF of streets
No Water services: 224 x $700 each
Grinder pump station on each lot, installed: 224 at $5,500 each
Pressure Sewer:
5,100 LF of 2 inch at $6.50/1-F
5,600 LF of 3 inch at $9.75/LF
4,600 LF of 4 inch at $13.00/LF
Total Infrastructure Cost
am
Appendix B
Page 25
$5,280,744
$156,800
$1,232,000
$33,150
$54,600
59 800
$6,817,094

OW
M For this economic analysis, it is assumed the annual lot sales for Alternative No. 5 (revised)
will be 32 lots per year, for years 0 through 6.
'o
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The annual power costs are estimated as (refer to Appendix A for detailed calculations):
IM
Annual power cost for grinder pump stations:
,,,o
Power costs per year ($.10/kWH) _ $23.30 per house, or $5,219 for 224 houses
Flow equalization pumps:
No
Power costs per year = $342
Flow Equalization Blower:
+m
Power costs per year = $1,156
Sludge Blower
we
Power costs per year = $2,431
Main Plant Blower:
'A'
Power costs per year = $9,724
Ultra -violet Disinfection System:
ON
Power costs per year = $858
am
Filter Backwash pumps:
Power costs per year = $83
Mudwell pumps:
Power costs per year = $53
Drip irrigation pumps:
Power costs per year = $2,658
Summary -of annual power costs:
Grinder Pumps — all lots
$5,219
Flow equalization pumps
$ 342
Flow equalization blower
$ 1,156
Sludge blower
$ 2,431
Main plant blowers
$ 9,724
Ultra -violet disinfection
$ 858
�-
Filter Backwash Pumps
$ 83
Appendix B
,�,
Page 26

No
Mudwell Pumps $53
Drip Irrigation Pumps 2 658
Total Annual Power Costs $22,524
Lab Analyses:
For the purposes of this report, the annual testing cost is estimated to be $14,040.
MR Annual solids (sludge) disposal cost:
Contract disposal to application site, including stabilization, at $.10 per gallon =
$31,549
No
Equipment Repair/Replacement:
Assume 15-year life for pumps, motors, and generator, yielding an annual replacement
+m charge of $7,690. This is based on a Sinking Fund Factor (A/F., 7%, 15 years) of
0.0398, times the equipment cost of $166,000. The annual cost of routine maintenance
.and repairs is estimated to be 5% of equipment cost.
go
Replacement costs at 0.0398 times $ 193,200 = $ 7,690
go Maintenance at 5.0% of $ 193,200 = 9,660
rM
Total annual equipment replacement/repair charge = $ 17,350
Fuel Costs:
Total annual fuel costs = $ 11503
Contract Operations:
Cost to hire a licensed wastewater treatment plant operator/company to operate the
plant and file all required reports.
Annual Fee:
Summary of the annual O&M costs for Alternative No. 8 (revised):
Annual power costs
Annual testing cost
Sludge disposal
�+ Equipment repair / replacement
Fuel Costs
Licensed contract operations cost
Total Annual O&M Costs
no Present Worth Analysis
$55,000
$ 22,524
$ 14,040
$ 31,549
$ 17,350
$ 1,503
Ss 000
$ 141,966
Based on an average market absorption rate of approximately 32 lots per year, the 224 lots
and their associated infrastructure in this Alternative will be constructed in phases in years 0-6.
Appendix B
we Page 27

ON
The wastewater treatment system will be constructed in year 0. Portions of the calculated
annual power costs and the sludge disposal costs are flow proportional, and will be prorated
for the first seven years of operation, until the development is built out.
Year 0 Costs
Wastewater Treatment System Construction $4,160,735
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) 973,871
(No O&M cost in year 0 — facilities and houses constructed)
Total Year 0 Cost $5,134,606
Year 1 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 15,772
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 4,507
Equipment repair/replacement $ 17,350
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost s 55 000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 1: 108,172
Total Year 1 Costs $1,082,043
ON Year 2 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 16,897
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 9,014
Equipment repair/replacement $ 17,350
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 2: 113,804
Total Year 2 Costs $1,087,675
Year 3 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 18,022
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 13,521
Equipment repair/replacement $ 17,350
Fuel Costs $ 1,503
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
*�► Total Annual 0&M Costs for Year 3: 119,436
Appendix B
Page 28

No
M
Total Year 3 Costs $1,093,307
Year 4 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 9731,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 19,147
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 18,028
Equipment repair/replacement $ 17,350
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 4: 125,068
Total Year 4 Costs $1,098,939
Year 5 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 20,272
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 22,535
Equipment repair/replacement $ 17,350
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 5: 130,700
Total Year 5 Costs $1,104,571
Year 6 Costs
Infrastructure Costs for 32 Lots (32/224 of $6,817,094) $ 973,871
Annual O&M Costs:
Annual power costs (prorated) $ 21,397
Annual testing cost $ 14,040
Sludge disposal (prorated) $ 27,042
Equipment repair/replacement $ 17,350
Fuel Costs $ 11503
Licensed contract operations cost $55,000
Total Annual O&M Costs for Year 6: 136,332
Total Year 6 Costs $1,110,203
�► Year 7 through year 30 Costs (24 years)
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 141,966
am Total Year 7 through year 30 Costs — (Each Year) $ 141,966
Appendix B
am Page 29

0"
P"
No
Ow
fm
OR
am
fm
am
P"
FM
*w
am
go
am
fm
on
See Table 8-R for present worth of Alternative No. 8 (revised):
Table 8 - R
Present Worth of Alternative No. 8 (revised)
Year
Total Annual Cost
P/F, 7%, n
Present Worth
0
$5,134,606
1.0000
$5,1349606
1
$1,082,043
0.9346
$19011,255
2
$1,087,675
0.8734
$9509017
3
$1,093,307
0.8163
$892,464
4
$1, 098, 939
0.7629
$8389375
5
$1,104, 571
0.7130
$787, 544
6
$110,203
0.6663
$73,433
7
$1419966
0.6227
$88,409
8
$141,966
0.5820
$82,626
9
$141,966
0.5439
$77,220
10
$141,966
0.5083
$72,168
11
$141,966
0.4751
$679447
12
$141,966
0.4440
$63,035
13
$141,966
0.4150
$58,911
14
$141,966
0.3878
$55,057
15
$141,966
0.3624
$51,455
16
$141,966
0.3387
$48, 089
17
$141,966
0.3166
$44,943
18
$141,966
0.2959
$42, 003
19
$141,966
0.2765
$39,255
20
$141,966
0.2584
$36,687
21
$141,966 .
0.2415
$34,287
22
$1419966
0.2257
$32,044
23
$141,966
0.2109
$299947
24
$141,966
0.1971
$279988
25
$141,966
0.1842
$26,157
26
$141,966
0.1722
$24,446
27
$141,966
0.1609
$22, 847
28
$141,966
0.1504
$21,352
29
$141,966
0.1406
$19,955
30
$1419966
0.1314
$18,650
Present Worth of Alternative No. 8 (revised)
$10,7722670
Appendix B
Page 30

APPENDIX C
INFRASTRUCTURE COST BASIS

0"
PM
P"
fm
fm
Ow
I"
MR
P"
f"
P"
am
APPENDIX C
BASIS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
Construction contract prices for a typical residential subdivision in Forsyth County, from
Ramey, Incorporated of Winston-Salem
I. CLEARING & GRUBBING Ouantity Unit Cost Unit Cost
Clearing & Grubbing
221
51640.001
AC
124 080.00
TOTAL CLEARING & GRUBBING
124 080.00
II. GRADING & EROSION CONT. Ouantity Unit Cost Unit Cost
Topsoil Stripping & Waste On -Site
42,916
2.48
CY
106 603.34
Mass Rock Excavation
1000
66.24
CY
66 240.00
Mass Grading
59 912
3.31
CY
198 428.54
Undercut and Backfill On -Site
100
8.83
CY
883.20
Fine Grading Streets
25,000
1.10
SY
27j 600.00
Construction Entrance
1
1104.00
EA
11104.00
Temporary Sediment Trap
4
2760.00
EA
11 040.00
Temp. Diversion Berm
5 155
2.21
LF
11382.24
Temp. Sediment Fence
2 680
3.31
LF
81876.16
Temp. 18" CPP
210
17.66
LF
31709.44
Temporary Seeding
40
1766.401
AC
70 656.00
Permanent Seeding
40
1987.201.AC
79 488.00
TOTAL GRADING & EROSION CONTROL
586 010.93
III. STORM SEWER
Ouantitv Unit Cost Unit Cost
15" R C Pie
33801
23.184 LF
78 361.92
18" R C Pie
795
25.392
LF
20 186.64
24" R C Pie
713
33.12
LF
23 614.56
30" R C Pie
37
46.368
LF
1715.62
Curb Inlets
62
1766.4
EA
109 516.80
Storm Manhole
2
1766.4
EA
3,532.80
15" R C Flared End Section
5
552
EA
2 760.00
18" R C Flared End Section
1
607.2
EA
607.20
24" R C Flared End Section
3
717.6
EA
2152.80
30" R C Flared End Section
1
828
EA
828.00
Inlet Protection
64
193.2
EA
12 364.80
RipRapAprons
150
35.328
EA
5 299.20
TOTAL STORM SEWER
260 940.34
MR Appendix C - Page 1

F"
MR
fm
OR
MR
MR
IV. SANITARY SEWER
Pressure sewer system to be utilized for all Alternatives with a community treatment
system. Cost of system varies with number and location of lots. See each Alternative for
pressure sewer cost estimate.
V. WATER Ouantitv Unit Cost Unit Cost
6" CI 350 Ductile Iron Pie
2 800
17.66
LF
49 459.20
8" CI 350 Ductile Iron Pie
3 000
20.98
LF
62 928.00
6" Gate Valve & Box
6
717.60
EA
41305.60
8" Gate Valve & Box
6
99.36
EA
596.16
6" SJ DI Plug
4
248.40
EA
993.60
6"x6" MJ DI Cross
2
441.60
EA
883.20
6'56" MJ DI Tee
2
331.20
EA
662.40
8"'W MJ DI Tee
2
386.40
EA
772.80
1-1/2"" Blow -Off Assembly
2
1656.00
EA
3 312.00
6" MJ DI 45 Bend
2
259.44
EA
518.88
8"x6" Tapping Sleeve & Valve
2
4968.00
EA
9 936.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly
12
3036.001
EA
36 432.00
TOTAL WATER
1 170 799.84
on VI. PAVING & CURB & GUTTER Quantity Unit Cost Unit Cost
FM
Roadway Paving 7" ABC, 2" S9.5B, 1" SF9.5
16 160
19.87
SY
321 131.52
30" Valley Curb & Gutter
11241
13.25
LF
148 920.77
5' wide 4" Thick Concrete Sidewalk
27 957
4.42
SF
123 458.11
Manhole Adjustment
15
386.40
EA
5,796.00
Valve Box Adjustment
12
331.20
EA
3,974.40
Curb Inlet Adjustment
62
- 259.44
EA
16 085.28
TOTAL PAVING AND CURB & GUTTER
619,36
M"
VII. WIDENING/TURNLANE Ouantity Unit Cost Unit Cnst
fW
PM
Grading
1
49 680.00
LS
49 680.00
Full Depth Asphalt Widening
1675
47.47
SY
79 515.60
Asphalt Overlay
3,8921
6.62
SY
25 780.61
Striping
1
10 267.20
LS
10 267.20
TOTAL WIDENING/TURN LANE
1 165 243.41
OM Total Construction Cost, excluding sewer system and water
Approximate Length of Street Constructed (in Linear Feet):
MR
Construction Cost per Linear Foot of Street (without sewer.
system and water services):
am
1,926,440.59
5,600
$ 344
MR Appendix C - Page 2

MR
PI
The amount of street in each Alternative is determined from the preliminary subdivision
plan for the Alternative. The length of street is multiplied by $344 per linear foot, to
estimate the infrastructure costs (excluding the pressure sewer lines, individual grinder pum
►� stations on each lots, and water services) for the Alternative. The quantity of the excluded
items vary in each alternative; the cost of the items are calculated in Appendix A and added
to the infrastructure cost for the Alternative.
F"
M
P"
R"
P"
P"
MR
M"
MR
P"
am
Appendix C - Page 3

ow
am
FM
a"
PM
0=4
a4
PM
APPENDIX D
Im
PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT PREPARED BY SOIL &
ON
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS P.A.
ow
MR
fm
P"
Im
MR
am
No

Environmental Consultants, PA
ive Greensboro, North Carolina 27455 • Phone: [phone] •.Fax: [phone]
ww ..SandEC.corn
Project 4-1800.S2
Westview Development Company
Attn: Brant Godfrey
2631 Reynolda Road
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Re: Preliminary Soil/Site Evaluation on Conrad Road EAA Project: +/-243 Acre Site on Conrad
Road and Shallowford Road — Forsyth County, NC
Dear Mr. Godfrey:
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) performed a preliminary soil and site
evaluation on the above referenced tract. This was performed at your request as part of the
preliminary planning process in order to estimate areas of soil that have potential for subsurface
and surface wastewater disposal. Fieldwork was completed on August 16, 2007. This revised
report contains additional information about anticipated application rates for the soils units
_ identified in the Preliminary Soil/Site Evaluation for Surface Applications section. This revised
report references the soil maps produced for this project in August 2007.
PRELIMINARY SOUJSITE EVALUATION — SUBSURFACE APPLICATIONS
S&EC traversed the property and observed landforms (slope, drainage patterns, past use, etc.) as
well as soil conditions (depth, texture, structure, seasonal wetness, restrictive horizons, etc.)
through the use of hand auger borings. The site was evaluated during very dry soil conditions.
From these observations, an evaluation of the site, relative to subsurface disposal of wastewater,
was developed. Soil areas were estimated in the field. The soil/site evaluation criteria used is
that contained in 15 A NCAC 18A .1900 "Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Systems". If the decision is made to use subsurface septic systems as the primary wastewater
disposal method for this project, then a Detailed Soil/Site Evaluation must be conducted. A
Detailed Soil/Site Evaluation would involve delineating and GPS locating the boundaries
between suitable and unsuitable soils, allowing for maximum accuracy and efficiency in the
subdivision planning process.
FINDINGS
This site is located in the Northwest region of Forsyth County. The upland soils on this tract are
similar to the Hiwassee, Cecil, Pacolet, Mecklenburg, Wynott, Wilkes, Congaree, Altavista, and
Iredell soil series. The Hiwassee, Cecil, and Pacolet soil series have a sandy loam surface material
over a clayey subsoil. These soils are at least 30 inches deep to prohibitive soil characteristics
and are generally useable for subsurface, septic systems. The Mecklenburg soils have mixed clay
mineralogy and are generally marginal for subsurface septic systems. The Wynott and Wilkes
soils are shallow to rock and expansive clay, and are generally unsuitable for conventional
subsurface septic systems. The Iredell soils have soil wetness conditions and expansive clay and
are generally unsuitable for conventional subsurface septic systems. The Congaree and Altavista
soils are located in a marginal floodplain landscape position. The limiting factor on this project
regarding subsurface septic suitability is complex and unsuitable topographic features, such as
Charlotte Office,
Raleigh Office:
236 LePhillip Court, Suite C
11010 Raven Ridge Road.
Charlotte, NC 28025
Raleigh,NC 27614
Phone: [phone]
Phone ;[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

MR
P"
faq
P"
MM
M"
MR
fm
r"
FHq
ditches and gullies.
The accompanying AutoCAD map indicates the estimated areas withh.potential .use for subsurface
wastewater disposal. The red -slashed units .indicate areas of soils which are at least 24 to 30
inches deep., to prohibitive soil characteristics and these areas. have potential for a conventional
septic system, a modified conventional (shallow placed lines with no fill required over the
disposal area) or a: low pressure pipe system (LPP) and/or ultra -shallow conventional (shallow
placed lines with fill.required over the disposal field) system. The pink -hatched unit.indicates
and area of soils in a marginal floodplain landscape position. This -area is marginal due to.
landscape position, opinions may vary among local health department officials. Unit "NE"
indicates areas in and around existing houses that were not evaluated. Unit "UNS on the attached
map indicates areas of unsuitable topography, or of soils that are less than 24 inches to prohibitive
soil characteristics and are generally unsuitable for the type of systems mentioned above.
The site plan for each lot must ensure that adequate soil area for system and repair is unaffected
by site elements (house placement, driveway, wells, patios, decks, etc.) -.on that or adjacent lots.
The area ultimately designated by the health department on the site plan. for the septic system and
repair must remain undisturbed (no mechanical clearing, excavation; heavy traffic.or.other
significant site disturbing activities) until authorized by the health department. A lot with initially
adequate useable soil area may be rendered unusable as a result of improper site planning and/or
disturbance. A field layout of the proposed septic systems may be required as part of the
individual lot development process. ,
Upon completion of a'subdivision plan, S&EC recommends reviewing the plan before recording
the subdivision lots. It is important to note that any preliminary certification that a subdivision
plan meets does not represent approval or a permit for any site work, nor does it guarantee.
issuance of an improvement permit for. any lot. Final site approval for issuance of improvements
is based on regulations in force at the time of permitting and is dependent on satisfactory
completion of individual site evaluations following application for an improvement permit
detailing a specific use and sitting.
GENERAL WASTEWATER CONSIDERATIONS
Once potentially useable areas are located through vertical borings, the next consideration is the
horizontal extent of those areas. The size and configuration of the useable soil area dictate the
utility of that area. The size of a subsurface disposal field is determined by: 1) the design flow
from the source (120 gallons/bedroom/day in residences), and 2) the long term acceptance rate
(LTAR).�of the soil .(based on the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, a function of the soil's
texture; mineralogy, structure, porosity-. etc.). The configuration must be such. that an efficient
layout of disposal* lines (on contour) is possible: An additional °consideration is the required
setbacks for the system from various elements such as wells (100'), streams and ponds (50') or
more depending on watershed regulations), property lines (10');*top of embankment (15'),
watershed buffers, etc. (see Attachment 1).
The utility of a potential useable soil area for a subsurface system is most accurately determined
by an on -ground layout of the proposed system. The total area needed for system and repair areas
will depend upon the system type, the. layout of that system and the total.design flow (factors
mentioned above). A typical area needed- for a three -bedroom residence is approximately 10,000
to 12,000 ? (could be more depending on site features) or 800 to 960 linear feet.of conventional
line (system:and repair) or 1440 linear feet of LPP line (system and repair):.; These estimates
reference. Uws and Rules for Sewage Treatment`and Disposal Systems -forNorth Carolina and
use a LIAR. of .3 gpd/ft for conventional septic systems (.1955), a LIAR of .25. gpd/f a for

f"
n•�
modified conventional (.1956) and .1 gpd/ft for LPP septic systems (.I 957a). The health
department will deteiirnine the ultimate LTAR after.their lot evaluation. S&EC will be glad to
assist in any system layout or sizing calculations if requested. A typical area needed for a four -
bedroom residence is.approximately 14,000 to 16,000 ft (could be more depending on site
features).
PRELESENARY SOHJSITE EVALUATION — SURFACE APPLICATIONS
S&EC traversed the property in order to estimate the dominant soil types present with respect to
their uses and limitations for surface wastewater applications. Soils were mapped to the NRCS
Soil Series level, and map units were grouped based on similar characteristics or close
association. The map units depicted on the attached map are estimated and represent soils most
similar to the NRCS soil series noted. in the legend. Inclusions of other soil types, as well as
topographic irregularities, are likely to exist within map units. If the decision is made to' move
forward with a reclaimed wastewater spray irrigation system, then a Detailed Soil/Site Evaluation
will be required within all proposed spray areas. Additional studies such as hydrology and
hydrogeology analysis are also necessary for these types of systems. If this project is to utilize a
reclaimed.wastewater spray irrigation system, S&EC would be happy to assist you in the
planning and analysis process. -These types of systems are regulated by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality. Below is a summary of the soil types found on this project.
Cecil-Pacolet-Hiwassee: These soils are deep, well drained,.and have kaolinitic clay mineralogy.
Historically, these soils have allowed for relatively high application rates of reclaimed
wastewater.
Cecil Pacolet-Hiwassee-COMPLEX TOPO: These units contain soils similar to Cecil, Pacolet,
and Hiwassee, with complex'topographic irregularities included within map units.. These features
may require amendments for use in surface application of wastewater.
Wilkes-Wynott: These series are closely associated on this project. The Wilkes soils have
expansive clay mineralogy, and have rock or weathered rock at depths ranging from 12 to 20
-inches. The Wynott soils have expansive clay mineralogy, and have rock or weathered rock at
depths ranging from 20 to 40 inches. These soils. have historically allowed for relatively low
application rates of reclaimed wastewater. This. unit also contains minor inclusions of the
Mecklenburg soil series. The Mecklenburg series are deep and have mixed clay mineralogy..
These soils have historically allowed for relatively moderate application rates of reclaimed
wastewater.
Iredell: These soils. have expansive clay mineralogy and soil wetness conditions from 12 to 18
inches deep -. These soils have historically allowed for relatively low to seasonal -low application
rates of reclaimed wastewater...
Congaree: These soils have wetness conditions at depths ranging from 30 to 60 inches. These
soils have historically. allowed for relatively low to moderate application rates of reclaimed
wastewater.
Altavista: These soils have wetness conditions at depths ranging from 18 to 30 inches. These
soils have historically allowed for relatively low application rates of reclaimed wastewater.
General estimates of annual application rates of reclaimed. wastewater for the above mentioned
units ate as follows:

PER
t�l
,
Cecil-Pacolet-Hiwasee: +/- 25"/yr
PON
Wilkes-Wynott::+/- 15"/yr
Iredell: +/- IO"/yr, may have seasonal limitations'
Congaree:. +/* 20' /yr
Altavista: +/- 20"/yr
As mentioned above, these ate general estimates based on past experience and anticipated
allowable application rates for the soil characteristics that are present. Should this project
proceed with some type -of wastewater irrigation system,:these rates could be higher or lower than
estimated.
This report discusses the general location of potentially useable soils for on -site subsurface and
surface wastewater disposal and, of course, does not constitute or imply any approval or permit as
needed by the client from -the local heath department or state. S&EC is a professional consulting
firm that specializes in the delineation of soil areas for wastewater disposal, and the layout and
design of wastewater treatment systems:. As a- professional consulting firm, S&EC is hired for its
professional opinion in'these matters. The rules governing. wastewater -treatment (interpreted and
governed by local and state agencies) are evolving constantly, and in many cases, affected by the
opinions of individuals employed* by these governing agencies. Because of this, S&EC cannot
OR
guarantee that areas delineated and/or systems designed will be permitted by the -governing
agencies_. As always, S&EC recommends that anyone making financial commitments on a
tract be fully aware of individual permit requirements, including,. but not limited to,
applying for and obtaining improvement permits.and approval from local/State governing
authorities oh that tract prior to final action.
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA.. is pleased to be of service in this matter and we look
forward to assisting in any site analysis needs you may have in th . future. Please feel free to call
�+
with any questions or comments.
Sincerely
.► ��' �.

_RyanP. Smith
Environme'ntal Scientist
t '
Encl. Attachment `1
Preliminary.Soit-Suitability' Map =. Subsurface
:
Prehminary',S.oil Suitability'Map -'Surface ...
r1

am
P"
MR
0"
rAf
on
APPENDIX E
PM
LETTER REGARDING THE ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF
m"
THE LISSARA LOTS
m"
fan
I"
po
fm
wq
P"

no
op Hubbard
Im R E A L T Y
w" January 15, 2008
Lissara Partners, LLC
2631 Reynolda Road
In" Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Reference: Lissara Project — Developed Lot Values
Dear Mr. Godfrey,
Pursuant to the request of Mr. John F. Phillips; the following is a summary of the present market
value of the proposed Lissara development in Forsyth County, North Carolina.
Per the attached Preliminary Site Plan and Vicinity Map this project is located on the Yadkin River
in Northwestern Forsyth County on the outskirts of Winston-Salem near the Town of Lewisville.
This is a highly sought-after location for high -end single-family residential real-estate. With the
additional amenities of the water-ski lake, common areas, walking/bike trails and Yadkin River
frontage I foresee this as being an even more attractive and marketable neighborhood than
anything presently on the market in Forsyth County and the Lewisville community.
The proposed Lissara development is anticipated to proceed in two phases with the first phase
being the 144 acres including the lake with 146 lots. The second phase will include the Yadkin
River frontage on 100 acres and 78 lots.
Value of Lots
F" Phase 1 32 lake -front lots ranging is size from .75 acre to 1.5 acres with an average price
of $137.500.
70 Garden -home lots averaging .25 acre per lot with a sale price of $65,000
", each,
44 Off -water lots averaging .58 acres in size with an average lot sales price of
$85,000.
ow Phase 2 78 Off -water lots averaging .67 acres in size with an average lot sales price of
$100,000.
P"
Please advise if I can be of further assistance.
4" Very truly yours,
HUBBARD REALTY OF WINSTON-SALEM, INC.
uce R. Hubbard
President
�., Hubbard Realty of Winston-Salem, Inc.
Accounting [phone] 2110 Cloverdale Avenue, Winston-Salem, NC 27103.2516 Property Management [phone]
Fax [phone] Office [phone] • Fax [phone] Fax [phone]
ER p•a
eowuMousa�c
RMTW OPPoaiu►M

MR
as
P"
w
pal
ow
a"
APPENDIX F
00
MR LETTER FROM WINSTON-SALEM • FORSYTH COUNTY
CITY/COUNTY UTILITIES REGARDING THE CAPACITY OF
P1r1
THE TOWN OF LEWISVILLE TO PROVIDE WASTEWATER
I"
ow
P"
P"
m"
ow
SERVICE TO LISSARA
ow

.,__..jjitns•Sewer • 5oiid Waste Disposal
Vdlids Admini motion • CO. Box 2511 • lViaaonSalcm, NC 27102 • Ti4 336.727.8418 • A. 336.727.8432
April'26,2006
Lang Wilcox
LTSSARA, LLC
1210 Forest Wood Drive
Lewisville, North Carolina 27033
In Re: _Lissara Development Sewer Service
Dear Mr. Wilcox -
This letter is to inform you that David Saunders, Director of Utilities, presented your
'+ proposal to construct the development entitled Lissam at the April 10, 2006 City/County
Utility Commission Meeting.
Mr. Saunders, informed the Commission that the public sewer was existing within
Lewisville, NC, but there was no capacity to serve any developments outside of
Lewisville.
The plan to provide private sewer by the developer was also discussed.
The City/County Utility Commission decided to voice a "no opinion vote" on this sewer
service proposal since no City/County. Utility System was involved.
If you have any questions concerning this subject, please give me a call at 727-8418.
Sincerely,
U`TIILI ADMINISTRATION
/5� �.
Robert W. Huff
Assistant to the Superintendent
RWH/If

No
fm
on
a"
on
P"
MR
M"
f"
No
MR
am
APPENDIX G
EXECUTED NPDES APPLICATION - FORM D
A PORTION OF USGS QUADRANGLE MAP "CLEMMONS"
INDICATING APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF REQUESTED
DISCHARGE
fm

NPDES APPLICATION - FORM D
For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <1.0 MGD
Mail the complete application to:
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NPDES Permit INCOO r7 4
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the boxes, click your mouse on top of the box Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name
Lissara Partners, LLC
_
Facility Name
Lissara Wastewater Treatment Plant
Mailing Address
2631 Reynolda Road
_
City
Winston-Salem
State / Zip Code
NC / 27106
_
Telephone Number
[phone]
Fax Number
( 336) 722-5018
e-mail Address
[e-mail]
" 2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same address as above ❑
r Street Address or State Road No address yet assigned. North of Shallowford Road, West
of Conrad Road
City Not in a City/Town (nearest town is Lewisville)
r State / Zip Code NC
County Forsyth County
r
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, public organization or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not
referring to the Operator in Responsible Charge or ORQ
Name Lissara Partners, LLC
�+ Mailing Address 2631 Reynolda Road
City Winston-Salem
r State / Zip Code NC / 27106
Telephone Number [phone]
r Fax Number ( 336) 722-5018
1 of 4 Form-D 1/06

no
NPDES APPLICATION - FORM D
on For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <1.0 MGD
4. Description of wastewater:
0M
Facility Generating Wastewater(check all that applyf
a, Industrial ❑ Number of Employees
Commercial ❑ Number of Employees
Residential ® Number of Homes 224
School ❑ Number of Students/ Staff
Other ❑ Explain:
Describe the source(s) of wastewater (example: subdivision, mobile home park, shopping centers,
restaurants, etc.):
Residential subdivision
Population served: 224 houses with 3.5 persons f house assumed = 784 persons
FM
5. Type of collection system
® Separate (sanitary sewer only) ❑ Combined (storm sewer and sanitary sewer)
am
6. Outfall Information:
go Number of separate discharge points 1
Outfall Identification number(s) 001
Is the outfall equipped with a diffuser? ElYes ® No
aw
7. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact location of each outfallr
am Yadkin River
8. Frequency of Discharge: ® Continuous ❑ Intermittent
No If intermittent:
Days per week discharge occurs: Duration:
IM 9. Describe the treatment system
List all installed components, including capacity, provide design removal for BOD, TSS, nitrogen and
phosphorus. If the space provided is not sufficient, attach the description of the treatment system in a
separate sheet of paper.
`M See attached description
w
No
ow
MW 2of4
Form-D 1/06

a•a
NPDES APPLICATION - FORM D
"" For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <1.0 MGD
ON
No
10. Flow Information:
a" Treatment Plant Design flow 0.108 MGD
Annual Average daily flow NA - proposed discharge MGD (for the previous 3 years)
MR Maximum daily flow NA - proposed discharge MGD (for the previous 3 years)
sm
am
am
ow
ON
am
11. Is this facility located on Indian country?
❑ Yes ® No
12. Effluent Data
Provide data for the parameters Iisted. Fecal Coliform, Temperature and pH shall be grab samples, for all other
parameters 24-hour composite sampling shall be used. Effluent testing data must be based on at least three samples
and must be no more than four and one half years old.
Parameter
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Avera a
Units of
Measurement
Number of
Samples
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BODS)
NA - proposed
discharge
NA - proposed
discharge
NA - proposed
discharge
NA - proposed
discharge
Fecal Coliform
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total Suspended Solids
NA
NA
NA
NA
Temperature (Summer)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Temperature (Winter)
NA
NA
NA
NA
pH
NA
NA
NA
NA
am 13. List all permits, construction approvals and/or applications:
Type Permit Number Type Permit Number
Hazardous Waste (RCRA) NESHAPS (CAA)
Im UIC (SDWA) Ocean Dumping (MPRSA)
NPDES X Dredge or fill (Section 404 or CWA)
PSD (CAA) Special Order of Consent (SOC)
+r.a
Non -attainment program (CAA) Other
14. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the
best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate.
a. Brant Godfrey A�LManager
Printed name of Person Signing Title
N" 3 of 4 Form-D 1106

No
E 4 APPLICATION - FORM D NPD
WN For privately owned treatment systems treating 100% domestic wastewaters <1.0 MGD
cif . A. 'AI
.. 107
North Carolina General *a'tute 143-215.6 (b)(2) states: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement
representation, or certification in any application, record, report, plan, or other document files or required to be
a•n maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, or
who falsifies, tampers with, or knowly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method required to be
operated or maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing
that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by imprisonment not to
�n exceed six'months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides a punishment by a fine of not more than $25,000 or
imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both, for a similar offense.)
0"
;W
F"
Mn
am
MR
RM
am
Im
No
0"
W"
am
a" 4 of 4 Form-D 1l06

RM
o"
P"
MR
ON
am
MR
APPENDIX H
I,
am PRELIMINARY WATER BALANCES FOR ALTERNATIVES NO.
5s 6j AND 8, USING DWQ SPRAY IRRIGATION WATER
BALANCE SPREADSHEET
f"
ow
ow
fm
No
ow
ow
ow

A Spray Irrigation Water Balance for
Permit No: Lissara Drip Irrigation System
Permittee Name:
Contact Name:
Address:
Facility Lissara WWTP
Address:
Water Budget Prepared By:
John F. Phillips, P.E. - Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Drip As Project ld Version 5 December 2004

Enter Data —H := Precipitation Worksheet FYI
Calculate the precipitation for an 80th percentile "wet' year, based on long term data (approx. 30 years or greater).
Click on each step box
Precipitation Data
Step 1
Monlh
Mean Monthly
Precipitation
Percent of Mean
Annual Precipitation
inches
percent
January
3.68
February
3.41
March
4.35
April
3.58
May
3.85
June
3.96
July
4.44
August
3.83
September
3.84
October
3.56
November
2.92
December
3.65
TOTALS = 4d.97
cUletloritl
Ste 2
80th Percentile
Monthly Precipitation
il
inches
i _ _ —4.26 I
f 3.94 I
5.03
r 414�
i 4.45
4.58
y
r��
r 4.43
f 4.44 '
' 4.12
3.38
4.10 _ _(
61.89
i
Step 3 - Precipitation Data Soucre '
Location of Precipitation Dala:
Vadkinville 6E -COOP sta. 319675
Staring Year of Data Record: 1956
Ending Year of Data Record: 2007
Step 4
Values shown in yellow period of Record (Years) = 49
cells are linked to other
locations within the Water r.arr�
Balance Program Source of Data:
State Climate Office of North Carolina (http://www.nc-
climate.ncsu.edu/(
I
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Drip.xls Precip Version 5 December 2004

calctifations c$loulations Calculatlons. � ���5����\� -�a J Calculations
Note: Pnriod of recoM for Temperature date shoultl
match period of record for Precipitation data

Influent, Lagoon Storage,
and Zone SetupWorksheet
Am 51
D.. gn Day
Total Fl9 to be
DI9Poad
mNI Fl9w t9
Daily Flow to
wetted
Lagoon
Flow OnDuentl
(Annual
All Zonae
Zonet
Acreu9a
AvaraHd)
Calculate the ad)uetad lnfoont loading by Including the gei^e
acm
gebldry
gtleldey
ecron
the 5lera Lagoon, and up the Spray
and louu ageat up
Zone .,...and individual Zona llowrtlae
290
M1,8M
9a1✓dry
gelNdry
e0,3B7
M.85
Ctick m each atop box
83,257 • •
83,257
ehou Id ba
In. Pete
Dab Daq Mn EvaR Dele P.IP
Lagoon Gain. a Louea
NDuent
o9ue1
(Intwk)•
0.45
Ste 1
Zone 1
Pan
NP-P
L
eaIgn
DVome
Eve ion
Gene
LoeEaeP em
parnt
L geL«G�ainat8
Volurna, to
Irrigationp^r
Month 1mM11 D9N PanuWN precip
Pan
DN"�
Inches Inchae Inches
9s0one
9ellone
9ellone
9ellone
9ellone
Inches
Janus ry 31 C30 0.21 4.0
231,034
40.417
;499,1140
;M1,458
1,812.W
Feb.., m 1.88 1.37 3.94
2t4,003
74,5M
;257,920
2.397,488
1,M1,116
Im
March 31 3.69 2.59 5.03
273,1109
140,287
;490,11140
;0 2,670
1 072,301
April W 4.01 144 4.14
224.758
1110,11413
;419,200
;457,313
1,811 1o10
Im
Mry 31 9.16 431 4.45
241,707
234,1S9
;4H,840
;307,388
1,A2,307
1.99
June M 8.93 4.M 4.58
M.013
25;025
2,419,200
2,415,788
-Ter! -1.910
July 31 a." 4.87 5.13
278,748
2M,SM
;499,BM
2,514.019
11,11IT;307
1.89
Auquad 31 6.21 435 4.43
2MA52
2311,050
2,499,840
;SM,M2
1,872.307
1.98
9eptwnber 30 4.01 3.23 4.M
241,079
175,23g
2,419,200
;405,040
1,H1,H0
j 1.93
October 31 3.29 2.30 4.12
223,501
125.M
2A99,040
2,590,270
1,g7;M7
) 1.99
November 30 201 1A1 ].]8
10,321
78,409
;N9,2M
;328,115
1,H1,H0
) 1.9J
December 31 tA1 0.89 4.10
222,g73
33,599
;lH,g10
;gM,115
1,H;]01
t� 1�H��
Tolele. 395 I 344o 51.H
;e23,2e5
1,997,M9
29,433,eoo
30,3N,Hg
22,ON,g08
2143
1$Bpp
Source of PAN Evap. Data
Step 6 I
Other (List Below)
Lissara DWO Water Balance Drip.xls Influent+Zones Setup Version 5 December 20D4

Ie 3 Zone 4
Wetted� Daily Flow to We^etl
A ga ��I, Zanne Ace ego
sere. geladey .erne
8.83 it a.386 1.D8
Zone 6
Daly Flew le Welled
iom6 Aersega
I
gelMdry scree
0 0.00
Zone 6
Dolly Flow ro WNted
coma Aenega
Zone 7
Dolly Flow to We
Zane? Aeraega
Zone 8
Delhj Flow to Wetted
Zoneel Acreage
gele/dey eem
Zone 9 Zone 10
it Daily Flaw m Wmmd Dnlly Flow to Weaetl
i,� 2one9 Acrnngn Znne fO Acreage
j!y-gnlNde, �y eem
f l 0.00
'� g.+laltlny ncros
geWday
gnlnlday acres
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0
0.3e
I. Rate
0.1 e
(InN�Y)•
In. Rota
(INwM)•
In. R.I.r.
��hvk)
It, en
R
hnlwkl.
Ire Rate
nlw
(I M)•
Ph. RMa
Inlw
( k)•
I n. Rata
I� Ilnlwk) a
�
�
zonal
nigtion pr
month
Volume toM
Dlepoead
2ona,l
Dselgn
Irrlgetlon per
month
Zone6
Volume to be
Dlepoead
Zones
Dxlpn
Irrlgetlon par
month
Zone6
Volume to be
Me,."
Zones
OmlgnZoneT
Irrlgetlon per
month
Volume robe
Dispoed
zone]
DeslgnZoneaDeslgn
Irrlgeaonper
month
Volume to ba
Dieposetl
Za:0
Irrlgetlon par
month
ZomB
Volumeto ba
Dlapoaad
HE]
Zone 10
Volrmw lobe
Dlepoesd
2orn,0
D.eln
Irti,ation par
meMh
inches
gelbne
Inchm
gellone
Inchm
Inches
gellone
Inches
gellone
InImhwr-
U.00_
Da
r- o.Oo-
a
rO.Op-0
r- UAO-
O
O.gO
Q00
0
000
0
0.00
0
Q00
0
000
169
131,11e
1.69
0
000
Plon,
0.00
0
0.00
0
000
0
Q00
0
400128.800
1.6e0
0.m
0.00
0
0.00
o
0.00
0
0.00
0
OAO1.68
1II,1Te
1.60
O
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.011
0
0.001U
lie,ee0
tAe
0
0.00
0.00
0
000
0
0.00
0
nog
00.00
0.00
0
0.00
0
O.M
0
0.00
01.69
,do,1T6
1.SB
0
0.00
I m
0
Ow
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
Q00
1.0
12e,Mo
t.0
0
0.00
0
a00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
o.olo
1.s9
,ll,ne
1.52
0
0.00
0
aoo
a
0.00
0
OM
o
0.00
0
Mm
1.0
u4esD
1.6e
0
0.00
o
QOg
o
0.00
0
6.00
0
MOD
0
O.Oo
�.ee-
o
L_o.00 -
0
L- g.0o-
o
L_-o_ao -
0
L- o.00-
0
1- o_DD -
0
L_ 0-0-0-
0 0.00
0 0.00
ilT6
1,6ee,0e0
tlT6
0
0.00
0
0,00
0
0.00
0
0.00
6m
Lissam DW4 Water Balance Drip.rls Influent+Zones Setup Version 5 December 2004

I 1 i
Soils and Water Balance for Zone 1
Zone 1 Description:
11 Calculate Soil Drainage
f x Kest
Drainage
vertical hydnullc Drainage
factor (f)
conductiviry (Ks Rate
Inthr in/dry percent Infdry
17 0.03 067 0 100 1 r 000
Month
poserFPET]Drainage
11Loss
Precip
nth
Inches
Inches
Inches inches
January
31
1.20
2.08
3.28 4.25
February
28
1.63
1.90
3.51 3.94
March
37
2.85
2.08
4.93 5.03
April
30
4.15
2.02
6.17 4.14
May
31
5.12
2.08
7.20 4A5
June
30
5.53
2.02
7.55 4.58
July
31
5.60
2.08
7.68 5.13
August
31
5.14
2.08
7.22 4.43
September
30
3.88
2.02
5.90 4.44
October
31
2.91
2.08
4.99 4.12
November
30
1.75
2.02
3.77 3.38
December
J1
1.11
2.08
3.22 4.10
Totals: 365 40.90 24.53 65.43 51.99
Soils Series Information for Zone i Potential site limitations
Water table risk of Is bedrock <
Series Name Drainage class depth (BLS) perching 80' BLS? BLS -below land surface
Cecil well >3.0 low no
Click the
Copied from Influent a Zones Setup Sheet: I "CALCULATE"
galsiday button after making
changes.
acres
Flow• 60.397
1 Area 34.65
Manual
Calculated
Actunl Used
Override
Maximum
Maximum
Mazimum
Allowable
Allowable
Allowable
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irtigatlon
Inches
Inches
Inches
15.82 1 1 29.92
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable Irrigation Us
is greater than the Calculated Max. Allow.
Irrigation.
Design
per
Inches
Zone 1
Cummulative
Storage
Requiretl for
IMgation
Zone 1
Actusl
Monthty
IMgatlon
FYI
��ly
Excess
Inches
Inches
Inches
421
j3.18 � ;
0.78
-0A8
3.64 j
1.32
0.15
1 3.48 1
2.14
57
1 1.51 1
3.90
2.13
I 0.D0 1
3.50
2.18
0.00
1.93
11,68
r_-____-000 _00-1
1.99
1.75
1.89
0A8
r~.00 1
1.93
-0.03
I m
1.98
-OAS
I OA9 j
11,47
Om
23A3 -4, 23.43
Maximum Monthly Storage Required for the Irrigation of Zone
Inches acres gallons
3.64 over 34.65 - 3,423,585
Version 5 December 2004
Lissara DWO Water Balance Drip.xls Z1

I I I I I I I I I I I
Soils and Water Balance for Zone 2
Zone 2 Description: I
Calculate Soil Drainage
f x Ksat
vertical hydraulic Drainage Drainage
conductWiry IKsaO taCtOr m Rate
Inmr I I in/day I I percent
Solis Series Information for Zone 2 Potential site limitations
Water table risk of Is bedrock c
Series Name Drainage class depth (BLS) patching 80" BLS 7 BLS - below land surface
Wilkes wall >3.a motlerate yes
Click the
Copied from Influent 8 Zones Set
Setup
02j L2.41 j 0.100 0.04 1 (Daily Flow= 5,147
Zone 2 Area - 4.92
Days Zone 2 Zone 2
Month per PET Soil Total Precip
month Drainage Loss
Calculated
Maximum
Allowable
Irrigation
Manual
Override
Maximum
Allowable
Irrigation
gcyual Used
Maximum
Allowable
IMgation
Design Inigal
per Month
Inches
inches
Inc hes
Inches
inches
inches
inches
Inches
January
31
1.20
1.27
2.47
4.25
0.00
-0.03
-0.03
1.19
February
28
1.63
1.15
2.78
3.94
0.00
0.59
0.59
1.08
March
31
2.85
1.27
4.12
5.03
0.00
1.33
1.33
1.19
April
30
4.15
1.23
5.38
4.14
1.24
3.11
3.11
1.16
May
31
5.12
1.27
6.39
4.45
1.94
3.31
3.31
1.19
June
30
5.53
1.23
6.76
4.58
2.18
3.32
3.32
1.16
July
31
5.60
1.27
6.87
5.13
1.74
2.66
2.66
1.19
August
31
5.14
1.27
6.41
4A3
1.98
2.92
2.92
1.19
September
30
3.88
1.23
5.11
4A4
0.S7
1,60
1,60
1,16
October
2.911.274.18
4.12
0.07
7.15
November
14L.
1.75
1.23
2.98
3.38
0.00
Fjq
0.69December
31
1.td
1.27
2Ai
4.100.00
-0.26
1.19
Totals: 365 40.90 14.98 55.88 51.99
9.83 20.37 I 14.06 -,J,.' 14.06
Maximum Monthly Storage Required for the Irrigation of Zone 2:
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable Irrigation
Used is greater than the Calculated Max. Inches acres gallons
Allow. irrigation. 3.71 over d.92 = 496,056
Lissara DWO Water Balance Drip.xls Z2 Version 5 December 2004

I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1
Soils and Water Balance for Zone 3 Soils Series Information for Zone 3 Potential site limitations
class Water able risk of Is bedrock
Zone 3 Description: Series Name Drainage<
depth (BLS) perching 60" BLS 7 BLS v below land surface
Calculate Soil Drainage Congaree well-motl well 2.0->3.0 moderete no
S 1 1 x Kest D O D O
vertitai hydraulic factor (1) Drainage
conductivlly (Ksa[) Rate
Click the
inthr In/day percem inlday Copied from Influent 6 Zones Setup Sheet: "CALCULATE"
0.02 0.53 0.100 0.05 Daily Flow • 13,417 galstday button after making
Zone 3 Area • 9.62 acres changes.
Zone 3 Zone 3
Calculated Manual Actual Used
Override Cummulative
Days Zone 3 NZo"e,13 Maximum Maximum Maximum StorageMomh perPET Soil PrecipAllowable Allowable Design Irrigation Monthly Required for Drainage Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation per Month Excess Irrigation Irtigation Rate
Inches Inches Inches inches Inches Inches inches Inches Inches Inches Inches
January 31 1.20 1.64 2.84 4.25 0.00 0.33 0.33 1.59 -1.26 i 3.35 0.33
February 28 1.63 1.48 3.11 3.94 0.00 0.92 0.92 1.44 -0.52 i 3.88 I 0.92
March 31 2.85 1.64 4.49 5.03 0.00 1.70 1.70 /.59 0.11 ( 3.77 I 1.70
April 30 4A5 1.58 5.73 4.14 1.60 3.47 3.47 1 1.54 1.92 I 1.85 1 3.47
May 31 S.t2 1.64 6.76 4.45 2.31 3.68 3.68 1.59 2.08 0.00 i 3.44
June 30 5.53 1.58 7.11 4.58 2.54 3.68 3.68 1.54 2.13 F 0.00 1.54
July 31 5.60 1.64 7.24 5.13 2.10 3.02 3.02 1.59 1.43 r0 1.59
August 3t 5.14 1.64 8.78 4.43 2.35 3.29 3.29 1.59 1.70 O.W 1.59
September 30 3M
88 1.58 5.46 4.44 1.02 1.95 1.95 1.54 0.41 r�O.OD 1.54
October 31 t.e4 4.55 4.12 0.43 1.51 1.51.59-0OB 0.08 1.51 FYI
November 30 1.58 3.33 3.38 0.00 t.04 1.04 1.54 -0.50December 3t 1.64 2.76 4.t0 0.00 0.08 0.08 1.59 -1.51 L 2.09 J 0.08
Totals: 0®- ®®51990365 40 90 0 1
oo a
Maximum Monthly Storage Required for the Irrigation of Zone 3:
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable Irrigation
Used is greater than the Calculated Max. inches acres gallons
Allow. Irrigation. 3,88 over 9.62 1,012,424
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Dnp.xls Z3 Version 5 December 2004

Soils and Water Balance for Zone 4 Soils Series Information for Zone Potential site limitations
Zone 4 Description: Series Name Drainage class dater table I� risk of n Is bedrock c
pth (BLS) I perching I I 60" BLS 7 gLg • below land surface
Calculate Soil
Drainage Altavista I I mnt mod weI2.M.o �� moderate I no
St� SI teb 2 1 IFr--
x Ksat �� I I I I
toondu
draulic factor (� Drainage
(Ksaq Rate
Click the
iNdaypercent in/day Copied from Influent a Zones Setup Sheet: "CALCULATE"
0.53 0.100 0.05 Daily Flow = 4,296 galsiday button after making
Zone 4 Area m 3.08 acres changes.
Calculated ManualctalUsed
Override Zone 4 Zone 4 Mezimum Maximummomh PET]Drainage Lore Pre
cip Allowable
Allowable
Irt gatloln Dazlgn Irrigation MomhN Imigatlon Irflgation Rate
per Month Excess
Inches inches Inches Inches Inches Inches inches Inches Inches Inches Inches
January 31 1.20 1.84 2.84 4.25 0.00 0.X1 0,33 1.59 •1.28 3.J5 1 0.33
February 28 1.63 1.48 Ill3.94 0.00 0.92 0.92 1.44 -0.52 3.88 0.92
March 31 2.85 1.64 4.49 5.03 0.00 1.70 1.70 1.59 0.11 I 3.77 ( 1.70
April 30 4.15 7.58 5.73 4.14 1.60 3.47 3.47 1.54 1.92 1.85 3.47
May 31 5.12 1.64 6.78 4.45 2.31 3.68 3.68 1.59 2.08 0.00 3.44
June 30 5.53 1.58 7.71 4.56 2.54 3.68 3.68 1.54 2.13 0.00 1.54
July 31 5.80 1.64 7.2d 5.13 2.10 3.02 3.02 1.59 1.43 0 OD 1.59
August 314 t.64 6.78 4.43 2.35 3.29 3.29 1.59 1.70 f 0.00 1.59
September 30 3.88 1.58 5.46 4.44 1.02 1.95 1.95 1.54 0.41 rr O.W 1.54
October 31 2.91 1.64 4.55 4.12 0.43 1.51 1.51 1.59 -0.08 0�08 rr 1.57 FYI
November 30 1.75 1.5a 3.33 3.36 0.00 1.04 1.04 1.54 -0.50 I 0.58 I 1.04
December 31 1.14 t.6! 2.79 4.10 0.00 0.08 0.08 1.59 -1.57 l_
®® ®®�
Totals: 365 40.90 19.27 60.17 51.99 12.35 24.66 18.75 18.75
Maximum Monthly Storage Required for the Irrigation of Zone 4:
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable Irrigation
Used is greater than the Calculated Max. Inches acres gallons
Allow. Irrigation. 3.88 over 3.06 324,194
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Dnp.xls Z4 Version 5 December 2004

Zonal Storage Summations OBJECT: Toalmdef."a minNwmend.16orworse, required for a nmMple zoned "ray inlpedon the
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone T
Zane 9
Zone 9
Zone 10
Totals
emwn es,ew
neeemnYaaeN.»
TaW Rlew
e].fsi
p.R'rbwmzene»> q,]N We 5ne We 1]A1l Wa e30a OPe
a p"
O o we a we o Wa v ppe a We"
�r vim
CWmNNve 9ro
ReWtM nlpr
ClmmuWXe
RpW�~p�
ClmmluYtive 8[wa
R[Terea q
CUmmueeve Bmnq
R<Pa�re—e—�
CYNnmtlWe CIVT6411ve 11npe ClmlMvan Bmrape CummWellve Sm CummlMYeera
PeWrne e � PaWYea Re91Arce rape P[Wn4 �v
—r�
ClalimlbgepMepe
PeWP<e
CUmmuYNe 9lpa e
PeWlne p
1 F 1r
I r Ir
r 7F
1.65p.55]
Il qlm Rawl,vd Ron"Iprearlel ---------- 111.
Mnemm ]terepe • 5,356,260 aMa elvitleE fry Raw we • 65,1 dv v
>,,, I FYIMheden Pew�n�f
Liam. MO Wana 9aume Ora to arel Suns Vamm S Oe[enaer2o05

A Spray Irrigation Water Balance for
Permit No: Lissara Spray Irrigation System
Permittee Name:
Contact Name:
Address:
Facility Lissara WWTP
Address:
Water Budget Prepared By:
John F. Phillips, P.E. - Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Spray.xls Project Id
Version December2004

Enter Data ===->=
Precipitation Worksheet-
FYI
Calculate the precipitation for an 60th percentile "wet' year, based on long term data (approx. 30 years or greater).
Click on each step box
Precipitation
Data
Step 1.
-. Step 2 -
Step 3 - Precipitation Data Soucre
80th Percentile
Mean Monthly
Percent of Mean
Monthly
Month—�I Precipitation
Annual Precipitation
Precipitation
Pre
inches
percent .:.:
inches
Location of Precipitation Data:
Yadkinville 6E - COOP sta. 319675
January
3.68
I 4.25 1
February
3.41
�3.94 —1
Staring Year of Data Record: A958
March
April
4:35
3.53
r
1 4.14 1
Ending Year of Data Record: 2007 Step 4
j67
May
June
3.85
3.96'-
1 4.45 15.03
Values shown in yellow
l4.58 1
Period of Record (Yecells
4.83
are linked to otherJuly
5.13 { locations within the Water
yu
August
3.83
852{
8.52
{ 4.43 { Balance Program
Source of Data.
September
3.84
8.54
I 4.44 {
State Climate Office. of North Carolina (http://www.nc-
I
October
3.56
7.92
{� 4.12
climale.ncsu.eduQ
November
2.92
6.49
3.338
December
3.55
7.89
4.10
I
TOTALS =
44.97
100.00
5t99
��Iirl��rtr••�n,��t,hi�t�n�i ,r�rh•sr;�
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Spray.xls Precip Version 5 December 2004

i I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i I 1 I 1 1
P4_ "I
�. Ste 2 4 �' Sfe 3,m'` � Ste 4. � Zone 1 Zone 2 ZI
Influent, Lagoon Storage, Total Flosed he
and Zone SetupWorksheet Arca of Oesi9n Daily Disposal Total Fla Slo Dolly Flow la Wetted Daily Flaw to Wetted Daily Flaw to
Lagoon Flow (In/IuenQ (Annual All Zane Zvnvt Acrvagv Zone 2 Acreage Zone 3
AvvrageJ)
Calculate it,. adjustor Influent loading by including the gams acres 9alslday galsltlay acme galsltlay acres galsltlay
and I seas Rom line Storage U.00n, and at up the Spray
"Zones areas and intllvlJual Znnv flawrales. 1.46 89,120!I. galsltlay gals/day 6T.�T64, ,. t3b.84 3,438.3.1.4,_
Click on each step box 71,031 71,031
Enter Data =_> I Pan Evap. Data precip Lagoon Gains & Lasses Inlluent should be In. Rate 0.42 b" Rate 0.25 Irr. Rate
J equal (Inlwk)= linlwkl= (inlwkl=
Ste 1
Zone 1 Zone 2
Days Pan Elllfl
Design Influent Tvtal: Inlluent+ Zen, Design Zane 2 Design Zone 3
par Evaporation AJjusted G[L�j Volume per Lagoon Ga ns 8 Volume to be Irrigation per Volume to be Irrigation per Volume to be
monllI Data anaarp Month Losaes Olsposetl moniM1 Olsposetl month Disposed
inches Inches Inches 9allans 9ailons gallons gallons gallons Inches 9a lions inches 9allens
January 31 1l0I 10 262,508
February 28 1kr`51.867, J1 1.37 3.94 166,281 54,389 1.935,360 2,037,252 1.617,112 1 1.66 85,064 1 1.00 337,1 D4
March 31N2.58 5.03 199,3n 102,395 2142,720 2,239,686 1,790,374 1.84 94,178110 262,500
April 303.44 4.14 ifi4,0]2 1Jfi,2492,101,423 1,732,620 1.78 91,140 1.07 254,040
May 314.J1 dA5 176,446 170,936 2,142,720 2,140,230 1,790,374 1.84 94,178 -0.70 2fi2,500
June 304.64 4.68 181,400 183,978 2,0]3,600 201,109 1,7R,620 1.78 91,140 1.07 254,040
July 31 4 4.87 5.13 203,406 193,135 $142,72D 2,153,0]1 1,190,174 1.84 94,178 1.10 262,508
August 31 4.35 4A3 175,530 172,J23 2,142,]20 $145,926 1)90,374 1.84 94,178 1.10 262,59e
September 30 g"q §wir 3.23 4.44 175,988 127,934 2,0]J,600 2,121,663 1,732.620 1.78 91,140 1A7 254,040
October 31 4� r2_ ,.. 2.30 4.12 163,155 91,295 2,142,720 2,214,500 1,790,374 1,84 94,178 1 1.10 262,508
November I 30 P.
3.30 133.624 66,776 2,073,600 2,151,648 1,732,620 1 1.78 91,140 1 1.07 254,040
December 31 A 0.99 4.10 162.697 39,127 3,142,72D 2,266,291 1,790,374 1:._ .1.04 94,178 I 1.10 262,508
Totals: 3fi5 F 34.40 sn. I 2.060,983 1,363,603 35,220,000 25026,181 21,080,210 21.69 1,100,--- 13.01 3,1390,820
Source of PAN Evap. Data
t �, Other (Ust Bciow� '
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Spray.xls Influent+Zones Setup Version 5 December 2004

i I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I l I
le 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 9
Zone 10
Wetted
Aceage
Daily Flaw to
Zone 4
Wetted
Acreaga
Daily Flow to
Zone 5
Wetted
Acreage
Daily Flow to
Zone B
Wettetl
Acreage
Daily Flow to
Zone ]
Wetted
Acreapo
Daily Flow to
Zone81
Wetted
Acreage
Daily Flow to
Zone 9
Wetted
Acreage
Daily Flow to
Zone 10
Wetted
Acreage
acres
9al¢Iday
9alsltlay acros
galslday cres
galsltlay acros
galaltlay M.
gals/day
galslday acres
". .8.58'}It�R12
0.00Ougl
{I`
t'S!'
' i� w�p.00c•
4 s, e0.00 , ...
0 e{ c; �:&l O.00e?}l,,
O' C , 0.01.' �.
0.33
Ire Rat. 0.21
Iinlwkl=
Ir, Rate
Ilnlwkl=
In. Rate
Iinlwkl=
In. Rate
Iinlwkl=
In. R.I.
Iinlwkl=
III. Rate
linlwkl=
lo. Rate
Ilnlwkl=
Zone 6
Zone 6 Design
Volume to be Irrigation per
Disposetl month
Zane 3
Design
Irrigation per
man1M1
Zone 4
Volume to be
Disposed
Zoa.4
Design
Irrigation per
month
Zonv 5
Volume t. be
Disposed
Zone 5
Design
Irrigation per
month
Zane ]
Volume to be
Disposed
Zane ]
Design
Irrigation per
month
Zane 8
Volume to be
Disposetl
Zone 8
Design
Irrigation per
month
Zone 9
- Volwne t. be
Disposetl
Zone 9
Design
loigatlon per
month
Zone 10
Volume to be
Disposed
Zonc 10
Design
Irrigation per
month
inches
gallons incM1es
gallons Inches
gallons IncM1es
gallons
inches
gallons
Inches
gallons
Inches
gallons
Inches
I 0.00
I 1.4]
54,901
I. 0.94
0
I 0.000
I 0.00
D
I 0.00
0
I 0.00
0.00
0.00
0
I 0.00
0
1.33
49,6B8
0.85
0
000 .:
0
I 0.00:
0
I 0.00
0.
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0.00
0.00
1:47
54,901
0.94
0
0.00
0
O.OII
0
` 0.00
0
1.43
53,1 ]0
0.91
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1.47
54,901
0.94
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
1.43
53,130
0.91
o
O.00
0
0.00
o
O.Oo
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
54,901
0.94
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
OAO
a
0.00
0
0.00..
0.00
0
0
1.47
54,901
0.94
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
1.43
53,130
0.91
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
1.47
54,901
0.94
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
I 1.43
53,130
I 0.91
0
1 0,00
0
I 0.00
0
I 0.00
0
I 0.00
a
I 0.00
0
I 0.00
I 1.47_11
64,901
I-A.94
0
I.�0.00 ^.'
0
I 0.00
0
I. OAO
0.00
0
I- 0.00
0
I 000__
0
I 0.00
0.00
17.35
6d6,415
11.07
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
Lissara DWD Water Balance Spray.xls Influent+Zones Setup Version 5 December 2004
I WE

Soils and Water Balance for Zone9 Soils Series Information for Zone 1 Potential site limitations
t� Water table tlapth risk of Is bedrock <
Zane 1 Description: I Series Name Drainago class (BLS) perching 60" BLS? BLS = below land surface
Calculate Soil Drainage r;. Cecil weu >3.0 low no
nm*
f z Ksat
In-snu salmaletl vertical Sail ,
hydraulic contluctivily Drainage Drainage
factor (g---
(Ksal)Rate -
Click the
m1hr in/tlay percent inlday Copied from Influent & Zones Setup Sheet "CALCULATE"
0.03. 0.67- O,t6q Daily Flow= 57,754 galsiday button after making
changes
Zone Area 35.80 acres
Zone i Zone i
Calculated Manual pdual Used
Override Commutative
Zone Maximum Maximum Maximum StorageSoil Actual
Days per Zone 1 Required for Monthly
Month ❑ PET Drainage
❑ PreaP Allowable Allowable Allowable Design Irngation Monthly
month Total Loss Irrigation Irrigation Rate
Oralnage Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation per Month Excess
inches Inches inches inches,. inches inches inches inches inches inches.._. Inches
January 31 1.20 2.08 3.28 4.25 0.00 0.78 0.78 1.84 -1.06 2.0u 0.78
February 28 1.63 1.88 ].51 3.94 0.00 1.32 1.32 1.66 -0.34 ) 3o3 ( 1.32
March 31 2.85 2.08 4.93 5.03 0.00 2A4i- 2.14 1.84 0.30 '.,. 273' I 2.14
April 30 4.15 2.02 6.17 4.14 2.03 3.90 3.90 1.78 2.11 +.. 0.62 3.90 -
May 31 5.12 2.08 7.20 4.45 2.75 4.12 4.12 1.84 2.28 ) 0.00 ) 2.46
June 30 5.53 202 Z55 4.58 2.97 4A1 4.11 1.78 2.33 t 0.00 ) 1.78
July 31 5.60 2.08 7.68 5.13 2.55 3,47 3.47 1.84 1.63 i 0 00 1.04
August 31 5.14 2.as 7.22 4.43 2.80 3.74 3.74 1.84 1.89 I ' o 1.14
September 30 3.88 2.02 5.90 4.44 1.46 2.39 2.39 1.78 0.60 0.00 ) 1.78
October 31 P1.
.91 2.08 4.99 4.12 0.88 1.96 1.96 1.84 0.12 ) 0.00 i 1.8d FYI
November 30 .75 2.02 J.77 3.38 0.39 1.47>. 1.47 1]8 -0.31 r 0.31 1.47
December 31 142.08 3.22 4.10 6.09 0.53 0.53 1.84 -1.3t _ 1.61 'y 0.53
jKON
Totals: 365 40.90 24.53 65.43 51.99 15.82 , t h 2992 27.69 21.69
Maximum' Monthly' Storage Required for the Irrigation of Zone 1:
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable Irrigation Used
is greater than the Calculated Max. Allow. inches acres gallons
Irrigation. 3.03 over 3580 2,947,803
_ Version December 2004
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Spray.xls Z1

Soils and Water Balance for Zone 2 Soils Series Information for Zone 2 Potential site limitations
Water table depth risk of Is bedrock <
Zone 2 Description. I Series Name Drainage class (BLS) perching 60" BLS Y BLS = below land surface
Calculate Soil Drainage Wilkes well >a.o moderate yes -
Step1= r.Ste 2 fx Ksat
In -situ saturated vertical So"
Drainage
hydraulic conductivity factor (f) Drainage
Ksat Rate
Clink the
Inlhr In/day percent In/day Copied from Influent& Zones Setup Sheet: "CALCULATE
0,02 0.41 Od00 � 0.04 Daily Flow 3,038 galsiday button after malting
changes.
Zone 2 Area = 3.14 acres
Zone2 Zone2
Manual
Calculated Override71rngtUion
Gum mutative
Zone Maximum Maximum Storage Actual
Re ulred forEH�PET Soil PreciP Allowable AllowableDesin Irrigation MonlhlY 9 Drainage Tatal Loss Irri align Irri anon Irrigation 9 9 9per Month Excess
I L�. inches Inches inches Inches Inches inches Inches Inches inches Inches inches
L-January 31 1.20 1.27 2.47 R4.45
000 A.03 .0.03 1.10 .1.14 1 291� -0.03
February 28 1.63 115 2.78 0.00 Q.59 0.59 1.00 -0.41 (. 3.32 - I 0.59
March 31 2.85 1.27 4.12 000 ;.,�„A3, 1.33 1.70 0.23 �:.. 3.09 ( 1.33
April 30 4.15 1.23 5.35 124 M-0
3.11 1.07 2.04 ( 1.05 I 3.11
May 31 5.12 1.27 6.39 1.94 3.31 7d0 2.21 0.00 I 2.15
June 30 5.53 1.23 6.76 2.18 3.32 1.07 225 I 0.00 I 1.07
July 31 5.60 1.27 fi.87 1742.66 1.10 1.55 1 000August 31 SA4 1.2] 6.41 1.98 2.92 1.10 1.82 (O.00 1.10
4.44 067 1.60 1.07 0.53 i 0.00 I 1.07
October 31 2.91 1.27 4.18 4.12 0 07 1.15 1.10 O 04 10.00 1.10November 30 1.75 L23 2.98 3.38 000 0.69 1.07 -0.38 00.69
December 31 1.14 1.27 2.41 6.10 0.00 -0.28 1.10 -1.39 r 1 77 t -018
'_s_I
��F���
Totals: 365 do.90 14.98 55.88 51.99 9.83 20.37 73.01 �' 13.01
Maximum Monthly Storage Required for the Irrigation of. Zone 2:
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable InicJation
Used is greater than the Calculated Max. Inches acres gallons
Allow. Irrigation. 3.32 over 3A4 q 282,881
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Spray.xls Z2 Version 5 December 2004

I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I
Soils and Water Balance four Zone 33
Zone 3 Description. l
Calculate Soil Drainage C
Step 1 ` Sfep �2j f x Ksat` ICE r.rtu saturated veN al ❑ Soilg L
Drainage
h tlraulic conduchvd Drama e
factor (f) R
Soils Series Information for Zone 3
Series Name Drainage class
Congaree well-matl well
I�
Potential site limitations
Water table depth risk of Is bedrock <
(BLS( perching 60" BLS 7 BLS = below land surface
2.0-13.0 moderate no IMF .
Ksaq ate
Clirh the
nlhr in/day percent inlday copied from Influent & Zones Setup Sheet: CALCUI AYE"
0.53
Month Dmo�ih r PET
EEL
January
31
1.20
February
28
1.63
March
31
2.85
April
30
4.15
May
31
5.12
June
30
5.53
July
31
5.60
August
31
5.14
September
30
3.88
October
31
2.91
November
30
1.75
December
31
1.14
Totals: 365 40.90
0.05 Daily Flow= 8,46a galslday button after making
changes.
Zane 3 Area = 6.56 acres
Zone 3 2one 3
Manual
[;g
Actual Used
Overntle Commutative I I
Zone Maximum Maximum Storage Actual
Poz�--
3 Required for Mantitly
Soil . PreciP Allowable Allowable Design Irrigation . Monthly
Drainage ass Irri anon Irri anon Irrigationg g 9 per Month Excess
inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches
1.64 2.84 4.25 0.00 1'""Q.3Q,} 0.33 1.47 -1.14 2.92 1 0.33
1.48 3Al 3.94 0.00 0.92 1.33 -0.42 1 3.34 t 0.92
1.fi4 4.49 5.03 0.00 r% 1.70 1.47 0.22 1 3.11 ( 1.70
1.59 5.73 4.14 1660 ,»,9�4, 3.47 1.43 2.04 1 1.07 1 3.47
1.64 6.76 4.45 2.31 ir`�, :6 § 3.68 1.47 2.20 I 0.00 t 1 2.55
1.5a 7.11 4.58 254 ,4r. 3.68 1.43 2.25 1 000 ". 1 1.43
1.64
5.13
1.64
4.43
1.58
X
4.44
1.64
4.12
1.58
J.38
1.64
4.10
1927.60.17 51.99
2.10 ?-a,.-BiQ. .:. 3.02 1.47 t.ss F____o0� 1.47
2.35 -r'; 3.21k 3.29 1.47 1.82 r 0.00 �l 1.47
102 t2 1.95 1.43 0.53 1 0.000 1.43
oa3 #5,"hV dx71i 1s1 1.a7 o.oa �� ta7 s+Ir, pYl
0.00 r`b`p x 1.04 1.43 .0.39 ,1 0 39 1.04
0.00 1.47 -1.39 1. 7.78 � 0.08
12.35 24.66 iL35
Maximum Monthly Storage Required for the Irrigation of Zone 3:
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable Irrigation
Used Is greater than the.CalculateddMax; inches acres gallons
".Allow. Irrigation. 3.74 Over 6.56 594,160
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Spray.xls Z3 Version 5 December 2004

Soils and Water Balance for Zone 4
Zone 4 Description:
Calculate Soil Drainage
y *:;:`,
STep.1 Step 2', f x Ksat
1-situ saturated vertical Soll
Drainage
hydraulic contluctivity /actor (I) Drainage
(Ksat) ❑ Rate III
in/hr i0p - ercent In/day
902 0.53 0.100'JF
0.05
[E[y p ❑ Zone 4 ❑ Imonthr PET Soil 'Total Loss PrOci
Drainage
EEL]
inches inches inches
January 31 1.20 114 2.84 4.25
F ar h 10 4.15 1.64 4.49 5.03
March 31 2.05 1.fi4 4.49 5.03
July
5.60
August5.14
September
$30
3.88
October
2.91
November
1.75
1.64
6.76
4.45
1.58
7.11
4.58
1.64
7.24
5.13
1.64
6.78
4.43
1.50
5.46
4.44
s: 3fi5 40.90 1927 Total
Soils Series Information for Zone 4 Potential site limitations
Water table depth risk or Is bedrock <
f� Series Name Drainage class (BLS) perching 60" BLS ? BLS = below land surface
I Altavista mod well 2.n-00 moderate no -
Calculated Manual
Overntle
Maximum Maximum
Allowable Allowable
Irrigation Irrigation
inches inches
0_00
0_00
1.60
2.31
2.54
2.10
0.00
60.17 51.99 II 12.35 -
Click the
Copied from Influent & Zones Setup Sheet: 'CALCULATE"
y Flow = 1,771 galslday button after making
changes.
e 4 Area 2.15 acres
Zone 4 Zone 4
Actual Use'
Cummulative
Maximum 'Storage
Actual
Allowable Design Irrigation Monthly Required for Monthly
Irrigation per Me,,i Excess Irrigation Irrigation Rate
inches inches inches Inches inches
0.3] 0.94 .0.61 'I 1.47 -W' 0.33
0.92 0.85 0.07 I 140 I 0.92
1.70 11 0.94 0.76 0.64 1 1.70
3.60
1.95
1.51
1.04
0.08
24.66
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable In'igation
Used is greater than the Calculated Max.
Allow. Irrigation.
0.91
2.56
I 0.00 (
1.55
"
.` FYI'
0.94
2.74
;1 0.00
0.04
0.91
2.77
1 000 -.. I
0.91
0.94
2.08
F 0.00 t
0.94
0.94
2.35
1 0.00
0.94
0.91
0.94
1.04
0.57
1 0.00
00
0.91
0.94
0.91
0.13
0,00 1
0.91
0.94
-0.86
1. 0.86
11.07
07
Maximum Monthly Storage Required for the Irrigation of Zone 4:
inches acres gallons
1.47 - over z.is. ... - 85,578
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Spray.xls Z4 Version 5 December 2004

I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1
y Zonc 1 Zone 2 Zone ] Zona 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 2ane 7 Zone 6 Zone 9
Zone 10
Totals
n
Il Wally
in
Il a on] W.".mum-
con0.,ee gn.Ttic
Is ].».
] al flow
DIprMom
71,1131
miry Flaw) zone-» si,im aW ]ma eW 8,46a aW tm pW 0 epa o vW 0 8pa a epd 0 aW
v apd
•d
Wel]¢tl Pcr ea 9u ••» J6
al grea
L Ilve Slot] pv
CYm mu btive Stara ev
LummYla11ve 5bra 9¢
LYm mYl o1K51ora 6e
r
C ulaln'e 5] ge
Cum mulal e51ora0c
Lu II sbra9e
ra
Cum mul vllve 5l 9v
Cum mule llve 5le ra Be
Cu telly Slvrage
C TYIa11Ve 5bragv
Monin
Oaya par
�
flc9ulrad
Raqubea
ReVuhaO
Re9utreG
Re9uhed
Re9uirN
ReVulaed
RMu4ea
Re9ulred
RNulrea
Re9uIrM
�� mone. orlon.. lnchea anon. manes anona mcnn mmna loon¢.
almn. mcne. mlona 0 allone manes mlona mcnoa morn. mcnaa mlena
eanono
fli.Ne Wv.tte i"Y'.
L6n 61 ].el t.n fine
0
O.O1
0
0.00
0
a,as
0
3.466.741
Im.. v
ase
.eeru 3B ] ]6¢i a0i ].]] ]N.Y1 >)a 6N 160 ]AO B1 BB1 0.80 0 000 0
0.00
0
0.00
0
v00
0
O.aO
0
ar
].]] te61 B1] ]]]36 a,I 084
0
.09.121
3.6091121
878.700
Oat o]
moau
ciao o o.w 000 o Boa
Oa0 o Boo Boa 0
t.n.30o.ao0 aw 000 0 coo 0 oo0 sea coo 0 In
a.aa B 0
0
aro0 0 000 a a M 0 1
0
0 0 0.00 o aoo 0 0 0.00 0
oO0 0.80 400
o aoo o Boo 0 000 0
9aa 0
$e tors.¢, ]a
o Bo 0 0 0.00 o
Boo 0 o Bao
waav v o.00
a Bao o Bao 0 o.qo 0
ana 0
r .00
30 ta]NB an talus, KissBOO
405;92
I,09),594
-
Minimum Required Storage (gallons)
Miumunl Storage = 3906531 gallons divided By 69120 SO 56.5 days
FYI FYI ]dimmum Reruled
Statape
Lisomm BWD Water Balance Spray As Zonal Sums Version 5 December 2004

A Spray Irrigation Water Balance for
Permit No: Lissara Re -Use Drip Irrigation System
Permittee Name:
Contact Name:
Address:
Facility Lissara WWTP
Address:
Water Budget Prepared By:
John F. Phillips, P.E. - Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
Lissara DWQ Water Balance ReUse Drip.xls Project Id
Version 5 December 2004

Enter Data ===->= Precipitation Worksheet FYI
Calculate the precipitation for an 80th percentile "vvet' year, based on long term tlaia (appiox. 30 years or greater).
Click on eachstep box
p
Precipitation Data
Step 1
Mean Monthly
Percent of Mean
Month
Precipitation
Annual Precipitation
inches
Percent
January
3.68.
8.18
February
3.41
7.58
March
4.35
9.67
April
3.58
7.96
May
3.85
8.56
June
3,96
8.81
July
4.44
9.87
August
3.83
8.52
8.54
MD.c..b.r
.92
3.55
7.89
TOTALS = 44.97 100.00
I�
Step
80tb Percentile
Monthly
Precipitation
inches
4.25_--7.1
35.03
t
4.14:.
4.45
1 4.58 I Values shown in yellow
5.13
4.43
1 4.44 i
l 412 1
—�
Step 3 • Precipitation Data Soucre
Location I Yadkinville 6E - COOP sta. 319675
Staring Year of Data Record: I 1958
Ending Year of Data Record: 2007 `Siep 4
Period of Record (Years) = 49 _ — , 1 "
Source of Data. i
cells are linked toother
locations within the Water
Balance Program I
State Climate Office of North Carolina (httpJ/www.nc-
climate:m:su.edul).
C51.99 � I
4.10
5
Lissara DWQ Water Balance ReUse Drip.xls Precip Version 5 December 2004

I I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 l 1 1 I
Influent, Lagoon Storage,
and Zone Setup Worksheet
Calculate Ibo atljuAml turning loading by including 111e gains
antl losses hem the Storage Lagoon, and set up the Spray
Zenms areas and individual Zen. flowmtes.
Click on each. step box -
Enter Data'= LLJ
Pan Evap. Data Precip
Days
per
EvaPoralion Atljusletl
Month month Data Pan Oata Preci
�.. inches Inches Inches
January 31 I5 esl. 0.91 4.25
February 28y$ 1.97 J.94
March 31 i$3"� 2.Sa 5.03
April 30 ;,:, i9.,: +e 3.44 4.14
May 31 (g`pF?(66jfiy 4.31 4.45
Juno 30 4F67#1 4.64 4.50
July 31 8'�S„ 4.97 5.13
August 31 i 4.36 4.43
September 30 3.23 4.44
October ]i ,;?�.29_, 2.30 4.12
November 30 2.014 ( 1.41 3.38
December ]1 Y:btr° 0.99 4
.10
Totals: ]65 49]4 34.40 51.99
Stop 2
Area of
Lagoon
as
2.14
Lagoon Gains 5 Losses
Lagoon
Gains tram
Precip.
Lagoan
Losses from
Evap.
gallons
gallon
247,207
52,976
229,069
]9,]20
292,2 6
1150,006
240,489
199,708
258,627
250,550
266,016
269,667
298,260
283,089
267.283
252,584
257,055
1a7,506
239,146
13],816
196,163
01,154
238,474
57,350
],020 a94
1 998,]OS
j Total Flow to be
Design Daily Dispostal LT9O6:417
toDaily Flow to Watlmd Dolly Flow 1. Welletl Daily Flow
Flow Qnfluentl (Annual Zane 1 Acreage Zen. 2 Aaeage Zone 3
Avemged)
9alsltlay 9alsltlay arms gals/tlay galslday
87,640 9alsltlay 60,906 34.98 6,021 6.53 16,605.
90,641 aboultl bIrr. Rate In. Rate In. Rate
influent ogua (inhek)= 0.45 (inlwk)= 0.2] (In/wk)=
Zane 1 Zone 2
Design Influent Total: Influent+ Zone 1 Design Zone 2 Design Zone 3
Volume per Lagoon Gains It Volume to be Irrigation per Volume io be litigation per Volume to 1
Month Losses Disposed month Disposed month Disposed
gallons gallons galimis Inches 21 gallons inches gallons
:4: :520 2865'169 L088.0011 Up 190,988 --1.08 464940
;]23,040 2,911,3]1 1,808,086 I 1.99 211,451 I 1.19 614,766
755
1 2,723,040
1 2,904,164
1,8a0,096
I 1.99
311,451
1 1.19
2,489,665
14 �04
3],OB],]08
22,230,690
2].41
32,061,600
Lissara DWD Water Balance ReUse Drip.xls Influent+Zones Setup Version 5 December 2004

I 1' I 1 1' 6 t I' 11 1 C F I' Ii D D 1
Ie 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 9
Zone 10
Wettetl
Acreage
Da lly Flow to
2one4
Wetted
Acreage
Daily Flow to
Z.neb
Wettetl
Acreago
Daily Flow to
Zvn.B
Wetted
Acreage
Daily Flaw to
Zone'!
Wetted
Acreage
Oally Flow to
Zone01
Wetted
Acreage
Daily Flow t.
Zen.
Wettetl
Acreegv
Wally Flow to
Zatty l0
Wettetl
Acreage
cres
quisltlay
galeltlay acrca
galbltlay acres
Oalsltlay
galslJay acres
galeltlay
galaltlay acres
11.92
6,309 4.50
0 0.00
0 O.Oo
0
suss
Ires
0.]6
Irr. Rate
(Inlwk)' OA5
Irr. Rate
Ilnlwkl=
I, Rate
(inlwk)=
Irc Rate
linlwkl=
In. Rate
(Inlwk)=
Err. Rate
(Inlwk)=
Irr. Rate
(0tlwk)=
Zone 10
Zone 10 Design
Volume to be Irrigation per
Disposed month
Zone 3
Design
Irrigation per
month
Zen.4
Volume to be
Drip osvtl
Zone 4
Design
Irrigation per
m.niM1
Zane 5
Velum. to be
Disposetl
Zone 5
Design
Irrigation per
month
Zone 6
Velum. to be
Olspasetl
Zone 6
Design
Irrigation per
month
Zonc ]
Volume m be
Olsposetl
Zane ]
Design
Irrigation per
month
Zone 8
Volume to be
Disposed
Zone 0
Design
Irrigation per
month
Zone 9
Volume to be
Dlsp... tl
Zone 9
Design
Irrigation per
month
Inches
gativns Inches
gallons
inches
gallons
inches
gallons
nches
gallons
Inches
gallana
inches
gallons ncM1es
I 1.59
195,579
I 1.59
0
I suss
0
I suss
0
I suss
0
I suss
O
I OAO
0
I suss
1A4
176,652
1."
0
r 0.00
O
0.00
0
suss
0
suss
0
F 0.00
0
0.00
1.99
195,679
1.59
0
1 O.00c
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1.54
189,2 00
1.54
0
1 0.00
O
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00.
0
'.0.00
a
Oer)
1.59
195,579
1.69
0
0.00
0
0.110
0
boss
0
0.00
0
ODO
0
suss
L54
169,27a
1.54
0
o.a0
0
OAO
0
000
0
O.00-
0
:V a
0
O.Oo
1.59
195,579
1.59
0
0t0.
0
000
a
0.00
0
0.00
0
00o
0
O.Oo
1.69
195,579
1.69
0
0.00
a
0.00
0
0.00
0
1 0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1.54
169,2 00
1.54
0
1 0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
1 000
0
1 0.00
0
0.00
1.59
155.579
1.59
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
1 0.00
0
0.00
I 1.54
189,270
I 1.64.
0
I 0.00
0
I 0.00
0
I 0.00
0
I 0.00
0
I 0.00
0
I 0.00
I_ 1.59
195,579
I 1.58
e
I 000
0
I 0so
a
I OAs
0
I .sure
suss
0
I ruts
0
I suss
0
0
18.73
2,]02,785
10.]2
0
0.00
0
0.00
suss
0
0.00
0
suss
Lissara DWQ Water Balance Re Use Drip.xh; Influent+Zones Setup Version 5 December 2004

Soils. and Water Balance for Zone 2 Soils Series Information for Zone 2 Potential site limitations
Water table tleplh risk of Is bedrock <
Zone 2-0escriptie❑ Series Name Drainage class (BLS) perching 60" BLS 7 BLS = below land surface
Calculate Soil Drainage : Wilkes well >3.0 moderate yes
Step j Step'2i.1 f x Ksal r�I r0� r0I I--�I
n-situ saturated vertical Soll
hydraulic cc ductlAt Drainage Drama e
y (Ksaq y factor (f) Rateg r
in/hr In/tlay percent - in/tlay
O.oYF 0 417DMO"$ F 0.04
Zone 2
Month Dmonper PET Soil9 Total Loss Frecip
Dralna a
inches .....inches inches inches
January 31 1.20 1.27 2.47 4.25
February 28 1.63 1.15 2.78 3.94
March 31 2.85 1.27 4.12 5.03
April 30 4.15 1.23 5.38 4.14
May 31 5.12 1.27 6.39 4.45
June 30 5.53 1.23 6.76 4.58
July 31 5.60 1.27 6.87 5.13
August 31 5.14 1.27 6.41 4.43
September 30 3.88 1.23 5.11 4.44
October 31 2.91 1.27 4.18 4.12
November 30 1.75 1.2] 2.98 3.38
December 31 7.14 1.27 2.41 4.10
OEM
Totals: 365 40.90 14.98 55.88 51.99
Copied from Influent & Zones Setup Sheet
Daily Flow= 6,821 gaefday
Zone 2 Ama = 6.53 acres
Calculated
Maximum
Allowable
Irrigation
Manual
Override
Maximum
Allowable
Irrigation
Actual Used
Maximum
Allowable
Inng alien
Design Irrigation
per Month
inches
inches
inches
Inches
0.00
-0.03
-0.03
1.19
0.00
0.59
0.59
1.08
0.00
1,33
1.33
1.19
1.24
3.11
3.11
1.15
1.94
3.31
3.31
1.19
2.18
3,32-'
3.32
1.15
1.74
2.66
2.66
1.19
1.98
2.92 `
2.92
1.19
0.67
1.60
1.60
1.15
0.07
9.t5
1.15
1.19
0.00
0.69
U.69
1.15
0.00
.0.28
-0.28
1.19
�' I 2U.37 III 1 4.U4
Maximum Mon
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable Irrigation
Used is greater than the Calculated Max inches
Allow. Irrigation.
3.70
Monthly
Excess
Click the
"CALCULATE"..
button after making
changes.
E
Irrigation Rate
inches
Inches
inches
"
FYI
-1.22
3.21
.0.03
-6.49
I 3.70 I
0.59
0.14
) 3.56 )
1.33
1.96
i 1.61 i
3.11
2.12
i 0.00 I
2.80
2.17
I 0.00 )
1.15
1.47
F 0.0 i
1.19
1.73
r 0.00
1.19
1.19
0.46
1 0.00 )
1.15
4.05
f 0.05
1.16
-0.41
r 0,61
0.69
4
-0.28
4.04
thly Storage
over
Required for: the Irrigation of Zone 2:
acres - gallons
F 6.53 = 656,831
Lissara DWO Water Balance ReUse Drip.xls Z2 Version 5 December 2004

1 1 1 1 1 t � i i � ► 1 i 1
Soils and Water Balance for Zone 3
Zane 3 Description:
Calculate Soil Drainage
Step
Step2
Ix Ksat
1-situ saturated vertical
Drainage
Soll
hydraulic conductivity
factor (f)
Dralnaga
(Ksat)
Ratc
inlhr inlday
percent
in/day
U 02 0.53
,.0.700
0.05
EEdF
PET
inches
January
31
February
28
March
31
P4.1
April
30
May
31
June
30
October 31
November 30
December 31
!•�GlI
Z Sol3 Zone3
Soil Total Lass 1PDrainage
Inches Inches Inches
1.64 2.84 P4.
1.49 3.11
1.64 4.49
1.58 5.73 1.64 6.76 1.58 7.11
t0
L75%164M271
3.38
1.14
4.1
Soils Series Information for Zone 3 Potential site limitations
FWIertable depth risk of Is bedrock<Series Name Drainage class(BLS) perching 60" BLS 7 BLS = below land surface
Congaree welhmotl well 2.0->3.0 motlerate no
- Click the
Copied from Influent 8 Zones Setup Sheet: "CALCULATE'
Daily Flow= 16,605 gals/day button after making
changes.
Zone 3 Area = 11.92 acres -
Calculated
Mazimum
Allowable
Irrigation
Manual
Override
Maximum
Allowable
Irrigation
Actual Used
maximum
Allowable
Irrigation
Inches
inches
Inches
0.00
0.33
1 0.33
0.00
0.92
0.92
0.00
1.70
1.70
1.60
3.47
3.47
2.31
3.68
3.68
2.54
3.68
3.68
2.10
3.02
3.02
2.35
3,29
3.29
1.02
1,95
1.95
0.43
1.51
1.51
9.9a
1 4
1.64
0.00
0.08
0.08
Totals: 315 40.90 19.27 60.17 51.99
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable Irrigation
Used is greater than the Calculated Max.
Allow. irrigation.
-v--
Zone 3 Zone 3
Cummulative
Storage Actual
Design Irrigation Monthly Required /or Monthly
per Month Excess Irrigation Irrigation Rate
inches Inches Inches Inches
1.59 1.26 1 3.35 0.33
154 1.93 I 1.83 1 347
1.59
2.09 1
1 0.00 1
3.42
1.54
2.14
1 0.00 1
1.54
1.59
1.43
r 0.00 -1
1.59
1.59
1.70
r U.00
1.59
1.54
0.42
1 0.00
1.64
1.59
-0.08
��
1.51
FY1
1.54
.0.50
~5i�
1.04
1.59
_
18.73
-1.51
a
2.09 _ Y 1
n ffIttllh
0.08
ie.73
Maximum Monthly Storage Required for the Irrigation of Zone 3:
inches acres gallons
3.87 over 11.92 0 1,251,489
Lissara DWQ Water Balance ReUse Drip.xls Z3 Version 5 December 2004

Soils and Water Balance for Zone`4 1 Soils series Information for Zone Potential site limitations
Water table depth risk of labetlrock <
Zone 4 Description: Series Name Drainage class (BLS) perching 60" BLS 7 BLS = below land surface
Calculate Soil Drainage Altavista mod well 2.O a.0 moderate no
Step 1 Step 2 f x Ksat I -�
3-situ saturated vertical Soil
Drainage
hydraulic conductivity factor (� Drainage
(Ksap Rate
Click the
Inlhr Inlday percent Inlday Copied from Influent &Zones Setup Sheet "CA"CALCULATE"gM'' 0.53 F 0.05 Daily Flow= 6,309 galsiday button after making
'yMamum
PET Sail ral Loss Precum
i
p ❑ rane9 F-
Drainage
Incites Inches inches inches ..
31 1.20 1.64 2.84 4.25
28 1.63 1.48 111 3.94
31 2.85 1.fi4 4.49 5.03
30 4.15 7.58 5.73 A.14
31 5.12 7.64 fi.76 4.45
30 5.53 1.58 7.11 4.58
31 S.60 1.64 7.24 5.13
31 5.14 1.64 6.78 4.4J
30 J.58 1.50 5.46 4.44
31 2.91 1.64 M25 4.12
30 1.75 1.58 3.38
1.14 164 4.10
Calculated
Allowable
Irri alion
Manual
Overritle
MzmDpar
Allowable
Irrigation
_inches
inches
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.60
2.31
2.54
2.10
2.35
1.02'yii0_Q_.
0.43
0.00
" 1.04.a31
0.00
'i 11,��+
Zone 4 Area = 4.53 acres
Zone 4
Actual Used n
Commutative
Maximum
Allowable
Irrigation
inches
0.33
0.92
1.70
3.47
3.60
3.60
3.02
3.29
1.95
1.51
1.04
0.08
Totals: 365 40.90 1 19.27 60.17 51.99 II 12.35 24.66
CAUTION: Maximum Allowable Irrigation
Used is greater than the Calculated Max.
Allow. Irrigation.
Design Irrigation Monthly
per Month Excess
Inches inches.
1.54 1.93
59 2.09
54 2.14
1.59 1.43
1.59 1.70
1.54 0.50
1.59 1.51
18.72
Maximum Monthly Storage I
inches
3.86 over
Storage
Required for
Irrigation
Inches
Zane 4
Actual
Monthly
Irrigation Rate
inches
0.33
0.92
changes.
1.83 I
3.47
FYI
I 0.00 I
3.42
i - 0.00 I
1.54
F
1,59
0.00
1.59
0.000
1.54
i0.08
1.51
~ ose�
t.aa
0.08
.
18.72
2eciuired for the Irrigation of Zone 4:
acres gallons
0.53 = 475,388
Lissara DWQ Water Balance ReUse Drip.xls Z4 Version 5 December 2004

I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I
Zonal 5toraoe Summations nn.IFeT-Tn ealc,Jaln R,n minMUm wee weameram]aeU ranuirea far a mwLnle zenea so]av irriealion R.
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone T
Zone 8
Zone 9
Zone 10
TotaIS
znn. m[nlPrnn s»
IIj
�,
peaq d. pal. memm B7,e40
cecl
Wllkva - --
�J
eoneamu
Aeavlam
IbPal-
PrBJmn 1$ Ilv=» I
Tv1aI FI0W
01[Pv[va 90.O E1
p ally Flv 1 2 v•» 6p q06 OPJ
fi,631 9VJ
16.6 e5 gptl
0,]99 OVJ
0 BPJ
vya
�
B 9W
�
B evJ B eptl o vptl
� � �
IbWI•
We11eJ AcreaOe=•» JS aclev
�
13 eclei
�
�
�
�.
� � �
Tolal Ar-a 5] 9fi
CummulaUve Storage
Cum mule llvo $l via pv
Cum mula4vv slvrape
Cum mul]Y vv 6l vrugv
u m lal rve Slora
m Be
Lummulc9ve $lofa b`
Cum mule 11 vc Slvra be
Cummulallve Slvmpe
Lummulali vv Storage
Cum m Nallve slvruge
Cum m ulavrabe
AIvnIM1
Oaye peg
mvnlM1
RequlrN
RryuimJ
Requiretl
RcquUeJ
Requi red
RequimJ
Req ul�N
Req uilcJ
flequlma
Req ulreJ
LVJ
Req-ave
00
0�
o�
IncRe, aageai
o�
o�
o allva.
o�
o .� o ao o .Ilnn
0'I
11 sill 9's"la
a a
a.
a a 1. aS,OSB,193
aMdlld
11sMa
a
e,a a as ab,839,901
III
]n][IZ
1a[ fia �lw
as
a p.0o
5,608,633
as l
SS
w♦ 'a
l 2 .1ae
a
m
v
3,626,906
Ma
0a a
0B
w e
a
D 00 0
000 a
0 000 06
ro 0
a
a aB
m
1000
0
J.BJ a
olv a
oaJ a
aac v a49 a a.aaa
0
s.lmefie, 30.0a a
pva v
0.00 o
O.Oo 0
B.vB a
94o a
eoB a
a.aa o a4o o o.o0 0
0
onm., m om a[lar
o05 ..m
0609 m,e56
0.av a
v.]v
v.vv v
v.av a
eov p
ad o aas v v.Ba a
73,513
a as Uae a69]a]
Ir61 91Ia>
D6a 1a)63]
0.55 ]IZBS
a.aa 0
a.ea a
aDa 0_
O.as a a.ea B a.00
610,103
vur
UecenNn 31 9a5383
ida
Is, 33111
Za9 675BaB
]EY Nfl]II
vav 0
aaa a
0
a
000 000 J
I 3,110.473
I
Mini um Ra9u mtl SlonpU 19allvnz) -{Y
5,829,991—,
Minimum 53oraPe-
5.829.901 gallons divided by 62,840 Opp
days
-
FYl
FYI M'n mum Red allied
Slolaga
Llssala OWO Wide, Rmance ReUse pnp is Zoaal Sums Vmzion 5 peeembcr 2004

m
OR
om
on
APPENDIX I
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING USGS STREAMFLOW
fm ESTIMATES. FOR PROPOSED DISCHARGE POINT IN THE
YADKIN RIVER
am
no
oft

ow
M
p1
No
me
Wo
an
no
.m
MR
an
on
am
MR
MA
aw
MW
am
Summary of USGS-NC Streamflow Data for Requested
Discharge Location
Average Flow
21440 CFS
7Q10
550 CFS
30Q2
11140 CFS
W7Q10
860 CFS
7Q2
990 CFS

fm Page 1 of 2
0"
John F. Phillips
From: "John C Weaver" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: "John C Weaver" <[e-mail]>; "Jeanne C Robbins" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 3:56 PM
Subject: Low -flow estimates for selected Yadkin basin sites
John,
During the latter part of August, you submitted formal low -flow requests for 3 sites in Yadkin River basin,
requesting the full range of flow statistics typically provided in response to formal requests. Due to other items
requiring my focus these day -- particularly the drought -- I have been unable to spend time on your requests until
this afternoon. The purpose of this email is to provide you with some information that may be helpful to you at this
time and to confirm your need for a formal response.
The "most recent' low -flow information published for this area is in a statewide report completed in the early
1990's. It is USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, 'Low -flow characteristics of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and
Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available through
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wsptwsp2403. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data
through 1988) via regional relations and at -site values for sites with drainage basins between 1 and 400 sgmi and
not considered or known to be affected by regulation and/or diversions.
If you access the report, please note the online report files are provided in the ". DJVU" format and require a
particular Lizardtech plug-in, also available through a link.displayed on the page. Or you can click an adjacent
s, link that will allow you to view the report as a group of images without the need for a plug-in.
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS North Carolina Water Science Center for each of your sites
0" indicates the following:
(1) Your site of interest on South Deep Creek tributary (adjacent to Starmount High School) is identical to a site
where low -flow estimates have previously been determined -- South Deep Creek tributary near Wagoner (station
ON id 02115541, drainage area 0.53 sgmi). The following estimates were determined in June 1987 based on the flow
characteristics at a nearby partial -record site on North Deep Creek near Yadkinville (station id 02115610):
ow Average flow = 0.7 cfs (1.03 cfsm)
7Q10 = 0.06 cfs (0.109 cfsm)
30Q2 = 0.2 cfs (0.383 cfsm)
winter 7Q10 = 0.15 (0.290 cfsm)
7Q2 = 0.16 cfs (0.293 cfsm)
.� (2) Your site of interest on Forbush Creek is almost identical to another site where low -flow estimates have
previously been determined -- Forbush Creek above gaging station near Forbush (station id 0211549820,
drainage area 21.6 sgmi). The following estimates were determined in January 1990 based on the flow
characteristics at a discontinued continuous -record gaging station located 0.6 mile downstream from your point of
interest — Forbush Creek near Yadkinville (station id 02115500, period of record in 1940-71):
Average flow = 22 cfs (1.03 cfsm)
am 7Q10 = 2.1 cfs (0.098 cfsm)
30Q2 = 7.1 cfs (0.330 cfsm)
winter 7Q10 = 6.7 (0.307 cfsm)
go 7Q2 = 5.6 cfs (0.262 cfsm)
2/18/2008

P"
Page 2 of 2
PM Please note the low -flow yields (expressed as flow per sqmi drainage area, or cfsm) at the above two sites are
very comparable for each statistic.
no (3) For your site of interest on the Yadkin River, the difference in drainage areas between your location and the
gaging station at Enon (station id 02115360, drainage area 1,694) is negligible such that flow characteristics at
the gage can be considered applicable to your site.
Average flow = 2,440 cfs
7Q10 = 550 cfs
30Q2 =1,140 cfs
winter 7Q10 = 860 cfs
7Q2 = 990 cfs
"" Please note the above statistics are based on the 1965 to 2006 climatic years, which reflects the full period of
record at the gaging station and the regulated flow releases from W. Kerr Scott Reservoir near Wilkesboro.
no Note: The climatic year is the standard annual period used for low -flow analyses at continuous -record gaging
stations. It runs from April 1 through March 31 and is designated by the year in which the period begins. For
example, the 2006 climatic year is from April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.
fm
In some of the western basins in North Carolina, the low -flow conditions observed during the 1998-2002 drought
have resulted in lower low -flow statistics. No formal statewide investigation has been completed to document the
changes in low -flow statistics since the drought. However, where updated analyses have been completed for
aw selected stations, the changes in pre- versus post -drought 7Q10 discharges have been on the order of about 10
to 25 percent. For example, the 7Q10 discharge estimated for the Enon gaging station as of 1998 was about 620
cfs. The updated value is about 12 percent lower that the 1998 value. However, with no additional data from the
Im discontinued gaging station on Forbush Creek, there no means other than a "guess estimate" to consider what an
updated 7Q10 discharge might be at this location.
If using this email as a means to provide you with the low -flow estimates is not sufficient -or- if you still want the
formal response completed for each site, the let me know. I have been using email as the primary means of
providing low -flow information (at no charge) to help facilitate more rapid responses. Again, if you need the
formal responses, then I will attempt to complete these by mid- to late October (charge of $150 per site).
Thank you for you patience... hope this information is helpful.
No Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE
USGS North Carolina Water Science Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
r„ Telephone: [phone] H Fax: [phone]
E-mail address -- [e-mail]
Internet address — http://nc.water.usgs.gov/
no
am
2/18/2008

P"
DIEHL & PHILLIPS, P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
219 East Chatham Street
Cary, North Carolina 27511
�► Telephone [phone] — Fax [phone]
August 23, 2007
Mr. J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
ROw e: Request for Stream Flow Data -- Forsyth County
Site • Yadkin River
am Dear Mr. Weaver:
WILLIAM C. DIEHL, P.E.
JOHN F. PHILLIPS, P.E.
ALAN R. KEniL P.E.
The property owner adjacent to a potential treated wastewater discharge point into the Yadkin
Ow River is pursuing the required NPDES permit. As a first step in this process, we are requesting
USGS provide the following flow statistics for the location marked on the enclosed maps:
No
0"
im
Ow
me
Average flow
7Q10 minimum flow
30Q2 minimum flow
Winter 7Q 10 minimum flow
Annual 7Q2 minimum flow
The proposed discharge point is located approximately 6,500 feet downstream of the USGS
gaging station "02115360 Yadkin River at Enon, NC". This station has a drainage area of 1,694
square miles. The additional drainage area below the station and tributary to the potential
discharge point is 5.4 square miles in Forsyth County and 0.26 square miles in Yadkin County.
This creates a total drainage area of 1,699 square miles at the potential discharge point, by our
measurements.
We would appreciate this flow data when you can provide it. Please forward your invoice for
your services to Diehl & Phillips, P.A. If you have any questions, please call.
Enclosures
Cc: Mr. Brant Godfrey
Yours Very Truly,
Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
John F. Phillips, P.E.
OR

ow
am
am
ow
go
wa
am
am
on
a.
OR
am
MR
pq
wo
APPENDIX J
EXECUTED ATTACHMENT A. LOCAL GOVERNMENT FORM,
FROM EAA GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
Im

Im
A"
Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
No General Statute Overview. North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(G) allows input from local governments in the
issuance of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for a new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility
until it has received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on
No which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or
county has a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is
consistent with the ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a permit application for any facility which a city or county has
determined to be inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to
am have statewide significance and is in the best interest of the State.
Instructions to the A1Hlicanr. Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must:
■ Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this foam to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
■ If either (or both) local governments) fail(s) to mail the completed foan, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
�+ mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDES Unit
■ As evidence to the Commission that the local government(s) famed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit
a copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local governments) failed to respond within
the 15-day period.
Instructions to the Local Government: The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
am any part of the land on which the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt The form must be signed and notarized.
OR
Name of local government: Forsythtv
(City/County)
ow Does the city/county have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes [JJ No [ ] If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant:
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes LA No [ )
If there is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the ordinance? Yes [�
No [ )
Date 2 . D % Signaftm 72 �
Mwngec/County Manager)
State of 14& r-44, CaxD1 i Ma.. , County of Fd rs Li
.a On this g day of Fe6ru�
I ,fig ,personally appeared before me, the said
name LAA 1ey Wa;Rs i :S—r. to me known and known to me to be the person described in
and who executed the foregoing document and he (or she) acknowledged that he (or she) executed the same and being duly sworn
by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true.
My Commission expires."C�%er 02.4, OU09 .(Signature of Notary Pub.'�K'
am Notary Nblic (Official Seal)
0BOU Ls�.
ma ACWWMCWKWI
��nPi c
corn OF FORSM
=3
an EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OwGLORIAD. WHISENHUNT, Chair
DEBRA CONRAD, Vice Chair
BEAUFORT 0. BAILEY
.TED KAPLAN
RICHARD V. LINVILLE
WALTER MARSHALL
BILL WHITEHEART
of
4
FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
February 8, 2008
Mr. John F. Phillips, P.E.
Diehl & Phillips, P.A.
219 East Chatham Street
r Cary, NC 27511
M Dear Mr. Phillips:
J. DUDLEY WATTS, JR.
County Manager
A. EDWARD JONES
Deputy County Manager
DAMON SANDERS-PRATT
Assistant County Manager
JANE F. COLE
Clerk to the Board/
Assistant to the Manager
Enclosed herewith please find the signed document you had requested in your
r correspondence to me dated January 28, 2008.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
r
Sincerely,
r
_ Jane F. Cole, CMC
Clerk to the Board of Conunissioners
.. JFC/kh
r
r
r
Enclosure
Forsyth County Government Center • 201 N. Chestnut Street • Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101-4120
Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone]

P"
pa
ow
am
mm
PM
pm
no
ow
APPENDIX K
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS TO EXAMINE THE EFFECT OF
on VARIOUS INTEREST RATES ON THE RELATIVE RANKING OF
THE ALTERNATIVES
Im
ow
mm
fm
I,
fm
o.
Im
OR

OR
go
EZI
Oa
Ow
00
fm
am
Ow
M
MM
No
no
IM
Sensitivity Analysis
As presented in the tables on the following two pages, Alternative No. 7, the treatment
plant with a discharge to the Yadkin River has a substantially lower Present Worth than
any of the other Alternatives. At 7.00% interest rate, the PW of Alternative No. 7 is
$8,038,626. The next closest alternative, No. 4, has a PW of $12,840,603, a difference
of over $4.8 million dollars.
The second table in this Appendix presents a relative ranking of the Alternatives for
each interest rate, to further demonstrate that the only cost effective alternative is
Alternative No. 7, which proposes to discharge treated wastewater into the Yadkin River.
Appendix K
Page 1

Sensitivity Analysis at 4%, 7%, and 1O% Interest Rates
Present Worth
Present Worth
Present
Alt.
Description
4% Interest
7% Interest
Worth 10%
Number
rate
rate
Interest rate
1
Connection to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
Connection to Privately Owned Treatment Plant
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
Individual Sub -surface Systems
$14,330,558
$13,103,534
$12,053,821
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
4
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Conventional
$12,743,779
$14,095,607
$9,923,174
Nitrification Lines
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
5
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Drip Irrigation
$14,294,741
$12,840,603
$11,7301120
Lines (Surface Applied)
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
6
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Spray
$14,903,589
$13,305,554
$12,060,304
Irrigation System
Wastewater Collection System & Wastewater
7
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Surface
$9,155,454
$8,038,626
$7,240,872
Discharge to Yadkin River
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
8
Treatment Plant, With Re -Use Quality Effluent Disposal
$13,924,696
$12,483,793
$11,413,573
Through Drip Irrigation Lines (Surface Applied)
Appendix K
Page 2

Relative Rankine of Alternatives at 4%, 7%, and 10% Interest Rates
Present Worth
Present Worth
Present
Alt.
Description
4% Interest
7% Interest
Worth 10%
Number
rate
rate
Interest rate
1
Connection to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
Connection to Privately Owned Treatment Plant
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
Individual Sub -surface Systems
1.565
1.630
1.665
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
4
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Conventional
1.392
1.753
1.370
Nitrification Lines
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
5
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Drip Irrigation
1.561
1.597
1.62
Lines (Surface Applied)
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
6
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Spray
1.628
1.655
1.666
Irrigation System
Wastewater Collection System & Wastewater
7
Treatment Plant, with Disposal through Surface
1.000
1.000
1.000
Discharge to Yadkin River
Wastewater Collection System and Wastewater
8
Treatment Plant, With Re -Use Quality Effluent Disposal
1.521
1.553
1.576
Through Drip Irrigation Lines (Surface Applied)
Appendix K
Page 3