NC0088188_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20051101

� �'�s 1p-& (�'y �
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
& /MQW 1 �g
SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS
FOR
Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort
Madison County, North Carolina
November 1, 2005
CCDA #05102
PREPARED BY:
C: CAROLINA
CIVIL
DESIGN
ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
4A Herman Avenue Extension
Asheville, North Carolina
828-681-5246

ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
OR
&
SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS
FOR
Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort
11114
Madison County., North Carolina
oft November 1, 2005
CCDA #05102
am
WppteIftV*"*j
'C\A CARO,"ti,
�p ESS/
®" .Q :7
t E. •
66 •
0 /
ORM
fow
R"
am
am Page 1 of 20

dw
Pam
Table of Contents
I.
Project Description
A. General
B. Site Topography
C. Adjacent Property
D. Hydrography
E. Applicant Name
F. Facility Name
II.
Residential Population Projections
III.
Flow Projections
IV.
Feasible Alternatives
A. Connection to Existing Wastewater
Treatment System
B. Land Application
C. Wastewater Reuse
D. Surface Water Discharge
E. Combination of Alternatives
V.
Economic Feasibility
A. Capital Cost
B. Operation and Maintenance Cost
C. Present Worth Cost
D. Summary
Page 2 of 20

am
FM
MR
I., Project Description
A. General
,M Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort is a mountain village, currently under
construction, located in Madison County, North Carolina. The project
will include providing wastewater treatment facilities for the phased
Fes, development of up to 800 single family homes, condominiums, and
commercial establishments in the development. The proposed
development is located on approximately 500 acres of land in Madison
County as indicated on the attached topographic map, Exhibit A.
The developer is working in conjunction with the owner of Wolf. Laurel
Ski Resort to create a year -around resort. These phases include the
development of home sites plus tennis courts, playgrounds, trout
pond, walking and biking trails, restaurant, ski lodge and a community
pool.
PHASE 1 will have 22 home sites, with two-story log homes. The
homes will have a loft and basement with wrap -around decks and
beautiful mountain views.
PHASE 2 will have 40 + home sites. These lots and log home
packages, some of which are located directly on the Intermediate Ski
Slope, are being built during 2004-2005 .
PHASE 3 will expand the Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort community with
a combination of log -home sites as well as several condominium/patio
home villages. The natural beauty of this area will be enhanced with a
"greenway" belt around the villages. one of the proposed villages in
Phase 3 will include 15 to 18 condominiums built in a cluster on a 3.71
acre "island" surrounded by two ski slope runs.
PHASE 4 will consist of larger home lots nestled in the bottom half of
the 60 acre resort property. These homes will have mountain views
and will be built around a large man-made pond in a more secluded
section of the resort.
Additional phases will be added on the remaining property.
am The resort is easily accessed by the new I-26 Connector and is located
within a 30 minute drive from Asheville. The resort can be reached by
taking Interstate 26 West from Asheville to exit #3. Then follow State
Route 1502 to the entrance to Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort.
The entire resort/village area is accessed by a newly constructed 18',
FM two mile paved road that winds up the mountain from the stone
`M Page 3 of 20

MR
entrance gate. All home sites will be located on paved roads. The new
lodge at Wolf Ridge will be open year-round for owners and guests and
will offer a full -service restaurant facility.
The project area is not served by a public sewer system. The
developer is currently utilizing onsite waste water disposal methods in
the form of septic tanks and drain fields. These will be abandoned in
the future in lieu of a central collection and treatment system. The
project will include construction of 15,000 linear feet of 8 inch gravity
sewer lines to serve the future residential and commercial buildings.
FAR The lines will extend throughout the resort providing gravity collection
for sewer where possible. Individual pumped sewers my be required
on some homesites. The system would carry the flow to the south east
corner of the resort where it will be treated. The wastewater facilities
will be privately owned and operated by Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort.
fm B. Site Topography
The resort is located on wooded mountainous terrain with elevation
ranging from 3400 at the lower elevations to 4500 at the higher
elevations. Slopes on the site average 40 percent. The site slopes
westward from Wolf Laural Branch upward to the top of Haw Ridge.
Wolf Laural Branch flows into Puncheon Fork Creek which is located at
® the eastern edge of the property.
C. Adjacent Property
The Resort is located in the Pisgah National Forest and is surrounded
by wooded mountainous terrain with some low density single family
homes around the property. To the north are the headwaters of Wolf
Laural Branch and Walnut Mountains as well as the North
Carolina/Tennessee State line. To the west is the Madison County
/Yancey County line. The headwaters of Big Laural Creek are located
to the west between the property and the county line. To the south
lies undeveloped forest land. Mars Hill is located 12 mile! to the south
east and is the nearest incorporated town to the project.
D. Hydrography
The Resort is entirely within the French Broad River Basin ( HUC Code
06010105) . The French Broad River is classified as a C waters in
ma Madison county. The project area flows into Wolf Laural Branch which
is classified as Class C, Trout waters. Wolf Laural Branch flows into
Puncheon Fork Creek which is classified as Class C, trout waters also.
The Puncheon Fork Creek flows into Big Laural Creek which is classified
as Class C , Trout. Big Laural Creek flows into the French Broad River.
Information provided by the U.S. Geological Survey indicates that the
Puncheon Fork Creek has a 7Q10 yield of 0.24 cfsm in the area of the
MR Page 4 of 20

resort. At station id 03453971 j8 the drainage area is 5.3 sgmi. This
yields a 7Q10 of 1.27cfs.
E. Applicant Name
Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort
104 North Main Street
_ Weaverville, NC 28787
Contact Person: Rick Bussie
828- 231- 1533
_ F. Facility Name
Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort
104 North Main Street
Weaverville, NC 28787
Contact Person: Rick Bussie
828- 231-1533
fo
Q<? o,
3,DQj i, �?
?0/0) 0 �' )
Page 5 of 20

TOPOI map printed on 10 31 05 from "Untitled. tpo
82043.000' W 82033,000' W 62023,000' W WGS84 62005,000' W
n i/ :l3un 1p rli in Y,
t
_ S
0 f„ rl f i% r y J,' Cove - IIB77Y i1.. r" r•..` g
C ! M1 1 Rs,an
(�1. ( 'V �� It �f':art It,pp , j
Z 5i,i St no ' V O
y m ��,..•(ire �
n n Z Crdthli Creek '�.._.�rt�r'r ',♦
Z O
y Z /� �� ,c rrresivllletiarnPd:ai .J %Ewartr:;,'y
K \ J O i aro6. �4U. -, Pige nrov`sl ,_s
Q . 8
O lad `f crro h: lot uft Y ...._` ., Al re
M Crdis�/' F3taliC.1', s'y��, q `'N r Y
0 3ree r �� I r l� ocky Fork t� SOts Itun _ Bake lei
j �' lag frond rr F rl e
0 T m —7 S'— rr;A 7 oilA+
, Dfc
Log
, esevlowr* ,,fr, r eK\
^ Du 8rioly"� � (8art na 1
Allon and N I.o /
a' A% i S rii86inKona
y (� ter.'gCr
Z ♦ r ;�' c /^�, �,r rof ref.
r alnt Rb .F: lief Big Laurel t 1 i � �. i'��E I { ,
O Swiss Bu�nsvill ".,rt y Pn1.3n
fit "•
J ... --� aidC p „�,_/van Ey + 5ur[ii
of � ivr-rc S : �. �— M,cavlll,�
kk r,i.nuT ( A'drs ,f'
d aoor
Uy IYI`'5 r,Use� f r �P�irlkriap'�c Vfr,en �B'i�vr5,.chr
j COO
afriut f ;' P�.nsaculaT AR
a o c) n}!Aurchsonw
Oy < O . Q' � • , s. ` fr'ctC151Jur� .,✓� , "�' 1 a � jrCtYl � s'�- � " a, �.
r` � •� ( ....� : �•
n2 n Z oe s0In 'rWq,lew=` r`•_ Shell,. r`,' Damocr. T( t
Crj.,,,ek f (arm SS ('At' Waodl
O _� 03?1) edsvil Nay Nell'CF)CI,t.Q Bu`S u
v o lT ,, r
a O Stocksv,lfe'_ Paiti forF�rDIII�B
1
Lf)-. .r �?Jn"+'4'fl 4: �(s� '� P1eu£int
o n ' 1 fit'•` t W�avor�iile ` r, , I Garden:,
_ 0 2 2 ' Afexol
NJ N lb m -a 82043.000' W 82033.000' W 62023.000' W WGS64 82005.000' W
0)0) w m 2 TN 0 5 10 15 20 25 miles
m l
o m A 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 km
N M w '� Map created with TOPO! 0 @2003 National Geographic (www.rrationalgeographic.comlto po)

EXHIBIT A
Map® 4.5
e�. TES tM.
00
CA IOLINA M G
l
7�
�.
,"-Street Gap.-
_
rt o
C
- — -- _ —-:t1 e .�. r • a —
�Upper Haw •.
•."Knob _
S,r
rj,
A
.
a
Brgbc
_
t rSasilBb 5!f:_:'13-
$ST�It 9opep_
• _ `PLm,..4'v ue9 Ch..
DiSc-it
A
0
R
Gc->V
r
cl
%wswHrgb - },,.
�O /,•�G ..
5
fn
..1
_17
.
y t
;7 ,:
Data use subject to license.
® 2004 Del_ort . XMap® 4.5.
w .delom}e.00m
r na•.n�

II. Population
MR
The projected future build out of the project will include 800 single
family residential homes, a restaurant and a ski lodge. The potable
water system will serve 48 new single family residential homes. The
demand will be based on the North Carolina Building Code and the
North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A Subchapter 2H Section
0.0200. Daily Flow Requirements:
III. FLOW PROJECTIONS
Waste Water Flow Summary
Unit Sewer Flow No. of Bedrooms TotalFlow
Single family 120 GPD/bedroom 2400 288,000 GPD
Restaurant 40GPD/ Seat 100 41000 GPD
Ski Lodge 20GPD/Seat 100 21000 GPD
Total Flow 294, 000 GPD
0M
IV. Feasible Alternatives
MR A. Connection to existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
,I, a. The nearest existing wastewater treatment plant is located at
English Wolf Lodge. The NPDES number is NC0082716.The plant
has a permitted capacity of 7000 GPD and is currently operating
at less than 50%. The plant discharges to Wolf Laural Branch
and is using 40% of the stream assimilation capacity. There is
an approximate additional stream assimilation capacity of 7000
GPD at the plant. This will not provide sufficient capacity for the
proposed development.
b. The next nearest existing wastewater treatment permit is for
Wolf Laural Commercial Properties. The NPDES number is
NC0087688.The permit has a permitted capacity of 30,000 GPD.
The permit have never been used and expired on September 30,
2005.The permit was for a discharges to Big Laurel Creek.
This permit would not have provided sufficient capacity for the
proposed development.
rim Page 7 of 20

ray
C. The next nearest existing wastewater treatment permit. is for
Wolf Laurel Resort WWTP. The permit holder is H & K Boone
Investments LLC and has NPDES number NC0061468. The
permit has a permitted capacity of 15,000 GPD but the plant
was never built. The permit expired on September 30, 2005.
The permit was for a discharges to Hampton Creek. This permit
would not have provided sufficient capacity for the proposed
development.
d. Carolina Water Service Incorporated of Wolf Laural owns and
ROM operates a treatment plant with a permitted capacity of 30,000
GPD. The plant has been built with a 24,000 gallon per day
capacity but is operating at only 2000 gallons per day average.
fm The NPDES number is NC0076431. The plant discharges to Wolf
Laural Branch.
OEM e. The nearest municipal wastewater treatment plant is located at
the Town of Mars Hill. The NPDES number is NC0057151. The
permit has a permitted capacity of 425,000 GPD and is currently
operating at 42%. The plant discharges into Gabriel Creek. The
town has indicated it did not want to receive the flow without
the resort being annexed into the town and the resort is to far
from the plant. The resort is 9.5 miles from the Town.
B. Land Application
The discharge of treated wastewater by land application would operate
under a non- discharge permit issued by the state of North Carolina,
Department of Environment and natural Resources. The applicable
regulations governing this type of facility are included in 15 A NCAC 2H
.0200 (0.0219), Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters, and 15 A
NCAC 2L, ground Water Classifications and Standards.
Land Application of effluent following secondary treatment will require
eft approximately 115 acres for rapid rate application. The maximum
desirable slopes for slow rate land application would be 5 to 12 %. The
minimum depth of soil should be 5 feet of loamy soil with hydraulic
`R conductivity of 0.2 to 6 in/hr. The slopes on the site average 15 to 50
% eliminating slow rate land application. Rapid rate land application
would be acceptable.
a. Soils -- The soils on the site have been classified using the
Unified Soil Classification System. The soil survey was done by
the Soil Conservation Service , USDA, December, 1995. The
soil descriptions were done by Mr. M. S. Hudson. The Soil
Survey Map of Madison County indicates that the soils are
primarily of the Edneyville and Porters series.
am
Page 8 of 20

MR
Site specific hydrogeologic and soil investigations were done for
Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort, Madison County, North Carolina by
Stephen Chambers, a licensed Soil Scientist. References to the
NRCS soil map in the soil survey of Madison County reveals two
basic complexes. The two basic complexes include the
following:
Edneyville-Chestnut complex, 15-30% slopes (EdD); Edneyville-
'�" Chestnut complex, 30-50% slopes (EdE); The soils consist of
very deep well drained coarse -loamy, mixed, active, mesic
typic dystrudeptd. The AB section, 6-9 inches thick consist of
dark yellowish fine sandy loam. The soils had an "K" value
ranging from .17 to .24. The soils had an "Ksat" value
(saturated conductivity) ranging from 2.6 g/d/sf to 8.7 g/d/sf.
The soils had a minimum LTAR value of 0.5 gallons per day per
square foot. The depth of the soil ranged from 36" to 54". The
USDA soil texture is FSL, SL, L. Woodland production suitability
is good but the site has severe erosion hazards on the steep
slopes. The production classification ranges from 7 to 12 for
white pines and poplars.
Porters Complex, 15-30% slopes (PoD); Porters complex, 30-
50% slopes (PoE); The soils consist of very deep well drained
fine -loamy, isotic, mesic typic dystrudeptd. The Ap surface
section, 0 to 7 inches thick consist of dark grayish brown loam.
The soils had an "K" value (erosion factor) ranging from .24 to
.28. The soils had an "Ksat" value (saturated conductivity)
ranging from 2.6 g/d/sf to 8.7 g/d/sf. The soils had a minimum
LTAR value of 0.5 gallons per day per square foot. The depth of
the soil ranged from 36" to 60". The USDA soil texture is FSL,
SL, L. Woodland production suitability is good but the site has
severe erosion hazards on the steep slopes. The production
classification ranges from 7 to 11 for white pines and poplars.
The soils description done by Chambers Soil Consulting are
fm included in the EXHIBIT B.
b. Hydrogeology--The hydrogeology of the site focuses on the
drainage of the waste water into and through the soil of the land
treatment site. This movement is characterized by infiltration
rates described as Ksat. During infiltration, water drains from
the surface through the unsaturated soil and into capillary zones
and subsequently into the water table aquifer. Loading rates are
estimated through field test using a Compact Constant Head
Permeameter to calculate the saturated hydraulic conductivity
Ksat. Saturated bench analysis using Compact Constant Head
Permeameters were performed on 10 areas. SCS data indicates
a minimum of 0.6 inches per hour for selected horizons below
MPage 9 of 20

FM
land surface with the infiltration rate increasing to more than 6
FM inches per hour for the horizons near the surface. The measured
Ksat values ranged from 0.5 to 2 inches per hour. A maximum
loading rate of 1 inch per hour will be used for the evaluation.
PM
C. Geology --The Petrology of the Scenic Wolf Laural Mountain
Resort rock aquifer is reported in the North Carolina Geological
Survey geologic map series for Sam's Gap dated 2002 and
prepared by Carl Maerchat and Mark Carter. The petrology is
reported to be a Biotitte Granitiod Gneiss ( Ybg) and a Layered
: Biotite Granitic Gneiss ( Ybgg ).
d. Water Table --The water table surface is generally influenced by
heterogeneity in the soil matrix, the rock strata, recharge, water
�" table aquifer characteristics, the hydrologic relationship with the
underlying fracture pattern, surface drainage and near surface
permeability. The depth to ground water was determined from
a measurement of 6 water wells drilled on the site. The depth
to the water table is largely a function of the sites proximity to
Walnut Mountain and the strike of the underlying strata. The
measurements indicate that the depth to the water table is
greater than 25 feet.
FM e. Land Area
The land application site area can be estimated based on the
following equation.
Field Area (acres) = Q/Da * a 365/ (365 - S)
rM
Where Q = Waste water flow in ( acres-inches/week)
Q = 2,100,000 gallons = 77 acre -in/ week
F_=Q D = Applied inches per week
D = 1.0 in/week
S = Minimum required storage capacity + annual resting
periods
S = 60 days x 300,000 gal/day = 18,000,000 gal
me 1 acre -inch = 3630 cu ft
3630 cu ft = 27,152 gallons
fm 77ac-in/week x 365 / 365-60 = 92 acres
The required reserve capacity will be 25% of the design field.
OM The reserve capacity will be 23 acres. Therefore the total land
application area required is 115 acres
"' Field Area =92 + 23 = 115 acres.
am Page 10 of 20

am
C. Wastewater Reuse
Water reuse can be divided into the following categories:
1. Urban
2. Industrial
3. Agricultural
4. Environmental and Recreational
5. Ground water recharge
Urban reuse systems would provide reclaimed water for nonpotable
purposes -including irrigation for landscaping, golf courses, athletic
fields, or water features.
MThe owner does not plan any golf courses or other public landscaping
features that could be irrigated with reclaimed water.
M, Industrial reuse would involve cooling water or process water. The
owner will not have any industrial facilities on the project.
fop Agricultural reuse would involve irrigation of food crops, pastures,
sods, or timber. The owner will not be producing any agricultural
crops on the project.
Environmental and recreational reuse would involve wetland
enhancement, wetland creation, water features on golf courses, or
incidental contact impoundments. The site has slopes of 30 to 50
percent and there are not any suitable areas for wetland creation.
There are not any golf courses or impoundments planned on the
MR project where reclaimed water could be incorporated.
Groundwater recharge systems would have specific purposes to
FM replenish the ground water aquifers. The purpose could be to
augment potable water aquifers, provide storage of reclaimed water
for subsequent use or to control ground subsidence. The existing
aquifers would require the treated wastewater to have a higher level of
treatment than irrigation or surface water discharges would require,
making the expense excessive. This is not a specific use of reclaimed
water and therefore storage would not be necessary and there has not
been an issue with ground subsidence.
0"
MM
'�' Page 11 of 20

MR
on
D. Surface Water Discharge
No a. General
MR The U. S. Geological Survey was contacted to obtain low -flow
characteristics for selected locations on Puncheon Fork Creek in
Madison County, N.C. The U.S.G.S. provided 7Q10 yield ranges
of 0.21 to 0.28 cfsm. The most recent data developed in 2001
resulted in a 7Q10 yield of 0.24 cfsm. The drainage area at an
ungaged site on Puncheon Fork at the point of proposed
discharge is 5.3 sgmi. The 7Q20 flow would be 1.272 cfs or 570
gallons per minute.
The proposed waste water discharge is 300,000 gallons per day
"° or 208 gallons per minute. This discharge would result in an
instream waste water ratio of 36.5 percent.
The proposed waste water treatment plant is an extended
aeration, activated sludge process. The process can generally
produce a high degree of treatment resulting in 85 to 90 percent
removal of BOD5. The treatment plant can be enhanced with a
rapid sand filler to achieve tertiary treatment.
In order to meet speculative effluent limits, it is proposed that a
300,000 gallon per day package extended aeration, activated
sludge process wastewater plant with a tertiary sand filter be
constructed. The facility would be a multi cell plant with each
cell having a capacity of 75,000 gallons.is shown on Figure 1.
Appendix A contains preliminary information and calculations for
the proposed facilities. A new 8" sewer line will be constructed
to deliver the waste water to the new headworks facility.
b. Proposed Facilities and Layout
Headworks - Influent will enter the Headworks via a concrete
FIM channel and flow through a proposed manual bar screen. An
additional channel with a manual barscreen will be provided for
overflow and emergency situations. From the bar screen and
°" bypass channels, influent will proceed to a 75,000 gallon flow
equalization tank.
Aeration Basin -This proposed component will provide the
primary treatment process. Dual blowers will introduce oxygen
into the aerobic bacterial culture to maintain suspension and
RIM allow for the stabilization of the waste. The activated sludge will
have a 24 hour aeration period coupled with a 4 hour settling
period. The two aeration basins are precast concrete tanks with
® 150,000 gallons of capacity in each tank.
MR Page 12 of 20

PAR
FM
MR Secondary Clarifiers -Flow from the aeration basins will be split
equally into two 25,000 gallon components during normal
operation. Either will serve alone if required for maintenance or
emergency situations. New RAS and WAS pumps are proposed
to deliver activated sludge back to the aeration basins and to
the aerated digesters.
Sand Filters - Dual 25,000 gallon rapid sand filter beds will be
utilized to achieve a SS effluent quality of 10 mg/I.
Disinfection- A dual train ultraviolet unit is proposed for
disinfection.
Flow Measurement - Following disinfection, flow will be
measured through a new 6" Parshall flume with ultra sonic flow
meter.
Digesters - A 75,000 gallon digester tank will be utilized for
sludge holding and digestion. Diffusers will provide air from the
blowers. These facilities will provide for 75 days holding
capacity. Sludge will be land applied.
Standby Generator - A 200 KW generator will provide back up
® power for the plant.
Personnel and Testing- All operations and testing requirements
am shall be according to 15A NCAC 2H.0100, 15A NCAC 8A.0200,
15A NCAC 2B.0500 and any other applicable regulations.
`" C. Cost Estimate
The costs for the proposed treatment plant improvements are
EM itemized on Figure 3. Total Construction Cost is estimated to be
$2,386,500. The additional cost for the tertiary treatment will
add $90,000 to the cost of the plant.
am
1. The developer has the title to the land proposed for the
treatment plant site. See EXHIBIT C for a copy of the
County Land record.
2. The present worth analysis is show in Section V,
Economic Feasibility.
3. Dual train processes and an emergency generator will be
provided as part of the treatment plant design.
mm
am
O' Page 13 of 20

M0
E. Combination of Alternatives
MR A connection to an existing WWTP is not a viable option. Wastewater
Reuse is also not an economically viable option. As indicated in
am Section C, land application combined with a limited discharge is a
viable option; however the economic cost of the land makes the option
cost prohibitive. The cost for the option is estimated to be
$14,556,995.
FM
00 V. Economic Feasibility
A. Capital Cost
M
a. The Town of Mars Hill has decided it will not accept the
wastewater from the project and therefore a connection to an
existing wastewater treatment system is not an available option.
b. An estimate for the land application alternative is shown in
Figure 2. The total construction cost is estimated to be
$16, 549, 595 .
`m C. Wastewater reuse is not a viable option due to the lack of uses
for the wastewater other than land application.
d. The cost for the treatment plant, with a discharge to surface
waters, is itemized on Figure 3. The total construction cost
is$2,386,500.
ow B. operation and Maintenance Cost
no a. Operation and maintenance cost for the waste water treatment
plant have been estimated based on current cost from similar
size plants operating in the region. The annual O & M cost are
fm estimated to be $219,075 and are itemized in Figure 4.
b. Operation and Maintenance cost for the land application
alternative would include the operation for the treatment plant
plus the cost for maintaining the spray field area. Maintaining
the spray field areas would add an additional $6000 for clearing
and pipe repairs totaling $225,075.
am
am Page 14 of 20

oft
C. Present Worth Analysis
The project cost for the land application alternative and the discharge
to surface waters alternative have been estimated. The land
application alternative is cost prohibitive due to the high value of the
land. The capital cost for land application is seven times the capital
cost of the 'discharge to surface waters alternative. The land cost has
been established through current land sales.
The present worth value of the secondary wastewater treatment plant
with a discharge to surface waters is presented below:
Secondary Waste water treatment plant
Estimated annual operation and maintenance cost -- $219,075.00
Estimated Capital Construction Cost -- $2,386,500.00
The present worth is calculated based on the following formula:
PV=CO+C [(I+r)n - I
r(1+r)n
PV = 21386,500 + 219,075 �(1+ 0.05875)20- J
�.. 0.05875(1+ 0.05875)201
PV = 21386,500 + 21538,427
PV = $4,924,927
MR
M"
am
Ma
"" Page 15 of 20

fm
PM
dw
f"
M
M
M
F,
M
no
OM
ap
VI. Speculative Effluent Limitations
The speculative effluent limitations for a 0.30 MGD plant have been
determined based on similar limits on other treatment facilities. The
Department of Environment and Natural Resources will not prepare
speculative limits for Non -Municipal applicants. The effluent
limitations are as follows:
Summer
Winter
BOD5
5m /I
lOm /I
N H3-N
2m /I
4m /I
DO
6m /I
6m /I
TSS
10m /I
10m /1
Fecal
200/100m1 I
200 100ml
am Page 16 of 20

am
M0
VII. Summary
On
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EEA) has been prepared for the
developers of Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort. The Developers indicated a
desire to construct up to 800 new single family residences at Scenic
Wolf Mountain Resort in Madison County, North Carolina. This analysis
outlines the feasible options for providing wastewater treatment for
�+ the proposed development and the alternatives for disposal of the
treated wastewater effluent.
The analysis indicates that there are two feasible alternatives for the
treatment and disposal of the wastewater generated from the
development. One alternative would be to treat the wastewater and
then land apply the effluent. The second alternative would be to treat
the wastewater and discharge the effluent into the Punchon Fork
Creek.
em
The land application alternative has a capital cost five times higher
that the surface discharge alternative due to the high value of the
on land. Therefore the analysis indicates that the wastewater should be
treated with a secondary wastewater treatment plant and the effluent
discharged to the surface waters. The estimated capital cost of the
em alternative is $2,386,500.
fm
fm
M
MR
em
FM
am
so Page 17 of 20

Aug. t 2305' 10:100 DAY N3. 2574 P. I
FTM : C:CMA FAX N0. ; 82BG815247 Aug. 01 2005 f 0: 0$PM P2
Attwfiment A. Local Dover meat Review Fo
Nord QM]ka Gm=d Stantte 143•2t5.1 a
o>i' "bzs Pe &r non -municipal docaesdc wan t,� (}� v iespnt fora Idw ipwmmante is ti* ir�S
q msp �t scr on in w&athn fb tc aeV nadmand4d&cola� �a Lav�Co�t�I �sg�,�`ut
_ rneot $sans e� � ad coon dh heft until it has
OfOa BSZd�4 A t di+�fatlre �� ��I=*j� CM ���' Of. *0 8 EMI �ltC7l L "
dan s arc to bA Iacatcd.. ZZ:e a�ittteat ! doCxsar' aver tlto or ca
to t and Pra& as ice"fn n azt ' ► a
' otdidsanc�. 1"ha P�dG �xsU � �� P��aw:d � crmaistmt wig the
sar�as} CZ with raisin a► pvxat a"&It6 fdr say &&V Bch a Cky► at caaaty d cd tb be
� a+�'o ozebt tsnlde 10 sppcnval of sty � is
d+acemo�ed � �o►c sl�eaaide
srgaiftrs-cc and is In the begimft"tof tho Stste.
m art rs -to a = Pi kr b snag m app�an for a NUDES Petmh {I *wd fara'ii the
abaci ncq Shbras z copy netAy C* and count/ �t �pletc this faam. Ag g=t m �R aPP�•
the mu�W by fttmw� (' a e�dtten �,t for r2 n t a c� to det� of the my "d
mat} &G(i) oo MA 66 con>pletcd &ua, as ev3� by tha poong1k On dw md*d
'x''ad0v v"6 15 *e g and sing for the caffied
die N MES US& WkWt map submit the appVcaaat po
As evWenaa to tW C saw th" the IocxI
i°pF of adta�l Bot+ amt(a) fm%d taspmd.�� 15'dayr� the t
VA a nou&cd Ietfa stain that t3:e I� &W aaba* s
s-aay a tan, g 90 t(s) failed to ftqmd vi*a ebe
�y pa*t of the Yas pII the nfby 4' and/ur cc" Savmmnmcnt why may have at has l dot ovrr
Fmp �' at- apputi wwCSa t� to be k=wd is sew to compote and um et: dd
� to the spphp,hks 15 dsgs of scocspt. � t�oM must be ei�aed and tto,
hTstsla Of lees! I (� f� !� Jj Cpp .
Dat�� chy/ Mto va fwS&dM ova snap pert of dclatc Iaad eu bawhich t P m= y) f
Ycr Na [ ifaq plra'a sign i s faestTuft, itp° ty vnd im coo =to be
>n,M&md, and xemmi# to *e a00=1
oc.� ci#glcaot p bye Iu met s Mn68 of snhffl*!= onlkattcc? Yea I14 1
ethft'Is a zaaia� or aubd�o,ti os iQ t�ccti ie �e pba � the .
f ] I POsed fad'iity Vkh the nxfiwn ea�'
• S�sttzre
sty • VUI' 1
0a *
wpm acd bcfam=
a. the: Wd
And *ED execowd to me lmovn and lmovn to ds to be jhc pMM dMzfiwd iUf$'oM=tMd6e(art6)sckn that (opt die)eseMcd the same sad bdnS duly amm
bi me, rwda oa& dw the ww ax in 16he daatmeut v t gad
MY Coulmisdokluvim, 41 (>=@ of'Nat`azy iubke
aMY Pft(b&S=A4
'AA Q"tker �beatment'Vet'sivn; June 24 2005
Ufa

EXHIBIT B
Page 18 of 20

Jul 25,05 01:04p Stephen B. Chambers
CHAMBERS SOIL CONSULTING
a•►
028-692-5008 p.2
Date: 5-5-05
Coanty: Madison
Sheet Number: 5
Soil /Site Evaivati.on
,M
Owner/Agent: Rick BLqy
am Proposed Facilities: 6. 3-Bed oom llousiE / LI 7?,0 SW. shared syslcrns
Location- , Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort. WoLf laurel NC:
Water Supply: Private Well
Ccunmumty N ell(s) x Puhiic Spring__
Evaluation Method: Auger Baring
Pit _ x Cut
om
Profile
Landscape
3lopu
Horizon
Depth
Texture
Stricture
Consistence
+ iliineralogy
Iliotde
Manuc
Cther Profile
#
Pnaitinn
9(1
inrht'13
Gta1Qr
o'b'
Facl;Qrs
Linear
Bt
6-23
SCL
WK AHK
Fr
",sp SE
1 5011 Dep-'s.. 34-
—�—
Pit 23
Convex
40%
BC
23-34
SCL
Wic SBK
Fr
w,sp SE
RosCEai'e't°giz°`
Sideslope
:s►
Linear
Our
34-40
S,�-
M i
F1-VFi
NE
ProideClas�Sudon PS
T
`- -
A
0-4
L
Gr
V Fr
Wctut% coad4ll4n
_
Bt
4-30
SCL
WK tSBK
Fr
b6,sp SE
Solt Dcptb: W
Pit 24 Convex 37% BC 30-48 SCL WK 613K Fr S.SSP SE lt--uictiveEadton
easl Sideslope —� —� PWr4tC %iBca(ion:K
LTAR:.s
Comments: AIR = duger reiilsal Conrad. PS= r�ro�r3s9enally sulra�l._L?9L'tsl�itat�le._;Clf�i=rzcl�ssi5cd as.ptov-islortaiiv
suirable for mcdified gr alcema'vem PP -10w PreMre Ri stem, Dr err, -_Drip Irrigation system,
8" & 10" LDP= 8-inch_& 10-luch_ I4rw-A-1 aolne dramfldds. Describe Soils are derived from cUlluvi,iii end residualRarcut
material Tex*ures are sandy clay loamy(-20-26% clay content;.
KSAT#
1
Depth (inches)
10
_ Horizon
Eat
LT_AR
2.6 gallons/d"/4'
2
24
r_
BG
4.3 gallonslday/ft'-
3
Bt
4-8 gallons/day/ft2
4
_23
20
Bt
5.5 allons/da R'
_ 8.7 gallons/da W
5
Y
18
_ Bt _
6
18
Bt
6.4 gallons/day/ft2 J
Constant head pern=nle:er
es�

Jul 25,05 01:04p Stophon B. Chambers 929-992-5009 p-9
Cl IAMDEnO -SOIL CONEULTINC
Daterr 21-05
County:_Mtd on
Sheet Number: 8
tom►
Soil /Site Evaluation
Owner/Agent: RickRick-- Bussey
Proposed Facilities: 1,50Qgp_dpcLul.and rgq&a)xzj&_M ern
,AN Location: Scenic NVolf'MountainResort. Wolf Laurel ,t4C
Water Supply: Privare Well Community Wall(s) —x_ Public x Spring —
Evaluation Method: Auger Boring x Pit .. Cut
FM
am
tom►
FM
am
Profile Landscape
!t I prrcitinn
Slope
9i►•
Horizon
Depth
Tnt•hrc
Texture
Structure
Consistence Mineralogy
j
Mottle ' Ida
Color
f:nlnr
Other Profile
T'arrAfX
3-4
i
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
42%
A
0-12
SL
Gr
VFr -
-
wetix3s Condi:.on
Bt
12-28
SCL
S8K
Fr
sssp SE
soJUvpth:36.
BC
28-36
SCL
_ _ SBK
-
_ Fr
ss,sp SE
ReurklAve1'o'fu^
CB
36-40
_ SL
M
--Fr
—'sp SE
NOW* .Uri6:nioa: PS
LTAR:.5 (10' LDP)
3-5
Linear
Concave
JitJuluyn
400,6
A
0-10
L
Gr
VFr
Weiaea'Condition
Bt
BC
10-26
26-38
SCL
SBK
_ Pr T
Fr
sssp SE
ss,s SE
Soil Ccpth:38'
SCL
SBK
ah
a,strie Sera
—
P.m 1. r't:nifl-Sri.—• FC
i�•nr. .S siw:.nr)
3-6
Linear
Concave
Sideslopo
45%
A
0-12
=�-r•
1.
.--tea—
Gr
--s xc
VFr
Wetnm CoIIdxson
Ik
12-26
SCL-CL
SRI
! _Fr
ss,sp SE
&W Deptr 42' �
BC 1
26-42
SCL I
58K
Fr
ss,sp SE
RemUtivcHaritan I
CEi
42-5(1
Si.
1�t
Fr
Nr:
Profile r.Wniisraio— u: N
A/R
I
I
LTAtt .5 (t0.1-DP)
Comments: AIR =Auger refusal due Jo roCi. cone. PSG pr 6igrtallr suitable. U=l;rsu ble, rci&4=reclassified as Rrovis(onp
mimble-krrnodifed.or_altern tiny, Et .—LPP glow oresst:ra vide systtiZl, Dray Ir:. = Drip Irdgiod o 4Yum,
fop 8" & 10" LDP= A -inch & 10-inch large diamet-q . JRe drainfield+s. Described sails are derives' f m collet ml gs-id rasa u n
material.
�KSAT# Depth (inches) Horizon LTAR
1 20 Bt 8.3 allonslday/ftZ
_.. 28 Bt 9.8 awallono/dcLY/ft=
*Tootinp,!.tatbiod:.krnooaamater aotnpcsot
tiuuytuiet muu logs ttrnusow tvs
Conveyance Capacity:
AM Shortest length line (90ft) ' (8.3 gallons/day/ft2) ' (S ft minimum window henea&, d:uinftelds) ' (.40% slope) 1494 gallons/day
MM
a�
�.a

Jul 11 05 08:41a Stephen D. Chambers 828-G92-5008 p"2
rat •
sssss► V t'iHlVtl3Ct[5 VVJL, V VIVbUL l 1lVCS
Date: 5-28-05
County:_ Madison
® Sheet Number. 76
Soil /Site Evaluation
® Owner/Agent: Rick Bussgy
Proposed Facilities: 3-Bedroom Houses/ 360-gRd single 3-bedroom systems and 720 gpd (shared 2.�-Mwgmiystem )
Location: Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort, Wolf Laurel NC
Water Supply: Private Well Community Well(s) x Public Spring______
Evaluation Method: Auger Boring x Pit x Cut
rig
�1
Profile
Landscape
Position
Slope
%
Horizon
Depth
Inches
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Mineralogy
!Mottle
Color
Matrix
Color
Other Profile
Factors
AB
6-1
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
45%
A
0-10
L
Gr
VFr
Wetacsi Condition
Bt
10-34
CL
SBEC
Fr
ss s SE
soil Depth: 44"
BC
34-44
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrictive Horizon
A/R
Pro6k ClsssiRcation: PS
LTAR:.5 (111" LDP)
AB
6-2-
Linear
Concave
Sideslope
45%
A
0-12
L
Gr
VFr
Wetness Condidw
AB
10-24
L
SBK
Fr
SE
Soil Depth: 24"
A/R
Restrictive Hodson
Profile Classification: U
LTAM .5 I
AB
6-3
Linear
Convex.
Sideslope
46%
A
0-14
L
Gr
VFr
Wetness Condition
Bt
14-38
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
soil Depth: 3V
A/R
Restrictive Horizon
Profile Classification: PS
LTAR:.5 (io" LDP)
AB
6-4
Linear
Concave
Sideslope
42%
A
0-11
L
Gr
VFr
Wetness Condition
Bt
12-28
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
soil Depth: 34"
BC,
28-34
LCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrictive Horizon
A/R
Profile classification Ps
LTA R:- .5 (1V LDP)
AB
6-5
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
38%
A
0-8
/ L
Gr
VFr
Wetness coalition
Bt
8-31
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Sall Depth. 3e
BC
31-36
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrictive Horizon
A/R.
Prof im azu fication: *PS
LTAR:.5 (1i r I.DP)
Comments: A/R - Auger refusal due to rock contact PS- provisionally suitable U=Unsuitable rclfd=reclassified as nrovision:illy
suitable for axodi Fed or alternative systems. LI!P -low pressure pjp vstem. Drip Irr. Drip Irrigation Wtern
„w 8"_& 10" LDP= 8-inch & 10-inch large diameter _12 Re drain fields. Described soils are derived from colluvium and residdum. Clasts
are 12resent-in colluvial BC -transitional horizons.
sssss►
10

Jul 11 05 08:41a Stephen B. Chambers 828-692-5008 p.3
�► CHAMBERS SOIL CONSULTING
Date: 5 28-05
County: Madison
Sheet Number. 2
Soil /Site Evaluation
Owner/Agent: Rick Busgy
foe
Proposed Facilities: 3-Bedroom HoUles / 360-Rd single 3 bedroom system and 720 gpd (shared 13-bedroom system)
Location: Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort, Wolf Laurel ,NC
Water Supply: Private WellCommunity Wells) x Public Spring__
Evaluation Method: Auger Boring x - Pit Cut
mu
ttaq
FAR
FAR
P"
Profile
#
Landscape
Position
Slope
%
Horizon
Depth
Inches
-
Texture.
Structure
Consis*prce
Mineralogy
Mottle
. Color
Maw
COlOr
Other Profile
Factors
I
AB
9-1
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
37%'
A-
0-12
L
Gr
VFr
Wetness Condition '
Bt
12 24
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss i SE'-
soil Depth: 2r
BC
24-29
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrict ivee Horizon
A!R
Profile Classification: PS
LTA&- .5
AB
9-2 ,
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
380/b
A
0-10
L
Gr
VFr
wetness Condition
Bt
10-24
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Soil Depth: W'
BC
24-35
SCL
SBK
Fr
sssp SE
Restrictive Horizon
A/R
Profile Classification: PS
LTAR:.5 (lCr LDP) I
AB
9-3
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
40'Yo
A
0-6
L
Gr
VFr
Wctness Condition
Bt
6-22
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Soil Depth: 2ti'
BC
22-28
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss'sp SE
Restrictive Horizon
A/R
Profile Classification: U
•1:f46R: s
AB
9-4
linear
Convex
Sideslope
40%
A
0-8
L
Gr
VFr
witness Condition
Bt
8-26 -
CL
SBK
Fr
ss.sp SE
Soil Depth: 36-
BC
26-36
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrictive Horizon
A/R
Profile Classification: PS
LT.AR: -5 (ID- LDP)
AB
9-5
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
42%
A
0-10
L
Gr
VFr
Wcmesa Condition
Bt
10-27
CL
SBK
Fr
sssp SE
Soil Depth: 34•
BC
27-48
SCL
SBK
Fr
sssp SE
Restrictive Horizon
A/R
profile Classification: PS
LTA& .5 G (r LDP)
Comments: A/R = Atgc refusal due to rock contact PS- provisional(suitable. U Unsuitable rclfd=reclassified as provisionally
juitable r lternative st LPP =low 12moure pipe gotem.DriR Irr,= DriR Irri m.
8" & 10" LDP- 8-inch & 0-inch large diameter12412n drainields Described coils are derived from colluvium and residdum. Clasts
'�. are present in colluvialTIC-transitional horiz ns-
a■t
rtan

i 05 08:41a Stephen B. Chambers 828-692-5008 p.4
/ SOIL -CONSULTING
GHAMBERS
Date: 5-30-05
County: Madison
Sheet Number:
Soil /Site Evaluation
Owner/Agent Rick Bussey
Proposed Facilities: 3-Bedroom Houses / 360-0d single 3 bedroom system and 720 pd (shared 2.3-bedroom Aya amn)
Location: Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort. Wolf Laurel .NC
Water Supply: Private Well Community Wells) x Public Spring_
Evaluation Method: Auger Boring x Pit Cut
�1
ntit
min
ProSle
#
Landscape
Position
Slope
96
Horizon
Depth
Inches
Texture
Structure
ConsisUnce
Mineralogy
Mottle
Color
naatm,:
Color
Other Pro61e
Factors
11-1
Convex
Sideslope
94%
A
0-6
L
Gr
VFr
Wetness Condition
Bt
6-21
SCL
SBK
Fr
sssp SE
Soil Depth: 34'
BC
21-34
SCL
SBK
Fr.
sssp SE ,
Restrictive Horizon
A/R
Profile Clauffication: PS
LT.k&..5 (1(' EDP)
11-2
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
39%
A
0-12
L
Gr
VFr
WctmanCondition
Bt
12 32
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Soil Depth: 44-
BC,
32-44
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrictive Horizon
Profile Clusiiication: PS
LTA& .5 (10- LDP)
11-3
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
400/6
A
0-10
L
Gr
VFr
Wccnm conAition
Bt
10 28
CL
SBK
Fr
ss4 SE
Soft Depth: 44-
BC
28-44 '
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrictive Horizon
CB
44 56
SL
M
Fr
-,s ,SE
Prowe Clauificatina: PS
LT.AK- .5 (10- LDP)
11-4
Convex
Sideslope
46%
A
0-10
L
Gr
VFr.
Wetness Condition
Bt
10 31•
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Soil Depth: SC
BC
31 54
SCL
SBK
Fr
sssp, SE
Restrictive xcdzon
CB
54-60
SL
M
Fr
-s ;st
ProNe Classification: Ps
LTAk 5
11-5
Linear
Convex
Noseslape
49%
A
0-12
L
Gr
VFr
Wetneu Condition
Bt
12-34
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Soil Depth: 56-
BC
34-56
SCL
SBK
Fr
sssp SE
Restrictive Horizon
Prof& Ch fication: PS
LTAB:: 5
Comments: A/R = Auger refusal due to rock contact ES- provisionally suitable U-Unsuitable. rclEd=reclassified as pjavisionally-
smitahle fbr modibed or alternative terns LPP glow Ressu�e ripe system.Drip Irr. = Drip Irrigation system.
8" & 10" LDP- l3 inch & 10-inch large diameter pine drain fields Described soils are derived from colluvium and residdum. Clasts
are present in rnlluvial BC -transitional horizons.

Jul 11 05 08':42a Stephen B. Chambers
eat
CHAMBERS SOIL CONSULTING
Owner/Agent: Rick Bus -sex
828-692-5008 p.5
Soil /Site Evaluation
Date:61-05-05
County: Madison
Sheet Number. •12
Proposed Facilities: 3+Bedroom Houses / 360:pd single 3 bedroom sysrem and 720ggd ared 2.3-bedroom system)
Location: Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort, Wolf Laurel .NC
Water Supply: Private Well Community Well(s) x Public _ Spring
Evaluation Method: Auger Boring X_ Pit Cut
Prone
Landscape
Position
Slope
%
horizon
Depth
Inches
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Mineralogy
Mottle
Color
M=t`
WarFactors
Other Profile
12-1
Linear
Concave
Sideslope
46% -
A
0-12
L
Gr
VFr .
Wetness Condition
Bw
12-36
L
SBK
Fr
sssp SE.
Soil Depth:36"
AIR
Xestrictivt: Horizon
Profile mssi@cation: Ps
LTAR:.6 (1(" LDP)
12-2
Linear
Concave
Sideslope
51%
A
0-12
L
Gr
VFr
Wetness Condition
Bt
12-30
CL
SBK
Fr
ss, SE
Sou Depth: W
BC
30-46
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrictive Horizon
A/R
Profile ausi&cetion: Ps
LTAR: .5
12-3
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
48%
A
0-8
L
Gr
VFr
Wetness Condition
Bt
8-32
SCL
SBK
Fr,
sssp SE
Soli Depth:45"
BC
32-45
SCL
SBK
Fr
sssp SE
Resvictive Horizon
C
45-60
SL
M
Fr
- ,SE
Pwtil,R. C�asiiit+:LDF) PS
LTA& _5 (10'' I.DP)
12-4
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
44%
A
0-16
L
Gr
VFr
Wetness Condition
Bt
16-36
CL
SBK
Fr
sssp SE
sou Depth: 36'
A/R
tirstrktive Horizon
Prome ClusiFication: PS
LTA& .5 (10' LDP)
12-5
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
45%
A
0-12
L
Gr
VFr
Wetnew Condition
Bt
12-32
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Soil Depth: 37-
BC
32-37
SCL
SBK
Fr
sssp SE
Resukdve Horizon
Profile Ctasahcauoo: Ps
LTA& .5 (10" LDP)
Comments: A/R -Auger refusal due to rock contact PS- pMvisiona)ly suitable UaUnsuitable rclfdareclassified as provisionally
suitable for modified or alternative systems. LPE -low pressure pine system. Drin Irr. = Drip Irrigation system.
8" & 10" LDP= 8-inch & ] 0-inch largo diameter pipc drainfields. Described soils are derived from collwdum and residdum. Clasts
and rock fragments re present in collu Aal lit & BC-argillic & transitional horizons,
t�
eaa

Jul 11 05 08:42a Stephen B. Chambers
CHAMBERS SOIL CONSULTING
OR
MR
fm
me
em
em
em
FM
no
M
ow
Owner/Ageut: Rick Bussev
828-692-5008 p.6
Soil /Site Evaluation
Date: 6-3-05
County: Maaon
Sheet Number: *13
Proposed Facilities: 3 Bedroom Houses / 360-upd single 3 bedroom system and 720 gpd (shared 2 3-bedroom system)
Location: Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort, Wolf Laurel ,NC
Water Supply: Private Well Community Wells) x Public Spring__
Evaluation Method: Auger Boring x Pit Cut
Profile
t
Landscape
Position
Slope
%
Horizon
Depth.
Inches
Texture
Stn=ture
Consistence
Mineralogy
Mottle
Color
Manix
Color
Other Profile '
Factors
13-1
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
38%
A
0-12
L
Gr
'VFr
wecnessCariditian
. Bt
12-28
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
$oR DcpF" 36-
BC.
28-36
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restricilve Horizon
A/R
Profile Cuufficadop: PS
LTA1R S (10` LDP)
13-2
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
• 38% "
A
0-8
L
Gr
VFr
We°'ess Condition
Bt
8-22
CL
SBK
Fr
sssp SE
soil Depth: 34'
BC
22-34
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrictive Herizan
A/R
Profile Classification: PS
LTA&- 5 (10' LDP)
13-3
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
30%
A
0-8
L
Gr
VFr
wetness Condition
Bt
8-28
CL
SBK
Fr
sssv SE
Soil Dept'' 45' .
BC
28-45
SCL
SBK
Fr
sssp SE
Restrictive Horlaon '
A/R
Profile Clssslfiudoo: PS i
LTA&: 5 (10- LDP)
13-4
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
39%
A
0-8
L
Gr
VFr
Wetness Condition t
Bt
8-34
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Sail DcpdL ►(r '
BC
34-40
CL
SBK
Fr
ss, SE
Restricovc Horizon i
A/R
Ptak Cluacatlan_ PS
LTAR: 5 (10' LDP)
13-5
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
•42%.
A
0-6
L
Gr
VFr
Wetnw Condition
Bt
6-25
CL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Soil Depil'' 35"
BC
25-35
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrictive Horizon
A/R
Proftle Classification: PS
LTAR:.5 (1(r LDP)
Comments: A/R - Auger refusal due to rock contact PS- provisionally suitable =Unsui
suitable for modified or alternative syscems, LPP -low pressure pine system Drip Irr. - Drip Iri•ieYation system.
8" & l0" LDP.- 8-inch & 10-inch lgrgj--diameter nine drainfielib Described soils are derived fmm colluyiumand residdum. Clastss
and rock fragments are prese r in c olluvial Bt & BC- argillic & transitional horizons.

Jul
11 u5 UH:4ja Stephen H.
Uhambers p.'/
CHAMBERS SOIL CONSULTING
Date: 6-3-05
County: a ' on
Sheet Number- '14a
�+
Soil /Site Evaluation
Owner/Agent: Rick Bttssev
FM
Proposed Facilities: 3-Bedroom Houses
/ 36Q-ggd single 3 bedroom system and 720 gpd (s ared .3-bedroom system)
Location: Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort,
Wolf Laurel .NC
Water Supply: Private well Community Well(s) x Public
Spring
MR
Evaluation Method: Auger Boring
x Pit Cut
tam
Profile
#
Landscape
Position
Slope
%
Horizon
Depth
Inches
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Mineralogy
Mottle
Color
Mew
Color
Other Profile. .
Factors
14-1
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
42%
A
0-6
L
Gr
VFr
Wetness Condition
Bt
6-24
CL
SBK
Fr
ss.sp, SE
5o7,Depth:35'
BC
24-35
SCL
SBK
Fr
ss.sp SE
Rcstrictive Horicon
A/R
Proms Classification: PS
LTAR:.5 (10- LDP)
Pit 30
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
38%
A
0-8
L
Gr .
VFr
Wetness Condltion
Bt
8-26
CL
2 SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Soil Deptb: 41r
BC
26-40
SCL
I SBK
Fr
ss,sp SE
Restrictive Hari:°°
AM
Profile Classification: PS
LTAR:.5 (Ur LDP)
Pit 31
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
30%
A
0-8
L
Gr
VFr
lVeatess Condition
Bt
8-28
CL
1 SBK
Fr
ss'sp SE
W Depth: 4r
BC
28-42
SCL
1 SBK
Fr
ss.sp SE
Restrictive Horton
A/R
Profile Classification: PS
LTAR:.5 (lfl- LDP)
Pit 32
Linear
Convex
Sideslope
3996
A
0-8
L
Gr
VFr
'Wetness Condition
Bt
8-24
CL
2 SBK
Fr
ss'sp SE
Soil Depth: 44"
BC
�4-44
SCL
I SBK
Fr
sssp SE
Restrictive llarizon
A/R
Profile Gastiiicatioti: PS
LTAR..5 (1Or LDP)
Comments: A/R = Auger refusal due to rock contact, PS= provisionally suitable. U=Unsuitable. rclf&reclassified as provisionally
suitable for modified or alternative systems LPP -low RKC=r_C pipe s=fm. 12RQ Irr. = Drip Irrigation system.
8" & 10" LDP= 8-inch & 10-inch large diameter pjne drain fields 'Described soils are derived from colluvium and residdum. Clasts
and rock fragments are present in colluvial Bt & BC- atoll' & transitional horizons.
CHAMBERS SOIL CONSULTING
Date: 7-1.2-05
County: Madison

a
EXHIBIT C
Page 19 of 20

f"
BOOK Zee PAGE 602
FOR
IseuW Die U 2M FILED In M USM Coear<yAC on
PRO#190.00 Dsc 17 2t� at 1fJ=43 M
Stah Jens Us Buckner
WrfhsCOPOUM AWtV ' Rooster of Desh
Real Estate Excise Tax
'� Excise Tax .$ 190.0 0 Do NOT write above thls line. Recording: Time, Book and page
North Carolina General Warrant Qeed
FM This Instrument prepared by: judy ghelton HagerHagerL Attorney at Law
Brief descriplion for the Index c • No 7 Township
This Deed made this dayof , 20 022 , by and between Grantor and Grantee:
Enter in appropdate block for each paiW. Name address county, state and it appropriate entity (i.e. corporation, partnership). The
designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein siall lnclu2e aU padles, their heirs, successors and assigns and shaU include singular,
FOR plural, masculloo, feminine of neuter a: 2quIred by context.
Grantor: Brenda Cody Carter, unmarried
400 East Stone Ave.
Greenville, SC 29601
MR Grantee: Orville English
578 Valley View Circle
Mara Kill, NC 28754
am Transfer of Ownership: Grantor, for a valuable consideratlon paid by Grantee, the receipt of which Is hereby acknowledged, conveys to Grantee
In fee simple, the Property described below,
Property: c4yof
Township at . County of , North Carolina.
This propertywas acquired by Grantor by an Instrument recorded in Book . ,Page County.
A map showing the property is receded in Plat Book . Page County.
The legal description of flee Property is:
See Exhibit A for property description, which attachment is
incorporated by reference as if fully set out herein.
am
FOR
F"
M"
Condnued on Page 2
After recording mail to: Judy Shelton Hager Tax Lot Parcel (dendenE€fier No.
,ter Attorney at Law Vedfied By County,
PC Box 669 on the Clay of
Marshall, NC 28753 By
Form 55-601 02002 by James Wdlams & Co., Inc, www.JamesW 111&ms cam Page 1 of 2 Initial
few
M (I

............. ----- �.._.._ .. _ _.. _... _ .. ..._.....................
e..
M
ma
Continued from Page f
BOOK 288 PAGE 603
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said Property and all privileges and appurtenances (rights) belonging to Grantee, m fee simple,
Promises by Grantor: Grantor promises (covenants) with Grantee, that Grantor has title to the Property in fee simple; has. the right to convey,the
title in fee simple; that the title Is marketable'and tree and clear of all Bens and encumbrances (i.e. mortgages and ludgements), and Grantor.will
warrant and defend the Nile against the lawful claims of all persons, except for the following exceptions:
This conveyance is made TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO the public
rights -of -way to the state and federal highways referred to in
the description above, and ALSO SUBJECT To easementsr restrictions,
and property taxes for the current year, if any of record.
Signatures: Grantor has duly executed the foregoing instrument, as of the day r first written above.
• Entity Indlvidug�
By. Brenda Cody Car er (Seal)
(Seat)
Title:
(Sbal)
By:
(Seal)
Tsue: (Seal)
Br. (Seal)
. • i r. uss.s�.. (Seal)
,,$. INDIVIDUAL. •
c STATE OF %1t COUNTY OF ;;.�
I. a Notary Mk of the County and Stale aforesaid, certify that Brenda Cody Carter
n • : 0 Ali 2e
�/. ,�,P S :xi Grantor personally came before me this day and acknoVr ed the execu he loregoi 'nstrument.
Witness my hand and official stamp or seal this day of 2006
••"°• z ` Uj My ComAWdd rWiA; ld bAt 111W 02-0 •C�OW Nu-ary Pttbtic
,a. {
am SEAL -STAMP INDIVIDUAL
Q STATE OF COUNTY OF
1, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that
aw g Grantor personally came betore me this day and acknWedged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
m Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of , 20
Ul My Cammtssron Expires: Notary Public
SEAL -STAMP ENTITY: Corporation, Umlted Liability Company, General Partnership, or limited Partnership
STATE OF COUNTY OF
I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, cetfltY that
personally can before the this day and acknowledged that he is of
a North Carolina or
ran c".+ corporation I limited liability company / general partnership I limited partnership (strike Dough the rnapplleable,)
A and that by authority duly gwen and as an act of ilia Entity, has signed the roregoing tstrument In its name
w and on Its behalf as Its act and deed.
Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of 20_
My Commismfan Expires: Notary Public
The foregoing Cedifivate(s) o1
IV
Islare certified to be coned This instrument and this oedfficate are duly registered at the date and time and In the Book and Page shown on the first
hereof.
All- REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR _ ,�22aAr ,.. COUNTY
y Sa WrlAssistant - Register of Deeds
Form 66-601 ® 2002 by James Wtiliams 6 Co., Inc. wwwjamesMilems.com Page 2 of 2
- ;�'e3 �ac'•�, ;$fib;

. ................
BOOK 289 PAGE 604
Exhibit A
BEING and LYING in No. 7 Township, formerly NO. 11 Township, Madison County,
North Carolina, on Puncheon Fork Road [N.C.S.R. 1502] and being bound by property
now or formerly owned by and/or in the possession of Gladys English an the North;
Mashburn and Cody on the West and South; and Puncheon Fork Road on the East and
being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING on a nail in the center of the pavement of Puncheon Fork Road in the line
with a fence, said nail being the southeast comer and temunus of the first call in the
description contained in a deed dated May 22, 1975, from Kathy English Ward, eL vir. to
Gladys English, widow, of record in Book 125. Page 697, Madison County Registry;
thence from the Beginning point as herein established and with the center of the
pavement of Puncheon Fbrk Road, rune calls as follows: South 17* 34, East 83.67 feet;
South I I* 41 East 59.00 feet', South 0 1 * 001 East 67.57 feet; South 12* 03' West 55.61
too
feet-, South 22* 42' West 45.93 feet; South 29* 2 V West 57.91 feet-, South 33" 5 7' West
186.78 feet; South 34* 1 V West 128.28 feet and South 34' 27 West 178.15 feet to a point
in the center of said road pavement in line with a fence; thence leaving said pavement,
North 66* 54' 07" West, passing a nail at the edge of road pavement in line with a fence
and thence with a creek, a total distance of 772.35 feet to an Iron set in wire fence and old
rail fence at top of knob; thence with the top of the ridge and old rail fence, three calls as
follows: North 20*.29'West 102.16 feet to a stake on top of a ridge; North 15* 521 West
184.14 feet to a stake on top of ridge and North 06* 271 3011 West 332.18 feet to an iron
set In chestnut stump, top of the knob at fence comer (said chestnut stump being the
Southwest comer and Beginning point in the aforesaid Gladys English property described
in Book 125, Page 697, aforesaid Registry); thence with the said Gladys English Property
line and with a fence in part and thence in line with said fence and crossing a creek,
South 82* 3 9' 18" Best 1,139.66 feet to the point of BEGINNING. Containing 16.36 acre,
more or less, according to a survey and pint entitled "Property of Cart Cody and wife,
Jane, to be conveyed to Wolf Laurel Ski Corporation,' by Jerry L. Ball, R.L.S., dated
October 18, 1988, reference to which plat is hereby made for a more complete
description, LESS and EXCEPT the i.00 acre described in Deed Book 247, page 515. in
the aforesaid Registry.
Also conveyed to the Grantee herein are any and all rights and benefits accruing under an
existing contract between Julius English and Odell and Porter Robinson dated October
21, 1965, of record in Book 97, page 255, Madison County Registry.
Being the same property described in Deed Book 179 at page 261 LESS and EXCEPT
the 1.00 acre tract as described in Deed Book 247, page 515, in the aforesaid Registry. {
me
FM
fm
M"

+� Figure 2
PRELIMINARY QUANTITY AND COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort PROJECT NO.: 5102
Land Application
LOCATION: Wolf Laural SHEET NO.: 1
Madison County
Fm
SUMMARY WJJ PRICES BY: WJJ DATE: 10/3/2005
Z_�
am
MR
ism
Y=�
o,
me
fam
Ow
FM
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUAN.
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Land Acquisition
AC
115
$80,000.00
$9,200,000.00
Site Clearing
AC
1 115
$2,500.00
$287,500.00
Pump Stations
EA
3
$60,000.00
$180,000.00
Irrigation Piping
LS
1
$1,620,000.00
$156202000.00
Site Access
LF
900
$25.00
$225500.00
90 Day Storage lagoon
CY
60,300
$5.00
$301,500.00
Pond Liner
SF
150,000
$3.00
$450,000.00
Generator
EA
1
$15,000.00
$155000.00
Subtotal
$12,0765500.00
Contingency (15%)
$1,811,475.00
Total Construction Cost
$131,8875975.00
Engineering
$230,120.00
Geotechnical
$30,000.00
Surveys
$15,000.00
Waste Water Treatment Plant
$2,386,500.00
Total Project Cost:
$1695499595.00
mm

fop Figure 3
PRELIMINARY QUANTITY AND COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT: Scenic Wolf Mountain Resort PROJECT NO.: 5102
Wastewater Treatment Plant
LOCATION: Wolf Laural SHEET NO.: 1
Madison County
SUMMARY WJJ PRICES BY: WJJ DATE: 10/3/2005
Z-
Fm
em
sm
m
ow
Cm
em
R"
fm
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUAN.
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Land Acquisition
AC
5
$80,000.00
$400,000.00
Site Clearing
AC
5
$2,500.00
$12,500.00
Site Excavation
LS
1
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Pump Stations
EA
0
$60,000.00
$0.00
Site Access
LF
900
$25.00
$22,500.00
Package Plarit(300,000 gallons)
LS
1
$1,400,000.00
$1,40%000.00
Electric supply
LS
1 1
$201000.00
$20,000.00
Generator
EA
1
$45,000.00
$45,000.00
Subtotal
$1,950,000.00
Contingency (15%)
$292,500.00
Total Construction Cost
$21242,500.00
Engineering
1
$1242000.00
Geotechnical
$10,000.00
Surveys
$10,000.00
Total Project Cost:
$2,386,500.00

mm Figure 4
PRELIMINARY QUANTITY AND COST ESTIMATE
Fm
PROJECT: Scenic Wolf Laural Resort PROJECT NO.: 5102
Annual Operation and Maintenance
LOCATION: Madison County SHEET NO.: 1 of 4
OR
SUMMARY WJJ PRICES BY: WJJ
00
FM
Fm
��
+"
AM
Fm
mm
on
no
am
No
DATE: 10/3/2005
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUAN.
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
Labor
LS
$65,000.00
Supplies & Expenses
LS
$17,000.00
Maintenance & Repairs
LS
$15,000.00
Power
LS
$36,000.00
Monitoring and Testing
LS
$20,000.00
Telephone
LS
$2,500.00
Permits and compliance fees
LS
$3,000.00
Sludge disposal cost
LS
$10,000.00
Insurance & Taxes
LS
$19,000.00
Fuel, Vehicles
LS
$3,000.00
Subtotal
$190,500.00
Contingency (15%)^
$28,575.00
Total Cost
$219,075.00

TERTIARY
FILTERS CLEARWELL
00000001 0
SLOWER$
ALKALW"FEED SYSTEM
CLARIFIERS
AERATK)NCNAMSER
AERATK>♦UClWALiER
AERA1IONCNAM9ER
AERATIONCNAMBER
AERATIONCWWfBER
ALR4TlONCNARlBER
AERATKINCHAMBER
ANOXIC CNAAiLiEN
ANOWC cNA,uSER
AEROSICDlOESTER
FLOWEQWUZATION
TANKS
FLOW
SPUTTER
PLOW EOLLAUZATlOIV
rawcs
00
SCENIC WOLF
MOUNTAIN RESORT
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT WASTEWATER PLANT
x
I
x_
w
I
Q
0
LL
Lu
U
w
U
0
o.
U
j
Q
EAROLiNA CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CIVIL 4A Herman Ave. Ext.
Ccdo( DESIGN Asheville, NC 28803
Phone [phone]
ASSOCIATES, P.A. Fax [phone]

133'-0"
\ CLARIFIER
oa
CLARIFIER
f
+
g
a
o
0
o
o
a
7
C
O
x0
b
\ CLARIFIER
\ CLARIFIER
,
0
I
z
z
\ CLARIFIER
p
4
a
to
a
m0
Q
oa
W
o�
,i W
as
a
a
\
CLARIFIER
T
G
z
o
r
s(
N
g
r
S
a
o�
U
F
ZO
t
o
O
a
O
OQ
O
p
CLARIFIER
/ \
JC
�•. W
J�
`'- �
d0
<
{
O
j
<
QILL
CLARIFIER
O
—i
9'-0"
COMMON FLAY) EQUALIZATION SYSTEM
FOUR 75,000 G.P_D. TREATMENT SYSTEMS OPERATING IN PARALLEL
COMMON TERTIARY FILTERS
COMMON UV DISINFECTION AND FLOW METERING
BUILDING
0
051
Q
MUDWELI.
0
m�
MUDWELL
FILTER
W
FILTER
a
o�
CLEARWELL
W
r
W
W
CLEARWELL
05t
UV DISINFECTION
FLOW METERING
6
10
m

Appendix A
Page 20 of 20

11
RACK INDUSTRIES, INC.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Project Name: Senic Wolf Mountain Resort
Project Location: Marshall, North Carolina
Engineering Firm: Carolina Civil Design Associates
Engineer: Jim Jones
Date: 10/21/05
Design based on North Carolina Department of Enviroment and Natural resources
'OSWW" system design aids
Treatment process: MLE Process with tertiary filters
Influent Parameters
Average Daily Hydraulic Flow (ADF):
300,000
gpd
208.3
gpm
Run-off Period:
24
hours
Peak Factor (PF):
2.50
Peak Daily Design Flow (PFxADF):
520.8
gpm
750,000
gpd
Population Equivalent (thousands):
3.00
based on 100 gpd/capita
Peak Factor:
3.44
based on 10 S.S.
Peak Hourly Flow:
716.7
gpm
1,032,000
gpd
BODs:
240
mg/L
TSS
240
mg/L
NH3-N:
25
mg/L
NO2-N/NO3-N:
na
mg/L
�
TKN:
40
mg/L
Phosphorus:
na
mg/L
Alkalinity (as CaCO#
100
mg/L
pH:
6TO9
Influent temperature:
60
° F
Operating Parameters
MLSS concentration in aeration:
4,000
mg/L
Volatile fraction of MLSS:
0.70
MLVSS concentration in aeration:
2,800
mg/L
Mean cell residence time (MCRT or 9c):
30
days
Minimum DO concentration in aeration:
2.0
mg/L
Plant water temperature: maximum:
70
° F
minimum:
55
° F
Effluent Parameters
BODs:
5
mg/L 97.9%
TSS
5
mg/L
NH3-N:
0
mg/L
NO2-N/NO3-N:
0
mg/L
TKN:
8
mg/L
Phosphorus:
na
mg/L
Alkalinity (as CaCO3):
55
mg/L
pH:
6 TO 9
Fecal Coliform:
200
colonies/100mL
Am
SenicMLECALC.x]s {Parameters}
a.

FLOW EQUALIZATION CALCULATIONS
F
i
I
NCDENR'OSWW SYSTEM DESIGN AIDS' REGULATIONS
Tankage Requirement
I
I
rM
Average daily flow:
300,000
,
gpd
Run-off period:
24
hours
'
Average flow rate during run-off period:
208.33
gpm
i
Equalized flow to aeration:
208.33
gpm
Eft
,
Excess flow during run-off period:
0.00
gpm I
Storage required based on run-off period:
0
gallons i
Minimum percent of ADF storage required:
25%
Per NCDENR "design aids"
1
e
Storage required based on percent ADF:
75,000
gallons
Flow equalization capacity required:
75,000
gallons I
Flow equalization supplied:
75,000
i
gallons
i
Average detention time in flow equalization:
6.0
hours
Flow equalization side water depth:
10.50
feet
Operating water depth over diffusers:
10.00
feet
Air Requirement
Minimum air required 2.7 cfm/1,000 gallons of storage capacity
�.
(20 cfm per 1000 cu.ft.)
i
Air requirement:
2.7
cfm/1,000 gallons
I
Air required:
202.5
cfm
F
Pressure required:
5.40
psi
(0.54 psifft x water depth over aerators)
�►
Note:
I
A separate blower must be provided for flow equalization with a back-up
interconnecting airline with valve
FM
MR
RM
SenieMLECALCAs (Flow Eq)
r�

COMBINED NITRIFICATION/DENITRIFICATION CALCULATIONS (MLE PROCESS)
Given Parameters
Average daily flow:
0.300
mgd
Influent BODE to aeration basin (So):
240
mg/L
Effluent BOD5 requirement (S):
5
mg/L
Influent NH3-N (NH3-No):
25
mg/L
Effluent NH3-N requirement (NH3-Ne):
0
mg/L
Effluent NO3-N requirement (NO3-Ne):
0
mg/L
Design IVILSS concentration in aeration:
4,000
mg/L
Design MLVSS concentration in aeration (X,):
2,800
mg/L
Design sludge age (9c):
30
days
Volume Calculations
1 Total recycle ratio (R):
3.0
Note: 'Total recycle ratio includes both return activated sludge
from the clarifiers and a recycle
mixed liquor flow from the aeration basin.
2. Calculate the overall sludge age (0.) using:
8a
Oct
c
Vaeroblo
where Vaeroblc is the aerobic volume fraction
90 is the design sludge age, days
Aerobic volume fraction (Vaembla): 0.79
Overall sludge age (0c;'):
38.0
days
SerticMLECALCAs (MLE process)

No
no
3. Calculate the degradable fraction of MLVSS (fvss) using:
f vss
fv� =+ 1 -
[ 1 ( fvss) x kd x 001
where fvss is the degradable fraction of VSS at generation
(typical maximum range from 0.75 to 0.80)
kd is the endogenous decay coefficient, /day
(typical value of 0.04)
Degradable fraction of VSS at generation (fvss) 0.80
Endogenous decay coefficient (kd): 0.040 1 /day
Degradable fraction of MLVSS (fvw): 0.61
om
4. Calculate the overall system aerobic residence time (9a) using:
Sr.' X Yh X (So - S)
^m Oa
Xa [ 1 + kd x fvss x ecl
where Yh is the heterotrophic yield coefficient, mg VSS/ mg BOD5
M1 (typical value of 0.55)
Set S to zero and ignore effluent BOD5 limit to be conservative
Heterotrophic yield coefficient (Yh): 0.55 mg VSS/ mg BOD5
Overall system aerobic residence time (0j: 0.93 days
22.3 hours
5. Calculate the anoxic residence time (8QN) using:
BDN - (1- Vaerablo ) X 8a
Anoxic residence time (6cN): 0.20 days
4.8 hours
6. Calculate the denitrification rate (UDN) using:
UDN = K, x 6.40 x 10'0 x e-15580IRT
where K, is a constant based the existence of primary clarifiers at the
plant. If the plant has primary clarifiers, K, = 1. If the plant
does not have primary clarifiers, K, = 0.8
T Is the minimum water temperature in the basin, ° Kelvin
R is the universal gas constant, 1.987 calorie/gmole • °C
Minimum plant water temperature: 55 ° F
12.8 ° C
SenleMLECALCAs (MLE process)

MR Primary clarifier constant (Q: 0.80
Denitrification rate (UDN): 0.037 lb NO3-N/Ib VSS • day
7. Calculate the anoxic residence time (ADN') based on the denitrification rate using:
NDENIT
ram► eDN UDN x Xa
where NDENIT Is the amount of nitrate to be denitrified, mg/L
Amount of nitrate to be denitrified (NDENIT): 25.0 mg/L
Anoxic residence time (eDN') based on the UDN: 0.24 days
5.8 hours
8. Modify the aerobic volume fraction (Vaerobic) until the two anoxic residence times are equal
(QDN = eDN l using the following table as a guide:
Vaerobic 8a' (days) fvss 0. (days) eDN (days)
0.60 50.0 0.57 1.10 0.44
0.65 46.2 0.58 1.05 0.37
�► 0.70 42.9 0.60 1.00 0.30
0.75 40.0 0.61 0.95 0.24
0.80 37.5 0.62 0.92 0.18
0.85 35.3 0.62 0.89 0.13
0.90 33.3 0.63 0.85 0.09
0.95 31.6 0.64 0.82 0.04
9. Calculate volumes based on the residence time for both the anoxic basin (eDN) and
the aerobic basin (0a) using:
V8= QXea
and VON = Q x eDN
where Q is the plant design flow, gpd
V is the volume in the anoxic (VDN) or aerobic (Va), gallons
Required aerobic treatment volume: 279,000 gallons
Supplied aeration treatment volume: 279,000 gallons
Required anoxic treatment volume: 72,400 gallons
Supplied anoxic treatment volume: 72,400 gallons
fm
SenlCMLECALCAs (MLE process)
am

Basin side water depth: 10.33 feet
Operating water depth over diffusers: 9.33 feet
Air Requirement Calculations
Oxygen requirement for BOD5 reduction (extended aer):
1.5
ibs 02nbs BOD5
Oxygen requirement for BOD5 reduction (conventional):
1.1
Ibs 0211bs BOD5
Oxygen requirement for BOD5 reduction for system:
1.5
Ibs 02/ibs BOD5
Oxygen requirement for NH3-N reduction
4.6
Ibs 02/ibs NH3-N
Mixing requirement:
20-30
scfm/1,000 cf
Fine bubble diffuser transfer efflciency(clean water):
17.7%
(based on 5 cfm per diffuser bar)
Without alpha and beta characteristics of the waste, design
the aeration system
based on 50% of the
rated diffuser transfer efficiency for wastewaters that are at least 90% standard municipal wastewater.
Design diffuser oxygen transfer efficiency (OTE):
8.9%
Influent BOD5 to aeration basin (So):
240
mg/L
Effluent BOD5 requirement (S,):
5
mg/L
ABODS in aeration (S. - So):
235
mg/L
Influent NH3-N (NH3-No):
25
mg/L
Effluent NH3-N requirement (NH37NB):
0
mg/L
ANH3-N in aeration (NH3-No - NH3-N.):
25
mg/L
10. Calculate total pounds applied and total pounds reduced for both BOD5 and NH3-N using:
lbs BOD5/day = Q x So x 8.34
Ibs NH3-N/day = Q x NH3-No x 8.34
where Q is the plant design flow, mgd
Total pounds of BOD5 applied per day:
600.5
Ibs BOD5/day
Total pounds of BODS to be reduced per day:
588.0
Ibs BOD5/day
Total pounds of NH3-N applied per day:
62.6
Ibs NH3-N/day
Total pounds of NH3-N to be reduced per day:
62.6
Ibs NH3-N/day
11. Calculate the total pounds of oxygen required to reduce both
BOD5 and NH3-N in aeration using the
oxygen requirements set forth previously.
Total oxygen requirement to meet BOD5 permit limits:
882.0
Ibs 02/day
Total oxygen requirement for complete BOD5 reduction:
900.7
Ibs 02/day
Total oxygen requirement to meet NH3-N permit limits:
287.7
Ibs 02/day
SenicMLECALCAs {MLE process)
MR

OW
Total oxygen requirement for complete NH3-N reduction: 287.7 Ibs 02/day
00
Total oxygen requirement to meet permit limits: 1,169.7 Ibs 02/day
Total oxygen requirement for complete nutrient reduction: 1,188.5 Ibs 02/day
Percent difference between oxygen requirements: 1.6%
12. Calculate the airflow required for aeration based on the oxygen requirement and the diffuser efficiency usinf
02 requirement
Qair = Pair X 02% of air x OTE
where pair is the mass density of air at standard conditions, 0.075 Ib/ft°
02% of air is the percent of oxygen in the air, 23.2%
Airflow required to meet permit limits (Qa,r): 758,428 standard W/day
527 scfm
Airflow required for complete nutrient reduction (Qa;r ): 770,595 standard fr/day
535 scfm
Note: Blower calculations will convert airflow from scfm to scfm or icfm.
13. Verify that mixing requirements of 20-30 scfm/1,000 ft3 are met in aeration basin:
Supplied aeration treatment volume: 279,000 gallons
37,299 ft3
Air applied to aeration: 14 scfm/1,000 ft3
Air required for 20 scfm/1,000 ft3: 746 scfm
Air required for 30 scfm/1,000 ft3: 1,119 scfm
am
14. Determine recycle flow rate from total recycle rate and return activated sludge flow rate.
RAS rates for extended aeration and contact stabilization:
minimum 15 % ADF
maximum 100 % ADF
RAS rates for other treatment processes:
minimum 50 % ADF
maximum 150 % ADF
Total recycle ratio (R): 3.0
MR RAS flow rate (minimum) as a percent of ADF: 50%
RAS flow rate (maximum) as a percent of ADF: 150%
,R Mixed liquor recycle flow ratio:
minimum 1.5
SenicMLECALCAs tMLE process}
rO

EM
am
maximum
2.5
Mixed liquor recycle flow rate
minimum
313
gpm
maximum
521
gpm
15. Determine air requirement of mixed liquor recycle pumps.
Number of mixed liquor recycle pumps provided:
2
Flow per pump: minimum
156
gpm
maximum
260
gpm
16. Air required for aeration nutrient reduction and mixing:
746
scfm
17. Calculate pressure at diffuser air release using:
P = 0.54 psi/ft x operating water depth over diffusers
Operating water depth over diffusers:
9.33
feet
Outlet pressure:
5.04
psi
SenicMLECALC.)ds {MLE process}

fm CLARIFIER CALCULATIONS
8
number of cells
RM
gpm gpd
37,500 gpd 26.04 gpm
average daily flow rate to cell
3.33 24 hr
run off period
39.06 gpm
peak flow
fm
.150%
required return flow
39.06 gpm
return flow rate
4000 mg/L
operating MLSS concentration of plant
FM
yes
plant has flow equalization (yes/no)?
Note:
If plant has flow equalization the peak flow will be considered
to be 1.5 times the average daily flow.
FOR
This assumes a 16 hour runoff period for the clarifier.
1.00 ft2
area of base
60.00
angle of sides
feet inches
16 ft 4 in 16.33 ft
length of cell
2
hoppers along length
8 ft 4 in 8.33 ft
width of cell
1
hoppers along width
2
total number of hoppers
loft 6 in 10.50 ft
depth of water from bottom of tank
4.00 in
thickness of hopper bottom
0 ft 0 in 0.00 ft
distance from influent baffle to wall
length
baffle parallel to width or length
8 ft 0 in 8.00 ft
weir length
2
weir sides
FE,
2,344 gpd/ft
weir overflow rate at average daily flow
3,516 gpd/ft
weir overflow rate at peak daily flow
10.17 ft
depth of water in basin
F-IM
136.11 ft2
total surface area of basin
136 ft2
effective settling area of basin
total surface area - baffled inflow surface area
PM
276 gpo1ft2
surface settling rate at average daily flow
413 gpd/ft2
surface settling rate at peak daily flow
840.75 ft'
total volume of cell
6,289 gal
settling volume
110.81 fP
sludge holding volume (using lower 2/3 of hopper depth)
829 gal
729.94 ft2
settling volume (using upper 1/3 of hopper depth)
4.0 hrs
settling detention at average daily flow
2.7 hrs
settling detention at peak daily flow
23 Ibs/d/ft2
solids loading rate at average daily flow
28 Ibs1d/ft2
solids loading rate at peak daily flow
�.,
Version Date 04/10/97
so
SenicMLECALC.xls {Standard Hoppers}
SM

FSO
TERTIARY FILTER DESIGN CALCULATIONS
NCDENR'OSWW SYSTEM DESIGN AIDS' REGULATIONS
on
Note: The filtration rate should not exceed 1 gpm/ft2.
me
Dual should be provided. Each to handle one half
of the design
flow.
Designs provided assume use of a 20" layer of anchracite (effective size 1.00 to 1.10 mm)
underlain by a 12" layer of garnet sand (10x20 or 16x35).
FM
Average daily flow:
300,000
gpd
208.33
gpm
FM
Flow to each rapid sand unit:
104.2
gpm
Minimum required area per unit:
104.2
ft2
FM
Dimensions of each cell provided:
Length of filter: 16 ft 4 in
16.33
ft
,m
Width of filter: 8 ft 4 in
8.33
ft
Area of each cell provided:
136.11
ft2
`t
Total area of filter cells provided:
272.22
ft2
Hydraulic loading:
0.77
gpm/ft2
em
Backwash rate required:
8.0
gpm/ft2
Backwash flow rate required:
1,088.9
gpm
FM
Length of backwash cycle:
10.0
minutes
Volume of clear well required:
10,889
gallons
Volume of clear well provided:
101889
gallons
FM
Volume of mud well provided:
11,433
gallons
(5% larger than clearwell)
�+
Air scour rate
136.11
cfm
(minimum 1 cfm per square foot)
M
fm
SenicMLECALCAs (Rapid Sand)

e.a
AERATED SLUDGE HOLDING BASIN CALCULATIONS
NCDENR'OSWW SYSTEM DESIGN AIDS' REGULATIONS
Tankage Requirement
Average daily flow:
0.300
mgd
Influent BODs to aeration basin:
240
mg/L
®'
Pounds BODs/day:
600.5
pounds
Design mean cell residense time (MCRT):
30
days
Design MLSS concentration in aeration:
4,000
mg/L
Design MLVSS concentration in aeration:
2,800
mg/L
assume MLVSS is 70% of MLSS
Pounds MLVSS in aeration:
7,006
pounds
F/M (pounds BODs/pounds MLVSS):
0.086
Waste activated sludge (WAS):
4,200
mg/L
1.5 x MLVSS
Wasting required to maintain MCRT:
233.5
pounds/day
Amount of WAS in gallons:
6,667
gallons/day
Amount of 2% solids sludge produced per day:
1,400.0
gallons/day
Minimum capacity required:
40,000
gallons
(average daily flow x 10%)
Sludge holding side water depth:
10.50
feet
Operating water depth over diffusers:
9.50
feet
AERATED SLUDGE HOLDING BASIN CALCULATIONS (continued)
Air Re uirement
Minimum air required 30 scfm/1,000 cubic feet (4.0 scfm/1,000 gallons) of storage capacity
Air requirement:
4.0
scfm/1,000 gallons
Air required:
160.0
scfm
M
FM
M
SenicMLECALCAs IDigestor}
em